ML20198L337
| ML20198L337 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1982 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197J316 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8606040266 | |
| Download: ML20198L337 (32) | |
Text
~
. . I i,
CASE ATTACHMENT 10 - Page 1
- g. 11/8/32 interview at NRC Region IV Offices. 5Mington, Texas betw
. and the u. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); present were:
obert l Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy j
i Stewart; Dan Tomlinson; and Richard Herr. -
I -
' " ...if you have anything more you could add to this...what you're describing STEWART:
'.g*:
s?
have a copy of that?" (To Mr. Stewa7r ,
'" Do you want a copy of testimony and transcript from the then to Mrs. Ellis, referring to ~~
i September 19S2 operating license earings ELLIS: "Uh huh..."
( c Ste., art) "I was wor.dering if you had a copy. I felt sure that you
) did."
" Yeah.
This is out of the transcript. Yeah. Down on, uh...let's see..."
STEWART:
"Down near line 20...it's 0.K. if I record this...is that all right?"
"No. Fine. Go right ahead."
STEWART:
is b "Let's see if I can get a line and a page...on page 5552."
l STEWART:
[ "C. K.'
"Nec you said...let's see, it'd be line 2 where you said...well,1, 2 and
!I STEWART:
3.. 800 footLt.t .~ 1, quality control cable , I guess you didn't fin it ended up -
ll
' one..."
"Yes. '. r . "
i1 You said..."
~
STEWART: "O.c
~
"Thi- .:;uld have been 800 plus."
0.K. , that's irrrnaterial. On line 6, 7 and 8 and 9, you STEWART:
...c: E00 plus said "Several .ceks later, or a week later, in fact it wa spliced."
"Yes . t i r."
I STEWART:
"% pu have a cable pull number or some way that we could locate "Weii, of course not."
STEWART:
"Wcil, I didn't knew, uh, you know, pretty specific, said that it was ~
~
a splice."
jes, sir. It wa s . " ,
' }hhf
- . _ . _ _ . . _ . . . . ___ -__~.--_ .
J Page 2 .
- CASEgTTACHMENT 10 -
11/8/82 NR interview i
where we could "0.K. Can you add anything more to this. sol..you realize what's down STEWART:
there-- in the cable spreading room." .
Oh', I know."
["ies, sir, right. '.g l ld find that..."
STEWART: ,"And there's no way in the world-we cou "No, I couldn't go back...I could not go back right now and find that i
_M location.
I can give you an estimate of the location, but right now you know i as well as I do. .." C0f61NUES.
I PHONE RINGS, TOMLINSON ANSWER 5, CONVERSATION MUFFLED IN BA 1"...that when I left the cable in that tray was over a foot T was in the middle, it was probably about six inches in the middle, so you know,thick who and it
.ji knows how much cable's on top of that now."
i "Do you have...you say it went to a relay panel . .."
STEWART:
.l
]"Yes , sir, in control room number one."
~
f STEWART:
"Do you know f.at relay panel that was?"
_" Negative."
! STEWART: "And where it's located?"
I don't know the
~
_ "I can give you an estimate of where it's located, bt it panel and as far as I know, other panels could have been put .:p in that are could have been changed out cause they were constantly chant:ng things."
"Uh huh.
Can you give me a sketch of where it mir . be located?"
STEWART:
~ "I tell you what, do you have a layout of the cable 5;: read roon?"
I STEWART: "No..."
"You don't?"
We normally It would take us a while to get one.
ll STEWART: "Not right here.
don't..."
l "If we had to keep the prints for all of the rors on all of the TOMLINSON:
sites. that we 90 to, we wouldn't have room here on the 10tn floor."
.i You know, i don't see how you t
- Well, I feel sure...I understand that. ._
an ex ct,me to have all those drawings either..." ~
-)
.t' "No, no, I'c not suggesting. .." _
STEWART:
" . . .I do have a lot of them, but .uh. .."
Emum
h,------ . ..._._ _
CAShATTACHMENT 10 -
Page 3 s 11/8'/62 NR Interview 1
"that, I'm just asking if you can just draw a sketch to shw what approxi- )
STEWART:
mate location that relay panel's in." !
"Uh huh.- I mean, I can give you alf .
~
l
~ in s o drawings.
That's still not going to tell you anything.I tell you what, I'll go ahea Let me put some more time and thought of it, skhch down and try and sketch it out. How's that sound? Do you want to do*
it out and I'll bring th_at drawing to you.
that?"
" Yeah, sure, anything that would help."
STEWART:
~
"Cause I think I could make it a little more accurate than I can right here, cabse I car. think back and which panel it was, you know, how many panels in; I know it was, I think right now, it's the third panel from the aisleway, .
f rom the aisl e , and there 's . .. "
"You all" (the NRC) "have access to those drawings, don't you?"
ELLIS:
STEC RT: "Oh , certainly."
"You couldn't get a copy of the drawing and maybe get that to him and then ELLIS:
he could do that..."
I could make a sketch, then we could take that
~
~" Yeah, you could do that. Do you want to do that?"
- drawin, and sit down and go over it.
STEWART: " Yeah. We could..."
} "Contrcl Room No.1."
ELLIS:
"That might give you a little closer location..."
l "Yoe don't remember any names on the panel or any numbers or..."
TOK.INSON:
[ '"No."
STEWART:
"Let's see, you mentioned that there were two?"
"Well, I know that there were two that we pulled that...I don't know if But I know that I saw Q cable in the our last Q cable if it was spliced or not. spread roon ar.d in Safegua And the..."
STEWART:
"You say in the Safeguards Building or in..."
" Safeguard. Safeguard No. 1." D STEWART:
IThe room. ..the relay panel room or the..."
"No. It's the . . .in a tray , uh . . ."
, STEWART:
"Oh, that was the tray name?"
hs '
___1-v
_t
[C.
)
je ' '
CASE ATTACHMENT 10 - Page 5
. 11/8/82 NRC ervi w
!. PHONE RINGS WHILE IS LKING:~TOMLINSON ANSWERS. AND CARRIES ON FOLLOWING j CONVERSATION WHILE IS TAL. KING:
I .-
"Mr. Seidle's office; Tomlinson. Yes. Yes. Yeah, we'rt'kinda involved right nos. ...if I call you back? 0.K. O.K. Very good. Thank you. I'll do it4
! TOMLINSON:
l g Thank you." ..
l STEWART: As described in the PSAR7"
.- [ "Yes."
1 STEWART: t e r . . We'd have to go check it out."
j "C.K. Util, I can cross-section it for you." .
"O.K. I'll tell you what, since we don't have the other drawings and
': STEWART:
to avoid the repetition, let's get all of this stuff together, we'll make a note
~j of what we wan and then you can come back later and we can go through the drawings l.
and ...."
- 1"I'll t< ll you what I came here for. I came here to find out what infor-
_ mation that I givc you and that you've already gotten, what you're going to do C
b with it."
1 j STEWART:
"Wa 'n going to pursue it, if there's any pos.sibility of locating these, you know, we're certainly not gonna go dcun there and inspect every damn cable
' in the cable r .:. ding room to try to find a splice..."
n
' Rig'-
" Vell, I understand that. I understand that, you knew, what you're lookin; is factual information.. ."
- STEWART: " Rig.. "
t I
~
'"..1: ~f that you can go by and that you can take care of..."
I i STEWART: "Abi; tely." _
"...ar.c the infomation that I have given you is items thatthere's either aI I mean, l
was re ated witr.other or that items I know that'sshould goingbe onstill there there now.gone on there that.
or have
hundred and ont you know..."
.f 1
STEWART :
"Weli. I want to get these two subject matters down first, and then we car., let us knew what else you saw or that's not in the testimony. You follow?"
" Yeah."
STEWART: ["0.K. I think we have established now that what we need is scrne drawings and elevations.. We will' get the control room No.1 panel drawings since you don't ~
have those. We will also get some. elevation drawings...
"O.K."
i .
- .dc -
Page 6 Interview ' CASE ATTACHMEhT 10
- f. 11/8/62 NRC
.i l
STEWART:
" ...so you can help locate these trays."
.t ..
_"O.K."
You have M
! STEWART:
"And you're going to provide...what are you gonna provide? 4
' some skei.ches you say of the..."
J
}"I'll just bring what I have and.we'll sit down and..."
- f -
STEWART: "0.K."
q' "O.K. You were transferred back into the drafting department?"
STEWART: .
' "Yes , sir."
"You were put on the Brown & Root hangers location known as the BRHL?"
STEWART:
~
"Uh huh."
STEWART: "0.K. What specifically did you do there?"
.Q [
"I was given. .."
STEWART : "Some isos?"
[". ..some isometric drawings of.. ."
STEWART:
"0.K. , I guess . . ."
I was given
~
" ... Brown & Root hangers, no of piping that was to go up.
4 on another sheet how many hangers were to be hung on each spool, etch piec pipe, each section of pipe, and the type of hanger it was."
STEWART:
"They were already identified on the spool or the isos?'
' ~ "Yes, they were identified, and I was to locate them on tr.e isometric drawingii and make a redraw..."
5TEWART: "O.K. Were the dimensions..."
i!
_"...to go, to ,be issued to the field."
~
f STEWART:
"Were the dimensions already on it?"
I was to put them down u
). Negative. No, th'ere were no dimensions on it. T.
lj ere. I-was just to place them on there; that's what I couldn't unders
%y, then,
, wasthen justlaterto place thewe on, after hangers had ouron the production going, we were...they were t l{ back to us to put locations. -I was given no other information to go by, I was to j estimate the feet or the space in between that area of that hanger, just an e uh..."
i j of what I thought was there, and,
.. ___ .. _ .. . _ _ . _ . . ~ .
j- - - -
19 Page 7 Intervi e,' CASE' hTTACHMENT 10 -
. 11/8/82 NRC 1
1 STEWART: "Then the field crews would.'. ."
}"T. hen it was issued to the field." " g STEWART: , "Uh huh, and then they would go put the hangers up. ,
ll
["Yes."
i STEWART: "Did you go back and verify?"
"Yes , I did. I went out in the fiel'd and just out of curiosity -- I had a brother that worked out there as a pipe, uh what do you call it, just places the
-f pipe up to each other..."
qC .
TOMLINSON: " fitter... pipe fitter?"
" pipe fitter. And he showed me around some where the pipe that were ung and'a couple of them were off a little bit, but all of them were within the estimates of where I placed them, where I placed the hanger on that piece of s i
-)
You know, of course, there's so much up there, ycu know, they're gonna have to pu
$ that in a different...you know, they're hanging a little bit XXXXXX)HXun they'r
' f' off maybe several inches or they may be off several feet, but there's so much
.I "
l' on that ceiling or on the wall that they'could not, you kn drawings and changes to that Brown & Root hanger location."
- j i i STEWART
"But you didn't actually go out and do the as-built, somebody else did?" .
I Somebody else did."
f: - M _"No. The system?"
STEWART: "O.K. Do you know what the process is fran there?
t
- No."
ST'EWART: "'Cause they are verified. .."
Yes, they are, yeah, but they come back
_",Y_ou mean the as-built drawings?
to me.-
0.K.?"
C STEWART:
...Yes. But they use the as-builts to recalculate the seismic
'q-But it's the same hanger number."
."Yes.
I mean, is there scmething wrong with that?"
STEWART: " Yeah.
It was a different hanger that...the
- "Well, it was a different hanger. :
j hanger nunbers that IAthad put down on the paper and t least, that's what .I saw. I know that as-4- out there. - That's what was hung. built will go back and change that and the may change the type of ' support and they inay changeNow it andI'm never let* us kn not saying But what I saw is what I drew, what I put up.
. That could be.
I that all of them are that way."
l' .
^~*-2
~
. .i , _ _
, ~. .
Page 8 11/S/82 HRC/ Interview . CASE *. ATTACHMENT 10 -
I il STEWART: "What's wrong with that is what I'm saying?"
l
[ "Because...what is wrong with it is why did they put this on me to put . -
in the foota'ge, why did they put this on me to put in the distance between the Q.
hangers? I had no information." --. g STEWART: ' You've had four years..."
_"But I'm not an engineer, that doesn't mean -- that's not a damn thing.
I'm not an engineer. I'm not qualified to put in this hanger."
4 I mean,
'; STEWART:
"Why aren't you? /you've had four years of drafting experience."
[ "Sure ." ~
! STEWART: "And that's what a draftsman was to do."
~
, "As a draf tsman, that's right, but..."
STEWART: "But you don't do any calculations, did you?" .
l [ _/f ourse not."
"O.K. You made a location. The location could have, or could not have,
- l. STEWART:
i been exactly where you put it."
i t those supports
_ "Those engineers went back and they used my draw ngs to pu 1
STEWART: "Why, what's wrong with that?"
l'
_"Could be nothing. That's why 1 % here."
' STEWART:
"There is' the process that you do the first phase of it. The craftsmen
' go and hang the hangers."
'"No, an engineer does the first 'pt.rt...first phase."
., STEWART: "Well, the installation..."
1
_"All that information should have already been figured, shou. d already f
,l have been done. I know that from experience from working with other hangers
' and other piping supports that all'that information is already done, then it's l
given to the draf tsman. A draftsman is not an engineer."
You're STEWART: "Yes. Well, the pre-installation is what I'm talking about. .
taking the. engineer's work and converting it to a field work drawing."
"That's true." ,
STEWART: "The workman goes and puts it in. Then there is a verification program that follows."
l l
' ~ --_ . . . . _ _
I
~. ,
CASE ATTACHMENT 10 Page 9 11/8/82'NRC Interview ao,g,-
then
,I
' ~
. . e STEWART: "0.K. The exact locations are known /there is a recalculation made to make sure if they are moved that that is the right hanger, the right size, l
so I mean there is a very extensive as-built verification program that goes on."$
[ ~"Not when I was there." ;'
l I mean, the plant was certainly not in that phase of con- ll "Well, no. 'i STEWART: So I, you know, I'm trying to find a problem struction by the time you were there.
with the system."
"Well, I IMIMXXIM11XIXIXpBEleicXXXXIXIMXMXXXXXIXIXHXXIIMXIXEM don't think t's a problem, I think it's a situation that the reason -- what wasI just the stuck reasoning them in having me go back and make an estimate between those hangers? ,
I on there. I just stuck them on this..."
STEWART:
"No way could you do it otherwise than an estimate."
j "Why. Because you don't know how long that piece of pipe is. I know
~f how man hangers are going in there, I don't know where the location of that hanger 4
1 is going to be. I stuck them on there." -
' TCMLINSON: "It was a guess. .
"That's right."
"Because you have no way of knowing until you go out and look at the T0f1.INSON:
actual run of pipe."
l "But I saw it, and it was there where I put it."
STEWART: "Well , that's fine ."
TOMLINSON:
"They got lucky; they didn't have to move something else to get to it then, or to be able to put it where you had it."
"Well, I guess I made some money for the plant, didn't I?"
STEWART:
"How many other draf tsmen were doing the same thing you're doing?"
~"Between four and twelve l' STEWART:
"You feel unqualified as a draftsman?"
t
" Negative ." .
I~ STEWART: "So, you know. . ."
"I feel unqualified in sticking in a location..."
STEWART:
" . . .es timating where. . ."
t.
l e
--s y --e--- e en.
~ ~ ~ ~
- ~ ' ~ '-'
F~~ q . . .
. J ~ ~ ~~ ~ ' ~~ . N ~ _ . Y l .1 t
Page 10
. 11/8/82 NRC Interview . ] QSE ATTACHMENT 10 -
l i.
" ... estimating a location. That's not spy job.*
STEWART:
."Well, that's tha job that was assigned to you, wasn't it?"
i g
' Yes,
", sir, that's true." _
H+-
'i STEWART: "You know, I'm..."
"No, it's you don't understand.*
"No, I think you don't understand the system."
ij STEWART:
f pipe is,
__" I am not an engineer, and I don't knov how heavy that piece o I don't know what that load is carrying..." .
"Who detemined Aat hanger would be placed?" ~
i ~
TOMLINSON:
_"I did."
- j "It was up to you .. ."
TOMLINSON:
>J.
E ["I stuck it on thert."
"...to decide whether it was a rigid hanger, or a spring can?"
TOMLINSON: -
"Oh, negative. No. That was already done."
Did they "And the size of the hanger itself, who detemined that?
NO ' TOHLINSCN:
u z number that said it will be such-and-such a spring can?"
. 'Tes . The numbers were already put down."
- TOMLINSON:
"That eliminates the engineering."
"It doesn't eliminate the location."
. TOMLINS...
~
"Within reason it does."
! "Well, does that mean that I could have stuck that hanger anywhere?
have stuck them all together this far away on a 20-foot piece of pipe I cou that was carrying an 8"?" -
STEWART:
"Well, I assume you have some reasonable thinking abil.ity to say that that isn't going to be done."
}"Well, I'm glad you trust me."
' You just don't have the confidence in yourse.lf STEWART: ."Well, I don't know, uh.
to do it right, or what?" ~
~ "Well, it's not that, sir, it's exactly what I've told you."
[.
> latitude were you given in the placement of these hangers."
! i TOMLINSON: "How much
.. mm '
- h a
,-
- e
.f Page 11 Interview 1C CASE ATTACHMENT 10 -
, 11/6/82 NRC 1
~
don't understand;"
~
"Well, you say that each one of the hangers had already been p -
} TOMLINSON: _
~
' a number -- a type and number." l Yes, sir."
_ "That's right.
"When this came to you, it came to you as an isometric i i en to drawing with ,
l
'TOMLINSON:
just a list of hanger numbers and types or was there some rough loc
'you?"
l"
_ "No rough location at al . l "Were you given instnJctions..."
I TOMLINSON: i O.K. Another l
the drawing number and the I M~e"An list cam in isometric from the engineers drawing from this isometric with the hangers, And this was pipe on a draw ng.
l
.i type of hanger it was, all that was on one sheet ld. of paper.I They was to go j sheet of paper.
e were given this same list of just the hanger numbers i "The list of hanger ninbers -- was it brokenlled up from, by hanger say, a types or TOMLINSON:
Ac was it put down in the order that the hangers would be three instaLike you wo
- wall here to a wall here.
a rigid support, a rigid support, another spring can, ior d the place-would you have spring cans in a row and two rigid supports in a row, or who detem ne i
ment of these?"
i l don't remember."
d "Well, was it your decision to make where the hangers dwould go an M
in what order, but if you so desired you could put all spring cans at one TOMLINSON:
of the line?"
' "No , i t was . . . "
"Then soseone else had already done this?"
TOMLINSON:
"Yes."
- f "0.K. Their calculations were based on a rough placement of th
' TOMLINSON: the hangers prior to your ever seeing the list.
fl i Bob was talking about that is a re-verification of this h andbuiltthey go ba as-built drawings and they perfonn newilt stress drawings, calculatio condition.
made the first drawing,- it's what they come up with onf the other inter-as-bu U
the actual as-built drawings, where the hanger had to be because Do we o
for this type hanger to perfonn ference. as itdoing But you weren't should, the or d have to put another hanger some place in between?
g ; engineering though."
l f ,' -
7C .
Page 12 Interview ' CASE ' ATTACHMENT 10 -
f 11/8/82 NRC
! i But you know, what I said is that I gave the approximate distance
[ e "No.
een the hangers, I put that in.
No matter how long that spool was, no matter I put it in there. And I went out in . ,,
what angle it was at, I stuck it there.
l the field toifcheck it was it, if20 it was plus18', if it was feet, itAlmost 6". every one of them I'll say was there.- g location that I put on that drawing."
"How many of these were anchored into base plates, or wre installed TOMLINSON:
i in ceilings or in the walls?"
I I "I have no idea."
"Because that would have a lot to do with where the hangers would be TOMLINSON:
placed.
The base plates we're installed at the time the wall was installed or the ~
ceiling was installed or the ceiling was installed in anticipation of attaching a hanger to it. So again, somebody had done this before."
"That's great."
STEWART:
"Have you been out in the field and noticed the plates with just numbers i.
on them?"
"Sure ."
STEWART: "And those are hanger numbers."'
" Yeah . "
STEWART:
"Ar.d those are the ones that you located?"
" Yeah . "
STEWART: "On the pipe?"
Some of them were just already put
."Some of them were already there.
up. Like this, whenever -- when I first hired on out there I was a scheduler J
and we were given -- a lot of the crews want to go ahead and to keep upBecause with their schedule, they find the shortest distance between two 800 foot of pipe or they pull their, you know,1200 foot of cable or 12,000 footT It makes them look good.
l' ll of cable, or whatever.
They dor l
give a damn if there's an HVAC unit coming in or if ther anybody else as long as they meet their schedule.a lot because I fo I I remember . rerouting was an 8" pipe that went through and HVAC needed t through --- you know, which one had priority.
level, ycu kr.ow, where the HVAC -- you know, the pipe back out and put in the pipe and reroute ,the HVAC."
STEWART:
"ZR was written on it, is that correct? So that there was a decision made by engineering as to who had priority, the pipe or the..."
l l
l
- - ~ -
_ _ _ . , _ . , . _ , _, ~]
~.7,._.___.......
^
. Page 13 Interview CA$E* ATTACHMENT 10 -
11/8/82 NR "Probably was, I don't know.for sure."
"Do you know for sure?" ,
ELLIS (to. Stewart):
.f "Oh, it's routinely done that way." _
W -
STEWART:
. I-
"That's bullshit."
l' "How many construction jobs have you been on? How many nuclear plants STEWART:
have you been on?"
Construction, I've been on eight or
[ ten.
_"None, sir, except Brown & Root.
.] O STEWART:
"So the only one you've been on is here at Comanche Peak?"
f; _"Yes, sir."
STEWART:
"So, I mean..."
"I went to all the meetings. I wnt to all the NCR. meetings. I kr>
Mwhat weht on; I knen* the people there. If they wrote an h*E It's like this:You know, you knew that that ...
report up, it would go back to thisWhy guy did rightyou here.put it up? I had to meet m. schedule.
pipe wasn't supposed to go there.And, you know, he was going to take a long bit so you could, you know, stay ahead, so you could keep up withgoyour 0.K., sched.nle.
ahead and I . asked you if you were going to put it up, and you said no.
tear it dowr, and, you know..."
(HAD TO CHAtGE TAPE TO SIDE 2) 1 6
l 9
t .-
o
' ' ' " -- ...m_....
.c....
- ~ - . . . . - . .
-l' .
Page 14 CASE TTACHMENT 10 11/8/82 _ NRC Interview (Side 2 of Tape)
.t i " ...except at tremendous-cost in labor while somebody sit around .. and i STEWART:
....that's why they tell them to go ahead and put it in..."
l @
" . . .they don't care. No."
f m-
" ...that an engineering decision will be made."
STEWART:
"Then why wasn't it rescheduled? Why couldn't they do something else?"
l 4
STEWART:
"It really didn't matter, did it?"
)
It doesn't matter."
["No, of course not.
"To us it really doesn't matter either because it's Oura big r.cney problem -
TOMLINSON: thing is safety.
'l that you're talking and that's the least of our concerns.
t Does it affect safety."
~
I'm not an engineer "
["Idon'tknow.
STEWART: "Well, uh..."
- "How they reschedule. . .."
TOMLINSON:
I just give you inforr.ation. I'm
.'" It's ya'll job to find that out. I'm here to give you some facts and not here to argue, I'm not here to fight.
let you. deal with the facts. I'm here..."
STEWART:
"Well, we'll certainly do that, but...."
l "It's fine. If this is right...if this is right, if this is routine l'
I'r not here or you to- do this or...that's fantastic, I think that's great.Now, you kn to argue that at all.
l
- these drawings are always coming back, you know, they're always being rev and once they get to a rty 10 they Andhaveas farto asbe redrawn I know, thoseagain, papersand couldyou kncw, those papers are filed somewhere. They could be thrown out. An be -- you know, a total redraw done on then.
engineer might have caught a hold of them and said, my God, hey, s a This is not right. I.et's get rid of these, let's straighten this thing out. back I feel that it is a possibility that that has happened BUT_that's '
o
't howThat's and check on it.
where I asked -- I gave some of my finer drawings to a group thatt Arma really, I didn't agree with, t and I. thought, there's a lady j when 'I wen'. there. I heard of -
that I have to give these papers .
"Well, I haven't heard anything that you've said yet that was wrong,,
TOMLINSON: '
as far as the hangers go."
"That's great. Then we don't have to worry' about i t'."
"That's as f ar as the hangers go."
Tomlinson: .
"I mean, we want. . . yeah."
STEWART:
You're making an awful lot of assumptions, ELLIS:
"Let me ask ya'll something.
- - ~ - ~ . . . _ . . . _ ._ , , _ . _ _ _
CASE hTTACHMENT 10 . Page 16 11/8/82 NRC Interview q C, e
"That's the only way we would be able to locate what he had- done.
TOMLINSON:
So,- how many drawings would there be. let's say, on a run of pipe that had 5 You'ye hangers? .The potential is there that you've got as many as 15 drawings.
got the lsometric for that, you've got possibly two or three pages on the larger hangers, you've got drawings for base plates, just any number of things .d-- could g
be there. Now, we. could be talking, you inow, talking a mountain of paper for someone to go through just to locate what he has done."
, ELLIS: "And you're saying that you don't have the personnel or the time to do it?"
TOMLINSON:
"Ma'm, we've got five sites."
f "We have...there's checks and balances for all of this, not only STEWART: .
from the construction side, installation side, then there's Everyone the verification wants. .."
program which is an engineering recalculation program.
But what I'm concerned about is whether I ELLIS: " Yeah I understand all of that.We don't think it works too well because of some .of the or not this works.
we've been told by people, and if you're not checking it out, how do you know that it's. working?"
We..."
J STEWART: "We do check that out.
l
, ELLIS:
"You haven't checked out what he's saying specifically, is what I'm sayi ng."
Routinely.
STEWART:
"I know roatinely that's the manner in which it is done.
. He 's not separate."
l ELLIS: "If you dor.'t have the time to go through the drawings and stuff, bring some of them here and I'll go through them and find some of the ones that he's done."
TOMLINSON:
"I don't think Brown & Root would like the idea of us taking a bunch of their drawings ci' site."
ELLIS: "Well, at the site."
STEWART:
"I mean, for what purpose?"
ELLIS:
"To check out what he's saying, the things that he's concerned about.
How are you going to know what.. .."
STEWART:
"I'm telling you what he is concerned about is routinely done, not just him. There is checks and balances. Like he says,...." Y "It's routinely done to go in and estimate a spool of pipe..."
STEWART : "You have to...."
This is why...."
"I know an engineer, what -- my father's an engineer.
- -- .~ . . . . - - . . . . . . _ . . .. . . . _
Page 17 11/8/82 NRC Interview ' CASE,kTTACHMENT 10 t
9 I*
"But remember now, the base plates for those supports were in there TOMLINSON:
before you ever saw the isometrics. The base plates were already installed. s Scmeone....".
"Not necessarily." ,
ww TOMLINSON:
"An awful lot of them. I'll bet they were."
, [ "An awful lot of them were."
TOMLINSON:
"Because, the walls and the ceilings and the floors were all there."
"But in Unit No. 2. Safeguard No. 2 and the Steam Generator No. 2 was
. _< no t tne re. " -
i STEWART: "In No . 2. You know what they have in Unit 2? In that corridor?
The wall is steel plated for hangers. That's the very purpose. So in The Unit 2 problems in the corridor they had in Unit 1 locating hangers was tremendous.
> they put a whole steel panel up rather than locate individual hanger inserts."
TOMLINSON: " Base plates. . .." ,
d {Are you talking inside the contairunent building?"
"No. Safeguards ."
'! STEWART /TOMLINSON: '
}" Safeguards? 0.K."
STEWART:
"So, I mean...you know, there has been a tremendous amoxit of rework Ir.te rferences, that has gone on in Unit 1 because of the location of hangers.
primarily. They've been...they're down now to about 4t rework, b. . at the initial onset, the location, the system in which they were locating them, they were wrong.
So they had to rework."
I was doing it. That's the reason
~"I was there when that went on.
.I 1 was doing the locations , because it was, at that tire it was al' being redone.
I It was not like, you know, we couldn't use the same drawings we und in Unit 1.
That's the reason I was doing this."
STEWART:
"Well, would it satisfy you if we sat dowr. and went step by step in l' what is done at the site in the verification prograc?"
" Satisfy me? No."
ELLIS: "You mean what is supposed to be done."
."Cause I -- that's right. That's what you' re. . . ." :
STEWART:
"I know that it's what is being 'done. That's what we go down and .
' inspect to see that their program is working. -We don't go doen and..."
,. ELLIS:
"I don't see how you can satisfy his concerns if you don't address his specific concerns."
