ML20202C169

Forwards Partially Withheld Comments on Improper Weld Practice Allegations Made in Inquiry Rept Q4-82-0005. Recommendation by Taylor That Followup Allegations Unwarranted Supported.Related Documentation Encl

ML20202C169
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/25/1982
From:	Madsen G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Herr R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20202C125	List: ML20202C121 ML20202C133 ML20202C156 ML20202C169 ML20202C175 ML20202C593
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8607110128
Download: ML20202C169 (20)

Text

^^-

v..

...w

....... ~....

N

'p '

,J*O.,"

O'NITED Sk ATES N'i NUCLE.AR REGULATORY COMMISSION h

RE GION lv 8

611 RY AN PLAZ A DRIVE. SUITE 1000 ARLINGTON.1EX AS 76011

• 's,,....7 AUG 2 51982 MEMORANDUM FOR:

R. K. Herr, Director, Investigation J.E.Gagliardo, Director,Divisiono(Resident, J. T. Collins, Regional Administrato THRU:

Reactor Project and Engineering Programs FROM:

G. L. Madsen, Chief, Reactor Project Branch 1

SUBJECT:

ALLEGED IMPR0"PER WELD PRACTICES AT CPSES, (DN:

50-445; 50-446) Q4-82-0005 A report of inquiry dated August 2, 1982, (attached) requested an evaluation by the technical staff. The results of our efforts are outlined in the attached letter from R. G. Taylor to G. L. Madsen, dated August 15, 1982.

~

On the basis of the above, I support Taylor's recommendation that follow-up is not warranted.

b YG$ W

?

G. L. Madsen, Chief Reactor Project Branch 1

Attachment:

As stated cc:

J. T. Collins T. F. Westerman G. L. Madsen 8607110128 860630 PDR FOIA CARDE85-59 PDR

.- - : m z.

u _.

3

i NJ." ;.,

22 MEMORANDUM FOR:

R. K. Herr, Director, Investigation THRU:

J. T. Collins, Regional Administrator J. E. Gagliardo, Director, Division of Resident, Reactor Project and Engineering Programs FROM:

G. L. Madsen, Chief, Reactor Project Branch 1

SUBJECT:

ALLEGED IMPROPER WELD PRACTICES AT CPSES, (DN:

50-445; 50-446) Q4-82-0005 A report of inquiry dated August 2, 1982, (attached) requested an evaluation s

by the technical staff.

The results of our efforts are outlined in the attached letter from R. G. Taylor to G. L. Madsen, dated August 15, 1982.

On the basis of the above, I support Taylor's recommendation that follow-up is not warranted.

-oncinar signed by:

L.C.f.ADSEN"Madsen, Chief G. G Reactor Project Branch 1

Attachment:

As stated cc:

J.-T. Collins

4. F. Westei man G. L. Madsen RPB1 DRRP&EP RA-RIV GLMadsen JEGagliardo JTCollins 8/ /82 8/ /82 8/ /82 g

p,7,ID*

,"i ei, q,

gh * ' g

) h ', 3,. "'

'N

,Tt

- I"! a

', '- +"

g k f #4*,,/. [ (E bl

• v+E

[,..

9

^

nk g

.g

mg..r au wws uw-u---

.a.anm.m.:.s. - < r. r ~ - m.m.

xw - >, n.,_ _...

k$

$$. - $ Z f i

Allegation No. A-82-24 1

1 ALLEGATION REVIEW

SUBJECT:

WELD PROBLEMS AT CPSES FACILITY AND DOCKET NO.:

CPSES 50-445 and 50-446 ALLEGER NAME:

h ADDRESS:

TELE. NO.:

POSITION / TITLE:

F,ormer pipe welder B&R at CPSES source of allegation J

SOURCE OF ALLEGATION:

Talked to Driskill DETAILS:

Allegations of various welding problems at CPSES were given j

ACTION ASS]GNED TO:

Investigators i

DISPOSITION:

c 4 uco 5 CLOSED

~

c

~

T l

\\

t 49 mm%.k ~. u ';i := =

.u-- - --. ~~:

J' i ~ -

L'

~ ',4. _

2

. _, ~

V.o j,.

