IR 05000458/1980011
| ML19353A372 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1980 |
| From: | Herr R, Martin L, Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19353A369 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-80-11, NUDOCS 8101080309 | |
| Download: ML19353A372 (11) | |
Text
O
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Investigation Report No. 50-458/80-11 Docket No. 50-458 Licensee:
Gulf States Utilities Category A 2 P. O. Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Facility:
River Bend Station, Unit No. 1 Inspection at:
Stone & Webster Engineering Operation Center Cherry Hill, New Jersey Investigation Conducted:
October 29-31, 1980 Investigator: d
/4 7 4 4 # / 9 f' d R. K. H6rr, Investigation Specialist
' Date Inspector:
fmm>N W52&
////p//p h rence Martin, %dctor Inspector
' Ddte Project Section, RC&ES Branch f
f e
//! !fn Approved by:
MA/
/7 xari v. Seyfrit, r Region Iv Date e 1010 8 0 3 01
Summary Investigation on October 29-31, 1980 (Report No. 50-458/80-11)
Areas Investigated:
That two Stone & Webster Engineering supervisors are creating engineering schedules and applying pressure to subordinate engineers to meet schedules that are difficult to meet without cutting corners, and that another Stone & Webster Engineering supervisor ordered improper specifications for burial cable.
This investigation involved 24 investigative man hours by one NRC Investigator and one NRC Inspector.
Results Investigation disclosed that top engineering supervisors (identified above) do not create schedules but do implement schedules that are created by subordinate engineers; and that specifications developed for the burial cable in question are proper and ancompass good engineering practices.
Investigation did confirm that pressure on electrical / drawing engineers does exist, to meet schedules, but not to the extent that it would cause engineers to sacrifice or compromise qualit INTRODUCTION The River Bend nuclear power plant is under construction in West Feliciana Parish, St. Francesville, Louisiana.
Gulf States Utilities Company (GSU) is the con-struction permit holder, with Stone & Webster Engineering Company (S&W) as the constructor and architect engineer.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION On October 21, 1980, during a conference call with personnel assigned to NRC-IE, HQ and Region IV, and representatives of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Individual A, Individual A expressed concern that S&W supervisors were creating schedules and applying pressure to subordinate engineers to meet those schedules thereby, possibly compromising good engineering practices.
Individual A also alleged that one S&W engineer had ordered specifications for the burial of cable that were improper and lacked good engineering practices.
SUMMARY OF FACTS On October 21, 1980, Individual A alleged that upper management engineering supervisors were creating engineering schedules and applying pressure to sub-ordinates that would lower the quality of engineering work.
Individual A also alleged that good engineering practices were not followed concerning the burial of cable.
Individual A related the following specific allegations.
1.
That Individual M and Individual N, both Stone & Webster engineers, are putting pressure on cable, system, and design / drawing engineers by creating schedules through the Engineering Management System (EMS) that are difficult or imoossible to meet... without cutting corners.
2.
That Individual X ordered specifications regarding the burial of cable incorrectly.
That the main rationale for the design utilizing two dif-ferent types of cable for the power cable run to the makeup water structure was to save money, inferring lack of engineering responsibility and judg-ment, and that S&W would be hardpressed to find a competent cable engineer to endorse such a practice, inclug ng the endorsement by Stone & Webster's own cable specialist.
Additionally, that two different types of cable are made of different materials which may possibly compromise the grounding system, that the practice violates good engineering practices, and that the single conductor cable is actually being used in an underground duct bank application.
-
-
-- -.-
._-
.
..
-. _ _ _
-.
-.--
.. -
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Cnntacted Stone & Webster Engineering Comoany Emoloyees
- John Lord, Assistant Project Engineer
- Dennis Alexander, Assistant Engineering Manager
- Richard Byrnes, Engineering Manager - Cherry Hill Operation Center
- R. A. Zanetti, Assistant Manager - Cherry Hill Operation Center
- J. R. Beach, Assistant Project Manager
- J. A. Kirkebo, Project Engineer
- B. G. Schultz, Project Manager
- A. J. Kennedy, Manager - Cherry Hill Operation Center
- 0enotes those members attending exit interview.
