ML20078B910
| ML20078B910 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1983 |
| From: | Mcafee W PALMETTO ALLIANCE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078B853 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8309270317 | |
| Download: ML20078B910 (31) | |
Text
4 r
DOCMETED USNRC
'83 SEP 26 A!1:44 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
4 EEEQBE_IbE_9IgMig_@@EEIy_8NQ_61 GEN @lN@_@g@BQ In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-413 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) 50-414
)
(Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM RONALD MCAFEE QN_@Ed@bE_QE_E96MEIIQ_96619NGE t _INgt September 23, 1983 8309270317 830923 PDR ADOCK 05000413 C PDR
e please state your name and residence address for the record.
My name in William Ronald McAfee, I reside at Rt. 1, Box 68 York South Carolina 29745.
Are you a member of palmetto Alliance ?
Yes.
Havn you formerly been employed by Duke power Company at the Catawba Nuclear Station?
Yes, I was employed by Duke Power from March 28 1977, to March 16 1979.
Decribe the positions you held with Duke at the Catawba Station during the term of your employment their?
When I began work, I was concrete pourer on a utility crew, we also cleaned concrete forms. After that I became a prepour runner and helped coordinate the pouring of concrete through the paper work. After that I became secretary of the utility deoartment office and from there I was promoted to Electrical Quality Control Inspector.
About when did you hold each of the jobs you just referred to?
Okay, I was, ah, I started the prepour runner job in December 1977 I believe and I had that job about three months and in March I began secretary and in either late May or June I went into the Inspector Department.
So about how long were you A OC inspector or working in the inspection area?
Nine months.
Mr. McAfee what is the purpose of your testimony in this proceding?
During my work at Catawba I became very concerned about the integrity of the plant they were building and its ability to operate safely and without harm to public health. The purpose of my testimony is to support palmetto Alliance contention number six in which we contend that systematic deficiencies in the Quality Rssurance program at Catawba cast doubt on the construction of the plant and its ability to operate without
(
.,J endangering the public health and safety. I want the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Board to know what I know about how Catawba is being built.
What was your first contact with Palmetto Alliance. How did you come to become a member of Palmetto Alliance and get involved in this case?
About ten days before the deadline for intervenors to file for intervention, I found that out and I contacted Robert Guild and talked to him and he explained to me what we had to do to be intervenors in the case.
How did you know about the deadline and that sort of thing?
I knew about the deadline from reading a newspaper article, which basically stated that until July 29, I think it was, that the intervenors were to file for intervention.
And did you join Palmetto Alliance then? l Yes, I requested Palmetto Alliance's help in fighting the opening of the plant and the licensing of the plant because of safety concerns I had after having worked at the plant.
Mr. McAfee, describe your duties as an electrical cuality control inspector.
As electrical quality control insoector, I was primarily responsible for inspecting the cable tray hangers, cable tray supports and cable trays in certain areas of the plant, notably the reactor building one pipechase and in several areas of the auxiliary building.
Who was your immediate supervisor?
My immediate supervisor was Dick Hannay, who was sucervisor of the electrical quality control inspectors.
Describe how you came to transfer to the quality control position.
I spent about 15 months in the utility departr..ent in various capacities and I had been trying to get into quality control for, well, ever since I started work there and finally Dick Hannay stopped me in the office one day and said that he was going to need another inspector and asked me to consider the position.
Why did you want to transfer to quality control?
Because it was a job that required brains, I felt like I could do it, its a challenge intellectually that I would be learning actually done '
something new, I' d be verifying that things were cases that right. In my previous experience I' d seen in many
- things were not done right and were let go by.
How did you make the transfer? Did you apply for it?
Well, as I said, Dick Hannay, my boss, stopped me in the hall one day and said he was going to need another inspector and asked so I didn' t have to put in an if I would come by and talk to him, put in application or anything, I just talked to him, he would for me to be transferred from utility to quality control.
What had been your contact with Mr. Hannay before that?
Well previously I saw him whenever I was prepour runner and I could pour the precur documents signed so we had to get the concrete, I had to go by the electrical QC office and get various inspectors to sign the documents.
Explain what that means. Why would they sign?
Well, if there was any electrical work in a concete pour then an electrician did it and an electrical inspector had to inspect or verify that the work was done per print.
in the For example, electrical conduit that would be covered concrete?
^
Electrical conduit, electrical groundwires, that was basically 4
what was in the concrete.
Did you have contact with Mr. Hannay in getting QC approval for those pours?
Yes I did.
You met with Mr. Hannay and he said he would put in for your transfer, what happened then?
In a matter of, perhaps a Well, he put in for my transfer. Quality week, two weeks, I was transferred from Utility to l Control and I began working with the inspectors. In basically on the job training, I would go around with various inspectors and watch them do their job and learn what I was supposed to do.
We also had three or four half days of classroom training in
' which Jim Allgood went through our inspection procedures and the various things that we had to verify if we were looking at a of anchor bolt or cable tray, there was a different set, to a
approve list the specific things we had to verify in order particular piece.
l 1
..- ..m.,.,, ,a , ,n -,,. _,- -w.,.,, -._,,, w- -- .a , . , , , . , - . . . _ - - ,
e, -,--.-, ,,,
1 t / Who was Jim Allgood?
Y Jim Allgood was engineer for electrical quality control. He was assistance engineer, that was his rank.
i What were the duties of the different electrical QC inspectors?
Most of the electrical QC people did the same thing I did. We had one inspector who primarily worked in the fabrication shop where tney,, fabricated the electrical panels for the control room. And we had another electrical inspector who was primarily dealing with the electrical instrumentation, but other than that i- most of the other inspectors, if not all the other inspectors, had the same responsibilities that I had.
As far as the panels go, Terry Coleman was the inspector, he inspects the fabrication of the panels. That was basically all lj the actual wiring that was being done while I was there and then they started, pulling cables into place and making connections three or four months before I left.
Who inspected those cabla pulls and the connections?
I inspected some cable pulls. Various electrical inspectors inspected cable pulls and several of us also inspected terminations as they were being made.
So you did some of that as well, toward the end?
All I did was sit there and watch. I don' t recall having any training in how to make terminations or if there was any training in the classroom training, it was not emphasized because that was not going to be our primary responsibility at that time. i My primary work was inspecting cable tray hanger supports and cable pulling, verifying that cables were placed in the correct cable trays. When I first came to QC they had me doing ,
observation. At that time they were installing cable tray '
supports on structural steel bridges with uni-struts and one of ,
the first things I did was I tested the torque on some of the l electrician's connect ions, that they bolted the inner strut down with.
