ML20202C133
| ML20202C133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1983 |
| From: | BROWN & ROOT, INC. (SUBS. OF HALLIBURTON CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202C125 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8607110108 | |
| Download: ML20202C133 (63) | |
Text
'3 l e l' ,
l..
I, ' s*b .
_ ^: _ g_--
.,a... -
hS.s W @ >'=5*.5- ^ $ 5
~
. &Si;f;$$4~%5'ilF.YN P U.S E E. %).h & 5 ii: 5 !:~' ~"!AM" (f Q
~' '
V T- .'l f
I( UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
l 't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
d S
f In the matter of:
~'~' '
' INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF
[% t l
/ , 't 'N l .
,.(fi&'
I I
, 's '
- e. ..
/
l l j.
- 'e
...~.
'l ution: 6 Pages: 1 - 29 i t Date: Wednesday, August 24, 1983
. +, {.F@)
N l . 8607110100 860630 , =
^~
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1 coat Reparem ,
1
. . . . _ 16231
.. S.amt. N.W.
. ,,,. _ Suiu 1004 . ._ ,f__
V
- -- --.-----,---m
I, *i -
. -., . .-n.=_=-
_ ~. ~.-,, . . .,
. . _ ~ . . - .
w . . . w . . . . z u .. . - - ~
s .
- 1 i
I UNITED STATES OF AME.RICA t
I l
NUCLt.AR Rti,GULATORY COMMISSION i
' 2 l .
3 4 INVESTIGATIVE INTEHVIEW 5
OF i 6 7
. .. a ..
8 r j i
! 9 M nesday, August 24, 1963 i 33 i
!, 14 33 The interview commenced at 6:10 p.m.
- 16 37 PARTIES PRESENT:
' 18 On sehalf of tne NRC Office of Investication:
) 19 nICHARD K. HERR, Investigator
.l 20 H. EROOKS GatliTIN, Investigator 7 3 Office of Investigation, Region IV l ,: ,t'
~
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co:racissicn 611 Ryan Plaza Drive
! e
~
Suite 1000
. . Arlington, Texas 76011
.y .
23 J
28 _ __
25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1623 i STRIET. H.W.- $UITE 1004 WASHlHGTON. D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 " - -
- l. -
t . . -
l
[
A -
... . . ' .. /.W Mw,: : ..: . Q.p,Js pg. . m;,.;.up.ne).t. w... . %.,49,.... , pt y,.y;.p. ;ps.gs.:..;3 -
- s .
t 1
4 I PROCEED INGS l'
i .' 2 MR. GRIFFI.T: If we can go on tne record.
i i 3 woulo you stand up to be sworn in, please.
- 4 hhereupon, 5
6 having been first culy sworn by Investigator Herr, was 7 examined and testified as follows:
, 8 MR. GRIFFIN: For the record tnis is an 9 interview of wno is employed by Brown and l 10 Root at the Comanche Peas, site.
I 11 The location of this interview is 12 -
13 Present at this interview are Richard herr and 34 Brconcs Grif fin with~ the NRC and the court 15 reporter. As agreed, this interview is ceing transcribed
, 16 by the court reporter, this lady nere.
t 3: , The suoject matter of tais interview concerns, la pne, we are going to ne asking you some questions about
' ..l-l j 39 inti. nidation and then I believe you have some of your own
- . .t ,
} :o issues that you want to cring up. Ke will get to those. de 4
i gg will give you an opportunity to get to enese, i I 22 Also let the record reflqct that the NRC nas
. ^ .- N c ?? y entered into a conticentiality agreement and extenoec tais
- has agreec to the terms anc r
23 has signed the agreement.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i 342s a starr7, N.W. = sUnt 1004
' ~
wAsmacros, o.c. 20,ooa
_ (202) 293 39so
. - . . . . . .,y . . . . . . - _ .
~
+
e ~, s 's .
~
.- ._, . _ . . . m. . . . ,
- p..-.
- :.:.L' ?1%.:.djn % U %La,.L'r;% ?
- 1 , . l ?Y;.yJ.:9.4; 's ..S: % L &y.4 % = M a-
, s .
4 l
I : 3 I % you are a Brown ans Root employce?
2 Yes, sir.
I
, 3 MR. GRIFFIh: How long have you worked out at 4 Costanche Peak for Brown and Root?
5 6 1 5(as here' 9 MR. GRIFFIN: ]
10 I 11 MR. GRIFFIN:
12 I 13 Yes, sir.
l 14 MR. GRIFFIN: r; hat joo ao you hold out tnere?
15 Anat is your title?
I 17 I
l 18 MR. GRIFFIN: Electrical?
! gg 5 Yes, sir.
. . . . . -- l
. 20 Mk. GRIFFIN: Say that again?
')
21 I aci l
22
'. . , .g
.h 23 MR. GdIFFIN: Okay, you are Ana 33 c o is your supervisor ~r !
l 5
, TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRffT. N.W. - $UITI 1004 I
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 !
u-. .y. .;-. ,
1 I
t
.e', . 'e ,
~
.,---- ,. -- ~- .m . . , . , , , . , . . . _,
m -'- " ~~'**~.'---
wr *' .-' ~ ~ --= ~ r~~ . .-~ - ~.~ ~ :1. ~: -v :~T * *~~"* ~ ~' -"*-- - * * ^
i -
4 i 1 PlR.' GRIFFIN: M 3
2 h Yes, sir.
3 MR. GHIFFIN: seinething like that?
4 Yes, sir.
5 FYR. GRIFFIN: Is he your leau or your 6 supervisor?
7 N e is the supervisor, the foreman.
8 MR. GRIFFIN The foreman?
9 Yes, sir.
! 10 AR. GRIF' FIN: Who is your general foreman, do
. Il you know?
l 12 W 13 MR. GRIFFIN: I know you have some issues you y want to raise, but let me ask you a few questions first
! 1s
~
because we have some tnings that we are investigating -
i .
} 16 right now, actively investigating, and since we have you i
j 37 here today we mignt as well as you .tnese same questions.
18 Since you have been working for Brown and Root at the Comanche Peak site has anybody out there ever
}
gg
- o atte.apted to intimidate you or has anybody intiinidated you 21 into perf orming dett6ient work or accepting ceficient wor 47
.i 22
- N.V,;.f.,'.) <. .)
^4 'a , /.i 3 w Yes, sir.
..r*,
28 MR. GAIFFIN: Okay, can you tell me about that?
1 .as on the pumps over l'n the TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
- 16251 Statti. H.W. - $UITI 1004
~
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004
'q .
- I (202) 293-3950 -
a
_ 's :
-- . . .y c.v.. .g:. ;.g;f, g.ysom:...a .. s,p..c.,ne,;,,k.:: .y +#j:.. 4.nAC;'as 43;in,C.J,sLf:5.42: 5 M;;.a::...
t .
i 3 f
3 auxiliary ouilding ana we nad to break a coupling loose to i
i 2 set the insicator up on. The paperwork ciun't tell us to 3 break the coupling loose.
l 5 m Yes, sir.
i 6 Okay, in order to brean the 7 coupling loos,e it is supposed to be on tne paperwork and 8 the type of grease, to put back in the coupling and what to j 9 torque tne coupling bolta uack to.
10 P.R. GRIFFIN: Is this Q?
11 It is a Q item, and I can't I
12 f e'nember tne nam,e,of, the , pump.
It was a O item. I nad QC 13 there. See, I warit on down and then that supervisor came 14 in and told me to go ahead and breas the coupling loose on is account I had to put my indicators on it. I told him I i 16 coulan't breas the coupling loose till I got it on 1
.l 1; paperworx which probably.would nave to De changed.
t
- 33 MR. HERA: who was tne supervisor?
19 He is the one that 20 toic me.
-g ..
gg MR. GRIFFIN: h l 22 %
3 ir.
23 ha., HERR: . and wnen uid this
- TAYLOE ASSOCIATES te2s i staan, n.w. suin i004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 '
l
a, .,
.. .;,u' L.;..,li.A.A.:.aja.:.:. $.';Y:,;iu& 2.u.:..:55n&_p,L:a=fY _ ' - ' _'.;,a.:.;k= ' --:x '
..w' 6
3 nappen?
2 It is about' five anonths ago. See I 3 was in the millwrignts prior to being an electrician. I 4 nave Just been in the Electrical Department .
5 S. HEhd: k'nen you tolo nim t. hat you neeceo 6 the paperworld, what dio g say?
. 7 6 rie said goddamnit, we don't need a the paperwork to brean a coupling loose. Those are the 9 very words tne man said. I did not go ahead and break the 10 coupling loose. I took a couple or three of the bolts out 11 and QC came in aiid ne stopped the wors.
12 MR. GetIFFIN: The QC guy stopped you?
i 13 6 Yes, sir,, the GC cio stop work 14 until we got it on paperwork.
i
! 15 MR., HERR Do you know tne name of tne QC guy?
16 1; 24R. GRIFFIN:
l 18 6 Yes, sir.
gg MR. GRIFFIN: So what happened after that? He
- 20 stoppeo it anc was tnat the end of it?
21 No, sir, we got the paperwork 22 cnanged. .
,/ 3 MR. GRIFFIN: Ano tnen did it right?
t gg tes, sir, and then did it riant On 23 this occasion.
~
e TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 $TRIIT, RW. - Sufit lood .
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 L
[202) 293 3950 e l
N
a
.s - ,
. ]
.-...........j ..s.- L.,.u.,.: ,. * . ; ..:. ; :. ..u..
., .:.g :;g.i .: .. ;.; .
, 7 1 MR. GRIFFIN: ne had specitically tola
- you to do it*berore QC caught you?
3 : Yes, sir.
4 MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
5 MR. H E.RR: The reason you dio it is oecause you 6 felt he might fire you or something?
, 7 M Yes, sir. I went aheaa and 8 starting doing my job, you know, taxing it loose, and he 9 kept standing there telling me to tace it loose and I knew 10 it I didn't start to work tnat he would terminate me right 11 then.
1 l 12 MR. rlERR: Do you know if anycojy nas been 13 terminated ween they cisoceyed Carnes? I y No, sir, not right at the moment I-l 15 don't.
3 .
16 .MR. GRIFFIN: 4re there any otner instances f
j 17 wnen you felt harassed or intimidated to wnere you i 18 performed your work improperly?
~
39 6 Yes, sir, on a set of "0" cars in 00 the reactor containment building.
1 21 MR.' GRIFFIN: keoar?
I .l gg "U" cars for the not function. Ycu
..~ u ;y . r . .1
' ^ c;pif t
~
g3 know, taey naa to get them in before not function. Ihey 24 was way cehins and they was pushing. de had some pins tnat 25 woulon't go in anu we nau to cut out some of tae webbing i
i
^-
e TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l 162s i snuT. u.w. - sum 2004
~
1 .
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 -
~
l -
1202J 293-3950
..
- O 6 g O$
,q
= * .
f .
\
l
.,ia..:AAN:nS:suYfa'.M4bCM5S;-
O'L h:L:ae = ~~ *- D % " UE M M=% h~' M N>-
l s - .
b
- in tne support. the paperwore first tolo us to cut a square hole. Then they hao a change on it. Tney wanted a
] 2 3 round hole. It took quite a bit of time. There were six or 4 seven holes in some blocx-outs tnat we had to cut.
5 The foreman haon't been up tnere for a cay and 6 a half to cnecx to see what tne holo-up was. He was not trying to help get ene paperwork straightened out. I 8 carried the the paperwork myself to tne engineer and got i
j 9 it straightened out so I could do my job.
10 The foreman threatened my Joo. He saio if I l
l gg couldn't keep up and get the Jon done tnen ne was going to 12 aismiss me. There was me and another ooy, .
13 MR. GRIFFIN: I 14 es, sir.
i 15 MR. GRIFFIN: Wno was the foreman?
i j' g- MR. GRIFFIN: Did S hear nim say this?
18 Yes, sir.
19 MR. GRIFFIN: Did ne tnreaten job, too?
go 6 Yes, sir, he threatenea been or N .
21 us. 6 a little later ne quit anc went to work for 22 j N.hih.i 3 MR. HE.RR:
'7 .:..?j 23 6 No, he was en a job in callas.
- s MR. iii.RR: In Dallas. He worr.s for s,, .
TAYLOE ASSOCiiTES
, 162s e STRUT, N.W. - Surn 1004
, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 -
(202) 293 3950 -E _
~
I '
g en %
M*L's ? _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _
i
_ \.
.; . . 7.,
e:.J.xu:.:.a % ,.q, La w -- t - "-
's ,- - 7 -
=-+- - -
9 3 in Dallas. That is where he is now?
2 Yes, sir. I tnink he is still 3 living in 4 MR. GRIFFIN: If I went and talxed to u -
5 woula he say the same thing?
6 I thin,: he would verify my l
7 statement. I have not talked to him since the day he lef t, I 8 but I am still satisfied he woulo verify it.
9 MR. HERR:
Do you rememoer tne engineer you 10 went anc talxed to?
I 11 6 ifo, sir, I con't, not right
.; 12 orfaand.
t
{ 13 MR. GRIFFIN: But the threat was based on
{ 34 production?
l 15 6 Yes, sir.
16 MR. GRIFFIN: To nurry it up?
I
- 17 To nurry it up.
18 MR. GRIFFIN: Are there any other instances?
. 19 .
Yes, sir, on the air accumulator i
20 tan,cs in tne reactor building on elevation 905. he were cy,., . 21 suppo.4ed to set tnem on a Sunaay. Okay, I want up and i
i 22 enecked the plates. The week shift went anead, you know, l . . . . , ' . , ., _.'y,ld 23 and set the plates. I went up and checked them myself and
. h h 33 tney was out.of location. inc paperwor,c said to verify
.i 25 assemblies. Tne assemblies was marked A, 8, C, D , E: an2 F TAYLOE ASSOCIATES te25 i STRt!T, N.W.- SUITE 1004
_ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 -
~ ~
_ (202) 293-3950 *
- . . , . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . - - . - - - - . - - . . .
.- . s
n . -- ... i .. ' .'.5:.d :.. ..A.,M.:.::.L da .ai. .:.:i s..;.: : w.:.:.u.sw ;.e6. n .~..a.
10 j g and so forth and so on. Okay, they was all out of snape. I nave got all stnis inf or. nation wrote down on how they was 3 out of snape.
~ c 4 The Building Department nad installed nilty 5 bolts. hnen they drilled a hole for tue hilty bolts they 6 mislocated ong. O, cay, tney had welded that hole up with no paperworx on the welding. Okay, now nilty colts, you Know, 8 you couldn't take one piece and set it in the right 9 location on account the hilty bolts wouldn't match.
10 So I went to tne foreman and told nim that I 11 couldn't g e t .i t , tnat I could not set tne tank. he took t
the paperworn away from me and said goddamn I will set the O l 12 l 13 thing myself. Okay, ne goes up and gets them to swing it I t
34 over there. QC comes in to verifying the leveling. Okay, j 15 tne plates was out of level ano they had to swing the tank j 16 back over on account tne plates was out of level. There j 37 was no paperwork to cover tne welcing and tne assemblies 18 was installed in tne wrong assembly numoers.
,j j9 MR. GRIEFIN: Dic QC stop it?
, 3 6 Yes, sir, QC stoppeo it.
,, 23 MR. tlERR: Who is tne foreman that tolu you to 22 do tnat?
. * .W
,. .#.,:'-}g
.- 33 ney dio go ahead anc i ,, get a CMC, anu I ain't real sure wnat that means yet, but
- 3 1
4 23 Oney did get a CMC to cover the welair.g two days acter tne TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 'l 1625 3 STREET. H.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C 20006 (202) 293 3950 ,
_ _. .e ._ _ __
e P
W
N I
i MM.'.1;C L.i ;;.a. A.. .,:,; .. ;.;.:.vm *,N.WMJ.ha' : :ar.' 14wJ..#. ;,.aMD :!.'.'.Yl.p9.WEL
- t. .
i 11 I weloing had been'done.
2 MR. HERR: Do you remember the name of the QC l
l i 3 that stopoed it? !
' "~'
4
<as nis first name. I con't 5 remencer his last name.
6 MR. HERR: When did that occur?
7 W It was on a Sunday. I will say it 8 was in Maren, somewhere in March.
, 9 MR. HERR: Of '837 i
4 l
10 6 Yes, sir. You can check the dates
'll of twhen tney set the tank.
12 MR. HEhd: Did you say .Maren of 19837
}
13 @ Yes, sir, I believe it was.
14 MR. GRIFFIN: On tne tank.
15 Yes, sir.
16 MR. GRIFFIti: What was the cate on this thing i
17 wnere they tnreatened nd you, aoout when was j 18 that?
19 I would say that was sometime in
' ' ].1 20 December. -
- I; ,-_ 21 MR. GRIFFIN: Of '
o27 22 Yes, sir.
- D. r .jf.,.g)}'
23 AR. -GRI* FIN: -
Are tnere any other instances
' $;T- )' 24 where you were intimidated into doing woric improperly?
23 Yes, sir, on the diesel oil N- N TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 3e25 STartT, N.W.- SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006
_ (202) 293 3950 * -
- - - - - . _.t _.__. .....;, . . . . . , . . . . . . . _ . . . - . - . _ .
( :.
. 't
~,4%: !
e o I
- as e
_q,
~r.- '-3 ' . .' . . ' . ' . .
I n
.. r. . ,' .- _ e .; -
s
.- x_ - :n s .y wu . . ... -
=
~
j 12 1
I storage tank. They have got several or tnem.
2 MR. GRIFFIN: vihere is that?
l 3 This is for the ciesel generator.
4 It is out in the field. '
i, i 5 (Discussion oft the record.)
i
! 6 MR. HERR: Back on the recoru.
7 MR. .GRIFFIte: On the first instance you toic us l 8 here where a QC stopped the work, tnat was Q work, wasn't
?
9 it, tnat you were doing?
10 4 Yes, sir.
11 MR. GdIFFIN: Qual ~ity control was there and 12 ooviously they are the ones tnat stoppec it.
13 Yes, sir. I y MR. GRIFFIN: On the "0" cars, this was also
, is quality contr61 wor,cr 16 Yes, sir.
i l
g- MR. GAIFFIN;, And the accumulator tanks was
'} 18 quality control also?
39 Yes, sir.
1 20 MR. GRIFFIS: Go on to tnis next toina atout -
,{
21 the diesel tanx.s.
22 Okay. I was putting a seal ento lhp$A.Q o
d, g3 cne concrete metal lid that sits down in the hole over the
. - gg tank. Okay, tne seal had to oe glued, tne glue nad to cry 23 a certain amount before you coulo put tne seal on and it TAYLOE ASSOCIATES-
~4 1625 i STRIET. M.W. - SURE 1004
_ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 ,
_ 004 29F3950 - 4
. } 4
.y p 1 y
.u y . 4 [e"
- L
T z
.. 44 W;- la',M'4,44i.a.10 e,.;,ww;.;oaAA%4. w e_E.
- j.3.. .g u a,; ;,$;;;;ain.,i,;r,4 4 i -
! 13 I was getting pretty close to quitting time, i 2 The Superintencent, and h
! 3 h ame.by. asked me if I was going togfinish 4 it before quitting time, and I answereo him at accorcing 5 to what time I was going to quit. He said if you ain't got 6 it done by 5:30 don't come in tonorrow.
7 MR. GRIFFIN: Which one said tnat,
. c .=* g I
l 9 MR. HERR: When did tnis happen?
10 In January or February, somewhere 1
l 11 along there.
12 MR. HERR: Of '337 I
i 13 M Yes, sir.
14 MR. HERR: Was tnere anyooof taere'that heard 15 tnis? -
16 was there ano 17 e hearc it. But s 18 So I douot if you will get it from him.
I MR. GRIFFIN:
gg bat is nis last name?
C. 20
.; 21 MR. GkIFFIN 22 Yes, sir.
< '*f Yh.ff, 21 MR. GRIFFIN: Do you know whether tne work on
- : . ,4 .
d c '
24 the diesel tanks was quality control work?
~ '
25 They was a Q item on account of we
. TAYLOE' ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004
. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
~
(202)-293-3950 _
.--7.,-.s-.. .,r ..,_ .._ _. _..,
.s /. ,g. _- .
.;.; ' ^: G=u.i{ M a..'sa.uaw.w aY Y "T41'ana;; O 2..ww & L : L.
14
?
I hau CC involved. They had to verify tnat the' seal was l
2 lapped over good and the glue was Wtfdking good anu all l I
9 9
I
. 3 tnis.
