ML20041E283

Testimony of F Kuron on Contentions 4(a),(b),(c),(d) & (E) & 7 Re QA & Stoney Pointe Area Evacuation Route.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20041E283
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	03/31/1982
From:	Kuron F CITIZENS FOR ENERGY & EMPLOYMENT
To:
Shared Package
ML20041E278	List: ML20041E277 ML20041E283
References
NUDOCS 8203100322
Download: ML20041E283 (12)

Text

,_

s

E./.TED COFs'tsummim 00tKE_IfC I il

.

g 3

e 62 ya -B n0:19 l

p UNITED STATES OF.' AMERICA

~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t

In the Matter of:

l THE DETROIT' EDISON COMPANY Docket No. 50-341 5

Enrico Fermi Atomic Plant Unit 2

/

j PREP'ARED TESTIMONY OF

. FRANK KURON ON.

~

INTERVENOR'S CONTENTIONS 4(a), (b),.(c), (d) &.(e) and 8 8

i March,'1982

~

O PDR l

Q.

Please, state your name and a'ddress.

A.

My name is Frank Kuron.

My address.is 5739 Nelson Drive, Newport, Michigan-48161.

Q.

What.is your background related to your qualifications to present the testimony.you will offer in this proceeding?

A.

I worked for the Packard Motor Car Company for twenty-one (21) years in the tool and die and forging department.

In 1955 I became a member of Loc'al 55 of the Ironworker's Union in Toledo, Ohio.

.Since that time I h' ave worked on a number of power plants and other construction proj ects.

I worked on and off on the Fermi I Nuclear Power Plant project from the beginning to end of construction.

I have worked on the Monroe Power Plant construc,-

ti'on proj ect.

I was employed on Campbell's Soup Plant construc-tion project in Napoleon, Ohio from beginning to end, having the longest uninterrupted term of any worker on that project.

I also worked on the C & O Coal Dock project in Toledo, Ohio from beginning to end..

In other words, I have spent numerous years,

doing ironwork construction without any problems on the job and without any questioning of my competency as an ironworker.

I began work on the Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant construction project at the time construction began.

I was employed at that time by the Townsend & Bottom construction firm of Ann Arbor, Michigan.

After I began work on the Fermi II project, I noticed problems with quality assurance and quality control and voiced those concerns.

Townsend & Botto.m terminated me for expressing, these concerns.sometime prior to the 1974 hal't in construction.

i A law suit was filed against the company following my termination and the construction company ultimately settled t'he suit for some 1

I Twenty-five Thousand (S25,000.00) Dollars.

Following resumption of constru'ction at the Fermi II ' site, I l

was hired by the construction firm of Wdlbrige Aldinger.

I was terminated by this firm after.approximately 1 years of employment for again voicing concern.about the. safety of the plant.

I filed i

a Complaint with'the DNpartment of Labor concerning this discharge'

{

and the charge was ultimately settled for some Twenty'-fi.ve Hundred

($2,500.00) Dollars.

To summarize, I have been involved with the construction of Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant and have pointed out safety and quality assurance. problems to the construction' companies, Detroit 1

Edison and.the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since construction be'gan.

The failure of these companies and the NRC to properly l

address, what I believe to'be a pattern of negligent and unsafe,

construction practices had led to m. testifying today concerning i

my serions reservations about granting an operating license to' the,Detr'oit Edison Company to operate the Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant.

Q.

For whom are-you-testifying in this. matter?

A.

CEE is an.intervenor in these proceedings which has filed.certain contentions with this Board.

Q.

What is the subject and context of the testimony you are presenting here?

A.

My testimony concerns Contentions 4 and 8 of.CEE's Contentions.

Those Contentions relate to quality assurance.on the p1' ant site and also' a major problem with the escape rout'e for in'dividuals living in the Stonp Pointe area of Monroe County.

In the event of

l t

an accident at the plant requiring evacuation of the area, I have particular knowledge with regard to what would occur in such an event in that I live in the Stony Pointe area and would be directly affected in the event I had to evacuate my home in the event of an accident.

Q.

Let's begin with Contention 4(a) which discusses a general lack of security on the plant site.

What can you tell about security problems at the plant during construction and how these problpms might relate to safety?

A.

There was a general lack of' security personnel present on the site during construction.

This is indicated by several fires which occurred.

These fires could have been accidental and they may not have been accidental.

In addition, there was a great deal of theft on the site and there was at least one incident where there was a release of several hundred gallons of fuel oil.

There was a general lack of interest in security during the construction.

Q.

Contention.4(c) concerns. quality assurance program at the site.

In -

general, what is your knowledge of the quality assurance program?

A.

I have had numerous opportunities to have conversations with the v'arious' craft people at the Fermi.II' site and this has created'a concern with me what I perceive to be a lack of an adequate quality More rec'ntly, an adequate control program has control program.

e been implemented, but in the early. stages of constructions it w'as lacking.

One particular incident that causes me concern was that at one point in time Detroit Edison's officials ordered destruction of two trailer loads of records.

At the time, it was believed.

that these trailers conta'ined quality records.

