ML20155G917
| ML20155G917 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1980 |
| From: | Allan J, Brunner E, Grier B, Martin T, Martin W, Galen Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151G994 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8806200147 | |
| Download: ML20155G917 (74) | |
Text
f. ,
1 s
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE I
September 22, 1980 ,
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION l
REGION I PERFORMANCE EVALUATION l
l 1 ,
l I I I
i 9
$$862gggg;ggg6 P
l
e 9 JUL 1981
_ REGION I SALP BOARD ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
- 1. BACKGROUND As part of the effort to develop NRC Manual Chapter 0516, "Systematic Assessment of Licensee Perfonnance" (SALP), NRC:HQ finalized and provided to the regional offices new "Evaluation Guidance" for classification of licensee perfonnance within SALP functional areas.
- 2. MEETING The Region I SALP Board convened on June 19,1981 for the purpose of comparing the new evaluation guidance to the assessment criteria used by the Board during the Cycle I Assessment Period. It was detennined that the previous "Unsatisfactory" category was directly translatable into the new "Below Average" category. Further, it was determined that a previous rating of "Satisfactory" was convertible to a new rating of "Average." The Region I SALP Board members adopted the new "Evaluation Guidance."
- 3. ACTION The Board directed DRPI to modify Cycle 1 Assessment Period records to reflect the new rating categories by.:
- a. Striking through the previous ratings, ensuring they remain legible;
- b. Typing in the corresponding new rating title;
- c. Attaching a copy of this decision to each docket's package; and,
- d. Providing copies of the revised package to DRPI files, IE:HQ and the Resident Inspector.
n m ----~"J Thomas T. Martin EVon7. Brunner Acting Director D I Afing Director, DRPI
, d Geofgefi. Smith' -Walter G. Martin Di et6r, Dr.POS Asst. to Director i
ses/L Y , '
fi n WXM anhs M. Allan Boy (eAi. Grier !
De ;ty Director Diredtor ;
i t
-a w- m, m - , - -m . _m
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING _ STATION PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ANTI ACTION PLAN ~
, September 22, 1980 Region I 8.icensee Perfonnance Evaluation (Operations)
Facility: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Licensee: Jersey Central Power and Light Company ,
Unit Identification:
Docket No. License No./Date of Issuance Unit No.
50-219 DPR-16 April 9,1969 I Reactor Infonnation:
NSSS General Electric j MWt 1930 Appraisal Period: August 1, 1979 to July 31, 1980
?.ppraisal Completion Date: September 22, 1980 Review Board Members:
B. H. Grier, Director, Region I J. M. Allan, Deputy Director, Region I E. J. Brunner, Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch, Region I G. H. Smith, Chief, Fuel Facilities and Materials Safety Branch, Region I R. T. Carlson, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch J. W. Devlin, Acting Chief, Safeguards Branch Other Attendees: '
R. R. Xeimig, Chief, Reactor Projects Section No.1, Region I W. Paulson, Oyster Creek Licensing . Project Manager, NRR L. E. Briggs, Oyster Creek, Senior Resident Inspector J. A. Thomas, Oyster Creek, Resident Inspector R. Nimitz, Radiation Specialist, FF&MS, Region I D. Neely, Radiation Specialist, FF&MS, Region I I i
\
l' l , l A. Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items Noncompliance Category:
Violations 1 Infractions 32 I Deficiencies 7
,t i i
j ,
Areas of Noncompliance: '
/
VIO/INF/DEF i
Plant Operations 0/2/0 Refueling Operations 0/2/0 Radiation Protection 1/12/1 Radwaste Operations 0/2/1 Radwaste Shipment 0/1/0 Security and Safeguards 0/0/1 Surveillance and Post Refuel Testing 0/2/1 Design Changes and Modifications 0/3/0 Training 0/1/0 i
Management Controls 0/2/1 Fire Protection 0/2/0 QA/QC 0/1/1 Review and Audit 0/2/0 Reporting 0/0/1 I
B. umber and Nature of Licensec Event Reports Cause of Event: Component Failure 26 Design / Fabrication / Analysis Error S Defective Procedures 3 Personnel Error 14 External 0 Other 11 Total ~Tl' l Causally-Linked Events: 9 Events in 4 Groups ! Licensee Event Reports Reviewed (Report Nos.) , 79-26 to 79-44, 80-01 to 34, ETS 79-O4 to 79-08, and ETS 80-01 to 80-04 ! i l
.. l l
C. Escalated Enforcement A/:tions ; Civil, Penal ties ' f A civil penalty ($21,000) was issued on July 8,1980 based on the results / ;' ' of health physics inspection 80-11 and the total number (22) of health ' physics items of noncompliance issued sincel1he January 1979 civil penalty. Orders Confimat . -der of April 4,1980, to confim licensee comitments relative - 79-27, "Loss of Nonclass 1-E Instrumentation and Control Power Bus . .qg Operation.' , Confimatej Order of January 2,1980 to confim liebnsee comitments to implement all "Category A" lessons leamed requirements (excluding 2.1.7.a) , by January 1, 1980. l Order of July 8,1980, which modified license DPR-16 to require health - physics technician qualifications to meet or exceed the requirements of i ANSI N18.1 4973. Imediate Action Letters, IAL 79-21 of December 26, 1979, to confim licensee comitments relative to gaseous effluent releases from the New Radwaste Facility, IAL 80-13 of May 16, 1980, to confirm licensee comitments relative to the i emergency readiness posture of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Genera +.ing Station. l .
' Other Correspendence l
Licer.see letter of April 2,1980 stating the licensee's intent to take i imediate corrective action in the Radiatien Protection Department as a result of the Health Physics Appraisal Inspection. i D. Manage..ent Conferences Held During Past Twelve Months , Management meeting, at the licensee's request, at the Region I office on August 30, 1979, to discuss health physics program status and comitments resulting from the January 1979 civil penalty. Management meeting at the Region I office on April 29, 1980, to discuss NRC concerns and licansee corrective actions relative to the NRC's ! Perfomance Appraisal Branch inspection findings and radiation protection j concerns resulting from recent Region I inspection. : Management meeting, at the licensee's request, at the Region I office on June 13,1980, to discuss program improvements and additional staffing of the Health Physics Department as a result of the Health Physics Appraisal inspection findings.
OYS_llk CQ E,l. jio(l!M 6!! i LAllitS 51 A110ti
' Iti5PI C110li 11ME AfiD/OC SCOP [
Chance f rorr, Prescribe _d Inspection Prc.cr T UNCl10NAL AR[ A 1 r.c re c se ;io Change Decreese Plant Oper ations . __~ X Ref uelinq Operations X
- -- ~ - ' - - - - - - - -
RadiatTdn Prot ec tion - . X - Re dwa ste Mar.agt.? ant X Transportation X F.a int er.a nc e ' X Security aE Safeguards X
~'
Surveillence and Post Refuel Testing ;51 & 151 PROGi#. X ' ' Design Changes and flodifications X l' 0;nergency Pfanning - X . nvi rorc.enta l X 1rainin; gp x F.a r.i'gemen t Con trol s
- X fire Protection X i QA/ QC , , .
Committee Activities / Audits HP Audits y _. .. Reporting
- X .
Procurement
.. x __
/ -
sit 61 - , cb ' Regiapal Director 9_p/TC -l Cate / , l
.,y _ . - .
v . 3. Radiation Protection _ = Ine:' eased inspection effort is warranted in this area due to the high number of items of noncompliance. Althour,h improvements have reportedly occurred during and.since the end of the evaluation period (July 31,1980), in depth inspection is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the licensee's corrective actions. i
. f I
g; Radwaste Management . Increased inspection effort is warranted in this area due to the number of , items of noncompliance and the licensee's history of problems in this area. Reported improvements have taken place during and after this evaluation period. In depth inspection is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the licensee's - corrective actions. ' [ Transportation Increased inspection effort is reconrnended in this area due tc licensee history -l of problems relating to management and shipment of radioactive waste. Improve-ments have reportedly taken place during and subsequent to this evaluation i period; however, detailed inspection of the licensee's prograr.: is necessary ' to detennine the effectiveness of program improvements. i jf Surveillance and Post Refuel Testing. Increased inspection effort is recomended in the areas of Inservice Inspection t (ISI) and Inservice Testing (IST) of Pumps and Valves due to the licensee's failure to implement'the IST program as required and the detailed inspection necessary to verify satisfactory completion of the licensee's first ten (10) year ISI program. '
/2, Training Increased inspection is warranted in the area of health physics technician '
trainiing due to the item of noncompliance identified by the PAB inspection and rect ant problems relating to use of inadequately trained health physics techniciens. t
/3. Management conuols !
Increased inspection frequency of the licensee's management controls in the i Health Physics and Radw=ste areas is warranted. Thie is due to thr large number of open inspectf on items and recurrent slippage of comianent dates in these areas. In addition, the effectiveaess of the new management / staff , organization must be closely monitored. ;
%, ,, - - - - , , , . - - ,,r , ,,-,.,.vv-- v-,- - , , -- . - - ,.--,y--- . - - , . , , , , - - , , - ,~,r-,,,-,,, c, ,,,_,--w. .
s
/
.), Cont.ittee Activities and Audits increased inspection effort is warranted in the area of health physics audits due to a recurrent inspection finding involving failure to complete an annual audit of the entire facility staff training and qualifications, specifically, the health physics program was not addressed during this audit. ~
- e J
e 5 t 4 i 9 h l
I s' e OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS 5 I I I i J
l 1^,
- 1. PLANT OPERATIONS Analysis This area is under continuous review by the RRI's. During the evaluation ,
period there have been two items of noncompliance in the operations area involving procedural inadequacies and inadequate mechanism for the issuance of mana Thers have been nine LER's in the operations area,gement instructions. four involving component failure, and five involving personnel error. There are presently eight unresolved items in the operations area. The licensee has responded in a positive manner to expeditiously correct operational inadequacies identified by the inspectors. I Conclusion - Average ' Satisfactory Performanca Board Cortrnents - l Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. 1 u l { I I h i
- 2. REFUELING OPERATIONS Analysis The plant underwent a refueling outage during the evaluation period.
