ML20210T743
| ML20210T743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1983 |
| From: | Tanley G BROWN & ROOT, INC. (SUBS. OF HALLIBURTON CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B909 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8606020061 | |
| Download: ML20210T743 (100) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ b : BrownCfRoot. loc. , DECEMBER 9, 1983 [ r MILLWRIGHT / BOILERMAKER DEPT. M EMPLOYEE NAME: _ DATE HIRED: _ DATE TERMINATED: REASON: R6 DUCTION IN FORCE PROMOTION DATES: i. I a WHILE RKED FOR THE MILLWRIGHT /BOILERMAKEF
=
DEPARTMENT HIS DUTIES WERE - SECTIONS FOR'.UI l-& 2 AND FOR' UNIT fl . AND THE BUILDING. f~ R AN EXAMPLE DURING THE MONTH OF " IONS UNIT't FOR ~ UNIT #1 ' l &.2 AND. G ALL.0F HI . IME WAS CHARGED ' FOR UNIT 2 WITH TO s NO OTHER TIME BEING CHARGED TO i ~
; E01A-85>-59 &a
' UEORGMANLEY l
~ MILTRRIGHT/BO SUPh@ENT EXT. 262
- =
i _
- m. ; - - g-Attachment "I" TAC /lO NUM3ER LCOAT:CN OR ELEVATION IT E M / C C.',t PC N E N T Stp Ng, l un:T STAUCTuRE/ SYSTEM 2 OG/3000 Skid Base FSM-00232 R.0G 813' N/A NCNCCNFORMING CCNCITICN During the rework of the Diesel Generator support structure, the structural d steel member referenced in flCR M-82-00902, dated 7/8/82 (attached), was i damaged. The damage, a discontinuity in the base metal,was repaired. How-ever, the requirements of CP-CPM-6.95, Weld Filler Material Control, were not met because the filler material used for the repair was not issued speCifically g for this repair.
i , E R w s
~ *~
- REY PARA HEFEnENCE DCCuMENT-REPCRTED SY:
CE REVIEW / APPROVAL / / p- DT C , ACTION ACOREsSEE / / l DEPARTMENT i J. T. Merritt/Meehlman Encineerino CisFCSiTiCN: REPAIR uSE As is YVY SCRAP REWCRK , m Use.as is. The repaired item was removed in accordance with the dispositiCn W of NCR M-82-00902. C FQA-85-59
~'
O . r Y$$$)/):18 7 ftY h,Y f . ~ 2iYa CAIE: C CE REVIEW A'PP90N A v?t CISPOSITION'V,IRIFICATICN & CLCSUF e[
/
O Y~~~ / x *lf /
/in &* ATE:
f <! _
~ 3' #
CCMMENTS: /
-- I
/
C :. :t C;iE 5:E:x s- 1,;;.s E': EC'RIC E7:;cu - w a-- / ,, / INS ~C7C.'I 5'~.=
- C?~ h=.
t . 2~e'-Dec - A ;'/ ?fI-
' w :u:.wr. :s 3.asn r.r;:.;.:.c , :.c. .;is: .s s:.v. as ::.z .s ;.e;.
,L2-f900 /: //o ".SG _/7"
]MtAt/At AarbA/A-SAS:'SM/fr ASm. 6029.2 s =,. ,az .,e. . .s er a . w u:.w. . in :. .,e.
ut :.c. .. . A:c 3 1)/. / GP c)P-//
- lw/97Calev. ::. ==.// s no. A l J.//9 ..
.rfe==c1s
- nose ten C a.atme.=.c.n ~s :.u = ce .-~
- :n.s =-.uru = :.,e -
..n,a.
s> . . ..n O p:n.on-t u en ,
..ur. azz.;: s Yu: ce c:w : u . zu. u= ::sn : w a s 1: .a n : :n- _ ,,s,4,,p ,0 , '{pf,1,f,
- / . ee an:rs: :a ::.n~
u :nsrs_- =n c:w tru, ens =.ma :n n :ss us c ar.:n sc
! i 'w n:. ! .,,_m._._... _. ...._ m_.__
l! c
,,,.d.,_..._ cc i ; . . . ._ .
m i .n i ..; .+ .' I a i . -i
/, l A1 7kr/ar/nd se '//-fD- 60 94 f / / ' M77? f I l l I l icG gi...- Am/ p. ./nirn , i} i l l b .
' ! ! I i i
l J Id44 As E Ac/e.5mm/ s4 Y?? 72-J/287 I II l l l lA/ks #4/ /72)/ f AAst/d*~ I/ I I l l l . I i i I l
! I
. I Ii I l l ! I ii l l l ! I I i I l' i i i i l l l 1 II t l
; . I !i l I
! : I I i i l i i I l l 1 i ! I i i i i e : l l l l i i ! ! !
! i ! ! i l l i i 1 I l l
i : :
! I h i f
! i t i l i l' l l l II l l
=nian c:=,ve:s, t :.: _
t 7//-O-609' d / A/ N
?*~ =:= C MC!t sc. - ,M ist::u -;rS_ l y/1-fp.ps,,9p .7 :sl. I R ' ~. "~
xif- ' A.A ; 4/M c et:- a :s l I - _ _ - _ _ .._ - _ 9e 9
S* EIAS UTILITIES O.WW WK SW.M F M.mC SMC.N GENERATING CO. NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) ft-82-00902 3 n1 /
,r k k ~
t_ _ UNIT STRUCTURE / SYSTEM ITEM /CCMPONENT TAG /lO NUMBER LCCATION OR ELEVATION RIR (yC, 2 DG/3000 Skid Base FS?1-00232 R.1G 813' .N/A NCNCONFORMING CONoITION Ouring inspection of welds in Diesel Generator 2 linear indications were found d in base metal (Item G). Indications ran the length of West side of channel. z 8 Reference NDE #6166 (t4T Report). E Lu (1) Hold tag applied. o E o ' e r.EFERENCE oOCUMENT. CP-QP-11.11 ,,y 2 ,,,, 3.5 LEPORTEo SY: oATE:
,, Kirby Scott 7i 8 i82 77 /
oATE: f Rw OE REVIEW / APPROVAL: C l ACT:CN AcoRESSEE hC((* ,, f NI oEPARTMENT J. T. Mereitt!** ehlman Encineerine olSPCSIT:CN: REWORK REPAIR USE AS is SCRAP V'V l ! I I I e, Interim Disposition: m Item G will be removed and replaced with new caterial. Old piece is to be
$ returned to vendor for analysis and final disoosition.
c l Q
< MaiVer: Mor'< 'not related to Items G, P, J. 7 ' - f4. al . ray continue.
=
9 l E l < ENG. REVIEW /APPROV( ) oATE: v / '//-
. ou& f 2182 OE REVIEW APPROVAV) / / oATE:
i w ' /. / / o:SPOSiTiON VERIFIC% TION & CLOSURE: oATE: l(C COMMENTS. Rev.1 issued to add temporary waiver. i i 1 1 __
v
. 4 August 13, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: William M. Rice Group Vice President Brown & Root Power Division FROM: H. C. Dodd, Jr.
VI.ce President Brown & Root Power Division
SUBJECT:
Brown & Root M nagement Investicat(on in Response to August 6,1982 Complaint of , ,/(Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant) 1. 4mmmmm@ In an undated letter (Attachment "A") from s
}
general foreman at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant ("$., personafly delivered and discussed on August 6,1982 with Thomas J. Feehan, President, Brown & Root, Inc., listed eight areas in which he believed violations of CP safety procedures have occurred. l The letter states that M)either has observed or has personal knowledge of the eight alleged violations. The letter does not indicate l l when any of the alleged violations occurred. The letter states that there j was one instance (Item 5, involving steam generators) in whichI reported a concern to.B&R Management; however, the letter does not indicate i that previously reported any of the other concerns listed in the tter. , ,r item 8, involving rebar cutting, states j tha e ividual reported the alleged problem to a supervisor. FCA- 5-59 Tb ,
2 l
~
II. FEEHAN MEETING AND MANAG8ENT RESPONSE Mr. Feehan and Richard P. Negri, B&R Power Division QA Department, discussed with Mr.fMM/ he concerns listed in his letter, in a
\
meeting held on Friday, August 6,1982, in Mr. Feehan's Houston office. At the request of Mr. Feehan, on Monday, August 9,1982, a group of senior B&R Power Division management representatives under your direction went to the C.P. site to begir, an investigation of the concerns raised by Q(
) In addition to Messrs. Rice, Dodd, and Negri, this group included Dr. Knox M. Broom, Jr., B&R Senior Vice President; Lawrence A.
Ashley, Jr., B&R Senior Vice President; Raymond J. Vurpillat, Jr. , head of the B&R Power Division QA Department; and Michael L. Herrik, an attorney in the B&R law department. III. C.P. SITE INVESTIGATION A. Initial Conference withi s Before any interviews were conducted of B&R employees having knowledge of
/ h the areas addressed in 6' letter, Messrs. Dodd, Negri, and Her:ik conducted an in tial interview with , o review the concerns listed in his letter. I reassured N -
)thatB&R management wanted to know of any potential safety problems at the plant, f )
and that management appreciated the fact that EfMfEPUtrmR/ha'd made known N - his concerns to management in his letter to Mr. Feehan.
/ h (anumMW!'M has been with B&R approximataly nine years, including two j
% /
N years on the Brunswick nuclear power plant.A'n11~d '- seven years at C.P. 6 egan as a , to his current position as Boilermaker general foreman. Most of his
,_m_-
3 I work at C.P. has been in the power block area of the plant, where he has l supervised Millwrights, welders, and others in a variety of functions. ; S ' t told us that he is satisfied that the plant as constructed x . will be safe to operate. In fact, he pointed out that he owns property l near the plant, and intends to live there during plant operation. Nonetheless, r N Msaid he did have concerns about past procedure violations as set out in his letter. He stated that he didn't believe any B&R employee involved in the areas of his concern needed to be fired, but just needed "to work per procedure and do quality work." hs asked why he failed to report his concerns sooner. He responded that he was waiting for people (not named) to " work per procedures" and that when they didn't he reported his concerns to Mr. Feehan. The only explanation gave for, going to Mr. Feehan rather than to the responsible site management personnel, was that he " wanted r % to go to the top". In this context,(M.'gave no indication to s . us that he sas ever discouraged from reporting concerns to site management. Still, when I encourag to report any future concerns to his superintendent, l or to Doug Frankum, B&R Project Manager; or to Charlie Scruggs, Assistant to Mr. Frankum; cold me
~
/
he was not comfortable doing so, without giving any other explanation. I l i again urged him to report problems to site management, but also gave him my personal and business phone numbers in Houston to call if he had con-cerns. After out interviews, in an August 13, 1982 project general foreman meeting held by Doug Frankum, Mr. Frankum stressed again the importance of
4 encouraging any employee t~c bring any con:ern about the job to the
/
attention of site supervision, withcut fear of retribution. % 6 specific ce=ents to us on each of the eight items listed in his letter to Mr. Feehan are discussed below. B. Investication of %%'RE8Eb)Eicht Letter Items
- 1. Item 1 - Swice Tests
- a. Letter States "I have been instructed to clean the three areas known to be tested, and told to not worry about the other areas. It is my understanding that TUGC0 wants a thorough job of cleaning in all areas, yet the time is not taken to do this."
f s .
- b. Interview
' s I tald us he had only one incident in mind under j Item 1. He said the incident occurred on a Saturday, about five weeks ago. He said he thought the incident occurred in the Steam Generator Ccmpartment 3, but he wasn't sure.
E)said he and others were working under Mz:.~ir _
)
supervision cleaning the c::mpartment in question, prior to swipe testing. (Swipe testing involves running an absorbent material along'randem samples of a surface and then testing the material in a lab to determine whether there is debris remaining on the surface after cleaning. If excessive residue r is found. the surfaces are cleaned and tested again.) ( Mold us that' TUGC0 performs swipe tests for the
)
steam generator.
l
, 5 According to our interview withf he recalled
, s that directed him to concentrate cleaning on three particular areas of the compartment in question, and that[ indicated to )that TUGC0 planned to
~
perfom swipe tests in those areas. (The procedures call for TUGLO to pe-fam random sampling, and not to indicate test ( areasinadvance.) Contrary to the suggestion in )\ letter that areas ( s / were not thoroughly cleaned, he told us in the interview that
- B&R cleaned the entire steam generator ccmpartment in question.
His complaint in the interview was that he believed [ )had some improper advance knowledge of swipe test areas. suggested we discuss this issue with Bob Walton s . f and Ken Lane.
- c. Investioation Results The steps and procedures governing cleaning and cleanliness testing of the steam generator are listed on construction oper-ation travelers, which are required to be completed by responsible craft and QC personnel at designated hold points listed on the traveler. There are four travelers governing the final cleaning and swipe testing of the four steam cenerators, all of which are v g ,,
included in Attachment 4. .(g/ NEecause enese travelers cover all cleaning and testing of steam generators they wouldgecessarily cover any instances such as.those which is concerned i
; about. The travelers indicate that numerous hold points for clean-
! ing and swipe testing were confimed by various BAR and TUGC0 personnel, and do not show any evidence of the kinds of irregularities about which is concerned.
6 The travelers indicate that "all" residue and impurities were cleaned and inspected for the interior of the primary chambers of the steam generators. The travelers indicate that the primary side interiors were cleaned to a stated cleanliness standard, and that interior side swipe tests were performed confirming cleanliness. Additional procedures for closing the steam generator, and for swipe testing adjacent areas and pumps, were performed and
. verified on the traveler.
Final steam generator cleaning, as covered by the attached travelers, takes approximately 10 hours. The B&R employees performing the cleaning are suited out with gloves, hats, coveralls, booties, etc. The steam generator is rinsed or flushed with Grade A test water. All areas are wiped with alcohol, rinsed again, and then wiped again. - Swipe tests are then taken by TUGCO. B&R QC witnesses all of these steps. When these steps are completed, the vessel is filled with Grade A water, and a water sample is taken by TUGC0 to test for impurities. We discussed )ccmplaint wtth kwhodenied that he ever had at!vance knowledge frem TUGC0 of swipe test areas. 1 ( ) told us the men were always instructed to clean the entire vessel. This is consistent with what is reflected on the travelers.
. James Calicutt, B&R General Mechanical Suparintendent, inter,iewed f m Bob Walton, as suggest.xi b Mr. Walton is a Boiler-maker journeyman. Walton told Calicutt that procedures specified on the travelers were always followed on the work Walton did on the steam generator, and that cleaning and swipe tests were properly performed
7 sk
.aessed by QC, Richard Negri interviewed Mike Ivey, one of inspectors whose signature appears on the attached steam generator travel ers . Ivey stated that the generator was thoroughly cleaned and that swipe test areas were not known in advance. Al Moore, Millwright General Foreman, also confirmed that swipe test areas are not known in advance.
Af ter we reviewed the travelers, we concluded that the " Lane" named by
~was not " Ken" but Timothy Lane, B&R Millwright, whose
' signature appears on the travelers in question. I spoke with Mr. Lane who indicated to .ne categorically that B&R had no advance knowledge of particular areas to be swipe tested by TUGCO. Lane further stated B&R cleaned the entire interior areas of the vessels, as indicated on the attached travelers. Moreover, Lane stated that if a particular area was ever questioned by either C&R or TUGCO, B&R craf t recleaned not only that area, but the entire vessel.
/ \
In light of our investigation, we can find no support fo\M. concern that the steam generator was not properly and thoroughly cleaned
/
and tested in accordance with all requirements. We understand that c 8' was only assigned to clean the steam generator on a temporary basis, and only worked on cleaning under M' for a short time. This may account for what appears to be a misunderstanding on part concerning steam generator clear.ing and tasting
\ '
practices. We found nothing to support Mr. Dillingham's concern that George Tanley had improcer advance knowledge of swipe testing areas. I have reviewed with Mr. Dodd the B&R management response to letter item
#1, as contained in this menorandum. I no longer have a concern about this item, based on my review.
nn
- n. -
. 8
- 2. Item 2 - Shims
- a. The letter states: "In scme instances, I have observed after chioping concrete that equipment shims had grey tape rapped .
around them in order to achieve proper thickness. Thi:. was l needless, as I feel sure that the proper thickness of shims cauld have been used without the tape." e \ b.f\ I'nterv iew Although the letter refers to " instances", in our interview wit j he could only recall one instance. His recollection in the interview was that the situat:an occurred in the turbine generator building, no. I building, at elevation 778. He was not certain, but thought the incident occurred on the feed pump for the auxiliary boiler. With respect to this one incident basically L'.- . repeated what he had asserted in his letter, namely that.he had sagn shims covered with grey tape, which suggested to him that the tape had been improperly used to thicken the shims in order to achieve proper leveling of the equipment resting on the shims. did not document his concern at x the time. old us that in the one incident in question, it had
- been necessary to remove and regrout the pump because the pump wv was grouted in O aboutJ't out of 1ine. The removal and re-grouting was not related to the use of tace, according to i
- - - - . - - . _ - . _ . - - , . - ~ - . - . - - . _ _ . .. . _ _ _ - - - - - - . - . - _ _ _ - . _ , _ - - - _ - , - - _ _ _ - _ --
9 r \ ( ) He told us that the pump was then re-shimmed correctly and re-grouted. Again,I Itald us this was the only instance of which he was aware in which tace was used on shims.
