ML20206G962
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
/f/85
g /p/85
62
6 860618
)
STEPHEN 85-594
pg
gg,Q
)
_
y
^
-
- - - -
- _ -
_-_
u.s. NuctIsa KEtut&T3av Couutssione
sk
@
.
s
'?
ALLEGATION DATA INPUT
f\\ fr
" ' " '
I
Id'
h
Pad
A. RECEIVING OF FICE
- 1. F ACILITY
I
=aut (40 cne,. rwa
gg ,
ta =a'
.veta
haus #40ta.,.reensJ
=Me
oOCaref Nuustm
g
" . . . , . -
,-
, , , .
.
. , , , , ,
.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
j
g
. at Af wa
a wan.oon
s. uaT E miats
e sapgGuapos
(sen,a,s
tso s .<uwa
a
I*
I'
I*
" " *' ' " '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
l l
l l l
!
3 uaTi n.at LICENSE
v
-
- 4. FUNCTroNAL ARE A45)(Chece att apphcef>tes
. y,
C8"*5
a s.s ecuanos
. una.:-o%s
g n const auctio=
_
. o~sive
att a os.. ,,
suance cve..... o ess
!
_
,
. i .vo. .v o=
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , p ;o g 9
.
o,i, ,a .a <s,.,.,..,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
_
,
o..s vi - .61
a o sae erv
, . . . , .,
.
- s ona~.*, a ,a a.
a
o .m__, ,,se
w,,
1.a ., a pp,,m, a w . .,, , y y _
ga,_7,,,,,. _
_ ,
,
--mara-
L .gra" - g - L > o. 1 - - , ,,,:
~
,=ns erres;w,,.w E.Ta- +
a2~N -
n-
- ~ a u n --- n -
_
1 -cJA&w n e ur' h e _ de r=
,. .".
m,
- -- arv rm-.Das ni n5.nu r n,y- . S'-w- ,. , m,_,.y .
m>
.
"
e
r
&rell #^ =>= e w_~I* S = ~ '
/ f- = > - ~-1
en=>r -tra -..as- ,
->w Au te_
-
s
E
' unanxA/s.w-'_ -e as x
- 7 SCIURCE (Cfece ones
- a cu g ,y,i,.gi'.
, vis
A . .o.uin co=va.cron ewtone
. a=o=vuous
l$8[* ;'*[ '~,"'", 71 , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
- ' ' , * ' ' ' " "
-~
l
X
. -.n oanwio,es
.
_
.. =o
'
. . . i nto.ru
. = =s us oiA
-
3
!
,
! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
suetin o
.
~
. ~* ~ . .ce = sin iwton s
6 enivari civira=
. ovasa rs
.e,s
.
uo=1
oav
- io EuPLovEE RECEIV NG ALLEGATION (rest t o usetasis,isst sweel
l* " oct at ca ev.
!3
,26
j,ina
"' "I ~i
j
! 'O'c T Igr.51ol3lo l7
T F himsreRMAN
INidl
l
l
8. ACTION OFFICE
- 2. CONT ACT tearse s=o saerseis ssst ru**8
- 3 CONT ACT S TELEPHONE
- e SAf E T Y SIGNIFICANCE
5 goano noio icat,oy
aiCorn =t o
<
l
- At tE CAfiON NuuSEn
g.u=.=o,=
a . . . .o.
uu...
. v,s
,
l * "5
lbl " w
....
_
iRII:Vi ;- K15 -lal-lolol415 -T A. MMH
FmS 7121FI-IPl/lolo
- o
8 7 ALLEGATION W As suRST ANTIATED
8 ALLEGE 53 PwOll51EO
7
N *6 STATUS
MMM@
]
paaveatt,
'
I i l i loav
-
. ves
vtan
teoNTH
i
.
DATE
vtan
uo=1
o.,
b Ctosto
8DATE
bvEs
Ile
- '
W!ETu'tfo~
Ir:5lal5l/i5
c'o5'o
I
=o
-
9 a 6 v.' J. .
3 o ce,,,c recs use e.,etd>=@egr ea g
!
)
_
i
, g , , ; , g g g g , g 9 l
i
l la vts
lM b HO
l it. ol aE PonT.Nuus E n
'
n. c . - --
..
. .. s i. i t s
..
.
- -
.-
.
-.
.
_-
-
-
_
-
-
4 -y+ A- ( L
s
-
-
-:
I
'A'
- i a l .. li g w.
