ML20154J825
| ML20154J825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1998 |
| From: | Eselgroth P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Mulligan M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| 50-219-98-03, 50-219-98-3, NUDOCS 9810160011 | |
| Download: ML20154J825 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000219/1998003
Text
__
- _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ - _ .
_ _ _.-..- _ _._- _--
_ _ ._.. _
s
.
.
I
October 7, 1998
,
,
1
,
!
Mr. Michael J. Mulligan
'
'
5420 Maltdie Court
.
Sugar Hill, GA 30518
1
!
Subject:
CONCERNS YOU RAISED TO THE NRC REGARDING OYSTER CREEK
INSPECTIONS
Dear Mr. Mulligan:
This letter refers to your concerns raised to Mr. V. Dricks on September 13,1998,in
which you expressed concerns related to Oyster Creek. You were concerned about the
thoroughness of NRC inspections as documented in NRC Integrated Inspection Report 50-
'
'
-219/98-03. We have carefully reviewed your letter and are providing feedback for your
consideration. However, if you still have concerns regarding NRC inspection activities at
. the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, please feel free to contact the inspector
'
General at:
.
Office of the Inspector General
'
D33 Two White Flint North
11545 Rockville Pike
l
Rockville, MD 20852-2738
The NRC continues to be concerned about plant transients, and plant and operator
responses at all nuclear facilities, including Oyster Creek. For the instances which
occurred recently at Oyster Creek, we performed follow-up inspections by three inspectors
'
(one a Region I specialist) over a two to three week period; this is typical for these types of
transients and plant events. The inspection report which you reviewed provides the :
summary results of the inspections which took place. Inspector assessments and
j.
- documentation that support the conclusions are not described in minute detail in the report,
due to attempts on our part to keep reports from being cumbersome and difficult to read.
.
Regarding your concerns with the fire protection program at Oyster Creek, problems have
been identified as you noted. However, these problems were offset by positive aspects of
the fire protection program, as noted in NRC Integrated Inspection Report 50-219/98-03,
f
and earlier reports. Therefore, we concluded that overall the fire protection program at
Oyster. Creek was good.
/
1
Our inspectors have reviewed the controlling procedures for starts of the main feedwater
pumps, and observed that plant operators complied with the restart requirements, which
are based on vendor recommendations. Additionally, we recently had another Region 1
4)
.
{
specialist inspector review the status of the electrical cables at the site, although the
inspection report has not been issued yet. Our inspectors have also verified that the
feedwater system is receiving the proper plant management attention, as required by the
l
NRC Maintenance Rule,
,
. OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
a -nc u
9810160011 901007
.
.PDR
ADOCK 05000219
H
4-
,__.
.
-
_.
-
-
-
. - -
--
..
-.
.-
.
,
!
Mr. M. Mulligan
2
l
Regarding your concerns with the recirculation pump trips, although the pump trips do not
significantly challenge plant operators, and they are not safety related components, we
i
have also verified that they are receiving proper management attention, as required by the
NRC Maintenance Rule.
J
Our resident inspectors and a Region I specialist reviewed the two emergency diesel
generator start failures you referred to. Please note that the failures were identified during
required surveillance testing, which is when failures like these should be identified. Also
note that at no time were both emergency diesel generators unavailable. Our inspectors
personally verified the troubleshooting, failed components, and corrective actions.
Emergency diesel generator start failures are rare, and none have occurred at Oyster Creek
since June. We have also verified that the emergency diesel generators are receiving
proper management attention, as required by the NRC Maintenance Rule.
Enclosed with this letter is a brochure entitled " Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC,"
'
which provides a description of the NRC process in these matters.
Thank you for notifying us of your concerns. Should you have any additional questions, or
if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me at 610-337-5234.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By:
Peter W. Eselgroth, Chief
Projects Branch 7
,
Division of Reactor Projects
l
Docket No. 50-219
i
l
i
l
l
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
'
.-
.. . .
- . - . . - . . . - . - - - ._ ... _ - ...-
. _ ..-.- - - ... _ . _ . - . . - _ _ .
. . .
_
'
- ~
.
!
Mr. M. Mulligan
3
Distribution:
Region l Docliet Room (w/ concurrences)
Nuclear Safety information Center (NSIC)
PUBLIC
P. Eselgroth, DRP
' N. Perry, DRP
C. O'Daniell,' DRP.
D. Vito, ORA
D. Screnci, ORA
.
I
!
l
l
l
l
l
' - DOCUMENT NAME: G:/
v2,
h,. .
