A09664, Discusses Review of RI-91-A-0232 & RI-91-A-0263 Re Various Activities at Millstone Unit 2.W/related Matl
Text
e NORTHEAST UTIUTIES c.n.,. o,,,c.. . s.ia.n su .. s.rnn. Conn.ci,cui 9 U C. $.5. P O BOX 270
-a.-...--.u."
HARTFORD CONNECTICUT 061414270 L k J 'wI,~'.I.Y.$.7I.',Cd (203) 665-5000 December 19, 1991 Docket No. 50-336 A09664 Re: Employee Concerns Mr. Charles W. Hehl, Director Division of Reactor Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Region I l 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406
Dear Mr. Hehl:
1 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 RI-91-A-0232 and RI-91-A-0263 We have completed our review of identified issues concerning activities at I Millstone Unit No. 2. As requested in your transmittal letter of October 29, 1991, our responses do not contain any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information. The material contained in these responses may be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room at your discretion. The NRC transmittal letter and our responses have received controlled and limited distribution on a "need-to-know" basis during the preparation of these responses. The responses to these issues were originally due on December 4, 1991. An additional two weeks in which to respond were granted in a telephone conversation with the Region I Staff on December 2, 1991.
ISSUE A-0232-Ol/A-0263-01:
"T,here were two examples of alleged inadequate control and maintenance of equipment spare parts. First, that a spare power supply in the warehouse (SPM 798, revision 16, item 34) for the 'B' RCP [ reactor coolant pump) lower oil reservoir level alarm unit allegedly did not receive a capacitor change out, as did the in-service power supply units. Allegedly, PMMS [ Production Maintenance Management System] item M2-02-ENV-PWR-X-20 (Serial No. 10521) typified a maintenance history record for a power supply replacement. Second, that an RPS [ reactor pressure system] spare component, the Auxiliary Logic Drawer identified in Concern RI-91-A-0263-02, allegedly lacked a modification
) (three versus four amber indicating lamps)."
REQUEST:
"Please provide your review of the above assertions. If the above conditions ,
d/
i are valid, notify us of the corrective actions you have taken to prevent !
V
\
9503010226 940009 PDR FOIA i HUBBARD92-162 PDR
4-4 Mr. Charles W. Hehl A09664/Page 2 December 19, 1991 recurrence. Also provide us with an assessment of the safety significance of any identified deficiencies, including generic considerations."
RESPONSE
The assertion is partially valid. During the 1989 refueling outage a decision was madf~to change out the electrolytic capacitors in the GEMAC Model 570 power supply assemblies, including the spare power supply assemblies stored in the warehouse. The decision to change out capacitors was a preventive mainte-nance action based upon the length of time these power supply assemblies had been in service. As the result of an oversight on our part, the circuit board at issue, and two other circuit boards which were also not contained in the spare power supplies, were not changed out.
The auxiliary logic drawer at issue was not intended for use as a spare, and therefore did not require modification as asserted. This is discussed further in response to issue 0263-02 below.
Background:
As part of troubleshooting and maintenance activities, the individual involved is trained to check the equipment being installed against the equipment it is to replace and resolve any differences in configuration. Equipment is tested and proven completely functional before it is placed in service. This evalu-ation and testing process functioned as desired. The circuit board did not have the same capacitor installed as the board it was to replace. Investiga-tion of the difference between cards revealed that the in-service units had had their capacitors changed out. Based on the results of the investigation, the capacitor was changed out on the card before it was tested and installed.
We were informed of the capacitor concern after the spare power supply at issue had been modified by installation of the proper capacitor and the power supply card successfully tested and installed in troubleshooting the alarm.
When we were initially informed of the capacitor concern by the individual performing the work on the power supply assembly, all warehouse spare circuit boards (a total of two) with the old-style capacitors were subsequently tested and found to operate properly.
Use of the old-style sp7re part would not have resulted in failure of the power supply. While the assertion that the spare circuit boards did not receive a capacitor change out is correct, it has no safety significance in that the equipment would have operated normally, as shown by our testing, had the card at issue been installed without change out of the electrolytic capacitor.
4 0
- i Mr. Charles W. Hehl A09664/Page 3 December IS, 1991 ISSUE RI-91-A-0263-02:
" Allegedly, a spare RPS Auxiliary Logic Drawer was used to support trouble-shooting, on or about October 1,1991, of a power supply relay failure within the same drawer in .RPS channel 'D,' but was not installed in place of the failed drawer. Allegedly, the spare RPS Auxiliary Logic Drawer lacked some original parts (three lamps)."
REQUEST:
"Please provide your review of the above assertions. If the above conditions '
are valid, notify us of the corrective actions you have taken to prevent recurrence. Also provide us with an assessment of the safety significance of any identified deficiencies, including generic considerations."
RESPONSE: ,
This assertion is not valid. The alleged " spare" RPS auxiliary logic drawer that was used to support troubleshooting was actually a " parts" drawer. '
Necessary spare quality assurance (QA) parts have been taken from this drawer to support maintenance of the operating drawers. In this instance a relay socket was found broken in the operating drawer and a replacement was taken from the " parts" drawer to complete the repair. Since the function of the
" parts" drawer is to provide a rapid means of obtaining parts when necessary, the condition in which some original parts are missing is to be expected.
There was never any intention of using the " parts" drawer as a replacement for an operating drawer in the plant. Personnel working on RPS auxiliary logic drawers are not allowed to work on equipment without training on that equip-ment and the knowledge of equipment configuration that such training brings.
As a result, the personnel working on these drawers know that the " parts" drawer is not to be used as a replacement drawer.
We were not aware that the parts drawer was a concern prior to receipt of the NRC letter, and we find no safety significance to this concern.
ISSUE RI-91-A-0232-02:
"On or about August 16, 1991, Loop Folders for the 'B' RCP oil reservoir alarm instruments allegedly did not reflect the actual physical location of specific power supplies. Allegedly, some boards had five separate power supplies within the power supply unit."
REQUEST:
"Please provide your review of the above assertions. If the above conditions are valid, notify us of the corrective actions you have taken to prevent recurrence. Also provide us with an assessment of the safety significance of any identified deficiencies, including generic considerations."
i Mr. Charles W. Hehl A09664/Page 4 December 19, 1991
RESPONSE
The assertion that the RCP-B loop folders did not contain power supply loca-tion information is not. valid. NUSCO drawings in each folder clearly indicate the location of Power Supply X-21 as C04R, slot BDU.
The GEMAC Model 570 power supply contains five circuit boards in one housing.
Each circuit board, by design, provides power to a single instrument loop.
The assertion that some boards had five separate power supplies within the power supply unit is a simple statement of fact. There is no safety or generic significance to these items.
We were not aware that the loop folder contents or power supply configuration was a concern prior to the receipt of the NRC letter.
ISSUE RI-91-A-0232-03:
"On or about August 16, 1991, Loop Folders for the 'B' RCP allegedly did not '
provide information regarding which additional instrument loads [were] powered from each power supply. For example, power supply X-21 supplied several other instrument loops in addition to the 'B' RCP upper and lower oil sump levels. l The individual doing the work believed this information was considered essen-tial to preclude the loss of power to other instrumentation when performing )'
maintenance on an instrument loop component."
REQUESTi "Please provide your review of the above assertions. If the above conditions are valid, notify us of the corrective actions you have taken to prevent recurrence. Also provide us with an assessment of the safety significance of any identified deficiencies, including generic considerations."
RESPONSE
The assertion is not valid. Power Supply X-21 is clearly identified as an individual component on the loop drawing found in the instrument loop folders for this pump. The X-21 loop folder contains the following precaution:
" Verify effects loops powered by this power supply before de-energizing."
We concur that is essential to know what other loads are serviced by multiloop powei supplies before working on them. Such information was, and is, readily available to technicians.
As is indicated in response to specific question Item 'e' below, loop folders do not necessarily contain all the information needed to do a job. The PMMS ID base and applicable drawings list the instruments powered from this supply.
The information was promptly supplied to the technician performing this work by the PMMS group.
l i I l
e Mr. Charles W. Hehl A09664/Page 5 December 19, 1991 ISSUE RI-91-A-0232-04: J "On or about August 16, 1991, Instrument Record Sheets for the 'B' RCP upper and lower oil reservoir, level transmitters (LT-176 & LT-177) allegedly were missing from the Instrument Loop Folders."
REQUEST:
"Please provide your review of the above assertions. If the above conditions are valid, notify us of the corrective actions you have taken to prevent ;
recurrence. Also provide us with an assessment of the safety significance of
(
any identified deficiencies, including generic considerations."
l
RESPONSE
We are unable to establish the validity of the assertion as stated. If the information record sheets, which are uncontrolled documents, are discovered missing, the information they contain can be easily obtained from NUSCO drawings and the PMMS ID system by any Instrumentation and Controls (I&C) technician prior to the start of a job.
On or about August 17, 1991, a technician requested new instrument record sheets for the L-176/177 loop folder. The records were provided by the PMMS group and inserted into the loop folder as the technician requested. It could not be independently determined whether or not record sheets were actually missing.
Obtaining information by such approved alternate means is of no safety con-sequence to the worker or the equipment; therefore, there is no safety or generic significance to this issue.
ISSUE RI-91-A-0232-05:
"There were allegedly nuisance alarms, associated with tne 'B' RCP upper and lower oil reservoirs, caused by mechanical action within the RCP oil reser-voirs (reference AWO [ Automated Work Order] M2-91-08614)."
REQUEST:
"Please provide your review of the above assertions. If the above conditions are valid, notify us of the corrective actions you have taken to prevent recurrence. Also provide us with an assessment of the safety significance of any identified deficiencies, including generic considerations."
RESPONSE
The assertion is correct in stating that the AWO at issue was written to investigate frequent low-level alarms for the oil reservoir on the 'B' RCP.
7 Mr. Charles W. Hehl A09664/Page 6 December 19, 1991 The nature of the alarm instrumentation for the reservoir is such that the low-level alarm is conservative in nature. Oil is added to bring the oil reservoir to the proper level based on a marked indication on the oil reser-l voir (sight glass) rather than adding oil to clear the alarm. Experience has
! shown that when oil is added to the reservoir, less oil is added than would l
have been expected based on the existence of the alarm.
! We do not consider the occasional existence of low-level alarms to be a mechanical problem and because of the conservative nature of the alarm instru-mentation, we find no nuclear safety concern associated with this issue. The -- -
Millstone Unit No. 2 Engineering Departraent is aware of the alarm sensitivity versus actual oil level and has contacted the pump manufacturer. The situa-tion remains under investigation.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
"In addition to the above general request, please provide your review of the '
following specific questions. (a) Are spare parts, that are either located in the warehouse (s) or used for troubleshooting, controlled and maintained in accordance with the NU QA Program? (b) Is there a mechanical problem with RCP oil sump levels? (c) Does Unit 2 administrative 1y control I&C documentation in a manner consistent with the methodology used for Units I and 3 and with l the NU QA Program? (d) Is Departmental Instruction 2-I&C-10.03, Establishing and Maintaining Instrument Records, adequate for administrative control of I&C documentation? (e) In general, do loop folders adequately identify instrument loads for each power supply?"
RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
- a. QA parts are processed and used in accordance with provisions of the NU QA Program. Non-QA parts are processed in accordance with ANSI Standard N45.2.2 (Level B). No specific program requirements exist for handling Non-QA parts during troubleshooting. There are no safety or generic issues associated with this item.
- b. NNECO does not believe there is a mechanical problem with the RCP oil sump levels. NNECO has been in contact with the pump manufacturer and the issue of sensitivity of the alarm circuitry remains under l
investigation.
l c. Generally, Millstone Unit No. 2 administratively controls I&C documenta-tion under the same procedures and QA program as Millstone Unit Nos. I and 3. I&C documentation is governed overall by the site Administrative Control Procedures (ACPs) and various internal department instructions.
