Text

Forwards Operational Safety Team Insp Rept 50-267/88-200 on 880509-20.Team Findings Indicate Existence of Apparent Inconsistency in Overall Operation of Plant & Inadequate Maint Instructions
	ML20155B837
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	09/16/1988
From:	Holahan G; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Robert Williams; PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO
Shared Package
ML20155B840	List: ML20155B837; ML20155B841;
References
	NUDOCS 8810070098
	Download: ML20155B837 (7)
	v • d • e

.__

N

s ..

!

t

t # UNITED STATES

e- *c't

'

j* '*

.g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHING TON, D. C. 20$$5 3

e

( f September 16, 1988

,

Docket No. 50-267

Mr. Robert O. Williams, Jr.

Vice President Nuclear Operations

Public Service Company of Colorado

2420 W. 26th Avenue, Suite 15c

Denver, Colorado 80211

Dear Mr. Williams:

This letter forwards the report and executive sumary of the Operational

Safety Team Inspection (OSTI) conducted by Mr. J. E. Cummins and other

NRC personnel during the period May 9-20, 1988. The activities involved

are authorized by NRC Operating License No. OPR-34 for the Fort St. Vrain

huelear Generating Station. We discussed our findings with you and other

members of your staff at the conclusion of this inspection.

Selected activities in the areas of operations, maintenance, surveillance,

engineering, management oversight, safety review, and quality programs were

taamined during the inspection. As a part of the operations perf;rmance

evaluation, the team observed approximately 120 hours0.00139 days 0.0333 hours 1.984127e-4 weeks 4.566e-5 months of on-shif t operation-

related activities; included in this 'cere random backshift and weekend

inspections.

'

The findings of the team indicated the existence of an apparent inconsistency

in the overall operation of the plant. While there appeared to be acceptable

programs and an appropriate concern by management and operations personnel for

safe operation of the plant, the team also observed the issuance and use of

(

what it considered to be inadequate maintenance instructions and inadequate

control and documentation of maintenance activities. This problem appeared

to occur between the first line supervision and higher levels of management.

,

l

,

'

No response to this latter is required, but sone of the findings identified ,

by the team may be potential enforcement items. The Region IV office will ,

, review this report and will followup on any enforcement items identified.

,

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure

will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

!

'

s

,

go07oo9e880916

o ADOCK 05000267 i

PUC

_ -

_ - ___ - - - - . . -- . . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -_

._ ~ . - - - . . _ _ _ _ _ _

.1 l

a s ,

1

l

t Mr. Robert O. Williams, Jr. -2- September 16, 1988 I

J

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact me or '

Mr. J. Cumins (301492-0957) of this office.

!

i, .

^^^

-.

Gary M. Holahan, Acting Director !

Division of Reactor Projects III,

IV, V, and Special Projects !

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,

Enclosures:

1. Executive Sumary ,

2. Inspection Report 50-267/88-200 '

,

'

cc w/ enclosure: See next page

'

,

I

.j

i

f

I

1

4

i

j i

.

l

I .

l

t

.

i !

' l

I

i

:

'

l

! i

l

'

!

. 1

,

i

4

} l

- - . . . - , . _ - - . - _ _ - _ - . . . - _ _ _ , - __ - ...- - - , - ._ - -

i , !

r

<' Mr. Robert 0. Williams, Jr. -3- September 16, 1988

cc w/ enclosures:

Mr. D. W. Warembourg, Manager Mr. Albert J. Hazle, Director

Nuclear Engineering Division Radiation Control Division

Public Service Company Department of Health

of Colorado 4210 East lith Avenue

P. O. Box 840 Denver, Colorado 80220

Denver, Colorado 80201-0840

Mr. David Alberstein, 14/159A Mr. R. O. Williams, Jr., Acting Manager

GA Technologies, Inc. Nuclear Production Division

P. O. Box 85608 Public Service Company of Colorado

San Diego, California 92138 16805 Weld County Road 19-1/2

Platteville, Colorado 80651

Mr. H. L. Brey, Manager

Nuclear Licensing and Fuel Division Mr. P. F. Tomlinson, Manager

Public Service Company of Colorado Quality Assurance Division

, P. O. Box 840 Public Service Company of Colorado

i Denver, Colorado 80201-0840 16805 Weld County Road 19-1/2

'

