IR 05000508/1989001
| ML20247L340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1989 |
| From: | Jim Melfi, Richards S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247L317 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-508-89-01, 50-508-89-1, NUDOCS 8906020139 | |
| Download: ML20247L340 (7) | |
Text
1
-
+
,
--2.;-
1..
,,
y-y m
<1
,. t,;
.
. y-
,
,
b/
> [.';[
%).
..
x,
'
5a
!
'
't i*
,
,g a.~ u
_
,
,
...
.
.&3,'
~,
'
..
,
,
-
-
-
,
,
,
,
4.',
.i
)
g
~
Y
.U. ShNUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION l.
>
>
,
,
,
REGION V
g-g:.
'm
'
w v.
.
.
.
50-508/89-0,l"
'f.
~ Report-No.i
,,'
..,
..
F v
-,
,
,
c Docket No.
=50-508J
'-
-
sConstru$ tion,PermiiNo.
CPPR-15,4"
,
_
?
Licensee:
' Washington Public Power : Supply lSysdeni (WPPSS)
'
,,
,
P.207 Box 1223
>
$,-
Elma,; Washington 98541
-
.
._
.o
.
h-
. Facility Name:
.. ~..,
..
,
.
.
'
i 5.;
~
. Washington' Nuclear Project No. 3 (WNP-3)-
! i m
',, 4
%s.
',
L'
. Inspection conducted:
..,;- April l13; ; April 14, and May'8,- 1989
.
3f-
,
.
_'
'
y
,
.m
,,.
p.TE A -Inspector':
MN I
Y /
'
'
,;
,
~
F.Melfi,;ReactgIn
Da{e Si/gned
'.
- -
},
ector
<
,
g c z
-
.
L
. [Appro'ved8y:
[j@b/ -
!/ k
?
'
S. A. Richards, Chief, Engineering Section.
Date S'igned
'
"
'
>
'
j i
',
o I ^I b[
i
_.
iz S.
InspectionJSummary:
'
'
,,j
,
,
. Inspection' on April 13 < 14, and~ May 8,1989 (' Report No. - 50-508/89-01)
"
r,.
,
~'
' Areas' Inspecte'di'
A routine inspection by a regional ba'ed inspector of s
Quality _ Assurance activities associated'with implementation of the plant preservation program.during the extended construction delay. -Inspection procedures 92050 and 30703 were used during this' inspection.
Results:
In;the areas inspected, relative to the' preservation program, no
-
violations'or deviations were identified, n
.
.1
!
t t
p s-
!
I.
-
8906020139 890511
'
,
PDR ADOCK 05000508
-
Q PDC
- -.:u
_
_-.
...____---_=_:-_=___--
.
___________-a
-
y
-
y,,
.
-
.
-
-
- - - - - - - - - - - -
,
,
7)
'
,
,
y v
-
s
- )
,. :;,
-
.
,
...
se
f.
DETAILS pe
1.
' Persons Contacted a.
Washington Public Power Supply System
- .. C, Butros. WNP-3 Site Manager.
- J. Perreault, Engineering / Technical Manager
- J. Cooper,. Business Manager
'*M. Deboard, Program Support-
- L. Garvin, Progra'ms and Audit Manager
- L=.. Hill,. Preservation Manager b.
EBASCO
- R.: Taylor, Project General Manager
- C..Reid,. Project Engineering Manager
'*F.' Teague, Project Engineering Manag6r
= *W. K. Drinkard,: Assistant Quality Assurance Manager
- J. E Hayes, Warehouse Supervisor
- Denotes.those attending the final exit meeting on April 14, 1989.
'2.
P eventative Maintenance Program-l The preventative maintenance program for the extended const'ruction delay-is described in WMC-051 entitled, " Preservation of Assets Preventative Maintenance Program," Revision 4, dated March 31, 1989. The' inspector-reviewed the changes made to this program.since the previously reviewed Revision 3.
The changes made to WMC-051 were reviewed in'the Region V offices'on May 8, 1989 to note the changes from the previous reviewed revisions. 'There were changes in the' program statement and-several of
,
the appendices.
Thechangesfareasfollows:
A.
Program Statement a
c, The program statementifofmat has been chanp d in revision 4.
The new revision'is also more specific:in implementing.the program.
While the attributes the'old revision were"substantially in the new revision, some changes'were noted.
These changes'are:'
Thereareare$bwithinthecontainmentandtheauxiliary
'J building that'are now considered ANSI Class B storage.
Some enclosures that were maintained individually to ANSI
requirements within these areas are now no longer maintained to I
those requirements,. since the broader area is now within the
<
ANSI' class B' storage requirements.
