ML20203G231
| ML20203G231 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1992 |
| From: | Jaffe D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203G108 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-97-469 NUDOCS 9803020240 | |
| Download: ML20203G231 (5) | |
Text
.. _. _
PRE-DECISIONAL INFORMATION 4
. pa tsog UNITED STATES Lj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,
WASHINoTON, D.C. 20e06 July 16, 1992 Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-336 and 50-423 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Stolz, Director Project Directorate 1-4 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/II FROM:
D.H.Jaffe,SeniorProjectManager Project Directorate 1-4 Division of Reactor Projects - I/11
SUBJECT:
OUTLINE FOR MAP SAFETY EVALUATION MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 During the last MAP meeting, we were asked to develop an outline for the final MAP Safety Evaluation (SE).
We reviewed our experience with previous Assessment Panels in developing the proposed outline and generally concluded that their documentation format was not useful for MAP. The enclosed SE outline is provided herein for comment by the MAP.
% 1 L
q (
D.H.b
,Sh./ioProjectManager Project Directorate 1-4 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
W. Raymond, RI l
J. Wiggins, RI C. Anderson, RI J. Joyner, RI L. Doerflein, RI R. Barkley, RI J. Calvo, ADR1 0 900226 g30 0'MEALI97-469 PDR PRE-DECISIONAL INFORMATION
g a
TABLE Of CONTENTS Executive Sumary 1.0 Background and Purpose of Millstone Assessment Panel (MAP) 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Northeast Utilities (NU) Performance Enhancement Program (PEP) l 1.3 MAP I
2.0 PEP Evaluation 2.1 Root Cause Assessu nt 2.2 Scope of Activities 2.3 Verification / Validation 3.0 Sumary and Conclusions 4.0 References Appendix A Chronology Appendix B MAP Charter Appendix C PEP Topic List Appendix l-N Supporting Documents (Inspection Reports, etc.)
_=
_ = _ =._
==
_=
=
. PRE-DECISIONAL INFORMATION
- ~ _ -.
--.- -.~-
PRE-DECISIONAL INFORMATION p Ci*p
- f*
o
{
y e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- [1 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 o%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION MILLSTONE ASSESSMENT PANEL NORTHEASTNUCLEAREN(RGYCOMPANY MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONuUNITS 1. 2 AND_1 DOCKET NOS. 50-245. 50-336. AND 50-423 g.1 1.0 Background-and Purpose of Millstone Assessment Panel (MAP) r.1 1.1 Introduction A brief description of the declining performance of Millstone:
Decline in SALP ratings Allegations A brief chronological description of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company's (NNECO's) and NRC's response.
(ChronologyinAppendixA)
Formation of the four Task Groups Task Group Recommendations formation of Performance Enhancement Program (PEP)
- Organization Role of Atlas Consulting and human factors consultant Phase 1 Report - Issue Validation and Root Cause Analysis Phase 11 Report
- Action Plan Series Sources / Inputs to Action Plan Series Verification / Validation - Phase III pt 1.3 MAP This sectica includes a description of NRC's MAP including purpose; (MAP Charter in Appendix B), and Review Plan (scope of review, review methods, and completion criteria.)
- Root Cause Assessment PEP Completeness Review PEP Implementation including Verification / Validation
=
PRE-DECISIONAL INFORMATION
PRE-DECISIONAL INFORMATION g
i n MAPAudits/ Inspections
- Schedules Other regional inspections The MAP topic list is described and a PEP / MAP Matrix produced (figure 1) to show the correlation between PEP and MAP topic lists.
2.0 PEP Evaluation ggf 2.1 Root Cause Assessment This section provides a review of NNECO's Root Cause Assessment:
Review of the Phase ! Report
- Root Cause Assessment
==
Conclusions:==
Conclusions regarding the Phase I Report and Root Cause Assessr.ent are presented.
t(
2.2 Scope of Activities - Phase II This section discusses the PEP topic list contained in Action Plan Series 1, 2, 3 and 4 including various source inputs:
- 56 Task Force Recommendations NU Seminar; 5-year Business Plan
- ATLAS consultant
- HAY consultant
- NRC issues A comparison of the PEP and MAP topics is provided:
Evaluation of the PEP / MAP Matrix PEP topic list contained in Appendix C Conclusion Conclusions regarding the completeness of the PEP topic list are presented.
