IR 05000285/1988006
| ML20147D576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1988 |
| From: | Barnes I, Ellershaw L, Renee Taylor NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147D555 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-285-88-06, 50-285-88-6, NUDOCS 8803040055 | |
| Download: ML20147D576 (15) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_
_ _ _
_
_
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
.,
,
.Y APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
+
NRC. Inspection Report:
50-285/88-06
' Operating License: 'DPR-40 Docket: -50-285
~ icensee: Omaha'Public Power District-(OPPD)
.
L 1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Facility Name:
Fort Calhoun Station (FCS)'
Inspection At: - FCS, Blair, Nebraska Inspection Conducted:
January 11-15, 1988 Inspectors:
JIM (
I.Bar'nef, Chief,MaterialsandQuality
. Qhty
. p Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety I
b NO dm /rr L.' E. Ellershaw, Reactor Inspector, Materials Ope
/
and Quality-Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety
/
W 9lM NY R. G. Taylor, Reactor Inspector, Materials and
[htf Qualitt Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety Approved:
bw 2/26/r/
I. Barnes, Chief, Materials and Quality Date Programs Section, Division of Reactor Safety
$$[0[p0$
p[
-.
.
,
n..
.
,
,[-*
'
'
2-
-
-
V
.-
'"
Inspection' Summary
. Inspection Conducted' January 11-15, 1988 (Report 50-285/68-06)
Areas Inspected:. Routine, unannounced inspection of the licensee's quality-assurance program including implementation with respect to control of_ records-
. and documents., procurement controls, Land receiving inspection of purchased materials and components.
The inspection also1 included.a review of inservice inspection dataiand records.
Results:
Within'the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
r a
t'
4.
$
f-
,
I
l l
l l
t
,
.-
- .
-3-
-
DETAILS
~
1.
Persons' Contacted OPPD-
,
- W. G. Gates, P'1 ant Manager
- K. J. Morris, Division. Manager, Quality Assurance (QA)
and Regulatory Affairs
- A.' W. Richard,: Manager, QA
- C. J. f Bmnnert,- Supervisor,- Operations QA -
iC. L.vyd, Inservice Inspection Engineer
- W. Bateman, Supervisor, Procurement QA
- R. Kellogg, Acting Manager, Technical Support
- B. Saucier, Operations QA~ Inspector
- L. Kusek, Acting Plant Manager
- 3. Hansher, Licensing Engineer
- G. L. Roach,-Supervisor, Chemical and Radiation Protection
- T. Patterson, Acting Supervisor, Technical
- M. Brewer, Acting Radwaste Coordinator
- P. Walling, Supervisor, Administrative Services
- M. Core, Supervisor, Maintenance The NRC inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel during the course of the inspection.
- Denotes those who attended the exit interview on January 13, 1988.
- Denotes those who attended the exit interview on January 15, 1988.
2.
Quality Assurance (QA) Program Annual Review (35701)
The purpose of this area of the inspection was to verify that the licensee is implementing a QA program that is in conformance with the technical specification (TS), Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, Appendix A of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR), and industry standards and guides.
Review of the TS and the USAR indicated that while changes had been made to both documents since the last inspection in this area (NRC Inspection Report 50-285/86-29), the changes were not significant to the functioning of the licensee's QA program and did not involve more than a few minor editorial changes to the licensee's documented QA Plan.
During an interview with the Plant Manager, the NRC inspector was informed that several changes had recently been made in the plant supervisory staff assignments and that at least one or more was impending.
The Plant Manager stated that the positions of Supervisor-0perations, Supervisor-Technical, and Reactor Engineer would have new assignees replacing the incumbents.
The Plant Manager reviewed the education and experience profiles of the new assignees with the NRC inspector who subsequently compared them to ANSI N18.1-1971 which establishes the minimum qualification requirements of the key staff positions in
.n
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Y
.
.
4-
-
-accordance with the facility staff qualification requirement statement in-paragraph 5.3 of the TS.
Each of the assignees met the qualification requirements for the position he was to occupy.
The duties and
-
responsibilities of positions involved were unchanged.
Licensing personnel indicated that Appendix E of the USAR, which summarizes the backgrounds of the personnel occupying various plant positions,' would be revised in the 1988 update to reflect the new assignments.
l No violations or deviations were identified in this area of the inspection.
3.