Platteville, Colorado 80651

Senior Resident Inspector

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. R. F. Walker

P. O. Box 640 Public Service Company of Colorado

4

Platteville, Colorado 80651 P. O. Box 840

a Denver, Colorado 80201-0840

Kelley, Stansfield & 0'Donnell

Public Service Company Building Commitment Control Program Coordinator

Room P00 Public Service Company of Colorado

, 550 15th Street 2420 W. 26th Ave. Suite 100-0

!

Denver, Colorado 80202 Denver, Colorado 80211

i

Regional Administrator, Region IV Chairman, Board of County Comissioners

i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of Weld County, Colorado

611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000

'

Greeley, Colorado 80631

Arlington, Texas 76011

'

Institute of Nuclear Power Operations

i Regional Representative 1100 Circle 75 Parkway

i Radiation Programs Atlanta, Georgia 30339

"

Environmental Protection Agency ,

1 Denver Place

999 18th Street Suite 2413 -

Denver, Colorado 80202-2413 ;

i !

1

i

!

i l

_ _ _ _ - - _ . ___________________ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

'

.

t

'

fir Robert 0. Willians, Jr. 4- September 16, 1988

Distribution: (w/ encl)

Docket TITE 50-267

DRIS R/F

RilB R/F

POR

LPDR

BGrimes, NRR

CHaughney, NRR

LNorrholm, NRR

JCunmins, NRR

l'egional Administrators

Regional Division Directors

TMurley, NRR

JSniezek, NRR

TMartin, NRR

DCrutchfield, tiRR

JCalvo, NRR

KHeitner, NRR

VNoonan, NRR

OGC (3)

ACRS (3)

Inspection Team

IS Distribution

&

3l 4

9fhADR4 [5'k

-

LRubenstein

09//s/88 d'

UTC :RSIB:0RI5:hRR :RSIB:0 5:NRR:5IB: SI fiRR:D: ,pt? R , A)AD:DR5P :(A)D:DRSP

.....:....... ..:. ....:.. f ... : .. j - ....:.. ......

.:............:........

NAME :JCunnint : or m : augh ey : B f, M s :GHolahan

.....:..............:.............p............:............:...f..:MVir

.

, t :...:............:........

DATE :09/J1/88 :09/ 3-/88 :09/ H 88 :09/l%/83 :077 /88 :09//488 :

' '

'!

'b

,

V,;h

r'q

._- , _ _ . - . _ _ _= -. . _ _ - - . .. . __ _ . -

,

I

'

r

'

l

ENCLOSURE 1 ,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

!

INSPECTION REPORT 50-267/88-200

FORT ST. VRAIN h0 CLEAR GENERATING STATION

!

, During the period May 9-20, 1988, a team of nine inspectors performed an

Operational Safety Team Inspection (OST)) at the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear

'

i Generating Station. The plant was inspected to determine if it was being ;

operated in a safe manner. The primary emphasis of the inspection was observa- '

tion of operating plant personnel and the review of activities that interfaced

with and supported the operations department. During the inspection, the team

observed approximately 120 hours0.00139 days 0.0333 hours 1.984127e-4 weeks 4.566e-5 months of on-shift activities related to operations, r

Inspections were conducted in the areas of operations, maintenance, surveil-

lance testing, management oversight, safety review and quality programs.

Licensee Strengths

Generally sound acceptable programs had been implemented and the l

1 licensee's staff appeared to be knowledgeable and capable and to have ;

a positive attitude toward safe operation of the plant.

Even though the team identified a problem with the quality of maintenance f

instructions and with maintenance personnel working outside instructions. l

the experienced miintenance personnel's ability to maintain the plant

was considered a strength. ;

The extension of surveillance activities to determine operability of I

components and subsystems not explicitly listed in the Technical '

Specifications was considered by the team to be an enhancement to

safety, t

l

There appeared to be a high degree of station manager and operations !

i inanager involvement in all aspects of operations, including their ;

I frequent presence in the control room. There also appeared to be ;

strong support of operations by personnel from all plant departments, i

L

The quality of quality assurance audits was good.

