ML20126A972
Text
-- - _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
UNITED $TAf ts
[*o* *e og**k '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j* .{
8 REGION I 475 ALLENoALE ROAD KINO OF PRUS$tA.PENN8YLVANIA 1H06 Docket No. 50-336 MAY 2 0 W File RI-87-A-0113 g
Dear This refers to your January 13,
January 19, and April 25, 1988 inputs to Mr.
William J. Raymond, our Millstone Senior Resident Inspector.
You alleged that an unqualified Barney Company welder did Category I welding in Containment. We found that the Barney Company is not used for safety-related welding. The licensee stated that Barney laborers have welded on gates and in outside plant buildings. That is not nuclear safety-significant, and we plan no further action on this item.
You also alleged improp-tety between the Barney Company and a licensee supervisor, based on an apparent personal affluence, prior employment, and information on pur-chase orders. ho safety inadequacy was alleged, nor was any identified by our evaluation. We referred this matter to the licensee and do not plan to pursue it further.
Your third concern was the alleged termination of two workers without whole body counts. We are addressing this matter and will inform you of its disposition.
Your input about non-nuclear tagging was confirmed by the licensee and evaluated as safe but not in conformance with the non-nuclear tagging procedure. The licen-see directed adherence to the procedure and plans to include alternate safe prac-tices in it or to impose nuclear tagout requirements. We will follow completign of that. On parking lot light installation without using mounting butt templates, the licensee found that a registered professional engineer's judgement was applied and acceptable. Nuclear safety was not involved and we plan no further action on this item. We will inform you of our conclusions on the other work issues you identified when our follow-up is complete.
Our follow-up on your allegations has, as yet, identified no safety inadequacy.
If you have additional information or questions, please contact me.
Sincerely, Information in this record was deleted &@k%h Ebe C. McCabe, Jr. , Chief in Reactor Projects Section 18 Act, accordante with hhe Fr d(_om of information exen t on Division of Reactor Projects F01A- Tel: (215) 337-5231-9212210323 920608 /
I l PITTMAN, SHEEHAN, SOLOMON & SWAINE Attomeys a Giw tos court sueet . suite 400 P.O. Box 1828 g
New Haven. Connocecut 065o91928
}
Peer J**ne Perma ucness o. sheenen momeri A suomen James L Samme Telefax ((203) 203) 562-6288 8241513 March 14, 1990 The Honorable John Breaux Chairmen, Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulations Committee on Environmental and Public Works
- United State Senate Washington, D.C.
. Re:[ Utilities ' v. Connecticut Light & Power, d/b/a Northeast e
Dear Senator-Breaux:
In the November 8,1989 Congressional Record you entered certain information 'you received from Bill Ellis, Chairman and Chief Executive settlementOffic to r of Northeag: Utilities, concerning its offer of The offer included language to discourage Commission. reporting As not safety violations to the Nuclear Regulatory in docu nts supplied by Northeast l Utilities, I repre,sent ,
Mr. s Ellis correeand Northeast Utilities. have assured you that Northeast ~
the offending language appearing in the offer ' to other whis e-blowers, While I have no knowledge as to the - treatment of nothing could be furthe insofar as Northeast Utilities' treatment of rom the truth concerned. is j Prior to submitting a written agreement to an oral agreement with Northeast Utilities' attorney as .Ifollows: reached ,
- 1) Connecticut Light & Power, d/b/a Northeast Ut111tish '
and W . J.,
Barney Corporation (a co-case) would !endant in the
- 2) 11 parties would keep ' the terms of the settlement confidential; '
information in this record was d,eleted in accordance with t e d{
mW Act, exem >tions
. .. , _ h'x>
t -
^k'
h;h.$f.hb.3: d.Tk 1
Y' .
d l
= -
. l j
Tho Honorablo John Bronux i March 14, 1990 l Page 2 4 k
- 3) would share his safety concerns with <
Connecticut Light & Power representatives;
- 4) The litigation trould be withdrawn.
Subsequent to this, Connecticut Light E Power's attorneys submitted a lengthy settlement a reement ith onerous (and perhaps illegal) restrictions on First Amendment rights and, in his view, duty to re rt ety violations to the N.R.C. Because of this, refused to sign the agreement. We suggested ' changes, still hoping to settle the litigation on the agreed upon terms. Connecticut Light & Power's only response to us was that the settlement offer was withdrawn
- and we should proceed with litigation. ,
In a May 4, 1989 internal memorandum to Northeast Utilities's Officers, Northeast Utilities, by E.J. Mroczka stated that i " settlement discussions have proved unsuccessful... Northeast Utilities plans to vi rou 1 ofend itself..." in the litigation. Since then, has undergone three full days of depositions. As his attorneys, we expended numerous hours repre enting ; resulting in large legal bills for which an hourly worker, is obligated. All of this was necessitated by Connecticut Light & Power's refusal to enter into a written agreement consistent with the earlier oral I agreement. Of course, if we go to trial, we will expend a much
' greater amount of time.
- Contrary to Mr. Ellis' assurances, Connecticut Light & Power never offered to remove the offending language from the agreement or to substitute any alternative language. In fact, through its refusal to settle this matter on agreed nt s and its use of superior resources to litigate beyond inancial resources, Connecticut Light & Power is now punishin precisely because he has made public the contents of the agreement. Thus, not only has Connecticut Light & Power not l
corrected its actions, but it continues to act punitively toward.
for his role as a whistle-blower, including his role in bringing this issue to your attention.
i a professional electrician, will continue to speak out on safety issues. He is not anti-industry. He worked at a.
gog % .
> ' 5 g ,
[Dh E -
1
+
.; The Honorable John Breaux
. March 14, 1990 Page 3 C
\ ,
4 nucioar site for two years, but believes in systems to avoid the human errors which could result in a catastrophe. Apparently, ,
this is not acceptable to all members of the industry, including Connecticut Light & Power.
Very truly yours, fCW $- b/o7w Robert A. Solomon- ,
Attorney at Law RAS /lb ,
cc: Richard K. Walker, Esq.
L e
?
. ' f( * ' .** * ..'<
4.,+ A. ... ,.,'e. .' - w . 2,.. ig ., .
TW .
. . g. m;.s; v, 3 .g,..e ,, < . 4. . g
. 4 . .y - . e. .. % .
J'JN : 3 1523
. MEMORANDUM FOR: S. Collins, Deputy Director, DRP l .
FROM: J. Durr, Chief, Engineering Branch, DRS
- s subject: Telephone Conversation with 3 On June 28,1989, I received a collect ephone call fro M one of the Hillstone allegers. called to request a copy of Tiis statement made to the allega lon te during the interviews of the Hillstone allegations conducted on During the conversation,Mrequested that the current allegation team address his allegations from the 1987 time frame regarding fo .owing procedures. He believes that the cu rent allegations made b re directly related to his allegations. I told him that the curren allegation team was not chartered to review his allegations and a formal request should be submitted to the allegation panel to reopen his case. I suggested that him request should be directed to you as the chairman of the al;egation panel.
lr@c 0QA + L '
/Jacque P. Durr, Chief l
Engineering Branch, DRS cc: Allegation Coordinator B. Boger, DRS W. Johnston, DRS E. Wenzinger, DRP i
! Information in this r* cord was deleted i
in Act, scord3nce exemp' ens ' bv.it{the Fre!dnm of intonaation FOIA- .dk l
l lQ<
it2-87 vf-01/3 June 27, 1909 Memo to: Ebe McCabe, Chief, RPG 1B From D. Raymond, SR!, N111 stone Subjects Telephone Call with 6/27/09 4 called me today on two issuess followup on his ;
statement to e alle ation review team during the interviews on and to request further NRC investigation of his concerns covering work activities at the site in 1997 and identified to the NRC in 1988.
- 1. learned from a conversation wit that he was not going to get tr nacript of the statement given during the interviews. wanted to know why.
stated that statement was made under stressful circumstances and he apparently did not get on the record all that he has to say on the satter.
I informed hat he needed to address that question to Jack Durr. vand he would call Jack. ,,
- 2. stated he understood that the t#tC team was only going to address issues from 12/88 forward. I acknowledged that.
made a formal request that the NRC team re-open the anvestigation of all his inmues as welle particularly those identifled in the July 1900 inspection reports 50-336/80-13,
, Al lega tion Rign-0113 " Contractor Work Activities". ,
I q ~
stated the basis of his request was that the NRC
, followup of his issues has since been proved improper. Had I NRC followup of his issues in 1988 been proper (dealing with I failure to follow procedures in the lant outside ar s)
( then the assues now bei raised by would not have occurred. stated tha my anspection followup of the warehouse breaker tagging assue and the multitude of l examples noted in the report on failure to follow the tagging procedure for installation of the high rad area gate lights were ineffective in preventing the present problem in the station of procedures not bei g followeo general , as Jocumented in the allegattons by f f1.ollowu%
told that the resident stat 1 is out of the picture in p of the allegations, that the inspection team has lead, and that it is up to the team to decide what issues warrant further follow. In-response to my inquiry, Information in this record was dellied in accordance with he Ft ejom of Information Act, exem tions f k 99:60 68< EI W I P II' 6Ud 301330 3N01S17IN 08N F01A' 2689 st+ C03 N - .. _ _ _ .
- - ____-~_-__ _ . _ _ _ _
e
- stated he had no new anformation about any of the old
- issues, and no new issues.
3.
provsde h M )im wath a written responseepeatedly taggested to his formal (but did not demand) request that his issuem be re-investigated. He stated that he was recording the request in his log book. He stated issues the would be t
response should wither acknowledge that his re-anvestigated, or an explanantion be given as to why the inspections in IR 89-13 were a proper followup to his ,
concerns. He is eupacting a letter from the Region.
- 4. The conversation with%was generally congenial)~hdh -
Ikneever, the the rapport I have with him is still intact.
conversation became strained at several times when he andAtI failed to reach agreement on what was " nuclear safety".
one point I cut him of f when he began (what !
- 11 call) a lecture on my responsibilities to guard the public trust and to protect public henith and safety.
B. The conversation ended with my promise to get back to him on what will be done to re-open his issues and how fftC will respond to his request. I invited [ to contact me on any additinal information he feels the HR should know about.
med
- 6. In a, prior conversation with Lynn today, reference to Dan Berkowitz and the senate subcommittee followup of resolution of worker safety concerns. % made no enention of this in conversation with me, but he did make some vague reference to followup by someone to the effectivenes of NRC reviews of concerns at MIllatone.
+
r 1 Cet Jack Durr Norm Blumberg E0d 331330 3N01ST11W 08N 99160 68, Ei Int 2689 trb 203
i To: Guy Vissing, NRR y From: Ebe McCabe, RI i ALLEGATIONRI-87-A-113
SUMMARY
h This memo summarizes the allegations by
- A Unit 3 Electrician allegedly had to replace all underwater lamps in the spent fuel pool and received excessive ,
exposure; the job allegedly should have'been done when the pool was empty. NRC follow-up found that these lights are periodically replaced win minimal exposure to workers based on the design of the the fixtures and the radiation levels in the area. The alleger was informed that no further NRC follow-up was planned.
- Work orders reportedly were issued to replace 300 solenoid valves that were being replaced as they burned out. NRC review concluded that the licensee had replaced the valves in response to NRC Information Notice 84-68, which identified solenoid valve applications that might be subject to premature insulation aging.
The licensee found no degradation bu t
on a calculation of reduced lifet1me.t replaced The allegerthe valves was informed based that this matter had previously been identified by the NRC and acceptably and safely responded to by the licensee.
- Sixteen pole-mounted lights in the Simulator parking lot were allegedly installed without using a template for the mounting bolts. This non-nuclear issue was referred to the licensee, who found the statement true and the actual installation acceptable based on the professional judgement of a registered professional engineer. ,
t
- Work to remove tempora n security lighting allegedly l wasn't coordinated. Security lighting adequacy was not questioned (Inspection 50-336/87-20 had identified a discrepancy in lighting adequacy.) This allegation was referred to the licensee, who found two work groups had been ordered to remove the temporary lighting, and that the work order for the alleger's company had been cancelled. A licensee memo cautioned Security to avoid work duplication in the future. The alleger was informed that adequacy of security lighting was already being addressed by the NRC, and that no additional action was deemed necessary based on the alleger's input.
- Work on high radiation area gates was allegedly performed inefficiently, causing unnecessary radiation exposure. NRC follow-up found the work was performed in areas which did not involve high exposures (about 3 mrem /hr for Unit 1 and 2 work, no exposure for Unit 3 work, based on licensee data). No unacceptable conditions were identified.
- 480V circuit breakers in a warehouse were alleged to have been manipulated, to troubleshoot an air conditioning problem, Thir. non-nuclear activity was without a vo{gormagetor or tags.
n un this record was celeted in accordance wit!) thp ffgfdom of Information '
)
Act, F0lA.
exegf FIQptiopy (c F /t_. /(
i referred to the licensee, who concluded that the breaker was t being used as a switch, with no work done on live circuits, and .
no tagout was required or needed. On this matter, the licensee's version and the alleger'4 version differed. The alleger was recontacted and provided nc information to show that there was -
any work on live circuits involved. No further NRC action was taken. .
- It was alleged that an electrical wire in a warehouse vs11 was moved without tags or a work order. The wire was moved for installation of a window in an exterior wall of the maintenance shop. The alleger obtained a work order and safety tags for the work. The tags wereathung the day after licensee persont the su estion ofthe th wire was 's moved, by 's employer superintendent.
This allegation was referred to the licensee, who conc uded that the work controls for this activity were adequate and in accordance with station procedures governlng outlying buildings. No further NRC review was undertaken.
- Two workers the allger knew reportedly worked at Millstone in 1983-1984 and did not get a whole body count (WBC) on termination. One of the two did not want to be involved and was not identifie The other had .s last period of employment at Millstone from ] Seven previous termination exposure reports been na to imis wor different addresses. Licensee records showed a WBC on. the date of
- the beginning of the last es lo ent period ] r thi individual, with an NRC Form 4 deted on file and properly reflecting previous exposure. The licensee stated that the individual would i be provided a duplicate of the last report if he requested one.
l His last employment required no because no airborne e osure, hours were in ed. WBCs dated and howed no gnificant uptakes. Exposure ec hove no a e-limit exposures. Review of Radiation Work Permits the individual worked under showed no radiological airborne conditions requiring respirator use. No incident involving contamination of the individual was identified. The allegation was closed.
- An unqualified welder allegedly did Category 1 welding in containment. NRC follow-up found that the company involved is not used for safety-related welding. The licensee stated that this compan buildings. y had welded on gates and in outside-the-plantThe alleger was advised tha safety-significant and that no further NRC action was planned.
l - Impropriety between the alleger's employer and a licensee supervisor was alleged to exist based on an apparent personal af fluence, prior emplopent of the individual by the alleger's employer, and information on purchase orders. No safety inadequacy was alleged, or identified by NRC evaluation. The
g wy?/uny * ' wa _ _ _ . . . . . _
?
allegation was referred to the licensee for consideration; the alleger was informed that no additional NRC action was planned.
also recently alleged that his en loyer He a s providad the NRC with a copy of khe tried to gag him.
agreement he said he refused to sign. (His allegation was then reopened for evaluation of this input.) That copy specifically states tt i n the agreement shall be construed to
. prohibitj from communicating to the NRC, and to anyone who is on e NRC ff and is acting on behalf of the NRC, any information acquired by him during amployment at Millstone and which he believes in good faith could adversely affect the public health and safety, as long as the pu nose is to provide the NRC with information nesessa n to ensure that nuclear power plants are const' c and o e ated safely. The proposed agreement also calls forc. , refrain from communicating to the NRC in a manner calculated or 1Lkely to bring the fact or substance of the communication to the attention of any party other than the NRC except for disclosures made by the NRC (unless he aff1rmatively induces such disclosures).
