IR 05000387/1988008
| ML17156A468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1988 |
| From: | Blough A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17156A467 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-88-08-MM, 50-387-88-8-MM, 50-388-88-08-MM, 50-388-88-8-MM, NUDOCS 8803290239 | |
| Download: ML17156A468 (18) | |
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report Nos.:
Docket Nos.:
License Nos.:
50-387/88-08 50-388/88-08 50-387 50-388 NPF-14 NPF-22 Licensee:
Penns lvania Power and Li ht Com an 2 North Ninth Street Allentown Penns 1vania 18101 Facility Name:
Meeting At:
Sus uehanna Steam Electric Station Kin of Prussia Penns lvania Meeting Conducted:
March
1988 Approved By:
A. Randy ough, Chief Reactor Projects Section No.
3B
~Summar:
A meeting was held on March 2,
1988, at the NRC Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, between representatives of PPKL and the NRC staff to discuss inattentiveness of a licensed operator.
Results:
The meeting was beneficial in mutually enhancing each party's understanding of related issues.
The licensee responded to the NRC questions raised in the January 12, 1988, letter.
A more detailed description of the licensee inves-tigation and corrective action was provided.
8803290239 880318 PDR ADOCK 050003S7
DETAILS l.
Attendees and Partici ants The following licensee and NRC staff personnel attended the meeting.
Penns lvania Power 8 Li ht Com an PP&L R.
G. Byram, Superintendent of Plant J,
V. Edwards, Assistant to Senior Vice President - Nuclear E. A. Heckman, Licensing Group Supervisor H.
W. Keiser, Vice President, Nuclear - Operations J.
R.
Miltenberger, Manager, Nuclear Safety Assessment D.
F, Roth, Senior Compliance Engineer Nuclear Re viator Commission A.
R.
S. J.
D. J.
R., A W. T.
J.
R.
M.
C J.
T.
F. I.
Blough, Chief, Reactor Projects Section No.
3B, Region I (RI)
Collins, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects, RI Holody, Enforcement Officer, RI Matakas, Investigator, Office of Investigations, RI Field Office Russell, Regional Administrator, RI Stair, Resident Inspector (SSES)
Thadani, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Wiggins, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch No. 3, RI Young, Senior Resident Inspector (SSES)
2.
Discussion The licensee informed the NRC in August 1987, that a shift supervisor (SRO)
had been relieved of his supervisory r'esponsibilities,following the results of a preliminary investigation into an allegation that he had been inattentive while on the midnight shift.
The allegation was made anony-mously in a letter received by the manager of the Nuclear Safety Assess-ment Group (NSAG).
The licensee conducted an investigation of the allegation and transmitted their investigative report to the NRC on September 14, 1987.
The licen-see's investigation concluded that the allegations were substantiated and that it had apparently been occurring for at least three years.
The investigation also determined that this was an isolated case.
Upon receipt of the licensee investigative report, NRC Region I management referred the documents to the Office of'nvestigation 'for their review.
From this review, several NRC concerns surfaced.
These concerns were relayed in a letter to PPAL dated January 12, 198 The purpose of the Harch 2,
1988, meeting was to allow the licensee to respond and discuss those concerns that were addressed in the January 12, 1988, letter.
Specifically, the licensee was requested to discuss in detail, management involvement, corrective. action, investiga-tive methodology, and the completeness of this investigation.
The licen-see's response and salient points are contained in slides (Attachment I)
used during their presentation.
The meeting was beneficial to NRC in obtaining a
more complete understanding of the licensee's investigation and their response actions.
3.
Conclusion After the discussions between the licensee and NRC, NRC Region I Manage-ment requested that PPE L respond-in writing to the concerns listed in the January 12, 1988, letter.
The licensee agreed to submit a
written response within
days.
