ML111710484: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:Dougla s R.Bauder Sit eVicePresident&S tation Mana ger San Onofre Nuclear G e nerat in g Statio n A n ED/SO N/NTERN ATlO NALCompany June 17, 2011 ATTN:DocumentControlDesk | ||
ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSE TO APPARENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION | U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission | ||
Page 1 of 2 RESPONSE TO APPARENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION The Enclosure to the NRC letter dated May 19, 2011, states in part: "10 CFR 55.53(f) which states, in part, that the facility licensee is required to certify that | Washington | ||
, D.C.20555-0001 | |||
Subject: DocketNos.50-361and50-362 | |||
Response to Apparent Violation in Inspection | |||
Report No.05000361/2011012 | |||
and 50000362/2011012; | |||
EA-11-083 San Onofre Nuclear Generation | |||
Station, Units2and3 Reference:LetterfromMr.AntonVegel(NRC)toPeterDietrich(SCE)datedMay19 | |||
, 2011 ,NRCINSPECTIONREPORT | |||
05000361/2011012 | |||
;05000362/2011012DearSirorMadam:ThereferencelettertransmittedtheresultsofNRCInspectionReportNo | |||
.500036112011012 | |||
and 5000362/2011012toSouthernCal | |||
iforniaEdison(SCE).The | |||
inspectionwasconductedofficefromMarch2 | |||
, 2011 ,toApri l 18 , 2011 ,forthe SariOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation | |||
.ThereferencedletteralsocontainedanApparentNoticeofViolation(EA-11-083)andrequestedSONGStoeither(1)respondtotheapparentviolationaddressedinth | |||
isinspectionreportwithin30daysofthedateoftheletter | |||
,or(2)requestaPredecisionalEnforcementConference(PEG) | |||
.SONGS ischoosingtoprovidearesponsetothe | |||
Apparent Violation ,whichisprovidedintheEnclosuretothislette | |||
r.NonewcommitmentsweremadeintheNOVresponse.Ifyouhaveanyquestions | |||
,pleasefeelfreetocontactmeorMr.R.J.S1.Ongeat(949)368-6240 | |||
.Sincerely ,Enclosure:Asstated | |||
cc:E.E.Collins | |||
, Regional Administrator | |||
,NRCRegionIV | |||
G.G.Warnick ,NRCSenio rResidentInspector | |||
,SanOnofreUnits2and3 | |||
R.Hall ,NRCProjectManager | |||
,SanOnofreUnits2and3 | |||
P.O.Box 128 Sa n Clemente;CA 92672 (949)368-9275 PAX 892 75 Fax: (949)368-9881 Doug.Bauder@sce.com | |||
ENCLOSURE 1 | |||
RESPONSE TO APPARENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION | |||
Page 1 of 2 | |||
RESPONSE TO APPARENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION | |||
The Enclosure to the NRC letter dated May 19, 2011, states in part: | |||
"10 CFR 55.53(f) which states, in part, that the facility licensee is required to certify that | |||
the qualifications and status of a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) are current and valid | the qualifications and status of a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) are current and valid | ||
prior to the operator resuming activities authorized by their license. Specifically, on | prior to the operator resuming activities authorized by their license. Specifically, on | ||
Line 26: | Line 63: | ||
shift operations personnel and the SRO was relieved from his watch station. The | shift operations personnel and the SRO was relieved from his watch station. The | ||
licensee has entered this AV into their corrective action program as NN 201174957. | licensee has entered this AV into their corrective action program as NN 201174957. | ||
Corrective actions are still being evaluated. Failure of the facility licensee to maintain electronic programs used to verify licensed | Corrective actions are still being evaluated. | ||
Failure of the facility licensee to maintain electronic programs used to verify licensed | |||
operator qualifications and to schedule licensed operator watch stations up-to-date with | operator qualifications and to schedule licensed operator watch stations up-to-date with | ||
licensed operator worker qualifications and license restrictions could potentially impede | licensed operator worker qualifications and license restrictions could potentially impede | ||
the regulatory process by not providing complete and accurate information to NRC inspectors. NRC Enforcement Policy, Section 6.4, Licensed Reactor Operators, Item c.1.(c) states, in part, that if a licensed operator, or a senior operator actively performing the functions covered by that position, is determined to be in noncompliance with a | the regulatory process by not providing complete and accurate information to NRC inspectors. NRC Enforcement Policy, Section 6.4, Licensed Reactor Operators, Item c.1.(c) states, in part, that if a licensed operator, or a senior operator actively performing the functions covered by that position, is determined to be in noncompliance with a | ||
condition stated on the individual's license, then an apparent Severity Level III violation | condition stated on the individual's license, then an apparent Severity Level III violation | ||
exists." | exists." | ||
SCE RESPONSE TO APPARENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION | SCE RESPONSE TO APPARENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION | ||
EVENT SUMMARY | EVENT SUMMARY | ||
