ML13022A375
| ML13022A375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/2012 |
| From: | Doerflein L NRC Region 1 |
| To: | Samson Lee, John Monninger, Bhalchandra Vaidya Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2013-0010, IR-95-006 NUDOCS 9505030085 | |
| Download: ML13022A375 (7) | |
Text
/Ionninge', John rom: Doerflein, Lawrence ent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 2:42 PM Lee, Samson; Vaidya, Bhalchandra; Monninger, John; Pelton, David; Russell, Andrea; Bickett, Brice
Subject:
Fitz TI-121 IR
ýJAttachments: FitzPatrick IR 95-06.pdf I/m portance: High . . .... ... -
The IRthat closed TI-121 at FitzPatrick was 50-333/95-06.
Syve attached the relevant portion of the report.
',,ýýTheAccession and micro fiche numbers for the transmittal letter and inspection report are:
.etter - 9505030079; 83721: 095- 099 Report- 9505030085; 83721: 100-116 If there is anything else need, please let me know.
Regards, Larry 1
jA---5,,8
April 18, 1995 Mr. Harry P. Salmon, Jr.
Resident Manager New York Power Authority James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Post Office Box 41 Lycoming, New York 13093
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC REGION I INSPECTION NO. 50-333/95-06)
Dear Mr. Salmon:
This refers to the results of the routine resident safety inspection conducted by Messrs. W. Cook and R. Fernandes from February 12, 1995 to March 25, 1995 at the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Scriba, New York. A summary of the inspection findings was presented to you and members of your staff at an exit meeting on April 12, 1995.
This inspection was directed toward areas important to public health and safety. Areas examined during the inspection are described in the NRC Region I inspection report, which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of observation of activities, interviews with personnel, and document reviews.
Performance by the plant staff during this inspection period was mixed.
NYPA's deliberate and cautious approach to verifying the extent of fuel assembly debris and potential fuel pin damage demonstrated a safety conscious philosophy. On tha other hand, a number of personnel performance errors that involved radiation protection requirements and surveillance testing procedural noncompliances indicated carelessness by members of your staff for administrative controls. Several examples of procedural noncompliance were cited and are discussed in detail in the enclosed report. We note that these events occurred during your 1994-95 refuel outage and that NYPA has experienced similar 'performance declines during previous planned outages.
Your continued strong management attention is warranted.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The response directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice 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.
9505030079 950418 PDR 0 ADOCK 05000333 PDR OFFICIAL RECORD COPY IE:01
Harry P. Salmon, Jr. 2 Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, Original Signed by:
Curtis J. Cowgill, Chief Projects Branch No. I Division of Reactor Projects Docket No. 50-333
Enclosures:
- 1. Notice of Violation
- 2. NRC Region I Inspection Report Number 50-333/95-06 cc w/encl:
S. Freeman, President R. Schoenberger, Chief Operating Officer W. Cahill, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer W. Josiger, Vice President - Nuclear Operations J. Kelly, Vice President - Regulatory Affairs and Special Projects T. Dougherty, Vice President - Nuclear Engineering R, Deasy, Vice President - Appraisal and Compliance Services R."Patch, Director - Quality Assurance G. Wilverding, Manager, Nuclear Safety Evaluation G. Goldstein, Assistant General Counsel C. Faison, Director, Nuclear Licensing Supervisor, Town of Scriba C. Donaldson, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, New York Department of.Law Director, Energy & Water Division, Department of Public Service, State of New York State of New York, SLO Designee
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I Report No.: 95-06 Docket No.: 50-333 License No.: DPR-59 Licensee: New York Power Authority Facility: James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Location: Scriba, New York Dates: February 12, 1995 through March 25, 1995 Inspectors: W. Cook, Senior Resident Inspector R. Fernandes, Resident Inspector B. Korona, Reactor Engineer, DRS If Approved by:
Curti' Co§l Actng Che- dt Reactor Proj*ct Section 1B, DRP INSPECTION
SUMMARY
- Routine NRC resident inspection of plant operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant support.
