IR 05000220/1980021
| ML17053C555 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1981 |
| From: | Sharon Hudson, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C554 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-80-21, NUDOCS 8104280710 | |
| Download: ML17053C555 (18) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Report No. 50-220/80-21'egion I
Docket No.
50-220 License No.
DPR-63 Pr iority Licensee:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West Category C
Syracuse, New York 13202 Facility Name.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit
Inspection at:
Scriba, New York e
Inspection conducted:
December 16, 1980 - January 15, 1981 Inspectors:
u son, esi ent nspector 7H z i~>
date signed date signed Approved by:
H. B. Kister, hief, Reactor Projects Section No. 4, RO
NS Branch date signed 2-date signed
'ns ection Summar
Ins ection on December 16, 1980 - Januar 15, 1981 Ins ection Re ort No.. 50-220/80-21 Areas Ins ected:'outine, onsite regular and backshift inspections by the resident inspector 51 hours5.902778e-4 days <br />0.0142 hours <br />8.43254e-5 weeks <br />1.94055e-5 months <br />).
Areas inspected included:
operational safety verification, physical security, plant tours, emergency preparadness drill, licensee's action on Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin, and review of periodic reports.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
az04set 7('O Region I Form, 12 (Rev. April 77)
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
R. Abbott, Supervisor - Operations J. Duell, Supervisor - Chemistry and Radiation Protection W. Drews, Superintendent of Technical Services E. Leach, Superintendent of Chemistry and Radiation Management T.
Roman, Station Superintendent M. Silliman, Acting General Superintendent, Nuclear Generation P. Volza, Emergency Planning Coordinator
,The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel during the course of the inspection including shift supervisors, operations, radiation protection, security, administrative, and instrument and control personnel.
2.
0 erational Safet Verification a.
Control Room Observation Routinely throughout the inspection period, the inspector independently verified plant parameters and'equipment availability of engineered safeguards features against a plant specific checklist to ensure compliance with the limiting conditions for operation (LCO's).
The plant specific checklist has been developed to assist the inspector in ensuring the following items are observed during control room tours:
Switch and valve position required to satisfy the LCO's Alarms or absence of alarms Meter indications and recorder values Status lights and power available lights Front panel bypass switches Computer print-outs Comparisons of redundant readings Selected lit annunciators were discussed with control room operators to verify that the reasons for them were understood and corrective action, if required, was being take Shift turnovers were observed to ensure proper control room and shift manning on both day and back shifts.
Shift turnover checklists and log review by the oncoming and off-going shifts were also observed by the inspector.
No items of noncompliance
.were identified.
b.
Review of Lo s and 0 eratin Records The inspector reviewed the following logs and instructions for the period December 15 through January 16, 1981:
Control Room Log Book Reactor Operations Log Book Station Shift Supervisor's Log Book Station Shift Supervisor's Instruction Licensee Event Report Log The logs and instructions were reviewed to:
Obtain information on plant problems and operation Detect changes and trends in performance Detect possible conflicts with technical specifications or regulatory requirements Determine that records are being reviewed as required Assess the effectiveness of'he communications provided by the logs and instructions Determine that the reporting requirements of technical specifications are met No items of noncompliance were identifie.
Observation of Ph sical Securit The inspector made observations and verified during regular and off-shift hours, that selected aspects of the plant's physical security system were in accordance with regulatory requirements, physical security plan and approved procedures.
The following observations relating to physical security were made:
The security force on both regular and off-shifts was properly manned and appeared capable of performing their assigned functions.
Protected area barriers were intact - gates and doors closed and locked if not attended.
Isolation zones were free of obstructions and objects that could aid an intruder in penetrating the protected area.
Persons and packages were checked prior to entry into the protected area.
Vehicles were properly authorized, searched, and escorted or controlled within the protected area.
Persons within the protected area displayed photo-identification badges, persons in vital areas were properly authorized, and persons requiring escort were properly escorted.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Plant Tours a.
