IR 05000220/1981028
| ML17053D011 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/1981 |
| From: | Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Lempges T NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053D012 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201290436 | |
| Download: ML17053D011 (28) | |
Text
0 Docket No. 50-220 OEtl la tSSt XgHg, PILEC{)~,
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATTN:
Mr. T.
E.
Lempges Vice President Nuclear Generation 300 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, New York 13202 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection No. 50-220/81-28 This refers to the routine, safety inspection conducted by Mr. S.
Hudson of this office on November 1-30, 1981, at Nine %le Point,'nit 1, Scriba, New York of activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-63 and to the discussions of our findings held by Nr. S.
Hudson with Mr. T.
Roman of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection, Areas examined dur ing this inspection are described in the Office of Inspection and Enforcement Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
Our inspector also verified the steps you had takeq to correct t;he item of noncompliance brought to your attention in a letter dated September 24, 1981.
We have no further questions regarding your action at this time.
Within the scope of this inspection, no'tems of noncompliance were observed.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations.
a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report ><ill be placed in the NRC's public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you (or.
your contractors)
believe to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4),
it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by telephone within ten (10)
days from the date of this letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; and (b} submit within 25 days from the date of this letter a
written application to this office to withhold such information.
Consistent with section 2.790{b)(1), any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the information which identifies the
~2 RI:DRPI:SDH JWA 12/07/81 RI:DRPI:HBK
< z(iV/Zl RI: DRPI: EBB
>CC 820i290436 Bii2i4 PDR ADQCK 05000220
PDR f
l (6,(
gol
I
"I l
+I 4~4 ll 4 rl I'
~
~
~ (,I
~
h I
,f J
I'
h
4 h
kk f
I-
I
4 Y I
I 4 f.
'
I Ij I
I I 4
~.4,'l.
Cj" t, 4 I
'I r
Jf 4IJ I
I lt
I'
I' kt
-'4 ~
.44
h
'k
'
<<,s
~,
I I
I.
I ff kh'
h I
lf I
4 (4 I
'J I
4 I
I tiI'J ph
C.
k h<<j
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation DEC 14 ASS>
document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement of the reasons on the basis which it is claimed that the information should be withheld from public disclosure.
This section further requires the statement to address with specificity the considerations listed in 10 CFR
" 2.790(b)(4).
The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room.
The telephone notification of your intent to request withholding, or any request for an extension of the 10 day period which you believe necessary, should be made to the Supervisor, Files, Mail and Records, USNRC Region I, at (215) 337-6223.
No reply to this letter is required.
Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
>>~ai>>.~
. -,. ',~,.
Richard H. Starostecki, Director, Division of Resident and Project Inspection Enclosure:
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Inspection Report
Number 60-220/81-28
cc w/encl:
T. Perkins,
General
Superintendent,
Nuclear Generation
T. Roman, Station Superintendent
J. Aldrich, Supervisor,
Operations
H. Drews, Technical
Superintendent
E. B. Thomas, Jr., Esquire
Public Document
Room
(PDR)
Local Public Document
Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center
(NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector
State of New York
bcc w/encl:
Region I Docket
Room (with concurrences)
Chief, Operational
Support Section
(w/o encls)
I
a
I
,a
R
ha
R
M
M
M, ft.b,
E"
If
~
~ J
R
M
I
I
I I
I
a
a
,Mi
M
I J
I M
- l'easer>
~oA
( noos~tvwo~ Ni"r) -fooH fsdoo0 I oorpeA
(aloes
o'g<) woi9~92
. anqqu2
t'5ooUsssqO,-~ehl3
Report
No
81-28
Docket No.
50-220
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE
OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
See
Page
2 for
DCS numbers
License
No.
Priority
Category
Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation
300 Erie Boulevard West
Syracuse,
13202
Facility Name
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit
Inspection at:
Scriba,
Inspection conducted:
November 1-30,
1981
Inspectors:
S.
D.
Hu son,
Ress
en
nspec or
L. T. Doerfl in, Resident
Inspector
Iz. 8'l
date signed
a F rl
dat
si gned
Approved by:
H. B. Kister, Chief, Reactor Projects
Section
1C
date signed
ate
igned
Ins ection
Summar
Ins ection
on November 1-30,
1981
Ins ection
Re ort No. 50-220/81-28
Areas
Ins ected:
Routine, onsite regular
and backshift inspections
by the
resi ent inspector s
(91 hours0.00105 days <br />0.0253 hours <br />1.50463e-4 weeks <br />3.46255e-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,
review of Licensee
Event Reports,
and review of periodic reports,
and Site Operations
Review Committee activities.
