ML20211R078
| ML20211R078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1986 |
| From: | Harrell P, Hunter D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211R051 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-1.D.2, TASK-TM 50-285-86-18, NUDOCS 8607280092 | |
| Download: ML20211R078 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000285/1986018
Text
.
%
APPENDIX B
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50-285/86-18
License:
Docket:
50-285-
Licensee:
Omaha Public Power District
1623 Harney Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
Facility Name:
Fort Calhoun Station
Inspection At:
Fort Calhoun Station, Blcir, Nebraska
Inspection Conducted:
June 1-30, 1986
Inspector:
7
- [r4
%P. H. Hartellf Sewfor Resident Reactor
Date
Inspector
Approved:
/ b m 141) "
7!//
'
D. R.Tunter, Chief, Project Section B,
Date
'
Reactor Projects Branch
!
Inspection Summary
l
l
Inspection Conducted June 1-30, 1986 (Report 50-285/86-18)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection including operational safety
verification; maintenance; surveillance; plant tours; safety-related system
,
walkdown; followup on a previously identified item; followup on IE Information
l
Notices and IE Bulletins issued for information only; followup on a licensee
event report; and followup on NUREG-0737 (TMI) Item I.D.2, implementation of
the SPOS.
Results: Within the nine areas inspected, one deviation was identified
(failure to meet commitments relative to the display of parameters on the SPDS,
,
paragraph 4).
l
!
8607280092 860723
ADOCK0500g5
l
G
'
l
_
_ - . - - _ .
.
.
_ _
_
_ _ _ - .
,
-
,
,
2
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- W. Gates, Plant Manager
C. Brunnert, Operations Quality Assurance Supervisor
M. Core, Maintenance Supervisor
D. Dale, Quality Control Inspector
J. Fisicaro, Nuclear Regulatory and Industry Affairs Supervisor
J. Fluehr, Station Training Supervisor
J. Foley, I&C and Electrical Field Maintenance Supervisor
B. Gartner, Engineer
K. Holthaus, Enginect
M. Kallman, Security Supervisor
L. Kusek, Operations Supervisor
T. McIvor, Technical Supervisor
R. Mueller, Plant Engineer
D. Munderloh, Licensing Engineer
G. Roach, Chemical and Radiation Protection Supervisor
J. Tesarek, Reactor Engineer
S. Willrett, Administration Services and Security Supervisor
- Denotes attendance at the monthly exit interview.
The inspector also contacted other plant personnel, including operators,
' technicians, and administrative personnel.
2.
Followup on Previously Identified Items
(0 pen) Violation 8511-01:
Surveillance tests not accounted for in the
files.
l
l
The licensee has taken corrective action to ensure that surveillance tests
I
are accounted for in the files.
The corrective action included a monthly
l
review to provide immediate accountability of tests and a program for the
responsible supervisor to provide the status for those tests that can't be
'
accounted for.
The NRC inspector reviewed the results of the surveillance
l
test monthly review and checked the files for selected tests to verify
l
completion.
No problems were noted.
The licensee has not yet issued a
l
procedure change to incorporate the committed corrective actions for this
!
violation to provide assurance that this violation will not recur.
This
item will remain open pending completion of changes to the appropriate
procedures.
3.
Licensee Event Report (LER) Followup
(
l
Through direct observation, discussions with licensee personnel, and
l
review of records, the following event report was reviewed to determine
l
that reportability requirements were fulfilled, immediate corrective
l
,
l
l
_
.
.
3
action was accomplished, and corrective action to prevent recurrence has
been accomplished in accordance with Technical Specifications (TS).
The licensee submitted LER 84-016 to report that the setpoint for RM-062,
the stack noble gas radiation monitor, was found to be out of tolerance.
By being out of tolerance, RM-062 was incapable of performing its intended
function.
The licensee recalibrated RM-062 and placed it back in service.
The NRC inspector reviewed the corrective action taken by the licensee and
noted no problems.
The licensee noted in LER 84-016 that the out-of-tolerance setpoint was
not discovered until a review of the completed surveillance test was
performed.
The review was performed approximately 1 month after
performance of the test.
For this reason, the licensee stated that an
evaluation of the surveillance test review process would be performed.
If
the evaluation concluded that changes to the surveillance review process
were needed, the appropriate changes would be made.
The licensee has not
yet performed an evaluation of the review process as stated in the LER.
