IR 05000387/1979006
| ML17138B560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1980 |
| From: | Ebneter S, Gallo R, Remaklus L, Rich Smith, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17138B559 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-79-06-01, 50-387-79-6-1, 50-388-79-05, 50-388-79-5, NUDOCS 8011100373 | |
| Download: ML17138B560 (12) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Addendum 50-387/79-06 Region I Report No.
50-388/79-05 Docket No.
50-388 CPPR-101 License No. CPPR-102 Priority Licensee:
Penns lvania Power 8 Li ht Com any 2 North Ninth Street Category Al 1 entown, Pennsyl vani a 18101 Facility Name:
. Susquehanna Units 1 and
Investigation at:
Berwick, Pennsylvania Investigation conducted:
January 29 to Fe ary 21, 1980 Investigators:
y d H.
Smut
, Senior Investigator Robert M. Gallo Resident Reactor Inspector lawrence P.
Remaklus, Investigation pe sa >st date igned dat signed qjz date signed Approved by:
Anthony A. Varela, Reactor Inspector j 0 S.
D. Ebneter, Chi.ef, Engineering Support Section 5'2, RCSES Branch ate signe
ate igned Investi ation Summar
Investi ation from Januar 29 to Februar 21, 1980 Ad en um Re ort Nos.
0-387 79-06 and 50-388 9-05)
Area Investi ated:
dditional snvestigation of three allegations concerning the quality control program after an interview of the alleger.
The investigation involved 84 investigative hours by the NRC Resident Inspector and three NRC Regional-based Investigators.
Results:
None of the allegations investigated were found to be substantiated and no apparent items of noncompliance with regulatory requirements were identified.
Region I Form 143 (Rev. October 1977)
~i9zz gg g '372
,I.
BACKGROUND A.
Reason for Investi ation Investigation Report Nos. 50-387/79-06 and 50-388/79-05 was issued following an investigation of'llegations contained in a statement made by Mary Kelchner Creasy during a pre-hearing confer ence in Milkes Barre, Pennsylvania on January 29-31, 1979.
Fur th'er investigation was conducted following an interview of Mary Kelchner Creasy on January 29, 1980, to obtain clarification regarding the allegations.
B..
Identification of Involved Or anizations No change from original repor II.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS No change from origina1
.repor III.
DETAILS A.
Introduction On January 29, 1980, Mary Kelchner Creasy was interviewed at the Berwick City Hall, Berwick, Pennsylvania by NRC Region I representatives R.
M.
Gallo and R.
H. Smith.
B.
Sco e.of Investi ation This investigation was limited to the portion of the individual's statement regarding the qualification of gC inspectors which was related to a period of her employment with Bechtel.
C.
'Persons Directl Interviewed and/or Contacted Durin the NRC Investi ation 1.
Penns lvania Power 8 Li ht Com an PP8L
"R. Beckley, Nuclear guality Assurance Engineer
- J. Buczynski, Coordinating Engineer
'.
Curtis, Vice President, Engineering and Construction
"S.. Denson, Project Construction Manager
"R. Featenby, Assistant Project Director
"W. Gullivin, Nuclear guality Assurance Engineer
~R. Shovlin, Assistant Project Director 2.
Bechtel Power Cor oration Bechtel J. Berra, Project Superintendent Services S.
DeFebo, guality Control Engineer D. Drumheller, guality Control Engineer
"G. Gelinas, Assistant Project Field qua]ity Control:Engineer G. Hmelak, guality Control Engineer
- H. Lill.igh, Project guality Assurance Engineer K. Stout, Project Field guality Control Engineer
"C. Turnbow, Field Construction Manager
"Denotes those present at exit meeting.
D.
Limited A earance Statement of Mar Kelchner Creas No change from original report.
E.
NRC Re ion I Ins ection Histo No change from original repor F.
Em lo ment of Mar Kelchner Cre'as
,Mary Kelchner Creasy stated that she was employed as a print clerk for about three months and performed drafting-for about six months.
