ML19329F808
| ML19329F808 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1980 |
| From: | Crossman W, Oberg C, Tapia J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329F804 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-80-09, 50-482-80-9, NUDOCS 8007110198 | |
| Download: ML19329F808 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000482/1980009
Text
. - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ .
mb
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
This Report Contains Investigation Information
(See Paragraphs 4 and 5)
Report No.
STN 50-482/80-09
Docket No.
STN 50-492
Category A2
Licensee:
Kansas Gas and Electric Co.
Post Office Box 208
Wichita, Kansas
67201
Facility Name:
Wolf Creek Site, Coffey County, Burlington, Kansas
i
Inspection Conducted: April 29-May 1, 1980
2ffo
Inspectors:
M/
_ Date
.
.
C. R. Oberg, Reactorgnspector, Projects Section
(Paragraphs 1, 2, 7, 4, 5, 6, 11 & 12)
f 22
-
. I. Tapia, Reactor / Inspector,, Engineering Support
' Da t'e
Section
(Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 & 10)
Approved:
" 4,5W ~Y$
b~?f9 TO
.
p1'W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
Date
.
'R. E. Hall, Chi 6f, En'gineering Support Section
' Date
800 711 OliI
_.
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 29-May 1, 1980 (Report No. STN 50-482/80-09)
'
A_ ryas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection and investigation of licensee
construction activities, including licensee action on previous inspection
findings; allegations of construction problems; construction deficiencies;
ultimate heat sink dam; and review of nonconformance reports. The intpection
involved forty-four inspector-hours on site and in office by two NRC
inspectors.
Results: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified
in two areas. Four items of ncncompliance were found in three areas.
(infraction - improper storage of safety-related items
paragraph 3; infraction -
failure to identify nonconforming conditions (2 examples) - paragraphs 2 and 8;
infraction - faflure to provide adequate test procedures - paragraph 9; and
infraction - failure to provide a timely 9ritten report for a construction
deficiency
paragraph 7).
2
I
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Employees (KG&E)
M. E. Clark, Manager, Quality Assurance, Site
- G. W. Reeves, QA Engineer
- D. W. Prigel, Assistant QA Manager, Site
S. L. Wamsley, QA Technician
- G. L. Fouts, Construction Manager, Site
- R. M. Stambaugh, QA Engineer
. Daniel International Corporation (Daniel)
- W. E. Hitt, Project Manager
47. J. Turner, Project QA Manager
D. L. Jones, Project QC Manager
V. McBride, Civil Engineer
- J. M. Ayres, QA Engineer
T. Damashek, Civil QC Engineer
C. Mitchell, Civil Engineer
Other Personnel
R. Seiple, Geotech Consultant, Dames & Moore
D. F. Fenster, Project Geologist, Dames & Moore
The IE inspectors alst talked with and interviewed other licensee employees
and contractor personnel including members of the QA/QC and engineering
staffs.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(Closed) UnrescIved Item (STN 50-482/80-06):
Verification of Construction
Supervisor Experience. On April 30, 1980, an interview with Mr. Watson,
Personnel Director, of Daniel International Corporation (Wolf Creek
site) disclosed that employment verification had been completed for the
two employees whose qualifications were questioned.
Mr. Watson provided
documents containing information on the employees' past performance and
experience, which supports their current positions.
This matter is censidered resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (STN 50-482/79-20): Fuel Transfer Canal Concrete.
During a site tour on November 28, 1980, the IE inspector identified
broken concrete in the fuel transfer canal around Nelson studs and
vartical rebar. This discrepancy had not been identified by QA or QC
personnel.
Based on the number of areas involved, the occurrence of the
concrete cracking was determined to be significant and should have been
3
_ __.
_ _ _ . - . - _ _ _
.
.
. . -
_
.
_
'
-
reported to Quality Control or Engineering.
The failure to report
is contrary to the requirements of Daniel Procedure AP-IV-02, Section
4.1.1, and to Appendix B of 10 CF2 50, criterion V.
