ML19308C457
| ML19308C457 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1979 |
| From: | Narrow L, Vandenberg R NRC - NRC THREE MILE ISLAND TASK FORCE, NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001240615 | |
| Download: ML19308C457 (40) | |
Text
-. -
l J Qv !.,, -* ? ni s 0,y. - dTG
.L;c L g u. s s w,., +;;
v i
i l
!O i
N U CLE A R R E G U L ATO R'/ CO MMIS SIO N i
!O i
i l
i t
IN THE MATTER OF:
THREE MILE ISLAND j
SPECIAL INQUIRY INTERVIEW l
INTERVIEW OF LEWIS NARROW O
i i
i Place - Bethesda, Maryland Date -
Thursday, September 20, 1979 Pages 1 - 39 i
4 Telephone:
(202)347 3700 i
l ACE -FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReporters 0 012 <J.O k[
i 444 North Capitol Stre Washington, D.C. 2000 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DAILY i
l t
.~
t
- CR 7239 AR 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
3 Interview of:
5 i
LEWIS NARROW i
6
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 7
i l
8 NRC/TMI SPECIAL INQUIRY 9
l 10 Room 5709 j
Maryland National Bank Bldg.
11 Bethesda, Maryland i'
12 Thursday, September 20, 1979 O
The interview commenced at 4:30 p.m., pursuant l
14
}
to notice.
i 15 Present were:
Lewis Narrow, R.
Lawrence 16 Vandenberg, and David Evans.
17 I
l 18 i
17 20 il
!O 22 23 24 a 'N
.44r8I Reportef S, Inc.
25 1
i
2 l
C. O_.N T_ _E N_ T_.S_
O 2
Witness:
Examination by:
Page:
3 O
4 LEWIS NARROW Mr. Vandenberg and Mr. Evans 3
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 Exhibit 1099 - Resume of Mr. Narrow 4
12 Exhibit 1100 - Letter from Sniezek to Vassallo, dated Dec. 9, 1977 15 13 Exhibit 1101 - Copy of newspaper article from 14 Philadelphia Incuirer 26 j
15 16 17 13 17 20 21 0
22 23
[]
24 uvd. Mal fleporters, Inc.
25 I
1 I
3 i
PROCEEDINGS 2
Whereupon, 3
LEWIS NARROW O
4 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 5
was examined and testified as follows:
6 EXAMINATION 7
BY MR. VANDENBERG:
0 0
Would you state for the record your full name.
?
9 A
My name is Lewis Narrow, Na r-r-o-w.
a 10 BY MR. EVANS:
II Q
Mr. Narrow, I am going to go through some 12 procedural items before we begin the icposition.
()
13 The first is I'm going to ask you on the record 14 if you've had a chance to read the letter from Mitch Rogovin 15 whibh we mailed to you and made available to you here today.
10 A
Yes, I have.
17 0
And have you also read the witness notification form 18 which we have made available to you today?
I7 A
Yes, I have.
20 0
Have you brought an attorney with you today?
21 A
No, I have not.
t
(
22 O
But do you understand your right to have an 23 attorney and not to proceed without one?
i I h) 24
.A Yes, I do.
! Tw.I' uaral Heporters, Inc.
25 Q
And are you willing to waive that right?
(
~
l
4 I
A Yes.
2 O
Mr. Nart have you brought a deposition -- strike 3
that.
O 4
Itave you brought a resume with you today?
5 A
I have.
6 Q
And I'm going to ask the reporter to mark this 7
Exhibit 1099 for identification, and ask you to identify if 8
this is indeed your resume.
9
[The document referred to 10 was marked Exhibit 1099 Il for identification.]
12 TIIE WITNESS:
It is.
I3 BY MR. EVANS :
Id Q
Thank you very much.
15 BY MR. VANDENBERG:
16 Q
Lew, how long have you worked for NRC?
17 A
Approximately six years.
18 Q
And could you tell us the time period during 19 which you performed inspections at the Three Mile Island 20 site?
21 A
I don't remember exactly when I started.
It was O
2 groues1r some time 1m 192s, end wes ees1ened to 1e ent11 23 the end of 1977.
I'm not sure of that starting date.
That 24 O
could be off by as much as a year.
c.cn.%me neporters, inc.
25 Q
The ending date, though, you were through December 1
L
5 I
of 1978?
2 A
I was assigned to it through early in 197-- excuse 3
me a minute.
I was assigned to the site through early 1978, 4
and then went -- returned to it in ftarch of 1978 because of 5
the allegation concerning rebar.
6 O
And then after that, after resolving that allegation i
7 did you have any further inspection activity at the site?
8 A
No, not after completing that investigation.
9 0
Was the project inspector before you Tony Fasano?
10 A
th, the project inspector before me was Seth Folsom.
II Q
And when you came on the site, did you have some 12 sort of debriefing with him?
13 A
Yes, I did.
14 0
You held the position of project inspector?
15 A
That's correct.
2 I
16 0
What does that really mean?
l 17 A
Well, it means that I'm responsible for assuring 18 that inspections are made as required in accordance with our 19 modules, and for obtaining the services of specialists and 20 inspectors to inspect in areas of their expertise, as well as 21 to perform inspections on my own in areas in which I considered O
2 mvee1f ee 11 fica-23 In addition, it means that I had to maintain 24 overall, or had overall responsibility for administration W-dt! Reporters, Inc.
25 of the inspection program under the supervision of the section u
4 6
1 manager.
2 Q
When you lef t Three Mile Island as project manager, 3
who took over from you?
4 A
It was turned over to the test and start-up group.
