ML20136A814
See also: IR 05000445/1981004
Text
~
. . - . .
..
. . - . . . .
~
. . .
_ . . . .
.
..
_ _ . .
'
i: Nt .
,
.
v
i
[
,,
.,
..
.
12. '*
.
10&i
MEMORANDUM F0t: William'J. Ward, Investigative Branch, EI
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
FROM:
John T. Collins, . Deputy Director, Region IV
Office of Inspection.and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING C@tANCHE PEAK ELECTRICAL
QC PROBLEMS - INVESTIGATIVE REPORT NO. 5D-445/446-81-04
-
In accordance with memoranda from V. Stello and D. Thompson, dated
April 21,1930 and July 15, 1980, respectively, regarding reports of
investigation, a copy of the subject investigation report is being
-
,
'
forwarded to you for your information.
Enclosed in a sealed envelope attached to the investigation report
is supporting documentation conceming this matter.
un
-- - a*a by
i
J.ohn 2 Collins
John T. Collins
Deputy Director
.
Attachment and Enclosure:
As stated
.
!
8601020310 851113
'
)
GARDES S-59
.
e,mri. Rj.V. . I&E.S.... .0.....
(E. S. . . . .
'D.D - IV. . .
' ~
..
.
.
.. .
.
.
'"~""'. .Db.DgfMil1,:mj ,JG j (1ar,do
.] .i n s ,,,
-
.
,,
,
,
..
,, , , ,,, ,, ,,, ,
sett . 4./. 2. 8./. 8.1. . . . . .
. . . 4. ./.W. . . . 8.1. . . . . . .
y /. 81. . . . . . . . .......,,,,,,.l
,,,, ,
.,,,,, ,,,,, ,, ',,, ,,
..
.
c;(bidi~[ ~-- -. i Fif l' .
~ ' ~ ' '
-
~~
occ vonu m .,c oc m :w e u c
,, w
.
.)
_ _ __
__. __ _ - ___ _ _ _
_ _ _
OVERSIZE
DOCUMENT
PAGE PULLED
SEE APERTURE CARDS
NUMBER OF PAGES: @
ACCESSION NUMBER (S):
% 6 / 0 2 0 3 / fo
7(oD/020390
260/0303R3
,
860/0 s?O 398
l
APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABl.E FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC
FTS 492-3939
i
i
mmw~w
-- w
-wwe,wme-_
--w w m - -- - - - - - - -
.
.
._ .- -
. . . . _:.
. _ _ _ . . _ . . _ .
cass & 'mu. INc ..
- ...TUGC0(2)-
~
-
O
G _G Q Q q D /7f72 7
31
PAGE 1 0F
X
4
JUL 3 $84
COMAriCHEPEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
DESIGN CHANGE AUTHORIZATION
(
.
(WILL)
(WRUNDird BE INCORFORATED IN DESIGN 00CUMENT
OCA NO. 12 aos oev.2
1.
SAFETY RELATED DOCUMENT:
XX
YES
NO
-
2.
ORIGINATOR: CPPe. xx
ORIGINAL DESIGNER
.
3.
DESCRIPTION:
A.
APPLICABLE 6PEEV0WG/3074 MEN
2323-EI-1702-02
REV .
1
B.
DETAILS THI3 REVISION VOIDS AND SUPcRSFnFm nra to aos een i
,
Revise all references to " Fire Retardant Material (1 hcor * tin-1" en ea= A
" Fire Retardant Material, as ourchased under Saecification 2323 MS bbb'
.
ENGINEERING JUSTIFICATION: Both TFHA ttaterial and Seoaration Barrier
Material are acceptable for use as a barrier
and are purchased under Specification
,
,
2323-MS-38H.
35.1195
RECE!VEO
FOR n pcmc w n ..., -- .-- .
ElG EEE55dE0EY[
4
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:
DOCUMENT CONTROI
5.
APPROVAL SIGNATURES:
WIV:dkb
7-3-84
DATE7/NM
A.
