ML20141E291
| ML20141E291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1986 |
| From: | Mangan C NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| To: | Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| (55(E)-84-53), (NMP21-593), (NMP2L-0593), (NMP2L-593), NUDOCS 8604210286 | |
| Download: ML20141E291 (3) | |
Text
p-
~
Y NIAGARA NuMOHAWK NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION /300 ER:E BOULEVARD WEST. SYRACUSE, N Y.13202/ TELEPHONE (315) 4 74-1511 January 28, 1986 (NMP2L 0593)
Mr. R. W. Starostecki, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Region I Division of Reactor Projects 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Re:
Nine Mile Point - Unit 2 Docket No. 50-410
Dear Mr. Starostecki:
Enclosed is a final report in accordance with 10CFR50.55(e) for the problem concerning the control of spare / replacement parts.
This problem was reported via tel-con to W. Lazarus of your staff on November 20, 1984.
An interim report was sent to you on December 20, 1984 and a supplement to this report was sent on August 23, 1985.
Very truly yours, bTv%
A C. V. Mangan Senior Vice President CVM/GG/cla (1399H) xc:
Director of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 R. A. Gramm, NRC Senior Resident Inspector 42%hk p
B Ik (7
fh 1
w l
NIAGARA M0 HAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT - UNIT 2 DOCKET N0. 50-410 l
Final Report for a Problem Concerning Control ~of Spare / Replacement Parts (55(e)-84-53)
Description of-the Problem An inspection by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations identified a concern regarding the control of spare / replacement parts at.Nine Mile Point -
Unit 2.
The concern may be classified into the following categories:
1.
Control of parts /docuaentation after issuance from the warehouse 2.
Control of parts with expired shelf life l
3.
Identification of parts Segregation of parts with different Quality Assurance categories 4.
l Analysis of Safety Implications The analysis of safety implications were similarly classified as follows:
1.
Control of parts / documentation after issuance from the warehouse.
The failure of maintaining positive control of parts / documentation after issuance from the warehouse could potentially result in the placement of unqualified parts into safety-related equipment.
The absence of required documentation could hamper the traceability of parts and their usage.
An investigation found no evidence of unqualified parts being installed in safety-related equipment throughout the plant.
Therefore, no problem exists.
(It should be noted that it was observed that traceability of parts like gaskets and fuses was not always available documentation.) possible due to the lack of details in the 2.
Control of parts with expired shelf life The failure to account for the shelf life of parts in the warehouse could potentially lead to the placement of such a part into safety-related equipment after its shelf life had expired.
Procedure CSI 20.17 requires Engineering Services Division to approve all Stores Requisitions for shelf life requirements before parts are issued to the field, if not previously reviewed and accepted. This review is required on all back orders until they are all verified for shelf life requirements, w
=.
For-those parts allocated from the warehouse with ar. unknown shelf life determination, Stone & Webster determined the shelf life in accordance with Project Procedure 126, Shelf Life Evaluation and Control, and found that no part had been installed with expired shelf life.
Both new parts orders being placed and back orders that were verified for shelf life requirements are in compliance with Project Procedure 126. Therefore, no problem exists.
3.
Identification of parts The absence of positive identification of warehouse parts could potentially allow an incorrect part to be installed in safety-related equipment.
An investigation has not identified any case of improper installation in safety-related equipment.
4.
Segregation of parts with different quality assurance categories A lack of segregation of warehouse parts could potentially result in the installation of non safety-related parts in safety-related equipment..Since none of the parts were removed from the warehouse for installation in safety-related systems, no problem exists.
Based on the above, no deficiency exists.
Therefore, the condition does not meet the criteria for reportability since there is no adverse affect on the
- safety of operations of the plant.
l l
L