The handling of work orders and work-related documents is governed by ACP-QA-2.02C. ACPs govern most other administrative aspects of depart-ment business including vendor manual control, nuclear records trans-mittals, procedures, correspondence, etc. In these respects the three units' administrative controls are the same for QA and Non-QA documents.
q Mr. Charles W. Hehl A09664/Page 7 December 19, 1991 ,
Administrative areas that do differ are minor. All three units maintain loop folders and drawings, although the content and control of these documents may vary as provided by individual unit instructions. The Millstone Unit No. 2 I&C Department instructions govern such areas as loop folders, maintenance history, and the use of drawings and vendor manuals. The administrative controls are cc,sistent with the Northeast :
Utilities QA Program as documented in the NVQAT.
- d. Department Instruction 2-I&C-10.03 was canceled several years ago and a newer version is now in effect. These department instructions are provided at the discretion of the department manager to give employees additional information for the implementation of the requirements con-te;ned in applicable ACPs and policies. Department instructions do not supersede the requirements of existing station procedures and are ade-quate for the administrative control of I&C documentation. :
- e. Loop folders are not designed to provide technicians with all the infor-mation they need for every job; they typically only contain a loop drawing and references to other drawings. Instrument loads are identi- ,
fied in the PMMS ID system and applicable NUSCO drawings. All personnel "
in the department have the access and training to obtain such information from the PMMS computer or by asking the PMMS group directly. In this ,
particular case, the list of loops powered by this supply were provided to the technician by the I&C PMMS group as soon as they were requested.
After our revies and evaluation of these issues, we find that these issues did not present any indication of a compromise of nuclear safety. We appreciate .
the opportunity to respond and explain the basis of our actions. Please contact my staff if there are further questions on any of these matters.
Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY J. F. Opeka bAU Executive Vice President cc: W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos.1, 2, and 3 !
E. C. Wenzinger, Chief, Projects Branch No. 4, Division of Reactor i Projects E. M. Kelly, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 4A J. T. Shedlosky, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Millstone
.. -k(I . . . _
I j
TOftt b $ $b O
'iJ
,( - , OtNE KELLYi j if. " a
. L//iL s -. A ? * '-:-} . . N')fc) Y
- {L.*~lt{ . *!Q b/ ~~ l k. i ~~r /
j i
- a .
~
i;un k u. A fL . J a b lf a c ht i . ,
c u.s ,C iL L.C t" O ,L( 5E.-l 'jc't V 4 ) 5,~7L
,2
.' i.
?l}s%c. t . . L L.pyj4ug t kg.y (5 I
. . lQ!U f hEdWEr. -
S _.- f-.
. 'g - - - / ..
.iy ar u a c.xi[ n .s[.a:a w a:ca e<.
iilC bd'.1ic )] ; ;?u [f4If&?- Ys <72 M
~
.i a ,.:ta. tr / WG:. ET0diBif/4& ScA.ab c
' ~
tk$c.ciY~<.'c~eck </ b6VY 25rk
,/ ,/ i /
Y()t tSui:121 f 4 Sf?fliCG. $
// // ' . . ,i 4
~
CM C -
h
{( 4 L^*j l /
- 15 h f -
rt i
/
SAMPLE RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS SITE: b OEt PANEL ATTENDEES-Mekl ALLEGATION R'L.H o236 Chairman -
- pO.:
DATE: 45N 7 (Panel No.12 3 4 5) Branch Chief -
PRIORITY: High @ I_ow Section Chief ( AOC) Cem* u.
I SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes No
- CONCURRENCE h Sr. Allegation Coord (SAC) Skmed b 01 Reoresentative -
l TO CLOSEOUT: DD BC @S (Other) Cke)los/4 s
/TT ~
CONFIDENTI ALITY GRANTED: Yes (See Allegation Receipt Report) i IS THERE A HARASSMENT / DISCRIMINATION ISSUE: Yes h l IF YES, -
i 1) has the individual been informed of the DOL
! process and the need to file a complaint within 30 days Yes No
- 2) has the individual filed a complaint I with DOL Yes No i 3) has a letter been sent to the complainant seeking Yes No l any safety concerns
- IS A CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes No l IF YES, HAS IT BEEN SENT Yes No l HAS THE LICENSEE RESPONDED TO THE CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACTION:
- 1) D25$ /oe 95 iM A (L ribe 4 iK 04 Jtsh a ~ eXeertge o u oc
- 5 rw w.u otsah a -
l 3) 4)
l 5)
NOTES:
f a
A4-1 ,{ l/
(V A L'L E.G A T I'O N MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ALLEGATION NUMBER - RI-91-A-0236 RUN DATE: 09/11/91 DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 05000245'/ MILLSTONE 1 / 1 DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 05000336 / MILLSTONE 2 / 2 '
DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 05000423 / PTI.LSTONE 3 / 3 DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / /
~ ACTIVITY TYPES - REACTOR MATERIAL LICENSES -
FUNCTIONAL AREAS -
OTHER EMERGENCY PLANNING DESCRIPTION - EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER COMPUTER UNRELIABLE, AS SHOWN BY LOSS OF EMERGENCY ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY WHEN THE COMPUTER
- WENT DOWN DURING HURRICANE BOB. ,
CONCERNS -
1 SOURCE . LICENSEE EMPLOYEE CONFIDENT - NO ,
RECEIVED - 910826 BY - EM KELLY / RI ACTION OFFICE CONTACT - EM KELLY -
(FTS)346-5183 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE - UNKNOWN BOARD NOTIFICATION - NO STATUS - OPEN SCHED COMPLETION - 911231 DATE CLOSED - ,
ALLEGATION SUBSTANTIATED -
ALLEGER NOTIFIED -
OI ACTION - OI REPORT NUMBER -
REMARKS - CALLED IN TO REGIONAL OFFICE.
SUPPORT OFFICE: RPS-4A ACTION PENDING: CONVENE PANEL l DOCUMENTATION:
ALLEGER LAST CONTACTED: 26AUG91
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD: EP, DATA ENTERED SYSTEM - 910903 CLOSED SYSTEM - RECORD CHANGED - 910903 L
I y9 M l/7h a t INSTRUMENTATION e}
i i
SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION _
3.3.3.3 The seismic monitoring instrumentation channels shown in Table 3.3-7 shall be OPERABLE. ;
APPLICABILITY: ALL MODES.
ACTION:
l
- a. With the number of OPERABLE seismic monitoring channels less I than required by Table 3.3-7, restore the inoperable channel (s) to OPERABLE status within 30 days. The provisions of Speci-fications 3.0.3 and 3.0.4 are not applicable. -
l b,.- With one or more seismic monitoring channels inoperable for j more than 30 days, prepare and submit a Special Report to the Commission pursuant to Specification 6.9.2 within the next 10 )
. days outlining the cause of the malfunction and the plans for >
I
. restoring the system to OPERABLE status.
l SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.3.3.3 Each of the above seismic monitoring instrumentation channels 4 shall be demonstrated OPERABLE by the perfonnance of the CHANNEL CHECK, CHANNEL CALIBRATION and CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST operations at the fre- !
quencies shown in Table 4.3-4. ;
^
, I MILLSTONE - UNIT 2 3/4 3-32 ,
'L
) . . (
.. 1 l
'i c
~..
TABLE 3.3-7 '
SEISMIC MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION !
MINIMUM MEASUREMENT CHANNELS ;
INSTRUMENT CHANNEL SENSOR LOCATION RANGE OPERABLE !
- 1. TIME HISTORY '
ACCELEROGRAPHS >
- a. Containment Base El. -24'0" @ 215' Slab outside of con-tainment .001 to 1 g 1
- b. Containment El. 75'0" @ 215' Structure outside of containment .001 to 1 g 1
- c. Auxiliary El. 14'6" in Building maintenance ;
work area .001 to 1 g 1
\' '
- d. Intake Structure El. 18'0" on !
south wall .001 to 1 g 1
- e. Free Field El. 14'6" ground -i level on pad 139' ,
southeast of condensate f
storage tank .001 to 1 g i
- 2. PEAK ACCELER0 GRAPHS $
- a. Containment Base El. -24'0" outside Slab of containment 0 to 1 g 1 <
- b. Steam Generator Support El. -O'7" S/G #1 0 to 1 9 1
- c. Pressurizer 1 Support El. 14'6" 0 to 1 9 l- ,
e d. Safety Injection Tank Support El. 38'6" O to 1 g 1 ,
. w MILLSTONE - UNIT 2 3/4 3-33
.- . _~. .-
'rhe' 6
l
'f s - ;
'l TABLE 3.3-7 (Continued)' ;
i
. SEISMIC MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION :
MINIMUM MEASUREMENT CHANNELS INSTRUMENT CHANNEL SENSOR LOCATION RANGE '
- 3. . SEISMIC TRIGGER l
- a. Containment Base E1. -24 ' 0" 9 215' Slab outside of i containment .005 to .02 g 1
- 4. RESPONSE SPECTRUM 4 RECORDER I
- a. Containment Base El. -24'0" outside '
Slab of containment -
1 I
4 l
e i
i MILLSTONE - UNIT 2 3/4 3-34 t
TABLE 4.3-4 3 SEISMIC MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS l-
$ CHANNEL g CHANNEL CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL-m INSTRUMENT CHANNEL CHECK CALIBRATION TEST 5 1. TIME HISTORY ACCELEROGRAPHS m a. Containment Base Slab M R SA
- b. Co.,tainment Structure M R SA
- c. Auxiliary Building M R SA
- d. Intake Structure M R SA
- e. Free Field M R SA
$ 2. ,
PEAK ACCELER0 GRAPHS
- a. Containment Base Slab N.A. R N.A.
- b. Steam Generator Support N.A. R N.A.
- c. Pressurizer Support N.A. R N.A.
- d. Safety Injection Tank Support. N.A. R N.A.
- 3. SETSMIC TRIGGER
- a. Containment Base Slab N.A. R SA
- 4. RESPONSE SPECTRUM RECORDER
- a. Containment Base Slab N.A. R N.A.
'm- _ _ _ _ .s _- _, .- y-~w * .- - - - - - .- e--- - -- - - - - - .- -e-,- - * - c'.-,s= w.e- . e-- - , - , en,--,--- tw..---. , - - e.----
+ .
e '
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS SPECIAL REPORTS F y
6.9.2 Region I, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, within the tim specified for each report. These reports shall be submitted covering the activities identified reference below pursuant to the requirements of the applicable specification:
a.
Inoperable Seismic Monitoring Instrumentation, Specification 3.3.3.3.
b.
Inoperable Meteorological Monitoring Instrumentation, Specification 3.3.3.4.
c.
Safety Class 1 Inservice Inspection Program Review, Specification 4.4.10.1. .
d.
ECCS Actuation, Specifications 3.S.2 and 3.5.3.
e.
Fire Detection Instrumentation, Specification 3.3.3.7.
f.
Fire Suppression Systems, Specifications 3.7.9.1 and 3.7.9.2.
g.
RCS Overpressure Mitigation, Specification 3.4.9.3.
h.
Radiological 3.11.2.2, Effluent 3.11.2.3 and Reports 3.11.4. required by Specifications 3.11.1.2,
- - - - - - - - - ' ~~~-- -
war MILLSTONE - UNIT 2 , 6-22
.- Amendment No. 35,55,73,104 l
\ ]
$ j E l Multipin Connector l MULTIPIN ~.i i
CONNECTOR %:,
- T
. b.p k seal Plug,
-w T d!
i,;
d m
s G
l jI Flexibie Ibusing Tube l Thermocouple . l (Chromel Alumel) b a
)) '
s l' .
i I
l l
- I l
Detector Attochments I (Rhodium) ,
i l I
f I
l c!(
Bullet Nose Tip b l .