Based on the results of five inspections there were two items of non-compliance involving procedural inadequacies or lack of adherence to procedures, and three unresolved items. There were two refueling activity-related LER's during the evaluation period. Both invol'<ed personnel error. Of particular note in this area was an incident involving failure to , remove control rod interlock bypass jumpers prior to completion of l control cell fuel reload. The incident resulted from a breakdown of administrative controls and procedural inadequacies. The incident received attention from the licensee's General Office Review Board, the Plant Operations Review Committee, and the Operations Experience Assessment Committee. The licensee's proposed corrective actions on this matter were satisfactory. Conclusion Average Sa41+festory Performance Board Comments Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. i I
i
. 3. RADIATION PROTECTION Analysis There have been six inspections, including PAB and the Health Physics Appraisal, during this evaluation period which resulted in fourteen items of noncompliance and a civil penalty. Major areas of concern were the use of personnel not meeting ANSI N18.1 - 1971 requirements and the use of procedures inconsistent with Technical Specification require-ments. In addition to the civil penalty issued as a result of inspection 80-11, an order modifying the licensee's license was issued that requires all health physics (HP) technicians to meet or exceed the requirements of ANSI N18.1 - 1971. Increased inspection effort, due to the licensee's continuing HP program problems, was initiated by Region I for an eight week period (May 28 to August 1,1980) by assigning a resident Radiation Specialist at the site. The licensee has taken action to improve the radiation protection program including retraining of HP technicians and foremen, supplementing the site HP staff, and actively seeking additional personnel.
Conclusion Below Average Perfomance Wu+t4&f4ctor-y. BOARD COMMENTS Board recommends increased inspection effort by Region I to confirm that corrective actions already initiated are effective. t 1 l l l l , 1 s t
- 4. RADWASTE OPERATIONS Analysis There have been two inspections during the evaluation period, one by the FF&MS Branch and one by the pAB. Three items of noncompliance were identified by the FF&MS Branch: 1) Failure to survey to determine the amount of free standing liquid in a shipment of dewatered resin, 2) Failure to submit a Technical Specification change request for new radwaste effluent releases, and 3) Failure to maintain radwaste shipping records required by 10 CFR 71.62. The Health Physics Appraisal Team also noted that radiation pr.tection personnel had little knowledge of the new radwaste facility which was placed into operation in late 1978. In addition, the Performance Appraisal Branch identified one item of noncompliance in this area which involved failure 'to properly survey effluents released by new radwaste ventilation.
The last confirmatory reasurements inspection was conducted in May 1980.
. No items of noncompliance were identified.
Conclusion Below Average Pe. formance -Unsatisfastery. based on present information. However in the second half of the evaluation period the '.icensee commenced a training program in this area. In addition, the iicensee has begun the implementation of organizational change which is intended to im9 rove the management controls in this area. BOARD COMMENTS board recommends increased inspection effort in this area to confirm corrective actions already initiated are effective. l l
. I l
- 5. RADWASTE SHIPMENT
-] Analysis In two inspections in the area of radwaste shipments, one item of noncompliance was identified. It involved delivery of licensed materials in excess cf Type A quantity to e carrier for transport without a general or specific license. In particular, the licensee did not have copies of the vendors' cask drawing referred to in the certificate of compliance. This incident occurred in December 1979. Since that time, the licensee has appointed a radwaste shipping super-visor and conducted additional training in this area. The licensee has committed to prepare procedures for each type of shipping cask handled to preclude recurrences. A recent licensee shipment inspected by Region II (80-15) at the Barnwell, South Carolina disposal facility identified no items of noncompliance. Conclusion SN8b-y. performance based on present information. BOARD COMMENTS Board recommends inspection of licensee's radwaste shipment operations within the next six month evaluation period. i
- 6. MAINTENANCE Analysis Two inspections have been conducted in the maintenance area during the evaluation period. No items of noncompliance were identified.
There were four maintenance related LER's, two involving personnel error, and one involving improper setting of safety relief valves on the core spray system. The licensee has developed a viable maintenance force and has committed to strengthen it even further by developing a maintenance crew devoted solely to the performance of preventive maintenance. fonclusion - gab'[otocyPerformance [ , Board Comments , i Board is in agreement.with the analysis and conclusion. I l 1 l l l l [ I 1 l i l
- 7. SECURITY AND SAFEGUARDS ,
Analysis There have been two inspections conducted by the Safeguards Branch Security Branch (PAB) during the evaluation period.Section and one inspection by th No items of noncompliance were identified. During inspection 80-08, the inspector reviewed allegations by a former guard at the plant that were published in the Asbury Park Press. The allegations could not be substantiated. The licensee has a strong security management program with apparent corporate management backing providing for responsiveness to security occurrences. Conclusion h4ctopy Perfonnance BgARDCOMMENTS Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. i h I
_ ~. _ .
- 8. SURVEILLANCE AND POST REFUEL TESTING Analysis Three items of noncompitance have been identified by six inspections in the area of surveillance testing. Two involved inadequate actions following unsatisfactory surveillance test results. There were 31 LER's concerning surveillance testing, three of which involved failure to >erform required surveillances. One of these, failure to perform met 1y1 iodide removal efficiency on charcoal adsorbers, resulted in the third item of noncompliance in the surveillance area. This was caur,ed by failure to incorporate the requirements of a Technical Specification amer;dment into the master scrveillance schedule. The licensee has committed to conduct a review of all past Technical Speci-fication amendments to verify that revisec surveillance requirements are incorporated into the master surveilla ice schedule. This review has not yet been completed.
Additionally, one item of noncompliance (management controls) was identified for failure to implement the IST program for pu s and valves as required by ASME, Section XI. The PAB inspection (79-18 identified no items of noncompliance in the In-Service Inspection (ISI area but ! indicated a weakness in the coordination of the licensee's program. Licensee action was in progress at that time to accumulate all available data to establish the remaining ISI to be completed to fulfill the requirements of their first ten (10) year ISI program. A pralimiriary Region I Data review subsequent to the PAB inspection, indicated that requirements were being met. . One additional item presently being evaluated by NRC:HQ is the licensee's failure to perform SBGTS HEPA filter flow distribution. This surveillance was not conducted due to HEPA filter design which has no provision for flow distribution measurements. A Technical Specification change request must be submitted by the licensee to correct this item. Conclusion - Sat [shactory Perfomance. BOARD COMMENTS Board reconnends inspection of ifcensee's ISI and IST Programs within the next six month evaluation period. O i
- 9. DESIGN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS Analysis This area has been inspected by the RO&NS Branch Nuclear Support Section, the RC&ES Branch Engineering Support Section and the PAB during this evaluation period. Three items of noncompliance were identified by PAB concerning fire p'otection system installation.
Conclusion Average
. Satisfactory. Perfonnance BOARD. COMMENTS Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion.
e 1 4
- 10. EMERGENCY PLANNING Analysis Two inspections were conducted during this evaluation period, one by the PAB and one during the Health Physics Appraisal. No items of noncompliance were identified; however, as a result of the Health Physics Appraisal an Imediate Action Letter was issued to require the licensee to upgrade the licensee's emergency plan to comply with NUREG 0654 requirements. This item was subsequently reviewed and closed by Region I.
Conclusion Average GeMWeekry Perfonnance , BOARD COMMENTS Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. O l l e
~
- 11. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Analysis One inspection has been conducted during this evaluation period by PAB.
No items of noncompliance were identified. Conclusion Average 4+t-i+feetery Perfomance with available infomation. BOARD COMMENTS Board is in agreer..ent with the analysis and conclusion. 1 I 5 i l
- 12. TRAINING Analysis _
Two trainin Appraisal)during g inspections have been this evaluation conducted period. One item(PAB and Health Physics of noncompliance was identified concerning the establishment and implementation of a non licensed personnel training program. The licensee crimmitted to mar training program revisions, including the appointment of a Manager of fraining (T.S. change request submitted on May 2,1980). Training for health physics technicians was conducted during 1979 (140' hours) as a result of the January1950.1979 civil ' penalty'.' A revised training program was Training of mechanical maintenance personnel was begun started during Julylhe refueling outage but temporarily suspended due to the prior to l refueling work load. Conclusion !
' S8#$ffS$tery Performance with the exception of Health Physics Technician training i BOARDCOMMEliTS Board reconnends increased inspection effort in the area of Health Physics Technician Training.
