ML16043A054
ML16043A054 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Wolf Creek |
Issue date: | 02/11/2016 |
From: | Nick Taylor NRC/RGN-IV/DRP/RPB-B |
To: | Heflin A Wolf Creek |
Taylor N | |
References | |
EA-16-018 IR 2015004 | |
Download: ML16043A054 (57) | |
See also: IR 05000482/2015004
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
1600 E. LAMAR BLVD.
ARLINGTON, TX 76011-4511
February 11, 2016
Mr. Adam C. Heflin, President and
Chief Executive Officer
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation
P.O. Box 411
Burlington, KS 66839
SUBJECT: WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION
REPORT 05000482/2015004 AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Dear Mr. Heflin:
On December 31, 2015, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an
inspection at your Wolf Creek Generating Station. On January 27, 2016, the NRC inspectors
discussed the results of this inspection with Stephen Smith, Plant Manager, and other members
of your staff. Inspectors documented the results of this inspection in the enclosed inspection
report.
NRC inspectors documented two findings of very low safety significance (Green) in this report.
Both of these findings involved violations of NRC requirements. The NRC is treating these
violations as non-cited violations (NCVs) consistent with Section 2.3.2.a of the NRC
The enclosed inspection report also discusses a violation associated with a finding of very
low safety significance (Green). The NRC evaluated this violation in accordance with
Section 2.3.2.a of the NRC Enforcement Policy, which appears on the NRCs Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html. The violation is cited in
the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding it are described in
the subject inspection report. The violation is being cited because the licensee did not establish
adequate measures to assure that the cause of train A Class 1E electrical equipment
air-conditioning system (SGK05A unit) trips that occurred on October 18, 2013, was determined
and corrective action taken to preclude repetition of SGK05A unit trips. The condition recurred
twice on May 15, 2015. This violation was previously identified by the NRC as NCV 05000482/2013005-04, after which the licensee failed to restore compliance.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. If you have additional information that you
believe the NRC should consider, you may provide it in your response to the Notice. The NRCs
review of your response to the Notice will also determine whether further enforcement action is
necessary to ensure your compliance with regulatory requirements.
A. Heflin -2-
If you contest the violations or significance of the NCVs, you should provide a response within
30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001; with
copies to the Regional Administrator, Region IV; the Director, Office of Enforcement,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the NRC resident
inspector at the Wolf Creek Generating Station.
If you disagree with a cross-cutting aspect assignment in this report, you should provide a
response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your
disagreement, to the Regional Administrator, Region IV; and the NRC resident inspector at the
Wolf Creek Generating Station.
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.390, Public
Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding, a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your
response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRCs Public
Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the NRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible
from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic
Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Nicholas H. Taylor, Branch Chief
Project Branch B
Division of Reactor Projects
Docket No.: 50-482
License No.: NPF-42
Enclosure 1: Notice of Violation
Enclosure 2: Inspection Report 05000482/2015004
w/ Attachment: Supplemental Information
cc w/ encl: Electronic Distribution
SUNSI Review ADAMS Non- Publicly Available Keyword:
By: NHT Yes No Sensitive Non-Publicly Available NRC-002
Sensitive
OFFICE SRI/DRP/B RI/DRP/B AC:ACES C:DRS/PSB C:DRS/PSB2 C:DRS/EB1 C:DRS/EB2
1
NAME DDodson FThomas JRollins MHaire HGepford TFarnholtz GWerner
SIGNATURE /RA/-E /RA/E- /RA/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/
DATE 2/10/16 2/10/16 2/11/16 2/4/16 2/5/16 2/2/16 2/2/16
OFFICE TL/DRS/TSS C:DRS/OB C:DRP/B
NAME THipschman VGaddy NTaylor
SIGNATURE /RA/ /RA/ /RA/
DATE 2/2/16 2/2/16 2/11/16
Letter to Adam Heflin from Nicholas Taylor dated February 11, 2016
SUBJECT: WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION
REPORT 05000482/2015004
DISTRIBUTION:
Regional Administrator (Marc.Dapas@nrc.gov)
Deputy Regional Administrator (Kriss.Kennedy@nrc.gov)
DRP Director (Troy.Pruett@nrc.gov)
DRP Deputy Director (Ryan.Lantz@nrc.gov)
DRS Director (Anton.Vegel@nrc.gov)
DRS Deputy Director (Jeff.Clark@nrc.gov)
Senior Resident Inspector (Douglas.Dodson@nrc.gov)
Resident Inspector (Fabian.Thomas@nrc.gov)
WC Administrative Assistant (Vacant)
Branch Chief, DRP/B (Nick.Taylor@nrc.gov)
Senior Project Engineer, DRP/B (David.Proulx@nrc.gov)
Project Engineer, DRP/B (Shawn.Money@nrc.gov)
Project Engineer, DRP/B (Steven.Janicki@nrc.gov)
Public Affairs Officer (Victor.Dricks@nrc.gov)
Project Manager (Fred.Lyon@nrc.gov)
Team Leader, DRS/TSS (Thomas.Hipschman@nrc.gov)
RITS Coordinator (Marisa.Herrera@nrc.gov)
ACES (R4Enforcement.Resource@nrc.gov)
Regional Counsel (Karla.Fuller@nrc.gov)
Technical Support Assistant (Loretta.Williams@nrc.gov)
Congressional Affairs Officer (Jenny.Weil@nrc.gov)
RIV Congressional Affairs Officer (Angel.Moreno@nrc.gov)
OEWEB Resource (OEWEB.Resource@nrc.gov)
OEWEB Resource (Sue.Bogle@nrc.gov)
RIV/ETA: OEDO (Raj.Iyengar@nrc.gov)
ROPreports.Resource@nrc.gov
ROPassessment.Resource@nrc.gov
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Company Docket No: 50-482
Wolf Creek Generating Station License No: NPF-42
During an NRC inspection, conducted from September 27 through December 31, 2015, a
violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy,
the violation is listed below:
Title 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, requires, in part, in
the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, that measures shall assure that the
cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition.
Contrary to the above, from October 18, 2013, to May 16, 2015, the licensee failed, in
the case of a significant condition adverse to quality, to assure that the cause of the
condition was determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition.
Specifically, the licensee did not establish adequate measures to assure that the cause
of train A Class 1E electrical equipment air-conditioning system (SGK05A) unit trips that
occurred on October 18, 2013, was determined and corrective action taken to preclude
repetition of the SGK05A unit trips. The condition recurred twice on May 15, 2015. This
violation was previously identified by the NRC as non-cited
violation 05000482/2013005-04, after which the licensee failed to restore compliance.
This violation is associated with a Green significance determination process finding.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Company is
hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with a copy to the
Regional Administrator, Region IV, 1600 East Lamar Blvd, Arlington, TX 76011, and a copy to
the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice, within 30 days of the
date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation. This reply should be clearly marked as a
"Reply to Notice of Violation EA-16-018," and should include: (1) the reason for the violation, or,
if contested, the basis for disputing the violation or severity level, (2) the corrective steps that
have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken, and (4) the
date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previous
docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a
Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified,
suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where
good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with
the basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
E1-1 Enclosure 1
Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC
Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from the
NRC website at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, to the extent possible, it should not
include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made
available to the public without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is
necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your
response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your
response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must
specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in
detail the basis for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will
create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by
10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial
information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please
provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.
In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working
days of receipt.
Dated this 11th day of February, 2016.
E1-2
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket: 05000482
License: NPF-42
Report: 05000482/2015004
Licensee: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation
Facility: Wolf Creek Generating Station
Location: 1550 Oxen Lane NE
Burlington, KS 66839
Dates: September 27 through December 31, 2015
Inspectors: D. Dodson, Senior Resident Inspector
F. Thomas, Resident Inspector
K. Clayton, Senior Operations Engineer
P. Elkmann, Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector
G. Guerra, CHP, Emergency Preparedness Inspector
A. Meyen, Physical Security Inspector
G. Pick, Senior Reactor Inspector
Approved By: Nicholas H. Taylor
Chief, Project Branch B
Division of Reactor Projects
E2-1 Enclosure 2
SUMMARY
IR 05000482/2015004; 09/27/2015 - 12/31/2015; Wolf Creek Generating Station;
Problem Identification and Resolution
The inspection activities described in this report were performed between September 27 and
December 31, 2015, by the resident inspectors at Wolf Creek Generating Station and inspectors
from the NRCs Region IV office. Three findings of very low safety significance (Green) are
documented in this report. All of these findings involved violations of NRC requirements.
Additionally, NRC inspectors documented one licensee-identified violation of very low safety
significance. The significance of inspection findings is indicated by their color (Green, White,
Yellow, or Red), which is determined using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Significance
Determination Process, issued April 29, 2015. Their cross-cutting aspects are determined
using Inspection Manual Chapter 0310, Aspects within the Cross-Cutting Areas, Issued
December 4, 2014. Violations of NRC requirements are dispositioned in accordance with the
NRC Enforcement Policy. The NRCs program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial
nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, Reactor Oversight Process.
Cornerstone: Mitigating Systems
- Green. The inspectors identified a Green cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B,
Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, for the licensees inadequate measures to assure that
corrective action was taken to preclude repetition of a significant condition adverse to
quality. Specifically, measures to correct train A Class 1E electrical equipment
air-conditioning system (SGK05A) issues following two trips of the unit on October 18, 2013,
failed to preclude repetition, which resulted in the SGK05A unit tripping twice on May 15,
2015; the train A safety-related batteries, inverters, and alternating and direct current buses
being declared inoperable due to the loss of area cooling; two separate Technical
Specification 3.0.3 entries; and separate technical specification required reactor power
reductions to 93 and 94.7 percent. The licensees immediate corrective actions included
troubleshooting to determine the direct cause of the compressor trips, stationing a dedicated
operator following the second trip on May 15, 2015, and subsequently implementing
Temporary Modification 15-013-GK-00, which restored compliance. Actions to prevent
recurrence following the May 15, 2015, SGK05A trips, documented in apparent cause
evaluation 96392, included conducting a seminar with station managers to review lessons
learned from the event, completing a change package to replace the SGK05A compressor
that has been the source of residual contamination that has led to numerous trips of the unit,
and tracking of the timely replacement of the SGK05A compressor with a due date of
December 15, 2016. Wolf Creek entered this issue into its corrective action program as
Condition Reports 96392 and 96397.
This finding is more than minor because it is associated with the equipment performance
attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and affected the associated cornerstone
objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to
initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences (i.e., core damage). Specifically, the
train A safety-related batteries, inverters, and alternating and direct current buses became
inoperable and their capability to respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable
consequences was impacted as a result of the SGK05A unit tripping. In accordance with
Inspection Manual Chapter 0609.04, Initial Characterization of Findings, and Exhibit 3 of
Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix A, The Significance Determination
Process (SDP) for Findings At-Power, issued June 19, 2012, and April 29, 2015,
E2-2
respectively, the performance deficiency affects a mitigating structure, system, and
component. The performance deficiency does not affect the design or qualification of a
mitigating structure, system, and component, and the structure, system, and component did
not maintain its functionality. Additionally, the finding does not represent a loss of system
and/or function, the finding does not represent an actual loss of function of at least a single
train for greater than its technical specification allowed outage time or two separate safety
systems out-of-service for greater than their technical specification allowed outage time, and
the finding does not represent an actual loss of function of one or more non-technical
specification trains of equipment designated as high safety-significant in accordance with
the licensees maintenance rule program for greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Therefore, the
inspectors determined that this finding is of very low safety significance (Green). In
accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0310, Aspects Within The Cross-Cutting
Areas, issued December 4, 2014, the finding has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of
human performance, resources, because the licensee did not ensure that personnel,
equipment, procedures, and other resources were available and adequate to support
nuclear safety. Specifically, senior managers did not ensure successful completion of the
replacement of the SGK05A compressor in Refueling Outage 20, which was a missed
opportunity that resulted in the SGK05A unit tripping twice on May 15, 2015, as a result of
the same direct cause [H.1]. (Section 4OA2)
- Green. The inspectors identified a Green non-cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, for the licensees failure to establish measures to
assure that applicable regulatory requirements and the design basis, for applicable
structures, systems, and components, are correctly translated into specifications, drawings,
procedures, and instructions. Specifically, the licensee failed to ensure that safety-related
essential service water valves in the control building were adequately protected from
external flooding hazards in the event of a design basis local intense precipitation event,
which resulted in a reasonable doubt on the operability of safety-related essential service
water valves. The stations immediate corrective actions included entering the condition into
the corrective action program and performing a prompt operability evaluation that showed
the essential service water valves remained operable. Additional corrective actions include
accelerating three Fukushima project schedules that include a new sump pump in the
turbine building area four cable vault, ground and surface water improvements for
non-safety related electrical duct banks, and new sump pumps in electrical manholes near
the turbine building. The violation was entered into the licensees corrective action program
as Condition Report 102250.
