ML20044C356

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Deleted Ltr Responding to 910425 Concern Re Electrical Wiring Diagram for safety-related HPSI Valve Motor Not Being Updated to Reflect Plant Mod Done Approx 7 Yrs Ago.Util Response & Related Info Encl
ML20044C356
Person / Time
Site: Millstone Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 01/07/1992
From: Wenzinger E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML16266A160 List:
References
FOIA-92-162 NUDOCS 9303220324
Download: ML20044C356 (48)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:m g>8L #8Cs

  1. 0 UNITEo ST ATES

' 3, E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 g 9; - ((a RIGioN 4 s o, 475 ALLENoALE ROAD g'.s 4 f J3 ',' 0 ; E2 KING OF PAUSSIA. FENNSYLVANIA 1R%1415 I am responding to the concern that you provided to us on April 25,1991, asserting that an electrical wiring diagram for a safety related high pressure safety injection (HPSI) valve motor was not updated to reflect a plant modification done approximately seven years ago. This concern was referred to Northeast Utilities (NU) for their evaluation; attached for your information is their response. In addition, we inspected this matter independently, and our report that documents the resuits of that inspection is attached for your information. i Based on our inspection and the response that was received from NU, we have determined that your concern was not substantiated. The Project Assessment (PA) that made the electrical wiring changes you discussed is an ongoing project that will take several years to complete. While acceptable as is, power was also removed from " spare" contact numbers 12 and 13 as an added precaution until this modi 5 cation is completed. The Generation Records Information Tracking System (GRITS) contained the correct status of the drawings, and proper use of GRITS would have provided you with the correct information which would've satisned your concern. This issue was also appropriately and promptly dealt with internally by NU upon its discovery. While there is no indication of a design denciency, we nonetheless identified a potential weakness with respect to the need for individuals (such as in your case) to properly use GRITS to check for open changes to drawings prior to troubleshooting. We have brought this issue to the attention of NU management. Therefore, based on these Ondings, no further action is planned by the NRC in this matter, and we consider this concern resolved. We appreciate you informing us of your concerns and feel that we base been responsive. Should you have any additional questions regarding these matters, please call me collect at (215) 337-5225. Sincerely, /] v,1l. ' h trwrr.2 3 d M I( t' # iW/ in at d { C' ), / 7 b r.ativa ^ Edward Wenzinger, Chief Act. 7 g 7,- Reactor Projects Branch'4 \\ 1 Attachments: (1) NU Response Letter A09702 of August 30,1991. (2) Excerpts from NRC Inspection Report 50-336/91-27. / 9303220324 921217 / 1 PDR FOIA l HUBBARD92-162 PDR

wi bec /w encl: Allegation File: RI-91-A-0077 RI-91-A-0239 E. Conner's files W. Raymond/T. Shedlosky 1 Contractor's office files (MEEKER) i i e 1 t h Concurrences: cx [ RI:DRP RI:DR pf-w+

NORTHEAST UTILITIES c n.,.i On.c. s.io.n su i. 8.mn. conn.ci,eui .. co :,ce a .o =w-c.uc., we,=.c w.= P O box 270 <m.=

n..o

. w.= HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06:41-0770 $*d,#d'U.", "w~ NON L L J August 30, 1991 i Docket No. 50-336 A09702 i i RE: Employee Concerns Mr. Charles V. Hehl, Director l Division of Reactor Projects ~ U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

Dear Mr. Behl:

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 RI-91-A-0077 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 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 limited distribution on a "need to knov" basis during the preparation of this response. ISSUE: i The viring diagram for the High Pressure Safety Injection Pumps B and C Common Discharge Header Isolation Valve (2 SI-654) was found not to reflect actual plant conditions. Specifically, contacts 12 and 13, designated " spare" on the drawing are energized with 120 VAC. The viring diagram l evidently had not been updated as part of a modification done under Project Assignment 84-63 vhich had used the contacts. An additional concern exists in the fact that preventive maintenance activities have been [ routinely performed in the past with no one. reporting voltage at contacts 12 and 13. Request: Please discuss the validity of the above assertions. If any deficiencies i are identified in viring diagrams and/or drawings, or in the procedural control of preventive maintenance activities, please provide us with the - corrective actions you have taken to prevent recurrence. Please provide us vith an assessment of the significance with regard to safety of any identified deficiencies. $3s5/165W FWR y

Mr. Charles V. B;hl, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co2 mission A09702/Page 2 August 30, 1991

Response

The viring diagram for the High Pressure Safety Injection Pumps "B" and "C" l Common Discharge Header Isolation Valve (M2-SI-654) is NUSCO Drawing No. 25203-31025, sheet 3. The drawing being used was the current file revision vhich identifies contacts 12 and 13 as " spare". Project Assignment (PA) 84-063 is an ongoing project for installing Thermal Overload (TOL) alarms for all safety-related Motor Operated Valves (MOVs). The purpose of the proj ec t is to provide a common motor control center (MCC) alarm in the Control Room in the event any MOV in that MCC develops a thermal overload condition. The spare auxiliary contact terminal points 12 and 13 in each MOV cubicle are being used to terminate vires from the Control Room annunciators in support of this common alarm scheme. Vork has progressed to the point where the spare contacts in the HOV cubicle have been vired to the annunciator system. Tags have been hung on inter-connecting vires to contacts 12 and 13 identifying the termination and the PA. Terminating the vires to the annunciator system points resulted in the application of the 125 VDC annunciator voltage across these contacts. The proj ec t is not complete, and the thermal alarm relays and local indicating lamps have not been installed; therefore, the file copies of the have not been revised to show this design change. A complete set drawings dravings, which depict the intended configuration, have been issued for of construction and are in the possession of appropriate groups at the plant, including Millstone Unit No. 2 Engineering. The Generation Records Information Tracking System (GRITS) properly lists the status of viring diagram 25203-31025 Sheet 3 as "open" with outstanding Design Change Request (DCR) M2-S-286-90 against PA 84-063. It is not necessexy to have potential across contacts 12 and 13 at this time in the implementation of the project. Therefore, the power leads at the annunciator cabinets have been lifted, which removes the voltage from the " spare" terminals in the MOV MCC cubicles. The assertion described above is not valid and there is no significance with regard to safety. The GRITS properly identified the status of the and the open PA and DCR associated with the project, therefore, drawingis no deficiency in either the viring diagram or the drawing control there system. All electricians and mechanics have received training on use of the GRITS and have been instructed to use the system to determine the current status of drawings. Proper use of the GRITS vould have alerted a user to an outstanding change to the drawing and further research would have revealed that contacts 12 and 13 could be energized. Therefore, when the proper drawing review process is followed, there is no need to report the existence of the voltage on contacts 12 and 13. Based upon the above, no corrective actions are needed.

Mr. Charles V. B:hl, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l A09702/Paga 3 August 30, 1991 This issue was previously identified to us by an employee and a vritten response was provided on a timely basis with a complete explanation of this situation, along vith recommendations for future troubleshooting r activities. i After our review and evaluation of this issue, ve find that this issue did not present any indication of a compromise of nuclear safety. Ve I appreciate the opportunity to respond and explain the basis of our actions. Please contact my staff if there are further questions on any of these matters. Very truly yours, NORTBEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY E.J7',pfoczka 47 Senior Vice President 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 E. M. Kelly, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 4A J. T. Shedlosky, NRC, Millstone Nuclear Power Station ^ - - i

p>* ** %Q d f4 UNITED STATES 'E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-n. 't REGION I o 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING oF PRusstA. PENNSYLVANIA 1940tL141s NO\\) b) Docket Nos. 50-245, -336 John F. Opeka Executive Vice President - Nuclear Nonheast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 270 Hanford, Connecticut 06141-0270 l l

Dear Mr. Opeka:

Subject:

NRC Region i Inspection Repon Nos. 50-245/91-23 and 50-336/91-27 A special safety inspection was conducted by Mr. J. T. Shedlosky and others of this office on August 15 through September 30,1991, at the Millstone Nuclear Station Units.1 and 2, Waterford, Connecticut. The inspection results are documented in the enclosed repon; they were discussed with Mr. S. Scace and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the. inspection. l. s l' The inspection focused on issues brought to you by the NRC. Our independent review evaluated your performance in complying with regulatory requirements imponant to public health and safety. This review consisted of performance observations of ongoing activities, independent verification of safety system status and design con 6guration, interviews with personnel, and review of records. Our overall assessment is that your performance in resolving these issues is acceptable; however. evaluation of several of these concerns still indicates certain areas in need of improvement. Examples include drawing controls, incorporation of vendor information in procedures and drawings, and the procedure validation process. No violations of NRC requirements were identified. l No response to this repon is required. Your cooperation with us is appreciated. Since ly, ward C. Wennnger, hief Projects Branch No. 4 Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosure:

NRC Region 1 Inspection Repon Nos. 50-245/91-23 and 50-336/91-27 L L ggizc3co38 k

t U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I Report / Docket No.: 50-245/91-23 50-336/91-27 License No.: DPR-21 & DPR-65 Licensee: Nonheast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 270 f Hartford, CT 06141-0270 Facility Name: Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2 inspection At: Waterford, CT Dates: August 15 through September 30,1991 Inspectors: T. G. Humphrey, Consultant, EG&G, INEL T. H. Hunt, Consultant, EG&G, INEL C. Kido, Consultant, EG&G, INEL D. R.12 sher, Consultant, EG&G, INEL A. D. Trusty, Consultant, EG&G, INEL L. E. Briggs, Senior Operations Engineer, PWRS, OB, DRS E. L. Conner, Reactor Licensing / Risk Engineer, TSS, DRP J. T. Shedlosky, Senior Allegation Coordinator, RPS 4A, DRP )! //!/[!f/ Approved by: [fr Eugene M. Kelly, Chief / Date Reactor Projects Section 4A Scope: Special inspection of concerns brought to the licensee by the NRC. These included the areas of compliance with operating license requirements, drawing control, surveillance and calibration programs, electrical workmanship on environmentally qualified equipment, and personnel safety equipment control. Results: See Executive Summary, Repon Section 1.0 i @ p u36b5.L 4f-

13 7.0 DRAWING CONTROL ne implementation of drawing changes to eixtrical connection and schematic drawings was reviewed to evaluate the effectiveness of the design change controls. A number of concerns have been identified over the previous 22 months regarding this topic area for Unit 2. Several of these issues are addressed in the licensee's reply letters to the NRC dated August 9 (two letters), August 16, August 30, and September 27,1991. 7.1 Design Changes Are Not Incorporated Into Drawings t Two concerns identified in 1991 pertained to changes in equipment configuration that wasn't reflected in the drawings at the plant. One dealt with wiring changes in a breaker cubicle, the other with changes not shown on all applicable drawings for reactor coolant pump (RCP) i temperature monitodng circuits. t Assessment The wiring concern involved modifications to a terminal strip in a high pressure safety injection system valve motor operator breaker. Wires were attached on terminals marked as spares on the current revision of the drawing in the aperture card system. The Generation Records Information Tracking System (GRITS) showed the breaker drawings had open drawing change requests (DCRs) against them. The design change packages (PA 84-063) and the drawings showed the " spare" terminals in use. The DCR packages showed that GRITS had been updated in 1990 for both of the drawings to reflect the open DCRs. This change package is not yet complete; therefore, the revisions will not be issued until after all modifications are completed and the system is turned over for operation. This modification is to provide a common motor control center alarm of a thermal overload condition. The licensee has lifted the power leads at the control room annunciators to remove the electrical voltage from the spare terminals. De concern about the resistance temperature detector (RTD) circuit involved replacing knife switches with Weidemuller test blocks, and then not making the change on all of the drawings that showed these components. Sheet No. 5 of drawing 25203-31069 was not updated at the time of the modification. GRITS has now been updated to show that this drawing had an open DCR against it in 1989. The change package was completed and was submitted for drawing revisions and closeout in 1990. The as-built modifications are reflected in this package and show the new test blocks on the drawing. There is currently no 3 projected date for the new revision to be issued. i Department instructions require that drawings be checked to ensure the latest revision is in-hand, prior to use for quality work. However, there does not appear to be any administra-tive control procedure requirements for this to be done. Records indicated that training on

~ 14 l the use of the drawing control system was available to maintenance and instrumentation technicians. The demonstration of the current GRITS training showed a potential weakness regarding the need to check for^open changes to a drawing and how this check is to be done. ( The Design Document Screen uses a status code to indicate if a change exists against the current revision. Checking this only requires a single keystroke, but it is possible and perhaps likely that plant personnel may key on the current revision. If the revision agrees with the drawing in-hand, it is probable that no further checking may be performed. Contributing to this problem is maintenance department instruction 1.48, " GRITS" Training. Step 4.2.3 specifies that the Design Document Screen displays the revision information. This is not correct if open DCRs or DCNs exist against the drawing. This could lead individuals i to using a drawing that is not up-to-date. 7.2 Drawings Do Not Accurately Redect As-Built Conditions Four concerns identined between October 1989 and July 1991 penained to drawings not accurately depicting the as-built status of plant equipment. All of the concerns relate to either radiation monitoring instruments or the wide range nuclear instruments. Assessment 1 The concem identi6ed in 1989 dealt with a inm potentiometer ins:alled for the local rneter of radiation monitor RM-8262B that wasn't shown in the vendor drawing for the monitor. These drawings were not controlled by the NUSCo drawing system. A non-conformance report (NCR) and drawing submittal request (DSR) were issued for this drawing. The NCR was closed out when the DSR was issued in early 1990. The drawings were completed and [ distributed in August 1990. A note was incorporated in the drawmg for the local indication noting there may be a trim potentiometer in the local meter circuit. This discrepancy appears to be the result of an oversight by the vendor when generating the vendor manual drawings and documentation. A concern identined in July 1991 pertained to differences between the as-built condition of the wide range nuclear instruments (WR-leg Monitors) and the schematic drawing for these instruments. An extended range selector switch had been installed in 1975 that was not included on this drawing. The drawing in question, 25203-29198, sheet 3, has recently been submitted for inclusion in the NUSCo drawing system. The as-built review prior to issuance for use was being done by I&C at the time of the inspection. Several discrepancies have been identified between the drawing and the actual circuitry, including the extended range selector switch and lamp, an

