IR 05000220/1981024
| ML17053C912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1981 |
| From: | Doerflein L, Sharon Hudson, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C910 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-81-24, NUDOCS 8111050375 | |
| Download: ML17053C912 (18) | |
Text
Repor t No 81-24 U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Docket No.
License No.
Priority Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West Category Syracuse, New York 13202 Faci 1 ity Name Nine Mi 1 e Point Nucl ear Stati on, Unit
Inspection at:
Scriba, New York Inspection conducted:
September 1-30, 1981 Inspectors:
S.
D. Hudson, Resident Inspector L. T. Doerfle n, Resident Inspector date signed (0
)
gl at signed date signed Approved by:
H. B. Kister, ref, Reactor Projects Section 1C dat signed Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on Se tember 1-30, 1981 Ins ection Re ort No. 50-220/81-24 Areas Ins ected:
Routine, onsite regular and backshift inspections by the resi ent inspectors (113 hours0.00131 days <br />0.0314 hours <br />1.868386e-4 weeks <br />4.29965e-5 months <br />).
Areas inspected included:
licensee action on previous inspection findings, operational safety verification, physical security, plant tours, surveillance tests, maintenance activities, safety system verification, emergency preparedness, and review of periodic reports.
Results:
Of the nine areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were 1dentsfsed in eight areas.
One item of noncompliance was identified in one area.
(Use of Extended Radiation Work Permit during conditions when it was not valid)
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
POR OOO373 3~~
Big
<>OCR 0> i020 000pp0 POR
>>>> /
~
I
~
~
<< /
<<
I 4 )
I
>>
II
I
/
I P/
>> '
- >>
/
/" >>
>>
'>>
/ ~
>>
'I
~
>>
/
>>
>> ~ <<'>>
>>
>>
>>
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted R. Abbott, Supervisor, Operations K. Dahlberg, Site Maintenance Superintendent J. Duell, Supervisor, Chemistry and Radiation Protection E. Leach, Superintendent of Chemistry and Radiation Management R. Orr, Supervisor, Nuclear Security T. Perkins, General Superintendent, Nuclear Generation T. Roman, Station Superintendent B. Taylor, Supervisor, Instrument and Control P. Volza, Emergency Planning Coordinator 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.
Licensee Action On Previous Ins ection Findin s (Closed)
UNRESOLVED ITEM (50-220/81-17-03):
Use of a digital voltmeter DYM) beyond the date it was due for calibration.
The inspector reviewed the calibration check performed on July 28, 1981 of DVM serial number 2028500.
Although the DVM was over-due for calibration, the calibration check shows the meter was not out of calibration.
Therefore, the results of all surveillance tests performed with this meter are valid.
3.
0 eration Safet Verification a ~
Control Room Observations t,
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'or operation (LCO's).
The plant specific checklist has been developed to assist the inspector in ensuring the following items were observed:
Proper control. room manning; Availability and proper valve line-up of safety systems; Availability and proper alignment of onsite and offsite emergency power sources; Reactor control panel indications and bypass switches; Core thermal limits; Primary containment temperature and pressure; Drywell to suppression chamber differential pressure; Stack monitor recorder traces; and Liquid poison tank level and concentratio f V
- J jtl'
hh V
~
r II 1 J'J
"
~ O'V J
- II J
'I '
I* '
V I PI I V
V
1)
rh V
~
I V
~ j, h
.sg y
I II M1
i,h V
t hl V
hrh )
V Il
~,
I'
't.
fr h ~ h, V.
=
)
)'LV I
~
Ilt>> $
,,
'
P 'Tt'lrr)'
l V
II V
h I
V VV
- )g$
"
jfvVyr)rphtt'>>JJ"
~"
V V
hV 1 '
~ II P'
IVI 1'
ll V=
n II I
I, II h
V
I
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 check-lists and log review by the oncoming and off-going shifts were also observed by the inspector.
The inspector directly observed portions of routine power operations to ensure adherence to approved procedures.
b.
Review Of Lo s and 0 eratin Records The inspector reviewed the following logs and instructions for the period September 1 through September 30, 1981:
Control Room Log Book Station Shift Supervisor's Log Book Station Shift Supervisor's Instructions 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 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.
4.
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 proper ly manned and appeared capable of performing their assigned functions.
Protected area barriers were intact - gates and doors closed and locked if not attende IH U
~
f
~
VW
)",'l'W
V f'f I'f ll
~.4 fl
'
'.
J I I ~I 0rf J )
- vl I
~
'I 1'l
"F Wr P
I J
"I
1 J
,I I
I I
r
~
j
I I
v A
Communication checks were conducted.
Proper communication devices were available.
Isolation zones were free of visual 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.
Compensatory measures were implemented during periods of equipment failure.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Plant Tours During the inspection 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 The following items were observed or verified:
a.
Radiation Protection:
Personnel monitoring was properly conducted.
Randomly selected radiation protection instruments were calibrated and operable.
Area surveys were properly conducted and the Radiation Work Permits were appropriate for the as-found conditions.
Radiation Work Permits (RWP) requirements were being followed.
