IR 05000219/1986033
| ML20212H180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1986 |
| From: | Blough A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212H164 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-86-33, NUDOCS 8701210297 | |
| Download: ML20212H180 (3) | |
Text
,
__
__
__
--
'
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-219/86-33 Docket No.
50-219 License No.
DPR-16-Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
GPU Nuclear Corporation (
1 Upper Pond Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Facility name: Oye.ter Creek Nuclear Generating Station Inspection At: Forked River and Parsippany, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: October 29, 1986
Participating Inspectors:
W. H. Bateman, Senior Resident Inspector J. F. Wechselberger, Resident Inspector Approved by:
ff
/Z-/ T-fC A. R. BJef;gh, Chief Date Reactor Projects Section 1A Inspection Su.nmary:
This is a special report to document the. facts associated with the inadequate mounting of 80 of 137 hy.aulic control units (HCUs).
It also opens an A
unresolved item involving generic safety concerns that have resulted from this and similar findings.
e701210297 870113 PDR ADOCK 05000219 O
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Discussion of Issue In NRC Inspection Report 86-04, the inspectors questioned the licensee regarding the acceptability of certain HCU tube steel bottom support in-stallations. This was identified, along with several other problems in-volving HCU equipment deficiencies, as Open Item 219/86-04-03. The inspec-tor pointed out these deficiencies to a member of the Operations department during a tour of the HCus.
Subsequent to the tour, the plant representative identified the HCU mounting concern to Tech Functions. Tech Functions eventually undertook to investigate the concern and, after performing various calculations, concluded the small fillet welds used to connect the HCU tube steel to the steel plate bolted in place on the floor underneath each row of HCus were inadequate. They were inadequate in that it could not be demonstrated that they would, withstand the design basis seismic loading. As a result of this determination, the licensee issued Licensee Event Report 86-022 to satisfy NRC reporting requirements.
2.
NRC Concerns Several concerns arise from this issue:
--
The HCus, until recent rework during the 11R outage to correct the deficiency, never met original or current design basis criteria.
Based on the potential inoperability of the 80 HCUs after a seismic event, it appears the Technical Specification definition of operable could not be applied to the 80 HCUs.
From this it is concluded that the plant operated with 80 inoperable HCUs since 1969. This is a significant violation of the Technical Specifications.
The licensee never identified or questioned the deficient installa-
--
'
tions.
Based on the fact that 80 were improperly installed, it can be concluded that 57 were properly installed. There were marked, not subtle, differences between the correct and incorrect installa-tions. These differences were obvious enough that someone over the time frame of more than sixteen years should have questioned them.
Recent NRC inspections of licensee action to address NRC Bulletins
--
l 79-02, 79-14, and 80-11 have indicated many problems have existed i
since original plant construction. These many discrepancies, identi-i fled by GPUN follow-up action. to address the NRC concerns, were not self-identified and corrected prior to NRC involvement. The deficient l
installation of 80 HCUs is another example of the licensee's failure l
to self-identify existing problems. Collectively, these items repre-sent a pattern of failure to identify long-standing deficiencies in l
the plant. This reflects weaknesses in licensee management's efforts l
and programs to assure quality and safety.
l l
!
l l
,
,
-,
-
-
e
-
a
!
.
L One generic issue that results from these concerns is the potential inoperability lof safety-related equipment due to inadequate construction.
A second issue involves the failure of the licensee to self-identify and resolve these types of deficiencies. These two issues constitute an
. unresolved ithm pending licensee action to satisfactorily address them.
(219/86-33-01)
2.
Exit Interview The inspector summarized the results of this inspection at a meeting with licensee management on October 29, 1986. The licensee stated that, of the subjects discussed at the exit interview, no proprietary information was included.
4
'1 l
.
.. _..
_ _- _ _ _.,
.