IR 05000285/1990002

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ack Receipt of 900507 & 0629 Responses to Violations & Deviations Noted in Insp Rept 50-285/90-02
ML20055G016
Person / Time
Site: Fort Calhoun Omaha Public Power District icon.png
Issue date: 07/09/1990
From: Collins S
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Gates W
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
References
NUDOCS 9007200055
Download: ML20055G016 (2)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:' 

    ' '

) ,:Q , en 

: ',,
   ,
    %

  ' '*
  -

v [; , , .;.~ 

    ~

g ,g;p 

<  ,In Reply; Refer To:-

Docket:- 50-285/90-02 ,g A'b'c

s y L0maha! Public Power District iM *. ~~ ATTN: _ G.- Gates,: Division Manager Nuclear _ Operations 

'
.

L444 South-16th~ Street Mall 

'.'  f Mail Stop ? BE/EP4-     ,.
 ; Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2247
  . Gentlemen:i
 "
  -Thank you fnr your letters of May 7 and June.29,.1990, in-response to our  , .

a 

;  letters and. Notices of Violation and Deviation dated April 6 and May'21', 199 We have reviewed 'your reply' and find it responsive to the concerns raised in:s *
       .

 ,
  : our Noticas of Violation and Deviation. We will review the implementation of your corrective: actions during a future inspection to determine that full
 '       '
        -'

compliance has been achieved and will be maintaine

Sincerely, 

        -

Qiginal Signed By::~ Samuel J. Collins Samuel J. Collins, Director-Division of Reactor _ Projects:, cc: - . LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae ATTN: ' Harry H. Voigt, Es .New Hampshire: Avenue, NW Washington; D.C;-~20036 

  . Washington County Board of Supervisors
  ' ATTN:~ Jack Jensen, Chairmtn

_ Blair, Nebraska 68008-o\ 

     #   +-
'. RIV: SRI @  DRP/ .
  : PHHarrell/bh - RAzla stable i s
     /90  0
' io ,
 ,

7/4/90~ 7/4/90 . 

     "

j' 900i2OOO53 900 M 

-

PDR ADOCK OtA00285 ' PDC 

%g' r-O

m vw 

     '  '
          ,
           "
            . -
              <e r n .

m%g;r$:s, ~[ ' 

        =
        '

Y 

         '

i A f $f,, S * f ' e ' Q? , , swg + n;;c J, ,, n; , 

    <  +
       .
               '

c/ , 3; 

       .      s ,
 ;j.;7
 . p .lg3 >
                '
   -+.            -!
.
 , c,,.3,   , -

       .   .
                -)
% y '10maha Public Power District -        ,-2-       ,

Q@%: u if % , e,. 

    ,
                !

lJ 

+y ' l ;c
 '

s Ecombustion fsgineering.: In P M ' w iATTH: Charles B. Brinkman, Manager j^ P Q,.* " Washington Nuclear.0perations c12300 Twinbrook' Parkway, Suite 330 , m m, 

 .

M,m . .i Rockv111e, Marylandt 20852 

   ,
: ZA '   Department of Health'            i ff  4 LATTN: ~ Harold Borchert, Director i  .  'l/   Division of Radiological Health         ,

W _ 1301' Centennial Mall, Soush _i Z~ 

%   ;P.O.. Box 95007
                ~'
                ,

Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 

+                 ,

            '  '
[ W . Fort Calhoun Station-
  '
      -
                $
   . ATTN:. G. R. Peterson, Manager
*,^,,

P.0.: Box 399 

,g;a &g   Fort' Calhoun, Nebraska 68023:
    -
( 4 7s   '.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission          i-  l 4  <

t ATTN:JResident. Inspector ;l' V :n ' :P.O. Box:309 .., 

.

