IR 05000219/1980009
| ML19323G328 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1980 |
| From: | Briggs L, Keimig R, Walton G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323G325 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-80-09, 50-219-80-9, NUDOCS 8006020180 | |
| Download: ML19323G328 (6) | |
Text
.
s
.
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-219/80-09 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 J,ersey Inspection conducted:
March 11-14, 1980
$$ huk
$/Y/80 Inspectors:
L. Briggs, Redd46r Inspector date signed Af M/Zn 9/7//a G. Walton, Reactor Inspector
' dste signed date signed y[r[fd Approved by:
e=m-
--
R. R. Keimic, Chief, R(actor Projects date signed Section No. 1, RO&NS Branch In-n c1on Summary:
Inspection on March 11-14, 1980 (Report No. 50-219/80-09)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, onsite, unannounced inspection by two region-based Tiispc.ctors (40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />) of 3 inspection areas:
inservice inspection data review meeting; independent inspection effort; and, followup on regional request. A plar,t tour was also conducted.
Non;ompliance.
None identified.
s.
3 o o e o 20/80 Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
-.
._. --
.
,,
..
<
' DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- M. Allgier, Nondestructive Examination Specialist
- R. Blackinton, Quality Assurance
- J. Carroll, Station Superintendent
- S. Chan, Safety and Licensing
- R. Dube, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- D. Gaines, Manager, Operations Quality Assurance W. Garvey, Director, Station Administration j
E. Growney, Engineering Supervisor, Acting T. Johnson, Supervisor, Station I&E Maintenance J. Knubel, Supervisor, Nuclear Safety and Licensing J. Lachenmayer, Engineer, Nuclear Safety and Licensing R. Lang, Supervisor, Station Mechanical Maintenance Y. Nagai, Senior Engineer, Nuclear Safety and Licensing E. O'Connor, JCP&L Co., TMI Lessons Learned Project Manager
- J. Sullivan, Unit Superintendent T. Tipton, Manager, Environmental Affairs Other members of the technical, engineering and operating staffs were also contacted.
- Present at exit interview on March 14, 1980.
- Present at ISI meeting on March 11, 1980.
Other Accompanying NRC Personnel and NRC Consultants a.
SEP Environmental Qualification Team (March 11 and 12,1980)
C. Crane, Franklin Research Institute M. Fletcher, DOR /SEP Branch B. Morris, D0R S. Schmitt, Franklin Research Institute W. Steigelmann, Franklin Research Institute R. Wilson, DSS, Team Leader b.
TMI Lessons Learned Team (March 12 and 13, 1980)
0. Chopra, DOR / Plant Systems Branch J. Donohew, Jr., DOR / Environmental Evaluation Branch G. Lanik, DOR / Reactor Safety Branch C. Long, DOR / Plant Systems Branch, Team Leader S. Nowicki, DPM/ Licensing Project Manager
_
_
-
4,
3 2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
3.
Inservice Inspection Data Review Meeting The inspector and an Engineering Support Specialist attended a meeting at the Oyster Creek Site on March 11, 1980, to discuss the technical aspects of the licensee's 10 year inservice inspection p-ogram. The meeting was requested by the licensee.
The following was discussed.
The fact that regulatory requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.55.2(g) did not apply to Oyster Creek during the first 10 years of commercial opera-tion, December 8, 1969 to December 8, 1979. The Oyster Creek Technical Specifications, Table 4.3.1 contain the requirements for performing in-service inspection during this period.
During the last five years of operation, the licensee was inspecting to Technical Specification Change Request Number 28.
That change request modified the Techical Specifi-cation program. This request has not been approved by the NRC.
Technical
-
Specification Amendment Number 34 was submitted by the licensee and approved by the NRC.
This amendment incorporated additional ins pction requirements covering the Core Spray System.
Technical Specification Change Request Number 28 identifies an inservice inspection program that is more extensive than that stated in Technical Specification, Table 4.3.1.
This program, although not specifically approved nor legally binding, was used as a guideline for performing the inservice inspections for the last five years of operation.
To determine if any Technical Specifications approved by the NRC were violated, the licensee, with assistance from a contractor, performed a detailed review of all inservice inspection requirements.
The review concentrated on exmainations performed versus legal requirements contained in the Technical Specification.
The licensee has determined, from this review, that certain changes to the Technical Specifications are necessary and will submit the proposed change request to NRC for formal approval.