This finding is more than minor because it is associated with the design control attribute of
the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and affected the associated cornerstone objective to
ensure the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events
to prevent undesirable consequences (i.e., core damage). Specifically, during design basis
local intense precipitation events, the safety-related essential service water train A and B
service water cross-connect motor-operated valves EFHV0023, EFHV0024, EFHV0025, and
EFHV0026, and the essential service water train A and B to service water system valves
EFHV0039, EFHV0040, EFHV0041, and EFHV0042 were susceptible to external flooding
hazards, and there was a reasonable doubt on the operability of these essential service
water valves; however, subsequent evaluation determined that the essential service water
valves would not have been impacted in the event of a design basis local intense
precipitation event, and the valves were determined to be operable. In accordance with
Inspection Manual Chapter 0609.04, Initial Characterization of Findings, and Exhibit 2 of
Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix A, The Significance Determination
E2-3
Process (SDP) for Findings At-Power, issued June 19, 2012, and April 29, 2015,
respectively, the performance deficiency affects mitigating structures, systems, and
components. The finding is a deficiency affecting the design or qualification of mitigating
structures, systems, and components, and the structures, systems, and components
maintained their operability and functionality. Therefore, the inspectors determined that this
finding is of very low safety significance (Green). In accordance with Inspection Manual
Chapter 0310, Aspects Within The Cross-Cutting Areas, issued December 4, 2014, the
finding has a cross cutting aspect in the area of human performance, challenge the
unknown, because Wolf Creek individuals did not stop when faced with uncertain conditions.
Specifically, the licensee did not maintain a questioning attitude during flooding walk-downs
performed in accordance with NEI 12-07 or during evaluation of Condition Report 59257 to
identify and resolve unexpected conditions like the floor drain pathway from the
communication corridor to the control building basement (room 3101), which was an
opportunity for the station to identify the open pathway from the exterior of the plant [H.11].
(Section 4OA2)
- Green. The inspectors identified a Green non-cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings, for the licensees failure
to accomplish activities affecting quality in accordance with Procedure AP 26C-004,
Operability Determination and Functionality Assessment, Revision 31. Specifically, the
licensee failed to document an operability determination of sufficient scope to address the
capability of safety-related essential service water valves in the control building to perform
their specified safety functions in the event of a design basis local intense precipitation
event. Immediate corrective actions included completing a prompt operability determination
and performing analyses that determined the valves remained operable. Additional
corrective actions include accelerating three Fukushima project schedules that include a
new sump pump in the turbine building area four cable vault, ground and surface water
improvements for non-safety related electrical duct banks, and new sump pumps in
electrical manholes near the turbine building. The violation was entered into the licensees
corrective action program as Condition Report 100299.
This finding is more than minor because it is associated with the equipment performance
attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and affected the associated cornerstone
objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to
initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences (i.e., core damage). Specifically,
during design basis local intense precipitation events, the safety-related essential service
water train A and B service water cross-connect motor-operated valves EFHV0023,
EFHV0024, EFHV0025, and EFHV0026, and the essential service water train A and B to
service water system valves EFHV0039, EFHV0040, EFHV0041, and EFHV0042 were
susceptible to external flooding hazards, and there was a reasonable doubt on the
operability of these essential service water valves; however, subsequent evaluation
determined that the essential service water valves would not have been impacted in the
event of a design basis local intense precipitation event, and the valves were determined to
be operable. In accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0609.04, Initial
Characterization of Findings, and Exhibit 2 of Inspection Manual Chapter 0609,
Appendix A, The Significance Determination Process (SDP) for Findings At-Power, issued
June 19, 2012, and April 29, 2015, respectively, the performance deficiency affects
mitigating structures, systems, and components. The finding is not a deficiency affecting the
design or qualification of mitigating structures, systems, and components; the finding does
not represent a loss of system and/or function; the finding does not represent an actual loss
of function of at least a single train or two separate safety systems out-of-service for greater
E2-4
than their allowed outage times; and the finding does not represent an actual loss of function
of one or more non-technical specification trains of equipment. Therefore, the inspectors
determined that this finding is of very low safety significance (Green). In accordance with
Inspection Manual Chapter 0310, Aspects Within The Cross-Cutting Areas, issued
December 4, 2014, the finding has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of human
performance, conservative bias, because Wolf Creek did not use decision making-practices
that emphasize prudent choices over those that are simply allowable, and proposed action
was not determined to be safe in order to proceed, rather than unsafe in order to stop.
Specifically, the licensee did not consider long-term consequences or design basis events
when determining how to resolve emergent concerns like the unexpected water in room
3101, which resulted in the licensees failure to thoroughly evaluate and assess impacts to
the plant when Condition Report 96404 was entered into the corrective action program on
May 17, 2015 [H.14]. (Section 4OA2)
E2-5
PLANT STATUS
Wolf Creek began the inspection period at 100 percent power and remained at or near
100 percent power for the entire inspection period.
REPORT DETAILS
1. REACTOR SAFETY
Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity
1R01 Adverse Weather Protection (71111.01)
Readiness for Seasonal Extreme Weather Conditions
a. Inspection Scope
On December 14, 2015, the inspectors completed an inspection of the stations
readiness for seasonal extreme weather conditions. The inspectors reviewed the
licensees adverse weather procedures for extreme cold weather and evaluated the
licensees implementation of these procedures. The inspectors verified that prior to the
onset of extreme cold weather, the licensee had corrected weather-related equipment
deficiencies identified during the previous winter.
The inspectors selected two risk-significant systems that were required to be protected
from cold weather conditions:
- Refueling water storage tank supply to emergency core cooling systems
- Essential service water system
The inspectors reviewed the licensees procedures and design information to ensure the
systems would remain functional when challenged by adverse cold weather. The
inspectors verified that operator actions described in the licensees procedures were
adequate to maintain readiness of these systems. The inspectors walked down portions
of these systems to verify the physical condition of the adverse weather protection
features.
These activities constituted one sample of readiness for seasonal adverse weather, as
defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.01.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R04 Equipment Alignment (71111.04)
.1 Partial Walkdown
a. Inspection Scope
On October 21, 2015, the inspectors performed a partial system walk-down of the train A
residual heat removal system, a risk-significant system.
E2-6
The inspectors reviewed the licensees procedures and system design information to
determine the correct lineup for the systems. They visually verified that critical portions
of the system were correctly aligned for the existing plant configuration.
These activities constituted one partial system walk-down sample as defined in
Inspection Procedure 71111.04.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Complete Walkdown
a. Inspection Scope
On November 16, 2015, the inspectors performed a complete system walk-down
inspection of the B emergency diesel generator. The inspectors reviewed the licensees
procedures and system design information to determine the correct B emergency diesel
generator lineup for the existing plant configuration. The inspectors also reviewed
outstanding work orders, open condition reports, in-process design changes, temporary
modifications, and other open items tracked by the licensees operations and
engineering departments. The inspectors then visually verified that the system was
correctly aligned for the existing plant configuration.
These activities constituted one complete system walk-down sample, as defined in
Inspection Procedure 71111.04.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R05 Fire Protection (71111.05)
Quarterly Inspection
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated the licensees fire protection program for operational status
and material condition. The inspectors focused their inspection on four plant areas
important to safety:
- October 21, 2015, Fire Area A-2, auxiliary building A train safety-related
pump rooms, elevation 1974 feet
- November 3, 2015, Fire Area C-10, engineered safety feature switchgear room
number 2, elevation 2000 feet
- December 15, 2015, Fire Area A-3, boric acid tank rooms, elevations 1974 feet
and 2026 feet
E2-7
- December 15, 2015, Fire Area C-22, upper cable spreading room, elevation
2073 feet 6 inches
For each area, the inspectors evaluated the fire plan against defined hazards and
defense-in-depth features in the licensees fire protection program. The inspectors
evaluated control of transient combustibles and ignition sources, fire detection and
suppression systems, manual firefighting equipment and capability, passive fire
protection features, and compensatory measures for degraded conditions.
These activities constituted four quarterly inspection samples, as defined in Inspection
Procedure 71111.05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program and Licensed Operator Performance
(71111.11)
.1 Review of Licensed Operator Requalification
a. Inspection Scope
On November 10, 2015, the inspectors observed an evaluated simulator scenario
performed by an operating crew. The inspectors assessed the performance of the
operators and the evaluators critique of their performance in executing Requalification
Simulator Exam Scenario LR4412801. The inspectors also assessed the modeling and
performance of the simulator during the requalification activities.
These activities constitute completion of one quarterly licensed operator requalification
program sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.11.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Review of Licensed Operator Performance
a. Inspection Scope
On December 18, 2015, the inspectors observed the performance of on-shift licensed
operators in the plants main control room. At the time of the observations, the plant was
in a period of heightened activity due to the control rooms response to a plant status
control issue in the control room during the completion of Procedure STS IC-618B,
Slave Relay Test K618 Train B Safety Injection, Revision 22.
In addition, the inspectors assessed the operators adherence to plant procedures,
including AP 21-001, Conduct of Operations, Revision 74, and other operations
department policies.
E2-8
These activities constitute completion of one quarterly licensed operator performance
sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.11.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.3 Annual Review of Requalification Examination Results
The licensed operator requalification program involves two training cycles that are
conducted over a 2-year period. In the first cycle, the annual cycle, the operators are
administered an operating test consisting of job performance measures and simulator
scenarios. In the second part of the training cycle, the biennial cycle, operators are
administered an operating test and a comprehensive written examination. For this
annual inspection requirement, the licensee was in the first part of the training cycle.
a. Inspection Scope
The inspector conducted an in-office review of the annual requalification training
program to determine the results of this program.
On December 2, 2015, the licensee informed the lead inspector of the following results:
- Of the 49 total licensed operators, 49 operators were tested
- 10 of 10 crews passed the simulator portion of the operating test
- 49 of 49 licensed operators passed the simulator portion of the operating test
- 48 of 49 licensed operators passed the job performance measure portion of the
examination
The individual that failed the job performance measure portions of the operating test was
remediated, retested, and passed his retake tests prior to returning to shift.
The inspector completed one inspection sample of the annual licensed operator
requalification program.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness (71111.12)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed four instances of degraded performance or condition of
structures, systems, and components (SSCs):
- December 9, 2015, condensate pump unplanned outages that occurred on
April 26, 2014, November 15, 2014, and May 5, 2015
E2-9
- December 29, 2015, B auxiliary feedwater pump trip on March 11, 2014, and
turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump control power panel non-functional on
April 4, 2015
- December 29, 2015, non-safety auxiliary feedwater pump trips on August 24,
2015, and September 13, 2015
- December 29, 2015, two A train Class 1E electrical equipment air-conditioning
system (SGK05A) unit trips on May 15, 2015
The inspectors reviewed the extent of condition of possible common cause SSC failures
and evaluated the adequacy of the licensees corrective actions. The inspectors
reviewed the licensees work practices to evaluate whether these may have played a
role in the degradation of the SSCs. The inspectors assessed the licensees
characterization of the degradation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.65 (the
Maintenance Rule), and verified that the licensee was appropriately tracking degraded
performance and conditions in accordance with the Maintenance Rule.
These activities constituted completion of four maintenance effectiveness samples, as
defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.12.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control (71111.13)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed three risk assessments performed by the licensee prior to
changes in plant configuration and the risk management actions taken by the licensee in
response to elevated risk:
- October 6, 2015, extended motor-driven feedwater pump maintenance
- October 13 and 14, 2015, planned B centrifugal charging pump and residual heat
removal pump maintenance, respectively
- November 3, 2015, planned B component cooling water pump breaker
maintenance
The inspectors verified that these risk assessments were performed timely and in
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.65 (the Maintenance Rule) and plant
procedures. The inspectors reviewed the accuracy and completeness of the licensees
risk assessments and verified that the licensee implemented appropriate risk
management actions based on the results of the assessments.
Additionally, on November 9, 10, and 11, 2015, the inspectors observed emergent
maintenance activities associated with the NB02 safety-related bus breakers for the
B safety injection, B residual heat removal, and B containment spray pumps, which had
the potential to affect the functional capability of mitigating systems.
E2-10
The inspectors verified that the licensee appropriately developed and followed a work
plan for these activities. The inspectors verified that the licensee took precautions to
minimize the impact of the work activities on unaffected SSCs.
These activities constitute completion of four maintenance risk assessments and
emergent work control inspection samples, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.13.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R15 Operability Determinations and Functionality Assessments (71111.15)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed three operability determinations that the licensee performed for
degraded or nonconforming SSCs:
- October 19, 2015, Condition Report 100380, operability determination of the
degraded breaker clip condition associated with the NB0111 B emergency diesel
generator output breaker to the NB01 Class 1E electrical bus with degraded
breaker clips
- October 21, 2015, Condition Report 100299, operability determination of the
essential service water train A and B service water cross-connect valves
EFHV0023, EFHV0024, EFHV0025, and EFHV0026, and the essential service
water train A and B to service water system valves EFHV0039, EFHV0040,
EFHV0041, and EFHV0042 with degraded turbine building area four cable vault
- November 9, 2015, Condition Report 100760, operability determination of the
B essential service water system following a failed surveillance
The inspectors reviewed the timeliness and technical adequacy of the licensees
evaluations. Where the licensee determined the degraded SSCs to be operable, the
inspectors verified that the licensees compensatory measures were appropriate to
provide reasonable assurance of operability. The inspectors verified that the licensee
had considered the effect of other degraded conditions on the operability of the
degraded SSCs.
