ML20128Q948
| ML20128Q948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1985 |
| From: | Hayes B NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128Q732 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-161 NUDOCS 8507270081 | |
| Download: ML20128Q948 (1) | |
Text
_
(
May 31, 1985 I MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator Regicn IV FROM: Ben B. Hayes, Director .O.:,9 gs 4,,
Office of Investigations &gg
SUBJECT:
WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION - STATUS OF CHARACTER ISSUE CONCERNS PERTAINING TO SENIOR MANAGERS On December 21, 1984, I forwarded to you a memorandum prepared by William Ward l regarding the Office of Investigations (OI) evaluation of the Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E) investigative program at the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS). As a result of this and additional information of a charac-ter/ suitability nature, 0! requested guidance from the Corrnission as to whether these matters warranted an 01 investigation (memorandum dated December 24, 1984, enclosure 1).
Comissioner Roberts questioned whether the alleged circumstances have a direct and significant relationship to NRC's regulatory responsibilities, and he posed several questions concerning the initiation of an 01 investigation (memorandum dated January 8,1985, enclosure 2). 01 responded to Commissioner Roberts in a memorandum dated January 15, 1985 (enclosure 3). On February 19, 1985, Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC, informed 0I that a majority of the Commission does not support the initiation of an investigation of senior managers at the WCGS regarding these matters (enclosure 4).
In view of the above, no additional investigative effort will be directed by 01 toward the character and/or suitability issues which have been brought to the attention of the Commission. This includes the concerns identified in 01 Report of Inquiry 04-85-001, dated February 21, 1985.
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
W.J.Dircks, EDO H.Denton, NRR R.K. Herr, 01:RIV Distribution:
01:s/f Wolf Creek Fac File
/01: case file: 0-4-85-001 01:c/f 01:r/f ECGilbert f ;
01 5 0 ' 01 P ECGilbert/ RAFortuna S. B. Hayes 05/30/85 05 /85 05/30/85 DW: Memo /RMa rtin 8507270081 850619 h PDR FDIA STEPHEN 85-161 PDR
- . -- .. - ~ -
242: nmoa .
DAN GLt0KMAN *^*"'"oa. o C tos is F:URTH DisTaicT-KANSAS # 002)226-82i8
- "'"'" u s Cou., wovu AG8pCULTURE Don 40 W 234 W,curva Kansas $7201 JUtHCIARY 998)282-8390 SCitNCE AND TECHNOLOGY
- """'" *""* ""'*"
- 2 ***"'
taanspostation. avution ano matsniats CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 208 **".*"M host ain HOUSE CF REPRESENTATIVES ""'"' *" "'" 8 ' 5 0 i p"'is; es s-soi t v,,,,, nos Aou.nistnarm Assistant WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
- mcon sau,no PAtluca GAmena March 20, 1985 owraics Aouinistnavon The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Pursuant to my ongoing interest in the safe construction and operation of the Wolf Creek Generating Station, I was briefed yesterday by staff from your Of fice of Investigations. I was informed that three OI cases relative to the Wolf Creek project are still open.
Because the outcome of these investigations could affect the current assessment of the safety of Wolf Creek, I request that these cases be fully investigated and resolved before the Commissioners approve a full-power operating license. I assume that the OI staf f can be targeted toward the Wolf Creek cases so they can be completed without causing any delay in the licensing process.
Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff stated, in a March 11 letter to me, that they were "not aware of any information from the Office of Investigations that constituted a basis for withholding the issuance of a low power license for Wolf Creek," I believe that the OI cases outstanding should be closed prior to the Commission's issuance of a full-power license. I Otherwise, residents of Kansas will not be given their deserved assurance that allegations potentially affecting the safe operation of the Wolf Creek Generating Station have been satisfactorily reviewed and resolve Wit best r ards l l
> r of ongress o
w /
C, .
/c',h? 0,fRb h s, q .
v im n -
nn
? ,
f G.; .
.h
- sva c :r assas
. I Ceuumtt ass <,surs s JO ANN POTTORFF OC.-Err; - -::= :.ca es c =e c ii . w c, = = : .- - - .518.0 (*,:,*A;:,3,,';*,,,,,,,
.iv e . - =et' . ,
wic .? a mmas sa$ 47204 1 f tr. :anm ..m.
^
il WA 22 P3:14 l o*t..
FFit mOr SECREMR-HOUSEO EllNG & $EpyjCr N@
R EPR ES ENT ATIVES Februar,/ 18, 1985 -r l
sGG tt c " ,g . ;
The *.onnrable Nunzio Palladino. Chairman NucAear . gule_crf cc e s.4e.n
. s 'r. a,3 w.. . D.C. 0555 30-mg, g, .w_
gg ). Mh
Dear Mr. Chairman:
! As a member af the Kansas Legislature, I am deeply concerned with the approaching conditional licensure of the Wolf Creek elec-trical generating station. It is my understanding that this licen-sure may occur in spite of the fact that open investigations exist into matters such as alleged Since construction such mattersdefects and quality are directly relevant as-to surance deficiencies.
the issue of plant safety, I ask for your assistance.
Correspondence between your office and the offices of Congress-Dingell ha man Dan Glickman and Congressman John D.It is clear from a review of the Congressm able for our review.
questions and your response that:
- 1) A substantial number of structural steel welds have been found to be below accepted standards:
- 2) Investigations into the weld deficiencies are under-falsified or way, including such issues as missing, erroneous qualit'. assurance records; including and problems
- 3) Unaravered safety questions remain, relating to the safe separation of electrical cables.
I would like to express my concern and the concerns of many other Kansans relating to .ne safe and economical production of nuclear-The Wolf Creek proj ect has been the object generated electric:ty.of scrutiny from this Legislature and from other agencies of state government. He have attempted to maximize the ability of our util-and determine the extent to
' ity commission to review the project j
which the ratepayers will assume construction related costs, t However, Congress has established that your commission is the review mechanism for all matters It relating is in to the that safe construction capacity that I and operation of nuclear plants.
seek your assistance.
r ~
Wh a, &, 3 f ph a -
3 9 q' .s - y n
i(
Pa"ge 2 Honorable Nunzio Palladino February 18, 1985 I ask that all investigations. including any pre-invest-igation matters pending in the Office of Investigation and of Inspection and Enforcement, be concluded in a comprehensive and thorough manner. I ask that your findings be made available to ,
me, to the Kansas Congressional delegation, our Governor and Attorney General, and to the Kansas Corporation Commission. I ask that these things be done prior to the issuance of a condi-tional, low-power operating license.
When the power is turned on at Wolf Creek, it is essential tna: all goestic:..: have Leen cu.n e: ci a6d all : afet 'stancaro met. Only these conditions will provide the needed assurances to Kansas to validate the operational integrity of the Wolf Creek plant.
I express my appreciation for your consideration of this matter and ask that my name be added to the list of other Kansas Legislators that was sent to you in a letter dated February 14, 1985.
Sincerely, (7 ^ :
Jo Ann pottorff c)
Representative 83rd District JAP:jw i
m & . .
g c) .
h I g
, e _
i e
~ ' 1 5
. cf F k
)
i -
- t 9 . ;
..~ -
e a A
V i h
-W
. M C " . ' 'p
[ f[ ,-
g
~ E[ ,
'. i' .- ^ C gt ?
-- yc , ,,'
's'. .
.: /
- = ~
j -
^ - ;>.
p x
q w .
- . ~ ,
~
nt .
+ . _ -L -
} .
e w . f
~
{C Z C 5'
, v. - .
^ ^
q u ~ J . -
b -
u t' U 3' - , . 7
, .d- . a, ,f. > _C c; fa' %
3 .-
v i .
3
'- 3l, i g -- ;- F d 1.. '- ; .C 'I. -'W. -;- -
q
. s !
tp - ' C L J. 1 -
g ' -
-4
. . . t; ,
- - =- - . . ' ,.. - ,
=
- Z3 A ,, .
j i
[ 'd / ' '
2 ?, '
" gf . . . .
J.
t -
, . K ~ .
y
'*' ? ,{ *i. . .
y.
5H -
-3 4 ,
)
e .
= -
'e, e f
\ s
- *~
+.
9 -
m; a.- E.4, s.
^ ^
- d. .
-t
,t y . .'
...:$. . . k. 4 ....y hm -
l' r -
'h1 'e.T s A' 1 '
..: hh p* P- Fj
,p6. . . y3
- i. s:
. -:~$1; --9
-g , L'
'Q.