Results:
No items of noncompliance
were identified in the areas
examined.
Region I Form 12
(Rev. April 77)
/
)
'
NUMBERS
50220-800102
50220-800109
50220-800124
50220-800129
50220-800203
50220-800303
50220-800315
50220-800419
50220-800521
50220-800528
50220-800623
50220-800715
50220-800717
50220-800804
50220-800808
50220-800822
50220-800827
50220-800830
50220-800911
50220-800922
50220-800927
50220-800930
50220-801028
50220-801118
50220-801126
50220-801204
50220-801215
50220-801216
50220-801224
50220=801229
50220-810107
50220-810202
50220-810207
50220-810209
50220-810316
50220-810321
50220-810403
50220-810410
50220-810420
50220-810428
50220-810429
50220-810508
50220-810515
50220-810521
50220-810526
50220-810603
50220-810605
50220-810607
50220-810609
50220-810615
50220-810623
50220-810624
50220-810630
50220-810704
50220-810705
50220-810709
50220-810721
50220-810729
50220-810816
50220-810818
50220-810831
50220-810908
50220-810914
50220-810916
50220-810922
50220-811020
ga tl
'I
P ~
fl
i
fh
I"Ifh
I
If hl
A
II
4 )'
u.
)
fI I'I
f
'
I
'). u
I
~
>
~
I
'I 'l
h
" I
~
f
I
f$
II
+I
I
'
f
)
)fhf
f
h
DETAILS
Persons
Contacted
J. Aldrich, Supervisor,
Operations
K. Dahlberg, Site Maintenance
Superintendent
W. Drews, Technical 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
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.
Licensee Action on Previous
Ins ection Findin
s
(Closed)
ITEM OF NONCOMPLIANCE (81-21-01):
Failure to check for
contamination prior to leaving the restricted
area.
The inspector
reviewed Radiation Survey Log 858591
dated
August 13,
1981
and verified
that no contamination
was found outside the turbine building track bay.
Through discussion with a licensee representative,
the inspector learned
that this exit point and the turbine building truck bay will no longer
be used
as
a normal
access
point to or from the building during normal
plant operations.
Gates
are installed across
both roll up doors.
These
doors
may be used for emergency exits and
may be used during plant outages.
A portable personnel
monitor is provided by each door.
(Closed)
INSPECTOR
FOLLOW ITEM (81-21-02):
The "inspector reviewed
Nl-ST-g7, "Manual Scram Instrument
Channel Test," Revision 3, dated
March 4,
1981
and noted that
a temporary
change
had
been
made
on
November 19, 1981.
This change
now requires verification of proper
computer response
during this surveillance test.
The temporary
change
was approved
by the Site Operations
Review Committee
on November 24, 1981.
(Closed)
INSPECTOR
FOLLOW ITEM (81-27-02):
The inspector
reviewed
guality Control Surveillance
Report
8W81-22 issued
November 2,
1981 to
determine that
a report of the quality control inspection
had
been
made
to the appropriate on-site
super visors.
In this report,
no items requiring
corrective actions
were identified.
0 eration 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
I)jh
f
Iy ~ I
h
h=
ffq) h-
-<< ~
"t,,<<h
',
C"
.')ji hh!i
f/"
I
)=,1,
(
fj
<<
I'3 <<k
"j
I
" 'j 'If
I\\
fp 11'><<r,
jl f<<h "4 I)
'1
$ ')')" I
ji'Ihl'
<<':h
'j <<rhff'
IIf'fIh
I<<h
j4
Ig
yI,
ij) ')
I"fj ';" 1
Ih
I 'h,l
'll
P
),jj
',j
~
I
I
I(
I Ij
I
I
h
I"
'
I
j 1
4.
to ensure
the following.,items were
observed:'roper
control
room manning;
Availability and proper valve l,ine-up of safety systems;
Availability and proper
alignment of onsite
and offsite
emergency
power sources;
f
Reactor control panel indications
and bypass
switches;
Core thermal limits;
temperature
and pressure;
J
Drywell to suppression
chamber differential pressure;
Stack monitor recorder traces;
and
Liquid poison tank level
and concentration.
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 directly observed
portions of routine power operations
to ensure
adherence
to approved
procedures.
