ML17053C067
| ML17053C067 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1980 |
| From: | Baunack W, Sharon Hudson, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C066 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-80-07, 50-220-80-7, IEB-80-17, NUDOCS 8011130152 | |
| Download: ML17053C067 (24) | |
See also: IR 05000220/1980007
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE. OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
Report
No.
50-220/80-07
Becket No. 55-225
License
No.
GPR-63
Priority
Category
Licensee:
Nia ara
Mohawk Power Cor oblation
300 Erie Boulevard West
S racuse
13202
Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station
Unit 1
Inspection at:
Scriba,
Inspection conducted:
June
25 thru August 15,
1980
Inspectors:
. Baunack,
Senior Resident Inspector
g /d'ated signed
S.
Hudson,
Resident Inspector
Approved by:
H.
B. Kister, Chief, Reactor Projects
'ection
No. 4,
R088S Branch
da ed signed
da ed signed
Ins ection
Summa
Ins ection
on June
25 - Au ust 15
1980
Re ort No. 50-220/80-07)
Areas Ins ected:
Routine inspection
by the resident inspectors
109 hours0.00126 days <br />0.0303 hours <br />1.802249e-4 weeks <br />4.14745e-5 months <br />) of licensee action
on previous inspection findings;
operational
safety verification; plant tours; observation of physical
security; witnessing of surveillance tests;
licensee
actions
taken in
response
to IE Bulletin No. 80"17; verifying license application
submittals for license training staff personnel;
location of certain
load centers;
and, review of periodic reports.
Results:
No items of noncomplience
were identified.
I
I
4
-
'1
S
~
l
1
DETAILS
Persons
Contacted
R. Abbott, Supervisor
Operations
J. Aldrich, Supervisor - Training
B.
Chambers,
Security Investigator " Nuclear Security
R.
Coon, Assistant Supervisor - Instrument
'and Control
K. Dahlberg, Supervisor - Maintenance
M. Drews, Supervisor - Reactor Analyst
E.
Leach, Supervisor - Radiochemistry
and Radiation Protection
T. Perkins,
General
Superintendent - Nuclear Generation
T.
Roman, Station Superintendent
M. Silliman, Results Superintendent
The inspectors
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
(CTosed) Inspector Follow Item (220/80-01-01):
Discrepancies
not noted
on Operations Daily Checks.
Reviews of Operations Daily Check sheets
during the report period identified no further instances
where
discrepancies
were not'oted.
This item is considered
closed.
(Closed)
Unresolved
Item (220/80-01-04):
Carbon Dioxide Fire Suppression
System.
A Technical Specification
change
has
been submitted which
clarifies the operability requirements
for the auxiliary control
room
carbon dioxide fire suppression
system.
This item is considered
closed.
(Closed) Inspector Follow Item (220/80-02-02):
Licensee to review
several
items which relate to the facility SBLOCA procedure.
The
inspectors
ver ified by discussions
with personnel,
procedure
review,
and
training records that the items were reviewed by the licensee
and either
incorporated into the procedure or discussed
at training sessions.
This
item is considered
closed.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item (220/80-02"03):
Licensee to replace
broken and
damaged
containment
spray header
nozzles.
During an inspection of the
drywell the inspectors verified that broken
and
damaged
containment
spray
system nozzles
have been replaced.
This item is considered
closed.
U ~,
bal
(Closed) Unresolved
Item (220/80-02-04):
Ribbons attached
to
containment
spray header
nozzles.
During an inspection of the
drywell the inspectors verified that the ribbons
have
been
removed or placed
so as not to interface with the flow to the
nozzle diffuser.
This item is considered
closed.
3.
0 erational
Safet
Verification
Control
Room Observation
On 25 separate
occasions,
the inspectors
independently
verified plant parameters
and equipment availability
of engineered
safeguards
features
against
a plant
specific checklist, to ensure
compliance with the
limiting conditions fot operations.