On September 18, 1981, the licensee began making formalized checks of safety related equipment throughout the plant.
These checks are conducted once per 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> shift.
No specific RWP is issued for any
~
4
A
4
~ '1
~ 4 I
~ ','$
- I I
4 I t I
'H,,'.
g ht I'
Ih )
I"
4 I"
'
l 4 I 4 "
Hsh f
I'
1
~
4 ll
'>tt t'44
r'
~
~
4 ~ 4-
4 )sh h>>l )
'I 1th,)
I 4
'I 4
I II
4*4 I t
I
"
~
4 I IHH
~ (4
A
j>>
4 I
h
r-li E
tl
of the areas required to be entered.
Instead, the operators are trained as self-monitors and are permitted entry within the requirements of Extended RWP k2G issued May 5, 1981.
Radiation Protection Procedure RP-1,
"Access and Radiological Controls,"
states in Section 8.6:
"Items Negating Use of Extended RWP...
b. Contamination levels, in excess of 25,000 dpm/100 cm2."
P Radiological Survey 859405 performed on September 24, 1981 recorded contamination levels up to 400,000 dpm/ft.2 in the Reactor Building northeast corner, elevation 198 ft.
This equates to 43,000 dpm/100 cm2.
Data sheets for Standing Order 829, "Vital Area Security Patrol,"
record once per shift entry into this area from September 24 to 28, 1981.
Multiple use of the Extended RWP under conditions for which it is not valid is considered to 'be an item of noncompliance.
(50-220/81-24-01)
Upon notification by the,inspector, the licensee immediately issued a'WP for entry into this area.
The next day, the area was decon-taminated to a maximum, level of 22,000 dpm/100 cm2.
b.
Fire Protection:
Randomly selected fire extinguishers were accessible and inspected on schedule.
Fire doors were unobstructed and in their proper position.
Ignition sources were controlled in accordance with the licensee's approved procedures.
Combustible material was promptly removed.
On September 18, 1981, the inspector noticed five pieces of wooden scaffolding laying near the core spray pumps that did not appear to be fire retardant.
The licensee took prompt action to remove the wood.
c.
Equipment Controls:
Jumpers and equipment tag outs did not conflict with Technical Specification requirements.
Conditions requiring the use of jumpers received prompt licensee attention.
Selected jumpers had been properly installed and removed.
d.
Vital Instrumentation:
Selected instruments appeared functional and demonstrated parameters within Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operatio l K
~
V
~
V Q ~
V I
V'V l,.
IIP 'l Vl l
~
if
<p A l
PV;,'t VI
'll*l y,g q l,'Ifl '
9 Vjl V\\
l, vV 4 V
Pl]
P
'
P hlV
,),,V P
~ ",
~
V V
ll' ~
fj Jg P, V g
) l l
e.
Radioactive Waste System Control:
Gaseous releases were monitored and recorded.
Gaseous releases were periodically sampled and did not exceed Technical Specification limits.
f.
Housekeeping:
Plant housekeeping and cleanliness practices were in conformance with approved licensee programs.
Except as noted above, no unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
6.
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 test.
The following tests were included in this review:
Nl-RTP-32, "Routine Calibration of Refueling Platform High Range Area Radiation Monitor," Revision 1, dated May 8, 1981.
Nl-ST-IC5, "High Pressure Coolant Injection Surveillance with an Inoperable Component Test," Revision 1, dated August 28, 1978.
Nl-ST-g3, "High Pressure Coolant Injection Pump Operability Test,"
Revision 2, dated January 9, 1979, performed on Ill Feedwater Pump.
No items of noncompliance were identifie WE t
Wf l') 'g
I
'If 0 i,
f
Ww C '0 4'W tt I,
e 'l ll W
)
'
',4')V
~
$
VF E
I 4) f
4
~
W Et*f 3 f
4 I 4 'IVII j$ 1 g 4I
'%It VVW'
i f "t f EWIItg il'.
P
)
'
t
~
I
~
WE ti
),I r
lt )
4
~
EW ,'...,
4'4 t'I')f t 4')'-t,.'WI"1 "V,)'"
)'") '
f
'
~; 4-)
V 4<<U
~
I'i
'h I'
I P
W
4 4 "*'
E I
'
I "tt g 4)
W VE 4 WW "I4 II
~ F
7.
Plant Maintenance The inspector examined portions of various safety related maintenance activities.
Through direct observation and review of records, he determined that:
Redundant components were tested to ensure operability prior to starting the work.
These activities did not violate the limiting conditions for operation.
Required administrative approvals and tagouts were obtained prior to initiating the work.
Approved procedures were used or the activity was within the
"skills of the trade".
Appropriate radiological controls were properly implemented.
Equipment was properly tested prior to returning it to service.
During this inspection period, the following activities were examined:
Repair of the air operator on Containment Spray Isolation Valve ¹122.
Replacement of the mechanical seal on ¹ll Feedwater Pump.
Replacement of the Reactor Building to Torus Vacuum Breaker pressure switch ¹68-12B.
