ML20137L043
| ML20137L043 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1986 |
| From: | Stiner H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Bloch P, Jordan W, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137L031 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8601240338 | |
| Download: ML20137L043 (2) | |
Text
__
e s
Henry A. Stiner P.O. Box 252 Horatio, AR 71842
~.
United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission To Administrative Judges:
Pryer B. Bloch, Chairman Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dr. Walter H. Jordan Herbert Grossman, Esq.
To the board members of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board:
I re6 ret that the situation that has forced me to write this affidavit has even taken place.
Especially when a goverment agency such as the A.S.L.B.
end N.R.C. staff are involved.
I would think that the N.R.C. would-have long ego done what was necessary to bring the vastly corrupted situation at Com-manche Peak under control; but it has not. I speak for my self and have been edvised by the president of CASE that to do so may jeopardize its efforts-in the hearings, so I hope this affidavit does not.
But, at any event I havde been wrongly advised by same before,'which is one reason I have never voiced my opinion before now.
The biased opinions of the A.S.L.B. forces me to do so.
I must speak out now!
Are all will be lost if not.
I did not put the record in the position it is in now.
I have listened to CASE'S president only to be shafted at the end of the picture.
First we were told that we were not represented by an attorney and we were on our own as far as legal advice.
One inconsistence that got us into trouble about credibility was that all of our first testimony was prefiled in question and answer form, which is one of the problem's that Darlene and I faced first.
CASE did not know all the instances of covering up or the I&E Report 81-12, so therefore the only questions that where asked where one's CASE knew about.
That is why we kept adding to our testimony, in an effort to include all that has happened, it was not a case of Darlene and I being biased and trying to make things up.
If I appear biased, I am, but my biases are based on the fact that I had a cife, mother, father, two others, two uncles, one cousin, and two sisters-in-law.
That's ten count family members besides myself that worked at Commanche Peak that all said-there were. problems at the plant; but yet to date the N.R.C. has not contacted even one.
This worries me.
So, if you think I am biased, I have good cause.
But, I can assure you another Karen Silkwood will have to take place on me and my family before we shut up.
I
- think if the Board would really read the transcript pages they have mentioned,
in their Board orders especially December 18, 1984 and October 29, 1985, they would see what 2) problem is with accepting these orders.
4 ee 8601240330 860122
~
PDR ADOCM 05000445 j
G PDR j
..,..v m.--
.g.z 2
4
~,
Such as on Board memorcndum and ordsr of October 29, 1985, pago 8 lest parc-g?aph:
it states something to the fact that I said I could make a plug weld "around the inside of the hole and then filled it in,"
which I did but I was referring to I Beam which is about 3/8" thick; but the board did not mentioned the separation between the two instances of where I was first talking about..cabletray hanger on to page 10697, then on TR. page 10698 attached is where the subject changed from cabletrays to one and a quarter in hole on two inch plate, which the Board said I said I could make in five min-the hearings are ridded.
utes.
Really read lines 4-23 TR. 10698.
LikeIsay599wegobacktoline16-Then on TR. 10 with the Boards own inconsistencies.
25, about cable spreader room plug weld on 55 gallon barrels.
I do not care if anyone gets mad because I am telling the truth and will be glad if the Board will allow me to be entered into the hearing as a party' to the hearings.
I have many inconsistencies and one tape recorded conversation with an N.R.C. investigator-attorney, who says they do not want to know the truth, etc.
I hope he is wrong.
But I cannot get trial lawyers for public justice or GAP to do anything on me because they're in this for the money and view me as a bad rusk.
One way or another through the press, news media, or maybe the Board, will allow me to just show them the truth.
CASE did not even do findings of facts on us and a default was ordered..which is why a lot has not been done on inconsistencies on applicants witness.
,I have letters from AWS to prove inconsistencies and this is one of the code of CASE has not sent them in.
'I have many expert documents records.
But yet, to back up what I as saying.
I got all the documents with the DALLAS F4&L4c;g' LIBEARY stamped on them, that have been sent in to the board.
But yet I haven't been reckonized as having any common sense.
If Juanita doesn't send what we give her to the board, we have no way to know.
I have turned down interviews with H.B.O. TV because I felt that the ASLB would.see through all of this hog wash and do something about it.
But, they have been blinded by their own staff as well as interveners.
During the depositions on harrassment and intimidation, most of the questions asked were by applicant's attorneys.
I was represented by Renea Hicks, the assistant attorney general of the state of Texas.
He did not know what hap-poned and asked very little questions.
Then I was told that the harrassment and intimidation portion of the hearings was not yet had.
But now I find out it has taken place and we were not afforded an opportunity to stand up for ourselves.
I have this on tape also, with tapes of other important. events I have taped.
