IR 05000397/1988027
| ML17284A556 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1988 |
| From: | Bosted C, Johnson P, Sorensen R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17284A554 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-88-27, NUDOCS 8810170124 | |
| Download: ML17284A556 (15) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No:
Docket No:
Licensee:
50-397/88-27 50-397 Washington Public Power Supply System P.
0.
Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Project No.
2 (WNP-2)
Inspection at:
WNP-2 Site near Richland, Washington Inspection Conducted:
July 8 - August 23, 1988 Inspector:
1f~(/gg Inspector:
Approved by:
C. J.
osted, Senior Resident Inspector R.
C.
orensen, Resident Inspector P.
H.
hnson, Chief Reac o
Projects Section
Date Signed
~tz (/'u.p Date Signed
>f~~k Date Signed Summary:
Ins ection on Jul 8 - Au ust 23 1988 50-397/88-27 Areas Ins ected:
Routine inspection by the resident inspectors of control room operations, engineered safety feature (ESF) status, surveillance program, maintenance program, licensee event reports, special. inspection topics, and licensee action on previous inspection findings.
During this inspection, Inspection Procedures 30703, 61702, 61705, 61706, 61707, 61726, 62703, 71707, 71709, 71710.";".,71881, 90712, 90713, 92700, 92701, and 92702 were covered.
, ~
Results:
One -violation of NRC requirements was identified in paragraph 3.d that dealt with a failure to adequately evaluate the number of ash fallout filters needed for the Emergency Diesel Generators during a postulated event.
Procedures for the changing of these filters were not included as part of the plant procedures.
A weakness was noted in the amount of time needed to close NRC identified items.
Approximately one year had passed since the August 1987 safety system functional inspection and the closure process had not yet been completed for numerous items identified by that inspection.
98i01>~~~~ ~gp(g)397 8OW~
PDR ADOCK 0 pHU Q
DETAILS Persons Contacted L. Oxsen, Assistant Managing Director for Operations D. Bouchey, Director, Licensing and Assurance
"C. Powers, Plant Manager
"J. Baker, Assistant Plant Manager R. Koenigs, Technical Manager W. Shaeffer, Assistant Operations Manager D.
Feldman, Plant guality Assurance Manager
"R. Graybeal, Health Physics and Chemistry Manager J.
Harmon, Maintenance Manager
"J ~ Peters, Administrative Manager
"A. Hosier, Licensing Manager
"S.
McKay, Operations Manager
"M. Wuestefeld, Assistant Technical Manager The inspectors also interviewed various control room operators, shift supervisors and shift managers, engineering, quality assurance, and management personnel relative to activities in progress.
- Attended the Exit Meeting on August 23,1988.
2.
Plant Status The plant was operating at 100K power at the start of the inspection period, and operated at that level throughout the report period.
From the start of the power operation period, the drywell experienced higher than expected temperatures.
In addition to the higher temperatures, the amount of unidentified leakage into the drywell indicated approximately.0 gpm.
The cause of the higher temperatures and the unidentified leakage was believed to be steam leaking by the seats of the safety relief valves (SRVs) arid then through the tailpipe vacuum breaker seats into the drywell.
On July 20, during attempts to troubleshoot the SRVs by opening the valves, the acoustic monitoring device for position indication for SRV MS RV 1C was not indicating when the valve was closed.
The tailpipe temperature did indicate when the valve opened.
After several unsuccessful attempts to correct this problem, engineers determined that the source of the problem was inside the drywell.
Relief from Technical Specification section 3.3.7.5 was requested on July 25, and was,granted by NRR on July 28.
The plant operated at 100K through the end of the reporting period.
3.
Previousl Identified NRC Ins ection Items 92701 92702 The inspectors reviewed records, interviewed personnel, and inspected plant conditions relative to licensee actions on the following previously identified inspection findings:
Closed Enforcement Item 397/87-26-03:
Loss of Ke Control The keys used by the radiological protection technicians (RP techs)
for entry into high and high-high radiation areas were found unattended in the reactor building.
In addition to steps taken immediately to check all locked high radiation area doors and issuance of a Plant Manager memo to all personnel, a revision was scheduled for PPM 1.7. 1, "Access Key Control," to address expectations for control of radiological and security access keys.
The inspector reviewed PPM 1.7. 1, Revision 7, issued January 11, 1988, which included specific requirements for the RP techs and additional measures considered appropriate based upon the licensee's investigation.
