IR 05000482/1986022

Insp Rept 50-482/86-22 on 860901-1004.Violations Noted:Fire Door Blocked Open & Failure to Control Documents Marked as Safeguards Info

ML20215N718
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	10/21/1986
From:	Bruce Bartlett, Cummins J, Hunter D, Mullikin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20215N707	List: IR 05000482/1986022 ML20215N706 ML20215N711
References
50-482-86-22, NUDOCS 8611070194
Download: ML20215N718 (16)

Text

c . _ .

. ..

APPENDIX' B U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-482/86-22 LP: NPF-42 Docket: 50-482 Licensee: Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E)

Post Office Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 Facility Name: Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS)

Inspection At: Wolf Creek Site, Coffey County, Burlington, Kansas Inspection Conducted: September 1 to October 4, 1986 Inspectors: MD e  ; /d)d/8d g E. Cummins, Senior Resident Inspector, Date~

Ophations, (pars; 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12)

<

(W A B. L. Bartlett, Resident Reactor' Inspector,

/0h date '

Y Operations, (pars. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7)

.

!

R. P. Mullikin, Project Engineer lC T( d6 Date (par ~. 10)

Approved: d. . (O[ti h -

D. If.' Nonter, Chief, Project Section B Date '

Reactor Project Branch

<

I hG A

, >. . ,

.. .

Inspection Sunnary Inspection Conducted September 1 to October 4,1986 (Report 50-482/86-22)

Areas Inspected: -Routine, unannounced inspection including plant status; followup of previously identified NRC items; operational safety verification; LER review; ncnthly-surveillance observation; monthly maintenance observation; preparation for refueling; onsite event followup; allegation followup; IEB followup; and followup' on Regional reques Results: Within the eleven areas inspected, two violations were identified

>

(Technical Specification fire door blocked open, paragraph 4 and failure to control documents marked as safeguards information, paragraph 4).

t

l t

!

l l

,

I

,

. _ , - . - _ _ - . . , , - ,- -, .--- +-t erm+ -- -- - -

. .

DETAILS

.

~ Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Personnel

• L. Koester, Vice President-Nuclear J..A. Bailey, Interim Site Director F. T. Rhodes, Plant Manager

• G. D. Boyer, Deputy Plant Manager

• R. M. Grant, Director-Quality M. Estes, Superintendent of Operations M. D. Rich, Superintendent of Maintenance-

+*M. G. Williams, Superintendent of-Regulatory, Quality, and Administrative Services

+*0. L. Maynard, Manager Licensing K. Peterson, Licensing

+*G. Pendergrass, Licensing

. M. Lindsay, Supervisor Quality Systems

• C. J. Hoch, QA Technologist W. J. Rudolph, QA Manager-WCGS

• A. A. Freitag, Manager Nuclear Plant Engineering-WCGS-

• R. Hoyt, Sr. Engineer Specialist-0ps

• J. A. Zell, Manager, Nuclear Training

• T. M. Damashek, Quality Systems Engineer

• H. Chernoff, Licensing Engineer

• T. S. Morrill, Chemistry Supervisor

• T. F. East,. Training Specialist

.*H. L. Stubby, Training Program Coordinator-Chemistry

• R. M. Stambaugh, QA Supervisor-Audits

• A. S. Mah, Superintendent of General Training

• L. E. Borders, Shift Supervisor

• J. Ives, Site Health Physicist D. Gerrelts, Instrumentation and Control The NRC inspectors also contacted other members of the licensee's staff during the inspection period to discuss identified issue + Denotes those personnel in attendance at the exit meeting held on September 12, 198 * Denotes those personnel in attendance at the exit meeting held on October 3, 198 . Plant Status The plant operated in Mode 1 during this inspection perio . -_ _-.

.