N 6 d k I
Millstone figUTe ,l ucicgP er jtoti" In-C0re Nuclear Detector Ass m 7.5-3 ,
~
E - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- J
+:
e8%
$2d ag a m --
'8 5 N E-h5 c e
j d
, , , m -
qmh
'a &
3 N W%
l 4 sR c xjg 26 i@ 8a* IM r
g .
a g -.
i l
2 E@
gg i- -
%sJ p
YO 2
sW" -
%J QD G
^g
\
f3 l t c'_3 e ag g g :r s a 8 2"1
$a$b] k e5L g ,-
^
\
d
FORM APPROVED _jb W (b 2 BATE [o-8Oh. MTG.NO. 2-10 -G G h O INS [RUMENT CAllBRATidWNEVIEW FORM
. art 1 To be completed by person performing work.
ICR Number 9/-8/ f AWON m 2 -4 / -a,6 % Date ~P/2 ') / Time /3 OO Instrument or Device Affected 10# A/E -7 t/f'/ Name h o_O y' ~7o f/mu Procedure Number: 5 PaVoS14
Title:
Sie5mic r=_ved c H vutvet- cNEZ/C Description of Event or Calibration Results //'o6/) A -r -/<cers -
A/E " 94lCl /2Pr 6-r!Oln o H'+%d we5 A/07 6ftfA7/AC
/
g&/ ~-2 7 7c P - -
G/
l ),, y 'lI *2C 70 Cause: (if Facts are Known) [ ] Instrument Drift [ ] Unknown 34 Other Explain: A,zovdeN <--n ez. #
1 Would the Instrument or Control System have performed its function as required by Tech Specs?
Yes [ ] Nof) N/A [ ]
Basis: Of)?7'd)9L C//$A/A$L. (L Q /L D / V U T ~~ 0 f S W & JA C P f/W 0/IN/W% NW/U) /NfW llRG!OP/) 5j~AArWERC6 FAN h/ftO ~
(Jti69'iSY)46k6O llAOL O'd/' Z~PDi&+rc' Cb< ".)<Z< C 05 TW 7'1%
Was the Instrument or Control System (Alarm, Bistable Trip. etc.) found in a conservative condition?
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A ]
Basis: Ad /?t'Mp?J8A. / #M R/M2dt ), --
A(AC/?? 011W kt CP/.W7/C-2p6 f rMrZa:wD MhY&aza2 .
is a PIR recom' mended? hes['] No C
)
Completed by: t-r?V 764'NSt Reviewed by: //de'* d< f
" Technician / Specialist I&C'Supervisbr j/
['
Part 2 To be completed by SS or SCO.
Mode / Power / C07o Temp. 5'75 rgve Press. 225'/
PIR written [y No [ ] Yes (if yes, reference ICR on PIR & attach copy of PIR) PIR A//A Completed by: i' Unit #7-7 ~& Concurred with: .), BET /M/t 2 SS/SCG'
( Duty Officer l I&C Form 2437A-1 l
Rev.2
(
~' Ort 3 To be completed by I&C Manager / Designee ,
Cause of problem: 6, y /.,, gJ Corrective Action (if required): 4%,. 'y c%6, geo jn a _ cy __ e gg, .7 o l
Long Term reliability concerns [ ] YES [ v1 NO Action to address concerns:
Effect on previous surveillances [ ] YES [ v)NO Action Required: .
l&C Open Itern [ ]YES [ P)NO If Yes, #
Human Performance Enhancement System (HPES) review required?
[ ] YES [ k1 NO Date forwarded Completed By: /1 .Gm,24 Approved By:
C
~
/ I&C Manager 1&C Form 2437A-1 Pe/ 2
FORM APPROVED _ .'* ,Ird/ C ATE 8[2c/h r- MTG.NO. 2 -#/ /-076 [
3 4
, y ,
., g p INSTh0 MENT CAllBRATION REVIEW FORM [i 9
Phrt 1 To be completed by person performing work.
- ICR Number 9/-Oh3 AWO# nr2- 4/ - or761/ Date 8~ /W9/ Time /3 o-*o instrument or Device Affected ID##5N4/ '/ NS 7Vfd Name d e/ h /O tuo4/ /744
/
Procedure Number: SPMO$~ A
Title:
Seo.>ue emis sy5- ch a o ne t e aat Description of Event or Calibration Results 7ds 74/es ,co 4_ A/S N6"7 d At E ']VKD wcre S< << cl Ntik /ars.)ins e G AJ0 7~ /~ecer'rlIn9 i a
Cause: (If Facts are Known) [ ] Instrument Drift [ ] Unknown [ ] Equipment Failure f Other Explain: Aecnour9 s' pre e s > ,4 eire-raHv a,, rc /kbl9 Were the redundant channels operable when the problem was found?
Yes [ ). No [ ] N/A M Basis: vaas u e et ee m m e r ciw e n.s ,
Would the over all Control or Instrument System have performed its function as required by Tech Specs?
Yes [ ] Nog) N/A [ ]
Basis: RCH ffKs AM VJ?.YC /2P0VJfC 00 LPST Tit 1A /M ,c;g 7;is,c,
/f/WRWl(c f(go M%d TO NCMG3W 2*H TARN,2 3. '$-f Was the Instrument or Device (Alarm. Bistable Trip, etc.) found in a conservative condition?
Yes [ ] No ><.) N/A[ ]
Basis: NO- 7/b6 CF 7/d f/LP /2Wdf/Mer lied AGNO 76 k'7" A_CL j;'cwwMs.
~ ~
Compfeted by: Y$+2Y J0t/6LLO Technician /Sp cialis Reviewed by: <f I&C Supervisor 7 is a PIR recommended? Yes[ ] No [)()
PlR written [ ] Yes (If yes, reference ICR on PIP. & attach copy of PIR)
[M No l&C Form 2437A-1 Rev.O ;
Page 1 of 2 l l
l
^
) .
, Part 2 T@ be completGd by es or SCO.
' Mode '3 Power o Temp. 53%.7 Press. 22 6. 3
//A PIR#
Completed by: dz)v[e [. lad Concurred with: f/fmiM G Unit 2 SS/SCO Duty Officer Part 3 To be completed by PMMS Technician
)l-0?;b23 AWO#91- orb 24 (Documents ICR in PMMS)
Part 4 To be completed by I&C Engineer Cause of probleni: -
Corrective Action (if required):
Have there been similar problems with this component: PMMS7 NPRDS?
Effect on previous surveillances [ ]YES [ ] NO Action Required:
I&C Open item ( ) YES [ ] NO If Yes, #
Completed By:
Approved By:
l&C Manager l&C Form 2437A-1 Rev.3 Page 2 of 2 APR 2 41991
__ ~ r i[* 9.'p/::C EVENTS SYSTEH CHANNEL ATA SHEET
~.,-
CHE'(6 s, ,
L SURVEILLANCE COVER SHEET
- j PAGE O,mo eu ,o.o DATE '
F QRfA APP AOVEO tb4 C0ffs b OF "E' E"TfdB'la ,16 T Td713 ', f e73 a ""PE*WTfd 3X"E
""0{*g,g ,
APPLICA pOCE FAEQUENCY g TCMEOULE OA7 E ' ;
w2 696 9 / OATE
^
TEST AUTHORIZEO 8Y " ~OI Wm ^ (ES/5CO)
OATE '
E ~ PLETEO SY % ,
Ef~ AleU w /1 A) ?
- 13 '~ $ / YES
- Tde/AACO .
OATE AOCEPTEOSf /
(SS) NO l DATE AP AOVEO BV (CEPAAIMENT r*EAD) l r
J MAfNTENANCE SYSTEM ] NON TECH SPEC. ] ist TESTING TECH SPEC .
AllGNMENT SURVEILLANCE SURVEILLANCE RESTORATION ,
I CAL OUE DATE j I OA NUMB ER '
TEST EQUIPMENT Qf)Q p r) f f DWI e
ACCEPT ANCE CRITERIA i d5 denoted by an asterisk (*). f I
,1
., I nw INITIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH REFERENCE PROCEDURE I ,
[4 [f/k '
- 1. IPREREOutSITES/tNtTIAL CONDITIONS COMPLETED I
- 2. PRECAUTIONS NOTED
/ O Mi _
i dv.'Oh ORDER s. ETC)
- 3. iCOMMENTS: (IF M A!NTENANCE RESTORATION. INDICATf94LQ e !
~ r o / c.S ron Aw-9W9 f Ne4Yfo were $nc{ po V-* h ex.?isi d. \
rea u- ec:>a iu;nar<o.
d.lOATA -
l l
l l
i e.. .
- )
(if l l
I&C Form 2405A-1 :
Rev. 3 -
- ~
( -
a i h '
4 /'S
> 1 '
- . L'
> 3 y
E !.
)
E m
4 I >5 M E () g E
i (. I
>- k D R O A o e 1 m o y C o M ~
> b) IJ) s O X M u <
-e tU W .> >
$ 3 h p u - > m c 4 C
U): M I
) [M >o> O
" ! 6 0 E E O o o m
>. s x. o I. b6 - %s s m c N
M a %
< 5 h 5 S 3 3g 3 3 > N b b oM M s > 3 q
' we
- g u.
UsE u G o
5 eA b Q E
Q( m %
h\ D ed U r"
- c: c.
L e q Q > s
- U <
..- > b b 34 - e N h )
k I O E yk "
g I D Q Vf _ I E q x, >,
M o g sg L b k y a T ,
w e 1 ,
N d iAsk N A D g c bis i s 2 1 i i 2< r e.1 '
i .
U h 5 e
{
i 5 > q 1 I
$ 3 i 3 E 4, b
E 5 9I ?
E s
1 $
x o E 8 o >. 1l !- e
. s\ % > t 3
2 ufy h b
\ b n
a ^
O
- e. A O O O < t=< < < V=<
g t%< <
O
< tz< < < u=<< U I CJ e j
< < U e o e
> o, e > > Q. m l U U s
> > c. m > > C1 m > G '3 U G G r3 U u > c. m G U G G r3 U G
.C >- o O .C >=
C r3 G >G G U o
G G 0 0 >= 0 0 C >= 0 o
0 o mv O O mvU r3 - O O E >= mv o o m ur N aL o o Av o o o e-4 N e U rM N I U r4 i) N : U M N ,-- > - L
' e4
-> -> +4 -L +t N a
u .U J -L H H -L +4 N - L +4 UD U 3 u- +4 +1 oa U o V =3 U V V CD U uu U3 V V C3 U V V V C3 U V V ll2 U V
<U V V U U U 1 V o C U ta C C U I
C C U U
4J O.
U cs *J CL eJ Q. *J Q. U G U U R dJ CL U U e U Vt e all .
U U S U U S m r3 . A m r3 . UU
'3 . M m r3 . m .- % V U .c- %
a r3 m e tu .e- % U U w C w O w C ut
.J .,= w U U - %
% Cw O % C e O
= o ao = o no j r3 o
=
o C m so O
z o no x o no O m \
N n r-e N N n r-< N m rA '
rA .N m e4 A* A A A A A A A A A A A A M.t'5 t ;5.d l A . . . .
- A. . . . . .
- %f % ,- 4d 5d$ d %. d %, t d. ~% d A A
%c $d %d I li A A A A A'A A !
A A A A A <-.. n n
e U U 8 U r=
g r=
e--
U w w U U w u =
.u = = w s.
o w w .. -
u
=
w o' U s wm m V == i en en<
m .2 U =
m C j J a e
= c L -e 4J .
r3 3 v C C3 u e me U Q. T e H Ch C3 U r-4 H U .O m@ U >= r= o r-4m +J b +
U @
e4 Nm Q. f Cn cs
.c + w C 4J +W W L
- r=
v_ .
+J Cn *C W CL p r3 E 4w c- n-. m v Z ti.
0 W Pa- r3 -
- 3 U *.3; v = w m v= r 0 = U C3 m v Z
- I
\e
^
'e / /
'Y
't .
