ML20113H888
| ML20113H888 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1985 |
| From: | Gallo J ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE, OLIVER B. CANNON & SON, INC. |
| To: | Bloch P, Grossman H, Jordan W Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#185-223 OL-2, NUDOCS 8501250353 | |
| Download: ML20113H888 (5) | |
Text
o ISHAM,.UNCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT LAW 1120 CONNECT! CUT AvtNu! N W. 5uiTt s40 AA$ntN3 TON O C TO towARD 5 15mAu. 18'24902 2c2 833-9'E CHICAGO OFFICE COBERTT UNCOLN. 1872 8889 THREE FIRST NATK)NAL PLAZA hhd"' a.f I waLLWM G. BEAlg. iss5 423 4
v-CHICAGO. lLuc560ec2 y
TELEPHONE 312 MC 7900 TELEL 2 5308 January,16_,.1985 Y,0di
_ _ =
Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Herbert Grossman, Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety and U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Re:
In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1.and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-445-2 and 50-446-2 Gentlemen:
In accordance with the Licensing Board's order (Tr. 23509), I am enclosing a copy of the document identified as J.J. Norris Exhibit No. 4 (Tr. 23546).
Sincerely,
~
I/C Joseph Gallo Counsel to Oliver B. Cannon
& Son, Inc.
Enclosure cc with enclosure: Service List O
e G
4L
n I. y Pugs 1 of 4
_3 ;
,1 OLIVER B, CANNON: &JSON; INC:
~
/$g gg DEPARTMENTAIa CORRESPONDENCE ~
}
DATE October 31, 1983
. sutacT TusI rom 10/27/83 and J. T. Merritt Letter of 10/28/83 i
, T3 R.
B.
Roth FROM J-3-
Norria
- Bob, confirming our telecon of 10/30/83 I have a qwipped copy of Mr.
Chapman's 10/27/83 memo to John Merritt regarding Joe Lipinsky's trip report of 8/28/83.
I never dreamt that Joe'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.
I saw the problems at Comanche Peak differently than Joe did.
As you
- know, over'7the years we have had problems frca time to time with the objectiv,ity of FQCI'S.
The ones involved in documenting the coating effort at nuclear installations tend to get involved'in engineering decisions as a group and in my opinion, therein lies the lion's share of the problem.
- .A,.
Using Mr.
Chapman's nuc. baring system the following are my
,v observations at Comanche Peak 1.
I believe Joe-met with some line type FOCI'S and garnered his impressions from those inspectors.
Joe, of course, did not audit so his comments are at best second hand information.
I'm not saying the allegations are true or
- false, but it is my impression subject to an audit that there its alot of " sour
. grapes" conversations taking place among the line inspection personnel.
I sensed a
way of thinking amongst the inspection personnel that-indicated, at least to me, that they had no loyalty to their supervisors. For example; in the QA/QC machinery
-to document problems and provide a 'means for rectifying same there exists at Comanche Peak an NCR and another document that does not stop work, but allows remedial work on an on-going item of work.
It was my understanding.that Mr. Tolson simply asked the inspector or inspectors to quit issuing NCR'S and issue the other document instead.
That was a -reasonable request in my
[
opinion and in no way compromised quality or integrity.
2a.
I. interviewed the foreman in charge of the material storage warehouse in the company of Jr.
- Haley, Brown Root Paint Superintendent.
The "Q"
portion of the warehouse
- was, if
- anything, a
model for proper storage of material. There are temperature records,. limited
- access, expiration dates on all containers, neat and orderly and with a reasonable inventory.
I
- ()
did not formally audit but I would be very surprised if they got many gigs.
l s
October 31, 1983
](
Page 2 of 4
' ()
2b.
As I recommended to TUSI I felt like the ratio of. helpers to journeyman was too high.
However, they were doing a tremendous amount of masking of unistrut and other itema not requiring paint and previously painted surfaces that were not compatible with the current system.
2c.. The coating program seemhN to-be in compliance with ANSI requirements, but again I'd h
'o audit to be sure.
q, 2d.
I made a
casual inspection of the Unit I and Un t II containments and the AUX Building.
