ML20140A576
| ML20140A576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1986 |
| From: | Jaudon J, Skow M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140A554 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-267-85-33, NUDOCS 8601230228 | |
| Download: ML20140A576 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000267/1985033
Text
_
.
1
APPENDIX B
U. 5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
REGION IV
- '
NRC Inspection Report:
50-267/85-33
License: DPR-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 Nuclear Generating Station, Platteville,
Inspection Conducted: December 9-13, 1985
!
Inspector:
/2/z7/97
M. E. Skow, Project Engineer, Project Section A,
Date
Reactor Projects Branch
J. T Jauffon, Ch .
/
/ 2M
Approved:
-
-
f,ProjectSgfdhh,
Dat[
/
R ctorl Projec s Branch
V
Inspection Summary
Inspection Conducted December 9-13, 1985 (Report 50-267/83-33)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of nonlicensed operator
I
training and follow-up to NRC Inspection Report 50-267/85-26.
The inspection
l
involved 23 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
l
Results: Within the areas inspected, two violations were identified
.(paragraph 2 ).
l
hh
D
,
'
G
i
r
-
n-
. .-- -
-- -
,
--
, - , - - . - -
-,n--
-
~~- --
- - - .
.
.-
.
.
.
-
_
.
_ - . _ _ - ..
_-.
.
.
l...
-2-
,
!
' ~
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
!
- J. W. Gahm, knager, Nuclear Power Operations
'
- C. L. Fuller, Station Manager
L. W. Singleton, Manager. Quality Assurance
,
I
R. L. Craun, Site Engineering Manager
- F. J. Borst, Support Services Manager
- M. J. Ferris, QA Operations Manager
,
.
- F. J. Novachek, Technical / Administrative Services Manager
j
- W. L. Craine, Superintendent Maintenance
~
- R. Burchfield, Superintendent Nuclear Bettement Engineering
- T. D. McIntirw Nuclear Site Engineering Supervisor
.
- S. Hofstetter, Nuclear Licensing and Fuel
S. W111 ford, Superintendent of Training
R. Rivera, Operator Training Supervisor
G. Weiderspoon, Auxiliary Tender
.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview
2.
Followup to NRC Inspection Report 50-267/85-26
The NRC inspector perfonned a followup inspection to verify the findings of
.
NRC Inspection Report 50-267/85-26, hereafter referred to as the PAT
i
report. The NRC inspector also detemined what, if any, corrective
j
actions had been taken by the licensee. The paragraph numbers of the PAT
report are used below to discuss the specific concerns of that report.
Specific item numbers are also identified, but some item numbers are made
j
up of several parts in various paragraphs,
.
'
PAT Report Paragraph 2.a.(2), Open Item 8526-01
Procedure P-1, " Plant Operations," did not provide adequate control of
temporary plant modifications. Specifically, Section 4.9, " Control of
,
i
Temporary Configuration," contained no provisions for ensuring the
i
temporary nature of modifications made under that procedure. At the time
of the inspection, 37 Temporary Configuration Requests (TCRs) were open
j
from 2 to 9 years. The licensee had initiated pennanent Design Change
i
Notices (DCNs) for several of these TCRs however, at least 11 of these
i
DCNs had been in preparation for over 2 years. This lack of control of
l
temporary changes resulted in permanent changes being made to the station
without the necessary reviews being conducted.
'
i
Inspection Followup
i
NRC Inspection Report 50-267/85-31 discussed the licensee's programmatic
j
corrective action. During this followup, the NRC inspector reviewed the
i
licensee's TCRs that were maintained in the control room. The more recent
.
- - -
-
-
- __
-
-
- -
-
. _ . _ _ _
__ __. _ ____
- _-
_ _
_
_ _ ._
- __
'
...
3-
-
,
TCRs all appeared to have had safety evaluations perfomed.- This was in
,
keeping with the licensee's corrective action. The older TCRs appeared to
have had safety evaluations perfonned only if the TCRs had been marked as
!