, FORM APPROVED _ s b & (4,+ 2 BATE',, b-b7 MTG.NO. 2-2-66 O INS [RUMENT CAllBRANN RE$EW FORM Part 1 To be completed by person performing work.
ICR Number 9/ -03; AWO# ruz 9/ o : //d -
Date Y-//f/ Time //W Instrument or Device Affected s o, ID#
r _s [fB 3, /3 to Name as.% e} si csm.c m a u. na Procedure Number: .90% in -
T!'ie: 5h 5 ,e Ele, r5 o5 me>ht rrs r-Description of Event or A s ceu a Gwo xa m. <,sral [
(6.vur>S3ation Results -
m Sua w fx.1 - ikb m 2 9 / o u s*3 (U n ran G., tri ,1, . - 2.u/sao A n -en s s ci- em m a L-I Cause: (if Facts are Known) { ] Instrument Drift [ ] Unknown p(.Other Explain: r1 rrecus 5/4A /, A + A S.c Would the Instrument or Control System have performed its function as required by Tech Specs?
Yes,% ytal , No [h N/A [ ]
Basis: 's . , .~ as ?$'!- -,, k wj ) -/k &> rra, c+m bowkr .Ge_.? c.s ~
Was the Instrument or Control System (Alarm, Bistable Trip, etc.) found in a conservative condition?
Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A h Basis: .If 75 .Wlh?u3/7ctc. ?W7977W Set.tr71/C N1/1P.C f.tX44i .O /Myf
}bW PA646ff 4/Z l!/Y %/'/?t V f8 CWiM7t . [.Z~F f't V Ti.'it&+2Av5/.% n M M&k
~
is a PIR recommended? No [ ]
Yes%'
Completed by: MDAdgA Reviewed by: -,,', .
Technician / Specialist I&C Supepffsor Part 2 To be completed by SS or SCO.
Mode / Power / c) o Temp. S 7V Press. d26 o 1 1
PIR written [ ] No % Yes (If yes, reference ICR on PIR & attach copy of PIR) PIR# f/- O M Completed by: b ~
Concu red with:
- FWN Unit 2 SS!SCO Duty Officer i l&C Form 2437A-1 7, _ ,
s ,
A Part 3 To be completed by I&C Manager /Desigry,ee ,
Cause of problem: [m/ et.
fh g. . ,
g,'g, i:
~ ~ '
Corrective A5 tion (if required): fyy gg.s fg,, #~. u'd /94 0 m 2 eh - o h n Long Term reliability concerns [ ] YES ()()NO Action to address concerns:
Effect on previous surveillances [ ] YES [y )NO Action Required: ,
I&C Open Item ( )YES [ g ] NO If Yes. # ,
Human Performance Enhancement System (HPES) review required?
[ ]YES [X]NO Date forwarded ;
)
Completed By: /M deu26 Approved By:
I&C Manager l
l I
1&C Form 2437A-1
M h ha me : /lCh/ 90- 4 7 FORM APPROVED BV Di4CTOR. MILLSTONE STATION EFFECTIVE DATE SORC MTG. Ns.
1 ,-
3 PLANT INCIDENT REPORT - PART A Report Date: M/M/ No[A DA. 7
- 1. PIN f NITI ATinN INCIDENT D ATE- N-1l- 9 l lNCIDFvT TI\lE // o o j De erio.ier o e,eno L o w T .C . \le d o a Se i smic_ ry b A t- Sv de <vi !
gg V t' g g gg y j be_ /o. 4 L/A v ic e. / 2 d c . e dice PGAFoRm'iAE l(C 2(4 Os r4 - /
i Description at Laume. i t. Anamn Ps 4tdm AllecleQ: $3 piem Numrs. PM\ts ID Spmt'er: Name ci iniiiaior:
Ses m i t. a406 A . ot.scHiew tch C5 a rs i .
- 11. PLANT IN FORNI ATION
/ i
/
P:ani Conditions: Niode. Powersc e : Temp. Prenure !
i / cro sN cF 2.z w G ps A !
De.crioi,on of iniiial .uison FAved % AS 3.3.3.So. ( A o orw S3 - Pre m red ' !
1Reo\acemeu 4 ToWne s
- I Safets imolicaisons AJOAJf3 !j Securits implications: MDMh incioent Caiegory:
] A. Immediate _J C. Public Interest ba sis e y /po /-g M jgfg
] B 30-Da> LER
@ D. Not reportable to .vRC J D. Fitness for Duts d h. M #
Iu ef A e ineicento
] No Name:
[M/ EM DateM/2E/ :me T /.V=O l [
Duts Officer Noinfied: 3 Yes ] No Name:
[ k fvWe./] Date:/* /d* 7/. .e /M o ! !
S'iS A Notified and EPIP All: Notifications Made' ] Yes @ Ne Name: % Da t e . -- - T.m e "
f Security Shif t Supersisor (Potenital Securit) Tntenti: 3 Yes Tg No Name: " Da te:
~~~~ -
Prosecures L>en. 5 i pe Tire !j Da g, y Ill. INVESTIGATION INFORNIATION ,
Personnel Questionnaires Attached: ] Yes ] No List-Procecure Changes:
I','
Trouble Recoris Submmed J 't.es ] No Photographs- ] Yes ] No Material Being Held: 3 Yes ] No Loca tion:
f AM O Cops A:tached: 3 res ] No Safety Tag Sheet Cop) Attached- ~
J Yes ] No (
Information Gathered By: Signa ture:- Date, i !
IV. DUTY OFFICER REVIEW
$agnature: Date. $ i immediate Inse<tigation Necessarv: 3 Yes ] No I
' I V. L NIT DIRECTOR matas: T Assigned incident Caiegory. CA ZB 3C ZD ZE ~_?SSH !!
4 PORC Reue* * ] 's es ] No NRB Review: 3 Yes ] No NEO : '! Iniustee- "J \ e' 'J N -
1.n e tigaior A igned: Lnii Director: Date: i Ref: ACP-QA-10.01 SF 1001 ;
Rev.S :
Page 1 of 4 .
t
g
. . I R*/ n
__ r _ .....
2 l.
. ... . ... . . . . .J. ot'
. Y
. 6 ,
p.
1 . . . ... .
4 .
I.
..n...__.
a .
it
.1 g, . . . . _ _ _ _
. . .mt. , ..
1
, , , ,,,, . . j . . ._. _e, , , . . _ _ . . .
g,
,, ,.( _, . .. , . . _ _ _ _ _ ,
g_a.
. . . .i . .
45 g.g_ _.. . _ .
L.
l
..l... ... l . .. i ._ .. _ l~ ,
.,~
v a - ... . ..
5 ,
see; ; !w .
.. j . . .
g _ . . . . . . .
q o iy.
.. 4 .. e .
..1er . . . . . ..
.. . . . ..;... -- . . ..... . . . _ .A _
- PRIME. . . . _ -
_] . - . _ . . N -.
.... .. . . . . , . . . g_ . - . - .' -.-- ._-_---.4-_
F EDWATER . < - -
? . . . < .. .. ..__.
_ . p ww ... . - . _ . . . . . . .
"68- -
l -_ - - - - - - - - -
t .
_.j. .
. . l --* -- - -- - ----
1 * - - - ' -- _.*
3
_ .3 WelTT _ ! ..... . . . . - - __ ...... .. .,
V . . ... . . . . . , . . . . . . .
p gog,~.,-._..-
...-- - - _ _ ---l _ 'TS1 . _-- . . . .
O S ,F - T. . . . . .tNF . ,, H , .fG_ ,,--
.. , _Ccc. ~ ~
~:
~ ~ ~ -
AA' . " . . . . . .
_g CA&lNET ~,}
- g. i'
..q. .. MSS 26841688 --
1 q 39po,gg,,4
. . . . . . .a %dB .
gg;g3 .. ..- -
.I _ .,: . . . _"y ~ . . - . . .e*'( . ..
. ._ MAIN . J, Y .
p m .:,;sT _c' t" 5' __ _ _ . . _ - . ....._..____.
. . _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . . . __ _ g. . . _ _ .
.g ,y_.
_._ .__. . _ .. . -- ~ .
ALT.- g 2
.. -_ j (FT526SB) 3
_ y.- .--
_h -
( -] .
~
1_..
eeun.uunu ur m u - _. . . _ . . _ ._ .
_v,ofM*PO5sfiON:__..._. _ . - _ . . _ - ,
_-l ..' _ _3. . _ . . _
f..@
. - . 182-- --~_~~~_ . _~ - _ _~. - .-
FT52608 * ._--~_- . ' -- C-. _ !. .. ".
.. ~ . . . .
.'l p .. . _ . _ . .
} .;. p ., p. .g .__ . . . . . . _ _ _ . ,
-i j 1)
'g ) 12 ".. . ---- 13 5 - - _.._. . a.2 . I s NE! !. . !. ' .BW ,
.-.ap 3.
/ . ..._9 -2 i .-n!
. x (f. j
.} 9 o .
.. ..-q g
. . . 4 u-u. ur: ,.,. . . .
f,y lp .._...
m ._
p3 . _ . . . .
L .. _..._ .....-_
s . . . _ _ _ _ _ _
..l....
. . _/..es-
. .-. 1.=wf.sowATERrww . _
w m g Wd. ".' . _ . . . . . . _ _.. . . . . _ .
4,
.. . _ . . . . r . _ . _ . _ . .. '
. . . .. _ cosa . _ _ . . . . . . .
... . . . _ _ . ; . . _ . . . _.i yi i , y . .
. . .. a a ei.g _.3/g _ ..
r ur- um.-swivs
._ ., . . . . + . . .. . . . . - . - . _
. . . . . ._. . . _...._..j_...__. . _ .
~ * ~ _ .
nu u n- w % d N o' $ f
,- 2S203-20005 l(P&lD) - . .. rgo .
i .
COSA) . . . .
. 4-29100. SR SOA . . , i. .
, . .. g. , gg . . . . .
. . . ,4FT5268A) 16 l- 1_6
., .__ .. !-31146 SM f- ~
~
531146,SR 6
-' u : u ,""., ) - ---~
- . . . ,~ ,. 9 . ..
- 1 ggC . - - I . 16CI
.., i . . -j .(RC31A)
. .. -31189, SM.7
- O O
-39045 SR 40,43 4.sisF) ., .. ,. . ..
. ' ~ .5 4
.C
- (PC A$)
.5
. C07R . . TURBifE ' Tit P A l 1-3J3 LSM.lSt i
.a .
AAl. l -.edTr i Ad1rt_4 2 #_1 f
. k. (3300' (32005,S'K 21) l
. y '
- l i i
.l ' I 0' e t 4
. J.
- 4 f . . . .
. t * ,.
_g j 1
l l
i I
.. , i
...l i . ..
- i. i i .._
)
, , .i.
- i. _ _o l ,. t
- g. . . . ...
1
,,, i . .
i -
_.__ .A.DN N.. . . .. . . . . . . . .
Y . . . . . . . _ ._.. . . ._
r.
c ,i
.... gr.l.. ..
5 -- -
y
.; p.g3 . .
2
_x %,v4c. V.Rp i20
,a c ..M ._ . .. .
.- . . sto EL'N W Nooi25DS) . ~ . - . - . . - _ - - _ .
V -T - e U - - - -- - - -
.- l
.aMS1 .
i s . . _ . . . . .. _.. - . . . . . . . .
CGB4 ..
..9 c nA
.l y , .. .._ - - - ~
, H , ,. PC.AS .. .
sec : . .-
, ~. _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . .
4 T._ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . . _ .
.I___.___.._______
p._ _. . _ _ _ . . _ _
amr. .. . . . _ ____ . .. ._ . _ . .