On November 12, 1981, the inspector
noted that the
thermocouple
downstream of Electromatic Relief Valve
8112 was not indicating on the computer hourly log.
The licensee
was already
aware of the malfunction and
stated the acoustic monitor for relief valve kll2 had
been tested satisfactorily.
The licensee will report
this malfunction to the
NRC as
LER 81-52.
On November 18, 1981, about 9:00 a.m., the inspector
noted 'the following discrepancy
between the meter reading
and the computer point for each
main steam line radiation
detector.
Dt t
~Ct
Pit
~Nt
R
di
C
Idi ti
ill
121
112
122
E469
E470
E471
E472
800
873
800
705
1000
626
1000
1634
i VV f
~ '
W'
VWr.
-
-
V
4.)>>
~ i>. (
'W4
~
)
q'44
)gv)
vii
ll'
'fW )
VW')")f'4
U
Vg
U
V
~
i )
W
W
'
)W
$
W
)
'
U
)
v
)
) )'~
( '~~
i4 ) )
.')!W."'~,').")".
W )
I
4',
U
I /'1' 'ill
1 )
i
i)h4
i4
~
"r
I
'4 )
"r)4,
~
C
'%444
I
~
ll
-V
U
~
l'
i
1 c
~
W
4'l
4v
U
UU
e
V
J
I
p
UU
V
~
~
V
I
V
~
W
W
~
VV
V
W)
J
ht
The licensee
was already
aware of this discrepancy
and is
in the process
of correcting it.
The licensee
actions in
this matter will be reviewed during
a future inspection.
(50 220/81-28-01)
b.
Review of Lo s and
0 eratin
Records
The inspector reviewed the following logs
and instructions for
the period
November
1 through
November 30, 1981:
Control
Room Log Book
Station Shift Supervisor's
Log Book
Station Shift Supervisor's
Instructions
Licensee
Event Report
Log
Reactor Operating
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
r equirements
of technical
specifications
are met.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
4.
Observation of Ph sical
Secur it
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
function )>>'l
J 1 hi
I g
I
,'IF/ ~
$
~
lt~
.)
J ~
t
)
)
lt
)JJ'>>
I 1'I lf ll~
l
$
J
~
g
1>>
I
~
W
)
-1)
C IJfl>>
I
1
I'I
g= ~
IJ
" g-,
lh>> 1,
I
It
n
)
Il
1
t
~ -Ih
-
~ '
JJI
~
)
P"
thl>>
<
yhhy
r)
t
qjt
I!I
i
WJ
I
~
'IJ II
II,'I
l
!J
h
)!))))t
~$ 0(.J
h n'IW) )l;
II
JJ wl
J )*l
) 4>>.
ll
r
1 I
>>
'I
>>
J
JI
I
>>)JI
'" >>tJ,P
1
It
h
l I'W
Protected
area barriers
were intact - gates
and doors closed
and locked if not attended.
Communication
checks
were conducted.
'roper communication
devices
were available.
Isolation zones
were free of visual obstructions
and objects
that could aid
an intruder in penetrating
the protected
area
and dur ing periods of darkness,
the protected
area
had sufficient
illumination.
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
j 44g
~
~
'I
4>>
~
~
.
~
I
Itt
y
Ht
'I
~
I
e 4'
I'
"'l
I 'l
I'
I
".!
I
I
II )<<)
h ) f
)
~
t\\
ht '\\ t>>
'I
I
ll
II
~
~
hII ~
II
I
)
eh
I"
~
~ 4
The following items were observed
or verified:
a.
Radiation Protection:
Personnel
monitoring was properly conducted.
Randomly selected
radiation protection instruments
were
calibrated
and operable.
Radiation
Work Permits
(RWP) requirements
were being followed.
Personnel
monitoring was properly conducted.
Randomly selected
radiation protection instruments
were
calibrated
and operable.
Radiation
Work Permit requirements
were being followed.
Area surveys
were properly conducted
and the Radiation
Work
Permits
were appropriate
for the as-found conditions.
The
inspector witnessed
the performance of an air sample for
radiation
sur vey ¹60564 in the Radwaste
Building elevation
229 ft. and contamination
survey for radiation survey
¹60727 in the
NRC trailer.
b.
Fire Protection:
Randomly selected fire extinguishers
were accessible
and
inspected
on schedule.
Fire doors were unobstructed
and in their proper position.