Records Program (39701)
The purpose of this area of the inspection was to verify that the licensee has implemented the QA program in regard to generating and maintaining the records required by the TS, paragraphs 5.10.1 and 5.10.2 in the manner committed to in the USAR, Appendix A.
Appendix A indicates that the licensee will comply with ANSI N45.2.9-1974 except that the onsite file room will comply with NUREG-0800, Parts 17.1 and 17.4, Alternative 3, and that interim file storage cabinets will have a 1-hour fire rating versus the normal 3-hour rating.
The commitments of the USAR are implemented in the licensee's QA Plan, Section 3.4, Revision 0.
The QA Plan requires that all records, which can be microfilmed, will be microfilmed after interim storage onsite in 1-hour fire rated cabinets.
Those records which cannot be microfilmed are required to be stored onsite in a file room with the following characteristics:
a.
Has an early warning fire detection system and automatic fire suppression with electronic surveillance installed, b.
Records are to be stored in metal file cabinets.
c.
There shall be no smoking, eating, or drinking in the room, d.
The room shall be ventilated with temperature and humidity controlled.
I e.
The doors and frames thereof shall be 2-hour fire rated.
f.
The cinder block walls and concrete floor of the room shall be sealed.
g.
There shall be no plant process piping penetrating the room.
A~ visit to the file room by the NRC inspector revealed that all of the above required characteristics were satisfied.
The NRC inspector observed that the room, which is located within the safety-related plant auxiliary building, was clean and orderly and at the time of the visit, was undergoing repainting by members of the plant maintenance staff.
The
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,.
.
-5-installed fire suppression system was found to be of the halon type and the only pipe penetrating the room was for that system.
The NRC inspector also observed that his escort needed a key to open the only door into the room even though two people were working in the room at the time of the visit.
The above referenced QA Plan also requires that each organizational group generating records have procedures for the care and retention of the records prior to turning them over to a central records management group for 5 year and/or lifetime retention.
Fort Calhoun Plant Standing Order C-2, Revision 32, establishes the appropriate requirements for all but 4 of the 16 standard types of records required.
The remaining records are controlled by QA department procedures and procurement department procedures.
The NRC inspector selected six categories of plant generated records for verification that the records were being properly cared for while in interim storage.
All of the records requested from the file custodians were extracted from 1-hour rated cabinets from well organized files.
An exception to the above statement was in the area of QC inspection reports which at the time of the inspection were on a table in the QC office trailer.
The records were retained in several large three-ring binders.
The NRC inspector interviewed the person working with the files and learned that he was inventorying the records preparatory to sending them to the central microfilm facility in Omaha.
The person showed the NRC inspector the cabinets in which the records were normally stored and to which the person stated they would be returned at the end of the day,
>
since he would not finish the inventory before the end of the work day.
The NRC inspector had no further questions on this matter.
Since much of'the reccrd system depends on microfilm storage of hard copy records appreciably older than 1 year, the NRC inspector selected typical records from the same categories as above, but dated approximately 1 year
"
earlier, to determine if the microfilm system was being properly implemented. Via a computer-based indexing system, the NRC inspector was quickly provided with the location of the film for a selected "operating log" and for the minutes of a Plant Review Committee meeting in December 1986.
The filmed records were examined and found to be clear and legible.
A selected maintenance record and inspection report, however, were not in the computer index nor was a Reportable Occurrence record.
The NRC inspector was supplied a copy of an Operation QA Deficiency report dated November 23, 1987, which stated that it had been found that severol categories of records controlled by plant Procedure C-2 had not been forwarded to central records in accordance with the schedule contained in the procedure.
The response to the finding dated December 31, 1987, indicated that Procedure C-2 schedules thereafter would be maintained in a plant computer with Administrative Services organization tracking each departments response to the schedule.
In the meantime, the various tardy departments were inventorying and forwarding the records to the central file group which has been inundated with microfilming work.
The licensee
_...
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
-6-estimated tnat several weeks will be required to microfilm the backlog of
-
records.
Since this finding has no safety significance, was identified by
~
the licensee in his QA audit program, and further that the corrective action taken and/or underway appears to be through, the NRC inspector had no further questions.
It is also noted that the NRC inspector involved in an inspection of procurement activities, as discussed in a subsequent part of this report, made extensive use of the microfilmed procurement records with satisfactory results.
The filmed records involved were as recent as October 1987, indicating that when the records are forwarded to the central facility in a timely manner, the system will work as designed.
