ML20206G962

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Closure of Allegation 4-84-A-114 in Insp Rept 50-482/85-03.QC Insps of Penetration Seals Not Being Performed & Problem Exists in Cable Tray Wall Penetration Seals.Seals Inspected & Found Acceptable
ML20206G962
Person / Time
Site: Wolf Creek, Callaway, 05000000
Issue date: 04/29/1985
From: Mullikin R
NRC
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML20206G744 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-594 NUDOCS 8606250486
Download: ML20206G962 (3)
v • d • e


See also: IR 05000482/1985003

Text

._. _ -_

op y4 - Il-II4

'

APR 2 S 1985

MEMORANDUM FOR: Allegation File

FROM: R. P. Mullikin, Reactor Inspector, RPB2

SUBJECT: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR ALLEGATION 4-84-A-114

This memo is intended to give the background information on the closure of

'

Allegation 4-84-A-114 in NRC Inspection Report 50-482/85-03 (paragraph 3.b).

The part of the allegation that was found to be substantiated was that some

in-process QC inspections of penetration seals were not being performed.

JL 100 percent documentation review by KG&E of B&B Insulation, Inc., penetration

seals discovered that, during the period from March to June 1984, twelve

flexible fire-radiation boot seals were installed without the necessary QC

inspections. This type of seal is used around pipes penetrating a structure

where movement of the pipe is needed. A metal sleeve is extended from each

side of the penetration so a flexible boot can be attached to it and to the

pipe. The sealant material is contained within the boot, so that a post

installation inspection of the traceability of the sleeve material is

impossible without removing the boot. Subsequently, four nonconformance

reports were issued to remove the boots, inspect the seal, and record the

.

sleeve fabrication number. This has been completed.

l

Also, mentioned in the inspection report was the problem that was discovered

at Callaway in their cable tray wall penetration seals. In this type of seal,

depending on the size of the penetration, fire resistant damming material

(ceraboard) is permanently installed on both sides of the wall to stop the

leakage of the foam sealant. Holes are drilled in the board so the foam can be

pumped in. This makes the in-process inspection very difficult. At Callaway,

voids in some seals were found when the dams were removed. According to KG&E,

the wall penetrations at Wolf Creek were not installed in the same manner, but

were installed in layers so the seals could be inspected in-process to

eliminate voids. However, due to the Callaway problem KG&E QA initiated a

reinspection of a sample of the wall penetration seals (approximately 55

percent of the total population) in March 1984. This effort consisted of

removing the ceraboard dam and inspecting the seal. This reinspection resulted

in no unacceptable seals.

Based upon the Quality First effort, the reinspection by KG&E, and randomly

selected seals inspected by the NRC there appears to be no concern for the

quality of the penetration seals at Wolf Creek.

'

RPB2 RPB DRS&P E0

RPMullikin:gb LM n RPDenjse TWesterman

)[ /n/85 ////85 g /p/85

/f/85

l

62 6 860618 )

STEPHEN 85-594 PDR pg

gg,Q )

^ - - - - - - _ - _-_

y

u.s. NuctIsa KEtut&T3av Couutssione

_

sk

" ' " ' ALLEGATION DATA INPUT

s

f\ fr

@ .

'? I Id'

h Pad

A. RECEIVING OF FICE

  • 1. F ACILITY

haus #40ta.,.reensJ =Me oOCaref Nuustm

=aut (40 cne,. rwa gg , g

ta =a' .veta

,,,. ". . . . , . -

.,,,,,

.Niooo4#%r.ir1 1dminimi leMM"-iMal isfrinMriaW I I I l I 1 1 I I I alIilIl11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIllIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

'l ! I , !!! 11ll1lllllllllI11111llllllll111lIl1ll11 4llIlllli 111111lllllllllllIll111ll1llltillllllli

'2 TYPE OF REGULATED ACTIVITY (Chece atto.aphcable bonest

e ofwin

e sapgGuapos (sen,a,s

g . at Af wa a wan.oon s. uaT E miats tso sa .<uwa

I*

  • I* I'

! 3 uaTi n.at LICENSE

" " *' ' " '55 I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I lI II I I I i 1 l l

  • 4. FUNCTroNAL ARE A45)(Chece att apphcef>tes

l l

. y,v

C8"*5

-

l l l

a s.s ecuanos

. una.:-o%s g n const auctio= _

att a os.. ,,

_

. i .vo. .v o=

, suance cve..... o ess . o~sive

!