She also stated that for about the fir'st two months in drafting 'she was paid similar to a print clerk.
G.
Investi ation of Portions of the Limited A earance Statement 1.
Alle ation No.
a.
Alle ation
'"Mhile I was with Bechtel, in my opinion I saw,incompetence at all levels 'encountered from lost drawings, not meaning blueprints, drawings,...".
(1)
Interview Ms. Creasy provided the following information regarding the above statement:
b.
One of her.jobs in the Print Room was to maintain the logbook for Vendor drawings.
'An individual came to the Print Room and requested the latest revision of one of the Vendor drawings.
She checked the log for the latest revision and looked in the Print File Drawer for the drawing but it was missing..
The drawing could not be found in the Print.Room and she reported this to the Supervisor.
She was told by the Supervi'sor that he would take care of the lost drawing and that she should not.tell the individual that the drawing could. not be located.
She did not know the outcome of the missing drawing but agreed with the NRC investigation report findings that the drawing was not irretrievably lost since the Vendor could be contacted to provide another drawing.
NRC.Investi ation C.
No further investigation conducted.
~IIR Fi di No change from original repor ~32 3
"While I was with Bechtel, in my opinion I saw incompetence at all levels encountered from..., to. drunken inspectors and supervi-sors.
(1)
Interview Ms. Creasy provided the following information regarding the above statement:
Ms.
Creasy either could not or would not provide the identity of any in'dividuals referred to in the above statement.
b.
NRC Investi ation
No further investigation conducted.
~232
21 No change from original report.
3.
~333
N.3 ag
Alle ation
"The qualifications of the gC insp'ectors is also questi'onable in my mind; a few people I know having no background in the. nuclear industry or construction industry were given job's beyond their expertise.."
(1)
Interview Ms. Creasy provided the following information regarding the above statement:
Ms. Creasy declined to identify the individual gC inspectors by name but stated that by first hand knowledge she knew that they had not worked in the nuclear or construction industry because she had either gone to school with them or they were from the Berwick area.
She also stated that some of them had transferred from the Print Room.
Ms. Creasy stated that her knowledge of jobs being beyond the expertise of gC inspectors was based on what she had been told by some inspectors, i.e., they had inspected
,7 cadwelds after only three. days of training when they should have been trained for a period from two to four weeks.
Ms.
Creasy stated that she could not remember when she was told this but it was during her period of employment.
b.
NRC Investi ation The investigators examined the qualification records of each of the 85 gC individuals described in the original report in an attempt to determine the group of inspectors referred to by Ms.
Creasy.
Further investigation of this allegation is described in Enclosure 1 to this report.
H.
Mana ement Meetin A management meeting was conducted at the Susquehanna site on February 21, 1980, with the representatives noted in Paragraph C of Details.
The investi-gators discussed the findings of the investigatio FEEDER REPORT BY A. A.
VARELA INVESTIGATION NOS. 50-387/79"06 AND 50"388/79" 05 FEBRUARY 19-21 1980
~Sco e This investigation was limited to that portion of above subject identified as "Alle ation No. 3"':
".The qualifications of the gC inspectors is also questionable in my mind; a few people I know having no background in the nuclear industry or construction industry were given jobs beyond their expertise."
Specifically, this investigation addressed QC inspection, inspector requirements and.qualifications of inspection personnel engaged in the civil capacity of inspecting reinforcing steel spliced by the process known in the construction industry as the Cadweld Rebar Splice.
(The cadweld rebar splice is a mechanical means of butt-splicing deformed bars to produce a joint with basically the same mechanical properties as those of an unspliced bar.
The splicing is accomplished by thermite molten metal interlocking the grooves inside a splice sleeve with the def'ormations of the rebar.
The exothermic reaction of the cadweld powdered metal takes place in a graphite crucible attached to the sleeve.
The resultant cadweld filler metal flows down through a pouring basin, thus locking the sleeve to the rei'nforcing bars when the filler metal cools and solidifies.)
