ML17053C875
| ML17053C875 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1981 |
| From: | Feil R, Kister H, Schulz R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C874 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-410-81-10, NUDOCS 8110090248 | |
| Download: ML17053C875 (14) | |
See also: IR 05000410/1981010
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
Report
No.
50-410/81-08
Docket No.
50-410
License
No.
CPPR-112
Priori ty
Category
Licensee:
Nia ara
Mohawk Power Cor oration
300 Erie Boulevard West
S racuse
13202
Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point
Unit 2
Inspection At:
Scriba
NRC Personnel:
Inspection
Conducted:
Se tember
1-3
1981
R. A. Feil, Reactor
Inspector
.
D.
Sc Olz,
Re Ltor Inspector
date
date
Approved by:
H.
B.
Ki
er, Chief, Reactor Project
Section
1C, Division of Resident
and
Project Inspection
date
Fg~
dat
Ins ection
Summar
Ins ection
on
Se tember
1-3
1981
Re ort No. 50-410/81-10
b
d i
of unresolved
items, facility status
and familiarization tour for incoming resident
inspector.
The inspection
consi sted of 46 inspector-hours
onsite
and
7 inspector
hours in-office by two regional
based
inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
Region I Form
12
(Rev. April 1977)
8ii0090248 8i0924
<
'I
R AOaCK OSOOOeiO,
P~DR
'
1
DETAILS
Persons
Contacted
Nia ara
Mohawk Power Cor oration
E
- J
- G. J.
- P.
E.
"R. A.
'R.
L.
Czuba,
QA Engineer
Dillon, QA Engineer (Site
Lead)
Doyle,
QA Technician
Francisco,
Nuclear Licensing Engineer
Norman,
QA Supervisor
Patch,
QA Technician
Stone
and Webster
En ineerin
Cor oration
- S.
W.
- C. E.
"B. L.
- M. R.
- H. J.
"L. E.
Crowe, Assistant Superintendent,
FQC
Hilton, Superintendent
of Construction
Holsinger,
QA Engineer
Oleson, Assistant Superintendent
of Engineering
Pierre,
Chief Office Engineering
Shea,
Superintendent
of Engineering
"Denotes
those present at exit meeting.
The inspectors
conferred with other licensee
and contractor
personnel
during the course of the inspection.
Licensee Action on Previous
Ins ection Findin
s
(Closed)
Unresolved
Item (79-07-04) Dikkers Relief Valve radiographs
below code density.
The licensee
and the
have completed the review
and disposition of the radiographs
of the twenty seven
Di kkers Safety
.
Relief Valves for Nine Mile Point Unit 2.
The results of this review and
radiographic
examination of 1787 radiographic films revealed that
717
radiographs
exhibited localized areas of questionable
density.
The
E142-72,
Section
7, states
in part,
"One penetration
shall represent
and
area within which radiographic densities
do not vary more than -15 or +
30 percent".
The film density through the penetration
and base material
area of interest
exceeded
-15 or 30 percent for the
717 radiographs.
The
NSSS contracted
to review all of the radiographs
supplied
by Dikker's.
The conclusion of the contractor
was
( 1) The quality of the material
satisfactory
and (2) none of the density variation problems
was severe
enough to inhibit the ability of the film interpreter to evaluate
the
Dikkers radiographs.
An engineering
evaluation
was
made
and the results
are
as follows:
1.
The stress
report of the Dikkers Safety/Relief valves were re-reviewed.
There
was
no indication of any region with excessive
stress
or
inadequate
thickness.
In general,
the stresses
are well below the
prescribed
code limits.
The calculated
body wall thickness is
E
y
~
0.63"; whereas
the actual
minimum wall thickness is 1.1".
The
primary stress
at the crotch between inlet and outlet is 3,493 psi,
compared to the code allowable of 18,900 psi.
The primary stress
at
the crotch between
and outlet is 4,524 psi
compared to
a code
allowable of 18,900 psi.
2.
The Dikker's radiographic
examination
was sufficient to provide
volumetric analysis of all component part castings.
3.
Where the radiographs
displayed density variations
beyond specification
limits, the location
on the casting is that of either substantial
extra thickness
or of rapidly changing cross section.
4.
The inlet side
and outlet side of the
Dikker's Safety/Relief valves
were tested
to 1.5 times the design
pressure
during the hydrostatic
test.
The valve operability and pressure
containment tightness
were
verified after the hydrostatic test.
5.
Each complete valve was subjected
to a series of full flow, full
pressure
steam lifting tests.
The licensee
has concluded that the results of the program review of the
radiographic film, when evaluated with other available records,
such
as
satisfactory hydrostatic tests
and performance verification tests
under
full steam pressure
and flow conditions,
confirms that the valve material
is sound; that the valves will operate
safely and reliably and that the
records
are sufficient and adequate
to determine that the equipment
meets
the code.
The inspectors
observed
work activities in progress,
completed
work and
plant status
in several
areas of the plant during general
inspection of
the plant.
The inspectors
examined work for any obvious defects or
noncompliance with regulatory requirements
or license conditions.
Particular note was taken of presence
of quality control inspectors
and
quality control evidence
such
as inspection
records,
material identification,
nonconforming material identification, housekeeping
and equipment preserva-
tion, and quality inspection
personnel
as
such personnel
were available
in the work areas.
No items of noncompliance
were observed.
~
r
.
~
Faci1 it
Status
The licensee
informed the inspectors that the facility is
31% complete.
Manpower has
increased
to 2149 manual
and 594 nonmanual.
Construction
activity continues
on cable tray installation, lighting and communication
activities,
primary containment wall rebar installation,
secondary
contain-
ment exterior wall construction,
control building wall, electrical
tunnel
walls and roof, areas of the turbine building, pipe erection for RHR
& component cooling,
and piping in the turbine building,
suppression
pool leak chase,
NDE and repairs to bottom liner and sparger
ring, repair of biological shield wall, lake tunnel excavation,
structural
steel
erection,
HVAC installation, cooling tower construction
and assembly
of the fuel pool liner.
Inleaka
e of Groundwater into
Pum
Pits
On August 26,
1981
the licensee
reported
a
item regarding
water leakage
into the
sump pits of 'the
pumps.
The licensee
stated
that ground water was leaking through concrete
construction
points into
the pits of the suction barrels of 5
pumps (3
RHR pumps,
1
pump
and
1
LPCS pump).
The possibility existed during subsequent
operation
that
a
common
mode failure of the
pumps could occur by flooding of
the
pump compartments.
The licensee
and
SWEC stated that at elevation
163'
10" approximately
8"-9" of porous concrete
has
been
poured
on top of bedrock.
Then .a minimum
1/4" seal
grout is placed over the porous concrete
to keep water out.
Then the mat is poured
on top of the seal grout.
The problem appears
that the 1/4" seal
grout layer extends all the way to the pipe form for
the pit.
The water is seeping
up through the porous concrete
and around
the water stop.
The water is then following the line between
the seal
grout layer
and the mat bottom over to the pipe form.
Once at the pipe
form, it can
go around or vertically up and
down and leak into the pit
through joints.
The proposed corrective action
was to (1) chip out the pipe form where
leakage
occurred
and grout in a water stop or (2) to line the pits with a
metal barrel.
SWEC i ssued
a Nonconformance
and Disposition Report
No.
1911
(N&D) on
October
14,
1980 stating the details of the water leaking into the pit of
the
RHR pump.
The proposed fix was to apply an epoxy adhesive
into
cracks
and other voids in the concrete
structure for bonding or grouting.
The report stated
in Block 23 that
no related activities were affected
(N/A).
- ~
~
A
1
L
Paragraph
3.3.1 of Engineering
Assurance
Procedure
(EAP) 15.2 states:
"3.3.1
The responsible
engineer providing the disposition shall:
Comply with the requirements
established
in the Instructions
for initiating, dispositioning,
and approving
N&D's included
as
Attachment 5.2.
Review the reported
nonconformance
to determine if an evaluation
of a potentially significant deficiency (10 CFR 50.55e) is
required.
Process
potentially significant deficiencies
according
to
EAP 16.2.
Draft a "Report of a Problem" according to
EAP 16.1, if a
reported
nonconformance
is considered
to be
a significant
engineering,
design,
construction,
or guality Assurance
problem,
and if other
S&W Projects
could benefit.
Consult with the requirements
Lead Engineer to determine
if the
N&D conforms to applicable licensing
documents
(see
paragraph 3.5.2)."
On the report is
a block for Related Activities Code.
As identified
in
SWEC Engineering
Procedure,
EAP 15.2 this block,
numbered
23 is
used to:
"Enter appropriate
related activites code.
Enter N/A if no
code applies."
