IR 05000397/1991008
| ML17286A758 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1991 |
| From: | Johnson P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17286A757 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-91-08, 50-397-91-8, NUDOCS 9105210061 | |
| Download: ML17286A758 (14) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No:
Docket No:
Licensee:
Facility Name:
Inspection at:
50-397/91-08 50-397 Washington Public Power Supply System P. 0.
Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Washington Nuclear Project No.
(WNP-2)
WNP-2 Site near Richland, Washington Inspection Conducted:
February 18 - March 31, 1991 Inspectors:
R.
C. Sorensen, Senior Resident Inspector Approved by:
P.
H. Jo nson, Chic Reactor Projects Section
Date Signed Summary:
ns ection on Februar
99 throu h March
1991 50-397 91-08
~
I d:
R I
I p tf t tt I
R Id I
p I
control room operations, licensee action on previous inspection findings, operational safety verification, engineered safety feature (ESF) status, preparation for refueling, surveillance program, maintenance program, licensee event reports, special inspection topics, procedural adherence, and review of periodic reports.
During this inspection, Inspection Procedures 60705, 61726, 62703, 71707, 86700, 90712, 90713, 92700, and 92702 were utilized.
Sa et 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:
None.
0 en Items Summar
One violation and one LER were closed.
No new items were opened.
9105~l.0061 910429 PDP, ADOCK 0500035'7
I I
I f
i I,
,f,
,
i'I
)r I
l~
DETAILS Persons Contacted
- J. Baker, Plant Manager
- L. Harrold, Assistant Plant Manager C. Edwards, guality Control Manager
- R. Graybeal, Health Physics and'hemistry Manager
- J. Harmon, Maintenance Manager A. Hosier, Licensing Manager
- S. Davison, guality Assurance Manager
- S. McKay, Operations Manager
- R. Webring, Technical Hanager J. Peters, Administrative Manager G. Gelhaus, Assistant Technical Manager W. Shaeffer, Assistant Operations Manager
- D. Feldman, 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 2, 1991.
lant Status At the start of the inspection period, the plant was operating at 100%
power.
On March 19, a weekly swipe test of an insulator on the spare 500 KV transformer yielded conductivity results that were greater than the acceptance criteria.
On March 21 reactor power was reduced to about 20%, the main generator was taken off line, and the 500 KV transformers were deenergized to allow cleaning of the insulator stacks.
This was accomplished and power was returned to 100% by March 24.
The plant began coastdown about March 29 and was at approximately 99% power at the end of the inspection period.
Previousl dentified NRC ns ection It ms 92702 The inspectors reviewed records, interviewed personnel, and inspected plant conditions relative to licensee actions on a previously identified inspection finding:
Closed Enforcement Item 397 90-16-01
Lubrication Guide did not S ecif a Schedule for Chan in Lube Oil in Standb Service Water SSW Pum Motors The inspector had determined that a schedule for changing SSW pump motor lubricating oil did not exist, contrary to Technical Specification requirements.
This was also true for the High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) service water pump motor.
Further, it appeared that the lubricating oil had not been changed si'nce plant startu The licensee changed the lubricating oil for the SSW pump motors as well as the HPCS service water pump motor in a timely manner.
Also, a
preventive maintenance (PH) task was added to sample the oil in these pump motors annually and change it if necessary.
Further, a review was conducted to assure adequacy of the PH tasks for three systems considered, vital from a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) standpoint.
These systems included SSW; Residual Heat Removal (RHR),
and 125 VDC.
In addition, the WNP-2 Lubrication Guide was converted to a formal plant procedure, ensuring better control and utilization.
Finally, the entire PH program is being overhauled using reliability centered maintenance techniques.
This effort began in the spring of 1990 and will take
months to complete.
This item is closed.
4.
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 Turbine Generator Building Yard Area and Perimeter b.
The following items were observed during the tours:
(1)
0 eratin Lo s
and Recor'ds.