4 hR. GRIFFIN: Are there any otner items related 3 to intimidation?
6 Yes, sir, on some maintenance I cards.
8 MR8 GRIFFIN: to ahead.
! 9 6 I was running maintenance caras.
j 10 Down in tne atxiliary cuilding there were two pumps and I q don't remember the name of the pumps. It was 778. That is
! 12 the Unit 2 side. They removed tne shafts and put tnem in j I 13 tne Unit 1 sioe. Okay, tne maintenance cards nad been i
y signed off prior to this. We was rotating the shafts and 15 ene shafts is not in there. They had been took out and 16 took to the tinit 1 side. Okay, I coulon't sign tne cards.
- 'i 1; On the boron blender, and it is also in the
)
18 aIxiliary building, it is enclosed you xnow. You cannot
-l
- ij 39 see nothing. It is a concealed unit . It is all welsed up
- i 20 now wnere before it was where you coulo look at tr.e og integrity and all tnis.
a
! 22 MR. GRIFFIN: Hold it. Before we go to the 3 coren blender, on enese maintenance cards, dio they asa
- . M
. -g G,$.j l '1'*~. 3 you or you were instructea to si'gn off on the cards on l mA .
l
-t 3 toese snaits t;nat were not in the pumps?
( -
f , TAYLOE ASSOCIATES s
1625 i STREET. N.W. - SUITI 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 _
(202) 293 3950 ,
W
- q % y 6 0, %
4
-pE* *
- g g- *% , ..
. ?
- -~
, -w _. ---.-.r--.....--_
i 15 l 1 6 Yes, sir.
2 MR. GRIF FIri: Who told you to do tais?
4 MR. GRIFFIN: And did you tell him tnat .tne 5 shafts weren't in there?
6 Yes, sir.
7 MR. GRIFFIN: What did he say?
8 He sais they nad been s.tgned of f i 9 before, so 99 ahead and sign them off. I did not. sign lo enem. he kept them for tne night shift and the night shift 11 did do tne maintenance on tnem, out the shafts is stili 12 not in there.
13 I MR. HERR: When was that?
y It was about tne fourtn month and 15 tne fiftn day of this year, somewhere along in there.
16 MR. tiERR: April Stn, 1983.
17 6 Yes, sir.
. ! 18 MR. GRIFFIN: And those pumps still don't nave 19 snafts in tnem?
.i
. 'l, 20 6 They still don't have snafts in
, 21 tnem.
22 MR. GRIFFIN: Can you identify tnose putt.ps for
. .y.;{y'g6; 3 us and get back with us becaos - e are going to need to go s
g 33 looK at tnose.
~
'T 23 *les, sir, I can. And tnere.ls c y> TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - SUITE 1004
, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 * - -
q_, - , , - , - - - . . - - ~ - - - - - - -
~v-
,- -- p
.g #
g8_
p m
,9e
l l l
. ~:
. q
+:.u.u.m.s.a..;.w..J. w..h ...u.a 11.:iIL.*n _thaku.a.c.. .* . : * *
- i r ' r.:..::. .:.: , . . .,:: .:.. r.-
, 16 3 another pump 1dn the'same location tnat it is supposed to 2 oe tnere out it is not there. They took it back. Well, 3 Westinghouse sent it out. .The maintenance card nad been 4 signed on it ano still been signec off I am satisfied of 5 the pump being in a location when it is not there. This is 6 a reactor mage-up pump I tnink or a heat reinoval pump, 7 something like that.
i 8 MR. GRIFFIN: Khy would taey sign oft a 9 maintenance card on a pump that had been sent bacx to I
10 Kestinghouse? They have to send not only the pump but all t
! 11 tne traveler and everthing else with it, don't they?
12 Because they want to Keep the
! 13 cards up and they giv.e it to tne guys. I nate to say tnis, y but I have seen guys sit down on the taole lixe this and
. 15 sign maintenance cards off and never go to the field.
~
16 MR. GRIFFIA: How often do you have to sign t
! i; maintenance cards?
I 18 6: Well, they nave got some weeklies c';
39 and some monthlies.
i
} 20 MR. GRIFFIN: Paw about on these pumps?
.a. 21 They are monthlies.
22 MR. GRIFFIN: It sounds like nas told ;.
C ' i i..e3 33 you a number of times to do thinos imorocerly. t
's ]Yes, sir.
24 35 MR. GRIFFIN: Can you tninx of any other TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 4 :
- t 1625 i $TattT, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHlHGTON, D.C. 20004
.j
~
(202) 293-3950 r l J
- ' " ;3 9.
- --~v----
~ ~ ,
} :W . . ..
- y. e e-
l r
.' . w 1: m.: -..:. .-. e .. ,.. . w. . . s , .
! . 17
. I instances wnere you did work improperly at the a
' instructions of your supervisors or others?
2 4 3 Back when I was here before, bacx
.: in '77 I guess, on the upper and lower level supports we 5 had some bolts tnat went into tne supports on tne wall.
6 The threads had concrete oown in tne bottom of tnem. Okay, insteaa of cleaning the tnreads out gooa, spending time i 8 to clean the threads, I was instructed to cut two inches
, 9 off tne hold-down bolts ana go ahead anu install them, on 10 which tney had tne heat number and everytning stenciled in f
11 tnat end that we nad to saw of f.
12 Met. GRIFFIN: So you were sawing heat numbers 13 off of{ bolts?
- M Yes, sir, plus acout two inches of 15 tnreaa witn no paperwork and they are Q bolts.
l '
! 16 MR. HERR: Who told you.to do tnat?
17 This was bacx wnen he l 18 was nere, butw he is no longer on the joc. I am satisfied
[
i i
19 the bolts is still just like tney was when I leIt them.
'l 20 MR. GRIFFIN: Do you know where tney are?
a 5
,.. , : M They are in the reactor
- 5 22 containment buil.::ing on the upper anc lo. J . level g . .,'
'., 23 supports. I don't rernember wnetner it was cne upper or tne
.e
, 5 y lower ones citat we sawed the bolts on, out I know I saw
. .i tnree or four of them and there were a nomber of more of l 25 1
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i sinEET, N.W.- $UIT: 1004
, l, l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 l e y ----..,-..---.,g...;...;,
M
~
1 ,
.w A
. :... =.a
- n J.:: :::.
i '1b
- I them tnat hao to be sawed of f to get the engagement, you e
i
. 2 xnow, so we can torque them down. All QC had to buy on it 3 was tne torgttu. They didn't nave to see how muen 4 engagement we had on the threaus.
5 MR. GRIFFIN: OKay.
. 6 6 I have got one more. In the fuel 7 cuilding on the waste monitor system on the track tnat tne t
8 cart runs on we put hilty bolts in to hold the track down.
l' 9
MR. GRIFFIN: Tnis is a seiten track to handle 10 tne fuel?
p 11 -
N No, it hanc;1es the waste and it is 12 in ene fuel builaing, the waste track. ne nad a problem of l 13 hitting rebar.
S 14 MR. GRIFFIN: Witn hilty bolts?
15 Yes, sir. Okay, we couldn't drill l 16 deep enougn. lie has paperwork to move toe hole, you scnow, s
17 tnr e incnes -I believe noqth and south but notning east i 18 ano west, and east and west was the way we was hitting i
gg rebar. Okay, we got tne paperwork on the ones that we dio I
- a) to drill tnrougn tne re'ar, o but this was an extension. I i.
- 21 thins it was*a four foot and s6metning extension onto tne
'l
- 22 track.
t x ' t . -3:{
.g m On down tney had I guess 30 foot of tracx that
--[-) 2 they did not nave tne paperwork on to drill tnrough the 23 rebar, s the man that installed the niity colts TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
.,,,,, [,[. 1625 i STREET, N.W.- $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (2023 293-39'50
- . m ... --.,,.-.--,----7-.
. . . . . . J . r:.*
~....
.-sa.; -
z----a----~
r
.h-
$ e * *
,P
[ . .
, - .T.L:. li.': 13:: .q%i5.Ci:. it M:.i:;E:.' u '.' r.
~' Ee.7. xr.c: ..dfl:.u ==== . = -
s j.
i 19 1 on tnat and he told me himself that he dicn't get the l
2 paperwork to drill enrough the rebar and tne went aheaa 3 and drilled througn it.
I 4 MR. GRIFFIN: Is there anf way we can ioentify 5 wnere tnose are?
6 @: Yes, sir. It is on 810 in the fuel l
! 7 handling building, Unit 1.
8 MR. GRIFFIN: But those holes are Kind of nard I
l 9 to fino, aren't tney? Are they covered? Did they-grout I*
s 10 over them?
11- 6: No, sir. The have got a deal they 12 can set on top of the hilty bolt ano tell you how much 13 engagement you nave got*and it will 'picic up ene rebar if 14 it is hitting rebar. I don't remember what room that is, 15 but I could,get the room number.
16 MR. GkIFFIN: Do you nav'e any icea how many
) 17 times this cccurred down there?
I l 18 M: That tney went tnrough rebar?
I l gg MR. GRIFFIN: Without the paperworn.
i
~ _f 20 No, sir. I xnow they nave several
.h 21 times thougn.
t e
22 MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Knen was this?
.f. -d; *; e yf 23 Probaoly in January.
-d .
~4 MR. GRIf'FIc!: Of 'c3?
. 3. - s 25 :. Yes, sir. ,
, TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 44.yggt '
162s e sTaar. nw. - sum 2004
.. , WASHeeGTON D.C. 20006 S ' a;.; .. j _ (202) 293-3950 ,,
~,,}.
- .----, ,__,y - _ 7_ . p .,.7..,, .
h j #
$ T e
'4 -
s
- . 2 au . -
_ . "* . J_ wL:,. .
l-
- 'c 0 I
3 .MR. GnIFFIh: Okay. M what is nis.joo?
!i 2 He was a millwright, but he is no j 3 longer with the company. he lives at Bay City, Texas.
I 4 MR. GHIFFIh: Tnat is where he lives now?
[ 5 Yes, sir.
I 6 NR. GR'IFFIN: If we contacted him do you think 7 he woulo tell us?
~ i 8 : Yes, sir, I am satisfied he would.
j 9 MR. GRIFFIN: Who actualiy made tne cuts 10 througn tne rebar?
11 There was a foreman over there 12 that come over and he looked at tne problem. We got tne 13 paperwork on the ones that we drilled I through to go aheaa g
14 and drill tnrougn it. We drilled tarough the first rebar 15 and then we hit anotner recar. We didn't have the 16 paperwork to drill through the sec'ond one. So we had to 17 cut the hilty bolt and change the embedment of the hilty 18 colt, you knoV, to a lesser amount. We had to get the l
a 4
i 39 engineer to change tne embedment so we wouldn't nave to 20 drill tnrough tne second one.
a**
~ '
21 HR. GRIFFIN: Okaf, but on ti.ese ones tnac were
.)
22 cut witnout paperwork, wno did the cutting?
. cfgg 23 1 don't remember the can's name, j i
- -;;]-
24 He was in a difterent craft. They have got a certain i
25 crart tnat comes oct when you do have to drill enrcugh the t .... TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
- g;;g,q 36
- 3 i sintrr. M.w. - surre i004
~
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
.. ,' (202) 293 3950 , ,
_____.m.._. _
e e5 ' # *
- .%". %,. 6
. y *
- M __ ___ __ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ______
~ ~ ^
_ J
. . . . ... . -.. .... . u. .t . .. .. . . . . . . . .
.i...
a _
21 l
~i 1 rebar.
2 MR. GRIFFIN: nere you tnere when tnis
, 3 occurrec?
4 Yes, sir.
5 f1R. Gh1FFIN: Did anybody say anytning about 6 cutting tnrough the rebar without the autnorization?
7 Yes, sir.
8 MR.,, Gk1FFI N : Who cecideu to ao it? Who was i
9 running tne snow? Was it 10 No, sir, was getting 11 the work 6o00 .
s 12 MR. GRIFFIN: Did tell tne guy from the 13 drill crew to cut through it? .
14 Yes, sir, ne toic nim to cut I
15 tnrougn it.
}
} 16 hR. GRI'FFIN: Did the guy argue with him at 17 all?
I 18 Yes, he argued with him. We has to
-j, 19 wait another day, an extra day. They tnreatened me then on i
, ,.j 20 account it was taming so long in us trying to drill s
.,.3 -
21 cnrougn the recar. Tney tried to get us to go anead anu
.i l
s 22
/
drill through it witn a hilty drill and we couldn't. It
. . . . ,g. - J .,- 23 woulon't cu.t, i t . So taen when we nad to get anotner craf t
,. , ' J[{.h 24 involved they nad to get tne pag.erwor<.
-Ogg^
25 MR. GRIFFIN: Okay,.but you saic tney cut s
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
- 3 N 1625 i sTatti.M.w.- surit to04
- s. . ,t< cv n f .
- WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 (2023 293-3950 e, '
, ,,,m_.-m--. 4.----. - - - - - = , - ~ . - - - -
. g * ** .* J. e. p,r*'.
1 +7*,
g 'g a e
e 6- 'y Wp.* _" - *8
- ~
. ~ .
. vi? z.idw.:,u.:~:..u.r..a . s.. :auni.L.12.2 iusa.2 =.'. ~ uL 4
iz 1 througn rebar witncut paperwork.
2 This was on the first extension 3 tnat ut'in. On the extension I put in we dio
- 4 have the pape,twork.o
.l 5 MR. GRIFFIh: But on % s they didn't 6 have tne paperwork?
i 7 M True, j 8 MR. GRIFFIN: On some of tnem?
9 On all of tnem.
10 MR.'GRIFPiN: But tne drill crew still were the 11 o_nes that did tne cutting, dion't they?
12 No, si'r. '
! 13 MR. GRIFFIN: They cidn't have to go through 14 recar? -
i I
i is
. i ., .
h drilled tnem himself. 1 16 MR. GRIFFIN: Did he go get a rebar eater ano 4 17 go tnrough it himself?
18 He went ano got a rebar eater and 19 went EnroGgh it himself.'
- -}
. . .-j' MR. HE.RR: Did anynocy see t go ao that?
.. 1
. : :j 21 : I am satisfied enere was, i
. . . ~
22 hR. tiERR: Can you give us a name of a witness?
,, .g.fffyj l'{i p I don't remember wno nis helper
, g , . .g e, 33 was right now, but I am satisfied that would admit te
~
d 23 coing it if you woulo tain to him on account of nas $co TAYLOE ASSOCIATES ghf,h;.y,.;; 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 i _
i
,.I (202) 293-3950 ,
I
-s
- I^
- r.
^_ . . _ _ _ _ . .
4~ _ . ,
l
. , . ~~; - ,.
=
- a 2 _ . .C .. . . .'- . . . - . .:? . '
..--a---.......h... '
. . . :--.-------u--
- t. -
l i
23 was threateneo several times by M , too.
2 MS. . GRIF F1K: Do you have any others?
3 two, sir. There is anotner item, 4 but I can't remember the name of the piece of equipment.
5 It happened two days before they laio me off of tne 6 millwrights. It was right in the fuel cuilsing and one of the TUGCO guys, Texas Utility guys stopped the work on it
! 8 himself. It was his piece of equipment that Brown and Root i
9 was wording ora. .- It had already ceen t.2rned over.
10 MR. HERR: Let's go off tne recors for a 11 secono.
{ 12 (Discussion off tne record.)
I a
} 13 - MR. HERR: Bacx on the recoro.
1' 34 'MR. GRIFFIrl: you nave proviced us 1
15 with a number of instances'hera where you have been 1
! 16 intimidated or had performeo woric witnout. either proper i
j 1- documentation or in violation of procedures at the j 18 direction of ybur stiperiors.
- 9 g . Yes, sir.
, 20 MR. GRIFFIN: Do you agree to take further
, . ;, ,. 7
- measures to. help us identify these locations so that we 22 can have our inspectors loox at these various areas?
f
,1.//fj;-[i.) -
21 Yes, sir.
. - 3 gg MR. GRIFFIN: Do you have any other areas of concern? You itave toic us that these are instances that 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
.a4 , se2s a staur.x.w._ sum 2004 WASHINGTON. D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 ,-
- , . . . . - ~ . -
' . , =* %
=-.7----------- - . - - - - - - --- - ..
4 . , w a .
e 4 [ .M ,
e 9
(Pp. -
s ., , ..
_ _ . . . . . . _ ..-e.,,....
. . .u.u _s
, . . . . . . .. . ._ . . . ._ . . . . . . . . , ,. y . y ... ,.,,u.u . . .m. .
AR-At .
41- fM - **/ r( dehu
- ~
f r 24
'I you <nea of wnere you or people tnat you knew had tnetr 2 jobs threatened or naa been-~ threatened or intimiuated into
~
{ 3 violating procedures.- Do..you navep any otner bo$cerna?
4 Well, on ene reactor head missile
, 5 snell no later than tocay I saw ano one Oc
- 1 I
6 guy come up to tne reactor. I nappened to be tnere pulling -
j 7 some cable tnrougn a conduit ano I talkea on 8 account he is a millwright and I Knew him, you know, wnen e 9 I was in tne millwrights. They had the maintenance card 10 for n MR. GRIFFIN: You are saying
- 12 S' 81#' U" I'3 f y MR. GRIFFIN
- Okay, s
I is 17 supposed to be woen it is in operation. Okay, taey have
! 2 22 MR. GRIFFIN: anat were they signing off?
I
. ' _n,us.
3 The maintenance card, wnatever la
-i. on the maintenance card.
si g I don't know what is on the 3 maintenance cara itself. .
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET. M.W. - SUITE 1004
. e:JU...
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
,, (202) 293 3950 '
J -
p ,* ts*' '+.
-c.
4 4
e
.a $ s ,
~.-.. ~. .. . .,
-L. ..i.a1.' .~a:.. .T.
. .. 3 .: h.a.. .:.:. ~=~.p a
.:..s..s?.Li:: h*L'.' a s.v...~ .. =:.1. .t.ca e. .. .w .:. . u.1:a si st. . : .
25 1 MR.-GRIFFI.N: Could they have Deen just signing 2 off on tais temporary snield?
3 No, sir, on account of tney l 4 wouldn't nave:.hau p maintenance card on the temporary l I 5 poly, you know. It was the missile shield itself. In fact, 6 I questionec g oout it and he said don't get QC t
! 7 more conf used than what they alreacy are. **
I i 8 MR. GRIFFIts: what is M last name?
I 10 MR. HERR: Do you know the QC guy's name?
11 no, sir, I aidn't know him, and I 12 didn't notice on his-hat whetner he nad it on enere or 13 not. I 14 MR. GRIFFIN: Do you have any other concerns?
15 (No response.)
~
16 MR. GRIr' FIN: Is that everything you had in 1; mind?
18 hell, I imagine.
l 39 MR. GRIfhIN: Okay, and you will nelp us look 3, 20 at some of these, lixe the pumps particularly?
..' 21 Yes, sir.
j 22 MR. CRIfcIN: You were going to say something a while ago about,a.. boron 'clen8er. anat were you going to
' ':,5f#r.f
' ' QJ
^\X.g' 33 g _:, 23 say acout tnat?
- u. 25 Well, it is an enclosea unit.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRitT. D'.W. . SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 , -
"- m .-
f 4.' . ' t,.
/?**- ' -
e
"=A - A w a
- 4 '
_._._'______.__'_ d
m-
. .- . . . . .c . . . . - -
~ . - - . - - . ~ ..-
~~-~.-----~-~.*---+-w----"" -
I ;
26 They have got a maintenance card on it to check tae 2 integrity and verity tnere is no enipping on paint and all l 3 this. hhy taey havg got chipping on paint on a stainless j 4 steel item I con't know. But, anyway, lixe I say, it is I
- 5 an encloseo piece of equipment.
i 6 MS. GRIT' FIN: Anu tney are still signing off on
! 7 it?
8 Anu they still sign the card off 9 tnat they veyified th.e integrity every montn. There is no 10 way to even see the piece of equipment anu I can get the 11 location on it. ww 12 MR. GRIFFIN: , Let me ask you sometning. he 13 talked doout confidentia$ity before we started this. Are 34 there any of these ins'tances that we have talked about 15 here that if we.went down and started asking questions l 16 about it tnat it would point directly to you?
g; @ The one about 18 tocay I am s.atisfied it would on account of I dic
-! 19 question cout it.
