IR 05000333/1980016
| ML19351F005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1980 |
| From: | Chung J, Greenman E, Mccann J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351F003 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-333-80-16, NUDOCS 8012190712 | |
| Download: ML19351F005 (10) | |
Text
r
.
.
.
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Repcrt No.
50-333/80-16 Docket No.
50-333 License No.
DPR-59 Priority
--
Category C
Licensee:
Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Facility Name:
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Inspection at: Scriba, New York Inspection conaucted: September 8-12, 1980 Inspectors:
A
[0 O
b u.; %/h
'd W. Chung, Reac Inspector
-
date signed LA7 A LS h fEli T/97D McCann, Reac nspector
~date signed ' #
~
date signed Approved by:
O d U;/f70 E. G. Greenman, Chief, Nuclear Support date signed Section No. 2, RO&NS Branch Insoection Summary:
Inspection on September 8-12, 1980 (Report No. 50-333/80-16)
Areas inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by two region-based inspectors of follow-up on prior identified items; administrative controls for facility procedures; conformance to Technical Specifications; verification that temporary and permanent pro-cedure changes are made in conformance to Technical Specification requirt.nents and licensee procedures; verification that procedure changes were in conformance to 10 CFR 50.59(a) and (b) requirements; checklists and related forms reflected latest changes; control room and facility tours; and observations of an emergency drill.
The inspection involved 50 inspector-hours onsite by two region-based NRC inspectors.
Results:
Noncompliances:
None.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
64.L?d9 $71L
.
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. Baker Superintendent of Power
<
- N. Brasee, Maintenance Superintendent
- R. Burns, Asssistant to Superintendent of Power JW. Childs, Assistant to Resident Manager
- R. Converse,- Operations Superintendent of Power
- W. Fernandez, Technical Service Superintendent
- H. Keith, I&C Superintendent J. Kerfien, Q.C. Supervisor R. Liseno, Shift Supervisor R. Pasternack, Resident Manager D. Tall, Training Coordinator Other members of the operaticas, maintenance and administrative staffs were also contacted.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
- Acting Resident Manager at the exit interview.
2.
Previous Inspection Item Update (0 pen) Inspector Follow Item (333/78-05-09): Technical Specification 4.b.H.1 and the basis may be in conflict in that the percentage flow imbalance stated in each are different.
A licensee representative stated that a draft change to Technical Specifi-cations 3.b.H.1 and 4.b.H.1 was completed and the proposed change would be submitted to NRR for approval by January 1,1981.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (333/78-13-05): Safety System RTD calibration was not checked except for feedwater temperature RTD's. Action taken on this l
item was reviewed during Inspection No. 333/80-02, at which time a licensee l
representative stated that calibration and accuracy on selected RTD's would be checked during the refueling outage scheduled to begin in May 1980. The i
licensee subsequently determined that calibration checks of the RTD's were not feasible because of accessibility difficulties and radiation levels and that the selected RTD's would be replaced with new, calibrated RTD's. The i
inspector reviewed a Purchase Order to Rosemont Inc. for new RTD's dated
!
April 9,1980. However, the RTD's had still not arrived onsite, and were not expected until September 18, 1980. A licensee representative stated that the RTD's would be replaced during the next refueling outage and placed on the " Balance of Plant" schedule, and further stated that the reliability of the RTD's would be demonstrated by daily check with other redundant RTD's until the next refueling outage. This item remains open pending replacement of the RTD's and subsequent NRC:RI review.
1
,
_
. _.
r-.
.y
,_...._......,.,, -
_,
.,. _. - _.
..v..
.. _,._
,-,._..,..
.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (333/79-02-01):
Procedural format specified in Administrative Procedure 3.3 did not meet the requirements of ANSI N18.7-1972, paragraphs b.4, 5.1.7, and 5.3.5(3).