- * ' * * * * * * ' .ega.,,%,,,
n ,,_
. j ,.
l
!' 11/8/82 NRC Interview ] C '. CASE'.ATTW.ENT 10 - Page 19 l
"No." -
STEWART: , "There was nothing on the iso that would locate the hanger at all?" ,
~
"No."
- s STEWART: "Not even approximate?"
~"No. I was given an isometric drawing and that's it. With the distance..."
Stewart:
... pipe number?"
r "With the pipe number, with a spool nu=ber, with the distance between l
~
es al-from one end to the other, from one valve to another. I knew that. .
' I was given the information, No. 2 I was given the information of hcw many hangers was to go on this drawing. I did not know if it was supposed to go from left to right, right to left, I did not know what hanger was supposed to j be hung between these distances. I could have stuck every one of these hangers
,i just right in here, and then I -- my job was finished. Later on, this came i back to me, verbal coccunciation came to me from my supervisor which was to estimate the distance between each hanger that I and my group have located on the isometric drawings. We went back, we gave a rough estimate of how i
far apart the hangers were, put them in a box, each week they are issued to
' the field -- they were stamped and issued to the field."
STEWART: "Can you give me a system that you worked on? A name of a system?
An iso? Some way that we can go back and do some checking...."
.}'
' "I can give you my crappy drawings that I have. I htve, you know, IMike I said, the choice drawings that I have are given away te a professor at UTA, are given away to a professor at North Texas State th: are in turn with the group the Armadillo radical coalition. They're the orcs that have that."
l STEWART: "Do you have duplicates... ."
"They're the ones that have that. What?"
STEWART: "Are they duplicates or what you. ..."
"Yes, they are duplicates. They art just copies. They are not the f
l drawings . They are just copies. I took those drawings -- a draftsman always saves some of his work, some of his finer work, a draftsman saves for the benefit of going back into another position that you, as an' employer, would like to see I what kind of work I do. You'd like to see how, you know, some of my ideas. I might might be able to help you to, you know, to change some of your ideas.
have a better idea. You.might have a better idea. But you want to see my wrk_T 1
l So where am I supposed to get that l' to see wiiat kind of quality draftsman I am.Well, that's fine and dandy, but 9 times infonnation? On my own time drawing it?
' out of 10, if you draw it on your own time, for you, Q would do a fantastic job, I would do a. very quality job of doing .it. That's not what you want to see;
, you want to see production work. 0.K. , that's it, that's what you want to see."
l
l.-
C E ATTACHMENT 10 - Page 20 11/8/82 NRC Ihterview 3C )
i ~
that "Let's go back to some of the things /you said a minute ago that you 4 1
. TOMLINSON:
firs t. . . ."
'"That's what I did and that's what my group did."
g 5
- "You turned over some of the drawings to a gentleman down here at
' TOMLINSON:
UTA and another one at North Texas State..."
I
' "Yes, sir."
t T0"L 1';50N:
" ...and you said that they, it was their opinion that this was not
}
- 4 being done ir. the proper manner." .
' " Yes, sir."
"Did they verify any of the stress calculations or find out that TOML!t.50N:
the he .cers were in the wrong place, were not the proper strength, or did they fir.t r y fault with them?" some "They found, for instance, that sone of the hangers werelds-- that had/they improper j ~
weics , the wrong type of bevel weld, the -- some of the types of we
{ usec . ' the location of stress were the wrong types."
p 1
TOML];;50N:
"Now this , if you could get me on to specifics on this..."
]"Well, I think I only -- we went through..."
TOM. . ~3: ". . .then we' re in my ball park." I thought he was an engineer
" ...the last time I talked to you -- I'm not sure if he was an engineer,/
- _M'ked that co at it. No, he was a welder down at the nuclear power plant in Glen t' d he pointed out several of the welds that were wrong, they were improper Rose i welci .
- TO% . . 3DN:
" . . .the design or the. . ."
"It was design. It was the design on the hanger and on the base plate."
T0t%I'.5^21:
"If you can give me something specific on that..."
"Did they have the loads and everything and everything for the weld b
h dest; ?"
t
! "I'm not sure they did..."
STEL* AFT:
"I mean, how did theyssay -- what was their basis that it was wrong?;" "
I had hJ"Some of the material /I had written down some infonnation off a pie o pt.ser onto the drawings..." ,
- -~- ~ ~ ~ . , . . . . . _ . . , , , _ ,, ,
J
~ CASE. ATTACHMENT 10 - Page 21 i 11/8/82 NR Interview .
l STEWART:
"You mean, they were stress calculations or...."
because it made'the drawing d
_ "And it was for my benefit, you know, .
look neat, it looked -- you know I was goingknow I didn't to keep whatit,I youwaskncw, really aouttina copy of ,
l
' this down.
drawing, just for my benefit.I didn't know that that was, you know3e improp
-~Ufe stress load was, but when I took it to North-Texas State. he cave it thel felt an engineer. I don't__lutow: comabody. =nd he came ~
prof essor gave it to I I don't kn_os "
tracx ano T.oio me snat they were improper stress loads.
"You said you had some rough sketches that you have..."
STEWART :
'I
~"Just what everybody picked through."
STEWART: "Oc you have them with you?" .
Cause I was going to find out and see what you were going to
["N.If you're not going to do anything, there's no reason wasting my i
do firs t.
- time "
"Well, I mean, if we waren't going to do ahything, we wouldn't have 9
STEWART:
called yce in."
_"is11, I don't know that."
STEWART: "O.K. I mean, give us some credit." ,
l, I give you credit for being here, for M
~
_"f.5, making at yeah, I give you credit.ittempt, you know, for giving Brown & Root,
& Root,t- you know, the nuclear power plant in Glen Rose a headache."
j STEWART: "/e want it right. . ."
' ' want i t righ t."
STEWART -
Oer responsittlity te see it safe...you know, that's our job..."
2 'm paying for part of it; you're paying for part of it."
STEWART: "Right. Well..."
You know, the people that I worked with j "I know what went on there.
knew wha *. we nt on the re. "
STEWART:
"I mean, I've been in the business for 30 years and I know construction.
l '
,'ina t 's good." -
f STEWART:
"I know just every phase of it, and..."
"That's great."
~' ~ ~~ - . - . . . _ _ . . . , , , _ , semie.
~ ..-. -
Diterview ]C. 'ChSE ATTACHMENT 10 - Page 22
. 11/8/82 NRC
"...I am concerned. And my' fanny comes first, you know, as far as STEVART:
the health and safety of the public. So if it isn't safe for me..." a 5 1'm not here to stop it. Believe this, I'm not here to stop, you know',
e production of electricty at the nuclear power plant in Glen Rose. I'mherqQ; like I said ten times, to give you the information that I have..." 4 STEWART:
"Well, we certainly appreciate it." '
You know, if you
~
"...and if you work with it, that's fine and dandy.
l '~ anything with it, then give it back to me where I can give it to my
- an't i employer some day so he can look at it and see if he,might want to give me a raise."
"Well, I'm not going to keep anything you've got. All I want is to -
STEWART:
! see it. I'd like to see it and maybe make copies of some of it if..."
_"Well, I'm very sorry that 1.can't giveI you will the be upgood there stuff thaton later I had.
this I don't know who has it at North Texas State.
week 'and I'll go by and talk to the professor, and see if I can get..."
'i "Well, if you can get some of the..."
,j STEWART:
it would e
-_"...cause I'll tell him what's going on and, you know, I think lac_ I e of benefit to him,botr. groups and myself."
STEWART: "Certainly."
"You're saying that the isometrics and the hanger lists were given TOMLINSON: It probably would to you by your boss. Could we get a name for him, plur e.
I be easy to go through him to get copies of things tha. you had worked on before.
' He would probably have some record of what you or your crew had done."
["No, he's not there anymore."
TOMLIMSON:
"He's bound to have a replacement."
M _" Yeah."
TOMLINSON:
"And there's bound to be a record kept someplace."
4
" think -- did I ntion his name here? I
. . . remember his n kai my supervisor in the l mentione it back over here..
j
' drafting department. I thought the schedu ing epartment was fantastic, they had some very fine schedulers. I've been scheduling for -- this is try seventh year as a. scheduler, and I still'go by some of the techniques and I .still puli !'
ou their little manuals on scheduling. I like it.. I've scheduled ._
F for a year and a half as a production at nfonnation for some of the course se edu er and I've given that they had that I went through, courses that I tcok there onsiteBut at the that nuclear power plant, and that they are using at Vought right now.
t was fine. I thought the scheduling schedulers were very good. But at least Now what you see could be something totally that's what we issued the field.
~
different fran what I drew."
\
. * ' .#* *= . , . , . , , ,
- - - . . . . - . ~ . - . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . .
t Inteniew 7C,'CiSEATTACHMENT10-Page23 11/8/S2 NRC STEWART:
"Well. what I'd like t6 get if possible is a typical or a sampling of.your sketches. If you've got some old.ones or you don't think they're that g
good I'd like to see them anyway, just to get a sampling."
g l
~
,\"O.x." __
4 STEWART: "You can be more specific on the drawings...."
f q C.,
l .
M _"O.x.-
STEWART:
"So if you can bring that back with you..."
ELLIS: "If ya'll go through and find some of the things in this and they Aurn out to be all right, would you pursue it further?" '
t
! STEWART:
"Well, it all depends. . ."
ELLIS:
some of the others?"
STEWART:
" ...cn what is being done in a manner so that we know there's a stopgap or a. check point'that what he's saying is overlooked."
9 ELLIS: "Well, you know that they're going to say that there is, bu't it's a matter of whether it's working or not."
1 STEWART: "No, no, we don't just go verbally."
ELLIS: "That's what I wanted to know."
STEWART:
"We actually do the inspection ourselves. But again, it's only on a sampling basis, and if we have any doubts at all, then we put the burden of proof
- on them, particularly if we find some questionable area."
l}
ELLIS: "One thing that concems me is, after taking such a strong position in the hearings for their getting a license, frankly is how close ya'll might look
' j at some things at, this point."
STEWART: "At this point?"
ELLIS: "U h ht:h .
I don't mean to impune your integrity or anything like that, e but, uh.. ."
STEWART: "No, no, I -- the thing is that..."
- ELLIS:
" ...it would be awfully hard to take a contrary position at this point."
i STEWART:
'" ...that the checks and balances...Not for us. By no means. We can So,'tse shut E plant dcwn just like right now if there's a concern of safety.
thing is trying to describe to you theThere's checks aand tierbalances that goRight of inspections. on,-well, now, on every safety system in that plant.the start-up crews do their own system walk-they walk every inch of those lines. They have to, for one, I mean, that's
__~. .- _ ._ _ . _ . __.
t Page 24 nterview 1 C. 'ChSE ATTACHMENT 10 11/8/82 NRC a requirement. Secondly, it's the best way to know a STEWART (continued): After the start-up crews go through and do their system if you're an operator. s start-up,, checks, then the operations crews go through and do their own system walk-downs, and, you know, there's things caught, you know, not anything really significant other than like, not, is it San ButOnofre =where the checks they did that and balances findgo mirrorg S
images were wrong, you know, dual plans.
on are numerous, and that's in addition to our samplings that we do in every system in every plant in our region."
- TOMLINSON: "Through safety systems."
i 1 ELLIS:
"When ya'il check this out, will ya'll be doing this yourselves, actually I doing the checking out and everything yourselves?"
i STEWART: "Oh, yeah."
"You'll do it yourself? You'il walk it?"
STEWART:
"Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. But I'm not going to walk.17,000 hangers, you know.
I want to tie it down to try to get it to an area that you're concerned
, q C.
i with in .the time frame that you 're.. ."
f TOMLINSON:
"If wc can take the things that you' worked on and that you have concerns i
with and de these in depth, then we find that either there are thingsIf wrong we findor l
i there're- not things wrong. There's always the twoIf'we possibilities.
find there are things that there is nothing wrong, then it goes away.
wrong and you're right, then all of a sudden it becomes a major problem and then 4
is when we go into oth_- systems..."
about, you know some of the drawings that I did, like
~
h "I'm concerne you, but I'm mere concerned about is some of the drawings that my group
~
did."
TOMLINSON:
"Can you give us names of the people that worked for you, so that we could pull the wori that they did."
I can't give you the "Yes. Because they, you know, a lot of them.
I will. I have--I also did the, you know, the special event drawings,
,' ames now.
anything that Texas Utilities came down to see the -- what do you call it --I d rank of hiarchy of people in the departments. I drew all of those....
' everybody's name down, and I kept a copy of it.
made them real nice and pretty.... I did all those. So you can take those
}
I kept a chart of who's working for who.and make copies of All those you seeand go people before me and a hundred people af ter me that you don't see.You do is the time span when I worked there. '
j worked pith and you don't. see..."
j .
TOMLINSON:
"Is that what you have here...is that what raises a major concern in your mind, is the- time that you were thert , what you did see?"
"That's why I'm here."
TOMLINSON: "Those are the ones that we're interested in then."
" ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~
t'~. . - _ . . _ . . . ';. T.T '
_~~.___..-~ _ '
I .
. CASS'. ATTACHMENT 10 .Page 25 11/6/52 NRC Interview
- STEWART: "Can you give' us sane dates?"
,"For what?" ,
STEWART:
~
"That time span." _ _ . .
+.
4 "I can't recall them right now."
l STDIART: "....a year? Was it one year, two years?"
- 1 had my copy of my resume, copy of my -- the day that I quit and walked out l
j the gate. I got a copy of my report about me which you're not supp: sed to get, but I got it, and I'll let you just go ahead and make copies of everything that ,
}
I have."
t i
ETL;* RT: "Well, we'd certainly appreciate it."
~
~
"...and then you can see, see what I've got."
ELLIS: . "Once you've done this, will you let him know what' you've d:ne?"
STL' ART: "Oh, absolutely." .
f -
I j,
TOMLINSON: "Yes " .
"This has been one of the problems with some of our witness . They've -
ELLIS: I kne.
asked for things and never found out what happened to them.
' in particular was very upset because he'd never been given a copy cf the I&E 1
Report in regard to his allegations."
"As a matter of course, he will not be given a copy of the report.
~
TOMLINSON: In the :ase of a
- but it will be filed in the PDR and it will be available.
s;ecial request, maybe we'll make a phone call and we'll tell the" hat the 1
catcome was.
But as far as mailing a copy of our report to an ir.:' eidual, tnat just isn't done."
ELLIS: "Well, if he had even known what it was or anything...he wanted to find jj cut what had happened and I think he made that pretty clear, and...this, to me, I is one of the problems. I think there's a real comnunications breakdown between l;
the NRC and people who make allegations, and we've talked to an awful lot of people who wouldn't come to the NRC with an allegation under any circumstances
} because they don't believe you'll do anything about it." ,
[
~
- "I was reluctant to come here. That's the reason that I brough l reason' that I...you know, I' even went down to the little hearing ,
7 I' was more ' inclined to 3 .cu had.* I was reluctant to do anything about it.
- 57 ahead and just give all the information to the radical group cr somebody like that that might.at least. hold this up and say, hey, this is wrong, bugger.
This is what's going on, this is what,is...you know, the probler. is there now." .
Stewart:
" Yeah, I can see you've got your time span here. You said you started work'in October 18. '79, and then you say, I quit in June of 1980 in order to I go back.to school."
, =*4- , , , , ,
'~^ ' " ~ " " 4a-,-- , , _ __
'*A = "WHHq , ,,,
e t 7. - . ,-...-.."W' 4 f k
- e
' *e ~
s' CASddTTACHMENT 10 - Page 26 11/8/82 NRC Interview 1c
~
_W . Taat s about r49at.- 4
' 1 C, ELLIS: ."And-then later came back to work..."
M Negative...." -
.+-
(iAD TO CHANGE TAPE)
I *'
e l
I i
4 f
I
- f I
e i.
i 4
l i
1 l
l t
l l . v.
e I
1 l
m m as ,- ,, _
"' '-- ,,_,g., _ _ _ _
- . . . .. . ~
t 1
' CASE ATTACHMENT 10 - Page 27 l 11/8/82 NRC Interview !
i i
" ....which it was for my benefit. My supervisor thought it was a good idea cause of the past experience that I have and I intended and intend to become a.inechanical engineer, or really right now a civil engineer, and to wor.k. *
' in construction. I have...I live on a fam, lived on a fam all of my life, E.
so I know how to wire something together_and keep it running, but I've also worked in construction for six years as a scheduler, you know, same time for' 4
' a total of seven years, production field one year."
"O.K., well, how soon can you get this information back to us?"
STEWART:
"When do you want it?"
"As soon as you can.
We'll have to get some drawings also. Can you f' STEWART:
come back Friday?" '
"T 's another aspect of this that kind of bothers me. I think after ELLIS: just recently, we feel like his testimony should be part of j talking to the record, and as you know, these limited appearance statements don't really, r
j you know, mean all that much in the record because they're I reallynot sworn.
feel that statemen
' they're not cross-examined on them or anything like that.
' some of the things XHIX) need to be in the record, especially about the Q cable being spliced, because there's nothing officially in the record even though we've ,
~
got allegations from the fellow who's in prison in Oklahoma aboutI the same sort think of thing.
There's ~still nothing officially in the record about this.
it ds o be there. One of the things I'm concerned about, frankly, is that if jives you the names of some of these people and says, you know, to lo at this; you go out and investigate it and talk to them, then they're veiled in this cloak of secrecy, whereas if we present the information in the l
hearings and he. names names in the hearings, then we couldldask that the Board be,part
' subpoena these people and the recorcs and go frcm there and it '
Now, M ~
f h blic record. We ran into that problem with themean really t that --
tried to tell the Board Chairman what~
were being accused of doing things wrong should not be hearings or that confidentiality m , in their rd sort of situation opinion, in that being regard. offered This to them.
decision will So we have ,'for sure, but that's one of the problems that I've got have to be~
with scme o this right now."
"Well,
! C STEWART:
/You know this is being adjudicated right at this point as to no, But, naming I
names, and I don't wanna any cormient about it one way or another.
think, that we've got a good beginning here and that we can start off and if we can get these drawings, information that you have and sit down and try to locat these splices , uh. .."
"0.K. Some of the drawings that I have at UTA, I'm going to talk to :
pro essor today about them, then I'll get back with you on those."
l, STEWART: "O.K."
"Before I give you anything 'I want to talk to two other people and f and what papers I give you you'll get."
T l-
..z. .
. ~- - - . . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ , . . , ,
i.
Interviev 'CkSE #ATTACHMENT 10 - Page 28
. 11/8/82 NRC STEWART: "Well, all we wanna do is make copies..."
4
- ' T."It'll be about five minutes before I need to leave...."
"0.K. Let's...how soon can you_ call me on that?" @
'! STEWART,:
" ...if there's anything else... / n hb" STEWART: "On the. ..when you cian. .."
l "On the drawings?"
STEWART: " Yeah."
,"How about day after tomorrow?"
1
- STEWART: "That's fine."
$ }" Wednesday?"
STEWART:- " Wednesday is fine."
How about..."
[ }"About what time?
1 STEWART: "Well..." .
1
~" Wednesday. It'd be, it'd have to be in the afternoon. Three o' clock?"
f ]
! STEWART: " Fine."
[ "O.K."
s
- STEWART
"And in the meantime, you said you'd seen other things that you noticed, why don't you give us a run-down on those, what you can remember or recall?"
"Well, why don't we just hold off on that right now, and then..."
STEWART:
"No, I don't mean now, I mean in the meantime..."
! ,"0. K ." ,
"You can just make notes on what you're conceraed with."
' STEWART:
! ,"O.K." :.
' STEWART: "O.K.? You say you've got to get going to class?" .
"Uh huh."
8 9 **,%=%. . , .
- - . - - - - - - - .- - s
~ - - ~ - -. . _ . . . . . . ~
j .
Intervi ew IC CASC dTTACHMENT 10 - Page 29 11/8/82 N It may be that his ELLIS: "I haven't really had a chance to talk to Dennis.It may be that if he has situation will be different from the Stiners anyway.done work correctly or H55 he's concerned
- someone t! ve done work correctly, and he says, ' Joe Blm, down there, didn't may not ha)at he thinks has not give a damn about the way things were done and I don't think he did it righ
' or there's a good possibility he didn't do -it right,' and we everything's beautiful,' and that's confidential then between you i likeandthat..."
him and we never get to even hear about it or to cross-examine him or anyth ng
?-I STEWART: "Nonnally we don't talk to himIf we have specifics, we can track these thi if we know specifically.
When people talk in generalities, what can we do?"
$ " lot of cables, a lot of hangers , an awful lot of people, the .
) TOMLINSON: ....a We really have to have something that will proverbial needle in the haystack. There's a cable at Comanche Peak, or pin it down a little closer than that.
there's a hanger at Comanche Peak."
ELLI5: "Ri gh t . "
'"The information that I've given you, is it pretty'much comon, do you
~
Or am I pretty much an isolated case, I'm one out of :
1C~ s all the time?
the hundreds of people that work there, that just happened to realize tha was the Q cable that was spliced? '
l the trays, or that they're doing something?"
"You're in a better position to answer that than we are." (to Herr)
TOM'. I'iSON:
"How many people come by here and talk to you like this?"
f _
my answer HERT..
" Yeah, and/11 may tend to identify various people and I don't know if I'd like to answer that or not...."
S "Well, you don't have to mention any people, just give a percentage...
jun give an idea of how many people come by and talk to you..."
f All he wants is just -- he just wants to know if I ELLIS: "Well, not names.
he's just an isolated case."
_ }.. .that's all I care about."
' HERR: "No."
I TOMLINSON: "No."
g STEWART:]"No."
Less?"
"Do you get a lot of people, a few people, ten, twenty?
HERR: "Somewhere in there."
(laughter)
ELLIS: " Ten, twenty , or less."
"""---"---------__m ,___
'11/8/82 NRc g ) Interview CRSE. ATTACHMENT 10 - Page 30 "I have one question I'd like to ask.you on the Q cable. Is there a HERR:
way you can take a Q cable and splice it and it be all right?"
\ **Yes, sir it's probably true. But that's not what the contract says. . l "tes' I HERR:
....I just wanted to know if there's a way and you're aware of that way. " -
"I am not an electrician." you're talking about TOMLINSON:
"I've got another question on that. When JHXHXIjn/a spliced cable, is it a factory-spliced cable or is it a site-spliced cable?"
" N o '. Site-spliced."
TOMLINSON: " Site-spliced."
[ _ "That is right. It was a site-spliced cable, it was not a factory-spliced cable."
TOMLINSON: "0.K."
i* HERR: "Hcw did you recognize it?"
"I pulled it. I'm telling you the cable that I pulled."
!f STEWART: "No. Recognized exactly where it was spliced?"
~ M ~"Yes , s i r. "
STEWART:
"What did it look lik'e at the time you sie it? Had it been a finished splice?"
l "Oh, it was very nice, very neatly done..."
(TELEPHONE RINGS)
" ...very well done splice. They did a v vy good job..."
TOMLINSON (answering phone): "Seidle's office. Tomlinson."
" .. .of splicing i t, but. .."
TOMLINSON: "Oh, we're just about closing up."
~ "...my understanding of the contract that they had with Q cable was
' at re was no splicing..." .y.
ll .
TOMLINSON: " Hang on just a second."
l
".. . whatsoever "
f -
i 1
t TOMLINSON: "What color was the cable?"
en .
w-- . = :.. 2 , 3 3 _
1 erview dASE; AITACHMENT 10 - Page 31 fi 11/8/82 NRC - 7 i ,
"I don't recall." -
f l
TOMLINSON (into telephone): "He says he doesn't recall the color? '
w
" Green, yellow, orange, black..."_
s 1
- TOMLINSON (into telephone): "O.K. Uh' huh." (Hangs up telephone)
'f, 1 "They had all colors, all different colors, but'I know at that time, l ' _ I -- hell, it's been, what, two years ago, three years ago? I don't remember.
At that time I had worked on six different sites pulling, you know, pulling cable, routing it, routing it - condui ts. "
HERR: "Did you write this up -- when you saw this, did you write it up as a ~
nonconformance or bring it to anybody's attention?"
, ] Negative. Are you kidding?" i
, i HERR: "I don't kid very much." I np
- J I
"Well, I'm sure you don't, sir, but I expressed that as a -- I didn't !.
an that as a wise comment, but s a perso in the fie_1 a worker in the -
field, you didn't d that because_
did that.
. an attempt that worked there. made his li e in .leopardf' to write up a noncon ormance repo an And when you're working out with that many people, you had -- I'm not going to say a low class -- you had people that were coming from a $3.00 an hour job that they.were happy with at one time and then jumped up and made 58.00, 510.00, $12.00, $13.00, $14.00 an hour, you weren't going to take that job away from them. If you wrote that nonconformance report up, in turn, not just that one person but that crew would be jeopardized."
l HERR: "Are you telling me that nonconformances aren't written out there in your department?"
"No, sir, I'm not telling you that." .
"What are you telling me? didn't write one because he HERR:
was afraid of getting beat up. That was an isolated case..."
"That happened, sir.. ."
,i HERR:
" .. .or is that the feeling. . ."
"...that happened outside all the time..."
"B that a feeling throughout' the department .that you..." Y HERR:
~
"Yes , sir."
HERR: ".. . worked for?"
% =Mmeeg
Page 32
! 11/8/82 N Interview CASE.KgACHMENT 10
. . 1 I
M *Not -- that's a feeling that's throughout the plant."
l HERR:
"So therefore, if that feeling persisted, there wouldn't be any non- -*
confomances written."
JI know that on the containment No.,1 door, the -- what's it called?
the pressure door, airlock, there was a faulty weld on that door that w and four people were fired.
i going, and it was due to that."
HERR: "Did you participate in the fight?"
4 "No, I ran like hell ." ,
"Did you ir.now it was a fight over that and not over some girl?"
~
HERR:
"Yes, sir."
Do we have HERR:
"Well, how many nonconformances are written down there?
any?"
STEWART OR TOMLINSON:
"Oh, are you kidding?" -
Hundreds. Thousands."
HERR:
' Thousands. ...we're talking about a five-year period."
"You've been looking at them, you've been sorting througM STEWART (to Ellis):
them."
ELLIS: "I may be the most expert person here on that."
STEWART: "Right. How many is there? Did you ever count then?"
lf I ELLIS: "There's a few thousand...however..."
'_"I got to sit in on the meetings as a scheduler, as a planner /sched.:ler,
~
I had the opportunity to sit in on some of they When the meetings where felt that there wasthey discussed a problem some of the nonconfomance reports.
somewhere, they tried to talk it out before itThat washappens formallyon writteneveryup, site.can They we i
go ahead and get this thing taken care of?try and go ahead and s I,
written up."
l HERR: "Probably good management practice. Besides that, probably you sat.d yo saw thousands?"
j T ELLIS: "hrobably, I imagine, three or four thousand."
\
HERR: "Three or four thousand?"
TOMLINSON:- "That's a decent number.
HERR:
"So I guess there're not too many people who feared for losing their job if they write a nonconfomance."
e
_______.u 5 ,-- 1 e y
Page 33 11/8/82 HRC _
nterview' iC CBSE ,ATT.ACHMENT 10 Elits: "Also, you need to look at what has been written up and what hasn't
.! been written up also." -A
-l "$ee, if 1!his is a problem, I've investigated these things before..." ...
4 HERR:
t ELLIS:
"I think in certain areas you'll find some things written up and 5.-some h i
things not."
I
" ...and I've found some of them to be true in some departments.
I would
' HERR: But it's obviously not i
only be concerned if it was true in your department.
' true throughout the whole plant, so I can dismiss 95t and concentrate or. the other St."
"Well, if you want to dismiss 95t of it, then that's fine..." .
. ELLI5: "I thi nk I' d have to. . .."
"All I knw was the feeling throughout the plant. I went dow- there I didn't know what was going on. I didn't know,so a very green person.
I had to follow everybody, I had to talk to other people. My crew - 'you know, we were a .small group but you always heard, you know what's going in a construction plant, you know where you are in the percentage of completion ~ from the start to i .
the completion, you just know it. You're putting it up, you're doing it."
ELLIS:
"There's a lot of things that happen dwn there -- if somebody tells i
AC you you've got to be very very careful, that can be taken a lot of different
'I ways, and you don't have to always be told 'I'm going to beat the hell out ofAnd ,
you in the parking lot if you do this' to know that that's what they mean.
as far as what's written up. I think that that's something else that bethers us, but I don't know if we really want to get into all that right now."
, HERR:
"Yes, but you're telling me that you didn't write this questior, up because
- you felt intimidated and threatened, and if you...."
[ ~"No, I felt at that time it would probably be repulled, be pulled back, t it was too long -- it was a full spool, they'd have to go t.!:k..."
