IR 05000219/1985026
| ML20138F047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1985 |
| From: | Bateman W, Baunack W, Kister H, Urban R, Wechselbergen, Wechselberger NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138F004 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 50-219-85-26, NUDOCS 8510250171 | |
| Download: ML20138F047 (12) | |
Text
.
.
.
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-219/85-26 Docket No.
50-219
-
License No.
OPR - 16 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Facility Name: _0yster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Inspection At: Forked River, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
August 19 - September 22, 1985 Inspectors:
f W.~H. Bate %an,SenprResidentInspector datel
$
hk (
4%
J.F.WechsTlberger.)ResidentInspector ddlie
.
MNW$
lbhlKC~
R. J. Urban 7 Reactor Epgineer dite P'
R6%
A
/9hdrc W. H. Ba6 nick, ProjectlEngineer dkte I ~
Approved by: $W H. B. Kister M eting Chief,
_
(> ln, c date Reactor Projects Section 1A Inspection Summary:
Routine onsite inspections were conducted by the resident inspectors and two region based inspectors (124 hours0.00144 days <br />0.0344 hours <br />2.050265e-4 weeks <br />4.7182e-5 months <br />) of activities in progress including plant operations, physical security, radiation control, housekeeping, chemistry, and preparations for the upcoming one month outage.
The inspectors also reviewed licensee action taken to address previous inspection findings, Part 21
_
F51025017185ggg9 PDR ADOCK O PDR C
..-
- - -,
, -
,
,
,
.
.
,
reports, and Circulars.
In addition, the inspectors made routine tours of the control room and the plant and followed up on the completion status of NUREG-
0737 items.
Results:
No. violations were identified during this report period. One open item was closed and one new unresolved item was opened. The licensee was observed to
'
be making plans for the upcoming one month outage. A concern arose with the
. reactor protection system after three separate spurious half scrams' occurred.
Additionally, instrumentation and equipment problems continued to affect twoth plant operation, although the plant operated at near full power during
,
rost of the report period.
d l
e
.
t
[
t
(
.
p.-
-
-
_w--
.*_r-
,
y---
-
,m,,,--
g,.
,,,.,,,.y, g.g.
q,.
._.-,-.-__,.-m,_.m.,
_ -,,, -.p 2,---w
- ~ +, - -
,.wgw
__
-
,
-
-
-
.
.
,
DETAILS 1.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
,
During this report period, many of the open items raised during the Readiness Assessment Team Inspection (NRC Inspection Report No. 84-09)
were reviewed and closed.
The closure of these items will be documented in NRC Inspection Report 85-29.
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item (219/85-09-02):
10 CFR 21 Report Involving Seismic Qualification of Installed GNB Batteries
.This item identified installation prcb; ems with the safety-related
. batteries at Oyster Creek as described in the Part 21 report. Subsequent to tiie identification of this issue, the licensee performed an evaluation to determine a fix. The fix involved ordering parts before work could begin. At the end of this report period, the parts were.either onsite or expected shortly and installation of the parts was to commence as soon as
-
possible. This problem was brought to the licensee's attention in March 1985, but corrective action is not scheduled for completion until the end of September 1985. The ability of the batteries as installed in their racks to withstand a design seismic event is somewhat in question. The length of time.to effect corrective action appears excessive.
This item will remain open until completion of the corrective action.
(Closed) Noncompliance (219/83-04-03): Use of Filter Material Which Did Not Meet QA Requirements This item discussed a violation of the Operation Quality Assurance Plan and was closed in Inspection Report 84-28.
In the licensee's response to the violation, a statement was made, in part, that filter aid material was placed on the Quality Classification List (QCL). As a result of a licensee inquiry regarding the acceptability of controlling filter aid material on the QCL, the resident inspectors found that the filter aid material was not presently on the QCL. Responding to the violation, the licensee changed the status of filter aid material from a non-QA to a QA item, but had not placed it on the QCL. The present method the licensee uses to control this material is acceptable. The licensee should pay particular attention to ensure accurate submittals are provided to the NRC. This item is closed.
