IR 05000285/1980017
| ML19345B604 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1980 |
| From: | Hunnicutt D, Kelley D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345B603 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-285-80-17, NUDOCS 8012020194 | |
| Download: ML19345B604 (8) | |
Text
.
.
mU U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tef1SSION 0FFICE"0F INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
'
-
~-
REGION IV
Report No. 50-285/80-17 Docket Nc. 50-285 License No. DPR-40 Licensee: Omaha Public Power District 1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Facility Name: Fort Calhoun Station - Unit 1 Inspection at: Fort Calhoun Station, Blair, Nebraska Inspection Conducted: September 1-30, 1980 Inspector
/71 )
/
J2,C/80 D. L. Kelley, Senior Resident Inspector Oate'
Approved by:
k
/0.2.0/[O D. M. Hunnicdtt, Chief, Reactor Projects Section No. 2 Date /
Inspection Summarv Inspection Conducted During Period of September 1-30. 1980 (Report No. 50-285/
80-17 Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection including operational safety verification, surveillance test, maintenance activities, LER follow-up, IEB follow-up and plant trips. The inspection involved 165 inspector-hours on-site by one NRC inspector.
Results: Within the six areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
e n w o\\oF
.
..
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- S. C. Stevens, Manager, Fort Calhoun Station
- W. C. Jones, Division Manager, Production Operation
- R. L. Andrews, Section Manager, Operations
- K. J. Morris, Manager, Administrative Services
,
- W. G. Gates, Supervisor Operations G. P. Peterson, Supervisor, Maintenance L. T. Kusek, Supervisor, Technical L. J. Dugger, Reactor Engineer J. L. Connolley, Supervisor, I&C and F,lectrical Field Maintenance J. F. Cass, Training Coordinator J. J. Fisicaro, Supervisor, Administrative Services
- J. K. Gasper, Manager, Reactor and Computer Technical Services
- J. M. Gloshen, QA Engineer
- R. L. Hyde, QA Engineer
- F. A. Thurtell, Division Manager, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs
- R. L. Jaworski, Section Manager, Technical Services
- Denotes those attending exit interview.
The inspector also talked with and interviewed other licensee employees
'during the inspection. These employees included licensed and unlicensed operators, craftmen, engineers, and office personnel.
2.
Changes In Plant Operation Amendment 50 to the Facility Operating License (DPR-40) authorized the licensee to increase reactor thermal power from 1420 Mwt to 1500 Mwt.
On September 2, 1980, the thermal power escalation was begun in accordance with procedure SP-STRETCH-1, RO " Power Ascention to 1500 Mwt."
The first step was to increase reactor thermal rower to 1500 Mwt while holding cold leg temperature (T ) constant at 535 F.
After this pro-cedure step was attained and thE reactor parameters stabilized, the T was raised to 540 F while maintaining reactor thermal power at 1500 Mwt.
This step was performed on September 4, 1980. After a stabilization period at these conditions, a planned step to raise T to 545 F was started on September 18, 1980.
The increase in T was halted at a T of C
544 F, when the licensee determined that the unit was within 22 poun8s of the Thermal Margin-Low Pressure (TM/LP) pre-trip set point. T was reduced to 543 F and the reactor parameters were stabilized at that temperature.
To optimize the power generation by Fort Calhoun Station in relation to system load requirements, the licensee is planning to operate at less than 100% power.
,
t
!
-.-
_____--__- _ -
.
.
On September 19, 1980, the reactor power was reduced to 80%.
At about 4:30 p.m. a reactor trip occurred while attempting to transfer Control Element Assembly (CEA) clutch power from one inverter to another. The reactor was restarted without incident and returned to 80% power. The present reactor power level is 65%, which was attained on September 22, 1980. The licensee expects to remain at this power level until the electrical grid system winter load increases.
3.
Operational Safet? Verification The inspector performed certain activities to ascertain that the facility is being operated safely and in conformance with regulatory requirements and that the licensee's management control system is effectively discharg-ing its responsibilities for continued safe operation.
The inspector's activities and findings in this regard are described in the following para-graphs:
.
a.
Inspection Activities Performed Several Times Per Week (1) Control room observations were made which included the following items:
(a) Licensee Adherence to Selected Limiting Conditions for
!
Operation (LCO's).
l l
(b) Observation of Instrument and Recorder Traces for Abnormalities.
l (c) Verification of Operator Adherence to Approved Procedures.
(d) Verificatica of Control Room and Shift Manning.
(2) Review of selected' logs and records to obtain information on plant operations, trends, compliance with regulatory require-mentr, and assess the effectiveness of communication provf.ded by these logs and records.
b.
Inspection Activities Performed on a Weekly Basis (1) The operability of selected Emergency Safeguards Features (ESF)
systems was verified by noting valve positions, breaker positions, instrumentation and the general condition of major system components.
The systems selected for review during this inspec-tion were:
(a) High Pressure Safety Injection (Both Trains)-
(b) Low Pressure Safety Injection (Both Trains)
. _ _.........
.
.
.
..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
-
.
_.
._
_.
.
.
.
.
.
.
J
In addition, the inspector verified the valve position and component-status of those ESF systems in the detailed inspection and cataloging of components in Room No. 81, Room No. 13, Room No. 15A, Room No. 18 and portions of corridor No. 4.
(2) The. licensee's equipment control was reviewed for proper implementa-
'
tion by performing the following inspection activities:
(a) Review of maintenance order log and tag out log to
' determine the licensee's compliance with LCO's and
.
technical specifications action statecents.
(b) Verification of " return to operable status of eslected safety-related components and systems."
