IR 05000219/1980007
| ML19323C754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1980 |
| From: | Briggs L, Keimig R, Koltay P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323C753 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-80-07, 50-219-80-7, NUDOCS 8005190136 | |
| Download: ML19323C754 (9) | |
Text
SUO51ool3V
_
O U.S. NUCLEAR REG 11LATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-219/80-07 Docket No. 50-219 License No. DPR-16 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Jersey Central Power and Licht Compa.ny Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Facility Name:
Oyster Creek, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Forked River, New Jersey
,
Inspection conducted:
February 12-15, 19-20 and 26-29, 1980
[
&
8/f#Md Inspectors:
~ L. Briggs,#dactorInspector date signed W
w LLa -
skal 80 P.Koltay,ReactorInspkctor(2/19&20only)
' date signed date signed
,
,
Approved by:
- W#
.3-3#-8d
. Keimig, Chief, fctor Projects Section No.1, date signed RO&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on February 12-15, 19-20, and 26-29, 1980 (Report No. 50-219/80-07)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, onsite, unannounced inspection by two regional-based inspectors (98 hours0.00113 days <br />0.0272 hours <br />1.62037e-4 weeks <br />3.7289e-5 months <br />) of 5 inspection areas:
Licensee action on previous inspec-tion findings; IE Bulletin and Circular followup; onsite licensee event followup; fire protection modification; and, independent inspection effort.
Plant tours were also conducted.
Noncompliances:
None identified.
'
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
.
r y
-
'
- _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted J. Abramovici, Project Engineer
- J. Carroll, Station Superintendent J. Chardos, Senior Engineer, Generation Engineering K. Fickeissen, Plant Support Superintendent W. Garvey, Director, Station Administration E. Growney, Engineering Supervisor, Acting J. Logatto, Project Engineer, Generation Engineering J. Maloney, Supervisor Station Operations J. Mansinelli, Project Engineer J. Pelrine, Chemical Supervisor
- J. Sullivan, Unit Superintendent Other Accompanying NRC Personnel J. Thomas, Resident Inspector (In Training) 2/26-29 only Other members of the technical, engineering, and operating staffs were also interviewed.
- Present at exit interview on February 15, 1980.
- Present at exit interview on February 20, 1980.
'
- Present at exit interview on February 29, 1980.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Followup Item (77-26-01): Evaluation of Indications Found in CRD Pressure Retaining Bolt. The inspector reviewed two letters from GE to the licensee (G-EN-9-60, June 7,1979 and G-EN-9-69, July 13,'1979) which de-l tailed various tests performed on the bolt and the results of that testing.
i GE found the bolt acceptable for continued service.
N The inspector had no further questions on this item.
3.
IE Bulletins and Circulars a.
Bulletins Licensee actions concerning the following IE Bulletins were reviewed i
by the inspector to verify that the Bulletin was forwarded to appropri-ate onsite management, that a review for applicability was performed, information 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 Bulleti.
.
-
.
.
IEB 79-03, Longitudinal Weld Defects in ASME SA-312 Type 304
--
Stainless Steel Pipe Spools Manufactured by Youngstown Welding and Engineering Company. The inspector, in addition to verifying the licensee's response to IEB 79-03, reviewed G.E. letter G-EN-9-124 of November 12, 1979 and the Contractor Classification List
(CCL), dated January 18, 1980. The G.E. letter stated that
welded seamless piping without filler is not permitted by G.E.
specifications. The licensee's CCL does not list, as authorized, any of the vendor's piping as identified in the bulletin.
!
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
IEB 79-23, Potential Failure of Emergency Diesel Generator Field
.
--
'
Exciter Transformer. The licensee verified that connections between the low rated control transformer (CPTs) and the high KVA rated Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs) had been removed.
Verification was conducted under Work Order 1464E, completed on October 9,1979, which was reviewed by the inspector.
Procedure i
No. 636.4.007, Revision 0, December 27, 1979, Diesel Generator
Full Load Test, was performed by the licensee on January 2 through
'
4, 1980.
This test consisted of running each diesel generator for a period of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> at the EDG two hour rating (2750 KW),
followed by 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> at rated load (2600 KW). A review of the data by the inspector indicated that all parameters monitored met a
established acceptance criteria.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
\\
IEB 79-25, Failures of Westinghouse BFD Relays in Safety Related
--
Systems.
The inspector verified that no relays of the type in question, as stated in the licensee's response, are used at the
>
!
0yster Creek Facility. All safet by The General Electric Company, y related equipment was supplied
'
'
ine-luding replacement parts for i
_that equipment.
