IR 05000219/1990004
| ML20033H157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1990 |
| From: | Eapen P, Gregg H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033H156 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-90-04, 50-219-90-4, NUDOCS 9004180304 | |
| Download: ML20033H157 (5) | |
Text
-
_
.
v.
l*
!
.., -
'
..
U. S.-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No'. 50-219/90-04-
.
Docket No..
50-219 License No. DPR-16-
' Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation L
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station j
P. O. Box 388
) -
Forked River, New Jersey 08781 I
!
Facility: Name: ' Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
Inspection At:
Forked River and Parsippany, Inspection Conducted:
February 12-16, 1990 and March 6-9, 1990 Inspectors S.
6 D
.
rold Gregg, Senior Reactor Engineer date Approved by:
b.
O L (, /f d-Or. P. K. Eapen, Ghief, Special Test
'date Programs Section,.EB, DRS Inspection Summary:
Routine unannounced inspection on-February 12-16. 1990 and March 6-9, 1990 (Inspection Report 50-219/90-04)'.
,
]
Areas Inspected: Design, design changes and modifications, installation and testing of modifications, on site and corporate engineering interface;_ technical
,
support of site activities, engineering organization and its capability,- staffing
and management. support.
Results: No violations were identified. Design modifications and testing of modifications were appropriately performed.
Engineering and technical _ support-was effective.
i
-
I 9004180304 900409 PDR ADOCK 03000219
-
Q PDC
',
,
.
..
..
?
DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted
\\
A. Baig, Project Engineer
- J. Barton, Deputy Director DC G. Busch, Licensing. Manager C; Collado, Project Engineer G. Capodonno, Director Engineering and Design J. DeBlasio, Manager Plant: Engineering
- B. DeMerchant, Licensing Engineer
- T. Dempsey, Manager Plant Engineering R. Fenti, Manager Site QA-E. Fitzpatrick, VP/ Director DC
- V. Foglia, Manager Technical Functions OC L. Lammers, Plant Maintenance Director D. Leroy, Acting Superintendent Electrical Maintenance D. Miller, Project Engineer
- T. Quintenz, Plant Material Acting Director
- A. Rone, Plant Engineering Director H. Sharma, Plant Engineer L. Shreiber, Manager Startup and Test D. Slear, Plant Systems Director R. Stoudnour, Senior Engineer C. Tracy, Engineering Projects Director E. Woznicki, Plant Engineer U.S.NuclearReguiatoryCommission E. Collins, Senior Resident Inspector
- D. Lew, Resident Inspector 2.0 Scope The scope of the inspection was to review design modifications and.their installation and testing to assure that the requirements of the design change were satisfied and that required calculations and safety evalua-tions were included in the design modifications.
Cooperation between site and corporate engineering, interface between plant engineering and other site organizations, capabilities of the engineering organizations,.
staffing and management support of engineering were also assessed.
L.
3.0 Engineering and Technical Support 3.1 Design and Testing of Modification (37700 and 37828)
Selected completed, in process and planned design modifications were reviewed by the inspector.
Completed modifications included:
core spray test valve speed controller addition to prevent water' hammer, upgrade of
,
t
'
.
.3
"
the' stack radioactive gas effluent monitoring system, GE type A circuit breaker trip element replacements, alternate automatic control rod inser-tion to-satisfy the-ATWS rule, and the feedwater post scram level control'
system modification to automatically control-water level. variations and resulting-problems.
In each of the design changes the engineering was released far in advance of the outage with considerable corporate and site engineering interface with operations.
The modification package contained the necessary design inputs and were complete.
Competent in-house-
!
engineering with active participation in testing was also evident in these -
modifications.
The site engineering' _ involvement in expeditiously replacing the failed two
,
main transformers within-a few weeks was noteworthy. A creditable site initiated in process design project is the new state;of the art replacement J
refueling bridge for a problem prone existing bridge. - The inspector observed-the old refueling bridge tracks being removed and noted that.the work was=
being carefully performed in the attempt to save-the mounting studs.
The cooperation between the licensee's corporate engineering organization
. was key for the-timely Teedback to the level control system modification and the establishment of'an extremely effective post scram level control system.
Several corporate engineering projects were being developed with detailed
'
in-house engineering, to reduce radiation exposure.
Such projects reviewed.
by the _ inspector included.the proposed safety valve reduction modification, and the change to remotely monitor the reactor recirculation pump 1 vibration.
The licensee's pre-recorded video tape of the containment was used by the inspector to view several design modification areas.
The installation of a' new FW full flow venturi was prioritized to be completed during 13 R outage to resolve long standing licensee concerns and NRC questions regarding steamflow/feedflow mismatch. The new venturi will be installed upstream of the reactor vessel, at a location' free from
'
turbulent flow, to enable precise total flow measurement and accurate determination of core thermal power, and to correct-a past inadequacy.
