IR 05000245/1990080
| ML20055E928 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1990 |
| From: | Haverkamp D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055E927 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-90-80, 50-336-90-80, 50-423-90-81, NUDOCS 9007130089 | |
| Download: ML20055E928 (188) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:a U.- - ;- ;i
'
- s
, i l , U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION,I Report.Nos.
50-245/90-80; 50-336/90-80; 50-423/90-81-
- Docket Nos.
50-245; 50-336; 50-423 License Nos.- DPR-21; DPR-65; NPF-49-
. Licensee:
- Northeast' Nuclear Energy Company 4"
P.O. Box 270 ! ' Hartford, CT 06141-0270
Facility Name: Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 l " Inspection at: Waterford and Berlin, Connecticut j
,, ' Dates: !iarch 12 - May 8,1990 s '
- Reporting
Inspector: W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector ! ' Inspectors:. W.'J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector i D. A. Dempsey, Resident Inspector, Millstone 1 [ P, J. Habighorst, Resident. Inspector, Millstone 2
K. S. Kolaczyk, Resident Inspector, Millstone 3
M...L. Boyle, Project Manager, Millstone 1-I , ! G.- S, Vissing, Project Manager, Millstone 2
D. H..Jaffe, Project Manager, Millstone 3 ! Other NRC, t ^ Personnel: D. R.'Haverkamp, Chief, Reactor Projects section 4A ,. .A. Vegel, Reactor Engineer, Reactor Pr: : cts Section 4A .] e , JApproved by: @N/ 7/f/40 ' w Donald.R. ' Haverkamp, Chief (/ Date .! Reactor Projects Section 4A f Division of Reactor Projects , . Inspection Summary: Report 50-245/90-80, 50-336/90-80, 50-423/90-81 ' Areas Inspected: Special Mid-SALP Cycle inspection by NRC inspectors of plant j .., ' operations, radiological controls, maintenance, surveillance, emergency pre-
i paredness, security, engineering and technical support, and, safety assessment / quality verification.' i , t , _Results:. Areas of licensee performance were reviewed and discussed in a manage- , ment meeting on May 8, 1990.
Licensee management also described their responses t to-NRC concerns, as well as their initiatives to improve performance as express-
- ed in this report and the attached licensee briefing document.
The results of .; the inspection will be used to focus NRC inspections for the remainder of the . SALP period.. 9007130089 90o7o3 r-i LgDR ADOCK 05000245 " PDC . ,
_ . - - . 63, . ,' yp
s - c .g - t4 Wih. Gi, ' , l,.
' ' ~' { %; <.; { ' ,; t .
- w Q. ; 4 ';(
' i . g
r y . s.c > J 3 :, ' f . I' . ., i , b+t TABLE OF CONTENTS
z.
, a I .s e , w p '- - . ~ f I.; ' Ba c kg ro un d ( I P 3 5 502 * )....... :............ ;....... '............ I 'I ' a . .n . . LII.
Assessment Review. Summary (IP 35502)...............'.......... 2-II.A Plant Operations..... 4.. - .2.
' g ................................... , - . . . g>. a .
P LII.B / Radiological'Controlsh..........'............................
1 ' .
.II.C Maintenance / Surveillance.................................. 12-l ' , , j'4 .-
,- f li, 'II. DL Emergency P re pa redne s s..................................... 18 j
- ,
i E', ' I I. E ~ S e c u r i ty !................................................. ;.19 j ,
L II. F ': Engineering / Technical Support.
'! .............................. ,
, .. . , , L - II;G ' Safety Assessment / Quality Verification.................... 25 i.,1 r; R, j III.. Management-Meeting (IP 35502).......................'.......29' j p ' . - ;
a .. . . c
- The NRC inspection manual inspection procedure (IP) that was used as '
iW . . U
- inspection. guidance-is listed for each applicable' report section.-
.l
< . . , t !. . }
s 3' '
- g)
c-i- ?
-
. . , ' l~ e ,
- - ? ?
'
. f h.
_ b g i i t i.
t _
. b 1 :^ ' it R;
4 c c,p- ' ~'
., { - ! 4 -. - I t' } (! k s .p =, t . N b 1 4 l= r !-i p' ! - ? ,
- i i j f.
f
. , i , } - , , .i y
, $ ' , . ..~ _ _
pp 3 - ; - 'l ! ! ' ! ,< Executive Summary-i i ! ! This inspection was conducted by three groups of. NRC personnel approximately halfway through the assessment period for the NRC systematic assessment of i L . licensee performance.(SALP).
Each group included the senior resident inspec-l . tor, the respective resident inspector, the respective NRR project-manager and ' the Region I reactor projects section chief or reactor engineer. The inspec-- .i tion included discussions and reviews of NRC-identified. topics and licensee.
i p ' presentations of significant self-initiatives.
! c' On May_'8, 1990, a meeting.was' held in the NRC Region I office between the .. . - o licensee and NRC Regien.1 management.
Licensee management presented initia-tives that they have taken and further addressed areas of NRC interest. The . D NRC informed the licensee of observed strengths and weaknesses in each func-
L tional area.
, ! Based on the results of this review, an assessment of licensee performance in
each of the SALP functional areas was made which will form the basis for in- ! spection follow-up.
! 'Overall licensee performance was noted to be consistent with prior assessments, with strengths noted in certain licensee programs, several significant:initia-l tives to improve performance, and a strong orientation to safety'in plant operating activities..Further' licensee and NRC staff review is needed for.
timeliness of reportability.and operability evaluations; followup of improve-mentszin the radiological controls area to assure-control of contaminated materials and to; correct weaknesses in the transportation o'f radioactive materials; and the timeliness of licensee responses to generic issues identi-fied by.the NRC.
d i l'.
l ,
- DETAILS 1.
Background This inspection was conducted approximately halfway through the assessment period for the NRC systematic assessment of licensee performance ($ ALP) and was guided by NRC inspection procedure 35502, " Evaluation of Licensee Quality Assurance Program Implementation."
The inspection was conducted in two phases, an in-office review /evalua-tion, with followup inspection at each site. The in-office evaluation was performed of NRC inspection reperts and licensee event reports, the pre-vious SALP report, and outstanding regional open items for the past two years sorted by SALP functional area.
Each report was analyzed to note any trends and to identify any potential weak areas.
Particular attention was given to licensee performance since the end of the 1988 - 1989 SALP cycle for each unit.
From this review, the team compiled a list of iden-tified areas of interest which was discussed with the unit director prior to team arrival on site.
During the onsite review phase, interviews and discussions were conducted with members of NNECO and NUSCO management and staff as necessary to sup-port inspection activity. Meetings were held at the Millstone site and at corporate headquarters in Berlin, Connecticut. The agenda primarily consisted of discussions of NRC-identified topics and licensee presenta-tions of significant self-initiatives. The licensee attendees at the meetings included the unit director, department heads for operations, maintenance, instrument and control, health physics, engineering, quality services (surveillances), security, and select licensing personnel.
The principle meeting,and inspection dates were as follows: Millstone 1: March 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21, 1990 Millstone 2: April 3, 4, and 5, 1990 Millstone 3: April 17, 18, 19 and May 3, 1990 The NRC participants included the headquarters project managers, the Millstone senior resident inspector, the respective resident inspectors, and the Region I Division of Reactor Projects section chief or reactor engineer.
Based on the results of this review, an assessment of licensee performance in each of the SALP functional areas was made which forms the basis for inspection follow-up.
On May 8, 1990, a meeting was held in the NRC Region I effice between the licensee and NRC Region I and headquarters management. At the meeting, the licensee presented initiatives that they hree taken and further ad-dressed areas of NRC interest.
The NRC staff then informed the licensee of the observed strengths and weaknesses in each SALP functional are I e E , II.. Assessment Review Summary [ A.
PLANT OPERATIONS, ! i A.I. Millstone 1 ' > Previous SALP Rating: Category 1 NRC Discussion Items The NRC. areas of interest included (1) the need to aggressively pursue { ongoing emergency operating procedure (EOP) improvements to upgrade to the ' emergency procedure guidelines (EPGs), a past SALP recommendation; and (2) the need to improve the review and approval of completed surveillances.
, In the area of E0P development, NRC review had identified repeat concerns ' regarding. preparation of the procedures in accordance with accepted stand-
ards.
Further, the NRC noted two significant deviations taken by the ' licensee from Revision 4 of the EPGs.
In the area of' surveillance review, the NRC resident inspector identified three instances where the licensee either failed to identify that valves . l did not meet surveillance procedure acceptance criteria or failed to declare affected valves inoperable. The problem was attributed to a lack. t of knowledge by. operations department personnel of the relationship of the
inservice test stroke time limits to the technical specification require-l .ments.
' , Licensee Response - Emergency Operating Procedures - Implementation of Revision 4 of the emergency operating. procedures at Unit 1 occurred on September 1, 1989. Two significant deviations from the. EPGs concerning containment flooding and reactor pressure vessel emergency depressurization were implemented, The deviations were considered to be' . L justified by the licensee in order to remain consistent with design basis
> , analysis assumptions and to optimize accident mitigation strategies.for Unit 1 design features, including use of the isolation cor, denser.
The deviations taken and other issues raised in NRC Region I inspection ' report 50-245/89-19 were reviewed in a meeting with NRC in Region I ' offices on March 1, 1990.
Human factors enhancements to E0Ps are being
'< implemented throughout'the unit. An outside consultant may be hired to review E0Ps and address human factors issues.
' [ , V Surveillance Review ' Fcr review of completed surveillances, operations department instruction 1-0PS-9.03, Guidance on the Interpretation of Surveillance Test Data for ' Pumps and Valves, was issued on April 9,1990, to provide operators with 4 m
..
- _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ - . _ _ -. p.
.
. c '
. . , additional guidance.
Licensee management emphasized to shif t supervisors and operators the need for careful review of surveillance proced'Jre re-suits.
a Licensee Initiatives p . Housekeeping:: Department instruction 1-0PS-6.02, " Plant Housekeeping F Tours,"'was issued on March 28, 1990. This established weekly tours by , ' the shift supervisor staf f assistant (SSSA) using a check list and guid- ' t l ance provided in the instruction.
Results of.the tours are reviewed by , g the assistant operations supervisor and the Unit 1 director.
! t , Radwaste Operations: Licensed control room operators have been assigned to
n the radwaste facility to oversee daily operations.
This is intended to.
introduce control room standards to the operation of radwaste systems,
including procedure upgrades and improved maintenance.
, h Training: A-shift supervisor has been assigned to work with.INPO to.
' F develop a= shift supervisor training program in lieu of requiring college degrees. The operations manager evaluates each shift's performance at the simulator weekly.
The department is involved with an INPO pilot program , i for licensed operator teamwork training.
_ i Scram Reduction: Industry scram frequency reduction evaluations are reviewed at PORC and lessons learned are presented to the operations ! staff..
Staff Development:.A shift supervisor has'been assigned to work with-the
BWR Owner's Group to rewrite standard technical specifications for refuel- ' ing.- Other professional development initiatives for operators include
assignment to other Millstone units'to observe practices and assignment of-a shift supervisor to support a safety. system functional inspection at the Haddam Neck Plant.
.
Conclusion The resident inspector notes strong management commitment to professional
development of department staff and to quality training.
Routine resident
inspector oversight regarding surveillance review and compliance with tech-nical specification requirements is planned, . r A.2 Millstone 2 , . previous SALP Rating: Category 1
,j .NRC Discussion Items The discussion items presented to the licensee included (1) the status of.10CFR 50 Appendix R exemption requests, (2) actions to improve
housekeeping activities, and (3) action to improve operator attention ' ' to detail related to the operational status of the process radiation , monitors.
l n-
n i . t ' .[- l
i .
Licensee Response i Appendix R Exemptions An NRC. safety evaluation is still under review for the final resolution of ' ' the Appendix R exemption request.
The exemptions were submitted to the 'j NRC in April, 1987.
The licensee has repurted that all modifications-in support of the request have been completed, n . ! (. Housekeeping-
In the area of housekeeping activities, the licensee indicated a strong- ' commitment to housekeeping.
The licensee reported general area clean-up
in the following areas; spent fuel pool, DC switchgear room, screenhouse, F three levels within the auxiliary building, primary water storage tank /
refueling water storage tank, and charging pump room.
The licensee be- .r W.
lieves the.most progress in housekeeping improvements has been made in the spent fuel pool mezzanine, and the least improved area is the containment L+ n personnel hatch area in the enclosure building.
- Selected individuals within each department are assigned responsibilities
I' for overal1Lhousekeeping in designated plant areas. While no formal pro-y ass to identify housekeeping deficiencies is established, the unit
director reviews deficiencies either by internal memorandum or trouble , report for action.
The director completes weekly tours to verify defi-u ciencies are corrected.
. t ( An informal unit housekeeping goal is to improve general cleanliness of five-in-plant areas / year. The corrective activities are prioritized to i enhance personnel safety and to improve general appearance of the plant.
Combustible materials are controlled through implementation of an adminis-
trative procedure. The basis of the procedure in relation to the Fire ! Hazards Analysis is not explicit.
Process Radiation Monitors '
- The work order process will be utilized to better focus operator attention I
to the requirements for process radiation monitors by identifying the TS l limiting conditions for operations for shift personnel.
Since an event ' that occurred in late 1989, ~ operations supervisor reviews have identified no subsequent examples of a lack of attention to detail regarding radia-p + tion monitors. Additional corrective actions by the plant staff may in-clude 'a request for human performance evaluation. system (HPES) reviews on , personnel errors and discussion of performance at training sessions and/ l or department meetings.
' . I i l ' a
- - - _ _ _ _ l t ,
Licensee Initiatives Control Room Protocol: The Unit 2 department goal is for error-free oper-ations-and enhanced professionalism.
Since errors are preventable, self-checks are emphasized on control board operations.
The shift supervisor is responsible for actions on shift, attention to detail, and verification of the correct performance of operating activities.
Procedures: A procedure upgrade team was formed consisting of one senior reactor operator and two reactor operators. Review has been completed for 52 percent of the procedures. The licensee limits active procedure changes, with a goal of reducing changes to zero.
Emergency Operating Procedures: Actions were completed or are in progress to address INP0/NRC open issues, revise the E0Ps to Rev, 3 of CEN guide-lines, improve step documentation by adding check-offs to assure proper step completion, develop the user's guide,'and to stress consistency in the approach taken for accident mitigation strategies. The unit goals are to develop the station blackout E0P, and to make step sequencing improve-ments-in 1990.
Training: Operators spend 10 percent of their time in training - 9 days in a 12 week period; 50 percent of the requalification program time is now training on the simulator.
In plant operational exercises: This initiative maintains operator skills for seldom performed evolutions by using routine surveillance tests to manually operate the atmospheric dumps, make emergency containment en-tries, and take local control of the terry turbine governor and the EDG.
Conclusions No additional NRC inspection is considered necessary.
Routine inspector review of the operator requalification examination in May, 1990, and routine follow-up of housekeeping improvements will be conducted.
A.3 Millstone _3 Previous SALP Rating: Category 2 NRC Discussion items The NRC areas of interest included (1) the licensee's assessment of the reasons why personnel errors have increased in the operations department and the actions that are currently planned to decrease the personnel error rate; (2) implementation of the fire protection program; and, (3) adequacy of valve lineup controls.
I ___
, - _ -. ,
p
' e
Licensee Response t' , The. licensee agreed with the NRC conclusion that the number of personnel ' errors have increased since the end of the last SALP period. Two reasons , given were as follows: (1) new personnel were placed on shift to replace .l [. operators who failed the September 1989 NRC-administered.requalification ! ' L examination and (2) an overall decrease in the experience level of person-
nel-in the operations department as personne1'who were involved in plant - , startup have changed positions. The licensee concluded that as personnel t > who failed the September 1989 examination return to shift, crew continuity.
in. operations will improve, hence errors should decrease.
Licensee manage-ment.also believes that improved procedures with greater clarity and detail ! . ill compensate for any reduction in knowledge or experience that has w g occurred.
To improve procedures, management has enhanced the procedure
i upgrade program, stressed rigid adherence to procedures, has increased field. supervision monitoring of personnel use of procedures and has
actively encouraged personnel-to report procedural inadequacies.
! Implementation'of the Fire protection Program ' u i I To improve implementation of the fire protection program, the licensee is.
t reemphasizing the importance of fire doors and fire equipment'at general employee training.
New procedures have been developed to assist the oper- " ators on what actions should be taken when automatic fire prevention equip-
. ment is disabled.
The status of fire doors that are out of service is t ' reviewed at morning meetings, Repair dates are actively pursued by cogni- ' zant departments.
- Adequacy of Valve Lineup Controls I Recently, several incidents have occurred where manual and automatic valveshavebeenioundoutofposition. To improve performance in this - area, the licensee will provide supplementary training on valves and
equipment controls. Additionally, the licensee is scheduling training , t using the INPO good valve practice guide.
. s.
