IR 05000285/1987006: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
{{Adams
| number = ML20209D769
| number = ML20237K953
| issue date = 04/14/1987
| issue date = 08/13/1987
| title = Partially Withheld Insp Rept 50-285/87-06 on 870301-31 (Ref 10CFR73.21).Violation Noted:Failure to Maintain Log of Entries Into Vital Areas.Major Areas Inspected:Operational Safety Verifications & Security Observations
| title = Ack Receipt of 870522 & 0721 Ltrs Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-285/87-06
| author name = Boardman J, Harrell P, Hunnicutt D, Hunter D
| author name = Gagliardo J
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
| addressee name =  
| addressee name = Andrews R
| addressee affiliation =  
| addressee affiliation = OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
| docket = 05000285
| docket = 05000285
| license number =  
| license number =  
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = 50-285-87-06, 50-285-87-6, NUDOCS 8704290355
| document report number = NUDOCS 8708200017
| package number = ML20209D745
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, NRC TO UTILITY, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| page count = 2
| page count = 13
}}
}}


Line 19: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:. .
{{#Wiki_filter:l q. ,
APPENDIX B U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
AUG 131987
      ,
In Reply Refer To:
Docket: 50-285/87-06 Omaha Public Power District ATTN: R. L. Andrews, Division Manager-  ,
Nuclear Production
      -
1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letters of May 22 and July 21, 1987, in response to our letters and Notice of Violation dated April 22 and June 19, 1987. We have reviewed.your reply and find it responsive to the concerns raised in our Notice of Violation. We will review the implementation of your corrective
,
actions during a future inspection to determine that full compliance has been achieved and will be maintained.


==REGION IV==
Sincerely, Ocne 4 ,
,
J. 2. C N .;: .._
NRC Inspection Report: 50-285/87-06  License: DPR-40 Docket: 50-285
J. E. Gagliardo, Chief Reactor Projects Branch cc:
' Licensee: Omaha Public Power District s 1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Facility Name: Fort Calhoun Station Inspection At: Fort Calhoun Station, Blair, Nebraska Inspection Conducted: March 1-31, 1987 Inspector: . Y! /y/P7 P. H. Harrell, Senior Resident Reactor Date Inspector N
W. G. Gates, Manager Fort Calhoun Station P. O. Box 399 Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023 Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
  ./R. Boardman,ReactorInspector,  Date erations Section, Reactor Safety Branch Approved: N/
D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, Operations Section,
      / 'W87 D8te '
Reactor Safety Branch
    *
8704290353 870422  **
PDR ADOCK 05000285 G PDR Ci M D. Y Hunter, Chief, Reactor Project ds/ar Date Section B, Reactor Projects Branch Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted March 1-31, 1987 (Report 50-285/87-06)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection including operational safety verifications, maintenance, surveillance, plant tours, safety related system walkdown, security observations, in-office review of periodic and special reports, preparation for refueling activities, refueling activities, review of ftEMOVAL OF THE PAGES MAPXED "SACEGUAPDS INFORM ATION'
DECONTROLS THE REMA!NDER OF THIS DOCUVEN . - .- .__ ._


  . . .. . _ _ _ . . . . . - .. . .
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 (cc cont'd next page)    i
'
      !
  . ,
  :FCS PI S RIV:EP M C:EP&Sh C: SP WLFi er PHHarrell/nc RPMullikin RACALDOELL LAYandt ;
i
08/06/87 f/1/87 @/jo/87 /
fr /7 /87    l RPB    j C:RP '
f DRHu r JEGagi/afdo g @ /87 g/}3/8' Q    l 0k 8708200017 870813
  {DR ADOCK 05000285 PDR s\


i-l  the welding program, containment local leak rate testing, and followup on
[:      ,
 
8 5 Omaha Public Power District -2-   .I
Generic Letter 83-28 (Salem ATWS event).
 
l  -Results: Within the 12 areas inspected, 1 violation (failure to maintain a log i  of entries into vital areas, paragraph 8) was identified.
 
.
i i
!
!
:
:
i
Kansas Radiation Control Program Director Nebraska Radiation Control Program Director  !
 
bec to DMB (IE04)
a i
bec distrib. by RIV:    j RPB  RRI  R. D. Martin, RA  l R&SPB  SectionChief(RP8/B) MIS System
l
.
i
,
,
,
RIV File DRSP  RSTS Operator i RSB  Project Inspector D. Weiss, RM/ALF
, R. Hall
!
!
!
      ,
!
j l
!
 
