IR 05000285/1989045

Insp Rept 50-285/89-45 on 891030-1103.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action on Previous Insp Findings & Followup of Previously Identified Radiographic Exam Concerns Re Prof Svc Industries

ML19327C138
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	11/09/1989
From:	Barnes I, Gilbert L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML19327C137	List: IR 05000285/1989045 ML19327C136
References
50-285-89-45, NUDOCS 8911200261
Download: ML19327C138 (7)

Text

- 2.e n,.j y =

3,,,

-

r-

'

,

-

3,

,

,

.

,,

s

.s i 3w

,, f,

.

y s

4 ' c.,3

,

Z lg.

' ',

'

!:

t

.

<

[C

.f'.

_

y. '. / ;' {,. '

s..,,

,,

'

fj '.W,. 1, T

wo P

PT * -

s,

.

,

,.,

,

,

x

<,

>g.

-

. pJ..

u

.

,

<-.

e

'

-

h;&f e ;;.

,

g.

.

.

'

'

'

'

'

'

.e

"w y

,

$f

'

'

'

. APPENDIX

'

'

'

,

o'

'

4;7

-

.

'"

.

,

,

4y

.U;S; NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION j

pf 3 ~ '

?-

.;

REGION ~IV-

-

t t

,

s

('

w

,,

d

'1 j,

,

i

!"

'

g zi

..

.,

,

W-NRC: Ins'pection Report:'-50-285/89-45 Operating License: DRP-40

'

m g.,gr,

,

,

,

r,;

. : Docket::: 50-285 -

i

.

,

.m a

s

.

f.,

I Licensee:. 0maha'PublicPowerDistrict(OPPD)

j

'

'

'

"

'

1623 Harney Street b

Omaha. Nebraska' 68102.

<

,

,

.,

.

.

,

m,>

-

,

,

. %a3

, Facility Name:? Fort Calhoun~ Station (FCS)

-

m.

)

,y

' Inspection 'At:;. FCS', Blair, Nebraska and '

.

..

..

.

,

<

W~"

Professional, Service Industries.(PSI), Omaha. Nebraska

,

.

,

,

-,

,-

c4

.

.

,

,

t ' A.

Inspection Conducted: October 30 through Nover.ber 3,1989

'

,.

s.

3;..

&

.4

.

,

-4

,

,

I,

e Inspector:

8w

/ / - g - p9

'

f L. D. Gilbert, Reactor Inspector. Materials Date and-Quality Programs Section Division of pg;

,o n

,

" Reactor ' Safety-

!

"

,

,

,

, l, jr i

u z

p.

,

,

,

b

:

Other:

.

,

'

,

"

-

~ " '

'

L-Accompanying:

..

.

. "

'

V

} Personnel:

P.'H. Harrell, Senior Resident Inspector FCS:(Assisted during L

/

,

/

31,~1989)

4'

r.

inspection at PSI on October

'

<

E I

l<J..

1 p

l[ J W

"

'

,

.

I 8 a -gro

~

V

$

'

Approved:

// - 6 J14

,,

I. Barnes, Chief, Materials and Quality,<

Date, i

!

L.,

Programs Section,_ Division of Reactor. Safe,ty'

'

'

.

-

o

.

<

.,s. :

,;,

l,

,

'f l

.1

,

,

l m.

Inspection Summary

<

,

-

-

l.

l,'x

,' Inspection Conducted ~0ctober 30 through November 3, 1989 (Report' 50-285/89-45)

r.

'

'

-

i

'

.,,

' Routine and' reactive,' unannounced inspection of licensee i

' Areas Inspected:

?e i action on. previous inspection findings and followup of previously identified iradiographic examination concerns regarding Professional Service Industries (PSI).

o.g y

a;

,

8911200261 891113

.

PDR ADOCK 05000285

4 o

PDC

'

,

..,

g

..

g

'

+, -

.9 };',

'Q i,.

'{

.

,

,

~.

.

-

-

.

...

...

. _. _, _

.

.

m

-

....,

,

-

x t.

s

-

h

..

, ',

'

'

'

'

'

'

{:7,.

N,;

,

,

,

.

-

,

. -. -

...

-

,

,

,

p

.

.

v

'T

.v-2-

'

t

-

,

4.

.

.