In addition to llegations. there are alle ations b' a licensee employee. Mr.
$3F has made numerous alle ations about facility activities, wat NR follow-u vin entified no significant safety inadequacy. has also filed several harassment complaints with the Department of Labor, and NRC di sition of his concerns awaits DOL disposition.
case, the individual did not file a DOL complaint, but In Mr. M e suit against the licensee.
NRC letters to on the status of NRC actions on his allegations are ated 0 16/87, 10/30/87, 5/20/88, and '
7/25/88. The last two sentences of the 7/25/88 letter were: "In -
summary, our followup on your allegations identified no safety inadepacies. If you have any additional information or questions, please contact me directly." That letter was signed by,me as the projects section chi . Between tha time and his present allegation about gagging, occasionally contacted the senior resident inspector, but di not provided any additicnal allegations.
The senior resident inspector believes that Mr. 7 is sircere. I know of no reason to diapute that sincerity.
Ebe McCabe s1z !s1 M
,g..3.........,.........
SITE: Mat Mue 7- PANEL ATTENDEES:
ALLEGATION HD : 4 % - W - d " c // C Chairman - 5' . C v W "I u uam en wacw) gr. , w y CATE: 'Y//^37 (Mtg. () 2 3 4 5) Branch Chief - 7 NA< '
PRIORITY: High
~
low Section Chief - E. McC>M '
%7,4 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes I h Unknown T.Ad % (**" @
CONCURRENCE TO CLOSE0VT: 00 BC SC I 6 "7'd'A d% 'IC-CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes (3 A e'Mr <wr. cM ACTION:
- 1) 140 c- % xdcn su russa -y u 7 Gu rt ExKe' , & c_ %
C&C. fcx c/rn r.sij (&'t cfie h9l
- 2) A s -K L'fA- FA cv'? M- 7 st-L M;/ ni s i v-r,a rw s cens mu u 44e t' d,; Vot* r M C- lOL Co***/ td,.s.t ? __G art / s a c t' f /'e f f !rt lqo \_
3) 4)
5) 6)
i
t .
(, i infortnation in this record ewas dere in accordance wd) thp Dqdom of information
- Act, e lionsJ e L /L i f0lA. - I4 M MENORANDUM FOR
- Ebe McCabe, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 19 F1RON: Bill Raymond, GRI, Millstone - ,
s
,m . . w.ep + - -
... .n . ,,s .o .c ;ngne. . . . l Gm6 Ject: Telephone call from - January 6, 1999 called me today wi th a f ollowup request f or inf ormation in I
onse to the Unit 2 Inspection Report (50-336/90-13).Assued in Jul t addressed his concerns (ref erence allegation RI-A-87-0113) . @y 1988 requested I send him a copy of all menos and procedures, etc.,
referenced in the report that demonstrate licensee r- ses and corrective actions taken in response to the concerns he raised. stated he benard f rom workers at the site that there have been a lot of changes to policies and practices in the areas he raised concerns (principally in St.ation Services Engineering) and he f eels he has the r' ght to know the dartail s of how i ssues were re, solved. I concurred withj gameral right to know and obtain detailed information directly from me on hcsw hi s concerns were addressed, so long as he was not involved in a legal action where such in ormation must be provided only in accordance with "di scovery" rul es, stated there was no legal action in p cens and the inf ormation was requested f or his personal interest. I tol '
wczuid get back to him af ter checking my films to see what ref erences were ava i l abl e. I plan to mail him the pertinent i n f ormati on.
di scri mi na stated, as a result of his actions against NU, he is being d against by the union hall in that since he has been out of wcac k s i nc o he has not been offered any " preferred" posi tions as a supervisor or general foreman. He apparentl y has been o3 4ered a job for steam generator work in an upcoming outage at Mill stone
( Ltu t 2*') , but has not taken the job.
offered new information about the electrical work done in '
September, 1987 on the Unit 2 maintenance shop where no tags were used to relocate a live electrical wire during construction of an internal wall.
Followup licensee review of this issue, accepted by NRC inspection, found that although the tagging procedure was not f oll owed in that case, the job was done saf el y since an al ternate 1 ac c ep t abl e "operat or-i n-a t t endance" (OIA) method of tagging was used. was terminated based, in part, on a dispute with the Barney Co. Superintencent on how this job was handled, particularly in regard to how well cration procedures were followed (or, not followed in this case).
9 has recently become aware of actions by Unit 2 personnel (whom e identified { against NU and he f eels i t i s notable they share similar concerns as he has exprtssed. He stated based on discussions with someone in Unit 2 maintenance that he is 100%.
sure no operator (person) was stationed at the breaker panel during the subject i nci dent . challenged me to identify the person used as the 01A, which I could not since my inspection of this issue did not .
i nt ervi ew the workers asstaned to the job, but relied instead on licensee I reviews of the incident. <
declined to provide further information about his ource of information that would allow further NRC followup. stated that NU had lied to the NRC and that the truth would be reveal d in the near future to embarrass the utility.
I
+ '
i, f
1*
I thanked for the information and asked him to reconsider my request f or f urther inf ormation on the Unit 2 job. I stated Iinspection would call him back references.
when I have further information about
- the requested t William J Ra nd cca L. Bettenhausen A. Shopshire Allegation File RI-A-0113 e
f l
{
- - _ _ - . - - - _- - _ . - - . - - ._ . - ~ . - _ _- - . . . - . _ - - - . _-
.. . w on.c u6ta . Ct, eio EFP 1O s IHOF:
WI 1 ) a Arn J. RJ vre.vnd. SR). Hj1)stono bul3JLC.f a Telephone Conver sat a on wi th
, Pf.F t 6 /1 Use ALL.EGATION NU. RI-97-A-0110 g
is 4: called me at 9:3C8 a.m. to fo11cw s jcb. !att Ud weul, about the contrel of up on some quostaunu ! catno ,
g e t (,
deem. ribe.1 below t rivol ving contaitur.ent cabl A ns-w es..al imbov a sso t a
- 1. Taggtno e
no tegh, thwr were wor 1n wrota t6g orders.
e en.on power cource. If a work order called f r r-was not ure about one sevter.1 gist en f rom t ag on der duo to e tagging but suggested I cheek with e ' tc t-i n et t entice.i.o taggirag pr ocerture process anet read the 4v!l necdod. IJera this et it c' applied OIA w/o SF 210 viblated the procedure.noted f or the :: fir st ti to the warehuuse job to envo the wtre.I artnowl edge.f .
2.
pave mv name b to previoustv. and phone number to en elot.tra cian who wyted at tlw sat d the electr? cien wi t 1 6: 411 ine dt.out rj gn.tp1r,,t fthe Grl' J Min.t11cht wo s and al lened st),gelv. c Ab_),,,R _
des wrerif or1=L ttf vith (new A teert) ! ested +cr the name of,LDl the oth ,the, worl+r but E y fuithe* Aust. i f i g_dec) co. ned anc caad I wout ri be called. M ht.rt nu subs: tant 14te hi c 4sl.ed if 1 had talked to vorcion]of vel m br oaker 9,) . I mai rf rio. the upwrat t ori of the A/C 1U(' vol t (M t..ai d ho cont erted hi t Uni on hall end ne in w well to scie where talled to e bums,pum A. ant M thouche. we s ,.
The ace.it 04t et ' nt.w t
un r1r, r t. t an d M v,.goethin- very sLe ange wot QutnO on s i n e.c h (r ac er.n -
- 8. h .i t n i 1,9e tso .daht141od un*t omoiavod at barney e r i t ir.t c .i. . 61id *% . r* . v :.
wh:c w M. 35.
but i. h A pvanted out that in thaE Mt tw iett est i 9.s t a cr4 tio 0 4 i o.awr Et11t iel4 on t , . i elent s f ed t ri the ;nvohtt g sit on 1 the okt sits aos to!'it t b 2 og wa wrung. ueri t 0/ /) . 8 4
ri.er t i rig m,d i.e ha'J not yet. recesved a istter n*
cell i t om IM t . . ~.,et i e s t c e 5 a r:i to ecritac! . tic ,s t ti.e end cd t ra: ,mc ai e c: i t. i con' e.- i i5 m e de $i t ni.o (IJtD S; ec ts t o f d fr7 A enes t i n,4 weu: d b5 o.1dr ee .a u ivar IJFC 12lue"t ci n cxaict
~
e.e :antconel ei.
4 2ue i. Gu n. i dr- t h e. Scop = of tho o i t e-a. A 1 e otower.r*
ptoyrest on pr we tM e no f urther ovi nusl y i dont 1 f a cd actionn I s. sue c.
et tnag t a me otbear than for were 4 genere! to al1ow *runtful folIowup on any val Tho 1dne-w i nt ore +ai h techntcal L 199 5uro, 1s tun informstion in this record was deleted Fge om ot tnformation Wa ll 2 4m J. Raymond e emptions '"
F0IA 4 l' cc#
"' " " * " ' " " ' ' f S v ws# g R wt Mb
, wt9% >ygc,A,k~D ** g mIu Wg% n Mw4 9- a &u. 4g O mot s@f % g-e7pa.ap&.o n~ek <h c a, & " %< s a . v i
n
- - - - + , - . . -.- -,m - rw- y r,- , - w <,y- ,,, . - ~ - -v e - - + , ,,.r+-,..--n
. ~
.e' .
i 4
MEMORANDUM FORE- Etae C. McCabe, Chief, RPS 1B 'N /
Lee H. Dettenhausen, Chief, RPD 1D
\
FROM: William J. Raymond, SR1, Millstone '
D '
C.,
SUN ECT : Telephone Coreversation wi th 6/16/08 litF ALLEGATIf1N NO. RI-07-A-0113 alled sie at 9:35 a.m. on 6/16/B0 wi th the f ollowing - '
information:
- 1. He rec.mived a letter from Northeast Utilities on Monday and will
. call.today (aft r talking to 1awyer) to set in a n.eeting wi th
'.Scace. I told ]!hadnotyet tall:ed t.u to see if M toul d' corroborate 110 story on manipulating air conditioning br alerm.
- 7. He. had no further inf ormation on SFP light.s. I explained my (allos.'up on CFP lights and my conclusion that nn hich radi.tiori e;.c us.ur e occurrpri bAved on less than O. O n.r /hr and ",E-4 uca.'ml.
I ple.n no iorther io!lowup without tirfd a t i anal information that ceuld explein how ha uher anposures were received. M dad not tnre when the electrician would call nie.
- 7. ( ttat ed a f or teer CN Flago sate for 6 ,,sarn And 1eit in encral area f or e 1,are . who wor 6ed at wc,ul d be ca.11 i ng me t a erp;oin all t ha probl em. he 6 9cws DJ ett the sito. M nen no spr: 4 f 2 c .'- but r r f t-e r ed ot-ee 8: 1 v t a ta r cb 1 c r:.: rv:.,1.tr.., 6-.x h wr,r 1-Orc' n h A < 1 ng il+1 r t.wn t r erree rec e ne bra ; r[;II 4 pet: tned u;' i I t < N .100 t he r.eced t c cr oc n a .n c 1cct r a c wJ r.cwF r c.rcui? ..e p, fr. te t+ */t e un a r vnet2 difft.itrt c)cci- a* a vitar ds L 3 ; -
e r . u t . :,e t c , s t : *10 1 .c r c e tru \ct. & ,1 a u . .g i v, t yrJ ..u : , e t ! ce,
- - 3 . e. e .c 1au; w i r r t- 1 o c r .H t 1 pr.r e at ri-) , e i ! } g. sed L :' '.c r i .
n it s rr '.4 '%' 'Istap;ined. f trld I -cv3d te!! 5. e t hi-c r . t , t: t ut f ur 2 i.Ln to heer h i s. c t o t e-t n u .
' 6 C it 1 s &c I C. .n t n 1- fe i;'. J
- 1 C 1f f Cr O h.1 2 o n Con eg} } taQfed Aric h-Quer(.lg.a du( ) 4.Q t ' ir c r*t . . r ' c e t a c.n . ] r, t i l l owe iojIowup i rif crmet Ich Or e tfee issue i . ; r ., . . W :.
t A -: ,r
< c e re m rY clu r 2 .) i hr t /T! < p r + $ n.:
16 C t i 1 C . h.is esh & wor 6 ed c'.t (Isk f. . t er L' ti f 4 . U.-
'.ti
. h u t-r . c l. . r f f i.",- hn tN MI'7 r/tage oc,1cd the 1icentoc woz prccent.i ng warI: order: i c,
- . : c : . ~ ~~; GDi's ti.-+ i. r e u n c;sc ;. 3 ;,. c .d e.n ti were bsi ne rr;.lerM M tht^
% e.w ~ t. ? .c t . r r. - d t '.1 : Mec o'. c e to NUFC0 it- c .o s u t r, u s- 4 :+
v r* ' .' oic o t t!m 2 's c u i with a 1.n enre pret:)=tri. Tlite t.utette <> . o : i t l e .-
r : f t r t. ta liSCO EO.4 w Lli e.t - ED :. vli ( sie t h t.- 1 i c.t:n f.c: a 4= e J d t c '. *i. i r. g ir.
r . ., '. . ci r. t. t c, IN C4 e9. veemecc se t s ef ited wi th my f al l uw.it. on tSc
I- Jscht 2crue.
Ni111am J. Reytiend Information in this record was deleted 6/17/ee in accordance with th f of Information Act, cwn ti s L t. L Shop shir,F01AplT){p /' 3- on Al ~
. l l
l l
py.e .
\
UNITED SIATES HilCLEAR REGULATOfW COMMIGGION HILLSTOrJE GTA TION F45IDENT OFFICE t t4at or f oe d. CT M.ny 16, 1980 -
p".u .- .
MEMflRANDUM FOR: 4. Shr op r.hi r e, Allegati on r:cordinatee THRtJ E. McC,ibu. Chin (. RPS-1B FROM W. J. Raymonti. SRI, Hi l I s t oner f.t a t i on 4 SUDJECis E Al ly.g rstj.J;n FJ-p7; A-G113 U_etta_t_q '
Record of Tal oph orett l'onver sd i cin I
cal l ed 't: 4".,-lO 15 a . m.
t ino ction Hu wanted t o know st.atus of nor And ho icelu NU i r. .jur t cuverinu t hot o e 1 15. haes nut Liepli centccted hv NU.
eg4jn. ht.
l We di ucticr tid tha t.due2 OO 8 t3He*
Mf'2 Mai ntenene.e i kt poi r.i cti o.it l' ho t his tug. had t.ecn hung for the warne,cune ion enci withuut war i r.imtr.:t d e . ~ ha Hra ve opor ated be n.u ru w wi t h tags hung and fr.w t,1v t.anoi s eg s ul +re. t h ee tnted that oven 1f wits m en a c e,t.s-n t rn.nabr -d thw. crn abo m ot.,en.Jurwe. t t i l h avs:- t her tr erne poupl e (3usng work M ,. sic who f r.ui 4 :s io t * . :
- a. I'r c.Jeet Mana.ser t thir. or e."
"' eon M s e nr.t c r.1 n.) t t. bey i T'O lla s ?. r-. ...r... e 5or
- h. Pr. y.w t Ibn-osa :
"I don't l i a . a.- Le.ns- f i.e f.eport unr i . "
F e o t si. t Mar.su nt it . Vice Fr.mt..unt: 'l dnn't c c..ne undur ai r. on ce r u l e s . '
Do 6 hat eva la owet ti m ger S r. v 4 .
- U. C+ Q egr r r } n i j l hef 1 3. c a t e.
