IR 05000285/1990017
| ML20012D185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1990 |
| From: | Barnes I, Stewart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012D184 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-285-90-17, NUDOCS 9003270021 | |
| Download: ML20012D185 (5) | |
Text
.y,
^
-
e
.
- ,
..
,
'
APPENDIX
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report: 50-285/90-17
.Op~erating License: DPR-40
!
Docket: 50-285 Licensee: Omaha Public Power District (OPPD)
444 South 16th-Street Mall Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2247 Facility Name: FortCalhounStation(FCS)
Inspection At:
FCS, Blair, Nebraska InspeciionConducted: February 26 through March 2, 1990 Inspector:
IE-3 -u - vo f v R. C. Stewart, Reactor Inspector, Materials Date and Quality Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety
~ Approved:
8%
3 -t 6 - 90 I. Barnes Chief, Materials and Quality Date Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety i::
Inspection Summary
,
Inspection Conducted February 26 through March 2, 1990 (Report 50-285/90-17)
~g- ' ' d Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's QA program relating to the control of measuring:and test equipment (M&TE) and followup on
,
previously identified inspection findings, in co u
8$@
Results:.The licensee was found to have established and satisfactorily
$8 implemented an appropriate QA program for control of.M&TE. Precedures
,
oto addressed' required attributes and personnel demonstrated familiarity with
- O program requirements. Positive actions were noted to have been taken by the gg-licensee to correct a prior weakness that was identified during a'1988
< o,g inspection in regard to control of instrument ar.d control shop M&TE.
M M
No violations or deviations were identified in this area of the inspection.
o c:
l 88c Four previously identified inspection findings were resolved during this
. inspection.
l L
.
..
y
-
,
.
W w
i
.:
,y-2-
.
,
DETAILS ~
l l1. PERSONS CONTACTED OPPDL
.
- R.~ Andrews, Quality. and Environmental Affairs Division Manager
- J. Bobba, Radiological Protection Supervisor
- C.~ Brunnert,-Operations Quality (QA) Supervisor
'
- J. Chase,NuclearLicensingandInternalAffairs(NL&IA) Manager
,
g
- S.;Gambhir, Production Engineering Division Manager
- J. Gasper, Training Manager (*W.-Gates, Nuclear Operations Division Manager
-
- C. Huang, Human Performance Evaluation System / Root Cause Analysis Supervisor
.
-*R.- Jaworski, Station Engineering Manager
!
- J. Kecy, Systems Engineering Supervisor
- L.' Kusek, SRG Manager
- D.Matthews,StationLicensing)' Supervisor
- W. Orr, QA/ Quality Control (QC Manager
,
- G. Peterson, FCS Manager I
C. Eckhart,-QC Inspector
)
'J. Dyer, Senior QC Inspector i
- C Simmons, Station Licensing Engineer
- R. Short, Special'Scrvices Engineering Supervisor
-;
- F. Smith, Chemistry Supervisor i
!
S. Vittitoe, M&TE Clerk K. Beach, M&TE Technician NRC'
- I. Barnes, Chief, Materials and Quality' Programs Section, Region IV j
- W. McNeill, i<eactor Inspector, Region IV
- !
.
- T. Reis, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those persons that attended the exit interview on March 2, 1990.
'j The inspectors also interviewed other licenseo personnel during the inspection.
l 2.
FOLOWUP ON PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED INSPECTION FINDINGS (92701 and 92702)
j 2.1 (Closed)OpenItem(285/8909-03)
'This open item related to the need for clarification of procedural requirements regarding the physical separation of cables in cabinets.
During this inspection, the licensee provided the inspector with a copy of a general engineering instruction, GEI-15, " Meeting Independence Criteria,"
Revision 0, dated December 8, 1989. The inspector observed that the procedure provided specific instructions for routing cable in all panels, thus resolving this item, j
.
-
2.,
..
.
...
.
-
x
'
-3-
.
2.2~ (Closed) Inspector Followup Item (285/8936-02)
.This item dealt with the use of an emergency operating procedure (EOP) writer's guideforupgradingofbothE0Psandabnormaloperatingprocedures(A0Ps);
however, the writer's guide had not been included as part of the standing order, Procedure S0-G-73, " Fort Calhoun Station Procedure Writer's Guide."
During this inspection, the inspector was provided a copy of a new standing order, Procedure 50-G-74, "EOP/A0P Writer's Guide," Revision 0, dated
'
'
December 12, 1989. The issue of the writer's guide as a controlled document
' appropriately resolves this item.
,
2.3 (Closed) Violation (285/8905-01)
l This violation related to a design discrepancy involving the use of an incorrect dimension in a calculation regarding the maximum moment for Pipe Support SIS-8 not being identified because of inadequate design control measures.
The inspector noted that the licensee's corrective actions included an evaluation of the error in the Pipe Support SIS-8 calculation, which determined that stresses were still within allowable limits when the correct dimension was used. - A review of drawings for CQE pipe supports modified as part of the NRC Bulletin No. 79-14 upgrade program disclosed that eight additional supports were similar in design to SIS-8. No additional errors were found in the calculations and review by an independent engineering firm confirmed the adequacy of the design. The licensee concluded that the error in the Pipe Support SIS-8 calculation was an isolated incident based on the oversight of the preparer and the reviewer to select the correct dimension for the moment arm, and was not caused by inadequate design control measures.
In addition, the licensee has committed to continue to promote attention to detail and l.;
emphasize the importance of the design control process and procedures. These subjects are stressed in both the general employee training and the engineering
'
" calculation preparation" courses. This item is considered closed.
2.4 glosed) Violation (285/8837-01)
l This violation related to the removal of numerous calibrated test equipment
.from the instrument and control (I&C) shop without issue being recorded in the
,
I&C to provide traceability of testing usage of such equipment.
'
During the inspection of control of M&TE, which is discussed in paragraph 3 l.
below, a review was performed of the corrective actions taken in response to l
'this violation. The licensee's actions included the review of 50 surveillance I
test reports conducted between January 1988 and October 1988 to verify that test
. equipment used was properly calibrated and recorded in the I&C shop logs. There were no instances identified where deficient M&TE was used on surveillance tests.
Additionally, the licensee has revised the standing order, Procedure M-28,
" Calibration of Test Equipment," to contain explicit requirements for issuance
P
.
~
g..,
.
.-7
, #.
y
.....
.
-3
.i
.
-.
and control of M&TE. A full time M&TE clerk has been assigned to the I&C shop
~
who is responsible for logging and issuing M&TE to controlled locations. Based
.:on the results of this'. inspection, the licensee's actions appeared to adequately resolve this item.
,3.
QA PROGRAM RELATING TO THE CONTROL OF MEASilRING AND TEST EQUIPMENT (M&TE)
(35750).
The objective of this inspection was to ascertain whether the licensee has
'
maintained and implemented a QA program relating to the control of M&TE that is in conformance with regulatory requirements, licensee commitments, and-industry standards.
In this regard, the inspector reviewed the QA program description
' contained in Section A.13 of the FCS Updated Safety Analysis Report, Revision 3, dated July 1988; FCS QA Plan, Section 6.5, " Control of Measuring.
>
and Test Equipment," Revision 1, dated August 1, 1988; and the following implementing procedures:
" Control and Calibration of Measuring and Test Equipment,"
Procedure 50-M-28, Revision 38, dated February 27, 1990.
" Calibration of Mechanical Gauging Equipment," Procedure 50-M-7,
. Revision 29, dated December 16, 1988.
i The. inspector. verified by review of the M&TE procedures that the following items-have been addressed:
A method of identification of each device and its calibration status.
- A method for documenting M&TE calibration history including:
Traceability to the calibration source.
--
As-found and as-calibrated data.
-
Identification of standards used.
-
Identification of calibration procedures.
.-
Limitations on use.
-
Date of calibration and date next due.
-
Identification of calibration standards used and their traceability to
nationally recognized standards.
Action taken when M&TE or reference standards are found out of
. calibration.
>
A recall system for assuring that each piece of equipment is calibrated on
or before the date reouired, t
A system to. control the issue of M&TE to only qualified, authorized
personnel.
.
'
[',
-
.
,
a-.--,-.,.
a
--.,,,,,,,,,.., - -.
. >.
,_
..v.
-5-
.
.
During,the review, the inspector also verified that responsibilities have been-assigned to assure that the M&TE equipment controls identified above are being implemented.
In addition.to the procedures review, the inspector conducted a procedures
" walk-through" in order to ascertain that the implementation of M&TE controls, usage, and documentation was consistent with the program requirements. The inspector toured the mechanical gauging equipment issue crib which is
.M _
maintained under the control of the QC department. The inspector examined six-calibration documentation records which were applicable to torque wrench testers, push / pull force gauges, and reactor vessel plug and ring gauges.
Records were also reviewed which pertained to control and segregation of defective tools.
Interviews'of the. cognizant QC personnel demonstrated their familiarity with the implementing requirements of Procedure S0-M-7,
" Calibration of, Mechanical Gauging Equipment."
The inspector conducted a similar tour of the I&C department M&TE crib and metrology laboratory. The inspector examined five instrument calibration records which included test data from past calibration intervals. The records reviewed included pressure test gauges, volt-ohm meters, a fluke-digital nultitester, and a Ludlum Model 500 pulser. The calibration records included as-found and as-left data and appeared consistent with required calibration intervals. Applicable vendor certification documentation was available.
In addition, the inspector interviewed I&C personnel and examined I&C issue log and recall systems, instrument storage, identification, and calibration status control. The I&C personnel appeared to be well familiar and knowledgeable of the implementing requirements of Procedure 50-M-28, " Issuance, Control, and Calibration of Measuring and Test Equipment."
No violations or deviations were identified-in this area of the inspection.
4.
EXIT INTERVIEW
'An exit interview was conducted on March 2, 1990, with those personnel denoted in paragraph 1.
At this meeting, the inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee did not identify as propriethry any information provided to or reviewed by the inspector.
,