IR 05000410/1986026
| ML17055B899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1986 |
| From: | Finkel A, Jerrica Johnson, Petrone C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055B897 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-1.C.1, TASK-1.C.8, TASK-TM 50-410-86-26, NUDOCS 8606260244 | |
| Download: ML17055B899 (20) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-410/86-26 Docket No.
50-410 License No.
CPPR-112 Licensee:
Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration 300 Erie Boulevard, West S racuse New York 13202 Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 Inspection At:
Scriba New York-2 Inspectors:
gf C. Petrone, ad Reactor Engineer A. Finkel, Lead Reactor Engineer Approved by:
J. Johnson, Ch ef, Operationa P
grams Section, OB, DRS
~ /'a Igloo ate date lx l<
date Ins ection Summar
Routine unannounced ins ection on Ma 20-23 1986 Re ort No. 50-410/86-26 Areas Ins ected:
Routine unannounced inspection by two region-based inspectors of licensee action on TMI Action Plan items; maintenance organization; mainten-ance activities; maintenance staffing; measuring and test equipment program; QA/QC interfaces; and emergency operating procedures.
Results:
No violations were identified.
>+O<2+0244 8 OO4 i 0 bob20 PDR ADOCK pDR
I
~
4
'L
'u
"E~
'I
1eo Persons Contacted DETAILS Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration R. Abbott, Station Superintendent
~G. Afflerbach, Startup Engineer
~C.
Beckman, Operational Quality Assurance
- M. Boyle, Engineer
- J
~ Buckley, Quality Control Supervisor
- K. Dahlberg, Station Superintendent of Maintenance
- J. Drake, Jr.,
Supervisor Startup
- B. Drews, Technical Superintendent
- P. Eddy, Site Engineer
"M. Falise, Superintendent of Mechanical Maintenance
- L. Fenton, Audit Lead Engineer
"G. Griffith, Site License Engineer
"W. Hansen, Manager Quality Assurance Operations
- A. Kovac, Quality Assurance Audit Supervisor
- T. Lee, Special Projects
- R. Matlock,'rojects
~C. Millian, Lead Senior Engineer F. Osypiewski, Site Auditor
"T. Prouis, Test Engineer
- M. Ray, Manager Special Projects
- T. Perkins, Generator Superintendent
- K. Sweet, Electrical Maintenance
- C. Terry, Project Quality Assurance Manager
- P. Wilder, Operation Supervisor U.S. Nuclear Re ulator Commission
- R. Gramm, Senior Resident Inspector The inspectors also held discussions with managers, supervisors and other licensee employees during the course of inspection, including operations, technical and administrative personnel.
"Denote those present at the exit meeting on May 23, 1986.
2.0 Follow-u of Revisions Ins ection Findin s
(Closed)
TMI Action Plan Item, II.K.1. 10, Operability Status - "Review and modify as necessary your maintenance and test procedures to ensure that they require:
a.
Verification by test or inspection, of the operability of redundant safety-related systems prior to the removal of any safety-related system from service.
b.
Verification of the operability of all safety-related systems when they are returned to service following maintenance or testing, c.
Explicit notification of involved reactor operational personnel whenever a safety-related system is removed from and returned to service."
Administrative procedure No. AP-3.3. 1, Control of Equipment Harkups, Revi-sion 1, July 2, 1985, para 3. 1. 1 states that,
"an operability test shall be performed on the remaining redundant system prior to removal of a safety-related system from service".
In addition, a licensed operator, independ-ent of the person performing the test, shall verify that the equipment is correctly returned to the normal operable status.
The release, return of systems and or equipment for maintenance or surveil-lance and acceptance of such equipment for return to service is the respon-sibility of the Station Shift Supervisor (SSS) or his delegate the SRO.
It is then the responsibility of the SSS or his delegate to assure that the Control Room Operator (CRO) is informed of changes in equipment status and the effects of such changes.
Whenever a markup is applied to or clear-ed from equipment or systems important to safety, the placing and removal of tags shall be performed by an operator possessing knowledge of the sys-tem/equipment.
In addition, whenever a markup is applied or cleared, a
licensed operator independent of the person applying or removing the tags, shall verify that the markup has been correctly applied or cleared and that the status of the equipment is correct for the status on record in the control room."
The inspector randomly selected 10 electrical/mechanical maintenance pro-cedures and verified that the requirements of AP 3.3. 1 and 5.0, have been transcribed into the selected maintenance procedures and that personnel training on the AP revisions has occurred.
