ML20126B327

From kanterella
Revision as of 13:52, 12 July 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Details of Allegations RI-90-A-0208 & RI-90-A-0204 for Review & Response within 30 Days of Ltr Receipt
ML20126B327
Person / Time
Site: Millstone Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 11/27/1990
From: Wenzinger E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To: Mroczka E
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO.
Shared Package
ML20126A943 List:
References
FOIA-91-162 NUDOCS 9212220057
Download: ML20126B327 (7)
v • d • e


Text

-

y ..nf RI- 9e . A -o zeg 4

6RL NOV 211930 Docket No. 50-336 h1r. Edward h1roczka Senior Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Operations Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 270

!!artford CT. 06141-0270 Dear h1r. Afroczka; The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently received a number of allegations ,

concerning activilles at hillistone 2. Details of these issues are enclosed for your review and followup. - We request that the results of your review and disposition of these matters be submitted to Region I within 30 days of receipt of this correspondence. We request that your response contain no personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If necessary, such information to be withheld shall be contained in a separate correspondence and the afildavit required by 10CFR 2.790 must accompany your response if proprietary or like information is included.

The respome requested by this letter and the accompanying enclosures are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of hianagement and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

Your cooperation with us is appreciated. Please address any questions that you may have regarding these issues to hir. Scott Stewart at (215) 337 5232, or hir. Donald llaverkamp

at (215) 337-5120.

I Sincerely, Original Signec gy

  • C}$1n w p % &,

Edwifrd C. Wenzin)g r, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 4 Enclosure 1, Allegation RI 90-A-0208, Encloeure 2, Allegation RI 90-A 0204, cc w/ench W. Raymond, SRI l

L -9212220057 920600 l PDR FOIA l GUILD 91-162 PDR C 1

f fg, -Qg g bec: t J. Stewart M. Perkim Concurrences; Stewart llascrkamp We 'nger j . hr hyf qul nhofv ,,jgy, kni

'k A

h C( @

1

  • l Enclosure 1 RI 90-A-0208 page 1 of1 issue: hiaintenance (weld repiirs) was performed on "htSRs" on Saturday, November 10. The welders objected to the exclusion of "Q.S.D." as it was their opinion that the repairs were governed by the AShiE Code. The welders were directed to proceed. Later, QSD determined that ash!E Section 8 was applicable. The maintenance supervisor ignored QSD and the repairs continued to completion without an NCR or QSD involvement.
1. What were the governing procedures for this work and were they properly prepared and implemented? Were code requirements required, included, and implemented? Was QSD consulted and were their comments answered? Were any procedures violated regarding this work item; Please explain, f

k Enclosure 2 RI 90-A-0204 page 1 of 3 1ssue 1. The following problems exist with IC 2421C:

1. Step 5.5.6.1 calls for visually inspecting the connector assemblies on each cable for signs of degradation or damage. Problems have been identified with Z 1, #4,#7, and Z 2,#8 The cables were put together anyway. Pleas: explain. Further, the step calls for visually inspecting the Grafoil gasket at the Litton-Veam connector, but no information is provided about these connectors or the grafoil gaskets. Are I&C technicians trained on these items? Does the procedure require upgrades to explain what the technician is looking for in this step? No figure is provided with the procedure to identify the connectors and it is impossible to read the etched numbers on the connectors, llow are the connectors to be identified on the job?
2. The caution on page 14 is impossitile to achieve as only about a 45 degree turn is possible, is this technically satisfactory? Does this indicate procedural non-compliance during past performance? Has there been repeated connection damage in complying with this step?
3. Dust cover caps are shown in Figures in IC-2421C and IC-2419C. These caps are not being used. Are dust covers needed? Why are they not used if shown in the Figure?
4. Step 5.6.4 calls for the verification of the IUTC probes per IC-2419C. Why is this not done prior to the connection of the detector cables?
5. Are any generic problems with procedural non-compliance or laxity with regards to procedural adherence evidenced by these problems? Please explain.

6  !

Enclosure 2 i RI 90 A4204 ,

page 2 of 3  ;

t issue 2: Instrument Calibration Review ICR 90113 was written on 11-2 90. Please provide the resolution documentation for the ICR.

Issue 3: Recently, an ICR was generated concerning out-of specification test voltages found  ;

during the performance of SP 2404C, Please provide the resolution documentation for the ICR '

Historically, the reference voltages have been out-of specification:

3/9/90 AWO M2 90-02559 5/5/90 AWO M2-90-02736 5/5/90 AWO M2 90-05237 5/5/90 AWO M2 90-05480 8/30/90 Surveillance, SP 2401F and SP 2401B Please discuss the operability of Channel "C" of the RPS with the historic out-of specification test voltages. Note, Drawings 25203 39069 Sheet 40, and 25203 25193 Sheet 6, supposedly identify the reference test voltage applications.

..~ . . . . - . . . - - . .: . . . - - - . - , . . . - , . _ , , - - . . . . , , - .

.t Enclosure 2 RI 90 A-0204 page 3 of 3 t

Issue 4: A red tag was improperly hung by operations on the back of COS/CO6. The tag was -

hung on TDE but should have been hung on TDD. SCO( * ) knows the details. Please explain the tagout problem and actions taken to both correct the problem and to prevent recurrence.

( * ) identity may be obtained from the SRI.

Issue 5: A recent annunciator window change CO4(CRDR) was apparently not reviewed and completed properly as procedures SP 2401B, 2401F, 2401J had to be changed during the performance to accommodate the annunciator window changes. Please discuss the accuracy of the statement, and any actions that you have taken or may take to rectify any identified problems.

Issue 6: On 11/5/90, on completion of the CWP portion of SP 240lJ,(the CRDR change was done as a non-intent change on this date) Channel C TO-7 was left bypassed by technicians after the surveillance was turned in and the technicians had to be called by the SS and the channel unbypassed by the SCO. Please discuss the procedural compliance aspects of this statement. .

l l

l l

-. - _ -~ _ . _ _ _ __ _ , , . . - - _ . _ - _ . - - _ _ . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . n.

APPEN0!X 4.0 .

SAMPLE RECORD OF ALLEMT10N PANEL DEC1510N5 51TE: IM '~ 1 PANEL ATTENDEES:

ALLEMTION NO.: kf-TOY 100 Chairman - N io c in$

DATE: D f M 'b (Mtg.(J)2 3 4 5) Branch Chief - @ii f r w 'v e nyu '

PRIORITY: High Section Chief ( A00) - ble a lu f Medium (th SAFETY $1GNIFICANCE: Yes Ho(jnkn$n) Others - Id -[e ro <a - DNS

\

CONCURRENCE 10 CLO5E0VT: 00("'BC) SC L .Dw:q; - ONb[b S '

in CONF 10ENTIAllTY GRANTED: Yes (SeeAllegationReceiptReport)h~)

15 THEIR A 00L F1NDING: Yes No

!$ CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes No KAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT: Yes No HAS LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACTION:

1 ) _, vwrM., e4,3 f4 et h \e en d 4 T

,( t ., ( c d he(< Isth '^!!

Th.6( I d.M . Ihe'f%[r'eubdiqwrbch, o < , " h. 3 e k, k re'anu 4IrEe1

2) T crevd' k l - i c e tm e. ._

(,il;oqd wvud , rio

~

inc.atd

3) kn.17e d6eod 4) 5)

NOTES:

A4-1 I

V

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20126B327&oldid=2909767"