~Sco e
,During the course of the report period, the inspector made multiple tours of plant areas to make an independent assessment of equipment conditions, radiological conditions, safety and adherence to regulatory requirements.
The following areas were among those inspected:
Turbine Building Auxiliary Control Room Vital Switchgear Rooms Yard Areas Radwaste Area
Diesel Generator Rooms Screen House Reactor Building Refueling Area b.
~Findin s
The following determinations were made:
(1)
Monitoring instrumentation:
The inspector verified that selected instruments were functional and demonstrated parameters within Technical Specification limits.
(2) =Radiation protection controls:
The inspector verified that the licensee's Radiation Protection procedures were adhered to in the following areas:
(a)
Access controls including tagging, posting and maintenance of step-off pads.
(b)
Confirmation of licensee survey results by independent measurements.
(c)
Verification that requirements of Radiation Work Permits are appropriate and are being followed.
(d)
On December 18, 1980, the inspector noticed that the personnel contamination detection meter, model RM-3C, at the exit from the restricted area in the turbine building elevation 277 appeared to be inoperable.
This was apparent to the inspector because the background reading on the meter was zero.
Normal background readings in this area are 100 to 200 counts per minute (c.p.m.).
The inoperable mater was immediately replaced by the licensee.
At the request of the inspdctor, swipes were taken in the unrestricted area near the meter to ensure that contamination had not been spread to the unrestricted areas in the administration building.
All swipes were less 100 disintegrations per minute/100 cm~.
On January 14, 1981, the inspector noticed that the RM-3C at the turbine building elevation 261 exit to the maintenance shop also appeared to be defective since the meter indicated a background reading of
- "300" on both the "times one" scale and the "times ten" scale.
The defective meter was immediately replaced by the licensee.
Swipes taken in the maintenance shpp were less than 100 disintegrations per minute/100 cm~.
On January 15, 1981, the inspector noticed that the background reading on the RM-3C at the entrance to the reactor building track bay from the reactor building was 700-800 c.p.m.
The inspector discussed the necessity of locating personnel contamination detection meters in low background areas with the Supervisor of Chemistry and Radiation Protection.
The meter was immediately moved just a few feet around a doorway to where the background was 200-300 c.p.m.
Swipes taken in the reactor building track bay indicated less than 100 disintegrations per minute/100 cm2.
The licensee currently conducts an operability check of all personnel contamination detection meters with a check source three times a week.
Additionally, the Supervisor of Chemistry and Radiation Protection
.
has issued a memorandum to the radiation protection technicians to ensure that personnel decontamination meters at exits from the restricted area are established in low background areas.
(e)
On December 22, 1980, the licensee noticed an increase in the stack gas release rate of 12-15 times greater than normal.
The normal release rate is about
microcuries per second.
The resident inspector was in the control room at the time of the event and observed the licensee's actions to this event.
Through direct observation, review of records and discussions with the licensee's radiation protection representatives, the inspector determined that:
The licensee took prompt action to determine the magnitude of the problem.
Local air samples indicated a maximum level of 1.21 E-7 microcuries per cubic centimeter (12.2 percent of MPC) of Cs - 138.
These readings were in the turbine building e)evation 261 ft.
No turbine building evacuation was required nor conducted.
No release rate limits were reached.
The duration of the event was about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.
A licensee investigation determined that the cause of the event was the sampling of the shell side of a feedwater heater.
During the purging of the sample, the sample flow rate exceeded the capacity of the sample cooler and steam issued into the sample sink.
The window that can be used to enclose the sample sink (which is covered with an exhaust hood and fan)
had been left open.
Stopping the sample and closing the window on the sample sink terminated the releas (3)
Plant Housekeeping:
Observations relating to plant housekeeping identified no unsatisfactory conditions.
(4)
Fluid leaks:
No significant fluid leaks were observed.
(5)
Piping vibration:
No excessive piping vibrations were observed.
(6)
Fire protection:
The inspector verified that selected fire extinguishers were accessible and inspected on schedule that fire doors were unobstructed and that adequate controls over ignition sources and fire hazards were maintained.
The inspector had no further questions in the areas examined.
5.
Emer enc Pre aradness Drill On December 19, 1980, the licensee conducted a drill of a simulated medical emergency involving a compound fracture which was also highly contaminated.
An independent consultant, Radiation Management Corporation, was retained by the licensee to assist in the training and evaluation of plants integrated emergency medical response.
The basic objectives of the drill were:
a.
To test the ability of the plant staff to effectively respond to a medical emergency in conjunction with the Oswego Fire Department Ambulance, Oswego Hospital, and station on-call physician.
b.
To exercise the total communications network between the plant and various off-site agencies (NRC, State, County, Oswego Fire Control,
.
and Oswego Hospital).
c.
To evaluate the response of the off-site support agencies with regard to their ability to effectively perform their respective functions.
The resident inspector reviewed the drill scenario prior to the conduct of the drill, attended a pre-drill briefing of the observers, observed the licensee's response from the drill scene in the plant,and at the hospital, and attended the critiques following the drill at both the hospital and the plant.
Through direct observation he determined that:
The training for coordination with off-site agencies (ie. the Oswego Hospital and the Oswego Fire Department Ambulance)
received their full cooperation and support and was appropriate for their needs.
Although minor difficulties in communications were encountered, these organizations performed in a very professional manner.
The licensee stated that emergency procedures will be revised to improve the communications with these off-site agencie The plant's response at the scene of the simulated accident lacked direction and coordination.
Additional training will be conducted to stress the responsibilities of emergency response personnel.
Communications between the scene and the Control Room were poor.
The plant will purchase additional equipment for use by the fire brigade and rescue squad to help eliminate this problem.
First aid supplies were inadequate or missing from the small first aid kit.
The plant intends to prepare a first aid log to be used as part of the emergency equipment used for responding to medical emergencies.
Also, additional first aid training will be provided to ensure adequate coverage on a round-the-clock basis.
The licensee's management has shown a positive interest in improving the deficiencies identified in this drill.
The results of the drill have been documented and reviewed by the Site Operations Review Committee at meeting number 81-10 on January 28, 1981.
The licensee's actions to correct the identified problem areas will be reviewed by the resident inspector at a subsequent inspection (50-220/80-21-01).
6.
Ins ection and Enforcement Bulletins Licensee action concerning the following Inspection and Enforcement Bulletins ( IEB) was reviewed to verify that:
Written response was within the stated time period and contained the required information Written response includes adequate corrective action commitments Licensee management forwarded copies of the written response to appropriate onsite management Information discussed in the licensee written response was adequate Corrective action taken by the licensee was as described in the written response
'a ~
IEB 80-20, Failures of Westin house T
e W-2 S rin Return to Neutral Control Switches The inspector reviewed the licensee's response dated September 11, 1980.
The licensee stated that this type of switch is not used at Nine Mile Point, Unit b.
IEB 80-23, Failures of Solenoid Valves Manufactured b
Valcor En ineenn Cor orat>on The inspector reviewed the licensee's response dated December 3, 1980.
The licensee stated that these solenoid valves are not used at Nine Mile Point, Unit l.
c.
IEB 80-24, Prevention of Dama e
Due to Water Leaka e Inside Containment The inspector reviewed the licensee's response dated January 5, 1981.
A closed cooling water system is used inside the containment at Nine Mile Point, Unit l.
The above bulletins are'considered closed.
No further information is required.
7.
Review of Periodic Re orts The following reports were reviewed to verify that the reporting requirements of the Technical Specifications are being met and that plant operations are being accurately reported:
Monthly Operating Report, October 1980 Monthly Operating Report, November 1980 Monthly Operating Report, December 1980 8.
Exit Interviews At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and finding I <
C 0