ML20151L429
| ML20151L429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/17/1994 |
| From: | Paul R, Ulie J NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F728 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-97-180 NUDOCS 9708070001 | |
| Download: ML20151L429 (4) | |
Text
. .. ------ - - - .- -.~.- - .~ - - -. . _ - - .
4
)\ _
i 4#
i REPORT OF INhRVIEW WITF j RALPH J. 3 LOCK i
i On March 15, 1994, Ralph J. BLOCK, President of Progressive Materials and
, Technologies, Inc. (Promatec), P. O. Box 309, Cypress, Texas, was interviewed
! by NRC:01 Senior Investigator Richard C. Paul and Investigator Joseph M. Ulie,
- at Promatec.
BLOCK stated the following:
- He began working in the fire seal business in 1974 with Brand Industrial !
- Services Company (BISCO). BLOCK explained that in 1974 BISCO utilized a four-i part silicone foam produced by Dow Corning as fire penetration seal material l at the Hatch Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) owned by Georgia Power. BISCO also j
obtained Cook, Unit 1.
a contract in the fall of 1974 to install the fire seals at D. C.
At this time Dow Corning patented their silicone foam product j and "gave BISCO a promotional bonus to market the Dow Corning material."
{ BLOCK described the " promotional bonus" as a kickback in the amount of $0.50 per pound.
j Over the next year, two additional companies started in the fire penetration seal business. These companies, Cheatrol and ICMS, were started by former ;
BISCO employees. BLOCK said he was involved in the formation of Cheatrol in '
June 1975. Dow Corning then developed a two-part silicone foam (Dow Corning ;
- Product 3-6548
! Cheatrol over p)atent infringement.which Cheatrol,Chestrol based on got NRCtheandrights to. BISCO subsequen ANI require- '
j ments, developed quality control (QC) procedures and a testing program.
4
- Over the next two years, BLOCK said he was involved in several projects,
- including a plant in Spain, TMI, and the FFTF in Hanford, Washington, j installing fire penetration seals made from the Dow Corning silicone foam.
BLOCK remarked that he did not notice any problems with the foam in these :
- installations.
j BLOCK said that in 1979 he observed that BISCO was installing the fire 4
penetration seals at Hanford, i.e. WNP-2. The Dow Corning 3-6548 silicone foam, BISCO product FS-77, was laced.with a silica flour, which BLOCK called
, minuial, to save money over the competition. BLOCK said this caused the seals to shrink.
i BLOCK related that at WNP-2 two employees of a contractor, FISCHBACH and MOORE, were indicted and convicted for their involvement in a kickback i scheme with BISCO. BLOCK alleged that BISCO was " thrown off" site at. WNP-2 l .and Cheatrol picked up the seal contract and engaged in the same kickback j scheme as BISCO.
! In late 1979, BLOCK said he and Charles SPRIGGS left Chestrol and went to j work for the B&B Fire Safety Division and obtained a license from Cheatrol to i
Case No. 3-93-028R 1 9700070001 970724 EXHIBIT b
! PDR FOIA t j QUNTER97-100 PDR PAGE / OF N PAGE(S) l
()'[ , ', g
J do installation work of fire penetration seals. Starting in the early 1980s, the market for fire penetration seals greatly expanded as the result of the NRC regulations arising from the Browns Ferry incident. ANI began setting standards for testing of fire penetration seals and gave acceptance certifi-
' cation if tests were conducted to the ASTM E-Il9 standard with a hose stream test. At this time, only silicone foam was being used for fire penetration seals. By 1982, Dow Chemical was having trouble keeping up the supply of foam to meet the demand in nuclear work.
- BLOCK said he became aware that on or about December 1985, Dow Corning changed the formulation of their 3-6548 Silica-RTV foam. BLOCK said his knowledge of this change was based on that he had " heard it somewhere," and this informa-tion was "well known" through industry circulation. BLOCK had no specific information on the change of formulation of the foam. Tak TAKAHASHI of Dow Corning assured BLOCK there were no problems with the reformulated foam and the new formulation was within the tolerances of the patent. j INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: BLOCK later produced a Dow Corning Memorandum
- dated November 12, 1984, notifying Dow Corning applicators that the i
3-6548 formulation had been "slightly modified."
BLOCK said that he was aware that the applicators of silicone foam and his competitors began having problems with the Dow Corning foam. Specifically Roger THOMAS of ICMS was having problems at the Point Beach NPP with the
, installation of the foam. BISCO had problems with their 9" nondammed seal, which was made of Dow Corning 3-6548 silicone foam. Before the formula change, BLOCK said 9" to 10" of the Dow Corning silicone foam with an alumina silica damming board gave 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of fire protection. BISCO had an approved and qualified the 9" foam seal with no damming board. BLOCK believed that Keith PETTY, of Stone & Webster, would have knowledge of fire tests which failed after the formula change of the Dow Corning silicone foam. BLOCK thought these failed fire tests were done on configurations that had passed before the formula change and attributed the failure to the formula change.