2.
Review of IE Circulars
,
Licensee action concerning the following IE Circular was reviewed to verify that the Circular was received by licensee management, that a
'
review for applicability was performed, and that action taken or planned is appropriate:
,
- - - - - + -
g.-
,,-
<-w
--.-
,
-
-
- -..,
,,. - -
.
.
.
.._..
_ __..._ _- _ _ _ _ ___ _
. _ _ ___--
,
.
+
...
i~
,
'
.
IEC 79-04,. Loose Locking Nut on Limitorque Valve Operators. The
--
licensee surveyed all Limitorque Operator Types SMB-000 thru SMB-5
,'
and Type SMC under Job Order 6285M and 7864M.
Special Procedure i
81-20, Rev. O, dated 4/6/81, was used to ensure that locking nuts were tight and secured by staking per the vendor's recommendation.
If any maintenance would need to be performed on these types of operators', Procedure 700.1.021, " Inspection.of Limitorque Locknuts,"
Rev. 1, dated 9/10/84 is available to instruct on the securing and staking of locknuts.
This item is closed.
.
3.
Plant Operation Review 3.1 Routine tours of the control room were conducted by the inspectors
.
during which time the following documents were reviewed:
,
Control Room and Group Shift Supervisor's Logs;
--
Technical Specification Log;
--
--
Control Room and Shift Supervisor's Turnover Check Lists;
Reactor Building and Turbine Building Tour Sheets;
--
,
Equipment Control Logs;
--
i Standing Orders; and,
--
Operational Memos and Directives.
--
The reviews indicated that the logs were generally complete.
3.2 Routine tours of the facility were conducted by the inspectors to
,.
l make.an assessment of the equipment conditions, safety, and adherence to operating procedures and regulatory requirements. The following areas are among those inspected:
j Turbine Building;
--
Vital Switchgear Rooms;
--
Cable Spreading Room;
--
Diesel Generator Building; and
--
Reactor Building.
--
.
-
i i
, -, -. - -...
-
-
- -.
. _,
. - - -. - -. _, _, - -, - - _.
. _..,
- - -
.
.
.
.
The following items were observed or verified:
a.
Fire Protection:
Randomly selected fire extinguishers were accessible and
--
inspected on schedule.
Fire doors were unobstructed and in their proper position.
--
Ignition sources and combustible materials were controlled
--
in accordance with the licensee's approved procedures.
Appropriate fire watches or fire patrols were stationed
--
when equipment was out of service, b.
Equipment Control:
Jumper and equipment mark-ups did not conflict with
--
Technical Specification requirements.
Conditions requiring the use of jumpers received prompt
--
licensee attention.
--
Administrative controls for the use of jumpers and equipment mark ups were properly implemented.
c.
Vital Instrumentation:
Selected instruments appeared functional and demonstrated
--
parameter; within Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation.
d.
Housekeeping:
Plant housekeeping and cleanliness were in accordance with
--
approved licensee programs.
No concerns were identified.
4.
Observation of Physical Security During daily entry and egress from the protected area, the inspector verified that access controls were in accordance with the security plan and that security posts were properly manned.
During facility tours, the inspector verified that protected area gates were locked or guarded and that isolation zones were free of obstructions.
The inspector 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.
No concerns were identified.
,
,-
. - - -.
- - -
.-
.--
..
- - - - - - _ - - -, - _ -
,..
-
_ _ - - -,
~.
-,
.
.
,
5.
Radiation Protection During entry to and exit from the radiologically controlled area (RCA),
the inspectors verified that proper warning signs were posted, personnel entering were wearing proper dosimetry, personnel and materials leaving were properly mor.itored for radioactive contamination, and that monitoring instruments were functional and in calibration. Posted extended Radiation Work Permits (RWPs) 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 RWPs and that workers were aware of the radiological conditions in the area.
