ML20212K440
| ML20212K440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Fermi |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1984 |
| From: | NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212J657 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-202 NUDOCS 8701290076 | |
| Download: ML20212K440 (125) | |
Text
._
ORIGINAL
~
UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONNfIBSIDR SFFE Cf tiVLSEWiG g,
OR G WAL IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
NONE
?
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW (CLOSED MEETING) 4 l
(
a xC..
LOCATION PAGES:
1 - 82 DATE:
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1984 g g 12 g 6 870116
,/
GARDE 86-202 PDR
/
t ACE-FEDERAI. REPORTERS, INC.
EXHIBIT 1 p
444 North CapitolStreet n, D.C. 20001
//f-
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!i.'tISSION
--x 1
INTERVIEW OP:
2 3
i s
5 i
6 I
8 9
PRESENT:
JA'tES N. KALK? TAN, 10 Investigator, jj Office of Investigations, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
j-12 l'
HAROLD C.
- WALKER,
\\
13 Senior Investigator, li Office of Investigations, l:
14 U.S.
Nuc r Regulatory Commission.
j:
15 16 17 RICHARD J.
- KLAK, Registered Professional Reporter.
18 19
{R. KALK:1AN:
For the record, this is an 20 interview wit uho is employed by 21 Niagara Itohawk Power Corporation.
24
?tR. K A L K.'!A N :
The location of this interview 25 is Present at the interview ar and Nuclear Regulatory J
1
[
1 2
Commission Investigators Harold G,.
Walker and James N. Kalkman.
3
\\,
2 As agreed, this interview is being tran-l.
3 scribed by Court Reporter Richard J. Klak.
4 The subject matter of this interview con-3 cerns QC record falsification by Nuclear Energy
{
l 6
Services personnel at the Fermi II Nuclear 7
1 Project.
8 will you please stand and raise i
y r right hand.
10 l
3j WHEREUPON, s.
12 13 was duly sworn by James N. Kalkman, Investigator, Id was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY ?!R. KALK? TAN:
16 g
Please be seated.
The last time chat we talked to you, we got a brief idea, at least I
did, of what I thought occurred relating to g
20 this forgery incident of the Quality control 21 records that you advised us of.
Just for a brief 22 overview, could you run through now to the best 23 of your recollection what occurred back during 24 that May 1983't3me period?
25 A
Well, somebody in Detroit Edison's Quality 1
Assurance Department was wanting some kind of
3 documentation for a particular weld joint.
I was reviewing the paperwork to find it.
I then j
2 ran across a report that had my name signed to 3
it but it wasn't my signature.
I know of one 4
other one, too.
5 It was the WACO Corporation.
I think that 6
it was the Waldbridge Construction Company.
7 O
WACO is just an acronym or an abbreviation?
8 A
Yes, that is an abbreviation, just an abbrevia-tion.
I know those two particular reports that weren't my signature.
When I left Fermi, I
);
12 went to the Safety Review meeting.
13 Oh, Lord, I don't know what that man's name Id is now.
That was at the Detroit Safety meeting, 15 at the Exit meeting I explained that to them.
16 '
G You explained the situation to the Detroit 17 Edison Safety man?
A Yes, on that particular one.
I told them this g
20 same thing.
21 O
Okay.
Now, this forgery allegation was one of 22 several allegations?
23 A
I don't know of how many.
I don't even remember 24 now, but I would say four or five, something like 25 that..
I know that there is a thing about the flue
-=,w--,
,,,, - -,., - -,,,, -, - - - +.,,
.v
'I 4
heads.
There is a support coming out of the I
3 steam tunnel and the air lock and supposedly 2
some shearwave ultrasonic had been done.
They 3
did write a 10 CFR 50.55 (E) and supposedly re-4 paired them.
That is what I heard anyway.
5 I believe that there was something where 6
they were using a carbon steel penetrator on 7
aluminum components.
Lord, what else was there?
8 0
I think that there was one allegation dealing 10 with the jet pumps.
gi A
Yes, the jet pumps.
It was radiographed and the 12 Welding Engineer had the film altered so Detroit
\\
13 Edison would never see one particular veld.
Id O
Okay.
I would now like to address.each of those 15 allegations in a little more detail.
First of
- all, let me get into your background and experience a little hit.
A As far as NDE?
39 20 0
In other words, how did you come about getting 21 into NDE work?
22 23 24 25 i
'Y s:<?
=~
l l
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
- (
I 12 I was a Navy 13 Nuclear Field Division.
I left there. Do you Id need to know the years?
O No.
I am just trying to get an idea of your 16 experience in Nuclear.
17 A.
Just strictly Nuclear?
0 Yes.
39 20 A.
Oh, God. Let's see, there was a lot of labora-
+
<3 21 tories where I was in nuclear plants and coal
(:(
22 burners.
23 g
Was that in construction?
25
y. +. 7. ::. y. L.x.,.
g:khyL ? ;> ;m? y i':.
.l:
5-o,
.c..y V. J L... :
3: ^
N3,
- W9..Q
- 'i:
'a GlRg' e i1
- ?
- 3. ' f-
'?:
n r ' 4pf:.kf.i ; C~...?. 21.v;.Q ?'s M.,l 3
'.e
.,, t.7,.
...s. -R.,;'J. ~ - - h::~ ' . ' '. *,';. '... k ". ~. f... W.... ::nyd ;lT Q v % 'y %
a M.
+
~.
i,-
a e.
a'L h.
L..
I
?
.a
.n..
mas wm,l.%.f.^ ~.e. l.?... =xa x
O.,.g. w % w. Y 2
Q q,qf>y
. n.. g& pg; Q
.W Q 's.::
. ;1 8
8.
n.;
g:' if 1:. 4:<.
s.
I-.
) ) :" ' ' '
s '... ' % ': } i.s^'
' ;. W:.' i J 1Y >h
.. C (. $'.
4, '.
pf.%.,.v}'.],, l l:l.;.
j y;. ^, !
y
%.. s
'l'.
.[~,
i:.
3 y
- 7..
W W L.,; 2q..c.. %.r. %. } W..l W t:::-.*'.,;.
~ - I d. ',$.n... :
C3: =
- v...
a.
%v & -.
p.
r t
s._.
.., f s
' :
- N, _,
.< ; - ~. s,. -g-}
- ' ' '. Yy:. i g-1.
i
- [4:. ' 2._ tylpj. Q_ ;K '
g Mf% E, W,*d4 m+@;.y p;.,:p~ <,. y 9
,+.,'...,y.:g,: p./<.$g g 0 "'
1
, g.y:,.p,,f, :..
y s& w@.:
.l g.
,m.. f 7
+
3
. w
...; - - e. m.t.
v a.
w% q ; M..~.W.h'. y
. (.,hh [ ;i- ['.
.) D.' 'c.h,'s
~,, ' h.
'. m :.. - 2.
.. k'
. *b-c wWg.my : n ~',,..L h...r.
w '-
..~:'. ' f.~......
g:..
- f. J tv
,.I,'.!
7.1
.f '
m::$w; t.
e3 was::
. &.4 ',, h.,.
ww--..
.g
.m
- y
.y w.x.::.. m.u..q.x.s.c ; Q: w
~.
m.
q.g '
':t e
1..g g;;;;.p.; p x: c w v...
a,.;,7 :gg; g w e M w. Y M h [ g';.
m
, m).s $g /
..: ~. -
a n
1
.ygg j Q y y.
(,
8 NNh%
ihh k
w w &p'e.s.
