ML20148M853
| ML20148M853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1997 |
| From: | Durr J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Kenyon D NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| References | |
| 50-245-95-34, 50-336-95-34, 50-423-95-34, NUDOCS 9706250262 | |
| Download: ML20148M853 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000245/1995034
Text
1
.,
.
June 16, 1997
Mr. Bruce D. Kenyon
President and Chief Executive Officer
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company
P. O. Box 128
Waterford, Connecticut 06385-0128
SUBJECT:
COMBINED INSPECTION 50-245/95-34; 50-336/95-34; 50-423/95-34
Dear Mr. Kenyon:
This letter refers to your March 4,1997 correspondence, which updates the March 1,1996
response to our October 20,1995 letter.
Thank you for informing us of your corrected response to our letter dated October 20,1995.
We cannot remove your previous response from the docket since your current letter does not
provide sufficient justification for doing so. However, your new response will be added to the
docket and will be considered as superseding your previous response.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
R. Urban for:
Jacque P. Durr, Chief
Special Projects Office
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Docket Nos. 50-245;50-336;50-423
cc:
N. S. Carns, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer
'Ol
M. H. Brothers, Vice President - Millstone, Unit 3
J. McElwain, Unit 1 Recovery Officer
7
M. Bowling, Jr., Unit 2 Recovery Officer
D. M. Goebel, Vice President, Nuclear Oversight
\\
J. K. Thayer, Recovery Officer, Nuclear Engineering and Support
P. D. Hinnenkamp, Director, Unit Operations
F. C. Rothen, Vice President, Work Services
J. Stankiewicz, Training Recovery Manager
R. Johannes, Director - Nuclear Training
MC FILE CEMB1 COPY
9706250262 970616
DR
ADOCK 05000245
-
..
_.
_
. .-
.
.
.
.
Mr. Bruce D. Kenyon
2
cc w/cy of Licensee's Response Letter:
L. M. Cuoco, Esquire
J. R. Egan, Esquire
V. Juliano, Waterford Library
J. Buckingham, Department of Public Utility Control
S. B. Comley, We The People
State of Connecticut SLO Designee
D. Katz, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN)
R. Bassilakis, CAN
J. M. Block, Attorney, CAN
S. P. Luxton, Citizens Regulatory Commission (CRC)
Representative T. Concannon
E. Woollacott, Co-Chairman, NEAC
-
_ . . . _
. _ . . . - _ _ _
_ . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . - _ _ . . - . - ~ . - . . - . _ _ . - _ -
-..--m.
-
- - _ . -
r
.
.
<
.
,
1
Mr. Bruce D. Kenyon
3
,
Distribution w/cv of Licensee's Response Letter:
~
Region i Docket Room (with coDv of concurrences)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
-
PUBLIC
-
(MLE CENTER [ NRR'(with' Oriainel ' concurrences)
$RC Resident Irdiieci6r
~
'
' ' ~ ~
.
M. Kalamon, SPO, RI
l
W. Lanning, Deputy Director of Inspections, SPO, RI
D. Screnci, PAO
!
W. Travers, Director, SPO, NRR
S. Reynolds, Technical Assistant, SPO, NRR
',
D. Screnci, PAO
l
Inspection Prograrn Branch (IPAS)
i
.
I
I
,
i
i
a
e
j
,
1
DOCUMENT NAME: 1:\\ BRANCH 6\\REPLYLTR\\MS9534. REP
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without
attachment / enclosure
"E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure
"N" = No copy
OFFICE
NRR/SPO
NRR/SPO
, 3 ./
NAME
Blumberg/meo
LDurr
T
DATE
5/14/97
f 6//4/y1
OFFICl%L RECORD COPY
.
. -
..
m ,
. _ _ _ - .
.
.
.
.
.n
.,.
'
.
,,,
1
Ned
" P' F"'Y "d (" " '56)' '"' ora. CT 06385
-
$ NuclearEnergy
m.ione Noacar power station
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company
P.O. Box 128
Yaterford. CT 06385-0128
(860) 447 1791
Fax (860) 444 4277
The Northeast Utilities System
March 4,1997
Docket No. 50-245
B15686
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Attention: Document Control Desk
Washington, DC 20555
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1
,
Revised Reply to Request for information
NRC Combined Inspection 50-245/95-34: 50-336/95-34: and 50-423/95-34
The purpose of this letter is to request the removal of a portion of Northeast Nuclear
Energy Company's (NNECO) letter of March 1,1996,N from the public document room
and to replace it with the attached version in our March 1,1996 letter, NNECO included
material in the attachment without provic'ing proper credit to the authors. In addition, this
j
letter updates and clarifies information contained in our March 1,1996 letter.
