ML20236S598

Partially Deleted Memo Re Telcon Request for Addl Info Concerning DW Schaefer 840323 Memo Concerning Radiation Protection Training of Security Guards

ML20236S598
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/26/1984
From:	Schuster M NRC
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20236S530	List: ML20236S529 ML20236S552 ML20236S566 ML20236S574 ML20236S583 ML20236S598 ML20236S606 ML20236S610 ML20236S628
References
FOIA-84-743 NUDOCS 8711250274
Download: ML20236S598 (2)

Text

_ - _ - _ _ _ - - - _ - - -

g s# c ('

f'l

.6 MEMORANDUM FOR: FILE I

g FRON: M. D. Schuster, Chief Security Licensing and Erergency Preparedness Section

SUBJECT:

FOLLOWVP ON D. W. SCHAEFER's MEMO OF 3/23/84 -

~

o y lied for additional Q. What is meant by a "significant number" as applied to those who have not recetved sufficient radiation protection training?

A. Orginally%was told last thursday by a security officer on the night shift thai most on that shift had not recieved training within the last year. Later conversations reflect the number to be approximately 6.

(night shift could be 50-60 persons)

Q.

What to security is meant by " hot area" as applied to security officers responding alarms?

A. Aux Bldg and Vital areas.

Q.

How much H. P. training do you feel should be given?

A.

( The program is sufficient in most cases, however the last training I know about was over one and one-half years ago. In the case of the GC guards on the Unit I side. There are approximatelyH.P.

(General Construction) they recieve no training yet they are working 25 G.C. guards that are cleared recieved any to work on the Unit I side and work in " Hot areas" who have not H. P. training.

Q.

What is meant by " borderline hot areas

• as applied to security officers?

A.

Inside a vital area, cable spreading area.

Q. Who and when have these concerns been reported to?

A.

Reported to Jim Pitts District. Manager. last week. Have not repo.rted to PG8E because this would be a contract violation.

Q. What is your capacity with the union?

A. Paid worker as the In summary, it appears ttet there are two camcerns: one,regdar security -

officers that have not training within a one year period and; two, G.C.

guards who have not had tratning and may wort in and around a hot area.

, information in this record was de.'els

(* in acccrdance with t 3 Act, exemptionsv !.he 7CFreedorn pf in!=.:

2 A F0lA-

'l - 7 '/)

PDR .

vQ I

+

y __

2 f I asked if Mwould be willing to talk to a NRC inspector to furnish addit on dates etc., and%a' information, e.g., names of persons lacking training, j

On 3/26/84, . lim Pitts, Security Mana er, SLO, to confirm that had in fact re te concerns. Pitts stated that he had recei d a phone call from Thursday night (3/22/84) in reference to the above. On Friday morning discussed the concerns with Lt Fu11 bright

' (senior Pinkerton officer on site) who after a records check, stated that all the required H. P. training had been conducted.

Pitts was also asked if this included the approx. 25 G.C. guards who may ,

be working on the unit I side, and he was not sure, but stated their records l checks were continuing.

Pitts also stated that the licensee had been informed.(John Hubble)

With respect to Mnot reportingMconcerns to PG&E, Pitts stated it is Pinkerton policy that all guards / security officers are to report safety concerns to the licensee and to Pinkerton. There have been some problems in the area of reporting so-called safety problems in the past, in most of the problem areas have been contract related and not safety problems. This may need additional clairfication by Pinkerton.

Confirmed with the iicensee, John Hubble and Ron Todaro that they had been informed. Their records checks reveal that all security officers have been trained execept for one, who returns to work today. He will be in training k tomorr.7w. In a further discussion with Todaro it sur faced that most of the problem / concern may come from the fact that G.C. guards working on the Unit 1 side have not and are not required to have the H.P. training that the pennanent staff has prior to criticality. There are no plans to use the G.C.

Guards after criticality, without additional training, apparently this is not understoo By copy of this meno to F. Wenslawski, and since E. Garcia is on site. I recommend that further inquiry be made of%nd the licensee in order to confirm the substance of this concern, e.Nr.

Q))Q v M. D. Schuster, Chief SLEP Section e .

4 a cc: PAS, l.RR, FW, DWS