5 Let me explain.
Towards the end of the project --
i 6
and this is a normal occurrence -- there are certain construc-2 7
tion items which remain to be completed, and which the 8
construction branch is responsible for.
9 At the same time some of the areas of test and j
10 start-up will have been started as much as a year before that Il time; in some cases, longer than that.
And those activities i
i i
12 are conducted by the test and start-up section of the j
(}
13 operations Branch, so that there was an overlap of approxi-14 mately a year during which time test and start-up was conducted 15 against inspections in their areas where we were conducting 16 inspections in the construction area.
17 0
So then you were the last construction project 18 manager on TMI 2?
17 A
Yes.
The phrasing is a little amusing.
20
[ Laugh ter. ]
21 Q-One thing I've heard, Lew, is that there was
()_
22 relatively more turnover among the inspectors assigned to'TMI 2 i
23 relative to.other plants.
24 A
Are you speaking of construction inspectors?
iceb(~}ial fleporters, Inc.
25 Q
Yes, primarily.
7 j
1 A
I don't believe so.
Folsom was the project i
2 inspector at TMI 2, I believe for two or three years, and I t
3 was there for, wdll, until completion of the job, for about
(
4 two years.
5 At that time -- I don't know if it's still in 6
offect -- there was a requirement that inspectors not be 7
assigned for longer than three years to any site.
8 In fact, I believe the reason for my replacing l
9 Folsom was that he had been there for the full three years.
i 10 Q
I see.
11 During the time you were there, did you see any 12 evidence or hear of any discussions where GPU or Met Ed
()
13 cmployees talked about trying to rush the construction or 14 hurry the construction to get their operating license as 15 quickly as possible?
16 A
I would say that there was some urgency towards 17 the -- not particularly towards the period of time when 13 they were expecting to get their operating license, but 19 during 1977, to complete the work, particularly since they had 20 had a reduction of force some time in 1976, for some period 21 of time, and there was apparent they were putting on people
()
22 in an attempt to make up for the loss of time or -- I don't 23 know, I shouldn't say what the reason was.
But at least that
(~}
24 they were putting on a large group of people.
I wouldn't te-I emral Reporters, Inc.
25 say that this was at all unusual.
I think it's quite normal e
)
8 a
I in construction jobs that there is an active push to complete 3
2 the work, particularly as you get close to the end of the job.
I.
3 Q
Let's sec.
The operating license, I believe, was 4
issued in February of 1978.
d 5
A I'm not familiar with that date.
)
6 Q
I believe that's accurate.
7 Did you feel that the company was extremely 8
anxious to get that operating license?
9 A
I'm not in a position to say about that.
The 10 operating license depended more on the status of their start-11 up test program than it did on construction, obviously.
Most 12 of the construction had been completed prior to that time.
(j 13 0
Okay.
i 34 You mentioned the reduction in force that occurred 15 in early 1977 or 1976.
I 16 A
I'm sure it was in
'76.
17 Q
Okay.
l l
10 What were your observations on how that affected 39 the morale of the employees at the site?
20 A
I have to assume that it was not good for morale, 21 although most of the people affected by the layoff were
)
22 traffic personnel who normally anticipate layoffs, and it 23 appears to be a way of life for them.
I couldn't say that it
()
24 had a great effect on the permanent employees, although I'm
, of edere neporters, inc.
l 25 sure it must~have had some.
9 1
Q Were you there when United Engineers & Constructors, 4
2 when the work of UEC was taken over by Catalytic?
i 3
A Yes.
4 Q
Did any company employee mention to you why that 5
change was made?
6 A
It was discussed, I'm sure.
I can' t recall very i
7 clearly as to the reasons given.
If you'd like my own thinking, 8
I'll be happy to give it to you, but I can't recall the 9
subject of our discussion.
10 I know we did talk about it, or I did discuss it i
11 with some of the GPU employees, and what I'm telling you 12 may have been based on what they told me, althcugh it may
()
13 have been based on just my own thinking at that time.
14 But I had the impression that it was prinarily 15 to turn it over to a company which would be handling 16 maintenance and would have maintenance employees rather 17 than construction craft unions, and I don't really know if 18 that's true or not.
19 BY MR. EVANS:
20 0
Is that typical in the building of nuclear units?
21 Let me ask from your personal experience whether you have
()
22 seen that before.
23 A
The only other unit that I was assigned to was 24 Calvert Cliffs 2.
That is during a period of time when it was
{~}
WGhetEl Reporters, Inc.
25 turned'over. I think there the construction was somewhat i
10 I
I further along than it was at Three Mile, but they did also
()
2 turn it over.
4 3
In fact, they turned it over to Catalytic as well,
,CE) 4 to pick up the maintenance on it.
5 Well, let me go back to the other question.
It t
6 seems to me that there was also some dissatisfaction with 7
UE&C at the time,that that possibly had something to do with i
8 their bringing Catalytic in as early as they did.
9 BY MR. VANDENBERG:
10 0
Do you know what was the nature of that dissatis-
[
11 faction with UE&C?
12 A
I couldn't say.
4 ()
13 Q
Did morale at the site pick up, and did the pace 14 of activity also pick up af ter Catalytic was brought on?
15 A
No, I think probably morale went down.
There l
16 were a lot of people at that point being moved, and I don't 17 believe the pace of activity picked up.
18 It's my impression at this time that the pace of 19 activity probably slowed down.
I know that there was some 20 time spent on qualifying procedures and qualifying Catalytic i
21 personnel, and it's my recollection that probably the pace
()
22 of construction was slowed down rather than picked up.
23 Q
Were people taken off work at the Unit 1 site to
[
(
24 work.on Unit 2 during that period, from the fall of 1977
.tw f%e)rd Heporters, Inc.