The inspectors reviewed operator actions taken or planned to compensate for degraded
or nonconforming conditions. The inspectors verified that the licensee effectively
managed these operator workarounds to prevent adverse effects on the function of
mitigating systems and to minimize their impact on the operators ability to implement
abnormal and emergency operating procedures.
These activities constitute completion of four operability and functionality review
samples, which included one operator work-around sample, as defined in Inspection
Procedure 71111.15.
E2-11
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R19 Post-Maintenance Testing (71111.19)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed four post-maintenance testing activities that affected
risk-significant SSCs:
- November 4, 2015, B emergency diesel generator and feeder breaker following
planned maintenance
- November 5, 2015, B essential service water pump and feeder breaker following
planned maintenance
- November 9, 2015, B safety injection pump and feeder breaker following planned
maintenance
- November 10, 2015, B containment spray pump and feeder breaker following
planned maintenance
The inspectors reviewed licensing- and design-basis documents for the SSCs and the
maintenance and post-maintenance test procedures. The inspectors observed the
performance of the post-maintenance tests to verify that the licensee performed the tests
in accordance with approved procedures, satisfied the established acceptance criteria,
and restored the operability of the affected SSCs.
These activities constitute completion of four post-maintenance testing inspection
samples, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.19.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R22 Surveillance Testing (71111.22)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors observed two risk-significant surveillance tests and reviewed test results
to verify that these tests adequately demonstrated that the SSCs were capable of
performing their safety functions:
Other surveillance tests:
ISO Switch, Revision 2A
- December 21, 2015, STS BG-100A, Centrifugal Charging System A Train
Inservice Pump Test, Revision 46
E2-12
The inspectors verified that these tests met technical specification requirements, that the
licensee performed the tests in accordance with their procedures, and that the results of
the test satisfied appropriate acceptance criteria. The inspectors verified that the
licensee restored the operability of the affected SSCs following testing.
These activities constitute completion of two surveillance testing inspection samples, as
defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.22.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
Cornerstone: Emergency Preparedness
1EP4 Emergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes (71114.04)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed an on-site review of the following emergency plan documents:
- Procedure AP 06-002, Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Revision 18
- Form APF 06-002-1, Emergency Action Levels, Revision 17A
These revisions added a new figure, Airborne Pathway Sampling Locations, added
references to NRC Regulatory Guide 1.101, Emergency Planning and Preparedness for
Nuclear Power Reactors, changed the contamination limits for food and water to the
ingestion pathway protective action guidelines implemented by the state of Kansas,
added the Neosho Rapids Grade School as a reception center, implemented the
chemistry shop laboratory as the environmental laboratory, changed the direct radiation
pathway sampling locations to match those in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, and
implemented several editorial changes.
These revisions were compared to their previous revisions, to the criteria of
NUREG 0654, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency
Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, to
NEI 99-01, Methodology for the Development of Emergency Action Levels, Revision 5,
and to the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) to determine if the revision adequately
implemented the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q)(3) and 50.54(q)(4). The inspectors
verified that the revisions did not reduce the effectiveness of the emergency plan. This
review was not documented in a safety evaluation report and did not constitute approval
of licensee-generated changes; therefore, these revisions are subject to
future inspection.
These activities constitute completion of two emergency action level and emergency
plan change samples, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71114.04.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
E2-13
1EP6 Drill Evaluation (71114.06)
Emergency Preparedness Drill Observation
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors observed an emergency preparedness drill on November 3, 2015, to
verify the adequacy and capability of the licensees assessment of drill performance.
The inspectors reviewed the drill scenario, observed the drill from the simulator, the
emergency offsite facility, and alternate technical support center, and attended the
post-drill critique. The inspectors verified that the licensees emergency classifications,
off-site notifications, and protective action recommendations were appropriate and
timely. The inspectors verified that any emergency preparedness weaknesses were
appropriately identified by the licensee in the post-drill critique and entered into the
corrective action program for resolution.
These activities constitute completion of one emergency preparedness drill observation
sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71114.06.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1EP7 Exercise Evaluation - Hostile Action Event (71114.07)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors observed the December 8, 2015, biennial emergency plan exercise to
verify the exercise acceptably tested the major elements of the emergency plan,
provided opportunities for the emergency response organization to demonstrate key
skills and functions, and demonstrated the licensees ability to coordinate with offsite
emergency responders. The scenario simulated:
- An assault on the station by waterborne and land-based adversaries
- Faults on two vital electrical buses
- An explosion and fire at a fuel oil storage tank
- Injured plant employees
- Damage to spent fuel pool cooling pumps and piping resulting in a lowering of
the spent fuel pool level
The scenario was designed to demonstrate the licensees capability to implement its
emergency plan under conditions of uncertain physical security.
During the exercise the inspectors observed activities in the control room simulator and
the following emergency response facilities:
- Alternate technical support center
E2-14
- Alternate operations support center
- Emergency operations facility
- Central and/or secondary alarm stations
- Incident command post
The inspectors focused their evaluation of the licensees performance on event
classification, offsite notification, recognition of offsite dose consequences, development
of protective action recommendations, staffing of alternate emergency response
facilities, and the coordination between the licensee and offsite agencies to ensure
reactor safety under conditions of uncertain physical security.
The inspectors also assessed recognition of, and response to, abnormal and emergency
plant conditions, the transfer of decision-making authority and emergency function
responsibilities between facilities, on-site and offsite communications, protection of plant
employees and emergency workers in an uncertain physical security environment,
emergency repair evaluation and capability, and the overall implementation of the
emergency plan to protect public health and safety and the environment. The inspectors
reviewed the current revision of the facility emergency plan, emergency plan
implementing procedures associated with operation of the licensees primary and
alternate emergency response facilities, and procedures for the performance of
associated emergency and security functions.
The inspectors attended the post-exercise critiques in each emergency response facility
to evaluate the initial licensee self-assessment of exercise performance. The inspectors
also attended a presentation of critique items to plant management conducted on
December 15, 2015. The specific documents reviewed during this inspection are listed
in the attachment.
The inspectors reviewed the scenarios of two previous biennial exercises and records of
licensee drills and exercises, conducted between January 2014 and November 2015, to
determine whether the December 8, 2015, exercise was independent and avoided
participant preconditioning, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix E, IV.F(2)(g). The inspectors also compared observed exercise performance
with corrective action program entries and after-action reports for drills and exercises
and events that occurred between January 2014 and November 2015 to determine
whether previously identified weaknesses had been corrected in accordance with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(14) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, IV.F.
These activities constituted completion of one exercise evaluation sample, as defined in
Inspection Procedure 71114.07.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1EP8 Exercise Evaluation - Scenario Review (71114.08)
a. Inspection Scope
The licensee submitted the preliminary exercise scenario for the December 8, 2015,
biennial exercise to the NRC on October 6, 2015, in accordance with the requirements of
E2-15
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, IV.F(2)(b). The inspectors performed an in-office review of
the proposed scenario to determine whether it would acceptably test the major elements
of the licensees emergency plan and provide opportunities for the emergency response
organization to demonstrate key skills and functions.
These activities constituted completion of one exercise evaluation scenario review
sample, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71114.08.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
4. OTHER ACTIVITIES
Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, Barrier Integrity, Emergency
Preparedness, Public Radiation Safety, Occupational Radiation Safety, and
Security
4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification (71151)
.1 Safety System Functional Failures (MS05)
a. Inspection Scope
For the period of October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015, the inspectors reviewed
licensee event reports, maintenance rule evaluations, and other records that could
indicate whether safety system functional failures had occurred. The inspectors used
definitions and guidance contained in Nuclear Energy Institute Document 99-02,
Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, and
NUREG 1022, Event Reporting Guidelines: 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, Revision 3, to
determine the accuracy of the data reported.
These activities constituted verification of the safety system functional failures
performance indicator, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Mitigating Systems Performance Index: Heat Removal Systems (MS08)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the licensees mitigating system performance index data for the
period of October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015, to verify the accuracy and
completeness of the reported data. The inspectors used definitions and guidance
contained in Nuclear Energy Institute Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment
Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, to determine the accuracy of the reported
data.
These activities constituted verification of the mitigating system performance index for
heat removal systems, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151.
E2-16
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.3 Mitigating Systems Performance Index: Residual Heat Removal Systems (MS09)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the licensees mitigating system performance index data for the
period of October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015, to verify the accuracy and
completeness of the reported data. The inspectors used definitions and guidance
contained in Nuclear Energy Institute Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment
Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, to determine the accuracy of the reported
data.
These activities constituted verification of the mitigating system performance index for
residual heat removal systems, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.4 Drill/Exercise Performance (EP01)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the licensees evaluated exercises, emergency plan
implementations, and selected drill and training evolutions that occurred between
October 2014 and September 2015 to verify the accuracy of the licensees data for
classification, notification, and protective action recommendation opportunities. The
inspectors reviewed a sample of the licensees completed classifications, notifications,
and protective action recommendations to verify their timeliness and accuracy. The
inspectors used Nuclear Energy Institute Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment
Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, to determine the accuracy of the reported
data. The specific documents reviewed are described in the attachment to this report.
These activities constituted verification of the drill/exercise performance indicator, as
defined in Inspection Procedure 71151.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.5 Emergency Response Organization Readiness (EP02)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the licensees records for participation in drill and training
evolutions between October 2014 and September 2015 to verify the accuracy of the
licensees data for drill participation opportunities. The inspectors verified that all
members of the licensees emergency response organization in the identified key
E2-17
positions had been counted in the reported performance indicator data. The inspectors
reviewed the licensees basis for reporting the percentage of emergency response
organization members who participated in a drill. The inspectors reviewed drill
attendance records and verified a sample of those reported as participating. The
inspectors used Nuclear Energy Institute Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment
Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, to determine the accuracy of the reported
data. The specific documents reviewed are described in the attachment to this report.
These activities constituted verification of the emergency response organization drill
participation performance indicator, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.6 Alert and Notification System Reliability (EP03)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the licensees records of alert and notification system tests
conducted between October 2014 and September 2015 to verify the accuracy of the
licensees data for siren system testing opportunities. The inspectors reviewed
procedural guidance on assessing alert and notification system opportunities and the
results of periodic alert and notification system operability tests. The inspectors used
Nuclear Energy Institute Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance
Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, to determine the accuracy of the reported data. The
specific documents reviewed are described in the attachment to this report.
These activities constituted verification of the alert and notification system reliability
performance indicator, as defined in Inspection Procedure 71151.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
4OA2 Problem Identification and Resolution (71152)
.1 Routine Review
a. Inspection Scope
Throughout the inspection period, the inspectors performed daily reviews of items
entered into the licensees corrective action program and periodically attended the
licensees condition report screening meetings. The inspectors verified that licensee
personnel were identifying problems at an appropriate threshold and entering these
problems into the corrective action program for resolution. The inspectors verified that
the licensee developed and implemented corrective actions commensurate with the
significance of the problems identified. The inspectors also reviewed the licensees
problem identification and resolution activities during the performance of the other
inspection activities documented in this report.
E2-18
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Semiannual Trend Review
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the licensees corrective action program, performance
indicators, station performance reports, and other documentation to identify trends that
might indicate the existence of a more significant safety issue. The inspectors verified
that the licensee was taking corrective actions to address identified adverse trends.
These activities constitute completion of one semiannual trend review sample, as
defined in Inspection Procedure 71152.
b. Observations and Assessments
The inspectors evaluated a sample of issues and events that occurred over the course
of the past two quarters to determine whether issues were appropriately considered as
emerging or adverse trends. The inspectors verified that these issues were addressed
within the scope of the corrective action program or through department review and
documentation in the quarterly trend presentation for overall assessment. The
inspectors noted NRC Inspection Report 05000482/2015002 documented a trend with
respect to the licensees procedure adherence. Apparent increases in the number of
issues associated with following Procedure AP 10-104, Breach Authorization, and
Procedure AP 26C-004, Operability Determination and Functionality Assessment,
relate to the previously identified trend in procedure adherence.
The inspectors noted an apparent increase in the number of issues associated with
following Procedure AP 10-104, Breach Authorization:
- NRC Inspection Report 05000482/2015001 documents an inspector identified
non-cited violation (NCV) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V,
Instructions, Procedures, Drawings, associated with the licensees failure to
follow the requirements of Procedure AP 10-104, Breach Authorization,
Revision 32. Specifically, on February 24, 2015, the licensee failed to initiate a
breach permit and station a boundary watch when the auxiliary building
emergency exhaust system boundary door 41015 was opened multiple times for
transporting scaffolding from the turbine building to the auxiliary building; opening
this door without compensatory measures rendered the auxiliary building
emergency exhaust system inoperable. This issue was entered into the
corrective action program for resolution as Condition Reports 92315 and 92630.