- r" g" wge l: ter r, phe t g-r m g );) g.d g.j; (l1cg g t
- 6. l1p j g; l . p qy c r4:nt g ,
M' onti ihe $ tect nd i r'd a v i d u .i e n ' . %n r 'r r. get- a n .t.1 v e.'. ,
at 01 tari or. . . - der 2 tag wor 1 i n s t ar.. i; a. un r s c. 1,ne t.- .'cr 11FO ou l.ag.: . uhs.e r $.aed icit their 71.D / dc,u t inea t r v i r. I t.w c odi c W L..
or dra t r.. r.. nrv.4c i n
- .pur i i s -
- i nc.t: w thea, r *c o r d oi1 c% p e u .t r e r , j ti.fr,i net ; r.... laid..vt .. .- is.t then 1
. ernrai ed ney pre v: 6u:, u.,mmi t.nent tu
- c. F M.:rc i uh.-n the te' meet wath hin. ( t.tj ou t. po rJ -
asnk). g J r.-por.tionc on hi s i nue . erc s dent: ( ob t.u t the and r.4 1 h i s-
- c e d r1 r c g.s r.i c 4 ci nes, arid crine sen s.
i s cjear1y vera upu,s:t b3 NNECOs r citie..) :a n. net with tiim Information in this record was deleted s in accordance with h F m of Information gMT S .
ul' y
-
- 1 vu w--_g-- .we gie-=ec., A-wg e-,ye wegnae- sr p+w& .we em,,ae-, ww-ec,~.gyyeeg .g-wyv -wu-"r tanwrtmu s y e -Nw w pv 7 y-
w> c't a u ~s t
. ' " Au n r,. ., wso, Agi m . ,,
"-- - '*"~ -
ged n/ -
". W '. f. r s !! E .fT C E i
.n w . . . .w w
- r;: 71TO;"~~
W -
.I..,y............-
.,..w...
- ~-
m g,
W ,
May 19, 1988 ,
MP-S.4SS-88-23 CONFIDD.TIAL 9 , .
yp: 'information in this record was deleted Statton Services Superintendhl.tcordance mth h f c{om ofinformatiorn 11 I rfoherStatf4h83fPlI003 'v f0lA ' 4L .<
~
FROM:
ality Services upervisor
?tillstone Nuclear Power Station 9 Extension 4304 S'lBJECT: Report of Investigation into Allegations vede by Various allegationst have been r.ade by M) a forcer er.ployee of the V. J.
Borney Co:pany, concerning izproper ork practires within the Station Services Engineerir.g teparttent, including work forforced by V. J. ,lsrney caployees in sup-pcrt of that depart ent. There liew been so - al source of inferiatior. beginning with the letter fated 0:teter '6, 957 frc: to you. This m renou:
vil'. m arize all of the ele e-ts of the alleptions t.*.at I have investipted, cy fi '. .cs, and any corrective a: tion that has Leon taken or is being taken.
In addition, the following correspondence is attached (Attachment 1), whi ' '
u-tents the actions that sere cotpleted durinF Note:ber 1987.
' :'e to [ M fr:o (
dated October 16. 1967 "w to .
'f t<.:M Its attas..ed :nvestigaticn Eeport by 1 4ted Nose.ter 5 Ic . i t t.
- dated about October 23 . M .
- .etter frc: to ]dsted Novo:ber 17, 1957 seknes-
'. e dging his 0 teber 16,1957 letter.
'.etter to '] f ro: dated Nove:ber 19, 1987. ,
A11ention 1 (Veldig in C ntain entJ: An uncertified volder fro: W. J. Earney Cc ,peny is rerforming QA Category I selding de Contairment.
Firidi rrs t (1) Financial Control Departnent was consulted to detertints which departments vsed V. J. Barney to perform vork. Attschmnt 2 lists these depart ents. Mest of the Barney work is perforr.ei for the Station Services Engineering trurtsent. '" hose that :!ght have used Barney sults: for work in the plant sere conta:ted with th f ellesing ' re-s.
- - s v. . n Y
~
1
. l l
l'ni t 1 T&C - No CateEory I work. Only buildinE structural work in l the shop.
l l'n f t 1 Maintenance - No work by Barney.
,' l l
rni,t 2 E,ntineeri_n - No Category I work. k'ork vas performed in the l Md Maintea.ance faectrical Shop to convert it to an RCP Seal Rebuild l Room.
Unf t 2 Maintenance - Used Barney laborers under a Unit 2 job super-visor for shield block work. Other jobs were not Category I. No Barney electricians vero used ir. Containment. .
L'r.it 2180 - Used Barney for shop modifications. No Categod I work.
Unit 3 Orerations - Barney personnel vere used in Containment 'under hSECo supervision for material accountability work.
Ceneratien Construction - No Category I work. A11~ Barney jobs are site related rather than plant related. ,
etation Cervices Encirgerine - Barr.ey was used for non-Category I vork in plant buildings for the High Radiation Area Door /Cate ,Alara installations and codifications. Carpenters' vere used to sodify'and reinforce many gates. This work required velding in many cases.
T..e veldir.g was usus117 perfor::ed in an area designated for velding with appropriate ventilation and other precautions. No velding was perforced on Category I structures or components. The work was authorized by work order.
One Earney ebrtrician '. s perf orced two non-Category I welds outside f. ant tu:1 dines.
The Barney electrical fore.ua reports that all union electri-cians receive selding training during their apprenticeship.
. roctive Action: None.
f l' * . tien,,, : Ihr' int tot li rri s),:
t
- le lights vere installed in the Training E;11dir.g Fa ri.ir.g Let utt.out using the required te= plate.
P n t nes: The teglate was not required. The Earney Superintendent, Mr.k 6 a certificd prcfessional engineer, civil discipiir.e. dis-ce< sed the installation with the ranufacturer of the li hts. Four bolts on a ten-inch bolting circle was acceptable.
removed the bolts before the cement ses poured and was subsequently terminated. He was reinstated after a discussion with the Barney Vice President.
Corrective Actient None. This was an internal k'. J. Earney Coopany matter.
A M eett ien 3 (l.S0 Volt Brecker 7,n,c,out }: On August 17, 1987, the Earney Superintendent, operated 450 volt circuit breakers without au- a proper thori:ed tatout. The breakers were in t e l' nit 2 Mair.tennte Shop.
Erz h: The details e contained in my Nov -ber 5 1987 reco that is in Attachment 1. and i Kenyon Air Con-ditioning were investigating a report that the building air condi-tioning was not operating. The circuit breaker was found in the t "off" position. Vhen the circuit breaker was positioned "on", the '
air conditioning operated. At a separate, unrelated action, this r.ev air conditioner was connectea to the panel in the Unit 2 tiain-ter.ance Shop earlier using a plug-in circuit breaker. A tagout was not required. .
. g.
3 . $..; .s ' '
Corree,tive Action: None. Operation of these circuit breakers"did'no require
~
a tagout. Had there been danger in their operatiesti t is presumed that the person aware of the danger wom16 ! have initiated a tagout.
_A11 erat,on 4 (Optle Refeval Tareut): A cable was removed in the Unit 2 Maintenance Shop vithout follovin preper tar ing procedures. The work vas done by ' in-house personnel even though was issued a work order.
~
Tintines: The details are set forth in the attach. tent to my cero of November 5, 1987 in Attach:ent 1.
(1) Concerning the cable ternovel vithout proper tagging eleeent of the silegations
(* nit 2 Maintenance electricians perforced the work using the concept of the " Operator in Atter. dance" tagging permitted by ACP-QA-2.06A, See: ion 6.1.9. Howe.er, the Tag 1.og Sheet, SF-210 was not used. as required by the procedure.
This abtreviated for: of " Operator in Attendance" tagging is cc.;on practice in the Maintenance Departe.ent outside of thei plant.
(2) Concerning the ele .ent of the alle ation in which vork vas done by in-house persocr.el esen though as issued a work order.
the Earney Superintendent, acted preperly in erranging for l' nit 2 Maintenance personnel to perform the cabic removal work.
' failed to follow tho propor procedure for Barney perforcing work. The governing procedure was the August 20, 1937 " Control of Electrical Work" flovpath that included in his letter of October.16, 1987. The work order issued was an " advance copy for planning" for tho electrical forecan. Wus not expected to tag the job and par-form vork until so assigned by the " Construction Supervisor". According to e vent directly to the Maintenance Supervisor for authorization, bypassing the Barney Superirundent. . -
N was occasionally in-charge of verk perforced by Barney when the superintendent was not present on-ate. At
9 those times, he performed the work assig.nent duties of the t.u pe rint e nde nt . I have sure.ised that c.ay have pro-
.eeded independently with the Unit 2 Maintenance Supervisor because he had occasionally been expected to act independently in the past. (Note that other NNECo departments arrange for ('
Barney to perfore verk ut. der the Blanket Purchase Order its the Station Services Er.gineering Department).
- The neeting betwee and to' d scuss t ork ssignsent gengrated int an argument between't did'a4t accept $r.-
and authority to assign him work, g Qe to assign work in-house or to nnthetore.'g' Aslant's diMre 4' tion a result, M was tereinnted. '
?
Corrective Actions (1) Concerning the cable removal without proper tagging elecent of the allegation ,
4
,- ACP-QA-2.06A, Section 6.1.9, " Operator in Attendanca" tagging appeared to have been written for in-plant situations. The Industrial Safety Department was re-quested eview the proce re used in the given situ-ation. memo dn ed January 4, 1988, included as Attach':ent , reported the result of that review as "... safety was not compromised and that the assu.ed risk was reasonable and controlled." A change to ACP-QA-2.06 to allow similar acc omplishment of non-plant systers caintenance work was recer.nended.
The hatten Superir.tendent issued Controlled Routing W6, "Ntrol cf Tagging in Outlyin . Buildin s" to his Staff Engineer in order to resolve recom- .
c.o n d a t i on. The due date for the CR is July 15. 1988.
The Station Superir.tendent pro.ulgated cemo 2-11440 dated Jnnuary 29, 1988 to emphasize the need to follow ACP-QA-2.06A as the only acceptable procces for safety tagging. A copy is inc luded as Attachment 4.
(2) Cc.ncerniqg the ele:ont of the allegation in which Mr.
M' had a work order to perferm work that was done by in-house personnal:
The situation in which the Barney Superintendent being the only Earney cannseeent assigned to Millstone for Barney work was reviewed by myself and M This situstion resulted in a craft foreman being in charge of Barnoy work wheneverMwas absent due to illness, vacation, etc. It was y evaluation that this situation in shich was occasionally in charge for Barney cay have c uted to his acting independently of M 'ontrduring the cable recoval
- ob.
/
6 At v.r.Mrequest, V. J. Barney has added an As-
- sistant Superintencent to their Millstone staff. This ensures that a ene.ber of Borney-canagement can always be present on-site to supervise Barney work.
The argc=ent was discussed with to evalu-ate dures, his attitude t verd corplying with st.ation proce-accepts the need to so cosply. He appears to clearly differentiate between his autho ity as the Barney Soperintendent over craft *fwmonneT *(and his relationship with NNEco and our procodrised M' '
t- (
Y
" v + y;ifk,,W '
' tr's A11ecation 5 pieh Fedf nt, ion /.rqa Cate Controls): Severalprob1ces&f w re alleged in a '.a r g e task to install alare.s and warning lights on some 70 d6 ors and gates to hitt radiation areas. These problems included: '
(1) L'eciless radiation eyposure during the first LVo v0ek8 of the job due to!
The ossign ent of an inexperienced engineering technician. .o r The use of blackboard designs to prov!de inadequate guidance and direction.
The use of co ponents that vore not noHed.
(2) The initial design was aborted, and a $6,000 restock <harge Uas ine'ur're'd for lights that vere not used.
Findings: (1) Attachment 5 is a chronological listing of events.
(2) Concerning the inexperienced tw.nician, it is believed that
' this allegaticn ty be tued on initial work coordination problems and design choni n for A1 ARA considerations. The technician is Mr.
a W. J. Berney employee working directly for Mr.
the Station Services Engineering Supervisor. -
rior to his current assign =ent one-and-a-half years ago, Mr.
had worked for three years for Stone end Vebster as a field engineerinC tochnician during Unit 3 construction and startup. In that capacity, he was involved in switchgear test-ing and gained consihrable experience in working with cajor electrical ec panents, forcal installation and test procedures, and a complex, forcal nuclear power plant work environment.
explained so: e dif ficulties that he had. with ad-
.inistratively coordintting the preparations for the first high radiation eres gate job in Unit 1. The difficulties concerned allowing insufficient Icad tine to process tacouts and . radiation work permits (RVP) so that work could start on time, the ' short-in11 sterring fro: his inexperience with these adcinistrative proceedings. He stated that the tork procee' sed stoothly when he allowed the required lead time. This experience did not appear to contribute to unnecessary radibtion expolure.
toth Myrock and V. J. Bornby electricians recognized the oppor-tunity for wiring changes to the original design. The changes reduced the number of cable connections, thus reducing the po-tential tire working in a radiation control area. The changes 1
I were spproved, pte-fatricated, and bench tested in the shop ;
, satisfactorily bef ore
- thstallation in the plant. It in note- i worthy that the cher.ges proposed and installed by Myrock were satisfactorily ttsted in the plant before the Barney electri-1 y
clans were even involved. Ine effort expended during design- .l change did not result in unne:essary radiation exposure. Review of individual dosinatry records for specific' RWP events substan-tiated this conclusion. ,
9 4 (3) Eequired design procedures were followed an adequate documenhi27 tion was provided to install high radietion area (loors and gatjs#pidi
- associated alarm lights, bells, and cut out switchee. Tour ,Plantig .
Design Change Requests vore approved in order to. define the workFik ;'~
the three units. Those docueents are FD:R 1-105-86, High Radiation Area Cate Alares & Varning Lights PDOR 2-004-57 High Radiation Area Gate Alarms & Varning Lights ,
PD:R Pf3-97-002, High Radiation Area Cate Alares & Warning Lights T3;R K73 a6-372. High Radiation Area Vire Mesh Gates
.. r
- A copy of these PDORs is included as Attachments 6, 7, 8, and 9. h'o QA Catepory I work was involved.
(4) The initial design process occurred du' ring Inte 1986. Lights sizilar to those already installed were ordered so that 1966 O&M expense funds could te ured. Subsequently, a more suitable and less expensive light was used for the design. Despite a $6,244 restock-i t.g charge (sco Attachment 10), a net savings of core than $10,000 was :calized. The origi'. ally proposed lights wore never installed and :herefore. did tot centritute to rework and unneces>sry radia-tion expcsure.
1
($) The sork vas initially assigned to Myrock personnel. Interviews -
ef 74versi personnel in the 5:ation Fervi:es Engineering Departtent revealed that Myrock work progress was unacceptably slow, l'nneces-cary ilf ficulty was experienced in setting up to do a jcb. in:1uding
<.rk order. tapout. ind EW? preparation and coordination. and stag-ing : o .,1 s and caterials. These difficulties'are in addition to t!.csa der ribed Treviously in (2) con:erning the inexperienced tech-r:i t i an. In addit ten, progress in tne work area vas slower than desired. This retalted in a projection that all doors and gates would not be completed by the committent date, and that unne:essary rnfistion exposure could occur. reassi ned the .ork. to tt.e V. J. Barney Co:pany.
- 6) The guidance to personnel perforeing t te vork appears to have -
30en ajcquate. This finding is based on the following:
Station Services T.ngineering personnel valked down the job vith Estney personnel.
As tuch- es possible. the sterials were pre-fabricated and tested in the shop.
