IR 05000482/1989010
| ML20247A240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1989 |
| From: | Bruce Bartlett, Holler E, Skow M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247A208 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-89-10, NUDOCS 8905230082 | |
| Download: ML20247A240 (11) | |
Text
_ - _ - _ - _ - -
..
.,
_. - - -
_ -._ _ ____- - _ - -_ - - -
-
.
_
.
..
"I
-
<
g
,
,
, {..<-
~
s
,
'
, APPENDIX
-
.
....U.S.--NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
"
~-REGION IV-
'
'
,
'
- NRC Inspection Rsport: ? 50-482/89-10 Operating License: -NPF-42 Docket:
50-482
'
'
Licensee:
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation.(WCNOC)
>
"
"
P.O., Box,411 n
Burlingtoni Kansas 66839 Facility Name:. Wolf Creek. Generating Station (WCGS)
,s Inspection' Ati:- WCGS,l'Coffey County, Burlington, Kansas
. Inspection-Conductedi March 1-31, 1989
,
'
,,
- Inspectors
' Ak.6/
m//WD 5-5/- $$.
~B.lL.EBartlett, Senior Resident Inspector, Date
'
Projects Section D, Division of. Reactor Projects-
.
W
/
8' ?
L M.' T.. SkUw', Resident Inspector,
-Date'
Project Section D, Division of Reacter Projects (
/
[
LApproved:
'
,
E. J.llioller, Chief, Project Section D, Ddte/
Division of Reactor Projects
.
L
,
G
<:
' --
-
-
. - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _
-_-___._--__-._-____._:----_-___.__"__m
_ _ _ _
_ _
..
__
_
-
_ - _ _ - _ -
-
-
- _ _ _ _.
. _ _
-
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _.. _ - _
8O',
,
.
..
-2-
'
.
Inspection Summary.
' Inspection Conducted March 1-31,'1989 (Report 50-482/89-10)
, Areas Inspected: Routine,r unannoutied inspection including plant status, operational safety verification, monthly surveillance observation, monthly
. maintenance observation, and balance of plant.
Results: Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were balance of plant (g this inspection, one of the major areas of emphasis was on identified. Durin B0P).
The licensee was responsive to the NRC inspectors'
findings and initiated prompt corrective actions where required. The NRC
,
' inspectors determined,that, overall, the licensee was maintaining and operating
,
B0P systems.in a manner appropriate to their importance. Some comments from the inspection include: the use of temporary scaffolding in the turbine
building appeared excessive (paragraph 6.a) and vendor drawings of the "as built" configuration need to be ' updated (paragraph 6.b).
.
.
)
_
. - - - _
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - - _ _ - _
ggm~.(;S ((M_s >
- ----
-
-
,
,
c x
s
.:
",
"p
',
W(ngi
iC j
'
/
r
4
,
- -
.. ;> ;
r
<
,
f
,I. '
Q'g:
.
J a
-3~
[
,<
.
f Q $,. 9
,
./
i
-
'
-
,,
.
,
J
-
-
,
'
UM DETAILS
,p.
w
,
1..
Persons C'ontacted-
>
1
,
l
-
Principal' Licensee Personnel m,
.
.
..
. ~
,V
'*Bi Withers, President and CEO
+
- F.(T.: Rhodes,.Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services
- R.LM.' Grant', Vice' President', Quality Assurance (QA)
'
>
- J. A.. Bailey, Vice, President, Operations
- G. D. Boyer, Plant Manager.
.
.
,
- R.rW. Holloway, Manager, Maintenance and Modifications-
' *0,: L. Maynard, Manager, Licensing
- B. McKinney, Manager,'~0perations
- M. G.' Williams, Manager, Plant' Support
.
' *C.~ E. Parry, Manager, QA, WCGS
- A.;A.'lFreitag, Manager, Nuclear Plant Engineering (NPE), WCGS
"C. W. Fowler, Manager, Instrumentation and Control
- ,
'
K. Peterson, Supervisor,_ Licensing
.G..Pendergrass; Licensing
- Wl;M. Lindsay, Supervisor, QA
- C. J. Hoch,~Q4 Technologist
- J. M. Pippin, Manager, NPE
.
.
'R.LJ. Potter, Manager,. Supplier / Materials Quality.
'*R. D. Flannigan, Manager, Nuclear Safety Engineering
- S. F. Hatch, Supervisor, Quality Systems-f
'*C. J.. Sprout, Section Manager, NPE
- S. Wideman, Licensing Specialist III
'
- D..G.iNaylor, Shift Supervisor The NRC inspectors.also contacted other members of the licensee's staff during the inspection period.to discuss identified issues.
