IR 05000410/1982004

IE Insp Rept 50-410/82-04 on 820511-13.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Electrical Components Installed, Implementation of QA Plans & Instructions Associated W/Equipment Storage

ML20054F717
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	05/25/1982
From:	Beckman D, Finkel A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20054F712	List: IR 05000410/1982004 ML20054F711
References
50-410-82-04, 50-410-82-4, NUDOCS 8206170245
Download: ML20054F717 (5)

Text

. .

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /82-04 Docket N License No. CPPR-112 Friority --

Category A License: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard, West Syracuse, New York 13202 Facility Name: Nine Mile Point Station, Unit 2 Inspection At: Scriba, New York Inspection Conducted: May 11-13, 1982 Inspectors: .

A. E. Finkel, Rehctor Engineering /

Ndite k

Inrpec r*

Approved by:_J h "v h

[E A. Beckman, Chief, Plant Systems b77kk

/ date Section, Engineering Programs Branch Inspection Summary:

Inspection on May 11-13, 1982 (Report Number 50-410/82-04)

Areas Inspected: Unannounced inspection of electrical components installed and i in storage, systems, and procedures including: implementation of quality assurance plans, construction installations, instructions and procedures associated with equipment storage, raceway installations, and conformance with SAR committment The inspection involved 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> onsite by one NRC region based inspecto Results: No violations were identifie DR ADOCK 05000410 PDR (

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _______ _ __ ___ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _

. .

DETAILS Persons Contacted Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

• Baker, Construction Engineer

• J.' Dillon, Quality Assurance

• Doyle, NRC Coordinator

• L. Jodway, Quality Assurance

• E. Manning, Quality Assurance

,

• Mastin, Construction Engineer

• Millian, Lead Compliance Engineer

• Mural, Engineering

• R. Norman, Quality assurance Manager

• F. Osypiewski, Quality Assurance

• J. Ptak, Manager, Construction Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (S & W1

• Bernard, Assistant Manager, Field Quality Control

• L. Brown, Superintendent of Construction

• G. Pierce, Site Quality Assurance Supervisor

• J. Giler, Assistant Superintendent, Engineering

• E. Magilley, Assistant Superintendent, Field Quality Control

• F. Novak, P/M Manager

• Oleson, Assistant Superintendent, Engineering

• Rono, Assistant Superintendent, Electrical

'

• Rovetts, Superintendent, Engineering

• L. Shea, Superintendent, Engineering

• J. Thompson, Superintendent, Field Quality Control

• R. Wagner, Resident Manager United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Schulz, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at exit meetin Other licensee and contractor personnel were also interviewe . Facility Tour Work in progress, completed work, and plant status were observed during a general inspection of the electrical construction activitie Installations and activities were examined for obvious defects or noncompliance with NRC requirements or licensee commit 4ments. Craft and supervisory personnel encountered in work areas were interviewe . .

3. Cable Rooms The Cable Room raceway installations were inspected using the area construc-tion drawings to verify raceway and hanger installation. The hanger drawings for drain piping above Class 1E cable trays provided non-seismic design and installation requirements. The piping, and possibly its contents, could present a hazard to safety related cabling and may be subject to 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion (GDC) 2, Design Basis for Protection against Natural Phenomena, and/or GDC 4, Environmental and Missile Design Bases. The licensee could not determine the acceptability of these installa-tions during this inspection and advised the inspector that an evaluation of such installations will be made, drawings revised, and piping or hangers modified if necessar This item is unresolved pending NRC review of the licensee's action (50-410/82-04-01).