25 through early 1978?.
11 1
A Not to my knowledge, not on construction.
2 O
Lew, there was a memo dated May 4, 1978, an 3
internal Met Ed memo, and I realize this is after the time 4
period when you were there, but that memo referred to the idea 5
that station management should convey to shift personnel the e
6 philosophy that it's time to slow down and proceed forward 7
dbliberately and correctly.
8 Based on your observations of the site, which is in 9
a period prior to May
'78, do you see any basis for a s tatement 10 like this?
11 A
Well, as I said, there was quite a bit of pressure 1
12 to iJnich the job.
I don't really see any basis for this, j
. {}
13 and certainly it would not have affected construction because 14 at that time the construction was finished, so I really 15 wouldn' t see that anything with respect to construction would 16 have resulted in this.
17 Q
So if there were a condition that had brought 18 forth this memo, in your view, it would relate more to start-19 up testing?
l l
20 A
I would assume that is so, yes.
21 Let me say one other thing.
They were turning
()
22 over to start-up and test a number of systems which had a l
23 great many of what they call punch list items, which means I ne(~}ett fleporters, Inc.
that there was a good deal of remaining things to be done, 24 v
25 and under the system in effect at that site, these items e
12 I
would be performed by start-up and test people, unless they 2
involved construction which they felt would have to be turned 3
back to construction.
4 It might have had some reference to that, but 5
again it seems a little late for that memo to have taken 6
that into account.
I Q
At the time you left the site, were there a great 8
many open items on the construction phase?
I h've to establish a 9
A No, these were -- well, a
10 frame of reference.
Open items to us means items identified Il by NRC, either as noncompliances or as unresolved items which 12 we would have brought to their attention.
()
13 The items I'm speaking of were items which their 14 own QC people would have identified as incomplete for a 15 system, and these are generally called -- they would then 16 be recorded and retained on the record until they were closed 17 out.
18 O
So the term "open items" is used to mean two 19 different things?
20 A
Well, no, I'd say I refer to those as punch list 21 items.
The open items would mean items which NRC had n
k-)
22 identified.
No, there were not many at all, at the time I 23 left, they were practically all closed out.
l
/~T 24 (j
0 Which was closed out?
pe-reoero neporters, inc.
25 A
The open items.
As I say, I did not maintain a l
1
{
l
13 l
1 record of the punch list items, since they had a record, O
2 that is GPU had a record of them, and they were turned over 3
as a part of the system.
O 4
In other words, when they turned the system over 5
to test and start-up, they would attach a list of the remaining 6
items to be completed, and these were called punch list items.
7 BY MR. EVANS:
8 Q
And if that item involved a matter properly 9
called construction rather than testing, then it would be --
10 let me ask, who would perform the work?
II A
Well, it would be a matter of judgment.
It's 12 my recollection that the system they used was that test and
)
13 start-up accepted responsibility for completing all those 14 punch list items.
15 However, if they felt that this was an item of 16 work that they didn't have people qualified to perform, they 17 then had the right to turn it back to construction.
13 Now, most of these open items would have been 19 fairly minor in nature, things which the test and start-up 20 people could perform.
21 Q
By test and start-up people, to be clear, we're 22 talking about NRC people now, or company people?
i l
23 A
No, we're talking company people. -Now they had l
r l (s) 24 a' test and start-up group and NRC also had a test and start-up AcefitarsA Reporters, Inc.
25 group.
14 1
Q I understand.
D)
(_
2-Would that be General Public Utilities' personnel, 3
or Catalytic personnel?
Can yoc recall?
O 4
A I never really gol involved in it very mt ch.
It's 5
my impression that the work, the actual testing, would 6
probably be GPU, but that any maintenance work or cther work 7
would be done by Jatalyt'.c.
8 O
And at this point in time, Catalytic was a constructor 9
on the site?
10 A
Well, at the time of this letter, they had 11 probably -- they were completing what construction remained, 12 which was not very much, and they were primarily a maintenance
()
13 organization there, I would assume.
14 Q
Can you distinguish in your own mind between what 15 is taaintenance and what is construction?
16 A
Well, I can give you what I think it is.
I don't 17 know that it's necessarily -- everyone would agree with it.
IS Maintenance would be a replacement of defective 19 materials or equipment or servicing of items which had 20 already been installed, including, as I say, some of these 21 items that are punch list items, which might be installation l
(-)y v
(
22 of some equipment which then was found not to perform as l
23 required, or something of that nature.
()
24 0
Given that definition, would you say that
- m m.., n.-,,...., ~
25 Catalytic came on the site rather early as a maintenance i
15 I
contract?
O 2
A Oh, yes.
In fact, they came on to complete the 3
construction.
There was no auestion that there was some 4
4 construction work remaining to be completed at that time.
5 Q
And they directed, as I understand it, UE&C-hired 6
labor in the completion of that construction; is that correct?
7 A
I'm not sure that's so.
Right now I think that 8
in some cases, at least, Catalytic took over supervision of 9
the labor which had been there and whil:h had initially been 10 hired by UE&C, but I t'aought they went on the Catalytic payroll I
at that time.
I'm not sure.
12 Q
All right.
13 Off the record.
Id
[ Discussion off the record.]
15 MR. EVANS:
Back on the record.
16 BY MR. VANDENBERG:
I7 Q
I'd like to have the reporter mark as Exhibit No.
13 1100 -- this is a letter from Sniczek to Vassallo, dated l
December 9, 1977, and its title is " Metropolitan Edison 20 Company, Three Mile Island, Unit No.
2, Outstanding Items."
21
[The document referred to was 22 marked Exhibit No. 1100 for 23 j
identification.]
