ML20154B060

Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted Against License SOP-2191-6.Corrective Actions:Retraining Initiated to Make Sure Procedures Followed

ML20154B060
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	09/07/1988
From:	Wargo A PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM), NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
References
EA-88-027, EA-88-27, NUDOCS 8809130197
Download: ML20154B060 (4)

Text

_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

[CJ g.

9 September 7, 1988 i

Director, Office of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:

Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.

20555 I

Ret Andrew R. Wargo Docket No. 55-3219 License No. SOP-2191-6 1

EA 88-27 1

SUBJECT:

REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION A

On August 9, 1988, I learned that I would be subject to a Severity Level II Violation and a proposed civil penalty of $800.00.

I was informed that the charge related to my conduct during the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift when, at i

various times, I became inattentive to instruments and L

controls and allowed myself and those I supervised to violate Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Administrative i

Procedure A-7.

Please accep+. this reply as my admission that I I

violated Administrative Procedure A-7.

At various times I i

did lean back in my chair, with my foot up and my eyes j

closed.

I permittsd those I supervised to do the same.

I e

frequently read non-job related material and I brought a i

tape player into the Control Room in 1986 I permitted those I supervised to read material banned by A-7 and to play a video game.

[

r I had always read material not related to my job from the time I became a reactor operator.

I did this, even

{

though I knew it was wrong, because it was an easy way to remain elert.

I engaged in oth1r inattentive behavior, and permitted my crew to do the same, because I allowei my morale to begin to affect my job performance.

I was very l

disappointed that I was not transferred to Limerick 1

Generating Station; consequently, I decided on my own that

]

cortain behaviors were not "too bad" and I began to either engage in them myself, or allow my operators to engage in I

them.

I started to believe that Control Room behavior could l

.(

t 8G09130197 esopo7 g(E d PDR ADOCK 05000277 O

PDC t

g

• *e Director, Office of Enforcement September 7, 1988 l

Page 2 1

not matter that much, because I would be able to handle any technical difficulties that confronted me.

The Shutdown order ended that fantasy.

I realized I could not focus on technical competence alone, or rely on alarms and automatic actions as the first line of defense.

I had the whole concept of safe operations backwards.

Instead of being "back-ups," operators were supposed to be the first line of defense.

In the public's eye, a shift supervisor was not supposed to be a bitter, passive indi-vidual who did what he pleased and permitted his operators to do what they pleased.

Obviously, one of my worst failings was that I allowed myself to lose control of my shift.

I permitted the opera-tors to do whatever they wanted, within certain wide boundaries: moreover, I permitted other personnel, such as test engineers, to perform work that directly affected the plant, without requiring them to explain their work to me.

I reached the point where I just worked around anything or anyone who bothered me, rather than confront the situation.

I have become a much more aggressive shift supervisor now, primarily because of the switch to the Shif t Manager form or leadership.

My Shift Manager informed me right away that he intended to rely on my technical expertise and in return for my sharing that knowledge with him, he intended to back my suggestions, to the best of his ability.

We decided that if I needed to p'traue a course of action I need only take the proposition to him, and if he agreed with me, we would push that concern, together.

Because he has demonstrated his support for me and shown respect for my opinion, I do a much better job.

My Shift Manager's backing, as well as the apparent receptiveness of my other superiors, has given me the courage to stop a job or obtain a procedure change right in the middle of a job, without fear of censure for disrupting a schedule, or voicing an unpopular opinion.

Because I set a bad example before, I know I have to encourage those I supervise to have enough confidence in me to follow my directions.

To address that issue, my Shift Manager and I conduct a one minute goal-setting session at the beginning of each shift.

The reactor operators seem to respond to that very positively.

I have also pushed myself to give constructive criticism to the operators when it is needed, and I have enjoyed the feeling I receive from steering someone in the right direction.

I have found that if I correct someone right away, yet cake the time to tell

,n o'

Director, Office of Enforcement September 7, 1988 Page 3 him why he did sonething wrong, he is actually grateful to me.

To correct my habit of avoiding controversy I have trained myself to discuss troublesome issues with my shift-mates.

For example, if I am having difficulty interpreting a procedure, I no longer hold back on the issue.

I talk it over with different people until I can assess whether I am right or wrong.

I try to let different opinions challenge, rather than silence me.

This has become so automatic to me now, that I believe I have mastered my former problem.

My future goals include working on restoring manage-mont's confidence in me to the point where I can secure a promotion.

I am determined to prove that while I once allowed the fact that others disappointed me to affect my job performance, I will never let my standards fall again.

The courage I have gained to press an issue until someone listans to me, has given me the added bonus of improving my job performance.

My more accessible attitude has encouraced my Shift Manager to consult with me about all parts of l

Operations, and my subordinates to approach me with their own concerns about ways to perform a particular task.

I take pride in the fact that I am known as one of the best on-the-job trainers in the Control Room.

I can assure you that I will continue to try to improve my performance and to inspire my operators to follow me along the right path.

Respectfully submitted, h

UA*

l'Kff Andrew R. Wargo

Enclosure:

$800.00 Penalty cc Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

12 o.

AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

'~p/

SS.:

COUt??Y OF N/L Before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared ANDREW R. WARGO, who being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that the statements made in his Reply to Notice of Violation are true and correct to the best of his information, knowledge and belief.

Sworntoandsubscribedtobeforemethisf day of 1988.

L A ',, w c h A m

/

(ota'ry Publi'c

/

(SEAL)

My commission expires:

t non autisen heuni s taw.

104t t CH At tif 8D 10*RiIP. vest Ut tf t pg Ceuwintet itPillt APill 26 lH1 i;nner Feesise.a Aw a'.** of hctF *l L

b