IR 05000358/1976002
Text
_________________________ _ ____ ___ _
,L
- /p* Co hq%'
,
'
UNITED STATES
'! ^ ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
M
., E REGION lli
$
'f 7eenoostvtLT noAo g
g OLEN ELLYN,ILUNols 40m
April 8, 1982
-
MEMORANDUM FOR: Dorvin R. Hunter, Chief, Projects Section 2B FROM:
James E. Foster, Investigator SUBJECT:
MATERIAL PROCUREMENT AT THE ZIMMER SITE IE Inspection Report No. 50-358/76-02 (Attachment I) documents the expressed concerns of Victor G. Griffin relative to: (1) the lack of source inspections for materials and components purchased by CG&E, and (2) the upgrading of Class II structural steel materials to Class I.
The report, based on a limited sample, did not identify any problems related to source inspections or the practice of upgrading structural materials.
IE Investigation Report No. 50-358/77-03 includes an interview of Griffin (Individual "C") on pages 15-16, with related contacts on pages 16-17 (Attachment II).
As Griffin did not provide any new information, the investi-gators accepted the position of the earlier report. Additionally, as noted on page 17, a memo containing a list of " unapproved vendors" whose materials were subsequently upgraded to Class I for safety-related installation was obtained during the investigation (Attachment III).
Henry J. Kaiser Co=pany (Kaiser) QA Surveillance Report #317 (July 13-17, 1981)
identified that some materials ordered as non-essential were being issued for essential use (Attachment IV).
Kaiser report " Investigation of Supplier Quality Assurance at William H. Zit=er Nuclear Generating Station" (Attachment V, received anonymously) documents a review conducted July 21-24, 29-31, 1981. Although not verified for accuracy)this report concluded:
1.
Structural materials were purchased as non-essential and utilized as essential materials.
2.
All heat numbers, essential and non-essential, were listed as acceptable.
3.
Heat traceability of many structural beams was lost (forty foot lengths cut up into eight foot lengths).
4.
Less stringent receipt inspections were performed on non-essential materials.
Non-essential materials were upgraded on the basis of the QA manager's
signature, or on the direction of CG&E.
8207300238 820609 PDR FOIA DEVINE82-206 PDR bdosure eW
.-
______--
-
__
_ _ _
- - _ _ _
\\..
>
-
Dorwin R. Hunter-2-April 8, 1982
.
'
6.
Non-essential documentation was purged from the Document Control Center.
,
7.
Numerous exceptions have been made by CG&E and Kaiser to the requirement that purchase awards be only made to firms on the Approved Vendors
,
List (AVL).
Vendors have been accepted based on their mention in the S&L purchase 8.
specification.
Some vendors have been accepted based on their possession of an ASME 9.
Code stamp.
10.
The AVL has been very poorly kept.
11.
Purchase requisitions were signed by various personnel.
12.
Receiving Inspection Plans were prepared and signed by J. Deerwester prior to his becoming a QE, as required by procedure.
13.
Documentation is lacking in many cases.
The Kaiser report states that "In order to determine if the requirements were met on all materials, all the purchase orders (of which there are 42,000) would have to be reviewed."
The previous RIII position on procurement at Zimmer was discussed during the draf ting of the recent Zimmer investigation report by an informal memo from myself, dated July 28, 1981 (Attachment VI).
(CAR) 81-13 was initiated on August 17, 1981 Zimmer Corrective Action Request (Attachment VII) to provide corrective actions to close out the previously CG&E initially found the proposed corrective mentioned Surveillance Report #317.
action unacceptable, returning the report and issuing CAR 81-13 Revision 1.
Following subsequent revisions and comments, the Kaiser response was found acceptable and was approved (Attachment VIII.
It is not clear at this time if the licensee is aware of the entire situation (Kaiser Investigation report).
If so, it appears that the matter meets the requirements for a 10 CFR 50.55(e) or 10 CFR 21 notification.
Finding that the licensee has acted improperly will likely call into question As such, we need to review the position RIII took on procurement in 1976.
our position in detail, determine if the 1976 effort was adequate, and deter-mine our responsibility when a licensee follows a procedure we have approved in the past but which is currently unacceptable.
,
--
- _ _ _ _
\\
..
.,
. *Dorwin R. Hunter-3-April 8, 1982
-+ **
In addition to the above, we need to accomplish the following:
1.
Detemine if the licensee has the Kaiser Investigation Report.
2.
Determine if the matter is/was reportable.
3.
Review present practice to assure that it is acceptable.
4.
Review corrective actions for. adequacy.
5.
Track corrective actions.
If this matter is to be investigated, referral to another individual should be considered due to my past involvement in the issue, and the possible effect on my objectivity.
/ ames E. Foster J
Investigator Attachments: As Stated i
i l
l l
,
..
.
m