ORIGINATOR:
A/
/A
OATE7/0/W
B.
OESIGN REPRESENTATIVE:
- Z1
m V'
C.
DESIGN REVIEW PRIOR TO ISSUE
MA
. DATE 7
/ M
')
6.
STANDARD DISTRIBUTION:
.
~
ARMS (ORIGINAL)
(1)
Q 34(g
gg
g
OUALITY ENGINEERING
(1)
..
OCTG FOR ORIG. DESIGN
(1)
' '
-7
D6
0)
-
NMS%
L
OCA FORM 3-84
-
.
,
b l / 35-
-
L
,
__
.
..
..
. - .
_
-.-.
__
.
.
-
,
_
g ggy- -
COMANCHE PEAK OPEN 155UE INSPECTION DATA SHEET
V
~
,
-.revMg
-
- -
NRC TRACKING NO. [Al-d69
INSPECTION REPORT ITEM NO. B 2o / - O 7
-
LICENSEE TRACKING NO. 7'I - o 6'.3 NRC INSPECTOR
K. A. h/nao
INSPECTION REPORT CLOSING NO. b Y -21
DATE OF CLOSURE
~
M]h]
TITLE /BRIEF DESCRIPTION
4
M
&N
l'
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE LETTER NO./DATE TUO - 1E76
i
LICENSEE'S RESOLUTION
The pro t erfu<< s/o%.s hru c tro s idea lifia d a - Tu G -/s h'
we .
-
,
Je se /coe d a s,J .sp /e , e be / 60 de tes t Ja rernae crud o t/,er c os,ditio,, ,
,J,,d
do ve/so
du ri, o s >r- o o l- a ec , b -aelis n >< biv. il s
2 ffer t is,ci e -lo'en
a ueateJ w or-ic.
,
.
!
RESULTS OF NRC FOLLOWUP INSPECTION in e e.s p o >, .r e to 1/RC /mapect/o-
<-ep or b FZ-6 /
TUC, CO
has rare pare d er- < evos ed G Ovalilu Inspec L ion procedures ha prev:Je
fir,a/ condl tion, />,sp ec tio >, for p fp r*v,9,
pip i- e su p po t > , c /ss r / b' elee t. ,ea r
-
a
l
ca4le ,% > a e t r io - , and in s tea n,M ms &c-.
L u er, o se e s .
t >,a ddi &io m . t!,eu
I,n ve
Roows /A reas &taal- 1,a n bru
v eo v a'de / 2 mea oloev ,e 4 es usuch at LiviLies av
burned e vee to start an.
T'h e r m n /en, e , ba tio >, of it.ese nea rida re s ; t/r es e /w
I
s > + i s G,
bl.e i>, te n t a f inso e t tem re c o r-1
82 - 0 / . ita
7.
'
M_M a
m -
___
_
I F'U J et-PhN-S 4
I
PERSON (S) C0hTACTED/ TITLE:
6oA Score
CA/Ge h
n
A
i
47fI ""-
I
s
.
-
--
,,,
a
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED.(REVISION): CP-cap - /2. /
Rev 4; OI-OP-//. 3- 40 tes 2y
CE- O P- 1I,9- l 4
Rev I,
'GE-OP^- il. 3 -2 9 Re v 4 , OE- GP - II. 3 - 29. I Peu 7,
,
Res O d CP -CPM - /T.2
Rev 1.
7 //+/of,,
[
// ,es
DATE
NRC INSPECTOR
-
,
- -
,
REVIEWER
DATE
Sheet
of
l
t
>:
--
n y,
- .....-..... ... . .,
.
t
A
-
,0
4+ Q,0
,
'
FACILITY
REPORT NO.
R 2 -o )
INSPECTOR (S) 2 , [A y [o g
.
e
1
13 9 d
ITEM N0.
8 2 .Di 5 ,'~7
}
DATE ' Os .