- c. Investication Results
^
r \ We discussed ( concern with Bob Turner, a B&R Millwright working at the location described by' We also spoke with James Cackfield and W.S. Fry, B&R Millwrigh s who worked in the generai area of concern. In additicn, we superviscr. intarviewed( , None of the individuals we interviewed knew of any instance in which tape was used for the purpose of thickening shims to achieve proper leveling of pumps or other equipment. Turner recalled the removal, re-shimming, and re-grouting of >
?
the pump at the general location described byl
^ ,
The removal and resetting of the pump had been requested by ' TUGCO, who ccmplained that the base plates under the pump were warped. The plates were removed and straightened, and the pump I was replaced and leveled to TUGCO's satisfaction. I It is important to emphasize that the pump to whic M is referring is a non-safety-related pump. Moreover, the ir.dividuals with whom we spoke emphasized that even if someone *
. f '
wanted to circumvent shiming requirsents as asserted byg (of which we have found no evidence), there wuld be
- 10 no reason to use tape on a shim for purposes of leveling, since any tape used would flatten upon tightening of the l plate over the shims.
We located the grout placement card for the original setting i of the pump in question, and the traveler ' ad to verify the re-setting of the pump (AttactmentY). The original grout placement card fer the June 28, 1978 placement indicates that
. the placemer.t was properly witnessed and signed off by B&R craft and engineerifig personnel. The grout placement card indicates that the placement was reviewed for both " setting, position,
! level & alignment", as well as for " cleanliness." Had tape been improperly wrapped on the shims, it is likely that this . would have been identified and corrected prior to signoff. Therefore, after carefully investigating concern
\_ /
under Item 2, we conclude that the concern is without basis, and that the one shimming he identified was can' ducted in accor-l dance with all requirements. I have reviewed with Mr. Dodd B&R management response to letter item #2, as contained in this memcrandum. I no longer _have a concern about this item, )dted on my review. y, Witnessed Nf f Icat'e)
- 3. Item #3 - paint
- a. Letter Stated: " Paint was not allowed time to properly cure prior to installation of the floor plates on the Stainless Steel Liners, and under equipment in several instances. I have removed some of the floor plates for repair and discovered that the paint had not bonded to the concrete underneath."
__ _ _ __ _ _1_ : _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . __
y Interview _
- b. ('
We could not tell fro.3 letter whether the incident in question occurred in the containment building or the fuel pool building, and we asked for clarification in the
- 'N interview. it
~ / old us that his concern related only to a single incident involving containment liner ficar plates. He could not give us any approximate date for the incident in question. With respect td the statenent in the letter that paint failed to cure "under equipment in several e h instances," N ) told us in the int'erview that he actually did not recall any such instances involving paint under equipment.
foldusthat.ecouldverifyhisconcernregarding ( ( 'the containment stainless staci liners by checking concrete pour cards, paint dates and weld data cards, but he could give us no specifics as to which of these containment records to check. [3 u
) suggested that we discuss this item with Craig Fowles, B&R Boilermaker foreman, and with Larry Witt, a former B&R
'Nillwright documentation clerk.
- c. Investication Results We interviewed both Fowles and Witt, and neither was aware.of a l paint curing problem such as had described.
~
J I i
12 We reviewed the applicable drawing (CWG Al-538) which shows those areas of the plant having safety-related protective coatings. The drawing shows that neither the containment nor fuel pool building liners have safety-related coatings. Our investigation showed that the only coating applied under floor t plates of stainless steel liners in either the containment or fuel pool buildings was a non-safety-related material with the trade name NUTEC 115, which is a thick greyish substance applied , to smooth concrete finish under the liner floor plates. We reviewed all applicable containment records, and found no documentation reflecting the removal of floor plates as de-scribed by lin our interview. Al though s 9 , MJclearly stated in our interview that his concern related only to the containment building, we decided to check
~
the records for the stainless steel liners in the fuel pool - ' \ building.* We did find an NCR (M 1819, Rev. 2). Attachment D s includes the NCR and the inspection reports and travelers documenting four instances in which liner floor plates were removed in area of responsibility. signatures are not on the NCR and were not required. We talked
. with James Cole, the principal B&R QC inspector signing the travel ers. Mr. Cole's recollection is that there was NUTEC 115 i under the plates but no paint. He said that he could understand how someone could mistake the NUTEC 115 for paint. However, Cole
13 recalls no curing problem with NUTEC 115. Cole's signatures on
- the travelers, and those of other inspectors on the travelers and NCR, indicate that the ficar plate removal process was thoroughly inspected and that no curing or other problems were identified.
In light of our investigation, we conclude that there is no basis for sconcern about improperly cured paint.
/
I have reviewed with Mr. Dodd B&R management response to letter itan #3, as contained in this memorandum. I no longer have a concern about this item, based on review. N j l
,( / (date)
Rttnessed V f klf" ('da te) l
- 4. Item 4 - Welding
- a. The letter states: "The welding in some instances on the permanent
- equipment was performed by non-qualified empicyees without any fom of certification as welders. This project has plenty of qualified l
and certified welders, but in several instances the uncertified l people were used to " speed up" the jobs." b. In our interview with he stated that the second '
%. / p %
sentence of letter Item 4, quoted above, was written by.M and thatl Thad no personal knowledge of the use of unqual-
)
ified welders ,to speed up the job. At this point in our interview,
.. l -. told us that his letter to Mr. Feehan had been typed
( s forhimbf N / . With respect to the first sentence, told us that at the time he wrote the letter, he was actually thinking of only one e instance, and not "instancas," as the letter states. After we dis-
. ~
Cussed the one instance of Concern, described below,' ;
14 stated that even in .that one instance he did not actually witness welding by an unqualified employee. - The incident occurred approximately 1 years ago. was supervising welders at the time. (Althoug , ,' is not a welder, as a Millwright general foreman, he has been responsible for directing welding work and assuring that welding is performed in accordance with procedures.) ( .' stated that Lee Carnes, 8&R General Foreman,
% r \
to provide a welder on the day in question. asked ( I infonned Mr. Carnes that none were available at that time. told us that later in the day, he saw a Millwright (no name was given), who was not a certified j welder, near a hot . weld. (Mi11 wrights who are not also certified as welders are not permitted to perform welding on the plant.) Although( ,fiid not see the Millwright welding, he had t - \ seen the same Millwright on site with a welding hood (it was not r s clear from our interview whether actually saw the hood at the same time he saw the M111 wright standing next to the weld inquestion.) ecame concerned that the Millwright might be im-properly welding, and told George Tanley, his supervisor. told us that around this time, he asked Hank. Hankins, B&R Millwright, and Mike Phillips, B&R M111 wright foreman, about the weld in question, and was told that the weld had been welded by a certified Ironworker welder.
15 r N 8fter( Ireported his concern to George Tanley,
~
he and Tanley and James Calicutt, B&R General Mechanical T Superintendent, discusse concern. According
- x to our interview with }Tanley told that if a non-certified Millwr'ight was improperly welding,
)
( Ga d h )would
-Tadey W , fire him. After Tanley made this statement,
~
)clarifiedthathehadnotwitnessedtheMillwright
'in question perfonning any welding. In the circumstances,
.r %
according to he and Mr. Tanley agreed not to take any action. s We asked whether he had knowledge of any bad
.s welding practices or b d welds on the C.P. site. He told us that to hi:: knowledge, all welds and welding practices on the site are " good".
- c. Investication Results As far as the one incident discussed during the interview, it .
r m appearsthat( Its now satisfied, and was satisfied N / at the time of the incident, that there was no basis to take action, since he never actually witnessed the Millwright in question perfonning welding. (Millwrights are not permitted to perform welding on the plant.) It is not unusual or improper for a Millwright to have a welding hood on the site. There are a variety of possible e.xplanations. The most comon situation would be a Millwright who welded on a job prior to C.P'. and who kept his hood in his tool box brought to the site. Sinceg (Mtold us he has no knowledge of welding by non-qualified
' employees, there is no basis for further investigation of the first sentence in letter Item 4.
i
\
16 In our interview with he acknowledged that he typed I the letter to Mr. Feehan, but he told us that he had not written the second sentence of letter Item 4, but had typed it from a handwritten letter prepared by told us he had no knowledge of C.P. welding being performed by uncertifie@ people to " speed up" the job or for any other reason. Both and disclaim responsibility for sentence 2 of letter Item 4. as no knowledge of welding by uncertified employees, as noted herin. Therefore, based on our interviews with Messrs. we find no basis foi the concerns expressed in letter Iten 4. I have revie'wed with Mr. Dodd the BAR management response to letter Item #4, as contained in this memorandum. I no longer have a concern about this item s based n my review., / N
. . .iffg}/ ./ { j L Witnessed a
/(date)
- 5. Item 5 - Steam Generators
- a. The letter states: "The main support steel on installation of lagging on the steam generators was received on the jobsite with improper welding. I reported this to " my supervisor, andto( )amechanicalengineer. I was told that the ,
x i problem had been solved by writing a letter to Westinghouse telling them to strive for better craftsmanship among their subcontractors. The bad welds are still .in existance and have not been repaired. We could have repaired them ourselves, as a backcharge to Westing- - e \ house, but accepted the faulty supports, thereby making Brown and Root responsible."
~ '~
17
- b. interview
( told us he identified a problem with welds on Westinghcuse main support steel used for the installation of insulation lagging. H,e said he uncovered the problen "in the sandblast yard 'during blasting." ( isaid he was looking
/
at Westinghouse vendor material in the yard (prior to plant install-ation), and that welds on the material in question had pinholes and no penetration. told us this was contrary to the requirements of "the print" (drawing) for the vendor material, which he said called for full penetration welds. ' N h [toldusthathebroughthisconcerntof attention, and that ) told him that the problem hac been " solved." stated that he is still con-cerr.ed because he h'as seen no rework performed on the welds. t l
- c. Investication Results We asked'i , B&R equipment engineer super-visor, whether they were familiar withI
} concern.
Even though it was not responsibility to install
' /
or inspect the welds in question he did notice a potential problem b d and reported this to ,- )1 told us that when he was informed of M,Acr.cern, '
'went to the laydown yard with )o look at the welds. Mr. Tanley agreed that A v i engineering should review the welds. Within a day,.Mr. Tanley took Mr. Brown to the yard so that Mr. Brown could perform an engineering review.
We talked to Brown, who told us that he inspected the welds being questioned b Brown said the welds were furnished not by Westinghouse, but by Mirror Insulation Co. Brown said the welds
18 were not safety-related and that therefore, QC inspections had not been required. "Although Brown agreed that t!'e welds were not of " top quality", his engineering judgment was that the welds would perform their intended function and could be used as is. This explains why no rework has caen performed on the welds. Althcugh Mr. Browr.'s disposition was not required to be docu-mented, we asked him to prepare a memo confirmino the engineering u ( .. review that was performed. Attachment er " ihsa memo to' Mr. T3nley and Mr. Frankum, dated August 10, 1982, on this subject. The memo is signed by Mr.. Brown, and by Mark Smith for C.K. Meehlman, Mechanical Engineering Supervisor. The memo states that "although the welds are not ' pretty' they are acceptable for this non-Q l . i service." The memo also reflects that "the vandor has been cautioned regarding workmanship in the future." Based on our investigation of letter Item 5, we are satisfied that
) original. concern over the referenced welds was
( properly investigated and dispositioned by B&R site management and engineering personnel . We find no evidence that any safety procedures were viclated, or that there is any basis for the concarn expressed in letter Item 5. As with all the other items addressed in this letter, management will carefully explain its finding to
. s.
I have reviewed with'Mr. Dodd the B&R management response to letter Item #5, as contained in this memorandum. I no lo'nger have a concern about this item, based on my review f O ( Witnesseo (date) l
19
- 6. Item 6 - False Documentation
- a. Letter states: "In many instances, false documentation has been filed by the Millwright and Boilermaker departments. I was in-formed that approximately 350 ' Travelers' had hold points missed.
Later, they were filed as being complete without any re-work. These were all safety related 'Q' Travelers." J / , b'. sInterview ,f,,9tz N g , hld us that approximately t=6 months ago George Tanley instructed and others to assemble all
\ s outstanding weld documentation, such as weld filler material logs, weld " chits" (showing the welder, weld number, and weld filler material number), NDE logs, and other documentation held by various disciplines, pertaining to completed welding performed on the stainless steel fuel pool liners. Tanley asked that all outstanding documentation be assembled, and that the information' be transferred to the appropriate traveler, in order to update the travelers and move them to the QA Vault. ( hat 5
)
some 350 travelers were involved. An example of a stainless steel - x e\ .-
- u a Q r/n/rt. 3 liner i_nspection traveler is attached (Attachment . The re w
- 71/c F )At/~
in the field on the stainless steel liners Md 5 : compl eted t ' the time of Tanley's request. Iwas surprised that information in the various weld documents was sufficient to demonstrate that all weld hold points (as listed on the travelers) had in fact been completed. However, contrary to the reference to "many instances" in letter Item 6,
20 in the interview told us he knew of only one specific instance, . described. below, where documentation could not be produced to verify a hold point. He was careful to state in the interview that even this one incident did not involve " false documentation," as alleged in the letter, cited
- no instance of false documentation during the interview.
I / , \ in the j The only specific jncident cited by{ interview involved an NCR written by James Cole, B&R QC inspector. I said that in the incident in question, a stainless hanger had been hung over the weld, covering it up. When Mr. Cole went to the weld location for final inspection, he could not find the traveler verifying that a previous weld inspection had been parfomed. At the time, the traveler had been temporarily misplaced by the Boilermaker department. Since Mr. Cole did not have the traveler to verify that a previous inspection had been performed, he properly wrote an NCR, requiring removal of the hanger and reinspection of the weld. Thus, although( \ ?
\ )
was apparently concerned- about the misplaced traveler, he believea
- that B&R QC (Mr. Cole) responded in accordance with procedure, and I stated to us that no problem exists today with the i'el d. I suggested we discuss Item 6 with Craig Fowles,
'B&R Boilermaker Foreman.
- c. Investigation Results' I We talked with Mr. Cole about the incident described in our interviewwith( He confirmed the incident in
21 question, but agreed 'with that proper QC procedure had been followed; the NCR in question is attached (Attachmentd . which verified that proper responsive action was taken. Mr. Cole told us that he had actually performed the original inspection on the weld, prior to placing the hanger. He indicated that the traveler in question was located subsequent to removal and reinspection of the hanger per the NCR. Cole said the original traveler is included with the current documentation for the weld in question.
- Mr. Cole has had responsibility for fuel pool travelers since late 1981, and has worked with fuel pool travelers since January, 1980. He told us flatly that he never saw any evidence of falsification of the travelers. Cole could recall only "a few" instances where hold points had been missed on the fuel pool travelers. Iri each case, Cole wrote an NCR and properly dispositioned the nonconformance. These nonconformances did 1
not involve any falsification. Cole emphasized that the inspectors would have identified falsification of QC signatures on any fuel pool travelers, had it ever occurred. He said that missed hold points likewise i would have easily been detected at final inspection points. In response to letter Item 6, we asked Mr. Cole and Sam Wilkerson, another QC inspector familiar with the fuel pool travelers, to select a random sample of fuel pool travelers from the QA vault, and to look for any signs of either missed hold points or
22 u ILzdj W/WW signature falsification. Attachment k ,sunnarizes the results of their reviews. Mr. Cole and Mr. Wilkerson state in the attachment that there were no indMations of unsigned holdpoints or falsified signatures on the sample of fuel pool travelers examined. We also discussed letter item 6 with Craig Fowles, as suggested by( )Fowlesknewofnoinstancesofmissedhold points, traveler falsification, or other procedural violations ! involving the fuel pool travelers. s We discussed this item with .s iduring two interviews conducted this week. (is a fth the fuel
~
documentation clerk working under j pool traveler documentation. She has worked with the fuel pool travelers for approximately the past three years. During the first interview 44*NQi;Qh cited an instance which appeared to. her at the time to involve the improper traveler entry by M B&R millwright documentation
)
i clerk, of what she described in the first interview was a
" weld number". She gave no other specifics.
Wespokewithf , who in addition to working at the plant l i
.,- # ,s s serves as the ' @ was not aware of the incident to which fas referring. (
M\/ denied ever making an improper entry into a traveler without supporting documentation to justify the entry. t >who (- - _ _ _ _ _ -. has worked closely on traveler documentation with(gRN@
.s ,
'* *~*
__ , . _- "E-- ""
23 and in fact helped trai . Both have good employment records. - We interviewed! !again to try to get some specifics on the alleged' incident. We emphasized to( )that we would be interested in any information she could give tending to support her recollection that( improperly entered a weld number' on a traveler. We emphasized that her statement appeared to suggest that jfalsifiedthetraveler, and that if this could be verified )wouldbesubject l , to immediate tennination, and conceivably could be subject to criminal prosecution if it turned out that he actually falsified an official plant record. (M\ was repeatedly N > encouraged to furnish any information without fear of retribution. could give few specifics. She did say in.the
% l' second interview that she believed the information entered by
) involved not a weld number, as she had previously stated, but a weld filler material log number. She said she had never seen ldo anything else that appeared to her to violate procedures. I aid she had never seen
' other examples of possible' falsifications. i At the end of the second interview, ) stated that she was no ' longer sure about what she had seen do and that she wanted to leave the interview "to think it over." 9 We encouraged her again to bring to management's attention any information on this incident, or any other incident, involving possible procedural violations or safety problems at the plant.
** M
.,-- - --. - . - , ~ , - . - - _ _ - _ _ _ . . - . , , *. . _ , , , , , , , , , , .