Other Individuals Individual A Through P Mr. Taylor, NRC-HQ, IE Mr. Hoefling, NRC-HQ, IE Ms. Weiss, member, Union of Concerned Scientists Mr. Pollard, member, Union of Concerned Scientists 2.
Investigation of Allegations Allegation No. 1 That individual M and Individual N, both Stone & Webster engineers, are putting pressure on cable, system, design / drawing engineers by creating schedules through the Engineering Management System (EMS) that are dif-ficult or impossible to meet... without cutting corners.
Investigative Findings On October 30, 1980, Individual B was interviewed in his office and advised that about two years ago a new management system was implemented at the Stone & Webster Cherry Hill Operation Center.
Individual B provided the following explanation regarding the Engineering Management System (EMS)
utilized by S&W at the Cherry Hill, New Jersey, office.
The EMS is a management tool designed to provide the status of work by S&W engineering employees.
The EMS reflects schedules of various work projects / groups, wherein management can determine if work is ahead of schedule, behind schedule, or on schedule.
The schedule that EMS reflects is created by the engineers actually performing the work.
Engineers are assigned a task and asked to determine the amount of time it will take them to complete their assignments.
The engineers, in turn, create the schedule based on the available manpower
-
.
.
.
and submit their schedule to the EMS coordinator who, in turn, places the information into a computer bank.
Subsequently, the computer prints out the engineering schedule.
At this time, the project manager, or other upper management level personnel utilizes the schedule for planning purposes.
Individual B pointed out the management does not make input into the EMS but they do implement / monitor the schedule.
If work schedules fall behind, management personnel can reassign personnel to the affected areas or, if appropriate, hire additional resources.
In addition, the engineers in the
,
affected work area that are falling behind schedule must update their sched-ules on a monthly basis.
The schedule is a collective effort produced by the engineers who are doing the work.
Individua! B pointed out that management's job is to hold the engineers to their original commitments.
If, however, engineers have overestimated their production estimate, then, during the update which is required each month by the engineers themselves, they may ask for an exi.ansion of time.
Indi-vidual 8 stated that at this point the engineers must, justify the need for more time or manpower to management.
If management concurs, then a revised completion date is set; however, if management disajrees, then management must either reassign personnel to " beef up" the work areas or authorize overtime for the engineering group in question.
Individual B stated that the EMS will also reflect good work group and poor work group parformance, but not necessarily individual engineers by identi-ties.
Individual B explained that in order to identify good or poor work performance by individual engineers, the project manager or his representa-tive would be required to interview the lead engineer or group leader to determine individual engineers' identities.
Individual B pointed out that management utilizing the EMS can reward good performance and can locate and identify those engineers with poor performance in order that corrective action may be taken.
Individual B explained that over the past six months, overtime has had a steady decline and completed schedule work has increased.
Individual B stated that the goal of S&W is to reach a six month lead time (completion of drawings) for the River Bend nuclear project.
Individual B remarked that the lead time is presently approaching three months.
Individual B emphasized that pressure is present for engineers to meet their commitments; however, that pressure is not extensive to the point which would cause anyone to compromise or cut corners on their work.
Individual B explained that this type of pressure would be counterpro-ductive.
Individual B remarked that he is confident that any faulty or compromised work would be discovered by checkers, auditors, or other responsible engineering supervisors and this would cause more delays.
Individual B explained the EMS system is designed to eliminate or minimize delays.
-.
___ __
.
Interview of Individual C
.
On October 30, 1980, Individual C, Design / Drawing Engineer, was interviewed.
i Individual C stated that he learned the EMS system when it was implemented
'
at S&W, Cherry Hill; however, not all engineers accepted the system.
Individual C pointed out " People have a tendency to reject anything new."
!
Individual C explained that as an example, he has personal knowledge of engineers released (fired) for their unwillingness to conform to the demands that the EMS requires.
