ML20154E478

Partially Deleted Memo Re Scheduling for Insp of Allegation RIV-96-A-0227.Allegation Has Been Reassigned to to Listed Individual.Insp Scheduled to Be Conducted During Wk of 980224

ML20154E478
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	01/07/1997
From:	Powers D NRC
To:	Wise R NRC
Shared Package
ML20154D336	List: IR 05000361/1995010 ML20154D331 ML20154D348 ML20154E396 ML20154E401 ML20154E473 ML20154E478
References
FOIA-98-183 NUDOCS 9810080208
Download: ML20154E478 (4)

Text

L(- 1 6-s44 l

From: Dale Po ers .

To: RXW - sM4/[6fCW' Date 1/7/97 8:3 am IO

Subject:

ALLEGATION._IV-96-A-0227k As we discussed today, this allegation ;rc

@ at SONGS) was scheduled for inspection this week y uc .

However, Chuck had to be diverted to Waterford this week for a higher-priority allegation that was transferred to DRS from DRP.

I have reassigned the allegation now to Paul because Chuck's workload will not permit his conducting this inspection within the necessary time frame. Paul is now scheduled to conduct the inspection during the week of February 24. An inspection at that time will be within 5 months on our 6-month clock for allegations.

CC: TPG, KEB, CJP, PCG N *

'&lQld ((4t4g 4

• 1. k a~ M4(f mL. a j % //110 9810000208 980930 PDR FOIA KNUDSON98-183 PDR

'nformation in this record was defe[ed n accorda'1ce witn the Freedom of Information

' ct, 'exenptions M i

idi A .fl.*/143 11(M SO2OV h. ~ > f6 $$

From: William Brown To: E LW1 g /dR 6'<"M 4 ~'7 Date: 29/97 ll:57am t: v. SCE: DOL Recommended Order (Case fE Len, at your request, I reviewed the subject order. My comments are as follows.

The ALJ's Recommended Order stated the the Cov.plainant had complained th was harassed by management in mid-1993 and removed fro upervisory position for discussing with mana ment concerns regarding proper operaion of the Complaina further stated to DOS that (helagain raised safet concerns in .

.M IN April of that yea was iven a below standar rformance appraisal ---- all of ch believed was due to identification of the various safety issues. DOL notes that, upon review by SCE, a new cppraisal (presumably a better one) was #bI-given t i and safety issues were addressed. Tha Recommen ecis ig'did n not deal with the allegation that Complainant was removed from his supervisory position. It did state that Complainant was not satisfied. It was then tha 5[

was contacted by SCE management to see l'f wanted to volun eer for a compensated severance as part of a p nned comprehensive recuction in forca as part of an SCE restructuring program.

The AL2 determinc0 chat the Complainant's termination was, indeed, part of a planned reduction in force that Complainant and 57 other employees vciun*.arily elected to accept. The severance package contained a standard settlement clause precluding future claims or actions in return for the approzinately @ severance amount. However, the agreement rg specifically reserved Complainant's right to contact the NRC about any concerns. The ALJ noted that there was no indication that Complainant was coerced or under duress to accept the package which did on(

In my opinion, since the agreement was offered as part of a planned reduction in force accepted by 58 employees, there is no indication that the contact by management to see if Complainant was interested in the voluntary program was discrimination in retaliation for protected activity even though Complainant has e alleged same for, after all, Complainant voluntarily, with t JE coercion or duress, accepted the compensated package after hkhwas y contacted about it.

I u o l

_h Nevertheless, the NRC is not precluded from investigating this case. Under the enforcement policy the agency may still consider "y 4 whether this case is indicative of discrimination or whether it u s creates a chilling effect. However, the policy cautions the staff to be careful in such considerations so as not to be 8*5tggIq perceived as discouraging settlements. On balance, abscnt 5# M further information and based on the facts available, I see no 3ly)jreasontoopenaninvestigation. Bill

=asW E U.o +

qyggy ,, / (k' b ' b (l Y

~ _ . _ , . _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ . . __ _ __ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ - - ._ _

b ,

1 o l DATE: March 20,1997 TO: R. Wise, Allegations Coordinator THROUGH: D. A. Powers, Chief, Maintenance Brancn FROM: P. Gage, Reactor inspector, Maintenance Branch

SUBJECT:

ALLEGATIONhlV 96-A-0227) ((/-

Two technical concerns involving specific San Onofre Nuc:3ar Generating Station are stated in the referenced subject. These concerns include, but are not limited to, fg not replaced within a 5 year service life, and relays in the

'have not been accounted for in the miti Gation of a high energy line break in their location.

