ML17053C847
| ML17053C847 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1981 |
| From: | Ebneter S, Paolino R, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C845 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-410-81-07, 50-410-81-7, NUDOCS 8109240552 | |
| Download: ML17053C847 (16) | |
See also: IR 05000410/1981007
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE
OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
Report
No. 50-.410/81-07
Docket No. 50-410
License
No.
CPPR-112
Priority
Category
A2
Licensee:
Nia ara
Mohawk Power Cor oration
300 Erie Boulevard West
S racuse
13202
Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point Station
Unit 2
NMP-2
Approved by:
A. Varela,
Reactor Inspector
.D.
Eb
er, Chief, Plant Systems
Section,
Inspection At:
Scriba,
Inspection
Conducted:
July 27-31,
1981
Inspectors:
o ',
Re
tor Ins ector
da
e signed
d te signed
Ins ection
Summar
Inspection
on July 27-31,
1981 (Inspection
Report
No. 50-410/81-07)
Areas Ins ected:
Routine unannounced
inspection
by two regional
based in-
spectors
of established
electrical
QA procedures/implementation,
installation
of safety related
cable trays, potential significant deficiency in the primary
containment
concrete wall, engineering
drawing review for buildings affected
by radwaste
geologic feature
reported
by licensee
under
and
facility tour.
The inspection
involved 62 inspection-hours
onsite
by two
regional
based
inspectors.
Results:
Of the six areas
inspected,
no items of noncompliance
were identified
in five(5) areas;
one item of noncompliance
in electrical
procedures
im-
plementation
area involving failure to follow procedures
for performing
activities affecting safety related function.
Region I Form
12
(Rev. April 77)
~ 8109240552
810901
ADOCK 05000410
8
('
DETAILS
Persons
Contacted
Nia ara
Mohawk Power Cor oration
W.
- S
S.
RJ
- J
p.
- E
- H
- F
'R.
G.
- J
Baker
Caube,
QAE
Czuba,
QAE
Dillon, Site
QAE
Doyle,
QA Technician
Francisco,
Licensing Engineering (via telephone)
Manning,
QA Technician
Mastin,
Lead Electrical (Construction)
Osypiewski,
QAE
Patch,
QA Technician
Sanford,
Construction
Manager
Saurini, 'Assistant Senior
Lead Engineer
Stone
and Webster
En ineerin
Cor oration
S8WEC
S. Cimalleca,
Foreman
C.,Corso,
Electrical Engineer
S.
Crowe, Assistant Superintendent
L.
- E
- C. Gay, Superintendent
FQC
E. Goodness,
Material Controller
Dalhans,
QCE (Electrical)
Eichen, Assistant Superintendent
(Constuction
Engineering)
- C
- E
G.
- G
"H.
A.
G.
C.
Hilton, Superintendent
(Construction)
Holsinger,
QAE (Civil)
Magi 1 1ey, Assi stant Superintendent
FQC
Page,
Assistant Superintendent
(Geotech)
Pierce,
Site
QA Supervisor
Pierre,
Chief Office Engineer
Shah,
Responsible
Lead Engineer (via telephone
Smith, Senior
QC Inspector
Sperling,
Senior Material Controller
R. Wagner,
Resident
Manager
P. Wilde,
QCE
G.
R.
C.
Wilkins,
QCE
Zerrahn,
Cable Storage
Yard Attendent
Sperling,
Senior Material Controller
ITT General
D.
D.
0.
A.
Carey, Project Engineer
Giguere,
QC Manager
Grodi, In-process
Inspection Supervisor
Munger,
PM Records
Coordinator
"denotes
personnel
present at exit meeting.
2.
~FiT
2
The inspector
observed
work activities in progress,
completed work
and plant status
in several
areas
of the plant during
a general
inspection of Unit 2.
The inspector
examined work items for obvious
defects or noncompliance with NRC requirements
or licensee
commitments.
