IR 05000285/1987003

Insp Rept 50-285/87-03 on 870201-28.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Operational Safety Verification,Maint,Surveillance,Plant tours,safety-related Sys Walkdowns & Followup on Previously Identified Items

ML20207T004
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	03/17/1987
From:	Harrell P, Hunter D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207T000	List: IR 05000285/1987003 ML20207S999
References
50-285-87-03, 50-285-87-3, NUDOCS 8703230043
Download: ML20207T004 (12)

Text

,y ,

- -

-

.

> <

^

._,-- ,, - l J I '

,

,

-

.

. APPENDIX

%

U. 'S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION

REGION IV

NRC~ Inspection l Report: 50-285/87-03 License: DPR-40 t

' Docket: '50-285 Licensee: Omaha Public Power District 1623 Harney Street-Omaha, Nebraska 68102

,

Facility Name: Fort Calhoun Station Inspection At: Fort Calhoun Station, Blair, Nebraska Inspection Conducted: February 1-28, 1987 Inspector: .

P. H. Harrell, Senior Resident Reactor 2 )!/7 Date

Inspector Approved-Q /uld dib h I7

.l ter, Chief, Reactor Project Date

,

S4cti n B, Reactor Projects Branch Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted February 1-28, 1987 (Report 50-285/87-03)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection including operational safety verifications, maintenance, surveillance, plant tours, safety-related system walkdowns, security observations, inoffice review of periodic and special reports, followup on previously identified items, and followup on licensee event report Results: Within the nine areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie y PDR ADOCK 050002s5

'

O PDR

, - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . .

, _ -

> ~

33 13-2-

,

.#

LDETAILS

.-

,

' Persons Contacted

• Gates, Plant Manager

• C.~ Brunnert, Supervisor, Operations Quality Assurance

• M. Core, Supervisor, Maintenance J. Fisicaro, Supervisor, Nuclear Regulatory and Industry Affairs

• J. Gasper, Manager, Administrative and Training Services L. Gundrum,. Licensing Engineer

.M. Kallman, Supervisor, Security L.-Kusek, Supervisor, Operations

• D. Munderloh, Plant Licensing _ Engineer

• T. McIvor; Supervisor, Technical R. Mueller, Plant Engineer

.

G. Roach, Supervisor, Chemical and Radiation Protection J.:Kecy, Acting Reactor Engineer S. Willrett, Supervisor, Administrative Services and Security NRC Personnel

• Mullikin, Project Inspector

• Denotes attendance at the monthly exit intervie The NRC inspector also contacted other plant personnel, including operators, technicians, and administrative personne . Followup on Previously Identified Items (Closed) Severity Level IV Violation 285/8335-01: Failure to update a drawing to reflect as-built plant condition This violation involved the removal of a snubber from a piping system without updating the affected drawing. The snubber was removed in

,

response to an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) that l specified specific snubbers in piping system were to be removed.

i

'

The licensee corrected the affected drawing to reflect the system as-built conditions. A review was performed by the licensee to

, verify that the drawing accurately reflected other snubbers installed in the syste The licensee also performed checks of other drawings where snubbers had been removed by TS amendment During the check,

,

errors were noted and the drawings corrected. In addition to drawing

!

changes, the licensee also corrected the computer programs for the systems to reflect the changes in the input model.

I To ensure that drawings are maintained up to date when changes are made to the plant, the licensee implemented a modification package

<..

. , . =- . - . - - . . - - . .

,

.

. ~ s

' ~

-

.

'a 1:

./*.' ,

,

^

_

x .. 7

<

checklist that specified all drawings affected by a modification b listed on a form. The affected drawing list' annotated on the form ensures that the licensee revises.all affected drawings prior to close out of the modification package. -The licensee also provided training for appropriate individuals in the area of how to use the.

,

form to maintain drawing .The NRC inspector reviewed the documentation related to this violation and reviewed other selected system drawings showing snubber

'

installations. No other drawing errors were.noted. Based on this c review..it appears that the licensee has established an adequate program for updating drawings to reflect the actual as-built snubber -

installation ' .(Closed) Severity Level III Violation 8412-03: False statement made in response to IE Bulletin (IEB) 82-02.

l-

.The licensee has taken actions to correct the response submitted in

, reply to IEB 82-02. In a letter dated July 2,1984, the licensee i provided additional information that had not been provided in the

,

original response. The additional information included a statement

!- -that molybdenum disulfide was used as a thread lubricant, as well as

~ Neverseize that was identified in the original response.

I The licensee has performed a review as to the cause of this violation 1 and determined that a number of factors contributed to the submittal.

! of incomplete information. These factors included inadequate review of documentation, failure to adequately coordinate and discuss the matter with knowledgeable personnel, failure to assign the response preparation to an experienced employee, and fkilure-to identify an

incomplete statement during management review of the submittal.

+ Actions have been taken by the licensee to correct the problems identified during the review. These actions are discussed below.

,

l . A review was performed to verify that responses made during the

'

1983-84 time frame, were made by personnel with appropriate qualifications and experience, and that the responses received an independent revica. The undocumented review was performed by evaluating the circumstances under which each response was prepared before being sent to the NRC under oath and affirmation. The review included interviews with personnel responsible for preparing responses to verify that appropriate steps were taken, and determination that some responses were discussed at meetings where qualified personnel were presen Based on the results of the review, the licensee concluded it was not r.ecessary to conduct further reviews of IE Bulletins or Generic Letters submitted before 198 .

The licensee revised and reissued Procedure C-3,

" Orientation / Training of Newly Hired Technical Employees Performing Safety-Related Activities," to upgrade the training

_

O .

-4-t progra The new requirements included improvement of employee awareness of existing documentation, resources, and information prior to preparation of correspondence. This upgraded training was also provided to individuals already employed by the licensee. The NRC inspector reviewed Procedure C-3 and noted that it appeared that the upgraded training program appropriately implemented enhanced training as stated in the licensee's response to this violation. Through discussions with employees and review of documentation, it appears that new and old employees had received the upgraded trainin . The licensee established a program for independent review of responses made to the NRC. The program required that a review of the response be performed by a qualified, independent reviewer who verified the statements made in the response were accurate. The independent review is required to be performed prior to a review performed by management personne Based on discussions with personnel and review of documentation and procedures, it appears that the licensee has taken actions to establish a program that provides control of information submitted to the NR c. (Closed) Severity Level IV Violation 285/8515-01: No procedure for control of interim drawing The licensee issued Revision 6 to Procedure 50-C-5, " Fort Calhoun Station Print Files," on September 26, 1985, to control the drawings contained in plant modification packages. The drawing control system established by the licensee provided assurance that the latest as-built system Information contained on interim drawings was available to plant and engineering personnel. Interim drawings are used to provide as-built plant information from the time the systems acceptance committee (SAC) approves the plant modification until a revision to the affected drawing is issued. The interim drawing copies were maintained in the onsite drawing control office for access by site personnel and in the Omaha engineering offices. In addition, the drawing film card, from which copies of prints are made, will contain a notation for identification of all SAC-approved modifications that have not been incorporated into the film copy of the drawing. This alerts the potential user of the drawing that additional system information is available on interim drawing The NRC inspector reviewed the corrective actions taken by the licensee to establish a program for control of interim drawings. It appeared that the licensee had established an adequate program and was effectively implementing the program. The NRC inspector also verified that training had been provided to the appropriate personnel prior to establishing the new program. No problems were note o .

-5-d. (Closed) Unresolved Item 285/8630-01: Reporting of licensed operator disabilities in accordance with 10 CFR Part 55.4 This unresolved item concerned the failure of the licensee to report, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 55.41, that a licensed operator had a vision impairment that affected his ability as an operator. The licensed operator (a shift supervisor) had undergone cataract surgery and was returned to duty before his vision had returned to norma The licensee took actions to correct the problem and to prevent recurrence. The actions taken by the licensee were documented in a letter to the NRC, dated February 5, 198 The actions are listed below:

. The individual with the impaired vision was removed as shift supervisor and replaced with another qualified licensed operato . Procedure 50-0-42, " Notification to the NRC of Licensed Personnel Disabilities," was issued to provide directions to licensed operators for reporting disabilities to their supervision and the types of disabilities that are reportabl . The new procedure was reviewed with all licensed operator . A survey was performed to verify that no other licensed operators had reportable disabilitie . A letter was sent to the NRC on January 28, 1987, confirming that the shift' supervisor's vision had returned to normal with the use of corrective glasse The NRC inspector reviewed the above actions to verify proper completion. During this review, the NRC inspector noted that the licensee had failed to survey 4 of 36 licensed operators to verify that all reportable disabilities had been identifie This matter was discussed with the licensee on February 23, 1987, and the licensee subsequently contacted the four operators and confirmed that the operators did not have reportable disabilitie The NRC inspector stressed in discussions with licensee management, the need to ensure that commitments made to the NRC accurately reflect the actions taken by the licensee and pointed out the need for the licensee to provide greater attention to detail when providing information to the NR Based on the actions taken by the licensee and the review performed by the NRC inspector, it appeared that the licensee had taken actions to correct the identified problem and to prevent recurrence. We have no further questions regarding this matter at this tim This unresolved item is close _

0 *

-6-3. Licensee Event Report (LER) Followup t

Through direct observation, discussions with licensee personnel, and review of records, the following event reports were reviewed to determine that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence had been accomplished in accordance with the T The LERs listed below are closed:

86-001 Reactor trip due to loss of an inverter 86-005 Failure to perform a surveillance test within the specified time frame LER 86-001 reported a reactor trip caused by the loss of Inverter The loss of the inverter initiated the following sequence of event . Loss of the inverter caused a loss of power to Instrument Bus AI-40 . Loss of power to the instrument bus caused a relay in the electro-hydraulic control (EHC) system to deenergiz . Deenergizing the EHC relay caused the turbine control valves to shu . Shutting the turbine control valves initiated a plant loss-of-load even . The loss-of-load event caused the level in Steam Generator B to shrink and the low-level signal to trip the reacto . No engineered safeguards equipment was actuate Operations personnel immediately noted that the inverter had failed and, within one minute, reestablished power to AI-40A by manually closing the inverter bypass breaker locally. When power was restored to the bus, operations personnel brought the plant to a normal shutdown conditio The loss of the inverter was diagnosed as a blown fuse in the inverter. The fuse was replaced and the plant was subsequently returned to full power. Prior to returning the plant to power, the licensee performed a modification (MR-FC-86-042) to change the power supply for the EHC relay from AI-40A to Bus AI-428. Bus AI-42B automatically transfers to alternate power when the normal power supply is lost. This modification was performed to prevent another loss-of-load event due to loss of an inverte ,

_ _ _ _ - - _ . _ - - -

-

'O *

-7-The licensee has experienced problems with the loss of inverters before, but none of the previous losses caused a reactor trip. The licensee is currently consulting with the inverter vendor to determine what actions can be taken to increase the reliability of the inverter The NRC inspector reviewed the documentation related to this LE The documentation reviewed included Modification Request MR-FC-86-042, the post-trip review package, strip recordings and charts of instrument readouts, and an independent report prepared by onsite personnel that reviewed the trip. No problems were noted during review of the documentatio In addition, the NRC inspector reviewed this loss-of-load event against the analysis provided in the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). The review indicated that the actual parameter values experienced during the trip were adequately predicted when preparing the USAR analysi One problem encountered during the loss of the inverter was the loss of control of the charging pumps. The operating pump stopped and neither of the two standby pumps started. The licensee unsuccessfully attempted to recreate the problem experienced during the tri During the upcoming outage, the licensee will trouble shoot the affected circuitry to determine the problem. This item remains open pending review of the determination by the licensee as to the cause of the problem with the pump circuitry. (285/8703-01)

The NRC inspector also reviewed training records to verify that each licensed operator and shift technical advisor (STA) had reviewed the events related to the trip. During this review, the NRC inspector noted that training records indicated that 18 of the 40 operators and STAS had not reviewed the LER. Of the 18 that had not reviewed the LER, seven were considered to be exempt as they were directly involved in the preparation or detailed review of the event described in the LE Appendix B of the licensee's training manual (the NRC-approved training program) requires that each licensed operator review LERs; however, Appendix B does not provide a specific time limit for performance of LER review In discussions with licensee management, the NRC inspector stressed that licensed operators not completing a review of an LER within 8 months of an event is not considered timely. Licensee management stated that all licensed operators and STAS would complete the review in the near future. This item remains open pending review of the licensee's completed action (285/8703-02)

b. LER 86-005 reported that the time interval specified in the TS surveillance for partial movement of control element assemblies (CEA)

was exceede The TS requires partial movement of CEAs every 2 week The surveillance test was successfully completed by the licensee one day after the specified time interva The cause of the

- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ -

.- . ..

-8-

.

'

late performance of the surveillance' test'was due to changes in power level using Group 4 CEAs. This made the other CEAs unavailable for

'

-testing. Once power was stabilized at 100 percent and all rods were out, the surveillance test was not performed due to an oversigh The licensee has taken action to ensure this and other surveillance tests are performed within the specified frequency. A note was added to the shift turnover form to require all surveillance. tests not completed during the shift to be listed on the form. By listing the uncompleted tests on the turnover form, subsequent shifts will be alerted that the test was not completed as scheduled. .In addition,

, the licensee evaluated the surveillance test tracking system and determined that the frequency for issuance of the surveillance test status should be increase The status was issued on a monthly basis, but is now issued on a daily basis. The increased frequency will allow management to more easily determine the status of surveillance test No violations or deviations were identifie . Operational Safety Verifications The NRC inspector conducted reviews and observations of selected activities to verify that facility operations were performed in conformance with the requirements established under 10 CFR, administrative procedures, and the<TS. The NRC inspector made several control room observations to verify: ,

. Proper' shift staffing

. Operator adherence to approved procedures and TS requirements

. Operability of. reactor protective system and engineered safeguards equipment

. Logs, records, recorder traces, annunciators, panel indications, and switch positions complied with the appropriate requirements

. Proper return to service of components

. Maintenance orders (MO) initiated for equipment in need of maintenance

.

. Appropriate conduct of control room and other licensed operators No violations or deviations were identifie : ",

• • '

j

_

-9- ,

5. Plant Tours The NRC inspector conducted plant tours at various times to assess plant and equipment conditions. The following items were obsersed during the '

tours:

,

. General plant conditions

. Equipment conditions, including fluid leaks and excessive vibration

. Plant housekeeping and cleanliness practices including fire hazard '

'

and control of combustible material

'

. Adherence to the requirements of radiation work permits- [~,

. Work activities performance in accordance with approved procedures -

During past inspection periods, the NRC resident inspector roted that $ i l

Room 81 was messy and required additional housekeeping attentie During ,

I this inspection period, the licensee initiated a detailed cleanup of Room i

81. The cleanup is being performed by personnel specifically hired for cleaning duties. .The cleanup crew will provide additioq11 hnusekeeping ,

attention to other areas of the plant, as appropriate, in the futur ,

,

!

, s' s No violations or deviations were identifie , j Safety-Related System Walkdown ' f f. ,

The NRC inspector walked down accessible portions of the following safety-related system to verify system operability. Operability was

'

,

'

/[

' ' , , l ' g, [.

,

determined by verification of selected switch positions. The system wast 1 ~ ,i walked down using the drawings and procedures noted: ,/

'

,

'

. Plant electrical 120-Vac Electrical Distribution System (USAR Figure 8.1-1, Revision 28, and Procedure 01-EE-4, ,

Checklist EE-4-CL-A, Revision 29) >{

j (>'.

Ouring the walkdown, the NRC inspector noted minor discrepancies of an / / '

'

I editorial conditions nature for thebetween selectedthe drawings, areas checked.procedures, andconditions None of the plant as-built noitr l i [

affected the operability or safe operation of the system. Licensee i ,

personnel stated that the noted minor discrepancies would be corrected.)

I{,

No violations or deviations were identifie $; ' O 7. Monthly Maintenance Observations ,' l

,'

o The NRC inspector reviewed and/or observed selected station saintenance activities on safety-related systems and components to verify the .

maintenance was conducted in accordance with approved procedures, ,

,

regulatory requirements, and the TS. The following items were considered during the reviews and/or observations: ' )['

,

= ;,T.- ,,

,.

a ,

, ,

. g ._

.

' -

g'i f.

.

D T '

.5. JThe TS limiting conditions for' operation were met while systems or kn , ;;'

f* compenents were removed from' servic .

N n,b -u

! ;r . -Approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work,

.

,

':( , ' Activities were accompl'ished using approved M0s and'were' inspected,

,] as applicabl r#7 . Functional tisting and/or calibrations were performed prior to g returning components or systems to service.

Yj ,

-

. Quality control records were maintaine L , y

"

f-

.' Activities were accomplished by' qualified personne ,

.,

. Parts and materials used were properly certifie * >

.. ' Radiological and fire prevention controls were implemente The NRC inspector reviewed and/or observed the following maintenance activities:

g) . [ " -

. Repair. of packing leak on HCV-1041A (M0 843480)

d i o . Adjus'thent'of a fire door closing mechanism (M0 843639)

, Repair,of a radiation area monitor (M0 844169)

. Repaf'r of a,n.' emergency diesel generator air compressor leak L (M0 843754))'

[

.- ~

No violations y deviations were identifie .. Monthly Surveillance Observations

<The NRC inspector observed selected portions of the performance of and/or s reviewed completed documentation for the TS required surveillance testing / on safety-related systems and components. The NRC inspector verified the

, -

following items during the testing:

si

/.

'

' c' , . Testing was performed by qualified personnel using approved

,.

ppcedures.

y Test instrumentation was calibrate ,

gfi, . The TS limiting conditions for operation were me '

, . Removal and restoration of the affected system and/or component were

• accomplishe s, .? ' Test results conformed with TS and procedure requirement f ,.

f f:

.

f*i' .

. - -

s.: ..

%:

-11-

, . Test results were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the tes >

, - Deficiencies identified during th6 testing were properly reviewed and "

resolved by appropriate management personne The NRC inspector observed and/or reviewed the documentation for the following surveillance test activities. The procedures used for the test activities are noted in parenthesi .

Check of station batteries (ST-DC-1-F.1).

. Operability check of emergency diesel generator (ST-ESF-6-F.2).

. Fire detection panel functional check (ST-FD-1-F.3).

. Auxiliary feedwater pump functional check (ST-FW-1-F.2).

No violations or deviations were identifie . Security Observations The Nrd, inspector verified the physical security plan was being implemented by selected observation of the following items:

. The security organization who properly manne . Personnel within _the protect'ed area (PA) displayed their identification badge . Vehicles wer'e properly authorized, searched, and escorted or controlled within the P . Persons and packages were properly cleared and checked before entry into the PA was permitte . The effectiveness of the security program was maintained when security equipment failure or impairment required compensatory measures to be employe No violations or deviations were identifie . Inoffice Review of Periodic and Special Reports Inoffice review of periodic and special reports was performed by the NRC resident inspector and/or the Fort Calhoun project inspector to verify the following, as appropriat . Reports included the information required by appropriate NRC requirements.

,

, -

-

- . --

, _ . . ,

1-

,, .t 7o- o

,

- -_

-

-,

.-

, , - .

_

,

~h -

'

'

'

-

.

-12- .,

T

'

.

Test' results and supporting.information were consistent with design 1 ~ ^

predictions and specification . ' Determination that flanned corrective actions were adequate for resolution-of identified problem .

. Determination las to'whether.any;information contained in the'reporti should~be classified as:an abnormal occurrenc ~

~

During. reviewof reports,;NRC personnel identified 10 CFR Part 21 reports submitted by suppliers or vendors that appeared to applicable to the, licensee's: facility.s The NRC resident inspector provided copies of these reports to the-plant. licensing engineer for review of applicability by the-licensee. The1 reports provided are listed belo ~

. "Areport,1datedApril 14, 1986,; issued by Valcor Engineering Corporation providing additional information related to the failur of disc g'uide springs in Valcor valve . A report, dated June"4, 1986, from the Foxboro Company related to

, end-of-life susceptibility of Foxboro'E-Line and H-Line instrument ,

. A report, dated December.20, 1985, from the Indiana and Michigan-Electric Company related to defective welding electrodes' supplied by the Pooch Welding Supply Company which were manufactured by Airco,.

Incorporated of New Jerse .

.'

. -A report, dated July 8, 1986, from the Florida Power and Light Company related to defective anti-reverse rotation devices on reactor coolant pumps. manufactured by Siemen-Allis Engineerin .- A report, da'ted July 25, 1986, from the. Portland General Electric Company related to defective thrust bearings in main steam isolation r . valves manufactured by Atwood and Morril . A report, dated October 16, 1986, from the Validyne Engineering Corporation related to component failures in Validyne tranducer '

. A report, dated November 17, 1986, from General Electric related to unsatisfactory operation of HFA relay . A report,' dated March 17, 1986, from Gibbs and Hill related to the containment spray recirculation line not being designed in accordance

,

with1 Regulatory Guide 1.26.

o No violations or deviations were identifie . Exit Interview i

The NRC inspector met with Mr. W. G. Gates (Plant Manager) and other

,

'

members of the licensee staff at the end of this inspection. At this meeting, the NRC inspector summarized the scope of the inspection and the

,

findings.