ML20112E582

Errata to Transcript of 850108 Hearing

ML20112E582
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	01/08/1985
From:	ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20112E570	List: ML20112E566 ML20112E582
References
NUDOCS 8501150193
Download: ML20112E582 (5)

Text

e i '4 Ws"l ., . cl* '

sa ver< .

am ,,,

l\ Kelle -exy fedkva '

l  % fray a?

o i 2! 3 ak t Ja v bdh w. .fs

! sHe n revise.

< Kl .

V y

5' C

~

ou/4Yl .

i

- Q ,' , , ,

y}j, e zi4 be. persus ..

1. 41 e , .

i 9)fiba/ '

! 4

=/N a

W .XlD.' F i.........-

Vine- lS CAAnaw ..

. yj:: . .

v.

. l .,

,t -

? 600- 323- 45/s I

I j.-

0 l 7 ED

! 8501150193 850108 i

gDRADOCK05000 yg'y ((

i

o OLIVER B. CANNdN & SON, INC.

'*6 e

g g y1 bk

. . , a ..,x..... ...m.

g l gYl(*ff DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE m .1 .

DATE October 31, 1983 SUBJECT TUSI TOM 10/27/03 and J. T.

Morritt' Letter of 10/28/03 R. B. Roth FROM .T . .T . Nnrrin Bob, confirming our telecon of 10/30/83 I have a qwipped copy of Mr. Chapman's 10/27/83 memo to John Merritt Lipinsky's trip report of 8/28/83. regarding Joe I never

• dreamt that Job's report would be communicated to anyone outside of our organization or I would have taken issue with it.

Reasonable people differ in their perceptions of problems.

the at Comanche Peak differently than Joe did.

I saw know, problems over the years we have had problems from time to time with As you the objectivity of FOCI'S.

coating effort at nuclea.r The ones involved in documen' ting the installations tend to get involved in engineering decisions an a group and in my' opinion, therein lies the lion's chare of the problem. -

Using Mr. Chapman's numbering system the following

• are my lai \ -

bbservations at Comanche Peak:

• f t Li0 1.

• I believe Joe his impressions from met with some line type FQCI'S and gar'nored audit so his those inspectors. ' Joe, of course', did not not saying the comments are at best second hand information.

allegations are true or false, but it is I'm impression subject to an audit that there is my grapes" conversations taking place aniong the alot of " sour personnel. line inspection I consed a way of thinking amongst the inspection personnel that indicated, at least to me, loyalty that they had no to documentto their supervisors. For example; in the QA/QC machinery problems and provide a means for rectifying same there exists at Comanche does not Peak an NCR and another document that of work. stop

,It work, but allows remedial work on an on-going item was my understanding that Mr. Tolson simply asked the inspector or inspectors to quit issuing NCR'S and icsue the other document instead. That was a rcasonable request in my 1

opinion and in no way compromised quality or integrity.

2a.

warehouse interviewed the foreman in charge of the material storage 7s I i

( ,) in the company of Jr. Italey, Brown ti Root Paint

e. Supe r in tenden t. The "0" portion of the warehouse was, if i

anything, a model for proper storage of temperature records, limited access, material. There are expiration dates on all containers, neat lpg did not and orderly and with a reasonable inventory. I formally audit but I would be very surprised if they got v many gigs.

p a n ;.r %

sw nrh

.N 23545.2 g 2b. As I recommended to TUSI I felt like the ratio of helpers to

! journeyman was too high. However, they were doing a tremendous

(~'3 amount of masking of unistrut and other items not requiring paint and previously painted surfaces that were not compatible with the current system.

() 2c.

The coating program seemss to be in compliance with ANSI requirements, but again I'd have to audit to be sure. <

f 2d. I made a casual inspection of the Unit I and Unit II containments and the AUX Duilding. I saw evidence of destructive testing of the coating systems that far exceeds anything we have ever experienced. Seemingly every fag square feet of the concrete ' coating system had evidence of destructive and/or

'non-de's tr uc ti.ve testing; Additionally, the same statement'bsH'be Bade"~of mpr.actically. every_ square foot of. structural. steel. The coating on practically every stair stringer had been destroyed with a Tooke Gaugo'. If there were any concerns in this area it '

was that the obvious over-inspection could lead to failure by substrate or intercoat contamination from sweat, body oil, dirty hands, etc. .

~

2e. I have no knowledge of any document deficiencies.