Fort Calhoun, Nebraska ; 68023 1 

               '

[73: i .S! Nuclear Regulatory Commission -. .. ' h 4 l 9- 0 ATTN: 2iRegional Administrator, RegionLI Pw ' ~ 

   ;611' RyanLPlaza Drive, Suite 10 ,

1C%_  ;. Arlington, Texasj : 76011' ., , m 

                *
  -. .    .         o .c~

QM* 

       '

.p y+ < bec'tdr.f(IE01): e+ 

             #
              ,
              :
              ,
               . ' :r(

m .. - .. 

         +

s c 

 ' m R; D. Martin      Resident Inspector- . lw
               '
               '
               '
 , ,[:DRSS-FRPS:     '

SectionChief.(DRP/C). , . j J MIS System RIV: F.ile i 

 ,w3' dDRP ; f'

RSTS 0perators _ 

           .
           '
            *
                -!

4  : Project Engineer (DRP/C)l ' JLisa' Shea',L RM/ALF , 

               . '

N; ' 1 :DRSL . . . . p: t A'.iBo' urn'is' , NRR Project Manager:(MS: 

      .
             -

13-D-18)L o , l 

  ,             g
                '

O 

<4 cy
  ,
   ,
            ~

y 

  ,
                ;

_ ' F ?h 

  ~
     ,
           '
             >  < I w_e ,          -

s b 

  .
                !

N 

'
   ,  ,      ,
     .,

a a 

                =
 '

h 3 

    ;
,
  .
      .

x 

,93 p ' !:'     iI
' k           ,   if rY .!!:.

[jh i ( 

                ,

9 e , : s kYd.: ,e,

a j. ;;' y )'p >f y! 7 _' s 

        '
         .,<.

4 c_ Sh:Wi ' 1, i i , f; G * 

   ',  ,'       *
       '

_ ' ' ' * 

}. . h1 1   it
       , ,        'l

_ _ _ _ ~ . - ~ . _ _ - , .. _ _ - - . . .. . . . _ . - _ _ _ . . . . _ , , . - - 

 ,
      '

97 , 

 , <
       ,
,lh{'.?.i U,;L   .t s,

c . , , 

             ,
; ' , l-g   =. :  , H
             .
;

w , _ Omaha Public Power District q - 1623 Harney Omaha. Nebraska 68102 2247 C ' o 402/536 4000 l l 

  -May 7, 1990 ~

l LIC-90 0366 4' u. ' . . S l

~' 

  - U.D S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission e   Attn: Document Control Desk
#  , Mail. Station PI-137       -- -
             - .
  . Washington ..DC 20555          !

o j 

: ,,              i s

Reference: Docket No._50-285 ~ i 4 - ! LetterfromNRC( April _6, 199 Collins)to'0 PPD (W.G. Gates)datedi i a l' . M Gent. amen:- l > SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Violation and Notice of Deviation (NRC-Inspection Report'50 285/90 02) I g Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) received the. subject. inspection report ' p (Reference 2) which: identified one violation regarding raw waterzpump discharge, 

      '
             ;

G check = valves -and one deviation'regarding-installation of cables. Attached 

; ,
 , ,  please-find ~ 0 PPD's response'.to these; items- in accordance with 10 CFR Part'

- 2.20 ' 

             ,i R'

d 

             ,

If!you should' h' ave any questions, please contact m i

Sincerely,

p < . a .. g

x 1W. G.iGates? -j j
   -

iDivision Manager h ' Nuclear.0perations- 

  .

i c ".

b ~WGG/mc

e i 

$r P, LAttachmen ,  _

' b' s [ ~~ Lc:! leBoeuf, Lamb,.Leiby & MacRae , i 

  -discharge check valves. When SA0 89-10. analysis was prepared, it conservatively accounted for the degraded. condition of RW-117 based on backleakage data-available at the time. As noted in the NRC Insoection-Report, the-SA0 stated that if surveillance testing revealed further degradation of RW-ll7, then the condition should be. assessed and the SAO

. 

