ML20205E321

Partially Deleted Ltr Discussing 920202 Conversation with J Munday of Staff & DOL Complaint,Where Concerns Re Firewatch Practices at Plant Were Expressed.Nrc Unable to Substantiate Allegation.Findings Encl

ML20205E321
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	01/17/1994
From:	Uryc B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Harrison D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20205B966	List: ML20205B960 ML20205C246 ML20205C251 ML20205C257 ML20205C267 ML20205C284 ML20205C290 ML20205C299 ML20205C338 ML20205C474 ML20205C491 ML20205C503 ML20205C537 ML20205C546 ML20205C563 ML20205C576 ML20205C599 ML20205C605 ML20205C613 ML20205C627 ML20205C642 ML20205C649 ML20205C658 ML20205C664 ML20205C704 ML20205C710 ML20205C719 ML20205C730 ML20205C740 ML20205D959 ML20205D965 ML20205D976 ML20205D987 ML20205E279 ML20205E291 ML20205E321 ML20205E326 ML20205E336 ML20205E359 ML20205K789
References
FOIA-99-76 NUDOCS 9904050145
Download: ML20205E321 (7)

Text

g as k 4,

UNITED STATES

/ p #8%,%' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

hEGION tl

, j o 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 e

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 2232H199 1.,

f***/ JAN I 71994

SUBJECT:

RII-93-A-0031 & 96 - QUESTIONABLE FIREMATCH PRACTICES This refers to your conversation on February 2, ,* 992, with Mr. Joel temday of our staff, and your Department of Labor complaint in which you expressed a concers related to firewatch practices at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. l i

Our review regarding the firewatch concern has been completed and our findings are documented in the enclosure to this letter. Based on the information provided, we were unable to substantiate the allegation.

This concludes the ataff's activities regarding the firewatch concern. We will continue to monitor your Department of Labor complaint. We appreciate your cooperation and assistance.

Sin rely, pruno Ury , Acti 3 e or 1taforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff

Enclosure:

Allegation Evaluation Report 7C Vf C Tf

~

Certified Mail No. P 291 211 579 9904050145 990324 r PDR FOIA

() GUNTER99-76 PDR

?, 1 1 l

r. '

( .

ALLEGATION EVALUATION REPORT ALLEGATION NONBER RII-93-A-0031 & 96 INADEQUATE FIRENATCEES TENNESSEE VALLNY AUTIORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 DOCIET NUNBEAS 50-259, 50-260 AND 50-296

1. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION i

The concerned individual (CI) stated that a firewatch was  !

required toof completion stay allat the job site for 30 minutes following ahot work", (welding, grinding, etc.) ,

4

2. SUMNARY OF CONCERNS The CI indicated that craft persons were swapping off the i firewatch duties with other members of the work force. '

If the a firewatch.

cata taker was needed then another craft would be The purpose of this was to minimize the number of firewatches. Additionally, the firewatch was i to remain in the area for 30 minutes following the completion of a " hot job *. The CI indicated that they j l

were told to work the entire time that they were in the drywell and not to remain for the 30 minutes. The CI stated that there were two permanent fire watches on each ,

j level in the drywell, each watching 180 degrees. The CI stated that the licanaee takes credit for these firewatches covering the hot jobs during the 30 minute cooldown. ,

could not The see CI was concerned that the two firewatches all the hot jobs in there area due to I

equipment interference. ,

3. EVALUATION Following receipt of the allegations, the inspector toured the in discussed Unit the3 allegation, drywell for evidence of the problem None was found. This inspection was documented in Inspection Report 93-07.

