IR 05000440/1981018
| ML20040E862 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1982 |
| From: | Hawkins F, Phillip G, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040E856 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-440-82-18, 50-441-81-18, NUDOCS 8202050456 | |
| Download: ML20040E862 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:... . __ _ _ _ ',
. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-REGION III Reports No. 50-440/81-18; 50-441/81-18 Docket Nos. 50-440; 50-441 Licenses No. DPPR-148; DPPR-149 Licensee: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Facility Name: Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Dates of Investigation: November 30, December 1, and 2, 1981 Investigation At: Perry Site, Perry, OH Investigator: / Au //#/f.2 G. A. Phillip F Da(e ' Reviewed by: RFldarmlA /Mn R. F. Warnick, Director Date ' Enforcement and Investigation Staff /
11:116t F. C.W Hawkins, Acting Chief Dati I Plant Systems Section Investigation Summary Investigation on November 30, December 1, and 2, 1981 (Reports No. 50-440/81-18; 50-441/81-18) Areas Investigated: An individual stated some wooden 2"x4" form spreaders _ were lef t in the concrete during the last pour of the Unit I reactor building wall. The investigation consisted of an examination of pertinent procedures and records, observations, and interviews of personnel and involved 14 investi-gator-hours by one NRC representative.
Results: Two spacer blocks and what appeared to be one spreader were found imbedded in the Unit 2 shield wall approximately 8" from the top.
Post placement inspection of this area has not been completed. No items of non-compliance were identified.
8202050456 820115 PDR ADOCK 05000440 Q PDR
. . - _ - _ - _ = _ - _ _,._ ___ .. . -. - - - -. . =_ _ _.. _ _ = _. _
. , ' REASON FOR INVESTIGATION As a result of a telephone call received on November 23, 1981, from an individual who stated some ' wooden 2"x4" form spreaders were left in the Unit I reactor building wall after the last pour, Region III initiated an i investigation.
! SUMMARY OF FACTS By telephone on November 23, 1981, an individual expressed concern that some wooden spreaders remained imbedded in the concrete outer wall of the Unit 1
reactor building. The concrete contractor stated that examinations of the wall had not revealed any evidence of wood being present in the wall. During a visit.to the site on December 1, 1981, the individual who had expressed concern stated it was possible the spreaders were in the Unit 2 wall rather than Unit 1.
During an examination of the inner surface of the Unit 2 wall
on December 2, 1981, two spacer blocks and what appeared to be one spreader l were found in the general area described by the individual. A post placement
inspection of the wall had not been completed pending removal of the outside fo rms. A nonconformance report was prepared to assure the wood would be removed and repairs made, l No items of noncompliance were identified during this investigation.
] , I ) l ! l i , l I
i , l
! -2- , ..,,... _,. -, _,...., _ _ _.,, -,.,,,.. -,.. -,,..,,, _,., _ _,,,.., - _.,, _,, _..,. ~. _ _. _,.. _ - _ _ _.. _ .-, -, ., -, . -,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ., DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI)
- M. Edelman, Manager, Nuclear Engineering
- R. Farrell, Manager, QA E. Riley, Supervisor, CQS Kaiser Engineers, Inc.
M. Kritzer, QC Inspection Supervisor G. Daderko, QC Engineer Dick Corporation J. Stanich, Superintendent, Contruction K. Blasko, Project Manager P. Gramuglia, Laborer General Foreman J. Rockafellow, Foreman R. Gran, Carpenter Steward L. Drew, Ironworker Steward Individual A, Carpenter (former employee)
- Indicates those present during the exit meeting.
2.
Introduction On November 23, 1981, Region III received a telephone call from Individual A who stated he had been employed at the Perry site as a carpenter by the Dick Corporation for about 5 years until November 1980. He said during the last concrete pour of the outer she'.1 af the Unit 1 Reactor Building four or five 2x45used as form spreaders were left in the concrete.
He said the spreaders were normally pulled out as the concrete was placed but on this occasion a few of them were not removed. He said they hsd not been removed as of the time he left the site.