.... NOTES._ . . . _ _
[~ ~
~ ' ' ' ~ ~ '
.~. '1.M)6 casuPART.CF: CAM.ElW/3) P.KCQNAECT.Q.R _. C I'. f-~~ ~_'.~. .,. [P025 3/ 8 .
jen av rrwanan 28 NmM __ _ _ . _ j b '" aM N EEEi -- ----
- CCH4 OR pts.3268At688 Sir.CENEtOPl@fT SEE
_t P,5F. . . -
+-
._ . . 7, p . g.g ._ .~_3_ F,3.,.o.s_. _m.. p_u. m. _ u , -
. _. e. _.
X . __._.. - __. .
CgF .. . . , 4.0 INDIC MES .ERWEIDMUb.n_E_r em
'--- ~
. gi W.._ . _ ..
TES.T- TPE - - -
g m _ ...
J . .._ _ . . ,T.E.R.M_if4 Ay. B_ LOC.M. (..M_P2__I..&..C_t_- ~ - *
~ - - - ~
.._' . - - ~ ~ .. .~. ..
.& g- '7" , ' 'x ~ - ' . . - . . ' .
1 ,- . _
.G.'_~...-.- .
l
-f)& .. .. _.., . . .I. .c i WIC . _ . __ .. 120VAC FROM .
>V R 11. CKf. 2 D.
).
.3 M2
- C , U (* 30022,5H.tS) - _ _ . . _ _ ..
. , r. .
f . . . . , . . . ..
IM_T_il
$ . _q .. . _ _ . . . . ,. c . .- -:
- N O.N - ._ . ... _..
. . , _ -Q A , . . _
. . . . .. . . . . .. ... ~ .
mga
..i .. g,_, u .
t
.l_.;
- C g.. . . . ..
cco.wu in ,,,, , Og - - ----- - -- --
2SJO3 J8SCO.S.H.Sh,e, _REY_ - - -I i
7.- 1 :r.-
ar MmtfuT1 TILIT UWrV CE % ._-
. ;{ .t, : l ~. -
- _MJRTHsAb_1 PMULi AK LNEPt%eT W.
m._. -_ wc,a vune.._ ._
- IP# 5 GWi- -
- - - FT5168A & FT52688 retu - - - -- --
. _ _ _ __ j . ..- . . . . 1.DOP A6fmM
-..}.
PCK., % .g. % _W_ .$T. a..
rif L9 V A.1;IS 3 vi oce-ai r .5- 'ia44
- Uli Y er y az., u ,1 4 rp, i i.e.3.ew. . . _ _
= u. ._
a- - m rua - - = r == i- -
, - = .
._.m __
t y y . e.u.ma -- h-s-n w
g m m
- g r /.WA2 /'3r.,, +
puib lE IN 7_ _ .
i apues e er ps we we *
- eaa.wg '~~~7 520$M500~.Si!.588 .
$ r. As utL Ints .. . . - .
_. ~ . . . . _
. _ _ _ _ . . .._ _ ~ _ , _
., T' '.l '~ m .r.1 '.1 ' l '.In A -
B s .
1
' "^"
NORTHEAST UTILITES E', Rev. S DRAWING CHANGE /SUBMITTA1. REQUEST 1 OF /
CetCK Ord; POCR/PDCE NO. P. A. NO.
DSm NO. per-int e- AFs- 9/ gg _g 4y JDCR uO.
g OTHER RECORDS AFFECTED: te+::LUSiON DOES ' QUALITY STATUS
((
g m, 3
O NOT NT1 ATE LPOATE) OA DRAWNo NCLUDED
. y" 1 O vES e
@~O ACTION REQUIRED: lONLY $ SLOCn FmOM SECTiON 2.0 MAY SE C>tCats, 8, 2.1 GED TO LPDATE ExiSTNG DRAWNGS
.- %> 2,2 GED TO DE'VELOP NEW DRAWINGS y E I ENGPEERNG S#ERytSOR DATE g
J U g C 2.3 nSSUE REPRODUCSLE TO AE/VEPOOR W [ Uh AE /VEM)OR u ,
d RESPONSSLE NU EMPLOYEE: ei g O g,4 g REPR S TO GED FOR NCORPORATION OF 5 " N 8 $ *
- " ' " ' ' " " " ' ' ' ' ' '* *^" ' *""'"'
2.5 0 *NCORPORATIONIOT*ER AS-SUILT UPDATES S 2.6 ] SUBMfT PEW DRAWNGS ,
y l% r 8 "'~J C*#1 F .4 / h 4%,/
k kN k k QRITS UPDATED: (REO'0. ys SLOCK 2 s a CHECKED)
WING TWE/ STATUS LEGEND:
W 4 g
- REPRODUCSLE SENT TO GED P = PREVIOUSLY RELEASED TO GED tt h
4
- b [ N = PEW NUMBER nSSUE B = SLUEPRNT SENT TO GED
. $ A s AP CARD ONLY O= ci
. z < w y T % h GF RgPRE SENT ATNE l
[. DATE 4 U Q W ,
s .m n k( N s S.Y-1
{ h.
8 O
ENGINEERiMG REvm0MPLETED:(REO'O. ONLY WHEN ASSOC 6ATED DRAWNG CMANGES ARE NOT FULLY SUPPORTED BY AN APPROVED CHANGE g g DOCUMEN* OR ARE NOT VERIFIED AND REVIEWED AS A RESULT OF OTHER O > APPROvf 3 PAOCEDU8E S) 9 O AS-=ui'T vEariCATiO~ CO-P'ETED DRAWNG CHANGES:
y
^ " " " " " ^ " * * * ' " ' * * ' " ' " ' ^
" 5 g
s
] *ARE NON-POCR/PDCE ASS [ l I
g - 4 i a c4 a n . .
l tng i h ENGR &ERNG SUPERvkSOR DATE g DRAWINGS APPROVED:
gi g > DE64N SUPERVISOR C PARTnAL DATE
{E N N s $
'] COMPLETE
] PARTnAL DATE e
< O COMPLETE Of y q g q h DCP UPDATED:
pI , , s ._ g g e atmuNT Am o PARTu DATe g
N ,s s s O couPLETE g ,
) GDR REPRESENT ATNE Q pagyg DATE si Q
f S k so o ; O CouPtrTE s
h O o f$ GmTS UPDATED:
7 y ? g ai ;g1m$_1uR~ D.
R NTO S .S_TE _,5
,]
2 l<
. . Gm mmsENT Am
- m. C- ,E~C Sc~ SuPv i o ,A.Tm DATE 3
o s - * '
8 y g O COvatE+E s t ,
Gm um uNw .E o P. rm D.rt g<g -
ORIGINATOR: MCCheskis PA NO: 89 078* PROJECTED ISD: 06/30/92 NPRF UNIQUE 8:
PDCR
- DATE SENT NAS: 10/09/90 RESP INDV! RT8tanchard QA Y DATE INSTALLED: ,
NUMBER * (NRS)EN28: EN2 90137 DEPT: Engineering SFTY EVAL: Y PROJECTED CLOSECUT: 12/31/92 2 031 90
- DATE CLOSED: DATE SENT DeP:
-- DATE OPENED: 09/26/90 SHORT FORM: Y i
- (CMP)(N2f:
TITLE: MOV 2 Re 30.15 SPRING PACK REPLACEMENT
- ANN RPT YR:
Co mENTS:
WAITING IMPLEMENTATION,,1992 OUTAGE PROJECT (1/91) ""umunnenmuunnunununeeeeeeeeenenee assessssssssssssssssse ssensassessussssssssssssssssssssssaansamasssssesumsssssssssssssusussssssssantumansnsas APPROVAL DATE: 10/05/90 DATE SENT NPRF unenneem** P..le.a.se. C.capt . .... e..te. Th.is.
.. S.e.c.t..io.n
.
SYSTEM No: 2316
- 0. alNATOR: MCCheskis PA NO: 89 078* PROJECTED 150: 06/30/92 NPRF UNIQUE 8:
. - - PDCR **
- DATE INSTALLED: DATE SENT NRS: 10/09/90 NLRIBER RE f IMDV RTStanchard QA: Y DEPT: Engineering SFTY EVAL: Y
- PROJECTED CLOSEQUT: 12/31/92 (NRS)EN2fs EN2 90137 2 032 90
- DATE CLOSED: DATE SENT CMP:
+- - - DATE OPENED: 09/26/90 SHORT FORM: Y
- (CMP)EN28:
TITLE: MOV 2 MS 0655 SPRING PACK REPLACEMENT
- ANN RPT YR:
CapetENTS: WAITING IMPLEMENT / TION,1992 OUTAGE PROJECT sessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
"""*"********* APPROVAL C ATE: 10/05/90 DATE SENT NPRF: 04/15/91 ne neeeeeee.** P..le.a.se..C.o.nple..t e. T.h..i s. S.e.c.t.i
. o.n. PORC MTG 8: 2-90 136 NPRF LOG 8: 91MPE22241 SYSTEM N0: 2313
- PA N0: 89 078* PROJECTED ISD: NPRF UNIQUE f: 9113720033 PDCR ORIGINATOR: MGCheskis
- RESP INDV: RT8tenchard CA: Y DATE INSTALLED: 10/29/90 DATE SENT NRS: 10/09/90 WUMSER
- PROJECTED CLOSEQUT: (WRS)EN28: EN2-90137 2-033 90 DEPT: Engineering SFTY EVAL: Y
-- DATE OPENED: 09/26/90 SHORT FORM: Y
- DATE CLOSED: 04/15/91 DATE SENT WP: 04/15/91 ,
- (CMP)EN28: EN2-91 123 ,
TITLE: MW 2-MS 201 & 2-MS 202 SPRING PACK REPLACEMENT
- ANN RPT YR: 1990 CONMENTS: COMPLETE sasssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
- """**"**" APPROVAL CATE: 11/28/90 DATE SENT NPRF: 02/21/91 :
eeeeen e......e* P..l ea.se C.o.npl e..t e. Th.i s. S.e.c.t..i o.n '
.. PORC MTG #: 2 90 189 NPRF LOG #: 91MPEZ2239
. SYSTEM No: 2346A
- PA NO: None
- PROJECTED ISD: NPRF UN10VE 8: 9113720031 PDCR ORIGINATOR: WCSaccoccio
- DATE SENT NRB: 01/03/91 RESP INDV: WC$accoccio CA: Y DATE INSTALLED: 02/05/9*
NUMBER
- PROJECTED CLOSEOUT: (NR8)EN28: EN2 91004 6 2-034 90 DEPT: Engineering SFTY EVAL: Y
- --- - DATE OPENED: 09/27/90 SHORT FORM: V
- DATE CLOSED: 02/11/91 DATE SENT CMP: 02/21/91
- ANN RPT YR: '
COMMENTS: COMPLETE i
essss ssssssss sssssssss ss ssss sss sss s s s s s s "sss s ss s s s s ss sss sss s sss sss s s s s APPROVAL DATE: 10/15/90 DATE SENT NPRT: 06/29/91
- """"** *" P..l e.ase. C.o.upl
.. e..t...
- e. T.h. .i s S.e.c.t.i
. . o.n.
PORC MTG #: 2-90 148 NPRI LOG f: l SYSTEM NO: Doors
- PA NO: None
- PROJECTED ISD: WPRF UW19UE f: ,
PDCR ORIGINATOR: PHSeunann DATE SENT NRB: 10/19/90 y RESP INDV PNSeunann OA: Y
- DATE INSTALLED: 06/17/91 i NLMBER * (NRS)EN28: EN2 90 253 DEPT: Engineering SFTY EVAL: Y PROJECTED CLOSE007:
2-035 90
- DATE CLOSED: U6/27/91 DATE SENT DeP: 06/29/91
- - - DATE OPENED: 09/28/90 SHORT FORM: Y
- ANN RPT TR: 1990 r CD64ENTS: COMPLETE s ess.ss s s..s.s ss.ss .s s.ss s s s ss s ss e . ss. s s s s ss s ss ss ss s ss s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s a. ss ssss s s s s a m s s s s s i **"**"""**"** APPROVAL DATE: DATE SENT NPRF i enneeeeeee**** Ple.as.e.