'"he findinge of the inspection report are as follows:

On March 5, 1993, the inspector made a tour of the Unit

' 3 drywell. Overall the drywell was clean and free of combustible material. The inspector noted that many het ,

jobs were in progress which required firewatches. Each job had its own firewatch. Blankets and catch pans were used in many places to prevent slag from dropping to a lower elevation. The inspector reviewed the welding and

f ;.

i m A

1. .

l 2 i

{

l grinding permits posted and verified the information required was documented properly. The inspector found no deficiencies.

l t

4. CONCLQBZORB Based upon the above inspection findings, the allegations are unsubstantiated and are closed. 1 i

l l

[ l 3

m ,

=

\

• d yV- l oc

\

99 J'W 77g y5lI EICS ENFORCEMENT WORKSHEET /

EICS MEETING NOTES AND DOCUMENTATION OF UNDE 81 STANDING I i

i EA NLREER: NIOk b D H.E E A11DOF2S MAIC, l FACILITY: $E@llO/AH /8DEM(oF

, Nose / l stb.1ECT:$1lS' 'O l \suA.Ntis WWD _ (JCl>rr uins &

U sUbblut1~/ AllM& - '

a PEC a CAUCUS VAAl b ad l

)( PAEL 7 RED (tick $od i

c OTER a OI BRIEF

~ fjo&Adb I INSPECTION EM) DATE:

DATE:02 ZS17 TIME: IN00 PREPARED BY: [l N - -

.r I

(f  ;

I. EICS STAFF NOTES:

g l , iCs -

Q 76Suas nee.d k De h1% 40 AeB : atfia h'ou -

_A \

-tokdla ,L da12,ubcM, w -Hao enc ! ,

. t _

n. r, f . .

' Y N /\b Y0tll h hN .

MN d4tt'4- no Mew 44*'u4f AtdereduoI4 be laJrtwL JLL-Ak Bu, k cok lMM. bl<nu.O

. kM gie, _

I m ,, i l ..

L . u s. L e d b c. b. SLcp diftd ys _

' -ryk 'aof adu aG L%d %& A>su doka

' - 16 cur- ay 4& a Ju w ti % ki Br u u & Ju-a !

i - w - ,0 # L A u n cr e 4 e l _

.) M o A c A M dhd to caL4nh t3 Ac.Jcz. eMk wal-k ,o a e d h s ta ,n 4' ka.- z) 4 0

\

l

% cost  !

l 'do usa W #Ls kwF oc~A -u M ' 41- 'y l k4)& @10do if*q <.fa g % b ?

m um , % w s n -fL -

'W Aa9k4 & S'~b 1%;fa:v i~-kVp'- M*

%Sk 0+

I

l

{ s,

,4 Y

2 ENFORCEMENT ACTION WORKSHEET EICS MEETING NOTES AND DOCUMENTATION OF UNDERSTANDING i II. Civil Penalty Assessment A. First non willful SL III violation in 2 years /2 inspections? YES cr NO j

Previous escalated cases:

I -

Identification Credit? YES - NO - N/A B. ,

MtC identified?

f., Licensee identified?  !

l j Revealed through an event?*

Prior opportunities? j i

C. Ggrrective action cred" YES - NO - N/A Immediate corrective actions:

Long term corrective actions to prevent recurrence: 4 D. D_ligretion anolied? Yes or No: Reason why.

E. Civil Penalty:

F. Reconnendation for credecisional enforcement conference: ,

I O

F g e l

1

{ =

Y I

3 I

(

ENFORCEMENT ACTION WORKSHEET EICS HEETING NOTES AND DOCUENTATION OF UtfDERSTANDING

)

NOTE: Complete the following information for each violation j ISSUE:

III. Documentation of Enforcement Panel / Caucus Consensus A. Preliminary Severity Level (Prior to Application of any Discretion.

Fnie Part I)

B. Increase Severity Level based on Aggregation? I C. Increase Severity Level for Repeat Violations?

(Addrwss requirements of ROI 0903)

D. ' Increase Severity Level for Willfulness?

)

E. SEVERITY LEVEL iUPPLEENf/SECTION j F. Re<=wmded Civil Penalty l G. Fredecisional Enforcement Conference Necessary?

H. Revision to Draft NOV Required?

I. Formal Review by OE Required?

J. Special Action Items / Message to Licensee / Comments 4

T 9

~

Y l

)

1 I

J 1

l l

l l

l l

I

\

l i

+

l I

J L

)

~

l P:\ FORMS.DIR\ENFPANEL.FRM / October 11, 1996 e

W S S