.
r\\
REPORT PARAGRAPH
7
CLOSE REPORT NO.
.
.
,,
PAnm M
(MM b
N MI
TITLE
'
o
7.
. Site Tours
The SRIC toured the most active areas of the facility during the period
~
to observe the status of construction and the practices utilized by the
craft personnel, as well as to observe the activities of the quality control
During one such tour made in conjunction with the Senior
personnel.
Resident Inspector for Operations, it was noted that in a few instances
electrical cables in high routing density areas were being pressed
against the edges.of cable trays and in one instance a cable had been
forced into a rela,tively sharp bend as evidenced by wrinkles in the cab'le
jacket. Having observed cable installation for well over two years and
being familiar with the licensee's inspection procedures for cable
,
installation, the SRIC judged that the on going installation effort,
I
'
which is nearing completion, has probably caused cables installed
O
months ago to become unacceptable due to the increasing _ cable density.
j
In most instances, it did not appear that the cable had assyet Deen
damaged, and that the situation could easily be corrected if detected
in a timely manner.. --The matterwas brought to the -licensee's 7ttention.
~
The licensee stated that a final condition inspection progrcm t.m
under development that would be applicable to piping, piping support,
electrical cable installations, and to instrument installation activities
to detect damage and other conditions which develop as a consequence of
-The SRIC's
the on going activities affecting earlier accepted work.
.
experience indicates that such final inspections are usually necessary
l
in long term, complex construction activities.
The licensee indicated
that the necessary implementation procedures are under development, along
l
'
-
with the manning requirements for the effort.
This matter will remain
unresolved until such time as the procedures have been published and
09
reviewed by HRC inspectors.
.
g
__
A
u
y
%
62 D
.
~
'
,
.
,
.
..
9
@
-
e
'~
-- =
_.
._
_,
._
. _ _ _ - . _
. . . .
. .
. . . . . .
.
.
. . . .
.-
. . . . .
..
.
', '
- j f
[ !
V
,.
- .s -
'd
Annex 3
Conversation Record
A11egation Number
iV/A
Time 5.*00PM
Date 7-3/-8
-
Type
Visit
Conference
Y Telephone
Incoming
'
..
--
Y Outgoing
Name of Person (s) Contacted
or in Contact With You
Organization
Telephone Number
-
G.A.P. }urna W'
'
'
-
-
.
SUBJECT: ( p ge g ,y
i
SUN (ARY: %g esta coupery Q 2 p o(3ty] u deeur 3 ' below
C&48-9 T4tY 7730CC/3 8 ok TMF nminot.1m'r* 4"d 4'"* #7 W""*"##
4M6' He Bruwer 7Nes u + ses.rtMtok s!!cuMAf-
N0YS * h ZGGG ~3f V, we Arauen et selettnok m w.c ersairrow is exs.y J
-
Tam,a a , u , , . , , ,., _ ,, , , , , ,,
_,
Name of Person Occumenting Conversation
tvizus,
.5". ,,4/uw/
~
Signature /N E d.< * WW-
Date
P-3 -M
,
Name(s) of Other Persons Who Were Present During Conversation
k. W etros9M
J~ C12 Wo
I have reviewed the sumary of the conversation with the individual (s) named
below and agree that it accurately represents the conversation.
Signature of Person Providing Infomation
N/9
'
s-
File: Allegation Work Package
,
FBM-89q
cc: Project Director
Group Leader
Additinnal pages may be attached as needed. Additional pages should be
identified, signed, and dated.
.
eg
- . . . . .-
. ...-. .
..--
. . . . ..---
..
... .
,.
'
' *
. ., ]
g, g q . v e~ s
e
s c u. " . -
.
\\,*.[s
e . .
.
I
"
.
DISPOSITION:
.
/
.p
The item reworked, emergency light ESB1-41, was turned over to TUGC0
on a circuit, not raceway basis. Circuit acceptance includes wiring
and squipment, and is made at completion of light testing, whereas
raceway' acceptance for the conduit and tray will be made at room
turnover.