And this was before you were certified as a QC inspector?
Yes this was before I was certified, I had about 4 or 4 1/2 months of on the job training before I actually received my certification.
Did you actually do any inspection work or sign off on anything during your on the Job training? I
_4_
i-
_ - _. . ~ , _ _ , . _ _ . . . . _ . _ , _ , _ . _
Well at that t ime we weren' t signing off anything. We were '
Just verifying it so that they could go ahead and paint it or proceed with the work. We had to verify things but nothing had to be signed off.
Why was that?
Well, its Just the way the system Pas set up. We had to verify it but we did not have to sign any documents.
So what happens if you found it wasn' t right?
Well, if we found it wasn' t right, if it wasn' t according to print, generally what we di ? was we went to the craft supervisor and told him the bolts weren' t right or they were in the wrong place and told him to get them right and fix them. And generally they fixed them, sometimes we had to go back a second time and tell them.
To your knowledge was anybody inspecting the unistrut installation? Inspecting them in the sense that they perform a QC inspection where the inspection is documented, either on process control or someother GA documentation?
No, in the case of unistrut on the structural steel bridge, we didn' t hang inspection tags or anything. Now on a single hanger, we would inspect it, hang a tag on it, the tag said that no work was to be done on the hanger because it is approved and the inspector signed it. In the event that work had to be done to move tha hanger in any way, they were to get in touch with the insoector to sign the inspection part.
What part of the olant were you working in when you were doing the on the Job training?
Working on the unit one reactor building and auxiliary building.
What other inspection work was being done when you were observing and doing on the Job training?
It was basically just verifying the position of cable tray hangers and cable tray support systems, I will add that it was my understanding that for rooms like cable rooms that had structural steel grid with unistruts that the entire area would be signed off and while I was insper* ,r both before I was certified and after I was certified, we e ire going through the process of checking by the prints and marking them off on our blueprints themselves and initialing them if a certain area was found correct. If a section of the system was found to be correct, we would initial it and go on.
l i
What quality assurance prockdures did you employ in the electrical GC inspection you did perform? Do you recall?
I don' t recall the exact initial number of procedures but we had procedures for inspecting cable tray, cable tray supports, inspecting cable pulling itself, we were inspecting fabrication of the control panels. We had a procedure which had a list of specifics that we had to verify. It said verify this, this and this, A, B, and C, and so on. There was a different procedure for every inspection that we did. And that's what we were told was to be our Bible as far as going by on inspections, we were performing the inspections by the procedures.
And did those procedures have a form for documenting the results of your inspection?
Not that I ever used. We were not using them at the time with one exception, that was the cable pulling. Each time we verified cable pulling then we did sign that on. There was also, a little tag we hung on cable tray supports, cable tray hangers when we verified that it was correct. Once we verified that it was correct and put a tag on it, no work was supposed to be done on it without contacting the inspector to sign the tag.
Let's take that example, you were talking about a hanger or a suoport. What if you found a construction deficiency in the process of your initial inspection. How did you document that?
Well there were a number of ways availble to us. We could writ e R-2A's, variation notices, we could write M40C which was a minor deficiency report, or we could write a G-1A nonconforming item report. Describe your understanding of the procedures for inspection of cable tray hangers.
We would verify that the hangers were in the correct location, that it was made out of correct materials, that everything about it was done according to the blueprint. In the event that we found a discrepancy, we could write it up on the M40C which was a small oiece of paper in triplicate which we stated the problem and it went to our supervisor and then the craft supervisor and to technical support and technical support was supposed to give us a way to fix it. Or get the craft to fix it. But most often we just got the craft to fix it without documentation. Identify
- the typical deficiencies that you would note in the process of
, doing your inspection in your area.
The most typical deficiency I noted would be that the cable tray support, either on the floor, on the wall, on the ceiling,
! was not in the correct place or that it was not siesmically braced correctly. That was the most typically thing. Less
[ typical than that would be improper placement of unistrut.
l l
l l
i
l What were your inspection responsibilities in regard to anchor bolts?
8 With regard to anchor bolts, the e,orrect size, as far as diameter, that it was the correct length and that it was torqued to proper torque. And this was all contained on the bludprint.
But these anchor bolts were holding cable tray supports either on the floor, ceiling, or wall.
With regard to those typical deficiencies, outline the options that you understood were policy for you to follow, to identify deficiencies and see that they were corrected.
Well so far as I could tell there was no real policy. One week we would be told to write deficiencies up on M40C's, the next week we' d have a lecture on how to use Q-1A forms which is a Non Conforming Item report and we were told that all deficiencies were being documented on NCI forms. So on the basis of my excerience, there was no clear policy as far as which form we were to use in any given instance. It seemed like they were always changing their minds as far as how they wanted to document deficiencies.
Who would provide you the instructions on how it was to be done and who told you of the changes and who explained the orocedures?
Well, the procedures were explained by Larry Davison and Tommy Barron who was mechanical GC engineer and became my first line suoervisor and Jim Allgood.
What was Larry Davison's position?
Larry Davison was head of DC at Catawba. On one occasion they called us down to inspect 27 1. angers and we found seven of them to be faulty. The very day before we had received a lecture from Tommy Barron on how to use the non conforming item report. We went back up to the office to begin documenting them on the NCI's and we were told, in no uncertain terms, not to do so. When the day before we had received instructions to do that very thing.
Who told you not to do it the next day?
It was either Jim Allgood or Dick Hannay or both.
And who had given you the instruction the day before on how to properly use the G1 procedure?
Tommy Barron. All the GC inspectors received the same lecture that day.
- - .- . - - _ _ _ . =. -- - .. .
i 1
They herded us all in there while everything else was going on 9
j outside and gave us a lecture on how to use NCI's.
it to us, Basically Tommy Barron went over the proceudre, to clearify read it for us, explained it to us and told us that, try item. So after giving what, in fact constituted a non conforming l'
- us this pop talk on how to do it, weday all went out to do our job.
was that we were not d
But in fact, what we found the next -
l tupposed to do the job that way.
l a non conforming item was i
How do you recall him describing what supposed to be used for?
