IR 05000219/1975028
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, ... -.. - ~ ' =J ~ . .
- ..
s . ') < U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY ComlISSION . OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCDiENT J, c.; -: - ' -:'. T, ~ i
REGION I
Insp'ection Report No: 50-219/75-28 Docket No: 50-219 .icensee: Jersey Central Power and Light Co.
License No: DPR-16 Madison Ave.
Priority: . i Morristown, N. J.
07960 - C Ca tegory: i (\\ ' Safeguards Group: Location: Oyster' Creek Station, Forked River, N. J.
' Type of Licensee: BWR, 1930 MWt (G.E.)
- Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: -Decembt.c 22-24, 1975 Dates of Previous Inspection: December 16, 1975 Reporting Inspector: _ [[ /// ,7 7 e
ReaforInspector DATE T. Mar ' [. LT Sjost.f'hnL /[/y'[yt Accocpanying Inspectorc: N . ,c ,! ' cy,ReactorInspector DATE
~ , ' DATE 1, I i DATE Other Acco:npanying Personnel: None
DATE l'.cvf cwed Ey: [.O.
_)b l 4 4 h (. E. C. McCabe, Nuclear Support Section L2ader DATE j!k.
Reactor Operations Branch
e 3@ !!! < m ' 9604220174 960213 PDR FOIA-DEKOK95-250 PDR .
.. _,. ... . -... _. -... ~ _ _ - _ _. _. _ ... _ _ . _ _ _. _.. _ _.. "- ., ...
, i l SUMMARY OF FINDINGS , . Enforcement Action , d NY[j; i
- *.,
A.~ Items of Noncompliance -
f 1.. Violations: ' None - 2.
Infractions None .. 13.
_ Deficiencies , , ' None t' B.
Deviations a , , None i Other Significant Findings A.
Current Findings I 3EE#E ' > 1.
Acc ep table - Items - (These are areas which were inspected on a sampling basis and findings did not involve'an Item of Noncompliance, Deviation ' or Unresolved Item (except as noted).)
,
, Startup Testing-Shutdown Margin.
(Detail 3.a) a.
- b.
Startup-Testing-Cycle 5 Reactivity Follow.
(Detail 3.c) Startup Testing-Core Safety Limits.
(Detail 3.d) ~ c.
, d.
Startup Testing-CRD Friction Testing.
(Detail 3.e) Cycle 6 Refueling Safety Evaluation.
(Detail 5) e.
, f.
Core Verification.
(Detail 8) I g.
Fuel Inspection.
(Detail 9) '
h.
Incore Sipping.
(Detail 10) 1.
Fuel Inventory and Control.
(Detail 11) .: I 2.
Unresolved Items ' (These are items for which ~more information is required in order >
to determine.whether the items are acceptable or Items of Non- ,
I compliance.)
. I i l . .. . s < { .
, _$ , ._ .. ,, - _ _ . ... . -.
._.
... ... - - . .. .. - . - -. . . -.. - - . ... -2-Startup Testing-Scram Insertion Time.
(Detail 3.b) a.
b.
Estimated Critical Position.
(Detail 4) c.
Maintenance Procedures.
(Detail 6) .l d.
Refueling Procedures.
(Detail 7) - ' ' ; 1,, e.
Secondary Contaiteent Leak Rate.
(Detail 12)~ B.
Status of Previously Unrecolved Items Not inspected.
Management Interview An exit interview was held at the site on December 24, 1975.
Personnel Attending .. , i Mr. J. Carroll, Station Superintendent Mr. E.1Growney, Technical Engineer Mr. D. Reeves, Chief Engineer
- Mr. D. Ross, Manager, Nuclear Generating Station Mr. J. Sullivan, Operating Engineer The following summarizes the items discussed.
1.
Cycle 6 Refueling per 10 CFR 50.59.
(Detail 5) 2.
) 40EI Estimated Critical Position Procedure.
(Detail 4) 3.
Startup Testing.
(Detail 3) 4.
Secondary Containment Leak Rate Test.
(Detail 12) 5.
Refueling Maintenance.
(Detail 6) 6.
Refueling Procedures.
(Detail 7) .
- Attendance vla telephone link.
, . - .
.. s.
, DETAILS ' - 1.- Persons Contacted ?/(t'W,l-
$d Mr. B. Blair, Exxon Nuclear Engineer - Mr. J.. Carroll, Station Superintendent Mr. K. Pickeissen, Technical Supervisor Mr. E. Growney, Technical Engineer Mr. J. Maloney, Operating Supervisor Mr. D. Reeves, Chief Engineer Mr. D. Ross, Manager, Nuclear Generating Station Mr. J. Sullivan, Operating Engineer Mr. B. Swift, Maintenance Engineer ..
2.
-Inspection Purpose , _.. . The purpose of this inspection was to review the licensee's records and procedures as they relate to the following items.