_

. ,o,i,. ,a. .a. <s,.,.,..,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , p ;o g 9

. o..s vi - .61 a o sae erv , ., ,

,

o .m__, ,,se w,, 1.a ., a pp,,m, a w . .,, , y y _ ga,_7,,,,,. _ _ ,

  • s ona~.*, a ,a a. a

,=ns erres;w,,.w E.Ta- + a2~N - n- - ~ a u n --- n - ~ --mara- L .gra" - g - L > o. 1 - - , ,,,: _

.

,. .". - -- arv rm-.Das ni n5.nu e r n,y- . S'-w- ,. ,

" m,_,.y . m>

1 -cJA&w n e ur' h e _ de r= m, r

&rell #^ =>= e w_~I* S = ~ ' ->w Au ste_

-

E / f- = > - ~-1 en=>r -tra -..as- ,

' unanxA/s.w-'_ -e as x *7 SCIURCE (Cfece ones

  • a cu g ,y,i,.gi'.

, vis

. a=o=vuous l$8[* ;'*[ '~,"'", 71 , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

. . -.n oanwio,es

A . .o.uin co=va.cron ewtone

. = =s us oiA

_

' * ' ' , ,* ' ' ' " " X

-~

.. =o

. . . i nto.ru 3

~

-

! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . suetin o

. ~* ~ . .ce = sin iwton s 6 enivari civira= . ovasa rs .e,s

.

oav *io EuPLovEE RECEIV NG ALLEGATION (rest t o usetasis,isst sweel l* " oct at ca ev.

!3 ,26 j,ina uo=1

! 'O'c T Igr.51ol3lo l7 T F himsreRMAN INidl"' l"I ~i

l

8. ACTION OFFICE

  • 3 CONT ACT S TELEPHONE *e SAf E T Y SIGNIFICANCE 5 goano noio icat,oy
  • 2. CONT ACT tearse s=o saerseis ssst ru**8 aiCorn =t o
  • At tE CAfiON NuuSEn

l,

....

a . . . .o. uu... _

. v,s g.u=.=o,=

FmS 7121FI-IPl/lolo *o l * "5 lbl " w

iRII:Vi ;- K15 -lal-lolol415 -T A. MMH 8 7 ALLEGATION W As suRST ANTIATED 8 ALLEGE 53 PwOll51EO

7 N *6 STATUS MMM@

]

'

vtan uo=1 o., i

b Ctosto 8DATE vtan teoNTH . ves paaveatt,

DATE

I i l i loav

-

bvEs Ile

'

Ir:5lal5l/i5 =o

.

c'o5'o I

W!ETu'tfo~ -

9 a 6 v.' J. . 3 o ce,,,c recs use e.,etd>=@egr ea g

!

) _

i

i

'

l it. ol aE PonT.Nuus E n

, g , , ; , g g g g , g 9 l

n. c . - -- ..

l la vts lM b HO

.. . . .. s i. i t s

- - .- . -. . _- - - _ - -

s

4 -y+ A- ( L -

-:

-

I 'A' - i a l .. li g w. %n

j ?W f s ^ ANSAS G4S ArD ELECTRIC COMPANY

'

-

j +} **

f ""SE_E C'.!PPINGS TRANSM m

,,,

Report

f ,,_^, M .,

l

,_

i

l KG&E FoesCite  !

l

,'

Of CovertP

TOPEKA - An engineer investigating huge cost in-

,

,h7,,",I, ,,Ugg*h,$,",,,7 [ l

creases during construction of the Wolf Creek nuclear witness in the rate hearings so he could

reports,0f unis*pow- explain how the complaints were dealt

cr planW supervisors of 6._ .~,47

Inanagesaget. @ - ~

~ with.The KCC won't decide whether to do

4

.

.

.

that until it can review all the files.

,

h-p.