W i JAN 0 71992 I am responding to the concern that you provided to us on April 25,1991, asserting that an electrical wiring diagram for a safety related high pressure safety injection (HPSI) valve motor was not updated to reflect a plant modification done approximately seven years ago. This concern was referred to Northeast Utilities (NU) for their evaluation; attached for your information is their response. In addition, we inspected this matter independently, and our report that documents the results of that inspection is attached for your information. Based on our inspection and the response that was received from NU, we have determined that your concern was not substantiated. The Project Assessment (PA) that made the electrical wiring changes you discussed is an ongoing project that will take several years to complete. While acceptable as is, power was also removed from " spare" contact numbers 12 and 13 as an added precaution until this modification is completed. The Generation Records information Tracking System (GRITS) contained the correct status of the drawings, and proper use of GRITS would have provided you with the correct information which would've satisfied your concern. This issue was also appropriately and promptly dealt with internally by NU upon its discosery. While there is no indication of a design deficiency, we nonetheless identified a potential weakness with respect to the need for individuals (such as in your case) to properly use GRITS to check for open changes to drawings prior to l troubleshooting. We have brought this issue to the attention of NU management. Therefore, based on these findings. no further action is planned by the NRC in this matter, and we consider this concern resolved. We appreciate you informing us of your concerns and feel that we have been responsive. Should you have any additional questions regarding these matters, please call me collect at (215) 337-5225. Sincerely, Inforrnahm in ISs umd was ddeted 06@! Wed By r in a md = m:h ::: fre&m d inbra:en C Act, exeg>Frs _ [V.2 FOM _7/ -/6 W.. Edward Wenzinger, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 4 1 Attachments: (1) NU Response Letter A09702 of August 30,1991. (2) Excerpts from NRC Inspection Report 50-336/91-27. wwwM prg ~ / w

_t ce 4 bec /w encl: Allegation File: RI-91-A-0077,RI-91-A-0239 E. Conner's files W. Raymond/T. Shediosky Contractor's office files (MEEKER) t l i j l Concurrences: RI:DR RI:DRP (P cu ,,.r R.., jf-V4'">

(ff/ l w g @.g'g. ' UNITED STATES j i. g-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l 5 E-REGION I ' 478 AttENDALE ROAD y* * * *

  • j' r

IGNO OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406 DAN 111931 f Docket No. 50-336 File'Nos. RI-90-A-180, RI-90-A-198 j Allegations Concerning (1) Vide Range Nuclear Instrumentation l

Subject:

Operability, (2) Operator Attentiveness, and (3) Alignment of Reactor Coolant Flow Transmitters. l 1 The Region I of fice has completed its folic.<up in response to the~ concerns you j to our attention on October 8,1993 and Ocicber 26, 1990 alleging that (1) wide range nuciar instrumentation was not operable as required by technical l brought specifications,(2) personnel were not attentive to duties or were sleeping,. 1 and (3) alignment of the reactor coolant flew transmitters was not accomplished properly. l ~ Ve found your allegation concerning the operability of wide range nuclear-i instrumentation to be unsubstantiated and have documented our findings in NRC inspection report, 50-336/90-22, section 5.3.3. We concluded that at least-t two of the four instruments were operable during fuel movement,~ although one l channel was spiking. We also found your allegation concerning two licensee workers who were i reportedly found asleep to be unsubstantiated. and have documented our findings l in section 3.7 of the'above noted report. We were unable to confirm that the. individuals were inattentive or that they ccmpromistd work control. -l } Finally, we found your allegation ccncerning the improper alignment of reactor - j coolant flow transmitters to be unsubstantiated and. documented car findings in section 5.3.1 of the above noted report. We concluded that the alignments were completed adequately although a proposed revision to the alignment j procedure provided more detailed instructions for use of an improved test rig. j i Ve Copies of the above noted reports are attached for your information. i appreciate your informing us of your concerns and feel that our actions in this - Should you have any additional' matter have been responsive to those concerns. -i questions, or if I can of of further assistance in this matter, please call me collect = + ' " " - ~ f, 5 ncerely &[d Donald R.'Haverkamp. - ef i Reactor Projects Sect on 4A I bec/with encl. Division of Reactor Projects J J. Stewart (2)

g. Perkins ORC Infomation in this re:ctd reas ddeted r

j t ~ x$$ MOOR ^ ' 'p ^'l C' "Mir5 gM [f 1 in accdare with the Redam of information rnn 92-u ~

o.w.a... ' [.i i NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION l l iQby j "5 0' " ' s f 475 ALLENDAlt. Ro AD KING OF PAUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA IldD6 ggg 2 81990 Docket No. 50 245; 50-336; 50-423 License No. DPR 21; DPR-65; NPF-49 EA No. 90-219 Nonheast Nuclear Energy Company ATTN: Mr. E. J. Mroczka Senior Vice President - Nuclear 1 Engineering and Operations P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecdcut 06141-0270 1 Gentlemen: Subjec: NRC Region 1 Combined Inspecdon Nos. 50-245/90-20, 50-336'90-22, and 50-42.190-20 l This le: e tra mts the NRC repon of our routine safety inspection that was conducted by hiessrs. D. Dempsey. P. Habi ters', and K. Ko!aczyk of this office on September 18 - t Nosember 15. October 2 - Nosember 15 (and continued December 3-13 to evaluate funher one of the sigr.ificant issues described herein), and 0:tober 16 - Nosember 15,1990. for Mi!! stone Crits 1. 2. and 3. respectisely. At the conclusion of the inspection the findings were discussed by the above inspectors with Mr. S. E. Scace and other members of your sta ff. Areas eunur.ed during the inspection se desenbed in the NRC Region I inspection repon. l uhich is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of obserution of activities, interviews with personnel, and dcrument reviews. Based on ee results of this inspection, two appuent violadons were identified at Millstone Unit 2 a-d are tem; considered for esca'ated enforcement action in accordance with the " General St2tement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Acdons"(Enforcement Poliep.10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1990). The apparent violations involve the loss of conta ment integrity control as a result of personal errors and are discussed in the Unit 2 opera:: ens and outage sections of the enclosed reimn. Specifically, the apparent violations invoh e the loss of containment integrity due to the inoperability of the containment purge vahe isolation system, and in a separate event, the loss of containment integrity via the No. I steam generator atmospheric dump valve. Accordingly, no Nodce of Violation is presently being issued for these ins;ection findings. Please be advised that the number and chnacterization of apprent violations described in the enclosed inspection repon may change as a result of funher NRC review. l %olouloL M

OEc26tN i Northeast Nuclear Energy Company An enforcement conference to discuss these apparent violations at Millstone Unit 2 scheduled for January 15, 1991. The purposes of this conference are to discuss th l violations, their causes and safety significance; to provide you the opportunity to po any enors in our inspection report; to provide an opportunity for you to present you proposed correctne act2ons; and to discuss any other information the. will the appropnate enforcement action in accordance with the Enforcement Policy advised by separate conespondence of the resuhs of our deliberations on this l response regarding these apparent violations is required at this time. I The enclosed report addresses your performance during the recent refueling and outage on Millstone 2. Overall, we found the control of outage activities to be effective management of planned activities and aggressive followup of problems. T i i d thorough evaluation of unplanned events, the extensive support by corporate eng ne vendors to disposition of these issues, and the effective interface between site an l engineering were notab!e strengths. Your assessment of the personnel pe l i these oents was regested in our le:ter to you dated Nosember 5,1990, enclosing In Repm 50 3M 93-15. 1 Notwithsunding the abose conc!usion regarding generally good performance, we n nareer of e,en:s c:ic :ed to persannel errer, tha: apparently resulted from procedure quality and adherence weaknesses. Further, the failure to satisfactorily co step during the rep!acement of in-core instruments that resulted in the drop l instrument suppon plate was signif: cant (see section 9.2 of the enclosed report). Ou assessment was that the lift tool installation enor resulted from a combination o in procedure details, personnel experience, and supervision of the work activ demons rates the need for greater ddigence in the review process for *tried and p procca.res to elirninre any oser-rehance on personnel experience for criti Based on the retuhs of this inspection at Millstone Unit 1, certain of your activiti i l d to be in violation of NRC requirements, as specified in the Notice of Violat on enc ose! herewith as Appendix A. We are concerned about the violation because it invol cpea.cn cf M:!'stene 1 with r.on-consersatise se: points on the steam j l You are required to respond to this violation and should follow the instruction i monitor. specified in Appendix A when preparing your response. In your response l document the specif c actions taken and any addiuonal actions you plan to prevent re l After reviewing }our response to Appendix A, including your proposed correct I the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC e action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements. In addition. cen2in of your activities at Millstone Unit 2 appeared to be in devia your written commitments, as specified in the Notice of Deviation encl Appendix B. We are concerned about the deviations because they inv f l 2 l l

E Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ~ reactor protection channels and to operate the loose parts monitor in acc Safety Analysis Report commitments. You are requested to respond to should follow the instructions specified in Appendix B in preparing your response. L l In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's

  • Rules of Practice," a copy its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notices are not s procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required b l Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96.511. Your cooperation with us is appreciated. Sincerely, G ~ l Wm ~ '. fes ' Hehl, ' rector i ision of Reacht rojects l Enc!cscres:

1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation
2. Appendix B, Notice of Deviation 50-245/90-20
3. NRC Region I Combined Inspection Report No.

50-336!90-22; 50 423/90-20 cc w! enc!s: W. D. Romberg. Vice President, Nuclear Operations D. O. Nordquist, Director of Quality Services R. M. Kacich, Manager, Generation Facilities Licensing t S. E. Scace. S'.ation Director, Millstone H. F. Hayes, Nac: car Unit Direc:or, Mills:ene Unit 1 J. S. Keenan, Nucic.ar Unit Director, Millstone Unit 2 C. H. Clement, Nuclear Unit Director, Millstone Unit 3 Gera'd Garneld, Esquire l Public Document Room (PDR) Local Public Do:ument Room (LPDR) l Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC) NRC Senior Resident inspector State of Connec:icut l l 3

U.S'. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION + REGION I 50-245/90-20; 50-336/90-22; 50-423/90-20 Report No.: Docket No.: 50-245; 50-336; 50-423 License No.: DPR-21; DPR-65; NPF-49 Nonheast Nuclear Energy Company Licensee: P. O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141-0270 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1,2, & 3 Facility Name: Inspection At: Waterford, CT D2:es: Sep: ember 18 - November 15,1990 (Millstone 1) October 2 - November 15, and December 3 - 13,1990 (Millstone 2) October 16 - November 15,1990 (Millstone 3) Repomng D. A. Dempsey, Resident Inspector, Unit 1 Inspeaors: P. J. Habighorst, Resident Inspector, Unit 2 K. S. Kolatzyk, Resident inspector, Unit 3 W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector Inspectors: D. A. Dempsey, Resident Inspector, Unit ! P. J. Habighorst, Resident Inspector, Unit 2 K. S. Kolatzyk, Resi6ent inspector, Unit 3 J. S. Stewart, Senior Project Engineer A. Vegel, Reactor Engineer /2/2J[fC e k h ut< 4~-- Approved by: Donald R. Haverkamp, Chief f Date i Reactor Projects Section 4A Division of Reactor Projects Repon 50-245/90 20; Repon 50-336/90-22; Repon 50-423/90-20 lnrection Summary: Routine NRC resident inspection of plant op6ations, radiological controls, Areat insxcted: maimenance, surveillance, security, outage activities, licensee self-assessment, and periodic reports. Results: See Executive Summary i i t l S. _o+_0 % ~rW ~

t 14 On September 22, during release of work order M2-89-05344, a time existed during which the pressurizer manway was still installed and locally tagging a boundary valve would have been useful; however, the area was controlled as a high radiation area. Therefore the discretion exercised to not hang local tags was acceptable per the ACP-QA-2.06A. i fanclusion t The inspector found that procedure ACP-QA-2.06A permits the exercise of i discretion concerning hanging boundary tags in high radiation areas. The l inspector concluded that the discretion exercised by the job supervisor was l appropriate. No unsafe conditions were identified. 3.7 Worker Attentiveness to Duty - Unit 2 The SRC resident inspector office inspected a concern that in two separate j esems licensee workers were repcnedly found as!eep while on duty. The first l l incident concerned a plant equip:r.cnt operator (PEO) working in the M:!! stone 2 containment on September 16, who aHegedly was found asleep three times, and was roused the last time by the operations sapenisor. The second mcident reportedly occurred around October 20 and involved a fire watch who was found asleep in the Millstone I cable vault. NRC followup of the events could not substantiate the fire watch concerns, and only partially substantiated t the PEO concern as described below. 3.7.1 Elant Equjpment Operator Performine vahe Testine - Unit 2 i The inspector interviewed the Unit 2 operations supenisor, the Unit 2 i plant equipment operator, and an operations person. All interviewees agreed upon the ongoing activities at the time; the date, location, and individual involved. The activities invohed containment penetration localleak rate testing. The time was between 7:00 - 8:00 pm on l September 16, and the location of the work was the ground eievation inside containment. The Unit 2 operations supenisor observed the individual during setup activities for local leak rate testing on September 16. The supervisor l did not observe the individual to be inattentive to duty; only that the individual was sitting down and leaning against some cloth material. l The supervisor did not see any need to discipline the individual. However, he did inform the PEO's shift supenisor that the resting position he was in was not appropriate to the situation. The inspector interviewed the plant equipment operator who stated that he was attentive to duty and recognized during activities that he should present a more active position. l r -n-,

