IR 05000003/1973016
| ML20050C015 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1973 |
| From: | Brunner E, Dante Johnson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050C013 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-003-73-16, 50-247-73-21, 50-286-73-14, 50-3-73-16, NUDOCS 8204080018 | |
| Download: ML20050C015 (8) | |
Text
'
y
.
.
<
-
,
m n
..,
,
j
_)
.
.
'
.
U. S. AT0!!IC ENERGY C0:1>11SSION
.
,
- j
.
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
-
.
..
.
.
.
REGION I
-
ai
~~
i 50 n E4
~
50-03/73-16
-
RO Inspection Report No.:
50-286/73-14, 50-247/73-21 Docket No.:
&
Licensec:
Consolidated Edison Company License No.: DPR-26
~~
Indian Point Priority:
.
.
..
.
-
,
..
Category:
B&C Of
lg$
-
Buchanan, New York
. Location: -,
,
' Type of Licensec:
Power Reactor (PWR)
.
.
..
' Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced
.
November 14-16, 1973 Dates of Inspection:
N'vember 13, 1973
!
Datos of Previous Inspection:
o
-
,
,
\\
~
.
Reporting Insp6ctor:
C W
/2/9'
,
~.
D. F. Johnsob, Reac,tcir Inspector
'DATE
!
-
.
.
.
DATE
-
.
.
,
t
-
'
Accompanying Inspectors:
NONE DATE
-
.
.
.
.
.
DATE
'
-
-
-
.
,
(
.
.
Other Accompanying Personnel:
NONE
.DATE
-
/kY13 Reviewed By:
/
'
-
'w
^
'
E. J. Brunner, Chief, Reactor Operations Branch
.
8204080018 731205
-
-
-
-. -
. - - -
.
11,.:.
. :,.
d A
~
.
-
.
.}
,
-
.
i SUMMARY OF FIG INGS t-
.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations None
B.
Safety
,
None Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items
'
Not Inspected
.
'
Design Changes
.
!
Not Inspected
~
~ ~ ~
'"
I
.
-
Unusual Occurrences
's j
Not Inspected
,
'
i
Other Significant Findings I
.
A.
Current
,
-
.
I 1.
Unit 1 has initiated a program to improve facility safety by upgrading their Facility Procedures to conform to the latest i
t industry standards, a
I
.
.
2.
Unit 2 has corrected all deficiencies la Facility Procedures
identified in previous inspections.
(Report Details, Paragraph.
2)
.
i 3.
Unit 3 proposed Facility Procedure Program was reviewed for
,
!
scope of coverage and found to be in conformance with. ANSI N18.7,and Regulatory Guide 1.33.
j B.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
l All previously reported unresolved items relativa to Unit 2's l
Facility Procedure have been resolved.
(Report Details, Para-graph 2)
,
!
.
i
--
..
. _..
,.....,,
. _ _
_
,
.
.
.
,
Q
.
.
.
j
-
.
$
-2-
.
.
Management Interview
,,
,
At the conclusion of the inspection on November 16, 1973, a meeting was conducted by Mr. Johnson with the following representatives of the licensee to discuss the inspection findings:
W. R. Cobean, Manager, Nuclear Power Generation J. H. Coulch, Station Manager R. W. Van Wyck, Manager Nuclear Services J,. M. Makepeace, Technical Operations Director
'
Following is a resume of the items discussed:
A.
Facility Procedure Program Unit 1 The inspector stated that he discussed with licensee representatives
'
RO:I's position and policys relative to the requirements of ANSI N18.7 and Regulatory Guide 1.33.
,
The inspector identified generic deficien Les from his review-of Operating Procedure 1-2 " Plant Heatup from Cold Suberitical to Ect
,
i Suberitical.
Licensee representatives concurred with.his comments i
and agreed to incorporate them Lato all procedures.
(Report Details, Paragraph 3)
,
.
Previous Identified Deficiencies in Facility Procedures (Unit 2)
.
B.
The inspector stated previous identified deficiencies fran RO Reports Nos. 50-247/73-09 and 50-247-14 regarding facility procedures ware reviewed and subsequently resolved.
(Report Details, Paragraph. 2l
,
The inspector stated that he reviewed the status of Unit 3's Facilisty'
C.
Procedure Program and discussed his findings with ifcensea representa-
tives.
(Report Details, Paragraph 4)
'
.