Individual A stated the spreaders were located about 18" below the top of the wall in the northwest quadrant of the wall. He indicated that since the ends of the spreaders were against the forms, they would be visible when the forms were removed.
Individual A stated that about six months ago he informed the Dick Corporation Construction Superintendent about the presence of the spreaders during a telephone conversation with him. He said about a week ago he had talked to the Carpenter Stewo.J who is still employed at the site. From this conversation, he learned that the spreaders had not been removed and he became concerned. He said it would be easier and less costly to remove them before the dome of the building was installed. He indicated he had advised the Carpenter Steward he was going to report the matter to the NRC.
-3- _ _.
. . Individual A said he had no other concerns about the construction work at the Perry site. He said the workmen were conscientious and as far as he knew everything had been done according to requirements. He said his only concern was that the spreaders be removed.
3.
Initial Discussion with E. Riley, Supervisor, CQS, CEI On November 30, 1981, an initial discussion was held with E. Riley, Supervisor, CQS, CEI during which he was informed of the purpose of the investigation. Riley advised a review of records of nonconform-ance reports relating to the Unit 1 Reactor Building had not produced any nonconformance reports regarding the conditions described.
4.
Interview with John Stanich, Superintendent, Construction, Dick Corporation On November 30, 1981, John Stanich, Superintendent, Construction, Dick Corporation, was interviewed. Stanich stated that in June 1981, he had received a telephone call from an Individual A who told him there was one spreader that was left in the Unit 1 Reactor Building wall during the last pour. Stanich said that after receiving that information he personally examined the inside surface of the section that was poured last. He said he found no indication of any wood being present in the wall.
Stanich said concrete finishers had worked on that surface and he was confident that they would have informed him if they had seen anything of that sort. He stated the outside surface had not been examined because the forms were still in place. He said that, if it was necessary to resolve the matter, he would hire a crew of workers to remove the forms so that the surface could be examined.
Stanich said he was not at the site when the last pour was made and he was not certain that spreaders were used.
He said he was aware that small pieces of 2"x4" about four inches long were placed near the top of the wall between the forms and the rebar. He said it was possible one or more of these spacers had not been removed at the time of the pour. He said, however, he had not seen any spacers when he examined the wall in June. Stanich said the last pour on Unit I was made on August 8, 1979. The QC Inspection Report for post placement inspection had not been completed because some inspection items could not be completed until the outside forms were removed.
5.
Interviews with other Dick Corporation Personnel On November 30, 1981, brief contacts were made with the following Dick Corporation personnel: J. Rockafellow, Foreman R. Gran, Carpenter Steward P. Gramuklia, Laborer General Foreman-4-
_ _ - _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ., . All three individuals stated they had worked on the last pour of the Unit 1 Reactor Building wall. All said that they did not observe any spreaders left in the wall and had no personal knowledge that any spreaders remained in the wall. All of them said that they had checked the inside surface and did not find any indication that any spreaders were present.
On November 30, 1981, K. Blasko, Project Manager, Dick Corporation, advised that in 1979 he was working as a QC inspector. He said he was present when the last pour was made but that his assignment was to remain on the ground to monitor the quality of the material.
Blasko said that he had examined the inside surface of the wall after the forms were removed and did not see any evidence of imbedded wood.
Blasko advised that the current QC inspector was on vacation.
He, however, obtained the post placement QC inspection report from the files.
It was noted that the inspection had not been completed.
6.
Discussion with John Stanich, Superintendent, Construction, Dick Corporation During further discussions with J. Stanich, he offered to arrange for Individual A to come onsite on December 1, 1981, as a means of locating any spreaders or other wood imbedded in the reactor building wall.
Stanich obtained the approval of the Carpenter Steward to bring Individual A onsite and to pay him a day's wages.
7.
Site Visit by Individual A on December 1, 1981 On December 1, 1981, Individual A, accompanied by the NRC representa-tive, Stanich, Blasko, M. Kritzer, Construction QC Inspection Supervisor, KEI, G. Daderko, QC Engineer, KEI, and other Dick Corporation personnel proceeded to the top of the Unit 1 Reactor Building in an effort to determine whether any spreaders were present in the wall. During this effort Individual A stated he might be mistaken and that the spreaders were in the Unit 2 wall rather than Unit 1.