- h e
l i I k I i
- 13. MANAGEMENT CONTROLS Analysis Based on the results of three inspections during the evaluation !
period there have been three items of noncompliance in the area of management controls. In addition, numerous other items of noncompliance i during this period are indicative of apparent weaknesses in the area of 4 management controls. These items have involved inadequacies in , operational procedures and lack of adherence to established procedures. The licensee has established a system for administrative and management controls. However, lack of adherence to these procedures at the lower management and supervisory levels has led to several in-cidents of noncompliance. In addition, lack of attention to detail and failure to recognize potential problem areas during periodic review and update of procedures has led to items of noncompliance related to procedural inadequacies. An additional area of management weakness is the licensee's failure to meet NRC commitment dates without notifying Region I.of date sli commitment failures)ppage. (i.e.was This matter ISTspecif!cally program implementation addressed at the and HP . April 20,1980, enforcement conference and recent performance has shown improvement in this area. The station management is aware of j the deficiencies in these areas and is taking steps to strengthen the overall systea of management controls. Included in the corrective action is an increase in the number of personnel assigned to the plant ' staff and a reorganization that will place more direct management attention to the problem &reas. Conclusion ; Average Satisfactory Perforrance except in the Health Physics and Radwaste area. BOARD CONNENTS Board recommends increased inspection effort by Region I personnel and RRI in this area. l i l i i
1
- 14. FIRE PROTECTION Analysis *
^ There have been three fire prot:ction inspections by the RC&ES Branch Engineering Support Section and one by the PAB during i , this evaluation period. In addition the RRI routinely perfoms fire protection inspections during plant tours. Two items of non-compliance have been identifiad, both relating to combustible , materials storage on the 119 foot elevation of the reactor building. The licensee has attempted to obtain letters of agreement from fuel suppliers to provide only fire retardant fuel containers. The fuel suppliers have not complied with that request. The licensee is investigating the feasibility of perfoming a fire loading analysis , to establish acceptable quantities of non-fire retardant materials that can be safely stored in vital areas. . Conclusitn Average . ! Satisfactory perfomance. - BOARD COMMENTS Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. , i l l
- 15. QA/QC Analysis -
One QA inspection was conducted by the RO&NS Branch Nuclear Support Section and one inspection by PAB during the evaluation period. Two items of noncompliance were identified concerning weld rod restorage and failure to maintain a duplicate file system when two modification packages could not be located on site. Two unresolved items in the modificatfor,s area were identified and 9 of 11 previously identified items were closed. Additionally one item of noncompliance (weld rod storage) and one unresolved item identified by PAB were closed, j Conclusion Saffsfa ory. Performance
, BOARD COMMENTS !
Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. l 6 l . l t l t l I i i i 1
. . _ ~ .. .
- 16. REVIEW AND AUDITS
. Analysis Inspections conducted by the RRIs have addressed the activities of the Site Safety Comittees. There are no outstanding issues in this area.
One inspection has been conducted of activities of the Off-Site Comittee by PAB during this evaluation period. There were no items of noncompliance identified. A QA inspection (80-13) conducted by the Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch, Nucicar Support Section during the evaluation period addressed Licensee QA Audits. No items of noncompliance were identified and a PA8 identified item of noncompliance concerning audits and an unresolved item were closed. A recent Health Physics Appraisal inspection (80-17, not yet issued) identified a recurrent audit finding that was previously identified-bythePABinspection(79-18). This item involved failure to complete an annual audit of the entire facility staff training and qualifications. Conclusion Ne7f tory Perfomance with the exception of health physics audits. BOARD COMMENTS Board recomends increased inspection effort in the area of health physics audits. l l I i
- 17. REPORTING Analysis ,
This area is under continuous review by the RRI's, in addition, one irspection was conducted by PAB during this evaluation period. One item of noncompliance was identified concerning the licensee's failure to report a minor change in the security organization. Two environmental reports were not submitted within the required time frame. Ti'ese were identified by the licensee and one report was , subsequently submitted. The second report was prepared; however, it was mispiaced while in the licensee's administrative review process. This was identified by the licensee and submittal made .inproximately six (6) months after the event. Immediate telephone nctification was made in each of the above incidents when discovered by the licensee. I Conclusion . Average
-Satisfactory-perfonnance, i
BOARD COMMENTS j l Board is in agreement with the analysis and coinclusion. l l I 5 l i 1 ; l
- 18. PROCUREMENT Analysis This area was inspected by PAB during this evaluation period. No items of noncompliance were identified. The last RO&NS Branch Nuclear Support Section inspection in this area was in February - March,1979.
Conclusion IdNfactory Performance with present infonnation. BOARD COMMENTS Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. k 5 r I. l 4 4 l l t
e---- - O 4
-e i
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
~
5.A.L.P. BOARD SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION d
UYSTER CREEK NUCLEAk . CRATING STATION ENFORCDtENT CISTORY FRGt AUGUST 1,1979 TO jut.Y 31, 1980 Ins tion r Severity Functional Area Subject 79-16 Deficiency Surveillance Testing Failure to document retest results following unsatisfactory surveillance test. Infraction Ser'eillance v Testing Failure to consider SBGTS inoperable following fatted survelliance test. 79 18 Ir. fraction Operaticns Procedure No.106 did not provide for fndependent verification of Ilfted , leads and jumpers. Infraction Fire Protection Fire doors open and combustible material on 119 foot level of the reactor building. Infraction Design Changes Drawing lacking detall of pfpe supports. Infraction Design Changes inadequate instruction for anchor bolt installation and grouting. Infraction Design Changes Procedures a-4 drawings not revised after completion of modification No. 213. Infraction QA/QC Duplicate ille system not complete. Infraction Training Trafning plan not 1splemented. HP training program not estabitshed. Infraction Menagement Control Response to and closcout of nonconformance/ corrective action required reports not timely. Infraction Audits Annual audit of staff trafning and qualf fication not conducted. Deficiency QA/QC Returned weld rod not refdentiffed and tagged for storage per procedure 3005. Infraction Radiation Protection Written procedures not established for calfbration of various radiation, effluent, and gaseous monitors. Infraction Radfation Prvtection Effluents released by new redwatte not properly surveyed. l
=
N66= W e h--h, w m-+-.e*
* '6"'
0YSTER CREEK NUCLD. .ERATING STATION ENFORCtNENT HIST 0dY FROM AUGUST 1,1979 TO JULY 31, 1980 Inspection Ntad>er severtty Funct1onal Area Subject a 79-18 Infrattfon Surve111ance Analysts of saneles from 59GTS charsoal adsorbers not perfow l Deffciency Reporting Regional office not notf ried of minor change to security pie 79-23 Infraction Radweste Operations Failure to submit Technical Specification change request . nee radweste effluent releases. Deffctency Radweste Operations Fallure to maintain recortis pursuant to 10 CFR 71.62 Infraction Redweste shipment Failure to meet 10 CTR 71.3 prfor to shipping rahaste. Infraction Radweste Operstfons Fallure to survey to meet 10 CFM 20.301. f 79-24 Infractson Fire Protection Non fire retardant wood crates on 119 foot elevation of the reactor W p butiding. 80-03 Infra":tton Radiation Protection - f
.i Failure to evaluate Beta monitoring as required by 10 CFR 20.2018. '
Infraction Radiation Protection Failure to use respiratory protection equipment in accordance with 10 CFR 20.103C. h' Infraction Radiation Protection Fallure to follow precedures required by Technical Specification 6.11. i Deffciency h Radf ation Protection Failure to label containers of radfoactive materf al. - 80-10 Deficiency Management Control 4 . LLRT precedure changed without proper documentation or approval. Infraction Manag w nt Control Failure to implement IST program for pgs and valves in accordance with ] ASME. SectIon XI.
- 80-11 Infraction Radfation Protection Failure 40 meet 10 CFR 20.103 (A)(3)(Afr samp1tng)
Infraction Radiation Protection Failure to use process, engineering controls or other precautionary procedures. T
~
I NMNW
=
--e. -e e m-
OTSTER CREEK NUCL .NERAT!NG STATION ENFORCEMENT HISTORY FROM AUGUST 1, 1979 TO JULY 31, 1980 Inspection Ntaber Severity Functional Area Subject 80-11 Infraction Radiation Protectfen Failure to provide personnel monitoring as required by procedure. Infraction Radiation Protection Failure to Instrvet worters pursuant to 10 CFR 19.12. Yfolet1on RedIat1on Protection Failure to prepare procedures consf stent w1th Technical SpectffcatIon 6.8.1 80-12 Deffclency Safeguards Physical inventary failed to list 2 Pu8e sources and ilsted a spent fuel pfn by t*4 wrong serf al No. 80-17* Infraction Radiation Protectiom No procedure 3.*epared or tabulated Ifst maintained to account for MPC hours. Infraction Radiation Protection Monthly ALARA seetings not conducted from November 11, 1979 to May 19, 1980. Infraction Radiation Protection Fallust to per'.,rw voltage plateau on counter No.172 between j Movea6er 17, 's979 and May 19, 1980. l Infraction Review and Audit Failure to cmduct annual audit of facility staff training and 4 qualf ficatfon. between October 1978 and May 21, 1980.
- 80-19 Infraction Refieling Operations Failure to follos procedure No. 501 resulting in spent fuel pool overflow.
I Infraction Re(ueling Operations Failure to reseve control red Interlock bypass jupers. [ 80-23 Infraction Operations No adequate mechanism provided for issuance of management instructions
- of short tern app 1fcability.
i 4
- Inspection Neport not issued.
l
- -m, -m m - + o
w d - wm Et g eeaeeeeceeee3ecece ttt e o -to to RRRRRRRst-4RR o o o o o o o o o o o oo C
+
Sk RRRRRRR RRR$tRRRRR dt t qq o ottR - oRR o oR oRR o eRRs o otRRtRR o o o o o oo C " g 3 2
- gy c
- 2
. s, O O $ c 3 t m t N -
O 5> k 8' 1
= Et W W "
r
=
- gg
- N M gw gN w w a m N p p p p g l m .-
Wk .
