ML20044C403
Text
cr.
- y. a " %
/df[
+
f,j UNITED STATES e
NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,
o,
[
REGION I 475 AttENDALE ROAD j'
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVAN:A 15404 1415
[
DEC 111391 l
i His letter refers to the concern that you provided to us on May 7 and 15,1991, as there is difference in the method of performing a waste gas monitor functional test bet[
r vendor's technical manual and the Millstone 2 surveillance procedure SP 2404 AG. I you stated that as a result of this difference, the surveillance is incomplete and opera monitor is in doubt.
Your concern was referred to Nonheast Utilities (NU) for their review.
i Attached for your information is their response dated August 16,1991. We have reviewed their responsi determined that their method of performing the functional tests adequately chec of the monitor.
i t
The NRC considers this concern resolved and therefore plans no further action in this m[
We appreciate you informing us of your concerns and feel that we have been responsive you have any additional questions regarding these matters, plesse call me collect (215) 337-5225.
at Sincerely, l
'N I
,y o
fj.){4'bl6{N h'$WN ?'
f o
Edward Wenzinger, Chief,/ /
l Reactor Projects Branch 4 l
Attachment:
NU letter A09700 of August 16,1991 i
<l l
e i
l Irhrm3ba 2a 1.u tcx3 ;,a s.
u in 20'Cidr:e w!!h ths fregcm -f ;n:ormdon Act, exemptbas _ _ f V 7 i
F01A __ {G d 6 2 _
~
n
[ 90 9303220435 921217 PDR-FOIA HUBBARD92-162 PDR 1
~._
,... wz2em m* gig g-2
(
bec /w enci:
Allegation file: RI-91-A-0093 & 0108 -3 E. Conner I
W. Raymond/T. Shediosky Contractor's Office (Roberts) f f
l l
i P
i t
-i i
i i
..t
?
concurrences:
_u(20 r
N
/
)
t felly #
Nh 1
l
~
. ' ey 2
W$nzinger b/d/
/.l /d/I.I i
\\'p/gl4\\
i 1 fiyaeljunacl'meh J
7-
- ., a
'9 NOR1NEAST UTILFTIES c.a.,.i Omc... s.io. su i. s.n.o. conn.ci,cw
<u,.ec.coson e*ome w =
1
=n n.c e, ur== w P O BOX 270 J C **' '.,'f,'","'"Z."" "
HA A TFORD. CONNECTICUT 061410270 L
I2c31665-5000 August 16, 1991-Docket No. 50-336 A09700 RE: Employee Concerns Mr. Charles V. Hehl, Director Division of Reactor Projects U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. Hehl:
Millstone Nuclear Pover Station, Unit No. 2 RI-91-A-0093 Ve have completed our review of the identified issues concerning activities at Millstone Station.
As requested in your transmittal letter, our l
response does not contain any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards
. i
~
information.
The caterial contained in this response may be released to-l_,;
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 know" basis during the preparation of.this-l 3
response.
li l
ISSUE:
)l!
Vhile performing a review of surveillance procedure SP 2404AG (Vaste Gas Monitor Punctional Test) data, it was noted that the acceptance criteria-contained in SP 2404AG dif fers f rom the acceptance criteria. specified in I
the vendor's technical manual.
Specifically, the vendor's technical manual states that correct operation of the upscale check system is determined by obtaining a counting level at least equal to that of the check'. source.
Bovever, Section 6.2 of SP 2404AG specifies acceptance criteria as: "The Acceptance Criteria is that the Upscale Check is greater than Background, ~
not that a specific increase occurs." The surveillance is therefore incomplete and the operability of the monitor may be in doubt.
]bDk
f Mr. Charics V. Behl, Directer U. S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commissicn A09700/Pcge 2 August 16, 1991 Reques t Please discuss the validity of the above assertions.
If any deficiencies regarding the technical accuracy of procedures or the operability of technical specification radiation monitors are identified, 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.
Response
This question vas reported to us via an Interoffice Memorandum dated May 4, 1991.
The question was ansvered by a cemorandum dated May 14, 1991. The acceptance criteria vere revieved and found acceptable for a source check type of surveillance. This issue had been addressed previously with URC reviewers as part of the implementation of the Fadiological Effluent Technical Specifications. The acceptance criteria vere developed based on these discussions. The PORC-approved procedure takes precedence over the vendor technical manual.
The technical manual contains generic recor endations that, in this case, are not applicable and have been superseded by the PORC-approved procedure.
Additional review by the NUSCO Radiological Analysis Branch confirmed this assess =ent.
There vere no deficiencies identified as a result of this reviev.
After our reviev and evaluation, ve find that this issue did not present any indication of a compromise of nuclear safety. Ve received this issue from one of our employees, evaluated the situation and provided a response to the employee within 10 calendar days. Technical specialists from NUSCO vere involved in the preparation of the response.
Ve appreciate the opportunity to respond and explain the basis of our actions.
Please contact ey staff if there are any further questions on any of these tatters.
Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANT POR:
E. J. Mroczka Senior Vice President bt ] LI
/*
gp V. D. Romberg L/
Vice President cc:
V.
J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3 E.
C. Venringer, Chief, Projects Branch No.
4 Division of Eeactor Projects E. M. Kelly, Chief, Febetor Projects Section 4A
h.Y 07 '91 14215 NRC MILLS 1Ubt UPP at roz 9
RI 1210.2/3
, AtttbAI NN) AND CUMPLA3NTS - GENERAL
//6 y
APPENDIX 3.1 ALLEGATION RECEIPT REPORT Date/Tiee Allegation No. kT. A @gy Received:
Sk7 k i n () T,2h r, (leave blank)
Address:
Name:
City / State / Zip:
Phone:
Confidentiality:
Yes No Vas it requested?
Yes No Vas it initially granted?
