IR 05000247/1982006
| ML20052H944 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1982 |
| From: | Baunack W, Rebelowski T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052H942 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-247-82-06, 50-247-82-6, NUDOCS 8205240227 | |
| Download: ML20052H944 (3) | |
Text
__
_____ ______ _ _______ _ _ _ _____ _ __ _ __
._
_ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ __ -___ __
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 50-247/82-06 Docket No. 50-247 Category C
License No.
DPR-26 Priority
-
Licensee:
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 Facility Name:
Indian Point Station, Unit 2 Meeting at:
USNRC, Region I, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania Meeting conducted:
April 19, 1982 NRC Personnel: M [. N
- t2_/4 w
1. A. Rebelowsfi, senior Resident Inspector
' date signed date signed date signed I//>>/Fx Approved by:
'
'^^
w. itspunack, Acting Uniet, Indian Point
'date' signed Res) dent Section, Division of Project and Meeting SummaryResident Programs Enforcement Conference on April 15,1982 (Report No. 50-247/82-06)
Sununary: Special enforcement conference convened by NRC Region I management to discuss NRC concerns regarding recent inspection findings related to the operability of the boron injection tank and concerns involving management control of safety related activities at the station.
Senior Consolidated Edison Company and NRC Region I management personnel attended the meeting which was held at the Region I office. The meeting was of two hours duration.
8205240227 820507 PDR ADOCK 05000247 G
PDR Region I Form 12-1 (Rev. February 1982)
!.
e-
-
-
.,
DETAILS
.
1.
Attendees Consolidated Edison Company of New York C. Jackson, Vice President, Nuclear Power J. Basile, General Manager, Nuclear Power Generation D. Rosh, General Manager, Technical Support K. Burke, Director of Regulatory Affairs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission R. Starostecki, Director, Division of Project and Resident Programs E. Brunner, Chief, Projects Branch No.1, Division of Project and Resident Programs W. Baunack, Acting Chief, Indian Point Resident Section, DPRP T. Rebelowski, Senior Resident Inspector, Indian Point Unit 2 P. Koltay, Resident Inspector, Indian Point Unit 2 2.
Discussion Mr. Starostecki opened the meeting with a synopsis of events and inspection findings concerning licensee plant operations with a minimal boron injection tank nitrogen blanket overpressure. Areas addressed included:
(1) lack of recognition of a limiting condition for operation by the operating staff, (2)
procedural inadequacies and inconsistancies which allowed plant operation without a operational boron injection system, (3) the inadequacies of procedures (operating log sheet) in calling operator, Watch Supervisors and the Operations Department Manager attention to the necessity of nitrogen blanket overpressure for system operability, and (4) failure of the Technical Support Department to recognize the need for adequate nitrogen pressure on the boron injection tank for the operability of a safety system.
The licensee presented the facts associated with the event. These included the procedures written for the performance of maintenance on the boron injection tank nitrogen regulators and other tank components. These procedures permitted the reduction of the nitrogen overpressure. The fact that maintenance procedures permitted this reduction of the nitrogen overpressure led the operators to believe operation with a reduced nitrogen overpressure was acceptable.
On March 5, 1982, station management questioned the baron injection tank criteria as it related to pressure and level and initiated an engineerin; evaluation. Upon completion of the evaluation prompt corrective action Las taken. Nitrogen overpressure was imediately established manually, procedures were changed and the nitrogen pressure regulator, replaced. The President of the company and the Chairman of the Nuclear Facility Safety Comittee were also notified.
Subsequently, an application for an amendment to the technical specifications was also submitte._ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _
..
,
.
3 3.
Results Tentative licensee actions were presented which included:
a.
Formulation of a task force to perform an independent review of procedures as directed by the President of the company, b.
Review of Emergency and Annunciator responses underway, c.
Additional personnel will be added to increase the Chief Operating Engineer staff, d.
Review of documentation inconsistencies identified during update of FSAR, e.
Appropriate technical specification revisions to reflect licensee concerns, and f.
Additional training at all levels of first and middle management in the recognition of depths of review required by a identified operating problem.
Region I management informed licensee that appropriate enforcement action regarding the subject event is being considered.
Enforcement actions will be provided by separate correspondence.
.
- _ - -.
_.
..