" Safety Related." The NRC inspector found two older TCRs that installed
l
temporary gages. These gages were used by the operators to verify
j
compliance with Technical Specification Limiting Conditon of Operation
(TS LCO) 4.2.7, but the TCRs, 820427, dated April 13, 1982, and 820503,
,
'
dated May 1,1982, were neither marked as " Safety Related" nor as Technical
Specification involved. Thus, they were equipnient required to support
Technical Specifications. Changes to these equipments required a safety
4
i
evaluation as described in 10 CFR 50.59. No safety evaluation had been
i
performed at the time of the PAT inspection.
In addition, the licensee
i
could not show that the gages had been calibrated. The licensee stated
that there was not a program in place to routinely calibrate temporary
.
i
gages. The failure to perfonn a safety evaluation of TCRs used to verify
-
,
compliance with LCOs is an apparent violation (8533-01). This portion of
j
Unresolved Item 8526-02 is closed because it has been incorporated into
the apparent violation.
l
The licensee committed to calibrate the gages installed by TCRs 820427 and
l
820503 prior to plant startup.
.
I
PAT Report Paragraph 4.a.(4), Part 1. Unresolved Item 8526-05
t
i
Gearcase oil used for Motor Operated Valve (MOV) applications differed
t
from that reconsnended by the vendor manual and may not have been suitable
I
for the environment of all plant MOVs. Proced ae MP 39-3 and the vendor
manual specify the use of SAE 80 EP oil in the gearcase of motor operated
valves. Discussions with maintenance personnel revealed that Mobil 629
cil was being used for all MOV applications. The licensee had not
perfomed an engineering evaluation to determine that the Mobil 629 oil
was suitable for all MOV applications or compatible with residual oil that
may have been in the gearcase.
Inspection Followup
'
,
j
Mobil 629 is an SAE 40 oil. The vendor maintenance manual specifies SAE 80
EP oil.
In response to the PAT report, the licensee initiated Action
'
Request GSAR-979 to resolve the issue of oil suitability. The use of the
Mobil 629 oil is considered a design change, and the failure to perform an
appropriate evaluation of the oil suitability is an apparent violation of
I
i
10CFR50.55(8533-02). This portion of Unresolved Item 8526-05 is closed
l
because it is incorporated into the apparent violation.
'
!
e
The licensee committed to complete evaluation of the oil suitability prior to
j
plant startup.
1
i
o
l
l
h
.. - - - - - -
- - - - -
-_,,,n
,-e_
.,m
n.-,- - - , ,
--,,n_,_.w.,,.,---,,,.-_,m,,
,n,---n,,-.,,m,.,.,-.,--r,.
-.y_-
.. we
,v
.
- em, m mm--
_ _ .
__
.
_
_
_ . _ _ _
.
- ..
,
-4-
!
3.
Nonlicensed Staff Training
-
i
This inspection was to evaluate the effectiveness of the training programs
for the nonlicensed staff. As a starting point, the NRC inspector selected
'
an event that the licensee reported to the NRC duty officer on December 4,
1985. During this event, an Auxiliary Tender inadvertently tripped a
breaker for a bearing water pump which resulted in a loop shutdown. The
NRC inspector found that the Auxiliary Tender had received documented
!
on-the-job training in breaker operation.
He had not received formal
classroom training in breaker operation.
However, he participated in the
development of the training elements for formal classroom training which,
in effect, demonstrated his knowledge of breaker operation.
In the event
selected, the tender stated that he had identified the proper breaker he
was to rack out. He went to the end of the panel to get the crank returned
to and tripped the wrong breaker. The licensee is evaluating the training
a
task elements to determine if the classroom training can be modified to
preclude this kind of lapse of concentration by an operator.
The development of the task elements above was part of the licensee's
program to upgrade training to support INPO accreditation. The licensee
stated that they expect to be ready for Auxiliary Tender training INPO
,
accreditation by December 31, 1985. Documentation reviewed by the NRC
'
inspector appears to support that date.
l
In addition, classroom training was observed and an individual training
record was reviewed.
No violations or deviations were ncted.
I
4.
Exit Interview
An exit interview was held on December 13, 1985, with those personnel
,
i
denoted in paragraph 1 of this report. The NRC senior resident inspector
also attended this meeting. At the meeting, the scope of the inspection
and findings were summarized. The licensee also confirmed those
j
commitments identified in paragraph 2.
I
i
)
.
,
.- .-
-
_ -_
- - -
- -
- - -
__
-
.
__