ML20126B289

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Provides Followup of Listed Concerns Re Allegations RI-90-A-144,RI-90-A-204,RI-90-A-206,RI-90-A-136,RI-90-A-180 & RI-90-A-174
ML20126B289
Person / Time
Site: Millstone  Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 04/10/1991
From: Wenzinger E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20126A943 List:
References
FOIA-91-162 NUDOCS 9212220041
Download: ML20126B289 (9)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ - _ - ._ _ .-

lf

[f'*:%*,, UNITso sf Af ts

,y* } NUCt1AR REGULATORY COMMISSION REOloN 1

, p 474 ALLENoALE ROAD

te n l 0 l Cimation FOIA- e L.

The Region I office has completed its followup to the conecru that you brought tc our attention on the dates described. Relevant documentation such a letters from the licensee are attached to this letter. A synopsis of these concerns and our sub:,cquent actions and rey,ulatory conclusions are detailed below.

On October 8, and October 11,1990, you provided to us a number of concerns associated with Wide Range Nuclear instrument operability. You further discussed this issue with me in January,1991. Additionally you provided to us on the same dates, a concern that you were r ot consulted during a recent procedure change associated with surveillance procedure SP-2417H, and that this omission was contrary to station procedures. We provided these issues to your employer in a lett:r dated October 26,1990 and they rcsponded in a letter dated December 21,1990 (attached). Additionally, we inspected the issue of wide range nuclear instrument operability and provided you the results of our investigation in a letter dated January 14, 1991.

Your assertions that spiking had occurred on the channel "A* of the instrument were true, but inoperability and violations of technical specifications have not been substantiated. With

  • regard to Sp 2417H, the licensee admitted tMt you were not consulted for the procedure change, but no violation of procedures occurred and your allegation appears to be unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the procedure change was determined to be adequate. The NRC is satisfied that the licensee addressed your concerns, and we plan no further action in these matters.

On August 8,1990, you provided us with concerns asserting that (1) work associated with the overhaul of the containment radiation monitor was improperly controlled and (2; a bypass jumper tag was improperly controlled during the maintenance of work order M2 90-08033. We provided these concerns in a letter to the licensee deed October 2,1990 and the licensee responded in a letter dated December 3,1990 (attached).

We note from the licensee response that some problems were id:ntified in tL > trol of work associated with the radiation monitor, but it appears from the licensee's assessn.:at that nt least one monitor was operable during the times in question in your assertion.

We note that the licensee identified the problems described in your concern and took proper corrective actiors. Further the licensee is implementing additional cohrols to establish better 9212220041 920bd8 PDR FOIA

' laN CUILD91-162 PDR

t 2

coordination of activities between operations and maintenance. Your allegation that there were problems associated with the control of maintenance is substantiated; however, the NRC (

considers the problems minor with respect to nuclear safety and notes that appropriate corrective actions have been taken. With regard to issue (2), the pin connector in question was not connected to anything, therefore a bypass tag or a work order would not be appropriate. Your allegation may be true, but is of no consequence. In any utse, we are satisfied with the licensee's response and plan no further actions in these matters.

On November 9, and November 11,1990, you provided to us (1) a description of events associated with the main turbine stator cooling troubleshooting. (2) a question as to the propriety of completing the thermal margin low pressure surveillance in Modes 3 and 2, and, (3) a question regarding the testing of the control element withdrawal prohibit alarm. We provided these issues to your employer in a letter dated December 6,1990, and received their response in a letter dated January 4,1991 (attached).

Your assenions regarding issue (1) were determiaed to be true, but appear to be of no consequence to nuclear safety. The problems had previously been identified by the licensee and appropriate corrective actions appear to have been taken. With regard to issue (2), it appears no violation of technical specifications occurred, and your allegation appears to be unsubstantiated. With regard to issue (3), the alarm testing was determined to be adequate and your allegation appears to be unsubstantiated. We are satisfied that the licensee answered your concerns and we plan no funher action in these matters.

On September 28,1990, and in several discussions with NRC personnel during the recent refueling outage, you asserted that there were violations of the ovenime policy at Millstone Unit 2. We investigated your assertion and discussed the issue with unit management, but could not substar.tiate your claim. To enable further evaluation, more specific details are ,

needed. We note that you have recently provided us a similar concern that overtime restrictions may not have been complied with, and we are inspecting this concem. We will inform you of the results of our inspections when complete.

