ML20154H902
| ML20154H902 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2376, NUDOCS 8603100400 | |
| Download: ML20154H902 (22) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.... -. /d'4443 % r-f=Ls 9 q [: DATE ISSUED: Feb. 4, 1986 . 7,el i I CERTIFIED MIhUTES ) 3 ' l.3 l i[ q f k Q L _. e__. 7 DR 03 DM b s s MINUTES NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 MEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILLSTONE POINT UNITS 1 - 3 WATERFORD, CONNECTICUT Purnoag: The ACRS Subcommittee on Millstone Point Units 1 - 3 visited the Millstone Point Site on November 18-19, 1985, toured the Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 and its support facilities on November 18, and met on November 18 and 10 at the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) Training Center to review the NNECO application for conversion of the Provisional Operating License (POL) for Unit 1 to a Full-Term Operating License (FTOL). Notice of the meeting, published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, October 30, 1985, is reproduced and shown in Attachment A. The schedule for the meeting is Attachment B. Sign-in sheets of meeting attendees are contained in Attachment C. Attachment D contains a list of meeting handouts kept with the office copy of these minutes. There were no oral or written comments from members of the public. Mr. John Schiffgens was the assigned ACRS Staff member for the meeting. Attendees: ACRS EHECO Staff P. G. Shewmon, Subc. Chairman W. D. Romberg D. W. Moeller, Member M. S. Lederman D. A. Ward, Member M. P. Bain M. Bender, Consultant R. M. Kacich J. O. Schiffgens, Staff 'E. A. DeBarba R. Crandall NRC Staff J. P. Stetz J. J. Shea, NRR/ ORB 5 J. H. Bickel C. I. Grimes, NRR/SEPB P. A. Blasioli M. L. Boyle, NRR/SEPB J. F. Ely J. L. Kelly, NRR/ ORBS H. F. Haynes J. T. Shedlosky, RGN-I E. Wenzinger, RGN-I R. Hernan, NRR/TOSB R. G. Bachmann, ELD ( p - d>T ^ m D r.my"., 0: 8603100400 860204 UCI:;4L /hs. 00M1 ff a \\ PDR ACRS m -6 2376 PDR O ~~ \\ j
MILLSTONE UNITS 1-3 MEETING NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 Meetina Hiahliahts. Aargements. and Reauests: Monday, November 18, 1985 1. Opening Statement P. Shewmon Mr. Shewmon's brief introductory statement on the purpose of the meeting was followed by Mr. Kacich's introduction of those NNECO Staff members who would be making presentations at the meeting. 2.
== Introduction:== POL to FTOL Conversion J. Stetz Mr. Stetz made a presentation on the history of the unit and discussed briefly NNECO's philosophy and experience. He said that each of the Unit Superintendents report to a Station Superintendent who is responsible for all three Units. Also the Units are aligned alike, with departments of engineering, instrumentation and control, maintenance, and operations under each Unit Superintendent. a) Construction of Unit 1 began in May 1966, and commercial operation commenced in December 1971. The initial staff to operate Unit 1 consisted of ex-Navy nuclear operators and fossil station operators (i.e., from the licensee's CL&P and HELCO plants). As of October 31, 1985, Unit I has generated about 60.6 million MW of electricity, with a capacity factor of 67.5 percent, and an overall availability of 75 percent. Over the past three years, availability was much higher, more like 88 percent; from January 1 through September 30 of 1985, it was 95.6 percent. Mr. Stetz said that they have had various problems over the years, among them were sparger problems; they have made sparger replacements three times. Mr. Shewmon noted that there are at least six different models of spargers mentioned in the SERs, and asked if they had only changed half of them out for each model. Mr. Stetz said they had changed them all each time. Mr. Moeller asked what they target for the time interval between refuelings. Mr. Stetz said that it is now about 18 months. Mr. Moeller asked if they still replace about a third of the fuel each time. Mr. Stetz replied 'that that was correct; he said that there were 200
- bundles going in during the current outage.
