IR 05000219/1979016
| ML19250C202 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1979 |
| From: | Blumberg N, Kister H, Zimmerman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19250C194 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-79-16, NUDOCS 7911210296 | |
| Download: ML19250C202 (12) | |
Text
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
Report No.
79-16 Docket No.
50-219 License No.
DPR-16 Priority Category C
--
s Lic.ensee:
Jersey Central Power and Light Company Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Morristown, New Jersey Facility Name:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station i
Inspection At:
Forked River, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
August 14-17, 1979 Inspectors:
bU 7/
N. J. Blumberg, Reactor Inspector
- date YS S,W Y
t ---R. Zimmerman, Reactor Inspector
/ date date Approved by: '!
h(7
7 99 41. B. ' Kister, Chief, Nuclear Support
/ date Section No. 2, RO&NS Branch
~ Inspection Summary:
Inspection on August 14-17, 1979 (Report No. 50-219/79-16)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of licensee action on previous inspection findings; administrative controls for safety related maintenance; safety related maintenance activities; maintenance personnel qualifications; administrative controls for surveillance procedures; surveillance testing; witnessing of surveillance test; technician qualification; and facility tours.
The inspection involved 53 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC regional based inspectors.
Results:
Of the nine areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found in seven areas; and two apparent items of noncompliance were found in two areas Infraction-Failure to declare SGTS pump inoperable and to take required Tech-nical Specification action for inoperable SGTS pumps - see paragraph 7.C(4),
'
and Deficiency - Failure to document retest of a diesel generator sequence timer and retest of 'atter specific gravity readings paragraph - 7.C(1)).
.
o 203 vo'
Region I Form 167 (August 1979)
7911210
~
,.,
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted F. Anderson, Mechanical Group Maintenance Supervision J. Carroll, Station Superintendent W. Deck, Quality Assuance Receipt Inspector
- S. Fuller, Assistant Quality Assurance Supervisor T. Gaffney, Instrument and Control Group Maintenance Supervisor
- E. Growney, Operations Engineer G. Hinrichs, Staff Mechanical Engineer D. Keith, Supervisor of Stores (Nuclear)
F. Kossatz, Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor R. Lange, Staff Engineer D. Leroy, Electrical Group Maintenance Supervisor A. Lewis, Document Control Supervisor
- R. McNair, Engineer-0perations Department
- J. Molnar, Maintenance Engineer T. Quintenz, Assistant Staff Engineer
- J. Sullivan, Chief Engineer Other members of the operations, maintenance, instrument and control, administrative, stores, and quality assurance staffs were also interviewed.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
<
- Contacted by telephone only.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Infraction (219/78-19-01):
Five safety related maintenance activities were not classified as safety related on the associated job orders.
In response to inspection finding 219/77-24-04, the licensee conducted training concerning administrative controls of maintenance activities and documented this training on memoranda dated January 4, January 20, February 21, and March 3, 1978.
In additior, to this training, because of finding 219/78-19-01, the licensee issued a memorandum on October 2,1978 reemphasizing the need for proper classification of job orders and the proper use of job order classification instructions in Administrative Procedure (AP) 105.
Also a memorandum was issued on October 12, 1978 which specified a person to contact in the Licensee Generation Engineering Departr.ent in case there is doubt as to proper classification of job orders.
The inspector reviewed numerous recently completed job orders and found none which were improperly classified.
This item is closed.
n4 o n.:
.
LUU
.
(Closed) Deficiency (219/77-24-04):
Job orders associated with safety related maintenance activities did not specify post maintenance retest requirements, document the " return to normal" status, and/or identify applicable procedures / documents.
A "QASL Job Order Backsheet" form which, in part, documents post maintenance testing and test results was issued as part of Revision 6 to AP-105 on September 12, 1978; and an "0yster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Switching and Tagging Request Form" which increases control of system status during maintenance activities was issued as part of Revision 11 to AP-105 on July 10, 1979.
The inspector reviewed recently issued / completed safety related job orders and observed that procedures were properly documented on the job orders; that the
"QASL Job Order Backsheet" was being used to document post maintenance testing and test results; that the " Tagging Request" was being used for control of system status; and the completed job orders were receiving Quality Assurance review in a timely manner.
This item is closed.
(0 pen) Deficiency (219/77-24-05):
Failure to properly control and docu-ment traceability of parts used for safety related maintenance.
