IR 05000482/1980006
| ML19309G913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1980 |
| From: | Crossman W, Randy Hall, Herr R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309G910 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-80-06, 50-482-80-6, NUDOCS 8005070764 | |
| Download: ML19309G913 (13) | |
Text
,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
,
800507o 2Cu
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT (
O
REGION IV
Investigation Report No. STN 50-482/80-06 Doci.et No. STN 50-482 Category A2 Licensee:
Kansas Gas & Electric Company P. O. Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 Facility:
Wolf Creek, Unit No. 1 Investigation at:
Wolf Creek, New Strawn, Coffey County, Kansas Investigation conducted:
March 18-28, 1980 Investigator:
&
/ 7/
R.' E.' Hbrr, Investigation Specialist Kate Inspectors:
7 '.<
' ~
L. D. Gilbert, Reactor Inspector Date Engineering Support Section l
/
t.
h C b i t z.
- -k.
v C. R. Oberg, Reactor Inspector Date Projects Section Approved:
2/ 8d er -
W. A. Crossman, Chief
'
Date Project Section Zl &
v R. E. ' Hall, Chief
/ Dat'e Engineering Support Section
o I
9
_ _.
_ -. - _ _ _.
-___
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
'
n
.
Investigation Summary Investigation on March 18-28, 1980 (Report No. STN 50-482/80-06)
Area Investigated: Allegations of improper construction practices by unqualified personnel. The investigation involved ninety investigator / inspector-hours by one NRC investigator and two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
The allega-tions were either not substantiated and/or were found to be without merit.
i
,
'
INTRODUCTION The Wolf Creek plant, Unit 1, is under construction near the town of Burlington, Kansas.
Kansas Gas & Electric Company is the Construction Permit holder.
Bechtel Corporation is the Architect / Engineer and Daniel
,
International Corporation (Daniel) is constructing the plant.
j REASON FOR THE INVESTIGATION On December 21, 1979, a newspaper article appeared in The Gazette, a local newspaper at Emporia, Kansas, wherein vague allegations were mentioned concerning improper construction by unqualified personnel. These allegations
)
were reported by five individuals claiming they were former employees of the Daniel International Corporation (Daniel) at Wolf Creek.
j SUMMARY OF FACTS On February 13, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, was requested by IE:HQ to investigate the allegations attributed to the above newspaper article.
The article in question listed the following general allegations:
Allegation No. I Unqualified journeymen.
Allegation No. 2 Inexperienced supervision.
Allegation No. 3 A foreman signed off welds prior to actual welding.
Allegation No. 4 Discharge of concrete from heights of 5 to 6 feet, thereby increasing the tendency of concrete to separate (segregate).
Allegation No. 5 They have only one Quality Assurance man on the job, he works for another company, and he is a subconstractor sent in on the job.
Allegation No. 6 The Daniel International Corporation is not constructing quality work, in that the supervisors are not required to build quality into construction.
e
.
During the course of this investigation, other allegations surfaced wherein individuals al}eged:
Allegation No. 7 That improper welding rods were used to weld stainless steel and carbon steel together ou the liner plate, inside the reactor cavity.
Allegation No. 8 That a welder maintained his qualifications for welding on a process he had not used for about four months, by merely checking out from the welding issue room a core wire, breaking it in half, and returning the unused portion to the issue room and discarding the other half of the portion into a trash barrel without actually utilizing the welding process.
Allegation No. 9 That a welding operator was utilizing a Dimetric welding machine and is not qualified to do manual welds.
Allegation No. 10 That a minimum wall thickness was not met on a Class 1, 14-inch stainless steel spool / valve weld during the first week of October 1979.
Allegation No. 11 That grinding of internal weld surface may have reduced the 30-inch and 40-inch Essential Service Water (ESW) pipe wall thickness below minimum requirements.
Allegation No. 12
,
l That the inside of the ESW 30-inch lines contain mud and rags.
Allegation No. 13 That the Condensate Recovery Tank (a "Q" tank) was welded on site with discrepancies including:
(a)
Inadequate backgouging; (b) Random areas, which were selected for radiography, were reworked and if the radiographs from these areas were accepted they would not be representative of the actual welding performed on the tank.
l
_-_-__ - -______
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e
.