2.3 Verification / Validation - Phase III A discussion of NNEC0's verification and validation techniques is provided. A summary table (Table 1) is provided:
9 vp.d
@S" f PEP topic description
,,,,e u t'",,,9 Verification / Validation method
,,,g' e Scheduled completion date Actual-completion date it. a t " ;,j.,
o3pgre I' b i mph y \\ % ) of) h
( @;r; PRE-DECISIONAL lhTORMATION
PRE-DECISIONAL INFORMATION 3
'?
e A DBASE program is used to track PEP / MAP topic completion.
A sumary is also provided which indicates the number of topics completed, the number of topics which remain, a sumary (and acceptability review NNECO findings and the results of NRC staff audits and inspections. ) of Conclusions Conclusions regarding the following are presented:
Acceptability of Verification / Validation Criteria Progress on completion of Verification / Validation Reasonable assurance that completion of Verification / Validation will have the desired effect Acceptability of the schedule for remaining PEP tasks 3.0 Sumary and Conclusions Sumary conclusions on:
Acceptability / completeness of PEP / MAP Topic Lists Verification / Validation Criteria Acceptability of PEP completion progress Acceptability of schedule for remaining tasks Reasonable assurance regarding acceptable PEP results The MAP concludei
' hat normal NRC oversight can provide reasonable assurance that PEF ;an be acceptably implemented.
Accordingly, MAP has fulfilled its charter and it is recomended that the MAP be dissolved.
4.0 References To be added.
Principal Contributor:
Date:
i PRE-DECISIONAL INFORMATION c
- _. _ ~.. - - - ~ -. - - - -. -
tp 884 3
9j*
UNITf D STATES
'g
[
q t UCLEAR REOUt ATORY CDMMISSION 7,
t REGION I g'" " g[
o,,
476 ALLINDALE ROAD KING of PMUsstA, PENNSYLVANIA ilW161416 AUG 171992 Docket Nos. 50-245, 50 336, 50-423 Mr. John F. Opeka Execudve Vice President Nuclear Nonheast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141-0270
Dear Mr. Opeka:
SUIUECT:
SUMMARY
OF THE NRC MILLSTONE ASSESSMENT PANEL MEETING WITH NORTHEAST UTILITIES ON JULY 20,1992 On July 20,1992, the NRC Millstone Assessment Panel (MAP) met with you and your staff to discuss: 1) the status of the Performance Enhancement Pian (PEP) preparation and implementation,2) the purpose and planned actions of the Millstone Assessment Panel (MAP),
and 3) other related issues, principally the recent operational event at Millstone Unit 2. Attached is a list of the attendees.
With regard to the PEP, you discussed the status of Phase 2 of the PEP as well as your progress toward developing the verificadon and validation program for PEP Phase 3. You stated that while Phase 2 of the PEP has proceeded quite satisfactorily, the completion of a preliminary verificadoa and validation program is still about two months away.
As Chairman of the M AP, I informed you that the MAP is intended to help facilitate a high level of coordination within the NRC for the resolution of technical and performance issues and is intended to be advisory in nature to the existing NRC inspection planning and performance assessment efforts. The MAP has developed a list of performance issues which encompasses the NRC's significant concerns regarding Millstone Station performance. That list is attached for your review. As discussed at the meeting, I am requesting that you review this list and briefly respond to the NRC in writing how each of these performance issues is addressed in the PEP.
