IR 05000219/1970007
Text
.
.-
-
....
..
- - ~
_
. - -
-.
-
,l,
N:.
.4'
,
,
/
L
~
..
!
L, y
j
/
,'
'
November 10, 1970
1
'
.
}.y R. T. Carlson, Senior Reactor Inspector yd Region I, Division of Compliance
. JgRggY CgNTRAL 70WgR & LIGHT CG(PANY
'
00 Rg70RT NO. 219/70-7
,
.
~~~~
I reviewed the rod surveillance testing and the results indicate that,the'
rod performance has been satisfactory since the April-May,1970 rod work
j outage. The loss exception to this is that the totalized stall flow i
readings have increased from 167 to 218 gallons per minute during the i
inspection period which could possibly indicate a degradation of the
,
(
.l seals. I will continue to review this area closely until the totalised
[ pi stall flows stabilise.
- I consider th.t there are generic considerations for the design change
made by Jersey Central in the initiating logic circuitry for the isolption
$
condenser. JC has stated that the cause for the loss of function,Tas identified by the closure of the excess flow check valve, was a design
I would rec===aad that Compliance pursue this issue with other error.
,
l EfR's.
!
l The method of discharge load t ting of the 125 voit station batteries is considered unsatisfacto review underscored two areas of concern.
One is that the Technical ifications 1ack acceptance criteria for'many' N
.
~
l of the surveillance tests. The second is that the discharge load tests are conducted following the 24-hour equalising charge on the batteries. This i
latter condition is not isolated to the Oyster Creek facility but has also
been found at other reactors I have inspected such as &&nna, NBS, Saxton,
'
,
and Indian Point 1.
As i is my understanding that the batteries are sized, i
1.e., the ampere hour to provide emergency power for a safe and
,
,
l,.'
orderly shutdown and to maintain the reactor in a shutdown condition for a
,-)
specified length of time, the measured ampere hour capacity should be measured
, !
in the'ks found" condition rather than following an equalising charge which
would result in a substantially higher measured mapere hour capacity. I
'
would recommend that both of these issues be forwarded to DEL for their
l l
i consideration.
The numbers of items of noncompliance identified in my review of a small
'
section of the surveillance testing program at Oyster Creek, has indicated that a thorough inspection of the surveillance testing program is in order.
- .
'
In that regard, I intend to pursue this area, in some depth, during the next
routine inspection.
If my review during this inspection is representative of the total surveillance testing program, I would reconsnand that we pursue this p
issue with higher management at that time.
,
I
'
.
.
,,, a g.C0
,,
.,,,,,,,,,
-
omes >
,,,g,,,,,
,
,
b Reactor Inspector d i.71'0770-su m uc> g11
-
p
,.
i DATE >
........
.
............
....
,.g
,.....
Form AEc-Sls (Rev.9-53) AECM 0240
- v. s..ovannutut enentius orricci toes o-320-so7
9604170243 960213 i
'
DEKOK95-250 PDR n.
-
r
-,.