2
~
Finally,f stated in the second interview she had probably reviewed 50% of the C.P. fuel pool travelers, and that she had never received a traveler reflecting a missed hold point, which she said would have been easy to identi fy. I With respect to( ; letter item 6, it appeared from our interview with him that he is now only concerned about the one incident involving ) identification of a misplaced traveler. ') concern was not with falsification in that instance. We are satisfied from our investigation that the temporary misplacemant of the traveler was properly handled by B&R QC, and that there is at present no indication that falsification or a missed hold point is involved. Our other interviews, as samarized herein, also satisfy us that safety procedures were followed .in connection with the completion of the fuel pool travelers. Thus, we conclude that there is no basis for letter item 6. N With respect to , statement in our first interviewthatl ' improperly filled in a weld number on a traveler, .. l.'tas denied any such occurrence. Further,I was not sure about her original assertion by the end of our second interview, and wanted to "think about r s it." Since has not told us which traveler or plant area may have been involved, and has not directed us to any other relevant evidence, there is nothing left to inves;igate.
/
25 t t l We conclude that there is no basis to find that safety procedures were violated by based on the information presented byI and on information eceivid from other employees with whom we spoke. i t WR
,J I have reviewed with Mr. Dodd the B&R management response to letter Item as contained in this memorandum. I no longer have a concern about this item, based-on my review.
Witnessed ' (datej
- 7. Item 7 - Diesel Generators .
- a. Letter states: " Repairs have been made on the diesel generator main supports without proper documentation. The main support now has five foot cracks around the repair area.
(Proper paperwork would have taken about two hours to get)." l l
- b. ( interview
% / '
l Contrary to the reference in the letter to " repairs," [ hold us he was really talking about only one l instance which. he said occurred recently. This involved the repair of the Unit #2 diesel generator support structure to N correct a weld discontinuity. tated that in the course of the repair, the welder involved, l had used weld filler material . drawn for another temporary attachment ticket, rather than receiving new weld filler l
= ** ** * ** . . . , . . .... -e e
~
25 material as required by procedure. ; said that besides' the procedural violation was known by either! B&R millwright, or . B&R millwright. hiso stated in the interview that some time after the repair procedure, cracks were found in the same general base metal area on which the repair had been performed. However, contrary to the implication in letter item 7 that there was a relationship between the faulty repair procedure and subsequ,ent base metal cracks,( Jnade it clear in the interview that the cracks to which he referred were not related in any way to the earlier repair.
- c. Investigation resul ts, We interviewed Craig Fowles, B&R Boilermaker Foreman for the diesel generator area in questien. We determined that the events to which( made reference in our interview with him had occurred in July and August of this year. After talking with the welder involved in the initial repair, Mr. Flowers, and with George Tanley, who also knew of the repair, we verified that Mr. Flowers had violated procedure by failing to draw new weld filler material, and that Mr. Flowers g' and Messrs. Tall 1 to cause an NCR to be written as required.
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ - - - - . . - -~
,- 27 i
Mr. Frankum and I directed that an NCR be written to document i the procedural violation in question. l TheNCR(M-82-01207)/n 6.uq % dated August 12,1982) is attached (Attachment I ). Because the base metal area containing the weld in question was subsequently removed due to an unrelated repair of linear indication in the same general base metal area (see Attachment , i NCR M-82-00902, referenced in NCR M-82-01207, which together ! verify that the base metal weld in question was removed), there is no further concern that Mr. Flowers' procedural violation i presents any current problem with the diesel generator base metal area. Mr. Frankum plans to holdj meegng i h xh] (andphiblywitheiner
- Mess and n % '
- Mr. Frankum will distribute copies NCR M-82-01207, and will reprimand those at the meeting for J
failing to ensure that an NCR was drafted and dispositioned at W i the time 'the procedural violation in question was first ,
/
identified, as required by procedure. ;- We conclude that the above responsive actions properly address the concern raised by ' pursuant to
./
letter item 7. , r I have reviewed with Mr. Dodd the B&R management response to letter Item , e as contained in this memorandum. I no longer have a concern about this item, based on my review. witnesseo / (cate)
28
- 8. Item 8 - Rebar Cuttinq -
5 a. The letter states: "Rebar has been cut on the Main Steam Support and other supports without approval. This could l
. result in millions of dollars in cost of re-work. _
r
)has personally cut rebar in order to save energy in I
I moving the boring equipment to the correct location. I know that this was brought to the attention of ,
)and
[ old this person to ' mind your own business if you 'know what's good for you'." 1
- b. nterview According to our interview with i he has no L first hand knowledge of the concerns recorded in letter item 8.
f He told us the item was based on statements made to him by a leadennan who works in the B&R hanger department. According to ' ) told him that was the individual who allegedly complained to l
. that in the hanger department, was improperly cutting rebar. According tal contrary to statements in( letter,( knew of only one instance of apparent improper cutting of rebar by
( told us was in the H. P. Turbine support of elevation 830. I told us in the interview that when( ) mplained to stated that( had removed rust off the rebar in question , but had not cut any unauthorized rebar. 9
.-- - - 2m .a- -. - __ 2 a _,
i ,
)
29 l l
; c. Investication results
! Doug Frankum and Larry Ashley interviewed Hal Goodson, l . Jim Starkey, and Danny Grisso. In addition, Doug Frankum and Jack Dodd accompanied Grisso, Starkey and Goodson to visually examine TG #1 Pipe Support MS-1-071-001, the area of Grisso's apparent concern. Griso looked in the top west hole of the support, and saw cut rebar, and confinned that this was the area about which he was concerned. We returned to the office, and pulled documentation for that support. We reviewed the documentation separately and i together, and identified one document in particular a" (Attachment > ), N dated [O$" September 3,1981, which provided engineering justification for cutting "second layer beam i i reinforcing or interior tie bars." Mr. Grisso and the rest of us concluded that the cutting Mr. Grisso has witnessed was of an interior tie bar, as permitted by the September 3,1981 l , memeo. Mr. Grisso indicated that he was satisfied that there ~ had not been any violation of procedure. Grisso further - stated that he was not aware of any instances of rebar cutting without proper documentation. In light of the above, we conclude that letter item 8 is without basis. . i. I have reviewed with Mr. Dodd the B&R management response to letter Item M as contained in this memorandum. I no longer have a concern about this item, based on my review. m I Witnessed / ' (date)
de August 13, 1982 ; ADDENDUM l I In a meeting today with Jack Dodd, I told him I think the Comanche Peak plant is a totally safe plant, and that I have no safety concerns. l I said this of my own free will, and told Mr. Dodd I would be happy i to say the same thing in writing. Witnessed ' (date) 9 6 0 _.r,. -
. U. , _ _ , , - __, -__ ___.,,,______,._,,m._ _ , _ _ __ _ . ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
?
/
L () 1 i
. -n 4 b&f MEMORANDUM i
'N TO: W. M. Rice DATE: August 17, 1902 Group Vice President l Brown 6 Root Power Division i FROM: H. C. Dodd, Jr. Vice President Brown 5 Root Power Division i
SUBJECT:
Addicional' Concern on Swipe Testin'g in Pressuriser
/
As you know, on August 6, 1982 i discussed with Tom Feehan a letter written by(
- which describes eight items of concern about aMleged pracedural violations at the Ce nche Peak lant. Based on interviews conducted first with ) and then with other B5R employees, I prepared a management ' investigation report dated 1 August 13, 1982, When I met with W,which is being transmitted to you today.
investigation of'the eight ite)mson Augustin 13, his1982 to review our~ ! listed letter, as set forth in my August 13 report, ) raised an additional item of concern during our discussion of letter Item 1. This additional concern is addressed below. linformedmethat he "was, wrong" about statements he made uuring our previous interview discussion t about er*a* *- . At that previous interview, on August 9,
.l 1982( )had told me that letter Item 1 related to
,,_ swipe t'ests in the steam generators fors nit #1, and concerned )j comments allegedly made by 4 stesting. t i However, during the August la interviews stated that his concerns were actually with swipe tests in the Unit 81 ressuricer vessel and concerned an alleged comment made by 1 ( -
)
l i ~ ,1 F31A-85-59 j ' . s _-n- - . _ , ,,-_, , . _ - - . , . _ , - - , .- - . - - - . - - - - - , - - - ,- . , -,_,,,,,--y-_-----_ -
. y. - r- - - - - - -- - - --- ----~ - ---
&: i;::..
W,,.~ W.S. l
- i 1E j i ' s :s-
, . ,- ax=;- +-.
i.,7
= (' .s R
- Page Two Wk_
flb g
,L
[ma y s M, only was concerned about a single inciden:, N.yNI. T'. and sa'id he did 'not have first hand kno'wledge ci the inciden: t had been told nf it by6 According tow 4D: Q," . k paid theYe was a conversation be veen **8 ( N . #. 34R alliwrtgnt, and an unna=ed QC inspector (itAs toic.un-iy. :? ' whether this as. 2 S&R or TUGC0 inspector). . to DM M ; asked the inspector which areas was he gW'". planne to " inspect" (ft was not clear whether; , ig ,.'P referring totold allegedly visualthe inspection inspectc; that or swipe in thetest:ns%ne_.e). past. ( had ccn b.'I'"'- told, in adrance the locations of planned swipe ' tests. According Ei. J g '* . . area's; asked g to identify inspectors who had,g)iven suchto Mi. the insp
. f "., information in tne past; and warned that any suc.. inspecter N!d~6,; ,
"would be given a talking to".
b Af r the, interview with Doug Frankun and I M'. - met wit ', who agreed tha .~ i.he conversation described by
@b* I had taken place. said he infornedl .
R '!E . hi General Foreman, h ')he about t conversa ion. E Fowleycouid - 11 us when :he conversation in ques: ion ( . [f. ,7 a , took place. said he though; there had been instances e , c, .
. in the past n whi inspectors had teld. construction in advance Mi the areas to be swipe tes:e d hcweve he cculd cite to us no W.U' specific evidence of this, - stated that prior to the incident in question, he ersonally .. d nc: cleaned any vessels.
I was an "above avera;e" Jcurney .an {y'[i gjL He told us he thought and "very dependesble' .- further told us that in the m . ..? . ., case of the incident in .
~stten, the entire pressuri:er va r
.y'. .,g ,, - cleaned thorough 17 Dcug Franiu= and I then in:cryiewed Melvin Todd, a 35K Din,' QC inspector whose signature appears on the traveler for the Y M pressuri:er. The :Taveler is A::achnent "A" herete. Mr. Todd said he recalled one instance in vich the TUGC0 lab people f " ' .' - -
2: E;.y;. .- expresses a concern that a rope lowering the 36R cleaning t .. Personnel into the vessel was rubbing near the lip (opening) {, " area, causing potential centanination. Eu: Todd said the 'ab kn' tg;g. ,. - Mr"? .- M3 ct - l k., j
.". . ,n.
iby. . . MM
- itW
- -..-
l l l
<-r-x Page Three __ gg , j__.,
'a ~3~/
people made it clear that if the area near the opening needed to be recleaned, the entire vessel would have to be recleaned.
)statedthat on one occasion he did hear ( E )
nspector_which areas in the pressurizer were to be ask an swipe tested. llllDtold us that the inspector refuqed to disclose the pre-determined swipe test areas. (lEEER)further stated tha* he for infor-mationby(IEEE)neverheardanyothersimilarre(best or other B5R employees, and that he does not
. believe that res uri:er swipe test areas were ever disclosed in advance, further stated that he is not aware of any failure to adequa" ely clean and test the pressuri:er per procedure (and said that the same was true for the cleaning of the steam generator).
I spoke with Dabout the alleged conversation. E.EE$) denied ever asking fo'r pre-determined swipe test areas. We indicated there is normally no TUGC0 inspector even present prior to completion of cleaning, which we confirmed. Once cleaning is completed, B5R personnel will sometimes assist
, JUGC0 inspectors by lowering them into the vessel for inspection.
GREF]$peculatedthat the conversation being questioned may have occurred af ter cleaning, during this interaction with TUGC0 inspectors going into the pnessuriter vessel, and may have been misinterpreted. Again, )was not aware of the conversation alleged to have taken place, and was never guest,ioned or critici:ed concerning such a conversation until now. ENEMhemphasized again that there is normally no interaction with TUGC0 inspectors until after cleaning. never, to my' knowledge, followed up on tne conversation l'h question. We have no specifics from them as to the time or inspector in question. Further, we l understand from them that they believe Lane to be a good journey- ! man, and that they know of no failure to properly clean the I pressuri:er and no instance when Lane or any other BSR worker i obtained knowledge of pre-determined swipe test areas. Further, l TUGC0 carefully. reviewed and documented the cleaning and clean-liness of the pressurizer. As with the steam generator a final
s , t, ,a A . mma.
. .rfyy' :umtm. :;p <.
5-? rk.'. .: - Dp .e T. .*~.I'.;
-d',: r , ' '
. V:.-y.'
. . e , .
. y .- - .-'
m;. 3-.th. , . .f
- Page Fcur -%6' A,,- - -
,. e ,.
r -.. ,, . .. .
- . 9-:r -
y h'C*)r.5 nw. .. confirming cicanliness was perfor=cd, by filling the R
> l.%s *,,,,;.' : test iJ'i . .. vess 1 wi.th Grade A water, and lab testing a water sa=ple for purity.
il$,,. p .,%?,~. .a.- Based on the above, I can find no evidence that cleaning q@.if,$f. or swipe testing in the pressuri er was notto the one f conductcc in acc.ordaneg kii,N31 with procedure. With respect alleged remark by M4 we were unable to verify that Lane intended to
~- vent clean:ng 7
Jk);'.!'. _^$. procedures, and have no basis to reprimand >
.L. . ,i.'s'. :n: ~
.rs
< w gr,e .
. . . . . :?
b, L *"i*=
. s,.,r,,.
l l
-.gs,Nw ; '-
- Q(;,
T.n.,n, , ' *; ,y. r .* *
. 1
- '.a *.a.
Wik s12 ;-w;i ~ . ' H C. Dodd, Jr. I '!'. .'.v,..' r *.
. v m.
C:E Y
- 54.'
; .is '5., '., '.
r D'I.' g, t Y. e'.v . . w s. s;.; .~. .. . - ' 9: .e .' . . ..
* , g. o= ** 8 ff ' : ' .'
,7.D
. \, 7 , .!. f,,::.,.
,2,9 . .s*-
l4. , ,,. -* *, . r.,..~.. ga,f..
. . .*j
%Y.
F es s*? ..,
'r . . y p, '6 ".
!.L$.'kb % .
3, . i \ f. . .*' . . , *A* . % . .1,,. j so..e-V, l. y * %, *
e s :. =* *- ',
g,
&,.';n*y*
f t.* . ft ** * * * * , w,"...'.;,I4$y, y , , N 4 **. .h [g.- ss' ,*, , l 16 #$. - l i l
- l gg g, e. ,,g a
.
- e hNm og . . m m-e .
ATTACHMENT A
. s*
.A
c:ns:nC=cn :oininCn invE'. P m-p3 Q[1 Ob !.;.- V 'T:,. . e Os }'\'R Av '.ER NO.15. 9 2.- Sto , ~5~*fCm f: EOUfFME.NT N tfN i hNd.) , C'fAMITY 'TQ / cp 3-l --6 x .t.*(' P(C.ptZ- Qt ,3 y n 4 i sO
/ *$h$k$ $1 f*s oP G C Z oti b 2 E ll. l C ERENCE CR AMNGS ,yj,q
.?
@@iC'04?in'd">, l@ f*C5" ess' vs*Re \@ 'f .%. o o enz?anea art'o. u a ntv w care ro t A -- c e p r. , . .; u- , -
'I i
REvutwEo3r M M / N #/ 27I 8-M-FA 1g.,-suuneurew , M. 2 d L i car - 4 -> C' 2'*2 - WsC$Nr- Q4 7 c/17/tt-i y; o, so, ecn. com :en esm ostoc c.s c. I u , kIf' $ Y .w.r h 01 n. - k= A k to co l &
,6,-
f0 . L.
. w. .2 #
S^O-{- of ~5L hGssakizzl?. c cr2A L-- ch o .
.h pan - ,o g
P;- ' Ab 8
.iu.~ C h #5 M '272'2l b ? 2;//b~ M 9 @f5.89'35*/M. Is.a , 3 r- e A 5 7"'i'1, A - 180 -72. <dhe Y.19 u
Afc.g .t Q .T-Q .O-// / &T' (0 . W '
. ,i. '7uh 5 i ; ::j @ g ;. B y'3 5/ #4. <p2 0 - )
I .h . Q't
- h. YoI*- -s l W .,.:, %C3 0 *__ 3 l S 5 p- ~. l'
.I.4 i s4,l.
- L' I ')'C de 1 m kle E . J' h l-2.~. A .
m ,s. 5C{v.4 ; Q.* C'.' t ,. , 0 / C}!AI 7 d$ ro o
$2- . l
. . e g r
'i.&,. . ?,bk%^a p' 3f\ .kC.*'
! . a 6 l Nk &t05. ';
e . i
,3,% ..
b
- R f.'-U(&'.'..v~,
.. WO , l '<.,,1..*, p ,, ,
5 ~5o SS
'% f. cw *C S n :"
* .a
.* 4' , .
/
' Q . y ,. ,#.
gg wl.,,,,,, ,
. *t * . -
*j *
* ,.*. S' ' . s *, '5
<1 Qak WU.re0 '= ' ' ***~ ' * ' ~
s.'t,. .,. 9 .*, ' : ~
~
. -] 'a I -
. . L.+. .
