ML20128E037

Insp Rept 50-285/85-03 on 850304-08.Violations Noted:Failure to Meet Record Retrieval Requirements for Thermal Stress Analysis of Small Pipe & Failure to Have Procedures for Identification of safety-related Pipe

ML20128E037
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	05/21/1985
From:	Boardman J, Hunnicutt D, Norman D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20128E003	List: ML20128D999 ML20128E006 ML20128E037
References
50-285-85-03, 50-285-85-3, NUDOCS 8505290279
Download: ML20128E037 (12)

See also: IR 05000285/1985003

Text

s ,  ;

,

,

.

,

APPENDIX B

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

t

NRC Inspection Report: .50-285/85-03 -License: DPR-40

Docket: 50-285 -

e

Licensee: Omaha Public~ Power District (0 PPD)

1623 Harney Street

H

Omaha, Nebraska 68102 -

"

b Facility Name: Fort Calhoun Station ,

,

. -

.

.

1. 1, . Inspection At: Fort Calhoun Station, Blair Nebraska

Inspection Conducted: March 4-8, 1985

Inspectors: W ST/186

4 s, , 'J . L. Boardman, Reactor Inspector, Special Date

l'- , frojectsandEngineeringSection, Reactor

-

%- - . Project Branch 1 (pars. 1, 2, 6, and 7) '

=

,

+ [km=&

D. E. Norman, Reactor Inspector, Project Section 8

f /2 / W

.

Date '

-

Reactor Project Branch 2

.(pars. 1,-2, 3, 4,-and 5)

.

'

Approved:

~

hl

D. M. Hunnicutt,. Chief, Project Section 8

I

Da'te

/!8[

/

Reactor Project Branch 2

,

,

'

- Inspection Summary

-

Inspection Conducted March 4-8, 1985 (Report 50-285/85-03)

-Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's record -

program; calibration,' measuring and test equipment; program audit program

8505290279 850523

gDR ADOCK 05000285

PDR

~

,

r 7,Th;! ~ ; -

mn .y - .. _-

<s < , y y

+:

- ;.

"'

4

,e,.

d

,_,

.

m;~p _ _ . .s- e . . , - , . .

.

.c -

.

.. .. .

..

, .

>

. ,_ .

y 3:033-. ,

.,

.

.

, . , .

.:.y . ++

_

, ; e  ; o - - -

a  : a x: . . , ^ ~

,

-

.

.,

,c -

a

wi,p3]n r

^

'

'

- -

,

-

(> .

. ".

N. .% %>

. .

, 3 < +

U- 1

-

,

,

, J; - ,- , -

,,,k ,

,

gu ps ,  ;

~-2

,# ' f '-

~

-

,

'

%7' . - . -

3.n .y. ,

<

. _,.

.

ej '- - ,

e. - 1, .

-

.  %,

QT ( " t -implemerit'ation; and followup on previous inspection findings. _The inspection "

I ' ' :. F . involved 84' inspector-hours onsite by two'NRC inspectors.

'

y A

,

_ . _

_ , . ,,

":,{"

~

. ,- Results: Within'the.five areas. inspected, two^ violations were identif,i~ed in '

o

_

-

'one. area (OPPD records p'rogram). The violations were failure't'o meet record

e. retrieval requirements for thermal stress analysis of small pipe and failure to.

.

.3~ -have procedures for identification'of-safety-related pipe requiring in service ~:

-

- inspection (ISI).

,

&

'G

>

t

1

(

t .'

, .

4

~

y ^"" _

+

,

. ..

- w

i

k.

.-

,

n

p

it

'

ih '

4_.

+

' N _a W ,U

,

E

tf -

'

'- r ,

, . 9

e

$

. , . . *

p .. -

,g & s,

4

5 ,*'  % 5,

&

i

3',

..

'

sh, <

%, . i r

i.'.._ ~

, - -- ; , .,

- -

g-7 ,.

_

.

,

w w ~r '

_

'

<-

m .

< .

. .

. . , ,

>

o

- o u,

. . .

4^ .o .

, ~

4 7p~ ?

- -

,

3 <

s

,  ;

,.

-

t . . ~ s; .u '

-

'

. .-

- '

.

- 'o , , * -

m, ,

r-

_

- '

. g ,; " . _

.

p::; ; y m .3 ,

-

.

s

,

,_..

-

, - l ,

_

~

<

a gy

_

. s

, _ ,

w - '

, ,

~

,

y ,

-

-

r

'

.

- -

,

< e- DETAILS -

o--

'

-

c .

