ML20044C307
Text
--
P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
UNITED ST ATES
- e D.
- E REGION I l
475 ALLENDALE ROAD
?,,.
KING oF PRUS$1A. PENNSYLVANIA 1K61416 b
g.....o a
DCT 2 41991, f
i
)
?
This letter efers to two concerns that you provided to us on April 1,1991. The first concem i
was that there should have been a local alarm when a contractor, who did not have authorized l'
access foi the Millstone Unit 2 Auxiliary Building, used his access card key and entered the area with a licensee Instrument and Controls Technician who did have authorized access. The second -
l concem was that it took Security approximately 15 minutes (actually 22 minutes) to respond to l
t the unauthorized access.
t i
We completed our evaluation of this issue and determined that security requuements were not-compromised. Regarding your Grst concern, the local alarm (which had apparently recently
.{
failed) should have provided a local notice of unauthorized entry, but was not. an NRC j
requirement. We therefore conclude this was an equipment problem that could not have been foreseen. Regarding your second concern, the licensee immediately dispatched a security of6cer -
in response to the alarm, in accordance with the Millstone Physical Security Plan and NRC' l
requirements. The time required for the security officer to locate the individual was apparently.
f due'to the manner and time needed to do a systematic (patterned) search. This was not a~
siolation of NRC requirements.
While the ateged event did occur, we found no safeguards concerns or programmatic
-l deficiencies. The NRC therefore plans no further action. Thank you for informing us of your concerns.
F Si
- ely,
.l
- y Edward Wenzinger, Chief '
/
l Reactor Pmjects Branch 4 s
i i
se' lnictmation in this rec :d was dt
.i In 3;;0fd3DCe Wdh Ihe freQ~i OI iniktw.
Att exemptions A 4ZL-.
F01A - 9A /4A
\\
^'
9303220133 921217
)
PDR - FOI A.
i
,HUBBARD92-162 PDR f'
s p
.y
- k bec:
i Allegation File, RI -0063
.t i
E. Connor j
T. Shediosky i
W. Raymond i
E. Kelly l
Contractors Office File (REAG AN) lt Ii Concurrence:
RI:DRP RI:DRP,-
)p o
l4,7f Don
[diddy E Wenzinger J
W _/n 10/f4n 10p/n-l i
l
+
~l J
t
-!:i E
' r
.[
4 i
?
1 o
I
-i
.'.t
'l t
h i
. I l
l
hrK Uy
'. 1 1J:Jo 14KU l'11 LLb i Ufit UPP]L b VUZ u.t II ALLEGATION RECEIPT REPORT k(Wik O lMl ir.30 ut Allegatien No. PI-/H l-dd b Y-v y
(leave blank) e te/
Cunfidentiality:
v'as it reccestec?
7 Yes No k'as it initially granted?
Yes _ No k'as it finally granted by it.e allegaticn panel Yes,_ _ No Does a ccr.ficertiality agree: tent need to be sent to alleger?
Yes ___, No Ns a c:r.f"cer.tiality agree er.t teen sf gred?
Yes No Mero ceteenting why it was granted is attacned?
Yes _ _ No Allecer's [
Ew;1c>ee: L.UU6 d d.9 M;M. >
t -w
\\
Fosition/
Title:
y[ [h Facility:
M 'llh @ A 2.
Docket No.:
80-336 (Allegation Su nery (brief descriptien of concern (s): h E4 ffW hfalnYa 40 kbnicigr $cy 4he grhouplanM 000 $1rg prohehon swwiiIwce N nber cf Concerns:
f
~.
e m.e C plcyte Receiving Allegation:
MJ 4 jfC faf p45 (first two initt6 s ~anc last nace)
Type of Replatee Activity (a) [Reector (d)
Safeguards (b)
Vendor (e) _,,, Othe r:
(c) __ Materials (specify)
Faterials License No. (if applicable): _ _
Functional Ares (s):
a) Operations (e) Ernergency Preparedness (b) Construction Z((g) Offsite Health and Safety f Onsite Health and $afety (c) Safeguards
)
_(c) Transportation (h) Other:
1
( ARC Region I Fom 207
~-
Revisec10/89)
In'arma';37 ia 1.2 n:3d..u 6'>g n a c u m te v,jp,;33 7, SCl,C19~;',c's } f 7 [
rv-a-
u-
,4_.
,2
.y.. -+
APR 09 '91 12:26-NRC MILLSTONE 0FFICE P03
?
^M I
s f
I P
4 f
I.
GP 44 O
h t
O ) Dd.
1 E' d1tC[V ) ) !. #,I d.r..
i m e;., m
.cr m, w.
m a:9 m u w..w e P4 o n e.- WECc:
h h(, F 3 h.
h *.., h' h * '" O I 4
t e r.n 2 c ; 4 t i... r. d + ten t r c u t c. - wer e i s :.f. c.: J firs prctp:ticri r C C C R p ! 1 S h e d b y; C r*
0 a
- s' O.1 '. sm ". L.
Il.
L.1:*. C.:2 3 J # f1L =- l 'C ~ 1 1.~ E : -.. k. 4 ne s U t 2 2 r. r.,, afTerded (:. v. OJT) t:
'n u n s: e r t !ca.2 tr-r. hni e a an, the wrves l lze.r e c - firs 1-C, t i i.; arrigned
.- 2 E i r.;, t F t- ;;ef# v.. '. c ;.
t es t.h r.
.n e r.
?-
L'
- o T &f'OUL s,.+:CL
- ? ;r
..c. t;' l iTQ i t: ;&* t the procedure.
l 10 err or cr-prCcedure W.-S
.Li c t 4:.t - tr Lii-l
s cl. s.;cr icowvt. U,o
.m... c o.= m.1 = a;:fra=t),.