'}'] 3 6 . GRIFFIS: Okay.
j 21 There is one otner tning. I 33 believe the procedure says taat wnen they remove even a
,i-l3[ h
- 23 site gauge from any piece of equipment that eney must
- m. :.;
,ykj gg enter tnat on the recora maintenance card. There is 33 nothing enteredfon them cards. There is no acscription TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
, (.N -
ia2s a sTaut, n.w. - sum 2004 WASHINGTON, D.C.
20006 s -
(202) 293-3950 e.
~' -
~~T
~~ ~ ~ ,7 7.. ~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~~ ~~-~
~
. .X . g, .c.,4'-
.~
g 4 e
.~.
m L%_ - - _ _ _____ -- _ _-__..__.--
...~"* .
..TF..' ~ . ::... . :.= . r :*:.n** .i5 Ah : . i.d-1*:.S.=. u.L::.:.. :..:.'. .:n%..*: m'.
i 27 I wrote up on a piece of equ2pment never. They have got two 2
men that runs cards ano tnat is all tney do. There is l 3 nobody that goes out it a piece of equipment say has got a f 4 side glass broke on it, enere is nooody wno replaces that i
i 5 side glass until the QC comes in and does find it later on j 6 when it is ready to turn ever and they nave problems. I am
. satistied that is one of the reasons that they nave had i
l 8 so much reworst , to do on tne pumps and the bearings and
.9 stuff in Unit 1 10 MR. GHIFFIN: So you thins the guys wno are 11 filling out the maintenance cards are just ignoring 12 problems that tney find?
13 Yes, sir, and I am satisfied that 14 a lot of the pumps that are supposed to be rotated are 15 never rocateo.
16 MR. GRIEFIN: Who are these' guys tnat run tne 17 maintenanep cards?
, i 18 : Well, tney switch it around.
gg Mostly you 4now it is and 2- , ;.I 20 Tney will switch arcund and they will tante two or three
-2
}$j 21 guys. See, they have got a separate page tnat tells you
.4
] 22 like what maintenance, M-7 cr M-3. Okay, tney mignt come 1 -
. , J'-
~ ji:{:.* h. .
,. .. ,..s 23 up and give the cards to a guy that has never seen that j':4 24 other sneet or paper tnat knows wnat M-7 means or 25 anytning, and ne will go out and sign the carcs of f. and TAYLOE ASSOCIATES iets Siam, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202 2953930 . , .
- = , . .
.-,--..--..7.-z.~.r.;,--._....
.., 7 -- --
g..
8
=
' =
.-h.. ;:1 . .' W. ..*m. ; .::T:y ., a. ... .:. u,2 ,.;< n
. > a w. < -G .. da. d. ~. . .' .M ~....*G.- ..%. ~~."
28 1 not even know what he is signing off. I mean tnose people 2 are not, I hate to say it, but they are not qualified to j 3 do tne work.
i j 4 MR. HF.RR: You said, earlier that you have seen i
! 5 guys sit down st a table and sign maintenance cards.
6 Yes, sir.
t 7 MR. HERR: What guys have you seen?
i 8 I saw sign 9 maintenance cards.
10 MR. fiERR:
11 6 Yes, sir. I was on the maintenance 12 cards one day and one card, and I don't rememoer which one 13 it was, bun tne maintenance had been missed on it the I 34 month prior to that. I carried it in at lunchtime and 15 _ showed it to M and asked him, you know, wnat they did 16 since this was the first time I had run maintenance since 17 I assced him, I said wnen you missed 18 maintenancd>wnat do you do? He took the card and signed it o
- 6j 19 off and dated it for A.he month 'cefore. ,
.- did.
22 6E.HR: Was he the same one you say at a t
J'OrWF4M.q. 4 23 table Just signing of f a wnole stack of tnem?
25i 24 Yes, sir.
23 HR. HERR: Did you ever see anybody else do TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
' e i 1625 I STRitT. H.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 e
=
.. .:4 - . , , c: . . . . . . .
l 29 I that?
2 : No, sir.
3 MR. GRIFFIN: Have you got any more questions?
4 MR. HEHR: No.
5 MR. GRIFFIN: Have you got anytning else for 6 the record? 4,
, 7 No, sir, not that I can think of 1
8 right now. There are probably y lot of otner things I 9 could think of if I set my head to it.
10 MR. HERR: Thank you very much.
11 MR. GRIFFIN: We appreciate your coming.
12 (whereupon, at 6:Su p.m.,.tne investigative E
.13 interview of concluced.)
1, 15 16
, 17 1
1 j 18 i
. ,' 19
)j 20 g ~,,
) 21
- 22 1
. j
((,'
9.t' -h', ;,4 23
- 'i 24 y .
TAYl.OE ASSOCIATES 1625 8 $72117 H.W. - SUITI 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 ,
l t -
,s s) .
_.. : c . : :' . . . a . . s. < . .u .. . ---.
.. , . : .. 2 .. .
. .s .' ., *:~ s . +. u .:1'. .~~s- . . ~ . . <
a -
i.
I -
g CEhTIFICAT*-; Or PROCEEDINGS 1
I 2 T 3
This is to certity that the attached proceedings or the Investigative Intervie.d of etore the NRC 4
5 Office of Investigation at l
6 m J neld on tiednesday, August 24th, 1503, l 7 commencing ,qt p;14 p..;r.., was hela as herein appears, and tnat this is the original transcript for the file of tne 8
9 Office of Investigation, Region'IV.
10 11 L
12
,, _ _Ma ry C_._ _S_i_n._o n_s_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ q _ _ _ _
g.
13 g Official Reporter - Typed 15 1
16
- ---- ______ d227 M ___:.____
l
. 17 Official Reporter - Signature t
.i 18
.Y 1 19
.I.
.I t 0.; .. og
. . . ., j
.e I
. _.. , ".5 . g}
. :a . .a n,. t
.-., ,b., 24
,- .(.D.,'.*
25
. TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
....J.- 1425 8 $TRitT. H.W. - SUITE 1004
, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3930
- c .._.. . .
e N m y
- e e gp *.
O -y
\: go-3/[hy Ah.:sL ' 11 LOOL n i
M ==
w w e Do you reca s?
i 2 '
6: One of them was the guy
- at was
- 3 in charge tne millwrights, tne foreman i !
harge of the f
1 4 millwrights. I on't remember what his me was either. By
- t
- 5 trade he was a boil maker. He kn absolutely nothing 6 about millwright work.
3 7 one time we ugh their maintenance people, I s think it was, that re taking val s apart that had the 9 _ASME code sta on enem, the diaphram t v:; --- e valves that you i 10 use in t resin bed and demineralizer. Are u familiar 11 wit hose types?
3 12 _ cm. hms zes. - b 13 : Well, one part of the valve has a -
14 serial number on it, tne accountability number, and the 15 other part of the valve doesn't have anything. However, 16 i .
that valve is built and tested and blessed as a component.
i 1- They were just taxing these things apart and tnrowing all
! la the bottoms over here and throwing all the middle parts i
i.
4 t 19 over here and throwing all the tops over there, and there
.q 20 is no way tney could tell which elece went to what valve
.1 i
21 .any more_. We caught them doing that and he really got
, l-l 22 upset and wanted to xnow what we knew about millwrighting 23 and so on and so forth, and really got hostile about it.
24 c.
- g. 3; g.;,,
- ,._g .
If tney reassembled those they -
n.,.; l3: s .': '
. wy,, .
25 woulc not have functioned properly you don't believe?
,M ;
i
.I
( TAYLOE ASSOCIATES ta2s a starrT. N.w.- surn too4 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006
., (202J 293-3950
[
- 7
-[
.- FolA 86-59 -
f 173 L,
e ..
e
<3 .
~
(, -
~ .
. - . _ - ~_ ._ . . . _ . . _ . . .._ . ;- _c -
fi ,T 13 -
! I g well, not kn'owing what test the 2 manufacturer puts these things through when they are 3 built, I couldn't say, but you are Not supposed to take a ~
4 valve that nas got a code stamp on it of any type, because a
g 5
the thing is, you know, all the material. traceability and 6 tne other paperwork and rigamarole that they go tnrough, 7 you are not supposed to mix the apples and the oranges and
't 8 everything together. Those pieces have to stay together.
k 9 MR. GRIFFIN: You worked out there for only a
! 10 short time, is that right, fer, what did you say, for what j 11 period of time?
12 6 From 13 something like that.
14 MR. GRIFFIN: During that time were any of l
/ 15 these valves installed?
16 6 Yes, sir,.all of the bottoms were 17 and none of the tops were.
- i. '
s 18 MR. GRIFFIN: And what systems were tney used '
.l 19 in?
1
(.- *:..j 20 J2 ink it-was the demineralizer -
' , .lq
{ 21 _ system.
s
.. 4
, -.? '. . .i 22 MR. GRIFFIN: Did you have cause to inspect any
.8.'
.. .J 23 of tnese in your job for TUGCO as.they were installed?
.g
- n. - . ..
24 We weren't in the inspection
- . .; . .. 25 procedure at that point. You know, five or six times a day
-+ d:5.KQu m: ; c,- M.'
l
. , I
-". 2' TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l
s' 362s i sturr. w.w. - sum too4 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 '
. -;".d i:2.
G323 293-3950
...M.-
6 * 'b Q
- 4p } -
- p. *j$ . *
- r
=
. 'b +'s ',h*~.*..' W-715'A ?QEA'Fff.*: -
- ' ~:* -
y'- W . '?
S
. . . . . . . .z .,- -
p-. -
s- .4- % . .._,.-- _ _ _ .-,,,,.,_,,..,,,.,,,A.- r----- - -
_.._m.___ _- __ . -
ih-f ;f. - # - . -3 ;! '. n. M g c ;g.o~
~
y g.
f -
'. UNIT LD_s1 A1'Is
-.- 'a' -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION- ' -.,
$ %';.st 3t _ .
grrtCf Or INVESTIG ATeoNS HELD OFrtCt.-REGION IV p %*~~ ' f y .
sH av4N etArA DRIVE. SutTE 1000~ -
0 .
- g[%.3. 4 f AnuNGioN,1[X As MOH
~
[ ~
~
.5[,
' ~
, f, REPORT OF IN0tlIRY i"
January'9. 1984 e..:
7-
SUBJECT:
BROWN & ROOT, INC., COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION:
{ ALLEGED IMPROPER CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
,.s.
^
.J.
EEE REPORT NUMBER: Q4-84-001 '
.h:-e
- b; .
' ation of Comanche Peak
- hi; , .- 1. On August 24, 1983, during an unrela og, Steam Electric Station (CPSES), nfidentiality requested) l P.
^
contacted 01 and requested an interview. testimony was taken N
p,0 using the services of a Nuclear Regulator mnission contract ' court
. "; f
~ reporter who was present to take testimony on the unrelated investigation. ,
I at CPSES for about E
( -2. lleged that in 1982,6 a Brown & Root supervisor, r -
instructed crew members to disassemble couplings on pumps in the Auxiliary g : Building'without authorization. M said a QC inspector caught the' ,
'ry crew workir.g on the couplings and stopped the work until the proper
'E"E " *** * "*
i hg.. .. -
g
$f.?4 l'23 g alleged that in December 1982, a crew member named and{
-he:were threatened'with dismissal by a Brown & Root foreman n l t?.T hb . 'f they could'not keep up with production demands.
'* J
- '? "
did not take any action to remove them from their positions, in
- '" I ( 2
. spite of the fact they were unable to meet @ production demands. !
- j
.7#.. alleged work on that inaccumulator March 1983,6 instructed crew members tof
- the air Tn the Unit I Reactor Building withou cy,i ,' the proper paperwork. said a QC. inspector subsequently caught them
. g,
' and stopped the work un@til a Compon'ent Modification Card was obta ,
,,w
'* 5. lege
@,sor,d a supervi that in January g told their1983, crew not a superintendent,6 to come to work the and 4 ailed to finish gluing seal on lids on, accumulator following da ey
' tanks. e icated nobody lost their job as a result of the threat even though the work was not completed.
- 6. Mleged that in April 1983,6tructed him.to sign off Jin maint nance cards on pumps that did ~ not contain shaf ts, and though he
~
l' refused, no adverse action was taken against him.
i
{q6q -
,s L.-
~$..
-_ v
j ~q ..,, .
q
- i'v .
gwe, "
MR. GRIFFIN:
1 Yes,fsir. -
4'6 ~ ^2 pq .MR. GRIFFIN:; Shi-m-s ,. soinething 1 ire that?
.3
$...k.,! .
~
Yes, sir.
4 MR. GRIFEIN:
Is he your leau or your 6-i 5 i*
- "' 6 supervisor?
He is the supervisor, the foreman.
7
- MR. GRIFFIN: The foreman?
g ,
Yes, sir.
9' Who is your general f oreman, do 10 MR. GRIFFIN: '
.'11 ;you Know?
? 12 ,
g I know you have some issues you 13
=
MR. GRIFFIN:
- but let me ask you a few questions ftrst
- 14
'want to raise,
- w. investigating j' 15 5
- cecause we have some tnings tnat we are s. r
-a actively investigating, and since we have you l 3.. .
l Q.. n..right now, i y;c (16 ,- _ same questions.- ,
y : . _ ;:<p . ;
g.'
./'g7. " here today we mignt as well as you tnese ,
Since you have been working for Brow'n" and Root s-
! j,i- 38 there ever
$?.
v n ,
at the Comanene Peak site has anybocy out 1
W 19 l *'j ".,
o,...
o .'
atte.apted to intimidate you or has anybouy inti nidated you l ,~.[ . 20 into performing deficient work or accepting aeficient
.) '
.21 '
m,':.
'y y wortc?
' Yes, sir. .. _
g) a a . G a r ei- w : oxey, cen you ta11 me ehout the<2 l E%
1 Was on the pun'.ps over in th 2 5b - 2$
., .a 49-cni^-85-59
<. 1 -
y 'f *.
h#-
-TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUIH 1004
] UIN
.y*
WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 i,'- -
g (
. (202 293 3950 i .
k.%w
^
s -a* :.
i
- Q . 5 -
[3 M il. ,..g; ' auxiliary cuilding and we .nad t;o brea'k a coupling lo'ose to~
. ; : re. ,. .
,j t.c. g. -* -y* ,
.,.1?. lG, . 2
- set the 'inoicator up on. The paperkork dion't tell us to. .
. .n -( .
fI ': . ? . 3
. break the coupling loose.
.a,} .:;.y '
s -
27 .9. . 4 '.e4
. > MR. GRIFFIO.: ~To break tne coupling? -
' ' ~
- f. ;..-. . 5 Yes, sir.
j/,'
6 -
Okay, in order to brean the coupling loose it is supposed to be on tne paperwork and T '8 the type of grease to put back in the coupling and what to E .
yf ', ' ' 9 torque tne coupling bolts uack to.
N.$ ,- 10 MR. GR1FFIN: Is this Q?
4W L;$.
s Y. .- ' 11 6 It,is;a Q item, and I can't
- '.,.) .*
R
% :? , ( 12 "relnener tne name of the pump. It was a Q item. I nad QC 9,
i N. s:,O ,- 13 .
'there. See, I want on down and then that supervisor came ,
- g. pv;. c Tjs, - - 34' in and told me to go ahead and breas the coupling loose on v
- y,
- -
g, u .,
.s
. account I had to put any indicators on it.
15 I told him I '.~-]i 7,
- ,.
- ,y .
m
$f* ' I'6',_
.Lcoulan't breas the coupling loose till I got it on
! .*9*W 17 paperwors which probably woulo nave to ce changed.
j 4}
MR. n e.Rd :
M..m . -c' - 18 Who was tne supervisor?
gg He is tne one that i
p'. ;;w',
f n.
,. 20 tolo me.
I 21 MR. GRIFFIN: -
i.,
- e. , 22 m> memp
. .u
's
{'[
c.
. 33 MR. tlEttR: @
f -[, gg Yes, sir.
, f 25 , NR. hERa: go , and wnen ui. this '
~
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES .
1625 I STREET. H.W. -' SUITE 1004 - e, *
~
WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20006 j
1202) 293 3950
~ '
~
7.' $,"'b N
- n.h -
5!lK;?0: a ' -s... .:-). / W,
?. l ._ -- =
[h$fh D. f,
'Sf.h Y ) {
', p .,g
. . : d. - . k .-
~'
and.s'o ' orth and so on. Okay, they was'all out of shape. I .
~
n'av}e got;all this informat_ ion wrote down on how th.ey was
~
, 2
, 3
.out!of' shape. -
. . y ,;
The Building Department nad installed hilty
~
"I -
J's 5 ' bolts. hhen 4. hey drilled a hole for'tue hilty bolts they
'6 [mislocated one,,Q4ay4.ftney had welded that hole up with no
- paperwork on the welding. Okay, now nilty colts, you Know, g .you couldn't take one piece and set it in the right
-9 Ilocation'on account the hilty bolts wouldn't aa tch. .
io -
So I went to tne foreman and told him that I .
he tooK
-l - 11 \.~couldn't ge t, ,it , tnat.I could not set tne tank.
- M 12 .'the~ paperwork away from me an:1 saio goddamn I will set the
.A 13
-: t'n i n g m y s e i f . Okay, he goes up and gets them to swino it .
s
- 2 QC comes in to verifying the leveling. Okay, 4
_', , 14 'over there.
Mf y,q.;, *
- ' ' 15 the plates was out of level ano they hao to swing the tank
'ffh' 16 back over on account tne plates was out of level. There -
il .
' 17.
was no paperwork-to cover tne weloin'g and tne assemblies s ,
~
was instal) ed in tne wrong assembly nunoers.
h[' ' la Zi.
'E' gg MR. GRI? Fits: : Did QC stop it?
.e e sir , QC stoppe6.J It'.* w
- Yes,
- 20 g
21 MR. tlERR: hho,is tne foreman that tblo you to
.ec . .
y~ .n do taat? --a.~,_
"' *v , . %.
- Tney dio go. ahead,apa .,k
~~
g[-
f y ..f>++'"" .
bdrk$ N4cikh that means yeWbutw.dy.,
z-hEeh.NAEf$JI .and*I*;ain . Af s sW"T**
m,
.*- hgg f h.$f'
- 7- .
n;egetWaflCHCr
' t real suru wnat
.. . . , ~
e-W l
1 :;
= .,:.
tady.,qdi'd'~d,etT.
. aiCMC to cover the weldir.g ~ tiwo days ' a2t6r.Wnmd.
~
e y '~ '
lI ,,25 ,, _
( - % . .
s_~$ :
.',. . ,~
- q .
TAYLOE. ASSOCIATES
- 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SulTE :1004'
- r
,' 20006
' WASHINGTON. D.C. _
~
.]. (202) 293 3950 2
,7 . _
~.. 3_. .
- .f b .,3. .
9z.
... ~
N' 1 D+ F V 1. V. r 3 3'.t.. s
.w .
f, -
g .
14 w; 4 p.1f&. ;
:p'g
- f,".'hais QC iri lved. They_had to verify.tnat the seal was
- a fy .laipped over good a'nd the glue was sticking good .and all _
- e. $~ tihis .-
~ (:3: - '
4' '
MR. GRIFEIN: Are there any otner items related
~5 to.ibtimidation?
6 ,.
- : Yes, sir, on some maintenance cards.
l 8 .
MR. GdIFFIN: ' Go ahead.
. .- 1. ~ l sFQ, ..... - 3running maintenance-caras, Q Cn-
-9 ,
, . wast: J
'jo Down-in tne auxiliary ouilding there were two pumps and I
, _ . l
.gg ,
don't remember the name ci the pumps. It was 778. That is !
2 side. They removed tne shafts and put tnem in
. I2
^7.th'e Unit 13 -tne' Unit 1 sioe. Okay, tue maintenance cards had been j
,34-si'gned orf prior to this. We was rotatino the shafts and '
hk .thefshafts is not in there.
They nad been took out and i.c . .. .
' (16 took to the Unit 1 side. Okay, I coulun't sign tne cards.
l'37 . /,. . On the boron blender, ano it is also in tne
..c ,
1 l
f8 auxiliary' building, it is enclosed you Know. You cannot -
- '19 see nothing. It is a concealed unit. It is all welsed up ~
- 20 now wnere beforetit was where you coulu look at tce
/ 21 integrity and all tnis.
l !.s l
MR. GdIFFIN: Holo it. Berore we go to tne
' - gg ooren tienaer, on taese maintenance cards, dia they asa l k.'2 8 : yoil or you were instructeu to sign off on the caras on 4 '
! 9 ,.; taese saaits that were not in the pumps?
l -
.' TAYLOE ASSOCIATES ~
-1625 i STREET, N.W. -. SUITE 5004 -
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 E" -
(202) 293-3950 -
3 ..