This unresolved item is thus upgraded to an item of noncompliance.
The IE inspector noted the final disposition of the NCR (lSN1874C
dated 3/26/80) had not been determined as of the date of the NRC
inspection. Daqiel site engineering had initially determined that
the event was not reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e).
This item is considered unresolved and will be reviewed during a
subsequent inspection.
3.
Site Tour
The IE inspector, accompanied by a licensee representativo, conducted a
general tour which included all or part of the following areas:
General Lake Impoundment
Containment Building
Auxiliary Building
'
Control Building
Fuel Building
The following blueprints were checked in the field for control and
issuance of proper revisions:
E-0R 3511 (Q), Rev. 10, issued 11/13/79
E-OR 3613 (Q), Rev. 1, issued 12/19/79
-E-OR 3713 (Q), Rev. 2, 1-sued 11/6/79
The purpose of the tour was to observe the general state of construction
activity and to observe housekeeping practices.
'
During the tour of the Auxiliary Building, stainless steel spool pieces
and fittings, including IEJ-01-S-010/112 and 1PCl-EN-01-S008/112, wera
observed to be improperly stored.
They were found standing in water and
dirt, not on cribbing or otherwise protected from physical damage or
environmental contamination.
ANSI N45.2.2 specifies that items requiring
" Level D" stcrage are to be stored on cribbing or equivalent to allow
for air circulation and to avoid trapping water.
This condition is in
!
noncompliance with requirements of Appendix B, 10 CFR 50.
The specific
l
items identified during the tour were im:.ediately corrected and stored
!
properly.
!
4
l
2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
4."
Investigation of Allegations Made by a Reporter Regarding Wolf Creek
-
Construction Problems
On March 21, 1980, Region IV received a telephone call from a newspaper
reporter who stated that three allegations had been made to him by an
anonymous individual.
The allegations and the result of the investigation
made by the IE inspector are given below:
Allegation No. 1: A number cf construction supervisors were dismissed
as a result of some primary cooling system piping being damaged on
site. The anonymous individual did not believe this was reported to
proper supervisors.
Investigation Results:
Three supervisors had been dismissed but for
reasons other than what the allegation stated and which are not
relatei to the safety of plaat construction.
There were not any
reports of damaged primary coolant piping. No additional information
could be obtained from the source of the allegation on this item.
Allegation No. 2:
An employee had stated that he was fired by
Daniel because he reported construction problems caused by poorly
qualified supervisors.
Investigation Results:
The IE inspector reviewed the charte and action
taken on a case filed with the National Labor Relations Board (dated
February 28, 1980) by the discharged employee.
The case (#17-CA-9483)
was investigatri by the NLRB and an action filed on April 8, 1980.
The results of the investigation indicated that no further proceedings
were warranted because of insufficient evidence to show that the
employee was terminated in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
No appeal was made on this action.
Allegation No. 3:
Some sequence of parts in the Auxiliary Building
and Turbine Building were installed backwards.
The informant
believed (emphasis nrovided) that this was covered up by employees
'
and not reported to proper supervisory levels.
Investigation Results:
Several noncenformance reports (NCRs) and
deficiency reports (DRs) were reviewed by the IE inspector indicating
that the sequence of installation of some specific items were not
correct. However, they were reported to the proper level of
supervision, and were corrected in accordance with the QA program.
More specific information could not be obtained from the source
of the allegations.
Based on the information made available on these allegations and the
results of the investigation, the IE inspector concluded that although
the allegations had some basis, they have no merit.
Since more specific
information could not be obtained, the items are considered closed.
5
-
_ .
.
.
-__
. . _ . _ _-
5.
Allegation Regarding Wrong Weld Rod Being Used in Fuel Transfer Canal
Liner Plate
An allegation was received by Region IV on April 25, 1980, in regard
to improper welding of the Fuel Building transfer canal liner plate.