'
r, r
,
a' * Denotes those personnel in attendance at the exit meeting held on
'
,
11 arch 30,1989.
.
~
2.
< Plant Status
', '
,,
1~
p-
.
-
N
$ U-The plant operated in Mode 1 (100 percent power) during this inspection
'
-
period.
- 3.'
Operational Safety Verification (71707)
,
,
'
'jThepurpose'ofthisinspectionareawastoensurethatthefacilityiwas R
,
..
5being operated safely and in conformance with license and regulatory
'
? :(
qp requirements.
It also was to ensure that the licensee's management
'i
'. f- ' '
control system was effectively discharging its responsibilities for
' '
'
. continued' safe-operation.
The methods used to perform this inspection
".
,
area included direct ~ observation of activities and equipment, tours of the
,
1:
facility, interviews and discussions with licensee personnel, independent
- .'
i
,
. I: ij
'
'
'
ll r
. - -..
-- --_-._ __
g
-
-
--
-
--
- - - - - -
-
,
,
,
m
+
, yp,
,
w.
.c
-
g,e
,
v
+
,.4
.
.
,
_
-
.
~'
n
- verification. of. safety system status and ~1imiting conditions for operation, corrective actions, and review of facility records.
.
r Functions inspected during this period included: control room activities -
routine surveillance, engineered safety feature operability, radiation
.j
'
.. -
protection controls, fire protection, security, plant cleanliness,
^n4 instrumentation and alarms, deficiency reports, and corrective actions.
,
- <
.
,
,.
>
.
Routine surveillance and operating activities witnessed and/or reviewed by the NRC inspectors are discussed below:
j
- o On March 15, 1989, the~ licensee informed the NRC of a potential
- defect reportable in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21. Special-Report 88-002, Supplement-1, " Failure of Diesel. Generator 'B Due to Failure of Cap Screws on' Fuel' Injector Pumps," stated that the cause of the cap' screw failures was a combination of installation error, cyclic loading, and substandard bolts'
The licensee revised the
.
installation procedure and installed new bolts-(cap screws) that had been hardness tested onsite and chemically tested on a sample basis.
o On March 6; 1989...the license'e performed a scheduled surveillance test on the: control rods and determined that Group 2 control rods would not move. The. licensee entered Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.3.1, Action b, which required'the reactor to be in hot standby within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
The licensee had previously sent a TS change request to the NRC asking that, for control rods that were inoperable but tripable, the action statement be extended from 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. This would
' allow the licensee more time.to troubleshoot rod control. cabinet u
problems and to initiate any required repairs.
In accordance with NRC ~ procedures, the licensee requested a temporary waiver of compliance until the TS could be changed permanently. The TS change request was in the process of being issued.
Its priority was increased and it was issued as. Amendment 27 later the morning of March 6, 1989.
The licensee repaired the rod control modules performed surveillance testing, and declared the Group 2 control rods operable on March 8, 1989.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
4.
Monthly Surveillance Observation (61726)
The purpose of this inspection area was to ascertain whether surveillance of safety-significant systems and components were being conducted in accordance with TS. Methods'used to perform this inspection included direct observation of licensee activities and review of records.
Items inspected in this area included:
,,,
gg,
-
-,
j
.
,
m
-
-- - - - -
-
-
-.
,
,
pjQ 9,
2d gn U
-
,
,
,
y v
.
w
,,
py J
"
.4
,
w.
.
,
,
.
-5-
,
.
.,;
-
!
e J
~
?
&
J oL Verification that. testing 'was Accomplished.by qualified ~ personnel in s
,,+
accordance with an approved test. procedure.
,
'
- l
~
o-
- Verification that thel surveillance procedure was in confomance to TS
,
requirements.
'
'
",
ll l
_ Verification-that the operating, system andLtest instrumentation was oo s,'
Lwithin its current calibration cycle..
LVerifibation that= required' administrative approvals and clearances o
were obtained prior to initiating the. test.
'
-
- o
- Verification that' limiting conditions for operation were met and that'
fi the system was properly.' returned to service.
'o'
Verification that the-test data was accurate and complete and.that
'
the test results met TS requirements.
j Surve111ances. witnessed and/or reviewed,by the NRC inspectors are as'
c
~ follows:-
.
o.
- STS-IC-203; Revision 5, " Analog' Channel. Operational Test?7300 Process
. Instrumentation: Protection Set III (Blue)'," performed March 21, 1989.