- NRC Inspection Report 05000482/2015003 documents an inspector identified
NCV of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures,
Drawings, associated with the licensees inadequate implementation of
Procedure AP 10-104, Breach Authorization, Revision 34. Specifically, on
August 28, 2015, control room door 36043, which is a fire, security, and control
room ventilation isolation signal barrier, was fully opened prior to the breaching
party obtaining written authorization in accordance with procedure. This issue
E2-19
was entered into the corrective action program for resolution as Condition Report
99097.
- On October 19, 2015, the inspectors identified the A residual heat removal pump
room door blocked open by a sign that had fallen between the door and the
frame. This issue is associated with the licensees failure to follow the
requirements of Procedure AP 10-104, Breach Authorization, Revision 34.
Specifically, the licensee failed to initiate a breach permit when the A residual
heat removal pump room door was blocked open. With the door blocked open,
all functions of the boundary could still be met. The door was immediately closed
and the issue was entered into the corrective action program as Condition Report
100385.
- The inspectors identified on November 3, 2015, that a halon boundary between
the B train engineered safety feature switchgear room number 2 (room 3302) and
a small electrical chase was breached prior to the breaching party obtaining
required written authorization in accordance with Procedure AP 10-104, Breach
Authorization. Personnel were continuously posted at the breached boundary
and the inspectors would not have expected additional actions to be performed
had the breach authorization been obtained properly. Immediate corrective
actions included restoring the breached halon boundary and delaying other
ongoing work until the breached boundary was adequately sealed. The issue
was entered into the licensees correction action program as Condition Report
100700.
The inspectors discussed the apparent increase in the number of issues associated with
following Procedure AP 10-104, Breach Authorization, at the exit meeting on
January 27, 2016. The licensee entered this apparent trend into the corrective action
program as Condition Report 102289.
The inspectors also noted that licensee personnel had appropriately documented in the
corrective action program an operations division performance report operability
determination quality focus area, on May 2, 2015, in Condition Report 96033. Similarly,
the inspectors noted an apparent increase in the number of operability evaluation issues:
- NRC Inspection Report 05000482/2015001 documents an inspector identified
NCV of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures,
Drawings, associated with the licensees failure to complete an adequate
operability evaluation in accordance with Procedure AP 28-001, Operability
Evaluations, Revision 24, following the failure to meet a surveillance test
acceptance criteria. Specifically, on February 25, 2015, the licensee did not have
an accurate technical basis for declaring the train A control room air conditioning
unit operable when the minimum air flow rate was not met. This issue was
entered into the corrective action program for resolution as Condition Report
92274.
Functionality Assessment, Revision 32, states that functionality assessments
should include whether there is a reasonable expectation of functionality,
including the basis for the assessment and any compensatory measures put in
E2-20
place to establish or restore functionality. This procedure was not adequately
implemented on May 15, 2015, after the SGK05A unit tripped and the SGK05A
unit was declared functional without documentation of compensatory actions to
provide reasonable assurance that the SGK05A unit would operate reliably.
Although the functionality assessment did not discuss compensatory actions,
less formal actions to monitor SGK05A operation every 10 minutes and actions to
reset the unit following an SGK05A trip were implemented. This issue was
entered into the corrective action program as Condition Report 101790.
- As documented in NCV 05000482/2015004-03, Failure to Perform an Adequate
Operability Determination and Consider Design Basis Events, the inspectors
identified that the licensee failed to document an operability determination of
sufficient scope to address the capability of safety-related essential service water
valves in the control building to perform their specified safety functions in the
event of a design basis local intense precipitation event, which resulted in a
reasonable doubt on the operability of safety-related essential service water
valves. Please see NCV 05000482/2015004-03 for additional details regarding
this specific issue.
Functionality Assessment, Revision 32, Section 6.7, Surveillance Testing,
states, During a test, anomalous data with no clear indication of the cause must
be attributed to the equipment under test. In that case, a prompt determination of
operability is appropriate with follow-on corrective action as necessary, and this
procedure was not adequately implemented on November 9, 2015, after the B
essential service water pump failed surveillance testing in accordance with
Procedure STS EF-100B, ESW System Inservice Pump B & ESW B Check
Valve Test, Revision 46, and a prompt operability determination was not
completed to justify continued operability. Although a prompt operability
determination was not completed, the licensees immediate operability
determination and subsequent revisions adequately justified operability. This
issue was entered into the corrective action program for resolution as Condition
Report 100968.
The licensee documented in the evaluation associated with Condition Report 96033,
actions taken that included Operability Evaluation Update and Focus Topic training for
operations during the training cycle ending on October 8, 2015, and plans to perform the
training during subsequent cycles. The inspectors discussed the apparent increase in
the number of issues associated with operability determinations and compensatory
measures at the exit meeting on January 27, 2016.
c. Findings
No findings were identified.
.3 Annual Follow-up of Selected Issues
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors selected three issues for an in-depth follow-up:
E2-21
- On May 15, 2015, the SGK05A unit tripped twice, resulting in the train A
safety-related batteries, inverters, and alternating and direct current buses being
declared inoperable due to the loss of area cooling, two separate Technical
Specification 3.0.3 entries, and separate reactor power reductions to 93 and
94.7 percent.
The inspectors assessed the licensees problem identification threshold, cause
analyses, extent of condition reviews and compensatory actions. The inspectors
verified that the licensee appropriately prioritized the planned corrective actions
and that these actions were adequate to correct the condition.
- On May 17, 2015, during a heavy rainstorm, Wolf Creek personnel identified
water coming out of the ceiling in the hot chemistry lab (room 3228) of the
communication corridor building, through penetration P322W0902, and the water
began flooding the floor of the room. Water also began accumulating in the
essential service water pipe chase at a lower level in the control building (room
3101).
The inspectors assessed the licensees problem identification threshold, extent of
condition reviews, and compensatory actions. The inspectors verified that the
licensee appropriately prioritized the planned corrective actions and that these
actions were adequate to correct the condition.
- On November 24, 2015, November 25, 2015, December 14, 2015, and
December 19, 2015, the inspectors accompanied non-licensed operators during
their rounds, which included tours of the turbine building and adjacent areas, the
control building and adjacent areas, the auxiliary building and adjacent areas,
and areas outside of the main protected area.
The inspectors assessed the licensees problem identification threshold and
response to identification of adverse conditions. The inspectors verified that the
licensee appropriately prioritized the planned corrective actions, as applicable,
and that these actions were adequate.
These activities constitute completion of three annual follow-up samples, as defined in
b. Findings
b.1 Inadequate Measures to Assure SGK05A Issues Were Promptly Corrected
Introduction. The inspectors identified a Green cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, for the licensees inadequate measures to
assure that corrective action was taken to preclude repetition of a significant condition
adverse to quality. Specifically, measures to correct train A Class 1E electrical
equipment air-conditioning system (SGK05A) issues following two trips of the unit on
October 18, 2013, were inadequate, which resulted in the SGK05A unit tripping twice on
May 15, 2015, the train A safety-related batteries, inverters, and alternating and direct
current buses being declared inoperable due to the loss of area cooling, two separate
Technical Specification 3.0.3 entries, and resulting technical specification required
reactor power reductions to 93 and 94.7 percent.
E2-22
Description. On May 15, 2015, at 4:36 a.m., the SGK05A unit (the train A Class 1E
electrical equipment heating, ventilation, and air conditioning unit) tripped. A
non-licensed operator identified that the SGK05A unit was tripped with the Lube Oil
Failure indication in alarm. The train A safety-related batteries, inverters, and
alternating and direct current buses were declared inoperable when the SGK05A unit
tripped.
The SGK05A unit is a support system for the train A safety-related switchgears,
batteries, and inverters, which are technical specification systems. Section 9.4.1.2.3,
System Operation, of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) discusses the
function of the Class 1E electrical equipment air-conditioning system, The Class 1E
electrical equipment air-conditioning system is operated in a continuous recirculation
mode to maintain the engineered safety feature switchgear room, the battery rooms, and
the direct current switchgear rooms at or below a temperature of 90 degrees
Fahrenheit. When the SGK05A unit is declared non-functional, the supported technical
specification systems are subsequently declared inoperable.
After the SGK05A unit tripped on May 15, 2015, at 4:36 a.m., the licensee entered
numerous technical specification conditions, including Technical Specification 3.0.3.
Technical Specification 3.0.3 required the licensee to initiate actions within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> to
place the reactor in Mode 3 within 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> because the train A inverters were both
declared inoperable. The licensee completed a power reduction to 93 percent and
began returning power to 100 percent after restarting the SGK05A unit and exiting the
applicable technical specifications at 7:33 a.m.
On May 15, 2015, at 9:48 p.m., the SGK05A unit tripped again with the same Lube
Oil Failure indication in alarm. The licensee again entered Technical Specification 3.0.3
and others. The licensee completed a power reduction to 94.7 percent and began
returning power to 100 percent after the licensee restarted the SGK05A unit and
implemented additional compensatory measures. The licensees immediate corrective
actions and compensatory measures to ensure operability included troubleshooting to
determine the direct cause of the compressor trips, stationing a dedicated operator
following the second trip on May 15, 2015, documenting the issues in the corrective
action program as Condition Reports 96392 and 96397, and subsequently implementing
Temporary Modification 15-013-GK-00, which removed the lube oil failure trip feature
and restored compliance. Section 4OA2.2, Semiannual Trend Review, of this report,
includes additional discussion concerning the compensatory measures associated with
this issue.
In response to the two trips of the SGK05A unit on May 15, 2015, the licensee
completed an apparent cause evaluation associated with Condition Report 96392. The
Failure Evaluation section of the apparent cause evaluation concluded, The failed
component under evaluation was found to be [the] lube oil pressure sensor installed on
the SGK05A compressor. Based on the analysis tools and evaluationthe most likely
reason for failure was blockage of the lube oil pressure sensor inlet screen by residual
contaminants found within [the] compressor. The apparent cause is also described and
states, Senior managers failed to ensure supervisory and management oversight of
work activities to ensure successful completion of the replacement of the SGK05A
compressor in RF [(refueling outage)] 20. This missed opportunity allowed residual
contaminants entrained within the compressor sump to migrate to the lube oil sensor
inlet screen resulting in a false low lube oil signal.
E2-23
The inspectors reviewed a history of SGK05A equipment reliability issues. Prior to the
issues identified on May 15, 2015, the SGK05A unit tripped twice on October 18, 2013.
The direct cause of the October 18, 2013, SGK05A unit tripping twice was described in
the root cause analysis for Condition Report 75337. It states, The direct cause of this
condition is attributed to the loss of lube oil pressure sensing to the pressure switch of
the SGK05A compressor. To address the direct cause, the compressor was removed
from the system and a gravity flush of the crankcase was performed. The root cause is
also described and states, The root cause of this condition is attributed to the lack of
station awareness in relation to how Procedure AP 12-002 applies to the refrigerant side
of the GK [(control building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning)] HVAC [(heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning)] system. All actions associated with Condition
Report 75337 were completed by March 5, 2015. These actions included generating
specific guidance for flushing/restoring the control building heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems back to operability, including developing criterion for the flushing
and restoration processes; revising Procedure AP 12-002 to direct technicians to core
work instructions on heating, ventilation, and air conditioning cleanliness; and
incorporating the cause and actions into technician training.
Prior to the issues of 2013, the licensee began having issues with the SGK05A
compressor when it tripped on low oil pressure on June 4, 2012. The evaluation
associated with this issue and Condition Report 53709 stated, Moisture degraded the
compressor lube oil causing sludge and metal particulate to plug the internal oil screen
and restrict flow to the compressor oil pump. The inspectors confirmed through
interviews with licensee personnel that the direct cause of the trip on June 4, 2012, was
the same direct cause that impacted the SGK05A unit on October 18, 2013, and again
on May 15, 2015. The inspectors reviewed NRC Enforcement Manual Revision 9,
Section 2.2.2, Circumstances Resulting in Consideration of an NOV (vs. an NCV) for
Licensees and Non-Licensees with an Approved Corrective Action Program, and the
inspectors concluded that the licensee neither took appropriate action to restore
compliance in a reasonable period of time after becoming aware of a violation, nor took
compensatory measures until compliance was restored when compliance could not be
reasonably restored within a reasonable period of time. Specifically, the licensee did not
take appropriate action to restore compliance and correct the direct cause of SGK05A
trips, contaminants found within the compressor, in a reasonable period of time after
becoming aware of the violation as documented in NCV 05000482/2013005-04, Failure
to Preclude Repetition of a Significant Condition Adverse to Quality Affecting Class 1E
Air Conditioning Unit, (ADAMS Accession Number ML14041A484). Compliance was
restored on May 16, 2015, with the implementation of Temporary
Modification 15-013-GK-00, which removed the lube oil failure trip feature being
impacted by the contaminants found within the compressor.