,y e
r . .. . . ,; " .
( L6 1
- .. *-? .%
('Anothfr p mp .in thel samp location tnat it is.. supposed to 7
?.*-lif?
? "
' ti { g --
(
i
,-.- -oe tn,ere cut it is not there.
~
They.took it back., ~well,
~2 -
[
J:
3 . Westinghouse sent;it out. The'm'aintenance card nad been .
4 signed on it and still been signed off I am satisfied of -
)
5 the. pump.'being in a location when it is not there. This is 6
a reactor. ma,te-up pump I tnin,c or a heat removal pump,
. .g . .
I something like that.
i MR. GRIFFIN: why woulo taey sign oft a }
8 :
9 maintenance card on a pump that had been sent bacA to ;
i 10 hestinghouse? They have to send not only the pump but all tne traveler and evertaing else with it, don't they? ".h 1
11 Because tney want to ,ceep the ,
12 13 cards up and they give it to tne guys. I nace to say tnis, -
.a 34 but I have seen guys sit down on the tao]a lixe this and ~
-y
, , jJ ;
I 15 ' sign maintenance cards off and never go to the f1 eld. L
~
MR. GRIFFIN: How often do you have to sign e; 16-37 fmairitenance cards?
Well, they nave got some weeklies 18 19 and some montalies. {l How about on these pumps? i:
20 MR. GdIFFIN:
21 They are monthlies.
22 MR. GRIEFIN: It sounds li,ce lnas told 23 you a number of times to do things improperly.
Yes, sir.
28 MR. GRIFFIN: Can yoo tninx of any other 25 .
- TAYLOE ASSOCIATES L
1625 I STRtti. H.W. - $UITE 1004
- WASHINGTod, D.C. 20006 _
'"^ -
(202) 293 3950-
~
~ '
,g .,y,
- . . ~ f
_ (1
.gg,,?. . -
). P' U.,
~. %* Y \
~
26
- . k . '
)% %
- i. >
'.g-
/s They have got a maintenance c'ard od it to check tae- !
t 2 integrity and trerif y tnere is no cnipping on p~aint and all.
t '3 this. .Why tney.have got chipping on-paint on a stainless r
4 steel item I don't know. But, anyway, lixe I say, it is 5 an enclosed piece of equipment. "
6 MR. GRIT'F IN : anu tney are still signing off on 7 it?
8 Anu tney stiti sign the cara of f j 9 .tnst they verified the integrity every montn. There is no f i
10 '.way.t'o even see the piece of equipment anu I can get tne
[
z 11 location on it. ;
c.
~
I
,, ~ 12 MR. GRIFFIN: Let me ask you sometning. he l' 13 takked-acout confidentiality before we started tnis. Are -
f 34 there any of these ins ~tances that we have talked about 15 here tnat if we went down and started asking questions _
L; p-
[ 16 a bout ' i t tnat it would point directly to you? ;
Okay.
~ 20 Mk. GRIFFiri:
l k..S 21 There is one otner tning. I believe the preceoure says tnat wnen tney remove even a 22 23 site gauge f rom any piece of equipment tna. tney must y.g enter tr.at on the recora maintenance card. There is 33 nothing entered on them cards. There i.s no uescription a .
TAYLOE ' ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W:- SulTE 1004 -
20006 WASHINGTON, D.C. -
(202) 293 3950 -
&,, l4.-:. .-
%? ! ,
%. ^
r , ,
( . _
.?I ;
3 -I wrote up bn a' piece of equipment never. They have got'two. -
2 men that runs c'ards ano tnat is all they do. -Ihere is
~
3 nobody that goes out it a piece of equipment say has got a 4
-side glass croke on it, enere is nooody wno replaces that 5
~ side glass until tue QC comes.in and does find it later on --
6 when it is ready to turn cver and they nave problems. I am 7.
satisried that is one of tne reasons tnat they nave nad
-8 so.much re'Jo'r4 to do on tne pumps and tne bearings and ;
9 , stuff in Unit 1. ,
, 10 MR. GdIFFIN:
t, So you thing tne guys wno are '
11 filling out the maintenance cards are jn'st ignoring t 4
( (
12 Problems that tney find? h' E
13 Yes, sir, and I am satisfied that j
}
14 a lot of the pumps that are supposed to be rotated are )
i i
1
. J7 ! 15 never rotatea. f
,, dj 16 MR. GRIT' FIN: Who are these guys tnat run ene i, .: l c.;s '
17 maintenance cards? ,
)
[ . , ~18 j Well, tney switch it around. i 9 .Mostly you anow it is and
[20 Tney will switch arcund and they will tage two or three f
- x. ,%.21 guys. e See, they have got a separate page tnat tells you
- 22 like what maintenance, M-7 or M-3. okay, tney mignt come 5 23 up and give the caros to a guy that has never seen that r,24 m
other sneet or paper tnat knows wnat M-7 means or );
25 anytning, and ne will go out a.nd sign the carcs oti and '
u
- f,
['
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES -
- t to'2S I $7REET, H.W.[- SulTE 1004 " , -
WASHINGTON, DL 20006 p
(202) 293 3950
' ~
~ g .
, g q' ..a ** ,pg ? ~
t ~
t
., i,
?
l h2 abo - __
+- p ~d
,y
y.,/ ,-
.s..
.g. is. '. . . _
p
) '8-
/, .
~_ .
.- 1 .not'even know what'he-is signing off. I mean tnose people
~
~
2 are'not,.I hate to say it, but they are:not qualified to 3 , No[tne work. ,
~
~
. g MR'. HhRR: You said earlier that you have seen 5 guys -sit down at a table and sign maintenance cards.
6 Yes, sir.
' y- MR. HERR: nhat guys have you seen? ,
8 - I saw 6 sign M 9 . ' maintenance cards. ,
'to MR. HERR:
11 Yes, sir. I was on the maintenance
.jo - . c'ards one day ano one card, and I don't rememoer which one m:--
W 13
- it was, but ,tne maintenance had been missed on it the n.s 14-
.' month prior to that. I carried it in at lunchtime and '
- n. : .
-- 15 % showed it to M and asked him, you know, wnat they did "A 4 t
'Y6 a'. ' s'ince this was the first time 5 had run maintenance since
- I $
w- .- '
, h *s . Ii na d been back%*I*as,ced him,- :I;.said ownen you missed s ,
. 'Q.p. ~~'M.~
-'.[ [ '.g .m .
maintenanc'eT)$1tJjo
_%.,~.
' .' v ~
you' do? He tdok 'the' card Lnd signed it
~ 18 g y;. w- .
-lC 3 . g'9- *oTM1EifdEdated 7 it - forg .
t ne montn before.
~
20 MR. HERR: y
[ '
21
' did.
g.,
22 MR. HERR: Was he tne same one you sa) at a l ' .~ -
23 table Just signing off a wnole stack of tnem?
21 : Yes, sir.
23 ,
MR. IIERR: Did you ever see anytody else Io'
~
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES -
~
1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 l
' ' ~ -~ ~ ~
- S,
._ WASHtHGTON, D.C. 20006 ,
'l-(202) 293 3950 ' -
.'..~
'e
'2,s h.- , . . es , . . . . . . ,.J a ..y _ _ _ _ _. .. , ._, .,f
y- n .
=
ww .~..------- z _.:... _.. _..-....- .-.. --- - -
~
100 1
I thought :about later that I should have said- something 2
about and wrote do,wn, but then I didn't bring..them, so;...
3 (Laughter) 4 MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
5 Well, if you have additional information, 6
documents, or anything like that you would like for us to have 7 a look at, you might include them with these things you all
>f o 8 have already have committed to giving to us: and maybe a 9
! written explanation or something like that.
'. ,)- 10 Because that's
.jfr our. job, is to inspect these plants, investigate trouble.
11 THE WITNESS:
There is one I wanted to talk to you E i 12 about. ~
r 13 Now, I don't want to use this man's name, because 14 1
I know he does not want to become involved any'more. He was is terminated out there.
16 He was one of our supervisors.
He was also one of 18
/ And his advice to me when I went to him 19 L -~~~ "
was to stay totally out of it; because, he said, it's too dangerous. ,
21 But what got him terminated is when they brought 22 the bunch up from South Texas, when South Texas went under .
23 And they brought all those people out from South Texas .
... 24 They brought -- of course, they got rid of our 25 people, you know, the people that were there; they got rid of.
e
- r,y ]f -
_. , . . . . .a...-----.
, I~ 9 101
. 4 _ -
And, 1
said that"he got -- just as a ma*.cer 2 of his being he needed information on 3 these people.
So he went.to'the comput'er and g6t on the 4
terminal and started getting information on the background 5 on these people.
6 And when he saw what it was, he went to -- he 7 went to and them, and he said, "Look," he said, 8 -- not just but -- and he said, "Look, you 9
better check on these people. '
The educatien they're tellinct 10 you they have, they don't have. All they have is a 11 symposium or something or some document they sent off for. " Z
- 12 MR. GRIFFIN
- QC inspectors he didn't believe 13 were qualified to hold t' he' positions tliey were being --.
14 THE WITNESS: These were Level-3's and stuff.
15 MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
16 THE WITNESS: That they brought in.
17
. And this is what he said.
, 18 So after he did that he said, "All I'm telling you 19 is'before they shut that terminal to South Texas down, 20 you better get on there and get this information; because 21
& these' people are coming up here with documentation that
- 22
-- I mean, they've got the little squares on the wall, like, 23 I've.got a bunch of squares, too; and it looks good on the 24 wall; but it's not worth tiddleywinks, you ' know."
. 25 And --
e d
:--,-..,-q,.
.... .: z
..7 ,, z .= - - - - -
- - - - - - = - -
I ;
~'",~a-., - ,
- ~
. - . ... a..--.. .
[_
~
103' -
i .
1
- But I think the stuff about the guys' certification ,
2 that would be easy enough for.you all to check. t 3
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
i 4
l[gghave I or any other NRC representative here 5
threatened you in any manner or offered you any reward 6
in return for this statement?
7 THE WITNESS: No.
8 MR. GRIFFIN:
Have you given this statement freely 9
and voluntarily?
i 10 h THE WITNESS: Yes.
u l
MR. GRIFFIN: I f 'Is there anything further that you u
l would like to add for the record?
- M I
THE WITNESS: I think not.
', 14 MR. GRIFFIN: !
Tom, is there anything that you !
2 would like to add?
16 MR. CARPENTER: No, other than i 17 remembers other concerns -- in other words, we don't 18 necessarily believe this is comprehensive; might B
remember in the future items; and will bring them forward then .
20 MR. GRIFFIN: Sure. The NRC is always there and 21 I
that's our business to receive and, review and inspect and 1 22 identify problems in this area. Somebody can direct us to )
i 23 problems, then that makes our job easier.
, , 24 THE WITNESS:
I used to keep a log of everything) but 25
~
l they said it was illegal for us to have them; and so I threw .
W . * --
N, .
1
. i '.h _
e8* "8 - . U'43TEC ST ATE S -
(_ f.g-
~
m, con mammoeco-ss*00 NO~ D SCIOS 4 e d OFrict OF INVi steG ATIONS tit LD OFFICE. REGION IV
- / 8 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000
't ,, '/ ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011 gy-g qc-Fora-85W REPORT OF INQUIRY
% / 356- COMANCHE PEAK SES April 8,1983
SUBJECT:
ALLEGED INADEQUACIES IN "AS BUILT" QC INSPECTION PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER: Q4-83-009
- 1. On April 6-7, 1983, Brown and Root Incorporated (B&R) QC Inspector a Pea as interviewed by NRC Investigator D. D. DRISKILL at executed a Confidentialit Aaree-
. . ment, Attachment 1) an~d a Signed Sworn Statement, Attachment (2 stated he has been employed in this capacity at CPSES sin uality Assurance Specialist Group from
~
MandworkedintheJ
- 2. M stat.ed in the early stage of the CPSES "As Built" Inspection Program, the QC inspectors were required to conduct a complete reinspection of all piping and pipe hangers. He stated these inspections immediately began to dentify numerous dimensional discrepancies in installed pipe hangers. M g stated thatM the "As Built" program supdrvisor, then instructed the QC inspectors to discontinue conducting material dimensional checks on hangers and to verify only general configuration of hangers. M stated s that the vendor certified drawings (VCDs), now in existence, have been generated from the "As Built" program inspections. M stated he believes that numerous material dimensional deficiencies now exist on VCDs which have been approved, stated the program being used to verify the piping
!. VCDs also inclu es on y general configuration checks (vice material dimension checks).
- 3. O stated he is also concerned that the program implemented to oenerate DCA and CMC inspection reports violates the CPSES QA procedure. E stated that CPSES vault personnel are reviewing existing DCA and CMC inspection reports to determine what revision the component was last inspected to. He said this information is then compiled on a computer rint-out providing all pertinent information related to that inspection. stated the Design j*
Change Verification Group is then comparing the print-out data to the latest y revision of the CMC or DCA on file. He stated that if the revision on the print-out is the same as the latest revision of e DCA, the inspector then
- l. generates a satisfactory inspection report. stated these inspectors are not allowed to review an QA/QC documents to determine whether a physical verification is required. stated that about .six weeks ago, he compared i the print-out to the inspection reports in the vault and found two of three items on the print-out did not match the data on the inspection reports.
M stated he notifi.ed his supervisor of this finding and was told "not to Fora-95-51 -
7 . ..
_ ,, . QO_NOI_otsedogg. .
4 d B
~
44- '7
~
Nibt3M smtsm
~
DC.NOf DISCL,OSE .
PLACE DATE: 4fr O I . hereby make the following voluntary statemenf tB Mr~.' UIu. Driskill, who has identified himself to me as an Investigator with the U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I make this statement freely with no threats or promises of reward having been made to me.
T . a--s hw 5
-s h s- cts a C A N h + <4 h pcles -% h w 4. R.c f' (Ts h R) el Cc~~ k D.c.d<. s.E s. I % 6 m yccy c.d E Ms %tq s- Q M ,
W W C% .g Fs A, c. % , { Qg I ^ .
s,. ,
~_e ;Cck ss cesgu.s(W -rd, "c %s
, ,b Le $ b'I Cf1'9 L C'" 040. CTQPD ,gf g
, .ws TE. JJ W J,.< 3.J., N s. % - (u r_ c. 's 4r..* 4 79.,, ,
. w.i, c% mca G .us e cm. j .,
Tce.'s .A swsecac_pfcut).:r % car-b.ed E N_e %, g_ , e f . .cl'Y ce : J'-a- 89e 'r$ 89TP 't- '0*5 .
i -n_ q sh,ce Asnw ee cc .rcarcaa 6. w -
f v .- m m n ,- o y ~
(r .
= -
. a- va.- L ;_ c a.s W C-
.At %:.4
- y s R e 2 0_f WsL%f M \* % rm CQ
.J--
c.?
'. . A . - b. ' ~CM / -
. 4- star t2I-CJ' W u3 0
- t. - -
- * % - .L.:
GLL $=% c* q 9
'f A ., e ... . uu u
. .. ., y c g,e 4 st3 4. 6'[ $ W_a r8 M '
d M.t t . e w,.4 4 c P*'t'*5 b
ha" V " M"I'^O5
& QCc,f$).C~L % ,
MD SWA W
, mA o cd.cd us. -tc> d scc.ufino e -
deat5 kc nsa)- Q dwav.iQ c_W_ks o_t -Ng i
~
rM e' M
- l. E
"% % 9 a cec e.
c m c. w cfc 4 s c-r z, y ,y
- M cd k- K'% t%2. !- '-4 i
b
Y <
. v. .
/.
t 10 i,
i I tnis stuff, tnat it is acceptable to use it as it is.
2 Well TOGCO came,in and they took it out. They 3
cut it out and threw it out and tney was supposed to took 4
and completely rewelded everything. They gave it to, as 5
far as I know it now, to an outfit tnat just put in I
6 temporary pipe stuff like to cuthouses and stuff. A guy 7 named he did all the rework, and I understano it is i , ,
8 just a cosmetic touchup i's what he did. In other words, he 9
didn't cut,them out and put it back as a full pin weld. He
. 10 .just touched up the holes and stuff.
11 MR. GRIFFIN: .this story that you told 12 us, was this contained in your statements that you 13 provided already?
I Ho, I just put it in the letter. In other words, when I carried this letter to ,
16 Houston, I just. told them to come down nere and tell these 17
{ peopy, go quit doing this stuff because it is getting to a .
18 dangercus point because the fuel is. coming in, and to tell
- 19 tnem it is not a Brown and Root policy and never has been
~
20 to do this kind of stuff and working ai 3 ainst procedures.
21 When did all this occur?
, MR. GRIFFI!!:
- ;ii 23 MR. GRIFFIN,: August of '827
~
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 1 STR!IT, N.W. - $UITI 1004
( WASHINGTON, D.C 20006
- 27. ;; . -
(202) 293 3950
/vf""/
~
Q Q%
~
7 .=.. .
. k .$
- J
x.
~, ;
o'
- e f
. . 11
'l
- MR. GRIFFIN
- This is just right cefore you i
j 2 lett your psition?
i 4
f They made li4e they was really going to do 5
v d something about it. I also told them of some problems in 6
.that could cost them. I made a figure of a
- J I
million dollars a day per unit, and I just said I don't 8
thinx Brown and Root can afford to pay this kind of money.
9
.I said I know it is too late because a lot of the stuff us 10 under radiated water, but these people should have known 11 better, anE I said personally I think they should go'to.
12 prisen for some of it.
13 For instance, we had stainless steel liners
- 14 rnat had welds ---
IE MR. GRIFFIN: Hol~o $t, The st.uff th,at you 16 are going.to tell us about
- is this ne.w -
g.# -
' stuff or is this stuff that you have reported before to 18 the NRC or to CASE 7 .
19 No, I never reported it to the "O
NRC. I reported it to CASE.
21 MR. GRIFFIN: Did CASE provide this?
]gl, j 22 MS. ELLIS: We sent tne information in a 23 mailing to all the part.ies in our hearings.
.;;' '..' .' .* .N 24 MR. GRIFFIN: Including the NRC?
v.i ?.) 25 MS. ELLIS: Yes. .
l .
- ' TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. H.W. - SUITI 1004 WASHINGTCH, D.C. 20006 m.' id $-; (202) 293 3950 k
... .....m.. 7, . . . ...-..: . . . . .. . . . . , . . y-. --, 7. ~,.e.-.
% u
1
\
. a -
, r l
\. .
12
)
I MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
2 I know that you have provided documents 3
l and afficavits. '/Have you ever testified before one of the 4
hearings?
No.
4 6
MR. GRIFFIN: I knew that you had provided information for us, but it is not our purpose or our 8
intention here today to go back over all that testimony.
9 Well, the letter, the reason I 10 wanted to bring it up is because 'the NRC, there was this 11 one little statement they made that they seemed to like 12 it. Since.I signed it and everything, you know, the letter I I3 1
was up to par, that they seen no further use in
.- 14 investigating the letter. See, I signed some papers saying 15 I was satisfied with the wa/ eYerythi.ng was, a.nd the 16
, reason I signed tne papers was because these people who I i 17 brought names up was getting in trouble. I knew I was 18 leaving, but I brough't a bunch of people's names up that j 19 they didn't know I brought their name up. They called them 20 i
I for interviews and they started getting, you know, 21
.] problems, busted back and laio off and run off and all j 22
- kind of stuff.
23 The reason ,I was~ happy with the letter was
~. ]j 24 because tney made like tney was going to come down here
. ,,.[jj 25 and do something about it, you know. My signature was in
-] ,
1 I l ]
- TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1623 i STEEIT, N.W. - SUITI 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
, (202) 293-3950
~
.. . ; .. . . . . . . - . . - - . ,lm .. . ..-. .,
1
(,
k
~
13 I
, tne first weex. That is how I signeo the letter. I told 2
I said now if you all are maning a liar out of 3
me, I will go ahead. I don't care. I just want you all to 4
straighten it out. I E
1 Well, tne clowns that, you know, denied all 1
j 6 6 .
this stuff, I said whatever you do don't put them on a lie 1 1
detector machine.