Vas it finally granted by the allegation panel Yes No Oces a confidentiality agreement need to be sent Yes No to alleger?
Has a conficentiality agreement been signed?
Yes No r.
Memo documenting why it was granted is attached?
Yes No ]
- mg773, A11eger's y.
Erployer:
14U Position /
Title:
y; gMg Docket No.:
sc>. 3 3 (,
Facility (1WfM
( Allegation Summary (brief description of concern (s): JD P.m b, ng 1.&fc)
%hm chu era Elc c hr.El_cnb in t-At1-is_gw'r m AsCh2 audk (En NEC J
d CA> snd hrv.x ad qoc&t3 t;s!k mes. A ch r L J) uameh (b triar
.i. m.,.g.,,/ u, m a c a,6 m.,p p < n cc s j
humber of Concerns:
3
- 3. A. 7mcM T3 Employee Receiving Allegation: _(first two initialvan'd last name) 3ie6y jg Type of Regulated Activity (a) _deactor (d) _ Safeguards th i (b) _ Vendor (e) _ Other:
d
( c ),__ Ma t e.r i a l s (Specify)
E y%J l
Ce
@s j,, Materials License No. (if applicable):
== g
]E$h;:
Functienal Ares (s):
a) Operations
_e Er.ergency Preparedness 4Jy
_(b) Construction
_f Onsite Health and Safety Of fsite Health and Safetys ga=
_ (c) Safeguards
_ (g
_ h) Other:
s y _. d
_(d) Transportation 35I#8 (NRC Region 1 Fons 207 Revised 10/89)
A3.1-1 gg., p,, A,j g.
fh cc: nit, % g l%;y y
.ml
~- _..,,
u-
. _s NAY 07,'91 14:16 HRC MILLSTot4E UFFILE r e,>
APPENDl! 3.1 Page l of 3 Detailed Description of Allegation:
Mer e a_flh ofurie t
l IO C k _ 2 A t. _oq y g,dsblt_ 1%
m I
, 3* * ;'@r
,{,
A
+,0 t hm, 4 oa.,ta e eq_
cMact AnhA qlm(5g _ygggggn _,,,y,,,Y
.f,
a
,1n,.
n $ m o _ a h o u _ : A. A a A, -,a s e,m,. p J
Ao'tum m h a 1dt C Lu
% rh mnuk nib d EE6.ho
_ bliutam_
a b u l e,_.1 1 I 7 guni mt. S, - om i. ( o,,,, %cym,k,, o qwL o
__Q M \\nnnen.% y u~n.c %L J
M_
I.$wes@ f&qer chna
.._i n t l t R R s tJ M _t
- ., r r.. d -
- a (7) 0.0b
.-Ad io_yi n e A e a 1 [ pac oEJ
.i tP 312.cyl R, EeQuno ned lffau A) t e. Cam,&
rup udhkan kh.aany K tusi A G _If S I h b i-RC-fm in a 3 f.o._3 2 to I_a e L A am,J e hF1;un o D.
J L - a r$4ahd _'un 11 tMin 1 2.,33 TIS ML&nn,oH.(.1.1,.erf.ss unh w.&
c % d_wnd eh d>><adu A2_-cNuud>d J
- '4 4' NRC Region I form 207 P' b N (Revised 10/89)
A3.1-2 e
t
=4,"*y q,4 g,g [
6 * *
's
MAY 07 '91 14816 HRC MILLSTONE OFFICE PO4 NJ Jd U.J/J
. ALLtdAsivN) ANu tterLAINib - bthtKAL APPENDIX 3.1 PagtL of 3 Detailed Description of Allegation:
7Is
'A M M c. 0iJ,m h,,,,. u.
,,, mt m v
v tr t r. A ar s a r r e n r. 41 mk A,.,% u v
-- g -
e n % c. m nWnhnn a.
,us.n s
ateno.h M.e,uhr unM m
{,e es.2.psLfu '6L Ltima r b. A im un a
g s u n, nta A u &.<ea n 0 % L,c -
F. U,,, en,,, m 4.
c
.w v
i 4-a 3
herr __m rne nkt NN ibftft:c l'n i a_
a i t rs, te Ar.
indwh L~n c erneuchn maimm.1 n e Turan nn U
e d n enime d Esrin e y en h Qirmg en. b. t en n urno 1m TtL_
Annung n, nth.launqrpanzd <m ne qua.c.
d 7,einnu..
h so.-33Qqi.cs.sn da_ 2-mb 19 o3 ing mn,1 uvah.
NbLC du w man L 05Hh s al
_Tr. h. n % g, u s.
AOd:rnx.
n '_ NEC fd r
_ _ n,rri e ta m _s Ung a rhan n ea tu22 d. flfhm T
(/e r in "in em$ di:n NO N P, C A.
u a
as-A A [ np t.
ns a A P
ts Ihrn a e 2.
unuAm.n 10 % n disn tn b.
t M_t> a e n O ntlir1M. n_n nn i
g
-y v
U3 f/ a_b d h %,,tn ru e an cian,. f in.dirr u Ah ne u - ---
, y y
y 1n co can J ud en.-
. i n e. i ii,< n d moo n.cif o rin.
s n, m, j
n
_ f'u "I~n 3
dfly]IC'e $ iL
_O *2 itn-a rttf v. # 24 ri fin e.
<1msh L1_Anat, +A r_
i rem er-tr u _ _Q A b c,.
rn v
slot A d n nue r,1ci.
ne = a o s aa J n w cv_> e n s y
NRC Region I Fom 207 (Revised 20/89)
A3.1-2
- 3
.g
- sr q
^
1 - ~
.n 'I != '
h;,.L*.r.