.g + .o .,
- '.- -)
=
C. , . ..
...a F b 1 .-s'd
, .o e
s s7 AVE OF catsos
,_a e ccv - Ets
. :t :-. e.. . ..: : 4=-
60,YE**yu -un'"<'m:
AOBE AT 5 V.UNSC>- . **:-
o c . r .a .s:=c: a : ' ae
...,vasas;=csoc:v vts , - , .,
I -L.
et. > ' ; ;a o
. ssvas ass 4s etoes m k
. . v: r > '" 2,7.y S 22 P3:9
$[Cp HOUSE OF ,
R EPR ESENT ATIN ES gg I February 18, 1985 E
StiMD FEB 25 The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman i geo 20
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As a member of the Kansas Legislature, I am deeply concerned k electrical with the approaching conditional licensure of the Wolk Cree generating station. It is my understanding that this licensureinto that open investigations exist may occur in spite of the factmatters such as alleged construction defects Since such matters are directly relevant to the issue deficiencies.
of"~p7 ant safety I ask for your assistance.
Correspondence between your office and the offices of Con is clear from a review of the Congressmen's for our review. It questions and your response that:
- 1) A substantial number of structural steel welds have been found to be below accepted standards;
- 2) Investigations into the weld deficiencies are underway, including such issues as missing, f alsified or erroneous quality assurance records; and including problems
- 3) Unanswered safety questions remain, relating to the safe separation of electrical cables.
I would like to express my concern and the concern of many other Kansans relating to the saf e and economical production has of nuclear-generated been the object of scrutiny 'a'e electricity. The Wolf Creek project frem this Legislature and from other agencies of state government.
have attempted to maximize the ability of our utility commission to review the project and determine the extent to which the ratepayers will assume construction related costs, rs] m oe [ ,, , , 1h~
C b D( f *- J '/ c 7 1 4.:~( (%
1 P3
o o:r.ar. . . .r:;
- - Page 2 7
However. Congress has established that your co= missiond isoperation the reviev cechanism for all matters relating to the safe construction anIt is in that c of nuclear plants. '
I ask that all investigations, including any pre-investment matters pending, in the Office of Investigation and of Inspection and Enforcement. be1 ask that y concluded in a comprehensive and thorough manner.
be made available to me, to the Kansas Congressional dO issuance of a conditional.
I ask that these things be done prior to the " - ,
les-power operating license.
It is essential that all questions When the power is turned on at Wolf Creek. Only these conditions have been answered and all safety standards met. h perational will provide the needed assurances to Kansas to validate t e o integrity of the Wolf Creek plant.
I express my appreciation for your consideration of this matter. I l
Very truly yours.
C ~-~ t m C {lt bert S. Wunsch l
Representative 101st District i
RSW: 1sf !
l l
l 3
1 4
~~ o w.
CTATE OF KAN2A3 Y' c- ?
Wvenu HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 14, 1985 The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman E Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.+.
- r. . ag . a , 0.c.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We, the undersigned, members of the Kansas Senate and House of Representatives, are deeply concerned with the approach-ing conditional licensure of the Wolf Creek electrical generating station. It is our understanding that this licensure may occur in spite of the fact that open investigations exist into matters such as alleged construction defects and quality assurance de-ficiencies. Since such matters are directly relevant to the issue of plant safety, we ask for your assistance.
Correspondence between your office and the offices of Congressman Dan Glickman and Congressman John D. Dingell has been made available for our review. It is clear from our review of the Congressmen's questions and your response that:
- 1) A substantial number of structural steel welds have been found to be below accepted standards;
- 2) Investigations into the weld deficiencies are underway, including such issues as missing, falsified or erroneous quality assurance records; and
- 3) Unanswered safety questions remain, including problems relating to the safe separation of electrical cables.
We have, for several years, expressed our concerns and our citizen's concerns relating to the safe and economical pro- EEM duction of nuclear generated electricity. The Wolf Creek project has been the object of scrutiny from this Legislature and from other agencies of state government. We have attempted to maximize the ability of our utility commission to review the project and determine the extent to which the ratepayers will assume construction related costs.
~
b! =
qv iV
Honorcblo Nunzio Policdino
' February 14, 1985 Cage Two D'
However, Congress has established that your commission is the review mechanism for all matters relating to the safe construction and operation of nuclear plants. It is in that capacity that we seek your assistance.
We ask that all investigations, including any pre-invest-igation matters pending in the Office of Investigation and of Inspection and Enforcement, be concluded in a comprehensive and thorough manner. We ask that your findings be made available to us, to the Kansas Congressional delegation, our Governor and Attorney General, and to the Kansas Corporation Commission. We ask that these things be done prior to the issuance of a conditional, low-power operating license.
When the power is turned on at Wolf Creek, it is essential that all questions have been answered and all safety standards met. Only these conditions will provide the needed assurances to Kansas to validate the operational integrity of the Wolf Creek plant.
We ask for your prompt response, and express our appre- -
ciation for your consideration of this matter.
i Sincerely,
/
/? k a m 2A Rep. R.H. Miller Gep.
~
vin Wm. % kis
>A J
/
~ stn, r//f -
k.) '
el Johnston Ser Wint Winter R/p xfBladd0 en Grotewiel / Sen. Augu w na,'J .
/
_. . b v b m t.JY .
ps _ - &
Rep. Richard Schmidt 'R . Kenneth W. Green
,3Q1UJ RepIH.G. Dillon Rep. Bill Wisdom D
i e n~ L Rep Kent Campbell { . Joan Wagno[
/ L
/ n% tO Y b ,, [L
/ Rep. Rep. Theo Cribbs 9 nr'yH"el(ers[
BK Ad.
Rep. Anthony Hensley I AAW
[ep. Judit.h C.
WRunnels L A- i h%n Odavn -Q C cE- dz'--, [
M . Jean Adam , ohnSgpta)d
( /
l} /l 's a o ,' '
j '!,l . _ b p' ,f Rep. Darrel Webb Rep. Joh' Sblbach
/ /h
,$j rwn > - 17.idt(hfDU*[
Rep. Ruth LuzzatY8 Rep. Homer E. Jarchow
,/f t' % '
m '+s W\'
Rep [ ack Lacey Rep. ,$ ry F. Turnquht
~
f km h
> / c.b . ([.
Re'g.NormanlE.f(fstice Rep. Rick Bowden l
I n.a f n- / ,; G /,
Rep.' Donna Whiteman h! .
Re[GeoJheR."Dfan
- p. '$I j'fT (
pep. Gary BNImenthal Rep. Don M. Rezac 1 i oh
.' O . ' _
f \ , no.' % :_. (1 }
Rep. Jessie Bransb5~ Rep. Diane G# jerst[d
/ csn _
Ar _2 L.
dep. Mar ne % hnson rip. Jack Shriver
v' t 2 vu
Rep. Duane A. Goossen Ms.WQ fQ& hxh&
Rep. Elaine Hassler i Ll itu /
f.?L %<w g.- g
,Rdp. Vincent K. Snowbarger/ 7z,p g igzabeth Bake 2
'I i... .t Re . Denise C. Apt Rep. Burt DeBaun 5
eP. eh Kline (-./ ' /J$$$s%'n '
b.'Gaylh'Mollenk p
.t / '?
o/ W) / '
- ?:- .
ALn.
Rep. S. .54#qrs A Rep. Nancy Brown
.i
-%Rep. E *,in 1 \ Ed _
Bideau, III R'ep. Rex B. Hoy M'
Rep. C yde D. Graeber R6;i. Don 5311ee
[&
R[p( Mike O'Neal
_/ e 2? }
Rep. A1Ramir[
af Rep. Richard Eckert i?( 17 b A Rep. Martha Jenkins
Sen. Phil' Martin Yb Sen . Josepn -P. Norv OkNE 1
M :==^- - / /t'/l , m syy en. James L. Fcancisco / Sen. Richard G. Gannon M
/ q'n.
? .Tobn Strick, Jr. ' V Rep.' illiam Rn rY f'ly74LL1 Sen.' Bill fulich P
w.4/&
esse Hardef
/ '2 /h t 4 h4 *1 .
_A Sed. " y Parrish T Rep, b.v. J4sm [oper inuO / n
- . Euge 6 An erson Sen. Paul Teleciano,'Jr.*'
,,.-e , .-.--,,--.---c- - , - - - - , - -- - ,- --.--m .,
~
. * ,,? ,d m -
g, w M u YAW "s /
- fW Rep. Patricia Weaver Rep. Donald Mainey /
f Rep. Bill Brady / 2
^
$ .m ) u Rdp. KatWryn Sughry Ce M/' s .- &. W. , y Rep. LeRoy I[# Fry '
t
_ // v s nep. C.C. Love R6p. Mich p J.'Peterson hm w
. $AW
' Rep. George [eagarcen ADu v/mi Rep. Ken Francisco r
Rep. [etN.y Jo Charlton l$ SSI O h Rep. Bill Reardon I /
~
~
Eep. Robin Leach l
1
L' ' h/z , _ {
Vancr'uin -
~
Re'p. Robe /t , Rep. Rfthur Douville
~
Rep , Ke'ry Patrick Reh J.C. Long R .
