IR 05000285/1982011
| ML20055B769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1982 |
| From: | Randy Hall, Hunnicutt D, Jandon J, Jaudon J, Murphy M, Redano R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055B767 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-285-82-11, NUDOCS 8207230282 | |
| Download: ML20055B769 (9) | |
Text
.
APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV~
NRC Inspection Report: 50-285/82-11 Docket: 50-285 License:
'
Licensee:
Omaha Public Power' District 1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Facility Name:
Fort Calhoun. Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Fort Calhoun Station r, Nebraska Inspection Conducted:
May 8,19827
/
/
?!1 P2 -
Inspectors:
A y'. f. NReactor Inspector, Reactor Project Section C Dat'e dPdca9'raphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8)
J.
-
M. 'E. Murphy,Tacto/ Ins @Ector, Reactor Project Section C
' [ fate (Paragraphs 1, 6, 7, and 8)
-f h!
wwwoW 7 2/R1 R. T. Redano, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Section
' Date h
(Paragraphs 1, 4, 7, and 8)
L i
Approved:
)N N,,,Ea F 7 / c9.2.
'
D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, Engineering Section
/ Date W
2-R. E. Hall, Chief', Reactor Project Section C
' Da'te 8207230282 820706 PDR ADOCK 05000295 G
.
.
-2-Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted on May 24-28, 1982 (Report 50-285/82-11)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee action on previously identified items, warehouse and material control, procedures, surveillance, maintenance, and audit implementation.
The inspection involved 96 inspector-hours by three NRC inspectors.
Results:
Within the six areas inspected, there were no violations or deviations identified.
l
-
.
-3-DETAILS
_
1.
Persons Contacted Omaha Public Power District
- R. Ar.drews, Section Manager, Production Operations J. Fisicaro, 50parvisor, Administrative Services
- G. Gates, Stat:on Manager J. Gloshen, Corporate Quality Assurance Engineer K. Hyde, Engineer
- h. C. Jones, Division Manager, Production Operation L. Kusek, Technical Supervisor
- T. Patterson, Licensing Administrator G. Peterson, Maintenance Supervisor M. Strang, Stores Assistant R. Wentworth, Quality Control Inspector M. Winter, Manager, Quality Assurance J. Zelfel, Quality Assurance Inspector The NRC inspectors also contacted other plant and district personnel including administrative, clerical, engineering, maintenance, and operations personnel.
- Denotes presence at the exit interview conducted May 28, 1982.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Violation (8111-O').
This violation concerned the licensee's failure to follow proce@Jres regarding material stored in the warehouse.
Monthly shelf life controls had not been documented for silicone foam; and some 20 critical element items, stored in the licensee's storage area for accepted critical items, had not been identified by "QA Material Conformance" tags.
During this inspection, it was found that the licensee was conducting monthly checks of shelf life records.
There were no discrepancies found in the licensee's shelf life documentation.
The NRC inspector also found that the material which had not been properly tagged has now been tagged.
There were no accepted, critical items which were found untagged.
This item is closed.
(Closed) Violation (8111-02).
This violation had resulted from the licensee's failure to have appropriate procedures to identify, control, and accept critical equipment and components that remained from initial construction or to have administrative control of " Traveling Requisitions."
w_
-
.______ _____
. _ _ _ _ _
_ _____ __.______
l
.
-4-The NRC inspector found that the licensee had reinspected and either disposed of or accepted the remaining material for construction.
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's Purchasing Manual, Revision 1, dated August 1, 1981.
This manual revision had, inter alia, estab-lished control over " Traveling Requisitions."
This item is closed.
3.
Warehouse and Material Control The purpose of this inspection was to ascertain whether or not the
&
licensee's storage of components, material, and supplies was in conformance with his approved quality assurance program.
The NRC inspector toured the licensee's warehouse.
This warehouse was found to contain limited areas for Level A storage, as defined in ANSI N45.2.2.
The remaining areas were considered to meet the require-ments of Level B storage.
It was noted that material was separated according to whether or not it was for use in nuclear safety grade systems or other use.
Material was also segregated into " received,"
" accepted," or " rejected" categories.
Material accepted for nuclear use was found to be tagged and in locked storage areas.
Additionally, the NRC inspector had no questions about the housekeeping or cleanliness in the warehouse.
The NRC inspector reviewed the following procedures which affected the warehouse and material control.
G-22, " Storage of Critical Elements and Radioactive Material Packaging, Fire Protection Material, and Calibrating Material" (Revision 3, January 7,1980)
G-24, " Receiving and Shipping Control of CQE, Limited CQE, Fire Protection Material and Radioactive Material Packaging Materials (Quality Material)" (Revision 9, May 5, 1981)
G-25, " Stores Control" (Revision 0, May 19, 1981)
" Purchasing Manual" (Revision 1, August 1, 1981)
Within the context of this inspection, there were no open questions concerning these procedures.
