IR 05000423/1985060
| ML20133Q118 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1985 |
| From: | Imbro E, Milhoan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133Q110 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-423-85-60, NUDOCS 8511010396 | |
| Download: ML20133Q118 (14) | |
Text
.
-
.
.-
__
-
,
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor, and Technical Training Center Programs Report No.:
50-423/85-60 i
Docket No.:
50-423 Licensee:
Northeast Utilities Service Company i
Facility Name:
Millstone Unit No. 3 I
Inspection At:
Millstone Unit No. 3 Site, Waterford, Connecticut
Inspection Conducted:
August 26 through August 30, 1985 September 12 and 13, 1985 Septer.:er 18 and 19 1985 Inspection Team Members:
Team Leader:
E. Imbro, Senior Inspection Specialist, IE
,
Mechanical Systems:
T. DelGaizo, Consultant, WESTEC Services
Mechanical Components:
J. Blackman, Consultant, WESTEC Services Civil / Structural:
I. Husain, Consultant, SMA of Conn.
i A. Unsal, Consultant, HARSTEAD Engineering
'
Electrical:
C. Crane, Consultant, WESTEC Services G. Lewis, Inspection Specialist, IE Instrumentation and J. Kaucher, Consultant, WESTEC Services
~
Controls:
Present at August 30, 1985 J. Milhoan, Section Chief, IE j
Exit Briefing:
$ b 'h
/eff ff
Eugene V. Imbro Inspection Leader, IE i
('
Approved by:
nl L
s w l0lN/$I
,
a
'
& mes L. Milhoan'
ction Chief, QA Branch 8511010396 851020 PDR ADOCK 05000423 G
.
._
__
_
-
.
Mr. J. F. Opeka-4-Distribution J. M. Taylor, IE
.R.
H. Vollmer, IE B. K. Grimes, IE J. G. Partlow, IE G. T. Ankrum, IE
J. L. Milhoan, IE E. V. Imbro, IE G. S. Lewis, IE DCS 016 (Docket No. 50-423)
QAB Reading
DQAVT Reading j
E. C. Wenzinger, RI
.
B. J. Youngblood, NRR
'
"
',
T. E. Murley, RI R. Starostecki, RI T. M. Novak, NRR
'2LD NMSS i
-
i Regional Administrators
,
Regional Division Directors
,
T. Speis, NRR
!
E. L. Jordan, IE i
J. Axelrad, IE
Team Members i
H. Boulden, DIA SECY OPE W. J. Dircks, ED0 H. R. Denton, NRR
,
OCA (3)
)$
h
'
IE:DQAVT: AB
- QAVT:QAB IE-JAVT:QAB:C r0 VT:D EVImbro f-(d._
IE:DQAVT:QAB
/
J ilhoan n krum KG mes GSLewis:hmc 10/f/85 10/f/85 10 g /85 0 V85 10/t1/85
!
!
. _ _ _ _.. __
. -..
_ _..-
-___.
-- ___-- - -. _
_ _ _., - - - -
-.
- -.
..
..
.
.
_
_
_
_.
l
.
MILLSTONE UNIT N0. 3 Engineering Assurance In-Depth Technical Audit No. 59 Results and Corrective Action Inspection Report 50-423/85-60
.
August 26 through August 30, 1985
'
September 12 and September 13, 1985 September 18 and 19, 1985 1.
Background NRC inspection activities related to the Millstone 3 Engineering Assurance In-Depth Technical Audit were conducted in three phases:
!
1.
Inspection of program preparations 2.
Inspection of program implementation
!
3.
Inspection of audit results and corrective action The first phase of the inspection was accomplished on May 28 and May 29, 1985. The NRC's report of that inspection (50-423/85-29) was forwarded to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECo) via letter dated June 21, 1985 (B. K. Grimes [NRC] to J. F. Opeka [NNEco]).
The second phase of the
inspection was accomplished on June 24 through June 28, 1985.
The NRC's
!
report of that inspection (50-423/85-31) was forwarded to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECo) via letter dated July 19, 1985 (8. K. Grimes [NRC] to
J. F. Opeka [NNECo]). The third phase of the inspection which is the i
subject of this report was conducted in three segments on the dates shown
.
I in the heading.
2.