We request that you provide that response to us by Septembe.r 8 (or arrange a suitable submittal date with 1.atrry Doerflein of my staff should you require addidonal preparation time). In addition, I informed you that the NRC will be conducting a review of the PEP root cause analysis, the PEP scope and completeness, and the PEP verification and validation program over the next few months. This review supports the MAP's goal of reviewing the adequacy of the PEP and providing a timely decision to you regarding its acceptability to the NRC. Your staff will be informed in advance of the nature and proposed schedule of our review efforts. Your cooperation in scheduling and supporting this review is appreciated, f
bQ4 wx~
en
4 o
}'
- Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 2
Finally, the MAP discussed with you and your staff the NRC's concerns with operational performance displayed during the Unit 2 event on July 6,1992. During that event, two vital inverters were simultaneously deenergized, vltimately resulting in a panial loss of normal power to the vital buses and a minor loss of spent fuel pool water inventory. Your staff discussed the results to date of your investigation into this event as well as your plans for correcting the design deficiency noted in the logic for the undervoltage circuitry for the vital buses prior to restart i
from the current outage at Unit 2. Your staff stated that the prneedure used to doenergize the vital bus which was lost would have been revised in the near future as part of your ongoing procedure review process and that the procedural deficiency which, in part, caused this loss of normal power, would have been identified and eliminated. Your staff also noted that NU's programmatic efforts to reduce shutdown risk were effective in helping to limit the potential consequences of this event. I informed you that the NRC will be reviewing this event as well as NU's technical solution to the above noted design deficiency in detail in the future. Further, it is the NRC's understanding that NU will not restart Unit 2 until a technical solution to this design deficiency is obtained and implemented.
~
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Should you have any questions or any different understandings regarding our characterization of this meeting, please contact Larry Doerficin of my staff at (215) 337 5378.
Sincerely.
t 42
-Jam T. Wiggins, iy Director Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
L1) MAP Meeting Attendees
- 2) Millstone Assessment Panel'(MAP) Issues List r
r
?
i
- -m,,,2---
~.-..w.wm._..,,.-_._.-,
_.-m,-
m,.-m
,- _, _, ~.-,.-- --
. - - -, - - - - - - - - -.. -, ~ -
1 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 3
cc w/encls:
W. D. Romberg, Vice President Nuclear, Operations Services S. E. Scace, Nuclear Station Director H. F. Haynes, Nuclear Unit Director J. S. Keenan, Nuclear Unit Director C. H. Clement, Nuclear Unit Director R. M. Kacich, Director, Nuclear Licensing D. O. Nordquist Director of Quality Services Gerald Garfield, Esquire Nicholas Reynolds, Esquire K. Abraham, PAO (2)
Public Document Room (PDR) local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector State of Connecticut SLO Designee
.-----.m,,
- - -r,w, w--
n',
-r
~
.-w y
i0 Northeut Nuclear Energy Company 4
bec w/ encl:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrence 5)
J. Joyner, DRSS R. Blough, DRP L. Doerflein, DRP A. Asars, Acting SRI, Millstone W. Raymond, SRI, Haddam Neck R. WI, OEDO D. Jaffe, PM, NRR O. Vissing, PM, NRR l
V. Rooney, PM, NRR R. Barkley, DRP C. Hehl, DRP J. Wiggins, DRP W. Hodges, DRS R. Cooper, DRSS W. Lanning, DRS J. Durr, DRS L. Bettenhausen, DRS J. Stolz, NRR/PD l-4
- D. Holody, EO W
e 9
4
e ENCIDSURE 1 A*ITENDRFR AT THE 1ULY 20.1992. MAP MRETING WITH NU l
NU Attendees:
F. Dacimo, Director, Site Services R. Gallsgher, Nuclear Information Center R. Kacich, Manager, Nuclear Licensing J. Keenan, Director, Unit 2 R. laudenat, Manager, Performance Enhancement Program i
