ML20035A900
| ML20035A900 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1991 |
| From: | Wenzinger E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035A875 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-162 NUDOCS 9303300190 | |
| Download: ML20035A900 (7) | |
Text
.
Eith.y(
UNITED STATES
- .p-
}
NUCtIAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N' y
y REoloN I a
- [
. 478 ALLENDALE ROAD
'l
, KING oF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 18400 k
MAY 0 31991 l
'T
~
)
V.
I)e^rL
' Itis letter refers to the following allegations that you provided to us; March 2,1991, alleging that I&C technicians were required to work execssive hours in support of the Unit 2 startup on February 17,1991,- that a technician was insufficiently trained on a surveillance.
~
procedure, and that you had received harassing, anonymous mcmorandums regarding your litigation with Northeast Utilities; and March 5,1991, alleging incomplete calibration procedures associated with the Foxboro 'sman' transmitters.
We have initiated action to have the Northeast Utilities staff review your technical concems and respond to us. We will inform you of their review findings. - Attached is a copy of the concems as we characterized them to Northeast Utilities.-
l With regard the harassing memorandums, the NRC has no regulations concerning harassment.
from co-workers. As you were advised on March 2,1991, by Bill Raymond of the NRC,.
~
you may take complaints of harassment to the Department of Labor for their review and followup. We understand, based on your conversation with Mr. Raymond, that you.
understand this process but do not' intend to file a claim in this case..We intend no funher
+
action in this matter.
Should you have any further questions, or if I can be of further assistance in these regards, please call me collect at (215) 337-5225.
Sincerely, p
/
Edward Wenzinger; C If
[
Reactor Projects B h
/
q 1
Enclosure:
As stated i
bec:with enclosure l
R. Fuhrmeister (2) RI-91-A-0046,0049 4
W. Raymond.
1 a-J. Stewart (2) in ac:orti.ce with th freedom c1intamation l
E. KellyL i
4 Ja N b W 300190 gggo4 DM _
= /4. k _.
\\,
l ENCLOSURE Issue 1; An Instrument and Controls technician (*) worked on RPS matrix testing and NI calibrations to support the Millstone 2 startup following a scram on February 16,1991. The surveillance procedure had undergone extensive changes recently and the technician was not adequately trained on the recent revisions to the procedure. Special assistance was re for the technician to understand and complete the prceedtre.
Please discuss the validity of the above assertion. Please discuss any corrective actions being taken to train technicians on revisions to prNedures prior to implementation.
(*) The identity of the individual may be obtained from the Senior Resident Inspector.
Issue 2; llours in excess of overtime limitations, were worked by Instrument and Controls technicians (*) in support of the Millstone 2 sta21up on February 17, 1991. One individual
(*) was "on<all* for plant suppon activities and was in the dual role of being "on-call" as an emergency respander. This technician worked a 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> shift on Millstone 3 on Febru and remained on duty for N hours keeping the pager until 0730 on February 17. This individual was overworked and could not perform his duties in suppen of the unit startup.
Please discuss the validity of the above assertions. Please discuss any actions taken to ensure overtime restrictions are not exceeded in cases such as that described above.
(*) The identities of the individuals involved may be obtained from the Senior Resident Inspector.
=_
Issue; Foxboro 'sman" or " intelligent
- transmitters were installed approximately on cycle ago to be utilized during the calibration of feedwater now transmitters
$269B and charging now transmitter FT-212. The use of these " smart" transmitf the controlling calibration procedures, IC-2426B for feed Gow and IC-2429A for chl Dow. The controlling modification work (PDCFJPDCR) did not address the need for' calibration procedure changes. In addition, training on the ' smart" transmitter wa
+
a Foxboro vendor representative presentation to the IC technicians.
Please discuss the va'idity of the abose assertions. Please discuss actions taken :
whether the above mentioned now transmitters have been properly calibrated subsequen the installation and use of the Foxboro 'sman" transmitters.
.i 4
l i
e i
a
(
I r
i j
ALLEGA110N kECEIPT R l - i l - A~ ~ # N Nar1.1991 ALLEGAT ION NC hMMYb 100 PM Resident Of fice No_ A.
e N';mt g A0 Cress Er.,:.ne {
city / StL t
(er.14r,ticlit y
- 3511 re]vestej!
YE!
!Jo_Y_
. 3 t truu n granted:
i +i.
?Jr. _
wai.1 fir,311v gr 3nted bv the allegattor, r,3nel?
Yes No DM-a e.nr.firentistity of eernent ne90 to De sent
'sthe allepp -
vec No
%? e cont uMt tality h.3rt.: mar t f.een pre @
.h fJe ___
ne oxurr,ent ng why at was grantM n attyte1?
Yes No ____
Ir i
i Err p:,4er N!4ECO Facility MILL 3 TONE 2 DOCKET NO. 50-336 id1 MARY < 1) Two 16,C technicians worked excessive overtirne on 2/16 -
!,' anr1 were in01; red to do work on Saf ety systems I2) a tecnDIClan was s
f 31 I"' NNE_CQ(
r Of aleQ: Ate' tramed on a Cf'iar,Ce 10 3 Callbratl00 Dr0Ce3UrG 4
On-ceii anc, Dager D0lley Causes.sorkerS to work excessir Overtime. <I 7 Identifled the paper IS3Ue bef ore and NRC f 21'ed to acren the LTODifm, t5) 10C1 dent Of haras: ment by deers and NU management %* f a' led
( Jccre.:: tr# problem - NU 15 not ghnna nim f eedte:L so0ut ac: e 4 on the r
t ris The worker was advised of his rights to fl!r a complair.1 wirr, D0i aD. ut :r e W.y1 h4rassment issue (itern 5) nut 1BER OF CONCERNS 5
Et1PLOYIE RECEIVING ALLEGATION WILLIN1 J RA(MOND Mi t Vii(
V REACTOR FUNCllCNAL ARE A (a) _L OperatICons itet neoulrec to Process 3 Man-Hours CC Gene Kelly inictrriba in this record vias deleted in a;ce ;'3ri3 w,t'a tha free niginforraation F01A MZNY
\\
Act,ca:Qi:0:s _
E ADDIT lutJAL itJORMAT ION e-Visite0 the Resloent Of fice today at about 1 On pm tosiay to present tne following intormat100 He 51aried Out Dy taying (n3t he had only 3 econo nand intormatton about overttrne and test 100 (Issues 1 - 2 Delow' i
itnce he,lef t the site a 4
(1) recounted the following story regarding the activities on 2/16 - 2/17, as related to him by Bill Dursham.
Bob Hansen worked a 10 bcur shif t on MP3 on 2/16, the day Mp2 scrammed Bob Hansen was called over to MP2 to help in the post-scram recovery efforts and participated in the surW1tlance testing for the MP2 c,tartup Bob Hansen worked all evening and Stayed on unt il the morning hours of 2/17, working 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Bob H8nsen worked on RPS matrix testing and NI calibrations for the MP2 startuP. Dunng this time, he approact ed another tecnnician - Bill Dursham - Ior reip in rerf orming the surveillante Bob Hansen got the help he needed and Corrpieted the work Daring that time, Bill Dur Dam noted Bob Hansen was overtirec This was reported to t&c.
mora-n m ca"Far an1 R n H Ancen fi,e -11^ vied to q^ h9me w!!!
D
, % A w 0 a u s 611ej in Io replace EOD Hansen Will Hayward was calloa m tor MPI support even though he also nac worked a 10 nour snitt or,MP3 Wili i
H3vw3rc *35 selected because re w e: "o est cerson cn 'ne OT ralluo 1:st.
ever-thougn ne is also high on the l151 of the amount of overtime worked allegations were that:
e IM techn1 Clans (Dursham, Hayward & Hansen) worked excessive overtime to suppcrt the MP 2 startup on 2/16 -
17, the requirements fcr OT control
. vere not followed Further)
-stated John Becter did not eo n 3
'c0 ef teeping supervisory oversight of Bob Hansen as reautred by procedure wber, Utrovihg overtime beyond the guicelines, in that Bill Dursham had to tell Becker Hansen was too tired and should be sent home
- Techntrian Hansen was too ttred to do the RPS/NI calibrations for tne MP2 startup i
i J
~
- 12) According 19
'.he surveillance procecure had undergone extensive changes recently, and Bob Hansen was not adeduately tralned on recent revisions to the Drocedure (3[
1 stated the above incident demonstrates the inadequacy of the NU policy for technicians on pager duty Excessive hours was worked by a technician who was "on-call ~ for plant support activilles. and being in the dual role of being "on-call' as the emergency resDonder Mr Hansen remained on duty and kept the pager until 7:30 a m on 2/17 at which time the duty was passed on to someone e'se q
14) stated trat the above problem regardthg technicians being On dual rele" was Dreviously reported and the NRC has !alled to address the protilem
+ 5 a f 0urtn aliegatien was his receipt in the mail of recent articles cr pied from the New London Dey newspaper marked with tne message 'V A-E A~ and
- Sava Your money - See a Shrink"[
lstated th15 was the tnirJ iuch incident and 15 another evanti,e et peer pressure recar ling N5 suit of NU ove,r harassment [
j stated he reported the !ncident to Pete Smith See the attached news artic!ef r-stated that NU management has cone noth:na about the ' peer
- r ;.
- .f r... : t cc nt s I askec wnethcc !4ha:. tr,cu1 rod ac:ut whM actioni
- r. ave been tak en I informed aDout an NU acticn that I was aware or lo addreis peer pressure,
aCAn0wledged his awareneis of a memo by Romberg on the subject. i_
ltated he nas not incuired and will not, since 11 is up to NU management to respond to him
_ stated that the NRL should ask NU management whv they have not responded to him iadvised
'of his need to f11e harassment compialnts to ine DOL
.acknowledoed that Drocess, declined a copy of the Drocedure for ilitrr; a corr plaint, and stated he wtil consult with his lawyer betore y,.y h,:w to proceed END OF ALLEGAIlON eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee f
w-
t' tianagement Reviett l
l a Ir,eSe IS5ues were digusSej Dy telecon with E WenZ10ger and D As directec. Pete. atagnorsi IUrned Over stem W to
]
i Haveramp on r'.aren :
tr.e 1:censte I 'sif Srnitn) at 115 0 ro Dr. 3 ' t /91 The !!censee was l
9avest+1 te review the work actisittei or the startup On 2/16 - 2/17 and l
f tc report to the resident stafI their iit,01regs regarding (1) trie BCCPDiaDility
{
.; ine 3ty *yp te3 ting completed by Fa!. Hanseri to support the p:3r: g.,
y, !
.l i.') tr.e use ano control of overtirne cur!rg inat perico The narries of the l
tectin!Cloni trivolved with the work activ:!y.was given to lir 5rnith j
Restcent f0ll0Wup Of this 155ue will al;0 tr.Clude h0W the licensee controls i
i overtime when work is CCne at another unit (i e via the IMF) i B 11Hn; D) through (5) will be dispositioned Dending review Dy the R 1 allegat)on parei
/
WINSTON & STRAWN
,a:m. e m n x a s.m.
