IR 05000285/1981003
| ML20003G460 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1981 |
| From: | Cummins J, Hunnicutt D, Jaudon J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003G459 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-285-81-03, 50-285-81-3, NUDOCS 8104290494 | |
| Download: ML20003G460 (7) | |
Text
.
.
O U. 5.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PEGION IV Report No. 50-285/81-03 Docket No.
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 and Omaha Public Power District Office, Omaha, Nebraska Inspection Conducted:
February 9-12, 1981 C, 7.
h
? -6-8/
Inspectors:
3. E. Cummins, Reactor Inspector Date
% s k( $
3 -6 -F 1
~,
J. P.'Jaudon, React Inspector Date Approved by: bt C i.. M M k /,.,
! - P. )
'
D. M. Hiannicutt, C fef, Reactor Projects Section No.2 Date
/
Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted During Period of February 9-12. 1981 (Recort No. 50-285/81-03)
l Areas Insoected:
Routine, unannounced inspection including Test and Measure-l ment Equipment Program, Procedures, and Fire Prevention / Protection Program.
l The inspection involved 48 inspector-hours on-site and at the District Office by two NRC insoectors.
Results:
Of the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were icentified.
i
'81042 9 0 M3%
'
-
-
.
.,
.
-
-
.
-
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- R. L. Andrews, Section Manager, Operations M. Core, I&C Engineer D. Dale, QC Inspector L. Dugger, Reactor Engineer
-
J. Fisicaro, Supervisor, Administrative Services J. Gass, Supervisor, Training
- R. L. Jaworski, Section Manager, Technical Services
- W. C. Jones, Division Manager, Production Operations L. Kusek, Supervisor, Technical Services
- K. J. Morris, Manager, Administrative Services
- T. Patterson, Licensing Administrator G. Peterson, Supervisor, Maintenance
- S. C. Stevens, Manager, Ft. Calhoun Station
- F. A. Thurtell, Division Manager, E&RA
- Denotes presence at exit interview.
The inspectors also contacted other plant personnel including clerical, administrative and maintenance personnel.
2.
Test and Measurement Equipment Program The IE inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for the control, use and calibration of test and measurement equipment.
The inspectors found that the licensee maintained calibration records for test and measurement equipment and that the calibration of each piece of equip-ment checked was traceable to an appropriate national standard.
The inspectors also found that the licensee maintained records sufficient to identify which specific test and measurement equipment had been used for calibration of each plant instrument system.
The inspectors noted that the licensee's Quality Control personnel on site periodically witnessed the calibration of randomly selected test and measurement equipment.
Quality Control verification signatures were used to certify all test and measurement equipment in calibration prior to use for a calibration of a plant system.
The IE inspectors noted that the licensee's procedures required test gauges to be calibrated within 14 days prior to use; however, for hydrostatic tests, the licensee h:.d no system for using two gauges or for post-test verification to assure that the test gauge used had remained in calibration throughout the test.
Although the use of two test gauges or post-test verification are not regulatory requirements, the inspectors pointed out to licensee representatives the types of problems that the inspectors had previously observed when such a double check of gauges was not used.
For electrical and electronic measurement
. _
_.
.
equipment, the licensee's procedures required an evaluation of the possible consequences to the plant systems on which it had been used when a piece of test and measurement equipment was found to be out of calibration.
There were no violations or deviations noted in this area of the inspection.
3.
Procedures The IE inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for the preparation, review and approval of procedures.
Procedure preparation was technically adequate but in one instance, was
'
so slow that it would have resulted in a violation had not the licensee inadvertently completed the surveillance included in the change.
In this case, Amendment 53 to the Technical Specifications, which was issued November 17, 1980, required, among other things, a monthly check on the position of two valves in the fire protection system.
This change to the surveillance procedure was approved by the Plant Review Committee in early January 1981, but had not been issued on February 11, 1981.
This is discussed further in Paragraph 4 of this report.
The IE inspectors confirmed that review of new procedures and procedure changes was being accomplished by the Plant Review Committee as required by Technical Specifications.
The IE inspectors also found that biannual review of procedures, as required by the licensee's program, was scheduled, and review completion documented.
The inspectors noted that indices of procedures in the master procedure books were updated only periodically and did not necessarily reflect the latest date on which the periodic review of a procedure had been conducted.
This biannual review was documented sepcrately.
The IE inspectors also found that the review and approval of temporary or urgent procedure changes was being accomplished in accordance with Technical Specification requirements.
The procedures checked by the inspectors are listed below.
Those procedures checked for technical content are identified by an asterisk.
Procedure No.
Procedure Title Revision and Date OP-l*
Master Checklist for Revision 12, Septemoer 9, 1980 startup or Trip Recovery OP-2 Plant Start;n from Revision 3, July 21, 1973 Cold Shutdow,.
..
.
.
Procedure No.