,
I
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
:
i
:
!
!
REMOVAL OF THE PAGES 5.1 ARMED "SAEEGiJAFDS INFOnM ATi?!"
DECONTROLS THE REMA!flO5R OF THis DOCOVD4 4.


l.
    -
      -_
      - _._ _ _ _ . . _ _ . R l
.  .        <
          !
SARCl!/.ES liHORMAll0N    1
          {
Yi L
Omaha Public Power District    !
1623 Hamey Omaha. Nebraska 68102 2247  (
402/536 4000    i May 22, 1987 LIC-87-357 I      ENCLOSURE (S) CONTAIN(S)
SATEGUARDS INFORMATION.


L
DECONTROL. LED WHEN  l
          ,
SEPARATED FROM ATTACHMENT (S)  J
!
!
. - - . . __ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . - - _ _ _ _ _ ,
Mr. J. E. Gagliardo, Chief Reactor Projects Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3%hT/$1 L
        '  ~
Region Iv t
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000    MAY M P
        \,
  .
Arlington, TX 76011
        .
L,  p References: 1. Docket No. 50-285  [- ._.._*
        -
2.
 
Letter NRC (J. E. Gagliardo) to OPPD (R. L. Andrews) dated  ~l
    ' April 22,1987 (IER 50-285/87-06)    1


.
==Dear Mr. Gagliardo:==
I i  SUBJECT: Inspection Report 87-06 l
The subject inspection report identified one violation concerning a security matter.


DETAILS Persons Contacted
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, please find attached the Omaha Public Power District's response to this' violation.
#*R. Andrews, Division Manager-Nuclear Production
#*W. Gates, Plant Manager C. Brunnert, Supervisor-0perations Quality Assurance M. Core, Supervisor-Maintenance T. Dexter, Supervisor-Security
#*J. Fisicaro, Supervisor-Nuclear Regulatory and Industry Affairs J. Foley, Supervisor-I&C and Electrical Field Maintenance
#J. Gasper, Manager-Administrative and Training Services
#*R. Jaworski, Section Manager-Technical Services M. Kallman, Supervisor-Security L. Kusek, Supervisor-0perations
#*D. Munderloh, Plant Licensing Engineer T. McIvor, Supervisor-Technical
*K. Morris, Division Manager-Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs R. Mueller, Plant Engineer
*A. Richard, Manager-Quality Assurance G. Roach, Supervisor-Chemical and Radiation Protection J. Kecy, Acting Reactor Engineer
* Willrett, Supervisor-Administrative Services and Security
* Denotes attendance at the monthly exit interview held on April 3, 198 # Denotes attendance at a meeting held by J. Boardman on March 20, 198 (see paragraph 15)
The inspector also contacted other plant personnel, including operators, technicians, and administrative personne . Followup on Previously Identified Items (Closed) Open Item 285/8bO3-03: Establishment of an inspection program for type-86 lockout relay The licensee performed a review, in accordance with IE Bulletin 84-02 commitments, to establish a program for inspection of type-86 relays. The review performed by the licensee's engineering staff recommended that an inspection program be established by plant personnel for inspection of type-86 relays. The licensee's plant staff disagreed with the engineering staff's recommendation in that an additional inspection program was not required. The licensee's plant staff determined that an acceptable program existed through the use of the established surveillance test program. Based on a review performed by the licensee's plant staff, it was verified that each relay was tested on a monthly basis by the performance of system surveillance tests. The plant staff also noted during the review that redundant relays existed for each safety-related signal processe HEMOVAL or ng ryneq . 7 ~
    . s p g m, n y
      ~' '
DECONm0LGh) _
a 55,


. .
The details of this response are deemed Safeguards Information in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. As such, this document should not be placed in the Public Document Room.


  .
If you have contact us. any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to
The NRC inspector reviewed a selected sample of relays to verify that a surveillance test was performed to verify proper relay operation. No problems were noted during the revie . Operational Safety Verifications The NRC inspector conducted reviews and observations of selected activities to verify that facility operations were performed in confomance with the requirements established under 10 CFR, administrative procedures, and the Technical Specifications (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 During a control room tour at approximately 11:00 a.m. on March 9,1987, the NRC inspector noted that the licensee had taken the 480-volt electrical distribution bus, MCC 3A2, out of service at 7:00 a.m. to perform preventive maintenance activities. By removing the MCC from service with the reactor coolant temperature greater than 300 degrees, the licensee had entered a TS limiting condition for operation (LCO). The LC0 of TS 2.7(2)f requires that the licensee place MCC 3A2 back in service within 8' hours or enter an
,
action statement that required the plant to be placed in a cold shutdown condition within the following 60 hours. The licensee placed MCC 3A2 back in service at 2:42 p.m. and exited the TS LC During discussions with operations personnel, the NRC inspector detemined that licensee personnel were not aware that taking MCC 3A2 out of service caused the plant to be placed in an LC0. Upon notification by the NRC inspector, actions were taken by the licensee to ensure the MCC was returned to service as soon as possible. Management personnel stated that the failure to recognize the plant was in an LCO was an inadvertent oversight by operations personnel. This occurrence was discussed by plant management with operations personnel to increase their awareness level of the need to verify that plant conditions do not cause an unknown entry into an LCO. In addition, the outage planning data base was updated by REMOVAL OF THE PAGCS MARXEO "SAFEGUAP_CS INFORMATION[
DECONTROLS THE REMAINDER 0;: THis 000UMF.H _ . - - - - ., - - _ _ _ , - ._. ._ __ .