15 The PEO was a non-licensed operator, who was assigned to setup and implement the local leak rate testing. At the time of the event the operator was not involved in implementing the testing. The PEO was not in a high radiation area, or a contaminated area. The radiation levels in the area were very low (1-2 millirem / hour). The individual I l had worked 12 hours during the day in question. Based on review of hours worked during the time at issue, the plant equipment operator did not exceed the requirements of the administrative procedure for the control of overtime. When questioned by the inspector, the PEO f stated that he did not consider himself to be overworked, NRC followup of the concern could not substantiate that the individual in question was inattentive to duty, or that work control was compromised. 1 I i 3.7.2 Cable Vault Fire Watch - Unit 1 Following publication of the specifics of this issue in a loca] newspaper anicle on November 1, the inspector referred the matter to licensee management. The licensee identified that the only work in the cable j vault during the period October 15 - 22 occurred on October 17 under authorized work order (AWO) MP 90-03391. The east door of the cable vault was repaired to replace a missing section of weather + stripping. A security guard, a fire watch, and an I&C techmcian were present for the work. The licensee interviewed the I&C technician regarding the activities of the fire watch. The work was started at 8:10 am and completed at 9:41 pm. No problems were noted with the fire watch being attentive to assigned duties. Based on the above, the concern could not be i substantiated. The inspector identified no inadequacies in the licensee actions and no further followup is planned. This matter is closed. i 1 3.8 Inattentive Radwaste Systems Onerator - Unit 3 On November 6,1990, the licensee informed the inspector that on November 5, a licensed reactor operator who was performing non-licensed duties as a l s radwaste systems operator, had been observed by a technician to be inattentive. ) This observation was confirmed (later) by the shift supervisor, who awakened the individual. Subsequent to this event, disciplinary action was taken by the licensee. l l i l l

e 27 [ 5.3 Observation of Surveillance Activities i The inspector observed and reviewed portions of completed surveillance tests to assess performance in accordance with approved procedures and limiting conditions of operation, removal and restoration of equipment, and deficiency f review and resolution. The following tests and procedures were reviewed: Umt i --SP 406E Air Ejector Off Gas Isolation Radiation Monitor Functional Test, dated 3/21/90 i --CP S06W Off Gas Sampling and Counting, dated 1/19/89 t Unit 2 l --SP 2613C Integrated Engmeered Safety Feature Test, October 26,1990 --SP 240lO Reactor Coolant System Flow Channel Functional Testing, dated 4/12/90 i l' nit 3 t --IST 3-90-D38 Feed Pump Speed Control Test --SP 3608.6 Safety Injection System Valve Operability Test --SP 3610A.8, Residual Heat Removal B Train Valve Operability Test 1 --SP 3622.2 Auxiliary Feed Pump 3 FWA and Pl A Operational Readiness Test i --SP 3616A.1 Main Steam Valve Operability Test The following items warranted additional inspector followup. 5.3.1 Alignment of Reactor Cooiant Flow Transmitters - Unit 2 On October 12, 1990, during routine inspection, the inspector became aware of potential problems regarding calibration of reactor coolant Dow transmitters. While calibrations were being performed using existing procedures, the licensee was developing a major revision to the procedures. The transmitters detect steam generator differential pressure and send a signal proportional to reactor coolant system Dow to the reactor protection system. A low reactor coolant Dow trip is j provided to ensure that the core departure from nucleate boiling thermal limit is not exceeded. Since actual system flow exceeds design flow, a trip signal will scram the reactor before flow decreases below the design limit.

l 28 'Ihe inspector discussed current calibration procedures and practic the proposed revision with licensee instrumentation and controls department personnel and reviewed the following technical docume in order to assess licensee performance regarding this activity. IC-2418J, Foxboro N-ElI and N-E13 Series Transmitters - Installation / Calibration / Servicing, revision 5 change 2, dated April 21,1989 SP 2402A, Reactor Coolant Flow, revision 3 change 2, dated September 21,1990 SP 2402A, Reactor Coolant Flow, revision (proposed) 1 Foxboro procedure MI-020-160, N-Ell and N-E13 Series Transmitters, dated November 1988 Foxboro procedure MI-020-163, N-EllDM Differential Pressure Transmitters, dated November 1988 The inspector noted several differences among the calibration methods detailed in the reviewed procedures. Foxboro (vendor) procedures provide guidance for servicing, adjustment, and calibration of transmitters in the shop. Prior to shipment to the licensee, the vendor performs an output voltage deviation (offset) check at 750 psig, the value specified in i procedure Ml-020-163, while service pressure of the transmitter is 2270 psig. This difference potentially could affect the span of the detector. The licensee stated that detector offset is che at normal system pressure prior to installation, and that the i vendor has offered to perform the check at this pressure prior to shipping replacement detectors. The current procedure, SP-2402A, revision 3. checks transmitter offset by obtainir.g base output currents at 0 psig and 2250 psig, and companng them for linearity. Presently, no offset current or voltage values are recorded by the procedure. The proposed revision adds to the procedure a static alignment and alignment check for detector offset with an acceptance criteria of 0.02 milliamperes. The inspector noted that a static alignment procedure currently exists in licensee procedure IC-2418J. In addition, the vendor manual calls for a static alignment in the shop after replacement of a detector force motor or sensing capsule and/or 0-rings. The inspector concluded that the current revision of SP-2402A is adequate to assure proper operation of the transmitters. The inspector considered that incorporation of a detailed static alignment and alignment check into the existing r

29 t ~ the transmitters are properly alignedproced i assurance that i than in the shop, the inspector question 1 i ent, rather degree of detector accuracy was commensurate whethe{ additional radiation exposure to workers. e with the potential i transmitters. By connecting the rig to th e ow the calibration process enhancedpressure ports ( e uced and by-step instructions for the installation and use f h. TI rig are not included in the current revision of SP 2 o t e new test inspector considered that installation and use f h . The i the skill of the trade and therefore is acc o t e rig is within revision includes detailed guidance on use of the rieptab g. The inspector concluded that the licensee wa the reactor coolant flow instruments p s performing alignments of contains detailed instructions for the use of a a gnment procedure j provides added assurance that transmitters will perfoproved ti po:ential additional radiation exposure to the worke s rm desigaed. The proposed static offset checks in the reactor containm i r performing the } evaluated by the licensee. ent should be 5.3.2 Reacier.CoolanLSwemBow Channd F t uncuo_naLTesting - Unit.2 The inspector reviewed the functional testing The review was performed to verify that an ac completed on reactor y as s per SP 240lG. i was used for the testing and that the license ' ceptable test methodology standards and the technical specifications were m te s commitmen e. The test method used in SP 24010 consists of i j i into the reactor protection system (RPS) trip bist bln ecting a v j signalis generated using a voltage source built into th R a e. The simulated i that is calibrated against a standard to verif i e PS cabinets signal has a precise value relative to the RPS trip sery ts acc point. valid functional test of part of the RPS chanThe 4 1G completes a following electronic componen(s were a)pas t noted that the i e channel between the i i I 1

.g F - (, p.m / .g UNITED STATES [ j NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k f REoloN I ,8 478 ALLENoALE ROAD KING oF PRUS5tA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406 hPil 2 01991 The Region I office has completed its followup to the concems that you brought to our attention on the dates described. Relevant documentation such as letters from the licensee are attached to this letter. A synopsis of these concems and our subsequent actions and l regulatory conclusions are detailed below. 1 On October 8, and October 11,1990, you provided to us a number of concerns associated ~ with Wide Range Nuclear Instrument operability. You further discussed this issue with me in January,1991. Additionally you provided to us on the same dates, a concern that you were i not consulted during a recent procedure change associated with surveillance procedure SP-2417H, and that this omission was contrary to station procedures. We provided these issues to your employer in a letter dated October 26,1990 and they responded in a letter dated December 21,1990 (attached). Additionally, we inspected the issue of wide range nuclear in:.trument operability and provided you the results of our investigation in a letter dated l January 14, 1991.. 1 Your assenions that spiking had occurred on the channel "A" of the instrument were true, but l inoperability and violations of technical specifications have not been substantiated. With l regard to SP-2417H, the licensee admitted that you were not consulted for the procedure change, but no violation of procedures occurred and your allegation appears to be unsubstantiated. Funhermore, the procedure chanFe was determined to be adequate. The NRC is satisfied that the licensee addressed your concems, and we plan no further action in these matters. On August 8,1990, you provided us with concerr.s asserting that (1) work associated with the overhaul of the containment radiation monitor was improperly controlled and (2) a bypass-jumper tag was improperly controlled during the maintenance of work order M2 90-- 1 08033. We provided these concems in a letter to the licensee dated October 2,1990 and the f ) licensee responded in a letter dated December 3,1990 (attached). 1 l We note from the licensee response that some problems were identified in the control of work associated with the radiation monitor, but it appears from the licensce's assessment that at least one monitor was operable during the times in question in your assenion. We note that the licensee identified the problems described in your concem and took proper corrective actions. Further the licensee is implementing additional controls to establish better i % Ca... :..... _ u 3. m f [! l i llROO4 ' - 3N m caeme.. M A:t.t<c q - { u.y M.. s*

  • fL

~ i

~ -; - M f 2 i coordination of activities between operations and maintenance. Your allegation that there were problems associated with the control of maintenance is substantiated; however, the NRC considers the problems minor with respect to nuclear safety and notes that appropriate l corrective actions have been taken. With regard to issue (2), the pin connector in question 1 was not connected to anything, therefore a bypass tag or a work order would not be appropriate. Your allegation may be true, but is of no consequence. In any case, we are satisfied with the licensee's response and plan no funher actions in these matters. i On November 9, and November 11,1990, you provided to us (1) a description of events associated with the main turbine stator cooling troubleshooting, (2) a question as to the propriety of completing the thermal margin low pressure surveillance in Modes 3 and 2, and, (3) a question regarding the testing of the control element withdrawal prohibit alarm. We provided these issues to your employer in a letter dated December 6,1990, and received their response in a letter dated January 4,1991 (attached). Your assertions regarding issue (1) were determined to be true, but appear to be of no consequence to nuclear safety. The problems had previously been identified by the licensee and appropiiate corrective actions appear to have been taken. With regard to issue (2), it appears no violation of technical specifications occurred, and your allegation appears to be unsubstantiated. With regard to issue (3), the alarm testing was determined to be adequate I and your allegation appears to be unsubstantiated. We are satisfied that the licensee answered your concerns and we plan no further action in these matters. On September 28,1990, and in several discussions with NRC personnel during the recent i refueling outage, you asserted that there were violations of the overtime policy at Millstone l Unit 2. We investigated your assertion and discussed the issue with unit management, but i could not substantiate your claim. To enable funher evaluation, more specific details are j needed. We note that you have recently provided us a similar concern that overtime restrictions may not have been complied with, and we are inspecting this concern. We will inform you of the results of our inspections when complete. i On September 28,1990, and in a November 5,1990, memorandum to our resident mspector, I you provided the NRC with seven concems involving: (1) the procedural adequacy and implementation of IC 2419C section 5.5 6 which involve the heated junction thermocouple inspection; (2) the instrt ment calibration review that you initiated; (3) the instrument calibration review that had been initiated associated with test voltages being out-of-specification; (4) a red tag that was improperly hung on the Weidmuller Block TDD; (5) an assertion that an annunciator window change had been improperly handled by the licensee; (6) an assertion that surveillance procedure SP-2401J had not been implemented when an instrument and controls technician turned in the paperwork without restoring the bypass key; [' and, (7) an assertion that you had received harassing mail from a co-worker. r

l 3 We referred is::ues 1 thru 6 to the licensee in a letter dated November 11,1990 and received their response in a letter dated December 21,1990 (attached). We note that the licensee was i aware of the discrepancies that you identified in your assertions and had taken actions to correct the deficient conditions when originally identified. l In regard to issue (1), the procedure was written for a skilled instrument and controls technician with experience in this type of maintenance; however, you made no assertion that maintenance was improperly or incompletely performed to the extent that operability of essential equipment was affected. In any case, your allegations appear to be substantiated but of minor significance with respect to nuclear or personnel safety. With regard to issue (2), the licensee provided us a copy of the instrument calibration review (ICR) and we are providing this copy for your review. Please inform os if you have further questions regarding this matter. With regard to issue (3), n ucensee had taken action to address the problem that you described and we have not been informed of any inoperabilities that resulted from the corrective actions. With regard to the drawing concem of issue (3), more information is needed to adequately address your concerns. Please inform us of any additional details or further questions that you mav have in this matter. With regard to issue (4), a minor tagging discrepancy had been previously identified and was promptly corrected. Further, guidance on the tagging of Weidmuller blocks was to have been provided to operations personnel. Your allegation in this case appears to be substantiated, but is oflittle concern with respect to nuclear safety. With regard to issue (5), no problems were identified, and no corrective actions were warranted. With regard to issue (6), we note that operations personnel identified the condition that you asserted and took prompt actions to restore the channel. The technician in this case appears not to have exceeded Unit 2 Technical Specification limitations. However, your allegation regarding implementation of the surveillance procedure was substantiated by the licensee. We are satisfied with the licensee responses to these six issues and plan no further action in these matters. Finally, with regard to issue (7), the NRC cannot take action based on co-worker harassment, especially if the alleged harassment is anonymous. If you feel that you are being harassed by L your employer, we again remind you to take these issues to the Department of Labor. On September 14, 1990, you provided us a three concerns detailing: (1) failure of operators to note that the steam jet air ejector may not be working properly; (2) the failure of your supervisor to respond to one of your questions; and, (3) the failure of another instrument and controls technician to follow an unspecified department instruction requiring that a trouble report sticker be attached to an instrument after a problem was identified. We provided your concems to the licensee in a letter dated October 4,1990, and they responded in a letter + dated December 7,1990 (attached). With regard to issue (1), the licensee identified no inoperability associated with the radiation monitor, but has identified that upgrade of the system is warranted. The licensee plans to replace the monitor in 1991. Your concerns therefore have some validity. With regard to

a 4 issue (2), communication between you and your supervisor appears to have been either misunderstood or incomplete. We could not determine the validity of your complaint. With regard to issue (3), the licensee determined that the orange sticker w2s properly placed for operator information and that work was properly contmiled by the applicable work documents. Your concems in this case appear to be unsubstantiated. We are satisfied with the licensee response to the concems as presented, and the NRC plans no further action with regard to these matters. We appreciate you informing us of your concems and feel we have been responsive to those concems. Should you have any additional questions or if I cra be of further assistance, please call me collect at (215) 337-5225. Sincerely; Edward C. Wenzinger, Chief l Reactor Projects Branch 4 Attachments: As stated bec:w/o enclosures q_go.4_,yy c(.3,a M. Moore DRMA (6) g g _ gg _k,7,9 c), gg,,4 J. Stewart (19 i I# EI-%~ h 'I C W. Raymond R l A - t ?J. c lo s cod R I ~ 10 - A -iso cicy.*4 9t - go -A -1M clenced i s i

..]. <. m t.c. i.; ;. n. cd.. : c. ;.e: ..m m m: 6 n.J:. t. i::;... :' 'a.'::mm. : A:t c::c.;b;r.: __[f '7 C F0m fh/6 Y _ ALLEGATION RECEIPT REPORT Date/ Time y 3p / //'/fg g- ((-g -g Received: Allegatfon No. .s..o Name: Addres-Phone City /5 e/ Zip:_ Confidentiality: f Yes No Was it requestedt was it initially granted? Yes No -V Was it finally grantec cy the allegation pa el Yes No Oces a cor'ident'ality agreeeent reed to b* sent to alleger? Yes No Has a confidentiality agrecrent been signec? Yes No l Memo cocumenting why it was granted is attached? Yes No j N Position /