1
' - - -Nva. '
n,,.,,,
MAY Id/ ' 91 ' 19 81/
N K t., i11LLosunt urr ac cvs
- APPEND]X 3.1 Page 3. of 3 1
1 Detailed Description of Allegation:
es 4, e, rh r;ua.r_.r.ir!*
j
.i 3
~
fil ( Ef.r m fittif a o aD0emen tkri ti 3*
n Of a ne d 0 0 ( m)lar, a e i
a i
w t Pi ed 3 on m, s uso w noo,ia,a Am ru,u
- 7
~
u v
v e tmk en E Fo en e r o,;f e.emI 3 nim #1 s t r"Ati o ns,t, M y
tt ni C 'm so.
Ohn naua d da l1, n...
Y
[
thmelan 9 119 o. aten,,
,,,3.1.
h nte m
4
- d. 2 in s-mn R [ u,1.
y y
,.1 rim C L
---(23 9 b,4 h a nnes r, rd A a 0 De n n + h,A o
u n,u M. A ened4Jij et2 m.is slieuf A na+ lim i
v MI MI!f fi d (fl e (
. CL ft 19 Id ffti I Tf 91 i 1A N '-
J0 lttnn
.Y s e e k ++D.. ui n e 0. n r> _vnl.l11, r
rm, r n r.,u s
s Untnetungshesa, T1 tny rn u.n _ $n 01111tp u Un a 11n m,
C-a J
tLm t$, (2), oh,o, kuu,
Di n,y. e.. n,lcineru, f,g,9%J rJ itiecLJienho.e IOt* Eufn m O CPS-v v
v S
i
?
i HRC Region I Fora 207 (Revised 10/89)
^
r I
t
s -
MAY 07 '91 14818 HRC MILLSTONE OFFICE t'U r' s*
p / V*)M /, I r; g NONCONFORMANCE REPORT Sft edO 3 06 PDA PATH. ACTO 4 W
Opb&&4 PitV. t1-40 WCT RAN tusm cp SOLC@t D M mbs 9 'l 1 - N 9 8
._ A,.
?_314 G>
N/[
t.u:,cu. to '. 2.- AC-65 so m es poe w eve oomes occu.ar A @ m?_% 0%D5%
D4 6cAspisoes CP NCPdCC#fC6MN4EaCA4762 b CA E O D1 b (_e a b toi R c-5 RatDEQ ME camneb o wh ee.
R y t.ue m.
s N
D At t OPuG.4ATDA
.De DA)g 5.2-7j
~kTFw'trg %w C90 Af_PMt3
--me.
USC.A h AEP AA _ O P4s1Att ~ c. iA+1t. O atwoa ' O 'e O sour. O Acaa~ O oTua TN$ [Af(Nj*f,9ff W t*'M JVYWll? ?YYS*A W I b l $fk$ $U O 5" fMS*Y D4PCali C4TA&E 5A*A/P as
,as sr 7 o F ynf BASF FVP 7^U~/ArW/M f"w CA T/EsJ & 4 Frpr, r"swrw ssrnmrom /< rw'* <-
Bu7 i r wAxss A n' < < y 78A ICK/ FA AKouvo 7Mr 7 A~A W ik //04'.
S A C4~
L/Atuf 2 -A c -4 s,&
3 Aff L/AtVX fClbSFD ~/ At~/A'//GIJ';t"'r N Hopf s,,t a peg yg 7 N'I ^ A/
e co+n conti + ^ s.ca,<,o a s ursrae.
!?
4 f
}
5 4P4 8 W A&UATON kl QuRtpt SLP'T ed.3 CQ [tvCW.LMy4 $4#v.
DAYS
'/
4 r S/'Tlbsb
'S~ 2/ fl O vne Sta on s.
Awo
/
ADAMW.S. P4SPt C TCodNthreC.Al sD*d O s*t.
O tus.Av.
wiA 6
A O0
~~~"""*"]?];@h,1(/f4%zaa lT-2-9].
.. n.,.
- p. ~.- _.
..N sweeam, -d
--- -----m-
MAY-07 '91 19819 NKL l'11L'o i unc. ur r ivr..
r u:r g
NORTHEAST UTILITIES
'..'=;;L7.7;.':~
5
^f
%ZZ';r:2.52 L
e April.26, 1991 EN2-91-139 To:
From: Ralph Bates t
MP2 Engineering Supervisor (ext 5410)
Subject:
Wiring discrepancy during PM's I received your call on 4/25/91.
While performing PM's on the MCC cubicle B61-06 for MOV 2-SI-654, you found energized terminals that should not have been energized according to the copy of the drawing that you were using at that time.
The drawing used -25203-31025, sh 3 -shows the cubicle external connections and showed points 12 and 13 from aux contacts as spare.
They had voltage (120 v) present, and they had. interconrjecting wiros labeled as going to 861-07 and B61-09.
A tag had been attached also that labeled the wires as "PA-84-063".
Engineering has looked into the discrepancy.
PA-84-063 is an open praject which is in the process of installing Thermal Overload ( TOL ) alarms for all safety related Motor Operated valves (MOV).
The aux contacts terminal points are being used as the termination in each MOV cubicle for the common alarm scheme in the control room annunciators for an MCC.
Thus, if an Mov were to develop a thermal overload condition the common alara for that associated MCC would annunciate in the control room.
In addition, a lamp to be installed on the door of each cubicle would indicate. the specific MOV with the overload condition.
The drawing you were using was the drawing of record, and-does not show any changes because the project. is not complete or in service yet.
The project has progressed to the point where the alarm contacts for each cubicle have been interconnected and tied to the annunciator system, and thus the presence of wires running into other cubicles, with a voltage present ( annunciator voltage is 125 VDC ). The interconnection work was done at the last refueling outage.
This information should not appear on the drawing of record-until all work is complete and "as-builta drawings are issued.
A copy of the issued for construction drawings are held by several groups, including Engineering, and they show what the intended final configuration will be.
Work renalning is the addition of the thermal alarm relays and the local lamps.
This is expected to be completed'at_the next refueling outage.
