IR 05000219/1975018
Text
.--
.
.
.
\\
..
.
.-
,
.
IE I Form 12 (Jcn 75) (Rev)
i U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_
0FFICE OF INT?ECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
'
.g,
REGION I
IE Inspection Report No:
50-219/75-18 Docket No:
50-219 J
Lictnsee:
Jersey Central Power and Light Company License No:
DPR-16 Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Priority:
C Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Category:
Safeguards Group *
Oyster Creek, Forked River, New Jersey Location:
BWR (G.E.) 1930 d(t)
Type of Licensee:
" "*
" " " " " "
Type of Inspection:
June 17-19, 1975 4 W Dates of Inspection:
June 9-12, 1975 Dates of Previous Inspection:
,
a w~vV
~/. 2 /
73 '
(W
'
Reporting Inspector:
E. G. Greenman, Reactor Inspector DATE Accompanying Inspectors:
NONE
'
DATE
t DATE DATE NONE Cther. Accompanying Personnel:
'
DATE
'0
}/
1/aa /75 d.
j Reviewed By:
,
D. L. CaphtonY 5enior Reactor Inspector
~l DATE
,
'
Reactor Operations Branch, OIE:I
,
.
9604230190 960213 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-258 PDR
_
,
.
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS h'Y Enforcement Action A.
Items of Noncompliance Infractions Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, " Test Control" 1.
which requires a test program including documentation and evalua-tion of test results to assure that test requirements are satis-fied and reference Technical Specification 3.3.B which requires that the reactor vessel head bolr.ing studs shall not be under tension unless the temperature of the vessel head flange and the head are greater than or equal to 100 F, head torquing was
performed during the interval May 12 - May 15,1975 following an annual refueling outage without benefit of head flange temperature measurement and documentation of head temperature measurements.
(Details, Paragraph 6.a)
2.
Contrary to Technical Specification 3.5.A.5 which requires primary containment atmosphere to be reduced to less than five (5) percent within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> af ter the reactor mode switch
- d6 is placed in the run mode, on June 15, 1975; the 02 analyzer indicated the drywell content was five and one half (5.5) per-cent at 11:30 p.m., which was 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> af ter the mode switch had been placed in run, and indicated values remained in excess of five (5) percent until 11:51 p.m. June 15, 1975.
(Details, Paragraph 8)
Deficiencies 1.
Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V. " Instructions,
.
Procedures and Drawings", and Administrative Precedure No. 101, Revision 2, dated February 10, 1975 related to initialing of log book entries and shif t turnover responsibility, the follow-ing examples of f ailure to f ollow procedures were identified:
Shif t Foreman's Log entries on April 25 and June 1,1975.
a.
b.
Control Operator's log entries on April 9 and April 12, 1975.
(Details, Paragraph 4.c)
,
,
-
.
.
.,,
.-.
.-
-...
.. _.
-- -,
..
.. -
..
.
_.
...
a
, --
,
,
,
,
'
i
'
-2-n-
-B.=
' Deviations
'
tii
[f%j
'None Identified Licensee Action' on Previously Identified Enforcement Items
,
i k
1.,
Technical Specification 6.1.C.1.g and Administrative Procedure.102.8
?
- PORC. review of status and applicability of standing orders quarterly
-
'
(IE Inspection 50-219/75-04 dated February 27,_1975) - PORC minutes reviewed indicated _ current quarterly review is being performed.
<
Corrective. action was' verified as described in the licensee's letter
-
'
'
to IE:I dated March 24, 1975.
(Details, Paragraph 2.a)
- ~
Design Changes
Not Inspected Unusual Occurrences The following Abnormal Occurrences were reported' by the licensee since the i
Comments concerning last inspection and were reviewed' by the inspector.
specific. areas are noted within this report.
Containment S ray Pump 51A failed'to start in automatic mode during A.
g surveillance.
{
~ Unplanned insertion of_ control rod due to malfunction in Reactor B.
Manual Control System caused APLCHR limit for fuel types III E and III F to be exceeded for about 14 minutes.2
,
Containment Spray Pump'51A failed to start in automatic mode during C.
surveillance. J Stack gas sample pump inoperability and failure to continuously D.
monitor stack releases for about one minute.4 operation with four (4) Type II fuel assemblies in excess of Power E.
maximum allowable average linear heat generation rate.5 Electrical fault on 1C bus and trip of 1C breaker.6 q
F.