This item is closed.
(Closed)
TMI Action Plan Items I.C. 1 and I.C.8, Emergency Procedure Review:
On April 14, 1983, in a letter from C.V. Mangan to Darrel G. Eisenhut, Niagara Mohawk committed to provide procedures based upon NRC-approved BWR Owners Group Emergency Procedure Guidelines.
During this inspection the inspector verified that the Emergency Procedures had been prepared in accordance with the BWR Owners Group guidelines'ee paragraph 7 of this report for further details.
This item is close.0 Maintenance Or anization The Site Maintenance Superintendent, who reports directly to the General Superintendent of Nuclear Generation, is responsible for the overall con-duct of maintenance activities at both Nine Mile units.
Two Maintenance Superintendents, one electrical, the other mechanical, each having respon-sibility for both units, report to the Maintenance Superintendent.
Mecha-nical and electrical supervisors report to the two Maintenance Superinten-dents.
The intermixing of Unit 1 maintenance personnel with the Unit 2 maintenance force has increased the awareness of operating quality during the conduct of maintenance activities.
The use of Unit 1 and 2 similar procedures has enabled fully developed procedures to be available in the Unit 2 mainten-ance program.
The centralized use of existing Unit 1 maintenance procedures for the Unit 2 program has provided planned and coordinated maintenance activities be-tween the electrical and mechanical functions.
Work Request (WR's) are processed, and resultant work packages; including work orders, personnel requiremen'ts, tagging request, radiation exposure permits, tool require-ments etc.,
can be identified and assembled by designated personnel know-ledgeable in the function of the system from'heir Unit 1 experience.
The maintenance organization has issued the following Unit 2 maintenance procedures which reflect the requirements of Administrative Procedures (AP) 3.3. 1, Control of Equipment Markups, and 5.0, Procedure For Repair:
Electrical Maintenance Procedures Mechanical Maintenance Procedures Required Approved/Issured 121 120 187 187 The inspector randomly selected 10 electrical/mechanical maintenance pro-cedures and verified that the requirements of AP 3.3. 1 and 5.0 have been transcribed into the selected maintenance procedures.
The inspector also verified that the electrical/mechanical maintenance personnel have receiv-ed training on the referenced AP's.
The inspector had no further question in this area.
4.0 Maintenance Activities
~ 1 Administrative Controls The inspector reviewed and evaluated the licensee's program control-ling safety-related maintenance activities to assess if the admini-strative controls established were consistent with the plant Technical Specification (TS), Regulatory Guide 1.33, ANSI N18.7, and Appendix B
to 10 CFR-50.
Documents reviewed are listed in Attachment 1 to this repor.2 Pro ram Im lementation The inspector held discussions with the electrical and mechanical maintenance superintendents to evaluate those controls in place to identify, schedule, track, complete and document both preventive and corrective maintenance.
The Work Request Form (WR) is used for order-ing, scheduling, dispatching and recording the results of corrective maintenance work and associated post-maintenance tests.
The mainten-ance program status is tracked in the Work Tracking System (WTS)
~
The inspector reviewed the records of both random and selected maintenance activities performed on safety-related equipment to verify that:
Required administrative approvals were obtained prior to initiation of work activities; Appropriately approved procedures, instructions and or drawings were used; Appropriate post maintenance testing was completed prior to returning equipment to operation; Hold points were appropriately identified and completed or in the processes of being completed; gualified Test equipment and Tools used were identified; Procedures and appropriate data sheets were properly completed; Acceptance criteria were met; and, Records were assembled, stored, and retrievable as part of the maintenance history.
Also, during the course of the inspection, observations were made of the following in-progress corrective maintenance acti vities:
Repair of Standby Liquid Control Pump, 2SLS * PIA leakage; and, Degreasing of Limitoque motor operated valve (MOV) 2SWP
~
MOV 93B.
The inspector observations verified that the following maintenance tasks were accomplished:
Work requests (WR) were issued to perform the tasks and all required portions were filled i ~
4
Approved, up-to-date procedures were used and followed by the maintenance personnel.
Procedures were adequately detailed to assure satisfactory per-formance.
For example, the Standby Liquid Control Pump (SLC)
procedure N2-MMP-36. 1.
was detailed to the point that during disassembly (as found condition) of the "Stuffing Box" it was readily discernible that the plunger packing was installed incor-rectly at the factory, thus causing the leakage problem of the SLC.
