IR 05000237/1991005
| ML17202U979 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1991 |
| From: | Danielson D, Ward K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17202U978 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-91-05, 50-237-91-5, 50-249-91-05, 50-249-91-5, NUDOCS 9102120155 | |
| Download: ML17202U979 (3) | |
Text
- ,
U; S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ,
REGiON III
Licenses No'. DPR-19; No. DPR-25
- Li~ensee: * C~mmonwealth *.Edi~on Company Opus West III 14o'O. Opus *Place Downers.Grove, IL 60515 Facility Name:.
Dresden Nuclear".Power
- Inspection At:
Dr es.den Site, Mo.rris, Station,*
IL Inspection Conducted:
January 15-16, *and 30, Inspector:
K. D. Ward Approved By:. JJwL~*.
. D.. H. Danielson, *chief:.
'Materiais anci Processes
- Inspection Summary Section Units 2 and 3 1991
'Date Date'
Inspection on January 15-16. and 30. 199l (Reports No. 50-237/91005(DRS);
~d. 50-249/91005(DRS))
Areas Inspected;
,Special unannounced safe'ty inspection 9f an allegation (99014)* including review of procedure qualification records (PQRs); welding procedures, and related documentatio..
.
.
.
- Results:
No violations or deviations were identifie Based on the results of the inspection,* the NRC inspector noted the following:
- Welding *procedures were found to be complete.and well ~aintaine Management involvement was eviden ~~37 PDR ADO~ O PDR.
.~
)...
,*
..
.......
"*
- .*.
...
,',.
.
....
....
' '*.:
. r'
- .,*,
rj
... :O::i>ETAILS
- ' J
- ~
.
-~
.
~.
Persons tontacted co~ori~ealth Edison: Company (CEC6)"
.*D. Wheeler,* donstructi~'i1 S~perintendent
.F-. ~Baker,* Qualfty, First Administrator
... f.~..:,,
-
~
.*..
.
~ '
.
- u. s.* Nuclear Regula'tor:v Cornniission (NRC)
D. Hills,' s*e~for.Res.ident Inspect.or* Pee~, Residen:t Inspector
~ *
j:
,..-
~-.
. '
.' ** *.'i
- . *Denotes *individual pr_esent*' at* exit inter.view on. ~anuary.. 30,: 19.9l..
. *. (Clos~d) *Alleg~tion No. R.III~90-A~0126 (99014) Falsified Pr.ocedure Qualification Records (PORsl*
.. b'.
- Background *: * *
On November' *20, 1990., *an. individual alleged that PQRs originally qualified tn *l97o.and -utilized for welding activities at Dresden in:.1'987 and 198.9 were falsifie It_ was allegeµ_ that PQRs wer revised to. inClude ~ew requ_irement: the. alleger stated. that..
.. he/she is' not. familiar1* with welding code requirements. However; a
.,:. weld.ing engineer* informed him/her and a Willi.am A. Pope (Pope)
Company QA inanager of* the PQR.revis'ion The apeger _a.lso stated ' *
.that' the,presetjt QA mimager informed the. president of Pope of the*
revisions*.
The *president of *Pope was then to have fired* the originai QA manager (QA manager in 1987) who. made the PQR r~vi:s1~ns'.
Thealleger stated _that the president covered up the*
. PQR revisipns.that. ".'ere used in 1987 and 198 *NRG.Review The N_RC inspector reviewed.the foliowil').g; '
( 1)
. s'ix * PQRs identified by ttie allege (?),
Many other 1976 PQRs ~~ed in, var:t.ou~ ye~rs '.
.
.
(3).
Sev~ral.pro?edures that 'the PQRs w~re*qualified to.
..
.*.
(4).
Sargent and L~ndy* (S&L) engineers' ~emorand~ *dated 'Dec~mber 1986 t,hrough 'February 19S7, requesting changes in the Pope PQRs for various welding activitie.
.
The. S&L memoranda xequest,ed that 'the following changes. (Paragraphs.
. (a) 'and(!:>).) be* added.in the.. PQRs'.
The_alleger_identified the
.*..
~.
....
. -
"
same two change_s.plus two. o.thers. Paragraphs (c) and (d)..
. (a)
The 'voltag~ a~d arnp~rage range was _combined for the gas
<o>
tungst*en :*arc welding. (Cfl'AW) and shielded metal. arc welding (SMAW) processes on the** original of* three PQR The change
. * *was requested~ to list t;he actual amperage. and vo_ltage variables used* during weldin The. tljickne.ss *of the weld me.tal dep~sit,was not ldentifi~d on. the original of :the sh. *.PQR The ch~rige was requested to 'add *the thiclmei;s* of t~e weld metal'"deposit.
. *
!
c:
(c).
The travel speed range*... was combined fo'r the GTAW and the:
,, (d)
SMAW process on an original" PQ The change w:as made to*
indicate the:* travel speed for each. ~roces.s s*eparatel The.welding procedu~e.~urnbers were not on an original PQR, but were.added.later..
Conciusion.'
..
This aliegation was substantiated in par The above four items were *added to the.PQRs as.allege However; in. revising the_ PQRs
- by adding* the. above four items, *the PQRs were clarified making.
them mor~ workable. : The revisions. did not "change the basic
- welding qualifj.catio Because* there was no safety *significance involved, and the four items clarified.the PQRs,* it was determined that there,*was no n~ed t'o intei"v1ew the other individuai~f involve No-further *action ii; con~ldered necessar.This allegation *is cons,idered. close .
. Exit Interview
_,The NRC inspector met with a licensee representative *(denoted in Paragraph'.l).at the conclusion of the inspectio *The NRC inspector summarized the. scope and findings cf the *inspection noted in* this.
repor The NRC.inspector.also-*d(scussed the likely. informational content of the in'spection r~po_rt ~ith regard to documents. or processes reviewed by the NRC inspector during the inspectio The licensee d not identifyany such docurne~ts/processes as proprietar ;
.;
. ;..
~
.:>.