The NRC inspector also ascertained during review of Records Management Procedure RMP 4.0, Revision 2, "Construction Records," that the construction QA records have been stored in the Bekins Record Management Center in Omaha with access controlled by the licensee's management.
Due to constraint:;.on time, the NRC inspector did not inspect implementation of this aspect of the licensee's procedure.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area of the inspection.
4.
Document Control (39702)
The purpose of this area of the inspection was.to verify proper implementation of the licensee's QA program as described in the QA Plan l
Procedures 3.1, Revision 0, for documents other than drawings, and in 3.3 l
for control of drawings.
The primary focus of this inspection was in the area of the control of drawings.
The detailed procedural requirements for
l the control of drawings are contained in Engineering Division Procedures l
Manual and particularly Administrative Procedure A-9, revision, dated September 1987, titled "Document Control".
This procedure provides that the identifying numbers and titles of all Fort Calhoun Station drawings will be input into a computer data base along with the current revision status of each drawing.
Reference to supporting data for any changes is also referenced in the data base.
Variour computer terminals located at the Fort Calhoun Station have access to the data base for reference use.
The procedure also provides that all onsite drawing files will be maintained current with the computer data base by an Engineering Department coordinator located at the site.
The NRC inspector interviewed the coordinator and observed his use of the computer terminal located in his office.
Utilizing a preselected list of piping and instrument diagrams for various safety-related piping systems along with comparable lists of electrical and instrumentation loop drawings, a total of 14 drawings, the NRC inspector with the aid of the coordinator obtained the revision status of each drawing.
The preselection of drawings by the NRC inspector was biased to obtain a sample of the control of selected drawings generated by several different original design organizations such as General Electric for certain control panels, Schoonmaker for the Emergency Diesel Generator controls, and Combustion Engineering for Nuclear Steam System Supplier (NSSS) design as well as Gibbs & Hill
.
.
.>
-y-u a
engineered drawings fo'r -the balance of-plant systems.
Discussions with the engineering coordinator-revealed that he was responsible for maintenance of the' various drawing files located on the station.
The NRC inspector examined drawing files located in the control room, the
,
instrument and controls maintenance shop, and the central files for agreement between the computer data base and the files.
These files were found to be current based on the computer data.
A visit
,
to the electrical maintenance shop where a drawing file was to be maintained as identified in station Standing Order C-5 revealed that the files were not present.
An interview with the electrical maintenance foreman established that his group had recently moved from their normal shop location within the plant to a temporary shop located in a warehouse somewhat removed from the main plant.
The foreman indicated that he had elected to leave the drawings with the engineering coordinator where they would be accessible when needed for maintenance purposes.
He indicated that his group would.have to carry the drawings back into the plant when it was necessary to use them and that they could be maintained in better shape in the plant than is his warehouse facility.
During the interview with the engineering coordinator, the NRC inspector questioned what happened to drawings that were made obsolete by new revisions, since the previously referenced procedures were silent on the subject.
The coordinator stated that he personally destroyed the drawings.
When asked what required him to do so, the coordinator offered an engineering service department procedure that described in greater detail the use of the computer system, the maintenance of files, and specifically stated that the coordinator was to destroy each obsoleted drawing removed from the station files immediately after replacement of the drawing.
Based on this inspection, it appears that the licensee has a well controlled system for assuring that only current design information is available at the station and at locations most needing the information.
In the area of control of documents other than drawings, the licensee was found to have a system where each department is responsible for the distribution of changes to documents controlling activities of that department.
The NRC inspector focused on how changes to the Fort Calhoun TS are controlled since the TS is at once the single most important and apparently the most frequently revised document in the system.
Distribution control of the technical specification rests with the licensing group since they are also the interface group with the NRC offices which authorize changes to the TS.
It was found that the i~
licensing group has records that indicate that there are 106 copies of the TS issued to various individuals, many of whom are not actively involved in the day-to-day operation of the facility.
It was noted that
'
approximately 10 percent of the copy holders were not employees of the licensee but were consultants or NRC personnel.
Overall, the licensee's
,
system for control of manuals and procedures is in effect an honor system
'
l wherein the responsible group for the document, in this case the licensing group, sends under a cover memorandom page t,y page revisions to an existing document along with a listing of document effective pages to each
,
.>
.
.
-8-document holder.
