IR 05000219/1978025

IE Inspec Rept 50-219/78-25 on 780926-29 During Which No Items of Noncompliance Were Noted.Major Areas Inspected Incl:Refueling Outage Maintenance Procedures & Follow Up of non-routine Event Rept 78-18

ML20148S204
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	10/20/1978
From:	Briggs L, Kalman G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20148S202	List: IR 05000219/1978025
References
50-219-78-25, NUDOCS 7812010276
Download: ML20148S204 (6)

Text

- - .. ... . - . . . _ . - - -

. .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10N g 0FFICE OF INSFECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-219/78-25 Docket No. 50-219 License No. DPR-16 Priority --

Category C Licensee: Jersey Central Power and Licht Comoany Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road

!

Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Facility Name: Oyster Creek Unit 1  !

)

fnspection at: Forked River, New Jersey l l

Inspection conducted: Sep ember.26-29,1978 I Inspectors: rh a/n/pg 41ateA igned Briggs, eact Ir/p'ector A./ - - Wn/n date signed G. Kalman, Reactor Inspector l

cate signed Approved by: _

/ p/v h Y M Medabe, Jr. , Chief, Reactor Projects date signed '

Section j No. 2, R0 & NS Branch Inspection Summary:

Inspection on September 26-29, 1978 (Report No. 50-219/78-25)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by two regional based inspectors of TBTiowup on IE Bulletin 78-03; refueling outage maintenance procedures; followup of Non-routine Event Report 78-18; refueling activities; and, a control room and facility tou The inspection was started on September 26, 1978 during the 12 to 8 shift and involved 57 inspection-hours onsite by two NRC inspector Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.

!

7812010379, Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)

= _

- - . - _ . - -

l l

i DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted j

, 1

• J. Carroll, Station Superintendent K. Fickeissen, Technical Engineer F. Kossatz, Maintenance Supervisor T. Quintenz, Staff Engineer

• • D. Ross, Manager, Generating Stations

• E. Scalsky, Radiation Protection Supervisor

• L. Smialek, Health Physicist

• J. Sullivan, Chief Engineer The inspector also interviewed several other licensee employees during the course of the inspection, including Group Shift Super-visors, Control Room Operators, Auxiliary Operators, and Engineering Staff Personne *present at the exit interview

)

• • exit interview participation via telephone 2. IE Bulletins Scope of Review Licensee action concerning the following IE Bulletin was ~

reviewed by the inspector to verify that: the Bulletin was forwarded to appropriate onsite management; a review for applicability was performed; information discussed and licensee's reply was accurate; corrective action taken was as described in the reply; and the reply was within the time period described in the Bulleti IEB 78-03, Potential Explosive Gas Mixture Accumulations Associated with BWR Offgas System Operations. The inspector reviewed the licensee's March 22, 1978 response to IEB 78-03, and performed a detailed system verification as compared to system flow and piping diagrams. Loop seals were physically inspected to insure that hydrogen could not, through normal

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..

-

operation, be released to the Augmented Off-Gas Building or Pipe Chase Tunnel atmospher In addition the inspector verified that Hydrogen detectors wre located, as shown on plant diagrams, in areas that could accumulate Hydrogen if a loop seal were los As stated in the licensee's reply, several areas required actual ventilation flow measurements to be take The measurements have been performed; however, actual data correlation has not been complete This item will be reexamined after licensee action is complete.(219/78-BU-03)

3. Refueling Outage Maintenance P mcedures Scope of Review Refueling maintenance procedures were reviewed to verify that:

--

Administrative approval was required prior to remo' val from and return to service;

--

Inspection and audit points were identified in the procedure; and,

--

Provisions for testing following maintenance were provide Documents Reviewed

--

Procedure No. 702.1.002, Removal of Reactor Safety Valves Revision 3, August 11, 1978;

--

Procedure No. 702.1.005, Reactor Safety Valve Installation, Revision 5, August 11, 1978;

--

Procedure No. 702.1.006, Main Steam Isolation Valve Inspection and Repair, Revision 4, August 11, 1978;

--

Procedure No. 702.1.015, Main Steam Isolation Valve Seat Repair, Revision 1, August 21, 1978;