O
'24 iw4ve/
BY MR. VANDENBERG :
t rtl Reporters, fric, 25 O
Lew, would you take a look at this and see if I
16 1
you remember this, and if you had any input into the contentes of that memo?
3 A
(Witness examining document.]
{~
Yes, I remember this.
It was -- the attachment 5
is a computer printout of all the outstanding items, including 6
those which were still open at the time.
7 BY MR. EVANS:
8 0
What time is that, the date of the memo?
9 A
At the time of the -- well, presumably the date 10 that the printout was obtained, rather than the letter.
I 11 don't know how long the period elapsed.
The printout is dated 12 11/28, I believe, 24, 28.
The letter is dated December.
It O
13 would be as of the date of the printout.
Or probably it 14 would be as of some date prior to the printout, because 15 there were some items in process at the time.
16 BY MR. VANDENBERG:
17 0
Could you describe briefly how items get on that 18 computer listing of open items?
17 A
Some of the items get on as a result of being 20 identified during inspections.
Now this would include 21 inspections by construction or test and start-up.
Some of D)
(_
22 them get on occause they have been reported by the licensee 23 as a significant deficiency in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55.
(~~'T 24 wh]ro neporteri, inc.
And some would get on as a result of having been the 25 subject of a bulletin or circular which had been issued by NRC.
i
17 1
0 Then many of the items on that list result from O
2 your own inspections at TMI 2?
3 A
Without going over them in detail, I'm certain s
4 that some of them did, at least.
S Q
Do you think that's an unusual number to have at a 6
time that's about a month and a half before issuance of an 7
operating license?
8 A
I'm really not in a position to say without a lot 9
of additional study.
Do you have the number of items here 10 which -- have you gone through this list and determined the 11 number of items which were open?
12 O
No, I don't have a total number.
(
13 A
Let's see.
It seems like quite a few.
I couldn't 14 tell you whether it's an unusually large number or not 15 without going through it all.
I don' t know how many of them i
16 were construction items, how many of them might have been 17 identified by test and start-up, or how many of them were put 18 in because they were bulletins or circulars.
Probably not many i
19 were items reported by the licensee, because they're rather 20 less frequent.
21 O
Lew, let's change the subject now, and discuss 22 l
the incident of faulty welding which you investigated.
Could l
23 you describe the circumstances first under which you learned
]
24 of that incident, and then go on to describe how you l' 4ebirst Reporters, Inc.
25 investigated and the results of your investigation?
I
18 I
A Yeah.
I believe it was reported to someone in A(/
2 our office by telephone, I don' t know who initially, and as a 3
result of that telephone call, I called the man and asked
'T 4
if we could visit him in order to discuss this question with 5
him.
6 IIe agreed with that, and one of the other men in 7
our office and I visited him.
Ile lived near Three Mile 8
Island, and asked him '.o give us as much detail as he could 9
about this particular que.Ttion.
10 lie had said that during the time he worked at the Il site, which was some years earlier, he had been instructed 12 to perform some welding that was not a qualified procedure
()
13 and also -- and I'm not sure at this point whether he was N
instructed to cut some reinforcing steel into concrete wall 15 or whether he saw the reinforcing steel cut.
It could have 16 been either way.
I l'7 We attempted to obtain as much information as we la could from him about the location of this work, and also
\\
39 exactly when it was done, and then we went back to the site 20 and attempted to identify the particular -- he was speaking 2i of an anchor of some type which had been imbedded in the
()
22 concrete wall.
23 We went back there in an attempt to identify the f')
2'8 anchor, and then determined whether there was any record of at. vo neporters, Inc.
25 the work being done, and whether there was any indication i
19 I
that the work had not been done correctly.
! ()
2 We identified one anchor on the wall ehich appeared 3
to fit his description of the location and the licensee --
i 4
I'm not sure exactly what occurred after that, but we werc l
l 5
satisfied that it was not the particular anchorage.
I'm not 6
sure whether the licensee had some docementation on that il 7
or whether he inspected it with ultrasonic testing.
8 At any rate, we decided that this could not have 9
been the one.
We went back to this mah later and asked if 10 he would accompany us to the site in an attempt to identity Il the anchor, and he agreed to do that.
i 12 So we again returned to the site, and he selected i
!, ()
13 two other anchors in the same wall, but at a lower elevation, 14 and we had the licensee perform an ultrasonic test on the i
15 anchor bolts to determine whether or not either of these 16 anchors might have been welded, that is the anchor bolts i
l 17 might have been welom1.
18 We had with us at that time one of our specialists I
I9 in nondestructive testing who witnessed those tests, and as a 1
i 20 result of the tests determined that one of the anchors gave 21 indications that the bolts had been welded.
(
22 In other words, they showed.ndications of a weld 23 a certain distance back from the face of the wall with an
()
24 additional bolt extension going deeper into the wall, which
, Am hscral Reporters, Inc.
[
25 l
he felt was sufficient indication that those belts had been i
i
20 l
1 welded, and there was general agreement by the nondestructive 2
testing people there, as well as the licensee people, that 3
apparently there had been some welding performed on the bolts.
O 4
We checked the records and could find nothing to 5
indicate that those welds had been performed, and therefore 6
they obviously had been performed without a qualified procedure 7
or without being -- they were unauthorized welds.
8 There was no way we could really determine whether 9
any of the reinforcing steel had been cut.
However, based 10 on the number of anchorages and the size of the anchorage, it 11 appeared reasonable that there had been some reinforcing steel 12 cut.