Specifically, the inspector
observed
concrete
placement
and testing
activities for. the electrical
and service water tunnels
and the
removal of rock from the intake
and discharge
tunnels
and the
radwaste building foundation.
The inspector also observed testing
and pilot hole drilling for the installation of expansion
type
concrete
anchors for the unit heater wall supports
in the south
auxiliary building.
The inspector conferred with crafts personnel,
supervision
and quality control personnel
encountered
enroute.
Particular
note was taken regarding
the presence
of quality control
personnel
and indications of quality control activities through
visual evidence
such
as inspection
records,
material identifications,
nonconformance
and acceptance
tags.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
3.
Electrical
Com onents
and
S stems
--Review of
A Records/Procedures
The inspector
reviewed quality assurance
plans, instructions
and
procedures
for electrical
components
and
systems
to determine
whether appropriate
and adequate
procedures
are included or referenced
in the
QA manual
to assure
the specific activities are controlled
and performed according to
NRC requirements.
Documents
examined for this determination
include:
Specification
E-061A, revision 3, dated
June 3,
1981 entitled
"Electrical Installation";
Specification
E-021A on Electrical Penetration;
NMPZ-SM01, revision 5, dated
February 3,
1981 entitled "Storage
and Maintenance
During Storage of Permanent
Plant Equipment";
Specification
EOC-5, revision 2, dated
September
19,
1978
Criteria for Identification and Separation
of Cable
and
Raceway
Sections;
2
Specification
E-026A on Cable Trays;
Quality Assurance
Inspection
Plan
(QSIP)
No.
N20E061 AF0002,
revision 0,
change
1 dated January
15,
1981
on Installation of
Electrical
Raceways;
('
QAIP No.
N20E061A F0001 dated
June
29,
1981
on Installation of
Electr ical
Embedments;
QAIP No.
N20E061A F003 dated
June
29,
1981
on Installation of
Electrical
Raceway
(Condui ts)
and Field Inspection.
QAIP No.
N20E061A F004 dated
June
29,
1981
on Installation of
Electrical
Raceways
(Manholes
Duct lines);
QAIP No.
N20E061A F007 dated
June
29,
1981
on Installation of
Electrical
Embedments (sil 1s for electrical
equipment);
QAIP No.
N20E061A F0030 dated
June
29,
1981
on Crimp Tool
Verification Program;
QAIP No.
N20E061A F0040 dated June
29,
1981
on Field Inspection
AC/DC Motors-Transformers;
QAIP No.
N20E061A-098 dated
February
28,
1980
on Electrical
Installation
(Raceway Inspection);
Engineer
QA Manual;
Engineers
Q-Standards
Manual
and Implementing Procedures,
Directives
and Instructions.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
4.
Electrical
Com onents
and
S stems Work Observations
The inspector
observed
work performance, partially completed work
and completed work, as appropriate,
relative to electrical
cable
and equipment
storage
and the installation of cable trays to determine
whether the requirements
of applicable specifications,
work procedures
and inspection
procedures
are accomplished
in accordance
with NRC
requirements
and licensee commitments'reas
examined for this
determination
include:
Cable Storage
Yard
The inspector
examined Material Receiving Report Nos.81-495,
81-350
and 81-2411.
In addition, the inspector toured the cable yard noting that
a
large
number of Rockbestos
cable reels were roped off and
tagged
as Rejects.
The licensee
indicated the cable
was nonconforming
and that
a
determination
was underway -by the Architect Engineer to ascertain
where the cable is being
used
and its affect on safety related
systems.
An interoffice memorandum
from the Architect Engineer
dated July 30,
1981 indicates
two of the single conductor
lighting cable reels
are nonconforming
and are to remain
on
reject status
and that all other single conductor lighting
cable reels listed in attachment
"A" of memo can
be removed
from the reject status.
All single conductor cables
not on
Attachment "A" and all multiconductor control cables
are to
remain
on reject status
pending approval of proposed
vendor
corrective action
and approval of disposition"No.
