ML20132D232
| ML20132D232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1985 |
| From: | Barnes I, Ireland R, Jaudon J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132D202 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-267-85-15, NUDOCS 8507310252 | |
| Download: ML20132D232 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000267/1985015
Text
.
APPENDIX B
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50-267/85-15
License:
OPR-34
Docket:
50-267
Licensee:
Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC)
P. O. Box 840
Denver, Colorado 80201
Facility Name:
Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station
Inspection At:
Fort St. Vrain (FSV) Site, Platteville, Colorado
Inspection Conducted:
May 21-24, 1985
7/1/PT
Inspector:
W
I. Barnes, Reactor Inspector, Project Section A,
Date
Reactor Project
nch 1
/
Approved:
C/-u
P
7
d
J. P[oject (ranch 1
Jaudpn, Chi
, Project Section A, Reactor
Datef
Pr
v
7 I
R. 'E.' Ireland, Chief, Special ' Projects and
D' ate /
Engineering Section, Reactor Project Branch 1
8507310252 850716
ADOCK 05000P67
G
,
. .
,
y
-2-
Inspection Summary
~
j
Inspection Conducted May 21-24, 1985 (Report 50-267/85-15)
~
l
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of maintenance activities
associated with the control. rod drive refurbishment program. 'The inspection
involved 27 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
-
Results: Within the one area inspected, one violation was identified (failure
to follow procedures, paragraph 2).
..
l
!
I
l
I
l
l
l
l
l
l
I.-
.
'
1
i
<
L
F'
l
.
-3-
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- J. W. Gahm, Manager, Nuclear Production
- R. L. Craun, Manager, Nuclear Site Engineering
- W. L. Franek, Superintendent, Operations
J. Jackson, Quality Assurance (QA)/ Quality Control (QC) Supervisor
- F. J. Novachek, Manager, Technical / Administrative Services
- T. C. Prenger, QA Engineering Supervisor
- L. W. Singleton, Manager, QA
Others
- G. L. Plumlee, III, NRC Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present during the exit interview held on May 24, 1985.
The NRC inspector also contacted other licensee site engineering employees
during the inspection.
2.
Maintenance
a.
Drive Assembly Criteria:
A comparison was made between the criteria
being utilized for assembly of the control rod drives with respect to
available information on original assembly criteria.
This was
accomplished by review of Section 3.8, " Control Rods and Drives
Reserve Shutdown System," of the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report, Issue 2, and evaluation of technical requirements contained
in bearing drawings (i.e., -222, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 and 261) and
assembly drawings SLR D 1201-100 and -200.
The original GA
methodology was ascertained from review of GA document GA 9807,
1977 Revision, " Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Manual for
the Control and Orificing Assembly for the FSV Reactor." The noted
requirements were then compared against the detailed drive assembly
instructions contained in FSV Fuel Handling Procedure Work Packets
(FHPWPs).
The method used to evaluate individual bearing preload and
shim requirements was observed to dif fer from the criteria contained
in GA 9807.
The differences were assessed by interview of site
engineering personnel and observation of the techniques used for
measurement of bearing dimensions.
Use of micrometers and dial
indicators with current calibration status was verified during this
review.
The inspector also verified that the standards were
traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.
i
,
.
. _ _ _ _
c
.
-4-
The NRC inspector additionally examined the results of a contractor
comparison review of differences in requirements between FHPWPs and
control rod drive and orifice assembly (CR00A) drawings.
Current
assembly process control compliance was assessed by review of
FHPWP-100-10.
Within this area of inspection, no violations or deviations were
identified.
b.
Procurement Control:
The NRC inspector reviewed the following procurement
related procedures:
Administrative Procedure Q-4, Issue 6, Effective Date May 7, 1984,
" Procurement Document Control"
Administrative Procedure Q-7, Issue 6, Effective Date August 27,
1984, " Control of Procured Materials and Services"
Procedure MRIM-1, Issue 4, Effective Date December 10, 1984, " General
Receiving Inspection"
Purchase Order (PO) N5755 through Supplement 01 dated January 30, 1985,
which pertained to cable assemblies, was selected for review as a result
of the PSC decision to change cable material from Type 347 austenitic
stainless steel to Inconel 625.
The P0 to GA Services required their
performance of a fatigue test on a cable sample with the results to be
supplied to PSC.
Examination of vendor-furnished documentation for the
cable assemblies showed that this information had not been furnished to
PSC by GA as of this inspection.
The NRC inspector was informed by QA
personnel that the cable assemblies had been released by FSV receiving
inspection based upon the P0 being still open and the knowledge that the
fatigue test had not been completed.
The failure of receiving inspection
to identify a hold condition in regard to the required certification is an
apparent violation (50-267/8515-01).
The NRC inspector noted, during review of GA PO 035022 for the manufacture
of the Inconel 625 wire, that the wire was required to be lubricated with
molybdenum disulfide prior to the final draw.
On ascertaining from site
engineering personnel that the maximum service temperature experienced in
the cable length was approximately 1700 F, the NRC inspector requested
information concerning corrosion susceptibility of the cable wires to the
molybdenum disulfide surface film.
The NRC inspector was informed that
this subject had been reviewed, but that the responsible engineer was not
in office.
This is considered an open item pending review of applicable
information on the subject (50-267/8515-02).
The NRC inspector additionally noted during documentation review that the
P0 and the cable drawing required removal of drawing lubricants from the
Inconel 625 wire prior to molybdenum disulfide application and final wire
reduction.
Review of a GA report for a source inspection at the wire
manufacturer's facility showed,' however, that the manufacturer had used a
drawing compound after molybdenum disulfide application for final wire
-
..
-5 '
reduction. This document, which was not contractually required by PSC,
did not indicate any actions taken by GA as a result of the apparent
violation of GA procurement requirements by the wire manufacturer. A GA
limited analysis of the compound used, Apex SP2 soap, was present in the
documentation' and showed 0.26% by weight chlorides. A GA analysis of the
molybdenum disulfide used by the wire manufacturer had also been provided
to PSC and showed a reported 15 ppm fluorides,16 ppm chlorides, and
145 ppm sulfates. A documented evaluation of the acceptability of the
wire after use of the drawing compound for final reduction was not present
in the submitted GA information. This is considered an open item pending
review of such information (50-267/8515-03).
3.
Exit Interview
An exit interview was conducted on May 24, 1985, at the FSV site with
those personnel denoted in paragraph 1 of this report. The NRC inspector
summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.