A C- ger Barr As Rep. Wanda Fuller dis)
.x ,,n w ' q_ = g "~$ Va 4.X'p- y ..
Re D on Fox [ Rep oe Knop) \
.-g, Rep. Keith Roe " Rep. Stephen R. Cloud
~
< ({* / s'. :
gep. Kelt Y. 'Ott Rep. awrence /J . Wilbert n AM4 ) _
Y
/ Rep. James E. Lowther Rep.'FranXYJ. Buehler
/ / *
$0 *
$ Gm C~ I Rep., Ed C. Rolfs ,
[ Rep. Robert D. Miller
'ir Rep 4lk%
Dennis $ aniol fYW&
Kep. Thomas F. Walker e
//AA+1L ~
W Rep. Vernon Williams Rep.'E ne L. Sh' ore '
/Rep. WWbo Kenneth R. King Rep. David F. Louds
N, Rep. David G. Milh r ,
Rep. J.S. Duncan (a)
V IM.n ./ . - -.
repfo'avia sein%nn I
i I
f
)
p t, /
p
.%'./ L.-
~
^~
wI . - .l a., m o ww la$e Ommi43 Ion
- - Orfsoral Ion Qgj' Fourm Floor. Swa of6ce Sidg.
N" ** . ...
TOPEKA. KANSAS 66612 '1571 1
, November 5, 1084 Mr. Darrell Eisenhut Dire < t,r of Paactor Licensing, 5
United States Nuclear Regulatory u.,i.u.umor, N op Washington, D.C. 20555 -
Dear Mr. Eisenhut:
We have recently received from Kansas Gas"t. Electric Company a copy of NRC Inspection Peport No. 50-482/84-22 in Docket No.
50-482 (Wolf Creek Generating Station). The report was generated following an inspection conducted between June 11, 1984 and September 28, 1984. Generally, the report concludes that two violations were identified: (1} failure to achure conformance of i safety-related structural steel welds with requirements; and (2) failure to maintain adequate' electrical separation. {
Specifically, the report cites a variety of problems which appear to be substantial:
During a review of OA/0C and Quality First personnel qualifications and subseque'nt interviews, the NRC l inspector became aware of potential problems with corrective action reports CAR 29 and 31. The NRC inspector subsequently obtained copies of the two documents. CAR l-W-0029 (initiated on March 22, 1983) states, in part, ' Subsequently to'the issuance of CAR 1-W-0019, quality has instituted a random reinspection of accessible structural steel' fillet welds in all O buildings. It has been determined by the results of this reinspection,that an unaccaptable percentage of these welds are deficient in the auxiliary, control, and fuel buildings.' Attached documentation revealed that in the auxiliary ouilding, 60 welds were E inspected, with 53 being rejected. In the control and fuel buildings, 50 we'1ds were inspected with 43 i rejected, and 53 inspected with 35 rejections, "
l re ss.e c t i ve ly. Revision 2 to CAR l-W-0029 stated in the -
- disposition that the defective welds would be
/ transferred to a Nonconformance Report (NCR). The NRC inspector obtained a copy of NCR ISN 10381PW which was f used as the vehicle to carry out the direction provided l by CAR l-W-0029. It appears that DIC Project Welding g Engineering personnel again reinspected the welds to
- 1. . .
- c n-' C'iiC5' DR'dDOCK 03000 qg
- L'
.ar .
Letter Mr. Darrell Eisenhut Page 2 7
more clearly define the nature andAextent of the majority of the defects on a weld-by-weld basis.
defective welds were categorized as having " cosmetic" defects.
The DIC recommended disposition was use-as-is.
for welds identified containing " cosmetic" defects. '
The NCR states that " cosmetic" defects include arc strikes, convexity, cold roll (understood to be '
porosity, and acceptable synonymous with overlap),The NRC inspector noted with amounts of undercut.
respect to these defects that overlap is prohibited by b
che gevarning AWS P' 5 '9 Code, and specific acre,'ance -
criteria for the other detects are also definec Oy tu-
~ ..
Code.
e *
- On August 16, 1983, DIC personnel issued CAR l-C-0031 which indicated that approximatley 16.4 percent of the "O" miscellaneous structural steel welding records After corresponding back for welding could not be located. -
and forth, DIC and the engineer concluded that it was acceptable for some amount of these records to be j missing, provided that the quality inspection program J was acceptable. Senior licensee QA management j expressed to the NRC inspector that the program had obviously been fully successful since very few welds had been found to require repair after a substantial The NRC reinspection effort associated with CAR 29. f inspector expressed concern with this approach to resolution and suggested that the licensee reevaluate their position.
During the week of September 17, 1984, a reinspection l
of the identified structural members with the highest I design loads or the lowest Thedesign strength reinspection safety a identified margin was initiated.
number of welds which do not meet drawing requirements. This information was presented to the NRC staf f during a meeting conducted on September 25, b 1984. In an effort to confirm certain of the identified conditions, the NRC inspector accompanied r DIC welding inspectors into the reactor building This to q
observe specific, identified weld joints. l observation confirmed the welding inspectors' findings; '
e.g., welds that are undersized and of insufficient length, lack of fusionr=ahd missing welds.
The missing welds are from the same location in each of six pressurizer support connections. Certain connections of the were (
other welds in the pressurizer support
V a-Let'ter Mr. Darrell Eisenhut
~
Page 3 undersized and of insufficient length. Drawing No.
C-05 2904 shows that various length 5/8-inch welds are required in 14 specific locations. Four locations required a 5/8-inch fillet weld of 8 inches in length.
The actual welds in two of the locations measured between 3/8-inch and 1/2-inch by 5 inches in length, and 1/2-inch by 3 inches in length. The missing welds and the undersized, insufficient length welds are clearly not in compliance with the requirements of the l drawing or AWS Dl.1-75. The initial weld inspection record- 1. r chase connections coul.. ..ot ! - lec::te d.
I The NRC inspector accompanied two DIC welding inspectors for reinspection of nine structural steel Drawing No.
connections in the auxiliary building.
K6720, applicable to these connections, shows 12 weld locations per connection with certain of the welds requiring returns. Reinspection of the welds and returns involved provided the following summarized data:
- Missing welds' 2
- Welds with insufficient length 9 6
- Undersized welds
- Undersize welds with insufficient length 2 I
t
- Overlength returns 44 Undersize returns 25
- Undersize returns with insufficient length 1 1 The NRC inspector requested the initial weld inspection !
records for these welds and returns in the 9 reinspected connections. As of September 28, 1984, the 1
I only inspection records that were located pertained to 10 welds and 6 returns in one connection, and 8 welds i and 4 returns in each of 3 other connections. These l records did not indicate that the welds were anything j other than acceptable. The licensee informed the NRC ;
inspector of a situation where one inspection record for connection 524B2 clearly indicated by an ateched sketch the existence of the a weld that reinspection found not to exist. This problem will be followed'up in conjunction with the other structural steel problems.
The SRC inspector made a comparison between the existing initial inspection records and the results of i
4
.~
W .
. Lot *ter Mr. Darrell Eisenhut Page 4 se the reinspection effort in order to determine the -
validity of the initial records. The initial records show that the 10 welds with 6 returns in one connection 11, 1978. The were inspected and accepted on December
- reinspection identified one undersized weld, other undersized and overlength returns, and three overlength um returns. The initial records for the other three connections show that eight welds with four returns per ,
)
connection were inspected and accepted on September 8, g 1979. The reinspection of these welds and returns u' ntified two returns ...m.: yma c.verlengt5 and j
i undersized and two retur% which were overla.%cn pe c .
Connection.
The f ailure to execute the required welding inspection program is a violation of Criterion X of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. (482/8422-01).
We note that you have recently been quoted by the press as indicating that these welding problems could portend extensive j delays. We assume that you now question the most recent load.
NRC case Due to load forecast panel estimate for the date of fuel
[
l it is necessary that we the ratemaking impact of project delay,this time of the length of inquire as to your best estimate at project delay occasioned by the defects identified in the above-referenced inspection report.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, KANSAS CORPORATION COM. MISSION l
l u rtV %_ '
i_
- Michael Lennen Chairman ,
i
/ fd K f.Xhstd C . e( Pe t e ) J'.oux Commissioner /
t - f eith R.'Henley' /\
U Commissioner RF/jlm
- Y TOPEKA l .