~
m & w %.r.c m W:m4 -
Aw mum N. w.,e M
h. I,Q.: : '
C.[. W p. M M. m: % w..
- x. W..w..
n e.
h%
m,.
~.
e
.m
.m
,[
V k.
. :2
}
?
'.p la' h. Q A 1 Q..f. ::., __p
- 4 y.j:Q:W:.
12
.\\.Q J
<.?
.q+.y;p -
7:j.
s :s t. ' 'ct... 3..... :
3.g' 8,.g,., -,w '.?.
. s.
- t
.c )Q -.' 5.. _ f;.
. 3
?
u~
'q..
p.
s-
.,m m.-
f' p 'p. _,(
t y
13
..(
kf(.,
"y SF ^
fQ['
W G. =W i l 4 %~ - M,.g;l?:
z ww:: v.s...e:: v.c.. ;' s :..
m,w w
1
+
n
..q y.
14 l:jy: h?
p.y g.
a uw J %.y:{ Q:Q y a l% %.!ll( q;'-lm.Q
- f ;
?
.b.4;" D $n.?n};.7 gn :p.; a m
1 cm M:.
- f XWM' Y' ' ([.. M M'T .
,N i
.J i.w..
15
- m,
..e
- ,#w
- .uk % '.[ h
'M[W r if,,-g
+ 'yn x.
'-: < :?
+
-.w
.f
. -. ~;.. ;
m
'^j.
- . '..,.(
9.. a
- ).
n.
e yg.. ;., -
't w
... L 'kt ' 4*i: :j%
. g'
- v
-.: cc-afy:'E.,;
- 3., *. se, g
- 7
-. g f. -
g t
y y d.t';l...
';,,g5
.f..n p ' : l
- 3. 3
' u..' G f i a. ~
~
-' y,:w~~.. '
- 6-4 9
' p.:
t P - {. :,8
.,. s..;. Y ' 'm.a.,. 4,.
. g...' a ;:q,. ; yar
'r e
,e e-16 W.-. "' x.ma
- W
- y m 1.x.. '....
.8 c
~ m,.....~ :a.p.,r,
,g.
i..
.yl s m gll.>.
v ml$. q* O.
- )
~l e
QD J:.-w
- f.. '. ?
b
'h
-]l@L &W;' ' I' :.' '..W.;;. Mk.w;;
&g'-
- W v, s,.:
17
$w 4; m.s g,..:+ w. g t4
- v..
y
&m -(&$a$... :n p.e yp.gx'
- 16
,, '.f;,.y'u.-
8.
. h-
$: ANN gy4
. Y
..' v?{ ghh.l$.1.n.
- ~
}4..
.. '.;% '. >.; 4.s w:c;.%%%:i: 2.:% v @ +:.
h
?..
,,s
- y.,
22
~
+-
. 3 s.
3.
.: se
]
r 24 f
$1 f.
k
?
-g7 -
- g.,.
4 N,
((
i 2$
,m l
k l
l
% j %._.
. e g p g lf 7
3 5
0 could you just explain the situation?
6 A
They worked for Daniels as Quality Assurance 7
prior to !!arble Hill.
Daniels held NES's con-8
[
tract at Fermi.
Daniels' Quality Assurance was 9
responsible for surveilling Nuclear Energy 10 11 Service's inspectors.
12 I was told then about one of the Nuclear 13 Energy Services Level iII UT Inspectors, 14 15 Supposedly had been doing 16 UT inspections without carrying transducers in the field,?ieg Particle Inspections without 18 39 leaving any : leg Particle powder, things like this 20 on different welds.
21 Now, since I was going to be the 22 person for NES at the time, 23 24 until I could find out what was actually 25 going on.
I went there in G
So, you are saying that you intentionally had the
I 8
is that what you are saying?
A Yes.
I wasn't going to jump in there.
2 g
so, you then 3
4 in order to find out what 5
they were expecting?
6 A
There was none there.
There was no Level II there.
I went there in iand in 8
NES hired -- I can't remember his name now, but 9
they hired another person i
10 then.
n I believe in the latter part o 12 1'
~
/
i 13 4
Id I can't remember his name now.
15 g
Is his name on this list?
16 A
I know his name as well as I know my own.
This 17 thing ain't up to date either, is it?
It is bound to be in here.
39 20 At that time, he had just left 21 when I reported there.
I don't think that his 22 name is even in here.
It was
_-- yes, 23 It is right here.
He was hired on 24 25 O
He was a Certified A
Yes, he was a Certified UT, yes.
He
o came in in My certification should show 3
2 O
So, actually when you became a certified 3
they had one other working for NES?
4 A
They had two, because they brought 5
and who worked strictly
}for NES.
They brough; him into Enrico Fermi to get both and 7
myself both certified.
8 0
Okay.
So, then, in other words, all of the UT work was done by either or by 0
jj yourself or this 12 A
Right, for a short period of time. However, we 13 both then quit at the same time.
Id 0
You both were there approximately a M then?
A.
No.
nd I quit in due to a 16 conflict with the Project !!anager over the fluo 17 heads
}<a s the Project ?!anager, 39 which he didn't have any certifications as far as 20 ultrasonics went.
He then told myself and k,
21 hat we didn't know what the hell we were 22 talking about as far as the inspections performed 23 by At that time, they brought 24 in from the ISI group for NES'to 1
25 Enrico Fermi.
The three of us went out and I
started.
i
10 We started getting documentat. ions on how
'1 the flue heads were constructed from DECO, 1
Detroit Edison Company.
We then went out and 2
3 made actual verification on the way that the d
inspection was supposedly being performed.
5 When we found out that it was an invalid 6
inspection, at that time we got in touch with Detroit Edison's whatever his name
- was, His last name is They have got a Quality Assurance Manager there with Detroit Edison.
gj i
12 0
13 A
No.
Ile ain't the Qdality Assurance Manager now, Id is he?
15 0
is that his name?
16 A
He is a Daniels Welding 17 Engineer who told them to alter the film.
Holv 18 shit, he ain't back up there, is he?
You are 39 20 going to get me shot.
That is what is going to 21 happen here.
Goddamnit, he ain't up there, is 22 he?
I want to know who the Quality Assurance 23 Manager for Detroit Edison is.
24 g
Some of these people were qualified to do UT's 25 at Fermi?
A.
- Well, and myself'left and went to work
l 11 then quit g I for I
i then went back to work for NES in 2
I was the only and then from there I 3
trained to take my position.
0 So, from approximately November of through August of A
I was the only at the site.
O How many shifts?
A As far as Ultrasonic, I would work one shift j-9 10 seven days a week.
Once in a while I would have 11 to come in, you know, like three or four o' clock 12 in the morning and work straight through.
I3 The RT was all done on the second shift or 14 third shift, rather.
They were running three 15 shifts.
There was only one Ultrasonic person, 16 Level II.
I worked day shift.
18 0
All right.
I think that you explained last time 19 that we talked about this Ultrasonic Testing, 20 there are two types of Ultrasonic Testing: is 21 that correct?
22 A
Yes.
23 0
A thickness test?
24 A
Yes.
I-25 O
And, something called a scan?
A Yes.
numer
12 g
would you explain the difference?
A well, a thickness inspection, you can do it with a Pulseco (sic) ultrasonic machine or you can do 2
it with a control Kramer digital machine.
The 3
4 The Control Kramer digital readout you can 5
calibrate on your step ledge to meet whatever 6
steps you are calibrating for.
7 Some of them run for a quarter of an inch to 8
a half an inch.
If you are going to inspect 9
something that is three-eighths of an inch, you then have to calibrate above and below the 3j thickness you are going to be insperting.
