ML20202H262
Text
BF B P , CWH, LEN, Mdi, Db MI 4- Deser 6/20/97 5:00pm F;.
Subject:
Ad-hoc panel for Monday 6/23/97 at 9 AM Mr. Fewell spoke to two individuals and the conversations are being documented and placed on an allegation receipt form.
Based on a meeting with Hub, we are having an ad-hoc allegation panel at 9AM on Monday June 23,1997. The two concerns are:
- 1. Failure to perform tests .
- 2. Supervisors knew that the tests were not being performed.
Mr. Fewell wil. provide the' allegation office the receipt form and the allegation office will make copies and disenbute as soon as we can. Any questions, please see Brad.
'Ihanks for your cooperation.
Kathy
. =
M\0: .
gTu 2b.Ab WMinks ,
NE s g k wid. &,m-I wm uh k=A 4ke 1
A h w% esAo%e,w%ae 41 vd ~'taW sol sw T qD C m ,i I de d t can 3
W
.L-
$ b pt.g.;wdw4.+Ais J leu 4 vakt we a u p.
Good b8A-
{
9902000051 990129 '
SORENSEN99-36 PDR a l
,-a
l l D:te Received: * (> .20 -9 7 A . 4; O(( l Employee Receiving Allegation or suspecting wrongdoing (first two initials and last name): T. R F'c w eIl Alleger Name: ' Home Address:
- h Home Phone: City / State / Zip:
- l Alleger's Employer:
- A!!eger's Position /
Title:
- j Fccility: Suscoe hoxca Docket or Mtis. License No.:
Was alleger informed of NRC identity protection policy? YesI No _
If H&l was alleged, was alleger informed of DOL rights?
If a licensee employee or contractor, Yes _ No _ N/A _ asg i did they raise the issue to their management?
N p- y#
S Yes _ No ^ N/A ~
- F Does the alleger object to referral of lasues to the licensee? Ye:X No _
Provide alleger's direct response to this question verbatim on the line below: M 8'5 ,5Ycli l0
- Was confidentiality requested? Yes Y No _ ot Was confidentiality initially granted? Yes _ No _ N/A __j cJ o
- p h Individual Granting Confidentiality:
Criteria for determining whether the issue is an allegation: - ,
is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy? Yes / No l Is the impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities? Yes / No is the validity of the issue unknown? Yes / No if No to any of the above questions, the issue is not an allegation and should be handled by other appropriate mIthods (e.g. as a request for information or an OSHA referral).
Allegation Summary or staff cuspected wrongdoing: (Recipient of the allegation shall summarize each c:ncern here - provide additional detail on reverse side of form, if necessary)
-flu _ ^ 6 8 ^^y Sh.*d.s h4 ht Laox2_ n 0er es 4b4 La o g %4_
-kcAvl mek A stwA O W so m unee khi o CAut33 W 4L 7A. %p;tsor Tov Fehm b e h n g c e k b s_ %
9
. tak b r unM . [4 le u A 4 ou 4M L wa -h_ s tkl. zcM-y g
kr2k1}ceb %,cc m h,, 5 5W .
SO M ul-Number of Concerns: 3 Type of Regulated Activity: (a) _ Reactor (d) _ Safeguards (b) _ Vendor (e) _ Other:
(c) _ Materials (Specify)
Functional Area (s): r &
~~
d Tra er:
- Do nq1 complete these sections for issues of staff suspected wrongdoing, ykAlf .
