ML20106J821
See also: IR 05000363/1973006
Text
. ~ . . . . . . . . . .
-
- . ~ . - . . .
.-
- . -
-..
- - , , - - - ~ ~ - - . - - . ~ . . -
-
-
- . - ~ . - -
- - .
i
.
.
s
y
UNITED STATES
'
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
DI RE CTOR A TE OF' REG U LA TO R Y OPE R Af tO'
,4
REGION S
,
,,
l'
'
KING OF PRUSSI A. PENNSYLVANI A 194CM
631 PARK AVENUE
1
!
.i
" ' " " " " " " ~ ~ ~
T
Jersey Central Fewer and Light Company
$( ( 7 OOC"~
Attentimes Mr. I. R. Fimfrock, Jr.
i
(
C SCL C 9 9T'+ il
via precident
( e (i L C 0 9 4 .
.I
260 cherry mill need
'
(>e L C C O S:.
Parssypeer, new Jersey 0m4
..
( ' e (: ( C C. 9 0 ;. , n.
>
(; e U f'{.. O O _
I'
""""*""*'
1
( g (-
rae(4
-
i
g g f Q . O C C '~ (
Tkse refess to the saepeetism eseducted bj Mr. arewn
i
se Noveder 1-2, 1973 at the Kleekmer Works plant lo
1
"M
Germany relative to the fabrication of the Perbod Ri
!
I
pumps enthwrised by ABC License so. cypR-96 and to t'
l
j
our findings held by Mr.. Brous with the management r.
Elecheer, I3s and Combustion Eosimmering at the come
'
inspecties.
.
i
'
Areas arm-imad during this inspection are described
'
j
Operattees Inspecties Report which is emelesed with
Withis these armes, the inspection eensisted of sale.
of precedures and represamtative records, interviews
,
2
and observations by the inspector.
1
.
,
,
Within the scope of this inspecties, no violations e:
>
items were observed.
,
!
l
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the ABC's " Rules
!
.
Part 2, Title 10, code of Ptederal Regaistions, a cap;
i
I
1stter and the ==a1==ed i_ ,27 6 report will be pla
'
l
ABC's Public Docummat keen. If this report cournina
j
that you (or your contreeter) believe to be propriats
i
necessary that you make a writtaa applicaties within
j
l
this offies to withhold seek informatima from public
i
Any sasb appliasties smet imelade a fm11 statement of
_
__
,,
ressees se the basis of whiah it is elat==d that the
4
"
'
i
C G G C C C O C,C
is psoprietary, and should be prepared se that propri
'
'
( O 6 ( . L O W G V Cl.
information identified ta the appliesties is centaine
!
( 9CLC99(.
C C O 9 S'i. '(a
separate part of the document. If we de mot hear fre
( C(
this regard within the specified period, the report w
,
( 3 C C C (9 9 (- P (
pleeed in the Fe lia Document Room.
!
.
C( C( 0 9 6 L 'J 1
C SC C ( Seer E
ch
!
i
0 4. C L. C C C C L )
Q(\\
<
.. . .-
=
t
omer >
. CRESS...... ..
. . .&
.....,.I.7....
BROWN /J AA
CARh.SDN
O'REILLY/
....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'
suma= >
. .
. .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
u...
. . . . . . . .
.
DATE e
,
h,,
.I,,,,,,,,,,,
I
'
s AEC 388 tRev. 9 53) ABCM 0240
I
'
9604120004 960213
.
'
DEKOK95-250
_
-
-
.
e
.
i
.
e
,
.
J
.'
Iersey Central Power and
-2-
-
Light Company
.
I
Should you have say questions concerning this inrpection, we will be
pleased to discuss them with you.
,
Sincerely,
'
Robert T. Carlson, Chief
Faet14ty Construction and Engineering
Support Branch
,
l
,
'
Enclosure:
RO Inspection Report No. 50-363/73-06
'
bec:
R0 Chief, FS&EB (1 w/encls.)
f
RO:HQ (5 w/encls .)
l
DL (4 w/encls. plus 9 cys of Report only)
(
DR Central Files (1 w/encls.)