The "QASL Job Order Backsheet" issued as part of Revision 6 to AP-105, in part, documents material traceability information and is attached to each safety related job order.
Using material information recorded on the "QASL Backsheet" the inspector was able to verify the traceability of components /
parts used in safety related jobs; that quality assurance inspections were accomplished on those components / parts; and that there was proper docu-mentation that the correct components / parts were installed.
In order to ensure better control of "QASL" material once it has been issued to the Maintenance Department, the licensee had previously stated that material cages would be built in the reactor building.
The building of these mate-rial cages has been delayed.
However, a licensee representative stated the material areas should be built by January 1,1980.
The inspector acknowledged this statement.
This item remains open pending completion of the caged areas within the reactor building for control of "QASL" material.
(Closed) Deficiency (219/78-19-03):
Diesel Generator Starting Batteries.
Implementing procedures and completed data were reviewed to ensure Tech-nical Specification surveillances are being accomplished.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (219/78-19-02):
Containment Spray / Emergency Ser-vice Water Heat Exchanger delta pressure.
The licensee stated that an action item has been generated and responsibility has been given to the Engineering Department for future evaluation.
3.
Administrative Controls for Safety Related Maintenance Administrative controls were reviewed to determine the licencee's program for implementing requirements associated with the conduct of safety related maintenance as specified in Technical Specification Section 6; Regulatory Guide 1.33; Quality Assurance Program Requirements; and ANSI 18.7, Admini-strative Controls for Nuclear Power Plants.
207
'"#
.
.
The following documents were reviewed:
AP105, Maintenance, Repair and Modification Control, Revision 7,
--
November 10, 1978; AP108, Control of Tagging, Electrical Jumpers, Lifted Electrical
--
Leads, Keys and Locked Valves, Revision 11, July 10, 1979; AP110, Handling and Storage of Materials Parts and Components,
--
Revision 1, October 10, 1975; AP114, Testing, Revision 0, August 2, 1974;
--
AP117, Material Identification and Control, Revision 0, June 8, 1976;
--
AP118, Preventative Maintenance Administrative Procedure, Revision 2,
--
September 12, 1978; AP119, Housekeeping, Revision 2, September 1, 1978;
--
AP120.1, Welding, Burning, and Grinding Administrative Procedure,
--
Revision 4, March 9, 1979; AP121, Storeroom Instructions, Revision 1, May 23, 1978.
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Review of Safety Related Maintenance Activities a.
The inspector reviewed safety related maintenance conducted by the licensee on a sampling basis to verify that:
Technical Specification Requirements were met while equipment
--
was out of service, and a Licensee Event Report was submitted for maintenance associated with a reportable occurrence; Required administrative approvals were obtained to perform the
--
work; An approved procedure was used where appropriate;
--
--
Required inspections were performed; and, Records to substantiate quality of work and parts used were
--
available (this includes documentation associated with procure-ment, inspections and test results).
b.
Documentation of the following maintenance activities were reviewed:
}G}
., r. 1
.
Job Order (J.0.) 1194E, May 15, 1979, Change of Taps on 1B2
--
Unit Substation Transformers; J.0. 3153M, May 20, 1979, Repair of V-111 Valve on CRD Accumu-
--
lator 10-23; J.0. 1007E, March 6, 1979, Change Voltmeter on "C" Battery
--
Switchgear J.0. 1855I, May 6, 1979, Replace Solenoids on Pilot Valves for
--
MSIV's NS04A and NSO4B; J.O. 3115M, May 11, 1979, Repair Cleanup System "A" Casing
--
Flange Leak; J.0. 1850I, May 1, 1979, Repair Erratic and Wrong Indication
--
on Control Room Instrumentation Recirculation Loop Temperature Recorder on 3F; J.0. 1730I, April 6, 1979, Install Containment Spray Under-
--
voltage Modification; J.0. 2688M, February 29, 1979, Repair Fuel Pool Cooling "A",
--
Pump Check Valve;
--
J.0. 1820I, April 24, 1979, Repair of LPRM 04-33C Erratic Indi-cations and Upscale Failure; J.0. 1767I, April 11, 1979, Repair of Torus to Reactor Building
--
Vacuum Breakers 26-16, 26-18 Solenoid Valve Air Leak;
--
J.0. 2798M, March 16, 1979, Rerouting of Drywell Equipment Drain Tank Pump Discharge Line; J.0. 3075M, May 10, 1979, Repair of CRD 46-39 Leaking Scram
--
Inlet Valve; J.0. 1172E, May 8, 1979, Repair of Defective Locking Latch on
--
Core Spray Valve Breaker; J.0. 3049M, May 4, 1979, Repair of Control Air Leak Across
--
Actuating Piston on MSIV NSO4B;
J.0. 1014E, March 9, 1979, Rebrush A, B, and D Recirculation
--
Pumps MG Set; J.0. 2710M, March 1, 1979, Replace Relief Valve Nipples on Con-
--
tainment Spray System No. 1 and 2 Heat Exchangers;
} Grj
.
