IR 05000286/1978031
| ML19247B204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1979 |
| From: | Keimig R, Rebelowski T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19063C935 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-286-78-31, NUDOCS 7908080178 | |
| Download: ML19247B204 (11) | |
Text
-. -
-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGUL ~ MRY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTI0n,,ND ENFORCEMENT
.
Region I Report No. 50-286/78-31 Docket No. 50-286 License No. DPR-64 Pricrity
--
Category C
Licensee:
power Authority of tne State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York. New York 10019 Facility Name: Indian Point Nuclear Generating Staticn Inspection at: Buchanan, New York Inspection conducted:
November 26 - December 23, 1978 O 7 79 Inspectors /
,
_ cr W T. Rebelowpki, Resident Reactcc Inspector cate signed date signed date signed Approved by:
$
h
$
$'S'?0
,
R. Keimi Chief,,fe3ctorProjects cate signed
[SectionN'.1,RopsBranch J
Inscection Summary:
Inscoction on November 26 - December 23,1973 (Recort No. 50-2S6/78-31)
Areas Inscected:
Routine inspection by the resident inspector of plant opera-tions ir.cluaing: tours of the facility; observation of maintenance outage activities; observations of physical protection in the areas of access centrol, barriers, search, escort, cer:runications and compensatory measurements; and, review of monthly operating reports. The inspection involved 55 inspector hours on site by the NRC resident inspector.
Results: Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found in two areas; two apparent items of noncompliance were found in two areas (Infra;-
tion - failure to maintain limiting condition of operation as required by Tech-nical Specification 3.2.B.6; Infraction *- failure to control vital area as required by the licensee's security planf.
Region I Form 12 7 08080. 7p
(Rev. April 77)
'
-
500'f 220
_ __
-. _ _. _ _ _ _
._.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Mr. M. Albright, I&C Superintendent Mr. J. Bayne, Resident Manager Mr. S. Cantone, Superintendent of Power Mr. J. Kelly, Radiological and Environmental Services Superintendent Mr. J. Kilduff, Assistant to Resident Manager Mr. N. Passman, Reactor Analyst Supervisor Mr. E. Tagiomonte, Operations Superintendent Mr. S. Zulla, Technical Services Superintendent Mr. B. Weiser, Security and Safety Superintendent The inspector also interv6ed other licensee employees including msnbers of operations, maintenance, health physics, security and quality hssurance staffs.
?.
Maintenance Outace a.
General Items The licensee entered into an unscheduled maintenance outage on December 7,1978 due to the identification of primary to secondary leakage of approximately 0.24 gpm in one of the four plant steam generators. One tube in No. 33 steam generator was found to be leaking and was plugged.
Nondestructive ex-amination of 28 surrounding tubes was acccmplished and minor denting was indicated. The plant was returned to power an December 14, 1978.
On December 15, 1978, the unit ex::erienced a reactor trip due to Icw steam generator level caused by the loss of No. 32 boiler feed p;mc. The reason for the pump failure was in-vestigated by the licensee but the cause of the trip could not be deternined.
The plant was returned to power on December 19, 1978.
-
-
~-
5I)f)
221
._
_
_..
_
b.
Steam Generator No. 33 Reoairs The primary to secondary system leakage on December 7, 1978 was initially thought to be due to a tube leak in Steam Generator No. 32.
After cooldown and draining of primary side of No. 32 Steam Generator, a hydrostatic test did not indicate tube leakage.
Approximately 80 tubes were eddy current tested and it was determined that the leakage was not associated with the No. 32 Steam Generator.
Further investigation revealed that the lines for the steam generator's secondary sampling and blowdown were not a:cecding to clan.
The licensee corrected the sample line errocs and subsequently determined that Steam Generator No. 33 was tric generator that had exhibited the leakage.
The licensee found one tube ieak (Row 44, Cclumn 56 at the second support plate in the hot leg side). Twenty eight tubes surrounding the leaking tube wera inspected by eddy current testing.
The results of the investigation into the crossed sampling lines had not yet bee.a presented to the inspector at the con-cenlusion of this inspection.
Pending receipt and review of this matter at a subsequent inspection, this iterr is unresolved (286/78-31-01).
Thc reductica of eddy current data for tubes examinad in steam generators No. 32 and No. 33, (approximately 98 tubes total)
is not yet available for review.
Pendir.g receipt and review of this material at a subsequent inspection, this item is unresolved (286/78-31-02).
c.
Licensee Quality Assurance Program The licensee's Quality Assurance Engineering staff mor.itored the activities of the cutage in the area of the steam generator repair.
