ML20107E998
See also: IR 05000219/1975024
Text
'
-
.,
,
,
.
.
.
IEs1 Tcre 12
,
, (J:s 75) (Rev)
i
,
.
.
.
E S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
1
i
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCLMENT
.
REGION I
.-
.
,
.
50-219/75-24
_ Docket No:
50-219
'
IE Inspection Report No:
License Not
Jersey Central Power and Light Co.
I,1censee:
Madison Ave. at Punch Bowl Road
Priority:
C
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
Category:
/
Safeguards
Group:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
Imcation:
Forked River, New Jersey 06/31
f
i
Type of Licensee:
Routine
Type of Inspection:
October 30 and 31 and November 5, 1975
Dates of Inspection:
g
September 30, 197!
Dat s of Previous Inspection:.
/
[
"
'
M
DAIE
Reporting Inspector:
.
K. E. Plumlee, Reactor Inspector
None
__
AreEpanying Inspectors:
DATE
$
_
.
-g
DATE
3
'
.
._
DATE
.
.
Other Accomp:nying b sonnel:
None
DATE
N
//s
/
N .i
//(/74
_
9
Section
/ DATE
Reviewed By:
y
e
P."J. Knapp, Chief, %Adiation Support
-
o
i
.
.
I
(
i
i
9604220181 960213
l
DEKOK95-259
'ppy
t -
,.
..
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
'
gi
t.
Enforcement Action
A.
Items of Noncompliance
,
1.
Violations
None
2.
-Infractions
Contrary to requrements of 10 CFR 20.203(c)(2)(iii) and
a.
the Technical Specifications section 6.2.B.2, entrances
,
to a high radiation area were not maintained locked on
October 31 and November 5, 1975.
(Details, 4)
B.
Deviations
None
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items
.M
None applicable.
Design Changes
None applicable.
,
Unusual Occurrences
Pump motor overload trips in "A" train of stack gas monitor -
A.
(Details, 6.a)
Licensee's A0 Nos. 75-22 and 75-25.
Operation of stack gas sample train with no filter in the line -
B.
Licensee's A0 75-23.
(Details, 6.b)
Orifice valve failure on Standby Gas Treatment System - Licensee's
C.
A0 No. 75-28.
(Details, 7)
,
0
',
.
~,
.
-
.~
..
.-
..
.-
-2-
D.
liigh readings on two TLD badges.- (Details, 9.f)
-
4.
}
Other Significant Findings
A.
Current Findings
1.
Acceptable Areas
Inspection of work in progress, working conditions and equip-
ment, and sampling of the licensee's records did not identify
any noncompliance, deviation or unresolved item in the following
areas.
a.
Organization (Details, 3)
b.
Licensee audits (Details, 9.a)
c.
Discussions with management
(Details, 9.b)
d.
Training (Details, 9.c)
e.
Radiological protection procedures
(Details, 9.d)
f.
Instrumentation and equipment (Details, 9.e)
g.
Personnel dosimetry
(Details, 9.f)
2.
Unresolved Items
-Licensec's estimates of the types and quantities of radio-
a.
Ydb6
active materials shipped in radwaste drums.
(Details, 10.a)
j
3.
Infractions and Deficiencies Identified by Licensee
a.
AO's 75-22 and 75-25
1
Noncompliances with Technical Specifications section 3.6.A.3
'
requirements for continuous stack gas monitoring.
(Details 6)
B.
Status of Previously Unresolved Items
None
l
Management Interview
Management interviews were held at the site on October 31 and November 5,
1975.
.
'
.
y
'
.-
-
.
.
.
.
-
-
.
-
-- -
..
.
. . .
,
-3-
.
Persons Present
J. Carroll, Plant Superintendent
.Tl.~.
E. Growney, Technical Engineer (October 31 only)
'
D. Ross, Manager, Generating Stations
Nuclear (by telephone intercom
on October 31, and present November 5)
E. Scalsky, Radiation Protection Supervisor
J. Sullivan, Operations Engineer (November 5 only)
R. Swift,~ Maintenance Engineer (November 5 only)
The following items were discussed.
A.
Scope of the Inspection
The inspector pointed out that this was a routine inspection of
.t
'
radiological protection during reactor operation, unusual occurrences,
and radwaste shipments.
3
B.
Items of Noncompliance
!
The inspector stated that four high radiation area entrances had
,
J
been found unlocked on October 31 and one of them was again found
unlocked on November 5. 'The inspector stated all personnel onsite
should know to maintain such doors locked, particularly if entrusted
MMM
with keys.
