ML20215M309
| ML20215M309 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1986 |
| From: | Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Crimmins T PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8610300156 | |
| Download: ML20215M309 (3) | |
Text
,=
OCT 2 1986 Mr. T. M. Crimmins Superintendent of Plant - SSES Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101
Dear Mr. Crimmins:
Subject:
Employee Concerns Regarding Adequacy of Local Leak Rate Tests The NRC has received an allegation regarding the adequacy of some Local Leak Rate Tests (LLRTs) performed during the current Unit 2 refueling outage. The specific concerns are listed on an enclosure to this letter. An NRC inspector reviewed these concerns as part of our inspection program and although portions of the allegation were substantiated, adequate corrective actions had been taken to resolve the technical issue (i.e. the LLRT was reperformed). Our technical findings were discussed with members of your staff on September 26, 1986.
During our review of this allegation we noted that, as with other recent alle-gations at SSES, there is apparently either a reluctance of personnel to take concerns to their supervisors or employee dissatisfaction with the act:f on taken after going to their supervisors.
I previously discussed this conc 8rn with you on September 12, 1986. Another concern that has been expressed is that scheduler pressure is affecting quality. Consequently, you are requested to respond to these two concerns. Your response should include those measures taken or already in place to ensure that employee concerns are appropriately addressed and that no improper pressure to complete work is permitted.
Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
If you have any questions con-cerning this letter, please contact me at 215-337-5128.
Sincerely, Original Signed Byi
/
Q Jack R. Strosnider, Chief 0,h
,(b Reactor Projects Section IB o) 4
Enclosure:
List of concerns regarding adequacy of LLRTs 8610300156 861002 5gf ij l
PDR ADOCK 05000388 G
PDbrriLIAL RECORD COPY 36800ERFLEIN9/24/86 - 0001.0.0 09/29/86
-,. y Mr. T. M. Crimmins 2
cc:
A. f;. Sabol, Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance W. E. Barberich, Manager, Nuclear Licensing T. M. Crimmins, Superintendent of Plant-SSES H. W. Hirst, Manager, Joint Generation Projects Department R. J. Benich, Services Project Manager, General Electric Company B. D. Kenyon, Senior Vice President-Nuclear Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assistant Corporate Counsel William Matson, Allegheny Electric Cooperative Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania bcc:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o enc 1)
DRP Section Chief Robert J. Bores, DRSS A. Shropshire H. Kister J. Strosnider L. Doerflein I:DRP J RI:DRP RI:DRP Doerflein J Strosnider Kister 9/t.5786 9/9/86 10/ / /86 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 36800ERFLEIN9/24/86 - 0002.0.0 09/25/86
s Enclosure Concerns Regarding Adequacy of LLRTs The following four concerns were received by the NRC regarding the adequacy of some LLRTs performed during the SSES Unit 2 refueling outage.
1)
During the performance of an RHR injection valve LLRT (SE-259-031), a large amount of water was discovered in the piping following performance of the first portion of the test. The test should have been invalidated, since the water could affect the LLRT results.
2)
The second portion of the same t'est, SE-259-031, had to be stopped due to a large amount of water in the piping. A modification was installed to provide better drainage of the piping, but the problem was not corrected as a manual test boundary valve continued to leak.
3)
During another LLRT, SE-259-043, an excess flow check valve had to be actuated to meet an IST testing requirement, but the method to be used to actuate the valve was not included in the procedure. The alleger requested that it be added, but the Technical Staff engineer would not put it in the procedure, stating it was not necessary.
4)
During preparations for another LLRT, work authorization (WA) V64391 was written to drain piping. The WA description was made very general, but the actual work required removal of a pipe fitting and pipe (which had a valve on it) and installation of a new fitting with a hose. No blocking was recommended and an equipment release was not requested. The alleger informed Ops of the problem and did eventually get the appropriate blocking and ERF. The alleger stated it was his supervisors intention to bypass some of the required paperwork so there would be no delay in the outage schedule.