1 JCP&L letter to IE:I dated February.11,1975, Subject A0 75-3 2"JCP&L letter to -IE:1 dated March 3,.1975, Subject A0 75-4 3 JCP&L letter to IE:1 dated Fbrch 6,1975,. Subject A0 75-5 4 JCP&L letter to IE:I dated March 11, 1975,~ Subject A0 75-6 5 JCP&L letter' to IE:1 dated March 26, -1975, Subject A0 75-8 -
'/
'
6 -JCP&L' letter' to IE:I dated Macch 31, 1975, Subject A0 75-9 and o
Details 9~
_
-._
. -
-
. _.
.
...
....
,
.
.
.
-3-
.
.
.
.
G.
Excessive ~10akage rate through reactor building to. torus vacuum breaker valves V-26-16 and V-26-18.7
- ;o TL i.
H.
Leakage of the main steam line drain and bypass line in excess of i
the 5 percent lto allowable for any one penetration or isolation valve.8 I.
Two of four low reactor pressure core spray valve permissive pres-sure switches tripped below minimum required values.9
,
J.
One of four time delay. relays associated with reactor high pressure isolation condenser initiation sensors failed to de-energize.10
'-
K.
' Emergency Service Water Pump 1-2 failed to develop adequate dis-charge pressure.11 L.
Peaking factors in one core location and APRM scram and rod block settings not in accordance with required values.12 Other Significant Findings A.
Current Findings 1.
Acceptable Areas
%d10 These are areas which were inspected on a sampling basis and findings did not involve an. Item of Noncompliance, Deviation, or an Unresolved item.
a.
Organization and Administration.
(Details, Paragraph 2)
<<
b.
Logs and Records.
(Details, Paragraph 3)
c.
Operations.
(Details, Paragraphs 4.a and 4.b)
,
d.
Procedures.
(Details, Paragraph 5)
e.
Edscellaneous.
(Details, Paragraphs 11.a. b and d)
7 JCP&L letter to IE:I dated April 7,1975, Subject A0 75-10 8 JCP&L letter-to IE:I dated April 11, 1975, Subject A0 75-11 9 JCP&L letter to IE:1 dated April 28, 1975, Subject A0 75-12 10 JCP&L letter to IE:1 dated May 7,1975, Subject A0 75-13
11 JCP&L letter to IE:I dated May 30, 1975, Subject A0 75-14 12 JCP&L letter to IE:I dated June 2,1975, Subject A0 75-15 i
,
-
-
.
. -..
-
-
-
,
,
P-4-2.
Unresolved Items i.9p.
'(These are items for which more information is required in
- "I order.to determine whether the items are acceptable or Items of Noncompliance).
Setpoint. repeatability.
(Details, Paragraph 7.a)
a..
b.
Followup testing
_ Isolation Condenser time delay.
(Details, Paragraph 7.b)
Electrical fault on 1C bus and Diesel Generator No.1 c.
Breaker - laboratory analysis and licensee investigation.
(Details, Paragraph 9)
d.
Stack Gas Sample System Modification.
(Details, Para-graph 10)
3.
Infractions and Deficiencies Identified by Licensee Contrary to Technical Specifications Paragraph 3.10 Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate Limits for fuel types III-E and III-F were exceeded for approximately 14 minutes (JCP&L 1etter to Division of Reactor Licensing dated.Nkrch 20, 1974, ap4q Subject A0 75-4).
Contrary to Technical Specifications, Paragraph 3.6.A.3 stack releases were not continuously monitored for approximately one minute (JCP&L letter to Division of Reactor Licensing dated March 19, 1975, Subject AO~75-6).
Contrary to Technical Specifications, Paragraph 3.10.A Average Linear Heat Generation rate of four fuel bundles was exceeded.
'
(JCP&L letter to Division of Reactor Licensing dated April 3, 1975, Subject A0 75-8).
Contrary to Technical Specifications, Paragraph 3.5. A.1 Reactor Building to torus vacuum breaker valves V-26-16 and V-36-18 had leakage rates in excess of specified values.
(JCP&L letter to Division of Reactor Licensing dated April 14, 1975, Subject
,
A0 75-10).
.
,
$
,
. _ _ _ _. _.
_
.....
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_.
. _ _.
._m.