During the repair of ¹ll Feedwater Pump, the inspector independently verified tag out ¹RMU135269 had been properly hung and later witnessed the return to service testing.
During the removal of the air operator on Containment Spray Isolation Valve ¹122, the inspector noticed that one maintenance worker was not wearing a film badge, dosimeter, or thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD)
as required by Radiation Work Permit ¹4196.
The film badge, dosimeter, and TLD were found laying onva tool chest about ten feet from the work location.
The inspector immediately handed the dosimetry to the worker, who placed them on his protective clothing. It appears that the worker had placed the dosimetry on the tool chest while putting on the required protective clothing and then forgot to place it on the outside of his protective clothing.
The general area radiation level was 1 to 3 mrem/hr.
and the contact readings with the Containment Spray Isolation Valve was not significantly above background.
The licensee estimated from the dosimeter of two other
),
~
I, I
~
~ ~
~ ~
I
'
ll "4,
II
4 il
-'I, 4
~
4
4 hht 'I
W II'
~
I
U
","httt WI 1 Wl'1)tl
'I
, 'I Iih I'
)4 4 II)
CU lt I W
t'l I
".
Il
- t
h I
4 tt 4 I I
ff),
t)f')W" I
I" W
\\ 4 W
)le
/ ~ )
Q
~ '
/
') f'
Vv II I
1
W Ut
other workers on the same job that the worker received less'than 2 mrem during the period in which he was not wearing his film badge.
The worker and his supervisor were instructed to use care in the future to ensure that the requirements of the Radiation Work Permit are met.
Except as noted above, no unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
8.
Safet S stem 0 erabilit Verification On a sampling basis, the inspector directly examined selected safety system trains to verify that the systems were properly aligned in the standby mode.
This examination included:
Verification that each accessible valve in the flow path is in the correct position by either visual'bservation of the valve or remote position indication.
Verification that power supply breakers are aligned for components that must actuate upon receipt of an initiation signal.
Visual inspection of the major components for leakage, proper lubrication, cooling water supply, and other general conditions that might prevent fulfillment of their functional requirements.
Verification by observation that instrumentation essential to system actuation or performance was operational.
During this inspection period, the following systems were examined:
Emergency Ventilation System I
Reactor Protection System and Battery Charging Motor Generator Sets The inspector also conducted a complete walk down of the accessible portions of the Emergency Cooling System., In addition to, the above items, the inspector verified that the containment isolation function of this system was in the proper stand-by line-up.
This includes:
Manual valves are shut,'apped, and locked as appropriate.
Motor operated or air operated valves are not mechanically blocked and power is available as appropriate.
There are no visual leakage paths between the containment and the isolation valves.
No items of noncompliance, were identifie II II If V
v
$
~ <<<<h h
t t
'I'( l
<< ~
"V,
~
~
~
h I
'f '
'h jtllg'"
.'th<<)
th f
'
hh
<< '" ', " 'h;I/
tt t
b I'<<<</
N
~,
<<
f tg'
l I
II )'
I '<<
tl t
f
~kf thy I /)'<<g")
f 'f*i I
'h I<<)
h
~ ~
it N
'I I
II I
"')hh'
ll"f E
<< ~
')<<tf t h t
II I I h\\
P<< I
~ t
~ y Vy t*
h,
'I tl h
V.P I
It t.
tP I l
I!
'g
9.
Emer enc Pre aredness On September 4, 1981, the licensee conducted a drill involving a simulated loss of all A-C power, unisolable leak from the reactor vessel, and radioactive release to the environment.
The inspector reviewed the scenario prior to the drill and observed the licensee's
,
response from the control room and the Technical Support Center to determine that:
The station responded in accordance with approved procedures and plans; The response appeared coordinated, orderly, and timely; The licensee used designated persons to evaluate the station's response; The results of the drill and licensee self-evaluation were
'eviewed by licensee management; and Appropriate corrective, action was initiated to correct identified deficiencies.
The inspector noted a significant improvement in the area of communications, including both internal communications between the Control Room and the Technical Support Center and communications with off-site agencies.
No unsatisfactory conditions were identified.
II On September 15, 1981, the licensee conducted a major emergency planning exercise involving full participation of the licensee's, the county's and the state's emergency response organizations.
The licensee's response was witnessed by a team of NRC observers including the Resident Inspectors.
This team inspection is documented in Inspection Report No. 50-220/81-23.
'0.
Review Of Periodic Re orts The following reports were reviewed to verify that reporting requirements of the Technical Specifications are being met and that plant operations are being accurately reported:
Monthly Operating Report, May 1981 Monthly Operating Report, June 1981 Monthly Operating Report, July 1981 No items of noncompliance were identified.
ll.
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 'if 4,;)r H f
~
R(,
I D
4 f)~ ~ ) h)
h
'
lr F ~
I D
'
I
~
I I)HH i,
h
~
P
'
I r"I H
'lrh
~
H
r ll
~
~
I I'
Hh
~
I
'I f ~ 4
~ r I *
1" 'D""
4*D y 4 FDH 4 =f 4.,4 hl
~
I
)4 H
~
I
H I
H