HOUSC OF l REPRESENTATIVES February 14, 1985 The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman .
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We, the undersigned, members of the Kansas Senate and House of Representatives, are deeply concerned with the approach-ing conditional licensure of the Wolf Creek electrical generating station. It is our understanding that this licensure may occur i in spite of the fact that open investigations exist into matters l such as alleged construction defects and quality assurance de-ficiencies. Since such matters are directly relevant to the issue of plant safety, we ask for your assistance.
Correspondence between your office and the offices of Congressman Dan Glickman and' Congressman John D. Dingell has been made available for our review. It is clear from our review of the Congressmen's questions and your response that:
- 1) A substantial number of structural steel welds have been found to be below accepted standards;
- 2) Investigations into the weld deficiencies are underway, including such issues as missing, falsified or erroneous quality assurance records; and
- 3) Unanswered safety questions remain, including problems relating to the safe separation of electrical cables.
We have, for several years, expressed our concerns and our citizen's concerns relating to the safe and economical pro-duction of nuclear generated electricity. The Wolf Creek project has been the object of scrutiny from this Legislature and from other agencies of state government. We have attempted to maximize the ability of our utility commission to review the project and determine the extent to which the ratepayers will assume construction related costs.
Q c pf, n n $ .t , ir '*
a su e m -t't.L- s'QR f
. Honorable Nunzio Pollodino February 14, .' ~4 5 ,
- Page Two ;
I However, Congress has established that your commission
{ is the review mechanism for all matters relating to the safe !
construction and operation of nuclear plants. It is in that capacity that we seek your assistance. 1 We ask that all investigations, including any pre-invest-igation matters pending in the Office of Investigatio,n and of Inspection and Enforcement, be concluded in a comprehensive and thorough manner. We ask that your findings be made available to us, to the Kansas Congressional delegation, our Governor and Attorney General, and to the Kansas Corporation Commission. We ask that these things be done prior to the issuance of a conditional, low-power operating license.
When the power is turned on at Wolf Creek, it is essential that all questions have been answered and all safety standards met. Only these conditions will provide the needed assurances to Kansas to validate the operational integrity of the Wolf Creek plant.
We ask for your prompt response, and express our appre- -
ciation for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
/
/?kk nn24, ~ ,A .J Rep. R.H. Mille _r Gep. vin Wm. M rkis /
L $f* m ff /A ~
l Johnston Wi nt Winter
, Ser?
twJ R/p.fenTrot wiel c d.
/ Sen. Augu na,'J .
C~
e . -
7~ep.LlsJar R Richard Schmidt &'R~. Kenneth J GreenW.
Rep IH.G.'Dillon Rep. Bill Wisdom
~
& !?d Rep Kent Campbell .
JoanWagno[
h/i. . . 1 '
R'e'p. Robe [t q Vancrum Rep. Withur Douville Rep . Ke ry Patrick Reh J.C. Long i R .
A- ger Barr A sJ/A )
Rep. Wanda Fuller Rep. Ron Fox [
w c Rep w<' %
oe Knopp \
J
~
Rep. Keith Roe " Rep. Stephen R. Cloud
/
- Y' ?). ,. ((o .c ' :f gep! Ke"dt Y. 'Ott Rep. awrence /J . Wilbert
! N$,'
/ftep. Ja'mes E. Lowtfier d d w' Rep.'FrankYJ. Buehler W.
. :. k . K .,L . /b: c,.,'ir
/) 6 - (Q U n .
Re'p., Ed C. Rolfs Rep. Robert D. Miller bNs/kwk Rep Dennis $ aniol f f')f&
R'ep . Thomas F. Walker k' $5tw Rep. Vernon Williams Rep.'E NAiu ne L. Sh' ore'
~
d ,rKh . n O] * /W ~
,w Rep. Kenneth R. King rvmmn Rep. David F. Louls
[A[ 2's, 1 dep. nry He ders ' R'e'p. Theo Cribbs
- K Rep. Anthony Hensley gl I
, gygfQ
[ep. Judith C. Runnels
- Chm &kwn . Oc 6m '
M.JoanAdam oh S te.
/
/ /
/j '; ) 1 i .$. f+r / / ff Rep. Darrel Webb Rep. Joh' Solbach 1T. m \ 'A' AmZ , f. d '
Rep. Ruth Lu'zzatf8 ' ' Rep. Homer E. Jarchow
[. 7 O ft'K.Xa %. m 3 ~ - v.-
Re [ ack Lacey Rep. N ry F. Turnquht n _ > . , {$ %-"
Re' ."NormanlE. [stice \ Rep. Ric,k Bowden c n .,*.> . j u, Ac n u / 1, [i }' / '
RepI Geo,rfe R."Dfan Rep.' Donna Whiteman ft
& , a s. ! / # fc.
Rep. Garyj B al Rep. Don M. Rezac
.u daMA
~
Rep. Jessie Branson Rep. Diane #jerst[d G
/ on _
d' L Rep.' Mar ne Q hnson rip . Jack Shriver
.}*m st.S vu.* #' . # '1 1 - ( k. b1 ,t Uv' Rep. Duane A. Goossen, Rep. Elaine Hassler S
^
l % 'i?. . .". i' ,. y g A6p. Vincent K. Snowbarger Rep d lizabeth B.ake t
Rep.)Denise C. Apt Rep. Burt DeBaun u o Rep. Phil Kline
/4Lhm'
~
p,'Gdyl'e Mollenk p
, o l-- / '/
- i. /
,. -!^j',; ,//( L.< j ~
- - C x., .
Rep. S.B. S'fqrs 6 Rep. Nancy Brown i
V Np. E 'n i Bideau, III R'eP. Re'x B. Hoy I. .' d
!"7 % -f / ( <^-
- Rep. C yde D. Graeber R6p. Don Sallee R[p. Mike O'Neal d4MU >
Re).A1Ramirg[
f /
c bc/
Rep. Richard Eckert f
L' o I A Rep. Martha Jenkins
syn. Phil' Martii1 c" $N Sen. Joseph -P.
(~.SYV\ '
Norvpil h
' l4> ./ i Y _ _ ==
^
t / *b: / -
/ 1 i . . ,s zs en. James L. Francisco ' Sen. Richard'G. Gannon d JIt
- n. John Strick, Jr. ' V Rep.' illiam Ro rY AM '
S'en. ' Bill kulich
' w.n esse Hardei 37Mke d i t4 'l .
Sed. '
cy Parrish TR ep. b.V. )8Em [oper
/d 1 0 / W tuge 5 A erhon
/ #_
l Sen. Paul Feleciano,"Jr.
O
. a _, --
M .b2w *
.. d.'9 c/> -
Rep. Patricia Weaver Rep. Donald Mainey Rep. Bill Brady / > .
$ n1 ) LLJ Q Rdp. Kat hyn Sughrug Rep. LeRoy F( Fry
//
- ep. C.C. Love
? cm R(p. Mich p J.'Peterson N
' Rep. George [eagarden
/Du wlmenn Rep. Ken Francisco Rep. petky Jo Charlton l$ 2 h. M Rep. Bill Reardon I i /
hep. Rob'in Leach V
&~
, . ~
S Rep. David G. Milh r ,
Rep. J.S. Duncan
~
MD/
Rep D' avid Hein nn
r- 7' I
p i
l A N_
erry --
-. % ?
g' p u 3 j, OUCH 2Of OWOfenOSS network r ,>
T["
l' U
- f. . .,i r a 8 -
U47Xmmuew+usetts.lourecce, LW 66044 ' ,O .
l ..
-M985 _'"
Ben Hayes Director of Office of Investigations USNRC I
Washington, D.C. 20555 9
1'
- l. . l . Ill . . . . l . i . . l . l . . l . l. . . l l .1 l ,
i
( .h.
