ML20140E382: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Adams | |||
| number = ML20140E382 | |||
| issue date = 01/22/1986 | |||
| title = Insp Rept 50-482/85-38 on 851201-860104.Violation Noted: Failure to Establish Procedures for Certain Activities That Could Affect Performance of safety-related Equipment | |||
| author name = Bartlett B, Cummins J, Hunnicutt D | |||
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) | |||
| addressee name = | |||
| addressee affiliation = | |||
| docket = 05000482 | |||
| license number = | |||
| contact person = | |||
| case reference number = RTR-REGGD-01.033, RTR-REGGD-1.003, RTR-REGGD-1.033 | |||
| document report number = 50-482-85-38, IEB-85-002, IEB-85-2, NUDOCS 8602030235 | |||
| package number = ML20140E374 | |||
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS | |||
| page count = 13 | |||
}} | |||
See also: [[see also::IR 05000482/1985038]] | |||
=Text= | |||
{{#Wiki_filter:- | |||
' | |||
. , | |||
' | |||
. | |||
APPENDIX B | |||
US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | |||
REGION IV | |||
NRC Inspection Report: 50-482/85-38 LP: NPF-42 | |||
Docket: 50-482 | |||
Licensee: Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E) | |||
Post Office Box 208 | |||
Wichita, Kansas 67201 | |||
Facility Name: Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) | |||
Inspection At: Wolf Creek Site, Coffey County, Burlington, Kansas | |||
Inspection Conducted: December 1, 1985 to January 4, 1986 | |||
i 7 | |||
Inspectors: [hn{@d , | |||
IW'{/7}[ A OI lA $b | |||
J. E. Cummins, Senior Resident Inspector, Date | |||
Operations | |||
Md M/Y l-/0 $b | |||
B. L. Bartlett, Resident Reactor Inspector, | |||
~ | |||
Date | |||
Operations | |||
Approved: h[ EM | |||
-D. M. Hunnicutt, Acting Chief, Project | |||
/ M, 8d | |||
Ifate / | |||
Section B, Reactor Projects Branch 2 | |||
l | |||
G2 | |||
0602030235$h$O | |||
PDR ADOCK ppR, | |||
G | |||
s | |||
~ | |||
, ' | |||
,, . y ' | |||
., ' ' | |||
.. . | |||
, , ,- | |||
.. , | |||
* | |||
, | |||
. | |||
-2- | |||
. | |||
, | |||
Inspection Summary | |||
Inspection' Conducted December 1, 1985 to January 4, 1986 (Report 50-482/85-38) | |||
' | |||
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection including plant status, | |||
followup on previously identified items, operational safety verification, | |||
engineered safety features system walkdown, onsite followup of events, followup | |||
of IE Bulletins, monthly maintenance observation, monthly surveillance | |||
observation, environmental protection, interview of shift advisors, fire | |||
protection, plant tours, and Quality First (Q1) file review. | |||
The inspection involved 229 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors | |||
including 33 inspector-hours onsite during offshifts. | |||
- Results: Withinthe13areasinspected,oneviolationwasidentified(failure | |||
to establish procedures for certain activities that could affect the | |||
performance of safety-related equipment, paragraph 13). | |||
. | |||
f y | |||
\ | |||
w | |||
=== | |||
k | |||
' ' .. | |||
. , | |||
' | |||
t | |||
-3- | |||
DETAILS | |||
1. Persons Contacted | |||
Principal Licensee Personnel | |||
G. L. Koester, Vice President-Nuclear | |||
*J. A. Bailey, Interim Site Director | |||
*F. T. Rhodes, Plant Superintendent | |||
M. Nichols, Supt. of P1 ant Support | |||
*J. A. Zell, Operations Superintendent | |||
*M. G. Williams, Superintendent of Regulatory, Quality, and | |||
Administrative Services | |||
0. L. Maynard, Licensing Supervisor | |||
*K. Peterson, Licensing | |||
H. K. Chernoff, Licensing | |||
*G. Pendergrass, Licensing | |||
-*G. P. Rathbun, Manager, Engineering and Technical Services Support | |||
*R. M. Grant, Director-Quality | |||
*W. J. Rudolph, Site QA Manager | |||
J. J. Johnson, Chief of Security | |||
D. Erbe, Security Shift Lieutenant | |||
*W. M. Lindsay, Quality Systems Supervisor | |||
C. Sprout, Facilities Engineering and Analysis | |||
A. Freitag, Nuclear Plant Engineering | |||
G. Reeves, Supt. of Quality Control | |||
K. Ellison, Compliance Engineer | |||
The NRC inspectors also contacted other members of the licensee's staff | |||
during the inspection period to discuss identified issues. | |||
* Denotes those personnel in attendance at the exit meeting held on | |||
January 7, 1986, | |||
2. Plant Status | |||
The plant operated in Mode 1 during this inspection period. | |||
3. Followup on Previously Identified NRC Items | |||
(' | |||
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-482/8302-01): Incomplete Testing of Class 1E | |||
- | |||
_4160 Volt Electrical System. | |||
This item involved NRC inspector concerns over the adequacy of the | |||
4160 volt Class 1E system. The NRC inspector reviewed all 4160 volt | |||
Class 1E preoperational test packages, their deficiencies and resolutions | |||
to their deficiencies. This item is closed. | |||
. | |||
_ . - - . _ _ | |||
. | |||
_ - = ._ .. - - . _ _ - = - . | |||
. . | |||
- | |||
. | |||
-a. | |||
(Closed) Open Item (50-482/8432-01): Cleanliness Controls in Maintenance | |||
i Procedures | |||
This item tracked a licensee agreement to review and revise, if necessary, | |||
all maintenance procedures to ensure cleanliness controls were specified | |||
in them. Following the licensee's review, the NRC inspector reviewed the | |||
following randomly selected maintenance procedures and verified that | |||
cleanliness controls were specified in them: | |||
- | |||
MPM M711Q-02, Revision 1, Primary Manway Covers Removal / Installation | |||
- | |||
MPM M712Q-01, Revision 2, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Inspection | |||
- | |||
MPM M713Q-01, Revision 2, Pressurizer Manway Cover and Maintenance | |||
- | |||
MCM M221Q-01, Revision 2, 150-300 lb Manually Operated Gate, Globe, | |||
and Swing Check Valves | |||
- | |||
MPM M141-01, Revision 2, Crosby Type J0-WR Relief Valve Maintenance | |||
- | |||
MPM M72Q-01, Revision 3, Residual Heat Removal Pump Mechanical Seal | |||
Removal and Replacement | |||
i This item is closed. | |||
The following two items were incorrectly numbered when closed in NRC | |||
Inspection Report 50-482/84-55: | |||
1 - | |||
(Closed) Open Item (50-482/8449-05): This item tracked licensee | |||
responce to NRC comments on Administrative Procedures ADM 01-001, | |||
002, and 003. The licensee adequately resolved these comments on | |||
December 3, 1984. This item was incorrectly identified as Item | |||
No. 482/8449-03. | |||
' | |||
- | |||
