ML20034F710
Text
4'
.1 E.
Q.1 clo - A - OlO L 0
. [, u.%,'
04 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMi$$lON p
hj i
i nEoONI 478 ALLENDALE ROAD f
g q
KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19404 g
A9 2,I910 i
Docket No. 50-336 i
/
Dear This letter is to acknowledge receipt of technical concerns you have presided to the NRC involving the Millstone Nuclear Power l'
Station.
- .ese concerns have teen reviewed and assigned a priority for NHC follow-up actions and final disposition.
The status of issues received since December 14, 1999 is provided in.
Your concerns were screened for safety significance. Some concerns received high priority and immediate follow up. others were assigned for follow up curing routine NRC inspection or referred to the licensee.
Cor.cerns referred to the. licensee for
.[
disposition will be audited and evaluated by the NRC staff to ensure adequacy.
You will be notified of the final NRC action on the issucs after those concerns have been appropriately closed out.
Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
t I
i' Sincerely, f
g illiam J. Rays n s \\.
l Senior Residen Insp tor Millstone Nuclear Power Station
Reference:
File No. A.37.01, A.44.01.02, A.45.01.02, A.46.01, A.47.01, A.48.01, A.49.01, A.50.1
.4, A.51.01, A.52.1.4 Enclosure Status of Millstone 2 Allegations
/
bec: Allegation fil l
W. Raymond D. Haverkamp trJormation in this reccrd was dicted in accordance wdh th fredom 0!!2rmation 9303040174 921105
~
Act, cr.em "XS _ Y_7 C PDR FOIA prp'. - ~' 2.-~ ~ ~
/IL i
i
\\
HUBBARD92-162 PDR
+
e e
DATE OF ALLEGATIONS PRESENT STATUS RECEIPT 12/14/89 Harassment and Intimidation Open Complaint 03/23/90 (1) Licensee inability to (1) LER 90-002; implement required alternate Documented in IR monitoring capabilities for 50-336/90-11.
RM B123 A/B; (2) Super-(2) Open vision told a co worker to limit procedure changes.
04/02/90 (1) Calibration deficiency (1) Closed; Documented for RM-6038; (2) Performance IR 50-336/90-06 appraisal evaluation with closecut letter.
discussions considered as (2) Open narassment and 2ntimidation.
04/19/90 Procedure change for the Open steam jet air ejector
,q radiation monitor.
04/19/90 Calibration SP 2404An Open source traceability.
06/05/90 Potential configuration Open control for pressurizer Q Cgh._ g
( Q g spray valve 2-RC-100F, 06/11/90 (1) Loop diagram deficiency Closed; Documented wide range nuclear instru-in IR 50-336/90-11.
mentation; (2) Operability question for nuclear instrumentation; (3)
Appropriateness of non-intent change to Thermal Margin Low Pressure function test; (4)
Adequacy of detector plateau voltage.
06/1B/90 (1) Non-intent vs. Intent Open procedure change; (2) Inade-quate time allotted for procedure review; (3) Legal Activities Constitute Harassment; (4) Potential radiation hazards during containment monitor trouble-shooting.
i t
t t
06/22/90 (1) Monthly functional Open surveillance not verifying control element assembly withdrawal proh2 bit; (2)
)
Potential discriminat2cn for recent New London Day Newspaper Article; (3) o Inaccurate loop d2agrams Y V V
for boronometer; (4) 1 Radiological consequence of May 15 Atmospheric Dump overflow on turbine roof.
06/27/90 Gaseous Radiation nonitor Open Procedure Inadequacies.
t
[
}
ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLAINTS - GENERAL RI 1210.1/iO 7*
l t
t
-i APPENDIX 3.1 a
ALLEGATION RECEIPT REPORT l
RI A -OJ'06 i
i Date/ Time Received: Stv l 1990 [7:06p4 Allegation No. l4 47.os)
(leave blank)
P
- Nameg, Address:.t r
p Phone:;
City / State / Zip {
Confidentiality:
1 Was it requested?
Yes No e Was it initially granted?
Yes No Was it finally granted by the allegation panel Yes No Does a confidentiality agreement need to be sent j
to alleger?
Yes No -
Has a confidentiality agreement been signed?
Yes No l
Memo documenting why it was granted is attached?
Yes No
/
)
f Alleger's Employer: U0dP46f 1tkl65 Position /
Title:
1 i
Facility:
hi s-t)tif2.