~

3. Followup On Previously Identified NRC Items (Closed) Open Item (482/8511-16): Formal Feedback Program-Power Ascension Test Program This open item suggested that the licensee establish a formal feedback mechanism to aid in the early detection and correction of adverse trends,-

during the power ascension test program. The NRC inspectors observed licensee activities during power ascension testing and did 'not identify any problems with identifying deficiencies and taking appropriate corrective action. This item is close (Closed) Violation (482/8526-01): Failure to Control Measuring and Test Equipment In Accordance With Procedure The NRC inspector verified that Wolf Creek Event Report (WCER) 85-91 was reviewed by the plant safety review committee (PSRC) and that no new violations of this type have been identified to date. This violation is close (Closed) Violation (482/8605-01): Failure to Document the Performance of a Surveillance Test In Accordance With the Procedure This violation concerned a failure to sign the initial conditions as complete after they had been performed. The licensee's ~ corrective action was reviewed and found to adequately resolve this concern. This violation is close (Closed) Violation (482/8613-01): Failure to Properly Document a Completed Portion of a Surveillance Test This violation concerned a failure of two surveillance performers to sign off the appropriate steps as they were performed. The licensee's corrective action was reviewed and found to adequately resolve this concern. This violation is close (Closed) Violation (482/8613-03): Cardboard Containers Stored In the Auxiliary Building Contrary to Procedure This violation involved the unauthorized storage of empty cardboard containers in the auxiliary building. The NRC inspector verified that trash has been promptly removed from the auxiliary building, that the violation has been placed in required reading files, and that combustible materials _have been stored as required by plant procedures in the auxiliary building. This violation is close (Closed) Open Item (482/8535-06) Allegation (4-85-A-058): Rainwater Entering Chemistry Hot Lab This item was. previously discussed as an allegation in Section 12 of NRC Inspection Report 50-482/85-26. The licensee resealed'the leaking

__

.

.

conduitsonWolfCreekWorkRequest(WR) 10156-85. The NRC inspector inspected the chemistry hot lab during and after severe rain storms in the area between September 26 and October 3,1986, and there was no apparent rainwater leakage into the lab. The NRC inspector also discussed this item with cognizant licensee personnel who stated that the leaks have apparently been fixed. This item is close . Operational Safety Verification The NRC inspectors verified that the facility is being operated safely and in conformance with regulatory requirements by direct observation of licensee facilities, tours of the facility, interviews and discussions with licensee personnel, independent verification of safety system status and limiting conditions for operations, and reviewing facility record The NRC inspectors, by observation and direct interview, verified the physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the security plan and that radiation protection activities were controlle By observing valve position, electrical breaker position, and control room ,

indication, the.NRC inspectors confirmed the operability of the auxiliary '

feedwater system and the containment spray system. The NRC inspectors also visually inspected safety components for leakage, physical damage, and other impairments that could prevent them from performing their designed function Selected NRC inspector observations are discussed below:

. At approximately 07:40 CDT on September 25, 1986, during a routine plant tour, the NRC inspector observed TS Fire Door 15031'(located on the 2047' elevation of the auxiliary building) propped open with a roll of tape. The NRC inspector called the control room by Gaitronics and was informed that a fire door impairment had not been issued. The NRC inspector unblocked and closed the fire door. The door had been determined by the licensee to have been open for greater than one hour. This failure to implement the action statement of TS 3.7.11 is an apparent violation (482/8622-01).

.

On October 3,1986, during a routine review of the PSRC agenda for l Meeting No. 234, the NRC inspector observed that attachment 82,

"TM0 86-SE-126," concerning the perimeter alarm system was stamped

" safeguards information." Discussions with licensee security personnel resulted in the determination that the information contained in attachment 82 was not safeguards information (SI), but had been classified and labeled as SI in error. Administrative Procedure ADM 07-408, Revision 6, " Distribution and Control.Of Safeguards Information," contains specific instructions on the i

handling of docunents marked as SI, although in this instance no

actual SI infonnation was involved. This failure to handle material identified as safeguards information in accordance with an established procedure is a violation (482/8622-02).

_- .. . _-- _

-

.. <

6 Licensee Event Report (LER) Review During this inspection period, the NRC inspectors performed followup on selected Wolf Creek LERs. The LERs were reviewed to ensure:

. Corrective action stated in the report has been properly complete . Responses to the events were adequat . Responses to the events met license conditions, commitments, or other applicable regulatory requirement . The information contained in the report satisfied applicable reporting requirement . That any generic issues were identifie . The report conformed to the guidelines contained in NUREG-1022 and Supplements 1 and The following LERs were reviewed and close . 482/85-051-00, " Inadvertent start ~of standby diesel generator"

. 482/85-056-00, " Engineered safety features actuation-control room ventilation isolation"

'

. 482/85-060-00, " Reactor trip and engineered safety features actuation"

. 482/85-063-00, " Technical Specification Violation-Centrifugal

,

Charging Pump 'A'"

l . 482/85-071-00, " Engineered safety features actuation-control l room ventilation isolation" i

l . 482/86-004-00, " Technical Specification Violation-missed hourly firewatch patrol"

. 482/86-008-00, " Engineered safety features actuation-inadvertent

! auxiliary feedwater actuation" i

. 482/86-012-00, " Inadvertent start of turbine driven auxiliary i feedwater pump" l

. ~ 482/86-025-00, " Condition prohibited by Technical Specifications" l

_ , _ _

.. _ _ . . _

. , .