This LER will. remain open pending completion of the evaluation by the
licensee and subsequent issuance of procedure changes, if appropriate.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Followup on a NUREG-0737 (TMI) Item
ItemLI.D.2-of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, requires that the licensee
implement an SPDS for use t'y plant personnel during abnormal or emergency
,
events.
The parameters provided by the SPDS were established by the
licensee based on the safety functions identified in emergency operating
procedures.
On October 28, 1983, the licensee submitted a safety analysis to the NRC.
This safety analysis described the basis on which the parameters monitored
by the SPDS were sufficient to assess the safety status of each safety
function for a wide range of events.
This safety analysis provided a
listing of the parameters that the licensee stated would be monitored on
the SPDS.
On June 7, 1985, the NRC issued a safety evaluation report (SER) for the
SPDS.
The SER concluded that the process and system parameters selected
by the licensee for display on the SPDS were acceptable.
This conclusion
was based on the list of parameters provided by the licensee in the letter
dated October 28, 1983.
The licensee, in a letter dated April 30, 1986, notified the NRC that the
SPDS had been declared operational.
The plant system acceptance committee
had reviewed the SPDS and determined that the system met the applicable
requirements.
The NRC inspector reviewed the status of the parameters displayed by the
SPDS to verify that all the parameters had been provided by the licensee
'
.
.
4
as stated in their letter dated October 28, 1983.
During this review, the
NRC inspector identified three parameters that were not currently
available.
The parameters and the reason for their unavailability are
discussed below:
Reactor coolant system (RCS) average temperature (Tave) was not
.
provided on any SPDS display as a direct readout. The licensee
performed an evaluation and determined that reactor coolant system
cold. leg temoerature (Tcold) was an acceptable substitute for Tave
because Tcold is approximately equal to the saturation temperature on
the secondary side of the steam generator.
The licensee has written
the emergency operating procedures (E0Ps) to use Tcold instead of
Tave.
Boron concentration is available as an input to the SPDS; however,
.
the boronometer used to generate the signal input is not operational.
In discussions with the licensee, it was determined that the
boronometer has not been working for approximately 2 years.
The
. licensee noted that the RCS boron concentration is available from the
postaccident sampling system and that boron concentration is ensured
by.the E0P requirement for emergency boration of the RCS.
Temperature of the containment (Tcont) was not provided as a
.
parameter displayed on the SPDS.
The licensee stated that Tcont was
not provided because there was no direct means of measuring
containment temperature.
The licensee had opted to ensure that Tcont
was adequate by issuance of an E0P that required the operators to
verify that containment cooling units were in operation and that
there was cooling water flow to the units.
The licensee has not
performed an evaluation to show that verifying the operability of
containment' cooling units is equivalent to monitoring the actual
containment temperature.
Discussed above are three examples of the licensee's failure to provide a
l
display of parameters on the SPDS as committed in a letter to the NRC
dated October 18, 1983.
The failure to provide these parameters is an
'
apparent deviation from commitments made to the NRC.
(285/8618-01)
l
The NRC inspector reviewed records to verify that training for operation
of the SPDS had been provided to licensed operators.
During review of the
training records, the NRC inspector noted editorial discrepancies on two
records.
The licensee corrected the discrepancies.
Based on a review of
L
training records, it appeared that the licensee had provided SPDS training
l
'for individuals assigned to each operating shift prior to declaring the
l
SPDS operational.
l
The NRC inspector reviewed documentation to verify that procedures had
been issued to provide operating instructions for the SPDS.
The licensee
!
has issued Procedure OI-SPDS-1, " Safety Parameter Display System," to
provide instructions to plant personnel for SPDS operation.
i
t
,
'
.
.
5
The licensee has not completed all phases of installation of the SPDS.
As
stated in the SER issued by the NRC on June 7, 1985, the licensee has
agreed to submit a human factors review of the SPDS and to submit
information on the isolation devices used for the plant /SPDS interfaces.
The licensee has currently scheduled these actions to be completed by the
end of the 1987 refueling outage.
This item remains open pending '
submittal of information by the licensee, issuance of SERs by the NRC for
these items, and appropriate followup inspection for confirmation of
licensee actions.
5.
Annual Emergency Exercise
The annual emergency exercise was held on June 25, 1986.
The exercise
included participation by the licensee, state authorities, the NRC
Region IV base team, the Cooper Nuclear Station NRC senior resident
inspector, and the Fort Calhoun Station NRC senior resident inspector.
