IR 05000358/1979026
| ML19257A408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1979 |
| From: | Danielson D, Foster J, Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257A407 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-358-79-26, NUDOCS 8001040095 | |
| Download: ML19257A408 (9) | |
Text
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-358/79-26 Docket No. 50-358 License No. CPPR-88 Licensee:
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Facility Name: William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant Investigation at:
Zimmer Site, Moscow, Ohio Investigation Conducted: August 17, 21-23, 1979
Investigator:
J.
Foster
.
<
<
3M
/c Inspector:
J. J Harrison 4.5.'N A Reviewed By:
C. E. Norelius 10 [ S 77 Assistant to the Director D. H. Danielson, Chief
/0t/!?f Engineering Support Section 2 Investigation A mmary Invectigation on August 17, 21-23, 1979 (Report No. 50-358/79-26)
Areas Investigated: Special, announced investigation into allegations concerning improper specifications, drawings, and inspection criteria for suppression pool wall plate modifications; interviews, review of pertinent records, inspection of ongoing construction activities. The investigation involved twenty-six inspector-hours onsite by two NRC personnel.
Results: No items of noncompliance with NRC regulations were identified.
1684 055 0097 so o104
.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION
.
On August 14, 1979, Mrs. Eugene Erbe, member of the Zimmer Area Citizens (ZAC) group, contacted Region III. She indicated she had talked to a recently fired Kaiser Quality Control (QC) inspector who wished to talk to the NRC about construction deficiencies at the Zimmer site. Mrs. Erbe was contacted by a Region III Investigation Specialist at approximately 6:15 p.m.
on August 14, 1979.
Mrs. Erbe previded the name, address, and telephone number for Individual
"A", the fired QC inspector.
Individual "A" was contacted the morning of August 15, 1979. He alleged deficiencies in drawings, specifications and quality control related to wall plate installations in the Zimmer plant suppression pool. An RIII investigation was initiated on the basis of this information.
SUMMARY OF FACTS Individual "A" was contacted by RIII personnel on the morning of August 15, 1979.
Individual "A" stated that he was "a job shop" inspector, hired to Kaiser Engineers from the Bu+.ler Service Group to augment the site QC effort and assist Kaiser in satisfying the ASME that its
"N" stamp should not be revoked. He stated that he had been employed on the site for approximately 2 months, and had spent the last month performing inspections of suppression pool modifications. He stated that no adequate drawing specification on how to install wall plates (one aspect of the modifications)
had been issued, but the work was proceeding anyway.
Individual "A" indicated that the craftsman did not fully understand how to perform the wall plate installations, and site QC personnel did not have adequate criteria to inspect the work. He stated that questions regarding drawing tolerances often brought conflicting answers from his supervision.
.
Individual "A" also indicated that much of the work was proceeding under instructions contained in Design Document Changes (DDC), but he felt that they did not contain sufficient information for installation and inspection.
He stated that some DDCs had been generated after the fact, when installation was already finalized. He stated that he had brought these problems to his supervisor's attention but no action had been taken. He indicated that he had been advised that some of his inspections were " improper" when he was terminated, but he stated that he felt he was terminated because of his complaints about drawing and specification deficiencies.
From discussions with Individual
"A",
the following allegations in regard to suppression pool modifications (wall plate installation) were understood:
1.
Inadequate drawing specifications.
2.~
Inadequate inspection instructions.
3.
Acceptance criteria not adequate.
4.
Design Document Changes (DDC) generated after work was completed.
5.
Some nonconformance reports were not issued.
1684 056-2_
.
.
.
On the morning of August 16, 1979, Region III received an inquiry from
.
Mr. M. Ward, Counsel for the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, regarding thase allegations.
Mr. Ward indicated he wished to meet with Cincinnati Gas and Electric management at the Zimmer site, partially to discuss the allegations which he had received.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric management was contacted and met with Mr. Ward on August 17, 1979, at the Zimmer site. A RIII investigator attended this meeting to offer any assistance that Mr. Ward might require. During this meeting Mr. Ward met with Mr. E. Borgmann, Vice President of Cincinnati Gas and Electric and Mr. Culver, Site Project Manager. While discussing the allegations related to suppression pool modifications, Mr. Borgmann p.ovided a memo indicating that Individual "A" had been terminated when a turveillance of his inspections indicated that he had accepted nonconforming conditions.