~
.k C ' g .
zJ M} s *El ' S E' e o - - e o o - o o e o o o - o - o T3* 5 > & & k >& B h k && > >k>>&& J" 5g. >g e-* & & B & & B & & && & &&&&&&B "l t=e I
~
u -15 0 S- Gr 5 . d : C C: : n::: *E i
, q - - --- -- ------
p ,g Em 5 --I s g ,- r. 5t. : l y N m n N - N N N N = m e e N p N p p 4 8 sig r %Ei
- z. . *
'es jgo 35 53: d s.1'
-a ,' za.d I- *
'tE~w l
.e *
$s 8
- 6 's I} r
% 1 *-
y " ERO I 22
<= 5 ='
t : E
~
# ! I2 t E i e i rl s J .g .
j -
.J4ei l
- g E'-: 2 53 >ag*=?vsi
- 2: 3It=
su
- Ee i r i, - 5 sj u 3 5s4 4 s eE:
8, h!E: segIt 8, ' 2 aaaaa 5s: nacl:$l" 31 zaa: a , 4
. __ , - . - . . , , - - - - . , . ~ - - - - - , - , , - - - - - , - . - - _ - . _ - - _ - , - - .
Of5TER CREEK MUCLEAR GEN 3 STATION LICENSEE EVENT REP 0h. . dOPSIS August 1.1979 t2 July 31.1980 l LER Mumber h Cause Code Description - 79-25 30 Day D Primary Containment degraded when torvs sospie valve was left open.
, 79-26 30 Day A Laundry drafn tank discharge pfpe failure resulting in release of radioactive material.
79-27(*10) 24 Hour B Discovery of six selsmic restraints for the six inch core spray test Ifne which were either in positions other than required by original design criteria or had failed, j 79-28 30 Day E Core Spray isolation valve Y-20-15 Inoperable in the open position due to inadvertant inttf ation of close signal while th? valve was stroking open. 4 79-29 30 cay C Source range monitor rod block setpoint lower (94 CP5's than Technical Spectfication lieft of 100 CPS. 79-30 30 Day D 'A' CRD hydraulic pump out of service for ten hours due to vent piping leak.
! 79-31 30 Day D 'B' CRD hydraulic pump out of service due to outboard seal water pipe r.jp ple leak.
e I 79-32 (*20) 30 Day A Three small leaks on service water side of 1-3 containment spray heat exchanger caused by galvanic action between 90/10 Cu-M1 and carbon steel. j 79-33 30 Day A One of five electromatic relief valve setpoints found above Technical Spectfication
- value due to a failed swltch.
79-34 24 Hour D Secondary contelnuent violation - both reactor butiding doors open. 79-35 30 Day E One main steam ifne high radiation monitor setpoint found two percent above i Technical Spectfication ilmit. , 79-36 (*30) 30 Day D Containment spray comparturant door found open. Door was closed and dogged. 1 Contalnuent spray system I was considered inoperable while doors were open. 79-37 30 Day A i' allure of core spray booster pump to start during routine surveillance due to j defective control power fuse holder. .i 4 1 i I
. MNe
- N h"M Med =h w hW = M 4'.*O 9 N -#4 8'4wa M e- -
Of5TER CREEK NUCLEAR GE NG STATION LICENSEE EVENT REPA . .,fMOPSIS August 1,1979 ts July 31. 1980 LER Neber h Cause Code Description 79-38 30 Day A Failure of D.G. No. I to start due to position switch adjustment. 79-39 30 Day A APIIM Channel No. I red block setpoint found one percent above Technical Specification ilmit. 79-40 M Day C Fallure to perform Methyl Iodide removal efficiency of 58GTS charcoal filters. Tested satisfactorily. 79-41 30 Day B Radioactive releases (Iow level) from new radweste building not accurately monitored. 79-42 30 Day A Inadvertent lifting of one electromatic reiter valve due to setpoint drift of new pressure switch. 79-43 30 Day A Failure of one reactor butiding to torus vacumn breaker to open during - survelliance testing. 79-44 30 Day D Reactor building to torvs vacuum breaker blocked from opening more than 50 percent due to contractor scaffolding. l f, ETS 79-04 (*40) 10 Day A second dilution pump not rvn for 40 minutes due to equipment pr%1eurs. ETS79-05(*41) 10 Day f E Ffsh kill cf 50 to 100 fish. g ETS 79-06 10 Day 8 Only one dilution pop in service for a period of 26 minutes when two were reqvf red. ! ETS 79-07 10 Day D Loss of one dilution pop for 92.ainutes when two pays were required. ETS 79-06 10 Day B One dlistion puup off (tripped) for 20 minutes when two pays were reqvf red. [ 80-01 24 Pour A Failure of one of five ADS valves to operate during functional testing. 83-02 30 Day D ' One fuel bundle found misorfented 180 degrees. Subsequent evaluation indicated no damage to the bundle. 80-03 24 Hour A Discovery of two crack ' indications in core spray sparger (System II). ' h 6@
.h e e -- m -% am. m - -_e.ew h-N *%
- - 8
075TER CREEK MUCLEAR GE. .1G STATION LICENSEE EVEN' REl%. afM0P515 Auf est 1,1979 ta July 31,1980 LER Muuber M Cause Code Description 80-04 30 Day A Several leaks found in underground aluminum conder: sate Ifnes. Leakage was due to galvanic corrosion. 80-05 30 Day D Reactor building venttistion senttor trip setpoints fcund above Technical Spectff-cation ilmits. 80-06 30 Day E Recirculation ficw sensors (zero percent) found out of tolerance on six of eight channels. Reactor scrase setpoints on three of eight channels above Ifmit due to zero setpoint drift. 80-07 30 Day A Low flow on 58GT5 No. I due to slippfng belts on fan. 80-06 (*11) 24 Hour 8 Mine pfpe clamps which connect snubbers to fsolation condenser pfptng usere found not Installed per desfgn. (IE8 79-14)* 80-09(*21) 30 Day 8 Tube leakage on all contafruent spray heat exchangers. Tubes being replaced during refueling outage. 80-10 (*12) 24 Hour 8 Three pipe hangers in the liquid polson system not installed per desfgn. One restraint in RWQI system not Installed per design. 80-11 30 Day A 58GTS tripped when flow indication Indicated zero due to a leaking instrisment sensing Ifne. 80-12 30 Day D Weekly surveillance of diesel and station battery not conducted. 80-13 24 Hour A Fire System taken out of service to repair a leaking valve in the supply header. 80-14 24 Hour A Diesel generator No. I failed to synchrontre and tripped during surveillance test'ng. Plant was in cold shutdown. 80-15 30 Day A Reactor butiding automatic Isolation valve inoperative (one of two in sertes) due to broken piston red eye stud. 80-16 24 Hour A Defective main generator load reject sensor pressure switch. M"N N- ee a-%,. m=m em m e a _ . _ _ _ - --
t , jy LER Museer Tg Cause Code 80-17 24 Hour M 0 80-18 Rod block bypasss jumpers (two) 30 Day E prevented moveseent of piore than 1were left in place, E 19 Specification ilmit. Reactor contml highmdpressure during nfueltog.A&sintstrative scram control checks 30 Day E E 20 ttft pressure set. Plant was in cold shutdownsensor(RE030)tessconse of core spray syste echnical 24 Hour A 80-21 MA identification of degraded fire bm relief valves watch. mproperly (Y-20-25 and NA 80-22 30 Day E LER Mo. erroneously assigned - Issu u reddarrfers ffre and failur e as 80-24 80-23 30 Day E less conservative than Technical Strip points of three of fou a 80-24 pecification Ifmits.on condenser inttiation pressure swit h Electromatic reitef valve high pres c es were 80-25 30 Day 0 exceeded Technical, Spectf1 cation ilmit Plant was in cold shutdowri . One red free travel so sure sensors (1AB38 and 1A83E) trips b 24 Hour points A trvelliance n t conducted as required. 80-26 FireV-19-8 and suppression system removed f 30 Day A
, rom service for replacement of PIY I 80-27 24 Hour 0 rattare cf one Itydravite snubber to lock-upvalves shutdown, in V-19-12 comprJssion.
80-28 Reactor building to supp Plant was in cold 30 Day E blocked by plastic cover.resslon chas6er vacous breaker system inlet pipe found 9 1 Twe of four reactor M h pressurebove s. s found Technical e_ , bm em h 4 - - F
E
- OTSTER CREEK NUCLEAR 4 TING STATIDR LICENSEE EVENT . SYNDPSIS August 1.1979 to ely 31,1980 LER Number M Cause Code Descrfptfon 80-29 30 Day A Failure of drywell high pressure switch and subsequent initiation of core spray (no injection).
