ML20082H330
| ML20082H330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1983 |
| From: | Krolak J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082H284 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8312010110 | |
| Download: ML20082H330 (45) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
O AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH KROLAK Q: Please state your name and address for the record.
A: My name is Joseph Krolak. I live in Florida, but I can be contacted through CASE,1426 S. Polk, Dallas, Texas 75224.
Q: Are you the same Joseph Krolak who was supposed to testify du:ing the July 1982 operating license hearings for Comanche P ak?
A: Yes, I am.
Q: Why didn't you testify?
A: I hadn't been able to work for some time after being fired. Bob Hamilton, Sherman Shelton, and I were fired on March 10, 1982. Since that
~
happened, my wife has been ill, we lost our car, and had to move out of state and sell our home and live with relatives. The three of us who were fired went to the Department of Labor, but they said they could do nothing for us since it was after the 30 day period for reporting it. I finally was able
- to draw unemployment, for the simple, reason Brown & Root failed- to cooperate by having a three-way hearing by phone, and they ruled in my favor.
Q: Are you aware of any instances of intimidation, harassment, or threatening of employees at Comanche Peak? -
A: Yes.
Q: Are you aware of any instances of employees being discouraged from doing work right to begin. with at Comanche Peak?
A: 'Yes.
Q: In your opinion, have such instances of intimidation, harassment, i
threatening, or discouragement had an effect on morale of employees at the O Pieet?
0312010110 831120 PDR ADOCK 05000 0
J
O A: Yes.
Q: In your opinion, have such instances of intimidation, harassment, threatening, or discouragement had a detrimental effect on the quality of
, work at Comanche Peak?
A: Yes.
Q: If so, what effects have they had? -
A: Morale is zero at Comanche Peak because of poor management and lack of leadership. When people are subjected to intimidation and don't care about the kind of work they do, what are they worried about safety for?
If a guy works to just get his pay check, he doesn't care about how the plant's built. He gets so he has no pride in his work.
In my opinion, which I am sure is shared by many other inspectors,
" quality control" is just a waste of time at Comanche Peak. If the pay weren't so good, I am sure most inspectors would have quit a long time ago.
It's sad but true.
Q: Are there specific examples you could tell us about?
A: Yes, my own experience is a case in point. I was employed at Brown
'& Root from July 1978 to March 10, 1982. For one year and eight months of that time, I was a Quality Control Inspector in Protective Coatings; the months previous to that I was a carpenter's helper.
On March 10, 1982, Bob Hamilton, Sherman Sheldon, and I were fired by Tom Brandt, supposedly for failing to make an inspection in an unsafe area in Reactor 2. I am now 51 years of age, and I have never been fired from any job in my life until Brown & Root. I also want to state that I have never
< O
O in all my months as a QC Inspector ever refused to make an inspection no matter where it was until that time. And even then, I didn't refuse to do an inspection, I refused the way of getting there. I did my job well and also knew my job well. My goal was to work for a company such as Brown & Root (for almost four years), giving them my best effort and trying to make Comanche Peak a safe place. .
I was fired along with two others because we tried to do our jobs right. Until the day I die I know I will never forget the way Tom Brandt had us fired. It was a planned happening which was known to the Paint Depart-ment in advance as to when and where. The weekend before we were fired, Bob Hamilton met a paint General Foreman at a dance. The foreman told Bob that .
next week we were going to get a surprise, and we sure did -- we were terminated.
The day we were fired, all the painters looked at us and smiled as we were processed out.
I would like to add a little about my firing. About a year before tennination, I was asked to make an inspection in Reactor 1, elevation about 950. To do this, I had to walk.a 2-1/2' rail which circled the whole reactor (which, by the way, was full of grease). Now, I have made all kinds of inspec-tions in dangerous areas before. But with the conditions such as they were, I called my supervisor, Bob Hamilton, up to look af the situation. After studying it for a while, Bob (who, by the way, also has made some hairy inspections) said, "Let m' ego get Jim Hawkins," who at that time was QC Supervisor. After coming up and looking it over, Jim Hawkins said, "None of my people are going to walk that rail and risk their lives." Two days later they built a wooden platform around the reactor and that solved all O.
beusuMum
. O
'the prcblems. A year later in Reactor 2, the same situation arose. At this point in time, the Paint Department was trying to hurry and get a lot of metal painted. They had access to the crane, which was idle at the time, but would not let us use it to get to where we were to make an inspection.
This happened over a period of three days. Jim Hawkins had left just before we went into tinit 2 and was replaced by, I believe, Mr. Tolson. Instead of building a safe platfonn for all the crafts to work off of, Harry Williams told us to walk the rail or go out the gate. (By the way, he was supposed to be our boss and look out for his people. Some boss!)
Q: Are there other specific instances you could tell us about?
A: I must truthfully state that my last year with Brown & Root, especially QC, was a living nightmare. To be specific, there was no such word as quality used in our department. It was strictly a bunch of games being played with the Paint Department, supervisors mostly, Harry Williams, and Mark Wells.
For example, I worked under Harry Williams almost a year before I knew who he was or what he looked like. After getting to know Harry Williams, I want to truthfully say that he was the most unknowledgeable person I have ever worked for. He didn't know anything about anything pertaining to any of the departments hewas in charge of, in my opinion, especially Protective Coati ngs. All Harry Williams was was a yes man. Bob Hamilton, QC Lead Man, was my immediate supervisor, and in my opinion and the opinion of many others was a very knowledgeable inspector. Near the end of my days with Brown &
Root, Harry Williams had Bob Hamilton change much of our documentation, in
! other words change our procedure so we wouldn't hold up the Paint Department.
O mu . . . .
8
n . -
O Bob Hamilton, Cordella Hamilton (Birdwell, at that time, Bob's secretary),
and myself worked very hard for weeks to do so. As usual, near completion of this new procedure, Harry Willlams changed the rules again. Bob kept telling Harry Williams all documents submitted to the QC vault must be accurate and that there was an fiRC audit coming up, but Harry Williams said, " Don't worry about the fiRC. I'll handle them."
It's very disheartening when you try to do your job and do it well, especially a job of this magnitude, and then have a man like Harry Williams dictate the rules without any knowledge of what he is doing and run the show.
Harry Williams has vertally threatened Bob Hamilton in person. Harry Williams stated that if we didn't do it his way, we would all go out the gate (be fired). He said this in person twice to my personal knowledge. There are O meny eifferent QC deP8rtmeats out tnerr. if inspectors were esked end woeid honestly answer the question "Was Harry Williams competent?" I am positive most inspectors would say no.
Another example is Mark Wells, an Engineer with Gibbs & Hill. He was an-ex Paint Foreman. The Paint Department loved to see Mark Wells in Engineering because he did not likt Protective Coating QC and was always reversing Bob Hamilton's decisions in favor of the Paint Department. It was just one big game.
There was another man Harry Williams told Bob Hamilton to train to be a QC Protective Coatings Wspector. Bob worked with him and said the man just wasn't going to make it as an Inspector. Harry Williams didn't want to fire him, and swit:hed him to the electrical department and made him a lead man.