.6 n A L. +.,." ' ',i t ;; f 150; 4t;, g r...
t * <
.A'.
9 -
.a, ~ c,, a u-
.r.
m
,.,y,
%E.*. Cs* se. tra.w se n n:w March 25, 1992 friEEDD!.! Of INf0RM;Tl0N Mr. Donnie H. Crinsley
. ACI REQUEST Director, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services 64-9d-/(,a Office of Adninistration ig'y 9 ',j',
g 2 U.S.
!;uclear Regulatcry Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
+
re:
Er_cedon of Inforration Act_Re_ guest t
Dear Mr. Grimsley:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of'Inferration i
Act (5 U.S.C.
S 552) and to the !Juelear Regulatory Cctrission's
(!;RC; policies and regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 9,
Subpart A),
I request all correspondence to and from the NRC regarding allegatiens with respect to !! ort heast Utilities' Millstene - and Connecticut Yankee (Haddan !;eck) nuclear power stations, to the
.i extent that such information is not confidential or ctherwise
^
exempt from public disclosure.
This request applies to all documents dated since our previcus FOIA request dated April 17, 1991 (FOIA 91-162).
I would appreciate your prompt response within ten (10) working days of the receipt of this request, as provided by 10 C.F.R. Part 9 and the !JRC's policies.
I agree to pay such fees as requi red under 10 C. F.R 5 9. 33 et sen. f or the search, re',iew, and provision of such rec <
N.
If you have any questions regarding this request, I can be ched at (202) 371-5876.
Sincerely, I
4,u /
laudia C G
1 Legal Assista
- t
9 ntcu f,.
UMTfD STATES e
y,(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-E REGloN I
- I o,
475 AttENDALE ROAD E
%'... + 'o 001 1 1 133I KING oF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVAMA 1 % 5 1415 Docket Number: 50-336 File Number: Rl-90-A-232 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ATrN:
Mr. John F. Opeka Executive Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations Group P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Opeka:
1 Thank you for informing us of the results of your review of the concerns documented in your letter A09351, dated April 26,1991. We find your responses acceptable and plan no further action at this time.
A copy of this letter as well as the referenced correspondence is being placed in the Public Document Rooms and sent to the State of Connecticut. We appreciate your cooperation in these matters.
Sincerely,
/
O}
/
,.u
'l Edward % nzinger, Chi f
~
Reactor..ojects Bran 4
Enclosures:
NU Letter A09351, Dated 4/20/91 cc W~ncl:
Pubhc Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
State of Connecticut i
I l
g
' *(p rety$8,j UNITED STATES.
~
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
REGION I
,/
478 ALLENDALE ROAD
- KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA IS4M 5E Docket No. 50-336 Mr. E. J. Mroczka.
Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Mroczka:
This correspondence refers to your letters A09351, A09352, A09353, and A09354, dated i
April 26,1991.
Thank you for providing us your reviews in the subject correspondence. We have reviewed your responses A09352, A09353, and A09354, and have no further questions in these l
matters. The issues addressed in these letters are considered closed.
We intend to review the issues described in your letter A09351 in a future inspection of your licensed facilities.
]
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
A copy of this letter and the subject correspondence is being placed in the Public Document Room.
i Sin ly, i
-1 Edward C. Y,'enzinger, Chi Projects Branch No. 4 i
. Division of Reactor Projects
)
cc w/ encl:
i Public Document Room (PDR) i i
local Public Document Room (LPDR) l State of Connecticut t
f f
Msw/w-i ic
)
1_"4 IGORTHEAST UTILITIES -
cenem Omem seen sucet. semn. conn.cucut 1
a n c w w.actac w P O. BOX 270 HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT D5141-o270
- 8 **"8* "* 88 *""
,,c,,,~u="*-
l g,a, m 333 g
v
- u..--
i l
5 April 26, 1991 i
Docket No. 50-336-l' A09351 i
l-L f
Mr. Charles V. Hehl, Director Division of Reactor Projects l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I l
475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
-i
Dear Mr. Hehl:
Millstone Nuclear Pover Station, Unit No. 2.
RI-90-A-232 1
l Ve have completed our-review of an allegation concerning activities-at-Millstone. Unit No.
2 (RI-90-A-232).
As requested in-your-transmittal-letter, our response does not contain any personal privacy, proprietary,'or.
safeguards information. The material; contained in this response may be-i released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room at your I
discretion.
The NRC letter and our response have received controlled and limited distribution on a "need-to-know" basis during the preparation of -
A h
this response.
Based upon our request on March 15,. 1991, Region I personnel extended the due date for this response to ~ April 26, 1991.
Additional time was requested to support the ongoing INPO evaluation and to for an Enforcement Conference held on : March 27, 1991 involving an-prepare ongoing allegation-related matter.
t Issue 1 potential confusion exists in the I&C Department concerning the biennial Areview of department procedures, specifically vith the requirements of a
.new I&C Department Instruction 3.02 which deals in part with-technical specification applicability.
An individual vas recently tasked -vith biennial review of IC 2417C, which was to be used in the replacement :of excore nuclear instrumentation.
During the-reviev,
- a. question arose concerning technical specification applicability. A memo to department i
supervision was' generated addressing the question to the I&C Department head.
4/l5N /65 i
{g\\ ;
'1 e
i
e r
5 Mr. Charles U. Hehl Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
)
A09351/Page 2 April 26, 1991 Has there been adequate training on the performance of biennial reviews so that the individuals tasked with this responsibility can properly fulfill' their responsibilities? Is the generation of a memo to the department head appropriate means of communication for questions dealing with the completion of biennial revievs? Please discuss.
I
-Background t
The subject of procedure reviev is addressed by Unit 2 I6C-Department.
Instruction 3.01.
This instruction provides the necessary department-specific procedure format and review process information.
i Department Instruction 3.02 addresses department forms and includes Form 3.02-3, which provides a checklist of items that are appropriate to l
reviev as part of the biennial review process. This checklist includes the requirement to check the satisfaction of the referenced technical ~
l specification.
During the review of the I&C procedure referenced, an employee. raised f
questions concerning his capability to perform the reviev vith the PMMS i
Planner.
(The planner coordinates the performance of the reviews.) During this discussion, the point of the employee asking for additional assistance A
l frem engineering personnel when performing a procedure reviev vss made.
memo was written from the planner to the department head to document and summarize the discussions held. No questions were raised by it.
i
Response
No specific training activities on biennial reviews have been conducted.
l I
Adequate procedural guidance exists in the department instruction and ACP to conduct the reviev vhen combined with the existing experience and knowledge level of the Unit 2 I&C - Department instrument specialists. All Unit 2 I6C specialists are involved in the procedure development.and maintenance process on a continuing basis'.
If they identify a question they cannot resolve at their level, they have the ability to request-additional assistance from other personnel.
This point was revieved betveen the employee and the PMMS Planner.
The memo from the planner to the department head was initiated to document what began as a conflict between the employee and the planner.
As subsequent discussions resolved the conflict on their ovn, the memo only l
served to document the discussions that took place.
The use of a written j
remo to document these events is appropriate under the circumstances, but is not necessary for routine resolution of questions arising during l
biennial reviews.
i Issue 2 Maintenance work was completed on a main feedvater pump coupling without l
appropriate tagout controls. This work vas accomplished during restoration l
from the recent outage.
The shift supervisors involved vere' (*).
A' decision was made not to remove the feed pump from service during the i
l coupling replacement.
l l
l i
Mr. Charles U. Hehl, Director I
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A09351/Page 3 April 26, 1991 Please discuss the validity of the above assertions. Please discuss if any 2
procedural noncompliances vere involved in the feed pump coupling replacement and if the tagout control was adequate. Please include any 1
generic deficiencies which may have been identified in your reviev.
The identify of (*) may be obtained from the Senior Resident Inspector.
t
Background
The "B" Steam Generator Feed Pump (SGFP) vas removed from service and adequately tagEed during pump coupling, following overspeed testing of the "B"
SGFP turbine on November 9, 1990.
After the overspeed test, the "B" SGFP vas retagged under Clearance #2-2744-90 to the AVO M2-88-02626 ("B" SGFP overhaul), which vas still active at the time and vas used to finish up other vork on the pump en November 9,1990.
1
Response
The maintenance supervisor verified that the pump vas tagged, but he apparently did not actually verity the tag clearance number against both of the AVos vritten for this vork. The maintenance supervisor did not realize that AVO M2-89-05948, which stated that the pump coupling was properly lubricated and coupled, vas never released by operations and never tagged.
A clearance was written by the Operations Department (2-1599-90) for this AVO.
This clearance was not used, and was canceled and subsequently destroyed. There is no further record of this documentation.
The work in question vas performed safely; however, the resurrection of complete and accurate documentation of this maintenance activity is not possible. The issue has been discussed with the maintenance supervisor and he has been counseled to properly verify that the specific activity being performed is covered under a specific tagging clearance.
After our review and evaluation, ve find that none of these issues taken either singularly or collectively present any indication of a compromise of nuclear safety. Ve appreciate the opportunity to respond and explain the basis for our actions.
Please contact my staff if there are any further questions on any of these matters.
flery truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY Mbs./
E. J.Tficzka
/
Senior Vice President l
i V. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos.1, 2, cc:
and 3 E. C. Venzinger, Chief, Projects Branch No. 4, Region I
?
i useus
~ g' UNnto sTAits -
y g-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i l ntGION I s
475 ALLENDAtt ROAD KING oF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19405141s -
. %.....,e*
Jul. 2 21991 t
~
1 Docket Nos. 50-336 File Numbers RI-91-A-0046, RI-91-0CM9
=l' Nonheast Nuclear Energy Company-ATTN:
Mr. E. J. Mroczka Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations Group 7
i P.O. Box 270 Hanford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Mroczka:
i Thank you for informing us of the results of your review of the concerns documented in your letters A09557 and A09558, dated July 1,1991. We fmd your responses acceptable and plan l
no further action at this time.
T A copy of this letter as well as the referenced correspondence is being placed in the Public '
Document Room. We appreciate your cooperanon m these matters.
- f i
Since-ly, s
hwar Wenzin r, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 4.
t i
Enclosures:
f
- 1. NU letter A09557, dated 7/1/91
- 2. NU letter A09558, dated 7/1/91
- t cc:
1 Public Document Room (PDR)'
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
State of Connecticut i
I t
l\\ N N
i
.. i
APPENDIX 4.0 SAMPLE RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS
, ; /n.
/
SITE:
V 4M' M "
PANEL ATTENDEES:
d- -- ;MfIld -
ik - A
' ' 'SO "[
Chairman A',LECATION NO.:
<b b/[/NL DATE: 5/
/
(Mtg. I 2 3 4 5)
Branch Chief - L
^
-. PRIORITY:
High Medium ({
.Section Chief {AOC) -
bky SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes No Unknown Others -
b
/8 a
CONCURRENCE TO CLOSEOUT: 00 BC SC CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes No (See Allegation Receipt Report)
IS THEIR A 00L FINDING:
Yes No IS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED:
Yes No HAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT:
Yes No HAS LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER:
Yes No ACTION:
l-
[ L %:-
im ay 3) c g)
'L'*w n;. ;
%.~ L 3)
. 4)
L..