The NRC inspector noted the licensee did stage material to support some maintenance jobs.
Licensee representa-tives stated that staged material was considered to have been issued.
If some of the staged material was returned to the warehouse, licensee representatives stated that it was reidentified and reinspected before
1
_ - - _. _
_
_.
.
_ _ _ _. -
-5-i
being accepted.
Licensee representatives also stated that it had been the practice to pull the "conformance tags" from material at the time of issue, but in the case of staged material that was subsequently returned, this sometimes led to problems in identification.
Accordingly,
,
licensee representatives stated that they planned to modify the material control procedures.
There were no violations or deviations identified.
4.
Procedures The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's program for the preparation,
,
review, change, and approval of procedu es. The licensee's procedure
l program appears to meet the Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 50.59
requirements.
All procedures reviewed were determined to be adequate.
The NRC inspector also determined that the biennial review of procedures, as required by the licensee't program, was scheduled and carried out as specified in the licensee's program.
In the course of examining the procedures for adequacy, the NRC inspector noted that the control element drive mechanism (CEDM) malfunction procedure
,
is consistent with the Technical Specification requirements for control
'
rod inoperability, and the steam generator tube rupture procedure has been recently updated to include provisions relative to pressurized thermal shock considerations.
The NRC inspector also noted that some of the procedure change sheets had procedure changes written in pencil.
The review and approval of temporary or urgent procedure changes were found to be in compliance with the Technical Specification requirements by the NRC inspector.
The procedures checked by the NRC inspector are listed below:
EP-4, " Loss of RC Flow," Rev. 6 (3/9/82)
EP-13, "CEDM Malfunction," Rev. 6 (4/21/79)
EP 26, " Loss of Flux Indication," Rev. 1 (10/30/73)
,
OP-6, " Hot Standby to Cold Shutdown," Rev. 2 (11/20/72)
OP-ll, " Reactor Core Refueling Procedure," Rev. 6 (10/30/81)
G-10, " Technical Specifications," Rev. 4 (1/19/82)
G-43, " Interim STA," Rev. 1 (12/31/80)
- _ _ - -.
-
.
.
. -
..
.
..
-
- -
-
.-.
-6-
,
_
RC-6-1, " Removal of RV Closure Head," Rev. 15 (12/3/81)
01-AFW-2, " Auxiliary Feedwater System Operation," Rev. 0 (12/7/81)
OI-CS-1, " Containment Spray," Rev. 12 (6/9/81)
OI-ES-1, " Engineered Safeguards Control," Rev. 13 (12/6/81)
OI-FH-4, " Purification of Refueling Water During Refueling,"
t Rev. 9 (7/28/81)
OI-RC-1, " Reactor Coolant System," Rev. 13 (12/5/81)
OI-WDS-1, " Solid Waste Disposal System Concentrate Collection,"
Rev. 7 (6/9/81)
OP-10-A1, " Annunciator A1," Rev. 5 (9/28/78)
OP-10-A2, " Annunciator A2," Rev. 4 (1/4/77)
OP-10-A9, " Annunciator A9," Rev. 3 (12/1/75)
OP-10-A21, " Annunciator A21," Rev. 5 (1/21/82)
OP-10-A33-1, " Annunciator A33-1," Rev. 3 (12/1/75)
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Surveillance The purpose of this inspection was to verify that the licensee was conducting surveillance tests and Inservice Inspection for pumps and valves as required by the Technical Specifications.
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's Procedure G-23 " Surveillance Test Program" (Revision 12, March 11, 1982).
The NRC inspector noted that this procedure required that surveillance procedures include the assignment of responsibility for performance, initial conditions, precautions, acceptance criteria, and the method to return the system under test to normal operation.
During the subsequent review of surveillance tests, there were no cases noted wherein these procedures did not contain these required elements.
The NRC inspector reviewed approximately 45 completed surveillance tests.
In each instance, the tests had been completed within the time limits set by the Technical Specifications.
k I
.
.
.,,
_
,,
_.., _.,
, -..
-
,
--,,
. _ _
.,. -
'%5
%
-7-
,
It was noted that the data from each completed surveillance test reviewed had been reviewed by at -least one member of the Plant Review Committee.
The NRC inspector found that data manipulation errors were almost non-existent.
In one case, the correction factor for battery specific gravity was in error by one point (i.e., 0.001), and, in another case, the calcu-lation of a pump differential pressure contained a minor arithmetic error.
In neither case, did these minor errors place the test conclusion in doubt.
The NRC inspector concluded that the licensee was conducting surveillance tests in a timely manner and that the tests were being meticulously completed and carefully reviewed.
,
The NRC inspector noted that the licensee's procedure for periodic. battery test discharge did not directly compute the capacity achieved.
There was no conflict between this and the Technical Specifications, paragraph 3.7(2),
since the Technical Specifications only required the test but did not specify a minimum capacity.
