ML20213F134
| ML20213F134 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1986 |
| From: | Donohew J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Bernero R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8611140025 | |
| Download: ML20213F134 (18) | |
Text
(
, November 5, 1986 Docket No. 50-219 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, Director Division ef: B',lR Licensing THRU: John A. Zwolinski, Diretor BWR Project Directorate #1 Division of BWR Licensing - '
FROM: Jack N. Donohew, Jr. , ,
BWR Project Directorate #1 '#,
Division of BWR Licensing EUBJECT: DRAFT NRR INPUT FOR SALP FOR THE OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Enclosed is a draft NRR input for the SALP for Oyster Creek. This draft report is based partly upon input solicited from selected staff personnel who have had substantial involvement with licensing actions for Oyster Creek.
Please review the draft evaluation and provide any comments you feel appropriate. All comments received by.Hovember 7, 1986, will be considered in the final report. Please note that the licensee was evaluated to be a ,
Category 1 in the functional area of licensing activities.
i hJackD<1N.4Don Tl4 \
4, Jr. , Pro.iect Manager I_
+ BWR Project D rectorate #1 Division of BWR Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: H. Denton -
R. Vollmer .
DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC PDR JDonohew JZwolinski 8611140025 861105 ci---- PDR ADOCK 05000219
$ PDR OFC : DBL:BWD1 D :B W
- DBL:BWDY " : : : :
NAME :CJamer n :J :JZwolinski : : : :
DATE : / /86 40 /$/86 :0/ 6 /86 : : : :
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
. / 'o
'go UNITED STATES 8" - NUCLEAR REGULATOHY COMMISSION 3.'..
. . ,E wAsmuoTow. o. c. 20sss
% , , [, ,
- November 5, 1986 Docket No. 50-219 p6Og(
( , .{ s '
MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, Director Division of BWR Licensing 4 h 3 8 d[
THRU: John A. Zwolinski, Diretor p' BWR Project Directorate #1 4 0 Divisicn of BWR Licensing b FROM: Jack N. Donohew, Jr.
BWR Project Directorate #1 Division of BWR Licensing
SUBJECT:
DRAFT NRR INPUT FOR SALP FOR THE OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Enclosed is a draft NRR input for the SALP for Oyster Creek. This draft report is based partly upon input solicited from selected staff personnel who have had substantial involvement with licensing actions for Oyster Creek.
Please review the draft evaluation and provide any comments you feel appropriate. All comments received by November 7,1986, will be considered in the final report. Please note that the licensee was evaluated to be a Category 1 in the functional area of licensing activities.
\
j t N onohew,Jr.,h 'oject Manager BWR Project Directorate #1 (lDivisionofBWRLicensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: H. Denton R. Vollmer
,, .. . . - . . .x..w+.n~...-=.~.. .....?..
DOCKET NO. 50-219 FACILITY: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station LICENSEES: GPU Nuclear Corporation and Jersey Central Power & Light Ccepany 1
EVALUATION PERIOD: July 1, 1985 to October 15, 1986 PROJECT MANAr,ER: Jack H. Dor.ohew, Jr.
I. INTRnDUCTION This" report' contains NRR's input to the SALP review for Oyster Creek.
The assessment of the licensee's performance was conducted according to NRR Office Letter No. 44, NRR Inputs to SALP Process, dated January 3, 1984 This Office letter incorporates NRC Manaual Chapter 0516, Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance.
II. SUMMAFY NRC Manual Chapter 0516 specifies that each functional area evaluated will be assigned a performance category (Category 1, 2, or 3) based on a composite of a number of attributes. The perfo:Tance of CPC in'the functional areas of Licensing Activities, is Category 1.
III. CRITERIA The evaluation criteria used in this assessment are given in NRC Manual Chapter 0516 Appendix, Table 1, Evaluation Criteria with Attributes for Assessment of Licensee Performance.