Docket No.:
60-336 i
(Allegation Summary (brief description of concern (s): he d Nd Cb FC In O.
i Number of Concerns:
.3 Employee Receiving Allegation: l4I. T.
y M0n (first two fnitials and last name) i Type of Regulated Activity (a) _/ Reactor (d) _ Safeguards (b) _ Vendor (e) _ Other:
(c) _ Materials (Specify)
I Materials License No. (if applicable):
Functional Area (s):
da) Operations (e) Emergency Preparedness (b) Construction (f) Onsite Health and Safety (c) Safeguards (g) Offsite Health and Safety (d) Transportation (h) Other:
}
l
[
(NRC Region I Form 207 Information o uu secu.: t o c:>e.ea Revised 10/89) in accc: dance viith the RcMom o! tr.'ormation A3.1-1 ct, enmplicr.s _If_2 9 h
A rm _f&rl
- l
p I
RECEIPT OF CONCERN I
Thu,Apr 19,1990 ALLEGATION NO.: R I - A - 9 0 ___ -
7.05 P11 Resident Of fice No.: ry I
Neme.
Address:
Phone {
City / St::
[
1 Confidentiality:
Was it requested?
Yes No. 1 j
Was it initially granted?
Yes - No Wes it finally granted by the ellegation panel?
Yes No Does a confidentiality agreement need to be sent to the elleger?
Yes No l
Has e confidentiality agreement been signed?
Yes No l
Employer:
NNECO Position /
Title:
l&C Technicien l
Fecility: filLLSTONE 2 DOCKET NO.; 50-336 SUtit1ARY: When checking out celibration sources today to perform celibration SP 2404A!1 on the containment particulate monitor (Rl18123),
lnoted the usual Es-137 celibration sources ("3 &"5) were no longer eveIleble. He was informed by Chemistry personnel thct the old sources were replaced by new onds that now have traceability to the NIST (formerly the NBS).
concern is whether all the celibrations _
perf ormed for years before now with the old sources are validJ elso questioned me whether o PIR, NCR or LER should be written.
stated that this issue was discussed dunng the Durr visit end Nu knew then t
that NIST traceable sources hed to be procured. He stated this was another exemple where NU did not correct e problem when it was identified.
nut 1BER OF CONCERNS: ___1___
El1PLOYEE RECEIVING ALLEGAT10N: WILLI Af1 J. RAYl10ND ACTIVITY:
Y REACTOR FUNCTIONAL. AREA: (e) _X_0perations (f) _0nsite H&S Time Required to Process Request:
4 lien-Hours
\\
l r
ADDITIONAL INFOPl1ATl0N
@ C%[+ "
A. I told [
bl did not did not have the answer to his question l
without doing further research. I stated, however, if the licensee used thebo HP Calibretion Lab to measure the source strength with instruments deg,'
traceable to the NIST, then that alternative method would provide en A.
eccepteble level of OA on the celibration technique [
icould not l
address whether NU had such a practice.11g review of inspection reports
)
thet covered the licensee's radiction momtor program did not identify 1
l anything definite that addressed the issue. I did note that Bob Loesch mentioned in the Durr report (IR 89-13, item A 6.2 & A.8.2 - page 9) NU use i
of the HP lab to provide traceability of calibration sources I did not pursue j
l this question with licensee personnel. Further inspection would be required
)
i to eddress the issue.
B On the question of reportability en-i procedures to file,I told'
[
he should address that question to the licensee since it was NU's responsibility to correct end report deficiencies. '
[fsteted he
~
I mentioned the new sources to his
,lPete Smith, on Tuesdag. When i esked what the supervisor's response was,'
steted he received no response, and he has no idea whether actions to address the question ere in progress or not. Itold[
lhe should reeddress the question with 11r. Smith, and if there was e question whether t
the matter was being approprietely hendled, then he should discuss the issue with the depertment supervisor, John Becker.
s Tdisagreed and stated he fulfilled his responsibility af ter having told his supervisor of the problem and then informing the NRC so that we could " turn the metter over to the NSC program or do whatever we did with his issues" When ! re-emphasized his need to address his concerns or
~
reservations with the deperiment supervisor,
]become argumentative. I terminated the discussion ef ter requesting whether he had any further information the he wished the NRC to consider.
-__