)
1
, It U. ;., e i Of *tt L ;' O ! 4 6, tL. (Oy J de
- 'C
- *
- $' ;.. t
- ,: i C d t PiO e 13 C ya4
- 5 J..
- i. r.i 1. ). < i C. G prLcin:,f25 7 4,; ; 3 ; G d t :;; t C f ::r[orgfpd {CT 2..
ii.C!.
C4 LJ :.
F.s r C. t-l. C ~' C*. G 17 t!.i Jr A L L.ai'4', d L f'. G (,(Chr}jCJ6p Would
)
,3 l
2 ;.,e '- Q r J - i G- ) f Et r%t!. r..
- C. p.; t i t t e.C 4 : :* }. / 1 % gt. 3 3
p ~f C. C4f. i a
.r A1*
.C6..
?
- t t..
- w.
jr,Sp5C*.Ot s G C L S aT 4 P.d..t *. f.7 :
'.t r t i 11 L '..- r t t.;
l.t Cr } ! C cr. =J 2..
+
c
+
a
r b.is s
J OCT 2 41991
(
L This letter refers to two concerns that you provided to us on April 1,1991. The Erst concern
+
was that there should have been a local alarm when a contractor, who did not have authorized i
access for the Millstone Unit 2 Auxiliary Building, used his access card key and entered the area with a licensee Instrument and Controls Technician who did have authorized access concern was that it took Security approximately 15 minutes (actually 22 minutes) to respond to the unauthorized access.
We completed our evaluation of this issue and determined that security requirements were not compromised. Regarding your 6rst concern, the local alarm (which had apparently recently failed) should have provided a local notice of unauthorized entry, but was not an NRC requirement. We therefore conclude this was an equipment problem that could not have been foreseen. Regarding your second concern, the licensee immediately dispatched a security of6 in response to the alarm, in accordance with the Millstone Physical Security Plan and NRC requirements. The time required for the security of6cer to locate the individual was apparently i
due to the manner and time needed to do a systematic (patterned) search. This was not a violation of NRC requirements.
While the alleged event did occur, we found no safeguards concerns or programmatic de6ciencies. The NRC therefore plans no further action. Thank you for informing us of your concerns.
Sincerely, a c; red BY Edward Wenzinger, Chief Reactor Projects Brnnch 4
,liktmation ja pJs record r.'n dfM in accc: dance w.th It;; Frn%m a ;, q7mgg;,
a nct, txc:r, pies
-6 / x F014. f,2 - /((' '~ ~ --
h OFFICIAL RECORD COPY (k
s b,:is; i
bCC:
Allegation File, RI -0063
- E. Connor T. Shediosky W. Raymond l
E. Kelly Contractors Office File (REAGAN) i I
Concurrence:
RI:DRP RI:DRP,.
RUDRP
~.
J s
j 4'E'gnoon Kelly E Wenzinger j'
_/21 10/
El 10/ ; /21 h
l 4
.?
.i i
l 4
i i
I t
I l
t i
l T
1
1 LLEGATICuS AND CCP. PLAINTS - GENERAL
-RX 1210.1/1-A APPENDIX 3.1 i
r ALLEGATION RECEIPT REPORT
[
Allegation ~No.
d b
c Name:
Address:
Phone:
City / State / Zip:
Confidentiality:
sf Was it recuested?.
Yes No A.
Was it initially grantec?
Yes No l
Was it finally grantea by the allegation panel Yes No Does a confidentiality agreement reed to be sent to allecer?
Yes.
No Has a confidentiality agreement been signea?
Yes-No
)
Memo cocumenting why it was granted is attacheo?
Yes No
-}
1 Ull/u ' Posit 4cnnitie: M p
e t
i k'
.t 2 Docket No.. SC ' S 3 C Facility:
/
f
( Allegation 5.mmary (brief description of concern (s):
Olfcu N C6dww RI0ld hk 2I/\\ls-?ccc
'c Q Iece$w,er 0C
) YcA-3bec.h
?
ji 4
aj$ % b d.E frur,,mc
<nacYewa!c.l'+*hN-M N uen L.1w N de..
<alc)
Deb-om b lm-E Occ r) c d-at,; c a8et..I [h jnkPujh,chy d re L A
cnt. -'_l
~
t Number of Concerns:
Ade /
ho wS Employee Receiving Allegation:
(first two initials anc last nace) t Type of Regulated Activity (a) _/ Reactor (d) _ Safeguards (b) _ Vendor (e) _ Other:
(c) _ Materials (Specify)
.j
]
Materials License No _(if applicable):
Functional Area (s): [(a) Operations
_ (e) Emergency Preparedness (b) Construction
_(f) Onsite Health and Safety Z(h):
g) Offsite Health and Safety
- (c) Safeguards
(
Othe r.:
(d) Transportation
)
(NRC Region I Form 207_
. Ir.formadan m this rt:cd w:s (2Ycd Revised 10/89) in acco'dants w.ib Ee ine:'cm of Inf6rmation
(/~
A3.1-1At!. creMcr.s _If._ 7C 4 /
i r0'A 72-//r-i
_1
t AL,LEgATIONRECEIPTREPORT Date/ lice fewd E 199l 17' 13M Allegatton No.N'4" 91 Receiyed:
3 (leave blank) f Address:
(h' f.~.[.
ji; '.
Name:
7 -
l phone:'
City / State / Zip:g(sf.?
l
~e -.
Confidentiality:
Was it requested?
Yes No N Vas it initially granted?
Yes No ~
Vas it finally granted by the allegation panel Yes No Does a confidentiality agreement need to be sent to alleger?