- , ,' asiamg.g -
- a '4 Paga L cf &
Detailed Description of Allegation or staff suspected wrongdoing: (Do not state the alleger's name in this cection - simply refer to the individual as the alleger) _
When taking the allegation, ask questions such as gy WMY MO y g g y 12 C n ada c)O V WHAT IS THE ALLEGATION 7 poca.ao ok %k MS N>
ou h8#
WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENTNIOLATION7 WHERE IS IT LOCATED? i i
}q96 g M %g cQ %uSa.) g M W *
)MtiQ IS INVOLVEDMITNESSED7 HOWMHY DID IT OCCUR 7 WHAT EVIDENCE CAN BE EXAMINED 7
)gM&IIS THE STATUS OF THE LICENSEE'S ACTIONS 7 How did the alleger.found out about the concern (s); other irdviduals NRC should contact for additionalinformation; records NRC should review; whether the alleger raised the concems with his or her management; alleger's preference for method and time of contact 4.... 4% a 0A rM t . \ d e1 L h t e^ usceni b b MM A * $
w -
o M y C + _' wk bIwg debak. Y& 'M L % % {Sg
-b,. im c. O e * - _1.4 /- -h oe iz/z. GL.... O A tcum,.-hao+ fbe# W
-a h 'kA' (' d A k (Bd h DCW n k d_ A214 h u h I d i d LO M
- s. 1
- ' Os.yIt 4 ny e i D er C ,0 /"en W M ay d h , b b b, ucod R eN,
.6 j ho RkM#t _k k L -
W i e n S h T'r % PVT 5Chr obw whi m u%a A oaev aAo . u seh ;
I A.[1 $ 2N%h0 D f~ _ _ # ^ a- M c. k.A.A 5 .
1lo cdse SW y,y ,
Q .. k X$ Dads %& h a. .
ueg Q m
\ r d b n.r- v s a W u.aco v9 C% l M
Od M dtk b - b dS O Mow d h
% 'avei b, h~ 3;e o L um a Ac 0 A o-4Lsc>c+ sk.h 'l M O L3Si& C H VO $ Q1 YOf S W ~ nth ^' M W
- MSW . _ . _ ___ _ ,_ _ ._. _
- . - - =. . ..
.. M it %
Date Received: *i Sk .20 4 7 i [
Employee Receiving Allegation or suspecting wrongdoing (first two initials and last name): ,
AIIeger Name: *C *
/
Home Address: &
Home Phone: 1 City / State / Zip:
- Alleger's Employer:
- Alleger's Position /
Title:
Facility: $ncaoc ha roext Docket or Mtis. Ucense No.:
Was alleger informed of NRC identity protection policy? Yes X. No _
If H&l was alleged, was alleger informed of DOL rights? Yes _ No _ N/AX.
If a licensee employee or contractor, did they raise the issue to their management? Yes f No C N/AX Does the alleger object to referral of issues to the licensee? Yes k Mo _
Provide alleger's direct response to this question verbatim on the line below:
Was confidentiality requested? YesX No _ - --
Was confidentiality initially granted? Yes _ No _ N/A _
individual Granting Confidentiality:
Criteria for determining whether the issue is an allegation: ,
is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy? Yes / No is the impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities? Yes / No is the validity of the issue unknown? Yes / No if No to any of the above questions, the issue is not an allegation and should be handled by other appropriate methods (e.g. as a request for information or an OSHA referral).
Allagation Summary or staff suspected wrongdoing: (Recipient of the allegation shall summarize each concern here - provide additional detail on reverse side of form, if necessary) er' N alhco. n U h 4re) % n M 2'tha k3Q C. al ndArHoua R g
Us4cmuo cd 3o sa o e h v Aou_ n 0 % um_u ee4 -kadect..
'TLt i m4ameoa T uocslo.arl: rn h r es r.cmoceas
- c 0.euvmMJ 9
hh Of. ~2 2 7. M A \coum -4 ud- ( h3 c.w_fi * @ Cdro \ R 0ch .
re-J h -wa- a,cA m s-J & 6 % crou2 o J Number of Concerns:
Type of Regulated Activity: Reactor (d) _ Safeguards (a)[
(b) _ Vendor (e) __ Other:
(et _ Materials (Specify)
Functional Area (s): redness
-a _ . , N. . . - ....t ,
- Do 09.1 complete these sections for issues of staff suspectedTrongdoing, was O
. -- . . . . .-~- ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i~ =?j!Nh8 , $y' 2
- 0b; , Paga e of 7_
l .,D h9 . . a ., 3, nk;ND 8
Detailed Description of Allegation or staff suspected wrongdoing: (Do not state the alleger's name in this section - aimply refer to the individual as the alleger)
When taking the allegation, ask questions such as >
l l EtjaIIS THE ALLEGATION?
l EtjaIIS THE REQUIREMENTNIOLATION? . ;
EHEBE IS IT LOCATED? !