%n
-
?W f s
'
j
^ ANSAS G4S ArD ELECTRIC COMPANY
j
+}
f
""SE_E C'.!PPINGS TRANSM m
l KG&E FoesCite Report
,,,
f ,,_^, M .,
,_
i
l
Of CovertP
,
,'
TOPEKA - An engineer investigating huge cost in-
,h7,,",I
,,U *h,$,",,,7 [ l
gg
,
creases during construction of the Wolf Creek nuclear pow-
witness in the rate hearings so he could
reports,0f unis*
explain how the complaints were dealt
cr planW supervisors of
6._ .~,47
with.The KCC won't decide whether to do
@
Inanagesaget.
that until it can review all the files.
~
~
-
.
.
.
4
]
The engineer's allegation is contained in
h-p.
,
ON SATURDAY. Halnea attacked Eye
'
V
for obtaining the confidential files, which
was
and Electric Co. file that
'P
N
8I
"'*"'" 8380
the KG&E iswyer said could undermine
'
b
maw public by an attorney for a
nicased by ALERT, shows that me ===L
f
workers' trust in the Qua!!ty First pro-
l
Wichita-based consumer group
the Alliance for Livable Electric
[ " Y,,7N,.
,,,
(
l
Kates. The group is fighting rate.
KG&E' General Counsel Ralph Foster be-
"At some point along the way," Maines
hikes proposed to pay for the 33
. cause of "gotential lesal concerna." Fos-
said,"there has been some impropriety in
( ter declined Saturday to comment after
obtaining me (Quauty FM documents."
billion plant near Burlington.
,
1he complaint is part of KG&E's
( discussions with other KG&E officials.
Wilson Cadman, KG&E chief executive
,
j
" Quality First" program to inter-
I
officer, said be considered Eye's actions
!
departing workers to see
ROBERT EYE, a Topeka attorney for
"a whcuon on my penonal Wegrity,
view
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
gram was started in October 1983.
sized busmesses - said Saturday that, if
(Quality First),I assured confidentiality."
the engineer's charge is true, it casts
Cadmaa spent his third day on the wit-
J
l
.
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 _
f and its two coewners in th'e venture-
the Wolf Creek rate case and from com
corn.. MO&E's architect eaniamar ;
missioners 1Annen and Keith Henley.'
for wo f creek. dutroved docu <
The KCC has until Sept. 30 to set new
~ tntauon of some d*< ion channes, N.1.-
,
rates for KG&E and its Wolf Creek part-
HENLEY PROMPTED Cadman to re-
-
l
~ ould not allow him and others to
ners, Kansas City Power and Ught Co.
peat earlier statements that anything less
m
j
cne managemem, cesian or ware.
and Kansas Electric Power Cooperatives
w
than the five-year phased-in rate increase
of 95 percent that KG&E has requested
er productmry in jusurying bisher_
I"C-
l
costs and actually rewrote some
Eye said the allegation may contradict
might force the company first to appeal
1
' reports
the findings of a July 1984 " Reconciliation
the KCC's decision and then to file
'
l
The enoineer made his com.
Management Summary" given to the KCC.
Chapter 11 reorganization.
I
ments toGobert Jonega KG&E
That sur:stary says that new federal regu-
Without the fullincrease Cadman said,
lations, not mismanagement, forced most
" service would suffer, our customers
employee who concucted inter.
of the cost overruns for Wolf Creek. Wolfwould suffer - it would cause large lay-
'
views with departing workers.
Jones, recording the interview,
Creek costs jumped from a 1976 "defini-
said the engineer felt Bechtel's ac.
uve estimate" of $1.1 billion to an estimat.
" mon a whhwash
hons were_
ed 83 billion this year.
"I think its somemMg he commW
,
than a cover-up
ought to be apprised of" he said. ,It's a
i
KG&E
SPOKESMAN
Lyle
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
to how workers were scheduled at Wolf
m ain
as
inv igate *
f
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,
una to aiv t
He said further explanation wouldn't be
K.S&E suorne
James
I
j
"O**W'"8
D"
' appropriate because the complaint le con-
hich _
I
_The KCC will review them to see w- H an - co. ce
fidential and because the Kansas Corpora-
tion Commission has yet to rule on wheth-
n
er to consider the complaint in deciding
-
,
Wolf Creek ra
-
y
8 -79
.
& f G.
,
L