13 So, in writing the report of that investigation, 14 we cited the licensee for having performed -- installed the 15 anchors not in conformance with the rules, and also for 16 having performed unauthorized welding, and we also called 17 the question of the reinforcing steel an unresolved item, 18 and indicating that the licensee would either be required to 19 prove that the steel had not been cut, or alternatively, to 20 provide some justification for replacement of steel or some 21 corrective action, either justification that the cutting;of 22 the steel had not affected the strength of the wall, or else 23 to take some corrective action which would restore it to the 24
)
required strength.
Arc. wral Reporters, Inc.
25 The anchor was corrected by them welding additional i
21 1
lengths of plate onto the existing anchor, or rather anchor O
2 plate, and then bolting these additional plates back into the 3
wall, and this was based on a sketch by the engineers who O
a presented this as a means of restoring the strength of the 5
anchor plate.
6 And there was a study made by the engineers also 7
which indicated that the -- even though all of the bars behind l
8 the particular plate, first plate, might have been cut, that 9
this would not have affected the struchural integrity of that 10 wall and the closed -- it was closed on that basis.
11 I believe I closed -- no, I don' t believe I closed it out, I i
12 think one of the other inspectors closed it out.
()
13 O
And the welder who performed the weld and also 14 reported it, I take it he was not then a current caployee of 15 Metropolitan Edison?
16 A
No, he was employed on one of the other sites in 17 Pennsylvania at the time.
18 Q
But still for Metropolitan Edison?
19 A
No, not for Metropolitan Edison.
I think he was --
20 actually, I don't believe he was actually employed by 21 Metropolitan Edison.
I believe he was probably employed by
/")
(_/
22 UE&C at the time the work was done at this. site.
At the time 23 he reported it, I think he was working on the Limerick site, 1 ()
24 probably as an employee of VEPCO there.
Ace-Fasersl Reporters, Inc.
25 0
Low, why were you selected to be the _nspector L
22 I
to investigate that incident?
2 A
Well, I suppose I was available.
3 Would you please take that off the record.
4 Well, I had been the project inspector for construc-5 tion until immediately prior to the report of this incident'.
6 I was familiar with this site, and I assume that they assigned 1
l 7
me to work with one of our investigators in making -- performing 8
this investigation and perhaps I should have explained that 9
the other man who accompanied me on thb first visit to this 4
10 alleger, and also the second visit, was one of the people 11 from our investigation.
12 Q
I see.
- ()
3 A
And the investigation was really conducted by him.
14 But then the other groups in the region provide technical 15 support to the investigators.
16 Q
Did any employee of Met Ed or UE&C or any other 17
)'
person who worked on the site ever report to you any other 18 discrepancy, deficiency or concern?
19 A
No, none that I can recall.
I think it was 20 usually the other way around, that if we saw something, we told them of our concern.
O 22 O
Do you know if any employee on this site ever 23 raised a concern with other IE personnel?
(~N 24 wk39 neporters, inc.
.A Not that I know of.
Q Low, you were there for, I guess, about two years l
23 I
roughly, is that right?
2 A
Something like that.
3 0
Out of that two-year period, cotild you estimate O
d for us how many days or portions of days you were actually at 5
the site?
6 A
Well, I think that I probably averaged in one 7
inspection a month, and my inspections would normally be, I'd 8
say they'd average out on a three-day period per inspection.
9 Q
So we're talking about 36 days a year?
10 A
Something of that nature, yes.
I BY MR. EVANS:
12 Q
Mr. Narrow, I have some follow-up questions and 13 some questions to reach into dif ferent areas.
Id First, with regard to this welder, do you know what 15 union he belonged to?
I0 A
No, I do not.
17 Q
Okay.
Let me clarify that.
I wasn't asking for a 18 local number, but whether he was a pipefitter or a welder --
I9 or whether there is another welder's union.
20 A
Well, there are several.
Apparently he was working 21 on structural work, but I don't know just which union he O
he1oneed to.
rhee is don' e know whether he ne1oneed to e 2
23 structural or a boilermaker or a -- I know he was not a 24 q
pipefitter-welder.
- Ace s'd Reporters, Inc.
2S Q
Okay.
Let me ask about unions in the ' sense that I
.I
I 24 I
while you were out -- while you were construction inspector, O
2 did you ever notice the company having problems getting the 3
right kind of union help?
O 4
A We don't usually become involved in their union 5
problems.
I think it's fairly normal on most sites that 6
they have a problem getting qualified pipe welders, but I 7
don't know that they had more of a problem there than they have 8
at other sites.
9 l
0 Who is responsible for determining whether the i
10 craft personnel, these union people, are doing a competent II job?
12 A
Well, I -- are you familiar with the basis on which 13 j
we inspect?
Then I won' t go into detail on it.
But the first Id l
obligation is on the part of their supervision, and then this 15 is supported by their QC organization, and in turn we audit 16 the work and the performance of the QC people.
I7 Tnd, in addition, their own QA organization audits i
i I8 as well.
So it's a chain, really, of evaluation, if you will.
Q Let me give you a hypothetical.
If, in building a 20 plant, the company was having difficulty with a particular 21 l
union, in getting enough people to do the work that had to 22 be done, and therefore was hiring some people that might 23 have _ been marginally qualified to do the work they were doing, 24 how would that information rise to your attention?
Ace-Fede,al Firporters, Inc.
25 A
Well, it would show up first in our review of I
L
25 1
the qualifications of the welder, which means that the review 2
of their performance of qualification welds, it would show 3
up in our inspection of the work, it would probably also show 4
up in the records.
If you observed that the records show a 5
more than normal number of welds being cut out and repaired, 6
then you would assume that the welding performance was poor.
7 Q
Did you notice -- let me rephrase this.