! to document any discripency. Once j
It was supposed to be used If there was down to inspect an iteme we were called as the blueprint had discrepancy, if the item was not built j
called for, then we were to document it on a non conforming item f
i form.
I Was it your understanding from Mr. Hannay's lecture that thewhen Q1 f non conforming item procedure was intended to ofbe employed a preplanned were noted in the course
! deficiencies inspection?
f words we couldn' t just walk Yes. In fact, only then. In other that looked complete, but
]
j down into the field and see a hanger called for it to be built, we '
blueprint was not built as the We h&d to be called in to inspect something couldn' t red tag it.
I l
and we were supposed to write a non conforming item on it if it wasn' t right.
! give you, in essence, craft supervision had to So that non conform i
' permission to inspect before you had the right to something?
That's the only time. In fact Craft got rather bent because some of us were going down before they told usbentto come down and out of shape l
were finding things wrong. And they got Our all supervisors came down on about it, so they came down on us.
us and told us not to inspect anything until kwe were called for inspection.
Were you allowed to do surprise inspections?
i No.
like you say, when you What happens if you found a deficiency, were walking through the plant?
occurred on a couple of occasions. We found cable Well that braced right. They tray hangers which were not siesmetically hanging on them from another already had an inspection tag
.. _ . . -- , - , , , , - , ,- e , - u, --
4 inspector who said it was per print, he put the tag on it. We hapoened to notice it was wrong.
How would you notice it was wrong?
It d idn' t look right. You know, it'd be running one way and
- then have another hanger coming into it like this, there was no way.
Explain what you said. Give an example.
As an example,there were two hangers for two separate runs of cable tray where there was no way you could run the cable trays through them without hitting each other. In o+.her words, once you put the cable tray, you could put it in one run or the other. But if you try to put it in both then they would interfer with each other by actually physically coraing into contact.
So that the hanger was physically in the way of where a cable tray was supposed to run?
Right.
And you noticed it was tagged?
It had already been inspected and approved by another electrical inspector.
What did you do?
We went out and told the other electrical inspector about it.
The one who signed off on it?
The one who signed off on it. He promptly went down there and removed the tag because the fact was it was not right.
And what happened with that particular piece of work?
To the best of my recollection he went and talked to the foreman and told the foreman he would have to put it in the right place.
Do you know if there was any documentation of the deficiency that you identified?
There was no documentation of it, no.
You didn' t write it up?
I d idn' t write it up and I know the other inspector d idn' t write it up since it was his mistake in approving it in the first l
He wasn' t about to write it up. l place. - \
Did Craft write it up? .
Craft didn' t write it up. They went up there and I' m sure the original mistake and the changed it. Because they had made it was right.
inspector made the second mistake by saying that I
Was it your understanding that you were allowed to have written an NCI for that, was that policy?
Based on Well, as I said, the policy was never very clear.
what the procedure, the 01 procedure The itself said, I felt like I policy was very unclear could have written an MCI on that.
and the chances were if I had tried, I would have been stopped.
Where was this?
Unit 2. 560 elevation, I This was in auxiliary building in believe.
Who was the inspector involved in the hanger example that you accidentally discovered was misplaced?
Bill Hefner.
And you went and told Hefner about it?
Yes I told Hefner immediately.
And what did he say to you?
Well he got kind of bent because we had found his mistake but he got out his copy of prints down there and promptly took the tag off the hanger that he had formerly approved.
What happened after tnat?
know, but I' m almost positive that there was no I don' t documentation.
10 -
Describe the alternatives that you understood were to be used according to policy when you idenitfy construction deficiencies.
Well according to procedures, we had choice of basically three There's the NCI, there was the R2 variation ,
different types. write d notice and the M40C which was str.ictly electrical systems up and then there was also the fourth option which was the one I I found used primarily and that was when I found a deficiency, to get the work that it was much ouicker and more efficient corrected you just go to the Craft supervisor and relate to him 0 the problem and ask him to fix it. Having been written up a supervisors number of times for other inspectors, most of the were very cooperative and they would fix the problem up rather than would make being written up because if they were up written it would it mean a lot of them look bad and it I wrote them oaperwork for me. And a less efficient job.
circumstances did you understand Duke policy to Under what l
authorize you to choose that alternative?
We were encouraged not to write a non conforming item, of '
although that course, and we were told to work with the Craft, was not the way the procedures were written. In other words the way the procedures were written and as we had been instructed and understood them, we were supoosed to write non conforming item recorts on deficiencies. However, we were encouraged not to do this and were encouraged to go talk to Craft supervisor and see if we could get him to fix it. Which I did.
When did you understand that you were supposed to use the Q1A l
procedure, the non confirming item?
l in class training. But what Well, it was covered in our basic it was for, its purpose and the procedure itself, there was never much emphasis on it unt il Tommy Barron's lecture one day and they seemed to be tightening down and saying we've got to get get all this it stuff documented. If we have a problem we have to documented and as I said the next day I went and found seven oroblem which by their instructions should have been documented l
on NCI's but which we were told not to document.
l It was supposed to be used if we were called down to inspect item and by the Craft supervisor and we found the l I something, an item not to be in conformance with the blueprints we have. If we ,
found an item not in conformance, we were supposed to write a non l conforming item report as the procedures was explained to us and we were instructed.
When were you supposed to use the variation notice for the M40 in those situations?
Well, there was never any clear policy on the use of variations 1
_g_
.__ _ - . . ~ _ . _- _ . _ .,
l It was almost a vague document that was rarely used to notices.
The M40C was explained to us that my knowledge at that time. For something very .
that was to bewere usedsupposed for minor deficiencies. I small. We to write it up on the M40Cs. what And weaswere l said the policy was constantly changing as far as told to do and what documents we were told to use. lt i
understanding in the situation where you Did you have a clear supervisor had were performing a preplanned insoection, Craft g called for you and said the work could be inspected,Youcalled found for a
you to come down and perform your inspection? to a
deficiency, say a hanger was not in the proper what for you you placesituation print. Did you have a clear understanding of were to use the non conforming item when the R2A or variation notice or when the M40C7 Well it depended. From time to time. After our lecture from we were when Tommy Barron, I had a real clear understanding of supposed to use the NCI form, I had a clear understanding when of when we were th use the M40C. I never had a clear understanding but as I said my to use the variation notice understanding changed as I was told from day to day what to do we were do, so whereas I may think I understood and what not to something, I came to find out that it wasn' t done that way.
when you What did Tommy Barron say about when you used NCI or used M40C?
