ML20126B304

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Allegations Re Wide Range Nuclear Instrumentation Operability,Operator Attentiveness & Alignment of Reactor Coolant Flow Transmitters
ML20126B304
Person / Time
Site: Millstone Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 01/14/1991
From: Haverkamp D
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20126A943 List:
References
FOIA-91-162 NUDOCS 9212220047
Download: ML20126B304 (8)
v • d • e


Text

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

~

p s.s

  • s es .,,

/' t UNITED STATES I

.2.1 j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

  • ,, / REOlON I l

( \***/ 08 ALLENDALE ACAD KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA tg40a JAN 141931 y Docket No. 50-336 File Nos. RI-90-A-180, RI-90-A-198

  • Information in this record was deleted [

in accordance wit he fr ed of infortnation  ;

Act. exe tio le Dea

Subject:

Allegations Concerning (1) Wide Range Nuclear Instrumentation Operability, (2) Operator Attentiveness, and (3) Alignment of Reactor Coolant Flow Transmitters.

The Region I office has completed its followup in response to the concerns you '

brought to our attention on October 8, 1990 and October 26, 1990 alleging that (1) wide range nuclear instrumentation was not operable as required by technical specifications,(2) personnel were not attentive to duties or :re sleeping, and (3) alignment of the reactor coolant flow transmitters was not accomplished-properly.

We found your allegation concerning the operability of wide range nuclear instrumentation to be unsubstantiated and have documented our findings in NRC inspection report, 50-336/90-22, section 5.3.3. We concluded that at least two of the four instruments were operable during fuel movement, although one channel was spiking.

We also found your allegation concerning two licensee workers who were reportedly found asleep to be unsubstantiated and have documented our findings in section 3.7 of the above noted report. We were unable to confirm that the ,

individuals were inattentive or that they compromised work control.

  • Finally, we found your allegation concerning the improper alignment of reactor coolant flow transmitters to be unsubstantiated and documented our findings in section 5.3.1 of the above noted report. We concluded that the alignments were completed adequately although a proposed revision to the alignment procedure provided more detailed instructions for use of an improved test rig.

Copies of the above noted rtports are attached for your information. We appreciate your informing us of your concerns and feel that our actions in this matter have been responsive to those concerns. Should you have any additional questions, or if I can of of further assistance in this matter, please call me ,

collect o ' " " - " l 5 ncerely f/ l Donald R. Haverkamp, hf Reactor Projects Sect on 4A becjwith cncl. .

Division of Reactor Projects J. Stewart @

M. Perkins ORC 9212220047 920608 t -

PDR FOIA i i O CUILD91-162 PDR l lU

bec w/ enc 1:

J. Stewart, DRP (2) t M. Perkins, DRMA ORC 1

0 l

l l

  1. ~

t

' .pgp

> W RV.DW p

Haverkam #1 W"' 'I^

D Johnson /vhd

')t i /*1 s 1/([ /91 1/ t( /91 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY ALLEGATION COL RI-90-A-0192 - 0002.0.0 01/09/91

' ~ . . . . . . . . . ,

l I SMPLE RECORD OF Al,LEMT10N PANEL DECISIONS

$1TE: MV1 PANEL ATTENDEES:

ALl.EMilCN NO. : (2 \ - 9C 19 2- Chairman - IN < a o i r.5 OATE:

2\ (Mtg.l@345) Branch Chief - d C w)

PRIORITY: High Medium Low Section Chief ( AOC) - Swa(T SAFETY $1GNIFICANCE: Yes No Unknown Others - ht% b ete t - })k5 H

CONCURRENCE TO CLOSE0VT: 00 BC SC CONF 10ENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes No

($ee Allegation Receipt Report) 15 THEIR A 00L FINDING: Yes No Yes No 15 CHILLING EFFECT LETTER VARRANTED:

Yes No RAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT:

RA$ LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACTIONt ou re r e cram k d c _ \m_ y I k O- 1 1 LI E ~2- Gar [ W 1) nye 2) 3)

5)

NOTES: ,

(

A4-1 i d c' {

APPENDIX 4.0 ,,

SAMPLE RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DEC1510NS

$1TE: Mill- L PANEL ATTENDEES:

ALLEGATION NO.: A7) t1 - /F n Chairman - tk.tc o DATE: Io/// /v (Mtg.@234$) Branch Chief -

PRIORITY: High Medium (Jl[) Section Chief ( AOC) - N6 m kamp. ,

$AFETY $1GNIFICANCE: YeshUnknown others -  % tMt lW l CONCURRENCE TO CLOSE0VT: 00 CJ (ws k CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes I 0/2 ou , r 4 w/ /o

