ML20214A083
| ML20214A083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1986 |
| From: | Seese L COMSTOCK ENGINEERING, INC. |
| To: | COMSTOCK ENGINEERING, INC. |
| References | |
| 84-02-06-11, 84-2-6-11, OL-I-ROREM-063, OL-I-ROREM-63, NUDOCS 8705190245 | |
| Download: ML20214A083 (2) | |
Text
F0 J/ 5 6 lE/ 9 7-G L e
pyh
[: - ['c ~ Z m-6)
,( Tf f /g/fs
- m
'.:.=.. -
Comstock Engineering,-Inc.
M emo randum ~87 fER 22 P7 :01
/ersonnelFileofW.
Braidwood P
McGuigan QFit.
Office:
To:
uGCh...
L ;J..'
From.
L. G. Seese Re-Inspection of Inspector's Program Date:
2-6-84 Subject.
Control No.
84-02-06-11 This Memo is Personal and Confidential This memo is issued to document incidents on 2-1-84 and 2-2-84 as they relate to W. McGuigan and his role in the Inspector Re-Inspection Program. The following is a listing of events in chronological order:
1.
Shortly before noon on 2-1-84, QC Inspectors Lesh and McGuigan came to me and reported a problem with work originally inspected by Rick Martin.
McGuigan had discovered three (3) hangers (CC-65A) installed in the field and accepted by Martin; however, the drawings only required one (1) hanger of this type. McGuigan stated that he felt this was " falsification of records".
2.
During the course of the conversation, I suggested that they review the void drawings.
Irv DeWald also sent Rick Martin to the field to see if Rick could explain the situation.
3.
When McGuigan, Lesh and Martin returned from the field, all parties agreed that the hanger installations were not per drawing.
4 Mr. McGuigan was instructed by me to document his findings on a Form 19.
He was to show the welds as accepted or rejected based on his visual inspection and also to document the hanger discrepancy in the remarks s ect ion. Bill again stated that he felt Rick Martin had f alsified his documentation. I explained that in order for the charge of falsification to stand, there should be evidence that the inspector knowingly and willingly misrepresented the facts.
In this case, Rick had failed to completely review the drawings. He was guilty of an error in judgment, and nothing more.
Due to the critical nature of this charge and the importance of the 5.
Inspector Re-Inspection Program, I held a meeting with McGuigan, Larry Tapella of CECO Project Management and I to review Mr. McGuigan's concerns.
This meeting was held 2-2-84.
As a result of the meeting, all parties agreed to the following:
l p.
l DEPOSITISM.
8705190245 860718 PDR ADOCK 05000456 i EXHIBIT : &5.. my;;j4 o
PDR LLUpantas ne,wts. 333232ea cr
, 20 El 00 1990 I
l
's A
Memo to William McGuigan File:
continued Page 2 2/6/84 A.
Welds would be visually inspected and the results documented on the Form 19.
B.
The hanger error would be clearly documented in the remarks section of the Form 19.,
C.
A separate category would be established to count rejects dealing with drawing errors.
D.
There was no evidence to support the charge of falsification of records.
S incerely,
j 7__,
sp Larry G. Seese Asst. Quality Control Manager LGS /jf cc:
I. F. DeWald L. Tapella, CECO PCD 20'- 00n 1co4 g,f
--v
_