.i
' ,l I said it will ruin Brown and' Root 8
because they are lying tnrough their teeth and I will take a lie detector test to that any day of the week, like the j 10 false documentation and' stuff like that.
11
- MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
12 Now some of this letter was
~
13 hearsay stuff, but the parts that I put in here that I 14
{-
know about and they got up and lied about. These people of 15 course they are going to lie" bbeause..they are ,the on.es .
16 that did it, you know.
17 While they had me in confinement after I had
~
13 already signed the letter I told I said 19 undoubtedly they are not listening to you.- They broke 20 3
three more procedures this morning, and he just ignored me 21
.y and went on by.
.j 22 The reason he wanted me to sign the letter I J
23 think so bad was becaus,e he was,the 24 b.','} nd on this job both when a lot of the Mr 23 bad stuff was did, the real costly stuff lixe reject .
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1623 8 57R117. H.W. - SUITI 1004 WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20004-
,,, .;;,, (2023 293 3950 a *
- - ,. ,. -. ..- .. * -~~e*e."**r*e***=.* *1
. , .e "e. % e
- %) "'
'8 f" * ' ' ' . . * " '
1 i
~
1 l
i
1
, . . _ . . - ... . . . .. s
~
g'
~
. (- 14 1
material used in concrete and all that stuff down there 2
There was,a weld, see, wnere it is 3
l supposed to lose about a half ounce a year and it loses 65 j 4
- pounds a second. We blocked off a gauge instead of 5
repairing a weld.
6 l MR. GRIEFIN: Is this information contained in I l
- l .
i 8 your letter?
8 h4o,notallorit. We can get '
I 9
l back to that later.
i 10
- MR. GRIFFIN: Let go into our reason for being II
, here. Like I said, I xnow you have made affidavits before 12 and the NRC has had an opportunity to look at some of 13
- those.
- 14 I have a question for you. During the time 15' that you worxed for Brown and hoot at, Comanche, Peak did ,
16
,anybody every attempt to intimidate you or were you ever 17 intimidated into either perf6rming work that was defective 18 and you knew it was d'efective wnile you were doing it or 19 did you ever accept work that was defective?
20 Yes.
21 J-- --
MR. GRIFFIN: Can you tell me about those
. 3 instances.
j 23 f We,ll, it is in the letter i
,4..V, i.i.?d.jj 24 tnere also, See,
. , ' . . .g..f "3
' we get up tnere and we tell our people in a safety meeting TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 162s I sTatti. N.W. - SUITI 1004
, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 l w. .b. ,g),,} (204 293 3950 P '
~. .-....g. .,e = . e-+--- s e n--r ..--e. ,_ , . , . . , . . , . . . . . . . , _ . .. .-%.....,-
- f. ,
. g I g
. .y
-u _
(.
j l
that wnatever,you do don't work.against procedures or you
- 2 are fired lif we -catcti you, you know. ,
3 MR. GRIFFIN: Who says'that?
4
'. y Supervision is telling their 5
people. Then we turn right around and we get in a jam 6
where something is holding up something and we want I
something welded immediately,.for instance, and.1-nstead of 8
going through the proper enannels and getting everything
-- l . fixed .up%.t. hey. 9o ahead.and weld it out of procedure. Just 1 '
10 like they told my people, either do it or hit the gate.
II *
. . I had a piece of material where the 12 millwrights has gouged holes in it. We was welding on I3 another deal and they wanted a welder to jump down and I4 weld them up real quicx without getting proper paperwork 15 to, y6u xnow, go down there'to* engine,ering and, grind it ,
16 out and see how deep the gouge is and run an LP on it and..
1.,. . .-
- see' if it is split or what. '
18 So my for'eman called me at 3: 50 one Friday 19 evening ---
MR. GRIFFIN: Who is that?
t :. .
22 MR. GRIFFIN: Do you know how he spells that?
U does that sound
'.w.%'th.g 24 rignt?
J
-; 25 7 MR. GRIFFIN: maybe? ,
. ,,J ~
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES .-
~ 1625 I STRETT, N.W. - SUITI 1004 WA.5HINGTON, D.C.' 20006
.th.Nf.-
2H 3950 ' , .
- ', i . . #.- ".
'*"***"--**----*mM.P****7*' } g** 3, .
-t ,c, ,,, g ,. ***.*=*~****y***-'*
, . ' ' - * ' , * ' * * ~ * " ' " ' '
.y q; ' ,
,c .- -
, ... . . .r.-. ,,,.,C_. ,.t. . . .
_. _ . . .... . . . _ . . . ._. ......m._, , . _ . _
- g. -
(
~ _
(- ,-' -
t 16 I ~
Prcbably so. But he says I
.2
.have got a prob'lem, and I said what is your problem? He ~
3 says well, come down nere.
{
So I went down there and here 4
there is these people standing there. He says
. 5
- came through'here and told these people 6
they.better. get this,, work-velded -by -5r30 or- else and use therrods.they_got, You know,' it takes like a day or two ko 8
t get the correct paperworld, tube welding engineers and QC and all that stuff. .
10 -
11 So I said well, did they tell you or'else? I i l
12 knew I was going to I had been planning to go to 13 He said to either do it or else.
14
.- I said well, go ahead and do it. He said you have got to 13 be kidding. I said no. I amr gbing to. I said go 16
. ahead'and do it if they they.gave you a choice of either
! j 17 doing it or hitting the gate. '
e 18 i
, .l MR. GRIFFIN: told you that?
'i 19 Right.
20 MR. GRIFFIN This is that made the fid k.j .
21 statement?
', 22 yes, 23 MR. GRIFFIN: When,,was this, what time frame?
to
- b .
TAYLCE ASSOCIATES 1625 8 $7REIT, N.W.- $UITI 1004 ,
WA$HlHGTON, D.C. 20006
..'- jy g, 002 2pso
- O.s
. - - ~
~
e .
--..,,:..,..v..-;-..g,.;,.. 4 7+; .q,%,,-.y : .; .y. , .3,, ..
. n - .--.. - .
- . ~ .
-.;...-....r--
. , -~ ; s . , .
. . ..r. .- -
9 g
- b b e
(. -
t .
. .. , . . . - . . . . . . ~ . . . .-
,, .- (s.
(-
.. . . . 17 I
lot of times tney told us to do stuff that I just.wouldn't 2
even do.I I woula just agree alor.g with him and go ahead t
3 and do it rignt because they are uhexperienced people and 4
~
tney don't know wnat tney are talking about 90 percent of the time.
6 MR. HERR: Are you saying that was j '
intimidatibg? -
8 The people under him was told
- 9 i to do it or either hit the gate or else.
10 MR. HERR: Do you know who told the people 11 under him?* '
12 II came throug the diesel generators.
14 MR. HERR: And they told the men working II fog _ . &
which II f '
worked for me, or e'Ise hit the gate. __ .
18 t
, e '
l "
._'j i
,:. . [,: Q y 21 MR. HERR: Now those men, they worked!for you?
22
,. Right.
23 MR. AIERR: Did those,two guys ever threaten you
,it 24
. ,3 ;;,j or intimidate you, or are you saying that that was
- 23 intimidating to you?
. y~ .
.TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
~
162s a siitttT. H.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006- -
,v..c.,...3 s.;ss s'v4:2v (202).29).3950 ,
m
.
- P '
,, ,e e . .- .
- h9 d e g 4 * 'i g b m
.9 .
l s ...--
,, .. - s _ _ _ - . m -- - -
_m--
. . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ . s . . . - . . . . . - . . . . . .-
~
a.
- t -
r -
. ~
'.6 r -
1 I
continuously told 2
me if I wouldn't do a certain jcb he would get somecocy 3
that would. Lide, for instance, this swipe test. You come i 4 i
in the room and you clean the whole room. It is supposed j 5 to be a certain class, like Class A, and then you get the
.l 6 swipe test to come in there and your QC to come in there i .
- l ano he picxs out 'these three areas and he will checic those 8
three areas and if they a'll check out good the whole room 9
is good, for instance.
l 10 svell, called mb in his office and he 11 said, between me and you and that wall there I have 12 learned a little trick about this swipe test. he said the l
13 first thing you do 'is' you find out .< hat three areas tney !
are going to check and you clean those three areas and 14 15 don't worry aoout the rest of Et. I,,said if we are going 16
.to do it that damn way, why do it at all. Let's just say 17 it is good. He said if you can't hane.le it I will get la somebody else that wi11. '
19 It is lixe he says, lixe the false
- 20
.[. j documentation, you know, on the liner.
- . ~,....s He told me I had
.- . .f.f,j,7 - 21 better have that liner by the first of the year or else 22
. ., ., ; a,.7:.j.j hit'the gate if I am net through by January 1st. Well, 23 here come and he says there ain't no way you f,f685j.h,y s 24 are going to do it. We have 850 travelers that is screwed
'- s . , ,.
f jq-
,. . .g " up.
'*!-c . .
' TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 l STRffT.H.W.. SUITE 1004 l
WASHINGTON D.C. 20006
. ;h,$hjyi (202) 293 3950
^
..,....,.,.......y.3.,..g,.,%.7,...1 .; , .;.7,
.z,..,-... . . .. ,5. . J
.w ..,2.->-< .
cts. .
. .' .< C :,. s . . .. ; , . -
1.
. - -,e\.
+ . ; ... ~.w, -l . . . . . . . .
-- -= 2 --- - - - - - .
7
' ~
., j.
)
- b. O.h M
7/k continuously told
~
' ~
2 meifIwo$1dn't do a certai'n job ne would get somecocy 3
tnat woulo.- ~Lixe, for instance, this' swipe ~ test 4
in
_ It is supposed 3
tobeacertainclas[ Mdtnenyougetthe swipe test to come i ere uno y C to come in there
~
ano he picxs out these three areas and he will check those 8
V three areas and if tney all enec< out good the whole room fM , gpTA3, is good, for instance.
/4. . N hell, called me in his office and he 11 g cl saio, between-me-a'nd you and that wall there I have
[F * } r' 12 learned a liNtle trics about this swipe test, he said the S
i 1h _first thina von en f=
fp etb ' von fird nut whar throa == *nav
~ ^
l 4 1/ ,M, y 14 are goina to r n a- > M ="
p '1 e i- l a r + " - - - ' " - ~ - - - = = = ~=
1[
- don't wnrv v~n nout ena rant of i + -
[Y*.((,#.g' g. 4 g I said if we are going 3
p 16 to do it that damn way, why do it at all.
Let's just say .
l p ,
~..._
He said if you, can't handle it I will get it is good g o ,,on 'c' [
18 somebody else that will. ,f
_ _T .'
( 19 It is lixe he say,s', lixe tne false
\
D documentation, you k ow, on./the liner. He tolo me I had A 66 ' /
linerby!thefirstoftneyearorelse 21 better have tnat (Ja.Qi-QP~ 8j 22 Ilil-6 T) hitthegateifIamnot\throughofJanuary1st. Well, 23 here come and e says tnere ain't no way you 24 are goine to do it. We have 50 tr is screwed 3
up.
\ avelers N
that r- ~.
/ " *
- - TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, -
1625 i sTA!!T. M.w. - SUITE 1004 357 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006' --
l (202) 293-3950' l
1 -
L. .
- [
.h b yg
. I MR. GRIFFIN:
. a .
But what systemskwere they 2
. working on at'this time?. _
3 Nuclear piping systems, the'whole 4
nine yards, you know, the boron system.---
5 (At this point in the proceedings 6 -.
1 again looks through his files and pulls out a document.)
~
All the baron lines, the sampling system 8
lines, the waste gas coll'ecting system, the chemical 9
volume and control system, the containment spray system. ,
10 They built most of that thing off the plant over in the 11 backyard somewhere in bits and pieces and then drug it in.
12 The residual heat removal system, some of that, the boron 13 recycle. system.
14 There was one instance, you can call it a 15 yeTe Tr aE pg egn,ase @ nd there was probably 20 different 16 lines there that were#in some stage of construction" 17 g,epE?gfe.ggagpp]edg which they.are not supposed to do 18 unless they are actitally pnysicallyiworking it. .Th y ,re
, 19 lumb de 1 N M p#fec3F6Vdi'7ctfEiiI2 d%fn'eWi'pWTh'ere -- .. =~. . - . . . . .
?wis) .
! J gh, h ,
aggE6dMANEdfaBMtNsTePariMIfigswereggoing..into - = _ ._#...,-
the f 21
=Lg4Th'eWdreqpe,dginggcon'cr;etKh'iidsthWylita'dr a Meak{in;/
/{.
22 -
- rtsrep3 pssa m mesc M ftnE k e. mag d23 dM'fa?ifSEnf.h's'!pf5Ie%2 sl'titing 'right'"Ih the.mididle 2/ of..-the whole. thing;was this big faf'wb'l'dirii' inspector y ,
gQ 25 r f
e'atiliig a~ banana or a candy"bar or something
---m--.
like that, -
. -.y .
Y't gr l
gq)ik ,N,(g TAYLOE ' ASSOCIATES .
. 1625 I STREET, N.W. - SUITI 1004 '
WA5}{!HGTON, D.C. 20006 ~
(202) 293 3930 - - --
. ~
g , - . . . , , , , ia a m e m i'e'
' m uu= '
i 6 's _
24 l
~
.. l
, I started tpis that one of the. areas that you had l 2 information for us was intimidation. Do you know of any i.
V - 3 instances where either you were intimidated or anybody had
~
4 attempted to,, intimidate you?
5 . M They tried to intimidate me. The
~
l 6 Brown and Root boss threated to fire me a couple of times
- 7 because I raised hell about different systems.
l 1
8 MR. GRIFFIN: Did this threat cause you to 9 accept work that you knew was deficient, or did the threat
- 10 cause you to bypass inspection steps or turn a blind eye I 11 to the work that you knew you were supposed to perform? ,
I l i 12 '
l i 13 l
i 14 i.~ . .
I !. 15 16 V
1- . HERR: I am familiar with ANSI.
I 18 M: This was an ANSI standard on g, 19 different categories of storage areas, 1 through 5 or 20 something the
[b 21 otner end of the scale. W ,
l, 22 They had absolutely no consideration for a a
a piece of celicate or critical equipment. They just let the 24 rain pour on it, they let concrete pour on equipment, they 25 dragged = stuff around and they mistreated it.
, . TAYLOE ASSOCIATES _
N. -
16251 STREET, N.W. - SufTE 1004,
~
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 '
(202! 293-3950
, l l
3 w- --
q-g - .. .- - , - . , - . . , , , . . . . - -
.-- - . - ..-.--c..
l .....
25 i .. .. ,
. 1 4 So we got Brown and Root between a rock and a 2 hard spot, and Brown and Root talked TUCI, I guess it was, 7
t s
g3 or wnatever, into deleting tne ANSI standard that they had 4
4 Y [de committed themselves to for housekeeping. Th
[ 5 That is the same thing as they are going to j -
, adhere to an ASMI section in whatever it is for the i
'7 reactor vessel welding, and if they can't meet the i .-
8 criteria, tnen they are just going do away with the l 9 standards and do anything they want to do.
I /
10 l
11 i 12 13 MR. HERR: Well, C* 7 did you brigg this to
!. 14 someone's attention, this guy that intimidated you?
15 Yes, sir.
16 MR. HERR: Who intimidated you?
j 17 I think the guy's name was
'f:
18 19 MR. HERR: and he worked for Brown 20 and Root?
}
21 I think he worked for TOCI.
22 MR. HERR: He worked for TUCI. And how did he j 21 threaten you exactly?
24 I guess they said we were picking
- 25 at too mucn stuff. I don't remember the exact words any I
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1 ,L 1625 i STRIET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 -
j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (2023 293 3950 l
. _ - - - - - - - _ - . - - . = . . _ = -_____:__. _
= -
.6 .:. A = = < -- .- -- .w . .. -- - - - .- - - - - - - .-
l
- . ].
~~ -
@$ ]f Y k'l I wrong, and a good example is this chips and cracxs on the 2 pressure vessel, to call it to somebody's attention, and 3 somebody tnat can read and write hopefully.
4 But Brown and Root didn't see things that way,.
5 you know. If you made waves or you found something, and
- 6 they go from "A" to "Z" in a straight line, you know, and 7 they just crash and bang and corrupt as they went along, 8 and if you say, hey, you are getting ready to tear 9 sometning up over nere, boy, they don't want to near about 10 it.
11 We used to get into just run and gun battles 12 ,
with the piping department continuously on them dragging 13 pieces of pipe and dragging valves,y,specianygtog - - - -
i _
(
14 7,.BpFEEWcr~vailv;egdri's'FIEgWows?aind~duss'idd?of.1.he" bullding. ]
, g uw V 15 out;1oWstoragesand dus,m_tt..leayinn,.m. t hem. do,,wn ' th.e. re3ds1.[.'o~rj
. g'i .
~ ..
V,([/ 16 jeightiimontYsj. Even the NRC inspector out tnere men,tioned 7
'}l 17 it a few times and nothing every came of it. That was 18 Brown and Root's l' guess their way of progress is it tney 19 moved something from,here in storage over to here in the plant, you know, that is some progress somewhere. But.iDM
\s(\,0 20 musa
. . . , ~ . . . . ,
21 M{1stin59.n'th4CHilddyo{tTeT'fIo"oriandith' e y;are,,lslopp.ir[g h g,(0 2: Ec~oyc'rEWa1EoveyFrgfiinGnWiiD}de}s[,3,{d]55hi.yg))
,_?
21 i- [stuf f on JitEanci-mo rpus.Wf'r.fg7t"_Yr,_ound* . ,m y ,, nere'_and ',,there 'and
. , , , , _ . , , , ,,wej- .-
24 never ever got those people to not do that.
25 MR. HERR: Was your boss?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRIIT, H.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 .
s
~~
- e , . , _ v =-
g --
i ' T ~ -~ - T : ---- - - - - l :-~ 'T- - D. ~ T:L X ..--. . - -
~
- , . . - . _ _ _ - , . . -~~~..-~1.-
'C ' . ." ddh 3 [7 /J 7 D
ga 3 M and myself were standing right underneath'the
{
reactor _vefssel and there was water dripping on our heads 3
and it was coming out of Ene reactor vessel. So we looked i
4 up a,nd gwas standing there and it was just 5 dripping down over his face and'he is going like that --
l 6 (Indicating) -- you know. So we kind of eased him out and
- brought him back up to the office and then we went right 8
n back down there to see where all tha't water was coming 1
9 from.
10 Well, it took a day and a half to find whoever
/\
9 had the keys to that construction thing that they had on y+ f 33 12 top, that trap o.cor.
i 13 g S[. ' l i
L d 14 I, k 15
~
16 i g Then another time they came in and they had 18 this girl with tnem. She had an NRC hard hat on. g went l 39 down, too, and she was inspecting this and inspecting that 20 and I had to go down and show her this pump and that valve 21 and what-not. When we got back up to the office, it turned !
l out she is one of these summertime worx/ study deals. g 8 23 was just still a student somewnere in school in Arlington.
24 Zer fielc expertise. She didn't even know what a nuclear 3 power plant looked like until we called hauled her down
" I TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l 16251 $TREET, N.W. - $U!it 1004
- l WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 l (2023 293-3950
- 5
~
]v 20 N- 4-9 3- oo i NWM/85 A-A o Interview of (Confidentiality Requested)
A to On March 15, 1983 ! I, Coatings QC Inspector, CPSES, was interviewed by NRC Investigator R. MEEKS at A.to executed a Confidentiality Agreement, Attachment (19), and provided a'sigEed statement, Attachment (20)'. i hto
/ provided information c'oncerning his belief that Design Change Authorizations (DCAs) are being frequently used at CPSES to " cover-up a condition for which an D NCR should be written."
i stated.the DCA is not a controlled document. He stated the DCAs are used to facilitate repairs being madeg an NCR being written, and also to eliminate the need to comply. with procedural ~ requirements in
'some jobs.
t*** *g.ta hY.
described an incident, related to him by - (aCoatingsQCInspector),
f' E wherein ;tt A=
A tt's' preparation of an NCR. A'* stated. A6 alleged CPSES management interfered with his (
related that" U- Il
- ~
- had finally voided his l
)NCR.
A. y,,
A to also stated he had previously had the opportunigy to read W M.
'(supra) resume.- A tv stated the resume related th$ 'had 13 years experience-in- QA and/or..QC work. A.)0 stated he believed this resume is false.
A.to provided no additional information pertinent to 'this investigation.
e 6 S FoIA-85-59 .
u.- ..: .
x/sse _-. .
