ML20126B324

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Details of Allegation RI-90-A-0205 for Review & Response within 30 Days of Ltr Receipt
ML20126B324
Person / Time
Site: Millstone Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 12/06/1990
From: Wenzinger E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To: Mroczka E
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO.
Shared Package
ML20126A943 List:
References
FOIA-91-162 NUDOCS 9212220055
Download: ML20126B324 (12)
v • d • e


Text

. . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ -.,.._ _______. __

  • H%

Io,, UMTED STATE 5

.;- -l S NUCLEAR MGUL ATORY COMMIS$lON C *

/

f MEOloN 1 416 ALLENDALE ROAD l

'***' KING oP PMUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 18460

{

j DEC 0 6 togo e i.

Docket No. 50-336 '

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company '

ATTNs Mr. E. J. Mroczka i 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 I allegation concerning activities at Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 2 (RI-90-A-0205). 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 i can be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public-Document Roomi 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 r accompany your response if proprietary information is included. ,

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 .

a 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 1

Office of Management and' Budget as required by the Paperwork '

Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

., e a sg k r

f g ..

,\ e s .

'N L' 9212220055.92C308 '

PDR FOIA- J QUILD91-162 PDR- )

4

-.--_m_,,.._._--____.- - ..m._. -.

Your cooperation with us is appreciated. We will gladly discuss any questions you may have concerning this information. -

Sincerely, C, skr'Y/ A<utat -

Wenzinge(,

/'*,'EdwardC.

Chief Reactor Projects Branch 4

Enclosure:

Allegation Details (10 CFR 2.790(a) IliFORMATIOll) cc: w/ enclosure W. Raymond, SRI Allegation Filo (2) cci w/o enclosure PDR State of Connecticut l  :

l I \

g gN t,fIk#

i h.O.

l l

I

N FGNW4A 9.V ,,

$ AMPLE RECORD 0F ALLEMT10N PANEL DECl$10NS Tl'$1TE: 'M ' 2- PANEL ATTENDEES:

ALLEMT]ON NO.: Ml- 96 -A -0266 Chairman - (M senl c DATE: //!? I/@ (Mtg.hJ234$) Branch Chief - Ld PRIORITY: High Medium kw, Section Chief ( AOC) - C, b<x f-SAFETY $1GNIFICANCE: Yes No Qnknown ) Others -

b ros , krice s - TRS '

(/

~

/

CONCURRENCE TO CLOSE0VT:

00 hC)$C CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes  %

($ee Allegation Receipt Report)

]$ THEIR A 00L FINDING: Yes / No 15 CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRINTED: Yes No HAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT: Yes No RAS LICENSEE RESPONDED l0 CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACTION:

I -

1) t e , ,m. . ,\ i ma e
2) C1e w m.d 3) s l

4) 5)

l g[5:

, f A4-1

I l

l 1

ALLEMTION RECEIPT REPORT Date/ Tine II // Allegation No. o-A-020S R M(leave blank,)

Received:

f Name$ Address: '.

City / State / Zip: _

Phone: ,

Confidentialit'y:

Was it requested? Yes No L Was it initially granted? Yes No Was it finally granted by the allegation panel Yes No j Does a confidentiality agreement need to be sent j to alleger? Yes No i Has a confidentiality agreement been signed? Yes No l Memo documenting why it was granted is attached? Yes No A11eger's Ernploye r: b Position /

Title:

Facility: I U b l-- Docket No.: S -B%

(Allegation Summary (brief description of concern (s): @ Preecho,J k N u. . < e.

Number of Concerns: /

l Employee Receiving Allegation: P Mdvsk - Med k dh hus, r' (first two initials and last name) l Type of Regulated Activity (a) gReactor (d) _ Other:3afeguards b Vendor (e) _

c _ Materials (Specify)

Materials License No. (if applicable):

FunctionalArea(s): _da) Operations __(e) Emergency Preparedness

~ b) Construction Onsite Health and Safety c) Safeguards Offsite Health and Safety I _(d) Transportation [(h)Other:

1 (NRC Region I Fors 207 .

, Revised 10/89) l Information in this record was deleted in accordance t'ons with/tpe Trupb,7 of Information fIh  !

Act, F0lA-exep'l ~l(0 }

l l

203 443 9893 gg DEC 03 '90 18:34 NRC MILLSTONE OFFICE P02

- ...= e m m .

bNd10fo P01 DEC 03 '90 15:06 Q !O)

\

k Awh Enclosure 2 RI A-020 t>

6P' 040lI P"

from

,[.3 @hM

  • the 8sifueling on or about November 9 1990 during to treue :

outage, eurveillance* procedure e _i = (E P P ar e= -._. i. t) was 7d partially cc.mpleted in operational mode 3 and the remainder completed in mod.

