IR 05000285/1982007
| ML20054G228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1982 |
| From: | Randy Hall, Jaudon J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054G225 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-285-82-07, 50-285-82-7, NUDOCS 8206210292 | |
| Download: ML20054G228 (6) | |
Text
.
APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPMISSION
REGION IV
Report:
50-285/82-07 Docket:
50-285 License:
DRP-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:
April 5-9, 1982
-
Inspector:
. [ fr i / _ f4 f[
- 1
..-
. F[. J doh, Reattor Inspector, Reactor Project Date Secti C
f/&
Approved: y R. E. Hall, Chief, Reactor Project Section C Date'
Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted April 5-9, 1982 (Report 50-285/82-07)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee action on previously identified items, nonlicensed training, and design change program.
The inspection involved 31 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Within the three areas inspected, there were no violations or deviations identified.
i
.
l l
i 8206210292 820526 i
PDR ADOCK 05000285
,
o PDR u
i
'
-
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Omaha Public Power District J. Fisicaro, Supervisor, Administrative Services J. Gass, Training Supervisor
- R. Jaworkski, Section Manager, Technical Services
- W. C. Jones, Division Manager, Production Operations L. Kusek, Technical Services Supervisor M. Meador, Shift Supervisor
- K. J. Morris, Manager, Administrative Services.
G. Peterson, Maintenance Supervisor A. Richard, Plant Engineer R. Short, Licensing Engineer
- S. C. Stevens, Manager, Fort Calhoun Station The NRC inspector also contacted other administrative, clerical, maintenance, and operations personnel.
- Denotes presence at the exit interview conducted April 8, 1982.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Violation (8102-02).
This violation, which concerned non-licensed training, had multiple sections which are discussed in the following subparagraphs.
a.
The licensee had previously failed to conduct annual refresher training on site security procedures and health physics.
The NRC inspector found that the licensee maintained records of annual health physics and security refresher training.
These records were apparently up-to-date, and refresher training was being conducted as required.
The NRC inspector also noted that if an individual failed to complete refresher training as scheduled, unescorted access was terminated for the individual until the required training was com-pleted.
b.
The licensee had previously failed to issue an annual training schedule for nonlicensed training as required by the licensee's training manual.
The NRC inspector found that the licensee had issued an annual training schedule for 1982 on December 29, 1981 (Serial FC-1954-81).
c.
The licensee had previously failed to schedule approximately 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> of lecture for the mechanical and electrical crafts as required by the Fort Calhoun Training Manual.
The NRC inspector found that the licensee had conducted craft lectures during 1981 and had scheduled and was conducting craft lectures in 198 '
.
'v,
,
>
,
d.
The licensee had previously failed to schedule lectures for crafts in specific topics (such as " changes to facility design") which were required on an annual basis by the Fort Calhoun Training Manual.
The NRC inspector found that the licensee was now conducting the required training.
e.
The licensee had designated two individuals as " Emergency Duty Officers" without providing appropriate training for these indi-viduals.
The NRC inspector found that licensee training records.
supported the designation of " Emergency Duty Officer" for the 14 individuals listed as qualified Emergency Duty Officers in x
S. Stevens' memorandum EP-82-60 of March 26, 1982 (revised)J
,
This item is closed.
'
.,
3.
Training
-
'
The purpose of this inspection was to determine whether or not nonlicensed training and retraining met the requirements of.the Technical Specifications, Chasmar 5.
The NRC inspector reviewed licensee Procedure G-27, Revision 4 (Nov. 19, '
1981), " Training".
Procedure G-27 only assigns respo~nsibilities and
-
'
s invokes the Fort Calhoun Training Manual (FCTM).
The FCTM was reviewed.
'
,
This manual provided program requirements for nonlicensed training.
r The licensee's system of nonlicensed training records were reviewed.
This system was found to be a computer data bank with files of the hard copy input documents maintained separately.
The NRC inspector compared sample computer data to the hard copy inputs..No discrepancies were found.
It was concluded that the computer printouts were accurate enough to use to verify training completed.
The NRC inspector found that the licensee had two basic data sorts available.
One of the sorts showed the status of all personnel regarding general employee training - initiar:
and annual refresher. The second sort was by individual and showed all training modules completed by each individual.
The NRC inspector had no further questions about the licensee's'nonlicensed training records.
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's annual training schedule, which was dated December 29, 1981.
It was noted that this schedule included both regular safety meetings and systems training.
By interview-and by record review, the NRC inspector concluded that the annual training plan was essentially being followed.
During the interviews, the NRC inspector found that it was not unusual for the licensee to conduct detailed prejob briefings and postjob critiques.
While,this constituted training, the licensee was not recordin'g'it as such.
,
,
./
,
\\
d
/
,
f
_
Thelicensee'srecohdsofon-the-jobtrainingfor_craftswerenot;
'
'
extensive.
Individuals in apprentice training programs took self-study courses.
Shop personnel stated to the NRC inspector that apprentices were assigned to tasks that were compatible with.their progress in the
,
self study courses.
The NRC inspector concluded that this had the appea'rance of a very minimal structuring of an on-the-job training
'
program; however, the licensee had experienced comparatively low turnover-rates in the crafts, and, therefore, the on-the-job training program appeared to meet current requirements.
