ML20202G641

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Informs That D Vito & C Anderson Will Be Sending Status Ltr to Alleger Caller
ML20202G641
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  Talen Energy icon.png
Issue date: 01/05/1998
From: Kathy Modes
NRC
To: Anderson C, Johnson S, Vito D
NRC
Shared Package
ML20202F480 List:
References
FOIA-99-36 NUDOCS 9902050237
Download: ML20202G641 (3)
v • d • e


Text

- . - - -

/

L (h

From: thy odes /

To: A, JV, SLJ Date: 1/5/98 :27pm

Subject:

Allegation RI-97-A-0145 Susquehanna ,

The alleger called to inquire as to a letter we owe him. After speaking with Dave Vito and Cliff Anderson, we will be sending the alleger a status letter- trying to tell him everything we can tell. I told this to the alleger and he was very upset. He said that PP&L are using us. The report that supposedly won't be done until February 1998 is actually comple':ed, but if PP&L released it now -it would destroy their arbitration case i against the alleger (i.e., the alleger would win his 1 % year battle). The alleger said that  :

PP&L doesn't have anything more to investigate -it is only a delay tactic. I told the  !

alleger that I would inform the Branch Chief of this information. the alleger asked to speak with Cliff Anderson and Hub Miller...I transferred him to Cliffs voice mail.

Kathy l

-I j

i I

~

9902050237 990129 PDR FOIA (

SORENSEN99-36 PDR 0

7marsur __

Jnxd/i'  ?

,m

i .., ,

l '*,.: ~' DEC-30-1997 08:10 US NRC SUSQ RES OFFICE 717 542 4573 P.02 I

Briefing Notes l As part of an investigation conducted by Corporate Audidng into allegations raised by a former Nuclear Plant Operator,a PCO voluntaared certain information to the auditors and lator subrnitted a written statement to Nuclear Dept. Management.

While we appreciate the individual's candor and encourage all employees to be truthful during such an investigation, Supervision and Management must take appropriate action on the basis of information we learn.

l The PCO will not be returned to licensed duties AT THIS TIME. He continues his current assignment to the Training Center pending completion of an assessment into '

his ability to perform work as a licensed operator, l' .

l The PCO admitted two Instances of human error where he failed to perform ticensed {

) duties in accordance with station procedures and programs while signing

  • documentation that he had done so.

The PCO self corrected the eerors on the following day by performing the' required action, he did not Inform his immediate' supervisor or management of this error. The failure to do so doeir not meet the standards and expectations of the licensed operator.

Supervision and management have a responsibility to assess human performance

' errors and determine the significance of these errors. Without the knowledge, the ability to operate the facility safely may be jeopardized. .

1 The responsible behavior program has been applied for this ovent. The bases for this action is as stated above.

1 (COs On l

t i

I l Q , , s/-f , TOTAL P.02 u , u , ,, - v

' DEC-30-1597 00:10 -

US NRC SUSQ RES OFFICE 717 542 4573 P.01 g4 -

t

. ,y 'r; '- '

o#^ UNITED STATES f

l h

.= h e

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ResidentInspector O. Dice

\ . b., .at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station

.,%g4 PACSIMILE TRANSMISSION fog l$C dfir"-

Message to:

Petit SeoJ/d Organiza n-- $[

Voice No.:

m _

Pages:-

(including this page)

' Message From: -

r.u -

Kenneth Jenison, SRI

, Bria!1 McDermott, RI

, r; -

John Richinond, RI

. ygp,yyt. .

. *' _ Sher

.4

.M ylFarrell, . g OA h.

Voice No.: (7,17)S42-2134

.  ;.D ' ;. FAX No.: (717)S42-4573 Notes: i[Tg;' '*, ; .

b- F'

$\;'

g D L 4. :

i o a ;t h()@Q $W A

~

OLU%)fh gi w s r ic g oh l

sw;;.ll.ll

.fk  ;&

WF '[

i

[lC &W Q(

\ /

e9 e

$. . c.: . .

e'

% ; ,f ,,,, -

n a, , .

' t.

December 31,1997 Mr. Robert G. Byram I

Senior Vice President - Nuclear Pennsylvania Power & Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101  :

SUBJECT:

NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 50-387/97-09,50-388/97-09 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

Dear Mr.' Byram:

On December 8,1997, the NRC completed a routine resident inspection at your Susquehanna Steam Electric Station facility. The enclosed report presents the results of that inspection. In addition, this report contains the results of a physical security 2 inspection conducted by inspectors from the NRC Region i office.

l Your conduct of activities at the facility during this period was characterized by safe operation and generally conservative decision making. The physical security inspection j concluded that you have maintained an effective security program and that your provisions '

for lar?d vehicle control satisfy regulatory requirements and previous PP&L commitments. l Several issues identified during this inspection regarding PP&L's strategy for resolving deficiencies with the containment isolation configuration for feedwater penetrations are of concern. Although more informatior is required for the NRC to make conclusions regarding ,

potential enforcement actions, we believe these issues have not been adequately  ;

communicated to the NRC or evaluated by PP&L for regulatory compliance. Based on our December 19,1997, conference call with Mr. J. Kenny of PP&L, we understand that PP&L will submit a letter in January 1998 to provide information regarding the deficiencies, compliance with applicable design requirements, and plans for corrective action. This information will be used to evaluate the unresolved items identified in the enclosed inspection report, and to determine whether further NRC action is required.