2. Thee pur up .pfi{W,. e, .;-j my of trja 6;um,igwiwmyrts - , . . . . . . . , _ _ _ _ ~

aseeceky-w ttrera. 7...-

--.,..__7.....~..

.cenge-med eeMm . -..-..1m

-b,... ume - a* MM47- 4 ^ up, u9 sucnnicR W gaglfic='innT Ur1_

Ag_, ,,

_ 'M' tG - a w 11Ture to be segmented in the two rational J '

kh

$proceeg3aalsgohahon T4/tTM4.5-I t.R W

g 4 6 & mlMuIH ww. a.y.-

losae J During a y technical pecification revieve of alarm functionu (i.e. LIR 90*0' it w. Identified that the alarm verification of control i

element assernb. ithdrew prohibi was est-included in the Wide range

?"'" f . .n . ei. _ ;.. During i

funct. tonal survettlance (SP 24019 24^?", --?otth! included in any procedures evt,.

recent procedure upgrades, this change wa 7

SD-+4+ My bat it should have been, krf- de in TMLP rien.. dt.euse th. validity of th. a..ertion. j m-PaMst gg (gg i

,q % " w

! _; )

l ,-

ek Qa ' '

f m N

ood c 4o  !

)d I

gig 3 F l

ns# .

\ ycA

)

%.A 1700 'as. ,

2lb - 3 D b 31 l .

AYYLNULL e.U ,,

$ AMPLE RECORD OF ALLEMTION PANEL DECISIONS

$1TE: i!M 'L PANEL ATTENDEES:

ALLEGATION NO.:

ik \~ 3 0 - A - 2CC, Chairman - (J3 a,c l s i.-

DATE: (I / 2 r /ft' (Mtgh2345) Branch Chief - b CAAlw',gq PRIORITY: High Section Chief ( AOC) - dESto)

Medium h )~. /

  • ~

$AFETY 51GNIFICANCE: Yes Ho/ Unknown ,

. 2.

Others - Lofcq, Yr cce s dib '

.. v g, -

gf CONCURRENCE TO CLO5E0VT: 00 / BC 15C v

CONF 10ENTIAllTY GRANTE0's Yes do (See Allegation Receipt R,eport)'

\ /

,[

15 THEIR A 00L FINDING: Yes No N h 15 CHILLING EFFECT LETTER, .RRANTED: 'Yes No

,\

RAS CHILLING EFFECT LETTER BEEN SENT: Yes No Yes No HAS LICENSEE RESPONDE,D TO-. CHI LING EFFECT LETTER:

ACTION:

1) n< el .rd rD4ma. 55\ M0 '

' tbic G Vc

2) Tm,1u' O IS5d(b) ~ I/c b b.cwe 3) 4)

5)

NOTES:

A4-1 h .) J

ALLEMT10N RECE!PT REPORT U' "

Date/ Time

( . Received: l!!:N 4e II'. ' c .rm All'sgation No. k!-TO /f - o 7.04 t

Name: Address: .

Phone: City /$ tate /Zipt .

1 Coofidentiality:

Vas it requested? Yes No ( ,

Was it initially granted? Yes he Was it finally granted by the allegation panel Yes b Does a confidentiality agreement need to be sent to alleger? Yes No Has a confidentiality agreement been signed?' Yes No Memo documenting why it was granted is attached? Yes No A11eger's .

Employer: DJ t) Position /Titler 1

m Facility: A ' # ~ -. Docket No.: S C - i i 'r (Allegation Summary (brief description of concern (s): IC E u b ,A % olmet 5 5 ..' e s d.ds b .94 m.,; .

c a M ""~ ~ ?., c % c, u a

~ ' '

. ' z l. ' n .

i Number of Concerns: 3 bployee Receiving Allegation: . b hem s + .. wet- _

(first two initials and last name) l Type of Regulated Activity a Reactor (d) _ Other: Safeguards b [ Vendor (e) ~ ~~

l c [ Materials ($pecify) l l Materials License No. (if applicable):

l l FunctionalAres(s): Va Operations ,_,,,, e Emergency Preparedness

, b Construction ~~

f Onsite Health and Safety .

c Safeguards Offsite Her.ith and Safety 1

d) Transport'. tion [gh Other: -

(NRC Region i Torn 207 im tion in this tEtold was gd&d .