. 482/86-041-00, " Control room ventilation isolation due to defective tape in chlorine monitor" No violations or deviations were identifie . Monthly Surveillance Observation The NRC inspectors observed selected portions of the performance of surveillance testing and/or reviewed completed surveillance test procedures' to verify that surveillance activities were performed in-accordance with Technical Specification (TS) requirements-and administrative procedures. The NRC inspectors considered the.following elements while inspecting surveillance activities:

Testing was being accomplished by qualified personnel in accordance with an approved procedur . The surveillance procedure conformed to TS requirements.- ,

'

. Required test instrumentation was calibrate . Technical Specification limiting conditions for operation (LC ) were

^

satisfie .

.

Test data was accurate and complete. Where' appropriate, the NRC inspectors performed independent calculations of selected test dsta to verify their accurac s

. The performance of the surveillance procedure confonned to applicable administrative procedure .

The surveillance was performed within the required frequency and the test results met the required limit Surveillances witnessed and/or reviewed by the NRC inspectors are listed below:

.

STS MT-019. Revision 4. "125V DC Class 1E Quarterly Battery Inspection," conducted July 23, 1986

.

STS MT-020, Revision 4, "125V DC Battery Inspection and Charger Operational," conducted April 9,1986, thru April 17, 1986

.

STS IC-252B, Revision 1, " Analog Channel Operational Test New Fuel Pool Criticality Monitor SD RE-36,"

conducted September 22, 1986

.

STS RE-012, Revision 1, "QPTR Determination," conducted September 24, 1986

- - - - _ _ - _ . -. . .

, . _, . . . .. _ . _ _ .. _ , . . , , - - .- . . _-

- -

- .

c-

, .. .

.

.

.

.

t

. - STS IC-211A, Rev'ision 5, " Actuation Logic Test Train A Solid State Protection System," conducted September 23-

'

-

- and 24,1986 ;

'

,

. . STS SE-002, Revision 0,' " Manual: Calculation Of Reactor Thermal Power,"

conducted September 24, 1986--

. - STN IC-2568, Revision 0, " Calibration Of Emergency Fuel Oil Storage Tank B Level Loops"

~

,

i

'No violations or deviations were. identifie ' Monthly Maintenance Observation

~

'

! '

The NRC inspector observed maintenance activities performed on safety-related systems 'and components to verify that.these activities were conducted in accordance with approved procedures, Technical Specifications, and applicable industry codes and standards. The i- following elements were considered by.the NRC. inspector during the observation and/or'r~eview of the maintenanceJactivitie's:

!.

. LCOs were met and, where applicable, redun' dant components were-

.

operabl '.

. Activities complied with adequate administrative control ~

.

. . Where required, adequate, approved, and up-to-d' ate procedures were use . Craftsmen were qualified to accomplish the designated task and

,

technical expertise (i.e., engineering, health physics, operations)

was.made available~when appropriat ~

. Replacement. parts and materials being used were properly certified.

. . Required radiological controls were implemented.

L . Fire prevention controls were implemented where appropriate.

. . Required alignments and surveillances to verify post maintenance

! operability were performed.

p L . - Quality control hold points and/or checklists were used when

. appropriate and quality control personnel observed designated work activitie '

"

b

,

i . Selected portions of the maintenance activities accomplished on the work'

,

'

request (WR) listed below were observed and related documentation reviewed

'by,the NRC inspector:

l f

.