His lecture dealt only with the M40C. And he Just. basically went over it, clarified for us what we were supposed to do, that to we only were supposed to use it when we were called down inspect something and then if we found it notitem according report.
to It print, was conforming we were to write it up on a non very simple.
there were a lot of My understanding was that apparently not- being documented problems which were getting by, they were They and there were, it almost seemed like an attitude that shift.
at least wanted to make sure that if there wasthat a problem attitude shift lasted a they had it documented of on timepaper in and practice because as I' ve said, the very short period next day they instructed us not to write them.
I believe, were present for All the QC inspectors and foremen, the lecture.
And when do you think that happened? ?
I would say January or February, 1979.
Let's talk about the next day.
What work were you doing?
- la ~
1 Building I was inspecting cable tray supports in the Reactor hangers, Number 1 pipe chase area. There were structural steel They were were colled down to inspect.
27 of them that we correct according to supposed to be completeldy finished and to be I print. We inspected all 27 of them and found 7 of them not built according to print. It was either the wrong place, seismic i I
bracing was incorrect or it could be something minor.
Like a nut missing off an anchor bolt which would be a simple I
enough matter to fix. You Just put the nut on the anchor bolt But we couldn' t verify. We couldn' t approve and torque it down.
it for inspection with the nut missing. Even though it was in these hangers were not the right place, so in fact, some of of them were ready or were built wrong. Some completely mispositioned by a foot or so out of place.
in this case was seismic bracing.
Well the most common error Or it was The seismic bracing ran in the wrong direction.
missing seismic bracing. Because we had one, set of prints we built the hangers by and then a whole nother set of prints, in fact two or three sets of prints, Just for the seismic bracing, and how which you had to cross reference in order to knowuse, where whether it's to build the brace, what type of brace to diagonal brace, whether its to be braced toward to O degree mark, 90 degree mark, or 270 mark. Directional 180 degree mark, bracing.
So you were performing this inspection?
Myself and Johnny Byers.
He was your partner?
Right.
And you noted these deficir4 les. What did you do?
We went up and told our supervisor, Dick Hannay, that we found severn hangers that were improperly built and that we intended He to NCI them because we had been instructed that was what to do.
went down and told us just hold on, Just don' t do a thing until I get back. He went down, we went down with him and looked at the He said yes, they' re definitely wrong. He talked to hangers.
Cecil Cox and Cecil Cox said Just let him fix them.
Who is Cecil Cox?
He was the steel rigging foreman. His crew was responsible for building them. So Cecil said he would get them right and he called us down the next day and in fact, he had made all the corrections, or his crew had.
were found?
What documentation exists of the deficiencies that is no documentation. I wrote no As far as I know there documentation, my partner wrote none and I feel sure that no one else did as that,was our area of responsibility.
condition of And did you ultimately sign off on the as built those hangers?
and tagged each I believe we did approve all those eventually, individual hanger we had to tag.
And as far as you know, nothing on the documentation reflected that they were initially installed improperly?
I' m sure nothing - no documentation reflected that.
What did Dick Hannny say to you when you told him that you thought they should be non conformed.
He was very surorised at first that we had seven hangers and we would have to write, that we could have written NCIs on each and every one of them as we understood the proceudre and understood the previous day's instructions. And so he was rather alarmed and he d idn' t want to see us write that many NCIs about it because it would neither look good for him nor the steel people.
It wouldn' t look good for him because Larry Davison was not real thrilled about writing a lot of NCIs. And all of us knew that was his attitude.
How did you know that?
Just by things that had happened. And Larry expressing his views about writing NCIs.
What did he say?
encouraged us to get it resolved without He just, he cocumentation. Without writing NCIs.
something to somebody else. He never I overheard him say I d idn' t talk to Larry that much. It was more instructed me. clearly conveyed his because he second hand you might say and Jim Allgood. And Dick Hanney did philosophy to Dick Hannay Dick was a person not fully share his philosophy, by any means.
who believed in documentation, if there was a serious problem.I Jim, on the otherhand, shared Larry's philosophy,toso write far as non could tell, 100%, in that he did not want us conforming items.
overheard Larry Davison Can you think of an instance where you documenting communicating his philosophy to someone about not
things? As clear tn example as you can?
Larry Davison and Dick Hannay got into a heated discussion non on occasion because Dick Hannay felt like the item shouldreason be to conformed and Larry Davison felt like there was no i document it.
in elect rici an' s craft or Did you have any background electrical engineering?
No.
work before your job at Had you ever done and electrical Catawba?
No.
How about the GC electrical people generally aside from the two who inspected wiring work?
think two, two of the inspectors were Aside from them, I Roberts, transferred from supposedly, well one inspector, Bill
- become an inspector, so he was an the Electrical Craft to At least he worked at Duke power as electrician of some sorts. who supposedly knew an electrician. The other inspector electrical work was Richard Bunton.
Let's talk some more about this Dick Haney lecture about NCIs. How Let's see if you can remember anything about circumstances. give you this to did you come to understand that he was going lecture? How did you find out about it?
Tommy Barron?
Yes.
Well, we were just informed that we were all to meet, its like at a certain time period a conference room there on the project, on how to and Tommy Barron was going to give us instructions property use G1 procedure.
Was this unusual for all the GC to be gathered together for instruction like this?
There was only that one time that I can recall when we were all gathereed together.
Did you have any understanding of why this was happening?
It was my perception at the time that the company attitude or the attitude of the GC department was that we were to do better other words, we documentation on the non conforming items. In
hadn' t been documenting discrepancies deficiences well enough in the past. Some of the documentation was not as good as it should be. That was my perception of why we got the lecture.
Was that based on something Tommy Barron said to you in that lecture?
Yes.
He stressed better documentation?
Well, he stressed better documentation, he said "Look, you know if we' ve got a problem we' ve got to get it documented. We' ve got to document that we' ve got a problem and put it on paper. And that hacn' t been done just as I related the way I handled most deficiencies - I d go to craft supervisor, tell him and he'd fix them. When in fact, according to G1 procedure that's not what we' re supoosed to do.
Why did you understand that it was important to document the deficiency?
It was my understanding that it is important to document so that if there was a problem in the past or in the f ut ure they' d be able to trace it back to an earlier problem, possibliy, or at least that they woiuld have a record that there was a problem in a certain area, which may or may not lead to another problem later.