C.o.npl...
e..te. Thi
.... s s.e.c.t.io.n.
SYSTEM NO: 2326A
- PA NO: None
- PROJECTED IJD: NPRF UNIQUE #:
PDCR ORIGINATOR: RL9eal
- DATE SENT NRB:
I RESP INDV RLleal QA: Y DATE INSTALLED: '
NUNSER
- PROJECTED CLOSE0VT: (NRS)EN28: N/A 2 036-90 DEPT: Maintenance SFTY EVAL: N j
- DATE CLOSED: DATE SENT CMP:
-- DATE OPENED: 09729/90 SHORT FORM: Y
- (CMP)EN28:
TITLE: VITAL SVITCMGEAR COOLERS CHANNE6 HEAD SOLT!NG
- ANN RPT YR:
CopDeENTS: SEING GENERATED ,
i s es s s ss s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ss s s s b PAGE: 6 t
b 4
. I l
l l
, MILLSTONE UNIT 2 l' PLANT DESIGN CMANCE EVALUATION LOG PRINTED: 07/04/91
- s e n s es. s s s e n s s e s.s.s se ess a s s s e s.a s s e s s a n a s s a.a s se s.ss es s ss s ss s s s m e ne s s s s s s s s s s s s ss es e s s a s s s s s ss s sme ness.es s s s
" " " " " " * ' "
- APPROVAL DATE: 07/06/90 DATE SENT NPRF:
nennen eee ee P..le.a.s.e. C.o.mple..t e Th..i s S.e.c.t.ic.n DATE IMPLEMENTED: 02/15/91 NPRF LOG #: l
- EXP COMP DATE: 08/31/91 NPRF UNIQUE f:
PDCE ORIGINATOR: TAMoore SYSTEM ho:
- DATE CLOSED: DATE SENT CMP:
M.28ER RESP INDv TAMoore SFTY EVAL: N
- (CMP)EN28:
MP2 90 03) DEPf: Maintenance
- ANN RPT YR:
-- CATE OPENED: 04/02/90 TITLE: MAINTENANCE SHOP ELECTRICAL McD!flCATIONS CCMMENTS: WORKlWG CLOSEOUT (4/91t assen e s se suss s s s ss s s sssss== =s e s s a ss es s s s ss s s ss s sss s ss ss s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s ss sssss sssssssssana ssasss sssss ssssss s== sse s s neee e u u e..." P. lea.se. C.o.npl e..te. Th..is S.e.c.t.. ion" " * * * * * " " " "
- APPROVAL DATE: 05/16/90 DATE SENT NPRF:
DATE IMPLEMENTED: NPRF LOG #
PDCE ORIGINATOR: SMStearns bYSTEM NO: 2404
- EXP COMP DATE: 08/31/91 NPRF UNIQUE #
- DATE CLOSED: DATE SENT CMP:
Wim8ER RESP INDV: $N$tearns SFTY EVAL: N
- (CMP)EW28:
MP2 90 032 DEPT: !&C
.-.... -- DATE OPENED: 04/04/90
- ANN RPT YR:
TITLE: REPLACEMENT OF MAGNAMELIC WITH PMOTOMELIC SVITCHES FOR RAD MONITOR FIS'S COMMENTS: SIX OF SEVEN COMPLETE (4/91)
...su sses... ssa rgsssssssssssssssssssssisenesssssssssssses=======sess== ssenssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss====senesssss s e e e e n"" * * * *
- P..l ea..se. C.o.n.pl et e. T h..i s S.e.c t .i o.n.
" " " " * * * " * * * *
- APPROVAL DATE: 08/29/90 DATE SENT NPRF 03/18/91
.... . . ..
- WPRF LOG #3 91MPEZ2242 DATE IMPLEMENTED: 12/01/91 PDCE ORIGINATOR: PJParutis SYSTEM NO: 2390A
- EXP COMP DATE: NPRF UNIQUE #: 9113720034 NUMBER RESP INDV: PJParutis SFTY EVAL: Y DATE CLOSED: 03/06/91 DATE SENT CMP: 03/18/91 .
MP2-90 033 D6PT: Engineering (CMP)EN28: EW2 91 085
- - - - DATE OPENED: 04/06/90
messsenes .........sssenessamesessassasssssenesesassanssssssesessssssssenessssssesassassassssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssas
"""*"***"**** APPROVAL DATE: 09/12/90 DATE SENT NPRF:
eeeeeeeeeueeee. P..le.a.se.. C.o.nple..te. T.his. S.ect.io.n.
...
- DATE IMPLEMENTED: NPRF LOG #:
ORIGINATOR: AKNorthrop
- EXP COMP DATE: 12/31/92 WPRF UNIQUE #:
PDCE SYSTEM No: 2307 RESP lNDV; SL$tadnick
- DATE CLOSED: DATE SENT CMP:
NUMBER SFTY EVAL: Y MP2-90 034 DEPT: Engineerirg (CMP)EN28:
- - - - DATE OPENED: 04/23/90
- ANN RPT YR: 1990 TITLE: CHECK VALVE RETAINING BLOCK STUC t! PLACEMENT COMENTS: PARTI ALLY IMPLEMENTED,1992 OUTAGE (1/91)
, es s a ss esse m e s s a ss ss s s s ss s s ssss s s sss s s sss e n s a s s a s s s s s s s s ss s en s ss s s a s s s s s s s s ss ss s ssssss ss s sssssssssss sss ss sssss ssssssssssss o * " * " * " " " " "
- APPROVAL DATE: 05/23/90 DATE SENT NPRF eeeeuee.'"**** P..te.r. e Comple..te. ..... . .Th.is
.... ..S.ec.t. ion
- DATE IMPLEMENTED: MPRF LOG #:
PDCE ORIGINATOR: ELCrandall SYSTEM NO: 23468
- EXP COMP DATE: 08/31/91 NPRF UNIGJE ft
- DATE CLOSED: DATE SENT CMP:
WUMBER RESP INDV: SMstearns SFTY EVAL: N
- (CMP)EN2fs MP2 90 035 DEPT: 1&C DATE OPENED: 04/23/90
- ANN RPT YR:
TITLE: DIESEL FUEL Oil SUMP LEVEL SWITCH M00lFICATION COMENTS: WA! TING INSTALLAfl0N (10/90) sessassemenneessssssssessenesssenesessassasssssssssssssssues.. ssssssssis===sessssassssssssssssssssssssses===ssesssssssssse
- * " " " " " " " *
- APPROVAL DATE: 05/30/90 DATE SENT NPRF: 02/21/91 suenue******* P.le.a.se C.onplete
.. ....... ...This. S.ec.t. ion CATE IMPLEMENTED: 08/10/90 WPRF LOG f: 91eEZ2582 PDCE ORIGINATOR: PMBatsnann SYSTEh NO: 2315C
- EXP COMP DATE: NPRF UNIQUE 8: 9112620014 i NUMBER RESP INDV: PHBatsnam SFTY EVAL: Y DATE CLOSED: 01/28/91 DATE SENT CMP: 02/21/91 MP2-90 036 DEPT: Engineering * (CMP)EN2f: EN2-91 052 DATE OPENED: 0A/27/90
- ANN RPT YR: 1990 TITLE: VITAL SWITCHGEAR COOLING VENTILATION GAGES COMENTS: (GENERIC LETTER 89-13) COMPLEtt assesessesesssssssenessesassessa :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: sesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssses PACE: 6 i
0t ==> INS TRuxENT c CDsTR0t S -
<==
f tq i
.PAGE ! 0F 2 l
PMMS 10: M2 02 FWC PSC FWC bdRK ORDER: M2 71 0707d
=============================== ,
i
- LCCAL ID: FWC 1 PR10c,ITY.....: 3 LOCAL SYS: 2410 l AWO TYPE.....: OT NPROS: XX AELATED l UNIT STATUS..: U :> 0i, E : ZZ ;
ELOG: ROOM: 1 FREQUENCY....: i ELEV: 0000 FT 00 Ill GRIC: 1 SCHED START..: 05 / 27 / 91 TR NO: 1 R EQ C O.MP L . . . . : 09 / 05 / 91 !
P.U. NO: , I f ACCOUNT: 1 PROJ RE:.....: !
===================
ECUIP DESC: FEE 0 HATER CONTROL SYSTEM !
PEOCLEM DESC: T00UELESHCCT c1 FEEDWATER CONTROL SYSTE" TO OE TERMINE I WHf THEPE IS A BAD FEED FLCW SIGNAL CN CR-5301.
NOTE: FR-5301 CALI3 RATION CHECK SAT l SUSP. CAUSE:
-ORIGINATOR: J RITCHIE CEPT: ICC DATE: 03 / 29 / 73 TR TAG MONG: 'J !
c cee ccc c c c cc c c c *** c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c ccc c cc cc c c cc c c c ccc c c cc c c c c cc c c c cc ccc c c ccc c c cc i CAT-1...: N TAGGING: N SECURITY..: N QC REQ. . . . : N CONVEX....: % '
EEQ.....: N RwP REC: 'l FIF,E W ATCH: N HOUSCKEEP.: PAF.TS LIST: N FPGA....: N ALARA..: A L LR T. . . . . . : N CLEA lNE SS . : TOOL LIST.: '. !
Rh5A....: fi SHIELD.: ___ 151.......: N ASME CLASS: ___ S T A G I .M G . . . : ___
ATWSQA..: f. REJ09K.: 4 MCV TEST..: ___ E NC /0Lu d..:: '4 P:.0 C E 9UR C-S : EVAL:C0c699 !
i CAUT10rl _
NOTES: I JGo TROUCLESHCCT TO CETERNINE CAUSE CF PUCELE4 -
DESC: J
<<<<<< n RITE SEPERATE AWD IF ANY REPAIRS ARE RE.UID ED >>>>>> !
I i
TASK DEPT c AKn NAh HR TASK OEPT 0 WK9 P U. H ~ !
- 1. TRPLSH30T IEC _____ ______ 4. _____ ______
2* _____ ______ 5. _____ ______ i
- 3. _____ ______ 6. _____ ______
3 SUDERVISOR: _ ______________ ASSIGN TO: ____
DEPT APPROVAL: ____h_[__ _____________ DATE: _( / k / p_ ;
coccocccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccce ccccccccccc ec OPS PRE-APPROVAL: ______ ____________ TIME: c____r__ DATE: __ /, %/ .
TR bL SMT/FA 3RIC ATE ONLY T*G CLEARANCE: ____ C ____ LCC: ________ CURATION:
1 JJMDER:
m' i
CFS APPR3 VAL: _O[ #ew-c_<_ _ T!"E: M__L (___ 0 ATE: 2 / M / (( i
SAMPLE RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS SITE: 1 No PANEL ATTEND -
ALLEGATION NO.: #1-91-A-o23 6 Chairman - f l DATE: 45M (Panel No 1 345) Branch Chief -
PRIORITY: High Low Section Chief (AOC) - % = eC l SAFETY SIGNIFICAN l CONCURRENCE
- Yes No h Sr. Allegation Coord (SAC) E kmek 01 Reoresentative -
l TO CLOSEOUT: DD BC @ (Other) (4edlenk /TT RAMdCh CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes l (See Allegation Receipt Report)
IS THERE A HARASSMENT / DISCRIMINATION ISSUE:
l l
l
! IF YES, Yes @
- 1) has the individual been informed of the DOL
- process and the need to file a complaint within 30 days Yes No
- 2) has the individual filed a complaint l with DOL Yes No
- 3) has a letter been sent to the complainant seeking Yes No
- any safety concerns l IS A CHILLING EFFECT LETTER NARRANTED: Yes No l IF YES, HAS IT BEEN SENT Yes No l HAS THE LICENSEE RESPONDED TO THE CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACILQE:
l 1) Ime I) closc. oue_ uas PDcR o 4er was @dC E
- 2) % Oe wcl cl* e ksw 2
- 3) T(swe. 3 4mselon ,rs u el
- 4) Tss 4 E 4 L wever fo A N
- 5) T%f ( "T~ c n co e r- % 1)Q Tsme 6 hpeci,
- a i n i .I i JJ
,'% dcoxw acn r to i"
J
' *d e j ,ow lisQ NOTES:
A4-1
0 l3 t
- 4 4
o UNIT 2 I&C MEMO MP-2-I-1882 i
September 6, 1991 To: R. A. Borchert !
i Rea to En ineer i
From: n D. Becker t I&C Manager - Millstone Unit 2 x5265 ,
1
Subject:
ICI Calibration Requirements The purpose of this memo is to document the review that took i place on the subject of ICI calibration requirements. This was review was conducted in response to the question raised ;
during an NRB audit activity. The question asked if our i
procedures adequately addressed calibration of the plant process computer voltage measurements, as the auditor was 4 aware of problems related to proper analog to digital conversion on Unit 3.