A
+ ,
Documentation in the custody el the current electrical forectn contained appro;riate lists, sketches identical to those in the PDORs, and plans identifying the locations of work areas.
t The current electrical fore:an, ir/icated that he had no dif ficulty with the work in the f f eld. He indicated that problems with the viring vore experienced (as des:ribed in Finding (2) - inexperienced technician),
but that these vere idontified in the shop and corrected ,
before proceeding to the field installation phasei
,. a .i. "
The teredretrofits 115 voltsto sistint installations in Unit ihn T.'c." in t he condulets to the varning -
[
lights. Craf t personnel vare briefe'd that this voltage was '
present and in appropriate safety precautions. The d.c.
voltage is in viring to the annunciator panel in the Con-trol Room which could not be deonergized for the work.
There were no 24 volts d.c. components or viring on this 3b. .4 (7) The radiation exposure for the job doos not appear to have been-excessive.
Desos for the units are as fo.,11ovst
_l'ni t Mst-Rem Manheurs _D_ose Rate 1 0.885 264 3.3 mr/hr 2 0.710 236.09 3.0 cr/hr 3 0.000 0 0.0 zr/hr Attache e.t 11 is a tabalstion of the Myrock and Barney perscnnel who 2 ked :,n the job. The exp aures listed in Attacheent 11 all are for
' gatevork work.during the period, not just for the high radiation area Intividual exposure records for specific Rk'P entries during the first f ew installations did not contain excessive expo-nres. Furtherr. ore, "calth Physics reports that no person's adzini-strative exposure 'htts had to be increased during this job. In work area valk dovn of several installations shoved that a typical addition, a was c:nfined to the vicinity of the gate and a nestby electrical ,$snel, and was not well into the hiEh rartiation area.
The po.or wpply for coch new installation was carefully selected to l
i r.ir.itize the the spent in radiation areas. ALS csble vss specified in order to avoid the longer installation
- Time thet electrical cos-i wit would have roquired. It appears that all reasonal.10 ef forts to l
-inimite radiation exposure vere taken.
(8) Proper administrative controls generally were used. This judg-icont Services is based on the audit of Barney work performod by the Quality Deporteent, and on my personal review of documentation, interviews of personnel, and valk dovn of representativo high radia-tion aree gato work sites. In r.any cases, personnel who signed off certain but work functions were not clearly authorized to dowo.. In all one person's case, this uncertainty is attributed to ambiguity in ACP-QA-2.02C, "ork Orders".
clusions are surs:arized as follows: Appropriate obcorvations and con-
l (a) The report of the audit .f work performed by k'. J. Barney Coc-pny is included as Attachcent 12, toe:o QSD-6S-4243, dated February i
!. . 1059 from the Supervisor, Arresszent Services, to myself. 119 of 009 erk orders vers revie.e4 in depth with no evidence of Category I work being determined. t Concerting the 66 instances of no tagging of electrical vore and
' ne ir.nroper use of " Operator in Attendance" taggira,,, most of these were associated with the high radiation area gate" work.
Invntiv t.f an determined that one tagout for one gate on one work og u r was used to 3ffectively protect personnel working:.os '
other ' gates covered bT ether vork orders,, if'Yhey had a common povr? sepply, In nearly all cases, this tagging vss . controlled ty the engineering technician directing the work, who approved recoctnding no tags to Operations. The ACP-QA-2.06A require-cent to list additional work for a tag clearance on SF-210B,
" Tag Clearance Additionni L'ork Order Authorization", was erro-neously not used. Investigation revealed that personnel in Station Services Engincaring Department did not understand the application of thir. feature of the ACP.
4 Concerning the einer probieres cited that the tagging' require-r.ents ure sc etimes changed or unknown, the concern appears to be a retter of interpretation of the use of the work order for-tat. 3e instances cited are located in the planning section of th? vork order that describes the job and associated require-rents, such as tagging. ACP-QA-2.06A assigns the responsibility for the detercication of tagging require:ents to the Operations
- qarttent. Intervie.s with 1,' nits 1 and 2 Operattens personnel confitted that the Shift Supervisor or Supervisory Control Oper-eut discuss tyging regire:ents with the jot 2upervisor. The re5 & s in int 3 of a tagging cecision are docucented in the
.ork authori:stion section of the work ordor, and that entry represents the final heiston concerning tagging requirements.
The o:ission of a correction to earlier work order entries re-
- - rending tagging requirements is not a violation of either the
!CF-3-2.0 C, "'.tork Order Procedure", or the ACP-QA-2.06A "~sg-
.unt Frecedure".
(L) The events noted chrendgically in Attachment 5 described the E ner31 sequence of the work control process in the high radiation area pte sork. I personally reviewed rest of the work orders asso-cisted with this jcb, discussed the entire process with the follov-in; ;ersonnel:
Station Services Engince Engineering Tech Senior Engineer, inn g Superv or )
Earney Electrical Forena Parney Carpenter Forecan, Supervising Control Operator and Health Physics Supervisor, and valked down severt.1 high radiation area gate work areas in order to evaluate all aspects of the work. In general, the design and 5-
work control procedures vere followed. The implementation of the ty ging protedures coald have been icproved, as described earlier.
Troblocs noted were:
"De off b rteent ap-[the rovfarr.cy 31" toengineering perfore work vss frequently technician, a houghsigned his na :e was not on the aathorizing list procul ated t by ACP-QA-2.02C percits personnel who not s pervision to sign off if asthcrized in writing., reported that Mr..
had his authorization, and that the omission'of his',
nue from the list was an oversight. -
Other vork order sfC ".atures' vere inedoffbypersonnel'whgh,,.
authorization is nsidered a:.biguous per ACP-QA-2.02C. 'For exxple, the craft supervisor, signed off "tattint verified", a " job s ;ervisor" responsibility for which another erson va g desiE nsted on the work order. For simila reasons f
signed off " work / inspection" cocplete.
vos satisfied with this occurrence, as he felt it met re-quire-ents of ACP-QA-2.02C. Further consultation with 6~3 Supervisor Plant Quality Services, Millstone, con reed that the procedure was ambiguous, and that there was no intent in draf ting the procedure to exclude contractor personnel ' frcIe' signing off the afore intioned signatures.
Despite the errers e*:d ubiguities, the work in all other re-spects appears to have been properly controlled. It was obvious that all re:Mred steps were taken by personnel who were compe-tent and aMe to ei.s ne that they were perfor:..ei correctly.
Entr n ti.y i m pj '.1 ) Crna:m.; ":e to;ging problocs the folleving action hns been t Gen or is in progress: ,
The Station Superintendent proculgated neso MP-l!440 dated .':nuary 29, 1983 to emphasize the need to follow ACP-QA-2.0f A ss the only acceptable process for safety t a g gi r.g . A copy is included as Attacheent t..
No S-h]F Pdi-i!-6 t:dated requireTetreary 8.19SS en i provnent in vas issued tagout to control (see Attacheent 13). ceco rf-SSE-68-13 dated February 25, 196 doeuraents the correctise action with prticu14r e y5 asis on trair.ir.g for "0;erstor in 2.ttendance" tagging, and on work dire.ttion. (See At-tach:ent 14). -
l -
Mconducted a follovup coeting with his depart-mont personnel ind V. JU Barnoy manage.ent to further clarify taging requirements. That c>eting partially I
ly addressed the situation encount'ered during the high radiation area gate work. .MP-SSE-SI-31 dated Ng 4, l 1985 docu m ts the meting. -(See Attachtnt 15).
Additional training in Station Services Ercineering. to fully correct hwledge deficiencies in the ute of SF-
l .
?!OB and "0;erator in Attendance" tatting v211 be coo-pleted by June 1, 196B.
(2) Concerning the desigt.ation of personnel to perform duties and sign off work 4
- Memo MP-SSE-59 "5 dated April 15, 1988 promulgated a
, ,geviseg., list of personnel who are authorized to sign off work orders for Station Services Engineerths. ' '
- On May 11, 1988, the authorization M ig,t3S tat, ton per- .
vices Engineering Deport:ent for si ders vos lir ited to N5ECo personnel *.!rting of f work ' or- -
it' ,k.~$,s
- The Quality Services Departront has con =itted to revise ACF-0.',-2. 02C in order in correct the aforementioned a lJguit,tes. The draft revision is targeted for dis-tribution for review by June 1, 1988. It is expected to proposo tagging and work completion signoff by the job supervisor or person directing the work, as"autho- f rized by the departcent head. .
,a..
- The Stttion Services Engineering Supervisor vill pro-pose a revised list of personnel authorized to sign off vork orders. The list vill be conmistent with the tethod used by other departicents. The target comple-tien date is June 1, 1988.
- A for:31 re3nt vill be established whereby Station Sersi:er Engineering De;ert.ont supervision vill be assnai that contractor personnel vill perfore work et the ,tatien in e:cerdance with applicable precedures.
Thia scans is expected to be an adaptation of the de-tortnent's indoctrinstien prograe for permanent SSECo persennel. The tuget date for cc:pletion of this task is July 1, 19BS.
CNum ( S w.rtty Liehtinri: !.. adequate work activity coordination rerulted n w: .#- ; . ;;r u rsing on tr.e sa ,e recurity ligh*.ing rrob*.em at the ts".e time.
Ti ' er: This d hgation is believe.d to address the removal of lights raunted cn the side of b rehouse 4 ***
The Security Ecpute.ent initially sub itted a trouble report to dyrock Satellite, the organization that usually corrects secu-rity lighting failures.
The Station Services Engineering Departcent subsequently issued a sork order to k'. J. Barney Co.pany to recove the lights at the request of the Security Ocpartnent, when the Myrock response was delayed.
M 'vas assigned the job. 'a'hile preparing for the work, he noticed Myrock personnel terforcing the name job.
i
- O .
l
- "he work order to Barriey sas cancelled, and the work van com-
, pleted by Myrock.
Crrrective Action: The Station Services Superintendent issued a memo, Attach-cent 16, to the Security Supervisor requesting prevention of future problets. The proble van believed to be related to a work request esthod in shich two organizations were frequently requested to perform different tasks related to lighting at the ss e locations. NNECo Security personnel were cautioned at a staff meeting to use care in; av91 ding duplicate work assignments in the Yeture. The*' Assistant Security Supervisor Operations further e:phasized this point at shift turnover meetings.
Allerntion 7 (Erer,s, rive Parnev Sefertntendent Cont _rolh The W. J. Barney Company Sut erintendect , controls the Station Services Enginee ng Supervi-sor, . .o approv s the actions of Barne manatement, c . r. s two tuildings en-site and rents them to KNECo. is a forcer Barney etployee.
Fin <'ines has bcon a NSECo e ployee for more than eleven years, he'ving started in 1977 The V. J. Earney Company has been on-site and active in Station Services ngir. ring Depart.nent werk since about lo M. about five years after Mr.
torted at SNECn.
Ea.ney is currently on-:.te unior Planet Turchase Order 50M566, shich was unded on July 1, Iti6 as a result of a co;;etitive bid process. The purchsso order expires July 1, ;HS, and it is expected that a cocpetitive bid pro:ess vould be used, if cer. tractor support for the Station Services E*,gineering Departcent is to be cor.tinued.
hring the five years ihnt I have provided oversight supervision to k end the Stttion fervices Eniineering Departr:ent, there have been W ]l revera situtfons in which a cc petitive bid process or cc parisen of quotes was used tefore o s;ecific jot was awarded. In sere cases, the utecce was to av*rd the work to Earney, as in the c.ost recent bid to modi-fy 'A rehcuses 3 and 8 to ine'.ude office space. In other cases, the job was a.arded to another contre:or, the core re:ent notable cases being the Tafueling Octate Buildir.g r.Mifications to provide Production Test shop
<pa:e am! the r,cdification cf Verehouse 1 to provide office space for the Sccurity contractor and the Porsennel Processing Center.
At one tice, two buildinps n-sito vere ovned by Fattfax Enterprises, a cor.pany in which sas reportedly president. These buildings were initially leased, as was the custom for most of the tn porary build-ings on-site. Both building leases were awarded to Fairfax Enterprises as a
result of a coepetitive bid process that was administered by the North-enst Pt1Jities Purchasing Departoent. Other cerpanies on the Mdders list sero either unable to bid because the building rerluirecents exccoded the scope of their capability, or the companies declined to work on a job site that used union labor. The Purchasing Depsrteent files sere rcticved with i 1
11
7 the buyer who negotiated the purch,ase order. A brief sum-nary of essential details is included in Attach.ent 17. The buildings were
. subsequently purchased by h'ortheast Utilities for financial reasons. -
Mis accountable to Hillstone Station r.anagement. He meets period- y ically with re, his 1:c ediate surervisor, in order to discuss jobs, priori-ties, and assignaent of work. Oser the post year, the workload has in-crenced substantially in the Station Services Engincoring Department.
During the fourth quarter 1957, the prioriti:ation of Station Services Engineering Department work vas formalized into a weekly review process that integi s ted priorities of the Site Utilisa on Cot:1 yee work with ,
other work requested of department, regular inter-action with ee hcs permitted me to provide appropriate guida,nce and station canagement direction into his dernrtcent's work. These inputs have in-cluded dire: tion concerning co pett ive bids and the control and scheduling f jobs. From this point-of-viev,. is not under the control of and Barney management.
Cerrective Aetlen None. Adequate oversight controls .are being used 't6
- 3nage the work perfor:ed by the Station Services Engineer-ir.g D artment and the W. J. Barney Company under Mr.
direction.
A1:nntlen 81Precure_-ent Wnsre-ent _Practicesb _
does not properly stan-a;e the procure ent process. He allevs contractors to be involved in the purchase of uterials and in the procurer.ent record keeping function. Original purchase
- r de r docu ents are issing fro:M)iles and are in the custody of Mr.
Tindines Cr, tractors were ir.volved in procuring r.aterials for work in the Station Serv!ces Ea.eincering Department. The custor.ary practice for jobs assigned-b3 M to Barney, or C. N. Flagg, or other contractors was to first ettsin a quote for the cost of a job. The qucte included time and cateri-als. So o sterials are available from the NNECo verehouse, and some must te yrmrd fro. ce.nrctal cources which eay or eay not be local. In many cases, the cor. tractor was authorized to procure ca;erials 'for iobs as-egned. ?.e cost of the rmerials us invoiced to f by the con-tr xter, ho authorized ra v ent by Northeast Utilities, if appropriate.
Sir.ce C E*o personnel provided job supervision for Barney work, and since quotes wre ep;reved before the contractor was authorized to procura cate, rial, the procurement process was under control.
Fe r r e r.nol who vork ir, the Millstone Financial Control Department and rou-tindy are involved in financial repurts for all NNECo departrents have on several occasions in the past praised the financial control process in th Station Services Engineering Departcent. I have been told that has centrol of thp'toney that; is being spent in his departcent. His re-cords are easy to review, sorked fer Barney at Millstone for more than two years. Per-sor.cel '
sork. (n the Station consideredServices Engineering him to Department respected be ". . . very knowledgeable, reso him and his and is cooprative". He was trusted by NNECo personnel. %urceful reports 12
_ .~ _ _. . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ , _ .- - _ _ _
i e
i that had offered to straighten out a file of purcha, sing docu-nontation that consisted of sales slips from local merchants.
if not return the file when he was teriineted by Barney.
Srrr et(ve Action
- W. J. Earney construction perscnnel and other contractors no longer have ec: cts to procurement records in the Station Services Engineering office, except for a contractor clerk. Files are in a locked office when not in use.
Station Services Engineering Depart:ent personnel nov order caterials from local vendors. Sometines contractors are used to pickup and deliver the
?.aterials to Millstone. .. . ..o, .
St rv of Gat _stjnding Cerrective Action s , s Cceplete training Station Services &cineering Departcent personnel and con-tra:ttr s in r e iuitecents of ACP-QA-2.06A, " Tagging", by June 1,1958.