(Closed) Open Item (50-482/8449-04): This item tracked licensee | |||
response to NRC comments on Procedure SU3-EJ01. The licensee has | |||
resolved the comments to the inspector's satisfaction. This item was | |||
, | |||
incorrectly identified as Item No. 482/8449-02. | |||
4. Operational Safety Verification | |||
The NRC inspectors verified that the facility is being operated safely and | |||
in conformance with regulatory requirements by direct observation of | |||
licensee facilities, tours of the facility, interviews and discussions | |||
with licensee personnel, independent verification of safety system status | |||
and limiting conditions for operations, and reviewing facility records. | |||
The NRC inspectors, by observation and direct interview, verified that the | |||
physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the | |||
security plan. The NRC inspectors, by observation and review of | |||
t' | |||
documents, verified that radiation protection activities were controlled, | |||
f | |||
By observing valve pasitions, electrical breaker positions, and control | |||
room indications, the NRC inspectors confirmed the operability of the | |||
component cooling water system, Class 1E 4160 volt AC electrical system | |||
i | |||
, | |||
6 | |||
- -- ,--. - - - .- - ,._,n. . - . , .- _ _ | |||
,, . - . , . - _ , - . _ , . ~ , , | |||
* * | |||
, | |||
, | |||
-5- | |||
the the auxiliary feedwater system. The NRC inspectors also visually | |||
inspected safety components for leakage, physical damage, and any other | |||
impairment that could prevent them from performing their designed | |||
function. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
5. Engineered Safety Features (ESF) System Walkdown | |||
The NRC inspectors verified the operability of ESF systems by walking down | |||
selected accessible portions of the systems. The NRC inspectors verified | |||
valves and electrical circuit breakers were in the required position, | |||
power was available, and valves were locked where required. The NRC | |||
inspectors also inspected system components for damage or other conditions | |||
that could degrade system performance. The ESF systems listed below were | |||
walked down during this inspection report period: | |||
- | |||
Residual Heat Removal System | |||
- | |||
Safety Injection System | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
6. Onsite Followup of Events | |||
The NRC inspectors performed onsite followup of nonemergency events that | |||
occurred during this report period. The NRC inspectors discussed each | |||
event with cognizant licensee personnel and reviewed logs and computer | |||
printouts related to the event. When available, the NRC inspectors | |||
observed control room personnel response and instrumentation indicators of | |||
reactor plant parameters. The NRC inspectors verified that the licensee | |||
had responded to the event in accordance with procedures and had notified | |||
the NRC and other agencies when required in a timely fashion. | |||
ESF actuations that occurred during the report period are listed in the | |||
table below. The NRC inspector will review the L; cense Event Report (LER) | |||
for each of these events and will report any findings in subsequent NRC | |||
inspection reports. | |||
Date Event * Plant Status Cause | |||
12/9/85 CRVIS Mode 1 Broken Tape | |||
12/9/85 CRVIS Mode 1 Broken Tape | |||
12/10/85 CRVIS Mode 1 Broken Tape | |||
12/13/85 CRVIS Mode 1 Broken Tape | |||
12/18/85 CRVIS Mode 1 Broken Tape | |||
*CRVIS-Control room ventilation isolation signal | |||
Selected NRC inspector observations are discussed below: | |||
r | |||
* | |||
. | |||
I. | |||
-6- | |||
On December 14, 1985, at approximately 0117 hours CST, licensee security | |||
personnel reported heavy smoke and flame coming from a paint shop located | |||
outside of the protected area boundary and approximately 900' west of | |||
the radwaste building. The fire brigade was mustered and Off-Normal | |||
Procedure 0FN-00-16, " Fire Response," was entered. At 0126 hours the city | |||
of Burlington Fire Department was called and arrived onsite at 0145 hours. | |||
It required approximately 2,550' of hose, 24,000 gallons of water, and | |||
41 minutes to bring the fire under control. It required an additional | |||
21 minutes to extinguish tne remaining significant hot spots. As stated in | |||
Wolf Creek Event Report 85-135, low temperatures and the distance to a | |||
reliable water source (approximately 600' contributed significantly to | |||
the damage caused by the fire and the difficulty in achieving extinguish- | |||
ment. The fire did not at any time threaten any safety-related equipment | |||
required for.the safe shutdown of the plant. | |||
The following licensee defect / deficiency reports ** were reviewed: | |||
- | |||
85-90 - Turbine Trip | |||
- | |||
85-91 - Feedwater Isolation System (FWIS) | |||
- | |||
85-92 - Reactor Trip | |||
- | |||
85-93 - FWIS | |||
- | |||
85-97 - CRVIS | |||
- | |||
85-98 - CRVIS | |||
- | |||
85-102 - Reactor Trip | |||
- | |||
85-103 - CRVIS | |||
- | |||
85-108 - CRVIS | |||
- | |||
85-123 - Missed Hourly Fire Watch | |||
- | |||
85-148 - Area 5 Floor Drains Capped | |||
- | |||
85-152 - Three Fire Dampers Not Installed | |||
The following Wolf Creek Event Reports *** were reviewed: | |||
- | |||
85-132 - 50 MW Turbine Runback | |||
- | |||
85-135 - Paint Shop Fire | |||
**A defect / deficiency is an internal licensee report on defects and/or | |||
deficiencies found in design or construction. These reports are issued to | |||
appropriate personnel and agencies. | |||
*** Wolf Creek Event Reports are events that are not specifically | |||
reportable as a defect / deficiency report but are events which plant | |||
management should be made aware of. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
-- - | |||
- - . - - _ - -. _- | |||
. . . | |||
. | |||
. | |||
-7- | |||
7. Followup of IE Bulletins (IEB) | |||
The NRC inspector, by review of documents, verified that the IEB discussed | |||
below had been reviewed and appropriately acted upon by the licensee. | |||
6aq: rd) IEB 85-02: Undervoltage Trip Attacb5 ants of Westinghouse DB-50 | |||
' | |||
iysg_9eactorTripBreakers(RTB). | |||
This IEB informed licensees of re11 ability prc51 ems with Westinghouse | |||
DB-50 Type RTBs and specified additional testing that should be performed | |||
on RTBs that had not yet been modified with an automatic shunt trip. This | |||
IEB is closed based on the following: | |||