, CONSTRUCT:CN CPeRATION TR AVeLeD CONTINUATICN l jl$ =
%*$=$?$ fr A A !* OY
- W' I CME C? -
PREPARED 9Y 5M D'N CAIE #C !' L X, Revlzwto sYe/4dfN?/W/ f ,N, R e.i,e MM-,..J oare oare d,-' ?-F u Hi-72 _ Q gj
- h,-
, 2AlCC
C'N SU A 3
. OP .so O E.M 07t.1 A*IC.*a I'80 Pm.m.gdod y L tod[dE cit.
}g .
wtnDeat ^~' Cid uW I~o if n 6 .cQ u ,. 5b .>-o 5 bs>ns ho6I~LQ-0, YA o. d. m M uecraw wL.
- cv Lo 1~o w Y s !
3.s. hzca J M u~i b k.tt.o .( p4 O y v i
!k s
's MA Om>46" m ag 6e f x{ '
d u w.c.h C-% C.nv C.wYhv L s ~JL ~ ~sa a A ua
;j lud ~ h .a_ % ctn e . u . + tjaQQ k wacksA- 04 za d eb.w,. wf ,
d ht,p4~dibyci-a.v.dm LQ 4 +L w.mtr s s
, 6 As,qt
[h eQ chbv:.<g . ..
.)' esn-d~ eR~ u ~AA ti 1.
f' j}gk.ruan.eA. X~l~,d.:1.- Yb N C @ * *
&, fPih 4 b
, 4
,j gWJ4 =*- - , Y U**'] ,
'g N,9
- 49. ,
L.7 '
.;. ..- c Hy43:- m-.: -h.p 'J(:.n.I'exix.a.k,.ia.s
- f 4
4u'
+
.1
~~.9 . "ip a g: .. t *,
cc. . n ~t. m '-)
~ - - -. . .
'f.'(;;;** ,
l CCN37RUC7;CN CFERA7;;N TRAVE'.ER CCNT:NUATICN
,. y iR ac~l'sITY CCSCRtPTICN n es. o. e waa, fu,aswme e-- La2 C,x
- roAVE'.E?
czt 1 NC. %, c ;bo
'*Th'
' SY h hk , 7 Iob ~~~~/4'f. -
4
.h neyseweo PREPAREO ~E^ d-av JA&//*Ad/
0 ATE oari k.d-7 c & diW7 *-- ans Rt,,twN%%%~) Car 4-/7-r :. -. f e, ,,- r' CA/cc {yg gqg
=
gg gg-=4 CP NO Q ( .8 T CPTS ATIC?d R-
/gTL Rieracue.haca-sC &2. V .
eiu.:Y w 2-Pk.u.4&> ,
;& (%u 6 a.a d$S k P. 5 g(Bac
%@', %% 'A M- d > ,. e , w / w . w e.- + 4 , p 1&
gV gj; m rewa : n da-wwu =
"d.
'dc,, a t, e... , u/ .- J I.g(m r 6 A*r-t'd. .
~"
.?F
,u . _, L}z e,.n -r, L assumzstL
.i....
kh:?~ v.-
)li&.,I:
4+- . s
.m x, y,-
y n ;'. . :
, .1 .-
t _ m'k -
%W= "
.!,, p I;5,blk -
H'D'J? 13 DD1 k.m.d .f.[%,$,.',I. -
.. : D. m : August 1 ~ . 1H 2 f < 9,: . - TO : W. H. PJ ce p&f. .
- GruvT Vice Pres.idur t Brown & Root Pcver Divisien i,. .; -"A. .
I '. FRON: H. C. Dodd , J r. k(Wl"* l,.U . r,: .. Vice President Brown & Root po.e r Divisien-SU3fcCT: , Inves tigation of( Con ce rns
. s
/
.n. . . . .. .
Q. :. - * .;, In the course of our inves tiga:ica cf 0" "&"NN"M : August 6, 1982 complain; to Tc:t Feehan shoe: aIIeged procedural'
- Q.'l'*' viola:lans at the Cor.ancht Peak plant..La.rrv shi+v. Knox hroo?,
h.g'.. g, 'l" . Ecug Frankum, and Michael Her:ik in:erviewedand infor:ed me of thestesults of a 4 ,. forser Comanche Pc2h, -'nv-~ allegattons,
.q(i.. ' those discus siens. ( a:ica re to you on tn1 Dillingha:
- 7. ,,.- as discussed in my inhes: M]por: raised several concerns no ccuplaint. In additien 3 related to the i M ssues. These were discussed in cen.
Q./l
.q
!.. " .7 versations with%hley, r:o=, He r:ik, and Franku=, and durin g Comanche
@""- a phene Peak Proj ectconversation Manager. with Charlie Scruggs , As sistan:T"gese ce j;,;j .., , '
s w;g' ' . First.
)teld us that when he vas verkin; at the - ~ ;. ~
V"' . clan; as a fron:.cnd loader operator early in W' i=preperly used agsrcrate saterial fro: a
;'.,i;l
- r.
concrete ba{W..?@We the prcj ect, ' reject pile. verked in the batch plant during leng:h 911* 8 s-the ti:e ( Ccor;f in:erviewed
. Whc was workin: !"
aw are o f..any in 4?anse, in .which @) a the area. Geor;e was no:
'$ .- or anyone else used rejected a;.:r gste caterial fren a rejc: ,
- ?' '
pile in a peur, without pr:per docu=en:stien and resolutien 0: l .. Cecrge's brother, w-e aisc verked a- the hatch
- 4 '. such error.
plan t , was of the same view. M'ba:ch plan; supervisor at ((- the tine, Bob Horris, is deceas ed. p .- At:achment "A" is an exangle of.a deficiency and dispesi f nn w, ..- - h5 report (DDR) used to dncu=en is nc:t and resolve us e of un:es:ed a;;rega re an example of us! .g rejected Th ! .4
;3el nacerial in a ce:-
I naterial, as @ ).1le;ed, but is the closest esarole "A" shcus tha:to:heWi:t's use of
- . concern that we could find. A::achnent untested material was properly identified and dispositioned, and k.'~- that there was no safety p:nblem , :resen:ed.
g
.y .
i.. 7 1
. . . J I*i'g's
- 1. g c * .
( ~ F.!" *, F0lA-85-59
.,t.*( t f V.5 .- w pm-I l 1 :
I . W
~ ~
,? , , s %
W. M.l Rice -- August 17, 1982 Page 2 ,
~
Verification of concrete acceptability is ensured by a variety of tests. These include slump tests , material testing, temperature verification at point of placement and cylinders taken during pouring. These tests would have identi le any purity problems caused by the use of rejected material, as has alleged. was not able to give us any specifics concerning his alle ation. Further, to our knowledge, he never reported or docu-mented any instances such as he is now alleging. I am satisfied that we have adequately investigated the area of his concern, and
, that there s no evidence of a safety problem.
I xpressed additional concerns which we investigated. Witt\alsocla$medthattherewereinstancesinwhichemployees leaned on wires running to an aggregate weighing sensor, in order to cause the sensor to malfunction and skew the results. Again, no specifics were given. This allegation was carefully reviewed with William George, who indicated that he was not4aniliar with any improper activity similar to that described b(EEEMm
/
Further, George explained the sensors ' configuration and the processes involved, both of which suggest to us that it would have been difficult to manipulate the sensor in question, and that even if someone wanted to do this, such an evasion would likely have been identified by QC inspectors who observed the inspections. Thus, we can find nothing evidencing a safety problem. 3 M raised two additional concerns , one involving a pos ble mitsed hold point on weld 988 on the fuel pool liner (a copy of the traveler for weld 988 is Attachment "B" hereto); and another concern involving an alleged instance of welding by an uncertified welder. We thoroughly investigated both concerns and found them to be without basis. l l
-sh7 Air H. C. Dodd,y
. Jr.
i meb . l Attachments l I
ATTAOiMENT "A" W QUAT.lTY ASSURANCE DEPARTP
- DEFICIENCY & DISPOSITION REPORT 35-1195 UNIT: N/A PAGE I OF OJECT:
CPSES .lCs NO.: A EPOR T A 8 L.E CATAGORY: OM NC. DEFICI ENCY: g C-446 H-3 aE V. NO. ' A a. DocuMSNT voo LA T E D: .1 7.7.7.8 2323-55-9 Cited document states "A daily inspection control program shall be carried out during concrete production to ascertain consistency in poten,tial variable characteristics such as ... gradation. . ." . 3 3/4" gravel from Bin #3 was used for concrete production prior to com-y pletion of gradation tests. Pours 006-2808-002 and 032-5730-003 are affected by this. QA RECORD RO 1 G 3_ nT N. REVIEW M S - b l,Mdb
- 2. '
rithNo.t jy].7 f 3. suoriLE No. 4 . C446 g, oats. aeromfaaev j oats: Ae* veo ev: g n IL-1-% S. F. Milier ""* tz 9-% ele Z. In usso 4 Dl5PostTlCN aswaan g ae'a'a O sc a a' O useasisy of sa o aascoNsa: The gradation test results of the 3/4" gravel from Bin No. 3 meet the 3 specification requirements. See attached Hunt t.ab Test Report HCP No. 20108 l n thru 20112 for passing results. 4 3 3 SueMe r TLO ev 1 ' //' Q AT E. Q A T E. l AssaGnao TQ l%~/0~76 $ lA*I 8 H. C. Dodd, Jr. - eat * "/ yy d $'.', y w E MOM,:.p /N4-74 I a ss90Ns a; GLW .' The Batch Plant Supervisor has initiated a system where as the aggregate bin
! operator will be notified in advance by writing as to what aggregate bins are 3 approved for use.
This will be verified by the Batch Plant General Foreman and Batch Plant 2 2 Inspector prior to concrete batching. 7 In addition any future violations of this procedure will result in person (s) E being subject to ternination. Also, closer supervision will be conducted in the j future on the aggregate handling operation.
/en W f
*!*/D SuSMeTTEDay: /
DAf t. QAft:h?b A&s t Gh t Q 70: H. C. Dodd, Jr. l1 -ld*Ylr l$*l I Ct.OsE OUT (To tw completed by Quaiity Assurancs Oeoartment! commactivs Action: 5 ATVSf ACT 4 *[ , , i OErtCIE NCY CLOS 80: ? ,g ,g4
'W' '
TMI Siu G mEWAasa y C oP185
~" "" # ""a^ "" ~
- RR iNRRgiON UNU 468 CA StTt C TVS4CA. CALLAS TL84 QAilTE 8e6&S SUP* Lit a C r CP.QA .09 3 3
._ _._....____..____m .. _ _ . . .._._._____ _ .._. .._..______ -. - - . _ _ .
( wm s. -7e 4 q 2 af 7 mt "*- 3777-6 ,,,,.,,"' ItCPS OlOS
***** 13-C-9927 Date: /1-47/o ..,g,,,,
( RE- Texas Utilities Services Inc. Beti.m & Root. Inc. Comanche Peak Stenta r.tectric Station P. O. Itox 1001 1930-l'JS2 Unics 1 & 2 Glen Rome. Texas 7(iO43 Jole No. 35-11')5 3 L R Subcongract No. 35-1195-0225
!!unt. Projec': No, 513 l Ccnclemen:
112 report results of Sieve Analysis of coarse Agrar,ste , ASnt C-136, O!unt G019). Hatcrial
Description:
3 I h d A. M L __ Date S.smpled / 2. - 9 7 d t Haccetsi Sources: bN 3 Date Tested: /k_ 7d [ Sanple I _ S:t _ Quantities Represented by Report: A//A. 'il a i S/
/~
Project Cumulative Cu=JJ.atf.ve Specification (1.5. Standard Sample C2ntrol % Retained : Passins Passing )
!!o . Steve Size We - 1.b. + Tare Ut.' - Lb.
2" ( _ I 1/2" f,y$ ',l 1" /S. /A = 15./ 9 e. O.n O. _ _f80, _/90__ L M 4,2 3/4" / /o. 3 9 - ) c.9V : b. 4// -
.1 98 90-/M) 4V__
1/2" J o.so -/f".W s M f 7 7/o L_. o 8 6 3 __ llQ jl6~ f$~ L, .1& hl 3/8" _a o.18
-lS. Ll6 s f y , j, $* }_
#4 $ 3. S'#f -/ 8/N ' /I.Ib _h h_ O - /0 _ ,
L'lf//S/1-
/5.a 7 -/M,10
- 19.7 3 S8_ ,A o - J-L-1rl,-4 #8 Pan 13.7d -/3.30 5 '20.13 __f_@,,_,_, O -
N/4. _ ; Fineness Modulust .N . Resulta comply /J^ ; .: ;D/ with project requirements. f*S*
!(Or.1;r.T t!. ItuMT CO:n'A::Y Chu c kN.t hy: .l . E s.nti;'m Mo. k - 1[a _3 Seato '
#" . d 8.,,j k -- d g
' t.'t. i r.li'. ,
L/ / j,wy l'n . .. ' -l'.I t:19 n .,1: . / . r,/ *8 t.) ,
...ies.i s .. i . ca i ,,n.......,
I .-
~ ~' . ....
( ( " ' ' ' " ~ I' I ~'
@ p of 7
- s s.*. m 3777-6 usroat HCP 2 O! 09
.....u 13-C-9927 Date: /J 7 d race
- Re: Texas Utilities. Services, Inc.
Brown & Root. Inc. F.O. Box 1001 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station , Glen Rose, Texas 76043 , 1980-1982 Units 1 & 2 Job No. 35-1195 5 & R Subcontract No. 3.T-1195-0225
- llunt Project No. 513 Centlemen:
We report results of Material Finer than a No. 200 Sieve, ASTM C117, (Hunt 11023) Material Descript! ion: 3Il 12 A v at L Date Sampled: /1 7 - Haterial Sources: $ [Al k Date Tested: /,2 7d _ S<.T Quantitieske t S esented Ic. t by Report: ' A//4 nArLV
- Before Test Weight (c) = .llI7 8 i 78Yd Af ter Test Weight (h) =
Material (c) Af7N - (h) '2 f fb Passing 1200 Sieve = J2* X 100= d.9 2 (cus 7e Project Specification (MM=um) = /.O % Results comply! ' ;; x ," " with project requirements. .
. t
. Centrol No. ' A.-13 T Balance L. / V 7 Weights Respectfully submitted, b */3 Y Sieve ROBERT W. HUNT,'COMFdNY Tested by Y . .
Checked by ).[. '
.d V I J. s a u 1 c 20RlNonMhT0hgyty Term HCP-E1023 (Rev. 6/76) ,
1 e....,.-,e.-..,,. .
. - . - - . , - , - , , _ - _ - _ . __g.,- , , . _ . , _ . _ . , _ - ~_,-_,.-.v- __,_..,m_ - - - , , . ,..-._g-..- ,__v ., - - . , -
k . ( f Of Y e n.x w. :. r 7 7-6 .n .a r itCP dol /O "a 8 *w 13-C-9927 r.ua. urown & Root, Inc.. RE: Texas Utilities Services, Inc. ( P.O. Box 1001 Comanche Pesk Stesm Electric Station Glen' Rose, Texas 1980-1982 Units 1 &2 Job No. 35-1195 . B & K Subcontract No. 35-1195-0225 Ilunt Project No. 5,13 Conclemen: We report, results of Holsture Contuut ut A ;gregato, 3 AS't?! C566, (!!nnt 1:l(153 ) - t!acerisi l)escription: $/7AvEL. Date Samplod: /2 7b P[antNo: i/ 3 Date Test.ed: / 7 "i
- 7 b Ume: A/[4 Set - / Sample
/
Quanicities Represented by Report: A//4 77 Al i L
. '1 Weight of wet sample plus care [J d 33
# d gm.
Weight of wet sample 8 3 8' h am. (A) ( Weight of sample plus care af ter drying f*d 99 _ ge. , Tare d - sm. -
~
Weight of dry Sample .4*899 15. (B)
. Veight of Water (A) - (5) / [pd gm. (C)
Tetal troiscure content (C) = /d C X 100 = 3. [ g (D) (3) 809.7 . Free Moisture Content = (D) .3 . / , x - asorption: /. / :. _ A.0 : Ccritrol No. L. -l 3 T Balance -
\_,_.__
_..wm L . f Q 1, Weights ROBERT S, HUMI COMPA.Tt y,g y. J -- ds ( //Syg'pendy m p N. k.b . Tested bye,
- Checkel* by: h-(
- Maceti t'lant Representative TLme P,oport recalved l'orm IICL'.C1053 (ttsv. 6/ 7f ,, g , , 7 ,,f.}{ { g ]}
4
** . ' 'N
' w wru . y ,
Q
- Pg Cef1 r:6s we. 3777-6 '" OIN i ***** 13-C-9927 Daee: /.1 - T- 7d ,,,(,
RE: Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Br:wn & Root. Inc. Comanche Pesk Steam F.lectric Station P. O. Box 1001 Cica Itose, Texas 76043 1980-1982 Units 1 & 2 Joh No. 35-1195 ,, B & lt Subconteset No. 35-1195-0225
- Ilunt Project tio. 513 C:ntlemen:
tb r port results of Sieve Analysis of Coarse Agregates, AST t C-136, (llunt E1019). Material
Description:
N 6 // A v #E L Date Sampled: /2 78 ri/ 3 D.ee Tesced: /,z 74 P.accrial Sources: S:t d Sample Quantities Represented by Report: A//i D A [LV Froj ect Sample Cumulative Cumulative Specifi' cation Cer'eral U.S. Standard ,
% Retained % Passing % Psssinir Steve Size Ut. - t.b. + Tare Ut. - I,b.
