ML20034F680
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:t l . j* og UNITED STATES r; g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U E REGION I I, 478 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19408 Docket No. 50-336 File No. RI-90-A-221 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Nuclear Engineering and Operations Attn: Mr. Edward C. Mroczka Senior Vice President P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Mroczka:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently became aware of certain activities at Millstone Unit 2 which we have determined to require your review and followup. The details of these activities are enclosed. We request that the results of your review and disposition of this matter be submitted to Region I within 30 days of the date of receipt of this letter We request that your response contain no personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so it can be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If necessary, such information shall be contained in a separate attachment which will be withheld from public disclosure. The affidavit required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) must accompany your response if proprietary information is included. Please refer to file number RI-90-A-221 when submitting your response. The enclosure to this letter should be controlled and distribution limited to personnel with a "need to know" until your investigation of the matter has been completed and reviewed by NRC Region I. The enclosure to this letter is considered Exempt from Public Disclosure in accordance with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2.790(a). However, a copy of this letter excluding the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. The response requested by this letter and the accompanying enclosure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. 9303040122 921105 f' PDR FOIA HUBBARD92-162 PDR
-r s' ) Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 2 l Your cooperation with us is appreciated. We will gladly discuss any questions you may have concerning this information. Sincerely, s fllLj C les W. Hem, Dir. tor Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosure:
Details (10 CFR 2.790(a) INFORMATION) I cc w/o encl: S. E. Scace, Station Director, Millstone Public Document Room (PDR) Local Public Document Room (LPDR) State of Connecticut i bec w/ encl: W. Raymond, SRI Millstone L@icrktwii.J6907A54ae7 s J. Stewart, DRP f l .l
.e 6 $.e ? \\ d bi.. L. /, J ... 1...: LIMITED DISTRIBUTIOAGTf0R PUBLICEISCEOSURE ENCLOSURE 9 l The following drawing deficiencies associated with the electro-hydraulic control (EHC) system have been identified: ] 1. A recent modification replaced pressure transmitter PT-4297A and added a current / voltage converter. These items were not reflected on drawing hTSCO 25203-39077 sheet 73D, although PDCR 2-88-83 did update loop diagram 25203-28500 sheet 504. 2. Drawing No. NUSCO 25203-39077 sheet 73E for the main turbine pressure demodulator identifies a wrong part number (11D9988 gel (identified) vs. i 117D9988GE3 (actual)). 3. The diode function control board which processes signals to the turbine control, is not reflected on NUSCO dwg. 25203-39077 sheet 73E. Please discuss if there is any validity to the above issues and provide the details of your review Please include any corrective actions that you have taken or may take in response to l the identified deficiencies. Please discuss if any generic drawing control problems are apparent as result of your review. 1 a d ' LIMITED 151STRIBUTIOF HO,T F i 1
ArrtNUAA 4.0 SAMPLE RECORO OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS SITE: [Ylb'd PANEL ATTENDEES: ALLEGATION HO.: Ql-9O-4 @ l Chairman - ll),qctn 3 DATE: Id?.0 fd (Mtg@2345) Branch Chief - ( (Ib1P,'nsa / PRIORITY: High Medium h Section Chief (AOC) b ax No b k,3 - N SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes h Unknown Others - CONCURRENCE TO CLOSEOUT: DD h SC (See Allegation Receipt Report),,fo CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes IS THEIR A 00L FINDING: Yes/ No l 15 CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes No HAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER'BEEN SENT: Yes No HAS LICENSEE RESPONDE0,,Tb CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACTION: 1) o Venet 2) 3) 4) 5) NOTES: { A4-1
- l
4 .. : 1 =.... 'A.L'L'E G A'T I O N MANAGEMENT SY STEM j ALLEGATION NUMBER - RI-90-A-0221 RUN DATE: 901217 j DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 050'00336 / MILLSTONE 2 I /2 l . DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT:' ~ / /- lj DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: ./ / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT:-~ ~ --" ~ / ^ / ~ ' ACTIVITY TYPES' = RE ACTOR l l MATERIAL LICENSES - OPERATIONS [ FUNCTIONAL AREAS i l i i DESCRIPTION - 1) DRAWINGS HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED SUBSEQUENT TO'A RECENT ( DESIGN CHANGE. 2) DRAWING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. i CONCERNS - f 2 l SOURCE - LICENSEE EMPLOYEE CONFIDENT - NO -RECEZYED - 901207 BY - PJ HABIGHORST / RI. l ACTION OFFICE CONTACT - DR HAVERKAMP - (FTS)34$-5120 S AFETY SIGNIFICANCE - UNKNOWN BOARD NOTIFICATIDK - I l STATUS - OPEN SCHED COMPLETION - 010215 DATE CLOSED - ALLEGATION SUBSTANTI ATED - ALLEGER '40TIFIED - 1 i f 3I ACTION - 01 REPORT NUMBER - EMARKS - i I i 1 l l SUPPORT OFFICE: RPS-4A, RESIDENTS ACTION PENDING: CONVENE PANEL l ~.~ DOCUMENTATION: i ffA[f,ES'ERLASTCONTACTED: 901207 (R EC EIPT) 1 ~~T.,'Q REf 5RENCE: -l . KEYNdRD: DRAWINGS i ENT ERED'SYSTEN7-7 901217 CLOSED SYSTEM - RECORD CHANGED - 901217 i _ SAF4d4YE~.,-.._ _ i 't . - g, . )-] ^; ' ' T, l$ l . _ : / ~_ _. L, ~,:~, ;. 3 l
249-A1Y7 a RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS SITE: /773 2 PANEL ATTENDEES: ALLEGATION NO.: 010- A -O (1' Cha$rman - R. 8 L ntic i_4 lbhO (Mtg.Ih345) Branch Chief - [, M u,,' DATE: h Section Chief (AOC) - PRIORITY: High Medium hUnknown Others - R viMAKu( SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes CONCURRENCE TO CLOSEOUT: DD h SC ) LlDLOBcA, (See Allegation Receipt Report) h k. Ys t e. CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes K. Sbct h 4 15 THEIR A 00L FINDING: Yes No IS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes No RAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT: Yes No i HAS LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACTION: 1) O-L 3 Mem i 1 2) i 3) 1 4) I i j 5) 1 j NOTES: 4 1 (
-~- ~ ... ~ ..:. 2 u,a m. ..j RECORD OF~ ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS" 4, Sg. .- e ;;'- $1TE: F2$ f. PANELiTTENDEES: N W '- ..y aw?:- ' ALLEGATION NO.: MT-90 06W Chairman - T L d,c dskI Mb 4,/4/fo (Mtg.$2345) Branch Chief -- E C ~ DATE: h Section Chief (AOC) - I PRIORITY: High Medium A. V<o d;; - / Yes 'No h SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Others - 1 ... +,.. CONCURRENCE TO CLOSE0'JT: DD BC SC CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes No (See Allegation Receipt-Report) IS THEIR A 00L FINDING: Yes No IS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes No HAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT: Yes No HAS LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACTION: 1),ny G_ - - _ CJ. _ s t,. 'l <s .s< c ~- n -- w w m n ,=e_,,._ $& ^ W bOL 2) bT hu neeW W A a A % - d k f x tir &. w Tc 'i~ ~ (nWW W f 3) 4) ~ hf c. 5) ' O'E ' a'
- SA ROTES:
' ~ ~ ' N O" .- xm.ar., a2 Q.w. c. ..R. Wg. u. k: -, vs . 7,- 7. s e O,a.~
- , e t$",
^:, .,.c a.s e w ?. u
w
i fA; l i a% - - - ~ ' ~ i .,_ g L' E ~ G A-T I' 0- N"-~ M A N A G E M E N ' T S Y S-T E M ALLEG ATIO N ' NUMBER . RI-90-A-D044-~ ~ ~ --- RUN D ATE: 900404' - -' { l DOCKET /FACIL'ITY/ UNIT: 05000336 / MILLSTONE 2 / 2 DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / / DOCKET /FACILTTY/ UNIT:' - - - "- / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / j -/ j l ACTIVITY TYPES. REACTOR j 11 AT ERI AL-L1CENS ES ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ f l 1 FUNCTIONA L ARE AS OTHER d - - - ---HEID/ DOL CONCERN
m DESCRIPTION - 1) UNWILLINGNESS OF DEPT El ~!CTRICI ANS AND ASOLUTE REFUS AL OF
_ _..._ _. DEPT MECHANICS TO WORK ON IGNMENTS WITH ALLEGER. 2) EV ENTS f SURROUNDING PARTY MERE DI5 !IMINATORY AGAINST ALLEGER. C D N C E R NS -~~. ' 2 ( SOURCE. DOL-CONFIDENT - NO i RECEIVED - 900323 BY - DJ HOLODY / RI ACTION OFFICE CONTACT - DR HAVERKAMP .(FTS)346-5120 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE - UNKNOWN BOA RD NOTIFICATION - NO ) STATUS . 0 PEN SCHED COMPLETION .903701 DATE CLOSED - i ALLEGATION SUBST ANTI ATED - ALLEGER NOTIFIED j I OI ACTIOH ~cVES OI REPORT NUMBER - REMARKS. ALLEGER COMPLAINT LTR TO DOL DTD 2/16/90.00L RECD 2/22/90. - DDL ACK LTR TO ALLEGER DTD 3/16/90. NOTE: THIS IS STH DOL COMPLAINT. OI:RI RECD THIS ALLEG ATION FOR INCORPOR ATION INTO - ---- PRE SE NT ONGOING INV ESTIG AT ION. RECONVENE ON RECEIPT OF DOL { DECISION. l __ _ g 3 u M'*w s - RPS-4Ar DI:RI i E N*S'JPPORT OFFICE:ANJON PENDING:-D3L ACTIONr DI:RI INVEST. 2 [ i ~ 1 6tICUMENT ATION: .J -- Z, [AtLEGER LAST CONTACTED: 930316 (DDL ACK LTR) ";{.a ]
REFERENCE:
'l df 0 AD:-H4IDrH AR AS S MENT r-INTIMID AT ION r - DIS CRIMIN ATION ----- ---
- k.,..
.g ENTE Y.3 TEM.9004044 CLOSED SYSTEM. RECORD CHANGED - 900404in t [. -y y f S ja. o,t ~
Qya$t 2dk9I Y -W 5 S 34/f / - 27 .2.0 D.h s h, wS 6 r 3.3 , TRACEABILITY OF RADIOACTIVE CALIBRATION SOURCES. n.:, ; ;.,. _ 2a. <-tc- ,,%~ u 11 : . M I.cI' sI 6 *f, M r -r y,,-/. j 3 Monty Conner % ,t_ c,v., t 3, N,te , r p ty _e w/ m .,1 Allegation No. RI A-106V ,t- . :: 1.m G m,cc. ? 2._ Z,::m 7 -.. ~~ aRI-91-A-111-01
- c d u.., c n a :
.n W,me n .wm - be. t, -.. .s -?s m ,e ? :.: ' A concern was expressed that old standard calibration sources may have not been traceable to National Bureau of Standards (NBS). Therefore, their use may have been invalid. In addition, the licensee's Millstone Radiation Monitor Review, performed by their Radiological Assessment Branch (RAB) and issued.in November, 1989, found a general weakness in calibration source traceability and documenta-tion. Assessment s The licensee's response on this subject stated that in April 1990, CS-137 calibration sources Numbers 3 and 5 were removed from service due to the poor physical condition of the mylar coating. However, calibrations performed using 1 the old standards were valid, in that, sources are traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) through chemistry department records. In fact, the RAB review resulted in new Administrative Control Procedure ACP-QA-4.12, Radioactive Source Inventory and Control, which implements the RAB report reccmmendations on source controls. 4 i The inspector viewed the two sets of six calibration sources, currently being used by Units 1 and 2 I6C and chemistry departments, interviewed both units' 2 chemistry department personnel, and reviewed the calibration documentation. The l active sources were stored in a chemistry lab controlled cabinet, along with the old retired source sets and other miscellaneous radioactive devises. The original sets of Unit 2 calibration sources was established in 1978. These sources were retired a couple of years ago due to poor physical condition of some of the sources, particularly Numbers 3 and 5. The currently used source sets are common for Units 1 and 2 since they were prepared in late 1980. The inspector reviewed CP 801/280N, Computer Radioisotopic Analysis System l l (CRAS), Amersham England certifications for calibration of the CRASS, Amersham's j Cesium 137 standardized solutions used to make up the calibration source sets, the dilution records for the source sets, and finally the confirmation May 18, 1981 CRAS computer printout for each individual calibration source.