Operational personnel were notified prior to and upon completion of each repair prior to testing.
Properly specified parts and materials were identified for the each activity.
Calibrated test equipment was used as required for the task.
The inspector reviewed the qualification summary records for the elec-trical and mechanical maintenance personnel performing corrective maintenance on the Standby Liquid Control Pump 2SLS * P1A and Limitor-que Motor Operated Valve ZSWP
~
MOV 93B.
The inspector determined through discussions with maintenance personnel and witnessing their corrective maintenance work on the above equipment that they were in compliance with their training program criteria and maintenance pro-cedures.
4.3 Maintenance Staffin The Electrical and Mechanical maintenance staff supports both Units 1 and 2.
As of May 21, 1986 the number of maintenance personnel ap-pears to be adequate to perform current maintenance.
As an example, the Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent has three supervisors, six assistant supervisors, 18 chief mechanics, 91 mechanics, 42 utility mechanics and 3 generation engineering mechanics.
The Electrical Maintenance Superintendent has a similar staffing level.
No unacceptable conditions or violations were observed.
5.0 Measurin and Test E ui ment MME Pro ram Administrative Procedure (AP) 8.4, Control and Calibration of Equipment Used In Tests and Inspections, Revision 2, October 17, 1985 is effective for Unit 1.
A separate procedure is being used for Unit 2 while it is in the startup and N2-SAP-115 test phase.
Prior to complete delivery of Unit 2 systems and components to the Nuclear Generation Department for operations and maintenance, a revision of AP-8.4 will be prepared to pro-vide a uniform procedure for Unit 1 and Unit The review and implementation of the revision of AP-8.4 will be evaluated by the NRC during a future inspection.
6.0 ualit Assurance and ualit Control Interface A/
C The Vice President of Quality Assurance has onsite personnel who independ-ently monitor daily station activities.
Discussions were held with the station Manager of Quality Assurance Operations and the Quality Assurance Audit Manager.
The first audit of the operations maintenance program was started on May 19, 1986.
Since this audit program has just started in the operational area the review and evaluation of the results of this audit report will be re-viewed during a later NRC inspection.
7.0 Emer enc Procedures The inspector reviewed the licensee's index for Interim Operating Procedures ( IOP's)
and Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's)
and verified that pro-cedures for abnormal, offnormal, or alarm conditions and procedures for combating emergencies had been written, approved and issued.
These proce-dures covered the requirements specified in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Rev 2, paragraphs 4 and 5.
Many of the IOP's were in thei'r second or third revi-sion.
Most of the EOP's were being revised for the first time and were awaiting SORC approval of Revision 1.
Review of these procedures indicated they were comprehensive and well prepared.
The later revisions reflected mostly minor changes to the procedures, indicating that the procedures were prepared well in advance of projected fuel load dates.
The licensee's EOP's were written using the BWR Owners Group "Emergency Procedure Gu'idelines".
The inspector reviewed the EOP's listed in Attach-ment 2.
The inspector verified that these EOP's had been prepared, verified, and validated in accordance with the detailed instructions contained in admini-strative controls of procedures N2-EOP-1,-2,-3, and -4.
The EOP's were prepared by SRO licensed operations personnel.
Discussions with these personnel confirmed they were very knowledgable of the necessary emergency actions.
Procedure N2-EOP-3,
"Emergency Operating Procedure Validation" allows several methods of validating the quality of these procedure I The inspector reviewed the Unit 2 EOP validation data sheets and verified that the required validations had been completed for all EOP's.
In addi-tion to the required procedure review validation, a simulator validation had 'also been performed for all eighteen EOP's except for the four dealing with the secondary containment which could not run on the simulator.
Nu-merous accident scenarios were run to ensure that each step of the EOP's had been validated.
For example, during the simulator validation of EOP-RL, RPV Mater Level Control, scenarios included:
a small LOCA in the drywell; anticpated transient without scram (ATWS); feedwater pump trip and subse-quent high pressure core spray pump trip; feedwater pump trip with loss of level indication; and alternate shutdown cooling.
During the performance of these validation scenarios, procedure deficiencies were identified, documented and subsequently corrected.
The inspector concluded that this rigorous review and validation process would ensure acceptable emergency procedures.
The inspector also reviewed two of the sequence of events flow charts with licensee personnel and verified that the flow charts accurately reflected the information contained in the EOP's.
These full size flow charts are a
compilation of the flow charts contained in the EOP's.