Since QC was performing post-inspection at the time che separation
vi41ation was identified, the raceway was not turned over to TUGCO.
Rework of the conduit may be implemented either by authorization of
a SWA or by in-process construction where such rework has been deter-
mined not to impact the circuit and does not require a SWA.
The separation violation between ESB1-42 and c14K30975 documented above
was so minute that a S4 was not needed for resolution. Observation of
the conduits by the engineer showed that rework of the ESB1-41 conduit
f;
in place would not affect the circuit int 5s sityp 44</ /derr e's
o <-
c=rsWenwr cf h w yr.tc rhe rM
-
, .g ij
.
Rework of this type 1 cc id
.d
m.
1 r~'e*" ni . C' * 4 c:-
4
7A
-
does not consist of making a bend or offset in the conduit. Therefore,
QI-QP-ll.3-23, paragraph 3.1.g, does not apply. The conduit is
acceptable "as is".
%)
Q0
0 p(.
.
W $$
.y /
f.kj)/t
gf'p'O.TI....-ud U W.*G'5i,'O'l
I& *
,..a.,
- /[ m W D. '.'.$..
s
&
4
- } . . :?'
h
-t
. > . . ..
yi
'/-
,.!
1 *
cc.s'
%
NY
PPR\\l
o
l
b
i
.
-
.
_
.....
.. .
.
-.--
..-
-.
-
., .
.
/
,
gq
Draft 3 - 8/6/84
4
,
Electrical Category 3/CP2
j
COMANCHE PEAK OPEN ISSUE ACTION PLAN
~
.
Task: Electrical Category 3 - Electrical Equipment Separation
Ref. No.: AQE-6, AQE-11, AE-15 AE-20, AQE-49, AE-51 and Part of AQE-44
Characterization: Various allegations pertaining to electrical cable
raceways, conduits and panel mounted devices separation.
Initial Assessment of Significance: Possible safety significance.
Source: Various allegations.
Approach to Resolution's:
1.
Inspect electrical component referenced in the allegation.
2.
Review NRC regulations and the applicant's FSAR consnitments.
3.
Interview personnel with responsibility for the electrical component.
4.
Refer any deficiencies to TRT manager.
5.
Evaluate allegations for generic / safety implications.
6.
Report on results of review / evaluation of allegations.
<-
,
L ll
h
. . . - . ~ , .
,.
. . . . . .
. .
. . . _ .
..
_.
.
.
,.
,
4
.
'.i
.
-2-
Related Open Issue Identification: None
Status: Open
Review Lead: Jose A. Calvo
Support: None
Estimated Resources: 12 man-days
Estimated Completion: August 4, 1984
CLOSURE:
.
.
Reviewed by:
.
TRT Leader
.
e
f
,
l
l
.
- .
. . . . . -.
-.-
--
--
p
j i>
r
3
lI
'
Viokkon d de d<cq 9<ahco Ye
q.
Okew H
< c%
3.
g<co4\\g Abu An. \\occnwhak p{tec<d.t es re. -
grckog
cab \\<4tc$ 4gnuJn:ce.
CLk ES- \\co]
b.wb.9 Condu.d C - \\a4T96ts o<ag _g(6 " spdien)
s uncb-
\\ackb- 4<agT - \\%Cc mo a .
.
s Cheeb ocwac3 d greiedue
p< TSAR cud tMC
g
,#g
g
%CsA t.1s
\\
4
-
k
-
9 L-\\5%\\4331
e, uc2c.y T-\\3G CC md 5
o T- 3
,s
(.on\\g cT' spm cn).
')
(
'
McS> H 4dd $nd 1" scprakcm G<c cdlGc3 e
bl
- C,-is 6.12 394 ysude T-13OCC.tno G (2")
.
" ,9 C- Q 6 R1191
T-M$cc3si
o
o
.
