IR 05000397/1989040
| ML17285B078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1990 |
| From: | Johnson P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17285B076 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-89-40, NUDOCS 9003140136 | |
| Download: ML17285B078 (16) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V
Report No:
Docket No:
Licensee:
50-397/89-40 50-397-Washington Public Power Supply System P. 0.
Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Project No.
(WNP-2)
Inspection at:
WNP-2 Site near Richland, Washington Inspection Conducted:
December 18, 1989 - January 28, 1990 Inspectors:
Approved by:
C. J. Bosted, Senior Resident Inspector R.
C. Sorensen, Resident Inspector P.
H ohnson, Chief Reac r Projects Section
~/zg q
Date Si ned Su+nary:
Ins ection on December
1989 - Januar
1990 50-397 89-40 Areas Ins ected:
Routine inspection by the resident inspectors of 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, and review of periodic reports.
During this inspection, Inspection Procedures 30703, 61726, 62703, 71707, 71710, 90712, 90713, 92700, 92701 and 92702 were covered.
Safet Issues Mana ement S stem SIMS Items:
None.
Results:
General Conclusions and S ecific Findin s
A weaknesses was identified in the preventive maintenance area.
This weakness dealt with reliance on "skill of the craft" to compensate for less than adequate pro'cedures.
In three issues, "skill of the craft" was not adequate to provide adequate compensation, and the intent of the procedures was not achieved.
P0031A01 pgg221 pgOCK 0 pDG
Si nificant Safet Matters:
None.
Summa of Violations and Deviations:
One violation was identified involving the failure to properly implement preventive maintenance procedures for emergency lighting, batteries, and on threaded fasteners for safety related valves.
0 en Items Summa Five followup items and six LERs were closed:
one new item was opene DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted-C. Powers, Plant Manager-J. Baker, Assistant Plant Manager C. Edwards, equality Control Manager
"R. Graybeal, Health Physics and Chemistry Manager J. Harmon, Maintenance Manager A. Hosier, Iicensing Manager
"D. Kobus, equality Assurance Manager
"R. Koenigs, Technical Manager
"S. McKay, Operations Manager
""J. Peters, Administrative Manager G. Gelhaus, Assistant Technical Manager W. Shaeffer, Assistant Operations Manager R. Webring, Assistant Maintenance Manager The inspectors also interviewed various control room operators; shift supervisors and shift managers; and maintenance, engineering, quality assurance, and management personnel.
-Attended the Exit Meeting on January 30, 1990.
2.
Plant Status The plant operated at 100'/ power throughout the inspection period.
At the end of the inspection period, the plant had operated for 122 days.
3.
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 (397/89-23-01):
Failure to Follow Maintenance Procedure.
During a surveillance, an instrument and controls (IRC) technician failed to follow the requirements of PPM 10.24.12,
"Instrument Tubing and Fitting Usage," during assembly of a safety related instrument tube line.
He had used an adjustable wrench and had tightened the compression fitting beyond the limits established by the manufacturer.
The inspector reviewed revised procedure 10.24.12, which added the caution statement,
"Use proper sized wrenches when tightening fittings.
Always use a second wrench to hold the connection firmly when tightening or loosening the connecting nut."
This procedure was incorporated into the maintenance training pro-gram and training was completed for the ISC shop on December 15,
1989.
The inspector reviewed the attendance sheets for the classes held on this subject on December 8,
14, and 15, 1989.
This item is closed.
b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (397/89-32-04):
Review of How Changes are Made to Data on Surveillance Tests A review of test data taken during an inservice test indicated that the manner of recording corrections to entries on the forms used for data collection was marginal.
The controlling procedure for Technical Specification surveillances, PPM 1.5.1 "Technical Specification Surveillances Testing Program",
was not definite in its requirements.
PPM 1.5.1 was revised on November 28, 1989 to include new require-ments to log and initial all discrepancies.
Requirements to document all retest results and reasons for retests were also included.
The inspector reviewed these revisions.
This item is closed.
C.
The following item will be followed under licensee event report LER 89-01-01 and is considered closed.
(Closed) Followup Item 397/87-19-11:
Nitrogen Tank -- Potential Threat to Diesel Generators.
d.
The following unresolved items were closed due to a violation being issued, as documented in paragraph 8.
89-31-02 Emergency Lighting Battery Checks.
89-38-01 Checking Threaded Fasteners Finger-Tight.
e.
The following items were not ready to be closed by the licensee:
(Open) Followup Item 397/88-32-01:
Discrepancies Regarding Antici-pated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) Modifications.
(Open) Followup Item 397/89-22-01:
Verify Valve Numbers in Excess Flow Check Valve Test Procedure.
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 (2)
(4)
following items were observed during the tours:
eratin Lo s and Records. 'ecords were reviewed against Technical Specification and administrative control procedure requirements.