This cover memorandum asks the recipient to update his copy and return a receipt, which is part of.the memorandum, acknowledging both receipt of the changes and incorporation of the changes into his copy.
Licensing group records indicated at the time of the inspection that nearly 25 percent of the recipients of the last two amendments to the TS, Nos. 110 and 111, have not responded-with their receipts.
The records also indicate that approximately 10 percent have not responded from Amendment 102 through 111.
Substantially all of the copy holders in the latter group were in the category of not being licensee employees and were not onsite.
The NRC inspector did verify that the copies assigned to various locations in the plant control room were fully updr.ced through Amendment 111.
Based on this finding, it appears that th's licensee's relatively passive system for control of documents other than drawings is effective where the effectiveness is necessary, but ineffective with those copies of the document that are of lesser importance.
The NRC inspector suggested that the licensee evaluate his system with the objective of making it less passive in nature.
No violations or deviations were identified in this area of the inspection.
5.
Procurement Program (38701)
The NRC inspector reviewed the following documents to verify that administrative controls exist and that they provide measures to assure that necessary technical and quality requirements are included in procurement documents for safety-related items or services.
The documents i
were also reviewed to verify that controls exist for the selection, approval, and use of vendors.
These documents were further reviewed to assure that responsibilities for implementing the established measures l
were delineated in writing.
Document No.
Revision Date Title 4.1
09/01/84 Procurement Process
!
4.2
09/01/84 Approval and Control of l
Vendors l
l 10.5
01/12/88 10 CFR 21, Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance QADP-10
11/10/86 Review of Procurement Documents QADP-11
07/06/87 Approval and Audit of Vendors (
QADP-15
05/18/87 Control of QA Department l
Documents and Records l
!
l l
- - _ _ - _ - -
_
_
_
_
_ _ _
.
, -.
-9-To assess the implementation of these documents, the NRC inspector selected the following components from the identified. systems and verified that documentary evidence was available to support the conformance of the items to the requirements of the procurement documents:
Component Quantity System a.
3-inch Stainless' Steel Pipe 20 feet Reactor Coolant System 3-inch Stainless Steel Elbows 2 each Reactor Coolant System 1/8-inch Type 316L Electrodes 500 lbs.
Reactor Coolant System 3/32 inch Type 316L Electrodes 500 lbs.
Reactor Coolant System 2-inch Stainless Steel Tees
Reactor Coolant System 2-x 3/4-inch Stainless
Reactor Coolant System Steel Reducers b.
300 Amp Battery Chargers for
Power Distribution System Stand-by DC Power Supply
,
c.
Type 2 Charcoal Filter Cells
Containment System
[
d.
Circuit Board Meter Log
Instrumentation System
,
e.
100 Amp Circuit Breakers
Plant Electrical Power Pole Terminal Blocks
Power Systems f.
2-inch Globe Valves
Chemical and Volume Control System The procurement dates for the above items occurred between July 1, 1985, l
and February 18, 1987.
While some of the controlling procedures were revised subsequent to the procurement dates, this had no impact in terms
!
of performance relative to these purchases.
i For the above items, the NRC inspector reviewed all purchase requisitions, purchase orders and any applicable revisions for QA review and approval, and verified that technical requirements were either contained in the text of the document or referenced.
It was also verified that these documents did impose 10 CFR Part 21 and either Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 or an OPPD-approved equivalent.
l The NRC inspector verified that all required supplier documentation had been received and that, as a minimum, it complied with the requirements of the purchase order.
In addition, a review of all material manufacturers'
certified material test reports was performed for those components identified in a. and f. above.
The qualification documentation package required for the components in b. above was reviewed.
This information
!
,
. - - -
-_,. - - _ - -
,
, -,, _ _ -
mm
_.
-- -
. _ _
_
_ - - - _ _ - - - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
.-
..
..
- 10 -
showed that the components'had been environmentally qualified in
-
accordance with IEEE 323-1974 and seismically qualified in accordance with IEEE 344-1975.
For the components in f. above, the NRC inspector reviewed.
the Seismic Analysis Report, Form NPV-1 Certificate Holders Data Report for Valves, Liquid Penetrant Examination Report, and the Valve Body Wall Thickness Report.
The NRC inspector verified that the vendors from whom these procurements had been made were on OPPD's Routine Suppliers List or had received an
"Individual" Vendor Approval.
The methods used for approving these suppliers complied with the program requirements.