Purpose The purpose of this inspection was to accomplish the third phase of the NRC inspection, namely inspection of the audit results and corrective action.
Specifically, the objectives of this inspection were to (1) review the audit team findings, (2) ensure that the various resolutions of the findings were adequate, (3) ensure proposed corrective actions were adequate, and (4)
j verify that the items identified in inspection reports 50-423/85-29 and
,
50-423/85-31, were incorporated into the program or otherwise satisfactorily
'
resolved.
The purpose of this report is to provide resolution of the items
)
identified in the previous. inspection reports.
The results of the inspec-tion of the other aspects of the Millstone Unit 3 Engineering Assurance
!
In-Depth Technical Audit will be provided in a Supplemental Safety Evalua-tion Report (SSER).
l 3.
Personnel Contacted
!
A large number of NNECo and SWEC personnel were contacted during the course
of the NRC's inspection.
The following is a brief list of key personnel involved:
Name Organization Position
A. Capozzi SWEC Ass't Chief Engineer, EA 0. Malone SWEC
' Audit Team Leader i
R. Ackley SWEC Project Engineer
'
R. Fortier SWEC Mechanical Auditor T. Morse SWEC I&C Auditor C. Ferguson SWEC Pipe Stress Auditor R. Sexton SWEC Pipe Support Auditor N. Goldstein SWEC Equipment Qualification (Seismic) Auditor
!
. -.
..
.
-.
.
. _ -
. -..
.. -
.
. -
-
.
.
_ __
__
.
Name Organization Position F. Chin SWEC Structural Auditor i
A. Papp SWEC Electrical Auditor C. Morrell SWEC Hazards Program Auditor D. Norquist NNECo Manager, QA 4.
STATUS OF NRC INSPECTION ITEMS FROM INSPECTION REPORT 50-423/85-29 DATED
JUNE 21, 1985.
!
Item No.
Subject Status Original Comment / Resolution
!
Mechanical Systems 1.1 E&DCR and N&D Review Closed Wording of some attributes of E&DCR and N&D Review Plans was
open to interpretation.
Review Plans were reviewed and the
>
ambiguities were eliminated.
I 1.2 Calculations Review Closed Review Plan did not specifically Plan address:
(1) Assumptions needing later verification, and (2) Assess-i ment of the appropriateness of computer codes.
Review Plans were revised to incorporate these comments.
1.3 Calculations Closed Some non-safety-related equipment was selected for review.
The non-safety-related equipment was dropped from the review and additional
.1 safety-related equipment was added.
-
.
1.4 Hazards Review Plan Closed Audit was not reviewing the design I
process for Seismic II/I hazards l
protection.
Applicant took a different approach to the Seismic
II/I design, that is similar to
.
that used for SEP plants.
,
This item has been referred to NRR i
for resolution as an open licensing issue.
It is closed for purposes l
of this report.
Mechanical Components 2.1 Scope of Equipment Closed The scope of review of the equipment Qualification Review qualification area (seismic) was too Plan narrow to draw meaningful conclusions.
The Review Plan was revised to encompass all requirements and expand on interfaces.
-2-
. -. -
.
-
-
.
-.
- _ - _ _. - -..
_ _ _ - - _. _ -..
- -....... - -. - - - _. - _ _ -
-
. - _.
._..
-
-
_
__
'Y
.
.
Item No.
Subject Status Original Comment / Resolution
. 2. 2 RP #1907-1-Seismic Closed A checklist specifically for seismic i
Qualification and pressure boundary considerations was not developed.
m,
Checklists were developed for seismic and pressure boundary
' s considerations.
,
2.3 RP #1901 - Consistency Closed Inclusion of NRC Regulatory Guides Between Design and 1.60 and 1.122 was not germane to FSAR Subject Chosen the review of pipe stress and pipe support design.
Other suitable Regulatory Guides
,
i were included.
2.4 Selection of NSSS Closed The items selected for review Criteria Items appeared to be limited.
'
The NSSS interface was expanded to l
include modeling requirements.
l
!
2.5 RP 1903-1 - Additional Closed The pipe stress analysis checklist
!
Requirements Regarding did not address a number of techni-Calculton Review cal areas which are normally essential to adequate design.