No. ( __ 2~ - l'1/2" 1* 15. (a 2 Ir. A 9s Cn Q la o 10-6 L. T CL -l __ j lrL-1 3/4" /d 19 /f.9 f : 'O.31 1 99 9a - tro 1 6. C S**/ 4'. N 8 k . k b 13 77 '
).. ir/A 1/2" L. art-M 3/8" M i. "E l -/S. 40 5 / 0.70/ 8/ 99 2.4 6'5~
L-L % SA 04 $ Y,O T 14.9b I 0. E $ W fo 9 ~/O
~
M 0 7 1ll.1as 1 0.lo 9 99 3. o3 t .m & os a/4 rn 1 3. W -i3.305 A ) ,o 1 /00 0 Fineness Modulus: b. g g} Results comply /L - M -* 5 with project requirassents. Tested hy . . . . Jtespectfully submitted, "Iwckci hy: , 110111:RT U. IlUNT COMPANY Control :!o. - _ _L - l la 3 ,5c.11e , (
*-_y- a2 y Con %r litt t/cif; fit _$ k J '
LA m i 17' a l'o r re 11r **.I'.) n tif t) (l' cy , $/ 7t,)
e s se i w i s , ,., , , .n . . g 3 ,
h, m
U UM.
.- , R ( L' - Y y (* }
& Q cf 7/
' " * ' " 3777-6 I "c+= 13-C-9927 Date: /2 s9 7b n r. mar HCP80fl9
- r,c y, Brown & Root, Inc. Re: Texas Utilitics Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 1001 ~ Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ~ C1:n Rose, Texas 76043 1980-1982 Units 1 & 2 Job No. 35-1195 3 & R Subcontract No. 39-1195-0225 '
!!unt Project No. 513 C:ntlemen:
I W3 report results of Material Finer than a No. 200 Sieve,. ASTM C117 (Hunt E1023) Material Descript! ion: // d e A vn L_ Data Sampled: /.2 7d Material Sources: b [A1 Date' Tested: /J.-9 ,7b daT. c,7. bh IC 9 * - QuantitiesRep[esentedbyReport: 'l//i _'T7A rt s/ -
. "I i Before Test Weight (c) = aI '7 M .1.
- After Test Weight (h) = d,70b
- Material (c) c2'7 1 1 - (h) 1 78/o *
/cssing #200 Sieve = / la X 100= 0. b ::
, (*) J.7J. 2. .
Prsject Specification (Maxircum) = /O % R , cults comply /'r cri "-"'r with proj ect requirements. Crntrol No. L -I3i salance .
~
l-/N2 Weights
- Respectfully submitted, L-(1 V Steve RostRT W. Hunt COMP NY
! Tcsced by .Y , Ch:cked by J . (. , , .
. gi U / %.2z-
~
- 0P, WGPS A"10N ON.Y Far.a llCP-P.1023 (Rev. 6/76)
- i
. ROSCRT W. HUNT COMPANY,
. r-'l p bg c - @ k cap _itat Gibbs S Hf//. Inc.
g o-f- 7
, suomuns. ossicaans. construcToas New Yoast
- c H. Gatchell o,,. December 15. 1976 O
- f, TUSI - Jobsite r; ECEIV2 ,%, _
.-d n:C~~
1 ,1973 y,__ J. J. Mocrhead ., 's,
- G&E - Jobsite d 4 0 'a 1 8 ' '- ', ~ #
/*
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1980-82 2300 MW INSTALLATION CONCRETE REF: DDR C-446 - We are in receipt of DDR C-446 which was submitted for our review due to its " Usa As Is" disposition. Based on the passing gradation tests which were reported, the aggregata used in the production of subject concrete meets specification requirements and, therefore, no further review is required. I C&?) V W -Moorhead Mis ' Resident Engineer JJM:MRM:ce ec: H. C. Schmidt 6L R. E. Hersperger IL g & R DCC DIST. L. T. Van Amerongen lL H. C. Dodd IL' l-P. M. Milam 1L -0000 d !- l CHILOREEIM-EssountLL_J giREH JI EcCocaL_---! o l A f//_L/ t - 6 J l hkk ,
^
! l/ m l L - I
- ."~ FO R T O R',i f' D i D N .Y ,
ATTACHMENT "B"
';; . k'*[, ..'- -
8tt:wnO'R0ct4T. --
. k'N'j.**"Muld
- w. .;.. ;.
Gj ',,1
--...~~'
'iELO 30.
S&R Stainless Steel Liner Inspection Travaler , PROJECT: CPSE3 J0a NO: 35-1195 unit C PAGE / OF J f./JP/1008-3 I A).Ir*Ws. Cw^ t Jh,-tess suei 7/M~ b se to A M i Drawing no.- Pool idetal Ty e Mel. Dix. PC. to PC. R Plate to Plate l I Insert to Plate Angle to Plate i I Other Valder 'JHL Weld Hold Symb31 No. proced. Point 1. Fit up and Cleanliness of Abcve: iko D-oso 3o23 5- HA NA* WA ,gg g zg j gg y,,3 $ Resuits Inspec:or Signature Oa:e
- 2. V.T. of 3 acting Strip Tack / Fillet Welds:
,fpp D - 1.T.1 b'O 2.3 1 N# 1 A.)A . yA pA.
MAF d' M Resulu Inspector Signature Care A / l'7 # ' 846- * '
~ 3. Cleanliness of Chan'nal, Liner,'and 3. Strip:
AAG D-trit /fo2.1 *) ' piq p Results Laspect:r 5igna:ure c,5,
- /]Ad- &lyJr ffoz) 3
- 4. Final 't.T. of Ciannel Fi1Tec yeld:
h/A PA NA GROWN 4 ROOT. ; - Results inspector signature care RECEIV
- 5. In ide Fit Up d Cle aliness:
l ~ MAR 101980 l , . L ,gg _, / j gg7,77
,1 Results Inspector Signature Cate 1.U ALITY ASSU RAN C[ 6. v.T. of Fillet, Price to Grinding:
Aja A.-*. m Results inspector Signa:ure Cate orgM. Pt T. REC;oRD FM'M dWM*'M r Q'Yffy^ - pu ~ " gi Resui:s (QM2 Q Inspec cr Signaturev
- 2. u-to Ca ce l l .
I a. Cemotetten of weie Inspection: (,.10s ;2co) l l l - Lf. Amwf44 - 34 To
; ; .usuru p r.s;ae=r m .m ure au l ,
--:hr~~ . O V W3 M II W Ld550s ~~
. CP-QCI-2.11-1 Reyicicn 1 \
['T:3.*eC~.3
. 1 ---
P'~ QUALlYY ASSUAANCE DEPARTMENT
^
STAINLESS STEEL LINER INSPECTION TRAF F.R/::DE REPORT M c.
~
~9' *.3 * $0 w( - -_ . .
'{. z
. PROJECT: CPSES , Jos rJo.i as.t:ss ur:IT PAGE OF .- D.ut*ING POOL dortk MTL T?E MIL. TI!ICKNESS *
,
- M T G O o ? "U t'O 4. l G ide'CW . CM ,
3 r ft
- Plate to Place
!; ELD /ITI: 50. PC. TO PC. Inser,. .,o Plata c} R 9 . 14 0 6,.t.e_ Te k .A4l / A.ngle,:o Plat'e.
- t. s ::0. 4f404 4Nos <A o L b ee n n i e Mu cA e- 4M40 U L7 L-
~~
"ILD ?RCCIDL'2E n-P023 P4o2 t 8902T 'ct red ceton - 4POR Fr Go 2._3 ULDER'II."2CL At4 M,u o c:P Ara ~
n=p #4-7~ An c
'~'
STAGE OF :*.C:U71..ur.E A v. r>p ra o r= e rm e ste . ci a t.
~
A[a7 tra A L ' tLs. ,o
+ ,' C.$TI::SPECTORNdpl A*/ aen esst
, OISC32?! :::(s) and I:~SPD. 50:* ?E* ARK (s) RESULTS SIC'*AIURE DATE - . . 1. Ti: up of I' ar @ :o pla:n,@ "-. , , insar . Clas=11sess of li:er and b. aching 3 m r- 4 , . . . c- 5 . a . > f- .
- . V.:. 3: 11 61.; st:1; Q ifi'.Lc: :1*,d s . A n r- & .),.3 '9 L_ s .o .m.
~
'~
1*.. C:or. .lf.nsss of channel, li=ar and bac'<ing ,, s::fr. . .S m.T- %. ...G O - x.2_7P
- 3. Tin s.; V. T. :: C'.n==al *.* aid s . % - CJn. N'Bfk -,
_3 . -f f 1~
~
I. . Lina 71:-27 *trifica:ir.. C*.ta 11:sss Veri *icati.-- . - (. ',t..3 . 71.7.: *:. T. X X X i l A:c . :..:5s : : . I Duell Tina 3b. Pen::: ant Ef.. Xa;.afluy.-Sp:,:-heck-3 acch C' :: .t: Mf.:. ..:p.a lus-5 ::ehach-2::ch Develoaing Ti=a
'aeci:;ar d;. : 4; sflun-Sp.2tche:P.-3s t ch / ,
TD .rocede: Surface 3~.':<::-5350 A:cach. 63 As 1:eldad Grour other . Tin:1 P.T. , S c . V.w. h:c 1she: ' pa - solution Type _ ._._h-Tec..s: Cic::in;, Presssure_ Te . *ature . NDE Procedure 600 ' j 5 : . ion A; piles:le Ma:hed Post Test 'ani:tg 0- . Scrial ::c bcr Preussurc Difdcren ~-1 et for
*[ I!ain'. f ec. I itt .
'. T*. V.3.
/
j :~ l ' . :* : A;;1ic -51.- S.. . i;: := v. (Sss:isfactory 1:.Si'ti:70'. _..____ DATC CT.".T . LI T CL
Pass b _ or =8 ' .
~
, pn r .
fff .
. 'Jeld No.
- Acceptanca 5td. -
Gibbs & Hill 2323-53-18 . Sb. Penetrant Mfg. Magnaflux-Spotcheck
,' Cleaner Mfg. Magnaflux-Spotcheck Developer Mfg. Magnaflux-5p~ otcheck NDE Procedure
- 300-NB-5350 Attach. 53 :
Final P.T. Level II T/17 RESUI.IS. hM) - IMSPECIDR SIGN. t- 74.yo . DATE Sc. Vacuum Sox GASKET TY?E SOLUTION T(FE 2Y by E Y ,fxos f Pratest Citaning No Pre ssure 2'fTemoerature7A*NDE Precedure 600 Solution Application MethodAt-ady # Pest Test Cleaning M ! U Gauge Serial Nucer fff Preassure Offfirenti&T haintatned for 2o Sec. o Min. * - Finaf V.S. A m 4(4 d . N/A - Not Ap cable Level II
. Satisfactory _ d'nsatisfactory Inspec ,we 0 ate 7Pfe l
1. 1 a l.... . . . - - - . . . . . . . . .. _. .
- l.
h.
. . ..,a .
. .Q.-
n- ..
- l . .,1,
. .p;.. ..
p;. .'c: S.,7.-
,..v..
i ll. .j,; U* .-: .
, .u -
i
, ,t . ..
w-- . y.
. .i . g . / .' c.m.
^ *
.' O c ?.c:DtD:
, ., ,- p.v, ....- .
.J . *'.*.j. ,.W . a.6 f .*.
- DATE :. Au gus t. 17, 1932 O.~ .e..v- . :: W. 4. o. ice i r f.:'i ./ '.- Crcur. 'ti ce ?~esi hr.:
[f:il::;.J,'TO: 1 Srovn G Roo: ?nver Divi:icn s.-:.:.2; i+. .
+ .
FROM: n. C. D:dd. .:.. '
$.: Vice Presice.t I'/ .'
F.., - Brown & Roo: Pe -r civi,i, 3 u..,.. Investigation of M Concerns [.(. SU3 JECT: QC..u-N In the course o[ our investiga:ica cf i Q.a. . *. . 6, 1982 complain: to Tor. Ecchan shou: alleged hier,Xnna procedura Broom,
.r-; ;*7. ' ..
a' p;;f,; Q;. ... Augustviolations at
. Doug Frankum, and Michael Her:ik intery the Comanche Peak geved plan ,. La ry ,
snevesults of f,==3f.': r
. h lov\- and .efutedini r=ed mewt 11e ra t u:n' s , '
, forner Comanche Pea.Ms t ' -/ ion r<porii- to you on the those discussicas.
'; ) as discussed in ny Jrsised several conce s no(
b,..f./ . 6,. :nve
. complaint. In ad4- c-4i, 2ssues. These were discussed in con-
[T l..q,g related to the rces, He r:ik, and Franku=, and durin g versations wit,. .. h2 ey ,
- a phone conversation wi:h Chu lie Scruggs , Assistant Comanche ki;#.f
;c .
'" ,, .s Peak Proj ect Manager. 3ese cence-ns are addressed belev.
W.a;. w : working at the concrete.First.bet:S.'b h toldk:ir usasthat when he a front-end was loader cperator in P6. a:.- ". .i . the proj ect,( A=preperly use d a;;regate materialear frof::1v a EGr. gg. -: reject p21e. %'t interviewed at len gth lii 2 I i a George, / vas werkin- who in A worked in the batch plant during the time . aware of..any ins 2:i~ce in which M i M George var not L .: . the area. or anyone else used reiected a h materiaf frs: a re'c t
'?
, l " '- pile in a pour, without proper'q.gresatdoch=entation and resolutihn cd such error. Gcerge's brother,aho Iso varied bntch a- suvervisar plan: the ba:ch at '
Pl ant, was of the same ricv. ' the tine, Bob .u o rris , is decca .:!./ U."
.f t.y . - .
"1" is an ex.2nple ei.s deficiency a:d dis:csiric -
5% ..a Attachmen : . and resolve us e ci~ ur.:es :ed 2:: .-;s te report (DOI) us material in a peur. Tn i .4 ed to dec =er. tis act an exa:ple of using rejecdi
;. exar:1e te Wi:t's
" naterial, as Witt alle. ed, bur isA::schn:nt :he closes:"A" shcus khat :he use ci f
, '. , concern that untested we could material was find. p operly ider.:ified and dispositioned, and J.
that there was no safety .pr:ble: cr.e s en :-d.
.7 4>. . . e. ..
t k*.1?~* .* \ t
- a.
}
==.L ~.
O. r.. , * . :: . . I I f*P
.^ /
*.r:.x
- T F= . -; be g'+ J
- I:j kw m .n n V V
- s
' J g; r! -
o gl i
( - -'.mu.=-===r = -*
. U
**l ," .
. . .'. . . ;x .1... . . . . ..
.nr . .. y 2
T T , f L'
-,,,r-- _
..;1 ~ .. s
, r.
- 6 W <. c 1*
g-A
- 4. t*. -
',,, f M.-
7 P2MOR.Utt"F 4,[,%. s. .'! . .
; .k. yi?
I
'I'O : it. M. Rica DATI: August 17, 1982 EM
$g,,.D. ; ,,ig. , . .. Group vice President gj:p
_.u . .u .
. "; Brown & Poot Power Divisien
.s:;:';0h U. ,
.. FRCM: II. C. Dodd, Jr.
[< .85.4.'*/ Vice President
. .%.~.*yM.. .
Brown & Root Power Division
? A. ee
. f- .
SUBJECT:
Snclosed -Inves* 4 tion Seport on C:.=plar..nt ly.'OS. . ' of t v.4,.s.ci , s a. / [pD* '.'.$*b 13, 1932, su=mari2ignq the S.{.'
- . *:@7;- Enclosed results of is a ne=cra=de= dated Auguste Brown & acot management inv G gust 6 letter to Thc=as J. Feehan. '-he l
$gk p. out eight i ena of concern relating to the Co=a.nche Peak Nuclear g.(9,..['PowerPlant. The lettar was delivered and discussed with *A" Mr. to gf.g+ Feehan and Mr.August the enclosed Itegri 13 on=ecorandun.
August 6,1982 and is Attar-$-'est ? an- >s,:.'f.. ^ MicW.+ gA *. The investigation was cenducted at the Cc--che Peak site, he-
~
t . l h.Y[ ginnin9 on Monday, Augast 9, 1932, and was perfor=ed under :f I %;.." direct supervision. I was assisted be tN ?s= M&M tanage=ent per-F-Y. B4R matmgessent [ sonnel listed on page 2 of the August'13 =e=crandun and by other SAR representatives. Cver 500 hours were s "* 4 l Mh.c d?.*< =anage=ent officials in L.he investigation of( - - - . . In addition, over 130 hcurs of ti=e-was spent b .? Q Le cencarns. K.f,.~1. ncn-supervisory corkers on the investigation. p"er.: {. g;U. , . Ivery employee I interviewed was asked whether he or she knew of 7 anything at Cezanche Peak that could adversely affect the censtruc-i;i . tien or safe operation of the plant. :ach e=ployee was urged to fK'P: report any concern to his or her super.-isor, and to report to higher l M* ; ,.=.. levels of .anage=ent if the supc: riser failed tc ts.ke appropriate action on the concern within a reascnable ti=e. I told e=ployees hFJ ~ ( PfiDJ - - wccid that if site management was unrescensive, they could call =e and : iO." ccme to the plant to =eet w' ith the empicyee if necessary- in (';M.-C., order to resolve a conce.n. The encicsed report smrizes t.*' s l g, ~., + i ion -eceitied frc= S&R e=ployees concerning issues raised With respe=t * - discussions I had with e=ployees by l g.<. . . on , issues no related to the( . . .etter, I checked inte l j.fi;;.' ...,. ; all cc- -ts and questions that v'4:n rai during =y discussions
.< '. 7*
and fcund no conditions.cr practices at the Cc=anche Peak plant l [; ,.f ccastituting a safety p cblem. . 1 W% - - l m,- E-ca%. v.x w rc J. , F IA-85~-5d l l p.h- e .