I I '

. .

ew - -- r -r,-- ---w- --E-. m-..~~.-,---m--,----m------ ---ww-,,.eU-~_m----#---4-

-

. ,

-i

.:

~

_

o ' N Title

,

'

. WR 09687-85- " Rep 1acem'ent=of Fire-Damper GG D046"

. WR 03884-86 "Limitorque Operator ALHV031, MOVATS Testing"

. WR 03972-86 < "Limitorque Operator'ALHV036, Implement.PMR 1722"-

'

. .WR 03977-86 "Limitorque' Operator ALHV031, Implement PMR.1722"

. .WR 04058-86 "NF039A.W Power Supply PT2 Signal Coming In 15V

_

Power Supply Needs Replaced"

. WR 04129-86~ " Reactor Trip Bypass Breaker, Can't get breaker to -

go closed for STS IC-211"

'

. _W R 04138-86 . "STS Testing The Logic.and Master Relays of-

-Train A Failed'Section 5.6 (Memories Testing)

Step 5.6.1 Memory Switch Position #3 (S/R Block)"

-

,

Selected NRC inspector.observatio'ns'are discussed below:

.

'

. On September 24,..'1986, while corrective maintenance _on the solid state. protection ~ system (SSPS) was-being performed per WR 04138-86

'

and with the reactor plant at 100 percent power,-- source range nuclear

~

~

instrument detector N31 was energiz'ed with high voltage for approximately 36 seconds. This event occurred during the performance of surveillance _STS IC-211A,. Revision 5, " Actuation-Logic Test Train A Solid State Protection System," which was being performed to

-

determine operability of.the circuit after the corrective maintenance c -was complete The maintenance was performed to correct a i . malfunction in the source range block circuitry of the solid state

protection system and therefore only the portion of STS IC-211A that ,

applied to this circuit was being performed. It was determined by '

f licensee personnel that^ performance of this section of STS IC-211A

[. . without first placing the input error inhibit switch in the inhibit l mode and with no trip signals present would energize the source range

[

channel, as it did. The licensee is revising STS IC-211A and STS IC-2118 (train B surveillance) to prevent recurrence.

- No violations or deviations -were identif_ied.

!

' Preparation For Refuelina L .

.

l: New Fuel Receipt i

L ._The NRC inspectors observed the handling, receipt inspection, and-storage of four of the 54 new fuel assemblies received by the licensee. The handling receipt inspection and storage of these

. assemblies was conducted in accordance with licensee procedure FHP 01-001, Revision.7, "New Fuel Receipt." The NRC t

Ye

. . . - . _ - . ..- .

. .- ,

.

. .

y .

-

T:

_ ., I, ,

,

, '10

.

'

.. inspector reviewed this procedure for technical adequacy and required ,

<

approvals. The NRC inspector-also reviewed a randomly selected.

>

portion of.the receipt inspection and storage records for the '

I received fuel assemblies, t

I '

During: receipt. inspection _of-the new, fuel assemblies, the licensee identified scores or gouges on four of the assemblies 005, D13,-D30, and D43. The vendor, Westinghouse, determined that these gouges ha 'l been caused by a fuel assembly holding device ~.during vendor '

, inspection, and that the gouges were acceptable. This information '

, was documented in Westinghouse Letter 86KE*-G-0050< dated 4- . September 29, 1986, to the license '

'

~ Refueling Preparations '*

' ,

'

i; '

. _ _

-The NRC inspector reviewed licensee procedures in the following areas .

to. verify technical adequacy and that the procedures had the required t approvals: i

. . Fuel handling, transfer, and core verification I

. Spent fuel inspection

. Refueling preparation, performance, and recovery The following procedures were reviewed:

. -FHP 03-006,-Revision 1, " Fuel' Transfer System Operating

Instructions

. FHP 03-007, Revision 5, " Spent Fuel Pool Bridge Crane Operating Instructions"

. FHP 03-008,-Revision 4, " Cask Loading Crane Operating Instructions"

. FHP 03-009, Revision'1,."New Fuel Elevator Operating Instructions" i

'

l . FHP 02-001, Revision 4, " Refueling Procedure" FHP 02-011, Revision 7, " Fuel Shuffle and Position Verification"

'

.

. FHP 04-001,. Revision 0, " Spent Fuel Inspection" i

'

. FHP 03-004, Revision 1,."RCCA Change Fixture Operating-

.

,

Instruction"

'

.No violations or deviations were identified.

!

i

.!

, ,1 :

. ._ ,, ,. , < . , - - - - ...- . .