This written response will be considered in NRC's final disposition of this issu ATTACHMENT I Licensee Slides Presented Durin March 2, 1988 Meetin INATTENTIVE SHIFT SUPERVISOR o
FACTS o
CHARTER OF INVESTIGATIONS o
KEY FINDINGS o
CONCLUSIONS o
S IGNIFICANCE/PERSPECTIVES o
SUCCESSFUL CULTURE o
ENPLOYEE CONCERNS o
SUMNRY
FACTS o
ALLEGATION SUBMITTED o
VALIDITYCONFIRMED o
INDIVIDUALRELIEVED OF DUTIES o
REGION I NOTIFIED o
COMMUNICATED TO PLANT STAFF o
MEDIA INFORMED o
INVESTIGATIONS INITIATED NUCLEAR SAFETY ASSESSMENT GROUP (NSAG)
ASSISTANT TO SR. V.P.
NUCLEAR
CHARTER OF INVESTIGATIONS o
ASSISTANT TO SR.
V.P.-NUCLEAR INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATION AND ANY ASSOCIATED INCIDENTS, o
MANAGER-NUCLEAR SAFETY ASSESSMENT GROUP ARE THERE OTHER CONCERNS THAT MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE ACTING ON?
DO OPERATORS BELIEVE THAT RETALIATION MILL BE TAKEN AGAINST THEM FOR BRINGING THEIR SAFETY CONCERNS TO MANAGEMENT ATTENTION?
KEY FINDINGS ASSISTANT TO SR.
V.P.-NUCLEAR o
ALLEGATIONS SUBSTANTIATED INDIVIDUALHAD OCCASIONS OF INATTENTIVENESS OVER A 5 YEAR PERIOD.
INDIVIDUALHAD SUBSTANTIAL PERSONAL PROBLENS AND WAS RECEIVING COUNSELING.
SITUATION KNOWN BY OTHER SHIFT PERSONNEL.
o ISOLATED CASE INTERVIEWS REVEALED NO OTHER CASES OF SUCH INATTENTIVENESS.
o UNINTENTIONAL IN OFFICE ADJACENT TO CONTROL ROON WITH DOOR OPEN.
AT HIS DESK WITH APPROVED READING NATERIAL WITH HIS EYES CLOSED,
KEY FINDINGS ASSISTANT TO SR.
V.P.-NUCLEAR (CONTINUED)
o MANAGEMENT WAS UNAWARE OF ALLEGED INATTENTIVENESS.
o MANAGEMENT ACTIONS WERE RATIONAL AND REASONABLE.
MANAGEMENT WAS AWARE OF AND HAD DEALT WITH HIS PERSONAL PROBLEMS.
MANAGEMENT WAS AWARE THAT THE INDIVIDUALWAS RECEIVING EMPLOYEE COUNSELING.
MANAGEMENT WAS AWARE THAT THE INDIVIDUALHAD SPENT FOUR WEEKS AT A COUNSELING CENTER TO HELP HIM COPE WITH HIS PROBLEMS.
IN LATE JUNE'ANAGEMENT WAS DEALING WITH A PERCEIVED RECENT PROBLEM OF ALERTNESS ON BACKSHIFT.
o SHIFT PERSONNEL DID NOT REPORT THE SITUATION.
SAFETY OF PLANT NEVER JEOPARDIZED.
SHIFT WAS ABLE TO DEAL WITH SITUATION. ALTHOUGH THEY CLEARLY BELIEVED IT WAS WRONG, INDIVIDUALWAS ALWAYS RESPONSIVE, COMPETENT AND KNOWLEDGEABLE WHEN NEEDED.
THE DIFFICULTY OF REPORTING ONE'S SUPERVISOR,
KEY FINDINGS MANAGER-NUCLEAR SAFETY ASSESSMENT o
NUCLEAR SAFETY AND GENERATION ISSUES ARE ALWAYS HANDLED CONSERVATIVELY.
SHIFT SUPERVISORS COMFORTABLE WITH ABILITY TO HALT OPERATIONS AND REGROUP WHEN NECESSARY.