__
_
No unacceptable conditions were-identified.
<
IEB 79-26, Boron Loss from BWR Control Blades.
This item was re-
--
viewed in detail by the inspector and found to be acceptable.
i The licensee is currently replacing 75 of the 81 control blades that will exceed 34 percent depletion by the end of the next fuel t
cycle. The 6 remaining blades are projected to have between 34
and 37 percent depletion at the end of the next cycle.
The 6 blades equal 4.4 percent of the total blades and do not exceed the 26 percent limit stated in the bulletin.
,
No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
IEB 79-28, Possible Malfunction of Namco Model EA180 Limit
--
Switches at Elevated Temperatures. JCP&L Co. Task No. 79-67, dated December 31, 1979, assigned the research of this item to the Stone and Webster (S&W) Company.
S&W Task No. I-12, dated January 9,1980, detailed particulars concerning the research l
,
perfonned to verify that no switches of the type in question i
were either ordered, received, or installed from onsite spares
'
during the calendar year (1979) stated in the bulletin.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
IEB 80-01, Operability of ADS Valve Pneumatic Supply.
This bul-
--
letin does not apply to the licensee's facility.
The 5 ADS valves at Oyster Creek are electromatic and do not require a pneumatic supply.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Other IE Bulletins were reviewed during the inspection; however, licen-see action had not been fully completed by the conclusion of this inspection. The following IEB's were reviewed:
i IEB 79-24, Frozen Lines;
'
--
IEB 79-18, Audibility Problems Encountered on Evacuation of Per-
--
sonnel From High Noise Areas; IEB 79-11, Faulty Overcurrent Trip Device in Circuit Breakers
--
for Engineered Safety Systems; and, IEB 79-15, Deep Draft Pump Deficiencies,
--
These IEB's will be reviewed during a future NRC:RI inspection.
'
a b.
Circulars Licensee actions concerning the following IE Circulars were reviewed to verify that the circular was received by licensee management, that a review for applicability was performed, and that action taken or planned is appropriate.
IEC 79-15, Bursting of High Pressure Hose and Malfunction of Relief
--
Valve and '0'-Ring in Certain Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus.
The circular specifically addresses ServivAir Mark I self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). The only SCBA used by the licensee is the Scott Air Pak.
No unacceptable conditions were identifie _ __
_ __________
.
.
'
IEC 79-18, Proper Installation of Target Rock Safety-Relief
--
Valves. The licensee does not use Target Rock Safety-Relief valves, however, the inspector did verify that the licensee reviewed the circular for applicability.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
IEC 80-01, Service Advice for GE Induction Disk Relays. This
--
item was initially brought to the licensee's attention in 1979 by GE Service Advice 162.1.
The licensee's Field Supervisor Area Relay-Wall, researched previous maintenance records to de-tennine if a problem existed. An inter-office memorandum, dated June 10, 1979, addresses this subject.
During the 12 years of service all relays in question have been tested at least twice with protective relays tested on an annual schedule. To date,
'
no problems have been encountered with pickups due to sticky back-stops.
In addition, the GE Service Advice No. 162.1 men-
)
tioned specific dates of manufacture to be January 1973 through May 1977; the relays in use at Oyster Creek were manufactured prior to 1968.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
During the review of IE Circulars, the inspector noted that the internal
.. correspondence, usually associated.with circulars to document licensee action, was absent in many cases.
The licensee had prev'iously established
~
~
such a system; however, it appeared that the system had not been given the necessary attention subsequent to managenent reorganization in September 1979.
_
_
_.
_
._
This item is considered unresolved pending licensee establishment of'
an acceptable system for documentation of action taken and filing of circulars.
(219/80-07-01)
4.
Onsite LER Review The inspector reviewed the following LER while onsite:
LER -80-04/3L', Underground Leak on Condensate Transfer System Piping.
During excavation for inspection of the buried aluminum piping associated with the condensate storage tank, several leaks were discovered.
Samples were taken by the licensee and contaminated dirt was placed in 55 gallon drums after the leap 2 were temporarily repaired.
Further samples were requested
,
by the inspector when reports, attributed to officials in Ocean County, New Jersey, implied that high radiation readings taken on Island Beach State Park, 7 miles east of the plant, were caused by the leakage of con-
.
densate. The high radiation readings were reviewed and reported in detail
.
_ _.
__ _
.
.
in IE Inspection Report No. 50-219/80-05.