Ignition sources
and combustibleomaterials
were controlled in
accordance
with the licensee's
approved procedures.
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 +J, 0)
f. h,)lp f )
i l,1(,'$
~
f il
r
l
I)',
f i
"ff
I(
",
~
~,F
- '
~
,
&e,l
~
l
I
, I ~
+ a
'l
1 l)
/At
Jl
l
I'"""'Q~)
l '
)
3 l
0'f"ll I l y"'ll'
4)
<g
'lh
g ~
II
j'
- i l )vt,,b(lg(/if g
=
I
I,
l
I
I
vl
1,
~ I
I
t I)
I
It
If
l
l
}I "
~ V>ll,g l )~.,
fl
I
(
I 1c l
e.
Radioactive
Waste System Controls:
(
Gaseous
releases
were monitored
and recorded.
The inspector reviewed the Weekly Stack
Gas Isotopic
Analysis
and Offgas Isotopic Analysis performed. on
November
9 and 30,
1981 to determine that gaseous
releases
were periodically sampled
and did not exceed
Technical
Specification limits.
f.
Housekeeping:
Plant housekeeping
and cleanliness
practices
were in accordance
with approved licensee
programs.
No items of noncompliance
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 proper ly restored to service following the test.
The following tests
were included in this review:
Nl-ST-SO, "Shift Checks,"
Revision 6, dated October 6, 1981,
performed
on November
6, 1981.
Nl-ISP-RPS-TP,
"Reactor Protection System-Main
Steam Line Break,"
Revision 9, dated August 28, 1981, performed
on November 13, 1981.
The inspector witnessed
the calibration of instrument ¹01-26F.
Nl-MST-R3, "Hydraulic Snubber functional Test," Revision 2, dated
March 16,
1981, performed
on November 13,
1981
on snubber ¹29-HS- ~,
'4
if
Pf.4,')
4 'g>>
Cif
lf tl
I
~
'
>')
'4
il
il
fhf
"
Ii
P
l
ll
4 , <<
fPJh
I
$
)
- ll q I
, f
- If
ihP
~
i
ii 'fi
I",lI
)fI P" >::,I
4.f
) ')
'<'f'4
- ll!4
P
P
ll 4
4 /I'
g
~
I 44),1rt,
~
I,
4
I
Cf
~.
"4)f
Nl-ISP-RPS-TP,
"Reactor Protection System-Reactor
Vessel
Lo-Lo Level," Revision 9, dated August 28, 1981, performed
on
November 25, 1981.
The inspector
witnessed
the calibration of
instrument ¹36-04C.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
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 tag outs were obtained prior
to initiating the work.
Approved procedures
wer e used or the activity was within the
"skills of the trade".
Appropriate radiological controls were properly implemented.
Equipment
was properly tested prior to r eturning it to service.
During this inspection period, the following activities were examined:
Repair of snubber
¹29-HS-6
Meter and relay calibration of Motor Generator
(MG) sets
¹161
and ¹162.
The inspector
alsoI,;witnessed
the transfer of ¹11
Reactor Protection
System
Bus to its alternate
power supply
prior to the removal of ¹162
MG set from service.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
8.
Safet
S stem
0 erabilit
Verificati on
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 observation of the valve or remote
position indicatio R
l
t
'
)
ll '
II
I
II
N
I
II
~ ll
r
lf
~ t
I
N
I I
I
I
I
M
~
't
~
~ fl
N
t
N
~,
~
IIN
t
)41
)
I
I
II
IN N
f
l
l
QNI
III
y
I
Il
" ~,
I
'I
fl
r
)f1
'
~
)
'I
I,
t
, ~
It
,h
I
N
I
$
",,
N
Irg
f
ll
il
Itf
Ilf
~
~
N
~
=.
N
I
N
'NN
N I
)
~
~ I
~
~
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
" is operational.
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.
During this inspection period, the following systems
were examined:
Vacuum Relief
Containment
Spray System
¹11
Core Spray System
¹11
(EDG) ¹102
The inspector noticed that although the fuel oil storage
tank
level indicator for EDG ¹102 was calibrated in February
1981,
the indicator for EDG ¹103 fuel oil storage
tank was last
calibrated in October
1979.
The inspector stated that since
these indicators are used to obtain measurements
required
by
Technical Specifications (i.e., minimum fuel oil supply), they
should
be periodically calibrated.