The procurement program appears to be effective with respect to meeting the objectives, and no violations or deviations were identified during review of this area.
6.
Receipt, Storage, and Handling of Equipment and Materials Program (38702)
The NRC inspector reviewed the following documents in order to verify that administrative controls exist and that they provide measures to assure that received materials and suppliers will be examined for conformance with requirements specified on the procurement documents.
The documents were reviewed to verify that acceptance criteria were clearly established and that requirements for documenting the performance of receipt inspections were delineated.
They were also reviewed to assure that controls exist with respect to nonconforming items, storage, handling of safety-related items, and that responsibilities are assigned in writing.
Document No.
Revision Date Title
,
4.3
09/01/84 Material Acceptance and Receiving Inspection 7.3
06/12/85 Storage, Shipping, and Handling 7.4
09/01/84 Control of Nonconforming Items
)
QADP-12
05/18/87 Material Acceptance and Receipt Inspection QADP-13
03/17/87 Control of Nonconforming Items and Materials
l
QADP-15
05/18/87 Control of QA Department i
Documents and Records Standing Order
12/29/87 Nonconformance Control No. G-18 l
.-
-
-
-
-- --.
q
-
.
.
s N.
'
+
?
.
,
,
,,
K
,
.
11.-
'
.
Standing Order 3
'2 5 "
'06/26/87-Receiving,' Shipping,
.No.~ G-22-Stores' Control and
_
Storage _of Critical.
>
'.
Element:and Radioactive
~ Material ~ Packaging, Fire
.
Protection Material, and-Limited CQE Standing Order
12/10/86 Receiving and Shipping.
No. G-24
--Control of.CQE, Limited'
4CQE, Fire _ Protection
<
Material and Radioactive Material Packaging Materials.
(Quality Material).
Standing Order
'17 04/21/87 Stores Control
-
No. G-25 In order to, assess the implementation'of those documents associated with material acceptance, receipt inspection, storage, and control of QA documents and records, the NRC inspector selected the following safety-related items which were observed in storage, in addition to all of those components identified in paragraph 5 above, and reviewed all applicable documentation:'
a.
I-x 3/4-inch Reducer Inserts b.
1-inch studs c.
22-18 AWG Terminals d.
Gaskets o.
0-Rings f.
Welding materials g.
Spindles h.
. Nuts The reviewed documentation consisted of a receipt checklist which addresses shipping damage, identification, documentation: received, required protection devices, and cleanliness; a documentation checklist;
~
and a series of comprehensive receipt inspection checklists.
This is a numbered series in which each numbered series checklist has been developed for a specific commodity type, as follows:
No. 1 - Miscellaneous Items, No. 2 - Fasteners, No. 3 - Metal (stock), No. 4 - Chemicals, No. 5 -
Valves and Valve Parts, No. 6 - Pumps and Pump Parts, No. 7 - Gaskets, Seals,.and 0-Rings, No. 8 - Pipe and Conduit, No. 9 - Flanges, No. 11 -
Electrical Cable, No. 12 - Weld Rods, No. 13 - Motors, No. 14 -
Electronics and Electrical Parts, and No. 15 - Transmitters.
Each checklist contains the. relevant attributes for the commodity type.
All of the documents identified the specific item (s), the purchase order number, the acceptability of each attribute, the inspector, and the date on which the inspector signed the checklist.
.
. _ _ _.
- - - _
..
.
o
%
i
With respect to the gaskets and 0-Rings in d. and e. above, it was noted that the vendors' documentation specified. a ~ shelf-life.
The NRC inspector
,
observed that the identification tags, attached to those items in storage, i
contained the shelf-life date as specified by the vendor.
All of the items, a. through h. above, were properly tagged, identified, and traceable to the applicable purchase order.
In order to assess the implementation of the procedures pertaining to control of nonconforming items, the NRC inspector reviewed the Nonconformity Report (NR) Log and selected three open NRs which would allow for observation of the items identified on the NR.
a.
NR 87-062 dated October 14, 1987, identified a valve spindle as being nonconforming due to gouges on the spindle stem.
b.
NR 87-076 dated December 29, 1987, identified 16, 3/4-inch nuts for which the chemical properties, as stated on the CMTR, did not meet specification requirements.
c.
NR 87-056 dated August 3, 1987, identified 12, 2-x 6 1/2-inch reactor vessel head lift rig hold down bolts for which the physical properties, as stated on the CMTR, did not meet the requirements of
.
the imposed Combustion Engineering, Inc., specification.
