IR 05000440/1985023
| ML20128A811 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1985 |
| From: | Neisler J, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128A785 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-440-85-23, NUDOCS 8505240335 | |
| Download: ML20128A811 (6) | |
Text
,
,
a U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-440/85023(DRS)
Docket No. 50-440 License No. CPPR-148 Licensee: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000
' Cleveland, OH 44101 Facility Name:
Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Inspection At: Perry Site, Perry, OH Inspection Conducted: May 2-3, 1985 h $ cWMa~-- ~
Inspectors:
C. C. Williams f/20/Sf Date l'YM
. H. Neislier S-3 O-f f Date W-
&
"
,,
&,2o - 04 Approved By:
C. C. Williams, Chief
~
Plant Systems Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on May 2-3, 1985 (Report No. 50-440/85023(DRS))
Areas Inspected: Followup on allegations concerning welding, welder qualifications and working hours. The inspection involved a total of 18 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified during this inspection.
b NA! $N40 PDR
!
l
...
.
.
.
.
.
p s,
.
'.
-
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted a.
Principal Licensee Employees
- C. Shuster, Manager Quality Assurance
- E. Riley, General Supervisor, CQS
_ S. Tulk, Supervisor, CQS
- J. Kerr, Quality Engineer, CQS
,
G. Parker, Unit Supervisor, CQS H. Walls, Supervisor, NDE/CQS
- K. Kaplan, Senior Engineering Technician, PAQS S. Tomlinson, NDE Technician T. Bradshaw, NDE Technician G. Cad, Lead Contract Administrator b.
Contractor Employees S. Young, Site QA Manager, Johnson Controls W. Gardner, Site QA Manager, LK Comstock E. Zollner, Assistant Project Manager, LK Comstock
- Denotes those persons attending exit interview.
2.
Followup On Allegations The inspectors perfomed followup inspection activities relative to the following allegations pertaining to activities at the Perry site. Results are as shown for the individual allegations.
(Closed) Allegation RIII-84-A-0120 (Memo Dated August 24,1984)
On or about August 2,1984, a RIII inspector was provided a list of questions asked by a QC inspector uuring a QC Inspectors Orientation Class at the P? ant site. The inspector was a new hire for Johnson Controls, the site instrumentation contractor. This same list of questions was provided to the contractor and the licensee by the same inspector who raised the questions. The questions concern themselves with-the responsibilities of a QC inspector, the applicability of codes and standards, procedural and personnel management policy. No allegation of wrongdoing is suggested in any of these questions.
i'
IGC Review During this inspection the NRC inspector reviewed each of the questions and statements on the list and determined that none of them constituted an
!
instance of wrongdoing regarding safety-related matters. Each of the concerns of the " alleger" were addressed-during or immediately subsequent to the orientation class by the contractor, Johnson Controls. Both the contractor and the licensee records (Inspector Question Sheet No. 205)
i i
t
r
.
..
' indicated that anadequate response was provided for each question, copies of responses were provided to the alleger. The inspector determined that no-substantive evidence of personnel intimidation by Johnson Controls-was demonstrated or alleged. The inspector determined that the alleger was terminated by his direct employer BESTC0 (a " body shop") on September 5, 1984 because of his failure to adequately perform during training to the minimum standards.
Improprieties involving his termination were not disclosed by this NRC review.
Conclusion The list of questions raised by the " alleger" during an orientation training class do not constitute (in any of its parts) an allegation of wrongdoing. No evidence of improper activities regarding safety-related issues were identified. No substantive evidence of personnel intimidation was identified. The alleger was terminated for cause in accordance with all rules and procedures implemented by the licensee.
This allegation is therefore closed.
(Closed) Allegation RIII-84-A-0120 (Memo Dated August 23,1984)
On or about August 23, 1984, a RIII inspector was provided a list of questions and concerns by a Johnson Controls QC inspector. The same QC inspector identified in the previous allegation (memo dated August 24,1984). This list of questions was also provided to Johnson Controls and the licensee by the alleger.
In this list of concerns the alleger questions operating policy for QC inspectors, considers that he was threatened by the use of four-ictter vulgarities during the training session.
NRC Review During this NRC investigation the NRC inspector discussed this issue with Licensee and Johnson Controls personnel (management and craft). Both the Licensee and the Contractor have comprehensive records documenting their response to each of the alleger's concerns which are identified by Johnson Controls as QC Question No. 206 dated August 27, 1984. The inspector reviewed each of these records in detail.
It was determined that the alleger was provided a written response to each of his concerns and they were discussed with him by Johnson Controls, the Licensee and BESTC0 management.
Conclusion Based on discussions with Licensee and Johnson Controls personnel and review of relative records this allegation is considered closed. No substantive instances of intimidation were established. No evidence of improper safety-related activities were disclosed.
l
!
.
L
_
t
.w (Closed) Allegation RIII-84-A-0120 (Memo Dated August 28,1984)
On August 29, 1984, the NRC Senior Resident Inspector discovered the subject memo in his office. This memo referenced a letter originated by the Johnson Controls QC inspector who provided the memo. The letter dated August 28, 1984, concerned " unsatisfactory I.S.R.s" and "other subjects." The letter in summary contends that the subject I.S.R.s (Inspection Geports) that he initiated, were unavailable to him, although -
he had observed that corrective action had been taken regarding the discrepancies he noted on an I.S.Rs.