-- Procedure No. 702.1.016, Main Steam Isolation Valve Seat Replacement, Revision 1, August 21, 1978; and,

--

Special Procedure No. 78-27, Containment Spray Heat Exchanger Removal, Revision 0, September 6,197 Maintenance Activity Review The inspector reviewed the documentation and activities a:so-ciated with the removal of the Containment Spray Heat Exchanger . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

4 Findings During the review of Special Procedure No 78-27 being used by the licensee's contracted Project Manager, several changes appeared to have been made to the procedure without PORC approval. Several steps had lines drawn through the paragraph identifying numbers with the Project Manager's initials and the word " ignore" in the margin. When questioned, the Project Manager stated that he had intended to make the changes via the temporary procedure change method and had then changed his min The word " ignore" meant to ignore the change, not the procedural step. He explained that he was aware of the method employed to obtain procedure changes and showed the inspector several examples of previous correctly made changes. In-spection indicated all procedural steps had been completed properly without change.

/

The inspector had no further question . Review of Nonroutine Event Report by the Licensee The inspector discussed with the licensee the recent problem of excessive Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) leakage identified on September 17, 1978, in prompt Licensee Event Report (LER) No. 78-18. The licensee was in the process of disassembling MSIV NS-04A during the initial inquir Subsequent inspection showed that a crack had c=veloped in the valve seat in an area that had been previously racaired (1974 outage) by welding the valve seat. The licensee has decided to replace the entire valve seat during the present refueling outage to prevent recurrenc MSIV NS-03A exhibited a different problem when disassemble Excessive wear between the main poppet alignment pad and the lower guide, on which it slides, allowed the main poppet to shift.' This condition caused the poppet not to seat properly. The licensee is evaluating the cause of excessive guide wear in an effort to determine the best repair measure to be employe LER 78-18 remains open and will be further reviewed subsequent to licensee evaluation and repai . Refueling Activities Documents Reviewed (1) Procedure 656.4.001, Revision 0, September 21, 1977, Refueling Interlock Circuit Surveillance;

_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

(2) Special Procedure 78-36, Revision 0, August 31, 1978, Oystor Creek Refueling Bridge Test Procedure (3) Crane Inspection Reports Scope of Review During the course of this inspection, the Oyster Creek refueling operations did not progress sufficiently to fully evaluate all the refueling activities normally inspected. Actual fuel movement was not observed and refueling equipment interlock checks were not monitored. The isoection reports for refueling cranes were reviewed and general rerueling floor housekeeping was inspected. Refueling activities will be further reviewed during a subsequent inspectio Findinas With the exception of the item described below, the inspectors did not identify any discrepancies. It was noted that the inspection report for the 100 ton reactor building crane indicated that the bridge brakes were defective. Additional investigation revealed that the brakes were not repaired and that the crane was used for drywell and reactor disassembl Cognizant licensee personnel stated that the bridge brakes were not required for the disassembly operations and that their repair was not a prerequisite to commencing refueling activities. The licensee further commented that the brakes are not normally used at all since the bridge is easier to control with its electric moto The inspector left this matter unresolved pending further revie (78-25-01)

6. Control Room Tour The inspector started the inspection on September 26, 1978 on the 12 to 8 shift and observed and discussed the following with shift personnel:

--

Proper control room manning;

--

Proper shift relief / turnover;

--

Various annunciators and T.S. requirements;

--

Refueling preparations; and,

--

Current plant status and problems.

i No items of noncompliance were identifie ____________ _ ___

. _ _ _ . . . . . . _ - _.___ _

.

6 Plant Tour Scope of Tour The inspector, accompanied by a licensee representative, conducted a tour of the facility. Particular attention was directed to housekeeping, posting of radiation areas, step off pads and general health physics practice The following areas were toured:

--

Reactor Drywell, all levels;

--

Reactor Torus;

--

Reactor Building;

--

Turbine Building; and,

--

Base of the Discharge Stack.

I Findings Actual area radiation readings were taken by the inspector which agreed with area postings. Housekeeping was acceptable in the areas toure . Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraph S . Exit Interview The inspector met with l_.jcensee representatives (see Detail 1 for attendees) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 29, 1978. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection at that tim _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _