IR 05000397/1990004
| ML17285B273 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1990 |
| From: | Johnson P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17285B272 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-90-04, 50-397-90-4, NUDOCS 9005230338 | |
| Download: ML17285B273 (12) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V
Report No:
Docket No:
Licensee:
50-397/90-04 50-397 Washington Public Power Supply System P. 0.
Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Project No.
2 (MNP-2)
Inspection at:
MNP-2 Site near Richland, Washington Inspection Conducted:
March 5 - April 8, 1990 Inspectors:
C. J. Bosted, Senior Resident Inspector R.
C. Sorensen, Resident Inspector
'Approved by:
. H.
nson, C ref React Projects Section
5 (Z(q ~
Date Soigne Summary:
Inspection on March 4 - April 8, 1990 (50-397/90-04)
Areas Ins ected:
Routine inspection by the resident inspectors of control room operations, engineered safety feature (ESF) status, surveillance program, maintenance program, preparation for refueling, audits, licensee event reports, special inspection topics, procedure adherence, and review of periodic reports.
During this inspection, Inspection Procedures 30703, 40702, 40704, 60705, 61726, 62703, 71707, 71710, 86700, 90712, 90713, and 92700 were covered.
Safet Issues Mana ement S stem SIMS Items:
None.
Results:
General Conclusions and S ecific Findin s Si nificant Safet Matters:
None.
Summar of Violations and Deviations:
No violations or deviations were identified within the scope of this inspection.
0 en Items Summar
Four LERs were closed; one followup item was opened.
moozany"'8 F00,.04 PDR ADOCK v5vvci$ ~7
1.
Persons Contacted DETAILS
- C D.
)0J C.
"R.
AJ A.
"R.
S RJ G.
M.
R.
Powers, Plant Manager Kobus, Quality Assurance Manager Baker, Assistant Plant Manager McGilton, Operational Assurance Manager Edwards, Quality Control Manager Graybeal, Health Physics and Chemistry Manager Harmon, Maintenance Manager Hosier, Licensing Manager Koenigs, Technical Manager McKay, Operations Manager Peters, Administrative Manager Gelhaus, Assistant Technical Manager Shaeffer, Assistant Operations Manager 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 April 10, 1990.
2.
Plant Status The plant was operating at 98K of full power at the start of the inspection period, and operated in a power coastdown mode throughout the period.
The power level was 87K at the end of the reporting period.
At the completion of the inspection period the plant had operated continuously for 191 days.
3.
0 erational Safet Ver ification 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 Buildinq Service Mater 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 ec naca peer sca son an administrative control procedure requirement (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(e)
(7)
(8)
(10)
Monitorin Instrumentation.
Process instruments were observed or corre a ion e ween c annels and for conformance, with Technical Specification requirements.
Shift Mannin
.
Control room and shift manning were observed or con ormance 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 ie o
e 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.
Technical Specification limiting conditions for operation were verified by direct observation.
E ui ment Ta in
.
Selected equipment, for which tagging reques s
a een initiated, was observed to verify that tags were in place and the equipment was in the condition specified.
General Plant E ui ment Conditions.
Plant equipment was o serve or in ica ions o
sys em 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.
Fire Protection.
Firefighting equipment and controls were f
ith diit ti p
d Plant Chemistr
.
Chemical analyses and trend results were reviewe or conformance with Technical Specifications and administrative control procedures.
Radiation Protection Controls.
The inspectors periodically o serve ra io ogica pro ec ion 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.
Plant Housekee in
.
Plant conditions and material/equipment s orage were o served 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 contaminatio (11) Securit
.
The inspectors periodically observed security prac aces 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, and that personnel allowed access to the protected area were badged and monitored and the monitoring equipment was functional.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
En ineered Safet Feature S stem Malkdown (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.
E 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)
Dates March 13 March 21 April 3 March 21 March 15 April 4 March 14 April 5 March 9 Scram Discharge Volume System Standby Liquid Control (SLC) System March 14 April 4 March 16 April 3
Standby Service Mater System 125V DC Electrical Distribution, Divisions 1 and
250V DC Electrical Distribution No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Survei1 lance Testin (61726 April 4 Harch 8 April 2 Harch 8 April 2 a.
b.