12 13 Also, you can do the same thing with the 14 Pulseco UT machine.
You calibrate it in differ-ent increments to match up with what you are 16 going to be inspecting the same way.
17 g
That is for the thickness?
A Yes, right.
39 20 g
What is the other process?
21 A
"A" scan.
NES has determined that "A"
scan is 22 shearwave inspection, any kind of weld volumetric 23 inspection using shearwave.
That is their 24 interpretation.
25 A lot of people don't use "A"
scan but they call it she arwave.
That is where you.are using
15 or Wismer & Becker was pushing NES to get this
.I inspection done due to a hydro or something or 3
2 other.
I don't know what it was.
I i
3 They wanted the system turned over.
I left 4
and the inspection was performed by 5
g How do you know that?
6 A
Well, Detroit Edison's Safety team got back to 7
i I should have brought all of that with me.
me.
8 His name is in there.
9 DidMr.Jlhhlll('evertellyouthat g
10 he performed n
the inspection?
12 A
Yes.
\\
13 0
When did he tell you that?
1 Id A
It was after all of the stuff came up.
15 g
It wasn't shortly after you came back from after 16 your 17 A
No.
told me shortly after I came 39 back.
never told me.
20 g
How did know?
21 A
I think that involved. He was the man that 22 sent the man out to do the job more than likely.
23 I don't remember if as there.
24 I don't know if ent him out at that timeorif]lllfwasactingsupervisorwhile
~was gone.
I believe that is what it was.
~
is I believe that
~.fasn't working that dayand]hlll[yas the acting supervisor of the i
p t
2 day shift.
3 g
Well, I think that having talked to 'Mr. lllllll 5
I believe that he stated that he was there that 5
day.
A That was there?
7 0
Yes.
Do you recall more specifically whether he was there or not?
In other words, what I am 9
to trying to find out, you came in that morning?
11 A
Yes.
12 g
The morning of i
13 A
I think that I came in early.
However, I left 14 to go to get my hair fixed.
15 g
Was this particular inspection already over with?
16 A
Well, I don't know anything about it.
I didn't know anything about it until afterwards.
18 19 0
so, you didn't know that that particular inspec-20 tion had to be performed on that day?
21 A
Ho.
Not prior to me leaving, no.
I didn't 22 have any concept of it, no.
Mr.lll!fdidn't assign you to perform.that G
- And, 24 particular weld inspection?
A No.
O on that particular day?
- - ~
17 A
No, sir.
I was never assigned something that I didn' t go out and do.
(L Now, was there anyone else available that could 2
3 have performed that inspection?
4 A
No, there was not a Level II there on the site.
t 5
g Okay.
So, if in fact Mr.
performed the 6
inspection, then in order to have that inspection 7
approved, validated, what is the procedure?
8 A
You have to have a Level II signature.
10 A
Yes, right.
I don't know if you want to put that g
12 on there or not.
I was told who signed it though.
I 13 0
Let's talk freely about what happened.
0 14 A
I was told who signed it.
15 0
Who signed it?
A They think that it is NES's at that' time.
According to the infor-mation that I got back from the investigation team for Detroit Edison's safety team, they 20 21 claimed that there are at least two signatures, 22 two forgeries that they knew of.
The investiga-23 tion was supposedly performed by the Michigan 24 State Police and it was definitely signature.
It was handwriting with my signa-ture.
11 O
Who told you that?
i A
That is why I asked you if you had that paper.
2 0
The investigator of the safety team told you 3
that?
4 A
Yes.
I could tell you his name.
You have got 5
that stuff with you.
That is un stuff that I 6
gave you when I talked to you.
7 0
Is this the same person that took the statement 9
from you?
to A
Yes.
1 l
11 O
His name is The other person j
i 12 that I talked to was the man that Aigned that.
i 13 g
A Yes.
That is boss, I believe 15 I was never told abou t the inspection prior to me 16 leaving.
18 4
- Now, how long would it take to per-19 form a UT thickness test?
20 A
Well, I don't remember what that inspection was 21 performed on.
If it was like on tubing, half-inch tubing, you could calibrate up in a minute 23 and it would take you maybe ten minutes to go to 24 any part in the plant; and then the inspection would take you probably seconds, and then you calibrate back down.
You would then have to make
~.
19 your report out.
I would say that it would take you approximately half an hour to do the report.
That is it.
2 3
O All right.
I have with me that particular 4
report at this time.
This is a Wismer & Becker 5
Ultrasonic Measurement Report No. 5296.
Have you 6
ever seen that particular report before?
7 A
(Examining) Yes.
8 0
Who showed it to you?
9 A
Well, to start with, I ran across it myself when
- )
I was looking for some particular paperwork for 12 the Detroit Edison's Quality Assurance Department 13 That is the first time that I ever seen the l
,\\
t.
Id report.
15 G
Now, you stated earlier that whe,n you came back
{
from your that advised you of that?
l 18 A
Well, he said, or he told me something about a 9
20 report.
However, he never did tell me what it
(
21 was on.
I don't know hou long it was af ter I 22 came back though when he told me about this 23 particular report.
O Now, did tell you that someone had 25 signed your name to a report?
i A
Yes.
~.
9n G
You didn't ask to see it?
A Yes.
I asked to see it.
j 2
G Did he show it to you?
3 A
No, he couldn't remember what number it was.
4 G
So, you didn't pursue it?
A No.
I didn't believe that they actually had done 6
it.
- ty s elf, I didn't think that anybody was that 7
silly to do something like that to start with.
8 G
So, you then saw this particular report?
A Yes.
10 ij G
Sometime later?
i 12 A
Yes.
13 O
And, you then identified it on your own?
A Yes.
15 O
When you were reviewing documents?
16 A
Yes, right.
17 y
ere y re e
ng e
cu en s?
18 A
Because I was looking for some paperwork for 19 20 Detroit Edison's Quality Assurance Department on 21 a particular weld or a thickness inspection or 22 whatever it was at that time.
That is when I actually seen the report then.
24 G
Now, where did this particular inspection take 25 place, can you tell from the document?
A Well, it was done in the dry welds.
I would say
21 more than likely it was done somewhere in the reactor area, in the dry welds at Fermi II.
j 2
I don't know what sy' stem though.
3 0
can you tell me what time of day that inspection d
was performed?
5 A
No, I can't.
There are no dates on it. You 6
don't have a time limit specified on a thickness 7
inspection.
8 G
What about as far as calibrating the instrument?
9 A
As far as calibrating in and calibrating out, that was one of the questions that I had with gj 12 Wismer & Becker's Level III, why didn't they have i
13 it?
Because if you are going to use it as a Id form of ultrasonic inspection, the code states 15 that you calibrate up.
You have got to specify 16 the time. You have got to specify the time you 17 calibrate out.
18 l
If something happens to the machine, you 39 20 recalibrate, and you have to do it all within a 21 four-hour time period.
For all of their thick-22 ness measurement reports, it is not required.
23 0
So, therefore, you can't tell from this report 24 how long it would have taken to perform that 25 ultrasonic thickness test?
A Well, no, sir.
I would say roughly including the
22 reporting and all, I would say probably forty-five minutes at the mos t.
2 g
Forty-five minutes at the most?
3 A
Yes.
4 0
And, this particular report was required to be 5
performed by a Certified Level II UT7
(
6 A
Yes, that is why they have a Level II.
All UT 7
reports, irregardless of what they are, if it is 8
for evaluation or what it is, it has to be signed 9
by a Level II minimumf' ij g
How do you know that this is for evaluation?