- | |||
The RTBs at WCGS are not Westinghouse Type DB-50. The RTBs at WCGS | |||
are Type 05-416. | |||
- | |||
The RTBs at WCGS have been modified to include a shunt trip feature. | |||
This modification was done in accordance with Westinghouse SAPM | |||
10661, " Addition of Automatic Shunt Trip Feature and Time Response | |||
Test Point." This modification and related testing were reviewed by | |||
an NRC inspector and found to be acceptable. The NRC inspector | |||
review was documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-482/84-44 | |||
(paragraph 4, Inspection of Generic Letter 83-28). | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
8. Monthly Maintenance Observation | |||
* | |||
The NRC inspector observed maintenance activities performed on | |||
safety-related systems and components to verify that these activities were | |||
conducted in accordance with approved procedures, Technical | |||
Specifications, and applicable industry codes and standards. The | |||
following elements were considered by the NRC inspector during the | |||
observation and/or review of the maintenance activities: | |||
- | |||
Limiting conditions for operation (LCO) were met and, where | |||
applicable, redundant components were operable. | |||
- | |||
Activities complied with adequate administrative controls. | |||
- | |||
Where required, adequate, approved, and up-to-date procedures were | |||
used. | |||
- | |||
Craftsmen.were qualified to accomplish the designated task and | |||
technical' expertise (i.e., engineering, health physics, operations) | |||
were made available when appropriate. | |||
< - | |||
Replacement parts and materials being used were properly certified. | |||
- | |||
Required radiological controls were implemented. | |||
i | |||
- _ . . _ _ | |||
. . . | |||
. | |||
- | |||
-8- | |||
- | |||
Fire prevention controls were implemented where appropriate. | |||
- | |||
Required alignments and surveillances to verify post maintenance | |||
operability were performed. | |||
- | |||
Quality control hold points and/or checklists were used when | |||
appropriate and quality control personnel observed designated work | |||
activities. | |||
Selected portions of the maintenance activities accomplished on the Work | |||
Request (WR) listed below were observed and related documentation reviewed | |||
by the NRC inspector: | |||
- | |||
WR 11540-85, Mini Purge System-Visual Inspection and Leak Test per | |||
PMR-1389 | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
9. Monthly Surveillance Observation , | |||
* | |||
The NRC inspectors observed selected portions of the performance of | |||
surveillance testing and/or reviewed completed surveillance test | |||
procedures to verify that surveillance activities were performed in | |||
accordance with Technical Specifications (TS) requirements and | |||
administrative procedures. The NRC inspectors considered the following | |||
items while inspecting surveillance activities: | |||
- | |||
Testing was being accomplished by qualified personnel in accordance | |||
with an approved procedure. | |||
- | |||
The surveillance procedure conforms to TS requirements. | |||
- | |||
Required test instrumentation was calibrated. | |||
- | |||
Technical Specification limiting conditions for operation were | |||
satisfied. | |||
- | |||
Test data was accurate and complete. The NRC inspectors performed | |||
independent calculations of selected test data to verify their | |||
accuracy. | |||
- | |||
The performance of the surveillance procedure conformed to applicable | |||
administrative procedures. | |||
- | |||
The surveillance was performed within the required frequency and the | |||
test results met the required limits. | |||
s | |||
',' * | |||
. | |||
-9- | |||
Surveillances witnessed and/or reviewed by the NRC inspectors are listed | |||
below: | |||
- | |||
STS AL-102, Revision 2 - Motor Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump 'B' | |||
Inservice Pump Test | |||
- | |||
STS EJ-100, Revision 4 - Residual Heat Removal System Inservice | |||
Pump Test (Train A Only) | |||
- | |||
STS BB-004, Revision 3 - RCS Water Inventory Balance | |||
- | |||
STS CR-001, Revision 3 - Shift Log For Modes 1, 2, and 3 | |||
- | |||
STS IC-601A, Revision 4 - Slave Relay Test K601 Train A Safety | |||
Injection | |||
- | |||
STS IC-913, Revision 3 - Containment Hydrogen Analyzer GS-065B | |||
- | |||
STS IC-260, Revision 2 - Analog Channel Operational Test Auxiliary | |||
Feedwater Pump Suction Pressure Low | |||
Transfer to ESW | |||
- | |||
STS PE-017, CKL PE-045, Revision 0 - Local Leak Rate Test | |||
- | |||
STS IC-209A, Revision 1 - 4KV Degraded Voltage T.A.D.0.T. NB01 | |||
Bus-Separation Group 1 | |||
- | |||
STS IC-209B, Revision 1 - 4KV Degraded Voltage T.A.D.0.T. NB02 | |||
Bus-Separation Group 4 | |||
NRC inspector observations are discussed below: | |||
On December 18, 1985, the NRC inspector observed portions of the | |||
performance of Surveillance Procedure STS AL-102, Revision 2, " Motor | |||
Driven Auxiliary Feed Water Pump 'B' Inservice Pump Test," and had the | |||
. following two concerns related to the way the test was conducted: | |||
- | |||
A temporary flow gage had been installed for the surveillance with a | |||
" calibrate before using" sticker on its face. | |||
Licensee personnel performing the surveillance had immediately | |||
identified the problem with the flow gage and had contacted cognizant | |||
instrumentation and control personnel to correct the problem. The | |||
wrong gage had been installed due to human error. | |||
- | |||
Due to delays caused by replacing the temporary flow gage and pump | |||
packing adjustments, the individual performing the surveillance | |||
terminated the original copy of the surveillance procedure, obtained | |||
a new copy, and started the surveillance over from the beginning. | |||
Contrary to licensee procedural requirements, the partially completed | |||
original was torn up and thrown away after being terminated. The | |||
discarded procedure was later retrieved from the trash by the | |||
supervising operator and terminated properly in accordance with | |||
licensee procedures. | |||
The NRC inspector discussed these two events with appropriate licensee | |||
personnel. The licensee appears to have adequate procedures established | |||
and implemented to correctly perform (including terminating) | |||
. . . | |||
, | |||
, | |||
-10- | |||
surveillances. The individuals involved in the events were reinstructed | |||
