ML20212B852

Requests in-depth Team Insp of Maint,Including Mods at Facility.Insp Plans for Allegation Review Board Encl

ML20212B852
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	08/05/1986
From:	Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
References
NUDOCS 8608070253
Download: ML20212B852 (6)

Text

}AB AUG 5 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Carl J. Paperiello, Director, Division of Reactor Safety '

FROM: Charles E. Norelius, Director, Division of Reactor Projects

SUBJECT:

MAIhTENANCE AND MODIFICATION INSPECTION AT CLINTON As discussed during our meeting on July 31, 1986, DRP requests that DRS do an in-depth team inspection of the Maintenance including Modifications at the Clinton Site.

It is requested that the review include:

(1) A review of allegations:

86-A-0126 already assigned to Wohld 86-A-0111 currently assigned to DRP 86-A-0027 currently assigned to DRP.

The inspection plans developed for the allegation review board are enclosed. The main thrust is to determine if maintenance is being done in accordance with approved procedures and that those procedures are appropriate.

(2) In conjunction with item (1) above interviews with plant maintenance personnel should be held to determine adequacy of maintenance. In particular S&W people should be interviewed.

(3) Some completed maintenance and/or modification packages should be reviewed including walkdowns of the completed work.

(4) Proper use of vendor manuals should be reviewed.

This team inspection should determine the adequacy of maintenance prior to RIII recommending a low power license.

I d

e60Bo70253 e60805 gDR ADOCK0500g1 ZE dl

i Carl J. Paperiello 2 AUG 5 1986 i

If you have any questions, Contact R. C. Knop.

.49rtsftbl Stoned by C.E llorellus" Charles E. Norelius, Chief Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosure:

Allegation Inspection Plans cc w/o enclosure:

J. G. Keppler A. B. Davis T. P. Gwynn i

i l

l l

l L

RIII RIII RIII RRd(rr Knop /mj RFO)

Warnick Df M(JF its 4(tf O

INSPECTION PLAN FOR ALLEGATION RIII-86-A-OO27 (#181)

Preapred by F. J. Jablosnki, DRP DATE: 07/09/86 HARASSMENT OF IP MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN O EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION KEY ELEMENTS OF ALLEGATION ARM ORIGINALLY HELD 5/14/86, INSPECTION PLAN SUBMITTED AND ASSIGNED TO KEATING.

ON 6/11/86 ALLEGER CAME TO SRI WITH NEW CONCERNS INCLUDING THOSC STATED ABOVE AND THAT SUPERVISOR'S INSTRUCTIONS CONFLICT WITH PROCEDURES. MEMD FROM WEIL OF 6/16/86 TO DETERMINE IF TECHNICAL CONCERNS EXIST. ALLEGER WAS DIRECTED TO DOL FOR HARASSMENT / DISCRIMINATION CHARGES; AWAITING ALLEGER'S FILING WITH DOL.

EXPERTISE Generalist; DRS WHAT TO LOOK AT

1. Follow original inspection plan previously submitted.

2. Review enclosures to the allegation package.

3. Review enclosures 263 to the allegation, CPS No.

8100.01, Condition Report 1-86-02-089, and CPS No. 8227.01.

Determine the adequacy of the procedures in reference to the alleger's comments and the condition report.

4. Determine validity of charge that supervisor's instructions conflict with requirements of procedures.

WHO TO TALF TO Bob Iverson. IP Mechanical Maintenance Foreman Dick ICarr, IP Mechani cal Maintenance Foreman Tom Roe, IP Supervisor Mechanical Maintenance POSSILLE QUESTIONS Refer to previous Inspection Plan. Formulate new questions by refering to WHAT TO LOOK AT above.

CONTINGINCIES NA WHAT IF NA GENERIC ISSUES N w

(* ~

INSPECTION PLAN FOR ALLEGATION RIII-86-A-0111 (#195)

Preapred by F. J. Jablosnki. DRP DATE: 07/09/06 FUEL RECEIP1 AT CLINTON KEY ELEMENTS OF ALLEGATION NOTE: THIS ALLEGATION WAS SUBMITTED TO IP.

1. DURING FUEL RECEIPT. WHILE WORKING IN A RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL AREA. WORKERS DID NOT PROPERLY OBSERVE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXIT OF THE AREA; WORKERS DID NOT FRISK FOR CONTAMINATION. AND REMOVED EQUIPMENT FROM THE AREA USING NO RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS.

2. WORKERS DID NOT WEAR DOSIMETRY OR SECLiRITY BALGES.

3. IP MANAGEMENT'S INABILITY TO CONTFOL UNION PERSONNEL l

EXPERTISE Speci al i st i DRSS 8e Generalist: DRP WHAT TO LOOK AT

1. DRSS ta provide pian for 1. and 2. above,

2. DRS to review IP's handling of the percei ved management problems.

WHO TO TALK TO DR55 refer to attachment <s of allegation to obtai n nanes.

POESIBLE DUESTIONE

( Formul at e questi ons by ref ering te WHAT TO LEOK AT etove.

1 CONTINGINCIES NA '

t WHAT IF MA GENERIC ISSUES None

/ h i

INSPECTION PLAN FOR ALLEGATION RIII-86-A-0126 (#197)

Preapred by F. J. Jablosnki, DRP DATE: 07/22/86 MOV FAILURES (MOVATS)

KEY ELEMENTS OF ALLEGATION

1. CONDITION REPORTS NOT WRITTEN FOR MOV F AI L URES; 2.

ACTIONS TAMEN BY IP STARTUF TO CORRECT NOV FAILURED DID NOT CORRECT ROOT CAUSE OF PROBLEMS; 3. FIELD ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE 12329 CONTRIBUTED TO CAUSE OF SOME MOV FAILURES.

EXPERTISE SPECIALIST; DRS (PETE WOHLD).

WHAT TO LOOi: AT FORMULATE BY DRS; DFP SUGGESTS THE FOLLOWING:

(M2MO 7/15/86 GWYNN TO WEIL)

1. RESULTS OF IP INVESTIGATION BY IP

2. THREE PROBABLE CAUSES Or THE MEY ELEMENTS OF THE ALLEGATION.

(DRP HAS COMPLETE PACMAGE FOR REVIEW)

WHO TO TALK TO AL DIRTH, IP PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR BARRY SMITH. IP START UF DON HALL. IP VICE PRESIDENT SEE PAGE 3 OF MEMO 7/15/66 GWYNN TO WEIL PO5EIBLE OUE5TIONE Fornulate questions bv refering to WHAT T3 LOOK AT above.

CONTINGINCIEE NA WHAT IF NA GENERIC ISSUES None l

AU6 5 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Carl J. Paperiello, Director, Division of Reactor Safety '

FROM: Charles E. Norelius, Director, Division of Reactor Projects

SUBJECT:

MAINTENANCE AND MODIFICATION INSPECTION AT CLINTON As discussed during our meeting on July 31, 1986, DRP requests that DRS do an in-depth team inspection of the Maintenance including Modifications at the Clinton Site.

It is requested that the review include:

(1) A review of allegations:

86-A-0126 already assigned to Wohld 86-A-0111 currently assigned to DRP 86-A-0027 currently assigned to DRP.

The inspection plans developed for the allegation review board are enclosed. The main thrust is to determine if maintenance is being done in accordance with approved procedures and that those procedures are appropriate.

(2) In ennjunction with item (1) above interviews with plant maintenance personnel should be held to determine adequacy of maintenance. In particular S&W people should be interviewed.

(3) Some completed maintenance and/or modification packages should be reviewed including walkdowns of the completed work.

(4) Proper use of vendor manuals should be reviewed.

This team inspection should determine the adequacy of maintenance prior to RIII recommending a low power license.

_ __