Yes No Hss a conficentiality agreement been signed?
Yes No Memo documenting why it was granted is attached?
Yes No ok hW0D]
_3;hhhfrk Position /
Title:
Facility:
DiLLh0dE.2.
Doctet No.:
50-336 (Allegation Sumary (brief description of concern (s): IMMcW/' Q 6,!
0Ene ra $ son 0 n6$Yu b lort in Y A hle f li G. ))0U-$ ft
$$(vhWL Nuc.ber of Concerns:
I Explcyee Receiving Allegation: _ f J / Gbih0ks
~
(first two initia ls and last ntse)
Type of Regulated Activity (a [ Reactor (d) _ Other: Safeguards (b
Vendor (e) ~~
~
(c _ Materials (Specify)
Materials Licensa No. (if applicable):
Functional Ares (s): [(a) Operations e Ena:gency Preparedness b) Construction f Onsite Health and Safety
~
~
c) Safeguards g Offsite Health and Safety
[ d) Transportation
[h Other:
(NRC Region I Forr. 207 Revised 10/89) e
N-ne o
h 4
DiscF2Dtien c+..)1egetic+q:
Dotsil m ')- ;.,- -. -
l r.
e c'
P a recent p r c ' t. 'c
- a th UA c 01 d ; '% Cl w~
Off-Stat"C th~~
t', an=u.m e c.ce 2 w = " e
- +
9p x inspect r
. m.. : :
dO* 1
'a': L neef ct;rpi;c,ce,
- c. M s t r'l c h t tc tha are.1 t =
h r;rgerl atic9 T55 M 'I +""2f't COP 5TFC'i CP t ' kMS i' t * " #' V 2I'2*
r C'.
. in c e t t al- ' e..
t t d tras tcp.L a t t "< her E n.y:r.rrt.
e a;,. a ys en:,s.
F4 L'
f c ; c :..;1 6 sn which
..u. : 1.
If t o rt wor. att: n.r we N : n - c;a. enc when c:L
.t
- cur.
based en t"3 lilltT= ; mca".t c4 i '*.f Gr Se t i on Em d O rr t 2 ) ^ te ~. h u allegati 3.
the i n 2 p e '. t c f" Cc3IPC fc" S:sY E ?G I A 4 '71 9 m
'1 2 n f or.t.r; ; on.
The inc.v::ud t.w a c r + tc cife<.
Ew +.
e
.-~
mgec w c+s m s e-et-~rmt:r r7 i cr' =4;n iM D
- --wp e ~~t-e----4 14 -
M r-- M iwt%_ra ha-:^ e M*
Q
/
t e t 7 tM the O~
I nt0e'*
P l
';te pra]uch tc theE C.ut.En:On wes 7C 3;! tcC U sr.u nas e - : mg the ; m r. a t-0..t t;
-c-1r -: :ne t & n s.g e.: s ~ ;,
1%
cu e s 11.. e::. e r. n et t s :. :::,
a nwe..: - *1E
- n vel ved.
N. e- '
I n r.,p rec.t c.
2.a..
.t '.-
'or t her dei.n.: e t e r*
20s.2.
s Cn Mr S I'. ic 1 t e-CC iners:*.cf Wsis tel~.c5 cy Cei r r t.t3 c h C en=t
..:.t:;.n c
- ..ni.
- -,:- to per + =r t a ein..
mi l : :. s:.n.ec t : sm o' A
pr e e 6Li icutes :. rdt E fur t.c o.: n
's t ce.-
- e; E;r e f t
- . t c '~ L;r i t u' At Mz 11 si c.e 2.
1: ;
v.
- tu-e was r t if4tG!Isc ir ttw p.&n*
4&.
u-I'i.t C On v ir* 5 d T.10:1.
l * E * : r :- l WClO 1 "'s 0 7. ~.1 C f w h s f. at L ';. 4 ' 7 " C: t 1U ~ E Cil" -- '.
"i h e intpe-cr ccm;2 : * ::r: the wrid i n Ep cct 2 0'4.
/.* t er in n i n ch:n....".
t
';.t.F
.nspsct;:n wcs ::
,p'.etc.
e r _Le.L t u : e r v. r.
- , a ticr.e2 1 4 :.
- s. 5 Int pr L;Ecs.r
- '. ;.* t b
- G C.
NC D Cc ti'r.b i *. 5 : Or wn ;.**E503 ct rt 'hc ; t L' site, s.nc tne t.r M t - c n.p I : s h : r.; t it acd s.+ t s c t? :e,
c' d n:t b :r 1 : :.' c the Jct supe vi'icr 60:c0;4 a st ec e-
'*21 up" anspJct: L-
- 'he fabrictt.cn end cor.tecls c4 the structure are Non-Ota, I n :s e s c e :n.:: e ec tsy GWS.. e the J D e.upervisor acc a.p;;she3 t.h e "4:t up" Inspect:cm,
&ased cr. r.c Inctcetier tmat the
'4 1 t -u;-
inspect:c, was con.plei.ed, the OC Inspr,ctcr inst:eted
- un-c =n i ce r. +n c e r ep =r t :-52-v!5 tu ststr tl.t l
.I tht* J ln&! nc3d i~.LPs:tiiM W S c UD S P.t D 9 ; a.t s a nO 4 t~up 1rt:J F O *.1 C T 4. ". E
&cct:7
- 1. 2 3 e o
~hf 411
- . 2of;ecticn reviews welc t e c. l. E. an
- v e r a n..:
{
3 g c.'.
-. cur t.tnents. ::stwe -n '.ne tube steel c onnec t i c.n s.