($seAllegationReceiptReport)g /

m ~Clctuad- 'W//f90

!$ THEIR A 00L FINDING: Yes 15 CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes No HAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT: Yes No HAS LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACTION:

1) dr o c Vo -k  ! < < c .s t r_ t
2) \?.,_ ne L ' , . . . L; n e nm F i Si r:rve:.[ , ) , to av i g(
3) 8'r b ' n w g rwnqt f C [c^r o d cd ! cc N M __

s- A ,r~k.,' asem A L a/(p)

/(

l 4) l

$)

NOTES:

(

A4-l T

1\d O'

ALLECA110N RECE1PT REPORT i' iC t 0 9 e c ~ N. M.f ~~$O~M'O/80 ,

e to)k/19 S @0C - MLu All'sgation No. (leaveblank)

Address: _

Ha City /$ tate / Zip _

Phone: ,

Confidentiality: Yes No k Was it requested? -

sanel Yes Yes ,_~_ No ~ No Vas it initially granted?Vas it finally >e sentgranted by the allegation Does a confidentiality agreement need to Yes ~~~ No Yes No to 411eger? No Has a confidentiality agreement been signed?- Yes Memo documenting why it was granted is attached?

Position /Titi e _

Docket No.: 50k36 _

Factitty: _

/NrOT[,rc _

nb JI -

(Allegation Sumary (brief description of concern Nd;a, (s): k O N. edoi< Mais ( ud R dd d oh,' "

tD'u - b u '

9 s 2 ;. A a L .. < .. ,, , L 9c.) dla.ekm ckk.ls m

? n - w k E l sk % + *olso190 c ,

d Humber of Concerns:

W.k% M 4 1.S.b b +

Empicyee Receiving Allegation: If trst two initials and last name)

Sa feguards Type of Regulated Activity (I ))_" Reactor (d)

(e) _~Other:

~ Vendor 75pecify) ll')_ Materials '

MaterialsLicenseNo.(ifapplicable):  ;

Emergency Preparedness I Operations ~~ Onsite Health and Safety Functional Area (s): ~~'~ Construction ~~ Offsite Health and Safety

~

Safeguards ~~

Others Z Transportation

~

(NRC Region I Form 207 . .\

Revised 10/89) k: indica in this record'was deleted '

< F Q ~ '. . t? ' '. '..

, i -;;hrstccrdance mth theJ'qep' Jf Id(ga@ . . / . - t s .= ,
;

l ,'

. Ad,etepfp4t -lb htbL I a' V l 05 mA.

l

- _ - _ _ _ _. __ --_m_.,__

- \ < 4:s

. 't ,j i ALLEGATION RECEIPT , 'l .

<. J t I 0'  !

Tue, Oct 9,1990 ALLEGATION NO - RI- A.9 4 04 PM Rettdent Off, ice No A ,, , 6.1 .g ,

ne .

ity/ St:

J

  • i:!

E'? Confikntl611tv- 4

,N W63 it requested? Yes _ No.1. j' ,

  • Wu it init1611g grented? Yes No y,

)!g I Wu 11 firielly granted by the ellegetton behel? .

Ye.s - No g y Cues e tsnfi&ntiallty agreerrent reed to be sent

.4

, ]U b to the;llerr ? Yes - No y Hss a (of idehtielity egreernent teen signed? Yes _ No .f r

s 5 f, y Z Metro docurrenting why it vn granted ts 6ttacted? , Yes No .... ,

.vv ~

h ,

==sb kpn 2 i Il F Empio'Jer. NNECO Position /

Title:

Facility HILLSTONE 2 DOCKET NO.: 50 6

/ p

$UMMARY
(1) Wide range nucleer instrumentation monitors are not ble ,[ '

i es required to support refueling operations since (1) *A* chennel spl'kesle*

penodicelly, which is a longstanding problem that has not been resolNN5l(ti)

'C' channel has low lR readings on its cable; e,nd,(ill) e PDCR to change out h *1 the Chennels is still open and until closed out and signed-off, the channels ((,

r nnot be operable. (2)

  • owner
  • of WRN! proceddres,1 was not esked to review a recent procedure change processed on the day pt 7

shifi(he is on the night shif t) to support outage activities .

f sent the rocedure back with comments to change the associeted dele p.* p ,

sheets,

,_, es asked inifi at that time) end, to review the letter chenges (he (3) Worters are under pressure to bless nff g was on the 009 ciscrepent conditiont (e g WRNis) to make equipment opereble to support E bd '-

critical path activities epVh*3 L

} NUMBER OF CONCERNS. _3_ s not directig involved in these activities These concerns have not been discussed with his supervisor or (

licensee menegement. He wented the NRC to be *eware* of the issues A -

& ,% C R Ly^

y w4  %**QgoW >. e w+a+9 y' g N ,h g A w.% w( euA% ,

M d@i"g'-

zna nraan w ni m u ,xa

.Mbe/ et iat an . ca nn

v g ---- ,e

~g5 r

( , _. . .'c ' s Ys ' . ' eM.6

, g: ~

4

f -

nDDITIOffAl. IfEORMATION ,' ,, / ,c

,] 3.' '.- p g, a. ,.