    .
Sincerely, AW R. L. Andrews Division Manager Nuclear Production RLA/me Attachment c: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae w/o Attachment
. .


the licensee to ensure that no MCCs were removed from service during future outages when the reactor coolant temperature was above 300 degree No violations or deviations were identifie . 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
R. D. Martin, NRC Regional Administrator w/o Attachment
. Equipment conditions, including fluid leaks and excessive vibration
  'g  W. A. Paulson, NRC Project Managerw/o Attachment P. H. Harrell, NRC Senior Resident Inspector w/o Attachment xv  a  smaanmunev &,
<
  . - . . .
  . Plant housekeeping and cleanliness practices including fire hazards and control of combustible material
'
. Adherence to the requirements of radiation work permits
    .--...............-...
. Work activities performance in accordance with approved procedures During tours of the plant, the NRC resident inspector noted the following items:
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - -
. An individual was entering the containment building with a respirator; however, the individual's security badge indicated that
,
he was not qualified to wear a respirator. The licensee places a white dot on the security badge to indicate that an individual is qualified for respirator use. In this case, the individual with the respirator did not have a white dot on his security badge.


;
l I
The NRC inspector called the apparent problem to the attention of the
< . , ,         'j
; security guard stationed at the containment access door. The security guard stopped the individual from entering containment and determined that the individual intended to use the respirator. The individual explained that he was respirator qualified and that when his badge was issued, the white dot was inadvertently left off. The security guard checked with the individual responsible for respirator qualification and detennined that the individual attempting to enter containment was not respirator qualified. The security guard instructed the individual to leave the area immediatel In discussions with the licensee, management personnel stated that they felt the general employee training program was adequate to i ensure that unqualified personnel did not use respirator Management personnel stated that they felt that the problem discussed above was a problem with a particular individual. This conclusion was based on the fact that no other instances of this type had been reported during the current refueling outage. The individual involved was provided individualized instruction in what
:
REMOVAL OF THE PACUS f/ "*T"GD "SVEGUAPCS INFORMATION'
OECONTROLS THE RE'/ AliMjl GF THIS DOCUf/ENT,


  .
  .
 
  --=~_======r=======--- - - - - = = = = = = . = = = = - = = =
qualifications were required for him to be allowed to wear a respirato . Fire Doors 989-11 and 1011-1 were found not to be functioning properly in that the doors wouldn't always close. By not closing, the fire barriers associated with the doors became nonfunctiona Upon notification by the NRC inspector, the licensee repaired the door During a tour of containment on March 27, 1987, the plant manager and maintenance supervisor found a contract quality control (QC) inspector sleeping. The QC inspector was performing tool accountability activities, but no work was in progress at the time of the discovery. The contract QC inspector was terminated shortly thereafter. The NRC inspector discussed the incident with the chemistry and radiation protection (CARP) supervisor  '
        ^
to verify that health physics (HP) technicians were aware of.their responsibility of ensuring individuals did not sleep in radiation area The CARP supervisor stated that the HP technicians were aware of their responsibility. The plant manager discussed the incident with all plant supervisors and stressed that any individual caught sleeping on duty would be discipline No violations or deviations were identifie . Safety-Related System Walkdown The NRC inspector walked down accessible portions of the following safety-related system to verify system operability. Operability was determined by verification of selected valve and switch positions. The system was walked down using the drawing and procedure noted:
        .:=: -
  . Shutdown cooling system (Procedure 01-SC-1, Revision 24, and Drawing E-23866-210-130, Revision 38)
_ _ . . _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ - . _ _ .
During the walkdown, the NRC inspector noted minor discrepancies of an editorial nature between the drawing, procedure, and plant as-built conditions for the selected areas checked. None of the conditions noted affected the operability or safe operation of the syste Licensee personnel stated that the noted minor discrepancies would be correcte No violations or deviations were identifie . Monthly Maintenance Observations The NRC inspector reviewed and/or observed selected station maintenance 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 j  during the reviews and/or observations:
Omaha Public Power District      i 1623 Harney Omaha. Nebraska 68102    _ ,.
l  . The TS limiting conditions for operation were met while systems or i  components were removed from service nEMOVAL OF THE F AW ' '' ,7'i ' - Dbb 1 L
          -
CECONTROW WET- 1' '' E
ggggg
      '
. - ~ - _ . . , -- __ . - - . . - -
    . _ _ - - - -
    -_ _ _ , - . - -. -- _-- ._.,- - __
 
. .
 