B Affects Licensing Documents
(see
paragraph
3.3.1)
N "Report of a Problem" is Required
(see
paragraph
3.3.1)
0 -
Evaluation of potentially significant deficiency (10 CFR 50.55e) is required
(See
Paragraph
3.3.1)
The following N&D's,
same subject
were issued.
N&D No.
and Date
1911 - 10/14/81
2004
1/29/81
2040
2/27/81
2214
6/18/81
2311
8/3/81
e
~
Each
new
N&D superseded
the previous
N&D because
of an Engineering
request for revised disposition details.
Each
N&D stated
in Block 23,
Related Activities Code:
NA.
A meeting
was held
on July 24,
1981
between
SWEC and
NMPC personnel.
Agreement
was reached that
a metal liner would be placed in the pit and
a
schedule for the fix was prepared.
On August 18,
1981,
NMPC requested
SWEC to evaluate
N&D Nos.
1911
and
2004 for reportability under
SWEC responded
on August 21,
1981 that
a determination
was
made that the item was potentially reportable.
On that date the
5 day review requirement
imposed
by
NMPC procedures
commenced.
The
NRC was notified on August 26,
1981.
A review of this reportable deficiency revealed that
SWEC failed to
adequately
review N&Ds for reportability and to take prompt action to
report the item to
NMPC as
a potential reportable
item when the deficiency
was originally discovered.
The problem
had been identified by
10
months prior to
a request
by
NMPC to
SWEC to review the
N&Ds for potential
reportability.
The lack of timely reviews by
NMPC and the failure to
adequately
review and report potential deficiencies
in a timely manner
by
SWEC represents
a weakness
in the management
control in this area
and
reduces
the effectiveness
of control by
NMPC over their contractor s.
Pending resolution of this program weakness
for prompt,
adequate
and
timely reviews of N&Ds by
SWEC and
NMPC for potential
reportabi lity in
accordance
with 10 CFR 50.55(e)
and
NRC guidance,
this item is unresolved.
(50-410/81-10-01)
Un uglified A
re ate Pit
The inspector
was informed that aggregate
had
been
used since
May 1979
from a source
which had not been tested
and approved
in accordance
with
SWEC Specification
S 203H.
A Noncompliance
and Disposition Report dated
8/21/81
has
been
submitted
by
SWEC for disposition of the nonconforming
aggregate.
The disposition of the problem was to accept
"as is" since
-the aggregate
used in concrete at
NMP 2 was qualified by in-process
testing in accordance
with Specification
S 203H for concrete
and there
were
no adverse effects
from the
use of aggregate
from the unqualified
pit.
In addition,
SWEC conducted
a geological evaluation of the area
in
which the unqualified pit is located.
This evaluation
concluded that the
aggregate
from the unqualified pit is similar in nature
and origin to
aggregate
currently approved for use
from 3 qualified pits presently in
use since the aggregate
is derived from the
same glacial drift deposits
and with no significant differences
in the constituents
of the petralogic
make-up.
The licensee
requested
SWEC to qualify the aggregate
in accordance
with the specification
and to provide substantiation
and document action
on past
and present
uses
and source of aggregates.
The aggregate
supplier
had provided
a letter stating that
no material
from the unqualified pit
will be used in any production pending test results.
~~
~
The inspector
expressed
the following concerns:
1)
The adequacy of pit and site storage verification of aggregate
supplies
by Niagara
Mohawk Power
Company surveillance
personnel;
2)
this length of time to identify the problem
(May 1979
July 1981)
and;
3)
resolution of issues
raised
by the licensee with reference
to the
investigation of the aggregate
problem.
This item is unresolved.
On September ll, 1981 the licensee
telephoned
the inspector to report
this problem as potential deficiency in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.55(e).
A Stop Work order for Category
1 concrete
work has
been
issued
pending
resolution of the problem and qualification of the pit.
(CDR 81-00-05).
7.
Unresolved
Items
Unresolved
items are matter s about which more information is required in
order to ascertain
whether they are acceptable
items or items of noncompli-
ance.
Unresolved
items discussed
during the inspection
are detailed in
Paragraphs
5,
and 6.
Exit Interview
The inspectors
met with the licensee's
representatives
(denoted
in Paragraph
1) at the conclusion of the inspection
on September
3,
1981.
The inspectors
summarized
the purpose
and
scope of the inspection
and the findings.
The
licensee
acknowledged
the inspector's
findings.
4L'
~
4 ~+
~
0