On September 28,1990, and in a November 5,1990, memorandum to our resident inspector, you provided the NRC with seven concems involving: (1) the procedural adequacy and implementation of IC 2419C section 5.5.6 which involve the heated junction thermocouple inspection; (2) the instrument calibration review that you initiated; (3) the instrument calibration review that had been initiated associated with test voltages being out-of-specificationi (4) a red tag that was improperly hung on the Weidmuller Block TCD; (5) an assertion that an annunciator window change had been improperly handled by the licensee; (6) an assertion that surveillance procedure SP 240lJ had not been implemented when an instrument and controls technician turned in the paperwork without restoring the bypass key; and, (7) an assenion that you had received harassing mail from a co-worker.

t 3

We referred mues I thru 6 to the licensee in a letter dated November 11,1990 and received (

their response in a letter dated December 21,1990 (attached). We note that the licensee was aware of the discrepancies that you identified in your assertions and had taken actions to correct the deficient conditions when originally identified.

In regard to issue (1), the procedure was written for a skilled instrument and controls technician with experience in this type of maintenance; however, you made no assertion that maintenance was improperly or incompletely performed to the extent that operability of essential equipment was affected, in any case, your a!!egations appear to be substantiated but of minor significance with respect to nuclear or personnel safety. With regard to issue (2),

the licensee provided us a copy of the instrument calibration review (ICR) and we are providing this copy for your review. Please inform us if you have further questions regarding this matter. With regard to issue (3), the licensee had taken action to address the problem u.at you described and we have not been informed of any inoperabilit.es that resulted from the corrective actions. With regard to the drawing concern of issue (3), more information is needed to adequately address your concerns. Please inform us of any additional details or further questions that you may have in this matter. With regard to issue (4), a minor tagging discrepancy had been previously identified and was promptly corrected.

Further, guidance on the tagging of Weidmuller blocks was to have been provided to operations personnel. Your allegation in this case appears to be substantiated, but is of little concern with respect to nuclear safety. With regard to issue (5), no problems were identified, and no corrective actions were warranted. With regard to issue (6), we note that operations personnel identified the condition that you asserted and took prompt actions to l restore the channel. The technician in this case appears not to have exceeded Unit 2 Technical Specification limitations. However, your allegation regarding implementation of the surveillance procedure was substantiated by the licensee. We are satisfied with the licensee responses to these six issues and plan no further action in these matters.

Finally, with regard to issue (7), the NRC cannot take action based on co-worker harassment, especially if the alleged harassment is anonymous. If you feel that you are being harassed by l

your employer, we again remind you to take these issues to the Department of labor.

On September 14,1990, you provided us a three concerns detailing: (1) failure of operators to note that the steam jet air ejector may not be working properly; (2) the failure of your supervisor to respond to one of your questionst and, (3) the failure of another instrument and controls technician to follow an unspecified department instruction requiring that a trouble report sticker be attached to an instrument after a problem was identified. We provided your concerns to the licensee in a letter dated October 4,1990, and they responded in a letter dated December 7,1990 (attached).

With regard to issue (1), tbc licensee identified no inoperability associated v ith the radiation monitor, but has identified that upgrade of the system is warranted. The licensee plans to replace the monitor in 1991. Your concerns therefore have some validity. With regard to

. ~ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ ..._ _ . _ ._..... _ . _ .- . __ .._ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _

. i i

i 4

issue (2), communication between you and your supervisor appears to have been either ( '

misunderstood or incomplete. We could not determine the validity of your complaint. With '

regard to issue (3), the licensee determined that the orange sticker was properly pla operator information and that work was properly controlled by the applicable work - '

documents. Your concerns in this case appear to be unsubstantiated. We are satisfied with '

the licensee response to the concerns as presented, and the NRC plans no further action .

regard to these matters.  ;

We appreciate you informing us of your concerns and feel we have been responsive to -

concerns. Should you have any additional questions or if I can be of further assistance, please call me collect at (215) 337 5225. ,

Sincerely; Edward C. Wenzinger, Chief Reactor projects Branch 4 l Attachments: As stated  :

bec;w/o enclosures - gl,go.4. yf c( 3 4 M. Moore DRMA (6)- g ; _9, .g ,g,9 ,g,ge ,4 '

J. Stewart (h l Rt .g . 4 - 1ob c.Io tf*"I W. Raymond R I *?O A -I% c.lo s ted R l- %,- A -Iso clayed p t . 9c - A - t'I4 c. letted l .

I l

A g e ap--y.g- g*py puj e 9--p ywe.q -

y, -.y_.-p+e c pry--'* -

,y.-----74 Tr r-g9M--p a%s *-

lQ,.. .. p- m M/

is-&ccyc Sck Nahk - C I . r' . --

(

b u 4 f% % 4 k '

f 8 %S t 4

"} C4 ) s \.

we hde \wron h N C m nd hC (.un (1)S M)inin.) , scu.4 4 h j (c. ~4,rk<a

(' t-

% e1 (v s. i- . q mi ht W 6 V!, d cs c.t ti itt,tui sb s *. X pr.t 3(ccud id

(?) ( c.