The plant specific checklist
has
been developed to
assist
the inspectors
in ensur ing the following items
are observed during control
room tours:
Switch and valve positions required to satisfy the
L.C.O's
Alarms or absence
of'..alarms
.
Meter indications
and recorder values
Status lights and power available lights
Front panel
bypass
switches
Computer printouts
Comparison of redundant
readings
The inspectors directly observed following plant operations
to ensure
adherence
to approved procedures:
Routine power -operations
A two week outage for repair of the main transformer
Scram testing in accordance
with Bulletin 80-17
Plant heat-up
Relief valve testing following repairs
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 inspectors.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
b.
Review of Lo s and
0 eratin
Records
The inspectors
reviewed the following logs and instructions
for the period June
25 through August 3.5, 1980.
Control
Room Log Book
Station Shift Supervisor's
Log Book
Station Shift Supervisor's
Instructions
(sample basis)
Licensee
Event Repot t Log (880-01 - 880-14)
The logs and instructions
were reviewed to:
Obtain information on plant problems
and operation
Oetect
changes
and trends in performance
Oetect possible conflicts with technical specifications
or regulatory requirements
Oetermine that records
are being reviewed
as required.
0
Assess
the effectiveness
of the communications
provided by the logs and instructions
Determine that the reporting requirements
of technical
specification are met.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
4.
Plant Tour
a0
During the course of the inspection period the inspectors
made
numerous tours of plant areas
to make
an independent
assessment
of equipment conditions, plant conditions,
radiological controls, safety,
and adherence
to regulatory
requirements.
The following areas
were
among those
inspected:
Turbine Building
Auxiliary Building
Auxiliary Control
Room
Switchgear
Rooms
Yard Areas
and Perimeter
Fence
Radwaste
Area
Diesel Generator
Rooms
Screen
House
Reactor Building
Drywel1
Refuel Floor
0
6
b.
The following determinations
were made:
Monitoring Instrumentation:
The inspector s verified
that selected
instruments
were functional
and
demonstrated
parameters
within Technical Specification
limits.
System Operability:
The inspectors verified that selected
valves in the Emergency
Condenser
System
and the Standby
Liquid Control
System were in the position or condition
required by the Technical Specifications for the applicable
mode.
Verification was accomplished
by physically observing
that each accessible
or remote valve position indication
was in its correct position.
Radiation Protection Controls:
The inspector s verified
that the licensee's
radiation protection policies
and
procedures
were adhered to in the following areas:
(1)
Access control including barriers,
tagging,
posting,
and maintenance
of step-off pads.
(2)
Confirmation of licensee
survey results
by
independent
measurement.
(3)
Verification that requirements
of RMP's in
effect are appropriate
and are being followed.
(4)
Verification that radiation protection instruments
in use are being calibrated
as required.
Several
items were identified during the tours
and
brought to, the licensee's
attention.
The items were
promptly corrected.
The items included
an improperly
placed high radiation sign,
a high radiation sign
consisting of a manila folder,
a poorly maintained
control point, and an improperly labeled
and stowed
waste barrier.
Hone of the items identified presented
a s.ignificant hazard.
iP
',sei ~
8
~
4
~
'
A 4I%
Plant Housekeeping:
Observations
relative to plant
housekeeping
identified no unsatisfactory conditions.
Fluid leaks:
No significant fluid leaks were observed.
Piping Vibrations:
No excessive
piping vibrations were
observed
and
no adverse
conditions were noted, with the
exception that in one battery
room a battery support
appeared
badly corroded.
A maintenance
request
was
immediately prepared
and the support repaired.
Equipment Tagging:
The inspectors
selected plant
components for which valid tagging requests
were in
effect and verified that the tags were in place
and
the equipment in the condition specified.
The inspectors
verified that in no instances
was there parallel
redundant
equipment inadvertantly
removed
from service.
