ML20044C315
Text
_-
2y
+
.t
~t i
JUL 01 m I
i This letter refers to concerns that you provided to Mr. Pete Habighorst on April 11 and 12, 1991, alleging:
(1) procedural problems with SP 2406A, " Water Quality Monitor Functional _ Test";
(2) the retest requirements for AWO M2-90-15363 should not-have included SP 2404AG; and (3'; Surveillance Procedure SP 2404 AH does i
not establish a purge path or sample for hydrogen.
l l
We intend to refer your concern as stated in (1) above to the
' t r
State of Connecticut for their disposition, as appropriate, j
because they are the regulatory agency associated with the j
National Pollution Dischrge System.
With respect to issue (2),
q we note that you '.dentified the discrepancy to your_ supervisor j
and that appropriate corrective action was taken in this matter, l
As such, we intend no further action in this matter.
i
{
With regard to issue (3), we have initiated action to have the.
Northeast Utilities staff review this cor.cern.
Attached is the t
issue as we intend to characterize it to the licensee.
We will
~
l inform you of their review findings.
?
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.
t Sincerely, Oricin-! ?imed By
]
Edward Wenzinger,-Chief _
j Reactor Projects Branch 4
.l
'I
.c Attachments:
As Stated bec:
Allegation Files, RI-91-A-0069 (Closecut Issues 1 & 2; Update 3) t J.
Stewart
}
T.'Shedlosky W.-Raymond l
E. Kelly concurrences:
RI:DRP RI:DRP RI:DRP j
Stewart Kelly Wenzinger l.i i
t inf 0r=tica in !Y. e..
t 13 2002 dance 7.:b ta n...g c.; iguan
. f Act. Extm "~" /1 7 d 9303220171 921217 f01A-
. -/6 2 --
l t
~
f HUBBARD92-162 PDR a
= -.
b,J h
This letter' refers to concerns that you provided to Mr. Pete Habighorst on April 11 and 12, 1991, alleging:
(1) procedural problems with SP 2406A, " Water Quality Monitor-Functional Test";
(2) the retest requirements for AWP M2-90-15363 should not have included SP 2404AG: and (3) Surv'eillance Procedure SP 2404AH does not establish a purge path or sample for hydrogen.
We intend to refer your concern as stated in (1) above to the
-a State of Connecticut for their disposition, as appropriate, because they are the regulatory agency associated with the National Pollution Discharge System.
With respect to issue (2),
we note that you identified the discrepancy to your supervisor and that appropriate corrective action was taken in this matter.
As such, we intend no further action in this matter.
With regard to issue (3), we have initiated action to have the Northeast Utilities staff review this concern.
Attached is the issue as we intend to characterize it to the licensee.
We will inform you of their review findings.
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.
3 Sincerely, r
i Edward Wenzinger, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 4 l
Attachments:
As Stated bec:
Allegation Files, RI-91-A-0069 (Closeout Issues 1 & 2; Update 3)
J.
Stewart T.
Shedlosky W. Raymond l
E.
Kelly concurrences:
RI:DRP RI:DRP RI:DRP Stewart Kelly Wenzinger l
b 9pim 7i i
i
+
...g
-. /e.
78 Wuc s ans
[ <,;
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~[..,.. -
ptc:cN e g g,4 l
47s ALLENDALI ROAD 74 4
D,
./
uNG ct ;*ussiA rtwsuve+A 'wr ms o,,
T.-
....+
k 1
.J.4 v,
'A g..
W e a,w *_
r.
g.: "h4. &. '
y;.
3,'". y it.~, :, q; g?.
3
- . n...
t3. gw.m -
. 1 7 o.-
> c 'r 3
t.w. 2 7 p';;,l'l'y'. hk? W#'
Dear ft Pete This letter refers to concerns that you provided to Mr.
Habighorst en April 11 a r.d 12, 1991, alleging:
(1) procedural
" Water Quality Monitor Functional Test":
problems witn SP 2406A, (2) the retest requirements for AWO M2-90-15363 should not have included SP 2404AG; and (3) Surveillance Precedure SP 24 04 AH does net establish a purge path or sarple for hydrogen.
intend to refer jour concern as stated in (1) above to the WeState of Connecticut f or their diEFosition, as apprcpriate, ase::iated with the because they are the regulatory agency Naticnal Follutien Discharge Syster.
With respect to issue (2).
we note that ycu identified the circrepancy to your supervisor and that appropriate corrective act:0n was ta':en in this ratter.
further acticn in this
.atter.
As such, we intend
.o we have initiated action to have the With reaard tc issue (3),
Northeast Utilities staff review this c ncer n.
Attached is the issue as.ce inter.d to characterize it to the licensee.
We Will inform you of their review findings.
Should you have any f urther questi ns. er if I can he of further at (215) 337-assistance in these regards, please call re cellect 5225.
5;ncerely,
?.-
Edward Wenzinger, cnief F.cactor Frojects Eranch ;
Attachnents:
As Stated i
I bec:
1 Allegation Files, FI-91-A-OC69 (C2cre:n :ss es t,
- tpd3tg J.
Stewart T.
Shedlcsky W.
Fay:Ond E.
Kelly l U 2 ~,i.1'3 !.1 ! \\ $ it _,[
D 3:%i$3C.~ O l',i !!:':,.',,i %g;q3*,mg}
ACl,OCm;bcn_[M 7 b F0iA-f & /4 h l'd 1
(i l
.. ~.. -
n i
i i.:
i
~
E11 CLOSURE
[;
Issue i
i In the past, failure to adequately purge and/or sample for hydrogen when performing calibration activities on RM 9095 has resulted in hydrogen explosions in the radiation monitor i
cabinet.
Specifically, Surveillance Procedure SP 2404AH, l
F9 vision 2, does not provide the necessary details to i
appropriately establish or accomplish a hydrogen purge when
[
performing calibrations on RM 9095.
Additionally, surveillance procedur0 SP 2404AG does not mention the need I
to sample for hydrogen, and this sampling is necessary when 4
the detector is removed from the " pig".
j y
Request
?
1 4
Please discuss the validity of the above assertions.- If deficiencies are identified in the applicable procedures, please notify us of the corrective actions you have taken to i
prevent recurrence.
Please provide us with an assessment of j
the significance with regard to safety of any identified p
deficiencies, j
i i
l l
i
- 'i k
i h
.i 5
i
(
I i
i t
i 9
i
'i i
-