IV. METHODOLOGY This evaluation represents the integrated imputs of the Operating Reactor Project Manager (ORPM) and those technical reviewers who expended significant amounts of effort on Oyster Creek licensing actions during the current rating period. Using the guidelines of NRC Manual Chapter 0516, the ORPM and each reviewer applied specific evaluation criteria to the relevent licensee performance attributes, as delineated in Chapter 0516, and assigned an overall rating category (1, 2 or 3) to each attribute. The reviewers included this information as part of each Safety Evaluation transmitted to Roiling Water Reactors Project Directorate #1 and ORB #5 in the fomer Division of Licensing. The ORPM, after reviewing the inputs of the technical reviewers, combined this
, infomation with a DBL assessment of licensee performance to arrive at a composite rating for the licensee. A written evaluation was then ,
l prepared by the ORPM and circulated to NRR management for consnents which
- were incorporated in the final draft.
l
. . ~ . __.._e_. _ ._.: ,
,,m The basis of this appraisal was the licensee's performance in support of licensing actions that were either completed or active during the current rating period. These actions, consisting of license amendment requests, exemption requests, relief requests, responses to generic letters TMI items, LER's, and other actions, are surunarized:
AMENDMENT RE00ESTS Bypass for "B" Isolation Condenser Hiah flow trip Two hours out of service - RPS surveillance Automatic Depressurization Syster operation Increase high drywell pressure setroint limit Appendir i to 10 CFR Part 50 Revise operability of RWL instrumentation for vessel isolation Cycle 119 restart without RF Cycle 11F' reload Revise containn'ent leak rate testing Generic Letter f3-36, MPA B-83 Technical Specifications (TS)
Changes to ISI/IST TS Accident nonitoring instrumentation requirements Post Accident Sampling TS Limitation on overtime D21ste channel check RWL instrumentation operability Operator staffing requirements in 50.54(m)(?)
Minimum volume in diesel generator standby fuel tank Two 17-volt battery cell configuration Rsvise Appendix B TS Modify LC0 on SGTS trains Rtvise instrument line flow check valve surveillance Administrative TS changes Withdrew request to revise combined leakage for penetrations Relax frequency of auditing fire protection program and 0A program D31ete drywgil suppression chamber differential pressure 2 -
Backup thermocouple to relief valve position indication Water purity TS Rractor coolant system leakage EXEMPTION REQUESTS Exemptions to Appendix R Additional Exemptions to Appendix R Exemption to 50.44(c)(3)(iii) - Isolation Condensers vents
. . .e e s -
REL1EF REQUESTS Dzferment of modifications from Cycle 11R outage Cancellation of replacement of containment purge / vent isolation valves Cancellation of modifications to torus for thermal mixing and local ouencher temperature monitoring SPDS implementation in Confirmatory Order Extension to Mark I Confirmatory Order Extenstion to Confirmatory Order on Control Room Habitability Cancell upgrade of nitrogen purge / vent system -- denied Cancell modification of pressure relief in SGTS duct Defer feedwater nozzle inspection from Cycle 11R outage Radiation signal not needed for containment purge / vent valve isolation --- denied Change to Confirmatory Order on recirculation loop interlock SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM Tornado missile damage Emergency isolation condensers Seismic design Design codes and standards Neutron monitoring isolation Battery status alarms Primary coolant radioactivity Discrepancy in drawings Supplement to Integrated Plant Safety Assess-ment Report Flooding potential and protection requirements Leakage detection systems Thermal overload protection Wind loads Turbine missiles Leakage detection Water purity Main stream isolation valve maintenance Remote manual valves Cross reference indexing system Emergency condenser logic testing RPS testing Ventilation systems TMI ITEMS Procedures generation package F-05 SPDS F-09 Inadequate core cooling instrumentation F-26 Technical Support Center F-63
.. ~- -. ~=u . - , .. v . :. - -
Operational Support Center F-64 Emergency Operations Center F-65 Meteorological data upgrade F-68 Control room habitability F-70 D: tailed control room design review F-71 P.PA ITEMS !
