IR 05000220/1981012
| ML17053C730 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1981 |
| From: | Sharon Hudson, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C729 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-81-12, NUDOCS 8107100176 | |
| Download: ML17053C730 (16) | |
Text
DCN:
50220-810316 50220-810422 U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Report No
" 50 220/81
Docket No.
50-220 Region I License No.
Prior ity Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West Category Syracuse, New York 13202 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit
Facility Name:
Inspection at:
Scriba, New York Inspection conducted:
APril 1, 1981 to May 1, 1981 Inspectors: M6i
.
S.
D. Hudson, Resident Inspector date signed date signed Approved by:
. B. iste, ief, R
ctor Projects Se i
1C date sig ed ate igned Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on A ri 1 1, 1981 to Ma 1,
1981 Ins ection Re ort No. 50-220/81-12 Areas Ins ected:
Routine, onsite, regular and backshift inspections by the ress ent inspector (64 hours7.407407e-4 days <br />0.0178 hours <br />1.058201e-4 weeks <br />2.4352e-5 months <br />).
Areas inspected included:
operational safety verification, physical security, plant tours, surveillance tests, plant maintenance, follow-up on significant events, and liquid radioactive waste discharging.
Results:
Of the seven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified rn srx of the areas.
Two items of noncompliance were identified in one area.
(Failure to establish procedures for discharging waste sample tanks and failure to establish a calibration frequency)
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
81,07100176 810625 PDR ADOCK 05000220
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted R. Abbott, Supervisor, Operations W. Chambers, Security Investigator, Nuclear W. Drews, Superintendent of Technical Services J. Duell, Supervisor, Chemistry 8 Radiation Protection P. Harrison, Senior Technical Assistant E. Leach, Superintendent of Chemistry
& Radiation Management R. Orr, Supervisor, Nuclear Security T. Perkins, General Superintendent, Nuclear Generation T.
Roman, Station Superintendent B. Taylor, Supervisor, Instrument and Control The inspector also i'nterviewed and talked with other licensee personnel during the course of the inspection including shift supervisors, administrative, operations, health physics, security, instrument and control, and contractor personnel.
2.
0 erational Safet Verification a.
Control Room Observations Routinely throughout the inspection period, the inspector independently verified plant parameters and equipment availability of engineered safeguard 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 Mode switch in the proper position Selected'it annunciators were discussed with control room operators to verify that the reasons for them were understood and corrective action, if required, was being taken.
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 inspecto The inspector also independently verified that selected jumpers and lifted leads had been correctly installed and removed.
On a sampling basis, the inspector reviewed equipment tag-outs to verify that limiting conditions for operation were met when safety-related equipment was removed from service.
b.
Review of Lo s and 0 eratin Records The inspector reviewed the following logs and instructions for the period April 1 through Nay 1, 1981:
Control Room Log Book Station Shift Supervisor's Log Hook Station Shift Supervisor's Instructions Licensee Event Report Log Jumper and Lifted Leads Log Book 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 the communications provided by the logs and instructions Determine that the reporting requirements of technical specifications are met No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
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 were 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 are Persons within the protected area displayed photo-identification badges, persons in vital areas were properly authorized, and persons requiring escort were properly escorted.
Compensatory measures were implemented during periods of equipment failure.
The inspector noted that the card reader which controls access to the refueling floor from the turbine building elevation 333 ft. had been intentionally defeated for the duration of the refueling outage.
The refueling floor is a vital area since it is in the reactor building.
As a compensatory measure, a guard had been stationed outside the door to the refueling floor to control access.
Although many different security status levels may be properly authorized for entry in the refueling area, the guard was not provided with a list of the authorized status levels.
The inspector determined that no unauthorized personnel were on the refueling floor.
He then discussed the potential for unauthorized entry onto the refueling floor with the licensee's security organization management representative.
The licensee immediately issued an "access list" of authorized status levels to the guard assigned to control access to the refueling floor.
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 a 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 Drywell 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, and that stack gas and building ventilation monitors were calibrate (2)
Radiation protection controls:
The inspector verified that the licensee's Radiation Protection procedures were adhered to at the time of observation in the following areas:
(a)
Access control 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.
(3)
Plant housekeeping:
Observations relating to plant housekeeping identified no unsatisfactory conditions.
(4)
Fluid leaks:
No significant fluid leaks were observed.
(5)
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.
Surveillance Tests During the inspection period, the inspector witnessed the performance of various surveillance tests.
Observations were made to verify that:
Surveillance procedures conform to technical specification requirements and have been proper ly approved.
Test instrumentation is calibrated.
Limiting conditions for operations for removing equipment from service are met.
Testing is performed by qualified personnel.
Surveillance schedule is met.
Test results met technical specification requirements.
Appropriate corrective action is initiated, if necessary.
Equipment is properly restored to service following the test.
The following tests were, included during this review:
"Primary Containment Isolation Valves Leak Rate Tests,"
ISP-25.2, Revision 5, dated March 7, 1981 on drywell sampling valve IV 201.7-02.