=
W. M. Rice - August 17, 1982 Page Two The only procedural violation relating to ' letter that was identified in the investigation wga failure b~y a welder to follow procedure in the use of veld filler material (Item 7). Iand several others failed to cause an NCR to be ritten at thd time of the procedural violation, and have been reprimanded. Since the weld in question was removed a short time af ter the procedural error (for reasons unrelated to the procedural i error), there is no ques tion concerning the adequacy of the struc-ture. No other uncorrected procedural violations were identified l by our investigation. Af ter . the August 13, 1982 meingrandum was dr.afted, I carefully re-viewed the memorandum in-it M*= with( M I also ! carefully reviewed with each%cttachment referenced l in the August 13 memoran um. A number of corrections and clarifica-l tions were agreed upon, as reflected in the handwritten notations on the August 13 memorandum. So that there can be no questions con-cer 'ng the document that was discussed and concurred in by myself and I have lef.t the handwritten notations on the August 13 memorandum just as they were discussed and initialled and have only filled in Attachment letters, as discussed with Mr. Dillingham, and corrected two minor typographical errors on page 1 as noted. has indicated with respect to each original letter
' tem that he rih longer has any safety concerns. This is noted by signature a't the end of each letter' item discussed in the enclosed report. I stressed to that he was
.$ memorandum.
under However, noafter oblig[ation whatsoeverwas' to sign me August satisfied that his concerns were fully addressed--by management, he indicated to me that he would be happy to note this in writing by signing each item of the report, as he did. .
/ \
As stated in the, Aucust 13 memorandum, and I are satisfied that August Y>.-complaint has been i thoroughly inveh14ated and tihat there are no safety questions presented. Asgnoted' in the Addendum to the August 13 memorandum, . i /now has "no safety concerns", and is of the view tha t tomanche Peak'is "a totally safe plant" . In further support of the findings of the August 13 memorandum, we have checked with Ha eva al'* Goodson on Item 8, and (6 denies to " mind yo s", as ' alleged in let er. Further, aid he reported
.y n ..
n 3
.dj -' .e
, u g Q. .,* . . - 2
=? -
W. P. . Fice { W,f 32,i. . . August 17, 1982
- i Page Three l
-S.' h:.c . -
n
.u. . p, . ,
. - ~
p.a. . a.; > bis concern not ' ' but to .u s superintendent, C. Sunt, J.RL... who investiga ted concerns. We aise talked to (M 7.gg : . T? " f'.# . 4 further about letter Ite= 6, and[Mjdenied ever. indi-
)that thera. were any3rreg=larities with any F5 .
h.M{ .9;.... cating of the 'to I@f travelerswre erenced bv/ '. Finally, we checked hDM. with M on Ite= 2, 'an.df. Jhas no personal kncwledge , q- -, r.. -p- of any tape having been used on shins. s TUGCO has been advised of co= plaint, and has been [f kept apprised of our investigation anc findings. I nave informed [}*[.
. ;-+.
p.J-Q1. . TUGCO that although we know of no ite=s that must be rapcrted by Mg.2.~ B&R to the NRC, we are of course available tc discuss the details 9@ .. of our investigation with either TUGCO or the NRC. 5.: qc s.. .. g.rf y Finally, I a= attaching two additional sc=cs. The first addresses a concern about swipe testing in the pressurirer vessel, first p[p
. {- Q,.. .g.4- raised bI ! with =e on Friday, August 13, after I had concern M first articulated concerning investigat
[.jg. swipe testing in the stea= generstar. i . ,:.r,;; " e seconhmemorandu= addresses pki;..;. ., certain miscellaneous issues - ed by t' )on subjects other
.-r % .;; than those contained in 4 letter..,<
EfIGE.. . .
.n y., .: s..r.f...r.s.
;~ ~
e .. .. a,~ m 3: e-- n. - . -~,,. . .. umw - r .
. , wr.4 h.w .-- .y; y. , - .
H. C. Ooc:. , -re s . .-- .: ~. l 1% Q:..% 9 f h;!, bjk
- r. .
Enclosures
- k. ~g..-
jj-j;...- cc: D. C. Trank:n 1?.u'- Prcject.wanager
?.k3
! 4- -
y{ Reviewed and Approved: V . @: . .
~
Date 0[-$M C Inox ."..
- r. Seniot'Fi B. .w , Jr. [t-Pres ' . n,
- c. .' P -
/ -
b.yl"l. '. . f / ., . ^ s;~ f l
% N;
~
h ence A. Astley, Jri - Data
.fj Senior Vica President.-
f.*A;:Ab[ u, i **) .
.6MC
/ / / Am -
8 - / '7 - 8 E. ps(s. Racnard P. Negrj,w
.g*[.,. Assistant CA .w.anager e
Date
-4.4.,,... .s. .
4 . . Ts 4 . Mo.e.T.a .. .- '
, W(e.,. . .!.: :.- '
w.. N '- I l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ .-- . _ . . _ . . _ - _ _ ~ . - . . _
C QTQ-162 TEX...? l'Til.lTIES GENERATING CO.h..'.NY Is 1 OFFICE M E MOR A NDUM To 0.N. Chapman September 2, 1982 Dalla. Texas Subject INVE _. The subject investigation was conducted by Antonio Vega and 0.L. Anderson during August 12, 1982 thr ch Auo investigation was conducted by interviewing and other persons ) who he stated were either he primary source of inf mation on a particular ! allegation, or someone who might be able to provide additional facts on i any item. ! The results of our investigation are as follows:
- 1. The first allegation implied an improper advanced knowledge on the part of craft personnel as to what areas were going to be swipe-test inspected by QC.
s M as interviewed. He did not have first hand
.h.g.L b in ormation on this subject. He referred us to.three individuals who he cited could provide additional information on this subject.
The ree individuals were interviewed. There was no support for statement. Some, conversations sere referenced which could have been the ba' sis for allegation l but did not constitute either a QA o raf t impro riety.
.. In conclusion, this allegation could not be substantiated and does not constitute an isolated or generic problem. It has no safety implication.
- 2. The second allegation implied a first han bservati . shims "
being taped to achieve proper thickness. .did not have first hand information on this subje . Furthermore, he
.g could not provide the name of anyone who did have first hand d'/J- ] information. He stated this information was relayed to him but 9
can't remember by whom. He further stated he knew of only one I instance where this was observed. This happened in the Turbine
. Building. He does know that not only the shims, but the whole kl;,% > foundation was subsequently replaced.
In conclusion, this allegation could not be substantiated and has no safety implication, generic or isolated.
~
F0lA-85-59 TfII
e
. QTQ-162 !
j l
- 3. The third allegation implied that some painting application on corgrete had not been allowed n e prior to placing stainless steel liner plates. ( . stated this was his own observation but stateT it was not really paint, but some compound.
He stated he only saw this in the fuel an f a'- "d when " bowed" liner plates were removed for repair. stated this occurrence had been identified in NCR. NCR No. M-1819 R2 and associated QC and engineering documentation was reviewed. This was also discussed with representatives of TUSI Engineering. This is a non-safety related application used to smooth concrete surfaces and to ease sloping requirements. In conclusion, this allegation has no safety implication and does not constitute either an isolated or generic problem.
- 4. .The fourth allegation implied that 1dino on ce anent equipment was done by non-qualified welders. stated this allegation was not based on first ha observati'ons. He stated he never saw a person in the act of performing the weld in question
,% but suspected an unqualified person of performing a weld on a turbine ventilation fan at. elevation 803'. Although there is no f'$ basis to substantiate this allecation would be non-safety related. M, the e ldhas in question no other first hand or specific information on any other instance where welds were performed by unqualified personnel.
In conclusion, this allegation could not be substantiated and does not constitute either an isolated or generic problem. It has no safety implication. 5 The fifth allegation states that the welding om tha etaam cenerator ! lagging structural supports'is unacceptable. ( - , ,, stated this applied to Unit 1. This was discussed with the cognizant engineer who stated that he evaluated the welds. It is his professional opinion and position that the welds as supplied are adequate to perform
'Mg their design function which is to maintain design geometry
., during a seismic event. Consequently, he has dispositioned A these welds use-as-is. Since that disposition, the welds have
~
- been discussed with the vendor who is committed to meet AWS requirements and has agreed to accept backcharges for rework to
- bring them to AWS standards. Additional NCR's have been issued to initiate rework activities.
In conclusion, the allegation was substantiated in that the welds as supplied failed to meet AWS criteria. The weld conditions were discussed with inspection personnel to preclude recurrence. However, since the welds were deemed adequate to perform design function as received, there is no safety implication related to this allegation. NCR's have been reissued and will form the basis for rework, QC inspection and closecut. ,
~
Page 3 e QTQ-162
- 6. The sixth allegation implied that safety related travelers had been fraudulantly filled out by the Millwright and Boilermaker Departments. .
. istated his gation was based entirely on a co versation with( a documentation clerk in the Mill ight off ge. ( )
and \two other indV-suggested we discuss this with(-Hefurtherstatedtheactivities}pertainedtofitup viduals. and cleanliness inspections, emphasizing he was sure the inspections had been done and that work done was acceptable but the method of documentation was improper. explained the procedural history on traveler signoff.' He explained that 6, l,p'J[ in all cases " chits" form the basis for inspection signoffs. kI Q
" chits" are l'ost, the work is NCR'd. He knew of no instance If where an ~ ector's signoff was not supported by a corresponding
" chit". ( statement was substantially supported by Mr. Jim Cole, a QC i pector involved in that area.
The third person was interviewed. She stated the facts were not very clear and did not want to state anytying she was unsure of. She could offer no information that would help support or repudiate the allegation. In conclu.sion, this allegat. ion is based entirely on a conversation and cannot be substantiated. On the contrary, discussions with the persons suggested by the alleger all directly contradict improper action. There is no safety implication and no generic or isolated problem.
- 7. The seventh allegation states that repairs have been made on the diesel generator main support without proper documentation. It further implies the repair area is still in use with five foot cracks.
-[( stated the beam on which the subject repair was hrade has been' cut out and is no longer in service. However, an arc strike on it was repaired prior to it being cut out, without
,w following proper procedure. Jhe reason forgnot following proper proced re was investigated. ( h ylleges M told a boilermaker to repair the oeam in quesnon and that t e boilermaker then told a subordinate welder to do it.
This incident was discussed with every individual mentioned as having some knowledge or involvoma t, either directly or indirectly, with the exception' ofe who was hospitalized. u , The allegation that an arc strike was repaired on a diesel generator support beam at variance with proper procedure was substantiated. The repaired beam was subsequently cut out because of a separate crack and does not present a safety problem.
~Q7Q- 162 An effort was made to determine why the repair had been handled oer The following key points were made. Nobody heard state the repair was to be done in any certain manner at mio be at variance with program requirements. However, as reported to have asked whether a welder and weld rod was ailable to do the repair. To someone familiar witn program details, it would appear that a procedure violation was intended in that, if the required Repair Process Sheet (RPS) was requested, and issued, it would provide for the issuance of weld rod specifically for that purpose. Subsequent directives to get the job done, when taken in light of these questions, could be interpreted as a directive to violate procedure. Consequently, there was a general perception among those involved that the directive given intended. the bvoassing of the issuance of the required RPS. Because has, in the past, frequently emphasized the importance of complying with procedural requirements, this was seen as an inconsistency.
This incident appears to be an isolated occurrence and does not constitute a generic problem. It has no adverse safety implication. A reprimand was given to some of the persons involved on August 12, 1982. However, not all persons involved in this incident were present then. By copy of this letter to Mr. Merritt, we recomend this be repeated with all involved personnel present at the same time. This is. deemed adequate corrective action.
- 8. The eighth allegation states that rebar has been cut on a main steam support and other supports without approval It states that this was brought to the attention of who replied with an admonition to mind his own b ness.
stated he had no first han ledge of this. ht it had oeen mentioned to him by' W lg 7 e tated he had mentioned this but also mentioned'the' existence of paper work that may allow this. possi stated he only knew of one instance where rebar was cut jnd har since , verified there was engineering approval fgr this. @ M ) stated he has never talked to. . He stated his imedfate supervisor has always needs and has no need to go to6, given himsall 'the support he This allegation was not supported by the person referred to as having first hand knowledge and therefore cannot be substantiated. It does not constitute a safety problem, either generic or isolated. Summary In summary, allegations 1,2,3,4,6 and 8 could not be substantiated or do not inv'olve. safety related activities. These do not constitute safety problems, are not indicative of program weakness and are not either generic or isolated problems.
Page 5
' ' *
- QTQ-162 Allegation number 5 was substantiated but does not constitute a safety problem. The problem has been documented for proper disposition and corrective action. The non-conformance reports will serve as the basis for rework, QC inspection and closecut.
Allegation number 7 was substantiated in that improper procedure was used to repair an arc strike on a beam that has since been cut out and removed. There is no safety question involved. This appears to be an isolated incident and does not represent a program weakness or generic problem. The reprimand issued to the personnel involved is deemed adequate corrective action. Antonio Vega h.M 0.L. Anderson AV/DLA:brd cc: B.R. Clements J.T. Merritt R.G. Tolson
' ~
hun URoot. loc. ( LETTER-OF DISCREPANCIES NOTED IN THE OPERATION OF THE MILLWRIGHT TOOL ROOM. IT HAS BEEN REPORTED AND OBSERVED THAT HAS BEEN DISTURBING THE PEOPLE WORKING 174 THE MILLWRIGHT NEEDS TO STAY IN THE TOOL ROOM AND TAKE CARE OF ( S DUTIES. s 6 ' IS ALLOWING PERSONNEL TO LINGER AT THE TOOL ROOM 00R. COMPANY BUSINESS ONLY NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE IN THIS AREA, AND THEN SEND THESE Pr*T. FI~E ON THEIR WAY. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE BEEN FORMALLY NOTIFIED OF THESE DISCREPANCIES LISTED ABOVE. SIGNED: TOOL ROOM ATTENDANT AS TALKED TO ABOUT THE ITEMS. FUSED TO SIGN THE ABOVE STAIEMENT. h w GEp GE TANLEY Y. 's J. W. CALICUTT
~
* ' og h 3a u4,g,U > e .-
d
& W l l
o
"~
,q ownURoot.Inc. '
') l
'\
DUTIES OF THE MILLWRIGHT DEPARTMENT'S TOOL ROOM A , I
- 1. MAKE SURE ALL PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY PARTS '
THEIR PLACE AND TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE STORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATIONS.\
- 2. KEEP THE TOOL ROOM CLEAN AND IN ORDER.
- 3. NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF ANY EXFENDABLE ITEMS TO BE REORDERED.
- 4. MAKE SURE THAT ONLY PEOPLE INVOLVED IN GETTING PERMANENT PARTS ARE IN THE TOOL ROOM.
- 5. DO NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO GANG-UP AT THE TOOL ROOM RECEIVING DOOR.
- 6. THE TOOL ROOM ATTENDANT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE S ,
DISTURBING OTHER PEOPLE FROM DOING THEIR WORK.
- 7. PICK-UP AND RECEIVE MATERIAL, COMING IN FOR THE TOOL ROOM FROM THE WAREHOUSE.
- 8. DO NOT LEAVE THE TOOL ROOM UNLESS HE IS TAKI DUTIES THAT ARE ASSIGNED TO HIM IN THE ABOVE.
_v ?v t > y J 3
"p QTQ-215 TEX.b UTILITIES GENERATING COM NY OFFICE M EM OR A NDUM Dallas, Texas December 10, 1982 To D.N. Chacman Subject TELEPHONECONVERSATION' w WIT [ /
On Friday, December,10, 1982 at approximately 10:30 a.m. I received a telephone call from h ) As you are aware, he had previously made some allegations which I investigated and reported to you on. He called today to advise me that he had been layed off. He attributed this action to having called Bill Rice at Brown & Root offices in Houston. was upset over his firing and stated he had withheld some concerns rom me when'I conducted the previous investigation. He stated the following: at the site knows of instances whe did
- 1. cited turbine pedestal litme welding he was not quali. .ed to do. He agal work which he couldn't elaborate cn.
- 2. He stated that .from Glen Rose knew of one instance when a sensor in the main dam was' broken by a bulldozer. It was picked up and packed back in the sand.
