ML20033B639
| ML20033B639 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1981 |
| From: | Greenman E, John Thomas NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033B628 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-81-18, NUDOCS 8112010597 | |
| Download: ML20033B639 (11) | |
See also: IR 05000219/1981018
Text
.
.
.
..
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
Report No.
50-219/81-18
Docket No.
50-219
License No. DPR-16
Priority
Category
C
Licensee:
Jersey Central Power and Light Company
Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road
Morristown, New Jersey
Facility Name:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
.
Inspection at:
Forked River, New Jersey
Inspection conduct
eptember 15 - October 5,1981
Inspectors:
h-
fo[]p/p(
_o
' date signed
J. A. Thomas, Resident Reactor Inspector
date signed
Approved by:
-r
_
//
E. G. Greenman, Chief, Reactor
'date signed
Projects Section 2A
Inspection Summary: Inspection on September 15 - October 5,1981 (Report No.
50-219/81-18).
Areas Inspected: Routine inspec. tion by the resident inspector (34 hours3.935185e-4 days <br />0.00944 hours <br />5.621693e-5 weeks <br />1.2937e-5 months <br />) of:
licensee action on previous inspection findings, tours of the facility, log
and record reviews, surveillance review, and review of periodic and speci:1
reports.
Results: Violatic,ns: None in three areas, two in two areas (Failure to
follow conduct of operations and conduct adequate shift. turnover - detail
3.b (9): Failure to implement written test procedures with appropriate
^
limits - detail 5.).
.
8112010597 811112
Region I Form 12
PDR ADOCK 05000219
(Rev. April 77)
G
'
-
,
. . - . _ _
- . . .
_ - _ _ -
--
._
__
.
__
.
.
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Centacted
J. Carroll, Director, Oyster Creek Operations
K. Fickeissen, Manager, Plant Engineering
E. Growney, Safety Review Manager
M. Laggart, Supervisor, Licensing
A. Rone, Engineering Manager
W. Stewart, Plant Operations Manager
J. Sullivan, Manager, Operations
D. Turner, Radiological Controls Manager
The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel during the course
of the inspection, including management, clerical, maintenance, and operations
personnel.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(Closed) Unresolved Item (219/80-32-01):
Implement improved RMA exit con-
trols. The licensee reduced the number of RMA exits to teree. These exits
are continuously manned by health physics technicians who insure that mater-
ial leaving the RMA is properly surveyed and tagged. The inspector verified
by frequent observations of the RMA exits that adequate control of materials
leaving the RMA has been established.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (219/81-05-04): SGTS Filter DP magnetic gauges
need to be added to 112.1 calibration schedule.
Procedure 112.1, Revision
11, dated August 26,1981, " Calibration of Technical Specification Support-
ing Installed Instrumentation," includes an annual calibration of the Mag-
nehelic differential pressure gauges on standby gas treatment sytem filters
1-10,1-11, and 1-12.
Last calibration was October 20, 1980.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (219/81-05-07): Main station and diesel generator
surveillance procedures which measure battery specific gravities must include
temperature correction factors. No action has been taken to revise the bat-
tery surveillance procedures. Technical Specification amendment 55, issued
August 13, 1981, has revised the battery surveillance requirements and now
0
requires correction of specific gravity to 77 F.
This item is discussed
further in paragraph 5. of this report.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (219/81-05-09): Technical Specification change
submitted to decrease frequency of station battery load tests. Amend-
ment 55 to Technical Specifications issued August 13, 1981, specifies
that battery capacity tests be performed once per 18 months on the sta-
tion batteries. This amendment identifies the 'b'
and 'C' batteries as
the station batteries.
.-. . - - . -
.
- - . .
.
. . _
_ - -.
_
..
.
.
.
4
3
,
,
3.
Plant Tours
a.
Periodic inspection tours of. selected plant areas were conducted
to verify compliance with Technical Specifications (TS) and the
'
licensee's administrative procedures in the areas of housekeeping
and cleanliness, fire protection, radiation control, physical
i
security .and operational control. Areas toured included the
!
following:
i
Control Room
a
--
,
!
i
l
--
Turbine Building-
4
--
Augmented Off-Gas Building
t
'
New Rad-Waste Building
--
Cooling Water Intake and Dilution Plant Structure
--
,
'
Monitoring Change Areas
a
--
--
4160 Volt Switchgear, 460 Volt Switchgear, and Cable Spreading
Rooms
.
Diesel Generator Building
--
--
Battery Rooms
I
--
Maintenance Work Areas
1
Yard Areas
--
1
b.
The following observations were made:
(1) Through daily observation of Control Room monitoring
instrumentation and annunciators, log review, and direct
,
observation of selected equipment, the inspector verified
'
that systems were in conformance with Technical Specification
I
(TS) Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO). Applicable
portions of the following LC0's which could be verified by
control room observation were checked daily:
Pressure Temperature Relations
--
Reactor. Coolant System Leakage
!