,
o :-
?TS IC-912, Revision 5. " Containment Hydrogen Analyzer GS-065A
' Calibration Test," performed March 23 1989.
e
' Instrumentation Protection Set II (White)perational Test 7300' Process STS IC-202, Revision 6, " Analog Channel O y
o.
,
."' performed March 23, 1989.
'
w
,x The surveillance were performed in accordance with appropriate procedures, personnel performing the work were knowledgeable about the systems they were working on, and'the control room operators were'kept
. informed of survefilance. status and of alarms that would be generated..
,
No violations or deviations were' identified.
.
<
..
Monthly Maintenance Observation (62703)
5.
R The purpose of this inspection area was to ascertain that maintenance
. activities of safety-related systems. and components were conducted in t
!-
accordance with approved. procedures and TS. Methods used in this xinspection area included direct observation, personnel interview, and
,
. _,
record review.
' Items verified.in this inspection area, where appropriate, included:
-o'
Activities did not violate limiting conditions for operation and redundant components were operable.
'
,
.
e
.
______-_.____.__m
_.____.____m.-__-_m
___.._
.m_______.-___m.-_-____-..
_ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ * _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
-
.
_
_
L h
-
'
b
.
,
'
l '
.
-6-
<
,
i
,'
o
'lequired administrative approvals and clearances were obtained before initiating work.
o Radiological controls were properly implemented.
o Fire prevention controls were implemented.
.
o Required alignments and surveillance to verify postmaintenance
'
operability were performed.
l
'
'o Replacemnt parts and materials used were properly certified.
o Craftsmen were qualified to accomplish the designated cask and additional technical expertise was made available when needed.
o Quality contrel. hold points and/or checklists were used and quality control personnel observed designated work activities, o
Procedures used were adequate, approved, and up to date.
Portions of the selected maintenance activities were observed regarding the work requests (WRs) listed below. The WRs and related documents were reviewed by the NRC inspectors:
No.
Activitt WR 00460-89 Implement PMR-02815 to allow construction air to bypass KA-V214.
SSWR 89-165 Repair lock mechanism to Door 11021.
Selected NRC inspector observations are discussed below:
During the perfonnance of Security WR SSWR 89-165, the NRC inspector observed repairs to the door lock mechanism and verified that appropriate security compensatory measures and fire impairment compensations were in place. However, the NRC inspector observed that the worker did not have a copy of the WR at the work location. The NRC inspector reviewed
_.
SSWR 89-165 at the shift lieutenant's desk as well as Procedure SEC 01-109, Revision 5, " Reporting of Security System Defects and Work Requests." The NRC inspector observed that the SSWR form had two locations to indicate that the shift supervisor had been notified. The procedure did not appear to address the criteria used to decide what items warranted that notification. When this was discussed with the licensee, action was immediately initiated to clarify the procedure. During discussions with the licensee concerning the absence of the WR at the work locatica, the licensee explained that SSWRs in process were safeguards information. The licensee did not want to risk losing control of safeguards documents, therefore, kept the WRs in a secure location. The NRC inspectors stated that taking a WR to a work site permitted a worker to verify that all preliminary steps to beginning work had been
.
W./
.
[,> '
,
,
.
,
,
(
".
s a,,
.,
-7-
,
L:
)
'
accomplished. These might include equipment clearances, fire impairments, t
welding controls, and security compensation. Having the WR in hard would
'
also allow the worker to verify that work would be on the correct specific
^
component prior to begir:ning work. The NRC inspector noted that the licenue performed the WRs in accord;nce with regulatory requirements and
,
suggested the licensee review the NRC inspectors observations for possible incorporation into their work related activities on KRs.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Balance _,f Plant (71500)
i The purpose of this inspection was to determine the adequacy of
,
modificationsmadetobnlanceofplant(80P) systems,theadequacyofBOP
'
'
operating procedures, and the effectiveness of management attention to the
<
correctio.n of BOP problems.
The NRC inspectors reviewed selected plant modification requests (PMRs),
j WRs, and procedures, performed walkdowns of selected systems, and interviewed selected personnel.
'
For a list of the documents reviewed during the performance of this inspection, see Attachment 1.
Selected NRC inspector ob-servations are discussed below:
i a.
Turbine Building During tours of the turbine building, the NRC inspectors found the areas to be generally clean and in order. The following
!
discrepancies were observed:
.;
o The northeast support for Moisture Separator Reheater "A" had a cable attached that went through the floor and was not being used.
o A flexible metallic hose was connected from the dragon valve to Pressure Transmitter AC PT-271. The unauthorized hose was removed and the pressure transmitter was returned to service.