EljD.lS INVOLVED / WITNESSED? -
WHAT EVIDENCE CAN BE EXAMINED?
Etj&IIS THE STATUS OF THE UCENSEE'S ACTIONS?
How did the alleger found out about the concern (s); other individuals NRC should contact for additional information; records NRC should review; whether the alleger raised the concerns with his ;
or her management; alleger's preference for method and time of contact !
a_ sh. &4I, 2 w
1 Nnb 14n also sk+sA M i1 9
'? 9 t L o.co.e4Acc1 i
.-l GLd- M Ehe mf Co8J2/uvw.tJt &4 % @, lor ou v ,
i
' F n, M m b b u.3u wob4ecA .-h.tm 4bw uc>cLa 0- !
O i (Mis re 902 as^.Mou b% Uiz.c. tuz.eAum Cu > k' ' " ' ' "
V
$-aa= 'NhJ2^ n 0 ^ m 1 o a l-s b J ou tv-d- ble 1 rQax90rH u ecl.
f i bs2ccIOIed
. m
'o i k% d o ChRIsr ,. O P s g
s e.v'i s o f *,
10 OcLwcacA s, PA Sooo4vism : % 1Has h k.i, h: K'e Sa.A */
- h. Nrv7.iosM M kU2A er M o ^ 8 bb L)32A E. 13cb N4 OAnd v rtad G.mcl (lie 3 m4 rin Oxu'-fM y 00 uh .RASur,_A.M %
lei L1 h QAAMor i
v M 901. ' TL, ol.f s ca.c i
s eE4ecJ %4 k is
-@i3\ocag M tbs ULo now hv./12 h '1 t. b CLs b D
%M iufc se MethoO 1v kis t S ocAxi uct 3 hbdecMoD i}
D4LhAamQlDQ)
. . - . i j l2iS HiDQl10JL). -
ggg
_t s.; g v; l'.
I by ,' 5' 'h ** r ,'f. .,' * - *. = ~.h . ' *
~~;
7:p 7.g,.cr.o., m . ..
. f, ; p % _;.l f 31. -t f h;.
k;N ' > .Q, Tsl: . ;f
~
- 4- *
- 9.7.r:; q ~~ j-
..- - . w. . . . ..
YQU WESE CAufD BY- . +T, YOU WEREVMTED
- ' .r% %g...ig Hn:. .,: y yf.'
. c. .4
., ). .n, , , ,:.4.?:b ,",{5, .u N -
. , OF 4
' ~ ~ . . q 7 3.-
a? , , . . . ,
. , s , . ,,:. ;; .w -4.F asessemyt . g';
a
QR;$SA (44fR. l$i"ljh'{t ? i.l*' .
? , ,
.M N', ,,-,..,wA'Lr
~}, ,: ,T . Q
... - a.4 -
. ,,, ,.,-.j... -
m
. W ...
- N .'
& ' '. } '
)
/ affp+ . .y% . . ).$ &%5p",1 yc- vi nt
.. ~..
H,.n . ,
r .
V '-
- Wt
. .f .
i , g e n m./ ..a.
uncon m * -
y.
I 1
g
_w - _ . _ . i.*a . . _ . a . m a-.
g _
%: c dfrF ~ --
kkf a d 2dzu: : ,
,o I . . .g k .