~W / --
U.S. NRC !
l
- 55 FEB 27 IJiII: 51 ;
i
' '. :: Ci i:,n :.T.;..;
nUCear . awareness . nettuere 1347% rrnssachusetts . burence, kansas 66044 .(9135749-1640 l l
We wished to be assured that your office has received a copy !
of this letter to NRC Chairman Palladino from 101 Kansas legislators.
i 1
)
Sincerely, d
Stevi Stephens l
l l
l 10 J
is jd 4, UNITED STATES g? ' >j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
((
'%.,,,./
l orricE or NVESTIGATioNS FIELD OFFICE. REGION IV
'" "74~ an'. TsihW! ""
DATE: June 29, 1984 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION TITLE: WOLF CREEK NUCLEAP P0k'EP. STATI0l.:
ALLE6ED INTIMIDATION OF QUALITY C0fiTRCL Ih!FECTOR SUPPLEMENTAL NO. DN 50-482 CASE NUMBER: 4-84-003 CONTROL OFFICE: 01 FIELD OFFICE: REGION IV STATUS: CLOSED PERIOD OF INVESTIGATION: January 10, 1983 - March 9, 1984 REPORTING INVESTIGATOR: JA N Vendel E. Fr~ost, Invest.igator -
Office of Investigations Fielo Office, Region IV e
PARTICIPATING PERSONNEL: H. Brooks Griffin, Investigator Office of Investigaticrs Field Office, Region IV REVIEWED BY: 24 l
~RicTiardT. Her'r, Director Office of Investigatier.s Field Office, Region IV ,
t r
' }N Rog~erVo tuna, ' Deputy Direct Office Investigations APPROVED BY: M brT. Hayes, Dire @/
M Office of Investigatichs i,
M
'PP
g aa 1
SUMMARY
An allegation was received by the Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), that a Daniel International Corporation (DI) Quality Control (QC) inspector at the Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Burlington, Kansas, had been intimidated by a DI senior QC supervisor. The alleged intimidation caused the DI QC inspector to terminate his employment because his freedom to report nonconforming conditions had been eliminated.
The DI QC inspector was interviewed and stated that he had been the subject of a meeting wherein a DI senior QC supervisor made intimidating statements to him, including the statement, " Cooperate with construction." The DI QC inspector stated that he performed all his inspection duties in a proper manner; however, he voluntarily terminated his employment 23 days after the date the alleged intimidation occurred because he believed that his freedom to report nonconforming conditions had been eliminated.
A DI QC lead hanger inspector who was a witness to the alleged act of intimi-dation and who kept a diary of the incident was interviewed. This QC lead hanger inspector provided the diary to the reporting investigator. The diary reflects the date the meeting took place and the quotes and comments that were made by the DI senior QC supervisor to the DI QC inspector. The quoted wording contained in the diary is, "Everyone in this seg. will cooperate, including craf t" (the word " including" was written using a shorthand symbol) and "These welds will not be held up over nitpick problems."
The DI senior QC supervisor who allegedly made the intimidating statements was interviewed and denied making any intimidating statements to the DI QC inspector in question. The DI senior QC supervisor stated that statements like, " Cooperate with construction" or any other statements of that type would, if stated by a supervisor in his position, be intimidating to QC personnel.
Subsequently, this same DI senior QC supervisor was reinterviewed at his own request the next day and admitted making the following statement to the DI QC inspector in question, "There is no room in this organization for people who !
q ** 1 cannot work together;" however, he denied making the statement, " Cooperate with construction." The DI senior QC supervisor denied attempting to intimidate the DI QC inspector, even though he acknowledged that a statement like " cooperate with construction" is an intimidating statement.
The DI project QC inspection manager who is the DI senior QC supervisor's immediate supervisor was interviewed and stated he was aware that a meeting occurred between a QC inspector and the senior QC supervisor; however, he denied having any other knowledge concerning the meeting, i
. , > . - ,m- - - - - -m. wnang,, , nw--. - ---m.- , ,, - , , , , w c- ,---- --m- r- ,
d* 1 s
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Title Pege No.
Purpose of Investigation . . . . . . . . . .............. 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Interview of P6ui D. HALE . . .................... 3 Interview of Howard SIGREST . .................... 4 Interview of Edward SPEVLIN . .................... 5 Reinterview of Edward SHEVLIN .................... 6 Interview of Ronnie McCRANEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Status of Investigation . . . .................... 9 Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . .................... 10 t
_ _ _ - - , - . _ ~ _ , . . . _ _ . _ . . , _ . . _ -
.-o- --mwe, g
- 1 DETAlLS
3 e
Purpose of Investigation The purpose of this investigation was to determine if a Daniel International Corporation senior QC supervisor at the Wolf Creek nuclear power plant in Burlington, Kansas, had intimidated a DI QC inspector at the plant, causing the QC inspector to terminate his employment because his freedom to report nonconforming conditions had been eliminated and he could no longer properly perform his duties as a quality control inspector.
Q.
C S
t k
}
l I
i I
1 i i
- l. ,
Background
On December 20, 1983, Paul B. HALE, a QC inspector for D!, telephonically contacted NRC Investigator Wendel E. FROST and alleged numerous technical allegations as well as one allegation of intimidation.
On January 10, 1984, Paul B. HALE, a former DI QC inspector, was interviewed by Wendel E. FROST, and executed a signed, sworn statement. HALE described 12 technical allegations which were subsequently reported by the Office of Investigations Field Office (0IF0), Region IV, NRC, on January 26, 1984, under 01 Report No. Q4-84-002. One of HALE's additional concerns involved alleged intimidation by one of his supervisors whom he identified as Edward SHEVLIN, DI Senior QC Inspector. According to HALE, the alleged intimidation caused him to terminate his employment because his freedom to report nonconforming conditions had been eliminated, and he could no longer properly perform his duties as a QC inspector. On January 31, 1984, the Region IV OIF0 self-initiated an investigation addressing this specific alleged act of intimidation.
l l
, . . , I l
Interview of Paul B. HALE On January 10, 1984, Paul B. HALE, a former QC inspector for DI at Wolf Creek, was interviewed by NRC Investigators Wendel E. FROST and H. Brooks GRIFFIN in Bloomington, Illinois. HALE executed a signed, sworn statement which is included with this' report as Exhibit (1).
HALE detailed an incident that occurred on November 30, 1983, wherein his immediate supervisor, Howard SIGPEST, DI Lead Hanger QC Inspector, contacted him (HALE) and explained that the D1 senior QC supervisor, Ed SHEVLIN, had requested a meeting with SIGREST and himself (HALE) in his (SHEVLIN's) office.
HALE stated that after he and SIGREST arrived at SHEVLIN's office, SHEVLIN told him (HALE) to cooperate with construction. HALE remarked that SHEVLIN also told him that he (SHEVLIN) would not have anyone working with him who would not cooperate. HALE related that he felt intimidated by SHEVLIN due to SHEVLIN insisting upon his (HALE's) cooperation with construction, and added that this was a determinating factor in his resignation on December 23, 1983.
HALE explained that after the intimidating conversation by such a high-ranking DI official, he could not effectively inspect or perform his (HALE's) inspection duties knowing that he (HALE) was supposed to cooperate with construction. HALE stated that between the time of the meeting and his voluntary termination, he performed all his QC inspection duties properly.
HALE related that after the meeting, Howard SIGREST told him (HALE) that he (SIGREST)feltSHEVLINhadintimidatedhim(HALE). HALE related SIGREST remarked that he was going to document in writing that the meeting had oCCu rret..
3
J Interview of Howard SIGREST On March 8, 1984, Howard SIGREST, Lead Hanger Inspector for DI at Wolf Creek, was interviewed by NRC Investigator Wendel E. FROST in New Strawn, Kansas.
SIGREST executed a signed, sworn statement which is included with this report w as Exhibit (2). SIGREST also agreed to mail a copy of his diary to the reporting investigator. On March 13, 1984, reporting investigator received through the mail a copy of SIGREST's diary that documented the incident in question, which is included with this report as Exhibit (3).
SIGREST detailed an incident that occurred on November 30, 1983, in which he was a witness to a meeting that occurred between Paul 8. HALE, DI QC Inspector, and Ed SHEVLIN, DI Senior QC Supervisor. SIGREST related that SHEVLIN had received allegations from craft concerning HALE's attempt to slow construction on a BB system (safety related piping) by giving only one problem at a time to craft. HALE was also accused of telling craft from the start that he was not going to approve (" buy off") the work.
SIGREST related that SHEVLIN had received the allegations against HALE on November 29, 1983. SIGREST stated that upon SHEVLIN's request he escorted HALE to meet SHEVLIN on November 30, 1983.
SIGREST related that both men were tense over the issue of the meeting.
SIGREST recalls SHEVLIN saying, "I'll have no one on my team and no one in my organization that doesn't play ball."
SIGREST, when asked if he felt that the statement made by SHEVLIN to HALE was intimidating, stated he preferred not to make a judgement, however, stated that he was surprised that SHEVLIN had made a statement of this nature to HALE.
SIGREST related he did not recall telling HALE that he felt SHEVLIN had intimidated him (HALE), but did recall telling HALE that he (SIGREST) would document the meeting in writing, including SHEVLIN's statements.