Currently, Edison is saying that the trailers did not contain quality records, but, in fact, contained personn'el records and other miscellaneous records.

I do not know who ordered the burning, but I do know that after the records had been destroyed there was an effort to relocate specific piping-records that.were. compiled by Parsons early in the project.

There was another incident in which a fire occurred in Building 45A.

This fire was reported as a minor fire l but it.is believed by myself to have been more serious.

The fire' occurred on December 16, 1978 and the information I have indicates that quality assurance records were destroyed in that fire.

'Q.

Contention 4(b) specifically' concerns construction inadequacy relating to large and small, bore pipe hangers and welds of safety related components.

What knowledge do you have of inadequate construction in these areas?

A.

Specific in the Turbine Building there were a series of hangers that were' improperly installed.

Most of these hangers have since been. reworked and are now supporting verticle pipes that run in.

the Turbine Building closed cooling water system.

It is my,under-standing that NRC had identified this problem sometime ago and has directed Detroit. Edison to take action'to correct all defi-ciencies in this area.

Specifically to the weld, there are a large number of things which I believe were done improperly.

There were nozzl'es located on the main condenser in the Turbine Building that.were welded with the. wrong weldrod.

These welds were performed sometime in 1974,,

just prior to the shut down of the project.

I was told by I

workers on the job.that the wrong r.od had been used.

My infor.

mation is that at the time that the projhet was started up again the paperwork on these welds were modified to make it appear as if the proper rods had been used.

Additionally, welds of the main steamlines to the inlet of the external main steam isolation valve had also been doctored.

In addition, the length of time that it took to complete this weld was in the extreme'.

In September, 1978, there was a stop work order in effect for a period of two (2) weeks due to welding prob'lems.

There also was improper weld material used in the chemical' cleaning and flushing system.

The weldrod that had been used i'n the system was not supposed to.be.

Additionally, there was improper welding of pipe whip restrains.

The stainless steel weldrod was used that should n'ot have been used in the weld'.

Q.

Other than the weld problems with the safety related components, do you have knowledge of any other construction problems with'this s'ite?

A.

Generally, there are a number of problems that I have previously pointed out to the NRC staff in an investigation that occurred around the time of February 21, 1979.

One item was the installa-tion of a globe valve, a 24" globe valve, and aesociated piping that could not be installed because of the interference with the concrete wall resulting from the poor construction practices.

Also, the housekeeping in the drywell area was extre'mely D

bad, especially in the area between the reflective insulation and the vessel wall.

The crew who installed the reflective l

shiciding were required to wash all the metal surfaces with demineralized water prior to installing of panels.

At'the las.t time I was present on this site and had an opportunity to inspect this area, there was all kinds of debris and dirt that

'had gotten into'the area and the crew at the time was wondering why they should have cleaned'them in the first place.

The i

reflective shielding that was installed was not properly i

installed.

When the crew installed the shielding, there were

\\

screws left out and there are large gaps of % to % inch between the shielding panels.

There was storage problems for some of l

th'e pipes'and valves on the site, specifically stop valves for I

turbin generators had been improperly stored and as a result major repairs.had to be made 'on them.

The throttle valves had not been protected, and this resulted in major maintenance pro-blems.

There are concrete anchors known as redhead concrete

~

I anchors that were installed.

The redheads in certain extent had been substituted with shorter anchors known as dutchman anchors because of rebar interference.

In some cases, the anchors were not installed.at all, but the bolts were tacked in place to make it look as if they had been properly installed,.

Most of these installations were in the Turbine room with some of them being in the Reactor Building.

There are large voids in the grouting of the sacrificial shield wall.

The voids were caused by the inexcessability of placement areas in the improper placing consolidation techniques used during construction.

As

l o

f part of the interview that I had with the NRC staff and subse-l quent to that on February 28, 1979, the inspectors were informed and did find several areas of voids in this sacrificial shield.

Q.

. Contention 4(e) alleges specific flaws in construction.

4(e)1 I

specifically alleges that excessive water in the reactor hole caused the concrete base to crack severely.

What knowledge do you have of this construction problem?

A.

Concrete cracks have developed in the Reactor. Building base.

This cracking might allow radiation to leak out of the Reactor Building and it causes a concern in my own mind of the structural integrity of the base mat.

The cracking' may h' ave impaired the' I

structural-integrity of this structure.

The cracking was caused I'

by ground water which was seeping through the radial and circum-ferential cracks present in the base slat.

Detroit Edison i

Company has been grouting the cracks'to seal and to prevent the f

infilterating ground water.

Because of the wide nat.ure of the problem and the extensive nature of the problem, I feel that the only concern is not the infilteration of ground water, but also the ability of radiation to leave the area and the question t

~

of the structural' integrity of the base mat.

l Q.

Contention 4(e)2 is an allegation that there were hairline cracks in the structural steel surrounding the drywell.

What information do' you have on that?

A.

In my various conversations with trade and labor personnel that were involved with the construction, I was informed of hair-line cracks in the structural steel that was used in the Reac' tor Building.