- Also, records for the original Unit 2 source set, including source Numbers 3 and 5, j
were available for review and indicated past calibration to the CRAS system existed. Thus, the original and present calibration source Sets A and B were made from a traceable solution and their radioactivity strength was documented by analyzing them on the CRAS, a traceable monitor. The licensee's calibration d technique for some particular radiation monitors were reviewed during Inspection 50-336/91-17, and found to be excellent. The inspector had no further questions 3 and considers these concerns unsubstantiated and resolved. i l In performance of the above review, the inspector reviewed the RAB's Radiation Monitor Review (PER), Phase 2 Report, issued on November 1989. This was an extensive review of all plant radiation monitor channels that makes many plant-j wide and unit-specific recommendations. The inspector discussed this report and the progress being made to complete the recommendations with one of the primary authors. One of the first consequences of the review was the production of Radiation Monitor Manuals for each unit. These manuals contain detailed 4 technical descriptions of all each units equipment, regulatory requirements, setpoint bases, conversion factors, and calibration techniques. RAB is tracking the unit's implementation status and their approval is required to consider a j recommended RMR issue closed. ) The inspector reviewed the latest status report, Implementation of RAB Recommendations (CR-7844), issued August 2, 1991. This report detailed the f (I i '3 4 i k / I
~~uq# 0g UNITED STATES a NUCLEAR REGUL.ATORY COMMISSION REQlON I i 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19404 MAY 151991 Docket No. 50-336 Mr. E. J. Mroczka Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations Nonheast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 270 Hanford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Mroczka:
i r t This correspondence refers to your letters A09351, A09352, A09353, and A09354, dated April 26,1991. i L Thank you for providing us your reviews in the subject correspondence. We have reviewed [ your responses A09352, A09353, and A09354, and have no further questions in these matters. The issues addressed in these letters are considered closed. j We intend to review the issues described in your letter A09351 in a future inspection of your i licensed facilities. 'i Your cooperation with us is appreciated. [ A copy of this letter and the subject correspondence is being placed in the Public Document Room. P Sin ly, -o V Edward C. Wenzinger, Chi Projects Branch No. 4 t Division of Reactor Projects l cc w/ encl: Public Document Room (PDR) local Public Document Room (LPDR) State of Connecticut r>f b,# Q l 1
APPENDIX 4.0 5 SMPLE RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS SITE: $' k PANEL ATTENDEES: [d)r cq f ALLEGATION NO.: h-7() - - /db Chairman - f /2! 90 (Mtg. @ 4 5) Branch Chief - /dcaInw1) DATE: PRIORITY: High Medium Section Chief ( AOC) - hdff~ ^ t oro - MT ( SAFETY $1GNIFICANCE: Yes No Unknown Others - CONCURRENCE TO CLOSEOUT: DD CONFIDENTIALITY GRAN1ED: Yes ,Mo (See Allegation hceipt Report)' / IS THEIR A 00L FINDING: is No IS CHILLING EFFECT LETTE'R WARRANTED: Yes No MAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SEN(: Yes No MAS LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No / ACTION: 0 iI /P D/P1/imi_5 106/e0 c?c ful t et:FJff 1) reeva V / / 3) 4) 5) NOTES: f A4-1 C
\\ $yc (DLI$24T16M M y R CTtu sT Y C4 0 6t?nT16M kW. 778E SOutCE ~ .SLL D.7b3 E-o3 qci 3~-I B - S ( /uo o 1 %.587 E-03 qci C-l 6 - 8 l 1200 _lk B.36B F-0a 4ci s ~/B-B/ /Jo o ~ .ITE. I.Ollo Es oo gci C-/9 - 8 0 /?O d .1T. II.on Eross Acel, S'-le-BI /po o T. 31 90 Erco 4c.i T-/ 8 - 91 Jpoa C b l
1 4 t / O. C C MILLS >. F-J E ISOTOPIC ~A: 1R L N'S I S U _] E 5 AMPLE _4 M GC__ M _b______ & 'If[ foug.<E__E DATE __D/E-d/ TIME ____________ __ U g.- B Y__ _ _ _ __ AM_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Q DETECTOR NUMEER. 2 OI CHEMICAL YIELD FACTOR. 1._00 CALIERATION TRELE 2084 - 540 FILTER PAPER (IODINE) C LIERARY NUMEER. 1 OI SAMPLE VOLUME (ML). _._1. _0 ____ _._m COMPUTER Af'ALYSIS ST ART. 5/ 18/ 81 1646 O ADC ACOUTRE START. 5/ 18/ Si 1642 O' DECAY.TIMEjt11tD.. 7 "A COUNT TIME (MIN-LIVE).
- 5. 60 r<u.
PK. LOC. AR/PH BKGND. AF[Ek ERROR % ENERGY 1 662 1J 6._0_ _19.4_B 7 4 6f:1 4 R A D I O NI_IC L T D E S IDENTIFIED O --PEAK O +"'N N "O
- C:CY GAf1/5EC EF-ROR%
UCI/ML SIGMA ) C5-137_ _ _ - - - 1 661.5 89.9
- 7. 4 2.702E-03 1.999E-04 TnTAi i r aqi
_ m I S A N A L Y S I S. m,_, _ _. _ _ _ 2. 7 0 2 E - 0 3 '3 D RADIOISOTOPES SOUGHT - NOT FOUND 0 NUCLIDE LLD(UCI/ML) NUCLIDE LLD(UCI/ML) NUCLIDE LLD(UCI/ML) O b.E-133 2.731E-04 XE-135 8.304E-05 I -ili 9.462E-05 O EA-140 2.490E-04 C5-124 5.486E-05 MO-99 O.OOOE-01 O CD-58 _. 1.238E-04 _._MN _54 7._310E-05 .EE._59 _1. 7.15E--84 ZN-65 1.922E-04 CO-60 8.OOOE-01 LA-140 2.096E-04 9 W 97r,inUSLY IDENTIFIED PEAKS O w 'JO. NO. OF ID'S e ^) .' O - C -C -C. _ _. END A N A L 'r' S I S o.-
.i. MILLT>* NE ISOTOPIC GIRLYSIS S A M P L E E !.5 6 _ _ _ 9 L4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _4 E _ _ _ _ IM_T_$ _ _ __ DFTE _f.iE.h!_____-- T Il1E _ _____ -- 3 B Y. _ _ _.l _U_ _ _- -- DETECTOR tJUt18ER. 2 O CHEMICAL _. YIELD FACTOR.
- 1. 00 CALIBRATIOtJ TABLE 4.
2054 - 540 FILTER PAFER (IODItJE) @ LIBRARY tJUf1BER. 1 D SAMPLE YOLUMEG1L).
- 1. O COMPUTER erJALYSIS START.
5/ 18/ 81 1653 ty ADC RCOUIRE STAR'T. 5/ 18/ 81 1648 O DECRY tit 1E._ G1IfJ 2 50 COutJT TIf1E ( M I tJ-LI VE ).
- 5. 00 tJO.
PK. LOC. AR/PH BKGtJD. AREA EPROR % EtJERGY O 1 662_ 1_9 6_8 _611 't _4. 1 661 9 RRDIONUCLIDES I DENT I F I ED O --PEAK------------
=
3 tJUCLIDE fJO. EtJEFGY GRt1/5EC EPROR% UCI/ML SIGMA O, C5-127 1 661.5 282.3 4.1 8.517E-03 2.482E-04 O TOTAL UC/ML - THIS AtJALYSIS. 8.517E-02 _ _ _ - ...._m_.. w F ADIDISOTOPES SOUGHT - tJOT FOUtJD tJUCL IDE LLD/UCI/ML) tJUCLIDE LLD(UCI/l1L) tJUCLIDE LLD(UCI/f1L) O XE-132 3.562E-04 XE-135 1.093E-04 I -131 1.727E-04 O BR-140 6.9EOE-04 C5-124 1,226E-04 t10- 99 O.OOOE-01 r_0_ e.ct 7 117F-05 titJ-54 O.OOOE-01 FE __59____ 1.715E-04 Zid-65 1.922E-04 CO-60 1.455E-04 LA-140 6.OOOE-01 3 O AMBIGUOUELY IDEtJTIFIED PEAKS O _ _PK NO tJO. OF._ID'S O G < < -C -C -C -C < -C C -C END ANALYSI5 ~ O v I k 1
t $ I L t r.,r-J E -- l. ISOTOPIC ) V A L_ Ys I s f 5F-YPLE _.SJACK -.CetL _____.S_ET_'B_'____fcurcq__.*zy_ D'F 5 '.. I IB 'B ' ~ '~ ~~ TIME __________________ Bt', _ _ _ _ E. M. _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DETECTOR NUMBER. 2 )! CHEMICAL YIELD FACTOR.
- 1. 00 CALIBFATION TABLE 2084 - 540 FILTER PAPER (IODItJE)
Q LIBPAPY NUM5ER. 1 O SAMPLE VOLUI1E(MLh _1. O x., COMPUTER ANALYSIS START. 5/ 18/ 81 1659 s @ 01DC ACQUIFE START. 5/ 18/ 81 1654 O DEQRY_ TIME.(fjltQ m L50 COUf4T TIME (MIN-LIVE).
- 5. 00 NO.
FK LOC. AR/PH EKGND. AFEA ERPOR % ENERGY 1 662 1J 60,_5 6005.5 13 661 9 Py R s D I O r-J U C L_ I D E S I D E r-J T I F r I E D O _____.------ rEAf r G tJUCLIDE NO. Ef4ERGY 6AM/5EC ERROR % UCI/ML SIGMA O C5-127 1 661.5 2783.2
- 1. 3 8.268E-02 1.090E-03 O;
TOTAL UC/ML - THIS ANALYSI5 _ _,__.._.m.___ - 8.268E-09 ) PADIGI50 TOPE 5 SOUGHT - NOT FOUND
- NUCLIDE LLDCUCI/ML) fJUCLIDE LLD(UCI/ML) tJUCLIDE LLD(UCI/ML)
O XE-122 9.197E-04 XE-125 2.201E-04 I -121 5.585E-04 (: BR-1.4 0 1.624E-03 C5-124 3.292E-04 MO-99 0.OO0E-01 O Cn_ ?.2 i reOE-04 MN-54 7.210E-05 FE-59. _ 0.000E-01 CrJ-65 O.OODE-01 CO-60 0.000E-01 LA-140 0.OOOE-01 , 0 0 1 Q AMBIGUOU5LY IDEf4TIFIED PEAKS O PK NO. t JO. OF ID'S g 9' e r-J D~ a r-J s C_ v s I s ~~ >>>5>>>55> ~ O e...- 3 I
MILLST. NE ISOTOPIC rM1.) RLYSIS ( b AMPLE..GEr= Cgf _ ____gz_[_ffgj_c__ g_ BATE.__I_$ h2/_____________ TIME ___________ 3 ev _____A_F_____________ DETECTOR NUMBER. 2 O v CHEMICAL.Y.IELD FAC. TOR. _1. 00 CALIBRATION TABLE #. 2084 - 540 FILTER PAPER (IODItJE) $ LIEPARY NUMEER. 1 D-SAMPLE VOLUMECML). COMPUTER ANALYSIS START.. _ _ 1. O. 5/ 18/ 81 1707 @ ADC ACQUIRE START. 5/ 18/ 81 1701 O DECRY _. TIME (MIrD. 7 % COUNT TIHE <MIti-LIVE).
- 5. OO NO.
PK LOC. AR/PH BKGND. AREA ERROR % EtJERGY 1 662
- 1. 8 96Z._5 Z29953 O_A 661__9 O
R A D I O N I_I C L_ I D E S I DENT I F I ED O
PEAK------------
O suCLIDE NO. ENERev GAM /SEC ERROR % UCI/ML SIGMA O C5-127 1 661.5 12818. 1
- 0. 4 1.016E+00 3.812E-02 m
O: v TOTAL UC.'ML - THIS ANALYSIS.