An issue involving processing of radioactively contaminated material as clean waste using a newly installed shredding machine came to the attention of the NRC inspectors. The inspectors followed up this concern with the licensee.
In the past, clear plastic bags marked " Clean Waste Only" were placed at various locations throughout the Radiation Control Area (RCA) to facilitate the segregation and collection of clean waste.
Protective clothing and yellow items were not to be placed into these receptacles, regardless of whether they were contaminated or not.
These receptacles were clear to help spot any color coded potentially radioactive articles and to distinguish them from contaminated waste receptacles which were yellow plastic bags. Before the " clean" bags were released from the RCA, an exterior and interior survey was performed with an RM-14 frisker.
Also, if any yellow items or protective clothing were seen in the clear bags, they were removed and assumed contaminated.
If the frisker readings were below 360 cpm, the bag was released and placed into a municipal dumpster.
On August 5, 1985 a new method of controlling the release of clean waste from the RCA was introduced. A change to Procedure 101.5, " Minimization of Radioactive Waste Generation," was initiated. The change allowed
" clean" protective clothing and yellow items to be placed into the " Clean Waste Only" trash receptacles.
If the bag passed the exterior and interior frisk, it would be released from the RCA (hurricane shelter).
Site facilities would pick the bags up and transport them to the new shredding machine, which is located outside the RCA.
The bags would then be inspected by Site Facilities to ensure that all metal material, uch as zippers, eyelets, scrap metal, etc., was removed prior to shredding. The shredded waste would then be placed into a municipal dumpster.
On August 23, 1985, a group of bags was released from the hurricane shelter. After release an individual spotted a shoe cover in one of the bags.
He surveyed the shoe cover and found it to be contaminated. Also, a ball of three yellow rubber gloves was found and unrolled and the interior glove was determined to be contaminated.
Immediately, the shredding operation was halted.
The licensee's radcon organization was notified and in accordance with Procedure 915.26, " Release Surveys,"
=.
.
.
they performed a formal survey of the shoe cover and the yellow rubber glove. The shoe cover frisk was 1200 cpm and the glove frisk was 400 cpm.
In accordance with Procedure 9300 ADM 1201.01, " Investigation of Radiological Incidents," a Radiation Incident Report (RIR) was initiated.
The shed housing the new shredding machine was completely surveyed.
Thirty-five smears and a general rate area survey were done; no contamination was found. A critique was held'on August 25, 1985 to discuss the shredding operation. As a result of the critique, all waste from the " Clean Waste Only" receptacles is being treated as contaminated until the licensee determines a better method for disposing of this waste.
No inspector concerns were identified ragarding the immediate corrective actions taken by the licensee.
6.
Status of TMI Action Plans Items (NUREG-0737)
During this report period, an inspection was performed to determine the completion status of action items that were required to be addressed by all licensees as a result of the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2.
The particulars of this inspection will appear in NRC Inspection Report 85-29.
In summary, the licensee has addressed all items that are applicable and has completed implementation of some. Others remain to be implemented during future outages.
Review of Maintenance, Construction, and Facilities (MCF) Organization The inspectors interviewed the Oyster Creek MCF Director to understand recent changes made within the organization to help improve MCF performance. The Director explained the rational behind the changes which were made, in part, to address the concerns identified during a self critique after completion of the recent 20 month outage.
The Production department within MCF underwent key changes to help improve control of contractors.
In particular, contractor management and plant maintenance were clearly separated into responsibilities for different managers.
The shift maintenance workforce was shifted from Plant Materiel to MCF.
Other highlights of the changes include a new Outage Manager, an increase in the number of Job Supervisors so that each job has a super-visor, an increase in the number of planners and schedulers, implementation of a fully manned rotating shift work force to support functional matri-tenance, additional material expeditors, the addition of an experienced radiattor, engineer into MCF Planning, and establishment of a group within the Technical Support department to review procedures and post maintenance testing.