, Licensee initiatives j A technical requirements manual is currently under development that would be used to provide guidance to the operat_ ors on what actions they should take when equipment, that is not specifically mentioned in the technical L specifications but supports technical specification equipment, becomes ' inoperable.
' Conclusions The actions taken to improve implementation of the fire protection program have reduced the number of reportable events in the fire protection area.
The operator requalification program has improved since September 1989, with a high pass rate achieved in February 1990.
Preliminary findings from.the emergency operating procedures team inspection did not irientify
any significant areas of weakness. Additionally, E0Ps were easily used by operators.
Continued routine inspection of E0P usage will be conducte ge -
- .;q p
-
' i - .
7- , I i " B.
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS-h h).
. . . , ' B.1 Millstone 1
[ Previous SALP Rating: Category 2 L NRC Discussion Items .: 1, p The NRC areas ef-interest included (1) programmatic weaknesses in con-
K tamination control, contamination of the reactor building, and failure of L a primary equipment operator to frisk upon exiting the radiologically k controlled area (RCA); and (2) problems regardirig off-site shipment of.
L radioactive material, specifically, thosc made to Duane Arnold and Haddam i Neck.that were received with surface dose rates in excess of regulatory e limits.
i L Licensee Response
p contamination Control.
{ A contamination control / unconditional release task force was formed to
L develop proposals to: eliminate programmatic weaknesses. in the radiological I L materials control program.
The results of this study supplemented, in part,.the findings of an appraisal performed by the NUSCO radiological
assessment branch performed in December 1988.
Major recommendations are
-listed below:
' i a.
Radiologically controlled area boundary controls.. Initiatives ine'lude ! consideration of the following: reduce the number of RCA access / egress
points; increase health physics (HT) manning at existing access points; <
initiate a formal-RCA controi program in the yard area;-and, establish a> central holding area during outages for equipment and tools awaiting ? -unconditional-release surveys.
i b.
- Redu'ction of challenges to RCA boundary.. Initiatives include con-
sideration of the following: establishing an on-site clean tool ware-z; house to eliminate the NUSCO warehouse; establishing unit hot tool - cribs; establishing a hot machine shop; and, establishing a hot l metrology and calibration shop.
? c-Radiological control program enhancements.
Initiatives include con- . sideration of the following: developing' disciplinary -action policy for HP violations; developing station policy on HP work practices; ' improving-HP training for vendor foremen; and, establishing station . level procedures for non-HP personnel radiological responsibilities.
, Comments on these proposals have been received from management of all e Millstone units and are under evaluation.
' , t -, - h , ,, . - +
.
Radioactive Material Shipment Violations Pre-shipment supervisory reviews have been augmented to evaluate the potential for movement of hot particles during shipment.
The inspection plan for each shipment will be implemented by the radioactive materials handling supervisor and the unit radiological protection supervisor. This will be reviewed by the manager, health physics support.
Future vendor contracts for special cutting machines will include provisions for either a closed transport vehicle package or a personnel barrier for use on open transport vehicles. Actions will include cooperation with suppliers to develop these provisions.
Licensee Initiatives Drywell/ Reactor Coolant System Source Term Reduction: The zinc injection program is in its. second cycle at Unit 1.
Drywell dose reductions on the order of 2.5:1 are expected. Surveys are planned during the 1991 outage to corroborate projections.
Vessel Head Removal: A new quick-disconnect vessel head stud tensioner was procured.
This automated system is expected to result in exposure savings of 250 Rem over the remainder of plant life.
Area Decontamination: Divers will be used to decontaminate the. torus for work planned during the next outage, so as to optimize use of the torus . water as shielding.
Dese savings of 20 Rem are expected.
General area decontamination will be continued; 7431 square feet have been decontami-nated thus far.
IGSCC countermeaspres: The mechanical stress improvement program on category D welds permits rescheduling weld inspections to 10-year ISI cycle vice every other outage.
ALARA Training: 273 site personnel have completed supervisor ALARA awareness training. A course for engineers is being developed to incorporate ALARA considerations into the design phase of projects.
Program Enhancements: The NUSCO radiological assessment branch is re-viewing technical specifications from an exposure reduction standpoint.
A radiological information tracking system (RITS) is expected to be in service in 1991 to enhance dose tracking and access control to areas requiring radiological work permits.
Conclusion Implementation of licensee task force recommendations, HP procedure development, upgrading contamination control practices, and radioactive material shipment enhancements are under NRC review.
Continued routine inspection will be conducte _ - _ _ 1-
,' t g .,
j ,
- B.2 Millstone 2
! Previous SALP Rating:
' , NRC Discussion Items
't Theitemspresentedtothelicenseefordiscussionincludedactions-to , minimize personnel contamination events in the auxiliary building.
j Licensee Resptn Q n Contamination Events in Auxiliary Building $ o The licensee identified the root cause for the problem as improved detect-i s ability in frisking methods and evolutions resulting in gas releases of - minor volume. The-noble gas concentration in the auxiliary building is
approximately 0.1 times the maximum permissible concentration (MPC) for the isotopes present. The contamination events are' identified as a result of highly sensitive PCM-1B monitors, and followup evaluation'using.HP-210 friskers generally shows widely distributed contarnination less than 100- [ cpm, which is less than the free release limits. Another potential cause- ' of contamination is naturally occurring radon gts.
Actions are in progress to install air shower'. to remove static charge and ! particulate'from clothing.
Adequacy of the Radiologically Controlled Area Additional restrictions have been placed on personnel access into the RCA ,
by limiting entrance and exit points in the RCA. See the discussion under L B.1 above.
. ! Licensee Initiatives l Exposure Reduction: Hot Spot Tracking - A computerized log of identified $ hot spots for the Millstone 2 auxiliary building is in use'for planning l and controlling work. Digital imaging equipment has been incorporated in , radiation work permit preparation.
i Area Decontamination: Contaminated areas have been reduced by approximately 1400 square feet in 1990. Areas addressed include the west penetration area, auxiliary building railroad access, and tool crib area.
A goal has been ! established to further reduce contaminated areas by 1400 sq. ft. in 1990.
l Vendor decontamination technicians are used to supplement the licensee:
i , staff. A routine prcgram for boric acid control / cleanup has been j implemented with maintenance personnel.
Steam Generator Replacement Project: ALARA planning for this project has ' begun, with an-initial exposure estimate approximately 450 man-rem.
An
ALARA. coordinator has been assigned part-time for the SG replacement effort (expends approximately 50 percent of his time).
! ' ,
W > V + p _ , '
,
W ' , 10-
. [ > L Organization: A reorganization of the health physics department,is i o b planned in the first half of 1990.
The HP supervisor position has been elevated to alternate PORC member status.
Work' Control: Health physics technicians are involved in operation depart-ment shif t turnover in the control room. 'The~ training program will' focus i U 'on work control and practices. A contamination control task force was , developed as a resuit'of the hydrolazer issue identified at Unit 1.
A - [x procedure upgrade program is under development by HP personnel.. , p , p . Conclusion ! Continue. routine NRC Region I inspection of the health physics , reorganization, procedure upgrade efforts, implementation of the-recommendations by the contamination control task force, and review , , of general program improvements for effectiveness.
l B.3 Millstone'3 l ' Previous SALP Rating:
, NRC Discussion Items
. Licensee actions to clarify technical specification 3.4.8 which limits Laverage disintegration energy E-Bar, and efforts to improve contamination ! control in the RCA.
Licensee Response ' '
- Average Disintegration Energy E-Bar The licensee indicated that a submittal to clarify the E-Bar specification
! .is currently under consideration.
The clarification would adc'ress.what action should be taken if the plant is shutdown for an extended ~ period and , the six' month technical specification required sample for E-Bar cannot be ' taken. Additionally, consideration will be given' to stating that the pro-visions of specifications 3.0.4 and'4.0.4 are not applicable.
Finally, an . explanation will be sought from the Westinghouse owner's group as to why ,
- two effective full power days and 20 days of power operation must be ob-
. tained prior to sampling the reactor coolant for E-Bar,,when-the plant is shutdown greater :than. 48 hours.
The licensee also stated that any addi- ' tional improvements that are identified will be addressed in the technical l.
specification-improvement program.
Adeau'acy of the Radiologically: Controlled Area . Additional restrictions have been placed on personnel access into the RCA i by. limiting entrance and exit points in the RCA. See the discussion under 'B.1 above.
' > a g -
, ; a- -3 -- , o a ,:4- ~ , ' ' gjt , -< . . . y p} ,i ' ' ' ' g a e ' cn r i u
, , , + ,
l' } i Licensee Initi.atives , y-Exposure Reduction: A proposal has been forwarded to engineering.to elimi-- ,.e.
}:: nate the reactor coolant 1oop flow orifice piping.. Leakage in.this piping:
- -l f
~ was discovered'during the November 1989. forced outage and increased plant . ' , ' workload during that period.- Health physics has also. dedicated personnel- . o to.the specific task of; decontaminating floor space in'the RCA. This
, effort has reduced.the amount of contaminated floor space.at Millstone > ' Unit 3 by about 500 of 8,000 square feet.
_- F- ~! t> Conclusion' l ,.i - The'11censeehasltakenpromptactionto.identifyweaknesseEinthecontrol' ! .e ' of contamination in the RCA. The effectiveness of these actions are~under l - NRC~ review and will be considered in future routine inspections.
i r::. t ? - [
k
{ i r!! [ < b, ' ., k- ! L ' ' , &
' ' -( [' d t x $ h.I !
i - ? r.
r- .- (? ,,, [1 + , r B
.
k- ) ' .
fu "[ d' ~f ' , _ , , , __ . ._ __., _._____ _ _.._
_ - - _ - -. k,i 1': F I
S
! C.
MAINTENANCE / SURVEILLANCE ' . C,1 Millstone 1
, .. ! Previous SALP Rating: (,ategory 1 j MCDiscussionItems
The areas if interest identified by the NRC included: (1) missed surveillances, (2) inadequate surveillance for the feMwater coolant , ' injection system (FWCI) and gas turbine generator (G/T) systems, and (3) - maintenance and instrumentation and controls (I&C) department initiatives.
Licensee Response i Missed Surveillance ' Corrective' action'for missed surveillances' included' issuance of I&C i department procedure IC_-491A, " Review and Deferral of Technical Specifi- ! cation-Surveillance," to ensure compliance seith schedule.
The procedure
provides for independent review by department management of planned and deferred surve111ances. Management review uses a computerized production.
I maintenance management system (PMMS) backed up by a manual tracking sys-I tem. Additionally the quality control department was requested to per-form periodic audits to act.as an independent check to ensure test inter-vals are met.
The licensee is~ developing a computerized backup system for independent review and flagging of Millstone technical specification surveillances,
, Implementation is scheduled for June 1990.
! Surveillance Procedure Adequacy i A licen;n SSFI in December 1988 identified that there was no assurance-i that both trains of FWCI were tested.
The surveillance procedure has been changed to ensure adequate testing.
Procedure. reviewers have been instruc-ted on the need to correlate surveillance requirements with design basis ' , 'documents and technical specifications to ensure that all requirements are . satisfied, and to resolve conflicts in a timely manner.
The monthly G/T surveillance did not test to " full load" as required by the technical specification. The item was discovered by a licensee re- , viewer who-was investigating the meaning of a technical specification ' , requirement to test the G/T at " equilibrium temperature" as part of a technical specification review initiative.
The reviewer questioned whe-ther the acceptance criteria of the surveillance procedure ( >6 MWe) met the " full load" requirement of the technical specification.
Subsequently, , the licensee determined that the G/T should be tested to at least 10 MWe.
'
- - - - - - ,_.
,
- %
L g.
'i , Operators and system experts are reviewing technical specifications and surveillance procedures for similar ambiprtties. A technical specification , change request was initiated to charge " full ' load" to " emergency load" to-clarify _the intent of.the specification.
I&C-Department-Procedure upgrade program: An I&C specialist and an engineer are assigned' to_ review, verify and enhance procedures using review check lists.
Im-provement items include splitting presently combined calibration and func- > tional test procedures to ensure technical specification compliance and to , minimize W 5 risk survei11ance and downtime.
Loop folders review: Loor W ers are under review to upgrade technical information and to ensun cw >.ents are up to date; this action is in re-f sponse to an issue identiO tJ at Unit 2.
Error reduction: Actions are in progress to reduce emergency safety fea-ture/ emergency core cooling' system actuations due to personnel error-through improved monitucing of surveillance performance and use of lessons
learned from the industry.
! i Human Factors Improvements: Hardware improvements were made to minimize , the need to lift leads and pull fuses to perform routine surveillance.
- The use of key' lock switches, color coding, and switch covers is being in-creased.
Maintenance Department i ! Reliability-centered maintenance: Initiatives include using industry - . guidance / experience to develop a maintenance program based on reliability
analysis and other predictive tools.
! i . Staff: Maintenance engineering staffing was increased to provide direct support to the field similar to a system engineer concept.
Inventory control: The unit staff is continuing to develop an in-house ' computer tracking systen and database for unit 1 spares. The goal is to_ minimize out of service time by total replacement of components and equip- , ment, with rebuild / refurbishment accomplished once equipment is returned:
to service.
Staffing of PMMS Planner position: The licensee has provided direct sup- -! port. to the PMMS planner by rotating department. personnel into the posi- , tion as assistant planners. Unit management has requested an additional permanent position for the assistant planner.
ALARA/ exposure reduction: Exposure reduction criteria have been imple-mented such that, where lifetime dose in Rem is greater than a person's e.ge, his limit is 500 mrem / year.
The maintenance department limit is 2 Rem / year, and the department goal is 1600 mrem per mont ~ ppm p I {;c b L ' '14 L ' Conclusion.
' NRC-concerns regarding' missed surveillances were adequately addressed by licensee corrective actions. The absence of ESF/ECCS actuations due to personnel error is a result of good licensee initiatives regarding train- /: ing, hardware changes, and management oversight.
Continued routine.in - ,
- spection is planned.
C.2-Millstone 2-P'reitous'SALP Rating:
! U NRC Discussion Items 'I The. items presented'to the. licensee for discussion included (1) revisions to ACP-QA-3.02 for undocumented minor deviations from approved procedures, n (2) corrective actions'in response to multiple violations documented in IR 50-336/89-13,(3) response to maintenance team inspection report weak-nesses, (4) control of procedural adherence and adequacy of procedures, -(5) control of surveillance procedure revisions during the course of work activities, and (6) root cause training for employees.
. Licensee Response ' -Minor DeviationsLFrom Approved Procedures !
As a result of issues identified in inspection reports 50-336/89-05 and
89-13, the licensee revised Administrative. Control Procedure ACP-QA-3.02E, , '" Procedural Compliance," wMch was developed with input from other utility ? procedures on< procedure t.cmpliance.
The procedure was placed into effect on April-13, 1990 and clarified those occasions when approved changes are 1. -required, and how," enhancement" changes should be handled.
(The inspectors reviewed the-revised procedure which was found acceptable.)
'. Multiple Violations in Inspection Report 50-336/89-13 , Actions were taken to encourage licensee supervisors to help workers iden-tify concerns..A new Nuclear Safety Concerns Program was implemented.
That-program was recently discussed with NRC Region I management'as part of_a-licensee-initiative.
The licensee expressed a strong commitment to answer employee concerns.
Informal training in the deficiency identification system was covered at instrument and controls (I&C) and maintenance department meetings.
The I&C department formalized tracking and prioritizing internal ecmmunica- -tions by the use of three-way memoranda to identify improvements or deficiencies. Actions were recently completed to catalog the station-deficiency reporting systems into one procedure - ACP 1.20, " Problem Identification."
_ ....... -.
&
<J l
& Maintenance department meetings are held approximately twice'a month, with h?t the Vice President Nuclear Operations attendance on occasion.
Typical
J agenda items include current significant maintenance activities, unit-status, and a question / answer period.
j Response to Maintenance Team Inspection Report Weakness The maintenance department improved the work order re-test, or post-- maintenance test (PMT), program by better defining retest requirements.
'* The program was primarily developed for in-service inspection (ISI), motor-operated-valve testing, local leak rate testing, and ASME Section XI activ.ities.
' ~ The implementation of PMT primarily resides with the work order planners, engineering department, and operations. The PMT is forward looking, not i tracking, and was not backfitted into past maintenance work.
Root Cause Training to Employees Root cause evaluation was proceduralized in ACP 10.12.
Responsibility for root cause evaluation is assigned to experienced engineers.
(The inspec- - tor'noted that ACP 10.12 was adequate, but could be improved by endorsing a specific evaluation tool, such as Kemper-Triego metholology.)
The I&C Department recently implemented troubleshooting guidance (ACP-2.02C) which defines technician / engineer interfaces during repair.
" ^ ' efforts.
Procedure Revisions During Surveillance Activity In the maintenance /I&C departments, the workers will prepare and submit - proposed procedure changes. Procedure will not be changed during work-activity unless required per the recently revised ACP 3.02.