'
-
.
,
!
!.
"
.,.. %,
,,_,
.
'M
1
,- s
.
.,1 e*
.<
,
- J
.
'
.
.
I DETAILS
- f
.
t'
.
1.
Persons Contacted W. R. Cobean, Manager, Nuclear Power Generation J. H. Coulch, Station Manager R. W. 7an Wyck, Manager, Nuclear Power Se.rvices J. M. Makepeace, Technical Operations Director R. Simms, Technical Operations
.
S. C. Salay, Chief Operations Engineer F. W. Graham, Plant Engineer
.
A. Nespoli, Operations Engineer Unit 2 S. Cantone, Operations Engineer Unit 3 A. Decker, Preventive Maintenance Engineer R. Ruch, Procedures Engineer
,
J. Quirk, Associate Engineer 2.
Previously Identified Deficiencies in Facility Procedures Unit 2
,
t j
a.
Procedures for combating a bomb threat are written but ara presently under revision and lacking final approval.*
-
.
The inspector verified by review of the licensee security plan
-
I that Paragraph 4.9 contains specific instructions for combating
)
a bomb threat to the facility.
This item is resolved.
'
b.
Pr6cedares for the operation of the reactor purification or j
cleanup system are lacking.** -
The licensee has written Operating Procedure #43 " Placing the CVCS demineralizers in or out of service".
The inspector i
verified by review of the following procedures:
!
OP-43 OP's 1, 2, 5, 6 plant startup and shutdown i
OP 3,4 Resin replacement and regeneration i
l l
that procedural coverage for the operation and shutdown of tha l
.
reactor purification system appears adequate. This item is j
resolved.
,
i
l
RO Report No. 50-247/73-09, Paragraph 2a(3)
l l
- RO Report No. 50-247/73-14, Paragraph 2d
!
I
!
l
,
-.-.7
.. - _.. - - - -
-
.
'.
,
i
'
.
-4-
.
.
i The inspector stated that the on-site safety committee charter f
c.
should include:
(1) Meeting frequency of the committee should be specified.
(2) Committee functions and responsibilities should be outlined and not left to the discretion of the station mcnager or its members to determine what is to be reviewed.*
.
The inspector verified by review that the latest revision to the Technical Specifications, Section 6.5 contains the meeting frequency, functions and responsibilities of the Station Nuclear Safety Committee.
This item is resolved.
.
'
d.
There is a conflict between Operating Procedura 0-8 "RCC Control Systems and Section 3.10.15 of the Technical Specifications which allows insertion of the part length rods to within one foot of
'
the bottom of the core (this would be a larger insertion limit than the 70% allowable by Technical Specifications).
If a start-
,
up had been performed with the allowable Ibnit of OP-8 this would be in violation of Technical Specifications.
'
.
The licensee has revised OP-8.
The inspector verified by review that OP-8 and the Technical Specifications for part length in-
!
sertion Ibnits are consistent. This item is resolved.
,
l Em'ergency Procedure E-12 " Nuclear Instrumentation Malfunction" e.
I is in conflict with Section 3.10.2.1 of the Technical Speciff--
i I
cations in that a core quadrant power balance is not required when operating at above 75% power with one excora nuclear
'
!
channel out of service.**
!
The licensee has revised EP-12 which now includes the require-ment of a core quadrant power balance when operating above 75%
'
power with one nuclear instrumentation channel out of service.
This item is resolved.
!
l f.
There is a conflict between Emergency Procedura E-19. !'High.
!
Activity Radiation Monitoring System" and the contingency plan
!
-
a
!
R0 Report No. 50-247/73-14, Paragraph 2f
!
- RO Report No. 50-247/73-14, Paragraph.3b
,
!
i l
I
- - - - - -
--
_
__- _ - _
- - ____ ______ - _ _ ____ _ _____ ___ __
__
___
- :-
Q
'
~
'
-5-
.
.
A h
regarding the asse. ably point for all operating personnel not directly involved in containing the source of activity.*
The licensee has revised E-19 to be consistent with the assembly area designated in the contingency plan. This item is resolved.
g.
The inspector identified several deficiencies regarding corrective Maintenance Procedure 18.1 "No. 22 Instrument Air Compressor",
which indicated the inadequacy of this procedure.**
.
The licensee revised CM Procedure 18.1, the inspector verified
.
by review of the new revised procedure that all previously identified deficiencies have been corrected. This item is
'
M resolved.
h.