Title:

e Facility: hi Docket No.:_ bh ( Allegation Summary &(brief descri;ticn of conterr(s):t<.1u 9\\

t. Acwt

<ce c k Tkapat4 n faJ4s6o% d4/cAs<ifot CQc4ccles j f

3. meidE naakelad%6&poacAi, g

e i Number of Concerns:

k. S. Gle)Y /k Em laf-W1; 4 g ;

Empicyee Receiving A11egaticn: (first two initia'Is' and last name) gj Type of Regulated Activity (a) _[ Reactor (d) _ Safeguards ~' -(b) _ vendor (e) _ Other: (c) _ Materials (Specify) g 4 l Materials License No. (if applicable): f Functional Area (s): _ a) Operations _ (e) Emergency Preparedness _(b) Construction _ (f) Onsite Health and Safety y (c) Safeguards _(g) Of fsite Health and Safety y; 4 _ (d) Transportation _ (h) Other: l ,l l . (NRC Region 1. Form 207 / /. ,j Revised 10/89) / I s 1 - // /k f./n. 1) k .,f&f~,

t ht ? t Page of f M fff( s Detailed Desc'ripti5n of Allegation: I A > rn pCff j-ll?& 5 W !Y W f [IT-90-A-/f0 *t. /07] $50 0 M )~ hW dl Mea # 4 oaM.ka,a'&twth~Y v de ~ h,'+ % k s<<e / l n,, / h N ~_ ~_ ADO dMs'n' ds sef kak eEOi% Anuak lwr /Kh);maek aud%#A i om ad fe72; veddMieJL poedi,Aa1 v%we&&#am N&<~Als % && i u ' V i %fl.%t (2* a r / m /a W \\ s .V-, /W94GJ(>s 7-rJ - fpwcw+ JK</Estak ; 1 N&$WI6 [ flh(f(fdCK h /Mfshb]h(8 M { f~~~/ k s ps<a b e o o a s ia u & 'M % 6 h s ) b/i,~&' r /is-41 16faa, 72 <b kw M.?r.',DK V/i"?LLi; JKL,f ki I Significance / el.i a y Reconinendat ns "vs=1; u y $9 A' ' $ i N b y @ e t i W /k ct L 5$ ' y'l20*N ,i u n p r a n a GJ ~ UJm)'u "' Lv ~%1 NRC Region I form 207 (Revised 10/89) 3---

I:.':r;-y.; g m :::, + E:' t e;,' [ y~ h, ~ 1 '" T0a _ fz -//,3 ' ALLEGATION RECEIPT REPORT h Allegation No. ece y C.- -.f m a;g w E F ~ l. w..- j y m.. : r .5 Phone /p } { [:jj eg City / State / Zip: Confidentiality: f Was it requested? Yes No Was it c'tially grantec? Yes - No y Vas it finally grante: cy the allegation par,el yes - so - Oces a cceficentiality agreecent reed to te sent to aile;er? Yes No Has a cca',dentiality agreement been signed? Yes No Meme cec eenting why it was grarted is attachec? Yes No 6 / N Position /

Title:

e Facility: [( Docket No.._ 5 ( A11egatien Seeary (brief descri;:icn of concern (s):

t. Accct u<< das fuGou<uat*4iki *pu&<as <eu!ssiche 9

k

3. f%eatepfa fetMsbo/>444fcArda CQcAccks g
3. S AC b5 $W Of 0

JhDkby hkeshf"~ I Nue.ber of Concerns: b i E Wj#/ Employee Receiving A11egaticn: [' / I s t (first two initials'and last name) g Type of Regulated Activity (a) _ Reactor (d) _ Safeguards (b) _ Vendor (e) _ Other: (c) _ Materials (Specify) ( Materials License No. (lf applicable): {l Functional Area (s): _ a) Operations _ (e) Ee.ergency Preparedness f _(b) Construction _(f) Onsite Health and Safety 5i _(c) Safeguards _(g) Of f site Health and Safet 7 i _(d) Transportation _(h) Other: p i (NRC Region I Fors 207 Revised 10/H )

9 Page h ( VAO$f Detatted Desc'riptt%n of Allegation: Ah A a OWtr Et$*'WwsebMr psgr.j-mpp (5T40-A-/to ee. /07) A fleT $ @ ( M ] - $ ] & p & & ? bh WAS*N & eecdd, & ce yk (f,(),g Y D i /ex4+4 444'e twel / $4hkWJ'% S?. N dA+b Y / n i. / ADOdds#/rdui<f%daerGA$ L h m u k k W K u ) : w e fa a a M r # , do o t m 2 ; e d L Z. h e cil_ p o k A a. % v% ane & #a m N &<< & ); % /s w u i y %f,jyg (~2ed4)WmlaD 5 @ $ N f)$ 7 4 ) ~ [/ftf6H A j ,V--, r tua~dspbaymq w(Aki % 57-7' spauehewessmUR')(ky6Rw) b 4'/ n : ~ $. ! # l i r P - 4 ) - l J u h _ $ r /i. / g C.?[",2K V f+iLJau JLD;gf E# f I e i a y Recomendat ons " " *f," V Significance / en-Itoh7A91Mo bl $9A' t$

  • khRhGt i 8Eifkd2JhIS $

Ifwy':\\ cv cygv v mw ' NRC Region I Form 207 (Revised 10/89) l

m' APR 30 '91 18:01 NRC 11ILLSTONE OFFICE P03 ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLAINTS - GENERAL RI 1230.1/3 i APPENDIX 3.1 9 l h Page of,/ Detailed Description of Allegation:_ h Ik C g o t.ti aw r'QtecJ s ws t J ea s e <> a, n. ~ r an~ ,~a n ->t uecea n~ e .i c <t. A i -.

  • 4s v u t-ery 51 2 A e 1 f6 ~

I f,mnUhro~T pnutcad L o o

  • a 'J IC SE Mt> p. k b,j e-Ef c., $ s to w/'o m. _ e r> ~ e w m t o t-

_ -j g t-ca t.~ ntren4-~(s c-it-is M w' A b +- 3*a kd Pn e c, J w-u } ro ~ ( D c. b 4 c..,, 3 ) vAGvf ,5 c u rv c ( e w it v c, r I n. v t a +. q,s t- ( cA,up_tyn~r c o ~ tA. b e v.s i l (o c t. Fet s ' TA cA n

  • G T- _ErsctcJ--t I C a te4 6 r

4 " k.4 e rl.o u c E Dis en.i, ,~o % Aori4 ( , Sc t w k.u k Ros pnom.AcJL lo him 4'c % n r *

  • c t s-ed. d.
  • oT E 81 5 r a-42. 0 s n e n o t t o n_

I'~ n a t <,wdgh j ror m c~ t s 4 h o t-As_ n o. nel

c. n n 1. t n C Y O *= O l t i I t

1 h ro a (1 CCe p) c~< t 4 C n,i t n_ r+- To s 4 A s. 5 o ut pm et 1(t omut Ac o e

s. ~.-. -

.a ~ I S A o net av7 u v i t~ n i No t-n u d e d, f l 40 C L <. K 4At ,0c M rt A - r re l t NRC Region ] form 207 g 6p p i. Y l (Revised 30/89) 4 A3.1-2 f

.D m

  • N L4 G

? 95 5: a G 9 n O 1 ~ w ,e D f r0 P Di 1 1 T [ T 3 ^ r %~ P p y 4 2 3 = n 2 + ) fP G z [ N P ^ _1, 3 ~ [1 s, Z0 8 m a ,1 'g r a r, c t z c> v s a 3 f [ :a ~ 2 h f If h { >-g y 0 D 0 i ~ 9 3: I v r e c r P v a 1 f k 34 Y f }< 1 3 h i e BF 7 ~ e 4 r c s Ot ( . p p u ; u) O J L o q e H g g ~ y 3 e n f 3 O 2 3 7'Q h h@ 9-E 3 1 $ s P G Qg g m C C { 7 j; O y c a y P C ) f 's o a 1 3 d 3 t <y e b 3 9 T 1 s e d. ( [ E 0 2; y i a ( r c a 3 r a f r i.. p w r 2 a c-y a v ( -v 7 e o o (-) 4 4 4r n 5 P o T 0 ? "2 (1 l' f m } n L c \\ \\ n C C 2 r 3 a [ O } f 4 { 7-u O e p; r ~ 1 a a m a s r ) 'c m } Tl ~ C-C k I y y A V n n + e n j L 3 p I v, e u t o c o 2 ) O U b k I k 8 j E T y y g e c r 3 a f c r 3 r 7 ( 0 m p s a z 5 ,5 F P "e 4 ? e r n w (, t c m s Y f R n f t C ( m u. u C e ~ r 7 4 y 1 I J r ~ J 2 C e 3 i ) ( I-2 e g t Y s- ~ -

NR3b'9118:02 HRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P05 ALLEGA110NS AND COMPLAINTS - GENERAL RI 1230.1/3 L i APPENDIX 3.1 Page of f Detailed Description of Allegation: t,g o s C4 s v t ~ 4v 4't r-s/ve)wasa wAc i d b. t Revo s w ~ q c 4-4 Ac. g - 4 A-s e ( v~ a v w S C. n c v., c a e 4-t/ r>. Tbu

  1. Cr vd * * $

Wv_ fS nu eyn e v it c \\* r' uc h L '* *1 * ~ c e n o ~ cy &f i kC-J odc4 ^*C IO ^ (. Q IlC g a t 70 w M i v [ Co n s. T h o w m e r vs. c3 It 3 ) g,b M S P C. M C oot i./ G s f 15 ev T- _truvAUMc~YnIl'1 _ C3 s m L Fie A b ~cA. bis _ s e r> c n v as,o s c>vea a c t-le a u ,_\\ k n b ,4-A L v., i A bc .5 F n y t.A. + \\, t- $ D e e. F1 s '. w k i \\ c. ~T n o v 5 L s a b n o t * (4 4#a o '> t e A J C C, f dO i k C o m 0 00 u n, ic - bl ith .A C ( c e.'_(_'.A r,s ~j pygg l~ W 0 ; NL D a hi o s t a r f', ~~ 88WGETW' I5 (, j Q S [J ) 8A) dA M (U N W 5 TO N L Ali k l h t_ vs e d 30 O t o fon m 4n v-4 )e a k.f o t ey g f t (T / 5) co_c nato ~ 4 b ~sA. I 11 T c; t - 6. t - t dO w h e i-l$ / ~ 47 a 11 e A lJ .j L t s _T C C. _,1 1 Mcm Wa4 nc r 6L#'Ci M o u sA_ y k-4-- k s. Eum c,b&ne~e& 4Le run w t s ws i 1 i NRC Region I Form 207 ? (Revised 10/89) I ( A3.2-2 i

g.;;we:;--n=way;my x,. ygt:ggwymyy;ymg ANR 30 '91 18:02 HRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P06 ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLAINTS - GENERAL RI 1210.1/3 APPENDIX 3.1 Page o f_ f Detailed Description of Allegation: 7 k t._ AiMCCO W o. c il o v i t.. h 7kt WC^u Ce " d c, A [_ O L e N u b s c. ( ) k t_ U 3 c vk 4u D e s f t. w m T/$ g ~ O ptga v s 9 N i cl.<1 u c t-riefcst~LL j / onuct_d ^t3 I C, 3 'G 1C cm A &- a t L-L 1 T h e 3c pnuccamsca or au a c e(. an-,c 4o o t o ) v v 7 c \\. O ev WMw h l o <. i t / [<., 3 L~ kt e r:) w C ~ <J t u cl w n L C/tjt o ~e-(cdJ Q c c v ~ ~ ct. + s ibA) Y6d/$4 e cj u u r c. t c n a d 8 n t- [ f) o f_ _E F Cl T b n o u ry h f o rv s c w J o t e u ~ ), I??? L3% cd t t n Ter);rsc te n . v un.,.s,nd@ : L-aJ T_ w E n ^ c d d b r) t-4 ( c_ 7,tA,3 c,,ge.a - tv_c_% e w OKM 4 h c 1 c. p rt L t e d w W t > Lkc~ wConR s ~ 6 oa 4 k% (U 2J tv C (. *Y Ch 5 sonenwoons c.l.1 ~ct W~c-45t3 S e c3 s o ro eC TCC_ c.o d k wn5 .E C G Putdce3 tu h i t. % hs v.h e A r r,m rtw~,~ NRC Region I Ferra 207 (Revised 10/89) A3.1-2

hPR30'9118:02 HRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P07 ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLAINTS - GENERAL RI 1210.1/3 i APPENDlx 3.1 Page f. o f, f l Detailed Description of Allegation: -4 L,e, 1CC u, c _oed 0C cleTL cJc3pikt M x.i L ( O $ T,. te mce to t (.: 1% tv r(C -t h a r s il luto Tc i cA c s.2 Wen ( j u Y)cl nv t ek. () 3 n 11t Se1 Ol\\ cur iuv '~ " a t~ '*.)TC D 4 b o" - h a t I 8 d T' u N CXp c 3 v ^' W5sc4 i o, nc n-t,m n t > <. n u, t - betov 3c_ n co e,, n e a r k A c1 r r u ~ s -.i c4 o E-n 1 l J Co e na~*'t~r r> m o 1. F) e n_ 5v1 Wnj tL r (_1 n _s t tY r> c t s I~ n S I U k

  • It i w s s '>l (

3k O C To wa m,J s O u tl l_ O f"h % A *A_4 ^ *

  • 4 S tA S T C M fu btt k

~ 4 w n ev i ck t s

  • r ~ u i c n t i e w N E.