HERR: "So you didn't report it because you felt that it was going to be repulled.
In fact, maybe I can come back and say 3 [ g "At that time. I probably did.I had the idea in my mind that I cared but I wasn't o
', real1ylidn't care.
' concerned, I had other problems going on outside of my..."
HERR: "What has changed your thinking?"
" Sir?"
it?" $
l HERR: ,"i mean, could they'have pulled that and you not known about l
byerytrue. All these drawings could be redone and ' properly relocated.
that's 'true, that's fine and dandy, but there's no way that they're going to let me in that gate right now and find out."
" ^
hwb % I.L_._____ * ' I h.--.
.~ .. __~..
_ ~ -
l - - - ~, -- - ,
Page 34 11/8/82 NP.C Tiitervicw . lC C5SE AWACHMENT 10 HERR:
...! just waeted to know, that's all ."
You know, if I could go down there and 4
',".I'would like to find out.
I could scrounge through some of that cable to see if it's been. spliced, you g' kncw, it seems like that's all I'm basing my coments on, is that cable and, i
you kncw, a few of these drawings, a few hDndred of these drawings that I'veJua
-j drawn, which is a very small fraction of what is really going on there. I don't believe
'l I spilled my guts out to her one time and she was going 'My God what I'm hearing!' But what you want is facts, what you want is what I had or
' - I have on a piece of' paper."
ELLIS:
"All that he's talked to you about here is what he can pretty well prove or that he has concerns about that is provable." -
STEWART:
"Well, like I say, I think we can't do much nore now until you get.
j you know, try to tie this stuff down a lot closer than what it is."
ELLIS:
"When you get this done, if you went and fo6nd that there were problems, would these specific problems be addressed or would a thorough investigation then folicw if there were problems?"
First, TOMLINSON:
"A little of both. Because it would be done in two stages.
we would locate the things that he has said; there would be a report written I
'j Then there would p-::bably be some action taken. I hate to use the i on wordsthat.stop work or anything else, but some action would. be taken and then it would go much further."
t
[ _"It's getting close to that time.. ."
ELLIS: " Yeah..."
We can continue this later on if you "I need to go ahead and run.
like, ~f you feel that there's enough infomation for some you or thetime, infomation -
We can meet other but I 7 }i l that I'm going to continue to give you.What was your name again, you'm...?"
need to go ahead and get to my class.
f STEWART: " Bob Stewart."
I
[
"And you're...?"
TOMLINSON: " Dan Tomlinson."
" Dan Tomlinson?"
i TOMLINSON: "T-o-m-l-i-n-s-o-n."
,"And ,you're...?. It'll still pick up; sir."
ELLIS: "Ri chard Herr."
"It'll pick up very well." (referring to his tape recorder)
< \
HERR: " Richard Herr."
" Richard Hart?"
.. I E E I MII e-
Page 35 11/8/82 NR Interview CASE, ATT ACHMENT 10 t
l . . l f
i HERR: " Herr." l 1
ELLIS: "He rr. " s '
R C/
,, i
" Richard Herr."
4 N
i .{ ,
0
.O .
il.
?)
'i em k
s l
l .
i.
4 I i l *
, W .,,
(
i W
w
% (,
s s,
.?.
J 0
t
. f.
- h. ..
I e
6
('
- 1 t- 4 .. *'g',
, ..t__,.. * , , . , , , ,,
- i * ..s. ,, ,
r m r.:en s =;=wr~5h aw. w w= ex 57+-
O
- . . f ..Y .i ,.u -
4./] i
, [W? ? !
In Reply Refer To: .
RIV . .
Docket No. 50-445/Rpt. 79-11 50-446/Rpt. 79-11 -
~
Texas Utilities Generating Company - -
. ATTH: Mr. R. J. Gary, Executive Vice . .
Pr'esident and General Manager - ,
2001 Brycn Tower '
Dallas, Texas 75201 :-
..~
Gentlemen:
This refers to the investigation conducted by Mr. 'R. G. Taylor and other . '
i members of our staff on Agiril .2-3 and April 13-23,197.9,'of activities i authorized by NRC Construction.Pemits No. CPPR-126 and 127 for the Comanche Peak facility, Units No. .l. and 2, concerning allegations by a '
fomer Comanche Peak employee. -
i
- l The investigation and our findings are discussed in the enclosed
- investigation report. .
j During the. investigation, it was found that certain activities under ;
your license appear to be in noncompliance with Appendix B to 10 CFR g 50 of the NRC Regulations,. " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear -
j Power Plants.." The item of noncompliance and references to the per- i
. tinent requirements are identified in the enclosed Notice of Violation.-
l.
This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of section 2.201 'l '
of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office, within i 30 days of your receipt of this notice, a written statement or explanation ' !
. in reply including: (1) corrective steps which have been taken by you, and .
the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid j further noncompliance; and.(3) the date when full compliance will be
! achieved. ~ -
> In accordance with Section 2.790 of. the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part !
2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the j
- enclosed investigation report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document 5
' Room. If the report contains any infomation that you believe to'be -
. t
- e.e I/\
- l. - . . . . .. . . .t"n. . . . . .-sM...... . ' .... w[ ..................l
.,,BEF. AJ.J............ ...,'d0.5,gj Q.l.g. .. ...:}Q'.(.e)....
. .h....... 81.v.w .MGDy.1.9r/.nh...
HA. Cyp.s,s.m.a n.,,,,. . j
.,. .....v.9n.9....... . .. 5a.a.9... .. .. ..snan.9.....: ... ... 5u.o.a.e..k mi%z.9..qC',,. ..Ey.e j,,,,,,Q.,.,,.,., . l
!* ,.c - m ,,.u, - .o. -
, a , ,, g ,
- .. . . . ... . . .~.. . . . . . . . .. . .p
,n.>,
p v ~
/ . -Q . . !
v .
i mmpe L.2%.+ ...:.m a..- m e.=- ~.w.-a==mm - ~.~.ma~h - " 1
,.n._c w -- - - :--- .- ==m
-n -- -+ m m . m v.~ m ~ m m m M/, , ' .. * . .,
.; i Texas Utilities Generating 3 Company . g gf. p 7 i
proprietary, it is necessary that' you submit a written application to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such infonnation be withheld from public disclosure. The application
- must include a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that the infonnation is proprietary. The application should be prepared so that any proprietary information identified is contained in an enclosure to the application, since the application without the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Document Room. If we do not hear from you in' this regard within the specified periodt the report will be placed in the Public Document Room. .
i Should you have any questions concerning this investigation, we will
? be' pleased to discuss them with you.
5 i . Sincerely, k
- i Original signed by 1 W. C. Seidle l
a W. C. Seidle, Chief Reactor Construction and I
{: Engineering Support Branch '
1:
C
Enclosures:
~
3'-
J. 1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation -
.; . 2. IE Investigation Report No. 50-445/79-11 '
a 7,
50-446/79-11 4 cc: w/ enclosures -
3 Texas Utilities Generating Company
~
. ATTN: Mr. H. C. Schmidt, Project Manager ,
} 2001 Bryan Tower j
}; Dallas, Texas 75201 -
7 I bec to Reproduction Unit bec to DAC:ADM ~
for distribution 5~W-/f for distribution d-/ - 77
~' '
I
. AD/RCI (Reinmuth) ~ Central Files IE Files 4 PDR .
J Standards Development LPDR
^
ELD '
MIPC i L[
l bec distributed by RIV I "# 2 ,_ '
'I Texas Dept. of Health Resources l
Ni e
} .
(-
c.w a.h M: . a. u.s;% N &.n..w s.=.,a,a.;: 2:& n .--.gy.g _ . .wam..:a:.
= ~ n -~.. . , . . _ -
l
..- 50-445/79-11
- 50-446/79-11 Appendix A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Based on the results of the NRC investigation conducted during the periods April 2-3 and April 13-23, 1979, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with the conditions of your NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-126 as indicated below
Failure to Imolement the Ouality Assurance Program For Civil Construction 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II requires that a quality assurance e program be established and implemented for the construction of the d structures important to safety of the nuclear plant. The Texas s Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 0 Quality Assurance Plan affinns the intention to fulfill this require-
- , , ment. The CPSES " Civil Inspection Manual" provides a body of i inspection and testing procedures required to implement the Quality W Assurance Plan.
1 Contrary to the above:
On January 18, 1979, personnel of.the civil construction labor :
- force placed an undetermined amount of concrete of an unknown quality on the dome of the Unit 1 containment without the f knowledge of your QuaTity Assurance organization and without benefit of required inspections and testing of the concrete.
p -
3 This is an infraction.
s.
-9.
.q 9%
l
^
f
.'- , m- ..,-
. sw. e ., . . f , 7c ; , , _ .. . . , _- -- - ,. v= v ier e. g - - m gy -- - m N.! - r ' '
f #i a_ _A,- d I ^
am gh e , . p ,
{ g .h , e e.Q ,g g g ,. g , ;g g ) a '. , *(g g,3 g .g. g j[g g p,e' 4 e
_a
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 50-445/79-11; 50-446/79-11 Docket No. 50-445; 50-446 Category A2 Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company ,
2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak, Units 1 & 2 Investigation at: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas c
Investigation Conducted: April 2-3 and April 13-23, 1979 Inspectors: w_ - -
8[/4 f
. G. Taylor, Resident Reactor Inspector, Projects Date Section f "
hf
- 0. P. Tomlinson, Reactor Inspector, Eng.ineering f//obf
[ Tate /
, Support Section (April 13, 1979, Interview) i A. B. Beach, Reactor Inspector, Engineering s
Date /
okf Support Section (April 23, 1979, Interview) 3.)
Approved: 8 s_ -
f 4[7f W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Da'te obf R. E/ Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section Da'te /
.1 q qfBd OSL
,w a c .:,s. nab we r. ,u,. .;.w , . ,:u.::iuddi.,u.,uuu .;.i w.s :a..x.x halsu:: . , ;.sw
_ ., _ . - .. . .., , , . , . -. . . . . . . 1., .
Investigation Sumary:
Investigation on Aoril 2-3 and Acril 13-23, 1979 (Recort 50-445/79-11;
- , 50-446/79-11)
Areas Investigated: Special investigation of allegations received indi-cating that concrete had been placed on the Unit 1 dome during a rainstorm in January 1979, without QC or documentation; that pipe with sandblasted-off markings was being used in Unit 1; that steam system pipe was damaged by a handling accident and covered up; and that welders were not being
~'; properly qualified. The investigation involved thirty-six inspector-hours by the Resident Reactor Inspector and three inspector-hours by two Region IV based inspectors.
. Results: The allegation relative to the concrete placement was confirmed (noncompliance - failure to implement the QA program - infraction). No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified relative to the g balance of the allegations.
1 4
4 f
9' b
- e e
1 7
b" l
9 .
_ a
.v ;
- * * * *
- e we e O
. M i dM S.. .. [ k ? I.T 'I p.' s en dN.+ G Ak U 4Ji4%% W -3 +,C*rN eusa- *NE a m e- 'va 8- ** 'D4 8 MNr MW8 F: 4 8
- r ' '#
3
- 41. N-* - - ' ==&='
g -
t -
y .~. .
I
? INTRODUCTION
,' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2, are under
,) construction in Somerville County, Texas, near the town of Glen Rose, Texas. Texas Utilities Generating Company is the Construction Permit
.; holder with Brown and Root, Inc., as the constructor and Gibbs and Hill, Inc., as the Architect / Engineer.
v REASON FOR INVESTIGATION j The Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch office i received a telephone call from a fonner CPSES employee who reported i several allegations indicating a potential breakdown in the CPSES Quality g Assurance program.
4 u
5 y
SUMMARY
OF FACTS A:. .
t On March 30, 1979, the Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering li Support Branch received a telephone call from a party who identified O himself as a fonner CPSES employee. The call was taken by an on-duty j Reactor Inspector in the Projects Section who in turn provided the y infonnation to the assigned Resident Reactor Inspector at CPSES on April 2,1979. The allegations, as received on March 30, 1979, were:
4 2
1 1. During a concrete pour on the Unit 1 containment. dome in January j
1 1979, a rain occurred which washed away part of the concrete.
The affected area was repaired by the use of grout. Workers h . involved were requested to " keep it quiet." Two workers, who
,'.yj are still at the site, have knowledge of this occurrence.
9 2. The identity of a lot of "Q" and "non-Q" pipe (6" or less) being f used for Unit I has been lost due to obliteration of heat numbers i;y by sandblasting and loss of identifying tags. Workers are guessing y as to the proper identification of the pipe.
12G d 3. A steam pipe intended for the Unit 1 turbine fell off of a truck h and struck a railroad track. It was taken back to a storage area 2 and hidden. '
$ 4. Third class helpers are being qualified in less than three months j f and are being used for safety related welding on Unit 1.
e ,
"y'
.(
4 t4:
-.~.
[* , *
(A _
-y ..
[$ oh&hCS. SWAclkh$5&5 "Y$ *b' E b A *A '
E Y N E* Y Y '
.g n .~.~. g w- -- -.~n .~ e ~-wensn. ~-n'-
1 j
. .. l ,
3 3
$ On April 13, 1979, the Resident Reactor Inspector assigned to CpSES 14 and accompanied by another Region IV inspector interviewed the alleger 1 o in an effort to obtain additional information on the allegations. The l additional infonnation is sumarized as follows: -
e
- 1. The concrete used for the repair was not grout as originally indi-cated but was known to contain gravel. The concrete came from the W batch plant where it was mixed on the ground and carried in a bucket
,, to a tower crane at the Unit 1 Containment Building and hoisted to the dome area. The work was accomplished sometime during the middle i of the second shift, possibly around 10:00 to 10:30 p.m. (January
? 1979, no day specified).
d Y 2. The pipe in question was not prefabricated pipe but rather bulk pipe M joints. Sometimes, the pipe is sandblasted on the outside (rate of
@ occurrence not identified) which removes all of the heat marking e used for traceability.
k
'!/ i 3. The steam pipe was being moved during the second shift from the
- i ; "Dodd's Spur" storage area to the plant area when it was dropped R off the truck. A couple of the large " cherry-picker" type cranes 5 -
were dispatched to the indicent to pick up the pipe and place it C -
back on the truck. The crew with the truck decided instead to
. put the pipe back into the storage area and leave it there for M( ,
~'
another shift to pick up and perhaps be blamed for damaging the y ,
pipe. The alleger did not know if the pipe had actually suffered g any damage. He was aware the pipe in question was "non-Q" but
.o ,, expressed a concern that if the craft could get away with a cover-
$ up cn "non-Q," they probably are also doing it on the "Q" pipe and 3 v. other equimpment. .
g l , s'., 4. The alleger indicated he was concerned with what must be incompetent
'A welders working on "Q" welds, since they could not have very much y experience and still only be considered third class labor.
p ik V CONCLUSIONS
- )
d 9 Research of various records and interviews with both craft labor and 1 Brown & Root QC personnel produced the following conclusions;
- 1. The allegation relative to the concrete placement on the dome of
@f ;: Unit 1 is essentially correct and is evidence of a breakdown in d the licensee's Quality Assurance program. The incident will be 7 considered an item of noncompliance.
d h
s 4
p:
. ?d M
~ * . e
- ams m _o_ .- _
,m - - m m .m - - - - - ~ ~ - m m ~ ,,,. -
. 1 Y .
[ . .
t c
k' l
- 2. The allegation relating to the loss of pipe traceability markings l could not be confinned. The Resident Reactor Inspector's finding '
was that on occasion the sandblasting, with attendant loss of readily visible markings, probably does occur through human error, but that
, there are other means which will re-establish the identity of the pipe without guessing on the part of the craft labor force.
- 3. The piping in the "Dodd's Spur" storage area is for the turbine s portion of the plant and is not safety related from a nulcear
- standpoint and is therefore not within the jurisdiction of the NRC inspection program. The more generalized concern of cover-up
- of improper handling practices is not consistent with the obser-J vations of the Resident Reactor Inspector and other NRC inspectors l made during the course of routine inspections. The allegation l d cannot be verified or refuted at this time, but should subsequent j observations verify that the alleged situation is occurring, si appropriate action will be taken.
h 4. Welders are qualified in accordance with the provisions of the
- ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section IX, " Welding and
}
Brazing Qualifications," as required by NRC regulations and the licensee's comitments as contained in the Safety Analysis Report 4 submitted to obtain a Construction Permit. The labor classifica-tion, and therefore the pay, of the welders is not an element of
~
.}g the ASME Code welder qualification program, only the ability of s the person being tested to weld on a specified weld coupon.
z .
e .
1 iC -
+
b r
N d;: ,
11 y
u
$> -s- ,
?
hum._.;.w.mmwc. mas a.ex.c .h.hw& . .,
- m v,,m m mn em.. : ~.e ~ .---- . - ~ .~ ,n. n ~-re w . - - ,=.w om ;;c.., - __
U
,1 i
, DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted - --
Non-Licensee or Contractor Persons The alleger is a former employee of Brown & Root (the site general contractor). The person identified himself as a former equipment operator and foreman of equipment operators.
Principal Licensee Emoloyees Construction Manager, Texas Utilities Generating Co.
f Supervisor of Product Assurance, Texas Utilities Generating Co./
- Gibbs & Hill
.8 "i Brown & Root Inc.
i:
$ Project General Manager
. Construction Project Manager N .
General Foreman, Building Department 3 Superintendent, Building Department Quality Control Inspector, Civil i !
- 2. Preliminary Investication - Aoril 2-3, 1979 w
. a. Allegation 1: The Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) initiated j ,
a preliminary investigation of the allegation as soon as f c received. The RRI was aware that a number of concrete place-i ~ .' ments had been necessary to complete the dome area of Unit 1 3 g and that a substantial portion of these placements occurred ~
U in January 1979. Schedule completion data indicated that five
.i of the total of thirteen dome placements occurred in January
- 1979. Rainfall data for January was then obtained from the i licensee's meteorology unit which indicated rain had fallen on Janaury 15,1979 (with the rainfall totalizer reset to p{ zero) and again in the period between January 15 and 22,1979, when the totalizer was again zerced. The data suggested that
/, placement 101-8805-013, the final placement on the dome, was
- - the most likely candidate since 2.72 inches of rain had occurred
- about the placement date of January 18, 1979. The RRI then f; examined the QC inspection records for the placement which stated, I
- 5 " Pour stopped at 8:00 p.m.1/18/79 due to inclement weather. Pour L,i was topped out all but to a 30' radius which was cleaned up and G finished 1/19/79."
.i The RRI then interviewed the QC inspector of record for the placement and was informed that the placement had started under good weather conditions on January 18, but that the q a
,I k . . . - . . .
. . - e e. ., ,,
. )E, 5a%i 2 ~5'$ EUA T.?sh >*Y eS ASYtWAN
- UNE- *O*$ ^
'-= * * * * * " ' -' "
i * - *'*$* * " ' ' *
- 7 __ _ _
, .-m,.m.w 1-s--e---w mmmemwinnr
~
h .
s . .
~
weather subsequently developed into a light mist and drizzle which did not interfere with the placement. By late evening, the weather deteriorated further. and became a full rainstorm with thunder and lightning. By 7:30 p.m. or so it was decided that the placement would have to be stopped for reasons of personnel safety. The placement area was covered to keep the rain off the fresh concrete and the second shift was instructed -
to water blast and clean up the area so the placement could be t -
i resumed the following day.
- t
- b. Allegations 2, 3 & 4: No attempt was made to perform a pre-liminary investigation of these allegations since the infor-mation was too vague. -
/: 3. Licensee / Contractor Report of Allegations 2 During the course of the above preliminary investigation, personnel 1 of the licensee's management and QA organizations approached the RRI and stated that they too had received an allegation relative to
@i the dome placement. It was stated that licensee management had received a telephone call on or about March 19, 1979, on the subject dl and that licensee management had visited the alleger at his home on j March 20, 1979, to ascertain the facts of the allegation. The alleger then was invited to visit the site and discuss the allegation, which 4 the alliger is reported to have done on March 26, 1979. On the basis y of these interviews, the licensee's Product Assurance personnel under-A a took a'n investigation which concluded that the allegation had no merit.
$ e
$ , 4. Interview with Alleger by NRC Personnel .
- s' The Region IV office made several attempts to establish contact with dj i the alleger during the period following March 30, 1979, when the j allegation was received, through April 12, 1979, when the interview J, date and location were established. The RRI and another NRC inspector
,;3 met with the alleger and a friend on April 13, 1979.
4 The alleger provided the following information about himself: ,
$ a. He had been employed by Brown & Root at CPSES for 2-1/2 to 3 H years and had quit in mid-March because he was dissatisfied with how the night shift equipment operators were being dispatched and supervised.
n 9 b. He had been an equipment operator, primarily on cherry-pickers, y and also a foreman for equipment operators at an earlier time.
a lf9 -3 j . . . . . _
s .
E' NM/A o^^
_ 1 =m $ s .. . - A a
.emman - m. %-,enw e .m.e n m.~.~-m-w - mwar e
? . -
j..- .
~
L -
4 1
9 c. . He stated that he had made the allegations to licensee management
! and Brown & Root management earlier but had not been at all sat-
, isfied with the answers he had received to his allegations.
The alleger provided the following additional information relative to .
each of the allegations: .
1 -
Allegation 1: The incident occurred well after the time that the placement had been stopped. He could not be sure of the
{ time but thought it was probably 10:00 to 10:30 p.m. when some 3 equipment was dispatched to the concrete batch plant to bring
. down a bucket of concrete to Unit 1 and thought it strange. The y concrete was taken to the dome by a tower crane. He was sure that.the concrete ,was not batched by the batch plant and certainly was not delivered by the usual concrete mix truck.
T Allegation 2: The alleger made it clear that he was not referring
- to completed pipe spools but rather to bulk pipe. The cherry-y picker operators routinely move the pipe from one location to g another on the site and that the pipe involved was bulk pipe or
, joints. He stated that the pipe was sometimes sandblasted in such 4 a way as to obliterate the heat number markings or tags and that he was pretty sure that there was a lot of unidentified pipe in i the safety systems in Unit 1. This sandblasting sometimes happened
.i to various steel fonns used to make supports.
v Allegation 3: The alleger described being dispatched with his g
( j. equipment out to "Dodd's Spur" to pick up a length of pipe that
. had fallen off a truck after being loaded. . The pip'e had fallen d , on the spur railroad track. The RRI was not familiar with the f '
- term "Dodd's Spur." The alleger stated it was the area were the in turbine components are stored. When he (the alleger) arrived at 3 the site of the incident, he was told not to reload the pipe on j the truck but to take it back into the storage area and put it down. The pipe crew indicated to him that they hoped that a day
]i shift crew would come for the pipe and would probably be blamed L for any damage that might have occurred to pipe when it fell.
y He stated that he did not know if the pipe had been damaged. He S stated that he knew it was "non-Q" pipe but thought the NRC should Q be aware that such things were going on at the site.
I.a it 5. Final Investigation - April 16-23, 1979 n.P
- a. Allegation 1. The RRI obtained the craft labor time sheets for
&q both shifts for January 18 and 19,1979. Review of the time 1 sheets for the day shift on January 18 indicated that a portion V of that shift worked on placement 101-8805-013. The records indicated that the day shift was terminated at approximately b
q g
N.\ -AN ' ~- ! . ,_ n
-' t
. . AY .
c - mm,,- %
2 -
~
1, ..
s 3
?
<3 8:30 p.m. relative to the placement as were the personnel at the concrete batch plant. The batch plant has no second shift operators.
. _ . . . . _ The RRI found that a large number of. people, well in excess of fifty,
, had then worked on the placement during a substantial portion of the 7 second shift. One crew of twelve people was shown by the time sheets i to have been placing concrete, a notation not consistent with the i~ fact that the batch plant was closed during the shift. The RRI then utilized the time sheets to develope a list of persons to be inter-
.- viewed in connection with the incident with special concentration it on the persons listed on the time sheet indicating " placing concrete 5 101-8805-013." The B&R personnel office records indicated that
[ -
eight of the ten names included in this specific crew had been terminated at various times since January 18; the records did not 2
.)
y suggest that any action was being taken to get rid of possible 1 confirmatory personnel.
Jg Late on April 17, 1979, two of the senior B&R construction manage-1 ment personnel very. informally asked the RRI how the investigation 4 of the allegations was coming along. The RRI responded that the i on-site phase appeared to be complete and that NRC personnel would g .
undertake the effort to locate and interview selected personnel t imediately since it appeared that the allegation might be well 7 founded. They asked the RRI if they could check with their people ,
? down to the General Foreman level as .to the incident the night of '
'4 -
January _18. The RRI indicated that such an inquiry on their part ij would probably not interfere with any future investigative action 4 by the NRC.
m .
f .
q On April 18, 1979, the licensee's product Assurance Supervisor informed the RRI that he had information which indicated that the 7 .:> incident had occurred and that the craft General Foreman was the
' 'ij person responsible.
-s.
j On April 23, 1979, the RRI, accompanied by another NRC Inspector, e interviewed the General Foreman and his imediate supervisor, the i: night shift B&R Building Department Superintendent. These men I related that on the night of January 18 the weather seemed to worsen j '
and got to the point where the rain was so heavy that the people d could hardly see. The freshly placed concrete developed into a problem when the plastic cover could not take the rainfall water 1 load. Some of concrete began to sag back down the dome slope and
.b i$ one small area actually washed out and fell to the ground below.
t These men related that they and their entire crew of up to about
,$ one hundred-fifty worked on into the night trying to save a very
@ bad situation. The sagged concrete was worked back into position y and the crew protected it in any way they could to allow it to
- $ take a set.
l ::P D ,
,m 1
.7.e Y
LL j
,n Y 5 Y0$ NA ,. Y: -
w., -- _.___ .--. -__ _ m.,_ m m ,,m- . e-m _, __m
] - .. .
a .
9 d
d The General Foreman went to the batch plant, got it open and operated the plant himself to make enough material to patch the washed out area. He stated that he found the design mix data
.. used for the concrete on the. dome and calculated the necessary 4
weight of ingredients to prepare a half a cubic yard of concrete.
The required data was put into the control system for the back-up dry batch plant, dropped into a skiff, and carried over to the quarter yard concrete mixer at the site test laboratory. It was
. mixed in two batches and placed into a skiff and carried to the -
i dome where most of the half yard was used as a patch in the j
washed out area.
i Both the General Foreman and his Superintendent were aware that m there were no Quality Control personnel around to observe any of y these actions since they had all gone home when the weather got e . really bad. Both men related to the RRI a picture of almost panic 4 proportions in which the presence or absence of Quality Control simply did not matter; they were going to save a concrete place-
%} ment from what they considered a disasterous situation, regardless.
They indicated that while the night shift Assistant Construction j; Project Manager was generally aware of the situation on the dome
.) that night, he probably was unaware of the fact that Quality Control personnel were not there or of the batching of the concrete l' . under the conditions indicated. -
)j In response to a question from the General Foreman as to "what happens now" the RRI stated that the NRC had no choice but to
, issue a Notice of Violation to the licensee since it had become 2 .. very clear that the licensee's Quality Assurance program had 4.{ c broken down for the entire evening of January 18, 1979, and that
< ~
L a substantial amount of concrete on the dome was of an unknown
- . quality.
c b. Allegation 2. The RRI visited the paint shop sandblasting area J during the course of the final investigation to ascertain if j this allegation could reasonably happen. The RRI interviewed a T foreman of painters who is also in charge of the sandblasting
? activity and was told that three main categories of piping
'i. material routinely are sandblasted. These are:
3 C (1) Completed carbon steel spool pieces which are blasted on the outside prior to painting. The identity of these
- pieces is on an attached stainless steel band on which F the identifying is encoded by stamping. Should the band w come off, the spool piece identity can be re-established
+: by the pipe fabrication shop since each spool is unique and is fully described by isometric drawings.
9:
.i l
- i y .. .. . . , . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . , . . ..
55i?$&E_E_W ._.: ? ? : N
_ - - . . . _ _ __ . ._ -- _ . _ - - - _ - - - - - . - - - - - w. _.m j e . -
a .
(2) Carbon steel cut lengths, but otherwise in an unfabricated l condition, are sent to sandblasting to have the inside cleaned prior to further fabrication. The outside, which usually carries the heat marking in paint-is supposed to be untouched. .
1 1
'.i (3) Bulk carbon steel pipe materials used for making equipment stands and supports is blasted and painted prior to fabrica-tion. The material is used for such items as instrument supports.
e E The RRI found a number of examples of each of the above categories as well as steel shapes in the sandblast area. During the tour of i t the area, the RRI did not find any material that could rot be !