F l
The O' inspectsr as a matter of prGctice ces11ec the e251CnGd
[
constructich respresentative to :nform him that she had init1cted e NCI; i
f or' this wort act;vaty.
The C-enerati on Constr us L i c,o crq eni r a.ti cr..
according to the LiC inspector was trying to change ths initial NCR disposition, stating that they cic not believe a 92t up inspectich <. t required f or a non-D/4 structure.
In accition. the cenetrut.t f on representativt Etated that the NCR was written in hete, pr2cr to attaining retlevent 2nformation frcm the ;Ob supervisor, who et t h t-t ;.r.e
)
wac cn vscation C L'r '. n q t h e final wel c irspection. Pesed on Gener et;:n Construction informel response to the, NCI, the C:C inspecter not:f nd L
4 b
i
=.
. 's. 6
!\\
F
. 4 her er.anasecrent cf their intenticr:s.
She,prov2ced her man e O e.r.a n t with the NCR, t*.e autnce1:of wort crce. &nc bathgrour:d i nf orrr.ati on.
On Apr 1 1.
sencr :t. n Ucnstru:.: :n ccmp1stoc :he.Litherirec wci-i crec-and documerted that a +2t-up 165 e: tion wn w p.eted. N e w e v er- :.1
- v. 3.,
pr tyV1 Cusl y "tCL 'f 0.. W i ; f
- 0 0 0 e I h C. #C 1 r 70 6 c *.cf
- til k iI
- N S 1 wtlF Y U **.1 :. : ) ~.
~
tnat a fit 'Jp itat*QC;;c*. cCUIG h J v e t. C ar. C cF p l e: Led s;.nce she accomplishec tr.o ir.a1 na;c :nsper_t1or en Nr th
~.11.
").
OC At tha t z :f e cf rne c cnver shts on with ne UC: as;-e:tcr-U4pr :.
l m.E n e Q e. I n t aab in pec::.s: :.;
gc; ng t o tt.t:.
job siter to ideut. f y if z.
43t-uc. wptr ; t i c - w e i., p h v s. a c el l y PCsElble to etcca..plish Mt!0r th+ f:ral
+
r e l d..tj w.t c a c c c a p ; 1 c h e t..
i At 0 :,'~. 0 p., on upr:1 5. Mr. H1ch L & uc t-n e t cA)2ed the tL-520Fnt ofit_e.
j he h ac hcier:: thE.t tr e %C was revlee;ng t f i ts Genereti on Canett uct2 Fb OL' NNECo canager%.it bcJ us in now(thr.at cn ns non-Cf./d;p.
He war.t 97;1 ! when j
- ceu=
2 ccen (nvclsrd :r the a shie rince f
A
, +J4 $ ~
in+orted it. St e ve 5-:c.c c c+
t*
4 t,.i, u,.
Sc.cc g L; acenat ;nvolvec A4ttr ra c t r ; tnu :pectice.s r ei sec l'C caic atig tc the GenG* O' vi t Et f ** c T 1% r E e T. et if L r s.t fif f it c oni er e 9 C te.
t Laudenat sista r s.n e g:: ment wss w:reang cn ectsco plar to addr ess ti) the techn:12; c;pa s t 1 on
- 11. e.
we ttc-4it.tp tcel1y ccns. anc :c t! e:
e d
hca c ompl et e c - rect L i c : s p t i.O l ee ). (2)) th r-p' c ;r amir at: c y..t.. t4cnc 3eneration Cet.structic, occuner.t s its-Petlyst;ps and thet after tro
- cct signcff c4 t ** c + : '. u p inspect;;, e n t"
(::1; the interract: cn/ cch41.:t CE tween CC sn2 3e.wr6 tion ConstructiUh per5Cnnel
- DVC3Vec.
Interest:n; det ci s p?cs : ded by L6ucenAtt (2 ) the J ott su;. er vi si.,r was aw.are of t.e dit up ins:cetien r e:;ui t ementE. tut t ner Ge er et t un
[
Constructsen r e;:reser.t st: we was not ; ii 2 ).An af te - the f act f 2 t up inspecticn can t.e dare because thr welding is not fully cround thc tube s t ecr i - :.e. tne ;ap 1s v;sible; and (iii) some question en the l
I n t erp r e a.t : ott of the nele prcc rou-e exi st e - it is posir,2 ble the ;ct supErvisc d a t3 not h&vE to dGCUmfnt his f2 tup 2ntpect105, t
1
/
i 2nspec[cr r<ct3 f ied Laudonat that the !MECO aOprCath was-notsd. aied j
lho
- lW: ' '. 5 2 r7i; er estec to get en e',tp)&nstion c.f the f:nal d i spos i ti c.n.
e
/-/
i
- n sp ec tor hecommencaticn Turn Dvor to utili ty E
,/
q
=
- s o
~
,q
, p.wy isa aes s
e esR.La.ska A/LW i
i
?
4 t-
o.
~ ALLEGATICNS AND COMPLAINTS - GENERAL RX 1210.1/1
'a -
l3 APPENDIX 3.1 ALLEGATION RECEIPT REPORT
((
,89/
Allegation No.
O
'~
c
'/
(leave blank)
Name:
Address:
i l
Phone:
City / State / Zip:
1,.
Confidentiality.
y Was it reauested?
Yes No A.
Was it initially granted?
Yes No Was it finally granted by the allegatior, panel Yes No Does a confidentiality agreement need to be sent to alleger?
Yes No Has a confidentiality agreement been signed?
Yes No Memo documenting why it was granted is attached?