The checklist was revised to include the additional areas of concern.
2.6 Small Bore Piping Closed The basis for maximum span length Calculation Review tables used in the design and
,
l installation of small bore piping
'
'
was not reviewed.
,
Only one piping run was designed per the spacing tables; therefore, the above review was not necessary.
2.7 Comprehensive Review Closed Questions concerning the correct of the Use of Computer app 1' cation of the computer codes Codes (NUPIPE and STRUDL) and the determination of the effects of known errors found in the code were
.
not addressed.
A review of NUPIPE and STRUDL was performed.
2.8 Adequacy of E&DCR and Closed The review of E&DCR's and N&D's did N&D Preparation not consider the' completeness of the
!
problem posed and whether all inter-
'
discipline considerations had been included,
-
i
!
-3-
.
. -
_
_, _ _ -_. _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _,
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ ~.
__..
-..
.
.
Item No.
Subject Status Original Comment / Resolution
.
The scope of review was revised to
.
i include problem description and interdiscipline review.
!
Civil / Structural
3.1 Containment Liner Closed The containment liner is subject i
Plate Analysis to pressure and thermal expansion /
contraction loads.
It was therefore
.
,
important to verify that adequate
'
design calculations had been per-formed to ensure the integrity of the liner plate.
,
The EA team reviewed the appropriate calculations and found them to be adequate.
3.2 Seismic Analysis of Closed The adequacy of the seismic analysis Containment Structure of the containment structure needed to be verified.
The seismic analysis and response spectra development was verified by the audit team.
j 3.3 Verification of Closed The computer programs used in the Computer Programs seismic analysis and in generating
-
seismic spectra were not being i
verified.
The computer programs used in seismic analysis have been reviewed for
~
verification and qualification, j
3.4 Design Verification of Closed The design criteria and design calcu-
!.
the Refueling Water lations for the RWST were not being Storage Tank (RWST)
reviewed to verify the tank's ability to withstand tornado missile and l
seismic loads.
Further, the ability
of the model of the RWST to adequately account for sloshing of water inside the tank during a seismic event was not being reviewed.
'
'
The review of the analysis and design of the RWST was included in the audit team review.
.
h 4-
-
~.
.
, _,
, ~ - - - -. _ _,. _. _ _. -
_
_. -
_ _.
.., _. - -
_~,,---._,,,,.,,m._,---u
._._v_
, _ ~. _
,,
y
,
.
.-
_
..
.
Item No.
Subject Status Original Comment / Resolution
- 3. 5 FSAR Requirement Closed Analytical documentation concern-ing whether gaps provided between adjacent structures were adequate to preclude impacting during a seismic event was not being reviewed.
The audit team reviewed the shake space requirements for the con-tainment structure.
3.6 Conduit / Cable Tray Closed Cable tray design criteria documents Supports were not being reviewed to verify consistency with analytical and test work.
Also the data transmitted between electrical, EMD, and the structural group was not being reviewed for consistency.
The audit team included these items in their review of the design of conduit and cable tray supports.
Electric Power and Instrumentation and Controls 4.1 Items Not Included Closed The scope of the review plans did
,
in Review not always include all items or
elements considered to be essential.
"
The review plans were revised to address additional items and elements of the design process.
.
i 5.
STATUS OF NRC INSPECTION ITEMS FROM INSPECTION REPORT 50-424/85-31 DATED JULY 19, 1985.
Item No.
Subject Status Original Comment / Resolution 1.
Mechanical Systems t
1.1 Calculation Review Closed Several calculations were reviewed by the NRC reviewer to see if NRC would arrive at the same con-clusions as those reached by the EA audit team.
No concerns were identified by this review so that this item was closed out in the original inspection report.
-5-
-. _.
_
_
_
_
__
_ _ _ _ _.
_- -
.
-
_
_
.
Item No.
Subject Status Original Comment / Resolution
- 1. 2 Environmental Closed A review of the Equipeent Qualifi-Qualification cation Report to demonstrate the of RSS Pumps environmental qualification of the RSS pumps determined that the report used the environmental temperature of the cubicle (120 F) rather than that of the recirculating fluid (peak temp. 240 F with temperatures above 150 F for 30 minutes).
Some components of the RSS pump are qualified for 194 F.