__ _ __
_
..
,,
s-
.
.
,
'
.
.
-5-t i
Contrary to Technical Specifications, Paragraph 4.5.F.1.d
,
leakage of the main steam line drain and bypass line was in excess of allowable for any one penetration or isolation t
- ' ".
(JCP&L letter to Division of Reactor Licensing dated valve.
April 18, 1975, Subject A0 75-11).
Contrary to Technical Specifications, Paragraph 3.1.1.D.3-two of four low reactor pressure core spray valve permissive j.
pressure switches tripped at less than required values.
(JCP&L letter to Division of Reactor Licensing dated May 6,
1975,- Subject A0 75-12, Details, Paragraph 7.a).
l. -
Contrary to Technical Specifications, Paragraph 2.3.5 and Table 3.1.1.C.2 one of four time delays associated with re-
actor high pressure isolation condenser initiation sensors,
,
l failed to deenergize.
(JCP&L letter to Division of Reactor Licensing dated May 14,1975, Subject A0 75-13, Details, J
Paragraph 7.b).
- '
Contrary to Technical Specifications, Paragraphs 2.1.A.1,
- ~'
[
,
2.3.1.a and 2.3.2.a the total peaking factor in core location
27-18 (including performance of three additional symmetrical
!
'
bundles) exceeded limits and APRM Scram and rod block settings
'
.were in excess of required values.
(JCP&L letter to Division lMWhg of Reactor' Licensing dated June 6,1975, Subject A0 75-15).
.#
N
'
B.
Status of Previous Unresolved Items t
The following items are considered resolved.
.
'
i RWP distribution requirements - procedural incorporation
'
1.
(Refe'rence IE Inspection Report 50-219/75-04 dated February 27, 1975, and Details, Paragraph 5).
'
FW pump trip February 4, 1975 (Reference IE Inspection Report 2.
50-219/75-05 dated February 21, 1975 and Details, Paragraph 4.b)
Other unresolved items which remain unresolved are as described in
'
the management interview and Details 2, 5, and 11.c of this report.
'
s
!
>
i
,
4
'
.
1 n
m e
, - - - -
,-
l-..--
.... -. -
.
.
.
-.
..
._
--.
. _ _ -
.
.. -
.
.
.
8-6-
,
,
-
Management Interview
% oi lf/.g A management interview was conducte'd on June 19, 1975, with Mr. J. T.
'
Carroll, Station Superintendent and Mr. D. Reeves, Chief Engineer.
J.
Mr. D. A. Ross, Manager Nuclear Generating Stations participated.via telephone intercom.
Inspection results were further discussed with
'
Mr. Carroll via telephone on July 14, 1975.
Items discussed are summarized below:
j
}
_ A.
General
\\
The inspector summarized the scope of the routine unannounced in-spection relative to a review of plant operations, organization and
f administration, facility logs and records including PORC minutes, abnormal occurrence review, observation of spent fuel shipment
\\ operations, facility tour, status of chromate water storage on site,
NA review of janitorial contract services in use at the facility and rd iew of licensee's corrective action with respect to previously
,
id tified items of noncompliance.
I B.
Statudsof Previously Identified Enforcement and Unresolved Items l
\\
1.
RWP' Distribution Requirements (IE Inspections 50-219/74-16 dated November 22, 1974 and 50-219/75-04 dated February 27, 1975)
i
, _,,.
ww3n TheinshectorstatedthathehadreviewedProcedureNo.903, Revision dated January 29,1975,1 with respect to incorpora-tion of RWP posting requirements and that there were no j
further questions concerning this matter.
(Details, Para-graph 5)
,
.
2.
PORC Review of $tanding Orders on a Quarterly Basis (IE In-spection 50-219/75-04)
The inspector stated that a review.of PORC minutes No. 28-75
)
indicate that the reviews were now being conducted and that there were no further questions concerning this matter.
!
(Details, Paragraph 2.a)
'
3.
Cooldown Limits (IE Inspection 50-219/74-18 dated December 26, 1974)
The inspector stated that pending incorporation of instructions into applicable operating procedures, this item remains
unresolved.
'
- .
-,
,
$
,
'
,
\\
\\
\\
s
'
.
+
'.
.
-7-
,
C.
Document Control
'%
The inspector discussed the status of Procedure No.103 " Document
'Ay{;
Control".
.
