IR 05000410/1980006
| ML17053B995 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1980 |
| From: | Mcbrearty R, Lester Tripp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053B994 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-410-80-06, 50-410-80-6, NUDOCS 8010100091 | |
| Download: ML17053B995 (14) | |
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE, OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
Report No.
80-06 Docket No.
50-410 License No.
CPPR-112 Priority Category Licensee:
Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration 300 Erie Boulevard West S racuse New York 13202 I
Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station Unit 2.
Inspection At:
Scriba New York Inspection Conducted:
Jul 14-18 1980
~, Br.7p B@i'. 7 c
"
.
A. McBrearty, React Inspector S
id./ m date date date Approved by:
ripp, Chief, Engineering Support Section No. 1, RC&ES Branch ate Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on Jul 14-18 1980 (Re ort Number 50-410/80-06 Areas Ins ected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of activities associated with t e reactor pressure vessel (RPV) storage and placement including procedure re-view, observations, quality record review and investigation of an allegation con-cerning RPV lifting equipment.
The inspection involved 30 inspector-hours onsite by one regional based inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations 'were identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 1977)
~01OX00~1/
'ETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor'oration NMPC
- S.
E.
Czuba, gA Engineer
"J.
L. Dillon, gA Engineer
'L.
G. Fenton, gA Technician
"C.
G. Honors, Constructi'on Engineer
"R. L. Patch, gA Engineer Stone'nd Webster En ineerin Cor oration S8W
"B. F. Gallagher, Senior Resident Engineer
"C.
E.
Gay, Superintendent, Field gC.
"C.
E. Hilton, Superintendent of Construction E. J.. Magilley, Senior gC Engineer D. O'hea, Rigging Supervisor
"J.
E. Rogers, Chief, Office Engineer
"L. E.
Shea, Head, Site Engineering Office ITT Grinnell Cor oration D. Geguere, gC Manager J.
Omundsen, Preventive Maintenance Inspection Coordinator Lam son Universal Ri in 2.
P R.
R. Jester, Project Manager
"~J.
W. Morrison, gA Engineer
" denotes those present at the exit mee'ting
"" telephone contact Reactor Pressure Vessel - Installation Activities a 0 Review of A Im lementin Procedures
'he inspector reviewed procedures governing activities associated with storage, maintenance, placement and installation of the reactor pressure vessel.
The following were included in the inspector's review:
SM Specification No.
NMP-SM01, Specification for Storage and Maintenance During Storage of Permanent Plant Equipment
e
General Electric Company (GE) Specification No. 22A3126, Equipment Storage Requirements GE Specification No. 22A4645, Site Receiving and Storage of Reactor Pressure Vessels GE Specification No. 22A4662, Reactor Assembly As-Built Record Requirements GE Specification No. 22A5592, Reactor Installation Procedure GE Specification No.
22A7145, General Instruction for Reactor Assembly Reactor Controls Incorporated Document No. RA-l, Revision 0, Reactor Assembly Procedure Lampson Procedure No.
LUR-MP-08, Revision 2, Upending and Set of Reactor Pressure Vessel Lampson Procedure No.
LUR"MP-13, Revision 0, Transportation of the RPV on Crawler Transporters from Minter Storage to Containment and Install the Lifting Bail The above listed procedures were considered with respect to compliance with applicable requirements in the following areas:
Handling and storage Crane and rigging testing Vessel lifting Vessel placement, leveling-, final adjustment and data recording No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Observations
- Stored Vessel Protection and Installation Techni ues The inspector examined the reactor vessel storage area with respect to the following:
Storage is in accordance with applicable procedures Vessel internal nitrogen gas purge is maintained in accordance with storage and maintenance requirements Vessel protective coverings are intact
The vessel is 'supported off the ground consistent with storage specifications In addition to the above, lifting.equipment which will be used to place the reactor vessel inside containment was inspected to ascertain that it is as specified and that the required lifttest, was done.
The inspector reviewed procedures and records associated with the lifting equipment load test, and inspected the equipment to ascertain that it was as specified.
The following were included in the inspector's review:
SLM gA inspection plan, load test for Lampson Twin Transi-Lift S8M gA Inspection Report No. M0000022, dated June 30, 1980, load test for Lampson Twin Transi-.Lift Lampson Procedure LUR-TP-200, Revision 3, rigging procedure for Lampson Universal Rigging load test for Twin Transi-Lift Lampson gA report dated June 14, 1980, torquing of nuts and bolts, Transi-Lift No.