In addition, the generic implications needed to be addressed.
An Action Item was generated by the audi', team regarding this item.
The Prvject's response was rejected.
An audit observation was issued by the EA team which includes generic
!
implications to track this item.
l
'
1.3 Hazards (HELB/MELB)
Closed The HELB/MELB portion of the hazards review plan was not ready for review.
The implementation portion of the plan could not be verified.
The hazards review plan is now com-plete including the implementation portion of the plan.
1.4 RSS Thermal Closed Calculation US(B)-273 Rev 3, which Performance should verify that the RSS is capable
-
of meeting design commitments, had not been reviewed by the EA audit team.
,
Calculation US(B)-273 Rev 3 has been reviewed by the EA audit team.
l 1. 5 ESF Building Closed The EA team auditor had questioned Environment the project's assertion that there are no high energy line breaks to be considered in the ESF Building, however no action item vas prepared to track this item.
An action item was prepared to document and track this concern.
-6-
__
_
.
.
Itym No.
Subject Status Original Comment / Resolution 1.6
Inspection Report
Closed
As of the date of the inspection
No. 50-423/85-29
Observation No. 1.4, relative to
non auditing of the Seismic II/I
hazards protection, was unchanged
and remained an open item.
This item has been referred to NRR
for resolution as an open licensing
issue.
It is closed for purposes
of this report.
2.
Mechanical Components
l
2.1
Mechanical
Closed
The mechanical qualification
Qualification
aspects (seismic and ASME III Code
of Equipment
conformance) of the equipment
qualification review plan were
unauditable.
The review plans were revised to
be more comprehensive and are now
acceptable.
2.2
E&DCR Review - Piping
Closed
The review of piping E&DCRs did
not verify that changes were ade-
quately reflected in appropriate
design documents.
The audit was expanded to address
this concern.
,
2.3
Implementation of
Closed
Several pipe support related
.
FSAR Commitments
licensing commitments referenced in
,
the FSAR were found to be absent
from the project implementation
document.
The reviewer had not
.
determined this from his review.
This indicated a need for a more
thorough review of the FSAR
commitments.
Review plan 1901 now thoroughly
examines the FSAR commitments.
-7-
... -
_.
_ _ _.
_
_
-.
_-
-. _
_-
-..
- - _ _ -
_
.
I
Item No.
Subject
Status
Original Comment / Resolution
- 2.4
Pipe Support
Closed
A pipe support calculation
Calculations
had been reviewed by the
EA audit team and was found
adequate.
However, the NRC
reviewer found the combination
of loads was not developed in
a conservative manner, and
that several attributes basic
to confirming the calculation
adequacy were not reviewed.
The EA audit team has now per-
formed a comprehensive review
of the pipe support calculat. ions
to satisfy the review checklist
requirements and found them
to be satisfactory.
Civil / Structural
l
3.1
Containment Liner
Closed
NRC reviewer indicated additional
review of EA audit team action
item S-010 and the project response
was needed.
This action item dealt
with calculations EA-11 and EA-15.
The EA audit team performed an
additional review and found the
'
two above calculations appropriate
for the containment liner design.
This removes NRC concern on this
matter.
'
,
b
-8-
._
-
_
...
.
--
- -. - - - - -
--.-.
-
-
..
.-.
.
.
Item No.
Subject
Status
Original Comments / Resolution
- 3.2
Structural Steel
Closed
It was not apparent that the
Connection Design
structural steel load tracking
program addressed structe al
steel connections and anchorage
loads.
The EA audit team reviewed the
steel connection design.
4.
Electric Power
4.1
Motor Data
Closed
The results of a review of
Specification 2362.200-164
were not correlated with the
data obtained from a walkdown
of the system.
The NRC
reviewer noted the valve data
sheet, electric motor and load
list, vendor drawings and one
line drawings have motor data
different from the nameplate
data.
An action item was prepared to
track this observation.
The
project has initiated a walk-
down procedure to verify motor
nameplate data.
"
4.2
Reduced Voltage
Closed
The EA reviewer noted a 70%
Starting of Motor
minimum starting voltage for
Operated Valves (MOV)
MOVs in the review of Specifi-
cation 2362.200-164.