From the data, the NRC inspector concluded that the licensee's last test had produced 100% capacity.
It was also noted that on this surveillance, the measured corrected gravity, the temperature, and the temperature correcting factor were recorded.
On the quarterly battery check, which the licensee performs monthly, only the temperature, temperature correction factor, and corrected gravity were recorded.
The NRC inspector pointed out to. licensee management that it was general practice to record all this information; i.e., uncorrected and corrected specific gravity, plus temperatures and correction factors:
The,HRC.~
inspector also noted that while electrolyte level was recorded =and the manufacturer's instructions statad that electrolyte level variations would significantly affect the specific gravity, the manufacturer's instructions did not contain level correction instructions.
The NRC inspector noted that each completed surveillance test included a record of the measuring and test equipment used, including calibration dates, and that each surveillance test was certified as the correct pro-cedure revision at the time it was conducted.
No discrepancies were noted in either test equipment calibration data or the procedure revisions used.
The NRC inspector had no questions about the technical adequacy of the surveillance tests reviewed.
There were no violations or deviations identified.
i.
,
6.
Maintenance Program
.
The NRC inspector reviewed the following maintenance work orders to
'
determine that these activities were in accordance with Technical Specifications (Section 5.8) and met the requirements of the licensee's applicable administrative and maintenance procedures:
11182, " Relay 86B/CRHS Failed" s
13650, " Relay 86B1/CRHS Failed"
,
_
.
-8-13830, " Valve HCV 507A Failed to Close" 13865, " Stack Gas Radiation Monitor RM-062 Failed to Alarm" 14342, " Valve HCV 506A Failed to Close" 14355, " Diesel Generator #2 Coo' ant Vent Line Leak" 14581, " Charging and Volume Control System Weld Leak" 14632, " Charging and Volume Control System Pump Failure" 14661, " Steam Generator Bl::wdown Site Glass Cleaning"
.
l This review was also to determine if the licensee had been evaluating system failures and reporting them in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
The licensee has been evaluating system failures and
-
is reporting them in accordance with the Technical Specifications; however, while reviewing Licensee Event Reports82-003 and 82-004, which reported on activities associated with Maintenance Orders 13830 and 13865, respectively, it was noted that a significant difference
,
existad between component identification and corrective action in the licensee event reports and the respective maintenance orders.
These differences were discussed with licensee representatives who stated t..at revised licensee event reports would be issued in both cases.
This will remain as an open item pending licensee action (8211-01).
7.
Audits The purpose of this inspection was to determine whether or not audits were being conducted on a routine basis by qualified inspectors.
The NRC inspectors found that the licensee had made some organizational i
changes which affected audits.
It was found that the licensee had I
appointed a full time Manager of Quality Assurance and had increased the i
total number of personnel in Quality Assurance from nine to fourteen.
!
Discussions with licensee representatives indicated that at the time of the inspection, the licensee was conducting a review of the audit program to determine if it could be made more effective in meeting regulatory requirements and fulfilling district objectives.
l Review of the qualifications of the licensee's auditors indicated that all of them met the qualification levels at which the licensee carried
'
them.
It was noted that the licensee's Procedure QAP-18, " Auditor Training and Qualification," (Revision 1, December 12, 1981) could be
'
l
.
.
-
..
- _ _ -.
--
.
.
.
.
. - -
.
'
..
-9-
. construed in two ways; one of which indicated that the Manager Quality Assurance was not a qualified lead auditor at the licensee's site.
Licensee representatives stated that it was intended to revise Procedure Q-18 to remove this ambiguity. The NRC inspectors also noted that the licensee's records of lead auditor ongoing training and experi-ence essentially started with qualification as a lead auditor. Other information and records supporting qualification as lead auditor were found but were not part of the current records.
Licensee representatives indicated that they were aware of this problem and intended to update the current records to indicate all pertinent information. Revision of Procedure QAP-18 and collation of auditor training records is considered to be an open item (.8111-02).
Licensee representatives also expressed to the NRC inspectors their concept of providing additional training to quality assurance personnel.
The training discussed was in plant systems and regulatory requirements.
The NRC inspectors reviewed five audits conducted by the licensee. The audits were:
36-81, " Fuel Handling and Management" 2-82, " Maintenance and Modification Control"
~
3-82, "Special Process and Test" 16-82, " Surveillance Testing and Technical Specifications" 20-82, " Procedure Changes" It was noted that the most recent audit plans appeared to contain more detail than did older ones.
The NRC inspectors also found that the licensee was slightly behind his schedule in the conduct of audits for 1982.
Licensee representatives estimated that audits would be back on schedule by July 1982. The performance to schedule will be verified during a future inspection.
This is considered an open item (8211-03).
There were no violations or deviations identified.
8.
Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted May 28, 1982, with those Omaha Public Power District personnel denoted in paragraph 1 of this report. At this meeting the scope of the inspection and the findings were summarized.