Investi ation This investigation was conducted by the inspector who had performed civil inspections at the site and observed civil construction during the years 1974 through 1977.
He interviewed two men still employed at the site who were quality control inspectors on cadweld rebar splicing during 1975 and 1976.
Interviews were conducted to determine the individuals'ackground, experience and training that qualified these employees as cadweld inspectors.
The NRC inspector also examined the qualification records of each man 'to verify that their indoctrination, training and performance evaluation were adequate to fulfillrequirements established by the program for Level I certification as required by the Bechtel Field Inspection Manual, prior to their assignment as quality control inspectors in cadweld splicing.
Based on a review of Bechtel guality Control records and interviews with two former cadweld inspectors the NRC inspector determined that physically capable young men who had completed high school, some with military service, some with additional manufacturing or employment in some form of construction, and some with two-year college credits in construction inspection were adequately trained by competent and experienced supervisors to qualify in Level I quality control inspections.
The investigator noted in inspection records signed by Level I inspectors that. records were also approved by a more experienced inspector and/or Enclosure 1 (Page 1 of 3)
engineer who is qualified and certified to Level II.
Training requirements for Level I cadweld inspectors were noted to include. prescribed reading, class attendance, field observation of cadweld splicing and inspect'ion techniques, and observation of laboratory 'tensile tests, of cadweld splices.
A man-to-man relationship for a trainee with a Level II instructor included on-the-job training in prescribed inspection measurements, filling out of inspection forms and entering specific information required by formal report checklists.
.The investigator determined from interviews with former cadweld inspectors that on-the-job training and instruction for Level I inspection certification
'included proficiency tests.
Records of performance demonstration covering the check points required, by c'adweld field inspection plans were signed by a Level II examiner who evaluated the candidate.
Additionally, the investigator reviewed licensee and contractor construction civil field audits and in-process surveillance activities 'conducted in 1975 and 1976 to ascertain the effectivensss of cadweld inspection and cadweld splicing'by iron worker craft personnel.
The investigator observed in two in-depth field audits and one in-process witnessing that specific items were affirmatively answered and/or verified the adequacy of cadweld inspectors and their records.
3.
Review of NRC Re orts Coverin Construction Ins ection Durin 1975 and 1976 A review of NRC c'onstruction inspection reports on inspections conducted during 1975 and 1976 identified these significant items relative to the quality of cadweld splices and quality control inspection thereof.
Previously gC inspected cadweld splices, vertical, horizontal and diagonal size '818 were randomly selected and inspected on Unit 1 by the NRC in forty foot circumferential height of the suppression chamber wall of the reactor building.
No discrepancies were identified.
b.
Records on mechanical splicing of rebar, including qualifications of inspection personnel on Unit 1 were found acceptable by the NRC.
C.
d.
The NRC inspector examined work in progress and observed cadwelding operations on Unit 2, no discrepancies were identified.
The NRC inspector observed cadwelding of 818 rebar performed on Unit 2 suppression chamber wall. It was observed that gC performed their surveillance inspection.
At completion of firing, splices were inspected by gC and the NRC inspector for verification that specified quality requirements were met.
No discrepancies were found.
Enclosure 1 (Page 2 of 3)
e.
Previously gC inspected cadweld splices,
.30 units randomly selected on the Reactor Vessel Pedestal were inspected by the NRC for location, centering, end voids, slag, alignment, inspection marking and identification.
No discrepancies were identified.
'he NRC inspector observed work performance and evaluated work in progress and verified that qualified gC inspection personnel were used for Cadweld inspection activitiesthis report identifies four quality control inspectors on Unit 2 reactor building whose qualifications were verified by the NRC inspector.
The NRC investigation found no information or evidence that gC cadweld inspectors were. given jobs beyond their expertise or that the gC inspectors were not qualified to perform assigned activities.
Enclosure 1 (Page 3 of 3)