/ Revised 10/89)

. Act, eke ptions;n 'n of accordance Information with thejh rom. uu .

e  : . y , . ,. : , .j ; 4 ; . ; y ,- , .

,vf. p .>.,. ,

.. g. . .g. .. p; > .. , .,.

,\,

l]h

\

6 d t.

(

1

".LEGAT1ON TOP 1C: uGT. WLRAOW114G ."" "L*E ! U_ ^"LE N t

CFOgl RED MODE OF OPERAT ION CATE: NOVEMBER Y.1990 .

11ME: 12:00 (NOON)

ALLECCR:

INEPCCTCRs PETER J. HAWiGHORGT .

CONCERN (1) The 611eger Hi-Power stated that surveillance procedure Functional Test) was paritially SP-2401F (Monthly completed in operational mode 3 and the remainder of the The surveillance was completed in operational mode 2.

portion of the surveillance completed in mooc 2 was veri fication of operability of the control element assembly withdraw prohibit. The 411eger believes the range procedural nuclear amplementation was segmented based on wide instrumentation problems.

(21 ~During a past technical specification review of alarm functions (i.e. LER 90-01), the alleger identified that alarm verification of control element assembly withdraw '

prohabit was not included in the wide range functional surveillance (SP2401B, 2401F, and TNLP functional) f Procecure change for SP2401D occurred, however theThe chances

') s

(

to 2401F and TMLP functsonal were not included.

alleger He previcusly informed tne licensee about this aspect.

believes the changes to the procedure were nDt i n Lor pc r e t e,d ,

[ and does not know the justification for not changing the procedures.

1HJDECTOR ASSESSMENT AND ACTIONS Technical Specification TABLE 4.7-1 requires hich4 power 8Fs indicates trip signal to be surveilled in modes 1,2,34 tnat the reactor trip circuit breakers are closed.

Additionally, above 157. of rated theroa' Ocwer. recalibrate

e -03 by using the inc e cccc detectors unich monitor incore detectors or restritt thermal power during subbwousnt egerations to less than or equal to 90'4 level with the existing reactor coolant pump combination.

Irspector review of requirements conclude that the monthly tunctional test for high power thould be completed in total with the reactor i r. moce !turveillance should trip Circuit breakers closed.

be within 30 days thereafter.

The next During power asscesion testing the daily channel checks may De subrended to allow for accesion testing ssquence.

Facts Cen_cernine cerforeente of SP-2401F:

( .

c

1. Ohlft Supervisor Authorfration of Surveillence on \

10/.1/90 2.

Work completed on 11/1/90 with instrument tenformence

'D' RFE concerning I

report (ICH)90-109 written for channel The floor setpoint floor setpoint out of specification low. to artual N1 power or compared .<

is a reference power setpointM2-90-13167 written to perform delta T power values. AWD floor setpoint value. In review corrective maintenance on *D' was corrected and returned to of AWO Me-90-13167 channel 'A*, 'C'. and *D* completed service on 11/02/90. Channels natisfactorily on 11/1/90.

3.

Resident inspector inquired with IC nupervisor when the control rod withrewl prohibit annunctator According verification in to the completed SP2401F was completed.

surveillance procedure it was completed on 11/1/90.

4. At 5:20 p.m.

on 11/1 the facility was in Mode 4 11/2 the facility was in Mode $.

5. . At 11:15 a.m. on At 8:00 p.m. on 11/2 the facility was at an RCS temperature of 532 F. (At this point the reactor trip 6.

circuit break ers can be closed. )

7, At 6:40 p.m. on 11/4 the facility was in Moce 2.

verification of CWP in step B. SP-2401F requires annunciator The inspector 6.15.5 and 6.15.7.1 Questioned for reset and the IC supervisor alarm.

is verification that contro'l element assembly movement is also part of thib verificatien. T r ie The supsevisor has an open question for this issue.

supervisor did mention that two other surveillances verif>

CWF alarms.

The departesnt is planning to develop on function indepencent procecure for CWP alarm and verifstation in the future to remove this aspect from the RPG surveillances. since CWP is a control function and has no relationship to RPS safety functJons. -

at_p
30 p . m,x Eollowup Discussions withU::;

The alleger was in error on the surveillance proceduro designator in that he believes it now Test).

was SP-2401J (Thermal Margin Low Pressure Functional TS Table 4.3-1 roquares TMLP to be survealled in operational modes 1,2.

l The alleger also pointed out that no verification of CWP to l

the rod control system occurs except durang the Heperformance believes it of SP 4018 wide range NI functional test.

e ould be incorporated in TMLP. H1-PDWER, LPD functicSal

        • +6a- ,e mmei s t or veriffCJtion.

