IR 05000219/1980001
| ML19309C954 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1980 |
| From: | Briggs L, Keimig R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309C949 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-80-01, 50-219-80-1, NUDOCS 8004090422 | |
| Download: ML19309C954 (6) | |
Text
.
.
-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
Report No.
50-219/80-01 Docket No.
50-219 License No.
OPR-16 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Jersey Central Power and Licht Company Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Facility Name: _0yster Creek, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Forked River, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
January 4-6, 8-11, and 14, 1980 Inspectors: M[d.M of/d//#O L'. Briggs, Bdactor Inspector date date
,
date
.
.
Approved by-
_
h
^ 'f-2-/5-80 p R. Keimig,' flief, ctor Projects date r
Section No. A, R0 Branch Inspection Sunnary:
Inspection on January 4-6, 8-11, and 14, 1980 (Report No. 50-219/80-01):
Areas Inspected:
Routine, onsite, unannounced inspection by one regional-based Inspector (59 hours6.828704e-4 days <br />0.0164 hours <br />9.755291e-5 weeks <br />2.24495e-5 months <br />) of 4 inspection areas:
refueling preparation; refueling activities; independent inspection effort; and, IE Bulletin followup.
Plant tours were also conducted.
Noncompliances:
None identified.
Region I Form 167 990409o (August 1979)
i
. _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted R. Barrett, Training Supervisor
- J. Carroll, Station Manager J. Chardos, Senior Engineer, Generation Engineering K. Fickeissen, Plant Support Superintendent E. Growney, Engineering Supervisor (Acting)
T. Johnson, Supervisor, Station I&E Maintenance R. Lang, Supervisor, Station Mechanical Maintenance J. Maloney, Supervisor, Station Operations R. Pinelli, Project Engineer, Generation Engineering W. Stewart, Management Control Supervisor
- J. Sullivan, Unit Superintendent Other members of the technical, engineering, and operating staff were also contacted.
- Present at exit interview.
2.
Preparation for Refueling a.
Documentation Reviewed (1) Procedure No. 205.0, Revision 2, August 8, 1979, Reactor Refueling; (2) Procedure No. 205.1, Revision 7. October 10, 1979, Receiving and Processing New Fuel; (3) Procedure No. 205.4, Revision 2, April 9,1979, Core Offloading; (4) Procedure No. 205.5, Revision 2, June 15, 1977, Core Reloading; (5) Procedure No. 205.7, Revision 6, July 19, 1977, Control Cell Unloading / Reloading; (6)
Procedure No. 205.11, Revision 0, April 21,1977, Fuel Assembly Removal / Insertion in Fuel Preparation Machines; (7) Procedure No. 205.22, Revision 1, June 27, 1977, Control Rod Blade Removal /Intallation; (8) -Procedure No. 205.41, Revision 2, September 22, 1978, In-Core Fuel Sipping; (9)
Procedure No. 1001.24, Revision 2 October 17, 1978. Core Verification;
,
T
.
(10) Procedure No. 535, Revision 2 December 12, 1979, Inadvertent Reactor Criticality; (11)
Procedure No. 205.43, Revision 0, September 18, 1978, Examination of Irradiated Exxon Fuel Assemblies; and, (12)
Procedure No. 205.6, Revision 1, October 13, 1978, Fuel Shuffle.
b.
Scope Preparation activities for the refueling were observed and supporting documentation was reviewed.
The schedule and scope of activities during the planned refueling outage were determined through discus-sions with facility personnel.
The outage related procedures (denoted in a. above) were reviewed and their content was checked for compli-ance with Technical Specification requirements.
,
No items of noncompliance were identi#ied.
3.
Refueling Activities a.
Scope The inspector verified that the fuel handling equipment and associated interlocks were tested in accordance with applicable procedures.
The safety evaluation which was completed by the licensee to estab-lish, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, that a Technical Specification amendment was not required for the subject core reload was reviewed.
b.