Mr. Shewmon asked if they were still base-loading Unit 1. Mr. Stetz replied that they were, but that when Unit 3 comes on line they may be cycling Unit 1 just because it is easier to cycle a BWR than a PWR. 2
MILLSTONE UNITS 1-3 MEETING ' NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 O' With regard to their SALP reviews, Mr. Stetz pointed out - that throughout the history of Unit 1 they have had no Category 3s. Mr. Moeller wondered what is meant by " consistent" as it is used in the SALP reports referring to performance in a functional area. He noted that s performance was called " consistent" when in some cases it improved and in some cases it got worse in going from i one report period to another. Mr. Wenzinger said that in this context " consistent" refers to performance during the report period, i.e., the same at the end of the year (or 18 month period) as at the~beginning. Mr. Moeller also asked if the INPO evaluations are consistent with the SALP findings. Mr. Romberg said that the INPO and SALP evaluations are not really parallel, but that in a general sense. INPO finds that NNECO is doing a good job with Unit 1. Mr. Kacich said that they regularly send the summary of INPO evaluation reports to the NRC. In response to Mr. Noeller's request, Mr. Grimes agreed to send the ACRS copies of the INPO summaries for Millstone Unit 1. b) Mr. Stetz summarized the major modifications made to Unit 1 over the years. They have gone to 8x8 bundles of barrier type fuel, i.e., General Electric's latest design which includes a zirconium layer inside the fuel rod. One more fuel load will complete the change over. They have made modifications to their off-gas and rad-waste systems. Due to problems with catalyst migration in the initial air cycle off-gas system, in 1977 they converted to a stream dilution off-gas recombiner system. They also installed a larger evaporator in their rad-waste system. They recycle l about 99 percent of all their water. i l They have made numerous significant torus modifications. l They have removed baffles, modified downcomers and T quenchers, and added external supports to the torus. They have installed seismic anchors on various equipment (notably the isolation condenser) and pipes. They have upgraded a lot of instrumentation to l environmentally qualify equipment and have completed all needed reinforcement of masonry walls. 4 5"few outages ago they installed an ATWS system comprised of an alternate rod insertion system and additional recirculation pump trip circuitry. In response to Mr. Bender's question, Mr. Stetz said that 3
~ 4 MILLSTONE UNITS 1-3 MEETING . NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 ~~ they have a surveillance program and the trip system is . tested regularly. Many Appendix R modifications have been completed; e.g., fire detection instrumentation has been installed in the plant, hose stations have been modified, additional water suppression systema have been upgraded, fire doors and dampers have been upgraded to the latest fire ratings. Mr. Moeller asked about the range of the public alerting system. Mr. Kacich said that they alert with a system of 356 sirens (for Haddam Neck and Millstone) over an area with a radius of 10 miles. They originally had aluminum-brass tubes in their condenser. In September 1972 they had a chloride intrusion incident which required replacing a significant number of components in the reactor at that time. The original tubes were replaced with copper-nickel (70-30) tubes; they plan to replace this condenser with a titanium condenser in 1987. The new condenser will be a modular design. This is expected to significantly reduce radiation exposure; currently, when leaks occur, they have to down-power to about 60 percent to decrease radiation level.s enough to go in and try to find the leaking tubes. During their last outage, they installed a hydrogen monitor. They continue to have problems with instrument drift, but it is still accurate enough to distinguish a detonable environment from one that isn't. Mr. Stetz said that they had: two licensed reactor l operators (ROs), and a senicr control operator and a shift supervisor, both of whom are also senior reactor operators (SROs), on shift. The shift supervisor and the senior control operator have both been STA qualified (although the utility only requires that one of them be so qualified). The STAS do not have degrees. Mr. Romberg said that what they did was have them go through the Memphis State program. Some are going ahead to get a degree on their own, although the utility does not require it. They do not know what they will do in the future, since the NRC has prcblems with this approach. J. 3. Overvi.ew and History of Plant Operating Performance i Shedlosky Mr. Shedlosky, the NRC Re.91 dent Inspector, presented the overview and history in terms of the results of the NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) l l 4
MILLSTONE UNITS 1-3 MEETING NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 appraisals of Millstone Unit 1. Five SALP appraisals of Unit I ha've been made; the 1st appraisal period started on July 1, 1979 and the last ended on February 28, 1985. Overall the NRC has found that there has been a high degree of management attention and involvement directed at the safe operation of the Millstone Unit i reactor. Each SALP appraisal found areas where improvements were needed. Previous appraisals had identified areas such as the reliability of systems associated with the emergency gas turbine generator, maintenance of proper valve positions, and the station's security system that were in need of improvements. These have been acted on. The latest appraisal concluded that the licensee needs to strenghten certain activities associated with plant design changes. These include the need for better controls, assuring thorough testing of new modified systems, and increased management attention for assuring the quality required in solid radioactive ws.ste transportation. i Mr. Shedlosky reviewed the Millstone Unit 1 history of SALP appraisals for each of the nine Functional Areas (i.e., plant operations, radiological controls, maintenance, surveillance, fire protection / housekeeping, emergency preparedness, security and safeguards, refueling and outage management, and licensing activities) describing the indicators of weak and strong performance for each. Throughout the history of Unit 1 SALP appraisals there were no Category 3 ratings (i.e., ratings which indicate that both NRC and licensee attention should be increased - weaknesses are evident). s C. Grimes 4. Summary of Pending Actions Mr. Grimes reviewed the history of the POL concept and how the conversion process was incorporated into the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP). As a matter of coincidence, during the course of the SEP review, Millstone Unit 1 was also selected as one of five plants in the Interim Reliability Evaluation Program (IREP) (a TMI. Action Plan - industry initiative to develop plant-specific probabilistic analyses l I for the operating reactors) to get a perspective on plant safety in a probabilistic light and help make judgements on l the significance of the differences from current licensing l criteria. The NRC Staff concluded that the integrated assessment process used in SEP was more effective at identifying plant-specific improvements than the issue-by-issue process that I they had typically taken in the TMI Action Plan and l subsequent generic initiativas. Therefore, the Staff proposed to the Commission that they replace SEP with a new program, the Integrated Safety Assessment Program (ISAP). In 5 I
MILLSTONE UNITS 1-3 MEETING NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 the new program the Staff would look at the significant findings from SEP and all of the other pending regulatory requirements, generic issues, unresolved safety issues, and probabilistic insights in a collective review in order to make balanced backfitting judgments and to order corrective actions'for operating reactors in a more logical fashion. NNECO volunteered two of their plants (Millstone Unit 1 and Haddam Neck) because they felt that the integrated assessment process in SEP had been a useful and worthwhile exercise and they wanted to apply it to the rest of the requirements that were being imposed on their facilities. Mr. Shewmon asked if it would be unfair to characterize ISAP as a way for the Staff to identify and rank safety issues and for the utility to defend itself if they think an NRC finding and subsequent requirement is really trivial. Mr. Grimes j thought that was a fair generalization. Tuesday, November 19, 1985 5. Review of NUREG-0824, IPSAR Supplement 1 M. Boyle Mr. Grimes said that there are two parts to the conversion evaluation: a) One involves the SEP supplement, NUREG-0824, Supplement 1, which describes the status of SEP recommended i corrective actions; and b) The other involves the Conversion SER, NUREG-1143, which describes the statun of the Unresolved Safety Issues, the Generic Safety Issues and the TMI Action Plan requirements as they have been addressed for the facility, including the formal justifications for continued operation while these issues remain pending (submitted by the licensee at the Staff's request). ~ He said that when they describe the Integrated Safety Assessment Program (ISAP) they will try to explain how they I hope to achieve at least partial resolution for some of these things while they continue to be generic issues for the industry as a whole. Mr. Boyle began by pointing out that in SEP the Staff reviews 137 issues for each plant; for Millstone Unit 1, 86 of the 137 issues were directly applicable. Of the open issues that resulted from the review (i.e., those identified in NUREG,9824), 20 have been resolved (either through acceptable hardware modifications, Tech. Spec. or procedural changes, or completed evaluations), 11 issues have been carried over to ISAP (either the evaluation isn't finished yet, the licensee would like to take a look at some previously unconsidered aspect of the issue, or they would like to have it considered 6
HILLSTONE UNITS 1-3 MEETING
- Januma, NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 in the context of an integrated schedule), and 10 issues are being carried on outside the ISAP process (because they don't lend themselves to being incorporated into it).
