ML19350D268
| ML19350D268 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1981 |
| From: | Hunnicutt D, Kelley D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350D266 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-285-81-01, 50-285-81-1, NUDOCS 8104150084 | |
| Download: ML19350D268 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000285/1981001
Text
B
S
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-285/81-01
Docket No. 50-285
License No. DPR-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:
January 1-31, 1981
Inspector:
h
W
.:Odf/' 7/
z,
, , v 0. L. Kelley, Senior Resident Inspector
' Date
Approved By:
h,f
h&
.2/$'g/f'/
0. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, Reactor Projects Section No.2
~Oate
Inspection Summary
__Insoection Conducted During Period of January 1-31, 1981, (Recort No. 50-285/81-01)
n
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection including (1) operational safety
verification; (2) surveillance testing; (3) new fuel receipt; (4) follow up on
Headquarters Verification Request; and (5) reactor trip.
The inspection involved
eighty,(80) inspector-hours on site by one (1) NRC inspector.
Resul ts,:
Of the five (5) areas inspected, two (2) violations were identified
in two (2) areas (Operational Safety Verification, paragraph 2.(3), and New
Fuel Receipt, paragraph 4).
No violations or deviations were identified in
the remaining three (3) areas.
81041500M
-
2
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- S. C. Stevens, Manager, Fort Calhoun Station
W. G. Gates, Supervisor, Operations
G. R. Peterson, Supervisor, Maintenance
L. J. Dugger, Reactor Engineer
J. F. Gass, Training Supervisor
J. L. Connolley, Supervisor, I&C and Electrical Field Maintenance
" Denotes those attending exit interview.
The inspector also talked with and interviewed other licensee employees
during the inspection.
These employees included licensed and unlicensed
operators, craftsmen, engineers and office personnel.
2.
Ooeratioaal Safety Verification
The inspector performed certain activities to ascertain that the facility
is being operated safely and in conformance with regulatory requirements
and that the licensee's management control system is effectively dis-
charging its responsibilities for continued safe operation.
The inspector's
activities and findings in this regard are described in the following para-
graphs:
a.
Inscection Activities Performed Several Times Per Week
(1) Control room observations were made which included the following
items:
,
(a) Licensee adherence to selected Limiting Conditions for
,
Operations (LCO's).
1
(b) Observation of instrument and recorder traces for abnormali-
ties.
(c) Verification of operator acherence to approved procedures.
(d) Verification of control room and shift manning.
,
(2)
Review of selected logs and records to obtain information on plant
operations, trends, compliance with regulatory recuirements, and
assess the effectiveness of communication provided by these logs
and records.
(3) During the course of control room observations the inscector noted
tne alarm status of the control room annunciators.
The alarm
status was discursed with several licensed coerators to determine
.
.
3
the cause for the alarm conditions.
The inspector determined as
a result of these discussions that for the plant status these
alarms were normal and the operating staff is cognizant of the
cause for the alarms.
b.
Inspection Activities Performed on a Weekly Basis
(1) The operability of selected Emergency Safeguards Features (ESF)
systems was verified by noting valve positions, breaker positions,
instrumentation and the general condition of major systems com-
ponents.
In addition, the Auxiliary Feedwater System was walked
down, using the licensee's valve line up check off sheets.
(2) The licensee's equipment control was reviewed for proper imple-
mentation by performing the following inspection activities:
(a) Review of maintenance order log and tag-out log to determine
the licensee's compliance with LC0's and Technical Specifi-
cations action statements.
(b) Verification of " return to operable status of selected safety-
related components and systems."
(3) The inspector toured accessible areas of the plant at various
times during the inspection to determine and/or verify equipment
conditions, plant conditions, security, safety and housekeeping.
Observations included the following:
(a) General plant and equipment condition.
(b)
Fire hazards.
(c) Control of combustible material.
I
I
(d) Fire watch postings and presence of fire watches when
required.
l
(e)
Physical security.
The inspection verified that the security plan is being implemented
by observing that:
The Security organization is properly manned and security per-
sonnel are capable of performing their assigned tasks.
Protected Area barriers are not degraded.
.
Isolation Zones are clear.
.
(
!
--
.
4
Vehicles are properly authorized, searched, and escorted or
.
controlled within the protected area.
Persons within the protected area display photo identifica-
.
tion badges and persons requiring escort are properly
escorted.
Vital area physical barriers are not degraded.
.
Persons and packages are checked prior to entry into the
.
protected area.
During the tour of the Auxiliary Building on January 21, 1981,
the inspector observed that the door to Room 68 (Cask Decon.
Room) was ajar.
This room is posted as a "Very High Radiation
Area." The licensee's Radiation Protection Manual states that
,
all rooms posted as high radiation areas will be locked, when
unattended.
Although the door was locked it was not closed,
thus defeating the purpose of the locked door.
Not securing
the access to a posted "Very High Radiation Area" is in violation
of Section 3.1.8.2 of the licensee's Radiation Protection
Manual.