Documents Reviewed Procedure 205.6, Revision 1, October 13, 1978, Fuel Shuffle
--
(Refueling);
Procedure 205.61, Revision 0, April 21, 1977, Pre-Outage Refuel-
--
ing Equipment Checks; Procedure 205.62, Revision 1 September 28, 1978, Daily Refuel-
--
ing Bridge Check-off; Procedure 311, Revision 6, April 3,1978, Fuel Pool Cooling
--
System; Procedure 106, Revision 6, December 7,1979, Conduct of Operations;
--
Reload Information and Safety Evaluation Report for Cycle 9 Reload,
--
October 5, 1978;
.
.
U.S. Crane Certification Bureau Incorporated Report No. 102279-2,
--
October 22, 1979; and, Job Order 1569E, issued to correct crane deficiencies, completed
--
December 29, 1979.
c.
Findings During the removal of the moisture separator from the reactor vessel, the licensee experienced arcing on the hoist motor for the 100 ton crane.
Investigation revealed that the epoxy strap which holds the commutator segment arms in place parted, allowing the segment arms to lift.
Temporary repairs were made with the motor in place to complete the separator removal.
The DC hoist motor rotor is scheduled for per-manent repairs.
It was noted that there is no routine maintenance performed on the 100 ton crane except prior to refueling outages.
The licensee stated that the 100 ton crane is used on a very limited basis except during refueling outages and that the problem experienced would not have been discovered during a routine inspection.
The annual inspection frequency is compatible with other facility programs; however, in view of the crane's age, the licensee will evaluate the need for a more extensive crane inspection program.
This item is unresolved pending licensee evaluation and subsequent NRC:RI inspec-tion (219/80-01-01).
Actual fuel moves and associated activities were not yet in progress at the conclusion of this inspection but will be observed during sub-sequent NRC:RI inspections.
4.
Independent Effort a.
Scope During the course of the inspection, various operations were observed and numerous facility tours were conducted to observe refueling outage preparations and outage activities.
Activities observed, discussed, and reviewed were as follows:
Plant shutdown to hot standby;
--
Plant cooldown to cold shutdown conditions;
--
Auto depressurization system functional testing during the
--
i plant shutdown; Various video tapes previous (1974 and 1978) reactor vessel
--
internals inspections; i
Whiting crane (100 tons) problem and repairs (details paragraph
--
3.c);
j
.
,_.
__
_
.
.
Various operations on 119 foot elevation (refueling floor) of
--
the reactor building; Main Steam Line Plug seating problem; and,
--
Health Physics controls, posting, and condition of step off
--
pads, b.
Findings The inspector verified that operations were being conducted in com-pliance with established procedures and NRC requirements.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Radiological controls in the areas inspected appeared to be well planned with step off pads in good condition and adequate supplies of protective clothing available.
Several step off areas were observed; each area had functional friskers available for personnel monitoring and were being use.by radiation workers.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
The licensee experienced problems obtaining a good seal with the main steam line plugs. This caused considerable delay in flooding the reactor cavity.
Several inspections and tests were performed on the plugs but the plugs failed to seal.
The licensee borrowed inflatable plugs from another facility.
These plugs sealed properly and cavity flooding was successfully completed.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
IE Bulletins IE Bulletins 79-14, Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety Related Piping Systems, and 79-02, Pipe Base Plate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts, were reviewed by the inspector.
The licensee requested the following.
IEB 79-14:
That testing of less than 100 percent but more than
--
10 percent of seismic restraint to pipe weld attachments be allowed
!
on several systems due to high radiation levels and asbestos lagging interference. This is acceptable practice per Revision 2 of IEB 79-14, providing a schedule for completion of the remaining attachments is included in the bulletin response.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
_.
.-
. - -
._.
.
.
.
.--
-
..
.
.
.
IEB 79-02: That remaining structural shapes not be tested based on
--
the 0 percent failure rate of already tested structural shape anchors.
The inspector discussed this item with cognizant IE Region I person-nel.
This position was found acceptable based on the licensee's previous sampling of structural shape anchors and low failure rate of concrete anchors, in general.
No items of noncompliance were
!
identified.
6.
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.c.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on January 14, 1980.
The inspector summarized the findings, purpose, and scope of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's findings.
F b
i
,,
- -.
-
,,.