. Approvals were obtained prior to initiating the work
. Activities were accomplished using approved M0s 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 reviewed and/or observed the following maintenance activities:
. Rebuilding of main steam safety valves (M0 870946)
. Replacement of insulation on 4160-volt buses (M0 863672)
. Change out of sleeve bearings on electrical breakers (M0 845331)
. Repair of a battery charger (M0 817548)
. Replacement of a bonnet gasket on a safety injection valve (M0 858023)
No violations or deviations were identifie . Monthly Surveillance Observations The NRC inspector observed selected portions of the performance of and/or 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:
. Testing was performed by qualified personnel using approved procedures
. Test instrumentation was calibrated
. The TS limiting conditions for operation were met
. Removal and restoration of the affected system and/or component were accomplished
. Test results conformed with TS and procedure requirements REMOVAL OF THE PAGES f>ARKED "SAFEGUA RDS INFORMATION*
DECONTROLS THE REMAINDER OF THIS DOCUMEN .
 
. 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 observed and/or reviewed the documentation for the following surveillance test activities. The procedures used for the test activities are noted in parenthesi . Channel B safety injection actuation signal test (ST-ESF-2-F.2)
. Auxiliary feedwater pump monthly cieck (ST-FW-1-F.2)
. Exercising of ventilation air valves (ISI-VA-1-F.1)
. Calibration of containment pressure switch (CP-D/765)
No violations or deviations were identifie . Security Observations The NRC inspector verified the physical security plan was being implemented by selected observation of the following items:
. The security organization was properly manned
. Persor.nel within the protected area (PA) displayed their identification badges
. Vehicles were properly authorized, searched, and escorted or controlled within the PA
. Persons and packages were properly cleared and checked before entry into the PA was permitted
. The effectiveness of the security program was maintained when security equipment failure or impairment required compensatory measures to be employed During this inspection, the NRC inspector noted that the licensee had not established a program for maintaining a log for persons entering vital areas not equipped with security badge card readers. The discussion of this apparent violation contains safeguards information, as defined in 10 CFR Part 73.21; therefore, the details of this apparent violation are provided in Appendix A and the Attachment to this inspection repor . In-Office Review of Periodic and Special Reports In-office 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 appropriate:
FIEMOVAL OF TME P?,GES f '?SKED "S A FEGUA PDS INFOPM ATE DECONTROLS THE UN"dNDER OF THis DOCUV.;
 
. .
:
. Reports included the information required by appropriate NRC requirements
. Test results and supporting information were consistent with desig predictions and specifications
. Determination that planned corrective actions were adequate for resolution of identified problems
. Detennination as to whether any information contained in the report should be classified as an abnormal occurrence The following reports were reviewed:
. Monthly operations report for February 1987
. Core reload methodology changes for Cycle 11, dated March 18, 1987
. Amendment for a change to the TS related to testing of the emergency diesel generators, dated March 13, 1987
. Notification of raising the current cold leg temperature, dated March 11, 1987
. Revised schedule and justification for replacement of Valcor valves, dated March 4, 1987 No violations or deviations were identifie . Preparation for Refueling The NRC inspector reviewed selected procedures to verify that the technical and administrative requirements provided in the procedures adequately incorporated controls and requirements stated in the TS, codes, and standards. The procedures reviewed were evaluated to verify that controls had been established for the following elements:
. Receipt, inspection, and storage of new fuel and control element assemblies (CEA)
. Fuel handling, transfer, and core verification
. Inspection of irradiated fuel
. Preoperational checkout of refueling equipment
. Handling and movement of the reactor core internals
. Establishment of administrative measures for the activities such as lines of supervision, shif t manning, radiation monitoring, comunications, and training RFMOVM ^ r 1:rgr ', n- -
_
_
      , yr y . *
402/536 4000
CECON.a" >. '
        '
    .:t' . + occuwuj,
l  [ .
July 21, 1987      JUL 2 41987  ,'O LIC-87-523      'g
          '
          ."