The inspector verified by review of Administrative Procedure 3.3, " Procedure for Instrument fiainte-nance Procedures", Revision 1, that the procedure had been revised on June 11, 1980 to meet the format requirements specified in the ANSI standard (0 pen) Unresolved Item (333/79-02-03): Surveillance Procedure ST-2A, Residual Heat Removal Pump Flow Rate Test did not have a correlation of two acceptance criteria. A licensee representative stated that a proposed Technical Specification change would be submitted to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation by January 1,1981, and that this charige would reflect the Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) Loop Selection Modification.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (333/79-02-07):
Battery Test Discharge Proce-dure, ST-16, did not appear to meet service test requirements of IEEE STD-450-1975.
The inspector reviewed procedure F-ST-16I, Revision 0, July 1980, which adequately addressed IEEE STD-450-1975 and Regulatory Guide 1.129 requirements for P.ttery Service Tests.
This procedure was used during the most recent Battery Service Tests performed on July 30-31, 1980 with satisfactory results.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (333/79-02-08):
Use of computer data for cooldown rate surveillance testing without adequate calibration data for computer
.
instrunentation.
The inspector reviewed the preliminary draft of proce-dure F-IMP-9-40.1, Process Computer Millivolt Calibration Test, which is in the final review stages.
This procedure will check the calibration of the process computer by substituting a known voltage source for the thermocouple at the computer input terminal. A licensee representa-tive stated that this procedure would be implemented by January 1,1981.
,
This item remains open pending review of procedure F-lMP-9-40.1.
l (Closed) Unresolved Item (333/79-02-10):
System Operating Procedures, valve lineups, and Annunciator Response Procedures upgrading.
This item was reviewed and. eft open during inspection 333/80-05 because the revised procedures had not been reviewed by the Plant Operations Review Comittee (PORC).
The inspector verified that System Operating Procedures and Annunciator l
Response Procedures had been upgraded, and that all procedures had been
!
reviewed by the PORC.
3.
Administrative Controls for Facility Procedures a..
Administrative controls were reviewed to determine the licensee's l
l system for implementing requirements associated with the control l
of facility procedures as specified in Technical Specification, l
l l
.
-
,
,
-
---
.
.,
,
-
.,
.
Section 6; Regulai;ory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Require-ments; and, ANSI N18.7, Administrative Controls for Nuclear Pcwer Plants. Areas of emphasis were in the established controls for for-mat, content, review (including periodic review), and approval of facility procedures.
The following documents were reviewed:
AP 1.3, Control of Administrative Procedures, Revision 2,
--
December 19, 1979 AP 1.4 Control of Plant Procedures, Revision 3, December 19,
--
1979 AP 2.1, Procedure for Operating Procedures, Revision 2,
--
March 20, 1979 AP 2.2, Procedure for Emergency Operating Procedures, Revision 1,
--
February 2, 1978 AP 3.1, Procedure for Maintenance Procedures, Revision 2,
--
August 1, 1979 AP 7.1, Reactor Analyst Procedures, Revision 0, April 1,197/
--
Administrative Procedure Index, Revision 11, June 27,1980
--
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
4.
Review of Facility Procedures a.
The inspector reviewed facility procedures and temporary changes, on a sampling basis, to verify the following:
Procedures, plus any changes, were reviewed and approved in
--
accordance with the requirements of the Technical Specifica-j
!
tions and the licensee's administrative controls.
The overall procedure format and content were in conformance
--
with the requirements of the Technical Specifications and ANSI l
N18.7, " Administrative Controls for Nuclear Power Plants."
l
--
Checklists, where applicable, were compatible with step-wise I
instructions in the procedures.
Appropriate Technical Specification limitations had been included
--
in the procedures.
.
g e-
--
ym-
..w
-.--9
+
- --
--+
w-,-
- -
g-
,y e
f y
ygsp---
5---
-
.
Temporary changes were made in conformance with Technical Specifi-
--
cation requirments and the licensee's administrative controls, b.