Based on the other results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that one violation of NRC requirements occurred. This violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice), and the circumstances surrounding the violation are described in detailin the enclosed report. The violation concerns the adequacy of procedures used to control maintenance on a reactor coolant system valve's bonnet vent line. The procedures were inadequate to ensure that the vent line was supported in accordance with its design configuration and consequently a vent line weld failed due to cyclic fatigue while in service. Please note that you are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary -

to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

l u

i e

'a y a f y ygo k  !

7,..

{$ ,

Mr. Robert G. Byram 2 l

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter

! and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No. 96.511.

Sincerely, Original Signed By:

l; :Clifford J.~ Anderson, Chief L Projects Branch 4

Division of Reactor Projects v

Docket Nos.: 50-387:50-388

. License Nos:' NPF-14, NPF-22 - ,

L-

Enclosures:

1. Inspection Report 50-387/97-09,50-388/97-09
2. Notice of Violation cc w/ enc!:
- G. T. Jones, Vice President - Nuclear Operations G. Kuczynski, General Manager J. M. Kenny, Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing G. D. Miller, General Manager - Nuclear Engineering ls R. R. Wehry, Nuclear Licensing M. M. Urioste, Nuclear Services Manager, General Electric l C. D. Lopes, Manager - Nuclear Security l

A. Male, Manager, Nuclear Assessment Services

.H. D. Woodeshick, Special Assistant to'the President J. C. Tilton,111, Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc.

i. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania -

ls p.

L

! i

. ,,__. . - , - - - - - . - . _ _ - , . . . - . . . ~ - , i

i l ' , ': . [

l 2

1 I

i l

l l

02 Operational Status of Facilities and Equipment O2.1 "E" Emeroency Diesel Generator (EDG) Alarm Panel OC577E Ooeration . -

a. insoection Scoce (71707]

On February 13,1997, the licensee performed routine alarm testing of the OC577E control panelin the "E" EDG building. During the performance of this routine test a plant control operator (PCO) noted that an expected control room alarm panel (AR-016-F02) did not reflash. .The inspector reviewed this panel test failure and the licensee's corrective actions,

b. Observations and Findinos Control Panel'OC577E contains local controls for certain "E" EDG support equipment and associated annuncistors. Testing this local alarm panel results in a -

common control room panel alarm, two Unit 1 computer data points and two Unit 2 4 computer data points.

Following the control panel alarm test failure, the licensee initiated a condition report (CR) 97-0289 and work authorizations (WAs) S70529 and S66261. The inspector reviewed the associated WAs and drawing FF65111. WA S70529 was initiated on February 15,1997 to determine why the control room did not get a reflash during the February 13,1997, panel test.

During this initialinvestigation PP&L determined that the input to the Unit 2 computer for point EGZ12 had been degraded since August 13,1996. WA S66261 was written to correct this problem. This review also determined that the Unit 1 computer was capable of recording point EGZ12 and that both computers were capable of recording point EGZ14.-

On February 13,1997, at the time that the failed alarm test was performed, a separate plant testing activity was being performed under test procedure (TP) TP-024-149. This TP controlled the positions of breakers OB56502A and OB56503A

l .

s. . ,

k i 3 i

causing several alarms to be activated in the control room and locally. Because the l control room annunciator was already alarmed, the February 13,1997, test at panel i OC577E should have caused the control room annunciator to reflash. However,it l did not reflash because the reflash unit had failed. Based on review of the data, the failure of the reflash unit affected the records for computer point EGZ14 on the Unit 1 and Unit 2 computers. The record for Unit 1 computer point EGZ12 was unaffected by the reflash unit failure and provided a valid record of the OC577E panel alarm test on February 13,1997.

After completing a review of the above data, the inspector determined that the alarming /reflashing of specific control room annunciators related to OC577E panel tests were affected by activities conducted under TP-024-149in combination with

the failure of a reflash unit. The Unit 1 and Unit 2 computer points EGZ14 were I

affected by the failure of the reflash function. Computer point EGZ12 on Unit 2 l was degraded during the February 13,1997 panel tests and did not always accurately register the panel test. Unit 1 computer point EGZ12 was operable throughout the February 13,1997 test and was unaffected. There was no -

evidence to indicate that the interaction of TP-024-149,the alarm test at control panel OC577E and the failure of the reflash unit was other than an isolated instance. Further, there is no evidence of previous repeated failures of the reflash )

units. The licensee's corrective actions and root cause determination associated with CR-97-0289 were determined to be adequate; operator response to the test failure was determined to be acceptable; and no violations of NRC requirements were identified.

c. Conclusions l Following a February 13,1997, local control panel alarm test failure, the licensee initiated a condition report (CR) and work authorizations to determine why an associated control room annunciator did not reflash as expected. The CR i investigation determined that the annunciator reflash did not occur because of a I failed reflash unit. The Unit 1 and Unit 2 computer records for point EGZ14 were i affected by the reflash unit failure, however, there was no evidence to indicate that this condition was other that an isolated instance. Unit 1 records for computer point i EGZ12 were found to provide an accurate record of the February 13,1997 test. l The licensee's corrective actions and root cause determination associated with CR-97-0289 were determined to be adequate, as was operator response to the routine alarm panel test failure. No violations of NRC requirements were identified.

l l  !

l

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20202G641&oldid=3071396"