2 and Transi-Lift No.
Lampson gA report dated June 28, 1980, certifying test weights Lampson gA report dated July 1, 1980, load test, Twin Transi-Lift Pacific Testing Laboratories certificate number 7909-8508, dated September 24, 1979, load, cell/readout calibration Equipment used for the load test on June 30, 1980 is documented in the Lampson gA report dated July 1, 1980.
The inspector selected the following items to ascertain that they are properly identified as documented in the report of July 1, 1980:
~Eui ment (1)
Transi-Lift Unit 2 (a)
Front Crawler (b)
Rear Crawler (c)
Boom (d)
Mast Identification Number CT"1500" 25 CT-600"ll
4*
(e)
Skagit Hoist (2)
Transi-Lift Unit 3 (a)
Swivel As'sembly (b)
Front Crawler (c)
Rear Crawl er
.
('d)
Boom (e)
Mast (f)
Skagit Hoist (3)
Lifting Truss Assembly (a)
Upper Pins (b)
Compression Strut (c)
. Tension Strut (d),
Upper Link (e)
Truss Pins (f)
Trunnion Links (4)
Pendant Equalizer (a)
Twin Links (b)
Upper Pin (5)
Load Slings S/N 97A50 LUR-04"998-01 CT"1500-26 CT"600-12 M1 S/N 97A49 LUR-46-186-AOl and A02 LUR-43-701 LUR-43-700-A01 and A02 LUR-45-077-A01 and A02 LUR-46-156-AOl and A02
"
LUR-45-078-01 and 02 LUR-44-208-A01 and A02 LUR-46-157-AOl and A02 LUR"55-001, -005 and -007 The inspector found that the Lampson equipment was as specified and that the various parts were identified with unique part numbers for traceability.
The Lampson gA Engineer stated that a master log is maintained at the Lampson home office containing the identification number.of all Lampson equipment.
The reviewed records indicated that the equipment load test was satisfactorily done in accordance with procedure LUR-TP-200.
No items of noncompliance were identifie I
c.
Review of ualit Records E
The inspector reviewed the gC inspection records covering reactor pressure vessel storage and maintenance to ascertain that the stored vessel inspections were made at the required frequency and that protection requirements were maintained as delineated in General Electric document 22A3126 and 22A4645.
The records indicated that the nitrogen gas purge in the vessel was monitored on a daily basis five days per week from February 18, 1980 to July 14, 1980, and that gC visual inspections of the vessel and storage area were done on a monthly basis from April 30, 1980 to July 14, 1980.
In addition, the vessel storage area is under closed circuit TV surveillance by the plant security force.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Alle ation Concernin Heav Lift On June 30, 1980, the Region I office received a telephone call from a person who said that he had received five calls from different people regarding the heavy liftat Nine Mile Point Unit 2, and he thinks "something is fishy".
The caller coul'd not describe what is to be lifted, but he was probably referring to the reactor pressure vessel which is to be lifted in the early part of August, 1980.
Activities associated with the liftwere considered with respect to requirements of ANSI N45.2.2, Regulatory Guide 1.38 and licensee approved procedures.
(Paragraph 2.b)
J Cognizant personnel were interviewed, available records related to equipment assembly, inspection and testing were reviewed, the lifting equipment was examined and traceability of equipment to inspection and test records was veri,fied.
Visual inspection and functional testing of the equipment after assembly is documented.
A dynamic load test was satisfactorily done on June 30, l980 and the equipment used for the test is documented and identified by unique part numbers.
A second equipment inspection was done after com-pletion of the load test to verify that no equipment damage was sustained as a result of the test.
On July 29, 1980, subsequent to his site visit, the inspector telephoned the alleger to inform him of the visit and to ask whether more specific information is available concerning the allegation.
The alleger said that he could not tell the inspecto~ anything by telephone without seeing the equipmen Based on.his interviews with site personnel, examination of'he'equipment, review of records and documentation and the satisfactory performance of a dynamic load test, the inspector found that the applicable requirements of the governing documents were met, and'he, equipment is considered satisfactory for its intended use.
No items of noncompliance were identified; 4.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph
.1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on July 18, 1980.
The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the.findings.
The licensee acknowledged the findings.