These MCF efforts to address past concerns are expected to improve outage performance during the one month outage planned to commence in mid-October.
The licensee, as part of their effort to make the October-outage successful, has initiated a program whereby proven performers within GPUN, but not normally assigned to MCF, are being temporarily drafted into MCF to participate in the planning and supervision of this outag.
.
.
,
The inspectors will observe MCF performance during this October-November outage to determine the success of licensee efforts to address the weak-nesses that were identified in previous NRC inspections and by themselves in their self-critiques.
8.
Followup of Operational Events 8.1 On August 23, 1985, the licensee overflowed the Standby Liquid Control System liquid poison tank during a filling operation. When the tank overflowed the tank level gauge indicated the tank was only 85% full.
Because of the obvious instrumentation problem and the fact that the poison tank level is Tech Spec related, the licensee proceeded to perform a calibration of the level instrument.
The~ level instrument is a combination of floats inside the tank and a linkage systen from the floats to a resistor network outside the tank.
Because the tank level cannot be changed to perform a true calibration of the level instrument, the resistor network is moved relative to the linkage to simulate linkage movement that would result from an actual change in tank level.
This type of calibration is not capable of detecting problems with the floats or linkage and results in a somewhat meaningless troubleshooting effort to detect problems with the level indicatir:g system. The licensee realized that problems existed with the level instrumentation and proceeded to investigate new types of level indicating systems. An inspector concern arose when, three weeks later, it was observed that nothing had been done regarding temporary measures to determine actual tank level. As it turned out, the same day the NRC inspectors questioned this mode of operation and whether or not the licensee was in compliance with Tech Specs, the licensee implemented a temporary tank level monitoring system that involved taking a daily reading by hand through a handhole in the top of the tank.
The inspectors considered this acceptable.
The inspectors did, however, have a concern that three weeks elapsed with a known problem with inaccurate tank level indication before any action was taken to ensure tank level indications were valid. A much more rapid reaction to existing plant problems, especially when Tech Spec related, is expected and anticipated in the future.
Upon further reflection, the inspectors became concerned about the validity of the sodium pentaborate concentration determination that is required by Tech Specs to be made monthly. The inspectors pursued this concern with plant chemistry personnel.
It was determined that samples of the concentration of sodium pentaborate in the tank had been taken the day after the tank overflowed (8/24/85) and two weeks later on 9/6/85.
The chemistry technicians stated, when questioned, that the tank level as indicated on the gauge was accurate when they sampled the tank. Their ability to make this determination is reasonable based on the method used to take the sample, which involves dropping a sample bomb into the tank from the top of the tank.
However, the results of the two samples did not make sense.
The 8/24/85 sample indicated a sodium pentaborate concentration of u
.
e
.
.
,
13.4% and the 9/6/85 sample indicated a concentration of 12.3%.
The 9/6/85 sample had 260 less gallons in the tank due to water losses resulting from tank heating to keep the chemical in solution. One would expect the concentration to increase if 260 gallons of water from the 4100 gallon tank evaporated.
When questioned about this discrepancy, plant chemistry personnel were not prepared to offer an explanation without further investigation.
It was agreed, however, that the tank level concern was not a contributor to this problem.
The anomaly in the poison tank concentrations is unresolved pending further investigation of the problem by plant chemistry personnel and subsequent NRC inspector review of their conclusions.
(219/85-26-01)
8.2 During this report period, the plant experienced several half scrams from:
APRM System I flow comparator;
--
"C" main steam line radiation monitor: and,
--
High reactor pressure surveillance.
--
The APRM System I flow comparator caused several half scrams during this report period.
Initially the licensee replaced the flow comparator, but another half scram occurred. Continued troubleshooting and recollection of previous problems led to the interchange of the two flow summers present in System I.
