IR 05000333/1980008
| ML19320D333 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1980 |
| From: | Baunack W, Kister H, Troskoski W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320D328 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-333-80-08, 50-333-80-8, NUDOCS 8007210255 | |
| Download: ML19320D333 (8) | |
Text
.
,O
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I
,
Report No.
50-333i80-08 Docket No.
50-333 License No. DPR-54 Priority Category C
--
Licensee: Power Authority of the State of New York P. O. Box 41 Lycomino, New York 13093 Facility Name:
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Station Inspection at:
jScritrar, New York Inspection conducted:
May 19-23, 1980 fij.
d h%
Inspectors:
W. Baunack, Reactor Inspector datie sigred W. TJJ'
s/g/g o
~~
W.
roskos ', Re c Inspector date signed v/Linville,Rea[frInspector
- h
?O d
~
4/
AatA signed Approved by:
I 6[4/[pc H. B. Kister; Chief, React..r Projects date signed Sectiori No.' 2 Insoection Summary:
-
Inspection on May 19-23,1980 (Report No. 50-333/80-08)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regionally based inspectors of new fuel receipt, handling and inspection; refueling activities in the control room and on the fuel floor; surveillance te-ting related to refueling Technical Specifications; and, major maintenar:e work on MSIV's, emergency diesel generator, and removal of the reactor vessel head.
This inspection involved 96 inspector-hours by.three NRC regionally-based inspectors.
Resul ts: No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
800721o 25 5
.
_
.
.-
.
DETAILS
'
1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Baker, Superintendent of Power
- N. Brosee, Maintenance Superintendent
- V. Childs, Assistant to Resident Manager
,
- ~R.. Converse, Operations Superintendent
- M. Cosgrove, Site QA Engineer
- W. Fernandez, Technical Services Superintendent
- R. Pasternak, Resident Manager
- V. Walz, Maintenance Department Electrical Engineer J. Fitzgerald, Maintenance Foreman The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees, including main-tenance mechanics and reactor operators.
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
New Fuel Receipt and Inspection a.
Documents Reviewed
-
Reactor Analyst Procedure 7.1.1, Revision 1, January 22, 1980, Receiving and Handling of Unirradiated Fuel; Reactor kalyst Procedure 7.1.2, Revision 2, January 22, 1980,
-
Inspection and Channeling Unirradiated Fuel; and, QC Inspection Report F80-550A, B and C, completed during February
-
and March, 1980.
b.
Summary The inspector reviewed the above documents to verify that the 160 new fuel bundles and new fuel channels were received and inspected in accordance with properly approved procedures. The data.,heets from QC Inspection Reports F80-550A, B and C were checked on a sampling basis.for completeness, and documentction of defects and repairs.
The qualification records for two of the QC inspectors responsible for inspecting. the new fue; sad channels were reviewed j
to ensure that properly trained individuals were used.
The inspector had no further questions at this time.
,
.
,
l
._
.
.
1:
3..
Refueling Activities-a.
Documents Reviewed Reactor Analyst Procedure 7.1.3, Revision 5, May 12,1980,
-
Refueling Procedure; Reactor Analyst Procedure 7.2.4, Revision 1, November 20,1979,
-
- Reactor Core Fuel Verification; F-ST-5M, July 16,1976, IRM Hi Flux and IRM Inspection;
.
F-ST-5N, July 16, 1976, APRM Hi Flux;
.-
F-ST-390, October 7,1975, Secondary Containment;
-
F-ST-20F, January 27, 1976, Refueling Interlocks;
-
F-ST-50, November 15, 1977, SRM Functional Check;
-
F-ST-SP, July 16, 1976, SRM Channel Check;
-
F-ST-20G, August 25, 1977, Routine Bridge and Grapple Checks;
-
ICA Transfer Forms, April 11, 1980;
-
F-ISP-71, Revision 6, June,1979, IRM Instrument Trip Functions
-
Calibration; and, F-ISP-72, Revision 3, October,1978, SRM Instrument Trip Function
-
Calibration.
.
b.
Findings The above records and procedures were reviewed pursuant to the licen-see's administrative procedures and Technical Specifications to verify that:
(1)
Procedures were properly approved, completed, and checked off on the master refueling checklist as applicable;
,
(2)
Refueling Surveillance Tests were completed prior to fuel handling;
'
_and, (3) Source Range Monitors and Intermediate Range Monitors were properly calibrated.
,
f
.-
-
.,.,
a
<
-
,,,..
.m-
-
.
.
.
.
<
c.