-
Recirculation Loop Operab'lity
--
)
4
- .
4
1
- - ,--
- . . -
,,,__....-..,_.,_....4,,.._-.._._.~,.,...,-..,,,,,,,,_,_
. _ . . , . - _ , - , _ _ . ~ . . ~ . . . . ~ , . -
.
.
.
.
4
Core Spray System
--
Automatic Depressurization System
--
Containment Spray and Emergency
--
Service Water System
--
Control Rod Drive Hydraulic System
--
Pr.imary Containment
-
--
Auxiliary Electric Power
--
--
Standby Diesel Generators
TS 3.8. A
Isolation Condensers
--
--
Relief and Safety Valve Position
Indicators
Instrumentation used to verify the above was examined to insure
that displayed parameters were within normal and expected
limits and that proper correlation existed between redundant
instrument channels. Alarmed control room annunciators
were reviewed with operators and. shift supervisors to verify
that the reasons for the alarmed conjitions were understood
and that the red red corrective action was being taken.
i
Systems and components removed from service were reviewed
tt verify that , roper surveillances were performed on
redundant rystems when required and that system outages did
not violate Technical Specification LC0's.
(2) Local plant instrumentation was selectively examined to
verify that required instruments were in service and that
proper correlation between channels existed.
Safety system
actuation sensors were examired to insure that maintenance
and construction activities in the area did not impair
system operability.
(3) Monitoring and Change Areas were observed to ensure that
entrances to the radiation controlled area (RCA) were properly
posted, personnel entering the RCA were wearing proper
dosimetry, and that personnel and materials leaving the RCA
were properly monitored for radioactive contamination.
Through frequent observations of personnel and material exiting
_
5
.
.
5
the RCA, the inspector determined that the licensee's
RFA exit controls had been adequately implemerted.
(4) During tours of the facility, the inspector made observations
to verify that control point procedures were followed, that
contamination areas and airborne radioactivity areas were
properly posted, that high radiation areas were properly
'
posted and locked as required, and that personnel complied
with the requirements of applicable radiation work permits
(RWP). The following RWP's were reviewed for completeness:
RWP 143981 dated September 22, 1981, for spent fuel pool
--
cleanup and removal of old fuel racks.
RWP 146281 dateo September 28, 1981, for installation
--
of temporary ductwork in the torus.
RWP 147981 dated October 1,1981, to collect and analyze
--
samples from the sample station and chemistry lab.
--
RWP 148381 dated October 1, 1981, for routine
observation, inspection, and surveillance of all plant
RWP areas.
(5) Plant housekeeping conditions including general cleanliness,
control of material to prevent fire hazards, maintenance of
fire barriers, and storage and preservation of equipment were
examined. The inspector examined the placement of temporary
hoses and extension cords, and the locations of scaffolding
erected for maintenance or modification jobs to verify that
safety related equipment operability was not impaired. The
inspector noted that a considerable amount of scaffold
mcterial had been left stacked against the wall in the south-
east containment spray pumo room and by the equipment hatch
l
on the 51 foot elevation of the reactor building. The
location of this material in itself did not impair operation
.
of any safety rele'ed equipment.
It could, however,
!
present a potential missile hazard during a seismic event.
!
This concern was expressed to the licensee who committed to
l_
remove the material prior to plant startup. This item will
be re-examined prior to plant startup (219/81-18-01).
_-
__.
.
.
.
- -
.
.
.
.
6
(6) 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 that equipment control logs and
records were complete.
The following electrical jumpers were verified to be
.
properly installed:
Jumper Check-off Sheet 81-359 dated October 1,1981:
--
Jumper 14 from wire 157 on relay 1K11 to wire 162 on
relay 1K13 and Jumper 30 from wire 179 on relay 2K12 to
wire 183 on relay 2K14. These jumpers prevent a full
scram signal during perfomance of under frequency test
procedure 619.2.019.
-- Jumper Check-off Sheet 81-357 dated August 29, 1981:
Jumper 13 in panel 1F/2F from TBKK-38 to TBKK-41.
This jumper bypassed breaker interlocks while using the
'C' shutdown cooling pump breaker as a temporary feed
to the augmented fuel pool cooling pump.
The inspector reviewed all other active jumper Check-off Sheets
-
to verify that installation of electrical jumpers did not
violate Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for
Operation.
Equipment tags examined in the plant were reviewed to determine
that the tags were properly filled out and that the tagged
component was in the condition specified on the tag,
-
(7) Valves and components in safety related systems were observed
to verify proper system alignment. Accessible major flow
.
path valves in the Core Spray, Containment Spray, Control
Rod Drive Hydraulic, Emergency Service Water, and Isolation
Condenser Systems were examined for proper alignment by
direct observation. Remote position breakers in the 460
'Iolt and 125 Vdc electrical systems were periodically
examined for proper alignment. Systems and components were
examined for evidence of abnomal vibration and fluid leaks.