Monitorin Instrumentation.
Process instruments were observed for correlation between channels and for conformance with Technical Specification requirements.
~h'l
.
d h'
d 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.
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)
(6)
E ui ment Ta in
.
Selected equipment, for which tagging requests had been initiated, was observed to verify that tags were in place and equipment was in the condition specified.
General Plant E ui ment Conditions.
Plant equipment was observed for indications of system leakage, improper lubri-cation, or other conditions that would prevent the system from fulfillingits functional requirements.
Annunciators were observed to ascertain their status and operability.
The inspectors observed that the normally energized 125 VDC emergency lighting for the passageway from the control room to the remote shutdown room had been turned off.
This appeared to be a result of inadequate restoration of the system following preventive maintenance.
See paragraph 8 for additional details.
(8)
Fire Protection.
Fire fighting equipment and controls were administrative procedures.
Plant Chemistr
.
Chemical analyses and trend results were reviewed for conformance with Technical Specifications and administrative control procedure (9)
Radiation Protection Controls.
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.
The inspectors also observed compliance with Radiation Exposure Permits, proper wearing of protective equipment and personnel monitoring devices, and personnel frisking practices.
Radiation monitoring equipment was frequently monitored to verify operability and adherence to calibration frequency.
(10) Plant Housekee in
.
Plant conditions and material/equipment storage were observed to determine the general state of cleanliness and housekeeping.
Housekeeping in the radio-logically controlled area was evaluated with respect to controlling the spread of surface and airborne contamination.
(11) ~Securit
.
The inspectors periodically observed security practices to ascertain that the licensee's implementation of the security plans 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, that personnel allowed access to the protected area were badged, and that monitoring equipment was functional.
Except as discussed in item b(6),
no violations or deviations were
~
~
~
~
identified.
5.
En ineered 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 operable.
Accessible portions of the following systems were walked down on the indicated dates:
~Sstem Diesel Generator Systems, Divisions 1, 2, and 3.
Dates January 9,
Hydrogen Recombiners Iow Pressure Coolant Injection, (LPCI)
Trains
>>A>>
>>D>>y and January ll, 22 January 12, 24,
Iow 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 Mater System 125V DC Electrical Distribution, Divisions 1 and
January 12,
January 12,
January 12,
January ll, 22 January 11,
January
January 9,
250V DC Electrical Distribution No violations or deviations were identified.
January 9,
6.
Surveillance Testin (61726)
a
~
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 perfor-mance 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 disposi-tioned.
b.
Portions of the following surveillance tests were observed by the inspectors on the dates shown:
Procedure 7.4.3.3.1.79 Dates Performed SM-8 Degraded Undervoltage January
Channel Functional Test (CFT)
7.4.3.2.1.22B Main Steam Line (MSL)
High Flow "B" CFT January ll 7.4.3.1.1.56 MSL High Radiation Channels
"B" 6 "D" CFT January
7.1.2 HP and Chemistry Daily Channel and Source Checks January
7.4.3.1.1.12B MSL High Radiation "B" Channel Check (CC)
January
7.4.3.7.12.23 Offgas H2 Analyzer Channels
"A" and "B" CFT January 12,
7.4.3.7.5.2 Accident Monitoring Instrumentation, Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV)
Pressure, CC 7.4.3.6.2 Rod Block Monitor CC January
January
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 compliance with regulatory requirements and 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 also verified that reportability for these activities was correct.
The inspectors witnessed portions of the following maintenance activities:
Troubleshoot safety relief valve (SRV)
2C dual position indication problem per AS 3935 Replace main steam line (MSL)
"B" Radiation Indicating Switch Drawer with spare and calibrate per AV 2148 Dates Performed January
January
Control room halon bottle verification January
and replacement per PPM 15.2.15 Install ductwork for control rod drive (CRD) rebuild room modifications per AS 3400 January
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Preventive Maintenance Work Practices (62703)
During this inspection period, another concern was discovered by the inspector in the preventive maintenance area.
This example, coupled with two previously identified issues, demonstrated a weakness in the performance of preventive maintenance.
The weakness appears to be that the maintenance department has relied on the "skill of the craft" to compensate for less than adequate preventive maintenance procedures.
This situation has led to a condition in which work is preformed that does not meet the intent of the preventive maintenance progra For example, technicians were directed to check bolts for tightness, but no values of torque were specified, and the craft checked the bolts finger-tight.
In another case, the electrolyte level was not checked in 12 VDC batteries during the monthly battery inspection.
A recent example was observed during this inspection period when the inspector observed that emergency lighting had not been restored following a preventive maintenance test.
These three items are discussed in detail below.
a
~
A concern was left unresolved in inspection report (IR) 89-38 (Unresolved Item 397/89-38-01)
which dealt with checking bolts finger-tight on safety related valves.