^
. . . mm- m m --- , _ _ _ . _ _ _
-...-.-----..g
. ~
a
_f 8*"'6*., OhlltD STAllb j
. ,. 3 mucu a nmumonv comoss,mco ,\'0" 1SCl0Sr -
.(
- y ,e
- OFFICE Of INvf 51tGAtloN5 filLD OFFICE.RLGloN k* */ 8M 611 RY AN PLAZ A DRIVE. SUITE 1000 ARLINGTON. TE X AS 75011
't,,
e...=
h%. A-2fr REPORT OF IriQUIRY April 8, 1983
SUBJECT:
COMAtiCHE PEAK SES ALLEGED liiADEQUACIES Iti "AS BUILT" QC ItiSPECT10ti PROGRAM REPORT tiUMBER: Q4-83-009
- 1. On April 6-7, 1983, '" , Brown and P.oot Incorporated (B&R) QC Inspector at Lomanene ca dts was interviewed by tiRC Investigator D. D. DRISKILL at Granbury, Texas. xecuted a Confidentiality Aarea-ment, Attachment (1) and a Signed Sworn Statement, Attachment stateo he has been employed in this capacity at CPSES sinc Specialist Group from
- 2. Mtated in the early stage of the CPSES "As Built" Inspection Program, the QC inspectors were required to conduct a complete reinspection of all piping and pipe hangers. He stated these inspections immediately began to
' identif.y numerous dimensional discrepancies in installed pipe hangers. M stated 4 hat Ron MICHELS, the "As Built" program supervisor, then instructed the QC inspectors to discontinue conducting material dimensional checks n hancertand to verify only-ganaral confiauratinn nf hanaers.jMtated ~
/ that the vendor certified drawings (VCDs), now in existence, have been
[ generated from the "As Built" program inspections. Mtated he believes that numerous material dimensional deficiencies now exist on VCDs which have N stated the program being used to . verify the piping been apriroved. @ des only general configuration checks-(vice material N VCDs alpo inclu
)
(dimensionchecks). '
- 3. tated.he is also concerned that the program implemented to generate J
i @DG dan CMC inspection reports violates the CPSES QA procedure. 6 stated that CPSES vault personnel are reviewing existing DCA and CMC inspection reports to determine what. revision the component was last inspected to. He said this information is then compiled on a computer orint-out providing all pertinent information related to that inspection. stated the Design Change Verification Group is then comparing the prin -uut data to the latest revision of the CMC or.DCA on file. He stated that if the revision on the print-out is the same as the latest revision of the DCA, the inspector then generates a satisfactory inspection report. M stated these inspectors are not allowed to review any QA/QC documents to determine whether a physical verification is required.gtated that about six weeks ago, he compared the print-out to the inspection reports in the vault and found two of three items on the print-out did not match the data on the inspection reports.
ated he notified his supervisor of this finding ard was told "not to W- DOf NOT_ nIpomp.~
MiGMl /& '
~ ~
Q)GkblOS
DO NO7 3 SCLOS 04-83-009 Page 2 9
be concerned." a copy of an inspection report, Attachment (3),
[ prepared by one of his co-workers, which contains notations indicating the e
- report was generated in violation of the applicable procedure at the direction of supervisory personnel.1 ,
all such inspection reports prepared by this individual contain this notation.
r
! 4. On April 8,1983, the Region IV Regional Administrator was apprised of these l allegations. This informa~ tion is provided to Region IV for their review and evaluation as deemed appropriate. Office of Investigations Field Office, Region IV, anticipates no further investigation at this time.
Attachments: -
(1) - Statement (2) - Confidentiality Agreement .
(3) - nspection Report 4-04-83 i/ M /
ona d D. Driskiil, Investigator '
dw/J Office of Investigations Field Office Region IV APPROVED BY: &
Richa'rd K. Herr,, Director Office of Investigations Field Office
'* Region IV cc: W. J. Ward, 01:DF0 w/ attachments JP T'. Collins, RIV w/ attachments "
J. E. Gagliardo, RIV w/ attachments R.H. Johnson,RIVlw/oattachments e
(
Dp NOT DJSCLOSE
- i. -. . .. . .. _ .... .....- . .--.
.c.... -. - .. ...c. - - . . ..-
a
- , j'. .
l AUG 241933 In Reply Refer To- f DeckeCo-pfyni : ;__ y /v b
50-446/83-15_
]
v Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: R. J. Gary, Executive Vice ~
President & General Manager .
t 2001 Bryan Tower a Dallas, Texas 75201 S Gentlemen:
?" .
i This refers to the inspection conducted by our Senior Resident Inspector, Construction, Mr. R. G. Taylor, during the period March through July 1983, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits CPPR-126 and' CPPR-127 1
1 for Ccr.anche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with I
Mr. R. G. Tolson, and other members of your staff during the inspection.
.j 1 Areas examined during the inspection included review, inspection, and evalua-1 tion of seve'ral allegations made to various NRC persons, including the Atanic o Safety and Licensing Board in their proceedings regarding the operating license for Cmanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES). Within these areas, the 1 inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures and representative j4 records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector. These findings are documented in the enclosed inspection report.
1 During this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities were j] in violation with NRC requirements. You were notified of one such violation by our letter of May 31, 1983, to which you have responded. Details of the 1
item enclosed with our MAy 31, 1983 letter are included in the enclosed
! ! inspection report.
.1 l One unresolved item is identified in paragraph 15 of the enclosed inspection report.
G 1
fi We have also examined actions you have taken with regard to previously 4 identified inspection findings. The status of these items is identified H in paragraph 2 of the enclosed report, s
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the HRC Public Document Rcm un'ess you notify this office, by telephone, within 10 days of the date of this letter, and submit written application to withhold infomation contained therein within 30 days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the require-rents of 2.790(b)(1).
BIT Official File Copy
...: ... _._.._.. ._.c.-- ..__ g _
4,3.RI.C '
__= 14 ""
3
~ ,,RPS-A g' . RPS1f.h. , ,
[ t L [ b b}p.(f t t u.cpRTayl,or{ lac DHunnicutt Giiadsen '
g g ,, g 3 33 eas
- ewes m e> -
Texas Utilities Generating 2 Cemaany
- l. Agg 2 ',1993 1
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased l
to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,.
_ . _. -or: sinal s! ned bn c, L. M ADcEW' G. L. Madsen, Chief
'Reacter Project Branch 1
Enclosure:
Appendix - !iRC. Inspection Report 50 t-45/83-24 50 /Ac/63-15 cc w/encls:
Texas Utilities Generating Company .
ATTH: H. C. Schmidt, Project Manager 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTH: B. P.. Clements, Vice President, ?!uclear 2001 Bryan Tcwar, Suite 1735 Eallas, Texas 75201 -
bec to DMS (IE01)
, bec distrib. by RIV:
RPB1 D. Kelley, SRI-Ops '
RPS2 R. Taylor, SRI-Cons TP3 Section Chief (RPS-A)
J. Collins, RA J. Gagliardo, DRRP&EP C. Wisner, PA0 M. Rothschild, ELD MIS SYSTEM RIV File '
i TrXA TATE DEPT. OF HEALTH ,
c 'd Preistdr
. e e : g 2, a
. . . r i, ,
- . - ~ 's
j, - . _____ ..___... _ ..._____. _
APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV NRC Inspection Report: 50-445/a3.: 24 *
. 50-446/83-15 3 Docket: 50-445 Ca tegory: A2 50 446 l Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO)
,i 2001 Bryan Tower
! Dallas, Texas, 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2 3
j Inspection At: Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, Glen Rose, Texas Inspection Conducted: March through July 1983 Inspectors: 4 b ^/7:) usOf 9// W83
! R. G. Taylor, Senior Resioent Inspector Da te /
l Construction (SRIC) , ,
?
J Approved: .b 9 l c O f D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief 8//F/83 Date '
! Reactor Project Section A 1
Insoection Sumary
]
Insoection Conducted March throuah July 1983 (Recort 50-445/83-24 and 83-446/E3-15) j Areas Insoected: Special inspections, announced and unannounced, related to j allegations mace to various NRC persons including the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in their procedings regarding the operating license for Comanche i Peak Station. The inspections involved 449 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
ll i Results: The inspection confirmed the need to issue four violations initially J icentified by the Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) (NRC Inspection Report 1 50-445/83-18; 50-446/S3-12). These involved the areas of HVAC, Ecuipment.
l Installation, Document Control, and Storage of Eauipment.
t
~
e )
4
~
(_ t
2 Detail s
- 1. Persons C'ontacted -
l Princioal Licensee Employees 1 . .
- R. G. Tolson,' Site QA Supervisor
- C. T. Brandt, Non-ASME QC Supervisor
- J. R. !territt, Engineering, Construction and Startup t'.anager
- J. B. George, Project General I' anger'
- D. N. Chapman, QA Manager
- *B. R. Clements, Vice-President, Nuclear Brown & Root (B&R)
'! *G. R. Purdy, Project QA Panager
- D. Frankum, Construction Project l'anager The SRIC also interviewed many other licensee, B&R,'and subcontractor j personnel during the course of the inspection. .
a
- Denotes those persons who attended one or more management interviews with he SRIC.
- 2. Licensee Action on Previous Insoection Findinos 1 (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-445/82-22-02), " Analysis of Weld Discrepancies."
This unresolved item concerned a substantial number of identified defects
. in a larga whip restraint essentially surrounding the mainsteam and feed
]. water lines located several' feet ou'tside of the AS?1E code boundry point.
] The device was engineered by the licensee's A/E and manufactured by NPS Industries. Due to the overall size of the structure, it has been nick-
] named " George Washington Bridge" by the site labor and quality forces. The 3
j licensee had reported the finding of the defects as a potential 50.55(e) 1 item to the SRIC on September 30, 1982, which was subsequently stated not
~i reportable in a letter dated December 27, 1982. An NRC inspector followed 1 up on the matter during a visit to the offices of the A/E, as documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/83-12. This review pertained to all of the
! defects involved with the exception of two cracked welds that had not been
! analyzed at the time of the inspection. The engineer has recently analyzed these two defects and has detennined that had they not been detecteri, the q structure could have fulfilled it's function. The SRIC has reviewed the location of the cracks and their length in relation to the size of the welds and the functional application of the structure. Since the structure has no continuous service application and is essentially subject to a one-time loading, the cracks would not have the potential for further propagation.
Further, the cracks are at points in the structure that would receive rela-
. tively low stresses in the one-time impact based on their small size in relation to the members being welded. It appears that the cracks formed due to the stresses developed during the tightening of high strength bolting in
- .._% mM- # ^i im
- _ __ 1 C
1 i the immediate -vicinity of the welds during the site assembly of the structure.
Taken in conjunction with the earlier documented review of the engineers '
calculations and the SRIC's review of these cracks, the SRIC has concluded that the engin'eer's overall analysis was adequate and that deficiency (s) were not reportable under 50.55(e). Both the licensee's initial report (CP-82-12) t and the abov'e ! identified unresolved item are considered closed.
} ' ~
! It shou 1d'be 'noted for the record that this closure only applies to the reportability aspects under 50.55(e) and not to the correction of the defects.
The defects, including the crack:s, have been documented on a nonconformance report. The final disposition and closure of the NCR will be evaluated l> during future routine inspections.
l- 3. Review of Licensee Self-Evaluation (Usino INPO Criteria)
The SRIC has reviewed a report of the licensee's self- evaluation performed l during October 1982 which was based on criteria that has been developed for l
the purpose by INPO. The evaluation was perfomed in behalf of the licen-see by personnel in the employment of Sargent & Lundy, an architect-engineer
- fim with substantial nuclear power involvement. f. copy of the report was furnished to the NRC, and subsequently, ,to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the matter of Comanche Peak Station operating license by letter dated May 2, 1983. The purpose of the review by the SRIC was to detemine if any of the 47 findings in the report were of a type and of sufficient significance to have been reported to the NRC as required by 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The SRIC reviewed each of the 47 findings and the supporting documentation in the report pertaining t'o each finding. This review revealed that none of the 47 items were based upon identified deficiencies in structures,
- systems, or components nor were there any significant deficiencies in design,
! engineering, or testing that would constitute conditions reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e).
! 4. Car Wash In Containment During the limited appearance statement portion of the Atomic Safety and l Licensing Board hearing on May 16, 1983, a person stated at transcript page 6152 that he understood that the containment looked something like a
- car wash. The person stated that it was his understanding that the situa-tion developed at about the same time that there was a meeting at the D/FW Airport between the NRC and any interested parties to discuss NRC decen-
- tralization. That meeting took place on April 5,1983. For the purposes i of evaluating this allegation, the SRIC expanded the period of interest to 1 include the 3 weeks prior to the meeting. During. this entire period, j . the Unit I reactor system was undergoing what is referred to as " Hot Func-i tional Testing". This particular test is an accurate simulation of the
) operation of the reactor system and its appurtenances but without a reactor j core being in place. The heat and pressure in the system is generated by
- the reactor coolant pumps in conjunction with the chemical and volume con-j trol system charging pumps. The test could readily be construed to be a pressure test but in fact is an operational ' test at pressure. This parti-i j cular test extended overall for about 90 days beginning late in February i'
x .. a.. - . .- : :_. ?. - = -
/ : .
4 and continuing until late May. The SRIC monitored the test but was by no means continously in the containment. The SRIC interviewed personnel in the licensee's startup test group, QC inspectors who had reason to be in the building and others to obtain a picture of the events that occurred in the Unit 1 Containment Building during the period of interest. The SRIO also reviewed the licensee's control room logs for any indication of oper-
. ational problems indicative of a major leak in any of the fluid filled systems under test. The picture obtained was that there were several small leaks, generally at the gaskets between valve bodies and their bonnets. In addition, there was a considerable amount of condensation dripoing from the reactor coolant pump motor cooling coils. This was caused by the cold water in the coils condensing the humidity from the atmosphere within the building and was not indicative of a leak in the reactor coolant system. The SRIO found from the control room logs that on March 29, a steam leak occurred during one phase of the test when a drain valve was partially open. Perhaps this valve should have remained closed. The room in which the valve was located was apparently filled with steam vapor which would have condensed out on the cooler walls as water. On March 30, the reactor vessel head vent valves were partially opened, which in turn would give seme amount of steam blowoff into the reactor refueling cavity area and woulc rise up into
.the building until coo]ed and condensed out as water. None of these events are typical of any major leak indicative of piping or piping c:mponent (such as a valve) failure. The type of small events described above are, within the experience of the SRIC, typical of what would be expected during such a test and is one of the reasons for performing the test.
- 5. Design of the HVAC System Succorts By letters, both dated March 11, 1983, Citizens Association for Sound Energy (CASE) notified the NRC's Offices of Inspection and Enforcement .and the Executive Legal Director of a concern that the HVAC system for Comanche Peak had not been properly supported, nor had it been properly considered in regard to seismic load conditions or its treatment as potential mis-s il es. CASE specifically states that from their review of the FSAR, it appears that the licensee has not analyzed the HVAC supports for a seismic load condition. Specific referent '
made to Sheet 21 Tabl e 17A.
In addition, the personal observations of 're relied upon to point out that there are no teral supports ne HVAC i systems within the containment. CASE also states that all HVAC components :
l and supports inside containment should be treated as missiles under Cri-terion.4 of the General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, 10 CFR 50, Appendix A.
l Sheet 21 of Table 17A of the FSAR lists the con'tainment ventilation sys-tems as being Seismic Category II. Apparently, it has been assumed by CASE that this category excludes seismic loading in the design. This assumption is incorrect since the FSAR, Section 3.2.1.2 defines Seismic Category II as being those portions of systems or components wnose
" en * * * * * " -
- e. .. . , . e.
5 continued function is not required but whose failure could reduce the func-tioning of any Seismic Category I system or component required to satisfy the requirements of C.I. A. through C.1.Q of P.egulatory Guide 1.29 to an unacceptable safety. level or could result in incapacitating injury to occupants of the control room. These systems are designated Non-Nuclear
, Safety (NNS)' Seismic Category II and are designed and constructed so that a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) will not cause such a failure.
CASE also states that if the HVAC systems within the containment failed during a SSE, this would allow the temperature within the containment to rise quickly to unacceptable levels ~which could over time cause compon-ents and monitoring equipment to fail and which could also mean that it might be impossible for workers to enter the containment due to the heat.
~ , Containment heat removal is required by Criterion 38 of the General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants. The system to remove heat from the reactor containment at Comanche Peak does not rely on the HVAC system but rather is composed of two separate containment spray recirculation trains each with 100 percent capacity. Each train contains two separate pumps, one heat exhanger, and seven spray headers, and each system is ' fed frem its individual electrical Class IE bus. The containment heat removal
~ system is designed to ensure that the failure of any single active ccm:on-ent, assuming the availability of either onsite or offsite power exclusively, does not prevent the system from accomplishing its planned safety function.
CASE's concern with being able to enter the containment following certain design basis accidents is unfounded in that it is not a requirement.
In order to assess the adequacy of the design of HVAC supports, an inspec-tion was conducted at the home office of " Corporate Consulting & Develep-ment Company, LTD. ," the support design consultant. It was determined that all permanent HVAC supports are analyzed for seismic loading. Two methods are utilized: Zero Peak' Acclera. tion (ZPA), or 1.5 Times the Peak Accelera-tion-When the Fundamental Frequency Falls Below 20 Hertz. Of the latter method of design, only about 6 out of 4000 supports have been designed that way. A typical HVAC t run is supported ially at every. third support This may explain why may have felt that there we're no lateral supports'on tn HVAC systems. ne NRC inspector reviewed the design of a typical HVAC duct run at elevation 852'-6" in the Auxiliary
. Building. Supports were designed utilizing two computer programs entitled FEASA-2D and FEASA-3D. The acronym stands for frame eigensalue and stress
. analysis. The -2D version is used on the transverse supports and the -30 l version is used on the axial supports. The inclusion of equivalent weights from both up and downstream transverse supports and accesories such as vol-ume campers and vane turns in the design of the axial supports was verified.
This inspection verified the adequacy of the siesmic design techniques being utilized for the design of HVAC supports at Comanche Peak.
The concerns expressed by CASE have been found to be without merit.
Persons contacted during the course of the inspection at Corporate Consulting
- ~
6
- & Development Company, LTD. were:
J. Roland Yow, President & Chief Executive Officer Gary Hughes , Vice-President for Operations David Lindley, Principal Engineer
< Stephen Lehrman, Seismic Department Manager Daryl Hughes, Project Engineer ,
f 6. Heatino, Ventilation, and Air Conditionino System (HVAC) i During the CAT inspection (NRC nspection Report 50-45/83-18; 50-446/83-12),
1 the CAT inspectors noted that a significant portion of the welds on the ducting i support structures were deficient in relation to the applicable welding code
- requirements. The dominate deficient condition noted was that the welds were i significantly undersized. Based upon this information the SRIC toured various 5 -
areas of the facility with special emphasis on the ducting in the
. Unit 2 Containment Building since that was one of the more recent areas of installation by the HVAC contractor. In accordance with
, the design drawings, the bulk of the welds should have been fillet 4
welds with hinch leg size. The SRIC noted by visual comparison to the hinch thick base metal that very few of the welds were of proper size. The CAT inspectors also found cases where the bolting
- and gaskets between ducting sections were loose and/or missing.
The CAT inspectors also found that some support members 'were not within the dimensional-tolerances on the design drawings. It was noted that the contractor's inspection records did not reveal these various facts, indicating ineffectual QC by the contractor. Further, a review of the licensee's audit program indicated that the licensee was unaware of these several problems in the fabrication, installation, and inspection of the HVAC systems. Based upon the CAT inspectors' findings and his own observations, the SRIC recommended that a
< notice of violation be issued to the licensee pertaining collectively to these matters (Notice of Violation issued on May 31, 1983.
Rererence e0-445/83-18 and 50-446/83-12, item 4).
