IR 05000397/1996020
| ML17292A447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1996 |
| From: | Powers D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17292A446 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-96-20, NUDOCS 9609170394 | |
| Download: ML17292A447 (9) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket No.:
License No.:
Report No.:
Licensee:
Facility:
Location:
Dates:
Inspector:
Approved By:
50-397 NPF-21 50-397/96-20 Washington Public Power Supply System Washington Nuclear Project-2 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington September 3-6, 1996 C. J, Paulk, Reactor Inspector, Maintenance Branch Division of Reactor Safety Dr. Dale A. Powers, Chief, Maintenance Branch Division of Reactor Safety Attachment:
Partial List of Persons Contacted List of Inspection Procedures Used Item Closed List of Documents Reviewed 9'60'Pi7039'4 960912 PDR ADOCK 050003'V7
-2-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Washington Nuclear Project-2 NRC Inspection Report 50-397/96-20 This inspection was performed using the guidance of NRC Inspection Procedure 73753,
"Inservice Inspection," dated May 4, 1995, to determine whether the inservice inspection, repair, and replacement of Class 1, 2, and 3 pressure retaining components at Washington Nuclear Project, Unit 2, have been performed in accordance with Technical Specifications, the applicable ASME Code, correspondence between NRC and the licensee concerning relief requests, and requirements imposed by NRC/industry initiatives.
Maintenance The inservice inspection program had continued to be well implemented (Section M3).
-3-Re ort Details Summar of Plant Status The plant was operating at approximately 65 percent power for power ascension testing of digital retrofits installed for the reactor recirculation pump adjustable speed drive and feedwater control systems.
II. Maintenance M3 Maintenance Procedures and Documentation Ins ection Sco e 73753 The inspector reviewed the following procedures related to inservice inspections:
~
NDE & I INSTRUCTION QCI 7-1, "Visual Examination," Revision 6;
~
NDE & I INSTRUCTION QCI 7-3, "Visual Examination - Component Supports," Revision 4;
~
NDE & I INSTRUCTION QCI 12-8, "NDE Data Evaluation," Revision 4; and,
~
WNP-2 Inservice Inspection Plan, Interval 2 Program Plan, Revision O-C.
The inspector also reviewed the test records for the tests required to be performed during the 11'" refueling outage.
b.
Observations and Findin s The inspector noted that the procedures met regulatory requirements for the associated testing or evaluations.
The inspector noted that all required testing had been accomplished in accordance with ASME and regulatory requirements.
Some testing had been accomplished during the 10'" and 11'"
refueling outages, while the remaining testing had been rescheduled for the 12'" or 13'" refueling outages.
The inspector noted that two examinations had been incorrectly listed as being required during the first testing period (10'" through 13'" refueling outages) of the second testing interval (11'" through 20'" years).
The inspector found that the early performance and rescheduling of the testing period were performed in accordance with ASME Code and regulatory requirement The inspector noted that the licensee had found that two inspections had been incorrectly listed as being required during the 11'" refueling outage.
The inspector observed that the licensee identified this error during preparations for the 11'" refueling outage.
The licensee identified that the two examinations had been performed during the 9'" refueling outage.
The licensee noted that those two examinations were actually required to be performed during the 19'" refueling outage.
The inspector found that the licensee's personnel had performed a good review of the Inservice Inspection Program to identify this discrepancy.
The inspector also noted that four inspections had been added to the program for the second inspection interval that were not previously required during the 1*'nspection interval (1*'hrough 10'" years).
The added inspections were for components in the drywell that were not accessible during the outage.
The inspector noted that the licensee was evaluating how to meet these inspection requirements.
The inspector observed that on 13 occasions, the person who performed certain visual examinations also reviewed the records for completeness.
This same person also originated, evaluated, and accepted the evaluations for four examination results that required evaluation for acceptance.
The inspector noted that this performance was not contrary to the licensee's programs and procedures, nor was it contrary to regulatory or ASME Code requirements.
The inspector noted that the supervisor of the subject examiner discussed the use of a single person performing the examination and reviewing the results with the authorized nuclear inservice inspector.
Both determined that there were no procedural or regulatory requirements to prohibit such actions.
The inspector found the documentation of the examinations and the evaluations to have been performed in accordance with ASME Code and regulatory requirements.
The inspector noted that the nondestructive examination supervisor had reached his decision to use the same person for these examinations because he did not have any other available examiners and the person who performed the examinations was the only individual certified as a Level III examiner for visual examinations.
Through discussions with the manager over the nondestructive examination supervisor, the inspector noted that licensee management's expectations were that the examinations be performed and independently reviewed, where practical.
In the event that independent review was not practical, management's expectations were that the nondestructive examination supervisor would inform his manager.