, , , , - , , . . . ~ , . . . ~ . . . , . < ,..---..-,~w...- .- ---n,-, , . . - . . ~ - -

- -, . . - -

_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _-_ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ __ . . . . . .

o i

~

11 3

.

' Onsite Event Followup The NRC inspector perfonned onsite followup of non-emergency events that occurred during this report period. The NRC inspector (when available)

observed control room personnel response,-observed instrumentation

indicators of reactor plant parameters, reviewed logs and computer j_ printouts, and discussed the event with' cognizant personnel. The NR ,

inspector verified the licensee had responded to the' event in accordance

'

with' procedures and had notified the NRC and other agencies as required in a timely fashion. Engineered safety feature actuations that occurred during the report period are listed in the table below." Where' applicable,

'

the NRC inspector will review the LER for each of these events and will report any findings in subsequent NRC inspection reports.'

.

Date Event * Plant Status Cause ,

,.

'

9/2/86

'

ESF Actuation Mode 1 Lossofpokerto'ESF.*

(100%) Buss NB01-

. . .

9/4/86 CRVIS Mode 1 Personnel Error-

'(100%) ,

• Event -'

l i CRVIS - Control' room ventilation isolation signal,

Selected NRC inspector observations are discussed below:

.

The ESF actuation that occurred on September 2, 1986, was caused by i

,

the loss of offsite power to ESF 4160V AC bus NB01. The offsite l power was lost when a technician' changing chart paper in the

'

switchyard bumped an instrument cabinet causing the breaker feeding bus NB01 to open. Per design the emergency diesel generator automatically started and picked up safety loads that were sequenced i onto bus NB01. The breaker . feeding offsite power to bus NB01 was

<

!

reclosed and the affected electrical system was returned to a normal-f line u .

The CRVIS that. occurred on September 4,1986, was ~ caused when a i'

'

technician mistakenly started perfonning a surveillance on the operating control room ventilation radiation monitor rather than on the radiation monitor that had been put in bypass for the surveillanc No violations or deviations were identified.

10. Allegation Followup (0 pen) Allegation (4-85-A-057): This item concerned alleged

[

improper construction practices of a current KG&E employee during

previous employment. The alleger stated that the incident occurred

! while the subject was performing work on local government water and j

sewer projects. The alleger stated that the subject used inferior L

.. . -- - -- . _ - - . - - - - _ . _ - . - --

<

,

o- ')!

grade materials, used duct tape on pipe joints, failed to complete

,

jobs according to specification, and dropped concrete from a height of 25 feet in lieu of tamping during work on non-nuclear project It was alleged that the subject's poor work practices could extend into the subject's work on Wolf Cree Findings: The NRC inspector reviewed the subject's personnel fil The subject was found to have worked at the KG&E Corporate Office in Wichita, Kansas, since being employed by. KG&E. Although the subject has nuclear related duties, these duties have not included the

,

performance, supervision, or inspection of actual construction activities at Wolf Creek. In addition, the NRC inspector noted that the subject's performance appraisals have shown no areas of concer The NRC inspector attempted to determine whether the subject's work was in question during the subject's previous employment. However, personnel records showed that employment was verified by KG&E, but that discussions with former supervisor (s) on the subject's job performance were not mad Conclusion: After an investigation of this allegation it could not be substantiated that poor construction practices in a-previous non-nuclear job could equate to the same at Wolf Creek. The subject was found to not have performed any onsite direct construction activitie In addition, the system of checks-and-balances, which includes quality control, would tend to reduce the chances of the alleged items occurring at a nuclear sit However, it did appear that the subject did perform some safety-related activities. .W hether or not these activities are in question could not be readily determined during this inspectio Thus, th_is allegation has been referred to the licensee for further review. This allegation will remain open pending the completion of the licensee's review and the NRC's examination of their finding b.- (Closed) Allegation-(4-85-A-062): This allegation originated from a newspaper article (Wichita Eagle-Beacon) on May 26, 1985. The article stated that a former engineer at Wolf Creek made the following accusations:

(1) Supervisors at Wolf Creek suppressed reports of mismanagement, improper design, and insufficient manpowe (2) Employees of Bechtel destroyed documentation of some design changes and would not allow for the opportunity to cite management, design, or worker productivity in justifying higher costs. Also some reports were rewritte (3) Bechtel's actions were more of a whitewash than a cover-u _