Selected pipe hangers and seismic restraints were visually
examined for indications of mechanical interference or fluid
leaks. No unacceptable conditions were identified.
The inspector examined the installation of temporary ventilation
ducts to be used for torus area ventilation during the next
refueling outage. The inspector noted that none of the
__ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ , _ .. _ _ . _ _ , _ . , _ _ , _ - _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ . , . . - _
.
.
..
.
7
ductwork appeared to be seismically restrained. The ductwork
was suspended over safety related cable trays on the 75
foot elevation of the reactor building and over core spray 3
containment spray, and fire suppression system piping on
the 23 and 51 foot elevations. Portions of the ductwork
were also suspended near the control rod drive system
hydraulic ceatrol units and safety related motor control
centers. When questioned by the inspector the licensee
',
was unable to provide any information on the seismic
considerations used in the design of the ductwork. The
licensee stated that a seismic review would be done on the
installation prior to startup from the current outage.
This item is unresolved pending further review by the
licensee and NRC (219/81-18-02).
(8)
Implementation of the Physical Security Plan was observed
in the areas toured. The inspector verified that protected
area barriers were not degraded, personnel and packages were
checked prior to allowing entry into the protected area,
security access controls to vital areas were maintained,
and that security posts were adequately manned.
(9) Frequent control room observations were made to insure that
the shift manning requirements of 10CFR 50.54(k) were met
and that shift turnovers were conducted in an orderly manner.
The in:pector noted a control room entry on September 29,
1981, indicating that the lead control room operator had left
the station for one hour and 42 minutes.
He was relieved of
his duties as a control room operator by the on-shif t Group
Operating Supervisor (G0S) but no log entries were made
indicating the transfer of responsibility. The G0S stated
that he was relieved of his duties as G0S by another
qualified GOS who was elsewhere on site. However, no formal
shift turnover had been conducted and no log entries were
made indicating the transfer of responsibility. Failure to
4
conduct a proper G0S shift turnover and failure to log G0S
t
and Control Room Operator shift turnover constitutes
noncompliance with procedure 106, " Conduct of Operations,"
(219/81-18-03).
.
c.
Acceptance criteria for the above areas included the most current
revisions of the following:
Technical Specifications
--
Procedure 106, Conduct of Operations
--
--
Procedure 108, Equipmant Control
,
I
. . . -
. .
-
. - .
- _ _ _ - .
.-
~.
.
. . . .
.
-
,.
.
.
8
Procedure 115, Standing Order Control
--
.
'
Procedure 119 Housekeeping
--
Procedure 120, Fire Hazards
--
1
Procedure 122, Security-Guidelines for Plant Personnel
--
Procedure 903.2, Personnel Monitoring
--
Procedure 903.6, Personnel Regulations
--
Procedure 915.1, Restriction of Access into Radiation Control
c
--
L
Areas
'
Procedure 915.4 Contamination Control
--
Procedure 915.6, Radiation Work Permit
--
Oyster Creek Physical Security Plan
--
j
--
Inspector judgment
--
4.
Shift Logs and Operating Records
4
The inspector reviewed the most current revisions of the following
plant procedures to determine the licensee established requirements in
a.
this area in preparation for review of selected logs and records:
.
.
!
Procedure 106, Conduct of Operations;
--
i
--
Procedure 108, Equipment Control; and,
i
Procedure 115, Standing Order Control.
--
l.
b.
Shift logs and operating records were reviewed to verify that:
--
Control Room logs were filled out and signed;
--
Equipment logs were filled out and signed;
Log entries involving normal conditions provided .
--
sufficient detail to communicate equipment status;
,
!
s
a.
,
l
.
I
i
J
1
.
.
. - . . -
.
.
. .
_ _ . , _ . . . _ _ . _ .
_ ,
__
, . - - _ . , . ~ . . . , _ - - , . _ . . - .
, _ . . . -
. . _
_ _ _ _
.
=-
_
.
. _ - .
. - _ _
._
.
__
'
.
.
,
.
9
"
Shift turnover shcets were filled out, signed, and reviewed;
--
Operating orders did not conflict with Technical Specification
--
requirements; and,
Logs and reccrds were maintained in accordance with the
--
procedures in a. above.
c.
The review included the following plant shift logs and operating
records as indicated, and discussions with licensee personnel.
Reviews were conducted on an intermittent selective basis:
Control Room Log, all entries;
--
Group Shift Supervisors Log, all entries;
a
--
Technical Specification Log;
--
Control Room Turnover Check List:
--
'
Reactor Building Tour Sheets:
--
'
Turbine Building Tour Sheets;
--
Equipment Tagging Log:
--
,
Lifted Lead and Jumper Log;
--
--
Defeated Alarm Log;
Standing Orders;
---
--
Operational Memos and Directives.