8 Was the welder who came to you with the concern 9
at Three Mile Island qualified, in your opinion?
10 A
I have no way of judging that.
He had finished his i
11 work there long before I ever met the man, and the work he had i
12 done had been performed several years before that time,
()
13 probably before I was -- probably several years before I was 14 assigned to the site.
t 15 Q
After he came to you with this allegation, did 16 you or the person you were working with from investigations 17 go back and examine the qualifications of welders at Threc 18 Mile Island?
19 A
I don't recall that we went back and examined them, j
20 because we had been examining the qualifications of the wolders on a continual basis, as well as examining the work.
l 21
()
22 Q
One final question in this area:
i I
23 Then you had no concerns over the qualifications -
(~}
24 of the people who were working on the site based upon the Acelmitt Reporters, Inc.
25 review that you did?
~
26 1
A You mean as a result of this, or you mean as a 2
result of the entire inspection program?
I l
3 0
As a result of your entire inspection program.
!O 4
A I would say that you always have problems coming j
5 up.
I'm not speaking -- as a result of this investigation, it i
6 didn't raise any particular question.
It raised some 7
questions concerning the quality of the supervision at that 8
time, because we had -- we assumed that what the man told us, 9
based on the evidence that we had seen, and therefore he'd 10 been instructed to perform work improperly.
j 11 But in general the qualifications of the people l
12 appeared to be about what you would expect.
In other words, 13 you'd find some problems.
We always anticipate finding i
14 some, but I wouldn't say that they were disproportionate.
i l
15 BY MR. VANDENBERG:
l 16 Q
Before we leave this area, Lew, I'd like you to 17 look at this copy of a newspaper article from the Philadelphia 18 Inquirer, which I think we should ask the reporter to mark as 19
. Exhibit No. 1101.
)
20
[The document referred'to 21 was marked Exhibit No. 1101 h
22 for identification.]
23 BY MR. VANDENBERG:
,0 There's-two paragraphs there particularly that I've p
24 mebad Reporters, Inc.
25
- marked that talk about construction, the qualifications of l
O
27 I
construction personnel, and I wonder if you could comment on p/
L, 2
whether you think those paragraphs are a. fair characterization 3
of the construction personnel at TMI 2.
4 A
[ Witness examining document.]
5 I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to offer too much 6
on it.
It's conceivable that some of the people couldn't 7
write; I wouldn't know.
8 And it's also conceivable that there was faulty 9
workmanship, particularly when he talks of railings on steps.
10 You understand that we are -- we inspect only areas which II are considered safety-related, I mean from the standpoint of 12 the health and safety of the public, not the other work.
And 13 it may well be that there was faulty workmanship in those Id areas.
15 As I say, we found some items we had problems with 16 in the work we inspected, and we had them corrected.
I7 As far as the other item you've marked about I8 working 18 to 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br />, that appears to be concerned mostly with maintenance and, as I said earlier, I didn't get 20 involved in that area.
21 Q
Okay.
Thank you.
22 Low, on another point, do you recall being present 23 in October 1977 at the site for a test of the main steam O
k.
relief valves?
Ace-FedItst fleporters, Inc.
A You say October '77?
I r
28 1
O Yes.
2 A
No, my records -- or what records I found at the 3
office show that I was not on site in October of '77.
I f-D 4
went through a listing which would be prepared of inspections 5
performed of Three Mile Island, and this is where I have 6
this information.
It gives the inspection number and the 7
people who attended.
I don't recall the test of the relief 8
valves, and apparently I was not on site at that time.
9 While I'm looking at this, I'd like to make a 10 correction to something I said earlier.
Apparently I -- no, 11 I withdraw that.
I was there, as I told you, until early '77.
12 The last inspection I made was right around January, prior 13 to going back for the investigation.
14 Q
January of 197--
15 A
'78.
16 BY MR. EVANS:
17 Q
In' the area of overtime, what about overtime of 13 construction workers?
Would you say that overtime work at 19 Three Mile Island was greater than at other projects you've 20 seen?
21 A
There was some overtime.
I'm not in a good position
(')%
\\~
22 to judge whether it 'was more or less than in other projects.
23 Q
All right.
Let me ask questions in a couple of
()
24 other areas.
Ace Federst Reporters, Inc.
25 First of all, when you first became involved with I
i 29 I
Three Mile Island, did you know what the goal was for putting O
2 that plant into commercial operation, what the date they had 2
set was?
4 A
Schedule date?
I did at the time, I'm sure.
I 5
don't remember what it was now.
6 Q
Okay.
While you were working or inspecting the l
7 project, did that date slip some?
8 A
Again I don't recall, but I'm sure it did.
They all 9
do.
10 Q
All right.
Were you present for any tests before Il the core was. loaded in what's called pre-operational testing?
12 A
No.
The only test which you might consider pre-(')
13 operational that I was there for was the structural integrity 14 test of the containment building.
i 15 Q
That's where they pressurize --
16 A
- yes, 1
17 Q
-- the containn.ent building.
18 Just to get this on the record, then you were not i
19 present for a pre-operational test in which the reactor i
20 coolant pump seals might have been damaged?
21 A
No, I was not.
22 Q
Did you hear about such a test?
i 23 A
I heard that they had a number of problems with l
l ()
24 reactor coolant pumps, including damaged seals.
(sce bderet Reporters, Iric, l
25 g
.Did you hear about that from NRC personnel, or l
30 I
from the company's people?
2 A
I can't recall.
3 Q
What was your impression of the work of UE&C at 4
the site?
A That's a very difficult question to answer.
It 6
has an expression of an opinion.
I don't think it's as good 7
as some of the sites that I have worked on, or same of the O
contractors' work that I have seen.