'
(3) The inspector toured accessible areas of the plant at vas:ious times during the inspection to determine and/or. verify equip-
,
'
ment conditions, plant conditions, security, safety and 1_
houseleeping. Observations included the following:
I (a) General Plant and Equipment Condition.
~
,
(b). Fire Hazards.
(c) Control of Combustible Material.
i
.(d) Fire Watch Postings and Presence of Fire Watches when required.
'
(e) Physical Security The inspector verified that the security plan is being implemented j
by observing that:
!
The Security. organization is properly manned and security personnel are capable of performing their assigned tasks.
>
Protected Area barriers are not degraded.
.
Isolation Zones are clear.
.
Vehicles are properly authorized, searched, and escorted
.
or controlled within the protected area.
-Persons within the protected area display photo. identification
.
-badges and persons requiring escort are properly escorted.
j Vital Area physical barriers are not degraded.
.
.
-
-
-,
.-
.. -...--
...
.. -.. -
.-
. -, -.
.
.
Persons and packages are rechecked prior to entry into the
.
protected area.
The inspector also observed a security force shift change to verify that information pertinent to plant security status was transmitted to the oncoming shift and that communication checks were accomplished.
(f) Condition of the Interior of Selected Control Cabinets.
The inspector reviewed several shift turn over sheets and obser:ved several shift turnovers.
c.
Activities That Were Performed Once During This Reporting Period (1) ESF System Operability Verification The inspector performed a walkdown of the Auxiliary Feedwater System with the exception of the valves inside containment.
The walkdown was performed using the licensee's valve line up check sheets, then the check sheets were compared to licensee's Piping and Instrument Diagrams (PI&D's) for accuracy.
(2) The inspector verified that selected portions of the containment isolation lineup was correct. The following containment penetra-tions were inspected:
M-99, M-98, M-97, M-96, M-95, M-94, M-93, M-92, M-91, M-90.
4.
Surveillance Observations The inspector observed the performance of the following sur-illance a.
test:
ST-PL-1, F.2, " Pressurizer Level."
b.
The inspector determined through personal observation and review of records where approriate that:
(1) Approved procedures were used.
(2) The test data was recorded accurately and completely.
)
(3) The surveillance test documentation was properly reviewed.
(4) The test was done by qualified personnel.
c.
In addition, the inspector witnessed portions of or reviewed the results of the following surveillance tests:
'
. _.
- -.
-
-
- - -
-
,.
.-
.
(1)
ST-RPS-1, Power Range Safety ' Channels (2)
ST-RLT-3, Reactor Coolant System Leak Rate Test d.
For each test the inspector verified:
(1) The test was scheduled in accordance with Technical Specification requirements.
(2) Approved procedures were followed.
(3) Test uas conducted by qualified personnel.
(4) Limiting Conditions For Operations were met while conducting the tests.
5.
Maintenance obse:.vations The inspector observed portions of the work covered by maintenance a.
order, M0 No. 6835. The work involved repairing a lube oil leak under one diesel generator engine (DG-2).
b.
The inspector determined through personal observations and review -
of records that:
(1) The special maintenance procedure had been reviewed and approved (2) The redundant Diesel Generator (DG-1) had been verified operable.
(3) Limiting conditions for operation were not violated and appropriate technical specification action statements had been identified.
(4) QC hold points were identified and observed.
(5) Special instructions and precautions from the manufacturer were included.
(6) The work was being performed by qualified personnel.
(7) Fire hazards, if any, were ideatified and precautions where necessary, were taken.
(8) Equipment was properly returned to service.
c.
The inspector also reviewed several other maintenance orders selected at random. The review consisted of verifying that the above criteria, waere applicable, had been met.
The M0's selected were:
,
,
.
,
...
-c
.
MO No. 6932, Charging Pump Suction
.
MO No. 6959, AC Matrix Relay
.
MO No. 7018, Channel D Axial Power Difference (APD)
.
MO No. 7026, Channel B Hiflux, TM/LP and APD
.
MO No. 7032, CPHS 86 Relay Hi
.
6.
Follow up on IE Bulletins The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to the following IE Bulletins (IEB):
IEB 80-03 IEB 80-08 IEB 80-04 IEB 80-09 IEB 80-05 IEB 80-10 IEB 80-06 IEB 80-12 The above IE Bulletins were reviewed to verify that:
The written response was within the time specified.
a.
b.
The written response addressed the information required.
Adequate corrective action, when required, was specified.
c.
d.
Corrective action was accomplished as specified.
7.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Follow Up Selected LER's were reviewed to verify the following:
a.
Correct reporting requirements were met.
b.
Proper corrective action was identified and taken.
c.
Licensee administrative procedures were followed in the evaluation and review of the event:
The following LER's were reviewed:
LER 80-06, Transmitter lead splices on HPSI loop flow, Press-
.
i urizer Pressure and Steam Generator Pressure Transmitter.
.
_
f
LER 80-07, Pentration cable splices for containment vent fans
.
VA-3A, VA-38, VA-7C and VA-7D.
LER 80-09, Stack Iodine Process Monitor, RMO-060, Calibration.
.
LER 80-10, RCP Leak During Cold Pressure Test.
.
.
8.
License Status of Training Personnel The inspector discussed the SRO license status of the instructors involved in the training of personnel in areas of systems, integrated plant response and transients with the training coordinator. The inspector determined that instructors presently involved in the above activities hold SRO licenses at this time.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector held several mini exit interviews with the Mr. S. C. Stevens (Manager, Fort Calhoun Station) during this inspection period.
On September 26, 1980, the inspector held an exit interview to discuss the scope and findings of the entire inspection period with those licensee personnel denoted in paragraph 1 of this report.
.
e
,,
r,-
- -.,,
=-
g
--
-.-.
r-w.
,e-
+
y -
,n
. - -,