- 7. Installation of Major Items of Eouipment The CAT inspectors noted during their inspections of certain major j items of equipment that there were several variables in how the h equipment was fastened to the building equipment pads. In some
!j instances, tanks for example, CAT inspectors found that there were i two nuts-(double nuts) on the embedded bolts securing the equipment,
!j other bolts had one nut, (single nut) and some had a combination of H both single nuts and double nuts on one piece of equipment. The 9 CAT personnel also noted that certain heat exchangers had slotted I holes in one of the mounting bases to allow for thermal expansion during operation. The holddown nuts appeared to be installed too tightly and may have prevented freedom of movement. The SRIC
.] obtained the design and installation drawings for two of the referenced heat exchangers identified in the CAT report. Both were found to be horizontal Utube heat exchangers whose function is nonsafety, but whose pressure boundary in the tubes is safety-related since the process fluid could be radioactive. The SRIC found that the construction drawings for the mounting pedestals had a flat steel plate on one
~
-m. , ,
ac 7
T pedestal that would be suitable for the type of mounting detail
! on these heat exchangers. The SRIC then reviewed the installation travelers for each heat exchanger and found that these documents l did not note or address the slotted details , the plate, or the fact i the bolts should be left loose. The SRIC would note that the I vendor manual which provides the details does not provide information
( on how loose or tight the nuts should be nor how these nuts are to j ~
be locked at.that looseness or some torque value. The SRIC with the assistance of site QC and craft labor had one of six nuts
- loosened on heat exchanger TCX-CSAHLD-01. On all six of the studs involved, each had only one nut (single nut). The one nut that '
i was loosened had been very tight, as evidenced by the amount of i force required to break the nut loose. On another heat exchanger j of comparable design, it was found that each stud was double nuted and when the top nut was loosened, the second nut was approximately j one flat (about 1/6 of a turn) from being fully tight. This degree
- of looseness should allcw sufficient freedom of movement. During j the document review, the SRIC found that the engineer had specified i that all rotating and vibrating equipment should be double nutted
- and that other equipment could be secured with only one nut. No
- document could be located that established the identity of vibrating i equipment nor were there any apparent provisions made to lock nuts where they must be deliberately left loose. This was considered overall to be a violation of Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 (Notice of Violation was issued on May 31, 1983. Reference
- Notice of Violation 50-445/83-18 and 50-446/83-12, item 1).
- 8. Maintenance of Eauioment In Outdoor Storace Areas The CAT found that a considerable amount of equipment such as pipe
- support struts , clamps , and like items, normally stored outdoors ,
I was not being properly maintained in accordance with procedure MCP-10, j " Storage and Storage Maintenance of Mechanical and Electrical j Equipment", as evidenced by rusting bolts and adjustment screws on struts . In addition, the strut bearings were dirty from dust and the bearing load pins, in some instances, were[ rusted. By a tour
- of the storage areas , the SRIC confinned the CAT inspectors find-1 ings. The SRIC would also note that the INPO Self-Evaluation l Report at page 111 describes essentially the same finding. This i situation was determined to be a violation of C'riterion XIII of i Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 (Notice of Violation issued on May 31,
]' 1983.
Reference:
Notice of Violation 50-445/83-18 and 50-446/83-12, i tem 2) . The SRIC would note for the record that there is little evidence that any items which indicated s;bstantial deterioration from such storage conditions have in fact been installed in the nuclear power block. It would appear that the various items involved have been cleaned and restored prior to installation such that they can perform the required function.
- 9. Obsolete and/or Illeaible Drawinas In The Field O The CAT inspectors found a group of drawings in one particular area h adjacent to the control room that were found to be out, of date by Q up to several issues and further, that some drawings in other areas were incomplete in the title and revision blocks. The SRIC discussed
^
. .L.
8 the fino'ing with supervisory personnel of the licensee's central document control center who indicated that they had located the drawings identified by the CAT inspectors along with many more that were obsolete in other areas. It was stated that distribution system for engineering drawings had become faulted by the simple j
volume and by the need for so many points of distribution and audit verification thereof. Since problems are obviously still present, it was determined that the licensee had violated Criterion VI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 (Notice of Violation was issued on May 31, i ^
1983.
Reference:
Notice of Violation 50-445/83-18 and 50-446/83-12, j iteni 3) and that substantial steps would be required to correct the 1 problems.
^4
- 10. Alleaations Relative To Imorecerly Sucoorted Items In The Control Room J The president of CASE in a letter dated March 11, 1983, addressed to 1 -
Mr. Richard C. DeYoung, Director of the NRC Office of Inspection and Enfor:
ment, indicated that CASE had received information from an unidentified sot to the effect that:
1 l a. There is field run conduit above the control room supported only by wi re_ .
l:
- b. There is drywall (or sheet rock) that is supported by wire.
- c. There may be lights that are supported by wire.
- i The SRIC has examined the ' suspended ceiling and the area above the su:;-
4 pended ceiling in the control room area and has examined the pertinent
, engineering drawings depicting both in relation to these allegations with
, the following findings:
1 y a. There is a considerable amount of both safety-related and nonsafety 4 '
related conduit in the area above the suspended ceiling. The safety-
. related conduit is supported by Seismic Category I supports typical
- of those used in other areas of the facility. The nonsafety-related Li '
conduits are generally supported by simpler and less substantial sup-ports that are typical of those that the SRIC has observed in large q open factories and are not designed to seismic standards. In each U case examined, the non-seismic support was structurally paralleled a with a small stainless steel cable that would assume the full weight i of the conduit were the norinal support to fail in a seismic event.
- i
- b. The drywall materials were found to be part of the suspended ceiling above the central part of the control room and to form a part of the sloping wall area below the control room observation room. These dry-
- wall materials have been securely fastened to a metal frame work e (metal batten') which in turn is supported by conventional and'non-seismic straps and wires to the concrete primary building. The frame j _
work is also attached to a system of stainless steel cables which.in turn also attach to the primary structure such that if normal sup-ports fail during a seismic event, the weight of the framing and drywall will be assumed by the cabling thus preventing the materials from falling.
.L ___\ .. _ ___, ,, _.
- - + -
=
- 9
- c. The lighting fixtures in the control room are supported from an l intermediate substructure of "unistrut" by light-weight conduit. l
, The substructure is likewise supported by the same type of conduit !
from the primary structure ceiling. The conduit used appears !
to be the typical of that supporting the light fixtures in most
. offices with suspended ceilings. Paralled with each conduit are two small stainless steel cables which would assume the loao
, if the conduit or its attachment were to fail. In the case of the actual light. fixtures , the cable is attached to the light fixture at the edge of the reflector assembly.
4
? The SRIC would note for the record that above described design d features appear to fully satisfy the intent of the licensee's commitment to o comply with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.29, " Seismic Design Classification."
! The licensee has used terminology in the classification system that is at
.j - variance with that of the regulatory guide but is explained and defined in Section 3.2 of the FSAR. In essence, the licensee has defined all safety-related items that must remain fully functional during and after a jl seismic event as Seismic Category I. Items not having a safety function J but whose failure could damage components which have a safety function ji or cause injury to the occupants of the control room during an event are referred to as Seismic Category II. In the case of the items involved in j this allegation, all are Seismic Category II since their falling could 1 cause injury to the control operators. The cabling system described can be expected to prevent such a fall even though the normal supports could possibly fail. The stainless steel cable used in this design feature,
.: which at a short distance away looks much like bright galvanized common steel 1 wire, is of relatively high strength.. As an example, the test strength of j8 an 1/8-inch cable is in excess of 1760 pounds. With four cables attached to a light fixture, two at each end, the total support capability of the
- cables is over 7000 pounds. It is apparent that the designers have elected to use conventional suspended ceiling and light fixture support techniques in order to use conventional and available materials and then provide a high strength backup support system in a seismic event.
a l No violations or deviations were identified during this special inspection
{l effort. ,
- 11. Placement and Curina of Concrete Durino Freezina Weather h
During the limited public appearance portion of the Atomic Safety and L Licensing Board (Board) hearing conducted on May 15, 1983, there were two references to the placing of concrete in freezing weather at the Comanche Peak Station which in turn lead to a question from the Board to tha NRC staff as to whether there were any NRC personnel present with knowledge of the matter. The two references are at 6106 and 6134 of the hearing transcript while the Board question is at 6109. Also at 6109, an uni-dentified voice responded to the Board that the matter had been reported in IE inspection reports. Research of the NRC inspection reoorts revealed that there had been such a discussion in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-01 which was categorized as an unresolved item pending the licensee's review and action on their finding of the problem. The unresolved item was further discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-04 with the closure of the item by an improvement in the QA procedures.
e k :N..- -
__ ~_ --
10
, she SRIC has reviewed the matter, particularily with a view toward deter-mining whether the practices involved actually caused damage to the concrete i nvol ved .. The primary focus of NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-01 (Details II, paragragh 5) was directed toward two licensee " Site Surveillance Reports" which had been prepared approximately 2 weeks earlier than the inspection period covered by the inspection report. The first'of the licensee's reports (C-134-77) was directed.specifically to findings by a licensee inspector that the-surface temperature of Concrete Placement 101-2808-001 some 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> a after the placement was completed were well below freezing in some locations.
j The other licensee report (C-135-77) was directed toward records and was not considered in this review. The 'SRIC obtained the necessary records to review the matter and found that placement 101-2808-001 had taken
] place on December 30, 1976, being completed at approximately 6:00 p.m.
j - Later, the same evening at approximately midnight, the licensee inspector j found that some surface areas were chilled to as low as 200F. The records j reflect, however, that there was disagreement between the S&R inspection j personnel assigned to monitoring the curing of the placement and the 4 licensee's inspector as to what the surface temperatures actually were.
j The B&R personnel contended that the licensee inspector was actally mea-suring the air temperature rather than the temperature of the concrete. No resolution of that disagreement was reflected in the records. The SRIC i i.1terviewed the licensee ins'pector of record during the course of this
- review to gain a clearer understanding of the events which took place.
d The licensee inspector stated during the interview that he was confident that his measurements were accurate and also stated that there was no phy-il sical evidence that the concrete was frozen even though the surface
? temperatures were well below freezing. The records also reflect that in
) order to resolve the issue, swiss hammer tests were run on the suspect l areas after the concrete had fully cured. These tests indicated that the suspect areas had attained strengths comparable to known properly cured a areas, indicating that the concrete had not been damaged even though the i possibility exists that it had been frozen for a period of time. The
~
records reflect that good concrete curing temperatures, i.e., above 400F ,
were established and maintained shortly after the licensee's' inspector's observation.
j -
For the record, the SRIC would note that Placement 101-2801-001 took place in the Unit 1 Reactor Building.- The placement became the open area floor
- at the lowest full floor in the building. This floor area, while suppor-Q ting some equipment, serves primarily as a walk area. As such, it is fully topped with an architural concrete making the structural concrete no longer accessable.
~
NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-01 also discussed comparable events to that documented on Surveillance Report C-135-77. One of these events was docu-mented by Surveillance Report C-068-76 on January 7, 1976, and on B&R deficiency / disposition reports (now titled nonconfomance reports).
These documents indicate that on January 7,1976, the surface temperature of Placement 105-2773-001, the foundation basemat for the Unit 1 Safecuards '
Building, were found f(czen as evidenced by frozen wet burlap over certain areas that were not covered by insulating blankets. The records also me _ <- += wy- - , =
- =re-eene
ll L
reveal that the reported finding took place almost 7 days after the place-
} ment of the concrete. Although the placement should not have been allowed to freeze in the time frame involved in accordance with the project speci-fication; the placement was accepted "use-as-is" on the premise that the curing temperatures during the 7 days were conducive to a good cure and that after 7 days there would be little free water in the concrete to freeze even though the burlap was froze. This conclusion is considered valid by the
} .
SRIC based.orf his review of publi' cations of the American Concrete Institute and the Bureau of Recl.amation. Further, in responding to a separate finding
- that the field cure t&st cylinders made for the placement tested lower than
]' allowed by the project specificatioris, swiss hammer tests were performed.
The swiss hammer tests indicated the concrete placement had full specified i s trength. Relative to the low reported strengths of the field cure cylin-
! ,, ders, the SRIC would note that in his experience field cure cylinders will j frequently test low under cold weather conditions. The reason is that the cylinders' small mass generates little heat of hydration, thus making them either more vulnerable to freezing and/or curing much slower than normal due l to their depressed temperature.
The final events covered by NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-01 included -
j, DDR-C-460 which in turn discussed low temperatures during the curing per-1 iod of three sepat ate placements that were made during the late December uime period of 1976. In each case, the records reflect that the placements I were accepted "use-as-is" since the least amount of cure time was 9 days, j again with good conditions until the cold weather occurred.
1 j The NRC inspector involved in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-04 which closed i' the unresolved issue has stated that he had visually inspected each of the placements discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-01 for evidence of damaged concrete and found none. NRC Inspection Report 50-445/77-04 did not reflect those inspections since the NRC inspector was aware that the
! concern was for prevention of repetition rather than any specific concern about the quality of the placements involved.
The SRIC would note for the record that there are no regulatory or industry r prohibitions on placing concrete in cold weather conditions. The American Concrete Institute and the0 Bureau of Reclamation both indicate that if the
! fresh <.oncrete is above 40 F at the time of placement, the chemical process q of hydratiori will generate sufficient heat to prevent the concrete from 1 freezing provided that precautions a. e taken to prevent heat loss. In mass concrete applications, the greatest danger to the concrete is on the exposed surface areas, particularily at corners and other edges of the placement.
It would be exceedingly rare for the mass of the concrete to freeze and p
sustain damage. These publications also indicate that even if frozen, the concrete will normally cure to full design strengths if temperatures con-ducive to the hydration process are restored.
- 12. Alleaations Relative To The As-Built Verification and Desian Verification Activities.
- During April 1983, NRC personnel received allegations to the effect that
- a. -
i 12 U 'N 1
1 'gm
/
maQeM#
Mmemif8DNea%fdMhe@m e , dedVEdMWfNbDd,w(.1ngs TPtbe{tCA Y W i. d h , W ar m ate, A second allegation from the same person
- indicated that the QA group charged with responsibility for verifying that design changes have been-incorporated into the plant and that the inspection records for the installations accurately reflected that incorporation was a .
being required with the use of a computer generated status document to
, make the verification M mmA The allegation was that the computer list-4 ing w s-f aM..ty-2nGref _-ore ,- the_veriFc. ath. irref.f.or c -
s equally. faulted.
- . - .-y -y-: - - - nn
- + _ _ . . _ . . , _
_ .,w.
y fsthe
[ The'SRIC allegation andhasasexamined to whether theeach allegation has or will of these have ar effectas allecations on to
the f the safety of the facility when operatino. In recard to the first allega \
tion, the . The allegation,\
i however, does not appear to have any significant impact on safety in that i the as-built inspection was not developed to assure that the " Vendor Cer- i
- tified Drawing" was an accurate representation of the support in all aspects. ij i j The as-built program was established to assure only that the support loca- .I g '
s -
k g' gthe tionpurposes on the supported of performing pipethe and the final pipedirecti_on of support is accurate forThe re stress analysis.
l \ ity for assuring the support members and other characteristics of the /,
\ individual suppor reflect the design drawing requirements reside ~ in other / i N' QA groups associa d with the fabrication and installation efforts. To also /
perform these functions in the as-built verification inspection would be,a' /
dundant inspection that would not contribute sionificantly to the safety I
}funition. M fny-civen support. .-
~
. ,,__r - /
NPQ -
gcy - .. . ~ __.m _ __
.. Regarding the second allegation, the SRIC found that it too was factual but
- I only at the specific time the allegation was made. When making 'the allega-
] tion, the alleger provided the NRC personnel with a reference to a QC inspection report which he said would fully display his concern. This l! report, identified as IR DCV-00421, was found to contain notation that the l! verification was based on a computer tabulation and that the report was
!! being completed at the direction of the inspector's supervisor. The original report was dated April 4,1983. The pemanent file copy was found to have j
been marked " voided" by the originating inspector as of May 20, 1983, with a notation that the report had been superceded by IR DCV-00423. This l! latter inspection report was examined by the SRIC and found to document essentially the same inspection effort by the same inspector but without any notation of having been based upon a computer tabulation and without notation of apparent protest of directions given by supervision.
The 4
SRIC interviewed the QC inspector who prepared and signed all of the i reports noted abo te in o-der to ascertain what had and is transpiring in
, the QC design verification program effort. The inspector stated that the H attempt to use the computer based data in the performance of the assigned task was in error from the beginning because of errors by persons genera-
. ting the computer data. The interviewee stated that only the one verifica-tion effort had been done using the computer based data and that all prior and subsequent verifications have been done by the assigned inspectors directly and personally examining the existent quality records in compli-ance with applicable OC procedures for the task. He stated *that the only
~
13 .;'
h procedural deviation was the one instance stated in the allegation. Dis-4 cussions between the groQp supervisor at the time the ' allegation was received and the SRIC indicated that he had attempted to use the computer tabulation to expedite the task on a trial basis by management direction and that he had caused the original inspection report to be filed as it was to give management a picture of the faults in the computerized data. It thus appears that the design verification effort has been perfonned in
_ accordance with procedures except for the one-time per.tubation that was subseque'nt" correctly reaccomplished in accordance with approved proce-
~
dures. .
o No violation to NRC requirements were revealed during this special 1 inspection effort.
- 13. Imorocerly Certified Liouid penetrant Examination Materials g
3 The CASE informed the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board by a letter dated May 18, 1983, of a potential problem with the liquid penetrant materials in use at the Comanche Peak Station. The letter stated that CASE had been made aware of the potential problem during a phone conversation with Charles A.
Atchison, who in turn learned of the " problem" from a . Dallas area represen-tative of the Magna-Flux Corporation, the orginal manufacturer of the material.
The letter states that the problem surfaced only 7 to 10 days earlier. Based on the date of the letter, it would seem that the problem arose between 1 approximately May 8 to May 11,1983.
3 The situation bears close resemblance to the situation outlined beginning with NRC Inspection Report 50-445'/82-18;50-446/82-09 based upon an inspection conducted during the period of September 7-10, 1982. The NRC inspector noted that some certified test result documents had been altered by " pen and ink"
] changes not immediately explainable. The matter was considered unresolved 1 at that time. During a second inspection of the matter, conducted during November 1982 and documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-446/82-11, the j inspector found that previous corrective actions were not adequate and ' fur-b ther that the " pen and ink" channes sometimes didn't match the type of j material being certified. A Notice of Violation was issued as part of the ij inspection report on the matter. The licensee responded to the Notice of l Violation by a letter dated December 21, 1982, wherein he stated that a l supplier had altered the certificates but that the original manufacturer had been able to furnish valid certificates and further, that all future
] purchases would be direct from the manufacturer rather from a " middle-man" it supplier. The licensee also stated that specific receiving inspection pro-cedures had been implemented to prevent repetition. NRC Inspection Report 50-445/83-10;50-446/83-05 doc.imented verification that the licensee's actions were acceptable and the matter was closed. -
l It appears that the situation outlined in the CASE letter parallels the i NRC findings in all details except for the dates which probably arose as a result of misun'derstood or incomplete communications betveen the P
- es. -
l .,C l ,-. ..
} 14
~
l Magna-Flux representative and nd/or with CASE.
CASE also posed two questions on the matter as follows:
- a. Has an NCR been written on this problem?
Answer:
The above discussed inspection reports document a total of
~
-- 'five NCR's that were issued. .
- b. Has either TUGC0 or Texas Utilities or B&R notified the hRC of this probl em?
Answer: The roles of reportability were effectively reversed in that the NRC identified the problem and notified the
.l i c ensee.
A need for further NRC action on this matter has not been identified and the matter is considered closed.
14 Penetration Seals This special inspection was undertaken to ascertain the validity and sig- I nificance of >1 legations received initially by an NRC Headquarters Duty Officer on or about March 22, 1983, which were confirmed and added to during a telephone interview with the alleger on March 23, 1983, by the SRIC and a NRC inspector assigned to NRC Region I. The allegations , as understood by the SRIC, were:
- a. The overlap seal for flexible boots should be 3 inches whereas 2 inches is being used by BISCO.
- b. There maybe a problem with the strength of the fabric used in the flexible boots since the material supplier and BISCO are involved in a lawsuit.
- c. The aggregate used in a radiation seal may separate giving rise to improper personnel protection.
Since BISCO was and is on the Comanche Peak site installing seals, Region IV was selected for the purpose of this special inspection although the ccm-pany has' involvement at several other nuclear power sites throughout the United States. The SRIC obtainec from the BISCO site manager all of the production and quality procedures applicable to the vork at CPSES as well as some-that are'not. The alleger specifically mentioned that the NRC~
should review Procedures QC-507, SP-504, SP-505, SP-505-1, and SP-505-2 in regard to the flexible boot overlap problem. Each of the above procedures was in the books offered to the SRIC for review. A brief discussion fol-lows as to the contents of these procedures:
- a. OCP-507: This procedure covers the final insoection of installed l
15 flexible boots. The amount of overlap is not mentioned in the procedure, although the procedure does require that the seam be examined for evidence of poor sealing such as " fish-mouthing" which is taken to mean that the exposed edge of j the overlap is puckered and not adhering to the base fabric.