A review of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station procedures for theM' 6 was conducted during the week of February 24,1997. This review included the g degradation monitoring and reliability program, surveillance testing procedures, surveillance test results, and the documentation for identifyinggissues in accordance with their component f ailure reporting process.

Three pre _vious NRC inspections, including an Electrical Distribution System Functional Inspection, document variousMissues. Most recently, inspection Report 50-361/95-10:50-362/95-10 issued a violation involving the design bases of the Emergency Diesel Generator loading sequences. The inspector noted that all of the issues identified have been adequately dispositioned by the licensee through their corrective action program, howe fer, none of the inspections specifically addressed the teenaical issues in question.

The inspector noted that controlled information regarding components, such as.M are maintained, in the Corporate Document Management system, ine't ding available hardcopy, and any issued temporary change notices. Recently, within the past 1 to 2 years, controlled documents and supportin0 information, is readily retrievable by most N'

plant personnel using mainframe computer access terminals. Based on the inspector's review of he licensee's operational history, four f ailures o

'were documented in the Camponent Failure Analysis Report, dated These were the only reported f ailures since earlier design failures

' ' '^

called f or the replacement of mos. ' - -

The inspector reviewed the procedure pertaining to the This procram was formalized by procedure

' revision 0, in December of 1993, and is currently fc'.

maintained to date in accordance with revision 1. The inspector observed that pnor to Information in this record was deleted in accorduce with the freedom cf Information Act, eisptions Id _

~

.<*th W 3 /.j

b I

the implementation of this$ monitoring process, the Component Failure Analysis Report documented f ailures, end class were tested according to appropriate g.,'

surveillance procedures. Tne inspector cenc:Jded that these programs met the Final Safety Analysis Report commitments.

<The inspector reviewed UnitN 2 and 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to determine the licensee's commitments regarding code requirements for electrical components. Section 8.1.4.3, " Design Criteria, Regulatory Guides and IEEE Standards," utates that codes and standards applicable to the onsite power system are listed in Appendix 3.2A, which states that the principle design and construction code or standard for safety-related equipment or components shall t,3 qualified to IEEE Standard 323-1974.

One of the documented concerns addresses the untimely replacement criteria for the jlocated in the panels of the Engineered Safety Features

'switchgear room. The inspector observed that the licensee has followed the recommendations from lEEE 323-1974 addresses the criteria for environmental qualification of subjected to a harsh p'(f.,

environment, as required by 10 CFR 50.49. Table 3.11-1 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report describes the normal, accident, and design environmental conditions analyzed for the plant. The inspector noted that since these M are not subjected to a harsh environment during normal or accident conditions, the vendor recommendations for replacement are acceptable.

.', l

~

~~ ' ' '

The other technicalissue concerns relays in the have not been accounted for in the mitigation of a high energy line break near their vicinity. The inspector noted that the $ located in the respective panels serve as part of the turbine controls fo,r the turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump. Table g 3.11-1 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report desenbes that a h anvironment could exist during a high energy line break in the ji ;O ' . ..i.t' ;1 . . M ine inspector observed that those@are not required to perform their controlling function in order to mitigate the consequences of the high energy line break.

Therefore, the inspector concluded triat the are not required to De qualified in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49.

J J

i

( (.

