IR 05000219/1979006
| ML19248D072 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1979 |
| From: | Briggs L, Cowgill C, Mccabe E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19248D057 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-79-06, 50-219-79-6, NUDOCS 7908010712 | |
| Download: ML19248D072 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAP REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-219/79-06 Docket No. 50-219 License No. DPR-16 Priority:
--
Category:
C Licensee:
Jersey Central Poser and Light Company Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Morristown, New Jersey '960 Facility Name.
Oyster Creek, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Forked River, New Jersey Inspection conducted:
April 10-12, 1978 Inspectors:
/
Ml(//h4, 5, /
r L. E. Briggs) R,eactor Irfspector date signed Q /;&
d j' /
}l
,
$N
-
C.Cowgil1,ReactorInspeptor date sfgne(
c'aproved by:
C. O. 4 % b 6 [16 h i E. C. McCabe, Jr., Chief, Reactor date signed Projects Section No. 2, RO&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
April 10-12, 1979 (Report No. 50-219/79-06)
Routine, onsite, unannrunced inspection by two regional based inspectors (47 hours5.439815e-4 days <br />0.0131 hours <br />7.771164e-5 weeks <br />1.78835e-5 months <br />).
Irspection Areas:
(3):
Independent effort; review of plant operations; and in office review of facility event reports.
Noncompliance:
one (Deficiency - failure to follow Lifted Lead and Jumper procedures, Paragraph 2.C.3)
4%
-
'h h1P-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- J. Carroll, Station Superintendent
- K. Kickeissen, Technical Engineer
- E. Growney, Operations Engineer
- J. Maloney, Operations Supervisor
- D. Ross, Manager, Generating Stations
- J. Sullivan ^hief Engineer
.
Tha inspectors also contacted other members of the technical, ecgineering, and operating staff.
- Denotes presence at exit interview.
- Denotes presence at exit interview via telephone.
2.
Indeoendent Effort The inspector, on arrival at the site, performed an independent status vcrification of Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) valves. Major system valves, as indicated in the control room, were compared to the positions required by the following procedures:
No. 310, Revision 5, January 16, 1979 Containment Spray System;
--
No. 308, Revision 7, March 7, 1979, Emergency Core Cooling System;
--
and, No. 307, Revision 3, October 29, 1976, Isolation Condenser System.
--
The inspector also reviewed the most recent complet2d valve line up procedures for the above systems.
No. 308 performed on April 5, 1979, No. 307 performed on April 2, 1979, and No. 310 performed on April 3, 1979.
All valve positions were signed for as being in the correct position.
Independent check by the inspector identified no abnormal conditions.
Currently,some small instrument valves are not identified on check-off lists.
The licensee informed the inspector that he is instituting a program to list every valve in every safety system and identify it on the appr?priate valve check-off list.
T5is program and its results will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
The inspector also performed a sampling check of the Locked Valve status in the Standby Liquid Control System.
Ten locked valves were randomly compared to the valve check-off list and all valves were in the required position.
The inspector also questioned the licensee about operation with one loop idle and the effects of idle loop backflow which bypasses the core.
The licensee stated that backflow had been considered, that calculations show 405 329
that a maximum of 400 gpm at 3? psid could backflow through the idle loop.
This flow involves less than 0.5 percent of core flow in the nonconservative direction.
The RPS settings are conservatively set at 118 percent versus 120 percent, and the 0.5 percent backflow factor does not involve scram actuation outside the required T.S. values.
3.
Review of Plant Operations a.
Plant Tour The inspectors conducted a tour of the accessible plant areas ;isted below to observe the status of pleat systems and conditions and to observe activities in progress.
The plant areas inspected included the Control Room, Turbine Building, accessible portions of the Reactor Building, new security building, and a perimeter walk down.
The following were among the items observed and discussed:
Radiation controls properly established;
--
Housekeeping; including attention to the elimination of
--
fire hazards;
--
No fluid leaks of significance; Pipe vibration, including the condition of hangers and
--
seismic restraints;
--
Status of preselected locked valves; (See Paragraph 2)
--
Equipment tagging for compliance with administrative requirements:
--
Control Room manning in accordance with Technical Specification requirements;
--
Reasons for lighted annunciators in the Control Room.
