ML17053C495
| ML17053C495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1981 |
| From: | Sharon Hudson, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C494 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-80-19, IEB-80-14, IEB-80-17, NUDOCS 8104060173 | |
| Download: ML17053C495 (26) | |
See also: IR 05000220/1980019
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE
OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
2
0
5
. ~50-220 50-19
Docket No.
50-220
9
II
~
License
No.
Priority
Category
C,
Licensee:
" Nia ara
Mohawk Power Cor oration
300 Erie Boulevard West
Syracuse,
13202
Facility Name:
Niiie Mile Point Nuclear Power Station, Unit
1
Inspection at:
Scriba,
Inspection conducted:
November 2-December
15,
1980
ii
Inspectors.
S.
D. Hudson,
Resident
Inspector
z/v W
d te signed
date signed
date
signed
.
Approved by:
H.
B. Kister, Chief, Reactor Projects
Section
No".4,
R08NS Branch
da
e signed
Ins ection
Summar
Ins ection
On November 2-December
15
1980
Ins ection
Re ort No. 50-220 80-.19
A~:.,Nl Nbl>>f.0
byb
resident inspector
(84 hours9.722222e-4 days <br />0.0233 hours <br />1.388889e-4 weeks <br />3.1962e-5 months <br />).
Areas inspected
included:
action taken
on
previous inspection findings, operational
safety verification, physical security,
plant tours, maintenance
observations,
emergency
preparedness drill, verification
of licensee
action in response
to
NRC Confirmatory Order, action taken
by the
licensee
on the interim position for containment
purge
and vent valve operation,
and the status of licensee
action
on
I&E Bulletins 80-14 and 80-17.
Results:
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
Region I Form 12
(Rev. April 77)
816406 6105
DETAILS
1.
Persons
Contacted
R. Abbott, Supervisor,
Operations
J. Duell, Supervisor,
Chemistry 5 Radiation Protection
W. Drews, Superintendent
of Technical
Services
E.
Leach,
Superintendent
of Chemistry
and Radiation
Management
RE
Raymond,
Fire Protection
Coordinator
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,
adminis-
trative, operations,
health physics,
security,
instrument
and control,
and
contractor personnel.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous
Ins ection Findin
s
(Closed) Inspector
Followup Item (80-14-03):
Background count rate for
personnel
frisking meter in excess
of 300-400
cpm:
The inspector verified
that the personnel
frisking meter in the turbine building at elevation
277'ad
been
moved to
a low background
area (less
than
200 cpm).
(Closed) Deficiency (80-04-01):
Failure to document Site Operations
Review
Committee
(SORC) responsibilities.
The inspector verified that the licensee
issued
a
new Office Instruction
No, OI-18, "Instruction for SORC Records",
Revision
0 dated 5/22/80.
This instruction
was issued to specify
a uniform
format of the
SORC meeting minutes to ensure all actions
are properly
documented.
A review of several
recent
SORC meeting minutes indicates that
the instruction is being
used
and is apparently effective.
3.
0 erational
Safet
Verification
a.
Control
Room Observation
Routinely throughout the inspection period,
the inspector
independently
verified plant parameters
and equipment availability of engineer ed
safeguards
features
against
a plant specific checklist to ensure
compliance with the limiting conditions for operation
(LCO's).
The plant specific checklist
has
been
developed
to assist
the inspector
in ensuring
the following items are observed
during control
room
tours:
Switch and valve position required to satisfy the
LCO's
Alarms or absence
of alarms
Meter indications
and recorder
values
Status lights and power available lights
Front panel
bypass
switches
, Computer print-outs
Comparisons
of redundant
readings
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.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
b.
Review of Lo
s and 0 eratin
Records
The inspector
reviewed the following logs and instructions for the
period November
1 through
December
15,
1980:
Control
Room
Log Book
Reactor Operations
Log Book
Station Shift Supervisor's
Log Book
Station Shift Supervisor's
Instructions
Licensee
Event Report
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 regu-
latory requirements
Determine that records
are being reviewed
as required
Assess
the effectiveness
of the communications
provided by the
logs and instructions
Determine that the reporting requirements
of technical
specifica-
tions are met.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
4.