August i3, 1982 iMORANDUM FOR: G. L. Madsen g

7HRU: T. F. Westerman W g

FROM: R. G. Taylor

/

SUBJECT:

Alleged Improper Weld Practices At CPSES Report of Inquiry dated August 2, 1982 (Q4-82-0005)

Reference:

Based upon a review of the Brown & Root terminated employee files, the alleger was identified'as follows:

N Reason for Termination:"Would not do nor.nal work duties" (Note: The employee acknowledged the above statement by signature immediately below entry)

Labor Classification: Pipe Welder The above party was the only M in either the current employee or terminated employee files.

A review of the welder qualification files indicate that the party had. qualified on two carbon steel pipe welding procedures, one for ASME/B31.1 work and one for AWS work.

Relative to the specific allegations contained in the reference:

A. ' Welders not properly trained: There are no requirements relative to the amount of training to be given a welder. 0ur only requirement pertains to welder qualification by test as in Section IX of ASME or to AWS as in 5.3.The alleger as well as all other welders inspected in the past have passed such tests.

B. QC welding inspectors did not have appropriate background in welding: We have no requirements pertaining to QC inspector background except as in ANSI N45.

2.6 which is not specific as to the discipline representing adequate experience. All welding inspectors examined during past inspections have been trained and tested within the Brown & Root or licensee programs which have been reviewed and considered adequate.

l C. Poorest quality weld rods: The quality of weld rod varies considerably from vendor to vendor even though all materials inspected in the past have met the requirements of either the ASME code or the AWS (which are the same thing).

l The writer believes that the allegation deals with the ease of welding with a given vendors rod. Some welders will experience difficulty in using a given rod but another welder may not have the same problem. Not withstanding, all.the rod examined during our inspections has met the code requirements.

D. Inaccessible welds not welded: Assuming this allegation were true, it would then be very difficult to hydrostatically test the pipe since it would appear that it would leak pretty badly.

E. Heliarc versus stick welds: The failure of the welders to follow the combinatic procedures has been identified by our inspections but in reverse. Most of welders here in the safety area are much more skilled with TIG (heliarc). Most of the combinetion processes call for a TIG root and hot pass followed by a i

stick fill. We identified a case were the welder also filled with TIG which N

"7 M/0 n

~

. ~.~ _ _. _ _.

.w, g,

g violated the procedure but probably provided a better weld. It has b:en my observation that very little stick welding has been done on pipe in the safety Most such welds have been made using TIG at least for the root with

)

area.

stick used only when a lot of fill was required as in the MS and FW pipe.

Most of the welders here would have some difficulty making an open butt weld with stick electrode although I know that some can. The alleger may have been one who could since he qualified on procedures that so required.

ipe: The only 52 inch pipe I have been able F. Welding of 52 inch " chrome-moly to f.ind is the line connecting the outlet of the high pressure turbine to the moisture separator and according to the Project Welding Engineer is of the 2.5 chrome type in welding group P-5. The sane gentleman indicated the rod type used was 9018 versus the much more common 7018. In my estimation, the allegation No such pipe exists in the safety area where all the carbon may well be true.

steel pipe is of standard alloy and in the P-1 groups. This particular pipe is within the scope of supply of the turbine vendor and it is understood that the turbine vendor supposed closely supervised the installation work of B & R. Not withstanding, the work was not in the safety areas and not within the Appendix Additional. note: The welding engineer also just informed me that B program area.

there were documented instances where the wrong procedure and material was used on some turbine chrome-moly piping. When found in the review cycle, the welds have been corrected.

l-Writer

Conclusion:

Allegations A B, and C have no regulatory basis and are simply Allegation D appears to be foolish at face value. Allegation the alleger's opinion.

D is not at all consistent with my observations. Allegation F is not in safety area and was not subject to the QA program. Given that his allegations have little merit within our scope and are substantially on the order of four years old, I suggest that -

the tine required for direct interview and/or nore followup is not warranted.

., ~

-)

(,

- h ~,.. /b ~.

I-4 9

[v I* Qh c b '

"t '..

fb "

1. a 9'--

r O

} l.

- O\\g; Q~'

tk~j'1 p

7v i

So I went anc tolc

e ea.:

ne 7

l general foreman over the contract.

I saic, ca:n, ycu nnow now M is.

I s a i d', t h a t idiot is wanting us to put tne 4

f~toor plate down.

I said you nave got a curir.; time on that.

he says well, you nnow, 6 et es get away l

6 eith a lot of stuff.

F.e saic wait until everycocy leaves and tnen we will go aneac witn it.

