ML20245H471

Trip Rept of 890522-24 Visit to Plant Site to Review 10CFR50.59 & Selected Plant Incident Repts.Licensee Has Satisfactory 10CFR50.59 Determination Process in Place

ML20245H471
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/20/1989
From:	Vissing G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-72968, NUDOCS 8906290495
Download: ML20245H471 (5)

Text

i,

• a o -

'o e[#pe w cucI,j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,  ; y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 f

k.../

a June 20,1989 Docket No. 50-336 MEMORANDUM FOR: John F. Stolz, Director '

Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects I/II i

FROM: Guy S. Vissing, Project Manager Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects I/II

SUBJECT:

REPORT OF MILLSTONE 2 PLANT VISIT, MAY 22 - 24, 1989, 10 CFR 50.59 REVIEW AND REVIEW OF SELECTED PLANT INCIDENT REPORTS (TAC N0. 72968)

INTRODUCTION On May 22 through May 24, 1989 I visited the Millstone Unit 2 site to review the 10 CFR 50.59 procedures, selected 10 CFR 50.59 determinations, and selected plant incident reports. On May 22, 1989 I met with the following personnel to discuss my purpose:

S. Scace, Station Superintendent F. Dacimo. Engineering Supervisor J. Resestar Assistant Engineering Supervisor P. Habighorst, NRC Resident Inspector On May 24, 1989, at the exit meeting, I met with the following:

S. Scace, Station Superintendent B. Duffy, Assistant Engineering Supervisor P. Habighorst, NRC Resident Inspector DISCUSSION Discussion on 10 CFR 50.59 determinations Administrative procedures identify a requirement to conduct a safety evaluation or an integrated safety evaluation for each facility modification, test or experiment. Each safety evaluation is conducted according to Administrative Control Procedure ACP-QA-3.08, Nuclear Engineering and Operations Procedure NEO 3.12, Safety Evaluations and is a part of documentation accompanying each Plant Design Change Report (PDCR). The purpose of NE0 3.12 is to define the process of preparation of a safety evaluation for a plant change to determine if the change is safe and satisfies 10 CFR 50.59 requirements governing changes. Each safety evaluatinn includes an Unreviewed Safety Question determination that specifically addresses the three 10 CFR 50.59 factors as follows:

f' 9906290495 990620 DR ADOCM 05000336 '

f PNU 'g '

l

.t

1. Considers whether there has been an increase in the probability or i consequences of sccidents previously evaluated. I

2. Considers whether there has been possibility of an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously.

3. Considers whether there has been a reduction in safety margin as ,

defined in the bases ot'the Technical Specification. I The procedure is a very thorough procedure and when applied strictly to the format that is provided in the procedure, a detailed and explicit 10 CFR 50.59 determination will most likely follow. The procedure allows the format of the q safety evaluation to differ from that which is provided with the proper 1 approval. As an example, the Engineering Department has developed its own instruction for an epp11 cation of a narrative report style format to safety evaluations. This has the advantage of providing a well develop description of the a change, foll wed by a logical analysis of the effects on safety. l However, there may be a tendency to not explicitly address the three 10 CFR  !

50.59 factors. The determination would be implicit in the narrative of the l safety evaluation.

The licensee schedules an initial four hour training session on the procedure with 1.25 hour2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> quarterly upgrade training for each engineer at the Millstone site. The engineers at the corporate offices do not necessarily take the training, but they are evaluated by their supervisor on the procedure.

The following PDCRs were reviewed:

1. PDCR No. 2-008-88, Installation of New Service Water Hanger, 4/30/87.

2. PDCR 2-21-87, ATWS, 11/30/87

3. PDCR 2-40-87, Steam Generator Tube Removal

4. PDCR 2-84-86, RCP Motor Oil Strainer Replacement, 10/3/86

5. PDCR 2-028-87, DC Switchgear Room Halon System, 10/22/87

6. Procedure, IC 2417UA, 9/20/87

7. Test 88-43, RCP Seal Instrumentation Control Bleed Off Pipe Leak Test 8 PDCR MPC-89-032, Charging Pump Valve Material Specifications Safety evaluations of PDCRs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 above did not follow the format of the guidance of NEO 3.12 but were in a narrative style format. All but 3 above implicitly or explicitly addressed the three factors of 10 CFR 50.59. However, 3 above had two other safety evaluations by other engineering disciplines that did adequately address the three factors of 10 CFR 50.59.