Station Sorvices Engineering Superviser propese revised list of personnel au-thert:cd to sign of f work orders by June 1,1988.
- Quality Services Departcen?reviseACP-QA-2.02C,"Vork Orders", to clarify
- uthcrization to sign of f "tcg;;ing verified" and "vork ccaplete". Proculgate draft revision for review by June 1, 1988. , 2
-:ni:n fervices Engineering Supervisor establish for.a1 teans to assure that
- c tra::ers perfore work at t he staticn #
- n accordance with applicsbie proce-dures by July 1, 1958.
Cicse eut the Controlled Fouting, CF. 6926 " Control of Tagging in Outlying' Su:1 dings", ty July 15, 1988.
N -bsion , .
- 1. ne i,velve:ent of the Statien Services Engir.ecting Depart ent and the V. J.
I:r. e r C::yy in ofety related ork it -initel. W. J. Barney ;erfor::ed li -
- tea a k in Contsin-ent for Units 2 and 3 under NNECo job supervision .ithin the units. "est of Earney's scrk was for the Station Services Engneering Spart ent (SSE). SSE perforts some Fire Protection QA Appendix R vort, pri-stily wit" fire doors in shich contractor support is so etites used. An ex-
- v .sive cm at of non-safety r/.ated work with the Security Systs: is prforced
- y Pi!. w th extensive contractor support. The cost extensive verk "in-plant" ty SSE re:or.tly was the high radiation area gate / door job shi:h did not invclve
.ategory I work. V. J. Barney does not have en approved - Qaality Assurance Tregram at !'111 s t on e . Despite the increasing verklond at Millstone Station Services Engineering, there is no evidence to support that V. J. Barney is ,
involved in Category I safety related work, other than that noted in the report under NNT2 job supervision. In particular, extensive intervievir.p failed to wbstantiete that Barney personnel were involved in any Category I welding.
- 2. Vork within Station Services Engineering Departr ent, including that perforced by k,. J. Barney, is controlled. The vori order syste': and the st ation t yging
- c. ,
rystes are used to enntrol work. Adequate resources are available to use the
- I
.:rk order s3 ster sin;e a P:'.s:s p;anner is ensig ned t o the det,rteent. Sote I
- edaal v
- clatsens concerning the use of personnel to sign off certain work i crder fureticns se te noted. He.ever, these viciations did not apper.t to rosult ,
- n t less of ef fective centrol of serk. In particular, he verk the Station 2ersices Engincer3ng Dersrtret.t sas al.; 3 authcr:ced by 3r a person wtc re;;rted direst;y to nie. The tago/.s were always approved by a Unit Shift iuterviser er Supervistng Control 0;erator in the process of authorizing w:rk. The fins! work order reviev ves perforced by
- 3. So e proble .s vere identified in the 1:ple.tentation of the tag clearance sys-tec.
" Operator in Attendance" tagging vas not always implecented in outlying t aidings in accordance with the procedure. The cethod in use was determined to te s:fe by f r.du< trisi rsf ety per sonnel. A procedure for this outlying bui'. jing sit uar. ion is ur. der deulep ent. The procedure was not followed for using one tag cicarotce for 3rveral work crders due to pctsonnel error.
4 7.t:ettivt r;iisti;n t tsures do r.ct ap; ear to .'avt occurred during the high rzi:Ation area rate ;'b. Extensive efforts sere 1:plerented to plan the work to that exposures vould te cinietzed. These included walk dovns during design.
.alk downs of Station Services Ercintering personnel with Myrock and Barney p e r s c r.n el tefort work, prefabritetion of esterials in the shop, using and desi8n
.aterta'.s :nat vould reduce the n ount of ti:e in radiation areas. De-
!ays that o: curred estly in the job sere attributed to prolonged preparatory
.cre 17 "ir::k Jersar.nel prict to cr.tering the verk ares, te design changes that .tre trc; red ty the electritians, ar.d to the engineering technician in
- .st. t Ier.; =+ Ir.t;neerits lears.ing how to ad.tinistratively coordinate tec-
'e 3: w9th ccv'.4 star .n schedule. Individus1 s3;inio. stive s
.. .: :: hisc :- to it.c*e sed. 'bc je5 was - :ssi;ned te Earney
- s w;r fete: :r.e to te t;: s cv. The ;:1
.5 c;;; . n e: .itn-
- e .- ' s..;e'ines
. of ; 2EM.
~. T"e ::ntrol cf V. I. Strney work is affactive. Etation personnel autherizec P
w . : r. . r er.eiers! pretlets nott d ir verk crder prc:essir.; ar.d tagout s iii not
e::tve cer. trol. Station 7ersices Engineering work is ;:: ett.:::.
.? :Utcr.ed to centri:t :s tr tased on pre-job quctes. In * ;e .n-c.. :ve tids cre ured ta s.::: ate contract:rs. ":na g e.ne n t ver-
- ' n::cs Engineering :s exter.sive and o: curs frequent y anc
. .: : 3. : <. . ar.::a! recerte - 3:3n::.te the centrol of .ork. 7:a: : :n
- ;t e..
- -
- :s corractsn; ;a3: ta ging deficiencies. Fer. A i r.g 1 ; . nent
_e . cat.:, of personnel to si;r. eff w:rk crder functions will ensure 2: . it r ; re:edu- . cv plience. .'
s teth.d to ersure that centra:: r s .1;; work
't e stit::n tr. . ;D ance w:th procefores as being ceseio;ed.
4 _
'+v el decu ::nt nti:.c and interviews, it is =y cen;;usien that 2:.. -
L. . . . o i
- t neerir.g pe;.ir tnent ;er.sonnel and sapporting contractor
, . rJ :'mel f;12cv station pro:edures. :.trective action is in progress for
- !-ne i.'cnt $ fied deficiencies that rentin to be corrected, in ny judstent, the c:rt:
- or wrrk f;rce and :nnagement that rupports Station Services Engineet:n; 2el 3rt '1t is i.ot out of control. 5:r does it have unusual ;o'.ars on-sit e.
IJA :! t A t t s' h;9at s
I' '
I l PECORD DE ILLEPHONI LM APRIL 2f.,.1958 i .* renm. pij pppnnna 3 3 7 Prf s'JEJltT. ADDITIONAL INFnPt1AT;rN Fp0ti >
I ;
o mg
- EFE0ENCE M.LCCAT10N El-rc- A 0113 f0
' received a telephone call from on April 25.1968,wno .,
called to check on the status of the alleg6 tion followup, end to request a meeting when the inspection was completed. I told him that I wet expecting NNECO to fin 15h their reviews of the issues and to report Occk to me by the end of this month, end thet I would be aggreeable to schedule a meeting with him to discuss the result? cs summertred in ri routine inspection report.
I tummer):ed fotMthe results of prelimineru feedback from the utility on some of the issues - (1) nothing improper associated with the buildings onsite owned tit 01) utility Iollowup did Contirm thet 3dministrative tagging controls were not strictly followe0 end whot corrective actions were teken to better essure complinece with pr0cedures items conter.ted with the NT. 'oilowup of tne I suei :ut li
.:otet th:1 NMEC? hss et rewor,aed to h request f;r 3 meet rg te edFett "It disrmisal fr;m Serneu and '.o revieve the purtnaie order m3%rT re n3s 1r nti c.ctiesiton banted to know u 'he W I
could nde the ut.'!1tu rneet with rarn ' :Miec that while i 6;reec t::$t it ~
~ould oe pprceriete for NNECO to meet with him. I was not :# ere ct 3
.neChers!!m We htC to (OrrP 'ne issue itek c h.!! he n:0 cont:<.ts on lite who itated th:1 th".gi re mt ir.u different tnen before - in general referente to the controls over
'he ett!v:tte: ofM: Serney Co hof fered no scetific:
M!d ! tale thet $ nad Inf. mot 100 about two indivicasit eno
- ad worted et the site ena were terminated with completing a body count.
He it firit decitned to Drovide the specific Information apperently because "he wat in contact with area anti-nuclear groups who were
'nterested in his story, wanted to support him' cnd the information Wa5 being 53ved for : Ster. When I pressed him for the informetton, he Dro'4ded the !ODowing Two CN Flogg contractor personnel who worked at a 11P2 outage. One 196?
l
I Snd one in 196-1, never received terminallon whole body counts or termination exposure reports. Both, individuals workmi within the t recl6tton ccntrol orees and ned to w'eer respirators for the job One of the workers it who apparently has e known Ce510m upteke. sold he would contact me of ter tolhng to the other individual to see if he#would be willing to provide his name and possibly talk directly to the NRC.
Ietke to contect me if he had any further information-o
- s e- +
I
. ,,f
. v ., .
e 1
I l
{
l 1.:
a
~
'f . .....
. :. : ~ ::
h
- NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMIS510N IDENT OFF.!CE
. wi ..
. As.hM. M,@. Mil.l.S. TONE S. TAT!ON P.ES{EfgRD.>00NNEC geni was defete( . 9 :j.
'. .in accordancew,t fre omofInforma o.1
.,t ,
p: .. ., .
c'
..h.. g . . , ,. , b,. y ~ i N.g -
'1EM00ANDUtt
- fg;fM, s'.
.- -h
'. ;- ~ s'
. . +3. ,.
. p.,
. ~ . ,,W,+m e.
.EtP W j't . ' 30 ghY- n' 3 ,p . .y
) ._
ffp.a elo4 d/6 3 ,h ,
y fr eaMppe one on
"?cuest 3001110n01 in prrr.atten cur:nc ar Janua st1nn MMht'riciens hdAN,-g .u .,
- tcut 't se of ei . . > io :? we'::",g. The f p dr.
en1 ,1. . . ., .
reversec w ..nts first3totp. nt 2n0 Icic net ?arney.w.
. volved fn.
N ViqQ 49 1pQ D @f?F?rT'th'$f})( W }\'DQ 4 jr' 10 thf M. .U * +
a- Q<"V I P 't . .
'e ' 4
- i'.'. . 1 * **u
- I.f.I4 $ $ T U$
i t t '.i - *.10 !. ' e c' : ' : ' ' - + . . : ~ ' ' . t:d W.6 *.he 'Mt
. :- +ritt c+ -i'" tre 'Oremtn M *:: neer; 4:.n otner sources M-u :2 :unt 1 + : :e :r -en e, r.c. to un ce.::.e 3: cut
,17e .: : .
. .i ~t'.*,iri,: .: r- ; ' n t e " ?
t #
- t**
- Cu' t' 'mnrS
- ' + f:~ r ~-r; :e s::re: r :
' ;*: ;e'. mere m"ebec c ee 9!
"ta sc or 'r.t 9 ::rm!'. r. itic n 30uld be c0nsictric
. e #: .c..cesa y, em
. * ., .. g e.g
. r : e,;.
= =. q r. . r V g i -i r ,-. _- ****=tc
- Nr'r.g :n ir.spection In.tNe MP^ ;gntStnrrentg;n 'anuary 2L 1988,1 looked 3h4
' r Berney involvement in'ohgoIng wor.' ect1v'ttes and found none.~ ! will' '
- cntinue to pursue this issue.cynng routine inscection of.MP2 and HPT '
^ '
L
~~' - -
m Mr. _ >
I
- etea.dctieit.Id..'f.
. -- . , . ,. n ,. .
M?g_
.i .s .. & % s. ' -
94..
1 P
- ,.. , ,,-miw,,
UNITED STATES l
, I NUCLEAR RE6ULATORY CONNISS10N .
- 4. . .Hllt.STDETTh$ g$1QElfL OFFICE g' 't -
7 '
WATERFORD, CONNECTICUT
-,g._, ' ' . ,
q ae . .
,f . 4.4,,t,tg .
, yup. ,pp q q .. . . .
s . .# . m.. . . . .
,, b ,
l i
' ,r - n. , **m .
gg g.., ,:
% . ,: ~; y ." - q.n q
""~
l L MN .. ,
f; i ~
k..
g.
ry ,
-y 1
.t .
- h. FORF f,M 4: ' ' . E.'
& MT .,
- 1tsumond. . .: .
fe
\.. epp!&r l sh gy " %: . %.MSL '
SUBJECT:
hllagedon R'l-87% T13 Update. ... '
t
- ' = M 1.P ' %,ept4.#hp ' ("'l -
,1: 4-
'7 E On Je is 13 $88, 4: I 7:00 ~
W'*rfi6#1 prennted .W1 u 'N that' document his coric*erE%nd'hrovide a es of "
unsettsfactory wort practi s et the Mill'sTo6e site perio Berney Compentj, and by th' lof.Berne* . kj([ ,@e '
Mlin particular. ,
.r.:3 l
The meeting mostly provided additional information on issues previously addressed by the NRC stoff (see McCebe memo dated 12/11/87). New e
information was provided in two erees: (1) en ellegetton that Berney is 5 using unquellfled welder (en electrician) to do Category I work in the containment; end, en ellegation of improprieties in the relationship between Berney Co. and the NNECO Supervisor having direct oversight on that compeng's work es well es improprieties in certain ections b A summery of the issues discussed is provided below.
A. Exemples of ectivities preformed or directed bM}.ind/or Berney that were discrepent or not done per procedures:
lied 16 pole lights in the'Simuleth 'k -
I A.I. In July 1987, Barney in l
building perking lot.'Mwas in charge of the work and notej t ' JM' ';. . . ^*
e templete was not provided by the manuf acturer to assure'fiiiper ? '
alignment of the mounting bolts in the 'concrote pads for the lighTTh -
- a@W .
-- , s In '. .gp g %fW 1
~
I l .
)
are 4 mounting bolts for each light. aontacted the l
, ~
manufoeturer and obtained a template.
t without emplete ?'Ania@uement ensued 16e$
l "'
, betwee and ce President -
l to 'doWie 'lf hd I e mountini* peds . "constructaidM .s.
~ "
.. WY %$ ;,' ,'. A -( " '
A.2 In , j'$
,had the
~- warn!
. %T ftheJ nstel , illefon~ 'to 1 n
<. q " fill'Mfl.1,erieor_ . , ,
to function.;The engine ecfinicion destgr problems with: use oY s
,w select,lo5 of begyMy lfts %et .' weral} ?
of usin%TOVAC eiermsiti h'[Nrst 2g"piec . .,. ..- .
p I w ko'do. , [
complete,d truthe MarchV Augustyme penod.
Issue wgs thet: Berney assiped enhexperte Jn e ,
rettiotion area wi(hout odequete direction and e; on ' .
of a system importent to the protection of redled305teelitied on
'UW "blackboero designs
- end rc, s ulted in needless exposure to personnel for the f trst 2 weeks of the job of ter 11 was not don,e right; and, thereye
$6000 restock charge (Exhibit J) for equipment n'o't'used based en design for the job that was aborted.
A.3 In July 1987, the air conditioning in the new building for the MP2 maintenance shop was not workin end a req;est to investigete/repelr the unit was processed. ecting without en authorized work order (AWD) or togs, went to e 480 volt breaker panel in the building and turned on 6 or 7 breaker 5 in en ettempt to stort the units. The new units were later tied into il e p'enel and made operable. % stated that Mr.
Mocted derelessly by exercising the 480 volt breakers without
}' ' #
l knowing what was on the other end of the circuits 3FeILied irithout regard for established safety & tegging controls?5 1 ' l'tsincident[ ' "'t e procedure was developed to eitliblisMhe'co'ntrh ,
! Tori;tfr1,,
. Df
~
assignments within Bernegsgeghibit B of'Atte
] f In late Summer 1987 while modifying the MP2 offit:es, carpenters w.
requested en eleEtrical wir's be moved from a wel'Ilo ello' w Trisliilfation of -
wm ~ m . f ..