shutdown. Resulted in manual defeat of both core spray systeurs and plant 80-30 30 Day A Failure of one electrvaatic re11ef valve to operate during operability testing. 80-31 30 Day A Fallure of one hydraulic snubber to lock up in tension. 80-32(*31) 24 Hour D Both watertight doors to contairement spray ptop rooms found open. 80-33 30 Day E Torus oxygen concentration above five percent. Reactor shutdown was comunenced then terminated when the concentration was reduced to less than five percent. 80-34 30 Day A SBGTS No I tripped due to overload during routine surveillance. ETS BO-01 10 Day E Fish kill during plant shutdown for refueling on January 5.1980. ETS 80-02 10 Day C Less 60 F. than two dilution pumps in operetton when water temperature was less than ETS 80-03 10 Day A Fallure to evn second dilution pump when Route 9 b.-fdge temperature was above 87 F. ETS 80-04 10 Day 8 Loss oil of dilution punes, temperature trips. seven times over a three day period, due to high lube Notes: Cause Codes: A - Ceaponent rativre 8 - Des 1gn/Fabr1 cation /Analysfs Erm r C - Defective procedures
- D - personnel Error E - Other
'
- Causally ifnked event element:
quo) Inttf al group element Lay) Subsequent group element (s)
1 l C ho w t I l SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE l September 22, 1980 , JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION REGION I PERFORMANCE EVALUATION l a l i i i l i { ! I
9 JUL 1981 REGION _I SALP BOARD ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
- 1. BACKGROUND As part of the effort to develop NRC Manual Chapter 0516 "Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance" (SALP), NRC:HQ finalized and provided to the regional offices new "Evaluation Guidance" for classification of ,
licensee pe.rformance within SALP functional areas. ' l
- 2. MEETING l
The Region I SALP Board convened on June 19,1981 for the purpose of comparing the new evaluation guidance to the assessment criteria used by the Board during the Cycle I Assessment Period. It was determined that the previous "Unsatisfactory" category was directly translatable into the new "Below Average" category. Further, it was determined that a previous rating of "Satisfactory" was convertible to a new rating of "Average." The Region I SALP Bohrd members adopted the new "Evaluation Guidance." l
- 3. ACTION ,
The Board directed DRPI to modify Cycle 1 Assessment Period records to reflect the new rating categories by.: ,
- a. Striking through the previous ratings, ensuring they remain legible;
- b. Typing in the corresponding new rating title;
- c. Attaching a copy of this decision to cach docket's package; and,
- d. Providing copies of the revised package to DRPI files, IE:HQ and the Resident Inspector.
, =-a &
Thomas T. Martin E on7. Brunner Acting Director D I A ing Director, DRPI l r Georgeft. Smith' Walter G. Martin b'
- Dirbetbr, DEPOS Asst, to Director
%nnt. (kfu amis F. Allan DepJty Director m8Af BoycW H. Grier Diredtor i l
i i L - _.__ _ _-- -
l OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION PERFORMANCE EVALVATION AND ACTION PLAN j . September 22, 1980 l Region I j Licensee Performance Evaluation (Operations) Facility: Oyster Cres . Nuclear Generating Station Licensee: Jersey Central Power and Light Company , Unit Identification: Docket No. License No./Date of Issuance Unit No. 50-219 DPR-16 April 9,1969 I Reactor Information: NSSS General Electric ; MWt 1930 Appraisal Period: August 1, 1979 to July 31, 1980 Appraisal Completion Date: September 22, 1980 Review Board Members: B. H. Grier, Director, Region I J. M. Allan, Deputy Director, Region I E. J. Brunner, Chief, Rer.ctor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch, Region I G. H. Smith, Chief, Fuel Facilities and Materials Safety Branch, Region I R. T. Carlson, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch J. W. Devlin, Acting Chief, Safeguards Branch Otner Attendees: R. R. Xeimig, Chief, Reactor Projects Section No.1, Region I W. Paulson, Oyster Creek Licensing Project Manager, NRR L. E. Briggs, Oyster Creek, Senior Resident Inspector J. A. Thomas, Oyster Creek, Resident Inspector R. Nimitz, Radiation Specialist, FF&MS, Region I , D. Neely, Radiation Specialist, FF&MS, Region I ' 8
. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ - , -_ _ _ _ _ - - . _ - _
. _- - . ~ - . _ - - -
A. Number and Nature of Noncompitance Items Noncompliance Category: Violattor.s 1 Infractions 32 Deficiencies 7 Areas of Noncompliance: VIO/INF/DEF Plant Operations 0/2/0 Refueling Operations 0/2/0 Radiation Protection 1/12/1 Radwaste Operations 0/2/1 Radwaste Shipment 0/1/0 Security and Safeguards 0/0/1 Surveillance and Post Refuel Testing 0/2/1 Design Changes and Modifications 0/3/0 Training 0/1/0 l Management Controls C/2/1 Fire Protection 0/2/0 QA/QC 0/1/1 Review and Audit 0/2/0 Reporting 0/0/1 B. Number and Nature of Licensee Event Reports Cause of Event: Component Failure 26 Design / Fabrication / Analysis Error 8 Defective Procedures 3 Personnel Error 14 External r 0 Other 11 Total Tl Causally-Linked Events: 9 Events in 4 Groups Licensee Event Reports Reviewed (Report Nos.) 79-26 to 79-44, 80-01 to 34, ETS 79-04 to 79-08, and ETS 80-01 to 80-04 !
C. Escalated Enforcement Actions Civil Penalties A civil penalty ($21,000) was issued on July 8,1980 based on the results ' of health physics inspection 80-11 and the total number (22) of health physics items of noncompliance issued since the January 1979 civil penalty. Orders Confimatory Order of April 4,1980, to confirm licensee comitments relative to IEB 79-27, "Loss of Nonclass 1-E Instrumentation and Control Power Bus During Operation." , Confimatory Order of January 2,1980 to confim licensee comitments to implement all "Category A" lessons learned requirements (excluding 2.1.7.a) by January 1, 1980. l Order of July 8,1980, which modified license DPR-16 to require health - physics technician qualifications to meet or exceed the ntquirements of ! ANSI N18.1-1971. Imediate Action Letters IAL 79-21 of December 26, 1979, to confirm licensee comitments relative to gaseous effluent releases from the New Radwaste Facility. IAL 80-13 of May 16, 1980, to confinn licensee comitments relative to the i emergency readiness posture of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Other Correspondence l Licensee letter of April 2,1930 stating the licensee's intent to take j irtrnediate corrective action in the Radiation Protection Department as a result of the Health Physics Appraisal Inspection. i i D. Management Confarences Held During Past Twelve Months 1 ! Management meeting, at the licensee's request, at the Region I office on August 30, 1979, to discuss health physics program status and comitments resulting from the January 1979 civil penalty. Management meeting at the Region I office on April 29, 1980, to discuss NRC concerns and licensee corrective actions relative to the NRC's Perfomance Appraisal Branch inspection findings and radiation protection concems resulting from recent Region I inspection. Management meeting, at the licensee's request, at the Region I office on l June 13,1980, to discuss program improvements and additional staffing of the Health Physics Department as a result of the Health Physics Appraisal inspection findings. I
OYS,llk CRl EJ. Jio( t ! At (,11,i F.AllriS 31 A1)or;
- 1riSPI C110ti 1IME Arid /OR SCOl'[
Chance f rom Prescribed Inspecti_on Prr.cr T Utill10"Al ARE A Intreege_ ,,, _ ;io_ Change Decreese . Plant Operations X Re f ueling Operations X Radiation Protection y . . Radwaste l'anagcment X Transportation X r'.a i n t e r.a nce X , Security cnd Safeguards Surveillance and Post Refuel Testin9 ISI & IST PROGF.AM X . Design Changes and liodifications X
.l Lnergency Planning - X .
4 ov i ror.. .e n ta l X Training up x Management Con Uols
- X fire Protection
- X I
QA/QC , y Committee Activities / Audits HP Audits T .. Re por ti ng X - Procurement ... X .. 4 '
, o Ctw>
Regiopal % KDirector __ -Cate 9.Wl$C / _\ t a
l 3, Radiation Protection _ i Increased inspection effort is warranted in this area due to the high number of items of noncompliance. Although improvements have reportedly occurred during and.since the end of the evaluation period (July 31, 1980), in depth inspection is necessary to detemine the effectiveness of the licensee's corrective actions. s g Radwaste Management Increased inspection effort is warranted in this area due to the number of i items of noncompliance and the licensee's history of problems in this area. Reported improvements have taken place during and after this evaluation period. In depth inspection is necessary to detennine the effectiveness of the licensee's corrective actions.
- i
[ Transportation Increased inspection effort is reconinended in this area due to licensee history l of problems relating to management and shipment of radioactive waste. Improve- i ments have reportedly taken place during and subsequent to this evaluation , period; however, detailed inspection of the licensee's program is necessary to detennine the effectiveness of program improvements, I { Surveillance and Post Refuel Testing Increased inspection effort is recomended in the areas of Inservice Inspection ' i (ISI) and Inservice Testing (IST) of Pumps and Valves due to the licensee's failure to implement' the IST program as required and the detailed inspection necessary to verify satisfactory completion of the licensee's first ten (10) , year ISI program, t
/2, Training Increased inspection is warranted in the area of health physics technician training due to the item of noncompliance identified by the PAB inspection and recurrent problems relating to use of inadequately trained health physics technicians.
I
/3. Mana9ement controls ,
Increased inspection frequency of the licensee's management controls in the i Health Physics and Radwaste areas is warranted. This is due to the large number of open inspection items and recurrent slippage of comitment dates in these areas. In addition, the effectiveness of the new management / staff organization must be closely monitored. .
S
/
i, Co.wr.ittee Activities and Audig Increased inspection effort is warranted in the area of health physics audits due to a recurrent inspection finding involving failure to complete an annual audit of the entire facility staff training and qualifications, specifically, the health physics program was not addressed during this audit. ' e e t l l l l
"8 8 S OYSTER CREEX NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS 4 k i I l
- 1. PLANT OPERATIONS Analysis This area is under continuous review by the RRI's. During the evaluation '
period there have been two items of noncompliance in the operations area involving procedural inadequacies and inadequate mechanism for the issuance of management instructions. There have been nine LER's in the operations area, four involving component failure, and five involving personnel error. There are presently eight unresolved items in the operations area. The licensee has responded in a positive manner to expeditiously correct operational inadequacies identified by the inspectors. Conclusion - Average Satisfactory Performance ' Beard Comnents - l Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. h 0 e i i
- 2. REFUELING OPERATIONS Analysis The plant underwent a refueling outage during the evaluation period.