Surveillance 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 dispositioned.
Portions of the following surveillance tests were observed by the inspectors on the dates shown:
I d
~II lU 7. 4. 4. 3. 2. 3. 1 Low Pressure Core Spray (LPCS)
and Residual Heat Removal (RHR)
"A" Reactor Coolant System (RCS)
interface valve leakage test 7.4.3.6. 20 Recirculation flow unit "B" rod block channel functional test (CFT)
7.4.3.6.21 Recirculation flow unit "C" rod block CFT Dates Performed Harch 16 April 3 April 4 7.4.9.7 Reactor building crane travel interlock operability test April 6 C.
Just prior to the conduct of PPH 7.4.9.7 on April 6, the inspector reviewed the procedure with the crane operator assigned to conduct it.
This surveillance procedure tests the interlocks on the over-head crane on the 606'evel of the reactor building. It ensures that the crane hook cannot travel over the spent fuel pool.
The procedure specifies that the hook should stop at specified distances from the spent fuel pool.
The Technical Specifications do not set any limits on distances for the crane interlocks.
However, these distances are specifically emphasized in the procedure as being Technical Specification requirements.
The first paragraph of the procedure then states that, "Distances may be estimated from the floor".
Only the crane operator had been assigned to conduct the procedure; no other support personnel had been assigned on the floor to esti-mate these distances.
The crane operator is located in the crane control cubicle which is fixed on the crane bridge, but the hook can be moved over the entire span of the crane bridge.
Sometimes, the crane operator can not see where the hook is moving.
In all cases, the crane operator must use a "spotter" on the floor near the load to signal the crane operator how to move the hook.
Not assigning a second individual to assist in the conduct of the surveillance test did not appear to the inspector to meet the intent of the procedure.
This was brought to the attention of the mechanical maintenance supervisor, who stated that he would incorporate guidance into the procedure as to how many personnel are needed to perform it.
The inspector will review the conduct of this surveillance procedure during a future inspection.
(Followup 397/90"04-01).
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
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 QA/QC involvement, proper use of safety tags, proper equipment alignment and use of jump-ers, personnel qualifications, and proper retesting.
The inspectors verified that reportability for these activities was correct.
The inspectors witnessed portions of the fol'lowing maintenance activities:
Descri tion Install ventilation for control rod drive (CRD) rebuild room per AS 3676 CRD-V-162A repair per AS 4643 Add locking devices to fasteners on RHR-V-24A per AS 4347 No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Pre aration for Refuelin 60705)
86700)
Dates Performed March 21 March 23 April 5 The inspector completed a review, begun in Inspection Report 90-03, of the new fuel receiving process.
The entire sequence of events was witnessed, from offloading of the truck to final placement of the new fuel into the fuel pool.
The certification of a sample of fuel receipt
inspectors was verified.
The following procedures were reviewed for adequacy and to ensure compliance:
PPM 6.2.3
- New Fuel Handling on the Refueling Floor PPM 6.2.4
- New Fuel Inspection PPM 6.2.5
- Fuel Channel Preparation, Inspection and Installation T/P 6.2. 11 - New Fuel Inspection and Assembly of SVEA-96 Fuel Assemblies T/P 6.2. 12 - New Fuel Inspection for GE 11 LTA Fuel Improvements had been made in various aspects of the fuel receipt process since last year, especially in the area of fuel upending.
This evolution was performed in a much smoother and better controlled manner, minimizing the abrupt starts and stops of the fuel bundles.
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's preparation for refueling by ensuring that procedures were in place and were adequate for various aspects of the refueling operation.
The following procedures were reviewed:
PPM 10.3.2 - Shield Plug and Gate Removal and Replacement PPM 10.3.3 - Drywell Head Removal and Replacement PPM 10.3.4 - Reactor Vessel Head Insulation Removal and Reinstallation PPM 10.3:5 - Reactor Vessel Head Removal and Replacement PPM 10.3.6 - Reactor Vessel Steam Dryer and Moisture Separator Removal and Reinstallation PPM 2. 14. 1 - Refueling Bridge Operation PPM 6.3.2
- Fuel Shuffling During Refueling PPM 7.0.2
- Shift and Daily Instrument Checks (Mode 5)
The inspector found the procedures to be detailed and apparently adequate to safely accomplish their intended objectives.
