ML20212K182
| ML20212K182 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Fermi |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1984 |
| From: | NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212J657 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-202 NUDOCS 8701280583 | |
| Download: ML20212K182 (40) | |
Text
__ __ _
1 d' E84 p
g UNITED STATES 3.
x NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
OFFICE OF INVESTIG ATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION ill oL$EtS?UttNo SEm e
STATEMENT Af iant L.ocation Newport, Michigan IM hereby make the following voluntary statement to Jam ten. Kalkman, who has identified himself to me as an Investigator with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
I make this statement freely with no threats or promises of reward having been made to me.
On September 12, 1984 at approximately 10:00 a.m., I was interviewed by NRC Resident insp 1B on and E Investigator James Kalkman relating to my employment as
'for Nuclear Erergy Service (NES) at the Femi 2 proje I re ated t at ve been enployed by NES for approximately six years, primarily at the Femi 2 site.
I recalled that on May 31, 1983, I was the NES UT certified inspector on days Jhe NES Day hift Supervisor and that t
was at work, however, he was not feeling well.
I stated that apparently from the documents available as to 31 1983 5 was requested to perform UT/T work and I probably asked to perform that inspection.
I do not reca ic i
even
- day, though I have heard from an NES inspector, that asked him to perform the UT/T inspection and that ould
\\
leave a blank igned inspection form.
dv ed me that did conduct the UT/T inspection and as hE ecret ry, to sign the inspection r port t
name.
I state v no direct newledge of oming the UT inspection i uestion, of avi
)re-signed ank UT/T inspection I
forms, or of signing f name to any inspection reports.
I stated tha did ex ence a roblem witit too few certified (IT inspectors and apparently, was the only available UT ertified insp ctor on May 31, 1983.
I related t at based on my knowledge offM hand-writing nd h r working relationship with the inspectors, that sie probably did sign name to the UT/T inspev ion report.
I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 2 (front only) handwritten pages.
I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my initials at the bottom of each page.
I fully understand and have discussed the statement with Investigator Kalkman.
This statement is the truth to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature: Original signed by Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12 day of September, 1984 at Fermi 2.
Investigator: Original signed by James N. Kalkman Authority:
Section 161c AEA 1954 as amended Witness: Original signed by paul M. Byron, Senior Resident Inspector r
pg12pg3 070116 EMIBIT 3 CARDE06-202 PDR
e 01G1AL l
UN.1ED STATES NUCLEAR R:EGULATORY COMMISSION r
N l
)
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
NONE INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW CLOSED MEETING 2
(
LOCATION: NEWPORT, MI PAGES:
37 l
l i
i l.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialRqvrters 444 North Capitol Street
\\%shington, D.C. 20001 (202)347 3700 EX111 BIT 3
{
$18330 t
ELF /b9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\\
'UCLEAR REGULATORY COM'1ISSIO'.
3 I
)
IN TliE MATTER OF:
)
)
3 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF;
)
....)
Tne Deposition of take:.
9 pursuant to Notice before me, Elizabeth Diann Fer:uson, Notar;.
Public, in and for the County of Wayne, at Enrito Ferti Bu:.
- di:.,
1-64 North Dixie Highway, Newport, Michigan, on 1.*ednesday, conmencing at about 9:50 a.m.
12 APPEARANCES:
\\
1:
JM1ES N. KALDiA!!, ES), & LAROLD G.
WALEER, ESO.
U!!ITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.'U;ISSION OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIO:!S, 9
Field Office Region III 799 Roosevelt Roac 37 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 t!
il 2C 21 [
i 21 1 23 l
y Elizabeth Diann Ferguson, CSR-1347 Court Reporter 25 l
wry g,
I_
N.
D..
E X_.
1 '
2 I
.i WI.T.N.E..SS.:..
p. _, _ j l
d J
a j
Examination by Mr. Kalkman
- 3 l
5 i
I 6
I, 7 '
8 I 9
10 i
11 12 i
1.
13 l
14 15,'
16 17 18 I:
19 i
20 21 22 23 i
l 24 l!
l 25
l 1
[
Newport, Michigan i
2 Wednesday, 3
at about 9:50 a.m.
j.
I
{
i 5
i MR. KALKMAN; For tne record, this 6
is the interview of
, who is employed by f
7 l
Nuclear Energy Services; the location of this interview o
8 is Enrito Fermi, Nuclear Power Station, Newport, Michigan.
[
9 Present at this interview are 10
(
NRC Investigators, harolc h'alker ano 11 James Kalkman.
12 As agreeo, this interview is being 13 transcribed by tne Court Reporter Elizabeth Ferguson.
ll The subject matter of this interview concerns allegations id 7
15 ;
of NDE record falsification by Nuclear Energy Services.
16 l'
would you please stand and v
U
[
raise your right-hand?
18 l
19 ;
after having first been duly sworn to tell the truth, l
20 !!
