IR 05000410/1986003
| ML17055B383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1986 |
| From: | Briggs L, Eselgroth P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055B381 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-410-86-03, 50-410-86-3, NUDOCS 8603130216 | |
| Download: ML17055B383 (12) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-410/86-03 Docket No.
50-410 License No.
CPPR-112 Licensee:
Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration 300 Erie Boulevard
%tIest Category B
S racuse New York 13202 Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Inspection At:
Scriba, New York Inspection Conducted:
January 21-24, 1986 Inspectors L. Briggs, e
eact r Engineer Approved by:
P. Eselgroth ief Test Progra s Section, OB date date Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on Januar 21-24 1986 Re ort No. 50-410/86-03 Areas Ins ected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by one region based inspector 28 hours3.240741e-4 days <br />0.00778 hours <br />4.62963e-5 weeks <br />1.0654e-5 months <br />) of follow-up of previously identified items, preoperational test procedure review, preliminary test witnessing, QA/QC interface with the preoperational test program, independent verification, a management meeting and plant tours.
Results:
No violations were identified.
. 8603i302ih 860306 PDR ADOCK 050004i0
~
DRi'I
(
<< I
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted
"G. Afflerbach, Startup Manager W. Baker, Special Projects Engineer
"C. Beckham, Manager, QA Projects G. Blackburn, Test Group Manager
~J. Bufis, Startup Test Group Manager
~J.
Drake, Special Projects Engineer (SWEC)
D. Grimsbo, Test Group Supervisor
- W. Hanson, Manager, Nuclear QA Operations
- R. Hyslop, Site Licensing (SWEC)
L. Kassakatis, Test Group Manager
- R. Matlock, Deputy Project Director G. Montgomery, Operations QA Surveillance Engineer
"J. Orlando, Operations QA Supervisor
- M~
Ray, Manager, Special Projects E. Schroeder, Startup Special Projects Supervisor (SWEC)
I. Weakley, Special Projects 2.0 Followu of Previousl Identified Items (Open) Unresolved Item (410/85-30-01),
system flushing velocities and documentation.
This item was identified during a
QA surveillance report (QASR-85-10171)
review by the inspector during NRC inspection 85-30.
During this inspection the inspector reviewed the final response to the Operations QA Department and their acceptance of the response.
The inspector discussed the Startup and Test Department (STD) response with the QA Supervisor and determined that further NRC review of flushing packages is necessary to determine if flushing paths and velocities can be adequately reconstructed to verify technical adequacy of system flush-ing.
This item will be further evaluated during a subsequent inspection.
3.0 Prep erational Test Procedure Review 3.1
~Sco e
The POT identified below was reviewed in preparation for test witness-ing, for technical and administrative adequacy and to independently verify that testing is planned to adequately satisfy regulatory guid-ance and licensee commitments.
It was also reviewed to verify licensee review and approval, proper format, test objectives, prerequisites, initial conditions, test data recording requirements and system return to norma.2 N2-POT-300 Loss of Offsite Power/ECCS The inspector reviewed revision 0 of N2-POT-300 that had been Joint Test Group (JTG) approved during JTG meeting 85-55.
The inspector independently verified the acceptance criteria stated in the procedure as compared to the following reference documents:
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.9, Selection, Design, and gualification of Diesel-Generator Units used as Standby (onsite) Electric Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 2, December 1979; RG 1. 108, Periodic Testing of Diesel Generator Units used as Onsite Electric Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, August 1977; and, Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapters 8.3 and 14.
During the review the inspector had several minor questions primarily related to incorrectly referenced procedural paragraphs and one incor-rectly identified breaker.
These errors were typographical in nature but could lead to confusion during procedure performance.
The licen-see noted that the procedure was currently in the process of being revised (Revision 1) prior to performance.
This was verified during discussion with the gA Supervisor noted in Paragraph 2.0 and 5. 1 of this report.
The inspector also had numerous discussions with the licensee concerning Data Sheet 5.2.2.
POT-300 will functionally check all containment isolation valves that are automatically actuated by a high drywell pressure signal.
Data Sheet 5.2.2 was initially indi-cated by the licensee to list containment valves actuated by Division I logic.
The inspector identified numerous valves listed that were actuated by Division II logic when compared to FSAR Table 6.2-56.
After several discussions it was determined that Data Sheet 5.2.2 listed containment isolation valves located outside containment and Data Sheet 5.3.2 listed inside containment isolation valves.
This was noted by the licensee during the exit meeting and discussed sub-sequent to the exit meeting.
