IR 05000219/1983011
| ML20023D984 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1983 |
| From: | Cowgill C, Keimig R, John Thomas NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023D980 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-83-11, NUDOCS 8306060220 | |
| Download: ML20023D984 (9) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
83-11 Docket No.
50-219 Category C
License No.
DPR-16 Priority
---
Licensee:
GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
,
,
Facility Name: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Inspection at: Forked River, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: April 5 - May 2,1983 Inspectors:
AdcEll$
W A 10,/4 f L
'
l~
Q O
C. Cowgirl, Senior Resident Inspector date signed Y W EJs.
@lA*1 101 IWL
'
i f--
v g
J. Thomas, esident Inspector date signed h-
3 Approved by:
l R. R. Keimis, Acting Chief, Reactor date signed i
Projects Section 2C l
.
l Inspection Sumary: Inspection on April 5 - May 2,1983 (Report No. 50-219/83-11)
l Routine inspection by the resident inspectors (110 hours0.00127 days <br />0.0306 hours <br />1.818783e-4 weeks <br />4.1855e-5 months <br />) which included l
followup of previous inspection findings, review of plant operations, log and record review, plant tours, physical security, radiation protection, surveillance l
observation, maintenance and refueling raintenance observation, followup of
onsite events, licensee event report review, and review of periodic and special
'
!
reports, l
l Results: No violations.
.
8306060220 830523 PDR ADOCK 05000219 G
__.
- - _ _.
.-
--
-
.
_
.
..
DETAILS
'
1.
Persons Contacted J. Andrescavage, Scheduling Supervisor, Plans and Programs J. Brownridge, Maintenance and Construction Jobs Manager i
M. Budaj, Manager, Plans and Programs K. Fickeissen, Manager, Safety Review, Oyster Creek P. Fiedler, Vice President, Director, Oyster Creek
.
V. Foglia, Manager, Operational Corrective Maintenance / Preventive Maintenance
'
E. Growney, Safety Review Manager C. Halbfoster, Manager, Plant Chemistry M. Laggart, Manager, Oyster Creek Licensing
J. Maloney, Manager, Plant Materiel
'
J. Maughn, Supervisor, Security i
B. Mc Keon, Manager, Plant Operations W. Smith, Plant Engineering Director W. Stewart, Operations Control Manager
-
J. Sullivan, Plant Operations Director D. Turner, Manager, Radiological Controls 2.
Review of Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (81-08-03) Licensee to clarify Quality Control checks required by procedure 105. The Conduct of Maintenance procedure in use did not clearly identify the individual responsible for completing the standard quality control check lists. The licensee has since implemented major changes to procedure 105, revision 19, January 7,1983, " Conduct of Maintenance". The procedure now includes criteria for determining the quality control (QC)
involvement needed in a maintenance job, specific requirements for notifying QC personnel at the start of a job and prior to reaching QC hold points, and specific
,
j requirements for completion of QC documentation.
!
l (Closed) Unresolved Item (81-08-04) Licensee to correct disparity in procedure 105 regarding Group Shift Supervisor approval signatures. Procedure 105, revision 19, January 7,1983, " Conduct of Maintenance" now requires Group Shift Supervisor (GSS) approval to start work unless the job is detennined to be not
,
important to safety and does not require plant equipment to be removed from i
service. The detennination that GSS approval is not needed can be made only by a cognizant manager in one of the maintenance departments.
t
!
(Closed)
Inspector Followup Item (81-08-05) Clarify distribution of incomplete maintenance audit reports, and (Closed) Inspector Followup Item (81-08-06)
Implement a system to insure Operations Department awareness of job orders in an active status. Paragraph 5.17.2 of procedure 105, revision 19, January 7,1983, " Conduct of Maintenance", requires that all incomplete job orders
.
be reviewed at least quarterly by the appropriate area supervisor, job supervisor, group maintenance supervisor, and the Maintenance and Construction job manager. A list of all outstanding job orders is to be provided at least monthly to operations department managers.
'
!
The inspector had no further questions on the above items.
.
-
.
...
.
J
.
j i
l 3.
Plant Operations Review 3.1 Shift Logs and Operating Records Shift Logs and Operating Records were reviewed to verify that they were properly completed and signed and had received proper supervisory reviews. The inspectors verified that entries involving abnormal conditions provided sufficicnt details to communicate equipment status and folicwp actions.
Logs were compared to equipment control records to verify that equipment removed from or returned to service was properly noted in operating logs when required. Operating memos and orders were reviewed to insure that they did not conflict with Technical Specification requirements.