in the correct method for accomplishing the above tasks. The method for | |||
properly terminating a surveillance was made required reading for all | |||
operations personnel. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
10. Environmental Protection | |||
On December 17,'1985, during a routine inspection of the control room, the | |||
NRC inspector observed an internal licensee letter from environmental | |||
management to WCGS control room concerning operation at elevated condenser | |||
cooling water temperature (delta Ts). Due to operational problems, only | |||
two condenser circulating water pumps were running, thus requiring | |||
increased delta Ts if the plant were to remain at or near full power. In | |||
discussions with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, it was agreed | |||
that no significant increase in aquatic mortality would exist with an | |||
increased condenser delta T and thus a letter was issued December 16, | |||
1985, from environmental management to the control room effectively | |||
removing environmental delta T limitations. As stated in Section 3.1 to | |||
Appendix B to Facility ' Operation License No. NPF-42 issued June 4,1985, | |||
"The licensee may make changes in station design or operation . . . | |||
affecting the environment provided such activities do not involve an | |||
unreviewed environmental question and do not involve a change in the | |||
Environmental Protection Plan (EPP)." The NRC inspector requested a copy | |||
of the completed unreviewed environmental question determination (UEQD) | |||
from the licensee. Several days later on December 20, 1985, the UEQD was | |||
provided. The licensee informed the NRC inspector that, although the UEQD | |||
was signed on December 20, 1985, the actual determination had been | |||
performed prior to issuing the December 16, 1985, letter and there was | |||
simply a delay in completing the EPP design or operational change | |||
evaluation form (KSF-LE3A). The licensee committed to ensure the | |||
evaluation forms were completed prior to any future changes affecting the | |||
environment. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. , | |||
11. Interview of Shift Advisors | |||
License Condition 2.C(6) of Wolf Creek Generating Station Facility | |||
Operating License NPF-42 required KG&E to have a qualified shift advisor | |||
in the control room until a KG&E licensed senior operator on each shift | |||
had fulfilled the experience requirements delineated in Attachment 2 to | |||
the license. By Letter KMLNRC 85-255, dated November 19, 1985, KG&E | |||
notified the NRC that the experience requirement of License | |||
Condition 2.C(6) had been met and the use of shift consultants in the | |||
control room would be terminated on December 20, 1985. | |||
a | |||
. . | |||
, 3 | |||
-11- | |||
The NRC inspectors interviewed the six shift consultants to determine if | |||
they had any concerns about the way the plant was being operated. All of | |||
the consultants stated that they were confident the personnel on the | |||
shifts they had worked with were capable and were operating the plant | |||
safely. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
12. Fire Protection | |||
On December 11, 1985, the NRC inspector observed a fire drill and attended | |||
the followup critique. The simulated fire was in an electrical load | |||
center located in the turbine building. Fire brigade members responded | |||
promptly to the fire equipment lockers, donned appropriate fire protective | |||
clothing, checked personal equipment, obtained backup equipment as | |||
necessary, and proceeded to the simulated fire. Applicable | |||
procedures were used and the fire brigade members and other onshift | |||
personnel responded in a professional manner. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. - | |||
13. Plant Tours | |||
At various times during the course of the inspection period the NRC | |||
inspectors conducted general tours of the reactor building, auxiliary | |||
building, radwaste building, fuel handling building, control building, | |||
turbine building, essential service water building, and the secured area | |||
surrounding the buildings. During the tours, the NRC inspectors observed | |||
housekeeping practices, fire protection barriers and equipment, and | |||
maintenance on equipment. The NRC inspectors also discussed various | |||
subjects with licensee personnel. The WCGS operations superintendent | |||
accompanied the NRC inspectors on a tour of the auxiliary building on | |||
December 12, 1985. | |||
Selected NRC inspector findings are discussed below: | |||
During plant tours, the following conditions which could have affected the | |||
performance of safety-related equipment were observed by the NRC | |||
inspectors: | |||
- | |||
On December 23, 1985, a stepladder (approximately 6' long) was | |||
observed that had been abandoned above the control room suspended | |||
ceiling. The ladder could have fallen on operators and/or | |||
safety-related components. | |||
- | |||
On December 12, 1985, an unattended stepladder (approximately 6' | |||
long) was observed on a catwalk approximately 30 feet above emergency | |||
E , | |||
.,., | |||
-12- | |||
diesel generator 'B' . The ladder could have fallen and damaged | |||
components of the emergency diesel generator system. | |||
- | |||
On December 12, 1985, an extension ladder (approximately 12' long) | |||
was observed being supported by safety-related conduit 3J1025. The | |||
conduit is located on the 2000' level in the northeast corner of the | |||
auxiliary building. On December 18, 1985, an extension ladder | |||
(approximately 12' long) was observed being supported by residual | |||
heat removal system piping. Improperly secured ladders above | |||
seismically qualified components presents unanalyzed conditions if a | |||
postulated Safe Shutdown Earthquake should occur. | |||
- | |||
Numerous equipment hoists mounted on monorails over the top of | |||
safety-related equipment were observed with the lifting hooks hanging | |||
in a lowered position where they could possibly strike and damage | |||
safety-related equipment (i.e., valves, pumps). | |||
- | |||
On December 12, 1985, the NRC inspectors observed hoist lifting hooks | |||
hanging in the lowered position adjacent to the following | |||
safety-related equipment: | |||
- | |||
Main Steam Isolation Valves AB HV-11, AB HV-14 and AB HV-17 | |||
- | |||
Coolant Charging Pump 'A' | |||
- | |||
Safety Injection Pump 'A' | |||