In ISAP there are approximately 25 topics that are related in one way or another to USI, GSI, and TMI Action Plans, of these, 10 are USIs or GSIs that have been technically resolved by the Staff, but the resolutions have not been issued to all the plants yet; the Staff would like them tr< be addressed in ISAP. In this regard, Mr. Grimes mentioned that NUREG-0824 identifies for each of the 137 topics which ones were addressed in the integrated assessment and which ones were exempt because they were being handled under USI or GSI requirements. At that point they were excluded, but they were later brought back up for consideration to the extent that the Staff thought they had a potential resolution. 6. Review of ISAP M. Boyle Mr. Boyle began with a brief history of ISAP. In a letter dated December 28, 1983, Northeast Utilities initially requested to participate in ISAP. On April 5, 1984 the NRC Staff agreed, noting, however, that since the NRC hadn't yet formally approved the ISAP, things may change in the future. On November 15 of the same year the ISAP Policy Stat + ment was published in the Federal Register. In April 198F the Staff 4 and licensee began to outline the issues to be included in ISAP. Finally, on May 17, 1985, Northeast Ucilities submitted a formal request for ISAP and detailed the issues they wanted in the program. The objective of ISAP is to provide a stable environment to allow the licensee to evaluate all licensing issues, establish implementation schedules, provide a basis for updating the schedules, and provide a basis for future regulatory actions. The program involves a deterministic review of issues, followed by a probabilistic review, and a parallel review of operating experience. Mr. Moeller asked how many LERs they have a year on Unit 1. Mr. Romberg said that in 1984 they had 21 and that to date in 1985 they have had 13 (as an aside, he mentioned that Unit 2 had 12 last year and 11 to date this year). Mr. Moeller asked what they do after they have reported the LER event. Mr. Romberg said they do a follow-up root cause investigation. Often this investigation can't be concluded withip 30, but they stay at it until they get to the root Mr. Ward noted that these numbers of LERs per year cause. are about half the industry average; he asked the Staff how sure they were that the licensee was not under-reporting. Mr. Shedlosky said that he thought they were performing well in this area; in the past the Staff has felt the need to question only one or two events a year. 7 -+m----4-- y y- --e .-yw -i---t-
w-
+ - e y%, i. -g,
c...~....... i MILLSTONE UNITS 1-3 MEETING NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 e The licensee performs an integrated assessment of issues found in the deterministic, probabilistic safety analysis, and operating experience reviews and decides on corrective ' actions' based on a qualitative assessment of value/ impact analyses. The appropriateness of corrective actions is reviewed by the Staff, the licensee provides implementation schedules, and a license amendment containing implementation schedules and procedures to update schedules is issued. Mr. Grimes said that an integrated assessment team (consisting of the operating reactor's project manager, the integrated assessment project manager, a probability analyst, a human factors analyst, etc.) provided a broad overview, but that they go to people with special expertise to provide detailed insight on specific issues. Mr. Bender asked if what they mean by " integrate" is that they consider all corrective actions together as a package of backfits, rather than one at a time. Mr. Grimes said that was correct, and that that was a fundamental premise of ISAP. He said that in the SEP integrated assessment they developed corrective actions for the SEP topics, but were repeatedly criticized for excluding the TMI Action Plan items, the generic issues, and probabilistic insights. Mr. Boyle said that the product of ISAP would be the integrated schedule based on priorities established by the integrated assessment. Also a significant result expected from ISAP is improved plant documentation, so that future NRC requirements would have a better basis. J. Bickel 7. Probabilistic Safety Study Mr. Bickel began with a review of some of the unique features of Millstone Unit 1 having to do with the decay heat removal systems. One such feature is that the condenser is oversized, having a 105 percent capacity, hence it can take the entire heat load of the reactor if the turbine trips. Furthermore, they have the capacity to take the reactor to cold shutdown on the main condenser. Another feature is that should the main condenser become unavailable, e.g. due to a main steam isolation valve ~losure, they have an isolation condenser. The isolation ccondenser can match decay heat in a period of three to five minutes, which means it can reduce the temperature and start to de* pressurize within a fairly short period of time. Another mode of decay heat removal is to keep the feedwater system running, depressurize the vessel, and after a certain period of time enter into shutdown cooling. The two shutdown cooling trains match decay heat in about 10 minutes. One 8
l MILLSTONE UNITS 1-3 MEETING NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 shutdown cooling train alone matches decay heat in about two hours. This is a non-safety-related shutdown cooling system. Another mode of decay heat removal is to depressurize with relief valves to the torus, take the water from the torus, pass it'through heat exchangers (cooled by emergency service water), and reinject it using the LPCI pumps. With the two LPCI trains in service, you can match decay heat in about i i 1-1/2 to 2 hours. With only one LPCI train, it takes 14 to 20 hours to match decay heat. I .Another mode of decay heat removal is to use the non-regenerative heat exchangers in the reactor water clean up system which are cooled by the reactor building closed cooling system. Using these alone, it would take 17 to 19 hours to match decay heat. These were the systems looked at in the PRA evaluation of decay heat removal capabilities. 