A S) _
NOTES:
A4-1 4
\\
\\'
blNh k
,, b
/
'c, UNITEo STATES NUCl. EAR REGUL. ATOM COMMISSION 7
475 ALLeNoAle ROAD
- ee**
- KING OF PMUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406 l&R 21193{
Docket No. 50-423 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company A'ITN: Mr. E. J. Mroczka Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations P.O. Box 270 liartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 Gentlemen:
t
Subject:
NRC Region I Inspection No. 50-423/91-01 This letter transmits the NRC report of our routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. K.
Kolaczyk of this office on January 8 - February 25,1991, at Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 in Waterford, Connecticut, of activities authorized by NRC License No. NPF-49 and to the discussions of our findings by Mr. Kolaczyk with Mr. S. Scace and others of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
{
Areas examined during the inspection are described in the NRC Region I inspection report, which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of observation of activities, interviews with personnel, and document reviews.
Based upon the results of this inspection, one of your activities at Millstone Station appeared to be in violation of NRC requirements, as specified in the Notice of Violation enclosed herewith as Appendix A. We are concerned about the violation since personnel did not adhere to either written procedures or posted instructions regarding actions that are to be taken when a radiation monitor alarms. You are required to respond to this violation and should follow the instructions specified in Appendix A when preparing your response. In your response, you should docum After the specific actions trken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence.
reviewing the response to Appendix A, including your proposcd corrective actions and the resul of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether furti,er NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In addition, one of your activities at Millstone Unit 3 appeared to be in deviation from your written commitments, as specified in the Notice of Deviation enclosed herewith as Appendix B.
We are concerned about the deviation because it involved performance of an as-found battery service test surveillance subsequent to maintenance activities, contrary to the Final Safety Analysis Report commitments. You are requested to respond to this deviation, and should f the instructions specified in Appendix B in preparing your' response.
l
[v' S
l
~*
a ei
Nonheast Nuclear Energy Company 2
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice,* a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be.placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
~I The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notices are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Your cooperation with us is appreci2ted.
Sincerely, 1
/
Charles W. Hehl, Director Division of Reactor Projects Enclotures:
1.
NRC Region I Inspection Report No. 50423/91-01 2.
Appendix A Notice of Violation 3.
Appendix B Notice of Deviation cc w/encls:
W. D. Romberg, Vice President, Nuclear Operations D. O. Nordquist, Director of Quality Services R. M. Kacich, Manager, Generation Facilities Licensing S. E. Scace, Station Director, Millstone C. H. Clement, Nuclear Unit Director, Millstone Unit 3 Gerald Garfield, Esquire Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (UDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Senior Resident Inspector State of Connecticut
(
JUL 2 1991
~-
I aca/
This letter refers to several concerns that you provided to us, the first set, on March 2,1991, alleged that I&C technicians were required to work excessive hours in support of the Unit 2 stanup on Febmary 17,1991, and that a technician was insufficiently trained on a surveillance p:ocedure. Your second concern, on March 5,1991, alleged that the procedures used to calibrate the replacement feedwcter and charging flow transmitters were not appropriate for use with the newer Foxboro " smart" transmitters.
These concerns were refened to the licens e for their evaluation. Attached for your information are their responses to these concerns. The licensee has made changes to improve the procedure review process and the on-;he-job training program to address your concern about technician training when procedurcs undergo significant change. The licensee also plans additional training for I&C technicians in the calibration process for the " smart" transmitters. The other concems were not substantiated.
The NRC plans no further action in any of these matters. Please advise us if you wish to pursue funher any of these issues. Thank you for informing us of your concerns.
Sincerely, e
i Edward Wenzinger, Ch' f Reactor Projects Branc
Enclosures:
- i
- 1. NU letter A09557, dated 7/1/91
- 2. NU letter A09558, dated 7/1/91 n.]
- {
A lL'"yty(%T?*"T~*"
qq\\l y
LNCL I i
l Gewal Omces
- Seloon Street. Semn.Cor.m
== ca sw a -.w a P O.90x 170 U Xaw".,,, ~
"ARTroRD. CONNECTCIt 061410270 i
a a
L
<Ta ~e~.~.~ra, w~ =aw~...
i po3) 65000 i
r July 1, 1991 i
Docket No. 50-336 A09557 Mr. Charles V. Behl, Director Division of Reactor Trojects U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocaission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Frussia, Tennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. Hehl:
Millstone Nuclear Pover Station, Unit No. 2 RI-91-A-0046
. r have completed our review of identified issues concerning activities at Ve 2 (RI-91-A-0046).
As requested in your transmittal Millstone ' Unit No.
letter, our response does not contain any personal privacy, proprietary, or-safeguards -information. The raterial contained in this response' asy be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room at your discretion.
The NRC letter and our response have received controlled and liefted distribution on a "need to know" basis during the preparation of this response. Based upon our request on June 25, 1991 vith Region I.
personnel, a four-day extension to this letter vas granted to - allow for J
routine and proper administrative processing.
Issuet An Instrument and Controls technician vorked on RFS. matrix and NI f
calibrations to support the Millstone 2 startup following a seras on-February 16, 1991.
The surveillance procedure had - undergone. extensive 3
changes recently and the technician was not adequately trained on the -
recent revisions to the procedure..Special assistance vas required for the
~
[
technician _to understand and complete the procedure.
P1 case discuss the validity.of the above assertion.1 Please discuss any i
corrective actions being taken to train. technicians on revisions to procedures prior to implementation.
I l
mQD gpM j
_ f v i,
. e
.rr r
Mr. Charles V. Behl, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulato n Commission
~
A09557/Fage 2 l
July 1, 1991
Background:
The need for specific training on a station procedure change or revision is considered at the time of its implementation.
A prospt to consider the need for training prior to procedure change implementation has been added the Millstone Unit No. 2 Instrument and Control (l&C) procedure routing to This was done as an enhancesent to the procedure review process sheets.
and vill accelerate any necessary immediate modifications to the on-the-job Unless the procedure changes are significant in nature and beyond program.
the skills of the personnel performing the work, training does not typically take place prior to change implementation. Procedures, changes and revisions are written to a level of detail which is sufficient to ensure that the technician has the level of detail needed to perform the task.
All revisiens to I&C procedures are revieved by the Technical Training Departeent for the need to sodify training naterials or to conduct additional training.
Response
The assertion that the personnel who perforced startup support activities vere not adequately trained is not accurate.
The surveillance was perfor:ed correctly by the personnel assigned, without the need for special assistance to understand the procedure. The surveillance data sheets have been reviewed and the results found acceptable.
This issue had not been addressed to departnent ranagement.
The NRC Resident Inspector has reviewed t hi r, issue and concluded that the surveillances vere properly cospleted as documented in NRC Resident Report 91-04 Sec t ion 7.5.
Furthermore, our technicians are Inspection instructed to return instruments to a safe condition and to seek assistance if they have any difficalty understanding the action requested by procedure.
I Is.we 2 h
Hours in excess of overtime limitations, vere vorked by Instrument and l
Controls technicians in support of the Millstone Unit No. 2 startup on February 17, 1991.
One individual was "on-call" for plant support and was in the dual role of being "on-call' as an emergency activities This technician vorked a 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> shif t on Millstone Unit No. 3 responder.
February 16 and remained on duty for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> keeping the pager until 0730 on Februan 17. This individual was overvorked and could not perform on his duties in support of the unit startup.
1 Please discuss the validity of the above assertions. Please discuss any j
actions taken to ensure overtime restrictions are not exceeded in cases such as that described above.
9
Mr. Ch rics V. E hl, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coamissicn A09557/Page 3 July 1, 1991 Packground One person who had vorked a 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> day vas on call the night of Feb-ruary 16th. Be was called in at 2030 to conduct. Instrument surveillance by the shift supervisor. Additional personnel vere called in to relieve his later that same evening. There vere no personnel that vorked total hours in excess of established station overtime guidelines.
The on-call individual was fully capable of fulfilling his emergency plan responsibilities at all times.
This issue vas evaluated by the NRC Resident Inspector and concluded that the surveillances vere properly completed as documented in NRC Resident Inspection Report 91-04.
This issue had not been addressed to department sanagement.
Response
No overtime limits vere exceeded by this individual. Established station on-call personnel performed their duties as required by procedures.
Overtime limits do not apply to personnel vhen they are performing on-call responsibilities and are at home.
The on-call person who vas called in was relieved prior to being overvorked and prior to exceeding any overtise guideline restrictions. If the emergency plan had been activated in this same interval, back-up resources vould have been available in the event that the individual had not been able to perform his duties. It is the responsibility of all emergency plan responders to identify if at any time they are not capable of performing their assigned duties.
No additional actions are required.
Af ter our reviev and evaluation, ve find that neither of these issues taken either singularly or collectively present any indication of a compromise of nuclear safety. Ve appreciate the opportunity to respond and explain the basis for our actions. Please contact my staf f if there are amy further questions on any of these matters.
Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGT COMPAh7 A/
E. J.' pfocrka
(/
~
Senior Vice President i
cc V.
J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3 E.
C. Venzinger, Chief, Projects Branch No.
4, Division of Reactor Projects t
1 UMU Gene rsi Ofrees e Seuen Street. Berim. Conn +cicui ca cow
.a. c---
P O BOX 270 1
e em "*
- HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141@70
%C][L (2m) e65-5000 6
,-4.c-,
f July 1, 1991 Docket No. 50-336 A09558 P
(
Mr. Charles V. Behl, Director Division of Reactor Projects U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccemission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. Behl:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 RI-91-A-0049 have completed our review of identified issues concerning activities at Millstone Unit No.
2 (RI-91-A-0049).
As requested in your transmittal Ve letter, our response does not contain any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information. The material contained in this response may be released to the public and placed in the NPC Public Document Room at your have received controlled and discretion.
The NRC letter and our response limited distribution on a "need to know" basis during the preparation of this response. Based upon our request on June 25, 1991 vith Region I personnel, a four-day extension to this letter was granted to allow for routine and proper administrative processing.
Issues i
" smart" or " intelligent" transmitters vere installed approximately Foxborofuel cycle ago to be utilized during the calibration of feedvater flow The FT-5269A, FT-5269B and charging flov transmitter FT-212.
one transmitters use of these " smart" transmitters is not in the controlling calibration flov and IC-2429A for charging flov.
The IC-2426B for feed procedures, modification vork (PDCE/PDCR) did not address the need for the controlling changes.
In addition, training on the " smart" procedure calibration was limited to a Foxboro vendor representative presentation to transsitter the 1&C technicians.
Please discuss the validity of the above assertions. Please discuss I
actions taken to determine whether the above mentioned flov transmitters have been properly calibrated subsequent to the installation and dse of the Foxboro " smart" transmitters.