Numerous valves were observed to have slight steam or fluid o
leaks. These were identified to the shift supervisor, Instrument tubing running from Isolation Valves AC-V007 and o
AC-V008 to the Flow Transmitter AC FT-178 appeared to be inadequately supported, Numerous pieces of scaffolding were observed about the turbine o
building.
Some scaffolding was for work in progress but some temporary scaffolding appeared to be permanent (e.g.,
scaffolding above the stator cooling water skid had been there
_ _ _ - _ _ _
Fg
sg y; o
m i yw ;
NE
- -
~- C ~ 7
>
,
<
,
,
'
,.
,
s
,,
-
- -
,,+x n
'
'
f.
'
-OL 3',
Lll'
!
,
,
'
Qf;
'
'
V
.
,
,
,
,
.
k
!
q, a
'
>
.
,
,
i, 1:
s
'!T'
I F
, reveral! years). c The concern with tne scaffolding is that['if it" R
rr
,
. J'
fell,L it could damage equipment or trip the unit..Some b. n) M'
",
scaffolding was: located directly over Mairi Feedwater Pump "S."'
l
<
,h 'y l'
Licenseeipersonnel stated that a previously exteting engineering
1 evaluation request on the addition-of peruanent platforms was
'being expanded in response to the'NRC inspectors' concerns.
In
,,
addition existing scaffo? ding was being reviewed to ensure that'
.
e it was appropriately. installed, t
o 1 Plastic sheets were covering the tops of Motor Control 1 d. -
Centers (MCCS) PG11J and PG12J and their associatad load centers is
_
to prctect the MCCS from moisture intrusion,
"
y o'
UnauthoH2ed Temocrary Modifications were observed in the
'
o w
turbine building. Examples included drain hoses attached to'
p tanks and squipment' skids.
,
,
L'
'b.
Reviews of D,rawings and Procedures
,
L
.
' As:a result of the drawings and procedures reviews, the NRC
"
" '
inspectors identified the following discrepancies:
'O r
x"
'o
. Service Wcter System Valves EA if-24, -25, -35, and -36 were on both Checklist CE-120 and EA-120. One checklist instructed the f'
operator to throttle the valves and tne other checklist instructed the operator to open the valves.
o Valve CE Y-59 on the stator' cooling line was not on
'
'
Checklist CE-120.
o The instrument root valve.to Pressure Gauge CE-YGA-10 on the stator cooling system was not on the vendor P&ID or on a checklist.
o Valves CE VX-001'and -002 on the stator enoling system were not
,
i on the vendor P&ID.
Vendor documents, valve checklists, and normal operation of the o
stator cooling water system do not match. The vendor documents recomend use of only one heat exchanger at a time. The valve o
checklists line up one heat exchanger with partial flow,'but a-L normal operation is to have both heat exchangers in service.
!
TherewerenumerousexamplesofthevendorP&ID(whichwasthe o
'
only CE system P&ID) not matching the "as-built" configuration.
Interviews with plant personnel revealed this inconsistency between "as-built" and print configuration was commonplace. The differences identified by the NRC inspector were of a minor
nature and were discussed with the licensee.
,
p& My)f ' ' ~, W '
- b i'N. A
.m ys -
m'
. cx:;-
-
m
-
-
a'
'
(
v A
'
.
,
.
,
,
b
.N
'
'
'
\\
-
,
.
,
.c
,
,,-
.
.
..
r, r
'3
.
'
>q
.-
,
.
u i,_
o,
i p!?
.p e
,
,
hIsk$,
-9-k,
'
.,
-
'
d ;
..,,
,.
,.
.,
, <
i
,
- The licensee willf evaluate the 'NRC inspector's findings in the di% '
,'
ba' lance;of plant (BOP) area.-
_
..
.
,
.
,
Review of Plant Modification'Reque_sts (PMRs)-
{*6 lip
.c.
.
V,
,As a resultcof PMRs review,, the NRC inspectorn identified that
_s
..
.
.
.
.
.
~
PHR 01377 chan,ged.'out the impellers on the;in order 1to. meet the total.
three seivice water pumps,
!
,%
7l7 l'."
,
with ones of a larger size. This was done'
,
hb flow. requirenunts of. thelstation with & nut of 3: pumps durinc the.
- '
, sonener.and full-power operationsi The;new so.nfiguration caused total-x
<J fflo+ through.the service water system (both' safety. and.nonsafety-related
'
%,
> portions)toincrease. The, licensee had changed the flow of a' major -
'
tsupport syntem, but;the PNR did not require a postmodification: flow
,,
. balance.. While the safety; significance of this is minor-(flows were
'
.
more conservative), good engineering practice would suggest verifying
.. A portion of PMR 02149 will' include adding.