I hope I don't have to use them in the press.
Because they will shock the nation.
I do not know what will come of this; but I hope the Board answers this affi-davit or I will be forced to take action with the news media.
I do not think this would benefit CASE, A.S.L.B., TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, GAP, N.R.
staff, or myself.
Please consider this a request to become a party to the hearing in accordance to 10CFR.
I am no longer with GAP, TRIALS LAWYERS for PUBLIC JUSTICE, and have no money.
But I would accept any help I could receive.
Respect oly submitted, Henry A. Stiner
..\\,-
,c. - w. ; N.
<\\
'(3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O p,
'C~g C
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
.% h k #'[$b.,,, l Before Administrative Judges:
3-
% -.. 7 4 W%
Peter B. Bloch, Chaiman
/,
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dr. Walter H. Jordan Herbert Grossman, Esq.
'l h
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL & OL-2 In the Matter of 50-446-OL & OL-2
/)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.)) ASLBP No. 79-430-06 OL
- - ~
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, h
Units 1 and 2)
J)
October 29, 1985 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
$3N MEMORANDUM (Status of Pending Motions)
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the status of a One variety of motions and to decide certain issues that are ripe.
issue we are not acting on is TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.'s (Applicant's) " Motion for Reconsideration of Licensing Board's Memoran-We dum (Reopening Discovery; Misleading Statement)", January 7,1985.
to file are permitting Applicants up to two more weeks within which additional information that we have been expecting since January.
I.
Reconsideration of Management Analysis Company (MAC) Report Discovery Order On August 5, 1985 CASE moved for us to reconsider our Order of July 22, 1985 concerning the MAC Report.
First, we wish to coment on footnote 4 of CASE's filing.
In that footnote, CASE attacks the motives Y
$ 'Vb
%n t
n
c I
b Status:
8 1
for this point was in a companion docket.
We had received proposed findings from both parties, but those findings were subject to revision.
We considered the evidence received in the companion docket to have some importance and we disclosed our conclusions on that evidence.
Now that the parties have seen our conclusions, they have not persgaded us that we were in error. However, we also have examined the importance of this conclusion and find that even in the absence of this evidence we would have reached the same conclusions on the welding issues.
On rereading our decision, we think we discussed clearly the kind of technical problems and the kind of inconsistencies in testimony that led us to-reject the conclusions CASE would have us reach.
We do not believe that the Stiners intentionally misled the Board.
What we do believe is that they lacked technical sophistication and that their ability to recall factual details was colored by their biases.
Given the complexity of the facts presented to us, this effect of personal biases is not surprising.
However, our observation that there were inconsistencies in the Stiners' testimony prevents us from accepting the conclusions presented to us by CASE.
With respect to CASE's subsequent, post-trial statements that Mr.
Stiner made repair welds simply capped on both sides (and not fille.d in the middle), we consider this explanation inconsistent with Mr. Stiner's own testimony that he made a fillet weld around the inside of the hole and then filled it in; he also said that it connects in.the middle and that if you welded a one-and-a-quarter inch hole in a two-inch thick plate properly it would take five minutes.
Tr. 10697-99.
We conclude
10695
(
Sia 20-8 QC catching you.
So you just' pass that hole ~ point.
g
)
JUDGE BLOCH:
When you turned over the thing and 2
y6u were lo king at the slag, what did it look like to,you?
3 THE WITNESS's It was just a slag coating.
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
Where there hills or ridges or 5
bubbles?
a THE WITNESS:
All of the above.
7 JUDGE BLOCH:
All of the above.'
Is that unusual 8
for a slag coating?
THE-WITNESS:
Not that type of a weld.
go JUDGE BLOCH:
So if you had the time and it wasn't 11 illegal, you would just take your hammer and chip away at 12 it and it would come off and you could brush it?
13 THE WITNESS:
Well, on a plug weld such as that 14 15 type there you might have some.that would be entrapped which 16 you couldn't chip it out no way.
You would have to grind 17 it out then.
18 JUDGE BLOCH:
How would it be entrapped?
gg THE WITNESS:
Because if you weld over slag, it I
20 entraps slag.
21 JUDGE BLOCH:
Now this is before you-make the 22 second side.
You have made the first side and you turn it 23 over.and you look in there and you see slag.
24 THE. WITNESS:
That is what I am saying.
We don't
')
3 chip that out.
You weld over it.
10696
' Sim 20-9 JUDGE BLOCH:
If you had the time, could you chip g
-)
it out.just the way you chip out a fillet weld?
2 THE WITNESS:
I would say you have to grin'd it 3
out.
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
Why?
5 THE WITNESS:
To completely get it all out.
6 JUDGE BLOCII:
Why?