The inspector stated his review of corrective Maintenance Pro-cedures on May 17, 1973 revealed that the scope of coverage of the IP-2 maintenance procedures program was not in conformance
,
g with.the minimum requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.33.***
3,
.
The inspector verified by review of subsequent procedures added i
to the corrective maintenance program that the IP-2 maintenance L
program is in accordance with the minimum requirements of RO I
j Guide 1.33.
This item is resolved.
.
,
j 1.
The inspector identified several generic deficiencies relative.
to. corrective Maintenance Procedures.****
I J,
The inspector verified by revi.ew of selected correctiye. maintenance
.
procedures that the licensee has incorporated the. inspectors pre-
'
vious comments and has applied then broadly to all procedures.
'
j This item is resolved.
I i
3.
Generic deficiencies identified bv review of Unit 1 Operating Pro-i cedure OP l-2 " Plant Heatup from Cold Subcritical to iiot Subcritical".
Procedures should have a cover sheet containing date.of latest a.
revision and approval signature.
'
!
b.
Precautions have conflicting system parameter requirements-re-garding Technical Specifications.
l t
RO Report No. 50--247/73-14, Paragraph 3e
t
RO Report No. 50-247/73-14, Paragraph. 4a(1)-0)
R0 Report No. 50-247/73-14, Paragraph.6 l
- R0 Report No. 50-247/73-14, Paragraph. 7 (a-f)
l
}
l t
~~^
-v
-
-..e.,n,..
.
,
,, _,,
,_
.
-
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _,.
Yp
.
O o
.
'
-6-
.
,
.
.
'
-
j c.
Precautions are generally lacking in specifics relative to plant parameters, and instructions on what and when to check and what
.
)
actions are required if limits are approached or exceeded, d.
Valve description i.e., (heat exchanger outlet valve) and valve numbers should be specified in the step by step procedure section.
~
e.
Detailed steps in the body of the procedure are lacking specifics, statements such as " maintain normal level" " adjust for proper flow", "line up valves for service", and too general, tank levels,
,
flows, pressures and specific valve lineups should be spelled out in detail.
f.
Final conditions should specify plant conditions that should exist when evolutions are complete.
Inspectors Comment
'
The inspector stated that the R0!I review of Facility Procedures
,
is a sampling inspection and that it is not intended to identify
every deficiency in every procedure. The inspector further e
stated that he expected his comments to be applied broadly and
-
that the licensee should review all Facility Procedures for
'
f.
sLailar deficiencies.
.
A licensee representative stated that the inspector's comments
l were so interpreted.
.
4.
Procedure Completion Status
.
,
.
$
Information obtained during this inspection indicated the follow-a.
ing status of completion regarding the Facilities Procedures
'
Program.
,
I
Final
% Written
% Approved i
System Operating Procedures
1
,
j Plant Operating Procedures
0 Emergency Procedures
0
.
i Alarm Procedures
0 l
Administrative Procedures
60
Preventive Maintenance Procedures
0 l'
Surveillance Test & Calibration Procediares
&
t Corrective Maintenance Procedures 100
l Ilealth Physics Procedures
85
'
i Chemistry Procedures
11
--
-
.-
- _.
.__
-_
__.,_
,
%
i :..-
o o
'.4
.
_,_
-
<
dl
[
Inspector's Comment h'
The inspector stated that Facility Procedures for the administra-
>
tion, operation and maintenance of the facility must be completed
'
and approved prior to licensing.
The inspector further stated
,
that based upon the large number of procedures remaining to be prepared and the voluminous amount needing final approval prior to the tentative fuel load date of August, 1974, significant emphasis should be placed on expeditirg the preparation and approval of facility procedures.
-
Licensee's Response t
A licensee representative concurred with tha inspector s comments
,
.
and stated every effort will be made for the timely completion of
'
facility procedures.
b.
Facility Procedures Scope and Coverage
>
i The inspector reviewed IP-3's Ladex for proposed procedures and l
stated that present proposed coverage meets the minimum require-
ments of Regulatory Guide 1.33, the inspector further states, based on his initial review of selected procedures they appear to be in conformance with RO requirements and ANSI N18.7.
i
-
t
.
i
.
i.
!
a n
e l
i I
i
,_ _
... _.. _
_
_
__7
,
.