A .
n i MdA _.7 ~ T ~
~
.k_E wd' O.--e
, a# I dd aA/'m-bdt.a _ncl n Am a,nuQQ1M'__
(\-. '
. s *
)O E $ " ...
. . _ . - . CDnhd.anx d nev nAt adar,xd.. ..
2.nd_wikkd,au//1LQf yE) .
(%664,
+
M,_7padwasti,8{...
. ... . . . - - . &uC J
. . SP .#.EElk.>.ll'um'BD N- W Euluulu.= m Mh men. % ,
.. . _. _ . .. & 224_ .
At. _ _ _ . . .
~ ~
Dx2 /ccuahReia2k) &Mg kamyndho / M n d y/akw2W Q Rpod 3wMuwkwadnMa'A 7 cap &p,s eaauf,rd/>ru 4,rumayed anik gau & Azucf/
- n. f 4 q
'hws +cwuuux m ax) I s as -- y n aa,- a ,a f 2 '* Qltd; A124W6A Q faduta. was l &
- . . . , w eet / K a jgg du r.s b ) s N if csr4 d u A h p o & W "
4
- o kt;~s n , ?
- ew,
. . y.?.
2 A'b
....h bnbNddb
.. _ . . - muanaa es & .twM h 50MEhh h .
l .. 4di -
lkb_wIc40 ~.226 MriaNpedt65,N-am 5
~
u .
P'xAd
__Bdo,spo/ aewb M_ _ d_
emywensa usa *6* *e y eum w e67
~ ~ ~ ~ '
42? htsitje as np
.a
,s.Ay
%h dL n w^)/.f
..J
.?-. (
l b d '
fMy QQ unans. .
vg + ga % r.,
rf f, ,
s
'h ,
1 i
RI-97-A-0145 M.
SUBJECT:
CONCERNS YOU RAISED TO THE NRC REGARDING PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT'S (PP&L) SUSQUEHANNA FACILITY h
Dea The NRC Region I office has completed its follow up in response to the concerns you brought to our attention in your telephone conversation with Mr. Brad Fewell, Regional i Counsel, on June 20,1997. Specifically, you indicated that (1) there were alarm tests (i.e., the ESS transfer alarm test, the OC 322 panel alarm test for radwaste, and the control room panel alarm test) that were not performed; and (2) if PP&L management asserted, during the NRC enforcement conference on March 21,1997, that the failures on ~ ~
the "E" diesel alarm test were isolated, they made a misrepresentation to the NRC becau'se PP&L management (i.e., Kevin Chambliss, Jon Edwards, Tom Markowski, Mike Peal, and G. Kuczynski) knew these other alarm tests were not being performed and did not do anything to ensure they would be performed.
This also refers to your telephone conversation with Mr. Brian McDermott, an NRC resident inspector at Susquehanna, on June 24,1997, in which you provided the other missed tests to the NRC; and your telephone conversation with Mr. D. Nelson, NRC Office of Enforcement, on October 3,1997, in which you indicated that in PP&L's letter dated April 9,1997, to the NRC, PP&L did not divulge other missed alarm tests (i.e., four ESS transformers, off-gas system for the radwaste control panel, and the Main Control Room annunciator alarm test).
In response to concern #1, you are correct in saying that there were additional alarm tests that were not performed in 1998. Interviews were conducted with non-licensed and licensed operators to assess the implementation of Operations Department procedure OI-AD-018, Operator Rounds. Based on these interviews, the inspectors determined that portions of procedure were routinely delayed, amended or missed during periods of high activity. The licensee made changes to the procedure to ensure that the procedure was clear and allowed shift supervision the flexibility to delay or amend the requirements for general equipment inspections in the subject procedure steps. The licensee's corrective actions were acceptable. We have documented the results of the inspection findings in inspection Report 50-387&388/97-07 dated October 30,1997. A copy of the relevant section of the report is enclosed.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
[
g Ib&lLA
, g n. w oe. ,
k h:
i e
%y ff
'& {
Fu to your concern regarding missed alarm tests, the resident inspectors au . the performance of control room, radwaste, and ESS transformer panel al'ar M ' .