RPe t
of4Y 07 '91 14:20 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE Flu-1 p
r EN2-91-139 4/26/91, pg 2 You did the correct thing by calling Engineering with the question and the information on the PA.
Verifying the f
and terminals with a voltmeter was also correct and prudent, is or should be a standard practice.
To avoid this type of confusion and hazard for future PM's on any of these Mov cubicles due to the PA work, the power tie-in leads at the annunciator cabinets have been lifted, e
removing the voltage from the " spare" terminals in the l
cubicles.
_cc : John Riley b Rob' H J Terriell, B J Du f f y,
~
4 3
i l
l l
I l
i i
e
's
[f l* %,h
- )
UNITED ST AT[$
(I
.- p yg - }
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
ff 475 ALLENDALE ROAD nt cioN i p,
(
(/
KING of PRUSSIA PE NNS Y LVANI A 15406 141s DEC 0 51991 p' '
w A
l M[Y(([I p:;, &- }x a.
- h. ;,
a > g.
- q.,qy.;.
h ear I :m responding to a concern that you provided to us on May 7,1991, alleging that compliance with the NEC requirements for spacing and cleanliness is not being met for electrical panels located in the electrical maintenance shop at Millstone Unit 2.
This personnel safety issue has no impact on nuclear safety and is thus not within the purview of the NRC. However, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSH A) conducted a personnel safety inspection at Millstone Station on July 11, 1991 dunng which time they reviewed your concern. They confirmed that the electrical panel work space clearance in question was inadequate and constituted a violation of 10 CFR 1910.303(g)(1)(i). A copy of OSHA's citation on this issue is enclosed as well as NNECO's response to the citation which outlines the corrective actions taken to resolve this concern.
The NRC plans no further action in this matter.
We appreciate you informing us of your concerns. Should you have any further questions in this matter, please call me collect at (215) 337-5225.
Sincerely, f
h 10 Y/
C
[W Edward. enzinger, C
'f Reacto 'rojects Bra.h 4
Enclosures:
As stated infermatian in this tre.d v;;.3 yew m accedante c.ith the freeW mg3 Act. Utanons _ g/ 7 C Im A.
/~
y t
303h 0M
$y.
7 g
/
- r. w
7 bi l
I::
l
.t l
I i
s bec w/encls:
Allegation File: RI A-0094 l
E. Conner files l
W. Raymond/T. Shedlosky Contractor's Office (Hunt) i
+
4.
l l
't t
I
(
i f
p6 Concurrences:
l
(
RI:
RI R
RI:DRP
/
^
/
i Kelly Wenzin lparkleyI1014I/ [lkl4)
(( Q l ]ger i
f
/
I i
i I
y-U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Heanh Administrabon L
g '..
- f *E ~ 5. re11011g
- n: ) t
=$U ".oir 3tfse*
I E
t w e.i 1....J.
o t.,.
R'Br....
.s.
.e Pep!y to the A lention of.
Q-.
..a 7.,.
v.e...aht,;i..
4wLt,F c.....c.su r cuerer.,
..A 2 :..:
ry r.L.
~A...Fo...,
se
- v. t :...
- r ra Esar Em lere.
Erci:s+: y:e -:24 f1 0 1:#:1:cs #:r < :iat13r.r Of tr.e CecJoational 38#erv bc s.. t r. -:: f 1.., n.e.:
wr::n ay ns.e a::empa r.yl r.-
pr:.r:sse A
ar.:
ce, alt:es.
Lis; erci:sst 25 a cae.;+: ent:tles, "Esci:ver R1;.:s an:
Rescensit:11tist Foliew: ; an 05-A Ir.5:s::::,*.
0EHA 30001 svise: 1: C.
.:: e::-;a:e; year rlgr s 3,c r33:: cst:111::es ee er t.ne A :.
If y:w h#ge
&ni Ques: 130s &c0L: *BE fr.
l*5+- ::*di1* 5 ar: pe *4a l t i e 5.
i *Dulc wE1Cere r..
- s J...,
1.,
e (,,.. s r,.
r..,e.
, a
...e.
2...
.eae
,... al.1
. a. c.
,e-E 5
.......c..
s
..t
..S+.c..
4t.-.-...:
- .1 4...
.' f.. E.
w.....
.r:..
8
.. r..
s...
.. 2 r.....As
.e e
4.
p.a...
. 1.c.n e..C
..r Pt3
....Er......,.
... 1.
..G 1,. s.
- c. e..
c..,
r e
.c
,.e.1,...
a..
3.r.
. 2 ratzze
. /. s...
(..
,e.
r.
dl......e3 re a..,
..e
. es:
a 4 t E mi.- 3*ets yCL hu.E i s t e
- d .
- .e :
- Ce t-E 5 i Qe**.E*
m:*-
&CEO.8*c e
,4
.,t..,..
e..
E.,.....l.,.
. 1
- 1.+.1 4
p.0....a
.s 3 4..:.
.e
..y.
o
....C,Ei P..C....===
a., F e.
..me I e.s.1
)3s e c.
f e....
...e.cc
.... 3
.c
..,. 1 :
,.4....
al..
e5...
.se.
s..E e.ff.
.. 4
.r..,.=
o
.. e.
.,
- 3. G.
1 3 6... t c..
6.
..e.me.-...e...
F.z
.. - C L. C e. <
.c
.e
..ex.
c.
..v.*
...,.....e.
..........:,. T-t. e.,.
5...
=.........e On....es.
c.
1,.3.
.1, 9
IJCh &G 1T'07 4} C Q r.* E ".:5 yC.
3.
- *E
- E.
S?.
9%;CE CE ;r v24 1 ar t :h ', :.
e.
.....-=.
.ei.e.e
.,u.
...... a t.c p e...-. t.s.