System Design
Each ICI is a self powered neutron detector that has a positive and negative lead that is connected across a 100K "
, precision resistor. The plant process computer monitors this voltage and converts it from an analog value to a digital ,
value for use in the incore analysis program. This program generates outputs in the form of raw values, corrected values, alarms and calculations based on the voltage inputs.
Calibration Requirements
- Tech. Spec 4.3.3.2.b states that the system shall be determined OPERABLE
- " At least once per 18 months by '
. performance of a CHANNEL CALIBRATION operation which exempts ,
the neutron detectors but includes all electronic components. l The neutron detectors shall be calibrated prior to installation in the reactor core." j Review of Design Features Requiring CHANNEL CALIBRATION i l
The ICI loops consist of the detac&^r, the_wirina to the ,
computer room, '.Le 100K ohm resistor, and the plant process computar mnnitors the unitaa. Aenn =renen the resistar. I
~
- 1. The detectors are exempted from calibration by 4.3.3.2.b.
- 2. The wiring is not considered an electronic component as it has no adjustable characteristic and serves only to provide continuity. In addition, the raeir+enre nf tha cire and its a_ssociated connections at the head. MtCSS, contairment I
(
-R penetrations and comnuter cabinet is insionificantix_: ;11,amy
_relatinachip to the resistance provided by the 100K ohm f resistor. Coptinuity needs to be demonstrated during ICI #
installation activities.l
- 3. The resistor performs an electronic function, but is not adjustable. A verification of proper resistance values is appropriate.
- 4. The plant process computer performs the actual measurement
-- EUnction and is adjustable. Verification that it responds with the necessary range and accuracy to known values is necessary.
Comparison of Calibration Requirements to Procedure Contents
- a. Fire Continuity _This is adecuately addressed by s a c t i _on 7.2 of SP 2407.
- b. Resistor Verification - This is adequately addressed by section 7.1 SP 2407.
- c. Plant Process Computer Voltage Measurement - The current method for verifying the computer's voltage measurement is specified in C.S. 5.05, MP2 Integrated comnuter system Analog Calibration Procedure. This is currently done as part of PM activities tor _the plant process computer and is done at a refuel frequency. The verification of the computer's ability to accurately measure the ICI vcitage^
should be accomplished under a PORE mpproved crocedura.
The portion of the computer _that p.v+nem this function was determined to be cabinets PCll and PCl3. As the voltage measurement range and accuracy for all channels in a cabinet is controlled both by individual cabinsi and individual channel adjustments, the testing of each individual _ chann-1 "ithin 2 c2 binet 4e r e;"4 * =?.
The review was conducted with the following I&C personnel:
T. Arnett D. Vining B. Salen P. Smith J. Becker Additional input was gathered from:
D. Hildebrand M. Parikh .
R. Borchert
.4 1
I'd appreciate your comments on the results of this review.
I have changed our calibration procedure to add a multipoint check of the computer's voltage me. aurement perf ormance.
c: J. W. Riley J. S. Keenan P
2 j ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .
{Y
-ALLEGATION NUMBER --RI-91-A-0238 RUN DATE: 09/11/91 DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 05000336 / MILLSTONE 2 /2
- DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / /
DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / /
DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / ,
ACTIVITY TYPES - REACTOR :
. 1 MATERIAL LICENSES -
FUNCTIONAL AREAS -
OPERATIONS
. DESCRIPTION - 1) PDCR NUMBER 2-90-035 WAS USED TWICE, DIFFERENT MODS
- 2) SHORTCOMINGS IN METHOS USED TO CAL ICI'S TO TRACEABLE STD '
- 3) NU RESPONSE TO #2 DOESN'T ADDRESS ISSUE AND IS LATE CONCERNS - 4) ONLY 2 OF 8 RAD MONITORS MET LINEARITY REQUIREMENTS 6 5) PROCEDURE 2404AW REV2 RAS NO ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA .;
- 6) DRAWINGS SHOW DIFFERENT TERMINATION POINTS FOR S/G FLOW RECORDER / TRANSMITTER LOOPS SOURCE - LICENSEE EMPLOYEE CONFIDENT - NO RECEIVED - 910829 BY - PJ HABIGHORST / RI
'\
ACTION OFFICE CONTACT - EM KELLY -
(FTS)346-5183 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE UNKNOWN BOARD NOTIFICATION - NO STATUS - OPEN SCHED COMPLETION - 920228 DATE CLOSED -
ALLEGATION SUBSTANTIATED - ALLEGER NOTIFIED -
OI ACTION - OI REPORT NUMBER -
REMARKS - RECEIVED IN RESIDENT OFFICE BY MEMO AND UPDATE MEMOS.
l i
SUPPORT OFFICE: RPS-4A '
ACTION PENDING: CONVENE PANEL DOCUMENTATION: !
ALLEGER LAST CONTACTED: 29AUG91
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD: DRAWINGS, RAD MONITORS ENTERED SYSTEM - 910903 CLOSED SYSTEM - RECORD CHANGED - 910903 l
/3 SAMPLE RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS SITE: A' *E PANEL ATTENDEES-ALLEGATION NO.: 63M1 o86 hSatZ Chairman - bdek l DATE: 30 8 (Panel No.12 3 4 5) Branch Chief - .
PRIORITY: i Medium Low Section Chief (AOC) - (c_Ilr l SAFETY SIG i CONCURRENCE CANCE: @ No Unkn Sr. Allegation Coord (SAC)R 01 Repesentative - C. Ak lmb l TO CLOSEOUT: DD @ SC (Other) SArlle:h '" beim CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes @ h m w (o 2 4 -f n d lD 2 4 (See Allegation Receipt Report)
IS THERE A HARASSMENT / DISCRIMINATION l ISSUE: Yes O l IF YES, l 1) has the individual been informed of the DOL l process and the need to file a complaint within 30 days Yes No l 2) has the individual filed a complaint l with DOL Yes No l 3) has a letter been sent to the complainant seeking Yes No
- any safety concerns i IS A CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes No l IF YES, HAS IT BEEN SENT Yes No l HAS THE LICENSEE RESPONDED TO THE CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACTION:
- 1) 7A>s PEL7 1CI smecbwc( M(m%cmeds bcIt:emke (hhs on - a- v 6. o o wAlst' lih ' C O R.f3
- 2) b 5 e m h t. a ce_<shbilS mM use_ e M kvd ed o.lh # m rtt to L Nm h b ds% N Gv- n o b tl s ml E r-
- 3) ddc#2 ab iV louh wds b cebAl in 01 4) 5)
NOTES:
A4-1
.... . ~ - -
- - . _ . . ~
v I
RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS SITE:
- Uh f- _ <N PANEL ATTENDEES:
ALLEGATION'NO.: O* TI "O7 $1 Chairrnan - LAJ N4CL M % I
\ u ee DATE: kCC79j4 (Panel'No. @ 2 3 4 5) Branch Chief -
PRIORITY: High h Low Section Chief fAOC) - sl l SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes No h Sr. A11eoation Coord (SAC) Fu l,,,,senk, CONCURRENCE TO CLOSEOUT: DD SC OI Reoresentative -
CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED:
(.e.,e Allegation Receipt Report)
Yes @ (Other) t /Ses (f) h2e. % '
awei4(-
IS THERE A HARASSMENT / DISCRIMINATION ISSUE: Yes .
IF YES, '
- 1) has the individual been informed of the DOL process and the need to file a complaint within 30 days Yes No
- 2) has the individual filed a complaint with DOL Yes No
- 1) b40 l & te tNM I5Mt & C&G'r Cos!B inh hCY)b fum# iki % M e st"< opwer Swee icA ask revnes.
- 2) be 2 weS9 i5Suff b )
I Cort'en o we a G i% R M 9 e e ' e.d u i'A n*: a n
- 3) b ~%I 4can:cwks; Dun' Lx.w- -
s 4) i 1
5) i NOTES:
i
/
-N ENCLOSURE Concerns RI 91-A-0232-01 and RI-91-A-0263-01:
There were two ex'amples of alleged inadequate control and maintenance of equipment spare parts. First, that a spare power supply in the warehouse (SPM 798, revision 16, .
item 34) for the "B" RCP lower oil reservoir level alarm unit allegedly did not receive a capacitor change out, as did the in-service power supply units. Allegedly, PMMS item M2-02-ENV-PWR-X-20 (Serial No.10521) typified a maintenance history record for a l
i power supply replacement. Second, that an RPS spare component, the Auxiliary logic Drawer identified in Concern RI-91-A-0263-02, allegedly lacked a modification (three versus four amber indicating lamps).
Concern RI-91-A-0263-02: .
Allegedly, a' spare RPS Auxiliary logic Drawer allegedly was used to support troubleshooting, on or about October 1,1991, of a power supply relay failure within the same drawer in RPS channel "D," but was not installed in place of the failed drawer.
Allegedly, the spare RPS Auxiliary 14gic Drawer lacked some original parts (three lamps).
l Concern RI-91-A-0232-02:
On or about August 16, 1991, Imop Folders for the "B" RCP oil reservoir alarm instruments allegedly did not reflect the' actual physical location of specific power supplies. Allegedly, some boards had five separate power supplies within the power supply unit.
Concern RI-91-A-0232 03:
On or about August 16,1991, Imop Folders for the "B" RCP allegedly did not provide information regarding which additional instrument loads powered from each power supply. For example, power supply X-21 supplied several other instrument loops in addition to the "B" RCP upper and lower oil sump levels. The individual doing the work believed this information was considered essential to preclude the loss of power to other instrumentation when performing maintenance on an instrument loop component.
l
l i
f- j FDW LOS l l
l l
Concern RI-91-A-0232-04:
On or about August 16, 1991, Instrument Record Sheets for the "B" RCP upper and lower oil reservoir level transmitters (LT-176 & LT-177) allegedly were missing from ,
the Instrument loop Folders.
l Concern RI-91-A-0232-05:
There were allegedly nuisance alarms, associated with the "B" RCP upper and lower oil ;
reservoirs, caused by mechanical action within the RCP oil reservoirs _ (reference AWO M2-91-08614). 1 Request: ;
Please provide your review of the above assertions. If the above conditions are valid, i notify us of the corrective actions you have taken to prevent recurrence. Also provide us with an assessment of the safety significance of any identified deficiencies, including generic considerations. l l
In addition to the above general request, please provide your review of the following !
specific questions. Are spare pans, that are either located in the warehouse (s) or used !
for troubleshooting, controlled and maintained in accordance with the NU QA Program? !
Is there a mechanical problem with RCP oil sump levels?- Does Unit 2 administratively ;
control I&C documentation in a manner consistent with the methodology used for Units j 1 and 3 and with the NU QA Program? Is Departmental Instruction 2-I&C-10.03, !