A licensee representative stated that this procedure had not yet been issued and that the licensee was currently involved in utiliza-
.
tion of the Generation Department procedure with respect to this The licensee representative also referenced status of the area.
Information Retrieval System which will involve work.at the staff level first and then implementation at the site.
D.
Enforcement Action
The items listed under enforcement action above were identified as apparent items of noncompliance.
(Details, Paragraphs 4.c, 6.a and 8)
Eft 3
f f
.
e i
--
- -
. - - -.
..
-
'.
.
DETAILS
.
ll
1.
Persons Contacted
Mr. D. A. Ross, Manager, Nuclear Generating Static's Mr. J. T. Carroll, Station Superintendent Mr. D. L. Reeves, Chief Engineer Mr. J. L. Sullivan, Jr., Operations Engineer Mr. R. F. Swif t, Maintenance Engineer Mr. E. I. Riggle, Maintenance Supervisor Mr. E. J. Growney, Technical Engineer Mr. J. Maloney, Operations Supervisor Mr. E. D. Skalsky, Radiation Protection Supervisor
-
Mr. J. E. Henning, Staf f Engineer
'
Mr. K. O. E. Pickeissen, Technical Supervisor Mr. T. L. Johnson, Instrument and Electrical Foreman - Nuclear 2.
Organization and Administration P1L.it Operations Review Committee Meetings a.
The PORC met on the following dates and the minutes were re-viewed by the inspector. No inadequacies were identified.
Lh,d Meeting No.
Date 13-75 March 4, 1975 14-75 March 5, 1975 15-75 March 6, 1975 16-75 March 11, 1975 17-75 March 13, 1975 18-75 March 21, 1975 19-75 March 26, 1975 20-75 bbrch 27, 1975 21-75 March 28, 1975 22-75 April 1, 1975 23-75 April 3, 1975 24-75 April 5, 1975 25-75 April 7, 1975 26-75 April 8,1975 27-75 April 10, 1975 28-75 April 11, 1975 29-75 April 15, 1975
.
E
-
__
,
.
.
.
.,
_9_
The inspector verified that for the 17 meetings reviewed, meeting frequency, meeting membership and quorum require-if[y ments and violations of Technical Specifications or rules
.,e.
and regulations were reviewed as required.
The inspector
~
also verified documentation that PORC had reviewed the status and applicability of Standing Orders during the 28-75 meeting held April 11, 1975.
(IE Inspection 50-219/75-04 dated February 27, 1975). The inspector had no further questions concerning this item.
3.
Logs and Records The following logs and records were reviewed without comment except as noted elsewhere within this report.
Shif t Supervisor's Log Book - March 14 - June 15,1975.
a.
b.
Station Log Book - March 14 - June 15,1975.
j
!
Station Standing Orders Book Nos.1-17.
'
c.
d.
Shutdown Log Sheets - March 29 - June 14, 1975.
Jumper and Tagging Procedures - March 1 - June 15,1975.
,
e.
f.
Facility Tour Check Off Sheets - March - May,1975.
Technical Specification Los Sheets - June 1 - June 15,1975.
S.
h.
PORC Heeting Minutes - March 4 - April 15,1975.
i.
GORB Meeting Minutes - March 18, 1975.
EUNU j.
Oxygen Analyzer Charts - June 14-16, 1975.
4.
Operations The inspector reviewed operating logs and records and held dis-cussions with various operations personnel.
A facility tour was conducted and the inspector additionally observed spent fuel shipment operations in progress.
a.
Facility Status The reactor was operating at a nominal 531 MWe during this inspection.
Representative stack gas and offgas release rates were 9,300 pC1/second and 243,000 pci/second respec-tively. Discussion with licensee representatives indicated that more restrictive operating limits with respect to the Cycle V Core would constitute approximately a 15-20 percent derate based on current operating experience. No scheduled shutdowns had been planned at the conclusion of this inspection.
!
,
f
!
. - - -
.
-. -..
..
.
- - _ -
-..
.. _ -. _.
.
\\
.
.
.
j
'
-10-i I
i '
b.
Unscheduled Shutdown February 4.1975*
,
x; The ' licensee's investigation as documented in General Office
Review Board (00RB) meeting Minutes No. 57, dated M' rch 18, a
1975, indicated that the cause of the reactor scram on loss of
,
all feedwater pumps was due to a backwashing operation of a radwaste floor drain filter through radwaste accompanied by
,
air intake back into the plant via feedwater pump suction.