Licensee Initiatives - Maintenance , Worker Safety: The department has achieved 3 years without a loss-time accident (1.6 million hours).
Exposure Control: Maintenance radiation exposure is approximately 28 per-cent of the goal during operations (1.6 Rem / month). Work activities expected to exceed 100 mr must receive maintenance department manager approval prior to work.
Work Backlog: The maintenance backlog is maintained very low: less than '100 automated work orders (AW0s) total, with 60 working, and 30 waiting to be worked.
. - - - - - - - -
.. .- ' ,
'16 ~ Work Control Improvements: Work control activity initiatives include the-following: revised or enhanced troubleshooting, pre / post AWO review pro-cedure,,and-retest procedures.
Reliability improvements: Initiatives include improvements in the pre- 'dictive maintenance program, a review of five systems for reliability centered maintenance, an improved testing system for loop check valves, and installation of an N-9000 type seal in one reactor coolant pump.as a pilot program.
Training: Maintenance training is INPO accred.ed, and personnel are now under an interim qualification program. Major emphasis is on completion of on-the-job training (0JT), rotation of mechanics / electricians to work.
in the work order planner group, and reversal with the QC surveillance department.
Procedure Upgrade Program: Procedural upgrade is 22 percent done with 58 percent undergoing technical rewrite.
Instrumentation and Controls Instrumentation Improvements: Plant enhancements include replacement of the steam jet air ejector radiation monitor and installation of mid-loop level instrumentation.
Procedures: A procedure upgrade process included walk-throughs to verify ' technical accuracy and incorporation of corporate radiological assessment branch recommendations from the Radiation Monitor Manual. To address a licensee identified weakness, a review was initiated to assure' technical specification requirements are properly incorporated in surveillance pro-cedures.
, Preventive Maintenance: The preventive maintenance program has been made current by use of contractors.
Staff development: Technicians are temporarily assigned to supervisory roles to broaden perspective. Approximate 1v 13 percent of technician time will be devoted to training in 1990. The,>. mary focus will be to complete Level II Qualification (for critical task 1) and OJT.
Program Enhancements: Include further development and implementation of-the t.Jclear plant reliability data system and increased use of I&C engi-neering support. A procedure compliance audit program was implemented in 1989 to reinforce the compliance philosophy.
Conclusion Resident and or specialist review is planned to assess the effectiveness of the recent controls to enhance troubleshooting and to review implemen-tation of the PMT program.
Review of outstanding employee concerns and the effectiveness of the employee concerns resolution program will be i ' completed during routine inspections.
l l i
p% 7
y, c , ,, ., Ad ,' ' } ' ' gs
l ?)- ' Pc,
' Un _' R i - j , r
- C.3_ Millstone 3- , i l - u .! Previous SALP Rating:
- p NRC Discussion-Items L';, . q ~ The NRC areas of interest included _(1) actions taken to ensure main feed-l >> ' water-pump -coupling' reliability, and (2) efforts to reduce the: amount' of -- ' ,
- tube leakag'e in the reactor building component cooling water heat ex-
changers.- Licensee Response: j , , " _M,ain Feedwater Pump Coupling-The= licensee' determined-that the coupling-failed when preload was lost on-i the bolts which hold the spline coupling together..The loss of preload-e < -was ca'used by (1) an inadequate coupling -installation procedure which.did ' < . l'not specify the direction of bolt orientation; (2);the vendor specified, incorrect bolt le'ngths; and,- (3) the' vendor provided bolt torque > values' that were incorrect. -Actions.were taken to correct.these deficiencies.
J RBCCW' Tube Leakage-Thel licensee' has ~ identified mussel growth in. the-service ' water side'of
' ' ,, the' heat'exchangers as the primary cause of tube failure. 'To reduce the , mussel' buildup in the heat 1 exchanger, the licensee is investigating:the' ,,
- possibility of
- : injecting a chemical agent into the, service water system to
< kill; the mussels. Additionally, the licensee intends to install screens.
over theftube sheet-.to prevent mussel; buildup in_the tubes.
' . Licensee Initiatives
. -- . . .
. i Thellicensee has been conservative ~by replacing all main feedwater pump a _" seals regardless of their condition when a faedwater pump is removed from service:for-maintenance.
' . Conclusion LIndepth/ analyses were performed of the feedwater pump coupling failure.
. Continued routine inspection is_ planned.
i J-j , ' , L-l
, . - -
gg$f, '., i M - 3, . .- ,s. _ . $%ml 1.
e w - < . , , Ifh~$;W4
! , y 1.- a lhe Y LI8: A s i GA!,w; +
1. .:- t [\\ l [ '- If h[
j mqr u "Rg = D.
EMERGENCY: PREPAREDNESS - ' ) [ n {. I " D;1; ' Mill'stane-Station- ~ e %> , & jg LPrevious SALP Rating': ' Category 1-j pw . NRC-Discussion Items and Licensee Response
- }
' f .. , kn , h' Emergency Preparedness was not: reviewed in detail during this inspect' ion i] e since NRC assessments are based on evaluation of licensee performance F during annual exercises and. on the program reviews completed just prior 1
to the exercises.
The Fa11-1989. exercise'was assessed in the last J > . Millstone 3 SALP.. The nextLMillstone annua 1' exercise is scheduled for J " December 1990.- " i .However; one-emergency preparedness (EP),. issue was reviewed during this
- i
. inspection,nwhich concerned the independence of audit personnel evaluating-y
EP act.vities. The licensee demonstrated that actions have been-taken; tot
- assure auditors"are independent-from personnel responsible for. implementing
- . thesprograme ,, ..
-Conclusion' f o ,; Licensee, actions were: responsive to issues raised.by the NRC. There are nofindications:of an adverse performance-trend.
Routine NRC review is i - planned for.the next exercise, j d . '
- t
' s $ '
-
e q '
" . ) 'f fi [
- ]
. , < L, j:
si , P -)', L ', '
e lav lhf , ' y , .
_ _ - -. - _ _ - - - - - - - - - -....... _ $ -19 ! E.
SECURITY E.1 Millstone Station , , Previous SALP Rating: Category 1 NRC Discussion Items ! The NRC areas of interest were: (1) guard force turnover rates, , (2) resolution of guard force concerns, and (3) two previous NRC open items on vital area (VA) upgrade, and protected area (PA).
assessment aids.
Licensee Response Guard Force Turnover Rates Guard force. turnover rates for 1989 were presented.
Security contractor management surveys and trends these rates, noting the effects of unemploy-ment levels and wage scales in the geographical area.
Less turnover is experienced in the supervisory ranks, Incentive programs have been established to recognize personnel and indus-trial-safety and attendance.
Central alarm station training is offered as an incentive to remain on-site.
Performance observation reports are utilized to monitor the effect of turnover rates on the level of training of the force.
No degradations are.
apparent. The good pass rates in firearms training is notable.
The security contractor is able to call upon personnel from other areas to supplement-the force in the event-manpower limitations occur.
Resolution of Guard Force Concerns .Roundtable discussions are held with the force and attended by licensee and contractor management.
The procedure for handling of employee com-plaints and suggestions has been changed such that first line supervision must respond.
Hardware and Assessment Two vital area upgrades were completed in response to regulatory effec-tiveness review cummitments. A licensee internal programmatic review identified no further weaknesses existed.
Procedure ACP 7.14 was upgraded to improve evaluations-of plant modifications for security requirements.
The protected area assessment aid will be upgraded in 1990.
Detection aids have been discussed with NRC Region I personnel regarding NRC regula- ' tory guide 5.44 requirements.
_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ - - -.....,,, AL y 1.. 20' . Licensee Initiatives .A consultant was retained to conduct confidential interviews with guard force personnel. Approximately 75 persons responded. Topics discussed included scheduling, morale, favoritism, training, disciplinary policies, - . job security and conditions of employment.
= The preliminary results indicate that the guard force feels that conditions are improving.
! Conclusion
' Positive initiatives by licensee management were noted by the NRC.
-Continued routine inspection is planned.
. d l l . . .. .. _.. _ _
- p <
21 F.
Engineering / Technical Support , F.1 Millstone 1 Previous SALP Rating: Category 2 ' ' NRC Discussion Items .ta The NRC areas of interest included (1) main condenser tube leaks, (2) the status of the check valve inspection program, and (3) ' licensee corrective-
action for moisture separator high level turbine trip / reactor trip.
Licensee Response Main Condenser Tube Leaks
- The main condenser was retubed with CuNi tubes in the 1970's.
Investi-gation over the last few cycles revealed pitting and corrosion / erosion to
be the predominant failure mechanisms.
Eddy current testing performed in the May 1989 outage showed most degradation to be located six inches from the water box wall.
Tubes-with up to 80 percent wall loss.were noted. The root cause was attributed to sand blasting prior to coating the wall with epoxy.
Plant design change request (PDCR) 1-90-015 was recently implemented as a pilot program to verify the adequacy of a tube sleeving procedure. One ed CuNi sleeves have been installed in the "D" waterbox.
Six-inch sleeves are mechanically rolled-into.the tubes and sealed with' Loctite 609 retaining' compound.
If successful, about 20,000 tobes will be sleeved during the 1991' outage,.to increase condenser reliability until 1993, when the condenser is currently scheduled to be retubsd.
Check Valve Program , The licensee has responded to NRC concerns regarding INP0 SOER 86-03.
109 safety-related check valves have been identified in Units 1 and 2 that.
need to be addressed.
Design analysis is complete for 95 percent of the valves.
Analysis results are used to prioritize _-inspections for the 1991 outage.
Priority 2 and 3 valves will be inspected every other outage such that all are inspected within the 10 year in-service inspection cycle.
. Inspection procedures are being developed.
The licensee' commitment-is to have the program in place by the end of June 1990.
Moisture Separator Level Switch Failure A failure of the moisture separator drain tank (MSDT) drain valve per-mitted steam to enter the piping and cause a turbine trip on a false high-high level.
Plant design change record 1-020-89 changed the moisture
separator high-high level -trip logic from a single signal to double signal inputs.
The MSOT level signal provides validation of high level in the moisture-separator.
, . . . -
yp-Q f' - - u ho f w ff
v:, w' E These actions:are adequate to improve reliability of the trip circuit and $g-to preclude-recurrence of inadvertent trips.
k Conclusion.
y h Continued routine inspection is planned, b oe F.2 Millstone'2 ~ Previous SALP Rating Category 1 ..
NRC Discussion Items f . The items presented to the licensee for discussion included (1).modifi-b.
cation configuration control as it relates to incorporation of vendor.
i-information, and (2) site-corporate interface mechanisms and training for Jreportability determinations.
] . . Licensee Response Reportability Determiration i . .
The unit director.is directly responsible for reportability determinations-of events.at the facility.
Design basis issues are evaluated by corporate- - . engineers through the NE0 2.25 process to provide input to the unit direc-tor's decisionias needed.
General criteria that are-used to refer..a ' report-ability evaluation to the corporate engineering-staff include the need to.
i evaluate integrated plant response or to assess probabilistic risk.
-The--responsibility to complete reportability eva hations for most plant events is assignep to the unit staff, using th( f ant incident report M (PIR).
Corporate reviews of enforcement problems.may also cause the
initiation'of a PIR, which.are dispositioned by the plant staff with a- ' -recommendation from engineering, q Staff engineers receive no special reportability training, except.thrcagh-f the duty officer qualification program.
The' licensee is planning to l augment training on reportability criteria for corporate and site
- personnel.
, . Incorporation of Vendor Information in the Design Process j , ' Vendor information is primarily incorporated in the design process for 'j non-ASME code modifications.
Vendor information is also incorporated in l the inservice testing program.
The program to upgrade commercial parts ' -also uses vendor information.
j The maintenance department has incorporated vendor information through controlled' routings in response to vendor information bulletins (i.e. GE , service.information letters).
Information from onsite vendor representa-tives is also used -in the procedure upgrade process.
o
'i
.. _ _....-.-
_ _ _ , , ,, -,-.......,.........-........m -- -'
Licensee Initiatives ALAEA: A 50 percent reduction in exposure has resulted from engineered nozzle dam seal' improvements.
Plant Performance Monitoring: Initiatives include a computer-based pro-gram to monitor' heat exchanger performance, which was implemented prior to NRC Generic Letter 89-13.
Inservice Testing: Initiatives include use of VOTES (valve operating test equipment system) testing for motor-operated valves (scope includes approximately 50 percent of safety-related valves) and an automated in-service testing program for tracking work and data acquisition.
Program. Enhancements: Initiatives include the. implementation of inde-pendent design verification for plant design change evaluations and im- ' provements in the completion of safety evaluations.
Steam Generator _ Examinations: Actions to improve the accuracy of steam generator tube examinations include; development of plant specific eddy current analysis and training; use of computer-aided analysis; confirma-tion of selected eddy current results by ultrasonic testing; and, dual analysis of all eddy current data.
Conclusion-In addition to continued routine inspection, NRC Region I specialist review is planned for reportability evaluations, interface of site / corporate _ engineering, and previous NRC open items.
' - F.3 Millstone 3 Previous SALP Rating: Category 2 Improving
NRC Discussion Items Areas of NRC interest included: -(1) the 1icensee's efforts to improve-intake structure reliability; (2) actions taken to address failures of the .feedwater heater relief valve inlet piping on the 1A,1B and 1C feedwater heat exchangers; (3) timeliness of reporting licensee-identified problems to the NRC; and, (4) efforts underway to reduce the frequency of nuisance alarms in the control room.
Licensee Response Intake Structure Improvements .Several short-term steps have been taken to improve reliability of the intake system such as installation of temporary screen wash pumps, while the "A" intake bay was under repair, and cleaning clogged spray nozzles.
!
.
. - - - -.....
24 Several long-term items are currently planned,. for example, improvement i of the trash rake cleaning system and increasing ' screen speed rotation.
-Main'Feedwater' Heater Reliefs As ~a short' term.fix, the flexibility of the feedwater heater relief valv s inlet-piping was increased. Additional full-scale modeling of the feed-water system will'be performed by a contractor to better understand the ' problem.
Timeliness of Reporting Licensee Identified Weaknesses Additional training _has been provided to individuals who perform reportability evaluations.
Procedures have also been. revised to streamline the reportability evaluation process.
Efforts to Reduce Nuisance Alarms The previously stated goal of achieving a " black board" by the end cf thel third refueling outage will not be met, in that the current' plans are o have about six. annunciators remaining to address'after startup.' A new initiative regarding nuisance alarms involves conducting a periodic review of the main control board panels to identify illuminated annunci- .ators and determine which systems are trouble reported or tagged. These items are discussed with the individual departments during the daily meet-ing and target dates for completion of the item are establish'ed.
Licensee Initiatives Several-long term fixes are planne'd for the intake structure such as . improved lighting,,'use of different screen material and increasing screen speed.
Conclusion The effectiveness of the improvement in the intake' structure and the revisions to the licensee's reportability system will be monitored in routine inspections.
Licensee actions to better understand and address the root cause of the failure mechanism for the feedwater heater relief valve piping will be followed on future inspections. The licensee's decision to delay achievement off a control room black board, in response to previous SALP recommendations, will be subject to additional NRC revie n, , . l T
. q G.
S_afety Assessment / Quality Verification i G.1 Millstone 1 ' i Previous SALP Rating: Category 1
i NRC Discussion Items.
, t The NRC areas' of interest included (1) quality assurance organization . review of corrective actions for licensee event report (LER) issues, (2) timeliness of reportability and operability issues, and (3) Integrat'ed Safety Assessment Program (ISAP) - Hardened Vent.
Licensee Response f Quality Assurance Review LER Corrective Actions Corrective actions resulting from LERs are reviewed by the quality assur- -ance organization.
The LERs are also reviewed by the nuclear review board .and the plant operations review committee.
I , Timely Evaluation and Reporting of Potential Problems t Licensee event reports submitted for the Millstone 3 fast bus-transfer scheme, the incorrectly installed Millstone 2 service water air check .' valve,^and the potentially degraded Millstone I feedwater coolant injec- , " tion system on loss of-air supply were not timely, The Northeast Utili-ties (NU)- and NNECO staf f s met with NRC representatives on March 13, 1990, and April 18, 1990,-to review reporting policies, timeliness concerns, procedures, and. improvements.
In addition, inspection open items on this L subject were addrpssed in a NNEC0 letter dated April 9,- 1990.
The reporting evaluation for the three issues noted were done under NE0 procedure 2.25, " Identification and Implementation of NRC Reporting LRequirements," The licensee noted that this procedure had been in use for about 21/2 years, and while reporting evaluations in general were timely, there was room for improvement over the last six months as timeliness received heightened emphasis.
The licensee acknowledged that the report-ing evaluation conducted under NEO 2.25 could have-been initiated at an earlier time for the three examples noted.
The NU policy is to identify-and report issues promptly. Timeliness of reportability evaluations is audited by the quality services department.
, Improvements to NE0 2.25 were implemented on April 4, 1990, along with new procedure NE0 2.29, " Justification for Continued Operation Evaluations," -and revised procedure NEO 2.01, " Implementation of 10 CFR Part 21."