Reaulatory Guide 1.97 A-17 50.67 ATWS operating reactor reviews A-20 Appendix I to 10CFP Part 50 A-07 Equipment classification and vendor interface B-77, 86 Post maintenance testing F-78, 87 R: actor trip system B-93 Reactor functional testina B-92 Hydraulic snubbers B-17 Mechanical snubbers B-27 Long term containment purge and vent isolation P-24 Masonry wall design B-59 Safety concerns in BWR scram system B-65 Pcst maintenance testina B-79, 28 G:neric letter 83-36 B-83 Inspection of BWR stainless steel pipina B-84 P:st trip review B-85 Diesel generator reliability D-19 Mark I containment vacuum breakers D-20 PLANT SPECIFIC ITEMS POL /FTOL conversion Inservice testina Generic Letter 84-09 Main security building post accident shielding Lattice physics reload report Response to staff position on N2 purge /
vent system Revised control room habitability requirements Core spray sparger inspection in Cycle 11R outage Isolation condenser piping inspection in Cycle 11R outage R; circulation piping inspection in Cycle 11R outage l Long term corrective action on ESW piping Postulated HELB on isolation condenser
! piping penetrations
_ .. m ,y...._. _ _ -
4 Disposal of concrete i b
BWR steady state physics reload report Detailed control room design review ;
supplement '
Post conservative suppression pool temperature Schedule to modify drywell vacuum breakers Retyped Appendix A TS FES for POL /FTOL conversion Chances to approved alternate safe shutdown New maximum drywell temperature Delamination of coating from ESW piping Expanded Safety System Facility Scope change for recirculation loop interlock Justification for not revising 50.72/73 T5 Diesel generator testing information Inconsistency between PASS SE and licensee's submittals Diesel generator testing Update to FSAR Semiannual effluent release report Annual environmental operating report Safety Issues Management Systems (SIMS)
Emergency communication systems at site Resolution of requirements in Amendment 95 Changes to piping inpsections approved for GL 84-11 During the SALP rating period, there were 1?8 licensing actions under active review. Of these, 85 licensing actions (66%) were completed. These consisted of 53 plant-specific actions,13 multi-plant actions (MPA),11 Systematic EvaluationProgram(SEP) actions,and8TMI(NUREG-0737) actions. Plant-specific licensing actions include amendment requests, plant-specific evaluations, exemption requests and relief requests. There were 65 active licensing actions at the beginning of the SALP period; 70 licensing actions were initiated in the period and, therefore, only 50 active licensino actions remain at the end of the SALP period. Of these 50 actions, 12 are in concurrence to be issued soon.
The significant licensing actions completed in the SALP rating period include the following: three emergency technical specifications amendment requests, exemptions to Appendix R, alternate shutdown capability, deferment of SPDS implementation and of completion of Mark I containment confirmatory order to the cycle 12R outage, cancellation of replacement of contaiment purge / vent isolation valves, deferment of feedwater nozzle inspection to cycle 12R outage, Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) review, Detailed Control Room Design RGview (DCRDR), Safety Issues Management System (SIMS), retyped Appendix A Technical Specifications, high point vents on the Isolation Condensers, control r@om habitability, maximum drywell temperature, and the completion of four old MPAs (A-02, B-17, B-22 and B-24).
l
s . ,, ., ,s - . , s g. . . . -- . .. _ . ,
l V. ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTES - LICENSING ACTIVITIES FUNCTIONAL AREA The licensee's performance evaluation is based on a consideration of seven evaluation criteria given in the NRC Manual Chapter. For most of the licensing issues considered in this evaluation, only three of the evaluation criteria were of significance. Therefore, the composite rating is based mainly on the following evaluation criteria:
Management Involvement and Control in Assuring Ouality Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues from a Safety S~.andpoint
- Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives The remaining evaluation criteria of Reporting and Analysis of Reportable Events Enforcement History
- Staffing (Including Management)
- Training are addressed and a rating provided.
During this almost 16 month rating period Oyster Creek operated almost continuously from July 1, 1985 to April 123, 1986, except for the one month scheduled outage in October 1985. In April 1986, the plant was shut down for the Cycle 11 Refueling (Cycle 11R) outage. This was a major refueling, inspection and modification outage to complete major NRC
' mandated modifications. This work included Appendix R modifications, a series of activities to enhance the ability of the plant to be less susceptible to intergranular stress corrosion cracking and work in the control room.
A. Manaaement involvement and Control in Assuring Ouality In this rating period, licensing activity has been at a very high level. Of 128 active licensing actions, 85 or 66% were resolved and issued in this rating period. In addition to the routine plant-specific actions, there were 11 SEP,13 MPA and 8 TMI actions resolved.
Therefore, there remains only 3 TMI, 10 SEP and 12 MPA actions to be completed. The major licensing actions completed in this period are the following: alternate shutdown capability, exemptions to Appendix R, SPDS design, DCRDR review, defements from the Cycle 11R outage, masonry wall design, control room habitability, high point vents on the Isolation Condensers, SIMS, retyped Appendix A Technical Specifications and the maximum drywell temperature. The licensee also voluntarily participated in a meeting on Generic Issue 77 to assist the staff.