2
a window,%be processing en AWD and tag order to do the .._
f job - see Exhibits G,Hik I e -
,done by HillstonefioiittkleMine 1
[ '-
l l
the use oLap A ,
ensuing argueme .. r, 1.{ t f
for follovilng the.,the admf' It was during the discussion ', '
steled in esence o '
l r. juris[ '
fi,y to p ' ,
wind 6
,y+. WANy "h pe
, d
- t'er6g@ec,jpligt,s 1- problem occurred in the c
^
'f two wb7fdertfdii7eM essentt
'h,Q y' gis js? e wasygdously_revi ' '
.mguleU y coric'ernjsee"exhl provided b, e ..
- - 4.
> n.< g ' : #*
, ~
3 A.5 teted he h recen scuss on w ,s ,
et th ite who stated that Berney was getting involved in more work . Mc6 -
inside the f ecility and more specificall that Barney was involved in "Cetegory l' work in the conteinment. ,
toted that Barneg g .,
'i in 1ts emplog en electncien who has welding experience 6ut is no{'e '
certified welder.Mteted Barney is using this person to do ?-
welding on Catego, g I work. Mould not be more specific,about,. ,,', , ,
what was meant by category I work, or which containmtnt was involved, or whetherit was MP2 outege related work, stated that licensee engineering'wes aware'of the Quellfications of the individual and that the co nizant engineering group for the work had eccepted the situation. toted his contact et the site we ,
I askedMto either havMontact me directiger to call .,
him to get any coditionel Information that might help us follovf up'the .Y D
~
d j
potentiel use of
unquell' fled welder'sg(
r .*%;ii. =Pff. ' ~sejejyh'
% Y.hlate' ' '
RbW. . , ,, ' -:
l . An :t it' . .ingg9 .
, en n ret I
'3 p l
B. Alleged impropr'iellepke NNECO.S. '
l between Barney monogement end a NNECO Supervisor.
\_-
, .~. . y r 1
. , c. . #2, . . r ?a :vd55s , 1. ; . $, . + . g . -5x 3
., e . .
The following ellegatigns were made either directly or by implicall,on by '-
% ]M 4
wit
~
- 1011 which doc , '
c -
- .,p.
. Bl. '
r supvervisor for the les I
m ,
- I 4.' efford a i
, jennuel,lg ,
~. .e 4
,' B3. ,
- p. : q, in hl ,
in his spare 11 w _
W ._ ,
. avoid e $160gestockj. '
te* g 4 't,. .-
B4.
el15$d c NInvol .
- *b '
process for meterials neededfor.-jobs the cohtractors worted eri,& hms ~--
though that practice was contrerg to NNECO policg and procedures. Mr.
Mieted hp wes inyolygd in purchase orders worth about $100,000.
Mis not' aware o$ng irreguledtles in theTr'ocurement%Y' ,
f meterials, other then authority was delegated to levels it should not have been given to. . .
B5.Mstated thatM100se control of the procurement process was exempilfled by the f act that purchese orders representing about $20,000 worth of material were missing from the station files and in his possession. resented for my review at the meeting a
=1 inch thick stock of ort inal purchase orders for materials ordered for various jobs et the site. etelned possession of the '
documents. . . i d.' .w. ,, <- ~ OM -f dWO" TCM- ey n r , a . t ,. 4 '
S Ib#6 M7 k)i$ F .[
hh . v .9 .
,.cyp .
'T s p Summeru ' ,, ,
+ 4,, ,,
+ .* % 4+a- . 1,.
basic concerd con be summarized .mEITo110Yvs.N oboveh44 Q
,a .:..... . . . .. *s. h. -- - r imp gr _ .yo.. .a .. .
... m. '
the attit i Qik F -
'"' g
.U L > ' " de t t
- H % 11,* '
r !< t
. . .. s Jf4 - .
' &,, ' ~ AA -
- , y b. ,
4 N~ ** g e.'
, qp, ,..
-AQ,.cfy' Qyg:. ..
f,,
4 .! .
pM , 7,; .,pg3g ,ir:- -
~ -
y
.~
w... '
_ o (- Q - . F. . t 2 qg .
.sf:
n L. . .p.
h._ x. t__ec..*.r:) -
1.' ,s ' . y.. -
. n.t
- - ,d v,
- s. .y u .. ,. ..
p, . ,,, .,
.} M# ~ '
.r4NIR huf s, . ..
.;5 A 4'1 1
4 ~ ". #?
- m. 5 $~ L' :p s c i fora ,,, e g grk.. ! el ,
'l . N ' '.
.g ..,' .w eted f. Q Q 3 U '
,p relk .. .
jegej 4 , out ,', / 4-Recommendetton's' M '
A *A" "'M - a t '4"c I recommend the issues below be considered for NRC review
. . . - furt followup. I discussed the results ofth'e meeting wt by . .
-i I
telecon with Mr. McCabe on January 14,1988. Based on our review of thd^ '
issugs fromM we concludedthat no specific safety concerns a '
were identified in the inf ormation provided, but that I should proceed on the welding issue to see if the concerns could be substentiteted.
- e. Assure safety related welding is being done by 'quellfiet personnel- -
concentrate on MP2 and MP3 outege work. "
- b. Vertig contractor work activities,are conducte.d per AW0 and tagging -, , . . + . , ,
procedures. ."9 y ::. ;. ,.y ~ .Q;p ' l34 4 ., '-
*Cy'e; .;-;&w~
W,
- c. For the job involving the inste
).._- Y % q:'=' f jf kotioYof eierm$$
s on the
.j)))gh red getes, de)p[)Iplethegchssg*pyi,[h}.
, d design g j'y .
resulted in excessjve exposurag iJ hlfcoul,d have _ volded had , ,ps.jh guldence beenprovided. ,
u j., ,, , ,
y . . .
- * . Y %
[.
5 1
_ _ _ , , , _ - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - --,-------------.------------_sm.,m_, . . ,..a. .a A_w_m .ewh.--.-s.mp es.es m a .4%.,ma_#hu.A4,s_ m.iy m..e--s4h%,, J.n.,aA .--M._.4--eh 4
I I l
h ** .*^ $
~
lC
$ [kI4'r g
l :..g['k..#'i
'.h \
[A 7.. T ~ ' *
..} ,
1 .
l l
[
\
,If, "
- Jc4 -
a c
w
. .n,
- - t,
- . +, .
rs 8
4
+ - - a'. . , , - . .,, .!
r - ; c 9%*H WW %> . g .,
nL9%k4,{9 ? y< ?)P..
i TV . , . '
n.. r M.9
.. g, ? 4 *. 3.'g a yg,,f .
J'$'sh ' ' Q pg -
.4 ,
l
,--- w .. , - .e l
l l
A .. ;
l l
l l ,
I I
i
. e** r' -
W
- t. % $. .,l -
, p g,q. 7, i
.' 7
' a ,
gg h
9 hp. tl $3, :
h **
.,s. . Se; -
,a --+ .1 j <W.
1 i' 6 4
I
'I________________.___________
c..h..b-a m E m s 4.4.mamW--mm-4ase.34-.- .-.a -4 m- .wa d-d-..-3d *E*p-m.-- 4=-M-em .A8-atma.,2. sp-e-----en.. m- ,MA-- *a _4ha- -am em.mm-w -n---A=ae.t.di ee-in e a ss-ws.-stena. A---+.milaaw.a,=
,em. A a -
4 e
9 f
~
' f . \ *'~
, A A ' % ? 'a>Y%~ '
$'Rs %* s 4
%/ - 4 w g ,, .~
, . . s -- . .
- ( W A ! '
Yf Y. .
p yp' -
.s v, .c . a . b s;. ' ' , ,
t l
. o, a y
.g 4 *42 m>
, 4 -
p -
.M -, o i , . Ni .;] ; ,
, i i Ye c . ( .: ; ,
&E .< . g lQ. .t' W
! y.ddM.L.t% %
p -4 e 2 m p g e p g?Y g w&yc :f 1
. At
. w. .
.;.+ m,w f
i e
1 e
- a ' 4 ,' p 9 A e, t
g i, ?' ? I ',j
" q ,.z' s' .
o
.x. 4 "13 , ,f ,
..pt i
1
a k d N i M 2 6 24 % 9 / M ,'y ..n .. . , 9 6 4 - ,
p,4$,u.,.diiMQ..u .n an- w ._- . W MF'ATTA
.. 3 ,.
.1 z1ND
- 4.. g ' 4. ' t,.'
I._y).
M ^1MdhMN3 - , j _
d* . . n,;p%.+. ,. . '%.;.,.
.. g . a.
p ..
e, ,
Irs Quesu
_ , .g , . _
M' a- f.*f
~**'I
[$ ,
, ,,e , 0? _ ^ = ,'kr $$tify Vf&
kt - .,
~
,,g n ,_,_
~,n . .n-f i
1 l
l I
l t
f.
4
>~
-O W- 18,1987 Page 13 New Haven Register, Wednesday, December or secur ity violations at Millstone plant NU is fined $25,000 a diferent perspective" Castagno f
lems in general terms in hes letter trols of the entire facehty.'
Castagno said Northeast has taken steps to correct the problems my is confujent that the plant ai-oled by the NRC, but the compa- ways has been sceure.
a***c8*W P'**e to the utshty, which said, '"The said .
. lie said that in the case of the violations ancluded muluple dexam-WATERFORD The Nuclear Regulatory Commissson Tuesday Tsr.ed Nonheast Utshties $25,000 two, unescorted visatori oted by pfes of inadequate protected anRun, the visitors and their es . vitalarea barm for secunty violations at Millstone cort had become temporarily visstors being an the protected areawithout an escort, emproper imple-Nuclear Power Station. separated. . te or mentatson of compensatory mea-
-The violations represent a sig- ~I f sures, as well as other degradahons nifrant lapse in attention to and two RmH t was a a:ianer Castagno said-said Nonheast must o 6fe a ensnu of the physical secunty prograni?
control of the physical secunty prograrn at Mdistone," said Wal- *"h'n M days a plan explamsng The administrator saul he was ham T. Ruswil, head of the NRC regional orTace in King of Prussia. . why secunty had been afiowed to -larse,"correcuve cause secunty stemomings, ~the steps that et has concerned about the saluahon be-Pa. namen or plans ta take and the date majority of which were ident:6cd Russell said among onher when it expects to be in fu!! com. by the NRC had existed for an thmgs, inspectors discovered two phance with NRC requirements "the state has . catended penod and should have visitors *andenna around without lie added that been obvmus' to all those con-any escort in an area of she power been informed of she wruahon. siected with the plant.
plant where no one should have Russell,in a leuer to the untity, been without proper escarance. said inspectors $n.ted M:11 stone Yet, Russeli sold the utihty, Russell also said the lack of ade- Nov. 2.
'these conditens were not detet.t-quate secunty appeared to have. '**ce between Aun 4 .sndRussell also und A unisty isself ed by your stas even though secu-been a problem for .ame time. . Northeast iltshtrn said it would* reported some e wu uolahons.' Russell ded am the prob- nty personnel made frequent pa-pay the fme. Russell said the utshty had the opuon of appeahng the 6ne of it felt vicisi.ons of NRC rules cited by inspenors were not true.
Anthony Castagno, a spokes.-
man for the utihty that operates the three reactors m Matistone.
said he couldn't comment on de-tails of the NRC's 6ndmss because
' plani secunty was nvolved As a result, informanon ibout the vio-lauons is cuempt i om pubhc re-lease Castagno and the NRC said,
'If I could give vou details of
' these things, at wotud put them in e
.2 ...m.....
_ a4- _ .,a4 w A._ w __a m.aa a s.A- , . - -%,s d _. -_ sia ,a
' I wcu sou<ce Frtds l 1
9- .
7 .. .. . , ,
z,, . *-L y t .a7 -
e, t- e
- 4 e
- e 4a ,
- m <~.... . - r 4- T',' ' p ps.:,1. 4e,<cm.eacer :w m**;tW4 f' . .
- M *'
, . Mi a+ %
-d, . * .9. ,1 . ML '
wi, - ,r+' y: v. 8:./,K @.
-; , ' * . , , ~ . . . , .
... .e .
-e . ,. ' s,
,-e,.
')*l* ., , . , -
. . ,*> .e, _' ' s
- 4 1
.(
kD'
- + gi he, *,,
- e. *). ,
h:% if'.
. 'rff,. l
.-l
- % *i d u
- s. . ,
wA ._.,..w w_w y p 9:
y
_ u' a, m,.w vt .
y.,: ,,, . ,. ma wo #~..~ , , s. .. n r. n . . m
~'
, s
$fl '
1P MN hr Tuy l 4.10suC A3 N0J v M rra c en t<,re==t v'rtn e khoy b
Et.ec reica e dyr&c fo< Clare em T
- A'st=,t ero. ~
uP b4Te w e r.w, $.s r ,
l ?w h w oe t,, _, _ , ,
Ts tt. CLa te.earf'*, CTd
..,_.r.,
",.N
- 7,,g, . ,
- 5.u y - - -- - -
9 a
eeQ 699 G-
w , .. .
Edddc-j w
-, q *-
- g. .
I '
L l
_ . fr = >n . y .,
,.s '
.c
. .....c ' .-
L , 4'
. s.,
-@ W as,., i 9 (
- c? ' tV L. ,6fn M ,
< Q./ , c - ,
, , ' ~
- . i n '
station Services, Su Millsty l
- . Dear att
! I, or W. Aarneye- -
ne Two and Three in terfo'r8. Some. ave 7.a .
if continued,;resu1% sp31 9,usgl aju <h M.
^ f.
alte. '
,':j.h $,& .
. 987, o ' or about A for W. J. Barney, .a contractor es ea aused 4 0
yoltg cu without fo n sta went t ese events, requ
'~'~ - .b' services; and I reviewedthat he formulate aol') procedure to prair,t
~ ,
events in violation of Adelaistrative OA-2.06A.Tev.12 paragragh 6.1.3.3, .aioopy of.; whiqh is attached .
at , IS8'f,~and hereto, various meetings were held between proximately August 21,19 .I electrical engineer, v
were p sent at some or all of these -
nd A final revision of procedure control for electrical meet gs. A copy work dated August 20, 1987, was eventually On or about agreed September upon. 4,1987, of this procedure is enclosed.
W carpenter foreman for W. J. Barnery,innotified Unit 42 me of carpentry work, including cutting in vindows, maintainance which also would require electrical work to f done. On or about September 8,1987, I went tfor Unit f 2 Maintainance, to get ve a money to the work on Unit #2 related to the carpentry of which work per Rel. 9015150 dated September 8,1987, a
! have enclosed. That same day, I, r per ACP-QA-2.061 Rev.12 l received an authorization work or : 4 D.-
Paragraph 4.13 page three and five, copies of which are enclosed. On or about September 9,1987,
- k., p. .-
<,.,.. g . .
'N " 4%8' Ntih$kc.
.,$.h
. ~ . - .
(*1l
~ *v. ,
.;p r .-s w--w--*~_..e--,.e-..
.. . . - .. . ~ . - . - - - - - _ - - . . _ -. - - . - . . . . - . - _ _ . . .
) -
+ .
. ::J.:ty Haynes Nge Two
.I, ; I; 4-ak (
' ciScuj generally. p ep % gc r. t i a.a Rwent , , '
1 92' ft Superv -
'19 87,', which 4h . , l M4f f : ', , 4 .
,i o th%
, eti st !
l long on?th job . , , . .
Gs ; y 4.,,
l . . . . utho rthe e '
^
act A 'c of th not .