4 4 The PRA program was initiated by Northeast Utilities to improve their ability to safely manage their plants. Their objective is to develop and maintain living PRA models for all of their plants, to evaluate plant design changes and Technical Specification changes, and to evaluate the ISAP issues. They hope to use the program to a) identify significant safety issues, b) gain engineering insights on l safety issues, c) develop living model for future safety evaluations, and d) develop a framework for future external events modeling. Mr. Bickel described why they did not use the IREP model and a little about their reliability data base. They performed a level one PRA for Unit 1. They utilized a large event tree process, which they claim is very useful in studying and evaluating recovery actions and the effects of the operator on the accident sequences. Also, to focus on weak areas of systems, they used "large fault tree modeling" (i.e., down to e very detailed level). They rely very heavily on best estimate safety analyses. l There was a brief discussion of core melt contributors. Mr. Bickel pointed out that the key reason that loss of normal power decreased from 85 percent in the IREP study to 30 percent in the Northeast Utility study was due to the fact that IREP assumed an off-site power loss of once every 3 years, whereas they used 2 every 15 years (which is what they have experienced at Millstone Unit 1 - both due to I hurric' anes). i Mr. Bickel said that their safety goal was similar to the AIF j and NRC safety goal; they would like to achieve a total core melt frequency of less than 10 to the minus 4 per year at 50 i g ~.- --_.m__,_-..-
MILLSTONE UNITS 1-3 MEETING NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 percent confidence level. At present their analysis yields 8 times 10 to the minus 4 per year, with 64 percent of the calculated core melt frequency coming from long-term decay heat removal-related issues; i.e., the major contribution stems from chains of events where they lose the ability to cool the core in about the 4 hour time frame. The next major contributor was station blackout. While most people view this whole issue in terms of the reliability of the big emergency generator, they found that the biggest problem comes from coupling of the gas turbine and the service water system. 8. Some general Items of Interest P. Blasioli and H. Haynes a) Integrated Emergency Response Capabilities In December of 1982 the NRC issued Supplement 1 to NUREG 0737 providing criteria for the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS), Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP), Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR), Emergency Response Facilities (ERF), and Regulatory Guide 1.97. NNECO responded on April 15, 1983 with a fairly unique integration scheme. They proposed to not only integrate the five issues in Supplement 1, but also to integrate their efforts in this area over all four plants, i.e., to come up with a schedule that would allow them to use the same in-house resources to do all four projects (including Millstone Unit 3 which was under construction). With regard to their SPDS, they are required to submit a safety analysis report by April of 1987 and at the same time affirm the date for completion of SPDS and the training of operators in the use of the SPDS. They have chosen to integrate the SPDS into the plant process computer, rather than go to a stand alone SPDS. Since they already had programs in place to initiate replacement of the computers at the three operating plants, these schedules dictated the schedule for the SPDS. The SPDS, which is not safety grade, not class 1-E, and not seismically qualified, will be supplied by I GE, will be designed to have greater than 99 percent I availability, and will be consistent with the EOPs. The SPDS will also be in the Technical Support Center (TSC), as well as the control room. A Procedures Generation Package was provided to the NRC for Millstone Unit 1 in May 1983, and the corresponding EDPs were implemented in June. The EOPs are symptom-oriented and based on the " owners' group" efforts and their emergency procedure guidelines. Mr. Moeller asked if all the operators were up to speed on the EOPs by June 1983. Mr. Blasioli replied that by then the 10
MILLSTONE UNITS 1-3 MEETING NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 training of operators (in the class room and on a GE - simulator) had been completed, and the EOPs had been verified (to make sure they were technically correct) and validated (to make sure they could in fact be implemented). They have agreed to supply the NRC with a DCRDR program plan by March 1987 which will include a schedule for a summary report. They supplied the NRC with their Regulatory Guide 1.97 Report in February 1984. Essentially all items except those that are in ISAP are completed. The ERF are essentially completed. Only some additional data acquisition systems remain to be installed and evaluated. b) Emergency Preparedness Program Mr. Blasioli said that a post-TMI plan that met NUREG-0654 was implemented in July 1981. The plan is an overall station plan; it is the same for all three Millstone Units. In 1982 the NRC did a two week appraisal checking the procedures, plans, training, equipment, facilities, etc. and issued a report. -All NRC concerns have been resolved. A prompt alerting and notification system was implemented in May of 1982 that consisted primarily of about 150 sirens. The NRC approved their overall plan in May of 1983. As is the case for most utilities, they have approximately a 10 mile plume exposure pathway. Likewise, they have a 50 mile ingestion exposure pathway. They activate both a Station Emergency Organization (SEO) and an off-site Corporate Emergency Organization (CEO) as well as the state and local communities at the alert level, not just the TSC and the control room. The on-shift staff is augmented by about 44 on-call individuals within 60 minutes. The Shift Supervisor (SS) is the director of the SEO until he is relieved by the on-call director; the SS then fulfills the position of manager of control room operations. The SS stays in the control room at all times. The control room is the facility at which the emergency response is hardled for the first 60 minutes of any accident. The Operational Support Center, about 75 feet from the Unit 1 and Unit 2 control rooms, is where all the overflow people gather to support the control room. The Technical Support Center holds about 15 people, is 11