- 1. 0 1 6 E + 0 0..___
~ L ) RADIGISOTOFE5 SOUGHT - NOT FOUND C NUCLIDE LLD(UCI/ML) NUCLIDE LLD(UCI/ML) tJUCLIDE LLD(UCI/ML) O XE-123 2.079E-02 XE-135 1.126E-02 I -121 1.879E-03 Q E%-140 6.046.E-03 C5-124 1.126E-02 MO-99 2.722E-02 O r0- So 0 958E-04 MN-54
- 2. _922 E--04 FE- _ _59 4.526E-04 ZN-65 7.686E-04 CO-60 1.028E-04 LA-140 1.481E-04
/3 AMBIGUOUELY IDENTIFIED PEAKS O PK NO. NO. OF ID'S O C < < < < < < c c -cZ~ END I:s Ni5 i_~h55 I 5 ~3b>>>>>>>> ^ t 1 8 _-w_.
P. -C C < M I L L_F Tr'NE ISOTOPIC ~> >->- I I' P}.1R L Y S I S SAMPLE ____d1256___G8f _- __JgE_T__.S.purcf__QL_ DATF..EY@.@_ _S._________ TIME _________.______.___ g eY ____A M ____________ DETECTOR fJUMBER. 1 O C;HEMICAL_ YIELD _ FACTOR.
- 1. OO CALIBPATION TABLE 4.
1984 - 540 FILTER PAPER (IODIf4E) O LIBRARY NUMBER. 1 O SPMPLE VOLUME (MLA.__m_, 1.. O Cor1PUTER ANPl.YSIS START. 5/ 18/ 81 1711 O ADC RCOUIRE START. 5/ 18/ 81 1706 O D E C R Y __T I.M E ( M I N ). 3..50 COUfJT TIME (MIN-L.IVE).
- 5. 00 o
NO. FK LOC. AR/PH BKGND. ARER ERPOR % ENERGY 1 661
- 3. 2 6 4 0._ 0 _.. 5 0 0 5 5...O D_5 660._9 2
1463
- 2. 1 O. O
- 17. O 24.3 1462.7
~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ' ~ ~ RAD'IONUCLIDES IDENTIFIED __r 2.r-" r-------P E AK--- = = -- = - - - NUCLIDE NO. ENERGY GAM /SEC ERROR % UCI/ML SIGMA C5-137 1 _. 661._5 22099.6._ O 5_ _ _ 6 644E-01. 3.019E-03 y 1OTAL UC/t1L - THIS ANALYSIS. 6.644E-01 ) n O RADIOISOTOPES SOUGHT _ NOT FOUND__ fiUCLIDE LLD(UCI/ML) NUCLIDE LLD(UCI/ML) NUCLIDE LLD(UCI/ML) ' :E-1.i ~ ___c. ? 31 E--01 XE--135_ 1._135E-03 I _-1T 1.622E-03 1~ FA-140 5.165E-03 C5-134 9.469E-04 MO-99 2.219E-03 ('" CD-59 1 A05E-04 MN-54 2.415E-04 FE-59 3.230E-04 O IN - 6". I.637E-04 CO-60 2.156E-04 LA-140 1.341E.04 O O' - ~-- -~~~ArdsIGUOU5LY IUEfiTIFIED EEAK5 ~^ ~ O W NO. NO. OF ID'S O i j -3 0 -c<<<<<<<<< END RNALYSIS >X> M>>> I (.OfffC/k AC77t//T'Y C BC W W/L47Y [o.50 $ b WO ~ * * ~ O 4 C. w-aw w ,w-e ee m w.e e. -e= ++<m. _+ _.ac.ere, e h e-w 4'ee -' * ' * " " ' * " ^ * ^ ' " *
'.1 M I LLS7 OrJE ISOTOPIC %1RLYSIS i h .d 5 AMPLE _____ M _.[Al-1. .-. N ?__E-__E9_ W__I DF T E __C-/B.-E. _ _ _ _ _____ _ TIME __________________ -) BY _____O_Y___-__- y DETECTOR rJUMBER. 1 ) CHEMICAL. YIELD _FACTOP. i 00 CALIERATIOfJ TABLE 4. 1084 - 540 FILTER PAPER (IODINE) @ LIBRARY NUMEER. 1 O SAMPLE VOLUME (MLN. _ 1._0 COMPUTER ANALYSIS START. 5/ 18/ 81 1703 @ ADC ACQUIFE START. 5/ 18/ 81 3658 O DECRY TIME (MItJ)........ 3JO COUNT TIl1E (MI f J-L I VE).
- 5. 00 NO.
PK LOC. AR/PH BKGND. AFER ERROR % EtJERGY I 1 73
- 4. O 13805.0 1100._O 15 4
- 74. 1 2
83
- 2. 2 11208.0 578.0 26.2 84.1 0
3 661
- 2. 8 3064.5 144509.0
- 0. 3 660.9 O
1462 i _O 43 .16.5 . _ 3 0. 6 1461._7 4 ~qA Q' _. __ __ R A D I O t-J U C L.I D ES_ _ I D E P-J T I F I E D
P E A K --- -- -
O NUCLIDE _.NO.__ EfJEPGY _ GAM /5EC_.EPPOR%_ _ _ UCI/f1L__ _. 5IGMA_ 6 Cd-1d s 661.5 63802.O O. 3 1.916E+00 5.152E-03 ) TOTAL UC.~ML - THIS ANALYSIS. 1 918E+00 (s PADIGIEOTOPE5 SOUGHT - tJOT FOUND O NtrLIDE LLM UCT/HL) NUCL_IDE LLD(UCI2!.1L) NUCLIDE_ _LLD(UCIM1L) O XE-133 3.102E-03 >'E-135 1.954E-03 I -131 2.824E-03 O B A-3 40 8.749E-03 C5-134 1.646E-03 MO-99 5.567E-03_ CD-58 6.685F-04 MrJ-54 6.467E-04 FE-59 9.556E-04 Q ZN-65 1.023E-03 CO-60 5.010E-04 LA-140 1.341E-04 0 O 9 HMBIGUOUSLY IDENTIFIED,. PEAK 5 PK NO. NO. OF ID'S c.c < <.c <.c_.c <.c E r-J D A r-J R L Y S I S -3 ' WW.TF.D MTgulli = Cikf4Cfivt ~ . J'f"
- l. !!B) = 31. BC'wd
.I I
o_ _o j i ~ _ _ _ _ TOLID [S ~l3 7 CMLIB /2.a rio & SEl~ 8 .._. $0.L0IIO M /JU00Ell * $0 __3_b 'O _20FEPJ.McF 06TE Mus. l / 9 B(/ 12f FEREN.C-E _ 71M6 i /dOd T14lL561__,LOLSlSTJ___Of S/Xblo $6Lt13 SOURCES HMKK(._=j I. E. $j $_. 5. AW _' 5-2 i a T&LS SET /J J 6 Cx7E_Q JN TWE SOU(2cg__f6Cf2 8__0N__ M E ] TO t ' l)ULL-OuPJt+ELG 4 O 6-e am m. e e_ +_gei t f +>e O se m_ mg, n .e.e__. 6 e me P --_*_.4. I
a APPENDlX 4.0 SAMPLE RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS SITE: Miu.sTces uo,T 2_ PANEL ATTENDEES: A Z 4 -O/06 Chairman - B 4 CAL. ALLEGATION NO.: DATE: Auc 1 \\990 (Mtg.@2345) Branch Chief - E w h Section Chief (AOC) -3), L A m.o PRIORITY: High Medium Ly b SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes No Others - U CONCURRENCE TO CLOSE00T: DD h SC E Nd M h CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes (See Allegation Receipt Report) 5, 5td E' N h) IS THEIR A DOL FINDING: Yes 3. Ec;O a n h K. Seth IS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED:Yes h HAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT:Yes Yes HAS LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: ACTION: m 7u M.C & - m >. q,0 Ec_D 1t/3i/9o 1) 3 R.Ss 2) ADC SJ M LIto, G & E m E ciS @ 9 /t s /90 V A p a m-m 2 u 4) 5) NOTES: A.47 01 ( A4-1 /
l ALL EGAT ION MANAG EMENT SYSTEM ALLEGATION NUMBER - RI-90-A-0106 RUN DATE: 900815 DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 05000336 / MILLSTONE 2 /2 l DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / i ACTIVITY TYPES - REACTOR j MATERIAL LICENSES - FUNCTIONAL AREAS OPERATIONS DESCRIPTION - WHETHER ALL THE CALIBR ATIONS PERFORMED FOR YEARS BEFORE NOW WITH THE OLD SOURCES ARE VALID. CONCERNS - 1 SOURCE - LICENSEE EMPLOYEE CONFIDENT - NO RECEIVE 0 - 900419 BY - WJ RAYMOND / RI (FTS)346-5120 ACTION OFFICE CONTACT - DR HAVERKAMD SAtcTY SIGNIFIC ANCE - UNKNOWN BOARD NOTIFICATION - NO 901031 OATE CLOSED - STATUS - CPEN SCHED COMPLETION ALLEGATION SUBSTANTIATED - ALLEGER NOTIFIED - Of ACTION - NO OI REPORT NUMBER - REM ARKS - DRSS INSPECTION FOLLOWUP REQUIRED (ECD 10/31/90). AOC SEND ACK LTR TO ALLEGER (ECC 9/15/90). i L SUPPORT OFFICE: R P S-4 A r SRIr DRSS (ERPS)* ACTION PENDING: DRSS INSPECTIONr AOC LTR TO ALLEGER DOCUMENTATION: ALLEGER LAST CONTACTED: 900419 (RECEIPT)
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD: CALIBRATIONS ENT ERED SYSTEM - 900815 CLOSED SYSTEM - RECORD CHANGED - 900815 i L
- 4+>-
--A a 4 e, kiS dy ama.1 (d f (5 o y fcndd C vmf<4 e o d (cm era s iSser -nm 1 Jeps a Ms-1 % ine4 se preic de b 04 d b ed~NeIc4ndu.M bhted inspct/w5 ttFddl 1 ko m th M N u k M e dNw hrm ff Oc40 f ff-A-coos & p'uSc d' Si\\ea L eacL lu a. u d uwt 4 x F i i 4 s 1 (
a APPENDIX 4.0 SAMPLE RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS SITE: In.H d a tJ # 1 PANEL ATTENDEES: N'N'A ~O l# 7 Chairman - 6. HM ALLEGATION NO.: DATE: 2 Auc CiO (Mtg.@2345) Branch Chief - PRIORITY: High Low Section Chief (AOC) -D. SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes No Others - B. P CONCURRENCE TO CLOSEOUT: 00 @ SC 5.$+ M (SeeAllegationReceiptReport)h) I,da((d M A CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes p, gj { 7, Le IS THEIR A 00L FINDING: Yes IS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes No HAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT: Yes No HAS LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACTION: ( 1)Ac4 S ~ J a eb_ A ol h % ecB 09 /w/9 O i v / s "e ( b
- 2) T m.4e M Tec-._ Mu., c E chte wa.