 .

revised accordingl Surveillance testing on these check valves, however, had been suspended prior to the failure of RW-125 and had not been resumed with the issuanc of<SAO-89-10. The apparent cause of this violation, therefore, was a lack of communication check valves, regarding surveillance testing of the RW pump discharge r w _.z._.,,,,_ . . . .. -- -- - - -- - - -

_ _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ _.. __ _ . _ . . . __ . n 

>
) .N a' -.       -

P 1 ,_(Re'sponseitoNoticeofViolation(Continued) 

        .
      ~

2. -The Corrective Steos That Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved- '! The four RW pump discharge check valves have been replaced and SAO 89-10 has been closed; Quarterly backleakage testing on these valves has been f a re-instate PPD has reviewed the other SA0s which are in force to determine if there  ; are other SAO mandated surveillance. requirements or compensatory measures a which have been overlooked. This review revealed no similar situation;with- 3 Lother SA0 ; 

,'

3. - Th'e Corrective Steos Which Will be Taken to Avoid Further Violations ' N 

  .  . .     !

Based on the results of the review of other SA0s, OPPD considert the  ! 

 ' violation-to.be an isolated incident. However, OPPD intends to + vise.the procedure for preparation of SA0s (N00-QP-22). In the event an ds0's  {

requirements are.more limiting than a surveillance test's acceptance- ' ,- 

 ' criteria, the revision to N00-QP 22 will require that a caution ' statement be added to the affected surveillance test (s) which precludes: changing  ;

ll laffected sections.of the test procedure without review of the impact on the y t SAO conclusions. The caution statement would remain'in thetaffected'- + test (s) for the duration of the SAO. The revision to.N00-QP-22 will also clarify the need:for the SA0 to identify actions required to maintain ths (: 

 . validity of the SA0. 'N00-QP-22 will be revised by July 1,.199 ;

1 The Date When Full Comoliance will be Achieved 

,  0 PPD is presently in full complianc ,

4- .l q ll: i 

-
$

        .

I I t

1 

'
       .
        <t
. .  .

___ -. . . . _ . . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . . 

   -
.. .
 ,
.o
.

Omr'..s Public Power District - June 29, 1990 LIC-90-0522 1623 Hamey Omaha. Nebraska 68102 2247 402:536 4000 

       )$h$k$h
       ;

JJL - 21990 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

        '
       - -
       ' * " * " ' * * *

, Attn: Document Control Desk ' Mail Station Pl-137 " Washington, DC 20555

REFERENCES: Docket No. 50-285 Letter from NRC (S. J. Collins) to OPPD (W. G. Gates) dated

-- April 6, 1990 _ Letter from OPPD (W. G. Gates) to NRC (Document Control Desk) dated May 7, 1990 (LIC-90-0366) F Letter from NRC (S. J. Collins) to OPPD (W. G. Gates) dated May 21, 1990 Gentlemen: SUBJECT: Revised Response to Notice cf Deviation (NRC Inspection Report . 50-285/90-02) . Omaha Public Power District (0 PPD) received the subject inspection report (Reference 2) which identified one violation regarding raw water pump discharge check valves and one deviation regarding installation of cables. OPPD responded to these items with Reference 3. OPPD subsequently determined that the corrective actions in the response to the Notice of Deviation should be revised. The planned revision was discussed with the Senior Resident inspector and acknowledged by NRC in Reference 4. Attached please find OPPD's revised response to the subject Notice of Deviation. This revision updates the status of the corrective actions, and removes reference to preparation of a Safety Analysis for Operability (SA0) as it has been determined that an SA0 is not necessary. Changes are denoted by a vertical line in the right margi If you should have any questions, please contact m

Sincerely, - _ 

 #

W. G. Gates Division Manager - Nuclear Operations WGG/sel 6 _ Attachment lie- c: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae A. Bournia, NRC Project Manager R. D. Martin, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV , P. H. Harrell, NRC Senior Resident Inspector I c. ,i n ' -- - - 

     . mm ,n,n,.m o n,%my , ,. n,o,m Meth* f t'fthh, 5

  , . .
    .
    .. . . .
      - -
.

g. . . . 