Individual C explained that the EMS requires engineers to plan ahead and to update or correct poor planning on a monthly basis.
Individual C remarked that no one is eager to admit poor planning, but the EMS does work and is a good system.
Individual C claimed that pressures are always present from the project manager to meet schedules (ones that I helped to create), but this type of pressure is not the type that would cause compromise in quality.
Individual C pointed out that 90-95% of his work is returned with questions and/or corrections by " checkers."
Individual C explained that, in addition, Stone & Webster auditors periodically evaluate work performance.
Individual C stated that in June 1980, the project manager, in a meeting with engineers, commented that he wanted to " speed up work." At that time, the project manager questioned procedures and asked detailed questions and as a result more people were hired and overtime was authorized.
Individual C stated that if the situation developed where a drawing was needed immediately and not all of the work was completed, that he would over-engineer with the understanding that when time permitted a readjust-ment would occur.
Individual C cited the following example of over-engineering:
If braces or hangers were required to hold up electrical cable trays, and three or four braces were required and time did not permit the exact computation, then he would specify six braces until such time that he could compute whether three or four braces were needed.
Interview of Individuals 0, E, and G On October 30, 1980, Individuals D, E, and G, all electrical / design engineers, were interviewed.
Each interviewee stated that pressure is present to meet schedules; however~, it is not the type of pressure that would cause a compromise of quality.
Individual D stated he supports the EMS because it identifies the lazy engineer who is not carrying his share of the work load and this individual is usually transferred to a less demanding job.
Individual E claimed that EMS is unpopular because in the days before EMS, engineers actually worked approximately five hours during an 8-hour work day and now there is
" o slack."
Individual E explained that S&W is assuring that each engineer
.i works a full 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.
In addition, Individual E stated that, in the past, fixed due dates on engineering work were not established and now, because of the EMS, all work has a completion date assigned.
-.
.
,
.-
. _,
-.
.-
-
-
e
Individual G remarked the EMS does not apply to him.
Individual G pointed out, however, that due to the pressure of his work load he does not always have time to doublecheck his work explaining, "I am pressured into doing my work correctly the first time."
Individual G complained that normally he would discover and correct any mistakes he made when he doublechecked his work; however, now a " checker" finds any errors and returns the work for correction which he considers to be time consuming.
Individual G explained, when he started with S&W, about 30 engineers were assigned to his department and now there are over 70 engineers present.
Individuals 0, E, and G knew of no excessive pressure on any of their engineer co-workers that would cause anyone to compromise the quality of work.
All agreed that management would not tolerate that type of condition to exist.
Interview of Individuals F, H, and I On October 30, 1980, Individuals F, H, and I, all electrical engineers, were interviewed.
Each individual agreed that the EMS was a good system that provides status of desired work performance.
Individual F remarked that because of the review cycle, there were sometimes problems meeting schedule dates and therefore schedules are constantly being adjusted.
Individual F stated there is pressure from management to meet schedules but not the type of pressure that would cause anyone to compromise their work.
Individual f, when questioned in detail, advised that if, on a rare occasion, a specification or a document had to be released for fab-rication and was not complete or at an acceptable condition, the document would be forwarded with marking called " risk release" " hold" before shipment.
Individual F explained that during the fabrication period, all required work would be completed before the item is released for shipment.
Individual F remarked that a former co-worker (Individual 0) did not always agree with this system.
Individual H advised that he had worked with the EMS system during previous employment with other engineering companies and believed it to be a useful tool that encourages engineers and management personnel to work together in order to identify problems at an early stage of development.
Individual I commented that EMS is a useful tool if management utilizes it properly.
Individual I explained that a recent change within the past two months at the lead engineering level has increased the effectiveness of the EMS.
Individuals F, H, and I all agreed that pressure exists to ensure the meeting of EMS schedules but not the kind of pressure that would cause anyone to compromise quality.
Interview of Individual J On October 31, 1980, Individual J, System Engineer, was interviewe.
.
I
'
Individual J advised that EMS is a helpful tool that records the status of a predetermined schedule.
