ML20044C306
Text
__
_ _ _ _ s
'o l
4 g
UNITED STATES
[
- e. <-
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
{
REOtoN l j*
478 ALLENDALE ROAD
- eee+
, KJNQ OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 15408 MAY 0 31991 4
-1 t
This letter refers to the following allegations that you provided to us; March 11, 1991, alleging changes to a controlled drawing without proper approvals, procedural weaknesses, and inadequate training; and April 1,1991, alleging security plan implementation weaknesses.
We have initiated action to have the Nonheast Udlities staff review your concerns and respond to us. We will inform you of their review findings. Attached is a copy of the concerns as we characterized them to Nonheast Utilities.
Should you have any further questions, or if I can be of further assistance in these regards, i
please call me collect at (215) 337-5183.
Sincerely, r
/ Gene Kelly, Jef Reactor Projects Section 4A F
Attachment:
As stated i
bec:with enclosure R.Fuhrmeister (2) RI-91-A 005 0063 W. Raymond J. Stewart (2) i E. Kelly I
Infortnation in this record was d(3;ej in accordance with the freEcam 0!!n';rmation Act, exem%or,s _/f M l
9303220128 921217 F0iA __f2d/w
~~
'b
=
'o i
i ENCLOSURE Issue 1: During work under PDCE M2-90-032, de6ciencies have been identi6ed in dra i
25203-39692 sheet 14C. Similar deficiencies have been identined for the drawings assoc with radiation monitors RM-8262 and RM-8123. Although these deficiencies have been
}
identi6cd to management, no corrective actions have been implemented. Additionally, aj engineer marked-up the above drawing (39692, sheet 14C) on March 11,1991, thereby i
implementating a change to a plant drawing without proper management review and [
Finally, the PDCE (M2-90432) did not contain appropriate guidance for the required taj appropriate wiring diagrams were not included as required to ensure a complete tagou' i
5 Please discuss the validity of the above assertions. Please discuss your corrective actions for }
any procedural adherance or other identified problems and discuss if any generic de6ciencies f
that may require additional action are identified.
i 1ssue 2: The following errors in authorized work order procedural references have been
{
identified; (A) Procedure IC 2422D-1 deletes reference to photohelic section for RM 8434A I
data sheet.
The photohelic calibration is checked in procedure IC2422B; however, the physical location of the photohelic is in radiation monitor RM 8434B. (B) radiation monitor I
j 8132B has a magnehelic sensor but no calibration data sheet section exists. The flow instmment is in radiation monitor RM-8132A. Procedure SP-2404AF has the c]
i l
FIS-8132A. (C) Radiation monitor RM-8145A has a magnehelic calibration section; howev[
j the flow element is in RM-8145B as opposed to RM-8145A.
t
.I l
Please discuss the validity of the above assenions. Please discuss any corrective actions that j'.
l you have taken or will take to correct any identified problems.
l i
i
- 5 i
Issue 3: On the job training is not provided when required. Training is conducted only mi !
conjuction with INPO visits. Acceptable on-the-job-training could have eliminated confusion t
}
t of the techmcians mvolved in completion of SP-2401B on February 16, 1991.
{
Please discuss the validity of the above assertions. Please discuss any corrective actions that you have taken or will take to correct any idemi6ed problems.
l Issue 4: Instrument and Controls technicians in the ' upgrade' supervisory position have not -
received annual Fitness-for Duty supervisory training.
Please discuss the validity of the above assertion. Please discuss any corrective actions that t
you have taken or will take to correct any identified problems.
i t
i 1
I i
i'j 1
4-i
~
ENCLOSURE l
f Issue: On April 1.
991, an instrurrat and controls technician (*) and a contractor employee were performing troubleshooting activities on radiation monitor RM-8132 in the auxiliary.
building. The two workers entered the auxiliary building together but only the technician l
authorized access to the area. There should have been a local alarm to alert !
involved that access was not authorized for the contractor. Security responded to the unauthorized access when the individuals were exiting the area approximately 15 minutes l
after entering. The issue was logged in the security logs.
Please discuss the validity of the above assertions. If the assertions are true, please explain j
j why security did nct respond when the individuals entered the auxiliary building an us the details of any investigation that was conducted to ensure that plant security was maintained. Please provide the corrective actions planned or taken to correct any identified f
deficiencies?
1
~
F h
- '/
1
?
l l
i I
l r
'f I
i I