IR 05000219/2014002

Integrated Inspection Report 05000219-14-002, 01/01/2014 - 03/31/ 2014, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

ML14135A013
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	05/15/2014
From:	Kevin Mangan NRC/RGN-I/DRP/PB6
To:	Pacilio M Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear
mangan, ka
References
IR-14-002
Download: ML14135A013 (34)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES May 15, 2014

SUBJECT:

OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000219/2014002

Dear Mr. Pacilio:

On March 31, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results, which were discussed on April 24, 2014, with Mr. G. Stathes, Site Vice President, and other members of your staff.

The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.

The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.

This report documents two violations of NRC requirements, both of which were of very low safety significance (Green). However, because of the very low safety significance, and because they are entered into your corrective action program, the NRC is treating these findings as non-cited violations, consistent with Section 2.3.2.a of the NRC Enforcement Policy. If you contest the non-cited violations in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN.: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001; with copies to the Regional Administrator, Region I; the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the NRC Resident Inspector at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. In addition, if you disagree with the cross-cutting aspect assigned to any finding, or a finding not associated with a regulatory requirement in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional Administrator, Region I, and the NRC Resident Inspector at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.

Additionally, as we informed you in the most recent NRC integrated inspection report, cross-cutting aspects identified in the last six months of 2013 using the previous terminology were being converted in accordance with the cross-reference in Inspection Manual Chapter 0310.

Section 4OA5 of the enclosed report documents the conversion of these cross-cutting aspects which will be evaluated for cross-cutting themes and potential substantive cross-cutting issues in accordance with IMC 0305 starting with the 2014 mid-cycle assessment review. If you disagree with the cross-cutting aspect assigned, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional Administrator, Region 1, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRCs Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely, /RA/ Kevin A. Mangan, Acting Chief Reactor Projects Branch 6 Division of Reactor Projects Docket Nos.: 50-219 License Nos.: DPR-16

Enclosure:

Inspection Report 05000219/2014002 w/Attachment: Supplementary Information

REGION I== Docket Nos.: 50-219 License Nos.: DPR-16 Report No.: 05000219/2014002 Licensee: Exelon Nuclear Facility: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Location: Forked River, New Jersey Dates: January 1 to March 31, 2014 Inspectors: J. Kulp, Senior Resident Inspector A. Patel, Resident Inspector B. Bollinger, Reactor Engineer (NSPDP) P. Kaufman, Senior Reactor Inspector T. Hedigan, Operations Engineer J. Furia, Senior Health Physicist S. Pindale, Senior Reactor Inspector E. Burket, Emergency Preparedness Inspector Approved By: K. Mangan, Acting Chief Reactor Projects Branch 6 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IR 05000219/2014002; 01/01/2014 - 03/31/2014; Exelon Energy Company, LLC, Oyster Creek

Generating Station; Risk Assessments, Problem Identification and Resolution This report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident inspectors and announced inspections performed by regional inspectors. Inspectors identified two findings of very low safety significance (Green), both of which are non-cited violations. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (Green, White, Yellow, Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, Significance Determination Process (SDP). The cross-cutting aspects for the findings were determined using IMC 0310, Components Within Cross-Cutting Areas. Findings for which the SDP does not apply may be Green, or be assigned a severity level after NRC management review. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process, Revision 5, dated February 2014.

Cornerstone: Initiating Events

Green.

The inspectors identified a Green non-cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50.65(a)(4), Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants, because Exelon did not reassess and manage risk after the grid operator declared a maximum emergency generation action, prior to performing maintenance on the B control rod drive pump on January 30, 2014. The inspectors identified that Exelon assessment of risk was green; however, if the emergency generation action had been included in the assessment, the risk would have been yellow requiring Exelon to perform compensatory actions to limit the risk to the unit. Exelon entered this issue into their corrective action program as issue report 1614625.

The inspectors determined that Exelons failure to assess and manage risk prior to performing maintenance on the B control rod drive pump after the grid operator declared a maximum emergency generation was a performance deficiency that was reasonably within Exelons ability to foresee and correct. This finding is more than minor because it is associated with the configuration control attribute of the Mitigating Systems cornerstone and adversely affected the cornerstone objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. The inspectors used NRC inspection manual chapter 0609, appendix K, flowchart 2, Assessment of Risk Management Actions, to determine the significance of this finding. The inspectors determined that the finding is of very low safety significance (Green).

