ML19318B591
| ML19318B591 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1980 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Pursell C HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318B592 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006270126 | |
| Download: ML19318B591 (2) | |
Text
f
~
7~ER
~
,pG%
/
UNITED STATES 8 Yg <
[}
NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION Af /
W ASHINGToN. D. C. 20555 i ? M. [ y [f
% ~.
JUN 2 1900 The Honorable Carl D. Fursell United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressmen Purse 11:
This refers to your letter dated April 21, 1980 conctening the April 14, 1980 letter from Mr. Millard B. Nelson in which he expressed his concerns over the Nuclear Regulat. 6 Commission's recent investigation of alleged problems at the Fermi Nuclear Station's construction site.
This investigation was prompted by certain ABC television allegations, which were recently discussed on the television program 20/20, that unqualified technical personnel have been employed as designers and technicians at the Fermi construction site.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) investigation into this matter has disclosed that certain Detroit Edison Company activities failed to comply with the NRC's requirements that effective controls governing small bore piping suspension design should have been in effect.
The details of this noncompliance by Detroit Ecison are discussed in an enclosure to this letter. With regard to Mr. Nelson's specific concern, e.g. what has the NRC learned, the NRC invest-igation has determined that in general, the qualifications of these people were adequate to perform their required design function.
What was also found in this regard, was the fact that Detroit Edison had not established personnel qualifi-cation requirements for these design positions, nor had the utility performed a l
proper review of the final design product.
The utility has been subsequently issued a Notice of Violation which requires appropriate corrective action and steps to prevent a recurrence.
The enclosed utility response to this NRC citation is now being reviewed and evaluated by the inspection staff to determine the acceptability of Detroit Edison's proposed actions.
The specific corrective measures will be subsequently verified during a future NRC inspection.
We appreciate having the opportunity to respond to Mr. Nelson's concerns, and sincerely hope that the above infor.mation will convince him that the problems i
1 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUAllTY PAGES 8006270126 l
The Honorable Carl D. Pursell found at the Fermi site as a result of the ABC television investigation have been fully identified and will be corrected.
We trust this information is responsive to your needs.
Sincerely Wgned1T. A.Rehd
./
f'WilliamJ.Dircks Acting Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Investigation Report No. 50-341/80-02 2.
Utility's Response to Citation f
e i
19R 11 E80 Docket No. 50-341 i
The Detroit Edison Company Attn: Mr. E&rard Hines
)
Assistant Vice President
{
and Manager Quality Assurance 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 t
Gentlemen:
This refers to the investigation conducted by Nessrs'.'G.' A. Phillip,-
~
~ '.
I. T. Yin and C. M. Erb of this office on ~Janiairy 21-23 and February.11-12.
x 1980, of activities at the Enrico Fervi 2 Nuclear Power _ Plant. authorized _ -.._ -- _
~ ~ by MRC License No. CPPR-8.7_and to the discussion of our findings with you ~ -~
j and others at the con ~cidfoh of the1avestigatTon.... _. ' ' _ _~~~ ' ' _ _ --
_ This investigation was conducted-to determine the substance of ~an allega-
' - ~ ~
~-
tion that the qualifications of, and the work performed by, personnel in the site small bore pipe s@ port design group were inadequate. The enclosed cr~ of our investigation report identifies the areas examined during this investigation. Within these areas, the innstigation consisted of a selective examination of records and procedures, observations and inter-views vith pe.sonnel.
= - - -
During this investigation, certain of your act1 ities appeared te be 1n~~
~~
~
rencotoliance with MRC requirements, as described in the enc 1csed Appendix A.
This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2. Title.10. Code of Federal Regulations. Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office within thirty days of your receipt of this notice a written statement or explana-tion in reply, including for each item of noncompliance:
(1) corrective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further noncocpliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. In addition, your response should include the actions you plan to take to verify that the small diameter piping already designed and/or lostalled meets appropriate desip specifications.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's_*Aules of Practica,' Part 2. -. -
Title 10, code of FederalTRegulations, a copy of this letter the enclo - - ---
sures, and your response to this letter will be placed in the stC's Public h C. Q(..
=
=
f
\\
...g
= =3..
..-.=: = = -
.= :
De Detroit Edison Cr any,
Document toca, except as follows.
If the enclosures contain infonaation tr.at you or yxt esctractors believe to be proprietary, you must apply in writing to this offica, within twenty days of your receipt of this letter, to withhold such information from public disclosure. The applica-tion must include a full statement of the reasons for which the information is considered proprietary, and should be prepared so that propriatary in-forzation identified in the application is contained in an enclosure to tan application.
iie will gladly discuss any questior.s you have concerning this investiga-tion.
Sincerely,
.3ames G. Keppler
_._. -_ _.. Director
-?
w ^ _2
- = = - - -
1.
Appendix A, Motice of Molation 2.
IE Investigation Report no. 50/341/80-02 cc w/ encl; Cehtral Files _
Re:rocaction thit NRC 20b PDR Local PDR e
^NSIC
- - - ~ ~ -
~~
~-__
DC Rc.ald Callen, Michigan Public Sen-ice Coc:-ission Eugene B. D m, Jr.,
Attemey e
. g.
y-
-~~
e
=...