-flows after all changes.
f.,
.
instrumentation in' order. to perfnym'a flow balance; The licensee-
'
plans to perform flow tests when modifications, including! additional
.
J iflow test points,Lhave been installed.
f The licensee appears tc ahow management attention and appropriate.cencern to BOP. The licensee will-evaluate the NRC inspector's findings in these
>
inonsafety-related areas.
,
L No violatfons' orgdeviations were identified. '
.+
7.
Exit Meetirg
>
,
The NRC. inspectors: met with licensee personnel indicated in paragraph 1 above to discuss the scope and findings of this inspection on March 30,
'1989. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of tht materials
'
t
,
.
provided to or reviewed by the f4RC inspector during.the inspection.
.i
.it i
b
'I.
, $;:
I
i(
['
.-
-
i
's
7:ppr,w:vyy.
-
,;.
=
- .
,
at
'
,
...
,-
V gn.
,
,
-
s s.-
'.. q,,,
.
,
,
4,;
,
l. q [,
- (,
V p,.
'
>
l c,
,
r.,.,
,
.~.
s w.
,-
'
,
>
y r,g, s-.
,
,
,
..:
.
'
j
" ^,W
'
ATTACHMENT 1:
i
'
'
,,
.,
&.
.
t
- ,.
J
'
-
cProcedures
<
a cs
<
qe
,
s
.,)
---
A ;3
'
h W
M 0.1057,( f<evision' 14, " Work Reybest"
,
' SYS CEt120. Revision 9, j'Statop Cooling Water System Operation"
- <
,
SYS CE"330, Revision 2, " Stator Cooling Water System Shutdown"
.1 g 3
.,
!
- y
'CKl. CE-120i Revisica 9, " Stator Cooling Valve Lineup"
'
.
t y'..
'
'I
.)
.
CKL EA-120, Revision 'J2,)" Service Water System Norr.al Lineup"
-
LADM 01-042J Revisiorf12, " Plant Modification Request Implementation"
..ADM 01-022, 'Revbion 15, " Authorization of Changes, Tes ts, anU
'
Experiments (10-CFR 50.'59)'
_
'
<
!
ADM 01.-053, Revision 6, " Engineering Evaluation Request"
+
.
,
Work Request e
'
IWR'60214-87-
' Refueling filter' rep:a:.ement of CEYr'-l
,
WR'52237-87 Six month maintenance of stator cooling water pump motors WR 52239.87 Eighteeri.monta maintcaalce of DPCE018 WR 01214 88 Sator cooling prest.1re controller not maintaining pressure below hydrogen pressure s
.
WR 01626-88 Std or Cooling Water Pump -B" running hot WP. 04384-88'
Low flou alarm locked in
~
.
Stator Water fleat Exchanger "A" has a tube leak WW 00284-89 i
WR'00774 89 Loosing water from stator cooling water system
7
'
/WR 50497-89 2 yeer maintenance of heat exct anger ECC01A
>
g.
'F Drawings
,
eM-12EA01', Revision 0, " Piping and Ir3trumentation Diag.em (P&ID), SerAce Water
,fSystem?
.
v
,
+
' 1')466-M 840-00012-W10, P&lD, stator cooling system
.
+
-
e M-01CE01, Revision E, "Sy stem Flow Dir. gram, Stator Cooling Water Syi, tem"
'
M-800-230, "GE Steam Turbine-Generator Instructions"
,
l j,
j
@Q u
,V 9;,
- -
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ -~ -
i
[W y @ p% lh} %
p
>
[,7' Tl1:
,j, _
n,. wy(t.! -(..
.m,
4,n
- (,
is."
-
', 6.,
~2-
?
..;,.
..
,
,
g i,.,
.
'I f-
..../i
'
'
,-.,:
.
....
c.,
.,
PMRs
'\\
.,
k,o a
,
-- -
(
, hf,
- PMR 01743, Replace CE-TC-7 controller
,
- ,g.,.'.j's; n,') I-,'
,
?.
g
.
-
.
, f 4.
.PMR 01377, Service water pump isnpeller change out -
..
vtj;,:
'
.PMR 02149, Minimum flov to standby service water components
,,,.
.,) h]YY
,
y.;;.'
'
,:i.
sh 1.
e,
't t
P l:
\\.
)=.
'
p/
'
%.
..
i
i l'
x t
l
_ _ _ - -
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
w