The licensee
acknowledged
the inspector's
concerns
and stated
procedures
would be
prepared to ensure that the indicators for both storage
tanks
will be calibrated annually.
The licensee's
action will be
reviewed during
a future inspection.
(50-220/81-28-02)
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
9.
Review of Licensee
Event
Re orts
LER's
The inspector
conducted
a review of LER's to determine that the
reporting requirements
had
been met, the report was adequate
to
assess
the event, the, cause
appeared
accurate
and
was supported
by details, corrective actions
appeared
appropriate,
the
LER form
was properly completed,
and generic applicability to other plants
was not in question.
The inspector
conducted
a detailed review of LER's ¹80-01 thru
80-34 and 81-01 thru 81-47.
(LER's ¹80-29, 81-02, 81-03 and 81-25
were not issued).
>>/4
e
l
V
~ /
I jl'i
F
~ ~
I
I
I"
ll
$
'Ilh
F
I
I
ht I
~
h y II
t
~
~
j
'F
F i
hi
F
" h"
4I I
~
~
In many cases,
the inspector
had previously examined the events
at the time of the occurrence to determine that the requirements
of
the Limiting Conditions for Operations
had
been met and appropriate
corrective action
was initiated.
The following LER's are discussed
in previously issued
insp'ection reports:
LER ¹
Ins ection
Re ort ¹
80-19
80-08
81-04
81-01
80-02, 80-06, 80-18,
80-20, 80-28, 80-30
81-08
81-17,'1-18
81-27
81-32, 81-33, 81-36
81-41
81-44
81-02
81-,12
81-13
81-16
81-17
81-21, 81-22
81-24
The following LER's weresselected
for on-site followup to review
the licensee's
actions.to
prevent recurrence.
LER ¹80-07:
(MSIV) failed to close.
"NSIV Position Test Surveillance
and Maintenance,"
Revision 1, dated April 21,
1981
now requires that the pilot valve
for each
NSIV be disassembled
and cleaned
once per cycle.
LER ¹81-09:
Containment Spray Isolation Valve ¹122 failed to close.
INP-CI-SOV-l, "Repair of Solenoid
Operated
Valves which control
Primary Containment Isolation Valves," Revision 0, dated
September
15,
1981
now requires
the pilot valve for each primary containment isolation
valve be disassembled
and cleaned.
This maintenance
procedure is
placed
on the instrument schedule to be performed
once
per cycle.
LER ¹81-30:
Discrepancy in the t'rip setting of the Emergency
Condenser
Vent Monitors between the test signal
and the actual signal.
RTP-20,
"Routine Calibration of Emergency
Condenser
Vent Monitors," Revision 2,
dated
June
29,
1981
now requires that the trip setting
be confirmed
with a Cobalt 60 source.
LER ¹81-34
and 81-39:
MSIV ¹122 failed to close.
In LER 81-39, the
licensee
stated that
a preventative
maintenance
program for the air
operated
NSIV operators
would be established.
A licensee
representative
~
~
\\
'(
Ir N!
ll t 1
1
I
V
I
)
I
) I'"Nh(
j
'
)
NII"
Nh
h
l
t hilt
Nlj
'">
N
I
'
I
4
1
~
J
"\\
1
~ 1>h,hh
II h
'
'1
Ij
1')
h
t
I*;
hh
"
"
>
n
>
~ N
"I ~
1
I
)
t
ll
4
NR
th
~
0'
~
stated that the program would be established
prior to the next
refueling.
,This item remains
open pending
NRC review of the licensee's
action.
(50-220/81-28-03)
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
10.
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,
October 1981.,
I
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
ll.
Site
0 erations
Review Committee Activities
On November 10, 1981, the inspector attended
a scheduled
meeting of
the Site Operations
Review Committee.
The inspector verified that
a
quorum was present
and the comnittee's activities
and meeting frequency
satisfied Technical Specifications
requirements.
Subsequent
to the
meeting, the inspector verified that the committee
s activities
had
been
documented
in written meeting minutes.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
12.
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 L
V
I
~
~ )
- )'
r )W
V.le tyg
Ih
h
'r
lh'I "'
t
v,a
, ~
II
.
U.
" yr'"I,', rt
't'
)
i,
rr
f') )
"'U'
)'"it, "
iv )hv
jj
U
U
I 'ih I"
I
r
I
h r'
ll
II
v, ~
r
- ) gryh r,)g)t
y fr
.I)ly
rr~
V >
h