ML20203G493

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Informs That Fourth Millstone Assessment Panel Meeting Was Held at Region I on 920901.Attendees at Meeting Submitted
ML20203G493
Person / Time
Site: Millstone  Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 10/02/1992
From: Wiggins J
NRC
To: Kane W, Martin T, Murley T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20203G108 List:
References
FOIA-97-469 NUDOCS 9803030002
Download: ML20203G493 (4)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ - - _ - - _

i

,l CT 0 0 TE32 MEMO TO: Distribution FROM: James T. Wiggins, MAP Chairman

SUBJECT:

FOURTH MAP MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 The fourth Millstone Assessment Panel (MAP) meeting was held in Region I and via phone fror 10:30 a.m. - noon.

The attendees at the meeting were Panel Members:

Lawretice Doerflein, Chief, DRP Section 4A David Jaffe, Project Manager, NRR Walt Pasciak, Chief, FRPS, DRSS Paul Swetland, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone John Stolz, Director, Projects Directorate I-4 James Wiggins, Deputy Director, DRP Other Attendees Andra Asars, Resident Inspector, Millstone Richard Bar) ley, Project Engineer, DRP Section 4A Robert DeLaEspirella, Reactor Engineer, DRP Section 4A During the meeting, the following topics were discussed:

Plant Status - Andra Asars upanted the MAP on the operational status of the three Millstone units. Currently, Unit 1 and 3 are operating at 100% power while Unit 2 is shutdown until mid-November for refueling and steam generator replacement.

Unit 1 is currently in discussions with NRR regarding NU's interpretation of the guidance in Generic Letter 90-05. Unit 3 has been in discussions with AEOD regarding their assessment of the safety significance of a series of relief valve openings / failures on the HHSI system which AEOD considers to be a significant severe accident precursor. Also, two enforcement panels are being scheduled regarding performance issues at Unit 3: 1) the inoperability of the hydrogen recombiners and 2) the auxiliary building air handling system inoperability.

The MAP also discussed the follow-up on the issues related to the July 6, 1992, Unit 2 loss of normal power / spent fuel pool inventory loss. DRS agreed to pursue additional follow-up in this area.

9003030002 900226 PDR FOIA s f 0'HEALI97-469 PDR

t i

september 1, 1992, MAP Meeting 2  ;

Schedule for PEP Review Activities - Rich Barkley presented the schedule for the conduct of the NRC review of PEP which is provided as Attachment 1. The review will be conducted during the weeks of September 21 and October 26, 1992. All other elements of the schedule shown remain es planned. The timeline was established with the intent of meeting the MAP's goal of deciding on the acceptability of the PEP by the end of 1992.

Proposed Insoection Plan for PEP Review - The inspection plan for the review of the PEP is provided as At.tachment 2. The PEP review team with be conducting preparatory activities during the week of September 14, 1992, in support of the start of the review on September 21, 1992.

Proposed Letters to State / Local Communities / Libraries - The PEP review team has arranged through th . State Liaison Officer how ,

the MAP can best distribute the PLP review materials to the public and to appropriate State and/or local governments.

Sample copies of letters referring the PEP were provided to the MAP Chairman for initial review. The State of Connecticut was very helpful in generating a list of local communities which the PEP will be mailed to for comment. These mailing will occur in the next three weeks.

The MAP Chairman asked that the senior resident inspectors make an effort to conduct public outreach activities in the local areas so that the-towns have the ability to have their questions regarding the PEP be answered.

Verification and Validation Process -

Larry Doerflein briefly discussed the licensee's submittal regarding the verification

and validation process for the PEP. The MAP Chairman discussed NU's future plans for providing further details on the PEF as a formal submittal. This matter will be discussed with NU during the first week of the PEP review.

Unit 2 S/G Replacement Outaae Proarecs/Insoection Resulta - The replacement project is proceeding as planned, although the project is almost 40 days behind schedule. The licensee experienced a significant deflection of the steam generator

' inlet / outlet piping following cutting. DRS is currently reviewing NU's analysis regarding the residual stresses in the welded connections once the piping is loaded to move it back into position, allowing remating to-the new steam generators.

.. .- . - - . _ . - -- - .- . - - - . = - .. - . -- -

6

's September 1, 1992, MAP Meeting 3 Q.ther Millstone Performance issues /Unconnina items of Interest - The MAP chairman reviewed the possibility of discussing with John Opeka of NU the results of the future INPO evaluation at Millstone on Sept 9mber 28 - October 9, 1992.

Next Scheduled Meetina - The next MAP meeting is tentatively sche:N1ed for October 22, 1992. The MAP Chairman will decide at a later time whether we will conduct the meeting at the site and/or request that HU formally present their PEP verification and validation effort to the NRC in a public forum.

s J es T. iggins Attachments: 1) Proposed PEP Review schedule

2) Plan for Reviewing NU's PEP cc w/attachmonta:

T. Murley, NRR T. Martin, RA W. Kane, DRA W. Russell, NRR F. Miraglia, NRR J. Partlow, NRR J. Calvo, NRR G. Zech, NRR L. P11sco, NRR M. Davis, NRR J. Roe, NRR S. Varga, NRR W. Hodges, DRS R. Cooper, DRSS W. Lanning, DRS C. Hehl, DRF J. Durr, DRS MAP Members and Other Meeting Attendecs

.~ .

b PROPOSED PEP RETIEW SEQUENCE

  • Preliminary meeting between the PEP review team leader (Barkley) and NU PEP manager August 6, 1992 l (Laudenat) -

l

  • PEP Review Team roster formalized August 20, 1992 o PEP Review Team plan drafted -