Records were reviewed against Technical Specification and administrative control procedure requirements.
(2)
Honitorin Instrumentation.
Process instruments were observed for correlation between channels and for conformance with Technical Specification requirements.
tif i
.
C t
d hfdf ig b
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'nd reading materials.
As a result of recent failures of annual requalification examinations by numerous licensed operators, the operations staff was on a four-shift rotation for the last nine days of the inspection period (this changed to a three-shift rotation after the end of the inspection period).
Enhanced inspection
. coverage of control room operations was maintained during that time.
This was provided to verify the licensee's compliance
It C-3-(4)
(5)
with commitments made to the NRC concerning control room staffing, as documented in Basis for Continued Operation letters dated March,14 and March 22, 1991.
~Ei I
.
d I
'I I k I
fied 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.
Technical Specification, limiting conditions for operation were verified by direct observation.
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.
e er 1 Plant ui ment Condi ions.
Plant equipment was observed for indications of 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.
~Fi I
.
FI ftdktf I Id d
observed for conformance with administrative procedures.
~CI I
.
CI I
I I
dt d
reviewed for conformance with Technical Specifications and administrative control procedures.
(9)
adiation 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 Work 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 House ee in
.
Plant conditions and material/equipment storage were observed to determine the general state of clean-liness and housekeeping.
Housekeeping in the radiologically 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 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
I
'
area were badged and monitored and the monitoring equipment was functional.
c.
En ineered Safet Feature Walkdowns 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 walkdown of the systems, items such as hangers, supports, electrical power supplies, cabinets, and cables were inspected to determine that they were oper able and in a condition to perform.
their required functions.
Proper lubrication and cooling of major components were also observed for adequacy.
The inspectors also verified that certain system valves were in the required position by both local and remote position indication as applicable.
Accessible portions of the following systems were walked down on the indicated dates.
$ystem Diesel Generator Systems, Divisions 1, 2, and 3.
Low Pressure Coolant Injection, (LPCI)
Trains "A"j "B", and
"C" No violations or deviations were identified.
ates February
Harch
5.
Surveillance estin 61726 a.
Surveillance tests required to be performed by the Technical Specifications (TS) were reviewed on a sampling basis to verify that:
(1)
a technically adequate procedure existed for performance of the surveillance tests; (2) the surveillance tests had been performed at the frequency specified in the TS; and (3) test results satisfied acceptance criteria or were properly dispo-sitioned.
b.
Portions of the following surveillance tests were observed by the inspectors on the dates shown:
d 7.4.9.7 7.4.6.5.3.3 7.4.3.3.1.49 Reactor Building Crane Travel Interlock Operability Test Standby Gas Treatment (SGT)
Carbon Adsorber Sample Test
Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) Channel
"B" for RHR Pumps
"B" 8 "C" Dates Performed Harch
Harch
Harch
f I
'i l
,')
t
-5-7.4.2.1 7.4.3.7.5.17 7.4.7.9.1 7.4.3.1.1.59 Power Distribution Limits Harch
Accident Monitoring Instru-Harch
mentation Source Range Monitor Channel Check (CC)
Weekly Bypass Valve Testing
.
Harch
Scram Discharge Volume Level March 29 Transmitter
"B" & "D" CC The inspector noted that PPH 7.4.3.7.5.17 was stopped prior to completion due to a chart missing from page 13 which contained calibration information for SRH-LI-601D.
The restoration portion of the procedure for SRH-LI-601 was missing also.
Further; PPH 7.4.3. 1. 1.59 was also stopped prior to completion by mutual agree-ment between the Instrument and Controls (I&C) Technicians and the Shift Manager.
This action was taken after a number of procedure deficiencies were discovered that warranted additional clarifica-tion.
The inspector noted that both of these procedures had recently been upgraded by the maintenance procedure improvement group.