- 3. He stated tha M had also personally driven a front end loader _
that returned "'ory and lumpy" cement, rejected by QC, to a bin. He stated this cement was used in the " reactor core." He cited this as the reason why the " cracks happened." _ He stated these items would have very serious and significant impact and delay the project four years to " chip it all out." He charged that previous B&R Con n er had bouaht hunting rifles with B&R petty cash on CPSES and tha ad stolen chainlink fence for his cabin in South Texas from CPSES and h'ad used CPfiES labor to skin a deer on site. He stated he had notarized statements from individuals who would substantiate his charges and intended to go to the newspapers. . He asked if I could get his job back since he had no't yet gone to the newspapers. I advised him my job was to investigate concerns that might have a safety significance and could therefore make no commitments on jobs at CPSES. He mentioned he had some other concerns. I asked him to relate them to me if he indeed was interested in promoting a safe plant. He refused. I encouraged him to go to NRC. He stated he had no intent of going to NRC, but was going to the newspapers and congress. I intend to talk to the two individuals mentioned and will report any items if significa' F01A-85-59 oy Antonio Vega 7 17
m ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- DO NOT DISCLOSE [ Interviewee: A. Vega, Site QA Manager Date Interviewed: 4/9/84
- Were having problems with Brown & Root (B&R) personnel previously
- Interviewed al . inspectors in August '80, lower pay, etc. was iden-tified as a concern, ,.c heard about the use-as-is syndrome, we were not aware of all the complaints prior to that time
- We implemented combined trainiG2 programs Became more aware af te( hearing
- Protective coatings ques ton surfaced
- had a very tight spec. *
- took a long time to gradually reduce criteria
- had credibility problems during this period, appeared like we reduced requirements because they could not be met
- had some poor supervision (Williams removed) <
- Williams' statement was blown out of proportion - he said they were nitpicking and may be overlooking real deficiencies because of it
- We recognized need for better communications
- There was overreaction to a T-shirt incident by management
- most T-shirt personnel said they intended no message by wearing of the T-shirts
- Vega is in process of meeting with inspectors to address their concerns
- A letter has been distributed indicating an open door policy to encourage any inspector with concerns to come to Vega
- Getting some visits by inspectors
- Investigating series of management letters to personnel being combined into one directive
- Have program to track and feed-back to inspectors
- Don't seem to have problems in ASME area now
- Still looking at other loose termination problem
- Have told inspectors to go to NRC as necessary - encouraged to go Note: In conjuction with this interview I reviewed various documents which addressed inspector concerns and various directives to personnel indicating management sensitivity to concerns.
FOA85-59 ( 4 wwa~ i , 1
- J
40 NOT DISCLOSE Interviewee: R. Sievei, QC Group Supervisor, ASME Date Interviewed: 4/11/84
Background:
3 yrs. Kemper, Brown & Root (B&R) 3 yrs. , 3 yrs. United Engineering Have very little hassle with my people
- Feel we have good rapport
- Goes out with people and check out inspections - wears copper (non-supervisor) hat when in field
- Some feedback that some foreman are harder to get along with - rare Been told by Frankum that if anybody gives my people bad time they will be out the gate Explains use-as-is whenever there is a question by an inspector *
- Never pressure not to write NCR's
- Tell supervisors to explain to inspectors that if they have any problem to bring it to me Tell people can go to anybody including NRC Other personnel and ne are upset about people getting attention at hearing and dragging us down, hurts our pride We have low turnover in QC .
l g 9 wem %8 "% h g g iA hI
DO NOT DISCLOSE Interviewee: B. Grier, Special Assistant to QA Manager Date Interviewed: not recorded On site approximately 6 mo.,1 month orientation, 5 mo. reviewing concerns Have been involved in one inv. on craftsman after he quit Was a hardware accusation investigator showed that there were no tech concerns A recent concern involved the fact that the computer info didn't match dwg.
- problem concerned status of DCA's am still reviewing Got involved in T-shirt incident l
8 l e em . ~~ , .y3 + m, e d '4 . , s. s', ,wb l i k.
s
.D0 NOT DISCLOSE Interviewee: Greg Bennetzen, Building Manager Date Interviewed: 4/6/84
Background:
7 yrs, at CPSES - all QC from B&W, Lynchberg, have degree in nuclear systems, 2 yrs. assoc. degree Good construction, no major problem in final product Corrective action process is working Have not experienced suppression of NCR's Has been some misunderstandings (mostly involving inexperienced people) as to legitimacy of voiding NCR's Have told inspector it's not their job to evaluate NCR problems but try to explain disposition Have gone many times to eng. to get improved answer to NCR's
- One problem was that building management got uncooperative after inspectors found lighting problems Procedure was too broad - not limited Inspectors were told that inspection of iighting would be handled another way and I +old them this, they were reluctant to accept (we unsated lighting until procedure was changed) attitude had deteriorated at this time Got poor support from bldg. management at one time stabbed us in back by squealing to management after we would have things worked out my boss realized what was going on, situation was corrected I heard that inspectors were concerned that they were transferred due to the fact that they found problems, not a legitimate reason No pressure to approve workmanship at CPSES There was only a perception of problems concerning lighting, this problem was not fully explained to inspectors Nothing was slid under table NRC talked to me but not to generally assess job There is some natural fear of NRC due to their position Main problem that occured - handling of problems by bldg. management leading to disgruntled inspectors and ongoing comm. problem No safety problem at this plant, plant is built with necessary quailty 9
%M g - N ** O .
J .) . t d i a.wwwwS i
s RQ NOT DISCLOSE Interviewee: Mark Welch Date Interviewed: 4/6/84
Background:
B.S. Mech. 3 yrs. QA/QC elec.
- Was sup, of T-shirt people in S/G on day of incident and still hold position, prior-QA specialists sup. (special projects)
- Plant is built ok, nonnal problems being addressed and corrected
- Greg (Bennetzen) was having comm. problems with bldg. mangt. - maybe management felt need to move him Put me in because better suited due to my background, Greg was mostly ASME background
- Perceived from T-shirts that men were testing me My management already had given me direction to tell insp. to remove shirts I perceived T-shirts as indicating that they were actually nit-pickers Knew ahead of time that I was going into a communications problem but had no opinion as to personal ability -
They (inspectors) have said and I feel it was a comm. problem - nobody fully explained proc. changes to them Lighting now handled by B0P-site has not decided what to do yet regarding lighting Had a problem with lighting, was mainly concerned of effect on other equip-ment, if failure occured, some felt we needed to only monitor this area generally Determined inspection of lighting not critical, test of circuit is sufficient, not a safety problem, a B0P problem Don't think we have a lot of these loose termination problems Feel inspectors now understand why changes were made Post - const. inspectors were on hold so transferred people to Unit 2, have l not yet added people to replace, 3 of 8 (T-shirt inspectors) were ! transferred to Unit 2, 6 people transferred, 3 of which were T-shirts (see memo's) (ma able about March 28,1984) Didn't want o be lead-not his job, Stan Moore was assigned Unit 2 not essarily expendable people, also experienced pool to draw from No discrimination in transfer Kept people, only transferred them Knew I was overstaffed before I went out, Crane (Building Manager) had some influence via general discussion only I chose on my own who would be transferred, Hicks (supervisor) made that clear l - Don't see any safety problem that has not been addressed - evaluated and corrected as necessary Has been some breakdown in comm. l Have improved in comm. area l . 40 NOT DISCLOS$
@ NOT DISCLOSE Welch Con't
- Can now talk to eng. at location Seem to be communicating better
- Craft taking better care of problems Have good QE to assist We explain NCR answers as necessary Vega has an open door policy Grier has been available to listen to problems, his position was created about 6 mos. ago Inspectors can go to NRC anytime and in fact it is their responsibility to identify safety problems May be some fear of NRC - natural because of position, mostly would be ones who have not dealt with NRC NRC does talk to inspectors Bottom line communications and lack of understanding by insp.
9 e b
'_s.v --i wivv s.
,- , . .; f, ^ 7 ww6
2 I AUGT DiscLcSy - . . Interviewee: D. W. Cox Date Interviewed: 4/12/84
Background:
NDE/ Mech /Struct CP-2 yrs all QC
- Good quality 4 Problems are identified and answered
- Use-as-is dispositions are explained but I don't always agree with them, only problem-partial penetration vs. full thickness welding situ 6 tion, ok to AWS Code but doesn't get fitup inspection as would weld designed as e full penetration, seems to be structurally sound and Code requirements are met No pressure not to identify problems .
- We have a good run program *
- I feel free to go to NRC ,
- See NRC in field
- NRC has looked at my work Craft generally cooperative, n'o serious problems Training in structural - OK NDE - written could have been tougher
- Dwgs with changes work ok - takes some getting use to DCC better controlled now D
g% q =e
~'
g _. ;, - - - - - l l l
RONOT DISCLO Interviewee: J. D. Duncan Date Interviewed: 4/12/84
Background:
15 mo. Mech /QC lead, Exp - 5th Nuclear Plant, Const. 23 yrs. Bechtel QE
- Best plant I've seen - Trying to do more than almost I.umanly possible - Top quality Unit - Corrective action process working well - Goed followup occurs regarding problem a Good management support - No pressure not to write up problems
- Training good, learned a lot even though I was experienced
- I help inspectors when they have questions - CMC, OCA document process normal for construction, not confusing to me, allowed enough time to figure out, simple once you are used to it Have Good inspectors - I have no quality / safety problems Have freedom to go to NRC - invited more to go than I was at any other plant - Get good craft cooperation O
P l' 8 EDT DISCLOSE
00 NOT DISCLOSE Interviewee: L. A. Chandler Date Interviewed: 4/12/84
Background:
Mech.-QC lead, 6 yrs. total, elec. 3, QC-3 - Things I am involved with I have no problems with Have no problem identifying problems and having fixed and/or evaluated - Get good feedback - No pressure not to write up problems - Think complainers don't understand everything We are very thorough - Feel free to go to NRC, have talked to NRC in interview and seen in field Training is ok, sufficient to assure inspections properly performed, new people came to me for guidance
- sonor eiscl_CSE
DO NOT DISCLOSE Interviewee: R. C. Whiteman Date Interviewed: 4/12/84
Background:
QC Elec. Lead - Aux. Bldg. , CP-7) yrs. , all QC l 1
- Good quality plant l Sometimes write NCR's and use-as-is dispositicns scmetimes questioned, !
sometimes I'm not sure of evaluation, management doesn't necessarily feed ' back reasons - are minor issues of nonsafety concern . No problem writing NCR's, no pressure not to Is better support now - will probably get better feedback
- Safe plant No pressure to not identify problems
- Communication (feedback) problems in past
- Feel fully free to go to NRC - told ever since I've been here to feel free Have seen NRC and talked to NRC in field Complaints of individuals getting attention are not legitimate - they don't understand precedures, complaints are not tech, sig, as tg quality Ilaa recent communications problems QC training could be better I think - QE people need to help us more, go into field more to understand more what we have to do, have brought this up to management and have been told they will get back to me .
~
00 NOT DISCl.855
D0 NOT DISCLOSE Interviewee: S. 4. Patterson, Date Interviewed: 4/12/84 '
Background:
QC Thermo-lag, Civil Mech. , CP-2 yrs. 4 mos., all QC, Hilti, epoxy, UT of bolts qualificatiens
- Quality good .
- Good job cn thermo-lag, tock 3 while to train
- Twod quality on other areas Craf t cooperates - No pressure not tc write NCR Good mariagement support - Free to go to NRC
- Training ok
- Lot of illegal alient at Cornahche, I think Not elicogh blacks hired, in my opinion Safe plar.t o
EQblOT DISCLOS
DO NOT D!SCL0$ Interviewee: G. D. Knox Date Interviewed: 4/12/84
Background:
Weld VT Supports and Structures, CP-4 yrs., QC approx.10 mo. No quality / safety concerns Good management supports on identified problems Get good feedback on use-as-is questions 1 - Training is adequate, good field training Have freedom to 90 to NRC Craft are cooperative l l 1 f l A0 NOT DISCL65E ' _ . _ , . ., - , . . . . ~ . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ .. . _ , , . , ~ _ ._ . ,. -.._s
DO NOT Ot ccegg Interviewee: J. A. Caldwell Date Interviewed: 4/11/84
Background:
About 8 yrs. various areas, welder etc.; QC-2 yrs. mech. , all certs, mostly worked in reactor building Management support good - craft wasn't always quality minded - no significant tech. problems, some minor procedure requirements violated Problems get addressed Feel free to identify problems Get good feedback on use-and-is Perform surveillances at random sometimes - not alot, have freedom to do Craft work pretty well with us Some craft aren't as cooperative
- No pressure to not identify problems Have no quality concerns Painters damaging some cotter keys, we need to look after they get out of areas Free to talk to NRC, have talked to Taylor without being even asked by my management what I said, generally talked with Taylor I live close and feel safe .
l l l DO NOT DISCLOSE l l i
MJOT Dl3CLOSE Interviewee: G. D. Vaughan Date Interviewed: 4/11/84
Background:
B&R 4 yrs. at CP, QC-all but 3 mo., coatings 6 mas, rest mech. QC, Mech./ Weld /NDE - Level 11 qualifications Get good management support Good support if we have problems No pressure not to write NCR's
- Some pressure from craft previously (old management scheme) was hard to keep up, didn't lead to any quality problems, never threatened
- Good q'uality, no safety concerns *
- Use-as-is reasons are well communicated Peop1 olai i g weren't happy here so aren't happy elsewhere I kno - she was treated fairly, think she is complaining to get back at hem
- Feel free to go to NRC, have been told I have the right to, no pressure not to
- Never talked to NRC but see NRC in field
- Would live close without worry DO .NOT DlsCLOSE
- .---.- ..- - - . . _ _ J
.QQNOT OfSCLOSE 1
Interviewee: W. T. Sims Date Interviewed: 4/11/84
Background:
B&R QC lead. RC #1 hangers; worked Fab, piping also, 71 yrs at CPSES, VT and NDE qualifications, prior - NDE - Fort Worth Good quality program tonnunications were had in early stages (Hawkins previous) several years ago Purdy has much improved No problem writing NCR's now Previous problems were in minor technical areas - no safety significance, primarily communications No known safety oroblems Craft better now
- Craft working well with QC Good management support No pressure by craft Not much contact with NRC Eeen told to cooperate with NRC ,
Id numerous times to feel free to talk to NRC asked me if I wanted to go to. intervenors - she was recruiting people she left - A11egers don't have serious concerns - blown out of proportion Live n.sar plant and am not worried about it's safe operation l i. l I L i N NOT DISCLOSE 6
- mmu "
DO NOT DISCLOSE Interviewee: H. L. Hill, Jr. Date Interviewed: 4/11/84
Background:
B&R QC insp. , C1. A ASME 1 yr. , 5 yrs. CP, previous pipe welder
- Feel responsible for plant - hold people to the line - have lot of pride
- Didn't like scme personnel problems in craft - actual work is fine Get good management support
- No one has ever pressured me when I've found something wrong Live close and feel safe
- Good support up and down chain of command
- Told 1st thing (2nd day) I could go to NRC and in fact I'm obligated if can't get attention of management, can go anytime Feel NRC is n - have talked, seen around. are courteous people Worked with . , . they were treated right, no mistreatment new she was leaving (Mid me) but asked for R0F, I think she camp neo unnecessarily and drags us down too Everything I see in newspaper is wrong and inaccurate
- I get upset with unwarranted allegations
- 93". of people, even sweepers are very concientious, a few are complainers but don have much edibility .
I knew she's just trying to get back at them - she was a "oitch" ask the girls who worked for her), girls were poorly treated, they disliked her very much, she abused her authority
- No safety problems - no uncorrected problems
- Excellent quality down to the nits l
DO NOT DISCLOSE t l l l
DO NOT DISCLOSE Interviewee: J. R. Parker Date Interviewed: 4/11/84
Background:
B/R CP-4 yrs., 4 mos. , QC Insp.; previous exp.- Frito Lay, maintenance research, started RT 3 yrs., insp.1 yr. 4 mos.
- Told if I have problem with too many CMC's to have eng. incorporate into dwg. - Training program ok - but think it could be more professional (tougher) - Good management support - good feedback - Don't feel any pressure from craft not to write NCR's Don't understand what alleger complaints are about when they say pressure not to write NCR * - End product it extremely high quality - Live closer, plant is safe, feel safe ~
Feel free to go to NRC, told I am free to go any time
- No one has ever talked to me from NRC, see them in the field Allegers seem to be trying to get back at company G
l DO NOT DISCLOSE l
O go7 DISqog Interviewee: M. R. Todd 4-11 Date Interviewed: 4/11/84
Background:
B&R _8 yrs., CP in QC, lead QCE, worked in every group
- Know of nothing I have concern about (adamant) - Don't think allegers have a leg to stand on - Have talked to investigators from NRC - Get good management support - Get good feedback - No pressure ever to not write NCR's - Problems are well documented - Feel free to talk to NRC, have talked to NRC, been told regularly, they have freedom to talk to NRC Know all allegers - think they are getting back at company and they think c nv them a living - they a 't qualified to make silegations, knew
( are backstabbers
- d more positive PR-(educate puYTic) from NRC - only hear negative in media, not equal ~ time to our side - the good side - Live close, not worried DO NOT DISCLOSE
9 DO NOT DISCLOSE Interviewee: B. J. Chadwick Date Interviewed: 4/11/84
Background:
B&R; previous-South Texas Project 8 yrs., CP-total 2 yrs. QC, g VT, MT, PT, Vac. Test, MIFI, MEI, hangers / pipe
- Good quality
- Are conjested areas
- Get good support on IR and NCR's Never have problems with management
- No unknown problems or concerns Always had freedom to go to NRC Documentation package system working well ,
No problem getting questions answered feel free to talk to NRC, right to go to NRC is repeatedly expressed, have talked to NRC here once on interview survey, NRC's always in field, normally official approach Live close - no fear i l l 1 l l DO NOT DISCLOSE l (
Q N y @ scios , Interviewee: R. M. Duncan Date Interviewed: 4/11/84
Background:
B&R, Level II B insp. , 6 yrs. CP, pipe shop 5} yrs. , helper - fitter, QC since August, VT, NDE in pipe Recently qualified, had excellent training
- Good quality when I was in craft Get good support on questions Was responsible for heat # review, data cards, configurations, checks, ect.
had good ht. list never changed ht. #'s don't know of anyone doing, QC always checked
- was well organized sometimes ht. Nos. got removed accidentally, threw material away*or applied to non-safety related application or temporary piping application QC inspected transfer of Nos. during cutting of material have only seen higher class material used in lower grade system Have good inspectors Some nepotism but generally good craft Got good management support Get problems corrected, not pressured to not identify problem
~
I hold them to procedures Would live close - no problems People only see bad side in newspaper
- NRC, feel free to contact, told I can, never have talked to NRC, have seen resident insp. talking to people - mainly craft
( l l l l l DO NOT DISCLOSE 1 l l
DO NOT CISCLOS Interviewee:
. Date Interviewed: 4/84
Background:
Elec. Level 1 - 21 yrs total, no previous experience, started craft, 15 mos. QC
- Training ok, transition was confusing
- Paper flow group wasn't organized, don't get everything I need for inspection right way
- Flame ' nuclear' is scary but seems ok relative to CPSES
- Are declassifying lighting on A&B train DO NOT DISCLOSE
i 0 NOT DISCLOSE Interviewee: Date Interviewed: * /84
Background:
QC 1 yr 4 mts. , B/R previous exp.11 yrs. , drafting elec.