j gc g i o l Ecd w il / 30/90 M65 CWAh6(, 3) 4) S) fhD A.47.01 A.so.3, & n.or, 821.o1 NOTES: ( A4-1 ,b
i i ALLE GAT ION MA N AGEM ENT S YSTEM ALLEGATION NUMBER - RI-90-A-0107 RUN DATE: 900815 i i DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 05000336 / MILLSTONE 2 /2 / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / l DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / i ACTTVITY TYPES - REACTOR M AT ERI AL LICENS ES - OPERATIONS FUNCTIONAL ARE AS i DESCRIPTION - VARIOUS CONCERNS ON ADEQUACY OF CONFIGUR ATION CONTROLS (DR AWING VS AS-BUILT CONFIGURATION). BACKGROUND INFO RECD 4/2/90, 4/16/90 AND 6/22/90. CONCERH5 - 1 i CONFIDENT - NO SOURCE - LICENSEE EMPLOYEE SECEIVED - 900606 BY - PJ HABIGHORST / RI ACTION OF5 ICE CONT ACT - OR H AV ER K AMD - (FTS)346-5120 S AFETY SIGNIFICANCE - UNKNOWN BOARD NOTIFICATION - NO STATUS - OPEN SCHED COMPLETION - 001215 DATE CLOSED - ALL EG ATIO N SU BST ANTI AT ED - ALLEGER NOTIFIED - t OY ACTION - DI REPORT NUMBER REM ARKS - AOC TO SEND ACK LTR TO ALLEGER (ECD 9/15/90). INSPECTION TEAM FOLLOWUP TO INVESTIG ATE CONCE RN (ECD 11/30/90). I SUPPORT OFFIC E: RPS-4 Ar SRIr OI:RI ACTION PENDING: AOC LT R T O A LL E G E R, TEAM INSPECTION DOCUMENTATION: ALLEGER LAST CONTACTED: 900622 (RECEIPT)
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD: DRAWINGS, CONFIGURATION ENTERED SYSTEM - 900815 CLOSED SYSTEM - RECORD CHANGED - 900815 'L q'
A , - -Ar i R CENE KELLY [ ~ R(E fo-A -/lb \\ Y . Y 'h d2u2 ~ do 5 w c&adAdh&: \\ ~ 1/ . s D ni /A (% #h ema & & tcdq) \\ s k de a f,o - farmh ~ 1(et(6d2)- s6 'A ~
- ,(La p 4gtrq A 49$mo (~ cL tas J 4 5 J,a>d }
ga f a s;, Dr i ~ o O y $ar7bA ~ a;A. <Au~ 4 Jfx1da$4 s u w] P4 mA b,%sa<dwin W \\ } ild z b E e f d 1 301 Ta fL/.~
APPLNDIX 4.0 g) Jg SAMPLE RECORD OF ALLEMTION PANEL DECISIONS SITE: 475-1 PANEL ATTENDEES: o i s t, ALLEMTION NO.: /(/- 96-/4 -W Chairman - ((hocin /2//7/Gd (Mtg.h2345) Branch Chief - G /dusm MTE: e- / / Section Chief ( AOC) - 54,our-PRIORITY: High Medium g
- TI.kbs-Ol1 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes Unknown Others -
a DDh)SC brm, - D0 S ( 3 n'e eS CONCURRENCE TO CLOSEOUT: CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes /o (See Allegation Receipt Report)/ Yes/ No IS THEIR A 00L FINDING: / I IS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER VARRANTED: Yes No / HAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT: Yes No RAS LICENSEE RESPONDED 0 CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACTION: 1) 5 5 uf l' heeevi AN afece; Am1 [ EvJ LT-O/I 4_s c imubLs CL%.n a don 4) '- N cake dr 3 m ii 21 s o c h e ~, w e c u e o l a u c. I c i e n u / i il 37 _15 5 vt) '- Na rm b t e cce kco, u se ([edh ) 4) thd ~ m D Ck t 'm W [6 O( 4t h O d%J W -L Asm 14a 5) NOTES: ( A4-1 '/
APPEN-X 4.0 SAMPLE RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS SITE: M ills h,_ @ f.L PANEL ATTENDEES: ALLEGATION NO.: A 2-90 o #6 Chairman - 8. N e h l DATE: 1AG90 (Mtg.@2345) Branch Chief - PRIORITY: High Medium Section Chief ( AOC) - D Mcuefg SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes No(U$kWn) Others - td. d u ryvid DD h SC S. $reenwt CONCURRENCE TO CLOSE0VT: CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes
- 9. Ned.Mknc,7 (See Allegation Receipt Report) @
R.M Ls IS THEIR A DOL FINDING: Yes 3,3 ug IS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes C$ HAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT: Yes h h HAS LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes ACTION: (cwca@ e,A t r a mcm m#c.cr. A aAe s A,C v W brSh E T*M eM,f_d M Afrt M d elo w f y nc Luk 4 T-me. tt t~e eW hphaDueBA ecd oci /30/90 9-cu ki d k $ - e n~ Ear $ n thy,k JALw0 Ant;., sias 5) NOTES: ( A4-1 1 \\.
A L L E G'A T I O N NANAGEMENT-SYSTEM ALLEGATION NUMBER - RI-9D-A-0116 RUN DATE: 900822 /1 DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 05000245 / MILLSTONE 1 / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / ~ DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / ./ DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / j i ACTIVITY TYPES - REACTOR i MATERIAL LICENSES - i OPERATIONS FUNCTIONAL AREAS i l DESCRIPTION - 1) 1988 FWCI SSFI INSPECTION OBSERV ATION 1-86-88, C ATEG ORY C NOTHING DONE TO ADDRESS PROBLEM. 2) 1988 FWCI.SSFI INSP i OBSERVATION 1-85-88, C ATEGORY C. NOTHING DONE TO ADDRESS CONCERNS - PROSLEM. 3) MNPS UNIT 1 SPDS IS INOPERABLE DUE TO DATA ON 4 CURRENT SYSTEM NO LONGER VALID BECAUSE EDPS HAVE BEEN l REVISED. 4) MNP UNIT 2 H AS CRACKS IN THE STEAM GENERATOR. [ t CONFIDENT - NO SOUSCE - FORMER CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE RECEIVED - 900611 Br - J A TEATOR / OI:RI s (FTS)346-5120 ? ACTION OFFICE CONTACT - OR HAVERKAMP I SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE - UNKNOWN BOARD NOTIFICATION - j STATUS - OPEN SCHED COMPLETION - 901031 DATE CLOSED - l I l ALLEGATION SUBST ANTI ATED - ALLEGER NOTIFIED - [ j OI ACTION - OI REPORT NUMBER - REQ ARKS - CONCERNS: #1-RESIDENT CONT ACT ALLEGER FOR ADD'L INFO. #2-RESIDENT CONT ACT ALLEGER FOR ADD'L INFO. #3-TURN OVER' TO j LICENSEE-RESIDENT VIA DIY DIRCECD 9/30/90). #4-RESIDENT j l CONTACT ALLEGER FOR ADD'L INFO. i f l f SUPPORT OFFICE: RPS-4Ar RESIDENTS ADD'L INFO i ACTION PENDING: RE SIDENT/ ALLEGER CONT ACT FOR DDCUMENT ATION: ALLEGER L AST CONT ACTED: 900611 (RECEIPT) 1
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD: SAFETY ' ENTERED SYSTEM - 900822 CLOSED SYSTEM - RECORD CHANGED - 900822 ([Y f (k1 +
m [f,, Q Q O M k-) A I ?
- 0 UNIT ED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l = a REGION I I- - 475 ALLENDALE ROAD o r KING OF PRUSSLA. PENNSYLVANtA 19406 1415 l Docket No. 50-336 FEB 2 4 E Mr. J. Opeka Executive Vice President - Nuclear j Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ~ P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Opeka:
Subject:
NRC Region I Inspection Repon No. 50-336/91-31 Mr. J. T. Shediosky and others of this office conducted a special safety ir,pection December 17, 1991, through February 7,1992, at the Millstone Nuclear SLdon Unit 2, Waterford, Connecticut. The inspection results.are documented in the en.losed repon. Hey were discussed with Mr. J. S. Keenan and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. Areas examined during the inspection are described in the enclosed repon. Within these areas, f the inspection focused on issues brought to Northeast Utilities by the NRC. Our independent j review evaluated your performance in complying with regulatory requirements imponant to public and worker health and safety. His review consisted of performance observations of. ongoing activities, inspection of plant equipment, interviews with personnel, and review of i records. Our overall assessment was that performance was acceptable. The enclosed inspection repon notes a number of issues on which your' staff agreed to provide a response to the NRC. j NNECO's response to the NRC may be made in communication with the resident inspectors. j 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. He responses directed by this letter are not subjected to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No. 96.511. Your cooperation with us is appreciated. Si ly, C r i Edward C. ' ger, Chief ( Projects Branch No. 4 [ Division of Reactor Projects i t l c7 ( ; 4 m p [H] Jl -WM.% g, l l
FEB 24 892 Nonheast Nuclear Energy Company 2
Enclosure:
NRC Region 1 Inspxtion Report No. 50-336/91-31 cc w/ enclosure: W. D. Romberg, Vice President, Nuclear Operations D. O. Nordquist, Director of Quality Senices R. M. Kacich, Manager, Nuclear Licensing S. E. Scace, Nuclear Station Director, Millstone J. S. Keenan, Nuclear Unit Director, Millstone Unit 2 Gerald Garneld, Esquire Nicholas Reynolds, Esquire K. Abraham, PAO (2) Public Document Room (PDR) IAcal Public Document Room (LPDR) Nuc! car Safety Information Center (NSIC) NRC Resident Inspector State of Connecticut 9 s 9
_g 39 ACP-QA-3.02E, section 6.2, stated that " full and total compliance is expected
- for those procedures used to do surveillance and testing as specified in the MP2 TS. SP 2402D was used to meet several MP2 TS surveillance requirements.
Conclusions Based on review of applicable documentation and discussion with cogmzant NNECO personnel, the inspector concluded NNECO satisfactorily completed SP 2402D per AWO M2-88-02316, but attention to detail in procedural compliance may not have been adequate in all respects. The hand switch nomenclature differences and typographical errors described in changes 3 and 4 could have been identified and corrected prior to completion of SP 2402D in April 1989. Because test results met acceptance criteria, the inspector concluded the above discrepancies were not functionally significant and did not compromise nuclear safety. 17.5 Rigging Practices for Two Ton Holst The NRC provided a concern regarding two ton hoist rigging practices used for MP2 polar crane modification during the 1990 refueling outage. The concem asserted that there were electrical cables over the crane cable, there was interference between the crane cable and a guard rail, and there were sharp bends on the whip line when attached to load. The NRC promptly referred this issue to the Millstone Safety Office for resolution. The NUSCO Safety Office stated that it promptly inspected this issue and took action to resolve relevant concems. Further, there were currently no similar unresolved industrial safety issues. The inspector had no further concerns. 18.0 MANAGEMENT MEETINGS On February 7,1992, an exit interview was conducted with NNECO's senior site representatives to summarize the observations and conclusions of this inspection. NhTCO did not indicate this inspection involved any proprietary information. sh g. l
APPEND!X 4.0 SAMPLE RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS SITE: b5-1 PANEL ATTENDEES:
- d. k ALLEGATION NO.:
90 Ot8 t Chairman - DATE: 1 O/I7 (Mtg.(19 2 3 4 5) Branch Chief - E. dh, PRIORITY: High Medium Section Chief (AOC) - D bg Others - M h Unknown SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes BC@ P M!44# CONCURRENCE TO CLOSE0VT: DD (SeeAllegationReceiptReport)h b. b u. m CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes O IS THEIR A DOL FINDING: Yes h IS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes h HAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT: Yes HAS LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes ACTION: C kdd bumY W IE ca A db_ Di M /c.84cc.- M 0 ' k cv SF-Ak Mhtb k V o 4Ti M, h g U 2hu 4 h, A M 3) U M M 5" i a v n u m 4) 5) NOTES: { i A4-1 1/ [S
i A LL E'G A T I ON N A ti A GEM E N'T SYST E g l RI-90-A-D181 RUN DATE: 931015 ALLEGATION NUMBER i i /2 DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: CEDOC336 / MILLSTONE 2 / D O C K ET / F A CIL I T i' IUNIT : / / DOCKET /FACIL!TY/ UNIT: / / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / s ACTIVITY TYPE 3 - DEACTOP fiat ERI AL L! ENSES - OPERATIONS FUNCTIONAL AREAS t i DESCRIPTION - 1) C0f;CERN WITH 2 TON HOIST RIGGING oRACTICES USED FOP MNP2 POLAR CRAME HD3:FICATION IN5!DE CONTAINMENT. 2) EXCESSIVE WORK HOUPS 50R CONTRACTORS.. 1 CONCERNS - E CONSIDENT - NO l SOURCE - CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE WJ RAYMOND / RI P E C E I V E D - 7 01 D Tv SY ( TS)34s-51? ACTIOri 1FFICE C ONT A CT - D2 HAVERKAMo SACETY SIGNIFICANCE - UNKNOWN 30ARD NOTIFICATION - 001215 3 ATE CLOSED - STATUS - CPEN SOMED COMPLETION r ALLEGATION SUFST ANTI AT ED - ALL?GER N3TIFIF.D - O! EEPORT NUMBER - l GI ACTION REv. ARKS - 1 I i SUPPORT OF: ICE: RPS-AA, RESIDENTS l ACTION PENDING: CONVENE PANEL DOCUMENTATION: ALLEGER L AST CONTACTED: 931007(PECEIPT) l
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD: RIGGING, WORK HOURS /A,l ENTERED SYSTEM - 931315 CLOSED SYSTEM - DECORD CHANGED - 901015 / 4 v -+- .-,r.v-y +wyv-
T ..... D
- r.. L, =_,.. _,I. N EL - :.... 5 a r.,a
- .s.... rn M. fI~ee Q
. tit..,.. E-: : ALLEIC::N t;0.. 21 A - 0 I37 Cha1--an - 3. k/ (q.q Ms j i
- ATE: D3ub91 (Mtg.. ; 2 4 5)
Eracen Chief - i SectenChief(.'.001-6.dh
- RI:",:7f -
-ii gn 'd e c t u.. L:w h) .......c...........n,C.:: 'es ,d o entnewn .,theet -W.- w ec/
- ne -
. a. 2. o -C. (m.,o r -..,...... L.r .....v.:. n r-I .......y........,,...o..--c.; ,es yo L'-- (_'o r e n.<_ f.Issc,,t M fer i ....r..- iins.. .mn. ( See -;;eca- :.: ece':. :.e: Ort ) u
- ..y n... u
<e,. yo i f - - n n ~,.. - _. ,es ,.c .p. m. .Ic .......s.-
- .-- :-:: :::v. f
.:t wk( " 7h' ( E. ,.... b"I. h'ON.