The NRC inspector went to the NR holding area in stores and verified that these items were, in fact, accounted for and that they were identified and tagged as being nonconforming.
,
The NRC inspector went to the weld rod storage area and observed the following with respect to weld rod stored in holding ovens:
a.
Oven No. 1 was identified as containing 1/8-inch E7018 electrodes, heat No. 411J6431, which were purchased on purchase order No. S019529.
b.
Oven No. 2 was identified as containing 3/32-inch E7018 electrodes, heat No. 412K4351, which were purchased on purchase order No. C541389.
c.
Oven No. 3 was identified as containing 1/8-inch 901883L electrodes, heat No. 422C8721, which were purchased on purchase order No. 08313.
d.
Oven No. 4 was identified as containing 3/32 inch E-308 electrodes, heat No. 5J2A, which were purchased on purchase order No. 021156, and 1/8-inch E-308-16 electrodes, heat No. 64372, which were purchased on purchase order No. C124520.
The NRC inspector verified the contents of the ovens as being the same as what was identified on the oven doors.
In addition, a review of the purchase orders, recoipt inspection documentation, and CMTRs was performe..
o
- 13 -
The program for receiving inspection, storage, and control of nonconforming materials identified during receiving inspection, appears to be effective with respect to meeting the committed objectives, and no violations or deviations were identified during review of this area.
7.
Inservice Inspection (ISI) Data Review aad Evaluation (73755)
The NRC inspector performed a review of ISI data generated during the last refueling outage (March through May 1987) in order to ascertain whether:
(a) the scope of examinations performed was consistent with the ISI program accepted by the NRC and the ASME Section XI Code, 1980, Winter 1980 Addenda; (b) data was within the established acceptance criteria; and (c) disposition and handling of adverse findings were consistent with ASME Code and regulatory requirements.
Included in this review were the following documents:
a.
Fort Calhoun Station "Inservice Inspection Program Plan for the 1983-1993 Interval;"
b.
Ebasco Inservice Examination Plan, Second 10 year Interval, for the Fort Calhoun Station; and c.
Licensee transmittal to NRC, LIC-87-583, dated August 31,19s/, "Fort Calhoun Station 1987 Refueling Outage Inservice Inspection Results and NIS-1 Form."
From the ISI results listed in c. above, the NRC inspector selected the following three welds for a detailed review:
a.
Weld 6-51-12/9, Elbow to Pipe, Safety Injection System; b.
Weld 3-PRL-1, Elbow to Pipe, Pressurizer Relief Line; and c.
Weld 4-PSS-1/18, Reducer to Tee, Pressurizer Spray System.
The nondestructive examination (NDE) reports for the welds were examined for consistency of results with those previously reported to the NRC in
licensee transmittal LIC-87-583 and to assure that evaluations had been made by personnel holding SNT-TC-1A Level II or Level III certifications.
The ultrasonic examination reports were reviewed to verify both that the
!
scope of the examination was consistent with the requirements of the
'
applicable examinatior procedure (UT-1, Revision 3) and that no significant deviations existed between initial and final calibration of the examination unit.
The liquid penetrant examination reports were l
l reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the applicable l
examination procedure (PT-1, Revision 1) with respect to application times of NDE materials and temperature of examination.
The liquid penetrant
,
examination reports were also reviewed for identification of the NDE
!
materials used and the certification for the materials was checked to verify compliance with ASME Code.
No areas of concern were noted in the review of the NDE reports for these welds.
!
_ - _ _.
l
..-
.
- 14 -
!
l The NRC inspector reviewed the preservice examination results for two modifications,84-188 and 86-28, which had been accomplished during the 1987 outage.
Modi'ication 84-188 pertained to the installation of new pressurizer spray valves in the 3-inch pressurizer spray system lines and
-
also entailed incorporation of 90 ells upstream of the new valves.
The-NRC inspector reviewed the liquid penetrant examination reports for the replacement welds for compliance with the procedural requirements of Standing Order No. G-26, Appendix F,. "Liouid Penetrar.t Examination Procedure," and verified that the qualif 4tions of the Level II examiners were in accordance with the requirement-i SNT-TC-1A.
During this review, it was noted that Table 1.1 of tr,9 ISI Program Plan required only surface examination for nominal pipe sizes less than 4 inches, whereas Section 3.4 (Reactor Coolant Systea Integrity Testing) of the TS required both surface and volumetric examination of new welds in ccmponents greater than 2-inch diameter.