So we went ahead with 8

it.

I t

i 9

6 MR. GRIFFIN:

When was this?

I i

10 hell, you can checx the pour t

11 or you can enecx tne weld cards on wnen we put this floc l'

down on the liner.

Tnat is probacly 'now you can do it.

i 13 i

Tney :r.i g n t not have even used the pour card, out you can I

I.

14 i

cneck tne time that this was poured or repaired here and I'

i 15 i

the time we welded.

We. sign our weld cards and they sign I

16 tneir pour cards anc you can see how many days in between l

that was.

I e

18 I

de had some floor plates that ouckled inside f

19 the fuel tsuilding with some of that stuff stuc.< to it.

O think I put in there that we put some of that floor plate t

ni cown witnout correct time for curing time, you know.

iiu t

~~

lt is veri easy to eneen.

All you nave to ao is enecs tne t

,I l

~

pour cards and check the weld cards when we welded it.

l 2'

l onay, rebar. 6 :nat was tne general i

f foreman wno con austed r.,a c k, and I nad him settinc a 01ece 23 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16 2 5 i S TR E ET. N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D C.

200 (202! 293-3950

.d Wl m

l

%N %4

-MD

r*

o 1

I i

of equ;7.nent.

I toic nim, I said case sure You ge; 3one i

s c. i c a nd co.ne o f f your concrete floor and shim it level.

2 I

he goes, we will Just hlc off tne recar.

I said welc off j

3 l

cne rebar, you have got to De Kiccing.

That is a no-no 1

l welding recar.

He goes an, we did it all the time when se 6

I were on ene liner, anc ne was the general foreman over it.

Noa tais is just a for instance, out you might 8

ene welder and he mignt j

cnecx witn 9

enat stictly is a j

xnow cf people welding on rebar which u.e was wor,:ing with M :own there when, M 30 no-no.

set it.

I asxed g acout it anc he.<ind cf laugned like l

I2 eitner had ceen doing it or,:nowed somebody who nad ne been doing it.

But the ex-general foreman just cold me 13 t

they dic it all the time, you know, 11xe bracing off of 1#

i recar or welding something do it, i

i 1 just wanted to thow that in there.

l 16 i

1-Exnicit 14 follows: )

18 i

19 i

l 20 e

21 i

22 3l i

22 i l

25 i

TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16 2 5 i ST A f!T. H.w. - Sutit 1004 l

W /. 5 H I P*C I O *4 O C.

20006 (202' 293 3950 I

a -

a..u

a. v u..m u..a u v o..

.s c.....

bWW

%*&l E

gy

/

MR. GRIFFIN:

Did they every finish tnat

?,

I

~,

3 partic lar weld while you were there?

4 v'

No.

s 5

~

MR. GRIFFIN:

It was still in process.

6 They were still fooling with it.

7 At one time Taylor came storming in the office and wanted 8

to know, and nobody really ever answered the question.

9 Tney had so many welds and repairs and inspections and 10 wnat-not going on.

At any given weld, tnere may be four sets of paperwork floating around in the system.

Here is 12 attempt one and enere here is attempt two and there is an 13 attempt tnree. On the pipe we may be up to attempt four by 14 now, but the attempt two paperwork glob is still floating 15 around in the,syystem, you know.

You knowl just like a 16 merry-go-round, you just get on and off anywhere you want He want'edito know no[ you can tell what is going on 17 to.

18 wnere.

Well, they coulan't. There is no way. It was a 19 Catastrophe.

20 MR. HERR:

So Mr. Taylor was aware of the i

21 catastrcphe?

22 Oh, yes, sure.

M One day they had one wela that flunked tne 21 X-ray, a lack of fusion. So they out a repair order on it.

3 It.as grind out this particular weld, lack of fusion.

So i

i i

TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i

1625 I STREET, N.W. - $Ulil 1004 WASHINGTON. D C.

2000e l

l 62021 293 3950 e vu e v u v..,

h.W

-y ?,y

__a/-

=-..

. g,. - ;. ;

.y.p. _.xig:3.=...

,, =, -.

5I%-a or, 22

'l

~'

I tney gava it to some kia and tney sent him down there witn i

v[ '

a grinaer to grind tne weld.

So I guess and and Taylor hit 3

this place about the same time and he was getting set v

up.

Taylor wanted to see his paperwork and he looked at 4

it and 5

said lacg of fusion.