TS 3 9 2 requires et least two source ronge monitor be gperating, w4th M. W) g a continuous vtsual and oudible indicottons. Since the elleger raised j

>I operobility and compliance questions regardifig TS 3.9.2, the SR,1 deemed [,.,

immediate followup was oppropriote.

'l

,, i A*-

e l,,l.

u, ty

.f(

j 10/0/96 '

Y' '

'\il-oys y ,

Inspector review of refueling octivities on 10/0/90 nbted that h,e * '

Engineering and operottons personnel were using 3 WRNI chonnel g monitoring during fuel moves - Channels A, B,&, D. Channel C was available -

for Indication but was not used to meet TS }.9.2 requirements. ' Although 9 ' ' .

~

chonnel A " spiked" periodically, it was considered *6per~ oble and 'pfo'vidin[eii bT occurate Indication of core conditions. It tracked fuel moves end,cohfet'ed

[ 't with other monitors. Operability was demonstrated by completion of}he !j normel surveillances. '

. . . . ' ,s.

+

..4 , . , , ,

jf A review of a computer generated plot of the [hre'e fiannels for the day ,

p. . Sh1f t showed the stable Indications for the penod w1th the exception 0,f two

,Ij 1 periods when " spikes

  • occurred RE personnel response,to the spikos y/as to .*

heet them et volld until proven spurious by comportson to other channels.

' ' l ;'

};

J, .'

p, i

in addition to monitoring count rote during alteration,s, data from the WRNI

[ '

h'

)

was used to complete I/M plots for each core insertion. Inspector review of '

^

[ the WRNI tabulated dato and the 1/N plots showed'et least two channels? ,,

! (and most on ten three) were elways ovelloble during alterettons..The" ' . '.-

U i'

tptking problem on Channel A did not preclude using the data to track c' <; ,

E' l conditions dunng fuel moves. The inspector noted thet the high reactor:; ~

boron concentrat1ons (>l950 ppm) resulted in low counts from all WRNI

}

L channels (in the range f rom 1 to 6 cps). The resulting large scotterin,the *

~

data made the l/M plots acceptoble but minimelly effective, NT7; , ,

Based on the above, the inspector concluded thot the requirements fofTS

' ,W ' "Q< '"

3.9.2 were being met and core conditions were being edequately monitored

( '

during core alterettons. - - P " ' '-*

  • 1 10/9/90 '

.- , . . A .

/ +

t *. . . . ,

.t J:

  • ,4

. . ,,y e

, t: ,

k . . ,

h s P0d 33I330 3N01S~lIIW 38N vis91'06, 60 100

..,N- . ,

q- .,

to JJ, o

' $, ' ., , ,) 'dk #

,a EMPLOYEE RECEIVING ALLEGATION WILLIAM RAYMOND 1:30 o m.10/8/90  : .>-

  • ~ <

4'

,t*):. ,

4 E AC11YlTY X REACTOR fuC10NAL APIA (s)_L0perations

' '# y#

, (f) ___ ornite us (g) ._.offsite as

, _, ' w. /j

,' 4 , h*; .

(c) Sefoguares ,-

3 yI ;

di, c. /,

(h) 01ter ,/, '

y Time Required to Process Request: 3 Man-Hours

,V,I .4' 4 y 4

s. .., ,.,-

. .y

,,t.s  :.. ,,.

. n .

. N f y%

, e

_ __{ ,

,, , 1 , .

2, 4 .yte -lg .1,m ', s

[, *f'y .

T 4 i .

)

i .

1 .

  1. m .

. * ., i .-

P ,M 4 e .- .,-

4 .

b

,..,s

~

l ,

,... c:

i-n

-v:,.

J .'sj .I l.i, s ,'

+

, . , r ., .

9 1

A,

'$.4.'.,

J n' ~ z. 7 g ., , n,

[

. ;< , sq r

.x . <a t,s

  • 4 I.. .t *  ; .

, , q v." .

, . .. v, 1,  ;

5 l ,

~

+ 4. ,

. . .- 4 +..- ,

t , .

l

. .c 1-l .

, 4 .

I i

i! 20d 331330 3N01STlIN 38N t'I:91 06, 60 100 '

.. .. .. . ..

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20126B304&oldid=2909786"