IR 05000220/1979018
| ML17053A996 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1979 |
| From: | Caphton D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053A994 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-79-18, NUDOCS 7909110122 | |
| Download: ML17053A996 (10) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION-AND ENFORCEMENT Region
$
Report No. 79-18 Docket No. 50-220 License No.
DPR-63 Licensee:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
'00 Erie Boulevard, West Syracuse, New York 13202 Category:
C Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No.
Inspection at:
Scriba, New York Inspection 'conducted:
May 23 nd 24, 979 Inspectors:
J.
.
H sns Rea to Inspector Approved by:
D.
L. Caphton, Chief, Nuclear Support Section No. 1, R08NS Branch 7 /l'ate signed Vgrr ~
date signed Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on Ma 23 and 24 1979 (Re ort No. 50-220/79-18 Areas Ins ected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector of refueling and maintenance activities.
The inspection involved 15 inspector-hours on site by one NRC regional basedinspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
g909110 (~~
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted R. Abbott, Maintenance Superintendent T. Callopy, General Electric Engineer
"W. Drews, Supervisor of Reactor Analysis J. Duell, Radiation Protection Assistant Supervisor J. Earls, Shift Supervisor
"T. Lempges, General Superintendent of Nuclear Generation D. Neal, Shift Supervisor T. Perkins, Station Superintendent
"M. Silliman, Results Superintendent
"C. Stuart, Operations Supervisor The inspector also talked with and interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel including control room operators, I8C techni-cians, radiation protection personnel and engineers.
"Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
(Closed)
Unresolved Item (220/79-09-02):
Snubber 40-HS-8 on the Core Spray Line was found with no fluid in the reservoir.
On March 29, 1979, the snubber was tested on the licensee's test machine and exhibited normal lockup.
The loss of fluid was attri-buted to damage from maintenance activity in the drywell, since it was inspected satisfactorily a few weeks before being found empty.
The licensee's representative stated that all drywell snubbers would be inspected prior to startup.
This item is closed.
3.
Refuelin Activities General The inspector verified by direct observation and record review that fuel handling activities were being conducted in accordance with approved procedures and Technical Specifica-tion (TS) requirements.
Items inspected included:
(j.)
Plant staffing, including that in the control room and on the fuel handling bridge, was as specified in the TS's; (2)
Operations overall were proceeding at an orderly pace; (3)
Refueling area housekeeping was satisfactory;
I
-3-(4)
Communications were maintained between the refueling bridge and the control room; (5)
Vessel water level and clarity were acceptable; (6)
Secondary Containment was maintained; (7)
Fuel insertion was conducted in accordance with proce-dures; (8)
Fuel accountability was as specified; I
(9)
Refueling Iinter lock checks a'nd refueling bridge mainte-nance checks were satisfactory.
(10)
Source Range Monitoring was performed per the TS's; and, (11)
'Radiation. monitoring was acceptable.,
II ~
Mith the exception of the below items, the inspector had no further questions on the refueling.
Gra le Indication During an attempt to pick up a fuel bundle in the spent fuel pool, the licensee's representative and the inspector noted that the grapple engaged light failed to illuminate.
Refuel-ing operations were suspended and the wiring to the light was repaired.
The inspector later observed satisfactory operation of the'ight during fuel grappling and had no further questions in this area.
Procedural Ste Com letion During control room observations of the core reload, the inspector noted that a control rod had been signed off as
"cleared" when the markup for the rod's scram valves was cleared.
The refueling procedure defines "cleared" for a control rod as clearing the markup on the valves, removing the electrical jumper installed on the circuit board and inserting the rod full in.
These steps ensure that the rod will be inserted before fuel is loaded in the Fuel Assembly.
The inspector discussed this with licensee personnel, who agreed that greater attention to detail in this area was warranted.
The inspector noted that the procedural require-ment to have the rod "full in" before loading fuel in an assembly was not violated; The inspector observed additional instructions being given to operators and had no further questions at this tim.
Plant Tour a.
General At various times during the inspection the inspector toured the facility either with licensee personnel or unaccompanied.
In the Reactor Building, the Turbine Building and the Drywell, the inspector observed maintenance in progress'@radiation protection practices, general housekeeping, secondary contain-ment integrity, equipment condition, pipe supports and.snubbers.
In the control room, the inspector observed various indicators and annunciators, discussed parameters with the control room operators and compared selected values with Technical Specifi-cation requirements.
With the exception of the below items, the inspector had no further questions resulting from these tours.
b.
Dr ell Housekee in During a tour of the drywell area the inspector noted many loose items remaining from maintenance completed ot in progress; e.g., tools, hoses, cables, lagging, deckplates, pipe, etc.
The areas were apparently not'being cleaned after each job as recommended in APN-11, step.'5.0.C.
The inspector also r'eviewed N1-08-43, Form V titled, "Primary Containment Pre-Start-Up Check-Off" and noted that there was no verification that final housekeeping was acceptable.
The licensee's representa-tive stated that this form would be modified to include such checks.
This item is unresolved pending review of the. modi-fied form (220/79-18-01).
C.
Emer enc Condenser Nozzle Plu During the tour the inspector observed both sides of the plug installed in the Emergency Condenser Nozzle to allow welding on the nozzle to procede concurrent with refueling.
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's added radiation control measures taken during this evolution.
The inspector ques-tioned the licensee about the design limits of the plug.
The licensee's representative stated that the plug was designed to hold with 3,000 psig across it, considerably more than the,
.15 to 20 psig it was experiencing as installed, but did not have documentation readily available.
This item will be carried as". aninspector foll'ow.'item and: the documentation will be re-viewed when available.(220/79-18-02).
-5" 5.
Unresolved Items Items about which more information is required to determine acceptabil-ity are considered unresolved.
Paragraph 4.b of this report contains an unresolved item.
6.
Exit Interview At the inspection's end the inspector held a meeting (see Detail
for attendees)
to discuss the inspection scope and findings.
The unresolved item was identifie t