ML20141M394
| ML20141M394 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1991 |
| From: | Comley S WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES (WE THE PEOPLE |
| To: | Hayes B NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141J614 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-91-351 NUDOCS 9208130123 | |
| Download: ML20141M394 (3) | |
Text
.-..
We The People, Inc.
9 of the United States Swp Chernob.sl Hcre U.S. HRC Si K213 M 8 26 d U Ni(SICATH#i Harch 6, 1991 MiE!ARi(P.S Hr. Ben Hayes i
Office of Investigation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dear Mr ~Hayest We wanted to bring you up to date on our latest ef forts.
Enclosed are copies of three letters we have sent to David Williams, I ns pec t o r.-
General for the' Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
They contain three new allegations concerning investigations his of fice is conducting about the use of counterfeit subst mdard materials in United States nuclear _ plants (including Seabrook) and the f alsification of documents pertaining to welds at Seabrook Station.
The first of th'ese allegations contained in our letter of February 19, 1991, has to do with Dravo piping Company, which was cited in NRC documents as having supplied substandard piping.to various nuclear power plants including Seabrook Station.
Our informant told us that when :he went to work.at the plant in about 1980 a f air amount of Dravo piping had required replacement because a weld inspector at the Dravo manufacturing facility = bad falsified weld inspections.
Apparently this was mostly four and six inch piping on the nuclear side-of the plant.
It is unclearLwhether the NRC was ever informed about this wholesale replacement of piping or if the Dravo company was ever investigated or prosecuted-.for this violation.
(In a related case on December 31, 1990,. North' East Utilities-(NU) Millstone III in Connecticut suffered a-accondary side-pipe break.
This involved a break'in two 6 inch di ameter pipes, which 'l ed. to mul tipl e equipment f ailures.
It was described :as a major steam break.
It is unclear whether this pipe was counterielt. substandard material.or.if it was manufactured by Dravo.)
These' questions'about. Dravo piping at Seabrook Station are important because when a welder known as David Day (not his real name) reported bad welds in: Dravo piping to the NRC in 1983, the NRC. investigators never mentioned that there had been a problem with Dravo piping at the plant.. The NRC-investigators dismissed Mr.
Day's concerns without.
resolving?them to his satisfaction both in 1983 and again in 1988 and 1990.
Perhaps the' bad welds in Dravo: piping came to Mr. Day's-ottention because all the Dravo piping with f alsified weld inspections was_not.actually replaced.
9200130123 911209 o
l
hiain_.Of0ce: Box 277, Rowley, blA 01 % 9,(508) 948-7959
^ " " # **' " " P' "8'"
50 Court St;, Plymouth,-h1A 02361,(308) 746 9300 National Press Bldg,14 & F. Sts., N.W,. Washington D.C. 20045,(202) 628-661i Offices 5 & 6, 3 Pleasant SL, Concord, NH 03301,(603) 228 9484 Bayturry; Village, Route 9. Kennebunk, hlE 04043,(207) 967 3111
- - - ' ~ -
Another reason this new inf ormation is important is because Hr. Kent E.
Walker of the 10's office informed me on February 21, 1991, me that the IG's investigation of counterfeit substandard material problene and document falsification at Seabrook Station does not include Dravo Piping company.
Given the fact that Dravo Company has cropped up repeatedly in both NRC documents and in allegations f rom Seabrook Station workers, it seems the IG'r office should look into problems with this company.
The second enclosed allegation dated February 20, 1991, involves an informant who said that a gypsy welder at Seabrook Station told him that Quality control at Seabrook Station was applying x-rays of good welds to welde which required repairs so as to avoid the expense of repairing the bad welds.
This information may give more encouragement for Chairman Carr to provide the answers to questions that congressional members have asked in their letter of February 6, 1990.
They stem from issues raised by Joseph Wampler, the level three inspector who found a 20% reject rate in welds at Seabrook Station.
As you may or may not know, We The People provides legal counsel and funds for whistleblowers, and our attorney, Mr. Ernest Hadley currently represents Mr. Wampler.
It is important that Mr. Hadley be kept abreast of any new information that your office is able to share with him.
You can reach him at 508-291-1354 or write him at 414 Main St.,
P.O.
Box 3121, Wareham, MA 02571.
The third allega tion mentioned in our February 21 letter to Mr.
Williams involves companies whose names may not be familiar Ray Hiller, Inc. and Tueblein Company.
They were investigated for falsifying documentation for substandard materials used in nuclear power plants in the late 1970s.
These new allegations concerning bogus parts are added to concerns addressed in a letter that We The People sent to Mr.
Williams on September 20, 1990, asking whether the NRC had tried to keep this iclormation on counterfeit materials from surfacing.
A copy of that letter is enclosed to you at-this time.
(Enclosures mentioned will be cent upon request.)
It was very. encouraging to have the United States General Accounting Office release the report " Nuclear Safety and Health -counterfeit and Substandard Products Are a Governmentwide Concern," (Oct. 1990) confArming what We The People has been saying for the last several years that counterfeit substandard materials have been built into 72 out of 113 U.
S.
nuclear power plants.
That report stated "the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been deferring their responsibilities."
Hopefully between people like yourself and the l
2nspector General, we will find out why they employed such a policy.
l:
l, lE
?
Because We The People has successfully attrasted informants with f
information on-safety problems at nuclear plants, it is important that, once these allegations are public, We The People be mentioned f or what we have revealed so fer.
Because of We The People's track record in protecting informants, i t is more likely that a whistleblower will come to us than to government officials.
Because of the tactics the NRC has
'tsed in the past to intimidate whistleblowers, most recently with Mr.
M,mpler, inf ormants are leory of that agency.
For example, in my own case, for the last two and one half years, the NRC has'been attempting to discover sources of information on the counterfeit materials rather than acting on the information itself.
Mr. Hadley has filed suit i
against the NRC on behalf of Mr.
Wampler, for violations under the privacy act.
This will give other whistleblowers who may want to come forward someone they feel they can trust and who will make sure that their concerns will be acted upon without reprisals.
We thank you in advance for understanding this most important point.
Please let me know if you need clarification of these matters.
Sincerely yours, hw Stephen B.
comley Executive Dir*ctor SBC/ca enclosures r
.Q
..y e
'~#
"