Section 9.a, Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February | |||
1978, " Quality Assurance Program Re*quirements (0perations)," requires that | |||
procedures be established and implemented for maintenance activities that | |||
can affect the performance of safety-related equipment. The failure to | |||
establish and implement procedures for the activities described above - | |||
which could have affected the performance of safety-related equipment is a | |||
violation. (50-482/8538-01) | |||
~ | |||
The above conditions were discussed with appropriate licensee personnel, | |||
who took action to eliminate these potential hazards to safety-related | |||
equipment. | |||
. | |||
A task force of licensee personnel was established whose function was to | |||
tour areas which contained safety-related equipment, identify housekeeping | |||
problems and potential hazards to safety-related equipment components, and | |||
to initiate actions to correct any problems identified. | |||
14. Quality First File Review | |||
On December 13, 1985, the NRC inspectors reviewed 12 Quality First (Q1) | |||
files. The files contained 20 concerns that had been re.ceived by Q1 | |||
- , | |||
fi)- '', '! ' ', | |||
-13- | |||
during September, October, and November 1985. At the time of the review, | |||
two of the files were still being worked by Q1 and had not been closed. | |||
< The NRC inspectors verified the following during the review of each file: | |||
- | |||
Documentation contained adequate information to support conclusion. | |||
- | |||
Conclusion adequately addressed concern. | |||
- | |||
Response to concerned individual was documented. | |||
To further verify adequacy of Q1 conclusions, the NRC inspectors selected | |||
two concerns for followup field review. If any NRC findings result from | |||
the followup review of these two concerns, they will be documented in a | |||
j future NRC inspection report. | |||
No violations or deviations were identified. | |||
15. ' Exit Meeting | |||
' | |||
The NRC inspectors met with licensee personnel to discuss the scope and | |||
; findings of this inspection on January 7,1986. The NRC inspectors also | |||
attended entrance / exit meetings of NRC region-based inspectors | |||
, identified below: | |||
Inspection Lead Area Inspection | |||
Period Inspector Inspected Report No. | |||
12-2/5-85 J. Kelly Security 85-44 | |||
. 12-2/5-85 B. Spitzberg Environmental | |||
. | |||
Monitoring 85-43- | |||
12-9/13-85 D. Chaney Radiation 85-38 | |||
Protection | |||
l | |||
l | |||
} | |||
, | |||
i | |||
'~~- -- - -. ,.-,a, -+._,n, , - . - - - . , - - - - . - - - - , , - - . , . - - . . | |||
}} |
Latest revision as of 15:50, 18 December 2020
ML20140E382 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Wolf Creek ![]() |
Issue date: | 01/22/1986 |
From: | Bruce Bartlett, Cummins J, Hunnicutt D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
To: | |
Shared Package | |
ML20140E374 | List: |
References | |
RTR-REGGD-01.033, RTR-REGGD-1.003, RTR-REGGD-1.033 50-482-85-38, IEB-85-002, IEB-85-2, NUDOCS 8602030235 | |
Download: ML20140E382 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000482/1985038
Text
-
'
. ,
'
.
APPENDIX B
US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report: 50-482/85-38 LP: NPF-42
Docket: 50-482
Licensee: Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E)
Post Office Box 208
Wichita, Kansas 67201
Facility Name: Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS)
Inspection At: Wolf Creek Site, Coffey County, Burlington, Kansas
Inspection Conducted: December 1, 1985 to January 4, 1986
i 7
Inspectors: [hn{@d ,
IW'{/7}[ A OI lA $b
J. E. Cummins, Senior Resident Inspector, Date
Operations
Md M/Y l-/0 $b
B. L. Bartlett, Resident Reactor Inspector,
~
Date
Operations
Approved: h[ EM
-D. M. Hunnicutt, Acting Chief, Project
/ M, 8d
Ifate /
Section B, Reactor Projects Branch 2
l
G2
0602030235$h$O
PDR ADOCK ppR,
G
s
~
, '
,, . y '
., ' '
.. .
, , ,-
.. ,
,
.
-2-
.
,
Inspection Summary
Inspection' Conducted December 1, 1985 to January 4, 1986 (Report 50-482/85-38)
'
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection including plant status,
followup on previously identified items, operational safety verification,
engineered safety features system walkdown, onsite followup of events, followup
of IE Bulletins, monthly maintenance observation, monthly surveillance
observation, environmental protection, interview of shift advisors, fire
protection, plant tours, and Quality First (Q1) file review.
The inspection involved 229 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors
including 33 inspector-hours onsite during offshifts.
- Results: Withinthe13areasinspected,oneviolationwasidentified(failure
to establish procedures for certain activities that could affect the
performance of safety-related equipment, paragraph 13).
.
f y
\
w
=
k
' ' ..
. ,
'
t
-3-
DETAILS
1. Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Personnel
G. L. Koester, Vice President-Nuclear
- J. A. Bailey, Interim Site Director
- F. T. Rhodes, Plant Superintendent
M. Nichols, Supt. of P1 ant Support
- J. A. Zell, Operations Superintendent
- M. G. Williams, Superintendent of Regulatory, Quality, and
Administrative Services
0. L. Maynard, Licensing Supervisor
- K. Peterson, Licensing
H. K. Chernoff, Licensing
- G. Pendergrass, Licensing
-*G. P. Rathbun, Manager, Engineering and Technical Services Support
- R. M. Grant, Director-Quality
- W. J. Rudolph, Site QA Manager
J. J. Johnson, Chief of Security
D. Erbe, Security Shift Lieutenant
- W. M. Lindsay, Quality Systems Supervisor
C. Sprout, Facilities Engineering and Analysis
A. Freitag, Nuclear Plant Engineering
G. Reeves, Supt. of Quality Control
K. Ellison, Compliance Engineer
The NRC inspectors also contacted other members of the licensee's staff
during the inspection period to discuss identified issues.
- Denotes those personnel in attendance at the exit meeting held on
January 7, 1986,
2. Plant Status
The plant operated in Mode 1 during this inspection period.
3. Followup on Previously Identified NRC Items
('
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-482/8302-01): Incomplete Testing of Class 1E
-
_4160 Volt Electrical System.
This item involved NRC inspector concerns over the adequacy of the
4160 volt Class 1E system. The NRC inspector reviewed all 4160 volt
Class 1E preoperational test packages, their deficiencies and resolutions
to their deficiencies. This item is closed.
.
_ . - - . _ _
.
_ - = ._ .. - - . _ _ - = - .
. .
-
.
-a.