MILLSTONE UNITS 1-3 MEETING NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 4 tied into the emergency power, and has its own HVAC system. The Emergency Operations Facility has protection factors of 500 for noble gases, and 130 for iodine 131; it has two foot thich concrete walls and ceilings, its own HVAC system, charcoal absorbers, an emergency diesel, and airtight doors that can be closed manually. Mr. Shewmon asked what channels of communication would be open with the NRC in an emergency. Mr. Shedlosky said that there are two basic circuits: The Emergency Notification System (ENS) is a dedicated four-wire circuit with no switching, when the receiver is picked up'it will ring at the the NRC operations center in Bethesda. The health physics network is a dial telephone system; dialing two digits you can get the duty officer in Washington or other reactor facilities or Region I. c) Operator Training and Requalification Mr. Haynes said that operator training consists essentially of four basic programs: 1. nonlicensed operator program; 11. reactor operator initial training program; iii. senior reactor operator initial training program; iv. continuing or requalification training program. Most individuals entering the nonlicensed operator trair.ing program are ex-Navy nuclear operators. The program consists of classroom training on the NNECO organization, health physics, QE, and QA, as well as on-the-job training with heavy involvement in operations. The reactor operator initial training program is ossentially a 44 week program consisting of classroom training, on-the-job training, and simulator training, Mr. Haynes anticipates that the program will increase in length some when they start using their unit specific simulator. The senior reactor operator initial training program is 20 weeks long and consists of classroom training, on shift training, and simulator training. i I With regard to requalification training, NNECO recently issued a policy statement stipulating that 12 weeks per year or per requalification cycle be applied to licensed operator training, with no less than five weeks in any given year for operator training in the licensed area. l Mr. Ward asked if they had recently been given NRC requalification examinations, and if so what did they think of them. Mr. Haynes said that operators at i t 12 I L
1 MILLSTONE UNITS 1-3 MEETING NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 Millstone Unit 2 had recently been examined by the NRC and they didn't think the sections given by the NRC were significantly more difficult than the ones NNECO provide ~d; the scores were similar, d) Plant Maintenance Programs Mr. Stetz said that the key to a good program is well trained people, hence, they try to make sure that maintenance mechanics and technicians know their jobs. Secondly, they stress the importance of management in determining how to best utilize resources. For example, they have moved over 50 percent of the work that they used to do during outage periods to non-outage periods to decrease the outage times. Future Meetings: The ACRS is scheduled to discuss the POL to FTOL conversion for Millstone Unit i during the 308th ACRS meeting, December 5-7, 1986. hUTE: Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NN., Washington, D. C., or can be purchased from ACE-Federal Reporters, 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D. C.10001, (202) 347-3700. 13
ATTAOIMENT A 45182 Federal Regist:r / Vol. 50. No. 210 / Wsdnesd y. October 30, 1985 / N:tices intervene, and hase the opportunity to ' Register notice. A copy of the petititon Chairman; written statements will be participate fully in the conduct of the should also be sent to the Executive accepted and made available to the hearing. including the opportunity to legal Director. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee. Recordings wiu be permitted present evidence and cross-examine Commission. Washington. DC 20535 only during those pordons of the witnesses. and Romas Dignan. Esquire. Ropes and meeting when a transcript la being kept. ( If a hearing is requested, the Gray. 225 Franklin Street. Boston, and questions may be asked only by Commission will make a final Massachusetta 02110. attorney for the members of the Subcommittee. ita determins tion on the issue of no licensee. consultants, and Staff. Persona desiring significant hazards consideration. %e - Nontimely filings on petitions for to make oral statements should notify final determination will serve to decide leave to intervene, amended petitions, the ACRS staff member named below as when the hearing is held.. supplemental petitions and/or requests far in advance as is precucable so that if the final determination is that the for hearing will not be entertained appropriate arrangements can be made. amendment request involves no significant hazarda consideration, the absent a determination by the During the initial portion of the Commission may issue the amendment Commission, the presiding officer or the meeting. the Subcommittees, along with. presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing and make it effective, notwithstanding Board, that the petition and/or request any ofits consultants who may be j the request for a hearing. Any hearing should be granted based upon a views regarding matters to be present, may exchange preliminary g held would take place after issuance of balancing of factors specified in 10 CFR considered during the balance of the j the amendment. j If the final determinati,on is that the 2,714(a)(1)(iHv) and 2.714(d)- meeting. For further details with respect to this y amendment involves a significant action, see the application for ne Subcommittees will then hear hazards consideration any hearing held would take place before the issuance of amendment which is available for public presentations by and hold discussions any amendment. inspec;1on at the Commission's Public with representatives