IR 05000482/1990027
| ML20055C772 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1990 |
| From: | Gagliardo J, Hunter D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055C768 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-90-27, NUDOCS 9006250094 | |
| Download: ML20055C772 (6) | |
Text
m
=
,
..:
,
.,
,
'
,
y APPENDIX U.S.~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
I
,
HRC Inspection Report: 50-482/90-27 Operating License: HPF-42 Docket:
50-482
Licensee: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation
'
P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 i
Facility Name: Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS)
Inspection At: WCGS, Burlington, Kansas inspection Conducted: June 4-8, 1990 m
-
i Inspector:
[
f.
9d'
D. R. Hunter, Senior Reactor Inspector Date Operational Programs Section, ivision of Reactor. Sa
.y Approved:
__ 1 h
&
.6 f3
,
E/Gagli rdo, Chieff, Operational Programs Da'te '
i Seption,DivisionoYReactorSafety
,
!
Inspec ion Summary-Inspection Conducted June 4-8.1990'(Report 50-482/90-27)
Areas Inspected: -Routine, unannounced inspection of facility modifications.
Results:. ithin-the area inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
W The licensee had established controls and implemented adeq'uate facility modifications with minor exceptions.
Items identified by the inspector and discussed with the licensee included one instance in which the established-interface.and backup documentation associated with an outside design _ support group could be enhanced, one instance where the requirements specified by the design-group were not' fully addressed by the implementing organizations, and several instances of procedures for controlling modifications that needed minor revision.
The licensee was continuing to improve the facility modifications controls, (including policies, controlling and implementing procedures) and the safety evaluation process. The projects addressing both program enhancements and
.
'
organizational changes were nearing completion.
9006250094 900618 PDR ADOCK 05000482 Q
.
..
-
.. -
-
-
-
-
f
,
q a:,i ;:
, _
n, y
. 4I L,
-2-
,
,
DETAILS 1.
PERSONS CONTACTED e
- H. Chernoff, Supervisor, Licensing.
-
- A. Critchley, Supervisor, Corporate Policy / Procedures
- T. Deddens, Jr., Outage Manager
- M. Dingler, Manager, Nuclear Plant Engineering - System R. Flannigan, Manager, Nuclear Safety Engineering
- C, Fowler, Manager, 18C
- N. Hoadley, Manager, Plant Design - Nuclear Plant Engineering
- R. Holloway, Manager, Maintenance and Modifications D. Hudson, Engineering Specialist
- W. Lindsay, Manager, Quality Assurance P. Martin, Shift Supervisor
- M. Megehee, Supervisor Coinpliance
- D. Moseley, Operating Supervisor B. Novak, Project Engineer
- W. Norton, Manager, Technical Support C. Parry, Director of Quality
- F. Rhodes, Vice President, Engineering and Technical Services
,
- D. Smith, Engineer
- C Sprout, Section Manager - Nuclear Plant Engineering
- L._ Stevens, Supervisory Engineer, Nuclear Safety Engineering D.'Walsh, Senior Reactor Operator
- S. Wideman, Senior Engineering Specialist M. Williams, Manager, Plant Support The inspector contacted other licensee personnel during the inspection.
- Denotes attendance at the exit interview conducted on June 8, 1990.
2.
FACILITY MODIFICATIONS (37701)
The inspector reviewed selected modification program policies and procedures to provide assurance that the facility modifications were performed in conformance with the requirements specified in the Technical Specifications, 10 CFR 50.59, USAR, and applicable codes and standards, o
2.1 Documents Reviewed
.
The documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.
-
2.2 Procedural Controls Procedure KGP-1131, " Plant Modification Process," established the overall
' requirements' associated with the irodification process. Two procedure change notices (PCNs) had been issued against Revision 7 of KGP-1131 (PCN-1, November 30, 1989, andPCN-3,May3,1990). PCN-3 expanded the scope of the items excludeo from the plant modification request (PMR) process.
!
l1
.
..
.
-
.
,
_..
_
,
(
.-
.
,
,
.
,
'
.c-3-
'
s The 10 CFR 50.59 applicability screening form was used for PCN-3 (the addition of Appendix B, " Structural / Systems Excluded From the PMR Process"). The change did not require a documented safety evaluation. The inspector noted that the addition of Appendix B to the procedure, which excluded major nonsafety-related items and areas from the PMR process, included the fire protection (special scope) system. The inspector reviewed Appendix B to Procedure KGP-1131 and did not identify any specific safety-related items on areas of concern. From discussions with licensee personnel, the inspector determined that, although items and areas were excluded from the PMR process, controls were applied to all modifications on these controls included a review by the Operations Group priortoimplementationofaPMR(drawingred11ning,procedurechanges,and training), overview of the PMR process by the Results Engineering Group (independent review), and configuration controls by Nuclear Plant Engineering.
The inspector has no further questions regarding this matter.
Revision 7 to Procedure KGP-1131 deleted Appendices B, C, and D (PCN-3 added a new Appendix B); however, the procedure continued to refer to the Appendices, Step 6.4(AppendixC)andStep6.5(AppendixD). The inspector discussed thic apparent oversight and lack of attention to detail with a licensee representative.
It was noted that the " relevancy review" of the procedure was due by June 26, 1991, and this review should correct this type of oversight. This administrative item had little safety significance, and the inspector had no further questions regarding this matter.
