ML20238D499

Rept of Interview W/Dm Daniels,Pullman Higgins Employee Re NDE Work Performed by Padovano

ML20238D499
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/23/1983
From:	Matakas R NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20238D476	List: ML20238D474 ML20238D491 ML20238D495 ML20238D499 ML20238D516 ML20238D535 ML20238D538 ML20238D544 ML20238D560 ML20238D627 ML20238D640 ML20238D674 ML20238D695 ML20238D712
References
FOIA-86-188 NUDOCS 8709110220
Download: ML20238D499 (2)

Text

ti

- g -:,,

Report of Interview with Mr. Donald M. DANIELS, as recorded by Investigator

( R. A. MATAKAS on May 23, 1983 Donald M. DANIELS, Pullman Higgins (P-H) Level 2 Nondestructive Examination (f;DE) Technician, was interviewed by Investigator R. A. MATAKAS at Seabrook, NH, on May 23, 1983. Investigator MATAKAS' identified himself to DANIELS by displaying his credentials. DANIELS has worked at the Seabrook Station-as a NDE Technician since July 1981 and his supervisor is Ed B0WLES.

During the subsequent interview DANIELS providedithe following pertinent' infomation.

He first became involved in the reinspection of PA00 VAN 0's NDE work in' January 1983, when he had to reinspect field weld RC-01F-0101 which-originally had been inspected by PAD 0VANO in about July 1982. He had to

'do the reinspection in order to clear an" outstanding Nonconformance Report (NCR) and the reinspection was not a result of any suspicions concerning PAD 0 VAN 0's work. Both PADOVAN0's initial inspection and DANIELS' reinspection

[ involved Liquid Penetrant (LP) Examinations. In January. DANIELS found about five rejectable indications in the aforementioned weld which had been initially accepted by PAD 0VANO. In addition, he could not find any signs indicatin'g a previous LP inspection had bcen rerformed by PADOVANO. '

As a result of his findings, DANIELS wrote a supplement to the NCR (No.1147) and submitted it through the P-H Quality Assurance (QA) Office to United -

Engineers and Constructors (UE&C), Attachment (8) pertains. Sometime in early April 1983, Ed B0WLES requested that DANIELS end Mike ACREE reexamine sone of the welds that PADOVANO inspected during the same week that he ,

allegedly inspected weld RC-01F-0101. DANIELS was assigned to examine four welds; however, only one of the four welds was accessible for reinspection.

DANIELS did not recall the weld designation but did recall that the weld l was on a main steam drain line. DANIELS examined the weld and found it to be acceptable; however', he could not find any residue either on the l weid or the area surrounding the weld which would indicate a previous LP ir.spection had been performed. DANIELS did not observe PADOVAN0's original k

- J 9709110220 87090i PDR FOIA PDR GARDE 86-180 Attachment 15, Page 1  !

Wasa

O. . *

• i inspection report but he was told by B0WLES that PADOVANO had prepared

( such a report and had accepted the weld. Uithout any supervisory direction, DANIELS then went out and visually inspected approximately 20 welds which j

had previously been magnetic particle (MP) inspected and accepted by PAD- J OVANO during the previous week. He conducted the examinations with P-H 'j NDE Technician Terry STR0 TIMER. DANIELS could not identify the welds to the j reporting investigator. In each case, DANIELS could not find any signs .

1 that ind.icated that PAD 0VANO had actually performed a MP inspection. DANIELS l l

~

then reported his findings to B0WLES who went 'o'ut into th'e1 field with DANIELS and looked at a " couple" of the welds DANIELS had visually inspected and agreed with DANIELS' findings. BOWLES then had DANIELS conduc t MP examinations on a few of these same welds and, in each case DANIELS found the welds to be acceptable. After this point in time, DANIELS was not

" officially" involved in any reinspection of PAD 0 VAN 0's work; however, he did accompany NDE Technicians ACREE and 'WILKINS on some of their' reinspection of PADOVAN0's work. On one occasion DANIELS examined a weld with ACREE that was reportedly MP inspected by PAD 0VAND on the previous day (see f Report of Interview with ACREE) and DANIELS could not find any iridi-cations that the welds had been inspected by PAD 0VANO. In addition, DANIELS l

accompanied ACREE and WILKINS on several occasions when they reinspected j

forty-some" welds originally inspected by PADOVANO,and in some instances,.

did note rejectable indications in some of the welds. He could not identify these welds by weld number. Up until the time of his reinspection, DANIELS  !

had no idea or knowledge that PAD 0VANO was not doing his assigned work.

Other than the current investigation, DANIELS said that he was not aware of any other actual or suspected falsification of records nor was he aware j of anyone in P-H management or supervision who may have such information.

End of Report of Interview with Donald M. DAti1ELS at Seabrook, NH. i Reported by: z/

2 b Richard A. Matakas, Investiga; Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I

(

1 l

Attachment 15, Page 2 l

_ _ - - _ _ - _ __.