ML20237B122
| ML20237B122 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1998 |
| From: | Powers D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Gambhir S OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| References | |
| 50-285-98-07, 50-285-98-7, NUDOCS 9808180060 | |
| Download: ML20237B122 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000285/1998007
Text
.
. C
- p *Ea%[og UNITED STATES
8- -a- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
5 j *iEGloN IV
0 c- 611 HYAN CLATA DRIVE. SulTE 400
ARUNGTON TEXAS 76011-8064
4<>, * * *, * * d*
August.14, 1998
S. K. Gambhir, Division Manager
Engineering & Operations Support
Omaha Public Power District
Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.
P.O. Box 399 j
I
Hwy. 75 - Noith of Fort Calhoun
! ort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023-0399
SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-285/98-07 i
Thank you for your letter of August 4,1998, in response to our May 21,1998, letter and
l
Notice of Violation concerning the failure to submit relief requests for Code Class welds that did
~ not receive 100 percent full examination coverage during the first and second 10-year in service
i
inspection intervals. 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. l
Sincerely,
b &
Dr. Dale A. Powers, Chief
Maintenance Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket No.: 50-285
License No.: DPR-40
1
9808180060 900814
PDR ADOCK 05000205
G PDR
N
. - . _ _ _ - _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
.
d.
Omaha Public Power District -2-
l
'
cc:
l ' James W. Tills, Manager
-
'
Nuclear Licensing
Omaha Public Power District
l. . Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.
j .. . P.O. Box 399
Hwy. 75 - North of Fort Calhoun
!. Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023-0399
l:
l James W. Chase, Manager
Fort Calhoun Station
- P.O. Box 399
. Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023
- Perry D. Robinson, Esq.
Winston & Strawn
1400 L. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3502
. Chairman
!' Washington County Board of Supervisors
'-
Blair, Nebraska 68008
, Cheryl Rogers, LLRW Program Manager
Environmental Protection Section
Nebraska Departrnent of Health
' 301 Centennial Mall, South
P.O. Box 95007:
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-5007
!
!
t
I
!
L______._____.____ _
. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __-__
.
.
Omaha Public Power District -3-
bec to DCD (IE01)
bec distrib. by RIV:
Regional Administrator DRS-PSB
DRP Director MIS System
Branch Chief (DRP/B) RIV File
Project Engineer (DRP/B) Branch Chief (DRP/TSS)
Res! dent inspector
DRS Al 98-G-0062
DOCUMENT NAME: R:\_FCS\FC807ak.cej
To recolwe copy of document. Indicate in box: "C" = Copy without enclosures *E' = Copy with enclosures "N* = No copy
RIV: SRI:MB f C:MB c.
CEJohnson/Imb h DAPowers#
~
- 08/'1/98 08//l/98
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
t -
o
,
a
Omaha Public Power District -3-
.NW65bhiI f
bcc distrib. by RIV:
Regional Administrator . DRS-PSB i
DRP Director MIS System
' Branch Chief (DRP/B) HIV File
Project Engineer (DRP/B) Branch Chief (DRP/TSS)
Resident inspector
DRS Al 98-G-0082
i
!
l
l
!
!,
'l
'
.
i
DOCUMENT NAME: R:(FCS\FC807ak.cej
To receive copy of document, Indicate in box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy
RIV: SRI:MB f C:MB - c. l l
CEJohnson/imb h DAPowersodf
~
08/1/98 08M/98
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
ly,C 0 ), n5a
i
L
___ ___ __-__ _ _ _ ____ ___ _ _ _
~
.
\
.
8998
Omaha P&lic Powe Ostrict
a
,,
.
'
,
,
444 South 16th Street Ma0
-~ + f ;, y4
Omaha, Nebraska 681022247 ,.9 ..; z -
-
(yl
e s1
' )
August 4,1998 P., tc h #qB 5'
'
LIC-98-0094 i
'
l
~~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ATTN: Document Control Desk
Mail Station PI-137
Washington,DC 20555
References: 1. Docket No. 50-285 l
2. Letter from NRC (Dr. D. A. Powers) to OPPD (S. K. Gambhir) dated May 21,
1998
3. Letter from OPPD (S. K. Gambhir) to NRC (Document Control Desk) dated June
22,1998 (LIC-98-00082)
SUBJECT: NRC Inspection Report No. 50-285/98-07, Reply to a Notice of Violation (REVISED)
,
The subject report transmitted a Notice of Violation (NOV) resulting from an NRC inspection conducted .