. 3 1 n L,
s i
.tr ir 1,1:rme; c: #e?;3Cs :: :25:ess any 4-you are ::rra:er17: 6 soues:
r si.:es rala:e J :: nas C.:5.t:r an:.;t4ft:st::e c# Fenalt<,
fee mus: take r,.
...e t.
... s s., a :..... e,. n.. 3
..: t u.
.... s.c a s.. e r.
4 ).
s e.ntt..y.
.-e al c:nfs ence.
sr:el vo.
4:::e : c: s:.
Flease ksep :- rinc tne ; &
o r :
- s t.
letter C : rer.: t: ::ntEst e s-te sac ;t:e: t; tr.e
-rea Lirect-d..
1 1.:
- a. *..G
./s.; i..
..E
...a....O.
e ns...m... :
.....n.-
c.
s.
e.:...
-.y 1
...i..
1...-..
.E...< e 1A:...,
6 0.: e.e n.,,..
is..,.
m61
..,.... C
.TE..
D e n...
.w.
.e; 1
. a.c.....
s.
.. a. E,u..
20.i
..v i-G $3
.e t.
r...a
,,m.
t
...e,..
m..e
..e s.
c c.
- v... :.
- e,g.c.
g. (,4 :. 7 s. r. g e y..,.....
y e L.
g....
...s
.w
- a..
m.
l
]
e
t A
[/
,I U.S. Department of Labor occupatW Safety ard Health Adrninistration Rep!y to the Attention of:
If you cecice to reaucst an informai ccnference, please Osm ;ete t r.a 4tti.:heo nctics at the octtan of th:s letter anc post 2t r.s.
to in-citatient is s:ca as tne t:me,
- cate, anc place cf tne inf:. ma; c:.fe rerce tr.e teen cetermirse.
la sure to tvang te the ccnference w2Tr. you any ar.:
all sup;crting c caentetion of existing cer.citions as well as cf a.,y l
ar+tsment ste:r taken thus f ar.
If ccnoitions warrant, we can enter 2nte an infctmal settleter.: ag ee. tor.: which amicscly res:lves this matte-withNt lits;at:cr. or contest.
Sincerely.
Ano.d-
]
3:L 3. star.sen, r.
Are Direct:r Enc.esares I
l
-E-I
r I
U.S. Department of Labor A
. oncates wery we sun umstreon V, l
g
~
- Citation and Notification of Penalty MD
' ***2n New
{
U.S. Departsient of Labor 10/31/91 10W/6687 l
Federal Of fice Duilding - Roon 500 L P4;ovg O L CSHO O l
450 Main Street 0112000
, Y4553 l
Tr.e Hartford, CT 06103 Cano%s) w w me n ao ar.peo e hri, ee.
7.Opconsf Aspcrt No.
- 3. Page ho.
}
Ar Due emed on or about to cry r*
604 l 1 et 1 l
inspectbn was rnace unle&8 DPf3 Of i
13&J@ %_.&. mdM" h_-
etterwise ino;cced won the so. racocton oe.x Rece#
g decipen own teow.
l g
s Other 01 l 11. inspectm sr.a:
7/11/91 - 7/11/91 l
omen l
carwass
,, 7,.
tilLLSTO'E FUC1. EAR P0fER PLANT l $
baTERFCRD, CT 06365 ra n c t0RTIEAST POCLEAR DERGY COMPNW l
and its successors l
Pe sex P.O. BOX 128 l
usy se Dr.a:rne 1ATERFORD, CT 06335 THE LAW REQUtRES ea! a copy of the CMat.on to posted imrne5.a'esy m a prten.nent gwace at or riear es bestion d ea.cNs) cr.ed teiow. The cscon m..si renn twee um e. <. sam cres t bw h,<o t en e.ced. o, v s on, e g :..cwg owone, ne rece w weni. ee r l is longer.
l Tha Cu.*.on descrites raatcra of the Occupatcr.at sevy a.nd Wan Act v 1970 The periaryr+s) ftred t4 tow a o t4 sed on rese vdations You rnust at.ste e vca%or.: re'e"ec to in tNs Citaton ty the catn Asted tobw aN g4y e4 per.ates ortoosed. ursess wt*mn t$ wonorg ders (esc.sdeng weekendo l arid rederaj besys) tram your recept of ins Cr.aton aM per.afty you t'ti e na cs o contest to the U S. Depattwent o' t.ator Area D*ce at the andress l r
r s?*>m above. (See the e icsosed tioclet *Px.h outfene ran rghts and respor.stA+t and s?ould te read in cmjunctora with ins form) You a o tstrer l r*Xf.ed that urJess y>v.rbrm the Ares Ovector ri w-t g that you biend b ccrees: Fe C!! anon or progoswd per4Fes wfthm 15 wortng days stor rece pt.
I this C7.aton aM t? e propcsed pe"a*+s erli t*corno a f aJ orce, of the Crcu,atr.r.ad Latety ec HeaM Revtw Comer.4 son aM rr.ey to de rev',wed by thy l wo,t o, e:eney. in.yu a e~s Can :nes ro ec~u.. r,r.d,, e, a,uee or ve.o oce-te an.u we e a we te -est u p,omed for ri the Act or, if curvest umess the Cftaton 's a"v red by the Peview C<rtmvuran 3
- 12. Rom Numter
- 15. Deze by Whaca j
is. Periaft, VoatrJn Wst 8
- 13. Standard. PequtaScr or
- 14. Descrgt on go At.g ed l
sec.on v the Act voatee i
1 11/19/91 0.0(
29 CFR 1910.303(g)(1)(i):
The dimension of the working space in the I
direction of access to live parts operatir.g at 600 volts or less and l
likely to req. sire examination, adjusteent, servicing, or saintenance I
while alive was less than indicated in Table S-1:
I l
740RTHEAST COFdER OF TFE LNIT 2 tiAINTDW3CE SHOP TIE WDRK1tG SPACE I
IN FRONT OF THE T10 (2) ELECTIRC PATELS LAS LESS T)%N 36 I) DES WIDE.