Yes No
\\
/, /
)
Alleger's Ai 7
O ],,/, M.c Position /
Title:
l Employer: g \\)Pt l
<ss-i Facility:
/ I[
/t 1 Docket No.: % 'dM (AllegationSummary(briefdescriptionofconcern(s):(
Mu [k DC 7#1mf lepehv cf ()( k'
' s (d) m - 5bct, c C-f {}raiik h-] l\\)N-S O(ce l
cQ fl i
4
/
{
afhey k% k.4 frrur'er-s rc
< n ac tuak.
h S' E?'tJhnc_lsm< buls ge cbc) t u
- i_
i rcL see&
%J lR Neo-s'au,'r(h k; ;,e a L Aa (%) onI'newduwt l r- /
Cnl a' e, i i
I
/
Number of Concerns:
Empicyee Receiving Allegation:
d3Ah44!
/ hoa's (first two initiafs anc last nime)
Type of Regulated Activity (a) fReactor (d) _ Safeguards l
(b) _ Vendor (e) _ Other:
i (c) _ Materials (Specify) l Materials License No. (if applicable):
[
_ (a) Operations (e) Emergency Preparedness Functional Area (s):
_ (b) Construction (f) Onsite Health and Safety
_ (c) Safeguards (g) Offsite Health and Safety
__(d) Transportation (h) Other
.i (NRC Region I Form 207 Revised 10/89)
Informati30 in this re:::d W2s da'e'ed A3.liktordance w.% tl,= r;Edu Di!nictmation A:!,e u,- W es -, / 7c f n) c in!4. ') g?-/dy ~
~ ~ ~ ~ - -
f {P'
. _. ~
..m._
-,v.
i l
AL,LECATION RECEIPT REPORT l
Date/ Time /ovils 1991 17.15c4 Allegation No.D 9/
Reciived:
(leave blant)
Name:
Address:
Phone:
City / State / Zip:__
Confidentiality:
Was it requested?
Yes No A Was it initially granted?
Yes No -
Vas it finally granted by the allegation panel Yes No Does a confidentiality agreement need to be sent to alleger?
Yes No '
i Has a confidentiality agreement been signed?
Yes No Memo cocumenting why it was granted is attached?
Yes No hVEdo}
Position /
Title:
l Facility:
lAILLS70dE 2 Dock.et No.:-
60'330 (Allegation Sumary (brief description of concern (s): TupttrW Q C- [
0ene(boot) (DnShubwti in $ A b[t 041 d.
Albu-& A S5fVbu(L Nw.ber of Concerns:
I OMb Employee Receiving Allegation:
PJ/
/
[first two initia ls and last name)
Type of Regulated Activity (a(b _/ Reactor (d)
Safeguards Yendor (a) _ Other:
(c __ Materials (Specify)
Haterials License No. (If applicable):
FunctionalAres(s):[(a) Operations e) Emergency Preparedness (b) Construction f Onsite Health and Safety (c) Safeguards g Offsite Health and Safety
_(d) Transportation h Other:
(NRC Region I Forst 207 Revised 10/89)
0
- 4 Dots 11 DFscriptien c+ A)1egetien chi 187 t***
On ; ril d.
et ap pr o::i nat el y 12: ' i p. m.,
rer a deret : + O ce.
beGen tne conve'sation bv stating " me became aware cf (t hir d ;.2r ty,
b ret t er get ycu' pen reed /".
a recent p r' cc l e'n u; th DA welding cism eff.
statec thP.
DC inspectcr T-ar.cv G l'.lo) w s ". t u incpect e weld.ng Jco, whon t.r-obss tc the er&J t! e wc t wen al-nedy accorp1:s9ce.
Che wrs toic by ti.:
[
,jll organicaticn E acstc.#rment C=nstructacr) that this i s the wcv i t :E 7
ai r.ays ecos.
h5 D'- Anupectcr rusted inir tcpic with her rn a n.;g e a r n t.
a l c n y, know which un t.
If t h rt noe n acti vity acs CA er Ncn-ca, &nc when d : L' it occur.
Bseed cn the li mi ted amount of infcreaticn cud dets)1 tc ' t.e allegatien, the inspe; tor ce] loc icr any E.mp114 yi ng 1 nf or c.ari on.
The 2ndiv2;um1 r.a d nca t c c i f t: r.
Eaw U..,
~ 2 ':
Cr-i W
1-rtcpeci_r a s.cw s M M i..metTch m :n Lna ". a s Festet 4;.,..
.. ar1:mc-- t+-M,M--+44u-r-- g
<f 1Pe p+ sl ude tc this c.ucts n:cn was th a+
t h c-OC inspect.cr tst7c thrt snu w a.s -cc,1
.9 the 1ssau o..
wit; nce 2r-line managedsn:, aC cucs -;1..r e; wny
.nu resideit 2 0 s v e _. ; :- was invc1vec.
N'nenF.105s. the inspectc.
auev;;.:20 durther det at. w t-tre i ssue.
/
Cn M,S ch Ch. IC?1 tP.- CC i nspe: tor was cel;cc cy Geierc[:en r
Cons.t uct:cn c gant:: 2 c-to per+cri e f i n.w.. wel d actuaction c; e pr e, acricates ctructure ice t r. G ew st s.c Jet sir e eutcr ec.c n : : vi at Millstenc 2.
Itz C.r :ctu-o was nct inste) led in t plant es u-th:t c on v er s;.t i cn.
The f i r. :. I welc ins w.
en he r. p ar t, ;A proceme a CL'r v ; c, The intpector ccmpleted the weld i n s;, c c t i co.
Af;t er t n e i n c.p n. t. c,..,
L.. e c,.3 es t i cr.ed li c.
"'it-up'
- risp+cti cn wcs complettsc by the.A t.:c e r v : r. c--
as the pr ccsca.rc fictated.