9noldA00;~[-
4 (e v
~. Mr. Charlos V. Echl, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission A09558/Page 2 July 1, 1991 Isackground:
Tvo
- intelligent' replacement transmitters have been Installed in the feedvater flov application.
The transmitters are one-for-one replacements that did not require any plant modification for installation in this application.
The calibration method detailed in the procedure is the same for both intelligent and analog transmitters. The need for procedure changes at the time of the replacement was revieved and determined to not be necessary.
After the second replacement, an Instrument & Control (I&C) Specialist requested that additional training on this type of transmitter be conducted.
The vendor of the transmitter provided an overview of the transmit ter operation. The Technical Training Department was requested to provide rore detailed training on hardware and sof tvare used during the calibration activity. This training is tentatively scheduled for the first quarter of 1992.
This issue vas documented in NRC Resident Inspection Report 91-04 Section 5.3.2.
Response
The performance of the new transmit ters has been revieved and determined to be acceptable. The 'as left' calibration data document the results and acceptability of the calibration activity. The calibration methods are similar.
It is considered within the skill level of the I&C technicians who are trained in the calibration of similar transrit ters. In fact, there have been no identified errors related to this calibration activity.
- Bovever, the additional training vill further enhance the skill level and proficiency of the 16C technician performing the calibration tasks.
After our reviev and evaluation, s e find that this issue does not present any indication of a comproalse to nuclear safety. Ve appreciate the opportunity to respond and explain the basis for our actions.
Please contact my staff if there are any further questions on any of these matters.
Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCII).R ENERGY COMPANT Aa E. JT oliks 'f Senio Vice President cc:
V.
J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Hillstone Unit Nos'.
1, 2, and 3 E.
C. Venzinger, Chief, Projects Branch No.
4, Division of Reactor Projects
31 09: 41
' FC I111 L$ 11.HE I 'W i t N
)
t
- Scott, May 30, 1991 ctopped by yesterday, Wednesday May 30, with several^ letters which he received from the 11RC Region I.
They contained enclosures re-sta ing allegations which were being referred to the licensee.
had eeveral comments which should be considered for letters dated:-
Mlay 3, 1991:
The issue of excessive work hours and lack of M[- A-006
- n-the-job training concerned the 11uelear Inetrumentation system and station procedure 2401B.
gtkl<0 4tuocut, S/go f May_2L 1991: The concern over the eteam generator blowdewn di% #
rsdiation monitor occurred at a time wnen eteam genera)or )
+
., // 'A _ a jc 3 primary to secondary leak rate was D.15 cpm ve.
115 gpm. /
J' indicated that the value stated earlier was from the daily 8deidt-yt%4rbrW chemistry data eheet and had been in error.
NHW I I
4 aleo re-stated his concern that prop-: procedures ere not being used to bypaes alarming radiation monitore.
He i that, in this case both the monitor had alarmed, in the auxiliary bui_ldin g, and aleo caueed a main board annunciater.
Becauce of this design, in hie neth the control roem operatore and the plant equirner.-
. -rstor (PEO) were at fault.
The PEO for attempting to mu -
the alarm without a bypses key and the control roem operate:
for not acting promptly on the control board annun; aor.
r i
Hav_12 J S91: He does not have the earlier version of the Un2t 3 PORC approved procedure which reportedly contained an
[I '// -A' C"di ebecenity.
He suggested that we contact the Unit 3
Instrumentation and Control Department Manager, Bob Enoch; or, we may contact Unit 3 I&C technicians Coy Wooten or Chrie l
g g 4-gb ep4 g
Latour.
r-I was not able to seeure'
_7that the lettere of referral to the licensee could corrected a_t this date.
Thanks.
P'-
l Tem Shediosky
-w-
+..t 4..
-s.....
i:13CCOld3i;00 N'.h lji e freed 0iT3 OI IIIID! mat 00 ACl, CXCm i0ns _O_f 7 b i
f 0! A _._ A-/6. E _
s U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 1 O
Repon No:
50-423/91-01 Docket No:
50-423 License No:
NPF-49 Nonheast Nuclear Energy Company Licensee:
P. O. Box 270 Hanford, CT 06141-0270 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 Facility Name:
Inspection At:
Waterford, CT January 8,1991 - February 25,1991 Dates:
Reporting K. S. Kolaczyk, Resident Inspector, Unit 3 Inspector:
W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector Inspectors:
K. S. Kolaczyk, Resident Inspector, Unit 3 f.
A. A. Asars, Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck
(
W. H. Baunack, Senior Inspector, Operational Program Section, DRS W. Oliviera, Inspector, Operatioral Program T
Section, DRS P. Wilson, Resident Inspector, Beaver Valley
/
MF/9/
Approved by:
Donald R. Haverkamp, Chief f Date Reactor Projects Section 4A Division of Reactor Projects b
t.
Insoection Summary: Report 50-423/91 t Routine NRC resident inspection of plant operations, radiological controls,-
Areas inspected:
maintenance, surveillance, security, outage activities, licensee self-assessment, al repons.
Results: _ See Executive Summary
/
f i
I
(
A l C '! c j o b &
y 3
.s
t 5
f 3.4 REVIEW OF PLANT INCIDENT REPORTS I
Millstone 3 plant incident reports (PIRs) were resiewed during the inspection period to (i) determine the significance of the events; (ii) review the licensee evaluation of the ev (iii) verify that the licensee response and corrective actions were proper; and (iv) verify licensee reported the events in accordance with the applicable requirements, if required PIRs 3-91-12 and 3-91-29. were selected for detailed inspector followup. These PIRs are discussed in sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 respectively.
4.0 RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS 4.1 POSTING AND CONTROL OF RADIOLOGICAL AREAS During plant tours, posting of contaminated, high airbome radiation, and high radiation areas was reviewed with respect to boundary identi5 cation, !ocking requirements, and appropriate points.
s Significant observations are discussed in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 below.
4.1.1 PORTAL RADIATION MONITOR ACCESS CONTROL t
On January 22, 1991 the inspector became aware of an issue that concemed the adequa access controls at the ponal radiation monitors locad at the south access point (SAP) and north access point (NAP). Apparently an individual, who had undergone diagnostic radiation treatment during the moming of January 17 and had retumed to work, alarmed a ponal radiation monitor while exiting the station later that day. The individual did not adhere to the posted instructions at the radiation monitors, which require personnel who alarm the monitor to reenter the monitor, and if a second alarm occurs, to call the Millstone Station health physics office so an evaluation of the indisidual could be made. Additionally, the individual was not subsequently detained the security guard at the access control point as required by the SAP guard post order and administrative control procedure (ACP) 6.18, "Potentially Contaminated Material Control and Personnel Frisking Requirements." This event also occurred on January 18 and 21,1991.
On January 23 the inspector informed the health physics operations manager and the Millstone Station security manager of the concern regarding personnel access control. Additionally, the station policy for the handling of personnel who have undertone diagnostic radiation treatment was discussed.
According to the health physics operations manager, personnel who have undergone diagnostic adiation treatment are expected to inform the health physics office of the treatment and be evaluated. ' Itis expectation is clearly specified in annual radiadon worker training which is provided to all employees. If the individual is emanating significant radiation dose rates due to diagnostic radio-isotopes remaining in the body, the indisidual's dosimetry is removed and a letter is sent to the security guards at the access point. 'Ile letter informs the guards which individuals have undergone treatment, have been evaluated by the health physics j
j i
I
6 office, and should be allowed to pass through the radiation monitor. According to the manager, the latter process (generation of a letter to the guards) is not forrnally documented by a station procedure; however, this process has been used in previous situations. During this event the inspector noted that a letter had not been sent to the NAP and SAP concerning the individual in question. The manager was not able to explain why the process did not work during this instance. The manager informed the inspector that the individual in question did inform the health physics department on January 18 of his medical treatment. Apparently, the individual was told, by a health physics department worker, if a portal monitor alarms and security stops you, have them call us. During the ensuing days, the individual passed through the monitors and alarmed the monitors. However, neither the individual nor the security guard contacted the health
[
physics office for release of the individual from the site.
4 Re inspector informed the security manager that a spot check by the inspector of guards at the l
NAP revealed that not all security guards were familiar with the actions that they should take if
[
a portal radiation monitor is alarmed. The manager noted the inspector's comment.
On January 23 the inspector observed access controls at the NAP and S AP; the inspector noted l
that during pericds of high activity at the NAP, station personnel would crowd through the detector. If an alarm were received, security guards would direct an individual to reenter the j
monitor. However, due to the number of personnel exiting from the station and passing through the monitor at the end of a shift, security guards had difficulty establishing which individual had alarmed the monitor. The inspector observed that additional security personnel that had been
[.
assigned to the SAP adequately controlled personnel access. Guards were able to determine who had set off an alarm and were able to direct personnel back through the monitor. Personnel who could not clear the monitor the second time were detained. However, the inspector noted that the low audio volume of the portal radiation monitor alarm could have made it difficult for an l
individual to determine if the monitor had alarmed.
[
NNECO ACTION i
In resporae to the issues concerning the control of personnel exiting the portal radiation monitor, and the inadequate handling of an individual who had undergone medical isotope treatment, NNECO issued two memoranda to station personnel. The first memorandum reiterated the station policy contained in the Radiation Worker Manual concerning the actions an individual must take if isotopes are used dudng medical treatment. The second memorandum provided a l
revised guidance on the use of the portal radiation monitors. The resised guidance stated that i
personnel are to maintain a distance of three feet between individuals when using the portal monitors, pause momentarily when inside the monitor and, if the alarm rings, reset it. If a second alarm is received, the individual is to notify health physics. Inspector observation of personnel access control at the NAP, since the promulgation of this instmetion, revealed that personnel were proceeding in an orderly manner through the monitors with an adequate separation distance between individuals. Further, an adequate number of security personnel were i
present to enforce the revised station policy.
i i
3
f 7
rg nrough conversations with the health physics manager, the inspector was informed that long term corrective action includes development of a procedure which would formalize the actions a person should take when undergoing medical isotope treatment. His will include issuance of a special badge to an isotope-treated individual, which would allow passage through portal radiation monitors. The inspector was also informed by the security manager that the alum volume on the portal monitor at the SAP was increased to ensure that security penonal could hear the alarn. AdditionaDy, the responsibility of the guards at the NAP and SAP, conceming i
the actions they should take if a monitor alarms, was reiterated during guard shift turnover.
INSPECTOR ASSESSMENT The portal radiation monitors located at the SAP and NAP serve as a backup to radiological controls that have been established at various areas in the station. According to NNECO i
personnel, the segoints of the portal monitors are typically set at 100-200 nanocuries as compared to 2 nanocuries at which the monitors are set at the exit to radiologicaDy controlled areas. Derefore, proper adherence to radiological controls in the station by performing a frisk upon exit of an RCA ensures control of radiological contamination from on-site actisities. The portal monitors at the NAP and SAP provide a backup to the RCA exit controls.
During intpector foUowup of this issue, poor procedure adherence by NNECO personnel was noted. Personnel who alarmed radiation monitors ignored posted instructions located next to the monitors which provided guidance on the actions that should be taken if a monitor alarms.