(Details, 4)
The requirements of 10 CFR 19 were discussed.
(Details, 5)
C.
Unusual Occurrences
The inspector stated on October 31 that he was concerned that the
stack gas sample line was not tagged or somehow clearly shown to
J'
need servicing before use.
(Details, 6.b)
, .:)
The inspector asked the licensee's personnel if any other equipment
was not tagged to identify any servicing, repairs or clearance
necessary before use?
The licensee stated that all such equipment was tagged to show its
,
status except for this one example.
Reinspection on November 5 showed that tags had by then been placed
The inspector stated that the problem was resolved.
on this equipment.
'
,
]
-
e
,
,
-
- - - - -
.
5
-4-
>
D.
Radwaste Shipments
y
The_ inspection of radwaste shipments was discussed. The inspector
.c
stated that he understood that the licensee's determination of the
quantity of radioactivity shipped would be better documented, and
pending such information, the licensee's' values were an unresolved
item.
(Details, 10)
,, l
.
4
.
'l
'
.
e
-
.
__
_
._ ,.
.
'
.
t
DETAILS
1,
Persons Contacted
D. Arbach, Radiation Protection Foreman
J. Carroll, Plant Superintendent
N. Cole, Shift Operating Foreman
J. Cook, Radiation Protection Foreman
E. Growney, Technical Engineer
R. Heffner, Engineering Assistant
D. Kaulback, Radiation Protection Foreman
J. Knubel, Training Supervisor
B. Mays, Operating Foreman
M. Obersted, Radiation Protection Technician
D. Reeves, Chief Engineer
D. Ross, Manager, Generating Stations - Nuclear
E. Scalcky, Radiation Protection Supervisor
W. Spoulos, Station Helper Foreman
J. Sullivan, Jr., Operations Engineer
R. Swift, Maintenance Engineer
2.
Reactor Status
The reactor was operating at about 86% power with a stack release
rate of 6,400 uCi/sec.
j,3g
3.
Radiation Protection Staffing
Discussion indicated that a request for a technical specification
change was submitted, but has not yet been issued by Licensing, which
would change the Radiation Protection Supervisor's title to Health
Changes in staffing since November, 1974 (Inspection
Physicist.
Report No. 50-219/74-17) included the addition of an Engineering
Assistant reporting to the Supervisor, and two Radiation Protection
The organization is as follows (not including the
Technicians.
Engineering Assistant):
Plant Superintendent
Radiation Protection Supervisor
Five Foremen, including;
Three Health Physics Foreman, directing eight Radiation
Technicians and four Assistant Radiation Technicians
Two General Foremen, directing fifteen Station Helpers
,
$
. .
.
,
-6-
.
The staffing . organization and qualifications appear to meet.
3 3
d;
requirements.
4.
Condenser Room Entrances
A tour of the facility on October 30, 1975 identified four entrances
to the~ condenser room that were not secured,'and also that the lock
had been removed from one door making it impossible to lockLat that
-
'
' time even though these entrances were posted as high radiation area
entrances.
Inspection at 5:30 P.M. on October 31 showedLthat one entrance still
could not be locked butlthe licensee stat'ed that the job.would be
finished promptly.
Although the licensee had sent a man to check the doors at 11:00 A.M.,
inspection at 3:00 P.M. on November 5, 1975 showed that one entrance
was held open by an improperly placed receptacle for protective
clothing. The licensee immediately closed and locked the door.
No
other control and no surveillance was evident.
A tour indicated that exposure up to 1,250 millirems per hour was
accessible to an individual standing on the floor or standing on pipes
ggg
near the steam separators in the condenser room, and as a consequence,
that the licensee was required to maintain the entrances locked or
controlled or under surveillance in compliance with 10 CFR 20.203(c)
(2)(111) and Technical Specification 6.2.B.2.
The inspector requested an explanation on November 5,1975 (during
Management Interview) of the failure to keep these doors locked.
-
The licensee stated that the individual who blocked the door open
on November 5 had been identified and shown to have been out when
instructions on doors were reemphasized earlier in the week but he
had now been reinstructed on this matter.
The inspector identified the licensee's failure to maintain these
. entrances locked as an item of noncompliance, as is stated.under-
Enforcement Items in the Summary section of this report.
,
0
.:'
.,
8 Y
$
I
~
i
..
.
-7-
5.
Requirements Pursuant to 10 CFR 19
a.
Non-Current Items
',0 ;
Inspection of the licensee's compliance with requirements of
10 CFR 19 indicated that the following posted and referenced
material was not current.
