IR 05000285/1997009

Summarizes 970721 Predecisional Enforcement Conference in Arlington,Tx Re Apparent Violation Identified in Insp Rept 50-285/97-09.Licensee Presented Summary of Causes & Corrective Actions.Attendance List & NRC Handout Encl

ML20149L208
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	07/25/1997
From:	Howell A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Gambhir S OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
References
50-285-97-09, 50-285-97-9, EA-97-280, NUDOCS 9707310192
Download: ML20149L208 (111)

Text

. . ..

._ .

'

i e'

} 'S p" "' 4 t y UNITED ST ATES l -

1. $  %'; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. . .~'

~ ,j, i

! REGloN iv i e N. '

C i S #* f 611 RY AN PL AZ A ORIVE. SUIT E 400 AR LINGTON, TEXAS 76011 8064

~

j t o....*T

-

,

l

July 25, 1997 i

EA No.97-280 l

S. K. Gambhir, Division Manager Production Engineering Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun Station FC-2 4 Adm.

P.O. Box 399 Hwy. 75 - North of Fort Calhoun Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023-0399

Dear Mr. Gambhir:

SUBJECT: PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE SUMMARY On July 21,1997 representatives of Omaha Public Power District met with NRC personnel in the Region IV office located in Arlington, Texas to discuss the apparent violation identified 'a NRC Inspection Report Number 50-285/97-09. The conference was held at the request of Region IV.-

The licensee presented a summary of the causes for the apparent violation and their corrective actions.

The attendance list, NRC handout, and the licensee's presentation are encloseo to this summary. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of -

this summary and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely, b

h Arth r T. Howell 111, Director i

Division of Reactor Safety ,

Enclosures:

1. Attendance List 2. Licensee Presentation ( k 3. NRC Handout i Docket No.: 50-285 01OObb License No.: DPR-40 9707310192 970725 I b!

!! h.h, !

gDR ADOCK 05000285 PDR

~

.

J

.

$

.

Omaha Public Power District -2-

REGION IV, ARLINGTON, TEXAS

,

1. ' INTRODUCTIONS / OPENING REMARKS - Ellis Merschoff, Regional Administrator

'

2. ENFORCEMENT PROCESS Michael Vasquez, Enforcement Specialist i

'

3. APPARENT VIOLATIONS & REGULATORY CONCERNS - Dwight Chamberlain, j. Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety

i 4. LICENSEE PRESENTATION -

!

{ 5. BREAK (10-MINUTE NRC CAUCUS IF NECESSARY)

i j- 6. RESUMPTION OF CONFERENCE 7. CLOSING REMARKS - LICENSEE 8. CLOSING REMARKS - Ellis Merschoff, Regional Administrator l

,

.

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

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

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

, ..

.  !

,

.

f

!

i

'

l l

I

, 1

[ APPARENT VIOLATION *

i

! PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

!.

!

.

OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT l e

[ JULY 21,1997]

.

1.

i

• NOTE: THE APPARENT VIOLA TION DISCUSSED A T THIS PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND MA Y BE REVISED

PRIOR TO ANY RESULTING ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

!

!

l j

J

,v

. - _ . . -

e f

.

e APPARENT VIOLATION I

1.

10 CFR 50.65(a)(1) states, in part, that each holder of a license to operate a nuclear plant shall monitor the performance of structures, systems, or components, against licensee-

'

established goals, in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that such j structures, systems and components, as defined in paragraph (b), are capable of fulfilling l

their intended functions. Such goals shall be established commensurate with safety and, '

where practical, take into account industry-wide operating experience.

10 CFR 50.65(b) states, in part, that the scope of the monitoring program specified in I paragraph (a)(1) shallinclude safety related and nonsafety related structures, systems, and !

components as follows: (2) Nonsafety related structures, systems, or components: (iii) l

Whose failure could cause a reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system, i l

10 CFR 50.65(a)(2) states, in part, that monitoring as specified in paragraph (a)(1) is not required where it has been demonstrated that the performance or condition of a structure, system or component is being effectively controlled through the performance of appropriate preventive maintenance, such that the structure, system or component remains ,

capable of performing its intended function. I Contrary to the above, as of April 21, '.997, for certain nonsafety related structures within the scope of this rule, the licensee had neither monitored the performance of these structures against licensee-established goals, nor demonstrated that the performance or

'

condition of these structures was being effectively controlled through appropriate preventive maintenance such that the structures remained capable of performing their I intended functions. Specifically, the large radius piping elbows of the fourth stage extraction steam system, sixth stage extraction steam system piping and other piping in the heater drains system were neither monitored nor effectively controllad through j preventive maintenance such that these piping locations remained capable of performing i their intended function. This was evidenced by: 1) the second downstream large radius piping elbow in the fourth stage extraction steam system failed catastrophically on April l 21,1997, resulting in a plant transient; and 2) the following piping structures were l subsequently determined to be below minimum wall thickness: a) the furthest downstream large radius piping elbow in the fourth stage extraction steam system line (S-32); b) a sixth stage extraction steam system " pup" piece (S-54); and c) three parallel lines in the heater drains system (D-95).

I THIS APPARENT VIOLA TION IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND MA Y BE REVISED