On October 21-22, 2010, and October 27, 2010, during the Unit 3 Cycle 16 refueling | On October 21-22, 2010, and October 27, 2010, during the Unit 3 Cycle 16 refueling | ||
outage, an SRO performed licensed activities (core alterations) as Refueling Senior Reactor Operator (RSRO) Supervisor while his license was INACTIVE. On October 27, | outage, an SRO performed licensed activities (core alterations) as Refueling Senior Reactor Operator (RSRO) Supervisor while his license was INACTIVE. On October 27, | ||
2010, the SRO's license restrictions were questioned by on-shift operations personnel | 2010, the SRO's license restrictions were questioned by on-shift operations personnel | ||
and the SRO was relieved from his watch station. 1. Reason for the Violation The SONGS Site Worker Scheduling (SWS) program for the RSRO position did not | and the SRO was relieved from his watch station. | ||
1. Reason for the Violation | |||
The SONGS Site Worker Scheduling (SWS) program for the RSRO position did not | |||
contain adequate criteria required to validate qualifications for the RSRO position which | contain adequate criteria required to validate qualifications for the RSRO position which | ||
allowed the Operations Scheduling group to schedule the RSRO without an active | allowed the Operations Scheduling group to schedule the RSRO without an active | ||
Line 46: | Line 90: | ||
position at the time the individual was scheduled for the Unit 3 outage Refueling | position at the time the individual was scheduled for the Unit 3 outage Refueling | ||
watches. The Operations scheduling group did not validate the RSROs qualifications | watches. The Operations scheduling group did not validate the RSROs qualifications | ||
prior to scheduling the operator for the RSRO position as required by the procedure for Operations Division Personnel Responsibilities. | prior to scheduling the operator for the RSRO position as required by the procedure for Operations Division Personnel Responsibilities. | ||
The SRO with an inactive license assumed RSRO duties without ensuring he met the | The SRO with an inactive license assumed RSRO duties without ensuring he met the | ||
requirements for the post, having an active license, which is required by the Operations | requirements for the post, having an active license, which is required by the Operations | ||
Page 2 of 2 Division Personnel Responsibilities procedure. At the time of the event, the individual was assigned to a position (Work Process Supervisor) which required SRO level | Page 2 of 2 | ||
knowledge and experience but did not require an active SRO licensee. The individual incorrectly assumed the RSRO position was similar and did not require an active license. | Division Personnel Responsibilities procedure. At the time of the event, the individual was assigned to a position (Work Process Supervisor) which required SRO level | ||
knowledge and experience but did not require an active SRO licensee. The individual incorrectly assumed the RSRO position was similar and did not require an active license. | |||
2. Corrective Actions Taken and Results Achieved | |||
Upon discovery of the noncompliance, October 27, 2010, the RSRO was relieved from his watch station and his Independent Worker qualifications were suspended by the Control Room Supervisor pending remedial action. | |||
Operations issued a Priority 1 Required Reading for all Licensed operators to ensure | Operations issued a Priority 1 Required Reading for all Licensed operators to ensure | ||
they were aware of the requirement to hold an active SRO license to stand the RSRO | they were aware of the requirement to hold an active SRO license to stand the RSRO | ||
watch. Coaching was provided to the RSRO who stood watch without an active license and to the scheduler who failed to check the qualifications of the individual prior to scheduling the RSRO position. | watch. Coaching was provided to the RSRO who stood watch without an active license and to the scheduler who failed to check the qualifications of the individual prior to scheduling the RSRO position. | ||
A review was performed of the Site Worker Scheduling (SWS) staffing sheets and | A review was performed of the Site Worker Scheduling (SWS) staffing sheets and | ||
station logs for the RSRO watches for the previous Unit 2 refueling outage and for the watches performed previously during Unit 3 Cycle 16 core offload. It was confirmed that all individuals who performed the role of RSRO for these watches held an active license. Also, an audit of the medical files for individuals performing the RSRO function for the | station logs for the RSRO watches for the previous Unit 2 refueling outage and for the watches performed previously during Unit 3 Cycle 16 core offload. It was confirmed that | ||
all individuals who performed the role of RSRO for these watches held an active license. Also, an audit of the medical files for individuals performing the RSRO function for the | |||
previous Unit 2 outage and for the Unit 3 Cycle 16 core offload was completed by | previous Unit 2 outage and for the Unit 3 Cycle 16 core offload was completed by | ||