? identified except that in category three. The RRI interviewed one E of the sandblasting personnel and came to the conclusion that the 2 person might.make an occasional mistake on category 2 material j since he seemed confused when asked what he was going to do with i.; a number of pieces ready for him to work on. It appeared that he
? might well blast the outside of a pipe when he should blast the n inside.
) .
9 Subsequent discussions with the paint shop foreman and with a T Brown and Root Quality Control inspector in the pipe fabrication shop revealed that all cut, but unfabricated material, is trans-c ferred to the paint shop by memo which details the size, schedule :
o and length of the cut section and the pipe spool isometric drawing
- involved. Should the outside of the pipe be inadvertently blasted,
? the piece can be reidentified relatively easy by measuring its size, f -
schedule and length. The isometric drawing used to make the cut t .3 length is annotated with the pipe heat number prior to the cutting
}
~
./. operation and verified by QC. It appeared most unlikely to the i RRI that two otherwise identical pieces but with different heat
?!l numbers would be inadvertently blasted within the same time period.
i The RRI concluded that the allegers remark that " workers are
,i guessing on the identity of pipe" might be true, but that there
'[ was an adequate cross-check system built into the quality assurance M program to preclude untraceable pipe from being installed in the j safety related systems.
All of the steel shapes used in safety related supports for pipe and cable tray that have been examined by the RRI and other NRC y inspectors have been sufficiently marked to establish their origin.
W These materials are also subject to a system of quality control verifications at various stages of fabrication sufficient to make
% it very unlikely that any improperly identified or unidentified i5 material is used and installed.
H lL 1
g .
i- -
~""'f,">' ,v i"' "
G;; q gar ' '"
. . {. M.*** W. f*e . ] ** , i U' '. - ' 7 'N C[' ' O 1-W . W. e ' ,; a y. .. .J ;w h.L .' t .h' '2#" ' .'*>N~, I
. . . . . .,6
,.'"W ,,3 M, . ' ., 'G%y , .J .ut.'.&' '* .%,a i . ew . .' ;4, '. " > n~.ac e . . m q < .", 3. .L'. + 1 , No. wg (d N .-] *f.
.'\ t , r.n ~ i . 2.; v. % .s~~-
^
.- . . .__=-n.- a --.. ---------n-n xm - + - . . - . . e, . . ~ .
1 n
.' e ...
$ l 4 l
- c. Allegation 3: Based on the interview with the alleger, no further ,
action was taken to investigate the specifics of the allegation !
since the. pipe in questian was clearly not-safety related and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the NRC inspection pro-gram. The more general concern that the pipe handling incident was a possible indicator of the general attitude of the craft s , personnel, particularly the riggers and pipefitters, appeared to
, be unfounded. The RRI has observed durin j the past nine months (since August 1978) g many that plant tours the material hand-over
=r ling activities of the craft personnel have been accomplished i under well controlled conditions in so far as they relate to
" safety related equipment and materials. An allegation of possible 3 cover-up of improper actions by the craft personnel in behalf of
- other craft personnel is almost impossible to either confirm or Jy; completely refute. -
- d. Allegation 4: No further investigation was made into the charge P[
f i that third class welders are being used to perform safety related m piping system welds on the basis that the welders are all qualified j
under a program prescribed by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel J l Code Section IX, " Welding and Brazing Qualification." The applica-6; / tion of the Section IX program has been reviewed a number of times
- 9; by the RRI and other NRC inspectors since it was implemented at 3 '
CPSES. The implementation has been found to be consistent with
- j ~
the requirements. These requirements, however, do not address b themselves to the experience or inexperience of the person seeking M qualification as a welder, but rather to whether he can accomplish
,f y a weld in one or more of the Code prescribed positions that will Js i pass the test criteria imposed by the Code: The terminology " third
.j i class," as it applies to the labor force, relates primarily to the y .
j ( pay category in which a person is hired and previous experience 4 -
\. is a factor in this determination. -
!9 .
!J 4
- 4 9 -
p x,
a q
o l
,h l ':. .
1
,m ... . . , _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .
l4 '
\C - . *
- Que.4%iMissi%w.
- MwCM.MELE=.46 M La=~=O % ~ MM E- A '^""W-
y_y.7 - mm.~~~yT E
-mm-mryr m;mwwv!.<m-~w-Mmmem?4% =#@g l j
-d/ . ,,_'t ..*-
A : %' #*r_ e 4- ;-i m ..
- f. .
1
% 1 g
V <8 ~ Q u
'h
~ '
In' Reply Refer To: ,
j RIV ., {
Docket No. 50-445/Rpt 79-15
- 50-446/Rpt. -
. \
l I
- . Texas U'tilities Generating Company r l
ATTN: Mr R. J. Gary . Executive Vice .
l
. . President and General Manager -
2001 Bryan Tower -
l' j
Dallas, Texas - 75201 ( ,
i
\
~
v e- -Ge. ntlemen: A
.- \
This refers to the investigation conducted by Messrs. R.'G. Taylor' and !
U. A. Cross =an of cur staff on May 29 through June 4, 1979, of activities l authorized'by NRC Construction Perrits No. CFPR-126 and 127 for tha Ccuanche !
Peak facility, Units Ifo.1 and 2, concerning allegations by a former Cocanche
(
- Peak employee. .
I
. , . 1, The investigation and our findings are discussed in the enclosed investigation
- report. .e -
l
[x s
1 No ite=s .of nonco=pliance or deviations were identifl1ed.
]:
Even though no items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified l
[ during this investigation, we did find that the allegations were essentially ,-
. . . true. We also noted during this investigation that a thread of continuity j existed between this investigation and others recently conducted relative to ,q j alleged problems with site canagement and quality control in certain areas of construction. Although we feel that the major organizational changes you
.made in January 1978 have strengthened the QA/QC program at Comanche Peak, we .
cannot ignore the fact that we are continaing to receive allegations concerning .
^ construction practices. Taken individdally these allegations, some of which l have been substantiated, 'do not appear to have any significant adverse i= pact -
on the conformance of your plant to NRC cr-"4 tments. Ecwever, as we discussed in our meeting with you and M in our office on June 22, 1979, when :
- these allegations are taken collectively, there appears to be a morale problem l which is evidenced by several of the allegers and may be attributable, in' !
part, to co:.munication proble=s,between the workers and supervision. In our Jdne 22 neeting, you indicated that you would look into these apparent . !
cocnunication problems along with the adequacy of QA/QC indoctrination of
- plant supervision and ' workers and take appropriate action to correct any
~ weaknesses that you detect in these areas. We' intend to follow this catter i c pacl; L ir.; x'.x; = _c.;;c tic.. . i
. ~ . - . . ...o ~:. .. .. . . . . ..g - ;
) g....aiv.. h.
GTaylor/nh -
WACrosscan WC nie '
, WEV. e.t. .t. .e. .r..(. ... 88.; .I . . . . . . , , , , -
.2fggg.,
' ~
. .. 7./..H.79_. . . 3/. 2g ,,, . . . . .7f. . . . ., .f. . ....... ,
, ,, i o c ,o a m . o c- m r .
- 2........ ........... .......... 1.. Y . - :
= _
, $ 9']'hl.4! . . - -
- b.
.w
-nma.m ~m.mr-y:rm=~ - z2m~yrr wwwry ymwm"~~w= ~wwau wmu J r,
,i p . .
4 '.. .
i .. l
}
T Texas Utilities Generating Coupa=y -7). '7 7 I a
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rulas of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Pederal Regulations, a copy of this lettar and the enclosed
~
investigation report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If the report"contains any infor=ation that you believe to be proprietary, it la necessary that you submit a written application to this offica, within 20 days of the data of this letter, requesting that such information be withheld fron
[ public disclosure. The application must include a full statemsat of the raasons why it is rTafmed that the information is proprietary. The appifntion should be prepared so that any proprietary information identified is contained in an enclosure to the application, since the application without the enclosure will r also be placed in the Public Document Room. If we do not hear from you in this
% regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public d . Docunent Room. ,
a 9 Should you have any questions concerning this' investigation, we vill be pleased
~-j to discuss them with you.
j Sincerely, ;
- 5 .
1 .
Original si.ned by
~
W. C S& lie- - - - -
~
(' '.
2 W. C. Saidle, Chief Reactor Construction and f
{
').
.h4-ring Support Branch j
' ~
C
Enclosure:
I I i IE Investigation Report No. 50-445/79-15 *
'~
50-445/79-15 . >- .
. i.
v - . .
i
- ~ -'
E cc: w/ enclosure ..
Texas Utilities Generating Company .
ATTN: Mr. H. C. Schmidt, Project Manager '
4 .
3 -
2001 Bryan Tower '
lt Dallas, Texas 75201 --
- u '*
- 7 .
e , -
bec to Reproduction Unit bec to DAC:ADM ~ -. -
i
- 'l["
t for distribution P ,A P J for distribution 7dv 'r '75 -
l v . .
]
AD/RCI (Reinmuth)
- Standards Development- LPDR . -
j l.c ELD *
- TIC -s
MIPC :
bec distributed b RIV2' M/ 2'2 l
Texas Dept. of Health Resources ;
- l. -
1
~
- I
- l. .m. . . . - -
.g g [,o v *ErkN v*.UtC. i e .. c = . 4 _v .s 5 MM .~nea.s". , kj ne
- 4- . _fcI. k.r / k, e. -E: g, . fcme_ a .'8-e' ' I %r=
^
- a
m ew,e_~ mme-~~n w. ~ .wm m - ? ~ e~uwm w ~.wcsmn.~ow m m.w w w P
f ..
y .
- A 1 U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CO.tiISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
{
REGION IV Report No. 50-445/79-15; 50-446/79-15 Docket Ho. 50-445; 50-446 Category A2 Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company
'i-2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Co=anche Peak, Units 1 & 2 3 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas i Investigation at:
[y Investigation conducted: May 29 through June 4,1979 h.
Inspectors: 2W' 0!2/[79 R. G. Taylor, Reactor Resident Inspector, Project Sections Date 11 h a
"$ d- G/z//;
7 ) W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date 5
Approved: m- fa[2/[
a W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date v
_.s Investigation Sn-nry:
}
f Investigation on May 29 through June 4, 1979 (Recort No. 50-445/79-15; 50-466/79-15)
Areas Investigated: Special investigation of allegation received regarding Q i= proper and potentially very poor welding of inter-plate seams in the Unit 1 Refueling Pool, spent fuel pools, and transfer canal of the cocmon facility Fuel Handling Building. The investigation involved twenty-eight inspector-hours by the Reactor Resident Inspector (RRI) and the Chief Projects Section.
[ Results: The allegations were neither specifically confirmed nor refuted.
The allegations, if confirmed, would have no safety significance. No items
'". of nonco=pliance or deviations were identified.
2
^
's
._ h' u - j - ~
T '
, """"""")' ~a s. .{
r- _
w.wn-n ..yg. . ~ ~ r ~;- - ~~~ ,~ y . ~;. ,~ wm u o : ._- -y - -
- 2; INTRODUCTION Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2 are under construction in Somervell County, Texas, near the town of Glen Rose, Texas.
Texas Utilities Generating Company is the Construction Permit holder with Brown and Root, Inc. as the constructor and Gibbs and Hill, Inc. as the Architect / Engineer.
A REASON FOR THE INVESTIGATION The Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch received a telephone call from a former CPSES employee who reported several allegations indicating a potential breakdown in the CPSES Quality Assurance program and
- a possible threat to the health and safety of the public. The substance of
- , the allegations also appeared in an edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
- published on May 30, 1979.
7 c
SUMMARY
OF FACTS The Region IV Reactor Construction and Engideering Support Branch received a a telephone call on May 25, 1979, from a party who identified himself as a former CPSES employee who had worked as a Boilermaker welder. The call was
- taken jointly by the Branch Chief and the Section Chiefs of the Projects
., Section and the Engineering Support Section who in turn provided the infor-mation to the assigned Resident Reactor Inspector at CPSES on May 29, 1979.
s s(.The allegations were reviewed with the alleger in an interview which took
. f place on May 30, 1979, at his home. Each of the following allegations relate to welding of stainless steel liners in the Unit 1 Reactor Containment Building or in the common Fuel Handling Building:
- 1. Allegation No. 1 1I u
? Welding and weld repairs on the liners were difficult because water from e concreting activities had run down the leak chase channels and out past
/ the backing strip into the weld area. Welds finally completed were very
% poor; some welds had been slugged with weld rod and others were so thin that if buffed a second time with 120 grit, they would not have passed PT (Penetrant Test).
- 2. Allegation No. 2
~
There are problems with the gate guide (refers to a gate in the Reactor Containment separating the refueling pool from a small storage pool and the transfer canal).
1/The statements above are the allegations as received. Clarifications obtained from the alleger during the interview of May 30, 1979, are indicated by parenthesis.
2
- * .w .$ 4.f I . "
'*,4e ,.M 3*sNa,Pw.ar#,
. = t s. . 4*; N 5fdhiw.4fd c M & t E ./ h e"E**a s .
g .4=w8ss 4
./.=_+'__7._f'
' ;2My ^
SW#72DQCWg%
3 -
y
- 4 .
4 .
[ a. The gate guide between the large and small pool was welded in the shop. When the gate guide was installed in the pit, the end bevel was cut off so it could be fit-up. When the guide was installed,
. it was not rebeveled and where a fillet weld of 3/8" was required, only 3/16" fillet weld was made.
- b.
- The gate guide had to be welded to both sides of the liner. When welding the back side, the welder had to crawl down between the rebar to get to the weld. The position was so crowded that the welder 1 could not make a good weld. Also, the welder couldn't see what he was welding very well.
[ c. Six inches of the chase channels were left off the gate guide and added after the gate guide was installed. The rebar was so thick
$ in the areas where welding was performed that "you could hardly get your finger through, much less the welding torch." Consequently, d, the welds were not made properly.
~
3 Of 3. Allegation No. 3 2 'h 3 '
Welders have no experience. They spend as much as 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> trying to make a test weld. They finally learn how to make a weld that will pass t I the qualifying test and then when they get into the field they dca't know L what they're doing.
? . :
., 4. Allegation No. 4 5
y There is " lots" of QC coverup. QC is " buying-off" on welds over the phone.
et e, - One QC inspector bought off a seam before he ever saw the seam and it was a not a good weld because water was coming through while the weld was being s
. made. (The buy-off involvel was joint preparation and cleanliness prepar-t , atory to welding).
b 5. Allegation No. 5 Brown and Root is not following procedures in welding the liner plate.
x (The procedures referred to are welding procedures and specifically refer
. ; to use of a down-hand welding technique being used versus the procedurally e required up-hand technique).
.c f 6. Allegation No. 6
[ Some of the top seams 18" above water level on the fuel pool had backing T strips tack welded to the liner plate. There are places where the plate did not cover the backing strip. He would not guarantee the weld. The weld was probably 60% rust, air, concrete, etc.
3NY ' * , Q ah -
. g A3.{j __--*** Y$ u , g gy; ,
. ,n.s- m . x,ainem.m .w. mum,,.. _ p.y.g.ymwm.m
. 7,v
--;-_,,,-- - .-:Isr= w r'u_arn o w e -<^ ma m." - h -- wu x_e-m%chc_ ;IM i .mi% - hnOL
? .
3
? .
9 CONCLUSIONS Review of the CPSES Final Safety Analysis Report, Project Specifications and
- , Engineering Drawings, as they pertain to the liner fabrication and installation,
_ have led to the following conclusions relative to each allegation stated in the a Summary of Facts above. To better understand these conclusions, the following
- considerations are necessary
The liner systems are not installed to prevent or mitigate the conse-C quences of any of the postulated design basis accidents, but rather are installed to prevent an excessive burden on the liquid waste
., collection and disposal system and to allow the wall and floor area
- to be more easily decontaminated a'fter pool usage. The liners as
- a functioning element are, therefore, not considered safety related
? and are not normally included in the NRC inspection program.
d
? The liners, as passive elements and parts of the building structure, Q are usually classified into seismic Category I since if one or more 9
of the liner plates were to become detached from the wall, serious damage could be done to stored fuel assemblies. The plates are,
- therefore, secured to the concrete supporting structure with a system N
of weld studs attached to the back of the plate and embedded into the
~,
concrete. The weld stud system is not a factor in these allegations.
r i b 1. Allegation No. 1 i
.c _.. The RRI, based on the interview with the alleger and with other welders,
{ $ has become- reasonably sure that there were difficulties encountered by 0 :. the welders with water, moisture and in some instances with concrete on
'.5 ir the weld surfaces and that in some instances, the welds may not be com-lA .; pletely sound internally. These welds, however, serve no strength purpose ig -
and need only to be smooth and leak free, factors which are established 1 by visual inspection, dye penetrant examinations, and by vacuum box tests f of the joint after it is complete. The allegation, while probably true, I
has no safety consequence.
'3 y 2. Allegations No. 2.a, b, & c -
- L These collective allegations, while probably true in a substantial sense, N also have no safety consequence. The weld joints ir questica only need to be smooth and leak free in the case of a. and b. and leak free in the case of c. The welds do not serve to lend strength to the structure.
l' 3. Allegation No. 3 h ,n The project specifications for all welding, including the pool liners,
( $ require that welders be qualified under the requirements of the American l Society of Mechancial Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section IX or a comparable requirement such as those of the American Welding
(
i
-1
- m__ _ _ _ , _ .m , m,,_,,y,,,,,,, .
- c_= = w.=v. m wrw w
- ,ge.p,p:w m3 c.t.px.g
.r&_f,-
?-v = .,;; - --a =.u,x,
, - mwr : - . _ '
~ _mm u- - - - wmu.+m , _ea+& 3.m .a.+. o 1
m 5
.* Society.Section IX of the ASME requires that a welder must perform a weld process involved and the as-welded coupon must pass specified tests when complete. No time limits are specified or implied as a requirement in Section IX for making the qualification test coupon weld.
The RRI has verified previously that the site welder qualification pro-gram is in full compliance with Section IX.
- 4. AIlegation No. 4
- The RRI examined the circumstances surrounding the specific portion of
., the allegation and discussed the matter with the QC inspector directly involved. It appears that this man, on occasion, was depending on the inspections performed by a fellow inspector and so recorded on the
^
appropriate weld data card. The joint was covered over with tape after
,( it had been inspected for cleanliness and fit-up and the inspector re-i leased it over the phone based on the record card entries. Water in the A leak chase channels appears to have been a constant problem. The QC
? inspector may have made a judgement error in not re-examining the joint, q but not withstanding, the joint had been inspected and found satisfactory
.h at that time. The RRI did not investigate the alleged " lots" of QC coverup y because of the lack of specifics.
x ,
a 5. Allegation No. 5 9
f 4 As noted in the Summary of Facts, the general allegation of failing to j follow procedures was subsequently refined in the interview with the 4 alleger to relate specifically to an occasion where the alleger was d: it directed by his supervision to weld down-hand rather than up-hand as i .% required by the welding procedures. ASME Section IX indicates that such c.1 p a change is in the category of a non-essential variable and, therefore, y '4 is not a prohibited change in the procedure, if recorded. It appears J , i that the change was not recorded. Interviews with other welders on the y -
same activity failed to reveal any similar experiences and supervision has denied directing the alleger to perform out-of procedure. The RRI, there-
- fore, has no mechanism by which to confirm the allegation. Again, assuming
,. that the alleger did weld down-hand instead of up-band for whatever reason, j$ the consequences of such an action are essentially meaningless as related 6 to a weld, since such a change has no effect on the finished weld of the 1 type involved.
t" 6. Allegation No. 6
,1 The particular welds in question are even less consequential than the other
$ seam welds in a functional sense. These welds, which are above the water
{h line in the pools, do not need to be leak free, just smooth for the purposes e of easy decontamination. The allegation, while perhaps true, has no conse-
. quence.
M' ~~ ..#-s. h 4, _, . - av wh P h .,e.w M C=W
~- , _ n ,. n .w, w ,p g
. -, .m---..w ~--wnv -
r
.4 DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted Alleger 4
The alleger, hereafter identified as Individual "A," is a former employee of Brown and Root, Inc. (the site general contractor). The person iden-cified himself as a former welder assigned to the millwright / boilermaker unit of the construction force.
Principal Licensee Employee
~
Site Quality Assurance Supervisor
^
~
Brown and Root, Inc.
r.
Project Construction Manager M111 wright / Boilermaker Superintendent lj Individual "B," a welder currently working as a pipefitter but who was a i Boilermaker 4 Individual "C," a welder currently working as a pipefitter but who was a Boilermaker o .. Individual "D," a quality control inspector who was assigned to inspection
', of pool liners
- 2. Background of Allegations
, j- Individual "A" contacted the Region IV office at approximately 9:25 a.m.
- .i on Friday, May 25, 1979, to express concerns about the welding activities L
i which had taken place on the spent fuel pools, cask loading pool and the
' .f transfer canal in the common Fuel Handling Building for both Units as well as that work accomplished in the Unit i refueling pool and temporary storage y
pool installed in the Reactor Containment Building.
- The RRI was notified of these allegations on Tuesday, May 29, 1979, (May 28
? a holiday) and initiated an i==ediate investigation. The first point of contact was the licensee's site Quality Assurance supervisor who infor=ed j the RRI that he was aware of the allegations, since his company had been
$ apprised of them by a newspaper reporter employed by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
> The site supervisor also informed the RRI that another welder, Individual "B," had expressed similar concerns to the Project Construction Manager
% on May 23, 1979, and that concerns had been forwarded to site Quality
?!
4 Assurance for investigation. The RR1 was provided an informal memorandum giving the results of the investigation dated May 23, 1979.
. ,6-4
@ # nah
- i A1 .. 9
- 8 Q
3 :w.vggmv~s=w~wn m p y o m p .v ~ ~ w w - w y n 5
- 5~ . .-
1 Individual "A" also contacted the Project Construction Manager on May 24, 1979, and expressed essentially the same concerns as those expressed by Individual "B" and which in turn he expressed to the Region IV office on
- May 25,1979. It appears that Individual "A" and his supervision, up through the Project Construction Manager, had reached a substantial point
- ' of disagreement and Individual "A" voluntarily terminated his employment at the site as of May 24, 1979. The voluntary termination is a matter of record in Individual "A's" employment file.
- 3. Investigation T The RRI initiated the site phase of the investigation by extensively
- reviewing the CPSES Final Safety Analysis Report in order to ascertain 4 the safety classification of the various pools and pool liners involved j in the allegation and to review the functional descriptions. Reference y to Section 3.2, " Classification of Structures, Components and Systems,"
t in the FSAR does not indicate the liners as being safety related although y the buildings in which they exist are shown to be in seismic Category I.
3 Paragraph 3.8.3.7.1 provided a commitment to test the liner seams via a vacuum box for leak tightness and briefly described a leak chase system
?j behind the liner seams. Paragraph 3.8.4.1.3 provided a brief additional j description of the function of the liners. Figures 9.3-9 and 11.2-4 5 revealed that the extensive leak chase system has lead-out piping which s leads to a building sump and hence into the liquid radioactive waste
? collect; ion and disposal system.
e a
? The RRI then obtained Project Specification 2323-SE-18, Revision 3,
, " Stainless Steel Liners," to ascertain what requirements the design engineer
& .: had established for the liners. The RRI noted the following significant j items from the specification: -
3 j e, a. The design engineer invoked the general quality assurance requirements j -
of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B on the fabrication and installation work.
g 3 b. The design engineer provided three full pages of detail requirements
- relative to the system of studs to be welded to the reverse or concrete backed side of the liners.
L.}
W
@ c. The design engineer made reference to the inter plate seam welds only by requiring that the welding procedures and welders be qualified to f[
l ASME,Section IX. Criteria for finished welds require that, " Surfaces of all welds shall be smooth and free of any irregularities such as l%
%j serrations, ridges, crevices, or pinholes which may make it subsequently
$ difficult to achieve an effective washdown of the liner surface." Under 4 testing the design engineer provided the following, "All seam welds j shall also be tested by vacuum box for leak tightness for their entire i4
,v leath." No other quality requirements were imposed on the seam welds.
e t a Q
- a. . .
u%
h- it n =weseamcwswa aga ,,g Q s- y _
l
- d. The RRI then obtained the design engineer's drawings S-0831 through S-0834, SI-0560, MI-0581, all of which provide details of liner l fabrication and installation. In addition, the RRI obtained vendor design detail drawings for the gate guide installed in the Containment i Building between the refueling pool and the temporary storage pool.
These drawings, taken collectively, showed that the design engineer had designed a system wherein the liner plates and the gate guide
, would be supported by and anchored to the surrounding concrete walls by a very extensive system of "T" headed studs welded to the concrete
, sides of the plates and gate guide frame. The seam welds are entirely from plate-to plate and provide no attachment into the basic building
"., structure.
The RRI concluded on the basis of the above information that the liner
,. system had been designed such that resistance to seismic effect was vested L in the "T" headed stud installation and that the seam welds were necessary 7 . only to provide a very low leakage path for the pool water and that what
.? . leakage might occur would be drained to an appropriately designed method y of disposal.
U y The RRI interviewed Individual "A" on May 30, 1979, in conjunction with the 2
Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Branch, Projects Section Chief, in order to gain additional information relative to each of the
.g allegations received over the telephone on May 25, 1979. The additional .
. information and clarifiedtions were as noted in the Summary of Facts
,y included in this report.' In addition, Individual "A" acknowledged that he i- had only very recently become aware that the stud system existed for
'S : holding the plates in place and was, in fact, unaware that the leak A j chase channels were piped to a collection point for controlled collection j j and disposal of any leakage ,which might occur.
g
.; i
^g .i The RRI interviewed Individual "B" in the presence of the licensee's site 3 QA supervisor, also on May 30, 1979. (This arrangment was allowed since i Individual "B" only came to the attention of the RRI through the assistance of the licensee's representative.) The allegations of Individual "A" were (i-' reviewed in detail with Individual "B" who essentially confirmed Allegations 1, 3 and 6, but indicated he had not worked in the Allegation 2 area and e further indicated that he had no complaints about lack of effective QC nor lj had he been instructed not to follow welding procedures.
h
? The RRI interviewed Individual "C" on May 31, 1979, with the.same results py as those obtained in the interview with Individual "B." Individual "C" p indicated that he perhaps was one of the persons referred to by Individual "A" in Allegation 3. He also indicated that be had very limited welding
$e experience before coming to work at CPSES and none in "Heliare" weld process.
- $ He was given some forty hours of very informal training and then used fifty-two 3 hours to make his weld test coupon, a duration that he now considers to be excessive. He now thinks that he is a good welder.
d n
m
(
z wi5i%h5bli?UN.?>NGn&llSW.5NN< OA% *@ T . .<.A 2 d A'U I . Y .: w d:d M ~~c.b n i =-
rww w.ar- - wingq.w *~..t-- v
&'3af-w ? W ay w- 'a-_~ w+ pq"wwrw gmmmq_,g._ p. ,4yg
, yy k .....a ( . ,
az -
3
'l
. The RRI interviewed Individual "D" on May 30, 1979, and again June 1, 1979, to develop any facts relative to the specific allegation of " buying-off"
- joints over the phone. Individual "D" categorically denied that he, or to
'} his knowledge any other QC inspector assigned to this work area, had ever
" bought-off" a designated inspection point without making the required 9 inspection. On June 1, 1979, Individual "D" indicated that there had been j very few occasions when he had given consent to the welders to weld up a a se'am that, by the inspection reports, had been previously inspected for' a fit-up and cleanliness. He also indicated that he and others had repeatedly
? stopped work on welding of seams where it came to their at' ention that water
{ or moisture was interfering with good welding.
$ The RRI interviewed the Boilermaker Superintendent on June 4, 1979, relative f to his knowledge and/or participation in any of the allegations. He cate-2 gorica11y denied ever directing welders to make welds where water or moisture j was present, but acknowledged that it was a constant problem. He indicated j that he finally received engineering permission to drill holes through the y liner at the ends of the leak chase channels so that air could be blown 1 through to dry out the channels and that this action helped a great deal.
1 He indicated that he had continuely attempted to impress the welders with 4 the importance of making good seam welds.
Sy 2 4. RRI's Assessment of the Liners
,p
. .t
} The RRI observed some of the welding work 6n the refueling pool in the Unit
- . No. 1 containment during the latter part of 1978 and the early part of 1979
$ . incidental to making inspection of other activities in the same work area.
2 , ( The welding appeared to be normal and the dye penetrant examinations appeared M 3 to be properly accomplished. The finished surfaces examined have been uni-g4 ) formily smooth and appear sound. The RRI also examined some unfinished areas 3 ( in the Unit 2 spent fuel pool and can appreciate the difficulties that may be g { encountered in removing some of the concrete laitance from the vertical weld joint areas.
p?