! The operations staff was well trained; they exhibited a professional (

) attitude and a strict sensitivity to procedure adherence. Good communica-

! tions were maintained between shifts via thorough shift turnovers. -

1 *

l The actions of the offsite review comittee apreared to be aggressive. ;

1

a ,

.

! i

4

4 !

I

i l

!

___. __ ____ ___.-_____ _ _ _ _ __ _._ _ _ _ _

. _

.

!

,

Licensee Weaknesses

Many procedures did not contain adequate specific information and relied

on the experience of the personnel implementing the procedure (especiall)

in operations) to perform the task intended by the procedure. There was

also duplication of procedures used by different groups that could be

confusing. The licensee had instituted a program to improve the quality

of the procedures.

Inadequate craftsman maintenance instructions and maintenance craftsmen

l working outside existing instructions was a major weakness identified

by the team. Related to this, craftsmen did not stop work when instruc-

tions were inadequate, but knowingly continued the job without adequate

instructions.

Measuring and Test Equipment (MtTE) laboratory personnel did not evaluate, l

in a timely manner, a digital multimeter that had been classified as being

! out of calibration. The evaluation should have been perfomed to ensure

that any equipment the multimeter had been used on was operable. This

) occurred while a '.e startup was in progress.

Quality control ? ' ors present on the job did not intervene and

ask questions whe, - anel were perfortning activities using inadequate

instructions or w -

ming activities outside the scope of existing .

instructions.

Reactor operators did not take sufficient prompt action to initiate the

investigation of a reheat steam system temperature controller that had

,

an abnomal temperature offset. The problem was later found to be an

] open thermocuuple.

The licensee was unable to retrieve nonconformance report information ,

i promptly to evaluate repetitive failures and prevent them. ;

i '

! The stop work process was cumbersome rnainly because several different

j procedures addressed the stop work process and the licensee's quality

'

control personnel were not familiar with the process.

2

q

'

Training of personnel on remote shutdown outside the control room was

identified as a weakness. This was especially true for equipmenc opera-

tors and equipment tenders who had not received any specific training

in the procedure, but would be directly involved in the remote shutdown.

In addition, the licensee had never performed a remote shutdown test

to verify that all the necessary equipment that had been independently

tested would perform as designed in the integrated operation of remote

shutdown.

Both the offsite and onsite review committees conducted telephone polls

on a limited basis for voting,

i

Conclusions

~ Management involvement, including managers' meetings, monthly sumary letters,

senior planning meetings, and morning meetings (plant managers and superin-

, tendents) appeared to be good. However, on the basis of the type of problems

J

S

_ _ . _ _ ._ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . __. _ _ _ .

r

i

! observed in the field by the team, the "nuclear attitude" demonstrated by the

managers needed to be reinforced at all levels of the Fort St. Vrain staff,

especially at the craf tsman and engineer levels, to ensure acceptable imple- i

mentation of quality activities in the plant. l

After reviewing work activities and interviewing craftsmen and supervisors,

the inspection team concluded that the first-line supervisors were well aware

i of inadequacies in maintenance procedures and documentation of maintenance ,

i activities. The team further determined that these procedure and documenta- l

'

tion problems had apparently not been conn.unicated to management, nor had any

corrective action been initiated.

The findings of the team indicated an apparent inconsistency in the overall ,

'

i operation of the plant. There appeared to be acceptable programs and a good

,

management and operations personnel attitude toward safe operation of the ;

'

.

plant, including the initiation of programs designed to enhance efficiency and

i safety. However, the team observed the issuance and use of what it considered

i

to be inadequate maintenance instructions and a lack of control and documenta- l

tion of maintenance activities. l

1

i

l

I (

l

1 .

l

4 I

.

l

I

i

!

l

!

1

l

>

n

h

i

! 3

i

i.,_..-__,__-_- . . _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ . . _ - _ , - , . _ _ . - - . . - _ , _ - - . - - - - - . . . - _ _ . - - . - - _ - _ _ , , . - . -

ML20155B837

Text

Navigation menu

Search