O
- - - ~ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
O The papentork is so screwed up, nobody could decipher it. They 've had too many people in and out of there, so that when they look at it, they don't know what those people were talking about. The NRC came down there once and said they were going to check the vault on Protective Coatings and would make some suggestions about it. Bob Hamilton tried so hard to get the paperwork straightened out. Harry Williams would make us inspect pipe whip restraints, liner plates, etc., and he would never let us give an elevation and location. He said no, no, no, just write the number down and that it was inspected. He changed everything,.he turned the system around. He wanted progress so they could get the plant on line. I've talked with other QC department inspectors in electrical and in a lot of departments and they all thought the same thing about Harry Williams. So most of them just did their job the way he wanted them to and got their pay check. In my opinion, Harry Williams was one of the driving furces behind lots of the screw-ups at the whole plant.
I believe that one QC Inspector in particular falsified documents, because it would take three other QC Inspectors 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> to do what he did in one night.
Harry Williams was very buddy-buddy with the Paint Department.
And his No.1 man was well liked by every foreman on the jobsite in the Paint Department because he (the inspector) would make inspections without looking at them. He woul'd never climb; he'd stand on elevation 905 and look at elevation 1005 and say, "It looks good. Paint i t." I don't know how many Paint Department foremen told me how he would do that.
O O
_7 o
One more thing about the day we were fired. On that day, Bob Hamilton called the shop and talked to Joe Fazi (one of the Protective Coatings QC Inspectors) and another QC inspector who was there (whose job was strictly the blasting area). Bob explained the situation to them and they both said they wouldn't walk the rail either. Yet Joe Fazi wasn't fired; he's still there. .
Q: Are there specific proolems in construction or design at Comanche Peak which you believe currently exist at Comanche Peak (which have not, as far as you know, been put into the process to be corrected) to which you could take the Licensing Board and show them? And would you be willing to take the Board to those deficiencies and show t' hem?
A: I'm not sure I could find it now, but when I was a carpenter's helper
, in Reactor 1, they were pouring a section of the core wall when a vibrator and hose got stuck in the wall. The foreman just cut the hose and said for nobody to say anything. I'm sure that it did not help to enforce the wall any better.
Q: Why should the Licensing Board be concerned about such intimidation, harasstrent, threatening or discouragement of employees, or such deficiencies as you may tell them about or show them at Comanche Peak? What's the bottom lina as far as the safety of the plant is concerned?
A: I don't believe -- no way -- that the plant's built safely. There are too many people working there who are just worried about a big salary and not about what they're doing. I've seen people welding over important wires that were installed, I've seen laborers and crafts not concerned about b}
v
_- _. a
4 O
where they walk and whether they damage any equipment or anything else.
(That's where a lot of their money goes, for equipment which is ruined by people that don't care.) It's a very sad thing going on at Comanche Peak -- too much money involved, and the wrong people with authority in charge of building.
I was just another poor QC Inspector trying to do a good job to no avail.
There needs to be a hearing in a court of law where testimony could be verified by taking a lie detector test; maybe then the truth would come out.
Q: Do you want to testify regarding these matters in the operating license hearings for Comanche Peak?
A: Yes.
Q: Attached to your testimony is a document which has been marked CASE Exhibit 654, 7/16/82, " Testimony of Joseph J. Krolak, Jr., Witness for Intervenor CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)." Is this the testimony which was prepared for the July 1982 operating license hearings under your direction?
A: Yes , it is.
Q: Are the statements contained in it true and correct?
A: Yes , they are.
Q: Was the testimony on pages 1 through 27 of that document taken from the iNposition which was taken from you by the Applicants on July 1, 1982?
A: Yes, primarily.
- In many cases, it's almost word for word.
Q: And were~ the statements on pages 28 through 33 of that document in response to subsequent questions by CASE?
A: Yes, they were.
O
I
= 4 l i i i 4
O i Q: And is CASE Exhibit 654A (Attachment 1), your Resume, which is j i
l attached to CASE Exhibit 654, still correct? l
) !
4 A: Up to that point in time, yes. I would just as soon not have in ;
i :
! the record where I am currently working. ,
l 4 ,
I I
i i
I O
f 8
5 i
i 1 .
I 1
- i 4
I f
f i
i i
4 i: O-l
- j. -
n 1
1 i
O I have read the foregoing affidavit, which was prepared under my personal direction, and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. j b'1')l] V l /
(Signed /
[
Date: /f ff)ir h ,5 l Q & -
l l
STATE OF 7/m_ 4/
COUNTY OF g m,m a '
On this, the IM. day of br.,..l.<. o ', 1983, personally appeared O J 0-t e, z2
/
, unown to me to se the person whose .
name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes therein expressed.
Subscribed and sworn before me on the J- b ' day of )f,y...< ,.4 w ,
j 1982 CP.--n.w w Q. n L ..r ,_. s Notary Public in,and for the
' Sute of i g:n ........... .. . .
- i.n c. : - - - : . , - . , . .
~
"~" ""
My Comission Expires:
O .
08 5 5 $,dO.E- /0y 7/16/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA fiUCLEAR REGULAiORY COMMISSION BEF0i E THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEriSlfiG BOARD in the fittter of APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTillTIES GEllERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR Docket fios. 50-445 Aff OPERATING LICENSE FOR nd 50-446 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES)
TESTIM'0 fly OF JOSEPH J. KROLAK, JR.
WITilESS FOR INTERVENOR CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY)
Q. Please state your name, residence and educational and work background.
A. Joseph J. Krolak, Jr. I live at 1529 Barron Lane, Fort Worth, Texas 76112. A :;tatement of my educational and work background is attached as Attachment 1.
O Q. Are ,ou presentiy empioyed?
A. I am not employed at the present time.
Q. 'ihat is your educational background?
A. !ly educational background is a GS, the equivalent of a diploma, which I received at TCU in Fort Worth in 1970 or 1971.
Q. How many years of high school education do you have?
A. Two years of high school.
Q. You attended high school through tenth grade?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was that?
A. J. Sterling Morton High School in Cicero, Illinois.
Q. What date did you leave?
A. The year was 1949. The date I don't recall.
O Q. When did you go to work for Brown & Root?
Page 2 A. In 1978.
Q. Where?
A. In Glen Rose, ioxas.
Q. What caused you to go to Brown & Root?
A. Oh, I heard a lot of people talking about the wages out there. And at the time, if you recall, we had a good recession going around here anyway.
C. If there is such a thirg as a good recession.
A. Well, yeah, if there is a good one. Anyway, I went out there to seek a better-paying job.
Q. And you were hired on in 1978? Do you recall the month?
A. Yes, July lith.
Q. And in what capacity were you hired?
A. I was hired as a carpenter helper.
O c. ^ou what die t"ose e" ties enteii?
A. Well, I worked mostly on forming up walls, working on the outside of the reactor, forming the outside of the reactors.
O. By forming the outside of the reactor, are you referring to the con-tainment building?
A. Yes.
Q. Placing forms against which concrete was later poured.
A. Right.
Q. For how long did you do that?
A. I did that til February 20th 1980, when I went into quality control, protective coating.
Q .- In what capacity?
