IR 05000397/1989034
| ML17285A984 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia, Washington Public Power Supply System  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1990 |
| From: | Johnson P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17285A983 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-89-34, 50-460-89-02, 50-460-89-2, NUDOCS 9002020002 | |
| Download: ML17285A984 (15) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COYiMISSION REGION V
Report No:
Docket No:
Licensee:
50-397/89-34, 50-460/89-02 50-397, 50-460 Washington Public Power Supply System P. 0.
Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Project No.
(WNP-1)
Washington Nuclear Project No.
(WNP-2)
Inspection at:
WNP-1 and WNP-2 Sites near Richland, Washington Inspection Conducted:
November 13 - December 17, 1989 (WNP-2)
November 29 - December 1,
1989 (WNP-'1)
Inspectors:
C. J.
Bosted, Senior Resident Inspector r
R.
C. Sorensen, Resident Inspector Approved by:
P.
H.
Reac ohnson, hie Projects Section
ate signed Summary:
Ins ection on November 13 - December 17, 1989 50-397/89-34 and November
- December 1,
1989 50-460/89-02 A~I:
I I
I
>>td I<<<< '-I control room operations, licensee action on previous inspection findings, engineered safety feature (ESF) status, surveillance program, maintenance program, licensee event reports, special inspection topics, procedural adherence, review of periodic reports, and WNP-1 preservation activities (paragraph 8).
During this inspection, Inspection Procedures 30703, 61726, 62703, 71707, 71710, 90712, 90713, 92050 (for WNP-1), 92700, 92701 and 92702 were covered.
Note:
Except for paragraph 8 and where otherwise specifically referenced to WNP-1, discussion in this inspection report refers to WNP-2 only.
Safet Issues Miana ement S stem SINS Items:
None.
pAri,'7(l2()oi.'i7 pi)0il6 i 'fbi>'DUC)
05i.>(QA
<v'7 r"'DC
-2-Results:
General Conclusions and S ecific Findin s
Strengths were observed in preservation and corrosion control programs within the plant at WNP-1.
Two weaknesses were identified (involving WNP-2):
One weakness involved a procedure weakness for cold weather prepara-tions.
The procedure listed several outside buildings for which space heater controllers were to be set for at least 70 degrees F., but did not include the Standby Service Water (SSW)
pumphouses.
The inspectors noted that the SSW pumphouse temperatures were being maintained at about 60 degrees F.
The,.other weakness involved equipment operator logs.
Guidance had not been provided in the logs for checking various space heater controllers (for balance-of-plant equipment)
to confirm that they were in fact maintaining 70 degrees F.
This had been brought to management's attention during the previous year (see Inspection Report 397/88-45).
Si nificant Safet Matters:
None.
Summar of Violations and Deviations':
None.
0 en Items Summar Three followup items and three LERs were closed:
no new items were opene DETAILS Persons Contacted L. Oxsen, Assistant Managing Director for Operations D. Bouchey, Director, Licensing and Assurance
- C. McGilton, Manager, Safety and Assurance C. Powers, Plant Manager
- J. Baker, Assistant Plant Manager K. Cowan, Nuclear Safety Assurance Manager C. Edwards, Quality Control Manager R. Graybeal, Health Physics and Chemistry Manager
- J. Harmon, Maintenance Manager
- A. Hosier, Licensing Manager D. Kobus, Quality 'Assurance Manager
- R. Koenigs, Technical Manager
- S. NcKay, Operations Manager J. Peters, Administrative Manager G. Gelhaus, Assistant Technical Manager
- M. Shaeffer, Assistant Operations Manager R. h~ebring, Assistant Maintenance Nanager
>L. Oaks, Engineering Manager, Unit
+R. Latorre, Corporate Licensing 8 Environmental-Manager
>G. Zeitler, Maintenance Manager, Unit
<T. Houchins, Project Quality Assurance Manager, Unit
+N. Nelson, Supervisor, Site Document Control, Unit
The inspectors also interviewed various control room operators, shift supervisors and shift managers, maintenance, engineering, quality assurance, and management personnel.