I I
I I
I i
l l
i I
.I I
l John 3. Stanton, Jr.
(
wJ
.s g 0.00 NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES - The law gives an empNyee cI EMPLOYER DtSCRIMINAT1 UNLAWrUL - The law pro-Tew his representattve the opportunrty to obpct to any abate-habits discrimr.ation by an so ployer a;ajnst an e ment date set for a violation if he beLeves the date to be fang a complaint or for exercisrng any rghts mder this Act. g unreasonable. The contest must be reaJed to the U.S.
An empicyee who be6 eves that he has been cisenminated i Depanment of Labor Area Of' ace at the address shown ar,tinst may fse a comptamt no ister than 33 days after the j
""c,.,*'
above within 15 woridng days (excluding weekends and d:scrtmination w th the U.S. Department of Labor Area Of-l h Federaf bondays) of the receipt by the emp; oyer of this Crts-fde at the address shown above.
tion ard penafty, l
e nwi I
=unt ena n.vc
..--r~.-.-r-
N...
- v. n..eyeo da'e:y or r,e- -
tata:ns U.S. Departme of Labor
-w.,
' MOD Dane 1
r _ r'7-// - 9/
((Ccrrant N E. Empoyv Nro
~~
ter>
073850059 CONN. LIGHT & POWER CO.
1 Le tmtoi(She Cry Sara 28
~~
MittSTONE NOCLEAR POWER PLANT
( u w A m en m m ;rso m ce % z a WATERFORD CT 06385
-~
a Lu rw Ce t
- ~
c ROBERT A. AYALA
's)NaO-D1 k ke of Ekveu 2
POWER GENERATION
~
ha.tae
- ~ - -
s j
l 1.
SAFE WORKING SPACE / CLEARANCE DISTANCE ARO JS NOT MAINTAINED.
~
L =,y = _=.
~ __n-n C
~~~~
- +
I
- ~
~
we-
_eNe e eampe.g.e l
l4
-u" NN.
f s
,_...O 4
s Y 07 ). : r*t t 7 /o "
. - = = --. _-.z
- _ _MN1L2_MMNLE1@CLSB0P_._
-~
"WW
f U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration Reply to the Attention of:
90IKE IQ E2LOYEii An infcreal conference has teen sche:uled w;th CEmA te cascuss the cita-
- c.s issos: cn 10/31/91.
The conferance will te held at tr.e 05 A offi:e lo:ated at Federal Office Eciiding - Rocc 505,
- Hartford, CT 01103 on
_ _-- at 6
-3 I
U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administratio'1 1.
- . P i
I Repty to the Attention of:
I
_NP T.I.CE..TO ["F.'a..VE.:.
L.
O.
Fees aa f t.6 -et: Colisc::en ~:t :( 1 32 Pacil: Law 77-365 er: re;.ls-ti rs of tns Es;;rtr.e ; of Lacor Gi C;fi T EOs. effect1.s Part-5. ;-i!.
Ime C c.- sri: cal Esfety anc Fesith A: 7.i nt s : ra t i :r.
is e;.11 e: ::
assszs intereit, Le.63*1Es. inc 1655 :: ::ver 'T>9 A G.l e.; E t r6I1Ve 0 its 0 #
tellE:t-Ing CPII",QUcnt PE Gl; IGE f r.10idt1Cf.S ci the CCCu i:10n81 36fity anc hEaltr. A:T.
in:I*is* Chi"?ns Pre Bs56:s!C at in #^rua!
3 t s CEter.T;.F:
t '. tne 3e:rs ;r)
. -.3..rsas.ry. Th:s ra s is t.nrent.y :.:..
o I
- .n.
.c c.
3.e..
7
- n..a f..t t
,,c...a.
r
_.1...,. r. a..
s
, -. n a..,
.e
.r.
Oro-sE Cr !:; isis: tG 4.t.E 4 f r.i l C r :E - Of :ne UC.iCatiC.i3 3afET) in-i ME 21 ' E2 1 E.=
- r F.15 61 C T.
4tr3
- 15. I f ev.*. ?. - 05,.5 f"Ca ) Ur rf:El,*,
.~
- E
.. t c....: s. 3 v-.... =. e -. E - a 1.,>,
. r..' E, :-
- .11 E & D C... e-y s. S t c- - +w..
Interest
- A. ;e ? s 311 te 461.=: 1 tre f....
f.t :c ". ! caec 15 pi;;
- 1t in s
c,.
<1.)
cy=
.......r.
'f:sr 37 ca.e. car cars.
tr.e ce:: sr.al; ce :+11rcuen u.isss a satitf t:. ry l
T.+..t.s - a r rit e.e.; c e s te e r, ta :s. A;e :: s s of r s.s c a r t e.e.1 f a+:or ses r=~
. s-.
7..ge..r
- t. r.a 3.-.,1, 1 m,. a... e-
.. c.. e..J
+e
- : -.. a. c t -, c C. 1.3 u E 9'.
+
.g
} e.
+.t e-.
C e. ;. n.. r.,. f w. P tv..-
...e.. %.
.cs.
- 6. %.....
e 3.c...r.,,,
c
.c 3
.3.....e.
c a.. g. +..,
- s. = <,.e......e...
Ce.. e...
Sn.-[
- e. g r.
e.,
e.
- s :a;& that :ns se:t ts:3me Os;1ng ent.
T: a.ci: e :di t ;;r.G. Inarges.
pisass reml; ;aytant ; Onptly I t915 Area Off;;E 1:r tr.e total emount cf ne ar.:: :este: ;;.e ra l t l e! E n c e.. Er tae
.-+.r+...
a ;. e.
,.,. u. p.e
.. s.. S...e / c.... y e w )
t.
re-m ___W:.n _ :i.u.,.e.
w..