'
RS (3 w/encls.)
PDR (1 w/encle.)
Local PDR (1 w/encls.)
R0 Files (1 w/encls.)
)
,
NSIC ( 1 w/encls.)
DTIE (1 w/encls.)
State of New Jersey $7GI4 (1 w/encls.)
l
h
i
!
.
a
,
e,,,md.................
............
..................
..................
.................
.................
.
_................
4......._......... ............
'
$URNAME)
.................
.................
,
DATL>lF..................-.................................,.................,,.................,........._.
im-m .a s i
,
Form AEC-318 (Rev. 9-53) AECM 0240
. v s oo, s == we=v ,=.e.v,.m arr c a
.
-
.-
.
i.
.
._
. ;
. e
.
.
,
..
.
'
U. S. ATOFTIC ENERGY COMMISSION'
DIRECTO.
OF REGUIATORY OPERATIONS
'j
REGION ',
'
'
,
<, ,,
'
s.#
R0 Inspection. Report No.:
50-219/ 73-18
Docket No. 0-219
Licensee:
Jersey ' Central Power and Light Company
License No. : DPR-16
Madison' Avenue at Punch Bowl Road
Priority:
'
Morristown, New Jersey
Category:
C
.
e
Location:
Oyster Creek, Forked River, New Jersey
Type of Licensee: BWR (G.L.) 1930 MW( t)
Type of Inspection: Management Meeting
November 5, 1973-
Dates of Inspection:
Dates of Previous Inspection: October 1, 1973
///17[7)
-
Reporting Inspector:,,
5
f"" ^'_
_
__neactor
.
u.
u s ccmuau , acuuuvi umpeu cu t ,
Date'
Operations Branch
i
j
J. G. Davis, Deputy Director for Field Operations
Reactor Operatbns
J . P. O' Reilly , Director RO:I
Date
Participants:
E. J. Brunner, Chief, Reactor Operations Branch
t'
R. T. Carlson, Chief Construction Branch
,
D. L. Caphton, Sr. Reactor Inspector,
Date
Reactor Operations Branch
y
.
Reviewed By:
,Aa
//
O
D.' L. Caphton, ' Senior Reactor Inspector, Reactor
Date
,
Operations Branch
,
0
,
,
_
,
t
4
. - . .
.
-
.
-
.
.
'C
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
,
Enforcement Action
Not Applicable
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items
- -
Not applicable
,
Design Changes
Not Applicable
Unusual Occurrences
Not Applicable
Other Significant Findings
Not applicable
Management Inte rview
of the General Public UtilitiesA management meeting was held on Nove
Company (JCP&L) . The following were present:(CPU) and the Jersey Central P
esentatives
GPU
pas)
W. G. Kuhns, President, GPU
H. DieCamp, Executive Vice President, CPU
JCP&L
S. Bartnoff, President, JCP&L
Mr. I. Finfrock, Vice President of Power Generation
Mr. D. Ross, Manager Nuclear Generating Stations
Directorate of Regulatory Operations
J. G. Davis, Deputy Director for Field Operations
J. P. O'Reilly, Director RO:I
, RO:HQ
E. J. Brunner, Chief, Reactor Operations Branch
R. T. Carlson, Chief, Construction Branch, RO:I
, RO: I
E. G. Greenman, Reactor Inspector, Reactor Opera
ranch
nch
Items discussed are summarized below:
A.
Gene ral
Director, Region I and included a discussion of the
.
r. 3. P. O' Reilly ,
erformance of the
- -
-
A>har
e-4
A
+h+
.
,4w4,
i8,.M
- q
4
y
__i__a
.,
J
a.J
-
ad e
d-f
.5
.a
+e=
.
b
..
