ML20035D276
| ML20035D276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1993 |
| From: | Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Opeka J NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035D277 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304130026 | |
| Download: ML20035D276 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000245/1993005
Text
e
_. i
b,k
..
y
8
APR 06 E03
Docket Nos. 50-245
50-336
50-423
Mr. John F. Opeka
Executive Vice President - Nuclear
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company
P.O. Box 270
Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Opeka:
SUBJECT:
MILLSTONE COMBINED INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-245/93-05;
50-336/93-03; 50-423/93-04
l
This refers to the safety inspection conducted by Mr. P. Swetland and others of this office on
February 3,1993 through March 2,1993, at Millstone Station in Waterford, Connecticut.
The preliminary findings were discussed with Mr. S. Scace, the Unit Directors, and others of
your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. Areas examined during the inspection are
described in the enclosed report. Within these areas, the inspection focused on issues
important to public health and safety, and consisted of performance observations of ongoing
activities, independent verification of safety system status and design configuration,
interviews with personnel, and review of quality records.
The inspectors identified that certain procedural requirements of your license were not
adequately implemented during this inspection period. These included the failure to prepare
adequate maintenance / testing procedures for marking the correct throttle position for Unit 2
high pressure safety injection valves; and returning the Unit 2 west switchgear room coolers
to service without resolving outstanding hydrostatic test discrepancies. In both cases the
capability of safety systems to respond to accidents could have been affected. A violation of
,
NRC requirements concerning these problems is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation.
'
With regard to your maintenance activities on the west switchgear room coolers, during and
following the recent Unit 2 refueling outage, we note that you decided to proceed with the
plant startup prior to completion of retest and restoration to service of this vital support
,
t
system. The appropriateness of your compensatory actions remains unresolved pending
completion of an engineering evaluation of their effectiveness. Also, it is apparent that your
i
staff lacked foresight in the decision to defer the tests beyond restart, since they should have
realized that it would not be feasible to make weld repairs during plant operations should the
test fail. The failure of the hydrostatic test on these c olers then resulted in a c1carly
avoidable request for regulatory relief to preclude a potential plant shutdown. In your
9304130026 930406
gDR
ADOCK 0500
5
1
1
,
APR 00 B33
i
!
Northeast Nuclear
2
.
Energy Company
I
response to the Notice of Violation enclosed with this letter, please provide your evaluation
l
of the circumstances leading to the Unit 2 return to power prior to conducting this ASME
,
Code required test and those remedial actions you determine to be necessary to preclude the
i
need for unnecessary regulatory relief requests in the future.
i
You are required to respond to the enclosed Notice of Violation and should follow the
instructions in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In accordance with
!
10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and the enclosed
j
Notice will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. The responses directed therein
are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
!
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No. %.511.
j
i
'
During this inspection, we also evaluated your identification and correction of problems
related to an incorrect snubber installation on safety relief valve piping at Unit 1. In
addition, we reviewed your resolution of missed surveillance tests on Unit 3 undervoltage
l
protection devices for 4160 volt buses, and your response to an inadequate procedure for
j
testing the Unit 3 residual heat removal system. We have determined that your corrective
l
actions for these issues were acceptable and the problems posed minimal safety consequences.
l
Therefore, in accordance with Section VII.B of the Enforcement Policy, enforcement
i
discretion was exercised and violations were not cited for these cases.
We appreciate your cooperation.
g
Sincerely,
j
!
l
"
r
t
Ja er T. Wi
, Acting Director
.
Div ion of Reactor Projects
l
!
i
Enclosures:
_
2. NRC Combined Inspection Report 50-245/93-05; 50-336/93-03; and 50-423/93-04
!
!
!
I
!
!
t
!
,
i
_
_
_
.
hPli 0 6 E93
,
Northeast Nuclear
3
Energy Company
,
cc w/ encl:
W. D. Romberg, Vice President - Nuclear, Operations Services
,
S. E. Scace, Vice President, Millstone Nuclear Power Station
H. F. Haynes, Nuclear Unit Director, Unit 1
,
J. S. Keenan, Nuclear Unit Director, Unit 2
F. R. Dacimo, Nuclear Unit Director, Unit 3
R. M. Kacich, Director, Nuclear Licensing
Gerald Garfield, Esquire
Nicholas Reynolds, Esquire
K. Abraham, PAO (2)
Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector
State of Connecticut SLO Designee
,
l
i
I
j
l
IlPR 0 61993
.
Northeast Nuclear
4
Energy Company
j
bec w/ encl:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
DRS/EB SALP Coordinator
DRSS SALP Coordinator
J. Joyner, DRSS
R. Blough, DRP
L. Doerflein, DRP
W. Raymond, SRI, Haddam Neck
i
P. Swetland, SRI, Millstone
V. McCree, OEDO
>
1
,
R. Barkley, DRP
E. McCabe, DRSS (Section 5.1)
bec w/ Report Cover Sheet and Executive Summary only:
C. Hehl, DRP
J. Wiggins, DRP
W. Hodges, DRS
R. Cooper, DRSS
W.12nning, DRP
L. Bettenhausen, DRS
D. Holody, EO
J. Durr, DRS
J. Stolz, NRR/PD I-4
t
'
dT,tDYlO bW
RI:DRP
RI:DRP
RI:DRP
h Swetland
Doerflein
Blough
W Wrs.$
Y / /93
3
Y/d/93
4/ A/93
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
G:\\ BRANCH 4\\ COMB 9305.123
!
1
5
.
-