The licensee has been very aggressive in meetings with NRR on a monthly basis to discuss all active licensing actions including priorities and future licensee submittals. As expected, the higher priority reviews are proceeding in an efficient manner; but another result of these meetings is that lower priority reviews are proceeding more smoothly than before and are being completed.
- , - = - nwv-m-- ~
-y wm- w w -- nw-y,,- g - - - - , - -
m m. -,-----m-w- -w w -~+
, . , : ./. . ., gg . .. . 3 9 .g.._
g . .: a .
4 The licensee has shown consistent evidence of prior planning and assignment of priorities. This is in licensing actions and security related activities. This has been shown in the good working relationship between the NRC Project Manager and the licensee. This i is also shown in the licensee's excellent response to SIMS; the active participation in the NRR utility contacts or " counterparts" meetings; the commitment to complete the Appendix R modifications before plant restart from the Cycle 11R outage; the completion of 10 CFR 50.49 in the voluntary one month outage in October 198P the shutdown to replace Static 0-Rino dp switches in reactor level instrumentation in March 1986 one month before shutting down for the Cycle 11R outage; the withdrawal of a defennent from its July 26, 1985, request for deferments from the Cycle 11R outage; the develop-ment without NRC initiatives of methods as a picture library and Drywell video cameras to minimize radiation exposure; and the review of the supports for the Drywell piping penetrations. In addition, there have been several Licensee Event Reports on equipment not being built to the design, where the licensee has voluntarily upgraded the .
equipment in the Cycle 11R outage.
I With this involvement of management in licensing to assure cuality and safe operation, there has, however, also been the 2 emergency Technical Specifications (TS) changes for the one month outage in October 1984; the relatively late submittals on several issues involved in the plant restart from the Cycle 11R outage including l
exemptions to Appendix R and TS changes; and the requested deferment of the isolation condenser makeup pump from the Cycle 11R outage.
With good management involvement and control, none of these issues should have happened.
In particular, there was the manner in which the licensee briefly interacted with the staff on the issue of a schedular exemption to 10 CFR 50.48 and Appendix R. This resulted in a letter to the ,
licensee on March 18, 1986, anc'a response from the licensee on March 24, 1986. However, since the letters, the working relationship between NRR and the licensee has returned to the good relationship '
it was before.
Therefore, during this rating period, the licensee has demonstrated a very active role in licensing-related activities. Strong management involvement has been especially evident where issues have potential for substantial safety impact and extended shutdowns. Licensee 4
management actively participated in an effort to work closely and in good communication with the NRC staff. The majority of submittals were consistently clear and of high quality. The licensee management frequently participated in meetings in Bethesda on short r.otice, i'
On the basis of these observations, a rating Category of 2 is j
assigned to this attribute.
_ _ . ,.wm.... . . . - , _ . . . .
B. Approach to Pesolution of Technical Issues from a Safety Standpoint
- The licensee has almost always demonstrated a strong understanding of the technical issues involved in licensing actions and proposed technically sound, thorough, and timely resolutions to these issues including security related activities. There were, however, two issues concerning containment leak rate testing and requesting no high radiation signal to containment isolation valves, where the licensee's approach did not thoroughly understand Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 and NRR staff guidance, respectively. Otherwise, during the evaluation period, the licensee has demonstrated a clear understanding of the issues, appropriate conservatism when the potential for safety significance existed, and generally sound and thorough approaches. This reflects positively on the licensee's willingness to work closely with the staff.
With the large number of licensing actions completed in the rating period, the licensee has generally made timely responses and sub-mittals to meet licensino deadlines. Notable exceptions are the submittals for the Appendix I Technical Specifications, the primary coolant radioactivity (SEP), the Technical Specification Change Recuests (TSCR) associated with the Cycle 11R outage, the Safety Parameter Display System defement and the additional exemptions to Appendiy P to 10 CFR Part 50. '
The licensee has actively participated in meetings at Bethesda, its headquarters, or at the site to assist in resolving issues. There have been 28 meetings, more than one a month, held in this rating period. These meetings were well conducted, well prepared for and materially assisted in resolving the issues. This was especially true for the meeting on the defement of the feedwater nozzle inspection from the Cycle 11R outage and the special circumstances for the licensee's exemptions to appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50.