Individual J explained there is pressure, not necessarily from management, but from other engineers within the group to complete your work so others can complete or keep abreast of their work / responsibility.
Individual J claimed that pressure is not the type that would cause anyone to compromise quality.
Interview of Individual L On October 31, 1980, Individual L, Electrical Engineer, was interviewed.
Individual L advised that EMS is a format that he uses to budget manpower and keep abreast of the scope of activities within his department.
Individual L advised that pressure is present to meet schedule dates but pressure is not applied to individuals.
The EMS is not designed to identify individual engineers but designed to identify the status of work.
Individual L stated that the principal purpose of the EMS is not "who" but "what is status."
Individual L advised that the EMS is not used as a pressure tool against any one person and did not believe anyone would compromise the quality of work because of the pressure to meet the sched-ule dates.
Individual L explained that if schedule dates are not met, it is usually not the result of the competency of an engineer but rather outside factors, such as revisions, changes of designs, and other things that the individual engineer has no direct control over.
Interview of Individual M On October 31, 1980, Individual M was interviewed in his office.
Individ-ual M stated that the EMS is used in two major areas of concern, that of
~
drawings and specifications.
Individual M explained the EMS is used to record manhour results, performance, which in turn can measure cost-effectiveness.
Individual M explained, " engineers are notorious for overestimating their ability to complete a project or work package."
EMS identifies different types of problems and is an effective tool to quickly spot problem areas and immediately take corrective action.
Individual M remarked that EMS does not necessarily identify "he" only
"they" associated with a particular work project.
Individual M explained some engineers may feel pressure from the EMS and explained that about twice a year a meeting is held to emphasize and remind engineers of the need to meet schedules and to immediately report any problem areas when they are identified.
Individual M explained management is not aware of any type of pressure that would cause anyone to compromise quality, however, if an engineer did sacrifice quality that this would quickly be identified and corrective action would follow.
Irdividual M explained that compromising or sacrificing quality would be coun+erproductive and would cause delays and therefore would defeat the purpose of the EMS to meet timely schedules.
Individual M advised that Individual N is working in the field this week
_.
..
-
.._
-
__
.
and is not available at this time for interview.
Individual M also explained that Individual 0 left Stone & Webster's employment during the summer of 1980 and his whereabouts are unknown to him at this time.
Allegation No. 2 That Individual K ordered specificati,ns regarding the burial of cable incorrectly.
That the main rationale for the design utilizing two different types of cable for the power cable run to the makeup water structure was to save money, inferring lack of engineering responsibility and judgement, and that S&W would be hardpressed to find a competent cable engineer to endorse such a practice, including the endorsement by Stone &
Webster's own cable specialist.
Aoditionally, that the two different types of cable are made of different materials which may possibly compromise the grounding system, and that the single conductor cable is actually being used in an underground duct bank application.
Investigative Findings Individual K, Lead Engineer, was interviewed on October 31, 1980.
Indi-vidual K explained that the EMS is a useful management tool to monitor and control the progress of work by about 18 engineers and 80 designers.
Individual K advised that when EMS identifies problem areas, he talks to the engineers involved to determine if more manpower is needed, overtime is required, or reassignment is necessary.
Individual K explained if someone is not performing at an expected level of competence, then this individual is quickly identified not only by the EMS but by co-workers and corrective action can be taken, Individual K remarked that pressure is placed on engineers to maintain schedules but not to the point that they would sacrifice quality.
Individual K explained it is not uncommon for engineers to complain that work cannot be completed in time to meet the schedule because of a variety of reasons.
Individual K identified one such past problem concerning burial cable.
In regard to the particular problem concerning burial cable, a review was conducted of the River Bend Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR),
specifically Section 9.2.11, concerning the cooling tower makeup water system.
This system is comprised of three 100% capacity pumps (one per each unit, plus one backup unit) and two 100% capacity clarifiers (one per each unit), and the associated piping strainers, etc.