NO INSTANCES OF SAFETY BEING SACRIFICED FOR SCHEDULE.
o WIDE DISCONTENT WITH SIX-SHIFT DUTY SCHEDULE.
RELIEF SHIFT THE KEY PROBLEM MULTIPLE SHIFT CHANGES NON-QUALITY ST DAYS SPLIT ST DAYS INADEQUATE REST TIME o
NO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF RETALIATION WERE FOUND.
MANY PEOPLE UNFAMILIARWITH POLICIES ON REPORTING.
LOWER IN THE ORGANIZATION YOU GO, THE MORE PERCEPTION OF RETALIATION EXISTS.
NSAG VIEWED AS GOOD VEHICLE TO REPORT CONCERN KEY FINDINGS NANAGER-NUCLEAR SAFETY ASSESSNENT (CONTINUED)
o INATTENTIVENESS INCIDENT WAS AN ISOLATED CASE.
NO EVIDENCE THAT SLEEPING CONDONED AT ANY LEVEL.
PEOPLE LOOK OUT FOR EACHiOTHER TO PREVENT DOZING ON BACKSHIF CONCLUSIONS o
CLEAR VIOLATION OF SSES STANDARDS, ACTION:
INDIVIDUAL REMOVED FROM SHIFT.
STATION PERSONNEL BRIEFED ON INCIDENT.
STANDARDS REINFORCED.
o SITUATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO MANAGEMENT EARLIER.
ACTION:
EVERY INDIVIDUAL'S RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT CONCERNS REINFORCED.
MAINTAININGA RECEPTIVE ATTITUDE TO THE EXPRESSION OF CONCERNS REINFORCED TO SUPERVISORS.
o EXISTING CBO/ECS PROGRAMS DID NOT ADDRESS THE SUPERVISORS NEED-TO-KNOW.
ACTION:
POLICIES ON CBO/ECS REVISE S IGNIFICANCE o
HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC PERSPECTIVES o
SUCCESSFUL CULTURE MITH ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT.
o EMPLOYEE CONCERNS:
COMMUNICATION, MESSENGERS AND MESSAGE HEALTH. AND SAFETY OF PUBLIC WERE NOT AFFECTED, o
SHIFT SUPERVISOR PERFOfNED IN A CONPETENT, RESPONSIVE NANNER WHEN NEEDED, o
THE SHIFT CREW PERFORNNCE NET SUSQUEHANNA STANDARDS, I)
NO DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENT RATE.
2)
NO DIFFERENCE IN PERFORNNCE DURING EVOLUTIONS/TRANSIENTS.
3)
ANNUAL NSAG ON-SHIFT OBSERVATIONS REINFORCED CAPABILITY OF SHIFT CRE SUCCESSFUL CULTURE WITH ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT
"CAN'T HAPPEN AT SUSQUEHANNA" D!D HAPPEN!
o ORGANIZATION AT LARGE RECOGNIZED A
SERIOUS VIOLATION OF OUR STANDARDS.
CLIMATE HAS CHANGED o
TRANSITION OCCURRED GIVE INDIVIDUALBENEFIT OF DOUBT TO WHEN IN DOUBT ACT.,
o GREATER SENSITIVITY TO BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS.
PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN TUNED o
MANAGEMENT NEED-TO-KNOW HAS BEEN ADDRESSED.
o PROGRAMMATIC GAP BETWEEN CBO/ECS/
,PSYCHOLOGICAL SUITABILITY HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.
o WEEKLY FUNCTIONAL GROUP BACK-SHIFT TOUR TREATMENT OF CONCERNS AND THfIR MESSENGERS STRONG ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES IN PLACE AND VISIBLE.
SENSITIVITY AND RESPONSIVENESS TO THE MESSAGE AND THE MESSENGER IS A CONTINUAL CHALLENGE.
o MANAGEMENT ACTION AS A RESULT OF A
'ONCERN DELIVERS THE REAL MESSAGE.
o SENSITIVE TREATMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL REINFORCED OPEN COMMUNICATIONS.
