ML20248L977

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Deleted Allegation Receipt Report Re Allegations That Safety Bus 9 Either Overloaded or There Are Problems W/Swithgear & That Vernon Tie (for Station Blackout) Undependable
ML20248L977
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 03/12/1997
From: Vito D
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20248L142 List:
References
FOIA-97-365 TR-970312, NUDOCS 9806120188
Download: ML20248L977 (2)
v • d • e


Text

.

THISDQGUMENTePIDENTIF4E8or 12 MALLEGFbo.

e 3/12/97 (revd handwritten RI-97-A-00ee RI-96-A-0 28 (supplemental info)

Employee Receiving Allegation:

D. J. Vito lleger Name:

in James Massey Home Address:

Home Phone:

City / State / Zip:

Alleger's Employer:

VY (formerly?)

Alleger's Position /

Title:

engineer Facility:

Vermont Yankee Docket No.-

50-271 Was alleger informed of NRC identity protection policy? Yes _ No X If H&I was alleged, was alleger informed of DOL rights? Yes _ No X N/A _,_

If a licensee employee or contractor, did they raise the issue to their management?

Yes X No __ N/A __

Does the alleger object to referral of issues to the licensee? Yes __ No

??

Provide alleger's direct response to this question verbatim on the line below:

Was confidentiality requested?

Ye s,,__ No X Was confidentiality initially granted?

Yes __ No X N/A Criteria for determining whether the issue is an allegation:

Is it a declaration, statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy? Yes Is the impropriety or inadequacy associated with NRC regulated activities? Yes Is the validity of the issue unknown?

Yes If No to any of the above questions, the issue is not an allegation and should be handled by other appropriate methods (e.g. as a request for information or an OSHA referral).

Allegation. Summary or staff suspected wrongdoing: (Recipient of the allegation shall summarize each concern here - provide additional detail on reverse side of form, if necessary)

A11eger provided a handwritten letter with 2 new concerns and additional commentary with regard to his prior issues (RI-9 6 - A- 012 8 ) :

New issues:

1.

Safety Dus #9 is either overloaded or there are problems with its switchgear.

Af ter RUPS replaced UPS, alleger noted several problems with loading and load transfers related to safety Bus #9. Alleger told his supervisor that he wanted to instrument. the bus to check for current draw and voltage dip, but nothing was done. Alleger also sent a Service Request to YNSD to check load calculation on bus, but nothing was done.

Believes that VY instituted a fix that installed a time delay device that would slow down transfer to dc.

2.

Vernon Tie (for station blackout) is not dependable. Secondary Sky cable from Vernon Tie should be replaced.

Alleger involved in job running new duct bank from new transformer; old cable was cut, meggered, and spliced to the new cable coming from the new transformer. Old cable was not hi-potted (30 years old, line used for power during construction).

Later while removing overhead line from north side of cooling tower to Vernon dam, alleger noted that cable had received several lightning strikes, and felt that a new cable needed to be run to the switchgear room. Alleger took a section of the old cable to VY to show that the cable was unreliable and to make a point for its removal. Tried to distribute a memo on the issue that was sanitized by his supervisor.

Maintenance ultimately decided (against his advice) to hi-pot the cable at half the voltage. Alleger stated that this test told them nothing.

RI-96-A-0128 Supplemental Info - alleger noted that the NFPA and the Vermont State Electrical Inspector have commented on the danger of mixing power supplies (no additional detail provided).

Also provided two specific examples, requesting NRC review of crossed power supply conditions. (Don't know whether additional examples have been reviewed as part of past inspection activities in this area.)

e8M MhJ THIS DOCUMENT IDENTIFIES wpeuwe uw%(a(a) -- "*""' "

AN ALLEGER

{w Y..Fu.,aq.ui. 9_/onal Area (s p T

) Operations n

~

?/~#

9806120188 980521 fb

,R PDR FOIA

~

HICKEY 97-365 PDR

ALLEGATION DISPOSITION RECORD Rev.

11/01/95 RI 9 h,

. O/$

Allegstion o:

Branch Chief (AOC) :

Site:

Acknowledged:

Yes No N/A Panel Dater b

Confidentiality Granted:

Yes No ALLEGATION PANEL E IONS revious Allegation Pa e n is ue*

Yes No.)

Attendees:

air -

h, ch Ch ef (AOC) -

defA S

8-RIfCounsel-kM A

Others -

OI Rep. -

DISPOSITION ACTIONS:

(State actions required r closure d cl{epre(including special concurrences), responsible person, ECD and expo doc entation)

1) Acknowledgement letter "MT-'1NICW a i r_.S

/74f/f/h M5 ('r>rrtto (i)(iV ' D1/' thems11/ k #mn#1 hdallLE1Au+vd 1D(U2

~ / W as d 6 9/96 ResponsblePersk: / DM l-,

O 0/Md4TZ15M /

ECD:

9-3d %

osu cementation:

/1 Nf Completed-

/

l 4 m 2) d//Vud 8 Mb/P78k /d'W/MdDO Md

/

d N M 4 20 8-M

/

N [k$$ A V N $ b f1'ttMA0. I k k b M h N /AA W N 2 0$

Y

.hYchMd9tscAun (2eund +/me. c%edlltrm D(irt&nd #flWrftim i Responsible Person:

ECD:

Closure ocum tation:

/

/1 e Completed:

[]

3) k

(

51'fhf?'U$1f 00 Y fWS W A IW h OW l-ll $N DA<a, && 6 t&-rfh tkb rftws W1 nnai%+ uhk gmdca// 4 h&is>la umN3r n&e, oeJa % u n itt p>m/W(/

Responsible Person:

d YYkf.-. [ ((

/2 tr7

'Y ECD:

h/d7!h b ~

/

  • /

i e

Closu o umentation:

Com ted:

e mmd nnw4he

4) 0 llA ff"//*.f A1 u tajswitn D 1.f9, # ~ '

V V

U

~0hnn d Sw Att & T,)

U

~'

n i,

a

/

i Responsible Person:

[

bN ECD:

((b[h/

Clo ocumentatio,:

A Completed-5)

O P'Y1 VMPM lM'T W AOI M O

I O

U i

/

e j

Responsible Person _

lfNBv A-/

ECD:

h closure Documentation Ccmpleted:

Safety Significance Assessment:

NAf/I44A NOTES:

Factors to Consider Prior to Referral to a Licensee If an allegation is to be referred to a licensee, the following factors are to be considertd:

a.

The licensee's past record in dealing with allegations, that is, the likelihood that the licensee will effectively identify, investigate, document, and resolve the allegation.

I b.

The possibility that the release of information could bring harm to the alleger, c.

Whether the allegation is made against the licensee, applicant, or vendor management or those parties who would normally receive and address the allegation.

d.

Whether the alleger has voiced objections over the release of the allegation to the licensee, applicant, or vendor, Whether the allegation is based on information received from another governmental agency, which does not approve of the information being released in a [

c.

referral.

f.

Whether the alleger has already taken this concern to the hcensee with unsatisfactory results.

j Also, referrals are not to be made if it could compromise the identely of the alleger, or if it could cornpromise an inspection or investigation Note: Document the basis j

for referring allegauons to a hcensee in those cases where the criiersa hated above indicaic that it is questionable whether a refern al is appropriate.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20248L977&oldid=3885475"