ML20212K594
| ML20212K594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Fermi |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1983 |
| From: | Little B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212J657 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-202 NUDOCS 8701290122 | |
| Download: ML20212K594 (4) | |
Text
- - - -
<f
,4, Nv01 E AR REGUL ATORY COWitsl0N 4>p vnito st At ts o
[, ',: f.
C I
e t c o s iti D
m woccavitt ntno Q
i%, b /
A! yj [t p ottwittyn nuwissem e
[~/
xay 23, 1983
~ I O
/M spy. P
- 9 v.rackAw;x rok rile -
h s
TdR*J:
C. E. Norelius, Director, DFRP R. C. Knop, Chief, Projects Branch 1
~
J. E. r.onklin, Chief, Projects Section 1A B. E. Little, SRI, Terni-2 TROM StBJECT t TEU.I-2 A1.LEGl.TIONS On May 3,1983, J. Lonklin phoned and asked that I contact Bob Tarrel, Region III, regarding a potential allegation he had received from an ex-egloyee of Wisect/Becker at Terti-2 who is now working at Davis Bessie. Subsequently Farra a vised ine of the follosing:
alleger-ho:e p5ene concerns--paaring water on stainless steel socket velds.
--fire $ for having dif ferent position on quality matters.
I told rarrel I would tollowp on this tratter. Before contacting the alleger, I discussed the technical issue of using water to cool stainless steel welds with W. Key, kegion Ill. Key said rapid cooling of ss welds is not detrirnental and is beneficial and the use of water or wet rags is accepted liractice.
On May 9,1983, on my third attempt, I rtaSe contact with Regarding his concern on the use of water he said he didn't think it was an issue and he thought that the velds vere 9m3. Regarding his being fired, he said he was fired because he cocelained to W/B Piping Superintendent, of having to weld without the proper paperwork. He said the 'ofracial*
reason for being fired was for being away f rom his assigned work area, but
~
ire in. se said he did he believed W/Bjust, used that,for,,an,escase to
-not want* to'rt,ake an i' site of his' termination.
talked at length (appr$xtr.ately one hour) about weld repairs he was required to make without appropriate work pro:edures/authorisation. During the conversation he made the follcrning allegations:
- 1) Weld repairs were u.ade to CC accepted welds. The only documenta-tion for t.he repairs was veld reject slips.
continued...
G70129012 PDR FOIA 011b OARDE66~yog PDR
'~ ~ ~ " ~~
i
l 6
2 3, ' A l l.
j held roi used to r.ake repiirs was r.:,t ::e r.) ed.
2.c.,
the 2) rods were fros Demers private supply.
Welder would be fired if he reported atti:s I and 2 above.
3) took place in late M thru the firat week said t
% ve iJent Le repur work was on five stain 3 css steel so:ket velded to the ' south.ast reactor recirculation in.
velds on a se.sil bore pip: located in the drpell basturent, and cor.sinted of a few feet losp (B-loop)
We alleger said he had found of small bore piping, a valve and end cap. contained es. ersive tungston, which he acc ted) the velds (previously later gave him veld re ect slips and weld rod
- reported to e weld surf aces and e; ply a cover pass.
1d him to 9:1775 down r
said he r.ade the repairs and after naking the repairs he co:nplained and He said about the lack of required repair dore:er.tation.
P vould be tired if he reported this r.atter.
t reatened that saad he thought the repairs he made
in reslonse to ny question, a witness to the above o:currence and resulted in adequate velds, he ha r
ut of 'toled Ohio, (infonta-identified hin as tion sut' lied ater:
sa I'
7 U said he tolo E/B Q: inspector abeat i
4 phone this matter but was not sure if 0- doeuraented his concerns.
p-
[
1 Said he wished to zen, sin anony: nous but would be willing to sign a
(;
vritteh 6taterrnt an] vould accompany NRO onsitt to identify the velds he repal. red. I toldMI would perform an initial review of his allega-tions and contact han later.
k Region 113, Wescott, was advised of the above allegations
]'
Un May 10, 1983, and of proposed inspection in this natter, e.g., contact witness, do:oment si l
review of Surveillance Repart, Deviation Disposition Roquests, and NDE i
inspection records (reject slips), his inspection was perforned between May 10 and May 20, 1983.
v gtfection rindings.
?
Iscraetric lysten Ide_ntifiedi small bore piping, valve and pipe cap.
L Drawin9 B31-7214 C-1 pc No. 45, 47, 49, and 50.
p' records niintained by W/B Ql. and Daniel (QA record QA/Q:
M/N kecord_st storage vault) indicate that the finial velding of the above system was
>I 11, 1981, with finial
- accepted
- NDE record on
~
completed on Septerber 69779-33 16,1981--refer to W/B weld pro:ess Control Sheet No.