The inspector found that management's expectation of being informed of when independent review may not be practical were not met.
The inspector also found that the failure to meet that expectation did not result in any failure to meet regulatory requirement The inspector observed that licensee management acknowledged the failure to meet their expectation and indicated that the issue would be evaluated and corrective actions, as appropriate, would be taken.
The inspector found the licensee to be appropriately responsive to the finding.
c.
Conclusions The inspector concluded that the Inservice Inspection Program continued to be well implemented.
The inspector also concluded that, although a licensee management expectation was not met for independent review of inservice inspection records, there were no regulatory requirements that were violated.
MS Miscellaneous Maintenance Issues (92902)
Closed Followu Item 50-397 9514-01: Adequacy of documentation of test data for Rosemount transmitters.
This item was opened during an inspection of the licensee's trending program for Rosemount transmitters because data was not recorded in a manner consistent with periodic maintenance procedures.
The inspector noted that the licensee acknowledged that the data recorded dunng the previous inspection was not consistent with other data used for trending the performance of the Rosemount transmitters.
The inspector found that the licensee had revised the procedures so that data acquired on Rosemount transmitters would be consistent.
The inspector noted that the technicians had subsequently documented the data consistent with management expectations for the work that was performed.
III. En ineerin E2 Engineering Support of Facilities and Equipment E2.3 Review of Final Safet Anal sis Re ort Commitments A recent discovery of a licensee operating their facility in a manner contrary to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) description highlighted the need for a special focused review that compares plant practices, procedures, and/or parameters to the FSAR descriptions.
While performing the inspection discussed in this report, the inspector reviewed sections of the FSAR associated with the Inservice Inspection Program.
The inspector did not identify any discrepancies between the FSAR and the Inservice Inspection Progra V. Mana ement Meetin s X1 Exit Meeting Summary The inspector presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on September 6, 1996. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.
The inspector asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary.
No proprietary information was identifie ATTACHMENT PARTIALLIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee P. Bemis, Vice President for Nuclear Operations L. Fernandez, Manager, Licensing V. Harris, Acting Manager, Maintenance C. King, Supervisor, Engineering Programs T. Meade, Manager, Engineering Programs J. Muth, Manager, Quality Services D. Ramey, Inservice Inspection Engineer F. Schill, Licensing Engineer G. Smith, Plant General Manager D. Welch, Supervisor, Nondestructive Examination/Inservice Inspection NRC R. Barr, Senior Resident Inspector LIST OF INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 73753 Inservice Inspection IP 92902 Followup - Maintenance ITEM CLOSED Inspection Followup Item 50-397/9514-01 was closed (Section MS).
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
"WNP-2 Inservice Inspection Plan, Interval 2 Program Plan," Revision 0-C NDE S.
I INSTRUCTION QCI 7-1, "Visual Examination," Revision 6 NDE 5.
I INSTRUCTION QCI 7-3, "Visual Examination - Component Supports," Revision 4 NDE 5 I INSTRUCTION QCI 12-8, "NDE Data Evaluation," Revision 4
DISTRIBUTION:
PDR LPDR SECY CA JTaylor, EDO (0-17G21)
JMilhoan, DEDR (0-17G21)
JLieberman, OE (0-7H5)
LChandler, OGC (0-15B18)
JGoldberg, OGC (0-158.1 8)
Dir ctor, NRR (0-12G18)
RZimmerman, NRR/ADP (0-12G18)
JClifford, NRR r IE 14 Enforcement Coordinators RI, R II, Rill JGilliland, PA (0-2G4)
HBell, OIG (T-5D28)
GCaputo, Ol (0-3E4)
EJordan, AEOD (T-4D18)
LTremper, OC/LFDCB (T-9E10)
OE: (0-7H5)
OE:EA (2) (0-7H5)
(NUOOCS ~
RIV DISTRIBUTION:
E-mail to:
OEMAIL S JCollins (S JC)
BHenderson (BWH)
CHackney (CAH)
WBrown (WLB)
LWilliamson (ELW1)
AHowell (ATH)
FRHuey (FRH)
DChamberlain (DDC)
MHammmond (MFH2)
DKunihiro (DMK1)
JDyer (JED2)
KPerkins (KEP)
RBarr (RCB3)
KBrockman (KEB)
TPGwynn (TPG)
Copies to:
RIV Files MIS Coordinator LJCallaniReading File GSanborni EAFile PAO (Henderson/Hammond)
for all CP cases RSLO (Hackney/Kunihiro) for all CP cases cedvo~ or doaacet, @sate hL box Ic'
howl cndoc
%'
lhpy with cndocurec 't4'
No copy OE 0'.OE DEO HS tor(us LOCA LAN JLIEBERHAM JNILHOAM
96
96 ll %
11
"-BOO35
~l
'