. .
_..J
          ]
Mr. J. E. Gagliardo, Chief        {
Reactor Projects Branch V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 References: 1. Docket No. 50-285    .
2. Letter NRC (J. E. Gagliardo) to OPPD (R. L. Andrews) dated April 22, 1987 (IER 50-285/87-06)      l 3. Letter OPPD (R. L. Andrews) to NRC (J. E. Gagliardo) dated May 22, 1987 (LIC-87-357)
4. Letter NRC (J. E. Gagliardo)'to OPPD (R. L. Andrews) dated June 19, 1987 (IER 50-285/87-06)      -1 l


The NRC inspector reviewed the following procedures for the elements listed abov Number Title  Revision SP-CEA-3 Procedure for CEA  3 Unloading, Inspection, and Storage of Individual CEAs OP-11 Reactor Core Refueling 18 Procedure SP-FE-1 Visual Inspection of  4 Irradiated Fuel HP-FH-2 Refueling Equipment  10 Preoperational Maintenance MP-ilE-1 Polar Crane Annually or 7 at Refueling Inspection HP-RC-7-2-A Upper Guide Structure 20 and ICI Plate Removal SP-flFR-1 Fuel Receipt Procedure 11 The i4RC inspector witnessed activities related to the receipt, inspection, and storage of new fuel and CEAs. The inspector verified that the inspections were performed in accordance with the requirements established by Procedures SP-NFR-1 and SP-CEA-3. The selected verifications performed by the inspector included determination that the personnel performing the inspections were qualified, documentation was accurately completed, and the fuel and CEAs were properly handled. Based on the observations and reviews perfonred by the NRC inspector, it appeared that the fuel and CEAs were inspected and handled appropriatel The NRC inspector also observed and/or reviewed completed documentation of other selected portions of preparation for refueling activities. The activities included fuel handling equipment and crane operational verification, proper operation of radiation monitors, and verification that the source range monitors operated properl Prior to contencement of outage activities, the licensee issued a refueling cutage manual. This manual provided a single reference source for the various activities related to the outage. The information provided in the manual included a description of the outage organization and responsibilities; time, place, and subject of the various outage meetings; administrative information; and a discussion of how to properly perform activities that have been previously identified as problem area No violations or deviations were identifie REMOVAL OF THE PAGES MARKED " SAFEGUARDS INFORMATICt"l DECONTROLS THE REMAINDER OF THIS DOCUMGNL
==Dear Mr. Gagliardo:==
SUBJECT: Additional Information for Inspection Report 285/87-06 Omaha Public Power District recently received Reference 4 requesting
, supplemental information to that provided in Reference.3. Accordingly, please find attached additional information concerning Inspection Report 285/87-06.


. .
Sincerely, i
l R. L. Andrews /d)
'
Division Manager Nuclear Production RLA:rge Attachment c: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae        I 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.        !
Washington, DC 20036        )
P. H. Harrell, NRC Senior Resident Inspector      li J7 4g!o=
y j'',
        ,
R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator  ,
l Qw    ,TV 455t24  Emplograen th EQtt Opportunity    /l  !


11. Review of Welding Program During this inspection period, the NRC resident inspector assisted an NRC welding specialist from Region IV in a detailed review of the licensee's welding program. During the review, a violation of the failure to properly control special prccesses was identified. The results of the program review are provided in NRC Inspection Report 50-285/87-0 '
l
12. Followup on Generic Letter 83-28 Generic Letter (GL) 83-28 was issued by the NRC to require licensees to implement corrective actions based on the Salem ATWS event. This portion of the inspection was performed to verify that the licensee had properly implerented a program for post-trip reviews. The requirements for post-trip reviews are provided in GL 83-28 as Items 1.1 and The NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) performed a review of the documentation submitted by the licensee in response to the requirements of GL 83-28. Based on the review, NRR issued a safety evaluation report (SER) on October 22, 1985, for Item 1.1 and on June 13, 1985, for Item 1.2. The SERs issued by NRR concluded that the licensee's post-trip review data and information capabilities were acceptable. The NRC inspector performed a review to verify that the licensee had implemented a program for post-trip review as stated in the SERs. The program implementation was verified by review of the documentation listed belo . A sequence-of-events computer printout to verify that the types of parameters available during post-trip reviews included the items required by the SER
      '
.
. , ,.
Procedure OP-1 "liaster Checklist for Startup or Trip Recovery," to verify that post-trip review and permission for restart responsibilities were clearly defined
l l
. Post-trip review packages compiled during past reactor trips to verify that the appropriate documentation (e.g., completed startup procedures, sequence-of-events printouts, instrument recorder tracings and strip charts, etc.) was available Based on the review performed by the NRC inspector, it appears that the licensee has implemented an adequate post-trip review program. Items and 1.2 of GL 83-28 are considered close No violations or deviations were identifie . Refueling Activities
Attachment
:
  ~
The NRC inspector reviewed / observed various activities performed during
a. During the performance of the inspection, it was established that the violation occurred, in part, due to the security supervisor not responding i
;
'
'
refueling to verify the activities were performed in accordance with the REMOVAL OF THE PAGFS MAT:KUD $^ FFGU AqDS INFOAMATION '
to concerns identified by NRC personnel. This was not discussed in your '
l OECONTROLS THP : ,, ;imE:4 OF THIS DOCUMEN _ _-
response to the reason for the violation. It is requested that you provide a response to this aspect of the violation, i
 