, In 1983, B&B Fire Safety Division split from B&B and became Promatec, and in October 1984, BLOCK became the president of Promatec.
4 In 1986-1987, Promatec had the contract of installing the fire penetration
, seals at the Shearon Harris NPP and utilized Dow Corning 3-6548 for these seal s. BLOCK said they (Promatec) had problems with the 9" seal with damming board at Shearon Harris. After pouring the seal, an inspection was performed several hours later. Promatec was finding no quality problems at the time of this inspection, but by the next day the seal would have a giant bump, which was indicative of a void within the seal, according to BLOCK. BLOCK had heard that ICMS, a competitor, also had this same problem at Point Beach, and BISCO was having problems with their 9" seal. BLOCK said Dow Corning was made aware of these problems.
J Case No.- 3-93-028R 2
3 4 Promatec, at Shearon Harris, had so many problems with the silicone foam i they had to alter their installation methods. Because of these problems CP&L, '.
j the owner of Shearon Harris, put together a $400,000 back charge against Promatec over the seals. CP&L also had TAKAHASHI of Dow Corning come out to inspect the seals. BLOCK said TAKAHASHI was supposed to issue a report on i his findings but never did. BLOCK said it cost Promatec $244,000 to settle this problem with CP&L.
! BLOCK said that he then contacted David V0GT of Dow Corning over the
! performance of the silicone foam and attempted to get them to reimburse 1 l Promatec. BLOCK said Dow Corning would only agree to give Promatec a $50,000 l 4
credit for materials and refused to reimburse them for the total settlement. !
j As a result, Promatec sued Dow Corning for the $244,000 plus legal fees.
i BLOCK said he got a call from V0GT wanting to settle the lawsuit. Steve MAYE, 2
of Dow Corning, subsequently came out and met with BLOCK and the suit was
- settled.
5 BLOCK said he did not file a Part 21 with the NRC over the silicone seal i problems at Shearon Harris because the problems occurred at the time of j construction and were corrected.
1
- In May 1987, BLOCK was notified by Wolf Creek NPP that they had uncovered problems with about 10% of their fire penetration seals. These seals were installed by Promatec utilizing Dow Corning 3-6548. The problems consisted i of lack of fill, voids, and seal shrinkage. Subsequently, it was determined l that the problems were reportable to the NRC under Part 21. Randy BROWN of Wolf Creek filed the Part 21 in May 1987. BLOCK attributed part of the problems with the fire seals at Wolf Creek to inspection methods used there. '
i This inspection method required that only one of the two damming boards be
- removed to visually inspect the seal. BLOCK said this inspection method is 1 . commonly used throughout the seal application industry. This method does not allow the inspector to discover problems which are only visible by removing i the second damming board.
l INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: The Wolf Creek Part 21 filed on these j seals resulted in NRC Information Notice 88-56 being issued 4 on August 4, 1988.
BLOCK said that during installation of the seals at Callaway NPP project, Promatec had installation problems with the Dow Corning silicone foam. The
[ Callaway project was about one year ahead of the Wolf Creek project. The problems were the same as that experienced at Wolf Creek; lack of fill, voids, and shrinkage. Promatec changed their installation procedures based on the i Callaway problems. Additionally, BLOCK said TAKAHASKI of Dow Corning did
- inspections with the Promatec inspectors of the seals. TAKAHASHI attributed i the problems to installation errors by Promatec.
l As a result of the Wolf Creek Part 21, Promatec notified their other clients
- of the problems found at Wolf Creek. Promatec received responses from i Waterford and Duane Arnold NPPs that they had uncovered similar problems with Case No. 3-g3-028R 3 f
b a
' their fire penetration seals. These seals were repaired or replaced. In 1989 the utilities owning Wolf Creek, Duane Arnold, and Waterford requested reimbursement over the seals of $3.6 million from Promatec. BLOCK said he never heard from any of the other utilities who had Dow Corning silicone seal s.
In September 1990, BLOCK and Charles SPRIGGS became owners of Promatec. FNU (first name unknown) GERNERS sold Promatec to them over fear of being sued over the Part 21. BLOCK said Promatec subsequently settled with the three utilities over the Part 21 with Dow Corning and Gerners contributing to this settlement.
BLOCK said he was the subject of a NRC:01 investigation related to the Part 21 problems at Wolf Creek.
In 1992, BLOCK said he received a call from Ed SAWYER and Alex KLINE, consultants for Vermont Yankee, about shrinkage, lack of fill, and void problems with their silicone seals. These Dow Corning seals had been installed by Chestrol, which since has been bought by Promatec. BLOCK additionally raised technical concerns related to testing, training, and installation of fire penetration seals.
This Report of Interview was drafted March 17-22, 1994.
e>N=:f' Richard C. Paul Senior Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III YO e k oseph . Ulle, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III
)
l Case No.'3-93-028R 4
- - -