Did you have any understanding of the NRC's involvement in this owuestion of documentation?
We rarely saw the NRC inspectors, we didn't have a resident inspector when I was there, and Just very occasionally we' d see an inspector come through, and all he would do, basically, as far as we could tell, was look at the pacerwork, and so perhaps the NRC inspectors weren' t seeing enough paperwork on non-conforming items. We, you know - clearly, or it was made clearly to us that the main reason for the documentation was for the benefit of the NRC. That was the main reason, if not the only reason, for documenting problems, was for the benefit of the NRC.
How did you understand that?
Well, because that was just the prevailing attitude. It was that, you know, if it wasn' t for the NRC we wouldn' t have to document this stuff. It's only for them that we do it, because they were the regulatory - uh, supposed to be watchdogs over Duke power and its nuclear construction program, and it was our feeling and it was Duke's attitude that if they could get away with it they' d Just as.soon not document the problem. Because they told us that every time we wrote an NCI, that meant at least
$700.00 in expense for the company -- in paperwork shuffling and l people's t ime. l l
Who told you that? l l
Jim Allgood or Dick Hanney, one of the two..
And did you continue to write NCIs for deficiencies that you identified in your lmspections?
No, I continued to handle things the way I' d always handled whereas the Company them -- by not using the NCIs, because . . .
says something one day and turn around and say something different the next day I figured the best thing for me to do was Just to handle things the way they worked out best expense, and Everybody was happy because it saved the company following the stated it got the job done. Although it was not procedures and the stated policies of the DC Department.
aware of anybody else taking the Barron lecture Are you seriously and beginning to write non-conforming items where they hadn' t done it before?
I' m not aware of it.
When you noted these deficiencies did you write them up?
I can' t be sure . . . I know I went back . . . we went back to the office with full intention of writing NCIs, because of our instructions the previous day. And whether I had written the thing out or not, I' m not sure. As I said, Dick Hanney worked the situation out differently, the way I' d been working it out all along.
If you wanted to write an NCI how would you have done it?
We would walk in, we' d go over and get a Q1A form, fill out the appropriate information, that is, what system it was in, what would have it's location was -- in the case of the hangers it been the hanger number and the serial number designating the hanger and then we would designate the problem with each of the hangers and we would submit that to the Senior GC engineer, Larry Davidson, and then he would sign it and it would be sent the the design engineer, supposedly, or to technical support.
And in this instance how far did it get if you wrote one?
If I wrote one it d idn' t get any further than me. Because we were Just told not to do it.
We had everything already writtete down, and notes been taken as
.. .-. _=. ._
far as hanger serial number and what was wrong with that hanger.
- And we went to the office intending to complete an NCI on it.
him.
don' t know if we gave them to him or shared them with I
As I said, he put on his hat and said "Let's go down and look at them." And he went down and looked at them and verified that we and we tasked to were right in that the hangers weren' t right, E Cecil and everything worked out.
What did you do with the notes you had taken?
Thrown away later I' m sure.
inspectors follow To your knowledge did the other electrical GC the same practice that you did in handling ciscrepancies?
There were a couple of To my knowledge they did the same. that was by inspectors who did write non-conforming items, but far the exception.
Would you likely have known if the practice was otherwise?
was otherwise. I saw the sure I would know if it
' I' m least two or three times a day, either in passing insoectors at or up in the QC shack. If they had been doing things differently I would know.
I would have heard about it . . .
Would you have seen the NCI tags?
Right, well once an item waslarge NCI'area d then the itwhole eitherarea hadwas a red tag taped attached to it or if itand was a ' NCI Area - Do Not Enter' , or in the said off with red tape, case of the tag, if it was a red tag nobody was supposed to work ,
on it at all.
In other words, if the hanger was wrong and the a resolution NCI tag on it was not suoposed to be touchedwas until to go down with on the NCI came back and then the inspector and then the craft craft. The inspector takes the redaccording tag off to resolution.
was supposed to carry the work out for electrical work on Did you often see red tags on hangers cable trays?
I can' t ever rememeber seeing a hanger red tagged.
You worked with a partner - who was that?
l My partner was Johnny C. Byers.
l I
months longer than I he' d been an inspector for at least six had.
- lo -
i r .
l l
And, what was his work like?
He was a very good worker. He had more exoerience than I did, and he helped me a great deal in learning how to do the job right.
And are you aware that he wrote some NCI's?
t Yes I know he had did write some NCI's.
Why aren' t you sure whether you did?
I' m not sure that I did because I know Johnny wrote some while ne and I were working together as partners, and I don' t know that I wrote any for sure because the problems tend to run together when there's two of you working together.
He might have signed his name to it?
He may have signed his name to a problem I originally discovered. Or possibly vice - versa. '
And were there other instances where you inspected craf t's work and found deficiencies but were discouraged from writing up NCIs and instead encouraged to work out the problem with the craft?
l Yes. One of our main areas of responsibilty was inspecting the grid and support system in the cable room directly below the ,
control room Units 1 and 2. Bobby Land's crew was the crew doing work there. When we first started working with him he was not very cooperative in helping us with our inspections and letting us know wnen things were ready to inspect, but as he became more beligerant we became more steadfast in our belief that he had to do things our way, and he was very uncooperative until we threatened to Non-Conform some of his work, which he had told us was ready to inspect.
We were inspecting the grid system that supports the cable tray under the cable room.
Wa were finditig a lot of deficient work. A lot of work that was not anywhere close to being right, and he had already called us down for the inspection, meaning that it should have been right. We threatened him with an NCI.
What did he say when you told him that it wasn' t right?
First he would argue with us and say "Well I know it IS right." And we' d take out the blueprint and show him what the blueprint said it was supposed to be and show him in fact it was crudely done.
What kind of deficiencies are we talking about?
Basically unistrut and cable tray hangers put in the wrong places.
And then what did you do?
Well, then a little later on he called us -
another day I should say -
he called us down to insoect another section which he said was ready, and he said just to mark whatever you find that's not right. Well we took him quite seriously and we tied yellow tape on everything that we found wrcng. And literally we found dozens of problems in this one sectic;. of cable trays so that the cable tray room looked like someone had tied a bunch of yellow ribbons around it. When he came in and when one of his over-superintendents, I believe, Max Davis came in and saw it he Just . . . they both became rather irate, and wanted to know why we had done it. We explained we had done it because Bobby wanted us to mark the places we found deficiencies, or where there is a problem and so we marked them, and they got a little upset because each one of their errors there was a yellow ribbon hanging down where everybody could see how many mistakes they made , and so they both got upset and said ok we' ll get it fixed and they promptly went to fixing it cnd removing the yellow tape which we tied on it.