9 0
Why is that?
10 A
I really don't know why.
It's hard to say why i
11 one job is done well and another is not done well.
12 0
What I'm asking for is what is the basis of your
)
13 opinion that it's not as high a quality?
14 A
As I say, it's rather subjective, but you get an 15 impression in working on the site as to how good the performance 16 is, or how bad.
I couldn't give you specific reasons why.
17 0
The welder that we've been talking about previously 18 who came to you with a problem, would he have been a UE&C 19 cmployce?
20 A
I Solieve he would have been, yes.
21 Q
Ana his supervisor then would have been a UE&C O
22 employee as well?
23 A
Right.
/"N 24 Ace $ fo neporters, Inc.
O Did you ever hear the concern expressed that UE&C 25 wanted to leave the job before there was a danger of I
31 1
industrial sabotage, that is the fear that its craf t personnel
(
2 would intentionally damage systems so as to e:: tend their 3
working time at the plant?
O 4
A No, to the contrary, I did not -- it was my under-5 standing that UE&C was rather unhappy when they were cancelled 6
or forced to leave the job, and this I heard because they 7
were having a problem with procedures and there were numerous 8
complaints that the records which should have been there 9
were missing, and things of this nature.
10 So that I didn't have the impression that they II were anxious to get out.
12 Q
Records being missing?
The concern was that UE&C O
is hed eexen records with them when eher 1efe2 14 A
Let me explain.
These are not the official 15 documented records which form a permanent plant file, but 16 other information which people normally keep on a job, and 17 which would have helped the people who took over. to complete 18 the work.
They were having difficulty in finding them which, i
39 as it was explained to me, or again I'm going back to my memory 20 I hate to do this -- but it's my recollection that we would 21 question certain things and one of the reasons was, well, we re having a lot of dif ficulty in doing certain things 22 e
23 because some of the information just has not been turned over -
l O) 24 the way it should have been.
f nev(4 (!crat Reporters, Inc, l
25 0
Was there a specific individual or individuals at j
l l
l I
l l
32 l
1 UE&C that you remember dcaling with, your interfaces with O
2 that company?
3 A
No, I don' t.
Most of our interfaces were with GPU O
4 and we did interf ace with UE&C primarily with their QC people, 5
and occasionally with some of the construction people.
6 Q
I'm going to ask you the same question regarding your impression as to Catalytic.
How would you campare Catalyic's-7 work at the site with either other maintenance contractors 8
that you might be familiar with from Calvert Cliffs, or with 9
p)
UE&C as a constructor?
T.2 11 A
I don't think I can give you an opinion on Catalytic's 12 work.
I wasn't present for enough of their work, and what I
()
13 was present for, they were just starting the work on the site, 34 and it wouldn't be f air to judge them on that basis.
15 Q
Fine.
16 What about Burns & Roc?
Did you have any involvement 17 with their personnel?
18 A
Occasionally, yes, particularly with their field, 19 they had a site engineer representative.
20 Q
Do you remember his name?
21 A
No, I do not.
()
22 Q
Do you know if this is the first pressurized
[
l 23 water reactor that Burns & Roe had designed?
(
(~)
24 A
I don't know.
Ace Federal ficporters, Inc.
25 Q
Do you have an impression as to Burns & Roc's I
33 1
performance at the site?
m
(_)
,e A
It appeared to me to be about what you would expect.
3 I had no impression either adverse or pro.
4 Q
It's our understanding that Three Mile Island Unit 2 5
had originally been designed or designated for a site at 6
Oyster Creek.
7 A
That's correct.
8 Q
Do you know if in building Unit 2, modifications 9
had to be made to so that that unit would fit at the site?
10 A
I'm afraid I couldn't help you with that.
That 11 would have -- any modifications that might have been required 12 would have been made long before I was at the site.
()
13 The only modifications that I know of were the 14 protective walls they put up at the entrance for postulated 15 aircraft crash.
16 Q
I'm going to ask you a couple of broad questions, 17 and ask you to give the best answer you can.
13 Would you describe what the term " commercial 19 operation" means to you, based upon your experience?
20 A
I believe commercial operation means -- well, it's 21 my impression it means that they would have operated that
)
22 at full power and then have operated in the condition where 23 they were providing power to the -- oh, what is the term?
l h
,0 Electrical grid?
24
. ACP+ d4al Reporters, Irw,
25 A
Utility grid, yes.
I
f 34 i
I Q
Let me. ask then if designating a unit into l
O 2
commercial operation affected the work that you did in any 3
way?
O 4
A No, that would have happened long after construction 5
was dompleted.
They would have had to go through their test 6
program, their cold test and then their hot functional test, 7
before they could do that.
8 0
But did the date set in the future for that affect 9
the way that you would perform your job as an inspector?
10 A
Oh, no.
The date would be affected by the 11 schedule, but it would not affect my job as an inspector.
12 BY MR. VANDENBERG :
O i3 o
tew, cen veu veneure en eginien es ee whv ee few 14 workers at ti.
site reported problems to I&E inspectors?
15 A
Well, my opinion is that generally workers report 16 very few problems to I&E, I assume that most of them are afraid 17 that if they do report a problem, they could get fired.
18 Q
Do you think the only reason this former welder 19 at the site reported the problem was because he no longer 20 worked there?
21 A
Well, I'm sure that had something to do with it.
22 Also he impressed both the investigator and myself as being a 23 very, very serious-minded person, and I suspect what he told
~
24 us was true; that he had worried about this long enough, and uce Fweral Reporters, Inc.
25 felt that he had _ to get it off his chest.
It was just worrying
)
35 1
him.
He seemed to be a very sincere and honest person.