,

'

i

'

,

-

. Results: The actions by:the licensee on the previous inspection findings

,

were considered to_be adequate. PSI, a contractor of OPPD for radiographic

a examination services, has made. programmatic improvements that were unsolicited i

.i

. by OPPD; however. it was noted that their 10 CFR Part 21 program is outdated.

^

A review of the licensee followup actions regarding PSI and the radiographic

,

examination concerns indicated a weakness in the vendor approval process.when a

'

,

.-, -

vendor was removed for cause.

. ;

,

(

h

-,

,

b

',

,

m.a-

- g, i

v..

4'i l'

'

J r

6 n,'

.h

'

>

,

e i. 3;

..,1'

a

j; e

'

s

)

r x

,1

.,

s m !.

e k

,.i

e

,

t'

,%

;

'

I

>

,

J

'

,

w y

p

--

,v.-.

=

c -

-

-

-

-

a

-

..

R>:; j b, 9 g

,

Y g

x a

,

'

,

h, J ",p.' ' q ;

-

,

'

'"

.-

,

,,

g..

<

'

F.:

3.

<

n

,

E%

DETAILS i

[ 1.

Persons' Contacted-

.

.

OPPD

,

'*K.. J. Morris. Division Manager, Nuclear Operations-

. *W. G. Gates Executive. Assistant to the President:

'

• G. Peterson, Manager, Fort Calhoun Station (FCS)

• R..Jaworski, Manager, Station Engineering'

,

• S. Ferguson, Manager, Nuclcar Construction e

• P. Sepcenko Supervisor Outage Projects

,

• R. C. DeMeu1meester, Supervisor Operations ~

'

' *D. W.' Dale, Supervisor Quality Control

• J. L. Dyer, Senior Quality Control Inspector

-*W. W. Orr, Manager, Quality Assurance / Quality Control

'*R. Short, Supervisor Special Services

'

'*K. R.. Henry Lead Systems Engineer

• J. Kecy Supervisor-System Engineer

.

,

• T. J. McIvor, Manager Nuclear Projects

,

• J. Nguyen, Quality Assurince Engineer

• D. Matthews, Supervisor Station Licensing

,

.

"

• C. F. Simmons, Station Licensing Engineer W. Bateman, Procurement Quality Assurance Supervisor-professional Service Industries (PSI)'

,

-

C. D. Davis, Quality Assurance Administrator, Corporate Office

' K. R. Fogleman, Division Manager, NDE Services Omaha Office j

,

NRC',

,

.

. R. E. Farrell. Senior Resident Inspector, FSV

!

'

'

.

• T.;Reis, Resident Inspector l

Rs M

The ' inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees during thet

, inspection.

,

,

.t a

• Denotes attendance at exit interview conducted on November 3, 1989.

<

r 1.

.

.,

• t, 2.

Licensee Action on Previous Identified Items (92702)

,

y.;,

.

a.

(Closed) Violation (285/88529-II.H.2) (Deficiency 8529/2.5-1):

>

Inadequate welding, preparation, and inspection associated with the VK replacement of Valve MS-100. This item was previously inspected and accepted in NRC Inspection Report 50-285/88-25 with the exception of the generic corrective action. The inspector reviewed the generic

-'<

corrective actions that were addre:: sed by the licensee in OPPD

'

'

Memorandum PED-SSE-89-283S of April 24, 1989. This item is closed.

-

>

,

.t3

. - - - -

. - - -

- - -

.. -..

- - -. - - -

-

~- -

-

r n

Q

.3

'y

.

.c

'

'

'a;9,

.

'

.,

s

'*

...:

.

L

- y._

'

-4-p.

~

[

~

>

b..

'(Closed)' Violation (285/8840-01):

Nondestructive examination

requirementsLnot'specified prior to repair welding.. The inspector'

verified that the corrective actions' committed to by the.. licensee

'have been completed. These actions included the incorporation of nondestructive examination requirements for excavations into the modification package. rework and repair of those welds which were not properly examined prior to repair welding, and the development of a '

'

'

general weld repair procedure. This item is closed.',

+

(

c.

(Closed) Violation (285/8843-02):

Flare bevel welds were accepted which did not meet final weld configuration acceptance criteria. The

'

.