(Closed) Open Item (50-482/8432-01): Cleanliness Controls in Maintenance
i Procedures
This item tracked a licensee agreement to review and revise, if necessary,
all maintenance procedures to ensure cleanliness controls were specified
in them. Following the licensee's review, the NRC inspector reviewed the
following randomly selected maintenance procedures and verified that
cleanliness controls were specified in them:
-
MPM M711Q-02, Revision 1, Primary Manway Covers Removal / Installation
-
MPM M712Q-01, Revision 2, Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Inspection
-
MPM M713Q-01, Revision 2, Pressurizer Manway Cover and Maintenance
-
MCM M221Q-01, Revision 2, 150-300 lb Manually Operated Gate, Globe,
and Swing Check Valves
-
MPM M141-01, Revision 2, Crosby Type J0-WR Relief Valve Maintenance
-
MPM M72Q-01, Revision 3, Residual Heat Removal Pump Mechanical Seal
Removal and Replacement
i This item is closed.
The following two items were incorrectly numbered when closed in NRC
Inspection Report 50-482/84-55:
1 -
(Closed) Open Item (50-482/8449-05): This item tracked licensee
responce to NRC comments on Administrative Procedures ADM 01-001,
002, and 003. The licensee adequately resolved these comments on
December 3, 1984. This item was incorrectly identified as Item
No. 482/8449-03.
'
-
(Closed) Open Item (50-482/8449-04): This item tracked licensee
response to NRC comments on Procedure SU3-EJ01. The licensee has
resolved the comments to the inspector's satisfaction. This item was
,
incorrectly identified as Item No. 482/8449-02.
4. Operational Safety Verification
The NRC inspectors verified that the facility is being operated safely and
in conformance with regulatory requirements by direct observation of
licensee facilities, tours of the facility, interviews and discussions
with licensee personnel, independent verification of safety system status
and limiting conditions for operations, and reviewing facility records.
The NRC inspectors, by observation and direct interview, verified that the
physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with the
security plan. The NRC inspectors, by observation and review of
t'
documents, verified that radiation protection activities were controlled,
f
By observing valve pasitions, electrical breaker positions, and control
room indications, the NRC inspectors confirmed the operability of the
component cooling water system, Class 1E 4160 volt AC electrical system
i
,
6
- -- ,--. - - - .- - ,._,n. . - . , .- _ _
,, . - . , . - _ , - . _ , . ~ , ,
- *
,
,
-5-
the the auxiliary feedwater system. The NRC inspectors also visually
inspected safety components for leakage, physical damage, and any other
impairment that could prevent them from performing their designed
function.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5. Engineered Safety Features (ESF) System Walkdown
The NRC inspectors verified the operability of ESF systems by walking down
selected accessible portions of the systems. The NRC inspectors verified
valves and electrical circuit breakers were in the required position,
power was available, and valves were locked where required. The NRC
inspectors also inspected system components for damage or other conditions
that could degrade system performance. The ESF systems listed below were
walked down during this inspection report period:
-
Residual Heat Removal System
-
Safety Injection System
No violations or deviations were identified.
6. Onsite Followup of Events
The NRC inspectors performed onsite followup of nonemergency events that
occurred during this report period. The NRC inspectors discussed each
event with cognizant licensee personnel and reviewed logs and computer
printouts related to the event. When available, the NRC inspectors
observed control room personnel response and instrumentation indicators of
reactor plant parameters. The NRC inspectors verified that the licensee
had responded to the event in accordance with procedures and had notified
the NRC and other agencies when required in a timely fashion.
ESF actuations that occurred during the report period are listed in the
table below. The NRC inspector will review the L; cense Event Report (LER)
for each of these events and will report any findings in subsequent NRC
inspection reports.
Date Event * Plant Status Cause
12/9/85 CRVIS Mode 1 Broken Tape
12/9/85 CRVIS Mode 1 Broken Tape
12/10/85 CRVIS Mode 1 Broken Tape
12/13/85 CRVIS Mode 1 Broken Tape
12/18/85 CRVIS Mode 1 Broken Tape
- CRVIS-Control room ventilation isolation signal
Selected NRC inspector observations are discussed below:
r
.
I.
-6-
On December 14, 1985, at approximately 0117 hours0.00135 days <br />0.0325 hours <br />1.934524e-4 weeks <br />4.45185e-5 months <br /> CST, licensee security
personnel reported heavy smoke and flame coming from a paint shop located
outside of the protected area boundary and approximately 900' west of
the radwaste building. The fire brigade was mustered and Off-Normal
Procedure 0FN-00-16, " Fire Response," was entered. At 0126 hours0.00146 days <br />0.035 hours <br />2.083333e-4 weeks <br />4.7943e-5 months <br /> the city
of Burlington Fire Department was called and arrived onsite at 0145 hours0.00168 days <br />0.0403 hours <br />2.397487e-4 weeks <br />5.51725e-5 months <br />.
It required approximately 2,550' of hose, 24,000 gallons of water, and
41 minutes to bring the fire under control. It required an additional
21 minutes to extinguish tne remaining significant hot spots. As stated in
Wolf Creek Event Report 85-135, low temperatures and the distance to a
reliable water source (approximately 600' contributed significantly to
the damage caused by the fire and the difficulty in achieving extinguish-
ment. The fire did not at any time threaten any safety-related equipment
required for.the safe shutdown of the plant.
The following licensee defect / deficiency reports ** were reviewed:
-
85-90 - Turbine Trip
-
85-91 - Feedwater Isolation System (FWIS)
-
85-92 - Reactor Trip
-
85-93 - FWIS
-
85-97 - CRVIS
-
85-98 - CRVIS- 85-102 - Reactor Trip
- 85-103 - CRVIS- 85-108 - CRVIS- 85-123 - Missed Hourly Fire Watch
- 85-148 - Area 5 Floor Drains Capped
- 85-152 - Three Fire Dampers Not Installed
The following Wolf Creek Event Reports *** were reviewed:
- 85-132 - 50 MW Turbine Runback
- 85-135 - Paint Shop Fire
- A defect / deficiency is an internal licensee report on defects and/or
deficiencies found in design or construction. These reports are issued to
appropriate personnel and agencies.
- Wolf Creek Event Reports are events that are not specifically
reportable as a defect / deficiency report but are events which plant
management should be made aware of.