Based on the results of five inspections there wen two items of non-compliance involving procedural inadequacies or lack of adherence to procedures, and three unresolved items. There were two refueling activity-related LER's during the evaluation period. Both involved personnel error. Of particular note in this area was an incident involving failure to remove control rod interlock bypass jumpers prior to completion of control cell fuel reload. The incident resulted from a breakdown of administrative controls and procedural inadequacies. The incident received attention from the licensee's General Office Review Board, the Plant Operations Review Comittee, and the Operations Experience Assessment Comittee. The licensee's proposed corrective actions on this matter were satisfactory. Conclusion Average Sei+f44%GFy Perfomance Board Coments Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. a I
- 3. RADIATION PROTECTION Analysis There have been six inspections, including PAB and the Health Physics Appraisal, during this evaluation period which resulted in fourteen items of noncompliance and a civil penalty. Major areas of concern were the use of personnel not meeting ANSI N18.1 - 1971 requirements and the use of procedures inconsistent with Technical Specification require-ments. In addition to the civil penalty issued as a result of inspection 80-11, an order modifying the licensee's license was issued that requires all health physics (HP) technicians to meet or exceed the requirements of ANSI N18.1 - 1971. Increased inspection effort, due to the licensee's continuing HP program problems, was initiated by Region I for an eight week period (May 28 to August 1,1980) by assigning a resident Radiation Specialist at the site. The licensee has taken action to improve the radiation protection program including retraining of HP technicians and foremen, supplementing the site HP staff, and actively seeking additional pe rsonnel .
Conclusion Performance s di N y. BOARD COMMENTS Board recommends increased inspection effort by Region I to confirm that corrective actions already initiated are effective. - I e 4 l
- 4. RA0 WASTE OPERATIONS Analysis There have been two inspections during the evaluation period, one by the FF&MS Branch and one by the PAB. Three items of noncompliance were identified by the FF&MS Branch: 1) Failure to survey to determine the amount of free standing liquid in a shipment of dewatered resin, 2) Failure to submit a Technical Specification change request for new radwaste effluent releases, and 3) Failure to maintain radwaste shipping records required by 10 CFR 71.62. The Health Physics Appraisal Team also noted that radiation protection personnel had little knowledge of the new radwaste facility which was placed into operation in late 1978. In addition, the Performance Appraisal Branch identified one item of noncompliance in this area which involved failure 'to properly survey effluents released by new radwaste ventilation.
The last confirmatory measurements inspection was conducted in May 1980.
. No items of noncompliance were identified.
Conclusion Below Average Performance Unsatisfastery. based on present information. However in the second half of the evaluation period the licensee commenced a training program in this area. In addition, the licensee has begun the implementation of organizational change which is intended to improve the management controls in this area. BOARD COMMENTS Board recommends increased inspection effort in this area to confirm corrective actions already initiated are effective. l I 5 e e
- 5. RADWASTE SHIPMENT Analysis In two inspections in the area of radwaste shipments, one item of noncompliance was identified. It involved delivery of licensed materials in excess of Type A quantity to a carrier for transport without a general or specific license. In particular, the licensee did not have copies of the vendors' cask drawing referred to in the certificate of compliance. This incident occurred in December 1979.
Since that time, the licensee has appointed a radwaste shipping super-visor and conducted additional training in this area. The licensee has committed to prepare procedures for each type of shipping cask handled to preclude recurrences. A recent licensee shipment inspected by Region II (80-15) at the Barnwell, South Carolina disposal facility identified no items of noncompliance. Conclusion S N b -y. performance based on present information. BOARD COMMENTS Board recommends inspection of licensee's radwaste shipment operations within the ne'<t six month evaluation period. l l l 4 e
1 I
- 6. MAINTENANCE Analysis 1
Two inspections have been conducted in the maintenance area during the evaluation period. No items of noncompliance were identified. There were four maintenance related LER's, two involving personnel error, and one involving improper setting of safety relief valves on the c',re spray system. The licensee has developed a viable maintenance force and has consnitted to strengthen it even further by developing a maintenance crew devoted solely to the perfonnance of proventive maintenance. Conclusion - MEk Perfonnance , Board Coninents , Board is in agreement.with the analysis and conclusion. l I
- 7. SECURITY 4, ' S_iF[ GUARDS ,
j Analysis There have been two inspections conducted by the Safeguards Branch Security Branch (PAB) during the evaluation period.Section and one inspection by the P No items of noncompliance were identified. During inspection 80-08, the inspector reviewed allegations by a former guard at the plant that were published in the Asbury Park Press. The allegations could not be substantiated. The licensee has a strong security management program with apparent cerporate management backing providing for responsiveness to security occurrences. Conclusion Avera e Sed Perfonnance BOARD COMKENTS Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion, i 6 g i i _~ ,_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ .- _ _ . . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - -
,i ,n -s.. . - - -s k n_e
- 8. SURVEILLANCE AND POST REFUEL TESTING Analysis Three items of noncompliance have been identified by six inspections t in the area of survd11ance testing. Two involved inadequate actions '
following unsatisfactory surveillance test results. There were 31 LER's concoming surveillance testing, three of which involved failure to urfonn required surveillances. One of these, failure to perfonn
- met 1y1 iodide removal efficiency on charcoal adsorbers, resulted in the third item of noncompliance in the surveillance area. This was caused by failure to incorporate the requirements of a Technical Specification amendment into the master surveillance schedule. The licensee has connitted to conduct a review of all past Technical Speci-fication amendments to verify that revised surveillance requirements are incorporated into the master surveillance Jchedule. This review has not yet been completed.
Additionally, one item of noncogliance (management controls) was identified for failure to implement the IST program for pu s and valves as required by ASME, Section XI. The PAB inspection (79-18 identified no items of noncogliance in the In-Service Inspection (ISI area but , indicated a weakness in the coordination of the licensee's program. Licensee action was in data to establish the r. emaining progress at ISIthat time to be to accumulate completed all the to fulfill available requirements of their first ten (10) year ISI program. A preliminary Region I Data review subsequent to the PA8 inspection, indicated that requirements were being met. , One additional item presently being evaluated by NRC:HQ is the licensee's failum to perfonn SBGTS HEPA filter flow distribution. This surveillance was not conducted due to HEPA filter design which has no provision for
- flow distribution measurements. A Technical Specification change request must be submitted by the licensee to correct this item.
Conclusion - Averaae Satisfactory Perfonnance. BOARD COM ENTS Board reconnends inspection of licensee's ISI and IST Programs within the next six month evaluation period. p l l i l l
,. l
, 9. DESIGN CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS Analysis This area has been inspected by the RO&NS Branch Nuclear Support Section, the RC&ES Branch Engineering Support Section and the PAB during this evaluation period. Three items of noncompliance were identified by PAB conceming fire protection system installation. l Conclusion Average 1 Satisfactory. Perfonnance
)
BOARD.COM ENTS Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. 6 I e O t
- - - -, . - - - m _- .., --., .---. . -r , - - - .
, - .---e.----mv-,-,.-- , .--- w -- --- ---- - - - - - - - , , - - - , - r -.- - .---+- - -
~ l I
l 1 i
- 10. EMERGENCY PLANNING j Analysis
- Two inspections were conducted during this evaluation period, one by the PAB and one during the Health Physics Appraisal. No items of noncompliance were identified; however, as a result of the Health Physics Appraisal an Immediate Action Letter was issued to require the licensee to upgrade the Itcensee's emergency plan to comply with NUREG 0654 requirements. This item was subsequently reviewed and closed by Region I.
Conclusion Average 4*t4thekry Perfonnance , BOARD C0tHENTS Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. 0 9 I 1 I i
' s
- 11. ENVIRONMNTAL PROTECTION Analysis, One inspection has been conducted during this evaluation period by PAB.
No items of noncompliance were identified. Conclusion Average , 4+t4efeetery Performance with available information. : BOARD COR'iENTS Board is in agreemen; with the analysis and conclusion. h t E o
)
I
- 12. TRAINING Analysis _
Two training inspections have been conducted (PAB and Health Physics Appraisal) during this evaluation period. One item of noncompliance was identified concerning the establishment and implementation of a non licensed personnel training program. The licensee committed to major training program revisions, including the appointment of a Manager of Training (T.S. change request submitted on May 2,1980). Training for health p'ysics h technicians was conducted during 1979 (140' hours) as a 1979 civil ' penalty'. result of the January 19 50.. Training of mechanical maintenance personnel wasA revi begun startedduring Julylhe refueling outage but temporarily suspended due to the prior to l refueling work load. Conclusion Sd#fffSitory Performance with the exception of Health Physics Technician , training j BOARD COMMENTS Board reconnends increased inspection effort in the area of Hecith Physics Technician Training. : I e
?