- I $ '..I ' u.....* *.....
$..e. V. 21 &10 8 .p'****g a .gr.. 9 % i dla 6 ekf-CM U ky, p l}( g { 4({ mkd h m e '
- s ce c ecues.
t eI b f I e i b f i b
- /
- 10TE~ :
F Ii/I 8 ) J I
}eQ( O':.1 5.o ra,g v
- 4 UMTED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [ REQlON I 8 478 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 1H04 MAY 151991 Docket No. 50-336 Mr. E. J. Mroczka Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations Northeast Nuclear Energy Company - l P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 l
Dear Mr. Mroczka:
This correspondence refers to your letters A09351, A09352, A09353, and A09354, dated April 26,1991. I Thank you for providing us your reviews in the subject correspondence. We have reviewed your responses A09352, A09353, and A09354, and have no further questions in these j matters. The issues addressed in these letters are considered closed. We intend to review the issues described in your letter A09351 in a future inspection of your 2 licensed facilities. i Your cooperation with us is appreciated. _( A copy of this letter and the subject correspondence is being placed in the Public Document i Room. l Sin y, p i l Edward C. Wenzinger, Chi ( l Projects Branch No. 4 [ Division of Reactor Projects cc w/ encl: j Public Document Room (PDR) -l Local Public Document Room (LPDR) l State of Connecticut -l I M' ~ 3~, _ (jy --l --? k ---ewev e r -vr-m-.- .e.
APPENDIX 4.0 SMPLE RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS $1TE: MS-L PANEL ATTENDEES: -ALLEGATION NO.: 90- 4--/77 Chairman - M e [s) DATE: 'C [4/fe (Mtg.1(63 4 5) Branch Chief - Nenals<a i PRIORITY: High Medium Low Section Chief (AOC) - b bmt-SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes No Unknown Others - bhd dMbri Db CONCURRENCE TO CLOSEOUT: DO BC SC bN'u ^ o E CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes No (See Allegation Receipt Report) IS THEIR A 00L FINDING: Yes No 15 CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes No MAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT: Yes No HAS LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACTION: 1) Tss e<. " I - L L C L e t (Jn1 E'> u a bC bdtb-M L N & J R r ( J.+ f (c a; % ks,& nn t a.A kkas 2) vna% kw uc-c ~ u M L t. 7 1 -/ 4 7 9-02 I f se - mood rtholf 6 A.stm tu L e ene t I 3) - i{ ox I- 'Tle h h c essee. Ne<S1,0 anteife<~s( 4 % u;uksmtd omWim i f
- 4),_b4'; i ii et.s -
O b b cC4ect
- ~-
[5 s e 3 - IA,k+ & l~ I R 70-lu s) NOTES: A4-1 0 {,7 t
APPENDIX 4.0 ' ~~ SAMPLE RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS SITE: (Aillsbe & PANEL ATTENDEES: ALLEGATION NO.: A M#'4 "O/ 37 Chairman - b,Neh\\ DATE: lO/G f90 (Mtg.@2345) Branch Chief - E,(duatEm h Section Chief (AOC) - h b PRIORITY: High Medium A.Vece e SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes [@ Unknown Others - CONCURRENCE TO CLOSE00T: DD ('BC) SC P. Ha horst g CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes b, k c4 m on [ (See Allegation Receipt Report) h D. beep s h IS THEIR A 00L FINDING: Yes h IS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes HAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT: Yes HAS LICENSEE RESPONDED TO CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes 8 ACTION: I-q Aoc-l c / (T) Anc lk W w/DPss Got fo0br uc' C5) Aor - \\ / n! (1) Acc - ) 2 N,Q Fr r TWTmn&ds/ wy e+ NOTES: ( G'
y yaks M4047W7 _rw -l l .nput ur ;R-A-167 em (1) - RCS Flow sensor Isomelnc discrepancies! Concern: Isometric drawing 25203-23512 was compared to the actual' installation for eight transmitters. The f ollowing discrepactes were noted: piping distances differed; support mounting onentations dif fered; test connections were missing swagelok port connections and cap assemblies; one bent test connection at reducer section: PDCR 2-66-63 lacked seismic certification for the transmiter installatoin, and the purchase order did not requireisometric drawings for the transmitter installation. On Nover iDer 1,1990, the inspector interviewed the NUSCO engineering supervisor for the Generation (1echanical Engineering group responsible for piping system stress analyses The licensee performed field walk-downs of plant system isometnc drewings as part of the program in response to IE Bulletin 79-14 and to support the work in IE Bulletin 79-02. The scope of this effort to verify isometnc drawings to support seismic calculations. Nas limited to plant fluid systems and further to piping greater than 2 inches in diameter. The work effort explicitely excluded small diameter piping due to its inherently seismic ~ properties. The licensee stated that there are no other programs in progress to systematically venfg the accuracy of isometnc drawings. The approach usually taken for the installation of the instrumentation runs is to field run the piping between the transmitter and the flow loop with attendant enteria on slope of lines and mounting details, and then construct an 1sometric drawing of the as-built condition to document the installation. Since insrumentation runs are not included in seismic analyses, the accuracy of instrumentation isometnc43uld not impact the seismic qualification of a piping system. b bil k M/@ Gy sg - m. i bL'
A LL EG AT ION MA NA GE ME NT 5Y STEM ALLEGATION NUMSER - RI-CD-A-0137 RUN DATE: 901022 DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 35300336 / MILLSTONE 2 /2 / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / 00CKET/ FACILITY / UNIT: / / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / ACTIVITY TYPES - REACTOR MATERIAL LICENSES - ODERATIONS FUNCTIONAL AREAS t 3ESCRIPTION - 1) REACTOR COOLANT FLOW TRANSMITTER, IMPROPER DRAWINGr NOT SEISMIC. 2) INADEQUATE PROCEDURE 50-2402A. 3) TECH SPEC NON-COMDLIANCE IN SURVEILLAdCE. 4) FAILURE TO SURVEILLANCE TEST CONCERNS -
- DS TURSINE TDIP.
4 CONFIDENT - NO SOURCE - LICEN5EE EMPLOYEE PJ HAEIGHORST / R RECEIVED - 901:12 BY i (FT S ) 3 A s-5120 3R HAVERKAMP ACTION OFFI;E CONTACT i P SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE - NO 30ARD NOTIFICATION - NO DDEN SCHE 3 COMPLETION - 931215 DATE CLOSE0 - STATUS ALLEGATION SU? ST ANTI AT EL - ALLEGE 2 NOTIFIED - DI ACTION - NO DI REPORT NUMBER REMARK 5 - ADC TO C000DINATE WITH DRS FOR 50LLOWUP ON ALL FOUR CONCERNS I i SUPPORT OFFICE: RPS-4Ar RESIDENTS, DRS* ACTION PENDING: ORS FOLLOWUP DOCUMENTATION: ALLEGER LAST CONTACTED: 901012(RECEIPT)
REFERENCE:
KEYWOR3: PROCEDURESr DRAWINGS RECORD CHANGED - 901022 j/ ENTERED SYSTEM - 931022 CLOSED SYSTEM \\
JI - [l}$[tlb!ib3/~(- v \\ LIMITEDsDISTRIBUTJON - NOTJOR-PUBLIC DISCLOSURb 'O L/ Q,' (./ \\ / ENCLOSURE In April 1990, CS-137 calibration sources numbers 3 and 5 were no longer available. Issue: Old standards were replaced by new standards traceable to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). Calibrations performed using the old standards may not have been traceable to NBS i and therefore may have been invalid. A plant incident report, non-conformance report, or licensee event report should have been prepared to document the use of the old standards. The use of non-traceable standards was a problem that was overlooked by management for a long period of time. Please discuss the validity of the above assertions. If any discrepancies are identi5ed as a result of your review, please discuss any actions that you have taken or will take to correct the discrepancies. eLIMIT,ED DISTRIBUTION'- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOS[ /m _/-~. v v i j l f e 1 i r
.,;,,I jp,, p b i 3 ' f ~~ ~ ' y r ( r r,G,~f {< ? ' ~ ~ ' 1 jq aan, * [ Jg UNITED STATES S NUCLEAR REGut.ATORY COMMISSION REOlGN I ,/ 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING oF PRUSilA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 D Docket No. 50-336 File No. RI-90-A-106 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ATTN: Mr. Edward C. Mroczka Senior Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Operations P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Mroczka:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently became aware of certain sctivities at Millstone Unit 2 which we have determined to require year review and followup. The details of these activities are enclosed. We request that the results of your review and disposition of this matter be submitted to Region I within 30 days of the date of receipt of this letter. We request that your response contain no personal privacy, proprietary, or sefeguards information so it can be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If necessary, such information shall be contained in a separate attachment which will be withheld from public disclosure. The affidavit required by 10 CFR 2.790lb) must accompany your response if proprietary information is included. Please refer to file number RI-90-A-106 when submitting your response. 2 The enclosure to this letter should be controlled and distribution limited to personnel with a "need to know" until your investigation of the matter has been completed and reviewed by NRC Region 1. The enclosure to this letter is considered Exempt from Public Disclosure in accordance with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2.790(a). However, a copy of this letter excluding the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. The response requested by this letter and the accompanying enclosure are not subject to the cler.rance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. i t e 4 . t( p J ~
? Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 2 Your cooperation with us is appreciated. We will gladly discuss any questions you may have concerning this information. Sincerely, W,I ~ f._ l Char' s W. Hehl, Director Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosure:
Details {10 CFR 2.790(a) INFORMATION) cc w/o encl: S. E. Scace, Station Director, Millstone Public Document Room (PDR) Local Public Document Room (LPDR) State of Connecticut bec w/ encl: W. Raymond, SRI Millstone MTW] J J. Stewart, DRP i 1 a 1 I I 1 1 l
/W o., UNITED STATES h im ( NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s3 e c
- h ll : yg REGloN I ffh$
475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA PENNSYLVANIA 19406 Docket No. 50-336 File No. RI-90-A-106 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ATTN: Mr. Edward C. Mroczka Senior Vice President Nuclear Engmeering and Operations P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Mroczka:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently became aware of certain activities at Millstone Unit 2 which we have determined to require your review and followup. The details of these activities are enclosed. We request that the results of your review and disposition of this matter be submitted to Region I within 30 days of the date cf receipt of this letter. We request that your response contain no personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so it can be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If necessary, such information shall be contained in a separate attachment which will be withheld from public disclosure. The affidavit required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) must accompany your response if proprietary information is included. Please refer to file number RI-90-A-106 when submitting your response. The enclosure to this letter should be controlled and distribution limited to personnel with a "need to know" until your investigation of the matter has been completed and reviewed by NRC Region 1. The enclosure to this letter is considered Exempt from Public Disclosure in accordance with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2.790(a). However, a copy of i this letter excluding the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. h The response requested by this letter and the accompanying enclosure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. I h 031 %I45 [-( i i en W
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company .2 I r stions you may have Your cooperation with us is appreciated. We will gladly discu concerning this information. Sincerely, I \\.t,,s.I A/ g. ~ Charl s W. Hehl, Director Division of Reactor Projects Details-
Enclosure:
(10 CFR 2.790(a) INFORMATION) I l cc w/o encl: S. E. Scace, Station Director, Millstone i Public Document Room (PDR) Local Public Document Room (LPDR) State of Connecticut ? ~ bec w/ encl: [ W. Raymond, SRI Millstone SCFerkins7RI-90-A-106 i J. Stewart, DRP t i i 4 i i ,y f ? i i h b i I s --T-7 y