of the NRC Staff, Normally, the Commission will not Document Room.1717 H Street NW., its consultants, and other interested lasue the amendment until the Washington, DC, and at the Greenfield persons regarding this review. [ expiration of the 30-day notice period. Community Co!!ege.1 College Drive. Further informa tion regarding topics I be discussed, whether the meeting However. should circumstances change Greenfield. Massachusetts 013qt. 4 has been cancelled or rescheduled, the . during the notice period such that failure Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this Chairman's ruling on requests for the to act in a timely way would result in 25th day of October 1985. opportunity to present oral statementa derating or shutdown of the facility, the For the Nuclear Regulatory and the time allotted therefor can be k Commission may issue the license Commission. obtained by a prepaid telephone call to amendment before the expiration of the John A.Zwotinski. the cognizant ACRS staff member. Dr. 3 30-day notice period, provided that its Chic / OpemtingReactors Bmoch Na & Richard Savio (telephone 202/634-3267) { final determination is that the D/ vision o/ Licensing between 815 a.m. and $100 p.m. Persona { amendment involves no significant im Doc. 65-25906 Filed 10-2945,8 e5 am] planning io attend this meeting are i hazards consideration.The final sai o caos rea m.as urged to contact the above named- -{ determination will consider a!! public individual one or two days before the and State comments received. Should f the Commission take this action,it will Advlsory Committee on Reactor changes in schedule, etc., which may scheduled meeting to be advised of any 1 publish a notice ofissuance and provide Safeguarda Combined Subcommitteee have occurred. for opportunity for a hearing after on Reliability and Probabilistic Date: October 23.1985. 3 i Issuance. The Commission expects that Assessment and Safety Philosophy, I the need to take this action will occur Technology, and Criteria; Meeting Morton W. uberkin. "'I I"I*W'"d ' j,,j,,,,,g,,,,,j,,gj,,,,,,f,,p,,j,,, Y The ACRS Subcommittees on Aerie'"- for le eo te ne be e th Reliability and Probabilistic Assessment [G Doc. 85-25901 Filed 10-29-85; 8 45 am) 1 the Secretary of the Commission. U.S. and Safety Philosophy. Technology, and asuwe come reem-as ' 'i Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Criteria will hold a combmed meeting Washington DC 20555. Att: Docketing {o eh6 985 oo 107,1717 H l and Service Branch, or may be delivered Advisory Committee on Reactor to the Commission a Public Document %e entir'e meeting wiU be open to safeguards Subcommittee on Public attendance'he subject meeting Room.1717 H Street. NW., Washington. M'llstone Nuclear Power Station Units The agenda for t 1,2 and 3; Meeting DC. by the above date. Where petitiona 8-are fued during the last ten (10) days of shaU be as foHows: the notice period, it is requested that the Wednesday. November A 1985-12 He ACRS Subcommittee on Millstone petitioner prornptly so inform the P.m. untilthe conclusion of Nuclear Power Station Unita 1. 2 and 3 T Commission by a toll-free telaphone caH business. w 11 hold a meeting on November la and .\\ to % estern Union at (800) 325-e000 (In The Subcommittees will: (1) Continue Energy Company's Training Centeri 19.1985, at the Northeast Nuclear + Missouri (800) 342-4700). The Western to review of the two-year trial use of the Waterford. CN. Union operator should be given Proposed Safety Coal Po!!cy. (2) be
- J Datagram identification Number 3737 briefed on the status of the NRC Staff's The entire meeting will be open to and the fouowing messagg addressed to work on USI A-17. " System Interactions public attendance.,
John A. Zwolinski, Chiel. Opera ting in Nuclear Power Plants." and (3) review ne agenda for the subject meeting ' Reactors Branch No. 5, Division of the status of the onguing NRC StaII shau be as follows-i Licensing: Petitioner's name and i work on steam generator overfiU. telephone number, date petition was Oral statements may be presented bly Mondoy, November 78, 2965-imp.m. untilthe conclusion ofbusiness mailed plant name: and publication members of the public with the 71iesday. November 19. Isd5---a30 a.m. date and page number of this Federal concurrence of the Subcommittee untilthe conclusion ofbusiness 1 ( ..y
( L :.mgc.3 7,;... ..." ^ 5 m i t m. q., Fedsral Registzr / Vol. 50. No. 210 / Wedneehy, October 30. ses6 f Notfoed W 4 8143 The Subcommittee will review the ne en' tire meeting will be open to. i; OmCE Op anamanessansserAgg) hh Nuclear Energy Company for conversion The agenda for the subjes.t snecting. DUDGET. %.o W: Mn appl: cation of the Northeast Nuclear public attendance... .> e. 9 ! d.:"I;m W :.r u, of the ProvisionalO;erating License shall be as follows: -.. p.. ;.. feroposed Revisions Cepenter A-110 r (POL) for Millstone Unit 1 to a Full Term hesday November 5. ms!.-ah.nr. asesecv.FinancialManageussest. I @-' ~ '; ' G'
- MM.W' P
Operating Ucense (FTOI.). until& mclusin @h. Division.OfDee of Managementand w Oral statements may be presented by ne Subcommittee will:[1] Revie" Budget. Jtp. an :s. L.ar- ~ members of the public with the concurrence of the Subcommittee Arizona Nuclear Power's t tst program a..-e ir +h! Chairman: written statements will be experience on Unit 1. and ( 2) discuss f!!e acT1oet Proposed Ravtalon h,Qiroslar accepted and made available to the issue of rapid depressuriza tion for CE A-110. s : 1.. 3 i.: p """a=vinis n. tice offerEinierested Committee. Recordings will be permitted reactors without PORVs g'ven recent o only during those portions of the operating experience with the auxillary. Parties an opportunity to comment on a meeting when a transcript is being kept, pressurizer spray system a t Palo Verde Proposed rec.on to OMB Circular A-and questions may be asked only by Unit 1. 110Nodquirements fx Crants members of the Subcommittee.its Oral statements may be presented by "" ^8 " i consultants, and Staff. Persons desirin8 members of the public with the t 8 m re ulie e to r av ca prac ic bl o at accepted and made availaple to the Federal funds in accounts that pay ~
- appropriate arrangements can be made.
