ML19322C639
| ML19322C639 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1979 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001180223 | |
| Download: ML19322C639 (2) | |
Text
__.
s jo* coq'o d
UNITED STATES
[Ef 3 v (((
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q / ()
3'-iW[E[j.E 0
W/
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 o., Y gv Summary of Interview with James Agger Joe Murphy Urban LeMay Catalytic, Inc.
at offices of Catalytic, Inc.
Philadelphia, Pa.
9/13/79 Catalytic's contract is for both Units 1 and 2 and began 6/1/77. Al though Catalytic's contract was sold as a maintenance contract not a construction contract, Catalytic's sales theory was that since, in a sense, construction is never finished, Catalytic would assist in completing constructior.nd assist in the test program.
At TMI-2 Catalytic did assist in test preparation and provided the craft labor to perform the work.
Nearly all or all the craft people were hired on site by Catalytic after securing the contract.
Jim Agger provided a copy of the cont. ct which lists the 13 unions Catalytic had to deal with.
Work authorizations were signed by Bill Gunn, Sandy
, Ron Toole, Dick Heward, and John Bartin, project manager after Heward.
Monthly Project Managers' meetings were held, mostly run by Bartin.
Summary meetings were held three times annually and were attended by Herbein and Arnold.
It's common in industry when plant is 9,-98% complete to throw the constructor out.
Catalytic had never taken on this extensive construction / testing work before.
While the punch list of outstanding items was long, it was not excessive.
Assuming the plant value was about $650M, the total expended by Catalytic was about $13M or 2%.
Compared to commercial jobs, TMI-2 was clear of graft and sabotage.
GPU had good relations with unions; pipefitters were most difficult to get.
IBEW was most stringent on L/R.
Was there a time schedule? There were milestones tnat GPUSC had identified and Catalytic was expected to meet. M/S were of the type to achieve a certain event.
i 8o01180 A A3 p
Catalytic, Inc.
2 9/13/79 There was no specific schedule for Catalytic; rather the M/S encompassed all others work including Catalytic.
The two main M/S Catalytic faced (from a construction point of view) were:
- structual integrity test
- core loading.
M/S were posted by company for (GPU) on conference room wall.
During mid-June, Catalytic was asked to prepare an estimate to put in Dresser valves. Catalytic bid on, but did not win, contract for Lonergan l
valve replacement.
Dresser valves were available from VEPCO.
Workforce dropped from 250 to 60/70 people working on punch list items and paintout during the valve replacement.
Catalytic had no known contact with NRC inspectors.
No employees contacted Urban (who was at site) about problems on work at site.
Urban felt Catalytic was not pressed by schedule after the valve replacement.
On the contrary, Catalytic's period of intense work was prior to fueling in 1978.
Current workforce at site is about 240 craft workers and 50 staff.
Contract expires 12/31/79.
Joe Murphy:
"Every time a problem came up the schedule was adjusted to meet the problem."
For capitalization and expense, it's always good to finish by 6/30 or 12/31 of a year.
Just good common sense and good business.
Urban:
" Bob Arnold indicated the importance of completing work within the time frame so that they could get TMI-2 into rate base."
Larry Vandenberg l
l l
L