Level
B Warehouse
The inspector
examined electrical
equipment
storage
in level
B
warehouse.
The inspector
selected
pump motor S/N JMJ-901023,
P.O.¹
P-800A,
MPL ¹E12C002 to verify maintenance
and surveillance
activity as defined in section 2.6.3 of specification
E-061A
which states,
in part, that ".
.
.Motor winding insulation
resistance
shall
be megger tested.
. .for motors rated
50 hp.
and larger, at 90 day intervals.
. ..
Acceptable
resistance
parameters
.
. .shall
be as specified in the testing section."
Section
5. 1.4 of the Testing Section,
on motors,
states
in
part, that:
"All motors shall
have motor windings.
~
~ resistance
megger tested
as specified in section 2.6.3.
All test
~re orts
shall
be submitted to the emnineers
for evaluation~The
inspector
noted that the megger testing
was done
by one subcontractor
and the test data obtained
was stored
by another
subcontractor.
Neither contractor felt obligated to submit the test data to
engineering for evaluation.
Discussions
with the licensee
and engineers
indicate the test
data is not submitted to the engineers
for evaluation
as
required in Specification
E-061A.
The licensee
was informed
that this was
an item of noncompliance
and
an infraction of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion
V which states,
in part, that"
"Activities affecting quality shall
be prescribed
by documented
institutions.
.
.and shall
be accomplished
in accordance
with
those instructions...."
(50-410/81-07-01).
The inspector
examined
the installation
and arrangement
of
cable tray openings
and sleeves
in the control building,
elevation
287'-7~2" to 305'-1~2" per drawing Nos.
EE-37AH-3,
EE-
EE-37B-6 and
EE-37A.
In addition, the inspector
reviewed
the quality assurance
inspection reports
T-158E for installation
Nos.
E-061A/IR/E9006487
and E-061A/IR/E9006568.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
The inspector
observed
work in progress
involving cable tray
installation in the control building cable
spreading
room,
elevation 237'-0".
The inspector
noted that three installed
horizontal trays at the
AK line,
4 ft east of the
10 3/4 line
had
a 9/16 inch hole in the side rail in the area of the
splice plate fitting.
Section 3..1.2.6 of the Electrical Installation specification
states,
in part, that:
"where conditions require special
lengths of tray.
.
. or extra holes in side rails for support.
.punch or drill as necessary..
. .except
as otherwise
approved
by the Engineers, all holes in side rails shall
be located
close to support points;
no holes shall
be
made in the middle
portion of any
span or fitting.
The above instructions
appear
to be contradictory in that the
first part allows holes to be drilled as necessary.
The last
part permits
no holes in the middle span or fitting.
In
addition, the special
trays are cut from standard
12 ft. tray
sections with prepunched
holes that could end
up in the middle
span
or near the fitting depending
on where the special
tray
section is cut.
The licensee
has issued
an Action Sheet
No. 80.27 requesting
clarification of Section
3. 1.2.6 of Specification
E-061A
regarding
holes in cable tray side rails.
This item is unresolved
pending
NRC review of licensee action.
(50-410/81-07-02)
5.
Potential
Si nificant Deficienc /Primar
Containment Wall Concrete
~Deficienc
The licensee
reported
by telephone
on July 24,
1981
a potential
significant deficiency item due to voids in concrete
and exposed
rebar
which was observed
when concrete
forms were
removed
from the
primary containment wall.
The licensee
stated that
a repair procedure
had been
prepared
and
an evaluation
was underway to determine
reportabi lity of the deficiency under
The inspector
inspected
the reported deficiency and observed that unsound concrete
had been
removed surrounding
rebar to various depths.
The voids
were found to exist
on the outside
surface of the ring beams
surrounding
both the drywell equipment
and personnel
hatches.
(The primary wall
is 5'-3" thick and is increased
1'-6" on both the interior and
exterior ring beams at both hatches.)