Establishing and Maintaining Instrument Records, adequate for administrative control of !
I&C documentation? In general, do loop folders adequately identify instrument loads for :
each power supply? !
~
l
?
i I
b
eu e j f UNITED ST ATEs Q #c.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
[ .- l ' '.
ogG o*;
- 1 E
- . 475 ALLENDALE AGC s, 'f ring OF PRORSIA PENNSYLVANIA 19406-141b
.....f j
I dal 50-245 License Nos. DPR-61 Docket Nos. DPR 65 50-336 NFP-49 50-423' hir. John F. Opeka Executive Vice President Nuclear Nortneast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford. Connecticut 06141-0270 l.
Dear hir. Opeka:
l
Subject:
Combined Inspection Nos. 50-245/91-19,50-336/91-23 and 50-423/91-19 On September 23-28.1991 an announced. safety inspection of your September 26.199:
emergency preparedness exercise and other emergency preparedness activities was cond.:cted by hir. C. Amato and other members of this office. The inspection was conducted at your blilb:ene Nuclear Power Station, Waterford, Connecticut. and at your offices in Berlin.
Connecticut, in addition. the inspection was continued during the period October 7-30.1991 at the NRC RI office in King of Prussia Pennsylvania to permit evaluation of documercation .
obt.uned during the on-site portion of the inspection and to review your corrective actions taken in response to the Unusual Event declared as a result of Hurricane Bob. Discussions of our findings were held by Str. Amato with your staff at the conclusion of the on-site portion of the inspection.
The exercise demonstrated the ability of the blillstone Station and Corporate staffs to t.:.e timely and adequate protective measures on behalf of public health and safety. Corpora:e staff exhibited excellent response to scenario accident conditions. An adequate emergency preparedness program was maintained and no exercise weacnesses were identified.
Although no violations were identified, an unresolved item is discussed in Section 7.4.4 of the enclosed inspection report.
l rh 1
l I
A
( 91121 9 0 02V - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__j
- c = ,
. r, -- i 2.'
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company l
No reply to this letter is required. Thank you for your cooperation.
. Sincerely,
. P M w es H. Jo, er, hief Facilities Radio ogical Safety and Safeguards Branch l Division of Radiation Safe:y i and Safeguards
Enclosure:
50-245/91-19,50-336/91-23 and 50-423,91-19 Combined Inspection Report Nos.
cc w/ encl:
W. Romberg, Vice President. Nuclear Operations D. Nordquist, Director of Quality Services R. Kacich. Manager, Nuclear Licensing S. Scace, Nuclear Station Director ,
H. Haynes, Nuclear. Unit Director C. Clement. Nuclear Unit Director G. Gartield, Esquire N. Reynolds. Esquire K. Abraham, PAO (2)
Public Document Room (PDR) -
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident inspector State of Connecticut U. S. FEMA-1 upt m r E' .-Aw -,,Wr# --
e-- em-
. i 9
- i. t
. -)
Nortlicast Nuclear Energy Company 3 DEC 0 g y;;, l bec w/ encl:
Region i Docket Room (w/ concurrences) ,
Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o enc!) ,
' D. Jaffe, PM, NRR~ i J. Williams, PM, NRR F E. Wenzinger DRP
- l E. Kelly, DRP ;
W. Raymond, SRI. Millsto .c ;
A. Asars. SRI, Haddam Neck 7
~
R. Arri%Il DRP l R. Lobel, EDO
RI-91-A-0219 RI-91-A-012S RI-91-A-0228 RI-91-A-0046 RI 91-A-0236 ,
.w.,
l
+
d e
)
l
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COSIS11SSION REGION I Report Nos. 50-245/91-19 50-336/91-23 50-423/91-19 Docket Nos. 50-245 50-336 50-423 License Nos. DPR-61 DPR-65 NPF-49 Licensee:
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101-0270 Facili:t Name: Millstone Nuclear Power Station Impec:!on Conducted: September 23-28,1991 and October 7-30.1991 Inspection At: Berlin, Connecticut: Waterford, Connecticut: and Kint: of Prussia, Pennsylvania inspec:. .>: O, 8M 4 dhf/W C. G. Amato. Enfergency Preparedness date Specialist. Recion 1 D. Dempsey, Resident Inspector. Millstone Point Plant P. Habighorst, Resident Inspector, Millstone Point Plant K. Ihnen, Operations Engineer (Examiner)
J. Jamison, NRC Contractor K. Kolaczyk, Resident Inspector, Millstone Point Plant W. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Point Plant G. Vissing, NRC Licensing Project Manager App .". cJ: m l M v/2)
E. McCate'. LTief. Emergency / date Preparedness Section. Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards 417;plw 0 bN 1
i
.0 2
Arcas inspected: Safety inspection of the licensee's full-participation emergency preparedness exercise, and of the emergency preparedness program. Program areas inspected included Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedure changes, training, audits and reviews. maintenance of emergency response facilities, public information. off site activities, and responses to situations requiring emergency classification.
Results: No exercises weaknesses were identified. The exercise demonstrated the licensee's ability to take timely and adequate protective measures on behalf of public health and safety.
Corporate staff exhibited excellent response to scenario accident conditions. An adequate emergency preparedness program was maintained. No violations were identified. An f
unresolved item, involving the extent of training given to operators on the simulator that includes classifying scenarios at the Site Area Emergency and higher levels, is discussed in i Section 7.4.4 1
l l
26 NUSCO's Production Operation Services Laboratory.
The inspector discussed alternate information sources to supply site MET data if needed. No alternate was speci6ed other than SODAR, a doppler acoustic sounding system. There are alternate sources of MET data available including: the Norwalk Harbor tower, about 50 miles west of the site; the New London /Groton airport tower, which also failed; the licensee's meteorological consultant in Massachusetts, who's facility also lost power; and Connecticut River Valley MET tower near Middletown ,
(different topography).
SODAR is located adjacent to the EOF and is still beirq evaluated. It was selected as a substitute for a very high conventional tower so the sea breeze effect could be estimated. SODAR will measure wind speed and direction, has an equivalent height of 700 feet, and computes stability category (the vendor has never disclosed the algorithm for thisj. SODAR determines stability category, but this determination cannot be inputted i'nto the dose projection programs, which require temperature differences. The dose assessment staff must, using tables, determine the temperature differences and manually enter these values. The software then redetermines the stability category. The antennae resemble a ship's ventilator. SODAR received power from the EOF, but cannot generate data during periods of high wind speeds and heavy rain, such as experienced during the hurricane. SODAR output cannot deduce A or G stability categories and it is biased in favor of stable conditions, particularly F stability category. The inspector was orally advised by the licensee that SODAR is under evaluation and has not been accepted as a backup to the MET tower. However, page 7-16 of the licensee's emergency plan, dated October 15.
1990. states that "SODAR ... provides backup meteorological data" and "wi!! be used by the on-call corporate meteorologist for data interpretation and prediction". In addition, NE-91-RA-550, a report on the use of SODAR, concludes that the use of SODAR is questionable as it has critical limitations. The licensee's emergency plan is not consistent with the above statements. The use of SODAR as a backup needs to be resolved. This item will be reviewed in a future inspection.
The last means of deterraining MET data during the Hurricane would have been to conservatively estimate the conditions using either the last available data, or by physically observing the MET conditions and developing estimates. These estimates could then be inputted into TRS-80 dose calculation method (PUFF was also lost. see below). Details for doing these calculations are given in an implementing procedure.
The inspector concluded that the licensee could have performed dose projections if necessary using the TRS-80 dose calculation method and by estimating MET data.
However, the maintenance of the MET tower, particularly regarding the backup power, does nc,t a;. pear acceptable. Additionally, the potential use of SODAR to p ovide backup MET appears to have critical limitations that would not make it an adequate backup to the MET tower.
27 The mainframe computer in Wethersfield was lost due to power failure. This led to a loss of the Offsite Information System (OFIS) which includes the Environmental Data Acquisition System (EDAN) software. PUFF the mainframe dose projection model was also lost. OFIS is designated by NU as a Category A software program because of its importance to financial liability in the event of a declared emergency and the ability to transmit accident management information. The mainframe also operates the plant maintenance *and health physics records systems. The Plant Process Computer supplies data to the mainframe via communication controllers. Data is inputted to data sets and modified by software into frames (or screens) which can be sent to all mainframe terminals. There are 12 or 13 frames for OFIS. Data is transmitted by the NU microwave system, backed up by land lines. The mainframe is supplied by two,200 volt,3 phase lines coming in from different sources. Motor no generators provide the 400 Hz needed for computer operation. There are uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) or other backup power sources. The mainframe 3 failed once before during a hurricane. To improve reliability following this failure, a static switch was installed. This switch would transfer from a de-energized line to an energized line automatically and rapidly. During the recent hurricane, when the -
normal power was lost due to downed lines, the static switch transferred to the other source. After a while it retransferred to the de energized source and stayed there.
- thereby causing the mainframe to fail.
To guard against mainframe failure. NU has also installed a backup computer in its
- Berlin headquarters. This computer is an IBM 4381 and is known as the B computer.
This machine is generally idle and the mainframe and the B computer are not i
operated in parallel. In order to run in parallel, all communications from the Piant Process Computer would have to be duplicated. This requires both hardware and l software changes. To switch to the B computer, communications are switched to it !
and a number of Wethersfield staff go to Berlin. Switchover can take from one to l four hours. This switchover process is proceduralized in the Disaster Recovery Procedures, dated 7/1/91. Five disaster categories are specified which establish I
recovery priorities. Category A was not declared since an Alert or higher classification was not declared or justified. The Information Resource Group (IRG) f was asked to reconfigure the system but not to do so immediately. Personnel were l not sent to Berlin. Following this incident, approval was given to install a CPS and a l l
backup power supply at Wethersfield.
If OFIS is down, the alternate data transmission possibilities are voice and facsimile.
During the hurricane, while OFIS was down, three Data Coordinators were in each l control room to facilitate the transfer of information if needed. ]
l i
a.
.O 28 The Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) was functional, but there are no terminals outside of the control rooms except in the TSC. SPDS data are transmitted to the EOF and CEOC by OFIS. It should be noted that the NRC Emergency Response Data System, although not yet operational, will interface with OFIS as the Plant Process Computer cannot accept any more tasks.
OFIS availability measured at the main frame is as follows:
OFIS DATA AVAILABILITY (%)
MP1 MP2 h123 1987: -
70.3 91.9 1988: 77.8 76.6 91.8 1989: 88.8 72.3 90.2 1990:" 93.5 91.5 94.3
- to 9/6/90 The above data indicates Unit 3 was consistently available for greater than 90% of the time. OFIS was available for greater than 90% for Units 1 and 2 for only 1 of the last four years. OFIS design speci6 cations call for an availability of 98% during plant operations (Modes 1,2 and 3). This speciGcation is traceable to NUREG-0696 regarding high availability of SPDS during operation. However OFIS must be available during all operating modes as well as during declared emergencies. The above data indicates OFIS failed to meet the licensee specifications 43% of the time.
The inspector was unable to identify any apparent reason for the discrepancies in availability between the units. This area will be review in a subsequent inspection.
Based upon the above review, this portion of the licensee's program is acceptable.
10.0 Site Evacuation and Access During Emergencies 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10) requires protective action for emergency workers and the public. Related guidance is given in Evaluation Criteria J.1 to J.5 in NUREG-0654 To determine if adequate protective procedures are in place to ensure protective actions for non-essential personnel, the inspector reviewed the emergency plan and implementing procedures and security procedures, pertinent lesson plans, and interviewed recurity personnel.
All unescorted personnel entering the protected area must satisfactorily complete General Employee Retraining or it equivalent, in addition. 6tness-for-duty rules apply and all other security checks and procedures apply as well. Staff augmentation