Additionally, security guards did not detain personnel who alarmed the monitor and ignored the posted instruction, in violation of ACP 6.18. De failure of station personnel to foUow ACP 6.18 when a portal monitor was alarmed and the failure of guards to detain personnel until health physics personnel assessed the situation is a violation (SM23/91-01-02). This violation is considered applicable to Millstone Station and is being dccumented separately in MiUstone I and 2 resident inspection reports 50-245/91-01 and 50-336/91-01. ne revised access controls j
~
imp!cmented by NNECO now appear to be effective in controUing personnel exiting from the station.
4.1.2 CONTROL OP RADIOLOGICAL BOUNDARIES While touring the 'B and D* recirculation pump cubicle, the inspector noted water dripping from a penetration in the ceiling. Investigation of the leakage revealed the water to be from the l
auxiliary steam driven feedwater pump valve room. His room is a1.so located in the engineered safety features building; however, it is classified as a contaminated area. De inspector was concemed that the leakge from the room could unknowingly contaminate an individual who was wened by the water. Accordingly, the inspector notified the health physics technician about the leakage and swipes were taken. No activity was found.
nrough conversations with an operations supervisor and health physics technicians, the inspector was informed that the activity in the valve room is from a post accident sampling system (PASS) drain line located in the adjacent hydrogen recombiner. room. Apparently, drain water is
'(
.-ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLA1NTS - GENERAL
.RI 1210.1/1
~
hn[NMd4
?
l'
. APPENDIX 3.1 ALLEGATION RECEIPT REPORT i
'Date/ Time t f n/'il Allegation No. RI4l-A -0012 j
Received:
(leave blank)
Address:
Name:.I.
City / State / Zip:
Phone:_
Confidentiality:
Was it requested?
Yes No - X. '
Yes No i
Was it initially granted?
Vas it' finally granted by the allegation panel Yes No
-l' Does a confidentiality agreement need to be sent Yes.
No to alleger?.
Has a confidentiality agreement been signed?
-Yes No l
Hemo documenting why it was granted is attached?
Yes No '
1 A11eger's Employer:
Mill s+ 0n e Lind2 Position /Titie:
to td Eco -
Facility:
(A H sfe.v-L L,t 2
~ Docket No.: 3 34 -
j t
(Allegation Summary (brief description of concern (s): LJmi-af e M I'
& Swm cAtL & ON O nadoW memY2u eM]M
- i kad$,b,u<N ;
.c+vntins1NG en eOmme.co /wri muN3f m~
+
i 1-Number of Concerns:
K S. Kol ac&q k, 9, % hon t~
j!
Employee Receiving Allegation:
(first two initials 'and 'last' name)J -
- i Type of Regulated Activity (a) [ Reactor (d),__ Safeguards.1 (b) _, Vendor (e) _ Other:'
j (c) _ Materials -
(Specify) q j
Haterials License'No. (if applicable):
' Functional Area (s):
_(a)_ Operations (e)' Emergency Preparedness-M f) Onsite_ Health'and Safety j
-(b) Construction.
(c)' Safeguards (g)'Offsite Health and Safety l
__(d) Transportation (h) Other:
j (NRC Region I Form 207 Informalida in thI'S TEcord was da:efed
- /
-i
-Revised 10/89) i
-A3.lft
'I
'i
/
r u m. m.. g '8 0[0f informationt p
t 3
RI 1210.1/1 ALLEUT10NS AND COMPLA1 HTS - GENERAL l
4 APPENDIX 3.1 Page 1 of d i
Detailed Description of Allegation:
T eMA
- - - - L c k s,, + L w n
+Act w P & L E4 le d k h, L < s L a u,m. M.
- a. aw
'o mid tdat<x b m4aru I7 -
v n
- uf &. A.am kr no M W,v n a n n_.
1
~
LtM M
LMd/l N
L J
V ka 75-cw TA4+uob tk mievufh no%v V
[
J J
eyvmca L nms tM 11 led mo% m GAJ,
u
) <-
nralwcwhln -ThraktstL. L nom 4! ww) t l12<^<nw' 1
i y
I
' c%swa albwed Aa te eou L R. &%mAa dau. %w>u /8 i,lamd v
i und 3 MP st he imoc csw% ens & Mkn1. +IP &,t 1
- /
Wobsdl.F
-<,1bo tucu OAndYS 5000 estnt
-1 atm bocAamed. HP &n cam)
'lTLD.
U A a cd 5 caxtLk &
deh p 1at-ets]l & mwn4
& aE&bwc57 osaut
\\
/
{& Y bi k (ZH $& YL O' (2/Lfcv
- </
att&*
s Onst ctcla b ??s c cnY Ybe-cc 128 nerixAlltd atwh
-I %w%, udeti daw dado bl.o$stutid
. ma adoa<s& <msGas an w v.
ce>2AL m dw cd /Hill% aw auckneed Lu Yrs L"tusAd& c.>45c)
,Sc1w $he;arbU p~
y rawnbCno & At El cat-cA<Ao di HP in x g
i i
d.
M M2arg/
i t
NRC Region I Form 207 (Revised 10/89) 1 l
A3.1-2
ALLECATIONS AND COMPLAIN 15 - GENERAL RI 2210.1/1 APPENDIX 3.1 Page 1 of b Detailed Description of Allegation: J1 cu4c] !
cMa k I
^
i i
s hitt$s nef _
<n _TFku LA'L Y
W, f,
,-, -sn&x.
1
'flnd e herzn ~d i,o in o mmN d' /w.ft)< //c2;,1p
( x i
/%t'omb_, bibhNu, AMbi k b r><b! }s nom &
r
~! 4xN! ltbAnd] lazsDZL b b m-
-k i
j a
t n$se im/mes/0 ms Tirf-NL AJRr j* Ex A,ikkL. coMNu fd b m A zLt a Au$$nt) nN..?)wnnM /0 nrd kutww IU keAY5u.
V i
W3stsAs % arn ud ton. M,<s<toroc. Best i
y JDCX lh1L%?bannD r1l~o-ctf $s A4JLL2A/
0TonEnud
/
ll,. f&{
It i htL i&h lwio~/ m
/
su-Ju, Pudf h u mo,h so &.
Dmr boedemyo
~
er ict nN h [Nl fllmt LD - tsL CL r
fl?n 0d/nsrns? nd
/s Ne !cminnc2rur ent wbx
?
JI-l^kas? Wk to cfnwAtnu=.
h t
i NRC Region I Form 207 (Revised 10/89)
A3.1-2 I
)
b
. f
- 0CT.04 591 08:48. HRC MILLSTONE OFFICE
. P07--
ENCL.I j
f,., "
l NORTHEAST UTILITIES o.n.,,, m,. s.wn sw. s.
Cone 3
we-cw l
c
.gsegan w eget tane.se P.O. 80X 270 HAATFCAD. CONNECTICUT 06141 c270
[
.,..,,.w.,,
.c u,.. ae-t g
3
%,0 t;
i July 1, 1991
+
,1 Docket No. 50-336 1
A09557 l
t f
Mr. Charles V. Behl, Director Division of Reactor Projects f
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Region I g
i i
ennsylvania 19406 1
Dear Mr. Behl:
l{
Hillstone Nuclear Fever Station, Unit.No. 2 l
RI-91-A-0046 l
Ve have completed our reviev of identified issues concerning. activities at Millstene Unit No.
2 (RI-91-A-0046).
As requested in_your transmittal letter, our response does not contain any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information. The material 'centair.ed in this ~ response ray be l
released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room at your i
discretion.
The NRC letter and our response ' have received controlled and
.[
limited distribution on a "need to knov" basis'during the preparation of.
this response. Based upon our request on June 25,1991 vith Region-I-
-l personnel, a four-day extension to this letter was granted to allov'for I
routine and proper adainist'rative. processing.
~
=:
Issue:
l An Instrument and Controls technician. vorked on RPS matrix and NI calibrations to support. the Millstone 2 startup following a ' scram on f
February 16, 1991.
The surveillance-procedure had undergone extensive-changes recently. and -the technician _ vas not' adequately trained..on the-.
- recent revisions to the procedure.. Special assistance vas required for.the.
l technician to understand and coriplete the' procedure.
}
l
-Please discuss 'the validity - of the above assertion.- Please discuss any j
. corrective actions being taken to train technicians on revisions to l
procedures prior to implementation. -
1 i
Q V
.y+C e
n
,y-e em
c.w ' on c.. 's.=a sum. e.ma. c.n.~
HOR 1HEAST UTILITIES P O Box 270
)
rI[NNNow HAATFORD. CONNECTfCUT 061414270
- *==* * -
W N 000
$U0"E7C J
L J
July 1, 1991 Docket No. 50-336
~
A095TE Mr. Charles V. Behl, Director Division of Reactor Projects U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornission Region !
475 Allendale Fsad King of P:ussia, Tennsylve.nfa 19406
Dear Mr. Hehl:
Millstone Nuclear Fover Station, Unit No. 2 RI-91-A-0049 have conpleted our reviev of identified issues concerning activities at Millstone Unit No.
2 (RI-91-A-0049).
As requested in your transmittal Ve letter, our response dees not contain any persor;al privacy, proprietary, or informatien, The-raterial contained in this response eey be.-
NRC Pub 31c Document Roc: at your safeguards to the public and placed in the have received controlled and released The NRC letter and our responseto kncv" basis during-the preparation of discretien.
limited distribution on a 'need June 25, 1991 vith Region I Pased upon our request on a four-day extension to this letter vas granted to allev for this response.
personnel, routine and proper administrative processing.
issues "sr. art" or " intelligent" transmitters vere installed approxiestely fuel cycle ago to be utilfred during the calibration of feedvater flo Foxboro The FT-5269A, FT-5269B and charging flov transmitter FT-212.
one in the controlling calibration transmitters transmitters is not for charging flov._ The of these "se. art' IC-2426B for feed flev and IC-2429A h
use nodificatic,n vork (PDCE/PDCR) did not address the need for t e procedures, procedure changes.
In addition, training on the "snart' controlling vas limited to a Foxboro vendor representative presentation to calibration transmitter the 16C technicians.
discuss the validity of the above assertions. Please discuss transmitters the above mentioned flov i
Please taken to determine vbether f the have been properly calibrated subsequent to the installation and d actions t
Foxboro " smart" transmitters, i
m It'*
R lP
q d
3, c, g ;), (, j) g ynnto g,,,gg
(
NUCLEAP. REGULATORY COMMISSION
-d47 5
gl ntcioN e
f4 Os Alt [NDALE ROAD
/
nNG or rnus51A. FrNNSYLVANIA 1R4Ws JUL 2 21991 M
i s
i s
This letter refers to several concerns that you provided to us, the Drst set on March 2,1991, alleged that I&C technicians were required to work excessive hours in support of the Unit 2 startup on February 17,1991, and that a technician was insufDciently trained on a surveillance procedure. Your second concern, on March 5,1991, alleged that the procedures used to calibrate the replacement feedwater and charging flow transmitters were not appropriate for use with the newer Foxboro " smart" transmitters.