2 I c e tc : a b. ( 3 C A c c h. s t s n w A cJ es ts_s t + e A _ DT.it .S O GA M U n 1M } b d bnv J k e-PO c tL P a stc p 6 L L~ k is N l ~ s + n t \\c d 4kt ' nu ct i o 53a hm. w,g S i c4. L We r r.s a c t s,e a r t. _} c-D J sl a o .>m.a+cs C o ~' as ~' A 5 r> 9 ^ L h (t x - r, na a L e u.s j 1(s oa 4At d^%e<v6 o d cl. 4-r u - a 13 I tsin t A o t. V u p iv .-J c t Ppc Q Pe c 15 -5, c A f _e L v we.A. 4 ta o cI.FFent-T s e T u p,5 ocu s p ac sc o yt. C * - s r A. dA. Jc5

  • O C

NRC Region I form 207 1 (Revised 10/89) hq J F c, () pc d. I A3.1-2 l l

APR 30.'91 18:03 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P08 ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLAINTS - GENERAL RI 1210.1/3 APPENDIX 3.1 Page of Detailed Description of Allegation: ra s om t-o ilc) n n v ~ 3 J,~.t At ou e <t k e n A t+ p A, l t---- 4cvo 6 Y Lc % 4 r c L u s c.. v ~ A Le % t "O< f o g _D i l c <, o Y ' L W N J kn* A Lu e ~ se e bns f .I, A 4o t u d cla t. a ( n-l en 4 a t n ~c3 s ~ 4 s m ic., % c V ,,,) V v54v51,cvs 1M -cl Lt _ C C h o ~ ~e ( o 10 i d (e_ N L t c o rs /d% 3 4 4 V Mc e 4 -s t, U eV d 4 PC M Tkt Fn, l a n e_ cs # H"Eco Vu n aels<.si Ak i.l j u t A cau 83c d /4 A4 o n c, +, v. _- (. t Wst e, m na n <v s s l L. cave-s a C. a DU hfL KT, OhH t Vw t. *mA T, h wrotAsa <ia 73 n,, t 11; l of 4 % d kt. G n ~ 4 ___ ~ D TL, J k a s cho^ucwa t~ en t_ rk e, o e d 0 [o o m & Le on N U'% % J"0nI 3 L,3 ac S n .; e a~, <,, ~ mto s,2 nenft,~.~A r1 J o o v e sil es <t n C-d A (. V } C 4m4s Aevstc % T~ J + a v e c~T d lat e 4 dkc I n. n n u m c et-i~4o t e s r-be t o o f t NRC Region I form 207 (Revised 10/89) A3.3-2

PR 30 '91 18:03 HRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P09 ALLEGA110N5 AND CCV. PLAIN 15 - GENERAL RI 1210.1/3 APPENDIX 3.1 Page _ of Daa11ed Description of Allegation: O( 4 \\ t. d w i o, - c, t 3 _ nr 7 av v n e a- (_se d 4 bt t 4%, 4N . ~, n( f~J*"vme Sat'w" v 'DC e M L I, - ( (- u a.,., r3,,. A n sc. y J.,o,n i s e d 1, m o > lef _ k_ ,o e v.- ( ^ o - f' p / i ( J v n ~,k C. s~. - 1 I t-c a Y []c c <. -Joy iU l f hpig.g,' k c-o 1-a'-2 OL NT 3 a m-n m,,,, A - (au p> w u,. ,~ i ic,y Ave _a r,-ag el o,. - w ak ( O G, -J. % l-o - (3 - Pv ~ C( v v 1~&,,trA G 9 ) a - t-T~ i e d e - t-A c et,

  • T-N b

C/ 4 C s. N t t __ 4 kC 8 vt ~ T, r 9 T fl L~ ^ 3 cl a e n - s. J.-~ < J Id u t-.c v rf_. .d Lt [ G f C-. bone A vnv a A.s u (( 0 n c. ~ 4 e - r sc 4 4, g 4 ke. ne o xme a s eL We w h_.y s e n c i f S n c. 7,(,-, v ~ s i {' p ,g 4g ) k, o s,, - n c n c i>. w c it.~ % ., s h., - 7, s -; ] J h) o-A ( v NRC Region ] form 207 l (Revised 20/89) A3.1-2 I

9i PR 50 '91 18:04 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P10 h ~ j I J ' k-A~OO l Unit 2 I&c c. Incoming Hemc Cover Sheet From Subject N/l, & 0&& i } a Tracking Number 7/M/ 9!/( / Date Reviewed i 1 e Initial Reply M [f / 3 i Final Reply Need for PIR or Other Deficiency Report M i W l Nuclear Concern? ~ li'; 2 1~LI'-' ~~ Responsible person ja ;;t;:cr::.. 'A S: its:::t 0: 3 "T;3 Idt,Extmpt,' M _ o.~/ ? C / 1 c: (OA-jk=N # i i I i I i t t 4 a 9 / \\, _z___.____ ~

NPR '50 ' 91 18:05 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P12 I ~ DION PROCEDURE _OR FORM ('H A i A. 1DEffTIFICAT10N N t1 ^ PROCEDUR R fiUMB R:M /#/ RE 6 ANGE NO. 3 PROCEDURE OR Rh-ITLE:. r Asanm %./ Sfm (cyg^ i i (circle s#& INITJATED BY J ,p g g c/r p AM~ W4 C; } -> ~ 6. 9fJ p ys 5, y, ?"" OE N

  • WW

- d. ry AC~ rP/ (a) af, (p) h-N'W4 Cd ~ r, f,rp

  • Y6c m W W4 (A]

~.N.??.y C. REASON _EDR CHANGE W_ .s79 3 rub :rwm ctd / st w & e n d % v ad&,.' v M.

n i

M.<4kumiu&s < Q (%n D. NON-1NTENT_ CH ANGE AUTHORf ZATION,(N/. fer Intent Changes) l L t -l NON-INTENT CUANGE LOGGED 1 'f TITLE LGNATURE DATF nift Sunervhor fen dutvi 7 rid.5RO ConcurTenee }t Te.t Sorewt. (1ST On!vi f E. BEVIEWE D i Department Head ) i F. SPECIFIC UNREV1 WED SAFETY Ollf.$I1C EVA1 U ATION REQUIRED: Modifies intent of procedure and changes oper:. ten of systems as described.in design documents. YES [ j NO[.4 l i (if yes, perform written USQ determination anc Safety Evaivation, and contact Manager, Safety Analysis Branch to determine need for Integrated Safety Evaluation.) ENVIRONMENTAL REV_lEW REOutRED '(Adverse environme,ntal Impact) YESI ] NO[ .I G. SPEf1FIC SAFETY _ EVALUATION REOUIRED Affecu response of safety systems, performance t of systems which may have been credited in the i i safety analysis or non-eredited systems which rnay indirectly affect safety systern response. YES [ ] NO {# { (If yes, p'erform w'rliten Safety Evaluation and t contact Manager, Safety Analysis Branch to determine need for Integrated Safety Evaluadon.) H. t rer E G it AT E D_SAEETJ_EVA LU ATI ON R E O t 11 R E D YES [ ] NO[ AL (oi'EchG mation of interim change within 14 days). I. PORC/SORC RECOMMENDS (Document all YES response .sbove questions in RC/SORC meeting minutes.) - PM -14 PORC/SORC Meeting No r J. A.Pf.ROVAL AND IMPLE "E9TATinN h l The change is hereby 1 plernhmf1s effective this date, except for interim c'hanges which were i Impi nted d effec ve per the Authoritatlori of D above. _l h 8 M M 7 ' f-I'$

APR 30 '91 18:05 NRC MILLSIUNE UI-t-ILE F10 t s {\\ .) (] / Level Ca T Step _ Test Point. Sw. s. Desired Read a Ch. A Ch. B Ch. C __ Ch. D / . 4 C' 6' _\\ \\ 5.4.1 _A2-TPI-(A) {2 -0.4W} t 0. 005 VDC _ NA NA NA .ece 3 2 -0. 4% 0.005 VDC NA NA NA A2-TP1 (B) .ece i A2-TP1 (C) {2 -0. 4-35

  • 0. 005 NOC NA NA NA A2-TP1 (D) h_

-0.W1 0. 0d VDC NA NA NA 1k 3.575 t 0 VDC 5.4.3 A3-TP1 / 2 6.600 i 0. 240 VDC 3 8.910 1 0.333 VOC NA A4-TPI 4 A4-TP2 4 _NA 5 NA 6 'N A 5.5.2 A4-TP3 1 2.715 i 0.003 VDC 2 4.715 0.003_VDC 5.5.4 5 6.020 t 0.005 VDC 5.5.7 5.6.2 A4-TP3 4 6.181 1 0.004 VOC HA NA NA 6 9.155 t 0.005 VDC NA NA I NA

5. 6. _7 _

5 7.081 1 0.075 VDC HA NA l NA 5.6.4 5.6.2 A4-TP3 4 6.187 0.00A VDC HA NA NA 5.6.4 A4-TP3 6 9.175 0.005 VDC NA NA NA i 5 7.090 1 0.075 VDC HA NA NA 5.6.7 5.6,2 A4'-TP3 4 6.188 t 0.004 VDC NA NA NA 6 9.177 1 0.005 VDC MA NA NA 5.6.4 5 7.091

0. 075 VDC HA NA NA 5.6.7 4

6.211 0'.004 VDC NA NA NA 5.6.2 6 9.213 1 0.005 VDC NA NA NA 5.6.4 5.6.7 5 7.120 _0.075 VDC HA NA NA l 5.6.8 A4-TP3 1 2.715 ! 0. 003 VDC ~ 2 4.715 1 0.003 VDC i 3 6.020 2 0.005 VDC 4 6.181 i 0.004 VOC NA NA NA __ -5 7.081 0.075 VOC NA NA NA 6 9.165

  • 0.005 VDC NA NA NA

. O, I&C Torm 24171-1 Rev.,6 Page 3 of 7

.a APR Q '91 18:06 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P14 _ __ a A 5

5. 4 Discriminator Adjustment NOTE:

Adjust the Gen. Bias Adj. pot., (A4-R28), for -4.515 VDC at (A4-TP4) prior to making adjustments or taking readings. 5.4.1 Adjust the discriminator tFreshold voltage, (A2-R8), to the desired value at (A:-TP1) as specified in Step 5.4.1 on the data shee tith the Level Calibrate f 1 3 switch in position f2. (Ae to IC 2416G for 7 recalibration of the desirer value.) i 5A.2 Sp ti.e Li ed C librated e tgosith,13. C b -O, 0b' serve the voltages for each calibrate switch 5.4.3 position listed on I&C Form 24171-1. If the values are acceptable, record them on data sheet. If necessary, adjust A2-R34 then record as left value 5.5 Log Count Rate Calibration Place the L'evel Calibrate switch in position #1. p gp y [ 5.5.1 Adjust (A3-R20), count rate zero adjustment, for. 3y { 5.5.2 ii 2.715V at (A4-TP3). Place the Level Calibrate switch in position #2. dO 5.5.3 5.5,4 Adjust (A4-R16), count rate slope, for 4.715V at { (A4-TP3). .y ., 5. 5. 5 Repeat Steps 5.5.1 through 5.5.4 until no further t adjustments.are needed.

5. 5. 6 Place the Level Calibrate switch in position #3.

5.5.7 Adjust (A3-R31), count rate upper limit for 6.020V. 5.6 Leo Campbell Circuit Calibration 5

5. 6.'i With the DVM connected to (A4-TP3), place the Level j

Calibrate switch to position #4. [ I 5.6.2 Adjust (A4-RS), Campbell Bias, for the voltage specified on the data sheet. {

5. 6. 3 Place the level Calibrate switch to position #6.
.I j

i j

APR 30 '91 18:U6 fEU IULLb i Ulit UrrILt rAv 1 L '>)f Tz.1 Extend drYwer and remove bottom cover plate. pN 9 5.2.2 Connect a DvM to PS-1 (-15V) output bus, (Hi to red wire buss and common to gray wire buss), measure power supply voltage and record it on the data sheet. 7_ e t 5.2.3 If PS-1 voltage is not withinL-15 +.0075 volts \\ w 3 adjust output. (Screw adjustment located between y power supply output busses.)

5. 2. 4 Connect DVM to PS-2 (415V) output bus (Hi to brown wire buss and common to gray wire buss), reasure power l

supply voltage and record it on the data sheet. 5.2.5 IfPS-2voltageisnotwithi[ 415+.0075 volts] adjust output. (Screw adjustment locatedl etween power supply output busses.) 5.3 Internal Calibrator Test 5.3.1 Terminate at measuring instrument with 100 ohms p resistance. f[ 5.3.2 Disconnect test cable from J7. N 5.3.3 Using a scope measure pulse heights and widths at J7 in calibrate positions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Record data en the data sheet. ] 5.a.4 Using a frequency counter ceasure the pulse frequency in calibrate positions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Record data on the data sheet. I NOTE: Consult with Assistant I&C Supervisor and

i r

correct any discrepancies in these I i measurements before continuing. i' gf{h 5.3.5 Reconnect test cable to J7. 5.3.6 Return the level calibrate switch to the Operate" h. C[h, \\ C position and reset bistables. L.e # go Y ) N SY in I., i I i \\ t li l

F $O d rM4OZA O] ~(m Cq ) D$ (A v@ g CN D ~ l ) t f e l D s A len d 1 n n a u 1 h o 7 C F 1 s l 4 7 2 A f m o r t oG2 f F e .e l Cvg C l & ea s 1RP l A enn d r n h u C o F sA t fe l B s l A enn d a n h u C oF I s A t1lf t fe l A s l A enna d h n C u o F sA c c c e e c e e e s s z z z z z s s s 9 p p H H H H H e e e 3 5 5 p p p V 5 5 V 5 z K K K X X s g V sV 1 H 1 1 n 2 1 5 0 5 a 7 7 V 1 V 1 V 1 5 0 V 0 i d e 0 0 I 0 I. 0 I. 0 0 1 i i t 1 t i t i t i t i t c e c e c V c z z H z z z z

0. ~= 0 R

d 0 0 i i 1 t r 1 1 V e V e V e V e V e e H H H H H K 0 X 0 K K K s 0 s e s s s s p 0 0 0 0 O O 9 9 0 s 5 5 8 8 8 3 9 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 5 1 S 1 1 2 1 I I i p 9 p e 1 1 D [y+ l 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 / l t l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a n 1 2 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C io s S S 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 P e P P J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J t T 4 3 3 p 2 4 e t 2 2 3 5 S

e . AkR36'9118:08 HRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P18 6 l i [ ? 1.2 PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS i Electrical i Source Pange Wide Range l Sensitivity 4 cps /nyth 10-N 2 V /nv +2 cps /nv; ) Flux Range 10 10' nv 1-1010 ny i Output Rango 0.1 - 105 ep3 l Signal Amplitude 0 3 - 0.5 V 0-22 Yp-p into 93 ohms j ?' Pulse Width 300 400 ns 1-800 KHz - Band width I -10.V pulse on +15 Vdc Test Input 'I 0 3 V/V i Test gain i s - I ~7 Fewer +15, -15 voc+105, 0.5 A. - ~% Det. excitation 700 Vdc (nominal) j -l .i Service Conditions l ' Normal DBE j -l t Let.ector o to 150 C, 10 to 905 RH up to 2200C, steam. 0 Amplifier o to 600C, 10 to 955 RH 0 to 600C,-105 to.1005~RH Signal Frocessor 0 to 60 C, 10 to 955 RH Normal l l Whani cal. 3 4 Dimensions-(in.) Weight'(Ib) Detector Housing 60 x 5-1/4 o.d. 80 Cables Length as required Amplifier. 10 x 12 x 24 40 16

