ML20212G741
| ML20212G741 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1985 |
| From: | Renee Taylor NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212G491 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-594 NUDOCS 8608130582 | |
| Download: ML20212G741 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000482/1984023
Text
- ,-
'
,
"
+ ef - ey *C
C
UNITED STATES
'd
s
%g['
t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
5q
-
j
REGION IV
D ' b *** /
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUsTE 1000
'% ,
ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011
,
f.:A .
01985
d
MEMORANDUM FOR:
T. Westerman, Enforcement Officer, Region IV
FROM:
R. G. Taylor, Reactor Inspector, Wolf Creek Construction
Task Force
{
,
' SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION FILE 4-84-A-55
The file indicates that tN alleger made
. allegations initially to the
Kansas Gas and Electric Company in late April or early May 1984.
Because the
allegation not only involved the Wolf Creek Station but
as
well, the licensee informed Region IV of the situation o'n,
,
Region III'
was notified of the situation on May 7',1984, a' rid their
subsequent' investigation was unable to either refute or substantiate the
allegation but did find that it had little or no merit in regard to plant
safety.
l
The allegation, as understood by Region IV, was that pipe support hangers _
and/or components within supports did not,,in many instances, have " heat
numbers" marked on them at the time of:
- examination of them and that these
'
numbers were later added or post applied. '0I:RIV interviewed the alleger on
)
May16,1984,where]
apparently reiterated,
concern about finding
" numerous" hangers CTith'out heat numbers but also stated that
believed the
missing numbers were added later but had no specific knowledge that
belief
was true and could provide no specific information about the hangers involved.
The NRC inspector has reviewed the KG&E Quality First team investigation file
'
pertaining to the allegations as originally received by them.
Two of the four
documented " concerns" were found to be similar in context to Region IV's
,
understanding of the allegation.
The Quality First file indicates that there
was a followup on the alleger's concerns using
hanger walkdown logbook
wherein the alleger acoarently recorded
specific observations that led to
% conclusions and % concerns.
,
The report on each logbook reflects the observation and a date of the
,
!
observati,on which range from November 1983 to March 1984.
(Note:
One outrider
{
date of,
was recorded and is apparently an error on the
. , _
alleger's part or on the transcriber's part since the alleger was not employed
g
l
at that time.) The KG&E followup was initiated not earlier than May 1984 and
'
was concluded in September 1984.
In every instance, the followup revealed that
the alleger's specific observations were no longer valid in many instances with
i
,
material changes or engineeri1g actions which clearly took place after the
-
original observation by the alleger and apparently prior to the Quality First
.
8608130502 060723
STEPHEN 85-594
g
E3-H RW
.
. ;,..
,
o.i,,
.
. .
.
Memo for T. Westerman
-2-
follewup.
The Quality First team conclusions was that the allegation was not
substantiated because they did not confirm
' observations.
The NRC
inspector, however, would conclude that the allegation was substantiated but
taken in the context of today's time frame, has little technical merit.
Following the initial walkdown performed by'
craft
personnel that the alleger was involved in,'there have been at le'ast two more
major walkdowns.
One was by KG&E QC and the other by Bechtel personnel for the
purposes of satisfying IEB 79-14.
Each found problems with various aspects of
traceability of components that were resolved on a case basis.
A similar
allegation case (4-84-A-98) was inspected as documented in Inspection
~ Report 50-482/84-58 with the same conclusion.
It is thus apparent that there
were many instances of failure to follow detailed QA/QC procedures during the
fabrication and installation process.
After identification of the problem it
is also apparent that KG&E instituted an effective corrective action program as
indicated by paragraph 8A of Inspection Report 50-482/84-23.
The above identified case is considered closed.
..
. G.
aylor
Reactor Inspector
l
l
.
l
l
'
,
!
l
l
i
[
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
- - -
-
-
,i mf# y.:..Au ;v p.?*v W 5.*?'
-d - l6
'
.
.
, . , , .
,
. . , .
.
,
...
,
%
.
.
,
'
l
l
-
.
,
+ P3-/9 ~ ?&~ s '/ P 2 s4 - 79, //. /y. ,4 .,o
.. Z e smotu
c=mrie= = ems 1. 2. .a4 3.
.
.
!
- -
. And v.= nu,,a ei a . scrunn to e.=
mesa.
y
% 1. The fo".owing smtoe is regiuste4 (check ene.)
T-
O sho- to . born and date d,*nere4..........._ e
'
y
O show to shorn,date and easiess ore,A,ery...
.
O RESTRICTED DELAMY
E
Show to = hem and date deheered............
4
O R13TIUCTED DEUVISY.
Show to ahorn. dau and e tdress of d:tmry 3
.
(CONSULTPOSn! ASTER FORITTi,)
.1, wncos Aconessaatt;_
! <
.
s
\\
z
'
s
%.
E A AnnEs ot*4RFPTPON:
~ ~ ~ * * *
'
=
nssuTtaso sao.
-
5
B
l smesuaao ena
-
J
o
(Atweys cat..n moeuture of edaremmes or soenti
e
I have resxtveJ the artaIs t.esed[ bow.
%
$
sicNA71.'ne
C14re
- -a
l
.
!
. . . . . . . . . _ . .
'
j . _O N. _3
'
-
,
__.
$
\\
-
.
s.
unaAsts To cauvan et<.ause 6%
at
c
em8164LS
I
,!
% e19
A.** 4
,
- -
c_g
ap /
E *b-4'b
hlC
- __
.
'
.
-
.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
F
l
orrecsAL aumuses
EEh0EA LNETRUCTIOest
use moo r viss e
" " ' " " ' "
M
Pros yens name, em and ZF Code le the seas haies
Campen innes 1. 2, and 3 en se suseset
L " ej
e
Anach as trees of artislo N eens penmast
=
oserwas effin to husk of erh
Esemre ereiste "Reesem Bassipt Regissed"
=
won w
RETUfUd
To
Nuclear Regulatory Comission
(hmedsenda)
.
6ilRyanP1azaDrive Suite 1000
e
giones orP.O.am)
Arlinctnn. TY 76011
M..
~
(0 y.Samas,and zzrcode
S.mansed
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
1
.
..
.
8
'
, . ' .
"'- - - -
+
- * . .
.