This item is closed.
Closed Unresolved Item 397/87-19-01:
Desi n Basis for Batteries Incorrectl Translated into Station Documents The sizing of the station batteries was examined from the documents which were used to determine the loads on the batteries.
As noted in Inspection Report 87-19, the values used in the calculations did not appear to be representative of the conditions expected during the life of the battery.
The inspector reviewed engineering calculation E/I-02-85-02, Revision 1, dated March 16, 1988, which listed the assumptions and calculations for a two-hour loading of the station batteries.
This calculation concluded that the batteries are sufficient for the expected needs.
This item is closed.
Closed Unresolved Item 397/87-19-07
Evaluation of Loss of Onsite Power Due to Fire It was postulated that in the event of a fire in the Division 3 diesel generator room, water from the sprinkler system could partially flood the room and overflow into the fuel oil storage rooms, then flood the fuel oil transfer pumps and cause a loss of.
all diesel generators.
The licensee revised the following alarm procedures for the diesel generators, which direct the security force to open the outside doo~r.-'to the diesel rooms.
This will allow any accumulating water to "exit the room without reaching a level which would flood the fuel o'il,-tr'ansfer pumps.
These procedures, 4FCP.2-8. 3, 4FCP. 2-9. 3, and 4FCP'-8.6, were changed September 9,
1987.
This item is closed.
Closed Unresolved Item 397/87-19-09
- Desi n Concerns Re ardin the Ash Filters for the Diesel Generators Protection against natural phenomena is a requirement of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A.
Ash filters for the emergency diesel generators (EDGs)
were included in the original design.
Inspection Report 87-19
concluded that numerous design deficiencies existed with the design and that no experience had been obtained regarding the time required to change the filters. It was also not known whether adequate numbers of replacement filters were available onsite to sustain the plant for the expected ash fallout period.
The inspector found that the system engineer had requested additional filters and had arranged in February 1988 to have the maintenance department determine the time required to change the filters.
When the inspector inquired regarding the progress of this item, it was determined that little had been accomplished.
The required additional replacement filter elements had not been ordered due to a lack of storage space for the number requested, and the test to determine the changeout time for the filters had been only partially accomplished.
After the inspector inquired about this issue, the number of filters needed was reexamined, and the test to determine the time to change filters was performed.
The licensee concluded that additional filters and manpower would be required to support the operation of the EOGs during an ash fallout event that had not been factored into the original design efforts.
The inspector concluded that these items were acted upon only after NRC concerns were raised about the followup of this item.
The lack of procedures addressing when and how the filters should be replaced was identified as a violation of the requirements of Technical Specification.6.8. 1 (88-27-01).
Unresolved item 87-19-09 is closed.
Closed Unresolved Item 397/87-19-17
Nitro en Bottle Ca acit Not Per FSAR The FSAR capacity for the backup nitrogen supply indicated that a
30-day supply would be available for 48 cycles of the automatic depressurization system (ADS).
A Technical Specification change early in the life of the plant reduced the minimum required bottle pressure to 2200 psig.
This revised pressure apparently did not agree with the FSAR cycling requirements.
The inspector determined that the licensee did not revise the FSAR when the Technical Specifications were changed to show the new method of determining the minimum nitrogen, requirements.
An update to the.FSAR was.pending.
The licensee also revised engineering ins6;uction EI 2. 15, "Preparation, Verification and Approval of Ca'icuilations,"
on May 9, 1988, to include identification of intej;.facing documents (e.g.,
FSAR, WNP-2 Design Specifications) that may<.require revision based on the results or conclusions of a calculation review.
This item is closed.
Closed Unresolved Item 397/87-19-26
Verification of Ultimate Heat Sink Water Tem eratures Technical Specifications require that the water temperature in the spray ponds be less than 77 F.
The single temperature monitor is located near the bottom of the ponds and it was felt that this did
not give a representative indication of the average water temperature.
The licensee justified the use of a more conservative temperature limit of 72 F based on a Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory report HEDL-TME 72-101,
"Cooling Ponds -
A Survey of the State of the Art", September 1972, that indicates that only an average of 3 F
temperature difference between the top and the bottom of the cooling ponds surveyed.
Based on a review of this report, this item is considered closed.