' inspector verified that the' corrective actions committed to by the a

licensee have'been completed. These actions included the additional

'

,

training of inspectors, the reinspection.of all flare bevel welds ' n i

a o

'

. Modification' MR-FC-88-60, the' rework of 12 flare: bevel welds which o

.

<

g.'

were undersized, and a sampling of.Other work in-progress. This item

[

,

,

is closed.

.;

,

p, - 3.

Followup of Radiographic Examination Concerns (92701)

~

.;

?

t ii i{

HNRC regional management requested a followup at the Omaha Division of PSI-Vi,i U

fin regard to previously identified radiographic' examination concerns at.

~ l

'

>

,

o'

FCS.

'

,

^

-

,

.

,;,)

" a.

Visit'to PSI

,[

='

.

..

a.

>

.,

l During the' visit to the Omaha Division of PSI, the inspectors reviewed

'

'

the appropriate documentation to' determine that:

'

,

-

s o.

. A Quality Assurance (QA) Manual had been approved and issued

which describes the method of implementation of the 18 criteria

'

contained in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50.

y o

The requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 were being adequately implemented.

'

>

o Internal QA dudits were being performed to verify compliance

f with the QA program.

'

?

The inspectors reviewed selected portions of the documentation listed

,

'

below to verify compliance with the appropriate regulations and

'

requirements:

o Procedure 88-617. " PSI Procedure Adopted Pursuant to NRC

'

Regulation 10 CFR Part 21," dated March 25, 1988; and

'

'

o Procedure QC-CRN-1, " Control and Reporting of Nonconformances,"

dated September 21, 1979~

,

.

,

,

},

-

-

-- -

-

,

m-,.-.

,

- - -

.

-

- - -

-

,

,

,

,

'

p. +

,

,x c

. C ' f;7 ;V

'

'

'

>

'

&, n, : c

.

,

.,

<

<

"

a :

-

.

~ j Lg;;;{:

.,

gn

,

,

fj.A-5-

'

V y;

-,

,

?

'

<<

l c p,,

f,.

,

x pi If'

' 1 During review'of the documents listed above, the inspectors identifihd s'

j the following concerns:

'

i

>

<

.

.r.

a

,

N@.

"

I

.o PSI did not fully comply with the posting requirements contained

'

',

in 10 CFR Part 21.6.

Specifically, PSI had not posted Section.206

,.

.

e'

a-of-the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and PSI Procedure-88-617.

,

c

,

,

adopted pursuant to 10 CFR Part,21.. In addition.1the irspectors

"

1. '

'

g noted that;the 10 CFR Part 21 regulation posted ~was out of date.

'

The posted regulation was the 1979 revision; whereas, the s

a Qi f l current revision of 10 CFR Part 21 is'1988.

w

>

g.-

-

'

~

.o Procedure 88-617 had not been updated to reflect the changes in'

4-

the current 10 CFR Part 21 regulation or the current PSI organization, o

The personnel at PSI' stated that the posting would be updated as soon

L as a. current revision of 10 CFR Part 21 and Sectinn 206 of the Energy l

Reorganization Act could be obtained. The PSI personnel also stated

that Procedure 88-617.would be updated and posted as soon as possible.

"

The PSI QA program was defined in Procedure QA-M-1," Corporate

'

Quality _ Assurance Manual," dated October 12, 1988. The following

,'.

sections of the QA program'were selected and reviewed by the-

inspectors.

,

"

~

Section 5.0, " Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings;"

!

o l

o.

Section 6.0, " Document Contrc,1;"

.

l

'o Section 12.0, " Control of Measuring and Testing Equipment;"

o

Section 16.0, " Corrective Action;" and

o Section 18.0.." Audits."

During review of the selected samples of the QA program, the

!

inspectors noted no problems.

It appeared that PSI had established and implemented a program to adequately address the 18 criteria contained in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.

j

,

h The inspectors also verified that the auditing requirements of the QA

program were being performed by reviewing an internal corporate QA i

'

j 7" audit that had been performed at the Omaha Division of PSI during

,

l

.

January 22-23, 1989.

l

L

-

In addition to the QA program, the inspectors reviewed the following:

L

'/

o Procedure No. QC-RT-1, " Radiographic Inspection," Revision 19 J

li dated March 2, 1989;

,

.