,c, s
.
J.O. 0973E, February 16, 1979, Checkout of Difficult to Operate
--
No. 2 Diesel Generator Mode Switch; J.0. 3148M, May 15, 1979, Replace Packing Gland Nuts on Core
--
Spray System II Condensate Storage Tank Feed to N201B Drain Valve; J.0. 3135M, May 20, 1979, Core Boring for Wide Range Reactor
--
Vessel Level Instrumentation; J.0. 3106M, May 11, 1979, Replace Gear Lube Oil in No. 1-2
--
Diesel Fire Pump Gear Drive; J.0. 2760M, April 16, 1979, Replace Containment Spray Pump
--
Drain;
_.
--
J.0. 1173E, May 4, 1979, Modification of Emergency Diesel Generator 1-1 Loevers.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Maintenance Personnel Qualifications The inspector reviewed the qualification reco-ds of selected technicians and craft personnel who performed maintenance on safety related systems and components to verify that the individual's experience level and train-ing were in accordance with the guidelines of ANSI N18.1-1971, Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, Section 4.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Administrative Controls for Surveillance Procedures The inspector performed an audit of the licensee's administrative controls by conducting a sampling review of the below listed administrative proce-dures with respect to the requirements of the Technical Specifications, Section 6, " Administrative Controls," ANSI N18.7, " Administrative Controls for Nuclear Power Plants" and Regulatory Guide 1.33, " Quality Assurance Program Requirements".
Procedure Number (No.) 107, Procedure Control, Revision 11,
--
February 9, 1979.
Procedure No. 112, Oyster Creek Calibration of Maintenance Test
--
and Inspection Tools, Gauges, and Instruments.
--
Procedure No. 116, Surveillance Test Program Schedule and Review of Test Results, Revision 3, September 20, 1978.
No items of noncompliance were identified.} eo4 .
.
7.
Surveillance Testing The inspector reviewed surveillance tests on a sampling basis to a.
verify the following: Tests required by Technical Specifications are available and -- covered by properly approved procedures.
Test format and technical content are adequate and provide -- satisfactory testing of related systems or components.
Results of selected tests are in conformance with Technical -- Specifications and procedure requirements have been reviewed by someone other than the tester or individual directing the test.
b.
The following surveillance tests were reviewed to verify the items identified abcve: Procedure Number (PN) 612.4.001, Liquid Poison Pump Operability -- Test, Revision 1, April 4, 1979.
Data were reviewed for four tests performed April 5, 1979 through June 24, 1979.
, PN 636.2.001, Diesel Generator Automatic Actuation Test, -- Revision 3, May 11, 1979.
Data were reviewed for tests per-formed December 1 and December 4, 1978.
PN 645.4.001, Fire Pump Operability Test, Revision 5, May 31, -- 1979.
Data were reviewed for eight tests performed May 29, 1979 through July 10, 1979.
Technical Specification Log Sheet, Suppression Chamber level and -- temperature.
Data were reviewed for daily log readings recorded during July, 1979.
PN 651.4.005, Stai.dby Gas Treatment System HEPA Filter AP Test, -- Revision 0, April 6, 1978.
Data were reviewed for tests per-formed April 27, April 28 and May 2, 1978.
PN 651.2.004, Standby Gas Treatment System Electric Heating -- Coil Test, Revision 1, May 5, 1978.
Cata were reviewed for test performed May 10, 1978.
PN 609.4.001, Isolation Condenser Valve Operability Test, Revi- -- sion 3, April 4, 1979.
Data were reviewed for four tests per-formed April 12, 1979 through July 5, 1979.
PN 617.4.002, Control Rod Drive Exercise and Stall Flow Test, -- Revision 1, November 14, 1977.