Cycle 5 Refueling Startup Testing.
a.
b.
December 1, 1975 Reactor Criticality.
Cycle 6 Refueling Safety Evaluation.
c.
d.
Refueling Plans and Procedures.
Maintenance Plans and Procedures.
e.
gggg 3.
. Cycle 5 Refueling Startup Testing The inspector reviewed various records and procedures to ascertain whether the licensee's startup testing program, following the Cycl'c 5 Refueling, was in conformance with regulatory requirements and licensee approved procedures and administrative controls.
a.
Shutdown Margin The inspector reviewed the following executed procedures.
(1) Shutdown Margin Measurement Test Procedure, #1001.27. Rev. O.
(2) Shutdown Margin Demonstration Procedure, #1001.26', Rev. O.
The procedures demonstrated a Shutdown Margin in excess of 0.5% delta K per K, and the inspector had no further questions on this item.
i
n ' .
. - . -.. ..... -. _ -.. - -.. - - -.. - _ - --- . _ - .. .- -. . + 1.
>w.. , i , . < -4-.
! b.
Scram Insertion Time ' The inspector reviewed, Control Rod Scram insertion Time Testing t O,'l,,T records.
A memorandum from Mr. Quintens to Mr. Sullivan, dated
Il 'May 19, 1975 ! Specification requirements. certified that.all rods had satisfied Technical ! documentation.
The inspector requested supportive ' \\ Due to the holiday season, manpower was not available for record ' retrieval.
The following items remain unresolved. , ' (1) Substantiation of the May 19, 1975 memo based on raw . data record review, t (2) .. Verification of Brush Recorder ~ monitoring of rod 34-27 during Cycle 5.
l Cycle 5 Reactivity Follow c.
I The inspector reviewed the Reactivity Anomoly Check Procedure i
- 1001.17, Rev.1, and its executed table and graph.
, All data points fell within the required around the predicted behavior.
0.5% delta K per K envelope
questions on this item.
The inspector had no further ! d.
Core Safety Limits M l The inspector reviewed computer records and executed procedures for the week following the Cycle 5 Refueling, to determine if, , Technical Specification Safety Limits had been met; and verified , as such, by the licensee.
associated records were examined.The following procedures and their (1) Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate, Local Linear Heat Generation Rate, and Total Peaking Factor Check Procedure, #1001.11, Rev. 2.
(2) Single Tip Cell Power Distribution Procedure, #1001.11, Rev . O.
(3) Core Limit Analysis Procedure, #1001.13. Rev. O.
No Technical Specification violations were detected and the inspector had no further questions on this item.
, g I- .
.. . - ~. ~ - - . _- . "" . e-S- _CRD Friction Testing e.
The. inspector reviewed the executed procedure records, inclu oscilloscope photographs, associated with the Control Rod Drive .gc,;}p (CRD) Differential Pressure Friction Test Procedure, #717.3 011 jps y-, Rev. 1.
The inspector utilized the General Electric "CRD ' ' . . Hydraulic System Performance Anomalies" document as reference for the review.
The inspector discussed several erratic or abnormal differential pressure traces with the licensee.
safety problems were identified and the inspector had no further No questions on this item.
4.
Estimated Critical Position (ECP) On December 1, 1975 the reactor attained criticality .. Since this difference would constitute an unacco , , during a Xenon ./ x - on.
activity of nearly 2.4% delta K per K, a concern existed that a - Technical Specification (T.S.) on difference between observed and might have been exceeded. predicted control rod inventory, equivalen , Log, the Estimated Critical' Position procedure, #1 v sor associated records and computation sheets.
. 2, and the event with a licensee representative.
The inspector discussed discussion, the following is noted.
Based on this review and p,a.i.sni - . The ECP procedure is meant to be an operator aid only.
a.
operator is required by procedure to proceed with his approach The to criticality as if the reactor could go critical at any m oment.
b.
The ECP procedure is not, nor was it ever intended as a sur-Anomoly Check Procedure #1001.17veillance test for Techn P is used for this purpose - . This was the first use of the ECP procedure by shift operator ; c.
and the particular operator who performed the calculations made s s several errors.
d.
A corrected ECP calculation within hours of the critically co incided exactly with the actual critical position - . did not contribute to the calculational errors.The EC e.
n, ' ,
)
_ _ _ . _ _... _.- ___ _ _.. _.. _. _ _.... _- .. - _ _ _ _ _ __ . .. w.
. i i ! - 6- ' The inspector noted the following procedure weaknesses . . The choice of arithmetic sign -for the temperature correction t a.
I is not obvious.
. hpdd Hit N^* , b.. The.non-applicability of the procedure to T.S. 3.2.d is not obvious'.
The form has no signature slot for the operator performing th c.
, calculations.
e d.
A.second check of the ECP is not required.
The licensee informed the inspector that a revision is p1' nned t the ECP procedure.