1 I I 1 1 L !
- 13. MANAGEMENT CONTROLS '
Analysis Based on the results of three inspections durin g the evaluation period there have been three items of noncompliance in the area of l management controls. In addition, numerous other items of noncompliance during this period are indicative of apparent weaknesses in the area of management controls. These items have involved inadequacies in operational procedures and lack of adherence to established procedures. The licensee has established a system for administrative and management controls. However, lack of adherence to these procedures at the lower management and supervisory levels has led to several in-cidents of noncompliance. In addition, lack of attention to detail > and failure to recognize potential problem areas during periodic review and update of procedures has led to items of noncompliance related to procedural inadequacies. An additional area of management weakness is - the licensee's failure to meet NRC coninitment dates without notifying Region I.of date sli ! comitment failures)ppage. (i.e. IST This matter was program specifically implementation addressed at the and HP April 29,1980, enforcement conference and recent perfonnance has shown improvement in this area. The station management is aware of , the deficiencies in these areas and is taking steps to strengthen l the overall system of management controls. Included in the corrective action is an increase in the number of personnel assigned to the plant ' 4 staff and a reorganization that will place more direct management I attention to the problem areas. ' l Conclusion l Average Satisf&ctory Performance except in the Health Physics and Radwaste area. I BOARD Com ENTS Board recomends increased inspection effort by Region I personnel l and RRI in this area. 1 l t l l
l
- 14. FIRE PROTECTION Analysis There have been three fire protection inspectioris by the RC&ES Branch Engineering Support Section and one by the PAB during i this evaluation period. In addit'on the RRI routinely perfoms fire protection inspections during plant tours. Two items of non-compliance have been identified, both relating to combustible ,
materials storage on the 119 foot elevation of the reactor building. The licensee has attempted to obtain letters of agreement from fuel suppliers to provide only fire retardant fuel containers. The fuel suppliers have not complied with that request. The licensee is investigating the feasibility of perfoming a fire loading analysis to establish acceptable cuantities of non-fire retardant materials that can be safely storec in vital areas. Conclusion Average . ! Satisfactory perfomance. ' BOARD COMMENTS Bored is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. l I l 4 l t
- 15. QA/QC Analysis -
One QA inspection was conducted by the RO&NS Branch Nuclear Support Section and one inspection by PAB during the evaluation period. Two items of noncompliance were identified concerning weld rod restorage and failure to maintain a duplicate file system when two modification packages could not be located on site. Two unresolved items in the modifications area were identified and 9 of 11 previously identified items were closed. Additionally one item of noncompliance (weld rod storage) and one unresolved item identified by PAB were closed. j Conclusion - Saffsfa!$ory. Performance i BOARD COMMENTS i Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. l l t f l I I l l l b 1
- 16. REVIEW AND AUDITS Analytis Inspections conducted by the RRIs have addressed the activities of the Site Safety Committees. There are no outstanding issues in this area.
One inspection has been conducted of activities of the Off-Site Committee by PAB during this evaluation period. There were no items of noncompliance identified. A QA inspection (80-13) conducted by the Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch, Nuclear Support Section during the evaluation period addressed Licensee QA Audits. No items of noncompitance were identified and a PAB identified item of noncompliance concerning audits and an unresolved item were closed. A recent Health Physics Appraisal inspection (80-17, not yet issued) identified a recurrent audit finding that was previously identified-by the PAB inspection (79-18). This item involved failure to complete an annual audit of the entire facility staff training and qualifications. Conclusion Average . . S**4efactocy Performance with the exception of health physics audits. l BOARD COMMENTS Board recommends increased inspection effort in the area of health physics audits. i I l l l l ' l 1 l l
- 17. REPORTING Analysis ,
This area is under continuous review by the RRI's, in addition, one inspection was conducted by PAB during this evaluation period. One item of noncompliance was identified concerning the licensee's failure to report a minor change in the security organization. Two environmental reports were not submitted within the required time frame. These were identified by the licensee and one report was . subsequently submitted. The second report was prepared; however, it was misplaced while 'n the licensee's administrative review process. This was identified by the licensee and submittal made approximately six(6)monthsaftertheevent. Innediate telephone notification was made in each of the above incidents when discovered by the licensee. ! Conclusion - Average
-Satisfactory-performance.
BOARD COMMENTS Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. I h i
)
i
- 18. PROCUREMENT Analysis This area was inspected by PAB during this evaluation period. No items of noncompliance were identified. The last RO&NS Branch Nuclear Support Section inspection in this area was in February - March,1979.
Conclusion I[NEactory Performance with present infonnation. BOARD COMMENTS Board is in agreement with the analysis and conclusion. t l [ l l ' S
i e i OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION S.A.L.P. BOARD SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION i a F
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAk . CRATING STATION ENFORCEMENT HISTORY FROM AUGUST 1, 1979 TO JULY 31, 1980 k Severity Fu ctional Area Subject 79-h Deficiency Survelliance Testing Failure to document retest results following unsatisfactory survelliance test. Infraction Survelliance Testing Failure to consider IBGTS inoperable following failed survelliance test. 79-18 Infraction Operations Procedure No.108 dfd not provide for Independent verification of Ilfted leads and jupers. Infraction Fire Protection Fire doors open and combustible material on 119 foot level of the reactor building. Infraction Design Changes Drawing lacking detall of pfpe supports. Infraction Design Changes Inadequate Instruction for anchor bolt installation and gmuting. Infraction Design Changes Procedures and drawings not revised after completion of modification No. 213. Infraction QA/QC Dupitcate flie system not couplete. Infraction Training Training plan not 1splemented. HP trafntng program not estabitshed. Infraction Management Control Response to and closcout of nonconformance/ corrective action required reports not timely. Infraction Audits Annual audit of staff training and qualf fication not conducted. Deffctency QA/QC Retumed weld rod not reldentified and tagged for storage per procedure 3005 Infraction Radiation Protection Written procedures not established for calibration of various radiation, effluent, and gaseous monitors. Infraction Radiation Pmtection Effluents released by new radwette not properly surveyed. e Nah L. ___ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEs. .ERATING STATION ENFORCEMENT HISTORY FROM AUGUST 1, 1979 TO JULY 31, 1980 Inspection Munber Severity Functional Area Subject 79-18 Infraction Surveillance Analysts of samples from 58GTS charcoal adsorbers not performed. Deffciency Reporting Regional office not notified of minor change to security plan. 79-23 Infraction Radweste Operations Failure to submit Technical Specification change request for new redweste i effluent releases. Deffctency Radweste Operations Failure to maintain records pursuant to 10 CFR 71.62 Infraction Radweste Shipment Failure to meet 10 CFR 71.3 prior to shipping radwaste. Infraction Radweste Operations Failure to survey to meet 10 CFR 20.301 A j 79-24 Infraction Fire Protection $'. Mon fire retardant wood crates on 119 foot elevation of the reactor building. f 80-03 Infraction f Radiation Protection Failure to evaluate Beta monitoring as required by 10 CFR 20.2018. s Infraction Radfation Protection Failure to use respiratory protection equipment in accordance with ', 10 CFR 20.103C. h Infraction s' Radiation Protection Failure to follow procedures required by Technical Specification 6.11. " Deficiency Radiation Protection Failure to label containers of radioactive material. - j 80-10 Deficiency Management Control LLRT procedure changed without proper documentation or approval. y 3 Infraction Management Control Fallure to implement IST program for pimps and valves in accordance with ASE . Section XI. i 80-11 Infraction Radiation Protection Failure to meet 10 CFR 20.103 (A)(3)(Air samp11pg) Infraction Radiation Protection Failure to use process, engineering controls or other precautionary procedures. , 4 0 e Nh 1
= ,
.-m. m.. .- - e. -y a em
- * ' - N *#
OYSTER CREEK NUCL .NERATING STAf!ON ENFORCEMENT HISTORY FROM AUGUST 1, 1979 TO JULY 31, 1980 Inspection Number Severity Functional Area Subject 80-11 Infraction Radiation Protection Fallterr., to provide personnel monitoring as required by procedure. Infraction Radiation Protection Failure to instrvet worters pursuant to 10 GR 19.12. Yloistion Radiation Protection Failure to prepare procedures consistent with Technical Specification 6.8.1 80-12 Deficiency Safeguarifs Physical inventory failed to list 2 PuBe sources and listed a spent fuel pin by the wrong serfal No. 80-17* Infraction Radiation Protection No procedure prepared or tabulated ilst maintained to account for MPC, hours. Infraction Radfation Protection Monthly ALARA meetings not conducted from November 11, 1979 to May 19,1980. Infraction Radiation Protection Failure to perform voltage plateau on counter No.172 between November 17, 1979 and May 19, 1980. Infraction Review and Audit Failure to conduct annual audit of factitty staff training and qualtf tcations between October 1978 and May 21, 1980. 80-19 Infraction Refueling Operations Failure to follow procedure No. 501 resulting in spent fuel pool overflow. Infraction Refueling Operations Failure to remove control rod interlock bypass jumpers. 80-23 Infraction Operations No adequate mechanism provided for issuance of management fnstructions of short term appitcability. t
- Inspection Report not issued.
e- m. .m _ m _m am. o
s M n ee5eeet t eeeesetete Et g t o o t -t ot ot oRRRo o o oR oRRs o o tt4RR o o o oo C w gD o o o o o o - o o o o o -o o o oo s 5
~ 2 h k & 5 & E E & E o &>a&2&&
s d' sa>ao ss&aB &aaaaaaa r
$ N k l 3 2 gy - - - -
- 3
. ~-
= = 2 U 5 t 5:i E N
w
> o 5 8? E p
- m g
Et gg
- N m l" - gW N w -
--lN - - --g w I g
WM 2 ! c -
" p 1 I4 J.1 ) d E5 '
o o - - e o o -o e o o e o - o - o 13*
! 8 E' > & 2 h > E & s4 04 es E5
>g R*
~
eaaeaaaaa& aaaaeaasa E>>D>>a& K* E*8 i u - ~25 e 3- Ot: i 6- a
~
t
- C C
. - :,C:::-
.LI n s =~
M W 5 8?