12 A
well, any report that we made had to be for 13 evaluation. It had to be part of the documentatic i
i 14 for that particular system.
In other words, they were checking to make sure that it wasn't below 16 minimal.
Usually that is what thickness is for.
17 g
So, you are telling me that I can go through all j9 of the records at the Fermi Plant and every one 20 of these should be a Level II Inspector?
21 A
Yes.
22 O
And, the at that time was yourself?
23 A
At the time that was done, the was me.
might have been certified 25 by that time though.
Where is that certification thing?
~
23 gotjhggg(certifiedbefore I left.
I I
don't remember when he was certified though.
he was certified but he was 2
3 working the second shift at that time.,
d 0
Okay. So, why couldn't HES have put this inspec-5 tion off to the second shift for to perform?
7 A
I don't know.
I don't know if that system needed t
8 to be turned over. Wismer & Becker -- maybe 9
Wismer & Becker had to turn over that system to Detroit Edison that day.
I am not really sure.
gg 12 I have been away from there so long that I don't 13 remember even what the systems are now.
z 0
Now, I have a Wismer & Becker request for a non-l Id destructive test, No. 151363, could 16 you just take a look at that document and from 17 that document can you determine what time of day that request was made for non-destructive testing 39 l
forwarded to NES?
20 21 A
(Examining)
It says here at 9:00 o' clock.
22 O
Does that mean 9:00 a.m.?
}
23 A
Yes, that is what it should mean, 9:00 a.m.
O Does that mean that the request was at the NES 25 office at 9:00 a.m.?
A Ho.
9a O
What does that mean?
A Well, that means that the forenan had written 1
this particular request for a non-destructive 2
3 examination. He wrote it at 9:00 o' clock.
NES 4
migh't not have picked it up until 1:00 delock in 5
the afternoon or 2:00 o' clock or whatever.
1 0
And, the initials whose initials are those?
7 A
Those are my initials but that is not my hand-8 writing.
0 S
y u are telling me that on 10 you ij did not perform this inspection?
12 A
I did not perform this inspection, yes.
t 13 0
And, you did not know that this particular request i
was even there at the NES office?
15 A
Ho, sir.
Sometimes a foreman at Wismer & Becker 16 would bring a request over, say, particularly if 17 18 I had three shearwave inspections to perform.
The shearwave inspections usually were pushed 39 1
20 more than what a thickness inspection was.
21 I could have gone out and performed a shear-22 wave inspection for, say, Wismer s Becker or i
WACO or RCI or whoever and not even known about 24 this.
It may not have even been in our office.
25 It may have been in the regular general pickup area where NES's employees go out and pick it up.
i
2s Idon'tknowif[hllp./
As a matter of fact,
_. a s the man that requested this or not, w
but the foreman that the inspection was done for 3
knows that I didn't perform the inspection.
He 4
knows that I didn't perform the inspection.
5 g
is the name written on this request 0
form?
A Yes.
Detroit Edison went out and asked the fore-g 8
man, the Detroit Edison's safety team went out 9
and asked the foreman.
The foreman knows that I 10 did not perform the actual inspection.
12 Have you seen all three of these copies, you know.
13 as far as that time goes and all that?
- See,
(
14 there'are three copies of this.
One came to us.
15 One stayed with Daniels and one went to Detroit
{
Edison.
17 g
What difference would that make because the copies 18 would all be the same?
19 A
Well, this might not be here. That could have 20 21 been made up.
I don't know.
22 0
What I was about to address earlier, the ultra-23 sonic measurement report form, the blank forms, 24 were those kept in the NES office?
25 A
Well, they are just kept throughout the trailer.
G Did you ever see an NES inspector sign blank forms I
26 or presign forms?
.I left them A. - 'Well, I signed several blank forms.
4 possession.
As a matter of in 2
always had a blank form that I would fact, I 3
make up on my calibrations and everything else, f
'd If there was a particular piece of paper 5
inspec-somebody needed and I performed that that tion that day, I would tell them that I didn't 7
it was alright 8
fill out the official form but and 9
for him to go ahead and fill everything out l
As far as I know, tell me the following day.
is the only person that only done it, as that 12 at that time was my day i
13 far as I know.
g 14 shift supervisor.
Sometimes there were times when I was press-ed for time.
I would then sign some.
The M,
r he would stay 17 that worked on the job with me, it.
over and fill out the paperwork and submit 3,
That would be
_or 20 because at that time they were working under me 21 22 trying to get their
-certificates.
I left two forms with
[
23 As far as I know, l
24 and that was on shearwave inspection?
l ask you to leave some pre-O Now, did Mr.
signed forms with him or was that your idea?
_,emmm- - -
y-s,, - -
ir yww%----c----w--w,
_%w- - - - - -
e-,-'w wew w---, - - -
--*e---
~
27 it was a mutual agreement between us d'uo to A
No, just my taking off sometimes and sometimes I i
I would just to be hassled with it.
I didn't want I
2 for the' overtime.
get it done.
I didn't care them fill out the paperwork after I left.
3 let A
I would check it the following
- However, 5
day to make sure that the documentation was right as far as calibration times and so forth 7
location, everything and so on, weld joints, 8
That was only done one time as 9
like that there.
That was done by far as I know.
the years that you were 11 H w, you did throughout O
Mr.
12 there, you did have presigned forms with 13 dBluuudI at one particular time, yes.
U A
I did twice a common occurrence?
that wasn't 16 So, therefore, 0
I would no.
a common occurrence, 17 A
That was not it was just maybe for two days at the 18 say that That was the only reason that it was left most.
ht l
there signed like that because of the fact t a 20 d
l 21 Somebody then fille I performed the inspection.
22 l
That was it.
That is the out the data work.
23 only time that it was ever done.
24 are you talking about two incidents 25 0
Okay.
- Now, or two blank forms?
O e
-.. - - -, ~ -,.. - -,, -
29 A
Two blank forms that I had signed.
G Two blank forms that you had signed?
A Yes.
As far as I can remember, it was only done 2
i 3
one time; and then I tore the other form up.
t 4
g why do you think that 5
is alleged to have signed your signature?
A Well, because I was told that had 7
signed it.
After the investigation and all came 8
out, I was told again that the way that the 9
initials and everything that is on there, it is the same as
_ handwriting.
33 12 O
Mr.
told you that had signed
(
13 it?
Id A
Ye If you look at it, the and the are made identical to the way that she signs 16 name.
That is not the way that I sign my name.
17 I sign my name but not like that there.
19 20 0
Mr.
was it common knowledge that 21 could sign other people's names or copy 22 other people's handwriting?
23 A
I don't know.
I heard that.
I really don't know 24 O
Did you ever hear that whenyou were working there? l 25 A
I heard it prior, liow ev e r, as far as knowing that ever did or not, I can't say yes or no.
29 I never was around anything like that then.
O Mr.
~do you know of anyone else's signa-ture that she may have copied?
2 4--
3 A
I have heard.
I have heard of some.
I don't i
4 know who they were now though.
I don't know who
{I; 5
they were.
l' O
Other inspectors?
7 i
A Yes.
Who they are though, I don't know.
[
B Was that inspectors that were working with you t
9 i
or before you started working there?
h jg Well, some that were working there before me and A
12 some while I was there supposedly, too.
I know 13 of one particular time where supposedly Id signed name. She signed
'name.
I also know that signed name 16 numerous amounts of times.
I know that.
I know 17 that signed his name numerous times.
As a matter of fact, my
_RT was 9
20 signed by_
It was 21 signature, l
22 0
What about as far as inspections, as far as an 23 inspector?
