IR 05000219/1979015
| ML19254E391 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1979 |
| From: | Briggs L, Mccabe E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254E388 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-79-15, NUDOCS 7911010023 | |
| Download: ML19254E391 (5) | |
Text
,
.
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
Report No.
50-219/79-15 Docket No.
50-219 License No.
DPR-16 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Jersey Central Power and Light Company Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Facility Name:
Oyster Creek Unit 1 Inspection At:
Forked River, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
August 7-9, 1979 Inspectors:
f.0 b M. b., b tlial if L. Briggs, Reactor Inspector date date date Approved by:
2. f. & k Is.,
etItal71 E. C. McCabe, Jr., Chief, Reactor Projects date Section No. 2, RO&NS Branc.h Inspection Summary:
August 7-9, 1979 (Report No. 50-219/79-15)
Routine, onsite, unannounced inspection (24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) by a regional based inspector, beginning on the midnight to 8 a.m. shift.
Inspection Areas:
(4) Review of plant operations; onsite committee review; fire protection; and event followup.
Noncompliances:
None.
1282
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 1977)
010023
,9
.
.
.
DE6JLS 1.
Persons Contacted
- J. Carroll, Plant Superintendent J. Chardos, Senior Engineer J. Edelhauser, Engineer
- E. Growney, Operations Engineer R. Pelrine, Chemical Supervisor Other members of the technical, engineering and operating staff were also contacted.
- present at exit interview 2.
Review of Plant Operations a.
Plant Tour The inspector conducted a tour of the accessible plant areas listed below to obserse the status of plant systems and conditions, and to observe activities in progress.
Areas inspected included the Control Room, Turbine Building, accessible portions of the Reactor Building.
The following were observed and discussed:
Ruaiation controls;
--
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 (Core Spray System);
Equipment tagging;
--
Control Room manning;
--
Lighted cnnunciators in the Control Room.
--
During the tour the inspector noted that a substantial number of seismic support plates and anchor bolts had been tested per IEB 79-02.
One of these plates appeared to be standing out from the containment wall and resting on the imbedded concrete anchors.
It was also noted that only one bolt showed evidence of being loosened for testing.
The inspector asked about the method of testing and whether this particular plate should be shimmed for testing the anchor.
During a post-inspection telephone call from the inspector on August 13, 1979, the licensee stated that the bolt had been removed to check thread engagement and anchor position and that the anchor was properly recessed to allow testing without shimming the plate, and that testing was satisfactory as performed.
I2,82
.;;
..
.
.
.
This item is considered unresolved pending reinspection by NRC:RI (219/79-15-03).
b.
Loos and Records The following logs and records were reviewed:
Control Room Log, July 24, 1979 through August 7, 1979;
--
Reactor Log, July 1, 1979 through August 6, 1979;
--
Reactor Auxiliary Log, sheets 1 through 3, July 1, 1979 through
--
Augu;t 6,1979; Environmental Data Log, July 1, 1979 throi-.5 July 31, 1979;
--
Operational Memos and Directives, January 1979 to August 6,
--
197);
Lifted Lead and Jumper Log, all entries;
--
Equipment Tagging Log, all active entries; and,
--
--
Technical Specification Log Sheet, July 1 through July 31, 1979.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.
Onsite Review Committee The inspector reviewed the minutes of Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) meetings to verify that:
Procedures governing PORC activities did not conflict with Technical
--
Specification (TS) requirements
--
PORC membership and qualifications conform to TS requirements Meetings were held within TS frequency requirements
--
--
Activities required by TS to be reviewed were reviewed and documented Meeting minutes were reviewed on a sampling basis to verify that personnel present met quorum and expertise requirements.
PORC meetings were held on a regularly scheduled basis monthly with many special meetings.
The 94th meeting of 1979 was held on August 9, 1979.
To verify that TS changes, NRC inspection findings and plant modifications (10 CFR 50.59) were reviewed by the PORC, the following meeting minutes were reviewed:
PORC Meeting No.
Subject 28 and 29-79 TS Change Request No. 70, Administrative Organization 48-79 TS Change Request No. 71, Recirculation Loop Operation 57-79 TS Change Request No. 73, MAPLHGR Limits 1282
'T
.
.
.
.
21-78 TS Change Request No. 49, Emergency Core Cooling System, Revision 1 50-79 TS Change Request No. 69, Revision 1, Appendix I 58-78 I&E Inspection Reports 78-09 and 78-11 104-78 I&E Inspection Reports numbered 78-21, 78-22, 78-24 and 78-25 104-78 Safety Evaluation review of the Isolation Condenser Timer and Anticipatory Scram on Turbine Trip 83-78 Recirculation Pump Trip Modification Proposal No. 202-76-1
~
26-78 Station Security System - P5wer Supply Modification No.
220-77-3 24-79 Containment Spray Undervoltage Modification No. 333-79-1 No unacceptable conditions were identified.
4.
Fire Protection The inspector toured critical fire areas during the plant tour (paragraph 2.a) to verify that measures were being enforced to mitigate the chances of fire.
The following areas were inspected:
Cable spreading Room (fire sprinkler system being installed)
--
--
Control Room
--
Switchgear Room
--
Reactor Building, all levels Turbine Building
--
The inspector noted, while reviewing the Control Room Log, that the fire suppression system in various areas of the plant had been secured during the month.
In all cases, a fire watch was established and areas were toured every two (2) hours in accordance with the applicable TS.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
5.
Event Followup The inspector discussed and examined the recent discovery of four seismic restraints for the six (6) inch core spray test line which were misposi-tioned or had failed (LER 79-27/1T).
The problem was discovered on 1282
- ~
,
.
.
.
August 7, at 3 p.m. and reported to the inspector within one (1) hour.
Two box restraint clamps on a vertical run of pipe had slipped down the pipe.
A third restraint had sheared its anchor bolts.
The fourth restraint failure mechanism was still under investigation.
Three restraints were repaired by 4 p.m. on August 8, 1979 and the system was declared operable.
The system had previously been declared inoperable on August 7 when the designer (Burns and Roe) informed the licensee that the test line might fail in a seismic event with four (4) restraints inoperable.
The designer further stated to the licensee that if three (3) of the four (4) restraints were repaired the system would function during a seismic event.
The inspector observed a test of the Core Spray System II test line at 10:15 a.m. on August 9, 1979.
Some pipe movement was observed.
The inspector and the licensee discussed the amount of movement and its acceptability.
The licensee stated that the most critical restraint had yet to be repaired and would restrict pipe movement considerably.
The inspector stated that a test of the test line would be observed on a subsequent inspection after the restraint was repaired (219/79-15-02).
6.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. The unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 2.a.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on August 9, 1979.
The inspector summarized the findings, the purpose, and scope of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's findings.
1282 lm