Both hatches
were deficient
in concrete
in the
one through
two o'lock positions,
to depths of
from 1" to 20" maximum and,
exposing
layers of ¹18 ring bars.
The
inspector
observed
the voids occurred early in the concrete
placement
identified as
a 360
x 16'-9" high Pour No.
17.
At both diametrically
opposite
hatches,
the voids were in the
same quadrant,
starting at
the horizontal construction joint.
The left hand quadrant of the
,ring beam at both hatches
had
no deficient concrete.
I>
~
"J
~ ~
g4
~
'&D
No. 2248 dated July 7,
1981 states
that voids exist in the
drywell escape
hatch
and equipment
hatch concrete,
which exposes
reinforcing steel
in a number of areas.
The inspector
observed
noticeable differences
in the texture of the concrete,
indicating
a
lack of consolidation during placement.
The inspector also reviewed
related
nonconformance
and disposition report Nos., 2306
and 2308,
gC inspection reports,
engineering
drawings
and specifications.
The inspector
interviewed responsible
personnel
to determine
the
nature,
extent
and possible
cause
of deficiencies
in concrete
placement
made
June
26,
1981.
These observations,
in addition to
the review of gC documentation
on controls during the concrete
placement
and craft interviews confirm that the concrete
voids at
both hatches
resulted
from lack of consolidation.
N&D No.
2248 disposition details for the removal of unsound
concrete
and their repair with separately
identified placement
steps
and
controls
was observed
to be prescribed
by
S&M engineering with
adequate
design
review and appropriate
approval.
The
N&D also
gives technical justification for repairs
using proprietary
grout.'t
is consistent
with design/specification
requirements
for concrete
density
and is stated
to have
no detrimental effect
on shielding
capabilities.
Observation of completed repairs
and
gC record
review will be performed in a subsequent
inspection.
The licensee's
engineering
report as to the safety related significance of the
above deficiency, identified as
No. 81-00-03, will be evaluated
when the final report is submitted.
The inspector
has
no further questions
at this time.
No items of
noncompliance
were identified.
Review of Corrective Actions in Desi
n for Potential
Deficienc
Includin
Movement of Radwaste
Bui ldin
Geolo ic Feature
The licensee's
final report of the
10 CFR 50.55(e) deficiency
regarding possible future movement of the
Radwaste
Building geologic
feature,
dated
June
25,
1981, identifies that corrective action of
all affected safety related structures will consist of conservative
allowance for anticipated horizontal
movement (<1/4 inch) and
potential
settlement
(<1/10 inch).
The inspector
observed
in approved
drawings dated July 1,
1981 the following features
which represent
changes
in design different from those
presented
in the
~
a
~
The reinforced concrete
foundation for the liquid radwaste
tanks is not bonded to the rock.
It is separated
by a layer
of Polyethylene
~
b.
The bottom of the foundation
and the exterior structural
reinforced concrete walls, represented
in
PSAR Supplement
10
Figure 2.7-7A and B, with protected waterproof
membrane of
polyvinyl chloride sheet or butyl rubber is replaced
by interior
welded liner plates
anchored to the reinforced concrete.
~
Q-
a
I'
I
Pending
review and approval
by
NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation
of the magnitude of vertical
and horizontal
movement
due to the
geologic feature presented
in licensee's
final report the
NRC
inspector will review in a subsequent
inspection other related
information such
as adjustments
for piping between
the
Radwaste
and
adjacent buildings not affected
by the Radwaste
geologic feature.
The inspector
has
no further questions
at this time.
7.
Unresolved
Items
Unresolved
items are matters
about which more information is required
in order to ascertain
whether they are acceptable
items or items of
noncompliance.
An unresolved
item is discussed
in Details,
Paragraph
4d.
~Ei
The inspectors
met with licensee
and construction
representatives
(denoted
in Details,
Paragraph
1) at the conclusion of the inspection
on July 31,
1981.
The inspectors
summarized
the purpose
and
scope
of the inspection
and identified the inspection findings described
in the report.