NCV 05000482/2013005-04, Failure to Preclude Repetition of a Significant Condition
Adverse to Quality Affecting Class 1E Air Conditioning Unit, (ADAMS Accession
Number ML14041A484), which details the licensees failure to preclude repetition of a
significant condition adverse to quality. The NCV discusses SGK05A issues that
occurred on May 6, June 17, September 11, and October 18, 2013, and resulted in
Technical Specification 3.0.3 entries, plant shutdowns to complete repairs, and/or a
request for a Notice of Enforcement Discretion to continue operating and complete
repairs. NCV 05000482/2013005-04 concludes, Between September 11 and October
18, 2013, the licensee failed to preclude repetition of a significant condition adverse to
quality. Specifically, the train A Class 1E air conditioning unit had to be removed from
E2-24
service due to internal debris on June 17, September 11, and October 18, 2013, before
the cause was identified and corrected. The root cause evaluation associated with
Condition Report 75337 outlined the corrective actions to prevent recurrence and actions
to address the direct cause, as previously discussed.
This issue is NRC-identified because the inspectors identified that the two trips of the
SGK05A unit on May 15, 2015, were inappropriately characterized as a condition
adverse to quality, and an apparent cause evaluation was not appropriate to address
this issue in accordance with Procedure AI 28A-010, Screening Condition Reports,
Revision 21, effective December 12, 2014. Wolf Creek entered this issue into its
corrective action program as Condition Report 101788. The inspectors also identified
that the licensee did not propose corrective actions in the Condition Report 96392
evaluation that addressed the failure of the Condition Report 75337 evaluation to identify
adequate corrective actions. Specifically, the Condition Report 96392 evaluation
discusses a potential missed opportunity to prevent the event, and states that the
timeliness of the compressor replacement was [identified to have contributed to this
event], but there are not any corrective actions that directly address this concern. The
licensee entered this issue into its corrective action program as Condition Report
102331.
Actions to prevent recurrence following the May 15, 2015, SGK05A trips, documented in
apparent cause evaluation 96392, included conducting a seminar with station managers
to review lessons learned from the event, completing a change package to replace the
SGK05A compressor that has been the source of residual contamination that has led to
numerous trips of the unit, and tracking of the timely replacement of the SGK05A
compressor with a due date of December 15, 2016.
Analysis. The inspectors determined that the licensees failure to take adequate
corrective actions to preclude repetition of a significant condition adverse to quality in
accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, was a
performance deficiency. This finding is more than minor because it is associated with
the equipment performance attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and affected
the associated cornerstone objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and capability
of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences (i.e.,
core damage). Specifically, the train A safety-related batteries, inverters, and alternating
and direct current buses became inoperable and their capability to respond to initiating
events to prevent undesirable consequences was impacted as a result of the SGK05A
unit tripping.
In accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0609.04, Initial Characterization of
Findings, and Exhibit 3 of Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix A, The
Significance Determination Process (SDP) for Findings At-Power, issued June 19,
2012, and April 29, 2015, respectively, the performance deficiency affects a mitigating
structure, system, and component. The performance deficiency does not affect the
design or qualification of a mitigating SSC, and the SSC did not maintain its functionality.
Additionally, the finding does not represent a loss of system and/or function, the finding
does not represent an actual loss of function of a least a single train for greater than its
technical specification allowed outage time or two separate safety systems
out-of-service for greater than their technical specification allowed outage time, and the
finding does not represent an actual loss of function of one or more non-technical
specification trains of equipment designated as high safety-significant in accordance with
E2-25
the licensees maintenance rule program for greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Therefore, the
inspectors determined that this finding is of very low safety significance (Green).
In accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0310, Aspects Within The Cross-Cutting
Areas, issued December 4, 2014, the finding has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of
human performance, resources, because the licensee did not ensure that personnel,
equipment, procedures, and other resources were available and adequate to support
nuclear safety. Specifically, the licensee did not ensure successful completion of the
replacement of the SGK05A compressor in Refueling Outage 20, which was a missed
opportunity that resulted in the SGK05A unit tripping twice on May 15, 2015, as a result
of the same direct cause [H.1].
Enforcement. Title 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action,
requires, in part, that in the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the
measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective
action taken to preclude repetition. Contrary to the above, from October 18, 2013, to
May 16, 2015, in the case of a significant condition adverse to quality, measures did not
to assure that the cause of the condition was determined and corrective action taken to
preclude repetition. Specifically, the licensee did not establish adequate measures to
assure that the cause of a significant condition adverse to quality, contaminants
impacting the reliability of the SGK05A unit, were determined and corrective action taken
to preclude repetition, and the same significant condition adverse to quality resulted in
the train A safety-related batteries, inverters, and alternating and direct current buses
becoming inoperable and their capability to respond to initiating events to prevent
undesirable consequences being impacted on June 12, 2012, October 18, 2013, and
May 15, 2015. The licensees immediate corrective actions included troubleshooting to
determine the direct cause of the compressor trips, stationing a dedicated operator
following the second trip on May 15, 2015, and subsequently implementing Temporary
Modification 15-013-GK-00, which restored compliance. This violation was of very low
safety significance (Green), and the licensee entered this issue into its corrective action
program as Condition Reports 96392, 96397, and 101788. This violation is being
treated as a cited violation, consistent with Section 2.3.2 of the Enforcement Policy,
because the licensee did not restore compliance (or demonstrate objective evidence of
plans to restore compliance) within a reasonable period of time (i.e., in a timeframe
commensurate with the significance of the violation) after a violation was identified. This
is a violation of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Appendix B,
Criterion XVI, Corrective Action. A Notice of Violation is attached:
VIO 05000482/2015004-01, "Inadequate Measures to Assure SGK05A Issues Were
Promptly Corrected."
b2. Failure to Ensure Essential Service Water Valves Were Adequately Protected From
External Flooding Hazards
Introduction. The inspectors identified a Green NCV of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B,
Criterion III, Design Control, for the licensees failure to establish measures to assure
that applicable regulatory requirements and the design basis, for applicable SSCs, are
correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions.
Specifically, the licensee failed to ensure that safety-related essential service water
valves in the control building were adequately protected from external flooding hazards
in the event of a design basis local intense precipitation event, which resulted in a
reasonable doubt on the operability of safety-related essential service water valves.
E2-26
Description. Located on the lower level of the control building (room 3101) are the
safety-related essential service water train A and B service water cross-connect motor-
operated valves EFHV0023, EFHV0024, EFHV0025, and EFHV0026, and the essential
service water train A and B to service water system valves EFHV0039, EFHV0040,
EFHV0041, and EFHV0042. The safety-related function of these valves is to isolate the
non-safety related service water system from the safety-related essential service water
system. USAR Section 3.3.7.4, Internal Flooding Results, describes the impact of
water accumulating in room 3101, where the eight subject safety-related valves are
located. It states, Submersion of motor operated valves HV0023, HV0024, HV0025 and
HV0026, which are located in this room, would occur, resulting in a loss of service water.
Isolation of the flood and the non-essential service water (NESW) system from the
essential service water (ESW) system would be impossible until the control building
basement is drained.
With respect to external flood level hazards, Table 1.2-1, Design Envelope, of the
Wolf Creek USAR, states, Flooding is precluded by the elevation of the plant and by the
site drainage systemNo special flood protection measures (such as external flood
doors) are incorporated.
Section 3.4.1.1.1, External Flood Protection, of the Wolf Creek USAR, states:
All seismic Category I structures and the systems they house are designed to
withstand the effects of natural phenomena, such as flooding and groundwater
level (GDC-2). Flood elevations, including the probable maximum flood (PMF)
and the maximum groundwater elevations used in the design of powerblock
seismic Category I structures for buoyancy and hydrostatic pressure, are shown
in Tables 1.2-1 and 3.4-1 and are discussed in Section 2.4Safety-related
systems located below grade are protected from groundwater inleakage by a
combination of a waterproofing system for the structures and other features such
as the location of safety-related systems in watertight compartments, sump
pumps, alarms and other water level indications and administrative controls.
Should groundwater inleakage occur, the design features and administrative
controls would protect the safety related systemsAlthough not serving a
safety-related function, additional waterproofing is provided below grade by
means of waterstops and waterproofing materials to minimize inleakage.
Waterstops are provided at expansion and construction joints and electrical duct
bank penetrations located below grade."
Finally, Section 9.2.1.2.1.1, Safety Design Basis, related to the essential service water
system, describes the safety design bases and states, The ESWS [(essential service
water system)] is protected from the effects of natural phenomena, such as earthquakes,
tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and external missiles (GDC-2).
On May 17, 2015, during a heavy rainstorm, Wolf Creek personnel identified water
coming out of the ceiling in the hot chemistry lab (room 3228) of the communication
corridor building, through penetration P322W0902, and the water began flooding the
floor of the room. Water also began accumulating in room 3101. Wolf Creek
documented the condition in Condition Report 96404.
The station determined that water entered the control building sumps room 3101 via
floor drains in the hot chemistry lab of the communication corridor building. The floor
drains in the hot chemistry lab of the communication corridor building are directly routed
E2-27
to the control building sumps and room 3101. The station also determined that water
entered the hot chemistry lab via conduits from the turbine building area four cable vault
with degraded non-safety related conduit penetration seals.
Historical pictures of the turbine building area four cable vault, which were taken on April
13, 2009, May 22, 2011, June 15, 2011, and September 3, 2014, show a penetration
seal in the turbine building area four cable vault that was not in place. Additionally, Wolf
Creek personnel and the inspectors verified the configuration of the seals via tours of the
turbine building area four cable vault on November 18, 2015.
The inspectors also noted that Condition Report 59257, which was entered into the
corrective action program on October 29, 2012, and documented past leakage through
electrical penetration P322W0902, was documented in response to flooding walk-downs
performed in accordance with NEI 12-07, Guidelines for Performing Verification
Walkdowns of Plan Flood Protection Features and NTTF [(Near Term Task Force)]
Recommendation 2.3 Flooding. Condition Report 59257 did not adequately consider
the potential impact and implications of the leakage indication. Specifically, neither the
source of the leakage nor the pathway into the chemistry lab were considered.
Additionally, the flooding walk-downs included reviews of piping and instrumentation
drawings, which included drawings showing the drain pathway from the communication
corridor building to the control building basement. These concerns were entered into the
stations corrective action program as Condition Report 102273.
The inspectors also questioned the stations immediate operability determination
associated with Condition Report 96404; please see NCV 05000482/2015004-03, also
documented in this report, for additional discussion concerning the inadequate
operability determination. In response to the inspectors questions, the station entered
Condition Report 100299 into its corrective action program, which documented the
stations failure to adequately evaluate the concern with respect to design basis local
intense precipitation conditions. On October 15, 2015, a prompt operability evaluation
associated with Condition Report 100299 was completed that showed the essential
service water valves remained operable.
To understand the significance of the concern, the inspectors noted that
Calculation FL-05, Control Building Flooding, Revision 2, calculates the maximum flood
level in control building room 3101 due to the rupture of a service water pipe and also
states that the essential service water to service water isolation valves begin to be
impacted when water in the room reaches a height of 33 inches.
Considering observed flows into the hot chemical lab room on May 17, 2015, and
inspections performed on November 18, 2015, and recognizing the elevation of
postulated external flood waters during a design basis local intense precipitation event,
the station estimated the peak probable maximum precipitation flood flow through the
duct bank into the hot chemistry laband ultimately the control building basementas
855 gallons per minute. Utilizing a hydrograph of the probable maximum flood flow to
estimate the total volume of flood water that could enter control building room 3101, the
total volume of the flood flow that would enter the room was estimated to be
approximately 92,799 gallons, which equates to a water level of 26.94 inches in room
3101. Considering that safety-related equipment is at a height of 33 inches in the room,
the safety-related essential service water equipment in room 3101 would not have been
impacted by a design basis probable maximum precipitation event even though a
E2-28
pathway existed for external flood waters from a local intense precipitation event to
reach control building room 3101 containing safety related essential service water valves
that must be protected from the effects of natural phenomena like floods. The licensee
was able to show through extensive analysis and later inspection that the subject valves
were shown to be operable even while the penetrations were degraded and a substantial
loss of margin occurred. Additional corrective actions include accelerating three
Fukushima project schedules that include a new sump pump in the turbine building area
four cable vault, ground and surface water improvements for non-safety related electrical
duct banks, and new sump pumps in electrical manholes (125 and 152) near the turbine
building. Each of these additional corrective actions is expected to reduce the amount of
water that would impact the turbine building area four cable vault during heavy and
design basis precipitation and are currently expected to be completed December 2016.
However, considering the USAR, the non-safety related design of the conduit
penetration seals, and the open drain pathway from the communication corridor building
to control building room 3101, the inspectors determined that the licensee failed to
ensure that safety-related essential service water valves in the control building were
adequately protected from external flooding hazards in the event of a design basis local
intense precipitation event.