These concerns were refened to the licensee for their evaluation. Attached for your information are their responses to these concerns. The licensee has made changes to improve the procedure review process and the on-the-job training program to address your concern about technician training when procedures undergo significant change. The licensee also plans additional training for I&C technicians in the calibration process for the " smart" transmitters. The other concerns were not substantiated.
The NRC plans no further action in any of these matters. Please advise us if you wish to pursue further any of these issues. Thank you for informing us of your concerns.
Sin ly, o
n i
y ward Wenzinger, Ch' Reactor Projects Branc
Enclosures:
- 1. NU letter A09557, dated 7/1/91
- 2. NU letter A09558, dated 7/1/91 I
m G M ".c
~
ENbl. l.
i NORTHEAST UTILmES Gererat Off.ces
- Seicon Sttsst. Bertm. Connecitut l
-.e=
e,.c.= cw P O. 60x 270
......m.,,,,,
HARTFORD. CONNECitCUT 06H1-0270 3
m e. e......<s co t
g
<mi cas-sooo
-.w.
July 1, 1991
.j Docket No. 50-336 A09557 i
j Mr. Charles V. Behl, Director I
Division of Reactor Projects U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Tennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. Behl:
Hillstone Nuclear Tower Station, Unit No. 2
\\
RI-91-A-0046 Ve have completed our review of identified issues concerning activities at Millstone Unit No.
2 (RI-91-A-0046).
As requested in'your transmittal letter, our response does not contain any personal privacy, proprietary, or-safeguards informatien. The naterial contained in this response may be r
released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room at your' discretion.
The NRC letter and our response have received controlled _ and I
limited distribution on a "need to know" basis during the~ preparation of this response.
Based upon our request on June 25, 1991 vith Region I personnel, a four-day extension to this letter vas granted to allow for-j routine and proper administrative processing.
Issue:
An Instrument and Controls technician vorked on RFS matrix and NI
-I calibrations to support the Millstone 2 startup following a scram'on February 16, 1991.
The surveillance procedure had undergone extensive changes recently and the technician was not _ adequately trained. on the-recent revisions to the procedure.
Special assistance was required for the
~
technician to understand and complete the procedure.
i Please discuss-the validity of the above assertion. Please_ discuss any r
j corrective. actions being' taken_ to train technicians' on revisions to procedures prior to implementation.
1 i
m k-3c?
cgD
. (W l
q c)Ap/9 j
u.
._~'*
IloirrHi!AST U11UTH25.
l U
e--. '
RTF oRo CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 I
. wre ea i. ew=.
(203) 665-5217
?
wount vvc5 ste.irJ aww.
' J
. si m o. w aw -.
.j l
EDWARO J lAROCZKA SENoCn vrCi 9at$1Ciut.
Nuctgan t w0ts*tta:NG AND 09tnArsONS October 24,1990 F
NEO-90 G-292 j
t TO:
Nuclear Emergency On-Call Organization and I
their Supervisors-
/1 FROM:
E. J. Mroczka
/ /I (Ext. 5217) j t
SUBJECT:
NUCLEAR EMERGENCY RESPONSE ON CALL a
RESPONSIBILITIES AND UNANNOUNCED DRILLS-in ycur daily work, you are expected to design, operate, and maintain our'
+
nuclear plants in a safe condition so as to minimize the probability of an accident. However, nuclear power plant events can occur.They have-occurred in the U.S. at a frequ'ency of about ten or more decla' red events per year. At NU,we have in our operating history experienced five events at the -
ALERT end higher levels.
NRC regulations require an Emergency Response Organization to provide appropriate resources to handle such events. In addition; NU executive
-l management firmly believes it is our responsibility to have an effective
~l Emergency Response Plan to ensure _we protect the health and safety of the -
.{
public which we serve. This includes-the On Call Emergency Response i
Organizatron designed to be ready and available to augment the on-shift staff and assist site management at the' time of a nuclear accident to mitigate plant damage and off-site consequences. On-call functions are an
.l important part of the job requirements for employment in the Nuclear l
Engineering and Operations Group. Thus, there is a significant obligation i
and responsibility carried by the individuals who are selected to be part of l
the On-Call Emergency Response Organization and those who supervise them. A~ major commitment to_this operation has been made' by NU and a j
similar commitment is expected from those who are part of the on-call I
response organization.
l l
The Supervisors and Management of On Callindividuals are responsible tol 1
ensure and continually verify that the individuals you select to be part of the~
emergency on-call organization are suitable and able 'to fulfill'their obligation and' responsibility. This includes the iss'ues of qualification, training, ability to respond within the prescribed time. period and being cautious about the assignment of extended or conflicting work schedules-during on-call weeks. Your planning should rotate the on-call responsibility.
1 such taat an individual has the on-call responsibility at a frequency.of no greater than once per four weeks, an optimum of once per five weeks is preferred.
2-i P
On Callindividuals are responsible to ensure that when you are on-call, you
[
will respond within the prescribed time period and be fully alert and cognizant of your duties. You should recognize that when called in, you could be expected to work at a fairly intensive pace for a peiiod of eignt to twelve hours prior to being relieved. You should be knowledgeable of the radiopager range and its effectiveness in notifying you. Avoid large, steel-shell buildings and distances that diminish or prevent the radiopager signal from reaching you. Keep the radiopager either on or close to you so you are able to hear the radiopager. Ensure your radiopager is operable at all times (check operation by depressing top bar, carry a spare battery). Be aware of social or other occasions that compromise your ability to hear and/or respond in time. Follow the NU Fitness For Duty Program for employees with unescorted access to nuclear facilities, in particular, the total abstinence from alcohol during all on call periods and for five hours prior to f
assuming the on-call responsibility. Turn your on-call responsibility over to another qualified person if you feel your on-call responsibility will be compromised. Exercise discretion at all times - DO NOT take chances and 3
play the probability game. Discuss your concerns about fulfilling your obligation with your on-call supervisor / manager. When you are on ' all,you c
should be oriented towards being able to respond on time. If you feel the-need, take the time to refamiliarize yourself with your on-call function 1
procedures. I expect this of you. Failure to comply with your on-call responsibilities will result in appropriate disciplinary action.
In order to ensure that NU can meet its moral and legal commitments to
~
have an effective on-call response that can be relied on, it is prudent that we periodically evaluate our on-call response capability. There will be periodic unannounced drills of this important function. These drills can occur at any 1:me and can require response, not just call-in.
Follow the guidance provided above. You cannot place yourself in a situation which will prevent you from responding within the required time when you are on-call. I am counting on each and every one of you to be there when called, and to be able to perform your duties safely, efficiently, and in accordance with the public trust that has been placed on us.
EJM/RCR/jha cc: W. D. Romberg i
C. F. Sears
-l E. A. DeBarba I
i i
u
m c-- -
NCRTNEAST UTILITIES p
,, emcw w,.a w a. tv-a l
g
.rria s.oue-s e im cM-
,f n
.a.wa.. se m= w*=
l L
L I J,.-.e...w.--
..,.-,~m--
November 7, 1990 MP-90-1197 TO:
All On-Call SEO Members C
ca o FROM:
tephen E.'Scace Director hiillstone Station (Millstone, Extension 4300)
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY RESPONSE ON-CALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND UNANNOUNCED DRILLS He purpose of this memo is to re-emphasize your responsibilities and obligations as an on-call member of the Emergency Plan Station Emergency Organization (SEO).
NRC regulations require an Emergency Response Organization to provide appropriate resources to handle a Nuclear Power Plant esent. In addition. Station Management fhml;.
believes that it is our responsibility to hase an effective emergency plan to ensure the health and safety of the public.His includes an on-call Emergency Response Organization, designe ' to be ready and available, to augment the on-shift staff and assist site management at the time of a nuclear esent to mitigate plant damage and off-site consequences.
There is an obligation and responsibility carried by the individuals who are assigned to the on-call Emergency Response Organization. Assignment of on-call functions is an important part of yourjob requirements at Millstone Station.
As an on-callindividual, you are responsible for ensuring that when carrying the beeper, you:
Are able to respond within the prescribed time period.
Are fully alen and cognizant of your duties.
Are knowledgeable of the radiopager range and its effectiveness in notifying you.
Ensure that your radiopager is in a location w here you can hear it at all times and that it is operable.
Follow the NU Fitness for Duty Program for employees with unescorted access,in particular, the total abstinance from alcohol during all on-call periods and for five hours prior to assuming the on-call responsibility.
i
- ~,...
t
/
j I
If changes to the daily / weekly schedule are necessary, the scheduled on-call individual l
must complete the ' Station Emergency Organization On-Call Change Request",SF 107B, j
and forward it to the Unit I Shift Supenisor Staff Assistant (SSS A).The person listed on the on-call program is responsible for the posidon coverage. If a standby is obtained and the change is notlisted on the schedule, the accountability for the position remains with the -
scheduled individual.
l l
Failure to comply with your on-call responsibilities will result in the appropriate j
disciplinary action.
i In order to ensure that NU can meet its legal commitments to have an effective on-call response, there will be periodic unannounced drills to evaluate our on-call response capabilities. These drills can occur at any time and could require a response to not only call -
in, but also to come in to the station.
i When you are on-call, you should fd:ow the guidance provided above. I trust that you will be there when called upon and perform your duties safely and efficiently.
l Y2I
.f I
Distribution j
t SF 150-1 i
c:
List D E. J. Molloy
.t R. C. Rodgers I
W. H Buch
?
I
. j
!q n
1 i
i i
i h
o ij i
.t 5
g
.,~
.2
/
g-i A~ NORTHEAST UTILITIES g
9 LCET."O".~~
g
< > = = = = =
a
[
]
~
f To:
fAW 3
From:
S. h7Scace l
(Ext. 4300) q j
Subject:
Role of Job Supervisor In a telephone call you noted a concern over the use of the term " job-You asked that-a.
supervisor" as currently used in your department.
clarification be provided.
John Becker is currently developing a department specific handout to '
address this topic as part of an on going program to address several issues within the department.
He has not yet finalized this material and that is the reason that you have not yet heard from him.. S everal,
of the items under discussion deal with station policy questions _.and John has been working with me on these items to obtain direction and input.
One of the expectations that we hold for employees at this station who have achieved the journeyman (or senior) level in their particular job classification is the ability to lead others in the conduct of work.
In-the past we used the designation of " job'. supervisor"' to designate this assignment in our ACP's. ~ The use of. this term has raised some - questions and has caused confusion:.in some departments.
This designation does not however in any way carry -
with it the full responsibilities that are assigned to a first line supervisor in this company.
'When we assign-a journeyman to the position of upgraded first : lines supervisor, most (but not all) supervisory responsibilities _ are delegated - to that person.
The upgraded first line supervisor. is'. not
' authorized to _take any disciplinary action or conduct performance -
reviews.
Fitness-for-duty-observation'- responsibilities are. not-delegated to the' upgraded supervisor. _When.a person is upgraded to the position of supervisor, an additionalisum of money is paid to esto nev.r.es
reflect the additional supervisory responsibilities assigned to that person.