A Well, I was told that did.
I don't know 25 if g ever did though.
I can't may yes or no.
[
I heard that did but I don't know for sure.
30 g
- Now, was this an occasional thing or something that happened quite often?
j 2
A.
Well, I reckon that it is just occasional.
I 3
really don't know.
I heard about it.
How many 4
times or what, I don't know.
G were the other falsified documents 0
1 that you identified, would that be from a differ-l 7
ent contract or under a different contractor's 8
A name on the top?
)
9 A.
Yes, right.
It would be
-I think 10 that it was Waldbridge Construction gj 12 Company or something like that.
I can't tell 13 you what the exact name is now.
i O
- Now,
'you performed inspections for 15 Wismer & Becker?
I l
20 0
And, they all had their own individual inspection 21 forms?
22 A.
They had their individual forms.
However, we 23 didn't have aa.y thickness reports per se for 24 WACO.
Most of them were done for information l
25 only.
Let's see, there was an electrical contracto r l
l l
l.
_ ~.
31 there that I done thickness inspections for, too.
O Would that be Comstock, A
Yes, Comstock.
All of them should have been for 2
3 information only.
It wasn't done per se to the 4
code as far as retention.
3 As to all of the hiltit anchor bolt inspec-6 tions, I marked "for information only".
In 7
other words, the inspection was to be performed 8
by code but no one on site had a procedure for that inspection at the time of my leaving Fermi; 3;
so, I marked all of those inspections "for 12 information only" to cover my own self, i
13 I know when they got in the N-5 packet Id review they would be kicked out.
i 15 O
So, the only contract that you were doing in-16 spections for where they had to be verified was 17 Wismer & Becker?
18 A
No. Wismer & Becker, WACO.
All of the shearwave 39 20 inspections for WACO were performed AWS-Dl.
21 Wismer & Becker had all of the AS!!E components.
22 They were all performed ASME.
23 Comstock was supposedly to be ASME, too.
I 24 did not have a procedure for that particular 25 inspection.
O Now, do you suspect that there are other reports
32 bearing your name that you did not. sign at the Fermi?
j 2
A I really don't know.
I don't really know.
I l
3 heard of the two instances.
However, I don't 4
know how many other instances there are.
MTfI received h dose 5
I performed T,
histor back from NES.
It was sent to me with 7
z e r o
.'1 R.
8 l
l 9
10 l
11 l
l 12 At the time o all of 13 the personnel had either left the I
site or went home for so with my background I was asked if
'I
[
would perform; ithout a M certification.
At that time I went out and performed the k work.
18 After the I took my 39 20 test and then it was backdated.
In other words, 21 it would show that there was a 22 performed on the site.
I know that that certification was signed by 24 O
Now, the ultrasonic thickness measurement report 25 that you are identifying as being forged, or at least your signature as being forged, I
l
33 did you ask if he performed that inspection?
A Yes, I did.
I don't know how long after it 2
3 actually happened that it was brought up.
Il o w -
4 ever, I asked then said that he did 5
perform the inspection.
6 0
Did you ask him to perform it for you though?
7 i
A No.
8 0
Did you tell him that you were leaving and to go i
9 out and perform that inspection?
A No, because at that time -- let me see the list gg 12 of certifications again.
I 13 0
Okay.
A At that tfmeIdon'tbelieve that he had his Id at that time.
I don't believe that 16 he did unless this thing has been doctored up, 17 too.
'was when he picked *up his UT Level I which was approximately just about @ '
39 20 after this inspection was performed.
21 0
And, you did not ask to perform this 22 test?
23 A
No, I didn't even know about that test.
i' 1
0 You did not tell that you would leave f
25 a blank inspection form signed so that he could come back and fill in the data after the
34 inspection?
A Ho.
The only time that this was ever done was when a was working with me on the 2
3 shearwave inspection.
I believe that it was l
4 done at one time.
I believe that it was done 5
one time only.
6 With 7
A Right. On that documentation though, I put my name as a and his name as a 9
He would then. fill everything out for me.
O So, that the only two instances that you recall gj 12 were done on shearwave inspections?
13 A
Yes.
i Id 0
And, not on thickness inspections?
15 A
Yes.
That was only done one time as far as I j
16 can recall.
I left two forms there.
I tore one 17 form up, however.
se forms are altogether different than 19 20 those though.
Those were made out in triplicate 21 for shearwave inspection for Wismer & Becker 22 and for WACO, too.
It is triplicated forms, 23 in other words, there are three copies to that, 24 to that form.
25 One copy stays with us.
One copy went to Wismer & Becker's Level III The other
ss 4,
one went in the files for Daniels; and then there was a Xerox copy made sometimes and sent to the j
j 2
foreman requesting the work.
3 0
Now, while we are looking at this list of 4
NES inspectors, would you review this list and 5
just briefly tell me which people were working l
6 with you as inspectors?
\\
7 A
As far as what?
As far as UT?
8 0
Which of those people were there during that M 9
time period?
10 11 A
Do you want me to name them off?
12 O
Yes.
\\
A.
Do you want their certificates and so forth?
I3 14 0
No.
15 A.
Okay.
They have got his name spelled wrong.
I believe it is and then 18 19 20 2I
- myself, 22 This guy is working up here with me.
That is one of the reasons why he left; and 3
l_
36 That is it.
yourself and far as you recall, g
As j
were the only 2
and I were the 3
A
- Well, I
people there prbr to.
d 5
certification as a qualified?
0 Now, was
- Also, lef t he hadn' t been.
7 the tine that I A
At I believe that it was out 8
there was a the Zimmer Plant.
at test for I proctored a for not having enough credit-33 He was not accepted ibut since then I 12 ed hours for the 13 heard that he became NES's
[
Id Now, when you came back after your_
O Okay.
- tr.
told you of the incident, and that you didn't believe you then' stated 17 that.
they actually done that.
39 I did not believe that A
they put your signature 20 You did not believe that 21 6
22 on a report?
told.who signed the time I wasn't
' ~
23 A
Right. At that I was told who performed the report though.
24 25 inspection.
(also signed the that Did you suspect G
37 report then?
A I don't know.
I didn't really pursue it that j
2 much either.
3 0
It didn't bother you then?
d A
It bothered me but I thought that it was a joke at first.
I then came to find out that it 6
wasn't a joke.
7 g
You didn't think that it uas important enough to 8
try to find the report?
9 A
No.
then told me that he was going to 10 11 give me the report.
He told me that he was 12 going to give me the report, but it was never 13 given to me.
I' O
Do you know if the inspection was ever performed byacertifiedLevelflll[
16 A
If somebody had gone back?
17 18 39 A
I was told afterward, after the findings after I l
20 left the site, I was told that the inspection j
i 21 was reperformed.
There was a little bit of l
l 22 difference as far as readings, but I don't believ e i
23 that it was significant to hurt anything.
t 24 0
So, in other words, you didn't feel that it was 25 important enough to report to Detroit Edison?
A I reported so many tMngs to Detroit Edison's F
38 Quality Assurance Department and it was never l
i written up.
That was one of the main bitches i
l 2
that I had when I left there.
i, i:
3 Also, people with Daniels -- the jet pump incident was reported to Detroit Edison by a
5 Daniels employee at the time who was working 6
over us and nothing was ever done then.
They 7
stuck it on their table and let it go.
There were numerous things that I reported 9
10 to them that was out of code.