The following procedures were reviewed:
(1) Operating Procedures Memorandum to Operations Department Files, Reviews of
--
Operations and Department Standing Orders, Serial OPS-79-30, April 4,1979 Memorandum to Operations Department Files, Review of Sur-
--
v:allance Tests, Serial 0PS-79-29, March 29,1979
- --
F-0P-4, Circulating Water System, Revision 4, July 10,1980 F-0P-15, High Pressure Coolant Injection, Revision 6,
--
August 13, 1980 F-0P-31, Process Radiation Monitoring System, Revision 4,
--
August 10, 1979 F-0P-64, Rod Worth Minimizer, Revision 1, August 6,1980
--
F-0P-19, P.aactor Core Isolation Cooling System - System
--
No. 13, P.evision 4, May 12, 1980
--
F-0P-22, Diesel Generator Emergency Power - System No. 93, Revision 4, June 11,1980 F-0P-25, Control Rod Drise Hydraulic System, Revision 4,
--
June 11, 1980 i
!
--
F-0P-30, Fuel Pool Cooling and Clean-up System - System No.19 and 19.4, Revision 3, February 27, 1979
- --
F-0P-16, Neutron Monitoring - System No. 07, Revision 3, May 12, 1980
,
l
!
- --
F-0P-17, Standby Liquid Control System - System No.11,
!
Revision 3, February 28, 1980 l
- --
F-0P-1, Main Steam System, Revision 8, August 13, 1980 (2) Emeroency Operating /Special Procedures Memorandum to Operations Department Files, Emergency Operat-
--
,
l ing/Special Procedures, Serial OPS-80-050, September 9,1980
- Indicates technical content cf procedure reviewed (Paragraph 5).
l
!
-
.
_.
.
F-SP-17, Loss of Coolent Flow, Revision 2 September 22,
--
1977
- --
F-SP-10, Feed Water Malfunction (Decreasing Feed Water Flow).
Revision 1, January 29, 1976
- - _
F-SP-13 Malfunction of Control Rod Drive System, Revisicn 2, December 4,1975 SP-9, Emergency Shutdown with Standby Liquid Control System,
--
Revision 0, November 27, 1973
- --
SP-24, Loss of Instrument Air, Revision 0, November 27, 1973 F-E0P-25, Reactor Scram, Revision 1. July 30,1980
--
(3) Annunciator Response Procedures
-
The inspector reviewed the following Alarm / Annunciator Response Procedures:
STBY Liquid Tank Level Hf /Lo, Procedure 9.3.3-20, June 1,
--
1979 Fuel Pool Cool / Cleanup SYS Trouble, Procedures 9.3.1-9a
--
thru 9.3.1-9k of April 5,1979 Battery Charger A Low Current or Low D.C. 0utput, Procedure
--
EAl-20, June 11,1980 HPIC Isolation Trip Signal Initiated, Procedure 9.3.3-34,
--
July 7,1980 RFP TURB B Tripped, Procedure MA4-09, January 24, 1980
--
Rod Withdraw Block, Procedure 9.5.2-2, u...a 1,1979 i
--
APRM Upscale, Procedure 9.5.2-44, April 28,1980
--
Main Steam Line High Radiation, Procedure 9.3.3-1,
--
April 5,1979 (4) Maintenance Procedures MP-3.2, Hydraulic Unit Repair, Revision 1, October 31, 1979
--
Indicates technical content of procedure reviewed (Paragraph 5).
.
- - - -
---y-,e--
-.,w w-e-r-e.ta-v.--
--ieww g-y-wee +-- *
we.i.
e~-rr
-,.
w-g
- w -, s y
.r--
r-ye.i p
w-.
- -
,,e--,
-- c
-- - - *
e-
.
MP-3.7, Control Rod Drive, Revision 3, October 24, 1979
--
MP-23.1, HPCI Turbine Maintenance, Revision 0, October
--
24, 1979
- --
MP-4.2, Reassembly of Reactor Vessel after Refueling, Revision 0, July 7, 1980 MP-ll.3, Standby Liquid Control Relief Valve Repair,
- --
Revision 0, October 31, 1979 MP-ll.4, Standby Liquid Control Accumulator Repair,
--
Revision 0, October 24, 1979 MP-1.5, Main Steam Line Drain Valves, Revision 0,
--
October 24, 1979
-
- --
MP-52.1, Diesel Generator Maintenance, Revision 0, October 24, 1979 MP-71.4, Installation of Pressure Terminal Electrical
--
Connectors, Revision 1, May 5,1980 (5)
Preventive Maintenance Procedure-Electrical EP-002, Motor Controller Preventive Maintenance, Revision 0,
--
June 4, 1980 EP-008, 600V Circuit Breaker, General Electric, AD-2A-15/25,
--
AK-24-50, Revision 1. May,1979 EP-71.2, G'.'E. HFA51 Auxiliary Relay Maintenance, Revision 0,
--
April, 1980 Inspection
- --
IP-0B, Switchgear and Distribution Panels, Revision 0, August,1978 No unacceptable conditions were identified.