Closed Followu Item 397/87-19-03
New Load Profile Volta e Calculations The load profiles for the Class 1E direct current (DC) loads were questioned.
This item was reviewed during the inspection, but remained open pending final resolution of the load profiles.
This item was closed during the resolution of the unresolved item in paragraph 3.b.
Other Followu Items The following open items were not ready to be closed by the licensee.
Additional followup will be performed on these items before closure.
Enforcement Items:
87-19-02 87-19-12 87-19-29 88-02-01 88"02-03 Unresolved Items:
Battery Starting Voltage Below Specified Limits Diesel Generator Fuel Supply Limits Not per Technical Specifications Failure to Comply with Procedures for Installation of Electrical Terminals Incomplete Corrective Action on Enforcement Item 87-19-31 Design Reviews Not Adequate 87-19-08 87-19-14 87"19-16 87-19-18 87-19-20 87-19-34 Fire Threat Due to Location of Fuel Oil Storage Tanks Evaluation of Effects of Off Normal Setpoints Constraint Requirements on Use of ADS Inhibit Switch Annunciator Response for Low Pressure Alarm Battery Test Deficiencies Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS)
Inconsistent with Commitments
Followup Items:
87-09-05
'87-19-10 87-19-13 87"19-23 87-19-25 87-19-27 87-19-32 87-19-33 87-30-01 87-30-02 87-30-03 Lack of Procedure for Biannual Procedure Review Procedure Safeguards Lacking in Maintenance Program Ineffective Fuel Oil Connections Evaluate Need for Increased Testing of Transformer TR-B No Procedure for Seismic Control of Lifting Equipment Basis for Notes on Installation for Temperature Element Support Review of Compensatory Measures for Inoperable Annunciators Hand Written Notes on Control Panels Definition of Equipment Returned to Service Following Surveillance Actions to Provide Better Staff Attention to Performance of Surveillance Activities Assess Acceptability of Licensee's Material Management Part 21 Reports:
86-15 Valve Motor Operator Lead Insulation in Replacement Motor Actuators 4.
0 erational Safet Verification 71707 a ~
Pl ant Tour s The following plant areas were toured by the inspectors during the course of the inspection:
b.
Reactor Building Control Room Diesel Generator Building Radwaste Building Service Water Buildings
~~ Technical Support Center Turbine Generator Building
-.'-': Yard Area and Perimeter A
The following items were observed during the tours:
(1) 0 eratin Lo s and Records.
Records were reviewed against Technical Specification and'dministrative control procedure requirements.
(2) Monitorin Instrumentation.
Process instruments were observed for correlation between channels and for conformance with Technical Specification requirement ()~
observed for conformance with 10 CFR 50.54. (k), Technical Specifications, and administrative procedures.
(4)
E ui ment Lineu s.
Valves and electrical breakers were verified to be in 'the position or condition required by Technical Specifications and Administrative procedures for the applicable plant mode.
This verification included routine control board indication reviews and conduct of partial system lineups.
(5)
E ui ment Ta in
.
Selected equipment, for which tagging requests had been initiated, was observed to verify that tags were in place and the equipment was in the condition specified.
(6) General Plant E ui ment Conditions.
Plant equipment was observed for indications of system leakage, improper lubrication, or other conditions that would prevent the system from fulfillingits functional requirements.
(7) Fire Protection.
Fire fighting equipment and controls were observed for conformance with Technical Specifications and administrative procedures.
(8) Plant Chemistr
.
Chemical analyses and trend results were reviewed for conformance with Technical Specifications and administrative control procedures.
(9) Radiation Protection Controls.
Activities observed are discussed in paragraph 8.
(10) Plant Housekee in
. Plant conditions and material/equipment storage were observed to determine the general state of cleanliness and housekeeping.
Housekeeping in the radiologically controlled area was evaluated with respect to controlling the spread of surface and airborne contamination.
(11) ~Securit
.
Activities observed are discussed in paragraph 9.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
En ineered.'.Safet Feature S stem Wal kdown 71707 71710-r Selected engi'neered safety feature systems (and systems important to safety) were walked down by the inspectors to confirm that the systems were aligned in accordance with plant procedures.
Ouring the walkdown of the systems, items such as hangers, supports, electrical power supplies, cabinets, and cables were inspected to determine that they were operable and in a condition to perform their required functions.
The inspectors also verified that system valves were in the required position and locked as appropriate.
