IR 05000267/1981009
| ML19350E126 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1981 |
| From: | Cummins J, Randy Hall, Jaudon J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350E122 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-267-81-09, 50-267-81-9, NUDOCS 8106170026 | |
| Download: ML19350E126 (7) | |
Text
.
.
L
%
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report:
50-267/81-09 Docket:
50-257 License: OPR-34 Licensee:
Public Service Company of Colorado P. O. Box 840 Denver, Colorado 80201 Facility Name: Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station Inspection at:
Fort St. Vrain Site, Platteville, Colorado Nuclear Project Office, Denver, Colorado Inscection conducted:
P.2y 11-15, 1 81 Inspectors:
M 6-/- / /
yJ.P.Jaucon,ReactorInspector,Systemsand Date Technical Section (Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7)
\\
'
M 6-I - 6/
bJh E. Cummins, Reactor Inspector, Systems anc Date Technical Section (Paragrapns 1, 2, ana 7)
Approved:
s 6- /n6 i
'R. E. Hall, Chief, Systems anc Tecnnical Section Date Inscection Summary:
Insoection Conducted on May 11-15, 1981 (Recort 50-267/81-09)
Areas Insoected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of procedures, design
cnange program, tests and experiments program, and document control.
The
'
inspection involved 51 inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors.
-
Results: Within the three areas inspected, no violations or do1ations were
!
Icentified.
.
I i
i l
Elbb/ 700M
.
-..
,
,_.
.
, - _ _. _ _ -
. _ _. _
,
.
. -.. _.
.
.. -
,
w
_
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
.
- C. Brewer, Supervisor, Records Center
- L. Brey, Manager, Quality Assurance J. Gahm, Supervisor, Technical Services M. Holmes, Supervisor, Licensing and Administrative Services I. LaBlance, Supervisor, Clerical (Nuclear Projects)
A. Kitzman, Supervisor Clerical (FSV)
"T. Orlin, Superintendent, QA Services L. Singleton, Superintendent, QA Operations F. Swart, Nuclear Projects Manager
- D. Waremoourg, Manager, Nuclear Production The NRC inspectors also contacted other plant personnel including administrative, clerical, engineering, operations and quality assurance personnel.
" Denotes presence at exit interview concucted May 15, 1981.
2.
Procedure.
a.
Areas Inscected The hRC inspector reviewed selected plant procedures to verify that they had been reviewed and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications and licensee's administrative procedures, that pro-cedure changes were controlled in accordancr. with Technical Specifications, tnat applicable procecures nere changed to reflect amendments to the Technical Specifications, and that procedure content was consistent with Tecnnical Specification requirements and adequate to control safety-related operations.
,
The following procedures were reviewed:
(1) Administrative Procedu.es G-6, " Control of Special iuclear Material," Issue 2 G-7, "FSV Project Personnel Training and Qualification Program,'
Issue 4 i
.
.
,,
_
-
_
__
,
,, -.
_,,, _
-
,
_
.
.
(2) Ocerating Procedures (a) Overall Plant Ooerating Procedures (OPOP)
OPOP IV, " Plant Operation Between 30% and 100% Power,"
Issue 49 OPOP IX, " Recovery From Helium Circulator Trip," Issue 34 (b) System Ocerating Procedures (SOP)
SOP 46, " Reactor Plant Cooling Water System," Revision 25 50P 14-02, " Fuel Storage Facility Auxiliary System,"
Revision 7 SOP 22-01, " Steam Generators," Revision 33
SOP 92-04, " Emergency Diesel Generators," Revision 10 SOP 92-05, " Electrical Distribution - Instrument Power Supply," Re..sion 2 50P 92-06, " Electrical Distribution - OC System," Revision 6 (3) Electrical Maintenance F ;cedure (EMP)
EMP 35, " Removal and Replacement 4LCV/480V Transformees,"
Revision 2 (4) Emergency ProceduresSection I, I.1, " Fire in Control Room, Auxiliary Electric Equipment Room or 480 volt Switchgear Room," Revision 37 Section P, " Loss of A DC Sus," Revision 10 Section R, " Loss of Access to Control Room," Revisico 10 b.
Insoector Findings Some of the procedures reviewed contained wnat were considered to be administrative errors, wnich required correction; but were not significant deficiencies.
These procedures and the noted errors are listed below.
This matter will ce considered an caen item (3109-01) pending corrective action relative to tne procedures.
(1) EMP-35
-
The procedure was incorrectly numoered 134 in -itle block on
page 1.
.
e
, -
-.,,
_,
. _...
. _., -. - -.,...
.
. -.
.
(2) SOP 92-05 (a) Paragraph numbered 2.4.2.2 should be numbered 2.4.3.2.
'
(b) Paragraph 2.5.2.1 and the list of annunciators following this paragraph referred to paragraphs 2.4.2.2, 2.4.2.3, and 2.4.2.4, but there were no paragraphs in the procedure corresponding to these numbers.
(3) Emergency Procedure I.1 Paragraph I.1.C(3) of this procedure referred to Procedure ADM-09.
Procedure ADM-09 has been superseded by Procedure G-5, " Personnel Emergency Response."
(4) Administrative Procedures G-0, G-3. G-6. G-8. P-1, P-3. P-6.
P-8. P-9. P-10. Q-2, 0-3, 0-4. 0-5, 0-6. 0-9. 0-11. Q-12. 0-14 Q-15. Q-16, ano 0-17 These procedures referenced Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) meeting numoer 372 as the PORC meeting at which these procedures had been reviewed, but these procedures were i'e"fewed at PORC meetings number 369 and 371.