T w
S
.a T.
e p
2 u
?0 y
7.
k e
,h v
h E 5
y
$ .-.- .- m. -_ & - M~ - ,- ,-a*mm**~rNm *Wn
w am u.m.wmwww.w. , ma.n. n,,a .: a m m w w w.w m s w
d .
- x
- .J. Q..
- .g a
d O 4 WELDER PERFORMANCE QUALIFICATION RECORD STANDARD TESTS C-
, EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 -
Page 1 of 17 WELDER'S NAME SYMBOL W M' Reed, R
. AAB C1, C2, C6, S2 RT S1, Al BEND 4
Hite, J. '
AAC C1 , C2, S1 , S2 RT Al BEND
- Lloyd , P. '-
AAD C2, S2 RT
.. 2. 'f'. C1, Al BEND
'1 ii i Love, D. AAE S3, S11 RT 4 ..- C1, C2, C3, S2, 56, A1 , A4 BEND c- . ,. ?
<,s,..d.. -, BEND w
-.c.
. A_S . .
,1
- 7. 53.i.?k.... .. A6 I " T 4. 'A a t,uy.C. ? 6 .c+.
~ :M Grant, W AAR"..:;~.:;' '
1 RT i
- 1. ,.
..-1 .c. C6 - _ ,
-:,'.%g. ,?
.Q y, J,..
. h,_ . ^
- :. nt. ",: .
d N Gi N;_d G E L % if;c;;Mgg,5 Al . A5f@?.'Ti:;. +hj.;p . . ,
d;NRh5.) .Q. . B L'5RTd Aba M 1/t M if hASLs4Qhl5UCg2Qhr.ASIM6k
[?' .
6& g?.Wh.g s;2.w:;fi W?. =y.5.7,,.. p .-
K;.y 55 3.g my,. y.gA. mq'ygjg,y;NY.7c.ygygw.ygpg
. '.PH_.y g-. ., yg +%,y.49.g,p.m.y5 G. g.g ;AAT14f0 -J. ;Sl ' j.;. ..^i-jy BEND MiD . *!n d-; ' .]
- , Q( y:. Mizelle v.~.y 1 -
.IM$p;p q ;%;;;F -
'; p ? $: $yf.7$.Cl t. M Q & 0;..=Al G..,pA4QA10 r ",~:, ... n y n i:. ? '. n '
.... RT; . a...
v ~
C6,S3 v. 4.x. - n - .. . - .
Cobb, H. . - - . A. BF. ' .
^j .1 .
'..w.:. . ..,;;f*2
.. BEN
] ..,
.:f: -
~., ; Y . .e:;.'.Q&% i n.jf.v{Gbww.h ;,:q;5-$.Q&p
. q$:. ,
. Castleberry, C. ABI .. .;C1 , C2,.C6,.Sl ,.52,.AS, N1 ~
. , RT t ..
8END. ,a. .. .
,,; e .~. ,
,.m.s. . . , m.. .
m.,., . n --- .
- ;@.ei~'QQY..~:...?.L-p.R.. A1.. . .M h.s,1$hh,Qp..,.. . '
- . ~;*
- nyb i
%Q ' ['s,.R..@.L '. . .
g ..(+ SABKC-JE.l.-MC2;'{C6DS1.iTC11iS1PAp
,: .M :: $5 Birdwell , C.. . .
gfS? RTJT .- -i
,p
- s. . .
..?,t.Q~$ w.;p ,m.
~ - i
,...y.
. +,n,O. .f.. m. .;..r$p,y3.:9.Alf,YA5.,N8W.i.Wa;
,:. n+ 4, ;, .
^ Nif.,.
- x. .u> 7. s.y a.
- ~ tM'.. BEND; J.
.a ... . . _ .
i v , .
".' Foote, W. ABN C1, C2, C6, 'S1, S2, 53, S6
' ' RT '
- A1, A5 BEND
.r c Gordon, R. ABR C1, C2, C6, 52, S11 RT A1, A5 BEND
[ ,
4.
','. Moss, K. ABS C6,S1 . , RT
~.f ,
. .. c. . q.. .
. w .c .
. . *- . C1..S3, A1.44'; -?u - BEND .. . . . .
o , ,
Hopkins, G. ABT S12, N1 RT Cl, S6, C2,'S1 A1, A4.',;AS, C6 BEND Sorelle, J. ABX S1, S3 RT C6, Al, AS BEND Adcox, M. ABZ ~C1, C2, C6, AS, S11 RT Hamond , W. ACF , S8 *
- , ,_ _-$ i '. .,9
.k .
__ . < :. i m . , Un. . e A.n;,EL.: ./. . G,,;.J;T .; , , j
. y,: c . - - x== =u.w a. . .wn .w.n.~. .wmmmu ,
al
'[i
- s. ... ... ,
1 o
.; EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 PAGE 2 of 17 WELDER'S NAME SYMBOL l
l Szabo, J. ACH S1, 53, S4 RT i C6, 56, Al , AS BEND Basham, D. ACS C6, S2, AS, C11, Cl2, S11 RT C10, A10 BEND
, Gray, J. ACT C6, Al BEND Myers, H. ACU C1 , S2, N1, N2, C12, RT l C13, A13, S11 RT C6, S3 BEND 4**
-1
- Schultz, H. ACY C1, C2, C6, 51, AS RT J, SZ BEND
%:. . .Ree,d., J. 4nt .ACZ iCl :X t ,
v.1 . .e-
.J.:rw,.a ;a .,a m,d w-s . A., 3 RT ..c. 'A.2:gli . . .];.m
. , uSx.,!. C2, .Sl- : w /i5,-
n.:~.. .
c.w.
yp .. ..
m; 3 ._
--.m..
C 6,.;
a." ,,p g: g q:.p v . 9 c ~, g,
, .r.qy;.y.a p
s g
. .g.~.pg y;.gw<2s,;pj.y M~
+
EP- Thomas, 0', 1 .~ ADF; - - .. S**C10( Al , Al O' .
.% .;;> . .s a :: .. . : .u t 2 : t -. .
.: s , . ' ~ .w. 2' m. :
. , p.' r m n.. ,4 v m . v .:a-:s.. "r_...vag'
. N T. s v
,- ., L ~. - - -
4 w. .=* .aart:p..gj
- r. * ',3....ted:
.c.-
,,a Boi n", . - M 2, 4 ,
.,, c.9.>; .,- . sp .? .
..H 9,.:.q. e. ?m,..m.;;., g c3yg3+. ..~ y.g m p :. y y g ggyg,_ {,y gg[, fy.ssg 3,,s ;3 ; . .
. . ' y. . ..- .n.
e .
. ;..gg . . . .
. + . .h. . , , . c . f ;. p . g: ,@.,.a. A.,
c -. . . -
N . s,,s.s.:. .)
.( l V ight,' B p
. f BENDS:-g375p.+
Al ' . W D . T -
?
. . . ADX. . $. +.l
- 3. \ '# . .e
~
, Fields,'M. NEA f W.d3).C6",S3IA5',A62 w n c:".A;sw ..NNg BE~ h.NU Nhk E9 f .: -
- . acng. ....e s.gg.e:r;;p;e!
Echols, R. AEM C12,:Cll, C6 RT ..-
3 - CS, S6, A1, A4 . . . ,. , BEND 7 ,l ._-
L .. - , ..- .
x- ; u., . y: tVw. ...v. - i
. ' <c , .0. : Gray , .G'.' i. ;.'C AEN. - -3 512?Y . ;;. M l
- c. re. ,JRT . ;
j .'
. T, .' f.EO .pf' - i.
'( 57 . {Al{,{.A5~ C1,{C6~,'.'N1].,S'l, 56k., ,
d..GBEND.
J.*; Qq
~
(((hfYS'Mitchell , J. AE0 lC66Sl%S6, A1, A5' BEND..f .$)(
j .
Coleman, F. AEP C6, S3, A1, A4, AS . BEND !
- % F1eming, J. AET C1, S1 RT
- j. ,
C2, C6, S2, S6, A1, A4, A5 BEND ,
t - ..
S1, S4,C12 Justice, G. AEU RT l
- o ; C6, S6, Al BEND -
( . .: 1 L Justice, A. AEy 54 RT l-
. Ensign, J. [EX C1, S1 RT N1 BEND Ballard, W'. AFC C1, S2, Cl2 RT I
r LFn McMaster, C. AFG C2, S2, S4 RT
% C6, S1, S6 BEND
^
.f
_.y"""bW ."9 - y gfs ,w .
Ji'A AS.[*'.wi
. --a n
. 7 v %
- ,a'. ( ,-[ hh. 1 p,3 , ,g, ,,g . p'9h ,. g y .* ,
-3 y, . . . .. . . . ,
J s
1 4
i 3 EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 PAGE 3 of 17 WELDER'S NAME SYMBOL Griffin, T. AFH C6, A1, A5 BEND a
Young, J. AFJ C6 RT Al , AS BEND Wright, D. AFK C1, C6, S1, S2, AS, N1 RT C2, S6, Al , A4 , BEND W
[ Fuqua, S. AFL S4 RT C1,Al BEND i Allen, G. AFP S4, S12, C12 RT
- - C1, C6, S1, 56, N1, Al , A5 BEND f.Q.:
Jones, W. AFR. C6, A5 BEND 1+ -
k :. % ..n%& : M h . : ' ,. :.,~ %
tl.M,b ..;
.HarwelT,.?.M9f.ci,%..
- F;ppdy,C " -1.'- AGB ; b .M giC14C6',S1 .
- a:w::.4%g:yh.N-f.9 .4 .l}- ' -
, - :RT . Q'5?$5%* -
TM ~
1 -l:g p.C2
- 2' i
-~ -
,-. BEND'.
y, ; .:.' : .g.c,+4 .u,-.. F;+r. ...c.:wam;pm b.; ;;.;M.:.~.T.S2, S3,'. S6', NT
.v. 2 J. . :.y:s-Q.s
- ;4y.,.
...s - . -,. . .
+:y,.. . .
r.
a 1
T -
c 9+: gjb:.f9. Fromknecht's.WM.n ~ . .Cl,1.C2, C6.*i.1w S.12 ..
u,eq.
S y"..i;AG.L'4:'C.M.p.,.3;
..u asm. . ..-..ycwn ~,; ~. ... .."^....i R.m.:-
GM .r EG4 ail.T, 511*,tS4 P Xi W,s Wx .N 4 S d W $$rMM% 5 0.v.a i. -<.4.s M,. 3 w ..:
M 5i.E.90~#*$u.6 . w,f.k>.e,:c:ft.taQ h i! kcl?.C67.ST,iS3,56'f .:fA/' d & # # _W t4d?E O !,W 'e M J('i? - Rickabaugh,.J3U4MAGNMf$.S.*$1@p.5.e -
" ' ~ f Y RT ^~ 3 M %"m:. MT:tp sh, ) . - ; o M2-73M-tmh?#@$9MC2',' C3, S2,'A5' ' o ' BEND *:
gi .r s, ,. . ...4.. .
.,.n W .'. .. , w lw!.N
.,a. e..., ,. .
. p .. . ;t ; -
-r+ _.
.. .. - s 2.-
i k .t w '. RT . - v.-
W; ' W, F .'
e ..
y ;... K -.
- ,.CS-CT,'C3,:.y g '.t?C4,A6,A7
- g e:g
.A,'..P;pkin,2,rc.:cpw,y.}rpUw.AGO.....g
< e.
.yg BEND s %. ..
c
. . . . , . rr;'y A. ,-w. 4.. . , . . w.. . ., . .. ...a .? t
<j. h i Mgj:A Horn >g.K 31-+i-6f]g Cl ,2C3, C6WS1, S3, S6, 512. ,: RT .,e o
- gwr #@
.iAGP6 M.4;.. w .~ . ,
.2?w'N1:-@.? %- .'. q^ O N:d !l
?myt@.t;.4 .9s.':Phhy*14% .;d. :- G. :y ~~ : "..--; - . : 1g' BEND '" ',! : *i: .:
l t ?. .
[ $[WW Ellis~jiD/;fh. ENf,YAGET '@h?.~.2isTha 675 ddi?U2, "C6?I
- ..Y.S1GM?FW.u
- [,QW. ' P!$, kTI ' '4'~-
&,'i$2','.S6 N' ' 1
,, o a,- - -
., s.
.i.
. , .W.i. l k. in s , B .
AGT Cl..C2, S1 , S2 BEND -.
.x ,. m . '
@ ~ '" Peppers, G. AGW, C6, A1 , A4, AS BEND t . .
T ,
.Upchurch, W. AGY C10, A1, A10 BEND
. Perez, R. AHC C1,C6,S1 RT
,4 ..
- 1. - 1.- . .w? .
C2, S2, S3 '
BEND e .
+ t McGavock,D. AHI C2, C6, AS RT
(
-' Cl Al BEND Higgins, H. AHK C1, 51, C6 RT S6, C2, S2
~
BEND Trotter,' R. AHM C10, A1, A10 BEND C
Ni ,
I
+
I m. y.- - p - y . -w 4 r e - a e s --
,rf.- - - ;- r % T. , g er ri. *m--
g s , ,-., m.s we my w a3,, ; -, y - -
t 4 , ,; - --
~ Q 'skfhop',h $ tw> 01,%.O.- }s%d$pl$t S',N&UN'if,.bdy$&
- <- - .. ~ .- _ --
-. . m.a . .. ..m ga -- __ :---
.m,,- 1- ,y.m.. m..x m. x.4 _
.. - w gm,w;_,sg:,m m, a egmm g.e j m.s.c.gu 4 - _,
4 .
t ,
1 i .
)
EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 PAGE 4 of 17 l
1 i
WELDER'S NME SYMBOL l 2
C... .,
C10, A1, A10 BEND Ray, C. AHN Sanders, M.- AHR C6,A1,AS BEND C1 , C2, S2,-S4- RT Ables, J. AHS C6, S1 , S3, S6, A1, A5 BEND C1 , C2, C6, S2, S4 RT Blasingame, M. AHU .
BEND S3, N1 RT U Schaeffer, S. AHX S4-C1, C2, CS, S1, S2, 53, A5 BEND
- 4. 4
e a
C10, A1,.'A10 . BEND' AIB 1
k g' 6,?.$ Ailanan,s?Ofm. ^ $ M O. .
- e. ,; , . G -: : . fr, .,
~. 4
- ' '. J AICb; .Ll::: : .a.= L g.3. wp c .z ., ;.w z.; w.X;l' i' W a.op.w BEND' L N5.: yf e.oyHuffm 4,-
. , .1->w;r:m.M . ,ene +u:
. . .J. C10, A1,.. A10.-
m.;.. ... ~ . . ~: " ~ z...
.wi y
m.. .an,k.J'.o:TJ
. . r:
. a c .. ..
.w.
-c . .r 2.GM.h. v9 w*'nGoldenOXNc[,a,
'@y. .' :i' H _
.s . w, m-:w 3.. m s v.m c. u . . .
J? a AID
' . g. @s.@,aw]f;ep4 m
u
,2, QC6~,. S3 w ... . . -
% . w a. ,.4:,c, .y -
0eg
- w. 517,i
... ;w
. > n . .,
N1.. C11 ,..
g.' f C12, 7,
. . ,, 1 .. , .s twey ~r . .-
eidi e
%. . 4;.e,63. 4;,.BENDM.ff.?i$.-
~ . -
.m -
l 2rG. .1,
. ' ' ' ' .* e .Py f4Mffi e ..
2 l u .
y .
Q,y, g y y.,h.g
,.f.
E.4.@s s., M...,.Tg , ,T. I@~. m.$., . , . We ,g . .,,$~TC
, . - r 1
. fWV . *'. .' y .4. y~.f,-ll
>. f&.ps %gpti.}44s; e.,3's _ ', . fy; ,
- f g ;* .?*i. 1 :* c+.;:
g-L,.;.
5 ' .iRTWi@.V,. .C c ?;: }
y :1+-pf M. Ea - $::m(Ji.. My@."C6,5 C2,351,f S
- s. ..6;
.~,.,r.:.g-@>c.. O. . , .; .: . . . . .
..o.r.. J. ..
n...,. ... ..son,:
.. , .C. ., .,.a...
. .. .**..,;. < . ,,.yp.gw. e m.. , . . .:
m.w .~ -u.m. . yw. .
, .9 ..
. .,a. .
js yk k C A .E RT' d: .;. ,ye
.f,'. Bell
.;...v.
. ; ::q g ~ ..:. u.- 4.<. AIM. - e,;M C1:,pl S4 m;%y*q*ygw.;:.g~.ggno.p:WnRT.M
+ n,j,w., .:. %ks ;;x.~w.n
, D. .
A. . am ^ q ry:
. .u
. .w:s r +.-y:mwcg.t gas *s . ;
Ws~.'" 41 fQS Q D:q.i.w %q2%*.(B,g&*. c
- 7.
bt C .5C6i'tC12PS2, %neQ:fY.1GN ;e AS f'ggq1a, gjQ' - c'S Q'1 Q ..? - AIO w. RT. - ' ?- :
r.7 % Newberry@,> J.b c -
G . , BEND 1, ,, f. ,
N. ~,
q 3 :, ?..Ndb. .
$E$.. -
$/ . M'
- , ; .g.lN. 4[S3
- p s
..g,. A1, p A4 .g;p-g g.- 3_.
-- .w ..g 22 a. - ; : ,.
C1, 56, C6' RT m - Evans, J. AIY.
BEND
~ C2, S1, S2, S3, AS -
i ~~
. ~
- ~
AIZ ~ ' C6,f S4,':512.' Ab S6 'RT'
. Duncan, S. '
BEND
. C1,. S17..,..S3 . . . v ,1,A1 T . A4 n
n . %: . u.4. . .
<.- .m -; a es ;
' BEND
.: Reed, J. AJD C6',' A1, AS-C1 , C6, S1 , S2, AS BEND Harris, R. AJH _
< RT Watts, J. AJI C2 BEND
- C1 , C6, S2, AS C1, C2, C6, 51 , AS BEND Robinson, H. AJN Q Wood, J. AJO C2, C6, AS C1, Al RT BEND hohM%7(?L s.m __ _
WS& W-4 3
.w .v
... _ ,=.
_ . .__.,,.,..., ~,. m
. _c =.a ,,..,. ,.. ,., g,
.,_.._;_.a _
..p m ;, e.....,,,
_ o . .
,.e
\
- u. ,
I n
- 2.
EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: /ugust 27,.1979 PAGE 5 of 17 SYMBOL
( WELSER'S NAME I Wal ters, A. AJS C6, A1, A5 BEND f,y Gray, M. AJY B2 BRAZE N Lamb, W. AKC. C6, A1, AS BEND
?
A White, L. AKD C6, AS BEND
@ . C10, A10 BEND
.4 .
7[ Lewis, M.. .AKI9.f=. V.'..C6;. C11, S11, AS, C12, 512.
. RT
- 2. . . xm - C4 Al .A7 - .- .
BEND '
y [... .hk ; a . ~.. f i y d M M M:...< .;.a :iy'M *M' N@'k.O'
- 5py4'siM. f.5
% Mi:l4p :N Dunnigan . H.Sf:V.'..
em: r-La,. .'.
iAKMW TWC sihyEfi S2 S 8hk@".Nhs& BEND ;s R 6,'; ASS.p)M: . . > .
.:gd. E. 3, ...RT h .
4 q.:4, .
. q'< .
- v. . ' s,;n ,, . .., :r.
pa%' 1: ... .yrviec1$.)
- .7.a m..w C6',3 n.:1.;,. aa-r..:0...:.;1W2M;.q 4 : ?.
.g:n. . . f; c
- ,3,g;3C6 .,41;d4]lA5hp.,h.
- .
- :,w.. s :.;.Q.l,c.
. w .. ~.~ wr.
g j$ A.dd Bradshaw 4.C' pig $dRh!AKO';i . 7 h, $. . . . h s
't.- . . ~
~
. Iff
- 7. ~f... -'.
.w .
kh..
- e
- ' p h+$6,$...$5?A&.x
- '.y ~&. -%s: m --
~
.f, *h&.
--?y; Q:? + ; %~w w $.fAhn.
. c y .. Wpt [n,BENb,
.:. ep ;
?
M v@.Gorman?,;K.
i
. W '. A ALG6 g .f..; d.E.gpR .ogg@pl4,:l 4,. . ..g. .. ;
. . .,. .L.c . . :.,..;.' C6,EC11.il AS, S11 y ,.-.e. ,.. ..
,. _... . 2. . m. .,. . . , m..w.. . _ . , . ;jg 8 E. n.,g4. _ ;, ... :. . . . . ,.
.. .,.. ..m ~ g.w.3,. . .y.p,,...q.
- .v,.;~ ,. ;... g.
- c33.,.g.y._ g.g . . ..s.. : .
j ....
7 ,.p.., . .
o ,
%j, [.;
. E, . ,
- G111 eland, M. 4 ALHWJ Nd36.v, CS,.'.C.10,- A1 : A10. .~ r, BEND'.e.G,
. .g~,~.J M..
,M ' ' *..f M*. (,,y.?fJ...-
. w -
c . . .
' . .D 3. '.. * , b .'3M.. . . .T*/ .W ' ***f s. 6 Q^.[. J.'. .. * .if,
[ "BR . , , ,'.hQ . q
- C :1 Smith,'J.
. #. WALK , . . -; .'..@3 .:AZE_ *,;Gt3,;. 4i q;:
wp n. '. M,;7,EEN/h .n...na.e... -.. ,.. s ... u.- dind[,idG Bn. M' a E -ei gW,..u ;. 1 n; s .. .+ s
. .m. - ,
,p,..
n' ., .7 : g. .. ., r:,. 4 :... n.u,,v .n: q,
~ i,
'..~ . m Patr. ' . .p,;.p . .u' AL,Ld..,D, . :n: , RT
' d "7:. W..-t
.v.
5.. %gyl
. . ~
9;772 m;;ic.k', C.1,M.,..
?!Sm.%. c.F..T.l; yr.Sc,CF,. .. . v~'S1, .S2,; S6, q.- '.N1,2,'. C.
J~ :m. %. 5: .a L .wi; ALP ' t;e?t@. Cll, -S12
"^ " 'Siewert, J. ' .
A8',C6, A5 BEND _ #
C;. -
i.-E .. .w: . :,. .,. . s.
- $* ; , . k.ai"-w;; ..g .
4I Robinson, M. ALW C6,' A4, A5 BEND l.o
,.'.". Rodgers, J. AMA C1, C6, C12, AS, S2, LG, S11 RT
.m
,A i Stanley, M. AMC C2, C6, S12, AS, S11 RT BEND s C1, Al . _ ..,. #- .e - . .
- e. .n
?"s l- _.
T Walker, R. AMG C10, A1, A10 BEND ,
., 4 i Botkin, L. AMJ . C12 RT C6, AS, 53, 51, Cl , N1 BEND Garner, H. AML C2, C6, 52, AS RT C1, S3 BEND G
_9 5
G h
.. . .*O M - 63 ( g gg).d .. Ej . Q pg]g g g g4 4-g..I 5 g ,, g
. . -..._. . _., . ,. . -.m. ,
4
? EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 PAGE 6 of 17
- \ .
WELDER'S NAME SYMBOL G Hoggett, J. AMR S4, S6, Cll, C9, Sl2, Cl2 RT S1 BEND Cornelius, B. AMS S4 RT
. Cl, S1 , S6 BEND Williams, J. ANB C6, S1, S6, AS RT Cl, C2, S2, N1 BEND y Love, J. ANC C6, Al, A5 BEND f
-i
.l Pace , J . . ANG Cl2, S12, Sll, C11 RT Ja A Layton, B.. 'ANJ - .
~
" .: "d'
' t ~~
C3,.C4,'S3AA6,A7 S, i. :-l-k. :+.3_. . .&N.' @CS , A5 . > .L. . ;
5 . -
} ' BEND.'.
=*+.T' h. y.7.
- h .. . ;
$ fl5.. :.2N3 . :w ~.c E M.it . q~ 7 _
1 ANN ." . e 't t C6 ..-.A1. , A5';- ;
BEND -
. . . M' . I p g.%.~C.Ab.rego,
. . . . r.
.c....
- . .. . . .M_
4, , z. . g ..o.
, s.- w1 : .w., ,. w. . .,:. ,, .
!M6. . : >
N holsnffgl h M id,stANO @ ;sq,g. .- o .:..4EC6]sS2,1N1.,4AE.1.S11 C1_2 m .m.c.,
- ~ RT_.e ..
- +
.<-p.w mree.v.ve.n.-r.M D w
- 6::.. ...M%2.,:rh .c. di QLWM W.- W:x& . LGu*,2.:.1 @Fi e.vwQ.M&.:;. <P'ng.::v};.7pe'.;MNBENDNWr
.% 4. -wa
', Q .% Morris..D;"%.ci . -d.:
ANSar-4 .J.C2,:C6','.! S2n A5; S11,: C6hA5U. qai5.h.f-y?. c RTOc- 5 dW;C.Q-g{ '7n.h
. f.(W d.* iFN
'ClW + 9 7 d-
}e
.,,R.7. BEND . J N f .y,y??i
- . M
- M
.r, y _. x- ) ,. . . . .
.c- .
r.:
u.
,,! e . , W;.,..1. u i; ~ANW *;' .'C1, C2,7 S1,7 S2 _ BEND: ' 4.C
- . .,s f '.7,..
~ . ..y.
. C.~ . w Cox , . T. '.-
.. s. : .-... . ~.,-. .. , . , .
-o . s . .w , _ .
-.. . .~ w ._v ,
.n.' u...
.w.
' . .s.
.._:, .:.g=c
. .. . . . , ..n.
,_z .,
.. . ,, . ; - * . e m_ _ _.
., w -----
)Aw.,.
idenrette A. L 9 ????A0A:
. ;. 3. %. ,. . 2 5... .. c ...we.
. . . . C1, 52.
- ,t ,w..w S.1 4.
,"*~ ' " "C " .r BE7 RTWWEly,W
. . ~ ~ n.N inc Li ..
.,s ... ... :.. . .
. ..a.nww u.a w. ..ND.:.
.. a . .. .: :.w,o -
-., w w. ,
- 4. .
.+-
.,y$JM. i .e. .~-.sSchultzltR h .,.g~':AW- ' Fr-"a "A00. S C2M'C6..A5'g.ec s-d.s,.e ' ...;:. .tC1, W.g '.
BENDS1, S2,t S3 7*
2
- f. , ' ' '
.~~.
' ,( ' Poole,!K. S4, Sll , S12. . . . ~
A0E RT L C1, S6 BEND
..~.4 1 ...s. 4,r ,Th. o,mpso n , S. A0J C6, A1, A4, A5 BEND
. m.. . . .
..i u l,N. . , ,W - tb .
j ks.y.- . C.*rai n , ' G .. . '
. .AOP. C2, C6, S2, S4, 56, A5 RT .
p .
C1, 51 EEND "3 A00 C10, Al , A10 BEND
_ $,. . .Hoggett, J.
j:Q @ Q.% m %.+-m B. n 6.=:?Ms A0ZW W.w @6,A5*1tppp.m.d.%a.s %2 Cunningham, C BEND 44"
. Hargrove, R. APD C2, C6, S2, AS RT C1, S1 BEND v.
\
d N
4
.*i_
A ,94'" VT.4i'*'"3rawqg& .
M g -,,,,g 7 , 4 w-3 g,-- q 5 { p. -g y p,"M V 9'"" " % '"F7 "N
$3 [2b .! E. ,,un tI!+7t.4 ,,,g2h51,, .t' M 2 * *)($(, M._ baO*eshant Y p .. -
,4 g g l ,,g ;,,9 ( r,_ ,.4 ,g .3M
- f; ., h, pg , .,g
'!;;m m q7"~m~~~~ 7 7 7' W xmmQ e -
.s .
4 .
r .
h c
M
& PAGE 7 of 17 4 EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 SYMBOL u
{ WELDER'S NAME .
C2, S2 RT
- , Gonzales, F. APF BEND N
C1, S1 C6, A1, A4 BEND J Harmon, G. APH BEND Ismael , C. APJ Al 3)
RT Feazell , D. APL C2
'.' C1, S1, S2 BEND s'
'F Turner , C. APS
...s.. BEND McClure, V. APW C4, C10, A1, A4, A7, A10 SI n
.A . -
C5,CIO,'A1,A10 BEND g .- ' ;??
hfJufts , 8:.. ...;APY, .,"
5 )lih)'M'id.k W p %.,,4'.
- " ~ '
-: 4 . ':. n '. "3:W W. .;;
,ff RT'. f-R
..g.
