IR 05000220/1980016
| ML17053C470 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1980 |
| From: | Ebneter S, Paolino R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C467 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-80-16, IEB-79-01B, IEB-79-1B, NUDOCS 8103270390 | |
| Download: ML17053C470 (10) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-220/80-16 Docket No.
50-220 License No.
DPR-63 Priority Category C
Licensee:
Niagara Mohawk Power Company 300 Erie Boulevard Hest Syracuse, New York 13202 Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit
Inspection at:
Scriba, New York Inspection conducted:
November 19-20, 1980 Inspectors:
R. J.
Pao i o, Reactor Inspector
/Z dat signed date signed Approved by S.
D.
Ebne
, Chief, Engineering Support Section No.
,'C&ES Branch date signed
/~ /p
$0 da signed Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on November 19-20, 1980 (Re ort No. 50-220/80-16)
A~Id:
R
.
df d
t by dt
b dt d t f
components associated with the containment spray system; Main Steam Isolation System and Emergency Cooling System to verify component installation and identifi-cation as reported by the licensee in response to NRC Bulletin No.79-01B.
The inspection involved 16 inspector hours on site by one NRC regional based inspector.
Results:
One deviation from FSAR commitments was identified in the Main Steam Isolation System:
Failure to maintain cable separation (Paragraph 2.b).
!613}.932p Io Mc0 Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77}
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Nia ara Mohawk Power Com an
"R. Abbott, Operations Superintendent J. Earls, Station Shift Superintendent R. Fortino, Chief Technician-Radiation Protection
"D. Greene, Associate Nuclear Engineer M. Hedrick, Dosimetry and ALARA Coordinator
"T. Perkins, General Superintendent
"T.
Roman, Station Superintendent
"B. Taylor, Site I8C Supervisor U.S. Nuclear Re ulator Commission
"S.
Hudson, Resident Inspector
"denotes personnel present at exit interview.
NRC Bulletin 79-01B Installation Verification The inspector reviewed Final-as-Built Drawings of system's containing com-ponents identified by the licensee in his response to NRC Bulletin No.79-01B, dated November 3, 1980 and to determine by visual observation whether the installation and identification of components selected correspond with licensee submittal data.
Items selected for this determination include the following:
ao Containment S ra S stem Pump Motor, Equipment I.D. No. 80-04.
Location el. 198'-0.
Coordinates g-6.
Discharge Transmitter, Equipment I.D. No. 80-47.
Location el.
198'-0.
Coordinates g-5.
Temperature Elements, Equipment I.D. No. 80-50 and No. 80-52.
Location el. 318'-0 and 298'-0 respectively.
Coordinates g-9 and g-7 Flow Transmitter, Equipment I.D. No.80-49A.
Location el. 261-0.
Coordinates g-6 (Track bay).
Reference Drawing No. C-18012-C, Revision 9.
No items of noncompliance were identifie A
Main Steam Line Isolation S stem Radiation Detectors RN05A, B, C and. D.
Location el. 277'-0 Reactor Building.
The inspector observed that the cable for each detector consisted of two sections and that the excess cable lengths from all four Reactor Protection channels lay intermixed on the concrete surface on either
- side of the detector well.
In addition, the inspector, observed pieces of stainless steel tubing and lumber on top of the cable.
The licensee representative with the inspector at the time of discovery informed licensee management.
Immediate steps were taken to clean the area and to rope off the area around the. cable lying on the floor.
Discussions with the I8C supervisor indicate that the intermingling of
detector cables referenced above has existed since the last refueling outage (June 1979) at which time the cable modification was completed, resulting in excess cable on the floor in the nonconforming condition.
The reason given for this modification as stated by the I&C supervisor was due to problems encountered in replacing the instrumentation cable section in the detector well which is exposed to high radiation and temperature resulting in cable insulation -embrittlement. requiring replacement of the entire cable from the detector, through conduit, to the penetration.
To resolve this, the instrumentation group replaced the single cable length of co-axial cable with two co-axial cable sections so that only the exposed section in the detector well needed replacement.
It appears that the original installation in which the cable was routed from the detector well directly into the conduit above did not present a separation problem since the conduit for redundant detector channels is physically separated by distance.
The nonconforming condition caused by the excess cable external to the conduit and the detector well was discussed with the licensee and the affect should a single failure result in the loss of all four Reactor Protection channels (RN05A, B, C, D).
The licensee was informed that this was a deviation from FSAR Supplement 4, Answer a.4. to question 4, which states in part "Cables are separated functionally...Reacto Protection and engineered safeguards equipment cables are routed to provide sufficient isolation...in case of an accident...".
(50-220/80"16-01)
Emer enc Condensor Coolin S stem Radiation Detectors RN04.
Location el. 340'-0 Reactor Building.
Reference Drawing No. C-18017-C, Revision 1 The inspector verified that the reported data in the licensee's79-01B submittal matched the data on the detectors having the data.
However, the inspector determined that the basic data was incomplete and mis-leading.
The bases for this determination is as follows:
One detector contained only the numeral III scratched into the detector surface.
One detector contained a
name plate with two serial numbers (S/N 6,340,499 and S/N 5,481,703)
and the drawing number 194X927G2.
The remaining detectors (2} contained a nameplate which only listed the serial number (S/N 5,481,710 and S/N 5,481,394 respec-tively).
In addition, these two detectors contained a sticker with the following notation - "Ok - 9/10/79 needs source chk".
The inspector reviewed the instrument calibration log for clarification of the sticker notation, but was not able to correlate data in log to the RN04 radiation detectors.
The log listed the Emergency Condenser Cooling monitors as Nos.
111, 112, 121 and 122.
There was no cross reference to serial numbers or drawing for positive identification of the log calibration data and the installed radiation detectors.
This item is unresolved pending NRC review of licensee evaluation and corrective action.
(50-220/80-16-02)
d.
~Di R
The inspector used "as-built" drawings from drawing control file number 11 for determining component location and identification.
The inspector observed that there were a number of "as-built" drawings which did not reflect current status.
For example:
(1)
The Off-Gas S stem - Recombiner drawing C-18010-C sht 2, Revision 8, dated September 29, 1976 was stamped "Final Print" and "Con-
.
trolled", yet there was a construction drawing with the same drawing number (C-18010-C sht 2) and Revisions 9,
10 and 11 dated January 6, 1977, February 25, 1977 and November 18, 1977 respec-tively.
This construction drawing (and others referenced herein)
contained additional components/modifications not shown or refer-enced in the "as-built" drawin ~
A
(2)
The Steam Flow - Main Steam/Hi h Pressure Turbine drawing number C-18002-C sht 1, Revision ll, stamped Final Print" and "Con-trolled" with construction drawing having the same drawing number C-18002-C sht 1 with Revision 14.
The licensee has agreed to look into this matter.
This item is unresolved pending NRC review of licensee evaluation and corrective action.
(50-220/80-16-03)
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable or items of noncompliance or deviations.
Unreso'lved items identified in this report are identified in Details, paragraph 2 c.
and d.
Safet Evaluation Re ort The acceptability of the action taken by the licensee to correct the item of noncompliance and the unresolved items listed in Details, paragraph 2,
will be documented in the safety evaluation report (SER) that is to be written for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit l.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives identified with an asterisk (~) in Details, paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on November 20, 1980.
The inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the inspection finding ~
J" E