Control
Room Annunciators:
Selected lit annunciators
were discussed
with control
room operators
to verify
that the reasons
for them were understood
and corrective
action, if required,
was taken.
Fire Protection:
The inspector verified. that selected
.-
=
fire extinguishers
were accessible
and inspected
on
schedule,
that fire alarm stations
were unobstructed,
and that adequate
control over ignition sources
and
fire hazards
was maintained.
On several
occasions
the
establishment
of a fire watch was verified when required
by Technical Specifications.
c.
No items. of noncompliance
were identified.
5.
Observation of Ph sical Securit
The inspectors
made observations
and verified during regular
and
off-shift hours, that selected
aspects
of the plant's physical
security systems
and organization
were in accordance
with
regulatory requirements,
physical security plan and approved
procedures.
P
a.
Ph sical Securit
Or anization
Observations
and personnel
interviews indicated that
a
full time member of the security organization with
authority to direct physical security actions
was present,
as required.
Hanning of all three shifts
on various
days
was observed
to be as required.
All security
members
observed,
appeared
capable of performing
their assigned
tasks.
b.
Ph sical Barriers
Selected barriers in the protected
area
and vital
areas
were observed to be intact and randomly
checked
by patroYYing guards .
The isolation zone was randomly observed to be free
of obstructions.
c..
Access Control
The inspectors
witnessed that communication
equipment
checks
and functional testing of the metal detectors
were conducted
as required:
On many occasions
including backshifts
and weekends,
persons
and packages
were observed to be properly
searched prior to entry into the protected
area.
Vehicles were observed to be proper ly searched
and
escorted
or controlled within the protected
area.
All personnel
observed
in the protected
areas
displayed
photo identification badges
or were properly escorted.
6.
Ins ector Witnessin
of Surveillance Tests
The inspectors
witnessed
the performance of the following
surveillance tests:
On July 17, Suppression
Pool Temperature
Monitoring
during Relief Valve Operation,
Nl-ST-V5, Rev. 2, dated
November 16,
1979.
A
~,
I
\\
0
~ I
On July 3l,
APRM Instrument
Channel Calibration
on
APRM ¹18,
Nl-ISP-IC-3-1, Rev. 3, dated
November
9, 1979.
On July 31, Service Mater Discharge
Rad Monitor Instrument
Channel Calibration, Nl-ISP-PM-10,
Rev.
10, dated
May 20,
1980.,
Observations
were made to verify that:
Surveillance
procedures
conform to technical specifications
requirements
and have
been properly approved.
Test instrumentation
was calibrated.
LCO's for removing equipment
from service are met
Testing is performed by qualified personnel
Surveillance
schedule is being met
Test results
meet technical specification requirements
Equipment is properly restored to service following testing.
No, items of noncompliance
w'ere identified.
7.
Licensee Actions Taken in Res onse to IE Bulletin No. 80-17
The following actions
were taken by the inspectors
to verify
that the actions required
by IE Bulletin 80-17 have been
satisfactorily completed.
ao
The inspectors verified by procedure
review and witnessing
of tests that surveillance
requirements
verifying that there
is no significant amount, of water in the Scram Discharge
Volume (SDV) and associated
piping and that the
SDV vent
valves are operable
and the vent system is free of obstruction.
Initial ultrasonic
(UT) testing of the SDV's was performed
on
July 5, 1980 and continued daily thereafter
when the system
was required.
The test for operability of the
SDV vent and
drain valves
and verification that no obstructions
are present
was performed
on July 6, 1980.
10
The following procedures
and associated
data were reviewed:
Nl-ST-Ml6, Check for Mater in Scram Discharge
Volume
Piping, July 1980.
N1-ISP-RD-08,
High Level Scram Discharge
Volume
Instrument
Channel Calibration.
b.
Prior to the performance of the required
scram testing
the inspctors
reviewed the implementing procedures
to
verify that all Bulletin requirements
had been incorporated.