~Il 5 u .* ;
W N M M N ** N N N N - ---N *= N e= - 3 B sig F tis Es
- z. . E'yo a8 I u
- D "gf se a- .g.
,y,
?- u
- s. agw
.8
- 3s 8
% 2~ z c
h 's ?] F
% 1 * *
'E " !!! AO
**l- ~g 25
<= 3'2qE
=% A2 .
2 s- e>z: Je a" - # 24 ; l
.g Eu $' ,,
5 33 3 8 mb=
~ =
0sgE2FE2 MI v3 2.s 3
.: 1
*5g sj u 2 : : : 3 t 2 get a 2 & aaa2 M a8 55swie$sai
- e-4 4 a ee
$% h&C a&s 1
0
OYSTER CREEK MUCLEAR GEM 3 STATION LICENSEE EVENT REPOR. ..e40PSIS - August 1. 1979 ts July 31,1980 LER Numeer M Cause Code Description 79-25 30 Day D Primary Containment degraded when torus sagle valve was lef t open. 79-26 30 Day A Laundry drain tank discharge pfpe failure resulting in release of radioactive material. 79-27 (*10) 24 Hour 8 Discovery of six selsmic restrafnts for the six inch core spray test itne which were ef tner in positions other than required by or1ginal design criteria or had failed. 79-28 30 Day E Core Spray isolation valve Y-20-15 fnoperable in the open position due to inadvertant inttf ation of clost signal while the valve was stroking open. 79-29 30 Day C Source range monitor rod block setpoint lower (94 CPS) than Technical Specification lief t of 100 CPS. 79-30 30 Day D 'A' CRD hydraulic pug out of service for ten hours due to vent piping leak. 79-31 30 Day 0 'B' CRD hydraulic pump out of service due to o*Jtboard seal water pipe nipple leak. 79-32 (*20) 30 Day A Three small leaks on service water side of 1-3 containment spray heat exchanger caused by galvanic action between 90/10 Cu.M1 and carbon steel. 79-33 30 Day A One of five electromatic relief valve setpoints found above Technical Specification value due to a fatled switch. 79-34 24 Hour D Secondary containment vfolation - both reactor butiding doors open. j 79-35 30 Day E One main steam ifne high radf ation monitor setpoint found two pertent above Technical Spectfication Ifmit. 79-36 (*30) 30 Day D Containment spray compartment door found open. Door was closed and dogged. Containment spray system I was constdered inoperable while doors were open. I 30 Day 79-37 A Fallure of core spray booster pump to start during routine surveillance due to defective control power fuse holder. i i
~
OYSTER CREEK HUCLEAR GE NG STATION LICENSEE EVENT REP A . A NOPSIS August 1.1979 t2 July 31,1980 LER Nun 6er Type Cause Code Description 79-38 30 Day A Fallure of 0.G. No.1 to start due to position switch adjustment. 79-39 30 Day A APRM Channel No. I rod block setpoint found one perceni above Technical Specification limit. 4 79-40 30 Day C Failure to perform Methyl Iodi de removal efficiency of $8GTS charcoal filters. Tested satisfactorily. 79-41 30 Day B Radioactive releases (Iow level) from new radweste butiding not accurately penitored. 79-42 30 Day A Inadvertent lifting of one electromatic relief valve due to setpoint drift of new pressure switch. 79-43 30 Day A Failure of one reactor building to torus vacinam breaker to open during - surveillance testing. { 79-44 30 Day 0 Reactor building to torus vacuum breaker blocked from opening more than La percent due to contractor scaffolding. ; ETS 79-04 (*40) 10 Day A Second dilution pimp not run for 40 minutes due to equipment probleses. [ ETS 79-05 (*41) 10 Day E Fish kill of 50 to 100 fish. - i ETS 79-06 10 Day 8 Only one dilution pts, in service for a period of 26 minutes when two were required. f ETS 79-07 10 Day D Loss of one dilution pump for 92 minutes when two pumps were required. l ETS 79-08 10 Day B One dilution pump off (tripped) for 20 minutes when two pumps west required. I 80-01 24 Hour A Failure of one of five ADS valves to operate during functional testing.
- 80-02 33 Day D One fuel bundle found misorfented 180 degrees. Subsequent evaluation indicated no ji damage to the bundle.
i 80-03 24 Hour A Discovery of two crack' indications in core spray sparger (System II). -
,i 6 h&
=h-6.e w= = - - - -
aww + *e w * -N = - - -%w- mm.,* + m . e
. ~
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GE. .1G STATION LICENSEE EVENT REP 0h. ANOPSIS August 1, 1979 ts July 31,1980 LER Number M Cause Code Description 80-04 30 Day A Several leaks four.d in underground aluminum condensate Ifnes. Leakage was due to galvanic correston. , 80-05 30 Day D Reactor building ventilation monitor trfp setpoints found above Technical Spectff-cation ilmits. 80-06 30 Day E Rectrculation flow sensors (zero percent) found out of tolerance on six of eight channels. Reactor scram setpoints on three of eight channels above Italt due to zero setpoint drift. 80-07 30 Day A Low flow on 58GTS No. I due to s11ppfng belts on fan. 80-08(*11) 24 Hour 8 Mine pipe cleaps which connect snubbers to isolation condenser pfptng were found not installed per design. (IEB 79-14)' 80-09 (*21) 30 Day B Tube leakage on all containment spray heat exchangers. Tubes being replaced during refueling outage. 80-10(*12) 24 Hour B Three pfpe hangers in the liquid polson system not installed per design. One restraint in RWCU system not installed per design. 80-11 30 Day A 58GTS tripped when flow indication Indicated zero due to a leaking instrument sensing ifne. 80-12 30 Day D Weekly surveillance of diesel and station battery not conducted. 80-13 24 Hour A Fire System taken out of service to repair a leaking valve in the supply header. 80-14 24 Hour A Diesel generator No. I failed to synchronf re and tripped during surveillance testing. Plant was in cold shutdown. 80-15 30 Day A Reactor building automatic Isolation valve Inoperative (one of two in series) due to broken piston rod eye stud. 80-16 24 Hour A Defective main generator load reject sensor pressure switch. -m d MM'6
- m. . . -
m*m *w ous e , m we
. ~
CYSTER CREEK NUCLLAR G ING STATION
- LICENSEE EVENT REPtm. SYNOPS15 August 1. 1979 t3 July 31. 1980 LER Nwber Type. Cause Code Descriptfon 80-17 24 Hour D Rod block bypasss jumpers (two) were left in place. Administrative control checks prevented movement of more than 1 control rod during refueling.
80-18 30 Day E Reactor high pressure scram sensor (RE030) less conservative than Technical Specification Ifmit. Plant was in cold shutdown. 80-19 30 Day E L1f set.t pressure of core spray system reifef valves (V-20-25 and V-20-24) improperly 80-20 24 Hour A Identification of degraded fire barriers and failure to estabitsh required fire watch. 80-21 MA NA LER No. erroneously assigned - Issued as 80-24 80-22 30 Day E Trip potnts of three of four isolation condenser inttf ation pressure switches were less censervative than Technical Spectffcation ilmits. Plant was in cold shutdown. 80-23 30 Day E Electrwatic relfef valve high pressure sensors (IA838 and 1A83E) trip points exceeded Technical, Specification ilmits by 1.5 and 2.8 PSIG respectively. 80-24 30 Day D One rvd free travel survelliance not conducted as required. 80-25 24 Hour A Fire suppression system removed from service for replacement of PIV valves V-19-12 and V-19-8. 80-26 30 Day A Failure of one furdraulic snubber to lock-ttp in compression. Plant was in cold shutdown. 80-27 24 Hour D Reactor buf1 ding to suppression chamber vacuum breaker system inlet pipe found blocked by plastic cover. 80-28 30 Day E Two of four reactor high pressure scram sensor (RE03C and RE030) setpoints found above Technical Spectfication ilmits. g_ . .
.- -m-- = * * *
~
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR 4 TING STATION
- LICENSEE EVENT . SYNOPSIS August 1.1979 to .ely 31,1980 1
LER Number g Cause Code Description 80-29 30 Day A Failure of drywell high pressure switch and subsequent initiation of core spray (no injection). Resulted in manual defeat of both core spray systems and plant shutdown. 80-30 30 Day A Failure of one electromatic re11ef valve to operate during operability testing. 80-31 30 Day A Failure of one hydraulic snubber to lock up in tensfon. 80-32(*31) 24 Hour 0 80th watertight doors to containment spray ptmp rooms found open. 80-33 30 Day E Torus oxygen concentration above five percent. Reactor shutdown was commenced then terminated when the concentration was reduced to less than five percent. 80-34 30 Day A 58GTS No. I trfpped due to overload during routine surveillance. ) ETS 80-01 10 Day E Ff sh kill during plant shutdown for refueling on January 5.1980. i
- ETS 80-02 10 Day C Less than two dilution pungs in operation when water temperature was less than j 60 F.
ETS 80-03 10 Day A Failure to run second dilution pump when Route 9 bridge temperature was above 87 F. ETS 80-04 10 Day 8 Loss of dilution pumps, seven times over a three day period, due to high Ivbe i oli temperature trips. 1
, Notes: Cause Codes: A - Component Failure 8 - Design /Fabr1 cation / Analysis Error C - Defective Procedures j ; D - Personnel Error E - Other i ;
- Causally ifnked event element:
(xo?Initialgroupelement (xyJSubsequentgroupelement(s)
- I i
i
%. % e m- es, .ne.-
+smm .e m.. . ..m , _m4 ,}}