O
(/
2 Q
Do you know how long had passed from the time 3
he left the TMI site until he calle d in: the report?
O
\\_/
4 A
I did know.
My recollection, it was probably 5
three years or so.
6 Q
He had actually been away from the site for threc 7
years?
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Finally, Lew, you have indicated, I think, earlier 10 today that there was some desire on the part of the company 11 to get TMI 2 built as quickly as possible.
12 Could you again characterize for us the extent O('T 13 or nature of that construction phase, and especially if you 14 can compare it to other projects that you may be familiar with?
15 A
Well, they had a substantial number of people on 16 site, most of whom they picked up after the slowdown in 1976.
17 They picked up rather rapidly.
They went on to a second shift 18 operation for a limited number of people, not a very large 19 force.
But this is particularly in the electrical area, 20 and for the stage of the work at that time, it seemed like 21 quite a large number of ;aople.
Plus I suppose I base a lot
. ()
22 of what I've said about hem pushing the job on expressions 23 that you would hear on ' a site, that the work had to get donc, f r-)
24 and the f act that some c f the schedules we were informed of
',%,iral lleportars, Inc.
25 for completing the wot.: were not very realistic, and L
/
\\
i
36 1
frequently were not met, which is usually an indication that O
2 someone is pushing pretty hard to get a job completed.
3 Q
Do you have any idea as to which specific people 4
were pushing pretty hard to get it completed?
5 A
Well, I assume it was the GPU group responsible 6
for proj ect management.
I have no definite information on 7
that.
8 Q
Lew, is there any other area or information that 9
you think might be of value to the NRC/TMI Special Inquiry, 10 in conducting its investigation of the accident?
i 11 A
Well, you haven't touched on the electrical work.
.2 There was a heavy build-up of electrical crafts in 1977,
()
13 together with and -- we insisted that they build up their QC 14 people.
In accordance with that, during the slowdown, they 15 had not laid off very many, if any, people, so they had a i
16 large number of OC people.
During the build-up we insisted 17 that they needed additional GC people, and they agreed with it, 18 to put them on, and it was of some concern to us that these l
19 people be qualified and trained, and I know that both the 20 electrical specialists and I spent some time during '77 in i
21 reviewing the work that was being done, that is the electrical 22 work, particularly cable pulling and termination, and as l
23
_ well as the qualifications of the QC people.
( ')
24 I don' t know if that's of very much interest.
It's l
nce rtarst Reporters, Inc.
25 my opinion that the work as done was acceptable, but' during
37 I
that particular time, it was of more concern to us -- that is O
2 the electrical work was of more concern to us than some of 3
the other work we' ave discussed.
O v
4 BY MR. EVANS:
5 O
Let me pin this down.
In mid-1977, I believe in~
6 June, UE&C left the site and was replaced by Catalytic.
Who 7
was responsible for the build-up of electrical craf ts personnel?
8 A
It was prior to June.
It was early '77, possibly 9
late '76.
I know it was in early '77 that we were inspecting 10 the electrical work rather heavily because of the build-up.
II Q
Do you know when the punch lists were turned over 12 to Catalytic, whether a large majority of those were electrical (O,)
13 in nature?
Id A
I don ' t know.
I would assume a large number of 15 them would be.
That would be normal on any site at that stage.
I0 BY MR. VANDENBERG:
I7 Q
Is the electrical work normally the last major la phase of construction work?
A Yeah, usually it is electrical, and then instrumenta-20 i
tion which follows with the electrical.
23 Q
But yet you and other I&E inspectors were concerned i
22 about the build-up to the point where you were concerned 23 about the quality of their electrical work?
24
.A Well, to the extent that we spent more than the
..s-rt.aras nworsm, soc.
25 normal amount of time in inspecting -that type of work, yes.
t I
38 1
Q Did you think that a lot of pressure was being put 2
on the electrical crews to finish their work as rapidly -- or
'~'
3 more rapidly than you thought was appropriate?
(
l 4
A No, I think it was -- or what was influencing me, 5
and I was responsible for bringing electrical men out, was 6
just the fact that they were building up large crews and 7
Putting on a lot of additional people, both in the craft area 8
and in the area of QC people, and this becomes a matter of 9
concern.
10 I suppose behind that is the pressure to complete 11 the work, but that really wasn't what influenced us.
12 Q
Did you ever see posted on bulletin boards the
(
13 milestone charts for completing TMI 2?
14 A
I'm sure I've seen them.
I don't know that I saw 15 them posted on bulletin boards, but I have seen the charts 16 from time to time, yes.
I don' t recall having seen them posted 17 on bulletin boards.
13 Q
Do you think there was general knowledge all the 19 way down to the craf ts person level as to what the general 20 schedule was?
21 A
Oh, I am sure there is.
l T
22 MR. EVANS:
I have no further questions.
23 MR. VANDENBERG:
We thank you very much.
G 24 MR. EVANS:
Let me state on the record, Lew, that
,ce4 uurit Reporters, Inc.
25 rather than terminate this deposition, we are going to recess I
r i
39 1
it, such that if we need to, we can call you back in the
)
O 2
future.
I am not sure that we would~ be doing that, but as a 3
matter of procedure, we are going to recess the deposition O
4 rather than terminate it.
5 TI!E WITNESS:
That'c acceptable.
6 Will I have the opportunity --
7
[ Discussion off the record.]
g 8
[Whereupon, at 5:40 p.m.,
the deposition was 9
adjourned.]
10
{
l 11 i
12
!O
'3 14 l
15 16 17 18 a
19 20 21 22 23 24
%ro,at neporters, Inc.
25 e
i k
- -. - -.. =....
...- -.