APR 30 '91 18:0L NRC MILLSIUNE UPPILt r ~ 17 ,1 . s i 2.2 CONTROLS, COKEECTORS, AND INDICATORS ' The detector assembly, cable assemblies, and amplifier are interconnected via the electrical penetration by coaxial connectors, triarial connectors, and hose fittings. The installation of these connectors is described in detail in Section 2.1. The connectors should not be disconnected unless required by the replacement of a detector assembly or an amplifier module. ,While engaged, these connections are very reliable. The most common mode i of failure is damage from connecting or disconnecting. l t + 23 OPERATING LIMITS The detector is designed to operate in a neutron flux level up to 2 x 1010 10 nv of fast and thermal. neutrons. Above 2 x 10 nv the signal may not l increase linearly with neutron flux tecause of lack of voltage saturation in the detector. However, detector designs can be provided that will l s amenia crerate at higher flux levels. The neutron flux monitor is calibrated to provide the stated sensitivity j 4 with a gamma flux field at the detecter up to 10 R/hr. The detectors will ~operate satisfactorily in a gamma flux field up to 106 R/hr. However, for i levels above 10 R/hr, the neutron flux monitor calibration should be changed to diacriminate against the higher gamma signal with a slight decrease in neutron sensitivity. t The detector and in-containment cable assemblies are designed to operate l during and after a loss-of-coolant accident or a nain steam line break as described in the qualification test plan and test report. In brief summary, that environment includest a major earthquake followed by pressure up to 70 psi, temperature up to 4200F for a short time, and radiation, steam, and chemical spray associated with the rupture of the coolant or main steam line. Aluminum detector housings are used where the detector cannot be exposed to chemical spray during an accident. Otherwise, stainless steel is used for tho detector housing. + 2-6 J l

AP$t 30 '91 18:09 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P20 i us i The electronics is designed to operate.in a temperature from O C to 600C with relative humidity from 105 to 955, and to operate during and after a i design basis earthquake. It is designed to operate with a power source of +15, -15 vec +105. ~~ t i t i i 2-7

~ ~ APR 30 '91 18:09 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P21 The f_15 volt power is filtered to prevent electrical noise from affecting the internal circuitry. The high volta 5e detector excitation voltage is filtered to prevent electrical noise from reaching the preamplifier input circuitry. The coaxial cable, transmitting the detector signal, connects to the type N connector on the preamp 11 Tier input module. That module plugs into the amplifier motherDoard with a card edge connector and is held in place by two thumb-screws from the top of the cedule. l The signal from the preamplifier goes to the discriminator which is mounted on a 4-1/2 inch wide printed circuit board which plugs into the amplifier mother board. The metal cover which protects the two discriminator boards is held in place by two thumb-screws. The output relay which selects either the wide range output or the extended l range output is mounted on the amplifier mother board. The relay is protected by a metal cover which also protects the low voltage and high voltage input filter and which provides the counting surface for the output connectors and fcr the supply voltage test point. j f There are no circuit adjustments nor test points in the preamplifier module. Each discriminator has a single resistive adjustment (set once in the j factory to compensate for build-up of component tolerances) and test points which allow field determination of the operability of the preamplifier and discriminator pair. Test points on the connector support cover allow easy l l verification of proper input supply voltages. There are no circuit adfustments that need to be made in the amplifier in the field. Sufficient test points are provided to allow quick fault location and repair by module replacement. j The signal from the preamplifier is conditioned in the discriminator to provide a pulse of fixed amplitude (0.5 V) and fixed width (600 nsec) for each input neutron pulse that exceeds the discriminator threshhold. h4 h e i 3-6

APR 30 '91 18:09 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P22 3.3.1 Preamplifier i The preamplifier module is a current input pulse amplifier with high vol-tage decoupling on the input and low impedance output stage capabic of j driving a 22 Yp-p signal over 93 cha coaxial Cable. l i 3 3 2 Discriminator, schecatic No. 100009 The discriminator teard, assembly No. 100008 is compcsed of two seperate threshold discriminators and an OR gate driver for a digital output pulse. Each threshhold discriminator is composed of a three transistor f non-inverting pulse amplifier with gain adjustable from 10 to 25, a threshold discriminator circuit with a one-shot pulse output, a stable voltage reference, and separate 15 V regulators for the circuitry. 1 f As shown on schematic No. 100009, input 1 is capacitively coupled through j C1 to a pulse amplifier composed of Q1 and Q2. Transistor Q3 with resis-tors RS, R9, and RIO forms a current source for transistor Q2 and provides a constant current of 23mA. Resistors R5, R6, and RT set the pulse amplifier gain. The gain is equal to 1 + E6 R7 and is adjustable cver a theoretieml ranee of 11 to 36. Capacitor C14 and resistor R14 provide a low impedance differentiated pulse with a differentiation time constant of 400 nsee. i Voltage reference U1 provices a regulated reference voltage for both dis-criminators and is connected externally to a common discriminator adjust potentiometer. The discriminator circuit U2 provides threshold discriminati_on and provides a digital output pulse of approximately 4 V and a pulse width of 500 nsec which can be monitored at TPl._ _ _ _ - ~ _. _ i U6 is a digital cable driver capable of driving a TTL pulse through a 50 ohm cable. It is used to isolate the outputs of the discriainators from + the cable which drives _ the signals to the existing instrumentation. 3-7 l

APR 30 '91 10:10 NKL 111LLb i UNt Urr at r40 .s The second discriminator circuit which comes in on input 2 is alike in function and circuitry and shares the common voltage reference from UI. 3.4 operation Although tne theory of operation of the detector assembly and the amplifier are considerably different from those of the original equipment, the operation of the system is identical to the original system configuration and from an operational basis, the instrumentation chassis installed in the control roos will operate identical to its original configuration with one i exception. It will no longer be necessary to adjust the high voltage to perform plateau curve tests on the start up detectors. A fixed high voltage of from +600 to +700 Volts is adequate for the fission chambers supplied with this system and should require no adjustments. ~ r i i l 6 4 0 L G 38

'NRb0'9118:10 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P24 s GAMMA NETRICS TEL: 6194529250 Aug 10.90 15:17 No.013 P.0; w_ M PA C lle 5l micor..m mma GAMMA. METRIC 5 TILtr gioso:1,1J the rAotec ctwitt styrs I Sa D'tCO. C A 9114 (6%h 40 96H i August 10,1990 ."e Northeast tilities'~ i Millstone II Nuclear Plant i By telecopy 203-444-5623

Subject:

Detector liigh Voltage and Discriminator Voltage Settings Dear 'ITe purpose of this letter is to further clarify our recommendations for detector high voltage and discriminator bias voltage settings as you requested in our meeting on August j 1. GAMMA-METRICS recommends that your detector high voltage be set at 870.t.50 Vdc. This voltage ensures that you are on the large linear plateau of the high voltage versiis-l Ing countrate curve (similar to the curves that you used to run on your old proportional counters). If you were to run these curves on your detectors you would find that the curve is horizontal from about 400 Vdc to over 1000 Vdc. At a given neutron flux, countrate doesn't change significantly over a wide range of high voltage f.ettings. 1 We recommend that you set your source range Alseriminator (in_ont amplifier),' bias voltage initially as determined by the integral bias curve method (the point at which lliii upper l vertical section (extended) of the discriminator bias curve versus log countrate crosses 0.1 i CPS) or at 0.8 Vde,whichever is higher. We further recommend that the discriminator bjas, ygtage be set between 0.8 and 1.0 Vdc. His discriminator oias voitagTensures that you will limit circuit noise plus alpha particTe emission plus gamma noise to less than 0.1 CPS i ~ without significantly lowering your neutron sensitivity. Your equipment is operating properly with 825 Vdc and 900 mVdc settings. Once these voltages are set they should only need to be checked periodically to verify proper operation. We recommend that the voltages be checked at the amplifier every refueling outage. i 'Itanks to Don and you for the hospita'lity that you showed Jeff and I during our visit. Please contact us if you have questions. t Sincerely,

',,,..?. ,... a. w. ~ : J Na... GPR 30 '91 18:11 HRC P11LLb l UNt:. UPr1Lt rzo we~ ar so ? -W \\ b j A i 1 i i i I 4 i I IJnit 2 IEC Incoming Memo Cover Sheet From j-M I ^1 Subject j AnM _E ScrJ7,ubs l f l i i i ~ --e,- ,,s Tracking Numb '70 07 2c4._J'.' j -. ~ i Date Reviewed ' 7[4/94) Initial Reply ~7 h i l Final Reply l g,g, Need for PIR or other Deficiency Report evo +., Ls '* j Nuclear Concern? M i l Responsible person .. ~...... .. ~ - - - -. ..s.. l C*f 5 l 1 r I l s f.* r f '* ,;3 ? I l i I ..- _. ; _ _ = = = x s 2 t.....u

.x

.=

RPR 30 '91 18:12 NkU MILLblUNt. Ur-t-Rt rer -.$P.MHA METRICS TEL: 6194529250 Jul 19.90 15:16 No.013 P.01-y

  • 5788 PACIFIC CENTER BLVD.

SAN DIEGO CA 92121 DATE: July 19,1990 2 PAGES FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: Millstone II FAX: 203-444-5623 ATTN- ~ ~ 619 450 9811 x356 FROM: ~ GAMhiA-METRICS Fax 619-452-9250 MESSAGE See attached letter. I am going out to Connecticut Yankee for their startup next week. My schedule depends on their schedule. I would like look at your equiprnent (if pouibic) and discun any of your. concerns at your convenience when I'm out there. .j I will call you within the next several d:ys as my schedule firms up. 4- ~ Sincerel i \\ l i 1

APR S0.'91 18:12 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P28 . ~. - '~ ':. hMR, METRICS TEL: 6194529250 Ju l 19 90 15:16 No.013 F.C2' ~ v GAMMA. METRICS norm m.mm flat WWW $?t4 rACaleC CINilt SWD. q s m oirc.o.c4 n m racy eso4en July 19,1990. Millstone 11 Nuclear Plant By telecopy 203 444 5623 ,f D a g

Subject:

Detector Ifigh Voltage andIDiscriminator Voltage Settings Decr# The purpose of this letter is to clarify in writing our recommendations for detector high voltage and discriminator bias voltage settings as you requested from(Craig Welch] GAMMA. METRICS recommends that your d.sicner high voltare be set atJ70150 Vd_e.. This voltage ensures that you are on the large linear plateau of the high voltage versus log countrate curve (similar to the curves that you used to run on your old proportional-s D '.; counters). If you were to run these curves on your detectors you would find that the curve ? is horizontal from about 400 Vdc to over 1000 Vdc. At a given neutron flur countrate doesn't change significantly over a wide range of high voltage <cttings. Yopr insiruction manual states that your high voltage should be set at 700 Vdc. Craig Welcf tells me that you.have. enriespondence from m that says set high voltage. at 24 Vdh?Your eqp,ip~ ment 7 %Juld ojidtW pr6ficity%ith iOIy'of'tiic'ie 1,Igh witQe settings.~ '~ ' ~ ' ' ' ~ We recommend that you set your discriminator bias voltage as determined by thejxuegral bias curve rnethod. (the point at which the upper vertical section (extended) of the &TcFinlid5ToTbiEi curve versus log countrate crosses 0.1 CPS) or at 0.8 Vde, whichever is higher. We further recommend that the dictiminator bias voltcp_be set between 0.8 and~ @(c. hnator bias voltage ensures that you will limit Treuit EoiscTus alpha particle emission plus gamma noise to less than 0.1 CPS without significantlylowering your-neutron sensitivity. If your equipment is operating properly at slightly different voltage settings, we recommend that you do not change them. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by this issue. j Please contact us if you have questions, i y Q q MSincerel~ Y gg 6 $I } Y /

_ _ ~ m @R 38c '91_18i13 HRC MILLSTONE OFFICE t'ZY j i l G n 1 Yerification of Operation I Notes Verification of operation may be performed during regular scheduled ? reactor shutdowns to verify proper operation at source level, t -I Verification of proper operations may be performed with a Voltmeter, and a ( portable oscilloscope and/or a frequency counter.

  • 1.

Open the front door of the amplifier assembly, drawing No. 900014. 2. Connect a DVH to +1SV, ground to COM. Measure and r'ecord +15V i power at the amplifier assembly. 3 connect a DvH-to -15V, ground to COM. Nessure and record -15V [ power at the amplifier assembly.- - l 4. Connect a DVM to H.V. test point, ground to COM. Heasure and

  • ?,-

record the Voltageu. (M.V. divided by loco eurrent limited to t 100 wA.) ' E' 5 Remove the discriminator cover and connect an oscilloscope and/or. { q i a counter to AS-TP1, cocoon to' A5-TP3 ] .w u.. y -.. G. oburve the _qq.tt,vt cpynt..tste for 3. ;*cutc _ the pulse :ahrpe t .should be approximately 4. volt pul.te vf dt.h nf. 600 we. Pren'rd the countrate. ~ ^ 7. Connect an oscilloscope and/or a counter to A5-TP2. t t 8. Observe the output countrate for 1 ninute, the pulse shape and' frequency should be similar to that cbserved ir( step 6. f h Connector Installation Procedure L 'l 13 1.- Using tri-chloro-ethelene, clear. the exposed copper on the { / coaxial cable, clean ' the exposed dielectric insulater, and clean j [..[ the flux from the center pin of the coaxial connectors. 4 o. .t 2. Slide t.he back nut and sleeve for the coaxial connector over the I 4 'y outer copper jacket of the coaxial cable. i; i 3, "l,

