ML20140A576

Insp Rept 50-267/85-33 on 851209-13.Violation Noted: Failure to Perform Safety Evaluation for Installed Temporary Gauges & Failure to Review Design Change for Suitability

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: ML20140A551 ML20140A562 ML20140A576
References
50-267-85-33, NUDOCS 8601230228
Download: ML20140A576 (4)

See also: IR 05000267/1985033

Text

_

.

1  ;

l

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,

Colorado

Inspection Conducted: December 9-13, 1985

! Inspector: /2/z7/97

M. E. Skow, Project Engineer, Project Section A, Date

Reactor Projects Branch

Approved: - - #

J. T Jauffon, Ch .f,ProjectSgfdhh,

/ / 2M

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

G

D

i

r

- 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

.

i

NRC Inspection Report 50-267/85-26, hereafter referred to as the PAT

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

4

i

Technical Specifications. Changes to these equipments required a safety

evaluation as described in 10 CFR 50.59. No safety evaluation had been

i

i

performed at the time of the PAT inspection. In addition, the licensee

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

t

i Gearcase oil used for Motor Operated Valve (MOV) applications differed

I

from that reconsnended by the vendor manual and may not have been suitable

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

a to and tripped the wrong breaker. The licensee is evaluating the training

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

)

.

,

.- .- - _ -_

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