IR 05000245/1998206
| ML20249B210 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1998 |
| From: | Lanning W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Bowling M, Loftus P NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20249B206 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-98-206, 50-336-98-206, 50-423-98-206, EA-98-278, NUDOCS 9806220178 | |
| Download: ML20249B210 (3) | |
Text
-
_
____ _
___
l g5 40 9
g UNITED STATES
[
-g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
j REGloN 1 475 ALLENDALE ROAD
[&
KING oF PRusslA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415
May 26,1998 l EA 98-278 Mr. M. L. Bowling, Recovery Officer - Technical Services C/o Ms. Patricia Loftus, Director - Regulatory Aff airs for Millstone Station
' Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 128 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 l
l
Dear Mr. Bowling:
SUBJECT:
NRC COMBINED INSPECTION 50-245/98-206:50-336/98-206:50-423/98-206 and NOTICE OF VIOLATION l
On February 28,1998, the NRC completed an inspection at Millstone Units 1,2 & 3 reactor facilities. The enclosed report presents the results of that inspection.
During the 8-week period covered by this inspection, your conduct of activities at the Millstone facilities was generally characterized by safety-conscious operations with a focus
,
on controlling shutdown risk. However, our inspection identified three violations of NRC requirements. In the first instance, NRC inspectors identified the failure to establish a process or procedure for the control of revisions to plant system valve lineups at Unit 1.
l The'second violation involved nonsafety-related electrical equipment at Unit 3 whose failure under postulated environmental conditions could prevent the satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions. Lastly, corrective actions were not prompt regarding a nonconformance with assumed operator performance time to isolate a steam generator l
tube rupture on Unit 3.
l These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation, and the circumstances surrounding the violations are described in detail in the enclosed report. Please note that you are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. Furthermore, in addition to the enclosed enforcement actions, your attention is directed to specific areas in each of the three units.
The NRC has reviewed the problems associated with the use of nonsafety-related controls on safety-related equipment at Unit 3 that you identified in LERs 50-423/96-06-01 and 96-06-02, and has determined that violations of NRC requirements occurred. These violations could be considered for escalated enforcement and subject to a civil penalty. However, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Director, Special Projects Office, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to exercise enforcement discretion pursuant to Vll.B.2 of the NRC's Enforcement Policy and not issue i
l ~ a formal Notice of Violation because the violations were (1) based on licensee activities
'
9806220178 900615 PDR ADOCK 05000245 G
pop l.
-
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
________
_
--
- - _. -
_ - _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _
- _ _ _ __
- - _ _ -. _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
..
.-
- Mr. M. prior to the events leading to the shutdown; (2) not classified higher than a Severity Level
[ 11; and (3) not willful. Discretion is appropriate because the NRC has in place a formal
~
restart plan that is currently providing a broad-based evaluation of Millstone readiness for restart that confirmed that you have taken corrective action for this issue and further enforcement action is not necessary to achieve remedial action.
~ At Unit 3, several significant items list (SIL) issues were closed during this period, as
. documented in the attached inspection report. Our review has confirmed SIL package quality, and noted generally sound corrective actions for individual technical problems. The -
remaining licensee challenges appear to reside with corrective action closure of the programmatic SIL areas, where both resident and specialist team inspection efforts have identified the need to conduct follow-up inspections. As one example, our review of the implementation NUREG-0737 TMl Action Plan Requirements (SIL ltem 38) continues to identify Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) compliance issues or other licensing-basis questions.'~ To date, while the NRC has reviewed and closed 27 NUREG-0737 items,9
. other items were reviewed and kept open pending additional actions by your staff. Such l results suggest a need for a comprehensive review on your part to ensure all remaining and
- open TMl Action Plan items are ready for restart. Therefore, we requested during the management exit meeting for this inspection that you submit to the NRC docketed correspondence that your staff is prepared for renewed inspection of SIL ltem 38.
Additionally, the continued NRC inspections of your submittalin response to the NRC
' 50.54(f) request identified several items on the deferred issues list that were not appropriate. Additional management attention appears to be necessary to ensure that all items to be deferred until after restart meet the criteria that you have established.
At Unit 2, your efforts in providing the NRC acceptable closure packages to address the remaining Unit 2 Sllitems have diminished significantly with only three packages being provided in the last three months. Additionally, we have continuing concerns that corrective actions specified in the SIL closure package are frequently incomplete. For example, this inspection report describes that a closure package was provided to address
.
two FSAR discrepancies that were documented in a 1996 inspection report, but the FSAR has not yet been updated to disposition the discrepancies. Management attention to -
address this issue is warranted.
Also at Unit 2, we found that the safety parameter display system (SPDS) displays were inconsistent with your licensing basis in that there are no red and green indicators that reflect safety function status, and the SPDS has not been displayed during normal operations. At the exit meeting held on March 16,1998, you committed to review the SPDS licensing basis for Unit 2 and provide a letter to the NRC by May 29,1998, that provides your plans for dispositioning identified deviations.
p p
,
%
S
[ [J,
.
_
f b
'
!
,
,
.. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
_ - - __-_
- - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _
.
I
..
Mr. M..
3'
' In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter
- and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Wayne D. Lanning Deputy Director for inspections Special Projects Office, NRR Docket Nos. 50 245 50-336-50-423-Enclosures:
1.
Notica of Violation 2.
NRC Combined Inspection Report 50-245/98-206;50-336/98-206;50-423/98-206 cc w/enci:
B. Kenyon, President and Chief Executive Officer M. H. Brothers, Vice President - Operations J. McElwain, Unit'1 Recovery Officer J. Streeter, Rscovery Officer - Nuclear Oversight -
G. D. Hicks, Unit Director - Millstone Unit 3
- J. A. Price, Unit Director - Millstone Unit 2
.
D. Amerine, Vice President for Engineering and Support Services E. J. Harkness, Director, Unit 1 Operations F. C. Rothen, Vice President, Work Services J. Cantrell, Director - Nuclear Training S. J. Sherman, Audits and Evaluation
' L.' M. Cuoco, Esquire J. R. Egan, Esquire
- V. Juliano, Waterford Library
' J. Buckingham, Department of Public Utility Control
.
' S. B. Comley, We The People
' State of Connecticut SLO Designee D. Katz, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN)
. R. Bassilakis, CAN
. J. M. Block, Attorney, CAN S. P. Luxton, Citizens Regulatory Commission (CRC)
= Representative T. Concannon
.
- E. Woollacotti Co-Chairman, NEAC
.
e
,.
!
+
.
_
_.
_ _ -_-__ _ _ __ _ -