- Attended the Exit Meeting on December 18, 1989.
iAttended the Exit Meeting (at VNP-1) on December 1, 1989.
Plant Status At the start of the inspection period, the plant was operating at 100/
power.
The plant remained at that power level throughout the report period.
Previousl Identified NRC Ins ection Items 92701 92702 The inspectors reviewed records, interviewed personnel, and inspected plant conditions relative to licensee actions on previously identified inspection findings:
a.
Closed Enforcement Item 397/89-13-05
- Failure to Report High Pressure Core Spray Valve HPCS-V-15 Inoperable.
On February 10, 1989, HPCS valve V-15 was found inoperable during a surveillance test.
The valve failed partially open and repairs were attempted to correct the condition before the Technical
Specifications (TS) action statement time limit was exceeded.
A reactor shutdown was initiated, and after the valve motor operator was removed, the valve was shut.
Once the valve was shut, the TS action statement was exited.
The licensee failed to notify the NRC as required by
CFR 50.73 of this event.
The involved members of the licensee's staff had not recognized that the single-train design of the HPCS made this event reportable although a similar failure in other systems with redundant trains
'ay not have been reportable; i.e., they were not sufficiently familiar with the reporting requirements.
The licensee committed to conduct training on reporting requirements for single train systems.
The inspector reviewed the training records for this process and noted that training had been provided to the compliance department, shift technical advisors, and the technical staff supervision.
This item is closed.
Closed Enforcement Item 397/89-17-02
- Technician Hot Wearing 4 oves Insl e
a ontamsnate rea.
The inspector observed an ISC technician reaching across a
"Contaminated Area" barrier to operate valves and attach testing equipment to a system containing reactor coolant.
The licensee agreed to conduct a root cause and a peer review group meeting to investigate the cause(s)
of this event.
The inspector reviewed the peer review group meeting and root cause reports.
All corrective actions from these reports have been incorporated into the ISC department training.
This item is closed.
Closed)
Followu Item 397/89-27-01
Root Cause of Reactor Feedwater Pump Bearing Failure.
When previously inspected, the root cause of the reactor feedwater (RFW)
pump thrust bearing failure had not been completed.
After it was completed, the inspector reviewed it.
The cause for the oil flow hole blockage was not determined.
The piece of material that actually blocked the oil line to the thrust bearing was determined to be ceramic in nature.
It was thought to be a piece of welding slag from the inside of an oil pipe, but positive identification was not considered possible.
The licensee has developed a number of potential plant modifications for the RFW oil system, including installation of a 'different type of filters, an improved oil cleaning system, and better indication of filter performance.
In the interim, a modification was made to the present filters to preclude suction debris from falling into the discharge side during filter cleaning.
This item is close d.
0 en) Enforcement Item 397/89-17-01:
Failure to Take Effective Corrective Action for Shutdown Coo ing Isolations.
The licensee was not ready to close this item. It is scheduled to be ready for closure by the licensee in March 1990.
4.
0 erational Safet Verification 71707 a.
Plant, Tours The following plant areas were toured by the inspectors during the course of the inspection:
Reactor Building Control Room Diesel Generator, Building Radwaste Building Service Water Buildings Technical Support Center Turbine Generator Building Yard Area and Perimeter b.
The following items were observed during the tours:
(1) 0 eratin Lo s
and Records.
Records were reviewed against Technica Speci ication and administrative control procedure requirements.
(2) Monitorin Instrumentation.
Process instruments were observed for correlation between channels and for conformance with Technical Specification requirements.
for conformance with 10 CFR 50.54.(k), Technical Specifica-tions, and administrative procedures.
The attentiveness of the operators was observed in the execution of their duties, and the control room was observed to be free-of distractions such as non-work related radios and reading materials.
(4)
E ui ment Lineu s.
Valves and electrical breakers were veri-fied to be in the position or condition required by Technical Specifications and Administrative procedures for the applic-able plant mode.
This verification included routine control board indication reviews and conduct of partial system lineups.
Technical Specification, limiting conditions for operation were verified by direct observation.
(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 specifie (6) General Plant E ui ment Conditions.