The new and revised procedures will become effective on June 4, 1990.
Im-r provements included-assigning responsibilities to separate organizational groups for completing reportability evaluations and JC0 evaluations; development of an evaluation flow chart with defined schedular goals, with emphasis on schedular compliance; emphasis on reportability first, and corrective action second; and providing additional training for corporate , y
- -
_... _. _ -.. - - - -.. - . .. - - - -- - - - - - - - - I ( \\ i
~ and station personnel on the established reporting' guidelines, including-published NRC _ criteria and guidance.
ISAP Evaluation Project = The integrated safety assessment program (ISAP) includes integrated evalu-ation, prioritization and scheduling of plant-specific modifications and engineering evaluations. Major risk contributors are identified by the probabilistic_ risk analysis (PRA).
The process includes:-(1) initial screening by project assignment at the vice president level and (2) analysis - an analytical ranking model (ARM): that weighs public safety, reliability, personnel productivity, and_ cost for each issue. The initial prioritization screening considers inputs from outside agencies (NRC, INPO), cost payback period, man-rem, and corporate- . goals. An integrated implementation schedule considers project schedule, ' engineering resources, dollar budget, outage schedules, and ALARA consider-ations.
- The hardened vent issue underwent ISAP evaluation starting in 1985. A Level 1 PRA was completed and a Level 2 PRA (back end containment re-sponse) is in progress; an additional, second level review is in progress.
The-goal is to complete the assessment by the Fall 1990.
A schedule extension was requested to further evaluate the isolation condenser per-formance. Two man years effort have been expended thus far.
Licensee Initiatives ! Drawings: Unit 1 P&ID upgrade program-has been completed.
l i SSFI: A' licensee SSFI was performed on'the FWCI system in 1988, which , resulted in 8-observations and 45 action items. The review identified
deficiencies in technical specifications, for which change requests are i being prepared. Deficiencies were identified in the plant design change records regarding seismic reviews. Deficiencies in the updated Final Safety Analysis Report were corrected in a March 1990 submittal to NRC.
'l Design-Basis' Reconstruction Project: The project.was begun in late 1985 ' as a result of a cavity seal _ failure event at Connecticut Yankee. The . licensee identified the need to define system functional requirements. The Linitial scope includes a review of eleven NSSS and eight BOP systems.
The review uses architect-engineer and General Electric documents and a considers PDCRs, project assignments, specifications, calculations, and correspondence.
Discrepancies are handled per NUMARC guidance, in which a ' presumption of operability concept is used. Eight engineers and two tech-nicians are assigned full time. The licensee expects to complete the pro-ject in 1991. The licensee will expand the project to other systems based on an assessment of the results of the initial review.
. i ,
- _ _ _ _ _ lri
,
-i i i - . ( -l Conclusion ! ) The NRC considers the-design _ basis reconstitution project to be~a_ good- '3 initiative.--In addition to-continued routine inspection,:the NRC will - continue to^ assess. licensee activities regarding. prompt evaluation and reporting of issues discovered as a result of this effort.
G.2-Millstone 2 ' Previous SALP Rating:
, NRC Discussion Items i . - The discussion items presented to the licensee were (1) NU's self-assess- .! ment.for areas of conce' n in the SALP, (2) actions to improve quality r services department (QSD) audits, and (3) tracking of NRC commitments.
Licensee-Response Commercial Grade Dedication A commerc_1al, grade component dedication program is under development that considers.the lessons learned from the program and the NRC audit at- . Connecticut Yankee.
The initial scope of the program will review ten commercial grade component installations per unit. The items of equipment , installed in the-plant are identified by review of material receipt in- .spection reports, work orders and purchase orders. Additional surveil-lances will be performed based on the results from the initial review.
The initial sample population was chosen using MIL STD 105 criteria. Com- -i mercial dedication reviews are performed by personnel from the responsible H . plant department, and procurement engineering personnel provide overview of-the process.
~ " ! Improved Response to QSD Audits ' The current QSD monthly report shows only three out of_175 surveillance - findings that are greater.than.60 days old, a significant improvement from past performance. The QSD program now requires mutual agreement between .the unit staff and QSD =to establish closure dates for surveillance find-t , ings. QSD now seeks closure of surveillance program findings (1) by direct. interaction with the responsible department heads, and (2) through immediate resolutions with the first line supervisors.
The selection.of surveillances reviewed by QSD is based on (1) automated I work order review, (2) surveillance tests, and (3) retests.
The sur- . veillances are implemented with a generic checklist. There are'nine , , people in QSD dedicated to surveillances and fifteen QC engineers that ' provide coverage of hold point inspections.
o l-
_ _. _... h ' ~ li. -
Tracking Completion of NRC Commitments The licensee's review showed that two recent problems regarding tracking NRC commitments (NRC Bulletin 83-03 inclusion in the ISI program, and emergency' diesel generator fuel oil analysis) were isolated occurrences, -Licensee Initiatives Pending short-term technical specification (TS) amendments from NU licensing. include: 10 CFR 50 Appendix J exemption request, cycle 11 specific.TS, and ections in response to Generic Letters 88-11,-83-37, and 89-14, Long-term initiatives from licensing include: removing containment iso-h lation valve requirements from the technical specifications, steam gener-ator replacement, review of Combustion Engineering owner's group revised standard TS and an ISAP meeting with the NRC staff.
, Conclusion The completion and effectiveness of the licensee's initiatives and cor-rective actions will be reviewed by the NRC staff during routine inspec-tions.
G.3 Millstone 3 = Previous SALP Rating:
NRC Discussion Items NRC. items of interest include: -(1) timeliness of licensee response to . Generic Letter 87-09; (2) Millstone 3 self assessment initiatives; and, (3) method of tracking independent safety engineering group (ISEG) recommendations.
Licensee Response Timeliness of Licensee Response to Generic Letter 87-09 The licensee indicated that a formal response to Generic Letter 87-09 was delayed since a page-by page review of each individual specification is currently being undertaken for all Northeast Utilities operated plants.
The review consists of identifying not only where the insertion of the statement that 3.0.3, 3.0.4 is not applicable but also where a mode change
.is. currently allowed by technical specifications and should not be.
The review is broader in scope than that requested by the generic letter and , will result in a better set of specifications.
Completion of the Generic Letter 87-09 review is expected in June 1990.
,
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _
4 ,- ..
Millstone Unit-3 Self-Assessment Initiatives-A' presentation of how the nuclear safety er.gineering branch functions at the Millstone site was given to the inspection team.
Noteworthy initiatives include a safety system functional inspection in 1991 and a; trip assessment program.
Tracking of ISEG recommendations Nuclear safety engineering has. revised its procedures whereby a formal response to the disposition of ISEG recommendations will be required by a predetermined date.
Conclusion Responsiveness to NRC initiatives will be reviewed in conjunction with continued routine. inspection.
III. Management Meeting A meeting was held with licensee management on May 8, 1990 to discuss inspection findings. The attendees at the meeting are provided in Appendix A to this report.
The licensee presented additional information regarding~ its-initiatives and other areas of interest to the NRC.
A copy of the
- licensee's presentation material is appended to this report as Appendix B.
_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - -
s- ? ;;; f.. w < ^ ~ ' . , . .;; ^ l . [,%' ,, , - , , ' o . ,. , k . .rr
< < ' APPENDIX A.
, , NRC/NU MID SALP MEEilNG - 5/8/90_ > ' r iW NAME ' POSITION ORGANIZATION < / LNortheast Utilities /NNECo H.FJ Haynes Unit Services Director NNECO- .
C.H. Clement-Director, Unit 3 NNECO _R.C. Rodgers.
Manager, Rad.' Assess.
NU .. .G'.P.'vanNoordennen Supervisor, Nuclear Lic.
NU G. L. ' Johnson ; Director, Gen.Eng.& Des.
NUSCO , 'J _ F.' Smi th. Unit 2 Operations Mgr.
NNECO cJ.P. Stetz', Unit 1 Director ' NNEC0 , S.E. ; Scace Director, Millstone Sta.
-NNEC0 .2 "
. W.D. Romberg-- V.P. Nuclear Operations NU ,
-om Nuclear Regulatory Commission oD.R. Haverkamp ! f ' -Chief, Reactor Projects NRC Region I . Section-4A ] G.S.iVissing-Project Manager, Unit-2-NRC/NRR R.W. Cooper Deputy-Director, DRSS-NRC/RI' .D.H? Jaffe'_ Project-Manager, Unit.3 'NRC/NRR P.J. Habighorst Resident Inspector, MP-2 RI/NRC.
K.S. Kolaczyk Resident.-Inspector, MP-3 RI/NRC - , - J.P. Durr Chief, Eng. Branch RI R.M. Gallo Chief, Ops. Branch RI/NRC C.E..Sisco-Operations Engineer,DRS-NRC 'A.
Vegel__ Reactor Engineer, DRP NRC E.C. Wenzinger, Sr.
Chief Projects Br 4, RI NRC . - J. F. St'ol z Project Director, PDI4 NRC/NRR D.L.-Caphton Sr. Tech./ Reviewer, DRS RI/NRC-
- J.L. Dixon Reactor Engineer, DRS RI/NRC J. A. Teator Investigator 01/RI E.P. Wilson Investigator 01/RI W.J; Raymond Senior Resident Inspec.
NRC " M.L. Boyle Senior Proj Mgr. Unit 1 NRC , D.A. Dempsey U-1 Resident Inspector NRC . W.V. Johnston Deputy Director DRS NRC - R. Matakas.
Senior Investigator NRC , - ..... _... _
. -- - - - - - - - - . . . _ O - O ^ ~ 0- ~~ ~ m i , r r ~ 'l i l.. Millstone
! ! Station mIIIs to.n..e - . mi..,...... . lu Millstone Station Mid-Cycle sALP Presentation. . c.
't e I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Q - King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
. May 8,1990 j , l
Northeast Utilities !
l !
.. [ . ,. i i , ! l ' ! ~l ./ . . .. . .,, . , . .- -. -, - - -:
__ . : . w e - O L:0& . , _, - .,n' i . Millstone Station ?!M* %"* Attendees W.D. Romberg Vice President, Nuclear Operations S.E. Scace Station Director J.P. Stetz Unit 1 Director J.F. Smith Unit 2 Operations Manager C.H. Clement . Unit 3 Director H.F. Haynes Unit Services Director G.L. Johnson Director, Generation Eng and Design ' R.C. Rodgers. Manager, Radiological Assessment Branch G.P. Van Noordennen Supervisor, Licensing .. ... . . .i . ,g J
. - . - _ O O O ~ - : , ' f-I! 'j_
, ! . o
- et
r P .. l
- Millstone
~ i Station i i mHis ton..e '
,,-i.., .,.. - Agenda
l . Opening Remarks - W.D. Romberg !
Station Organizational Changes - S.E. Scace j i i i . Status of NU In tiatives in SALP Functional ' i Areas . Closing Remarks - W.D. Romberg
,
= i NRC Staff Presentation
1;
'l .. q , f ) ! ! ll'j i f
- i
- - - - - - - - - - = = - - -. - - - - - - - . - . . - . - - -- - -- - -
- ~ - . '.
> - u q { - l i r r Millstone Station '"!E M * M i Millstone Station Organization I Station Director j ! " !
Unit Services Director-Site Services Director
j !! ! i f I ' t ! 'f . ... -. - ., - , .- .. . ..,. -.
~ ' ~ ~ y -
9 !
-
i.:. e l r Millstone i Station . mI,.IIs to.n.,_e _. _.. , . Unit: Services Organization
l
Unit Services Director
I . . . i HP - Support. HP - Operations
- !
l i l - l Chemistry Security j i l . I . ! t n - . ! I .. .. .- ..) . -
- - - - - - - - - - --- _ - _ - _ . ,- - O.
O O.
. . , - t ,,
I '.i i !
. f ' Millstone l Station-
nsI..IIs to.n,_e i ..... _...
Site Services Organization j .! Site Services Director-j - . I
Site Engin. & Maint.
Computer Services
.; [ , l ___ _, _-. _ ._ -;, .. .-- __ _ . ..- .- . - .
.. - .
- .7_ -
,_..;- - w O - l-O O i l s!
- . . , . I ~ .. < y .! i i - , F F [ Millstone Station - '"!HL%"* l Plant Operations l
J.P. Stetz Unit 1 Director l s J.F. Smith Unit 2 Ops Mgr C.H. Clement Unit 3 Director a
-i .. . ... .. .. . .. . ... . t t
1 - ~ ,- ., , s.: - ,. . . . . - ,_.. - . - . _ - 1., . -
_.c,.' i O ' W,r
. m .. O^
- .. . ._ .. i - - ,;
- * ng
~ - w a =: '.js5 L i ! I f .; Millstone . Unit 1 mm....s ta.n...e. . ... . Operations j i
Cycle 13 Synopsis j Emergency Operating Procedures ' i . . Housekeeping Program . i SSSA Program ~ ~
4; t !j .. .. .. ... .. .
f l _- l I i - ,.. .,,, - - -. -. - .~ < .,-. -ws- .,, <- a _, - - - = _ _ -. - - - - -
. -,_,n o . o o - :: , . , t , +
. lr I " hit . Cycle Length _ ...... nuleer power station.
, 700- - --100% ) . v 600- ll _ 90% !!!!ili; h-80% ' i:i:{:i !!!!!'i f f f'l ff
, !
- 6:::
!!:i: i:i:i:i
- !:!:!:
- !:i:i:
D ' ' > Millstone j Unit 1 mIIIs tone.
- nucteer power statten 'I Cycle 13 Synopsis j ! L 't Capacity Factor - a Significant Events i Plant Shutdowns j ' ESF.Actuations Operations ! - . . . . . e i I l.
. " . ._ W e
% .d
5- % n-g r'" a e y +-47-p .w - --W--, n ew up ei +.e-W h w dr - v'ww w se
. i {lf - . , t . r Millstone Unit 1 ~
mI,_IIs to.ne l , _ _._ , Recirculating Pump Seal Cartridge j , co so.i i 'E
- '
Seal Look Flow 'g g , ,
jp aTi s i E-as-els e ~~- ' as- - nSo c y.
- t'
Pump Shan ! = - - - - - l =- g .- _ _
I r ' Rotating Face" - i yL_g t _ . ,__ !
- 1 Seal Cady i_
, ' ., . .- , t
. ..,. ,. I [ ! l I !
.
- ! !
t ,_ _ . - - . _.. . _, - -. -..... . - .- . . . . . . - - - - - -o -
_ w - g g g me l ~ ' g i Millstone Unit 1 ,,,,,,,,, Feedwater Check Valve Redesign ~~~~ @@@ @@@
j , ,
@-.jD dh,
O
- =
- - h y ) 10 spnng washer
tock Plate Bot C p = , 22 nen:s - - 3 Lode Post g BEFORE -
Lock Plate 16 LodTab Plate M
- -
- - . . ~ \\ ,
i
.. i Millstone Unit 1 mIIIs tone ' ,,. -, n e. Operations , , ! ! Cycle 13 Synopsis Emergency Operating Procedures f ^ . Housekeeping Program
SSSA Prograrn
! ' ! .. . i ~! l i [ ! l
! - '- ... . -- . . ~ -.. . _...,-. . -. . . . _ -. _ . . -. - . . - -..
kl
- !;!!lr!
i !ti.
!f l1 ff!!>!l!> l.
_ O _ . _ . . e n st-s II.
. I,. m-s - e e ~m r . c u e r d d e e a x . c r E ' o g . r pl a P U n s o n g si n et o i O t r a it a ur r d e a e e p _ r p cog e Oe or d n p i yc P nl . O cn a e _.
nap b , g a enOnL ge E i rt - nt en nin i a a ma or l _ EM N T P .
- - - - . t . - i - . . . . - . O . . . -
)-
.I!!il > !
O O O , i - Millstone " TfSE!?ar Status 87% Capacity Factor for Cycle 10 97% Year to Date No Reactor Trips in Over18 Months No Forced Outages in 1989-1990 Operations . -
O O O ,
!
t I ') . F Millstone . Unit 2 i =JL's.lt"?
EOP Maintenance All Precedures Current to CEOG Emergency Procedure Guidelines Revision 03 (CEN-152)
i r
Verified Step Documentation in 1989 r EOP Users Guide implemented in 1989 l
t ~ Full Time Engineer Assigned to EOP's j [ "V-and-V" Planned for 1990 . ! ! Operations l ! - b !
!
} ! . . . ._ .
- - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - _ _ - - - -_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ O O ~ O " " . , .
--'
! !
i
! ' ' ! ! Millstone . Unit 2 ! - =J'!n*E? - Non-EOP Procedures Upgrade
i ! Four Person Procedures Group Assigned Specific Goals Assigned Each Year ~ Multiple Means for Operations / Training l ~ Personnel to Make Procedure i Recommendations l Current Status: 54% of ~350 Procedures Have Complete Writers Guide Format (100% in 1992) ! Operations
i h j .