RESPONE The reason for the violation was that the Supervisor-Security did not take !
    - _ _-- - -  -- .. - - . . . - . . -
appropriate action on the resident NRC inspector's concern about logging into vital areas with no card reader. His interpretation of the site security plan was that it adequately addressed logging into areas which is accomplished by the computer. He believed that OPPD was in compliance.
l . .
.
    '
!
    '
*
 
I  TS and approved licensee procedures. The activities observed / reviewed included the following:
i  . Proper shift staffing by qualified individuals was provided
  . Containment integrity was established and maintained
,
  . Good housekeeping and loose object control on the refueling bridge
'
t was maintained
;  . Fuel handling operations were perfonned in accordance with approved licensee procedures
!
!  . The proper refueling cavity water level was maintained t
~
  . Chemistry sampling was perfonned at the frequency specified in the TS i
l  During observation / review of the above activities, no problems were noted j  by the NRC inspector. During this inspection period, the licensee i   offloaded all fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool to check for fuel
{
integrity. The fuel integrity checks were made due to an increase in the l
iodine level in the reactor coolant system during the past fuel cycle.
 
Any fuel assemblies that were found to be leaking will not be returned to i  the core, but will be replaced with a nonleaking assembly. This inspection of refueling activities will continue into the next inspection period.


.
He was approached a second time about the discrepancy and responded by requiring a manual log be kept, but only at rollup doors without card readers. He did not address inoperative card readers or other vital area i doors without card readers.
No violations or deviations were identified.


I i  14. Containment Local Leak Rate Testing
!
!
l  The NRC inspector verified through observation and records review that the local leak rate test program for testing of mechanical and electrical
On March 16, 1987, a security supervisor with a background in nuclear plant security was hired. A change was made to the security plan that !
:  penetrations was being performed in accordance with TS requirements. The
addressed ways to log entry into vital areas through any door not equipped with card readers, doors with inoperative card readers or vital areas where access cannot be controlled by the computer. The new security supervisor has also discussed with lead security personnel the need to I
;  NRC inspector observed / reviewed the following items.
demonstrate a prompt response to any concern expressed by NRC personnel, b. In the discussion provided, the response stated that the reason for the i
violation was due to the fact that regulations stated in 10 CFR Part 73 had not been included in your site security plan or associated imple-menting procedures. Has a review been performed to identify other requirements stated in 10 CFR Part 73 that should be included in your site ,
security plan and associated implementing procedures? If not, it is !
requested that a reason be provided for not performing the review. If a !
review has been performed, it is requested that you provide details on the l extent and results of the completed review. J RfSPONSE A thorough review of the site security plan and 10 CFR Part 73 has been !
conducted for other discrepancies that may exist. A matrix of paragraphs from the site security plan was used to compare against 10 CFR Part 73. A review was completed in the Spring of 1986 and again in 1987. No further deficiencies were discovered.


!  . All electrical and mechanical penetrations listed in the TS were
c. It is requested that you address any new actions you have determined to be i appropriate for corrective steps which will be taken to prevent further !
!   tested in accordance with the licensee's approved procedure i
violations, based on the results of your additional review performed on j Items a and b. Consideration of the generic aspects of the items is '
!  . Procedure ST-CONT-2, " Containment Local Leak Detection Tests - Type B,"
appropriate.
'    provided the appropriate instructions for testing of penetrations
  . The test equipment used was in current calibration
  . The pressure used for testing conformed to the pressure specified in
:    the TS j  . Repairs were initiated for any penetrations discovered to be leaking
  . Action was taken to verify that the maximum allcwable leakage rate


was not exceeded upon discovery of a leaking penetration
,       ,
!    RE.YOVM.PFT4 '  '9 :'me v7 gMCAPOW
t _ __ _ _ ___
-      crcom r , . . . ..
          ...; . , . .
          ;
. . - . - , , , , - - - - , - - - _ . _ , , , , , - - . _ - .  - . _ , . , - - - . - - -  .  ._ --


    . - - - _ _ ~ . .. _ -. _ _ _ .
i
  <
  <.q
. .
J
  '
  '
<,
l RESPONSE We believe the above actions are appropriate corrective steps and should  ;
prevent further violations in these areas. Generic aspects, as noted in  '
Reference 3, will be emphasized to OPPD personnel to provide added assurance that NRC inspector concerns are appropriately addressed when  i raised.      ;
i i
  .