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, testified l
21 upon his oath as follows:
22 EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. KALKMAN.
I I
24 d Q Sir, we have discussed this record forgery issue before; 25 and just for the record, I would like to make it apparent l
l-
[
1 :
or aware that we did talk about it anc you did provide i
n t
2 a statement earlier.
h P
3 A
Yes, I did, i
\\
4 Q
About the issue.
f I
5
!A Yes.
I l
6
- O And since that time, we have done additional interviews t'
7 and talked to other people that were involved, and we 8
have some additional questions.
9 iA Okay.
10 Q
And this serves the same thing as doing a statement, you know, a statement that is under oatn and also but 12 A
Right.
13 E O It is hard to capture everything in a statement,
\\
L so l'
could you, to the best of your recollection, recapture v
15 for us what you recall from tne record falsification 16 issue?
17
- i I would like to know if you can 18 recall a crinology of that day, L
[A Well, as far as a real recollection, no, but just from 19 t
20 ]
going over the story, you know.
21 It has been told so many times, I 22 guessbasicallywhatIrememberisIrememberj l f, he 23 either came in late or he was late that day -- no, he l
24 was not feeling good.
25 Q
This was the day shift?
4
1 1
A Right, tha day shift.
2 Q
Okay.
3 A
I know he left early.
As far as the testing being done, 4
and when it was done, I am not real sure.
5 I know that there was a lot of 6
hot jobs going on at that time.
Jobs that were being 7
completed for our system turn overs and flushes, and a
to specifically say, "Yes, I remember,' I cannot.
e 0
Well, what you are saying is that the -- from the 10 documentation you have seen, there obviously was a request for NES to perform a test on that specific day?
11 12 A
Ye:.
13 0
Ultrasonic thickness examination?
14 A
Right.
15 0
And you assume it was -- to do as soon as possible?
16 A
Yes, everything at that time, you know, it was a hot job that had to be done as soon as possible.
17 Doyourecallassigninglllllhtoperformthisultrasonic 18 0
19 thickness inspection?
l 20 A
At the time, fromwhatIremember,hewasthedllll_
lllll on the shift that was available to do the job.
21 22 I am not real sure.
I feel like if i
he was there and he was available, yes, I did assign 23 24 the job to him.
25 0
okay.
5
l' 3
That is a normal course of business?
4 2
A Right.
t
?
3 O
And you were the supervisor and something like that i
f thatcomesin,jlEEEfwasacertifiedultrasonictechnician?
4 5
A That's right.
was llllll(the only person that you had at E
O that time l-
[
that could have performed this examination?
0 7
1 E
A Not the only person with the Company on that shift that day, I don't know.
I can't remember.
o 30 i I remember we talked about this once i
before, but it I don't remember the time sheets or who was l-12 L there or who was not there.
I can't remember.
- I 13 ;. O Okay.
t t.
14 '!
We talked about two different types l
15.;
of ultrasonic examination, a thickness examination, and i-h an examination that is commonly referred to as a scan 16 I
17 and shear waves, l
i i
i
- A Yes.
16 i
! O And this was a thickness examination?
19 l
20 A
Yes.
21 0
By the procedure, who could perform a thickness examination?
22 A
A level one Ut thickness, or a level two, or a level three.
23 0
So it didn't necessarily have to be a level two thickness--
l l
i 24 A
Not necessarily.
25 It could also have been a level one.
l i
l l
l 6-
3 R
1 UT thickness person.
t 2
b NES had people that were certified to level one, O
- Now, 3
UT only?
4 A
Right.
5 Q
So it wasn't that imperativethatflllllPerformthis E
b' inspection, unless he was the only UT certified person 7.
that particular day?
I 8
A That's true.
I' l-9 Q
Okay.
l Were you certified Level one-UT?
10 11 i A In no, I wasn't.
1.
12 Q
What else do you recall from that particular day, 13 ii 14 A
Boy, this is tough.
15 l
You know, I really, you know, we 4
16 bwere' busy in that time frame.
l What I was doing, I don't really know.
17 i
18 I know I was out and about a lot.
We were going through i
19 i
a phase two, where the project manager was not on the job; 20 and I was handling his responsibilities and my 21 responsibilities; and it was just -- it was a normal cay, 22 it was running all day long.
23 0
What was your first recollection of this forgery incident?
i 24 A
Well, when was the first time I knew of the incident?
25 Q
Yes.
a
i 1
A Well, on
- sometime, when we 2
terminated employment, that is when the allegations i'
3 of forgery came up.
l 4
l0 Prior to that time, you had absolutely no knowlecge?
5 g
go, I
6 O
So what you are saying is that when left the site 7
and did his exit interviee, made the allegations that 8
A Well, he made them before he ever went to the exit 9
interview.
When we told him he had terminated his I
to employment, and he went into the office to talk to 11 and after he had left, as far as I know, 12 he didn't want to go to the City Safeteam, then he decided 13
.Yes, I am going.
Somebody signed my name to a report.
i.
'd This has happened, that has happened,' I was not in the i
15 office at the time this was being said.
16 l
was in there.
came to me i
17 j,
and asked me if I knew about it and I told him no.
That 18 is when I first found out about it.