The memo stated that Individual "A" was dismissed for performing inadequate inspections.
Mr Ward and the Region III Investivatlon Specialist privately interviewed Mr. Turner, Site Head of Quality Control for Kaiser Engineers.
Mr. Turner elaborated on the memo given to CG&E regarding Individual "A"'s di: missal, and provided a Kriser Memo to File indicating several of the specific instances where Individual
"A" had approved nonconforming conditions.
The Region III Investigation Specialist advised that the company's position was understood and that the question of the adequacy of the installation would be reviewed during a forthcoming inspection.
During August 21-23, 1979, a RIII inspection was performed of followup actions on a previously issued Immediate Action Letter, the ongoing work in the suppression pool, and the specific allegations provided by Individual "A".
These findings are also reflected in part in IE Inspection Report No. 50-358/79-27.
During the inspection, the inspector reviewed qualifications of inspectors, drawings, specifications, and inspection criteria utilized for the sup-pression pool modifications, and interviewed Kaiser inspection and management personnel. As a part of these interviews, the inspector talked to several inspectors who had been hired from Butler Services, and worked with Individual "A".
The inspection indicated that drawings specifications, and inspection criteria utilized were acceptable, and provided adequate information for construction and inspection of the suppression pool modifications.
Records reviewed indicated that Individual "A" was qualified as an inspector by both his past experience and the training which he had received onsite.
Site documents indicate that Individual "A" had inspected and approved nonconforming conditions in several instances. This was apparently discovered following a surveillance of his inspections. Kaiser personnel indicated that several installations will require rework or repair to-3-1684 057
.
.
.
correct the nonconforming conditions now recognized, and that all of the
.
inspections performed by Individual "A" were in the process of being reviewed to determine whether other nonconforming conditions had been approved.
There was considerable media interest in the Cincinnati area concerning these allegations.
No items of noncompliance were noted during the investigation.
.
.
.
.
l-1684 058
.-4-
.
DETAILS
,
1.
Personnel Contacted Cincinnati Gas and Electric Mr. E. A. Borgmann, Vice President, Engineering Services and Electric Production
- Mr. J. R. Shott, CG&E, Station Superintendent
- B. K. Culver, Site Project Manager
- W. W. Schweirs, Principle Quality Assurance and Standards Engineer
- J. F. Weissenberg, Quality Assurance and Standards Engineer
- J. W. Haff, Quality Assurance and Standards Engineer
- D. C. Kramer, Quality Assurance and Standards Engineer
- J. J. Wald, Operations Quality Manager T. Busch, Operations Reactor Engineer W. Craig, Operations Quality Engineer Kaiser Engineers
- R. Marshall, Project Manager, KEI
- R. E. Turner, Quality Assurance Manager, KEI M. Franchuk, Quality Assurance Engineer, KEI
- E. V. Knox, Corporate Quality Assurance Manager, KEI Individuals Individual "A" Other personnel of Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (CG&E),
Kaiser Engineers, and Construction personnel were contacted during the investigation.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Technical Eackground The Zimmer plant is built with a General Electric Mark II containment system design, with a pressure suppression pool in the lower levels of the containment building. During large scale testing of the subsequent Mark III containment design system, new suppression hydrodynamic loads associated with a postulated lost-of-coolant accident (LOCA) were identified that had not been explicitedly considered in the original design of the Mark II containment system.
These newly identified loads result from the dynamic effects of
_
drywell air and steam being rapidly forced into the suppression pool during a postulated LOCA. When this possible problem was identified, both General Electric, the NRC, and its consultants did an indepth review of the General Electric Mark II containment system design.
The NRC effort in this area was divided into two phases, a lead plant-5-1684 059
.
.
.
program intended to be completed during the second quarter of 1978,
,
and a long-term program scheduled for completeion during the second quarter of 1980, to review and approve design changes to the Mark II containment design. Tae description of the NRC load evaluation is available in NUREG-0487, published on November 1978. This document indicates that lead plants, those first to utilize the Mark II containment system, would be reviewed by the NRC to determine the acceptability of modifications made to the Mark II design to accomodate the swelling phenomena. The plants of Zimmer, LaSalle, and Shoreham were designated as the lead plants, being those first plants to begin operation with a Mark II containment system. The NRC, in the lead plant program load evaluation, approved of the design basis used for modifications to the suppression pool system, including a device known as a
"T" quencher as part of the down-comers and additional equipment such as base and wall plates to support the new installation.
