IR 05000219/1971003
Text
.
...
-
.
-
.,e s
'
-
- '-
,,
-
.
.,,.
.
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY C0leilSSION
.
<
DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE REGION 1-e
CO Inspection Report No.
50-219/71-03
-
Subject:
Jersey Central Power & Light Company Oyster Creek 1 License No. DPR-16 Location:
Forked River, N. J.
Priority
-
C Category Type of Licensee:
BWR S ecial, announced Type of Inspection:
P
.
October 7 & 8, 1971 Dates of Inspection:
,
Dates of Previous Inspection: June 22-25 & July 2, 1971 i
Principal Inspector: <
Sd4 h? ? L4TL
,
T. Young, Jr. Reac torInspfctot'('0/7/71only)
Date
Accompanying Inspectors:
.
4A
// I M
-
bate RTJ.pe'yer,TadiationSpecialist Date None Other Accompanying Personnel:
Date
Reviewed By:
/Ive -
//
Y e
,
R. T. Carlson, Senior Reactor Inspector bat'e Proprietary Information:
None
.
.
, =..
9604160176 960213
.' f -
DEKOK95-258 PDR,
,
-
-
-.
'
s
,
)
)
.
,
.
..
Section I Enforcement Action - None Licensee - Action on Previously' Identified Enforcement Matters - Not inspected.
-
Unresolved Items - None Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items - Not inspected.
Unusual Occurrences - None I
Persons Contacted -
.
T. McCluskey, Station Superintendent D. Ross, Technical Supervisor D. Reeves, Technical Engineer E. Riggle, Maintenance Supervisor D. Kaulback, Radiation Protection Supervisor 2. Stoudnour, Radiation Protection Supervisor J. Sullivan, Assistant Technical Engineer J. P. Zilinskas, Manager, GE W. L.. Swanson, Shift Supervisor, GE A. Grimes, Radiation Monitor Supervisor (GE)
Management Interview -
The following subjects were discussed by Mr. Young with Mr. McCluskey on October 7, 1971:
A.
The inspector expressed concern for the lack of nuclear experience and nuclear knowledge of the GE fuel handlers.
It was pointed out that the inspector witnessed the loading of four fuel handling tools onto a i
hook (built for one) and the hook straighten out enough to allow two l
of the tools to fall into the spent fuel pit (SFP). The two tools landed in one of the spent fuel storage racks; fortunately, no fuel was stored in that particular rack. Mr. McCluskey stated that this was also a
,
concern of Oyster Creek (OC) management and that the OC checker had i
orders to report any unsafe operations to management. He also stated that the GE fuel handlers were given some training (approximately two weeks) and were gaining experience. (Paragraph 9)
B.
The inspector stated that there were no items of noncompliance or unsafe practices (other than that discussed above) noted by the inspector in the refueling operations' observed.
!
'I
-
-
-
.,.j
.
'
7:s
)
-
.
,
.
.
.O en The following items were' discussed by Mr. Meyer with Messrs. McCluskey and Ross'on.. October 8, 1971:
A.
Air balance problem noted in the drywell area in which ' the air flow was fran the drywell rather than into the drywell. The air flow was corrected.
'
Air balance problem noted in the turbine building in which air flow was from the control valve area to the turbine floor area.
Mr. McCluskey stated that they were still investigating the problem in the turbine building and would correct it.- Mr. Ross stated that he was working with Operations to maintain -proper air balance.
(Paragraph 10)
B.
Lack of continuous air monitoring capabilities.
Mr. Ross stated that j
they were looking for money in the 1972 budget to develop this capability
'
and he was currently reviewing the needs.
(Paragraph 11)
C.
Bioassay program.- Mr. Ross stated that in light of thei. outage exper-ience they were not going to develop one. He stated that after the outage they would have selected individuals whole body counted.
(Para-graph 12)
D.
Training of off-site personnel. Mr. McCluskey agreed that training was important and thought that.they had provided enough, but they would review this and provide what was needed.
(Paragraph 13)
,
!
!
.
l l
j
,
i f
e e
g (
. - -, -,-
)
.
- -
-
-..
,')
+
.
,
.. '
Section II Additional Subjects Inspected. Not Identified in Section I. Where No Deficiencies or Unresolved Items were Found g
1.
General There are 24 new fuel bundles at the site which will be placed in the reactor around the periphery of the core. Forty-four leakers were identified in the sipping operation, 20 of which will be reconstituted and placed in the high flux region of the core.
2.
Logs and Records a.
Radiation monitoring logs, September 18, 1971 - October 7, 1971 b.
Survey records, September 18, 1971 to October 7, 1971 c.
Air sample records, September 18-1971 to October 7,1971 d.
Film badge reports, January 1971 through August 1971
,
,
e.
Pocket dosimeter results, September 1,1971 to October 7,1971
' f.
Exposure histories, off-site personnel g.
Drywell entry logs
]
3.
Facility Procedures General information, fuel rod inspe'ction and bundle reconstitution
'
a.
b.
Fuel reconstitution procedure c.
Reactor fuel examination and reconstitution procedure
d.
Radiation Work Permits e.
Radiation and contanination control procedures l
f.
Instructions to personnel g.
Exposure control procedures h.
Emergency notification procedures i. Routine survey procedures
'
4.
Fuel bundle movement from core to fuel preparation rack.
5.
Fuel bundle dechanneling.
6.
Fuel rod cleaning and inspection.
7.
Administrative control of fuel.
8.
Major Outage Work Areas - Radiation Protection Program a.
Access control b.
10 CFR 20.103 posting requirements c.
Radiation and contamination levels-d.
Remote radiation monitoring systems e.
Available ' radiation monitoring and detection instruments f.
Availability of RWP's and. instructions g.
Air sampling locations
,
,
+
..vn
--
-... - -
.
.-
.-
.
-
.._.
. - -. -. - -
-..
.--
.[.3
)
'
,-
.
-4-
Details of Subjects Discussed in Section I 9.
Fuel Inspection
>
i
During the fuel inspection process, the inspector observed a GE fuel
,
handler load a hook -(tied to the SFP railing) with four fuel handling
!
tools. ' The hook was designed to hold one tool.. The shank of the hook -
]
straightened out under the excessive load allowing two of tools-to fall i
into the SFP. The two tools landed in an empty SFP storage rack.
,
i.
,
10.
Air Balance e
On October 7,1971 the inspector noted that the air flow was out of the drywell to the adjacent area. This was verified by hanging a tattle-i tail.in the doorway.
Mr. Kaulback agreed that" the air flow should be
into the drywell. Mr. Kaulback made an insnediate report to Mr. Ross, corrective action was initiated and the proper air balance restored.-
According to Mr. Ross, the air flow had been adjusted to assure an ade-
,
quate air flow down and across the vessel head during vessel head re-moval on September 23, 1971 and had apparently.not been changed.. Mr.
,
!
i Ross stated that ventilation system procedures would be reviewed and provisions made to prevent recurrence.-
+
,
,
On October 7,1971, the inspector noted that in the turbine building, air
flow was up from the lower level control valve area to the turbine room area, through an access opening in the floor.
Considerable repair work
'
was being done on valves directly below the opening. The radiation technician covering the area stated that he was aware of the direction
,
,
of air flow and had taken air samples for activity determinations. He
'
further stated that contamination levels in the control valve area were
,
L low. Mr. Ross stated that the air balance would be corrected.
.--
l 11.
Continuous Air Monitoring i
l l
Currently the licensee has no capability for continuously monitoring j
air activities, and depends on continuous sampling and grab vacuum sampling, with after the fact determinations of air concentrations..
,.'
The philosophy as noted during the inspection was to use respiratory protection during work where the potential for airborne activity was
evident. Mr. Ross stated that air monitoring needs were currently being reviewed and budget requirements submitted for 1972 procurement.
'
12. Bioassay Program
.
Mr. Ross stated that in light of the air concentrations experienced to date, no bioassay program had been extablished. He stated that personnel
,
contamination events had been infrequent and of a minor nature. No nasal contamination has been experienced, or other indicators of possible f
ingestion. Mr. Ross stated that after the outage selected individuals would be whole body counted, with the results determining how extensive
,,
the program should be.
.
,
e
.
-
.
-_
_
-.
-
.
-
-
_
-
..
..
'
- 's
.
'
' e
-,
.
,,.
-
,
-5-
.
13. Training and Instructions As evidenced during the inspection, personnel contamination events and
,
losses of contamination control apparently resu h ed from poor work practices and poor step off pad conduct by inexperienced help. Mr. Ross
,
'
stated that all off site people had been.given training and demonstra-
.
'tions relative to radiation zone conduct. He stated that radiation zone conduct would be reviewed, and personnel re-instructed.
i
.
N
4 i
.
i
!
'
l l
1
~r