In the case of the " job leader", additional funds are not paid. This ' role -
does not carry with it any supervisory responsibilities.
The person i
l in the ' lead" role is responsible and accountable to-ensure that the Job is completed in accordance with applicable procedures, is done l
safely and that the necessary documentation is maintained. These i
duties and responsibilities are within the job description.
During the development of the Millstone Principles of Excellence Bookle_t, the potential for confusion over the use of the terms " job i
supervisor", " upgraded supervisor" and the first -line supervisor formally assigned to the group became obvious.
LA recommendation was made to change the term " job supervisor" to " job leader" and implement this change across the station.
This change was accepted and is consistently used in the hiillstone Principles of Excellence Eooklet.
Applicable ACP's will be revised in the future.
Your concern over this issue confirms to me that the terms we have used in the past have lead to confusion in this regard.
The message that will be given to all Millstone workers is that we have and will continue to expect our journeyman level workers to periodically accept a level of responsibility and accountability as job leader for the werk that is being performed by them and the team assigned to the job.
The position descriptions approved for use l
within NU are the typical minimum expectations for each position.
t They should not be considered to be a complete specification of the duties and responsibilities assigned to the position.
When directed j
by supervision, each worker has an obligation to perform the assigned task to the best of their ability.
Such is the case of l
assignments made for a person who is working as the " job leader".
John Becker will be providing more information and discussing his expectations for a " job leader" as they relate to Unit 2 I&C. on this
[
important topic as he presents the Millstone Principles of Excellence Eooklet to his department.
You interest and insight ' into this important topic is very much
)
appreciated.
Please.let John know if there are any other questions l
that you have on this subject.
l cc: J. D. Becker l
i t
7 1
y M
i
~
?
xy,,
g
~
~~
j
" Measure-it TWICE! Cut it ONCE!'?
a
-a The Millstone Worker's Contribution to Effective Work Practices I recognize that my work ethic and my work practices are critical to the operational success of Millstone! I do my part by:
1 j
Accepting responsibility tor the quality of my work.
Doing each of my assigned tasks to the best of my-ability.'
j t
Working as a contributing member of my team.
'i Performing and document ng each of my assigned tasks in accordance with approved work order packages and associated piocedures.
Reporting problems with plant equipment, procedures, drawings, or repair activities, and initiating appropriate correct:ve actions as soon as l
practicable.
l' Being aware of potential hazardous situations (heat stress. tank entry.
etc.) and taking appropriate precautions.
Making all of my concerns, suggestions and recommenda' ions known to my job leader or supervisor.
a Operating only the equipment that I am trained and ~ authorized to j
operate.
f Avoiding surprises by anticipating the potential plant or equipment _
]
response that will occur for each step of my task. Alsoil anticipate the.
j unexpected and consider what my actions.would,be.
j Reviewing my assigned task and making up a list of tools and materials j
that will be required.
I identify only what is needed to efficiently accomplish the task.
Obtaining all parts, materials, tools, and test equipment as assigned by :
j my job leader, and properly completing any special documentation or l
checkout procedures, q
Reviewing the work order and associated procedures for each task I am q
'l
=
assigned to do. I also verify the procedures are the current revision.
j Worker l lj WORK PRACTICES l
Page q J
~
Verifying the requ!!ed safety tagging is completed.
Taking the appropriate work instructions (work order, procedures, drawings, etc.) I need to perform my task (s) to the job site.
STOPPING WORK and informing my job leader of any. conflicts.
l inadequacies. or violations.
informing my job leader if I am approaching any station or regulatory e
limits (exposure, overtime, etc.) or if I. believe my actions might l
compromise safety or quality.
STOPPING WORK and intorming my job leader when i reach hold points.
Keeping my job leader informed of my task status.
+
Reporting changing conditions or conditions that are not expected to my job leader.
Documenting completion of my task steps in accordance with work order and procedural requirements.
Trying to restore my job site to better than its original condition.
l Additionally, I return job tools, unused parts, materials, and test equipment as assigned by my job leader.
t Carrying out v.ork assigned by the Unit Shift Supervisor during i
emergencies.
The Job Leader's Contribution to Effective Work Practices As a qualified Millstone worker,1 may be assigned to coordinate and/or lead a work cr t
accomplish a job. An assignment of this type carries added responsibilities. When assigned to be a " job leader " i become responsible for overseeing and ensu l
job is performed in accordance with station procedures and policies.
3 1 carry out these added responsibilities by:
Reviewing the work order and associated references =(procedures, technical manuals, etc.) for my assigned job.
Identifying special job site /ob conditions, such as a high radiation area J
work, enclosed volume entry, heat stress conditions, etc.
I make -
3 Discussing my assigned job with my first line supervisor.
l suggestions and/or resolve any items I do not understand.
i Worker / Job Leader WORK PRACTICES
Identifying the -proper tools, parts, materials, and test equipment necessary to perform my job and ensuring they are available.
efforts from other work groups or Coordinating required support departments. I also initiate and coordinate activities needed to meet special job requirements, such as, scaffolding erection, Radiation Work Permits. ALARA reviews, Restrictive Atmosphere Permits, fire protection, etc.
establishing tagging Consulting with applicable departments and boundaries for my job.
Reviewing the work order and associated' documents to verify all approvals and signatures have been obtained.
Verifying that systems and components are correctly aligned and safety And then, taking appropriate
=
tags have been hung for my job.
precautions and proceeding as if the systems or components remain operational.
Briefing all members of my assigned work crew and ensuring they understand their contribution to the overall job as well as the specifics of their assigned tasks.
Providing a brief overview of the work my crew wi!! oc performing to other people working in or around my job site.
-Verifying the appropriate work instructions are at my job site and are
+
being fo!!owec.
Maintaining a clear and concise written log of major work events for all
+
joc5 that are greater than one shift in duration.
Ensuring my supervisor and the control room are aware of the exact equipment condition and status at the end of my work shift.
Notifying my supervisor, the control room, and other interested parties of any significant problems and/or changes in job status.
STOPPING WORK and immediately informing the control room and my supervisor if any job or station requirements were violated at my job site.
Coordinating hold point inspections and verifying results are acceptable prior to allowing my job to proceed.
Resolving or initiating action to resolve problems identified at my job site, including work order or procedural discrepancies / inadequacies. I STOP WORK until the problems are addressed and authorization to proceed has been granted by my supervisor or the control room.
Job Leader WORK PRACTICES I
Pace _
'I Coordinating necessary system lineup changes.
equipment manipulation. equipment restoration, and testing with the control room.
i Overseeing the clean up and close out of my job site to at least its original j
condition.
if required, I contact my supervisor to help obtain the necessary resources to clean up items which do not fall under my direct conti 01.
r Reviewing and verifying alljob documentation required by the work order is completed Reviewing the completed job reflecting on what went well, and identifying areas where improvements might be beneficial.
Then.I document these items and pass them along to my supervisor.
f l
The Millstone Supervisor's Contribution to Effective Work Practices As a fMstone supervisor, it is my job to schedule, oversee, and monitor all work activities performed under my cog +ance, I fulfiE this responsibility by:
Scheduling my work group's activities considering safety. station philosophies. and manpower and material resources.
i Providing my worker group with the proper parts. tools, materials, and test equipment needed to perform the work I assign.
Enforcing station polces and procedures for work performed under my C0gncance.
Helping people resolve nr report problems encountered during. work
[
activities.
j Scheduling surveillance activities assigned to my group and ensuring the work is performed at the required intervals.
Establishing contacts, arranging for approvals, and coordinating interdepartmental support needed to complete work assigned to my work group.
Assigning job icaders and work crews who are trained qualified, and able to periorm their specific assignments, f
Reviewing qualification records for contractors working on my jobs. I
' ensure their qualification criteria is adequate and their documentation is complete.
i Job Leader / Supervisor i
WORK PRACTICES
r i
'W:
~
Discussing work assignments with my job leaders, and helping them
=
- identify job requirements, prepare job plans, and _ coordinate job' p eparation activities.
i Arranging for, and scheduling my workers and my contractors to attend i
any specific training they need to qualify for their assigned tasks.
Verifying approved procedures exist or, if needed, overseeing the f
development of new ones.
i Monitoring the status of all my jobs.
Keeping all interested parties informed of progress and/or schedule i
changes.
Performing frequent job site inspections.
Helping my job leaders coordinate job-site clean up activities with other work groups.
~
Reviewing all job paperwork to ensure job results are acceptable and properly documented, if required, I review non-conformance items and initiate Non-co.formance Reports and/or additional work orders.
Evaluating post job suggestons and initiating actions, as appropriate, to enhance the effectiveness of similar work in the future.
I i
I
-J-4 Supervisor WORK PRACTICES Page
/
PROCEDURES {
" Procedures are yours; not. management's,!"L 1not P. ORC's.
the author's.tTh'ey belong to you the user The Millstone Worker's Contribution to Procedures and Procedural Compliance Procedures define the standards for doing work at Millstone! To help meet these standarcs.1 must be commit:ed to performi g my assignec work in accordance with all of the station's policies and procedures, as well as, providing expert input that will contribute to their (procedures) development or enhancement.
! certs - _ :a:e my commitment by always:
Understanding each procedural action step and anticipating the possible consequences before I take it. Then. I verify the proper response or take appropriate corrective action before continuing.
Intelligently using procedures.
Knowing when I need to "directly" reference procedures to do rny assigned work.
Performing simple evolutions not covered by procedures using my judgement based on my experience or qualification. l ask questions first if I am unsure of how an evolution should be performed.
' Reviewing, preparing, or revising procedures as assigned by my supervisor.
Carefully reviewing and understanding the requirements of all applicable procedures for my assigned tasks. I ask my supervisor or job leader when i have questions.
Knowing the requirements of any procedures that I will " indirectly" reference when doing my assigned tasks.
Ensuring i know all required emergency action steps from memory.
Foflowing all applicable procedures! I ensure the copies I am using are approved, current and complete.
Worker PROCEDURES n_
t STOPPING WORK and informing my job leader if I believe my actions t
have violated a procedure, or I cannot perform my assigned tasks in accordance with applicable procedures.
I do not proceed until authorized by my job leader.
Periorming procedure steps in sequence unless otherwise stated in the procedure or the associated work order package.
t Documenting completion of each action I take in accordance with appropriate procedures or forms.
Reflecting on the work I performed, and initiating any procedure changes t
that i believe will enhance future performance.
The Job Leader's Contribution to Procedures and Procedural Compliance L
When, as a qualified Millstone worker. I am assigned to be a job leader, I am responsible for overseeing the use of procedures at my job site. I ensure procedures are complied with by:
Identifying and obtaining current revisions of all procedures needed to periorm my assigned job.
I ensure that all outstanding temporary procedure changes are included.
Reviewing the procedures to be used for my assigned job.
I get clarification from my supervisor for any items I do not understand.
Dunng my pre-job bnefing, I review the procedures to be used with my work crew.
Specifically, I identify those that must be "directly" referenced at'my job site.