I
'The NRC inspector also reviewed the licensee's~ program for Shift Technical Advisor (STA) training and requalification training.
At the time of the inspection, the licensee.had a group in initial STA training;
,this group was scheduled to complete STA training during the summer of
,
1982.
Retraining of current STA's included participation in the operator
'
,
<
- requalification program.
The NRC inspector noted that the FCTM excluded STA's from annual simulator refresher training (paragraph 5.2.2.1).
The licensee had informed the commission staff of this intention in a letter of December-31, 1981. The licensee's rationalization, used to exclude STA's-from annual simulator refresher training, was that onsite review of
" operational experiences" and classroom training met the intent of the
.
<
guidelines for STA retraining which had been promulgated by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO).
The NRC inspector also noted that during 1981 INP0 had conducted an evaluation of Fort Calhoun which included'a finding that, " Simulator training should be provided in the STA requalification program."~ The NRC inspector concluded that the
.
licensee's initial rationalization ~for not providing STA's with simulator refresher training was thus questionable.
In discussion with licensee
,
representatives, the NRC inspector learned that the licensee now planned to send STA's to simulator refresher training along with the licensed operator,s, unless the STA had already attended a simulator training Jession during the same trairiing-year.
The revision of the FCTM to reflect the licensee's stated intentions regarding STA simulator refresher training is considered to be an open item (8207-01).
4.
Design Change Program Thepurposeofthisinspectionwaitoascertainwhetherornotthe
,
' ~ !
licensee was implementing a quality cssurance program related to the control of design changes and modifications.
The NRC inspector reviewed three licensee procedures related to this inspection.
These procedures were:
.
G-21, Revision 12, " Station Modification Control," Sept. 14, 1981
'
Q-25, Revision 7, " Electrical Jumpers Control," Dec. 31, 1981
,
ub-
!
m
g5+,,
a
- gi c l-(p
..)
- '
.p
e
'
~
,
>:
t
,
'
,e
.
- 4 s
, _
,,
'
<
'
_,
_
+S
c,.
-
.
.
G-46, Revision 0, " Evaluation ofsChanges, Tests,-and Experiments for Status as an Unreviewed Safety. Question," April 23, 1981
'
The NRC inspector found that these procedures were each written to stand alone.
For example, licensee Procedure G-21 mentioned " safety evaluations" but did not reference Procedure G-46.
Procedure G-46 stated that changes required completion of an "Unreviewed Safety Question Evaluation" form (Fort Calhoun Form FC-154) but did not reference Procedure G-21.
Licensee representatives informed the NRC inspector that both Procedures G-21 and G-46 were under revision at the time of the inspection. The NRC inspector provided the licensee with comments on both of these procedures.
These comments were:
-
Procedure G-21 did not clearly assign responsibility for fire hazard analysis in the design phase.
(This was also a comment in NRC.
inspection report 50-285/81-34.)
-
Procedure G-21 did not contain any requirement for independent verification of design calculations.
The NRC inspector noted that this was addressed in Generating Station Engineering (GSE) procedures.
GSE procedures are not subject to Plant Review Committee review or site approval.
-
Procedure G-21 is not cross-referenced to Procedure G-46 as discussed above.
-
The draft revision of Procedure G-46 contained detailed explanations of unreviewed safety question evaluations, but it did not modify Form FC-154, which is the form used to record safety evaluations.
The NRC i spector noted that Form FC-154 did not clearly elicit the n
basis for making the safety determination.
This is currently an open item from a prior inspection (8134-02).
The NRC inspector also reviewed the licensee's jumpers and bypass log.
On April 6, 1982, this contained 20 outstanding authorizations for electrical jumpers and bypasses.
The average of the outstanding authorizations was 28 months.
The NRC inspector noted that licensee
Procedure Q-25 required that these open jumper and bypass authoriza-tions be evaluated monthly (when they were verified) to determine if an Engineering Evaluation and Assistance Request (EEAR) was warranted.
This was a relatively new licensee requirement, and although,iEARs had been prepared, they had not yet resulted in remedial action to modify the plant or clear the long-term jumpers.
.
,
+
N
P OF
...
g t
-
,
'
It was also noted that' licensee Procedure Q-25 only addressed electrical jumpers and bypasses.
Licensee representatives stated.
.that mechanical jumpers, bypasses, and blocks-(e.g., " dutchmen," blind flanges, etc.) were rare. When the need arose for a mechanical jumper, this was handled as an emergency plant modification under Procedure G-21.
-The NRC inspector had no further questions in this area.
'
The NRC inspector noted that Procedure 0-25 did not make direct reference to Procedure G-46 or.an evaluation of proposed jumpers or bypasses as unreviewed safety questions.
Procedure G-46 did state that no jumper could be installsd which violated ~the license.
Dis-cussion of jumper controls with licensee representatives indicated that they were aware of-the requirement to conduct safety evaluations
-
as required by Procedure G-46 prior to modifying safety circuitry.
There were no violations or deviations identified in this portion of the. inspection.
5.
Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted April 8,1982, with ~those personnel denoted in paragraph 1 of this report.
At this exit-interview, the NRC inspector summarized the scope and findings of this inspection.