ML20054K996
| ML20054K996 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Haddam Neck, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1982 |
| From: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054K992 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207070042 | |
| Download: ML20054K996 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET N05. 50-213, 50-245 AND 50-336 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO OPERATINGLICENSp i
The U. S. Nuclear kegulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendment No. 85 to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-21 and Amend-ment Nos. 50 and 78 to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-61 and DPR-65, issued to Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, The Connecticut Light and Power Company, The Hartford Electric Light Compaay, Western Massachu-setts Electric Company and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licensees),
which revised the Technical Specifications (TS) for operation for the Haddam Neck Plant and the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (the facilities). Haddam Neck is located in Middlesex County; Connecticut a'nd Millstone Station is located in the Town of Waterford, Connecticut. The amendments are effective as of their date of issuance.
The amendments approve changes to the Appendix A TS which are admin-strative in nature and primarily reflect recent organizational title changes in the licensees' organization.
In addition, the changes for Millstone Units No. I and 2 increase the number of Fire Brigade members from three to five.
This additional change meets the Commission's requirements for a dual-unit facility.
The application for the amendments compliec with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate DESICITATED ORIGIIIAI, Cortitled By h, mL C
8207070042 820625 PDR ADOCK 05000213 p
7590-01 findings as required by the Act and the Comission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendments. Prior public notice of these amendments was not required since the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The Comission has determined that the issuance of these amendments will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with issuance of thesc amendments.
For further details with respect to these actions, see (1) the application for amendments dated February 24,1982,(2) Amendment No. 85 to License No.
DPR-21 and Amendment Nos. 50 and 78 to License Nos. DPR-61 and DPR-65, and (3) the Comission's related letter of transmittal dated All of these items are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street N. W., Washington, D. C.
20555,' the Russell Library,119 Broad Street, Middletown, Connecticut 16457 and at the Waterford Public Library, Rope Ferry Road, Route 156, Waterford, Connec-ticut. A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
- 20555, Attention: Director, Division of Licensing.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 25th day of June,1982.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
1 c.
~-
-I t :~
l Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 l
Division of Licensing
1 lOW I
'o UNITED STATES
- ' I% e c T,,n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7)b
{.%g";
,1 W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
, j{ Q j) N OCT 6 1980 c>
/
MEf10RANDUti FOR:
B. J. Youngblood, Chief, Licensing Branch #1, DL FROM:
W. V. Johnston, Chief, Core Performance Branch, DSI
SUBJECT:
MCGUIRE UHI HOLDDOWN ASSEMBLY SPRING QUESTION We have recently learned of the detection of some cracked and broken holddown assembly springs in a foreign UHI plant.
It is our understanding that McGuire has strings that are identical to those that were in the foreign plant. Therefore, we would appreciate your assistance in trans-mitting the attached question to Duke Power.
Nh b
wt W. V. Johnston, Chief Core Performance Branch Division of Systems Integration
Attachment:
Question to Duke Power cc:
Dross DEisenhut RTedesco LRubenstein R!ieyer RBirkel MTokar
Contact:
M. Tokar ext. 29447 h v-p e o
101 op I oo l S' '> Xt1
Y
~
Holddown Assembly Spring Question We have learned that during the first cycle refueling of a foreign UHI reactor, visual inspections of the fuel assemblies revealed several damaged coil springs in the holddown assemblies used to retain non-fuel bearing components; viz., burnable poisons, neutron sources, and plugging devices.
)
It is our understanding that this holddown assembly spring design is unique to Upper Head Injection plants and that McGuire has springs that are identical to those that were damaged in the foreign UHI plant. Therefore,
)
if you intend to operate McGuire with those springs, please provide us
]
with your assessment of.(a) the potential for broken springs and (b) the consequences of operation with broken springs.
In your analysis of potential consequences you should include, but not necessarily be limited to, addressing the following effects:
1.
Loose parts being released to the system.
2.
Vibratory wear resulting from un-restrained components.
3.
Other failures resulting from vibration (burnable poison rods, etc.)
4.
Loss of spring load resulting in axial displacement of core components
}
that could affect (a) change in thimble by-pass flows (b) change in pressure drop, (c) axial repositioning of burnable poisons, and (d) reduction in UHI inlet flow area.
Your assessment should either provide the rationale for your conclusion that operation with the current spring design does not constitute a " substantial safety hazard" (10 CFR 21) or violation of "specified acceptable fuel design
.. limits" (10 CFR 50, appendix A, General Design Criteria 10), or if the springs are to be replaced with other springs of different design, you should describe the differences and discuss the adequacy of the substitutes.
.s
. k
'4
~
UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h,I,j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%%%fj JUN 9 1932.