So he asked him what is lack of 6

fusion?

Well, the kid didn't have the faintest idea what 7

lack of fusion meant.

8 Taylor went berserk and he came running down g

9 in the office and said now can they send a guy down i

tnere 10 to weld out sometning, or to grind something out and he 11 doesn't even,:now wnat he is looking for.

l 12 So they got tnat straightened out. They eitner 13 told him what it meant or tney sent somebody else down 14 there or something.

Anywayl they got it ground out and i

15 welded the thing back up and it passed the second or third 16 or fourth X-ray, wnatever it was.

So this is this paherworkglobtnat 17 is floating along.

18 Somenow, somebody, and it might have been the l

19 same Kid got anolo of this paperwork again, and he didn't 1

20 borner to read the part at the bottom, you know, that it 21 had been fjged,.'but he saw this " lack of fusion," an ha 22 and how he knows what it means. So go goes down and grinds 21 it out again, a good weld.

24 This gets down to the supervisors not watching 25 what tneir kiddies are doing, you Know.

Tney just turn TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - 5U171 1004 f

WASH;8 TON 0.0, occe i

(2C2: 293 3950 L

M*.

N W%

e-

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.\\1PANY

.., w., T.. w r....... s..

1,... n. - 1. u. i.... - i u. u

. v. u -, u o.

......WJO.CE!.'..

February 14, 1985 Txx-4415 Mr. 0.R. Hunter, Chief Reactor Project Branch 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection & Enforcement 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Docket No.:

50-445 Arlington, TX 76012 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION THREAD ENGAGEMENT OF BOLTS FOR UNIT 1 STEAM GENERATOR UPPER LATERAL SUPPORT SEAMS QA FILE:

CP-85-03, SDAR-163 FILE NO.:

10110

Dear Mr. Hunter:

In accordance with 10CFR50.55(e), we are submitting the enclosed report of actions taken to correct a deficiency regarding anchor bolts in steam generator upper lateral supports that were found to have less than the 2 1/4" engagement as required by the design drawings.

Supporting documentation is availdole at the CPSES site for your inspector's review.

Very truly yours, 0. s &,fE'C $,..

i J

l BRC:tig Attachment t

cc:

NRC Region IV - (0 + 1 copy) i I

Director, Inspection & Enforcement (15 copies)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 r

g) q yl7 75d h

rre n,q,t',. U!

dp :p;,y C u -

%)

A U0 9'C% 00 0 %.or TE RA s E *TIL E TIE S ELECTn tr CO M Pa.%' T

-237

- T+:x 4415 2/14/85 t

ATTACMiENT s

THREAD ENGAGEMENT OF BOLTS'FOR UNIT 1 STEAM GENERATOR UPPER LATERAL SUPPORT BEAMS Description During investigation by the NRC-TRT of an allegation regarding the unauthorized shortening of anchor bolts, installation and inspection records were requested for the Unit 1 steam generator upper lateral support beams from the records vault. Upon failing to locate the records, a site nonconformance report was issued.

The disposition of the non-conformance specified inspection including ultrasonic ceasurement of the anchor bolt lengths.

The results of the ultrasonic testing indicate insufficient thread engag'ement to provide adequate design bolt engagement into the embedded plate.

Evaluation of the as-constructed data by the A/E has concluded the structures do not meet design requirements without replacement of the bolts to design engagement.

Safety Imolications In the event the condition had remained undetected, failure of the beams could adversely affect safety-related systems, components, and opera +

actions under accident conditions.

Corrective Actions Anchor bolts for the upper lateral support beams will be replaced to conform with design requirements. Construction and installation activities are scheduled to begin in early February, 1985, and will be performed in accord-ance with established project procedures.

Our response to Technical Review Team (TRT) issue V.b will address the generic implications and root cause for this deficiency.

l t

_ +.

M '

.. " p Shk' f\\h f.

- 4 ax 5

Followup of Allegation Concerning Bolts for Steam Generator V

f(

P~ 8 (/ R,((p (SG) Upper Lateral Supports An allegation was received in the Region IV office that some bolts holdin the.SG laterial supports to the wall plates had been cut off and, therefore, were incapable of securing the SG lateral supports to the imbedment plates in accordance with design requirements.

A review by the NRC inspector of the materials, drawings, specification, purchase orders, travellers, material received records, and related records documents indicated that the licensee purchased 144 AS40GT 823 Class 4 /

2-1/2-inch diameter bolts 9 inches in length.