He suggested that the I.S.R.s were put in the " trash can" He further states that he is "...being retrained and believe that' I will shortly be unempicyed." Both the Licensee and Johnson Controls had copies of this memo in their records.
NRC Review The inspector discussed this issue with licensee and Johnson Controls personnel. The Licensee and Johnson Controls personnel had comprehensive records available on the alleger and this issue. The NRC inspector eviewed records which demonstrated that the Subject I.S.R.s (Inspection
' ports) were -properly distributed and resolved. Moreover the alleger s provided copies of the I.S.R.s after the corrective action was itiated and prior to his allegation.
On September 5,.1984, the alleger was terminated for failure to perform adequately regarding training and his job assignments. He was employed directly by BESTC0, a body shop that supplied his services to Johnson Controls. His termination exit interview was attended by representatives of the Licensee, Johnson Controls and BESTC0.
Conclusion No aspect of this allegation was substantiated. The alleger received copies of the subject I.S.R.s as supplied by Johnson Controls. His termination as documented by records available at the site did not violate any regulatory requirements. This allegation is therefore closed.
(Closed) Allegation RIII-85-A-0073 A document reviewer for Johnson Controls Incorporated, telephoned NRC Region III with a concern about what he perceived as document reviewers excessive work hours. The caller stated that Johnson Controls document reviewers are required to work six and seven consecutive days, ten hours per day. The caller stated that because of the excessive hours
"it was possible that^ the document reviews might suffer." He did not indicate that inadequate reviews had been performed.
NRC Review NRC regulations do not place limits on the hours that may be worked by document reviewers at nuclear power plant sites. The only limits on overtime work apply to plant operating personnel. The inspector
'A'
!
'
- .-
determined that the licensee is performing a 100 percent review of turnover documentation packages, after_ document reviews are completed by-Johnson Controls and other contractors perfoming safety-related-activities. The inspector's review of the licensee's program for the 100 percent document _ review of Johnson Controls document packages showed that only two. packages previously reviewed by Johnson Controls had,
.
deficiencies that caused them to be rejected by the licensee and_ returned
!
for rework. The review covered the last six months of licensee's document
,
review program.
In addition, the inspector's examination of document packages in response to another allegation did not reveal deficiencies in
-
'
the documentation in those packages.
Conclusion
,
Based upon the lack of NRC regulatory requirements that limit the amount of overtime worked by document package reviewers and the inspectors'
examination and review of the licensee's 100 percent review of work performed by contractor document reviewers this allegation was not substantiated. The inspector determined that this allegation does not
-
merit further review effort and is considered to be closed.
.
-
(Closed) Allegation RIII-85-A-0065
.It was alleged that welders who failed to pass the welder qualification tests were permitted to attempt the qualification test a second time.
In a subsequent telephone ~ conversation,.the alleger stated that'one of the welders who had failed the qualification test had later been fired for permitting another welder to perform a weld using weld material issued to the other welder.
NRC Review
,
Retests of welders who fail the qualification test are permitted by the AWS Structural Welding Code, AWS D.1-1, and the ASME Boiler and Pressure
-
Vessel Code,Section IX, Subsection QW 320. Neither code limits the
'i number of-retests for a welder who fails the qualification test.
Nevertheless, the inspectors reviewed site records pertaining to the incident described by the alleger to NRC Region III.
The site records review revealed that the two welders, (Welder "M" and
,
Welder "N") were attempting to pass the Perry welder qualification test S-6.
This:is a welding test utilizing the GTAW process for welding A-1068 carbon steel. Both welders were given two extra coupons for practice after the alleger had used extra coupons for his qualification. Welder M
. failed the S-6 test and subsequently returned to his nomal work assignments-as a welder for a procedure for which he was qualified. Welder N passed
'
the S-6 test and attempted to qualify to the S-7 test. The S-7 test is a GTAW process for joining dissimilar metals, in this case, P-8 to P-45.
-
Welder N's' test was terminated due to failure to pass a visual inspection.
The inspectors found no evidence that either welder had performed any welds to a procedure for which he had not qualified.
-
- - -. -
c.
-
-
-
%
' *-
+
.
_,
j
,
The inspectors examined plant records pertaining to the alleger's statement that welder M had been fired for-. permitting another welder to perform a weld using weld electrodes that had been issued to welder "M."
Plant records revealed that both welders were suspended without pay for one
. week because welder M had permitted'another welder to use weld rod issued
.to him to perfonn an ANSI B31.1 weld (non-safety related) on a one-inch pipe to cap coupling. -Both welders were however qualified to weld to the procedure-used to weld the pipe to cap weldment.
'
Conclusion
~
.
This allegation was not substantiated as having an impact on nuclear
'
safety. Neither the AWS or: ASHE codes limit the number of retests for -
'
'
"
welder qualification. The welding tests were terminated when the
Construction Quality Section's inspectors determined that unsatisfactory'
welds were being performed. The two welders did not weld to procedures for which they were not qualified. When the welder was observed permitting another welder to perform his nonsafety-related weld using improperly J
. issued weld rod, the licensee took prompt disciplinary action to prevent _
l recurrence.
Since no codes,' standards or regulations were violated and the licensee took the necessary corrective actions, this allegation is closed.
3.
. Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives -(denoted in Paragraph 1)
on May 3.-1985. The inspectors sununarized the scope and findings.of the-inspection activities. The inspectors also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection. report with regard to documents.
or processes reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietary.
,
a G
2