- Only problem involved proceduces for post-construction inspection
- No feedback on changes
- Post const. procedure, especial'.y lighting, I think changes are ok safety wise
- I did not do post-construction inspection
- Can't go into cabinet-loose terminations had been found inside cabinets
- People transferred to Unit 2 because of post-insp., 6 of 8 were transferreo (all 6 were post-insp. plus one person who sent newspaper articles), looks like move a guy because he stirred the pot, think opinions have b6en made to
- ne guy was pressuring, pres surec' by complaining directly not through supe isor, foreman told ( /it was his fault for problems; work not adversely affected
- Have a woman with no previous experience as a Level II elec. insp. at CP, insufficient training for people with no previous expreience, have enough training to follow basic procedure go/nogo requirements but not to see big problems, recertification - read procedure only
- Program being met on paper
- Person in charge doing post-inspection now (Bowers) is more qualified than original people, don't know about new inspectors although they are young -
do have previous training
- Was no original check on lighting terminations (surveillance only) but was inspection on cabi' nets
- Are some loose terminations in cabinets I think Have stranded wire under screw blocks (referred to Ruff)
- No big safety-related problems
- Some engineers are not fully considering all aspects of problems
- I have .some double heresay - I heard third hand that they steered around problem of bubbles in concrete dome when taking core samples (referred to Lenahan)
- Have no problem concerning safety of plant l
00 NOT DISCLOSE
O NOT DISCLOSE Interviewee: W. S. Vore Date Interviewed: 4/12/84
Background:
QC Lead S/G Elec., 9 yrs. total, OC 4 yrs. In some respects it is hard to say my opinion on quality
- Don't know eng. requirements Some procedure changes made - incomplete feedback but don't know of safety problems - Told open door policy, better feedback now then before Nothing I know of would affect safety, no serious concerns T-shirts incident was blown out of proportion Inspectors had legitimate complaints - probably over inspected a few things but 95% needed correction, 50% of terminations were bad in all ro* oms - need 60 lb. pull off - was not met (referred to Ruff)
Vega appears to be open to concerns In the broad scope - quality good Some craft make mistakes Get good cooperation from craft No pressure not to write NCRs, some in past (got direction on unnecessary NCRs) but were in fact not NCRs No one told not to write NCRs, sometimes NCR upgrades occured Free to talk to NRC, seen NRC in field, had some interviews with NRC in past Only real concern is 0 95% complete - no explanation as to why procedures keep changing - all keep changing, some get more strict, some less
- Examples of less restrictive or clarified are:
lighting terminations MOV - no verification of terminations (no critical problems) mech. term. blocks (still inspecting) Have gotten no feedback on these problems yet (have talked with Vega) Would live close with no concern 00 NOT DISCLOSE
0 NOT DISCLOSE Interviewee: L. F. Taggart Date Interviewed: 4/12/84
Background:
QC Elec. Lead Un. 2, QC-CP-7 yrs. QC, Elec. Contractor prior - 6 mos., also electrician, worked civil also
- No quality safety concerns - Problems get imediate attention - Get good management support identifying problems - Recent complaints involved good inspectors that had management problems -
evolved around lighting complaints and was blown out of proportion, some inspectors went overboard on lighting, created alot of animosity, some have bad attitude that they are probably not going to cooperate fully with craft, some convinced others there were problems, have settled down now *
- Feedback on problems is good
- Feel free to go to NRC, would like inspectors to come to me before going to NRC, but ok if don't
- Most of my people who have concerns - have personnel concerns G
.DO NOT DISCLOSE
.DO NOT DISCLOSE i
Interviewee: R. L. Adams Date Interviewed: 4/12/84
Background:
QC II Elec.- 3 yrs. , 3rd Nuclear Plant, worked at South Texas Project and Prarie Island
- Elec. const. is ok
- I have written CAR's (major corrective action request) and they have listened
- Worked on traceability program Problems were evaluated and corrected
- Get good feedback
- No pressure not to write NRC's
- Had major problem in cable pulling, responded with major correcti0e action
- Worst thing on job was pay and getting qualified people - some people go overboard with insp. and get overly excited about same things - they are afraid to sign, alot of complaints are not justified, they would see use-as-is and say I'll get -
- - Had some bad supervision - as not too good - always would go with management, all problems we es d
- Felt I was trying to be blackballed at one time, got transferred and had fewer problems, a lot better now
- Have had dwgs with alot of change.s - got together with others and reviewed everything to assure myself of requirements
- I have caused alot of trouble (written up alot of problems) but problems have been addressed eventually
- Training program significantly improved a few months ago but has slacked off again, hard time keeping up with changes, probably hard "on new people, training adequate to do job
- No quality concerns - intend to stay at CP
- Everything I have been involved with is ok
- No problem going to NRC, may have in most, probably would have quit first in past if I felt I had to go to NRC DO NOT DISCLOSE
. _ _ - . . . - ~ ,. m "I . m , m m..a e m
50.h0T DISCLOS ; Interviewee: Randy McGaughy Date Interviewed: 4/6/84
Background:
6 yrs., all elec. QC
- T-shirt (post-const.) people are complaining about minor issues, overblowing problems, not qualified to make allegations
- Problems are properly corrected
- Volunteered on his own to come talk with us, also Beck did
- Don't know why they are complaining -some persuaded others in S/G area, they etabarrassed the rest of us
- May be assuring themselves of jobs (whistle blowers get extra protection)
- Complainers (T-shirt people) boast about getting attention of Clements, NRC, etc.
- They, (T-shirt people) have been recently transferred to our group
- They are dragging all down-may be influencing other inspectors into erroneously feeling negative toward this job
- They are getting more attention then they deserve, QC getting bad name
- No quality / safety problems-very confident
- Some are afraid of talking to NRC Coments: He appears to be an experienced inspector and is adamant in his opinion about complaining inspectors and quality of the plant.
l DO NOT DmqOSc-
e
%N o7oISClosg Interviewee: Jerry Back Date Interviewed: 4/6/84
Background:
Level II elec. , QC-15 yrs. , Com. Peak - 7 yrs. , Air Force - 26 yrs. Complainers (T-shirt people) are wrong They have blown problems way out of proportion Nothing wrong with this plant Would live here close Some QC people are blowing problems way out of proportion People are doing excellent job Coments: He appears to be an experienced man with a strong opinion. N 00 l'l0T DISCLOSE
% NOT DISCLOSE tlame Key and Additicnal Information for Appendix A Inspectors A-1 Inspector Name:
Date Interviewed: 4/12/84
/ ..
General Background ; ,. ,.
,3 , . 1.. ,j , ' ,[ . *~ ' '(.gs fe#
,. [,g ':
....x," s
.4.,. .....
, . . ;. ,. . + .. -
A-2
/
Inspector Name: M Date Interviewed: 4/12/84 General
Background:
Blank: Toisen A-3 Inspector Name: ) Date Interviewed: 4/5/84 General
Background:
First Blank: Vega
=
Second Blank: Barfield ! . A-4 e N Inspector Name: 0 Date Interviewed: 4/12/84 5% General
Background:
1 l i B"' 6"i*r DO NOT DlSCLOSE
~. v..,-
, ,n.r.n.n.~ m ..+.a..mna-n ,,w n m y.:.,.sv m,g:.,.. .
, r- , - -
. flame Key Cont. '
"o 7NU' DISCLOSE
{ A-5 Inspector flame: Date Interviewed: 4/6/84 g General
Background:
A-6 Inspector flame: Date Interviewed: 4/4/84 General Backgrour.d: A-7 Inspector flame: ) Date Interviewed: 4 4/84 General
Background:
% /
DO NOT DISCLbSE
+ ww nmwaaw .=-ev.v+ n:uowmumwMwemx w ".
.D0 NOT DISCLOSE APPENDIX A ,
Inspector Name: A-1 Date Interviewed: General
Background:
Interviewee Ccmments:
- Uncomfortable with less structured program for non-ASME versus ASME; e.g., seem to change dwg. when structure doesn't meet original, can add welds in field and he doesn't think it gets incorporated into dwg., QC lead can approve changes to travelers for non-ASME structures, not much QA involvement in this area.
- Specific: Procedure QIQP 1114-12, electrical mounting backfit, .
craft complained so procedure was revised to reduce number of ; inspections, 4 revisions made to delete requirements (bolt tight-ening,etc.)
- Has the impression that QA has been generally deficient at nuclear plants and QC has not been supported at Comanche Peak in the past.
Indicated main problem is probably him being able to adjust to non-ASME work: is not aware of code violations taking place. f F' bO NOT DISCLOSg
Inspector Name: A-2 2 10#or ofsC. LO i Date Interviewed: General
Background:
Interviewee Conment:;
- Has some concern with use-as-is HCR situaticns, use-as-is seems particuiarly prevalent when using Specifici.ticn 55-10?.
- Specific Technical Concern: NCR .was written 'when cable damage occurred curing Siss Seal removal using e th*er.ded rod. This occurred in Auxiliary Building, e'iev. M2'. NCR said no demage was done to cable but some insulation had beeti scraped off by red. Feel furthar evaluation may be in order for tncse cables and there m&y be similar problems elsewhere.
- Specific < yrcte 1 NCR's reg 3rding traceability of fusc blocks. <
Blocks were not marked "Q". NLR said OK as-is because no .lon-Q - blockt were purchased vie. 'crder MS-60b. Feels other siiiiilar non-Q blocks t, ave iaeen purchased via different purctiase order and could have been instalied as Q. Thinks this a possible l paperwork problem.
- Spccific: Wrote recent NCR (not yet evaluated) on GE Motor Control Centers. Compressiot lugs have bends as mur.n as 100 '
degrees (arcre than normally donc done by site ccnstruction). ' Don't think GE can violate requirements and may be , a problem elsewhere in GE MCC's. Also han some brokan wire , strands which we are fixing as we find.
- Specific: Had previous paperwsrk conflict problem in solving rework of terminal blocks. 6 ,) age RFIC involved and Proc. $AP-6 involved. Wrote 2 NCR's. NRf. inspectors Creek and Johnson were aware, Creek told NRC inspector Taylor, Taylor told to have an answer. Never got feedback as to results. ;
- Specific: Repaired a solenoid, shortly after coming to Comanche Peak in craft, without paperwork. Don't know if it was safety l related. Not concerned with solenoid technically - did a good job.
Notes: The specific concerns were given verbally to the SRI - Construction on 4/12/84 for further followup. It was indicated during the interview he would get more specifics for SRI. MCC problem was still being evaluated. I suggest allowing the licensee to evaluate and then followup for adequacy of corrective action. - I DO NOT DISCLOSE 1 l
.: \
l 3 EO NOT niSCL Inspector Name: A-3 Date Interviewed: General
Background:
Interviewee Coments:
- Generally concerned with finding numerous problems during past construction inspection and procedure being changed to deletc inspection, e.g., loose terminations found in lignting.
- Some NCR's are answered simply that the problem is not addressed in Specificatios ES-100. *
- Recent NCR written because restraint cable (lighting) crimp gages were worn & therefore, irispection was inadequate. This is still being evalcated.
- Wires of two different gages were terminated at some lugs and many terminations ara loose.
Have more pressure not to nrite NCR's during turnover. Found loose LB's (elbow termination fittings) @ East & South ends of Unit 1 Diesel Generators, wrote two NCR's, was accepted as is. Found cables not trained (routed) in workmanlike manr.er in Unit 1 Cable Spread Room 9 junction bcxes 1058 and 1059. NCR said OK because cable radius was OK but did not admit workmanship problem. Feels pcst construction inspectors were transferred to Unit 2 as retaliation for finding problems. ! ticard second hand that IR's (inspection reports) were being written falsely (without reinspection) to clear IIRN's (discrep-ancy report) on cable trays. Heard from lady in Paper Flcw Grcup (PFG) and lady in vault. Said he would get back to NRC with more specifics, Notes: Some review of the lighting termination issue and post check procedure was conducted by team member Ruff. The site inspector indicated he had told of most of these issues and QA was evaluating. I forwarded concern relative to 1058 & 1059 junction boxes to RIV: Martin and he indicated he insp!cted these boxes and sees no technical problem. Resident Inspector: Smith partic-ipated in most of the interview and indicated he was aware of the D/G loose fittings and sees no technical prtblem. I evaluated reasons why 6 personnel including were transferred to Unit 2 and this move does not appear to be discriminatory. DO NOT OlSCLO.te
I EO NOT DjSCLOS Inspector Name: A-a Date Interviewed: General
Background:
Interviewee Comments:
- Uncorafortable with some use-as-is situations, e.g., cable separation problem found in fuel building during walkdown did not meet procedure but was evaluated as use-as-is. He can show someone where it is.
Wrote NCR on lack of 5-thread engagement on a conduit fitting
- poor evaluation in that they simply said that couldn't see it; a second NCR was written on this area for cable damage, seemed to be looking for a wsy to buy this area off, took two tries to get everything evaluated, knows about this but didn't get back to him on fact that NCR's were poorly handled, i.e., non-tech-nical aspects.
Feels discriminated against in that he was transferred to Unit 2 where there is no overtime. Got grilled on cable damage NCR at the same time as being counseled on a personnel issue so it appeared that his transfer had something to do with NCR. Management is aware of this concern. Note: I did not review this person's transfer situation. 0 00IDISCLOSE l , l 1
1 5 50 Nor of3CLG3 Inspector Name: A-5 Date Interviewed: General
Background:
Interviewee Coninents:
- Had problems with post check, e.g., loose lighting terminations and junction boxes. Took lighting out of procedure and made it more difficult to look at junction boxes. Management was made aware of these concerns. (Has no significant safety concern)
More tendency toward use-as-is when pressure is on (safety requirements are being met, however) Has had some fear of talking with NRC, didn't think reporting on-site would ever get off-site, doesn't have NRC RIV phone number Feels discriminated against by being transferred to Unit 2 Some NCR evaluations are inaccurate or unclear, e.g., statement that workmanship was not compromised when in fact workmanship was poor but the item was technically acceptable Notes: I reviewed the transfer situation; appears to be reasonable but not as clear as reasoning on other 5 transfers. NRC Form 3 appears well posted so I'm not sure why he doesn't have the number. He does not appear to fear talking with NRC now. Although, he stated he does not have significant safety / quality concerns, his comment on NCR answers is interesting. Similar general comments were received from other inspectors and this could indicate a need for better answers on NCR's. An example
. would be that if a workmanship question was not addressed properly then perhaps needed retraining of personnel as preventive action would not get performed. Perhaps the licensee needs to improve in this area.
DD NOT ofSCL
O 6 '
.B.$ NOT DISCLOSE Inspector Name: A-6 Date Interviewed: ,
l General
Background:
Interviewee Coments:
- Added higher sides to some cable trays to keep cables in trays
- Also there may be cable density / compaction problem in this area
- It's tough to keep people off trays to keep from damaging them
- Have had problems with clearance of pipe and cables, have to notch insulation, place metal between insulation and trays
- There is alot of rework to get proper separation Notes: This man was questioned primarily to get input for RIV review of -
cable spread room as to where there could be problems. He personally has little problem with plant quality. RIV - Martin Was at tho interview and Verbal feedback on the first two items indicated that the situations were acceptable. I l , 56 NOT P'crLOSE
7 NO DISCLOSE Inspector Name: A-7 Date Interviewed: General
Background:
Interviewee Coments: Had problems with Paper Flow Group (PFG), when first implemented, with completeness of packages. Getting better and does not know of safety problem involved , Some inaccurate NCR answers Site has problem with lost records, 2 people are assigned full - time in the vault, NCR's are not written on lost records, reinspect ! when record is lost but this reinspection may be very difficult or very impractical. He has no evidence that reinspections are not getting done. This problem could relate to competance of PFG people, i.e., maybe they. lost records. Note: Various special team members looked quite extensively at records. Results are in the team report. J 1 e 4 DO NOT DISCLOSE l 1
--}}