J. Opeka, Executive Vice President, Nuclear J. Stetz, Vice President, Haddam Neck l
M. Wilson, Supervisor, Nuclear IJcensing NRC Attendecs:
A. Asars, Acting Senior Resident inspector, Millstone R. Barkley, Project Engineer, Region 1 A. Blough, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch #4, Region I L, Doerficin, Project Section Chief, Region i D. Jaffe, Senior Project Manager NRR W. Pasclak, Chief, FRPS, Region I W. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck J. Stolz, Project Director, NRR P. Swetland, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone J. Wiggins, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects Other Attendecs:
C. Bessette, Reporter, Norvfich Bulletin R. Hamilton, Reporter, The New Imndon Day S. Kinsman, Reporter, Hartford Courant S. Linscott, Connecticut DEP Representative -
W. Rudolph, Consultant, Atlas Consulting E. Schlinger, Consultant, Atlas Consulting R. Stinson, President, Atlas Consulting
)
ENCIDSURE 2 MILLSTONE ISSUES LIST Source Closure UDgrammatic Concerns Ref. (1)
Ref. (1)
Proper balance between safety and cost SALP 90-99 Il containment; clear feedback on management 91 29/32/29
)
expectations; Plant Equipment Operator (PEO)
SRO l
rouads log keeping issue g
Line management failed to prevent performance SALP 90-99 s
decline 3/ NR11 and QA program failed to prevent SALP 90-99, J
performance decline 91 29/32/29, SRO
- 9) Atmosphere did not properly encourate the SALP 90 99, J reporting of safety concerns SRO y) Cumbersome administrative processes SALP 90-99
/ contributed to procedure non compliance c} Weak communications among the working SALP 90-99, groups contributed to performence problems SALP 89 99,423/
90 19, -15, 91 24 336/ 90-28, -15, 91-20,-18 j
Communications between units not fully SALP 90-99 effective f) implementationoftheerosion/corrosionprogram Deficiencies in the coordination and SALP 90-99 423/91-80 336/91 81
4 f
Millstone Issues List 2
9 Deficiencies in ti.e control of radioactive SALP 89 99 7 /tk materials 89 23, 17 90-08, 04, 91 07 to inconsistent fire protection program SALP 90-99 implementation 92 04/04/04 ff) Areas for performance improvement in EP SALP E99, 91-
/ training and site staff EP performance 19/23/19, 92 07
/t Weakness in training and oversight of contractor SALP 90 99, f '7!d.
NDE technicians 91-05
/4 Weaknesses in training program and SALP 90 99, documentation for 50.59 evaluations 92 13, 04 Inattention to detail in proceduit review SALP 90 99
^k process SALP 89 99 90 80/81 245/91-27,24,16 336/90-22 423/91 22, 15
/f Weaknesses in deficiency reporting systems SALP 89 99, A4, 90 82/82/83 Weaknesses in the corrective action program and SALP 90-99 the process to identify root causes SALP 89 99 91-80/81 423/ 91-18, -15, 91 09,-04
/7) Weaknesses in IST programs and procedures; SALP 90-99
/
operators and QSD not familiar with IST 245/90 25, 91-16 program requirements 336/91-30
Millstone issues List 3
/f (Inattention to detail in routine ar'Jvities SALP 90-99 personnel enor)
SALP 89 99, 245/91 01, 90 25, 336/91 15, 90 18, 423/91 22
/9 Frequent instances of failure to follow SALP 90 99 procedures SALP 89 99 245/91-03, 90 20, 336/91 05, 91 28, 423/91 18, 09, 91 04 Weaknesses in PM practices for safety related SALP 90-99, 7
equipment Unit 1 Only 245/91 24, 89 25 91-16, 91 03 1!) EDSFI identified weaknesses in plant specific SALP 90-99
[
knowledge regarding electrical system design 245/91 81 and some design basis information unavailable -
Unit 1 Only 4
t Surveillances were missed due to poor SALP 90-99
?
i coordir.at on and planning - Unit 2 Only SALP 89-90 336/ 90-11 Poor engineering suppon of plant operations -
SALP 90-99, f
1Jnit 3 Only 423/91 27, 16, 15, 12, 07 M) 80/81 NOTESt (1) REFERENCE KEY:
SALP = Systematic Auessment of Licensee Performance SRG = NRC Special Review Group, Executive Summary,
- dated April 6,1992 All other reference number noted are NRC Region I inspection report numbers