Docket No.:
50-275 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Frank J. Miraglia, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, DL FROM:
Hans Schierling, Project Manager Design Verification Program, Licensing Branch No. 3, DL SUBJ ECT:
DIABLO CANYON INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM INSPECTION OF TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES, MAY 25 AND 26, 1982 3
NRR staff participated in an audit conducted by Region V personnel on May 25 and 26, 1982 of the Diablo Canyon Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) activities of Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) in Walthman, Massachusetts. Representatives from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) were present as observers. Attachment 1 is a list of NRC participants, the PG&E observers and the TES personnel contacted, including their consultants.
The following is a summary of some observations and items of discussion.
The technical information available at the TES offices in Waltham for the Error and Open Item (E01) issues is rather limited.
(E0Is are reported in TES s6mi-monthly reports and are tracked by PG&E in semi-monthly reports).
Each isshe, identified as a " File" by number, has a file package which includes status identification at various stages during _the IDVP process through the use of standard formats. The information provided in these forms in many cases is not sufficient to allow an evaluation of the issue or even to under-stand the issue. Upon completion of the review effort, TES issues an "IDVP Completion Report", which also is a standard form. This does not necessarily indicate that further action on the E01 may be required or not.
(Similarly, PG&E in its tracking of E01s identifies some issues as " Closed" which also does not necessarily mean that further action may be required or not). Based on the files reviewed, the staff recommended that additional information and a better definition of the E0I status be provided in the semi-monthly report.
The item discussed below demonstrates the deficiencies.
The staff audited the TES documentation for E01 File 932 and discussed the IDVP review with R. Foti and R. Wray of TES. The issue of File 932 is the restraint for a vertical pipe of the containment spray system in a floor penetration in the auxiliary building.
It was identified by R. L. Cloud Associates (RLCA) during Sample Piping Analysis 100. The PG&E drawing and analysis showed a rigid support in both veritcal and horizontal directions while RLCA field information showed
\\b 3
40 9 LOW
F. J. Miraglia a support for dead weight only, i.e. no horizontal pipe restraint in the penetra-tion and no vertical restraint against pipe uplift. File 932 included the above mentioned standard foms for status identification, beginning with the
" Error and Open Item Sheet" issued by RLCA on January 4,1982 to PG&E and to the NRC in RLCA semi-monthly report 5.
The last fom was Revision 6, "IDVP Completion Report" which was included in TES semi-monthly report 13. The infomation in these foms was insufficient to gain a clear understanding of the issue, of the particular analysis that had been preformed by RLCA and TES and for a technical evaluation by the staff. However, additional information contained in File 932 at TES consisted of PG&E and TES calculation and summary sheets. TES stated that more detailed information is contained in the RLCA File 932 in Berkeley, California. The IDVP analysis by RLCA of the as-built restraint showed an overstress in piping; an RLCA analysis with a rigid i
support assumption resulted in stresses within allowable limits. PG&E was advised of the results and subsequently redesigned the support and made the appropriate modification.
R. Foti, the TES reviewer for pipe supports, had evaluated the RLCA analysis in Berkeley and Waltham and concurred with the RLCA analysis.
In the case of File 932.TES issued an IDVP Completion Report fom (File 932 Rev. 6) stating that File 932 Rev. 5 is a Program Resolution Report which recategorized this item as a Closed Item.
(The PG&E status of IDVP items indicated in semi-monthly report 13 that File. 932 was " Closed").
The staff noted that E0I File 1062 makes reference to File 932 and appears to be a follow-up of that File. File 1062 was initiated on March 15, 1982 and no further action apparently had been taken so far.
The staff discussed the status and relationship of both files. The staff stated, and TES agreed, that as part of the IDVP TES would verify any field modifications that had'been made as a result of the IDVP. However, it was not clear if such verification already had been made by TES as one could assume from the issuance of the completion report and from the " Closed" statement in the PG&E tracking 2
system. Furthermore, it was not clear how File 1062 is related to File 932 or if it is a unique new open item.
The IDVP technical review effort is conducted by RLCA in Berkeley, California.
W. Cooper stated that the RLCA review is independent and can include additional verification without prior approval by TES; additional sampling, however, must be approved by TES. Detailed files of material reviewed, independent analysis performed and their results are maintained by RLCA in the form of work packages. TES personnel from Waltham have reviewed and audited (check of assump-tions, calcuations and drawings) the work packages in the RLCA offices. Tne transmittal of information and documentation between RLCA in California and TES in Massachusetts appears to be more of a problem than initially had been expected.
At present, about ten equivalent fulltime professional TES personnel are assigned to the IDVP, primarily in a program management function.