- b. SP-504: . This procedure provides instructions and a calculation sheet to initially cut the fabric into a shape that would subse-4 quently allow the formation of a truncated cone. The formula l.j on the calculation sheet requires that 1-inch be added at a each edge of the fan shaped fabric which is evidently to pro-
! vide the overlap. The base formula prior to adding the d 1-inch prevides a dimension just equal to the circumference 1 -
of the pipe and/or sleeve to which the boot will be attached.
a Thus, the 1-inch at each edge will provide for 2-inches
- of overlap, assuming that the pipe cnd sleeve are concentric.
d If pipe and sleeve are not concentric, the resulting cone j will be skewed and the seam overlap will be something other j
a than 2-inches. -
l c. SP-505: This is a aeneric procedure for the installation.of flex-
- . ible boots. It was noted that the procedure requires that i the adhesive for the overlap seam be spread over a 3-inch gi depth from the fabric edge prior to fitting up the fabric a where it is to be installed. Although no.t so stated, it
-i appears that the 3-inch width of adhesive is to provide l sufficient area of adhesive in the event the above men- '
i tioned cone skewing occurs.
- d. SP-505-1 and SP-505-2: These are additions to SP-505 having appli-cation when the boots are used as a simple pressure seal j only and for when the boot is used as part of a fire pro-3 tection seal, respectively, i
The SRIC interviewed the BISCO site manager as to whether the procedures j{ had ever required a 3-inch overlap. The site manager indicated that 3-inch j- seam had been used up to sometime in 1979 and that his homeoffice engin-q eering had then changed the seal seam detail. The SRIC reviewed the a results of a pressure differential test performed by BISCO in September 1979 3 which indicated that the fabric boot would withstand a differential pressure of 44 psig without sustaining damace. Tne project specification (2323-MS-3SF)
( requires that the pressure seal maintain its integrity only up to 2 psig.
.! While the BISCO test data does not specifically state what the overlap seam j width was on the test boot, it would strongly appear that the strength mar-J gin is so high that even a reduction of 1/3 in the area of the overlap would have the effect of changing the safety factor from 22:1 to approximately 14:1.
It is the SRIC's conclusion that while the allegation relative to the reduction in seam from 3 to 2 inches is correct, the reduction would have no significant effect on the performance of the boot in service at CPSES i
, and that, therefore, the allegation has no technical merit. ~
l
_ -h --
,_5
_,,ya "
.- - 1
..* p. ; . .
16 i
y[ : % Regarding the matter of the possibility of some undefined problem with the e boot fabric, the BISCO site manager stated that his company has been engaged in a law. suit with the supplier of the fabric but only in regard to the per-a fomance of the fabric in one application which is understood to involve the 1 tearing of the fabric after being punctured. It is understood that the i . puncturing has occurred when a gel type radiation seal hardens under radia-i .
tion. _Since: the specific design . involved is not scheduled for use at CPSES, s
the allegatien nas no technical merit. ,
Regarding the matter of possible separation of the radiation seal aggregate j[ material from the carrier material, the SRIC can only conclude that the al-
. legation is potentially correct but without apparent merit. Tne BISCO test reports indicate that the seals involved met the engineers specification.
4 The separation of the aggregate (powdered lead) from the carrier (a silicone 1 material) would appear to be process sensitive in that if they are not well i mixed, pockets of lead might form with resulting pockets of silicone without
] , sufficient lead. Since the specification and the BISCO procedures require a careful control and monitoring of the mixing process, the SRIC can only con-clude that these measures are effective in production operations as they were
- in preparation of the test samples.
. 15.
Electrical Cable Solicing The SRIC became aware that the Comanche Peak project electrical engineer had authorized the splicing of safety-related and auxiliary electrical cables within several control panels during the inspection period. Since the licensee has committed in FSAR Section 8.'1 to comply with IEEE 420,
" Trial-Use Guide for Class lE Control Switchboards for Nuclear Power Gener-I ating Stations," which forbids splicing of wiring in such panels, the SRIC judged that the licensee was deviating from these commitments. The licen-see engineer indicated that he interpreted the IEEE standard to prohibit such splicing only between the cabinet terminal boards and the cabinet i devices and did not prohibit such splicing in the field run cables attach-ing to the terminal boards. The engineer stated that action had been 4 initiated with the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to clarify the issue in the FSAR. The SRIC confirmed that such action had been initiated by a telephone conversation with the NRR Licensing Program Manager for Comanche Peak. Pending action by NRR, this matter will be considered as an i unresolved matter.
s 16. Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of non-compliance, or deviations.
2 One such item, disclosed during the inspection, is discussed in paragraph 15.
above. inis item is identified as " Splicing of Electrical Cables in Ca b i ne ts . ',' (8324-01) e
-~- T _
a . . - . : . :.- -, -
_. 1 17
- 17. Panacement Interviews Tr\ie SRIC* met with one or more of the persons identified in paragraph 1 l of this report at frequent intervals during the inspection period to f discuss the licensee's position and proposed, actions on a significant l
l number of issues which occurred during the period.
h j .
4, k
i 9
l I
9, 1
a Y
t, f' &
t e
9
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . , _ . _ . - ____ _ . - - - . w
1.' .
~
~
W JO NOT J SC_0S~r .
I1
/w m g~ q
)
RESULTS OF ItiTERVIE WITH AS RECORDED BY NRC INVESTIGATORS ft34 roots GR and Wendel E_ FROST
- F ON SEPTEMBER'h-4983_ y q
On September 1,1983,I sb Brown & Root millh Peak, was interviewed in Bav City', Texas, by HRC Investigators H. Brooks Comanche IFFIli a and Wendel E. FROST. s'tated that he had been emoloved.at Comanche Pe k from $
i stated t Jhad been his goreman, had. been)ii ' general foreman, and " )hadbeenhissuperjntendent,
^
f stated tha.t!in January 1983, his crew was installing metal plates to secure the waste moni, tor,' trolley in the Fuel Handling Building. Msaid that his crew initially use,d fand drills to make holes in the concrete, but in some cases, they _
hit rebar aryd said that. 6he i made arrangeme/1ad nts with thetocore usedrill a floor-mounted crew to have the diamond rebar cut. bit drill. M'Wstated ~
remembered mounted cp/phat a member of the drill crew (not further identified)-brought a floor that the f611owing day the drill crew employee did not come to the.. work area, so he * '
'M s,ent his helper (not further identified) to inform tated the helppr returned with one of the core drills and that he presumed the helper got the dri,ll on instructions from saio tnat when the core drill arrived, he used. it to finish drilling the holes in which he had hit rebar.
[Mremarked he then used the core drill to drill six or sevEii additional holes d neededt i o complete the remaining holes required for the track said hejdid p5 not remember whether he hit rebar on the additional holes. said this use of j the core drill was an isolated incident, and that it was the only time he used a >
core drill or cut' rebar at Comanche Peak. 3
- i 4Msaid he,renembered the blueprints used by the crew to install the detal plates _. !
I cor.tained an authorization for the cutting of one peice of rebar on each hoie. M~'~ !
said he did not'know whether CMCs or DCAs were obtained authorizing the cuts thal he j said the hole; they drilled were about 9 inches . deep and were later 5 perfomed.
signed off @by a yC inspector (not further identified). Msai'd the tracks for the' l
trolley were located ori' elevation 810 (ground level), and that'the tracks were about i 20 feet long. N., ,/ ,{
d_ M stated that on one occasion eta'dadidg
~
ent witt over helping a welder "run his lines."Msai_d he toldmthat he was a miliwricht and that ~
h helping a welder was not his job. 6said that nobody ever intimidated, threatened, 4:
or attempted to intimidate him while he worked at'Cocanche Peak. 4kgipjdeclined to (
execute a signed statement, saying he did not want to sign anthing. 'p ELD OF RESULTS OF INTERVIEW WITH [% ON Sectember 1, 1983.
SIGNATURES: [ / i E e) e //.
Wendei E. FROST, Investigator
~
H. Brooks GRlFFlh,17p.tstigator 01 Field Office 01 Field Office Region IV _ Repi,0,n l'V r? ~ . -
3 Y' L i 1b l~ ~uU,d f"&e,zQ
( D m5$5%2%KW:Lu". M.S
.e' . . . ,...g,.,
's,. ; ....L-
- ff
. y..~
..a.,::ab,.>
,g UNIT ED ST Alt 5 f,' , s' *
- N ,,'?,
,, NtiCl t 4.H REGULATORY cOMMisslofJ DO NOT DISCLOSE O *i ~7c W ASHINGTON. D C. 70555 Ur.'-
% ..... ['[
m ua y S
!!EMORAt:Dt!.' FOR: Larry Shao, Leader
~/' ,)
Civil & t'.cchanical Teaa Conanche Peak TRT \ f l [~ 6'.1 FR0ll.'
Shou-nien Hou liechanical & Piping, TRT ,
SUBJECT:
INTERVIEt! 141TH ALLEGERS (11/8/84-1I/l4/84)
Enclosed herewith are summaries of recent interviews with allegers conducted by TRT menbers in the Mechanical & Piping area. Highlights of discussions, interview results, and suggested follo.vup actions, if any, are included. ;
'I
'M <W Shou-nien Ho.:
Mechanical & Piping, TRT
Enclosure:
As stated cc: V. Noonan l
t
~
... _ Oca-e Q' A' n._,A1'h~
lMU i U V ' 'I P E r (I b.u u , -(4 h,d JA osfm !
k r ko
- _ .. -._,..n-=---- - -_
.- ---=s-w
DO NOT DISCLOSE $S . . ? ln FIELD WALK 00WN WITH fpy C. gu. q..)f
.;.o DO NOT DISCLOSE On 11-7-84 the RRI, J. Cummings, and I went on a field walkdown with and the folloiwng items were discussed:
(1) A feedwater restraint along the inner wall of the Reactor Building (RB) in Unit I was pointed out. During the installation the alleger stated that it was necessary to bend the rods that i were screwed into the Richmond inserts. This bending was accomplished by heating and banging on the rods. Since the base !
l plate for this restraint is very large and contains numerous holes this allegation has a high probability of being true even if the inserts were within their tolerance. (New Allegation)
(2) also pointed out the stainless steel line that he alleged had unauthorized welding performed without a required purge. He stated that the welding was done by a welding foreman named Joe Grey. He, however, could not point out the exact weld but indicated one of three possibilities. (M/P CAT 6, AW-45, V. Ferrarini)
(3) He also pointed r>ut a restraint that had holes out of round in tube steel. He was not sure which Steam Generator (SG) bay it was located in; however, he said a man named Louis Hail cut them. He stated that Mr. Hail did so under orders. M/P CAT 32, AH-18, R. Masterson)
(4) The alleger pointed out a fit-up gap problem on a main steam (MS) restraint on the MS line from SG No. 4. (New Allegation)
(5) The alleger also showed us an area on the turbine deck where rebar was cut without authorization. Note the turbine building is a non seismic category 1 structure and therefore this problem is not a safety concern.
(6) He also showed where the polar crane was attached to the No. 1 MS line and used to pull the piping to elevation. (M/P CAT 11, AR-13, W. P. Chen)
The major new concerns that were raised are:
- a. How did the bending.of the rods affect the rod's ultimate strength.
- b. What effect did the heating and banging of the rods have on the Richmond inserts?
- c. What was the effect on the ultimate strengt'h' of the concrete insert?
Upon leaving,( sWhhW qwwqg) stated that he has talked to the NRC numerous times in the past and~has giv,en them numerous names and nothing has ever happened.
I think that it is very important to point out that during our walkdown
[_ 6 jwas approached by at least 12, construction personnel who were happy to see him. It appears that he is well ljked by the plant construction personnel. This writer feels that
, in general, is very knowledgeable and a capable construction worker. _
.: v ;,; . "
Telephone Interview with DO NOT DISCLOSE 1:00 p.m. 11/8/84 AW-66 The TRT discussed the results of our review with was told that based upon the TRT's interviews with both B Q.C. personnel and several welders who worked at the site in December 1981, the TRT could neither substantiate or refute f
the allegation. The TRT also said that since QC stopped the ;
3 work during this occurrence that was evidence that the Q.C.
system was working. The TRT then asked, for any further g
i information concerning this incident and he provided the following infonnation:
(1) Mr. Nicholas Reynolds, a TUSI lawyer, has a transcript of an ;
interview with where he described the incident and identifiefs other welders who were present during the l I
incident. i g,g ..< n n ? 3 ;
(2) An 01 report dated h di 7, ISGi-gdescribes an interview !
between( and Mr. Brooks Griffin of OI .during which time the same information as in (1) was given to the NRC.
(3) identified two welders who were witnesses to the occurrence as h, (4) The incident took place in the lower valve room of RB 1.
(5) My jstated that Q.C. stopped the work approximately 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> after the start of both the welding and concrete chipping activities.
Whenf; [thhff was asked about any other similar occurrences that he witnessed, he provided the following information.
F
.% . x l. v .L
, h Rs
? -
lA y __
l*
(,.l-
, ' " U. ,, j 4
DO NOT DISCLOSE 4 T
a Telephone interview with November 8, 1984 Category 24 ]
Allegation: AQW - 70 [1 :
k TRT told the alleger that a review of the records did not reveal that the {
two welders mentioned had been burning 240 rods per day. The TRT emphasized f that the weld foreman was probably exaggerating when he mentioned having 7l all the welders meet the 200 rods per day goal. The alleger was told that, f in any case, when the work resulting from the speed up in welding failed ?
to meet the requirements, the QC program caught these non-conforming f I items a'nd so the system worked. The alleger confirmed that, to his f l knowledge, no nonconforming items were installed. ll The alleger agreed with the conclusions reached by the TRT. Il -
lc Action Required 4' q
r The alleger suggested that the TRT call the following individuals to verify I his allegations: ,
m 6,
,e 9
.)
( f l
3 The TRT agreed to do so but stated that the TRT did not question the truth 5 of the original allegation and further information to verify it would not I change the conclusions of the SSER. I M
h R. W. Hubbard h November 9,1984 i' 1:
I.,
~
9 f
V 0
F
t
}
. . . t-L' Y.;,; ,
~
_2 DO NOT DISCLOSE i
(1) A similar incident took place in the North Valve Room of Unit 2 ?
Auxiliary Building (2) A welder by the name.of has present during the incident.
The TRT assured f that this new infonnation would be followed up and the results reported to him. j V.
R E
Li W
i R. J. Masterson l:.
L
- I k
. h y.
I l
t 9
t e
i l
t i
e l
e l
a 1
o . .
'l
. . i; Y ' . .! ;.
CONFIDENT] Al. - No1 FOR PUlil.lc 111SCl.OSl!Kl.
[L Follow up Interview With On November 14, 1984 the TRT met with[_ to review with him
~
the conclusions of the TRT's review of his concerm t Conianche Peak Steam Electric Station. The following items were discussed:
(1) All Category 16 This concern dealt with intimidation of the alleger because 3 he made suggestions on how to redesign some hangers in a tunnel. .
The TRT told g that it could find no technical soncerns E and that this allegation had been referred t.o 01 for further a review. said that the transcript of the telephone i interview written by 01, on which the TRT asked its review, t was incorrect. After M related the incident to the TRT i in detail, it was evident that the original conclusion by the TRT was still applicable.
(2) AP-24 through AP-28 Categories 34 and 35 !
These concerns primarily dealt with the verification and valida-tion of computer programs, seismic and Class 3 & 5 r piping interaction. The TRT told 6, spectra, Jthat all of the ;
computer programs that he referred to, i.e. baseplate and ! 2 piping analyses programs, had acceptable benchmark documenta- [
tion. All of these programs also had acceptance traceability of their previous revisions which showed the proper follow-up actions where required. L The TRT also toldM)that the development of the response spectra described in the FSAR was acceptable and the interaction of the seismic and non-seismic piping had been '
properly accounted for by the Damage Study Group. j i
commented on all the TRT's reviews by stating N that he thought the TRT did more work on his concerns than !
- he expected. lie also said that he was really concerned more (
l about whether the correct input data was being used in the p computer programs to result in a properly designed piping and y support sfstem and he could not understand why desien criteria was constantly changing. The TRT explained to M the -
function of QA/QC at a nuclear facility and also said that
" growing pains" in design is a normal occurrence. The important ;
fact is that design control is implemented to provide reasonable ;
assurance that the designs are acceptable.
'- ;+-
I" R. Masterson - TRT Member
~ '
1 .~
F l
W
(
._ . _ . . . ~ - -- . - - . - - - - - - - - ---A
> j
- '.- Mg. .
. . ..: :.m 1
1 Coru IDElill Al- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Follow Up Interview With On November 14, 1984 the TRT met with to review with him the conclusions of the TR1's review of his' concerns. The following was discussed:
(1) AQW Category 45 This concern dealt with improper QC inspection of a weld modifi-cation to the containment spray heat exchanger tubing supports.
( Jh ad' initiated an NCR that burn _through of the weld was unacceptable. The TRT told M that our review substantiated his allegation that there was no QC inspection to close out the NCR. The applicant had relied upon the manufacturers inspection to accept the welds. In an identical heat exchanger QC had properly inspected and accepted the welds together with the manufacturer's inspector. The TRT told Mr. Nisich that his concern was being cited as a violation of
$ , hiASYe. Jcd , WT Meh r l
I
.- ,;a
./O -
'M w
^
, . ,. % & b4V r s,
.u.
.. f .
.. .w nw NUCLEAR REGULATORY COfAMISSION 30 so;f 'y' g ;g c
~j 1-U.S. Imbnce or swesucuious nito emer acc o.iv' MW
. Q'~~ ,.
- ) ~'Y. .
- ~ . . m.
i.
/ cu RYAA PLA2A DRWt. SUCE WX I
^""**^5*"
....- : 83 SEP 12 M 11: II ,
t ,. -.. . ; -
^' .d . @; ,
[
~
- T: E 4 (.-J,.s. ,. .-
. 'l
' '"'g? l:P!ESTSM.&SJISTANCE
,gg7Ep,3 "SUPPLEMEtiTAL" TO INSPECTIO!; REPORT .s .; . .:
September 7,1983 -
SUBJECT:
CDP.AhCHE PEAR STEAK ELECTRIC STATION: I# -
ALLEGED ISPROPER CONSTRUCTIO.'s PRACTICES ' ..'. 6 RE?O;T NUMBER: A4-83-005 * .
sc i
- 1. 3 During the course of an unrelated investigation, inforir.ation was receiveo, from '
an individual who requested confidentiality, that a former Brown & Root, Inc., .
millwright had drilled holes through rebar without the required engineering authorization. ,
- ~
- 2. On September 1, 19857 this mi11 wright was interviewed and provided information-wherein ne stated he possibly crilled holes through rebar in a concrete floor witnout a Comoner.t Modification Card (CMC) or a Design Change Authorization (DCA). He explained that he drilled about 10 holes in January 1983 while.
instaliing 22 metal plates using a core orili. ris said these metal plates 3
were used it secure the trolley tracks located in the Fuel-' Handling Evilding as part of tne Waste Monitor System. He stated that he and his crew used a core criil 50rrowed from the Ce*e Drilling Crew. The millwright saic that the hcles made with the core drill were locatec or, the southwest corr.er of the trolley tracks. He explained that the blueprints he used authori:ed the ct.tting of one piece of rebar on each hole, and ne'adced that it is his belief the r, oles were drilled properly. ~
1
- 1. Tne Resuits of Interview with the former Brown & Roc. miliwright is caintainec in GI Fie*d Office, Region IV.
Attachment (* ) - Results of Ir.terview with millwrigh , da ed Septe:r.ber 1,1983.
REPORTED BY: d' h m,/ ]
h.'orooksGr11 fir.,gvestigator i
OI Field Office Regior. IV 7({ Cf $ -
APPRO'.'ED EY: '"v.u..- .
Ri:riarc K. herr,.uirector 01 Field Office Region IV a cc: / W. J. L'a rc, 01:D.:0 g i g w, i T.;W 4.L l l (w/attacnment) l P. C. Eaci, 01:DF0 (w/Ettachment) l J. T. Collir.s, RIY (w/ attachment) O
.T. F. Westerman, RIV (w/c attachment) i V %/ r 30 NOT DlSuLOSE