ML19325F276
| ML19325F276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1989 |
| From: | Wenzinger E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Delcore J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19324D522 | List: |
| References | |
| RI-87-A-0113, RI-87-A-113, NUDOCS 8911200061 | |
| Download: ML19325F276 (2) | |
Text
Gs J;
.,t d.poy b
OMTED STATES
- d.
f%
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i g.( )d y
REGION I 475 ALLENDALE ROAD l
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406
.g
....+
Rl-87-A-Oll3 50-336 l
l Mr. John Deloore 244 Saint Johns Street l
New Haven, CT 06511
Dear Mr. Deloore:
' mis letter respermis to your statement to the NRC at East Lyme, Cuust.icut, on June 13, 1989, and to your June 27, 1989 telephone call to the NRC senior resident r at Millstone. A copy of the transcript of your statsnant and the 16, 1987 NRC letter to you (signed by my subordinate, Ebe C.
McCabe, Jr.) are enclosed for reference.
l
'Ihe enclosed transcript has been reviewed by me and other NRC managers on a regional NRC Allegation Panel. Our review noted that your genkral ccocarn i
about non-nuclear activities not being cud.wlled by the nuclear tagout l
procedure remains.
t l
We also noted that the transcript of your June 13, 1989 statanant alleges that
...if they (tagging the ocer*wr 16, 1987 letter frun the NRC stated: "
procedures) were not being followed in a non-nuclear capacity, that wauld carry l
l over into the nuclear capacity." We differ on this point. Our October 16, L
1987 letter (Enclosure 2) did not make such a statement.
1 l
1 our regulatory position is that non-nuclear activities nust not adversely inpact nuclear activities, but nuclear grade prrw'achim need not be used to achieve that. If nae==ary, we can require nuclear grade controls over related non-nuclear areas. In the case you identified, NRC follow-up found no unsafe e
condition and no carryover into the nuclear area.
We do agree with you that orming similar activities under different pws:dures can potentiall have an adverse inpact on following prev,achives,
+
including safety-related procedures. We do not agree that parmaanvily happens unless nuclear grade controls are generally applied to non-nuclear activities.
Issser controls are acce le in most non-nuclear cases. If a carryover into nuclear safety is specif call indicated for an activity which is not covered by the licensee's nuclear ity assurance p%taru, an evaluation is made, appropriate controls are established, and related procedures are upgraded.
As our October 16, 1987 letter to you stated, we have continued to monitor activities involving nuclear safety, including electrical tagging. overall, we e
have fourd the licensee's control of these activities to be acceptable, our %2mions with the licensee have provided information that, after the non-nuclear electrical tagout occurrence you described, the licensee decided to t p additional control over non-nuclear tagouts. After considering a 8911200061 891102 PDR ADOCK 05000336 P
PDC e
p nm i
2 JUL 111989 j
i s'
l non-rwlear tagout guidare, the licenses to use the nuclear tagout h 3ure throut ant the site. This was choice and not a requizument by the NRC.-
We acknowledge your June 27, 1989 tel request for further follow-up of your previous allegations. We also a ledge reasipt of your telephone statement that NRC follow-up of your igut in 1988 was ineffective in i
preventing what you stated to ba the present problem of gMares not beinJ followed generally at Millstone Station, as h wn=rited in allegations by Messrs. D. Del Core, G. Johnson, and T. O'Sullivan. Many different NRC inspectors have found and continue to find basically sound gc wtives ard coupliance with nuclear safety gc--tim at Millstone. NRC reviews of Millstone nuclear power plant performance have found a proper safety perspective and appropriate controls cwer activities affecting safety. We see no tracable linkage between your allegations and those of the other all you mentioned. R1rther, no significant safety im da? M has been i fled in NRC follow-up of your allegations.
Our evaluation of the transcript of your statement and of our telephone record of your June 27, 1989 call concluded that they contain insufficient identification of safety specifics to warrant additional NRC follow-up.
If you have specific details of any uncorrected safety ir*uw tes or of fallures to control nuclear safety in accordance with the established program,il, within 30 we would appreciate your sukunitting them to this office in writing, in deta days, for our consideration. Otherwise, we plan to close your allegations as unsubstantiated, with no further NRC follow-up.
I hope that the above information resolves your concerns to your satisfaction.
Thank you for this vwurtunity to address your concerns.
S s
L l
/
l
. C.
Projects Division of r
ject
Enclosures:
(1) Transcript of June 13, 1989 John Delcore Statement to NRC l
(2) Copy of October 16, 1987 NRC lettr to Mr. John Deloore l
l l-1 I
I
,... _. _ _ _ _ _ _,,~. _.
.. _.