- i= .QC1T, S127 511, .C12. ,
J' ;
F ydi? ..'2 "
Har rove;tR.C'79eh.'l? 9.5,%'@g. MC6;? W W ? ? r~ M,.?ARD BEND;L:: -
S6', A5 . *h: - , . . - kaw .f.',2 g n ,C._2.4. .::
'$ ; M 4Gt;*?.k ib.V L:. ?.n :;*
% .-Q.5h? >??*&';',ylJ.I,4.s $*d C Pjk y?$A P C6ES60i3;yWN:
,y&:' . %%h'? ARM 8.'Q'E.. .j.w .kNL'W 3 tr'? >'"7. -@%Di$!C.F*C2$.SP,' 52"rMe . W : w C..tBENDr.
%s.-:s.J. .
_ , ,7,
. . .,. : w,
. , , .Nance.
g .A poc.
y ,:.. <. ~.. ;g, c. . :.~ .
4..' ARN. y ~ . C2, SZ .' -
fRT_.
F .0 wens gr.. W #v. 3.: BEND .-
',.hSli S6.' C6,
.gl1.,
g .C,;K..i..;,.p
. :.:p .. y ..y.c a ,m - %;g gy.. , y. . gp .:a..n. : .. ,m.+ . ..-ia.. n =
.._ " S3 L.N3; .,..n,.,~....
. .g. e; ,y
_.g. . ../
McCracken,.P.-
~C6,.S6, A5, C11 g *' .g'f...
7B 7
- .!..~,: .C2,:: S1.. ',:,S2 :, 6. v,ii?; :M.,;;. y. 24. .: .3RT.g
- AR P'. .
91 .,
- h. ,l ;., c Lu n. ...>, +
. ... . .g%';lf. .
.s :,'. ... .-
. n. - . ..'.
w.
g .
.- .. . . . e,, .. .y.
RT '
Smith,lR [ . S4. C11, S12, C12 1 -
' ART
'S1 ' ', m .
'. ; BEND gS.C -
BEND
- V111aneuva, E. ASB C6, A1 , AS
.,q.. ..;..y. ,,.c.
RT l- . . . . _ .
Lestep,.T. ,,TASD'" ' '
C2',"C6,'.' S2, S4, S6, AS l ' ' ' BEND C1, 51, l.y .
!b C1, C6, 51, AS BEND
,d -
C2, C6, S2, A5 RT Cagle, S. ASP C1, 51 , Al BEND
' .?x RT AST C2, C6, AS i . 73 Wren, B. BEND 5 Cl u
RT 1 Sanders, S. ATC C6, 56, AS, 512, C12 BEND C1, S1 l?
.~-
g l.
u%1L- ..-%_._ _ _ _ _ . ,, . . .,
.~w-n w r==
- & 3' m .n m a n. w
W-- _; =.:
=gggfr g k d**:'m Y__ _
, =_n._ _; ~_
r ; -m.nmm.m,,.n.m 3__
L: qQ: _; ,,.m,, =x.m 4, mm .r.m. mm mQgyg .,.+mg&? .Q 9 '
n .. . , * ,
- 4 EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 PAGE 8 of 17 2
( WELDER'S NAME SYMBOL .
C6, A5 RT Barnett, L. ATG C1, C3, C4,A6, A7 BEND Johnson, H. ATL C6, AS, C12 RT C10, A1, A4, A10 BEND .
'~ . '
a C6, A5 -
RT Verakul, P. ATP BEND
- Benne, R. ATS A1 Orona, P. ATT C6, S3, S8, AS RT 2 C4, A7 BEND k,
i 6 BEND I Santiago, M . ' .ATUI. . .J,'l 5.
g ,j... AS.2.a..caiky . '
.~
.-::s , a. -
- +~i- smq+.+
@. su.%- .
,2'!* ;g[ATW$52 'C6NA5:h*= & 'TJ;;..' **% ~ $1RT. : ' .: ;;- :. *
..Boggs,C.l
~
-) '%.'i BEND % .
= '
i; *.
7'y.hj. ff .y,,WW??- .Qv)Q&,,. g."W;G&f&gf - >WVmt:y;&g$g;.
n'. :l. .. ,:; i;- :.n A- fgM.Q ll9,1C12jt%Wii - .%9 RA
- 0. RT; -
'*sL . -a 2 H u&[::& . p: . ,-~w.,.v. .
Verona,, D' 1 :";r.:n '
T r,MATXW"if"P
" ..s=@;nue %y' S2Yti t- %.1BENDj'l. $i5?Q::-; m y
..s &r . ,%. p:
.. ,, p w .gv..7. ~ 6 ,7 *
.. _ . m . , ,.
..,. 4 ;=
. - -ww
.4* M r S ,. y R ,. 'Jp.W, $ (f D. 4 y.
LaRose,.R ' " ~ ":.?;;T, T78, @_ . 4.,.;., ,,.Y' .. 56?&S12(,
. T; Q
$?' ryic6Tl, y+~nd. 6 -
C . le 7N ' -
. p=;f 4AUA .e.. A C2,:C6,1A5 .'
' i;. RT, . 'i v. :
4 .. y. aMitchell;, M.,.. . g ,. p p .. . : xss..e.q/: 3g g y g 7 g.s- ,.
12?; 9 z q g g gg.g.g>:;,s.+g g
..,,.2f. .y
- i
- - is . , . );.W:: .jp L;p>
jd y$i $M9%A$$5j.
$g - IJ-2.,>_.vf l ,
i I; *.hENNd
~
b g;. ., 3;.pf 6 D M I NN: ND #C .f-j f9 . - m m;q@yg Ap.w.g;g g!"3 .g
. ,. :. . Shadden, M.e a <'.ai.k 'i AUC':.r:@.# C6,' AS,.S11 # S12,. C12, C11. . . @ p g .h L M'6%tQtgjolglg 8..
2 .. - 'RT
% ' BEND .g.2 .
s ~
t 5 .i;n .h . :--
.::U.s;;:.;
.;,r ;
~:.Tm,l.:; M, f;fS)6,; w. . g.A1pgV y.. r-
'-:s. e . w
-,.,,g : ;., y . , . .;.. .m > ;
y .
.s ... . . .
RT ^
- ' ?C2,n'C6,".4;. yS1,1,S2', S3, AS i, . Head, C. .. . .
' . Of AUK '-2 .
' , ', C l . .
~P BEND
?j .: ,1{
' -: Smith, J. AUM 1 ,1 C1.. S1 .f ,-
. BEND ,
%.a,.
(%
- Alden, S AVN C12' '+' RT~
' C1, SI: .e,:. BEND .
Majewski,M. AUO C6, 53, A5 BEND !
,1 S12 RT ;
7 Muniz, R. AUR C1 BEND
- e. i t
E Beck, O. AUS C10, A1, A10 BEND C2, C6, AS RT Lacefield, A. AUT g
g -
C1 BEND Cowger, E. AUU C10, A1, A10 BEND p
W
{?
.. . . u .o . ., ..
.., c ,
? v* xAs_ ' 'A a hyth. - { gg ** ' '
'g3. 14 mm'O. . h.**,__m --
gg- ---. 4 y , .y g . ,,;,_.2._.m ,,3,g _ g mg,;
8 s .
u g . .. .
1 e
1 i
w -
EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 PAGE 9 of 17 WELDER'S NAME SYMBOL Laney, L. AUY C6, AS, Cl2, C1 RT C4, A7 BEND C6, AS RT
.i Hickman, R.- AUZ
~
Cl , 51, S2 BEND
.u S4, 512, Cll RT
.'j Fontenot, R. AWA T C6, SS, 56, A1, A4, A5 8END RT Atchley, B. AWB S2 C1, C2 BEND
,C 5 Davis, L. AWD S3, 512, C12 RT J - a.r-m - C6, Al, A4 . BEND
. . . a. .
j 9f Perez .F. ;. AWF, . y . 3,.C6, A6 .,<
,. - k.,: * .y . r. s.
RT ..
m.
-?,., = :- BEND..m g
.,.e -. . . ~ .
. . . 'u.e:.y w. .
.. . .a , . . . - . ~ .
.. : 2,. u-i; .; ':3[. '..; ,- .:y ' . 'n-. .e . :U*: :.[ ~ , '.G_e-9C1 , ,
d,q. J, M -V c.
" 3. .fqu y #h!T3RT'n..".M N . Q TQ $6
.C R 7.g.,
':25 i .. .
. . . . 'He'ina, d E.' . . dWG" ?M Y .i C6
~
I 6
) .T N h M d 1 N if M - $ Q . % % . .. ..,- 1./:-]. c' .+. '.vfc.g. M-/A;. 3h6bM'b 32 y 1.)jCarpenter,D. AWJ . " C12,: 512. V 9 ' . [..N j iffp RTkQ .? :;'.2. :
.. .ny8.,gf fgCl ..C6',j,Sl;,gA5]
g M.y ..y cr. g.J;3 % .s. .c.c, jg, _{,4', 7 f.
. ~-
+ - .
-~
S12', Sll , C12, S4 /pt .RT .c -
i Luker, J. .
AWK' A
c.4 - C6, Cl1, SS, N3- _~-":.-W .z BEND'..c. .,<. . -
%7.t.ps -. a:.,. ._.m.: n. ,t:,..,2 %.
m& m: "g*
v: ,. . .
~:
t ~, . .^ - 3.u.uu~.,.a . '
AWN' ~ '"C2, C6, A5, S4, 512, C12
'~ RT c
- Eakins, D.
. J Cl , S1 ,4.'
BEND-2
7'F.. .:.: N. W, , .p:..p.- .4 f: - 1.-
...,gp.pywy..;-h,Q;F~;,;.. . . 3 , p .j ;q s,. ,._
.g ,
. ..;.\p;i,.;g. -: 3, , _g ,.;~y AWR:. C6, A5
, .; - f .f~
.;: ' . Alvarez,:. .R!.:@m. .. C yWCW..1 .RT i gt'p,!..
.- -t . ' ;
- .. .='5S6 BEND
. f..
C6, AS BEND
- li Ross,B. AWS 7 Caldwell, J. AWT S4, Sil- -. , , . 7.a.4., RT .
C6, S6, AS- ._
BEND .
e 7! Jackson, B. AWU C4, C6, S1, 58, A7 RT -
Cl, Al BEND i
" C6, A5 BEND Fernandez, S. AWY
" Farley, D. AXA S2, S4, S11, C6, A5, C12, S6 RT Cl BEND S4, 511 , 512 RT
.., Beggs, R. AXB BEND
~: Cl
.a 6
1' . ~)
- ' kqq . ..g ..f _,, _
. m.. ~ - . ,y
v,, - w.;:.m. a . +. .n -n , ::p_..ur..m
.. . ,. a- . s w 1.w a.w.m_a_n ww w~gmmmmme.~nwm,%en unmma,rszw.
- r. . _.
l 1 *
'd -
.1 y EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 PAGE 10 of 17 m1 SYMBOL
., WELDER'S NAME w
4 Hall , W. AXC S3 RT 1 C6, S6 BEND 3
$ Hall, J. . AXE . C1, C2, C6, S2, S11, AS, S4 RT r S6 BEND
- 4. ,
4 Butler, R. AXF S2, S4, C12 RT
.: Cl BEND I:
A Hanna C. AXH C1, C6, S1, N1, AS BEND m
.h 11 j Batson, B. AXJ Cll RT
. C4, C10, A1, A4, A7, A10 BEND
- j
- g ,A . P*, ? ..,
5 p . . :. Tackett, J. AXK[;Y Ck'A5,C12~,512 cv .. RTJ , .
g W-i.b .::
.L rce:S6- -P'~- .f TW,' .~M ',/h -YN
'W :. ~3.QBENDl"Tl.
4 % 5 t!.W m W i W ?.', N N,. N k 5 ^ ,Y.Y i~.'.e.c f:
Q ."L.l.?';:+w %. .: ps;W4& .s . L. :
< . .. . .s.&. .S, .~* :
C, ., . . wi %. ..%.
. .'#. . ..' n J . 5:. ,. .
%,.x %.
g . p.... &.v.: . W G :l1.i..BEND d AXM W. &&?
. . .; w.. ... ." -i ',, M(.t N
. c .N,. .n. m. 4 %.. 54.:.tz.p.u. wry M, mn C,10 7 --
1 1.p.h,.414 .
o .;<.. Compton
. , ;..'J.%. 2. . .
- - v -
,.q
,,e?u.. un_
4 yw .~ , , .
i.h n L..Jorgan.. ,L .h ,. @pAXP > .
y.g CT2...!S12 t'S113py.y.,,. .
.ggy,: 'B R y?:h'2 C.%.pg4 4 i .r . . , -
yr W-.; .< ;- : . w: L. O> n:.END.9 , .
- v?;;.:p y;.V.t w .4' %,.x.p i w?q.,@M .w-
? e..yp~c &s.wd A1 U.C6'M%g=3 p e %: W. .:,;.5
. ; .. :v n y.q_., f MeQ (:.y u ~- y. yLgw~4: sf l4.< y
-3 :e.'RT
. ~
- l:;c.m.; ,, )q.g;rg
.( x . -
A. m.:f:. c Je g AXT m 4.gg._,,y ..y.-m CE,.-S1, C2 -d-a. -
e: ,:
f uran n,N.p;C.. 3 *;p3 ti?M.pp,-2.w%C1 .f:~' BEND X R.;.n%W D : -
A
?..,,% f . :- 'm ;7.Y C
}:ge .W. '. .:.,. m. ?.r / . ., . myy.~ .
. .r 7, g:.g.4,
- r.; w . e.- ,. .:.. .
i.(
Lewis, L. .AXX' . C6, Al .
BEND 1 -.
Qk B..
..'AXI$I.i e,t.,3 C215S1 Z$m. ._. . .a. . ' RT .. _
. .gg.s 9 ysMonk. . . .
- 4. ..~.,., -
gg . m.. c3 y9; yy..,:.
4.x.e.p - n myw.:4 t ggy9 a u;a y
. . ' S. -*. ~ . . .. . _.
'~ ,
k, !!. .. Teal, L. 'AYC' -
f C2, C6l. Cll', 'AS.. i..-
4
~ RT:: -
3; ; wa .t '
3 ,
BEND"
?h.t.C+ % h s :' % ~ '. ;. . , .@;JOW } -e ; ;n c . - ww: .
&e
@h ~' ' ' " Fowler, R. ^-6 AYEW"r.* C107Al T A10 BEND' -
- j. Lanum S. 'r.iAYL D - - 'S2, S4, C12 RT
%]m Cl BEND
- p .s.. .,
.4 C11 AYN
~,,,Al for.d,T ..sy H,;
y , . .
C6 s .
.......,.y.. .
q . Duncan, D. AYR C2, S2 RT A C1 BEND b;E Willey, G. AYS C6, AS, C12 S12, C11, S11 RT
.Jd C10, A1, A10 BEND 1 RT 4 Batey, M. AYU S6 7 C6, Al BEND
+P Bright, S. AYW S12, N2 RT
.h C1, C6, Al BEND w ,
)
=tg A *~
(8 **-
t ___: - .- , - -d'f P , - r,-,.--1n_.-_ _&___
- ------.D*M-~~wma-~~n~~~~~-
w.m cmnp c.w .en..~.m.m.._w.~.u- m ~ ~. e_ - ..a. , m .a.
-_,- = w= w. &.r,n.-;w w . ~ .~ w m,_- - - -
.n_ =. .
_ -- :.u. "..
w .
s .. . . . . .
e 1
h EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 PAGE 11 of 17 WELDER'S NAME SYMBOL J
Bannerman, R. AYZ Cll, S11, S4, S12 C12 RT C6, S6 BEND 4
Campbell , D, AZC 512 C12 RT C6,AS,IS6 y Cll, SI BEND Burnett, R. AZH S12, C12, C11, S11 RT Mel ton, K. AZI C6, AS BEND r Hebert, 8. AZN S2, S4 RT d
- C1, S1 BEND o
'a l 3e Aikman L. ..
AZR . C6, A1. ;,- . BEND w ,. '
- A. c Doggett, G...
~
. .,,h.
2 %. *'- AZS.$d.y;Qpgwu: .N-
.. .dkh..dl..dh.'.4p .-
p:n, . , g- C..,9 Q B'END.
V . . ., , :,
o
. ;.'?
,a .
.'. ,*[. .l,.f'.ff. th .
- )
- ?,- *L. .' . ,( . ~*
4:.;I7-
. u;s y.r .. , \;#.k f%. ,. . y ;-(. ',m< .*.1,.,;;.. . ..g..-r. ;,,.-ei.,..w .
=.f,
. p
., y- .
. s. : .
...r 74
...p
.y-t,t.'.e. u.y.., , ==. .x . . , . 2. . --; q . ,,, , . .
. e . - .
.<4
'*Y Magness,'.L W 7.' %c.s .'?3 AZU w d-? > g <..r. C2',':. S2. ) . . ' . .t-' .. i i . ~ r.. '-5 RTT,3 n. ,, gf. 3?m79 : ..
?
- O' 2. y;t.:4..M;M9.gsil.h<k y . we.g. .v e, -
%,.,,%:$i.g q g g49 W yc .... 3 3 . . : , . .<, m,...
3
.e c -o, y .-
.m K.) :? . :. . .../ . w,. . : x.-na. y . . .g .pw:g.y..y. ..; .
hy Yhhf.hf
- e Y $ .
.hk f 5 5 .
fh .h $ .
f( bOfb5., h.:
Moralez,-R.. BAF . ~ ' -S6 'ee . .
BEND ~ - - -
,- ' - . ; . -t.
v , ':' -?.. . . . .
O E, ' , *L9P*Y,h
{- f
, "I' . M'V { ,.. hel*f*f dg( }'.,... . h"'. ;f+, g4
. j. , .
.y m.. -
. ~
C.,.:;.
Wr< Carba,jal,D. . W RT >
. BAH, ,.Q.
- ,j.; ,;Q. C6,' i.
- +: C12, S11, S12Cg;..):h:., .. , ,.p.
.: :.j e . ,
,;;' .s -
C1g.y.; ., . , .;;;_,, ,jf.8END?- p .
~ Ridiids,i R.' % '{.,..~. BAL . . u.:
bb, S4*,~ 56 hShe < "d RT. .d .4 Mw *
. ggna
. c; .y -
o . .
' k]
Lord, J. BAS . .C6,. Al ,
.r.. BEND .
~
Williams, J. - BAW
- S4, S12, S6, C11 .' 3 '.RT- , 3;
? Miller, J. BAX C2, C6, S2 RT C1 . BEND f .
Simcox, R. BAZ S12 'RT
'. C1, C6, Al BEND
,..F
- v
) e(
~
E y'-- - '* . INA > i i >% A _ Arw- a . .i m . . , , . __ , ,,,,,.p.,,,. , ,,,g y ggy ,, _
- 2w _=-m...
. m...m_
n .~.
.. _a- #
--Wq me e. wgm. we.m
. n .~ - w -- g . ~. w me _w.y.. _,_e* ch *mee-aw .m ,,u j
3 .. . . . .
.~,,
/A a
El
- EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 PAGE 12 of 17 WELDER'S NAME SYMBOL t
~,, Coleman, J. BBE C2, S2, S4 RT
- Cl BEND 2
4 Bassham, G. BBF Al BEND q
i; Reed, L. BBI S2, S4, S6, S11, C12 RT
? Cl BEND A
s 7 Boen, T. B8J C2, C6 RT
- 9 McKinney, J. BBL C6,A1,A5 BEND s .
.Bulman, D. '
, BBM .
C6, A57 c. 7 T-- RT .- ,
"2 j .9.b!b ^
- -Al','i.
..i . A10M).f%.
.,f; h@s.. M.~t W,4.,s - i 9 .
re .. . ,. e . .+., m<'?
.r .
..i.n.
w, g%::. ..e.~ ,ggg.s w.% 4g.
'y3QC10,2
- g,*s. ,,. . y
.. .M.
- 4. m .
r.:p:. .i. -v.;.y
~p-a ; -.
g..
. BEN nt.-, . , 04:y..'M.
g.p r s.
- .y
- v
~ Sexton , J . ",' .W. . ., +.:
- '.. ' (.,.a BBN%q. , . e.,;, . ;t.:.:&%m,NC1,f.C27 :
. w '- T ' '. RTP:'1't- C6 y,512.5;Ji
- 6. ,g:.Jc-.Y . ' ci
}3 '.
x : .. ,
u? : .u . . ..
f ... . v$Wdf.^>IL' d. :
IMM51Bart,on,'L.@$:.f.v+:: D Y'BBOI.N N'N: ~n. w ;. M $. c.m x sCsYI.
x e , ~ . - ~ dM
- 1. z. w : ~ ~ 4. .
e - . . .
,.Greer,.,i_.&.
r . n&,.=..v,....w,:uaw.
p-
.c. . . . - 6, r : . .. . -.. . . -
L j
W $,fm W ".e W.= *h..BB Comer, T. ..
., Ln 1BBY...
...Ky3Re$3@~f@@f43@5.
. , S6 . : , ' . ; . , e,W . Eisg,[ , ,i.Q RT. i ' f ;
~
M Wy
- g. ,
'.: .0@w,,'. hD Y. 7T/.f,';:.t. C10 f. A8.,, A10$g '...K.. T..J.g Wm al.Z: . ;BENDL;?< M.. -d..iigh . . .'
N, ...W)[.
.% :-( .
- m. . ..
M
~, . 1 .
g ..
h Murphr . BZ~ E[. . 8Y 0
. kh' 4 .. .
m._
.c'Feczko, G.
. . . g.
BCC-
,.w.;se,. .
..n .. 5 6 % . ' ire. w @ s p.y:.g%.y g);.y. . , .mm,.: , . RT . . ~
}j
{gj#' -l7p. 4 ' t g..yQ.[hNyh.[. If q -k . .jgh,tgpg y ;;;.;d,,W%h.
. . . - .. ~.. ,.... , . , . . . ,.
a nw
.. u ,.
e.-% ,:.C6 ?,AS;, % @.u VJ:a.+ BCD- g Q$ .'
- n%; . . RT,.C;i.g*Qy?*, &'s;Q2.y-'p
> Q; {$@p.c tl'a:.%
. .. ..Youngblood . J.
Shadowens
- ":.2 :.VR2%?.%w.~lBCF:1Q. U:. Q:.K.: . Q,@C2, AS,'C11','.e C6',g'M2'-:i%; u5
+:RT. c. h. , . ~.
J q u *:p a e g-
. .. %.u :.m.%. ~ .. .y,y.w..q.,g" gw. . f u ; ; p ,..
.: ,gl, ,4g;,".l.3 .,M
's
$j '
Sloan, A. BCG C1 " " .: * * - T RT -
, .m 1' .
c.1 Thomas T. BCL Cl .
. .. .RT. .,
@ Myres, T. . BCM 10 g- C10, A10 ;
a,. ,
BEND :
$.,J . . . . ..
,t Y Stiner, D. BCN C10, A10 BEND IX.
56, Cl2, Cll
'f .
Norwood, T. BC0 RT ,
Broyles, R. BCY C10, A10 BEND n Griffin, J. BDB C10, A10 BEND f
., t )'
x, Windham, R. C6, A5, Cll, Cl2 RT 7 BDC
.F.
g
..U
- s. 2 m
- M.
w, ,w_n. m.. . .< n u..m..-s i.s. m m:;.e _.. g,m==~..m.a_m.m. 2 e. % _..w.swm , ,n. , n,,,.w.
. . m_ _ .__mmp.ug.,.. -
m mm w7., n.,.v.~.
, g; . .j,,,,___ ,.w..~,w m _
s
.1 .
- n. . ,
9 y EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 PAGE 13 of 17
"""^*' "' '
~
Cv. '.
- Clo, A10 BEND Neely, T. BDF C10, A10 BEND
[ ..
s Smith, S. BDG C6, AS RT T C10, A10 BEND Spoon, L. BDL A1, C10, A10 BEND a,; I ig. Chambers, T. BDM C10, A10 BEND m
J Holiman, R. 800 C6, AS, Cll, C12 RT C10, A10 BEND g+. -
. m.
. - , . - ,o . .
.. s.<
~w -y t McGarty, L.'
...c.vB.DP 9 -.m,.w3.k r ai/* 5,; C10 . A10. . v:. .-
vL . c.. .
?.r .
. .. g' .
- ,. 7' w s ?
- n ->. w. s~- '. . W- :- C<..
,a.::.> c:
- , . .u
- wv.( :.a.
. .-g . BEND
.:w.5 ,, y'r. .. .rs f '.i..k qMd$.c(G;:Flemingi GMO.f BDXM 4M...! w. C10V.A10 ;. C6'fA5 ,
- jr:.? T BEND M W /d;;. ^J*
m ~.. m ps, e.e . , . . 4. . .. .
..m ..
. .:..,, .:n.u. :
. v . :.
~
-- + , v.,- n., -
.E...M. -
- em+ s'@>C6,10,.A1 A5;.'.lS6 P C1 T - - - .. .
y@.:W.a q. Wallac.e..., .j&.lb. .:. . .. ,: . BECr n . 01,... .4#. .. RT. 4. gg6.. .. . . . . ,
s 2.,w. .' "g.g.:.:.g.,. . .f%.iW .. .,,.. BENDwg
'*iB m t % ,,... W h.%5M*5
., . _. ,t o-
.h1 s '$!d r.O :1 s n. .r y AM'Y,. .
.. s 0 k; . .. m .8. ... .. .h Mpph) I'jfffR
. ..= . - +' : ; . . , ...
. . .;. .s .
,,. BEND ...
((jk fih .
9 ... v .%., . , . ;;
.%.,. ... .. . . . , m. . .;<.s.. m. -.,._4.z..
. 3. r.v,2 .m. p;.y g .
. n. m.;.:. .,
3 p3V .Daugliarty&.br.<.L.
Yi...'.W ' .V ~ wBEEG .J W M V '" =.5,.p.4. , .5 'C
)
- ... .. - w.,. ,f, . . , ...
-J. W C10 - -G.n + e- ...;..'
h-*,. W&?:G~o:7.~.:5.,;: .%s,.. A10.
y -
~...;:. BEND Y W ..U
- 7
?p. :':-tMC, :* C1 @Wnt- ark, S;. ;..n a.
'.M; w BEND}.L ~.-
- ; ' - BEH + # *.. A81 m . -
,w .e . - ., ; , ..:
~
y.;
C; C6.. AS' d . :J- Newton, L... BEI. .. . RT . . .. .. .. . . .
?. .W . M;M%*f.!WD ..
.S. . ..M$p@%$.1.WSw0?A109N w+
.. .%.-;A4 $~rC1 ' ^ NTH %%BENDM7%..
. W ,f
- w. ,W..
. ~ .: i
.h,' , y .:.- p -. 4.;
.. ~ .
,,n~.c.,.. .....M:?.- m . .
.> .: s .,c.U. c. w.. ;u.w . --
4 .d,4 ..i Ballard,1K."i;!y$g.+
.n' t.;.:.p--:
. et p$8EKp'pg'.!-g.,C6',; ,
A5).. , . C1.2,%
,. %gi S12 g',,4RTiyM,j3;. .
'.;cu',gi b,649 TyleY,"M..' #
.4
? BEEF % %. :'2.a.C12,iS12, Cll , Sll e wd66RI,j.p.f.gy,n.%[>hd..
1 Ratliff, M. BEN C6, 55, S3 RT T C10, A10 BEND 9 ~
i, ira- ntm ,..) .
Q,a . . ,
C10, A10, C6, A5 BEND
- f. , i.'. " Cliaddo'x,'A. :- . .
BES Cll , Sll , S4, 512, C9, Cl2 Maedgen, G. BEU RT ,
A.
.1 Turner, T.. BEX C6, AS RT C10, A10 BEND
..o.......,. .
- ""': Slaughter, R., BFB - e= C6',' A5 RT r
(
y
,h
.: u s*'
I .M . JM . Jhan d*M'- b -
Yb 8' -- r . Nfv 'W"- ' . - - WIT {'T7-- - -- .,..,-/D.P'-
.m,a _
c~.~.~ ,r - ,a
- .A um a .
....,n,-.,.
.. , .,y.,, _ , . .c_n y-; ,
.s__ _ . _ m, 3, a ,,.,..
._ . .,._~,,%.<,,,,......_m,.cm_..
4 y% .
- =, . . . .
2 g
EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August'27, 1979 PAGE 14 of 17
.b .
, l h WELDER'S NAME SYMBOL Soward, N. BFC A8 BEND f Hayes, S. . BFF S6,Cll,C12 RT
, Bridge, D. BFG C10, A10, D1 BEND V
.: LeaveII , J. BFI B2 BRAZE S
/ Alvarez, J. BFJ C12, 512, C11 RT
% BRAZE
'.)