ALLEGATION ASSIGNMENT FORM Allegation Number- IV-96-A-0227 t.icenseelFacility: SAN ONOFRE f6 ARB Date: 2/24/97 > 120 days: 1/30/97 > 180 days: 3/31/97 Assigned to: DriF, DRS, DNMS, SAC Branch: )

j Referral to Licensee: Referral Criteria Reviewed:

/

01 involvement ? / 01 Case Number: 4 96-056 gg ARB Recommended Priority: $,

Allegation Summary: > 120 Days: This allegation was related to alleged termination for reporting safety concerns about 01intrviewed the sliegerandDRS reviewed the transcript. g The 10/28/96 ARB instructed DRS:MB to perfone an inspection, which was scheduled for the week of 1/6/97. l l

ARB Instructions:

ARB Chairman: Date:

Alleaation Resolution Plan (return to the SAC within 10 days of ARB meetingh bU~ d.AL g G *% ~  % MALA O

4A,QLlh .

\J

~

l Submitted by: Date:

ARB Attendees: ,DRP ,DRS ,DNMS l WI Brnwn RC Of R Wka 9ar R. Mulkkin, AC__ , Enforcement Other:

WCFO Staff: K. E. Perkins  : D. F. Kirsch , H. J. Wong ,

i F. A. Wenslawski l cc: Allegation File, ARB Meeting File, 01 l Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the freedora of Infornntion Act.'exefnoticas M -

d[/8 F0IA 3 1 2 8 1 -

0 -r - n -

l t /

ALLEGATION ASSIGNMENT FORM j Eb Allegation Number IV A-02 23 Licensee / Facility: SAN ONOFRE S ARB Date: 3/24/97 > 120 days: 1/30/97 > 180 days: 3/31/97 Assigned to: DRP, DRS, DNMS, SAC Branch:

l Referral to Licensee: _

Referral Criteria Reviewed:

01 involvement ? / 01 Case Number: 4-96-056 ARB Recommended Priority .

l Allegation Summary: > 120 Da *

. This allegation was related to alleged termination for ,

^ ' '

1 reporting safety concerns abou ' Of interviewed the alleger and DRS Yd.

reviewed tire transcript. The 10/28/96 ARB instructed DRS:MB to perform an inspection, i which was scheduled for the week of 2/24/97.

ARB instructions:

ARB Chairman;. Date:

l Allenation Resoldion i Plan (return to the SAC within 10 days of ARB meeting):

icduwul %A t k n d . T J w m h .0 $ b N M vA_ m  % T- mu 1 - hDc n gu-> n D l l

l Submitted by: Date: _

l ARB Attendees: ,DRP ,DRS ,DNMS W. L. Brown, RC__ , 01_ R. Wise, SAC _

R. Mullikin, AC_. _ , Enforcement Other.  ;

l WCFO Staff: K. E. Perkins , D. F. Kirsch , H. J. Wong ,

l F. A. Wenslawski l

cc: Allegation File, ARB 'Aeeting File, 01 4

Information in this record was deleted

'n accordance with the freedom of Information t, cw.'aphons --..$ .

$f//'

l'A ._ f Y'*/ / E ._. - gg.

ALLEGATION ASSIGNMENT FORM x

J.

- ;7 6 AHegation Number: IV-96-A-0227f Licensee / Facility: SAN ONOFRE 7d.

ARB Date: 6/12/97 > 120' days:? WLt 60ldavsi Assigned to: DRP, DRS, DNMS, SAC Branch:

Referral to Licensee: Referral Criteria Reviewed:

Of involvement:

01 Case Number:

ARB Recommended Priority:  %

Ll . % 0 's Allegation Sum a : This alle ation.was related to alleged termination for reporting safety concems about ..

The technical concerns have been sddressed. 01did Yll not substantiate the discrimination Is' sue. OE concluded that enforcement action was not appropriate.

ARB instructions:

ARB Chairman: Date:

A,lleaation i Resolution Plan (return to the SAC within 10 days of ARB nieeting):

WS CLEs*w nu b ~C & M Submitted by: Date:

ARB;Attendeeo: DRP .,DRS .DNMS W. L. Brown, RC _ . 01 _ R. Wise, SAC _

R. Mullikin, AC _ , Enforcement Other:

D. F. Kirsch  ; H. J. Wnno  :

WCFO. Staf f: K. E. Perkins F. A. Weralawski cc: Alle Fife, ARB Meeting File, Of Informatici: in this record V as deleted

/'

in accordance with the freeGam of information Act,'exemptior s 72'-

/.'.' /"; ' M-FOIA 12*/13_ __ Q g, g