A. As a trainee in protective coating.
Q. Why did you leave your carpenter's job?
Page 3 g A. Well, I lef t it mainly because the work was getting harder, and I wasn't retting any younger.
Q. Physically strenuous work?
A. And Brown and Root has a policy if you work for them -- I had three different foremen and they all tried. to get me top pay. And Brown and Root has a policy, you have to be there some years before they advance you. And I figured by the time I got to be a full-fledged carpenter, I would be 50 years old, which I am right now.
Q. When you say the work was strenuous, you mean it was physically burden-some work, difficult work?
A. Yes, very much so.
Q. Carrying heavy loads?
A. Well, hanging off tho side of the reactorby your belt and all. I mean I still have scars fron my safety belt and so forth. Carrying up haavy objects.
4 So February 20th, 1980 you went over to QC, protective coating as a trainee?
A. Yes.
Q. For how long were you a trainee?
A. Oh, it was approximately three months, I believe, three or four months.
Q. And what type of training did you receive? .
A. Well, the first month all 1 did was read, and then I went out with the supervisor and had on-the-job training, and then I trained with other inspectors.
Q. And at the end of"that three-month period, what did you become?
A. I became certified, and 1 was in quality control. I was a-full-fledged inspector.
Q. l.evel ?
O A. Level 2, I believe.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - ' - - - ~ ~ ~ -
4 Page 4 Q. That would be the end of May 1980?
A. In that area, vincinity, uh-huh. .
- Q. And for how long were you a QC inspector in protective coating?
- A. Approximately 25 months.
Q. Until what date?
A. March 9th, 1982.
Q. At.which time you were terminated?
A. Yes.
Q. And you stated at the outset that you are currently unemployed?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you been employed since March 9th, 1982?
A. No, not full.
Q. Have you had part-time work?
A. Well, if you want to call a day a week part time.
Q. Doing what?
A. I'm helping Bob Hamilton remodel a home.
Q. Carpentry?
A. Yes, sir, laboring, carpentering.
Q. What were your activities as a QC inspector Level 2 in protective coatings?
A. Well, whenever the Paint Department had an object to show for inspection,
'I was called in the field. Level 1 areas, reactor buildings. That's what it boiled down to before I left. That's the only areas we inspected.
.Q. Called to the paint shop or out in the field?
A. No, out in the field.
Q. Would you describe a typical inspectior, that you would conduct pursuant to a request from the plant?
.h'-
A. Well, we'd get a lot of pipe hangers or conduit supports that they're finishing up in Reactor.1 especially, and this is on an everyday basis. That is
.1
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ U
Page 5 th'e main object of the r inspections right now. Ninety-nine percent of it is hangers. It was when : left anyway.
Q. All hangers are painted?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this hangers in Category I structures, in containment, all over the plant?
A. Well our area has been reduced to containment areas now. When I first started, we were spread out to the whole area. To the whole plant, safeguards and fuel buildings. Now they've boiled it down to just contair.ments 1 and 2.
Q. And your job was to inspect the painting?
A. The colorings, before and after coatings, yes.
Q. On hangers.
A. On hangers.
-Q. What else?
- A. Liner plate, i.abeds, anything to do with coating. Concrete or steel.
Q. When we talk about coating, are we talking about paint?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything other than paint that is a coating?
A. I wasn't associated with anything but protective coating, paint.
Q. Primer and paint.
A. Yes.
Q. Oil based or latex?
A. Either one.
Q. Epoxy?
A. Yes -- no, no, I'm sorry. Not epoxy either. Let's put it this way before I get confused here. I've been out of there four months, and. I just got it out of my mind..
Page 6 Q. I understand. Well, to the -best of your recollection.
A. Yes, I'm trying to recall. It wasn't latex, and it wasn't epoxy L because epoxy we didn't associate with.
Q. Oil based, I guess. Is there'anything other than oil base left?
A. Well, the paints we used, the particular paints, are different; and I' just don't recall at the time the ingredients, at the time of my certification and recertification, which I was certified twice. I mean we were given written exams to clarify all our work. So I mean as far as that goes, if your want to break out a book, I'll read it over; and then I can tcli you.
Q. No, that's not_necessary. I'm just trying to obtain the facts from your recollection. You said that you didn't use epoxy paints?
A. I'm trying to recall if we had epoxy paint and if we.did use it or not.
You can put me on the record saying I don't recall, because I don't.
Q. Okay. What is a hanger?
A. Well, it depends on what kind of hanger you're talking about. They have a lot of cable tray hangers where the cable trays are mounted on throughout the reactors, other areas. And we have conduit supports. That's self-explanatory.
They have conduit on the supports.
Q. Are we talking about pipe hangers?
A. Well, I mean I inspected the pipe hangers too, yes. They have all kinds of pipe hangers, different sizes.
.Q. We have cable tray hangers, conduit, support hangers, pipe hanger. Any other kind of hangers that you recall?
A. No.
Q. What is liner plate?
p A. Well, that's the inside of your reactors -- well, the outside of the V I imagine it's about five to six foot thick, and you have the wall is concrete.
Page 7-h liner plate inside tht reactor.
Q. This is the pressure boundary inside the containment structure itself?
A. Yes, it's a steel liner plate. The exact measurements I don't recall.
Q. And you inspected painting of that?
A. Yes, we inspected the liner plate.
Q. What are imbeds?
A. Well, they have all types.' They have floor imbeds. They have imbeds on the wall. The imbeds we're more familiar with are the imbeds that are right directly in the wall where they hang different items on. In other words, they'll have a concrete wall and have maybe 20 or 30 imbeds coming inside the wall. The craft'comes _in there to set up a hanger, so they have a map of these imbeds, and they use it for a support.
Q. And they're painted?
A. Yes.
Q. And you inspect the painting?
A. Yes.
f
-Q. What other activities did you conduct as a QC inspector in protective coatings?
A. Well, at times we watched the mix and verified the procedures at the shop.
Watched the mix of the paint they use out in the field.
- a. You watched who conduct the mix?
A. The Paint Department. They have a special person in there that makes the mixes. lie is in chaije of the paint shack. And when we are called for a mix,
' they have to have the QC personnel there to watch to make sure there is the exact amount of paint mix and so forth, make sure the paint isn't out of date.
Q. For whom did you work?
A. I worked for Bob flamilton. .
Q. lie was your direct supervisor?
I
_Y
l Page 8 A. hell, Bob wc; -- when we lef t, Bob was more of a working inspector or lea lman, you'd call it. But the two years I was there, Bob fell under the supervisory category. I mean I answered to 00b.
Q. You said before we left. What did you mean by that?
~
A. Well, Bob was terminated also.
Q. At the same time you were terminated?
A. Yes, sir. '
Q. Who was Mr. Hamilton's supervisor?
. .A. Harry Williams.
Q. Did you ever interface with Mr. Williams?
A. I'll be honest with you. I was in QC a year before I knew who Harry
~ Williams was.
Q. So the answer is no.
A. No.
-Q. Who is his supsrvisor, if you know.