SULT: See Executive Summary 9505030085 950418 PDR ADOCK 05000333 a PDR
TABLE OF CONTENTS Eag No.
1.0 OF Activities
SUMMARY
NYPA FACILITY ACTIVITIES .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
. . . . . . ....... . .. ... .. .. .. .. .. 1 g1.2?,7*1.1 RC Activities 2.0 PLANT OPERATIONS (71707,93702,92901,62703) . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 Followup of Events Occurring During the Inspection Period . . I 2.1.1 Damaged Fuel Bundle During Refueling . . 1 2.1.2 Control Room Emergency Ventilation Air Supply a . . 2
)h. *:'Testing 2.1.3 Unexpected Carbon t SDioxide r p. (CO.) . Discharge
. . . During
. . . . 3 2.1.4 Reactor n n a . 4 2.2 Followup of Previously Identified Item . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.0 MAINTENANCE (62703,61726,92902) ..... ............ . . . .. 5 3.1 Maintenance Observation ... .......... 5 3.1.2 3.1.1 Irradiated Fuel Bundle Inspections. ... . . . . .... 6 3.1.2 Primary Containment Integrated Leakage Rate Test........ . 7 3.1.3 Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Service Water Piping Leak 7 3.1.4 Diesel Tie Breaker Tripping .............. ............. 8 3.2 Surveillance Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.0 ENGINEERING (37551,92903,71707) . . . . .............. 9 4.1 Relay Room and HVAC Control Logic Testing........... 9 4.2 Engineered Safety Feature:S System Walkdown . . . . . . . . 9 4.3 TI 2515/121 - Verification of Mark I Hardened Vent Modifications . . . . . . ..................... . . ............ 10 4.4 Previously Identified Items . . . . . . ...................... 11 5.0 PLANT SUPPORT (71707,40500,9290:4)' . . . . . . . . .. 12 5.1 Radiological Controls . . . . . . . . . ........ ........ 12 5.1.'1Visitor Not Issued a TLD
!?ill'. Escorted .. 12 5.2 Previously Identified items . . . . . . ...... ......... .... 13 6.0 MANAGEMENT MEETINGS (30702,71707) . . . . . ...... ................ 13 6.1 Exit Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. 13 NOTE: The NRC inspection manual procedure or temporary instruction that was used as inspection guidance is listed for each applicable report section.
i)Q ,I
f 44~~
ID): *
- 0 Two component hangers on the A emergency filter train were not reflected on plant drawings and are a different design than those similarly depicted on the drawings. The1l censei initiated drawing changes to reflect the supports and provided the inspector with calculations to demonstrate the structural integrity ofJfilter system supports. The inspector reviewed the calculations and, had no further questions.
0 Two MOs, 70MOD-114 and 70MOD-113, were disconnected and lock wired in the closed and open position, respectively. The inspector subsequently 4 learned that the configuration was the result of a temporary modification (No.93-152) put into place to address single failure concerns previously identified by the licensee. The temporary
'3/4 modification placed the modulatin% dampers in fail-safe positions to 49 ensure that the control room is provIded a maximum supply of fresh air and to ensure positive control room air pressure during emergency conditions. The inspector also learned that a minor modification was in progress to convert this temporary modification into a permanent system modification. The inspector reviewed the minor modification package and had no further questions.
0 As part of thesystem walkdown the inspector identified to the NYPA staff that two MONs, MOD-113 and;MOD-114, and flow element FE-102 were
,-~ 4 omitted from as-built drawing FB-45C, Rev. 12, Equipment Room Heating, Vent and-Air Conditioning. However, the inspector noted that the 4,4 4 components were identified on the control room flow diagram FB-45A and identified in the FSAR. The inspector was concerned that despitt a temporary modification and a minor modification being processed for two safety-related components, this deficiency in the as-built drawing was not identified by the NYPA staff. The inspector identified his concerns to NYPA. NYPA's evaluation was not:1complete at the end of the period.