1 4
l
Interview of Edward SHEVLIN On March 8,1984, Edward SHEVLIN, Senior QC Supervisor for DI at Wolf Creek, was interviewed by NRC Investigator Wendel E. FROST at the Wolf Creek nuclear power plant. SHEVLIN executed a signed, sworn statement which is included with this report as Exhibit (4).
SHEVLIN related his version of a meeting that occurred between himself and Paul B. HALE, DI QC Inspector, in about November of 1983. SHEVLIN could not recall anyone else being present at the meeting. SHEVLIN related that he had received complaints from construction that HALE was holding up the work on a BB system (safety related) by finding problems one at a time. SHEVLIN related he felt that HALE was incorrect about concerns he (HALE) had involving material identification on weld records in reference to crossover pipes.
SHEVLIN related that he discussed the problem with HALE, but denied saying to HALE, " Cooperate with construction" and "I will not have anyone work for me who will not cooperate." SHEVLIN also denied saying, "I'll have no one on my team and no one in my organization that doesn't play ball."
SHEVLIN related that he would never make these kinds of statements to any QC personnel. SHEVLIN related he felt that any statements of that type would definitely be intimidating to any QC personnel.
SHEVLIN related that he did not receive any instructions from any of his supervisors to talk to HALE. SHEVLIN stated that neither man lost his temper in the meeting. SHEVLIN related he felt that both men had reached a mutual understanding when the meeting was completed.
5
. ~- .
Interview of Ronnie McCRANEY On March 8,1984, Ronnie McCRANEY, Project QC Inspection Manager for DI at Wolf Creek, was interviwed by NRC Investigator Wendel E. FROST at the Wolf Creek nuclear power station. McCRANEY executed a signed, sworn statement which is included with this report as Exhibit (6).
McCRANEY related he was aware of a meeting that took place between Edward SHEVLIN, DI Senior QC Supervisor, and Paul HALE, DI QC Inspector. McCRANEY related that he did not recall the meeting with any details as he had no part in the meeting. McCRANEY related he did not direct SHEVLIN to have the meeting, nor did he receive a briefing from SHEVLIN after the meeting occurred.
McCRANEY related the concerns of SHEVLIN that prompted the meeting were his own, and that SHEVLIN handled the problem at his own level of supervision.
McCRANEY denied having any other knowledge concerning the meeting.
I 6
Reinterview of Edward SHEVLIN On March 9,1984. Edward SHEVLIN, Senior QC Supervisor for DI at Wolf Creek, was reinterviewed by NRC Investigator Wendel E. FROST at the Wolf Creek nuclear power station at his own request. SHEVLIN executed a second signed, sworn statenent which is included with this report as Exhibit (5).
SHEVLIN related that af ter he had given reporting investigator a signed, sworn statenent on March 8,1984, he had talked to Howard SIGREST, DI Lead Hanger Inspector. SHEVLIN related that talking to SIGREST, a witness to the meeting, had refreshed his (SHEVLIN's) memory.
SHEVLIN remembers events leading up to the meeting as being the same as detailed in his first signed, sworn statement, dated March 8,1984. SHEVLIN related that he later recalled more details of the November 1983 meeting.
SHEVLIN related that HALE did not want to talk to SHEVLIN at all when the meeting first started. SHEVLIN related that HALE accused SHEVLIN of taking the side of craf t. SHEVLIN remarked he did not feel that he (HALE) was angry, only upset. SHEVLIN related that he (SHEVLIN) did not get angry as he deals with those types of problems every day. SHEVLIN related that the meeting lasted 20 to 30 minutes, and the results of the meeting were that SHEVLIN felt HALE was not totally wrong in his concerns and that craf t was not totally correct with their complaints. SHEVLIN again related that he felt both men had reached a mutual understanding.
SHEVLIN stated that he did make statements such as, "There is no room in this organization for people who cannot work together" to HALE. SHEVLIN denied that this statement was intended as an act of intimidation or threat. SHEVLIN related he did not feel that he was putting pressure on HALE.
SHEVLIN again denied saying to HALE, " Cooperate with construction," "I will not have anyone work for me who will not cooperate," and "I'll have no one on my team and no one in my organization that doesn't play ball."
7
SHEVLIN again emphasized that if he had made statements that strong, it would be intimidating to any QC personnel. SHEVLIN also denied becoming angry at the meeting.
INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: Pgrtinent extracts from SIGREST's diary, dated November 30, 1983 (Exhibit (3) pertains), reflect SHEVLIN's remarks as, "Everyone in this seg, will cooperate, including craft" (a shorthand symbol was used for the word " including") and "These welds will not be held up over nitpick problems."
\
a 8
L . . - _ _ _ . _ - - . - . _ - . _ - . -. _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ - - - _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ - -
J STATUS OF INVESTIGATION The status of this investigat'on is CLOSED.
9
N s
-i Nw ,. - ,
i . .-
. ee e. <
EXHIBITS
\
I l (1) Signed, Sworn Statement of Paul B. HALE 1-10-84
?
(2) Signed, Sworn Statement of Howard SIGREST 3-08-84
{ (3) Diary of Howard SIGREST 11-30-83 n,
,i (4) Signed, Sworn Statement of Edward SHEVLIN ^ '
j 3-08-84 (5) Signed, Sworn Statement of Edward SHEVLJN 3-09-84 r
(6) Signed, Sworn Statement of Ronnie McCRANEY 3-08-84 s.
s k
s %
s
- s N.
s g ,, Y a
10
. N Pi t.;i :
i>r f. y g yg Elcon incton, Illinois
- ,D ATI
- 1-10-r4 l 1, Paul B. Half, hereby male the following vbluntary stattnient to Wendel E.
FR031 and Brooks H. GRIFFIN, who have identified themselves to me as Investigators with the U.S. Nuclear Regul6 tory Comission. I make this statement f reely with no thrtats or promiset of reward hi.ving been made to me.
I was previously employed by Daniel Interr.ation Corporation (DI) as a Quality Control Inspector at the Wolf Creet Nuclear Power Station, Burlington, Kansas. I held that position for approximately 20 months and lef t DJ 's employment on December 23, 1983.
My first concern involving Wolf Creek stems f rom an incident that occurred to me in December 1983. I was called to do a cleanliness inspection, both internal and external, in the Pressurizer Room. Upon looking inside a horizontal run of pipe, a visual defect was noted. The piping in question is ID loop piping that comes out of the top of the pressurizer and is safety-related pipe. The weld with the defect that ! .am referring to is field Weld No. FW512, reference Drawing No. IM13-BB04Q. The visual defect that was noted in the weld was excessive penetration of unconsumed filler, this is cormnly referred to as a melt-through or a burn-through. This defect can be observed visually as unmelted portions of filler wire extrude from the weld and can be seen visually. Upon viewing this discrepancy, I asked the pipe fitter to call the 01 Foreman, Robert ATKINSON, and the DI Welding Superintendent, Bruce HARDEN, to the Pressurizer Room. Bruce HARDEN related to me that a meeting had transpired earlier that day between himself and DI Project Welding Engineer, Kieth HOLLING5 WORTH. The results of this rneeting were that even though both men knew that the weld did not meet acceptable standards and approved procedures on the site, no repair
.J would be dont on the weld because an acceptable radiograph was on file with
%. . Quality Control. I then asked for the DI Weld Engineer, Jack MAY, and his
%r? assistant, Gerald DOLNEY, to be present. Both men were sumoned to the Pressurizer Room at this time. All the above rentioned personnel then looked inside the pipe and agreed that the wcid was no: acceptable. I then N asked Jack MAY to issue weld repair instructions. Again Mr. MAY said that
.; he couldn't because the weld had an acceptable radiogr6ph on file with the p Quality Control Department. He told me that ht believe d we had a possible N 5055E reportable violation "on our hands.* I told Jact MAY not to be using those words so loosely at the time. Gerald DOLNEY (supra) expressed his
. concern that he wanted to talk to upper management about the problem; however, I suggested to Jact MAY that the proper thing to do was to write an hCR. I then requested verbally from Jack MAY a r(shot of the radiograph of field weld no. FW512. Jack MAY again refused the recuest, basing his deririon on the fact that an acceptable radiogra;.h was cn file.
At a lattr time, I was unable to take a loot at the rr.:%, graph that was supposed to have been for field weld $12. The Radiogi,, h Report Number was PBlR16813. This radiograph indicated that the joint cc.nfiguration of the EXHIBIT (1) (
g p. . W .
.c M 3
, _] M hhk.
weld was e pipe to elbow fit. The actual condition of field weld FW512 was a pipe-to-pipe fit, which indicated to me that the radiograph f or field weld FW512 was in fact a radiograph of a different w id.