I saw evidence of dest tive testing-of the coating systems that far exceeds anything have ever experienced.
Seemingly every fag square feet o Jfe
__ concrete coating _ system had evidence of destructive gnd/or non-de~structive testin Additionally, the same statement can te inade of (practica avery square foot of structural.,s M.
The coating on practically every stair stringer had been destroyed with a
Tooke Gauge.
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 handar etc.-
2e.
I have no knowledge of any document deficiencies.
2f.
In my opinion, a good part of the problem at Comanche Peak fO' is the fact that inspectors are working long hours on a
continuing basis.
It's been my experience every time that when yow get yourself into scheduling continuing overtime people get tired and irritable, ie; a morale problem".
You and I both i
know how difficult it is to secure trained inspectors as they are simply not available at this time.
p 3.
I think that Joe took Mr.
Tolson/out of context on the statement "that's not my concern". (Y~believe)that Mr. Tolson was referring to the fact that the licensing of Unit I was not his area of responsiblity.
p g c6*v 4.
I have no knowledge of the T.L. Miller subject.
5.
itWmy perteptien that -this--is-heersey ond re@#4 ires a detsiled 1.=vic.; to put-it-te bed.9 3 ',4thapod m,u atthi-ms Aee 4# law'N *6 a n 'u d,/f" hdws n==- 4 6.
Regarding "only 34 out of 452 individuals are of any value painters", as I stated previously, there was a large number of as helper types on the payroll because of the intensive masking operation.
It was my impression _that-_a number of otherwise qualified painters had slowed downtto the point where production) 4 LhKq,_yir_tually; ceas_ed/because of real or imagined quality control restraints.
f
(][
7.
See paragraph 2f above.
Octobar 31, 1983-Paga 3 of 4 O
8".
Brown t.
Root waa-having trouble with moisture in the compressed air during' QC checks of. the air supply early in one or two of the shifts.
It was a simple matter of upgrading the air drying components which I believe was taken' care immediately.
9.
I see 'no parallel between Comanche Peak and Zimmer. As I understand ~
the Zimmer situation from Nucleonica Week and The Wall Street' Journal there was a. complete and total breakdown of 10 CFR 1
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. 4wy 10.
I disagree entirely with the statement that " Comanche Peak is doing' inspections' to the degree that they- (Comanche Peak) are comfortable with. or.will toir.ra te".
The coating
- effort, if anything, is over inspected. See paragraph 2d above.
- 11. - I disagree with this statement. $
12.
Idisagreewiththisstatement.}
~~
13.
I have no knowledge of Comanche Peak management attempting to
" squash" QC problems.
My impression is that they want to do '
things correctly but. they-are becoming tired of having to reinvent the wheel every day on the coating. effort G
14.
I have no. knowledge of the inspection staff's trying to leave the site "en masse" j
15..
Ditto.
1 M
16.
The disagreement is. self-explanatory per the responses above and.below.
wu.u.A
.~dzaud this hostility. I believl that TUSI/BER has 17.
I did et t
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.
Jo h np u A#
20.
I totally di ;g;c.
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 the painting effort CUlii't' racked, but certainly within the spirit and letter of the law.
?
21.
I can't clarify the " rework contract" statement.
wvJA 22 I
disagree because of the-purported results of the testing
- p p. w e ~ m a. m r m a
(
- Octob3r 31, 1983 g
Prga 4 of 4 i
6 jh (3
I only know that I received. a copy of Joe's report,h 23 24.-
I did not communicate with anyone about the trip report, nor did I send a copy of the trip report to anyone.
My secretary is the only. other person in Houston that could possibly have seen the report and she says that she did not.
.c.E
_utme mak li m,-al clear cha M n au7 an g21d anr4f the
~w M v 7 0==c:TaLivu.
the oite'~ or 61sewhere be c3!DEcumet es anything but a workaday attempt by TUSI to perceived problems in the coating effort. QMWM, resolve e f th Ta 4 rly ythin; e12: 1; i::eepens k]re.
pu orti.4 Wh% r/~
wi fa ~ e M 4
j affo5 S h O
S iO
. -.