ML20133G610

Insp Rept 50-482/85-25 on 850520-23.Violation Noted: Portions of Mod Packages Missing from QA Record Vault & Mod Packages Contained Documentation Which Did Not Indicate Required Signatures

ML20133G610
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	07/22/1985
From:	Choules N, Hawkins F, Martin L, Walker H NRC - WOLF CREEK TASK FORCE, NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133G602	List: ML20133G600 ML20133G603 ML20133G610
References
50-482-85-25, NUDOCS 8508080770
Download: ML20133G610 (6)

See also: IR 05000482/1985025

Text

._ _ _ _ _

,

?

"'

--,

,_ ,

m

'

U.S. NUCLEAR ' REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV' .

.

Report No. 50-482/85-25 .

Docket No. 50-482 License No. NPF-32

Licensee: Kansas Gas and Electric Company

Post Office Box 208' -

' Wichita, Kansas 67201-

Facility Name:

E - Wolf Creek, Unit 1

Inspection At: Wolf Creek Site, Coffey County, Burlington, Kansas

Inspection Conducted: May 20-23, 1985

Inspectors: , a //8,f5

p.T.Choules pte/

. llb

g/,) fC A~.

Walker [ ' ' ~ ~ pte/

Approved: / / 7 E6

F

/V.Wakkins, SectionChief, Quality Assurance Programs .

0(te/

.

-

~

L.'E.l art hief, Wolf Creek Task Force gatf'

Inspection Summary '

Inspection on May 20-23, 1985 (Report-No.-50-482/84-25)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by Region III inspectors of

the startup testing QA program,. design change and modification program and

~

licensee' action on previous inspection findings.' The inspection involved a

total of 56 inspector-hours onsite.

Results: Of the two areas inspected, one'-violation was identifie'd in one

area (paragraph 4). '

C508080770

PDR

850726

O ADOCK 05000482

-

carn

,_ -

. .

'

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-482/85025

Docket No. 50-482 License No. NPS-25

Licensee: Kansas Gas and Electric Company

Post Office Box 208

Wichita, Kansas 67201

Facility Name: Wolf Creek, Unit 1

- Inspection At: Wolf Creek Site, Coffey County, Burlington, Kansas

Inspection Conducted: May 20-23, 1985

Inspectors:

-

N. C. Choules 0

& (s/Y/Oh

-

H l0/0[

'

Date

Approved By: F. Hawkins, Chief [a/4//65

Quality Assurance Programs Section Datt '

L. E. Martin, Chief

Wolf Creek Task Force Date

I

1h 1 71 b/

I

'

R. P. Denise, Director

Reactor Safety and Projects

g)[ ,

Da1.e

Inspection Summary

Inspection on May 20-23, 1985 (Report No. 50-482/84025)

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection by Region III inspectors of

the startup testing QA program, design change and modification program and

licensee action on previous inspection findings. The inspection involved a

total of 56 inspector-hours onsite.

Results: Of the two areas inspected, one violation was identified in one

area (Paragraph 4).

'

4

._

,

.

-.

-2-

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E)

• G. L. Koester, Vice President Nuclear

• F. T. Rhodes, Plant Manager

• M.'G. Williams, Superintendent, Regulatory, Quality, and Administrative

Services

• C. C. Mason, Director, Nuclear Operations

• C. G. Patrick, Superintendent, Quality Evaluations

• J. A. Bailey, Director, Engineering and Technical Services

• J. M. Pippin, Manager, Management Systems

• R. E.-Gimple, Supervisor, Quality Engineering

• A. A. Freital, Assistant Manager, Nuclear Plant Engineering

• S. F. Hatch, Training Supervisor

• D. L.~ Reed, ISEG

• D. D. Meredith, Safety Engineer

D. A. Colwell, Quality Assurance Technologist

• K. R. Peterson, Licensing

• 04 'L. Maynard, Licensing

• H. K. Chernoff, Licensing'

• D. C. Tokach,' Configuration Management Coordinator

Bechtel Corporation

'

A.'Eckmyre, Nuclear Plant Engineering

USNRC

• J. E. Cummins, Senior Resident Inspector

H. F. Bundy, Resident Inspector

B. Bartlett, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those attending the exit interview on May 23, 1985.

The inspectors also contacted other licensee personnel during the

inspection.

2. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings

a. (0 pen) Open Item (482/8432-01): Maintenance procedures did not

contain instructions for maintaining internal cleanliness during

.

maintenance work. The licensee was in the process of reviewing

l maintenance procedures for cleanliness requirements.and revising them

as necessary. The licensee estimated that 50% of the maintenance

procedures had been reviewed and revised. This item will remain

open pending the completion of the reviews and revisions.

l

,

- - -

-

.

.

~

-3--

b .' (Closed) Open Item (482/8432-02): 'A maintenance notebook

-containingllimitorque data was not controlled; The licensee has

discontinued the.use of this notebook and will use other controlled

documents,for limitorque-data.

i

"

c. .(Closed) Open Item (482/8432-07): -Implementation of the test and

"

.. experiment program had not-been implemented. The inspector verified

'

,

. that'the licensee had implemented the test ~and experiment program.

Review of selected '?Special Procedures" showed the procedures' had

been reviewed and approved.in accordance with the requirements of

the' test'and experiment program.

d .' .(Closed) Open Item-(482/8435-04): The inspection of design changes

iand modifications could'not be completed due to a lack of activity

, in.this~ area. During this~ inspection the review of design changes

,

and modifications was completed and is reported in paragraph 4.

3. Quality Assurance' for Startup -Test- Program

The inspector reviewed.the licensee's operational Quality Assurance

- program for startup and power ascension' testing.