Frisby, E. BFK B2 McPherson, S.- BFL A8 c. BEND R . .
v .
u : . .
. U, .p,r.-h.. Rickman ,. J..'..~.g. 9. A;. ,: . ..BFT&p;;& .,..v..
C6, AS .C12. .g. ,
.c_>.,
.::... RT
- ,ggg
- .;, 7 w.
- .;....,. a .
. - u, . e
) a .,riu.. t. ..,-.m.og
.s -
- u. ;;vy.
. , ,ype p q. ,
, , . -..g -
,. 3 c. .z.f . ; ,, ,
O p.ty4 W BRAZEv.w.
2 '.% BFU:-Wh., .e.gp. s . . ., n,m u:M,,WW M* =*4's.ss:.5yg
!,L. x mGilbert,. Mit %:.' yrB2 e~ r J
.:.J@f$;-e m
f%. --
$RF$$.M .2 k r'= & M % % 6 % M M O G..ClA M.m.q.; 1 ..;; ... e.g.,g$g.,(BEND' ,_ zg y ':. ' Keiseri'.R$w,28.7/5MMBFXJ.mw:n s.10," A10.wi- g n.,q;;;. s g.:yj. ,9,,.,,,...
n w m:% 7,*.<, n cn.e . ... . _.
E Rue u W
M . x,3 ro ,
- w. v.c . G7a11.ryi:r;T.:ew.m.m.
MFMi;iis%,%g
_1 & 0% ;.3.:vM-s99 QQ'r T
?!ER. MMM9
$9'.tyylM;-Q;MlM%%%%y.
.:.., ,##?,i}Tiq(BGB1;MyE .:g Lc': 5 d; p g.-; M ,ri, :'.u.> y f
~ " '
...- -5 c. 4..
f '~~'b.t#: ^' 'iBEND).d.'
y .?WE. d..' C Matt;~W.Q?Ek"Q 5x',lT7*J,ffV-*17Fg?WW.&'Q*4.Wr"b"t$,t%? 4l ' l$52'Wld h*A.,&;;'. -
E .,. . . , .p.-Youngblood.. H.A. Jf.?.BGE.. c we C6,c.A5; Sil ..'.512 . C12 . J-
, RT .
.5 . -
- p i
- + , .. .y
- a. .
L ,.5. . . : ;.:3% . . . '
n.- Bayne , J . . - :~;s:;o;BGEV / C6 .:. RT d - ': c i
%d^N'
{.. r c'ft.%%gn ;e.WWg%.lj.%$glfg$)jf. igg, WA5,: I 4 511,, 512,. C11g g;; .p:G c . % -ey,g.f.y.;ppl3p.h c.u.ca.;f;, %q gg
- .y' .. .. a . ; +:. r. E V : - ';' BGHW
. G.. :%,5. :s , z.c.J . M.wn..:r.aw.).-.s.
A
. c ' ~.h F%.4.,C. , BEN.D;?
g b.;. . . . ' '.:9;:
- f.vA'w.
- h Garc.ia. .. w
. .. Q 1 9 9;w p; , : r9.p
. .a ,
. . .g. ;g.M,. .q C BG s .. '; m a; .: - 9 5 ..,4 BEND. p...,:.<h!.m p e m.
ld%-i(5
.7
- 011varez -
. A.kM..e
,34 .
bly,5.3. f.
.... . . . . W
.Q.g'.".;.'f E
p.. .y c
.$ -C10, .
A10 .
p; . . .
,r. ,
fr g.,
l $g -.
Campos, P.
BGJ -
' C10, A10 BEND
.y -
f T'- '#L'opez, Antonio ~ ~ BG'L" .
- C10, A10 BEND yg -
- ~ ' 'Kaylor, D. BGM_,SpW W ,. . .s.2C127,C11?.b^R 2
- q. :- RT-h . ~ :U.. . C10, A10 BEND l ,W+
Rodriguez, J. BGN C10, A10 BEND f .
O' -:n.r . -
~ Bryant, C. c- BRAZE
'9 -
,BGO .
-. 82 .. f .
. Lopez, Armando BGR C10, A10 BEND g.
. ;u ( Bussey, J. BGS C10, A10 BEND
.I eA l ;.O
.' g 6
.r .
' buq 1 - ._ ..< ~._. .:, _,.m _ _ - 2,
y.mmnmp.ame.n+- .a rr: w.m:nv- . .---mmwwwy; - xm,n - m an'n>:.y ~.- :_4.:n :ms '
- ~: - 7. ,ym . - - .us.w - : - .v - m=:m :n n. -
,.. - -- ~ +n ,c;_,,.
.= ~x_~._. a . n c: 1
,a t .
{ . .. . . .
a A i et 4
[ EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 PAGE 15 of 17 i O mDms - smBa m.i c
Y
-; Crudgington, C. BGT S12, C12 RT 3 Alvarado, R.. BGU Cl2, Cll. S12 RT a
i Harlan, W. BGW Cll , Sll , S12 C12 RT v
4 .
} :
Alexander, M. BGX Cll , Cl2 RT
'y Howard, J. BGZ Cl2, 512, Cll RT 1
2s
~ '
Patrino, H. BHB C10, A10 BEND n
Sigman, E. " O 7 BHC . .m C12, Cll..Sil 'RT y
- .ww, LWMwe %w .W
~
e . .
f - Sp1yey, D.
- b. .
M,;BHD
-v~ .jp : - syy 9 e.~~!g.% ., .+._.3% Cl.,17 C12D/ m ... w.p .
h~i'ji .ff1.pggcg,amy;RT~
e-r.C..
'E kk h$ c -t
~3.
N.
y Adame, B. -
1-hM. .w:; [c7L.a,.es_Mr%.n,. - C12,: Cil ..-512.W
,% :h: -BHF
- e~~
h Me E .;.s, MvdA J: m v
- %.w;.'J ,.r1m.
u7.e:1. ... . u ~ - yg ... . . i 3 g wr.m~, g,e q. r .
w mW w . .. y
.pt*y s r,..F 3 .'Linzy, T.W'7J W<?iBHH r. r, up,m . 99, y,w >$.-
R$fpT2 5 gw.,gg. 1.
Jgd.g .u?Q pg }iy,[g gRg y.w.,4 g j. . .-.s qeg.
b LaudeNiale, G.: .. BHI i i N. % '
^MI
$.3 v r .. ...-,. n: ac- . -
Cl2'.:
- -; -sm S$2;.NI...'.N.['N
.o,
..w.. mma ;, . .n E.' i@..@. ..R.T
..,r~ ..
..e.
.w ,.s ..s;
..:.v zo .
Sharp, W.
- . ',,',,.s-4 ,. .J4-
. %m. w. < BHJ - A8,+C5 W..t h;. w m wm~/.m'.r:re.m. ,v.. g.c,y e BEND n r. -
-e -
.:.. w . 'm :.G . q,;>; @ yj f } 2. ' 4 G :.- Q ky +;_.. l.y . : . . .,E-Q _
~
@ . Bowman , J. - ...iBHK3 'i. , .Cll ,'. S12,.; C12. c
' RT'- j.v'. - y l g,%.g N
ik;$$j;r h$b&Wl@.k M.. D . m.W,. Mcdonald, R -
2 bh.1.Ak Ik h@%..
f.@ bht <
)3C12 JC1,,1.E. .S1 h.hMjhhN5h4hf4f[$hhhhhh.
K .4..M. i3RT MNh % T:'@l W
..c . _ -
%uh :.; c.& ,.
. :,s.+
< n;.w,,.2M.c. c; p .e,y'::,g.n;,h h
%.c.,9 .. . ,.. , . , ,. ,:.;%
m
-2,u.-
'.".m.
. h. :
..Brennan, 4.v.
.q4a e- y:--w.v.:w.:m..
L.' .
~' .
- 9.. , BHM . ;~;. . ',; Cl 0,',A
.i g.
D
.. -r- .-w. n - w..:. n .q.;. f # el;x:c'-?: v qh?.w;.2,g.s?.v.k ~ e -. . m. p
. .1 Q.5 ; v.;1.;4 BEND w a 7:
7 4 1 Thomas , S. .BHN A8 ,
. BEND
- n .
'y Hague, R. SHO C6,AS,C12 ' ' RT ,
.q .s..
1 ~.,,i., ...e.g. , ,:,. w .p . y, T v.,..,,,
' 4, c,.:9 CBEND +
- Roarty, M. .,BHR. C10, A10. . 11, V. Foss, Clyde BHS C11', C12,' S12 ~ RT
~
4' '
q
? Mooney, M BHT C10..AIO fw BEND l;) 22. . . $%i '
- Spinner. D. .BHU : . C10, A10 -~ BEND . v r.; .
)@ M.
{ Taylor, M. BHW ' Cll , C12, 512 RT Truelove, D. BHX C10, A10 BEND
,b G
i .4
.,w 4...
b .
YM -
Z?
.2 -
__ . _ _ _ _ _ - . - _. -.<.--. -- _. _ .-. s % _ _ - - e .- ~ . .--,
ww_
swm__
_ _ . _ . -< .?vm:,?.,.v, .M_s%.,.s.a
%. uWesW6JFusrib..L.,, y- ~ J. i .a N *
- P stehad..@m s..e . m . ,.... lu -- .um. u . -- d.%. W- N:nE, W.... @ .' >cmS,,,,.9 .,a f:##% . wM _ M . , "
-4
+ .
.s =
B ,
- ,.., e - .
a
- d
. 3, , . . ,.s
..d
. EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 PAGE 16 of 17 b
SYMBOL
{, WELDER'S NAME McCarty, E. C12, Cll , S12 RT
( BHY Campbell, E. BIA C10, A10 BEND BIB B2 BRAZE 3 Pait. S.
Sanchez, J. BIC. A10, C10 BEND ,
6 j Long,~D. BIE C11, C12 RT d Saengerhausen, C BIF C11, C12, 512 RT
~
. BIG A C12 S12. C11',' S11c . . , ,; . ,
M. -
.> N;: Robbins,,.
n- -
.~ H. -
- u. . n....e 2.
c w.,;p,..
...t . a. . . . , . v ,p
.. .,y.,..
p< $. . . ... . .s.
. ; - g g7;';.ri;~J.g?y;~;.'. . p. , . . . ., , ;:;. . ,., ..'RT>
g,. ..
%Q.
N. g;;'.r m.
..* C67A57 a'M,, 7 ] [ D .%,g. %,,,aQ4RTs,,y - . '-.?f h y e"l
~
- f. BI J 72.
$ 1.$ Nuncio,W... .
j gA'.:,ej,-:' -
' _ . .NM;. ;;
s W . :.3 .
- c . g,,4 w .
y.J..a.i g, jk BIE d t'slec- 1. C1.1,; -.LC12e . n,<g 3<3ft,;'i 7 -:N pgTPDennis, Q. M. y. J.. .
i n:M A:d M.it hiefih .b$_ ..,'RTM . '. .
g.. g u, Kmn ,:,ed.1ghs:
- y. .
L.3.,gw.g[LdM+qq.,)-o. gg .
p,yg e ..; . .:::* RT-moi....c ..._
Ir - 'k AWEe m q
%m gmg MwWMemi wh e GNff$attox',T6Md;rMMw'IN'Mh'fd10 TM.NB f C10754$c~ wee %$! h9;$$9g.wems.ykT.H 9 BENDJ M y M
[. ,Y . ' y
.i
,z.. . . . .. ~ ,f., #
h
.. A . . .
....~..m...,,
-. q g . ,. , , w 7, ..,t.
g< ' , . .g: RT , w' --N we e - B. .. 4 Watkins 2 K pp.c . .z, R : BIM'
<"iC11; % . . . . 'n'.:.f m-a a ;. 3. .s %;. . -
.* .. . ,:..g;;g 3 .,M e.BEND _ . , s%':E
",'* %... M S.:I... ' . ' 'IfBIN- I W< n, A10; C.10. .
4 G..'e.N.aBake
- y. . .. . ,. . , . . .. :e. . , ~
N .cm.. ..n.:. .,.p..n.<,.:..$h.
evk4%. h$h. . m.N.p. . .
. . ;; w -
1 C 2,YbN'
. -. ;b.h 2
o.:.r. . . . n.
- $ h.. hd w $.N yN . ?,.,. %
.. .. ~ .: s 0. v. >. o
- k. . i!
ug,:.y
.c
.~
.a I
mkN, . n.,. v.a . . .fiyf- DIM'T[BIR$fd,[v.+..C1
' Cif.- p;: ,.
. . :. . [ ,. g.. %RTM,;.7.,pg,ypj'.y 2j.y . S12. h. @ g.- c, c,g.-
q'2g.d<Eake[rY.
e , . ; n
- . , e .. . .e
.c,. jaff,E . D,..e" '"'"*. M. iBISW-Pjdg A
. w, . A[A10 lf.c C10 ~, :%d?
- .. . ; .l 1 ,. - @ B,END @ y,l bJa ,,.. ^%t y,...a!
v ao.. .
. . m . . % ,y
. . w' .. . . . . w
~
d :Ingram, W. BIT C10, A10 -
BENb h
k . . ,
.*y Ea ki n ,' R.-
- BIU -
.~ C10, A10 eg.-BEND .,. -
, ;g.
~ ' '
w, BIW
- y
.: , 4.M{
,s ,;;. . ~C10, A10 p %. ,, &]. BENb -;; . ' ., J ,:t
~
. gpr.W.
2.*
%@&*f;m'.- t::n.~; . sWil s.on , .^..c.K.
~
- w. , k .,.
.. . .y.w: : .mg:.w ,..,. . . . , -
3 1.,. n
. m &.. _. BRAZE... :e :..c BIX~ 8 2 '. s;.,-. , , , /; p y ,,. 7.:,3 .- '
6 };( m Of1 u. ., Ray, E. T. ~r.
a -
p -w m Daniels, L
.w. c.y BIZ C10. A10 BEND t
BEND i Couger..E BJA AB m<,
Hall , H BJB C12. C11 RT 4
) Bell , P. BJC C12, 512 RT v
i Raffin, J. BJD A10, C10 BEND
.M S
4 7 -
et
--m . -~ _
-u. . ._ s i m x . C
a/m, m .% . sR e,ww# . . m _-w.v m.m,.,m,.wam., xm%#.ec :.e~
... . _. .s,-. _m.m %-ow, mar, ; .mw.., v-o'w l
4
- s
.c ,
N .* , ; ., ,
d'1 a
x .
3 EFFECTIVE WEEK OF: August 27, 1979 PAGE 17 of 17
.s SYMBOL g WELDER'S NAME
? Perez, B BJE C12, S12 RT
/
Reeves, L. BJF C12 RT er',d - .
Prue, C BJG C12 RT
- [, x. , - c e, -
-Sturmer, C. ,'. 'Cil, C12 RT S -
. BJH.
.? Moore, W. BJI .
C11. RT
.f, Robinson, L. BJJ ,
CIE RT
- ,... .... , m ..
-:f.
ai?Y 4 43
.M, ; . -
., . .T .r ,% .
y&. .g , . 7.: . . ys' . .. S .e _: , , , , y..;; r ,; ;'
.. e . '. , .. - :. ... ,.. , ., .,.,
e . p,q i. p . .. -. s.
..o a .,
,1 *
..c- * . *. f e.& A.R. L.%. .o. *e. '
O. h &. A : s . . .-Js ' .
! $5,Q[uk nam..hM b y
%y .,
dh.* hvoSM:-%j '
J.- ;,'.G. ^
- tVx.wile'Ny?rd K5" .
,. , ' ' ^%)
E ',::
e m?m;YT.
....,y
..m%'".;,.2NNh*
Id! ..'z
. .'Vf.$ '
- .%( sGA;-app y-v' + ':r.+t.9%
- . - f. . <. n
- . - . . ' .
Y';'M *L
W 4 n[?rf:p.-mx' '.
'h
. ; p . ' $ h
't>
d,M f G M'E U t
- 4Q.4 7***dd.*
T/ M C M .,'.F84h N N$'& ItW $. @# p.j T W *@',%
' aism
& 4A':9'* ri,Z,J( p. '
p i <7;.$f.Mkc.'
2 'i
.,i ..
! h k 4 -s- ,&.
W N,.Tr.*?.VNj. Q., D .@ A h, a % s$ M M S- D M : $ M M r w
% ,.. m n u, m- . m. ,., ,. . . .m. -
sw w w M w~n mu.. m...,.n
..~. e.m ., wt...w._
. . . . .. .. . ,a. .
.w .
. a :
-.s..
r s m....,f u.m,{spw a . .
.,,.. y, E.)&,,, - > . &; % ...%u,- ..g*5&UO0 $ 'l
, ~
3 . . . .4 ';A.: . .,
- $ ,. &r4:. . . . -
r, ; <*. ' , -
r
.v.-- *Ehs5.'~ee,
- f. y .r @ p ,N,m f .?u'r* h.-e,._ .
.V 3, . o
.!?h.ih,c ..h. h,,.,3.h.*t'hh .~.
h .
h.
- s, * . -l., .J s. U f ., 'Y $ U k.s.
< .- i
- v;t, L, ' ,-
p4. tw .'M*49,A,.;. y-s.,+.1 , a-.:q' ? 8.-fdf, -. ..., .. , . .,.f;u. . -t(c. w. '-. r* i.':'? ',,
- g~. p.:.a.r
- s. . - w , .s, j '%,J , **,.'~.v. ^-.:x a<- ,.
~. t 5 ., .. .~.y. * " ;b %.
"C *;fg ' p,4.*- 'j 4Q 48. . r e g gs%=> sat e .p g J' f C9'*t* l* %= . .._,,~'sg
. , m t, l-7.,"",
%g, i .v%Q.f>J T#,$'u. e*.f"N,*t.y.?fo[h e q, h 3Gr, :,.... .&!)h,*.'@ khd,'{f'%.f j met ,, MM$l%.T':'M*T!.> : nW'h.~lM h, j.W8:2,4%h%; t
.5 r h h m&
y
- q. .".
%*^ ~
.2.,.,
m.%e.c@.
- 7.nsw.W q,Q,3. ~y,:
s ..s ,c ..,- ':n.. r .g,..v*. ~
(..
w.'...-w;
.n.
o.
@..,f..A:,.:M.1 9;.-
4.ch e e s teue
- w~>. '
-yt. -
..a.* ;- . ..? s Q = '~.'. 4 's ~ ': o -i1, .; .s . , m.:. y,. . . .. % y& ;,f..): : :~y * . a .* ...
ba
..n.'. - .
. n'. &. c. , .s.* G. ., ~.;m.4. . :.
R ,:,t.hk y
... & ,- .m -.;.
r.1..: *. .
~ . d*6 H, m..,.-Qih.n . ..,w;*%,es.n.s. . 'l i,-y%'y M . .
- .a. %.* pry; Y,. $ !'.!*'
. ~
,aW.3
. y3' e'
- af j". . , r.
- 1 foy .g ?, j.
J [ .. (* ,' . ,
.((
,.a v. x ..y. +,
j . --s >,=w. +,s +.e : >. g . : *. ;, .
,: w' . .. , . .-w: n, .,,,, M m,a . . . . 3. .
w:, *m.
- ,* 4 ,
.- s
, .,e.
. , , , . w .w. n. . v. *
- "- -r f. ' '.u. .. . , . y*
- p* .
.s'".
.W*.
a
.m'-
v..-
~~;**>*- s". ' "E'? ' ; r, ",7.['*^*"
. 2 4 - * . . .
'y 'g
- i .*
p s s 2.l . .s ' . .
- . .;.x p - . : f..- ,'s.. ,
- j* ' -
.5' s'e x>. t-- ;- .
":.. .t M 4a. ,
p '*.f. .f s.(::Q 1 7., '*M s .p.) .,.t.," .;.: s. M. ~'s- :J., gI.t . <- ;*? . '.)v. *
r'. 6
. .s.;h*... s p. . ,, 'i --
- 4* - . ** , . .
,, .._g -
- ,, w ,, ;- .
- g , o s. ;
8
% [' ig' y
- s')< ' ' .
a W . , " .. .**i ',) .
, P.,.
d'"!. . .I .- . *- . - . %
.. .. . % *, j
- e n b. , f e .s, '- . *%.'.# s -
$."T. 3.). ..
.p , ;* ~, s. - . . .
~. , ,: + .
i l',':'
' " 7,. */,..,,*. .w *!
T. r*A,
- ' e. .
- 6, J
~
, . .J .,, . e. 7
- f. ..g L ', 6 t .
- (
.'f
, ',' - . s
'.*) * '
.y ~~h '.:.~% .:4 n.-+;..rl W;, r2 a (V
, ,'.s*B...- sr . *** e .* %
.?,:t,. # ,..4.. M':
.~.,' -
4.*- '
M n t';g ' -
.,d a ; -
W
,4, t, p.m.e
---t"9E'M4 - -- - _
- l' ? - 9~CTT2* K'T*M"'TM"?fWWWUW"'"Y" l dI., b, -!
\i.
)
At? cp h U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.T!ISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
}l REGION IV '
Report No. 50-44 79-20; 0-446/79-20 Docket No. 50-445; 50-446 Category A2 Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2 Investigation at: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas Investigation conducted: August 15 through September 14, 1979 Inspectors: .
/0/F 9 R. G. Taylor, Resident Reactor Inspector, Projects Date Sectio'n f
D. P. T'omlinson, Reactot Inspector, Engineering Support Date '
Section Approved: -
/0 /f W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date
& W &
R. E! Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section
$/Y79 Date j k' k (C\b' f ;
,%,..>..m.- - . - ve- -- m . emm . . . .m -
-: __ _ -=e,*.m -,~ --y .-w w-~~+ ; -- mwm mtammwv m.m-w -g
. s.
- l 1
Investigation Summary:
Investigation on August 15 through Seotember 14. 1979 (Recort 50-445/79-20:
50-446/79-20)
Areas Investigated: Special investigation of allegations received regarding unqualified welders and the placing of trash in a Reactor Building concrete placement as the result of a Christmas party. The investigation involved twenty-five inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors.
, Results: The allegation relative to unqualified welders was not investigated
~.
because it was considered to be without merit. The allegation relative to the trash in a concrete placement could not be positively substantiated nor refuted, but appeared to be without substance.
.a
'[<-
E A
+
q .
1 4
S U
t s j .s .
e ,
d ~
3 e
5,4 Y.
1
- 5 s
c kh .
os . ,
2
,4-
, , , , ~v, ch.**dsicat'n - b]lbS'5.Ws... d.sw 2 L6 + sS* s*!~~ *a*4**Re
- - - . = - - _ a -- _.-n- .._ -_ - _ . - - - , _ , _
/
0, 1 INTRODUCTION Comanche Peak Steam Electric ~ Station (CPSES), Units I and 2 are under construction in Somervell County, Texas, near the town of Glen Rose, Texas. Texas Utilities Generating Company is the Construction Permit holder with Brown and Root, Inc.
as the Constructor and Gibbs and Hill, Inc. as the Architect / Engineer. ,
REASON FOR THE INVESTIGATION 4
The Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Chief received a letter addressed to the Headquarters if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, D. C., which contained alleg:tions that indicated a possible i breakdown in the CPSES Quality Assurance Program.
SUMMARY
OF FACTS A .
j .
The Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Chief received j c. a letter dated August 1, 1979. The letter, which was addressed to the Headquarters j - of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was received by Region IV on or about q
August 14, 1979, and forwarded to the CPSES Resident Rea'ctor Inspector (RRI)
M for follow-up on August 15, 1979. The letter contained two allegations
. apparently received by the alleger from two other persons. The RRI and another b .
Region. IV Reactor Inspector interviewed the alleger on August 15, 1979. The 9 #[. following information was extracted from the letter. Additional information, f , included within parenthesis, was obtained from the alleger during the
- !j .-
interview.
(r;
$ ( Allegation 1: The letter attributes this allegation to a former CPSES 0
} ,
employee, who was the " chief welder" at one time, and stated that he knew of " numerous employees, men and women who, if they proved they could weld B i o a straight line, were allowed to weld and most didn't know the difference
( between a 5 ton weld or 25 ton weld." '(The alleger concurred that the RRI's 1 interpretation of his letter was accurate and provided a last name for
$ the welder and a means of contacting him. The alleger was of the opinion H (
that the NRC did not need to be concerned with this allegation since 3 \ it had been addressed in one of our previous investigation reports.)
& Allegation 2: The letter attributes this allegation to a CPSES employee b now retired for health reasons and relates to an event that occurred during 1 a Christmas party held December 1978. It was alleged in the letter that an individual, who worked for Brown and Root during the month of December 1 1978, was on the job and attended a Christmas party being given for the
!! employees. This occurred December 2, 3 or 4th. The letter stated that
'I the individual observed " considerable drinking and all employees were i quite drunk, except for the individual whose job was to drive a vehicle H 3
.a
.1 w
__U i '. ,y_,; : C a_'-_U N
- h.g;_gg{,'Mh*
g Mg k .
- {g M, , /h .j h ; M. L.
~ - - - - _
- = . ._ =, .: = ;;_ = =~ ~ wx m R .
- 8 ,
.a .
d to take the employees home when they became too drunk to stand." During the party, a load of " cement" came in to be poured. The foreman, without supervision, made the workers pour the " cement" into the forms after he
- had the men clean up the area and put the trash, garbage, bottles and cans in the forms. The letter implies that. the concrete placement took place on or in one of the two Reactor Buildings at CPSES. (The alleger m provided the IE inspectors with specific directions on how to locate the individual and affirmed that the alleged incident took place in a Reactor Building.) -
o 1, CONCLUSIONS sl l The following conclusions are based on known conditions at CPSES, review of
{
E.;
indicated records and an interview with the individual involved in Allegation 2 which took place on August 16, 1979, in'the individual's home.
2 y Al' legation 1: This allegation was determined to be without merit. There j is not now, nor can it be established that there ever has been a " chief
IE personnel with individual and collective years of welding engineering j or inspection experience. IE inspectors have determined that all welders l'J ".'
at CPSES are qualified to either the requirements of the American Welding
/ Society or the American Society of Mechanical Engineers prior to performing
$ production welding. The implementation of the welder qualification program 1,) at.CPSES has been the subject of several routine inspections by IE inspectors 3 .g since welding began at CPSES. No major deficiencies have been identified
.S .: 1 in the program.by these inspections.
u 3 ,
y /. Allegation 2: This allegation could not be fully substantiated nor ' refuted,
,j j.; but for the reasons delineated below, it apper.rs that there is a small likelihood that the allegation has substance:
~
r
'j w
- a. The individual from whom the alleger states he received the
- i information denied having ever participated in a party on
'} CPSES property or that he ever had knowledge of such a party.
- h He also denied having given any such information to the alleger.
S i ?,) b. The only Reactor Containment Building concrete placement that
-y took place in the specified time period was on Unit I and occurred Y on December 3, 1978. Examination of the Brown & Root t.iue
- ,3 keeping records for that day established that the individual was not on payroll status that day and it is very unlikely that
?h he would have been allowed on the station as a visitor.
- 9
'- c. The RRI was able to establish telephone contact with one of the former Brown & Root employees shown by the time sheets s to have in some capacity been involved in the concrete placement in question. This person stated in the telephone conversation
+ 4 du
.
- DLhE [ "en .N Igd * * '
-_ i , [}[ ggdn ,. w
'*O ee ge ,a aE
, . - .. ~. ., m. . . ., w.~ g. mnu, -~~ _ wv , mm m ~ w- , ,= r, m n,.m5., .,,
4 . -
.g .- /
r -
$ =
.h
. ,; that he had not been directly involved in the placement, but
~
rather in an unspecified cupport capacity. lie stated that he was unaware of any parties on the site during that time
- frame- and doubted- that such a party-had taken place.
- d. Considering Brown and Root's policy in regard to worker discipline, it is not likely that Brown & Root would sponsor S such a party for any or all of the more than two hundred workers on the station that day nor would such a party even be condoned if sponsored by the workers themselves.
.b R
- {
L
.??
- ) .
3 .
a Q J
.J f.%
T, st
$-/
n1 0.,'
98 L .
g ? .
e.; -
9 7a
y,k W
DI 9
LC q
fu j
i
.4-
'q;l
.- 4
' /
if
.4 J 's 4
5 m
'Y g
..t$ t.P b .6T d v'; b6 E I NM .e . 4 - * . . NNM k m -** e e ' M, .. ho f f . '
- ek
. erd 4 eb a es%P 4 % f w8 * ..M * " l b e NE .* b 1N .N' .E' *l.. b
- . .yy.
- .aeme-e~= ummmmwww a ,mmumsmmwww DETAILS
-1. Persons Contacted Alleger i The alleger, hereafter referred to as the alleger, stated that he is a 4
" Researcher" for the " Citizens Committee for Better Local Government."