Data were reviewed for seven tests performed June 4, 1979 through July 15, 1979.
.,p- -) 4 j .. I
' / . .
. PN 636.2.005, Diesel Generator Weekly Battery Surveillance, -- Revision 2, May 31, 1979.
Data were reviewed for eight tests performed June 1, 1979 through July 20, 1979.
PN 636.2.004, Diesel Generator Battery Discharge (Load Test), -- Revision 2, May 31, 1979.
Data were reviewed for four tests performed August 30, 1978 through March 8, 1979.
PN 636.2.006, Diesel Generator Monthly Battery Surveillance, -- Revision 1, September 7,1978.
Data were reviewed for tests per-formed May 11, June 13 and July 6, 1979.
Reactor Building Primary System Summary Sheet, Revision 1.
-- (Reactor Coolant System Chemistry Sample-Conductivity / Chloride) Data were reviewed for daily tests performed December, 1978 through March, 1979.
c.
The following items were identified as a result of the above review: (1)(a) Procedure Number 636.2.001, Diesel Generator Load Sequence Timers, written to satisfy T.S. 4.7. A.2, requires in part, that the diesel generator load sequence timers for the service water pumps be automatically actuated and functionally tested each refueling outage.
Data from the surveillance test performed December 1,1978, on Diesel Generator #2, did not ' indicate satis-factory operation of the sequence timer for Service Water Pump 1-B.
A mechanical fault in the pump breaker prevented the timer from performing as designed.
Repair and functional testing of the Service Water Pump.1-B breaker was documented; however, no , test data could be located to substantiate proper operation of the sequence timer.
The licensee representative stated that the sequence timer was in fact tested with satisfactory results fol-lowing maintenance-to the breaker.
(b) Procedure Number 636.2.006, Diesel Generator Monthly Battery Surveillance, written to satisfy T.S. 4.7.A.5, requires the ' specific gravity of each cell to be greater than 1.225.
Data from surveillance tests performed June 13, 1979 and July 6, 1979 on Diesel Generator #1 Starting Batteries, contained specific gravity readings for cell-13 and cell-16 which were less than ' 1.225.
Although each surveillance test above contained a state-ment that an equalizing charge had been initiated as corrective action, no documentation could be located to demonstrate that the specific gravity readings were increased to greater than 1.225.
The licensee representative stated that the specific gravity for cell-13 and cell-16 were in fact tested following completion of the equalizing charges, with satisfactory results in both instances.
4 70a qi7 LiL
. .
The lack of documentation for the above retests represents an item of noncompliance (deficiency) with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI which requires documentation and evaluation of surveillance test results (219/79-16-01).
Data to date, from subsequent Diesel Generator Monthly Battery Surveillance tests have satisfied the acceptance criteria.
The licensee representative stated that a procedure will be generated for individual testing of the Service Water Pump 1-8 sequence timer, with the surveillance test performed by October 18, 1979.
(2) Procedure 602.4.002, MSIV Closure Test written to satisfy T.S.
4.5.I.3.6, utilizes a stopwatch for determining the amount of time required for each valve to go from full open to full closed.
The inspector noted that the stopwatch used in the performance of the test, the sole stopwatch maintained by the Operations Department, is not controlled, in that it is not addressed in Procedure No. 112, "0yster Creek Calibration of Maintenance Test and Inspection Tools, Guages, and Instruments".
Further, the inspector noted that no means of identification or trace-ability of use appears to exist for the stopwatch.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments and stated that a review of control, including a means of identification, will be conducted for the stopwatch.
The above item is unresolved pending licensee action and subsequent NRC:RI review (50-219/79-16-02).
(3) The inspector noted various surveillance tests where unsatis-factory test results placed the licensee in a condition requir-ing action as specified in the Technical Specifications.
In general, required action consisted of demonstrating operability of a given component on a periodic basis until operability was restored to the component that was unable to satisfy the sur-veillance test requirements.
The licensee representative stated that documentation of operability during the interim period, as described above, is accomplished by an entry in the control room log book.
In all cases, the inspector was able to locate docu-mentation in the control room log book substantiating perfor-mance of an operability check.
However, the inspector informed the licensee that the use of surveillance test procedures, or portions of the procedures, as appropriate, is required when demonstrating and documenting operability required by the Tech-nical Specifications.