Of course, then later i
19 on, the Safeteam followed up with an investigation.
e 20
- Q Okay.
l 21 I am looking at the statement you 22 gave on 23 A
Right.
I l
i 24 Q
You have not had.a chance to read this, but you stated 25 that advised you that he performed this test, l
8 l
i ultrasonic thickness test for and that he asked 2
to sign the inspection report with name.
lA Right.
4 5
,O When did tell you - -
i 6
A That came about during -- I think it was of --
7 it might have -- I think it was when the investigation 1:
a j we were all being interviewed, and that is when the wncle thing came out about who signed the report and what had 9
10 happened.
33 Q
Tnat was after had left the site?
12 A
Right.
e 1
33 0
Do you recall leaving the site on ja i A No.
f 15 l0 You stated that you knew he was not feeling well?
1 A Right.
16 h
i7 ;; Q How do you know that?
Did he come to you?
E i
18 A
Because he told me that day that he was going to the i
i 19
.l dark room to lay down because he was not feeling well.
I j
i I
l:
I He was hung over from the night before.
20 i
21 O
Did he say anything about leaving early?
22 A
No.
23 O
Now, you have seen the ultrasonic thickness report No.
24 the alleged --
25 A
Yes.
9-
1 Q
I will show it to you again.
2 Does the signature on-that particular 3
form, do you recognize that signature as being anyone's 4
other than 5
A Well, it does not look like and it does have 6
similarities to 7
O Well, what do you base that on?
E A
On the way writes, the flare, is a flarity-writing 9
person.
i
- j. O So it's -- but you are basing that on just your knowledge 10 11 I having worked with and seeing other documents that 12 I
signed and documents that had signed?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Was the NES Do you have knowledge I
that % was pre-disposed to sign documents for other 15 16 Ii people?
i i
17 A
No.
18
'O Did you ever see M sign documents for someone else?
t 19
!A No.
)
i lQ Did M have the authority to sign other people 's names?
20 21 A
The only person's name I could think of that M would f
22 have any authority to sign would be or 23 the site manager.
24 What type of documents would h be able to -- would g 0
25 have the authority to sign name?
l l
10
~"
i iA well, stuff like visitor's passes, 7 guess just a daily 2
routine, the daily routinc ~ stuff, but other than that, 3 I I don't really know.
l l-4 iO well, just to recap what we have talked about, is it my I
5 understanding that you had no direct knowledge of this j
6 particular record falsification on the day it happenec, 8
A No.
O So the only knowledge you have of the events surroundin:
10 this record falsification, you obtained after was terminated from the job?
12
- ' A Correct.
f0 Now, I do have conflicting testimony -- well,
\\
\\
not 14 testimony, but staten.cnts from people, the other people 15 that I have interviewed.
9 16 I have had individuals tell me that 17 you had direct knowledge of this particular incident.
'0 1A Okay.
Q Now, you were present on and you had 20 knowledge that was going out to perform this 21 inspection for and that
'as to leave 22 a pre-signed blank inspection form for to fill I
in the data; and that you had arranged for to i
sign this particular document wh.en a pre-signed 25
\\d form could not be found.
a 11
l i '
A Okay.
I 2 L Q Do you have a response to that?
3 A
It is not true.
l 4
l 0 Okay.
[
i 5
You didn't direct to l
E sign that inspection report?
7 A
No, I did not.
S Q
You didn't haveknowledgeof{
performing any l
9 inspection?
1:
A I don't know about him doing the UT, no.
11 I know he did a PT, just because we 12 went back and looked through the reports.
13 O
Well, I also have information that-found out
(
14 '
about this record falsification, the next time he came 15 on site; that came to you and asked you about 16 it at that time, si l
17 A
Not that I remember.
1E Q
Well, I have information that stated that i
is you asked her to sign an inspection form that h l knew y
that
[wasnotqualifiedorcertifiedtosign.
20 21 A
Okay.
22 0
And h ~did, in fact sign that document, not specific to 23 this inspection report but during the same time l
24
- period, i
25 i Now, you are denying that you asked 12
to sign any inspection reports?
,A Yes, I am.
~i' 2
3 0
]statedthatheleftseveralpre-signedblank 4
inspection forms with you so that in the event that ne
{
5 was noe available, some other inspector could perform E
an ultrasonic inspection and put the data in?
7 Are you denying having knowledge of 6
any pre-signed inspection forms?
9 A
Yes, I am.
l0 Now, do you know when came back from his 10
!I it sick leave or medical leave?
12 A
Well, I believe the of or the first of 13 somewhere around in that area.
I am not sure.
l i
l' l
I think, but I am not really sure.
15 0
16 A
Right.
17 He was gone for about
}
18 MR. KALKMAN:
. Walker, do you 19 l
have any cuestions relating to the falsification issue 20 before I go to a different document?
21 i
MR. WALKER:
No.
22 O
(By Mr. Kalkman, continuing) :
Also earlier at an earlier i
I 23 I
interview, we talked about an issue where NES was asked 24 to trim some radiograph film.
25 Could you relate to me a crinology that 13
~
l F
i you recall from that incident?