Observation of Ph sical Securit
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 was properly manned
and appeared
capable of performing their assigned
functions.
Protected
area barriers
were intact - gates
and doors closed
and
locked if not attended.
Isolation zones
were free of obstructions
and objects that could aid
an intruder in penetrating
the protected
area.
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.
e
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
5.
Plant Tour s
a.
~Sco
e
During the course of the report period,
the inspector
made multiple
tours of plant areas
to make
an independent
assessment
of equipment
conditions, radiological conditions,
safety
and adherence
to regula-
tory requirements.
The following areas
were
among those
inspected:
I
0
Turbine Building
Auxiliary Control
Room
Vital Switchgear
Rooms
Yard Areas
Radwaste
Area
Diesel Generator
Rooms
Screen
House
Reactor Building
Refueling Area
b.
~Findin
s
The following determinations
were made:
(2)
Monitoring instrumentation:
The inspectors verified that selected
instruments
were functional
and demonstrated
parameters
within
Technical Specification limits.
Radiation protection controls:
The inspectors verified that the
licensee's
Radiation Protection
procedures
were adhered
to at the
time of observations
in the following areas:
(a)
Access control including tagging,
posting
and maintenance
of
step-off pads.
(b)
Confirmation of licensee
survey results
by independent
measurements.
(c)
Verification that requirements
of Radiation Work Permits
are
appropriate
and are being followed.
Plant housekeeping:
Observations
relating to plant housekeeping
identified no unsatisfactory
conditions.
(4)
Fluid leaks:
No significant fluid leaks
were observed.
Piping vibration:
No excessive
piping vibrations were observed
and
no adverse
conditions were noted.
Fire protection:
The inspector verified that selected fire
extinguishers
were accessible
and inspected
on schedule,
that
fire doors were unobstructed
and that adequate
controls over
ignition sources
and fire hazards
were maintained.
The inspector
had
no further questions
in the areas
examined.
6.
Maintenance
Observations
The inspector
observed portions of the following maintenance
items:
On November 6,
1980, the repair of an oil leak on the 0102
Emergency
Diesel Generator.
On November 25,
1980,
repacking of the 011 Liquid Poison
Pump.
Through direct observation
and review of records,
the inspector determined
that:
Redundant
components
were tested to ensure operability prior or starting
the work.
Required tagouts
were obtained.
Approved procedures
were used for repacking the liquid poison
pump.
The repair of the minor oil leak is
a job within the "skills of the trade."
Appropriate radiological controls were established.
gC coverage
was provided.
Equipment
was properly tested prior to returning to service.
The inspector also independently verified that the valve and breaker line-
up for the emergency diesel
generator
and the liquid poison
pump were
correctly returned to
a normal
stand-by condition.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
7.
Emer enc
Pre aredness
Drill
On November
12,
1980,
the licensee
conducted
a scheduled fire drill to test
the response
of station
personnel
and off-site fire companies
to a simulated
fire in the protected
area.
In addition to the licensee's
observers,
an
independent
consultant,
the Fire Protection
Engineering
Group,
had been
retained to review the fire protection
program
and the drill.
The resident
inspector
reviewed the drill scenario prior to the conduct of
the drill, attended
a pre-drill briefing of the observers,
witnessed
the
licensee's
response
from the Technical
Support Center,
and attended
the
critique following the drill.
Through direct observation,
the inspector
determined that:
'I
The licensee
responded
in accordance
with approved
procedures.
The response
was coordinated,'rderly
and timely.
Designated
individuals were assigned
as observers.
A critique was held following the drill.
The results of the drill have
been
documented
and reviewed
by the Site
Operations
Review Committtee at meeting
number 80-62
on November 21,
1980.
The licensee's
actions to correct identified problem areas will
be reviewed during subsequent
inspections
by the resident inspector.
(50-220/80-19-01)
8.