2f. In my opinion, a good part of the problem at Comanche Peak

, is the fact that inspectors .are' -working long hours on a i

continuing b' asis; It's been my experience every time that'when you get yourself into scheduling continuing overtime people get tired and irritable, le; a morale problem". You and I both know how difficult it is to secure trained inspectors as they are simply not available at this time. g ,, ,

3. I think that Joe took. Mr. Tolson out of co'ntext.on the statement "that's not my concern". TI believeithat Mr. Tolson was referring to the fact that the licensing ~of Unit I was not his area of responsiblity. 3 3, s o...f d as

4. I have no knowledge of the T.L. Miller subject.

5. It's my perception that this is . hearsay and requires a

. :..'e' <.".'<

- . ,./~ ' '

detailed review to put it to bed.02- 'v <' '-*

. . . . . . , , . . . . . ...4>*' . . w 's w '..,,,.

6. Regarding "only 34 out of 452 individuals are of any value l as painters", as I stated previously, there was a large number of l helper types on the payroll because of the intensive masking It was my impression that a number of otherwise

('~) '

operation.

qualified painters had slowed down Eo the point where. productions

.g.,i s.g

.had. . virtually,'_3;.casid> because of real or ihagined quality control restraints.

, \~h

,a/

7. See paragraph 2f above.

l l

~ " - "

Page 3 Of 4 23545.3

8. Brown & Root was having trouble with moisture in the I

compressed air during QC checks of the air supply early in one or

k. ') two of the shifts. It was a simple matter of upgrading the air drying components which I believe was taken care immediately.

rs 9. I see no parallel between Comanche Peak and Zimmer. As I

() understand Street the Zimmer situation from Nucleonics Week and The Wall Journal there was a complete and total breakdown of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B requirements because local management was treating the project as most people would treat a fossil plant. That certainly is not the case at Comanche Peak. J ,, .

10. I disagree entirely w'ith the statement' that " Comanche Peak is doing inspections to the degree that'they (Comanche Peak) are comfortable with or will tolerate". The coating effort, if anything, is over inspected. See paragraph 2d above.

7

11. I disagree with this statement. .

C , P . w .'.... i

12. I disagree with this statement.

} [., lf,.N.,,,, u,.

,.  ;;d,.'

. 13. I have no knowledge of Comanche Peak management attempting to " squash" QC problems. My impression is that they want to do '

things co.rrectly but they are becoming tired ,of having to reinvent the wheel every day on the coating effort.

.14. I have no knowledge of the inspecti6n 's'taff'.s trying to l leave the site "en masse" -

. 15. Ditto.

n r ,e!

i

16. The disagreement is self-explanatory per the responses above and below.

>: e.vA .. m-1

17. I did hot cee this ho'stility. I believeithat TUSI/B&R has l

recently undergone an audit and has ' received a passing grade according to Tolson.

18. That's for Carboline to decide as CZ-11 is their product.

19. Ditto. '

(p i . ..u h<

20. I tota'lly disagree. TUSI was of course alarmed that painting might end up on the project's critical path, indeed, become the critical path. They wanted advice on how best to get

[~1 the painting effort untracked, but certainly within the spirit L~d

, and letter of the law. $

21. I-can't clarify the " rework contract" statement.

.. . r.;

ecg 22 I.' disagree because of the purported results of the testing

-Qcb. pro. gram. . .. ; * . - GQ . . < . . I . : . n d :. . . . ..e y U .v t. M p; -

7 e:

m

~ -

, 23545.4

,, .I}ci.

23. l, 1

I only know that I received a copy of Joe's report.,e;, ' ,. 'j,. ., ... ,

24.

did I I did not communicate with anyone about the trip report, nor the onlysend a copy of the trip report to anyone. My secretary is other person the report and she says.that she did not.in Houston that could possibly have seen v> .I.-want to 1:onver'satioris-make -it trystal clear that l'n no w'ay,could any of the or" observations at - the -site or elsewhere be

'c.onstrued---as anything but a workaday attempt.by TUSI to resolve perceived problems in the coating effort. 5 !rv' f.--e 'i l#*"rd-'i'  ; '/'

To_ imply- anything else is irresponsible, j. ~,. ; d -I e l >' ' =

.6,,, . . : t.s . . . : n.,, ru, .u 'a ' < I'~,

o

.>;.9 ,;:. . w a.< u u. >j, ou M

q o_ ... gg. U** f

• "** )

g ,,, e,n 3 v I.)s d,U .* ? !'" l - * * ^-*

• b ' ' '

g.,,...,,-

.~

e e e

g .

e #

e l .

I l

i

- . \ .

l f *

, L}, ,

i t)

.