I then brought my 11 concerns up with Wismer & Becker's 12 I also brought my concerns up with 13 Detroit Edison's -- I can't remember his name 14 l
now -- damnit, but I can't remember his name --
That is the Detroit Edison's M Quality Assurance.' tanager who is 18 He was Detroit Edison's 19 I also brought up my concerns to Daniels' 20 Quality Assurance and nothing was ever done.
l 21 This wasn't Detroit Edison's problem. This is an 22 NES problem.
When I knew that I was doing 23 things that were supposed to be documented that 24 weren't documented because I didn't have a pro-cedure to do it, I was then told to go out and perform the inspection.
I just went out and 1
c
4 39 performed the inspection.
I knew that I was in 1
violation.
2 I then reported it so that they would writo 3
me up.
However, it was either do that or get
.4 fired for not doing the inspection.
5 I then went to At that time I think that there was a joint venture in some of their Quality Assurance with Daniels' people.
8 9
some of them were Detroit Edison's people.
I 10 went to as I said.
I went to 11 12 0
Well, it just seems odd to me that it was import-13 ant enough to address as an allegation when you 14 left the site, but it wasn't significant when it l
15 occurred?
16.
A Well, I addressed it to everybody that I knew to j7 18 address it to, other than going to the Nuclear 19 Regulatory Commission's representative.
Sometime 20 during that period there was a question asked about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's per-l 22 r.'
sonnel.
I believe one of them ended getting 23 thrown off the site for drugs or something.-
24 25 wasn't there?
There was somebody with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who got in trouble.
40 I can't remember the particulars on it.
I an pretty sure that somebody got dismissed from there.
In fact, nobody wanted me to go to the 2
3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission because they knew 4
that something would probably be done.
5 MR. WALKER:
Well, did anybody ever tell you 6
from NES's management or from Detroit Edison's 7
management just that what you just indicated that 8
you shouldn't go to the Nuclear Regulatory 9
Commission because that would get you in trouble?
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
jj 12 MR. WALKER:
You said that you tried to tell 13 everybody about this.
I am really curious about I4 that.
15 THE WITNESS:
In fact, I had some people in 16 NES's organization that told me to drop it.
17 MR. WALKER:
Well, in what manner did they tell you to drop it?
39 20 THE WITNESS:
Well, if I kept pushing, a lot of peoP e are going to be in trouble; so, there-l 21 22 fore, I just more or less let it go then.
23 MR. WALKER:
When you say " push it", what 24 do you mean?
25 j
THE WITNESS:
Well, the incident that I was terminated under, I was mad.
When I left, I just l
l
y, told everybody.
I told then what I knew.
MR. WALKER:
So, you felt that this was your 1
last chance to say again what you have been try-2 3
ing to tell the people there?
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
I told everybody on that 5
site.
Quality Assurance is supposed to be 6
assured that I was doing my inspections.
However 7
I never had a Quality Assurance representative 8
go out in the field on an offsite inspection, 9
MT inspection, RT inspection, PT inspection, UT 10 11 inspection.
12 I went to numerous Quality Assurance 5,
explained things that were being 13 personnel.
I 14 I explained the way that the code done wrong.
15 required it to be done, but it was never done.
16 Nobody ever found a finding or anything.
MR. WALKER:
So, you couldn't get any satis-18 faction as a result of your complaints?
19 20 THE WITNESS:
Yes, that is correct.
I went I went to 2I to Quality Assurance Department.
22 Detroit Edison's Level III in Ultrasonics.
I went to Wismer & Becker's Level III in Ultrasonics.
23 24 I
I went to Daniels' Quality Assurance.
25 I
went to Detroit Edison's Quality Assurance.
went to everybody.
I 42 In fact, there was never any NCR or non-conformance written up on it.
I gave them all j
1 of the information.
2 3
HR. WALKER:
Specifically who in NES or d
Detroit Edison's management told you not to go t
5 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
6 THE WITNESS:
Well, the only person that 7
told me that they didn't want me to go to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 9
10 then end up getting into trouble.
n 12 MR. WALKER: Have you ever been approached or 13 hav.e you heard anything from those people since.
i I#
you have left?
THE WITNESS:
I have talked with 16 numerous amounts of times.
MR. WALKER: Have they suggested that anybody 18 got in trouble?
39 THE WITNESS:
Well, they told me -- oh, shit 20 21 22 MR. WALKER:
Go ahead and be very candid.
23 THE WITNESS:
I was told that it was Detroi t Edison's safe team that was doing an investigati 24 os 25 over the forgeries.
They were very reluctant to let it be known who did the inspection and who
-m--.
43 signed the report.
Ever since I left there, it I
was too late to go to the NRC.
2 However, I felt that the Detroit Edison 2
_3 safe team was supposed to correspond with the
- a 8
Nuclear Regulatory Commission when there was 5
something concerning the safety complaints.
6 BY MR. KALKMAN 7
0 do you think that NES didn't want you to go to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
9 10 A
Yes.
i 11 O
Why?
12 A
Well, because they could have lost the contract 13 and all of the other contracts at the nuclear 14 sites.
15 0
do you think that it was because of this one-time incident or were there more than 37 18 that?
19 A
My feeling is that it had been happening prior to 20 the time that I got there.
I know that it j
i 21 happened prior to the time that I got ' there and t
22 after I left there.
It also happened at the time that I was at Fermi.
That is why I went and 24 certified
}when I went there.
O What specifically was happening?
A Well, people were going out and performing UT n,-
n.
,,n.
~.a-.,,. -
44 shearwave inspections without transducers.
Everything that I had addressed to Quality Assur-3 2
ance as far as UT inspections, the validity of 3
the scopes that had been going on for a long time.
d There was not a report up there as far as cali-5 brating the machines like they are supposed to be.
6 That was one of the reports that I turned in.
7 There was no linearity verification on any 8
of the scopes, no reports filled out.
The code states that linearity has to be performed with 10 11 extended use or a minimum of three months, which-12 ever is less, Section 5.
13 Now, the scopes were being sent out by NES 0
Id for calibration at 90-day intervals.
AWS states 15 that the scopes have to be checked within 60 16 days.
The scopes were never checked within 60 17 days.
8 19 There were no linearity reports that came 20 back with the scopes.
I don't know if they were 21 ever sent out.
They said take this scope over to 22 the warehouse and go pick this scope up whenever 23 it supposedly was to come back in.
There was a 24 calibration sticker on it.
25 We got scopes back that were out of linear-ity.
and myself had
45 sent scopes out that just came back supposedly to be lineared and they weren't.
MR. WALKER: Do you suppose t' hat was a 2
~
3 conscious disregard for NES's codes and the 4
ASMI codes in this regard?
5 THE WITNESS:
I brought it to their atten-1 6
tion.
Nobody ever paid concern to it.
Nobody 7
ever tried to correct it.
8 Prior to me 1 caving, we did get a linearity 9
procedure from NES and Danburry, but the paper-work still wasn't supposedly filled out.
11 12 If your machine is out of.linearity, it 13 throws your inspections down the tube.
You can Id run across an indication and you don't know where 15 that indication is.
In other words, if your 16-machine is out of linearity, you might be going 17 into the root and it might he in the cap of the 18 i
l weld.
39 20 MR. WALKER:
So, you had to do inspections 21 with equipment such as you described to us?
22 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
After I got there and 23 after ot there, that was the 3
24 first thing that any is going to perform 25 on a machine.
They are going to check out the horizontal and the vertical linearity on that
i 46 piece of equipment.
When we found them out of calibration we j
2 would have them sent out.
I would not work with 3
equipment like that.
I don't know if any lineari - o 4
ties were ever checked.
MR. WALKER:
Prior?
6 THE WITNESS:
Prior to my employment.