The logs and records were compared to the requirements of Procedure 106,
" Conduct of Operations", and Procedure 108, " Equipment Control". The following were reviewed:
Control Room and Group Shift Supervisor's Logs;
--
Technical Specification Log;
--
Control Room, and Shift Supervisor's Turnover Check List;
--
Shutdown Log;
--
Reactor Building and Turbine Building Tour Sheets;
--
--
Standing Orders; Operational Memos and Directives.
--
No unacceptable conditions were noted.
3.2 Facility Tours The inspectors frequently toured the following areas:
--
Cor. trol Room (daily)
--
Reactor Building Turbine Building
--
--
Augmented Off-Gas Building
--
New Rad-Waste Building Cooling Water Intake and Dilution Plant Structure
--
.
--
--
.
.
Monitor and Change Area
--
4160 Volt Switchgear, 460 Volt Switchgear, and Cable Spreading Rooms
--
.
Diesel Generator Building
--
Battery Rooms
--
Maintenance Work Areas
--
--
Yard Areas (including Protected Area Perimeter)
The following were observed:
3.2.1 During daily control room tours, the inspectors verified that the control room manning requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(k),
Technical Specifications and the licensee's conduct of operations procedure were met. Shift turnovers were observed for adequacy.
Selected control room instrumentation needed to support the cold shutdown condition was verified to be operable and indicated parameters within normal expected limits.
Recorders were examined for evidence of abnormal or unexplained transients. Plant stack radiation recorder traces were examined for evidence of abnormal or unplanned releases of radioactive gases. The inspectors verified compliance with Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO's) applicable to the cold shutdown condition and refueling activities, including those relating to primary and secondary containment integrity, refueling interlocks, fire protection systems, and availability of sources of water to feed the reactor vessel. The inspectors closely monitored outage activities and verified that operators and supervisors were aware of work in progress and complied with applicable Technical Specification requirements.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.2.2 Selected alarmed annunciators were discussed with control room operators and supervisors. A large number of annunciators were in an alarmed condition because of systems being shutdown or drained and layed up to support outage related maintenance activities.
The inspectors verifiea that operators were knowledgeable of system status and were aware of which alarms were indicative of abnormal conditions requiring followup and corrective action. The inspectors noted that the annunciator and ala*m panels will be removed from service for system modification during this outage.
Temporary alarm panels will be installed during the modification to provide those alarm indications needed to support the plant's
.
.
.
cold shutdown, defueled condition. The temporary panel installation is undergoing design review and safety evaluation by the licensee.
The inspectors will monitor the reviews and examine 'the temporary system for adequacy.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
3.2.3 The inspectors verified the operability of selected safety systems by direct observation of valve, breaker and switch position.
Components were examined for leakage, proper lubrication, operating air supply, and general conditions. Selected pipe hangers and seismic restraints were examined for indications of mechanical interference and fluid leaks. Systems inspected included Control Rod Drive Hydraulic, Standby Gas Treatment, and portions of the 4160 and 460 volt elt.ctrical distribution systems.
3.2.4 Equipment Control procedures were examined for proper implementation by verifying that tags were properly filled out, posted, and removed as required, that jumpers were properly installed and removed, and that equipment control logs and records were complete.
Selected active tagouts were independently verified by the inspectors. Selected cleared tagouts were reviewed to detemine that system alignments had been properly restored and safety systems returned to service had been properly tested. Selected locked valves were examined for proper position and installation of locking devices. The inspectors monitored outage related activities including erection of scaffold and work platfoms, installation of temporary hoses and cables, and the set up of radiological control barriers, to ensure that these activities did not block or otherwise impair the operability of ccmponents important to safety, and were controlled in accordance with the equipment control procedures when required.
The inspectors noted instances where erection of radiological control barriers for temporary radioactive material storage areas blocked free access to motor control centers on elevation 23 of the reactor building. The inspectors found that operations
department management had also identified the deficiency and
'
discussed it during a daily outage planning meeting. Adequate corrective action was promptly taken.
3.2.5 The inspectors examined plant housekeeping conditions including general cleanliness, control of material to prevent fire hazards, maintenance of fire barriers, storage and maintenance of fire fighting equipment, and radiological housekeeping.
- --
.- -
._
.-.
. -.
,
The inspectors noted that a tool and material accountability program has been implemented for the reactor cavity area.
Personnel have been assigned full time to maintain the accountability program records and to assure the cleanliness of the reactor cavity area.
4.
Radiation Protection During entry to and exit from radiation controlled areas (RCA), the inspectors verified that proper warning signs were posted, personnel entering were wearing proper dosimetry, that personnel and materials leaving were properly monitored for radioactive contamination and that monitoring instruments were functional and in calibration. Posted Radiation Work Pennits (RWP's) and survey status boards were reviewed to verify that they were current and accurate. The inspector observed activities in the RCA to verify that personnel complied with the requirements of applicable RWP's and that workers were aware of the radiological conditions in the area. Particular attention was given to activities around the control points on the refueling floor, the drywell entry, the torus access point, and the turbine operating floor.