...3 -
ou .
a' . -.
woul'd like to. re . e v blat ons at hat"e -oc '
as I have descri c, If 'th'e' /"' '
indicate normal o he(bn~)fo'ce, N( e ,, $,fearitha urAp.thi se @
violations will eventually result in serious injury 'et' loss of life. I look forward to hearing fro'n you at your' eas11est' convenience. ,
. Sincerely yours, ,
4
,* * 't JJD 1
e 1
se ,-
. f*h -- ,a.*.'
, .cg . % ..i- -
J . T'./ e w y . .
2lhi ;
.s. a;;g. .r.Y&%<!
.s~. n- - .
W .
l -
. b %4 e MNd b
.+=
f 1
. 74- WT # gpu D '
November 19, 1987 3
sSuperintendan[ .,
Waterford, CT 06385 Dear .
I am writing to you again in reference to my letter dated October 16, 1987, which was received at your address on October
~19, 1987', certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the receipt is enclosed.
I feel in view of the safety involved in this matter, a re onse you is long overdue. NU policies, in my 2 1/2 years as on site, was always safety first. I think your com ny least owes me an explanation of the allegations that I have made a'cout electrical safety in the plant. - If I do not receive a reply from you by November 27, 1987, I will carry this matter further, to the media, whom I have already contacted.
The public should be made aware of just how safe our nuclear site is at Millstone Station, and how certain individuals in charge conduct the mselve s. A copy of my original letter is also enclosed.
Sincerely,
)
JJD l
l 4
-,r , m-- e, , +o,, , y- <-m- m ,wg--,-
fxM k NORTHEAST UTILITIES o.n.r. oetm . s.mn su i. n.<*a, Conn.eucui i N
1 ~E E P.O. BOX 270 HARTFOAD. CONNECTICUT 06141-o270 L L J Z 7, [ "."O ",C (203) M 6000 t
9 M Dea Thank you for your letter o which brings your concern relative to safety of workers at our site the company's attention.
Please be assured that we will investigate your allegations and take appropriate action, if any is required.
Thank you again for expressing your concern for the safety of workers at our site. ,
, Sincerely, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY Har , . Hay s Station Services Superinte dent :
Millstone Nuclear Power Station i HFH:cjh cc: J. F. Follett, Sr Safety Representative G 4 4
m .
ee e
G~g N [~ $ a w V 7 *e*
/ST teL gE,Np R, com,y .tes., .,r,.p.en sum,m.ac..e,e
, , and so,n.iete ,,em. .
Pu es,t your oodor.ous d f,om no em, .d,ine.e t vou. **RE. ~5 the TURN me- TO."6pece wmerov= on. the
,the d side mee the Fetture to de thisi witt e.,
menwered to and the siete of m-v. For sedit6gnes fees the fo sowenn s servtces are evetteces. Conovst poeimester ter fees endsheeW asse[mA for addettoe)rjorverete) enouemE. g
- 1. O Show to whom asilvedet een,and oddresses\eedress 2. O Restreeted Deltvery
- -*- ~ "t
___} titwo therreit
- 3. Artm6e Addressed to:
Qw 9 \ % + e te 4.PArtweeG>\
Type of Serves:
NA'r I"9 HOS .,
fm a sb.ye s k b N O oo t O in.
Ecwtm.d O coo 3F , O 3 C K. l -9 c. o O Empress Mell
^> ~ * * ** ~ a a' aa -
tucder9c.d C&Ct385 ce agent and DATE DEt.fVERED
- 6. 6.gnature - Addreesse 3. Addressee's Address (ONLi y .
y requestedandfeepeW) .
e.
[ * /
- 7. Uste of Del ye ( /
/0 C7
- PS Form 38T1, Mu.1987 e us.ar.o. seer ire-ase DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT s .
9
)8M . .
% 5ENDE R: Comosete items 1 end 2 when additiones services are desired, and complete items 3 W end 4.
Put your addreas in the " RETURN T0" Soece on the reverse side. Feiture to do this will prevent this cero from boice re urned to you. J.ge rerurn receint fee wm eravtae vou the name e' the eerson gt!htfyd to end the dere of efellverv. For seditionee f ees the foltowine servisse are avaitessa Conevlt poetmaster for fees and snect Domteel for edditional servicei.s) requested.
- 1. O Show to whom deilvered, date end adoroesee s odorses. 2. O Restricted Delivery 4 'F.irre chartelt tIEttra chosest
. fe, Nticle Acaressed to- '
- 4. Artgle Number -
Harry F. Haynes o 031 875 313 !'
Type of Service:
Station Services Superintendent O Registered O insur.d P.O. Box 123 O<cersmed O cod l
i Waterford, CT 06385 O Exama Med Alwaytoetaan signature of oddressee or a(perit an'd DATE DELIVERED.
- 5. Signature - Addrueee
- 8. Addrmee's Address (OAL Y t/
y . requested and fee pod) '
- 6. Stan)ture - Agent y x' ) 6') ? N Y
- 7. -
.Sfi
't's of DelivefYf j e
///.;W P1 PS Form 3811, MU. d87 e us.aP.O. tee 717e-Me DOMESTIC RETURN RECELPT l
a Mi * !.
.0C.it t *t .
?.'
J.'-S T A-T ASK ,7 S PLM it;: 4l hM /
f40 0.10 E.-
TYPE...
C iT 10030 1 OT l
. 3 33 ;*A j %IORITY.... ..: 4 l
'- sL Di~. . : LEAD DEPT...... STA '
J VARIOUS I UNT. STATUS.'REGRg -
- :T 100M-ILEV. 4000 FT 66 IN e " ". ' ' ..
I"SCHD STRTfDAM k +u m 7....9f/de.
W TROUBLE REPORT NO.- l DES COMP DATEi,99 / 18 / 7l '
" d ? 99t=======. _-
IQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION M N . , ,
t H EE STATIONSERVICES.E.ggg,RIN,QNON-QATASKS,JOR. . . . . .
3 1 we w UNIT ,
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: REMOVEELECTRICALCONDUIT:"NTHE' .
WHICH IS NOW: THE, UNIT.iivo liAINTENANC1.FN ., -C ,
-> & " ^WL .-
^~
k& ..
n - .r . a. #, _ ,.. p.-
ORIGINATOR.. -
V' tDATE 49 SUPV >
DATE: 99 44' .f o n . APPROVAL . . .. . . . .: . . . . . * . . . . . . ... .. .. .. ..h.
. . .g . .hs . . .we**p**.e
. / $6 QC REQD : N CAT.I: N.
TSHET , - f[ '
CONVEX CLRi M'94 TAG REQD : YES EEQ : N GUARD REQD: N 6. AK M RV $9N.i RWP REQD ,s'N -
.yFPGA't,N ,,M 9'~ LIS N, 00LnLIS H ALARA REY: N' --ROQA : N- kREQD :: ERD?.: N . IRE'.WAT
'hb g,
~
N 'a ?
'A. t --
{
TASK ~~-
% "-i; g' l; .s
'" '; ACTS
- Qh.
DESCRIPTION DEPT. ,NENACT '
- . HRS .
INVOLVES PDCR: N REMOVE ~',
, WJB PD'CR NO.: DISCONNECT WJB ' ___ -
RESP ENGR: _
APPL CODE: ___
P.O. NO.: .
JOB DISCONNECT THE ELECTRICAL WIRING AND RE'iOVE IT, ALSO REPt0VE THE DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED CONDUIT SO AS TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW -- - -
WINDOW IN THE UNIT 2 MAINTENANCE OFFICES.
.** ACCCW2827530000 LINE ITEtt 30 .** RELEASE 4015151 ***
AU CCC ACC SU C CMS W.O. ACT RE ACI - - - - - - - - - - - -
ACCOUNTS: W2 827 530 00 -
100 %. , , , . , ,
WORK DIRECTED BY: . _
ASST DEPT. NOTIFIED: _____ ___ _ __ _ JOB SUPERVISORrR, AYALA _
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: 1/ .
e
.. -.. a.
. . .d. . . ._._. ..... . . . . . .D..f*/ A TE @ -.. : .
TAG CLEARANCE NO: __tElo.
COPY /uF4. TAGGING;ATTACHEE'.$. _;.
LCO ENTERED: __ APPL. TECH EC NO: __ TIME JERMITTED::
AUTHORIZED BY OPS: _ _ _ s_______.
TIME: MO _ DATEf ( ~2/ /8/ N -
00 . - .
- n. . ,
.-===_ . _ . - - - .
- g. ... . . , ..
l
= _ _ _ _ _ - ___ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a 44J4,a 3,.,a,.-. _L --.-M "
..a.a4.-a..,_J..mm a ame..,a.- a. _e_wed -,a.A-,m ua . + .mu- a a ,4-, ._ .a 4, . m , _a a.,;
80 % @ S $
', e .. .
G' .
ns
- *7' l
.7 ; .ylil
~
l . [ .. L r - .
r g. . ,l, .
o en I 5 7
'll i Ill l l ' 1;l ~lll !
'l l l
" naa l l !lil Ill l y
j g.
[,
a.l l ~~~
d N 3
, 'Y ~ ~ '
l ? m _
u ;g e a p , ,:
4 . - .
g .
4, 4.. a w' f
~
- Mi. -jb; ,f
- g. el
- l
- , n .
.7 i k ..l .O 1
- .a.
s_x s-9 . s %e ig n ..a 1i ro
,a
~
m.M ---
r-i ; a f W,M XZ ;. '*"
i fy l l*
- E : ; !
.la l ,.
dn i.
i
=
l m
i, f
1 r> .i 1_ .
________________._._..__________.__...-,-._._<--.....__.,-,--,.-,.-,w_,-,,,,,e,,..--_..,,,_,,-,,,,,,,-,_w,-,,-.,.s.-y,y. .
,,.,...7.,... ,,, -.,.--- .,. --
Vi# d %in REL R DiSI50 Vf28ff()030 gy 9/.1/[7 .
~ ~ s ++r *
.:.w m.s4 .. g..,..;y NORTHETASTUTILTTIEF"_ . . . w .- .
- ...j.,..
% 3kk f 7 { *g'., L. ,I . '~**1
' j - ; c' WIF'D-
=g _6+_W--- a ,. sc ., 7 n. .s a c .,,tI s . .;Lg , ,
.f -*K l
L ' a .
__y .t. E0.1K s a si a . . . . ,.
% .h pr b(,
conf;.rzs
?
or dis,cv, s[Nll s'!. W.ras .
'~
. f.N .
This form - (1) g 7 T ' 1.
' - .'-~ -'tM; ; j ' .,'
. betve 1 -
'#digd:Wgih >; - I ,
J[f( } .
- n. s g.:h., .hf('2),%;
l g,- p~
-}x?- - "; -
e wLrg '. -
.7.ykf?.-
. ass}): mea
. "D '
' 4 ** % 9 ' '-
Q.* y ;_
~
.@ g- y ,r __ . x .q ' *t . .
m v.m. -
' ,,. .q-j,,3 a.n .s -
Work Description, including!. approx 1pThe time
< ' - ~ JVjp..
. WWae g, l
A N_ l 4 . . . .s.
~
l .z3-t a gg 7 ep 4 .
.u >v .z ..
,, y % .
. ./,,f$
I.'
~
3 43Dhp}f.' . i-
\ -
c.a k 4A D fore m *** M ' E original ELEC Wa' L utr- SS co
& g u c a c w 3 krs - I R
- S A
/
0 Cn ng.
4 515 00 Woo ,.c'---
Cost estimate or Not-to-exceeds $
Approved by: (Cec rova r MAP 3.92)c 4 c g.. %.
.~.:
.,( : -- ) . :.
_n'. .
a Account Distribut .
amb . w.M marmw. $ 0 r
MilfW,V V '
,,,,,,, ,,,, ",t ," ;, #
' original: Betterment Constr. Repr. Copy: Financial Control
(b [
J W. D. Rornbera 6-28-85 -
l _
l, f orm Approved by Station Superintencent iffective Date ADMINISTtATIVE CONTROL PROCED!'RC LvVER SHEET t
A. IDENTIFICATION TITLE STATION TAGCING NUMBER ACP-QA-2.06A REV. 1_22 B. QA REVIEW: QA/QC SUPERVISOR: 14 . _ [Rf.(.[ (QA RELATED ONLY) jv v - -
C. UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION EVALUATION DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED:
(Significant change in procedure methoc or scope YES [ ] NO ((
as described in FSAR)
(If yes, document in 50RC meeting minutes)
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (Adverse environmental impact) YES [ ] NO (/f
,, (If yes, document in 50RC meeting minutes)
E. INTEGRATED SAFETY REVIEW REQUIRED (Affects response of Safety Systems, performance of safety- YES [ ] NO ((
related control systems or performance of control systems ;
which may indirectly affect safety system response.)
(If yes, document in 50RC meeting minutes.)
F. 50RC APPROVAL SORC MEETING NO. -2 /
J. APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION THIS PROCEDURE IS HEREBY APPROVED AND EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE BELOW.
6"f" b h l LTh EFFECTIVE DATE STAT 10N/ UNIT / STAT 10N SERVIGS SUPERINTTNDTsT SF 311 Rev. 7 Page 1 of 2 l
. t H. REQUIRED ROUTING The following personnel are required to initial that they are aware of the t provi}sionsoftheabovelisteddocument:
Station Other Admin. Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3- Services Groups.
Superintendents All Plant Personriel -
Exempt Personnel .
Department Heads / # /
Supt. Staff Engineers S S,/ Scc, / v /
I. DOCUMENT
SUMMARY
Summary:
- Minor Housekeeping - title changes, typographical errors, reference changes, etc.
, Change resulting from NRC regulations, bulletins, etc. (indicated in body of procedure per MAP 1.02). See action / description below.
Change resulting from a Station CR (audit finding, program improvement,
- program expansion, etc.). See action / description below.
' Other See action / description below.
Action: ;
Personnel indicated on SF 330 read procedure as revised.
Personnel indicated on SF 330 read description below at a minimum.
(Procedure may be reviewed as time permits.)
Description:
5*l /0 ?D/l' ;D .fC lC/SkV$/dN d7ff.
- t. > m~ we umwe ps/o srnm I
i (,/ K f' t(WS/'d/atT Rn 7~PC(w ( /?)knin'&
C& X's?)P /AA/#d (
_e '. ?, ; , _ ; z < A , c . . c M-p,fQJ Ad/r Ad C & Nd #"'d W l
l SF 311 Rev. 7 Page 2 of 2 l
i.
l
-~ --.
4 ACP-0A- 2. 06A Pagu 3 Rev. 12
=
\
1-f WThirssprocedyret.estaAMshes .. . - , the'r .-mcont'rols to be used .at".Hillstorje
. . ~._ ,
t Station f or .the prop'er-use of safety-tags in order to provide: safety to persons, service and equipment during work being performed in plan't. ..
2-WlThis procedure applies to all personnel who perform any mainten ' ' ~ ~
work;,re@~est' tEg placement or removal .
on MillitinE Eont olled ,'
- =-
equipsent.. . . Equipment under the jurisdiction of CLNVEX shall be tagged in accordance with CONVEX switching and tagging procedure
- 6401.
- 3. REFERENCES 3.1 Northeast Utilities Quality Assurance Program Topical Report (NVQAT), Section 14, Inspection, Test and Operating Status.
3.2 Production Plant Instructions for Clearance Tagging Electrical
~ and Mechanical.
3 .' 3 Northeast Utilities Protective Clearance Tagging Procedure for Nuclear Generating Stations.
3.4 ACP-QA-2.12, System Valve Alignment Control 3.5 ACP-QA-10.04, Nuclear Power Plant Records. 1~
3.6 ACP-QA-9.01, QA Audit Program. _
4 DEFINITIONS _ -
4.1 Clearance Specific authority given to a qualified person to perform work following all necessary operations to remove equipment from service and place the proper safety tags to restrict the operation of the equipment. .