,

-

. u -

g

f '.-

• '

' - '

p, .

<,

'

,

-

,

J ti; y : 1,C : Persons' Contacted.e - - -

'

'

.

' ^ '

?G-  %; hPPD, s :e

' '

i.: . Q ._

-

-u -

__.

_

.

_ _ _

x ,_ . . . _

_

. i .e 5 M*R.: L. Andrews, Division. Manager,- Nuclear Production J

-- i

, _

• R.iT. Spetman, Division Manager,;ManagementvSystems. Services

~ *W.' G. Gates, Manager, Fort Calhoun -Station ' ~~ .

. M *R. L. Jaworski,"Section Manager,E Technical -Services - ~

, * * ' *P.i M. Surlser,- Section-Manager, Generating Station Engineering

. *K.*J.'. Morris, Manager, Quality Assurance-(QA). t

^ ' *0. R. Podell,-Manager; Office Systems - x. 4

_ -

~

..  ; *J.'M. Gloshen, Manager," Records Management-, " a ' '

'*J. K. Gaspar, Manager,tReactor and Computer Technical Services ^ '

d. N

. . . . _

• J. T. Fisicaro, Supervisor, Nuclear Regulatory 'and Industry Affairs

~

'

$

' "'

• J. E. Bentzinger, Supervisor, Procurement QA .

,

n ~ n- *A. W." Richard .. Supervisor, Technical, Fort Calhoun Station. .

1 .a ' :*M.-~R.~ Core,; Supervisor,. Maintenance, Fort Calhoun Station

>M. Ellis', F_oreman,-Instrumentation and Controls

R. Mueller, Supervisor,' Instrumentation and Electrical

"

,

"'

D. Dale, _ Senior- Quality Control (QC) Inspector

%. -J. Folley, Electrical Engineer-

J. Zelfel,-QA1 Inspector'

'

7

J. Hopp, QA~ Inspector. '

. NRCf 1

4

. , ,

'

'

• L'. 'Yandell, Senior Resident Inspector '

. r -

'

• Denotes those attehding the; exit interview on March 8, 1985.

'

- -

- ,

_ . .. ... .

TheNRC in'spectors'also,' interviewed other licensee personnel . 'i

.

.

'

>2. Followup on Previously Identified Items ,

.

'

a. . . (0 pen) (50-285/8317-01) Licensee Records Program - The NRC. inspector -

,

initiated his review of OPPD responses to violation 50-285/8317-01

m which! identified the licensee!s failure to take prompt corrective

r

', '

action on record program deficiencies-identified by NRC Region ,IV

from 1975-1981.'

-

- (1) Lack of Determination for Safety Significant Records .

y,

" '

The NRC inspectors first reviewed OPPD actions to retrieve and'

,

identify construction' records as committed in OPPD letter .

-

LIC-83-238, dated September 19,.1983. During this review, the

.

'

'

,

+

-.

'l.

i ' e

y i 9

- - s A

- *

'r ~, ..y. ,.- .

sq[ w  ;  ; rf , . a.

3 . .

y

+ - e

g.

-

~ s . y: ; ,

.

.

.

r ,,,  : ,

'

dC, '

-

, , f M- Qp p ,

, -

f,._fv y

'

' -

-,

-p c

.

.

l

g ,g ~ .a ,

x,

,

.

+, ,

,, . ,

.

.

p:l y_ ; Tw.

Me

/ _2

+

4- -4-

y3; .

.-

.

,

r-

_

y ;7v~

?' s G -'

rNRC'inspectornotedt$at'oneofthetwostatuscodesusedto

- Mi~ ' *  ; classify, retrieved construction records against PSAR

-

s '

- requirements was: "2. ,Similar Types of Records Identified."..

3c -The other code was: "3. Specific Types of Records; Identified."-

? 7

,~ i ,

Discussions with' licensee personnel' revealed that specific ,

i verification of records against requirements ~may not-have been

F. . W accomplished where' code 2 was used.' ,

~

- -

,

'

.

~

, ,, .

. .

The;use'of code 2 does not show that records are acceptable.

,

-

s ~

' Code 2 was used for >75,(ort 98 ' percent)'of. the 76 recor-d types

- -

identified by the licensee'under their' category "PSAR' Codes.and

'

aa .' , Standards," and for 198 (or 77 percent)'of-the 256 record _ ~

3

+

commitments and requirements for'which OPPD was able to retrieve -

C

'

- ,

records. Of concern to the' NRC inspector was the use.of code 2

~

. , , . for PSAR requirements which affect;the design base such as m

- <  ; je Engineered Safeguards.' Examples include structural' design.of

- U

Y- _

'

'ductJwork and. design _ base shopitests of Safety Injection (SI)~

-

' system'and otherfsafety related; pumps and containment; spray-

1

- -

, T% .

