ML19322D350
| ML19322D350 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1977 |
| From: | Ryan W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | Mctiernan T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322D327 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-79-416 NUDOCS 8002110572 | |
| Download: ML19322D350 (2) | |
Text
<
/* "'%,,
NUCLE AR nEGULATOnY COT.if.i JN E ' M.. ;I
~
"jh *.__.
~
wasmuo t ou. o. c. 20sss
's g& f
\\{.....
December 5, 1977
/ h(?
MEMORNiDUM FOR: Thomas J. McTiernan, Director Office of Inspector and /uditor j
William E. Ryan, Assistant Director for tig ti s
FROM:.
g Office of Inspector and Auditor I
]
QMCONCEP.NS - StrRRY PONER PLANT
SUBJECT:
.I In your memorandum to me, dated November 16, 1977, regarding this subject I have reviewed our j
you suopested that we review the Surry 1 problem.
file (77-4) on'Surry 1.
The file reflects that in a memorandum to me
,j from Art Schnebelen dated December 7,1976, he related the concern of an employee reoarding Surry 1 (emphasis supplied 1 I'n substance, this
, emoloyee related that another inspectorh Jad conducted an
- Further,
.l inspection at Surry 1, and found welding deficiencies In tinit 1.
when g p ttempteif to report these deficiencies they were " swept under by the principal inspector who pulled the finding out of the the rug
)
According to the employee, the final report that was issued to report.
the " c. cc did not mention the problem of the bad welds in the neutron j
shield.
By our memorandum dated December 10, 1976, we called this infomation to M
the attention of John Davis and requested his views.
In a buck slip dated January 12, 1977, Volgenau transmitted tr you a draft of his reply.
On F
"h January 14, 1977, the draft was returned to Volpenau by Abston.
In a note to Abston from Schnehelen, same date, which was written after reviewing the '4 draft, the note concluded that, based upon the draft:
-1 4
i 1.. the existence of defective welding in the Surry neutron shield tank (s)
_j i
1 has virtually no real safety significance; there was a history of welding deficiencies at Surry and that weldinn 2.
problems with the neutron shield at Surry were found; the only way OIA can be sure that the welds that the employee alleged 3.
were bad "were or were not covered in the jnspection reports (attached to Volgenau's letter) would be to locate hWand interviewg1; and q
1976 (six years after the inspection)y infomed Moseley that another inspector @_ verball 4.
that he considered the item closed and had no concern for the safety of operations usino the ta.nk.as fab-ricated.
\\
l s
.th J.u l
s n 1110
$q2-A e
(
(
O n
Thomas J. McTiernan v By memorandum dated e nuary 24, 1977, to file, I recomended that we close our file and so adyke Volgenau.
I noted that Volpenau's reply "related apparently to Surry Unit 2, whereas our allegations. related to 18 nit 1."
I concluded that "since inspection reports referred tr above concerned both units (C.O. Reports 50-280 and 50-281) this is r at of consequence."
e In a memorandum from you to Volgenau, dated January 25, 1977, we advised Volgenau that we were closing our file. The memorandum noted:
1.
"That in view of your office, concurred in by NRR, there is no threat to public health and safety by the possible existence of defective welds in the neutron shield tank of Ifnit 1;"
i 2.
"We also conclude that welding defects in the tank-were detected and reported by Region II inspectors, includinaw&M and that there j
is no evidence to support the allegation that an,attemnt was made to conceal the existence of these defects."
' A questian remains because the alleoation by the employee was that another inspectorr-mqhad referred to Unit 1 at Surry and the Voloenau reply
.d related to Uniti 2. ' Thus, Schnebelen's suggestion that we asC,what unitOwas talking about, ifCtalked about any unit at all.
On the other hand, the inspection record for both tinits 1 and 2, attached to the Voloenau reply, shows that pages 4 and 5, Appendix III, 'Section B..of CD rteport 50-280/70-1, 50-281/70-1 prepared by Mb notes that 'both Surry 1 and 2 neutron shield tanks were at the site.
> % then set out the manufacturinonf requirements for those tanks.
In subparaisrapii2, entitled "neficiencies,"
sW3 observed, " Inspection by CO revealed _ that the Unit 2 vessel is in non- %~
conformance with the above requirements." hCthen reported seven defi-
.y
~
"s ciencies in' the welding of the Unit 2 vessel.
Nothina was said about the' Unit 1 vessel. This deffciency was followed up.in reports 50-281/70-3, d
50-281/70-4 and 50-281/70-5.
J
~.
Certain inferences can be drawn from the information available. These are 7
l as follows:
1.
The employee's allegations about the linit'l vessel are correct and IE k
reported only the deficiencies in the Unit 2 vessel, as the record v
discloses; e
The employee allegations about the Unit i vessel are mistaken andh 2.
was referring to the Unit 2 vessel.Qallegation about " sweeping under the rug" the vessel deficiencies is incorrect as the record j
reflects.
Since the record provided by IE, which we rely on, clearly shows' that T
inspected both Unit 1 and linit 2 vessels and noted deficiencies in only i n t 2 and reported those deficiencies I must conclude that the inference that flows from the facts is the second one. Accordingly, I see no necessity for
- reopening this matter and since everyone seems to aoree there is no health
~
and safety ' problem involved, I suggest that our file remain closed.
~
~
me
-.