N 5- M dt 'c f (

G n N $ (. 's -spt e h .s i.f. k Ni (4tv t 'a $cvi;

\ b_\ c (. ..a c.c ki d t.L v.,)6 h QL s.-e<n N k. C . N. O . C tu s t' H ,\.n- cs \\< 1 l.Ic N r .

~~< M"'

a ,,,, .h.ts

,% e . m u ,L.e., 3ptc.n E. ea L JC ~

.w ),, ci de. ?g,Lc 'y - '

. cctn c c.c_ 0.' ! e Deu f

N,3 , , e, , , rw ;w k i

',. ; R s \ &.7 Information in this record was deltid m ot Inform 4M in accordance witjthe -

Act exeq. ptionsF0th #~ I' O

]b

APPENDIX 4.0

  1. j "1 J SAMPLE RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DEcl$10NS I l

$1TE: Msuskt L PANEL ATTENDEES:

)

d Chairman -

ALLECATION NO.: M A- d/W t Branch Chief - W iev ies DATE: Y2,M9o_ (Mtg.h2345)

Section Chief ( AOC) -

PRIORITY: High hedium h others - hTe.ujef SAFETY $1GNIFICANCE: Yes@ Unknown -

CONCURRENCE TO CLOSE0VT: 00h5C No ,,_

CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes (See Allegation Receipt Report)

Yes No

!$ THElR A 00L FINDING:

Yes No 15 CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED:

Yes No HAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT:

Yes No HAS LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER:

ACTION:

'~ -

1) Sk l .cuu<. Li dec-

-. 1 . . ~"" ?W .>r %.

ticaer M11Me

2) D e v a o w'< & h kk u . res d

~

' f I O

3) _b'h* Ib / [cA[f e a
4) DowJ 5)

('cA od woTEs: 0 M d c 4 rem r/e/c(/) 5. Ohe /5'/54rs bb&: Ica.m... 4ec b,km Ll4 xLJ, ok . Mbt-j (h[ ' kc uc_ -/ d. M bd mhle. Izak.i(4 4a).

N & Information in tha's record was deleted A4 ill accord 3nce

'"" )

f0!k.

ALLEGATION RECEIPT REPORT i

Date/ Time / A11'egation No kl- 90 " A - 0/7 E

/2 cold Received: T/26/90 (leave blant) t- / / ,

Name: 1 Address:

l City / State / Zip:

Phone: l l

Confidentiality: Yes No 4 i Vas it requested? No Yes Vas it initially granted? Yes No Vas it finally granted by the allegation panel Does a confidentiality agreement need to be sent Yes No to alleger? Yes No 1 Has a confidentiality agreement been signed?

Memo documenting why it was granted is attached? Yes No )

e bd Position /

Title:

Facility: Aufme 2 Docket No.: bW

~

(AllegationSummary(brir.fdescriptionofconcern(s): [O C de,& '

hoon _ % k rm e.n u e d et E h c h ara

, G I

Number of Concerns:

Employee Receiving Allegstion:

T A b b -9 d dldl4 ) b a f b yeMc4 (ftrst two initials and last name) l Type of Regulated Activity (a g eactor (d) _ Other: Safeguards .

(b __ Vendor (e) __ (Specify)

(c __ Materials Materials License No (if applicable):

Functional Area (s): 'YVa) Operations _(e) Emergency Preparedness l

b) Construction ~~(f) Onsite Health and Safety

~~

c) $afegusrds (g) Offsite Health and Safety l~

d) Transportation _,_(h)Other:

(NRC Region ! Fora 207 Information '

kev 1 sed 10:19) CCold wcs de; in accord n., _,,

- . f0lh ,

4 4

i' l' l J

n -

4

! /

/

/ In{0rm3 tion in thi! Id O in atterdante with t_ the f u; dom of lnictmation.

t.tt, exempt {ans I.~e.e 2 i "g .Lv.'r n.tn / A ' P_ t;_b.:.0.U. 2 .E.C.12tc " L.

i._'_.'. e.'_.) W.t.v1L.J.1 \ "bd ' * l !.9.0 ri . n .

C". . ' '. H*. L JiiT n

  • L L Cu r ros.t 1/C tie [, A r t er.nn t wur6 hours arte I J td ed btr l e. . u. . c

~-week schecule ID W + 'k. b M

- HILS 5 days (1000 - 0430) w i i.h one d6y oti, siat:sr que n t l y fo11cwed tiy 7 day s en (1600 - 0430) n.tn e r.> day r f f . At thic time the mid shift inciividuel poet-to dr,yshiit.