Safety evaluations of PDCRs 2, 3 and 5 did follow the format of the procedure and made explicit 10 CFR 50.59 determinations. Safety evaluations of 7 and 8 above were done in the format of the Engineering Department instruction and made explicit 10 CFR 50.59 determinations.

E' Discussion on plant incident reports (PIR)

Plant incident reports are reports of incidents that range from the very minor incidents to major. transients. I was interested in reviewing a major incident to determine the documentation and background available and to track the event. Thus I choose the dropped rod event of April 8, 1988 and the loss of normal power event of October 25, 1988. The file that the licensee had on

, these events consisted of only the initial shift operator's reports and the i

formal reports. There was no other background material with the file such as l

a computer print out of the sequence of events, copies of strip charts of the plant response instrumentation, copies of the plant log at the times of the event or other information gathered for investigation of the event. Both events were reported as Licensee Event Reports (LER).

CONCLUSION The licensee has a good 10 CFR 50.59 determination process in place and as more emphasis is given to this process, greater improvements will be evident.

Based on my review of the process and a sample of PDCRs. I conclude that there is reasonable assurance that the changes reviewed meet the criteria in 10 CFR 50.59. I did caution the licensee to be explicit in making the determinations when a narrative report style format for safety evaluations is used.

Since I was not'able to satisfactorily track the loss of power event with background material, I prefer to follow up on this again on another visit.

!s!

Guy S. Vissing, Project Manager Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects I/II cc: See next page i

[DOCKETNO.50-336]

LA:PDI-4 f I-4 fDQ63 4 SN6Trls sing:ch MBTb1 6/j@/89 6 89 6/p / S

M

, Mr. Edward J. Mroczka Millstone Nuclear Pcwer Station Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Unit No. ? l CC:

Gerald Garfield, Esquire R. M. Kacich, Manager Day, Berry and Howard Generation Facilities Licensing Counselors at Law Northeast Utilities Service Company City Place Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 W. D. Romberg, Vice Prcsident D. O. Nordquist Nuclear Operations Manager of Quality Assurance Northeast Utilities Service Company Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Post Office Box 270 Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 Hartford, Cor.necticut 06141-0270 Kevin McCarthy, Director Regional Administrator Radiation Control Unit Region I Department of Environmental Protection U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissict State Office Building 475 Allendale Road Hartford, Connecticut 06106 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Bradford S. Chase, Under Secretary First Selectmen Energy Division Town of Vaterford Office of Policy and Management Hall of Records 80 Washington Street 200 Boston Post Road Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 S. E. Scace, Station Superintendent W. J. Raymond, Resident Inspector Millstone Nuclear Power Station Millstone Nuclear Power Station Northeast Nuclear Energy Company c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 128 Post Office Box 811 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Niantic, Connecticut 06357 J. S. Keenan, Unit Superintendent Charles Brinkman, Manager Millstone Unit No. 2 Washington Nuclear Operations Northeast Nuclear Energy Company C-E Power Systems Post Offu e Box 128 Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Waterford. Connecticut 06385 12300 Twinbrook Pkwy Suite 330 Rockville, Maryland 20852

p .. ;3 :

y qy .u ,

n

.\."

Di '

,, ; a ;

,'" f

/ , Vft )IStRI'BUTI)N b ;G7 hhhj b50835@F m- JSniezekt

Plant File.'

.JStolzc s GVissing-

.' 0GC ~ .>

'EJordan-BGrimes-

ACRS(10)

'HBClayton t

o

____ _ .-.__.._-___m ...___m .1.m._ - _ _ __ _ . _______ _ _ _ ____.__..u___._m______ _ __ _ __m.- . __.-__ _ m_ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ._______ . . . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . -.._.__ __ m.__._ _ _ _ . _-_ _ - . _ - _ _ _