7 MR. WALKER:
You don't know if it was ever 8
in calibration prior to then?
THE WITNESS:
I don't know if it was ever 10 n
in calibration prior to then, yes.
12 MR. WALKER:
But you do know for sure when 13 you got ahold of this equipment at the time that Id you are suggesting?
15 THE WITNESS:
Well, we had two USL 32n and 16 at one time we had all three machines sent back 17 because of linearity failure.
MR. WALKER: It would appear any tests con-39 20 ducted by those machines prior to this time that 21 you described would be questionable then, that is 22
- any of the tests?
3 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
If the Level II hadn't 24 checked the linearity on the machines, yes.
25 BY MR. KALKMAN:
(L do you have any idea how many ultra-
47 sonic inspections you performed at Fermi?
l A
Oh, God, no.
thousand?
2 g
Did you perform over a
~
I would say probably in the nature of a thousand.
3 A
like tubing. I had d
The only piping we done was
~~
5 done some piping but it was more for information 6
only.
There was 7
The rest of it was on AWS welds.
an inside dry weld in the reactor building; and 8
9 Basically, then support components f or AS!4I,.
l 10 that is about it as far as shearwaves.
n But would you say though that you performed 12 g
g linearity in the area of a thousand or more 13 inspections that were performed for verification Id not just for information?
15 A
Yes, possibly.
I can't really pinpoint it.
16 17 time that we talked that g
Now, you mentioned last you had a personal log.
39 20 A
Yes, but I can't find the damn thing now.
that You had a personal log of the inspections 21 0
22 you had performed?
t I actually per-A Yes, the particular welds that 3
However, I can't 24 formed the inspection on, yes.
25 find the damn book now.
First of I have got some documents here with me.
O
48 I have a stack of ultrasonic thickness
- all, Becker, contractor.
measurement reports, Wismer &
1 these reports and see if you W uld you look at 2
can identify your signature on those reports at 3
l 4
this time?
I
/
Here is a characteristic on a lot 5
A (Examining) of my reports, which is this I usually one-line it and date it.
I make mistakes like that.
It is just 8
i 9
I something that I picked up on years ago.
or a_
Any time that I had a jj I put the assistant down so I could with me, 12 document how many hours that man had in training 13 14 for his certification for evel I or Level II.
15 How, this one here, I didn't do that one.
That was the only time that we did the thickness 16 17 There was a. question about the on the piping.
18 inspection because of the right calibration blocks.
20 the report that you identified as not havin g
21 g
- Now, thicknessreportflEEghf 22 your signature is the UT that NES had or that you had 23 which is the report 24 previously identified?
25 A
Yes.
O Would you say that this is approximately all of
49 the UT thicknesses that you performed for Wismer j
& Becker?
j 2
A No.
As a matter of fact, a bunch of these are 3
the same components.
d 0
Now, there are 47 UT thickness inspection 5
reports that I have brought with me.
6 A
I don't know if there are any Xerox copies in 7
here, but there are some of them that look 8
similar in here.
9 0
W id you say that there are a lot more?
10 11 A
Yes.
12 G
How many more would you say?
k 13 A
I don't know but I would say probably half as Id many or not more than that.
15 l
0 Another twenty or forty more?
16 i
A Well, I would say probably more than that. I 17 would say probably about fifty more.
0 About fifty more?
39 20 A
Yes.
I know that I did a lot of thickness veri-21 fications.
I did a lot of thickness verifica-22 tions on tubing.
You have got to stop and think 23 now.
24 Now, that same report was made out on WACO 25 for Waldbridge.
We didn't have per se a form for Waldbridge for thickness.
Whenever that was made
-v--
=
,,---a--
m
--,w-w-w-
---T----------w.
.w
--ww
r-
j 3G out, it was good for "information only" usually, 1
I know that there is more than that.
2 g
You said earlier you had a separate report for 3
each of these different contractors?
4 A
We have reports for them, yes, sir.
Wismer &
j, 5
I' Becker was the only ultrasonic thickness examin-6 ation report that we had. We didn't have any
},
i other kinds of thickness reports for any other 9
company on the jobsite.
10 You see, those are from shearwave.
There 11 are different ones for Wismer & Becker. There 12 are different ones for WACO.
j 3
0 You may have peeformed thickness tests for WAco 14 on Wismer & Becker forms?
15 A
Yes.
l 16 l
0 Those were for information only?
37 18 A
Well, more than likely, they were just for l
19 information only.
However, there may have been 20 some that were for evaluation, but I couldn't 21 really tell you.
Iftheywereforinformationonly,coulda2lNEEE['
(
0 23 ll(dotheinspection?
24 jobsitesometimestheywereusingjlhlIEL A
On that llllht It is an ultrasonic piece of equipment, ultrasonic equipment, which is supposed to be
~
l; I
m 51 performed by a O
I am confused. If it was an ultrasonic test, j
2 why could it be for information only, what were 3
th'e circumstances?
"4 A
Well, it would depend.
Say on hiltit bolts, t
5 what they want to do on hiltit bolts, make sure the bolt is not cut or the end of the hiltit 7
bolt is the proper length.
Any time I did some-8 thing and I didn't have a procedure, I would 9
mark it "information only".
gj Detroit Edison could request me to do some-12 thing.
If I didn't have any report to make out i
13 on it, I would then fill it out on Wismer &
Id Becker's inspection report and mark "information 15 only".
There were numerous reasons, a lot of 16 different reasons.
17 Maybe somebody just wanted to have a wall 39 thickness verified.
I would then go out and per-20 form the wall thickness.
Maybe they just wanted 21 it for information only.
When I made out the 12 report, it was "for information only".
23 0
How would you identify that the report was for 24 information only?
25 A
Well, on this particular form up here, it would bo under the procedure number. On this particular
52 l
inspection, Wismer & Becker's, 105, REV.
4, basically all of these should be the same. That 1
is the thickness. That was for the thickness 2
procedure. That is the only one that we have.
Just like I said before, this particular one 4
here I hesitated on doing.
There are some of 5
are on N-5 nozzles. There should be a 6
these that At that 7
lot more than this on the H-5 nozzles.
8 time nobody could tell me the particular calibra-9 tion block that I should supposedly be using.
10 0
What calibration block?
11 A
Well, it could throw the inspection off quite a l
(
bit if some of the areas were clouded with 13 inconel, which is something that they use to clad 14 15 carbon steel or stainless steel on components.
16 These are all shearwave inspections.
0 In any event, you are stating that in your esti-17 18 mation you performed more than that?
19 l
A Than what is here?
20 More than 467 21 22 A
Yes.
More than 46 ultrasonic thickness tests?
23 0
24 A
Yes.
At various times I could have performed 40 25 in a month.
for evaluation and not for information O
They were
i 51 I
E only?
ip "A" scan or A
Yes.
a quantity of 3
I also have I would like you to take 0
Okay.
2 shearwave inspections.
and just walk 3
t one of these inspection packe swould use to d
through the procedure that you and perform 5
to go out calibrate your instrument, 6
inspection report.
the inspection and write the 7
8 Here it is.
Becker?
from Wisner &
A a request Y u w uld get 10 A
Yes.
?
Or one of the other contractors 11 time it would be
(
12 G
At that is correct.
that is supposed to be done 13 A
- Yes, thickness it I
marked what particular that was for ultrasonic, This in the 15 on.
reactor b'uilding It was for the 16 section.
17 dry weld.
are talking We Let me stop you for a minute.Becker ultras 0
39 the Wismer &
about 20 276E?
Report No.
