ML20128E573
| ML20128E573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1981 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A137 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-415 NUDOCS 8505290418 | |
| Download: ML20128E573 (7) | |
Text
-.
972 f
"**a UNITED STATES
'g f
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
)
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20955 -
1 OppscE op LNsptCTOR AND AUDITOR Date 16 July 1981 Jim p,/
/: Art At had for your review is the Review of Welding RecordsReportffnerrview concerning the IE Zinsner IApplegate) e investigation.
John e
S e
S 4
4 5
8505290418 841227 PDR FOIA BAUSERB4-415 PDR
~."~ ~T':
Reviev'of Welding Records
.I ti, p'
On February 19, 1981, OIA requested IE's senior resident inspector at Zimmer, Tom Daniels..to provide copies of the complete weld packages for welds CT-606, RH-42, and K-811.
Shortly afterward, upon receipt of these packages, OIA reviewed each document to determine whether any of the welds had been reworked or replaced and whether any had previously been accepted. OIA found that each of these welds had previously been accepted and that two of them were subsequently cut out and replaced.
Th'a IE' report described the history of weld RN-42 and indicated its current status as being included in an ongoing radiograph review.
Contrary to this,' 0IA learned from the available weld documentation that on March 21, 1981, Ka'iser officials ordered weld RH-42 cut out; by April 14,1981, the weld was removed and Kaiser personesl were working on its replacement. This rework occurred during the period of the,IE investigation (the investigators were on site April 7-9 and April 30-May 2,1981).
r The IE report stated that veld K-811 ves welded on November 9,1977.
bn OIA discovered that this date related to another veld (K-516) and that h
weld K-811 was actually velded on January 30, 1979. Tha IE repcrt g
correctly stated that weld K-811 was cut out and replaced by veld (K-916) in accordance with the disposition specified in NR #E-2138 R1 (Revision 1); however,.0IA ccmipared the original of this hR (E-2138) stamped "7OID" with Revision 1 and found three items of note.
First, although the original NR identified that both velds (K-811 and K-516) had " hold points" scheduled for inspection by the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) Revision 1 of the NR deleted any. reference to weld K-516-OIA subsequently reviewed the weld package for weld K-516 which disclosed that the inspection documentation (KE-1 #A-16922) contained a
" waiver" of the hold point by the ANI dated November 9,1977. The initials of the ANI and the disposition of the missed hold point indicate that NR E-2138 may have nistakenly identified the weld as having a O
- s. ve m omn
,-,m
e missed hold point. However, interview of the inspector assigned to review documents disclosed that he believed the information contained on the original NR dated October 11, 1979, was accurate. The inspector also could not explain why the information relating to weld K-516 was deleted from Revision 1 and advised that he had not writte'n (typed) the revision of the NR.
Second, th,e original NR carries a disposition of " accept as is" which contradicts Revision l's disposition of " cut out and replace weld."
Third, Revision 1 was not written by the same inspector as indicated above, yet the inspectors' name and original date are contained on the 4
revision. This was verified by interview of the former supervisor of Document Control who advised that the procedures, formerly utilized by Kaiser QA, had been" to " type" the revised NR with all of the same information (including name of the original inspector) which completed the top and lef t hand side of the form. Revision 1, therefore, was written sometime af ter the date of the original and presumably after the date of the " voiding", (December 14, 1979). The result of this action, however, gives the appearance that not only did the original inspector write the revision, but also that the decision to cut out we.1d K-811 was made on.0ctober 11, 1979, prior to Applegate's employment at the site, when, in fact, the voiding of the NR and the actual removal ::nd replacement of the weld did not occur until after Applegate had been hired and brought information of potential weld defects in specific welds to the attention of CG&E officials; Copies of NR E2138 and NR E2138 R1 are furnishedasAttachmentshand6respectively.
Below is a brief description of the.' status of the three alleged defective welds and available information documented during the course of both the IE investigation and the OIA investigative effort.
9 ma mma w
- ____m, 3-r m 1
.. ~...
o
-\\
IE Investigation Report Regarding weld No. CY-606, a review of records showed this weld was first radiographed on July 15, 1976, and found to have incomplete fusion and penetration in the areas of 0-13 and 13-16.
The areas were repaired and the veld raradiographed on June 8,1977, and found to be acceptable.
A review was made of the radiographs for veld quality, techniques and report accuracy by an NES Level III radiographer on October 12,1979, as a result of the NRC inspection conducted in 1978. The Level III found some discrepancies which have not been resolved and the veld has not received final acceptance.
DIA Review of Welding Documentation A " reconstructed" weld data sheet for this weld was located and bore the notation " original card lost reconstructed by RT data."
QA stanps for instructions 1, 2, 3 and 7 - i.e., proper procedure levels, fit up and final pass - were missing and in place of the QA stamp was a reference to the above quoted notation. This veld was originally done in mid 1976.