The new venturi will also be flanged to facilitate accessibility for inspection and recalibration.
3.2 Design Basis Documents
!
The inspector reviewed the licensee's 1989 pilot program to perform self i
SSFIs and, to establish system design bases documents (DBD).
SSFIs were performed for the emergency power distribution system and the ADS which
"
resulted in numerous corrective action items. DBDs were completed for containment spray and ADS.
The pilot program determined that it is more
.
'1
.
-
<p i
'
,.
..
beneficial to complete DBDs prior to SSFIs.
There is an aggressive plan
!
in place and funded to perform DBDs in 1990, for circulating water, emergency
'
service water, standby gas / secondary containment, reactor coolant system, reactor protective system, and emergency power.
Completion _of at least one SSFI is also planned in 1990.
3.3 Site / Corporate Engineering Interface
,
The-licensee's recent emphasis on teamwork and improved communications
-
and interdepartmental cooperation is showing positive results.
The biweekly' engineering meetings alternately chaired by the corporate
_
engineering and design departments ~and the engineering project department i
are given widespread notification. Agenda items cover meaningful technical issues and work projects. These' meetings are well attended by-corporate and site engineering. Additional engineering and technical interfaces with operations were evident at the biweekly project status review meetings and the plan of the day meeting. An. increased level of communication between site and corporate system engineers was noticeable.
Also, rotational assignments between site-and corporate engineers and managers are encouraged and implemented.
These rotational assignments promoted'better cooperation between departments.
3.4 Drawing Control
.
The long standing problem area of drawing deficiencies has'shown marked improvement.
Newly instituted procedures have'resulted in better control
. of changes and markup attachments.
The licensee's resource' commitment to
'
the current upgrading plan has been a positive factor. The drawing
legibility program is proceeding'with priority revisions for the most needed drawing. Drawings of good legible quality were available for-each of the design modifications reviewed by the inspector.
3.5 Engineering Organization and Staffing The site plant engineering department provides the daily technical support to plant operations and maintenance.
Plant engineering ' unctions also include assistance to the chemistry program, spare parts specifications, operation experience assessments, problem investigation, emergency opera-tional support and design packages to support plant modifications as authorized by corporate and technical functions procedures. The plant
engineering staff consists of 42 people.
Another site organization that performs such engineering functions as environmental qualification and valve problem studies, is the plant materiel department.
The plant materiel staff consists of 27 technical personnel. Approximately 25% of.this staff are assigned to engineering'
support activities.
.
<
--.
-
-,.
,
,
-
l
=. -
,
.,,.
- -
3
-;
$
The corporate engineering technical'. functions division (Tech Function)
-
,
assures overall quality of. engineering and technical support provided i
to both licensee sites. 'The total corporate technical functions staff consists of-approximately 500 positions in various engineering groups'.
Engineering and design group.is responsible for the technical performance of components and systems in the plant and _ maintaining the technical basis-documents.
This responsibility includes. system design basis documentation, investigation of plant system and equipment failures, support of plant
.
outages and fire protection'end maintaining.the GPUN technicalLcapability.
l Engineering projects group manages major design 1 modifications and-additions to the plant and coordinates the modification activity from conception
_
through turnover.
The start-up and test group prepares lthe test plans-and performs the testing to assure the modification-is satisfactory prior to turn over to the plant. The staff of the engineering and design department.
consists of.104 positions devoted to nuclear work at both Oyster Creek and TMI-1. The engineering projects department devoted to Oyster Creek has 25 d
positions during normal operations and considerable ~ additional staffing-
~
for outage work.
Engineering projects also maintain a site staff of 5 people. The start up and test department also has 25 technical positions.
Technical functions staffing also-includes engineering services; design.
and drafting; systems engineering; equipment qualification and fire-
'
protection; and risk analysis groups.
3.6 Conclusions t
Both site and corporate engineering personnel-are competent and professional.
Staffing is adequate and the use of contract engineers is almost non existent. The engineering and technical support interface was found to be effective and good interdepartmental cooperation was observed among all organizations.
Progress is being made in reducing problem areas and management support of engineering is evident. The many design modification projects, the planned DBDs and SSFI are noted engineer-ing resource commitments at Oyster Creek.
t 4.0 Exit Meeting
,
The inspector met with the licensee's representative at _the conclusion of
-
the inspection on March 9, 1990 to summarize the findings of this inspection. Attendees at the exit meeting are listed in paragraph 1.0 of this_ report.
!.
During this inspection, the inspector did not provide any written material to the licensee. The licensee did not indicate that the inspection involved any proprietary information.
.
I
'
.
-