August 14, 1992 imeued - August 26, 1992 10, 1992

  • Request comments from the state and local communities on the PEP - September e Initial on-site review of PEP root cause assessment and completeness as well as comparison to the MAP issues list - Sepe==har 21-25, 1992 moquest for additional information in above areas - September 28, 1992 (Made) e Octaher 18, 1992 (Deceived)

(if necessary}

October 5, 1992

  • Draft PEP review repm t sections from above review to team leader -

e completion of PEP review effort onsite (i.e. review of verification and validation Octnhar 26-30, 1992 effott)

November 4, 1992 >

  • Public meeting to receive comments on the PEP -

d November 10, 1992 (Neds) O e Request for additional inf a tian on V & V -

Nov==hae 30, 1992 (meceived) 3 (if necessary) ,

M e Draft PEP review report in concurrence - November 30, 1792 ,

o Response to public meetir:g comments h r 4, 1992 e Final PEP review report issuance; Formal recommendation to MAP to accept /not accept the PEP effort

- naa==har II, 1992

_j

7 , ,

ATTACIIMDir 2 l MEMO POR: James T. Wiggins, MAP Chairman THROUGH: A. Randolph Blough, Chief, DRP Branch 4 Larry T. Doorflein, Chief, DRP Section 4A FROM: Richard Barkley, Projed Engineer, DRP Section 4A DA'IE: August 27,1992

SUBJECT:

PLAN POR REVIEWING NORTHEAST UUUTIBS' PERPORMANCE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (PEP) ,

As requested, I have outlined a tentative plan for reviewing NU's PEP as requested by the MAP:

ORIECTIVES:

'the objectives of this review are to:

1) Review the PEP in detail and understand NU's plans for implementation;
2) Determine whether the PEP appears to appropriately characterize and address the root causes for the performance decline at Millstone;
3) Determine whether the PEP addresses all of the issues and concerns noted by the MAP;
4) Determine whether the PEP action plans appear to be paenamhle ways of obtaining the performance improvements desired. Determine if there are acceptable plans for sustaining improvements reallmi through the PEP by institutionalizing the improvements into long-teria or permanent programs; -
5) Evaluate NU's initial progress in implementing the PEP as an indicator of the potential for achieving performance improvement at NU's planned rate; and,
6) Determine whether NU's approach is reasonable for gW. ding management oversight and ongoing evaluations of PEP implementation as well as verifying and validating that the actions plans have been successfully implemented and that performance improvements are obtained and sustained. Determine if adequate provisions exist for appropriate anention to day to<1ay plant safety concurrent with the performance improvement effort, I

'h0$$N'Qt/CB' RfA .. ..

s~

PEP Inspection Plan 2 APPROACllt ne review will be conducted by a team of about five people (4 Individuals plus a team leader) at NU's Berlin corporate office, the Millstone site and (if eury) a brief visit to Haddam Neck as well as in the Region I office. Onsite portions will be conducted in two one-week segments to facilitate the eue of review as well as allow NU time to continue to retire their verification and validation effort and allow the NRC time to reflect on and refine their evolving questions and review efforts. De review will begin with a review of the PEP and the verification and validation effort. Interviews will be conducted with the PEP program manager responsible for its implementation, the Atlas and Hayes consultants responsible for helping formulating the PEP and a sejected group of the action plan managers. De interviews will be oriented toward understanding how the PEP was pregured, how management is communkating the need for this effort and how implementation of this effort will be encouraged and verified.

Finally, technical and programmatic reviews will also conducted to measure the progress made in specific licensee performance areas addressed by the PEP (i.e. maintenance procedures, procedure compliance, employee allegation resolution, self assessment program activities).

ne product from this effort will be input to a formal evaluation of the PEP, along the lines 01

the format proposed by NRR, which will be presented to the MAP in support of their decision I on the acceptability of this program. Formal presentations to NRC and NU management regarding the findings of the team will be made as eury or as requested.

TEAM.COhiPOSITION AND SCHEDULE ne proposed composition of this team will be as follows:

Team Leader - Richard Barkley DRP Representative - Pete lhbighorst (Alternate: Andra Asars)

DRS Representative - Suresh ch=kry t

NRR Representatives - Dave Jaffe Catherine Thompson (Human Factors Specialist) ne in-field portions of the review will be tentativej conducted y during the weeks of September 21-25,1992 and October 26-30,1992. During the first in field review period, the emphasis of the review will be on review of the PEP preparation as well as how the root causes of their

5

PliP Inspecdon Plan 3 performance decline were idendfied and how the medon plans weie developed taldat inspeedon of specific programmade improvement efforts will also be conducted. During the second in field review period, emphasis will be placed on a review of the verificadon and validation effort as well as the comptedon of laspections of specific performance areas. During the two weeks between the two reviews, any additional informadon requests from NU will be prepared as well as the findings to date documented and the review of programmatic improvement programs completed.

'Ihe team members will be assigned to review those areas of the PEP most directly applicable to their area of expertise. More detailed pwsonn4 assignments will occur during the period of priparadon prior to the conduct of each of the reviews.

If you have further questions or suggestions in this matter, please see myself or Randy.

Rich

Enclosures:

(1) Pmposed PEP Review acquence Q) MAP lasues Ust Approved /Biwo,-: f f segr. wiggins .

1 oc:

A. Asars, Millstone S. Chaudary P. Habighorst, Haddam Neck D. Jaffe, NRR W. Sw isce, NRR MAP Members

= = == -

_ =_

e ..

. .o

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20203G493&oldid=3331541"