Analysis. The inspectors determined that the licensees failure to ensure that essential
service water valves in the control building (room 3101) were adequately protected from
external flooding hazards in the event of a design basis local intense precipitation event
was a performance deficiency. This finding is more than minor because it is associated
with the design control attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and affected the
associated cornerstone objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and capability of
systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences (i.e., core
damage). Specifically, during design basis local intense precipitation events, the
safety-related essential service water train A and B service water cross-connect
motor-operated valves EFHV0023, EFHV0024, EFHV0025, and EFHV0026, and the
essential service water train A and B to service water system valves EFHV0039,
EFHV0040, EFHV0041, and EFHV0042 were susceptible to external flooding hazards,
and there was a reasonable doubt on the operability of these essential service water
valves; however, subsequent evaluation determined that the essential service water
valves would not have been impacted in the event of a design basis local intense
precipitation event, and the valves were determined to be operable.
In accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0609.04, Initial Characterization of
Findings, and Exhibit 2 of Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix A, The
Significance Determination Process (SDP) for Findings At-Power, issued
June 19, 2012, and April 29, 2015, respectively, the performance deficiency affects
mitigating SSCs. The finding is a deficiency affecting the design or qualification of
mitigating SSCs, and the SSCs maintained their operability and functionality. Therefore,
the inspectors determined that this finding is of very low safety significance (Green).
In accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0310, Aspects Within The Cross-Cutting
Areas, issued December 4, 2014, the finding has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of
human performance, challenge the unknown, because Wolf Creek individuals did not
stop when faced with uncertain conditions. Specifically, the licensee did not maintain a
questioning attitude during flooding walk-downs performed in accordance with NEI 12-07
or during evaluation of Condition Report 59257 to identify and resolve unexpected
E2-29
conditions like the floor drain pathway from the communication corridor to the control
building basement (room 3101), which was an opportunity for the station to identify the
open pathway from the exterior of the plant [H.11].
Enforcement. Title10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, states, in
part, that for those SSCs to which this appendix applies, measures shall be established
to assure that applicable regulatory requirements and the design basis, are correctly
translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions. Contrary to the
above, since at least April 13, 2009, until October 15, 2015, for quality-related
components associated with the essential service water system, to which 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix B applies, the licensee failed to assure that applicable regulatory
requirements and the design basis, are correctly translated into specifications, drawings,
procedures, and instructions. Specifically, the licensee failed to ensure that
safety-related essential service water valves in the control building (room 3101) were
adequately protected from external flooding hazards in the event of a design basis local
intense precipitation event. The licensee evaluated the condition to ensure that a design
basis local intense precipitation event would not cause inoperability or unavailability of
essential service water valves. The stations immediate corrective actions included
entering the condition into the corrective action program and performing a prompt
operability evaluation that showed the essential service water valves remained operable.
This violation is being treated as an NCV consistent with Section 2.3.2 of the
Enforcement Policy. The violation was entered into the licensees corrective action
program as Condition Report 102250. (NCV 05000482/2015004-02: Failure to Ensure
Essential Service Water Valves were Adequately Protected from External Flooding
Hazards)
b3. Failure to Perform an Adequate Operability Determination and Consider Design
Basis Events
Introduction. The inspectors identified a Green NCV of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B,
Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings, for the licensees failure to
accomplish activities affecting quality in accordance with Procedure AP 26C-004,
Operability Determination and Functionality Assessment, Revision 31. Specifically, the
licensee failed to document an operability determination of sufficient scope to address
the capability of safety-related essential service water valves in the control building
(room 3101) to perform their specified safety functions in the event of a design basis
local intense precipitation event, which resulted in a reasonable doubt on the operability
of safety-related essential service water valves.
Description. On May 17, 2015, during a heavy rainstorm, Wolf Creek personnel
identified water coming out of the ceiling in the hot chemistry lab (room 3228) of the
communication corridor building, through penetration P322W0902, and the water began
flooding the floor of the room. Water also began accumulating in a lower level in the
control building (room 3101). Wolf Creek documented the condition in Condition Report
96404.
Located on the lower level of the control building (room 3101) are the safety-related
essential service water train A and B service water cross-connect motor-operated valves
EFHV0023, EFHV0024, EFHV0025, and EFHV0026, and the essential service water
train A and B to service water system valves EFHV0039, EFHV0040, EFHV0041, and
E2-30
EFHV0042. The safety-related function of these valves is to isolate the non-safety
related service water system from the safety-related essential service water system.
Wolf Creek determined in its immediate operability screening for Condition Report 96404
that it would take about 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> for water to accumulate to a level of 33 inches in the
control building room 3101, based on a rate of influent of approximately 50 gallons per
minute from rain water through the hot chemistry lab. The immediate operability
screening concludes, Therefore, in the event the electrical duct bank overflows, there is
sufficient time to deploy additional sump pumps to reduce the level and terminate the
inleakage through the chemistry hot lab. Work Order 14-382942 was generated and
the Condition Report 96404 closure notes stated, Design Engineering will use three of
the four Fukushima ground water intrusion mitigation projects to mitigate the flooding in
the Hot Chemistry Lab. The three Fukushima projects schedules have been
accelerated. These projects included design change packages for a new sump pump in
the turbine building area four cable vault, ground and surface water improvements for
non-safety related electrical duct banks, and new sump pumps in electrical
manholes (125 and 152) near the turbine building. Each of these additional corrective
actions is expected to reduce the amount of water that would impact the turbine building
area four cable vault during heavy and design basis precipitation. Condition Report
96404 was closed to Condition Report Action 070319-01-03, which is currently planned
to be completed December 2016.
USAR Section 3.3.7.4, Internal Flooding Results, describes the impact of the design
basis internal flooding hazard in the essential service water pipe chase level of the
control building (room 3101). It states, Submersion of motor operated valves HV0023,
HV0024, HV0025 and HV0026, which are located in this room, would occur, resulting in
a loss of service water. Isolation of the flood and the non-essential service water
(NESW) system from the essential service water (ESW) system would be impossible
until the control building basement [(room 3101)] is drained. Calculation FL-05, Control
Building Flooding, Revision 2, calculates the maximum flood level in control building
room 3101 due to the rupture of a service water pipe and also states that the essential
service water to service water isolation valves begin to be impacted when water in the
room reaches a height of 33 inches.
After learning of an auxiliary operator action to Pump out SE electrical cable pit when
required (maintain level below cables), which was being tracked on the Turbine
Building Operator Relief Checklist, the inspectors inquired about the action and toured
applicable accessible portions of the plant. On September 15, 2015, the inspectors
raised concerns with the station regarding cables that were submerged in the turbine
building area four cable vault. Wolf Creek determined that the low voltage
non-safety related wetted cables condition had been previously identified and
documented in Condition Report 22210. In following up on this concern, the inspectors
noted that Table 1.2-1, Design Envelope, of the Wolf Creek USAR states, Flooding is
precluded by the elevation of the plant and by the site drainage systemNo special
flood protection measures (such as external flood doors) are incorporated.
The inspectors also noted that Section 3.4.1.1.1, External Flood Protection, of the
Wolf Creek USAR states:
All seismic Category I structures and the systems they house are designed to
withstand the effects of natural phenomena, such as flooding and groundwater
E2-31
level (GDC-2). Flood elevations, including the probable maximum flood (PMF)
and the maximum groundwater elevations used in the design of powerblock
seismic Category I structures for buoyancy and hydrostatic pressure, are shown
in Tables 1.2-1 and 3.4-1 and are discussed in Section 2.4Safety-related
systems located below grade are protected from groundwater inleakage by a
combination of a waterproofing system for the structures and other features such
as the location of safety-related systems in watertight compartments, sump
pumps, alarms and other water level indications and administrative controls.
Should groundwater inleakage occur, the design features and administrative
controls would protect the safety related systemsAlthough not serving a
safety-related function, additional waterproofing is provided below grade by
means of waterstops and waterproofing materials to minimize inleakage.
Waterstops are provided at expansion and construction joints and electrical duct
bank penetrations located below grade."
Finally, the inspectors noted that Section 9.2.1.2.1.1, Safety Design Basis, related to
the essential service water system, describes the safety design bases and states, The
ESWS [(essential service water system)] is protected from the effects of natural
phenomena, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and external missiles
(GDC-2).
The inspectors identified on October 14, 2015, that Condition Report 96404, which
documented the events of May 17, 2015, as previously described, did not address all
design basis events. Specifically, the inspectors identified that the licensee failed to
consider design basis local intense precipitation conditions in its evaluation of Condition
Report 96404. Procedure AP 26C-004, Operability Determination and Functionality
Assessment, Revision 31, states:
The scope of an operability determination must be sufficient to address the
capability of SSCs [(structures, systems, and components)] to perform their
specified safety functions. The operability decision may be based on analysis, a
test or partial test, experience with operating events, engineering judgment, or a
combination of these factors, considering SSC [(structure, system, and
component)] functional requirementsThe following things should be considered
when performing operability determinations: Design basis events are
plant-specific and plant-specific TS [(Technical Specification)], TS [(Technical
Specification)] bases and safety evaluations may contain plant-specific
considerations related to operability.
The inspectors determined that the licensee did not comply with Procedure AP 26C-004,
a quality related procedure; specifically, the licensees operability determination
completed in response to Condition Report 96404 on May 17, 2015, was not of sufficient
scope and did not consider design basis events. The inspectors determined that a
reasonable doubt on the operability of the safety-related essential service water valves
existed.
In response to the inspectors questions, Wolf Creek documented Condition
Report 100299 and completed a prompt operability determination to evaluate the design
basis limiting case. On October 15, 2015, a prompt operability evaluation associated
with Condition Report 100299 was completed that showed the essential service water
valves remained operable.
E2-32
To understand the significance of the concern, the inspectors noted that
Calculation FL-05, Control Building Flooding, Revision 2, calculates the maximum flood
level in control building room 3101 due to the rupture of a service water pipe and also
states that the essential service water to service water isolation valves begin to be
impacted when water in the room reaches a height of 33 inches.
Considering observed flows into the hot chemical lab room on May 17, 2015, and
inspections performed on November 18, 2015, and recognizing the elevation of
postulated external flood waters during a design basis local intense precipitation event,
the station estimated the peak probable maximum precipitation flood flow through the
duct bank into the hot chemistry laband ultimately the control building basement (room
3101)as 855 gallons per minute. Utilizing a hydrograph of the probable maximum
flood flow to estimate the total volume of flood water that could enter control building
room 3101, the total volume of the flood flow that would enter the room was estimated to
be approximately 92,799 gallons, which equates to a water level of 26.94 inches in
room 3101. Considering that safety-related equipment is at a height of 33 inches in the
room, the safety-related essential service water equipment in room 3101 would not have
been impacted by a design basis probable maximum precipitation event even though a
pathway existed for external flood waters from a local intense precipitation event to
reach control building room 3101 containing safety-related essential service water valves
that must be protected from the effects of natural phenomena like floods. Therefore, the
licensee was able to show through extensive analysis and later inspection that the
subject valves were shown to be operable even while the penetrations were degraded
and a substantial loss of margin occurred.
Analysis. The inspectors determined that the licensees failure to document an adequate
operability determination addressing design basis local intense precipitation events was
a performance deficiency. This finding is more than minor because it is associated with
the equipment performance attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and affected
the associated cornerstone objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and capability
of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences
(i.e., core damage). Specifically, during design basis local intense precipitation events,
the safety-related essential service water train A and B service water cross-connect
motor-operated valves EFHV0023, EFHV0024, EFHV0025, and EFHV0026, and the
essential service water train A and B to service water system valves EFHV0039,
EFHV0040, EFHV0041, and EFHV0042 were susceptible to external flooding hazards,
and there was a reasonable doubt on the operability of these essential service water
valves; however, subsequent evaluation determined that the essential service water
valves would not have been impacted in the event of a design basis local intense
precipitation event, and the valves were determined to be operable.
In accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0609.04, Initial Characterization of
Findings, and Exhibit 2 of Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix A, The
Significance Determination Process (SDP) for Findings At-Power, issued June 19,
2012, and April 29, 2015, respectively, the performance deficiency affects mitigating
SSCs. The finding is not a deficiency affecting the design or qualification of mitigating
SSCs, the finding does not represent a loss of system and/or function, the finding does
not represent an actual loss of function of at least a single train or two separate safety
systems out-of-service for greater than their allowed outage times, and the finding does
not represent an actual loss of function of one or more non-technical specification trains
E2-33
of equipment. Therefore, the inspectors determined that this finding is of very low safety
significance (Green).
In accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0310, Aspects Within The Cross-Cutting
Areas, issued December 4, 2014, the finding has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of
human performance, conservative bias, because Wolf Creek did not use decision
making-practices that emphasize prudent choices over those that are simply allowable,
and proposed action was not determined to be safe in order to proceed, rather than
unsafe in order to stop. Specifically, the licensee did not consider long-term
consequences or design basis events when determining how to resolve emergent
concerns like the unexpected water in room 3101, which resulted in the licensees failure
to thoroughly evaluate and assess impacts to the plant when Condition Report 96404
was entered into the corrective action program on May 17, 2015 [H.14].
Enforcement. Title 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures,
and Drawings, requires, in part, that activities affecting quality shall be accomplished in
accordance with documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate
to the circumstances. Licensee Procedure AP 26C-004, Operability Determination and
Functionality Assessment, Revision 31, an Appendix B quality related procedure,
provides instructions for performing operability determinations. Procedure AP 26C-004,
step 6.1.2.2, states, in part, that the scope of an operability determination must be
sufficient to address the capability of SSCs to perform their specified safety functions.
Contrary to the above, between May 17, 2015, and October 14, 2015, the scope of an
operability determination was not sufficient to adequately address the capability of SSCs
to perform their specified safety functions. Specifically, the licensee failed to sufficiently
address susceptibility of safety-related essential service water train A and B service
water cross-connect motor-operated valves EFHV0023, EFHV0024, EFHV0025, and
EFHV0026, and essential service water train A and B to service water system valves
EFHV0039, EFHV0040, EFHV0041, and EFHV0042 to external flooding hazards, which
caused a reasonable doubt on the operability of these valves. Immediate corrective
actions included completing a prompt operability determination and performing analyses
that determined the valves remained operable. This violation is being treated as an NCV
consistent with Section 2.3.2 of the Enforcement Policy. The violation was entered into
the licensees corrective action program as Condition Report 100299. (NCV
05000482/2015004-03: Failure to Perform an Adequate Operability Determination and
Consider Design Basis Events)
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit
Exit Meeting Summary
On October 29, 2015, the inspectors discussed the in-office review of the preliminary scenario
for the December 8, 2015, biennial exercise, submitted October 6, 2015, with Mr. T. East,
Superintendent, Emergency Planning, and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee
acknowledged the issues presented. The licensee confirmed that any proprietary information
reviewed by the inspectors had been returned or destroyed.
The inspectors obtained the final annual examination results and telephonically exited with
Mr. B. Lee, Licensed Operator Supervision Instructor, on December 2, 2015. The inspectors did
not review any proprietary information during this inspection. On December 16, 2015, the
inspectors presented the results of the on-site inspection of the biennial emergency
E2-34
preparedness exercise conducted December 8, 2015, to Mr. C. Reasoner, Site Vice President,
and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented.
The licensee confirmed that any proprietary information reviewed by the inspectors had been
returned or destroyed.
On January 27, 2016, the inspectors presented the inspection results to Stephen Smith, Plant
Manager, and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues
presented. The licensee confirmed that any proprietary information reviewed by the inspectors
had been returned or destroyed.
E2-35
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
T. Baban, Manager, System Engineering
W. Brown, Superintendent, Security Operations
A. Broyles, Manager, Information Systems
D. Campbell, Superintendent, Electrical Maintenance
T. East, Superintendent, Emergency Planning
J. Edwards, Manager, Operations
D. Erbe, Manager, Security
R. Flannigan, Manager, Nuclear Engineering
J. Fritton, Owners Representative
B. Gagnon, Supervisor, Security
C. Hafenstine, Manager, Regulatory Affairs
A. Heflin, President and Chief Executive Officer
S. Henry, Manager, Integrated Plant Scheduling
T. Herring, Superintendent, Security
R. Hobby, Licensing Engineer
J. Isch, Operations Work Controls
B. Lee, Licensed Supervising Instructor
D. Mand, Manager, Design Engineering
J. McCoy, Vice President, Engineering
W. Muilenburg, Supervisor, Licensing
L. Ratzlaff, Manager, Maintenance
C. Reasoner, Site Vice President
R. Rietmann, Engineer
M. Skiles, Manager, Radiation Protection
T. Slenker, Supervisor, Operations Support
S. Smith, Plant Manager
M. Storts, Engineer
A. Stueve, Engineer
A. Stull, Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
M. Tate, Superintendent, Security
NRC Personnel
C. Jewett, Physical Security Inspector
R. Lanfear, Physical Security Inspector
A-1 Attachment
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened
Inadequate Measures to Assure SGK05A Issues Were Promptly
Corrected (4OA2)
Opened and Closed
Failure to Ensure Essential Service Water Valves Were
Adequately Protected from External Flooding Hazards (4OA2)
Failure to Perform an Adequate Operability Determination and
Consider Design Basis Events (4OA2)
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Section 1R01: Adverse Weather Protection
Procedures
Number Title Revision
CKL ZL-001 Auxiliary Building Reading Sheets 96
CKL ZL-004 Turbine Building Reading Sheets 141
SYS OPS-001 Weekly Equipment Rotation and Readings 70B
SYS OPS-008 Cold Weather Operations 0
Section 1R04: Equipment Alignment
Procedures
Number Title Revision
CKL EJ-120 RHR System Lineup 44B
CKL KJ-121 Diesel Generator NE01 and NE02 Valve Checklist 39
CKL JE-120 Emergency Fuel Oil System Lineup 19
STS EJ-100B RHR System Inservice Pump B Test 43A
STS NB-005 Breaker Alignment Verification 27
SYS KJ-121 Diesel Generator NE01 and NE02 Lineup for Automatic 50C
Operation
SYS KJ-123 Post Maintenance Run of Emergency Diesel Generator A 61C
Drawings
Number Title Revision
KD-7496 One Line Diagram, Sheet 1 58
A-2
Drawings
Number Title Revision
M-12EJ01 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram Residual Heat 51
Removal System, Sheet 1
M-12KJ05 Piping & Instrumentation Diagram Standby Diesel 17
Generator B Intake Exhaust, F.O. & Start Air Sys. P&ID
M-12KJ06 Piping & Instrumentation Diagram Standby Diesel 21
Generator B Lube Oil System
Condition Reports
100380 100384 100386 100425 100445
100449 100452 100457 100464 100475
100476 100478
Section 1R05: Fire Protection
Procedures
Number Title Revision
AP 10-102 Control of Combustible Materials 19
AP 10-103 Fire Protection Impairment Control 29
AP 10-104 Breach Authorization 35
AP 10-106 Fire Preplans 16
Drawings
Number Title Revision
E-1F9905 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Fire Hazard 6
Analysis
Condition Reports
100700
Jobs
13-375530-169 15-408281-018
A-3
Miscellaneous
Number Title Date
2015-516 Breach Permit: Room 3302 into Electrical Chase (Door November 3, 2015
33024) (1-3 Core North Wall) (1-3 Core South Wall)
Section 1R11: Licensed Operator Requalification Program
Procedures
Number Title Revision
AI 21D-006 Response to Plant Status Control Problems 13
AP 15C-002 Procedure Use and Adherence 41
AP 19E-002 Reactivity Management Program 19
AP 21-001 Conduct of Operations 74
AP 22-001 Conduct of Pre-Job and Post-Job Briefs 19
STS IC-618B Slave Relay Test K618 Train B Safety Injection 22
Condition Reports
101672
Miscellaneous
Number Title Revision/Date
LR4412801 INPO Crew Performance Evaluation Scenario #3 0
Operating Test Results December 2, 2015
Section 1R12: Maintenance Effectiveness
Procedures
Number Title Revision
AI 23M-003 Maintenance Rule Expert Panel Duties and Responsibilities 10
AI 28A-023 Evaluation of Maintenance Rule Function Failure CRs 3
AP 16B-003 Planning and Scheduling Preventive Maintenance 6
AP 23M-001 WCGS Maintenance Rule Program 11
AP 28A-100 Corrective Action Program 22
EMG C-0 Loss of All AC Power 36
EMG E-1 Loss of Reactor or Secondary Coolant 26
EMG E-2 Faulted Steam Generator Isolation 21
A-4
Procedures
Number Title Revision
EMG E-3 Steam Generator Tube Rupture 34
EMG ES-02 Reactor Trip Response 33
EMG FR-H1 Response to Loss of Secondary Heat Sink 32
Condition Reports
45333 53709 66967 68816 70482
75337 79534 79568 79840 80586
81478 82385 83400 84045 84939
85609 85895 89669 95196 96127
96392 96397 100092 101656 94792
99741
Miscellaneous
Number Title Revision/Date
75337 Functional Failure Determination Checklist February 26, 2014
75523 Functional Failure Determination Checklist November 25, 2013
762795 Purchase Order 0
79534 Functional Failure Determination Checklist February 26, 2014
80586 Functional Failure Determination Checklist November 6, 2014
80586 MSPI Failure Determination October 9, 2014
80603 Functional Failure Determination Checklist May 14, 2014
80758 Functional Failure Determination Checklist April 24, 2014
81478 Functional Failure Determination Checklist May 13, 2014
81705 Functional Failure Determination Checklist May 20, 2014
81711 Functional Failure Determination Checklist May 20, 2014
82239 Functional Failure Determination Checklist May 22, 2014
84045 Functional Failure Determination Checklist September 16, 2014
84939 Functional Failure Determination Checklist September 16, 2014
85936 Functional Failure Determination Checklist November 6, 2014
86131 Functional Failure Determination Checklist December 8, 2014
87772 Functional Failure Determination Checklist December 3, 2014
A-5
Miscellaneous
Number Title Revision/Date
94792 Functional Failure Determination Checklist May 1, 2015
94914 Functional Failure Determination Checklist May 1, 2015
94961 Functional Failure Determination Checklist April 28, 2015
94986 Functional Failure Determination Checklist April 28, 2015
95055 Functional Failure Determination Checklist May 1, 2015
95133 Functional Failure Determination Checklist May 1, 2015
95196 Functional Failure Determination Checklist April 28, 2015
95874 Functional Failure Determination Checklist June 24, 2015
96397 Functional Failure Determination Checklist July 7, 2015
98949 Functional Failure Determination Checklist October 1, 2015
99470 Functional Failure Determination Checklist October 29, 2015
AIF 28A-017-04 Wolf Creek Generating Station Effectiveness Followup, 0
CR number 4533
AL, AP, FC-1 System Health Report July 1, 2015 through
September 30, 2015
AL-01 Maintenance Rule Expert Panel Meeting Minutes AL-01 December 29, 2015
AL-01 Maintenance Rule Final Scope Evaluation December 8, 2015
AL-02 Maintenance Rule Final Scope Evaluation December 8, 2015
AL-03 Maintenance Rule Final Scope Evaluation December 8, 2015
AL-04 Maintenance Rule Final Scope Evaluation December 8, 2015
AL-05 Maintenance Rule Final Scope Evaluation December 8, 2015
AL-06 Maintenance Rule Final Scope Evaluation December 8, 2015
AL-07 Maintenance Rule Final Scope Evaluation December 8, 2015
AL-08 Maintenance Rule Final Scope Evaluation December 8, 2015
AP-05 Maintenance Rule Expert Panel Meeting Minutes AP-05 October 15, 2015
APF 15A-003-05 Record Supplemental/Correction Sheet, File June 14, 2013
Number K01 33
A-6
Miscellaneous
Number Title Revision/Date
EDI 23M-050 Engineering Desktop Instruction Monitoring Performance to 3
Criteria and Goals, PRI 45333
EDI 23M-050 Engineering Desktop Instruction Monitoring Performance to 3
Criteria and Goals, PRI 89669
GK System Health Report July 1, 2015 through
September 30, 2015
GK-01 (a)(1) Action Plan December 10, 2013
GK-01 Maintenance Rule Expert Panel Meeting Minutes GK-01 December 29, 2015
GK-01 Maintenance Rule Final Scope Evaluation December 29, 2015
Section 1R13: Maintenance Risk Assessment and Emergent Work Controls
Procedures
Number Title Revision
AI 22C-013 Protected Equipment Program 16
AP 10-103 Fire Protection Impairment Control 29
AP 10-104 Breach Authorization 35
AP 22C-007 Risk Management and Contingency Planning 11
STS IC-208B 4KV Loss of Voltage & Degraded Voltage TADOT NB02 4E
Bus - SEP GRP 4
STS IC-211B Actuation Logic Test Train B Solid State Protection System 37A
STS IC-241 Channel Operational Test Nuclear Instrumentation System 15
Power Range N41 Protection Set 1
SYS OQT-001B Operations B Train Quarterly Tasks 11
Condition Reports
100700
Jobs
13-375530-169 15-408281-018
A-7
Miscellaneous
Number Title Date
15-402 Control Room Risk Assessment Log/Work Schedule; Risk October 4, 2015
Assessment Dates - October 5, 2015, through October 11,
2015
15-402 Control Room Risk Assessment Log/Work Schedule; Risk October 6, 2015
Assessment Dates - October 5, 2015, through October 11,
2015
15-403 Control Room Risk Assessment Log/Work Schedule; Risk October 12, 2015
Assessment Dates - October 12, 2015, through October 18,
2015
15-403 Control Room Risk Assessment Log/Work Schedule; Risk October 15, 2015
Assessment Dates - October 12, 2015, through October 18,
2015
15-406 Control Room Risk Assessment Log/Work Schedule; Risk November 3, 2015
Assessment Dates - November 2, 2015, through November
8, 2015
2015-516 Breach Permit: Room 3302 into Electrical Chase (Door November 3, 2015
33024) (1-3 Core North Wall) (1-3 Core South Wall)
Section 1R15: Operability Evaluations
Procedures
Number Title Revision
AI 22A-001 Operator Work Arounds/Operator Burdens/Control Room 12
Deficiencies
AI 26C-004 Technical Specification Application for Containment Isolation 6B
Valves
AP 22A-001 Screening, Prioritization and Pre-Approval 18
AP 26C-004 Operability Determination and Functionality Assessment 31
AP 26C-004 Operability Determination and Functionality Assessment 32
AP 28-001 Operability Evaluations 24
MPE E009Q-03 Inspection and Testing of Siemens Vacuum Circuit Breakers 9
STS EF-100B ESW System Inservice Pump B & ESW B Check Valve Test 46
Drawings
Number Title Revision
KD-7496 One Line Diagram, Sheet 1 15
A-8
Drawings
Number Title Revision
M-12EF01 Piping & Instrumentation Diagram Essential SVC Water 29
System
Condition Reports
96392 96397 96404 98582 98587
99349 99376 99504 100299 100447
100478 100760 101535 101536 101537
Work Orders
14-392848-003 14-394551-003 15-405701000
Miscellaneous
Number Title Revision/Date
577992R10 Vendor Qualification Report August 31, 2010
FL-02 Flooding of Auxiliary Building Rooms 1107-1114 1
FL-05 Control Building Flooding 2
OE EF-15-014 Operability Evaluation for Condition Report 100299 0
OE EF-15-014 Operability Evaluation for Condition Report 100299 1
Various Operational Issues Database December 12, 2015
Control Room WR/WO Log December 12, 2015
Section 1R19: Post-Maintenance Testing
Procedures
Number Title Revision
AP 26C-004 Operability Determination and Functionality Assessment 31
MPE E009Q-03 Inspection and Testing of Siemens Vacuum Circuit Breakers 9
STN NB-001B B Train Breaker Operability and ECCS Pump Recirc 8A
STN PE-037B ESW Train B Heat Exchanger Flow and DP Trending 20A
STS EF-100B ESW System Inservice Pump B & ESW B Check Valve Test 45A
STS KJ-005B Manual/Auto Start, Sync & Loading of EDG NE02 - 61
A-9
Drawings
Number Title Revision/Date
E-009B-00013 List of Materials, Fastener Location - Operator August 1, 2000
KD-7496 One Line Diagram, Sheet 1 58
M-12EF01 Piping & Instrumentation Diagram Essential SVC Water 29
System
M-12EF02 Piping & Instrumentation Diagram Essential Service Water 40
System
M-K2EF01 Piping & Instrumentation Diagram Essential Service Water 66
Sys.
