IR 05000482/1980024
| ML19341D288 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1981 |
| From: | Crossman W, Martin L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341D281 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-80-24, NUDOCS 8103050285 | |
| Download: ML19341D288 (6) | |
Text
_
_
.
.
G
-
y
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. STN 50-482/80-24 l
Docket No. STN 50-482 Category A2 Licensee:
Kansas Gas and Electric Company Post Office Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 Facility Name: Wolf Creek, Unit No.1
!
Inspection at:
Burlington, Coffey County, Kansas Inspection conducted:
December 1-4, 18, 23, 1980, and January 6, 1981
.
i Inspector:
//h///
!
L. E. Martin, Hor ~ Inspector, Projects Section gat (
Approved:
b
//2c!(/
,
.g. A. Crossnfan, Chief, Projects Section
[ tate Inspection Summary:
Inspection on December 1-4, 18, 23, 1980, and January 6, 1981 (Recort No.
STN 50-482/80-24)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of construction activities including follow up on previous inspection findings and follow up on licensee identified deficiencies.
The inspection involved twenty-four inspector-hours
-
on site and twenty-four inspector-hours in office by one NRC inspector.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified during this inspection.
a l
,
!
B108050 1
,
, _..
-
-.
_.
.
---
-,... _ -
_
_
_
..
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Personnel
i E. W. Creel, Director, Quality Assurance
- M. E. Clark, Manager QA - Site
- G. L. Fouts, Construction Manager
- D. W. Prigel, Assistant QA Manager
'
- C. A. Snyder, Project Construction Supervisor
- R. G. Haines, QA Engineer
,
'
M. L. Johnson, Director Plant Engineering Daniel International (Daniel) Personnel
- L. D. Bryant, Project Quality Manager
- L. C. Easterwood, Project QC Manager
- J. E. Steely, Administration Manager C. L. Phillips, Engineering Manager
- N. J. Criss, Audit Response Coordinator J. F. Freeman, Project Electrical Engineer Others
- N. W. Hottel, Electrical Site Liaison, Bechtel R. C. Slovic, Site Liaison, Bechtel J. H. Smith, Project Engineering Manager, Bechtel P. Divjak, Civil Engineer, Bechtel C. Miller, P-W Industries R. Banks, Product Manager, Ramset Fasteners, Inc.
F. Harris, Supervisor Anchor Engineering, Ramset Fasteners, Inc.
The IE inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of the inspection.
- Denotes those persons attending the exit meeting.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Insoection Findings (0 pen) Unresolved Item (STN 50-482/80-05): Concrete Expansion Anchors.
The IE inspector reviewed Bechtel letter BLKE 596, dated July 23, 1980, which basically states that abandoned holes, whether grout filled or anchor filled, do not pose a problem and, therefore, do not need to be included in the anchor qualification program.
The IE inspector does not ouestion that the abandoned holes, when filled properly with grout, will meet the design strength requirements of the original concrete structure.
This method is acceptacle as long as the grout is procured to a safety related-2-
!
<
~
-
,
-.... - ~.,. _.. - - - -,
..
.
specification periodically tested on site and is installed in accordance with approved procedures that require in-process inspection and witnessing by Quality Control inspectors to Provide a high level of assurance.
The proper grouting and repair of holes or concrete voids is a widely accepted and well controlled practice.
After discussion with Mr. Fred Harris (Ramset Fasteners, Inc.) and various other knowledgeable persons in industry and the NRC, the IE
,
inspector does, in this situation, question the practice of leaving the hole filled with a cut-off anchor that has been driven to the bottom of the hole and cosmetic surface grouting of the hole.
This practice does not insure design strength of the original concrete and,
'
therefore, should require evaluation if another concrete expansion anchor is placed in close proximity to the repaired area.
The licensee's response to NRC Bulletin 79-02B indicates that Bechtel reviews any instances where anchors are installed in a manner where the shear cone area is reduced due to edge distance or anchor spacing and the design safety factor for all anchors is reduced below 4 plus preload.
However, the repair procedure for abandoned anchors, as authorized by Bechtel Drawing 10466-C-003, Revision 9, Note 28, may cause tne same type of degradation, but does not require qualification or appropriate design review.
This item is generic to Callaway and Wolf Creek and will remain open pending a stress analysis evaluation of worst case effects of this repair procedure or qualification testing of the procedure.
(Closed) Deviation (STN 50-482/80-08):
Failure to Designate Cable Tray for Use as Class IE and II/I as Safety-Related.
The IE inspector reviewed Receiving and Maintenance Instruction RMI E-034, dated September 15, 1980, which now designates tray as safety-related material upon receipt and requires receipt inspection of all cable tray.
The IE inspector also made a tour of the cable tray laydown area to insure that all of the tray in storage had been receipt inspected and properly color coded.
The tray in the storage area was all color coded or was properly indicated as nonconforming.
The IE inspector also reviewed Deficiency Report (DR) 15D5067ER and Material Receiving Report 51779 including in the associated Receiving Inspection Report for cable tray.
The IE inspector also reviewed Bechtel letters BLSM 10.475 of fiay 5,1979, BLSE 8984 of December 10, 1980, with regard to cable tray qualification and designation as safety-related.