,
- - - - - - -
- -. - - - -.. - - - - - --
.--.---,-----.----__-----,----_------_-----_---_2
{"
~
- ]j a;4 v
.
w
_
y s.
,
O',
- .z
_
f,-
{
'
."
<
,
n;
'
,
.,
.
"
"
7,..
]
,
,
The[useof1VaporPhaseInhibitors(VPIs)isnowlimitedbecause'
,
'
J of; concerns; identified. witti their use.
Their use is now evaluated'on a case by1 case' basis.
-
-
-.
.
- -.
',
- n '
-o r-
'
'
The' reporting ;requiremertts-are now' more specific for the' -
-
..y,'~,
'
'5 preservation program.
.
'
,
The. changes'to-th[ revision *appearto'meetJorexceedthe requirements of the' previous revision;.
-
'
,B.
LAppendixA[" Prevent'ative'MaintenanceRequirementbyEquipment'
!Eq-
,
gn
_
i
,,
,
'
s
,
'The current rev'isibn (Revision 3', dated November 25, 1986) of.thi 4"
<
appendixfis the~same'as'the previously reviewed revision.-
m
,
.
,
'd C.
Appendix-B, " Structural Material Corrosion Monitoring Program
,
i (CMP)"
>
.c
,
,
Thecurredt'revisionisrevision3,datedAugust 17, 1988.
This
'
appendix has had a major revision in'its format, which includes some
= rearranging.and.-res,tating'of the information contained in this
- appendix.
This revision is more specific regarding the requirements of' the'. program. 'The requirements of the,old. revision appear to be included:in the new revision.
New. items included in the program are
'
.as follows:
-
-
'
- An'obje tiveLhas been added to.the CMP to reduce the potential Jfor corrosion within.the plant.-
t
-
s
.
'
'
Thelicenseei$' adding;QA> controls-(applicableportionsof
'10CFR50, appendix B) to the CMP, to assure traceability and
. credibility of the program, The corrosion engineer'shall perform a CMP walkdown approximately every six months.
The corrosion engineer will also issue. a report on the' walkdown.1 Any problems identified i
i
,by the corros on eng neemshall be corrected by the preservation engineer at the site.
'
'
- Guidance has been added'to this appendix on how the
~
- preservation engineer is to'close open items identified during
-
wal kdowns.
'
'I
~
The new revision shows locations of several test coupon racks different.than.thel previous revision, as noted in Table III of appendix B.
This-change reflects where the test racks are actually installed.'
'
,
The changes made to this.. appendix were made, in part, to help resolve some NRC and licensee concerns in this area.
These concerns are further discussed;in paragraph 5.
The inspector did not
<
identify any changes made to this appendix that resulted in a program that was less conservative than that previously described.
s J
-.l
.m.
___.b._._...
..____.__.-_.____._______m
P,1
~
'
,
y
,
!.
i i
..
'
l t
,
b.
'3
'
.
.
a
,
.
,
..
,
i
'
'
-
,W
b D.
Appendix C, "Hygrothermograph Plant Monitoring" l
,
This' appendix describes the licensee (s. efforts to monitorf' actual
~
temperature and humidity in-the plant.
The current' revision to appendix C is revision 2; dated August 17, 1988. The revisions.to the appendix included a'more, specific description of, recorder.-
locations.
The recorder locations appear to be the same"as previously described.
The_ previous rev_isions' observation section, which described the first year results on temperature and humidity, was deleted.
The licensee will do an assessment of the data obtained and will include it in the corrosion engineer's report
. issued per appendix B.
The informational humidity charts (from'the first year) were deleted.
The inspector did not have any items of concern with the changes made to this appendix.
E.
Appendix D " Electrical and Electronic Components" This appendix describes the licensee's efforts to minimize the effects of aging on electrical and electronic components.
The current revision of this appendix is revision 5, dated August 17, 1988.
The licensee's approach is to keep these components warm, dry and clean, consistent with ANSI level B storage. requirements. The licensee was also maintaining the calibration on selected instruments.
The changes made to the program seem to be mostly administrative in nature.
Several of the changes that were not administrative in nature'are noted below:
A change in the calibration program for instruments not needed for the preservation program, was noted in the review by the inspector.
The inspector noted that the appendix previously stated that for additional inspections of instrumentation, approximately 15 instruments per month shall be selected fer l
calibration.
This "shall" statement was changed to a "can" statem?nt.
.
i The air flow through conduits into enclosures is no longer required to be checked for air inle'akage, and was deleted from I
I the appendix.