2 Well, we were doing a radiography on the jet pump defuser A
l weld; and we wers using a 14 -- no, I think it was a 10 x 12 3
cassette and film.
4 5
We were showing two welds on the radiograph.
I was not shift supervisor.
There was a 6
l 7
note left for me to cut one portion of the film off, not 8
to show one weld.
I refused to do it.
9
! O Who left the note?
10 A
11 i
12 jQ So he was the project manager, he worked days?
l0 1 A Right.
13 I!
ll Q Just specifically --
34 15 A
Well --
O 16 Just specifically to look at the film and cut one weld?
i' A
Right, it was supposedly -- it was supposedly specific 37 18 orders from Daniels to cut the film, i
lQ Daniels, the Corporation?
39 A
- Well, 20 f
21 The next morning, came in and 22 wanted to know why the film was not cut, and I told him 23 that I would not cut the film; and he and 24 went through the dark room and used the film cutter to cut 25 the film.
14
T I
J
\\
i O
Who actually perfcrmed the radiograph on the jet pumps?
I 2
A I am not sure.
It could have been -- it was either t
)
3 or possibly or it could 4
even have been 4
because they were all on the I
5 shift at that time.
E O
And all the radiographing was performed on the night shift?
.t 7
!' A Yes.
i'
!!O So when you came in on the night shift, the film had the 8
RT's had taken place that day earlier?
9 i I
10
'A No, we had taken -- Well, the one film that we shot the first day, we only shot a few shots, okay?
Ne could not 11 i
12
.see the weld.
We didn't know where the weld was at; and 13 i t
we were picking up two welds.
\\
N 14 1
We really didn't know which weld was 15 [
to be radiographed.
i 16 My instructions were to cut the film, 17 '. '
to not show the top weld because all they wanted to see 1e l was the bottom weld.
I believe that is exactly what 19 it was.
I am not sure.
I I
I 20 Q
Well, I am trying to establish, it was rt'd on your shift?
l 4
21 A
Right.
I 22 Q
The day earlier?
t 23 A
No, that morning.
We came in at midnight, did the 24 radiography; then that morning when they come to pick up thefilmanditwasnotcut,)llllwasupsetbecauseitwas 25 1
15 l
g not cut.
- I I
t' 2
iQ Well, if you did it that night, howdidllllllknowthat--
Well, we did some the day earlier and we had made like 3
A technique shots to show what we were picking up with the 4
5 radiographs.
e
- O Were you a certified radiographer?
7
'A Yes.
I 8
Q At that time?
9 A
Yes.
i 10 Q
So on what level, one or two?
11 A
Level two.
Ii 12 'jQ So you could read film?
13 iA Yes.
I 14,Q Did you look at the film?
l-fA Yes.
15 l.
16
~Q What did you see?
17
.A Well, I considered it gross porosity, but I did not know the acceptance standards for the welds; so it would have 18 i
just been my judgment to say whether it was acceptable or 19 a
rejectable.
21 Q
Well, which weld are you talking about?
You stated there
\\
j 22 were two welds in the film.
1 23 A
The top weld.
24 Q
The top weld had gross porosity?
What did the bottom 1
I 25 weld have?
4 I
l
2 A
Well, the bottom weld looked okay.
2 iO Is porosity acceptable?
t 3
iA Well, it depends on the size of the weld, the length of 8
the weld.
5 There are several different ways to E
figure it.
You know, the size and the relationship to 7
the size of the porosity close to it.
i 8
0 Were both welds field welds?
I o
'A I am not sure, j
i 10 0
Could you assume that they were both field welds?
I 11
'A Well, from what I understood, they were shock welds, 12 but I am not sure if they were ' field welds or shock welds.
13 Q
Would that have made a difference?
l l'
I.
A Not really.
i 15 i
0 Well, -- if by shock welds, you mean a weld that was on 16 I
the piece of equipment at the manufacturer;s and when it 17 l
came to the site, it was already assembled and welded?
i 18 A
Right.
1e Q
And the only welds performed here in the field were to 20 attach the assembly to the reactor vessel?
21 A
Right.
22 Q
Now, what do you mean -- NES does not have any recuirement l
23 to inspect shock welds?
I mean, do they?
24 l
A No.
25 I really don't know how this radiography l
17
i 4
1 cama about, comething about some missing documentation 2
for the welds or they were supposed to have been radiographed.
I 3
initially, but they weren't.
4 Somewhere down the line there was a 5
nissing inspection to these welds and they needed to be 6
inspected; so we had to inspect them af ter they were i
7 installed.
I 8
O So both of these welds may have been shock welds?
9 A
It's possible, yes.
10 Q
Did you see any of the welds that you wanted to look at, 11 the bottom weld on the film?
Were there any of those 12 rejectable?
13 A
Not that I know of, no.
Q liow many jet pump rt's were there?
15 A
Jesus, I would say anywhere from 20 to 25, I believe.
I 16 am not sure, that is just a guess.
17 Q
And on all of these, did the weld, you know, always show l
18 the gross porosity?
19 A
It was very -- sometimes it was worse; sometimes it was 1
20 better.