In response to questions on this subject, the licensee produced radiographic examination reports for the ualds in questior,which were acceptable.
Modification 86-28 pertained to replacement of isolation valves in reactor coolant system drain and letdown lines and required Section XI preservice NDE (liauid penetrant) of four 2-inch welds.
The NRC inspector reviewed the NDE reports for those welds and also examiner certifications for compliance with SNT-TC-1A.
No areas of concern were noted in the review of the NOE reports for the welds made in the two modifications.
The NRC inspector additionally performed a review of ISI data generated for reactor vessel and closure head welds during the January through February 1983 refueling outage.
Inciuded in this review were the following documents:
a.
Document No. 83-0PP-FCS-1-1-0, "Project Plan for the 1983 Inservice Examination of Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1";
b.
Fort Calhoun Station 10 year Inservice Examination Plan for Class 1, 2, are.i 3 components revised September 1982; c.
Licensee transmittal to NRC, LIC-83-171, dated July 15, 1983, "Fort Calhoun Station 1983 Inservice Inspection Results";
d.
Procedure SwRI-NDT-700-5, Revision 11, dated December 1982,
"Mechanical Ultrasonic Examination of Vessel Components, Vessel Welds, and Piping Welds"; and e.
Procedure SwRI-NDT-700-6, Revision 11, dated August 1982, "Mechanized Ultrasonic Examination of Ferritic Vessels 2 1/2 inches or Greatet in Thickness."
The NRC inspector reviewed the ultrasonic examination reports for the reactor vessel longitudinal and circumferential welds and for vessel to nozzle weld N-1A.
This review comprised verification of (a) consistency (
of results with those previously reported to the NRC in licensee
_ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
....
- 15 -
i transmittal LIC-83-171, (b) acceptability of results, (c) compliance with procedural calibration requirements, and appropriateness of the evaluation
,
and disposition of findings.
No areas of concern were noted during the review of the NDE reports for these welds.
During review of the ISI data for the reactor vessel and closure head, it was noted that certain welds had not been included in the ISI
!
examinations.
Specifically, no examinations were performed on the closure head to flange weld, closure head dome weld, meridional welds in the closure head and lower aead, control element assembly pressure boundary welds, and the lower head dollar weld.
In response to NRC inspector questions on this subject, licensee personnel stated that relief requests
-
from ASME Section XI Code (1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda)
requirements had been submitted to the NRC for those welds.
The NRC inspector confirmed the licensee statements by review of licensee transmittals LIC-83-161 dated July 7, 1983, and LIC-83-242 dated September 26, 1983.
The NRC inspector also reviewed the NRC response to these requests, which is contained in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER)
that was transmitted to the licensee on April 6, 1984.
It was noted from this review that the SER specifically addressed only the closure head to flange weld of those identified above.
The ISI Program Plar for the 1983-1993 interval commits tr
- ter ASME
.a Section XI Code (i.e., M 0 Edition, Winter 1980 Addenua) toan was used in the first 10 year intervr.l.
This plan does commit to examination of the above welds (on an accessibility basis), with the exception of the closure head dome weld.
From discussions with licensee personnel, it would appear that inaccessibility of closure head welds for ISI during the first 10 year interval was related to the presence of permanent insulation.
This insulation has now been replaced with removable insulation, creating greater accessibility for ISI.
The NRC inspector noted, however, that the commitment for examiriation of meridional welds in the head was 100 percent of the accessible length of one weld.
This commitment is consistent with the requirements of the ASME Section XI Code (1980 Edition, Winter 1980 Addenda) for the second 10 year interval, but does not take into account that this ASME Code inspection requirement is based on the accessible length of all meridional welds being examined in the first 10 year interval.
In that ISI was not performed on the meridional welds in the first 10 year interval, the NRC inspector concluded that the present commitment woulo permit thece welds to not be subject to ISI during the operating life of the reat.i.cr vessel.
This subject is considered an open item (285/8806-01) pending receipt of an NRR position on this matter.
8.
Exit Interview The NRC inspectors held exit interviews with the l'censee personnes denoted in paragraph 1 on January 13, 1988, to discuss the findings and conclusions in the ISI area of tie inspection and on January 15, 1988, to discuss the findings and conclusions in the QA program area.
.. _