licensed SCE health care providers. No other individuals were found to be medically | licensed SCE health care providers. No other individuals were found to be medically | ||
disqualified from standing RSRO watches. The SONGS SWS program has been updated to specify the criteria for fulfilling the | disqualified from standing RSRO watches. | ||
RSRO position and provides a warning if an individual does not have the required qualifications, including medical restrictions. | The SONGS SWS program has been updated to specify the criteria for fulfilling the | ||
3. Corrective Actions That Will Be Taken The SONGS refueling SRO lesson plan will be updated to include appropriate information regarding the requirements of medical restrictions. Additionally, the site standard for verifying worker qualifications is the electronic Qualifications Information | |||
System (eQIS). SONGS is updating the eQIS program to include operator qualifications. These actions will be completed before the next refueling outage. | RSRO position and provides a warning if an individual does not have the required qualifications, including medical restrictions. | ||
No further examples of unqualified individuals performing Licensed duties have been identified. | |||
3. Corrective Actions That Will Be Taken | |||
The SONGS refueling SRO lesson plan will be updated to include appropriate information regarding the requirements of medical restrictions. Additionally, the site standard for verifying worker qualifications is the electronic Qualifications Information | |||
System (eQIS). SONGS is updating the eQIS program to include operator qualifications. These actions will be completed before the next refueling outage. | |||
4. Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved | |||
Full compliance was achieved on 10/27/2010, when the individual performing the role of | |||
Refueling SRO, with an inactive SRO license, was relieved on station by an individual | Refueling SRO, with an inactive SRO license, was relieved on station by an individual | ||
with an active SRO license. | |||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 15:21, 5 August 2018
ML111710484 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | San Onofre |
Issue date: | 06/17/2011 |
From: | Bauder D R Southern California Edison Co |
To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Document Control Desk |
References | |
EA-11-083 | |
Download: ML111710484 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000361/2011012
Text
Dougla s R.Bauder Sit eVicePresident&S tation Mana ger San Onofre Nuclear G e nerat in g Statio n A n ED/SO N/NTERN ATlO NALCompany June 17, 2011 ATTN:DocumentControlDesk
U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission
, D.C.20555-0001
Subject: DocketNos.50-361and50-362
Response to Apparent Violation in Inspection
Report No.05000361/2011012
and 50000362/2011012;
EA-11-083 San Onofre Nuclear Generation
Station, Units2and3 Reference:LetterfromMr.AntonVegel(NRC)toPeterDietrich(SCE)datedMay19
, 2011 ,NRCINSPECTIONREPORT
- 05000362/2011012DearSirorMadam
- ThereferencelettertransmittedtheresultsofNRCInspectionReportNo
.500036112011012
and 5000362/2011012toSouthernCal
iforniaEdison(SCE).The
inspectionwasconductedofficefromMarch2
, 2011 ,toApri l 18 , 2011 ,forthe SariOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation
.ThereferencedletteralsocontainedanApparentNoticeofViolation(EA-11-083)andrequestedSONGStoeither(1)respondtotheapparentviolationaddressedinth
isinspectionreportwithin30daysofthedateoftheletter
,or(2)requestaPredecisionalEnforcementConference(PEG)
.SONGS ischoosingtoprovidearesponsetothe
Apparent Violation ,whichisprovidedintheEnclosuretothislette
r.NonewcommitmentsweremadeintheNOVresponse.Ifyouhaveanyquestions
,pleasefeelfreetocontactmeorMr.R.J.S1.Ongeat(949)368-6240
.Sincerely ,Enclosure:Asstated
cc:E.E.Collins
, Regional Administrator
,NRCRegionIV
G.G.Warnick ,NRCSenio rResidentInspector
,SanOnofreUnits2and3
R.Hall ,NRCProjectManager
,SanOnofreUnits2and3
P.O.Box 128 Sa n Clemente;CA 92672 (949)368-9275 PAX 892 75 Fax: (949)368-9881 Doug.Bauder@sce.com
ENCLOSURE 1
RESPONSE TO APPARENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Page 1 of 2
RESPONSE TO APPARENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION
The Enclosure to the NRC letter dated May 19, 2011, states in part:
"10 CFR 55.53(f) which states, in part, that the facility licensee is required to certify that
the qualifications and status of a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) are current and valid
prior to the operator resuming activities authorized by their license. Specifically, on
October 21, 2010, and October 27, 2010, an SRO performed licensed activities (core
alterations) as Refueling SRO Supervisor while his license was INACTIVE. Additionally, the SRO was on a temporary medical hold from licensed activities on the dates identified. On October 27, 2010, the SRO's license restrictions were questioned by on-
shift operations personnel and the SRO was relieved from his watch station. The
licensee has entered this AV into their corrective action program as NN 201174957.