No occumenta ti on /Use pr esenteo et the jcb site, and the craft acccep11 thing tha work stated they did nct 0411 ave the job supe vlser ucccmpli st ed a "4It-up"' inspect 1un.
The fhbetcct:=n and contecls cf the structure are Ncn-3.' t hus as r e qal t ed Dy GWS-C OS the 200 r.up e r v i s or accompl i she s the " fit up" inspection.
Based cn no indication tnat the " fit-up' inspection was con.pleted, the OC inspector ini t:ated non-c=nf ern:ence report 2-91-035 to sts.te thct the final wcld inspcct:cq was unsat becausa no f i t-up inspection wr acct:mp14thkd.
The fit Lp intpection r eviews weld tecks, anc various i
get icurcruents between the tube steel c er.n ec t i ons.
^
The DC inipectcr as a matter,cf pr&ctico celled the as51Cned construction respresentati vu to inform him that she had initiated a NCR f cr this worF acti vity.
,The Generati on Construc tion er g en i : s t i cr..
occording to the DC inspecter was trying to chance the initial NCR disposition, stating that they did not beli eve a i s t up inspection v.ar requ1 red for a non-04' structure.
In eddition, the construction representative stated that the NCR was written in hawte, prior to attaining relevant /tr$~ cation frcm the Job supervisor, who at the t;me wac en vacation during the final welc inspection. Besed on Gener et; =n Construction 2 nf ormal response to the NL'F., the CC inspector notifi<d
/
+
t,t'rs. U c
- 71 Adi01 (1F4 's 6 4 L.L.C 1 d.110.
<.< r r J > - C. -
T o..
4
- k h er tr.3n a g e tr en t cf their intentions.
She proviced her menai,ed.snt w:',
the NCR, the authcrirod Wo't orce,, end beti.;round i M orrr.atl.cn.
/
On April 1, Gence sti on L'enctructi:n ecmpisted :he. e t h : r i :* e d wcrr crece and documented that e fit-up inspe:;len wn w V.etec.
h= wever it
- e. r. 3 previcusiy nCt dCCucented.
^*t
- C"Y
~d1 CIi inat a fit-up iris;,ect 2 0 : tet ; c have teer. c col eted s;nce une accomplishec tro #inal walc intpectjCn Cn Nrch 31-
- ).
C'C At the t i c es ci tno c nsersation with tne CCinsptzctor Gpr i.
manJQe74nt mat in pecCcs uf QLin[ t0 tht joD si t cr to i dtH 4 t i f y if E fit-u
- ~5p+;t: O r' was ShvL'CIlly PC5;1 tic to etcortplish after th+ f : r.a1 w erl U i nig w,3c a: C ap;1Er.cc.
1
- 5. Mr. k1ch Lauder,st cA)}cd the.resiOsnt of f :.e.
At C: 20 p. ~. On 4pr:t r e NkC wu revi eWi nG.t tie Geriet at j en Constr uctl an. 0L' He h.; U h (i e r d thE.t 10 ?.t P CD tN nOn-CE eVd ; c.
He want uh t o P.cw p h rit WGo rnanagC nir.it i,c-J been i nvcl u d i r. the.ssue s i nc:- 3;;<;1' ! wren ap"M W W M M M Mb2.j?MIEh%
in4 O**mc0 Mr. Etev0 5:C @ C (i' Cf t h tt i d.s Li s.
E C.:.C C Q C *'
L G ild e n a t ! !, r O i V C-O 6ftEr M C ! i r,Q t 9(i.WeStiONS P&isEc Cy L'C 46ted dbE tC the Sensi t
- Vi t1 E T f ** C Ts thF f eCCf ni c"I f f L ? 6. tdC l l t C Ln f er e9 0 L*.
L ALtd Cn dt St6tEt r !.0 L g e mte r. ~. w67 w1r li n g i.E c' C t 1 CM P16e to addreMS fi) tho techn: a; cuesta an t i. e.
wEs the lit
.c e cell y COnG And it t!:e h c.-
c ompl et ce e c.f 6 E.C : ep t.-bl e ). Ala) The p' egr ammatic y.v-14cos Gener& tion C f Struct107 CCCur er.t i its Petiv} ties and that GftGr trG 4ect sigDCf* C9 1 5 1' i t ".u?. I n E p eCI1 OS : ird (1111 the intErraction/cc lla t LE twei-:n CC an d Gtr.;&f 6t1 Cn CcD5t P UC li L f: p'7 sOnnC)
- 2. n v o l V e d.
prov1 dec by LF.ict-nst t (1 ? the a cu 1 ut. er' v i s ur 6.< A r.
Interesting deic.1: c aw.Ar e of the a l t up, i nsp ;-c *;1 cn r e ;ui r Em9nt E.
dut the Ge* :5 r e l a Lit e Ccnstruct1c9 r ep*'esent sti v e W65 nc.; (il ) An afte' the fact f1 tup inspecticn can te done boCaute the meld;ng is not f ull y croerc tr.c t ube anc (111) seme cuestion en the tn,e gap is visible; steel -
1.e.
interpretatlov ef the nelc pr;tecu e exist s - it is pcssible the J:b supervisc-dvc net hsve to document his fttup inspection.
/
/
1he i n s p e ci. cr notified Laudenet that the NNECO apprce:h was noted, cu i d
/
- L 's ard erested to get En e::p1 & nation Of the final di sposi ti c.n.
inspec or Ketonnendeticnt Turn over tc utility Y
~
h(17 (((0hbON f
Y1 0
J,){ f
~~~
i I
t l
j ALLEMTION RECEIPT REPORT
_ Ovil B,I@l ll'30 A 4 A11egatten No. EI-/r91-i Date/ Time (leave blank)
Receiveo:
Name-Address:
~
City / State /2ip:
Phone:
i No ' 7 Confidentiality:
Yes Was it requested?-
Yes.