No violations or deviations were identified.
-- -
- - . - - _ - -. _-
. . .
.
.
-7-
7. Followup of IE Bulletins (IEB)
The NRC inspector, by review of documents, verified that the IEB discussed
below had been reviewed and appropriately acted upon by the licensee.
6aq: rd) IEB 85-02: Undervoltage Trip Attacb5 ants of Westinghouse DB-50
'
iysg_9eactorTripBreakers(RTB).
This IEB informed licensees of re11 ability prc51 ems with Westinghouse
DB-50 Type RTBs and specified additional testing that should be performed
on RTBs that had not yet been modified with an automatic shunt trip. This
IEB is closed based on the following:
-
The RTBs at WCGS are not Westinghouse Type DB-50. The RTBs at WCGS
are Type 05-416.
-
The RTBs at WCGS have been modified to include a shunt trip feature.
This modification was done in accordance with Westinghouse SAPM
10661, " Addition of Automatic Shunt Trip Feature and Time Response
Test Point." This modification and related testing were reviewed by
an NRC inspector and found to be acceptable. The NRC inspector
review was documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-482/84-44
(paragraph 4, Inspection of Generic Letter 83-28).
No violations or deviations were identified.
8. Monthly Maintenance Observation
The NRC inspector observed maintenance activities performed on
safety-related systems and components to verify that these activities were
conducted in accordance with approved procedures, Technical
Specifications, and applicable industry codes and standards. The
following elements were considered by the NRC inspector during the
observation and/or review of the maintenance activities:
-
Limiting conditions for operation (LCO) were met and, where
applicable, redundant components were operable.
-
Activities complied with adequate administrative controls.
-
Where required, adequate, approved, and up-to-date procedures were
used.
-
Craftsmen.were qualified to accomplish the designated task and
technical' expertise (i.e., engineering, health physics, operations)
were made available when appropriate.
< -
Replacement parts and materials being used were properly certified.
-
Required radiological controls were implemented.
i
- _ . . _ _
. . .
.
-
-8-
-
Fire prevention controls were implemented where appropriate.
-
Required alignments and surveillances to verify post maintenance
operability were performed.
-
Quality control hold points and/or checklists were used when
appropriate and quality control personnel observed designated work
activities.
Selected portions of the maintenance activities accomplished on the Work
Request (WR) listed below were observed and related documentation reviewed
by the NRC inspector:
-
WR 11540-85, Mini Purge System-Visual Inspection and Leak Test per
PMR-1389
No violations or deviations were identified.
9. Monthly Surveillance Observation ,
The NRC inspectors observed selected portions of the performance of
surveillance testing and/or reviewed completed surveillance test
procedures to verify that surveillance activities were performed in
accordance with Technical Specifications (TS) requirements and
administrative procedures. The NRC inspectors considered the following
items while inspecting surveillance activities:
-
Testing was being accomplished by qualified personnel in accordance
with an approved procedure.
-
The surveillance procedure conforms to TS requirements.
-
Required test instrumentation was calibrated.
-
Technical Specification limiting conditions for operation were
satisfied.
-
Test data was accurate and complete. The NRC inspectors performed
independent calculations of selected test data to verify their
accuracy.
-
The performance of the surveillance procedure conformed to applicable
administrative procedures.
-
The surveillance was performed within the required frequency and the
test results met the required limits.
s
',' *
.
-9-
Surveillances witnessed and/or reviewed by the NRC inspectors are listed
below:
-
STS AL-102, Revision 2 - Motor Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump 'B'
Inservice Pump Test
-
STS EJ-100, Revision 4 - Residual Heat Removal System Inservice
Pump Test (Train A Only)
-
STS BB-004, Revision 3 - RCS Water Inventory Balance
-
STS CR-001, Revision 3 - Shift Log For Modes 1, 2, and 3
-
STS IC-601A, Revision 4 - Slave Relay Test K601 Train A Safety
Injection
-
STS IC-913, Revision 3 - Containment Hydrogen Analyzer GS-065B
-
STS IC-260, Revision 2 - Analog Channel Operational Test Auxiliary
Feedwater Pump Suction Pressure Low
Transfer to ESW
-
STS PE-017, CKL PE-045, Revision 0 - Local Leak Rate Test
-
STS IC-209A, Revision 1 - 4KV Degraded Voltage T.A.D.0.T. NB01
Bus-Separation Group 1
-
STS IC-209B, Revision 1 - 4KV Degraded Voltage T.A.D.0.T. NB02
Bus-Separation Group 4
NRC inspector observations are discussed below:
On December 18, 1985, the NRC inspector observed portions of the
performance of Surveillance Procedure STS AL-102, Revision 2, " Motor
Driven Auxiliary Feed Water Pump 'B' Inservice Pump Test," and had the
. following two concerns related to the way the test was conducted:
-
A temporary flow gage had been installed for the surveillance with a
" calibrate before using" sticker on its face.
Licensee personnel performing the surveillance had immediately
identified the problem with the flow gage and had contacted cognizant
instrumentation and control personnel to correct the problem. The
wrong gage had been installed due to human error.
-
Due to delays caused by replacing the temporary flow gage and pump
packing adjustments, the individual performing the surveillance
terminated the original copy of the surveillance procedure, obtained
a new copy, and started the surveillance over from the beginning.
Contrary to licensee procedural requirements, the partially completed
original was torn up and thrown away after being terminated. The
discarded procedure was later retrieved from the trash by the
supervising operator and terminated properly in accordance with
licensee procedures.
The NRC inspector discussed these two events with appropriate licensee
personnel. The licensee appears to have adequate procedures established
and implemented to correctly perform (including terminating)
. . .