2 A. Oh, at the time we left, I believe it was -- they had so many. Well, Hawkins was at one tine, but he left. I believe he was QA Manager. Mr. Tolson.
Q. How many QC inspectors did Mr. Hamilton supervise when you were under his supervision?
A. Oh,- let's see, there was one, two, three, four, 'approximately five.
Q. And if you know, how many inspectors did Mr. Williams supervise?
'A. I don't know roughly. All I heard was he was in charge of three or four different departments. Ilow many people he had, I don't know.
Q. Who made the determination that you would go out and do a certain job on a given day.
f- A. Bob Hamilton.
(
Q. Mr. Hamilton. And how did he convey that direction to you?
f
_ _ _ __ _ _ _._i
Page 9 A. Well, when a craf t wanted an inspection, normally they would call on the telephone, giving us the. location.
Q. Calling Mr. Hamilton?
A. Well, usually Bob answered the phone, so I would say yes.
Q. By Bob you mean Hamilton.
A. Yes. Bob answered the phone most of the time. If Bob wasn't there, I'd pick up the phone. If there was an inspection, he would relay the information as to where he wanted us and what they were inspecting.
Q. Let's take a' hypothetical and say that there is a hanger that the craft has prepared for painting, and the craft calls'the QC inspector, and you're assigned to-go out and inspect. How do you conduct your inspection?
- A. Well, the first thing I'd do is go up to the paint foreman and ask L him what he's doing, if he's putting primer or what and get all the information first.
Q. Do you have a piece of paper that has what's going on on it?
'A. No, I' don't. We don't carry a piece of paper with us. It's a long story if you want me to go into it. When I left, we started coming out with new 1R's. Then you had to start carrying paper with you because you had to have a copy of what they were doing to keep it all on record. But at the time before f'
my termination, I would meet with the foreman and get all the information from him. And if he told me what he wanted or when he told me what he wanted, I would check the weather conditions and so forth and then examine the item. We have to check the weather to see if the conditions are favorable for painting.
- Q .' What are favorable conditions?
A. Well, surface temperature, air temperature.
f -- Q. You mean the environmental conditions in the area of the painting?
A. Yes.
w-Page 10 Q. Not the weather outside necessarily.
J A. On, no.
Q. And how would you make that check?
A. Well, we had two gauges we used. We used one psychrometer, which would get our humidity' values and our dew point; and we had a surface temperature gauge, which would tell us how cold or warm the object is inside the containment.
Q. What was the range of temperature that was acceptable for painting?
A. I don't recall.
Q. What was the level of humidity that was acceptable for painting?
A. Oh, concrete was a hundred percent. We couldn't go over that, as I recall.
Q. Couldn't go over a hundred percent?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A hundred percent humidity?
O ^- no. e a oared ee9rees- i' sorrr- Air temperet re-Q. How abo ~ut steel?
A. I don't recall what steel was. I believe it was something, 85 percent humidity on steel, if I recall.
Q. How about temperature?
A. Temperature varied, depending whether you used CZ or phenylene. You had two different temperature ranges.
Q. What is phenylene?
A. Phenylene is your finish color. CZ-ll is your primer.
Q. So it depended on what you were to apply as to whether the temperature was an acceptable range?
_j A. Yes.
Q. Was there an acceptable lower range of the temperature for con <: rete?
A. Between the two now, I don't recall. Like I said, I just got it out of my mind. Just forgot about it all.
l l
. ?
Page 11 l Q. But you don't recall it today.
A. No, I don't recall it today, no. That's the type of job you've go to keep at every todaf. You've got to read every day.
-Q. So then you would go out, and you would take these tests for temperature and humidity?
A. Yes.
Q. And if it war acceptable, what would you do?
A. Well, if he wanted, s'ay, to reblast a pipe hanger, we would still check our temperature because you know they are going to coat. And what you would do is check the item first to see if it had a visual acceptability, which is in our standards.
Q. And what were you looking for when you visually inspected?
A. We would look for rust or we'd look for for6ign objects, dirt.
Q. This is an unpainted object that you were looking at.
A. Yes.
-Q. And if you found a rough spot, what would you do?
A. The craft would have to remove it.
Q. You would point it out to them?
A. Certainly.
O Q. Would they do it while you were there?
A. If it was small enough, yes. I wouldn't let them waste time calling me back. I would just wait for them to do it. They had equipment where they ceuld do it very quickly.
Q. And if they were unable to do it, then you would go a :ay and come back?
A. Yes. I would tell the foreman to call us when it was straight.
Q. Let's assume that the equipment was in satisfactory condition for painting.
You had determined that there were no surface blemishes. The humidity was correcti
~~
,2 .
Page 12 the temperature was correct. What else did you nuve to look at?
A. Well, we'd give it a visual inspertion, like I said. And we'd get all the information from the foreman. Elevation, location, if it had a number on it. We'd have to check the numbers, serial numbers, for our documentation.
And we'd keep a record of all of it.
Q. And if everything was satisfactory to your mind, what then would happen?
A.They would coat the object in question.
Q. How did you indicate your approval?
A. I would say, okay. For instance, if the foreman was Don, I'd say, okay, Don, it looks good.
Q. So he would apply the coating?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would go back to your shack and wait for the next cail?
O A. Weii, normeiiy with tne docementetion invo,ved, yee would heve to
- back and finish up you paperwork.
Q. So then you ould document your approval.
A. Yes.
Q. On what docununt?
A. It's a new IR they came out with before I lef t. It has everything from your primer all the way up to your finish coat. If it's a reworked object, you have different IR's. In other words, when you write it out, it shows just exactly what you've done. I mean it's self-explantory.
Q. When did the newIR's come out? ,
A. Oh, they came out, I'd say, two months before I was terminated.
Q. So January of '827 A. I believe it was in that neighborhood.
O Q. What was the documentation before that time?
i
~
Page 13 l h
A. Well, the docunentation before that was -- the only records we would keep werE records in our shack of all the items done from beginning to end, and we would put the locations. We would have different books. For instance, we'd have the cable tray book, and then we'd have a work log we had to fill out, and all the information had to be the same. In other words, if sorrebody did a primer job and they called me three days later to put a finish coat on it, I would check his records and get the information and keep them together.
Q. You testified earlier that you were a Level 2. Are you certain that you were a level 2? ,
A. No, I'm not certain. I believe I stated that. It could be a Level 2 or 3.
Q. But not Level 1.
4 A. It may have been one. I know that there was a higher level than I was.
\d Let's,put it that way.
j .Q. There is a lower and a higher level than you were as a two.
A. Yes, well --
Q. You don't know.
A. No, I don't, not at the present time.
Q. You could be Level 3; you could be Level 1.
A. Could be.
Q. All right. Then you've approved the painting. You've given the craft the go-ahead to do the job. You come back, and you prepare your paperwork.
A. Yes.
- Q. Does that complete your job for that particular activity?
A. Yes, for that particular activi.ty, yes.
Q. Okay. Was your inspection activity always related to the condition of the object to be painted before it was painted, or did you also inspect objects once they were painted?