No t
Vas it initially granted?
Yes No Was it finally granted by the allegation panel j
Does a Confidentiality agreement need to be sent Yes No.
to alleger?
Has a conficentiality agreement been tigned?
Yes __ _ No Yes No Memo cocumenting why it was gran*.ed is attached?
f
', e JUfidd Position /
Title:
I Id'L$40E 1 Dectet No.:
80-3%
Facility:
(Allegation Sum ary (brief description of concern (s): hT f
Alhlf G $0YlblilCIBf)h0V08 l0h0VfM!)M 0hO hlQ i
.DrohCY SWMNC8
/
Number of Concerns:
Empicyee Receiving Allegation:
MJ fCfa6; (first two initik11 anc last name)
~
Type of Regulated Activity (a) _Y eactor (d) _ Other: Safeguards R
(b)
(e) _
(c) _ Yendor_ Materials (Specify) i Materials License No. (if applicable):
e) Energency Preparedness
_ ((f) Onsite Health and Safety l
functional Ares (s):
a) Operations (b Construction (c Safeguards (g) Offsite Health and Safety.-
I
-(d) Transportation
_ (h) Other:
i (NRC Region I Form 207
. Revised 10/89)
-n
l
- a-
'1, J
1 1
i bd Th h*!,6
- 1 hC3Ct*171kOn U 1
i r-s i } D ~ (I) Q M
. !.*. I e'+.
g h M4 s-W U PM N g
. * - -... c o : 4
- t.. t E, V 9 A
a i f 9; tr~r 04 *~ i t s.
'D.n31Ege en
% r.n. c.
,.1
...._4 2
e 'nt'r e L t Cef 4 s E-r C d'i3 0 9 '~ 0 ~' d I 1 I E*EI UI t ="
' ~ g.
~....
nevs+ ccccmp' 1 Shed by; CP
.f:
.$... *
- g,n '* c,
Rr t
.U"'. : : 1: JMLt J C -71..
973I 7.~
. m r~
g,~- '.. : n unt :._ t ec hn t c t at\\,
'-~ ~~
af t orCied (.
t he r.a ves 1 I ar.: e :-. gm I c. t:+ a en gned
~
d
'EI...... o r - '$"~N~$v4-r:inc:
~
aw.
- - ' +
- g. - 5
-7)e Drocedure.
C+
-- - t
~
-s a
j
- *,. t r -
+ -.- hn : ;. c.n 5.:. : ns
- Gr*CV s qu.
's v
'" Pmekre es m ei r or or g ;, s.g er i :. ee w 4 :*. C40 f.L*
Cthti t 4=
_.,.s...,...)<**~
,.r-
---., e t,= s.
.. w..
=
nin..
E I '~
h 3
,,(
f,, pa C,
g s - r. C.1 3 E"1C E P
- f I. E U ' T } f f iMI '60 IU t O C D'll C 3 O U W O V I.d'
_f c;.
ti'ir i e a' L ov<0 tT ^
[. ' ; r". c!h c, u Ke r:g: :.d an u : iect: ::/ 1py31 e6 a rv n,.:.. c 4. : t i: : s c c a - 2 :- t m a nevac' m : :,
1.v. v w.1 i s.C C.
b
.s t G *
- l u... a...,....
7*;rt, it C '. r !*
iU l,U 4 * '* a
- s J 7.,.._; _-, ; r
-"*a--+**
r.
k
..+#. '.
L.-
'^
'*4
.*mpum -
2
.,f4+
1
.., +
.bV\\
r
(
4 A
J t
r
' I
?
r 9
r P
4 b
m APR 04 '91 17:13 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P02 ALLECATION RECEIPT REPORT Date/ Time j
/
Received: ItPRIL 1lQ9I ' / 2.'00pM A11'esation No.
(leave-blank)
Name:_
Address:
Phone: ~
City / State / Zip:,,
Confidentiality:
~
Yes No X vas it requested?
Vas it initially granted?
Yes - No Was it finally granted by the allegation panel Yes No
]
~
Does a confidentiality agreement need to be sent to alleger?
Yes No Has a confidentiality agreennt been signed?~
Yes No ~
Meco documenting why it was granted is attached?
Yes No _
brNNsfAlvdf. wen /qy (E Position /
Title:
p e
Mr Hs one 2.
Docket No.:
9' M Facility: _
(Allegation Sumary (brief description of concern (s): O b ifAf/Cd oocVaac implemerch% orablems @. Imdewde techician
~
Qvarmk on procedwd v'euwont (D nwrsper acceo+ar.ce cykra
\\
bnousb,e for' Milldene s zc orxedds.
Nuel,er of Concerns:
3 Employee Receiving'A11egations _
b7 14bVS (first two init4als and last name)
)
/ eacter (d),_, Sa'feguards
- Type of Regulated Activity (a R
(b _ Yendor (e)
Other:
(c ~ Materials
-(5pecify)
Materials License No. (if applicable):
Functional Area (s): /(a) Operations
~
(b) Construction f Onsita Health and Safety.
(c) Safeguards g Offsite Health and Safety (d) Transportation h Others -
(NRC Region I Form 207 '
'A
-Revised 10/89) t-
,,,~. d.7 $d;hb h.,~,0.f j'-[.s ?[ 2.fg.,f.;;.(y y,'j.4 f
- ~; ?[1
- [.. k
.~
-?:
MP*.TP'f,Md,,HOLM*?*Nfr'P5M5M6'*WA9PPf*PM.E '
IPR 84 '91 17:14 HRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P03
. 4 DETAILED DC3CRIP!!UN OF ALLEGATION:
1.