The licensee purchased these 144 bolts 1-1/2 inches too long and then cut each of these bolts to 7-1/2-inch length to meet delivery and scheduling requirements.

The rework (cutting 1-1/2 inches off the 9-inch length of each bolt) was authorized by the licensee and is documented in work package MR8-0550-013-R8.

The licensee did cut 1-1/2 inches off each bolt; therefore, in substance, this allegation was substantiated.

However, there is no technical, merit C

nor safety concern related to cutting 1-1/2 inches off the length of each

/

bolt. (Thdther altern4tive Tor i m, i.a i i a t1 o r17f thFs h' 144 b o l ts, tha t we re#

~

tentionally purchased 1-1/2 inches too'long, was shimming with 1-1/2 inches of material under the hex head on each bolt.

y

./

The original design required hex head bolts -1f2Tnaies in length and 2-1/2 inches in diameter.

The NRC inspector reviewed the following documents related to the above information:

G&H Drawing 2323-17, Rev. 1 AFC0 Steel Drawing 303 2

Purchase Order (PO) 35-1195-14915 C07 Material Received Records (MRR) 060860, 61000, and 61150 Material Test Reports (MTRs) for Charpy Impact, Tensile Strength, Chemical Analysis, Heat Treatment, and Magnaflux Testing Receiving Inspection Reports (RIR) 6008, 6256, and 6428 No violations or deviations were identfied.

6.

Preservice Inspection - Unit 1 A previous NRC inspection (50-445/82-19) reported witnessing of preservice ultrasonic inspection of Unit l's reactor coolant system piping.

It was noted in the above report that:

(1) adequate penetration of the longi-tudinal wave was not achieved as evidenced by the sporadic loss of back reflection and (2) a full volumetric examination was not achieved as evidenced by the saturation of the cathode ray display screen such that

h

~

A3! -

s,

'f..

d..

ei 1

\\

fy(, '.D

/

Q alleced tnat ir.197 /, a. supervi sor r.ameo gM inst ructec 7.

3 3_,3 I crew members to saw two in'ches off the end of'"ho d-down"' bolts'on waly'y'

. supports.in'the. Unit I Containment Building Msaid the part of thd bol t that was removed contained the ~ heat numbe'rs.

E.

6 alleged tr.at a crew r: ember named M drilled holes througr.

recar.wi.thout.. proper authorization on a trolley track in tne efuel. kand'ir.c Building. (This ir.cident was reportec uncer A4-83-005) 9.

alleged an instance in which a Erown & Root employee named W and ar. unidentified OC inspector signed off on maintenance cards ons the control rod. drive missile shield without removing the temporary

..co v e r.

10.

This report is provided to Region IV for t?chnical evaluation.

The 01 Field Office will take appropriate action, if the technical evaluation conducted by Region IV identifies significant reportable defects which a

result in a regulatory violation.

(The exhibit was provided to Region IV on September 7, 1983.)

Exhibit (1) - Transcript of 8-24-83 n

H. Brooi.s 'Gri fiin, y esti ga tor 01 Field Office, Region IV kF??0VED BY:

jf, g(

g),

icha rd L. Herr, CTirector O! Fieic Office, Region IV cc:

. i r e. 0 : :. 2G w/ exhibit

/...

'c ~ : - r, 0 : : s?0

..I'eu.iLi:

~

D

' r'

• C.' \\'

v:fo er'i:';

^

..-:ir, E. I \\

w/C ea r';

s,

AAN 5

7. -

4 Y -. E y -u r

// c n

.g:

.*M 9

Y I

instances wnere you dic work iir. properly a t tne 2

instructions of your supervisors or others?

3 6 eacx when I was here before, back 4

in '77 I guess, on the upper and lower level suppor_ts we 5

nac some bolts tnat went into tne supports on tne wall.

6 The threaos nao concrete cown in tne bottom of t n ein. OKay, insteau of cleaning tne tareaos out gooa, spending time 8

to clean tne threads, I was instructed to cut two inenes 9

oft tne hold-oown bolts anu go aheaa anu install them, on 10 wnich tney had tne heat numoer and everytning stenciled in 1[N fd)b jp 11 tnat end that we *1aa to saw oft.

p 6

12 MR. GRIFFIN:

So you were sawing heat num'er

[

c h

~

13 off of bolts?