~
Page 14 N
(v' A. Boti.
Q. Can you give us an illustration of how you would inspect the latter situation?
A. Well, it would be what they call as a final buyoff. When they have an itti that is finished,and the craf t is waiting for it, such as a loose cable tray, we'll say, or conduit support.
Q. Something that is painted in the shop?
A. No, painted out in the field. They have a system set up now -where they have a tunnel. They call it the blasting tunne,1 or painting tunnel where the night shif t normally would work these items because the crafts -- I don't know whether they were getting. pressed or what, but they were trying to get these items out. And they have a heater in there, especially in the winter, which makes g the item cure quicker. And what we would do is come in the morning, and this 0 was happening quite frequently. They would call us and say we have maybe ten hangers, would you look at them and check them for final buyoff? And we'd go --
first, we would pull the paperwork, get the number from the foreman. And I'd pull out the paperwork, see how long Uicy had been curing and see who inspected them for primer or who inspected the finish coat. And I would go check them out.
Q. And you would conduct tests?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of tests?
A. We'd run a visual check, a continuity check. We had what you call a beeper. It's a Holiday detector actually. You would wet a sponge and run it over the painted item; and if there was any discrepancy, it would beep. And you were allowed so many discrepancies in a certain area.
! What would beep?
Q.
A. The holiday detector I'm describing is a battery-operated instrument.
j Roughly it was a box about this big with a gauge in it.
3 age 14 (V) Q. Abtut 6 inches long?
A. 6 inches square, we'll say.
It worked as a battery. It had two terminals running from it. And. you'd work it off of a stick about, oh, maybe 18 inches long with a sponge attached. And you would wet the sponge, and it would have a mag-netic current. And when you run it over an item where there was a discrepancy in the paint, such as a pinhole or a holiday, it would beep.
Q. A holiday? What is that?
A. A piece they missed painting. An'd just listen to it, and you could spot or detect the discrepancy. And like I say, a certain amount of area is given a certain amount of leeway. And if you find too many discrepancies, you would have to have them recoat the areas.
Q. By specification the leeway is provided?
A. Yes.
Q. What is a continuity tes??
A. A continuity test is to check for discontinuity. The beeper is the con-tinuity test.
O. So we have a visual test and a continuity test.
A. That's right. ,
Q. And if it passes both of those tests --
A. It's released to the crowd. It's released, yes.
A Q. And ther. do you document your inspection?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you document it?
A. I document, turn it in as a finish coat. And this in turn is submitted to the vault. And if the item ever comes back as a repair, the document is there.
() Q. You pull the paper?
A. Yes. You don't pull it out of the vault. You just make a repair IR on it.
Fage 15 And that's also submitttd to the vault with the original finish paperwork.
Q. It's filed with the other paperwork?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any other type of activity that.you performed? We've talked about inspecting objects that have not been painted. We have talked about inspecting objects after they've been painted. What else did you do?
A. Well, my chief function was to inspect objects or items before and af ter.
Q. oust as you've described.
A. Yes.
Q. How much auditing of the mixing of paint did you do?
A. Well, not too much during days because a QC inspector at the shop out in the field was right next door. He saved us the trip of driving back and f. orth.
Q. Did you work day shift or night shift?
I worked both. When I was terminated, I was on day.
A.
Q. How long had you been on day shift?
A '. I would say it was pretty close. A year apiece, day and night.
Q. So of the 25 months that you were a QC inspector, half was day shift.
A. .I would say it was pretty close to mj recollection.
Q. Did the nature of your service differ when you were on one shift relative to the other shift?
A. No.
Q. Basically the same during both shifts?
A. Basically the samd. I'll have to correct that. I'm sorry. The night shift we did a lot of shop work.
Q. Shop inspection?
A. Shop and field, right. As' opposed to strictly field during days, con-O ta u.iment area.
i.,,,ie iiii l
Page 16 Q. I see. More shop inspec'tions at nicht than during the day.
A. Yes.
Q '. And to what do you attribute that?
A. Well, I don't know, to be honest with you. The day shift got a lot out, but the day shift was putting a lot of non-Q work o'it when I left. I don't know what the Paint Department reasoning was.
Q. Did you have an occasion to have a deposition taken fron you by the Applicants on July 1, 1982?
A. Yes.
Q. And in that deposition were you asked what you were going to testify to?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you please tell us what your response was?
A. That I would testify to a lot of safety features out there that should be corrected. The Safety Department in general, they should have someone out there .t that knows what they're looking for.
Q. Were you in the Safety Department?
A. ').
Q. Let's talk about the Safety Department. What is their job?
A. Well, they're supposed to maintain safety throughout the plant.
Q. What do you mean by maintain safety?
A. Protect people working there, watch the conditions, make sure that nothing is happening to jeopardize any specific area.
Q. It's workir.g conditions that they're relating to?
A. Right.
Q. And how do you feel that they didn't fulfill that function?
A. Well, in the first place, I worked up in the cap a lot in both reactors; and I had been out there almost four years; and not one time did I eser see one safety man crawl that 105' ladder to go up there.
. . . . . . . .. .. J
Page 17
. O. Do'se that mean that they never climbed the ladder.
A. It's too strenuous.
Q. 'Do you know for a fact that a safety man never climbed it?
A. Well, I don't check these people 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day. I've never seen them myself. And I've taked to people that never have. They'll stay on Elevation 905 and look up.
Q. But you don't know for a fact that they --
A. No, I don't know for a fact. I've just never seen them up there. And
. I know the conditions up thera. And I know that items have been turned in up there to the Safety Department where you can't walk up.there. Everything is so cluttered, and that's one of their jobs, to make sure it's not. cluttered. And areas throughout the reactor, I've seen welders welding.
And these cabic trays we were discussing earl.ier are full of hot wires, and
-O soer see the eies soies dowe eed ;ust hitties the wires. Aed i meen t8inse iike this. It's costing the utility company money, and reasons like this is why, because they're not properly handled by people that know what they're looking for.
Now, they'll watch while you're hanging on a safety belt six foot of the ground. I mean they'll write you up right away. But have them watch a guy welding over hot wires or something is a different story.
Q. This really does't relate to the quality assurance program. It's really the safety conditions of the craft.
A. That's right. We're talking working conditions and safety conditions out there.
Q. Did the safety conditions have anything to do with your termination?
A. No. Well, the area where we were supposed to go was-deemed safe. We were terminated because we failed to make an inspection in an unsafe area that
-O we thought was unsafe. And until this day I still say it was unsafe. Now, Ive I' '
_ _ _ _ _ ._-_-__m- . _ - _ _ . . _ _ _ - - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - . _ - - - - -
Page 18
(] crawled' cVery area in that whole jobsite, and I've got three foremen, four V
foremen to back me up. I've never refused it in my life. I can bring in paint foremen if you want names to show you. I've climbed t.reas -- I had to use my hands where I didn't have to da it. But I said, well, I'll make the inspection for you. I said, you know, let's get it over with. And if I would have fell, I would have dropped a hundred foot. When they tell me I'm scared to go up in an area like that, they're very wrong.