S
4
D
, 3 4)
.
e
,
,,,g.
n
---e-
'
- "
_ . .
.
.
..
.
-- --
. - . . . . - .
.
. . . _ . . . .
. . _ . .
. _ , _ , , _ , _ ,
b
My second catagery of concerne ragards procoduros thet
W
p
,
' .q*
f
,
.
I believe represent actual violations of specific
_
_
h
'
regulations and, in some i n s t a n c e's , represent substantial
.
safety hazards.
I also bel'ieve the following examples
further indicate the breakd'wn of the QA/QC prog' ram at
o
.
.
C
-
'
Comanche Peak.
.
.
.
.
As an example, I bel'ieve ~ tf.at Cable Separation -
Specification 2323-ES-100. Rev.
2,
is in violation of
A portion of ES-100, Section
4.11.3.2, provides,~"(m)inimum separation between a conduit
(safety related or non safety related) and a bottom or side
S,
of a tray (solid bottom or ladder) shall be one inch."
'
(JT
This.is not consistent with the minimum separations
required by Regulatory Guide 1.75, which provides that
~
conduit separation should be at least five feet from the
bottom of a tray and three feet from the side, except in
,
the cable spreading room.where it can be two feet from t h.e
side and theee feet from the bottom.
I am.particularly concerned about the above situation
.
.
- 10 -
.
?
-
Dj
14 0
-
.
g
.
.
_,
_ ..
._
e . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . -
_
.-
s
-
,
..
,
O
AFFIDAVIT OF
p
6
DO NOT L>wGLOSE
since, if I am correct in my interpretation of the
regulations, then the entire plant has been built using
errant specifications.
In order to correct this situation,
it would be necessary to reinspect all cables and conduits
h
at the plant to ensure proper separation.
I am not the
only one who believes'that,ES-100 is in violation of
.
. . .: . .
Regulatory duide 1.75., I am aware of one instance where a
~
g
'
.t
ld
Design Change Authorization: (DCA3 was writ. ten against ES-
%
~
tofcable
'
'100 to change a portion of the procedure unrelated
separation.
The Gibson Hi 1 employee who was asked to
-
authorize the change refused to sign off on the DCA b'ecause
~
of the violation existing in ES-100.
__
.
e
4
1
.
.
I
e
.
.
_
_.
.
.. .. ..
. . . . .
. ~ . . ~ . . .
.
- . . . - -
-
-
-
,-
. -
w; ,
=
.n +
<
Y
COMANCHE PEAK OpEN ISSUE ACTION PLAN
I
./
,/
Task: Electrical allegations - construction concern 1_
/
,
M
/
)
A C - O * ^E- M l *M "
C-rw C.
6
,
.
/
Ref. No.: AE-13 A E.- K 3
j
Characterization: Group I electrical component installation, deficiencies
(AE-13,AE-14,AE-16,AE-17)
,/
Group II electrical separation criterfa
(AE-15)
Initial Assessment of Significance: Components may ng have been installed
properly. These components may have safety-relat d significance.
I.f systems
have been completed with improperly installed c ponents, the staff must reflect
on the validity of inspections.
Source: Refer to CP Allegations Chart and
atement of Allegations from source
documents attached.
Approach to Resolution:
~
Groups I and II
'
1.
Inspect actual electrical co onent referenced in the allegation.
2.
Review whether what was do
satisfies NRC regulations and the licensee's
FSAR commitments.
3.
Interview personnel wit responsibility for the electrical component.
4.
Refer any examples of
ongdoing to TRT manager.
5.
Evaluate allegations or generic / safety implications.
6.
Report on results of review / evaluation of allegations.
7.
Review IR 80-16, I 82-29, and IR 84-10 to determine if documentation
.
adequately support's findings for this allegations.
If not, take appropriate
actiontocloseIllegation.
Related Open Issues
Usingsyste/
1.
m codes, pull open items, previous inspection findings, etc.,
from theftracking system open item list.
(Region IV identify and add
to this,9erk package.)