Verification of Licensee Action in Res
onse to
NRC Confirmator
Order
Dated October
2
1980
As a result of the failure of control rods to scram at
a boiling water
reactor,
Inspection
and Enforcement Bulletin 80-17,
Supplement
1 requested
the installation of a system to continuously monitor water levels in all
scram discharge
volumes
(SDV).
Following receipt of the licensee's
commit-
ment, the
NRC issued
a Confirmatory Order
on this subject to Niagara
Mohawk.
Specifically, the order required that by December
1,
1980,
the licensee
shall:
"l.a)
Install
and
make operable
a system to continuously monitor
water levels in all scram discharge
volumes
(SDV).
b)
The installed
system shall provide for level-indication, with
an associated
alarm,
in the control
room, for each
SDV.
This
equipment shall
povide sufficient information to the reactor
operator
such that if water accumulates
in either
SDY the decision
about actions to be taken
can
be
made in
a timely fashion
from
the control
room.
2.)
Until the
system described
in III.1 is installed
and operating
satisfactorily,
the licensee
shall increase
surveillance
of the
SDV water level to at least
once per shift.
The once per shift
surveillance
checks
shall
be at least
6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> apart."
The inspector
determined that the once per shift surveillance of the
water level
was conducted during the months of October
and November,
1980.
On December
1,
1980,
the inspector
reviewed the installation of the recently
completed
SDV continuous monitoring system
and the associated
special
pro-
cedure
no.
N1-SOP-15,
"Malfunction of Control
Rod Drive System,"
Revision
4
dated
November 26,
1980.
The as-built
system
had
one
common annunciator
in
the control
room which would alarm if water was detected
in one or more of
the five SDV discharge
The special
procedure
required that
an operator
be dispatched
to the local
panel
in the reactor building to verify the
member of sensors
(one per
discharge
detecting water and that
a manual ultrasonic examination
be performed to confirm the presence
of water.
If water was still evident,
a normal orderly plant shutdown would be initiated.
The resident
inspector
informed the Station Superintendent
that sending
an operator to=the local
panel
in the reactor building and requiring
a confirmatory ultrasonic
examination did not meet the requirement that "the decision
about actions
to be taken
can
be
made in a timely fashion from the control room."
On December
2,
1980,
a telephone
conference
call was held between
the resident
inspector,
the Region I Reactor Projects
Section Chief,
and the station
superintendent.
As a result,
the licensee
revised
N1-SOP-15 to require
a
normal reactor
shutdown if water was detected
in two or more
SDV discharge
without waiting for a manual ultrasonic examination.
As a result
of further review by the inspector,
in conjunction with Region I and IE
Headquarters, it was determined that the the licensee's
Continuous Monitoring
System still did not fully meet the intent of the confirmatory order of
October 2,
1980.
On December
12,
1980,
the Region I Office of Inspection
and Enforcement
issued
an Immediate Action Letter,
IAL 80-53, to confirm additional actions
that have
been or will be taken
by the licensee.
These
included:
a.
A television
camera
has
been installed to monitor the local
SDV water
level monitoring system
panel with a display in the control
room.
b.
Special
procedure,
N1-SOP-15,
has
been revised to require
an immediate
when the
SDV continuous water level monitoring system
indicates that there is water in more than
one
SDV in either of the
two groups of interconnected
SDV's.
c.
By December
19,
1980,
the
SDV water level monitoring system will be
modified to include individual indicating lights in the control
room
for each of the five SDV detectors.
By direct observation
and review of special
procedure
the inspector
determined that all items addressed
in the Immediate Action Letter had been
satisfactorily completed.
Verification of Licensee Action on the Interim Position for Containment
Pur
e and Vent Valve 0 eration
On October 22,
1979, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
(NRR) trans-
mitted its interim position for containment
vent and purge valve operation
to the licensee.
It requested
the licensee
to take interim action until
a
valve qualification program
had been
completed.
The interim action
was
intended to further ensure that the valves
remain operable
under the most
severe
operating conditions.
On December
17,
1979 and January
31,
1980, in letters
from Mr. Donald P.
Disc,
NMPC to Mr. Thomas A. Ippolito,
NRR, the licensee
committed to the
interim position for the containment
vent and purge valves.