Backwashing apparently resulted in a vent path to the floor
i drain which permitted air to be drawn into the feed pumps,
.
which resulted in a trip upon low suction pressure.
The licensee has changed the operating procedures to provide assurance that simultaneous operations of backwashing and cycling of water from radwaste to the plant will not occur.
' '
This item is considered resolved.
'l
!
c.
Log Book Review Station and Shif t Foreman Logs were reviewed for the period l
March 14 - June 15, 1975.
Log requirements are delineated in Administrative Procedure No.101, Revision 2 dated February 10, 1975. Procedure No.101 requires the following:
- 0 (1)
The Shift Foreman shall initial the Shift Foreman's Log noting the date and time of turnover, when assuming shif t responsibilities.
(Section 6.2)
.
(2)
All oncoming licensed Control Room Operators shall initial
!
a statement at the beginning of their shif t log to the affect that they have assumed responsibilities of the shift.
The inspector's review indicated the following examples of inadequate entries with respect to turnover
,
'
and initialing:
'
(a)
Shif t Foreman's Log - April 25 and June 1,1975.
'
(b)
Station Log - April 9 and April 12, 1975.
'
These examples as listed under Enforcement Action constitute an apparent Deficiency level Item of Noncompliance.
- IE Inspection Report 50-219/75-05 dated February 21, 1975, netails 3.
,
I
a l
,
.
.
.
.
-11-
.
5.
Procedures Personnel Protection and Contro1*
0 '
The inspector reviewed Procedure No. 903, Revision 6 dated January 29, 1975, which clarifies distribution of Radioactive Work Permits. Procedural requirements state that when it is unreasonable to post the RWP in the vicinity of the job site (Example: Outside the Radwaste Building) it shall be posted at an alternate location:
(Example:
Inside Radwaste Building Control Room), and that upon completion of the job the copy from the job site shall be returned to the Radiation Protection Department for deposition.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this item at this time.
6.
Reactor Vessel Head Boltdown
)
Review of Shutdown Logs related to refueling and operating logs indicated vessel head torquing commenced May 12, 1975, and was completed May 15, 1975. Vessel temperature on May 12 was recorded between 1000 - 1400F and according to licensee representatives, torquing of the head commenced on gggg the 4-12 p.m. shift, which indicated vessel temperatures in excess of 1000F as measured from the "B" shutdown cooling loop.
No documentation was available to demonstrate that required temperature measurements had been completed.
A cognizant licensee representative apprised the inspector
that measurements were made to verify head temperature, how-ever, flange verification had not been completed.
10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion XI, requires a test program, including documentation and evaluation of test results to assure that test requirements are satisfied and reference Technical Specification 3.3.B which requires that the vessel head bolting studs shall not be under tension unless the tempera-ture of the vessel head flange and the head are greater than or equal to 1000F. This item as listed under Enforcement Action constitutes an apparent Infraction level Item of Noncompliance.
- IE Inspection Report 50-219/75-04 dated February 27, 1975.
,
l
'
.
.
-12-7.
Reactor Protection System Low Reactor Pressure Core Spray Valve Permissive 3 +v a.
(A0 75-12 dated May 6, 1975)
The licensee has increased the required quarterly surveillance to a monthly test frequency.
Corrective action is incomplete with respect to climination of setpoint repeatability diffi-culty.
This item is considered unresolved.
b.
Isolation Condenser Initiation (Time pelay)
(A0 75-13 dated May 14, 1975)
Records of satisf actory followup testing were not availabic for inspector review.
This item is considered unresolved.
8.
Containment Drywell Oxygen Concentration.
An unscheduled shutdown occurred on June 12, 1975, to locate the source and effect repairs for increasing unidentified leakage which was subsequently determined to be leakage f rom the North,
F.W. loop check valve.
The inspector reviewed the Shif t Foremans gggg and Station Log Book.
Findings indicated that the reactor mode switch had been placed in Run at 11:30 p.m., June 14, 1975.
The licensee commenced inerting on June 15, 1975, with a nitrogen delivery scheduled to arrive at 3:00 p.m. June 15, 1975.
Due to delays in truck arrival; additional nitrogen was not on site until'
8:50 p.m., June 15, 1975.