The potential malfunctioning summer now supplies its output signal to the total flow recorder and the other System I summer supplies the APRMs.
The licensee continues to monitor the APRM System I flow comparator.
The "C" main steam line radiation monitor has been causing periodic half scrams. This is possibly a generic problem with the instrumentation. A Plant Engineering Task Assignment and a Technical Functions Work Request have been issued concerning this problem.
During a reactor high pressure scram surveillance an unexpeained half scram occurred.
The licensee has conducted a preliminary investigation and plans to duplicate the surveillance in an attempt to confirm the cause of the half scram.
In addition, the licensee determined that the erratic indications on Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) System channel number 7 were due to a faulty input bypass switch associated with the local power range monitor (LPRM)12-170.
LPRM 12-170 will remain bypassed until the next outage, when a replacement will be installe r'.
.
-
.
.
,
8.3 Additional instrument problems have occurred during the report period. The control room operators detected an increasing trend in the "B" GEMAC reactor water level instrumentation, which at the time, was the controlling level signal to the reactor water level control system; this resulted in an actual reactor water level decrease.
The
"A" GEMAC reactor water level instrument was selected and the reactor water level returned to normal.
The licensee determined the "B" GEMAC level fluctuations occurred when recirculation system flow was decreased.
In addition, the licensee discovered an equalizing valve for DPT-6, which shares a common reference leg with the "B" GEMAC instrumentation, to be slightly open.
The problem was corrected.
The "B" GEMAC instrumentation is being monitored with a recorder to detect any further level perturbations.
The Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water (RBCCW) process radiation system continues to be in an alarm state. A new detector was installed recently providing an increased sensitivity for monitoring
the RBCCW system.
This resulted in a higher count rate than previously existed. The RBCCW system has been sampled periodically and analyzed to confirm there was no increase in radioactivity. The licensee continues to investigate the problem.
Another instrumentation problem has been the electromatic relief valve (EMRV) and safety relief valve (SRV) thermocouples.
EMRV "E" and SRVs NR-28A and 28Q thermocouples are scheduled to be repaired prior to startup from the October '85 outage.
9.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are items about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable, violations, or deviations.
An unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in Paragraph 8.1 above.
10.
Exit Interview At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were held with senior facility management to discuss the inspection scope and
'
findings. A summary of findings was presented to the licensee at the end of this inspection.
The licensee stated that of the subjects discussed at the exit interview, no proprietary information was included.
_ - -
.
. - - -.
-- - _ _ - -.. -
.-_-_ -
.-....
- -- - _.
.
.
Transaction Type.
M-3 I
@ New Item NRC:1 Fcrs 6 Rev. Oct 80 (Side 1)
i
'
j g Modify
[
OUTSTANDING ITEMS FII.E
~
SINGl.E DOCKET ENTRY FDRM
'
.
O Deiete
$0-1If 8 dom m Kisk
.
!
l Originator Reviewing Supervisor Name
!
.
,
j
_ Item Humber
_ Type Hodule f Area Resp Action Due Date Updt/Clsout Rpt i Date@M/Cis[f-t i
1881-11.14-10111 lulalaj el3l7lz.lz]
lpglcl lM l lo l3l_lgl, j_lslg l l l_l l l q l l
[,l9M b LIS51
'
l Driginator Modiffe'r/ Closer MM DD YY MM DD Y'Y l% dflel h l l l l lllllllllll
,
Descriptive Title i
A l J I n l l o a i d r a m e
,
f G L E t b b
d C o M ndtn'is*MS r e o u s V e r $ulke w n L
-
. L ee k se e.
I n y
-
e_ S ki g e +s e n u
_
l
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
~
'~
. Item Number
. Type Module f Area
'
Resp Action Due Date Updt/CIsout Rpt #. Dat~ T)/T1/ M d
!
I I l-l I l-l I I llII IIIIIl lIll l 1A I l I l-I I l-l I_
lIl-lIl_II1
_1 I l_I i 1
-
!