NRC Combined Ins ection Report 50-245/95-34; 50-336/95-34; and 50-423/95-34 dated
October 20, 1995,(p)discussed an inadvertent reactor vessel drain down event at
Millstone Unit No.1 and requested that NNECO respond as to what measures have been
taken to address effectiveness of Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) review
rnd approval of procedure changes. NNECO responded to the NRC's request via letter
dated March 1,1996.
The letter and attachment provided herein supersede our letter and Attachment 1 of
March 1,1996. This letter includes citations on the appropriate portions of Attachment 1,
and provides clarification to the description of the Millstone Unit No.1 PORC
N
F. R. Dacimo letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Reply to Request for
Information, NRC Combined inspection 50-245/95-34; 50-336/95-34; and
50-423/95-34," dated March 1,1996.
(2)
J. P. Durr letter to J. F. Opeka, "NRC Combined Inspection 50-423/95-34;
50-336/95-34; 50-423/95-34," dated October 20,1995.
4
0634224 REY.12 95
h
/
. ..
.
.,
'
,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
B15686W age 2
effectiveness assessment performed by the Nuclear Safety Assessment Board (NSAB)
currently through the Operations and Maintenance Sub-Commitee (O&MSC).
The
changes from the March 1,1996, letter consist of:
,
1.
A clarification is being made to indicate that the NSAB O&MSC charter provides
for assessing the effectiveness of the PORC process.
Originally the letter
indicated that each member of the NSAB O&MSC had been tasked with
'
evaluating the effectiveness of the PORC process. However, it is not practical to
!
have gLa.$ subcommittee member tasked with PORC effectiveness reviews at all
times. la addition, the letter has been clarified to indicate that the O&MSC does
not plan to review all PORC meeting minutes, but instead plans to review PORC
l
minutes selectively.
2.
The discussion of NSAB evaluations of PORC effectiveness is being clarified to
emphasize the use of the PORC Effectiveness Evaluation Fonns as a structured
means of assessing PORC effectiveness.
3.
NNECO implied that the Station Qualified Reviewer (SQR) program would be
functional by March 15, 1996, and would significantly reduce the volume of
material being reviewed by PORC.
This program was implemented at the
Millstone Station on March 3,1997, and therefore it has not yet produced the
desired results.
Finally as noted above, Attachment 1 is being revised to add a citation to the authors.
Therefore, NNECO requests that Attachment 1 of the March 1,1996 letter be withdrawn
from the Public Document Room. The only differences between Attachment 1 of the
March 1,1996, letter and Attachment 1 contained herein is the citation to the authors.
Therefore, withdrawal of Attachment 1 of the March 1,1996 letter would not change the
availability of iniormation to the public. We apologize for any inconvenience this request
may cause.
- -....-.-.....---..-..---~.--...-~.-.-....-...
- _.--.,
.
i.
I
.
- .+
.
,
!
. .
i
!
1
!
>
!
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
!
j
B15686\\Page 3
i
!
.
>
- .
!
j
There are no commitments contained with this letter. If you have any questions regarding
i
the information contained in this letter, please contact Mr. Robert W. Walpole at (860)
{
i
440-2191.
'
1
l
3
Very truly yours,
i
,
i
!
s
4
i
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY
j
)
4
i
l
hhn EMcElhain
j
Millstone Unit No.1 Recovery Officer
j
i
i
i
Attachment
l
i
}
cc:
H.J.
Miller, Region l Administrator
l
S.
Dembek, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No.1
!
j
T.A.
Eastick, Senior Resident inspector, Millstone Unit No.1
i
j
W.D. Travers, Dr., Director, Special Projects
1
l
1
1
i
I
l
.
i
!
}
,
,
h
1
.
i
4
1
. - .
. -
.
. . .
-.
_
.
-
. _ . ,_.
..
. .
_ . . _ ,
_ - .
-
- . .
- - - . - - . - . . . . . . . . - - . . . - . . . . - . . . . . . . . - . - . . - -
. -
. - - - , . . . . - . - .
. .
.
.
1
5
-
. . . ,
!