4. Raceway Separation Criteria The inspector reviewed electrical specifications, Engineering and Design Coordination Reports (E&DCRs), and drawings that provide cable tray in-stallation requirements and inspected cable trays as discussed in Paragraph 3 above. The documents used for installation and inspection do not appear to consistently meet Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) criteria for raceway separation. Cable tray installations in the Control Building, various elevations; the West Chase; East Chase; and, other areas, have as-built separations less than required by either PSAR criteria or the guidance of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 384-1974, Criteria for Separation of Class IE Equipment and Circuit Examples of separations involving safety related and non-safety related trays having separations down to about 4 inches were observed (minimum 12 inches allowable without barrier protection). Such installations may be acceptable if

! provided with fire barriers but existing installation documents do not yet specify the use of fire barriers.

l The NRC Colstruction Assessment (Report 50-410/81-13, November 30 - December 18,1981) found that independent reviews of cable tray separation criteria and design output documents required by the licensee's QA Program were inadequate, resulting in inconsistent application of the separation require-ments. NRC review of the licensee's response to this finding continued through this inspection.

l The inspector similarly found that cable tray separation and protection design requirements were not completely translated into the installation documents. Only the installation documents, e.g. drawings, E&DCRs, Electrical Installation Specification NMP2-E061A, etc., are used for actual construction and inspection.

,

Quality Control verifies the installations to conform to only the installation l document De licensee's program does not appear to include methods for verifying and errecting the installations which do not meet PSAR separation criteria.

l _ _ . _

. .

.

The licensee advised the inspector that these problems were under review and would be corrected following cable tray installation; installation will continue using existing practices pending resolution. This matter will remain unresolved pending NRC review of the above actions and those in conjunction with the NRC Construction Assessment findings. (50-410/82-04-02).

5. Identification - Raceway Loading - Separation The licensee has established administrative controls for methods of raceway identification, raceway loading, and separation except as discussed in Paragraph 4.~ The installation are verified to meet the requirements as defined in the E&DCR's, drawings, and specifications by Quality Control Inspectio No violations were identified.

6. Documentation Review and Equipment Storage The inspector reviewed the licensee's controls for the storage, maintenance, and preservation of equipment as described in the SAR and applicable engin-eering document The following documents and their associated activities were reviewed

--

NMP2-SM01 - Storage and Maintenance During Storage of Permanent Plant Equipment,

,

--

NMP2-5204P - Cable Tray Support,

.

--

NMP2-E061A - Electrical Installation Specification, and

.

--

Quality Assurance Department Significant Deficiency Report dated

'

February 5, 1982.

l Warehouse Storage The inspector observed electrical equipment stored both in warehouses and in the plant structure The equipment in Warehouses #1 and #2 was protected and had heat applied where required. The controls in Warehouse #3 were not being maintained at the same level as in Warehouses

1. 1 and #2. Warehouse #3 containing the Emergency Diesel Generators had combustible trash, dirt, and cigarette butts throughout. The

diesels and generators were being maintained, but oil leaks were not

being cleaned as required by Preventive Maintenance Program (PMP) SMD

! The inspector verified that the warehouse was cleaned before the end of this inspection.

,

i

_ - . , - - , - , , -- - - , . . -. -,, .-

. , - - . , .

-

,

. .

4 In-Plant Storage During plant tours the inspector observed safety.related electrical-equipment such as motor control centers and inverters stored in place without. application of storage protection measures for cleanliness and humidity as required by PMP SMO-1 or Gould (vendor) Maintenance Manual QAP 13.1, dated March 31, 1980. The licensee had identified general handling, storage, and shipping problems in Significant Deficiency Report (SDR) M58.94, dated February 2,198 In response to the SDR and prior problems, the licensee has contracted S&W to provide maintenance services. A long term plan will be imple-mented about June 1,1982. Based on the prior problems and the in-spector's findings,on May 14 the licensee implemented an-interim program to provide upkeep and protection for equipment already stored or scheduled for in place storage prior to June The licensee's housekeeping program and program for maintenance and protection of safety related equipment will be reviewed during a future inspection. This matter is unresolved (50-410-82-04-03). Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain if they are acceptable, violations, or Deviation Unresolved items are discussed in Paragraphs 3, 4, and . Exit Meeting .

The inspector met with licensee and Architect-Engineer / Constructor represen-tatives (See Paragraph 1) at the end of the inspection on May 13, 198 The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and identified the inspection finding The licensee (Manager, Construction)

committed to an interim maintenance program starting May 14, 1982 with an overall program being available approximately June 1, 1982. (Reference:

Paragraph 6).

I l l

-

,

l