The bolts attached the motor operator to the valve body.
Missing and loose bolts were found by the inspector on October 31, 1989.
The check of bolt tightness was established to prevent the bolts from vibrating loose during operation.
Neither the procedures for the preventive maintenance task nor verbal directions given to the craft indicated tha't the individual performing the task should check the bolts to any specific torque.
Since neither torque values nor tools (torque wrench, etc) were specified, craft personnel attempted to satisfy the requirement by checking the bolts finger-tight.
The practice of checking the bolts finger-tight appeared to be widespread among craft personnel.
Finger-tight verifications were found not to be adequate due the bolts becoming loose and falling out.
b.
A number of low battery electrolyte levels had been identified in November 1989 (see IR 397/89-31, Unresolved Item 89-31-02).
It was unclear at that time whether PPM 10.25.63, Step 7.A.5, which checks for low battery electrolyte levels on a monthly basis, was being consistently performed.
The electrical supervisor agreed to trend these battery electrolyte levels for several months to determine how the battery levels varied.
This trend would be used to deter-mine if the applicable step of PPM 10.25.63 was being performed.
A copy of PPM 10.25.63 was normally attached to an SMS card that directed performance of Attachment B to the procedure on a monthly basis.
By common shop practice, however, the copy of the procedure was often removed from the SMS card, and only the SMS card with Attachment B was taken into the field.
Attachment B did not direct checking for low battery electrolyte levels.
On January 17, the inspector spoke with the electrical maintenance supervisor concerning the results of the licensee's two-month trending of emergency lighting battery electrolyte levels.
The electrical supervisor concluded that the applicable steps of the procedure had not been performed in a number of cases during September and October 1989.
The inspector concurred with this conclusion based on the low electrolyte levels he found in
c ~
emergency lighting batteries C120/441-3X, C121/441-1X, and C121/441-2X on November 9, and in W467/4X on November 13.
While touring the plant on January 18, the inspector noted that the 125 VDC emergency lighting that illuminates the stairwell from the control room to the remote shutdown room was extinguished.
This lighting provides a lighted path, in the event of a loss of normal power, from the control room to the remote shutdown room.
This lighting is powered directly from the 125 volt station batteries and is normally energized.
"
'he inspector brought this to the attention of electrical maintenance supervision and was later informed that a preventive maintenance test had been conducted on 12 VDC battery powered
"Appendix R" emergency lighting in the same stairwell on January
in accordance with PPM 10.25.63,
"Emergency Lighting Inspection".
PPM 10 '5.63 is a preventive maintenance procedure invoked by the Scheduled Maintenance System (SMS).
The procedure required the normal and the 125 VDC powered emergency lighting to be deenergized by opening breakers or disconnects in the power supply.
This allowed craft personnel to measure the intensity of the 12 VDC battery powered emergency lighting.
The 125 VDC powered emergency lights had not been re-energized when the procedure was completed.
PPM 10.25.63, step 7.C.7 specifically states,
"Have operations close circuit breakers opened in Step 5",
referring to the the previous step of the procedure wherein the lighting had been extinguished for the test.
In this case the circuit breakers in the power supply to the DC lighting are disconnects.
The procedure did not insure the lighting had been restored, and the test performers did not verify that the lighting had been returned to service.
The three issues cited above illustrate failures to properly implement maintenance procedures in the performance of the SMS preventive mainten-ance program.
These represent examples in which excessive reliance was placed on "skill of the craft" to implement actions which were not included in the preventive maintenance tasks, and represent an apparent violation of Technical Specifications Section 6.8.1 (Enforcement Item 397/89-40-01).
Unresolved Items 89-31-02 and 89-38-01 are closed.
9.
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 following LERs are considered closed:
LER NUMBER LER 89-01-00 DESCRIPTION Unanalyzed Failure Modes Discovered for Containment Nitrogen Syste LER 89-37-00 Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System Differential Pressure Switch Discovered Isolated - Cause Unknown LER 89"39"00 Inadequate Electrical Design for Reactor Building Exhaust Air Radiation Monitoring System.
LER 89-41-00 Limitorque Motor Operator for RHR Valve was Undersized.
LER 89-42-00 Automatic Depressurization System Backup Nitrogen Supply Pressure Switch was Calibrated Outside Limits.
LER 89-45-00 Test Connections Were Not Included on Primary Containment Surveillance.
Followup of LER 89-01 will be tracked against Revision 1 of the LER.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
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 requirements; 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.
o Monthly Operating Report for December 1989.
No violations or deviations were identified.
ll. Exit 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 January 30, 1990.
The scope of the inspection and the inspectors'indings, as noted in this report, were discussed and acknowledged by the licensee representatives.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the information reviewed by or discussed with the inspector during the inspection.