(d .$ v 41 tO, even thou(h i t fra / ti'e n t the 11.ni t A t s onn sn 1.h o bo11cven this is difficult for the teudy to Nnt generic Actter guidance on overtime.

On propornd to his suprrvir.cr ths t t hr#

September r ot At j ng shif 14,{

t *, hould ber twelves t.ont,tetutive deyt (12) eno 2 days off' prior to rotating to day shift.

!/C depArtrutent head responded to en beple'mber 27

' And concluded his procesel would nct be implemen .ed taissed cm ~

(3) propotel i t. too lote within the calcor to chsnge, end, (0) De pa r t er.e n t r e v i e wed o t he r d e pe ' t tr+rW I mp l e4 den t e t i on ta f chaft work and found t,imiliar he'a r t w3th i the cu:ception of the health p hy s 1 c t, orrgen1*?tiert.

concern i t. that in late l 'i D-' t b t. 11r4 nrr se c c.trat .t t t t-d (v belly) to hove es e policy ancis'.cuolc 6.c:4 t days ofi r NWC J n t. p e c t i c.r. reppet N-!!6,'C3-i!

~

Ocyv en end ** .

r ci c.e ted this v er r t' A l c oibr..-n t was iict, e c u % e a t r e n t .'..; e :e

  • he 1,. c t 2 t wa t not 1 a r .n.m ! A v on :ne dothet; t n r r r.

tss c , t hr

< a c.ui . 'mo'

'i .'. t. e ' i t c e F .= t not hCen f U 1 1 1 ) ) 1 r.[. t b r* r r. v r. r h - 1 .

p r e e t. n t l y , one the f.hc e p r c+ r e, t t., uvs. t.< mi . p . . ,.. I t n v.t',

trecsing, r ev i c e: c; f NRC gonnric 1rttor r yh-w.y it i'. h t. t the e r o u r. h n e n r.c w c r i t. 3 '^ ; ) A D : tr t0 ceser the . *. .: ' t a cn v

.1

..r. r ; H e O v e- t rct t,t I a c vc r u. . p c .e - : r. c. . . - t . e s

(. .i: c' e l i n t. s . .

.ar i \ 's LI e l' E **. 1 / C C L* p f t ' *, f L* n t .

i M ,_,uill nct usr t he F x a n t i ng gr ei ve n ce- pr ecea u i ( ~.;F -tv.- 1. CS ) t;t- c s- u s e e f p r i t e s. t/ e r i s n .;e , he wil'. no: C e a '.

ai Lli ihw unit circcter, anc grnr 631 y hre feels ai w a ! ! *.ite +

w e.c t t. ct t 1 rie .

. ~

e ' e r p r r.t r. t c a trr c 1119c4 r i.e bri e revivit* 2 cc c-t ., i.*.a < A-1.19 s.c : . i e n (. 3. y c cif tca ;1- ti+ exetapte5 of

' ti- d e e r ca :,r a t:cs wi t ha n rcvis'on 3. 6act tu.reut:y n t.1 opoee" sc bc i n.p l e...u o ; w d will provide applic6D12 documentation on d re rr.p n d .

t s '

.e *- 4 - --- m_. a _A L.A- .4

- A--- # __

  • 4#-a * - - - -s - . ,

o RI - 7c t-h/7tf

/I h ,, / b ( L )( C ' 8 U 4. t* C h* /

\ it h4f (Wl( Ot , uc+ t& (,.s st..e <.sw p.<s % d Ae M W .4, M s i bC )CasX LV4K d itvf c h ci t. Gwb,- \l th . C 'tII ad W,s t.7msy,s ( . s yu 4 it nasi6n,A,4 l,;s .) 1  : teum,nse,,c.t 

                         \asstsd                  w w w.           S ,,e\4feuck        M ee b     %ad %         d Atstwo             nI,ng -w 1 l
                         ~,             L - ..,cr 7u,,                                                                                .+,s,
e b . , y fre p <<; u. m m e-su 9 m m , & ,suJ,a /,u, (cm A nd t~V L .
                                                                             ;\K%ewu+
                                                                                           <cla/oc
              - T A w , s ..< 4 s at Tau LM- 11 h.                                                                                             .

ke aum.,u L+ n uk.c.p kHe. 4. /ae.ee csa tead',{cdhp,nd<td):<y%f n e cerc y( c7 tas fck; , fhd ajsjs (hwss2 we d ruftv/c) 

                ~
              - T'>- ad Tk L bumsee ..:.% lee \es, SRI u,o new.

1 ~ 1 

                                                                                         ,                   e, - , --          e      < ,   ,   ,}}
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20126B289&oldid=3469185"