"- eCM e intn u t.. During the initial portion of the nly during those portions of the meeting, the Subcommittee. along with treeting when a transcript is bems kept' Palmer A.Marcantonio. Financial any ofits consultants who may be present, may exchange preliminary ," ]l* {g Management Division (202) 3e5,1993 a g c I W October m ises. ' ' + ' views regarding matters to be consultants, and Staff. Per sons desiring considered dunns the balance of the to make oral statements should notify JohnJ.Imdan. the ACRS staff member named below as Drputy Associate Duwcsorjbrfneancsol The Subcommittee will then hear far in advance as is practicable so that Manageanc presentations by and hold discussiens appropriate arrangements can be made. ObofW --M Wt with representatives of the Northeast During the initial portion of the Circular A-na " Uniform Requirements Nuclear Energy Company. NRC Staff. meeting, the Subcommitte r, along with their consultants, and other interested persons regarding this review, any ofits consultants whc may be fo'r Cinnts andAgreements with.. Institutions of#2sherEducation. j.. Further information regarding topics present, may exchange pn:liminary H08P tals, and OtherNoiqprofit i m to be discussed. whether the meeting views regarding matters to be has been cance!!ed or rescheduled, the considered during'he ba!:nce of the Ogo a tions Chairman's ruling on requests for meeting. aseecv: Office of Managessent and opportunity to present oral statements he Subcommittee will then hear Budget. s ~ and the time allotted therefor can be presentations by and hold ' ussions acnoec Pro sed reyis!on to tbe grant obtained by a prepaid telephone call to with representatives of the C Staff, Pamnt po icin of Circular A-110 the cognizant ACRS staff member. Mr. Its consultants, and o.ther interested
- Uniform Requirements for Grants and John Schiffgens (telephone 202/634-Persons regargnggis review.
Agreementa with Institutions of Higher 1414) between 8-15 a.m. and 5.00 p m. Further information regarding topics Educa".2on. Hospitals, and Other Persons planning to attend this meeting t be discussed, whether the meeting Nonprofit Organizations." are urged to contact the above named has been cancelled or rescheduled, the individual one or two days before the Chairman s ruling on requents for the suest4ARY:Ria notjCe offers interested scheduled meeting to be advised of any opportunity to present oral statements parties an opportunity to comment on a changes in schedule, etc., which may and the time allotted therefor can be proposed revision to OMB Circular A-have occurred. obtained by a prepaid telephore call to sto. Uniform Requirements for Gr' ants Date: October 25.1985' the cognizant ACRS staff rr ember.Mr. and Agreements withlastitutions of Paul Boehnert or Mr. Dean Houston Higher Education. Hospitals, and Other Morton W. Ubarkin. (telephone 202/634-3287) between 8.15 Nonprofit Organizations." ne revision Assistant Leeutive Directorfor Project a.m. and 5 00 p.m. Persons planning to would require these recipients to hold Review. attend this meeting are urge :! to contact Federal funds in accounts that pay (Ht Doc. 8W5eo0 Fded 10-29-85. e 45 am) the above nerned individua' one or two interest. 3 anime coot nes ew days before the scheduled t*.eeting to be De revision is based'on a' " advised of any changes in schedule, etc., recommendataan by the Inspector which may have occurred. General (IC). Department of Health and Advisory Committee on Reactor Human Services.The IG made an audit Safeguards Subcommittee on Paid Date: October 25.1965. enn na aWeentage d
- ' grantees were using interest bearing Verde /CE Reactors, MeetJng Morton W. tiherkin.
Assistant hecuttre Directorfor Project accounts for deposits of Federal funds.' ne ACRS Subcommittee on Palo Re IG reviewed about 4.000 nonprofit A'"'"- Verde /CE Reactors will hold a meeting [FR Doc. 85-25ae9 Fded 1&29-35. E45 am) Erantees of the Office of Human on November 5,1985. Room 1046,1717 H Development Services and the Public Street. NW, Washington. DC. amtse coon reso.ew
- y,, w p.