7 THE WITNESS:
Because you would-have some cold 8
rolling of the fillet weld that you would be placing in the g
hole which would' roll over your slag.
It is going to trap lo 11 that slag.
The only way you can remove that is by grinding the cold roll off'of the top of the slag and then removing 12 13 the slag.
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
Explain about this cold r,oll.
15 MR. HAGER:
Would that have the appearance of le bubbles?
How would you describe it?
17 THE WITNESS:
Not necessarily.
Bubbles would be, is like porosity, 19 JUDGE BLOCH:
Well, what is this cold roll' and 20 how does it work?
21 THE WITNESS:
Cold. roll is where you make a 22 fillet weld say in a horizontal position and you have got 25 your metal, it is.in a molten state.
The ideal object is 24 to direct your welding rod in the correct lead and work l
)
te#
25 angle to force the magnet field to force the metal up into
e t
10697
' Sin 20-10 the position that you want the weld.
g
,)
If for some odd-ball reason you are applying too aluch metal and it falls out on you, it will actual roll i
3 roll over instead of becoming combined with the metal.
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
Okay.
As I understand it, when 5
you are making this repair weld it is lying flat on a. surface, s
THE WITNESS':
Correct, and you are actually making 7
a fillet weld around the inside of that hole u'ntil you get a
it filled in and it connects in the middle.
JUDGE BLOCH:
So'it is actually a continuous series 10 3
of fillet welds?*
11 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
12 JUDGE BLI4CH:
Do you have to grind in between the
~
13 Passes of the' fillet weld?
14 THE WITNESS:
You should to do it properly.
15 JUDGE BLOCH:
But that wasn't done.or it.was done?
16 THE WITNESS:
It wasn't done.
Like I say, you 17 18 just welded one side and flipped it over without allowing it to cool, I might add also, which is another problem gg 20 that you have with it.
Then you would weld the other side Now when you make your second weld is when you will i
21 out.
n entrap a lot of slag.
23 If you don't clean your welds, whether it be i
m a fillet weld.or a plug weld, you are going to have 3
ked" 25 entrapment of slag.
In the test centers that is one of I
r.
,w--
._,m
i 10698
'w If you don't clean your welds back down Sin 20-11 g the main things.
~
to a bright and shiney metal you~ ar.e going to. fail your s.
2
' test because of the entrapment. of slag.
s JUDGE BLOCH:
Row long would it take to make 4
5 a repair weld properly?-
6 THE. WITNESS:
That would depend on the size of the hole and the thickness of the material.
7 3
JUDGE BLOCH:
Imt's assume a t'wo-inch thickness s
which is one you like to talk about.
A two-inch hole,His 10 that realistic?
?
11 MR..HAGER:
,One-and-a-quarter inch hole.
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
Is it a quarter inch?
13 MR. HAGER:
One-and-a-quarter inch, I
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
One-and-a-quarter inch.,
15 THE WITNESS:
You are talking about the size 16 of the hole.
A one-and-a-quarter inch hole on a two-inch 1
e 17 thick plate, if you welded it and allowed it to properly 1
i cool and cleaned it properly, I am going to say probably is is five minutes.
That is just my estimate.
20 Like I say, I have never made a plug weld that 21 was the required plug weld.
So I guess really I couldn't 22 testify as to'how long it-actually'would take to do a proper 23 one.
4
')
24 JUDGE BLOCH:
So you could do it, but in~ correctly, Enh 25 and you did it in about two minutes?
. ~..,
. ~. -.
w a
10699 o
THE WITNESS:
Oh, for sure.
~
o ')
2 JUDGE BLOCH:
For sure in'less or more than that?
~
3 THE WITNESS:
Excluding the blending in of the 4
surface.
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
You would finish in two minutes 6
and then the rest is cover up time?
7 THE WITNESS:
Right, which that would just-8 depend on how long it took you to grind it back down 9
and cosmetically blend it in', because one thing you don't 10 want to do is you don't want to get down past the parent 11 metal because then it will show an indication there that.
12 there has been a base metal defect.
13 JUDGE BLOCH:
When you did these would you be 14 doing a whole bunch at one time or just one thrown at you 15 all of the sudden?
16 THE WITNESS:
No.
As I stated, in the cable 17 spreader room we had a 55-gallon barret set up.and we are 18 working on these I-beams.
I think Mr. Baker testified 19 that he ha's documentation that there were 450 some odd of
- 20 these that were done that he has gotten noted, that were 21 done supposedly correctly and have documentation on it 22 But as I have stated, I have done, you know, 4
23 20 to 30 of them right there in the any one particular time,
')
24 you know ---
g J. UD.G.E SLO.CH..:.So. t.h.a.t m_eans you worked on it for l
l
. - - -