ML20034F738

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Ltr Responding to 901009 Concern That Two Ton Hoist Rigging Practices Used for Unit 2 Polar Crane Mod Inside Containment Not Satisfactory.Based on NRC Insp, Region I Determined That Subj Concerns Substantiated
ML20034F738
Person / Time
Site: Millstone Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 02/27/1992
From: Wenzinger E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20034F671 List:
References
FOIA-92-162 NUDOCS 9303040213
Download: ML20034F738 (3)


Text

.

[p resg#*g UNITED ST ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5

t REGloN I a

o 475 ALLENDALE RDAD KING oF PRUSstA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406 1415 FEB 2 71992 I am responding to the concerns that you provided to us on October 9,1990, asserting that the two ton hoist rigging practices used for the Millstone Unit 2 polar crane modification inside containment during the refueling outage were not satisfactory.

We have inspected these concerns; a report with the results of that inspection is attached for your information. Based on our inspection we have determined that your concerns were substantiated. Northeast Utilities (NU) took prompt action to correct the problems noted and the resident inspectors have noted no similar concerns during their routine monitoring of site l

activities. Therefore, no further action is planned by the NRC in these matters, and we consider these concerns to be resolved.

We appreciate you informing us of your concerns and feel that we have been responsive.

Should you have any additional questions regarding these matters, please call me collect at (215) 337-5225.

Sincerely, t

3

/

Edward

enringer, i

Reactor Projects Br-4 t

Attachment:

Excerpts from NRC Inspection Report 50-336/91-31 (Detail 17.5).

Information in this record r;as dMeted in a:ccrdance with the Freedom "1 in!crmatica Act, exemptions.._dN g 30 g 3 921105 00th ddf/d_2 i

\\

HUBBARD92-162 pyg

/Y%sk4 ALLEGATION RECEIPT REPORT i

(Of9 /qn

/2 M om Allegation No.

~#

e j

'/

/

(leave blank) q Name:

Address:

l Phone:

City / State / Zip:

Confidentiality.

)

Was it requested?

Yes No i

Was it initially granted?

Yes No Was it finally granted by the allegation panel Yes No Does a confidentiality agreement need to be sent to alleger?

Yes No l

Has a confidentiality agreement been signed?

Yes No l

Memo documenting why it was granted is attached?

Yes No l

b - /_cn bnt b r Position /

Title:

e (O dl-1 oubt i

t Facility:

M4/Cs 4 Docket No.:

G -3%

i l

(Allegation Summary (brief description of concern (s):

E abecheb i

l i

Number of Concerns:

b l

Employee Receiving Allegation:

b cc, red - 8 d (first twolinitials and 'ast name)

Type of Regulated Activity (a) _Meactor (d) _ Safeguards l

(b) _ Vendor (e) _ Other:

(c) _ Materials (Specify) l Materials License No. (if applicable):

Functional Area (s): __ga) Operations (e) Emergency Preparedness

~ (b) Construction (f) Onsite Health and Safety (c) Safeguards (g) Offsite Health and Safety 4

(d) Transportation (h) Other:

I (NRC Region I Form 207 3 Hon in Ws re: cts y;as dete:ed l

Revised 10/89) 83 accordame v;;th ! ehed g gm h g,

ACf. exer:pUa.is V~

a on i

TDM. Jg-j[J C gg\\

l

~

~-

\\

i

,,.,.__.m.

O SM 7

A at.t.tuAiIUN WECEIPT

~

Iw. Oct 9.1990 ALLEGATION NO.: RI-A-90...

12 26 PM Resident Office No :

Name-Address:

Phone Site page City / St-f

. kniidentialit4:

Was it requested?

Yes

!b.X Was it initially granted?

Yes,

No Was it finally granted by the ellegation panel?

Yes _ m Does a confidentiality agreerrent reed to be sent to the alleoer?

Yes No Hrs e confidentiality agreernent been sigred ?

Yes _ No _

Herno drutnenting why it ves granted is attached?

Yes _ No Ernployer.

Position / Title recility. Mill 5 TONE 2 DOCKET NO.; 50-336 5UNMARY:(1) Concerns with 2 ton hoist rigging practices used for MP2 polar c.rene modification inside containment: electric cables over crane cable:

interference between cable and guard rail: and, snerp bends on whip line when atteched to loed. (2) Excessive work hours for contractors - sold he hos worked 12 - 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> per deg seven dogs per week since the Outage began on 9/15, with only one dog off so far. Others are working sImilar hotsrs EECOMMENDATl0fg t

Turn over both issues to utility to oversee contractor activtt tas to assure hoist operations are per station policles and to assure contractors follow l

overtime guidelines on ACP 1.19. Recommend turnover as an inspector identified issue sirice alleger is concerned questions on rigging practices will result in disclosure of his identity as a concerned worker and cause him to be blacklisted.

e4g[k ""O 6 WJ I'QM "4 SO N Nob' (0

~

t s. anc usa..Q. %L ob b bf% *#1 g

L it. 4 g. W 4 k o w h t a - c-h% Nac..

Tn-ea - N,,+ %. a<y i cmers, wdu 'edeo % '-ipa,s t

du g W J.ca uM der m r.

vcakeco, vac,m; <<jmf ch A.g TLs W ah

.,s. bcb' f.

I