e
A'ITAONENT B w
- s November 9, 1985 REVISION 3
s PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 MEETING OF THE MILLSTONE POINT UNITS 1-3 SUBCOMMITTEE WITH TOUR OF MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 AND SUPPORT BUILDINGS November 10, 1905 12: OOam LUNCH 60 min 1:OOpm Tour of Millstone Nuclear Power Station (Pr i mari l y, Unit 1) NU 180 a) Facility Description b) Facility Tour (CLOSED TO PUBLIC) 4:00 Opening Statement 5 4:05 Introducti on - POL to FTOL Conversion NU B5 a) Operating Philosophy and E::per i ence b) Major Unit 1 Modifications Since Issuance of the POL c) Response tot i. Major Regulatory Changes 11. TMI Action Plan Items 5:30 Overview and History of Plant Operating Performance, POL to Present - Emphasis i On Post-TMI Performance (e.g., Review of SALP Reports) NRC 60 i i l 6:30 ADJOURN i November 19, 1985 8:30am Summary of Pending Actions Related to t l the SEP, USI, GSI, and TMI Action l Plan Items NRC 15 i B 45 Review Supplement 1 to IPSAR (NUREG-l 0804) NRC n'; a) IPSAR Summary and Conclusions 1 9 1
MEETING AND TOUR tlILLSTONE - 1 N:vembcr 9, 1985 NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 REVIDION 3 8 3 b) IPSAR Supplement 1 - Results of Ongoing Evaluations .i. Hardware Modifications 11. Procedure Changes 111. Technical Specification Changes 'i v. Continuing Evaluations s 9:35am BREAK 15 min 9:50 Review of ISAP NRC 60 a) Describe Program and Objectives b) Di scuss Changes Being Implemented Now or to be Implemented Before Completion of ISAP i. Plant Modifications 11. Procedure Changes c) Di scuss items not likely to be Enhanced by an Integrated Assess-ment i. Well Defined and " Isolable" ~ Plant Modifications ii. Ongoing Engineering Studies d) Discuss Improvement Projects to be Evaluated in ISAP i. Current and Potential Licens-ing Actions and Plant Activities ii. NNECO/CYAPCO Initiatives e) Discuss the "Living (Integrated) Schedule" 10:50 Summary and Results of Probabilistic Saf et y Study NU 25 11:15 Summary of Public Safety Impact Model arJ Project Analyses NU 45 is Control Room Habitability b) Ventilation System Modifications c) Radiation Protection Plans d) Control Room Design Review e) Safety Parameter Display System f) Bolting Degradation or Failure g) Reactor Vessel Surveillance Program 12:00 LUNCH 60 1 OOpm Some General Items of Interest NU 50 a) Integrated Emergency Response Capabilities 20
,,) MEETING AND TOUR MILLSTONE - 1 Novcebcr 9, 1995 NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 REVISION 3 0 1. Saf ety Parameter Display System 11. Emergency Operating Proced-ure ,iii. Reactor Operator Training iv. Operator Requalificatio,n s Program b) Plant Maintenante Programs c) Emergency Preparedness Program 1:50 Some NUREG-1143 Items of Interest NRC 60 a) Operating Problems b) Acci dent Anal ysi s c) RHR Requirements d) Results of IGSCC Inspections, and Inspection Plans a) Gtaff Conclusions 0:50 Clocing Remarks 10 3:00 ADJOURN e 11 m
jffeso /9 /f95 A'ITAGEVT C ACPS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON MILLSTONE 8 ~ LOCATION WATERFORD, CONN. DATE ~ NOV. 18-19,1985 ATTENDANCE LIST \\ PLEASE PRINT:NAME AFFILIATION L, I (I - Ae)4 L L 0,0,. --- wC aLf ~i On ta ~ Miw 5~ L< %,1~d n.1 v),. ) r.. (, at.G n I( 5/.'.d o S-/,,// i n 5,/ " LT 7 e /- /y/c L. f', v 2.>;cr! e-ren C.I. (ci n 6s unclean.
- m. L. Lac u s c i e n r2.
J.J. Sh ets OttC{tJf:L 3,.- .:L Omalbmu oAd/NRR/ PPM E d & n w m e r S r. M dc ' %5., / h n. i kr./ NJ V t y v bo /; [Mo'ilc % L ~> :.,,) 5,f ~ s M.+4 Lewer n tdo r% od U s (.4 iec M:k.c Ra :s No. %1 + K+k% 1 [d i Acc.s V-4 c. 4 hei% ast R+i l d- ; er emA.hmA A%,1 m:w R~ r%nm b,..-,- t>,,. -
Nec is 198T / ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON MILLSTONE LOCATION WATERFORD. CONN. DATE NOV. 18-19.1985 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:NAME AFFILIATION hy,w, { f, ,k@kf wtu s g, D W. 7% (L dus K t' ~ H P.L /w A u c <Lif -f9, 4 G.i. ,Au < MJ ~ w, li ! -{ ~J_ s .,l'A ) }l ci t.h 1 x ,A.h.,Oc/Dktk,/,/?n'S ' In * (, cu. 's a 5 d i.,,, ;. -r k! /.f, I h,,- /dli/ hM&J) bA2HNA,V L*' IA$6
feb /E> / f&S .) ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON MILLSTONE LOCA. TION WATERFORD CONti. DATE NOV. 18-19,1985 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:NAME AFFILI ATION Jo44 Srcrt A/ # c c e idavb b. U4civk Noeh o d M' ! sY Id f fi]icke t l?. L%k /LLrLe U+;/uws MiWJ1 S. LeJerman nor L sb Uuli A s u)s, o A. s., naa su o~. u I la de 9d J T/~ 1 L A cic.g Nicc C Mvea MJee f)eerdaJ Amn ;<.i AL%d ] / / O
ATTACFBEVr D LIST OF HAND 0UTS s FOR MILLSTONE POINT UNITS 1 - 3 MEETING, NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 1. ACRS Meeting on Full-Term Operating License (slides) 2. NRR Staff Presentation to the ACRS,
Subject:
An overview of the Millstone Unit 1 plant operating performance through the NRC systematic assessment of licensee performance (SALP) John T. Shediosky, dated November 18, 1985 3. NRR Staff Presentation.
Subject:
Millstone Unit 1 - SEP and ISAP Presentation - Michael L. Boyle, dated November 18-19, 1985 4 ACRS Meeting on Full-Term Operating License (slides) 5. 1985 Inspection Results 6. Memo to E. J. Mroczka from R. J. Addy,
Subject:
Nuclear Unit Performance - Jan. 1 - Sept. 30, 1985 7. RPV Level Control Emergency Procedure 8. Memo to W. G. Counsil NE Nuclear Energy Co. from Eben L. Conner, PM Operating Reactor Branch #3 dated May 281, 1982 9. ' Amendment No. 106, Connecticut Light and Power Co., Western Mass. Electric Co. and NE Nuclear Energy Co., Millstone Nuclear Power Station #1
- 10. NRR Staff Presentation,
Subject:
Conversion of the provisional operating license to a full-term operating license dated November 19, 1985 .}}