, -

nozzle capacities. , "-

.

_

+

,

_

^ [ jl'

?

f

'

D$cNeentationOffsucEtestsisjnecessarytoassurecomplianceV

1 _ Zwithithe ' design bases. ' For example, the P.SAR, Section 6.2,

s .

'" "

, f y' -g istates, To permit ful.l' pressure and flow rate. testing, each =

-

. , 4

'* -

+

' isafety injectibn system and the containment spray sys_ tem test'

'

' ~ ~ 31ines could be increased to design capacity ~ size with line

[irestrictions;tosimulatethe~effectofdischargepointback-

, .

v ;n ";  ; ;e

'w

.

' '

- -

. t , pressure. .The' full-size test:line wouldl require ~an automatic

1. , >

' valve ~ to close on' an! accident > signal. 0This method of testing is;

' "

, ) 1 not' recommended,.however,esince the'. reduced capacity test'andf '

,

_' iuse of proved. pump curves will provide a' pressure-test and an '

3; yf , n' c

<

" adequate verificatiofof design flow whileidliminating the .

>

7

. L .po'ssibility 'that'a test. line. valve might. fail open and render : -

wj j ,

the systemLineffective."' '

-

~

a

^j :p f The NRC l

inspec' tor. discussed with licensee management that'fdr

~

.

p" i .o isafety'significa'nt' records, such as-the records documenting SI.

h_

'

1 .

-

pump-performance which cannot be verified without removing the- -

,

J .

pumps, a determination must;be made that records 4 exist which .;

1 1, -document the' requirements. 'This_will remain an unresolved' item

• -

i ~

'(50-285/8503-01) pending review by.the NRC' inspector during a' < -

. subsequent inspection of .l.icensee actions to verify safety-

f%,s y ,

significant records.- '

I. $.

'

"i '

,(2) -Unretrievable Records of Thermal = Stress Analysis for- '

M Safety-Related Pipe Below.2%" w

'4 3

" ^

,

t -

y '

,

m' Safety-related small pipe.below 2 " diameter was field run.

-

Cold pipe was: installed using'a nomograph provided by the

e s . , ,

j t > .'

I M,., -

7 * 4

, i M-

%9 .2-_ f n

, '_<,.

't ,

+

m _

h y f -

.

I J\

giM ^ ' _ n ,

_" <

< .

s s

.

,

.

. .

. ; -

- -

'

. -,

, _ [c ,

.

,

a

?- , .

c' 7., - ( -

y;; ^

.. ,

,

--

3 .

.

~

~ .

"

. -5 .

. .J * , ~1

i '

~

.

-

.,

" ~

.

<

a architect-engineer (AE). . Small pipe subject to thermal growth

was required to be. analyzed by the AE, who'would determine.the

'

'

..

-amount,cdirection, and force of p.ipe thermal: growth. .

2 'The NRC inspector reviewed construction records, including

C -

approximately 1 year.of correspondence between the AE and the.

3

- '

constructor. The correspondence was detailed'and indicated that

1AE-analysis was-required, but nothing documented performance'of

'

>

.' '

,the/ analysis.'..The licensee was unable to' retrieve records of

such analysis for safety-related pipe designed to specification

T USAS B31.7 (1968-draft),. Class 1.

~

, USAS B31.7, Section -700,.

,

• , requires:the preparation of'a stressireport for Class 1 piping,_

-

'and its retention by the owner for the lifezof the plant. .The-

licensee committed in'its PSAR, 'Section A.2.6, in 1970, to

m ;J .

Tretain design and construction records.for the total operating

0-

>1ife of-the Fort Calhoun Station. The records of stress-

g ,

~,

'

analysis,~which were not~ retrievable, would have been generated.

^ beginning-in 1971, after the~date of the~PSAR.

~

~

{ ,

o

, s

. _

~

Failure to retrieve Lrecords of activities:affecting safety is' a

,.

'

violation of 10 CFR Part:50,-Appendix B, Criterion XVII.

(50-285/8503-02). n

-

, .,

.

n.

,

.+ -

.,>!

. M/ '

(3)LDesignofPipeSupports'for.ThermallySt'ressedSdfety-Relate'_ ~d s

Aji, . '

,

~ Pipe Below 24"- '

"4

}

-

,

'

s .

"3 In discussions with the' licensee concerning the'unretrievable

"

'

thermal. pipe stress analysis records for safety-related; pipe

w' l .,

below -2 ",' the NRC. inspector determined that FortvCalhoun i

'

,

y$j i. ,

• '

-

< seismic. analysis did not include thermal stresses. .

--

-

37

'

4# This pipe was-not rea'nalyzed'under NRC' Bulletin'79-14 because< >

% .,. ' .

thermalfanalysis was not a dynamic analysis-by co'mputer. >The- ,-

'

(N ~ wording of Bulletin 79-14 did not reiuire reanalysis'of< pipe ;O t,

y(V(i

L

Q

' ' '

'*^^ ,

o

l

below"2 " except in those cases where the original /analysisswas ~

-a dynamic analysis by computeri Bulletin 79-14 was-based on .

Y

1

'

-w Bulletin 79-07 which addressed problems with computer codes. ,

The questio'n of including thermal stress _ analysis in'small; pipe ,

' c' i , 1. support. design was~not raised or' addressed. The NRC inspecto.r'-

-'

-

has' discussed this with the NRC staff. This will remain an'

^ Junresolved item (50-285/8503_-03) pending a retrieval by'0 PPD of

.

.

_~418 .

-

documentation, relating to thermal = design considerations for'

'

I- '

.

i_

_-

g.m # .w;

,. ww .

.

, c. .

=-

s

, , -

un < e;s

-

_

-

_

y

,

,

.,. ,

.:

~

,

-

- -

, , ,

_ y,

, ,

,

,

- -

, , _ _

,

"

, .

~Z

, ,

.

,

+ '

._g_. ,

, ~ .

.

- -  :

y: -

,; y ,

. . . . - .,

s "

.

g / _

~,

-(1)! 2 "'and.large' piping r has been' reviewed under NRC-

.

• '

IE= Bulletin 79-14. / ,

.

- ,

p s . . . .

,. , , o

'

f *M , . (2) Piping below 24"'is now covered by unresolved item! T ' m' \

W . Aywn, ((50-285/8503-02). ,., = > % w- #

.>

,

g -

.

, , , ,

, ~,

47/P " c. '

.(Closed) 0 pen' Item (50-285/8410-01): Biannual Revies of,Licens*ee.

'"

R"

$Qi.:V"' Administrative Procedures .The: licensee has instituted a change to_

.

N 3p ,$ tStation- Procedure G-36, " Operating Manuals-Review Docuientation,", to 32, N ' '

-

MC ~ + e 3;; ' require review of administrative procedures fordinco[poration of OPPD. _ . .-,

4.[jlr ' k '

iQA program requirements. .

- -

%~ , f t

~

..-d. )(Closed)f0 pen: Item (50-285/8410-02): Fort Calhoun Station' Procedures

E M 1. "for: Implementing 10:CFR 50,' Appendix B, Criterion XVI Corrective < , ~

.

'

< ,[O - Action - At;the_ time of NRC inspection (50-285/84-10), OPPD had ,

' ,

revised its QA manual, converting it from a manual that covered all '

3

'

%vi <? .

( <t

~ '

,

.of 0 PPD to;a-department manual.- Corrective action proceoares'for -

A,7 other than the QA~ department had'not been issued.. All OPPD

h 4 s corrective actions were beingl monitored by QA under QA Surveillance '_

p4 ,

-

Plan E/C-84-2,:" Procedures for Control of Deficiencies and Corrective

Action, Plan," approved' April 2,'1984. Subsequently, the licensee

'

.

'.  ;

'

,

'

-

. .'. > issue ~d 0 PPD Nuclear: Production. Division _ Procedure, " Reporting and

-Corrective Action of' Conditions Adverse to Quality," approved

y "

,

' September 9,11984.. Though not identified to the NRC; inspector during'

~

L m inspection 84-10,'0 PPD Generating Station Engineering Administrative '

' Procedure.A-8,~" Control of Deficiencies and= Corrective Action,"^

'

' '

~

'

,

-Revision' January 1984,~had been issuedi ,

-

,

, .. _.

..

Je. (Closed): Violation (50-285/8410-03): ' Failure to Have~ Procedures in ' '

lA- d

'~

,

-Designation of Safety-Related Equipment and-Components - The NRC.

'; - n e inspector reviewed OPPD Design Procedure B12.1, Revision 1, " Critical

, _

,; Quality: Element'(QE) List Control,". dated. July 1984, Land." Critical

L; ^

Quali_ty Element (CQE) List,"; dated' July 1,1984,;and found them to be

, acceptable. .

N a .

'

. .

. ,

.(0 pen) Unres'olved Item (50-285/8410-04): Control of Vendor Technical

-

f'. . f.

11 f Information 'The: specific concern relating to use of .the correct 4 .

Reliance Motor Technical Manual for containment cooling fan' motors

'

4 .

,

.

-

-

twas corrected.'.The general concern over OPPD' control and use of.~

4~ .  ;- . correct-' vendor ~ technical information had not been' acted'upon by OPPD.

-

EThis concern is essentially the same as NRC Generic Letter 83-28,-

)L

L

+a~ <

'

Section 2.2.2. 10 PPD response to Generic' Letter 83-28'was~1etter

LIC-83-267,. dated. November.4, 1983.

~

-

-

,

.

+ , ,

'

L'2 .

-

l' -

0 PPD response to Section.2.2.2 was, "The District does not currently

b,J C" -s

'

pursue al1 ~ vendors ~ of its CQE equipment to determine;if we hold'the

h "' I latest revision of technical manuals or if any modifications:have

p ', f been:recommendedQThe:Districthasreliedon.thosevendors(i.e.t

m

'

<

..

l

lIl - ih,_#3- . . 4

_ . M. [ ,

,

v; a - . ,

y.' ~, '

'

-

. ,

> ,

t , ~

le, c  :

-

[ ;i' > n

y_& b* ,

u , -

Y, /

'

,, ,

m _ _

.

.

~

- ,

-

l

,

3 _, ,

%

,

-7-

.

l

the NSSS vendor) and others who have a modification program.and the

NRC's Notice, Circular, and Bulletin system to obtain hardware data.

The District also participates in NUS's'NOMIS program,;INP0's SEE-IN,

>

and-INP0's NOTEPAD for interaction with other utilities;

' '

"The District.is an active participantLin the INP0 "NUTAC on Generic

'

Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2." Through this. program, a workable ^

solution to the vendor interface problem is being sought. The

scheduled output date for.this NUTAC is February 1, 1984. As was

^, . previously stated, at thatrtime the District will determine to what

extent the findings ~of the NUTAC can be incorporated into District

^ practices."

^

'

OPPD could show no action on NUTAC as-delineatsd in'INPO 84-10.

-

developed by the Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC), dated

March 1984. INPO 84-10, page 25,'Section 4.2.2.1, had January 1,

'

1985, as the' target <* ate for its full implementation by utilities.

In addition, INP0 84-10 did not directly address control of vendor

technical'information.

The NRC inspector discussed this situation-with the NRC staff.

Clarification of OPPD control of vendor technical information will be

requested'by the NRC staff. The staff concurred in leaving this item

open pending clarification and implementat' ion of 0 PPD controls for

. vendor technical information.  ;

g. (Closed) Violation .(50-285/8421-01a): Failure Sf Procedures to

Provide a Means to Identify Plant Process Instrumentation Which was

Calibrated with M&TE Found to be Out of Tolerance - Procedure 50 M-28

-was revised to provide a method.for identifying calibration

procedures for which each ' item of M&TE was used. If the M&TE is

subsequently found to be out of tolerance each procedure can be

.readily identified. Implementation of the corrective action was..

verified by the~NRC inspector.

h. (Closed) Violation (50-285/8421-02a): Failure to Perform Analysis

for Out of Tolerance M&TE - Records showed that two M&TE standards

were found out of tolerance at calibration and no analysis had been

. performed to determine the effect on~ plant process instruments which

had been calibrated with the standards. After identification of the

problems, the licensee performed an analysis of the two items and

found the out 5f tolerance condition to have~ negligible effect on

plant instrumentation. . Procedure S0 M-28 was changed to prevent

recurrence,of the problem. This action was verified by the NRC

inspector.

.

i. (Closed) Violation (50-285/8421-02b)

Failure to Establish

. Calibration Intervals - Minimum calibration intervals had not been

f

3 k

L:._

.. .-

,

-8-

-

established for oscilloscopes and electrical current measuring

standards. Intervals have subsequently been established and included

in' Procedure 50 M-28. The NRC inspectors verified that the standards

were being calibrated in accordance with the procedure.

J. (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-285/8421-03): Insufficient Records for

Determining the Validity of Bergen-Patterson Snubber Tester (BPST-1)

Calibration - Calibration of the BPST-1 had been perfonned by

Nebraska Testing Laboratory and should have consisted of calibrating

the tester load cell and velocity meter. Records were not available

'

to show that the velocity meter had been calibrated. The licensee

located the records and during this inspection the NRC inspectors

reviewed Nebraska Testing Laboratory certification No. E-1666, dated

March 2, 1984, for calibration of the velocity meter. The tester is

typically used during fuel outages to perform snubber surveillance

tests. When calibrated on March 2,1984, the initial load cell error

was 20 percent with a 2 percent error after calibration. During the

March 1984 snubber tests the load cell was calibrated weekly because

of a calibration drift problem.

The licensee stated that future calibrations of the tester would be

performed by the I&C calibration laboratory and Procedure 50 M-28

would be revised to reflect this change.

k. ~(0 pen) Open Item (285/8217-01): Housekeeping Deficiencies - In

response to the concerns expressed by the NRC inspector during NRC

Inspection Report No. 50-285/82-17, the licensee committed to revise

Administrative Procedure A-G-6 to reflect that controlled areas of

the plant be kept at Zone-IV and -to update documentation of the

weekly inspections and cleanup. These areas had been cited as

deficiencies during licensee QA Audit 31-82. The NRC inspector

reviewed Administrative Procedure A-G-6, Revision 13, dated June 27,

1983, and verified that the change had been made. Documentation of

weekly inspections and cleanup were still not being made and had been

cited again in QA Audit 21-84. This item will remain open pending

review of the adequacy of the licensee corrective actions associated

with QA Audit 21-84.

1. (Closed)UnresolvedItem(285/8412-04): Identical to 285/8421-01a

which was discussed above.

3. Measuring and Test Equipment Program

The NRC inspectors reviewed the measuring and test equipment (M&TE)

program to verify compliance with regulatory requirements and licensee

commitments.

_

- - - - , -

M.c - .

~ J ,J

m

. ,

- , < ' "

,

_n

-

_ . . . ,

..

y ,

.

- ,

, ,

a.~ ', .

(h, 2> .. . _ y > '

,

• '

. , ,y

-jr-

L

." - %',:r*?

'

-3 - -

'

,

% e

_ 3 ,. 'y; ,  ;,

<

_

,

y;p ,

,

.

,

4. . e - 9 ,

, .. . , , , a >

jr- [+ , .

"

[ ,

-9 .

T

}-

' '

M

'

.4- 1

- _

'

.

i ',

~

. 'Theifollowthg' documents were reviewed during this phase of;the' inspection: J,

' s ~

-

.. . . -

-

. , ,

'

b- C jQUality: Assurance Plan, Section 6.5,P." Control of; Measuring and Test

... _; Equipment"," c:=od September 1 7 1984 i-

m' aru ' ~

l, *-

'

LStanding Order M-7, " Calibration ~of ' Mechanical Gauging Equipment,'.' -

, _ _ , _ . ,

,

,

,

.

.- .

-

> Revision-19, dated September 11, 1984 .

,

'

% " ^

-* 1 Standing' Order M-28, "Ca I ibration of Test Equipment,"L Revision 17,

'

-

.

dated January 31, 1985 ,

>+

^

'

,r

_

• LCalibration reco,rds for six mechanical standards

'

. ~

Cslibration procedures and records for two torque: wrench testers, three-

h- torque wrenches, and two outside micrometers were' reviewed during the

inspection. The records reviewed were.in. compliance.with M&TE' program' ~

-

.

' requirements. The program for controlling; instrumentation and controls

(I&C):M&TE was(reviewed during NRC Inspection Report No. 50-285/84-21~and .

r

A several: discrepancies were1 documented at that time. Reinspection of those >

,

-

Litensfare cover'ed in other sections of this report.

q h  ; No;violati$nsoddeviationswereidenti.fied.

.

'

~ '

,

4. Calibration, '?r

1. co a-

~ g- ~

-

-

,This inspection was condu'cted to. verify that= the' calibration of components '

arid equipment associatedNith safety-related systems was in conformance -

~

, j

,

with: requirements of'the -Technical) Specifications.' The following~ '

• '

idocumentsjwhich implement the program were- reviewed by the NRC inspector ~:

c

,.  ;- -

".

.,

/ "

~*  ; Quality Assurance PlanbSection'8.3,~" Plant Surveillance Test

^

• .

,y

[ -

Program,"datedSeptember.1,fl984! .,

-

,

1 *i J Standing Order _M-26, "dalibrafion Procedures," Revidon 6, ' dated .

R' * March 13, 1984 < ,

.

'

'

e .; -

4*9 < ' -

,

.. . . .

1 .Y . Procedures,and calibration' records for the fo110 wing 41 ant' equipment,

-

, selected-from Tables;3-1,'3-2, and~3-3'of the~ Technical. Specifications,

,

fwere reviewed to determine complianceEwith program requirements: _

+

4 ,

, 3 e .-

-

e

iIntr

-

s ument- Procedure - Revision- ,

.

Date-

4

,

b - -

PowerfRangeSafetyChannels ~ ST-RPS-1 35 iMay 23, 1984 11

,

m ,, " , - ; Reactor Coolant Flow' -ST-RPS-3 30 February 21, 1984

>

,. 3 High Pressurizer Pressure' ST-RPS-5 10 February 21, 1984

,  ?, Axial; Power Distribution ST-RPS-12

'

27 February'17, 1983

+

Pressurizer Pressure Low ST-RPS-5 ;10 Februaryj 21, 1984

-

y - y[ , -

.. .o - >

.

[t' 4. { ,

• *

,a

.

A,.. _

_

,

, _

'5'

-% .'Nf., x i >

"

s .-

4

t ,-

9

' * *

H _[t^ . y t& __

_ _ _ _ -

-

.

N

p

1

3

!

-10-

$

_y

!

?

=-

l

} Pressurizer Pressure Low ST-ESF-1 1S March 31, 1983 [

j Containment Radiation High ST-RM-2 26 January 17, 1984 _

! Signal -

e Boric Acid Tank Level ST-ESF-9 12 September 18, 1981 -

m

4.16 KV Emergency Bus ST-ESF-6 54 January 17, 1984

._

Low Voltage

PORV Low Temperature

ST-ESF-14

ST-PORV-1

9

7

~ September 1, 1983

April 8, 1982

(

-

,

-

Setpoint

i Containment H Monitors

2

ST-VA-6 0 September 4, 1984 5

-

^'

No violations or deviations were identified. -

-i

5. Audit Program and Implementation -

-

.:

.

The NRC inspector performed this inspection to determine if the licensee- 3

-

. had developed and implemented an audit program that conformed with

,

requirerints of the Technical Specifications and regulatory requirements. a

=

f The following plans and procedures which document the program requirements

were r'/iewed. .,

l .

m

t * Quality Assurance Plan, Section 10.1, " Audit Program and Audits," J

=

-

-

dated September 1, 1984 ^3

1

) * Quality Assurance Plan, Section 10.2, " Safety Audit'and Review 1

• Committee Charter," dated September 1, 1984  :

,

fj * Quality Assurance Department Procedure No. 5, " Internal Audit and QA

Surveillance Program Scheduling," Revision 2, dated November 30, 1984 ,

-

• Quality Assurance Department Procedure No. 6, " Conduct of Audits," -

Revision 2, dated November 30, 1984 9

• Quality Assurance Department Procedure No. 7, " Conduct of 5

Surveillance," Revision 2, dated November 20, 1984 3

1

Implementation of the documented program was verified by reviewing the  ;

following: q

-

a * Internal Audit Program which shows the title of each audit, by whom "

a

the audit is to be performed (QA or SARC), audit frequency, and the -

QA surveillance which supplements an audit

F * 1985 audit schedule 3

• Six Safety Audit Review Committee (SARC) audit reports h-

c

- * Ten QA audit reports j

i s

I:  !

e

7.

'

J~

e

_

E

3

l

l . ._

.

.

.-- ..

-.

y . .

g. ,- .

.

-11-

• Def.iciency Reports (DRs) resulting from audit findings

'

• Response to DRs

~ Qualification'of one'QA audit team leader

All audittreports are currently being stored on film and there were no

-historical' records to show when-audits were last performed. It was,

. -therefore, necessary to review past reports on film in order to verify

that. audits were being performed as scheduled. In preparing schedules the

.

1_icensee must.either rely on the previous schedule or' review all previous

reports to determine when the next audit is due. Neither method ensures

that permissible audit ~ intervals will not be exceeded. Using.a previous

schedule assumes that audits were performed as scheduled and reviewing

reports is cumbersome and could result in' scheduling errors. All audits

reviewed.had.been performed as scheduled, however, Procurement Control,_

which' is on a 3 year cycle, was last audited in March 1982 (Report 4-82).

It is currently scheduled to be audited in December 1985, 9 months past

'.the permissible date.

"

A Technical Specification requirement of the SARC'is'to review the

performance of all activities required by;the QA program,-in accordance-

-, with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, at=least once each 2 years. Each of the

criteria could not be identified from the Internal' Audit Program;

therefore, the NRC inspectors requested that the licensee identify each

10 CFR 50,~ Appendix B,: criteria to the Internal Audit Program.

Subsequent to the inspection' licensee personnel' contacted th'e NRC

inspector and stated that a procurement. control audit report which was

dated-later than the March 1982 report had been overlooked during the

inspection and that the December 1985 ' audit would not be delinquent. They

also stated that SARC inspections performed each two years reviewed all QA

' activities.

'

' ,

,

-

'

~

No violations or deviations'were identified.

'

6. Failure to Request Exemption to ISI Requirements for 24"~ Safety Injection-

. Recirculation Pipe .

, As part of the review of construction records; the NR'C' inspectors reviewed

licensee construction contract 770 which covered 24" SILseam welded piping-

imbedded in' concrete. The NRC inspectors asked licensee personnel if this

piping were subsequent 1y' inspected under their ISI program. Licensee -

personnel stated that the piping was excluded based on ASME Code

- Section IWC 1220 which excluded pipe having a design temperature less.than

200*F.

e _

- -

W3 v, _ 1

w: ;p

,-

M,

a; u ; .

- .

-'

,

~

.

m- -n

; ,

.

-

/

y;- e . , ;,.

, ,

._ %- ...<

' . p,y

. .. ,

,

< ,,

~ *'

. '+ -

- ' < '

x

-Q . . y  ;+ .Q' ,

_ ; $_ ( ,

. -~d" ,

~

,

- iY l

<7 j n yp -

f ,- .

'

e,

- 1:, . #

. ; p-E< qu

q =

' t- =

u;u

%

,

,,

,

~~.

i ' ,'N

.

l

+ _ z,- .

w

'

, , ".. .

,

+. -

f, ^/ Y * d' -- 'f'

,,4; ,1 , p.

, ,3._

, s * 'p;;

-

.

.

-

,

.g

,

, x

.,

,

,

, 1 ,

'S-12 , <

>

-e

.

-

. q g,f j. -

. _ m-e -

.

-J-

~. .

3 -

t '

y,

,

- n. c-

.

>

_ g lw ,

-

,

. ~

g.* *

' 7 Subsequent to the' inspection Blicensee~ personnel contacted the NRC~

w* "~

.. inspectors and stated Fort Calhoun? Station'USAR,JSection 5.11,-the: design *

N'-

'

i' . criteria for this pipe was 305'F,~and that itishould have been included in '

,.

w

u. - bthe' Fort Calhoun' Station ISI program, ,or an exemption obtained.

,

-

- -

+

'

M*, '

Failure to have' procedures- to assure determination :that all' required :

• y7

_

~.

• !' .. safety related. piping .is properly eva.luated for ISI 'is an' apparent

H. n . s. violation ofc10 CFR.Pa'rt 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, which requirest .

~ GMT_ ^~ . activities affecting quality to be prescribed'by procedures-which shall

t

~

] ;include determine appropriate quantitative'and qualitative acceptance criteria to

that the activities have been satisfactorily ~

.

<

- -

,

-

>

a(50-285/8503-04)- - 4- -

.. .g

'

~

s . . . .,

t ,

'7.

'

s

-

Unresolved. Item- .,

-

,

.

' ^. _ >_> -A'njunresolvediteeisamatteraboutwhichmoreinformationkisrequiredin r

- * -

orders to determine,whether it is~ acceptable; a violation, or a deviation. .

,,.. 10ne-new unresolved item.is discussed in this report in paragraph-2.

~

^

. 8. - r Exit' Interview

'

-

-p 1  :

~

'

.

'An exit. interview was conducted on March 8, 1985, with personnel in' -

Jparagraph;1-of this7 report. The NRC' senior resident inspector also3 "

'

<

. attended this exit-interview. At this1 meeting, the scope of the

~

,

inspection and the; findings were summarized.-

I o , .

+

'

t v  % I

<-

h:,

,

3 5

+

u

y 'd

, ; , ,

w

jL ~ E

'

c.

'-

• I

+

s  %

5

' .' ,$', ^

,

.

.

w , .

t

o

,

-i

--

.,

,' .f

y

-

i ;

'*

3

. ,

$ , .y* $. * '

Q 4

g. e' .'r

,.

• '

,

e 13 - [

ti

y ,

r

,*

q , .

,

a

• i

.y .

+ *

, ~g Y

g t u

a y

3 ( i

,s s

J 4 y

_ t, ,

. . _