:
 ,
 .
   ,

RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF DEVIATION 

 ' Based on the resu'Its.of an NRC inspection conducted January 16Lthrough February-28,1 1990, a deviation of your commitments made to the NRC was identified. In accordance with the "Ceneral Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1989) (Enforcement Policy),
,  the~ deviation is -listed below:.

Inadeouate Installation of Cablu Figu're'8.5-1, . " Cable and Conduit Schedule Notes," of the Updated Safety 

 . Analysis Report states, in part, that the installation of electrical cables shall meet the following requirements:

a- 

,

Paragraph 20.c states, in part, that the fill in trays for 125-Vdc and 120-Vac cables shall generally not exceed a maximum of 50 percen . Paragraph 22 states, in part that prefixed (safety-related) cables may be routed'in raceways con,taining nonprefixed (nonsafety-related) cables provided the cables are separated by a metallic barrier, e 

  - Paragraph 18 states, in part,- that' control and instrument cables shall be tied down in a neat configuration after installation in tray In deviation from the above, the licensee faileo to properly install cables in Trays 5-4A and 5-4B in that examples of improperly installed cables were
 :

identified by the inspector that did not meet the installation. criteria identified above. (285/9002-03) OPPD RESPONSE: 

 ' The Reason for the Deviation if Admitted T

OPPD. admits the Deviation occurred as stated; The deviation occurred for two reasons: 

 . Inadequate instructions in the' standard construction procedure to the Craftsmen and Quality Control Inspectors during the installation of'

cebl m , resultingLin cables not being tied dow Inahqeate procedures for the preparation of modification packages to adartss and analyze the impact of tray loading (percent fill) and safety and non-safety related cable separation using a metallic barrier. This resulted in tray overfills whi:h render some of the u existing metallic barriers ineffective, The Corrective Steos Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved Available computerized data on cable tray fill has been reviewed against 

 .USAR. criteria to identify potentially overfilled cable trays. An inspection'has been initiated of readily accessible safety related tray subsections where fill in excess of the criteria has been identifie a

_ _ 

  .
  ,..Ims F

u p;y-/.: . u , g. 's 

    ,
  *-
  ,       , l Respo'nse to R
-
 , ,   4.2 -Deviation l(Continued)~    l
         'l I
 ',  ; Ibc Corrective Action Steos Which Will be Taken to Avoid Further Deviations
, w
,.

,'. OPPD plans ~to take the following actions to prevent recurrence of the , deviation:^- w w , I , 

 '
   'a.- Prepare a Safety Analysis for Operability (SAO)- toLjustify operation U-          i
  .

under. the current configuration,. and complete a walkdown of: identifie s 

 :  ,
   . safety relateo tray sections'(which are accessible without construc-  i y(a    tion of scaffolding) to verify existing conditions are appropriately .

J , addressed by the SA0..- This is to be: completed before- startup from the-O ", 

     -

1990 refueling outage:(currently in progress).- j'4 $ % . 

        .

Prepare an Engineering Analysis-addressing .the tray overfill and 1ack' 

        .

i 4 of a metallic barrier. This analysis:will: discuss- updated criteri , [. for determination:of acceptable cable (tray-1oading which will be- 1 4 incorporated into a. future revision to:the USAR.- This Engineering Analysis.is to be completed by June' 15,:199 , 

         , Update the'0PPO~ Engineering Instruction dealing with cable separation-

, -and tray loading:to require specific analysis for each modification; which involves the: installation or change in routingLof cables'in the - 4 < Fort Calhoun Station. This is to be completed by. August-24, 199 i 

,
   - Update-the construction procedure dealing with cable installation-to-  '
'*    .

provide better instructions to the craftsmen and Quality Control- i Inspectorsion cable installation in the- cable tray: system. _ This .will be completed by June 29, 1990.

u . . . 