, . .
3
j
i
,
!
'
.i
!
,
.
..
Docket No. 50-245
!
,
B15686
i
1
?
E
1
n
i
.,
3
!
.
i
,
i
i
4
.
.
i
i
Il
i
!-
,
'
j
i
..
Attachment 1
'
i
$
i
j
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1
j
Reply to Requestfor Information
i
NRC Combined Inspection 50-245/95-34; 50-336/95-34; and
j;
50-423/95-34
,
1
l
PORC Effectiveness Evaluation
!
4
4
3
4
i
i
.
l
March 1997
_ -
_______________--
e
e
.
O
j
i
f
.
,
_
'O.R.
,
.-.
i
.
,
,sa
n o+mnnn
c
Ja
UL
LA V UAAU
O
,
[
jSValuatiOH
i
i
k
'
'
i
!
!
!
h""ent intyeed by:
Evaluator:
W.G. Noll Jr. (6/1/95) with input received
Date:
l
1
PORC No.:
j
fran Dr. W.R. Corcoran, President Nuclear
PORC Chairman:
l
Sarcty Review Concepts Corporation
.
4
.
.
_. ____._. _ __ _ .
. _
. _ _. _
,
,
.
~ ~
PORC Effectiveness Evaluation Process
-
.
t
..
The attached pages in this booklet provide the NSAB member a tool to evaluate the
-
i
effectiveness of the PORC process. The process is broken down into three specific areas:
,
-
.
PORC Meeting Observation
'
PORC Minute Review Observation
PORC Self Assessment Review
.
The most important and effective way to monitor PORC effectiveness is by actual
observation. The PORC Meeting Observation process contains the majority of the PORC
]
competencies and represents the main focus of the overall evaluation.
The PORC Minute Review Observation provides an evaluation of the PORC documentation
and a means to evaluate the thought process from an historical perspective.
1
"
The PORC Scif Assessment Review is an means to evaluate the how well the PORC looks
at itself and how effective PORC is in identifying and correcting problems and issues.
i
The evaluation assessments listed on each page of this document are intended to provide a
j
" qualitative" view of each PORC competency. The 0% to 100% scale should be viewed as
follows:
0%
100 %
(
_. . _ __
_ . _ . . _ _ . . .
l
- . . ... ..
' INFREQUENTLY
SOME OF
MOST OF
ALWAYS
j
THE TIME
THE TIME
.
,._.,-.-w
- , - - , . - -
a-
.--.e
-- -,
---~--.r-
-,-,,--e-
- -_, ,.
w.
..w,.-
- .- --
- -
-~e.
-
- - -
,
a
.m.
___
mm.__.-
e a da. ha
.,_wne
a,m.A.
d
a m W. b saadi.&Mm_a
_..Aas
a4
.as.a.mam
44at_he.wM-am 4k EmaE 4 w_.
- a Ja u ahsama_.4_m
&
4.-a.uama.m.a
d 4.a 4 mm
.A .A m
m 44._mm4
-
p - *
'
. .
.I ,e
.
,
,
!
i
.
,$
e
5
1
i
!
.
)
1
-
l
,!
t
!
b
M
M
I
!
"
O
i
O
- m
O
l
CD
l
>w
i
U
cn
!
S
I
l
OO
4
i
i
i
,
i
1
.
O
4
J
J
t
1'
e
'
,
..... ,
_.- -. -
_
_
.. _ . _ _ . _
- _ ...
-._._
___...._ _
__ _ . -
.
_
_
_ _ _ _ _ . . .
.
,
,
.
.
.
. .
,
PORC OBSERVATION FORM
The following PORC competency attributes are to be observed and evaluated by NSAB members during routine PORC visits.
i
Each item listed below should be graded on the sliding scale or marked as not observed. The results of the observation should
1
be reviewed with the PORC Chairman immediately following the PORC meeting if at all possible.
PORC Competency
Evaluation
Comments
0%
i00 %
PORC advises the Unit Director and
does not perform line management functions.
.
MS
PORC has adequate support for agenda
preparation, distribution of review items, etc.
,
Most review items are distributed in advance of
0%
100 %
,
the PORC meeting to allow adequate review.
!
'
PORC members review the PORC agenda
0%
100 %
items prior to the PORC meeting.
l
100 %
All attending members participate in the PORC
m;
meeting and no one member dominates
the meeting.
