ML18078A908
| ML18078A908 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Hughes W HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18078A909 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903060641 | |
| Download: ML18078A908 (5) | |
Text
-e.
FEB 1 2 1879 The Monorab le Wi 11 i am J. Hughes United States Mouse of Representativ-es *.
- Wash,ington, *D.C. '20515
Dear Congressman Hughes:
Your. letter of January 10, 1979, to Mr. Carlton Kammerer referenced NRC 's PN0-78-11 l and inquired as to the ultimate disposition of this case.* PN0-78-1_1 l discussed the discharge of an employee who had made.
statements to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector and to repre- **
sentatives of Public Service Electric and Gas ~ompany {PSE&G) about alleged poor quality painting work at Salem Unit.2.
It should be noted that th~ following information may not be in preci_se agreement with that repprted in. PN0-78-111' since the preliminary notice reports information as initially received without verification or evalua_-
tion. Subsequent inquiries frequently result fo identification of new information or changes in the initial information, both of wh_ich occurred in this case. ~
In fol lowup of this matter by the NRC Office o*f Inspection and Enforcement (IE), two aspects of this case were considered *. One aspect was the firing of the.employee and its possible relation to the fact that the
- employee had talked with NRC inspectors. The second aspect concerned*
the technical. quesfion raised by the employee's statements.relative to the quality of the painting.-
- During investigatio_n* of the *technical question, IE was informed by PSE&G that the reason for'the discharge of the employee was inadequate perform-ance.
The employee subsequently requested arbitration under the union contract.
As a result of the arbitratfon the.employee was_rehired and given back pay for *the time he was out of worL A few weeks later, he quit. his job at Salem Unit 2 and accepted a job with* another company.
That company is now a contractor at the Hope Creek construction site of the PSH{G.
We understand that the individual is presently working at Hope Creek as.a foreman~ and that he expects to become a general foreman when the company establishes such a position at Hope Creek.
, Prior to his original discharge by PSE&G in May 1978~ the individual concerned had approached NRC inspectors while in the presence of licensee representatives and commenced open and spiriteq discussions of alleged
- .Q.a;tnting defects. Subsequently, he informed our investigator. that he 790"u66t,
f.*
-e*
The Honorable Willtam J. Hughes
- 2 did.not know of any employee ever being told not to talk with.the NRC.
In 1977, at the-request of the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, a "Notice to Employeestl was posted at Salem Unit 2 and at other nucl~ar facilities informing.employees how to contact NRC in confidence if they had concerns.
The individual did not utilize this procedure and -spoke to the NRG inspectors on a number-of occasions in the presence of the licensee.
Accordingly~ the inspectors cautioned the licensee that the employee should not be discharged for having such discussion's with the MRC inspectors.
From our observations of the circumstances and because the individual did not indicate at any time to the inspectors that he considered his discharge was for talking with the
- NRC ~ IE concluded that he wa$ not discharged for that reason and a special investigation of the circumstances of the firing was not warranted.
The technical question raised by this employee regarding adequacy of the'\\
work was evaluated by NRC inspectors. Based upon that evaluation it was concluded that the work was satisfactory. Portions of two inspection reports discussed this matter. Those portions are quoted in full in the enclosure. The remaining portions of those reports are not enclosed because they did not pertain to this matter.
However~ we would be happy to provide copies of the complete reports to you, if you desire them.
Seve~al earlier inspection reports also discussed various aspects of*
painting work at Salem Unit 2~ but they were not related to concerns expressed by this indivi'dual.
I hope that this has been responsive to your needs.
If you have any further questions, please let us know.
Enclosure:
Quotation from IE Inspection Report Mo. 50-311/78-25 Sincerely, (Signed) Lee v. Gossic!i Lee V.
- Gossick Executive Director for Operations Distribution:
L. V. Gossi ck, lDO T. Rehm, EDO J. G. Davis, IE H
~ D. Thornburg, IE S. E. Bryan, I E G. W. Reinmuth, IE ELD E. A. Hayden, PLA OCA (3)
SECY 79-0062 G. Ertter, (ED0-05220)
L. N. Underwood, IE (H6-l 771-Hl).
L..I-E::f j 1 es Central Files IE Reading
~'
f*
SEE PREVIOUS YELLOW FOR CONCURRENCES 9-/T1-f:lg
' /~ '
EDO Reading
~~m~.. :::::. ~£~:.