Q. Let's talk about the area in question.
A. About a year ago, we were asked to make an inspection in Reactor 1 at elevation roughly 105 feet off.of the ground. It's straight off of a platform cran _e up in the dome. And at this time they had quite a bit of work to do up there. They were doing a log of patch work up there, and it called for having to walk around that whole rail, 360 degrees around the reacter. And I was the O first one called up for it. And I went up there, and I looked at it. And I said to the paint foreman, I said, all you've got is that life line, and you've got to reach for it. There's nothing on either side of you, and there's oil and trash and grease. And the foreman in question was like a monkey. I mean he'll run it and laugh at you. I mean, you know, he figures if he can do, you can do it.
So I called Bob Hamilton. And Bob said, just a minute. .Let me look. And Bob went through the same thing I did. He worked everything in that reactor, in cadweld and everything. He never refused. So he looked at it. Bob and I even stood on it, and we walked a little bit. And Bob said, I can see if they want us to go today but not every day, not a constant thing, around that whole 360-degree area.
So Bob went over a.nd talked to Jim Hawkins, who at the time was QA manager, g I believe, our immediate supervisor. And Bob took him up there. And I was t I
" there also. And he looked at it; and he said, I'm not scared of height, but no
-_________ _ _ _ ___ ___ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _______ __ a
Page 19
(~ way are my aeople going to risk their lives. So he called up -- I don't know if he called up, because he left the reactor. He went over and called or went to see the plant manager. And two hours later they built a scaffold, or they started-it. It took two days. And you'd be surprised how many. people in that Paint Department thanked us for having that scaffold built.
Q. Who built the scaffold?
A. The Building Department.
Q. So the Building Department sent their men up there. '
A. Well, the Building Department -- well, th'at is their job. I've worked scaffolding. I know.
Q. So it wasn't unsafe to sent the Building Department up.
A. The Building Department worked off the platform crane, the crane
-that we used to have access to to make our inspections. But conveniently it was pushed aside where we couldn't get at it anymore.
Q. Wh/ doyouthingthathappened?
A. I think it was the Paint Department. That's why. That's why we were terminated. They gdbrid of three good people.
Q. What do you mean you think.it was the Paint Department?
A. Because we were holding up the production is why.
Q. Do you have any basis for that allegation?
A. My terminatic1 to me is basis enough. When a man leaves, and they put what kind of worker, good; and you put four years here,and one put six, and if he's a good worker, whj do you get rid of him? What are you firing him for?
Q. Was it in the Unit 1 Containment that the matter arose that led to your termination?
A. No, but that's what started it. When we went to Reactor 2 just before b" my termination, we were asked to make the same inspection. Now, we asked the
Page 20 paint foreman, the general foreman in the Paint Department, if we could have O access to the crane, and he said no. We can't get it.
Q. What was the inspection you were being asked to conduct?
A. It was small patch repairs on the liner plate.
Q. So the liner plate had been painted and inspected and then repaired and it was the repairs you were asked to go up and re-inspect.
A. Yes.
Q. How did the painters first paint the liner?
A. They painted it on the ground at the shop in sections.
Q. And then it was raised up?
A. It was raised up, yes.
Q. Is that welded into place?
A. Yes.
Q. How did the welders do the welding? Did they do it on the ground, or did they do it up at 105'?
A. Up in the air.
Q. At Elevation 105?
A. Yes.
Q. And how did the painters then make the repairs?
A. The painters made the rep' airs by. walking the rail.
Q. I see. At 105?
A. Yes. And if they didn't make -- som'e of them made a comment, I mean if we're talking about what has been said and what hasn't been said, some of the painters were told, if they didn't walk it, they can go out the gate too.
Q. Well, did you hear that said.
A. I've talked to foremen and painters. I mean if we need names, I can talk'to them again.
Page 21 Well, did you hear that said though?
(]) Q.
A. No.
Q. That's just what you heard?
-A. Right. Hearsay, if you want to~ call it. fine.-
-Q. Then, if you know, after you were terminated, did other QC inspectors inspect the repairs?
A. From what I heard, if I rememeber right, one of the inspectors said they had' access to the platform crane.
Q. Do you know whether that's a fact or not?
A. Well, he told me that.
Q. Did he do the inspecting, or was he giving you heresay from scmeone else?
A. He made the inspection, but he didn't have to walk the rail.
Q. And so what we have is'a situation where the welders had been up an 105' doing their work, and the painters did their work, but the QC inspectors refused to go up and look at the work.
A. Oh, no, we didn't refuse to look at the work. We refused to walk that rail to go look at it. I told them I'll go up on that platform crane. I'm never refusing an inspe. tion. I said,you build this rail safer, I'll walk it.
I mean I wasn't the only one involved in this. And we did have it clarified in Reactar 1, and everyone was happy at the time.
Q. Didn't you just say the painters walked the rail?
A. The painters walked the rail, right, but none of them walked the rail when they built the scaf fald in Reactor 1.
Q. What does that have to do with Reactar 2?
A. Reactor 2, the point I'm driving at is: They wouldn't build the scaffold for us.
Q. But the painters walked the rail, nevertheless.
Page 22 g
A. Th2 painters tad to walk the rail, yes.
Q. I see. But you chose not to.
A. That's correct.
Q. Ar.d it was at that time that you were terminated?
A. Yes.
Q. You and Mr. Hamilton?
A. Sherman Shelton also. There were three of us involved.
Q. Mr. Shelton also. That really isn't -- again, that's really a safety of jobsite matter. It's not a quality assurance matter.
A. No. I agree with you there.
Q. Safety in the workplace is what it is; isn't that right? ,
A. Right.
Q. Did you file any formal complaints with the Occupational Safety and Health h Administration?
A. Well, when I was terminated, the three of us weren't aware cf OSHA being on the jobsite where we could file with them. What we did is: We found out a day after we were terminated about OSHA, and we contacted them.
Q. Hcw did you contact them?
A. Well, it was first by phone.
Q. Did you call them, or did one of the other people call them? 5 A. Well, I did. I cailed their office in Arlington, I believe; and I was directed to Dallas.
Q. And what did they say?
A. Well, the final investigation pr,oved us wrong because there is an article in their statute that states as long as you're wearing a safety lanyard, there is nothing they can do about it.
O Q. Did you disagree with that conclusion?
1
Page 23 A. ' certainly did.
Q. Did you fill out a questionnaire for OSHA?
A. I filled out a form, my statement, written statement. I mailed it.
Q. Did you receive a letter back froa them?
A. Yes, I have a letter back from them. 4Ms-a tta ched- h ereto--as-Att a c hment- 23 And I also filed with the Equal Opportunity on age discrimination. And from what 'I understood, both OSHA and Equal Opportunity contacted Brown and Root via telephone, never in person; and the favor goes to Brown and Root.
Q. The decision goes to Brown and Root?
A. Yes.
Q. How old are you? Fifty years old?
A. Yes.
Q. How old is Mr. Hamilton, if you know?
O ^- t beiieve 8ob sbo#18 be 38-Q. And Mr. Shelton?
.A. He was 32, I believe.