- G O O
. i Millstone Unit 2 , , Plant Labeling.
Three Millstone Units Using improved Valve Labels Unit 2 Leads with 85% installed, All Units on Schedule Labeling Project Moving to Instruments, Other Components Operations -- _
. . _.
_.
O O O j . -
i i i < r Millstone j Unit 2 l mi_lls to_n,e ' _ _ . Training and Operational Exercises ! Continuing Commitment to Operator Training i ! Extra Licenses on Each Shift Permit Job l ! Rotation, Get SRO's "Out in the Plant" -! i t
Ops Manager Participates in Simulator Training l Weekly l
i
EOP Implementation Good Practices j - t l Operational Exercise Program Demonstrates ! Important, infrequent in-Plant Operations l l Operations j i
i l ! i .l i - ! ! -I i ! . ~ .. .- .- . - -. . . . - .. . - . -. -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - .. . . O - O O ' .
q i - i , r r
, Millstone Unit 3 mI,_IIs te.n_e
_ _..
Mid SALP Presentation Major Events,7/89 - 4/90 Self Assessment .
Performance Indicators
j Operations l Maintenance , ' ! Engineering / Technical Support i ,
! ! ! ! ! .. .
I
i I i
' .I i i s _E '\\ , .. -.... ..... - -... .... -... - -... ... - -. .. . .... - - -. - -. - - - - .. - .
u ' O O-O .
, . ! !
- i j , Millstone Unit 3 ?!'!!!W
Major Events j i ! ! i Maintenance Team inspection - June 89 - Operator Requal Exam - Sept. 89 j Operator Requal Exam - Feb. 90 EOP Team inspection - April 90 Shutdowns / Reactor Trips l ! ! , . -- ' ! . k i
i !
. .. ..
O O ~ O
- . , ? , !
., i . , ! r l ~ Millstone
Unit 3 H mIIIstone l Shutdowns / Reactor Tn.ps. -- - -- , Nov 11 Turbine Electrical Trip Solenoid
- Nov 28 "C" Pressurizer Safety Jan 18 Manual Trip, Feed Pump Coupling
Failure i ! - ' Mar S Auto Trip, Stator. Liquid Cooling
Controller Failure j ' Mar 30 Manual Trip, Loss of Two Circ Pumps, . Seaweed Apr 16 Manual Trip, Loss of One Circ Pump, - Seaweed ' ! I !
i . . . . .. .. . . .. ... . . .
, O O O= ' , .,
I -; i
r i Millstone . Unit 3 '"A' Lit *! l Self Assessment ! Trip Assessment Project Pilot ' Intake Structure Task Force ! Emergency Operating Procedures Independent Safety Evaluation Group . . Fire Protection l Personnel Errors
> , .. . . ., ! ! $ $ !
i
- - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ . .. O O - O i _
I ! > r r ! Millstone . Unit 3 ,,,,,,,,, _,.. ... _ Performance improvement for Personnel Errors ' - Procedure Upgrade Program Troubleshooting Guide !
Operator Team Work Training j Do the Right Thing, Right, the First Time Field Supervision involvement
! !
. . . . f ' I i ! i ! b ' . .. -.. -. . _ . . _ _. . . .. . . . . ~.. ... . - . ..
._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ . . ' -
- t
_ O O - O
i
. . _ i !
i i a
P .! i Millstone o Unit 3 Personnel Error LER's =m,...er=._=,_.
. _ . , i
i t t (
4 i
1> , O - , Excludes LER's 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st l i l greater than 2 years old. - 1989 1990
) i ! . ! ! '[ i ! , i } ! i ! ! ' i.! . . . . _ _ - . .. . ~. - ... . .. -. . .. .. . .,. - .. - _. _. _ _ -. _.... _ _ ~...,. _ _.... _ _. _... _ _ _.. _... _ - _ -. - - . -
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ._ _-_- -__ -- _. _ . _ .7 $ O o . .
~. . . '. ! ! i y i r r I ! Millstone
, Unit 3 ! m_IIIs to.n_e ! . _.. Performance Indicators i ! ! !
Capacity Factors
Rad Exposure .j i' Reactor Trips Rad Waste Volume , ! i > I
i , l i [ i ., - . .- . .-. .,. . ... . . ... . - -... ... - -..... . . -.-.-.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ -_ - _ _ - _ _ - _.; O O ^ O
.
I
i.
i j.. ' i
i i P , I Millstone Unit 3 mIIIstene \\ Capacity Factor - - - - - , 100 l
-l l i -{
40 i
'
Cyc4e 1 -- Cycle 2 Cycle 3 i {_7s5. NTWit! % ME ht ! ...-.-~. n,~- . . _ yo -- - _; y,-,a.---_; --y- , I ! f t
L , - . . .. . -.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - --- - - - . .. .. . " O O O
i ? i
.., . i !
i f ' Millstone Unit 3 ! ! Radiation Exposure ef.t's.t*er !
500 ' -! i l I' I 400-i ! ! 300-l
- .
J 200-i ! ! 100- !
. 0' j Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 - l - ' r . .
- .
' ^ . . . ... . . j .. . t i !
' ! ! ' . ! !
., . . .. .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
O - O O .;- , ' i - .; . i.
! ! .,
'I i ! i '
, i r - l Millstone
F Unit 3 i ( mI..IIs to.n.e i . . - -.. t Rem / Million MWe " 40 ' j , Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 I i i f ! .! l ... -.... .. - - .. .. -... . - .. -... . . - _,
- - - - - - - - - - -_-- - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - -- > L O O ~ O - , .
i l t-l iF Millstone Unit 3 Reactor Trips .,m,,... !
10 ' - - cycie 1 cycle 2 cycle 3
l Trips / 7,000 Critical Hours j ! I i I i t . ! ! t E . ~ ._ . .. . ... .... . . .. .. . . -. ~. ......-..J.
-
,!!- > i i;tl!!tll!tl1! !i t! !ti!!!!:$!! [!: - . . - O en.
o..t-s r I.
I I,_.
- sn se la r u u _ n d _ - a e - c - M o - _ i - r _ s _ P - _ t - s n _ e g _ _ n n _ - m i o t . e g a _ O i r r t i n a u e . i - r q gnn p . nioO e ei ai p R l r t eT c y _ b e c l O a r t n a L ooe it ' c i t r aP g n e r r h v e e e _ cl . , e a pr m i . e TVOF E - n . . - - . o t3 st .- l i lin - MU .
. . O - . . . i1 ,i i!ii'i .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - . _ - . ___ _ _ _ ._ O ~ O O - . ! ' . ! r r ! i Millstone Unit 3 =fSIMa,! ! _ Fire Protection-
Hourly Roving Watches to Check Fire Doors ! ! Increased Priority for Fire Door Repairs Management Reinforcement of Fire Protection Program ~ ' Elimination of CO Discharge from Fire
, Protection Console ! Tech Spec Change Clarifying Areas that i Require Continuous Fire Watch j l ! !
i
! .- ... --........2 .. .
' ............. . . ' " , O O O
i Millstone Unit 3 ,,,,,,,,, Fire Protection Related LER's~~~""'- 20 ' - j 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 1987 1988 1989 .1990 .. " . .,,,...--*m+ __ .. .. .+
O O O , i Millstone " %!."LM?,e Emergency Operating Procedures History Action to improve EOP's l . . . -
.. . _ _ _ . _.
.- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __ .- O O O i r
,
o ! l F F-j i Millstone i Unit 3
=2BL%"t ! - EOP History Initial Development (ERG Rev-1)
First Significant Revision (ERG Rev 1 A) l .
<
Rules of Usage (Operator Requal 9/89)- , i . Current Upgrade Effort (Westinghouse
, Review Team) l - . ! ,
. . . , !' ! ! ! ! ! ! . _ . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ..
-
o o-O - i i i i r r l Millstone j Unit 3 . naI,_IIs to.n...e ' _ _... Action to improve EOP's Perform All EOP Local Walkdowns Identify Non-EOP Related Procedures f Revise EOP Users Guide
Revise 43 ERG Based EOP's i i
l Revise 31 Non-ERG EOP's l l .: l Validate Non-EOP Support Procedures i
- -
! ! ' l !
... . . ' i l.
! ! ' i
I
i l ! ! ' .. - _ -. _
L L O O O_ . , .; ,
i l i l:
! -i i i i r r
Millstone
i Station mIHs to.n.,_e i
_. ... . ! Radiological Controls ! ( !
i I H.F. Haynes Unit Services Director , j
! L !
i i ! ! i < ! f , i j . . e ! l ', i l
I k ' !
.. - . . - - .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ . . O O O L , . , a l i ' -! ! lq i ! Er
Millstone Station mH,..is te.n.,_e ! > _ -.. Radiological Control
! Contamination Control , ' . ALARA - Radioactive Material Handling
. ' Initiatives ! i
.. ! ! ! i ! i , . ...,. - - - - . ~.. .-.-....._.=,n .. + ...., -- -......-.---n - - -. . . - - - . ~ - ~ ..
. _.. - - ' - ' ~ G ~ O - O - ,.
- -
i _ } - Millstone Station ~ f M"f '"* HISTORY 1988 . Contamination Control Weakness identified . Purchase PCMs ($750,000 ) . Reduce Access / Egress . 1989 - Contaminstt1 Hydrolazer - Self-Assessment . ' Management Task Force . . 1990 - On-going Self-Assessment . . - Additional Actions ~ Radiological Control . . I' "'#I" EN'#' ""E--' '' ' ' " ' . ' ' -'H4 '- ' " I '- ' ' " ' -#' " ' ' ' '- - . @'"'.,, -, .,...i'-'. ''E'-m' -''#: ' '- --. '
= -- . - - - - -.. - .;- _ _ .. . l ~ i Millstone m.I,_IIs t.o..n...e - . . ASSESSMENT . l On-site /Off-site Survey Program Radiological Control- .. . .. . -_
- - . - _ _ _. - . _ _ r >_.*.^ .( -rs- , c - - O ~ O ' CY T-t.
- - [,. ~ ~ . t i - -
. . Millstone
ation ACTIONS TAKEN- """f N - -
Vehicle-Access Point (VAP) ' i - Property Pass- . HP Frisking at RCA Boundaries , j ' Awareness initiatives Commissioned Task Force -
Stopped Shipping Tools Off-site ] Staff PCM Points.During Normal Working Hours
Strengthened Procedural Guidance: -
Radiological Control . . , . .t - - ! ' , ! !
- t . A , sw.- y,s <-y.
- .-+s ca,_.
-- - =.m.- e-,.,,e - - -,yy - 4p s - ,-+n.mg-- c. 9 s ., ,,,,n.
e-._,, .ggy,aw.s .m y n, ,.e-.4
O O O
- -
. ! ' . Millstone m_I,.Hs to.n...e ..... ACTIONS UNDERLREVIEW RCA Fencing - Further Reduction of Access / Egress Points - ~ HotTool Cribs - Free Release Survey Facility-. . Radiological Contro! ._ . _ _ _ l 't l m llie' llgi i " ' b I E R l%l ll'I"' IE ' W ' % 'BI* 'll ' ' ' '" II I
,.
mammme- - ..
9
i Millstone a+--i O }M Station o + PCM atfi'i!**S o
...... _. O. \\s\\ r-wi .__ ,., 9. , , . ... f ESF 41]H Flecombiner Waste Fuel
Bldg Bldg Reactor PCj Cntml - AuxC'dg --:--- _ d 4V % trance & Exn ~ o-Exit Only usiv Bido e cs w t w Unit 3 Radiological Envelope l . _.
. - l- ~ ' - _..,_.s F O^ - O . .. ~ O iJ .. - - " ~ r - . l.
- - -i ,_ ' - ~l _ s ,, - . I i _.=.. l i - F F f Millstone ! I Station
mI..IIs to.n...el.
-........ . ALARA
! . Power Operations Exposure
Fuel Cycle Exposure Histones
. Al_ ARA initiatives - Unit 1 j l . ALARA initiatives - Unit 2 - ~
i . ALARA Initiatives - Unit 3 ~ i . ~ q t . .i Radiological Control I . . .. . j iJ r ! _ i . :.. ! > .. a- . - ., . - , , - -. - -. . . .. - -. +.. - -~
_ _ _. _ .
O O i Millstone Statuon ,,,,,,,,,,,, -... -...... Power Operations Exposure ~~ ' Monthly Average Man-Rem 1989 to 1989 (1990 Projections) a Radiological Control .x.
..a.. .
..
- ; , O ~ O*1 O .
- .e.
r s "':. Millstone m_i,.lls t.o.n. e . ... Fuel Cycle Exposure Histories 4000 Unit 1h = med 3000 - Unit 2 2000 1500 250 Radiological Control _ .. ........ _ _ . ..... . .... ._ . ,. _....... _. _ . . ... . . _.
,.. 4l
O O
OV -
- _ _ -.. i Millstone Station ,,,,,,,,,,,, ............ ALARA initiatives - Unit 1 New stud tensioners for reactor vessel in 1989 - Use of divers in Torus decontamination planned for1991 - ! Radiological Control + 1-
m _.m . - - . - m.
- . ~ - ~ ~ ' - ' Lc _.
( ~ J7Al ;A - ' - , . ~
- ' Y
,.,,. _ a 1- _, li P F .: Millstone . . Station nsI,.IIs to.n...e
_....... ALARA initiatives - Unit-2 . . Early involvement in steam i generator replacement project-Reactor Head Shielding & - . Ultrafiltration recommendations . '7 ' , , l Radiological Control - ]
.. . - _ i ' .. ! - j - - , A ' .5 - - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = -
- . . - -. . _ . ., . .. .
. - - . - . r . -. m.
..j c - , r F .;
- Millstone
Station '"!!!iMar j ALARA Initiatives - Unit!3 . > Evaluating reactor vessel flange shield and
modifications to RCS flow bypass equalization lines ! LWS filter modifications in 1990 - ! l
- !
>
- l
. Radiological Control - ~ .....
..
I f . s- ] +m'+ i yg-- p- %w T % w +-es - p,W g
% p y w'>dN -?--'ey-q, 9- +y 5-* - - "t 'A e f*Ef '*9NC'
- -W 4'f e
?. . . , . - .~ - . -.. _ .N' ', l. ' !, ' = ^O < n'.. s .- _,. _ ' - O O H ~ = -
3 , .
y4.. 'i < r . , t Millstone
Station n ,,,,,,,,,. .. .. _,........, _ ~ Radioactive Material Handling: - R History
Program Problems - 1985 _
-
d 285 shipments in 1989 . - ' . Recent Events and Corrective Actions
- 1989 Hydrolazer Shipment to New Jersey.
j - , .. September 1989 Limited Quantity l" Shipment to CY.
January 1990 Shipmeni to Duane Arnold j - .. Radiological Control
l
? . - . . . ~.a - =a .. . - ~, -..- . - - .. .
. l:.. l .n.
- . . - . .
_ e.
. . ~ . ._ = _ .: ;.. _ ~
- 7, -- ___7 L O - ^O '
- m . . O A: . ~ - , - _.m
, , - _a
t -
- i
, . P P '
l Millstone ~ - Station-
mI..IIs to.n...e -
-...... Health Physics;lnitiatives j Contaminated Area and Source Term-
Reduction l ' o
~ Radiological Information Tracking' System (RITS) q Digital Imaging and Word Processing System
Staff Enhancements ' Digital-Alarm Dosimeter Field Source Check.
{ - Radiological Control ~
. . ! ! .. .q .; _ j - - - - - . . . - - - - - - .- -- -- . . - . . -
. .. -- .. ~'"l
'
,,, ,_ ""':"'., ' .,, ~ ~- O O ^ ' _ l Wm b ' ~ - - - . . .. - . w.
p.
. . g i r F 'I 'l Millstone
.. Station mH.is te.n. e .z?. ....
CHEMISTRY i ! ! - ! Results (Key. Chemistry Parameters) a - Initiatives (Proactive Programs) .
a , .f i
t .i ! , , , '
t , ., , i...~_,- .
- e _..i~
._..,O.. .,7,,._,_ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. . _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _,. I - ' .. _... ., -. _,,.,. _
O - --- - - - -- - _ - - - - - -- --- - -- _ _ _ - - - - _ _ ? ~ '
'
- _
. 12..
- r. -
-n m, _.. ~ . ~ O . . O:R ' - - , . . -w b r . ' i ~ , - - ! - a Millstone u
Station ' , mI,.IIs to.n...e , . _. .... . .
Results (Key l Chemistry Parameters):
l Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) ' l Unit 1 = 0.244 o i Unit 2 = 0.119 ~ -l
. Unit 3 = 0.250 ! . !j K, E,Na SQ,j _Q K + G + SQ
4 _ 15.
15-PWR cpl = 0.8 20-
20
BWR cpl = 0.2
3-
, Chemistry l ! '..) - i I! , t I % ~
~.,.,.. . ~. -., .: -. ) -- ,, - .. - . . - . ... -
N O O ? l O ' fi '
L -
- fi
, - -~!'