Procedure KGP-1132, " Configuration Identification," established the requirements i
for configuration identification of permanent plant structures, systems, components, and baseline documentation. The inspector determined by documents
.and interviewing licensee personnel that the procedure details did not match
'the present organizational structure. Directive 111.25.0, Configuration
.
Management Policy, had been deleted on August 30, 1989, and the requirements of the directive were considered to be implemented by Procedure KGP-1132; however, KGP-1132 specifically referenced Directive 111.25.0- in Section 2.0, Scope, and Section 3.0, References..The inspector discussed this additional example or
-apparent oversight and lack of attention to detail with a licensee representative.
The " relevancy review" for the procedure was due by November 2,1990, and this
>
should correct an oversight of this type. This administrative item had little safety significance, and the inspector had no further questions regarding this matter.
2.3 PLANT MODIFICATION REQUESTS (PHR)
The inspector evaluated three facility modifications (listed in the Attachment).
The evaluation included selected documentation reviews, procedure reviews, l"
field walkdowns, and interviews to ascertain that the established licensee L
controls were adequately implemented.
!
The inspector identified two concerns associated with the pressurizer power operated relief valve (PORV) block. valves control circuits (PMR 02287)
'
I modification.
2.3.1 The PMR included the installation of two Agastat Model 7022AB time delay relays in auxiliary relay racks, RP139 and RP140. The PMR documentation
,
+
. - -
-- -.
.. -. -
,
,
. _ -
-c s,
,
.
- includedaWestinghousereport(SAP 88-166,datedApril 26, 1988) assessing the PMR and identifying the need for qualified time delay relays.
ThePMRdocumentationincludedbnAMERACEtestreport(ES-1000,datedApril14, 1980,andasub-reportregardingtheE-7012/E7022 Relays (RevisionDandE).
The inspector reviewed the test reports and the utilization of the relays. The licensee provided an informal document, dated January 18, 1988, which provided justification for use of the relays at the WCGS. The inspector questioned the relay test configuration (rigid), not recomended for panel mounting, and the application of the relays at the WCGS. The licensee reviewed the situation and stated that the application was bounded by the relay testing performed by AMERACE and was acceptable. The licensee indicated that the PMR process would
>
be reviewed to ensure that the engineering and engineering review was adequately specified and documented. The review of the relay application by the NRC during a subsequent inspection is considered an inspector followup item.
(458/90-2701)
2.3.2 The engineering disposition and implementation of PMR 02287 -impacted plant operation in three areas.
After the PORV block valve closed on demand (automatically), operator action
was required to open the valve nanually.
,
The engineering change noted that opening of PORV block valves imediately
after closure needed to be prevented administrative 1y.
- The annunicator indicating a pressurizer pcwer operated relief valve had isolated was modified to obtain input directly from the PORY block valves limit switches, and the circuit was provided with a reflash capability for the alarm condition.
The inspector determined by reviewing procedures associated with the PORY block valve operations, associated with normal and abnormal conditions that the opening of the valve manually was addressed; however, the administrative
'
controls to prevent imediate opening of the valve after closure was not addressed in the procedures. Additionally, interviews revealed that the
,
administrative limit had not been adequately covered in training. The specific oversight did not appear to have safety significance in that the situation
-
requiring imediate operator actions to reopen the valve within two seconds, intentionally or unintentionally, was remote. HowcVer, the matter was discussed with the licensee for evaluation and consideration.
No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program area.
- 3.
EXIT INTERVIEW
'
The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) on June 8, 1990. The inspector sumarized the purpose, scope, and findings including the question regarding the application of the two Agastat relays under PMR 02287.
The licensee stated that the application was acceptable. The licensee acknowledged the inspector coments and did not identify any specific proprietary information to the inspecto ~
..
.-
.:
,
?
ATTACHMENT
!
. General Procedures KGP-1131,"PlantModificationProcess," Revision 7(PCN1andPCN3)
KGP-1132, " Configuration Identification," Revision 3
+
,
Administrative Procedures ADM 01-042, " Plant Modification Request Implementation," Revision 16
,
ADM 01-053, " Engineering Evaluation Request," Revision 7 ADM 01-225 " Computer Software Modification," Revision 0 i
ADM 01-228, " Temporary Modifications," Revision 0 ADM 01-229, " General Modifications," Revision 0
!
Operating Procedures
,
GEN 00-002,"ColdShutdowntoHotStandby," Revision 18(April 25,1990)
CL BB-110. " Reactor Coolant System Lineup," Revision 10 (May 22,1990)
Emergency Procedure
,
ES-02, " Reactor Trip Response," Revision 2 Off-Normal Procedure OFN00-008,"InstrumentMalfunction(PressurizerPressure)"
Alarm Response Procedure ALR 00-340, "PRZ PORV Blocked," Revision 4 (April 26 1990)
.
Drawing E-703-WE-13BB39 (Q) (Pressurizer Power Operated Block Valves)
7 - vw
.,-
cr..
.-
G,,.
!
.
3.4 l
'
'
Facility Modifications
+
PMR 02287, " Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Block Valve Control Circuit.
Change," Revision 2
PMR 02183 " Diesel Generator Pressure Transmitter / Switch Relocation,"
Revision 2
)
l PMR 01482, " Solid State Protection Modification to Prevent Containment Spray
Actuation," Revision 3
. Safety Evaluation- (SE)
MCE E051Q-01, " Emergency Supply To An Hk Bus From Spare Charger _ NK 25,"
R Revision 0 (SE, dated November 22,1989)
j Quality Assurance Audit WCNOC QA Audit TE: 50140-K281, " Modifications" r
l I