It really -- they all had porosity indications.
21 Q
Did you see any linear indication?
l 22 A
No, not that I remember, anyway.
23 Q
Why was NES asked to trim the film?
24 A
I have no idea.
25 Q
Can you speculate?
18,
1 lI i
A well, my thought was that they didn't want anybody to 2
i see the top weld, That was what I thought.
l' 3
O By anyone, you mean --
5 4
A Any person that would review the film.
5 0
Who would review the film?
E A
Well, you have got A!;I who would review the film; you h
7 '
have the level three from GE, who would be reviewing the E
film; RE and RC inspector that would want to review any i
9.
of the film.
l0 What about Detroit Edison?
10 11
'A Detroit Edison?
12 O
So actually, l.aniels Corporation or in 13 particular, who made the request to have the film trimmed,
(
F 14 '
obviously, we can assume that he didn't want someone to 15 see the top weld?
i!
16 ;: A Correct.
I 17 0
Why did you refuse to cut the film?
1E A
[i Becuase it is not my place to hide defects, or it is e
19 not right.
20 0
And you physically observed and 21 cut the film?
22 A
Yes, I did.
23 0
We are talking about the jet pump film?
24 A
Yes.
25 iO Was there any discussion between yourself and 19
i t
i 1
ant 2
i A
I know was upset because I didn't cut the film.
3 O
Okay.
4 A
I don't remember exactly what was said, but he was upset.
lQ What was his position?
5 i
6 A
Well, his position was that said to cut it, so t
7.'
he was going to cut it.
/
I,
[Q No, I meant what level was he?
Was he a supervisor 8
b e;
or what?
10 j. A M was level radiography.
11 O
No,
]hewasleveltwo,NP, TP, RT and UP.
! A 12 is i O Which shift was he working?
14 A
was working days.
He was the assistant project i;
15 l manager.
16 ' O On days?
0, A Yes.
17 is O
Did either or have any n
I 19 oroblems with cutting the film?
1.
20 A
No, not that I know of, they didn't.
They went in and 21 cut the film.
22 Q
But you were asked to do it?
23 A
Right.
24 0
When you refused, they -- I mean, were they upset that l
25 you didn't do it that they had to do it?
l 6
1 20
1
' [A just seemed upset that had not got his job V.
n 2
done, or the film had not been cut like he requested it.
3 As far as I remember, there was never I
I 4
any argument as to why I didn't do it or who was going l
5 to do it.
It was just supposed to be done.
E
,Q
- Well, I don't understand this whole jet pump film trimming l
7 issue, because normally, your job is, as an NES inspector, E
is not to, as f ar ac I understand, not to inspect shock 9
welds on equipment?
10 ! A Right.
11 lO Generally, it's to do the field welds to whatever code f
12 L applies to that system?
b 13 LA Right.
\\
14 I O
Do you recall specifically that there something with 15 the documentation on the jet pump welds?
I 16 I, A No.
'I 17 All I would get at night is a request 18 that said, " Shoot these welds.'-
r 19 I
As far as seeing any documentation, I
20 I never saw any documentation.
21 O
No, but you talked earlier about there may have been 22 some missing dicumentation?
23 A
Right 24 Q
From GE?
25 A
Well, I remember when we looked at the welds, we were l
l 21
-J 1
wondering how they made the welds, because they were i
2 welded, it looked from inside; and we could not I.
3 I,
understand how they welded them.
4 When we cuestioned that, lllll had 5
told us that there was some kind of problem with the documentation and they didn't give any inspection or 6
7 they needed an inspection or I don't really remember fi 8
how that came about.
<i 9
~O So they would have had to have been shock welds if they i
10 were welded from inside?
11
- A Right.
I 12
!0 Did you have an opportunity to actually go out and I
13 see where these het pump welds were?
l
[; A Yes, I went out and put,the film in arouno the inside 14 N
15 E by the vessel on a couple of shots, just to see what
't 16 it was like.
,i N
i hO Can you see on that BWR diagram where these particular 17 v
18 jet pump welds are?
l 19 A
Yes.
20 Q
Can you show us where they are?
21 A
Well, if I am not mistaken, they are right here.
22
.Q Above or below that plate?
23 A
Okay.
24 They are below the plate, but what i
25 we had to do was crawl down here, you would slide down the j
,,_.--J
side of this pipe and there is a small gap, I would say I
2 [
half an inch wide, all the way around.
I 3.. O Between the plate and the vessel?
4 A
And the pipe itself, okay.
5 The plate connected to the vessel; 6
then around the pipe and the plate, there is an nalf b
7 an inch gap all the way around there, and that is where 8
we were sliding the film inside.
'O So underneath that plate there are two welds?
9 I
10 A
Yes.
11 If you are underneath looking at it, 1
12 it looks like a solid piece of pipe coming down and it 13 curves around and you can look straight up through tne
(-
14 pipe itself, okay; that was the reason we could not see n
15 [
the welds.
We didn't know where they were at, because 16 on the inside, it was smooth.
You cannot see the welds.
17 Q
You mean from the outside?