Procedure Title Revision and Date OI-CC-1 Component Cooling, Revision 9, March 10, 1978 Normal Operation OI-FW-1 Blowdown Revision 6, December 7, 1978 I
OI-NI-1*
Nuclear Instrument Revision 10, June 30, 1980 System OI-SI-1 Safety Injection Revision 20, November 4, 1980 Normal Operation OI-CH-1 Chemical and Volume Revision 13, June 12, 1980 Control System Normal Operation A-6 (OP-10)
Annunciator A-6 Revision 5, February 7, 1978 A-10 (0P-10)
Annunciator A-10 Revision 3, December 1, 1975 A-20 (OP-10)
Annunciator A-20 Revision 3, January 15, 1980 EP-5*
Loss of Coolant Revision 12, April 16, 1980 EP-5A*
Loss of Coolant Revision 8, April 16, 1980 EP-3 Complete Loss of Revision 8, March 27, 1980 Offsite AC Power EP-7 Loss of Feedwater Revision 4, May 20, 1980 EP-31 Loss of Control Room Revision 1, April 21, 1979 Air Conditioner EP-35 Reset of Engineered Revision 1, August 1, 1980 Safeguards 0-16*
Operating Procedures Revision 3, November 2, 1977 0-17 Operating Instructions Revision 3, November 2, 1977 0-18 Emergency Procedures Revision 2, January 4, 1977 0-20*
Equipment Tagging Revision 9, May 9, 1980 MP-CH-1*
Inspection and Repair Revision 8, June 19, 1979 of Charging Pumps
-- -...
.
-.
--
.
-
.....
-
_
.
.
Procedure No.
Procedure Title Revision and Date MP-EE-20~
Automatic AC Sequence Revision 1, February 11, 1980 Timer Relays - Test and Inspection MP-IC-1 Removal and Replacement Revision 1, February 23, 1980
-
of Incore Detector Assemblies MP-FN-1 Foxboro "N" Series Revision 0, January 29, 1981 Transmitters There were no violations or deviations found in this area of the inspection, but the inspectors were concerned at the prolonged time required to issue a required change to a surveillance procedure.
(see paragraph 4. below)
4.
Fire Protection / Prevention Program The IE inspectors reviewed the licensee's fire protection / prevention program.
It was determined that the licensee's program included the conduct of periodic audits as required by Technical Specifications.
Review of the three most recently conducted audits at the conclusion of the inspection showed that the results of these audits were con-sistent with the IE inspectors' findings.
The IE inspectors found that the licensee had a program to train fire brigade members and to indoc-trinate other plant personnel in fire prevention / protection.
The inspectors noted that the licensee had been found to be in violation of a fire drill training requirement in Inspection Report No. 81-02.
No followup on this violation was made during this inspection because Inspection Report No. 81-02 was dated only four days before the start of this inspection.
The inspectors found that the licensee's written requirements for the control of hazardous and flammable material provided a methodology for control and storage of these substances and that housekeeping and inspection procedures defined a program to keep the plant free of combustibles.
A tour of accessible plant spaces did not reveal any fire safety deficiencies.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's fire protection / prevention surveillance procedures.
It was found that new surveillance require-ments in this area resulting from Amendment 53 to the Technical Specifications had not been incorporated into the licensee's surveillance procedures.
Amendment 53, issued November 17, 1980, included the requirement to verify the position of two valves in the Halon System.
i
.
These two valves are solenoid operated valves which, if actuated, would align the Halon System to either the east or west switchgear rooms.
The surveillance on these two valves was not conducted until February 11, 1981, when the inspectors informed the licensee management that this surveillance had not been completed.
Subsequent investigation by licensee management revealed that during preparation of the procedure change to include these two valves in the
-
appropriate surveillance, this surveillance was in effect completed on December 30, 1980 by the licensee's engineer verifying the procedure change, but this observation by the engineer had not been documented.
The procedure change was approved by +,he Plant Review Committee in early January 1981.
As of February 11, 1981, the change to the surveillance procedure was returned from typing but not issued.
The licensee's investigation, checked by the Resident Inspector, revealed that the position of two solenoid valves was monitored by a supervisory system which gave an audio and visual alarm in the Control Room if the valves left the " SET" (or shut) position.
Thus, it was determined that the licensee had performed the monthly surveillance requirement inadvert-ently by continuous monitoring of the valves in question.
The IE inspectors also noted that Amendment 53 to the Technical Specifi-cations included the following other surveillance requirements for the Halon System which were not yet reflected in the licensee's surveillance procedures:
At least once every six months, verify Halon System
.
operability by storage tank pressure and weight or level.
At least once every eighteen months, verify system operability
.
by simulated test signal; visually inspect spray headers to verify integrity; and visually inspect nozzles to ensure no blockage.
.
At least once every three years, perform an air flow test through each header and nozzle to assure no blockage.
i Inclusion of the above requirements in surveillance procedures is considered to be an unresolved item until completed by the licensee.
(8103-01)
The IE inspectors noted in a surveillance inspection conducted in April 1980, that two spray nozzles were reported as ceing possioly blocked, and therefore unable to carryout their design function.
This question became a request for engineering evaluation and resolution.
The eventual resolution was that spray from the nozzles was determined not to be blocked; however, this resolution took approximately five
. -.
-,- _-
_-
-
- -
. - -,.. -._ - __
-
.
i
..
.
months.
The inspectors expressed concern tc the license management that resolution of a question concerning the operability of a required system had not been accomplished expeditiously.
There were no violations or deviations noted in this area of the inspection.
5.
Unresolved Items
'
An unresolved item is a matter about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether it is acceptable, a violation or a deviation.
The unresolved item identified in this report is listed below:
Number Subject Paragraph 285/8103-01 Surveillance Procedures
To Incorporate Amendment 53 To Technical Specifications 5.
Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted in the Omaha Public Power District Offices (Jones Street), Omaha, on February 12, 1981, with those OPPD personnel denoted in paragraph 1.
At this exit interview the inspectors summarized the scope of the inspection and their findings.
!
!
I
!
l
<
.