On the basis of these observations, a rating Category of 1 is assigned to this attribute.
C. Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives
( The licensee has been very responsive to NRC initiatives. During the
- rating period, it made an effort to meet or exceed commitments.
Responsiveness by the licensee facilitated timely completion of staff review of the large number of licensing actions completed and thus substantially reduced the licensing backlog. The licensee's quality of license amendment requests, especially the "no significant hazards consideration" improved significantly after the
" counterparts" meeting held on January 30, 1986 in Bethesda, where this topic was discussed in detail. The licensee has also volun-i tarily responded promptly to several surveys conducted during the reporting period including a meeting on Generic Issue 77.
At the request of the staff, the licensee actively participated in several BWR Project Directorate #1 (BWD1), NRR, initiatives to
.. ~. u- r.:...i .: ...,.:a. . - - w . .. . . :. . . . .
improve communications between NRC and the licensee and among the licensee within BWD1, NRR. These initiatives were in the utility contacts or " counterparts" meetings on January 30 and October 16, 1986; a mini owner's group among the licensees to discuss technical issues common to the BWD1 licensees and purchase of IBM PC-compatible equipment to use the BWD1 PC Licensing Action Report Extended (LARE) to track Oyster Creek licensing actions.
The licensee is also, in response to the staff's initiative in Generic Letter 85 07, planning to submit its Integrated Living Schedule for Oyster Creek in October or November 1986.
In addition, the licensee at the staff's request has provided sub-mittals for the staff in a very short turnaround time. This was evident in the licensee's response to the staff's request for the status on the implementation of generic multi-plant action (MPA) requirements and a review of the retyped Appendix A Technical Specifications. The licensee was required to review a vast amount of documentation and provided the NRC staff with a timely response which was of high quality. The licensee's response to SIMS on the MPA issue was far above average in listing the MPA implementation dates.
Based on the above discussion, the overall rating of 1 is ' assigned
! to this attribute.
D. Enforcement History There were no violations involving licensing issues during the evaluation period.
A rating of 1 is assigned to this attribute.
E. Reporting and Analysis of Reportable Events Events at the facility have been generally reported promptly and accurately and are above average in quality. The licensee volun-tarily provided information to the staff by reports on the erratic behavior of Static 0-Ring dp switches and on HFA relay window fogging with an undetermined substance. Enclosure 2 of this report is a detailed report on this attribute. It is included for consideration in the Regions Operations Section of the SALP report.
A rating of 1 is assigned to this attribute.
F. Staffina The licensee has maintained an adec,dcte licensing staff to assure i
timely and quality responses to the NRC needs. The comunications between the operating staff and management are well established and effective.
A rating of 1 is assigned to this attribute.
=
. o.. . .
~
G. Training and Oualification Effectiveness On October 1,1986, the licensee issued a press release stating that Oyster Creek has become only the fourth unit in the United States to have ten specific training programs accredited by the National Nuclear Accrediting Board. The Accrediting Board is an independent group comprised of scholars and executives from utilities, post-secondary schools, non-nuclear training institutes and individuals nominated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Its activities support the National Academy for Nuclear Training. The ten training programs accredited are: senior reactor operator, reactor operator, ,
non-licensed operator, shift technical advisor, instrument and !'
control technicians, electrical maintenance, mechanical maintenance, chemistry technician, radiological protection technicians and tech-nical training of technical staff and managars. With accreditation, Oyster Creek also becomes a training branch of the National Academy for Nuclear Training which is administered by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.
During NRR visits, the staff has not observed any evidence of poor training. The staff has been shown the use of video tapes, a picture library, models and TV cameras to keep occupational exposure as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
A rating of 1 is assigned to this attribute.
H. Housekeeping During NRR visits to the plant, our staff was highly impressed with the clean, well-ordered appearance of the plant. The workers have been observed to behave in a disciplined manner in conformance with good housekeeping practice. The plant engineering and operating staff have been found to conduct themselves in a highly professional
! manner.
i A rating of 1 is assigned to this attribute.
VI. CONCLUSION The overall rating for the functional area of licensing activities is Category 1. This rating is a composite based on the ratings applied to the attributes examined.