Q.C. . Tl'A \ '
I made a request to the Supervisor af Eng4+ernsfor DI, Gary JONES, that a new radiograph be talen of the weld. Gary JONES denied my request. I then made the same request to my senior supervisor, Ed SHEVLIN. This request was also denied.
Mr. SHEVLIN told me that I had fulfilled my duty by reporting the condition and preparing an NCR. I later learned that the NCP No.15N14769PW that I had I prepared on field weld no. FW512 had been dispsitioned "use as is," with a Bechtel concurrence. 1 feel the reason ,
that this weld was not repaired was that DI was on a tight time schedule to complete the piping system, and rather than repair the weld or perform another radiocrerh, a decision was riade to cover up this problem in order t.o meet procuttion schedules. Even though I know of no witnesses, a meeting was supposed to have occurred between Keith HOLLINGSWORTH, DI project Weld Engineer, Jack MAY, DI Engineer, Ron McCRANNEY, DI Project Quality inspection Manager, and Ed SHEVLIN, DI Senior Quality Supervisor, that resulted in a decision to cover up the discrepancies of field weld no. 512.
j*,,-f 4 a g,-
- g. Sh5?dfphotographs sie of the weld to be taken by the site photographer,fg' lod STEELE. I had made arrangements for these photographs to be made available upon development to the NRC.
My second concern involving Wolf Creek stems from an instance where I felt I was intimidated by DI's Senior Quality Supervisor, Ed SHEVLIN. On November 30, 1983, Ed SHEVLlh called me and my DI Lead, Howard SIGREST, into his office. Ed SHEVLIN told me that I would cooperate with construction and that he would not have anyone work with him who would not cooperate. At this time, I felt I was intimidated by Ed SHEVLIN. His insistence upon my cooperation was a determining factor for my resignation on December 23, 1983. I felt after this intimidating conversation by such a high-ranking D1 official that I could not effectively inspect or perform ,
i my inspection duties knowing that I was supposed to cooperate with construction. I felt that this intimidation would keep me from properly l p performing my duties as a quality control inspector, and it is for this N Lead H S R r ,ae #
c H a SIGREST agreed with at tW D "de# tb Socument, in some type of written form, that this meeting had occurred.
(Q My third concern involving Wolf Creek deals with the technical issue of the quenching of stainless steel welds with the use of water. I a aware of L
three welds of which I knew that water was used to cool the stainless steel welds.
% These welds are (1) IM03-BB0700ZECR-17RW308, (2) IMD3-BG23QECR-27RW315, and (3) IM03-bG?l0ECR-16WD12A. ! am attaching I \
three documents to this statenent which supports and clarifies my concerns.
Attachment (1) is an intcr-office memorandum dated May 26, 1983, Attachment (2) is an inter-office menorandum dated June 9,1983, and Attachment (3) is a memorandum dated July 21, 1983. All three of these documents concern the quenching of stainless steel welds. This was a standard practice and does not violate code or procedure criteria, however, no action was ever taken after a request was made for procedural changes.
- l ,
The request for a procedural change was done by a D1 Quality Engineer, David MAULDEN who empressed concerns over the use of using water to quench stainless steel welds. David MAULDEN requested that additional iustification be put into the procedures for the continuing use of water as a method of quenching stainless steel welds. My concern is that David MAULDEN's request for procedural changes has never been properly addressed.
My fourth concern involving Wolf Creek involves potential quality problems that should have been directed to quality engineering for a response, but were short circuited by DI Supervisor, Richard BOOTH. Richard BOOTH decided that as supervisor he was qualified as a quality engineer to answer potential quality control problems. As a result of Richard BOOTH's ,
decision to short circuit these written requests, potential quality control problems were never addressed by a qualified quality engineer. I am att6 thing six three-part memorandums, Attachment Nos. (4-9), which will clarify my concern.
My fif th concern involving Wolf Creek concerns DI Supervisor, Richard BOOTH. During the course of my duties as quality control inspector, I wrote a surveillance report as required by APVll4 that was closed-out by Richard BOOTH, with a message "See attached memo." This type of answer violates surveillance procedure. I am enclosing Attachment (10), which is a memorandum from myself to Quality Engineering, and Attachment (11), which
(
ggf3 is a Quality Surveillance Report dated 5/83. I am also enclosing Attachment (12, which is a Quality Surveillance Report dated 8/8/83. These documents should help clarify my concerns of this issue.
My sixth concern involving Wolf Creek relates to an incident in which vendor spools were cut in half prior to inspections by Quality Control.
The traceability of metals was lost because these spools were cut in half prior to inspection. I am enclosing Attachment (13), which is a Quality Surveillance Report dated November 11, 1983, to help clarify this technical l issue. ,
1 l f My seventh concern involving Wolf Creek is in the way that changes to the gO NDE tags on site were processed. I feel that the way it is currently l
' handled violates AP-VI-05, which is a procedure which involves NDE N subcontractors. I am enclosing Attachment (14), which is a report entitle l $ Processing of NDE Reports. This attachment should clarify my technical
- concerns of this issue.
i \ 1 j Hy eighth concern involving Wolf Creek is a problem with generic NCR reports.
1 feel that the current procedure AP-VI-02 does not contain any requirements that would properly document generic NCR's I am enclosing Attachnent (15), which is a six-page document titled Generic References, l which should help clarify this technical issue. l My ninth concern involving Wolf Creek relates to the inproper documentation involving the heat number on a piece of traceable metal to be welded to a '
valve. I do not feel that Supervisor Richard BOOTH adequately handled this documentation. I am enclosing Attachment (16), my notes, which will give more detail to this concern.
& . . T_A__t / -- -_ a
4 My tenth concern involving Wolf Creek involves the use of small hanger parts (load pins and conical washers). I feel that these parts were not tagged in accordance with procedural requirements.
Attachment (17), a Quality Surveillance Report No. SR-601-N, andI am enclosing Attachment (18), which are my notes concerning the issue, as documentation that should clarify this technical issue.
My eleventh concern involving Wolf Creek deals with Nonconformance Report No. ISN12865P.
This NCR was voided because it was felt that this inspection was beyond the normal scope of a quality inspector activities .
I am enclosing ISN12865P. Attachment (19), which is Nnnconformance Report No.
The details reported in the NCR should clarify my concern on .
the improper voiding of nonconforr.ance reports.
Attachment (21), which is an inter-office r.emorandum dated 20, AugustI 1983. an also en My twelfth concern involving Wolf Creek deals with the problem of using correcting ribbon on a typewriter to make corrections of Honcomformance Reports.
- I feel this does not meet procedure, and 1 am enclosing Attachment (22), a memorandum dated 7-14-83, to address these concerns.
h
.\
My thirteenthReports.
Surveillance concern involving Wolf Creek deals with the improper use of on this generic problem.I am enclosing Attachment (23), which are my notes involving improper use of Surveillance Reports.These notes should help verify 4, m Attachment (24), which is a Quality Surveillance Report datedI am also enclosing 12/15/83, which has not been properly handled. "
which is a Quality Surveillance Report that has not been properly handled All these documents should help clarify my technical concerns on the improper use of Quality Surveillance Reports. -
I have read the foregoing statement consisting of typed pages. I have '
made and initialed in the margin of each page.
any necessary corrections and h[ ave signed and correct. Signed on I swear that the foregoing statement is true k m m ._ /c / 9P V at /0/Com .
b hY B/AS #
SIGNATURE: Paul B. HALE Subscribed and sworn to before me this /O 19g,at 'Zfloc>,,,,w h . .7//. day of INVESTIGATOP.: Wendel E. FROST WITNESS:_ '/r ,MP, O; jff>J arr; "
'1;
...s ! h) h k v mLL1
//r.LAs
, . . . . : })It n I, L' 19 ff 3.* 4'/a . __ _ e h'! . :.J.e t'- fi'llt'eing volunt.it y r.t at e:te nt t o' fh(Me / /- h. J_C 5 , who lui! 5 0ea d i f it s) hine.,el f to ne a r. an Jnver.t agator v2th the U. S. Nuc-) car N gulatory C(mu, 5.5 un. 3 n.s).e thi s stat.e-nent incly with no threats or prcrdses of reward having been m1de to me.
N% % r
_f W* ~ " E '
- Q cc . J L
) l$50.
A a - s as s y } q ~ a ~'- d J 3 3
., _J
~
m, o m a sa, -
8 S yd & ' pas 41.JL pa s og k y % 4 s . Q -L L y . ,
a
~B~b W , 4 s g . . .
h
- O d at -6 q j .Ad 4wy- s %(%;hL J.