.l a V _ _ . -.:. , Millstone = Station ! mH, is te.n..e - ' - -.... Initiatives (Proactive Programs)-
- j
- !
- t
- QA Manual l . Zinc & Lithium Programs . Intern Program j - On-Line Monitoring j '
! l
. I f Chemistry i !
!
. i ~i l ' ! 1.
. . -- - .
- .- - _ . ~=- : =. - .:=
0 . Of . , .; . .. - . '1 ! I ' . IF - a Millstone ! Station '"!!LM"* ' - On-Line Monitoring a ! . In-Line ion Chromatographs (Unit 1l& Unit 2) Anatel On-line Data Management System i-(Unit 3) i = j ! i Chemistry
t + i !
, ! .. ! - . __ ._ _ . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. . -7
. - .. - =. .. .,
, . . II _ Millstone Station ,,,,,,,,,,,, _,.... _..... Maintenance / Surveillance
J.P. Stetz Unit 1 Director- _ . J.F. Smith-Unit 2 Ops Mgr . - C.H. Clement' Unit 3 Director: . ,.. ..,.... .... ... - -. . . . . .w
_ ^ $' + , e &_,y '. O - O ~ - E O m.
= . . sm - , - . , - '.. ,,. - ._ _ ~, t . 1- _ - 3; F .
- ~ . > Millstone d Station
% ,,,,,,,,,,,, _,.. _..... iski - ~i i m o adur.
inks' ubr uAir - ade lier lieu amm . j amir-GER gut-IEEE M-lEEE ! g L g m M M <
m m - -]
4- .i M-m
g g amur-gus
' " 4EIR G5 m - -amu " -8" M - -asus i .
l - M m g j' m a M se t 6-W m - Millstone Units 1 & 2 W l . '! l ' _ a g .,,,, . %- , , . -- , ,,vs _.
--g.. w..... __.m, ,__%y w i.. . _
.- .- _.
.. -. _ . - ' . ~ ^ . ,. + 'e '
- O~J O ~ ~ O ~' ~ . , v - ., ,.,
..i ': ' [ i .
Er '! Millstone Unit 1 ~
= WLL*?! Maiistenance / Surveillance
i
- l
Independent Surveillance Check j . Gold Plating of Contacts- , ' ! Scrams / ESF Actuations . . Valve Replacement Program l l i I ..... .... .. . -
t l ll
. - ' - . - -. = . - - - - - - - -
. .- - ,
e - i Millstone - Unit 1 .,,,,,,,,,,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ALARA (Man-Rem) 2500-- Millstone 1 g,_ 1500-- BWR Irxiustry Average ,_ '~~ . " - - 1000- / ^ ^ ~ ~ ^' 888 ~~PWR AveragT _ [. ~~~
8'1 < 8'2
8'4
66
8'8
90 Year- ... .... . . . . . - . .. - - U
.
i! ,.
- iil:
jjl, I:; t > !!
il! aq , c.
_.
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ ._ . _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ , _ _ ,_ ,, ,. ,. ,. ,. .m . I ,. t ,. n a ,_.
e g.
r.
,,, m o.
e-e r . c cP . - _ at . _ n _ o l ._ pl . _ a ~ i eP . ._ l R . i l ~ i d e me . .., g v z r ntei . i r , u n s e . yt i _ S aS u r p , / Tl . , om . ._ s r e st o - _.
n C.
c o o n rCC e ..
- _
a c .c l r n . , - ' - n e e a . - - , . . - e.
nt n . . a . n e . tn-owt . . ,. sd n . e i - r ei . . . n a e e a . . - o M PF M . . - t1 . . - - . . st l i . lin . MU , _
, . - . . - _ - - _ - - ,
.
I l ii l . l[ ' = _ %
, ? P ~ e e
cn
t, a' l - l i y e e .
j,, ty n v ,i o r' t u v s S i l l t / i c e M e
e s c c r n ed n-J n e a nn a' i n n nOa n n e a e n o at et t , C Pi na n-n l i a oD a m S Ms y M t g M l r a l d o i MnMt . rg P a n d e ~ o d S nv r nD a n P aR i t sP e s r r nt . r e eN e a . t e eP . l - u n . OT . i e p gP H. e . n E n no m E N G WO I t1 o . - - . . st C . l i lin . MU . . - . . .
li \\ _'I " . & ' . "*" '. . "l"l . - '! . != " ' see } yo s , l m p , e a s m - - c r t r t gn cE n o e e y m jb a e r o n d P e r a r c P g e n r on r i t gt a etr n pinh d o , U.
on op i l - a sME F e ,h M e r nty R p u oigom l d t n oe i i e ab i e ci a nL b l n od i iaC o l r a e r r & o P RRTI P . t2 st - - - - - - l i l n iMU " , , . . - _ . . . . i
,. " . !1 llll
_-
y .=. . ~: - ( ' ~ - ' ', =- ' _ . , s.: -
- - ;
- .; e ':, j ' - - m.. _ i.
~ .
- !
. . .# : y - n
r r !
Millstone
Unit 2 -
mI..IIs to.n.e ' -... -... , Procedures Upgrade.
-
Upgrade Projects Active in Maintenance and I&C Departments q Maintenance Procedures 22% Complete l l&C Procedures 24% Complets
1992 Goals Assigned i i
Growth in Procedure Compliance Area j i - i Maintenancei
, i
I .I, , q
. . - -.. - . -. .. .' ' .
[l g ' [ - '
~ ffL [ ' * ~ [' f. / }. _ _
. t: ' .
~ lL:
-.-
/ r
- Millstone
- - Unit 2 i mI,.IIs to.n...e .;
_. ... Radiation Monitors
Jj = > . k Replacement Steam Jet Air Ejector Monitor in 1991 l - Rad-Monitor Study Recommendations in.
Progress-
- Long~ Range Rad-Monitor. Upgrade Program j ! i-l ' i Maintenance ., - , , - ! .; + = . "!
- . .. . ._ _ . .. _ _ _ - . =-. a . - ., _ . ., _
2 %.. - - - - 0 - m.. _ - - -. O O l ~ l _ _
- - O ' ' - .; ^ ') - , , , -- l "' .; ~ -- ., - l _ . :i
- ' .. -- _.
- II , ~ 4 i Millstone o .t Unit 2 ' . mI..Hs to.n...e - ^ ....... l Reliability Enhancements q I Mid-Loop Level Instrumentation Project ! , i Predictive Maintenance Program ~ j
" ' Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Pilot Program Underway - l - i SI Loop Check Valve Tensioning System l
i Pump Coupling Program
'
,
Byron Jackson N9000 RCP Seal Evaluation in j Progress . Maintenance ,
.;' $ lj y ' . i < ,, ,, _,~-, .,+..._.,,.,...j . -..,. <, .w -. -.. r.~... ...s,.y.,,.h., y ,y.
,.,_,f f, g, og,,.,,, _.w, s,3%,, e,- ....m%. %,.
-- - -- - ------- - --- - _ q - -. -- wg.
- 7.-
. _. ~ O -
1 - 7 G;_ - - ) q i I . % , f f - - Millstone ~ ' -1 Unit 2 j mI,.IIs to.n...e -, . ~...,..
Training . Growing Commitment to Maintenance Training j Initial Training & Qualification Status
Mechanics.- 47% Complete
Electricians - 33% Complete _ l
. l&C Technicians - 100% scheduled by i ' December 1990 i Additional Training Within Maint. and l&C j Departments Maintenance.
. . -
Lk
-. -
- ....-.,,.....-.,:-.,w
. , _..,., .,. ,u, , ._______,____.__;. - -
- - - g* .pe . O O O 'H i i _.i .[ l l t i j - - . r r
~! Millstone
, Unit 2 i mI_IIs to_ne ! _ .
I&C Loop Folder Project t Loop Folder Control Guidance improved j
- Verification / Purge of Folder Contents j ! Emphasis On Controlled Drawings and Vendor Manuals - Rotating Work Assignments Have involved More Technicians l ! Maintenance j ! ! i i i ! ! , ! l i
'
- . . -,,, - - .:--.. _.
. < -.. . . -. - . - ,.,. _ ..._.,_.....m._ -
__ _ ~ ( ,[ i II
Millstone Unit 2
- 2!!L%?!
Problem Reporting by Employees ACP-QA-1.20 Outlines Problem Reporting Mechanisms . Instruction Provided on How To Use Various Reporting Systems + Aci!vely Encourage Employees to Suggest Improvements and Report Problems Maintenance '9 lllrypi sq m i ;-l - - 'n . - - - ' - m +
,a4g,_-g_.
p-r-~&eM---demgmm-v' ma ammrddamA m M A, Ao eaw MemMW1M 4n 1Fe4 msv eW4. ah+--MA.-96 A6.4r+AMs-amm,
- &M6,.MAb-MMM - 4rm 4m MJMo9 8 A wm M44.4 + AmensA,A.Mm 4Amom ay,a
! . o O , I fi,
M & l 7 $! ' c
S l . e ~
M > . .R >W e -
g s.F.s c 5"E m E, $
1 lO c E.= - I
2# E..E .c_.
= g .. 8 >$E E . SE e a 2 5 - E c o. $ c o eo E $ E E $ Eb .g . . . . . . I O o - C9 2.e = c.>. u K,c - l }
- t
.' . . ' , -- m a-em-r-pw=e a.- ww y n.w-w-ewewm-m _F eNragr- - - - - '
p n,e-+ w p.Ee,d4,A-A,*A d.-Wt.e.E,,de,Rs-rdoAcedm.p..Ms h -r oo 4. ord4-5A.
d4Ad,m,AR am 4 M M A.e_4 MA4.4 w h h4- "#,a,@J N M Ma,pwdehm mB4+4A.- ,phm.
m
,- < ) .J l l l - l L W il ' .l . t .e
& !
. i s s s _ N N
O
.. m
i . @C ' O - C9 Ww l = .- 3 ~C .-
1 -. O .
7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____.___ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _. _ _.... _ _.. _ _... _ _ _.. _ _,.,,,,.., _, _.,, _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _..... _,. _. _,. _. _ _ _
.. - ., -. ~.. -. ~, _ -. - - - - - - ~. - - - -... - - - ~.. -... ~. - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - -. - ~. -. ~.. - ~. - - - - . - ~ ~ - - - - - - - .. . f '
, i ) i e t O .
I> I i [- _ h - i i i , ' u
HH Y.
M l' O l
_ . l . - . L c
' O - (9 V)=.e m- - E :c ._ D . O
... r ...m.... _ _,. . .
- - - - - - _ _ __ -_ . O O O
. '
'. . !
.! -
i i , -i r r j Millstone l Station , asI.IIs to.n_e
- i
_. ...
Maintenance Team inspection . Unit 2 High Exposure l NPRDS Data l Commercial Parts Program
i i . PMMS Planning Group i ' . Work Order Procedure / Retests la . Housekeeping l t NE&O Policy Statement l ! i ! i
i
, . ,
i f .. . - - . .- . - - - - - - -
. .....,.... -~..-.v4.-- . _,,..----.----~.....u-4am.m.m.,=.44 .ww.4......-...wa.4.
<.a .=._.44*.4 ..-_,m.4-44,s---m--w,_.
' j . m i LO j i . ' li
- } l ". ums ; g
. - L li al I II i - - I - - a l I Ill " "a 1 aai o p , L pi n ii , I t .- p _ 1 151511 la - G .te - C c O C E E D . ' L
- O Ie a
e L M *,;:l; c - , O-g ' i is g u . - '* b ll L
' , O
r .... .,..., , _. _,....,, _....... _,.... ,,
, O ~ O - O
- [
- t ,e s i Millstone Station ,,,,,,,,, _ _ . _ Emergency Preparedness R.C. Rodgers Manager, Rad Assessment Branch
. O O O
. i l & i ' r ,
Millstone Station 5&iMa* l Emergency Preparedness j i Use of Simulators in Drills / Exercises - Emergency Plan and Procedure Review EAL Revisions
! ERDS Implementation j 1990 Full Scale Exercise Exemption j Emergency Notification & Reporting System l ! ! ! . l [ .i l
.
. _ _ . _ . . _ . ' r, . I i i n
r P Millstone ' Station !
- !ELit"?
i - Use of Simulators in Drills.
Evaluation Completed in 1989 Trial Use of Simulator in 1991 CY Exercise j i Will Also Use Simulator in 1991 CY Rehearsal i ! Will Decide Further Use / Expansion Following l 1991 CY Exercise j
I Emergency Preparedness j . l ! !
- i a
-
' _ _ _. . . . .. ... ... .. - - - - O -
- -- - -. O O O , i i q
! i
I II . a i Millstone Station
mI,_IIs te.n. e t _ _... ,
Emergency Plan & Procedure Review
4-l l Thorough Review of E-Plan and Procedures ~ '
to: L
i Correction of inconsistencies > < ! l Clarify Responsibilities l l Clarify Recommended Protective Actions l t j Millstone E-Plan Revisions by July 1990 j ' Procedure Revisions by 1990 [ j Emergency Preparedness l i . )
I !, !
.,,.....-.-.-..;...-.-..-....-..-.._.
. . . .. . . -.. -
y O O O
, t - il ! ! ! ) .i P . Millstone Station T&itt?,2 EAL Revisions ! i I 1990 Revisions for Editorial and Clarifying Changes ! Major Revisions Planned for 1991 to Adopt , NUMARC Methodology After NRC-SER is issued !
i l Emergency Preparednoss ! ! ! ! ! i l i e ! ' . . - - . ... .. -- -- . J
_ _ _. . -_. - _ _ l O O O I
1;
! ~
. i ' l r r . . Millstone ! ' Station i mH,_is te.n_e - _ .. ,
ERDS Implementation > l l Implementation Method Evaluati6n initiated l by June 1990 l Letter of Intent Volunteering to implement ERDS Will Be Sent to NRC in 1990.
i Responds to Generic Letter 89-15 Implementation Schedule Will Be Developed with NRC l ! Emergency Preparedness j ..
) i k [ ! ! . .. - - -. - -- .. -. -. . - - - -
L ~ O O O ' 1- .
) I r r J Millstone Station , %!?LME! ' 1990 Full Scale Exercise Exemption
, l . NRC and FEMA Requested Postponement of December 1990 Full Scale Exercise , ! Plan to Exchange 1990 Full Scale with Fall 1991 Partial Participation Exercises.
. Exemption Request Dated March 18,1990 '
Submitted to NRC.
! ! ! ! { Emergency Preparedness i ! j ' I t
>
, i ? -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - . - -. - l .
O O O , . i Millstone Station ,,,,,,,,, _. . _ Emergency Notification & Reporting System . Existing Call Back Recorder System Being Replaced New Computer Based System Testing in May - June 1990 . In Service - July 1990 New System Provides Separate Commun~mations Channels for Each Group Calling in Emergency Preparedness ,,..i.. l
- - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - . - -. -
O O O ' - > < - ! l .i I
! I' Millstone Station mI,.IIs ten,_e o
_.-_ I Security / Safeguards ! ,
H.F. Haynes Unit Services Director
I . < E > -
s ...
, I ! i .: > i I l i !, . . , . - -. -.. -. _ ... - . . . - - ' .
O - O ~ O a >
.
, . !
'
. !
.4 i !
1-F i l Millstone
Station ' ' mI..IIs te.ne _. -... ~ ! SECURITY ! ! ! Guard Force Turnover Rate l -
i Safeguard Event Reduction - i Vital Area Barrier Assessment ! - ! ! F I i . t ! ' ! { l ! !
f [
! ! .. ... . ~ . -. .- - -
. i l; 1l i ! l i; ; lI!;l:j ll1!! III ii$ :)!i ~ O _ _ en . e . r . t.
. y - is t i H,. r . u m_ e ce t S a y R tr e a v r P t i e i
v d s _ r o o s3 P wt n e n s r i iv e u s r d k O T S gten c ew a E n n b eV pe S i I t d cI et eivT e r T eideL e x oIA M E IR UF n i F T S I - - - E - N d R I r . - a e u no n G t o - st i - - - l a l i t MS - - - O - . . - - lLll1:lll li1l1ill' ,l ii i -
- __ ._ _ _ - _ - - _ . _ _ . . O O
O . .
i i ! IP i Millstone Station mI,.IIs te.n...e ! _. -....
Personnel Turnover
Comparison of First 4 Months of 1990 ! Against Past Performance 18 # l Security l \\
! i ' [ I t i ! ! ! ! ... _, . . -.. . . _ . .. . --- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _- .. . _ .. . . O O O- "
i
I ! ,' ! .!
t~ t
l !
l i ! $ ! l ' I , i l Millstone i t
Station i
arm,...s ten...e r . _ .....
Personnel Turnover by Position a ! Staff Composition ! Watchman Tet1HinatiORS Guard , ! Guard-r ' Supervisor Suwvisor Watchman Secu % i ! i t ! t I - -. - -- .. ... -, .....,. . .... -., . -.... -.... -.. - -. - - -.. -. . -. - - z..a ~ -
. _ _ _ __ _. _.