4.2 Red Tag A tag placed on equipment (mechanical or electrical) which, if Red operated, would endanger personnel and/or equipment.
tagged equipment is not to be operated under any circumstances.
~ ~ - - ~ ~ - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ ~-------
ACP-QA-2.06A Page 4 Rev. 12 4.3 Blue Tag A tag placed on equipment to indicate that the equipment is to be energized only by order of the individual to whom the tag is '
issued.
4.4 Green Striped Hold Tag A tag placed on equipment to prevent reenergizing if it trips.
Reclosing controls (automatic or master supervisory) shall be made inoperative with the placement of this tag.
4.5 Yellow Caution Tag A tag placed on a device o'r piece of equipment as a caution against improper operation if a red tag or blue tag does not specifically apply. The tag contains certain precautions or information which should be understood before operating the equipment.
4.6 Supplemental Tag Tags used to supplement red tags to eliminate the need for writing-out an unreasonable number of red tags.
~~
4.7 Mini-Tag A small tag of the appropriate color or identification which may be used on control panels for information purposes only.
4.8 Lifted Tags Tags removed from equipment which are not cleared from the tag ,
log to allow temporary operation such as a retest.
4.9 _NPRF - Nuclear plant Records Facility The area designated for the handling, processing, and referencing of Nuclear Power Plant Records.
4.10 Operator In Attendance Designated operator that will position valves and breakers as listed on the Tag Log Sheet SF 210. This operator will remain in the general area of the valves and/or breakers to assure their positions are not changed.
I 1
ACP-QA-2.06A ~ Page 5-Rev; 12 4.11 Restoration The required repositioning and/or verification of valve / switch /. ' t-~
breaker, position (s) to attain the required / desired position. L
, i alignment and, if required, the assurance of proper alignment .i (i.e., independent verification) for the present plant .<
conditions.
4.12 Panel Tags Tags to be used on control panels in place of the normal red,
-blue and yellow tags.
4.13 WO Automated or Manual Work Order.
- 5. RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1 Shift Supervisor
~
Responsible to administer the safety tag program in accordance-with this_ procedure. Included within this is the responsibility to place the proper tags for personnel safety.
For the purposes of reference 3.2 (Production Plant Instructions for Clearance tagging), the " Person in Authority" shall be either the on-shif t SS, SCO or SRO designated by the
. SS (SS/SC0/SRO).
The SS, SCO and SRO must communicate to insure each is aware of ;; l work authorized to be performed. The 55, SCO or SRO.shall also 0' evaluate how the intended tag-out will affect the plant.
Attention shall be given to the-tag-outs-impact on technical-specifications,' fire protection equipment, equipment _
environmental qualifications, etc.
5.2 Job Supervisor; The Job Supervisor, (anyone auttarized to request tag olacement. .,
or clearance) is responsible to verify that the. equipment' isolation and tagging at the work site represents safe working conditions. The Job-Supervisor shall take what ever actiins. -
are necessary to assure such verification! these actions may
! include appropriate tests,- checking of tags, valves,. meters, I
l gauges, vents, drains; markers l.
n
{
m -r, = - , , , w +- --*,. ,,- > u e re n *
. ACP-QA-2.06A Page 6 j
Rev. 12 or discussions with Operations personnel. If unsatisfactory the Job Supervisor, may request additional isolating, switching and tagging. The Job Supervisor (anyone authorized to request t tag pla' cement or clearance) is the qualified person for whom the tags are placed. ,
5.3 Operations Supervisor Responsible for the periodic audits of the Safety Tag Log and for maintaining current the list of personnel authorized to request tag placement or clearance.
5.4 Department Head Responsible.for.theindoctrinationof'nsapeesennelap periodic'retrainingin$h5' req)iNments b roNrduresand for. notifying the Operations Supervison:of f angayegin tps DepartniesiFs~'1Ts~t' of personnel authorizee to? request safsty tag
- i placement ~ or clearance. The authorizatier to request safety tag placement or clearance can be revoked if the individuil violates this procedure.
^ 5.5 Operator In Attendance Responsible to position valves and/or breakers as listed on the Tag Log Sheet SF 210. If the " Operator in Attendance" must leave for a duration not to exceed one (1) hour, the job shall be stopped and'the Work Order shall be in the custody of the .
Operator. If the " Operator in Attendance" must leave for more i than one (1) hour the valves and breakers shall be tagged as -
listed on the Tag Log Sheet SF 210. The " Operator in Attendance" is responsible to assure the positions of the valves and breakers remain as listed on the Tag Log Sheet SF 210 until pemission to cancel the clearance is obtained.
- 6. INSTRUCTIONS 5.1 Safety Tagging 6.1.1 Recuest for Taqqing
ACP-QA-2.06A Page 7 Rev. 12 a .
6.1.1.1 Request for red or blue tags shall normally
- be made through a properly filled out WO or '
. as a specific step in a Station Procedure. '
Green stripe hold tags and yellow caution tags may be issued in the same manner as '
red or blue tags upon the request / recommendation of any person authorized to request safety tag placement or removal.
6.1.1. 2 Personnel authorized to request safety tag placement or removal are listed on SF 209-1, 209-2 and 209-3, Personnel-Authorized to Request Safety Tag Placement or Removal. Tags shall be issued only to listed qualified individuals. Safety tags may be requested by the SS/SCO on duty if they are required to support plant operatior.s and there is no applicable work order. In this case "SS/SCO on Duty" will be entered in the " Supervisor in Charge of Job" block on SF 210, Tag Log Sheet.
6.1.1.3 The approval of the Duty Officer, .,
Department Head or Outage Management Representative, in writing will be required for persons not on the authorization list.
6.1.1.4 If it becomes necessary to change the name of the qualified individual requesting tags after a clearance is in effect, the original requestor or his supervisor shall inform the SS/SCO of the transfer, and the name of the successor shall be entered in the tag log. Thereafter, the successor l shall be responsible for the proceedings under that clearance.
I
ACP-QA-2.06A Page 8 Rev. 12 6.1.2 Safety Tag Log 6.1. 2.1 All tags issued shall be recorded in the
. safety tag log located in the Control Room.
The log shall be maintained with one clearance to a tag log sheet, SF 210.
6.1.2.2 All tags shall be issued with a sequential clearance number by year. Multiple tags with the same clearance number will reflect the number on the tag 66-82-1, 66-82-2, 66-82-3, etc. Clearance numbers will be assigned from SF 211 tag log clearance number index.
6.1.2.3 Tag Log Sheet (SF 210) will be filled out with the following information before the tag out is issued:
- 1. Clearance Number
- 2. Date
step then NA will be written in the WO Humber block.)
- 4. Equipment (individual equipment or system to be tagged.)
- 5. Reason (brief description)
- 6. Supervisor in charge of job (either the Job Supervisor or the SS/SC0/SRO's name or title for SS/SCO tagging.)
- 7. Operator preparing the tagout.
I
- 4.11 Restoration The required repositioning ancfor verification of valve / switch /
breaker position (s) to attain the requirdd/ desired position alignment and, if required, the assurance of proper alignment (i.e., independent verification) for tae present plant t conditions. ,
4.12 Panel Taqs Tags to be used on control panels in place of the ' normal red, blue and yellow tags.
4.13 WO Automated or Manual Work Order.
S. RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1 Shift Supervisor Responsible to administer the safety tag program in accordar.:e .,
with this procedure. Included within this is the responsibility to place the proper tags for personnel safety.
For the purposes of reference 3.2 (Production Plant .
Instructions for Clearance taggint), the " Person in Authority" shall be either tne on-shift SS, SCO or SRO designated by the SS (SS/SCO/SRO).
The SS, SCO and SR0 must communicate to insure each is aware of work authorized to be performed. The SS, SCO or SRO shall also evaluate how the intended tag-out will affact the plant. ;
Attention shall be given to the tag-outs impact on technical' specifications, fird protection equipment, equipment environmental qualifications, etc.
~
5.2 Job Suoervisor The Job Supervisor, (anyone authorized to request tag placement or clearance) is responsible to verify that the equipment isolation and tagging at the work site represents safe working conditions. The Job Supervisor shall take what ever actions are necessary to assure such verification, these actions may include appropriate tests, checking of tags, valves, meters. ,
gauges, vents, drains, markers e 4W
, . . , 12
\
- a g ng r Ou side Contractors
6.1.3.3 ill 6.1. 3. 3.1,In alPetWMM4 1
bE '
b \
6.1.3.3.2 Outside contractors having their own tagging procedures say '
require special conditions, either in the form of a plant '~
approved procedure or by revision
^
to this procedure to allow the
. use of their systes.
Mini-tags may be used on control panels for 6.1.3.4 Mini-tags will
! information purposes only.
not be used in place of full size tags.
When a breaker is tagged out & mini tag of the appropriate color and clearance number may be hung on the control panel to inform personnel that the equipment is out of service.
If mini-tags are used it should I be indicated on the tag log sheet by placing an "M" in planthe 9 next to the Mini-tags should corresponding tag :-atber.
be cleared, when the tags are cleared. They may be destroyed, they Go not have to be
! tags.
retained with the tag log sheet Minimum tagging requirements for .. ark on 6.1.3.5 .
the flue gas side of boilers and within enclosures, tanks and condensers are l
specified in reference 3.2 (Production Plant Instructions for Clearance Tagging).
Supplemental tags (mechanical only) may be '
6.1.3.6 used as specified in reference 3.2 I
(Production Plant Instructions for Clearance Tagging) to eliminate the need for writing out an unreasonable number of
]
'~ - , _ _ , . _
i /
f information in this record was deleted in accordance mth h ff om olinformation WMCV l
TELEPHONE CAIl- RECORD 12/11/07 BUBJECT ADDITIONAL I WUT FROM m Ref: Allegation RI-87-A-0113 ,
About 1: 10 pm, 12/11/07, I took a collect telephone call from Mr.
-]been whoassociated had previously made an allegation to us about work he hat with at Millstone 2 when he was a general foreman for the W. J. Barney Co. The matters previougly addressed were security lighting and work it olving th Unit 2 enintenance shop. During today's discussion, said he was satisfied with the response he got f rom the MC, and with our letter to him. He would now like to talk in person with someone from the ocaus he feels that W. J. Barney is a substandard contractor wh for
' f ollowing Northeast Utilities (NU) procedures. tated that he is putting his inf ormation together and plans to go to the i media with his concerns.
1 i
A primary concern expressed by a i
Project Manager for W. J. Barney. reportedly stat in front of I 7 the cognizant Nu supervi , that he W, doesn't come under NU or NRC Jurisdiction.
stated that he had sent a letter about this to (the NU Millstone Station Services Superintendent) who had sont him back a
" cute" reply saying he would look into t. What said he wants, however, is an explanation from on wh for following NU procedures. Also, there are other, radiation procedure aspects (unspecified) that{ ' ants to talk to the NRC about in person.
f In response to my youestion about there being any imeediate saf ety hazard to anyone, LM, stated that LM is a project manager and is endangering people on the site. But no specific saf ety hazard, nuclear.or non-nuclear, was stated. In response to my asking f or specifics, h.said that there was an ef fort to alarm all the high, radiation gates at the site by an August i deadline. Mr.
m ;said he was given a call to do the job, but they gave it to an inexperienced person who overbought, costing the utility $6000 in charges to send the materials back. They reportedly then gave the job to and he got it done.
said hi s concern is about how W. J. Barney performs their work. He was onsite for 2.5 years as a foreman and general foreman, and doesn't see why he should be penalized f or questioning saf ety items. He feels that, in his position, it was his job to do that.
Though I was unable to elicit any safety specifica from I did note that he seemed calm and sincere during our discussion.
I informed I that I could not identif y a saf ety concern that came under liRC Jurisdiction from the information he had now provided, and that this may be an OSHA or labor relations matter.
re-emphast red that he wanted to talk to the NRC in person. He gave me
{
his phone nueber ( ' ut stated p)at he was on the road and thu number is an answering maching. I told that I would '
like him to arrange to talk with6 the for Re dent In spec t or, and gave his the resident of fica number. .
M aaid he would keep trying to contac - Mr. Raymond to set up a meeting. I pointed out that Dill and the other ropidents would be in a regional office meeting for most of next week. WMmIEEEhuisemimE' 7 said he would keep trying and that a meeting af ter the first of the year is OK with him because he doesn't plan to go to the media bef ore then. I stated that we did not in any way want to af f ect his going to the media om anyone else, but that the -tetC did want to hear f rom concerned persons and assess their concerns.
( A quick review of the allegation files brought out that He had then expressed concern to us tha ag-out practices which di not meet nuclear saf ety controls might carry-over into nuclear areas, but identified no specifics. His concern about security lighting adequacy was already being addressed incident to sarcurity spe talist inspection. The file also indicates that ' .
had planned to bring his concerns to the licensee's attention through IDEW Local #90.
o No unaddresued previous addressal saf of ety{s r security matters
-y previous were identified by our input.)
Ok & d,A.
Ebe McCabe Chief, RPS-1B t
1 i
copy:
W. Raymond E. Cont.wr i.. Bottenhausen M. AbA 1
1 f
ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS l
Priority: Medium Safety Significance: Unknown t'
s An allegation panel met on 9/24/87 regarding RI-87-A-0113 at Millstone 2, where i a failure to follow (or have) electrical tagging procedures (non-safety related systems) and discrimination was alleged. I g l Attendees:
W. Kane Panel Chairman L. Bettenhausen Branch Chief R. Matakas Investigator, 01:RI A. Shropshire Office Allegation Coordinator FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS:
- 1) The AOC will send an acknowledgement letter to the alleger (ECD 9/30/87),
enclosing DOL information. The letter will also explain the NRC's role in nuclear safety and that more information is required to determine.what actions the NRC should take or if it is within our purview.
- 2) If no response is received within 30 days, the Region will assume that no more information will be provided and the AOC will send a closcout memo to the OAC (ECD 10/31/87).
Section Chief concurrence required for closeout.
. b b '
A. Shropshife, OAC E. McCabe, AOC W.' Kane # I Panel Chairman cc:
J. Allan J. Gutierrez C. White, 01:RI W. Johnston L. Bettenhausen E. McCabe Allegation File
P020 0 ALLEGATION DESCRIPTION t
Millstone 2 50-336 (Site or Licensee) (Docket No.) ;
Allegation RI-87-A-0113 was received on 9/15/87 at 1415 by T. Rebelowski. ,
Characterization of the 1 concern (s): ,
, Failure to follow (or have) electrical tagging procedures (non-safety related systems)
Confidentiality: No (OAC has alleger's name & address)
Employer: W. J. Barney Position: General Foreman (Electrical)
Type of Regulated Activity: Other - Nonregulating Functional Area (s): Building Construction DETAILS: (Timeframe of Allegation: Current)
The alleger called and stated "he was fired on "
The alleger has be employed by W. J. Barney for the la When asked why Bar used the word the alleger stated that he was told that he Ml The alleger was working on electrical cables supplying the new Unit 2 :
Maintenance Building.
He was informed by the inspector that his concerns should be addressed to DOL within 30 days. He was told that we will supply him with information.
NOTE: Problems with immediate supervisor, Project Manager, said that he did not need to follow electrical tagging procedures.
The alleger. stated that he felt this type of statement could permeate into nuclear construction areas.
The alleger is bringing this matter to NUSCO through his business agents, Local 90 IBEW.
Onsite supervisor involved Station Services Engineering.
l Information in this record was deletad in accordance with the Frtidpm of information L Act, exemptions Vk /C l F0IA 91-lQ
. f
, - - - , , , , ~ . , - .