It was indicated that wall pours in Unit I and Unit 2 were made alternately. The pour was made in one unit while preparations were being made for a pour in the other unit.
On the basis of this statement Stanich went to Unit 2.
Upon his return he stated that he had observed the end of a 2"x4" on the inside surface of Unit 2.
He indicated that a close examination of the surface could be made safely only by being hoisted by a crane since there was no scaf-folding in place from which the inside surface could be examined. Due to weather conditions this could not be accomplished that day.
During discussions with Individual A he said he was uncertain as to the number of spreaders in the wall. He said that whatever the number, possibly three or four, they were located in the same general area and would all be at the same elevation. He said that the pour was completed at about 4:30 p.m. and he informed his foreman that there were spreaders to be removed. The foreman, however, told him to leave them and they would be removed later.
Stanich advised the foreman was not currently employed at the site.
-5-
- .. _.
- O e
- . 8.
Observations on December 2,1981 On December 2, 1981, the NRC representative, Stanich, and Kritzer examined the inside surface of the Unit 2 wall. The outside surface of the Unit 2 wall was also covered by forms. During this examination the ends of three 2x4's were located. These were situated in a line about eight inches below the top of the wall. Through drilling and chiseling out a portion of each 2" x4", it was determined that two of the three pieces of wood were short, approximately four inches, spacer blocks. The remaining 2"x4" extended more than six inches into the wall and on that basis appeared to be a spreader. This item was marked and a nonconformance report, Dick No. 165, was initiated later that day.
A copy of the nonconformance report was obtained and is attached to this report as Exhibit A.
A review of Dick Corporation Quality Control Inspection Reports for concrete post placement, Nos. RB2-W10A-3N and RB2-W10B-3, showed these inspections had not been completed. This matter is considered an unresolved item (441/81-18-01).
Kritzer stated that the presence of the spacer blocks in the wall was considered a minor deficiency and did not constitute a nonconforming condition. He said, however, they would be completely removed and the area patched.
9.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required , in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. An uresolved items disclosed during this ) investigation is discussed in Paragraph 8.
10.
Exit Meeting On December 2, 1981, a meeting was held with M. Edelman, Manager, Nuclear Engineering and R. Farrell, Manager, QA, in which the investigation findings were discussed.
Attachment: Exhibit A
-6- ... . _ _ _ _ _,_ _, ,, _.
. . _ . _ _... _ _ _ _ _ , , P E!'.Y !!UC L L/.is. L. C f. P L/JG ' $.'o'. NONCONFORMANCE REPORT , N O. 1523 H E V. 4-76 "
- c H,
'*C.
Fs L v. SH T.
oF .lTLM ,ID E N T N O,e .. , I T E' M fj A M E,, QuaN TIT Y ' f.3 >.Gd. l} /
0 / 1-RB,LtNJh/1 ' do tJ C R f ff i / ,. __, c .. ~.uo ,~.v.
o,u.. ~, z. T, c,~ c_T, - . 5l. 5 'N*?.f:h b /b SLAMo k}R Dct< 6 sPo /A;7ciJ _jy - ' f., l,MM:.. s oui.c E cunacuTsratus to c a r ic ~ pe-t,. </ ' ' ' ' ' N $u AiErYl Ac i /l/Ayr*HM- /bJud fa - S c 6 ft. fo o de s'a 7 <,-
- l
Y h@.).) p yggg YN$ NON N 39gg u.uEMedN [o ec #v4.4/78 ^/ SP-sa c c. so.
.4
I:, :, j, ) .!
, ORG ,G " ~ ' JPE[Jpa _f[l ) IN ST AL L A T IO N-:::
- h P) PROGRAM.
NCR ~, CATEcORv: 01 (POS$lDL E SIG NIFl ?. [ '2 (MAJOR)Y ' b ( MINDR )1 i '
sT vP c O(E) EQUIP./ M AT'L.