3.
Introduction On May 8-11, 1979 a routine RIII inspection was performed of modifications ongoing in the Zimmer suppression pool. This inspection indicated six items of noncompliance and several unresolved matters which were of sufficient significance for the licensee to order the stoppage of work on the suppression pool modifications on May 12, 1979. This inspection is documented in IE Inspection Report 50-358/79-15. An Immediate Action Letter was sent to the licensee by RIII. A second inspection was performed to review the licensee's corrective action on the noted items of noncompliance. This inspection took place during May 17-18, 1979 and resulted in the finding that work could be continued. On May 21, 1979 the licensee lifted the suspension of work on the suppression pool modifications.
4.
Scope This investigation focused upon the allegations provided by Individual
"A" relative to construction and inspection of suppression pool modifications. Primary emphasis was placed on wall plate installation, one facet of these modifications.
5.
Receipt of Allegations On August 14, 1979 Mrs. Eugene Erbe, wife of the president of the Zimmer Area Citizens (ZAC), a group opposed to the Zimmer plant, contacted Region III. Mrs. Erbe indicated that she had met a recently fired Kaiser QC inspector at her neighborhood gas station, as he was
-
preparing to return to his home State. She indicated that this individual had been performing inspections on the ongoing suppression pool modifications and was concerned about improper design control and welding.
She provided the name, address, and telephone number of the individual. She also stated that she had contacted numerous-6-1684 060
.
.
.
.
media representatives and federal agencies concerning these
.
allegations and had passed on the individual's name to these organizations also.
Mrs. Erbe stated that the Individual "A" advised her that he had complained about the lack of adequate drawings and specifications for the wall plate installations and had been fired because of his complaints.
6.
Contact with Individual "A" Individual "A" was contacted on August 15, 1979. He stated that he had obtained a position with Kaiser Quality Control through Butler Service group, and had worked at the site for approximately 2 months.
He stated that he was a inspector, and was qualified as a Level II mechanical, structural, and nondestructive testing inspector.
Individual "A" stated that he had been involved in performing inspec-tions of the suppression pool modifications for approximately the last 4 weeks. He indicated that he had been removed from the job-site when he had brought to the attention of Kaiser management deficiencies in drawings, specifications, and acceptance criteria for the wall plate installations which he had been inspecting.
Individual "A" advised that no adequate drawings, or detailed specifications on how to install wall plates had been provided to the workmen, and the tolerances for various pieces of equipment were either inadequate or unclear on the drawings that he had to use during his inspection effort. He indicated that he had received no instructions as to performance of inspections of the wall plate installation and that various craftsmen had been questioning him on how to perform the installation.
Individual "A" stated that he and 9 other people had been hired out of the Butler Service group, that he had undergone a one week qualifi-cation program and 'then had performed piping inspection for approxi-mately 3 weeks and had then been transferred to inspections of the suppression pool modifications.
Individual "A" stated that he had written several nonconformance reports, of which some had been issued and some had not been issued, which he considered improper. He also advised that some design document control forms had been issued after work on the equipment that they pertained to had been completed, an improper procedure.
He stated that he felt that he had been removed from the job-site
- because of his complaints to management about the adequacies of drawings and specifications. He stated that he was told that his inspections had been done in an inferior manner and that had been the reason for the dismissal from the construction site. He stated that he had met Mrs. Erbe while preparing to return to his home in another State.
-7-161B4 06i
.
'.,
7.
Site Visit on August 17, 1979 On August 17, 1979, James Foster, RIII Investigation Specialist, accompanied Mr. M. Ward, Legal Counsel for the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power on a visit to the Zimmer construction site. During this visit discussions were held with Cincinnati Gas and Electric management personnel, the Quality Control Manager for Kaiser Engineers was privately interviewed, and a site orientation tour was performed.
During discussions with Mr. Borgmann, he advised that the recent allegations regarding the suppression pool modifications were unfounded and provided a memo from Kaiser Engineering stating that Individual
"A" had been dismissed when a surveillance of his inspections had revealed that he had approved nonconforming conditions which had to be reworked.