{
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
I
5.
Surveillance Testing
l
Th2 inspector reviewed selecteo completed surveillance tests to verify
that they were completed as scheduled, :eviewed as required, and that -
4
appropriate corrective actions were initiated as necessary. The
following test results were reviewed in detail:
Procedure 634.2.002 Revision 5, Main Station Weekly Battery
--
Surveillance completed for battery 'A' on October 2,1981.
,
- . -- - . - . - . - , - . . - -
. , , .
- - - . - . . . _ . -
---
, . -
.
. - . . . . .
. . . . .
- - . -
.
.-
,
.
.
-
.
10
Procedure 634.2.002, Revision 5, Main Station Weekly Battery
--
Surveillance completed for battery 'B' on October 2,1981.
Procedure 634.2.002, Revision 5, Main Station Weekly Battery
--
Surveillance completed for battery 'C' on October 2,1981.
Procedure 636.2.005, Revision 4, Diesel Generator Weekly
--
Battery Survefilance completed for Diesel Generator Number
i
1 on October 2, 1981.
Procedure 636.2.005, Revision 4, Diesel Generator Weekly
--
.
Battery Surveillance completed for Diesel Generator Number
2 on October 2, 1981.
d
Upon review of the procedures for the above tests the inspector
noted that the acceptance criteria specified in the procedures
were less conservative than the acceptance criteria in Technical Specification 4.7.
Procedure 634.2.002 specifies a minimum
battery voltage of greater than 105 volts for the station batteries
and procedure 636.2.005 specifies a minimum diesel generator battery
voltage of greater than 98 volts. The minimum battery voltage
specified in Technical Specifications is-120 volts for the station
batteries and 112 volts for the diesel generator batteries.
In addition, Technical Specifications require that electrolyte
specific gravities be temperature corrected to 77 degrees F.
The above
procedures do not require temperature corrections. The inspector
subsequently reviewed procedure 634.2.003, Revision 4, " Main Station
Battery Monthly Surveillance" and procedure 636.2.006, Revision 3,
" Diesel Generator Monthly Battery Surveillance" and found that these
i
procedures also do not specify temperature corrections of electro-
lyte specific gravities. Technical Specifications also require that
battery low voltage annunciators be tested at least once per 18
months. The inspector reviewed procedure 634.2.001, Revision 11,
" Main Station Battery Discharge" and procedure 636.2.004, Revision
6, " Diesel Generator Battery Discharge" and found that there are
!
no provisions in these procedures for testing the battery low
voltage annunciators.
The inspector determined from a review of the last completed surveil-
lance (October 2,1981) that all voltage readings did meet the Tech-
nical Specification's acceptance criteria. The inspector interviewed
several licensee personnel involved with battery surveillance who stated
that although the procedures did not require temperature correction of
specific gravities they were in fact temperature corrected.
Inspector
review of specific gravities did not identify any that were close
enough to the limit to present a problem unless battery temperatures
were abnormally low. The inspector determined that the batteries were
in an operable condition; however, failure to implement written test
procedures which incorporate the acceptance limits of Technical Speci-
fications constitutes an item of noncompliance (219/81-18-04).
.
w
---,
-.g
g.
---
.-m.
-
y-
- ---,
y-wm
4.-
,.y
v
q.9
,y9,2-y,-
,,-y,
.,,,-., , ,
--e-
y
-.,, , -,-.-me,-gy,-,,,.,.-y
ey.
--. , - ~,--u.--yw
,i
--9
y
,--w--
-
.
.-
11
The Teciinical Specification acceptance limits listed above were
incorporated by amendment 55 dated August 13, 1981, to Provisional
Operating License DPR-16. The licensee has still not revised
existing procedures to implement the new requirements. This is
repetitive in that NP,C Inspection 50-219/81-14 documented failure
to perform required surveillances required by Technical Specifica-
tion amendment 54. Licensee review of Technical Specification
changes after issuance by NRC to insure implementation is unresolved
pending further NRC review of licensee corrective action (219/81-18-05).
6.
Review of Periodic and Special Reports
The following periodic and special reports submitted by the licensee
were reviewed by the inspector. The inspector detennined that
infonnation was reported to the NRC as required, planned corrective
action appeared adequate to resolve identified problems and that
reported information was valid.
August 1981
tionthly Operating Data Report
---
7.
Unresolved Items _
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is
required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items.
items of noncompliance, or deviations. Paragraphs 3.b.(7) and 5
contain unresolved items.
8.
Exit Interview
At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings
were held with senior facility management to discuss in.:pection
scope and findings. A summary of the inspection findings
was also provided to the licensee at the conclusion of the
inspection on October 6, 1981.
-.
.