ML20058E611
| ML20058E611 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1981 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Heishman R, Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058A387 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-206 NUDOCS 8207300123 | |
| Download: ML20058E611 (5) | |
Text
R-5 i
UNIT Eo ST ATES A* #8 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RE CloN lli e
S m moonvett aoao
[
j occu rttvu.eLuuoss um I
s i
v o...-
MAY 6 1981 R. F. Heishman, Acting Director, Division of Resident j
MEMORANDUM TOR:
and Project Inspection C. E. Norelius, Acting Director, Division of Engineering and Technical Inspection James G. Keppler, Director FROM:
EVALUATION OF PROBLEMS IDEhTIFIED, ZIMMER INVESTIGA
SUBJECT:
to evaluate the Zitmer investigation results in our construction is important k
As you know it to determine whether they are indicative of wea nessinspe i
d whether i
additional inspection effort is needed at other s tes quality.
that Region III Branch and Section step in this effort, we request inspection progra=,
Chiefs, who have been involved in the Zicner constructionIt is not intended that this As a first Rather, it should be based perform the evaluation described below. evaluation involve inspec on existing inspection program documentation.
i the investigation Enclosure I contains a listing of problems identified dur ng ddress the For each of the findings marked with an asterisk, please aCoo to date.
blem identified.
points stated in Enclosure II. appropriate to provide one discussion If you need further I would appreciate your response by June 5,1981.
discussion regarding this request, please see me.
James G. Kepp er Director as stated
Enclosures:
cc w/ enclosures J. F. Streeter 8207300123 820609 PDR FOIA DEVINE82-206 PDR t i, W
Enclosure I
)
C. _Paosans IDErmFIED IHRO'JJi APPLEMTE A!I FMT101S ItNESTIGATIO4 AS A RESULT OF LOOKING INTO THE 19 ALLEGATIG45, THE FOLLO41NG PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED:
- 1.
FAILURE TO SHIM PENETRA*ETER (PADIOGRAPW IECHNIQUE PROBLEM) 2.
SARGENT 8 lUNDY PROBLEMS A.
IDNCOMPLIANCE
~
(1) DEVI ATION FROM FSAR 04 CABLE AMPACITY (2) Ib MEASURES TO REQUIRE DESIGN CALCULAT1045 FOR THERf'AL LMDING OF POWER SLEEVES AND WElGHT LOADING OF TRAYS (3) Ib PROGRAM FOR ENGINEERS TO IDENTIFY DESIGN DEVIATIONS B.
lk4 RESOLVED ITEMS (1) AMPACITY OF CABLES IN DEPTHS GREATER THAN 2 INCHES (2) CALCIA.ATIO45 TO VERIFY THERt%L & relGHT OVERLOAD
- 6) ISTIFICATIO4 FOR DETERMINING LIMIT OF DESIGN INDEx (4) CABLE TRAY LOADING - 30 PolNTS EXCEED FSAR FILL LIMIT
- 3.
STRUCTURAL WELDS INSPECTED AFTER PAINTING
- 4.
DEVIATIO4 FROM FSAR-WELD UNDERCUT EXCEEDED ACCEPTA*4CE CRI c
)
D.
Pros'1xs IDENTIFIED IHROUGH k l FGATIONS PADE BY 21PTER MKERS (BOTH PAST AND PRESENT EMPLOYEES)
~
1.
SURVEILI. NICE REPORTS NOT CofNERTED TO NONCONFORM4CE REPORTS 2.
ib4 CONFORM 4CE REPORTS IWROPERLY VOIDED
'3.
WELD INSPECTION CRITERIA DELITED
'4.
SOCKET WEL.D FIT-UPS NOT VERIFIED
~ 5.
WELD ROD ISSUE SLIP USED AS DC INSPECTION e e
)
k o
l E.
P_ ROBEMS IDENTIFIED BY NRC INSPECTORS WHin PlFSUING k'
~
- 1.
OMCCEPTABLE SEUCTURAL BEAMS WEOS
+ 2.
INADEQUATE COtRRACTOR @RISTOL) IM PROGRAM 3.
bCKOFPATERIALTRACEABluTY A.
SRUCTURAL BEAMS B.
PIPING C.
WE Q rod II.
CABLE SEPARATION VIOLATIONS (S&L DESIGN) 5.
LACK OF INSPECTION CRITERIA TO VERIFY CABLE SEPARATION 6.
INADEQUATE CMRECTIVE ACTim ON CCd AUDIT FINDINGS 7.
tb CCE AUDITS PERFORfED OF THE S&L NONCONFORMANCE PROGRAM 8.
STRUCTURAL BEAMS INSTAU.ED THAT ARE NOT REQJIRED BP DESIGN
- 9.
DESim IDCUfftU CWsNGES DISTRIBLTTION NOT C0tRROLLED 10.
LACK OF C0tRROLS TO ASSURE INSPECTION OF DDC ACTIVITIES O
Enclosure II l
4 EVALUATION OF PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED ZIMMER INVESTICATION 1.
Was the problem identified during the routine or past reactive inspection program?
2.
If answer to 1 is no, explain why not.
Was there a program deficiency? Was it missed by inspectors? Should the inspection program identify such problems?
3.
If answer to 1 is yes, why does the problem still exist? Were adequate measures in progress to solve the problem? Was it identified in a RIII or inspector tracking system? Should it have been resolved sooner?
4.
Is this problem likely to exist at other facilities under construction in RIII?
I i
l l
l
.