No violations or deviations were identified during this portion of tne inspection.
3.
Design Chance Program The NRC inspector reviewed the licensea's program for design change control.
The program is delineated in licensee Procedures Q-3 (Issue 2, 8/4/80),
" Design Control," and G-3 (Issue 2, 8/4/80), " Action Request - Preparation."
The NRC inspector found that in these procedures the licenset assigned responsibilities and orovided methodology for initiating, processing, reviewing and aoprovir.g design changes.
The NRC inspector had questions concerning implementation of the design change program with regard to the control anc update of drawings as discussed in paragrsph 5 of this report.
The NRC inspector also reviewed the licensee's program for the control of temporary configurations (i.e., temporary modifications. jumpers and bypasses). The licensee's Procedure P-1 (Issue 2, 8/4/60), " Plant Operations," was reviewed. This instruction was found to assign responsi-bility and provice tjstems for control of jumpers, bypasses and other temocrary mcdifications of tne olant.
There were no violations or deviations identified in this portion of the inspection.
.
I
--., _.
._.,.,.,
- -,., - _ _ _.
,
.. -,,
... - -
--.
..
.
4.
Tests and Experiments Progras The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's program for the initiation, preparation and conouct of tests and experiments.
Procedures G-3 (Issue 2, 8/4/80), " Action Request - Preparation," and Q-11 (Issue 2, 8/4/80), " Test Control," were reviewed.
The NRC inspector also reviewea four tests conducted by the licensee during the list year.
These tests were:
T-128, " Measure Core Region Peaking Factors at Power" T-131, "Obtain Temoerature Data of Steam / Water Drain Flow From Helium Circulators" T-136, " Determine Minimum Brake and Seal Supply Required to Hold Static Seal Closed" T-140, " Determine by Test if Diesel Day Tank Makeup Level Control System can be Mace to Control at Aporoximately 500 Gallons" Each of these tests reviewed was prepared and conducted in accordance with the licensee's procedures.
The NRC inspector determined that the safety review conducted for T-140 was comoaratively weak although acceptacle.
The NRC discussed with licensee management the imoortance of thorougn safety evaluations.
There were no violations or deviations identified in this portion of the inspection.
5.
Document Centrol The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's program for document control and its implementation.
The principle procedures affecting document control were reviewed; these procedures were:
G-2 (Issue 4, 4/17/81), "FSV Procedures System" Q-6 (Issue 2, 8/4/80), " Document Control" P-9 (Issue 2, 8/4/80), " Data Management" The NRC inspector had no questions concerning the program for document control as specified in these procedures.
In looking at tne licensee's program for implementation, the NRC inspector noted that licensee Pro-cedure P-9 required " periodic audits" of document control by Quality Assurance.
.
.
.
....
,
l The NRC inspector found that the licensee had not conducted an audit
'
during the nine months that Procedure P-9 had been in effect, but that an audit had already been tentatively scheduled for August 1981. The NRC inspector-did determine that the licensee had conducted a " surveillance" of document control and that the term " periodic", although not formally defined by the licensee, was considered to be a two year interval.
Th'e NRC inspector checked various controlled sets of procedures.
These checks dia not disclose any discrepancies between the master files and the procedures distributed for use on site. When the inspector made the same type of c5eck for drawings, it was found that some controlled drawings located off-site at the Nuclear Project Offices were annotated to indicate that the drawings were affected by change notices.
This annotation did not in every case match the record copy of operative cards in 'the licensee's record depository. The NRC inspector also found that the controlled set of drawings in the Control Room had three torn drawings, cne of which was of questionable value because of the tear; and that one crawing in the Control Room acceared to be an incorrect revision.
Licensee management responded k amptly to the NRC inspector's findings by conducting a complete verification of the Control Room set of dra v-ings and replacing :ne torn drawings.
Further checking of the apoarently incorrect crawing in the Control Room revealed that this drawing nad been modified by on site engineering personnel to reflect the inclusion of a recently completed plant modification. A drawing revision reflecting this hac been issued, but tne revised crawing for the Control Roc was not yet in olace because it was being plastic-coated.
The drawing in the Control Rocm did accurately reflect plant configuration.
Licensee management also instituted temporary measures to have dccument control personnel insoect the Control Rcom set of drawings frequently to assure that if a drawing were torn, it would be promptly replaced.
The NRC inspector was also informed that a verification auait of controlled sets of drawings to assure that correct revisions were in all controlled drawing sets, and that enange notice annotation was correct, had been scheduled for the summer of 1981.
This is considered to be an unresolved item pending completion of the licensee's check of controlled drawing sets and verification of the lican-see's action to maintain the Control Room drawings in useable condition (8109-02).
$.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether tney are acceptacle items, violations or deviations. The unresolved item disc!csec in this inspection is:
l
$
!
[
,
\\
.
!
,
,
--
-.
,
,-
,,-,w a. -, - -
....
Number Reason Unresolved 8109-02 Licensee to complete verification of controlled sets of drawings and to maintain Control Room drawings in undamaged condition.
7.
Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted May 15, 1981, with those Public Service Comoany of Colorado personnel denoted in paragraph 1 of this report.
At this meeting, the scope of the inspection and the findings were summarized.
t
>
1
(
w e
.
.
e
,
- - --
+,e-.
-,, -,
-
,. - - - -,
,,m.-
,,- --