All'egation No. 14 That the Demineralized Water Tank (a "Q" tank) was welded on site with dis-crepancies including:
(a) Inadequate backgouging; (b) Random areas, which were selected for radiography, were reworked and if the radiographs from these areas were accepted they would not be repre-sentative of the actual tank welding.
CONCLUSIONS Allegation No. 1 The alleged utilization of unqualified journeymen for construction purposes is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 2 The alleged utilization of inexperienced supervision of con.'.ruction workers is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 3 The allegation that a foreman had signed off on welds prior to their completion is substantiated. However, the welds in question are not safety-related and appear to be an isolated incident.
.
Allegation No. 4 The allegation that concrete was discharged from heights of from 5 to 6 feet is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 5 The allegation that only one QA individual is located on the site is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 6 The allegation that construction is not requiring supervisors to build quality into construction is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 7 The allegation that improper welding rods were used to weld stainless steel and carbon steel together on the liner plate, inside the reacter cavity, is substantiated, however, it has no merit in that the liner plate is not safety-related.
__
..
.
Allegation No. 8
-
The allegation that a welder maintained his qualification by checking out rods from the welding room and not actually welding could neither be substantiated nor refuted.
Allegation No. 9 The allegation that a welding operator, who is currently utilizing a Dimetric machine for welding, is not qualified to do manual welds is substantiated.
However, the welding machine operators are not required to be qualified manual welders.
Allegation No. 10 The allegation that minimum wall thickness was not met on a Class 1, 14 inch stainless steel spool / valve during the first week of October is substan-tiated. However, Daniel Construction Company was aware of the situation and it was properly documented and corrected.
Allegation No. 11 The allegation that the grinding of internal weld surfaces may have reduced the 30- and 40-inch ESW pipe wall thickness below minimum requirements could not be substantiated due to the alleger's inability to designate specific areas of concern.
Allegation No. 12 The allegation that the inside of ESW pipe 30-inch lines contain mud and rags could not be substantiated.
Allegation No. 13 The inspectors concluded that the allegations concerning the Condensate Recovery Tank are without merit.
The investigation disclosed that this tank is "non-Q" and has not been constructed.
Allegation h.
The inspectors concluded that the allegations concerning the Demineralized Water Tanks are without merit.
The investigation disclosed that this tank is "non-Q" and has not been constructed.
-
-
-
-.
.-.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees M. E. Clark, Manager, Quality Assurance, Site
- G. W. Reeves, QA Engineer,
- F. J. Walmsley, QA Technologist,
- J. Stokes, Assistant Construction Manager Present Daniel International Corporation (Daniel) Employees
- W. E. Hitt, Project Manager
- B. (nmi) Green, Engineer Manager
- V. J. Tnrner, Project Quality Assurance Manager
- R. D. Scott, Construction Manger
- D. L. Jones, Quality Control Manager
- D. J. Dennison, Assistant Quality Control Manager
- N. J. Criss, Audit Representative Coordinator T. Watson, Personnel Manager Other Personnel Individuals A through L
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Investigation Allegation No. 1 The Gazette newspaper reported an allegation that unqualified journeymen are working on the construction site at Wolf Creek.
Investigative Findings Interview of Individuals A, B, C, D, and H explained that some welders employed by Daniel are classified and paid as journeymen and they have only been on the job a few months with no substantial background experience.
Individuals A through D maintain that normal union standards require that journeymen must have at least two years of experience before being classified and paid as a journeyman.
Individuals A, B, C, and D acknowledged that the welders have all completed welding qualification
i (
,
__
.
,
tests. An interview of Mr. Watson, Personnel Manager, explained that a welder, after completing his qualification tests to weld, is not limited to a certain time frame for promotion.
Mr. Watson explained that if a welder showed proficiency he can be promoted over others who have been employed longer but who have not shown as much professionalism.
This allegation is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 2 The Gazette newspaper reported an allegation that inexperienced supervisors are working on the construction site at Wolf Creek.
Investigative Findings Individuals A, B, C, and E claimed that numerous supervisors (foremen and generel foremen) working at the site are inexperienced.
These i
individuals (A, B, C, and E) provided the identities of eleven individuals who they considered inexperienced. A review of the personnel folders of the eleven individuals in question disclosed that all claimed to have had extensive experience in supervision and work-related functions. Nine of the eleven employment records disclosed independent documentation that verified their respective experiences.