..e.
y.
I n di :E t f CE MA 's.I. Ee_ gi.l.o n.u...t s. a." F. F t.:An.
r egge g;;;;;;c cy tg e.
a..E rE:t,1; ants.
..eE a.1..
UW F N
I
?..+.33.C...
cc.s:
4 e.,
L w
y.
Arei Oire: tor I
inni
)
i-l l
l
~ '
NORTHEAST tmuTIES I
l o.a.r., Ome... s.w.n si,..i.
mn. conn.eu,,
g c oa "= w w P.O. BOX 270 g
y em.
a un.a w HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT o6141 o270 w w=== ease.aw-(2o3) 665-5000
. i John J. Stanton, Jr.
t U. S. Department of Labor Federal Office Building - Room 508 450 Main Street Hartford, CT 06103
[l 6 8 W C 2 L
Re: Citation Resulting From Inspection 100976687. July 11,199 i
Dear Mr. Stanton:
l r
This letter is in response to a violation noted during the recen
[
referenced above of the Millstone Unit 2 maintenance shop.
T l
violation was the failure to maintain a working space of more in front of two (2) electric panels.
P The violation was abated during the week following the inspection.
The violation was abated by removing an interior insulation retaining-plywood panel.
As a result, adequate work space clearances in excess of the minimum required by 10 CFR 1910.303 (g) (1) (i) Table S-1 were established.
Please contact me if you have any funher questions on this matter.
r Sincereiy, 10 hd/ N Stephen E. Scace Director, Millstone Station I
bcc
)
- 1. F. Opeks W. D. Romberg i
D. E. Welch
- 3. F. Follett
'l R. Voigt 1
List D 1
hf.
^
W r ~; u m,
[
e, ONi1ED $7 AT[$
[.'
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
- E GroN :
'... *[i 47s AttENDAtt RoAo o
KING of Prussia. PENNSYLVANIA 19405 141s l
St0; d2 LT
/77 A l
j
?
Dear i
! am responding to the concern that you provided to us on April 25,1991, asserting that an i
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.
l i
This concern was referred to Nonheast l'tilities (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 mspection 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 Pro,ect 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 j
proper use of GRITS would have proviced you with the correct information which would've satis 5ed your concem. This issue was 2.20 appropnately and promptly dealt with interr.2",s by NU upon its discosery. 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 GPJTS to check for open changes to drawings prior to troubleshooting. We base brought inis issue to the attention of NU management. Therefore, i
based on these findings no funher action is planned by the NRC in this matter, and we consider this concern resolved.
4 We appreciate you informing us of your concerns and feel that we have been responsive.
?
Should you hase any additional questions regarding these matters, please call me collect at r
(215) 337-5225.
f b
Sincerely, f
inictmali33 in th~s re:ctd ;,25 cm F
=
n accudan:ckth the yrcg D* D.':n:Mmbn f0M _ $ j Q C "Wl-I'V I '"Il nd. tremptions i
-/g Edward Wenzinger, Chief Reactor Projects Branch'4 Attachments: (1) NU Response Letter A09702 of August 30,1991.
(2) Excerpts from NRC Inspection Repon 50-336/91-27.
S30 Rho 3M G.
d
'L
]
obs.k+
t 9*
t h
bec /w encl:
Allegation File: RI A4)077,RI A-0239 i
E. Conner's files W. Raymondfr. Shediosky Contractor's office files (MEEKER) i i
t i
'f I
[
f i
concurrences:
RI:DR RI:DRP /
kD. P R
lo, bf b[N[
hdf &
l fI
- / '! / *
- T~ ~ Y
NORTHEAST UTILtTIES c-on.. s..n si, n.n. coon. css w c w. w. - an -.
P O. BOX 270 9
='** - -m u m ~ ="
HARTFORD.CONNECTCUT 08141470
$ Z C.7. ","" C (203) 6 5000 k
L J
August 30, 1991 Docket.No. 50-336 A09702 PI: Employee Concerns Mr. Charles V. Behl, Director Division of Reactor Projects U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Eegion I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. Behl:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 2 RI-91-A-0077 i
requested in your transmittal letter, our response does not contain any As personal privacy, proprietary, er safeguards information. The material i
contained in this response may be released to the public and placed in the NPC Public Document Room at your discretion.
The NRC letter and our have received controlled and limited distribution on a "need to response know" basis during the preparation of this response.
ISSUE:
The viring diagram for the Eigh Pressure Safety Injection Pumps B and C Common Discharge Baader Isolation valve (2 SI-654) vas found not to reflect actual plant conditions.
Specifically, contacts 12 and 13, designated
" spare" on the draving are energized vith 120 VAC. The viring diagram i
evidently had not been updated as part of a modification done under Project Assignment B4-63 vhich had used the contacts.
An additional concern exis ts 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:
i Please discuss the validity of the above assertions. If any deficiencies are identified in viring diagrams and/or drawings, or in the procedural control of preventive maintenance activities, please provide us with the -
I 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.
sg-
-@'b C)2)(#1C)364eukot he.
~
,Mr. Charles. V. Behl, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A09702/Page 2 l
August 30, 1991 i
Res ponse:
i The viring diagram for the High Pressure Safety Injection Pumps "B" and "C" Common Discharge Header Isolation Valve (M2-SI-654) is NUSCO Draving l
No. 25203-31025, Sheet 3.
The drawing being used was the current file i
l revision which identifies contacts 12 and 13 as " spare".
l 1
Project Assignment (PA)84-063 is an ongoing project for installing Thermal (TOL') alarms for all safety-related Motor Operated Valves (MOVs).
Overload The purpose of the project is to provide a common motor control center l
(MCC) alarm in the Control Room in the event any MOV in that MCC develops a The spare auxiliary contact terminal points 12 and 13 in each MOV cubicle are being used to terminate vires from the
'l thermal overload condition.