Summary The inspector verified by record review and direct observation of fuel handling activities in the control room and'on the fuel bridge that:
' Crew makeup was as required;
-
Dedicated connunications existed between control room personnel
-
and the. fuel bridge personnel;
'
Flux monitoring in the control room was consistant with procedures;
-
Status boards were used to track fuel movement;
-
Secondary containment integrity was maintained;
-
Housekeeping around the fuel floor was acceptable;
-
Radiation Monitoring on the fuel floor was in accordance with
-
,
procedures; Reactor mode switch was locked in the refuel position;
-
Fuel pool cooling was in service, and pool level was greater
-
than 33 feet; All control rods were inserted per Technical Specifications;
-
Standby gas treatment system was operable;
-
Standby liquid control system was operable;
-
Reactor coolant chemistry was maintained within limits for con-
-
ductivity and chloride ion content; Two emergency diesel generators were operable; and,
-
Refueling _ interlocks were checked.
-
The inspector had no further questions at this time.
.
-
,
. _ _ _.
-
_
-
~. _, _
.
4.
Outage Maintenance a.
Scope The procedures for maintenance activities scheduled during the refuel-ing outage were reviewed on a sampling basis to verify that the pro-cedure format complied with facility administrative requirements, and that safety precautions, quality assurance and testing requirements were included.
Equipment tagging and maintenance activities were ob-served.
b.
Documents Reviewed Work Request / Event / Deficiency / Form;
-
Work Tracking Form;
-
Maintenance Procedure No.1.3, Revision 2, October 24, 1979,
-
Main Steam Isolation Valve Maintenance; Maintenance Procedure No. 52.1, Revision 0, October 24, 1979,
-
Diesel Generator Maintenance; and, Maintenance Procedure No. 52.2, Revision 0, October 24, 1979,
-
Diesel Engine and Auxiliary Maintenance.
c.
Findings (1) While reviewing the MSIV maintenance work pursuant to Maintenance Procedure No.1.3, MSIV Maintenance, and its associated Work Tracking Form, the inspectors determined through discussions with cognizant maintenance personnel that the lapping procedure being used was not the one incorporated into the master procedure.
Discussions with the licensee's management revealed that although the lapping method employed had been preplanned, and the mainten-ance mechanic responsible for the operation had been sent to a
,
special school to attain necessary skills, no written procedure covering the new method had been issued.
Further, by examining the maintenance procedure and work tracking form it was impossible to determine.the scope of the MSIV maintenance work underway.
!
l l
..
Y
...
.
(2) While observing a maintenance overhaul of an emergency diesel generator, the inspectors determined that two additional job:,,
not part of the or'ginal procedure referenced in Maintenance Procedure No. 52.2, Diesel Engine and Auxiliaries Maintenance, Step 7.1, were underway.
Both jobs, lube or cooler inspection and turbocharger replacement, were being performed in accordance with a.. approved tech manual.
Review of the maintenance proced-ure work trar. king fonn issued to cover the diesel generator over-haul, did not include these two items.
Discussion with the licensee's management confirmed that these items were preplanned.
.
S e inspectors determined that both the MSIV and emergency diesel generator jobs had been preplanned in accordance with administrative procedures, and were being conducted by qualified
'
individuals possessing the necessary skills. However, in both cases, it was found that documentation of the total scope of a maintenance activity would not be completed until after all work is finished and QC assembles the final job package. This concern was expressed by the inspectors.
The licensee agreed to review the method used for issuing maintenance procedures to ensure that the total scope of the intended maintenance activity is documented.
The results of the licensees review will be examined during a future inspection.
This item is unresolved (333/80-08-01).
(3) The inspectors observed that the maintenance procedures contained a tagging guidance / requirement prerequisite for maintenance mechanics. The operations section which is responsible for actually tagging out the system, does not come into contact with these procedures.
The inspectors expressed a concern that under certain conditions, the tagging guidance system could break down, resulting in an inadequate system isolation.
The licensee agreed to review the tagging guidance / requirements now being used by the Maintenance Department. The results of the licensee's review will be examined during a future inspection. This item is unresolved (333/80-08-02).
,
5.
Facility Tours On several occasions during the inspectior., t=rs of the facility were con-ducted of both the turbine and reactor buildings, the diesel generator rooms, and the recirculation pumps motor-generator room.
During the tours, the inspectors discussed plant operations and observed selected maintenance
.
-
-.
-.
.,
,
. - _ _ _ _
_.
-
activities, housekeeping, radiation control measures, monitoring instru-mentation and controls for Technical Specification compliance.
In addi-tion, the. inspectors observed. control room operations for control room manning, and facility operation in accordance with administrative and
' Technical Specification requirements.
6.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the site inspection on May 23, 1980, an exit meeting was conducted with the licensee's senior site representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1).
The findings were identified and discussed.
,
l l