ML20132D641
| ML20132D641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1984 |
| From: | Christopher R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132D624 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-560 NUDOCS 8509300245 | |
| Download: ML20132D641 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000443/1984012
Text
f
["%
UNITED STOtt 5
'
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.?
h
OFFICE Of INVESTIG ATIONS FitLD OFFICE REGION I
KING Of PR ESIA PE N NS L VA NI A 9400
,
REPORT OF INQUIRY
SUEJECT:
SEAER00K NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION (NGS)/ IMPROPRIETIES IN THE
PULLMAN HIGGINS QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
REPORT NUMBER:
0-1-84-020
REFERENCE:
NRC REGION I COMBINED SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-443/
84-12 AND 50-44/84-06
DATE CLOSED:
November 20, 1984
Ar. inquiry was requested by the Regional Administrator following receipt of an
anonymous letter from an individual using the pseudonym of " David DAY" which
delineated multiple allegations concerning the quality of work at the Seabrook
NGS. The letter, which was received by Comissioner James ASSESLTINE on July
24, 1954, set forth a variety of concerns including faulty welding, piping
riscatches, cracked concrete, poor documentation of welding and harassment and
intimidation of Quality Control (QC) Inspectors (Exhibit 1 pertains).
A review of the allegations by Region I Technical Staff in conjunction with
01:RI resulted in an extensive reactive inspection (Reference B) by a Region I
based team combined with an 01 interview of the alleger to obtain specific
information regarding both technical issues and concerns falling within the
purview of 01.
Through the efforts of Comissioner ASSESLTINE, the anonymous alleger contact-
ed 01:R1 by telephone.
The alleger declined to meet directly with 01 citing
concerns over the possible compromise of his identity. He continued this
declination after being offered confidentiality and agreed only to participate
in a telephone interview.
On August 24, 1984, a telephone interview was conducted with the alleger.
During the interview, he provided addtttenal information relating to the
technical aspects of his concerns with respect to piping and weld locations,
ASME code requirements and piping mismatch. The remainder of the interview
focused on the extraction of any knowledge or evidence possessed by the
alleger indicative of either the falstitcation of inspection records and/or
reports, harassment and intimidation of QC inspectors, or other potential
wrongdoing by the licensee or its contractors.
The alleger stated he has never knowingly been instructed by his superiors to
intentionally perfore improper work at the Seabrook NGS, nor was he able to
identify any witnesses that may have knowledge of such activities. With one
exceptien, the alleger said he was unaware of any acts of intimidation or
harassment of QC inspectors by managerent, other individuals or groups.
i
Regarding that exception, the alleger said it was his perception that a
Pullman Higgins (P-H) QC Inspector, David BAKER (subsequently identified as
Douglas BARKER) was harassed and intimidated because of his identification of
"over 100 suspect welds" in the pipe tunnel sometime during January 1982.
The
l
$ 93 g 5 850916
cROSSDE85-560 PDR
O
C
.
i-020
W
mber 20, 1964
l
REPORT OF INQUIRY /Q-1
,
,
i
.
.
j
.
alleger acknowledged this perception was his own personal opinion and not
based on confirmatory statements by either BARKER or any other individuals.
The alleger said he formulated his opinion when BARKER was transferred to "a
less desirable job on the second shift," tmediately af ter the problem with
the wcld> in the pipe tunnel had been identtited. The alleger provided no
-
additional information or evidence of records falsification, harassment of QC
inspectors or other potential wrongdoing. A Report of Interview is appended
to this report as Exhibit.2.
Douglas BARKER, a P-H QC Inspector, contradicted the alleger's assertion
regarding harassment and intimidation.
He confirmed that during the time
period in question, (January 1982) there was a problem with welds that were
performed with two diametric automatic welding machines in that the consumable
inserts were not being completely consumed on the interior of the welds.
He
said this problem was occurring in a series of three to six inch pipes located
in the tunnel between the Waste Processing Butiding and the Primary Auxtitary
Building (FAB). BARKER said because the probicm with the inserts was not
identified until after they had actually completed a large number of welds, he
requested that the earlier welds be "x-rayed" to determine if the inserts had
been properly consumed. BARKER said he was unable to get the radiography
performed because the area was designated as "B31.1" or nonsafety related.
Because of this designation, BARKER said his supervisor, " Rick WISE", told him
they were not justified in the expenditure of time and money to go back and
radiograph these particular welds.
BARKER continued that while he was still
concerned about the welds, no one attempted to force, pressure,or otherwise
coerce him into changing his inspection findings and opinions regarding these
welds. He concluded by denying that he felt either harassed 'or intimidated as
a result of this incident and noted that his transfer to the "second shif t"
was at his own request. A Report of Interview with BARKER is Exhibit 3.
A subsequent review of Reference B confirmed that the piping in question is in
fact, nonnuclear, nonsafety related piping properly referred to as ASNI B31.1
piping. Reference B estabitsbed that the NRC inspection team did not identify
any unacceptable pipe or weld conditions in the area identified by the
alleger. Based on the results of this inquiry and the Region I inspection, no
further investigative effort is warranted.
Reported by:
[
ev
R. K. Christopher', Director
Office of Investigations
Field Office, Region I
h6
Approved by: M( rp
R. K. Christopher / Director
Office of Investigations
Field Office, Region I
2
C
\\
',
REPORT OF INQUIRY /Q-1
1-020
6
- mber 20, 1984
1
-
,
,
.
EXHIBITS
,
l
1.
Anonymous letter from alleger to Comissioner ASSESLTINE/ July 24, 1984.
2.
Report of telephone interview with alleger / August 24, 1984.
3.
Report of telephone interview with Douglas BARKER / November 14, 1984.
.
3