ML20148T557
| ML20148T557 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1997 |
| From: | Schopfer D SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 9583-100, NUDOCS 9707090205 | |
| Download: ML20148T557 (6) | |
Text
_
4-'
-l. g-*
kk Ses genti&tLundy"c f
~
j Don K. Schopfer Vice President '
312-269-6078 July 3,1997 Project No. 9583-100 Document No. 56423 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 -
1%t Corrective Action Verification Program United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission t
' Attention: Document Control Desk Washmgton, D.C. 20555 I have enclosed the following three (3) discrepancy reports (DRs) identified during our Programmatic Review activities for the ICAVP. These DRs are being distributed in accordance with the Communications Protocol, PI-MP3-01.
DR No. DR-MP3-0001 i
DR No. DR-MP3-0002 DR No. DR-MP3-0005 Please direct any questions to me at (312) 269-6078.
Yours very truly, 2.
a)
L D.K.S pfer I
3 Vice President andICAVP Manager
' Copies:
j(
E. Imbro (1/1) Deputy Director, ICAVP Oversight T. Concannon (1/1) Nuclear Energy Advisory Council l
J. Fougere (1/1) NU lllllllllllllfll!ll 9707090205 970703 PDR ADOCK 05000423 P
PDR 080048 ss cast anroe stieet cnicaoo. it sosos-s7ao USA
- 312 269-2000 i
]
v Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR N2. DR-MP3 0001 Ministone unit 3 Discrepancy Report
- 8 Rivieworoup: Programmatic DR VAUD Review Element: Change Process Potential Operability leeue Discipline:Other C Yes Discrepancy Type: Design Control Procedure e Faxed to Nu:
- ystem/Procus:N/A Date Published:
Discrepancy: Consistency with Technical Specifications Descripdon:We have reviewed Millstone Station Procedure DC 1, Rev. 5 (effective 3/3/97), titled " Administration of Procedures and Forms". Based on this review, we have noted the following discrepancies.
- 1. This procedure is not consistent with Technical Specification 6.8.3.c.
This section of the technical specification requires, in the case of temporary, non-intent changes to procedures required by Technical Specification 6.8.1, that the change be appmved by the Staticn Clualified Reviever Program Manager or Nuclear Unit Director or Senio Vice President - Millstone Station within 14 days. Paragraph 1.6.3 a.4 of procedure DC 1 requires that non-intent procedure changes oe approved (including Independent Reviewand Safety Evaluation Screening) by the Department Head, Responsible Individual, PORC cc SORC within 14 days.
These requirements are inconsistent with the Technical Specification requirements.
- 2. Section 1.1 of procedure DC 1 has an obsolete quotation. This section quotes Section 6.8.1 of the Technical Specifications as requiring procedures for Security Plan and Emergency Plan implementation.
Amendment No.128 to the Technical Spedfications, dated 4/24/96, deleted these requirements. This is an editorial discrepancy since these types of procedures are required by other regulations and Millstone commitments, e.g.,10 CFR 50, Appendix E, and Regulatory Guide 1.33.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Sheppard. R. P.
O O
O e'i'/97 VT Lead: Ryan. Thomas J O
O O
6/13'97 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
erJo,97 IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O O
7/3/97 Date:
INVALID:
w.
Date:
EsoLUTION:
Review Accept Reject Naeded Date initutor: Sheppard, R. P.
O O
G VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J O
O O
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
IRC Chmn: Singh. Anand K O
O O
Date:
REJECTION:
Printed 7/JW971:53.53 PM Page 1 of 1
l l
i l
Northea:t Utilities ICAVP DR N A DR-MP3-0002 l
Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report
(
ReviewGroup: Programmatic DAVAUD Review Element: Change Process Potential oper.binty leeue Discipline: Mechanical Design C Yes
$ No Discrepancy Type: Design Control Procedure SystemIProcess:N/A l
Date Published l
Discrepancy:Use of Later Versions of ASME Section XI l
==
Description:==
We have reviewed Station Administrative Procedure WC-3, Revision 0, j
titled "ASME Section XI Repair and Replacement Program
- with Changes 1,2 and 3 effective February 3,1997 and Nuclear Group Procedure NGP 7.05, Revision 4, titled 'ASME Section XI Program for Repair, Replacement, and Modification Activities
- effective September 21,1994.
Based on these reviews we have noted the following discrepancies.