Q. Here you treated any differently than those individuals?
A. Not'those individuals, no.
Q. Fhat other concern do you have about Comanche Peak?
A. One of them was when I was working with the Carpentry Department roughly three years ago, they were makirg a pour in Reactor 2. The areas I'm not quite sure of. But if they ever went there and x-rayed, I imagine they could find it.
My job that day was to watch the pour from inside the compartment, make sure any forms weren't leaking or so forth. And they were using a vibrator to circulate the concrete, keep it flowing, you know, without setting. And the vibrator got (V stuck. So what' they did is cut the vibrator and leave it in the wall.
Now, this had five or six foot of hose, the size of the hose I'm not aware .
d Page 24 of, two or t.hree inch n aybe. And the only thing I heard that day was nobody saw nothing. And to be honest with you, I didn't think it would affect the wall.
tiow, the area is in one of the compartments as you go intd the reactor.
Now, I keep . thinking a wall adjacent to the core. - Now, this I'm not positive about. I know it was beve.een Elevation 832 and 860, the east wall, the west face of Reactor 2.
Q. You were a carpenter at the time?
A. Carpenter's helper, yes.
Q. Carpenter's helper involved with the placing of forms for a concrete pour.
A. Right.
Q. And you saw the vibrator placed in the concrete become stuck and be cut off.
A. Yes.
Q. You witnessed that yourself.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that it wasn't later removed?
A. No, I don't know.
Q. So it could have been later removed. You don't know'that.
A. It could have.
I'm not denying that. It could have.
Q. Can you be any more specific as to the elevation?
A. No. I've been trying to go over it in my mind in the last day or two.
That's about the best I ca'n give you. I remember we crawled up a scaffold. And
-I know it wasn't on 808. It had to be at least 20 foot in the air or higher.
Q. Is there a month and year you can tell us?
A. No. I'm trying to even think of the foreman that I worked for at the time
- U to give me more information i.n my mind about it. But I don't recall. I'm sure they hammmmme s i masamm mW
Page 25 have re:ords over ther e at Brown and Root, worksheets that people turn in. They O must ha /c copies of thit, all the documentation. So you cbuld go over there and dig it out maybe.
Q. So is that all the information you can give us?
A. That's all I know about that. That's all I can recall.
Q. And you said you didn't know whether it was later removed or not.
A. flo, I don't know.
Q. But you saw it cut.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. flow, something else?
A. Well, I just want to say something about my ex-boss, the person I worked for who was above Bob Hamilton. Mr. Harry Williams, my supervisor.
As far as the documentation setup and so forth the protective coating and all, I think they have the wrong man there. The man is not knowledgeable. He runs two, three, four different departments. I don't know how many now. But he's not aware of what's going on, and he doesn't know anything about it.
Q. For how long did. Mr. Williams. perform' that job while you were there?
A. Well, like I said, I was there two years; and I met Harry Williams a year after I was there.
Q. Do you know when he took over that job?
A. fio , I don' t.
Q. Why do you say he's not knoledgeable?
A. Because I've talked to him. He's came into our shack. Anyone in QC can tell you. I inean this just isn't from me.
Q. Well, what's his job.
A. He's supposed to be our boss in protective coating. He was in Hilti bolts, I believe, and electrical. And he was like an overseer. ,
1-4 Page 26 O o. ^ senerviser A. When you run departments, I thought you were supposed to be familiar with what people are doing in these departments. I mean what kind of respect can you have for a man when you're holding a job ar.d he doesn't even know what you're doing?
Q. Well, what specific examples can you give us of situations where you thought that he demonstrated a lack of knowledge?
A. Well, one main reason was that the new IR's we came out with, inspection reports, Harry Williams came in there; and he went up with the coating engineer trying to make out new IR's. We must have revised them three or four times, because ne didn't even know what to put in them. And when he came into our shack, tell us to to do them, we'd do them, and then he'd tell us they were wrong. I mean it was just like a joke. I mean we worked hard at them to get
> our paperwork right, and Harry would come in and just foul it up.
Q. Isn't it common for employees to think they know more than their supervisors?
A. Yes, it is. That's right.
Q. So there may be a little of that involved in what you're saying here, don't you think, i'n fairness?
A. Well, I was proud of my job.
4 Q. That doesn't reflect --
A. At the time I was there, I knew my job.
Q. We're not disput.ing whether you knew your job or not. l.et's assume you did know your job. Isn't it also fair to say that a little bit of what you're saying may be the employee being angry with his supervisor? Isn't that a common --
A. It's a natural feeling, but I sure as heck wouldn't be sitting here in front of all these people telling them if I didn't feel it and mean it.
-- A
b Page 27 A'nd my reeve is when you take a person like that and have them in the position he is, especially in a nuclear plant, or any plant with importance, and he's not knowledgeable, I . don't think it's right.
Q. Could you be wrong in your assessment of Mr. 'illiams?
A. Which way?
Q. Well,'that he's not knowledgeable.
A. .In protective coating, I know he's not.
Q. Well could he be using the management tool where he attempts to be humble and not as knowledgeable as he may otherwise be just to draw out information from his people? Do you understand the question?
A. I understand the question, but I still say he's not capable of his position.
Q. But that doesn't answer my question. Could he be using that management tool.
A. Sure. I agree with y'.'s. Yes.
Q. He could be simply all< wing you guys to do more of the talking, asking questions &s though he doesn'.t know the answers, when in fact he may well know the answers. That's fair to say, isn't it?
A. Yeah. It's fair to say, right.
Q. . Mr. _Krolak, was the preceding testimony taken primarily from the deposition which was taken from you by the Applicants on July 1,1982?
A. Yes, primarily.
In many cases, it's almost word for word.
v I
l
\
++
- + 9 %k/ IMAGE EVALUATION [jjg//f q["4*4, //
\p,777/ \ f 9// TEST TARGET (MT-3) f[4' 4 Q+) N"sT[I/h %
/
l.0 !!Ba E E *m HE m
l,l D !!b I.8 1.25 l.4 1.6
< 156mm
- 4 6" >
- % '4 A+.p,,8' 7 /:s4%
o <<+4 >>w
& 93* 0 M/ IMAGE EVALUATION ((/jg/f N q)ff*/k>ti 9/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) NT gI'f @g, #4 g+ p %,g%qe l.0 d E EM E!NE i,i [m R& l.8 1.25 1.4 1 16 I
< 150mm >
< 6" #
- % b y,, /
~'4gAf^;&fh
- b
- ?>f5,,jj y
Page 28 Q. fir Krolak, on page 16 beginning with the fifth question on that page, and continuing on for the next few pages, you discussed the Safety Department and safety features at Comanche Peak. Was your testimony on those pages basically the same as what was contained in your deposition which was taken July 1,1982, by the Applicants?
A. Basically, it was the same.
Q. With further reference to that testimony, the attorney for the Applicants stated that this really doesn't relate to the quality assurance program but was really the safety conditions of the craft. And you said "That's right.
We're talking working conditions and safety conditions out there." Do you recall that portion of your testimony and deposition?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you mean to indicate by your answer that the working conditions and safety conditions at the plant had no bearing on the quality of the work being done or on the attitude of the inspectors?