It appeared that increased management attention is war-ranted to ensure that the procedure improvement initiatives undertaken by the licensee are meeting management expectations, especially with'egard to I&C surveillance procedures.
At the exit meeting, this was discussed with licensee management, who acknowledged the inspector's comments.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Plait Maintenance 62703 During the inspection period, the inspectors observed and reviewed documentation associated with maintenance and problem investigation activities to verify compliance with re'gulatory requirements and with administrative and maintenance procedures, required gA/gC involvement, proper use of clearance tags, proper equipment alignment and use of jumpers, personnel qualifications, and proper retesting.
The inspectors witnessed portions of the following maintenance activity:
escri tion Repair Battery Charger Cl-1 per AR 3403 No violations or deviations were identified.
ates Performed Harch
7.
Potential Loss of Net Positive Suction Head NPSH in the Standb Li uid Control SLC S stem 93702 An event occurred at another operating BWR on February 11 concerning the adequacy of the NPSH in the SLC system.
A test was conducted to
(
-6-determine whether adequate NPSH existed at lowest design SLC tank level, concurrent with the highest design SLC tank temperature, with both SLC pumps running.
Cavitation was noted in the SLC pumps (at the other BWR facility) after about 20 minutes into the test, indicating inadequate NPSH.
The Supply System was questioned to determine whether a similar condition existed at WNP-2.
Review of data from preoperational tests performed after the ATWS (anti-
.cipated transient without scram) modifications showed that the licensee did review NPSH for adequacy.
Both pumps were run together during the test, and flow was verified to exceed the, required minimum.
The SLC pumps have separate four-inch suction lines, an isolation valve in each suction line, and a valveless cross-connect on the pump side of the suction valves.
The maximum SLC tank temperature allowed by Technical Specifications is 150 degrees.
Calculations by Generation Engineering showed NPSH under the most conservative conditions to be 4.3 psig, compared with a minimum of'.2 psig specified by the vendor.
This calculation was based on an SLC tank temperature of 150 degrees, SLC tank level just above the suction line, and one suction valve failed closed.
This issue is considered resolved.
icensee Event Re ort LER F llowu 907
92700 The following LER associated with -an operating event was 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 following LER is closed.
ER NUMBER 91-03
~ECRI T
Inadequate Surveillance Testing of Standby Gas Treatment System-No violations or deviations were identified.
Pre aration for Refuelin 60705 86700 The inspector observed the new fuel receiving process.
The entire sequence of events was witnessed, from offloading of the truck to final placement into the fuel pool.
Special attention was given to personnel performance, including the upending process, fuel inspection, forklift operation, and health physics coverage.
The upending process was observed to be smooth and deliberate and the coordinating engineer was observed to provide close oversight and tight control.
Actions taken in response to off-normal events were considered to be conservative.
For example, one channel fastener could not be threaded properly onto the tab for one fuel bundle.'nstead of trying to force it, vendor guidance was sought, and included replacing the upper tie plate on the bundle.
This proved to be successful, and the channel fastener was properly installe The inspector reviewed the following procedures that defined the fuel receipt and inspection process:
PPH 6.2. 1 - Receipt of New Fuel and Shipping Truck to Bay Activities PPH 6.2.2 - New Fuel Handling, Railroad Bay to Refuel Floor
~ Activities PPH 6.2.3
- New Fuel Handling on the Refueling Floor PPH 6.2.4 - New Fuel Inspection PPH 6.2.5 - Fuel Channel Preparation, Inspection, and Installation on New Fuel The inspector concluded that new fuel receipt and inspection were being handled with proper attention and care.
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 and the reported information appeared valid. Within the scope of the above, the following reports were reviewed by the inspector.
Annual Operating Report for 1990.
No violations or deviations were identified.
lt. ~Ei<<i The inspector 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 I) on April 2, 1991.
The scope of the inspection and the inspector's find-
.
s ings, as noted in this report, were discussed with 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.