IR 05000219/1979021
| ML19294B441 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1980 |
| From: | Briggs L, Keimig R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19294B436 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-79-21, NUDOCS 8002280378 | |
| Download: ML19294B441 (7) | |
Text
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
Report No.
50-219/79-21 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:
NoJember 27-30, 1979 Inspectors:
2; N, gr;g
/-/4 - /d
. Briggs, React n
ctor date date
-
date
,
,
Approved by:
N#[
/-/4-[d
,
. R. Keimig, Chief // Reactor Projects date Section No.1, RMNS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on November 27-30, 1979 (Report No. 50-219/79-21)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, onsite, unannounced inspection by one region-based inspector (29 hours3.356481e-4 days <br />0.00806 hours <br />4.794974e-5 weeks <br />1.10345e-5 months <br />) of 7 inspection areas:
followup of previous inspection findings; review of plant operations; in office LER review; onsite LER followup; IEB followup; and independent effort.
A plant tour was also conducted.
Noncomoliances:
None identified.
Region I Form 167 (August 1979)
$002 9 t' O
>33 g
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- J. Carroll, Station Manager T. Johnson, Supervisor Station I&E Maintenance
- W. Garvey, Director Station Administration E. Growney, Engineering Supervisor (Acting)
- J. Riggar, Security Supervisor
- D. Ross, Manager Nuclear Generating Stations
- J. Sullivan, Unit Superintendent Other members of the technical, engineering, and operating staff were also contacted.
- Present at exit interview.
- Participated in exit interview via telephone.
2.
Licensee Action On Previous Inspection Findinas (Closed) Inf actions (219/76-35-02, 77-21-01, 78-28-01), Inadequate House-keeping: Tl. inspector toured the plant (areas noted in paragraph 3) to verify the t.crective actions stated in the licensee's letters of February 10, 1977, November 9, 1977, and December 6, 1978. All areas exhibited satisfactory housekeeping. The licensee's housekeeping procedure (implemented January 1, 1979) was reviewed and found to be current.
Details of the housekeeping system are contained in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-219/79-04, paragraph 2.
Housekeeping has been examined during numerous inspections since January 1979, with continuous progress being noted.
This item will continue to be inspected during subsequent NRC:RI inspections.
(Closed) Unresolved (219/78-13-01), Voids in Concrete Missile Barrier Wall Used As One Side of Battery Room 'C':
The following documents were reviewed in the NRC:RI office to determine the adequacy of the missile barrier.
JCP&L Co. memorandum, T. Crimmins to D. Ross, dated September 26,
--
1978, No. GP-78-817; Ebasco Services Inc. to JCP&L Co., dated September 12, 1978; and,
--
Ebasco Services Inc. Missile Impact Evaluation, dated September 1978.
--
The above review indicates that the evaluation was adequate and that the missile barrier wall construction is acceptable.
No items of noncompliance were identifie.
.
(Closed) Follow Item (219/79-03-02), Lifted Lead and Jumper Log Review:
A review of the Lifted Lead and Jumper Log and a sampling of actual jumpers and lifted leads indicatec' that the log was current and up-to-date.
As a measure to insure that the log is current, the licensee performs a weekly review which was verified by the inspector.
The inspector had no further questions at this time.
This item will be reviewed on a continuing basis.
(Closed) Deficiency (219/79-11-07), Three Valves Not Locked as Required:
The three valves were locked and verified prior to the completion of NRC Inspection No. 50-219/79-11.
Subsequent action required revision of pro-cedure No. 308 to prevent recurrence.
The inspector verified that the revised procedure incorporated the correct valve position and locking requirements.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
(Closed) Follow Item (219/79-15-02), Core Spray System II Test Line Seis-mic Restraints:
This item was identified during the licensee's inspection of seismic restraints in accordance with IE Bulletin 79-14.
It was sub-sequently reported in LER 79-27/IT and documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-219/79-15, paragraph 5.
The Inspector verified that all restraints on the affected test line were repaired and observed a functional test of Core Spray System II on November 29, 1979.
The amount of piping movement noted was significantly reduced when compared to that observed on August 9, 1979.
No unacceptable conditions were observed.
3.
Review of Plant Operations a.
Plant Tour The inspector, accomoanied by a licensee representative, conducted a tour of accessible plant areas to observe the status and condition of plant systems and activities in progress.
Particular emphasis was directed at plant housekeeping (details in paragraph 2).
Areas inspected included the Control Room, Turbine Building, Off Gas Build-ing, Mechanical and I&C Maintenance Shops, and accessible portions of the Reactor Building.
The following were observed and discussed:
Radiation controls;
--
Housekeeping, including attention to the elimination of fire
--
hazards;
No fltiid leaks of significance;
--
Pipe vibration, including the condition of hangers and seismic
--
restraints; Status of preselected locked valves (SBLCS);
--
Equipment tagging;
--
Control Room manning; and,
--
--
Lighted annunciators in the Control Room.
The following problems were identified concerning the Control Rod Drive (CRD) System during the Control Room tour:
--
CRD flow control valves (NC-30-A and B) leak by excessively.
This leakage requires the CRD hydraulic pumps to be secured under certain plant shutdown conditions to control reactor water level.