April 15-24,1998 at the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS). Omaha Public Power District's (OPPD) response,
submitted by Reference 3, has been revised as requested by the inspector for clarification of the review
given to the second interval ISI exam results. This revision elso restores details in Section 3 of the
response which were inadvertently omitted. Attached is the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD)
response in its entirety, which supersedes the previous response submitted by Reference 3.
In view of the historical nature of this violation and other reasons, as described in the attached response,
OPPD is not planning to submit any relief request or exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR
59.55a(g) for the first and second 120 month intervals of the Inservice Inspection (ISI) program. ;
i
If you should have any questions, please contact me. j
1
Si arely, I
I
Qd$
S. K. Gambhir
!
j
Division Manager
l Engineering and Operations Support
1
SKG/ddd )
Attviment
i
c: E. W. Merschoff, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV !
L. R. Wharton, NRC Project Manager ;
i
W. C. Walker, NRC Senior Resident Inspector
Winston and Strawn
1
~~$
'
,
45 s134 Employment with Equal Opratunity
L-___---_---__-
i OEMW- J
- -___ __- - __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ .
-
- !
>
.
.
l
Attachment
LIC-98-0094
Page1
REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Omaha Public Power District Docket No.: 50-285
Fort Calhoun Station License No.: DPR-40
, During an NRC inspection conducted on April 15-24,1998, one violation of NRC
requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and
Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violation is listed below:
Technical Specification 3.3(1)a requires that the inservice inspection of ASME Code Class
.1, Class 2, and Class 3 components be performed in accordance with Section XI of the
ASME Boller and Pressure Vessel Code and applicable Addenda as required by 10 CFR
50, Section 50.55(g)(sic), except where relief has been granted by the Commission pursuant
to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(l)(sic). ,
'
The ASME Code,Section XI(1980 Edition Winter 1980 addenda and 1989 Edition)
requires,in part, that components shall be examined and tested as specified in Tables IWB-
2500-1,IWC-2500-1 and IWF-2500-1.
10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iii) requires that "if the licensee has determined that conformance
with certain code requirements is impractical for its facility, the licensee shall notify the
Commission and submit, as specified in 50.4,information to support the determ! nations."
10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iv) requires that "where an examination requirement by the code or
addenda is determined to be impractical by the licensee and is not included in the revised
inservice inspection program as permitted by paragraph (g)(4) of this section, the basis for
l this determination must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission no later
that 12 months after the expiration of the initial 120-month period of operation and each
subsequent 120-month period of operation during which the examination is deterrr.ined to
p be impractical."
10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(1)(sic) states, in part, that "the Commission will evaluate
t determinations under paragraph (g)(5) of this section that code requirements are
,
impractical. The Commission may grant such relief and may impose such alternative
!
requirements as it determines is authorized."
r Contrary to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iv), the inspectors identified that the licensee had not
submitted in 1984 and 1994 relief requests for those Code Class welds that did not receive
100 percent full examination coverage during the first and second 10-year inservice
inspection intervals.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1)(50-285/9807-01).
-
- _ _ _ .- -__. -__ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - .-___ __ _ ____ _ _ _ _
-__- - __ _
. .
..
.
Attaclunent
LIC-98-0094
' Page 2
.QEPE Response
The Notice of Violation referred to 's CFR 50.55(g) and 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(1). The actual
code sections are 10 CFR 50.55a(g) and 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i).
1. Reason for the Violation
The cause of this condition is OPPD's long-standing interpretation of the requirements of 10 l
CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iv). .
1
Paragraph 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iv) was interpreted in the FCS Inservice Inspection (ISI)
Program to require relief for impractical examinations ofinaccessible components only if the
cause ofinaccessibility resulted from a hardware change that occurred after the preservice exam )
or after the last completed ten year examination interval, or was determined to be impractical due
to ALARA or cost considerations rather than technological barriers. This interpretation is based
on OPPD's understanding of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(i) which states, "for a boiling or pressurized
water cooled nuclear power facility whose constmetion permit was issued prior to January 1,
1971, components (including supports) must meet the requirements of paragraphs 10 CFR
50.55a (g)(4) and (5) of this section to the extent practical." OPPD interpreted this section to
mean that incomplete exams caused by obstructions inherent in the original design were
impractical to fully examine and were exempted because FCS's construction permit was issued
prior to 1971.
2. Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved
At the beginning of the third ten year ISI exam interval, OPPD adopted a policy to note the
achieved exam coverage on each ISI exam report. This policy made it possible to promptly and
accurately identify the limited exams performed thus far in the third ten-year interval and the
extent of coverage achieved. OPPD component testing personnel reviewed the ISI examinations
performed thus far in FCS's third ten-year examination interval to identify the limited exams.
FCS is half way through the third ten-year interval (i.e. three of six refueling outages scheduled
for the third ten-year interval have been completed.) It was detennined that 18 limited exams
have been performed so far in this interval. A listing of these exams including the percent
coverage was prepared and given to the NRC Inspector at the exit meeting for the NRC ISI
,
inspection on April 24,1998.
l
!
If the 18 limited exams reported above are reviewed using the definition of" essentially 100%
coverage" per the guidance given in NRC Information Notice 96-32, only eight of the 18 limited
exams fall below the " essentially 100% coverage" definition. The guidance referred to in
In t; c' nation Notice 96-32 is for the Implementation of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(A), Augmented
Examination of reactor vessel, June 5,1996 and Code Case N-460.
,.
..
.
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
..
- ,
Attachment
{
l
Page 3
i
OPPD reviewed the exam coverage for the scheduled / performed ISI exams in the present (third) !
interval at FCS and determined that the amount ofweld volume missed due to inaccessible {
exams is estimated to be about 2% of the weld volume required by the code. OPPD has
performed volumetric examination of some unscheduled welds based on industry findings and j
has occasionally scheduled weld exams in excess of the code requirement. These additional
{
welds could be considered to compensate (in part) for some of the missed weld volume. As
]
discussed below, exam limitations experienced in ine third ten-year interval are expected to be
l
representative of the limitations experienced in the first and second intervals. A detailed review 1
of the volumetric ISI exam tesults for FCS's recond ten-year interval, and to date in the third ten- I
year interval, showed that no indications have been identified that required repair. The review of
the volumetric ISI exam results for FCS's second ten-year interval did not include a
determination of percent coverage. A curse.y review of the first ten year interval abo identified
no repairable indications. OPPD has not installed any non-code repairs and the RCS integrity
test, performed at the conclusion of the 1998 refueling outage, has not identified any weld
l
failures. Based on this information OPPD has concluded that the exam voicme missed due to
limited exam coverage is not statistically significant and that there is reasonable assurance that
the FCS safety system piping is sot.nd and capable of performing its design basis function.
l
3. Corrective Steps That Will Be Taken To Avoid Further Violations l
OPPD plans to continue the policy of noting the cause and percentage oflimited exam coverage
on each ISI exam report as the exams are performed in accordance with the examination schedule I
for the third ten-year interval. Further, OPPD plans to identify, by September 3,1998, on the
NIS-1 Report, any limited exams and the percent coverage achieved on these limited exams so
that the most current data on FCS's exam coverage will be available to the NRC.
I
Regarding those limited exams that were performed during the first and seccmd ten-year
intervals, a significant ef fort and resource commitment would be required to do the research
required to develop the specific examination details which were provided for the third ten-year
inspection interval. However, althougb there are differences in components selected for
examination in each of the first three FCS ten-year ISI exam intervals as detailed in the
respective ISI Program Plans, most of the exams identified thus far in the third ten-year interval
as having limited coverage are vessel, nozzle, safe end, branch connection, etc., exams that have
also been mandatory examinations in the first and second ten-year intervals. Thus, it is expected
that the list oflimited exams for the third ten year interval would be generally the same as lists of
limited exams for the first and seccad ten-year intervals.
!
!
,
_.____._-_______w
_ - _ . - _ - __- - - - __- _ _-___ - ___ _ - _ _ -
~
.'
. ., ..
.
.
...
'O-.
Attachment
. LIC-98-0094
Page 4
A
' fter evaluating cost and ALARA conccrns, FCS does not consider further investigation of the
first and'second interval weld coverag: to be a pmdent use of resources. Therefore, OPPD does
not plan to prepare relief requests for the limited volumetric exam coverage during the first and l
Esecond ten-year inspection intervals. FCS will continue to identify and track limited coverage
exams throughout the third ten-year ISI exam interval and will request relief as required under
the Code.
4.. .The date when full compliance will be achieved
There are no safety related technical issues associated viith the ISI examinations for the first and
second intervals a., discussed above. FCS is currently in compliance for the third ten year -
. interval since the time limit for requesting relief has not yet expired. Since we are now aware of
'the intent of the regulation, we will remain in compliance.
.I
\
,
.
,
.
..
-
I-
I
ax___ = - - _ _ - _ _ -