.-.~£~~*;*~***. 3~~¥~:::::*.-
0
- .: ~~~~r.~~{ :: :
.:i.~ci.~: :::::: *J~~~~.~~~~:.
........................... **************************.. /(:.................... *:************************.. 'l................. _
t ~C POl{l,~8- (9-76~ NRCM 0240
- u.s. OOVERN~ECNT PRINTING c F'P'ICE: t 978 - ZS 5 - 76D ',
'* f:
t'
' I iWP
' 1 procedure and spoke. to the NRC inspectors on a number of occasions in
'the presence of the licensee.
Accordingly, the inspector~ cautioned the 1 icensee that the employee should not be discharged fo.r having such discuss~ons with the NRC inspectors.
From-our observ~tions of the circumstances and because the individual did not indicate at any time to the inspectors that he considered his discharge was for talking with the NRC, IE* concluded that he was not discharged for that reason and a special investigation of the circumstances of the firing was not warranted.
The technical question raised by this employee regarding* a'lequacy of. the *
- work.was eva_luated by NRC inspectors.
Based upon that evaluation it was concludf:ld that the work was satisfactory.
Portions of two inspection reports discussed -this matter.
Those portions are quoted in full in, the enclosure *. The remaining portion!) of those reports are not enclosed because they did not pertain to this matter" However, we would be happy to provide copies of the complete-reports to you, if you desire them.
Several earlier inspection reports also discussed various aspects of painting work at.Salem Unit 2o but they were not related to concerns expressed by this indivi dua 1 *.
I hope that this has b~en responsive to your needs.-
If you have any further questions, please. let us know.
Enclosure:
Quotation from IE Inspecition Report No. 50-311/78-25 OCA Sincerely, Distribution:
L. V. Gossick, EDO T. Rehm, EDO J. G. Davis, IE H. D. Thornburg, IE S. E. Bryan, IE G. *W. Reinmuth, IE ELD E. A. Hayden, PLA OCA (3)
SECY 79-0062 G. Ertter, (ED0-05~2G)
L. N. Underwood, IE
- Central Files IE Reading See Previous Yell f
ow or concurre-"'"'~
&-f
-~-ytJ FiTes
.... ~~-~.... p EDO Reading *
- I "'
Jli)~~if I
I
. *'=*'
'~
". v "1
~.,i...\\.#-
U/lnu OFFICl!t..
........ R~J.................... xoos......... ::.. ELD
!~
1 -v ~~ A/D: IE
....... JP.Q........
- * * * * * *, -,y. W'AA'v:: *..,
l'.~....
- \\..,*************************
/29/7{).,RNAM'I!... *.d~Rel.nmuth.......HQ.T.IJ.QX.YJ.l?.v.rn..... S.E:Bry,an.........
1PM 0
6tJO... JGDa. v. i.s............LV.r;J.Q.s.s. i *G.:*k-**
.... v.. : ur.r.ay.......
DAT'I!.~. Jl.~ll.7.9.......... 1/..... /.19............ /.... /.7.9...............
'.l'.;.
....... 1.;.-1::'.. 79........l./.... *1*7*9*......... *+J..... J.7.q.......
1*. me POD{ 318 (9*76) NRCM 0240
- u.a. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFP'ICI!: t 978 - zau - 769
- *j
w 1
~.... -;,.
~-"'**.. ---- -
PU:SM
/25/79 The Honorable W~iliam *"
procedure.
From* our observations of the circumstances and because the ind-ividual did not indicate at any time that* he -considered his di?charge was for talking with the NRC; IE concluded that he was *not discharged
- for that reason-.