A. No, I didn' t.
Q. Did it have an effect on the morale of the inspectors and the workers?
A. Sure it did. Most people develop the attitude that they want to get in there and get through and get paid. It's very discouraging when you try to do a good job and people don't care and you get overruled all the time. It's bad for morale. There were some QC inspectors who always tried to do a good job and to do things the way they ought to be done.
Q. Were you one of those inspectors?
A. I always tried to do a good job, yes.
Q. Who were some of the others who tried to do a good job?
9
Page 29 O A.
Bob Hamilton and Sherman Shelton always tried to.
Q. Were there some inspectors who didn't do as good a job?
A. Yes. There were some who would sign off anything.
Q. Who in particular?
A. One was Joe Fazi . He would often inspect hangers but not write up documentation for his inspections. Even when he did write up his inspections, his work was poor.
Q. What is your basis for that statement?
A. Bob Hamilton and I worked on a weekend one time and we checked over some of Joe's (Joe Fazi's) work. Out of 10 items numbered in order one after the other, four of them were recorded wrong. When he was asked about it,' Joe said the light was bad.
Q. Was the light bad?
A. The rest of us could see.
Q. You felt his work just wasn't up to par?
i A. Right. His c'ocumentation didn't mean anything as far as traceability go es .
, Q. Is he still employed at Comanche Peak.
A. Yes.
Q. -But you and Bob Hamilton and Sherman Shelton are not?
A. That's right. I believe we were all fired at the same time as a set-up to get rid of the inspectors who were really trying to do things right. And on my firing slip, they put not for rehire.
Q. What is the name of the person who fired you?
G V
,y ._ _ . _ . , - . . , . , . , . .
Page 30 l
O A. Tom Brandt was the one who arranged it. Harry Williams marked " good" on my firing papers about my work.
Q. Harry Williams was the man whc was Bob Hamilton's immediate supervisor?
A. Yes. As I understand it, he was a Gibbs & Hill employee working for Texas Utilities. I never really had a lot of dealings with him directly.
Q. Did yo,u work on the paperwork in the QA vault?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell us about that?
A. Well, one of the problems was that Harry Williams often had fouled-up paperwork sent to the vault, to be straightened out someday. When the new IR (Inspection Removal) system began, several of us were working as hard as we T
could to straighten out the papenvork mess and Harry Williams said to just throw O' it in the vault. The IR papenvork changed four or five times in cae month.
There was paperwork or, the reactor liner plate for Unit 1 which was five or six years old and all fouled up. Bob Hamilton tried to get the paperwork straightened out but. Harry Williams cut him off.
Q. Da you think Harry Williams knew what he was doing?
A. Well, as I said, I didn't have an awful lot of direct dealings with him. But based on what I did see, especially regarding the paperwork, I don't think he was qualified to be in the job he had.
Q. During your deposition, did you discuss most of the concerns you've mentioned in your testimony?
A. Yes, all the ones I could think of at that time.
Q. And since your deposition, have you continued to try to recall all
{ of the concerns you have about Comanche Peak?
Page 31 em b
A. Yes.
Q. And in the preparation of your testimony,.did we attempt to incorporate both.the concerns specifically discussed in your deposition and the concerns you've remembered since that time into your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Are the concerns nw contained in your testimony the only concerns you have about Comanche Peak?
A. All the ones I can think of right now.
Q. Is it your belief that some or all of these matters or the results of s
these matters' may jeopardize the health and safety of the public if the Comanche Peak plant is allowed to go into operation?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any other concern you wish to discuss at this time?
A. Yes. There are a couple. At one time, QC was inspecting protective coating on concrete and steel in almost every area of the plant. We were told to .stop such inspections for all but the reactor buildings as being too time consuming.
Another thing was that there were lots of missing QC records in the vault about paint. Bob Hamilton couldn't complete and file them because everything was going for repair. Records of' what had been done were there, but they were mean-ingless. A lot of the documentation on the paint was messed up anyway because one of the inspectors, Joe Fazi, didn't do his job-right.
One other thing -- when we were fired in March, there were just us three field inspectors in paint. tbw there are about 15.
\ Q. Are you testifying in these proceedings because you are a disgruntled employee or you have a grudge against Brotm & Root or Texas Utilities?
m
Page-32 (D
v A. flo .
-Q. Why are you testifying?
A. Because I want to see a safer plant built -- a plant which when it is in operation is as safe as it can possibly be.
Q. You don't think Comanche Peak has been built so that it can be operated safely?
A ~. tio .
Q. Are you anti-nuclear?
A. No. With our natural resources dwindling, I think that this is the thing. - But it's got to be safe.
Q. Do you think the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board should grant an operating license for the Comanche Peak plant?
A. flot at the present: time, no.
Q. Do you believe the problems at Comanche Peak can be corrected?
A. I imagine they could be if they put a little effort tosard it, but it's going to take them some time.
Q. What do you tqink it would take to correct the problems?
A. They need to look into their leadership. I believe there's too many buddy-buddy relatives involved, and they need to look at qualificaticns more.
Also, their Safety Department isn't what it snould be; they're undennanned and I don't believe these people are qualified.
Q. Do you think the NRC's investigations in the past have made the plant safe?
A. I'm not too fcuiliar with the flRC's investigations. The only thing I know about the f1RC investigations is tne audit they performed and what I read
Page 33
,y-V in the 1ewspaper what they said about the crack and the last hearings.
Q. Do you know the TIRC Resident Inspector at Comanche Peak?
A. tio, I don't. I've never met anyone from the f1RC out there. I never came in contact with any' of them.
Q. Is there anything else you'd like to tell the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board at this time?
A. tiot that I can think of right now.
s o
v -
[ASE QQ -69
. Attachment 1 RESUME-Joseph J. Krolak Jr.
PERSONAL : 1529 Barron Lane, Fort Worth, Texas 76112 EDUCATION: J. Sterling Morton High School, Cicero, Illincis 1949 United States Navy-Seaman First Class GS (diploma equivalent) 1970-71 TCU, Fort Worth, Texas .
EXPERIENCE: July 11, 1978 - March 9,,1982 -- Brown & Root, Inc. CPSES, Glen Rose Texas.
February 20, 1980-Protective Coating Trainee. Became certified for Qu'ality Control Inspector (QC Inspector)
' Responsibilities included:
Inspecting colorings before and after protective coatings on cable tray hangers, conduit supports, pipe hangers, Liner plates, imbeds, stell & concrete. Inspecting
' the mixing of paints. Keeping documetations
< of.all inspections.
July.ll, 1978 - Brown & Root, Inc. CPSES, Glen Rose Texas Carpenter helper I Responsibilities included:
Forming walls of containment buildings.
1959-Lolice Department, Wheaton, Illinois Responsibilities included: Patrolman for 5 years.
1954-George D. Hardin Construction Company, Chicago, Illinois Responsibilities included: Pipefitter apprentice Between jobs I worked mostly with driving delivery routes. In all 20 various jobs, I was never fired. In most instances, the company asked me to stay longer.
O