L

t INCPCCTOR ASSESSMENT AND F,ECOMMENDATIONS The folloEsp discuscacns present a potentici technical spec 112 cation violotson of preformance of functional testano '

2n relationship to recoired operational modes. Add a t cr.a l inspection is needed to resolve this assue, thus this ,

anspector recome. ends this atem be followed up during routine inspectaon. Itamediate operabi li ty concerns are not presented since verafication of the functional test was completed, it becomer, more an issue of the timeliness in conducting the surveillance.

f i

!, N

( .

pjt.rGATION T CP_1C) CONTROL 5_LCp THE PA l u T QE51f.F 'T/ AIDS (\

C.Q M 33Q_S161E!1h!)E A,J K{,QRE UG.2 SOL EMS WITH THEJ T1Af)J ET AIR EJEClQB DATE: r.OVEMBER 13. 1990 T il'E 11:30 A.M.

INSPECTOR: PCTER J. HAUlGHORST CONCERN (1).The alleger believes that the switch alignment precedure for the main turbine generator stator cooling system was not completed properly, and the licensee was unresponsive to questions surrounding the contaol of the activity (2) Reoccuring problems with the steam jet eir ejector preformance TOPIC 1 (chwM bMf ""

On November 6, 1990 the 1/C cepartment completed procedure IC243SF. Procedure IC2435F starts the stator cooling system without the main turbine a" line. The procedure sets flow control valves, and reco- data on pressures ano flows within the system.

On November 11. the alleger was assigned a corrective mair.tenance work order to troubleshoot and icentify the cause of Icw flow condition for the stator coeling pu ps.

At the time two pumps wer e operating to maintain the requirec flow of 32 gpm. Two pump operation as annormal ;

since one pump is ih stand-by with a lower pressure setpoint to t 'ar t.

Dh trcubleshooting on Neverreer 11 Indicatec thGt the low n rol valve setDoint was not set as requicec t,-

I L"; 4 tF. rotified his immeciate superviser of the roubleShooting results.

Curr+ntly. both stator cooling cumps are in operatien.

Thw alleger believes (1) 1CZa3b& implementatien was not per pr t. c e cu r e . and (2) operations department in tre valve lane-up of the stator cooling system on Ncvember 11, cac not uncerstand the basis for the setpoint for the flow control' velve. A plant equipment operator Questioned the correct position for the flow control valve, and no action was taven based on the Question.

[NSPECTOR ASSESSMENT and RECOMMENDATIONR The stator cooling system for the main turbine is not safety related, improper operation of the system teuld ultimately result in a main turbine trip / reactor trap. Tre inspecter

_ _ _ _ . _ . ._ m_ . _ _ - , _ _ _ . _ . - _ . _ - . - _ _ _ _ . . . - - _ . _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ - __

6 is aware of the l i t e r.s e e formulation aftor discussion with the alleger of a troubleshooting plan to addrest thic issue.

ki

-The aspect of procedural acnerence to IC243bc is necessarf.  ;'

Aecommend this issue be turneo over tc the licensee to address the aspects of pr o c e d o.r a l edherence, and actions to ,

restore the stator coolitig system to normal operation. ';

ISSUE 2 Pelor to the refueling shutdown ( eptember 15) the alleger noted flowrate problems with th steam jet air ejector. He recommended based on his troub eshooting efforts that the licensee upgrade the cooler. At the start-up cf this outage the air ejector exhibited 1 ow control Droblems due to flooding. IC supervision is aware of the problem.

The alleger's concern is that the licensee was aware of the problems of the air ejector and did no work during the refueling outage to address the problems.

INSPECTOR ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS After the inital meeting with the alleger, he noted that Millstone 2 maintenance did or0er additicnal coolers, and have yet to. receive them as of this write =uo. This item has been documented in past resident inspection r*eports. At this time the inspector deems not allegation is presented, an0 there is assurance once the coolert are received tne' steam ject air ejector monitor can be upgraded. The I licensee has planned a complete upgrade of the entire system in the near future.

/

/ ,'

!/

L-

'UU

,- <\

r\ , U0' sq

.- - .. . .- - - - - - . . - _ . _ _ .- - - - - ..

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20126B324&oldid=2919253"