._ .. _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ . - _ _ ._ . l O O O - -
, a i '
I
! ! ! !
..
l i P
. L Millstone t l Station ' mlIls te.n. e
-. ... , i Safeguard Event Reduction- ! INITIATl/ES ! ! Cr.>r Labeling - Badge System Enhancements Trend Information RESULTS l ! l
Security t ,, _ _ . i
, < l O O O ..
i !
i- -! ( )
l - ! ! ! l .! --
- ! Ir i Millstone Station mIIIs te.n_e -
. ... Event Trends by Quarter j
! $ X f s s i
~ '(\\ -i i X,% _ ! '- g a . s % Hardware Events ! - i s
Human Events-l 's ! ' s s e x ! - E , 1988 1989 1990 Security i ! ! ! ! ! !
t ... . - - .. .. ~. . -.,.. ....,~ - -.---. -. _.., . - - - - - -
-- _-_--------- --- . ., . O O O , .I; v ! -I , i
. i II 'I Millstone Station ! mI.IIs tene i ., .. Vital Area Barrier Assessment .
METHODOLOGY Performed by Security Shift Supervisor ! ! Specific Written Criteria STATUS {
i
Assessment Complete j t
Developing Database j
RESULTS i ' Security i
! ' . - l
I k i i ! !
___ ___ __________ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . O O - O
, ! $
t i i ! i ! I ! Millstone Station ! . mIIIs te.n..e ! _. ..... Engineering Support i . ' ! G.L. Johnson Director, Generation Engineering & Design
- J.P. Stetz Unit 1 Director ! J5. Smith Unit 2 Ops Mgr j C.H. Clement Unit 3 Director ! R.C. Rodgers Manager, Rad Assessment ! Branch
. . . . f
, -. .. .~ - -. - -
- .
,, - a. -, , .w.
,. -,. ~ - =. -...,... .. - - -. - ~. -... -.
. . . . . __ _ . . _ -_
O O O-i '
. e
j .
i-
!
r r L Millstone Station , mHistene . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ " " Active PA Comparison
1989 1990 / 91 Millstone 1
18 t Millstone 2
13 l Millstone 3
24
a Conn Yankee
25 ! i ! Total
80
Only includes PA's Resulting in Construction Engineering Support t I i ! !
' -i .. .- .. . -. . -.. - -.- - . - - .
.. .... .. =; -
- O a . Millstone Station ,,,,,,,,, - -.. -... Service Water System Erosion / Corrosion Concerns Small and Large Bore Piping Short Range Solution Mid-cycle Temporary Repairs Engineering Support -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. ., O O O~ > .- l ! - i q .- ~ IF
Millstone l ? Station l-mills to.ne.
- t . - . - .u L l Unit 1 Service: Water o i Unit 1 Long Range Solutions j l Replace Piping / Components As
P3 quired - - j j Above Ground Piping Replaced in j ! Mid-1970's i
l - Developing Formal Inspection ! l Program (Generic Letter 89-13) j !. i j Engineering Support i . .
.l '! >
i ! i
!
i ! ! , . _ _ .- _-,.;, , , -... .. ... .... ~ ... .. ., -.., . .... .. .. - . . .-...1 . --
___ ___ _ __ _ -_ _ O O O , , . U l
i
-- V V : i Millstone ' ' Station %!!2%"?
Unit 2 Service Water
4 Unit 2 Long Range Solutions { Replacing Above Ground Piping (65% Complete) Average Leaks Per Cycle Have , Decreased From 18 to 4 ! ! ~ Formalinspection Program i Will Install Liner in Direct Buried l Portions During 1990 RFO i l Engineering Support i -
.
i i ! ... .. .. . -. - . - ... . . - -.
n . . -w - ~ . . O ul ~ ~ i O= i "O M - - . r - , . ,. n.
- a ~ _
= i y r Millstone
Station '"!!Lt*** '
Unit 3 Service Water
1 Working On Safety injection Pump Cooling,; Charging Pump Cooling, and ESF j Building Ventilation- .. .. y _ 85% of S1 Pump Cooling To Be.
j Redesigned By RFO 3.
i Si and Charging. Pump Cooling Heat ! Exchanger Work During RFC 3 j
Engineering Support ' j . . , .- q i;
- :
, i , - _ _ . -. _ _ - _ _ ~ , _ _. _,.. ., _ _ ~u.
. --
'^
,., min ,is.
= n.
0 - O Og _ II,." ' ' Millstone ONONEOO + cni..orsto.n...e.
..m ....... Unit 3 Service Water - I Repair Plans for Small B_ ore Pipe . Change to Long Radius - 4 to 5 Times LPipe Diameter Bends . Use Monel 400 Pipe - Erosion / Corrosion Resistant: . Engineering Support m a -_____ "-' '
' ~- --t .~ ..,, g g . ' Millstone Station ,,,,,,,,, . _, _.. _...., _ Unit 3 ServiceLWater-i Large Bore Pipe Repa rs - Weld Repair With Epoxy Coating Long Terrn Repairs include Epoxy-Coating For Pollution / Marine ~ i Organism Protection > .. _.. .,,,., ., . .
. . L u
h A 4 & i X M A :.. .. .? f; . . ~ '
' . - m_ g ,c , - . - ^ ~ ~
. - . - } Millstone , Station mills tone
l SW Temperature / Flow Concertit"~'""- l Working-to Raise CY SW Design Basis Temp NRC Generic Letter'89-13-Plans Outlined to NRC in January '90 Final Evaluation and Schedule Due to NRC in
l June "90 NUSCO Engineering Defining " Basis" Issues , - Plant Engineering Establishing Test Criteria l PA Evaluating Unit 2 SW Temp Under Review ! Since 1989; Engmeenng Support . . ...m
- n - .. 'E~O~~ . O-O C , ~ .. - . , .
. , I i j r Millstone , Station ! . . mI, IIs to.n.e. . ! , - .. -..,.. I MOV - Generic Letter 89-10 . i ! i - Establish Program - Integrated Task Force
' Assemble Valve and System Design Data -; a PerformThrust and Differential Pressure
Calc's
. Perform Field Testing.. ] , l Identify / Resolve Deficiencies' i Revise Purchase Spec's for New Valves j
- Engineenng Support
. ! - r . . l .~ a - --z - .. -. n . - ,
=.. ' _, , -: ,
-
- ..~.
. - . .. ' g ~g . o . . m m-w Millstone Station "1' HLM"" Check Valve Program Maintenance Review Program Ongoing (INPO SOER 86-3) - - Identify Check Valves important to Safety / Reliability Categorize by Service Severity.
Establish Inspection Sample and Frequency by 6/30/90 Develop inspection Check Lists - Millstone Units by 6/30/90 - " - Conn Yankee by 9/30/90 - NU Following Non-Intrusive inspection Technology Development Engineering Support u I , .. _ _ _
....... .. .. . - - .- _ _. O - O O r.
. Millstone , i . Station ""!!!l'"*
Design Basis Reconstruction Retrieve, Consolidate, and Uptlate Functional Design-Basis ! 2 NU and 10 Contract Engineers - 3 Year Duratiofn Design Basis Documentation Packages ~(DBDP) . NSSS and BOP Up To 3 Systems per DBDP
l 1984 - Initial Steps Leading to'DBR Program 1994 - Projected Completion Engineering support -
.. . _. . .s - - O ~ DO -
N ~ ~ " ' , - .
.-
.-, t i ! j ' ' l Millstone 4" -
! i Station
i mI.IIs to.n._e " t ,
_... _... l DBR Program Status _, , . . 1.
' t ConnecticutLYankee q - 14 DBDP's identified - 6 NSSS,8 i I BOP,!17 Systems l t , ' 9 DBDP's issued .! . 5 DBDP's in Review: l l i ..
Engineering Support l .. .
! i
- l
- ._ i j
i ~ t ,
- ! . _... _ _ ,.. ~., . . . - ,.__,.,2-,._.
_. _ . - _.. _.. _ _ _. _. _, _ _ _.. _._. . . ,. - . - "" O . O f ; , l Millstone , ' O'*D*" %!M?t="" DBR Program Status ! - Millstone One I 20 DBDP's identified - 11 NSSS,9 BOP,29 Systems 2 DBDP's Ready to issue , 12 DBDP's Under Development , . Completion Anticipated in 1991 Engineering Support
._-=_ _ . -. _ _ _ __
. - ,. +
- .g.
O O Oi
~ - ) - ._ r A.* }II w Millstone-Station asI,_IIs t a.n...e. \\ _ .. _.... l DBR Program Status: ., .: i Millstone Two . j ! CE Owners Grmm Program L Underway - Denwables Expected ! End of 1990 _
i Completion-Anticipated in 1993
! a ! Engineering Support
- '
) ,q ! !
. '
i . .._.-;-._.,...-,_._...__,__a ,._ _ ; ., ,.. _ ._.
-. _ -, _. .... _ . ..., _ _,, _,,,.
. . _ _ . ' ~ ,. . -
o o: e o = . ,. : .. d
. ! i i
q l: Millstone - l Station.
' mI,_IIs tone. _ .. _...., _ DBRLProgram: Status ' ! ' ! Millstone Three - . . . Preliminary Discussions to Create j Owner's Group in Progress- ~ .. y
$ t ! l Engineering Support ! . b .i ' ..
s .,__e.
._-n, .~ .--[4 .-.1,, k -.._-,'a .g-.. -m-.--y-.. ,, - g,.. .. -, -.-y-- e ~ ~ ..-nr ... .3 w.24 -, .-3.m
a o ' b' ~ . Millstone J Station a ' Station Blackout '"f.".E*"* . Original Submittal to NRC - 4/17/89 ' I Electrical X-Ties Between Units at Millstone: Diesel Generator at CY I Submittal Revised in 1990 Add A Unit 3 Diesel Generator Unit 1 to Unit 2 X-Tie Diesel Generator at CY Two Years from SER to Complete Modifications Engineering Support _
' ._.
n . A - - L O ' O I -
' D; ~ r -
- , , ' . , 'l
- .
_ .,
- lq
- r r ! Millstone j' j-Station m
mi,_lls tone ,
_ _...... - . l Rad Monitor Review Program ~j i . Review Process, Area, and Effluent Rad Monitor Procedures for Technical Accuracy, Regulatory l Compliance
. Develop; Rad Monitor Manuals For Each Unit . ~70 Monitor Types involved j - Started Spring 1988, Completed March 1990
. Involved Unit I&C, Chemistry, Operations, , Engineering, Reactor Physics and NUSCO' Rad- ~j-Assessment ~ IEngineering Support - il .q - , ! l .. I _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ . . _.
.. ..... _ _,
0" O-0.
- .
- ' Millstone Station ,,,,,,,,,,,, _,_......,._ Rad Monitor Review Program Ongoing Activities Implementation of Review Recommendations Corporate Rad Assessment Will Review: Proposed Procedure Changes Maintain / Update Rad Monitor Manuals Engineering Support W
-..-
0
- Millstone "' '"!"L'R"* l Engineering Support . Setpoint Verification / Uncertainty Analysis Condenser Update
1989 Refueling Outage 1991 Refueling Outage Schedule Highlights _ ._ , .. .. . .. _. . . .; .
n _ , . - .
- ~ . . L_),. - - (,, ~ pp y ., , , Q %/ ' _ a.
- F
_ - W- _ , , '.. I Example:- High Drywell Pressure-I I s Existitur n0ettsad of knstrumerst CnRpraptkFIF Pvtantanedhaednadofm m i l s _ /1 0 PSI "As Found* Values Beyond This / Upper Bound Umit '
L 2.0 PSI - Tech Spec. Point Constitutes ChannelInop ' f '.12.0 PSI s Recalibrate Umit Tech Spec UmM i e j + Switch Error ( Totalloop Uncertainty.
. I9D ' I + O2 PSI 102 PSI h " Leave As k b Range" ( ) 1.8 PSI -
18 N
50% Rule Nominal I Trip Se4 mint % Bound Limit . l ( Tolerance + O2 PSI ( - c - Switch Error t,7 p3g
- 02 PSI i \\ > 1.6 PSI Lower Bound Limit Notes . 1.6 PS!
- Nominal Trip Setpomt Total toop thawterny demed as emns associand wiih measurement iest
. Tolerance - 02 PSI / egipment, sensor cawaiion amuracy, sensor ditt and oewr dewees in loop T 1.5 PSI -
- Nominal trip seipomt & lower tend Emit are.~,.W values
- Tolerance based on ope ann 0 margin & ease of calitration 1.4 PSI
\\
- Lower Bound Umit
...-.n_., n- .n , _ _ _..,, ., _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ . .. ... ~ . .-. - ,. _. _ -
%. _' - - . ~ O;,;. . - ~, - . ' Millstone , Unit 1 . Iniffs tone ~ ~ ~'~ ~"~ Engineering Support Setpoint Verification / Uncertainty Analysis Condenser Update 1989 Refueling Outage > l 1991 Refueling Outage Schedule Highlights-
. l _ _.. _ _
. . _ _ _ . _ _ - - _ _ _ . _* ~ ' - ," - .
- .
O Lo.
= , .
, i , i I .i ~
- r pj
\\ - ! I _ s?i
~.-;. [ Millstone - i" _' " Unit 1 i
I GE BWR's . m.,.,..,... i
.. . 1.
,
I%
100-- i ~ ' iO
) 80- -
. . .; I p 60- " - l -
- _.
40-
- - -. a - ~ _ -,,. .
i ,: : m- ~ ~ - - - - a
n
,' - .. . S . .. !!
.:
_ ;
0.2 0.4 : 10.6 0.8' 1.0-1.2.: 1.4 Conductivity ( S/CM); l . o j , !.; l . - -.-- - - -- n -
- - - . - --.- a~ _,.. - - - ~ - -.
- . ., , ,.
P -. . w; 9 l h,N ' j O ~ ' r*(._.
~' ' - L~' ,..
_ _ cc.,. ~ ' 1.-u -- ~ l' .f., u T ^ {~ [' C {c^.3 . , y.g:77-lxa : l, . g: -:=: t .g r'Y:I...,, a , " , 3 -: - -- . l.
~ ('. l-r - .., . , .- , . , I,
i Millstone
! Unit l1 '
mI,_Hs ton _e. .i _ .. _... y ! Engineering Support O _
i i
! . Setpoint-Verification / Uncertainty Analysis .j i Condenser Update 1989 Refueling Outage l , 1991 Refueling Outage Schedule Highlights
- . . i ! - . . ' t . . - - - - - . -.. .-.,,:.= . - -. - - - - - .: . . _____~-__e_____u______a__-__________,__.__ -
. . . . . _ _ . , .. ~ o - O O[
- _ .l
- i l
- y
, r
i Millstone .i i Unit 1 " l mIIIs ton..e . .,,m i..,....,...., 1991 Refueling Outage Schedule
, - ,
i Control Room Design Review j Pump Flow Rate Instrumentation j Torus Painting.
j ! - Inservice inspection I i ,, ' , Engineering Support
! ! ! '
i
! ' . a
. - .-. . ~.
- ,.. ;.. : e, ;,,,
.-3.,,..;,, .... .q;. ,, ...,,n.. ..,,,,.n.
,.. -....,...
- .
,: ' " . .
- . , .. - .. - -.. . ,. .... O . O O=n . 4: L ,,- I c;
- = %
Ir i Millstone Unit 2 mI,_IIs to.ne-
_ .. _..,, _ Engineering Support l Steam Generator Operational Status [ . Steam Generator. Inspection Enhancements ' i . Reliability Enhancements 1 l . . . a
Main Turbine. Rotor Repairs -
1990 Refueling: Outage Highlights
- - < ~
i .. ~!
!
. i
., ! . .- .. -. ., -. . -- - ~ . -,. - . .. - - _., ~.. . -. . =.. ..... -... .
........ . _ . .
- -
.
- ~
~ - - - O 1" -
0- . = - - - ' . Millstone "'
- "1M?!M"*
Steam Generator Operational Status Current Leak Rate and Status SJAE Radiation Monitor-Status Tube Cracking and Operability Engineering Support .
~ O O ~ OL.
n .. -. .- ~ v . ,
i i
- l Ig
- Millstone Unit 2 'mi,.lls to.n..e .: , _... _..,. - , .S/G Inspection Enhancements ] , . Tubing Samples Used to R/D Techniques .
Plant Specific ECT Data Analysis Guides j . ! Plant Specific ECT Data Analyst Qual i , e ' . Computer Aided Analysis - { . Dual Analysis of All ECT Data .
- Confirmation of Selected Results by UT
l Engineering Support.
! i q
. .t . -- . ! -
-
. .. ~ . , ,,s - r- , , 92_; . < '$ - ' - ' m; - ., E _ ~t L r r Millstone l Unit 2 ! '"J."L'*"t ) Reliability Enhancements j .1 i Shutdown Cooling System Projects
Heat Exchanger Performance' Monitoring j ' Nitrogen-16 Main Steam Radiation Monitoring ISI Pump and Valve Data Management j n RBCCW. Heat Exchanger Retube.