18
,A Well, if you go down through the plate here, okay, if I:
19 'i you go down and you are underneath, this thing sticks 20 E through about a foot, 18 inches, okay.
21 It comes out and it loops up under j
l 22 and it is a solid piece, okay; but it is hollow from 23 here from the top, if you go in it, it is hollow.
24 If you are underneath, looking at it, 25 you can't see anything but a solid piece of metal.
You 23
l' l
p 1
l 1
don't know where the welds are at.
l l
l' j
2 O
Okay.
Is it conceivable that either one of L
3 4
l A
I don't see how.
5 i
l F
I 6
'O Well, how would that piece of ecuipment have been installed
'i i
7 through that plate?
i:
1 e i A I have no idea.
I:
9 !O Okay.
l 10 A
I don't know how they installed that.
11 Q
Uhat do you recall from -- what happened after 12 and trimmed the film?
13 A
All I know is they turned the film over to Daniels for t
14 review with GE.
i
}
15 O
The trimmed film or --
I 16 A
The triraed film.
17 ;,
I had, at one time, saved two or l
18 three exposures, four pieces; and had just stuck them 19 in my desk because I had thought, Well, one day this 20 4 thing is going to come back to haunt me,'
and I had 21 saved it.
22 In the interim, it had just been 23 stuck in my desk and it had gotten scratched and scraped; il 24 ;;
and when this thing started coming out again, I turned the 25 film over, what I had, that you could look at, to l
i
- lll, 24' 1
,i i
at that time, he was the film reviewer for Detroit Edison.
f He contacted GE and came back in a few weeks and showed k
2 t
me a letter, lj 3
I don't remember exactly what it said,
[
but they were aware of the condition and that it was acceptable.
6 0
If Daniels wanted the film trimmed, did they ask for the 7
i part that was trimmed off?
g O*
9 e
a as de decision by or l
10 to turn the film over to Daniels?
g A
Well, Daniels -- the film went to Daniels to be reviewed 12 with General Electric.
13
(.
g O
So there was a reason to trim the film?
i lA Yes.
I l0 To turn it over to GE to have them take a look at it?
A Yes.
37 I
0 But you still got the impression that they didn't want 18 someone to see the porosity?
ig A
Right.
g f
O I don't know if you can have that, that is not too --
21 that is not a too compatible situation.
I i
23 They ask for the film, to turn it over 24 to GE and also to keep it from GE or Daniels or anyone j
l else --
j 3
l i
25
i A
Wall, wa 011 qanctionsd that on nights, "Why cut the f
2 film if the weld was not a pressure boundary weld and i
3 it didn't matter?
Why did it matter if it was on there t
4 or not?"
5 0
Yes?
A And we asked that question ourselves.
6 l
Our place was not to ask questions, 7
g and just to do what we were told.
It still didn't 9
make it right.
10 MR. WALKER:
This piece of film l
which was trimmed off, the only reason GE was able to 33 12 l
take a look at that later was because you kept it in i
13 j
your desk; is that correct?
l i
14 A
Well, I think so.
15 The way the letter read, though, is 16 that they were aware of the condition.
f-17 Now, I don't know if the first two la or three radiographs we made prior to them telling us I
19 to but the film, if they looked at those or if the GE 20 people had, looked at them or not; but if I can remember 21 the letter, I don't even remember exactly what it saic, but they were aware of the condition of the top weld.
22 23 MR. WALKER:
When you say they were 24 aware of it, did they mean they were aware of it previous 25 to looking at the piece of film that was trimmed off?
j i
26
i A
That I understand, yms.
That wac tha way I interpreted t
2 the letter to read.
3 MR. WALKER:
Okay.
If you had not maintained the copy 4
5 of the films that was trimmed off, what would have 6
happened to it?
Was it just laying in the dark room?
7 A
No, it was in my desk.
8 MR. WALKER:
You put it in your desk, 9
though?
10 A
Yes.
si MR. WALKER:
When you picked it up, I
12 where did you pick it up from?
Was it in the dark room i
i 13 or --
\\
14 A
No, when we were making the exposure -- after they told 15 me to cut the film and I got the memo that night, I i
16 decided to keep some of the film that had not been cut 17 and I saved it.
I put it in my desk; then that night while la we were.doing -- like we would make an exposure and the 19 penitramer (phonetically) wouldn't cover the welding --
20 MR. WALKER:
Well, when you say you kept a film, you are not referring to the actual piece that 21 22 was trimmed off?
23 A
No.
24 I kept the one whole exposure to 25 show both welds, i
27
1 MR. WALKER:
So you are talking about 2
exposures which had been previous to the one which was lI i
1 3
eventually cut?
i I
4 A
Right.
I 5
MR. WALKER:
The piece that was cut 6
off b3 wa it just trashed or --
7 A
Yes, it was thrown away.
8 l
MR. WALKER:
Therefore, that piece 9
was shown where it was cut off, we could not find,that to today?
i i
l 11 iA No.
l i
12 l0 (By Mr. Kalkman, continuing):
How did GE make a j
13 determination that on the -- did someone from GE look at i
14 the trimmed film?