- 1. These procedures are ambiguous concerning the need to obtain prior NRC unit specific approval before using a later edition of ASME Section XI for a repair, replacement or modification. The edition and addenda of l
ASME Section XI required for repair, replacement and modification at each unit is defined in its inservice inspection (ISI) Program. The ISI Program we have for Unit 3 (has 5/12/96 stamp) shows the 1983 Edition of Section XI with the Summer of 1983 Addenda, except that Class 2 welds are examined per the Summer of 1985 Addenda.
l Section 1.1 of procedure WC-3 and paragraph 6.1.1 of procedure NGP l
7.05 state that subsequent editions and addenda (of Section XI) may be I
used provided they are accepted by the enforcement and regulatory authorities.
j l
10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(iv)is referenced in Unit 3's ISI Program. This regulation allows the use of subsequent editions and addenda of Section XI l
incorporated in 10 CFR 50.55a(b), subject to Commission approval on a unit specific basis. Thus, it is not sufficient that the later edition use be accepted on the basis of 10 CFR 50.55a(b) alone.
(Side Note: Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1050 issued February,1997 (draft Revision 12 to Regulatory Gu'de 1.147) endorses Case N-389-1 without exceptions. Therefore, when this revision is issued and when a l
commitment to this Case is incorporated into Unit 3's ISI Program, the necessity to obtain prior NRC approval of the use of later editions of Section XI for repair, replacements and modifications will be precluded.)
- 2. The note on Attachment 5 to WC-3 references Regulatory Guide 1.83.
This should be Regulatory Guide 1.85. This is a typographical error only.
j
- 3. The training requirements for Revision 0 to Procedure WC-3 and changes thereto are inconsistent. Changes 1 and 3 to Revision 0 of the I
procedure, which ace minor changes, state under training: " Familia ization required". Revision 0 to WC-3, the initial issue of the procedure, states:
"No familiarization requ' red".
Review Valid invalid Needed Date initiator: Sheppard, R. P.
G O
O ariss7 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J B
D 0
8/13S7 I
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K Page 1 of 2 6/3097 Printed 7GG71-55:50 PM l
i
1 I
Northeast Utiliths ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0002 l
Millstone unit 3 Discrepancy Report i
VT Mst: Schopfer, Don K O
=7 IRC Chmn: Singh Anand K yryg7
)
Date:
INVALID:
Date:
)
ESOLUTION:
Review Accept Reject Needed Date initiator: Sheppard, R. P.
O VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J y
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K D
IRC Chmn: Singh, Anand K
=
Date:
REJECTION:
L l
Prirted 7/3971.56:00 PM Page 2of 2 l
Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR ND. DR-MP3-0005 Mis: stone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report Review Group: Programmatic DR VA JD Review Element: Change Process Potential operability leeue Diecipline: Operations C Yes oiscr.pancy Type:O & M & T Procedure syenemiProcess:N/A Date Pubilohed:
Discrepancy:Intemal Pmcedure inconsistencies
==
Description:==
This discrepancy relates to Millstone General Operating Procedure OP 3265, Rev.5 (effective 9/20/93), titled "EOP Change and Revision Process" i
which controls Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) and other EOP supporting procedures. This procedure is self contradictory in some fundamental requirements regarding the reviews required for procedure changes.
- 1. The procedure is internally inconsistent regarding the need for engineering reviews and safety evaluations for setpoint changes.
Paragraph 2.2.13 of procedure OP 3265 states that an intent change is, "a modification which alters method, scope, or safety of a pmcedure. Setpoint changes are considered intent changes." Further, notes 2 to paragraphs 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 state that setpoint changes do not require an engineering review or an integrated safety evaluation.
Contrary to the above procedu'o requirements, Attachment 1 to OP 3265 flow chart shows that all intent changes require an engineering review and an integrated safety evaluation.
- 2. The procedure is ambiguous conceming the necessity to verify and i
validate intent changes. The notes to paragraphs 4.3 and 4.3.6 of OP 3265 state that the EOP Coordinator decides whether procedure verification or validation is required and whether it will be full or partist. Thus, intent changes to procedures can be made without verification or validation.
Contrary to the above procedural requirements, Attachment 1 to OP 3265 shows a procedure flowchart which indicates that all intent changes receive verification, validation, local validation, engineering review and integrated safety evaluation.
Review Valid invalid Needed Date Initiator: Sheppard, R. P.
O O
O eraos7 VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J O
O O
eraos7 VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
O O
eraos7 1Rc Chmn: Singh, Anand K O
O_
O 7/3S7 Date:
INVALID:
m Date:
ESoLUTioN:
Review Accept Reject Needed Date
(
Initiator: Sneppard, R. P, O
O O
VT Lead: Ryan, Thomas J O
O G
VT Mgr:__Schopfer Qon K Printed 7/3G71:58 45 PM Page 1 of 2
i Northeast Utilities ICAVP DR No. DR-MP3-0005 1
i MiHstone Unit 3 Discrepancy Report l
VT Mgr: Schopfer, Don K O
i IRC Chmn: Singh Anand K g
g Date:
REJECTION:
l l
l I
t 1
l i
4 I
l Printed 7/3/9715853 PM Page 2 of 2 I