Plant equipment was o served for Indications o
system leakage, improper lubrica-tion, or other conditions that would prevent the system from fulfillingits functional requirements.
Annunciators were observed to ascertain their status and operability.
(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 rev>ewe or conformance with Technical Specifications and administrative control procedures.
(9) Radiation Protection Controls.
The inspectors periodically observed ra
>o ogica 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.
The inspectors also observed compliance with Radiation Exposure Permits, proper wearing of protective equipment and personnel monitor-ing devices, and personnel frisking practices.
Radiation monitoring equipment was frequently monitored to verify operability and adherence to calibration frequency.
(10) P'lant Housekee in
.
Plant conditions and material/equipment storage were observed to determine the general state of cleanliness and housekeeping.'ousekeeping in the radio-logically controlled area was evaluated with respect to controlling the spread of surface and airborne contamination.
(ll) ~Securit
.
The inspectors periodically observed security practices to ascertain whether the licensee's implementation of the security plan was in accordance with site procedures, that the search equipment at the access control points was operational, that the vital area portals were kept locked and alarmed, and that personnel allowed access to the protected area were badged and monitored and the monitoring equipment was functional.
Ho violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Enqineered Safet Feature S stem Walkdown 71707, 71710)
Selected engineered 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.
During 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 the 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.
~Sstem Diesel Generator Systems, Divisions 1, 2, and 3.
Hydrogen Recombiners Low Pressure Coolant Injection, (LPCI)
Trains "A", "B", and
"C" Low Pressure Core Spray (LPCS)
High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS)
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC)
Scram Discharge Volume System Standby Liquid Control (SLC) System Standby Service Water System 125V DC Electrical Distribution, Divisions 1 and
250V DC Electrical Distribution No violations or deviations were identified.
Dates November 14, December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
November 14,
November 14,
6.
Surveillance Testin 61726 a.
b.
Surveillance tests required to be performed by the Technical Speci-fications (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 perform-ance 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 dispositioned.
Portions of the following surveillance tests were observed by the inspectors on the dates shown:
Procedure 7.4.3.3.1.68 7.4.5.1.20 Descri tion HPCS Low Flow Rate t1inimum Flow Channel Check (CC)
Automatic Depression System Low Pressure Alarm
,Dates Performed November
November
Procedure Descri tion Dates Performed 7.4.3.2.1.1 Div I Channel A Isolation Actuation on Level
December
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Plant Maintenance 62703 During the inspection period, the inspectors observed and reviewed documentation associated with maintenance and problem investigation activities to verify required OA/QC involvement, compliance with regulatory requirements and with administrative and maintenance procedures, proper use of safety tags, proper equipment alignment and use of jumpers, personnel qualifications, and proper retesting.
The inspectors verified reportability for these activities was correct.
The inspectors witnessed portions of the following maintenance activities:
Descri tion Repair of Electric Insulation on Standby Gas Treatment Heater Box 2M8BB Dates Performed November
Tighten packing on High Pressure Core Spray Valve V-64 Performance of PPM 10.25.64 on ballast for emergency lighting per AS 2985 No violations or deviations were identified.
November
December
8.
Preservation Pro ram at Unit
The preservation program was inspected at Unit 1 to verify certain aspects of the program, Equipment, records, and procedures were examined and walkdowns of the plant were conducted.
Equipment inspections were conducted on several different types of equipment to establish an overall evaluation of the equipment preserva-tion program.
During the tour, control of water and rodent protection were also observed.
The equipment listed below was walked down with attention given to signs of corrosion, degrading of protective cover-ings, overall cleanliness, and the protection of component internals.
Makeup Pumps MUS-P-lA and C
Auxiliary Feed Water Pumps AFW-P-1A and B
Diesel Generator DG-1-A Electrical Panels in the Control Room Cable Trays in the Cable Spreading Room Various Reactor Protection Cabinets in the warehouse
One discrepancy was identified on makeup pump NUS-P-1A; oil was observed on the pump pedestal on the motor end of the pump.
A later check of active maintenance work requests indicated that this item had been identified by the plant staff and cleanup work was scheduled to correct this condition.
No signs of corrosion or degradation of protective coatings were observed, the overall appearance of the plant was clean, and no evidence of standing water or rodent damage was noted.