Principal Licensee Emplovee Site Quality Assurance Supervisor i
Brown and Root, Inc.
1
[ Individual A, a" Chief Welder" Individual B, a light equipment operator on a medical leave of absence
@ Individual C, an inspector in the quality control department
- Individual D, an inspector in the quality control department
- Assistant Construction Project Manager
+
- 2. Background Information
?
0 The alleger sent a letter dated August 1,1979, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. The letter was received by the Chief, Reactor p Construction and Engineering Support Branch, Region IV in Arlington,
? l.. Texas, on or about August 14, 1979, and was immediately forwarded to
? ;
the Comanche Peak Station (CPSES) Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) for
? 1[;
. investigation. The RRI determined that the letter contained two 3 :.
different allegations made by two individuals, neither of whom was the
- j . ; alleger. In summary, the allegations were as follows
'i a. Individual A is indicated in the alleger's letter as having been a " chief welder" at CPSES. Individual A is stated to have indicated 1 to the alleger that "anyone, man or woman, who could weld a y straight line, was allowed to weld, but most would not know
..j ( the difference between a 5 ton weld and a 25 ton weld." -
k b. Individual B is stated in the letter to have been a former e Brown and Root employee who is on a pension from Brown and Root for medical reasons. Individual B is stated as having attended y a Christmas party on the site during December 1978 given by
.h Brown and Root. Individual B's job that day was to drive 3 home the workers who became too drunk to drive. During the
/< party, a supervisor required the workers to clean up all the
- " trash, garbage, bottles and cans" and place them in the form J work of an ongoing " cement" pour. The alleger implied, in the
? text of the letter, that the incident took place during a
- Reactor Building concrete placement and specifically states that it occurred on December 2, 3, or 4, 1978.
6 b
h% .. t um __
a w m.mmw.mev. ~ ~ ~ ~ma m n .w w ~~r-- ~ n ~:n e m e w n _ M : m -- - n 35 xL . . .
3 .
'f .
y 3 3. Interview with the Alleger E
{ The RRI and another Region IV Reactor Inspector visited the alleger during
- the afternoon of August 15, 1979, in order to obtain the identity of J. Individual A, which was not given in the letter, and to obtain the j address of Individual B, who was identified in the letter. The alleger 1 provided a last name for Individual A and the name and telephone number
? of another person through whom Individual A could be contacted. The
{ alleger also stated to the IE inspectors that it would not be necessary 1 to further check out the allegation relative to welding since he, the 4 alleger, had reviewed a recent NRC investigation report that addressed 1 the issue to his satisfaction. During the discussion, the alleger affirmed y the implication that the " concrete party" allegation did involve one IT of the two Reactor Containment Buildings at CPSES but indicated he did j not know which. The alleger gave the IE inspectors explicit instructions p on how to locate Individual B in a nearby town.
h
.a
- 4. Interview with Individual B m
j The IE inspector immediately drove to the nearby town following the alleger's 4 instructions. The residence was at the time unoccupied although apparently t lived in. The residence next door, occupied by Individual B's father, 3 according to the alleger, was found locked and/or boarded up and was
$ apprently abandoned. The IE inspectors visited the local police depart-g ment where it was learned that Individual B generally was listed by his y second name rather than his first. No address was available, but a d telephone number was obtained. The number was not answered during'the j g period of the visit, but the RRI did succeed in contacting the person g .f
. during the evening of August 15 and arranged for an interview on s -
A.ugust 16.
$- c;, The two IE inspectors interviewed Individual B at his home (not at the f'Ni location given by the alleger) on the afternoon of August 16, 1979. Also attending the interview was Individual B's wife. Individual B stated
$ that he was aware of the allegation attributed to him since a reporter h for a major national newspaper had visited him on or about Sunday, August 12.
/ Individual B indicated that the alleger had sent a copy of the letter to g the newspaper. Individual B also stated to the IE inspectors that the 4 allegations attributed to him were completely false in every aspect. He h stated that he was not sure how the alleger, who was well known to him, got g the story of the party, but that it wasn't from him. He also stated that 7 while he had recently had major surgery, he was not being given a pension by Brown and Root nor was he receiving any other money from Brown and Root.
W y
- 5. Investigation Allegation 1: No investigation was performed of the allegations purportedly 2)
U. made by Individual A for the following reasons:
~..,.
y '
- a. The alleger had stated to the IE inspectors that no further
, investigation was necessary.
't y
77 7 Y
k lh m
. .=,c,;a, a C .;.ha,- w ..w n .- m e . .c . iF -
w R &:.:.-~ w a .. ? 4-
n.w m n ~ w n n ,.m m m - - n .n g m = =,_ -=. .agg.m.n=g.;.m _ .g 2
- b. CPSES does not have nor has ever had a person identifed as a
" chief welder."
s' c. The allegation deals with the idea that the welders employed by Brown and Root are not qualified since they, the welders, would not know the difference between a 5 ton weld and a 25 ton weld. The RRI contacted several experienced welding engineers and inspectors in the NRC about the terminology, none of whom were familiar with it. Reference to the six volumes of the " Welding Handbook" published by the American
{ Welding Society failed to reveal any reference to the strength or quality of welds in terms of " tons" value.
- d. It has been well established that welders employed at CPSES
- are now, and were during the period of employment of
- Individual A at CPSES, tested and qualified in accordance with the standards of either the American Welding Society or the D
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, as appropriate, for W the work involved.
i
( Allegation 2: During a review of records at CPSES, the RRI established the following facts:
4.: -
3 a. No concrete placements were made on Saturday, December 2, 4 1978. i
~:1
- b. A single placement of concrete was made on Sunday, i s December 3,1978. This placement was the second lif t of ly .i concrete on the dome of the Unit 1 Reactor Containment
{ Building and involved a placement of slightly over three
- hundred cubic yards of concrete at an elevation approximately j J(- two hundred feet above ground elevation.
2..
- c. Two relatively small placements of concrete were placed on Monday, December 4, 1978. These placements, totaling approximately sixteen cubic yards, were in the Safeguards Building of Unit 1 and in the common facility Auxiliary Building.
3 "
- d. Working on the basis of the affirmed implication that the party took place during a Reactor Building placement, the RRI checked the labor crew time sheets, including those of the
+ crew to which Individual B was known to have been assigned.
!/p Individual B's name does not appear on any of the records for Sunday, December 3,1978, and therefore, it appears very unlikely that he could have been on the site to drive the
" drunks" home. Had such a party taken place, Individual B
_ would have had no first hand knowledge of it. s l
L 8 iy
,gy A M =* d- e MNba S d d -*" h dg de*, E E'ien*I M
- MA * *- *#3) b' M. 8 $* e., [. i . *
- f == ".I % a =
N Nm __ . .N.TN i . .
b, a 4 '
M
., e. The RRI interviewed Individuals C and D who were the Brown and Root quality control inspectors assigned to the concrete -
- placement on December 3, 1978. Both emphatically denied that a any such party took place then or at any other time on site 1 property.
m
- f. The RRI interviewed the Assistant Construction Project Manager relative to Brown and Root policy for construction
- ( employees in good standing who became seriously ill for
$ prolonged periods. He stated that after a short period of 1 time, such as a week, they are considered terminated, but 4 subject to rehire if they can return with a medical 1 released-to-work certification.
m
.) g. Utilizing the above mentioned time sheets and current 4 employment records, the RRI identified five individuals Z who may have been involved in the concrete placement 6 -
on December 3,1978, and were no longer employed on the y site. Review of the employment records for these five
- q people indicated a reasonable possibility that contact 4 -
could be established with three of them. The RRI
( interviewed one of these persons over the telephone
( on August 27, 1979. The person indicated that he U had not actually been placing concrete in the form work Z but was in the area. He stated that he was unaware 2 of any party at that time. The only party that he
,.] -
acknowledged took place the day before the Christmas w '
c holiday job shutdown when Brown & Root sent all those
. persons home who wished to do so at approximately
]9 t 10:00 a.m. This event, the RRI was aware of, and is y
( .
j considered a normal event in the construction field.
The person refrained from agreeing to a personal t interview with NRC personnel, apparently because he
] had no knowledge not already given the RRI over the
{g telephone. Attempts to contact the other two persons were without success.
j;
~
L e
' dj 4
Pi T
h
- 9
-)
V 3
l
- 4 9 j e
'a' 97
+
,&, s s a wmr-1~ , -- w - e., 'qu - - L '+3 5? 3
.m, ; _ a :y ,, p. ,--a;w w e mmw-gw s s . ~ +,.~w-.. , . w. .
I j.h . ,g ;
,'- 7 ,.;;. .
3 .- ,
- c. -
. 4. -
)
l .
, [Q -
NOV 271979
- In Reply Refer To
- ,
5 RIV Docket No. 50-445/Rpt 79-22
- 50-446/Rpt. 7 u -
9 -
t .
s .
i 1 .
4
. c.
Texas Utilities Generating C'ompany * ,
ATTH: Mr. P.. J. Gary.. Executive Vice 2
- j ,
President and General Manager , ,, ,
? 2001 Bryan Tower . -
75201 , .
'f] Dallas, Texa,a *
~ ~ -
Jy Centleinen: .
This refers to the investigation conducted ~by Mr. R. C. Stewart and other g
'?
members of pur staff during the' periods September 7 and ,12; October 11, i
g 16, 18 and 20, 1979, of activities authori=ed by NRC Construction Permits .
d No. CPP 6 126 and 127 for the Comanche
- Peak facility, Units No. 1 and 2,
- y concerning allegations by.a forner Comanche Peak employee which appeared .
in a news art'icle of the University, of Texas .at Arlington " Shorthorn,"- j
! ' - I h . dated July 15, 1979. . _-
..T. ,.
~.. . .
i The inv'estigation and our findings are discussed '
in the enclosed investi ' ,
Q gation report. ~ ' ' .. .
t 7
k .
. s Within the scope of the investigation, no items of noncompliance. vere j identified. .
. ~
t M..
- w. , .
@ In accordance with Section 2.790'of the NRC's '" Rules of Practice, Part'2, -
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the i enclosed investigation report vill be pla.ced in the URC's Public Document j t Roon. If the report contains any infor=at' ion that you believe to be .
(( proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application to j
- .(
lt this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that .
h such information be withheld from public disclosure. The application i f must include a full statement of the reasons why it is clained that the !
information is proprietary. The application should be prepared so that -{
l p
- i
.,,c* .
JIy. ,. . ..kr. ............... ., s.. . . a. A . .f. ././. . . . . . ..g' . .. .'. . . ,, . ,
W ......e . R. .C. .S. .t. .e. w. .a. .r..WA. . ... .o. .s..s. .m.. ..a.
. . .t. ..C..r.
W. . .C. .. S.
.n. . . e. .i. d. . l. e. . .,...
. .W.. .E.
. .. .v,,e. . t. t.e. .r. ,, ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , ,
.*,.
- 11/21}79 11/ /79 11 /79 11 79 ;
l-1!r.........................,............ . , .
- Nac rou ne c,.763 unc34 a 4o
- h -I*, P' g *
. [9 Y *[ A. J g ',,gg, y " gg
/g9g' ' , ,n e),y . ,g
. .-@-h _ 8, g. $"M_ _
- . .,a g 't $4
,,,a 4 % PT e ') g ,, . ,d,.,
@ TE R G B ?C2.3 Ch % %D 5': M J! h w. - nlKMTQMW2%"2""':" X C O?.Ck pa"C . ,
4- > *1 , '
O '
f g' .
NOV 2 71979 i Texas Utilities Generating Company 2 j{
i any proprietaiy infor=ation identified is contained in an enclosure to the application, since the application without the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Document Room. If we do not hear from you in this
"~
regard kithin the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room. -
a Should.you have any questions concerning this investigatica, we will'be l pleased to discuss them with you. .
i
. Sincerely, i, -
o
_M !.
E '
i ,i ** Original Signed by:
/
q -
R. E. HALL" '
y(
.a W. C. Seidle, Chief !
q , ,
' Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
. i
{
Enclosure:
IE Investigation Report No. 50-445/79-22 . '
} 50-446/79-21
- } - s i .
. ~,
cc: w/ enclosure
{ *
.y Texas Utilities Generating Company .
~
(p .
u ATTN: Mr. H. C. Schmidt, Project Manager 2001 Bryan Tower i
y4
- ' Da11 ==, Texas 75201 t
g' bec to DAC:ADM bec to Reproduction Uni for distribution /c2 _,2,g pp for distribution NOV . 1979
)
0:
AD/RCI (Reinmuth) Central Files f PDR
$ IE Files A Standards Development LPDR
?J ELD TIC .
bec distributed by RIV /c.1 L4- 27 I . '
Texas Department of Health Resources 1 . .
- g
. e
. i '
. . 9
. t .
6
- 4 e ,
I k !
i
. i s .. v . . ,.- - . . - . n _ _ ,. _ , _ ,;,,,.,.,,, ,,,. ._ _ _ m _
. - -. ~- . . - - . ,~_-.--____--_s.--a< -~.
J .
G .. ,,
Q . . .
s-U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC.T!ISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT l REGION IV Report,No. 50-445/79-22; 50-446/79-21
.h Docket No. 50-445; 50-446 Category A2
. .t
$ Facility Name: Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2
- f; 7,) Investigation at
- Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas Investigation Conducted: September 7 and 12; Octob r 11, 16, 18 and 20, 1979 p m go .
Inspectors: . _
R./ C. Stewart, REsttor Inspector
_ o , /'Daf4/79 te' el Projects Section s
~d) 0 -Lb ~Y
..'d 3; . J. 1. Tapia , Ntea'cto r nspector, Engineering Date
- 0. . .. t Section -
, Suppor.3
///;2&/7f j L. D. Gilbert, Reactor Inspector, Engineering ' Da te'
.i Support Section y
a_ & $ /- h Y y R.' G. Taylor %J.esident Reactor Inspector / Date'
) Projects Section
~
Approved: )///M 64 CrossaiaWCh'ief, Projects Section
// 2
/Da te/
7f W. 'A.
p R. E'.~
r^
Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section
//
/Da te/
l p -
I ^,l J h [(AIM 'm 9 '.4 A 'e a tOf .. . .a N@d k,N 1 . *.***a
. _ _m._,, ....-.-1,._.._ . _ . - - . . , - . ..---,-,_,m-_ ,
._._---.___..__..m_
' j.. o. .'
y Investication Su==arv:
Investication durine the oeriods Seotember 7 and 12; October 11, 16. 18 and 20. 1979 (Recort No. 50-445/79-22: 50-446/79-21)
, Areas Investigated: Special investigation of allegations concerning the quality of construction at the Comanche Peak facility, Units 1 and 2, by a s former Quality Assurance inspector, whose comments are contained in the University of Texas at Arlington " Shorthorn" newspaper, dated July 18, 1979.
The investigation involved thirty-eight inspector-hours by four NRC inspec-tors.
Results: The allegations either have no merit, or could not be substantiated.
[ No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
a.
,4 sE
'A
'1
'4' w
\,M 3
e' g
.I g 61 ,
w a1
[ .i
1]
.f1 -
il y
.E t
4
- )
'll r
,i e eq
?l
..I 2
...,-,..;.. :.n . t."w.9 gg. h@ WCWMetMh rMdk'44.MU.*Ds.JMEIGMad4ShMI1 N..+**"'%. .
- 1 6 n.: .A*u
- :.,. c .'E f dM^4 *! * '-
t- "# #' #"' '#
- , ,, - . . . .,_,n..-- ,-m
, -l) j INTRODUCTION Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2, are under construction in Somervell County, Texas, near the town of Glen Rose, Texas. Texas Utilities Generating Company is the Construction Permit holder with Brown and Root, Inc. as the Constructor and Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
as the Architect / Engineer.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION As a result of allegations in regard to the quality of construction at the CPSES facility by a former Quality Assurance inspector, whose comments are
,' contained in the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) " Shorthorn" newspaper dated July 18, 1979, an investigation was initiated in order to assess their validity and impact on safety-related components and systems.
SUMMARY
OF FACTS
'i
- 1. Allegation No.1 On Wednesday, July 18, 1979, the UTA " Shorthorn" contained a front page article entitled, " Peak Construction called ' Sloppy,' Former Inspecter Cites Defects." The article, by Mike Hinshaw, a UTA staff writer, contained the results of an interview held by the writer with a former Brown and Root employee and currently a student at UTA. In the article, the former 9 employee alluded to examples of the lack of job site coordination. shoddy workmanship, poor supervision, and a waste of construction materials. In
~
- - i~ddi tion , he inoicated that hundreds of defects have not been identified dErine construction of the facility.
i Allegation No. 2:
- During the course of an interview by the IE inspectors with the former
.< employee, he alleged that he was told by an individual (unidentified) that a radioactive material / source (nondescript) was dumped into the Comanche Peak cooling lake.
Allegation No. 3:
The alleger also stated that he was told that improper welds were made on Primary Coolant System, Field Welds FW-19 and FW-20.
Allegation No. 4:
o In addition, he stated that he was told that a 6" check valve weld deficiency had been repaired without correct procedural instructions.
3
...g.. . ;. 7.pm w a u .a i.:w, :i % - .. . . %w a.~vr us_e&_e A*xw-W~%%y,7'M s__. s, n ...,
.41--+' K ~..~N M' ~^
.s.._,.mt,...~,- ., wm - m-.. .y.,~, _ .s m ,-..r. m m ,, ,-.- - . ,..~ w e ..u.___
m h .. .
s . ,
s
?j n
,d CONCLUSIONS
- 1. Allegation No. 1: Matters Identified in Newspaper Article Although the alleger related to instances of what he termed " shoddy" wqrkmanship, poor supervision and poor job site coordination, he could '
_. not provide any additional information, beyond conjer.,ure and hearsay, that would support his allegations of undetected defects in the con-1 struction activities at the Comanche Peak facilities.
- 2. Allegation No. 2: Allegation that Radioactive Material / Source was Dumped into the Comanche Peak Lake
$ Although the alleger was requested to have his unidentified source I[ contact the NRC Regional office, no such person has done so. Sources k whose partial identity met the descriptions given by the alleger were 4 interviewed. They had no knowledge of such an event, nor could they g imagine such an event happening without their being aware of it.
4 . .
7 This allegation appears to have no merit.
$ 3. Allegation No. 3: Alleged Impropen Welds on Primary Coolant System Q ,
~
The reference made to Field Welds FW-19 and 20 by the alleger regarding
{
- improper repair appears to be hearsay. The allegation has no merit in D '
that witnesses and records of the repairs do not substantiate improper
?/ repair.
n . 4. Allegation No. 4: Four or Six Inch Check Valves - Disassembly Without
- .# Proper Procedure D
E The witness identified by the alleger was interviewed. The witness
",; stated that the valve in question was a 6" check valve and that pro-
"i per repair and resolution of the initial discrepancy was complete and 1! documented. Furthermore, there is no evidence that would suggest d' that the procedure discrepancy cited by the alleger would have a
- potential detrimental impact on the health and safety of the public.
{
.. Since the witness, who had first hand knowledge of the valve repair, refuted the allegation, the IE inspector concluded that the allegation
, could not be substantiated.
3 4.
4
. i.,,,a.;: lu. ... ~I,...,.. .e w:A i h ..y. . ,k r :. . e . e
. . J.W. ; , .' w.,; . .ir.L .,,4. ' .nu.,:s n . OV. .I ?A.h an : < L~~ l<*
y~.~ , . ,.e .w.n ,
- .--- _ .m _ .,----ws. - v.
, .-:c.-..m.m x , - . n e - - _ .wu n. ,
h ,. ..
,D, .
d 1
s DETAILS 1
- 1. Persons Contacted l
Principal Licensee Employees l
R., G. Tolson, Site QA Supervisor l J. V. Hawkins, Product Assurance QA Supervisor
, R. V. Fleck, Startup QA Supervisor e
Former Brown & Root /TUGC0 Employee The A11eger, Former Brown and Root (B&R)
} Brown & Root Employees 7
lj Individuals "A" through "C" o
y Other Personnel 1
f Two members of Citizens for Fair Utility Rates 4
" 2. Investigation
- a. Allegation No. 1: Matters Identified in Newspaper Article O On September 7, 1979, two IE inspectors met with the alleger at ljj .; his apartment on the campus at the University of Texas (UTA),
N . Arlington, Texas. The interview was prearranged through a tele-a phone conversation with the alleger on September 5,1979.
Q .
'.' , In attendance duru.g the interview were guests of the alleger
-, who were introduced as members of an organization known as Citizens
[ for Fair Utility hates.
y
.( The alleger and his guests requested that the interview be tape
( recorded, utilizing a cassette tape recorder and operated by the guests. There were no objections to the request as presented.
The IE inspectors identified the " Shorthorn" article as the specific area of concern to the IE Regional Staff. Particular reference was made to the last few paragraphs which state:
e
" Asked if there's a possibility defects .in Comanche Peak construction have not been caught, the alleger said yes.
1 5
_ _ . 8'
_ . . . , , . ~ .c._,.-. . .m __.e---. 4 _. ,, w - ',2. .m_.-- . . .
a m ._
~. -
i .
) How likely is that possibility?
a
~ W, "'How likely? It's a 100 per cent.'
" Asked if he knew for sure that there are defects that will go into the plant, he again said yes. The dialogue went:
i .
"Do you know how many such cases there are like that?
.)
9 "'No.'
"More than 10?
- "'Yes.'
li
- g "More than 100?
w.
'l "'Sure.'
1
% "More than 500?
).
~}- .
"Long pause. 'Possibly.'
. "Would they be in critical areas? Could it be in the cooling
]
- system?
31 "'It goes all the way across the board ' he said, , 'from piping jl , systems to electrical systems to electronic systems.'"
j
- Findings G '
$ The IE inspectors asked the alleger if he could be more specific in g identifying the defects he was alluding to in the article. He responded with an affirmative statement and proceeded in relating, quite emphat-t ically, numerous incidents that involved, in his opinion, work activi-ties being done by unqualified and unconcerned workmen. Subjects
'[s
- alluded to by the alleger included rigging, protection of installed I equipment, setting of diesel generator components, control room panel 1 discrepancies, etc. However, aside from material wastes in each of J the incidents related by the alleger he acknowledged that, in every case involving safety-related components, corrective action and/or 1l measures were taken to his satisfaction and that what he may have
& considered as " defects" did not go uncorrected. He further acknow-( ledged, that despite his frustrations in accomplishing his assign-ments, he was functioning as the job description dictates as a 4',' Quality Assurance inspector.
{ b. Allegation No. 2: Radioactive Material / Source was Dumped into the Coranche Peak Lake Reservoir In addition to the matter identified in paragraph 3 above, the alleger stated that an Equipment Dispatcher (whom he knew personally,
- ^ 6 s
ni i
.7,', ,g
& 2.dW W W h/5 Y W**
i kel;) y,**sp %e ,.-
- s S4 *0s* I? s. . Qs e F'N' O'* O'**NHA' M " d** ** * ' '
.s - __ y. - -~.m- w :r. w e -> - - < - w w w.~m e .w.w e -.cw - - ..-
G .
3 L . .
u -
a but refused to identify) told him that, sometime between j the period September 1978 and November 1978, the dispatcher had g received an urgent telephone call from the warehouse area, possibly Westinghouse, "to dispatch a truck and cherry picker ASAP."
The dispatcher responded accordingly. After some unspecified time lapse, the equipment operators returned and told the dispatcher that they had just dumped nondescript containers or objects marked
" Radioactive" into the lake. .
/ The alleger could be no more specific than that stated above. He 9 insisted on not identifying his source of information, but he y did agree to contacting the person and attempting to encourage the person to contact the NRC Regional office.
} Findings
-m g (1) Interview with Individual "B" - Equipment Dispatcher j
j Individual "B" was interviewed by telephone September 18, 1979.
A e Individual "B" acknowledged being one of the Equipment Dis-y patchers during the period September 1978 through November 1978.
g Individual "B" stated that the incident, related to by the f4 alleger was unidentifiable to Individual "B", however, Indivi-dual"C",als;oanEquipmentDispatcherduringthesametime 4 span, may have some knowledge concerning the alleged event.
)
. , (2) Interview with Individual "C" - Equipment Dispatcher W
- 4)
- On September 20, 1979, through information provided by
.; Individual "B.", Individual "C" was interviewed telephonically.
Q i Individual "C" acknowledged employment as an Equipment j ;, Dispatcher during the time frame indicated by the alleger.
? Individual "C" could not recall such an incident or event
) alluded to by the alleger. Individual "C" indicated that such an' incident would be remembered and would have been 3 known to Individuals "B" and "C". Furthermore, given the if situation described,no other individuals would be dispatching j the equipment involved other than individuals "B" and "C".
1 j The allegation appears to have no merit.
9
- c. Allegation No. 3: Improper Welding / Repair Process (j
F '
The alleger was asked by the IE inspectors if he had knowledge
,? of any " defects" in other areas that he was aware of that went y uncorrected. He stated that a welder (whom he would not identify) 9 told him that he, the welder, improperly repaired a Steam Genera-
.g tor-to-Reactor Coolant Pump weld during a field weld repair.
The alleger stated that the field weld was either FW-19 or FW-20.
E' o .
5-D __. _ . _ _ _
.+ . u. w.a:am ~ a.a .
. ,. . .. ~ .
).
n .
0, 3 Asked if he could be more specific concerning the defective repair, the alleger stated that he was not that familiar with the welding process, but that the matter involved grinding through the stain-less material into the carbon steel, thereby contaminating the stainless with carbon. The IE inspectors informed the alleger that follow up would be performed in regard to the matter.
. The alleger further stated that Individual "A" would be a knowledg'eable witness concerning this matter.
Findings
}
Interview with Individual "A" During the interview with Individual "A" on September 12, 1979, he
[l stated that with reference to field welds W-19 and W-20, he had 7 monitored.the repair activities of the specific welds on a daily basis. To his knowledge, there was no area of repairs that would y( have penetrated into the carbon steel material. The work was y completely controlled by the on-site Westinghouse Representatives
+ who worked closely with each repair. Repair procedures were h developed by the Westinghouse, Pittsburgh office. All work was a
done properly and all defects were properly removed and properly documented. Individual "A" stated that he could not agree with
$ the alleger. :
.~.
In addition, during a routine on-site inspection conducted j October 11, 1979,l/ the IF. Resident inspector reviewed yj the record documents and radiographs of the two field welds,
{ !- W-19 and W-20 during his review of the piping installation i activities. There were no discrepadcies observed.
This allegation could not be substantiated.
Y .
- d. Allegation No. 4: Disassembly of 4" (or 6") Check Valve Without a Procedure An additional matter, specifically identified by the alleger,
,;. involved a repair to a weld that required, as he stated, "The
.x valve body disassembly in order to accomplish the proper repair."
k He related that a 4" or a 6" stainless steel check valve, located in the borated water system, in the area of the component cooling system, had a Nonconformance Report (NCR) written against the
- weld. The NCR indicated that the inside surface of the weld had a not been properly purged during welding and there was evidence
., of oxide on the inside surface. The alleger further stated that, although the inside surface of the weld was correctly repaired by grinding, there was no evidence that a written procedure was used in dismantling the valve: A repair that he contends could only have been accomplished by dismantling the valve body. The alleger specifically identified Individual "A" as the QC inspector with first hand knowledge of the specific uncorrected " defect."
( 1/ IE Inspection Report 50-445/79-24; 50-44e/79-23 y
8 t ,
. vtC o . . - 2 6 ,
- iG .h ? > . . -isi..C. i'v b*-ab M . + aM+ '
50 dG * /= W d it.' ' <UJ
- 4' *!"
- _ . - , . - - - - - _ _ - --. m .,, . -,. .~., ,.,...,e - . . , ---~~,ng,.., . , < _ -.;w I? *p' i' *
~-
4 -
- 9 .
N
., Findings Interview with Individual "A" On September 12, 1979, by a prior arrangement made by the IE Resident Reactor inspector, Individual "A" was interviewed at his home by two IE inspectors. Individual "A" acknowledged his
. inspection involvement during the repair of the 6" stainless steel check valve identified by the alleger. Individual "A"
~
, stated that, "although there was no evidence to assume that
.. the valve was disassembled, the repair was correctly made and I personally closed out the NCR, which received the proper engineering approval."
9 sk h
.m t%
., y s' '
N'
'I 1
D
- s e-a f
a lse I ,
gi
.e t
.g i e
e, N
w J
9
.S __ _ , , ,
wr
_ j g 1 m i -i g i'
- ii*t i .MFW ** 1
- r. 1 N1 5 OI-_k- La U '
I- --M' A
'-