14 Yes, sir, plus acout two inches of k

15 tnreau witn no paperwork and they are Q bolts.

16 MR. HERR:

nho tala you to do taat?

i 17 M Mac McGowan. This was bac< wnen ne 18 was nere, but he is no longer on tne jcc.

I a:n satisfiec 19 tne colts is still just 114e tney was wnen 1 le:t tnem.

20 MR. GRIFFIN:

Do you,:now wnere tney are?

23 6 They are in tr.e reactor 22 con t a i n nie n t cuilcina on the upper anc iower level 23 supports. I con't ren.erter wnetner 1.

was tne upper or tne icwer ones tnat se sawec tne colts on, out I snow I saw 25 tnree or fcur of enem ana there were a nameer of.mcre or TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET. N.W. - $UITE 1004 WA$HINGTON, D.C.

20006 (202) 293 3950

- ;.f-h$=$

ww..e:- p.

h Y hY~OOl

. :..i..

.... =

1b i

them tnat.

nac to be sawed off to get t n e e n c a g e..,e n t, vou 2

Anow, so we can torque tnem down.

All QC nad to buy on it 3

was tne tor;ue.

They clan't nave to see how mucn 4

engagement we haa on tne threaus.

5

.M R. GRIFFIN:

Oxay.

6 M I have got one more. In the fuel ouiloing on tne waste monitor system on the tracu tnat tne 8

cart runs on we put hilty bolts in to hold the track down.

9 MR. GRIFFIN:

Tnis is a switen track to handle 10 tne fuel?

))

M No, it hancies tne waste and it is 12 in tne fuel builaing, the waste track. ae nac a proolem of 13 hitting recar.

14 M Re,.

G R I.FF I N :

ditn hilty belts?

15 M Yes, sir. Okay, e coulun't drill a

16 deep enougn.

he haa paperwork to move tne hole, you xnow, 1;

tnree incnes I believe nortn and soutn but notnino east 18 anc west, and east and west was the way we was nitting j9 rebar.

Okay, we got tne paperwork on tne ones tnat we dic 20 to drill tnrougn tne recar, but this was an e/.tensicn.

I 2}

tains it was a four foot and sometning extension onto tne 22 track.

23 On do.vn tney had I guess 30 fcct ot trac.< taat 25 t.ey cic not nave tae paperwerk en to arill tarcugh the 23 rebar. % 13 the man tnat installed tae niity colts l

TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $Ulf! 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C.

20006 (202) 293 3950

b l'

-((

W ///

g AT-3 AFFIDAVIT 0 Q:

Please state your name and address.

~

A:

Q: Since your last affidavit, is them additional information you have remenbered or have knmledge about regarding the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant?

A:

Yes.

I have personal knuledge of improper welding of the stainless steel liners.

Instead of having a backing strip with a 3/16" to 3/8" gap,

/

there was just a butt weld and a heliarch wire for a fillet..Ds~o kno7ofN b

~

&("

improper installment of the CCu surge tanks. While instal: ling the tanks, the anchor bolts wem out of alignment with the holes in the base plate of the tanks, I

\\ and instead of plug welding the holes up in the base plate and redrilling to

.k k it the anchor bolt pattern, the anchor bolts wem bent over to fit the holes.

s-

, \\

Therefore, when they tried to put the tanks in the proper location, the bent x

's

'(

studs became binding in the hole. This caused the bent stud to become cut on one side and the straight studs to stretch from so much pressure being applied.

Also, the torquing was improper.

Q: Was this safety-related ("Q")?

h Yes. Both of them wre safety-mlated.

/'6

' A:

Q:

Are there other concerns?

(s O A:

Yes.

I was also told of improper bolting in the upper lateral restraint; t

i for instance, the bolts were supposed to be 7" long. When they couldn't get them in, they cut about 3" off and now they have a 2" diameter bolt with only a pene-o tration of 1/2" inside the threaded hole.

This is true on some of the bolts; I don't know how many. This was on the upper lateral restraint of the steam generators.

,g g

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!'. MISSION

~

d OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION

-DALLAS FIELD OFFICE C.

REPORT OF INQUIRY August 2,1982 SUSJECT:

INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED B&R TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 210, ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT, AT CPSES (Investiga tion No. Q4-82.-C40-)/oir) i i

1.