The alleger stated that the plates were welded with carbon steel rods and
finished with stainless steel rods. The welds were rusting after the
stainless steel was ground off. A specific seam was identified.
The IE inspector determined that the fuel pool and fuel transfer canal
liner plate is nonsafety-related. The allegatica information was given
to the KG&E QA Site Manager for verificatica and follow-up action.
On
May 9, 1980, the licensee QA Manager contacted the IE inspector and
reported that the discrepant wald had been located.
Corrective action
for the specific weld will be taken as well as action to correct any
generic problem for control of weld rod issue.
They also reported that the
weld had been previously identified and reported by a QC inspector.
(Deficiency Report No. IND3864M dated April 29, 1980)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Potential Construction Deficiency - Essential Service Water (ESW) Spool S011
On April 24,1980, a 42" ESW spool, ICK 205 - S011, was rejected by QC
due to the large number of unacceptable linear indications found as a
result of visual and magna-flux >.xaminations.
The IE inspector examined the spool en May 1, 1980.
Subsequently, the
IE inspector was informed on May 8,1980, that the licensee considered
this deficiency to be potentially reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The licensee is currently evaluating the event for safety / generic signifi-
cance.
This item is considered unresolved and will be reviewed during a subsequent
inspection.
7.
Review of 50.55(e) Construction Deficiency Reactor Cavity Concrete
An inspection was conducted of the physical condition of the construction
!
deficiency addressed in paragraph 4 of NRC Inspection Report No. STI: 50-482/
80-07.
The deficiency concerns the spalling of concrete in the reactor
cavity collector trench. This condition is identified in Nonconformance
,
l
Raport No. ISN1808C.
The concrete has been chipped back to sound material
'
and awaits the engineering evaluation of required repairs.
The KG&E Quality Assurance Site Manager notified the IE principal inspector
on March 7, 1980, of the determination by the licensee that the spalling
of concrete in the reactor cavity was reportable within the context of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
6
_.
_
,
. . . _ . -_-
- ,-
,
i
.
"
10 CFR 50.55(e)(3) states that:
The holder of a construction
"
....
permit shall also submit a written report on a reportable deficiency within
~
thirty (30) dsys to the appropriate NRC Regional Office .
." An
. .
interim final report was, therefore, due on April 7,1980.
As of the
date of this inspection no report had been submitted.
This is an infraction in that it is a failure to satisfy conditions of the
-
construction permit.
8.
Identification of con.cruction Damage
During the inspection of spalled concrete (paragraph 7) on April 29, 1980,
the IE inspector observed that cracking had occurred in the area adjacent
to the spalling.
Closer observation disclosed that the refueling cavity
stainless steel seal ring had been pulled away from the concrete. The
plate war pulled away by means of a force apparently transmitted through
a mild steel plate lug which had been welded to the seal ring. This lug
showed a gouge mark on the outside edge of the eye.
Another mild-steel
plate lug was welded to the reactor vessel cover and oriented directly
4
opposite the lug on the seal ring.
It too showed a gouge on the outside
,
edge of tha lug's eye.
'
Through discussions with the Daniel QA Manager, it was determined that the
purpose of the lugs was to provide lateral restraint of the reactor vessel as
it hung in place prior to final setting.
This precaution was intended to
prevent swaying of the vessel.
During the process of setting the vessel
wear plates, a come-alcag was apparently left attached to the two lugs
as the vessel was lifted.
The resulting damage to the concrete, although
visible, had not been reported by any construction or licensee personnel
who were present and were aware of the damage.
Daniel International Construction Procedure No. AP-VI-02, Revision 8
"Nonconformance Control and Reporting," Section 4.1.1 requires that all
,
project personnel identify any material nonconformance or nonconformance
activity and bring it to the attention of Quality Control or Engineering.
The damaged concrete was not brought to the attention of responsible
personnel, but rather, was identified by the IE inspector.
This represents an infraction in that it is a failure on the part of
project personnel tc. follow approved reporting procedures as required
'
9.
a.