Based on the reviews performed during the inspection period, it appeared i that the licensee was implementing an appropriate leak rate testing
2
-
        '
program. At the end of this inspection period, the licensee had not completed the testing of all penetration assemblies. This portion of this inspection will be continued into the next inspection perio No violations or deviations were identified.
i i
 
l
-
    ,
15. Exit Interview l'
l
The NRC inspector met with Mr. R. L. Andrews (Division Manager - Nuclear Production) and other members of the licensee staff at the end of this
        !
'
;
inspection.~ At this meeting, the NRC inspector sumarized the scope of the inspection and the findings, i  Mr. J. Boardman met with licensee personnel on March 20, 1987, to provide information related to a proposed inspection in the area of corrective i  action programs. During the meeting, Mr. Boardman outlined the scope and nature of the inspection and submitted a request for copies of licensee i  documentation associated with the inspection. Licensee personnel stated i
l
that the documentation would be provided in the near future. See paragraph 1 of this inspection report for meeting attendees.
!
l


!
<
        ,I i
i
i
!
!         i I        !
:
!
!
t l
!        1
 
l
!
!
I l
l
l
,
!
REMOVAL OF THE PAGF3 M ARKED "FAFEGUARDS INFORMATION''
l DECONTROLS THE F1EMtaNDER OF THIS DOCUMENT.


I E_ __ _ - - - - - -   - - - - - -
L--_------------_- - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - -o
}}
}}

Revision as of 22:22, 16 December 2021

Ack Receipt of 870522 & 0721 Ltrs Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-285/87-06
ML20237K953
Person / Time
Site: Fort Calhoun Omaha Public Power District icon.png
Issue date: 08/13/1987
From: Gagliardo J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Andrews R
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
References
NUDOCS 8708200017
Download: ML20237K953 (2)
v • d • e


Text

l q. ,

AUG 131987

,

In Reply Refer To:

Docket: 50-285/87-06 Omaha Public Power District ATTN: R. L. Andrews, Division Manager- ,

Nuclear Production

-

1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Gentlemen:

Thank you for your letters of May 22 and July 21, 1987, in response to our letters and Notice of Violation dated April 22 and June 19, 1987. We have reviewed.your reply and find it responsive to the concerns raised in our Notice of Violation. We will review the implementation of your corrective

,

actions during a future inspection to determine that full compliance has been achieved and will be maintained.

Sincerely, Ocne 4 ,

J. 2. C N .;: .._

J. E. Gagliardo, Chief Reactor Projects Branch cc:

W. G. Gates, Manager Fort Calhoun Station P. O. Box 399 Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023 Harry H. Voigt, Esq.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 (cc cont'd next page) i

!

FCS PI S RIV:EP M C:EP&Sh C: SP WLFi er PHHarrell/nc RPMullikin RACALDOELL LAYandt  ;

08/06/87 f/1/87 @/jo/87 /

fr /7 /87 l RPB j C:RP '

f DRHu r JEGagi/afdo g @ /87 g/}3/8' Q l 0k 8708200017 870813

{DR ADOCK 05000285 PDR s\

[: ,

8 5 Omaha Public Power District -2- .I

Kansas Radiation Control Program Director Nebraska Radiation Control Program Director  !

bec to DMB (IE04)

bec distrib. by RIV: j RPB RRI R. D. Martin, RA l R&SPB SectionChief(RP8/B) MIS System

,

RIV File DRSP RSTS Operator i RSB Project Inspector D. Weiss, RM/ALF

, R. Hall

!

,

j l

I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

-_

- _._ _ _ _ . . _ _ . R l

. . <

!

SARCl!/.ES liHORMAll0N 1

{

Yi L

Omaha Public Power District  !

1623 Hamey Omaha. Nebraska 68102 2247 (

402/536 4000 i May 22, 1987 LIC-87-357 I ENCLOSURE (S) CONTAIN(S)

SATEGUARDS INFORMATION.

DECONTROL. LED WHEN l

,

SEPARATED FROM ATTACHMENT (S) J

!

Mr. J. E. Gagliardo, Chief Reactor Projects Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3%hT/$1 L

' ~

Region Iv t

611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 MAY M P

\,

.

Arlington, TX 76011

.

L, p References: 1. Docket No. 50-285 [- ._.._*

-

2.

Letter NRC (J. E. Gagliardo) to OPPD (R. L. Andrews) dated ~l

' April 22,1987 (IER 50-285/87-06) 1

Dear Mr. Gagliardo:

I i SUBJECT: Inspection Report 87-06 l

The subject inspection report identified one violation concerning a security matter.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, please find attached the Omaha Public Power District's response to this' violation.

The details of this response are deemed Safeguards Information in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. As such, this document should not be placed in the Public Document Room.