The first item conccrned on going meas 41 cation pacLage problo.r.s corecwe tia ng repl acement of view switches for various plant protcss radiation se iters.
N :- d '. " i : '. c -
R_
4C -"c-0 w wcs w.r a wew to cdify th;
'1.,
aosicEtang switcnuu f ur-caven raciatasi, u A L.,.- ; --1 7 4u i.w replacing th: u w.u :,4 4 e iivo.n.:i.c 12n; Lalt;F aiu. e pPehh1.
indicating so. w..
Cn racie. tion monitor WM-Teo5: We st e Gs.:icou s ; t r. t<.
alleger identified dr Awing error t.
Tne errors were identilied in tre p** e-per ct i on in ta9Cing out of RMwo.5.
5pecifically, the drawing 9
errosw n er e 2dert.fied in the collective review of dr awi ng s 23 00-l' :'- 2 shset 14c, 23203-32:1E sheet
- 1. and 25203-3202e sheet 65.
T?.c e. t er was tha l ai r. of identification of a terminal board bethcen the 1:0 vec pcwor supply cod rcdiation monitors Ecleno2d valve.
r 1si eddition, the ellecer was concorned tnat the originG1 modi f i ce t a cr.
/ fC -
T p a '_*r.c g c PUCE MC-90-0~2 cid not call for oc4ulpuent tsg o :t.
he out!.ue ).ec worP crdern to irnplement the change depicted in t hf*
modifscatioi peub: age requirr1 no tag out, yet the allsger nas uuntinuouel, po a J.ed tna s er cor out to his supervssacn v.ithout a "ha.ce in tne auth:~i_=u i.or k order to i Centi + y a taq cut is requirtd.
1 The el l s ger 's conccen is that this modi f i cati on package did not adEntify the originc1 drawing erro s.
and need f or equipment tay
.ut Tne al l eg er ctated that hc. will be processing drawing changO r e qu a E *. L to update crawings reviecting him observatienc in c omp ar i e t.7 ci a2-bu11t tc tureent drawings.
In-:c er t o... A s t c c c m m t The alleger has pr_vided si mi l i ar concerns with c ontr ol of this pke ticular.nudi f i c a ti on packeQa.
't h e issue w&s turned over to NU.
a;..
'. t. part, res;cnded t o.
hu ' er er:c e to el legati on numbk' F1-TO-A-106. and NU response to allegat.on on 1 2 /3/5/0.
Ir:spector r e vi ew cf dr awi ng errors, 4ndicatec that errers do in fact eWist, however, there is r e a w veic h l e an sur ancs that the drawi ng will be changed in the futere.
No inoper +D21 t t y of tr.e moni tor exists, as the inspector i s avsars ta technicel Epta c 14 cati on compli ance wi th the radiation moni tor s a f ' e:t ed by th2s plc.nt modi f i ca ti on.
The errors are in part m&n t f or t ec in tnree different dr awi ng cr1Qinc (Bechtel, Nuclear Meacurements Corporation, and NU).
Todcy, all drawings have NU dec1gnationc.
Recommendation: lurn over to licensee.
2.
On April t,
1791 another technician was performing a monthly f unction sur veill ance (SP2410A> +ce the acoustic valve monitoring system associated with the pressuri er r el i ef v al ves.
This was the first time the technician had performed the surveillance, since the last major revision.
The technicien experience problems in completion of the surveillance based cn a unawareness of the revi si on changes.
The presenL pr ocedure has the technician acquire a frequency trtce to j
the valve, submit it to NUSCO for acceptability.
The. technician we.s 1
i 1
1 1
4tPR 44 '91 17:14 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE PO4 4
concerned thats (1) no feedDacP has historically cccurred fro.. NUSLO, yet the technacsan c2gne his name on comp 16 tion of the surveillance, C9 N:s reive en c e f r e Q'.'ienc y tr ac e e:< 1 st s ' ; n the proc edure, tu allvw the techni ci an to i niti ell y compare preserrt vs. reference values.
Additaonally, the ell eger i s coricer ned that nc training on the procedural rr. : n ori, nor any on-the-Jvb erperacnce przer t o p or t c c rr.e r.c e was Loripleted.
i The technician completec the cur v c ; 11 s r.c e, und was etccedtrei. tu the c11eger going to ciscuss this isr.ue'w2th NNECo IC management.
velve aior i t or, ng c.u.t r ul a Inspector Assessment:
This issue on e.c ou t.t : c e
gers both to IF. 50-376/59-13, and a rpecialist f oll owup inip.9ction in vo - o.:..
p r.
.2 resait ca t h :- 1r2tial conLErris, the 12 cc nsee 3 npii-Twr tec E revision to the existing procedure.
hac cr.em e: t e c t i co : Turn over to the liccnspu. with s mphasi s en pr cc e.-h.ir a) e nvi c cn t rai ni ng.
L 5p'd9 p g)i 3.
The alleger hAS becorne aware ce third hand, that thc ccceptancn F
critsra.. on twc Millstona Un:t 3 PCRC approvedIC procedures h.+ve Obd unreactac. conceno critarsc.
The 611eger believes one cf the tua
,gp pr oc edure s ccrcerns calibrations or, the EHC Eystem.
The Hill tere 1 ic departmen'. ?.c c or di ng t a th e al '. eger, cre aware of thin, and has c e
bf deveicped ch&nges to the ptocedures.
I d\\
q Rec o.T.3 den d :.t i crt i Turn over to the licensee.
- P y\\.
,