In general, health physics technicians manning the control points and monitoring activities within the RWP areas were very knowledgeable of the radiological working conditions and were well abreast of outage activities in progress and planned for their assigned areas. They assured that people entering the areas were apprised of the radiological conditions and that proper protective measures were taken.
On April 29, 1983, the inspector observed preparations for entering the reactor cavity area to take radiation measurements inside the reactor vessel. Personnel were briefed on radiation levels, expected exposure, and issued instructions on the measurements to be taken. Additionally, a site radiological engineer and Health Physics technician were to accompany personnel taking readings. The inspector noted that the activities were conducted in a professional manner.
No unacceptable conditions were identifie.
.
5.
Physical Security During daily entry and egress from the protected area, the inspectors verified that access controls were in accordance with the security plan and that security posts were properly manned.
During facility tours, the inspectors verified that protected area gates were locked or guarded and that isolation zones were free of obstructions. The inspectors examined vital area access points to verify that they were properly locked or guarded and that access control was in accordance with the security plan. Vehicles onsite were periodically observed to verify proper controls. Visitors onsite were observed to verify that security plan escort requirements were met.
On April 22 and April 27, 1983, the licensee received bomb threats. The inspectors verified that the licensee made the notifications and took the protective actions required by the emergency plar., security plan, and applicable licensee procedures. Both of the threats were detemined to be false.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
6.
Maintenance and Surveillance Testing The inspectors observed maintenance and surveillance activities to verify that activities were properly approved, operations personnel were cognizant of activities in progress, proper procedural controls were in effect, redundant systems and components were available when required, test instrumentation was calibrated, activities were performed in an acceptable manner by appropriately qualified personnel, and material and replacement parts were properly controlled.
The following procedures were reviewed:
Procedure 717.1.003, revision 2, June 13,1978, CRD Thermal Sleeve
--
Removal and Replacement Procedure 717.1.007, revision 6, January 7,1980, Control Rod Drive
--
Removal
--
Procedure 720.3.013, revision 2, June 1,1982, LPRM Detector Removal and Replacement Procedure 756.1.003, revision 4, November 30, 1982, Shield Plugs
--
Removal and Replacement No unacceptable conditions were identified.
Review of maintenance activities included direct observation of the performance of portions of the evolution, observation of work crew briefings, reviews of the planning of the evolution, and reviews of the radiological precautions.
Portions of the following activities were observed:
,-
__ _
_-
. _ - _.
....
Removal and replacement of local power range monitors
--
--
Removal of control rod drive assemblies
--
Reactor cavity draining
--
Control rod blade removal
--
Control rod blade rack installation Installation of equipment storage pool shield blocks
--
Decontamination of reactor safety valves
--
Feedwater systems valve maintenance
--
Cable tray installation
--
--
Torus modifications No unacceptable conditions were identified.
7.
Review of Licensee Event Reports (LER's)
7.1 The inspector reviewed LER's submitted to NRC:R1 to verify that the details were clearly reported, including the accuracy of the description and corrective action adequacy. The inspector determined whether further information was required, whether generic implications were indicated, and whether the event warranted onsite followup. The following LER was reviewed:
LER SUBJECT 83-08/3L One core spray booster pump was found to be inoperable due to installation of incorrect undervoltage trip device. Licensee investigation showed that the failed undervoltage coil was an incorrect replacement part, installed during preventive maintenance. The part had been certified by the manufacturer, however, it did not have the correct serial number (the incorrect serial number differed by one digit). The error was not identified during receipt inspection in 1979.
Licensee planned corrective actions include: review l
of the event with persons performing receipt inspection,
'
written notification to the manufacturer of the shipping deficiency, and a warehouse check of similar parts.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this item.
,
i
{
i l
i
!
i
^
^
....
8.
Review of Periodic and Special Reports
'
Upon receipt, periodic and special reports submitted by the licensee pursuant to Technical Specification 6.9.1 were reviewed by the inspector.
This review included the following considerations: the report includes the information required to be reported to the NRC; planned corrective actions are adequate for resolution of identified problems; and that the reported information is valid. Within the scope of the above, the following periodic reports were reviewed by the inspector.
--
March 1983 Monthly Operating Report No unacceptable conditions were identified.
9.
Exit Interview At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss inspection scope and findings.
A summary of findings was presented at the conclusion of the inspection.
i I
!
l l
I
. - -
_.
...
_ - _ _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _
-
.
. -
.
.
.
. - -
.
.
-
.