ML20107A719
Text
'
e o
UNITED ST ATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIRECTOR ATE OF REGULATORY OPER ATIONS REGION 1 l,j g'
63t PARK AVENUE KING OF PRUS$1 A, PENNSYLVANI A 19406 4 $73 OCT D..L. Caphton, Senior Reactor Inspector, Facility Operations Branch Directorate of Regulatory Operations, Region I RO Inspection Report No. 50-219/73-13 Oyster Creek This inspection was routine and of limited scope, as well as my first inspection effort at a newly assigned facility. A violation related to Core Spray valve operability, testing, a safety item concerning portable survey instrument calibration frequency and general deficiencies in plant record keeping requirements and surveillance testing were identified. The following items are closed out in this report.
(1) Fuel Densification - The licensee responded to the Order of August 24th in a timely fashion by reducing power. Although no limits were exceeded, assurance of calculation accuracy (full power distributions, tip traces, and computer run verification) was not provided until August 26-27.
(2) Fish Mortalities - The recent event could have been prevented.
Corrective action appeared appropriate.
(3) A0 73 Failure of No.1 Diesel Generator to start during surveillance testing.
(4) A0 73 High activity in excess of 10 Ci in outside waste surge t nks. The plant was within limits on Septe+ er 4, 1973.
An increase in radwaste handling capabilities is not in sight and this is an area of significant concern.
I have concerns in the following areas:
1.
There is no Assistant Plant Superintendent.
2.
'No progress has been made in obtaining a certified Health Physicist.
3.
Overlooking surveillance testing requirements and an inability to produce all test records indicated the internal audit and review system is not functioning properly.
9604150093 960213 PDR FOIA DEKO,K95-258 PDR u
---gp
. 1, 1
- [{
gs.4.
The ' fact' that CRD accumulator instrumentatica had not' been calibrated since 1968 was alarming.- An inspector should not have to be the
.one to point out such deficiercies.- I intend to pursue'TS require-ments for this' area. -QA' concerns.were discussed with the licensee'.
A review'of PORC minutes indicated the discovery and replacement of shock suppressors was not reviewed by PORC. A PORC review of the Ladditional 8 failures reported on August 6, 1973 was conducted.
(R0 Inspection Report 50-219/73-12).- The licensee informed me that no reports.had been submitted to'GORB, or the Manager of Generating
. Stations, as required for review and reporting requirements.-
As an overview, I feel that plant management was responsive, but lacks the personnel to effectively carry out their routine program.
fjud
. Edward G. Greenman Reactor Inspector I
J e
e f
I i
w
-