The details of'the results of the inspection are provided in NRC
Inspection Report.50-285/86-19.
6.
Followup on IE Information Notices and IE Bulletins Issued for
Information Only
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's system established for
processing IE Information Notices and IE Bulletins issued for information
only. This review was performed to verify that the licensee had received
the notices and bulletins; the notices and bulletins were distributed to
the appropriate personnel for review; and that any actions determined to
be appropriate during the review, had been taken.
The NRC inspector reviewed selected notices and bulletins to verify
appropriate action had been taken.
No problems were noted by the
inspector for those items reviewed.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Operational Safety Verificatien
The NRC inspector conducted the reviews and observations described below
,
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 Technical
.
Specifications
Operability of reactor protective system and engineered safeguards
.
equipment
F
-
- ,
.
6
Logs, records, recorder traces, annunciators, panel indications, and
.
switch positions complied with the appropriate requirements
Proper return to service of components
.
Maintenance orders had been initiated for equipment in need of
.
maintenance
Appropriate conduct of control room and other licensed operators
.
No violations or deviations were noted.
8.
Plant Tours
The NRC inspector conducted plant tours at various times to assess plant
and equipment conditions.
The following items were observed during the
tours:
General plant conditions
.
Equipment conditions, including fluid leaks and excessive vibration
.
Plant housekeeping and cleanliness practices including fire hazards
.
and control of combustible material
The physical security plan was being implemented in accordance with
.
the station security plan
.
Adherence to the requirements of radiation work permits
Work activities being performed in accordance with approved
.
j
procedures
i
During tours of the plant, the NRC inspector noted the following items:
l
Room 59 required additional housekeeping attention.
The licensee
.
!
provided personnel to clean up the area.
l
An unsecured compressed gas bottle was found in the electrical
.
penetration area.
The bo+.tle was immediately secured by plant
i
personnel.
!
l
l
No violations or deviations were identified.
i
9.
Safety-Rolated System Walkdown
The NRC inspector walked down accessible portions of the containment spray
system to verify system operability. Operability was determined by
verification of selected valve and switch positions.
The system was
walked down using Drawing E-23866-210-130, Revision 36, and
l
Procedure OI-CS-1, Revision 14.
..
7
During the walkdown, the NRC inspector noted no discrepancies.
The
drawing and procedure correctly reflected the plant as-built conditions
for the selected areas checked by the NRC inspector.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Monthly Maintenance Observation
The NRC inspector observed station maintenance activities of
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 observations:
The limiting conditions for operation were met while systems or
.
components were removed from service.
Approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work.
.
Activities were accomplished using approved maintenance orders (MO)
.
and were inspected, as applicable.
Functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior to
.
returning components or systems to service.
' Quality control records were maintained.
.
Activities were accomplished by qualified personnel.
.
Parts and materials used were properly certified.
.
Radiological and fire prevention controls were implemented.
.
The NRC inspector observed the following maintenance activities:
Calibration of a toxic gas monitor (CP-62878)
.
Calibration of pressure switches for the raw water system (CP-2854
.
and -2855)
!
'
During a plant tour, the NRC inspector became aware of a problem regarding
the signing of a quality control hold point.
The NRC inspector reviewed
the actions taken by the licensee and noted no problems.
No violations or deviations were noted.
.
11.
Monthly Surveillance Observation
The NRC inspector observed selected TS required surveillance testing on
safety-related systems and components.
The NRC inspector verified the
following items during the testing:
'
..
8
Testing was performed using approved procedures.
.
Test inst'rumentation was calibrated.
.
Limiting conditions for operation were met.
.
.
Removal and restoration of the affected system and/or component were
.
accomplishedc
-
Test results conformed with TS and procedure requirements.
.
Test results'were reviewed by personnel other than the individual
.
directing the test.
-
~
Deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and
.
resolved by appropriate management personnel.
The,NRC inspector witnessed the following surveillance test activities.
The procedures used for the test activities are noted in parentheses.
' Auxiliary feedwater pump and remotely operated valve check
.
(ST-FW-1-F.2)
Emergency diesel generator monthly test (ST-ESF-6-F.1)
.
Ventilating air valves position test (ST-VA-5-F.1)
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Exit Interview
The NRC inspector met with Mr. W. G. Gates (Plant Manager) at the end of
this i epection.
At this meeting,.the-inspector summarized the scope of
the in pection and the findings.
,
i
i