On June 25, 1982,

' telephonically advised the re artinc investigator that a Brown & P,oot. Inc. (B&P.)

~

at CPSES was terminated.for attempting to submit an NCR. ~

regarding improper Hilti bolt installation.

2.

On July 6,1982, Mr. Robert J. Fortman, Assistant rea Director U. S. Depart-ment of Labor, Fort Worth, Texas, advised that had filed a complaint with DOL under the provisions of the Energy Reorganizatien Act.

A copy of the DOL ietter acknowledging this. complaint is attached as Attachmant 1.

3.

On July 9, 1982, was telephonicall contacted by the reporti investigator regarding his complaint.,

stated he worked as a on the night shi ft at CPSES. fie stated his supervis had refused to all o submit an NCR on stated that an argument wit had ensued, subsequent to which was te rminate d.

tated wanted to informally apprise the craf t

%pervisor of the defect in or er su hat corrective action could be taken.

agreed to come to the NRC Region IV office for further interview.

The

' week of July 12, 1982, he cancelled two ap intments and failed to arrive for another.

No further contact was made with 4.

On July 21, 1982, the reporting investigator accompanied Mr. Robert J. Fortman to CPSES to investigate circumstances relating tom complaint.

The following persons were interviewed by Mr. Fortman, 00L, with the reporting

~

investigator present:

Randall Smith, non-ASME Mechanical QC Lead,, B&R

{

i Don Mantz, Pipe Hanger General Foreman, B&R Edward Holland, Night Shift non-ASME QC Superintendent, B&P.

I James Ragan, Night Shift ASME QC Supervisor, B&R Cecelia Payne, Night Shift non-ASME QC Inspector, B&R Interviews of the aforementioned personnel disclosed thct~

had been reassigned to the night shift non-ASME QC staff in about ear y une 1982.

Smith, Holland, Racan, and Payne' stated had not wanted to work on the night shift.

Elo11and, Ragan, and Payne statedMwas difficult to communicate with and that he had displayed a very poor attitude-w th other

1. I\\

- c.- i i o t i J(HI \\l D0' DISCLOSE

') i 2 %

') ' d CONTAINS IDENTITY OF ONFIDENTIAL SOURCE b

g,,

['.!

d C

4851 g9 1

OS li A re g o l,a ti ons,, which I understand are in.effect out l

2 there.

3 Why don't they want their inspectors at 4

Comanche Peak to know what's going on?

5 g

At the South Texas Project, when I worked Nj 6

there, they had a large technical library which was g

8 7

available for us to use.

.U s being the inspectors.

X g

8 When we had a question we wanted answered, we d

d 9

had the library available there.

Why don't they want I

i l

0 10 people to think and to learn at Comanche Peak?

g z

5 11 Material verification.

In the material y

l g '12" verification group, I have probably come across fifteen to c

i f l 13 14 They~

• -- ~

had no heat numbers of any kind.

I'd y

'{

15 turn them in to the material verification group and told r

-4 e

16 them I wouldn't sign them off, usually gave them to h

17 I don't know what; happened to them.

As far as I g

{

18 know, they were never corrected.

p 19 f

my supervisor in the hanger 20

,q,

group, told me to buy of f IIllti bolts which had already t~

21 p

been torqued and had torque seal applied by someone'else Y

22 when I came to make the final inspection.

I followed his

>4

\\ 23 request._,,

I've read the testimony of and I

' ~D 25

\\

l can testify to many of.the same things contained in his ALDERSON REPORTI.NG COMPANY, INC.

j

-/

i 4852 j

1C p/

j testimony.

i 1

2 As regard my educational background, I graduate 3

from

\\

i 1

4 5

l N

6 I've worked at e

as a Level I 7

mechanical inspector in welding.

In at the

)

{

8 as a Level II in MT, PT and Visual.

In i

d d

9 i I came back in i

)

10 a

as a Level II Mechanical Welding I

j j

11 Inspector and I took the IV certification test there and a

y 12 went from D to A in a period of six months time.

.c i s 13 Then I was laid off there.

I went back to r

14 a Level II in Mechanical Welding.

{

15 I went to work at the Comanche Peak plant. I have two a

! d I6 documented certifications fo'r VT and MIFI, Level II.

