ML19323F399
| ML19323F399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/20/1980 |
| From: | Potapovs U NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Allan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323F401 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-999000345 NUDOCS 8005280968 | |
| Download: ML19323F399 (2) | |
Text
Q @ NQS UNITED STATES
[p arow%,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGloN IV 1,
'c, 611 RY AN PLAZA oRIVE, SulTE 1000 8e 5 !
E ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76012
- 7. - 'N
\\.-A'lf o >) M 2 0 MAR 1939 MEMORANDW FOR:
J. M. Allan, Deputy Director, RI FROM:
Uldis Potapovs, Chief, VIR, RIV
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING HAW ARD TYLER COMPANY (AITS F010009741 In response to the subject AITS, an inspection of the Hayward Tyler Pump Company, Burlington, Vermont, was conducted on February 25-29, 1980.
The inspection details and findings are reported in our Inspection Report Number 99900345/80-01, copy att. ached.
A meeting was held with David DesLauriers and his attorney, Mr. T Baily at the Radisson Hotel, in Burlington, Ver=ont, from approximately 4:30 PM until 6:00 PM on February 25, 1980, concerning his written allegations, which were transmitted to you by Mr. John E. Forthergill, Director of Occupational Safety for the State of Vermont. During the meeting Mr. DesLauriers identified a:d reaffirmed that the allegation had been made by him. He stated that he had been employed by the Hayward Tyler Pump Company, as a horizontal boring machine operator from September 1978, until October 1979, at which time he voluntarily terminated his employment. He applied for unemployment compen-sation with the State of Vermont.
Since he had voluntarily terminated his e=ployment, his application for une=ployment compensation was denied.
He stated that he appealed the denial of his application and based his appeal on the Hayward Tyler's alleged unsafe operations and working conditions.
He did furnish the NRC Inspector two Job Numbers for non-nuclear contracts on which his allegations were based. However, he could not recall the job numbers or quality levels of any nuclear contracts on which he may have worked, and therefore the specific allegations could not be directly related to nuclear work. Nevertheless, the QA program elements which were subject of these allegations were m mined for compliance with applicable requirements and proper implementation.
The route sheets and nonconfor=ances reports for the two jobs identified by the alleger were reviewed in detail but no irregu-larities were identified to substantiate the allegations.
The ANI was questioned concerning the specific allegation, but stated that he could not substantiate the allegations. He stated that the control of the manufacturing processes was inadequate prior to the company's survey by the R 0 05 280
J. M. Allan 2
ASME for renewal of its Certificates of Authorization, and the survey team would not recommend the renewal of the certificate until the company revised the program to provide more rigid and positive control and compliance with the NRC regulations, code and contract requirements, and the vendor's commit-ments.
While the allegations could not be substantiated, however, if true, the revised QA program as accepted by the ASME Survey Team in November 1979, provides adequate control of the manufacturing processes to prevent or mitigate the recurrence of the alleged irregularities.
With this memo, and Inspection Report No. 99900345/80-01, we consider the AITS closed. Should you have any questions concerning this matter please contact D. E. Whitesell or myself.
\\
f L
0 0(n A
Uldis Potapovs, ief Vendor Inspection Eranc Attachment Report No. 99900345/80-01 cc: w/ attachment R. Carlson, RI G. W. Reinmuth, IE-HQS l
._.