~
Inconsistent. The licensee also, inspected the missed alarm panel issue and'd'" that the Unit 1 computer data did not reliably record operator performance of the ESS transformer alarm tests. The Unit 2 computer, however, did provide a reliable i record of at least two of the ESS transformer alarm tests. The licensee's corrective ,
actions and root cause were determined to be adequate, as was operator response to the l routine alarm panel test failure. In the last resident inspector report, the residentti reviewed !
the licensee's actions in response to a February 13,1997, local control panel alarm test failure. No violations of NRC requirements were identified. We have documented the results of the inspection findings in inspection Report 50-387&388/97-09 dated December 31,1997. A copy of the relevant section of the report is enclosed.
l In response to concern #2, you are correct in saying that the licensee was aware that not all alarm tests were being performed. However, we could not substantiate that PP&L senior management wa.s aware of this fact until after the predecisional enforcement conference on March 21,1997. The NRC was concemed that there was a widespread l problem that needed to be addressed and on June 12,1997, NRC management held a l
~
meeting with PP&L management to address weaknessos in PP&L's approa'ch to the s investigation of technical issues referred to them, and to the lack of comprehensive ,
assessment and corrective measures in response to those investigations. One outcome of l this meeting was that PP&L committed to conduct a safety culture assessment. We have documented the results of this management meeting in inspection Report 50-387&388/97-04 dated August 5,1997. A copy of the relevant section of the report is enclosed.
Thank you for informing us of your concerns. We feel that our actions in this matter have been responsive to those concerns. Should you have any additional questions, or if I can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me via the NRC Safety Hotline at 1-800-695-7403.
Sincerely, I
David J. Vito !
Senior Allegation Coordinator 1
Enclosures:
As stated i
m * . , ' **
,779 va + y,v ;.n w
. S: *
,. 2 ;a,
< N,+
cp%i
[;; .
, _s
- - w' ,f, QW;' , .-
sw j e r
- bec
- Allegation File No. RI-97-A 0145 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ALLEG\ UPDATE \97-0145.SU2 To receive e copy of thle f- _ __ _..-, Indoete in the ben: 'C' = Copy without ettechment/ enclosure *E' = Copy with ettechment/encioew. er = No copy OFFICE ORA / SAC l DRP/RPB4 l l NAME DVito\kdm CAnderson DATE 03/ /98 03/ /98 4
,k
- TQQ C -
.4 JP lD$ h.
- ge n:n
~ ~ ~^ ^ ~ ' ~ ~ ^
g cY;?W&k'Ni?.
. m4g-a 1-97-A-0145
SUBJECT:
CONCERNS YOU RAISED TO THE NRC REGARDING PENNSYLVANI,A I POWER & LIGHT'S (PP&L) SUSQUEHANNA FACILITY Dea 7 The NRC Region I office has completed its follow up in response to the concerns you brought to our attenti_on in your letter dated February 13,1997, to Mr. Martin Urban of Pennsylvania Power and Light (PP&L) with a copy addressed to Mr. Hubert J. Miller, NRC Region i Regional Administrator. In your letter you stated that (1) auditors had no regard for employee's well being in scheduling interviews at the end of a twelve hour shift; (2) auditors told you that your interview was for information only; (3) auditors' report was not accurate in stating it was unlikely that you tested the wrong panel; and (4) PP&L did no,t _,.
adequately investigate their findings. You also raised a concern regarding the quality of computer data used to determine the adequacy of nuclear plant operator (NPO) performance.
In our letter to you dated March 17,1997, we provided you with our assessment of your first three concerns and on June 20,1997, we provided you with a letter containing our results of your concern regarding the 'E" emergency diesel generator misalignment event.
