ML20038B029

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Provides Status of Item from IE Insp Repts 50-508/81-10 & 50-509/81-10 on 810504-0602.Ruling Expected to Reflect That Wallace/Superior Formally Clarify Statement That Employees Required to Sign Re QC Concern Identification
ML20038B029
Person / Time
Site: Satsop
Issue date: 11/04/1981
From: Dobson D
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To: Dodds R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, GO3-81-2696, NUDOCS 8111240616
Download: ML20038B029 (2)


Text

p

- .. Docket Nos. 50-508/ 509 50 55(e) Report Washington Public Power Supply System '

Box 1223 Elma, Washington 98541 (206)482-4428 November 4, 1981 G03-81-2696 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V j \N 4 Office of Inspection and Enforcement s C 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 ( \

Walnut Creek, California 94596-5368 *

[l>( [F r

Attention: Mr. Robert Dodds 3 Jggru 2 Chief, Reactor Projects - Section 2 ' h " M j,y p ou Gentlemen: 1/

a) P

Subject:

NRC INSPECTION AT PROJECTS 3 AND 5 *

Reference:

Letter, J. L. Crews to R. S. Leddick, dated July 2, 1981, with report of Inspection No. 50-508/81-10, 50-509/81-10 during period May 4 to June 2, 1981.

Pursuant to the conversation on October 30, 1981 between Mr. Robert Dodds, USNRC, and the Supply System's Mr. Dale E. Dobson concerning an aspect of Item No. 81-10-03 of the referenced report, provided herewith is an account of the current status of that matter.

i Our contracter, Wallace/ Superior - a Joint Venture, has not yet re-ceived the judge's formal ruling as a result of the appeal hearing held before the Department of Labor in Seattle, Washington several months ago. It is our understanding at this time that the formal ruling will reflect an agreement that Wallace/ Superior, following receipt of that ruling, will formally communicate to its employees a clarification concerning a statement they were required to sign relative to identification of quality concerns. This agreement was reached at the hearing, and dictated into the record at the time of the hearing. It is anticipated that the clarification will be in the form of a statement that it is not intended that the policy posi-tion of the company in any way negates the rights of the individual under the Energy Reorganization Act. i Based on their recent experience with another Department _of Labor hearing, Wallace/ Superior may not receive the ruling in thi'ilwratter for several months. In the interim, the W/S Project Director indi'-

N D lid 9. ig,y y aw TE.a'l 8111240616 8111O I PDR ADOCK 05000508 OIO35U g/ /0 G PDR; Bl-lD5 4

f l Letter to Mr. Robert Dodds November 4, 1981

.. Page 2 G03-81-2696 cated that he has verbally communicated this clarification to con-tractor Quality Cantrol and supervisory employees.

The contractor has been requested to notify the Supply System when they are in receipt of the :uling. We will, subsequently, assure that the clarification is formally communicated to W/S employees in a timely fashion.

Very truly yours, l

_ hM. -

D. E. Dobson Project Manager, WNP-3/5 cc: J. Adams - NESCO D. Smithpcter - BPA Ebasco - New York WNP-3/5 Files - Richland