Typographical errors identified by the inspector were promptly corrected by the licensee.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Audit Pro ram and Im lementation (40702 40704 Section 6 of the Technical Specifications contains certain audit requirements that the licensee must meet.
This inspection was performed to verify that these requirements were met.
Thirteen areas are required to be audited by Technical Specification 6.5.2.8, which also specifies the time interval between audits.
The audits are assigned to the Corporate Nuclear Safety Review Board (CNSRB); however, the Licensing and Assurance Directorate organization actually performs these audits through the Auditing Group.
The actual audits are reviewed by the CNSRB and by corporate management.
The Supply System has been using a dedicated audit group, having con-cluded that an in-house group can be more effective and can retain the
training benefit within the company.
Outside assistance is used for certain critical areas.
The Supply System and the other Region
utilities have formed a cooperative to share experts between utilities within the Region.
The inspector reviewed 9 of the 13 required audits performed during 1989.
Other regional specialists reviewed the audits that were not included in this review.
In addition to reviewing the audit findings, the inspector reviewed the training records and qualifications for the audit members.
Overall, the inspector found that the audit program met the requirements of the Technical Specifications and that the audit personnel were well qualified and trained.
Specifically, a review of the training records for audit personnel indicated that all designated auditors met the requirements and were certified to ANSI-N.45 levels, and that all
, auditors had been trained to Institute of Nuclear Plant Operations (INPO) audit standards during the past year.
The inspector reviewed the following,licensee procedures and used them as bases for reviewing the listed audits.
equality Assurance Instruction 17-1, "equality Assurance Records" equality Assurance Instruction 18-1, "equality Assurance Audits" equality. Assurance Instruction 18-2, "qualification of gA Program Audit Personnel" The inspector reviewed the following audits:
A dit
~II i t.i 89-460 General Engineering Followup 89-463 Maintenance Program 89-497 Plant 2 Corrective Actions Dates Performed January 23-February 10, 1989
.January 23-February 8, 1989 July 10-21, 1989 89-498 Compliance with Technical Speci-July 31-August 4, fication and Licensing Conditions 1989 89-499 Training, qualification, and Performance of Plant 2 staff August 21-September 15, 1989 89-500 Rad Waste Process Control 89-501 Fire Protection Program September 25-October 13, 1989 October 16-November 14, 1989 89-503 Operation gA Program Description Activities November 13-December 1, 1989
89-504 Plant 2 Corrective Actions December 11-12, 1989 A total of 68 guality Finding Reports (concerns)
were identified.
Of these, fifteen were level 2 gFRs, which represent a noncompliance with Supply System procedures.
In addition to the gFRs, a large number of open items and observations were also identified.
The inspector noted that in the last audit review,89-504, which was a
six-month review of corrective actions by Plant 2, one (FR had been generated to document the fact that about one-half of the noncompliance reports listed in the plant tracking'log were overdue for corrective action.
This is an NRC concern which has been followed for some time and has been'iscussed in several management meetings.
No violations or deviations were identified.
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 below LERs are considered closed.
LER NUMBER DESCRIPTION 90-02-00 Unqualified Power Connector Installed on Solenoid Pilot Valve 90-03"00 90-04-00 90-05-00 High Pressure Core Spray System Pump Suction Valve Switchover During Surveillance Testing Due to Instrument Indicated Level Excursion Failed High Pressure Core Spray Diesel Generator Governor Mode Switch Engineered Safety Feature Actuation-Containment Instrument Air (CIA)
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. Mithin the scope of the above, the following reports were reviewed by the inspectors.
Monthly Operating Report for February 199 ~
~
Annual Operating Report for 1989, No violations or deviations were identified.
11.
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 April 10, 1990.
The scope of the inspection and the inspector's findings, 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.