Was any documentation made of the deficiencies that you identified.
No documentation was made.
So as far as the quality assurance documentation is concerned all the work appeared acceptable the first time.
Yes., as far as the documentation goes it would appear that most of the work was right the first time. In fact it was not
_ gp _
l
l 1
I l
done right the first time quite often. It was called by the inspectors. It was not documented by the inspectors although it l should have been. Instead the craft fixed it and on paper it appears that the craft fitted right the first time, but in fact what happened was that quite often the craft did not do it right the first time and some times they didn' t do it right the second time, and still it wouldn' t be documented as being an actual problem.
l Did you have occassion to attempt to NCI an anchor bolt during an inspection?
l Yes. We were called down to inspect a hanger or a cable tray
! support in the Reactor Building pipe chase on the floor, mounted on the floor it was maybe 10 inches high, mounted on the floor with concrete anchor bolts. We could not confirm one of the anchor bolts due to the fact that it had been ground off by a welding grinder. One of the points we had to verify on our hanger insoection was the length of the anchor bolt to insure that it will be enough for the bolt in the concrete to hold the hanger in place. We went back up with the intention of writing an NCI, because we didn' t know what else to do, that was the correct procedures I should say. So we went up and Jim Allgood said he would go down and check it, he down and checked it said i that he did see a marking on it. I told him if he did see a marking to go ahead and sign it off, put his name on it, he was certified. He objected to that. He said that he would have it x-rayed or radiographed to determined the length of it. Well he came in the next day, Jim told me they had x-rayed the night before and that they determined that the anchor bolt was indeed long enough. When I asked to see some evidence or verification of that he told me under no uncertain terms that I was a smart ass, and refused to give me any evidence or verification of l length of the anchor bolt. I did not sign hanger off. Whether he did or not I don' t know, but I refused to sign it all because I couldn' t verify all the inspection steps.
Wny you didn' t handle this the way you would handle other deficiencies why didn't you just tell the craft that they had to fix it.
Well because in this case to tear up or to take concrete anchor bolt out of concrete for is very slow and tedious process because you literally have to tear the concrete around the anchor out'and so there was no quick fix, you couldn' t just move something. In other words, if the hanger was in the correct place, the anchor bolt was the problem so to move the hanger there would have to be a design change from Engineering even if you were Just going to move it over say 6 inches and leave the old anchor bolt in and Just reinstall a six inch segment you would still have to have a change from Design Engineering or Technical Support and we understood the correct way to do this and the most efficient way
- il -
1
1 I
I let to do this was to write an NCI to document the problem andwanted Design Engineering and Tech Support decide which way they l
to handle it. -
According to your practice and the practice you understood if prevailed you would' ve had craf t fix it without documentation i
there would have been a way to have that done?
it where the hanger Correct. If there would' ve been a way to do could still be installed by the print -- accordingway to the print where we g
But we saw no
-- then we could have done that. of the anchor bolt could fix the problem and verify the length Either the print or and have it installed according to prints.
the hanger had to be changed.
And where is this anchor bolt?
This is in Reactor Building One pipe Chase.
Were there any situations that you ever saw QA/QC -- or that you know Inspector and NCI was recommended by a of -- where an the instead of writing an NCI a Design Change was written without NCI -- instead of it ?
Yes. Now, that happened pretty regularly, as a matter of fact.
If there 's a problem -- for instance, just take a hanger . Let the 's say there was another hanger or a pipe in the way of where blueprint called for a hanger to be, they would go up and talk to call Engineering in Suoport people who' d usually Technical revise the print to Charlotte and t hey' d say, "Well, we' l l reflect that the hanger has to be moved six inches.
But, in that instance was an UCI recommended by an Inspector?
I can' t think of any specific instance. As I say, it's a very common practice to change prints in the manner I' ve said -- that we'd talk to Technical Support, they' d talkthe to Design Engineering way they' d handle and they' d revise the print and that was it.
Sometimes Variation Notices were written and the print would Variation reflect that. The print would be revised to reflect Notice 1893.
An R-2?
Right.
But sometimes not at all?
-- and you Sometimes not at all.under The print was just revised each provision it's got reasons know on the print supposedly and it would Just say: revised to move hanger M13 All
- 1L -
And if the need for such a revision were first identified in as far as you know unless the R-2 j the course of an inspection, procedure was used there would be no documentation of the deficiency that the inspector identified? It wouldn' t be NCI'd? ,
In some cases, NCI resolution would be reflectedIninother the revised words, prints. But what I' m saying is not necessarily. I some of these -- in some instances an NCI was written and a print was revised. In other instances the deficiency was noted but not documented and the print revised. t In your personal experience, did you identify situations where the prints ultimately ware revised ....
Yes
...but where no NCI was written...
R2ght
...and no R-2A was written?
Right.
And yet you discovered the need for the revision in the course of your inspection?
Right.
If you can give us an examole of that kind of situation...
Okay, we had 2 lot that happen in the cable room -- with Bobby Land's work and that is that they had - uh - eitheroccupied the computer the or the engineers had designed it where two items we which obviously does not work. And when same space -- he'd discovered that -- or you know, when Bobby discovered it show it to us, he' d say, " Listen, you know, I've got a cable And he right here and one is supposed to go right through here."
said, " we can' t do that." And so proper procedure would be to write Variation Notices or NCIs to instead he would talk to butTechnical Technical Support, we' d talk Support and Technical Support would talk to Design Engineering and they would revise the print. The were instances in which NCI's were written but as far as with Bobby Land's work that we were inspecting, we never wrote any NCI's of that nature. The most typical example of that sort of thing in my experience was in the Reactor Building Number One Pipe Chase. All hangers in this area were seismically braced and according to the prints , the prints would say the seismnic bracing would be a certain configuration of atorque certainzero typedegrees, and it would give you a direction to brace it --
ninety degrees, two hundred and seventy degrees, three hundred ac s, sixty degrees. So what happened in a lot of cases
- 2U3 -
l cppercntly tho 01cetricicna or tho otoolworkcro installing tho
, work misunderstood or misread the print and they would install i the seismic bracing in the opposite direction or perhaps ninety degrees off from the direction it was supposed to be put in.