o d .[ k _ [lhfl[ib[id3 ' LIMITED DISTRIBUTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ENCLOSURE In April 1990, CS-137 calibration sources numbers 3 and 5 were no longer available. Issue: Old standards were replaced by new standards traceable to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). Calibrations performed using the old standards may not have been traceable to NBS and therefore may have been invalid. A plant incident repon, non-conformance repon, or licensee event report should have been prepared to document the use of the old standards. 4 The use of non-traceable standards was a problem that was overlooked by management for a [ long period of time. i Please discuss the validity of the above assertions. If any discrepancies are identified as a result of your review, please discuss any actions that you have taken or will take to correct the discrepancies. /- tLI?dITED DISTRIBUTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC-DISDLOSURV t 4 .l N t F 8 l ] e ,i i F r \\ . } nrn D~e e r 1 I [. U '. . i: \\j o -,_y-., _ - ,.m ,,,,._s
PD/2.3fOQ(200 $ ,[ 0,, UNITED STATES. J W 7, - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N i fy-{ f REGloN 1 [ 475 ALLENDALE ROAD '-v KINO OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406 L'AR 2 91931 l Docket No. 50-245 50-336 -[ 50-423 l Northeast Nuclear Energy Company i Attn: Mr. E. J. Mroczka Senior ViWresident - Nuclear==e = + w Engineering and Operations P.O. Box 270 Hartford Connecticut 06141-0270 L c t Mr. Mroczka: This refers to your letters AO9189, AO9302, and AO9301 dated January 17, February 15, j and February 25.1991, respectively. Thank you for informing us of the results of your review of the subject concerns as l documented in your letters. With regard to the letter of February 25,1991, we do not agree j with your conclusion that there was no indication of a compromise of nuclear safety in the-case of the alleged sleeping of a contractor 6re v atch supervisor. Supervisors who may be inattentive to duties provide inadequate assurance that those being supervised are attentive to their duties. However, we are satisfied that comprehensive actions were taken and have no funher questions in this matter. With regard to the other mentioned correspondence, we are satisfied that the issues provided n? indication of any programmatic deficiencies and agree i with your conclusions. We consider these matters closed. A copy of this letter as well as the referenced correspondence is be.ng placed in the Public 1 Document Room. I We appreciate your cooperation in these matters. l
- i Si p v; i
E. C. T enzinge, Caief l l Reactor Project Br ic t t cc: w/ attachments t Public Document Room bec: w/o attachments M. Moore, DRMA (3) RI-90-A-0024, RI-90-A-0116,RI-91-A-0002 l J.S. Stewart W. Raymond - SRI. g g
' NORTHEAST UTILITIES cene,.i On<n. seen sire.i 8.n.n. caneci.cui i u, c.. C.=-- P O BOX 270 ..e......:.- MARTFORD CONNECTICUT CS a10270 L L J ((U ~ ,'d 7,.S. $'.~.
- ?O31 665 5000
. 4 q 3 ~,,,' ' 12 T' ^ . f-February 15, 1991 Docket No. 50-245 50-336 50.423 A09302 Mr. E. C. Ven:inger, Chief Projects Branch No. 4 Division of p a,enr_ Projects b - *+ U. S. Nuclear Regulatory commisTion Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. Venzinger:
Millstone Nuclear Fover Station, Unit f os.1, 2 and 3 RI-91-A-0002 Ve have com.pleted our reviev of an allegation concerning one of our contractors at the Millstone Nuclear Power Station. Our response is provided as Attachment 1 to this letter and contains personal privacy 7 information. Ve request that the 'nat erial cont ained in this response not be released to the public. An affidavit pursuant to 10CFR2.790(b) is enclosed with this let ter as Attachment 2. As requested, the NRC letter and our response have received controlled and limited distribution on a "need to knov basis" during the preparation of this response. After our review and evaluation, ve find that these issues taken either singularly or collectively do not present any indication of a compromise of nuclear safety. Ve appreciate the opportunity to respond and explain the basis of our actions. Please ccntact my staff if there are any further questions on this rtatter. J Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY / E. f JMoczka (/ Senio( Vice President cc: V. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 y - f y.. y 2+j-f g -y {-r-} -- Q - - OsW HEV 44 q-6
3 f[ G [. f. a d F C BCn 2To y ,,4 c. - C AD CONNECTICUT M t.it-c;7 t R.6E5 5000 January 17, 1991 Docket _No. 50-245 Au9159 'h,h/ ^ ( u / Mr. E.. C. Ven: 2nger, Chief Projects Branch No. 4 Division cf Eeactor Projects U. S. Nuclear 0.egulatory Commission Regien I 475 Allendale Poad King of Prussia. Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. Venringer:
Millstone Nuclear Pcuer Station, Unit No. I F: 0? A-01:( Ve have completed our reviev cf an allegatien concerning activities at Millstone Unit 1 (EI 90-A-0! M ). As requested in your transe.ittal letter dated December 6, 2000, our response does not contain any personal privacy, infer:ation. The material contained in this proprietary, or safeguards rerpense may be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Docu ent The NFC letter and our response have received Foo-at your discretien. con t rclied and limited dis t ribution on a need to knov" basis during the Eased upon our request on January 4, 1991 preparation of this response. 18, 1991. Eegion I personnel extended the due date f or RI A-0116 to January Additional tfT.e was needed in order to provide a complete response. Issue 1 Safety Parareter Display System is inopetable due to the The Millstone Unit data in the current system that is no longer valid because emergency operating procedures have been revised. For example, new secondary containment E0P been added to the data. entry conditions have not If the asser tion is determined Please discuss the validity of this assertirn.have been taken to rectify any to be valid, please disc uss the actions that reoccurrence, as applicable. identified problems and to prevent O _,g'. Ay e -c - r -- g 05381/ REV d48
Mr. E. C. Venzinger, Chief U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A09189/Page 2 January 17, 1991
Background
1987, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) In a letter dated April 9, submitted the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) Safety Analysis Report (SAR) for Millstone Unit I to the NRC Staff along with our implementation Ve committed to implement the SPDS defined in the SAR 4thedule for the SPDS. of Cycle 12 or by February 15, 1988, vithin six months h g the start This SPDS was declared ful # operational in accordance whichever was later. wi th the SAR on February 8,1988 af ter successf ul completion of testing and operator training. The Millstone Unit 1 SPDS conforms to Supplement I to NUEEG-0737 in that it personnel in determining the safety status of the plant aids control room The graphic displays were designed during abnormal or emergency conditions. and to give assistance in following the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) 9 uran factors engineering vere designed to accormodate revisions in the E0Ps. during development of the SPDS to maximize principles were taken into account the SPDS and to minimize errors by the control room personnel's ability to use them during its use. instrumentatien in conjunction with approved E0Ps is the Existing con:rol room and accident sequences. The SPDS is an primary means of mi tigating transient aid to Operations personnel and not a replacement for necessary safety instrumentation. Pesponre 1989, NNECO imple ented a revised set of E0Ps which were based On Septe:Ler 1,of the EVE Owners' Group Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs). on Revision 4 The most significant change to the procedures included the addition of secondary containrent control guidance. This change was implemented to declaring the SPDS operable. The use of Eevision 4 of the EPGs subsequent was endorsed by the NEC. NNECO reviewed the SPDS against the Prior to implementation of the new E0Ps, associated EOF changes. This review concluded that with minor changes to the to the original SAR SPDS, the system would remain operational with respect (the provisions of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737) and the revised E0Ps. Several displays were removed from the system to alleviate concerns with providing the NNECO concluded that operators with conflicting and non-valid information. contained limit and status tags that vere not valid several displays that should remain available to the operators because the value of the information far outveighed the negative aspects of the invalid tags. Operations personnel documented these vere required to read and understand the internal memo that The remaining displays provide the operators with valuable anomalies. information. In addition, NNECO vas cognizant that the SPDS did not monitor the E0P secondary containment variables.
Mr. E. C. Ven:inger, Chief U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A09189/Page 3 January 17, 1991 Evaluation at that time concluded that the capability to monitor the secondary containment variables, vere it available, provided an enhancement to This conclusion is based on the following: existing capability of the SPDS. The implementation of the E0Ps is accomplished through reliance on main the assistance of the SPDS. control board indications alone without contz.:-awsom variables used f or @implemen-4 an of the nev Thc%g a ry secondary containment control EOP vere not part of the provisions of Supplement 1 to NUPEG-0737. the " Millstone Unit i Safety Parameter NNECO believes the assertion that Display System is inoperable" is not valid. The statement that the "new secondary containment E0P entry conditions have not been added to the data" is a true statement, but as discussed above, these variables are not required to be a part 01 the SPDS. The fact that this enhancement has not yet been added to the SPDS does not affect operability of the system. A long-term improvement program to upgrade the SPDS to include additional eariables, such as the secondary containrent control parameters was initiated This project was evaluated under Integrated Safety Assessment in late 1989. The results (ISAP) Topic 1.117 and received a medium overall ranking. the ISAP evaluation vere p:ovided to the Staf f in a letter dated November Program of Evaluation of project requirerents are in progress. When the scope 30, 1990. is fully identified, modifications vill be scheduled in of the project accordance with ISAP in a fu tur e ISAP/ Integrated Implementation Schedule update. review and evaluation. ve find that this issue does not present any After our indication of a compromise of nuclear safety We appreciate the opportunity actions. Please contact members of respond and explain the basis for our to this matter. my staff if there are any further quertions on Ve:y truly yours, NORTHE AST NUC1. EAR ENERGY COMPANY ' [&/s/b46 /M/ / /l E. J./#.r o c z k a (/ Seni6r Vice President cc: V. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 1r
b' . ;_ 3 . /- t o.o... on.<,,. s,.o sn.,,.. como,c,,,, i i NORTMEAST UTILITIES p o yog gyn H AATFORO CONNECf 8 CUT ost410270 1 ....,;."***",'.."'1. 12o3j 665 5000 k k J February 25, 1971 i a Docket No. 50-245 N 50-336 50 423 A09301 Mr. E. C. Venzinger, Chief Projects Branch No. 4 Division of Reactor Projects U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission r Region I l 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 r
Dear Mr. Venzinger:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit Nos.1. 2 and 3__ l RI-90-A-0224 our review of an allegation concerning one of our Ve have completed As requested in your the Millstone Nuclear Pover Station. any personal privacy, contractors at does not contain transmittal letter, our response The material contained in this or safeguards information. 4 response may be released to the public and placed in the NRC Publi proprietary, discretion. The h7C letter and our response have . ceived controlled and limited distribution on a "need to know" basis Document Room at your during the preparation of this response. Issue 1 supervisors employed by a Northeast Nuclear Energy Company contractor vere identified as sleeping on December 19, 1990 and Two night (NNECO) sleep f requently when on duty. Response _ The identified contractor performs fire vatch duties and provides supervision. Upon notification of this allegation, NNECO i i anagement management representatives immediately contacted off-s te sen or m appropriate I An investigation was of this contractor concerning the subject allegation. conducted promptly and personally by the president and senior vice president of this contractor with the following results: with all of the on-site personnel (58) for this contracto* l Interviews vere conducted. f Fif ty-six interviews failed to support the allegation, 49w+wse g. ---._.~m
4 Mr. E. C. Venzinger, Chief U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A09301/Page 2 February 25, 1991 One present contractor employee and one former contractor employee provided the interviewers with an affirmative response regarding the allegation of sleeping as follovs: A night 57.YIt employee reported that he: op
- 4 specifically recall the events which took place on December Did not 19, 1990.