According to the veld package, the history of this weld is as follows:
7/16/76 Radiographic Report...Inecroplete Fusion, Undercut 0-13 13-26 pci 7/16/76. Wald Revork/ Repair Data Sheet...Fr and RT 0.h f
7/19/76 Pene.trant Inspection Report...Cround Out Areas-Accept
-7/21/76 Weld Rework / Repair Data Sheet...FT and RT 7/23/76 NDE Request...FI, Ground Area f
7/23/76 Penetrant Inspection Report... Ground Out Aree-Accept 7/27/76 Radiographic Report... Incomplete Fusion, 0-12 12-24 y
7/27/76 N Rework / Repair Data Sheet...PI and RT 7/29/76 NDE Request...PT and Grind Out i
)
i L.
._-____.m,__
.~
7/29/76 Penetrant Inspection Report... Grind through and area immediately adjacent-Accept 8/2/76 NDE Request...RT, Grind Out for Information Only 8/4/76 NDE Request...PT, Repair Area to Locate Defect Found by RT 8/4/76 Penetrant Inspection Report... Crack in Edge of Weld - Not Accept
.8/9/76 Radiographic Report... Cracks, Incomplete Fusion 12, Reject i
8/10/76 Need Rework / Repair Data Sheet...Fr and RT r
8/10/76 Penetrant Inspection Report... Ground Out Areas - Accept f
h WOK 8/10/76 -itTDE Request...PI, Repair Area
- ~
8/11/76 Radiographic Report... Porosity, Tungsten, Undercut. Surface Indications-Accept 2/15/77 Wald Rework / Repair Data Sheet...PT, RT, RT 6/8/77 Radiographic Report... Porosity, Tungsten, o-13 13 Accept h
Wald data r.scords for Wald CY-606 is included as Attachment 7.
~
kTLD RR-42 6
0 IE Investigation. Report "Regarding weld No. RH-42, records indicated this weld was first radiographed on August 9,1976, and found to have unacceptable porosity and slag in the areas of 36-48.
The areas were repaired and a rersdiograph performed on August 10, 1976, found it to be acceptable. A review was made of the radiographs for veld quality, techniques, and report accuracy by an NES I4 vel II radiographer on
. January 25, 1980, as part of the above pentioned re-review initiated after the 1978.79 NRC inspections. The NCS Inval II radiographer found ecue diserapancies which have not been resolved, and the veld has not been given final acceptacce."
OIA Review of Welding Docu aentation
~
OIA's review of the veld package revealed that during the period March
'to May 1980 weld RH-42 was cut out and replaced by weld RH-K-262.
The y
weld package describes the history of this weld as follows:
=... _
..-n i
8/6/76 Initial veld fit-up, etc., inspected.
8/9/76 Final radiograph revealed unacc.eptable porosity and slag in she area of 36-48.
8/10/76, Rework ordered.
8/11/76 Rework accepted by REI based upon August 10, 1976, raradiograph.
3/21/80 Weld RN-42 ordered cut out.
4 /21/80 Rework to reprepare veld area ordered.
4/23/80
$ verification of proper bevels, etc., for the in process weld based upon April 23, 1980.
4/30/80
$ rejection of proper bevels, etc.
.5/1/80
$ reverification of proper bevels, etc.
5/7/80 KEI approval of weld based upon Nay 6,1980, final radiogra'ph Wald data records for veld RH _42 is included as Attachment 8.
WELD WR-K-811 IE Investigation Report "Regarding weid No. K811, a review of, records showed it was valded on November 9,1977, but because an Authorized Nuclear Inspector hold point ves missed at the fitup, the veld was cut out and replaced by weld No. K916. The missed hold point was documented by Nonconformance Report (NR) No. E-2138R1. This NR indicates that the disposition was to cut out and replace the weld."
CIA " Review of Welding Documentation Weld package for WR-K-811 and K-916 describes the history,of this veld as,follows:
1/30/79 Initial weld, fitup, etc.
h a
9 B
AM " M9?Mt.m
_m--
p_
y,
e 10/11/79 Nonconformance Report dated 10/11/79, No. E-2138.
Describes that established ANI hold point was missed. Disposition -
Perform RT - Accept on basis of RT.
NR stamped " VOID" dated Decenbar 14, 1979.
10/11/79 Wald K-811 - Cut out per NK 2138 R1 on January 14, 1980 -
A Description - (1/14/80). Hold point not signed off.
, eld No. K-916 initial weld.
1 /18 /80 W
1/24/80 Final pass.
Wald data records for veld K-811 is included as Attachment 9.
s e
6 5
I P
~
e t
8 b
l
e
. [
i x
T.
~
e AUG
- G 1981 u.c MD10RANDUM FOR: Chainnan Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Bradford Comissioner Ahearne Comissioner ltoberts FROM:
James J. Cumings. Director Office of Inspector and Auditor,,
SUBJECT:
DIA SPECIAL INQUIRY RE ADEQUACY OF IE INVESTIGATION j
50-358/80-09 AT THE. WILLIAM H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR. POWER
~'
5TATION.