7-
2-
1
-
'JCP&L Oyster Creek plant; including (1) enforcement history ,
'(2) observed deficiencies in the management controls system, (3)
the status of the QA program for the operational phase,- (4) RO concerns
resulting,frou ou'r augmented inspection program; (5) facility staffing
' , ' .
requirements, and '(6) comments related to the licensee's Security
%l
Program.
B.
Overview of Licensee Performance
Licensee representatives were apprised of a Regulatory . Operations concern
regarding generally inadequate performance in all areas of operations as
!
recently ' inspected and were informed of the significant number of deficiencie.-
which had all been incorporated into the public record subsequent to
a previous management meeting. *
A licensee representative stated that the collective significance
was understood and that examination of individual deficiencies could be
deferred. (Report Details , Paragraph 1.d)
C.
Security Program
' Items - related. to the licensee's Security Program, results of a
recent security inspection, and recent changes were discussed in
detail. , Licensee representatives noted that f acility security had
not been discussed at the previous management meeting (April 23, 1973).
,
l
4Aq
D.
Facility Staffing
Licensee representatives were asked to provide information regarding
progress which had been made concerning organization and staffing of
the Oyster Creek site.
- A licensee representative stated that the area of staffing had received
considerable management attention. A current organizational chart was
reviewed in detail. (Report Details, Paragraph 1)
E. - Radiation Protection
.
Recent additions to the Health Physics staff and personnel
i
qualifications were discussed in detail.
A lit .isee representative stated that - the new Radiation Protection
Superyxsor is presently at the site and attending all Plant Operations
. Review Committee (PORC) meetings.
.FJ Qualtv Assurance Program
The' Quality Assurance Program status was discussed.
A
licensee representative stated that the program had been submittqd to
!
the Directorate of Licensing, and that the required QA pyocedures
were being written and would be implemented 'when written.
'
- RO Inspection Report 50-219/73-08 dated June 12, 1973
.
.
,
,
.
l
-.
Ed .
-3-
Licensee = representatives were informed that an RO:I recommendation
for a full term operating license would not be made until the QA
program for operations was implemented. (Re ort Details.
-
Paragraph 2)
s
.
"'-
G.
Plant Procedures
-
Licensee representatives were informed that plant procedures must
meet . requirements as specified in ANS 3.2 and Regulatory Guide l'.33 for a
full term operating license. Licensee representatives were further
advised as to the magnitude of this ' workload anl an apparent. need'
for GPU assistance in this' area. (Report De cails , Paragraph 3)
.
M
1
1
i
l
l
'
'
i
.- .
.
.
.
..
~ . .
. -
. -
-
.
.
..
.
!
.o
i
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
2
. Mr. W. G. Kuhns, President - General Public Utilities (GPU)
.
!
Mr. H. DieCamp, Executive Vice President, GPU
g/
Dr.- S. Bartnoff, President - Jersey Central Power and Light Company (JCP&L)
4
Mr. I. R. Finfrock, Vice President of Power Generation
'
Mr. D. A. Ross , Manager Nuclear Generating Stations - JCP&L
2.
Administration and Organization
a.
Operational Performance (Management Control)
At the conclusion of a prior management meeting held April 24,
i
1973 the licensee agreed that priority attention would be given
to the organization and staffing of the site, to problems that
affect audits of site activity,. to factors that affect workers
performance, and to expediting the development and implementation
of the Quality Assurance Program for Operations.
.
Since this meeting JCP&L performance had been as follows:
1.
The plant has experienced 22 Abnormal Occurrences.
2. . Further, repetitive failures continue to occur,
i.e.,
MSIV leakage, isolation condenser valve failure, and
excess activity in outside radwaste storage tanks.
OAb4
3.
Prior commitments concerning the QA program were not and
'
have not been met.
,
1
4.
Significant impetus concerning staffing had not been in
evidence nor had an Assistant Station Superintendent been
I-
assigned.
.
5.
A number of items as identified during the augmented inspection
i
program are attributed to inadequate management control at the
facility,
i.e.,
failure of GORB to conduct audits as required,
'
failure of PORC to review personnel overexposures, failure
of the management control system to assure the adequacyjof
the radiation protection staffing.
l
b.