The inspector
has reviewed the licensee's
commitment
and has specifically verified that:
Containment
vent and purge valves are required to be normally closed
by Operating
Procedure
No. 9, "Nitrogen Inerting and
H -0
Monitoring
System for the Primary Containment
and Pressure
Suppression
System",
Revision
4 dated
November
18,
1977.
The containment vent and purge valves
have
been modified to limit
their maximum opening to 50 degrees.
This modification is documented
by work request
¹13438 dated
March 5,
1980 and guality Control Inspec-
tion Report ¹80-069 dated
March 5,
1980.
There are
two signals (high drywell pressure
and low-low reactor water
level) that would initiate automatic valve closure.
The primary containment isolation logic allows the operator
to override the
high drywell pressure
signal with a key-lock switch.
This is to allow
controlled venting of the primary containment after
a loss of coolant
accident.
The isolation signal
from low-low reactor
water level cannot
be
overridden
and would therefore
be available to initiate valve closure, if
necessary.
The inspector
noted that
a path from the containment to atmosphere
existed
via the drywell nitrogen
makeup
and bleed isolation valves
and the drywell
nitrogen bleed blocking valve.
Since this path was not specifically addressed
in the
NRR interim position, the item is unresolved
pending review by NRR.
{50-220/80-19-02)
10.
Status of Licensee Action in Res
onse to I&E Bulletin 80-14 and 80-17
The inspector
reviewed the licensee's
response
to IE Bulletin 80-14 and 80-17
including Suppl'ements
1,
2 and 3, in accordance
with an IE Headquarters
direct'ive,
to determine if, the licensee
had sufficiently met his commitments
as of November
6,
1980.
In conjunction with the inspector's
assessment,
NRR/IE Headquarters
reviewed
each
response
to determine if an acceptable
commitment
had been
made.
The detailed results of this review were sent to all
BWR licensees
in an
Generic Safety Evaluation
Report dated
December
9,
1980.
The report concludes
"that interim operation of Nine Mile Point is justified pending
implementation
of long term modifications."
11.
Unresolved
Items
Unresolved
items are matters
about which more information is required in
order to determine whether they are acceptable
items,
items of noncompliance,
or deviations.
An unresolved
item identified during. this inspection is
discussed
in Paragraph
9 above.
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
findings.
Additionally, the resident
inspector attended
entrance
and exit interviews
conducted
by two separate
region-based
inspectors
with regards
to the
licensee's
training and environmental qualification programs.
w
~
'H
@R RECy
P0
CUNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGUL'ATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
631 PARK AVENUE
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA19406
Docket No. 50-220
November 12, 1980
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr., Director, IE
FROM:
SUBVECT:
Boyce H. Grier, Director, RI
REPORT
OF INVESTIGATION AT NINE'MILE POINT
Enclosed is our report of an investigation
conducted at Nine-:Mile
Point regarding apparent
discrepancies
in the licensee's
response
to
NRR with respect to Item 2.1.8.b of NUREG 0578.
Other related
documents
associated
with this matter are also enclosed
as indicated
below.
During the recent Health Physics Appraisal inspection
conducted
at Nine'ile Point from October
3 to October 10, 1980, it was
identified that the action that had been taken
by the licensee in
response
to Item 2.1.8.b of NUREG 0578,
as further clarified by
NRR letter to the licensee
dated October 30, 1979,
was different
from the action described in the licensee's
response letter to
dated
December
31,
1979.
The licensee's
response,
which was
an
interim response
in accordance
with the letter from NRR dated October
30, 1979,
was subsequently
reviewed and
a determination
was
made
that the action described
by the licensee
was
an acceptable
interim
response.
It appeared,
however, that the action described
had not
been taken
and that the licensee's
response r:,contained errone
ous"information.
For this reason,
an investigation (Investigation
Report No. 50-220/80-17)
was conducted
from October 22,to November 1,
1980.
This report and an evaluation
memorandum
from Eldon Brunner,
Chief, Reactor Operations
and Nuclear Support Branch,
dated
November
12,
1980, are enclosed.