4 a w 2, a SW LD A ds cQ n~s m, ms. sa un s qws 1 L gy . Shk
?A 4 s S) Q m&4L eth -
. 24 - A L d a 3 sL & .&tJ?"DJ L.,c. ~
p&
u~a y g -d1L.Jg g .
% V r
) ,
WL 4 Ly d ~rQ J u a ga, 4 td W 4 tLB 4 meD LJJ,
% L. A d .
3 a.di 4 g 3
-L 4 d a d a Le _ %2 m ,
,, a L LL utec. J A. J A yg m
Lk tL) sLk A.A 1 ~ 1 R -
I have read the foregoing statement consisting of handwrit t en /t-yped pages. 3 have nade and initia3ed any necessary corrections and have signed my nar.e in ink in the cargin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct. Signed on ,3- 7-77 at J,'//o.
(date) (tim /)
SI C:;ATLT.E :
4 ( <'
7dL' day of Subscribed and sworn to before me this ( 19__
at fes $ r A Vnd ~ hv 5 A S
- IlWEST] GATOR: -
WITliESS:
- ' - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ -
,.' . . - ~ . . . . .' ' " . ..-' . - - - ~ - - - -
- c. ..
I ff~ff -f$
A' su- &Y $<{/kd s 6..as,< .
a .' de- aff sic 6a hWg%r/)
n e-re-f3 f gp +A- AM
/ f7e/
L A,u ./4 do yerfd&d se .
J:--
su/
M Wbad a p& / sA L%af 4 .r> &n~p on '
m
$ d' s&qlW.' h f- M eu hh J[p u hW
'w n-^ k '.
a.d/ M ,' .td -
t%y .wd tb </r a'
oudb y-r ?Ar-f a pw- nna
~
bNMb pice !
e 8
1 :.u: . . ji/ (.", M / . b .
._j%vc/s w.w: J)]o,f _L_L2Er 3 [ [tA'4 C . b.bD./, e AL, b. dy r.yb Un !OHwing volunt an MaMi nt to,3Qsuj_t J _Lf'p.t f , who 1.ti!. 2dcatified hine elf to ne as an 3nvert agator with the U. S. Noricar Tu gulatory Cn:::d r. Lion. 3 nate t.his state-
.cnt freely wit.h no threats or prordses of nvard having been node to ne.
[1
% (M J e4 a _ g .
S T'" Co~khW) 4*
d L L , d w& O g D (f Y p' f0" .'*m hAl A ma . J a C LA A ,
W
/
Y d Ab dTa.S%/Q t d /9/J s/[h W4 m 3} '>j Y a a .
- a. n -
y c .~ n A ]AlJf S ~ 4te . m c} d m ga -
w a .
s , An(L - ~
- c% _ _W-
%u&, )- .
)9&>. #~~ b 'l .c f?
J)j .
Yd, 7_L - 4 / 7 W, ~}- J. ia
y@
v n, & ,
O a
~) ,
) .
A dUdf d%d, .23J '
" M-r, J Co o
~
}~
,+ ~b w' u dk &_~~D3 %' Ldl JED)~
~
M
_$ "3 Ocg. g h*W4 d o JC '
ygI )
.g
-no q
w uus pp .
4W 9 ~ m g, W) handwritten I have read the foregoing statement consisting of amam /t3pc pages. I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the margin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct. Signed onJ- P-8V at </,& %
(date) ' (tick)
SIGNATURE: 2, /a r C/ $s ,,
Subscribed and sworn to before r.e this day of O'/ Arc / ,19h at bd C A)7$ n _
INVESTICATOR:
J b2 C
WITNESS: ___ _ __ .
I 1 i;.'.J1.: // f,,g, p g,
- f. *2tes s trat:
.__}) _L?u- ;
l' 7
- 3. ( h c /'s' S u_v. n4 h ') s 1 Y vid v 1hv 103ituissa veluntary r. tat we :st to, Jg gg f_[gpy- , who hat. identiiied hine.cli to ne as an 3nvert 29.itor w20s the U. S. Nuc] tar Br gulatory Ccrmira,ian. 3 nate this state-
, nent f 2 eely with no threats or picaires of rcvard havisig been node to nc.
b Ptros
.A g A .
o_ sr de BJJ ~U. c 2--
~.
9
.:~~r;Y el Lax cae T d l~ .L~
S' v' I9(70,l
}& ,re,\ -
. s hu A Q f* ' sa n' T) 9 4
1"a & - Ak~.-l& d.;Lub2 8 7d'7 %d r, mV %' .
w m .jD 9 on a c n ~ A s im % ,,44_, d 'b
'y
. D eA. 01 d yL d m!Ad ,D
-C 4 oka md AJS 4, .AD 5 Aw, c.
s ~ A i a ,
7 u) ~~).L A- L)c c
U 5.2)
U
\ o )
h Q.
Crwu tyj[ y~ +r '~ %n s-c4; on.
Y A ' g a 3 .2 c ~
'"g.9 W. ,
,Mah - J6 . ~o ~ rf,~ .L..a _
f'
n,, _s y Y~ -
, g g ,,,
V f{ r 7A "7C2' 7
&P T ~ r b'
" r71 gn- t , y , 3 7 y y x _,
p~ ;r' y A J + x.r M j a' v; , , , . , .
""7x,.,Y"r~;77"hf}'gq~~yp i
' rny (p, 07 " 7 ?~/A f7M$l' Y" \
r, k .,p)7, ff-, fm r &~
y m
~~> grn % by;z y -, grw yy.
fr/f. f71- xr po~ r' e x e
-,7.z
.l y C-c -..yc}[3.y- gl7
- y. gg ( < L9 g r p l & %7 -,
~y r 7 p ~ (' ly r
y3.y p a ~' V"tb g p%
~ p r~ 0." vin .
14 O 7 y ].p O W W rP G 7 V T M '
\
~y y{_.-,yfrg7r~r'gyT74&M 77q ~ ,y - -~ p ~,
+p a a r a cw c,,
<f
L .
S ) W A L c 0 0 t.h w ~.
't.
g a v- u a
{ PTg'.j}'
o 1.L J;
~ v% g';f ,
s.dfDj \
H )
~'f n j-
> % ~ b p s . g- *
" [7f ,
~
% % 1 = t L p L gi ~9t _ o.f)' ~ "
U dLDx W f U.
JAG lJ cL) mang
~
wk ~f h<~.- g'Y'?r-2. g A Q
s
[
a
,l d) 1 y~ . hp - : p
?
I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 3 andwritten/A) pad pages. I have made and initia3ed any necessary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the margin of each page. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct. Signed on 3 PV at /07/7pm (date) ( t im'e)
SIG!i ATURE:
7 e4 h'f n /J,., ,
Subscribed and sworn t o bef ore ne this 9 day of j [fArc] ,19h at b ( A.)23 a _ ,
Ita'ESTICATOR: k1 n. ) A bI l k'17!iESS :
J
~
I'iA!!: d. J/ h
. G.'f S 7 - Dhil : ~
hff, /T f/?ff 1 Mwo // /^ [ 1 A /v c % , hereby ma ,e the ~f611iiwing voluntary sta.t.enent to Mr. W. E. Irost, who has idgntified himself to me as an Investigator with the U. 5.-Nuclear, Regulatory Comission. I make this statement freely, with no threats cryromises of reward having been made to me.
N % f hll6 0 $4-fAlc.c t7 +
m A 1 sa c '
n2 t=0 v a- e ,' lLa - At hcw .s e h' /ff c%-- .
J J~ L g j c' j o c a , ; .
nu. JL .2 sp. yd -
n & A f. gh a / . f j' ? ~
%L Mu sL L ,s.2o- ppnJHA 4LL GAS JLy-R M. JLAJd~.
Q Ltd ~ M J a d MA) '
a 7* 'o M.
g U L 7A _.- y'1 w Ja ~L t/d Q pc.D .A .Lav J1- &. a 0*
1 have read the foregoing statement consistirq of handwritten /
typed pages. I have made and initialed any r.0:essary corrections and have signed my name in ink in the margin caf cach pagt. I swear that the foregoing statement is true and correct. Sigr.ed ong t-O/ at u.'e & .. ~
(date) (time) -_----
EXHIBIT 16)
- f. 70 Ovs
+ (5]GfiATURL: lYPED OR.PKTTJED)
' day of M ,19 E ,
Subs ribcd and sworn to before me this _
at ( Jf-P S iunsmma. LdCod3 or i nwr . rvorn no oriurn) i uness.
u;gmjjm_o o
.