Did recall observing both the night supervisor and assistant on separate occasions sitting up vith eyes closed and supervisor failing to acknowledge his opening the door to the office. recall any specific dates or times when these events were Did not observed. Did not specifically recall the names of the supervisor or be inattentive to duty. assistant supervisor who were observed to as being the ones he given names hovever, he identified them '.'h e n observed. he: A recently terminated contractor employee reported that seeing the supervisor sleeping on three to four chairs in Recalled site superintendent's office as he looked through a vindov at the 1:00 a.m. on December 19, 1990. Recalled other times (unable to provide specific times or dates) when both the supetvisor and assistant supervisor vere asleep vhile on duty. The subject supervisor and assistant supervisor identified in the allegation vere interviewed separately. Both denied sleeping or being inattentive to duty. Issue 2 An employee of the identified contracter has experienced difficulty in expressing work-related concerns to his supervisors, and when this was brought to the attention of the regional supervisor, he was told to address his concerns to the original supervisor about whom he was complaining.
Response
This issue vas also addressed by the president and senior vice president of As concluded from the results of this contractor during their intervice. with all employees on-site (58) of this contractor, there vere no interviev results which supported the allegation that the supervisor had interviews f ailed to be responsive to employee concerns.
i F Mr. E. C. Venzinger, Chief U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A09301/Page 3 i February 25, 1991 Conclusion of the Investigation b Evidence obtained supports the al? g tion of the named supervisor and assistant supervisor being inattentive to duty. As a ~ '*" past practice and standard operation procedure, this contrac Ivays at vork. It is this prohibited sleeping or inattentiveness to duty while contractor's policy that any employee confirmed to be asleep or inattentive to duty while at work vill be subject to termination of employment. E idence obtained does not support the allegation of the contractor e ployee who experienced dif ficulty expressing vork-related concerns to his supervisors. There is also no evidence that.ould support correlation between Issue 1 and Issue 2. Corrective Action contractor recognizes the seriousness of employees being inattentive This employee concerns and has implemented to duty and not being responsive to the f ollowing steps to safeguard against any such occurrence: Memorandum issued to all employees of this contractor dated January 25, 1. 1991 entitled, "Being Attentive to Duty". Memorandum issued to all employees of this contractor dated January 31, 2. 1991 entitled, " Reporting Employee Concerns". of these memos clearly state this contractor's policies regarding Both these issues and the expectations of all their employees. of this contractor vill be retrained by March 22, 1991 on Employees 3. existing policy EP.50, Section IV,
- Employee Reporting Mechanisms".
4. Increased, unannounced visits by management personnel of this contractor to assess day-to-day performance of both day and night shifts vill be performed. 5. Both the supervisor and assistant supervisor who were inattentive to duty have been terminated. 6. Employees of this contractor receive annual training on the Northeast Nuclear Safety Concerns Program in the Safety, Security and Utilities Emergency Plan (SS6E) Training program provided to all contractor employees with protected area access. This training is repeated annually as well as for persons hired by this contractor in the future. IMECO Response !MECO has reviewed and accepted the aforementioned corrective actions on all on-site personnel of this contractor have been the b g hatand are fully aware of this contractor's expectations in this intervieveu The expectation of !MECO regarding attention to duty of contractor regard.
~-. i / Mr. E. C. Venzinger, Chief U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A09301/Page 4 February 25, 1991 personnel vorking on-site has been reiterated to this cont-setor. N these findings sai !) concern posed by Additionally, there is no nuclear fire vatch supervision does IEhr perform fire watch duties, and and consists of supervision, scheduling, because their primary responsibility different posts to assure that proper coverage is d d by the fire routine patrol of the provided to the assigned areas and roving patrols are con uctewith this con vatch personnel. NNECO has met l i eached in this methodolegy used in their investigation and the conc us ons r this contractor has taken conclusion that this matter and considers this to be It is NNECO's investigation. and complete actions to address ions. an isolated occurrence recu2 ring no f urther corrective act prompt reviev and evaluation, - find that these issues taken either indication of a compromise of our After p _sent a n:, singularly or collectively do notVe appreciate the opportunity to there are any further respond and explain the nuclear safety. Please contact my staff if basis of our actions. questions on this matter. Very truly yours. NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY / t? E. J.j roczka 4'/ . K Senior Vice President Nos. 1, 2, Inspector, Millstone Unit J. Raymond, Senior Fesident cc: V. and 3
- %:b -
w : v i peHN O p -g UNITED STATES e$ e (3 S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m.. s 'g REGloN I [ 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING oF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 DEC 0619;c e Docket No. 50-245 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company ATTN: Mr. E. J. Mroczka Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations Group P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Mroczka:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently received an allegation concerning activities at Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 (RI-90-A-0116). Details of this allegation are enclosed for your review and followup. We request that the results of your review and disposition of this matter be submitted to Region I within 30 days of the date of this letter. We request that your response contain no personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so it can be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If necessary, such information shall be contained in a separate attachment which will be withheld from public disclosure. The affidavit required by 10 CFR 2.790 (b) musc accompany your response if proprietary information is 4'cluded. The enclosure to this letter should be controlled and distribution limited to personnel with a "need to know" until your investigation of the allegation has been completed and reviewed by NRC Region I. The enclosure to this letter is considered Exempt from Public Disclosure in accordance with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2.790 (a). However, a copy of this letter, excluding the enclosure, will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. The response requested by this letter and the accompanying enclosure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. i I J. -..
- vsmymw[D 3'S pa s'",.,,, Q y 10 P n
M
t l Your cooperation with us is appreciated. We will gladly discu s any questions you may have concerning this information. Sincere 18, 1 + p e- ~ $I 1 l Edward C. Wenzinger, l Chief j Reactor Projects Branch 4
Enclosure:
Allegation Details (10 CFR 2.790(a) INFORMATION) cc: w/ enclosure l W. Raymond, SRI i Allegation File (2) cc: w/o enclosure PDR State of Connecticut i i i l l gg-I 9
e ~2.790 INFORMATION ~ --' NOT FOR'1 JBLIU' DISCLOSURE'~ f ~~ i Enclosure W ~ I RI-90-A-0116 page 1 of 1 Issue: The Millstone Unit 1 Safety Parameter Display System is inoperable due to the data in the current system that is no longer valid because emergency operating O. procedures have been revised. For example, new = secondary containment EOP entry conditions have not been added to the data. Please discuss the validity of this assertion. If the assertion E is determined to be valid, please discuss the actions that have been taken to rectify any identified problems and to prevent reoccurrance, as applicable. ( 2.7.90 INFOPJGTION - NOT'POR PUBL1i' DISCLOSURE p, .i s" m'*,__ _,_,
f,. 0;i C 5
- O I
\\ [ NORTHEAST UTILITIES c n r.i On.c. seio.a sir i. sema. coan.ci,cui v, - m ane.cew-- P O. BOX 270 cm*=*awa e HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 L t
- %%.C'1'!'.%"_".
M GCM 66N are w April 26, 1991 Docket No. 50-336 A09352 Mr. Charles V. Behl, Director Division of Reactor Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. Behl:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 RI-90-A-221 Ve have completed our review of an allegation concerning activities at Millstone Unit No. 2 (RI-90-A-221). As requested in your transmittal j letter, our response does not contain any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information. The material contained in this response may be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room at your discretion. The NRC letter and our response have received controlled and limited distribution on a "need-to-knov" basis during the preparation of this response. Based upon our request on March 15, 1991, Region I personnel extended the due date for this response to April 26, 1991. Additional time was requested to support the ongoing INPO evaluation and to for an Enforcement Conference held on March 27, 1991 involving an prepare ongoing allegation-related matter. w Issues The following drawing deficiencies associated with the electro-hydraulic control (EHC) system have been identified: 1. A recent modification replaced pressure transmitter PT 4297A and added a current / voltage converter. These items vere not reflected on drawing NUSCO 25203-39077, sheet 73D, although PDCR 2-88-83 did update loop diagram 25203-28500, sheet 504. 2. Draving No. NUSCO 25203-39077, sheet 73E for the min turbine pressure demodulator identifies a vrong part number (11D9988 gel [ identified] versus 117D9988GE3 [ actual]). 1 3. The diode function control board which processes signals to the turbine I control is not reflected on NUSCO drawing 25203-39077, sheet 73E. i e-Os3424 REV.448
,. l Mr. Charles V. Hehl, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A09352/Page 2 April 26, 1991 w. 6 Please discuss if there is any validity to h above issues and provide the details of your reviev. Please include any corrective actions that you have taken or may take in response to the identified deficiencies. Please discuss if any generic drawing control problems are apparent as a result of your reviev.
Background
The referenced drawings are vendor-supplied block diagram schematics intended to shoving the configuration of the system as supplied and are not be detailed viring diagrams. The information missing from the referenced drawings has no effect on the operation of the system, nor does it affect the ability to maintain the system. Other drawings do contain the missing information and would more likely be used to vork on the system. These issues could have baen easily handled by processing a drawing change request (DCR). Procedure ACP-0A-3.24 provides instructions to anyone who finds a drawing in need of change or revision on how to process the proper correction.
Response
Issue 1 The referenced issues are not considered to be drawing deficiencies. The EHC system is a package system supplied by GE vith these drawings to familiarire the owner with the system configuration. The missing information is not typically supplied on this type of drawing.
- However, the information is contained in other NUSCO controlled drawings. Technical Training is aware that GE drawings do not have a high level of detail and therefore they provide additional information during training on EBC in order to help prevent any confusion.
Students are also told where to find the appropriate drawings and information. A DCR, M2-S-41891, has been initiated in accordance with ACP-0A-3.24 against NUSCO drawing 25203-28500, sheet 504 in order to provide reference to drawing 25203-39077, sheet 73D. This should eliminate any potential confusion in the future. Issue 2 NUSCO drawing 25203-39077, sheet 73E has no part numbers identified on it. Ve are not able to evaluate this issue with the information available to us at this time. Please advise us if you vish us to pursue this matter further. Issue 3 The diode f unction generator control board is shovn on NUSCO drawing 2 5203-39077, shee9b73E, contrary to what is stated. It is located at coordinates A9 of that sheet. Vhile what is represented on the drawing does not exactly duplicate the circuit board viring, it is not intended to do so. diagram intended to give a general As stated before, the drawing is a
t Mr. Charles V. Behl, Director U.S. N.sclear Regulatory Commission A09357/Page 3 6 April 26, 1991 i h representation of the system configuration. Circuit card inputs, outputs, test points, and points of adjustment are accurately depicted on the diagram. The details of the make-up of the circuit card are not shown in order to improve the drawing clarity. These details are provided on another vendor drawing (CE 996D336). After our reviev and evaluation, ve find that none of these issues taken either singularly or collectively present any indication of a compromise of nuclear safety. Ve appreciate the opportunity to respond and explain the basis for our actions. Please contact my staff if there are any further questions on any of these matters. Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY Ad/ / E. J. Koczka g7 Senio( Vice President cc: V. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 E. C. Venzinger, Chief, Projects Branch No. 4, Region I
S ,D { g .4 9 %.k, s NORTHEAST UTilJTIES c a-e Onca sean su. i. senia.Coaa acut 1 E IJ.TUCI%C P O. 80x 270 HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 .eu. ao= = c-- L L J C2[I C' C. 7 N p j April 26, 1991 Docket No. 50-336 A09354 Mr. Charles V. Hehl, Director Division of Reactor Projectr.i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. Hehl:
b Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 RI-90-A-187 Ve have completed our review of an allegation concerning activities at Unit No. 2 (RI-90-A-187). As requested in your transmittal Millstone letter, our response does not contain any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information. The material contained in this response may be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room at your discretion. The NRC letter and our response have received controlled and limited distribution on a "need-to-know" basis during the preparation of this response. Based upon our request on March 15, 1991, Region I personnel extended the due date for this response to April 26, 1991. Additional time was requested to support the ongoing INPO evaluation and to for an Enforcement Conference held on March 27, 1991 involving an prepare ongoing allegation-related matter. Issue 1 Isometric drawing 25203-23512 contains a number of deficiencies including inaccurate transmitter piping distances and incorrect support mounting orientations. Please discuss the accuracy of the above assertion and your corrective identified deficiencies. Please discuss if actions with regard to any identified drawing problems are indicative of a generic problem with configuration control.
