IR 05000508/1979009
| ML19253D003 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1979 |
| From: | Engelken R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Strand N WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253D004 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912120502 | |
| Download: ML19253D003 (4) | |
Text
7/C
'
pR Rf C(j s -
-
'o UNITED STATES 8Y'
- '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
n
$-
.,5
REGION V
1990 N. CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD o,
[g SUITE 202, WALNUT CREEK PLAZA w
+,,,*
WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596 00T 231979 Docket No. 50-508 Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 468 P,ichland, Washington 99352 Attention: Mr. N. O. Strand Managing Director
_
Gentlemen:
~~
Subject:
tiRC Investigation of Allegations - WNP 3 This refers to the investigation conducted by Messrs. D. F. Kirsch and O. C. Shackleton of this office on October 3-11, 1979 of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-154, and to the discussion of our findings held by Mr. Kirsch with Mr. J. C. Lockhart by telephone on October 15, 1979.
The investigation was an examination of allegations made regarding radio-graphic documentation of nondestructive examinations conducted on a Unit 3 containment vessel weld seam. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified within the scope of this investigation.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed investigation report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
If this report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such information be withheld from public disclosure. The application must include a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that the information is proprietary.
The application should be prepared so that any proprietary information identified is contained in an enclosure to the application, since the application without the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Document Room.
If we do not hear from you in this regard within the spec-ified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room.
1541 127 7912120 56A
.
.
Washington Public Power Supply System-2-SCI 231979 Should you have any questions concerning thic investigation, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, 1075 m L ~
.
~
R. H. Engelken
~
Director
"
Enclosure:
IE Investigation Report No. 50-508/79-09
~
cc w/o enclosure:
-
M. E. Witherspoon, Division Manager Quality Assurance, WPPSS W. S. Talbott, Division Manager, WPPSS 1541 128
.
.
APPENDIX A October 10, 1979 Portland, Oregon I, Stanley D. Bos Sr., voluntarily make the following statement to Dennis F.
Kirsch and Owen C. Shackleton Jr., who have identified themselves to me as employees of the U. S. Nuclear Psegulatory Commission.
No threats, promises or duress were used to make me give this statement.
I do it of my own free will to clarify this matter.
I have been advised that this statement could be used in some legal proceedings and will be a matter of public record.
I am 45 years old and reside at 479 S. E. 36th, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123.
~
On approximately July 1,1979 while I was employed by the Power Engineering
~
Corporation,15 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, I was subcon-tracted to the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS).
I was assigned to work at WPPSS project #3, a nuclear power generation construction project, as a Records Analyst. My job responsibilities included reviewing all docu-mentation in the contract between WPPSS and the Chicago Bridge and Iron Corporation (CBI).
I believe that is contract 3420-213.
To the best of my recollection six or seven days before July 30, 1979 I was reviewing records on the CBI contract.
Included in these records were some radiographs.
When I placed two of these radiographs of welding done on the heavy steel plates that go inside the containment building that were designated as T20c increment 11 through 12 on the viewer I became concerned.
One of these radiographs was for the original designated as T20c increment 11 through 12. The other radiograph was designated as T20c increment 11 through 12 R1. The R1 meaning a radiograph of a repaired weld.
I was checking these films for possible damage.
When I looked at them on the viewer I noticed what I felt was a deficiency.
By this I mean the weld in one radiograph did not match the weld in the other radiograph.
The contour of the welds in the films did not match.
I was formerly certified as Level II RT film reader in accordance with SNT-TC-1A and B31.1, ASME on 5/31/78. The examination for this certification
'
was done at the Peabody Laboratories.
I was employed at that time by the Santa fe Engineering Services Company, Alameda, California.
When I noticed these differences in the films I pointed it out to my Lead Person, Greg Fones. Greg Fones brought this finding to the attention of our immediate supervisor, Clarence Cal.
I explained my findings to Mr.
Cal. Mr. Cal took this information to the QA/QC Project Superintendent, Mr. John Lockhart. Then Mr. Lockhart and his deputy, Mr. Tony Catrona came in and I had to explain and convince them that there was a possible deficiency.
(Tony Catrona is employed by Ebasco Engineering Services Corp.) Mr. Lockhart agreed there would be an investigation of the contractor,
\\54\\ W
.
.
-2-CBI. This investigation would only be concerned with the question I raised on these radiographs.
The people who performed the investigation, were the people who were to perform the QC surveillance in the first place.
Then a few days later, Clarence Cal told me that the contractor (CBI) had told the investigating team that they had taken the repair film shot from the opposite side of the weld.
I told Clarence Cal that this was not right.
It is conmon practice in the trade that the repair film be shot
'
from the same side as the rejected film. He asked me if this was in any of the codes or standards that the contractor (CBI) was working under.
I told him I did not think so. The reason I was of this opinion is because the CBI contract does not require CBI to turn over to WPPSS rejected film.
He told me to review the codes and standards to see if there was anything to force CBI to comply with. A few days later, while I was still in the process of reviewing the codes and standards, I received a phone call from Jim Lewis, Manager of Power Engineering, telling me to
. '
get off the job.
I asked him what had happened.
He said he had received
-
a phone call from WPPSS in Richland, Washington to get me off the job.
I then went to Clarence Cal and he told me he knew nothing about my being terminated.
Cal made a few telephone calls, but could get no answers. At that time I left the job.
That was 7/30/79.
I found what I thought was something that was wrong and that I thought I was doing my job to report it to the proper people.
I could not just overlook something like this that was part of the containment safety structure.
I have read this page and the four proceeding pages and the information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
(S) Stanley D. Bos Sr.,
10/10/79 Witnesses:
(S) Owen C. Shackleton, Jr.
Investigator RV, US NRC, 10/10/79 (S) Dennis F. Kirsch Reactor Inspector RV, US NRC, 10/10/79 150 130