ML20127F881
| ML20127F881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1985 |
| From: | Foster J NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127F538 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-213 820322, NUDOCS 8506250279 | |
| Download: ML20127F881 (2) | |
Text
..
DO NOT DISCLOSE Contcina id:ntity cf confidential source
~
4f
},
LnHTED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g#v n
3 t
REGION 111 e,
7eenoosEVELTfMMu>
EIS File No. 8212 OLEN ELLYN,ILLINOt$ e0137 m 22.1982 MEMORANDUM FOR: Region III Files FROM:
James E. Foster, Investigator SU3 JECT' SUBSEQUENT CONTACTS, ALLEGATIONS RE WELDING AT MIDLAND (REF. FOSTER MEMOS OF MARCH 3, 4, 5, 1982)
DOCKET NO.,50-329 Dn hbrch 17, 1982, at approximately 10:25 a.m., I contacted Ms. Barbara Stamaris, returning her previous call. She indicated that she had been telephoned by E. Earl Kent, who was enroute to California.
She stated she had discussed the Region III findings with Kent, and questioned him regarding the information that he had failed to pass the level I visual examinations given him. Kent had replied that he had "already been asking questions" regarding site veld quality, and the tests were intended to discredit him. Kent had then discussed his experience and previous publications in welding journals.
Stamaris indicated that she felt strongly that Region III should contact the inspector nicknamed " Dutch" and get his opinion of Kent's findings on welding deficiencies. She mentioned a specific instance when " Dutch" and Kent inspected eight socket welds and found all eight to be unaccept-ably undersized.
Stamaris stated that she had contacted Resident Inspector Ron Cook on several occasions, and he had sent her a copy of Kent's resume.
At approximately 1:30 p.m., also on March 17, 1982, I was cou6 acted by Fb. E. Earl Kent (collect call). He indicated that he had been in contact with Ms. Stamaris, and understood that I wanted him to contact me.
I briefly described the inspections performed by Region III personnel, and their conclusions that the welds inspected were acceptable. Kent indicated
-intense disagreement with the findings, indicating that both the Midland and Region III inspectors apparently did not know how to use a fillet weld guage properly. He also indicated the Region III conclusions were the opposite of what " Dutch" had concluded following his inspections of the welds in ques-tion. Kent stated that " Dutch and I agreed that the welds need re-work".
Kent indicated that he was also concerned about another issue, socket weld engagement. He read from a telephone call memo dated April 24, 1981, time 10:30, from E. Smith to Hackney,
Subject:
Socket Weld Engagement. The conclusion of the discussion documented was that the socket veld gap required 8506250279 850418 DO NOT DISCLOSE PER FOIA Contains identity of GARDE 85-213 PDR confidential source
DO NOT DISCLOSE Contains id:ntity of confidential cour:c EIS File No. 8212 Region III Files NA!! 22.1982 by the ASME Code is a minimum, and the maximum gap is allowed to be "such that the pipe is not withdrawn from the fitting" during welding. That is, any gap over the Code minimum would be acceptable, and QC was directed to utilize this interpretation.
I advised Kent that my interpretation of the Code was exactly as described, but I would discuss the matter with Region III welding inspectors. Kent stated that he felt that the interpretation did not meet the " intent" of the Code, and that if "sent to ASME" they would disavow the wording of the phone call memo.
Kent stated that the Level I visual inspection tests at Midland had consisted of a written and practical test, and that the test had been " set up" to dis-credit him, as Bill Creel had not " welcomed him onsite".
Kent again stated he felt all welds onsite should be reinspected.
James E. Foster Investigator cc: Robert F. Warnick Duane Danielson R. Cook K. Ward W. Paton, ELD R. L. Spessard C. E. Norelius DO NOT DISCLOSE Contains identity of confidential sour:e i
L