The inspector held discussions with the licensee concerning marginally acceptable housekeeping.
The licensee stated that housekeeping had received less attention than desired during the p evious month because several people had been sent to assist Three Mile Island, Unit 2 and because of the recent Oyster Creek shutdown.
The inspector reviewed the liccasee's housekeeping inspection records and found them to be up-to-date with corrective action not delayed.
This item will continue to be inspected by RI during subsequent inspections.
b.
Logs and Records The inspectors reviewed the following logs and records.
-
405 D
.
--
Control Room Log from March 1, 1971 through April 11, 1979;
--
Standing Order Book; Operations Supervisor memoranda, March 25, 1979 through April
--
11, 1979; Required reading folder, January 1 1979 through April 11, 1979;
--
Reactor Log, February 28, 1979 through April 10, 1979;
--
--
Technical Specification Log Sheet, February 21, 1979 through March 29, 1979; and,
--
Lifted Lead and Jumper Log, all outstanding entries.
c.
Findings The inspectors, after reviewing the Standing Order Book, the Opera-tions Supervisors memoranda, and discussion with various Operations Department personnel had the following ccr.cerns:
1.
A revision to Standing Order No. I was issued on March 19, 1979, but was not formall,y promulgated to operating personnel.
Operating personnel had differing opinions as to how Standing
.
Orders were promulgated.
Some felt the Standing Grders were transmitted by word of mouth while others felt the Standing Orders were promulgated in the required reading folder.
This item (219/79-06-01) is considered unresolved pending licensee action to institute a better method of Standing Order promulgation.
2.
A review of the control room log revealed inconsistent and incomplete entries.
In one case, on a startup conducted on April 7, 1979, one log entry led the inspectors to question whether a startup had been conducted in violation of Technical Specification requirements (the startup was halted due to problems with 3 IRM detectors).
It required considerable review to corroborate that the startup was correctly conducted.
Such legging errors were discussed with licensee representatives.
The licensee has also identified this problem.
Two inter-office mcmorandums, dated August 1, 1974, from the Operations Engineer to Shift Foreman; and dated September 1,1977, from Station Operations Supervisor to Shift Foreman, discuss this issue.
This item (219/79-06-02) is considered unresolved pending licensee action and NRC re-inspection.
The licensee has com-mitted to a May 1, 1979, deadline for upgrading log keeping.
405 33i
.
3.
During the review of the Lifted Lead and Jumper Log the inspector noted that the Lifted Lead index indicated that Lifted Lead Entry No. 38/78, reactor level wide range indicction was lifted on November 20, 1978, to install a recorder to monitor level during the Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test, was still active.
The lifted lead sheet indicated the same status.
Further checks were performed to check actual physical status.
It was found that the lif ted lead was actually replaced.
The licensee reviewed Procedure No. 666-5-007, Primary Containment Leak Rate Test performed November, 1978 to see if lead removal and install-ation was documented.
It was not.
A documentation problem was identified during Inspection No. 50-219/79-03, Paragraph 4.C.
concerning the Lifted Lead and Jumper Log.
This is an item of noncompliance.
(219/79-06-03)
4.
In Office Review a.
NRC:RI in office review of the following !rls has been completed with no unacceptable conditions identifiec:
-4
.
LER Dated Subject
.
79-01/03L 2/15/79 Failure of Tsalation Condenser atlet value to fully open during routir,e surveillance testing.
79-02/03L 2/27/79 One of four Isolation Conden;er initiation pressure switches found two (2) psi higher than T.S.
limits.
79-03/03L 3/26/79 Drywall to Torus differential pressure found below T.S. limits due to Drywell temperature decrease.
79-04/03L 3/26/79 Small leak in Servn " Water side of Containment Spray Heat Exchanger No.
1-4.
'i,52 e
40:)
ss
--
.
b.
NRC:RI in office review of the "ollowing reports has been completed with no unacceptable conditions identified:
January, 1979, Monthly Statistical Report; and
-
February,1979, Monthly Statistical Report.
--
5.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
Unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 2.C.1 and 2.C.2.
6.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at tte conclusion of the inspection on April 12, 1979.
The inspector summarized the findings, the purpose, and scope of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the inspectors' findings.
,
D m
F 403