IR 05000285/1987008
| ML20215M506 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1987 |
| From: | Gilbert L, Ireland R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215M503 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-285-87-08, 50-285-87-8, NUDOCS 8705130282 | |
| Download: ML20215M506 (4) | |
Text
r
-
-
,
,
,s sso APPENDIX-U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' REGION IV NRC.Inspecti6n Report:
50-285/87-08-License: DPR-40
. Docket:
50-285
-
,
,
Licensee: Omaha Public Power District'
1623 Harney Street-Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Facility Name:
Fort Calhoun Station Inspection At:
Fort Calhoun Station, Blair, Nebraska Inspection-Conducted: March 23-27, 1987 W
' Inspector:
///f/K ~/
L.-0. frflbert, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Ddte '
Sec ion, Reactor Safety Branch Approved:
$1 P
,h:.
.
e ar d,kactof@/SafetyBranch E I l l Chief, Engineering Section Uatp Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted during March 23-27, 1987 (Report 50-285/87-08)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of welding of safety-related piping and structures.
Results:
One potential violation was identified (control of special processes, paragraph 2).
8705130202 070508 PDR ADOCK 0500
G
, a :s-2-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- W. Gates, Plant Manager
- A. Richard, Manager - Quality' Assurance
- C. Brunnert, Supervisor - Operations QA
- M. Hendrickson, Manager - GSE Civil
- R. Kotan, Civil Engineer
- R. Mueller, Plant Engineer
- J. Dyer,- QC Inspector
- R. Jaworski, Section Manager - Technical
- D. Munderloh, Senior Engineer - Licensing
- J. Gasper, Manager - Administration and Training
- G. Roach, Supervisor - Chemical and Radiation Protection
-
- J. Mattice, Plant Health Physicist
- F. Smith, Plant Chemist K. Fogleman, QC-Inspector
,
'
J. Lechner, Engineer - Welding
- Denotes attendance at exit ' interview.
The NRC inspector also contacted other plant personnel during the course of the inspection.
2.
Welding of Safety-Related' Piping and Structures a.
The NRC inspector reviewed the following documents to assure that adequate controls have been established relative to welding of safety-related piping and structures.
Standing Order G-12A, Revision 4, " Welding and Weld Control" Standing Order G-26A, Revision.18, " Quality Control Program" Modification Request No. FC-82-15, "3RD Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Tie-ins" Modification Request No. FC-81-180, " Structural Modification of
Concrete Masonary Walls in Auxiliary Building" -
Welder Qualification Records for contract welders identified by
Welder Symbols 1-B, 4-I, 5-D, 1-0, 2-C, 5-U, 5-R, 1-E, 1-U, 1-C, 1-Q, 4-G, and 5-H Procedure Qualification Reports for WPS No.1 dated December 7, 1973 and December 5, 1979
e-
-
-
g
,,
-e y
,
- ~
g
--
-,r-
s,
~ m
>
f.T Mj?.:
'
-3-u
_
Procedure Qualification Report for WPS No. 3' dated: November 19,.
,
.
1973
. Procedure Qualification Reports'for WPS No. 6 date'd April 16,
1974 and December 7, 1973
~ Weld Records for_MR-FC-82-15, Welds F1B through FIG on Isometric Sketch No. E2520 1C-348-
,
Weld Records for MR-FC-82-15, Welds F88 through F8L on-Isometric Sketch No. E25201C-345 Weld Records for MR-FC-81-180,. Welds on Assembly 13NS
"
'
b.~
Review of-the above documents identified the following discrepancies:
~
(1).Three welders,' designated as qualified for' safety-related welding, did not maintain their qualifications in accordance-with; Standing Order G-12A by using the welding process at least s
once in the previousL90-days.
T_he contract welder continuity
~
- records'for.the three. welders indicated that the' Welder Symbol..1-B had not used the GTAW process between-' June 19, and 70ctober 17, 1986; Welder Symbol 1-0 had not used the GTAW process-between June.12 and October 17, 1986; and Welder Symbol 5-D-had not used the SMAW process between. January 28, 1986, and Februa_ry-19, 1987.
(2) The maximum qualified thickness range of 1-inch'is not supported by the welder qualification record for all twelve welders designated as qualified for safety-related welding to WPS_No. 51.
In some cases, the maximum thickness qualified should have been-3/4-inch, and in others,:the maximum thickness
.; qualified could not be determined because the actual thickness-deposited using different electrode types was not recorded on lthe qualification record.
(3) 3The qualification records for-two welders (Symbols 1-C and 1-E),:
.
c who were designated as qualified for safety-related welding,.
indicated _that the wrong electrode had been used to qualify the
~
-welders for welding to WPS 6.
The qualification records
~
-document-that filler metal of Group F No. I was used; however, WPS 6 requires'the use of filler metal of Group F No. 4.
.
> Testing in accordance with~the requirements of ASME Section IX using, electrode from Group F No. I does not qualify a welder to
.use electrode from Group F No. 4.
('4) The postweld heat treatment specified in Standing Order G-12A for~WPS No. 1 is not supported by a procedure qualification report as required by ASME Section IX for safety-related welding.
The supporting procedure qualification reports for WPS No. 1 were tested without postweld heat treatmen _.
=.'.94
<
-4-(5) The NRC inspector selected the seismic supports for wall 13NS in the Computer Room for inspecting the welds required by Drawing D-4322 for Modification Request -(MR) No. FC-81-180. The drawing, as revised by Field Changes F180-15 and 21, specified a flare bevel groove weld symbol with a 1/4 inch dimension. This dimension was clarified in discussions with the design engineer as the effective throat dimension. The NRC inspector looked at several welds on wall 13NS and requested that QC reinspect certain welds.
In discussing the acceptance criteria with-QC, it was determined that the flare bevel groove welds had been inspected for a 1/4 inch fillet weld requirement because the inspection procedure, G-26A, only provided directions for measuring fillet and butt welds. A weld tolerance of -1/16 and
+1/8 inch was specified for the flare bevel groove weld. This weld tolerance was applied by QC to_ the fillet weld which was added _ over the flare _ bevel groove weld.. The flare bevel groove welds were, therefore, not. inspected to the tolerances specified for'the welds. The licensee had not reinspected any of these welds to the specified design requirements prior to the conclusion of the NRC~ inspection.
In addition to the above, the MR (N_o. FC-81-180) required that welding be accomplished in accordance with AWS D1.1-83.
Welding Procedure Specification 1A was recorded as having been used for welding the flare bevel groove welds.- This procedure was qualified to ASME Section IX which did not meet the requirements of AWS D1.1-83 for qualification of partial joint penetration groove welds.
Therefore, the welds did not meet the requirements of-AWS D1.1-83 for procedure qualification and were not inspected by the licensee to the specified design requirement.
This failure to control special processes appears to be a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX as amplified by the OPPD Quality Assurance Plan.
(285/8708-01)
3.
Exit Interview The NRC inspector and P. H. Harrell, NRC senior resident inspector, met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) on March 27, 1987, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.