,
,
-10-
surveillances. The individuals involved in the events were reinstructed
in the correct method for accomplishing the above tasks. The method for
properly terminating a surveillance was made required reading for all
operations personnel.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10. Environmental Protection
On December 17,'1985, during a routine inspection of the control room, the
NRC inspector observed an internal licensee letter from environmental
management to WCGS control room concerning operation at elevated condenser
cooling water temperature (delta Ts). Due to operational problems, only
two condenser circulating water pumps were running, thus requiring
increased delta Ts if the plant were to remain at or near full power. In
discussions with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, it was agreed
that no significant increase in aquatic mortality would exist with an
increased condenser delta T and thus a letter was issued December 16,
1985, from environmental management to the control room effectively
removing environmental delta T limitations. As stated in Section 3.1 to
Appendix B to Facility ' Operation License No. NPF-42 issued June 4,1985,
"The licensee may make changes in station design or operation . . .
affecting the environment provided such activities do not involve an
unreviewed environmental question and do not involve a change in the
Environmental Protection Plan (EPP)." The NRC inspector requested a copy
of the completed unreviewed environmental question determination (UEQD)
from the licensee. Several days later on December 20, 1985, the UEQD was
provided. The licensee informed the NRC inspector that, although the UEQD
was signed on December 20, 1985, the actual determination had been
performed prior to issuing the December 16, 1985, letter and there was
simply a delay in completing the EPP design or operational change
evaluation form (KSF-LE3A). The licensee committed to ensure the
evaluation forms were completed prior to any future changes affecting the
environment.
No violations or deviations were identified. ,
11. Interview of Shift Advisors
License Condition 2.C(6) of Wolf Creek Generating Station Facility
Operating License NPF-42 required KG&E to have a qualified shift advisor
in the control room until a KG&E licensed senior operator on each shift
had fulfilled the experience requirements delineated in Attachment 2 to
the license. By Letter KMLNRC 85-255, dated November 19, 1985, KG&E
notified the NRC that the experience requirement of License
Condition 2.C(6) had been met and the use of shift consultants in the
control room would be terminated on December 20, 1985.
a
. .
, 3
-11-
The NRC inspectors interviewed the six shift consultants to determine if
they had any concerns about the way the plant was being operated. All of
the consultants stated that they were confident the personnel on the
shifts they had worked with were capable and were operating the plant
safely.
No violations or deviations were identified.
12. Fire Protection
On December 11, 1985, the NRC inspector observed a fire drill and attended
the followup critique. The simulated fire was in an electrical load
center located in the turbine building. Fire brigade members responded
promptly to the fire equipment lockers, donned appropriate fire protective
clothing, checked personal equipment, obtained backup equipment as
necessary, and proceeded to the simulated fire. Applicable
procedures were used and the fire brigade members and other onshift
personnel responded in a professional manner.
No violations or deviations were identified. -
13. Plant Tours
At various times during the course of the inspection period the NRC
inspectors conducted general tours of the reactor building, auxiliary
building, radwaste building, fuel handling building, control building,
turbine building, essential service water building, and the secured area
surrounding the buildings. During the tours, the NRC inspectors observed
housekeeping practices, fire protection barriers and equipment, and
maintenance on equipment. The NRC inspectors also discussed various
subjects with licensee personnel. The WCGS operations superintendent
accompanied the NRC inspectors on a tour of the auxiliary building on
December 12, 1985.
Selected NRC inspector findings are discussed below:
During plant tours, the following conditions which could have affected the
performance of safety-related equipment were observed by the NRC
inspectors:
-
On December 23, 1985, a stepladder (approximately 6' long) was
observed that had been abandoned above the control room suspended
ceiling. The ladder could have fallen on operators and/or
safety-related components.
-
On December 12, 1985, an unattended stepladder (approximately 6'
long) was observed on a catwalk approximately 30 feet above emergency
E ,
.,.,
-12-
diesel generator 'B' . The ladder could have fallen and damaged
components of the emergency diesel generator system.
-
On December 12, 1985, an extension ladder (approximately 12' long)
was observed being supported by safety-related conduit 3J1025. The
conduit is located on the 2000' level in the northeast corner of the
auxiliary building. On December 18, 1985, an extension ladder
(approximately 12' long) was observed being supported by residual
heat removal system piping. Improperly secured ladders above
seismically qualified components presents unanalyzed conditions if a
postulated Safe Shutdown Earthquake should occur.
-
Numerous equipment hoists mounted on monorails over the top of
safety-related equipment were observed with the lifting hooks hanging
in a lowered position where they could possibly strike and damage
safety-related equipment (i.e., valves, pumps).
-
On December 12, 1985, the NRC inspectors observed hoist lifting hooks
hanging in the lowered position adjacent to the following
safety-related equipment:
-
Main Steam Isolation Valves AB HV-11, AB HV-14 and AB HV-17
-
Coolant Charging Pump 'A'
-
Safety Injection Pump 'A'
Section 9.a, Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February
1978, " Quality Assurance Program Re*quirements (0perations)," requires that
procedures be established and implemented for maintenance activities that
can affect the performance of safety-related equipment. The failure to
establish and implement procedures for the activities described above -
which could have affected the performance of safety-related equipment is a
violation. (50-482/8538-01)
~
The above conditions were discussed with appropriate licensee personnel,
who took action to eliminate these potential hazards to safety-related
equipment.
.
A task force of licensee personnel was established whose function was to
tour areas which contained safety-related equipment, identify housekeeping
problems and potential hazards to safety-related equipment components, and
to initiate actions to correct any problems identified.
14. Quality First File Review
On December 13, 1985, the NRC inspectors reviewed 12 Quality First (Q1)
files. The files contained 20 concerns that had been re.ceived by Q1
- ,
fi)- , '! ' ',
-13-
during September, October, and November 1985. At the time of the review,
two of the files were still being worked by Q1 and had not been closed.
< The NRC inspectors verified the following during the review of each file:
-
Documentation contained adequate information to support conclusion.
-
Conclusion adequately addressed concern.
-
Response to concerned individual was documented.
To further verify adequacy of Q1 conclusions, the NRC inspectors selected
two concerns for followup field review. If any NRC findings result from
the followup review of these two concerns, they will be documented in a
j future NRC inspection report.
No violations or deviations were identified.
15. ' Exit Meeting
'
The NRC inspectors met with licensee personnel to discuss the scope and
- findings of this inspection on January 7,1986. The NRC inspectors also
attended entrance / exit meetings of NRC region-based inspectors
, identified below:
Inspection Lead Area Inspection
Period Inspector Inspected Report No.
12-2/5-85 J. Kelly Security 85-44
. 12-2/5-85 B. Spitzberg Environmental
.
Monitoring 85-43-
12-9/13-85 D. Chaney Radiation 85-38
Protection
l
l
}
,
i
'~~- -- - -. ,.-,a, -+._,n, , - . - - - . , - - - - . - - - - , , - - . , . - - . .