The local and remote position indication and controls were also confirmed to be in the required position and operabl Accessible portions of the following systems were walked down on the indicated dates.
~Setem Diesel Generator Systems, Divisions 1, 2, and 3.
Date July 15 Hydrogen Recombiners July 20,
August 17 Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI)
System, Trains "A", "8", and "C" July 13, 20,
August 10 Low Pressure Core Spray (LPCS) System July 13, 20,
August 10 High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS)
System August 10 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC)
System July 13, 20,
August 17 Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, Trains "A" and "8" August 10 Scram Discharge Volume System Standby Liquid Control (SLC) System August
July 19,
August 17 Standby Service Water System 125V DC Electrical Distribution, Divisions 1 and
August 10,
July 20, August 10 250V DC Electrical Distribution No violations or deviations were identified.
August 10,
6.
Survei 1 1 ance Testin 61726 a.
Suyveillance tests required to be performed by the Technical Specifications (TS) were reviewed on a sampling basis to verify that: 1) the surveillance tests were correctly included on the facility schedule; 2)
a technically adequate procedure existed for performance of the surveillance tests; 3) the surveillance tests had been performed at the frequency specified in the TS; and 4) test results satisfied acceptance criteria or were properly dispositione b.
Portions of the following surveillance tests were observed by the inspectors on the dates shown:
Dates Performed 7.4. 1.3. 1.2 Control Rod Exercise 7. 4. 3. 8. 2. 1 End-o f-Cyc 1 e (EOC)
Recirculation Pump Trip July 21 July 21 7.4.4,7 Main Steam Isolation Valve July 21 (MSIV) Cl osur e Test 7.4.7
~ 9.1 Bypass Valve Test No violations or deviations were identified.
July 21 7.
Plant Maintenance 62703 During the inspection period, the inspectors observed and reviewed documentation associated with maintenance and problem investigation activities to verify compliance with regulatory requirements, compliance with administrative and maintenance procedures, required gA/gC involvement, proper use of safety tags, proper equipment alignment and use of jumpers, personnel qualifications, and proper retesting.
The inspectors verified that reportability for these activities was correct.
The inspectors witnessed portions of the following maintenance activities:
Descri tion Troubleshooting of MS-POI-1B &1C per MWR AV 1797 Dates Performed July 21 Troubleshooting of RWCU P-1A per MWR AV 1802 July 26,
Mechanical Seal Replacement for Fuel, pool Cooling Pump "A" pe,r. fAT 4172 No viol'ations or deviations were identified.
August 17 8.
Radiolo ical Protection Practices 71709 The inspectors periodically observed radiological protection practices to determine whether the licensee's program was being implemented in conformance with facility policies and procedures and in compliance with regulatory requirements.
Areas observed included control point operation, records of the licensee's surveys, and postings of radiation
and high radiation and contamination areas within the radiologically controlled area.
The inspectors also observed compliance with Radiation Exposure, Permits, proper wearing of personnel monitoring devices, and personnel frisking practices.
The inspectors verified that health physics supervisors and professionals conducted frequent plant tours to observe activities in progress and were generally aware of significant plant activities, particularly those related to radiological conditions and/or challenges.
ALARA consideration was given to maintenance activities observed by the inspector.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Ph sical Securit 71881 The inspectors periodically observed security practices to ascertain that the licensee's implementation of the security plans was in accordance with site procedures.
The inspectors observed that the number of guards was adequate for the requirements of the security plan; that the search equipment at the access control points was operational; that the protected area barriers were well maintained without breaks; and that personnel allowed access to the protected area were badged and monitored and the monitoring equipment was functional.
Night illumination inside the protected area was observed and obstructions were lighted adequately.
Surveillance equipment was also observed during this inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Plant Startu From Refuelin 72700 a.
Verificati on of Shutdown Mar in 61707 The inspector reviewed PPM 7.4. 1. 1, "Shutdown Margin Determination,"
and found it to be in compliance with Surveillance Requirement 4. l. 1 of the Technical Specifications.
The most recent shutdown margin calculation, performed during startup from the recent refueling outage, was reviewed for accuracy and completeness.
The calculations were based on Xenon-free conditions at a moderator temperature of
F with the strongest worth control rod fully withdrawn.