The inspector reviewed these deviations to ascertain whether the licensee had applied maximum effort to comply with the Technical Specifications.
The inspector determined that the licensee had technically performed the correct inspections to the maximum extent possible in an effort to comply with the inspection requirements.
The deviations came as a result of
o
-
the conflicting Technical Specification Change Requests previously sub-mitted to NRC. The inspector stated that he agreed with the inspection program based upon the technical review performed and that a Technical Specification Chang submittal would be appropriate.
No items of noncompliance with regulatory requirements were identified.
4.
Independent Inspection Effort a.
Meetings During the course of the inspection, the inspector attended various meetings with the NRC groups (referenced in paragraph 1 of this re-port) and attended the exit meeting held by each NRC group with the licensee at the conclusion of their visit on March 12 and 13,1980.
Results of these visits will be addressed by the NRC teams in letters to the licensee at a later date.
Certain items requiring physical, onsite inspections will be transmitted to NRC:RI for followup prior to completion of the current refueling outage.
b.
Plant Tour The inspector conducted a tour of accessible plant areas to observe the status and condition of plant systems and activities in progress.
Areas inspected included the Control Room, Reactor Building and the Drywell.
The following were observed and discussed:
Radiation controls;
--
Housekeeping, including attention to the elimination of fire
--
hazards; Fluid leaks of significance;
--
Condition of hangers and seismic restraints;
--
Equipment tagging;
--
Control Room manning; and,
--
--
Lighted annunciators in the Control Room.
'
.
-
s
,
During the drywell inspection, several items of concern were noted.
V-24-29, Reactor Water Sample Isolation Valve, flexible elec-
--
trical conduit was pulled from its packing gland on the solonoid actuator. The licensee was informed and stated that it would be repaired and a complete drywell inspection conducted prior to startup.
Limitorque actuators appreared to be properly sealed with elec-
--
trical conductors entering the actuator via flexible conduit.
Flexible conduit was attached to rigid conduit which ran from the 51' elevation to the 23' elevation.
On the 23' elevation, the cables exited the conduit into cable trays.
The end of the rigid conduit did not appear sealed, thereby, presenting a vapor leak-age path directly to the interior of the valve actuator in the event of a LOCA. The licensee stated that further examination would be required to determine if the conduit was sealed at the cable tray, the valve actuator or not at all.
The inspector informed the licensee that the above items must be resolved prior to drywell closure.
The above concerns were also communicated to the Systenatic Evaluation Program team leader.
This item is unresolved pending licensee action and subsequent NRC:RI inspection.
(219/80-09-01)
5.
Followup on Regional Request NRC Region I was advised by the Headquarters Duty Officer on March 12, 1980, that an anonymous caller had stated that a recirculation fan in the Oyster Creek drywell had disintegrated prior to the 1978 refueling outage and had not been repaired.
He also stated that the NRC:RI phone number given him by the licensee was incorrect.
The inspector questioned the licensee concerning the incorrect phone number and found that the licensee, in fact, did have the old NRC Form 3 posted which listed the old NRC:RI phone number.
The licensee stated that posted copies of the old NRC Form 3 had been hand corrected but were subsequently replaced due to their poor condition. Through an oversight, the hand corrections were not made on the newly posted Form 3's.
The licensee took immediate action to hand correct all posted forms and published the correct number in their daily news letter.
The inspector determined through l
l
.
s
--
,
additional phone calls that there is no formal distribution of new NRC Form 3's to the licensee as they become revised. The inspector forwarded the lastest revision of NRC Form 3 to the licensee for posting.
The inspector checked drywell fans during the drywell tour. No fans were without fan blades.
Further discussion with the licensee revealed that one drywell fan had been a problem prior to the 1978 outage because of excessive vibration. The licensee stated that repairs had been effected during the 1978 outage but had been temporary in nature.
Restrictions were placed on running time of the subject fan during 1979 operations.
The Job Order (J0) used for recirculation fan repairs during the 1978
outage could not be located by the inspector.
The licensee was asked to obtain a copy of the J0 for the inspector's review.
This was not accomp-lished prior to completion of the inspection on March 14, 1980.
This item is unresolved pending location of the JO and subsequent NRC:RI review.
(219/80-09-02)
6.
Unresolved Items Ur. resolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. The unre']lved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragrat/ s 4.b and 5.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 14, 1980.
The inspector summarized the findings, purpose, and scope of the inspection.
The licensee acknow-ledged the inspector's findings.
!
.
.
.
,
-
-