Since the general. areas.now meet the requirements for storage, this is acceptable.
.One component (LC-HD-1551B).from the instrument sample list (attachment 1 to appendix D) appears to tiave been deleted from
the program due to a installation problem.
,
The inspector did not have any items of concern with the' changes made to this appendix.
,
I
.
x
. _ _ _ _ _
_. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _
..cp:
y-
.
',
..i
.,7 7
.
..j 7 b *
.
hc)q- )
"
'
1 i.
4, I
, **jg;
, @ f; W JN W; _
,~
-
]. :g+
V t
,
,.
'
.
'N 9
- ;;f 3 R
,,
'
'.L i
{ bSl U. " "
3M
Aug *
~
r -
d
<
_ - Q ]J
. ly,
,
- .
y
'
'
(
&_y s;I }3.L
_
.
'
'
.
,
O$
l p.
Equipment' Storage
. %lf f *
'
.:
,
,
.
JM b k; Various levels;in the ' reactor building were observed by the. inspector.'for,
~
'
s
-
- -+
~
-
. proper storage of equipment.
The reactor building is considered'to be,
- q' -
,-equivalent to an ANSI N45.2.2 level B storage area.
Items receiving
,
q special. attention'were:
,
q
_
a i
.
A.
335 Foot Level
~
'
'
' '
.High Pressure Safety Injection 2A pump and' motor, Low Pressure f'
Safety Injection 1A pump and motor, Containment Spray: Pump A.
'B.
362 Foot Level Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps IA and 2A.
C.
390 Foot t.evel
,
SI, Tank Is'olation Valve ~ 3-SI-V-634, Control Element Drive Mechanism
' Cooling Unit.UC-5A and UC-5B, Control Manifold for nitrogen purge on pressurizer and reactor vessel, Diesel Generator 1A.
No evidence of' groundwater was observed in any'of.the areas..The cleanliness,. preservation, and protection of equipment, including
. housekeeping were satisfactory.
There was no evidence of rodents or
~ pests found.by the, inspector-. 'The temperature and humidity were being monitored by the hygrothermographs and were noted to be within the-acceptable' range.
<
The warehouses with safety-related equipment were also toured to assess the conditions of storage..There was no evidence of rodents found by the i nspector.' The warehouses were clean and the equipment observed was
~
adequately protected.
The storage conditions in.the warehouses were found to be acceptable.
<
No violations or deviations were identified.
-4.
Preventative Maintenance Records The licensee maintains a computerized Scheduled Maintenance System (SMS)
which lists if.ees which are scheduled to have maintenance performed on T;I them.
The SM[ llsts the dates that the items were last performed, the
<
frequency, and the due dates for the next scheduled maintenance.
The
,
inspector reviewed several randomly chosen safety-related items from'this M
list and examined their due dates. 'The records in the QA vault were
,
.J-
,~, reviewed by the inspector to confirm that the scheduled preventative;
,
- " maintenance was performed on the following items
'
<
-
.. e
.en
,
High Pressure Safety Injection Pump Rotation, tg '
- A.
3'-SI-MTR-2A t
-
d3 Megger, and Oil Sample
'
-
,
,
air 3*
,
"" ' '
'BT 3-SI-MTR-2B High Pressure Safety Injection Pump Rotation,
-
Megger, and Oil Sample
<
>
.
i,...'
. p.
-
's
)
s
(.
h
~
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
._
- --____
__-_-
y
.,
.
'
t
.:.
I cf,
.5 '
'
.
.t
- . 7.
C.
3-PV-MTR-11A
'
.Contrcl Element Drive Mechanism (CEDM) Fani
]
'
<
~
.(FN)'
Motor (700;Hp; Motor) Megger,. Shaft Rotation and
>
,
'e
,
motor heater energization.
Con' trol Element! Drive Mechanism (CEDM). Fan D.-
~3-PV-MTR-11B
~-
g
~
(FN).
Motor-(700.Hp Motor)'Hegger, Shaft Rotation and L
~
h motor' heater energization.'
g
[
,n,
.
.. ;
'
'
l
- E.
3-AF-MTR-2A
"
. Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) Pump "~
'
-(700 Hp Motor) Megger'.and. heater energization
,
^
"
'
.-
-,
,
..
..
,.
F.
-3-AF-MTR-28 Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) Pump n y
,,
T (700 Hp Motor) Megger and,heate'r'energization
'
The documentation' verifying.that the4 abdve tasks were performed are.
v'
contained in the SMS Task! Cards!in the QA. vault! LAt'the time of the inspection, the SMS list'did not'show any; safety-re'latedlitems overdue.
