ML20133C246

Forwards Insp Rept 50-285/85-09 on 850429-0503.No Noncompliance Noted.Deficiencies in Program Implementation Classified as Potential Enforcement/Unresolved Items Noted in Encl App a

ML20133C246
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	07/26/1985
From:	Zech G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Andrews R OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
Shared Package
ML20133C248	List: ML20133C246 ML20133C262
References
NUDOCS 8508060416
Download: ML20133C246 (3)

See also: IR 05000285/1985009

Text

I

, '

'

.

'[I' \o UNITED STATES

,

• ' !

g

}t

t

NUOLCAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

o

s *****

/

July 26, 1985

Docket No. 50-285

Omaha Public Power District

ATTN: Mr. R. L. Andrews

Division Manager, Nuclear Production '

1623 Harney Street

Omaha, Nebraska 68102

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: INSPECTION NO. 50-285/85-09

Enclosed is the report of the special team inspection conducted by R. C. Wil' son

and other NRC representatives on April 29 to May 3, 1985, at the engineering

offices of Omaha Public Power District and Fort Calhoun Station Unit 1 of

activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-40. The team's findings were

discussed with you and members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

The inspection reviewed your implementation of a program as required by 10 CFR

50.49 for establishing and maintaining the qualification of electric equipment

within the scope of 10 CFR 50.49. The inspection also included evaluations of

the implementation of equipment qualification corrective action commitments made

as a result of the January 11, 1983, Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and the

November 10, 1982, Franklin Research Center Technical Evaluation Report (TER).

Within this area, the inspection consisted of examinations of selected procedures

and records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.

The inspection determined that you have implemented a program to meet the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 and your corrective active commitments relative

to SER/TER deficiencies. Six deficiencies in your program implementation,

summarized in Appendix A, are classified as Potential Enforcement / Unresolved

Items, and will be referred to the NRC Region IV office for further actior,.

These include incomplete demonstration of qualification for four equipment

types; for one of these, Allis-Chalmers motors, appropriate vendor-recommended

maintenance was neither incorporated into plant procedures nor performed.

Two other deficiencies are classified as Open Items, and a future NRC inspection

will review your corrective actions concerning them. Details of the deficiencies

are discussed in the enclosed inspection report.

8508060416 850726

PDR ADOCM 05000285

'G PDR

,

. - _ . .. _- . . - .. . _ . _ . . _ = . . .-

, s  :

-

.

-

.

.

..

Omaha Public Power District -2- July 26, 1985

.

Your corrective actions regarding the identified deficiencies should not be

delayed pending either a future NRC inspection or further action by the

NRC Region IV Office.

We are available to discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.

Sincerely,

)?

, Gary .

'b

Zech, Chief

Vendor Program Branch

Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor,.

and Technical Training Center Programs -

Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

Inspection Report No. 50-285/85-09

i .

,

T

[

~

t

a

-t

l

?

T

e

.h

. . , . + - , , . . - . - - , , , . - . , , -- ., ,,a,

.

~.

-

.

.

.

APPENDIX A

.

Potential Enforcement / Unresolved Items

As a result of the special equipment qualification inspection on April 29 to

May 3, 1985, the following items have been referred to NRC Region IV as

Potential Enforcement / Unresolved Items (paragraph references are to detailed

portions of the inspection report).

1. Contrary to paragraphs (e)(5) and (f) of 10 CFR 50.49, Omaha Public Power

District (OPPD) had not established nor performed a maintenance program

to preserve Allis-Chalmers component cooling water pump motors in a

qualified state, nor was an analysis performed to demonstrate the

extended life of replacement windings. (Paragraph 4.D.(4),

Item 50-285/85-09-06) -

2. Contrary to paragraphs (d)(1) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49 an'd paragraph 5.2.5

of the D0R Guidelines, OPPD did not document required accuracies for most

post-accident monitoring transmitters nor compare them with errors

reported from qualification type tests. (Paragraph 4. A.(1)(b), Item

50-285/85-09-02)

3. Contrary to paragraph (g) of 10 CFR 50.49, OPPD did not adequately

demonstrate and/or document qualification of Conax electrical penetration

assemblies modified by 0 PPD with RTV silicone rubber. (Paragraph 4.D.(1),

Item 50-285/85-09-03)

4. Contrary to paragraph (g) of 10 CFR 50.49, OPPD did not adequately

demonstrate and/or document qualification of States Company terminal

blocks modified by 0 PPD with RTV silicone rubber. (Paragraph 4.D.(2),

Item 50-285/85-09-04)

5. Contrary to paragraph (g) of 10 CFR 50.49, OPPD did not adequately

demonstrate and/or document qualification of Rockbestos Pyrotrol III

cable. (Paragraph 4.D.(3), Item 50-285/85-09-05)

6. Contrary to paragraphs (d)(4) and (k) of 10 CFR 50.49,-0 PPD's documentation

did not establish that the harsh environment threshold total radiation dose

of 10E5 Rads was low enough to ensure that radiation damage to all potential

Master List equipment was adequately considered. (Paragraph 4. A.(1).(a),

Item 50-285/85-09-01)

,