2.
Review' activities necessary to close or partially close related items,
eithpi based on inspection conducted above or reasonable additional
inspection while the inspector is familiar with the areas.
3.
While performing physical inspections above, examine surroundi,ig systems,
components, and structures for any apparent defect or' indicator of
/ faulty workmanship.
4
If craft are still in the area of a physical inspection, interiiew them
/
for any knowledge of other potantial deficiencies.
,5.
Complete portion of IE module on electrical if it relates to sffort
/
made on this allegation.
'
,
_,
,/
h
V 9W,
bj w
.
.
.
.. w v. ~
.
.
--
.
.
..__.....__...._...~...-___....__.._.3.
._. - ._
. - .
.
.
. . . _ . . .
i *-
o
'
o
- , ,
.'%
'
-2-
.
. Status:
.
Review lead:
Suppor,.:
-
Estimated Resources:
Estimated Completion:
CLOSURE:
.
Reviewed by:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~ , . . . , . , . . . . . . , . . .
..
.
.
, . .
.
... :. g .- .
v . .~.
.n~ t
. . . r .: v
+
.
.
..
e/
.
.
.
4
'
l'/
M N
Electrical P. 3
%
\\
CONTROLLED COPY
nf
g
a
f
CONANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
r, ;
,
!
9
AllECAll0NS AN0/OR INVESTICA110NS SUNNARY
{
'1
CR0!', REF./OR
COMPLEil0N *
ALLEGER-DATE REC VfD
1
IASK
500RCE
TRACKING
CAIEGORY 1-7/
SCHEOULE
SOURCE
NO
ALLEGAll0N OR CONCERN /
ACil0N/ STATUS
ANON CONFID
SN/0 ATE
SYSTEN NO.
M/ OPEN COMPLETE
DOCUMENT P
RIV-82-A-55
[2-
/ t.e. nee is not a
/-
-
Initial d ss mE9%
( ARI) j.
AE-13
Improperly Installed e
CASE lette to q
NC N
.
Electrical. Components
position qR 82-
/ 4 02-012 .
.82-29j & (50-446/52-15)
%J
\\
'-'
Elv s/4/a
IR 85-29
M s + ,,$.
,
')..~.
Q,
g ,s
z
- -
-
-
~
r o
1
4-83-023 9/20'/8P .
AE-14
Safeguards building
AR}/
3g
-
cable tray hangers
-40. P. 1 Electricia
'
"-
\\O h
(elev. 810) not
constructed properly
.,
yl
j
'
-
--
.
AE-15
Separation criteria
1 .-
84-006 3/7/84 A-7
violated
g ,,
estimony,P._)
g
,
N , s, . bl(
p,
-
.
AE-16
Safeguards I panel on the
Initial dis-
1
IR 80-16
. 7
<
'f
,
,
i
<
P. 3, 5. C.
I
790's level has loose bus
pet tion
bars and ground wire
R 80-16)j
connections
-
---
,.
AE-17
Control room area de-
Initial dis-
1
ASE ltr of 3/11/83
i
ficiencies (field run
'ppsitten
' ART
'to IE and OELD
-
,
conduit, drywall, and
If 83-24
,(
'
,
lights)
%
'
h #e.
r
.
[
"Y
4
~
r
3)
/41
'
'
,_
,
~
-
e
_ . . _ _ . .
.
_ . . _
_.
_._.
__.
. _
. . . _ . . _
. _ _ _ _ . .
,
,
3).
'h.[7
8[d
'
-
"
.,
33
MR. HERR:
But he never fired you? .
e
p
4-]
':
No, but eventually they did stick
.,
i'
'
i
15
me down in th'e warehouse to try to keep me out of tne
16
planr. so I wouldn't find so much stuff.
I was looking at
3-
electrical equipment in the warehouse, but then it turned
rignt arot$nd and I was rignt back up in tne plant anyway
' la
l
AE-ts
'
39
because they screwed up on the safe secaration distance in
20
the reactor control consoles, the
"A"
tain and
B" train.