- Indicates technical content of procedure reviewed (Paragraph 5).
_ _. -. _ _ _.,
- - -.
. _,.
_
. _,
... _. - _ _ _ _ __.,. - - _ _ _ _ _. _... _.
.
!
5.
Technical Content of Facility Procedures The inspector conducted a review of facility procedures, on a sampling basis, using FSAR system descriptions, piping and instrument diagrams, and Technical Specifications, where necessary, to verify that procedures were sufficiently detailed to contr,cl the operation or evolution described within Technical Specification requfrements. The procedures reviewed with respect to this are marked with an as'terisk (*) in Paragraph 4 (Review of Facility Procedures) of this report.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
6.
Procedure Changes Resulting from License Amendments The inspector reviewed license amendments (Amendments 43 through 49), which included Technical Specification changes, issued since the previous inspection and verified that applicable procedures were revised as necessary to reflect these changes.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
7.
Checklists and Related Forms
"
Operations Department procedures, including checklists and related forms in working files, were reviewed to see that current revisions and on-the-spot changes were pested.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
8.
Changes to Procedures as Detailed in the Safety Analysis Report (Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59(a) and (b))
The inspector verified, on a sampling basis, that changes made to facility procedures during the past fifteen month period were in compliance with 10 CFR 50.59(a) requirem nts and that records of these changes were main-tained in compliance with 10 CFR 50.59(b). For the procedures reviewed, i
the licensee had determined that 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation documenta-l tion was not required (no change in procedures as described in the FSAR).
i l
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
9.
Observation of Emergency Drill a.
Two resident and two region-based inspectors observed the licensee perfonnance of an emergency drill. The following specific areas were
,
observed by region-based inspectors:
l
.
,,. -
,
p.m
-
-- -, -,,
,y y.w-
,,,,...
,w,
-4
,-
c.
y y--
g
,,.
-,
.
Response was in accordance with the approved procedure and
--
-
plans; Response was coordinated, orderly, and timely;
--
Persons were designated to evaluate the response;
--
The actions and responses of Downwind and In-plant survey
--
tears were in accordance with the approved plans; and, Protective clothing and equipment of the survey teams were in
--
accordance with the approved procedure.
b.
Simulated Incident Scenario The drill postulated that the Reactor Core Isolation Coolant (RCIC),
outside the primary containment and inside 13 MOV-16, was severed, initiating a RCIC Isolation Trip Signal.
Standby Gas Treatment System initiated on reactor building isolation, which was actuated on High Radiation level in the west side of the reactor building.
The stack monitors indicated an activity release rate of 30,000 cps for a short period of time.
c.
Findings The inspectors observed that the emergency control center was esta-blished promptly, and the response was orderly, and well coordinated in accordance with the approved procedures and plans.
The downwind and in-plant survey teams were designated promptly and dispatched to the respective survey areas with the proper protective clothing and radiation monitoring equipment as specified in the procedures.
The inspectors discussed the observation with the licensee's designated drill observers during the drill, and the summary comments would be presented by the resident inspectcrs at a scheduled post-drill cri tique.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
10.
Control Room Observations and Facility Tours The inspectors observed Control Room operations on both day and evening shifts for Control Room manning, shift turnover, and facility operation in accordance with Administrative and Technical Specification requirements.
Inspection tours of turbine / generator building and selected protected areas were also conducted.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
.
'N
.
11.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on September 12, 1980, and summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
.
F
-