Is this incident that you' re relat ing now, is that something that you inspected-- that you saw yourself?
l Yes.
Was that the only incident that you came across personally where the prints were changed to reflect the plant?
No. It pretty much occured here and there. It also occured with hangers that I inspected in the Auxiliary Building. There were hangers erected by the steelworkers -- again, the seismic bracing was run in the wrong direction from what the orint called for. So what was done was the print was revised to reflect the way the workers built it instead of the was Design Engineering designed it.
I Did you_ever have any discussions with any DA/QC inspectors about that situation -- where things weren' t being built per print --
where orints were being changed to reflect how things were built?
Yes, in fact it was almost like . . nning joke among inspectors
-- it was we' ll let them build the plant and then we' ll draw the blueprints to reflect how the plant actually looked. It was-- we Joked about it -- it was a very serious matter but that's the way things often happened -- as I said the half dozen ir tances were Just in my personal inspecti8on experience. This happened to all the inspectors. They would find things that were built wrong and t hey' l l turn around and just change the prints on them to reflect how they were actually built. So it was a very common thing.
If a mistake is found by you as an inspector, do you write up an NCI upon discovery of that mistake or do you call the craft construction or design people and they rewrite the print with no NCI ever written in most cases ? In what percentage of cases wculd that have happened?
As far as rewriting the prints, I would say that probably happened in perhaps twenty-five percent of the cases where I found problems.
With no NCI's written?
With no NCI's written.
There were numerous instances in the Cable Room where we went down and something was not as it should have been by the print.
l
._._l
the It was either Design Engineering 's fault or it was one of the two and they would go e41ectrician's fault. phoneEither calls to revise the print even though out and make some A cable tray was not installed there was a non-conforming item. i in the right place. A unistrut or cable tray support was not Again, seismic bracing was installed in the right place. they didn' t installed in the wrong direction, anchor bolts --
change the prints for anchor bolts. l of the events leading up g Can you give me a detailed chronology to your quitting your job there?
spoken about. Jim O. M. , I had several run-ins as I' ve already attitude about how Allgood primarily, and just a difference in And one thing led to i the Quality Control program should discouragedbe run. from writing any NCTs another. The fact that I was one day and told to write them the next day and then the day them again. Their whole after that I was told not to write and not well managed. In program was not well put together reading and studying on my addition to that I had done a lot of of a nuclear plant, and the dangers own into the workings associated with them I came to realize the importance of building one of these things in a correct manner. In a manner that we can i
be sure will operate safely and will not come apart. We' ve got to assure the quality above all else or else we' ll have a vet *y unsafe nuke. And so one thing led to another between Jim Allgood and myself and finally came to the point where I couldn' t take it any longer and I told Dick Hannay, my first line supervisor that Thursday, March 15th, that Friday, March 16th would be my last day.
What All right, let's talk about pouring concrete in the rain.
job did you have at the time?
the rain in At the time I witnessed the concrete poured in That is , I Reactor Building Number One I was a prepour runner.
by getting helped coord2 nate the actual rauring of the concrete to go onto the the paper work circulated in early 1978. I had to give a floor itself which is at the reactor building wall foreman a message from one of his general foremen.
The floor was part of the wall?
Yes, the floor was part of the wall.
In the containment?
The wall of the Reactor One
-In the containment. out side I had to go containment in the area of the interior dog house.
up and talk to the foreman and give him a message from the It was a total downpour of rain. I mean, it general foreman.
was just very very heavy rain and they were just pouring concrete l
t
h cway. I got up th ro, thero waro covarol inchGo of watcr standing on top of the concrete they had already placed in the forms. There was no rain protection while I was there. I don' t know that any was ever put in place. And there was no pump there to get the water off the top of the concrete.
Were they pouring more concrete on top there?
They were pouring more concrete on top of the concrete and water that was already in the form. As I said they had no rain protection, they had no pump to get the water out. So I was really troubled by that because I know concrete has to have a certain amount of water and you can go a little bit either way and still be all right but if you get too much water then the integrity of your concrete will not hold up.
Now I know you weren' t a concrete inspector but were you aware of the general process for inspecting the adequacy of the concrete pours?
Yes, when I was on utility crew just after I started working there, one of my duties was loading the shovels for the concrete pours.
One of my responsibilities on one of my jobs was I loaded the concrete from the concrete truck into the bucket which the crane took to the concrete pour. And right there at that point was where the inspection was done on the concrete. A number of test cylinders were made. And the concrete was also checked for any entrained air by another procedure. I talked with the concrete inspectors and Just kind of learned what they were doing, although again, I' m not an experienced concrete inspector. But the point that bothered me was these test cylinders would have been protected from the downpour of rain. Whereas the concrete that was poured on the reactor wall was not protected from the rain. I understood the procedure to be that the test cylinders were put under an extreme amount of pressure. If the test cylinders failed, then the concrete that had actually been put in olace with that pour would then be tested. So far as I know there was no procedure for testing the concrete otherwise. The concrete that was poured in place. Otherwise unless the test cylinders showed a deficiency.
When you served as a prepour runner, did you have occasion to observe the waiver of QA requirements?
Yes due to some technical consideration which was not clarified to me or explained to me having to do with the pour, our Quality Assurance Department was refusing to go ahead and O. K. for construction to go ahead and pour.
Was this about a safety related pour?
- 1GP -
l l
L L
.. . . . _ . . - . - . . . _ _ . - - - ._~ .
i This had to be on a safety related pour because generally GA was not concerned at all if the pour's not safety related.
It could have been in the auxiliary building or Reactor One.
Reactor Number One building, those were the two safety related l
buildings where I had responsibility for prepouring. I
' Was the pour held up for a significant period of time?
He was held up for several hours before one of the QAs near said well we can waive the requirements and they received a waiver of requirements. They went ahead with the pour. They allowed construction to be on the floor, I should say.
Could it have been waiving the requirements for an electrical inspection in a situation where there were no electrical conduits in the pour?
No, it wouldn' t be anything like that because that was normally then we i done. It there were no electrical conduits inor a the pour, electrical d idn' t have to get the electrical foreman ;
inspector to sign on the pour.
And it wouldn' t have taken several hours to note that.