..---..m--,-,--- -.- --
VII. SUFMARY OF RESULTS FOR ALL FUNCTIONAL AREAS (NRR RATING)
During this period, the licensee's performance was found to be of above average quality. Management attention and involvement was generally good showing prior planning and assignment of priorities but there have been a few issues which with good management involvement should not have happened. The submittals have almost always demonstrated a strong understanding of the issues and have been technically sound, thorough and timely in most cases. Staffing levels and Quality of staff were adequate.
Communication levels between the operating staff and maragement are well established and effective. The licensee has been, in most cases, effective in dealing with significant problems and NRC initiatives and 6 significant number of licensing issues have been completed. The licensee's efforts in the functional area of Licensing Activities has significantly improved during this evaluation period. This has been shown in the quality and quantity of work, attention to NFP concerns and involvement of management in NRR initiativas. GPUN was an active participant in the retyped Technical Specifications, and at the counterparts and the Generic Issue 77 meetings in Bethesda, Maryland.
l l
ENCLOSURE 1 RECORD OF MEETINGS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
- 1. NRR/ Licensee Meetinas (at NRC or licensee HQ)
Cycle 11 Refueling outage 07/02/85 August 1985 Progress Review Meeting 09/18/85 Expanded Safety System Facility Status 09/20/85 Detailed Control Poom Design Review 10/09/85 September 1985 Progress Review Meetina 10/24/85 at State of fiew Jersey, PPP Deferments from Cycle 11R outage 11/20/85 Deferment of Feedwater Nozzle Inspection 12/13/85 from Cycle 11P outage December 1985 Progress Review Meeting 01/22/86 Discuss the channel checks for RWL 01/23/86 instrumentatfor.
Piscuss special circumstances for 02/11/86 licensee's exemptions to Appendix R Integrated living schedule program for 02/12/86 Oyster Creek February 1986 Progress Review Meeting 03/26/86 NUREC-0737 Items II.F.1.1 and II.F.1.2 04/02/86 Containment purge / vent isolation valves 04/03/86 Upgrade containment nitrogen purge / vent 04/10/86 system March 1986 Progress Review Meeting and 04/23/06 Director's annual visit to licensee HQ Seismic design considerations 04/24/86 Generic Issue 77. Flooding of Safety 04/30/86 Related Equipment Erratic behavior of dp Static-0-Ring switches 06/12/86 Isolation condenser piping penetrations 08/22/86 Integrated leak rate testing 09/10/86 August and September 1986 Progress Review 10/31/86 Meeting
- 2. NRR Site Visits and Meetinas June 1985 Progress Review Meeting 07/31 to 08/01/86 October / November 1985 Progress Review Meeting 12/11/85 January 1986 Progress Review Meeting 02/20-21/86 Director of DBL visited site 03/24/86 March 1986 Progress Review Meeting and 04/22/86 Director's annual visit to site April and May 1986 Progress Review Meeting 06/16-17/86 Exemptions to Appendix R 06/23/86 Plant orientation visit 08/25-29/86 June and July 1986 Progress Review Meeting 08/27-28/86
- ^
- 3. Commission Meetinas None
- 4. Reliefs Granted Deferment of modifications from Cycle 11R 10/06/86 Ccacel replacement of containment purge / vent 10/10/86 isolation valves Cancel modifications of torus for thermal 10/01/86 mixino ar.d local cuencher ten.perature nonitoring Cancel modification to SGTS duct 04/18/86 Defer inspection of feedwater nozzles frcm 02/24/86 Cycle 11R outage Revise reovirements on recirculation loop 07/15/86 interlock
- 5. Schedular Extensions Granted SPDS implementation 10/06/86 Control room habitability 07/15/86 Mark I containment modification 10/06/86
- 6. Exemptione Granted Exemption to Appendix R 03/24/86
- 7. Licensee Arendments Issued Amendment Title Date 87 Drywell-Suppression Chamber 07/01/85 Differential Pressure 88 Relief Valve Position Indication 07/01/85 89 Audits of the Fire Protection 07/02/85 Program and Quality Assurance Program
! 90 Inservice Inspection and Testing 10/18/85 91 Low-Low Reactor Water Level 11/19/85 Instrumentation Modification i
92 Limit Overtime 11/19/85 93 Water Purity of Reactor Coolant 11/21/85 l 94 NUREG-0737 Technical Specifica- 11/22/85 tions (GL 83-36) 95 Reactor Water Level Instrumenta- 11/30/85 tion Channel Check I
1