Or how could they determine that it is was acceptable if it was thrown away?
16
!A Like I had said, the only thing I can think of is the 17 first day we did the radiography, okay; we didn't trim i
18 the film, and they took the film, 19 l took the film that day.
i 1
20 The only thing I know is that GE's I
21 representative was on site at the time; that he reviewed it 22 and said, "We don't need to see this," or somebody said 23
' We don't need to see this," and that when the word came 24 back for us to trim the film.
25 Q
So then, to your knowledge, so any subsequent exposures 1
28'
L' 9
were trimmed off and that was trashed?
2 iA Right.
i 3
', O Then they just got some bottom weld?
4 A
Yes.
l 5
MR. WALKER:
Then to your knowledge, 6
the only opportunity GE would have had to review that 0
7 {!
film, would have been previous to the time period that i
e the film was cut, the film cutting incident?
h 9
A Right.
1 10 l
MR. WALKER:
Okay.
Thank you.
I lQ (By Mr. Kalkman, continuing):
Now, you are sure that 11 P
12 ll the trimmed film was thrown away?
l 1
13,; A Positive.
a
(
li 14 0
Okay.
I 15 l
So if an NRC inspector was shown 16 :I 1
some trimmed film a couple of weeks a'go, it was not the i
l I
17 i
same film?
i b
l i
18
.A I don't believe so.
l 0
l i
19 'O That was trimmed off?
I 20 A
I don't believe so, unless somebody else saved some i
21 that I don't know about.
I j
22 O
Unless somebody went out to re-rt'd it?
23 A
Well, that wouldn't have happened.
I would have known it.
24 If somebody went out and re-rt'd it, i
25 then, I would have known about it.
1 2 9 li I
c i
O so the only film that was not thrown away was those first i,!
couple of shots that you are talkinc abou't?
3 A
Right.
4
!O liow many were there, do you think?
l i.
E t.
A I tnink we shot three welds the first night, but I don't
{
6 remember.
7 Q
And those were turned over completely to E
A Right.
9 Now I don't know if during the da) 10 they were sent back to be trimmed or not, I don't know.
i 1:
Q So all subsequent film was trimmed off?
12 A
Right.
12 O
You are sure it was thrown out?
14 A
Well, as far as I know, yes.
i 15 0
What you say was complete entire film?
1E A
Right.
17 O
And what was it, an extra or second exposure or what IE was that?
t 19 A
It was extra -- what I had saved was extra exposure.
20 Q
Okay.
21 MR. WALKER:
I would just like to 22 nail down more specifically the piece of film that was i
23 trimmed off by 24 Was it thrown in the trash can?
Was i
25 ;:
it burned?
'l 4
Ii.
i
I i
i
.A hnnt wa did, we cavec all of our exposed film to sell i
h it to reclaim the silver out of it.
2 3
MR. WALKER:
So it was saved, but i
4 j
only to be turned over for recycling?
I 5
A Yes.
I f
E :.
MR. WALKEn.
Okay.
b 7 i How often is your film recycled?
i E
Do you maintain it?
9 A
It depended on how much radiography we are coing and 10 how much we would gather up, you know; how much extra film 13 we would have.
12 I would say we probably get a thousand 13 Pounds of extra film before we take it to be sold.
(
14 MR. WALKER:
Do you have any recall 15 at all as to when -- as to a time frame following the 16 trimming incident that the film was sold?
17 A
No, I didn't have any control over that.
is MR. WALKER:
Okay.
Thank you.
19 Q
(by Mr. Kalkman, continuing):
After the -- all of the jet pumps were rt 'd, and all the film was trimmed, the 20 21 film that was saved was submitted to Daniels?
22 A
Right.
23 It was submitted to Daniels on a l
24.:
daily basis.
'i.
1 25 dQ Then they filed it or whatever?
Il D
l'
- 1 a
31
Il i
i d
I 1
A Yes.
i
~
[l They did whatever they did with it, 2
g i
I 3
'O And was there any other discussion about that particular f
l 4
i incident after that?
I 5
A Eell, we would talk about it from time to time, ycu know, 6 1:
mostly in a joking manner, you know.
=
7 !
If there would be something said at i
e work or something done and somebcdy -- we would be l-talkingaboutjlllhandinajokingmanner,wewould 9
1:
say, Yeah, remember the film trimming incident?
Or s
11 something to that effect.
12 0
Do you know for a fact that those welds were not pressure I:
13 boundary welds?
l 14 ; A No, I am not.
r 15 l 0 Okay.
I i
16,' A In fact, that surprises me in the location it is, but 17 it is -- I remember when we talked to kbout it, 18 he was saying there was onl;. r,ometning like 20 lbs of i.
19 pressure or something.
20 I don't remember exactly what the' l
21 exact numbers were, but that is what he was telling us 22 so tnere could not be any affect on those welds.
23 MR. WALKER:
On that film that was 24 trimmed away do you recall any evidence of linear 25 indication, whatever, that could be construed as linear il
i indicatione?
i fA The only thing that I can remember looking at the 2
3 weld, and it seemed like it had two weld beads; and 4
where the two weld beads come together, there would 5
be like voids, but it was like looking at two root 6
passes.
