ML20202G590

Forwards Info Re Diagnostic Plant Control Operator (Pco) Interest in Radiological Waste Control Room Panel Test Computer Point

ML20202G590
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	01/11/1998
From:	Jenison K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Anderson C, Vito D NRC
Shared Package
ML20202F480	List: ML20202F476 ML20202F550 ML20202F581 ML20202F610 ML20202F634 ML20202F668 ML20202F675 ML20202F692 ML20202F719 ML20202G410 ML20202G487 ML20202G501 ML20202G517 ML20202G590 ML20202G608 ML20202G629 ML20202G641 ML20202G673 ML20202G695 ML20202G712 ML20202G743 ML20202G796 ML20202G801 ML20202G809 ML20202G829 ML20202G857 ML20202G873 ML20202G894 ML20202G914 ML20202H061 ML20202H067 ML20202H073 ML20202H078 ML20202H133 ML20202H162 ML20202H172 ML20202H180 ML20202H194 ML20202H200 ML20202H245 ML20202H262 ML20202H305 ML20202H341 ML20202H365 PLA-4851, Provides Info That Was Requested by Cj Anderson on 980213 Re Former Util Employee Concern on Radwaste Control Room Offgas Panel Alarm Testing PLA-4852, Forwards non-redacted Version of Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditing Rept 739459-2-98,dated 980210.Informs That Document Contains Info to Be Withheld IAW 10CFR2.790 PLA-4854, Provides Summary of Investigations That PP&L Performed in Response to Concerns Identified by Former Nuclear Plant Operator.Summary Requested by Cj Anderson on 980213 PLA-4865, Forwards Listed non-redacted Pp&L,Inc Corporate Auditing Repts.Informs That Document Contains Info to Be Withheld IAW 10CFR2.790
References
FOIA-99-36 NUDOCS 9902050223
Download: ML20202G590 (2)

Text

. . . . .

• . N b

January 11,1998 From: K. Jenison, Senior Resident inspector, Susquchanna Steam Electric Station 1

(SSES), Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), Branch 4, Region I (RI)

{

To: C. Anderson, Chief, DRP, Branch 4 D. Vito, Senior Allegation Coordinator '

Subject:

Diagnostic Plant Control Operator (PCO) Interest in a Radiological Waste l Control Room Panel Test Computer Point On January 9, I became aware of a PCO activity involved in a radiological waste control  !

room panel test computer point. The operators took advantage of an opportunity to ~

coordinate the testing of a particular panel with other existing plant conditions to diagnose whether or not a particular computer point would alarm. I became aware of the diagnostic activity through observation and a discussion between the resident inspector and a plant control operator (PCO). Each of the individual functions involved were certainly within the qualifications and training of the involved PCOs. I determined: what the specific alarms, l test and computer point were; that for this specific instance that there was no initial safety  ;

significance; that a need to question the programmatic or long term significance of the I issue with the Unit Supervisor (US) and shift supervisor (SS). My question was related to l the level cf knowledge that the US and SS should have of such opportunities taken to I perform diagnostic activities.

The US and SS each stated that they were not aware of the specific activity, but had no l specific concerns with this coordinated activity. The US and SS each stated that at a i minimum they should have known about the coordinated diagnostic activities. l l

At approximately 1500, I spoke to Mr. Chambliss (Operations Superintendent) and stated that I was interested in the generic nature of the question and was convinced that there I was no safety consequence in specific. He stated that he would pursue the issue j generically, not specifically, and provide a PP&L perspective to the question. l At approximately 1645, I was phoned in my office by Mr. Markowski who requested to come to my office to talk about the issue. He stated that Mr. Kleinfelter had demanded to come with him (note: Mr. Kleinfelter was one of the PCOs involved in the coordinated diagnostic activity). Over the course of several hours the three of us discussed the issue.

We came to the following conclusions:

1. I was not concerned from a safety perspective about the specific activity.

2. I was interested in the PP&L perspective related to the command, control, i and knowledge level of the US and SS. Mr. Markowski committed to return 9902050223 990129 M-hENE 9-36 ,

more w

0 e

and discuss this issue.

3. I had requested no actions from the licensee concerning the specific issue and was nperating under the assumption that the licensee was pursuing the issue on t generic basis only.

4. Neither Mr. Markowski nor Mr. Kleinfelter expressed a concern or allegation to me and there were no requests for me to followup on any particular activity.

I

5. If there was a piece of data that a hcensed operator needs to perform his/her l function, there should be a company process to facilitate that need (ie condition report, work authorization, employee concern, etc) without having  !

to resort to informal diagnostic activities. l At approximately 2100, I was called in rny office, by Mr. Chambliss, who stated that he had changed his mind after hour 1500 discussion and had pursued the specific issue. I 1 stated that I was aware that he had changed his mind, based on the interaction with Mr. )

Kleinfelter and Mr. Markowski. __,

)

I At approximately 2115, I phoned Mr. Anderson and communicated this issue to him. We s agreed that i should return over the weekend to observe operator activities to ensure ourselves that there were no outstanding problems. I observed operator activities on j January 11,1998 and observed no problems. It is my conclusion that there were no l allegations or specific safety issues involved in this interaction. A copy of this memo was forwarded to Mr. Vito, by email. This issue is being forwarded to Mr. vito to include as background material for the SSES radwaste panel test issue Rl-A which was a l "nonrefered" concern being reviewed by the PP&L corporate auditors. I

,