~
Mr. Applegate's aNegations with, respect to my actions in this matter l
are as follows:
I Page 16 of original GAP Petition,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'
"For instance, Phillip sthted that the NRC became aware of the allegations against Ziinner after Applegate called on February 28.
On that date. Applegate called'NRC Chiinnan Ahearna. In fact.
however, the process had begun two w'eeks earlier on February 15, when Applegate called Ins,pection and Audit Director James Cumings to lodge his claims. Mr. Applegate called,Cummings several more times before giving up in' frustration and contacting the'Chainnan.
.The relevant telephone bill for,Mr. Applegate's residence is attached as Exhibit 5.). Mr. Cumings received infonnation which he apparently l.
4 sat on."
?
Phillip Interview _
" Senator Glenn's office p'rovided him'with the na:na of James Cumings.
Director, DIA. HRC. Phillip then explained that Applegate claimed he contacted Cumings by ' telephone and related the infonnation concerning the problems n't the Zimer site.
Applegate also related
. to Phillip that he (Apple' gate) becania frustrated with Cumings as a result of se.veral telephone confe'r'ations with Cumings which culminated with Cunraings' requesting' that Applegate provide "something in
(
writing" compilinD the al,legati,o,ns. Phillip stated that Applegate -
thought about the request over a week'e'nd.and became angry. According
(
to Phillip, Applegate sta'ted that he was upset about the request because he (Applegate) ha;d been incurring personal expenditures to O
-6 242 ? Vp-3R8-
%o.
1
~4
..................... '.l....................
. 0.,z,.:.
. ~ _.. >
..............,,__y...,,..y
. y.................
- >.................................................U....E..,..u...f..i...d...U...A.i..I.............'...............................',...'....
.-.[ [
~ ~ ~ ~ '
~ - - ~
^
~
un.l.i;,i._l [.d IlhI: y.
I ll.l-
~
f m.
3 j
r Commission. e b
bring the information to "someone's attention and now he was requested to do more. Applegate said he then c111ed Chairman Ahearne's office who appa'rently referred the matter to IE."
1
.e: In' view'of the above. I think 'it appropriate for me to provide, for the record, g best recollection of the sit.uation.
On February:1g.1g81. Mr. AppTegate called g office, spoke to V secretary, and asked that I return his call. After several telephone
(
attempts by both Mr. Applegate' and myself. we finally spoke two or three days later. My best recollect,fon, of the highlights of this conversation is as follows:
Because of his investigat' ion of the Zinner Plant, he feared for his Ohio, to Washington, D.C., and to al.s tra.nsportation from Cincinnati.
life and wanted me to provide for. hi so, provide for his protective i
I custody.
Applegate had been to both the Cinci,nnati FBI and the Cincinnati U.S. Attorney's office and had n'ot received a satisfactory solution from these offices of his' prob 1,em.,
He had currently locked himself in his home and was afraid to go
~i outside because of the. investigative reports he had written. He reasoned that if he could give these reports to someone in the Federal Government, then the pressure would be off him, i.e., they would be out of his control and that being the case he could go
. about his business with Tess fear.
I
' ~ '. '
Applegate did not' trust NRC and,woul,d definitely not deal with the NRC Regional Office.
I told Applegate that I could hot provide either the transportation or protective custody that he sotight but that I would be happy to receive i
his written investigative reports r Applegate told me that g having a copy 'of hi.egarding the Zinsner plant.s reports might' so 4
but that he would have to think about it over the weekend and let me know of his decision.
l i
After talking to Applegate I chl.h! ti..C,tacinnatt FBI office and verified that Applegate had been to tP*i o.Tice seeking protective custody. The agent to whom I spoke charadP. 4 Mr. Applegate as apparently totally sane.
2
~.... ~.... -.................
.g..94.g..g....q...................................................
g M
- +he.p-Whhe-s
.es..--...e4m
,q
7 ~ I.~ ~
^'
r.
6 r-Comission e
several days later, exact date not recalled, probably about February 25 or 26 Applegate a receive his call. gain called ny office, but I was not in the office to He called a'gai.n that same day and again I was not in to receive his call.
During the course of his conversation with my secretary, during the second ca' 11, he a,sked for the name of my supervisor.
% secretary provided this infondation to,ing her that I Applegate and then called former Chainnan Ahearne's secret alert from the office all day and sh next morning I was contacted bye, m,'i h't expect a call frun Applegate.
The one of former Chairman Ahearne's' staff and told that he had spoken to
' Office of Inspection and Enfor. Ap' leg (a,te and had referred him to the p
contacted by Bill Ward, IE, wiki,t'old me.E) hat he had spoken to cement I t
and that Applegate had agreed to meet with Headquarters IE staff in Cincinnati in the next few day's.
recontact Applegate.
. In view of this arrangement I did not Distribution:
DIA OIA Reading JCumings l
>. ~
QIA:......
r
.eg.;p....................
..............g g.gg.0 G
.w = -
'- - - - -' ' "*^' "^~ ~
^