The inspector noted that the full size flow charts are easier to follow than the EOP's because the recovery steps aren't spread over several pages.
The licensee p'lans to maintain these full size flow charts in the control room and the TSC for ready reference in the event of an emergency.
The inspector attended Station Operations Review Committee (SORC) meeting
¹86-47 and observed the review of revision 1 of the emergency procedures.
The SORC members review identified that no formal method had been esta-blished to control the issue and revision of the full size flow charts since they were not actually referenced in the individual EOP's.
The SORC deferred final approval of revision I until the full size flow charts could be added to the EOP's as an attachment to ensure they are updated and con-trolled.
The SORC review appeared to be effective.
No deficiencies or violations were identified.
8.0 Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee management representatives (see section 1.0 for attendees)
at an exit meeting on May 23, 1986.
The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection at that time.
At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector ~I I
ATTACHMENT 1 Administrative Procedures AP's AP-3.3. 1, Control of Equipment Markups, Revision 1, July 2, 1985.
AP-8.2, Surveillance Testing and Inspection Program, Revision 1, March 11, 1986.
AP-2.0, Production and Control of Procedures, Revision 5, April 1, 1986.
AP-9.0, Administration of Training, Revision 1, March 14, 1986.
AP-5. 1, Site Welding Program, Revision 0, March 1, 1985.
AP-5.0, Procedure for Repair, Revision 3, May 7, 1986.
Maintenance Procedures Electrical Maintenance Procedures N2-EMP-112. 1 N2-EMP-114. 1 N2-EMP-119. 1 N2-EMP-119. 2 N2-EMP-71. 8 N2-EMP-73.5 N2-EMP-99. 1 N2-EMP-36. 1 N2-EMP-62. 1 N2-EMP-3. 1 Solenoid Operated Valve Maintenance Limitorque Disassembly and Assembly of Type SMB and SB Series Operators Maintenance of Motor Operated Damper s Maintenance of Ventilation Fans Overhaul of GE 4. 161KV Breakers Station Batteries Cell and Intercell Connector Replacement Maintenance of Drywell Penetrations Standby Liquid Control (Poisoning)
Pump Motors Maintenance of Hydrogen Recombiner s Maintenance of Consensate Pump Motors Mechanical Maintenance Procedures N2-MMP-1. 10 N2-YiMP-1. 14 N2-MMP-1. 2 N2-MMP-101A N2-MMP-101C N2-MMP-115 N2-MMP-29. 1 N2-MMP-33.4 N2-MMP-6. 1 N2-MMP-53.7 Maintenance of Main Steam Isolation Valves Installation and Removal of Reactor Vessel Service Platform Removal of Reactor Vessel Head Maintenance of Diesel Driven Fire Pump Maintenance of Electric Motor Driven Fire Pump Alignment of Pumps Maintenance of Recirculation Pumps Maintenance of High Pressure Core Spray Pump Overhaul of Feedwater Pumps Maintenance of Control Building Safety Related Dampers Maintenance Work Re uests Unit 2 WR No.
012858 Limitorque Operator
012953 - Liquid Control Pump 2 SLS " PIA
ATTACHMENT 2 Emer enc 0 eratin Procedures Administrative Controls N2-EOP-1 N2-EOP-2 N2-EOP-3 N2-EOP-4 Emergency Operating Procedure Development Emergency Operating Procedure Verification Emergency Operating Procedure Validation Emergency Operating Procedure Writer's Guide Emer enc 0 eratin Procedures Reviewed N2-EOP-RL N2-EOP-RP N2-EOP-RQ N2-EOP-SPT N2-EOP-DWT N2-EOP-PCP N2-EOP-SPL N2-EOP-SCT N2-EOP-SCR N2-EOP-SCL N2-EOP-RR N2-EOP-Cl N2-EOP-C2 N2-EOP-C3 N2-EOP-C4 N2-EOP-C5 N2-EOP-C6 N2-EOP-Cj RPV Water Level Control RPV Pressure Control RPY Reactivity Control Suppression Pool Temperature Control Drywell Temperature Control Primary Containment Pressure Control Suppression Pool Level Control Reactor Building Temperature Control Reactor Building Radiation Control Reactor Building Level Control Radioactivity Release Control Level Restoration Emergency RPV Depressurization Steam Cooling Cooling Without Level Alternate Shutdown Cooling RPV Flooding Level/Power Control
Jp