ML20207Q115

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Summary of 840222 Meeting Re Allegations of Poor Practices & Documentation at Plant
ML20207Q115
Person / Time
Site: Wolf Creek, 05000000
Issue date: 03/08/1984
From: Madsen G
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Johnson W
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20207Q075 List:
References
FOIA-84-827 NUDOCS 8701230044
Download: ML20207Q115 (4)


Text

m

'~

) Q-QQ)\tv c.% -

6 MEMORANDUM FOR: W. Johnson, Chief, Reactor Project Section C FROM: G. L Madsen, Reactor Inspector

SUBJECT:

W3tf CREEK ALLEGAT10N -

On Februay.22, 1984, I met with, to obtain information relating to general allegations of poor practices an'd. documentation at the Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant. Discussions with started at 6:00 p.m.

During previous telephone discussions with William Johnson of Region IV, had indicated a desire to re_tain anonymity; however, when asked if this remTined as his desire, indicated that this was no longer a concern in that he was hot presently ebployed at the Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant,

~

was informed that the purpose of my meeting with him was to permit receipt of specifics relative to his concerns at Wolf Creek, which would assist the NRC in, followup inspection cctivities. During the initial phase of our discussions, expressed general' concerns regarding (1) availability of QA Manuals, (2) failure to follow established procedures, (3) qualification, assignment, and training of personnel, (4) lack of QA audits of document review activitieb and (5) quality of documentation at the Wolf Cree'k Nuclear Plant.

,provided copies of (1) Daniel Drawing C-N-03RA03, Revision 7; (2) Engineering Change Report (ECR) Nos. I-M-03HA03 - ECR01,1-M-03HA03 -

ECR02, and I-M-03HA03 - ECR03; (3) traveler turr.over record for 1-M-03HA03, Revision 8.and (4) System Discrepancy List - EF-1. To demonstrate some of his concerns of errors, omissions, and illegibility of pertient documentation.

supplied the attached resume of his experience. He started employment at t_he Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant in His work assignment for was primarhy as a' client. ] prior to turnover of the piping systems to the 8701230044 870116 1

PDR FOIA HEATHg4-827 PDR _

l

  • s GN RPSC i l' PRSC PRB2 DRRP&EP ES GLMadsen/cr WDJohnson JEGagliardo ' RPDenise TVesterman 03/g/84 03/ /84 03/ /84 '

03/ /84 03/ /84 l

D I6 L

b W. Johnson iprovided the following information to expand upon his previously presente3' concerns:

1. Drawino C-M-03HA03, Revision 7 and associated ECRs 01, 02, and 03
a. ECR 01 - duplicate numbers for a weld (W 575 - FW 508)
b. ECR 01 - well W 582 - actually a field weld (FW 301)
c. ECR 01 - FW 300 not on drawing
d. ECR02 and 03 - Documentation for welding of valves in place do not jndicate yalves were in closed position at time of welding, contends that valves might not operate properly,
e. "ECR 01, U2, and 03 portions illegible and weld numbers enhanced -

not initialed 2.

Control Drawings -Practice of lining out spool numbers and assigning new spool numbers without signoff by person.

3. System Discrepancy list EF-1, Support Verification Checklist, page 1 of 1
  • Deficiency identified - QlC, Revision 1, needs to be stamped " Field see later revision." Resolution provided by reviewing engineer for stamping was lined out by a clerk, who added comments that craf t will not work the earlier sheets and hence stamping is not necessary for QICs as they are quality inspection checklists and not issued to field. This was initialed off by the clerks supervisor.
4. Traveler Turnover Record (TTR), Revision 0 assignment was working on TTR - I-M-03HA03, Revision 8.

He indicated that* the reviewers are instructed to document everything in pencil. Additionally, he offered the following comments:

a. If need ariset tc go to Revision 1, F.c. is ier 0 is r.ot retained.

Would only be on 1-2 (list of all field added documentation).

b.

Turnover records listed on I-2 are not available to reviewer even though there may be many revisions of TTRs.

c. ibelieves TTRs should be done in ink, prior revisions remain in document package, and 1-2 items should remain in documentation package.
d. Conflicts exist between groups relative to interpretation regarding handling of TTRs supervisor deoendent l

l l

l l

l

6 .

  • W. Johnson e. Explanation of fered for inforn.atior, on TTR, Revision 0 for 1-M-03HA03, Revision 3 included the following:

(1) 1-1, Revision 0, 1 - Not available/not applicable (2) 0-2 0 Never issued 1 Removed 2 Removed - Void In summary indicated that the documentation at Wolf Creek is a can of worms. ~He feels documentation is not complete and true as finalized.

5. Training indicated that document reviewers and engineers recieve no f ormal tF*aining and no checklists are provided on how to perform documentation reviews.
6. Assignment of Personnel by Daniels Construction knowledgF indicated or expertise.the slots are filled with iittle consideration for attention of He indicated that he brought his concerps to the and He indicated his;conce[ rns included qualifications and lack of nee'ded formal training and results in his quiting for the first time in Octobe. 1983. Upon returning, he was lead to believe that everything had been taken care of; however, his observation was that nothing had changed. Later when he questioned why things were not performed to the scope of procedures he was sent to the field and assigned reviews of parts of the travelers but not the total traveler packages.
7. 0A Aud'ts

~[~ contands that QA audits of the document review activities is not done7 especially in the areas of personnel qualifications, training, and following of procedures. The QA audits are a spot check of piec.es of paper. They have only 6 QA auditors which is not enough.

indicated that he applied for one of the auditor positions but was' Henied

, the transfer.

8. Knowledge of QA Manuals

~~ indicated that he had asked two supervisors and two leads for copies of the QA manual; however, they did not have any.

l W. Jo'hnson 9. 111egal drugs During previous contacts, had indicated that he saw an individual pay $50.00 for 100 downers. Upon inquiry, he indicated that this took place around October 1983 and the purchaser had indicated that the pills were downers. He indicated that personnel are supposed to report to the supervision any time they are under medication, etc.;

however, employees can bring almost anything on the site without much fear of detection.

10. Additional Potential Contacts a.

b.

S indicated that he might not have much to offer in that he "was only at the site for a very short time.

11. Future Contact Point for, indicated that he would call William Johnson or myself to keep us inforEbd of his point of contact.

The interview with was concluded at 8:15 p.m. on February 22, 1984.

G. L. Madsen Reactor Inspector

__.