~ ~' ,,jg
- ..
W, I[[dj(INCLUDE ACCEPTANCE __ gfff'"$f,."g CRITERI A AND DOC'MT. NOS.)
GOVERNING
- REcuiREMEN gp // [$ d - /0, 2.
C Ca>P so. 3 /(suP so. 4 $y,[y s DES"CR PNON O
NC (RELATE TO
....,,. NONCONFORMANCg j COOE -gg] LIN E NO. 6) g A . cANW fres swcuei> ' A OT
- Mv'
~ yvv V-r p USE OF CAUSE g ..... - - , ONCONF.ORMANCE CODE .-{DQ.
_4 CRAf75' / W a f.D
s!J A44.
/**szo 1 n,,, n- <. - - - - - - . . . *. s ..... 44:3 ... PROPO$ED
- i+" *
+ ' ' " " ^ ^*d - -- 4s
ISPOSITION ji SCRAP ( 1)
- 2 REWORK f 2) i REP AI R (3) lI N C.,,......
. USC AS It, ( 41 - h 9' MdCdff AA +' ' ggE*/r4/4.
u o st td gns& L Ed s AC Coan Pt sSHfa ja ACco a whw a em7W A/Yd sit > Psto C8 Ps*4 G5 S TEPS TO PREVENT f / K$bb. RECURRANCE hk GLOS /A.
set e Als 7944A$ Of ("oM C4 8 /73 PC dC/Isos?A O hD /Y fff)rdod/ Alk 0/$ l'"As4A?$ / ^3/sU i Jd' b /AJ 77/s S M f _/ _/ - = _ " " "
APP OVA .)g {/ .j REVIEW red'O.
O vES' n NO F' o Ecision. ' n Accr, n o,,,,, PNPP REVIEW ENGINE ER DATE V Q A /Q C D.7f (2 BOARD si ^..
1 - - -
" "
0 ts - v c , cemy oisvai uviou, i. cocuuEur cE= ten 3. roi. tow up s.on Giuaroa Exhibit A-Page 1 Of 2 . ~.
.. .. . {s//c~; - z c a: ;* , Die A A)iC A ~ /t > r? m (Gc.rc7v s L%ispaz
- z
- $,ses t,Ugcg a St. e's/. 7 4 4 ' *) Ye ' /;f a.
/o o ' (AP/'<=x.)
Y PtteZ (2/4-) /S /,dd?ps> p r v<- e# .a * * > isiet a w.4c.L.
& re 7Ws i a erc c r ro dasi r + * ari= yyss 4 eeA r7~ ~ ina rys ' 49c r ry*r 7xt uTrisf ,.:w c e f:exc~.a c.e < ,s ' - o l, fnsL i~ pcse d r 4*~ ao r da psn'<- a4 ,o i=
- -Wo5 ZY4
/,erairws TNAJ n/d wt a rW co n rWL w4c 4- ' /> food As TN< S p.e u Ba c e-r >
- fsso ded l yWg eGwr--
o& pdcassdocV g gs-sias .,a*xic ,,a,a s.
fd '; osn*,e-<as n pa rwesa se ni< s sa,s i.
se p...wa-rseo suarN dr***x *.*J O l's e c ar.>e.sss
"
a itcce,sa rac L s
ii'
d i
72s 1,rusrr u i, cot sesa o.n,on o oa
.s,e i
/ s%
7Ye c o Me/tafiT fdVf AsCWo eW
/ N.S f d C"/"?* N
$$/o A V A
', f a c u a sr.
Go r a-a - coa A <,mcd s en.s r -
,,in asc d e
e ftA.ouO rN
l
ils.r-
/%ss 7?hu r>'s sapss.
ryss seaeonn.sensc wsc s.
Bd wao p.>
7We suau
~t s J<.t
,c'/s4du pse.s r-
'A
/
ossia o <1 pJfdcr~
t
4 to'/
G i
a i
- '
. l' Exhibit A-Page 2 of 2 k , . . . .., }}