This finding has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of Human Performance because operators did not stop when faced with uncertain conditions and evaluate and manage risks before proceeding as scheduled. Specifically, the operators continued maintenance without reassessing risk after the inspectors questioned the rationale for not entering the grid emergency procedure [H.11]. (Section 1R13)

Green.

A self-revealing Green non-cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, "Corrective Action," was identified when the corrective action to prevent recurrence of a significant condition adverse to quality did not preclude repetition of the event. Specifically, Exelon generated a corrective action to prevent recurrence during a root cause evaluation for a reactor scram caused by spiking on intermediate range monitor nuclear instruments that occurred in May 2004. In October 2013 another scram caused by spiking on the intermediate range nuclear instrument occurred, which Exelon subsequently determined to be a repeat of the May 2004 event. Exelon entered this issue into their corrective action program as issue report 1567196.

The inspectors determined that Exelons failure to preclude repetition of a significant condition adverse to quality was a performance deficiency that was reasonably within Exelons ability to foresee and correct. This performance deficiency is more than minor because it is associated with the equipment performance attribute of the Initiating Events cornerstone and adversely affected the cornerstone objective to limit the likelihood of events that upset plant stability and challenge critical safety functions during shutdown as well as power operations. The significance of this finding was determined using NRC IMC 0609, appendix A, exhibit 1. This finding screened as very low safety significance (Green), because the finding did not contribute to both the likelihood of a reactor trip and likelihood that mitigation equipment or functions would not be available.

The finding does not have a cross cutting aspect as it is not reflective of current performance because the root cause and associated corrective actions to prevent reoccurrence were from 2004. (Section 4OA2)

Other Findings

None.

REPORT DETAILS

Summary of Plant Status

Oyster Creek began the inspection period at 100 percent power and operated at full power throughout the inspection period.

REACTOR SAFETY

Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity

1R01 Adverse Weather Protection

.1 Readiness for Impending Adverse Weather Conditions

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors reviewed Exelons response to a cold weather alert issued by the grid operator for the period January 3-4, 2014 and a winter storm warning issued by the National Weather Service for the period of January 2-3, 2014. The inspectors verified that Exelon implemented their cold weather procedures and that operators monitored plant equipment that could have been affected by the cold weather conditions. The inspectors performed walkdowns to verify that temperatures equipment and areas in the plant were maintained within procedural limits, and when necessary, compensatory actions were properly implemented in accordance with procedures. The inspectors also verified that Exelon properly implemented its adverse weather procedures and that operators reviewed applicable emergency procedure. The inspectors performed independent walkdowns of the site to verify the site was ready for the onset of adverse weather.

b. Findings

No findings were identified. ==1R04 Equipment Alignment

.1 Partial System Walkdowns

==

a. Inspection Scope

The inspectors performed partial walkdowns of the following systems: B standby liquid control pump while A standby liquid control pump was out of service for planned maintenance on January 9, 2014 A, B, and D emergency service water pumps while C emergency service water pump was out of service for corrective maintenance on January 30, 2014 Core spray system I while core spray system II was out of service for surveillance testing on February 12, 2014 The inspectors selected these systems based on their risk-significance relative to the reactor safety cornerstones at the time they were inspected. The inspectors reviewed applicable operating procedures, system diagrams, the UFSAR, technical specifications, work orders, condition reports, and the impact of ongoing work activities on redundant trains of equipment in order to identify conditions that could have impacted system performance of their intended safety functions. The inspectors also performed field walkdowns of accessible portions of the systems to verify system components and support equipment were aligned correctly and were operable. The inspectors examined the material condition of the components and observed operating parameters of equipment to verify that there were no deficiencies. The inspectors also reviewed whether Exelon staff had properly identified equipment issues and entered them into the corrective action program for resolution with the appropriate significance characterization.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.2 Full System Walkdown

a. Inspection Scope

On March 27, 2014, the inspectors performed a complete system walkdown of accessible portions of the B isolation condenser to verify the existing equipment lineup was correct. The inspectors reviewed operating procedures, surveillance tests, drawings, equipment line-up check-off lists, and the UFSAR to verify the system was aligned to perform its required safety functions. The inspectors also reviewed electrical power availability, component lubrication and equipment cooling, hangar and support functionality, to assess the operability of support systems. The inspectors performed field walkdowns of accessible portions of the systems to verify system components and support equipment were aligned correctly and operable. The inspectors examined the material condition of the components and observed operating parameters of equipment to verify that there were no deficiencies. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed a sample of related condition reports and work orders to ensure Exelon appropriately evaluated and resolved any deficiencies.

b. Findings

No findings were identified. ==1R05 Fire Protection