ML20076G409
| ML20076G409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1983 |
| From: | SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13309B320 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308310255 | |
| Download: ML20076G409 (4) | |
Text
._
t San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Supplement Plant Operations Personnel Review August 19d3 L
er 8308310255 830829 PDR ADOCK 05000361 P
August 29,19d3 c
Chairman of tne Nuclear Control Board Southern California Edison Having reviewed the Management Analysis Company Report of June 3,1983, we nereby transnit to you the comparison completed oetween the Plant Operations Personnel Revied Canaittee Report and the MAC Report.
f h ee:-
=
Earl J. dresnanan Cnairman 1L AM Lou Bernath Harry L. fiath
&, A %
- jA Y - s kA& U arlath M. Curran David F. Pil.ner Consultant to tne Cannittee Ben C. Rusche Vice President Management Analysis Company i
l L
,IJjTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplement is to describe the results of a comparison between the Piant Operations Personnel Review Committee (P0PRC) Report and the Management Analysis (MAC) Report entitled " Recommendations for Improvement of the Operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3."
The MAC Report resulted f rom a study performed in April and May 1983.
The objectives of the study conducted by MAC were:
~
o Review and appraisal of the startup, power ascension and initial operation activities associated with San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3.
Rather than attempting to examine every aspect of the entire station, the effort focused on specific processes and interaction among the Engineering, Construction, Start-up, Operations and Quality Assurance organizations.
Particular attention was given to activities associated with safety and regulatory compliance.
O Determination of the key factors adversely af fecting startup, power ascension initial operation and associated management systems.
o In conjunction with key SCE personnel, development of recommendations that will assist them in improving performance, with emphasis upon current safety and compliance issues.
Comparison of Conclusions Reached in P0PRC and MAC Reports The P0PRC Report focused its study on shift operations personnel.
Although the MAC Report was much broader in scope and content some meaningful comparisons can be made. The comparisons are categorized under the major sections of the P0PRC Report.
1.
Readiness of Plant Operating Personnel a.
The MAC report recommended an assessment be performed to determine why operators do not make significant use of the plant computers.
The POPRC report did not discuss the plant computer because it was not perceived as a problem by shift operations personnel and extensive computer use is not required for normal operation.
b.
The MAC report recommended that the shift supervisors get out into the plant regularly.
This could be in conjunction with training periods, but it should also come at times when they can interact with equipment operators and other people on their own shifts.
The P0PRC report noted that communications among shift personnel could be improved. Clearly the MAC recommendation is one approach to resoletion of this concern. As is discussed in the P0PRC report the ongoing work of Corporate Systemics Incorporated is another.
.=
d 2
\\
2.
Fest Performance
\\
The MAC report and the POPRC report both recommended that management must continue to reinforce that safety and compliance are the first priority.
The POPRC report further recommended that adherence to procedures should C
be continually emphasized.
Both reports recommended completion of the development of a computer based surveillance tracking system.
3.
Operator Training Both reports recommended improvement in supervisory skills training.
4.
Operator Feedback In addition to the recommendations made in the POPRC report, the MAC report also recommended that the Technical Specifications be reviewed for any reduction in complexity and that an effort be made to improve operations procedures to reduce repeat procedural mistakes.
Conclusions The POPRC and MAC reports are substantially different in scope; the NAC study covered a much broader area. To the extent that the two reports cover the same areas, the POPRC finds no conflicts between the findings of the two rt orts.