Two of the eleven were not documented; however, Mr. T. Watson, Manager, Personnel Department, is cognizant of this discrepancy and has initiated verification procedures.
The Region IV inspector will follow up on this verification during a subsequent inspection.
This allegation is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 3 The Gazette newspaper reported an allegation that a foreman signed off welds prior to the actual welding.
Investigative Findings Interview of Individual B resulted in him claiming that on one occasion approxitately four months earlier his supervisor, who is no longer employed at Wolf Creek, told him during the morning hours to weld some hangers in the Turbine Building.
Individual B explained that his supervisor remarked that he (supervisor) was signing off the welds that morning in order to meet an assigned welding quota.
Individual B claimed that he welded the hangers and advised that the hangers were Class 3 and were not safety-related.
This allegation is substantiated, however, his no merit.
Allegation No. 4 The Gazette newspaper reported an allegation that Daniel discharges concrete from a height of 5-6 feet thereby, increasing the tendency of concrete to separate.
m
O e
'
Investigative Findings Interview of Individual B resulted in his claiming that the newspaper article attributed to him concerning the concrete allegation is in error.
Individual B maintained he is not involved in concrete work and did not make a comment concerning the discharge of concrete.
This allegation is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 5 The Gazette newspaper reported an allegation that there is only one Quality Assurance individual on the job site and that the individual is not employed by the Daniel Construction Company.
Investigation Findings Interview of Individual E resulted in him stating that the article in the newspaper attributed to him was somewhat misleading.
Individual E stated that there are numerous Quality Assurance individuals working for Daniel on the job site, but only one Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI).
Interview of Mr. M. E. Clark, Manager of QA, KG&E, advised that there are actually two ANI personnel on the job site.
Mr. Clark explained that KG&E only requires one ANI to be on the job site adding that the ANI personnel are independent Quality Assurance inspectors who represent an insurance company that is insuring the construction of the plant.
This allegation is not substantiated.
Allegation No. 6 The Gazette newspaper reported an allegation that Daniel is not constructing quality work, adding that the construction supervisers are not required to build quality into construction.
Investigative Findings Interview of Individual F resulted in him claiming that the newspaper article that attributed the above comments to him regarding the quality of work at Wolf Creek is somewhat misleading.
Individual F explained that he has never worked for Daniel and has never been on the job site at Wolf Creek.
Individual F remarked that his comments concerning poor quality of work at the Wolf Creek plant are based on second and third hand rumors and information he has heard from various present and former employees of Daniel.
This allegation is not substantiated.
3.
Apditional Investigations During the interview of various present and former employees of Daniel International Corporation, additional allegations surfaced which are addressed below:
.
-
_
_
_ _ _
_
.
i Allegation No. 7
-
Individual C alleged that improper welding rods were used to weld stainless steel and carbon steel together on liner plates inside the reactor cavity.
Investigative Findings This item was confirmed by the IE inspector.
This event occurred in February 1979.
It was identified to the Constructor (Daniel International Corporation) in December 1979. After confirmation, a Nonconformance Report (NCR) was issued and the event reported to the NRC (Region IV)
c"
' on January 4,1980.
The item was investigated and the results are to be issued in Inspection Report SIN 50-482/80-07.
The liner plates and the weld to the cavity liner were determined to be nonsafety-related.
This allegation is substantiated, however, it has no merit.
Allegation No. 8 Individual C, a welder, claimed he maintained his qualifications for the gas tungsten-arc welding (GTAW) process he had not used for about four months by merely checking out welding a rod from the welding rod issue room and breaking it in half and returning one-half without actually utilizing the other half for welding.
Investigative Findings The latest Welder Qualification Status (W-105 "Q") issued on March 17, 1980, lists Individual C as qualified for the GTAW process.
The procedure for maintenance of welder qualifications specifies that the rod issue room records show usage of the aelding process and the records are used for extending the welder's qualification for a three month period. The rod issue room record alluded to by Individual C was retrieved from the record files. The rod issue record dated December 19, 1979, indicated that Individual C had been authorized by his supervisor to be issued type ER-308 weld rod for GTAW welding; he was issued two pounds and returned one pound.
The supervisor who authorized the issuance of the rod in question was interviewed and stated that he only authorized rod that the welder had a need for in his job assignment. It was determined that the only rod issued to the welder for production welding with the GTAW process after December 19, 1979, was on March 11, 1980.