         -
  - The Date When Fu11:Como11ance Willibe Achieved
         '

t OPPD expects to be-in full compliance by August 24, 199 t 

-

q l r Li pf -y l* ; .c l- 

 .
 .

i 

        ,, I
         '

y j :-; 

 #

I 

         ~
..\ J

f 

  .+\.
<

      =  -

g ,; . 1.? 

.. g
.
 ,

, "" ' 

   -RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF DEVIATION
 ; ' Based ~on the.results of an:NRC inspection corducted January 16 through February
.

28, 1990, a-deviation-of your commitments made to the NRC was identified.. In E accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1989) (Enforcement Policy), the- 

 - deviation is listed below:
 -Inadeaunte Installation of Cables
,

Figure 8.5-1,i" Cable and Conduit Schedule Notes," of the Updated Safety Analysis Report states, in part, that the installation of electrical cables shall meet-the following requirements: 

  *

Paragraph 20.c states, in part, that the fill in trays for 125-Vdc and 120-Vac. cables shall generally not exceed a maximum of 50 percen ' 

,
  *

Paragraph 22 states, in part, that prefixed (safety-related) cables may be routed in _ raceways containit., nonprefixed (nonsafety-related) cables 

'

provided the cables are separated by a metallic barrie * Paragraph 18 states, in part, that control and instrument cables shall be tied down in a neat configuration after installation in tray In deviation:from the above, the licensee failed to properly install cables in 

 - Trays 5-4A and 5-4B in that examples of improperly installed cables were identified by the' inspector that did not meet the installation criteria identified above (285/9002-03).

OPPD Resoonse: The Reason for the Deviation. if Admitted , OPPD admits the Deviation occurred as-state The deviation occurred for two reasons: Inadequate' instructions in the standard construction procedure to the craftsmen and Quality Control inspectors during the installation of cables, resulting in cables not being tied dow Inadequate procedures for- the preparation of modification packages to address and analyze the impact of tray loading (percent fill) and safety and non-safety related cable separation using a metallic barrier. This resulted in tray overfills which render some of the existing metallic barriers ineffectiv . The Corrective Steos Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved Cable' tray fill including modifications has' been reviewed against Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) criteria to identify overfilled cable trays. An inspection has been completed of accessible (not requiring scaffold). safety related tray subsections where fill in excess of the criteria has been identified. The inspection provided supporting information for the Engineering Analysis discussed in Item-2.C below, regarding the current configuration of cable ' Tray ' sections 5-4A- and 5-4B have been reworked to neatly tie down cables _and remove crossovers, where accessible in the pyrocrete enclosure '

4

m., y . 

 " #
   -- - , -
    '
    -. . - - --

W c 1.-  ; 76 9. , - ,j ' _ Response to Notice of Deviation (Continued) J 

 "
 , . .  .
    .  -
       !
"
, u- c.: - OPPD has prepared an Engineering Analysis-(EA-FC 90 076) to justify 1 the existing cable tray configuration (tray fill and power cable
,

derating). This analysis discusses' updated criteria for- H determination of acceptable-cable tray loadin > 

  ' OPPD has updated Engineering Instruction gel-9 - Electrical System - !
-
  ' Interactions, which deals with cable separation and tray loading, to
  - require specific. analysis for each modification which involves th l
,
 ,

installation or-change in routing of cables in. the Fort Calhou c Statio . OPPD has updated construction procedure ~ETS-10 - Cable Installation . Specification, which deals. with cable ~ installation, to provid better instructions to a the' craftsmen and Quality Control inspectors on -cable installation in the cable tray . syste j ' The Corrective Action Steos Which Will be taken to Avoid Further Deviations 

       ]

Engineering Analysis EA-FC-90-076 will be used as the basis for a future ' revision to the USAR which wil? address criteria for determining acceptable cable tray loading, .- The Date When Full Como11ance Will be Achieved- 

       ,
  -OPPD is currently. in full compliance based on the Engineering Analysis criteria for tray loadin L
       -

L lI 

-
       -I J        ;

s 

       !

- - E l 

'.:

I 

- ,    -  _

}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000285/1990002&oldid=3635946"