.,

,

-

^

+

,

,

.

l

-

'

,

,

f.

y,

[

g

'

'

!

,

_ _ _,

.

__, __

_______________;

_

,

.

.

[ 4;; *l

'

yy g

'

x

'

>

.

"'

.

,

,

,

k e-6-

'

,'

'

,

,

,

,

.

N

.

'

o o.

Procedure No. QC-PQ-1, "Personnci Qualifications" Revision 19

dated February 9, 1989; 4)~

'

.,

.

o Certification of the Level II and Level III radiographic

!

'

examination personnel; e

'

q o-Document control for Procedure.QC-RT-1; and

,

o

, Calibration of densitometers.

<

.

.

@

Minor discrepancies were noted in implementation of the calibration

program.as'specified in Appendix III of Procedure QC-RT-1. Specifically,

.

the two densitometers used by PSI, although calibrated within the past

-

,

r

,

90 days, were not consistently calibrated within the 90 day period r

specified in the procedure during'the past year.

In addition, the i;

film strip used for calibration did not contain the lower limit

,

,

.

5 ?. f,

of the 0.3 to 3.9 density range specified by the procedure but

'

started at a density of.0.4.

The corporate OA Administrator, who was

'

<

-also the Level 11I'that approved the procedure, stated.that the 0.3-

'

.

lower limit of the density range specified for calibration 'was not

.

,, '

necessary.. The'QA Administrator stated that the procedure would be

'

W

. revised to permit a density of 0.4 for calibration and also made a

?

<

'

connitment to audit the calibration program during the first quarter.

f

'

,

,of 1990.-

'

r

,

,

,

,

,

,

b.'

Licensee Followup to PSI yy

7, e

,

.'

"

'

The' licensee initiatedzaction for a 10 CFR Part 21 evaluation regarding

[

I-the discrepancies identified in the radiographic' examination performed j

- t

<

by PSI on safety-related components. The licensee'also removed PSI

,

.a

,

',(

'.

-

from the Routine Suppliers list. (RSL) as an Approved Vendor based on

,

'

"

'

'

the-initiation of a 10 CFR Part 21 evaluation concerning the quality

'lt of the radiographs provided by PSI. On completion.of the'10 CFR:Part 2L

,

evaluation, the licensee reinstated PSI'on the RSL as'an approved

'

vendor. The basis for approval was stated as "The investigation'

s.

,

'

indicates that the radiographic examination technique employed by PSI l

f

,

,

k:

Jt at Fort Celhoun Station would not create'a substantial safety hazard

'

"

and'is not reportable.per 10CFR21." The basis for approval of PSI'

'

.did not address the^ root cause but only the 10 CFR' Part 21 evaluation conclusion. This was discussed with QA. management personnel and

,

determined to be a weakness of the procedure for approval and audit

.

,-

.of vendors, QAM-31. 'The-inspector was informed that the licensee has

<

.made improvements in the QC program for surveillance of contractors

'

performing radiographic examination to preclude similar radiographic examination problems. Also, the inspector noted during the visit to PSI that radiographic examination program improvements had been

'

,

incorporated into their procedures.

Furthermore, the inspector was informed that PSI does not have a current contract with FCS for a

radiographic examination services and the triennial audit of PSI is

'

due in 1990,

,

eL

.No violations or deviations were identified during this inspection.

y p

,

Jk

4

,

..

-

_

l

,-

x,

o

-

.

.

-

...

....

,

.i.

,.

.

.. i ') ",, ;,. *

,.

-7-

.

-

-

f Exit' Interview,

"

- e

- 4.

'

?

-

An exit interview was conducted lon November 3, 1989, with those personnel i

.

l

'

denoted in paragraph 1 in which the. inspection findings were summarized.

.

At the exit interview, Mr. Orr made a commitment to revise the QA' '

l s

..'

Manual (QAM) before December 4e 1989, and incorporate. requirements for.

reinstatement-of approved. vendors after removal from thel Routine Suppliers

,

~ List. This commitment was met by the licensee on November 6,1989, when the revision to-QAM-31 was approved. No information was presented to the

,

'

inspector that was-identified by'the licensee as proprietary.

'

,

,

i ' J

g

, (

'

A I

I

,

W

1

,

I J

.

'

,

?4

,'-

'i

<

,

i'

s F

..

M

,

'