IR 05000333/1988200

Forwards Insp Rept 50-333/88-200 on 880523-0603.Several Concerns Identified by Team May Be Potential Enforcement Findings

ML20151Q777
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	08/02/1988
From:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Brons J POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
Shared Package
ML20151Q780	List: IR 05000333/1988200 ML20151Q788
References
NUDOCS 8808110286
Download: ML20151Q777 (5)

Text

o e

.

' *

,

p340 g( jo, UNITED STATES 3 % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n -j WASHINGTON, D. C 20665

\,,...../ August 2, 1988

~

Docket No. 50-333

_

Power Authcrity of the State of New York ATTN: Mr. John Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation 123 Main Street White Plains, New Ycrk 10601

Dear Mr. Brons:

SUBJECT: EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES INSPECTION (INSPECTION REPORT 50-333/88200)

This letter forwards the results and conclusions of the special safety team inspection conducted by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of activities authorized by NRC Operating License No NPF-59 for the James A.

Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The inspection was conducted on May 23 thrcugh June 3, 1988. At the conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with Mr. Radford J. Converse and other members of your staff identi-fied in the enclosed inspection report.

The objectives of the inspection were to determine whether your Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) are technically correct; that their specified actions can be physically accco:plisned using existing equipment, controls, and instrumentation; and that the available procedures can be correctly carried out ey the plant staff. Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, simulated emergency exercises using a control rcom mock-up, plant walkdowns, interviews with personnel and observation of activities in progress.

The inspection team was impressed with the material condition and cleanliness of your plant and the kncwledge level of plant staf f relating to accomplishment ;

nf E0Ps. However, several weaknesses were identified in the development and implementation of tne E0Ps. The attached report identifies the team's findings and observations on your Emergency Operating Procedures relating to both technical and human f actors issues.

Three concerns are considereo to be especially significant. First, the team identified that the E0Ps and Plant Specific Technical Guidelines (PSTGs) hao not been controlleo as a design basis document. This resulted in several discrepancies between the E0Ps and the PSTGs and was underscored by the identified need of the operators for an E0P basis document. Second, during the observation scenarios tne minirum shift staffing as defined by Technical Specifications and your administrative procedures did not appear adequate to ensure that all the required actions of the ECPs and the Emergency Plan could be simultaneously implemented. Thiro, during the review of containment venting provisions, the team identified that an evaluation had not been performee to gOk j 8808110286 800002 PDR

'

( I !

O ADOCK 05000333 I PNU j

.

, .

.

, *

,

Mr. John August 2, 1988 demonstrate that the Standby Gas Treatment System release path would maintain its integrity under the anticipated accident conditions of high temperature and pressure. Failure of this system wculd result in an unmonitored release path.

At the exit meeting, your statf described the actions that were planned to correct the items identified during the inspection; nevertheless, we request that you provide a written response within 60 days to the seven concerns identified in the "Sununary of Results" section of the inspection report. Some of the items identified by the team may be potential enforcement findings. Any enforcement actions will be identified by Region I in separate correspondence.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Docurent Room.

The responses requested by this letter and its enclosures are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.

Should you nave any questions concerning this inspection, please contact me or Mr. C. A. VanDenburgh (301-492-0965).

Sincerely,

/) Gi y N e a g'a, Direc b  !

Division of Reactor Pr cts 1/11

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosure

1. NRC Inspection Repert 50-333/88200 cc w/ enclosure: See next page

,

.

i l l

i l

l

<

b

_ - _- .- _ _ _ . . , . . - . _ . _ _ _ - ._ -, ,. _.. __ _ _ . . _ _ . , _ _ . _ , _ . . . _ _ , _ _ - -

-. . .,,.-,_.

_ __-_-. _.

. .

o *

i Mr. John