"
They are supposed to be kept a certain di' stance away', and
21
that
3
tning had hundreds and hdndreds of violations in it.
,,
w
3
I had to go through all tnat control system from
"A"
to
_
,
g
"Z" and > 1ocate al1' tnat stuff *so 'they could come bacx, and
3
cha ng e...i t .
This was after it was installed.
.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
1625 I STA1ET. H.W. - SUITI 1004
-
WASHlH3 TON, D.C.
20006
(2C2) 293 3950
.
l
-
S
'
,
l
I
VM-es41
-
6 143
I
.
$
I
I
r
j
L
-
. . . _ . .
. . . . . . _ . . . .
. _ . _
. -
_ _ . . .
. _ . . . . . . . . _
.
58
.
l
.-
-
.
.
.
.
\\
.
,
.
MR. GAIFFIN:
Do you st ill know~ any of tne
og
people that work out at the plant?
'
.
I
. .
~'
'o,
sir.
4-7 ' * '
N
3
.
MR. GRIFFIN:
Have you talked to anybody since
-
4
you left Copanche Peak?
Have you talked to any of the QC
5
inspectors or any of those people about later inspections,
6
.
aoout their walkd. owns and aoout eneir final that tney hope
-
t
per
rm before the piant's, turnover?
8
I talxed to some of tne TEDCO
-A,-t}
9
perati ns people that were coming in as I was tnere, you
10
know, -the operators and stuf f and the maintenance
33
personnal.
They said on,'yes, we are going to inspect all
12
this. stuff.
Well, how are you going to do tnat? Well, we
,gg.gg
33
are just going to kind of go through it all.
But they
{
3
([
~
didn't seem to have any scheme of how tney were going do
33
'
do that.
-
16
.
I wanted to get a joo out there as a
g;
mechanical maintenance man.
They said, we don't need any.
18
9
19
had never seen a nuclear plant before, but they have been
g
on the Texas Utility's payroll long enougn, you know, they
33
got their card punched.
So cney got seniority over people
,,
enat have been around hot systems before.
3
"
Botn me and the other guy in my office we just
3
kind of shoox our heads. But these operators.and what-not,
,a.
_
.
.
.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004
)
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20006
(202) 293 3950
.
.
f# .
,
-
_ __.
__
_ _ __
_
_
- - - - - - . - - . -
. . . _ _ - _ . . .
_ _ _ _ _ ,
. , , _ _ ,
.
' ~ '
r
,
,.
-
,
.,
,
59
'
,
-
,
.
.
.
tney were going to do a hundred percent re-inspection of
I
that whole thing., ...
a
[."
Now (} O\\
and I ran around for eight, ten or
,3
twelve hours a day the whole time we were there and hardly
4
-
,,
.
,
.. -.,-... .
scratched the surface.
Plus they had a legion of.QC
f
=
. --
- ,
-
'
e
-
i
inspectors out there.
They didn't really inspect a wnole
.
6
lot enat I could see.
They were most of tne time screwing
f
-
'
off outside the plant somewhere.
The actual amount of
6
.
items to reinspect is almost infinite and they only have a
9
limited number of people out there.
30
A_c_.- 13
No. 1, they can become familiar with-the
(]
,11
operation of the plant or, No.
2, they can inspect that
,
go
thing for the next 15 years. You know, you can't do two at
l.a
the same time. Tneir maintenance people, as far as I know,
,
g;
i'
they wouldn't know a fuel element from an umbrella.
They
,,
g3
don't know anything about nuclear plants.
16
A turoine may be a turoine, but when you start
g-
worxing on radioactive systems and the thing has been
33
started up once ano everything is all craped up in the
g,
system and then they have to go and start doing repair and
g
everytning, that is a whole different ball game.
3
.
p
e
i-
s
9
.
'
S
q
- - -
.
.
.
_ _ ,
,
_