Corrective actions are still being evaluated.
Failure of the facility licensee to maintain electronic programs used to verify licensed
operator qualifications and to schedule licensed operator watch stations up-to-date with
licensed operator worker qualifications and license restrictions could potentially impede
the regulatory process by not providing complete and accurate information to NRC inspectors. NRC Enforcement Policy, Section 6.4, Licensed Reactor Operators, Item c.1.(c) states, in part, that if a licensed operator, or a senior operator actively performing the functions covered by that position, is determined to be in noncompliance with a
condition stated on the individual's license, then an apparent Severity Level III violation
exists."
SCE RESPONSE TO APPARENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION
EVENT SUMMARY
On October 21-22, 2010, and October 27, 2010, during the Unit 3 Cycle 16 refueling
outage, an SRO performed licensed activities (core alterations) as Refueling Senior Reactor Operator (RSRO) Supervisor while his license was INACTIVE. On October 27,
2010, the SRO's license restrictions were questioned by on-shift operations personnel
and the SRO was relieved from his watch station.
1. Reason for the Violation
The SONGS Site Worker Scheduling (SWS) program for the RSRO position did not
contain adequate criteria required to validate qualifications for the RSRO position which
allowed the Operations Scheduling group to schedule the RSRO without an active
license. The SWS includes data tables which identify requirements for licensed watches, and when the scheduler attempts to enter the name of an individual whose required qualifications are not valid, the system provides a warning. However, the data
table was not populated with specific position requirements for the Refueling SRO
position at the time the individual was scheduled for the Unit 3 outage Refueling
watches. The Operations scheduling group did not validate the RSROs qualifications
prior to scheduling the operator for the RSRO position as required by the procedure for Operations Division Personnel Responsibilities.
The SRO with an inactive license assumed RSRO duties without ensuring he met the
requirements for the post, having an active license, which is required by the Operations
Page 2 of 2
Division Personnel Responsibilities procedure. At the time of the event, the individual was assigned to a position (Work Process Supervisor) which required SRO level
knowledge and experience but did not require an active SRO licensee. The individual incorrectly assumed the RSRO position was similar and did not require an active license.
2. Corrective Actions Taken and Results Achieved
Upon discovery of the noncompliance, October 27, 2010, the RSRO was relieved from his watch station and his Independent Worker qualifications were suspended by the Control Room Supervisor pending remedial action.
Operations issued a Priority 1 Required Reading for all Licensed operators to ensure
they were aware of the requirement to hold an active SRO license to stand the RSRO
watch. Coaching was provided to the RSRO who stood watch without an active license and to the scheduler who failed to check the qualifications of the individual prior to scheduling the RSRO position.
A review was performed of the Site Worker Scheduling (SWS) staffing sheets and
station logs for the RSRO watches for the previous Unit 2 refueling outage and for the watches performed previously during Unit 3 Cycle 16 core offload. It was confirmed that
all individuals who performed the role of RSRO for these watches held an active license. Also, an audit of the medical files for individuals performing the RSRO function for the
previous Unit 2 outage and for the Unit 3 Cycle 16 core offload was completed by
licensed SCE health care providers. No other individuals were found to be medically
disqualified from standing RSRO watches.
The SONGS SWS program has been updated to specify the criteria for fulfilling the
RSRO position and provides a warning if an individual does not have the required qualifications, including medical restrictions.
No further examples of unqualified individuals performing Licensed duties have been identified.
3. Corrective Actions That Will Be Taken
The SONGS refueling SRO lesson plan will be updated to include appropriate information regarding the requirements of medical restrictions. Additionally, the site standard for verifying worker qualifications is the electronic Qualifications Information
System (eQIS). SONGS is updating the eQIS program to include operator qualifications. These actions will be completed before the next refueling outage.
4. Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved
Full compliance was achieved on 10/27/2010, when the individual performing the role of
Refueling SRO, with an inactive SRO license, was relieved on station by an individual
with an active SRO license.