I September The QA and hT.S NUE (11guld penetrant) Exanination T.9A poru No.15397.
s (11es conteined no DDRs or Surveillance Reports for this system af ter the
{
finial ' accepted
- date.
N Nuclear Energy Services (hT.5) site contractor for perforuing NDE esamina-tion ILaintains separate records of requests for HDI examinations and NDE j
,i examination results, both " accepted" and " rejected" (referred to as reject _ slips). NES records dated September 16, 1981, through Decenber 31, 1981
{
f I
continued...
l, 1
-l
-- --~.-- - _ _ - __,._$ _ - _ - - _. _ _ _. _. - - _ - -..
~ m=w. ~...
n., n m. _ _ - _ _ _. - _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _
L p
. o by
, 1963 m et e revic<ed. 1;th has no re:ord of tot sequests or emalination results for the above s3 ster. duing the above dates.
rinding does not support allegers state:cr.t regstding weld itpairs using veld reject slips.
j I P,t e r v i t at s I
witness: on May 18, 1983, I contacted by phone. He was respansive to questions but nald he didn't re:all any events as described by[M~
and a,dded that veld rods were closely controlled by W/8 and that welders vould not work without the required sparvork-
- Bey would ose their jobs."
He did not recall any isbue with He said, never ca:ne aroun3 nach."
y Insrector The intervies with was based on a routine NRC ins;*ction o A/N records for systems turned ovet to Start-up. Question led to dryvell a:tivities and specifically to the alleged systea repairs.
Msaid he was not avare of repairs to that piping but he recalled an issue raised by a velder just af ter the velder had been fire 3.
He said he didn't reme=tser the velder's harse or the specific co= plaint. E said he inspected I."
Ider and then reported (verbally) the event to W/B QA the veld wit 6
Manager (This substantiates the allegers statcaent regarding c
notifying W/s,p.)
6 L
w/D QA Manaael: We discussed the event as described by did not recall the issut but had an entry in his daily log dated Decer-ser 3,1981, r
i
'Loaked into allegation velder R no supporting evidence."
- 0. May 18, 1983, a conference call was held with Regio'n III staf f (Wescott/
Ward) and 01 (Pavlik). We discussed allegations and inspection findings.
We agreed that additional on-site inspection tuuld not f urther substantiate the allegations. It was reco::nended that our Of fice of Investigation investigate this n,atter (aSditional intervie.s and obtaining staten,ents).
01 agiced to follcntup.
On May 20,1983, I h6oned 61se3and related to his that, dJe to the nature of his allegation, I had refetred this e.stter to our of fice of Investigation and that OI would be contacting his in a f ew weeks.
,f/d Bruce H. Little e
SRI Tertti-2 Oi sai.. m x a
y g
0 t.
1
(.
T.
--4M e
e 5 '- ~-
~ - T -' ( "."' i a
- q,'g,,42 A! l. ",' : le ',' ? 'Jl *7,.;ic 'A g
l r, cuviNG ormE Docket Number lif 6pplicable)
- 1. Facilitylies) Involved:
l'..**'
l Y/
tit more t." 3. or et
.f.(*C /s 1 > A Lj,% W
$[
0 0_
sene..c.
. in ctNtnici
__. _ 2 d* *. s/
] operations
- 2. Functional Areats) Involved:
onsite health and safety ICr eck.ppeopnate bosiesi 1 construction of fsite health and saf ety
' safeguards emergency prepare,dness other tspecityt
- 3. Description.
IWI/It ld i lfl//ldl/ lfl livl /lflAltldlfl 18l/lelfl(l (Limit to 100 cha'6cieral yg g p., (,,7 jjg gg g
141 1 4 11 15151 lultl/ WLrl 1 I i i I l l 1l l l l
,1IIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
.i con [ tractor employee security guard ff m fg
]k
- 4. Source of Allegation:
(Cbech.pp<opnete boil licensee employee news media NRC employee private citizen organisation especie i v
other ispecityi MM e DD
- 5. Date Allegation Received:
O $ O 5A[
- 6. Name of Individual trie,i rw o n.i..i..nd i.., n...
Receiving Allegation:
- 7. Of fice:
R L
i i
ACTION OFFICE
//1 /
- WP M_
- 8. Action Office
Contact:
t r...i ew o.nii..i..no i.., n...i
- 9. FTS Telephone Number:
g 9 y g g
~
- 10. Status:
Open, if followup actions are pending or in progress scont one, Closed, if f ollowup actions are com'pleted MM DD fY
~~
~
- 11. Date Closed; M
- 12. ne m., u :
[l j j j l-; i - ;
qj j ;;;;;j[7]
u.~ io u.. mie...
IIIIIIl_.IIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIl
- 13. Allegation Number:
Rltlt t
- j) 'b A* O O S 1 O n n eL DAo Sb 5 19%%6 RG9L%