WR8 13398 was written to repair the excessive leakage on this valv "Reactor Protection System - Auto Trip System,"
ISP-RPS-TP, Revision 7, dated February 17, 1981.
The portion observed involved the calibration of the reactor high and level trip points on level instrument 36-03B.
"APRM Instrument Channel Calibration," ISP-IC-3-1, Revision 3, dated November 9, 1979 on APRM Channel 12.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Plant Maintenance During the inspection period, the inspector observed various maintenance activities.
The inspector reviewed these activities to verify that:
Technical Specification requirements for removal of equipment from service are met.
Appropriate radiological controls were established and properly implemented.
Required equipment mark-ups are obtained.
Work is performed in accordance with approved procedures.
The following activities were included during this review:
Overhaul on k'12 Recirculation Pump Overhaul on Ill Reactor Water Cleanup Pump On March 16, 1981, the licensee detected a possible crack indication on the inside bore of the southeast feedwater nozzle.
This initial indication was the result of an ultrasonic examination and was promptly reported to the NRC as Licensee Event Report 5'81-08.
During the refueling outage, with the core off-loaded, the feedwater sparger was removed.
This necessitated lowering the reactor vessel water level to below the triple low level setpoint.
The inspector verified that the plant conditions necessary for this maintenance were established in accordance with an approved procedure, specifically,
"Procedure for Temporarily Lowering Reactor Water Level for the 1981 Outage,"
Revision 0, dated April 13, 1981.
The inspector also independently verified that jumpers had been properly installed to allow the manual initiation of core spray in this condition.
The inspector witnessed performance of a dye penetrant examination on the inside of the feedwater nozzle after the sparger had been removed.
A region-based inspector, who is a specialist in non-destructive examination, witnessed a different dye penetrant test and reviewed the results of ultrasonic and magnetic particle tests performed by the licensee.
The results of his review are documented in Inspection Report No. 50-220/81-0 Since dye penetrant, magnetic particle and eddy current tests did not show any indications of a crack, the licensee has concluded that the initial ultrasonic indication was a geometric reflection from a depression on the inside of the nozzle.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Followuo On Si nificant Events On April 22, 1981, a brief electrical fire occurred in the drywe11 due to a short in an electrical lead from a welding transformer.
The station fire alarm was sounded at 2:15 p.m.
and the fire was declared out 10 minutes later.
The resident inspector was onsite and immediately responded to the control room.
Through direct observation and discussions with personnel at a critique held by the licensee after the fire, he determined:
The licensee's response was in accordance with approved procedures.
The fire was extinguished by the plant fire brigade using portable C02 extinguishers.
No outside assistance was required.
The "hotline" call to the NRC Operations Center was made at 2:35 p.m.
This is the correct notification for this type of event.
There were no personnel injuries.
There was no radioactivity involved.
There was no damage to any safety-related equipment.
The licensee plans to conduct refresher training for one contractor group that did not respond properly to the fire alarm.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
8.
Li uid Radioactive Waste Dischar e
On April 14, 1981, the inspector witnessed portions of discharge of
¹11 Waste Sampling Tank (Batch ¹5676) to Lake Ontario and reviewed the discharge segment for Batch ¹5675 discharged on April 13, 1981.
The inspector determined that:
Required samples were thken and analyzed.
Because the liquid waste effluent radiation monitor was not operable, two independent samples were analyzed as required by Environmental Technical Specification Two operators independently checked the valve line-up prior to discharge as required when the liquid waste effluent radiation monitor is not operable.
However, no written procedure exist for discharging a Waste Sample Tank.
The failure to establish written procedures as required by Technical Specification 6.8.1 constitutes an item of noncompliance (50-220/81-12-01).
The inspector noted that the licensee suspended further discharges until a written change had been issued to Operating Procedure No. 28, "Liquid Waste System."
Appropriate station records of the discharge were maintained.
These include record of the dilution flow, radioactive concentration, volume of waste discharged, and the length of time over which each discharge occurred.
The flow rate was continuously measured and recorded during the release.
However, the liquid waste discharge PIN22, flow recorder, appeared to be out of calibration.
It was last calibrated in January 1980, and no routine calibration frequency had been established.
Environmental Technical Specification 5.5.1 states in part,
"Procedures shall include sampling, instrument calibration...
Calibration frequencies for instruments used in performing the measurements required by the Environmental Technical Specifications shall be included.
Those frequencies shall be determined from experience with similar instruments in similar environments and from manufacturer's technical manuals."
The failure to establish a frequency for calibration of the liquid waste discharge flow recorder constitutes and item of noncompliance (50-220/81-12-02).
The inspector noted that the licensee immediately calibrated the flow recorder and stated that in the future it would be calibrated prior to each use.
This, the licensee stated, would be consistent with the requirements to be issued in the near future by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The inspector had no further questions in this area.
Interview At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and findings.