-
_
Originator
. Modifier / Closer M
iIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII
,
o,,c,,,,,,,7,,i,
.
l
-
-
_
.
I i
-
_
_
_
'
_
_
__
_
-
_
-
_
=
_
_
-
__
_
--
- - -
-
_
_
_
-
_
_
.
.
t
-
!
!
]
Item Nisaber
_ Type Module #
Area
_ Resp Action Due Date Updt/C1sout Rpt i Date 0/M/Cisd (
'
!
l l l l-1 1 1 1 l l Illi.Illlll l_ I l l 1MI 111-111-111 Ill-Ill-Ill I11-1114 11
!
Originator Modiffer/ Closer
,
I
-
lllllllllll IIIl 11lll Descriotive Title i
i i
!
-
..
i
.
Yll l.
Item Number Type Mrdilo 0 Area ke se Action D e Iate ik dt/C1 smut ht I
h ta 0/Nfricrf j
'
i l
_ l l-1 I I
I I
I I
/
I-I-1I
-
-
-
-
Oridnator '
Mrd f el /r1, u e MM DD YY MM DD YY
-
j l
ll lI
!
,
l Descriptive Title i
__
_
.
f
~
-
,
l
-
>
.
-.
- -.
~
..
.
Transaction Type.
M-3 NRC:1 Fom 6 Rev. Oct 80 (Side 1)
@ New Item OUTSTANDING ITEMS FILE
@ Modify SitgiLE DOCKET ENTRY F0iSi O
Deiet.
7 0 L 2 l
M en4,n Yider
.
,
Originator Reviewing Supervisor Name item Humber
__ Type Module i Area Resp Action Due Date Updt/C1sout Rpt i Date@M/Cish l&l51-klBl-lo bl IllflIl 191zblll#1 15lalE1 DVlgi lolal-13lol-IsW lIl-lIl-llI lol91-.lz lol_Is51 Originator Modiff er/ Closer MM DD YY MM DD TY 6ldle AlnllII IIlllllllll
,
Descriptive Titie 1 0 C E R Z l' ! P o }
t- ! 's !
h t [ g [t
[_g e r m e n
- h tf}
_k p -Fv d ar
_ i t z t _i
_ 13 p e
__ g e s
_
o u
r i
g L t m, -f 6 e
h_o
_
_
s R
,
- t
_ 1 E L
- 1 1 s u t s _i n fi n i d_4 e-r ' I I WI hj
-
______
O D
-
_
Item Ntsober
_lype Module i Area.
Resp _
Action Due Date d @VC1sout Rpt i. Date 0 @ Cisd
_ _
_.
-
__
Ifilfl-lol91-lol2j 111r111 IIIIII IIII IIEl I I l-l I l-l I le (1-lzkJ-lol I lo t -lzlol-Is$l
_
Originator
. [dfilei7 Closer MM i
DD JY Descriptive Title
_
.
-
! !
Z Z Z Z Z
.
_
_
_
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
._
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
Item Ntaber
_ Type Module'l
_ Area Resp Action Due Date UpdtACR t to :2 Date 0/M/5fTJ ~
IBl31-lol41-lol31 IIII IIIIII IIII IMI l I l-I I l-l l I 181s1 - 1161-c I
loI91-lz.lol-IslG1
_
Originator Modt ff er/fTEIR
!
,
IIIIIIIIIII &l& N 11IW W Descriptive Tltie
!
l
-
l l
l Item Humber Type Module J Arei Resp.
Actiom Due'Date UedtgTunt ht3 hte n/Mr 5 o s l'
I
/
l l
l-l Is 5 n
c r
-
z 6 d
o 7I-4z ol-st;1
-
-
-
-
-
Orfsinator Mnd f er/G HM DD YY MM DD YY l
llll l
_ [-
r 6 ( n Descriptive T1 tie I
--
-
-
-
-
.
_
W f