IR 05000220/1981013
| ML17053C740 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1981 |
| From: | Sharon Hudson, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C738 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-81-13, NUDOCS 8107170169 | |
| Download: ML17053C740 (16) | |
Text
Report No 50-220/81-13 Region I U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT DCN:
50220-810521 Docket No.
License No DPR-63 Prior ity Category Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, New York 13202 Faci 1 ity Name Nine Mi1 e Point Nucl ear Stati on, Unit
Inspection at:
Scriba, New York Inspection conducted:
May 2, 1981 - May 31, 1981 Inspectors:
S.
D. Hudson, Resident Inspector 2D rB./
date signed date signed Approved by:
H.
B. Kist
, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1C date signed r
ji date si ned Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on Ma 2,
1981 to Ma 31, 1981 Ins ection Re ort No. 50-220/81-13 Areas Ins ected:
Routine, onsite, regular and backshift inspections by the resident inspector hours).
Areas inspected included:
operational safety verification, physical security, plant tours, surveillance tests, plant maintenance, refueling operations, emergency procedures, core verification procedures, review committee activities, and review of periodic reports.
Results:
Of the ten areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in n>ne of the areas.
One item of noncomp'lienee was identified in one area.
(Failure to maintain a fire barrier sealed)
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
8107170169 810701 PDR ADOCK 05000220
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted R. Abbott, Supervisor, Operations W. Drews, Superintendent of Technical Services J. Duell, Supervisor, Chemistry 8 Radiation Protection P. Harrison, Senior Technical Assistant E. Leach, Superintendent of Chemistry 8 Radiation Management T. Perkins, General Superintendent, Nuclear Generation T.
Roman, Station Superintendent B. Taylor, Supervisor, Instrument and Control The inspector also interviewed 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 lit 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 inspector.
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 the 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 May 2 through May 31, 1981:
Control Room Log Book Station Shift Supervisor's Log Book 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; and 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 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 are J."
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.
Compensatory measures were implemented during periods of equipment failure.
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)
Honitoring 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 calibrated.
(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 measurement (3)
(c)
Yerification that requirements of Radiation Work Permits are appropriate and are being followed.
Plant housekeeping:
Observations relating to plant housekeeping identified no unsatisfactory conditions.
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.
On May 22, 1981, the inspector noted a hold approximately 2" x 9" had been made in the fire wall between 8102 and 8103 emergency diesel generator power board rooms to allow the installation of cabling for new smoke detectors.
Technical Specification 3.6.10 requires that all fire barrier penetration fire seals protecting safety related areas shall be intact or a continuous fire watch shall be established on at least one side of the affected penetration.
The failure to establish a
continuous fire watch after making a penetration in a fire barrier constitutes an item of noncompliance (50-220/81-13-01).
When notified of the penetration by the resident inspector, the licensee immediately stationed a fire watch as required and took prompt action to seal the penetration with Kaowool.
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 properly 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 tes The following tests were included during this review:
"One Rod Permissive Rod Block Functional Check,"
FHP-27, Revision 4, dated May 12, 1981.
The inspector witnessed testing of control rods f34-ll and 14-11.
"Local Power Range Monitoring," IMP-NEU-4, Revision 3, dated January 13, 1981.
The inspector witnessed the calibration of local power range monitors 804-25C and 20-25C.
"Core Spray Header Differential Pressure Instrument Channel Test,"
The inspector witnessed testing of both channels.
The
"as found" values were greater than the technical specification limit of 5 psid.
Therefore, both were recalibrated and reported to the NRC as Licensee Event Reports 81-17 and 81-18.
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 or the activity is within the "skills of the trade".
The following activities were included during this review:
Replacement of LPRM 844-17 in accordance with Fuel Handling Procedure 823,
"LPRM Removal and Installation," Revision 1, dated September 26, 1979.
Hydrostatic test of the Scram Discharge Volume in accordance with procedure PSDMP-4, "Hydrostatic Test of CRD SDV," dated May 6, 1981.
Troubleshooting of the reactor building ventilation exhaust monitors No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Refuelin 0 erations The inspector witnessed portions of the core loading operations to verify compliance with technical specifications and the applicable 1'icensee procedures including:
s.
The control room and refuel floor were properly manned.
Continuous communications were maintained between the control room and the refueling floor.
Fuel movement was conducted by a licensed reactor operator.
Fuel moves within the core were directly monitored by a member of the reactor analyst group.
The refueling platform radiation monitor was operable.
The mode switch was in the proper position.
The source range monitoring instruments were operable and were continuously monitored while moving fuel.
Fuel moves were in accordance with approved written instructions.
Prior to reloading an empty fuel cell, the refueling interlock jumper was removed and the one rod permissive rod block was functional tested.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Emer enc Procedures The resident inspector noticed that the licensee had recently issued Revision 5 to Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure No. EPP-2, "Fire Fighting," dated April 29, 1981.
This revision states that the shift supervisor
"may proceed to the fire to adequately assess its effect on station operation and shall then proceed to the main control room to direct appropriate station operation (e.g., plant shutdown)."
The licensee stated that this procedure would permit the shift supervisor to leave the control room during a fire and proceed to the scene to obtain a "first-hand" assessment of the fire.
NUREG 0578, Item 2.2.la, (T.A.P.
No. I.A.1.2), "Shift Supervisor's Responsibilities" states that
"The shift supervisor, until properly relieved, shall remain in the control room at all times during accident situations to direct the activities of control room operators."
The inspector stated that this principle expressed in NUREG 0578 should apply to the shift supervisor during a fire, namely that he remain in the control room and maintain an overall command role of plant operations.
The licensee maintains that since a fire is not a "nuclear accident",
the concept expressed in NUREG 0578 does not apply. If the fire were to lead to a situation requiring a plant shutdown, the shift supervisor would return to the control room.
This item is unresolved pending further review by the NRC (50-220/81-13-02).
E
.
BWR Core Loadin and Verification Procedures In accordance with a request from IE:Hg (OIE Temporary Instruction TI 2515/40),
the inspector reviewed Reactor Physics Start-up Testing Procedure No. Nl-RPSTP-6,
"Core Post-Alteration Inspection and Verification,"
Revision 1, dated January 30, 1981 to determine if the procedure is technically adequate to detect a possible fuel loading error.
The procedure requires the use of an independent reviewer to visually verify
.
proper fuel bundle orientation.
A separate underwater television scan of the core is performed to check each fuel bundle serial number.
The serial numbers are then compared with the end of refuel core map.
This step is also independently by a second Reactor Analyst technician.
Video tapes of the core verification process are made and retained to permit additional review.
10.
No unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
Review Committee Activities The inspector noted that often procedure changes and revisions that require review by the Site Operations Review Committee (SORC)
are circulated to the individual committee members for review, instead of all members meeting together.
In each SORC poll reviewed, the inspector noted that written meeting minutes were properly documented and maintained.
The licensee intends to continue to use this polling method for reviewing some items.
He has agreed henceforth to review all items approved by a SORC poll at the next formal, convened SORC meeting.
Review of Periodic Re orts 12.
The following reports were reviewed to verify that the reporting requirements of Technical Specifications are being met and that plant operations are being accurately reported:
Monthly Operating Report, January 1981 Monthly Operating Report, February 1981 Monthly Operating Report, March 1981 Monthly Operating Report, April 1981 Unresolved Items 13.
An item about which more information is required to determine acceptability is considered unresolved.
Paragraph 8 contains an unresolved item.
Exit Interview At periodic intervals during the course of the inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and finding f