  • 3
.[

t

] hPR 30 ' i 18:13 HRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P30 i t i i ) piscussions with GammaMetrics indicate that we should j continue to use thg_B25 Vdc that is presently set in f or the i-high voltage to the wide range detectors. This setting was ]- previously recommended by them and falls within the_q7 Q 50vdc recommended in their l et t er of July 19, 1990. A Vendor Manual change should be processed to bring our tech manual up 4 i to date. It was also pointed out by them that it was ap_t, i their intention to imply that we should run an integral bias j l curve at each calibration to determine discriminator bias I settings. The integral bias curve should only be required at the time of installation of a new detector. The discriminator setting would then be set using the curve, and the value,of the setting checked periodically there after j until a new detector is installed. I believe that a j procedure change may be necessary to provide a place to document this check and to record the value for trending j _ the present setting purposes. They also recommend _ed that ___ __-pl+ / - 2 0mv ) b e 1 eft in place since it meets the recommended l driteria of 0.8 to 1.0vde1 ~ Si nh~ DTeI r i c s is ori sitie f or i each detector 7epl acement and since they perform the initial j integral bias curve to determine the discriminator bias l setting, it is not necessary to provide that guidance in our j procedures. A procedure change or possibly a new procedure i i will be required to incorporate the " verification of i ) operation" steps from the tech manual into a refuel j calibration. GammaHetries recommends that this be l accomplished at each shutdown for refueling to prove the i operability of the amplifier assembly. i j l TLA 8/14/90 l' A -. t l 3 l j s - i: e j L l I

e r D0 hoep [ M AUGUST 1,1986 86-27

o Ef fEctivE DAIE 50AC MEttsNG NO -

FORW APPMGrtO 5r $1 ATION SpitNCENT P $Mte af v F-ful M O A Pe= Nea-O A-t%et'ey es Opt ,!.} ~ '/.(.) - / $ & / ACCOUNtlNG tNf 0RuATON MATERIAL ISSUE / RETURN "d ! ',y / 7 2 iYC W (A (*( g* fli 7 ly' Til'i W/ oats p XTa' /3Wf /.S ['/ 3 /*! 2 A

  • /,2)f

/ j stoca,*ANotan o at ,/ 2.-ep' no o A cat coot erow suec o.o (o c o.e= o j stoca coot ovANtity uru otscairtion y 3 g y y [ ~ uain s wesN ory LEFT I d 2. ; ets neo Z I S O E a m ,7 ?, l? %;7,) L / PA) / s 7 & +'s' h, le ! 7 h h- ;a? '79 WDCCW / )( Q f g 3 .5 W, InC'll0 t$ l'n;7)ct-iv' %OV/ 3 h9,7,7i i 1 ve #w /L @ g t i /.% / [" ~ (( i t i i t i t T / fl

  • J f I l ! I i b

I i

  • =*

i I i i t i i i l t I i i t i 1 1 i I i t I t 1 I I I t 1 I I I t I i l a t 1 1 a t i t a a i e i J t 1 I I i i CONF. TAGGED M D 1 AGGE D NCme SEASON RED T AG MOutRED /; OATE MAftmeAL ME8NSPECTE O SV (Segmeturel l .i OMWNAt.5tomts CAseAny St0mts Pisen.mtOutSitn 3,4g p.,3 - _. _ _ _. -, _ _ _. _. _...,,.,,. _.. ~.. -..... _, -.. _. _, _ _

APR 30 '91 18814 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P32 / O*'V? fll f / Q BEcy ix p c.16 c,= m.4 u h.,-s a d2 m,p. l 3 05 l,m4o/ buishi or~ MJc3-By(d., 3;/30 M/ 5fy M / h t' b l/> / 4 / h S E d / % b x (SceV4 k / gisf (j%, R' -42' (? AJ.& wi E,wg,w,,,j,9 xDo /&c. agar pa ec-i3.aav d Tekf 7f-1:wwan< c I C E l Ki u z 6' E2,P CAAt. (g. Av m 3 Plt 2 bynacx /aa mensfoe. iaa ca.c-c i ShO fxcoyVad Plk5 S/:A' 77bo dl/hr.[/iedyps f&x 15eu'gu/Lw p GMT 6 x. s/P W-oyza O Oractsus gio pit duha at 6wtado Udcwb r do c5L poes 'i F,('20 ~5pdlN5lQ Edfl' as L rn v ratt 'wT b-O. WW 9 Y ,o' C

APR 30 '91 18815 NRC MILLST UNE UH-1CE t'os E \\ Step Des on nnel A Channel B Channel C Channel D +[5 Vdc 1 1. 6 V \\ 6,1.2 6.1.3 15 Vdc ;f. l.S' V [ High Volt St $70I60s/c. 6.1.4 f5 TPI. AS TP3 Countratej 6.1.6 [ 6.1.8 A5-TP2 countrate F 6.1.9 Discriminator bias.9 iInf 1 / ,/ / I&C Form 24160-1

l mEmirdIDa5 Gin]L4]IDmtNO20m!GeulHbj h Revision Routing Sheet 1 ~* t 91gmgwypmmM h J"*d" ISMNN um I D b&W ll T by: I by: 6: t DIENNtAL INDEPEND g g w.itTHROUGHy NEE { \\ ASSIGNED /. WAt Tyrinstrioof REviCW g g ,.g, r cro. r grcRsos tee, e.c=.t iwo r.e. g,,, i,,,,o r r Totestep IMeemasheat \\ p y p j g Ceaupere to EgeWstl weni6re pe.ceeste l la ibe Iwhit g l Not Regerted? g __L____________J________ were i Woet Oweer t* l g q \\ n _ _ _ _ __ _ J r i Q I + Transfee To Front OfGce I I u ->= I&C SUP. COPY t.tj FMMS () FMM5 PLANNER r [' Pt.ANNER i I I .I ->* FOLDER COPY g O I l Coht TER I O l l s I I Radiation I SORC / PORC# M i A..eu m n. _I - I es rac E.. I (Rad Mon Onlfl 7,,gggp . fy g gg$ ~ EFFECTIVE DATE ----- ~-.m om r>, m. af& ~ O M 8A2

  • M,' C *
  • Procedure J

a. 0 &*EN T(.9L4 6 tog nrv cuo in. [ DATA SilCET BRIEF 3 RW ARKS .pgg,phgg,, 3 3 .,~ !&C Form ?&C Form PMMS Planner / designee wnl review all procedures ~'# O^M 7"d' ~ 1 { for forrnst and overall cornpliance with ACP-3.02. 4'd' pg,[ y;g 4 IAC SUPERVISOR will assign an individual to do an nrv 1 curi RFV l CMG independent technical review and walkthrough (if [, G tweN).' Signature on cover sheet required for Writ-4 q n er, Reviewer, and Walktlwough person. .g cd' TITLE: lOE ^ ^ E*# blM'#' USM ,e v-y+... ,w., ,-c,w~-+r v- --ww.,-~,= -ve---en-.,,mr .-w~,.~,,,, .ww -w,,-,-*,%w.r=w--ve.-,-w.~.- -n~~~<.-~-#

  • n-=wv-

====-,w-ro-.---.w=--*+w-- --.v------..= -~ae-.-=---+-=m-

~ ~ ~ x __ s x APR 30 '91 18:15 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE FJD j I I L STATION PROCEDURE COVER SHEET ^ A. ID_ENTIFICATION Number: IC24t60 Rev. 3 l

Title:

WIDE RANGE DISCRIMINATOR ADJUSTMEbrT B. R 1 have reviewed the above procedure and have found it to be satisfactory. TlTLE SIGNATURE /DATE TIT 1 R SIGNATURE /DATE / DEPARTMEhrr HEAD r l iJ C. SPECIFIC UNREVIEWE SAFETY OUESTION EVALUA* DON REQUIRED: i Modifies intent of procedure and changes operation I of systems as described in design documents. YES [ ] NO [ J i Qf yes, perform written USO determination and Safety Evaluation, and contact Manager, Safety Analysis Branch to l determine need for Integrated Safety Evaluation.) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REOUIRE_D (Adverse environmental impact) YES [ ] NO[] D. SPECIFIC _ SAFETY EVALUATION REQUIRED Affects response of safety systems, performance of systems which may have been credited in the safety analysis or r non-credited systems which may indirectly affect safety YES [ ] NO [ ] l system response. i (If yes, perform written Safety Evaluation and contact Manager, Safety Analysis Branch to determine need for Integrated Safety Evaluation.) [ E. INTEGRA'ED SAFF"IY EVALUATION REQUIRED YES [ ] NO [ ] F. BTENNIAL REVIEW This revision satisfies biennial review requirements. YES [ ] NO [- ) ) G. PROCEDURE REQUIRES PORC/SORC REVIEW e -(in addition to review, items with a YES response must be documented in the PORC/SORC meeting minutes.) YES [ ] NO l l H. PORC/SORC APPROVAL PORC/SORC Meeting Number j I. APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION i The attached procedure is hereby approved, and effective on the date below: j STATION / SERV)CES/ UNIT D: RECTOR ErFECTWE DATE r

~ v APR 30 '91 18 16 HRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P36- ~. ~. 1C 24160-Page 2 Rev. 3 1. _OBJECET 1.1. To verify the Gamma Metrics Amplifier Discriminator Setting each Refuel. [ 2. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 2.1. None l 3. REFERENCFS i 3.1. Oamma Metrics Technical Manual l l 4. PREREOUISITFS 4 ? 4.1. The Shift Supervisor (SS) or Supervisory Control Operator (SCO) has authorized the test and signed 1&C Form 24160-1. j 4.2. M&TE will be used on the lowest range practical to insure maximum. 3 accuracy. The use of equivalent or substitute M&TE will be in accordance l with ACP-QA-9.04 and approved by a level ill Supervisor. .] I 4.3. The following test equipment is available and within calibration: L 4.3.1. QA Digital Multimeter (DMM) q t 4.3.2. QA Electronic pulse counter 4.3.3. QA Oscilloscope j 4.4. Neutron flux is in the Extended Range portion of the Wide Range i indication and the fission chamber is energized. - ~ _ _ PRECAUTIONS N ,/,5.

11. lf.r.yWe as mace in Uiscriminator voltage level, a procedure enFrrge j

M ateri data l i 4 must-be-written-to cr2r inci.cw veitsge i. IC 24fff-end : ~ sheet. j 5 7. Up to 2000 V de is present in the NI drew,5. Ay[Ib bcb% .l 5 A All test equipment'should be isolated from ground.

}

r I ' h g -_ j s ' t f

~APR 3091 18816 HRC MILLSTONE OFFICE m M IC 2416G Page 3 Rev. 3 6. PROUDURE NOTE: This procedure is written for Channel A and all instruction refer to Channel A; However, the procedure is intended for any of the Four Channels. 6.1. Verification of Gamma Metrics Amplifier Diseciminator Setting (East / West Cable Vault location) OPEN the front door of the amplifier assembly, and reference 6.1.1. Figure 8.1 for the following measurements. 6.1.2., CONNECT a DMM between +15V DC Pcwcr at the amplifier and i common. RECORD the value on I&C Form 24160-1. 6.1.3. CONNECT a DMM between -15V DC Power at the amplifier and common. RECORD the value on I&C Form 2416G-1 l CONNECT a DMM between the High Voltage (HV) test point and 6.1.4. i common. RECORD the value on I&C Form 2416G-1. 6.1.5. REMOVE the Discriminator cover and CONNECT an Oscilloscope and Pulse Counter between A5-TP1 and A5-TP3 (common). 6.1.6. OBSERVE the output countrate for one minute, the pulse shape i should be approximately four volt pulse width of 600 nanosecond RECORD the countrate on I&C Form 2416G-1. r 6.1.7. CONNECT an Oscilloscope and Pulse Counter to A5-TP2. 6.1.8. OBSERVE the output countrate for one minute, the pulse shape should be approximately four volt pulse width of 600 nanosecond. RECORD the countrate on I&C Form 24160-1. [ 6.1.9. CONNECT a DMM between A6 pin V-18 and common. RECORD the Discriminator bias voltage on I&C Form 2416G-1. 7. RESTORATION l 7.1. DISCONNECT and REMOVE all M&TE from the equipment. l 7.2. REPLACE and SECURE Discriminator cover. 7.3. CLOSE and SECURE the door of the amplifier assembly. i 7.4. INFORM the SS/SCO that Surveillance Procedure IC 24160 has been completed.

n APR 3'01'91l18:17-NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE 'P38. i IC 24160 Page 4 l l l Rev.3 I 5. DATA SMEETS l 8.1. I&C Form 24160-1 i 9. FIGUHFJi l . -{,...

.1.
.I]gule 9.JJLm.p1fj,c,[ {pgh Sensitivity _ Start Up Schematic 9

j i 10.1. The Wide Range Drawer (NLW-3) '.Escriminator Setting was derived by _f Gemma Metrics from data showing - Wide Range Trip response (Ref. I&C Correspondence File MP-2-1-1320). Gamma Metrics describes the i Trip Response Method as the most. :: urate method of setting the; g \\g Discriminator. The Discriminator Setting Method described in the Tech. i j Manual is a Coarse Adjustment that would need to be followed by a Trip ( Response to get good alignment. Gamma Metrics also indicated that the' / t f t l SP tolerances of replacement components in the Wide Range System would not .I \\ affect the Discriminator sensitivity. - They recommend fixing the. ko i Discriminator Setting to.460 Vdc for all drawers and not changing it Y ' hen new components are installed, h reb u 4 '),( 50 llU-NA k)~ b 'A '

  • Y ack) & !sa k k p ~d~

fi y gn i / s~- , /- 7 l l l

RPR 30 '91 18817 NRC MILLSTONE UFF 1Ut:. VM IC 2416G Page5 Rev.3 AMPLIFIER HIGH SENSITIVITY START UP SCHEMATIC R t1 4.TS E, _ d6 (#4 VJ 6 ?.,L 4 ftn Al O' R3 A5 A C. Af f 'o h#g, h'D Jb g 4[1 M g g M' sa RU 6 r S e V I 81 E4 C a T G C y L, L. PUT {'[ gg$ .g77; $c bo E34 I Cl ug g[ I N j h hh At IdV 145 g t',

  1. [o#

JCe $h i,\\,I 0, ,o ,, g j CB, gi _t 7g14

  • t J e 9 a o o o i,.. <,i,<><, v i,,
  • 1

[.LLft 35V j e J s T

  • g 0 C o O l[

~L L [1 R7 9 g a'( -~ 8 M 0

3. L ff5T O{- %

gi a in w3.iss, i 8 bh bh AD I U4 ? ._u M W,3,9 5'M.M C e s,4* - = l 47 4 12 4 11 R6 sov Fe a o c o oio,4 . nn o, ', o <, o 5S M l = Tes irr m ~' ^ 3% __.M en,

  • tSV Y

Y a ^ v---- m 8 s is s ec ^4 J5 LI l a _ 1(I1 8 a o a o , na a 'lM,*n'o%' YI % ae. 1_.p;_, l_ 's n e3p "3 i.z ua 8-E M I '$y-- WyY ..........ou -gl ,,o,.. [g yg D'" LLl :! *Uof 7 F58 L y __ L soo wd wra < : C7 -, C.8 o -c r ~ r to a tr. .~ co ,'00 ' .m m u g-Q tov tov s tm im l'd L *a. v 515 .g 1 -is 1'! i84 w TF4 M gKZ g kiGO h' RIO l E8 C J4 Y \\ wr,vrC3.wu 47.s Rit gg n (3 Auts 100 6150 D7 ~ Note: (1) All Resister Values are in Ohms +/- 1%,1/4 W. (2) All Capacitor Values are in Microfarads. (3) Test Points TP1 through 'I?4 are on cover. Figure 9.1 i

