ML20132D641

Concludes No Further Investigative Effort Warranted on Allegation Rept Q-1-84-020 Re Improprieties in Pullman Higgins QA Program,Per Insp Repts 50-443/84-12 & 50-444/84-06

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: ML20132D621 ML20132D630 ML20132D641 ML20132D646 ML20132D667 ML20132D676 ML20132D688
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

i harassment of QC inspectors by managerent, other individuals or groups.

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 .

,

,

REPORT OF INQUIRY /Q-1 i-020 W mber 20, 1964 l

. 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 l

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

Approved by: M( rp h6

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