The investiga-tion determined that two of the makeup water pumps are supplied electrical power from INPS-SWGIA switchgear (13.2 kv bus) through transformer 1STX-XS3A (13.2 kv to 4.16 kv) to INNS-SWG3A (4.16 kv switchgear in the makeup water structure).
The third pump is powered from INPS-SWG1B switchgear through transformer 1STX-XS3B to 1NNS-SWGR38.
The power supply for these pumps is shown on Stone & Webster drawings 12210-EE-10-7, revision 7;
._
-
-
- -..
.
,,-_
.
_
.--
- _ _.. _ -
12210-EE-1J-S, revision 5; and 12210-EF-1A-5, revision 5.
These drawings clearly indicate that the pumps are supplied 4.15 kv power from :,cperate switchgear and separate 13.2 kv sources.
The statement of concern regarding the two types of cables used in the power caole run to the makeup water structure involves two redundant power feeds.
Discussions with responsible engineers involved with this design indicate that the economics (lower installation costs of direct burial cable) was a consideration in the decision to use two different types of cable in the power cable run to the makeup water switchgear.
Realizing that there were basically three options available for these 13.2 kv feeders, (1) one single cable type and underground bus duct utilizing several splices due to maximum ability to pull cable through ducts and length of cable available.
(2) change cable type and go overhead on poles i
or towers.
(3) change cable type and go to direct burial cable in a trench, the Stone & Webster engineers chose to go with direct burial type cable and therefore prepared specification 241.233 for insulated 15 kv direct burial power cable.
This choice did not result in any additional cable splicing.
The decision to go underground with direct burial cable was prudent and economically sound.
The utilization of direct burial cable and the splicing of medium voltage cable is addressed by the Insulated Power
Cable Engineers Association (IPCEA) and National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) publications No. S-19-81, S-66-524 and S-68-516, and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes and standards and is an engineering practice often utilized by the industry for economic and ervironmental reasons.
Review of Specification 241.233 for insulated 15-kv direct burial power cable indicated that this specification had been reviewed and signed as approved by one of the S&W cable specialists.
A subsequent interview
'
with the cable specialist, Individual P, revealed that he was aware of the design and that he in fact endorsed the preliminary design.
This design is not complete as the contract for the cable has not been officially awarded.
GSU still has to approve the award and the successful bidder will have to furnish splice recommendations to S&W.
The technical cable information was available and was reviewed by the IE inspector.
The IE inspector reviewed Specifications 241.232 for insulated 15 kv and 5 kv power cable and 241.233 for 15 kv direct burial cable power cable
,
l and the manufactures' technical data for each type of cable.
The single conductor cable is a 250 mcm cable with EPR outer jacket with i
l copper insulation shielding.
The proposed bidder for the direct burial cable will be furnishing basically the same cable except that it is a l
.. - - - -
-
.
-
- _..-.
..
_
_
-.
.
.
.
3 conductor cable with an EPR outer jacket suitable for direct burial, and
bronze insulation shielding.
The splice arrangement between the two types of cable has not been designed.
i The importance of this shielding was recognized by the responsible engineers at S&W and is specifically addressed in all three of the previously listed IPCEA publications.
No problem is anticipated with the bronze versus copper
insulation shielding.
The bronze shielding should provide additional physical protection for the direct burial cable.
S&W specification 248.00 for Electrical Installation specifically addresses splicing of medium voltage cable and grounding of insulated shielding including testing of this grounding of the insulation shielding which would reveal any com-promise of the grounding system.
The responsible engineers of S&W are planning to review the cable manufacturer's recommendations and the cable splices and pass this information to the construction site as required by specification 248,000.
Additionally, S&W duct line plan and detailed Drawing No. 12210-EE-32A-5 and 12210-EE-32C-6 were reviewed.
These indicate that bus ducts will be utilized from the south end of the electrical tunnel to the switch yard relay house (approximately 2000 feet).
The single conductor type cable
,
will be used in the conduit and tray system inside the plant and will continue through the conduit in the bus duct out to the switch yard.
The splice box with the transition from single conductor to three conductors will be in the vicinity of the switch yard.
_ - -
.