Control Room annunciators in support of this common alarm scheme.
Vork has progressed to the point where the spare contacts in.the NOV l
cubicle have been vired to the annunciator system. Tags have been hung on l
inter-connecting vires to contacts 12 and 13 identifying the termination points and the PA.
Terminating the wires to the annunciator system resulted in the application of the 125 VDC annunciator voltage across these contacts.
The proj ect is not coeplete, and the thermal alarm relays and local
[
indicating lamps have not been installed; therefore, the file copies of the been revised to show this design change. A complete set r
{
have not drawings drawings, which depict the intended configuration, have been issued for of and are in the possession of appropriate groups at the plant, construction including Millstone Unit No.
2 Engineering.
The Generation Records Information Tracking Syste: (GRITS) properly lists the status of viring diagram 25203-31025 Sheet 3 as "open" with outstanding Design Change l
i Request (DCR) M2-5-286-90 against PA 84-063.
f 12 and 13 at this It is not necessary to have potential across contacts Therefore, the power leads at in the implementation of the project.
removes the voltage from l
time annunciator cabinets have been lif ted, which
[
the the " spare" terminals in the MOV MCC cubicles.
l The assertion described above is not valid and there is no significance j
vith regard to safety.
The GRITS properly identified the status of the l
and the open FA and DCR associated with the proj ect, therefore, j
l is no deficiency in either the viring diagram or the drawing control draving All electricians and mechanics have received training on use of l
there the GRITS and have been instructed to use the system to determine the
~
system.
current status of drawings. Proper use of the GRITS vould have alerted a to an outstanding change to the drawing and further research would Therefore, when revealed that contacts 12 and 13 could be energized.
user have is no need to report proper drawing reviev process is folloved, there Based upon the above, i
the existence of the voltage on contacts 12 and 13.
j the no corrective actions are needed.
i f
r i
l
~
Mr. Charles V. Bahl. Director U.'S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
A09702/Page 3 August 30, 1991 I
7 This issue vas.previously identified to us by an employee and a written response vas provided on a timely basis with a complete explanation of this situation, along with recommendations for future troubleshooting-activities.
l our reviev and evaluation of this issue, we find that this issue did-not present any indication of a compromise of nuclear safety.
Ve After appreciate the opportunity to respond and explain the basis of-our actions.any of tj Please contact my staff if there are further questions on matters.
Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPAhT
[
r t
i E.JT)ffoczka f
i Senior Vice President
{
I cc:
V.
J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos.
1, 2, E.
C. Venzinger, Chief, Projects Branch No.
4, Division of Reactor and 3 i
Projects E. M.- Kelly, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 4A J. T. Shedlosky, NRC, Millstone Nuclear Pover Station i
6 t
f I
r l
t h
i i
I
~
i I;
I l
i e
'g,
./
UNatto staf ts NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION -
o Y
REGroN I o
475 ALLENDAlt ROAD KING oF PRUS$1A. PENNSYLVANIA 19406 1415 -
Docket Nos. 50-245,-336 John F. Opeka Executive Vice President - Nuclear Northeast Nuclear Energy. Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut M141-0270
Dear Mr. Opeka:
Subject:
NRC Region 1 inspection Report 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 I and 2,-
Waterford. Connecticut. The inspection results are documented in the enclosed report; they were discussed with Mr. S. Scace and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
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 senfication 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 impros ement. Examples include drawing controls, incorporation of vendor information in procedures and drawings, and the procedure vaJidation process. No violations of NRC requirements were identified.
No response to this repon is required. Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Since ly, ward C. Wenzinger, ief Projects Branch No. 4 Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosure:
NRC Region 1 Inspection Repon Nos. 50-245/91-23 and 50-336/91-27 4.
ss "
y.-
7 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I Repon/
Docket No.:
50-245/91-23 50 336/91-27 License No.:
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141-0270 Facility Name:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection At:
Waterford, Cr 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:
l
[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
i
13 7.0 DRAWING CONTROL De implementation of drawing changes to eixtrical connection and schematic drawings was reviewed to evaluate the effectiveness of the design change controls. A number of concems have been identified over the previous 22 months regarding this topic area for Unit 2.
i 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 Two concerns identified in 1991 pertained to change:;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) temperature monitoring circuits.
i Assessment The wiring concern involved modifications to a termir.a! 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 r
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 re0cct the open DCRs. His change package is not yet complete; therefore, the revisions will not be issued until after all modifications are completed and the system is tumed 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.
The conc.. 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 closecut in 1990. The as-built modifications are reflected in this package and show the new test blocks on the drawing. There is cunently no projected date for the new revision to be issued.
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 l
a
14 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 De Design Document Screen uses a status code to indicate if a change exists against the l
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 informat is not correct if open DCRs or DCNs exist against the drawing. Bis could lead individuals to using a drawing that is not up-tcrdate.
i i
7.2 Drawings Do Not Accurately Reflect As-Built Conditions l
Four concerns identified between October 1989 and July 1991 penained to drawings not All of the concerns relate to accurately depicting the as-built status of plant equipment.
either radiation monitoring instruments or the wide range nuclear instruments.
)
Msessment The concem identified in 1989 dealt with a inm potentiometer ins. abed for the local meter of radiation monitor RM-8262B that wasn't shown in the sendor drawing for the monitor.
nese drawings were not controlled by the NUSCo drawing system. A non-conformance repon (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 draw:ng for the local indication noting there may be a trim potentiometer m 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 identified in July 1991 pertained to differences between the as-built condition of the wide range nuclear instruments (WP-1_og Monitors) and the schematic drawing for these instruments. An extended range selector switch had been installed m 1975 that was not included on this drawing.
De 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 1&C at the time of the inspection. Several discrepancies have been identified between drawing and the actual circuitry, including the extended range selector switch and lamp, an
.