In response to your remaining concerns regarding the quality of computer data to assess NPO performance and the adequacy of PP&L's findings, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's audit results and interviewed the auditors. PP&L determined that the Unit 1 computer data did not reliably record operator performance of the ESS transformer alarm tests. The Unit 2 computer, however, did provide a reliable record of at least two of the ESS transformer alarm tests. The' inspectors determined that the licensee's audit reports, corrective actions, and root cause evaluations were adequate, as was operator response to the routine alarm panel test failure. In the last resident inspector report, the residents reviewed the licensee's actions in response to a February 13,1997, local control panel alarm test failure. No violations of NRC requirements were identified. We have documented the results of the inspection findings in Inspection Report 50-387&388/97-09 dated December 31,1997. A copy of the relevant section of the report is enclosed.
CERTIFIED MAIL ftETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED P4)(MO
i ,,
- e.
- j
(
i I
Thank you for informing us of your concerns. We feel that our actions in this matter have
' been responsive to those concerns. Should you have any additional questions or if I can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me via the NRC Safety Hotline at !
1-800-695-7403. .
Sincerely, ;
1 i
4 David J. Vito Senior Allegation Coordinator
. 4-i .': 4
Enclosures:
As stated li:n,;; ; ' ' . ,,. :
EMVfitiL*dW;f en w pt,-- , ..
kffbYh m .
I"k 4 **%
l t
L gr,tj,w< - - - -
m;pr
-t p,4
(? ,, .: . .s
- t' .
3yp s .4 > -
$ky*.cl5.
s ;s . .
- 6. .
,e wf'? 0. . ,'?,.
.,4 A t -
@ hs .
e
_.; s s
J ..
l I
l l
n u segw \
.pa ' egt&4;n.g:p. y. w p-
-n e- . . . . mm ..f ,
- k. . ss -' g3 g,- r q ,g ,c,'} ,
4 , [,1gy,3_n ?v mgy;p . ,g l i .r '
++>
A 'g .
bcc: Allegation File RI-97-A-0145 i
l 1
l
: 1 a;. + +
- s a . : ; . .
- * =P f p q 6p ., * ,
..q"s29x2 !, y-l
$, . b.:p ..
x:. r: .
.m:
y..,
pr .< .+.:s+
d~
.+ g igs-vt, ,
,:, .;h(y w ,,
I
- ' Y$ ? .*c.
~
- i k%jf . .
i 4,4wnint .n
.w + g
. L.,,t
. . .r. , . ,
- b. e. i DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ALLEG\ UPDATE \97-0145.SU3 To seesive o sepy of thle document, ineaste in the box: "C* = Copy without attachment / enclosure *E' = Copy with ettschment/enosoeure *r = No copy OFFICE ORA / SAC l DRP/RPB4 l l NAME DVito\kdm CAnderson DATE 03/ /98 03/ /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Il
) $t IL
..., m - ....
,~ hh kI' s bhM$ .. , MM'
- a t. );,pto, ,
l-97-A-0145
SUBJECT:
CONCERNS YOU RAISED TO THE NRC REGARDI.NG PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT'S (PP&L) SUSQUEHANNA FACILITY h Dear The NRC Region I office has completed its follow up in response to the concerns you brought to our attention in your telephone conversation with Mr. Brad Fewell, Regional Counsel, on June 20,1997. Specifically, you indicated that (1) there were additional alarm tests that were not performed (other than those recently reviewed with regard to the 'E' emergency diesel generator and General Station Inspections (GSis)); and (2) PP&L management knew these tests (i.e., the ESS transfer alarm test, the OC 322 panel alarm test for radwaste, and the control room panel alarm test) were not being p,erformed, except by the afternoon shift.
This also refers to your telephone conversations with Mr. Brian McDermott, an NRC resident inspector at Susquehanna, on June 23,1997, July 17,1997, No'vember 5,1997, and December 5,1997; your telephone conversatiorts with Ms. K. Modes, of this office, on December 5,1997, January 5 and 15,1998; and your telephone conversation with Mr. C.
