ML20034B140
| ML20034B140 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/27/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Erin Kennedy SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034B136 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, KENNEDY-900227, NUDOCS 9004260072 | |
| Download: ML20034B140 (2) | |
Text
-
,y l
i 3
QUESTION 3.
On what date did the NRC staff learn that Mr. Wampler had found-significant deficiencies in the radiographs?
ANSWER k
l l
l The NRC first became aware of the issues between the Pullman-Higgins Company and Mr. Wampler on January 5,1984, through a -telephone report to the NRC senior resident inspector from Mr. Wampler. At that time, the staff understood that he was concerned with his termination and violations of radiographic l
1 safety practices and that he was further concerned ~about the completion'of r
approximately 16 reports, which he characterized as.noncomformance reports, that he had to write when he was terminated. The staff did not believe then or now that Mr. Wampler was expressing a safety _ concern over an excessive rejection rate of weld radiographs..
l Subsequently, on or about January 10, 1986, the resident inspector received excerpts from the March 1984 transcript of the 00L hearing in connection with i
a question from a local radio station. The excerpts are pages 64, 65, 74-80, which include the discussion of the 20% weld radiograph rejection rate. The information was reviewed to determine whether 'arther follow-up: action was warranted. Considering the earlier history of greater than 20% (in some cases greater than 40%) rejection of Pullman-Higgins weld radiographs and the licensee's ongoing implementation of corrective actions to resolve the prior problems associated with Pullman-Higgins weld radiographs, the inspector.
appropriately determined no further action was warranted at that time on Mr. Wampler's specific concerns.
L 9004260072 900315 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC r
- i.
l; 1-QUESTION 3.(Continued),
1 On February 23, 1990, during an inspection of the Seabrook Station, our 1
resident inspector was provided a copy of the 00L hearing testimony by the licensee.
i
^
l l
l l
,.