ML20238D535

Rept of Interview W/Md Acree,Pullman Higgins Employee Re NDE Work Performed by J Padovano

ML20238D535
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 8709110238
Download: ML20238D535 (2)

Text

<

i 1

Report of Interview with Mr. Michael D. ACREE Michael D. ACRFE, Pullman Higgins (P-H) Level 2 Nondestructive Examination j (NDE) Technici6n, was interviewed by Investigator R. A. MATAKAS at Seabrook, j NH, on May 23, 1983. Investigator MATAKAS identified himself to ACREE by displaying his credentials. ACREE has worked at the Seabrook Station as a NDE Technician since January 24, 1983 and his supervisor is Ed BOWLES.

During the subsequent interview, ACREE provided the following pertinent in formation. *

{

Either in the latter part of March or early part of April 1983, he was requested by Ed E0WLES to examine some of the NDE work previously inspected l by James PAD 0VANO. One of the examinations involved a small stitch weld i l (No. C0-04044-01) on a saddle shaped pipe support and the second examina-'

tion involved two field welds (Nos. 0110and 0111), one on each side of a I

carbon steel line. Both jobs had allegedly been previously inspected by PAD 0VANO using the liquid penetrant (LP) method of NDE as indicated on f_ PADOVAN0's initial inspection report. When examined by ACREE, he could not find any signs that indicated that a previous LP inspection had been per-formed on either job. ACREE then performed a LP inspection on the stitch weld and determined that a meaningful LP inspection could not be performed I

on the weld because the weld condition caused a bleed over into the weld  !

J which did not allow it to be properly interpreted.' In this case, a mag-l netic particle (MP) inspection would have been the appropriate method of NDE.  !

- P-H NDE Level 2 Technician, Mike TERPENING, verified the weld condition i k and ACREE reported his findings to BOWLES. B0WLES told ACREE to talk l to PAD 0VANO to determine if PAD 0VANO had originally performed a MP examination for the job and mistakenly turned in a LP examination report. ACREE spoke to PAD 0VANO who stated essentially, that he thought he had cone a MP examina-tion and not a LP examination as he originally reported. ACREE reported l his conversation with PADOVANO to B0WLES who directed PAD 0VANO to go back l and inspect the weld using the MP NDE method. PADOVANO then asked ACREE l to do the MP inspection for him and ACREE refused. Later (same day), ACREE l i

( l

/

8709110238 870901 PDR FOIA GARDE 86-188 PDit Attachment 17, Page 1

'0O"R

+ .

3 .; ,

s asked PADOVANO if he had performed the MP inspection and PAD 0VAND answered

( affirmatively. ACREE then' reviewed. PADOVAN0's MP inspection report for the aforementioned job and noted that PADOVANO had accepted the weld.

On the following day, ACREE reexamined the weld along with Mike TERPENING and P-H NDE technicians Mark DANIELS and Terry STROMMER.. ACREE said there was a general agreement among the individuals reexamining the job that i there were no indications that a MP inspection had been performed on the previous. day by PADOVANO. There was " absolutely" no sign of any magnetic powder on either the weld' and surrounding area or the floor below. ACREE i reported this finding to B0WLES. During the middle and latter part of April 1983, ACREE was ' assigned to do some additional reinspection of-  :

PADOVAN0's work along with P-H NDE technician Charley WILKINS. They re-inspected approximately 40 welds that were previously inspected and accepted by PADOVANO. During this reinspection, they found approximately 11 welds that had rejectable indications and in each instance "had tried to give j PAD 0VAND the benefit of any doubt." Based on ACREE's reinspection, it was his opinion that none of those welds that both he and WILKINS examined and i

( reinspected, had-ever been initially either LP or MP inspected as reported I by PAD 0VANO.

l ACREE was questioned regarding the site audit programs prior to this investiga-tion and advised that in the past, his work product has been audited by both l

-Yankee Atomic and the authorized nuclear inspectors on site but that he i has never been audited by P-H. '

Other than the information provided supra, ALREE said he was not aware of l any other actual or suspected falsification of records nor did he know of anyone in P-H management or supervision who may have such information.

i End of Report of Interview with Mr. !!ichael D. ACREE at Seabrook, NH.

Reported by: 0 s.I Richard A. listakas, Investigst Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I Attachment 17, Page 2

.__ - ___-_-_ - ____ -