Before the completion of the inspec-
tion the licensee replaced this material with information dated
April 30, 1975. The current material included information not
shown by the older documents (example: 10 CFR 19.32 Discrimination
Prohibited) as well as being identified as NRC instead of AEC
At least five supplements involving 48 page changes
documents.
to these documents were issued following April, 1973.
Issue Date
Issue Date
Item Found
of Item
of Replacement
AEC-3
(Not Checked)
April 30, 1975 (NRC-3)
April, 1973
April 30, 1975
April, 1973
April 30, 1975
b.
Location of Referenced Information Maintained to Meet
10 CFR 19.11 Requirements
ssA$
The referenced copies of the license, technical specifications
and operating procedures were kept in a vital area of the
facility. The inspector questioned the availability of this
information with respect to the availability indicated by
10 CFR 19.11, and conversely the feasibility of admitting people
to the vital area who request this information and otherwise
might not be allowed therein.
The licensee modified the posted sign to show that referenced
information was also available for examination at the Radiation
Protection Supervisor's office.
No other problems were identified.
Postponement of Meeting with Workers' Representative
c.
50-219/74-17 (in the Details, Paragraph 14)
Inspection Report No.
stated that a follow-up would be made on a question by a workers'
the
The workers' representative did not contact
representative.
inspector during this inspection and this item will be followed
up on a subsequent inspection.
F
$
-
_ - . . . .
- - . - - - . - _ ~ - . . - . .
- . . - - . - . .
.
- -
. ~
'
..
,
-
..
.
'
'
_g-
-
,
4
I.4
6.
Stack Gas Monitor System Problems
c
M?
Thermal Overload Protector trips
a.
-
-
The licensee reported three AO's, Nos. 75-06, 75-22, and 75-25
j
when on three occasions the "A" train stack monitor system pump
,
motor tripped off and interrupted monitoring contrary to technical
j
A0
specification 3.6.A.3 which requires continuous monitoring.50-219/74-17).
!
75-06 was reviewed previously (Inspection Report No.
.
'
The licensee's investigations showed in one case (No. 75-06)
4
-
that the pump oil was low, and later that the "A" pump motor
' , ,
drew more current than the "B" pump motor.
,
+
When inspected, the "B" train was operating and the "A" train
The "A" train was observed.
motor and pump were out for repairs.
,
<
to be tagged out of service.
This item
The licensee's. corrective action is not completed.
-
will be followed up on a subsequent inspection.
Inadvertent Use of a Stack Gas Sample Line That Contained No Filters
'b.
Follow-up to a previous inspection (Inspection Report No. 50-219/
i
-T4
75-18) was to verify that procedural corrections were made by
'-
the licensee following inadvertent use of a stack gas sample
line that contained no filters (A0 75-23).
'
,
The procedure (#1201) did not require tagging of the line
involved above even though no filters were to be installed until
i
it was used again. The procedure, if followed, would require a.
l
formal clearance to use that line.
.
e
1
"
This item was discussed in the management interview on October 31.
Inspection of physical equipment on November 5, 1975 verified
.
that this equipment had by then been tagged to show its. status.
,
1.l
No ccher problems were identified.
i
.
.
$
1
$
"
"
.,
_ _
- * *
-er-..
,
_.
.
.
_9_
7.
Standby Gas Treatment System Orifice Valve Failure
The licensee reported that a solenoid operated pilot valve failed
1: ;
'
and made one train of the strainby pss treatment system ingperable
4
(A0 75-28). The failure was thought to be found promptly because
of simultaneous failure of a fuse and a resulting trouble indication.
The valve was replaced and the system was satisfactorily tested.
Inspection indicated no recurrence of the problem.
Surveillance
test records appeared satisfactory.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this item.
8.
Standby Gas Treatment System Handhole Covers
Follow-up to Inspection Report No. 50-219/75-21 indicated that
PORC review has not been completed on proposed procedures for sur-
veillance of the Standby Gas Treatment System developed following
A0 75-18.
Inspection of the physical parte of the system showed that the hand-
hole covers were not marked "Do Not Remove" or " Keep Secured" to
show the required statua au might be done following the inadvertent
removal of covers as reported by A0 75-18.
Covers were not identified
$. 5
as to which hole each cover fits and although the covers appeared
unlikely to fall out, some of the latches were not engaged to the
full depth of the groove provided when inspected. The licensee
promptly engaged the latches fully.