My conversations with the NRC investigators has led me i

to believe that the cracking in the steel involved welded clip angles which are welded to embedded plates in the wall of the

.t Reactor Building.

Also, as a part of the structural. steel, there was excess' structure steel left over after completion of the RHR Building.

There was.approximately' 40 to 50 tons.of excess reinforcing steel i

left over after completion of the building.

My conversations.with the trade and craft people on the job indicated that the feeling that there was reinforcing steel left out of the construction.

Q.

Do.you hr.ve anything further, that you would like to add in the way of ' evidence at this time?

A.

I would like to respond briefly'to what I believe is Contention 4(d).

It is my feeling from the experience that I have had on this job' and 'from the contacts I have had with the various personnel that Detroit Edison replaced the supervisors in thfe first general contractor, Ralph M. Parsons Company, because they were unwilling to sacrifice quality control in order to expedite the construction schedule.. Parsons had two different teamsof management on the job.

The first' team'of Parsons managers I would personally say, were too smart and too honest.

They initially did an extremely' efficient job in quality assurance and control.

This led very rapidly to their di'smissal or replace-j ment and the second group of Parsons employees on the job were much less concerned about quality control or. assurance' programs.

Detroit Edison then used the halt in construction in 1974 to further replace Parsons management and to substitute Daniel Construction Company which had less of a concern for the quality

' i

d assurance responsiblities.

Q.

The last Contenti'on that we would like to discuss Qith you is i

Contention 8.

In Contention 8 the allegation is that in evacua-s tion of the Stony Pointe area the only road leading to and from th'e area lies very close to'the reac. tor site, and in the event of an accident the resins would have to travel towards the accident before they could move away from it. -Please state what personal knowledge you have of the location of the %.ce and the proposed escape route. involving an accident at the site.

A.

As I previously stated, I live at 5739 Nelson Drive, in Newport, Michigan.

.This is in the Stony Pointe area.

The only access road to and from the Stony Pointe area is approxicately one (1) mile from the site and runs for a length of one (1) mile parall'el to the site before a major road is insected that would b

carry the persons away from the site of the accident.

.In the event of'an accident where there was a release of ra,dioactivity.

in the air which would cause the plume to move towards this. road, the people in the' Stony Pointe area would be trapped in a condi-t' ion that would force them to travel through a possibly highly radioactive area before they would be safe.

This would be extremely hazardous to their health.

.The only other way to leave ttm area would be by aircraft or by boat, which would require the evacuees to abandon their' property and would require l

some form of planning to enable the mass evacuation to be carried out in a timely and orderly manner.

To the best of my knowle'dge, this has not been proposed or plans have not been discussed which

_9_

l e

e l

would use this method of evacuation as an alternative in the event of an accident.

Q.

'Mr. Kuron, do you have anything further that you would like'to add at this time to this testimony?

A.

At the present time I believe I have stated the basis of'my

~

concerns and'the extent of my knowledge about the construction practices on the site.

'If in the meantime I have any additional information that I recall or would like to present, I will reserve the right to do.that orally before the Board Hearing.

Q.

Does this complete your prepared testimony?

^

A.

Yes it does.

S e

e G

e i

e e

4

ccA:sn coresSPOWEG j

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.J' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLO3ENbNBbSN

~

U, In the Matter of:

w; a.g,<,@..

.u.

Docket No. 50-341 THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY '

2 Enrico Fermi Atomic Plant U, nit

/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

~

I hereby certify that I have served copies of Prepared Testimony of Frank Kuron on Interven r's Contentions.4(a), (b),

(c), (d) & (e) and 8, in the above captioned matter by' mailing

~

copies thereof, first class' mail, postage prepai'd to the following persons this 1st day of March, 1982:

Gary L. Milhollin, Esq.

Dr. David R. Schink Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Department of Oceano. graphy 1815 Jefferson Street Texas A & M University Madison, Wis.consin 53711 College Station, Texas 77840 Dr. Peter A. Morris-Chairman i

Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio'n Washington, D.C;.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Chairman Monroe County Library E:rstem Atomic Safety and Licensing Reference Department Appeal Board Panel 3700 South Custer Road U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Monroe, Michigan 48161 Washington, D.C.

20555 Mr. Robert J. Norwood, Supervisor Stuart A. Treby, Esq.

Frenchtown Township Office of the Executive Frenchtown Township Hall Legal Director 2744 Vivian Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Monroe, Michigan 48161 Washington, D.C.

20555

Colleen Woodhead, Esq.

Secretary Office of the Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissic Legal Director Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

' Attention: Docket & Service Soct:

Washington, D.C.

20555 I further certify.that I have. caused the foregoing docu-ment to be hand delivered'this 1st day of March, 1982, to the offices of:

Mr. Bruce Maters, Esq.

The Detroit Edison,Compan'y 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226

\\

l DAVID.E. HOWELL

(

for Citizens.for' Attorney 'nt and Edergy Employme 32'39 Woodward Avenue Berkley, Michiga'n 48072 g

(313) 542-4510

\\

\\

Dated:

March 1, 1982 e

B

[

t

.