$ ' ~.
e
Aopendix A NOTICE OF VIOLATION The 3e roi: Edison Company Docket No. 50-341 Based on the investigation conducted on January 21-23 and February 11-12, 1930, it appears that certain of your activities were in noncompliance with NRC requirements, as noted below. This is an infraction.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III states, in part, that " Measures shall be established to assure that applicable regulatory requirements and the design basis... are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions."
The Enrico Fermi 2 FSAR, Section A17.1.3 states, in part, that " Edison has established and implemented procedures which delineate the_ design process froa initiation through final approval and release, and deter-cine that design activities have been and are carried out in a planned and
'ntrolled manner, and that plant design adequacy is verified and doctr.ented. "
Contrary to the above, the control of small bor_e;. pip,in.g suspension design was considered to be inadequate in that:
a.
The work performed by Wismer & Becker during 1977 and 1978 was accomplished without approved procedures.
b.
Insufficient guidance was provided by the DECO Engineering Depart-ment in their standardized chart and table type design methods.
c.
Acceptance review was not conducted by the DECO Engineering De;artment on a systematic basis.
e d.
Personnel qualification, certification, indoctrination, and training requirements had not been established for the DI 5:.all Bore design group.
In addition, numerous installatica deficiencies were identified that are an indication of this lack of design control.
l l
0+ y Soa4 i5'O'1'(O
U.S. NUCIIAR REGUI.ATORY CO.T11SSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT P2GION III Report No. 50-341/80-02 Docket No. 50-341 Li:ense No. CPPR-87 Licensee:
Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, MI 48226 Facility Name: Enrico Fermi 2 Dates of Investigation:
January 21-23 and February 11-:2, 1980 Investigation At-Monroe,-MI
~
C I[ff 47 Investi ators:
</
,A G. A. Phillip/
Dan
/'
,l
.f?f(
I./T. Yin Date
/
0'.90 {Ah 37R C. M. Erb Dat( /
Reviewed by:
2/'C C. E. Norelius Date Assistant to the Director
.9C
~5 l7h d D. H. Danielson Date Chief, Engineering Support Section II Investigation Summarv:
Investigation on January 21-23 and February 11-12 L 1980. (Report No. 50-341/80-02).
Areas of Investigation:
In response to an allegation that personnel in the on-site pipe suppo ing group were not qualified, re-RFC9*digfqqf2@g$py@yrt,,d e s i gn.,t%.;'+q g l
re: -- --- -
g"WP k made observations of installed e investigation involved 59 s
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously he on-site s=all bere pipe support j
en".ered into system under:
e pipe suppert design verk was not g
afraction, relating te 10 CFR 50, ANO
, was identified. Tvc unresolved e:
l Q
No. of Pages:
I o asme - -
y,
-e
u.:... m :...; cc N:
- tp Wo. New YWCM3 hict--
November 28, 1979 Mr. Harold Thornberg Division of Reactor Construction Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland r
Dear Mr. Thornberg:
During our r e tearch for the 20/20 segment, " Nuclear Construction".
we have foce following:
1.
A fundans ek of qualifications in th e on site design
{
e 4
engineering sm'.c:
at the Fermi Il plant particularly in the pipe i
support area. This includes-doctored resumes, an apparent nepotistic situation and a general lack - of es perience amongs t designers, checkers and s up e rvis ors.
l
- 2. The use of a contract engineering firm, QUA!;-TECH, to supply
'"q ua li fie d" pe rs ennel. Qu an-t e ch.h r.s -a poor reputation in the field l
and has admitted to a failvre to sdequately check the backrounds of
~
employees.
~
1
- 1. A nationwide problem with engineering personnel who arc recent
.==igrants or resident aliens who have great difficulty executing their verk due to language and com=unication problems. This has been reported to us by engineers who have worked at numerous sites around the Unite d S tates.
- 4. Fear amongst workers and engineers on site to raise questions about the quality of work and proceedures due to retaliation by e=ployers.
5.
Specific informa tion concerning variety of welds and general a
velding conditions (cleanliness, etc.) at the Fermi 11 plant, e.g.
the doctoring o# stainless steel velds in the control cable pipes and supports, Field Weld #8. etc.
- 6. The use of under and unqualified personnel at Duke Power's Charlotte, Nort h Carolina f a ci lit,ie s in the pipe support and' seismic stress design e..:n c ring a rea s as well as allegedly substandard enrineers supplied by >till another agency, NUCLEAR POWER SERVICIS.
- 7. 1he lack of any set standards in the industry for. design engineers and the q ua li fi c a t ion s for these positions.
l The above infor=ation has been accu =ulated by checking resumes we had Exhib'it A Page 1 of
&c 600kO702.LS wt
Mr. Earold Th'rnberg o
November 28, 1979 page 2 in our possession, interviews with engineers, construction workers and individuals workizg or a f filia ted with contract engineering agencies.
We appreciate your cooperation in investigating these matters.
~ ncerely, 8
N I
Y l
C-Tyc Myatt Lowell Bergman
'Produ:er Producer l
g cc:
.7 anes C. Keppler e
Exhibit A Page 2 of 2 l
._,- -.-