Anderson, Branch Chief, on January 5,1998, for status checks on your concerns and to inform the NRC that it is your belief that PP&L is using the NRC.
In response to concern #1, you are correct in saying that there were additional alarm tests that were not performed in 1996. Interviews were conducted with non-licensed and licensed operators to assess the implementation of Operations Department procedure OI-AD-016, Operator Rounds. Based on these interviews, the inspectors determined that portions of procedure were routinely delayed, amended or missed during periods of high activity. The licensee made changes to the procedure to ensure that the procedure was clear and allowed shift supervision the flexibility to delay or amend the requirements for
. general equipment inspections in the subject procedure steps. The licensee's corrective
, actions were acceptable. We have documented the results of the inspection findings in Inspection Report 50-387&388/97-07 dated October 30,1997. A copy of the relevant J. > "section of the report is enclosed.
a Ilh.Q lik"JERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT MAIL REQUESTED
~: .
--m aqhmus - * *
- w I
f
, .s-4 s iJ f
,f,[
wsg%W Kp M Q t' bi ,
v ., f Wh wu -
&W
Further, in response to your concern regarding missed alarm tests, the resident inspectors substantiated that the performance of control room, radwaste, and ESS transformer panel alarm tests were inconsistent. The licensee also, inspected the missed alarm panel issue and determined that the Unit 1 computer data did not reliably record operator performance of the ESS transformer alarm tests. The Unit 2 computer, however, did provide at reliable record of at least two of the ESS transformer alarm tests. The licensee's corrective actions and root cause were determined to be adequate, as was operator response to the routine alarm panel test failure. In the last resident inspector report, the residents reviewed the licensee's actions in response to a February 13,1997, local control panel alarm test failure. No violations of NRC requirements were identified. We have documented the results of the inspection findings in inspection Report 50-387&388/97-09 dated December 31,1997. A copy of the relevant section of the report is enclosed.
In response to concern #2, you are correct in saying that the licensee was aware that not all alarm. tests were being performed. However, we could not substentiate that PP&L
~ ~~iehloftd@eiiont Was aware of this fact until after the predecisional'e5forcement conference'on March 21,1997. The NRC was concerned that there was a widespread
, problem that needed to be addressed and on June 12,1997, NRC management held a ,
meetin0 With PP&L management to address weaknesses in PP&L's appros'c h to the '
-inOesti9stion of technical issues referred to them, and to the lack of comprehensive assessment and corrective measures in response to those investigations. One outcome of
. this mMting was that PP&L committed to conduct a safety culture assessment. We have
..doo'umented the results of this management meeting in inspection Report 50 38786388/97-04 dated August 5,1997. A copy of the relevant section of the report is s'nclosed.
Qp
@ank you for informing us of your concerns. We feel that our actions in this matter have beer) responsive to those concerns. Should you have any additional questions, or if I can s, fof,further assistance in this matter, please call me via the NRC Safety Hotline at M'
895-7403.
.c/T ' Sincerely, 2%[
.J 1h P David J. Vito N .[ Senior Allegation Coordinator
] .l:n '
J g(Q5nclosures: As stated ck) V
.?l Y W 4W g'r s .
p
. ~
. ., ...._e_ _ _ i:
.. 4 , . . . . ..
a i
bec: Allegation File RI-97-A-0145 l
i l
i 1
i l
I i
?
l l
1 i
1 r -
2,
,;.7, c ~ -
.?
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ALLEG\ UPDATE \97-0145. SUS To moshe e sepy of thle document, indeste in du box: "C* = Copy without ettschment/ enclosure *E' = Copy with attedunendenclosure *le = No copy OFFICE ORA / SAC l DRP/RPB4 l l NAME DVito\kdm CAnderson DATE 01/ /98 01/ /98 j OFFICIAL RECORD COPY o
. . _ , . . .