'

The engineer's allegation is contained in V ON SATURDAY. Halnea attacked Eye

]' was for obtaining the confidential files, which

and Electric Co. file that N 8I "'*"'" 8380

b maw public by an attorney for a 'P ===L the KG&E iswyer said could undermine

l Wichita-based consumer group nicased by ALERT, shows that me workers' trust in the Qua!!ty First pro-

[ " Y,,7N,. f

the Alliance for Livable Electric ( ,,,

Kates. The group is fighting rate. KG&E' General Counsel Ralph Foster be- "At some point along the way," Maines

l hikes proposed to pay for the 33

,

. cause of "gotential lesal concerna." Fos- said,"there has been some impropriety in

billion plant near Burlington. ( ter declined Saturday to comment after obtaining me (Quauty FM documents."

,

1he complaint is part of KG&E's  ;

j ( discussions with other KG&E officials. Wilson Cadman, KG&E chief executive

!

" Quality First" program to inter- I officer, said be considered Eye's actions

view departing workers to see ROBERT EYE, a Topeka attorney for "a whcuon on my penonal Wegrity,

wriether they had any concerns

about the plant s safety. The pro- ALERT - a group of small and medium- because when I approved this program

J

gram was started *

in October 1983.

  • * sized busmesses - said Saturday that, if (Quality First),I assured confidentiality."

l . the engineer's charge is true, it casts Cadmaa spent his third day on the wit-

THE ENGINEER - who is not doubt on the cost explanations provided to ness stand Saturday, answering questions

!

idrntified - said in the complaint the.KCC by KG&E, builder of Wolf Creek, from attomeys for groups intervening in

that employees 'of Bechtel Power _

,

corn.. MO&E's architect eaniamar ; f and its two coewners in th'ethe

The KCC has until Sept. 30 to set new

missioners

Wolf Creek rate case and from com

venture- 1Annen and Keith Henley.'

-

~for wo f creek.

tntauon of some dutroved docu <

d*< ion channes, rates for KG&EN.1.-and its Wolf Creek part-

l m

ners, Kansas City Power and Ught Co. HENLEY PROMPTED Cadman to re-

~ ould

w not allow him and others to

and Kansas Electric Power Cooperatives peat earlier statements that anything less

j cne managemem, cesian or ware. than the five-year phased-in rate increase

1

er productmry in jusurying bisher_ I"C- of 95 percent that KG&E has requested

costs and actually rewrote some Eye said the allegation may contradict might force the company first to appeal

l

'

' reports the findings of a July 1984 " Reconciliation the KCC's decision and then to file

The enoineer made his com. Management Summary" given to the KCC. Chapter 11 reorganization.

l Without the fullincrease Cadman said,

ments toGobert Jonega KG&E That sur:stary says that new federal regu-

I lations, not mismanagement, forced most " service would suffer, our customers

' employee who concucted inter.

views with departing workers. of the cost overruns for Wolf Creek. Wolf would suffer - it would cause large lay-

Jones, recording the interview, Creek costs jumped from a 1976 "defini-

said the engineer felt Bechtel's ac.

hons were_ " mon a whhwash uve estimate" of $1.1 billion to an estimat.

,

than a cover-up ed 83 billion this year.

"I think its somemMg he commW

KG&E SPOKESMAN Lyle ought to be apprised of" he said. ,It's a

i

Vnerner said Saturday that the pretty serious allegation.

l

j 6pt. 29.198) allegations were D15CUS$10N OF the confidential file,

3nvaenomeo and found to lig- and of a similar file Eye has that relates

l

f m ain as inv igate * to how workers were scheduled at Wolf

Creek, created a brief fury during rate ,

j Koerper said be wasn't given a detalle hearings Saturday.

KCC Chairman Michael L_ ennen asked

,

f explanation, James una to aiv t

He said further explanation wouldn't be K.S&E suorne I

j

' appropriate because the complaint le con- "O**W'"8 D" hich _

I

fidential and because the Kansas Corpora-

tion Commission has yet to rule on wheth- _The KCCn will review them to see w- H an - co. ce

,

er to consider the complaint in deciding -

Wolf Creek ra

- y

.

8 -79

& f G.

,

L

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20206G962&oldid=3058444"