ML20133G610
| ML20133G610 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1985 |
| From: | Choules N, Hawkins F, Martin L, Walker H NRC - WOLF CREEK TASK FORCE, NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133G602 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-85-25, NUDOCS 8508080770 | |
| Download: ML20133G610 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000482/1985025
Text
._
_
_
_
_
,
?
"'
- ,_
--,
,
m
'
U.S. NUCLEAR ' REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV'
.
.
Report No. 50-482/85-25
.
Docket No. 50-482
License No.
Licensee:
Kansas Gas and Electric Company
Post Office Box 208'
-
' Wichita, Kansas 67201-
E
Facility Name: - Wolf Creek, Unit 1
Inspection At: Wolf Creek Site, Coffey County, Burlington, Kansas
Inspection Conducted: May 20-23, 1985
Inspectors:
a
//8,f5
,
p.T.Choules
pte/
.
llb
g/,) fC A~. Walker [ ' ' ~
~ pte/
Approved:
/
/
7
E6
/V.Wakkins, Chief, Quality Assurance Programs .
0(te/
F
Section
.
-
L.'E.l art
hief, Wolf Creek Task Force
gatf'
~
'
Inspection Summary
Inspection on May 20-23, 1985 (Report-No.-50-482/84-25)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by Region III inspectors of
the startup testing QA program,. design change and modification program and
~
licensee' action on previous inspection findings.' The inspection involved a
total of 56 inspector-hours onsite.
Results:
Of the two areas inspected, one'-violation was identifie'd in one
area (paragraph 4).
'
C508080770 850726
ADOCK 05000482
-
O
carn
,_
-
.
.
'
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-482/85025
Docket No. 50-482
License No. NPS-25
Licensee: Kansas Gas and Electric Company
Post Office Box 208
Wichita, Kansas 67201
Facility Name: Wolf Creek, Unit 1
- Inspection At: Wolf Creek Site, Coffey County, Burlington, Kansas
Inspection Conducted: May 20-23, 1985
&
-
-
Inspectors:
N. C. Choules 0
(s/Y/Oh
H
l0/0[
'
Date
Approved By:
F. Hawkins, Chief
[a/4//65
Quality Assurance Programs Section
Datt
'
L. E. Martin, Chief
Wolf Creek Task Force
Date
1h
I
I
/
1 71 b
'
R. P. Denise, Director
g)[
,
Reactor Safety and Projects
Da1.e
Inspection Summary
Inspection on May 20-23, 1985 (Report No. 50-482/84025)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection by Region III inspectors of
the startup testing QA program, design change and modification program and
licensee action on previous inspection findings. The inspection involved a
total of 56 inspector-hours onsite.
Results: Of the two areas inspected, one violation was identified in one
area (Paragraph 4).
'
4
,
._
.
-.
-2-
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E)
- G.
L. Koester, Vice President Nuclear
- F. T. Rhodes, Plant Manager
- M.'G. Williams, Superintendent, Regulatory, Quality, and Administrative
Services
- C. C. Mason, Director, Nuclear Operations
- C. G. Patrick, Superintendent, Quality Evaluations
- J. A. Bailey, Director, Engineering and Technical Services
- J. M. Pippin, Manager, Management Systems
- R. E.-Gimple, Supervisor, Quality Engineering
- A. A. Freital, Assistant Manager, Nuclear Plant Engineering
- S. F. Hatch, Training Supervisor
- D.
L.~ Reed, ISEG
- D. D. Meredith, Safety Engineer
- D. A. Colwell, Quality Assurance Technologist
- K. R. Peterson, Licensing
- 04 'L. Maynard, Licensing
- H.
K. Chernoff, Licensing'
- D. C. Tokach,' Configuration Management Coordinator
Bechtel Corporation
'
A.'Eckmyre, Nuclear Plant Engineering
- J. E. Cummins, Senior Resident Inspector
H. F. Bundy, Resident Inspector
B. Bartlett, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those attending the exit interview on May 23, 1985.
The inspectors also contacted other licensee personnel during the
inspection.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
a.
(0 pen) Open Item (482/8432-01):
Maintenance procedures did not
contain instructions for maintaining internal cleanliness during
.
maintenance work.
The licensee was in the process of reviewing
l
maintenance procedures for cleanliness requirements.and revising them
as necessary.
The licensee estimated that 50% of the maintenance
procedures had been reviewed and revised.
This item will remain
open pending the completion of the reviews and revisions.
l
,
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
.
~
-3--
b .'
(Closed) Open Item (482/8432-02):
'A maintenance notebook
-containingllimitorque data was not controlled; The licensee has
discontinued the.use of this notebook and will use other controlled
documents,for limitorque-data.
i
"
c.
.(Closed) Open Item (482/8432-07): -Implementation of the test and
..
experiment program had not-been implemented.
The inspector verified
"
,
.
that'the licensee had implemented the test ~and experiment program.
'
Review of selected '?Special Procedures" showed the procedures' had
been reviewed and approved.in accordance with the requirements of
the' test'and experiment program.
d .'
.(Closed) Open Item-(482/8435-04):
The inspection of design changes
iand modifications could'not be completed due to a lack of activity
in.this~ area.
During this~ inspection the review of design changes
,
and modifications was completed and is reported in paragraph 4.
,
3.
Quality Assurance' for Startup -Test- Program
The inspector reviewed.the licensee's operational Quality Assurance
- program for startup and power ascension' testing.
. a.-
. Documents Reviewed
(1) l Selected Audit Reports of Startup Testing
>- e
.(2) Selected Surveillance Reports of Startup Testing
.
t
a
>
p .
s
- ~ i ,'
b.