Individuals identified as team leaders in a particular area of expertise are frequently the only team members. More staff is expected to be assigned shortly for additional verifica-tion and sampling and for Phase II of the program.
e M.
O n+Hr-yw* man ge
^^
o-oo
+
yas e
F. J. Miraglia TES made available to the NRC staff a draft report by RLCA on their seismic analysis of the auxiliary building for their familiarization of ongoing work.
W. Cooper (TES) did not object to also making the same informaiton available at the same time to the PG&E observers at their request, although the report was on " work in progress" rather than final. Cooper stated that TES is in a unique position in the IDVP effort in that PG&E as the client cannot receive any pre-conclusionary information on the IDVP while the NRC has access to all information at any time.
In Cooper's opinion PG&E and the NRC, in effect, are both clients of TES in this project.
J. Knight (NRC), after staff caucus, advised TES that the NRC should not be considered as a client. The NRC will investigate and audit at any time any type of work, be it preliminary or a draft, work in progress or a final product. However, only completed work packages should be made available to PG&E in order not to jeopardize the independent status of TES. The PG&E observers acknowledged this position in prin-ciple but noted that any staff findings or conclusions which are based on such preliminary information should be appropriately identified as such by the staff in trip reports, inspection reports or other documentaiton.
W. Cooper stated that in the process of reviewing material and resolving E01s frequently additional clarification and infomation is needed from PG&E. The staff stated that such requests and the pertinent PGaE reponse would be within the intent of the IDVP. The staff emphasized that no discussion or exchange of results or completed work should take place between TES or RLCA and PG&E unless the same information is also provided to the NRC. The staff also stated that any information exchanges should be well documented, in an auditable form, including telephone calls.
This repgrt presents observations made by the author during the audit, it does not address all activities of th HRC staff. For example, P. Morrill of Region V reviewed in detail the TES procedures for the IDVP; J. Eckhardt of Region V interviewed a number of TES employees assigned to the IDVP regarding their independence in the assignment; J. Knight, P. Kuo and H. Polk of NRR looked over the RLCA draf t report mentioned earlier and discussed with J. Holley and M. Biggs, civil-structural consultants to TES, the appropriate-ness of certain assumptions for modeling sructures. The details of this audit will be documente'd in a Region V Inspection Report.
N t
Hans Schierling, Pr ject Manager Design Verification Program Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing cc: See next page
DI ABLO C ANYON Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Vice President - General Counsel Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 cc:
Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Trancisco, California 94120 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
California Public Liilities Commission 350 Mc Allister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Coispo, California 93401 Mr. Gordon A. Silver Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Harry M. Willis, Esq.
- Seymour & Willis 631 California Street, Suite 2100 San Fran:isco, California 94108 t
Mr. Richard Habbard MHS Technical Associates Suite K 1723 Hamil ton Avenue San Jose, California 95125 c2 Mr. John "arrs, "anaging Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. O. Box 112 San Luic Obispo, California 93406 3
m.
fir. Malcolm H. Furbush.
cc:
Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor. mission P. O. Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Ms. Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Snell Leach, California 93440 Joel Aeynolds, Esq.
John R. Phillips, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard Thira Floor Los Angeles, California 90064 Paul C. Valentine, Esq.
321 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94302 Mr. by ron S. Georgiov Legal Af fairs Secretary Governor's Office State Capitol Sacramento, Cali fornia 95814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Hill,) Christopher & Phillips, P.C.
190011 Street, N.W.
Wasnington, D.C.
20U36 lir. Dick Blankenburg, Editor & Co-Publisher South County Publishing Cor.:pany P. O. Ecx 460 Arroyo Grance,, Cali fornia 93420 lir. James 0. Schuyler Vice Fresioent - Nuclear Generation Departe.ent Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 brute Norton, Ehq.
Suite 20t 321b I; orth 3rd Street Phoenix, Arizona 85012
...e
~.
1 Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush.
Mr. W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
P. O. Box 1178 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Mr. Owen H. Davis, Director Federal Agency Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1050 17th Street, N.W.
Suite 1180 Washington, D.c.
20036 b
t**
~~
l l
t
/
ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
~
TES AUDIT MAY 25 AND 26, 1982 NRC TES P. Morrill W. Cooper J. Eckhardt R. Wray f
J. Knight G. Moy H. Schierling C. Sprangers P. Kuo J. Malonson H. Polk J. Cantalupo L. Noriega PG&E (Observers)
R. Foti R. Ciatto B. Lew R. Fray TES Consultants M. Holley J. Biggs
,m e s s
--e
~
~ ~ ~ - =
+ *
- W=
,