In view of the findings with respect to Item 2.1.8.b of NUREG 0578
an inspection
was conducted at Nine Mile Point during the period
from October 8 to November 12,
1980 (Inspection Report No. 50-220/
80-18) to determine the status of licensee
compliance with all Category
A
items of the TMI Action Plan.
Th'e report of this inspection is
enclosed.
Several
additional unresolved, items were identified and
,'" )>>
I
>>
H
7
f>>
4
~ 4> ~)l)
-
.
4
Iff
~
) ~ 4
>>,'I
f- fl,
~
'
>>
4
'4 'f
-
~
I'
~
lf
Vh. ~
lf
4
4
h
~
4
hftgf
f'I )>>
I
~ 4
~
~ r
>>7
'
>> r
"',
~
~
1
Il )
-F ~
4
f
h
II
>>4
>>'
~
~
4
4
4>>
~ >>
~\\
4
4
~
h
I
-I ff~
'f" Pf
I
'4>>
>>>>
h>>
)J
I
y'I
II
I
~
~
4
I
7>>
>>
H
~
~
4
F"
~
~
If
44
4
h
h
I f',"
4 ~
4
a
f'* h I4
4
~
~
~
~
I
HV ~
4 ~ 4
4>>'
~ p
'I
4
REPORT
OF INVESTIGATION AT NINE NILE POINT
'
their status
has
been reported in the Region I response
to the
Assistant Director for Field Coordination,
DROI requests
of
October 24,
1980 and October 28,
1980.
Prompt resolution of'hese
items should
be pursued
by DROI.
The report of the Health Physics Appraisal at Nine Nile Point is
not yet available.
For this reason,
the details of the findings
related to the licensee's
response
to Item 2. 1.8.b of NUREG 0578
have
been incorporated into the report of the inspection
conducted
from October 8 to November 12,
1980 (Inspection Report No. 50-220/
80-18) discussed
in the previous paragraph.
Details Section 4.f
describes
the findings from the Health Physics Appraisal inspection
of this matter.
We believe that the licensee's
actions
regarding
Item 2. 1.8.b of NUREG 0578 represent failure to comply with the
Commission's
Order to Show Cause
dated January
2, 1980,
and the
clarification contained in the letter from NRR to the licensee
dated
October 30, 1979.
A Notice of Violation describing this noncompliance
is also enclosed.
Our recommendation
concerning the enforcement
action which we believe to be appropriate will beeforwarded to you
shortly.
Our evaluation of the results of the investigation
does not establish
that there
was
a deliberate
attempt
by the licensee
to deceive the
NRC.
In our view, however,
ther e is clear evidence of a material
false statement.
This false statement in the licensee's
letter to
dated
December
31,
1979 was knowingly concurred in by the General
Superintendent,
Nuclear.
Higher levels of NMP management
(Vice President
of Nuclear Generation
and Executive Vice President)
apparently relied
on staff input without question.
It appears,
therefore, that the
Executive Vice President
who signed the response
to the Show Cause
Order did so without assuring
accurancy of the response.
We are also
considering this matter further and will recommend appropriate
enforcement
action for what appears
to be ineffective management
controls.
If you have
any comments or questions,
I will be pleased
to discuss
them
with you.
8
ce
H. Grier
Director
(See
page
3 for enclosures
and cc addressees)
a
~ v
0
ai
a
r.
REPORT
OF INVESTIGATION AT NINE MILE POINT
'
Enclosures:
l.
Investigation Report No. 50-220/80-17
2.
Inspection
Report No. 50-220/80-18
3.
Evaluation
Memorandum from Eldon Brunner
dated
November 12, 1980
4.
ccw/enclosures:
R.
C.
DeYoung, Deputy Director, IE
N.
C. Moseley, Director,
H.
D. Thornburg, Director,
J.
H. Sniezek,
Director,
FFMSI
D. Thompson,
XOOS
4i.
'
ii Jf
-will
II
~
I
i
][\\
0
~
N
> i'
i
t>>
',i
i It L4
i
sip jR
ia
~ i'
~
~