ML19225C341

Responds to NRC 790517 Ltr Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-482/79-08.Corrective Actions:Area Supervisors Directed to Perform Addl Training of Personnel

ML19225C341
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	06/18/1979
From:	Koester G KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML19225C340	List: ML19225C341
References
NUDOCS 7907270291
Download: ML19225C341 (3)

Text

.. , ,.'I'ly', KANSM GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 1 1 THe ELac7seec con 4mANY G LE N N L. MOE STE R vic t e= LSiot N r oet = Ar rows June 18, 1979 Mr. W.C. Seidle , Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012 S ubjec t:

Response to Inspection Report 50-482/79-08

Dear Mr. Seidle:

This letter is written in response to your letter of May 17, 1979, which transmitted Inspection Report 50-482/79-08.

As requested each finding is being addressed in three parts:

a)Corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieve'., b)Corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further _

non-compliance, and c)The dates when full compliance will be achieved.

Finding At 8:30 a.m. on April 18, 1979, the NRC Inspector observed that the construction joints at the north and east face of Placement OC-141-S-01 (floor slab in south portion of Fuel Handling Build-ing) were dry and were not being cured as specified by ACI 308.

Discussion with contractor personnel verified that sealing materints had not been applied.

Response__a)The forms for placement OC-141-S-01 were removed during the night before the dry surfaces were observed by the NRC Inspector.

The Constructors QC Inspector had not yet made his post placement inspection. When advised of the NRC 4c?)'032 7 9 0727 0 2,c /

7 201 H. Market - Wichita, Kansas - Mail Address: P. O. Box 208 / Wichita, Kansas 67201 - Telephone: Area Code (316) 264-1111

-...Mr. W.C. Seidle June 18, 1979 observations, construction forces took prompt action and began proper curing within two hours.

Area Supervision has been directed to perform additional training of perscnnel responsible for curing to assure that the requirements of the applicable specifications and Daniel Work Procedures are strictly followed, b)Informal training of construction personnel in the re-nents'for curing concrete has been conducted.

Formal traf will be conducted and documented by June 22, 1979.

Increased surveillance f concrete curing by Daniel's QA organization will be conducted.

If curing errors reoccur, additional corrective measure- will be taken.

c)Full compliance will be achieved by July 1, 1979.

Finding Daniel Procedure AP-I-02, Rev. 6, dated November 2, 1978, para-graph 3.7 states, "Each procedure shall be complete with project name, title, type, number, volume, section, date, revision number, and approval signatures. When revisions are issued, the date shall be displayed along with the revision number and the revision approval signature." Contrary to the above:

1.Paragraph 3.7 of Daniel Procedure AP-I-02 only applies to Daniel originated procedures and not to procedures written by subcontractors such as Clarkson Construction company.

Discussion with the Daniel Field QA Manager verified that Daniel had no measures requiring the approval of Clarkson procedures.

2.The Clarkson Construction Company Blasting Procedure Speci-fication A-3854, dated April 27, 1978, was not reviewed and approved for implementation prior to commencement of blasting on the Ultimate Heat Sink.

3.The blasting procedure was not assigned a revision number or some other means to establish control of the document.

4.A revised copy of the blasting procedure which incorporated a change on verbal notification of an intended blast was not signed as being approved and reviewed until April 19, 1979, af ter the n ector identified the item to the licensee. The k/

,.,. , .Mr. W.C. Seidle June ] , 1979 change to verbally notify the geotechnical engineer of an intended blast was only signed off on April 19, 1979, al-though the change had been in effect since commencement of the Ultimate Heat Sink blasting work in December 1978.

5.The blasting procedure dated April 19, 1979, had no revision number or other means of identification to indicate it contained updated information from the procedure dated April 27, 1.978.

Response a)An Interim Changa Procedure (ICP-99) has been issued to Daniel Construction Procedure AP-IV-06 " Supervising Con-tractors" incorporating the procedural requirements for the review and approval cycle of subcontractor's procedures.

Clarkson Construction Company's blasting procedure has been revised and resubmitted. The blasting procedure has been through the required review cycle of ICP-99 and has been approved, sent to Document Control and distributed.

The blasting procedure has been assigned a revision number and is dated.

Clarkson's blasting procedure was initiated and rev.iewed by both Daniel Engineering and Dames & Moore several months prior to blasting work on the Ultimate Heat Sink.

Dames & Moore had comments to be incorporated into the procedure, Clarksen had been instructed to make these changes and resubmit it.

Al-though the procedure had not been formally signed off, it had been reviewed.

b)AP-IV-06 will be revised to ir.clude the changes included in ICP-99 for review and approval of subcontractor's procedures.

AP-IV-06 will also include the requi22ments for establishing control of the documents by providing revision number and title to procedures.

c)Full compliance will be achieved on June 24, 1 J.Please advise if you need additional information.

Yours very truly, 1 2[,/jt/6 /*.GLK:bb , 42?@f