' v:

I I quit at Comanche Peak

< =

E 18

=

f:

39 5

In a deposition of he states:

n 20

" Reg Guide 1.58 says the only 21 acceptable alternative to a high school education is the General 23 l

Education Development Equivalency."

l 24 In my conversation with Mr. Taylor, with the 25 $

NRC, about this, 11 r. Taylor indicated to me that as long ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.

.. /

___ ___ _ _ _ As -/

d C

4851 which I understand are in effect out g9 1

O S 11 A re g e l,a t i o n s,.

l 2

there.

3 Why don't they want their inspectors at 4

, Comanche Peak to know what's going on?

5 At the South Texas Project, when I worked y

Nj 6

there, they had a large technical library which was g

E 7

available for us to use.

.U s being the inspectors.

X

-,g 8

When we had a question. we wanted answered, we d

0 9

l had the library available there.

Why don't they want z

h 10 people to think and to learn at Comanche Peak?

E

!5 11 Material verification.

In the material j

I,/p'12

verification group, I have probably come across fifteen to y

il/ {

13 i

14 They had no heat numbers of any kind.

I'd I

},'

l g

~

p f

15 turn them in to the material verification' group and told

-1 L

E

.]

16 them I wouldn't sign them off, usually gave them to g 17 I don't know what; happened to them.

As far as I e

{

18 know, they were never corrected.

p 19 f

i my supervisor in the hanger 20 g.

group, told me to buy off Ililti bolts which had already 21 been torqued and had torque seal applied by someone else p

8 '

22 when I came to make the final inspection.

I followed his 4

y request I've read the. testimony of and I l

25 h

can testify to many of.the same things contained in his t

ALDERSON REPORTI.NG COMPANY, INC.

__ _ _ _7'_

~

I f

~

4852 !

1C

/

testimony.

j I

2 As regard my educational background, I graduato 3

from 4

5

.o d

6 I've worked at e

as a Level I 7

mechanical inspector.in welding.

In at.the

)

8 as a Level II in MT, PT and Visual.

In dd 9

I came back in l

dog 10 as a Level II Mechartical Welding E

h 11 Inspector and I took the IV certification test there and

.g

, p 12 went from D to A in a period of six months time.

c i s 13 Then I was laid off there.

I went back to e ::

I4 a Level II in Mechanical welding.

l h

15 I went to work at the Comanche Peak plant. I have two c

}

16 documented certifications fo'r VT and MIFI, Level II.

I v.

hI I quit at Comanche Peak

, g E

18

. G 9

In a deposition of he states:

e.

20

" Reg Guide 1.58 says the only 21 acceptable alternative to a high 22 l school gducation is the General 23 N Education Development Equivalency."

l 24 In my conversation with Mr. Taylor, with the 25 p NRC, about this, Mr.

Taylor indicated to me that as long 1

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

i l4

iC 4853 3

t 11 1 as prior se,r v i c e has been acceptable to Brown & Root, i

2 the Grandfather Clause generally would allow people to work 3

without a high school education or a GED, to work as QC 4

inspectors.

5 What is the Grandfather Clause?

Where is it a5*

d 6

written up?

I'd like to see it, but Mr. Taylor mentioned a

ce 7

this to me.

8 I have looked over qualifications, d

i d

9 which are attached to his deposition, and from what I see, icg 10 he has overstated his total expertise.

i5 f' h 11 I am aware of many problems at Comanche Peak i

8 g

12 that this board should know about.

c I

13 I have appeared here today as a patriotic b

I4 American citizen concerned about the lack of proper Y

15 Quality Control procedures being followed at Comanche Peak 16 9

during the construction phase.

us H

17 Q

I would like to be available for further x

U 18 cross-examination and testify later today, if the Board k

19

. ),

would like to find out about these matters.

20 21 22

/

/

/

23 24 l

l 25 l

b I

.DERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

.l

,4 7C 4854

.1 JUDGE MILLER: Thank you, Your i

2 statement will,be received and made a part of the record.

[

3 we will ask the Applicants and the. Staff to take into 4

' consideration the matters that are covered

therein, 5

insofar as they are within the scope of the aegis of e

,%j 6

this evidentiary hearing.

R 7

Next.

r n

8 MS. MINTON: Betty Brink.

d d

9 b

/- /

/

g to E

5 11 O

d 12 Eo

5 13 a=

E 14 5=

2 15 M

16

.j

.5

!i 17 W

e K

M 18 19 g

n 20 21 22 23 24 25 s 5

i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

e e

g