APR 30 '91 18:18 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P40 OAMMAMETRICS AMPLIFIER DISCRIMINATOR ADJUSTMENT DATA SHEET I SURVEILLANCE COVER SHEET ,, i c DATE P AC.t" Tomu APPmervto 1 or 2 PCMC MT O. NO. i REPERUJC4 PROCEDURE ~ACPERDKlS SPEC. IC 2416G meovEwev N/A enE wooE =cneto.s o4Ta REFUEL N/A AWOf ACCEPTANCE CRITEntA MET: 488/8 Col Cart con 4%ETED BY YES parr AccgPTED BY (s si NO DATE APenovtp sy gotPmw HrAos SYSTEM NON-TECH SPEC 181 TESTING MAINTENANCE AUoNMENT tuRVE1LLANCE O TECH SPEC SURVEILLANCE PESTO RATIO N CAL CUE DATE O A NUMBER TEST ECUIPMENr DMM (Fluke 8050A, 45, Yelthley 197 or HP 3456A) i FULSE COUNTER OSCILLOSCOPE ACCEPT ANCE CRITERIA I NONE INITIALS IN ACCORDANCC WITH REFERENCE PROCEDURE PREREQUISITESANITIAL CONDITIONS COMPLETED 1. 2, PRECAUTIONS NOTED f tr M A!NTENANCE PESTORATION, INDICATE RELOW WORK ORDER f. ETC.) 3. COMMENTS: I ,,...This Data Sheet previously addressed the G.A. NLW-3 drawer Discriminator Adjustment. lt is no longer desirable to make such adjustments, so reference to the NLW-3 have been deleted. 4. DATA t

u AttEGATIONS AND COMPLAINT $ - GENERAL e, R1 1210.1/3 ff APPENDIX 3.1 ALLEGATION RECEIPT REPORT Date/ Time Received: Sl2k%1 h M G .m. 7 Allegation No. __23 c)f.4-e0 82 (leave blank) Name:, Address: Phone: City / State /21p: Confidentiality: Was it requested? Vas it initially granted? Yes No / Was it finally granted by the allegation panel Yes ~ No Does a confidentiality agreenent need to be sent ~ ~ " ~ Yes No - to alleger? ~ Has a confidentfality agreement been signed? Yes No Memo docurrenting why it was granted is attached? Yes ~ No ~ .Yes No ] p oye (MO Position /

Title:

Facility: _ f thl$ sh e u n d ;t Docket No.:_ So - 1% (Allegation $utrary (brief description of concern (s): owa.o3mve.oe.cte-hCo.d..thAhai..ohoc,3, Q11,)W L,,9 (Qge 3r . inoccu oei g e _ " Lo -Aimatsl o ,A ev.ec_,h d d y J

  • 2 SG rea d,l y leup l irM,,, ire r.lg],$ <,

_ (h h%e. poi lm. um. nn Nunber of Concerns: 0 + u+ b 8* ^ Employee Receiving Allegation: ~~'0. A.

  • D> s a n l-M (first two initials-4nd last name)

' ~ ~ Type of Regulated Activity (a) _/ Reactor (d) $afeguards (b) Vender (c) __ Materials (e) __ Other: (Specify) Materials License No. (if applicable): _ Functional Area (s): F(a) Operations j (b) Construction ,__,,(e) Emergency Preparedness 1I' _(c) Sa feguards _(f) Onsite Health and Safety (d) Transportation ___(g) Of f site Health and Sa fety - i (__ h) Other: (NRC Region I form 207 3-Revised 10/89) frlly,6* M,k b sl u, W : p g g ~ 3 A3*1-1 l - -l IP.!::r2Sr ia 0.s r. d ;.a u.x .) k (,.Ih ! i.u:~.w m. :. Tz-Anr2-Gr?c

MAY 02 '91 16:11 NRC M1LL6 i Utt Ut-t-at b roc ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLAIN 15 - GENERAL RI 1210.1/3 APPENDlx 3.1 Page I Cetailed Description of Allegation: _ of 3 .d ( L r ex o,. a el on. e41 c, sne 3,c,. c), oJ <[nri,4, a t i M. J s..s.,, ',,. o rht,t.nh q i f1J. t O. ~7 L, v u g-c,1 m.L o rsa dex A 20 KcP ef7 1 n lo a.;n n d a n n,, avrruo. T l., d n n s o,,r n y V V otua La,. OA % ryne3r_rn V i ).,d. n,, c3 n_n O r, et y ,a> "FT)C k ea-w tsro d >,rr s e b A m r,A d., b.n.. un n s a un> r, et. nr1 nr A in ntb>r& -4 V, rr <,4,la e Eter.. g g v v a n.u a ma e W> ar> h b9 > Amw~n s 'urwob^ b. v i v Bachorne rA

  • D<n R ES.19 % fe y

,o Pttk imz, nre d,p at. A L., -,,,hr kT*b m u e> l A krr.>)amusd.W tan files Asa,u s, TasA- - s a BL d w % n.4 c5003-?,te69. E M N_(b 2 h%a o 9l23f M de f *M e& T (b Ob r o n.. nI b r k bs bn ~ a 9J kT 3 ri m,'% ("T C D,7 cc, TC A TC 61 M. si n.L 4,... a () 4 . D.,,m, A i a am nr. -. L as 4 262o3 -2 S Soo % 43 14o d 1% s v dos du LO ed rmMan Tes t D r.h.s. Tim, da dr,,,.', _ t'rflisi. Etrn d d =1aum kluxn.. Q t ya c.Afo, s a i _ a o.. m e. a m m,_ a -.. un u w,_. w a n o rd b en,en n +ike Cte.)'D [2 C2 Ob 31 o'M Mh4 b tr + Vara rsarasn b ek an *.

  • W.

.., m >a_,. e e r. blr d u,~ dn es... n, r. a. 1 e t' v 6 DIf,,,su. 14 a RI y i a trn g eiL<n of b to. R 0.24 Em,m.t urnf'Earenein4ob & Pbck' a e 4 ter s con em u n. don >>ture roJ M,,3, [f3 mn. L thn3 (Dr.gunsr o Ch.ir.as~ a - v s hY22xLb h% n>t e a v -- y ri d m o h. v n e dd Ci>JuA uthdo o )[cS d y in A nnin trna flo[n us.6n n \\ v on s e s U NRC Region I Torm 207 d (Revised 10/89) A3.1-2 't f:-

11AY 02 ' 91 16212 NRC (11LLSTONE UFF ILt. re* ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLAINTS - GENERAL RI 1230.1/3 1 APPENDIX 3.1 PageL of 3 Detailed Description of Allegation: d ed de n$ A Mc opr a hte 01<tfD_ M _ _ _ entniaJuu d cenen ,r, und." r tes m te ned newnOA Os -4 A SG 7h, e n 'm t] r2,,, A s v bm $. b tm* vee b e hap menkaan d on to n_r > d da n Ur3 A. e i g mefr d.h n rnd _ te n den. A n d n O n i i1,r A '[ s enfan& me,rd-G ak 'l Duca *w A r hwn, la Opn 0. 01. v a ' n;;d Ar., w %ees.Psce*..TDm.:bvrmm4a.-tt2 m m.m 4. m L c e<ii _, W,- i V a m.d h,u, r4 h u h_1s ned 6; inn SQn. L!. I naarM_ t bs w_G mi odsA. i m.A +,. L " ben

  • O Skik%t
  • LSoo y

pro irri sh 9m IsursuaA t - \\ \\ 'L. ~ A & n d k u. e,I %d s o ~ A ar n% k ah am o%hr ru, r a n_ u A b.rrn, bur 1Ai,,L cmash y as do2r. rme _ (du W J U 'un d e 00. A _ 4 mh _ 4L inn - or0m ,, sem y r d u $k1f 41 \\_ M laI;en uns d alrid be d E) 1 o nbr nrnece,eru A that d, on stiu,,u,rb c\\ amn not mbiurda,,k s un u tin s\\. aru tL, ano 4 p re - s eutu _ (deccxvirnendokteva *. ~{ hcri S h e d in*,;.h y_.. o s k e d M O nhard. 4-hie, 4n dsv. T -4hin k uY ve Ourid indo. To M ei m E d o to7rrond imrn diode Mid3rf j t f15 or) E-trrierd 4s do so. NRC Region I form 207 (Revised 30/89) A3.1-2 I

(1AY 02 91 16:12 NRC MILLSTONb UFFIUb rua v RI 1210.1/3 ALLEGA110NS AND COMPU,1NTS - GENERAL APPENDlX 3.1 Page 3 of 3 / tailed Description of Allegation:_ L + b-wh / f h am Upda\\es. id 4,cndmo +1. 4 a a d. of f sg nh.n in / i 3Dbqdu,n erer,nin c4. A f h e h. o a e i M nb & bl. uS, cd, w dsin nkei/L n,,, f,,, pg. E O v .N/ 9 m,4nJ,nrn.,A kw wrAun,, km.. k1 +m Nnmn,#nAnlinn - O rn% J J ~ a A bre, m.. ben EQ k1 svdurn J U I en,,, i cu.[ aoS d n el d.A ceA mob nrr, n.$ 0 e M m i flo ove, _q M o bl (u d,9 bn A d urdtuchio ". 7 y L. amA adan 16c t,ck,, Ln m, remn i o 4 0,n+ 4 fh. GRITn wsiar;. in f nrn0A"to orog e N h M 11 Pa rt 3 02 ta r s n riy. O J t LQQ u. J k u, tr n p.n k uncy n A,A tn 6a (m um A, l u L s\\A,mo +1 a w6 m, o,m L,e u.m... a v I v neos. ae A b, u n Jf J } l Aon.aann r% v..n r um. m O J l G MTs ;. r.uda utur.a 43a Assm mrro n ~ 4 7.,.sMao n,sk d.A 4ks-occess tobet ara Q J mu1 barrir, ent k. yu neuino3", a myl do 30 daus e. u a ha 31 31v e, 3OO re f5 $(\\A min f1 r_13 Y nnE>_re. n o.. %maamh w : lA 0.L. L nk A nrr

c. A1A +L k

ons. HRC Region 1 Form 207 (Revised 10/89) A3.1-2

.7 '91 15:39 11RC MILLST011E OFFICE PO4 b Attf GAij0N5 A' 3 (CSLAIM S - 6fNERt L j0 /J ([(7!! M rE'. DIX 3. ) i Page Cetailed Cescription of Allegation:_ (,)$_o _J j r to-v g 4lu]jf~~f...} Y ' '. ~ c C Y91 lhYh!!?{; ~ NAf hk k;. i,NO%., n g$' i ~ ?I'M JSAh KlOn A & WM k hg Le_ _ a fhab n u N&@ Yf&Mk nffuth_p DolnL'wc1AaWA_Dnfa L+o +fydylt sp-z4 io .ApmiebtediLatA 111 t i s d s t k c ddm ib uxt<d, a Aw.datw>v m 4 N i 01 ~ 5 14 & [5 -AA 1 0 A W61441t $$Egr$y JE^ /il91_Lumo %ikay_ u 1 (aa, vpl tracks o % [M J'pIJacha Ond i 4

3

km.w] fo .Audsf M demkal Q aa yD IWP IW .0 Y d Of t 1 NRC Regicn I Term 207 (Revised 10/69) ITICir2 3hE4T2CCd G N D 1:t a::3dar.:e w@ 1 fE6 3

m. m n :.ca __ n

. [ir' f~$DD A3.3-2 .? t, -

y u (El-9f-A-olG3 ' ~ ~ 21 *)]-A - Oho Eld-4 ~ O NE AU.EGATION RECE!PT REPORT C77 7 g ff ) h Date/ Time Allegation No. Received: ~ (leave blant) I Address: Nare: Phone: City / State / Zip: V Confidentiality: yes No Was it requested? yes go 7 ~ in'tially granted? Yes No Vas it finally granted cy the allegation panel Vas it Oces a cor'identiality agreceent ceed to be sent .= yes go to alleger? yes No l Fas a confideatiality agreceent teen signed?- Yes 'No Memo docu enting why it was granted is attached? m Posttion/

Title:

e I l h Docket No.:_ Facility: brief dtscription of concern (s): (Alle' Petii d(wan(too3mW1143) k te(/e a S we.. ry hM 4LA l died &das;wuedas<"uDCrad%Abe l L) "q / f / gg! Number of ConcerTis: U ~ Empicyee Receiving A11egatica: (first two initials and laspace) / (d) _ Orberi ':$afeguards Type of Regulated Activity-(a) _ Reactor t (b) __ Materials (e) _ 'e . f specify) l Vendor (c) _,, Materials I.fcense No. (if applicable): a) Operations _(e) Emergency Preparedness Functional Area (s): -((b) Construction_(f) Onsite Hef1Fand Safety ' ~(c) Safeguards-(g) Offsite Ne, trend.Sa fe ty i _(d) Transportation (h) Other: '_-.. *.. l (NRC Region 1 Forn 207 Inbrmdion in :S red 3.cn g.g Revised 10/8%)', / i 'f CDtdaret un tb* (! hm ci'niu;ng" 1, a en.,s An c I 0 9 7/, n,..

j Page of Detailed Cescription of Allegation: ~ f A O A A l A 3A (/ui is aE&%VM C %f parax"U Lc-9t A-t&%dfd% W21' waf l sawe 6de MElw Ms&ahKowPr i Jkt3 40 stffuw&M ad n%dUaff _ca bu/J n M_ k./ V h %./hve# & w Adra%aldd imidfx sua UdHA&M m d ves# abar&d9ka 7 o k k e m /s %hkth.. I % & a-**% 4 l t&A-9(-t 70 (taeEGA* 74 ) 6afxau- '1 ,pa k. 0 4, Mlcr>(Gi G4-f/-877(>MaJ~f)dd i hyiK14 .S/t _ Id ~b Afaa hkdjua. 6, % j N... G / i 4 f Significance / Pr'iRiisinary R ame a n: fAlkkNbbt k iN l'LW ] l n utde as4644'dhd&inwk ' wJEflis%.!/Tahm4 Dc4 t %"k -0M;'?Mb"* W/W h Y "M- \\ e /N <}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20044C356&oldid=4532445"