All of the above items had the" required preventative maintenance. tasks-performed as scheduled..The meggering of the HPSI motors 'was changed from 6 months to a 1 year-frequency based on an' engineering evaluation.
'
.The licensee's calibration of measuring.,and test equipment was also-iL verifiedi The.following recorders, temperature sensors, and measuring meters were verified to have been calibrated on the approved frequency.
!
-3-MTE-RCDR-A0161
- Temperature and Humidity Recorder-
'
'3-MTE-RCDR-A0642
~- Temperature and Humidi.ty Recorder-
'
3-MTE-TEMP-A0170.
- Temperature sensor 3-MTE-MM-33959
- MultiMeter
'
3-MTE-MM-33989
- MultiMeter No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Corrosion Monitoring Program
'As noted in paragraph 2, the Structural Steel Corrosion Monitoring Program (CMP) is described in Appendix B of WMC-051. To monitor the corrosion rate, corrosion coupons (of similar composition) are placed on test racks located in the field and in the buildings, to provide information on material changes due to the environment.
The corrosion coupons are described in Appendix B, including the coupon's materials, size, and identification.
During the walkdown in containment, the inspector observed corrosion coupons in containment at various locations.
.The coupons did not show any significant degradation.
As noted in previous NRC inspection reports (50-508/88-01), the licensee's corrosion monitoring program has had problems with its implementation. This problem was also identified in -licensee QA surveillance reports.
The inspector asked for QA reports subsequent to the last NRC inspection and found that a July 18, 1988 audit by corporate licensing again found problems with the corrosion monitoring program.
These concerns included problems with the timely issuing of corrosion monitoring -reports, closure of open items identified during walkdowns related to corrosion concerns, and proper location of test racks.
The l
)
- - - - - - -... - - -. _ - - - -. - -. - - - -. -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - _ _ - - - _ - - - -
ag;;cc,',g[,
y' ~,
a
5 m,. '
'
~~
~ T; f, ~,- ~
,
lll ?-4.}{ h-s w
,
%
^
T f,+c
.,}
(
3..
>"
l
g;.w
,
,
-
y t
<
,.
'
l]y'* I,...a.g
,
,..
.
'
h( _
3 :,
-.'- <
- i (
.
4/
'
.
s
,
'5-
,
t.
..
3,
[
f
't.
'
3f-U #
'S
,
,,
,'i
,
..,,
,
s s
[i'
changes; made to appendix B,Jif; properly implemented,'should resolve' these *
_.$. f concerns,:
+
'
f y g %.
'
~
,_
.
.
9' 'V. ~ M
?No violationsior deviation's wers' identified:
"
,
..,
.
.
.
.
,A
.
..
- .
L
'
'
'
.6; Vapor' Phase Inhibitors;
.
'On March;9;.?198'9, the licensee. submitted a 50.55(e) report to the NRC
'
'
documenting problems-they encountered:with the;use of Vapor Phase
,
Inhibitors (VPI) and stating that they would have a 90. day moratorium on
~
.
w
-
their use. The'use of Cortec 319 and Mobil:Vaprotec may have resulted.in f
conditions deleterious'to the plant equipment.. The'use of these VPIs
. seems to.have'resulted in the formation of.~tackyz surface coatings.
~
Vaprotec'apparently attacks.non-metallic components and some paint coatings (to form'a. dark, sticky sludge.
Vaprotec also apparently reacts
..
with water to' form a sticky sludge.
t At'the. time of the inspection, theIlicensee was still investigating the' -
cause'of.these degradations. The' licensee committed to send a report
.-
within 90. days.of/the'first report documenting their. findings.
As of the
- date.of the inspection *,~, the preliminary findings were that the VPI.
- concentration was too"high. iThe vendor' guidance, was to periodically
'
rsspike;theJoil with'Va'protec.
This:seems to have resulted in higher
. than expected concentrations: of Vaprotec?in:the oil, since the oil
.
.
systems did not~have the Vaprotecievaporating off.
This may be leading
't
'i
.to-the degrations observed. 2The licensee's actions in this area will be followed at a" future date; L
' 7.'
Exit' Meeting
"
.
i On' April 14,c1989, an exit meeting was held with the licensee
'
representative's identified in peragraph 1.
,The inspector informed the
' licensee that he,would perform ~in-office' reviews of various program
<
materials and document those' reviews in'the~ report.
The inspector also
summarized the. inspection scope and findings to that point.
,
I
'k
'
r
4
.'i
,
>
' '
.. _.-
-
s.
,
x i
I
' '
f -s:
j
. ' '. "
- 3.
.
ts
,
"