ML20108D001
Text
-
l
~,
l l
I b,%
ENCLOSURg 1
?% ll DESCRIPTION OF VIOIATIONS Jersey Central Power and Light Company Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Docket No. 50 219 License No. DPR-16 Certain activities under your license appear to be in violation of j;
i.
AEC requirements. These apparent violations are considered to be-of Category II severity.
i 1.
Technical Specification 3.3.C.1 states, "The average rate of reactor coolant temperature change during normal heatup and i
cooldown shall not exceed 100* F in any one hour period.
i contrary to the above, permanent chart records recorded over a one hour period indicated a recorded temperature change of j
1100 F and 120' F per hour for pump temperatures am selected for a September 25, 1974 cooldown following a reactor scram.
Additionally, wide range pressure indication for the some ML interval indicated a cooldown rate of 104* F per hour.
2.
Technical Specification 3.5.A.1 states in part, that " Primary contaiancat integrity shall be maintained at all times when the reactor is critical...except while performing low power l
physics tests...at power levels not to exceed 5 E t."
Contrary to the above:
h a.
Butterfly valve V-26-16 was found le=Har on April 9,1974 and not fully closed during a local leakrate test.
(JCP&L letter to DL dated April 19, 1974, Subject AD 74-25) b.
Cleanup System DC isolation valve V-16-14 failed to close on October 4, 1974.
(JCP&L letter to DL dated October 11, i
1974, Subject A0 74-50) '
)
3.
Technical Specification 4.5.F.I.2 states in part, "The follow-ing reactor coolant systems isolation valves shall be tested by I
an isolation signal during each refueling outage, and are re-
)
quired to close in the time specified... Main steam isolation i
,A valves > 3 seconds and < 10 seconds...."
-l i
8 i
i 9605070238 960213 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-258 PDR
~
j s
2-r~. c Contrary to the above, main steam isolation valve M8043 closed -
kbf-in 13.0 seconds during routine full closure surveillance coeducted July 14, 1974.
(JCP&L letter to DL dated July 23, 1974, subject AO~74-38) 4.
Technical Specification 3.5.3.1 states in part, " Secondary Con-tainment integrity shall be maintained at all times unless all of the following conditions are met."
Referenced conditions exclude reactor operation.
Contrary to the above, while performing secondary cone'ai== ant leak rate testing on November 8,1974, isolation valve V-28-4 did not fully close.
(JCP&L letter to DL dated November 18, 1974, 8thject A0 74-58) 5.
Technical specification 2.3.3 states the limiting safety system setting for the reactor high pressure, Scram shall be "< 1060 peig.
Contrary to this requirement during surveillance, trip failed to occur at the required setpoint setting as follows:
RE03D tripped at 1070 peig (JCF&L letter to DL dated July 18, 1974, Subj ect: A0 74-36) g 6.
Technical Specification 2.3.7 states the limiting safety system setting for the low pressure mainstream line NSIV closure shall be "< 850 peig."
Contrary to this requireasut during surveillance, trips failed l
to occur at the required setpoint as follows:
I a.
RE 23 A, B, C sad D (JCF&L letter to DL dated July 19, 1974, l
Subject A0 74-37) b.
RE 23 C and D (JCP&L letter to DL dated July 26, 1974, subject AD 74-41)
RE 23 A, B, C and D (JCP&L letter to DL dated August 2,1974, c.
Subject A0 74-42) 1 d.
RE 23 B (JCP&L letter to DL dated August 12, 1974, Subject 4
i AO 74-43.
o a
,.-...a
...-.,-.w_.__,.,..
l ',
~
6 -
i RE 23 A, B, C and D (JCP&L letter to DL dated Aurast 19, 1974, "p
e.
subject AD 74-44) -
f.
RE 23 A (JCP&L letter to DL dated October 4,1974, Su'oject AD 74-49)
RE 23 B anc C (JCP&L letter to DL dated October 11, 1974 g.
Subject A0 74-51)
)
h.
RE 23 A (JCE&L letter to DL dated October 21, 1974, Subj ect A0 74-52)
RE 23 A, B, C and D (JCP&L letter to DL dated November 11 i.
1974, subject A0 74-56) 7.
Technical Specification 2.3.4 states the limiting safety system setting for the reactor high pressure relief valve initiation shall be "1 1070 peig."
Contrary to this requirement, during surveillance trips failed to occur at the required setpoint as follows:
Inkg 1A83A,1A838,1A83C and 1A83E (JCP&L letter to DL dated i
July 23, 1974, Seject A0 74-39) i 1
h note that itens 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were reported to Regulatory
]
as indicated above. Your corrective measures were reviewed during i
this inspection. We have no further questions on these matters at this time.
4 i
l l
b t
I e
l 3
i
+
/
D. L. Caphton, Senior Reactor Inspector, Reactor Operations Branch i
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK (DN 50-219)
R0' INSPECTION 50-219/74-18 This was the first routine inspection I have personally conducted, in some time at this facility. I find the licensee improved in the fol-lowing areas:
1.
Housekeeping 2.
Staffing 3.
Resolution of chromated water storage Seven violations, (six reported by the licensee)aand one issue related to GORB auait availability on site were identified. The licensee is improving in performance slowly. Ntunerous switch drift problems were also reviewed during this inspection.
I feel that much work remains in the area of procedures, QA, and mainten-ance to provide acceptable performance. Based on these findings I do not foresee a significant change in enforcement history for at least another year.
I additionally anticipate problems in the following area based on dis-r.uasions with the JCP&L Staff.
1.
Fuel performance
- 2.. Operator Retraining h
d e rt
. Ed G man Rea or In ector 1
h 1