Areas reviewad incluced procedures used for explosive plugging, cleanliness of arus and centrol cf field activities.
Work areas were reviewed on a continucus basis by members of the QA staff.
No items of noncompliance were identified and the inspector has no further questions at this time.
,an
-
_... _...
_
_
. __.
._
__
3.
Review o' Plant Operations a.
Shift Logs and Operating Records (1) The inspector reviewed the following logs and records:
(a) Senior Reactor Operator Logs (November 25, 1978 to December 20,1978)
(b) Watch Su ervisor's Log (November 25, 1978 to December
20, 1978 (c) Conventional Nuclear Plant Operator Log (November 22, 1978 to December 20, 1978)
(d) Night Order Book (e) Jumper Log to December 20, 1978 (f) Significant Occurrence Reports (November 24, 1978 to December 20,1978)
Flux Di ference Log Sheet (November 25,1978 to (g)
F December 20, 1978)
'S)
Reactor Coolant Leakage Survefilance Sheet (November 24, 1978 to Decemoer 20,1978)
(i) Rod Position Indication Lcg (Novamber 24, 1978 to December 20,1978)
(j) Thermal Power Calculation Sheet (November 24, 1978 to December 20,1978)
(k) Containment Leakage Calculation Sheet (November 24, 1978 to Decembcr 20, 1975)
(1) Quadrant Power Tilt Calculation Sheet (November 24, 1978 to December 20,1979)
~
--
-
.-
.
(m) High Radiation Area Locked Gcte List (November 25, 1978 to December 20, 1978)
(n)
Control Room Log Sheet (November 25, 1978 to December 7.0,1978)
(o) Conventional Area Log Sheet (November 22, 1978 to December 20,1978)
(p) Nuclear Area Log Sheet (November 25, 1978 to December 20,1978)
(q) Nuclear Plant Operator Log (November 25,1978 to December 20, 1978)
(2) The logs and records were reviewed to verify:
(a) Log Book reviews are being conducted by the staff; (b)
Instructions in the Night Order Book did not conflict with Technical Specifications; (c) Jumper Log entries did not conflict with Technical Specifications; (d) Significant e irrence Reports confinn ccmpliance with Technica.
"ation reporting and LCO requirements; a;...
(e) Log book entries involving abnormal conditions are sufficiently detailed.
(3) The inspector useo the follcwing acceptance criteria for the above items.
(a)
Technical Specifications.
(b)
Licensee Procedures:
AP-8, " Reporting of Significant Occurrences;"
--
AP-13, " Jumper Control;"
--
500 ZF
..
.
.
,
.... -.
.
.-
-
AP-21, " Conduct of Operations;"
--
AP-21,4, " Log Keeping;" and,
--
AP-21.6, " Night Order Book."
--
(c)
Findings:
The inspector had no questions / comments on the above inspection items except as described below:
The licensee's conventional nuclear plant log sheets in-dicated a minor fire at the screen well due to the ignitica of oil caused by the breakage of an oil signt glass on the No. 34 Circulating Water Pump on December 15, 1978.
The fire caused minor electrical damage to the pump's circuit breaker. The licensee was requested to notify the resident inspector of any fires in the plant area in a timely fashion. The licensee's repairs were accomplished immediately. The inspector had no further questions regarding the occurrence.
b.
Plant Tour (1) The inspector toured accessible areas of the plant at various times during the inspection and took independent readings on safety related equipnent.
The tours included the following areas:
(a)
Control Room (b) Primary Auxiliary Building (c) Turbine Building (d) Transformer Yard (e)
Intake Structure (f) Security Control Building (g) Auxiliary Boiler Feed Builcing (h)
Diesel Generator Rooms.
., > c
- O bb
-
-
.
.
-
._..
-. -
-
-
.
.-
l'c) The following areas were observed:
(a)
Radiation protection controls; step-off pads, stor-age /cisposal of protective clothing, and control of high radiation areas were observed for adequacy in all areas toured.
' b ?lu.d leaks: all areas toured were examined for svides.ce of exce'sive fluid leakage.
'c)
Diping vibration: all areas toured were observed for evidence of excessive piping vibration.
(d) Control Room and Nuclear Plant Operator station manning: these areas were observed to detennine compliance with regulatory requirements.
(e) Selected valve positions / equipment start positions.
(f) Discussions with watch personnel pertaining to reasons for selected lighted annunciators: the Watch Super-visor was questioned to detemine if he was knowledge-able of the reasons for all lighted annunciators.