>Results of Inspection
'
'"
72 .
The audit and surveillance program was reviewed to verify that
' '
D1
'
requirements had been developed for the observation of testing,.
'
4
.
tracking of test deficiencies, , review of test documentation and .
~
'
J;-(-
' acceptance criteria, and review of the status of measuring and te'st
.
'
<
,
c; ? ,
'
,
,
!
. equipment.
Surveillance and audit reports were reviewed to_ verify. ,
,
,
> proper . implementation.
Quality' Assurance personnel were interviewed '
,,
.,
'
-
to. verify that they understood their basic responsibilities'during.
' '
,
the startup testing phase.
Surveillance and audit reports'and correc-
f
- '
J$-
.
' tive action documents were also reviewed tol verify that identified
M..
' deficiencies were being tracked and resolved.' ' Additionally, the
1I
inspector observed audit personnel ~ perform surveillances of initial
,
criticality testing.
.
'
.g,,
.
.
L~
'.
/
" No violations or' deviations were identified in this area.
.
'
e
-
,
.,
4.
-Design' Change and Modification Program
.
.
The inspectors. reviewed the implementation of the design change and
. .
.
"fC
-modification program to verify compliance with the operational QA
program; 10 CFR 50.59; 10 CFR 50, Appendix B; and the Technical
Specifications..
-
A-
s
1
~
,_
v
-4-
a.
Documents Reviewed
(1)' Procedures
(a) KCP-1131, Revision 0 with PCNs Nos. 01, 02 and T-01,
" Plant Modification Process"
(b)- QP 9.1, Revision 0 with PCN 01, " Processing of Work
-Request"
(c) ADM 01-022, Revision 8, " Authorization of Changes, Tests,
and Experiments (10 CFR 50.59)
'^^
(d) ADM 01-041, Revision 4 with temporary change No MA
85-465, " Plant Modification Request"
,
"
' .
(e) ADM 01-042, Revision 4 with temporary change form MA
-
-
85-1060, " Engineering Study for Plant Modification Request"
(f) ADM 01-057, Revision 7, " Work Request"
"
(2) Selected design change and modification records
b.
Results of Inspection
' .
.The inspector reviewed the Plant Modification Request (PMR) Status
= Report and selected eight safety-related modifications for review.,
Modifications selected were PMRs 00384, 00447, 00554, 00575,-00581,
-
, 00586, 00606 and WO 84-KE028.
The status report indicated that work
on the selected modifications had been completed and the modifications
had been. released to operations.
'
During the review, the following observations were made:
(1) Records for the PMRs reviewed did not contain objective evidence
of the plant manager's approval as required by paragraphs 7.1.3
of KCP-1131 and 2.3 of ADM 01-041.
The plant manager's signature
does appear on the PSRC review sheets which provides evidence of
PSRC review of the modification.
The inspector was informed that
this signature is the plant manager's approval which indicates
that his responsibilities, required by these procedures, have
been performed.
The inspector has no further questions
regarding this matter at this time.
(2) Additional items noted on individual packages reviewed were as
follows:
(a) PMR 00384 (WR 91002-85):
The nuclear safety evaluation
checklist which provides evidence of the 50.59 evaluation
by the onsite review committee, was missing.
It was not
located during the inspection.
(b) PMR 00447 (WR 02986-85):
The complete package was missing
j
from the vault and could not be located.
A copy of the
package was later located and the inspector reviewed the
L
a
-
.:,
,
lT
s
.- -
'
.
~
~
.m'1
-
'
~5-
.
copy. ~This-PMR was designated as 'afety-related on the PMR
s
status report and the PMR. The associated work request
.(WR 02986-85),- which was-used to both initiate and complete
the modification,,was designated.as nonsafety-related.
2 Records indicate that the work was performed as nonsafety-
+related work and no'QC inspection was performed.
~
'
'
(c) 'PMR 00556:
This package:was; missing from the vault.- The
<
record copy was not located;"however, a copy:of the PMR
and supporting documentation was located in the Results
Engineering secretary's file.
The associated work. request
-was not located.
x
.
,
Th' modification package was.
(d)' PMR 00581 (WR 04279-85):
e
r .
missing from the records vault.
The record copy could not
be located; however, a copy was located in an individual's
file.
In reviewing-this copy, the inspector noted that the
copy did not contain a signoff by QE in block No. 35 to
indicate acceptance of the installation.
There was also
~>
no-signoff for section review in block No. 33.
(e) 'PMT-00586 (WR04604-85):
A copy of the work request was
located in the vault.
The record copy of the PMR was.not
- located; however, a copy of the PMR and supporting docu-
mentation was located in the Results Engineering secretary's
,
file. .The work request, which was used for both initiation
and completion of this modification, was designated as
nonsafety-related. .The PMR and the PMR status log indicated
'.
that the modification was safety related.
Records indicated
the work was performed as nonsafety-related and no QC
inspection was performed on:the installation.
(f) PMR 00606 (WR 91206-85):
There was no signature in block
No. 35 to indicate QC inspection and acceptance of the
,
installation.
>
,
(g) PMR WO84-KE028 (WR 07250-84):
A copy of the work request-
was located in the records vault.
A copy of the PMR'and
i '.
supporting documentation could not be located.
^
These failures to provide control over activities affecting'
, quality are-in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II
,
"
~(482/8525-01).
'
5.
Exit Interview
r
.
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
,
on May_27, 1985, and summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the
inspection.
The. inspectors discussed the likely informational content of
the-inspection report with regard to documents or processes which were
reviewed. The licensee did not identify any documents or processes as
2proprietary.
j
.-
')
'
'
'
'