,y .e m.
n. ws
in
nox: c - copy wimout.it hm.nu.noi
r.
e - copy with .ti. chm.nt/.ncio.or.
n-
\\
,
?
n.
ov
OFFICE
ORA
,j
lC ORA
(
lC DRP:RPB7.
lg
DRPjRPB,7
l
l
l
NAME
DVito
&/
DScrenci %
NPerryW
h
DATE
10/ & /98 l
10/ & /91 7
10/ g /98
10/ g /98
'
'
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\BRANCW.7MMAG8GBREMM- h
l: ' To t.o.iv. A c.py of thi. docum.nt, Indic.t. In th. box: "C" = Copy without attachm.nt/.nclosur.
"E" = Copy with attachment /.nclosur.
"N"=
No copy -
(
OFFICE
lORA
l
ORA
l
DRP:RPB7
l
DRP:RPB7
l
l
NAME
DVito ~
DScrenci
NPerry
DATE
10/02/98
10/
/98
10/02/98
10/
/98
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
F
e
4
f
L
1
l
'
.
,
._.
-
. _ .
.
.
. .
. .
. ..-
-
..
. . _ _ _ .
_m..
. _ . _ _ . . _ _
- _ - _ . - - _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ _
_.__~-.m___
.
-
(
L'
,;
G Utuqk
{g '
UNITED STATES
i
g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
l
r,
j
REGloN I
j
475 ALLENDALE ROAD
-
KING oF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415
October 7, 1998
,
i
l
Mr. Michael J. Mulligan
5420 Maltdie Court
Sugar Hill, GA 30518
l
L
Subject:
CONCERNS YOU RAISED TO THE NRC REGARDING OYSTER CREEK
i
INSPECTIONS
l
. Dear Mr. Mulligan:
'This letter refers to your concerns raised to Mr. V. Dricks on September 13,1998, in
L
which you expressed concerns related to Oyster Creek. You were concerned about the
L
thoroughness of NRC inspections as documented in NRC Integrated Inspection Report 50-
'
i
219/98-03. We have carefully reviewed your letter and are providing feedback for your
,
- consideration. However, if you still have concerns regarding NRC inspection activities at
the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, please feel free to contact the inspector
General at:
Office of the inspector General
!
D33 Two White Flint North
l
11545 Rockville Pike
'
Rockville, MD 20852-2738
The NRC continues to be concerned about plant transients, and plant and operator
responses at all nuclear facilities, including Oyster Creek. For the instances which
occurred recently at Oyster Creek, we performed follow-up inspections by three inspectors
(one a Region I specialist) over a two to three week period; this is typical for these types of
l
transients and plant events. The inspection report which you reviewed provides the
l
summary results of the inspections which took place. Inspector assessments and
' documentation that support the conclusions are not described in minuto detail in the report,
l
. due to_ attempts on our part to keep reports from being cumbersome and difficult to read.
Regarding your concerns with the fire protection program at Oyster Creek, problems have
,
been identified as you noted. However, these problems were offset by positive aspects of
L
the fire protection program, as noted in NRC Integrated Inspection Report 50 219/98-03,
l
and earlier reports. Therefore, we concluded that overall the fire protection program at
j
. Oyster Creek was good.
Our inspectors have reviewed the controlling procedures for starts of the main feedwater
-pumps, and observed that plant operators _ complied with the restart requirements, which
are based on vendor recommendations. Additionally, we recently had another Region i
specialist inspector review the status of the electrical cables at the site, although the
inspection report has not been issued yet. Our inspectors have also verified that the
l-
feedwater system is receiving the proper plant management attention, as required by the
l
NRC Maintenance Rule.
.
-
..
,
- - .
.
.
.
-
,
.
.. .. - . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
/
i
, , .
Mr. M. Mulligan
2
Regarding your concerns with the recirculation pump trips, although the pump trips do not
significantly challenge plant operators, and they are not safety related components, we
have also verified that they are receiving proper management attention, as required by the
NRC Maintenance Rule.
Our resident inspectors and a Region I specialist reviewed the two emergency diesel
.
generator start failures you referred to. Please note that the failures were identified during
required surveillance testing, which is when failures like these should be identified. Also
note that at no time were both emergency diesel generators unavailable. Our inspectors
personally verified the troubleshooting, failed components, and corrective actions.
Emergency diesel generator start failures are rare, and none have occurred at Oyster Creek
since June. We ' nave also verified that the emergency diesel generators are receiving
proper management attention, as required by the NRC Maintenance Rule.
Enclosed with this letter is a brochure entitled " Reporting Safety Concerns to the NRC,"
.
which provides a description of the NRC process in these matters.
Thank you for notifying us of your concerns. Should you have any additional questions, or
if the NRC can be of further assistance in this matter, please call me at 610-337-5234.
Sincerely,
.
Peter W. Es
roth, Chief
Projects Branch 7
Division of Reactor Projects
Docket No. 50-219
!
_