Both flow control valves are scheduled to be replaced during the January 1980 refueling outage.
The drive pressure transmitter, used for Control Room indication,
--
was realigned resulting in a non-linear, compressed indication in the Control Room causing operator difficulty in obtaining accurate drive presst.re readings.
Alignment problems are attri-buted to the age and condition of the transmitter.
Instrument alignment is also thought to be an influence on an additional problem; excessive drive pressure required to initiate rod move-ment (approximately 300 psi).
Rod drive speed was adjusted prior to alignment of the drive pressure indicator in the Control Room.
Before alignment, the indicator read lower than actual pressure, allowing rod speeds to be adjusted at a pressure higher than indicated.
This leads to an after alignment indicated drive pressure that is higher than normal.
The licensee has a new transmitter on the site and has submitted an Engineering Request (ER) (No. M79-036) to Generation Engineering (Engineering Task No. 380, May 30, 1979) for issuance of a modification package.
This item was discussed with site and corporate personnel and is considered unresolved pending licensee action and subsequent NRC:RI inspect 1on (219/79-21-01).
b.
Logs and Records The following logs and records were reviewed:
Control Room Log, October 25 through November 27, 1979;
--
Reactor Log, October 23 through November 25, 1979;
--
.
.
Reactor Auxiliary Log, Sheets 1 through 3, October 23 through
--
November 25, 1979; Environmental Data Log, October 1 through 31, 1979;
--
--
Operational Memos and Directives, September 20 through November 20, 1979; Lifted Lead and Jumper Log, all entries;
--
Equipment Tagging Log, all activa entries;
--
--
Required Reading Notebook, August 1 through November 20, 1979;
--
Control Room Shutdown Log, November 23 through 25, 1979; Shift Foreman's Log, October 23 through November 13, 1979;
--
--
Technical Specification Log Sheet, October 13 through November 13, 1979; and, Standing Orders; all in effect.
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
In Office Review of Licensee Event Reports (LER's)
The inspector reviewed LER's received in the NRC:RI office to verify that details of the event were clearly reported including the accuracy of the description of cause and adequacy of corrective action, and the inspector determined whether further information was required from the licensee, whether generic implications were involved, and whether the event warranted on site followup.
The following LER's were reviewed:
LER Event
^78-28/IT Main steam line drain valve and TIP isolation valves failed to close during containment isolation test.
- 78-29/IT Initial containment integrated Irak rate test failed, indicat-ing inability to limit releases to 10 CFR 100 1;mits.
- 78-30/3L Failure of containment spray pumps to auto start.
- 78-31/3L Failure of diesel generator No. 1 to pickup load and failure of service water pumps to trip on undervoltage.
- 78-33/IT Reactor period less than 5 seconds during reactor startu.
LER Event
^78-26/IT Rupture of reactor building to torus differential pressure switch diaphragms during leak rate testing.
78-24/3L Failure of off gas system isolation valve, drain valve and absolute filter.
^79-27/IT Failure of seismic restraints on core spray system II test line.
79-33/3L Failure of one of five automatic depressurization system pressure switches.
79-35/3L Setpoint of one of four main steam line high radiation monitors found 2 percent above limit.
79-36/3L Northeast containment spray system compartmer.t door found open.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
On Site Licensee Event Followuo For those LER's selected for on site followup, the inspector verified that reporting requirements of Technical Specification and Regulatory Guide 1.16 had been met, that appropriate corrective action had been taken, that the event was reviewed by the licensee as required by facility procedures, and that continued operation of the facility's selected for on was conducted in accordance with Technical Specification limits.
The LER site followup are denoted by an asterisk (*) in detail 4 above.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
IE Bulletins Licensee actions concerning the following IE Bulletins were reviewed by the inspector to verify that the Bulletin was forwarded to appropriate onsite management, that a review for applicability was performed, infor-mation discussed in the licensee's reply was accurate,. corrective action taken was as described in the reply, and that the reply was within the time period described in the Bulletin.
-
IEB 79-12, Short Period Scrams at BWR Facilities.
This bulletin was
--
examined in detail during NRC inspection No. 50-219/79-17 (paragraph 5.a.).
It was noted at that time that the licensee had inadvertently left out the requirement on approach to critical that rods be notched when above the group 6 position.
The inspector reviewed the procedure and verified that notch requirements had been incorporated in the latest revisio.
-
No items of noncompliance were identified.
IEB 79-13, 79-13 Revision 1, and 79-13 Revision 2, Cracking in Feed-
--
water System Piping.
Applies only to PWR facilities; response was not required.
Tre inspector verified that the bulletin was received and reviewed for applicability by appropriate licensee personnel.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter at this time.
IEB 79-17 and 79-17 Revision 1, Pipe Cracks in Stagnant Borated Water
--
Systems at PWR Plants.
This bulletin was sent to the licensee for information only. The inspector verified that the bulletin was received and reviewed for applicability by appropriate licensee personnel.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter at this time.
7.
Emergency Drill Observation An emergency drill involving both on and off-site personnel was conducted by the licensee on November 30, 1979.
NRC inspector observed control room operations during the drill.
Full details of the drill are included in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-219/79-22.
8.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
The unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 3.a.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on November 30, 1979.
The inspector summarized the findings, purpose, and scope of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's findings.