Condition Reports
88168 89788 100757 100758 100760
100763
Work Orders
15-408281-002 15-408281-015 15-408281-016 15-408281-020
Section 1R22: Surveillance Testing
Procedures
Number Title Revision
AI 29B-003 Guidance to Prevent Unacceptable Preconditioning Prior to 2
Testing
AP 15C-002 Procedure Use and Adherence 41
AP 19E-002 Reactivity Management Program 19
AP 21-001 Conduct of Operations 74
AP 22-001 Conduct of Pre-Job and Post-Job Briefs 19
OFN RP-017 Control Room Evacuation 47
STN RP-002E EDG B Control CKT and FO XFER Pump ISO Switch 2A
STS BG-100A Centrifugal Charging System A Train Inservice Pump Test 46
STS KJ-005B Manual/Auto Start, Sync & Loading of EDG NE02 60A
SYS BG-201 Shifting Charging Pumps 65
Section 1EP4: Emergency Action Level and Emergency Plan Changes
No additional documents were reviewed.
A-10
Section 1EP6: Drill Evaluation
Procedures
Number Title Revision
EPP 06-001 Control Room Operations 23
EPP 06-005 Emergency Classification 7
OFN SK-039 Security Event 22
Condition Reports
100676 100681 100682 100683 100684
100686 100687 100688 100689 100690
100691 100692 100702 100703 100708
100732 100733
Miscellaneous
Number Title Revision
APF 06-002-01 Emergency Action Levels 17
Section 1EP7: Force-on-Force Exercise Evaluation
Procedures
Number Title Revision/Date
AP 06-002 Radiological Emergency Response Plan 18
EPP 06-01 Control Room Operations 23
EPP 06-03 Emergency Operations Facility Operations 23
EPP 06-05 Emergency Classification 7
EPP 06-06 Protective Action Recommendations 9
EPP 06-07 Emergency Notifications 24
EPP 06-09 Drill and Exercise Requirements 10
EPP 06-11 Emergency Team Formation and Control 10
HAG-01 Hostile Action Guideline, Off-Site Response Organization November 30,
Coordination, Revision 0 2015
ICPG-01 Incident Command Post Guidelines, Revision 0 November 30,
2015
A-11
Condition Reports
85338 101387 101389 101391 101396
101398 101403 101404 101457 101472
101484 101485 101487 101490 101492
101512
Miscellaneous
Title
After-Action Evaluation Report for the Drill conducted June 18, 2014
After-Action Evaluation Report for the Drill conducted August 20, 2014
After-Action Evaluation Report for the Drill conducted August 27, 2014
After-Action Evaluation Report the for Drill conducted September 10, 2014
After-Action Evaluation Report the for Drill conducted May 5, 2015
After-Action Evaluation Report the for Drill conducted June 24, 2015
After-Action Evaluation Report the for Drill conducted July 28, 2015
After-Action Evaluation Report the for Drill conducted August 11, 2015
Event Report: Alert Classification, October 6, 2014 dated October 22, 2014
1EP8 Exercise Evaluation - Scenario Review (71114.08)
No additional documents were reviewed.
Section 4OA1: Performance Indicator Verification
Procedures
Number Title Revision
AI 26A-004 Emergency Planning Performance Indicators 7
AI 26A-006 Mitigating System Performance Index 7
AP 26A-007 NRC Performance Indicators 10
EPP-06-19 Alert and Notification System Sirens 8
Condition Reports
73743 80586 82385 101874
A-12
Miscellaneous
Number Title Revision/Date
75236 MSPI Failure Determination November 26, 2013
75795 MSPI Failure Determination November 26, 2013
80586 Functional Failure Determination Checklist November 6, 2014
80586 MSPI Failure Determination October 9, 2014
80603 MSPI Failure Determination April 8, 2014
81349 MSPI Failure Determination April 8, 2014
81187 MSPI Failure Determination April 8, 2014
91331 MSPI Failure Determination February 4, 2015
91331 Functional Failure Determination Checklist March 14, 205
93748 Functional Failure Determination Checklist April 26, 2015
94785 Functional Failure Determination Checklist May 13, 2015
AL, AP, FC-1 System Health Report July 1, 2015 through
September 30, 2015
Consolidated MSPI Derivation Report, MSPI Heat Removal System October 2015
Data Entry 4.0 Unavailability Index (UAI)
Consolidated MSPI Derivation Report, MSPI Heat Removal System October 2015
Data Entry 4.0 Unavailability Index (URI)
Consolidated MSPI Derivation Report, MSPI Residual Heat Removal September 2015
Data Entry 4.0 System Unavailability Index (UAI)
Consolidated MSPI Derivation Report, MSPI Residual Heat Removal September 2015
Data Entry 4.0 System Unreliability Index (URI)
EJ System Health Report October 1, 2015
through
December 31, 2015
LER 2015-001-00 Personnel Error Causes Two inoperable Residual Heat March 25, 2015
Removal Trains
LER 2015-002-01 Two Control Room Air Conditioning Trains Inoperable Due August 26, 2015
to Failure to Meet Surveillance Requirement
LER 2015-003-00 Manual Reactor Trip Due to High Steam Generator Level July 1, 2015
Transient at Low Power
LER 2015-004-01 Incorrect Decision Results in Two Containment Isolation September 14, 2015
Valves Being in a Condition Prohibited by Technical
Specifications
NEI 99-02 Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline Revision 7
A-13
Miscellaneous
Number Title Revision/Date
WCNOC-163 Mitigating System Performance Index (MSPI) Basis 10
Document
Section 4OA2: Problem Identification and Resolution
Procedures
Number Title Revision
AI 14-001 Confined Space Entry 15A
AI 28A-010 Screening Condition Reports 20
AI 28A-010 Screening Condition Reports 21
AI 28A-010 Screening Condition Reports 22
AI 28A-100 Condition Report Resolution 9
AP 10-103 Fire Protection Impairment Control 29
AP 10-104 Breach Authorization 35
AP 21D-006 Safety Function Determination Program 7A
AP 22A-001 Screening, Prioritization and Pre-Approval 18
AP 23-008 Equipment Reliability Program 6
AP 26C-004 Operability Determination and Functionality Assessment 31
AP 26C-004 Operability Determination and Functionality Assessment 32
AP 28-001 Operability Evaluations 24
AP 28A-100 Corrective Action Program 22
CKL ZL-001 Auxiliary Building Reading Sheets 96
I-ENG-003 Vibration Monitoring and Analysis 9
I-ENG-004 Lubricating Oil Analysis 8
STS GK-002B Control Room A/C Unit Operability Test 0
Condition Reports
22210 59257 66967 70319 70482
73410 73863 75337 92274 92630
94604 96392 96397 96404 96657
97743 98123 98877 99077 99504
100299 100385 100700 100968 101674
A-14
Condition Reports
101680 101788 101790 101887 102250
102273 102331
Jobs
04-261206-005 12-360502-000 13-375530-169 13-378942-003 13-380760
14-382942 14-390223-003 15-408281-018
Drawings
Number Title Revision
10466-A-1102 Turbine Building Floor Plan - El. 2000-0 3
10466-A-1324 Control, D.G. & Comm. Corridor Floor Plans @ El. 1974-0 4
& 1984-0
C-1C3911 Communication Corridor Area 2 Conc. Neat Lines & Reinf. 1
Wall Elevators
C-1C4311 Turbine Building Area 1 Neat Line & Reinforcing Plan- 5
Grade Slab At El. 2000-0
C-1C4341 Turbine Building Area 4 Neat Line & Reinforcing 0
Plan-Grade Slab At El. 2000-0
C-OC3121 Communication Corridor Area 2 Concrete Neat Line Plan 14
Floor El. 1974-0 & 1984-0
C-OC3913 Communication Corridor Bldg. Area 2 Conc. Neat Line & 6
Reinf. Column Foundation
C-OC4914 Turbine Building -Area 4 Conic. Neat Line & Reinforcing 5
Cable Vault Details
E-0002 Outdoor Electrical Ductruns & Grounding North Area - Plan 27
E-0003 Outdoor Electrical Ductruns & Grounding South Area - Plan 35
E-0019 Electrical Manholes & Handholes Details 11
E-1R3221 Raceway Plan Communication Corridor Area-2 El. 1974-0 0
& El. 1984-0
E-1R4341 Raceway Plan Turbine Building Area-4 El. 2000-0 1
E-OR4311 Raceway Plan Turbine Building Area - 1 El.-2000-0 13
M-12HB02 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram Liquid Radwaste 22
System
M-12LF01 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram Auxiliary Building Floor 3
and Equipment Drain System
A-15
Drawings
Number Title Revision
M-12LF03 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram Auxiliary Building Floor 5
and Equipment Drain System
M-12LF07 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram Radwaste Building 3
Floor and equipment Drain System
M-12LF08 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram Control and Fuel 4
Bldgs. Floor and Equipment Drain System
M-1P3121 Drainage Systems (LD, LE, LF) Communications Corridor 1
El. 1974-0 & El. 1984-0 Area-2
M-1X3911 Communication Corridor Area 2 Penetration Closure Wall 0
Elevations
Miscellaneous
Number Title Revision/Date
15-OB103 Operational Burdens October 14, 2015
2015-516 Breach Permit: Room 3302 into Electrical Chase (Door November 3, 2015
33024) (1-3 Core North Wall) (1-3 Core South Wall)
AIF 28A-100-014 RCA Standard 4
AIF 28A-100-015 ACE Standard 5
AIF 28A-100-017 Basic Trend Analysis 0
APF 21-001-05 Turbine Building Operator Relief Checklist October 14, 2015
Change PLC03 Pump Replacement Design 0
Package 14506
FL-02 Flooding of Auxiliary Building Rooms 1107-1114 1
FL-05 Control Building Flooding 2
OE EF-15-014 Operability Evaluation for Condition Report 100299 0
OE EF-15-014 Operability Evaluation for Condition Report 100299 1
OE GK-15-012 Operability Evaluation for Condition Report 96392 0
OE GK-15-012 Operability Evaluation for Condition Report 96392 1
P322W0902 Walkdown Record Form September 30, 2012
TMO 15-013-GK-00 SGK05A/ A Class 1E Air Conditioning Unit May 16, 2015
Station Performance Report 2nd Quarter 2015 July 29, 2015
Station Performance Report 3rd Quarter 2015 December 7, 2015
A-16