(g) Seismic restraint oil levels: observations of piant hydraulic restraints was perfomed.
(h) On a routine basis, monitoring instruments have been osberved in the control rocm, the primary auxiliary building and other toured areas.
(i) Plant housekeeping: conditions / cleanliness.
(j) LSSS/LCO: equipment status or operating parameters were observed for confomance to the LSSS/LCO re-quirements.
(k) Shift turnovers of control rocm operators and watch supervisors were observed on regular and back shifts.
c \\ c.
'; ) u JUV
.
.
..
.-
.
' "..
_ _ _
_
(3) The inspector used the following acceptance criteria for the above items:
(a) Technical Specifications Table 6.2-1.
(b)
(c) 10 CFR 20.203.
(d) Licensee Procedures:
AP-10, " Work Pennits, Radiation Exposure Authori-
--
zations, Operating Orders."
AP-21.5, " Confines of the Control Room."
--
AP-27.2, " Housekeeping."
--
AP-27.3, " Fire Protection."
--
(e)
Innector judgement.
(4) Tour Findinos (a) Heat Tracing Ancmaly During a review of the heat tracing system, the in-spector noted that Circuit No. 63 indicated a tempera-ture of 78 F.
Circuit No. 63 monitors Line No. 204 from the Boric Acid Flow indicator to the manual boration isolation valve, Nc. 293.
The Technical Specification 3.2.3.6 staces that two channels of heat tracing shall be operable for the f'ow path from the baric acid tanks to the reactor coolant system which ir.cludes line No. 2C4.
Opera-bility is contingent upon maintaining che line at a minimum temperature of 145'F in accordar.ce with S0P EP-7.
Review of the licensee's Standard Operating Procedure, EL-7, " Electrical Heat Tracing System Operations," Rev. 0, approved March 8,1978, references
no$
- '
-Q f \\ 0 G
J 'J U
.
_
_
~
a deleted Plant Operating Instruction POI-3 (which contained specific operator action in the event of an anomalous condition).
The licensee stated that acticn would be initiated to provide adequate in-structions to the operators.
However, it was not apparent in this instance that the operators re-cognized the nonconfor ning condition.
Failure to identify the anomaly and to use and maintain redundant, operable circuits to maintain the required line temperature is an item of noncom-pliance at the severity level of an Infraction (286/
78-31-03).
4.
Obse'vations of Physical Security The resident inspector made observations, witnessed and/or verified, during regular and off-shift hours, that selected aspects of the security plan were in accordance with regulatory requirements, physical security plans and approved procedures.
a.
Physical Protection Security Orcanization Observations and personnel interviews indicated that a
--
full time menber of the security organization with authority to direct. physical security action was present, as required Manning of all three shifts on various days was observed
--
to be as required All physical security members observed apceared capable
--
of performing their assigned tasks b.
Physical Barriers Selected barriers in the protected aren (PA) and vital areas (VA) were observed and rancom monitoring of isolation 7ones was perforned.
c.
Access Centrol Observations of the folicwing items were made:
.
non
-
-
-
..
.._
.
.-
_
.
Identification, authorization and badging
--
Escorting
--
Communications
--
Compensatory measures, when recuired
--
d.
Inspection Findings On December 21, 1978, the inspector observed that an entrance door to a vital area was unlocked.
The bolting mechanism was taped to remain in an open position.
The tape was removed and the door was secured by the licensee. Approximately one hour later upon egress through the same door, the dcor was found blocked open with a piece of pipe.
The pipe was removed and the door was resecured by the licensee.
Identification of this problem was made to the licensee.
Fatlure to maintain control of a designated vital area as required by Paragraph 14 of the Modified Augmented Security Plan (MASP) is an item of noncompliance at the severity level of an Infraction (286/78-31-04).
5.
Review of Periodic Recorts The inspector reviewed the information documented in the licensee's Monthly Operating reports for July, August, September, and October 1978.
The reports documented:
Operating Data Report
--
J (J Uc \\ f.? ~) O LL/
_. _.. _ _ _
.. _.. _
..
-..
.
.
Average Daily Unit Power Level
--
--
Shutdown and Power Reductions
,
Monthly Maintenance Items
--
The review consisted of an examination of maintenance records for compliance with administrative procedures, examination of plant logs for 6ddition items not identified in the reports, and exami-nation for variations from the technical Specification requirements.
The inspector identified no items of noncompliance in his review.
6.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is re-quired in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations.
Unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.
7.
Exit Interview At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss inspection scope and findings. The items of noncompliance were identified to the Resident Manager.
.
,
0)
l
'