Humidity and temperature records were reviewed and indicated nearly constant conditions within the plant.
Several bare carbon steel members were observed to be free of any corrosion.
The preventive maintenance program was reviewed for September, October, and November 1989.
The inspector reviewed all the items that had not been finished by the end of each month.
These items were listed in a monthly report to the maintenance manager.
The inspector found that the preventive maintenance coordinator was fami liar with the circumstances that led to these delays and provided justification for the delays to the inspector.
A review of the maintenance work request (NWR) program was performed, and all 20 of the work requests greater than 90 days old were discussed with the HMR coordinator.
These items were well understood and the coordinator was aware of the reasons for the delays.
The inspector concluded that the program was being executed in a timely manner and that the delays were justified.
A review was conducted of Quality Assurance (QA) activities associated with the preservation program.
Several recent QA surveillance reports were reviewed for content and adequacy.
A number of good findings were noted in these reports and responses from the surveilled organizations were received and verified.
Qualifications of the onsite QA staff were also reviewed.
The QA staff was comprised of the QA Manager and one staff member.
Based on the amount of activity in progress at the site the inspector found this staffing level, and their qualifications, to be adequate, but encouraged the QA Manager to take steps to broaden the knowledge and experience of his one 'staff member.
Finally, audits of the preservation program by the licensee's Programs and Audits department were evaluated and found to be satisfactory.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Cold Weather Pre arations 71714)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures for cold 'weather prepa-rations and verified the implementation of portions of these procedures, in the plant.
PPYi 1.3.37,
"Cold Weather Operations,"
and PPt~i 2.4.5,
"Standby Service Mater System,"
were reviewed.
Two weaknesses were noted, One involved a procedure weakness.
Space heaters for certain buildings outside the power block were specified to have their controllers set for at least 70 degrees F., but the standby service water (SSM) pumphouses were not included in this procedure.
The inspector noted that the four
controllers in each SSW pumphouse were set for temperatures of 60 to 65
'egrees F; consequently each pumphouse was being maintained at a
temperature of about 60 degrees F.
An annunciator in the control room alarms at a
SSW pumphouse temperature of 40 degrees F.
The inspector noted that the SSW pumps are important pieces of safety-related equipment and that positive control should be maintained over the pumphouse temperatures.
Plant management committed at the exit meeting to make procedure improvements.
The other weakness involved equipment operator logs.
Guidance had still not been provided in the logs for checking the various space heater controllers (for balance-of-plant equipment)
to 70 degrees F.
This had been brought to management's attention in 1988 ( Inspection Report 397/88-45)
~
However, a tour of the circulating water pumphouse showed that the space heaters appeared to be working and that the controllers were set for a value greater than 70 degrees F,
as directed by PPM 1.3.37.
This finding was discussed with licensee management at the exit meeting, and they committed to revise the equipment operator logs accordingly.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Licensee Event Re ort LER Followu 90712, 92700)
The following LERs associated with operating events were reviewed by the inspectors.
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 LER 89-31 LER 89-38 DESCRIPTION Reactor Scram Due'o Low Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Level Inadequate Primary Containment Integrity Verification LER 89-40 Standby Gas Treatment System Not Within Design Basis for Certain Conditio'ns No violations or deviations were identified.
11.
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 information required to be reported by NRC requi rements; test results and/or supporting information were consistent with design
predictions and performance specifications; and the reported information was valid.
Within the scope of the above, the following reports were reviewed by the inspectors.
t Monthly Operating Report for November 1989.
No violations or deviations were identified.
12.
fxit Meetin 30703 The inspectors met with licensee management representatives periodically during the report period to discuss inspection status, and an exit meet-ing was conducted with the indicated personnel (refer to paragraph 1) on December 18, 1989.
The scope of the inspection and the inspector's findings, as noted in this report, were discussed and acknowledged by the licensee representatives.
Inspection findings regarding the inspec-tion conducted at Unit 1 (refer to paragraph 8) were discussed during an exit meeting held on December 1,
1989.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the information reviewed by or discussed with the inspector during the inspectio I