No additional training is planned for the a o '
- +
operators in use of the procedure, other than that normally associated
with a revision.
, These items are unresolved.
5.
Cycle 6 Refueling Safety Evaluation . , The inspector reviewed the following documents , ya Cycle 6 Reload and Operation.
e zggg a.
Cycle 6 Safety Evaluation Report, b.
Memorandum from Mr. R. Lee to Messrs. J. Carroll and R titled Oyster Creek-1, Cycle 6 Reload Licensing Data . . Williams November 21, 1975.
dated , Memorandum from Mr. R. Williams to Mr. J. Carroll titled Oyster c.
Creek GORB Review of Cycle 6 Reload, dated' December 22 , 1975.
d.
Draf t PORC Meeting Minutes for December 4,1975.
The licensee has concluded that Cycle 6 viewed safety questions or needed Technical Specification changes operations involve no unre-that Cycle 6 Reload may be conducted in accordance with 10 CFR 5 without prior NRC approval.
. , The inspector did not identify any problems with this decision had no further questions on this item.
and . f
.. . -7- , 6.
tbintenance Procedures maintenance items were planned.The inspector reviewed the , ,
- ,'
J at related maintenance items for review for technical content andT ,- approval.
Inspection of Containment Spray HX a.
, The maintenance procedure for inspection only of the Containmen Spray Heat Exchangers has not been assembled and approved . This item is unresolved.
Reactor Safety Valve Exchange .. b.
The inspector reviewed the following approved procedures and did not identify any inadequacies.
(1) Removal of Reactor Safety Valve procedure, #702.1002 Rev. 2, dated 12/12/75.
. , (2) Reactor Safety Valve Installation Procedure, #702.1.005 Rev. 2, dated 12/12/75.
, Drywell Airlock Electrical Penetration Modification c.
eih Penetration Proposal #52-74-1.The inspector reviewed the PO The " Installation Specification" and " Installation Control Plan" had not been assembled or appr . This item is unresolved.
7.
Refueling Procedure l The inspector reviewed the Refueling Procedure, Section 212 of the plant procedures, for technical content and format Rev. 19 , inspector had the following comments and these items ar The . e unresolved.
The current approved procedure does not follow the format as a.
delineated in ANSI N18.7; however, the licensee stated that a new revised procedure is being drafted.
l , $
__ _ _ _.
. ._- _.
_ .. ' ' ' . i - 8- \\ > , b.
There is no checkoff sheet, with the exception of a tool can be initialed to verify completion of those ite and . ps
, The procedure calls for checking for correct fuel assembly c.
, d$ "- orientation, but the methods for checking correct orientation
are not addressed.
d.
The procedure does not address an audible annunciation f i abnormal flux increases or the actions to be taken < or an alarm, d.
should become damaged during fuel movements.
uel
8.
_ Core Verification The inspector reviewed the Core Verification procedure 1001.24 of the plant procedures, section , The inspector found no inadequacies in that reviewfor technical content . 9.
Fuel Inspection Section 21$, Rev. 2 of the plant procedures, for t e ssemblies, and format.
and Inspection Procedure for Exxon Nuclear Fuel As cal content f80NI Oyster Creek XN-218, Rev. 2.
of four assem,blies. The inspection includes gamma scanning o approximately 25 fuel rods from two assemblies, visual inspecti ' of rods with a periscope, and measurements of spacer captur on length, rod diameter, rod length and rod extraction foe rod ' rce.
The inspector had no further questions on this item . 10.
Incore Sipping The inspector reviewed the Incore Sipping Procedure the plant procedures, for technical content and f Section 213 of , found no inadequacies in the procedure.
ormat. The inspector 11.
Fuel Inventory and Control Section 1002 of the plant procedures, for technica rocedure, content and format.
- ,
-
......... - _ -. _. _.
- . .- - . -. _, . ... _. .-... . ... d e
' i
f-9- > The procedure has two forms attached for use in controlling fuel movements.
An MBA Transfer Form is utilized for moving fuel ou'tside the fuel pool or Reactor Core area and each move is approved by the ' SNM custodian or his designated representative.
- .
- .k -
.g[[f Jl is used for fuel movements'within the Reactor Core or the fuel pool An SNM Move Sheet
- area and each move is approved by the Technical Supervisor or his designated representative.
The inspector had no additional questions on this item.
, ~ ' 12.
Secondary Containment Leak Rate , The inspector requested but did not receive results of the Secondarr
l Containment Leak Rate Test that was performed following the Reactor
Building leak repair discussed in inspection report 50-219/75-41.
i ',h
'Due to the unavailability of licensee clerical personnel during-the , ' * * holiday season, the results could not be retrieved at this time.
) This item is unresolved.
' , \\ .
. i - .
! . e a i g
! s
,,... .n, .., ,, -. , -, , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - }}