IR 05000285/1990027
| ML20042G122 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1990 |
| From: | Bess J, Gagliardo J, Vickrey R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042G119 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-285-90-27, NUDOCS 9005110114 | |
| Download: ML20042G122 (12) | |
Text
[
J
,
,,
,
c x
....
'
.
.
.
.-
,
. APPENDIX h
U.S. NUCLEAR ~ REGULATORY COMMISSION j
REGION IV
'I
'
'
NRC Inspection Report:- 50-285/90-27 Operating License: DPR-40 Docket: 50-285
i
,
Licensee: Omaha Public Power District i
'
444 South 16th Street Mall Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2247-Facility Name: FortCalhounStation(FCS)
'
Inspection At: FCS, Fort Calhoun, Washington County, Nebraska
.iy
'
Inspection' Conducted: _ April-2-6, 1990
!
I Inspectors:
.. C
@d i
J/ Bess, Reacter Inspectbr, Operational Date/
i
~
/ Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety
.i
./
U
.h -l
,e Kbh0
.
.R."Vickrey, Reactor Inspector, Operational-
_Date Programs.Section, Division of Reactor Safety _
f.
,
(Ch 431"
~
,,
~~
J.yagliatpo,SectionChief, Operational D$ te'
,
l Programf Section. Division of Reactor Safety f W-
,
~
]t f 3 ]O
\\
}
Approved:
) A
_
a eE
,
h GagljiaFdo Sect, ion Chief, Ohi! rational
_
(,
ProgYams'Section, Division of Reactor Safety o
iA'
C..
'
Q
,
s
F
_. _ _..... _ _...
.....
_
.
,
'
x
- ,
,
,
,
-2-Inspection Summary inspection Conducte,d April 2-6, 1990 _(Report 50-285/90-_27}
~ Areas inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of followup of previously
' identified inspection findings and followup of weaknesses identified in the
. Maintenance Team Inspection (Report No. 50-285/89-01) conducted in March and April 1989.
Results: Overall, the licensee had responded favorably in regard to the
. identified findings and weaknesses. Although action was not complete in all areas, programs and timetables established by the licensee support reasonable actions for future implementation in those areas. Several areas of improvement
-
were noted during the inspections. However, it was noted and brought to the attention of the licensee that quality assurance had not conducted-an audit of the program since the maintenance team inspection and did not plan to do so until 1991. The licensee subsequently informed the inspectors that a quality assurance eudit would be conducted in the August 1990 timeframe.
<
e
-
i
!Q
,
,
,
'
t-3-
'
,
-
i.
DETAILS-
.
\\
>
_
'
v 1.
PERSON CONTACTED d
FCS'
.
R. D. Acker, Quality Assurance Auditor
-
- J. Albers, Superintendent, Document Control
'
- R. L Andrews, Division Manager, Quality and Environmental Affairs
- N. R.' Bateman, Supervisor, Procurement
. J. P.1Bobba, Supervisor Radiation Protection
-
.
- J. W. Chase, Manager Nuclear-
- G. Cook, Safety Enhancement Program Coordinator
'
.
- M.-Core,' Supervisor, Maintenance.
- S. K._Gambhir, Division Manager, Production Engineering
- J. K. Gasper, Manager, Training
- W. G. Gates, Division-Manager, Nuclear Operations Division'
'*C. Huang, Supervisor, Human Performance Evaluation
- R. L. Jaworski,tianager,, Station Engineering
-'
1*F. Kenney, Supervisor, Access Authorization
- L. T. Kusek', Manager, Nuclear. Safety Review
~*T..C. Matthews, Station Licensing Engineer
- T. J. McIver, Manager, Nuclear Projects
- K. A. Miller, Lead Nechanical Design Engineering
.!
-
- W. W. Orr, Manager; Quality Assurance / Quality. Control
- G. R.-Peterson.. Plant Manager
>
- R.-Phelps,' Manager. Design.Engeering L
- G' : Morris, Security
.
- D.. Ritter, Supervisor, Security Support Services
_
- H. J. Seack,- Manager, Security Services.
,
.C, F. Simmons. Station Licensing Engineer
"
E
. B. Stapleton,-Consultant
- T..Therkildsen, Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing
- J; W.-Tills, Assistant Manager
'
NRC:
'
- P. Harrell, Senior Resident Inspector
- R.JP. Mullikin, Project Engineer
.
.
~*G.'L. Constable,~ Chief, Reactor Projects Section C i
'
.,
L i
e r
1 e
..
s
-
.
,
-4-2.
FOLLOWUP OF PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED _IT, EMS (92701)
(Closed)_Unresolveditem(285/8901-01):
Hich-Pressure, Safety injection Pump
, Test Data
'This item involved a concern regarding the testing of the high-pressure safety
!
injection pumps using the minimum flow recirculation line without flow measure-i
.
ments. The licensee had committed to test the pumps at near rated flow and
measure the flow rate for future inservice testing of the pumps.
The inspector reviewed the results of the licensee's calculations cf minimum design parameters for safety related pumps. These calculations represented the minimum ASME XI pump performance test values and included the allowable performance degradation from the original certified test curves. These calculations were being used to facilitate the completion of pump test l
procedures for the 1990 outage. The licensee appeared to have taken-appropriate steps in establishing adequate procedures for future inservice I
testing of the pumps. This item is considered closed.
d
-(Closed)OpenItem(285/8901-02): ASME Section XI Requirements j
!
This item involved a concern over the licensee's misuse of valve stroke time j
data, which was a questionable practice in identifying maintenance needs for j
valves. Two different stroke times were measured; c9e was a local stroke time,
.
and the other a light-to-light stroke time which was less accurate. Yne lesser j
of the two stroke times was always used to compare with the acceptance.
i criteria.
'
- j
.The inspector. reviewed the licensee's corrective action changes to various
.1 valve surveillance tests. These tests were changed to time the valves from the-
'
interval between actuation of the control switch and the end of valve motion as observed by the remote indicating-lights. The licensee had-taken appropriate g
L action to correct the above concern. This item is considered closed.
.l l
- p (Closed)Openitem(285/8901-03): Delay in Op,erability Calls
.
l-This item involved a concern over observed delays (up to 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> for pumps and
'
24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for valves) before declaring a pump degraded or a valve inoperable and initiating corrective maintenance action. The licensee had committed, based on unacceptable test results, to correct procedure inadequacies in this area.
The. inspector reviewed several of the licensee's upgraded surveillance
'
procedures. These procedures had addressed the above concerns in both the precautions and limitations'section and review section. Instructions were given for the call of operability during the STA evaluation of the test data and required timeframes in which that determination had to be made. The licensee appeared to have adequately addressed the above concern. This item is considered closed.
!
r
-
'
-.
s.
i
'
.
,
-
. -
-
(Closed) Violation (285L8901-05): Violation _ Involving Changes _ in_ the facility
-_This violation was a-result of the licensee's failure to provide a safety evaluation for each of the modifications listed below:
(1). A spray shield supported by= safety-related cable tray,
'
(2) ~ The _ replacement of the diesel generator exciter brush housing inspection covers replaced with plexiglass covers, and l
(3) Temperature -inversion switch installed in Radiation Monitoring-Panel Al-33B.
.p (4) Unsupported wiring and no redundant channel separation in the reactor 3'
coolant system control room instruments Corrective action 16 ken by. the licensee included:
I (1): The spray shield modification was removed under Maintenance Order 392046, f
dated March 30.-1989, therefore, this plant condition no longer exists.
,
(2) The plexiglass cover modification was reenalyzed as two temporary
'
modifications-(TM) (TM-89-M-021 and TM-89-M-022). The long-term resolution of this concern was the implementation of the TMs into a permanent modification under Maintenance Request FCS-MR-FC-83-133.
(3)' Engineering Evaluation and Assistance Request (EEAR) No. 80-68, completed a
July 3,~1980, documented with a written safety evaluation, the
installation of the temperature inversion switch in Radiation Monitoring
Panel AI-33B.
'
(4) Modification Request MR-FC-85-132 completed January 13, 1989, documented, with a written safety evaluation, the instrument-installation activities for Control Room Panel CB-4, q
The' inspector verified that the corrective action had been completed as noted-
!
above. The inspector also verified that the following corrective actions taken by the licensee to preclude future violations had been completed:
j
'
Tasked system engineers to ensure that the integrity sf their respective
systems was maintained.
Required that each system engineer review each maintenance work order to ensure that these did not constitute a modification (Standing Order M-101).
,
'
Controlled work order modifications by Standing Order G-21 and assured the 10.CFR 50.59 evaluations were receiving a thorough review by the " Station
Modification Acceptance and Review Team."
g-
!
w.
-
.-
. _ _..... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _..........
_ _..
'.
.
.
.
,
-6-The verification that the on-going program for demonstrating the adeq)uacy of redundant channel separation in the main control room panels (Item 4 will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection in the maintenance / modification area.
- The licensec~ coonitted (letter dated December 31,19E.9) to inform the HRC of the results of the evaluation of past Fort Calhoun practices as they pertained to the violation. The lien performed a survey of maintenance orders completed between 1973 and 1976 to provide additional confidence that the maintenance orders, which involved physical-changes to safety systems, had properly documented safety reviews.
Licensee representatives stated that the results of the survey identified sone weaknesses in the early-documentation process; however, there were no instances where a safety related system had been modified without proper review and documentation in accordance with approved procedures.
This item is considered closed.
.(Closed)OpenItem(285/8901-07): Torque Settings on Motor-0perated Valves This item involved the finding that the licensee's motor-operated valve program could have resulted in torque switch settings high enough to have damaged the valves and actuators.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions to correct this deficiency. The licensee had made major revisions to the procedures, which involved the maintenance and testing of motor-operated valves. Additional staffing had been hired for the group; additional M0 VATS equipment had been procured, and the -
.
xtraining of the craf tsmen had been enhanced.' The documentation, trending, and evaluation of the test data had also been improved. The revisions to the procedures had resolved the concern regarding the potential for overtorquing a valve. This item is considered closed.
~
_
(Closed)OpenItem(285/8901-08): Diesel Generator Issues This item. involved the finding that the licensee had neither a program to test or to replace the flexible hoses from the diesel generator periodically, not.one to assure that diesel fuel oil samples were taken periodically from the appropriate lootions in order to dctect any moisture collecting in the fuel oil storage tanks.
This issue had been closed in NRC Inspection Report 50-285/90-07, based on.the
~11censee's issuance of maintenance work orders to replace the flexible hoses.
The licensee had also issued Standing Order Procedure S0-T-16 on January 1, 1990, to resolve the fuel oil sampling issues. During this inspection, however, the inspector found that when the licensee began the installation of the flexible hoses on the diesel generator, about one half of the hoses supplied by-the contractor were not of the correct length or had an incorrect fitting. The-licensee had replaced the flexible hoses that fit but deferred installation of the remaining hoses until the next outage.
,
_-im.-__._mmm_._m.___ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _
_. _ _ _ _
__
__
_ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _
-
- - - - _. _ _......,....
.
.
,
m.
.
.
,
The inspector also found that the licensee had not established a program for periodically inspecting the hoses to detect degradation. The inspector also-noted that the fuel oil sample connection for the day tank was still attached to the sight-glass drainline and not the bottom of the tank. The verification of the replacement of all flexible hoses, and the movement of the sample correction to the day tank bottom is an inspector followup item (285/9027-01)
and will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
(0 pen) Violation (285/8927 01): Failure to Establish Operability Because of
'
Inadequate Testing This item related to the finding that the operability of the turbine-driven
' auxiliary feedwater pump was not demonstrated in the monthly tests because these tests were not condu_cted at a reference speed and, therefore, the failure of a speed controller was not detected nor did the test meet the AStiE code requirements.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's progress towards the corrective actions-it had comitted to in response to the violation. The scheduled dates of-completion had slipped as a result of a parts problem in replacement of the differential.pretsure transmitter. This problem directly' impacted other action completion dates for the testing of the system. The licensee had issued procedures for the preventive maintenance and calibration of the speed control loop. These procedures were reviewed by the inspector and appeared to have addressed the-needs adequately. This item will remain open pending the licensee's completion and the NRC's review of the remaining corrective actions.
3.
FOLLOWUP 0F pREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED WEAKNESSES IN NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-285/89-01 Inthemaintenar.ceteaminspectionreport(50-285/89-01), a number of weaknesses were identified in the Executive Summary Section of the report and/or in-the color _ coded evaluation tree attached to the report. During this inspection, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective actions related to these weaknesses.
3.1 Weaknesses in the Executive Sumary-The licensee's actions to the identified weaknesses are as follows:
' Item 1 - Housekeeping in less trafficked areas was a concern
.
During the inspection, the inspectors toured the facility including the cable spreading room and the diesel generator rooms. Despite the fact that the plant was in an outage, it was apparent that the licensee had given attention to maintaining the cleanliness of the plant, especia11y'in the less trafficked p
areas.
.
.. _ _ _..... _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _
...
,
,.
.
..
.
,
-8-Item 2 - Numerous labels and identification tags missing During the inspectors' tours of the plant, no examples of missing tags or lebels were found. A licensee representative stated that they have denoted a considerable amount of effort to correct this problem.
Item 3 - post-maintenance testing criteria were poor,1y defined During NRC Inspection 50-285/90-04, the inspectors perforned a detailed review
.of the licensee's post-maintenance testing efforts. This inspection verified
- that the licensec's efforts in this area have been consistent with the commitments made in Safety Enhancement-program item No. 35.
It was apparent sthat_significant improvements have been made in this area.
.
Item 5 - Inconsistencies were found in the_ performance of design modification evaluations This weakness pertained to the licensee's failure to provide safety-evaluations for several plant modifications
-
The licensee provided the'needed documentation to resolve most of the concerns.
The licensee took corrective actions by-
. -
Assigning system engineers-to ensure that its respective system
'
,
integrity was maintained
'
Each system engineer reviewed each maintenance work order to ensure that
'
they were not modifications in accordance with Standing Order M-101 Additional details'and the_ steps to correct this deficiency are identified in.
paragraph 2 of this report, in the licensee's response to Violation 285/8901-05.
.
. s Item 6 - There was no effective means of identifying-or evaluating maintenance that-was rework of previously performed maintenance
a Theilicensee was making progress in this area in'that the system engineers were reviewing post-maintenance work'to maintain a history.and trending file. The performanco engineer was maintaining. test results for valve-stroke times to perform trend monitoring and other analyses. Oil samples _and vibration data
,1ad been previously established and' included in the program. Continuing efforts to expand in this area should enhance this program.
- ., y
,
Item.7 - No effective system for controling or tracking deficiency, tags A licensee representative stated that improvements have been made in this area.
.;
This area will be reviewed more thoroughly by the NRC during a subsequent-
.;
inspection. The extensive maintenance activities related to the outage,
precluded ah effective evaluation of this area during this inspection, o
..
.
.
!
t
.
.
.
-9-
';
Item 8 - The technical review process of_ work packages was poor The system engineers' role had been enhanced in the work order review cycle for
,
'
technical requirements and post-maintenance testing. Corpleted work packages were being reviewed by the craf t supervisor, systems engineer, and quality control. The licensee appeared to have taken the necessary steps for improvement in this area of weakness.
,
Item 9-Thequalityoftheinstrumentationandcontrol(I&C) maintenance procedures was poor
_
The licensee stated that an upgrade of all safety-related procedures was being implemented. Two contract ILC technicians and one IEC staff member were working 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> a day to complete this project.
The upgrade was scheduled to be completed in December 1990.
The total safety
-
related procedures requiring upgrading was 566.
Seventy-six procedures have been approved and sixty-five procedures had been issued.
To continue with the upgrading program, the licensee stated that a plan had been submitted to management to allow mcre staff personnel to participate in a
the upgrading project 6nd to have the contract personnel continue working in-
,
the shop. This would enable the staff 18C technicians to become familiar with
'
the pt;ocedures prior to their use.
,
To ensure that feedback was being responded to, 18C technicians were providing input to the procedure writers. System erigineers were required to review the procedures prior to their issuance to the I&C technicians.
The inspector randomly selected 12 procedures, which had been issued for review.
The procedures revfewed appeared to be adequate and use: 'riendly. The licensee procedure upgrade program appeared to be headeo in a positive direction.
'
Item 10 - The level of expertise of the I&C technicians was' iow During this inspection, the flRC inspector was informed by the licensee that the
-
I&C department was implementing changes to improve the I&C maintenance program.
-The licensee stated that to supplement the 180 staff, five additional I&C technicians had been hired. Two of these technicians were hired as journeyman.
Each of these individuals had both navy nuclear and commercial nuclear power plant
'
experience. Other individuals hired included two from a graduate technical
-
college, one transfer from within the company, and an individual from outside the company with over 20 years of I&C experience.
The training program had been accelerated to allow for more hands on training for.all 180 technicians. This training included four contractors. The 18C department had a total of 18 individuals who had completed training on F
>
t
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _., _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _
. -...... -.
_ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - --
-....
.
.
.
-10-safety-related loop components. The 1&C technician staffing level had been increased to 22 individuals. The experience level of the staff included six journeymen, two utility men, and fourteen apprentices. To supplement the permanent staff, the licensee had added two contractor job planners. These individuals had approximately 17 years of nuclear experience. The licensee stated that the contractors would be devoted to 150 meintenance planning.
prior to the hiring of these individuals, the 1&C technicians were responsible for all of.the job planning.
The licensee stated that in order to allow junior I&C technwians more time in the field, contractors were performing shoa work such as the calibration of most equipment. All contractors used in t1e shops were trained in the calibration procedures. The 180 supervisor stated that with the decrease in workload the junior I&C level of expertise would improve because of the hands nn experience that was gained with field work.
To sumarize, the licensee stated that to ensure the experience level in the 1&C department, the position job description at the entry levels had been upgraded. This would allow the staff to be supplemented with a better qualified individual.
The inspector reviewed resumes, training records, and several 1&C maintenance certification matrices to ascertain if the level of expertise in the I&C
,
department was improving.
It appeared that the licensee had a program in place-to improve the experience level of the 180 staff.
Item 12 - The preventive maintenance process was incomplete The licensee had instituted several plans to correct this deficiency. The licensec implemented a five-phase program to institute a preventive maintenance upgrade program. The results of this program identified 53 safety-related systems which required preventive maintenance tasks. A new preventive maintenance order form had been created to allow for better trending of data.
-A preventive maintenance administrator and preventive maintenance engineer had been added to the staff to control the preventive maintenance program.
More details on the methods to correct the deficiency were identified in Safety Enhancement program, item 41 of HRC Inspection Report 50-285/90-23.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to this deficiency and verified that the preventive maintenance process was being upgraded.
3.2 Weaknesses From the Haintenance Inspection Tree Item 4.1 - Establish Internal Corporate Communications Channel To enhance communications within the maintenance area, the licensee had implemented several initiatives. The most effective was to have quarterly maintenance department meetings, which included all of the maintenance staff and also the maintenance training staff. The inspector inquired regarding the i
,
- - - - -
.
.
_. _ _. _.. _ _ _. _......
..
.
,
g. - %
.
,
-11-
,,
p
.
'),
'
I attendance of the field supervisors who control and coordinate the efforts of contractors. The licensee's representative stated that only one of the field supervisors had been attending the meetings. He agreed that they should also e
R be routine attendees and stated that they would be invited to attend.
The licensee had also begun the issuance of weekly news letters company-wide and a bi-weekly news letter for the nuclear division.
-
-
The licensee representative also noted that senior management had been holding
-
semi-annual. meetings with all exempt employees. The meetings address current
- issues and questions that the employees are asked to submit prior to the meeting.
.
The inspector viewed this as a marked improvement over the practices at the time of the maintenance team inspection, item 6.2 - Control of Contractors
-
The licensee had established a Huclear Construction Management Department which was tasked with supervising-and coordinating major maintenance, modification,
"
and construction activities performed by contractor personnel. The defined responsibilities of this group included the use of a field supervisor who had-the responsibility for supervising contractor-activities on the site. All contractor personnel were required to be trained on the site's administrative controls and were given a handbook which included a series of questions and answers regarding the administrative control procedures that were applicable to the contractor activities. The inspector concluded that this program was a marked improvement over that found during the maintenance team inspection.
-Item 6.4 - Performance of Maintenance Trendin3 Licensee representatives stated that procedures (System Engineering Instruction-SEI-8 and SEI-19) have been developed to monitor system perform:nce, and to review and trend maintenance data. They noted that test data was being collected, but was not being graphed until next summer. The licensee had developed an effective steam cycle performance program, which had already begun to highlight areas of poor system performance. The licensee had also begun to establish some predictive maintenance efforts based on vibration and lube oil analyses. The vibration analysis results had already begun to
' identify problems in a circulating water pump and a component cooling water
_
pump.
_
3.3 Quality Assurance Oversight of,the Maintenance Area The inspector interviewed the quality assurance manager to determine the extent of quality assurance oversight of maintenance activities since the maintenance
team inspection. The quality assurance staff had perfcrmed 11 surveillances in
'the timeframe of March 1989 through March 1990. The findings in the surveillance reports indicated that these efforts had generally met their
_
,
-
_
.-
_ _ _ _ _ - - -.. _ _,...
,
,
_
.
.
.
,.
-12-objectives. The inspector inquired regarding the performance of an audit of the maintenance area. The quality assurance manager indicated that maintenance
. was last audited in 1980 and since this area was audited every three years, the next audit would be performed in 1991. The inspector questioned why quality
' assurance managenent had not changed the audit schedule, or why plant management had not requested an earlier audit based on the number of concerns identified in the maintenance team-inspection. The quality assurance manager later informed the inspector that the audit of the maintenance area would be performed in August 1990.
4.
EXIT INTERVIEW (30703)
Theinspectorsmetwiththelicenseerepresentatives(denotedinparagraph1)
on April 6,1990.. The inspectors sunearized the inspection purpose, scope, and findings. The licensee acknowledged the comments and did not identify any specific proprietary information to the inspectors. An NRC resident inspector was present at the exit meeting.
v
-
i