The procedure involved above is an enforcement item from Inspection
No. 50-219/75-07 and further follow-up will be made on this item on
a subsequent inspection.
,
9.
Acceptable Arean
Inspec. tion of the following items did not identify any items of non-
compliance, deviations or unresolved items.
Inspection included
observation during tours of the f acility, discussions with personnel,
and sampling of records.
a.
Licensee's Audits
(1) General Office Review Board audits of Radiological Protection
activities. No records were available onsite when inspected.
This item will be followed up on a subsequent inspection.
f
f
h
- - - . -
.
-.
.- .- - .
.
. . -. .-- -
.
. - . .
..'
.
i
~
!
-10-
7
<
1
)
,(2) Licensee's' Audits of Services and Contractors
,
][$f
The licensee's auditing of TLD badge service was inspected.
!
No problem was identified.
!
.
i
I
b.
Initial Discussion with Management
1
Discussion included previous unresolved items, unusual occur-
-
i
renceo and reportable events. No problems were identified.
,
c.
Training
a
Records and examination papers for initial training of
t
(1)
!
each individual. These records were kept by a Radiation
-
Protection Foreman.
,
.
No problems were identified.
'
,
(2) Retraining. This item was postponed to a subsequent inspec-
tion because of absence or unavailability of the training
3
supervisor on each day of the inspection.
'
d.
Radiological Protection Procedures
dEMs
(1) Radiation Safety Manual, Third Edition, March 1975 (22 pages).
This manual is issued to each employee. No problem was
identified.
(2) Radiation Protection Procedures. The licensee is reviewing
and rewriting these procedures section by section.
Inspec-
tion showed that none of the recently revised material had
.
been inserted in the copies posted or distributed for use.
'
The licensee hopes to complete the review by December 31,
~'
1975.
t
1
This item will be followed up on a subsequent inspection.
i-
Licensee's Use of Instrumentation and Equipment
!
e.
~'
c
Inspection indicated that the constant air monitor (CAM) cali-
'
brations were not. included in the quarterly calfbration card
file used1for health physics instruments.
The licensee stated
that CAM. records are kept separate.at this time.
No problem was identified.
,
4
, .
i
e
=
u- ,
-
-
.
-
---
.
..
.
-11-
,
f.
Personnel Dosimetry
The use of portal monitors, TLD hadges and pocket dosimeters
'
was observed throughout the facility.
The badge service print-
out for all of 1975 up to September was inspected.
The licensee's
written evaluations of two high exposure badges were reviewed.
One badge was known to have been exposed or wet from being
dropped into the fuel storage pool. The other badge was un-
explained.
In both cases the assigned wearer's time and dose-
rates were accounted for and shown not to have exceeded 10 CFR 20 limits.
10. Licensee's Radwaste Shipments
a.
Observation of Shipments
The inspector observed the loading of solid radwaste drums, and
the pumping of liquid radwaste concentrate, into low specific
activity (LSA) shipping casks for shipment to burial sites.
The licensee's estimate of the number of curies contained in each
solid radwaste drum was based on a radiation reading at one foot
from the surface of the drum. A conversion chart was used to
convert that reading to an estimate of the radioactive content
34p@
of the drum.
.
The inspector requested an explanation of any self-shielding
allowance in this conversion because lack of such an allowance
would result in a significant underestimation of the radio-
active contents of heavily loaded drums.
The licensee stated that this matter would be evaluated, but the
details of the origin of the chart were not available during this
inspection.
The inspector stated that this item is unresolved, and further
information is needed to verify that the licensee's records of
radwaste meet 10 CFR 71.61 and 10 CFR 71.62(a)(4) requirements
for types and quantities of materials in shipments.
...,
.
-12-
.
.
11.
Turbine Building Exhaust Monitor
!
Means for monitoring of effluent discharge paths are required by
10 CFR 50, Appendix A, Criterion 64.
The licensee obtained assistance by a service organization to monitor
radioactive release through the turbine building ventilation exhaust,
which does not go to the reactor building stack.
The purpose of the
study is to determine any need for monitoring, or alternatively to
establish a justification for not monitoritig this release path.
Inspection of data indicated that 10 CFR 20 limits were not exceeded
during the period for which information was provided (February -
September, 1975). Further work was being done when inspected. The
resulting information will become available for inspection when
reported to the licensee.
There was no indication of how this work would apply to any postulated
accidents (a Criterion 65 condition).
The licensee stated that their study of the above matter is not yet
completed and will continue.
,
mht
This item will be followed up on a subsequent inspection.
.
0
$