The following 'procedures
were reviewed:
Procedure
No. N1-80-17-M, Manual Scram Test Procedure.
Procedure
No. N1-80-17A, Automatic Scram Test Procedure.
c.
The inspectors
witnessed
the performance of the Automatic Scram Test performed
on July 17,
1980 to verify performance
in accordance
with procedural
requirements.
d.
The inspectors
reviewed all data taken from both scram
tests.
e.
The inspectors
both independently
and with licensee
personnel
walked down portions of the
SDY vent and drain systems
to
verify the adequacy of the "as built" SDV system.
f.
The inspectors
reviewed Special
Operating Procedure
Nl"SOP-31, Failure of Control
Rods to Scram Revision 0,
July 25,
1980 to verify that all oper ator actions required
by the Bulletin have
been incorpor'ated into the procedure.
Also, the inspectors verified by discussion with operators
and by attending
a training session that the training required
by the Bulletin was provided to the operators.
g.
The inspectors verified, the incorporation into facility
procedures,
the Bulletin requirements
relating to prompt
notification of degradation of certain
systems
and the
use of suppression
pool cooling when th suppression
pool
exceeds
the normal operating temperature limit.
~,
I'
w c
~ ~
The following documents
were 'reviewed:
Standing
Order
No. 26, Torus Cooling, July 1980.
Standing Order No. 25,
ATMS System Reporting Requirements,
July 1980.
h.
Ouring the review of procedures it was noted that a procedure
for failure of control rods to scram,
issued to satisfy Bulletin 80-17 requirements
was issued
as
a temporary procedure without
prior SORC approval.
Facility administrative
procedures
permitted
the issuance
of temporary procedures
without prior SORC approval.
The inspector's
noted that ANSI 18. 7 requires
SORC approval of
temporary procedures prior to their issuance.
The licensee
stated that Administrative Procedure
APN-5 would be revised
to conform to ANSI 18.7 requirements.
This item is unresolved
pending review of the licensee's
proposed actions
(220/80-07"01).
The inspectors
had
no further questions with regard to the
material
reviewed.
8.
Yerif in
License
A
lication Submittal for Licensee Trainin
Staff Personnel
Through discussions
with the licensee,
the inspectors
determined
that three
members of the licensee's
training staff currently
hold Senior Reactor Operator's
licenses.
The fourth member of
the training staff holds
a Reactor
Operator's
license but he is
not used to instruct licensed
personnel
on systems,
or integrated
response.
The licensee
does not plan to submit an application for an
SRO license for the instructor who currently holds
a Reactor
Operator's
license.
'.
Review of Periodic
Re orts
The following reports
were reviewed to verify that the reporting
requirements
of the Technical Specifications
are being met and
that plant operations
are being accurately reported:
January,
1980 Monthly Report
(NMPC letter dated February
12,
1980)
4C
h II
~
12
February,
1980 Monthly Report
(NMPC letter dated
March 10,
1980)
March,
1980 Monthly Report
(NMPC letter dated April 11, 1980)
April, 1980 Monthly Report
(NMPC letter dated
May 12,
1980)
May, 1980 Monthly Report
(NMPC letter dated
June 6, 1980)
June,
3980 Monthly Report
(NMPC letter dated July 11, 1980)
July,
1980 Monthly Report
(NMPC letter dated August 7, 1980)
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
10.
Location of Certain
Load Centers
The inspectors
determined
by discussions
with licensee
personnel
that there are
no valves which are required
by Technical Specifications
to be locked in a particular position during operation which require
entry into the containment to unlock.
ll.
Unresolved
Items
. Unresolved
items .are, those
items -for..which'further information ."
is required to determine whether the item is acceptable
or an
item of noncompliance.
An unresolved
item is discussed
in
paragraph
7.h of'his report.
12.
Exit Interview
At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection,
meetings
were held with senior facility management to discuss
inspection
scope
and findings.
~
t