ML20155B837
| 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: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810070098 | |
| Download: ML20155B837 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000267/1988200
Text
N
.__
s
..
t
t
- c't
UNITED STATES
e-
'
'*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
j
.g
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 <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> 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
,
t
Mr. Robert O. Williams, Jr.
-2-
September 16, 1988
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
.
l
I
.
t
.
.
i
'
I
i
l
'
!
i
l
'
!
.
,
i
4
}
- -
.
. . - , . _ - - . - _ _ - _ - . . . - _ _ _ ,
-
-
...- - - , -
._
-
-
i
,
< '
rMr. 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
,
Denver, Colorado 80201-0840
16805 Weld County Road 19-1/2
i
Platteville, Colorado 80651
'
Senior Resident Inspector
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mr. R. F. Walker
P. O. Box 640
Public Service Company of Colorado
Platteville, Colorado 80651
P. O. Box 840
4
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
'
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
- -
.
-
-
'
.
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 - ....:..
.:............:........
......
.....:..............:.............p............:............:...f..:MVir , t :
- GHolahan
NAME :JCunnint
or
m
augh ey
- B f, M s
...:............:........
.
DATE :09/J1/88
- 09/ 3-/88
- 09/ H 88
- 09/l%/83
- 077 /88
- 09//488
'
'
'b
V,;h
'!
,
r'q
._-
,
_ _ .
-
. _ _
_= -. . _ _ - - .
..
. __
_ .
-
,
'
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 <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> 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.
'
q
2
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.
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
l
1
.
l
l
I
4
.
l
I
i
l
!
!
1
l
>
n
h
i
!
3
ii.,_..-__,__-_-
. . _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ .
. _ - _ , - , . _ _ . - - .
. - _ , _ - - . - - - - - . . . - _ _ . - - . - - _ - _ _ , , . - . -