- 7. License Amendments Issue, Continued Amendment Title Date 96 Valve Position Indicator Accident 12/09/85 Monitorine Instrumentation 97 Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary 01/06/86 Leakage 98 Post Accident Sampling Program 01/14/E6 99 Standby Diesel Generator Fuel 02/04/80 Tank 100 Mechanical and Hydraulic Snubbers 03/31/F6 101 Diesel Generator Pump Battery 03/31/86 System 102 Licensed Control Room Operators 05/12/86 Onsite 103 Standby Gas Treatment System 05/28/86 104 Excess Flow Check Valves 07/09/86 105 Control Room Habilibility 07/15/86 106 Recirculation Pump Interlock 07/15/86 Scope Change 107 Appendix B Technical Specifications 07/17/E6-Retyped Appendix A Technical 10/01/86 Specifications
- 8. Emeroency License Amendments Amendment Title Date 88 Relief Valve Position 07/01/85 Indication 91 Low-Low Reactor Water Level 11/19/85 Instrumentation Modification 95 Reactor Water Level Instrumentation 11/30/85 Channel Check l
~ ~
. .. - - u .~ :. . : . .;- . ~ . :. a . -
Q Enclosure 2
(# %,
g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- a wasumaTou o.c.zoess oaaao*
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION l
REPORTING AND ANALYSIS OF REPORTABLE EVENTS i The report period for this SALP evaluation extends from July 1, 1985 through October 15, 1986. The plant was in a scheduled outage from May 13, 1986 to October 15, 1986, s
OPERATING EVENTS During the evaluation period 81 non-security reportable events in accordance with10CFR50.72andapproximately38LicenseeEventReports(LER)in accordance with 10 CFR 50.73 were submitted by the licensee. Nineteen of the LERs related to the events reported under 50.72. Of the reportable events, 6 wera scrams involving control rod motion. Although the total number of 50.72 reporteo events appears high, approximately half of these events were reported during the outage period when surveillance testing and maintenance activity are increased. In summary, we note the following:
PromptnessandCokiletenessofreporting-Thelicenseehasgenerally reported events within the time limits. However, about 10% of the LERs were late. Although most of the late LERs were only slightly exceeding the time limit, one LER was nearly two weeks late.
Proper Identification and Analysis of Events - About 24% of the 10 CFR 50.72 reports were followed up by LERs. Of the 81 prompt notification events; 15 were ESF actuations,17 involved temporary inoperability of safety-related equipment requiring entry into technical specification action statements, 2 were personnel injury and the remainder were miscellaneous events. Events were generally identified and analyzed properly. There was no indication of correction or changes on LERs and there were very few subsequent revisions.
Effective Corrective Action - Of the six reactor scrams experienced during the evaluation period, two were mechanical, two were personnel error, one was an electrical failure and one was cause unknown. Five events were significant enough to be discussed at the NRR Operating Reactors Event Briefing. The five events were each in a different category. In addition, a study of the reported events shows no pattern of repetition.
All of these considerations suggest that corrective actions are effective.
{
t l
plant Operation I During the reporting period, the plant maintained an average availa'bility of !
80.3% excluding the current refueling outage. The average reactor service i factor during the reporting period was 84.9% also excluding the current !
outage. The plant was critical for 6,214 hrs, during the reporting period and i experienced an average of 0.97 scrams /1000 hrs critical. This scram frequency j is slightly lower than the current national average of 1.14 scrams /1000 hrs critical.
Occupational Dose Pri:r to the current rating period, the occupational dose has been running considerably higher than the average yearly BWR occupational dose. The overage dose per unit electrical power production for the period since initiation of comercial operation is 3.1 person-rem /MW-Yr. The average total yearly dose, for the same period, is 1078 person-rem.
In the reporting cccupational dose toperiod, the licensee 748 person-rem. Although has thereduced 1985 total the dose1985 has yearly total,been considerably reduced compared to past levels, the dose levels still exceed the 1
average of 704 person-rem for operating BWRs for that period. Therefore, continued effort is required by the plant management for further reduction of occupational doses at the site.
1 l
l l
l l
l l
y _ __,_....---.-,.,,_-,,,.,,w... ,_, , . , , _ , , , . _ . . _ . , , , , _ -_ . . . . , _ _ ..__,.,,.._.______-._.._--___,._.__.,_.___,__._._.y-_____._7.__ __