Ensuring workers know and understand any emergency action steps that must be committed to memory.
STOPPING WORK and informing my supervisor when i discover a P
procedure will not work or has been violated. I do not allow work to continue until the discrepancy is addressed.
Worker / Job Leader PROCEDURES l
O D O '
e.
i The Millstone Supervisor's Contribution to Procedures and Procedural Compliance As a supervisor, it is my responsibility to help set and implement effective work standards by supervising the development and rnaintenance of Millstone Station's po!icies and procedures. Then.1 must oversee the activities performed by my group and ensure the work performed " measures up" to those standards.
I meet these supervisory obligations by:
Identitying evolutions that are periormed by my work group which require written instructions and estab!!shing procedures to cover them.
l c;
Coordinating the developrnent review. approval, and implementation of procedures for my work group.
Ensuring my work group understands the procedures they use Dy providing clarification on content and use.
ll Identifying which procedures must be directly referenced for work
'l i!
performed under my coonizance, Ensuring procedures are being fcllowed when i visit my job sites.
f{
Coordinating the resolution of procedure discrepancies and conflicts that come to my attention.
t Evaluating and determining whether or not procedure changes brought i!
+
ll to my attention are " intent" or "non-m:ent" changes, and tr.en processing them accordingly.
Coordinating the development of, or obtaining special process procedures and specifications necessary to do my assigned work.
Reviewing and coordinating chances to vendor special - process procedures.
Identifying any emergency procedure action steps that are required to be.
committed to memory.
j Evaluating, and if appropriate, waiving procedural step sequencing requirements.
Evaluating, and if appropriate, identifying procedure sub-sections or step sequences that can be performed in lieu of performing entire procedures.
4 f
Supervisor PROCEDURES i
NMWQ,y,,,1$..%
PHYSICAL. JOB DESCRIPTION
_1
- .1;C7~'~
L a ::00 2?
pt n3sna 4-e3 JCB itTLE
- GRADE CODE INSTRUMENT SPECIALIST ISPEC EOCATION DATE MILLSTONE STATION 2/1/83 THIS JOB DEsCRsFTION INCLUDE $ THE DUTIE S AND CONDITIONS LISTED ON THE REVERSE SIDE JOB
SUMMARY
Performs the more complex technical work associated with installing, testing, calibrating, maintaining and repairing mechanical, pneumatic, electrical and electronic (analog and digital) instruments and controls used in a tauclear power tenerating station.
-TRIMARY DUTIES 1.
Researches and analyzes faults in all types of mechanical, pneumatic, electrical and electronic instruments and their related equipment up to prescribed boundaries; determines corrective action to be taken and makes necessary adjustments and repairs.
2.
Analyzes problems in order to recommend chanEes, additions, improved calibration methods and adjustments to solid-state digital and hybrid syste=s.
3.
Ferforms surved11ance procedures on safety related protection systems and ensures compliance with operating license requirements (Technical Specificatiens).
L 4.
Calibrates meters, instruments and recorders and maintains documentation on equipment that is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.
5.
Perforer duties as a Quality Assurance Inspector on vork performed on safety-related equipment.
6.
Sets up test instrumentation for all types of testing operations; Designs and frbricates special instruments and related equipment for specific situations as directed.
7.
Maintains records and maintenance histories en all nuclear, ncn-nuclear and balance-of-plant instrumentation.
8.
Prepares drawings of electronic and pneumatic instrumentation loops; uses various complex sketches and schematic diagrams in I
connection with the work.
9.
Installs, removes and/or replaces instruments and equipment including the pre-operations testing and inspection.
a
-2a INSTRUMENT SPECIALIST I
I t
j 10.
Recommends changes'in instruments and control methods, procedures I
and applications to improve overall plant operation and reduce I
maintenance time.
11.
Writes and reviews complex surveillance procedures, special tests-i l
and special procedures.
Submits changes to these procedures as necessary.
[
12.
Ensures that replacement parts are ordered as necessary.
t 13.
Answers NRC questions as required.
(This relates to work in
[
progreas, training, plant incidents and overall plant operation.).
l 14 Trains assigned personnel on an individual basis and provides-department training as requested.
15.
Works within the boundaries of the Quality Assurance Program, Radiological Protection Program, and Site Security Program.
i ACCOUNTABILITY /END RESULTS i
1.
Timely and accurate installation, testing, calculation,-maintenance and repair of instrumentation and controls.
TYPICAL REOUIREMENTS (Minimum)
{
f Training and Experience 1.
high school diploma or equivalent plus one. year of technical h
schooling or_ equivalent with specialized courses in instrumentation.
t 2.
Three and one half years experience in a related instrument field.
Two years shall have been-as an Instrument Technician at an operating nuclear station.
Enevledge/ Skill 1.
Must be qualified to perform the duties of Instrument Technician.
~
2.
Thorough knowledge of assigned unit instrumentation including-7 complex protection systems.
3.
Vorking knowledge of unit administrative procedures.
4.
Working knowledge of unit license requirments as related to 16C Department responsibilities.
5.
Ability. to analyze inst rument probicas,' determine facts' and makes decisions / recommendations accordingly.
6.
Ability to communicate and work effectively with others.
i, 7..
Must hold a valid motor vehicle operator's license.
NORTHEAST UTILrflES 1
r,-~=,7,=,--
PHYSICAL JOB DESCRIPTION L
J.~.~......
PE R34794 84)
MSP21
[
job TertE GRADE CODE INSTRL' MENT TECliNICI AN ITECH LOCATION DATE MILLSTONE STATION 2/1/83 THis Jo9 DE SCRIPTICN :NCL UDE $ THE oVTIES ANo CONDITION 5 LfS1ED oN THE REVERSE stDE JOB SUM'ARY
~
Performs technical work associated with installing, testing, maintaining, calibrating and removing techanical, pneumatic, electrical and electronic instruments and controls used in a nuclear power generating station.
TRIMARY DUTIES 1.
Installs, adjusts, tests, repairs, cleans and calibrates rechanical, pneumatic, electrical and electronic instruments and control devices ust' cn all plant equipment, including pressure gauges, radiation tenitoring instruments, f1cureters, thermocouples, temperature gauges, control switches, am=eters, veltecters and indicators of speed, level and position associated t
with nuclear generating station.
2.
Analyzes faulty instrueents and controls; makes adjusteents and repairs as necessary.
3.
Sets up test instrazents and equiptent for routine testing operations.
4.
Calibrates a limited range of meters, instruments and controls; assists with the calibration of the more complex instruments and controls.
5.
Maintains file of instrument and control instruction books and prints.
6.
Uses, inspects and maintains laboratory instrutents and related testing equipment. Draws and uses various sketches and schematic diagrams in connection with the work.
7.
Maintains laboratory files and records; helps with special analyses, tests, inspections and investigations; makes necessary calculations when required. Reports any abnormal conditions found.
8.
Installs, removes and/or replaces instruments and equipment including the pre-operational testing and inspection.
9.
Ensures that replacement parts are ordered as necessary.
~.
- .c INSTRWINT' T ECHN1CI AN : ?
(This relates to work in -
- 10. Answers NRC questions as required. incidents and overall plant operation.)
{
progress, training, plant
.t Performs duties as a Quality-Assurance Inspector on vork performed.
1 11.
on safety related equipment.
~f Performs or assists in the performance 'of surveillance procedures 12.
f on safety related systems.
c Vrites and reviews surveillance procedures, special tests' and' l
13.
Submits recommendations for changes to these
'l special procedures.
procedures as necessary.
j Works within the boundaries of the Quality Assurance Program, 14 Radiological Trotection Program, and Site Security Program.
t q
ACCOUNTABILITY /END RESULTS l
f Timely and accurate maintenance and installation of instrument and l
1.
t control devices.
TYTICAL REQUIREMENTS (Minicum)
Traininc and Experience b
High school diploma or the equivalent plus one year of
..a
[
technical schooling or equivalent with specialized courses in,
j 1.
such as, basic electronics, calibration / test, instrumentation, equipment, pneumatic and electronic instrument and contro' systems and IoS c.
l i
One of'
-l Two years experience in a related instrument field.
2.
the two years shall have been as an Assistant Instrument Technician or equivalent.
Rnowledge/ Skill Must be qualified to perform the duties of Assistant l
1.
Instrument Technician.
Thorough knowledge of assigned unit-instrumentation.
2
[
Working knowledge of unit administrative procedures.
3.
f Working knowledge of unit license requirements as related to'
.l 4.
I6C Department responsibilities.
Ability to troubleshoot instrument problems, and make
~f 5.-
recommendations.
t 1
Ability to work effectively _ vith' others.
i 6.
Must hold a valid _ motor vehicle operator's license.
j 7.
-i o
NORTHEAST LTTIUTIES PHYSICAL JOB DESCRIPTION
- - ~ ~ ~ - -
3
~"l."' C'=. ~_
L a
MSP22
- ~
nn3m u3 JCs TITLE GRaoE COoE ASSISTANT INSTRUMENT TEC11NICIMi AITECH oATE LOCATION MILLSTONE STATION 2/1/83 THtS Jos oESCRsPTICN INCLUoES THE ot/ TIES ANo CONo!TIONS USTED ON THE REVERSE Sloe JOB SLWiARY Assists with vork done on instruments and controls used in a nuclear power generating plant.
PRIMARY DUTIES 1.
Assists with inctalling, adjusting, repairing and cleaning of mechanical, pneumatic, electrical and electronic instruments and controls associated with nuclear generating stations.
2.
Assists with the calibration of instruments and controls including, but not limited to, flovneters, recording meters, pressure gauges, automatic controls, regulators, temperature indicators and radiation monitoring instruments.
3.
Assists with the setting up of tests, instruments and equipment and with tests, inspections and related work.
4 Operates a motor vehicle.
5.
Assists in the performance of surveillance procedures on safety related systems.
6.
Works within the boundaries of the following programs: Quality Assurance Program, Radiological Frotection Progrse, Site Security Program.
ACCOUNTABILITY /END RESULTS 1.
Assure timely and accurate completion of all assignments as related to plant instrusentation and controls.
TYTICAL REQUIREKENTS (Minimum)
Training and Experience 1.
High school diploma or equivalent plus one year of technical schooling or equivalent with specialized courses in instrumentation, such as basic electronics, calibration / test equipment, pneumatic and electronic instrument and control.
systems and logic.
b
G
~
t i
~2-ASSISTANT INSTELMENT TECHNICTAN
- l i
s' 2..
No experience required.
i Knowledge / Skill 1.
Basic knowledge of instrumentation'.
2.
Ability to work effectively with others.
3.
Must hold a valid motor vehicle operator's license.
l t
6 6
)
+
t 7
5 l
l-6 5
i i
t e
5 I
O l
9
i.
- ASSISTANT INSTRL' MENT TECHNICI/.N I
[
2.
No experience required.
i Knowledge / Skill I
1.
Basic knowledge of instrumentation..
2.
Ability to work effectively with others.
3.
Must hold a valid motor vehicle operator's license.
i t
b 6
e Y
I I
r 9
[
.n t