7 If you have ever looked at any E
radiographs, it is like two root passes side by side.
g We didn't know really what we were to looking at.
We didn't know if we were looking at the ii weld cap of the weld root or how they made the weld.
So it is kind of hard to say, "Yes, 12 :
i' 13 it is not completely penetrated.
It is not fused.'
14 We didn't really know.
!! 0 (By Mr. Kalkman, continuing):
is there any way those 15 16 welds, say they were rejectable, both welds, how would i
17 they have been reworked, would the jet pumps have to be 18 taken out?
19
,A I don't know.
I don't know how they would have reworked I
m i
those.
21 I know that they did go in and do 22 some liquid pentrant tests down inside there and they I
23 used a florescent scope to inspect the welds.
24 They set up a TV camera up on top and 25 they had two-guys go down inside and did a liquid penetrant 33
l 1
test.
I think they used a water washable liquid penetrant.
2 I am not exactly sure, but I believe 3
i that is what they did; then they took a florescope and 4
went through and had a TV camera and went through it 5
and they videotaped it through each weld or dit at 6
least a sampling of the welds.
7 O
So it was significant enough to do a second examination 8
with different techniques?
9 A
.Right.
i 10 I
i But it was about -- it might have l
I been about a year later before it came about.
i 12 O
Did anyone ever try to UT those pumps?
i 13 iA Not that I know of, k
i
" l0 Are they in a position or is it the type of weld that I
15 l
you can UT?
16 lA Well, you could possibly UT them; it would take time to 17 sit down and draw up the configuration weld, and see 18 what kind of reflectors you would have in that inside i
i 19 l
design.
'1 20 I don't really know, I have never UT'd i
21 a weld that looked like that.
I i
i 22 O
Do you recall discussing this jet pump issue with someone 23 from GE, a site person?
l 24 A
No, I never discussed anything with GE.
25 l
Q I thought you stated that someone, a site person from GE l
l 34
o i
i said they didn't want that weld.
2 A
No, I said that that is what I assumed they said.
I 3
didn't mean to sound like I talked to them, no.
4 I know that someone from GE was on i
5 the site and they were supposed to be reviewing the film.
I l
6 O
Okay.
7 I.
You don't know who that person was?
6 A
No.
9 O
They were working in conjunction with Daniels and A
Right.
12 0
And was nvolved in this for Detroit Edison?
'3 A
At that time, I don't believe was here. I know
'd was here.
15 I:
He was -- I think he worked for i
o
[
Daniels, but was contracted for Edison for final review 16
'7 l'j of the readiographs; and I am not even certain if he f
18 p looked at it or not, I don't know.
i 19 Q
From your recollection, and 20 didn't have a problem cutting the film other than the 21 fact that you had not done it, so obviously, someone j
22 had to do it?
i 23 A
Right.
24 No, they had no problem with cutting 25 the film.
p 1
d
'Q They didn't think Daniels was trying to cover up
{
t 2
something or
)
3 A
They didn't say anytning about it.
I i
4 O
That is the impression you got?
4 i
5 A
hight.
6 i.
MR. UALKER:
Was the impression that h
they didn't really care one way or the other?
\\
7 E [A Well, they didn't act like it bothered them.
I I
e.
MR. WALKER:
Well, that is what l
1c I mean, regardless of what may have been the reason, I
11 they just did it because they were asked to?
I; 12 [A They were told to, right.
13 l
(
MR. WALKER:
Thank you.
14 gQ (By Mr. Kalkman, continuing):
I don't think I have any b
15 other specific questions.
1 have a few closing questions 1
16 that I will ask you.
17 have I or any other NRC
?
1e b'.
representative here, threatened you in any manner, or il 19 offered you any rewards in return for your statement?
i 20 A
No.
l 21 Q
Have you given this statement freely and voluntarily?
22 A
Yes, I have.
i 23 0
Is there anything further you care to add for the record?
I 24 A
I just wish this thing was over, that is all.
l 25 0
Okay.
l i
i 36
l I
1 MR. KALKMAN:
Thank you.
2 (Deposition conclucied at 10:50 3
a.m.)
4 5
6 t-7 ':
i 8 l!
l:
g 10 i
11 !
I 12
't i
i 13 l'
l I-14 i
I 15 16 'l t
17 ;
18 ',
i 19 i.
20 i
21 e
22 i
23 24 25 f
37
i; s
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the k
i, 1
UNITED STATES NOCLEAR REGULATORY COSSIssION in the Inatiter of:
i 3
1 NAIC OF PROCEEDING:
Itvcs71gn71vg y ;;7;;p,y y gg. (CLOS;:D 'its IIt:c)
I 7
OP:
1 DOCKIT NO.:
NONE
- PLACE:
gggpog7, gr DATE:
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Co:=ission.
1 g
t
~ 0 'f:.. '
! ~ ~
( S ig t).
L' (TYPED) Elizabeth Diann Ferguson Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation l
l l
G 9
9 e
h
-