The technical question raised by this employee regarding adequacy of the
/Work was evaluated by NRC inspectors* with* the conclusion that the. work was satisfactory.* Portions of two inspection reports discussed this-matter. Those portions are quoted in full in the enclosure. The remaining portions of those reports are not enclosed because *they i;iid not pertain to this. matter. However, we would be happy to provide copies of the complete reports to you, if you desire them.. Several earlier-inspection reports also discussed various aspects of painting
- work at Salem Unit 2~ but they were not related to concerns *expressed by.
this individual.
I hope that this has been-respo~sive to your needs.
Enclosure:
As stated Sincerely, Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations
- Distribution:.
L. V. Gossick, EDD T. Rehm, EDO J. G. Davis; IE H. b. Thornburg, IE S. E. Bryan, IE G. W. Reinmuth, IE ELD E. A. Hayden, PE DCA (3)
SECY 79-DD62 G. _ Ertter; ( EDD..:D522D),
- L. N. Underwood, *IE
(.H6-l 771-H1 ).
. IE Files.
Central Files IE Reading EDD Reading
' -~/,0* ~
~,,;.v f/'I j,..1 -
DCA 1/
Ol'l'ICS~
A/D: IE
- EDD
/79
§Gl (.?c'.
/
V.::'f,i.t ' CPG~
XDD._S
~Lg.
.. ~~!~
...... ****:~rE......... ~ *.. ~
.. ~~
~~{R~1:nlJW:~~......
JGDavis LVGossick
.URNAIH:~
... ~.QI
...... r.9..... ~.rn.r1.C}..D............... *J.e.~:~l:l...r:.i}.J.........................................................
DATK~.
Y?../..?.~.:..........Y;/i?..~............... 1 lhf
?.~.............1.1..i!!?l..i.~:~-.. ; ;-._.. :.*... 11..... /.X.~..........
1/ /79 U,., GOV*itNMENT PRINTING OP'P'IC*Z I 171 *&*I* 701
~-
ft Enclosure Quotation from Inspection and Enforcement Inspection Report 50-311/78-25 dated August 22~ 1978:
"5.
Containment Liner Painti~g The inspector examined the containment liner coating at the containment dome area accessible from the top of the containment dome access system. The inspector observect*particulate material embedded. in the paint coating; prior and subsequent personnel interviews indicated that this probably was du~ to sandblasting adjacent areas of the liner while paint was not yet dry in the previously coated area, rather than contamination of the sµbstrate.
The licensee representative stated that the containment dome will be reinspected and the particulate embedment evaluated for *its effects on the coating function.
This item is unresolved pending NRC review of the "licensee evaluation (311/78-25-0l)."
Quota ti on from Inspection and Enforcement Inspection Report 50-311 /78-31 dated October. 6, 1978:
11 (Closed) Unresolved Item (311/78-25-0l): Apparent particulate material in containment dome liner paint.
Th~ inspector examined PSE&G Research Corporation Energy Laboratory Report No. 65183, dated September 7, 1978, which documents an August 31, 1978, visunl and adhesion test inspection of the containment dome paint. Fifteen test areas were inspected and test~d for paint adhesion, including 1areas having deficiencies, dirt, sandblast residue, etc.
1 Solvent
\\
blisters were found in the refinish coats with some pi~holing occurring down to the aged coating system.
Sandblast residue appeared to be completely encapsulated by subsequent paint refinish
-coats.
Overall condition of the coating was deemed *very good.
1 11Adhesion test results in all areas were found to be good/very good.
(
Reference:
Federal Test Method Standard 14la Method No. 6304.-1).
The engineer concluded that the integrity of the coating system was not impaired by the scatterings of sandblast residue~ dirt, and other matter. The licensee action to resolve the technical. question of possible noncomforming* conditions appears timely and s*ufficient.
11Thi s i tern is resolved.. "
r
.. :::::: * :: ::::: : : ::: ::j*.:....-.. *.*... *.*.-.......... :.***I::::::*.*.*.:::*:: *::::.:.:*!:: ::.:: :: :::::t:::::::::::::-:::::::*::::.:.I~:.-..-:.:.-.. : *.::::
~-.................................................................................................... :.:******************.........
':-..~.................
I me ro.CM jlB. <9-76> NRCM 0240
~.. \\..
- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970 - 285 -709
.1
'I l