The_ additional samples taken by the licensee, including well and ground core samples, indicated that all
'
radioactive contamination was contained in the soil in close proximity to the leaks and had been removed.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Modifications Required by Amendment 18 to DPR-16 By examination of documents and work observation, the inspector verified licensee compliance with fire protection modification Item 3.1.1, identi-fied in Section 3 of the Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report.
The inspector reviewed the following documents which apply to the installa-tion of a three hour fire resistant rated vault around the 4160V emergency switchgear:
Procedure No. Special 80-22, issued February 15, 1980; and,
--
Installation Specification No. 218-77-45, Oyster Creek Turbine Build-
--
ing, 4160V Emergency Switchgear Vaults, Revision 2, dated January 30, 1980.
Documentation available during the inspection did not provide adequate da'ta
'
in the following areas:
Results of tests performed on the fire proofing material, in a con-a.
figuration similar to the manner it is being applied to the steel j
walls of the vault.
)
i b.
Fire loading inside the vault to determine whether fireproofing material should be applied on the interior steel surfaces.
c.
Data on seismic considerations which include the application of the fire proofing material to the steel surfaces.
d.
Design drawings.
The licensee stated that all of the above concerns are being addressed and additional information will be available in the near future. This item is considered unresolved pending NRC review of the licensee's documentation.
(219/80-07-02)
l l
.
m
.
.
6.
Independent Inspection Effort a.
Facility Tours During the course of the inspection, various operations were observed and facility tours were conducted to observe refueling outage activities.
The inspectors, accompanied by a licensee representative, conducted tours of accessible plant areas to observe the status and condition of plant systems and activities in progress.
Particular emphasis was directed at plant housekeeping.
Areas inspected included the Control Room, Turbine Building, Off Gas Building, Mechanical and I&C Mainten-ance Shops, Reactor Building, Torus, and accessible portions of the Drywell.
The following were observed and discussed:
Radiation controls;
--
Housekeeping, including attention to the elimination of fire
--
hazards; No fluid leaks of significance;
--
,
The condition of hangers and seismic restraints;
--
Equipment tagging;
--
Control Room manning; and,
--
Lighted annunciators in the Control Room.
--
The inspector noted that continued improvement had been made in the area of plant cleanliness.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Security During entry to the facility on February 26, 1980, the inspector was
,
informed that his picture badge had expired.
Further investigation
'
revealed that the badge had expired on December 31, 1979. The inspector pointed out that access had been granted during the week of February 11, 1980, with the expired badge.
The inspector performed a review of the following security procedures with no items of noncompliance noted.
.
.
.
No.1101, Revision 3, Janusry 16,1980,. Personnel Identification
--
and Site Access Control; No.1102, Revision 12, September 21, 1979, Guidelines and Respon-
--
sibilities for Security Force Personnel; and, No.1102.1, Revision 0, February 22, 1979, Conduct of Security
--
Operaticas.
The inspector discussed this matter with the Security Supervisor who stated that expiration dates are usually checked as badges are issued upon entry.
Expiration dates were found to be based on the date that Health Physics training is received.
An extension of 3 months may be granted, if necessary, to allow time for an individual to receive refresher training. This extension had been granted to the inspector.
Further discussion with the Training Department revealed that a recently implemented program flags badges with anproaching expiration dates via a computer printout. This program will be reviewed for effectiveness during subsequent NRC:RI inspection.
(219/80-07-03)
7.
Indoc_t_rination Training The inspectors attended indoctrination training on February 29, 1980. The course of instruction included:
General Industrial Safety;
--
General Plant Security;
--
General overview of plant QA requirerdeats;
--
Health Physics;
--
Respiratory Protection;
--
Work Practices;
--
Radioactive Material and Contamination;
--
Radiation, units of measure of dose and dose rate and biological effects;
--
10 CFR 20 and site exposure and contamination limits;
--
Use of RWP;
--
Types of Controlled Areas;
--
l l
l t
.
.
ALARA Concept;
--
Exposure limits for pregnant females;
--
Notification requirements of 10 CFR 19;
--
Personnel monitoring and protection techniques; and,
--
Site Emergency Procedures and Alarms.
--
The course appeared to contain adequate information to enable a new employee to perform assigned tasks in a radiologically safe manner. The inspectors did note that certain video tapes gave incorrect information. This incorrect information was pointed out to the participants by the instructor at the time and correct information was presented.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
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 items identified during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 3.b and 5.
9.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on February 15, 20 and 29,1980.
The inspector summarized the findings, purpose and scope of the inspection. Tha
,
licensee acknowledged the inspector's findings.
'
1