OPENED UP COMMUNICATION CHANNELS o
FOREMAN/SUPERINTENDENT MEETING o
fMPLOYEE/SUPERINTENDENT LUNCHEON o
SUPERVISOR INTERACTIVE SKILLS TRAINING EMPLOYfE INVOLVEMENT o
SHIFT SCHEDULING INITIATIVfS o
WORK GROUP VALUES DEVELOPED BY ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS o
PERFORMANCE ENHANCfMENT TfAMS
SUMMARY o
PROMPT AGGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT.
o THOROUGH. INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION.
o HEALTH AND SAFETY OF PUBLIC NOT EFFECTED.
o MANAGEMENT ISSUES EVOLVED AND WERE ACTED ON.
o TUNING OF A SUCCESSFUL CULTURE OCCURRED.
o SENSITIVITY TO EMPLOYEE CONCERNS A
CONTINUING CHALLENGE; o
OUR ON-GOING INITIATIVES ARE PROACTIVE TO THIS INCIDENT,
STATUS OF COMMITMENTS ACTION STATUS 1.
RELIEVE INDIVIDUALOF SHIFT RESPONSIBILITIES.
INDIVIDUALRELIEVED OF DUTIES AUGUST 7TH.
2.
BRIEF STATION PERSONNEL ON THE INCIDENT AND STRESS THAT INATTENTIVENESS IS UNACCEPTABLE, STATION PERSONNEL BRIEFED AUGUST 10TH AND MID-SEPTEMBER.
3.
PERFORM TWO INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS.
ASSISTANT TO SENIOR V, P.
INVESTIGATION COMPLETED AUGUST 19TH.
NSAG INVESTIGATION COMPLETED AUGUST 28TH.
4.
EXPAND BACK-SHIFT INSPECTIONS BY PLANT MANAGEMENT.
EXPANDED BACK-SHIFT INSPECTIONS BEGAN AUGUST 10TH.
5, REFER INDIVIDUALUNDER PP&L CBO PROGRAM.
6.
REITERATE, POLICY ON IMPORTANCE OF REPORTING INCIDENTS.
REFERRED ON AUGUST 25TH.
SENIOR V.P.
NUCLEAR'S ARTICLE REITERATING IMPORTANCE OF REPORTING INCIDENTS APPEARS IN NUCLEAR NOTES, 7.
DEVELOP IMPROVED GUIDANCE TO RESPOND TO SITUATIONS INVOLVING PERSONAL PROBLEMS AND INTERFACES WITH CBO/ECS.
GUIDANCE PREPARED AND ISSUED OCTOBER 27TH, TRAINING OF SUPERVISORS COMPLETED,
STATUS OF COMMITMENTS (CONTINUED)
ACTION
~
RESOLVE SIX SHIFT ROTATION SCHEDULING, STATUS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT WORKING WITH OPERATIONS.
FINAL RECOMMENDATION EXPECTED MAY 88.
9.
REVIEW OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT HANDLING OF OPERATOR CONCERNS.
OI ISSUED OCTOBER 16TH.
TRAINING COMPLETED.
TASK TEAM ON EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION FORMED.
10.
EVALUATE/RECOMMEND IMPROVEMENTS CONCERNING TELEPHONE ANNOYANCES IN CONTROL ROOM.
SURVEY ON USAGE OF CR PHONES COMPLETED DECEMBER 11TH.
DATA SHOWED PHONE USAGE TO BE APPROPRIATE.
11.
EVALUATE ISI PROGRAM WITH RESPECT TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE OPERATING DATA.
NPE REVIEW OF ISI
~
PROGRAM COMPLETED DECEMBER 87, 12.
PROVIDE STA's CBO TRAINING.
STA TRAINING COMPLETED SEPTEMBER 18TH.
13; INVESTIGATE CONCERN REGARDING FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS.
NSAG FOLLOWUP INVESTIGATION COMPLETED SEPTEMBER llTH.
ISOLATED INCIDENT.