If you have contact us. any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to

Sincerely, AW R. L. Andrews Division Manager Nuclear Production RLA/me Attachment c: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae w/o Attachment

.

R. D. Martin, NRC Regional Administrator w/o Attachment

'g W. A. Paulson, NRC Project Managerw/o Attachment P. H. Harrell, NRC Senior Resident Inspector w/o Attachment xv a smaanmunev &,

. - . . .

'

.--...............-...

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - -

l I

< . , , 'j

.

--=~_======r=======--- - - - - = = = = = = . = = = = - = = =

^

.:=: -

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

Omaha Public Power District i 1623 Harney Omaha. Nebraska 68102 _ ,.

-

ggggg

_

402/536 4000

'

l [ .

July 21, 1987 JUL 2 41987 ,'O LIC-87-523 'g

'

."

_..J

]

Mr. J. E. Gagliardo, Chief {

Reactor Projects Branch V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 References: 1. Docket No. 50-285 .

2. Letter NRC (J. E. Gagliardo) to OPPD (R. L. Andrews) dated April 22, 1987 (IER 50-285/87-06) l 3. Letter OPPD (R. L. Andrews) to NRC (J. E. Gagliardo) dated May 22, 1987 (LIC-87-357)

4. Letter NRC (J. E. Gagliardo)'to OPPD (R. L. Andrews) dated June 19, 1987 (IER 50-285/87-06) -1 l

Dear Mr. Gagliardo:

SUBJECT: Additional Information for Inspection Report 285/87-06 Omaha Public Power District recently received Reference 4 requesting

, supplemental information to that provided in Reference.3. Accordingly, please find attached additional information concerning Inspection Report 285/87-06.

Sincerely, i

l R. L. Andrews /d)

'

Division Manager Nuclear Production RLA:rge Attachment c: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae I 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.  !

Washington, DC 20036 )

P. H. Harrell, NRC Senior Resident Inspector li J7 4g!o=

y j,

,

R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator ,

l Qw ,TV 455t24 Emplograen th EQtt Opportunity /l  !

l

'

. , ,.

l l

Attachment

~

a. During the performance of the inspection, it was established that the violation occurred, in part, due to the security supervisor not responding i

'

to concerns identified by NRC personnel. This was not discussed in your '

response to the reason for the violation. It is requested that you provide a response to this aspect of the violation, i

RESPONE The reason for the violation was that the Supervisor-Security did not take !

appropriate action on the resident NRC inspector's concern about logging into vital areas with no card reader. His interpretation of the site security plan was that it adequately addressed logging into areas which is accomplished by the computer. He believed that OPPD was in compliance.

He was approached a second time about the discrepancy and responded by requiring a manual log be kept, but only at rollup doors without card readers. He did not address inoperative card readers or other vital area i doors without card readers.

!

On March 16, 1987, a security supervisor with a background in nuclear plant security was hired. A change was made to the security plan that !

addressed ways to log entry into vital areas through any door not equipped with card readers, doors with inoperative card readers or vital areas where access cannot be controlled by the computer. The new security supervisor has also discussed with lead security personnel the need to I

demonstrate a prompt response to any concern expressed by NRC personnel, b. In the discussion provided, the response stated that the reason for the i

violation was due to the fact that regulations stated in 10 CFR Part 73 had not been included in your site security plan or associated imple-menting procedures. Has a review been performed to identify other requirements stated in 10 CFR Part 73 that should be included in your site ,

security plan and associated implementing procedures? If not, it is !

requested that a reason be provided for not performing the review. If a !

review has been performed, it is requested that you provide details on the l extent and results of the completed review. J RfSPONSE A thorough review of the site security plan and 10 CFR Part 73 has been !

conducted for other discrepancies that may exist. A matrix of paragraphs from the site security plan was used to compare against 10 CFR Part 73. A review was completed in the Spring of 1986 and again in 1987. No further deficiencies were discovered.

c. It is requested that you address any new actions you have determined to be i appropriate for corrective steps which will be taken to prevent further !

violations, based on the results of your additional review performed on j Items a and b. Consideration of the generic aspects of the items is '

appropriate.

, ,

t _ __ _ _ ___

i

<.q

'

<,

l RESPONSE We believe the above actions are appropriate corrective steps and should  ;

prevent further violations in these areas. Generic aspects, as noted in '

Reference 3, will be emphasized to OPPD personnel to provide added assurance that NRC inspector concerns are appropriately addressed when i raised.  ;

i i

.

2

'

i i

l

,

l

!

l

!

l

!

<

,I i

i

! i I  !

!

! 1

l

!

I l

l

L--_------------_- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - -o

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000285/1987006&oldid=3381813"