.e' 'J ~

Findings: . The'NRC' inspector found that these~ allegations were made to the Quality First (Q1) organization at Wolf Creek and documented in' file number QCI 84-139T. The concerns were determined by Q1 to not be safety-related and were referred to the licensee's legal department for action. The legal department addressed all of the concerns and Q1 resolved them with the subject employee with one exception. The subject still felt that reports were being change The NRC. inspector, during the review of the Q1 file and personnel interviews, found that the subject employee was a member of the Wolf Creek reconciliation group. The group's function was to ascertain where the variances were between the actual cost of the plant and the

'1983 and 1985 forecasted costs. Q1 found that the group was gathering data and interviewing personnel and making conclusions such as cost overruns due to " design problems." The group's supervision was deleting these conclusions because it was felt that the data did not warrant these conclusions. The final reconciliation group report contained all of the data gathered to allow the readers to draw their-own conclusion Q1 also found that the only papers authorized to be destroyed were drafts of reports and the alleger subsequently agreed that no project or source documents were destroye Their investigation found that editing did occur during the. review process of the reconciliation group's reports but the licensee's legal representative for their rate case stated that he reviewed both the draft and final reports and never found any to be different in meaning. This could not be resolved between Q1 and the alleger who felt that one report was different in final for Conclusion: The' allegation was found to be concerned with information gathered for the licensee's rate hearings and had no safety significance. The allegation could not be substantiate (Closed) Allegation (4-85-A-094): This allegation concerned NRC's laxity in enforcement at Wolf Creek. The alleger cited the following examples:

(1) On August 10, 1985, KG&E management ordered radioactive' liquid dumped into the plant lake to avoid a shutdow (2) Contaminated materials are improperly stored in the hot machine sho (3)_ On Memorial Day weekend, 1985, the wrong valve was encapsulated, welded up, and that.KG&E's QC signed it off as correct and complet (4) Wolf Creek.is staffed with many inexperienced workers and led by a management group that has a very poor attitude towards correct radioactive work practices and procedure .- --

y^

,,q -

g-.

' .

.g

-

,

p

- C .

~

• ,.

Cv '&

14  ! T

. . 4. 1 'y . % '

,

~ N,. -

, [ a1- '

D ' Findinas: Allegation No. 1 was reviewed and documented in NRC 1 . .

Inspection Report 50-482/85-43, dated . January 8,s1986, . and foun'd to .

'-

be without meri <+  ;

'

-

. a , , .

-.

Allegation No. 2'was. investigated by.the-NRC inspector during'this~' .

inspection. The.. hot' machine shop-is one area ~to store contaminated materials before being processed. . An int'erv.iew with' licensee QA '

~

. ;

showed no findings for improper storage-in the hot machine ~ shop. ,The ,

NRC inspector and the senior resident: toured the shop and found '

contaminated material ~being stored. However.,all material,was y

+ r identified and roped off. There was no iqiproper. storage o "

contaminated material found. In addition, the NRC resident"

"-

' inspectors. routinely tour this area and have never discovered any -

' instances of improper contaminated material-storag ~

. . .

'N .. .

An investigation into Allegation No. 3 found that.n'o , valve- <

^

encapsulation occurred on Memorial. Day weekend (May 25-26), 190 The NRC inspector did discover that feedwater valve AE-V141 was

'

encapsulated on May 29, 1985, instead of valve-AE-N321. ,This valve

"

was signed off by QC-as complete. The arror1was+ discovered the following day when adjacent Valve AE-V141 was to be encapsulated and was found to have already.been done. .The QC superintendent and the -

.QC inspector that made the error were interviewed by_the NRC inspector and the following was determined: - .

'

l :

. ' When the~ incident was discovered, the.QC inspector was' counsele [ s A-and required to write a letter to the QC superintendent

'

, explaining what' happened and why it happene Personnel error ,

was listed as the caus ? ] .

. The QC inspection procedure was updated to; stress.the need for #

the inspector to verify the identify ~of the equipment being '

inspecte e, .

,

,

,,

. Training classes for QC inspectors were revised'to stress this ,

nee ~

m NRC inspectors, based'on previous ins'ections,_did-have p concerns < ,

[ about the lack of experience by the licensee's radiation protectiGn

. . personnel (Allegation No. 4). However,;these concerns were v '

., adequately resolved prior to licensing and documented in,NRC .