A sample check of Data Sheet 5.2.2 valves by the inspector identified one value (2CPS~AOY109) listed in the Proof and Review copy of the Technical Specification, Table 3.6.3-1 as an inside containment isolation valve.
3.3
~Findin s
The above is an unresolved item (410/86-03-01)
pending licensee revision of POT-300 and review and revision, if required, of Data Sheet 5.2.2 and 5.3.2 and subsequent NRC revie.0 Prelimiar Test Witnessin 4. 1 Discussion During the entrance meeting on January 21, 1986 the licensee stated that POT-lOOB, High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) Diesel Generator test-ing was scheduled to be started during the week.
POT-100B was later rescheduled to start the following week; however, the licensee noted that the HPCS diesel would still be operated to perform other checks under preliminary test procedure MD.0100.BOl, Division III Diesel Generator, Revision 0.
The inspector witnessed a start of the HPCS diesel on January 23, 1986.
The diesel was secured almost immediate-ly when a leak was discovered in a small fitting in the jacket cool-ing water system.
In addition, a high crankcase pressure alarm was received when the diesel was started.
The jacket cooling water leak was subsequently repaired.
The 'licen-see informed the inspector that the high crankcase pressure alarm was caused when the lube oil relief (relieves excessively high lube oil pressure which is normal with cool lube oil) operated.
The design is such that the lube oil relief sprays onto the crankcase pressure switch causing a false high crankcase pressure alarm.
The licensee intends to install a vendor modification '(baffle plate) to prevent a
direct spray of lube oil onto the crankcase high pressure switch.
The inspector noted that a Nuclear QA Department surveillance engineer was present during t'esting and that the procedure was being followed.
In addition, the inspector reviewed the completed portions of MD.010$.801, all test exceptions and procedure field changes.
4.2
~Findin s
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
5.0 A/
C Interface With the Prep erational Test Pro ram 5. 1 Discussion The inspector reviewed several recent Nuclear Quality Assurance Surveillance Reports (QASR) regarding different activities of the licensee's startup department.
The following QASR's were reviewed:
QASR-86-10017, Surveillance of Division I and II Diesel Generator Air Start Capacity Test, conducted on December 20, 1985.
Testing was conducted under MD.0100.A04, Revision 1, Standby Diesel Generator Air Start Capacity Test.
The QA inspector observed five starts of the division II diesel generator without recharging of the air receiver tanks.
The diesel generator reached rated speed and voltage within ten seconds on each start in accordance with the procedur QASR-86-10016, Type B LLRT, Electrical Penetration, conducted on January 3,
1986.
The QA inspector observed local leak rate test ( LLRT) type B on electrical penetration 2CES*Z14E.
The test was performed in accordance with MP.GENE.05B/0.
The QA inspector did not note any problems and recorded test results were satisfactory.
QASR-86-10025, Walkdown of C02 Fire Protection, completed on January 6,
1986.
The QA Inspector identified several deficient items that were not identified on the system master tracking list (MTL)
as follows:
Plugs missing on position switches for valves 2FPL"V14, V16 and V17; Position switch on valve 2FPL"V16 not engaged with the valve stem; and, Miscellaneous conduit covers mi ssi ng and accumulated dirt.
The QA inspector also noted that system configuration was in accordance with approved drawings.
This QASR will be reinspected by the QA department after corrective action is taken by the STD.
5.2
~Findin s
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
6.0 Inde endent Verification The inspector independently verified that acceptance criteria stated in POT-300 satisfied the appropriate reference documents as stated in para-graph 3.2 of this report.
7.0 Mana ement Meetin On January 22, 1986 the inspector attended a management meeting held by senior licensee and NRC Region I management.
Details of this meeting are documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-410/86-06.
8.0 Plant Tours The inspector toured various areas of the facility to observe work in progress, housekeeping, cleanliness controls and status of construction and testing activities.
During one of the plant tours the inspector noted
~
~
a low pressure extraction steam line that was experiencing relatively large amplitude low frequency vibration.
The licensee was informed of this condition and will investigate the cause and evaluate its acceptabi-lity.
9.0 Unresolved Item Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable, an item of noncompliance or a deviation.
The unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in Paragraph 3.2 and 3.3 of this report.
10.0 Exit Interview A management meeting was held at the conclusion of the inspection on January 24, 1986 to discuss the inspection scope, findings and observa-tions as detailed in this report (see Paragraph I for attendees).
No written information was provided to the licensee at any time during this inspection.
The licensee did not indicate that any proprietary information was contained within the scope of this inspectio I SP
~