The IE inspector noted that a qualification test taken on February 5,1980, would renew the qualifi-cation of Individual C for the process prior to the production welding performed on March 11, 1980.
This allegation could neither be substantiated nor refuted.
Allegation No. 9 l
Individual C alleged that there are men utilizing a Dimetric welding
!
machine who are not qualified to do manual welds.
i
_
_
--
-.
o e
'
' Investigative Findings A review of Daniel procedures reflect that a welding machine operator is not required to be qualified in manual welding.
Procedure No. CWP-502, Revision 9, states that machine operators are only required to pass qualifi-cation tests for the operation of welding machines.
This allegation is substantiated but has no merit.
Allegation No. 10 Individual B alleged that a minimum wall thickness was not met on a Class 1, 14-inch stainless steel spool / valve weld during the first week of October 1979.
,
Investigative Findings Investigation identified weld control record, F-101; weld No. F003, of Drawing I-M-03EJ01(Q) as being the 14 inch stainless steel spool / valve in question.
The record disclosed that the minimum wall thickness was violated and repaired to restore the minimum wall thickness.
In addition, the valve in question was a Class 2 valve and some of the repairs occurred during the time frame alleged.
This allegation is substantiated, but Daniel was aware of the problem and it was properly documented and corrected.
Allegation No. 11 Individual G alleged that grinding of some internal weld surfaces may have reduced the 30" and 40" diameter ESW pipe wall thickness below minimum
,
requirements.
l Investigative Findings This s.
em is subject to hydrostatic testing in accordance with Article ND-6000 m2 the ASME B&PV Code prior to use.
Since individual G could not identify the location in question, the suspected areas in tha ESW piping system could not be identified for thickness measurement.
This allegation could not be substantiated.
Allegation No. 12 Individual G had alleged that mud and rags were left inside a previously installed 30" ESW system pipe when the last several segments of ESW
'
pipe were installed to complete the system south of the ESW valve house
,
to the ESW valve house.
_
_
- - - - - -
_ __
___
. _ _. - - _
___
__
.
e
~
~
Investigative Findings The 30" ESW pipe lines south of the valve house have been completed and buried.
Internal inspection of the buried lines back to the area sus-pected of containing mud and rags was designated by the site safety inspector to be unsafe because of an inadequate supply of air. Inspectors, Individuals I, J, K, and L, stated they did not observe any mud and/or rags during their internal inspection of the ESW piping during installation.
It should be noted that this ESW system is required to be flushed as a part of the pre-startup testing procedures.
This allegation could not be substantiated.
Allegation No. 13 That the Condensate Recovery Tank (a "Q" tank) was welded on site with discrepancies including:
(a) Inadequate backgouging; (b) Random areas, which were selected for radiography, were reworked and if the radiographs from these areas were accepted they would not be representative of the actual welding performed on the tank.
Investigative Findings The Condensate Recovery Tank was determined to be a nonsafety-related ("non-Q")
tank and is to be fabricated off site.
Further investigation identified that a Chlorinated Water Retention Tank had been fabricated on site and matched the description given by Individual G.
This tank is also a nonsafety-related tank, which was fabricated to API Standard 650.
Both quality control and welding engineering personnel were aware of the rework areas and had selected another area for radiographic inspection.
The tank is not within the jurisdic-tion of the NRC construction inspection program and has no effect on the safety of the nuclear power plant.
This allegation is without merit.
Allegation do. 14 That the Demineralized Water Tank (a "Q" tank) was welded on site with discrepancies including:
(a)
Inadequate backgouging; (b) Random areas, which were selected for radiography, were reworked and if the radiographs from these areas were accepted they would not be repre-sentative of the actual tank welding.
l
--
o e
.
_ Investigative Findings The Demineralized Water Tank was determined to be a nonsafety-related ("non-Q")
tank and is to be fabricated off site. Further investigation identified that a clear well water tank had been fabricated on site and matched the description given by Individual G.
This tank is also a nonsafety-related tank which was fabricated to API Standard 650.
Both quality control and welding engineer personnel were aware of the rework areas and had selected another area for radiographic inspection.
The tcnk is not within the jurisdiction of the NRC construction inspection program and has no effect on the safety of the nuclear power plant.
This allegation is without merit.
-