IR 05000285/1981005
| ML20003J205 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1981 |
| From: | Hunnicutt D, Kelly D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003J202 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-285-81-05, 50-285-81-5, NUDOCS 8105110023 | |
| Download: ML20003J205 (6) | |
Text
--
'
.
O U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-285/81-05
-
,
Docket No. 50-285 License No. OPR-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:
February 1-28, 1981 Inspector:
b W2 $
Nf 3//8/8/
- 0. L. Kelley, Senior Resident Reactor Inspectnr
/ Date l
Approved by:
3 ^/?? h 4 w &
_S//9/9/
0. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, Reactor Project Section No.2
/ Date Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted During Period of February 1-28, 1981 (Report No. 50-285/81-05)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection including (1) operational safety verification; (2) surveillance testing; (3) maintenance; (4) reactor trip; and (5) ATWS procedure review.
The inspection involved 77 inspector-hours on site
'
by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Within the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
810s1100.13
. -.
-
.-
.
. - -
_.
_ _-.
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- S. C. Stevens, Manager, Fort Calhoun Station
- W. G. Gates, Supervisor, Operations
- W. C. Jones, Division Manager, Production Operations
.
- R. L. Andrews, Section Manager, Operations
- R. L. Jaworski, Section Manager, Technical Services
- L. Sealocke, Computer Applications
- J. F. Gass, Training Supervisor J. L. Connolley, Supervisor, I&C and Electrical Field Maintenance L. J. Dugger, Reactor Engineer G. R. Peterson, Supervisor, Maintenance
- 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, craftsmen, engineers and office personnel.
2.
Operational Safety 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 dis-charging 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 Operations (LCO's).
l (b) Observation to instrumerit and recorder traces for abnormalities.
(c) Verification of operator adherence to approved procedures.
(d) Verification of control room and shift manning.
(2) Review of selected logs and records to obtain information on plant operations, trends, compliance with regulatory requirements, and assess the effectiveness of communication provided by these logs and records.
-.
.
-
.
(3) During the course of control room observations the inspector noted the alarm status of the control room annunciators.
The alarm status was discussed with several licensed operators to determine the cause for the alarm conditions.
The inspector determined as a result of these discussions that for the plant status these alarms were normal and the operating staff is cognizant of the cause for the alarms.
.
b.
Inspection Activities Performed on a Weekly Basis (1) The operability of selected Emergency Safeguards Features (ESF)
systems was verified by noting value positions, breaker positions, instrumentation and the general condition of major systems com-ponents.
In additian, the Auxiliary Feedwater System was walked down, using the licensee's valve line up check off sheets.
(2) The licensee's equipment control was reviewed for proper imple-mentation 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 Specifi-cations action statements.
(b) Verification of " return to operable status of selected safety-related components and systems."
(3) The inspector toured accessible areas of the plant at various times during the inspection to determine and/or verify equipment conditions, plant conditions, security, safety and housekeeping.
Observations included the following:
(a) General plant and equipment condition.
(b)
Fire hazards.
,
(c) Control of combustible material.
(d) Fire watch postings and presence of fire watches when required.
(e) Physical security.
The inspection verified that the security plan is being implemented by observing that:
The Security organization of properly manned and security per-sonnel are capable of performing their assigned tasks.
Protected Area barriers are not degraded.
.
Isolation Zones are clear.
.
_
_
-
.
.
.
l
4 i
,
Vehicles are properly authorized, searched, and escorted or
.
controlled within the protected area.
Persons within the protected area display photo identifica-
.
tion badges and persons requiring escort are properly escorted.
Vital area physical barriers are not degraded.
.
.
Persons and packages are checked prior to entry into the
.
protected area.
The inspector observed several shift turnovers and reviewed several shift turnover sheets.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Surveillance Observations a.
The inspector observed portions of the following surveillance tests:
ST-ESF-11, F.1, " Steam Generator Low Pressure Signal," R11,
.
12/4/79.
ST-ESF-6, F.5, " Diesel Generator Inspection," R2, 2/12/81
.
(covered in more detail under " Maintenance Observations").
b.
The inspector determined through personal observation and appropriate records where appropriate that:
(1) Approved procedures were used.
(2) Test instrumentation was calibrated.
l (3)
Limiting conditions for operation were met when the system being
'
tested was removed from service.
l (4) The test data was recorded accurately and completely.
Selected test results were independently verified by the inspector.
(5) The surveillance test documentation was properly reviewed and test discrepancies were rectified.
!
(6) Test results met Technical Specification requirements.
!
l (7) The test was done by qualified personnel.
4.
Maintenance Observations a.
The inspector observed portions of the following maintenance activity:
The annual overhaul of Diesel Generator 0-2.
This activity is covered i
by ST-ESF-6, F.5, (see above).
i
_ _
_
_
__
__
__
..
..
-
.
b.
The inspector determined through personal observation and review of records where appropriate that:
(1) These activities were not violating limiting conditions for operations.
(2) Redundant components were operable.
,
(3) Required administrative approvals and tagouts were obtained prior to initiating the work.
(4) Approved procedures were being used, if appropriate.
(5) The procedures used were adequate to control the activity.
(6) Activities were being accomplished by qualified personnel.
(7) Replacement parts and materials being used were properly certified.
(8) Radiological controls were proper and that they are being properly implemented.
(9)
Ignition source controls were properly implemented.
(10) QC hold points, if any, were observed.
(11) Equipment was properly returned to service.
c.
The inspector reviewed outstanding job orders to determine that the licensee is giving proper priority to safety-related maintenance and tnat a backlog is not developing on a given system which might affect its operability.
The inspector also determined that the proper i
apV ovals were obtained for job orders which appear to constitute des gn changes.
l S.
Review cf Emergency Prccedure Relating to ATWS The inspector reviewed the licensee's approved emergency procedures to determine if they adeouately address the following:
-
Failure to scram when required.
l
-
Failure to complete scram when initiated automatically or manually.
-
Inability to move control rods.
i Failure to automatically scram when a parameter exceeds its trip valve.
-
-
Criteria for use of Emergency Boration System.
.
..
,
Reactor Trip or scram.
-
Anticipated Transierit without scram.
-
Also reviewed were the authorities and responsibilities of operators governing the use of the Emergency Boration System.
6.
.
Fort Calhoun Station experienced two reactor trips during this reporting period.
The first occurred on February 17, 1981, the second on February 18, 1981.
a.
February 17, 1981 The reactor tripped on " Low-Level" in the "A" steam generator.
T5e post trip investigation revealed that the actuator for feedwater regulating valve, HCV-1101 had failed and caused the regulating valve to close down.
The valve would not work in manual or automatic.
b.
February 18, 1981 After repair of the actuator for HCV-1101 the reactor was taken critical.
When the operator operated the closing switch to synchronize the generator with the system, the breaker failed
'.o close.
After three seconds, a time-delay relay tripped the Master Trip Relay.
This in turn tripped the reactor.
Post-trip investigation revealed a faulty relay in the l
generator breaker control circuit.
The inspector reviewed the computer printouts (Sequence of Events and Alarm Typer), strip charts and log entries.
Additionally, the inspector interviewed those present in the control room when the trip occurred.
No violatians or deficiencies were identified.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with S. C. Stevens, Manager, Fort Calhoun Station on February 27, 1981, to discuss the scope and findings of this inspection period.
i J
,
_
..y
_
--
..
,,. -