Records reviewed indicated that inerting was immediately resumed. The licensee also performed Oxygen Analyzer surveillance at 10:20 p.m., June 15, 1975, to verify reading accuracy.
At 11:30 p.m. June 15, 1975, indicated torus oxygen concentration was below 5 percent as determined from a review of the analyzer chart for the involved interval.
Indicated drywell concentration was 5.5 percent and in excess of values specified in Technical Specification 3.5. A.5.
The indicated readings demonstrated compliance with Technical Specification 3.5. A.5 at 11:51 p.m., June 15, 1975, 21 minutes after oxygen concentration was required to be less than 5 percent.
The licensee had performed prior testing related to the torus in 1974, and concluded that with the system under a vacuum, air
,
h
.
._.
.
__.
.
.
.
.
-13-f leakage is present which dilutes the sample stream sufficiently _ to, increase indicated oxygen concentration. The inspector was also y,f informed that vacuum pump seals were not replaced during the 1975 outage. Subsequent testing conducted June 16, 1975, with the
*
sample pump on resulted in a concentration reading of 3.7 percent versus a concentration reading of 2.1 percent obtained with the pump secured. This failure to maintain oxygen concentration at less than five percent for the referenced interval as indicated by plant instrumentation and supported by instrument surveillance as listed under Enforcement Action constitutes an apparent Infraction level Item of Noncompliance.
9.
Emergency Power Electrical Fault on 1C Bus and Trip of 1C Breaker (A0 75-9 dated April 18, 1975)
The inspector reviewed test data with a cognizant licensee repre-sentative. The breaker trip was due to a fault disclosed in the cabic tie between the 1C bus and the Diesel Generator No. 1 breaker. The inspector also examined sections of the failed cable.
High potential testing was performed on April 11 and April 14, 1975. The inspector was apprised that some moisture was found in the cable conduit. The licensee's corrective action was not com-54A*l pleted and the f ailed section of the cable had not been sent to a This laboratory for analysis at the conclusion of this inspection.
item is considered unresolved.
10.
Radioactive Waste Systems Stack Gas Sample System (A0 75-6 dated March 10, 1975)
The licensee has initiated a engineering request to modify the
.
electrical circuit for the stack gas sample pumps.
Corrective action was incomplete.and separate breakers had not yet been installed. This item is considered unresolved.
,
11.
Miscellaneous a.
Contract Custodial Service The inspector reviewed the responsibilities and status of the janitorial service utilized at the Oyster Creek site.
,
"
'
$
.
---
-
-,
_
'
,
A
'
,
.
.
F-14-Documentation reviewed indicated that a contract has been in.
effect since June 1,1973, which provides for cleaning of
g'ij selected facility areas by outside personnel, and which
.
normally involves two to'three custodians on a five day work 7'
week schedule. The inspector also reviewed the contractor provided screening process.as described by letter to the-licensee dated April 24, 1973, JCP&L Security Screening, HP orientation provided for two custodians, February 13, 1975, badging recuirements, designation of work area responsibility, and disposal of clean waste.
No inadequacies were identified in the scope of the sampling audit performed.
b.
Settlement of class I Structures The inspector apprised a licensee representative concerning-reports of differential settlement of certain facilities. A licensee representative stated that initial elevation readings were made during the construction phase and that targets were in place. According to the licensee, elevations have not been monitored and compared with initial data, subsequent to opera-tion. No excessive settling had been identified by the licensee.
c.
Chromate Water Storage Status *
364 Discussion with licensee representatives indicated that one additional trailer tank has been released and removed from the site.
12 tank trucks remain empty, and one tank contains sludge material.
Two additional tanks utilized for temporary-storage will remain on site. Processing of permanently stored chromate water including 24,000 gallons located in fiber glass tanks and 50,000 gallons in bladder torus storage remains outstanding. The chromate processing system has been relocated and new resin and charcoal were on hand. The licen-see projected system processing would be resumed by July 1, 1975.
This item remains unresolved pending completion of the licensea's processing and removal of temporary storage tanks.
d.
Bank Stabilization Program The inspector verified that the licensee's bank stabilization program had been completed.**
- . IE Inspection Report 50-219/75-01, dated February 28, 1975, Details 8.c.
- IE Inspection Report 50-219/75-08, dated April 8, 1975, Details.10.
,
$