Mr. Culver, Site Project Manager, indicated that he had looked into the matter and accepted the information contained in the Kaiser memo.
Mr. Robert Turner, Site Quality QC Manager for Kaiser Engineers was privately interviewed by Mr. Foster and Mr. Ward.
He stated that surveillance of the inspections performed by Individual
"A" had indicated that he had accepted numerous nonconforming conditions, and that reinspection was in the process of being performed of all the items which he had previously inspected, and that items which had been found to be nonconforming had been scheduled for repair or rework as necessary.
Mr. Turner provided a Kaiser memo to file concerning the termination of Individual "A" which listed several specific instances of nonconforming conditions approved by Individual "A".
This memo indicated that cracked welds, improperly qualified welders, improper fitups and excessive gaps for welding had been approved by Individual "A".
Mr. Turner stated on the basis of this surveillance it was decided to do the full reinspection of Individual "A's" inspections, and to terminate his employment with Kaiser.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric and Kaiser personnel were advised by the RIII investigator that their position regarding Individual "A"s termination was understood, and there were no further questions at that date.
It was indicated that a full inspection of the suppression pool modifications and of the specific allegations made by Individual
"A" would be performed in the near future.
8.
Inspection on August 21-23, 1979 On August 21-23, 1979 a routine inspection of the suppression pool modifications was performed. During this inspection, specific allegations made by Individual "A" were reviewed by the inspector, including review of drawings, specifications, inspection acceptance
'
criteria, and interviews of Kaiser inspectors and supervisory personnel.
During this review forty-nine design document control sheets were reviewed, twelve procedures, two wall plate installation drawings, eight nonconformances, and nine Kaiser inspection and supervisory-8-1684 062
.
..
.
Work inspected by Individual "A" and
.
personnel were interviewed. records pertaining to these inspections were a In l work area addition, an inspection was made of the suppression poo including work in progress on that date.
The inspection indicated that Individual "A" was qualified for his d at position by virtue of his prior experience, and training receive However, the document review indicated that Individual "A" had approved of nonconforming conditions and that a the Zimmer site.
Interviews with number of his inspections had been inadequate.
fellow inspectors, also hired from Butler Services Corporation,
"
confirmed the inspector's record review regarding Individual "A s had to be performed to bring items previously inspected by Individual inspection performance.
The inspector concluded on the basis
"A" up to design requirements.of this review that there apparently was adequa h
dismissal of Individual "A" as an inspector.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with CG&E and Kaiser representatives as denoted in i
on the Persons Contacted section at the conclusion of his inspect o 23, 1979.
The licensee acknowledged the August his inspection and investigation.
findings as he reported them.
Attachments:
Exhibit I - Interoffice 1.
Memorandum from J. A. Carter to B. K. Culver
.
1684 063-9-
'
INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM
-
.
To B. K. Culverp DATE August 16, 1979
-
AT. Moscow
'
~
FROM J. A. Carter
.
. COPIES TO R. Marshall
,
,
R. Turner y
AT Moscow,
.
JOD NO.
7070 :
_
suoJEc[T TERMINATION OF SERVICES OF Tl,m,,,, ;.3n
On June 11, 1979, the services of Ind."A" were contracted by the Henry J. Kaiser Company at the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station through Butler Services Group, Inc. The services of such employees are considered temporary in nature, and they are considered to be probationary employees for a period of two to three months. After a period of testing and training, Ind."A" was qualified as an inspector and issued an inspection stamp.
Over the past several weeks, Ind."A"'s supervisors, who were monitoring his work, determined that Ind."A" was performing inadequate inspections and that his performance was not in accordance with the standards required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As a result of this determination, it was decided that the services of Ind. A" Nere no longer required, and the contract with Butler Services, Inc. for his services was cancelled on August 14, 1979.
Henry J. Kaiser Company did not employ Ind."A" so, therefore, the Company could not term-inate him.
Wnether or not Ind."A" is still employed by Butler Services, Inc. is beyond our knowledge and/or control. At the present time, our Quality Assurance Department is in the process of reverifying the inspections performed by Ind. "A" during the short period of time he worked at the Zimmer site.
JAC/gk
.
Exhibit I
'
..-
..
1684 064 KCllag Ty n -. -
--
~m=
... -.
=. -,,
-
..
.
- - - ~
%w ~ ~ ~,
.a--
==