. a.- . Documents Reviewed

(1) l Selected Audit Reports of Startup Testing >- e

a > .(2) Selected Surveillance Reports of Startup Testing . t

p . s

'

- ~ i ,' b. >Results of Inspection

'" ' '

72 . The audit and surveillance program was reviewed to verify that

D1 '

requirements had been developed for the observation of testing,.

'

4

tracking of test deficiencies, , review of test documentation and .

~

' *

. .

' acceptance criteria, and review of the status of measuring and te'st

'

<

J;-(- ,

, ,

. equipment. Surveillance and audit reports were reviewed to_ verify. ,

'

!

c; ? , , ,

,, ., > proper . implementation. Quality' Assurance personnel were interviewed '  ;

' ' ' -

,

to. verify that they understood their basic responsibilities'during.

f

- '

the startup testing phase. Surveillance and audit reports'and correc-

J$-

. ' tive action documents were also reviewed tol verify that identified

M.. ' deficiencies were being tracked and resolved.' ' Additionally, the

,  ; 1I inspector observed audit personnel ~ perform surveillances of initial '

.g,, .

criticality testing. .

.

L~ '.

e

/ -

" No violations or' deviations were identified in this area. .

'

,

.,

4. -Design' Change and Modification Program

. . .

.

.

"fC The inspectors. reviewed the implementation of the design change and

-modification program to verify compliance with the operational QA

program; 10 CFR 50.59; 10 CFR 50, Appendix B; and the Technical

Specifications..

-

A-

s

1

~

,_

v

-4-

a. Documents Reviewed

(1)' Procedures

(a) KCP-1131, Revision 0 with PCNs Nos. 01, 02 and T-01,

" Plant Modification Process"

(b)- QP 9.1, Revision 0 with PCN 01, " Processing of Work

-Request"

(c) ADM 01-022, Revision 8, " Authorization of Changes, Tests,

'^^

and Experiments (10 CFR 50.59)

(d) ADM 01-041, Revision 4 with temporary change No MA

85-465, " Plant Modification Request" ,

"

-

'.

(e) ADM 01-042, Revision 4 with temporary change form MA - *

85-1060, " Engineering Study for Plant Modification Request"

"

(f) ADM 01-057, Revision 7, " Work Request"

(2) Selected design change and modification records

b. Results of Inspection

.The inspector reviewed the Plant Modification Request (PMR) Status

'.

= Report and selected eight safety-related modifications for review.,

Modifications selected were PMRs 00384, 00447, 00554, 00575,-00581,

-

, 00586, 00606 and WO 84-KE028. The status report indicated that work

on the selected modifications had been completed and the modifications

had been. released to operations.

'

During the review, the following observations were made:

(1) Records for the PMRs reviewed did not contain objective evidence

of the plant manager's approval as required by paragraphs 7.1.3

of KCP-1131 and 2.3 of ADM 01-041. The plant manager's signature

does appear on the PSRC review sheets which provides evidence of

PSRC review of the modification. The inspector was informed that

this signature is the plant manager's approval which indicates

that his responsibilities, required by these procedures, have

been performed. The inspector has no further questions

regarding this matter at this time.

(2) Additional items noted on individual packages reviewed were as

follows:

(a) PMR 00384 (WR 91002-85): The nuclear safety evaluation

checklist which provides evidence of the 50.59 evaluation

by the onsite review committee, was missing. It was not

located during the inspection.

(b) PMR 00447 (WR 02986-85): The complete package was missing j

from the vault and could not be located. A copy of the

package was later located and the inspector reviewed the

L

a - .:, ,

lT s .- -

'

.

~

~

.m'1 -

'

~5- .

copy. ~This-PMR was designated ass 'afety-related on the PMR

status report and the PMR. The associated work request

.(WR 02986-85),- which was-used to both initiate and complete

the modification,,was designated.as nonsafety-related.

2 Records indicate that the work was performed as nonsafety-

+related work and no'QC inspection was performed.

~

'

'

<

(c) 'PMR 00556: This package:was; missing from the vault.- The

record copy was not located;"however, a copy:of the PMR

and supporting documentation was located in the Results

Engineering secretary's file. The associated work. request

-was not located. x .

,

(d)' PMR 00581 (WR 04279-85): Th'e modification package was.

r . missing from the records vault. The record copy could not

be located; however, a copy was located in an individual's

file. In reviewing-this copy, the inspector noted that the

copy did not contain a signoff by QE in block No. 35 to

~> indicate acceptance of the installation. There was also

no-signoff for section review in block No. 33.

(e) 'PMT-00586 (WR04604-85): A copy of the work request was

located in the vault. The record copy of the PMR was.not

located; however, a copy of the PMR and supporting docu-

, mentation was located in the Results Engineering secretary's

file. .The work request, which was used for both initiation

and completion of this modification, was designated as

'.

nonsafety-related. .The PMR and the PMR status log indicated

that the modification was safety related. Records indicated

the work was performed as nonsafety-related and no QC

inspection was performed on:the installation.

(f) PMR 00606 (WR 91206-85): There was no signature in block

, No. 35 to indicate QC inspection and acceptance of the

>

,

installation.

(g) PMR WO84-KE028 (WR 07250-84): A copy of the work request-

was located in the records vault. A copy of the PMR'and

i '. supporting documentation could not be located.

^

These failures to provide control over activities affecting'

, quality are-in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II

,

" '

~(482/8525-01).

r .

5. Exit Interview

, The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)

on May_27, 1985, and summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the

inspection. The. inspectors discussed the likely informational content of

the-inspection report with regard to documents or processes which were

reviewed. The licensee did not identify any documents or processes as

2proprietary.

j

.-

' ' ' '

')