The issue will remain unresolved Pending completion of NYPA evaluation 444 and subsequent NRC review. (UR% 9-06.-03)
The inspectors concluded that the control room emergency ventilation system was operable, and with the exception q. the observations noted above, had no further questions.
4.3 TI 2515/121 - Verification of $Irk I Hardened Vent Modifications As part of a comprehensive plan for closing severe accident issues, the NRC staff undertook a program to determine if any actions should be taken, on a generic basis, to reduce the vulnerability of BWR Mark I containments to severe accident challenges. At the conclusion of the Mark I Containmont Performance Improvement Program, the staff identified a number of plant modifications that would substantially enhance the plants' capability to both prevent and mitigate the consequences of severe accidents. Recommended improvements included improved hardened wetwell vent capability. On September 1, 1989, the NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 89-16, 'Installation of a Hardened Wetwell Vent,* requesting licensees with Mark I containments to consider installation of hardened wetwell vent systems under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. Using guidance provided in Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/121, "Verification of Mark I Hardened Vent Modifications (GL 89-16),' the NRC is in 4 4
A, 11 the procless of conducting inspections-to verify licensees' implementation of commitments made in response to GL:,8 U
By letters dated October 27, 1989, and July 25, 1990, NYPA notified the NRC staff that it would defer its decision on,;ha~rdened wetwell vent installation until the Fitzpatrick Indfyidual Plant Examination (IPE) was completed. The NRC reviewed the information provided in those letters and also inspected the existing wetwell vent path at FitzPatrick. As a result of these activities, the NRC identified weaknesses in procedures and operations training and also determined that all Boiling Water React#or:Owners Group (BWROG) criteria were not met by the licensee's current designh.*:, However, because the design was expected to achieve the desired redyct-iqn.i , .*ore damage frequency, the NRC
.approved HYPA's request to defer ifft,'dbciits fully implementh the BWROG 66disioto hardened vent general design criteria until completion of their IPE. This approval and initial safety evaluation is documented in an NRC letter dated January 24, 1991.
The January 1991 letter also approved the aeferral of improvements in operator training and procedures until IPE completion. After the FitzPatrick IPE was completed, the NRC reviewed the changes!.to:the.,trkining and procedures
.proposed by the licensee. The subsequent .NRC safety evaluation of the-vent-related procedures and proposed tra ning s:stransmitted by NRC letter dated April 27, 1992.
In a September 28, 1992 letter, theNRC. determined that the current vent path met the Intent-of the BWROG design. criterii, based on additional information provided by NYPA and results of the previous NRC inspection of the vent path.
his letter forwarded the NRC staffls safety evaluation for the hardened vent.
In addition, the NRC found that thi- pInt! procedures and training were adequate to provide the information, andguidance necessary for.operators to effectively use the FitzPatrick h.adened: wetwell vent.
4; The inspector reviewed the referenced reports and determined that all applicable portions of TI 2515/129: for the . hardened vent at FitzPatrick have been effectively addressed. The FitzPatrick hardened wetwell vent met the
.0; Intent of the NRC approved BWROG gu4deline:sg. Emergency Operating Procedures were available to direct the mitnf ttlqO.and termination of venting, operator
~0 training on the system was acceptblie: and: operators were found to be knowledgeable of the design and fokttion of the system. TI 2515/121 is closed.
4.4 Previously Identified Items (Updated) Unresolved Item (92-140l-O):Relay Room CO, System Testing As noted in inspection report 50-$333 Section 4.2.1, NYPA conducted Q-O2, special test procedure, STP-76AU, Relay Room Enclosure Integrity Test, to 4, .4, collect data for an engineering anlyiis performed in lieu of a full discharge test of the relay room CO, fire suppression system. The engineering analysis 0'
was performed for NYPA by Yankee Engineering Services via a February 1995 Engineering Report to NYPA and captured under a memorandum (JAF-RPT-FPS-02009) dated March 2, 1995. Based upon s4tisfActory completion of this engineering i*.