(8101-01)
The inspector observed several shift turnovers and reviewed several
shift turnover sheets.
No other violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Surveillance Observations
a.
The inspector observed the performance of the following surveillance
tests:
ST-EFS-2. " Safety Infection Actuation," F.1, " Channel A Safety
.
Injection Actuation Signal Test."
.
ST-EFS-4, " Containment Sprag Logic," F.1, " Channel A Containment
Spray Logic Actuation Signal Test."
.
ST-ESF-13, " Recirculation Actuation Logic" F.1, " Channel A
Recirculation Act."
b.
The inspector determined through personal observation and review of
records, where appropriate that:
(1) Approved procedures were used.
(2) The test data was recorded accurately and completely.
(3) The surveillance test documentation was properly reviewed.
(4) The test was done by qualified personnel.
-
-
.
.
5
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
New Fuel Shioment Receiot
New fuel for the 1981 refueling arrived on site during this reporting
period.
The shipment consisted of 40 fuel elements shipped in 20 ship-
ping canisters.
Twenty assemblies arrived via two trucks on January 21,
the remaining twenty assemblies arrived via two trucks on January 25.
6
The inspector verified by direct observation of the Jaauary 21, shipment
that:
Shock detectors in the shipping container had not tripped.
.
The tie downs were secure.
.
The load showed no evidence of shifting.
.
The inspector also observed the security check of the trucks prior to
entry into the plant secured area and the cleaning of the shipping con-
tainers on the first truck prior to its entry into the Auxiliary Building
unloading area.
Over a period of the next two weeks, the inspector randomly selected
several fuel assemblies for receipt inspection and inspector observation.
These assemblies were Nos. IA24, IA39, IA03 and IA05.
The observations
were to verify that:
.
The assemblies were upended properly.
The receiving inspection was according to procedure.
.
The measurement were properly recorded.
.
One fuel assembly, No. IA24, appears to be out-of-tolerance between the
guide tube tabs and the upper end fitting.
Nonconformance Report NR-175
was written and Exxon notified.
This item will remain open pending
resolution of NR-175.
(8101-02)
During one of the observation periods, January 23, 1981, the inspector
noticed that one of the licensee employees in the new fuel receipt room
was not wearing all the protective clothing that was required by RWP 20.
The RWP specifies that the protective clothing shall include a " surgeon's
cap."
Failure to wear the protective clothing specified on a RWP is in violation
of Section 2.11.2 of the licensee's Radiation Protection Manual.
(8101-03)
No other violations or ueviations were identified.
.
6
5.
Follow up on Headquarters Verification Recuest
As NRC Headquarters requested, the following THI-1 Action plan items
(reference NUREG-0737) were examined to ascertain whether the licensee
had met the January 1,1981 implementation date:
I. A.1.1
.
I.A.1.3
Shift manning
.
I.A.2.1(4)
R0 & SR0 Training Program
.
I.C.5
Feedback of Operations Experience
.
I.C.6
Verify Performance of Operations Activities
.
II.E.4.2(Sa)
Containment Pressure Setpoint
.
.
II.E.4.2(6)
Containment Purge Valves
II.K.3.9
PID Controller (W)
.
II.K.3.22a
RCIC Suction
.
.
III.D.3.3
Inplant Radiation Monitors
The inspector determined, after examining the above items, that the licensee
had either met the January 1, 1981 completion date or had completed the
item prior to January 1,1981, with the following exceptions:
II.K.3.9 and
These two items are not applicable to Combustion
.
II.K.3.22a.
Engineering Power Plants.
I.C.6.
The licensee has taken exception to this item.
.
(See letter OPPD to D. G. Eisenhut (NRC), dated
December 12, 1980).
6.
Reactor Trio
Fort Calhoun Station experienceo a reactor trip from approximately 75% on
Friday, January 30, 1981.
The sequence of events shows the following:
"C" TM/LP
"B" Hi-Power
"D" Hi-Power
--
_
,
.
-
- .
.-
,
7
The licensee concluded, after a review of charts and logs, that the Reactor
Trip resulted from coincident B and D channel trips of Hi-Power; however,
the licensee has determined that a valid Hi-Power signal did not initiate
these channel trips.
Apparently spurious electrical signals resulted in
tripping the subject trip units.
The inspector reviewed the computer print outs (Sequence of Events and
Alarm Typer), strip charts and log entries.
Additionally, the inspector
interviewed those present in the control room when the trip occurred.
A PRC meeting was conducted at 1630 hours0.0189 days <br />0.453 hours <br />0.0027 weeks <br />6.20215e-4 months <br /> on January 30, 1981, which the
inspector attended, to discuss the results which led to the above con-
clusion concerning the reactor trip.
No violations or deficiencies were identified.
7.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with S. C. Stevens, Manager, Fort Calhoun Station on
January 30, 1981, to discuss the scope and findings of this inspection
period.
1
l
l
l
l
f
!
. - -
-
. - , . .
-
_
-
-
-,
- - ,