Background
25203-28512 is a general representation of the installation for all Dravinginstruments in question and not detailed documentation of specific as-the built dimensions. The drawing shows a tubing configuration for one instrument and states that it is " typical" for all eight. / b b@ osuu arv 44e -
Mr. Charles V. Hehl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission pk A09354/Page 2 mm April 26, 1991
Response
The drawing referenced in the statetent (25203-23512) does not exist. In-vestigation into the subject indicates that the correct number should be this draving does have the discrepancies noted. 25203-28512 and that Draving change request M2-P-198-90 was initiated to correct drawing 25203-28512. This activity took place after the discrepancies were identified during the 1990 refueling outage. The only potential of the discrepancies was that the seismic analysis may have implication NNECO has performed a seismic analysis of the configuration been affected. as defined on drawing 25203-28512 vith "as-built" dimensions that vere taken during the refueling outage. This analysis is documented in SOR #90-076, Rev. O and was completed on April 12, 1991. The results of the analysis verified that the configuration in its existing condition is seismically sound. The discrepancies identified with this isometric draving do not represent a problem vith configuration control. A procedure is nov in place generic requiring upgrade of isometric drawings whenever changes are (ACP-OA-3.10) When a design change is accomplished, the proposed change is "valked made. dovn" in the field before and after implementation and "as-built" configuration is documented at that time. This procedure was not in place the time these modifications vere made. at Issue 2 flov transmitter test connections are missing svagelok The reactor coolant port connectors and svagelok cap assemblies. One unidentified test connection is bent at the reducer location. Quality Assurance Audit 0S-274 A modification of may identify a number of problems with test connections. this system controlled by Plant Design Change Record (PDCR) 2-66-83 did not seismic certification for the transmitter installation nor did the include original purchase order, 283-313. Please discuss the accuracy of the above assertions. Please discuss the well as your corrective safety significance of any identified problems as and actions that you have taken to ensure plant safety. Please actions flow transmitters. discuss the seismic qualification of the reactor coolant
Background
2-66-83 was written in 1983 to upgrade the reactor coolant flov is also qualified PDCR indicating system vith more reliable instrumentation that db for EEQ service,
er Mr. Charles V. Behl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission eno A09354/Fage 3 April 26, 1991 Svagelok port connectors and caps are fittings which have been included in the tubing configuration to f acilitate calibration activities. They serve no critical purpose to the safety function of the instrument while it is in service. These fittings fall outside the pressure boundary of the process system and by definition are not subject to the same design criteria as other components which normally do see process pressure. These de-ficiencies are not considered " design" problems but normal maintenance discrepancies which vere brought to the attention cf department supervision and corrected.
Response
fittings discussed above perform no function while the instrument The test is in service. Therefore, there is no safety significance to the reported deficiencies. The discrepancies were identified during calibration activities and promptly corrected. Quality Assurance Audit 05-274 identified these same maintenance discrepancies. The discrepancies were corrected by AVO Nos. M2-90-12325, M2-90-12326, M2-90-12327, and M2-90-12328. The transmitters were procured and installed to meet appropriate seismic requirements. PDCR 2-66-83 clearly states that the new instruments are qualified to IEEE 323 (1974) and 344 (1975) which covers requirements for seismic and EE0 qualification. The instruments vere installed in accordance vith Bechtel's MS-66, " Seismic Instrument Mounting Details," and vendor requirements for seismic qualification. Purchase Order 283-318 does not exist. Purchase Order 628590, which is the order for the referenced transmitters, specifies the purchase of instru-nuclear qualified in accordance with IEEE 323 and 344 and a Certifi-ments cate of Conformance from the vendor stating such. The concern was brought to management's attention via memo 901006A on October 6, 1990. A seismic qualification reviev vas initiated to evaluate the "as-built" seismic integrity of the RCS flow transmitter tubing as shown on NUSCO Draving No. 2520~-28512. The reviev was finalized on April 12,
- 1991, and concludes th (
the tubing and transmitter support scheme "as installed" is seismically acceptable for its intended usage. Issue 3 The procedures for calibrating the RCS flow transmitters (SP-2402A and numb g aficiencies including:.e, static alignment SP-2418J) contain a the as-left alignment check is completed offset 'J84ts may not be correct; ""d" after the transmitters have been statically aligned; and calculational errors exist for the reactor protection system bistable and input resistance values. These deficiencies have been identified to management.
Mr. Charles V. Behl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A09354/Page 4 A ' April 26, 1991 Please discuss the validity of the above assertions. Please discuss any corrective actions that you have taken or vill take to correct any identified deficiencies. Please discuss the operability of the reactor coolant flov transmitters if the surveillance procedure used on these instruments contains these deficiencies.
Background
Vhile performing a calibration of the RCS flov transmitters, questions as to the intent and adequacy of the calibration procedure SP2402A. arose A review of the procedure vas done, and a revision to incorporate two changes and resolve several comments was completed in October 1990. The comments vere tracked by I&C memo 4901012C.
Response
NNECO concluded as a result of the procedure review that the existing procedure SP2402A, Rev. 3 adequately addressed the subject of static alignment of the transmitters. NNECO, hovever, decided that clarification and incorporation of the vendor's allovable tolerance on the alignment vould be added to Revision 4 as an enhancement. It is true that an alignment check is completed after the alignment activity is done.
- However, this is not considered to be a deficiency.
It is standard practice to perform an alignment check after any alignment adjustments are made. As a result of the questions raised during the calibration activity, additional review of the procedure and the calibration methods being used is being performed. Additional refinement of the procedure is expected as a result of these activities. RPS bistable setpoint values are determined by engineering review of The full flow system performance and actual RPS flow trip bistable input values during zero flov and full flow conditions. This r.ethod allows for the calculation of trip setpoints that are based on actual flev channel input values during these conditions. There are no " input resistance va. lues" associated with the process. As no significant deficiencies existed, there was no compromise of system operability. Issue 4 The RPS turbine trip is not tested monthly. discuss the validity of the above assertion and the adequacy of the Please testing program for the turbine trip.
Mr. Charles V. Behl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 86 A09334/Page $ April 26, 1991
Background
The RPS turbine trip input is tested prior to reactor startup as required by Technical Specification 4.3.1.1.1. This issue was raised by an employee via I6C memo file number 901012D vritten on October 12, 1990. This information was provided to the employee in a vritten response on October 17, 1990.
Response
The RPS turbine trip is not tested monthly. There is no requirement or need to test the trip on a monthly basis. The performance of the equipment has not varranted any additional testing. oor review and evaluation, we find that none of these issues taken After either singularly or collectively present any indication of a compromise of nuclear safety. Ve appreciate the opportunity to respond and explain the basis for our actions. Please contact my staff if there are any further questions on any of these matters. Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY E. JT Rroczka 6' / Senior Vice President V. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Hillstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, cc: and 3 E. C. Venzinger, Chief, Projects Branch No. 4, Region I 1 o l l i
- f. Ni Y % fd D l 334*$ 3 l $
~ ? g p esc UNITED STATES f k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I k ! l} f REGION I 8 % b7 ,o 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 18408 i Docket No. 50-336 File No. RI-90-A-187 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Nuclear Engineering and Operations Attn: Mr. Edward C. Mroczka Senior Vice President P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Mroczka:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently became aware of certain actisities at Millstone Unit 2 which we have determined to require your review and followup. The detaiis of these activities are enclosed. We request that the results of your review and disposition of this matter be submitted to Region I within 30 days of the date of receipt of this letter. We request that your response contain no personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so it can be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If necessary, such information shall be contained in a separate attachment which will be withheld from public disclosure. The affidavit required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) must accompany your response if proprietary information is included. Please refer to file number RI-90-A-187 when submitting your response. The enclosure to this letter should be controlled and distnbution limited to personnel with a "need to know" until your investigation of the matter has been completed and reviewed by NRC Region I. The enclosure to this letter is considered Exempt from Public Disclosure in accordance with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2.790(a). However, a copy of this letter excluding the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. The response requested by this letter and the accompanying enclosure are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. C t M o3 H ov's y ~ v
Northeast Nuclea.r Energy Compag 2 e w i Your cooperation with us is appreciated. We will gladly discuss any questions you may have concerning this information. Sincerely, Original Sigred By Q L 7Y a 0 N s,g t r< h > J C$arles W. Hehl, Director Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosure:
Detuls (10 CFR 2.790(a) INFORMATION) cc w/o encl: S. E. Scace, Station Director, Millstone Public Document Room (PDR) Local Public Document Room (LPDR) State of Connecticut bcc w/ encl: l W. Raymond, SRI Millstone M. Perkins, RI Ap/ "I J. Stewan. DRP l
7 NO I <ob_m 8k4 nN L.IA p tu inut!un N m. ~ LIMITED DISTRIBUTION - NOT FOR PUBLIC-DISCLOSURE --- u g ENCLOSURE Issue 1: Isometric drawing 25203-23512 contains a number of deficiencies including transmitter piping distances are inaccurate and suppon mounting orientations are incorrect. Please discuss the accuracy of the above assertion and your corrective actions with regard to any identined de5ciencies. Please discuss if identified drawing problems are indicative of a generic problem with configuration control. Issue 2. The reactor coolant flow transmitter test connections are missing swagelok pon connectors and swagelok cap assemblies. One unidentined test connection is bent at the reducer location. Quality Assurance audit QS-274 may identify a number of problems with test connections. A modification of this system controlled by PDCR 2-66-83 did not inc!t de seismic certi6 cation for the transmitter installation nor did the original purchase order (2S3-318). Please discuss the accuracy of the above assertions. Please discuss the safety significance of any identified problems as well as your corrective actions..nd actions that you have taken to ensure plant safety. Please discuss the seismic qualification of the reactor coolant Dow transmitters. Issue 3. The procedures for calibrating the RCS flow transmitters (SP-2402A and SP-2418J) contain a number of deficiencies including; static alignment offset values may not be correct, the as-left alignment check is completed after the transmitters have been statically aligned, and calculational errors exist for the reactor protection system bistable and input resistance values. These deficiencies have been identiEed to management. Please discuss the validity of the above assenions. Please discuss any conective actions that you have taken or will take to correct any identified denciencies. Please discuss the operability of the reactor coolant now transmitters if the surveillance procedure used on these instruments contains these deficiencies. Issue 4. The Reactor Protection System turbine trip is not tested monthly. 1 Please discuss the validity of the above assenion and the adequacy of the testing program for the turbine trip. 9> l h 'UMIT'ED I55STRIBUTIOWNOTJOR-PUBLIC DISCLOSWEm s i l l i
O r r'
- L' 7 A ' '). J (
+* 'o ~,, UMTED STATES k [ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h E E REGION I j 475 ALLENDALE ROAD K!V 4 OF PRUSSIA, PENNcVLVANIA 19408 I { ~ *~ ~ MAY 151991 I Docket No. 50-336 j 1 Mr. E. J. Mroczka Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering and Operations j Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut M141-0270 i
Dear Mr. Mroczka:
This correspondence refers to your leners A09351, A09352, A09353, and A09354, dated April 26,1991. } Thank you for providing us your reviews in the subject correspondence. We have reviewed your responses A09352, A09353, and A09354, and have no further questions in these matters. The issues addressed in these letters are considered closed. We intend to review the issues described in your letter A09351 in a future inspect on of your l i licensed facilities. l Your cooperation with us is appreciated. A copy of this letter and the subject correspondence is being placed in the Public Document Room. 1 Sin ly, o L fa Edward C. V 7enzinger, Chi Projects Branch No. 4 i Division of Reactor Projects cc w/ encl: i Public Document Room (PDR) l Iocal Public Document Room (LPDR) i State of Connecticut i l g, P}}