IR 05000440/1980002
| ML19323B380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1980 |
| From: | Clint Jones, Konklin J, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323B376 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-440-80-02, 50-440-80-2, 50-441-80-02, 50-441-80-2, NUDOCS 8005120302 | |
| Download: ML19323B380 (4) | |
Text
.
'
G 8005120307 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMEhT
REGION III
.
Report Nos. 50-440/80-02; 50-441/80-02 Docket Nos. 50-440; 50-441 License Nos. CPPR-148; CPPR-149 Licensee: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Facility Name:
Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Perry Site, Perry, OH Inspection Conducted: October 17-18, 1979 November 14-15, 1979 February 27-29, 1980 Inspectors:
J. E. Konklin 3/2d/80.
,
(?epass-4v.;
C. E. Jones (October 17-18, 1980 and 3 [a 4/78 February 27-29, 1980)
/
'
N'
Accomp nied By:
C. C. Williams R % dI., Chief C. C. Williams j
Rv/JO
..,
App ved By:
Projects Section 2
/
/
Inspection Summary Inspection on October 17-18, 1979, November 14-15, 1979, and February 27-29, 1980 (Report Nos. 50-440/80-02; 50-441/80-02)
Areas Inspected: The RIII inspectors and accompanying personnel implemented NRC Temporary Instruction T/I 2512/4 by interviewing 30 randomly selected site craftsmen, foremen, and QC inspectors. The time spent on the interview program during the three inspecticas noted above was a total of 63 onsite inspector-hours, of which 44 onsite inspector-hours were expended during the inspection of February 27-29, 1980.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-,
.
..
_
,
, _
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted
.
Principal Licensee Employees
- G. Groscup, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Department
- M. Edelman, Manager, Nuclear QA Department
- W. Kacer, CQS General Supervising Engineer
- B. Barkley, NDS General Supervising Engineer
- P. Martin, PQS General Supervising Engineer
- R. Rinderman, Operations QA Supervisor
- E. Riley, Manager, Contracts Management
- H. Putre, NDS Senior Engineer, NSSS Other Personnel
- D. Fitzpatrick, Construction Manager (KEI)
- J. Connelly, CQS Lead Civil Quality Engineer (GAI)
- J. Mehaffey, CQS Lead Mechanical Quality Engineer (GAI)
S. Tulk, CQS Lead Electrici Quality Engineer (GAI)
The inspectors also contacted and interviewed other licensee and con-tractor personnel, including 30 craftsmen, foremen, and QC inspectors who were interviewed in accordance with the requirements of NRC Tempor-ary Instruction T/I 2512/4.
- Denotes those persons attending the exit interview on February 29, 1980.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected Interviews With Site Craft Personnel Temporary Instruction T/I 2512/4, dated September 14, 1979, established a program for interviews with craft personnel at selected nuclear plant construction sites. The purpose of this program is to solicit the craft opinions with regard to the quality of site construction activities.
During the inspection, the two Region III inspectors and the RIII ac-companying personnel selected and interviewed a sufficient number of site craftsmen, foremen, and QC inspectors to complete the implementa-tion of T/I 2512/4. The inspectors and accompanying personnel had also
-
'r.w..ic.cd.ite craftsmen during two previous site visits, as noted in RIII Inspection Reports (50-440/79-10; 50-441/79-10) and 50-440/79-11; 50-441/79-11). A total or' 30 craftsmen, foremen, an' QC inspectors were intervi~eed during the three site visits. The results of the 30 inter-views are summarized in this report.
-2-
.
.
.
.. -...
-
-- - -__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
Interviewees were selected for this series of interviews 'oy two methods.
- Eight personnel were randomly selected during plant walkthroughs and 22 persons were randomly selected from personnel rosters and timekeepers'
records. The attempt was made in all cases to obtain interviewees who were of journeyman or equivalent level and who had been at the svte at least three months, although several of the individuals varied from those requirements.
Each interviewee was informed of the reasons for the interview and was told that any concerns which he expressed would not be attributed to him. All contractor managements had previously been informed by the licensee that the interviewees were not to be questioned regarding.the content of the interviews.
Interviewees were asked whether they had any concerns regarding the quality of construction at the site, whether they were aware of any instances where construction did not meet prescribed requirements and corrective actions were not taken, and whether they were aware of any day-to-day problems or irregularities affecting quality which the NRC should know about.
All of the personnel contacted during this effort were fully cooperative.
The craftsmen interviewed exhibited pride in their work and in general were positively impressed with the level of quality involved in the site construction activities.
The comments elicited from the interviewees were grouped into several categories for discussion with the licensee and for future followup by RIII. The general categories are as follows:
a.
Housekeeping / industrial-safety concerns. A list of specific con-
cerns in the areas of housekeeping and industrial safety was com-piled by the interviewers and was discussed with the licensee during the exit interview on February 29, 1980.
b.
Training and indoctrination of workers. The inspe('. ors noted that although most of the interviewees take part in regularly scheduled safety meetings, the interviews indicated a general lack of QA indoctrination meetings for the contractor craftsmen.
Qualifications and availability of QC inspectors. The inspectors c.
received a number of comments pertaining to the lack of knowledga of some contractor QC inspectors, as well as the frequent unavail-ability of the QC inspectors when required to witness examinations or to signoff hold points.
During the February 29, 1980 exit interview, the licensee agreed to evaluate the need for improvements in the above areas. The inspectors noted that this will be considered an unresolved item, to be reviewed in future inspections.
(50-440/80-02-01; 50-441/80-02-01).
-3-
-. _ _
-
_.
- -.
--
-.
-
-
.
_
_
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - -
.
O The one area of concern which resulted in a followup inspection by Region III involved the amount of grinding being required on the weld end pre-parations for the reactor vessel recirculation nozzle modifications and the fact that the acceptance criteria for the weld end preps sad been changed. Two Region III inspectors returned to the site on March 4, 1980 t
and performed an inspection in this area. The results of that inspection are contained in RIII Inspection Report (50-440/80-03; 50-441/80-03).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to determine whether they are acceptable items, items of non-compliance, or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during the i
inspection is noted above.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with site staff representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 29, 1980. The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
l l
!
-4-
-
..__
.
.
-.
_.
.
. _ - _ -
- -
-.