Observation of Surface Feature
A tour of the Ultimate heat Sink area was conducted with the Dames &
Moore Project Geulogist for the purpose of observing the Plattsmouth
.
limestone surface which showed signs of separation of the interbedded
l
shale layers along joints parallel to the surface. Through' discussions
held by the Dames & Moore Project Geologist with a representative
'
7
i
.
_
-
_
__ -
.
-
, .
-
. - - - - .
- -.
.-
.
g.
of the Kansas Geologic Survey the day prior to the beginning of this
inspection, it was agreed that this geologic feature was a result of
mechanical weathering.
This conclusion is supported by the fact
that.this portion of the UHS excavation has undergane repeated cycles
of inundation and drying. The affected area has been mapped and a
report will be submitted to the NRC by KG&E.
b.
Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) Dam
This portion of the inspection involved observation of the completed
construction and a review of randomly selected quality control
documentation. The construction controls and field density test
requirements are delineated in:
(1) Sargent & Lundy Specification A-3854, ksendment 2, " Lake ark"
(2) Sargent & Lundy Spacification A-3853, Amendment 3, " Earthwork
Testing"
The IE inspector reviewed fifty-six randomly selected Civil QC
Daily Inspection Reports covering the period from September 6, 1979,
to April 21, 1980.
In addition, twenty-four Moisture and Density of
Soil In-Place Reports from April 9-17, 1980, were reviewed along with
four Proctor Density determinations dated bewteen October 11, 1978,
and April 9, 1980.
During in place relative density testing of the UHS Dam, the
referenced acceptance criteria (based on ASTM D698A, " Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils Using 5.5-lb Rammer and 12-in.
Drop") on a
second retest (Field Test No. LQ 223) of an in place density test
was found to be different from that of the original test (Field
Test No. LQ 220) and the first retest (Field Test No. 222).
In
addition, the referenced acceptance criteria were based on material
used in nonsafety-related 3affle Dike "A".
Field Tests No.LQ 220 and LQ 222 referenced Proctor Density No. LW-60,
while Field Test No. LQ 223 referenced Proctor Density No. LW-81.
Proctor Density No. LW-60 was performed on material sampled from the
UHS stockpile whereas No. LW-81 come from material taken from
Baffle Dike "A".
Since the specification for compaction requires
that the dry density of the compacted soil mass be a stated
percentage of the laboratory Standard Proctor Compaction for that
material, the referenced Proctor Density Number would not be expected
to change to reflect nonsafety-related material on a retest of a
safety-related material after reworking.
Discussions with cognizant QC personnel revealed that the change in
criteria was due to a visual interpretation of . change in the soil
composition and therefore the acceptance standard by the Level I-Soils
QC inspector.
8
l
, _ _
- -
_ _ _
.
. - . .
-
_
_
_ _
_ _ _
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
'
' ' '
A review of the Quality Control procedures and specifications appli-
cable to the UHS relative density testing program was conducted by the
IE inspector. No reference was ida'tified which allowed for the
changing of in place density tes'
eptance criteria by a Level I -
QC Soils inspector. Neither wa-
, reference identified which
permitted the visual interpretat.;n of soil composition by a Level I -
QC Soils inspector.
The above activities represent an infraction in that they are a departure
from those documented procedures which require that testing is
accomplished to the requirements and acceptance limits contained in
applicable design documents.
10.
Nonconformance Report (NCR) Review
The IE inspectors reviewed seventy-two randomly selected nonconformance
reports for the purpose of validating conformance to the construction
deficiency reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e) and with Daniel
Procedure No. AP-VI-02, Revision 8, "Nonconformance Control and Reporting."
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of non-
compliance, or deviations.
Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection
-are discussed in paragraphs 2 and 6.
12.
Exit Interview
The IE inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the site inspection on May 1, 1980.
The IE inspector
summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The items of non-
compliance were acknowledged.
l
i
1
l
'
9
..
.-
.
.
.
-
. .