The licensee representative acknowledged the inspector's comment and stated that in the future, operabi-lity will be demonstrated and documented by use of approved sur-veillance procedures.
The above item is unresolved pending licensee action and subsequent NRC:RI review (219/79-16-03).
}}}
- n'
<
.
(4) During the review of Procedure 651.4.005, Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) HEPA Filter AP Test, performed April 27, 1978, the inspector noted that the filter pressure drop across filters F-1-7 (SGTS #1 circuit) and F-1-10 (SGTS #2 circuit) had been determined by the licensee to be in excess of that allowable by Technical Speci fication (T.S. ) 4.5.K.1.b. (1).
In addition, the SGTS #1 circuit flow rate was determined by the licensee to oe lesS than that prescribed in the Technical Specifications and the circuit was declared inoperable.
Technical Specification required action for one inoperable circuit was implemented.
, However, with the filter pressure drop across filter F-1-10 in excess of that allowable by T.S. Figure 4.5.1, SGTS #2 was not considered inoperable and a reactor shutdown was not initiated as required by T.S. 3.5.B.4.
The above condition represents an item of noncompliance (Infrac-tion) with T.S. 4.5.k.1.b.(1) and T.S. 3.5.B.4 (219/79-16-04).
Tt.e licensee representative stated that the flow rate through the circuit and previous charcoal and particulate filter effi-ciency tests demonstrated the cabability of the filters for SGTS #2 circuit to be sufficient.
Further, the licensee repre-sentative stated that the appropriate vendor manual recommended filter replacement at a pressure drop across the filter of four inches of water, whereas filter F-1-10 had a pressure drop of approxiinately three inches of water.
The inspector acknowledged the licensee's comments and stated that failure to satisfy the maximum filter pressure drop requirement as it appears in the Technical Specifications is considered cause for sytem inoperabi-lity, and further review by the licensee into the conservatism of T.S. Figure 4.5.1 may be warranted.
Results of surveillance tests performed May 2, 1978, following the replacement of filters F-1-7 and F-1-10, demonstrated both circuits to be operable.
8.
Inspector Witnessing of Surveillance Test The inspector witnessed the performance of surveillance testing of a.
selected components to verify the following: Surveillence test procedure was available and in use.
-- Special test equipment required by procedure was calibrated -- and in use.
Test prerequisites were met.
-- The procedure was adequately detailed to assure performance -- of a satisfactory surveillance.
.
I L! r
.
. b.
The inspector witnessed the performance of: PN 607.3.002, Containment Spray System Automatic Actuation Test, -- . Revision 5, July 30, 1979.
Test performed August 16, 1979.
As a result of the above witnessing, the following item was identified: c.
The acceptance criteria of the procedure is expressed in pounds per square inch gauge whereas the test instrument used reads in units of inches of water.
Thus, the acceptance criteria must be converted to equivalent units each time the surveillance is performed.
The licensee representative acknowledged the inspector's comment and stated that the acceptance criteria would be changed to read in inches of water during the next procedure revision.
Further, the licensee representative stated that other procedures discovered which require converting the acceptance criteria units as above, would also be addressed in the next appropriate revision.
The inspector had no further questions.
- 9.
Technician Qualification The inspector reviewed the qualification records cf two currently assigned technicians having responsibility for surveillance testing of safety related systems and components.
This review was performed to verify that the individual's experience level and training were in accordance with ANSI N18.1-1971, " Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel."
No items of noncompliance were identified.
10.
Facility Tours On several occasions during the inspection, tours of the facility were conducted in the reactor building and auxiliary building.
During the tours, the inspectors discussed plant operations and observed housekeep-ing, radiation control measures, monitoring instrumentation, and controls for Technical Specification compliance.
In addition, the inspector observed control room operations for control room manning, and facility operation in accordance with administrative and Technical Specification requirements.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
11.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable, an item of noncompliance, or a deviation.
Unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraphs 7.C(2) and 7.C(3).
7 c. 1 ?iR
L \\ J
.
12.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on August 17, 1979.
The purpose, scope and findings of the inspection were summarized.
Subsequent tele-phone discussions concerning inspection findings were held between Mr. E. Growney and Mr. R. Zimmerman of this office on August 22 and August 23, 1979; and betwen Mr. J. Sullivan and Mr. R. Zimmerman on August 23, 1979.
'} ) !) .o+ < _ . % }}