However,
,
no further review was conducted
to determine whether the MOVs
supplied were in compliance
with this specification.
In
addition, the environmental
qualification test report
indicated that the lowest
voltage these MOVs were tested
to was 490 V ac. Action should
have been taken to ensure these
valves are qualified.
,
_9_
.
.
Item
Subject
Status
Original Comment / Resolution
4.2
Closed
for operation at reduced
voltage accident conditions.
Follow-up review was expanded
to include MOVs furnished by
other vendors to ensure that
the environmental qualifica-
tion of those MOVs and the
supporting documentation
demonstrated that the MOVs will
function as required under
reduced voltage conditions
consistent with the FSAR,
design commitments and
specifications.
4.3
Environmental
Closed
The equipment being reviewed for
Qualification
environmental qualification were
of Equipment
essentially in mild environment
areas.
It was recommended that
power cables and control cables
located in harsh environments be
evaluated.
The EQ review plan was revised to
include equipment in harsh environ-
ments.
5.
Instrumentation and
Controls
5.1
Calculations Selected
Closed
The controls discipline selected
for Review
one calculation for review and it
,
was found to be deficient in a number
of areas.
Consequently, it was
recommended that additional calcu-
lations be reviewed to determine if
there are generic problems in the
performance of controls discipline
calculations.
Audit Observat.an 161 was written
to track this observation.
Additional
calculations were reviewed.
Since
this item is being tracked by
A0 161, it is closed for purposes
of this report.
- 10 -
.-
.
.
-
_
-. -
.
.
Item No.
Subject
Status
Original Comment / Resolution
.
5.2
Barton Flow Instrument
Closed
The EA auditor found that 3RSS*FIS
Switch (FIS) Environ-
38A (control switch for the minimum
i
'
mental Qualification
flow recirculation valve) environ-
mental qualification documentation
was inadequate.
The required audit
forms were not completed and no
action item was generated on the
noted deficiency.
The project had previously issued
E&DCR T-C-05967 which will replace
'
the Barton FIS with a Rosemount
Model 1154 transmitter.
Rosemount
report D8400102 qualifies this model
to the requirements of IEEE 323 & 324
for use in Class 1E applications.
5.3
Use of Underrated
Closed
N&D 11,436 allows the use of under-
Terminal Blocks
rated terminal blocks (360V vs.
480t) for 3RSS*MOV 23C valve operator.
It is not clear that the EA team
should have accepted the conclusion
that the terminal blocks were
adequate for use without further
evaluation of the technical basis.
Adequate technical justification
was obtained by the EA audit team
for the use of underrated terminal
blocks.
The MOVs inside containment
have been modified to eliminate the
use of Marathon terminal blocks and
~
that Marathon terminal blocks have
been qualified for 460V motor leads
in non-LOCA and non-HELB areas.
5.5
Qualified Life of
Closed
The environmental qualification
Equipment Items
package for the pressure transmitter
3RSS*PT 25A (Rosemount Model 1153)
does not establish a qualified
life of the item.
The environ-
mental qualification reviewer did
not question the absence of this
information nor did he prepare an
action item questioning qualified
life.
The EA audit team review of the
environmental qualification
package for pressure transmitter
3RSS*PT 25A was subsequently found
acceptable.
- 11 -
--.
___
_ -
.
..
.
-
<
.
.
Mr. J. F. Opeka
-3-
.
cc:
Gerald Garfield, Esq.
Day, Berry & Howard
City Place
'
Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499
Mr. Maurice R. Scully, Executive Director
Connecticut Municipal Electric
Energy Corporation
268 Thomas Road
Groton, Connecticut 06340
Robert W. Bishop, Esq.
Corporate Secretary
Northeast Utilities
Post Office Box 270
Hartford, Connecticut 06141
Mr. T. Rebelowski
Senior Resident Inspector Office
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Millstone III
P.O. Box 615
-
'
Waterford, Connecticut 06385
Mr. Michael L. Jones, Manager
Project Management Department
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale
'
Electric Company
P.O. Box 426
-
Ludlow, Massachusetts 01056
r
WLu
Regional Administrator
U.S. NRC, Region I
631 Park Avenue
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Mr. Karl Abraham
Public Affairs Office
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Region I
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
l
- - -
_
-
_ - _.
..