100 %
0%
PORC membership is appropriately represented.
--
-
.
~--
.
1
-
,
~
!
PORC OBSERVATION FORM
.
,
PORC Competency
Evaluation
Comments
.
,
PORC upholds high standards for safety evalua-
0%
100 %
tions, ACR's, Licensee Events Reports, and re-
sponses to notice of violations (NOV's).
PORC sees that discovered conditions at vari-
0%
100 %
ance with license requirements receive safety
evaluations or justification for continued opera-
tion.
!
PORC performs assessments of the integrated
0%
100 %
impact of all Operability Determinations and
Justification for continued operation (JCO's).
!
'
" Walk-in's" are only a small fraction of PORC
business.
0%
t
PORC does not engage in problem solving to
l
the extent that its independence is compromised.
t
When items are presented for PORC approval,
100 %
0"/.
and are technically deficient or contain quality
problems, the responsible line manager is
(
informed and PORC requires resolution of the
underlying casual factors.
_._
_
._
_
__
. . _ . . _ _ - - . . _ _ _ -. _ . _ ._ _ __.__
-
_ _ _ .____ _ .-
.__ _
.
.
,
'
'
PORC OBSERVATION FORM
.
,,
_
PORC Competency
Evaluation
Comments
.
PORC seviews Technical Specification clarifica-
0%
100 %
tions and verifies that they do not involve an
i
unreviewed technical specification and it's basis.
l
oa-
100 %
PORC is alert to casual factors, generic implicationt
,
and adverse trends.
-
i
,
PORC does not compromise its independence by
0%
100 %
[
routinely suggesting improvements or changes to
t
docsiments presented. Quality problems are
.
reported to the appropriate line management.
l
'
t
100 %
PORC is regularly briefed on lessons leamed from
0%
,
in-house and industry events and experience.
i
100 %
!
0%
PORC Chairmari has regular contact with NSAB.
l
\\
-
l
PORC is sensitive to precursors, i.e. problems
that are in the event sequences for more
100 %
l
"',"
serious problems such deaths, radiation re-
,
leases, and major equipment damage.
l
'
,
b
. .
.
.
.
.
.
- . -... - - - -
. ..
.
. . .
. - - - . . -
_
_
l
'
.
,
I
.
'
PORC OBSERVATION FORM
jl
l
PO.RC Competency
Evaluation
Comments
i
.
I
PORC can recognize an Unreviewed Safety
0%
100 %
l
3
Ouestion (USO) and can assess the basis for
8
conclusion of no USO.
PORC is supportive of measures to enhance
nuclear safety, industrial safety, fire preven-
tion, and ALARA.
.
4
PORC takes specific cognizance of adverse
100 %
?
O*,e*
trends by discussions by members and
.
t
briefings by assessment personnel repre-
'
senting the ISEG group, technical monitor-
ing (surveillance requirements, quality
control, and auditing groups.
Items requiring fuither action are identified
100 %
'
'
cs PORC commitments and a person is
designated as responsible for resolving and
reporting the resolutimi to PORC.
!
The Unit Director is briefed on matters
related to:
100 %
0",'.
Nuclear Safety
1
Enviromental Impact
Safe Operation of the Unit
Continued reliability of the Unit
i
i
t
.
- - -
!
- . . -
.
_ - - - - - - - - - . _ - - - . _ - . . _ - -
.-
.
.
PORC OBSERVATION FORM
[
'
d
PORC Competency
Evaluation
Comments
'
.
PORC reviews proposed procedure revisions
0%
100 %
and changes that affect nuclear safety or envi-
!'
'
ronmental matters.
t
PORC documents actions to be taken to pre-
0%
100 %
vent recurrence of Technical Specification
violations in the PORC meeting minutes.
!
i
PORC review and approval of PDCR's include
'
the following attributes:
100 %
-
0*/.
'
Selection of OA Category and impact on
safety related systems.
0%
100 %
Safety and Environmental evaluations.
i
Determination if an Unreviewed Safety
0%
100 %
'
Question (USO) exists.
s
Impact on Technical Specifications or
0%
100 %
other license or amendment conditions.
i
Test Plan to ensure affected plant
0%
100 %
i
systems will be adequately tested.
i
!
Training Plan to ensure affected plant
100 %
Oa/.
personnel will be adequately trained to
i
safely operate the affected system (s).
l
!
.
'
-
- -
-
-
- - -
-
-
-