Assis tant Station Superintendent
<
During an inspecticn ecuducted July 5-7, 10, 12-19, 1972, RO:I
,
- -
was informed that JCP&L planned to create a new position of
Assistant Station Superintendent. During a subsequent inspection
,
November 9-10, 12-13, 20;- and December 7-8, 1972, RO:I was informed
I
that this position was filled and subsequently vacated as a result
.
of JCP&L promotions from within.
This area was further discuased
at the management meeting held April 24, 1973. Resulgs of recent
inspections had indicated that the position was still vacant.
1
l
1
-
.
.~
_
..
--
~.
.
. .
-
. - - .
.y
'!
- V
,
-5-
n
'l
..
Discussions with licensee ' representatives indicated that the
vacant position of Chief Engineer has been filled by' a promotion
l
from within. Ihis position provides additional management
,-
support to the Station Superintendent.
i.
c. . Radiation Protection Supervisor
Licensee representatives stated 'that the Radiation Protection ~
Supervisor has been on site for approximately three weeks (October 15,
1973),.and is now attending all PORC meetings. According to
licensee representatives the Radiation Protection Supervisor
will be certified as a Health Physicist.
d.
Radiation Protection' Foreman
Licensee representatives stated that an additional Radiation
Protection Foreman had been hired cad would be on site November 5,
1973.
3.
Quality Assurance Program for Operations
,
a .- Program Development
1.
Meeting held October 13, 1972 at RO:I, Jewark, New Jersey to
discuss QA for Operations with JCP&L personnel.
sg
2.
RO:I letter dated November 8,1972 referencing JCP&L commitment
l
based upon October 13, 1972 meeting and a conversation between
j
the assigned inspector and JCP&L on October 24, 1972 that
<
"the Quality Assurance Plan will be approved and issued by
November 15, 1972 and that detailed implementing procedures
required by your QA plan will be issued by January 15, 1973
and all aspects fully implemented by March 31, 1973".
l
3.
Telephone call to RO:I from JCP&L on November 14, 1972
stating that JCP&L was unable to meet the commitment
referenced in our November G, 1972 letter.
,
l
4.
Telephone call from RO:I to JCP&L on December 8,1972.
Mr.-
,
I. R. Finfrock stated that the plan would be completed December 15,
'
1972.
5.
QA Plan (Not program) was issued by JCP&L on January 15, 1973.
j
6.
A Directorate of Licensing meeting was held April 13, 1973 (FSAR).
JCP&L did not provide a commitment for a date when procedures
would be completed.
'
4
h
.
$
Q
.e
. . , ,
,
. - - . ~
, --
, .
--n,,w.,.,-c,
w--
.-
,
.
-
,
'
.
-6-
7.
The Directorate of Licensing issued a letter July 3,1973
requesting a response to enclosed questions (predominately
QA) by August 24, 1973.
JCP&L did not meet the response
requirements with DL.
'
8.
A Directorate of Licensing Meeting was held September 5,
1973 (Q A) . JCP&L committed to submit a plan to answer
DL questions of July 3,1973 by October 5,1973.
This
submittal had not been made by October 29, 1973.
9.
A Directorate of Licensing meeting is scheduled for
November 13, 1973 to discuss the JCP&L response to DL
questions of July 3,1973.
Licensee representatives were informed that an inability
to meet prior committments was attributed to staffing
deficiencies,
b.
Progtam Status
Discussions with licensee representatives indicated that
a
program submittal had been made to the Directorate of Licensing.
According to licensee representatives QA procedure preparation
is under way and when procedures are written they will be implemented.
4.
Facility Procedures
NE
Licensee representatives were informed that requirements of ANS 3.2 and
Regulatory Guide 1.33 were applicable to Oyster Creek procedures and
that it appeared that substantial effort would be necessary to
upgrade facility procedures in accordance with these requirements.
5.