No, in fact, we knew right when we began carrying the prepour sheet around we knew which foreman and which inspectors we had to get to sign it. Because it had been checked off on the form itself. Whether we had electrical work in it, whether we had l piping in it, whether we had to get a welding inspector which was almost always we had to get a welding inspector approval because there was almost always welding in the pours.
After you became an electrical GC inspector did you have occasion to observe water draining on to the control panels in the reactor control room?
Yes I did. One morning we went down and walked into the control room and couldn' t help but notice that the roof was as if there were a large cloud and rain droplets were Just falling from the ceiling all over the control boards. These were control boards that had been prefabricated in the fabrication shop in one And moved into the control room. They
- of the warehouses.
already had dials and other equipment installed, wiring included. And they were just getting just soaking wet. Because like I said, the roof or ceiling was like it was raining. All 4 over. This persisted for several hours that I know of and we went back up and informed the inspector, Terry Coleman whose responsibility the control boards were, basically, because he had watched them in the fabrication state. We informed him of the situation, he went down and looked at it and promptly wrote an i
._ .s, . _ - , . _ . _ . . , . . . , . _ . _ _ . -
NCI on it and red tagged the whole area.
Do you have any information about the cause of the leak in the
, control room ceiling?
l I understood that the cause of the leak was the fact that the concrete on top of the control room had not been sealed and as a result we had a lot of rain, water stood on top of the concrete roof and seeped through the concrete and right on down to the control room.
What was the resolution at the NCI?
The resolution was to place space heaters in the area of the control room boards and also to dry out some of the ends of the wires with hairdryer type instruments.
Did you observu any efforts being made to protect the control panels from water while the rain was pouring down on them?
No, I observed no effort to protect them, the rain kept pouring on them so far as I saw up until the time they cumped water off the roof.
Later in you work at the plant did you have responsibility for performing inspection of cable pulls?
Yes, once the cable pulling started, there were inspectors who basically took turns from week to week being cable pulling inspectors we would witness that the cable were pulled in the correct trays and went to the correct points.
Did you have occasion to witness the improcer storage and placement of electical cables?
Yes, both, primarily storage. Once the cable is pulled to its destination, there was a certain extra amount of extra witte which would be coiled up and would be hung up out of the W4tf where people wouldn' t walk on it and where it would be out of the water in case there was an water on the floor. As inspector it was my duty to verify that the cable when it was pulled, was protected
, in this manner or I could not sign the cable off as being pulled correctly. The problem was that once we left the cable pull there was no telling what might happen to the cable. It may have a walk board placed on it, and have a great deal of stress put on it, it may be just cut down so somebody else can use that piece of rope and left to lay on the floor where it can be walked on, of course can get wet. Several scaffolds were built on this j cable tray and the cables themseves were used as supports for pipes, pipe anchors.
When you discovered cables that after the inspection, you noted
- t% -
l cable ends that were not properly protected, whct did you do?
I informed the cable pulling foreman of the problem and asked that he correct it which he usually did.
Did you ever document the unprotected cables that you l discovered after your inspection?
No. We always worked with the craft people and told them anout the problem and them were very cooperative.
Do any records reflect that these cable runs were not properly protected?
None that I' m aware of.
Why didn' t you NCI the unprotected cable runs?
Because, again we were discouraged from writing NCIs and especially I knew Larry Davison and Jim Allgood consider this a minor thing and something we ought to take care of with craft and not go through the expense of having the NCI and all the paperwork.
Why not write it up as an R2A?
We were not instructed very thoroughly if at all. in the use of an R2A. We were instructed on the Q1A and the M40C.
Let's talk about the welding inspectors.
Well, most of my experience with welding inspectors was when I was prepour runner. Because for almost every pour I had to get a welding inspector to sign it off and they somtimes are hard to track down. And sometimes you never knew which inspector was the one that inspected the appropriate item. But in any case, they were under a great deal of stress and pressure because they had a very heavy work load. They had a lot of inspections to make and the concrete people were pushing them to make them. The carpenters were pushing them to make them. The piping people I
were pushing them to make them. The steel riggers were pushing them to make their inoections so that work could go on. And in the event that they would turn down a weld, I have been told that '
l they were threatened.
By whom?
They told me they were threatened by the craft people although I never witnessed it.
Did you have personal knowledge in your area of pours being held up because of these disputes between welding inspectors and l l
l
the craft?
Yes. Work was held up because there was a great deal of discord between the inspectors and the craft people. Because the welders became very uncontent when the inspectors would turn down their welds. They would get down right mad. And so would the welding supervisor. So it worked to make things less efficient .
The pressure you saw then was from the craft who were rushing to complete the concrete pours that you needed the signoffs for.
Yes, most pressure that I witnessed as prepour runner for welding inspectors was from, for instance, the general foreman.
The higher ups in supervision who were trying to meet schedules and they didn' t really care if the weld got inspected or not, their attitudes seemed to be that it's going to be covered up in concrete and nobody will ever see it, nobody will ever know the difference, just sign the paper whether its right or not. Just sign the paper so we can pour our concrete. And that seemed to be the prevelant attitude. Among some of the general foremen, in particular.
In your experience, both as a craft worker and as a Quality Control inspector, have you formed an opinion as to the existance of systematic deficiencies in plant construction at Catawba?
My experience was only two years as a worker and nine months as an inspector but I came to the conclusion that there was defifnitely a pattern of systematic deficiencies. Just take for instance the rain in the control room and concrete p ured in the rain. Those were things that shouldn' t have happeneo, that could have been prevented and simply were not due to the way the system was run. And the same follows the manner in which the non conforming items were documented. It was a systematic thing whereas the work was done and eventually, hopefully, it was correctly done. But, if so it would not be because of Quality Assurance and would only be by accident or good luck.
In your experience as a quality control inspector, was there J systematic pressure from the QC and craft supervision not to disapprove faulty workmanship that you detected?
Yes it was. As far as the craft was concerened, they didn' t want us to write an NC1 because it made them look bad. It documented their work as not having been done right. As far as QC supervision, they didn' t want the NCIs written because it made it look like there was a lot of problems involved. Which there were a lot of problems involved. But they just d idn' t want it documented because once they were documented on paper and in files then it was a permanent part of the record. And therefore they couldn' t sweep it under the rug or they couldn' t change it, they couldn' t alter it to reflect something different once it had been written up. We had procedure to document deficiencies but we were encouraged not to use that procedure. To me that's very inefficient way of running any company and a very dangerous way
! of building a nucleaw power plant.
1