. Engineering Support j
.
. i l ' f ' , .r . . . ..-.- - - .. . - .. . =. . .. .. - - - -
- _- -- .- -- .. - - - ----- . ... .- . _ _ _ _ - - -
- !
O -.. . O^ . 0 ".,L ~ " -
. ~ ,. a , _ r r
Millstone j Unit 2
='S?!?M j Main Turbine Rotor Status
=l a J Low Pressure Turbine Wheel Cracking 1989 Outage Repairs l .
1990 Outage Contingencies _
.i i ? Engineering Support - a-
. , 'i
- . . . - -- - .. l - ,____c___ . - - . . = , _ _ _ _ _ _ ' - .
, .' . . _.
l -, cy ' o- ...
o - .
ll ll - Millstone Unit 2
\\
- MI,.IIs ton..e'.
_... _..... , 1990 Outage items
.
t ! S/G Replacement Project Activities ] - MSR Tube Bundle Replacements
- -
Service Water Piping Repairs ! Extraction Steam Piping Program l Other Projects-l Engineering Support j . .
- !
_ ; l f f - _... _. ,. _ - _. _.. _. _ - _. ___..-,..,,m _
. . ' ' - - - ._.-. e _ , ,. +
- ' Millstone Unit 3 ' mills tone ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ Engineering / Tech Support ! Painting / Decontamination Program , Cycle 4 Core Design - Rosemount issue MOV Testing Program . Intake Structure Major Projects.
' ! .. ......... . . - u -,,
_ -- - .- _ . _ - - - - - - - - - .- .- -_ .- -- O O n: ~^ . > -. . -
.
, r r - ! Millstone ~ - Unit 3- - : .,,,,,,,,,,,, Intake' Structure ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' " " - - Plant Trips Caused by intake Problems
1 Factors Affecting Intake Problems j Task Force 9acommendations j > Intake Structue Maintenance History - , m l . Intake Operating Strategy j i l Intake Equipment Modifications, Completed j Intake Equipment Modifications, Planned
! l . -
- -
i ! ! ' -
~{ . I .... .
_ e - O O ~ "" -- , Millstone ' Unit 3 Plant Trips Caused By ?SE*n intake Problems-5/9/86 Screenwash Pumps Off to Connect Temporary System 4/13/88 Screenwash Pumps Off to Shift Strainer , 10/22/88 Storm Overloaded Trash Conveyor ' 5/6/89 Storm, Fish Sprays Re-Angled to improve ' Effectiveness ! 3/30/90 Screenwash Pumps Off to Replace Pump Discharge Elbow , 4/16/90 "A" CWP OOS, Rack Raking in Progress _
_ r - O O O i-i , i ' > !- , - P P i j , !- Edistone
i Unit 3 '!
anills ton,_e. , , _. .... , j Factors Affecting. Intake Problems j .
-
Orientation of Unit 3 Intake - Natural l
Currents
! Fish Removal-Recirculation ! i Trash Rake Effectiveness
Spray Effectiveness ! i > ! i -- - - - - - - - - - - -. .
- - - - - - - - - - - - . _.
- _ _ _. .
- %
, O ~ O O - - !. .
_.
I' -
i k f i I r r l . i Millstone j ' Unit 3 Intake Cross Section , , .,,,,,,,,, n,
_, _ _ _,,... _ . El 39' ] ! !
) - -4 _
== , ! , .. g _ .- - ,4 . _ _ y, m -
g R' i , i
I i ' e
Grade El 14' 6i
k, p.._.
' !
- 4 L,
, r va r l a - i .. .., _ g,.. _,u m i - n $ l( Y, Hf -b $ , ,,,, t . . < h . ". y I El-1TE _ gl j j " . g _ _, m g , N y Ne% g . *
~4 Flow-l I I l i ' -, i t El-28*h N
, , El-30' % _,' u.
" - ' --- _J , -mm _ _ _ - _ _ _ ,___ . b b t
I ! ! !i ! h ...w.
, .., - , ., --a,.. .. . .,,,n , ,.,,~.._,,,_n,.:. -,.._,..,__.,..,,._...._,.n..- - -
O - A M'
O . ., '.. tu e .
- g5 c-the L g
o, *k , , _, _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . . Cg n, - < (h-s $ <1 & N
e-4> @ ? L o e Me ! = e , _ l . k: e +s_m=- i _- w \\ t - hI il .2 [ u n @C O CO E.t .= c
- .__ . O - _ _ _ _ -
. . - -. - - - - _ - - - - - - -.. . - - - - -. - -
.
c1 l h t i!, ! O i . -
k I & m ];! i
~ , - o gi a_...'.. l.i,M NDPW994F4Nf ^.;.g g _ g E
l
b l
%p\\ e i i
l l U . , l., f " / 6 \\ i g m-m,. . e, -4) , w
i ! Q.
? \\
i y).
w - - ~ , - && i
f Cf ( . , V j .
i* } I f I l C ' ' ,O en- ' o N.seems - m '. Sm
!
MOOMW @ MMO M N , e -+w+- = %w==w - - -m --
._ e O O- - l f l l . 1E Millstone "l" E ff intake Maint History ' May 87 Diver Inspection, Replaced Baskets as Required Nov 87 - Jan 88 All Bays Dewatered, Screens ~ Overhauled (RFO1) i Dec 88 - Mar 89 ABCF Bays Dewatered, i Structural Rebuild, SS Chain Oct 89 - Nov 89 Diver inspection, Replaced Baskets as Required i Dec 89 - Apr 90 ABDE Bays Dewatered, Structural Rebuild SS Chain (DE) I e- -...,.
. _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ .. ..
O O O _ , i , ~ .. i ! ' .
' j r Millstone i Unit 3
- '*2Ll432 Intake Operating Strategy i
Increased Maintenance During "Off Season" Trash Rack Raking at increased Frequency-Reduced Power Operation During Severe ! Conditions , Fish Sprays Valved Out During Storms-I ! ! _ . i ! ! . . - . _ _ _ _. .. ~.. ___.- .-. _ . . -. _, . . .. . .. . - -
, - - -- - - - - - - - - _- - - - - - -_ - - -_ - - _ _ O O - O ! l -
i i > P ,j Millstone Unit 3
mills tone i Completed Equipment Mod's ~'~~~~'- j Spray Nozzles Cleaned on All Screens - Trash Conveyor Speed Doubled j - Spray Nozzle Size increased for B/U Hdr { - Manual Fast Speed Feature Installed ! - . t Nozzles Redirected j - Debris Raps Installed - Screenwash Strainers improved - "B" Bay Fish Buckets Removed - Alternate Debris Baskets Fab'ed - Trash Rakes Modified - ' i ! ! l I ! !
! ! i.
. . . r un
- W 1'
a.
y.
L-g "' ?# N 6-=-g = -- 4gg, T - -T-"h gw.
,wg9 y neg +g .f.
+--yyyg ggg g t g,.6- +y'% .si %.ng..,,,.9 w.
t e rst. m,s _m eng e, e %-ta.,4sgeure.
-qm. g. pgs- , gym.-
- , - - a ,
- -.
- j
} .i
. a / !
. Millstone '
Unit 3 ! allistene l . l Planned Equipment Mod's ! i Travelling Screen Corrosion Protection ! i t Trash Rake Upgrade i t Screen Speed increase From 20 - 30 fpm ' ' Ventilation and Lighting Upgrades Instrumentation Upgrade for Harsh Environments Fish Return Recirc Problem Spray Header Flush Valves i ! f { .i
.: ,, . _ . .. .... ..... ~... _,. ~. . ~, . _... _. _. _...... ~. -. _ _ _ _., - _ _ _...... _ _ _,.... _.. _ _ _,.. '
_ ~ O O O . . % r ~ ' a i r i Millstone i Unit 3 i nrIIIs tone i swJtlear power stattere I Major Projects l
, I
. Refueling Equipment Upgrade j Service Water Piping improvements ! i i
I RHR Auto Closure Interlock i l Reduction of Active Annunciators
RCCA Replacement
i
j ! > i t .! i i i I ' , - . . . ~, -.. ... ...::....--.-.-..-.-.,...,_....._.__.-.._.-....
- - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - . --- - _ ~ ^t O I O L O J ! I ~I
P P Millstone
Station
,,,,,,,,,. _, _ _,,... _ . Safety Assessment /
' Quality Verification S.E. Scace Millstone Station Director I f ,
'
4 .
i
i
! I .. . _.
. _.
. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - O O O ~ a
' .j
I I _.
Millstone Station
'"f'.'?it?,2 i Safety Assessment / Quality Verification
Self Assessment at NU !
Reporting Evaluation l Nuclear Safety Concerns Program l ! Audit response Timeliness ! ! Tracking of Projects
i Informational Sharing Between Units ' . l - Training l Material Control Initiatives ! t
! l
a I
l l I
- . - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- ._- .. O O O H l
.j
' , Millstone J i Station mI.IIs tone
.--. -.... Self Assessment at NU i
Nuclear Review Boards (Unit and Site) ~ - Nuclear Safety Engineering - Quality Services Department Safety. System Functional Inspections l Integrated Safety Assessment Program .
6 , a ! l l ! .. - . ..
- - - O - ' ,. Millstone , l Station Reporting Evaluations ef"Itae,* i Reporting Procedures I NEO 2.25 Evaluations (10CFR50.72 and 73) NEO 2.01 Evaluations (10CFR21) . ACP-QA-10.01 Plant incident Reports I i l Safety Assessment
,_ _ _. _ _ _ - _ _ ____ . _ _. ._ _ - _ _ _ - . . . ._._ _ ___.
! ' O O O
, - ! , r r
, Millstone ! t Station ,,,,,,,,, i .. - -... , I ! I ' , , I NU Policy To Promptly j
identify and Report j l i i l ! ' l !
Safety Assessment ! ! e ! t '
j ._ l - .... .. . ..--.. -. - -..- -.. . . . . ... . -.. -. . -. - ..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - _ _ - --. . - _ O O O c . e i-i ! !
I
. ! F , - ! Millstone , l Station
Reportability Evaluations ~rIHstone
n
~~ ~ ~ '" - u
1987 . gg . --- - CY RIP 1 RSP2 RSP3 7 m w ev7 yrv r,~ ---,-- , I N [': ' i a k I' M d. h h,. 1., 4 a
Safety Assessment , . !
' ! ! ! . . . . _ _. -,. _. _. - . .. - . -.... . _ _.. . -.. -. - . _.,.. _. _ _ _ _. -.. _ _ _ - _ - _. _ - _ _ _ - -
- ...... . .... N . Millstone Station ,,,,,,,,, _... _.., _ NEO 2.25 Strengths 2.5 Year Old Process, NUSCO Support of Plants , - In-Depth Analysis, Especially Design Basis issues Coordinated Multi-Discipline Review Tracking to Ensure Timely Completion Additional Opportunity to Evaluate if issues Affect Multiple Plants Safety Assessment ..
- . Millstone Station ,,,,,,,,, _, _ _... _ Timeliness of Reporting Evaluations Assessed Internally by Evaluating Experience ' Identified in OSD Audit A30156,12/7/89 Committed to implement NEO Procedures by 4/1/90 NU Recognizes Timely initiation is Required Safety Assessment
_. ___ . _ _ _ _ __.
_ _ _ ___ _ _-_ . __ _ . O - O O ,
' - lr ,
Miilstone Station ' mi,_lls to,n.._e _ _,. NEO 2.25 Improvements , More Complete Definition of Time Requirements i i j New Process for Operability Determinations ! l Emphasis on Schedule Compiiance l , l JCO Preparation Separated From Performance of Reportability Evaluation - , j Training j ! Safety Assessment , j ,
'i )
- ! 4, !
!
i _ . . _ i .. . .. . -. ....-.:~.........._-..~......-..-....,._._-__-_._=_:..--=
L G O O- = . . Millstone '
- ' * "
"* "!!.t*",* Related Procedure improvements ACP-QA-10.01 Plant incident Reports Link to NEO 2.25 ~!
Emphasized Conservative Decision Making re Reportability NEO 2.29 JCO's i t New, Separate Procedure j Guidance for Applicability, Use, Content, j Approval, and Documentation l Safety Assessment l l t I l -
! [
! ! t - - - - . - -
. _ - _ _ _.
L O O O , L -: , , o a i '! l r i Millstone ! ' Station .
mI,.IIs ton,e l
. _.. ..., _
Cont.inuing in.t. t.i ia ives ' j l Member of Owners Group Committee j
! Preparing Guidance for LER's, JCO's
i .
Guidance On Sequence ! I i Operability l i . ., Reportability l I JCO
!
Corrective Acton I - Consistency with NRC Guidance ! t ! ! ! .. -. .. . . -.... ... - .. ... - .. - - -
- - '-- - . - Millstone mills to,ne w -, ,% Nuclear Safety Concerns Program . Overview of Revised Program Interface with NRC on Concerns identified to NRC - -
__.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _.
. _ _ _ _ _ __ _ O O O -
' , i l I; . Millstone Station t m_IIIs te_ne
_ ..... . Audit Response Timeliness
, ! Audits ! Procedural Changes-i Results l Surveillances Procedural Changes j
Results I ISEG Recommendations Tracking
i p . !
! i !- ! - ! . i . ! !
- - --
- -- - -- _ - _ - _- - _.
.- - O - O ~ O ~ . r r i Millstone Station i ,,,,,,,,, . _, _ _.... _ l Tracking of Projects i l l.
Major Programs and Projects !
Level of Effort Activities Arranged at !. Manager Level'
! Unit Directors involved via Periodic Project l l Review Meetings.
!
i ! !
l ' I I $ ,
_
! j i i i i 1,. . -.. . .... ... ..... . .. . ...... . ... ... .
' . ., , Millstone Station ,,,,,,,,, _, _.. _,... i information Sharing Between Units Plant incident Reoorts Inspection Reports LER's - Nuclear Safety Engineering Evaluations t Human Performance Enhancement System Counterpart Meetings Between 4 Units ..... ..... .... .... .. .. ... ... ..
. .. . . ,. .. . . , , y - ,
- ,
. .r
.>
e O O Millstone Station metas to.ne ...... -.., _ Training Non-Operator Licenses - Engineer Certification - Technical Training -
'- .;gggg:q;
- --
.- ,. -;_ . .-- .. _ .j gggggg,gg.
_ c.. - - t o . .. ,
__ - _ =.
- s
~% - }e Millstone Station ,,,,,,,,,, _,.. _,,. _ Material Control Initiatives Procurement Engineering Group Audit Commercial Grade Parts PMMS / PSAP information System Tm Inventory Optimization Warehouse Consolidation Ki
..... .. .. .:.. . O O - O Millstone Station ,,,,,,,,, _, _ - _..., _ i Closing Remarks W.D. Romberg Vice President, Nuclear Operations -, .. . ,... . .... _.. - . ......,. . . m s _.....
.- - r O O O , ' Millstone Statson ,,,,,,,,,,, ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ' Capacity Factors Unit 1 ] $"b!_j ' iE ll""""*"# ilia "
1987 1988 1989 - l Unit 3 lj 1987 1988 1889 100- ' 2a 1987 1988 1989
j .. .
x . _ _ _ _ ;m .
O O
- _ _
. __ _ _
. Millstone ' _ Station - mills tone n>>tlesbr powef stat 6en Automatic Reactor Trips , 12-unit 1 1 i2, unit 2 - - ' 10- % wmd to- +=*,- s
8-8- ! 6: 6- .
' sisiiiia. - 0-0 1987 1988 1989 - 1987 1988 1989
' Unit 3)1 10' um.m.<, 8-6' 4-2- Do 1987 1988 1989 - y.w .. _ _ : .. _ 3.g. --.., . I ! ! ) . . _ . _ _ - - _. -., - - - - - - . ...,,,,., ,. . . . ..,.. ,,s, . _.
.,,, ..,, , , _ _ _ _.. _
.- - - .. ,
~ e O O - - - - - . - Millstone Station ""1L'!.i"",e Fuel Cycle Exposure Histories 4000.
Unit 1 j Dnit 2 1 - =2 3000 .--a '" 'l , , ": Y"I'_8 i
_ ~ 250.; L Radiological Control . . .. $ _ _. -
_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - O ,, , ' gi G < 3:i _ g . .:.. a g B m71i
a a e s# E s a _s a o e >
e a ii: e vm R cc e
R e E e n o e - ,
y,o s e . . . EE I aai
mg a s e a t .. -.. _.... .... - O ! ! ... . . ... - c
_ _ _ . - _ _ _....,.......... , . l555 E !I umm;i7s! a - . al l II
. i t s is s' ' "a e eai Is o ' .n u u ne "I t_ p a ll II I I le ,e e
al I i m'il
- ! EE d ' f sg ret est a me vt an h G.
= _- }}