Reactivity Control and Core Physics
A recent inspection conducted August 28-29, 1973 indicated that a
surveillance procedure had not been prepared for calibration of
pressure and level switches associated with CRD units and providing
an alarm condition or actuation, in the control room.
Further, the
last calibration of these units was performed November 7,1968.
Deficiencies of this type reflected apparent inadequacies in the
management audit and review process and had not been disclosed by
the audit system.
No assurance had been provided with respect to
other surveillance matters which also could be overlooked,
f
,
..
6
-7-
6.
Other Engineered Safeguards
Hydraulic Shock and Sway Arrestor Failures
A review of PORC meeting minutes covering the period of the Spring
1973 refueling outage indicated that significant failures of shock
and sway arrestor units were not reviewed by PORC and their replace-
ment was treated as a routine maintenance item. PORC records
failed to indicate any discussion or PORC involvement in this
significant occurrence until subsequent failures were identified on
July 22, 1973. The failure to report this event, or provide review
by PORC and GORB was a serious failure, attributed to deficiencies
in the management control system.
7.
Electrical Systems *
a.
Diesel Generator Testing
A review of the procedures used to conduct surveillance testing
of diesel generator units during the RO inspection of September 10-
12, and the R0 Investigation conducted October 16, 1973 indicated
that JCP&L probably was aware of the diesel generator alarm
function following a fast start actuation.
Further, routinely
conducted surveillance tests were completed such that the
circuitry problem was effectively invalidated and thus
presented a faulty indication of actual conditions.
b.
Power Loss of September 8,1973
gg
The power loss caused by incorrect settings of the "C" Phase
differential monitoring relays (Banks 5 and 6) was avoidable
and related to deficiencies identified in the implementation
of the licensee's Quality Assurance Program.
l
Relay testing was performed without benefit of written procedure
and appropriato check off lists and with no subsequent inspection
of the test activity. The test itself involved moving a tap
position from its operating mode to a position for testing in
which plant safety could be compromised.
8.
Radiation Protection
)
a.
Radiation Safety Program
An R0 inspection conducted September 5-7, 1973 disclosed
- RO Inspection Report 50-219/73-15 dated October 26, 1973
.
f
.
.
o
-8-
operational conditions that are not indicative of a good
radiation safety program and resulted in six (6) violations
and one (1) safety item with multi-facets.
The predoninate
cause of the poor Radiation Safety Program wa. o lack of
management control. In the six month interval since JCP&L
committed to take action in this area of staffing only one
,
employee had been hired (assistant radiation technician) .
Licensee representatives described on November 5 the recent staff addition
in detail.
b.
Unplanned and Uncontrolled Release to the Discharge Canal *
Review of a recent licensee report dated October 31, 1973
indicated that activated material was permitted to remain
in the RBCCW sys tem such that a subsequent leak in an RBCCW
heat exchanger resulted in an uncontrolled and unplanned release
from the site via the service water system and discharge canal.
10 CFR 20 limits were not exceeded.
Removal of the activity
from the cooling water system was not initiated by the licensee.
The handling of this occurrence considering the leak magnitude,
and a total time interval in excess of one month indicated a lack
of management control.
9.
Environmental _ Programs
on March 7,1973, the licensee stated that a copy of analytical and
quality control procedures from Teledyne Isotopes (licensee consultant)
34,*
would be furnished to the inspector. On October 1,1973 a similar
commitment was made but to date these procedures have not been
s ubmi t ted .
On October 1,1973, the licensee stated that a copy of the Oyster
Creek Emergency Plan and procedures would be furnished to the
inspector within 2 weeks. As of this date neither the plan or any
related procedures have been submitted.
The inspection of October 1,1973 revealed that outdated environmental
programs were being maintained pending the submission of Environmental
'
Technical Specifications scheduled for November 1,1973.
Licensee representatives stated on November 5 that an Environmental Group
was being established under the control of the JCP&L President.
- Abnormal Occurrence No. 73-29 dated November 5,1973 (Preliminary Report
t
l