1 Inspection Report 50-482/84-34, dated January 7, 1985. A~ subsequent

x inspection into radiation protection and management controls, and

"

staff' training and qualifications found the licensee to be meeting their commitments. The results of this inspection were documented in -

NRC Inspection Report 50-482/85-31, dated. August 22, 198 .

Conclusion: The allegations could not be substantiated with the -

,

exception of No. The licensee took prompt and adequate corrective action to preclude recurrence regarding allegation No. 3. Since the

. .

' '

' , ,s i . ; e r

-

,

-

, , . .

, . .-

., ,

.-

'QC error did not result in a valve being encapsulated that should_ not

'

'be encapsulated or a valve not being encapsulated that should _have been, the. incident had no safety significanc .(Closed) Allegation-(4-85-A-109): ~This allegation concerned the release of radioactive water into the cooling lake on or.around August 4, 1985, by licensee management to avoid a shutdow ,

Findings: This. allegation ^was reviewed and documented in NR Inspection Report 50-482/85-43., dated January 8, _.1986l,- and found to

-

be without meri = Conclusion: .This allegation could not be substantiated.-

1 IE' Bulletin (IEB) Followup The NRC inspector, by review of' documents and discussions with licensee personnel, verified that the IEB discussed below had been reviewed and

, appropriately acted upon by the license IEB 86-02, " Static "0" Ring Differential Pressure Switches" This IEB reported a potential problem with. Series 102 Land 103 differential pressure switches supplied by SOR, Incorporated. The 1.icensee's nuclear plant engineering staff determined that none of these switches were in use or had been procured for'use at WCGS. The NRC inspector reviewed the following-documents:

. Licensee Letter KNWLKSL 86-007, IE Bulletin 86-02 Static "0" Ring Differential. Pressure Switches, dated August 4, 198 . Licensee Letter KMLNRC 86-132, Response to IE Bulletin 86-02, dated July 28, 1986.-

. Licensee Industry Technical Information Review and Evaluation Package No. 0005 This IEB is close No violations or deviations were identifie . Followup Of Regional Request

' Inspection Of The Location Of The Manual Trip Circuit In Protection System The NRC inspector verified by review of documents and discussion with licensee personnel that the licensee _ was using controlled drawings that correctly depict the actual location of the manual trip circuit in relation to output transistors Q3 and Q4 in the undervoltage output circuit of the Westinghouse Solid State Protection t

__ ,

i

"

o, ,

> >

s c 16 ht

System (SSPS). The manual trip circuit was downstream of the undervoltage output circuit (output transistors Q3 and Q4) in the SSPS at IJCGS. The NRC inspector reviewed the following documents during th.is inspection:

. Drawing M-767-0342-WO2, SSPS

. . Drawing M-/67-0404-W01, SSPS

. Licensed's followup of IE Information Notice 85-18, " Failures of Undervoltage OutpuP Circuit Boards in the Westinghouse-Designed

^

Solid State Protection System"

. Surveillance Test STS-IC-211A, Revision 5, " Actuation Logic Test Train A Solin State Protection System" Potential Failure of General Electric PK-2 Test Blocks "

The NRC inspector.followed up on the licensee's actions related to a problem with teminal studs in General Electric type PK-2- test s blocks. This problem was identified to the licensee via a letter dated September 8,1986, from the NRC's Region IV Office. Licensee ~

~

review of vendor documents determined that Westinghouse' type FT-1 ^

test blocks were used in the Class 1E switchgear rather.than the General Electric type PK-2. The licensee had previously evaluated '

this item during followup of IE Information Notice No. 85-83,

" Potential Failures of General Electric PK-2' Test Blocks." *

-

No violations or deviations were identifie . Exit Meeting; The NE5 inslectors i met with licensee personnel to discuss the scope and findings of this inspection on October 3, 1986. The NRC inspectors also attended entrance / exit meetings of the NRC region based inspectors identified below:

'

Inspection Lead Area . Inspection Inspected Report N Period Inspector 86-22 9/08 thru Allegation (par. 10)

'12/86 3 R. Mullikin 9/29 thru Chemistry 86-23 10/3/86- B. Nicholas s

.

9/29 thiu Training 86-21 10/3/86 E. Plettner s f

'

-

k 6- - -

>.-_1 . .