The IE inspector also had a phone conversation with fir. Chuck Miller of P-W Industries (manufacturer of Wolf Creek cable tray) and determined that the brazed welds on the rungs, previously observed by the inspector, were used to jig-up the tray fixtures for resistance (spot) welding.
This item is considered closed.
-3-
'
l l
(0 pen) Infraction (STN 50-482/80-15):
Failure to Provide Appropriate i
Procedures for Activities Affecting Quality (II/I Cable Tray).
The j
IE inspector reviewed the following procedures for compliance with FSAR coninitments and licensee response letter XMLNRC-025 of August 28, 1980:
WP-X-300, ievision 6, " Installation of Electrical Raceway" WP-X-302, Revision 3 with Interim Change (ICP)-258, dated December 1, 1980, " Installation of Electrical Raceway Supports" QCP-X-300, Revision 5, " Installation of Electrical Raceway" l
These procedures have been appropriately revised and now provide the same requirements for II/I cable tray as are provided for Class IE cable tray. The IE inspector also reviewed the training records for the revisions to the above procedures.
All cable tray on site is now being classified as safety-related.
All cable tray in storage has been receipt inspected.
The installed trays, both safety-related and II/I, are being inspected prior to cable installation.
The IE inspector reviewed the list of installed II/I cable trays and the status of the inspection of this tray.
The licensee's response letter KMLNRC-025 required the inspection of II/I cable tray, that had been installed prior to September 1, 1980, and any newly installed II/I tray, prior to installation of cable in that tray.
In the case where cable had previously been installed, no additional cables were to be
'
installed until the above inspection was complete.
The Daniel's QC inspector told the NRC inspector that the list of II/I cable trays (installed) requiring inspection was 100% complete and the inspection effort was 90% complete and that the hold on nonsafety cable pulling, in the affected areas, had been released.
The IE inspector asked if cable was being installed in II/I tray that had not been inspected.
Daniel's engineering and QC personnel could not determine this because they were not do1ng a point or tray section check on nonsafety cable installations. The IE inspector was not able to identify any areas where cable had been installed in cable tray that had not been inspected, l
but he was definitely able to determine that a control mechanism to prevent this was nonexistent. As soon as this was brought to the
'
attention of the licensee and the Daniel Project Electrical Engineer, the installation of nonsafety cables, in the affected areas, was l
immediately stopped and olaced on hold again.
The IE insoector was concerned with possible installation of nonsafety cables in II/I tray prior to inspection as required by the licensee's response letter KMLNRC-025, however, there was no safety-significance to the installation of these cables and the IE inspector was unable to identify any cables that had actually been installed in uninspected tray.
a-i
..
-
.
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
!
i.
j While revieweing the status of the identification and inspection of the installed II/I tray, the IE inspector determined, through a review of
the associated drawings and physical examination of installed tray, that
the list of installed II/I cable tray was incomplete and only identified approximately 30% of the tray requiring QC inspection.
This approximation
.
was later substantiated by Daniel's Project Electrical Engineer.
Therefore, l
instead of being 90% complete with the inspection of II/I cable tray, they were 25-30% complete.
The Project Electrical Engineer immediately began a review and update of the list.
The list was complete and in typing prior
to close of the inspection on December 4, 1980.
.
This item will remain _open pending further IE inspection of II/I cable j
tray list and review of completed II/I cable tray inspection records.
l 3.
Follow Up on Licensee Identified Probleas a.
Anaconda Cable Jacket Extrusion Defects - Potential 50.55(e)
'
The IE inspector reviewed discrepancy reports and inspection records for 13 reels of cable.
In all cases, none of the defects affected
the conductor or its insulation.
The defect and damage was less
'
j than 2%.
The IE inspector concurs with the licensee's October 29,
'
1980, final report that these defects are not reportable under
'
,
This item is considered closed.
j b.
Bunker-Ramo /Sams EPA Failure - Part 21 j
The IE inspector discussed this item with the licensee representative.
The licensee has discovered some additional problems with lugs and wiring in #4, 250 MCM, and possibly 2/0 wire sizes that were not i
discussed in Amphenol North America's Interim Report to NRC, dated November 14, 1980.
This item will remain open pending resolution of the additional
.
proolems and an adequate response and rework plan by Amphenol.
Site Tour i
The IE inspector made a tour of the Reactor Building, Auxiliary Building
and other general plant and storage areas to observe the construction activities in progress and to inspect housekeeping.
!
.
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
f
'
-5-
..
i
)
....
.
5.
Exit Interview The IE inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 4,1980.
The IE inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection and discussed the licensee's responsibility to insure that commitments made via response letters to NRC findings, as noted in paragraph 2 of this report, are adhered to.
On December 8,1980, Messrs. K. V. Seyfrit, Director; W. C. Seidle, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch; and W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section of Region IV had a conference telephone call with Messrs. Glenn L. Koester, M. E. Clark, G. L. Fouts and E. W. Creel of Kansas Gas and Electric Company concerning breakdown in communication on inspection of II/I cable tray and the resumption of installation of nonsafety cables contrary to response letter KMLNRC-025.
Kansas Gas and Electric Company will assure in the future that QC personnel are aware of commitments and fully understand the requirements to preclude reptition of this type of breakdown in communication.
,
-6-
.
- _
-
. - -
-
---