ML20212G939

Partially Withheld Summary of Interview on 850307 Re Allegations Concerning Facility

ML20212G939
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek, 05000000
Issue date:	03/14/1985
From:	Westerman T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Denise R NRC
Shared Package
ML20212G491	List: IR 05000482/1984012 IR 05000482/1984023 IR 05000482/1984058 IR 05000482/1985003 IR 05000482/1985022 ML20212G487 ML20212G528 ML20212G576 ML20212G637 ML20212G672 ML20212G679 ML20212G702 ML20212G723 ML20212G741 ML20212G766 ML20212G831 ML20212G865 ML20212G927 ML20212G939 ML20212G950 ML20212G978 ML20212G982 ML20212H031 ML20212H036 ML20212H048 ML20212H075 ML20212H081 ML20212H087 ML20212H092 ML20212H108 ML20212H121 ML20212H129
References
FOIA-85-594 NUDOCS 8608130624
Download: ML20212G939 (2)

Text

- - - . . . - . . - .

s tic UNITED STATES

+

yg oq$s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'Y kI N,, REGloN IV kg *

[ PARKWAY CENTRAL PLAZA BUILDING 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 10C0 0 , , , , , *e ARLINGTON. TEXAS 70011 14 MAR 1985 MEM0RANDilM FOR: R. P. Denise, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects

_,FROM: T. F. Westerman, Enforcement Officer 7_ . - ..,

SUBJECT:

INTERVIEW 0F.

L._ -

/ ,..!was interviewed on March 7,1985..by myself and R. G. Taylor. The interview was conducted in I iwas provided a copy of NRC Inspection Report 50-482784-18 at thRiine~ of thelnterview. During our interview, the KG&E Interoffice Correspondence from W. M. Lindsay to W. J.

i Rudolph II, dated October 3, 1983, was also discussed. In this document,' , .

( ^ concerns have been identified as concerns 1-12. This document is in the L

publiE record as part of the Department of Labor (DOL) Administrative Law Judge hearing on the case.

f Provided below is a sunnary of the concerns expressed by[ _

P .

/ -

Afelt that he should have been reinstated much sooner since all oT tne uGL rulings have been in his favor. He has been without employment 1 4

for approximately 2 years. I indicated that his concern would be passed j on to the Region IV Regional Administrator. l r

l t - i sindicated that he felt equipment was moved from the warehouse to

'the field without pr.pper handling and installation procedures. This relates to concern 6.T , after reviewing the KG&E {

response, inTicated'that the KG&E"correctiv'e action addressed only one l piece of equipmen; He_ felt the problem was generic and other instances I should~be inspected.T lexpressed concern that KG&E should be cited for a violation 7f the problem was ~ generic. i

) -

(.-to KG&E.;asexpressed concern with the turnover of the procurement program it relates to the KG&E Vendor Control Program and Spare Parts Program. He was concerned that the KG&E QA group was not performing adequate reviews of Bechtel and Westinghouse procurements.

4 -

.  ; questioned the use of a ground bar used for instrument grounds N hich terminated into a ground pad where other grounds were terminating.

g-  : indicated that in. November 1984, there were cables he had

~

'bbserved~ routed over sharp edges in the cable spreading room. He stated it was a general condition at all elevations in the cable spreading rocm.

8608130624 860723 FOIA g

PDR a STEPHEN 85-594 PDR C-5 Y. - _ _ _

< 1

,.' r.

J{-f5-A 4 5' l

Memo for R. P. Denise l 1

l 1

indicated that he had observed a cable tray in the reactor  ;

(f -

' building which had not been cleaned before the covers were put in place.

He stated the tray was at floor level to the'left of the main personnel hatch, two or .tbree levels down. The tray passed through a wall separating two large tanks.

-) - . expressed concern in his item number 9 that the inspectors

' inspecting anchor bolts had neither the proper training or procedures. A previous QC inspector had resigned on March 21,1981 prior to submitting an NCR (March 26,1983) relating to this matter. , questioned that KG&E had taken adequate corrective action. thought there had been a CAR issueo. He felt the corrective action should include a random audit with pull tests and a review of anchor bolt certifications.

He stated there had been two companies furnishing anchor bolts (one safety-related and one nonsafety-related). He questioned that KG&E maintained proper segregation.

g- 7wasquestionedwithregardtoaninspector'hehadseeninthe document (control center apparently changing an inspection report.

( " p stated that the inspector was only signing where he had originaily initialed.

/ ~~

expressed concerns with splices inside of a cabinets not being q - (7 roperly documented. The cabinets he was describing appear to be located in the vital instrument power rooms. He described the cabinets as being a series of small rooms.

- expressed concern with the routing and termination of electrical lables within cabinets. He recalled the blue Honeywell cabinets, which he described as being located halfway into the auxiliary building on the main level, as being good examples. He stated that the cables in the cabinets were running in thick bundles and were laying over the troughs. He stated some terminations broke on moving the cable during the walkdown he conducted. He said the details would be in the walkdown notes. He stated that the lugs used by Daniels were not as rugged as the other lugs. He stated he had noted hairline cracks in lugs during his walkdowns. He stated that the best examples he could remember were in the terminations in the upper level of the fuel pool area.

71, %x T. F. Westerman Enforcement Officer

' l 1

!