A value of 1.60K delta K was calculated which was well in excess of the Technical Specification minimum requirement of.38K delta K. The insj)actor verified the accuracy of the calculations.
b.
Core.:-Thermal Power Evaluation 61706-a The"3n'spector reviewed PPM 9.3. 1, "Manual Core Heat Balance."
The licensee normally depends on periodic updates of core thermal power from the process computer and this procedure is rarely "used.
The senior reactor engineer stated that he performs an informal manual calculation weekly to check the accuracy of the computer.
A manual calculation of thermal power using the PPM procedure was conducted by the inspector to verify the accuracy of the process computer
calculation.
Using control board instruments, the first calculation gave power levels of greater than 100K with the plant operating at about 99.7X indicated thermal power by the process computer.
These values, interpreted from data taken from gages and meters in the control room, did not seem as accurate as the digital indications from the plant computer.
When more accurate feedwater flow and temperature data were taken from process computer inputs, a thermal power of about 99.5X was calculated.
Local Power Ran e Monitor LPRM and Avera e Power Ran e Monitor (APRM Ca 1 ibrat ion 61702 61705 The inspector reviewed records for the core flux mapping and subsequent gain adjustment of the LPRMs performed during the recent plant startup from refueling. This LPRM calibration was performed per the following procedures:
7.4.3.7.7
- Traversing Incore Probe Normalization 7.4.3. 1. 1.70 -
LPRM Gain Adjustment 9.3.3.
-
LPRM Calibration Also reviewed were records for APRM gain adjustments made subsequent to the performance of a core heat balance.
This was performed per procedure 7.4.3. 1. 1.49.
"APRM Core Thermal Power Channel Calibration Check. "
The inspector concluded that the calibrations performed met the requirements of the Technical Specifications.
No violations or deviations were identified.
ll.
Licensee Event Re ort LER Followu 90712 92700 The following LERs associated with operating events were reviewed by the inspector.
Based on the information provided in the report it was concluded that reporting requirements had been met, root causes had been identified, and corrective actions were appropriate.
The below LERs are considered closed.
LER'. NUMBER DESCRIPTION LER~85"55 LER'7-26 Equipment gualification of Hydramotor Valve Seals Diesel Generator Fuel Oil Less Than Minimum Due to Inadequate Setpoint Process Control LER 87-27 APRM Calibration Not Performed Within Technical Specification Time Limits LER 87-31-01 250 Volt Battery Float Voltage Below Technical Specification Limits
LER 87-33 LER 88"04 Technical Specification Violation Due to Missed ASME Operabi l ity Surveillance Standby Liquid Control System Inoperable Longer Than Allowed by Technical Specifications LER 88-08 LER 88-16 Fire Penetration Seals Impaired/Unsealed Spurious Reactor Protection System (RPS) Actuation Due to APRM LER 88-18 Diesel Generator Inoperable Due to Power Transfer Switch in Mid-Position b.
The following LERs were followed during the time of occurrence and corrective actions were verified.
These items are closed.
LER 87-06 RPS Trip During Refueling Operations Due to Improper Installation of Shorting Links LER 88-01 RPS Actuation on Low Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV)
Level Due to Inadequate Procedure LER 88-11 RPS Actuation on Low RPV Level Due to Operator Error LER 88-14 LER 88-15 RWCU Resin Spill Due to Drain Valves Being Open ESF Actuation Due to Inadvertent De-energization of the RPS Bus "A" Power Supply No violations or deviations were identified.
12.
Review of Periodic and S ecial Re orts 90713 Periodic and special reports submitted by the licensee pursuant to Technical Specifications 6.9. 1 and 6.9.2 were reviewed by the inspector.
This review included the following considerations:
the report contained the in'formation 'required to be reported by NRC requirements; test results and/or..supporting information were consistent with design predictions and performance specifjcations; and the reported information appeared valid.
Wittjn:file.-scope of,the above, the following reports were reviewed by the inspectopis.
f Monthly Operating Report for July 1988.
No violations or deviations were identifie.
Exit Meetin 30703
~
~
~
<V The inspectors met with licensee management representatives periodically during the report period to discuss inspection status and an exit meeting was conducted with the indicated personnel on August 23, 1988.
The scope of the inspection and the inspectors'indings, as noted in this report, were discussed and acknowledged by the licensee represen-tatives.
License personnel did not identify as proprietary any of the materials reviewed or discussed during the inspection.