21 record as you are talking 22 A
Yes.
for the I wanted that are referring 23*
O this as to which report we 24 about 25 To start to?
report is 276 a
The initial inspection i
A L
54 with, I have to calibrate my machine.
i G
You have to calibrate the nachine within a cer-2 tain time of performing the test?
3 A
Well, you have to do it prior to and after the 4
inspection.
5 G
One days, two days?
6 A
You have to do it every time before you do the 7
weld.
8 Q.
You have to recalibrate it then?
9 A
Yes.
10 11 G
So, you can calibrate it one day and do the 12 inspection the next day?
(
13 A
No.
To start with, you turn the machine on.
It 14 is a good idea to leave your nachine turned on a 15 half hour prior to doing your calibration.
You 16 have linearity and everything and it is not going to drift.
Once the machine is warmed up, you 18 19 put your transducer on.
You calibrate on to the 20 standard.
Prior to doing the actual calibration 21 for DAC, distance applitude curve, prior to that 22 you should run a linearity inspection.
Every 23 inspection that I donc, they weren't recorded due 24 to not having the procedure to perform the 25 linearity check.
On this particular inspection, I calibrated
ss at 3:25 o Sometimes things were done just like on here. It was for the j
l 2
reactor building in the dry weld.
It might have 3
been performed in the fab shop, which is where I 4
think that these welds were.
That is why I was 5
going back here.
6 It was for the reactor building in the dry 7
well.
on my report I have got it filled out.
8 The job or location is on the fab table. It 9
didn't have to be done inside of the reactor 10 jj building.
.ty inspection was on the fab table.
12 0
Where is the fab table? Is that a non-safety
(
13 related area or is that in the reactor building?
I4 A
Well, Wismer & Becker's fab table was in the turbine building.
It was just outside the steam 16 tunnel area.
17 As I said, I calibrated it at 3:25 in the 18 afternoon.
I went out and performed the inspec-9 l
20 tion.
My final calibration was at 3:45.
The 21 inspection took twenty minutes.
Do you want me 22 to go through all of this stuff?
23 0
No.
What report follows that particular calibra-24 tion report?
25 A
Well, if somebody would go out to perform that inspection again, if they used this transducer, l
1
ss which would be the same size, the equipment serial number of the reactorscope, and if they 2
were scanning with the 16 DB, so the reference 3
level would have been 10 DB, because the code 4
requires 6 DB over your scanning level, 6 DB over your reference level; and then they would come up with a DAC, distance applitude curve at the 6
7 same locations.
8 9.'
O Which indicates the thickness of the weld?
A Yes.
10 11 O
Okay.
three-quarter and one-half.
12 A
I then set up on a 13 This is a zero degree, zero degree as in the heat s
affected zone.
These are what these marks up f
(
15 here are for.
I inspection would have been performed.
16 The 17 Some of these are going to have zero degree and 18 some of these for shearwave inspection. That is 19 what I have got to find out here.
20 21 This is part of that documentation.
There three sheets to this particula r 22 are three sheets, 23 inspection.
24 g
To this form right here?
25 This is always the cover A
This here form, yes.
This is usually the second sheet.
sheet.
5' g
Identify these forms?
j A
Well, that is an E.
Someplace in here there is 2
an A, B.
There is a G.
There is an H.
There 3
is an I, J.
This one here ain't marked.
I don't know 5
is.
This is a K.
This what the hell that one 6
is an F, B,
C.
Here is an A, B,
C.
7 This one is for shearwave inspections.
8 There is one for longitude.
No checking out for i
laminations. This is for longitudes. It has to be 10 done prior to the shear wave.
11 This is for longitudina).
This is for the 12
\\
13 distance applitude curve.
I#
n Why are there two reports?
A Well, this is for the shear wave inspection on 15 16 that particular item. You have to run a longitud-17 inal Prior to running the shearwave. You have to 18 make sure there is no lamination through the 19 20 area.
21 If I use a 45 degree transducer in order for 22 me to get from my exit point to the root of the weld, I am going to have at least'a one and a 23 half inch sound path.
If I have a'one and a half 24 25 inch sound path from the center line of that weld, l
I am going to have my transducer aporoximately
i 58 This is just one and three quarter inches back.
basically theory that you know.
What you do then, you run the longitudinal 2
inspection in order to make sure through that 3
4 area that that sound is going to transmit and so that there is no lamination to af f ect your 4
6 inspection for your shearwave.
7 all of this was not performed on the same day g
so, 8
though?
9 A
No.
10 11 0
How did that happen?
12 A
Well, it happens a lot. It depends on how much i
For one 13 welds you are going to have to inspect.
thing, it depends on the time of the day.
15 0
This whole process started out at 3:25 on the 16 p
A Yes.
18 0
of 39 20 A
Yes.
Let me check.
I will tell you if it was 21 done' all of the way through that day.
This is Thisisforthe(llllll_
22 for the longitudinal.
Longitudinalofthatveldwasinspectedongf
_f f
24 The shearwave of that was performed. on
,I calibrated up at 8:00 o' clock and then my linearity inspection.
I set my distanc e
59 applitude curve.
I made my inspection.
I then made out the documentation required.
I finally calibrated out at the NES trailer at 2
t i
3 9:30 a.m.
4 0
Did anyone assist you on this inspection?
5 A
- Well, helped me as far as che shear t
6 wave inspection elped me on the p
7 longitudinal.
He was with me ring the whole 8
thing.
h 9
L G
This was a two-day test?
(
33 l
A Yes..
12 O
or a two-day inspection?
13 A
Yes, right.
14 O
And, the longitudinal is performed on one day?
15 g
y,,,
16 4
And, the shearwave is performed the following 17 morning?
18 A
Yes.
9 20 g
And, you then normally fill this out on the 2) particular day that you performed the test?
22 A
Yes.
However, it all depends.
This would have
. Z3 been filled out on the same day that I did the
- 24 inspection.
The longitudinal may not have been l
25 though since it was that late in the afternoon.
There is a date on one of the particular
60
)
forms right here.
I put the wrong date on that.
The final would not have been signed off until the final day of the whole inspection.
All of 2
3 them wou,1d have been signed off on That 4
is when the actual inspection was completed.
5 g
A Yes.
O So, at the top of the final form, you have k crossed out and put in?
A Yes.
That was the date that that inspection was 10 performed.
The whole inspection was completed 33 12 00
\\
13 0
Now, is there any way that could have 14 done this entire inspection?
15 A
No. That is my handwriting.
That is my hand-16 writing.
I know that inspection was performed by 17 me.
l 18 0
Now, I have a question about this particular 20 documunt or this package of documents?
21 A
Okay.
t 22 O
The time records show that you didn't work on the 23 the NES records.
24 A
Well, I can go home and get my time sheets.
25 0
I happen to have your time sheets with me.
I l
have them from two different sources.
I have
61 '
them from Detroit Edison and from NES.
A Is this a gate log?
j 2
G This is what you are paid by.
b e[
3 A
Okay.
d G
O it shows absent on your pay log.
[
5 Could you explain to me how this inspection could have been performed on the when your 7
\\
time records show that you weren't there on the
[
8 9
A so, I can t.
1 n
G Are you telling me that you were there?
12 A
That is my handwriting.
13 4
So, you were there and performed that inspection?
Id A
It may have been the wrong day. I might have signed it in error, the date, but all of these 16 are my handwriting.
All of them are dated by me.
17 The whole report was made out by me.
This was all made out by me other than this writing 39 20 up here.
That writing is 21 G
Part of the inspection was done on the 22 A
Yes.
i 23 G
Is it possible that the whole inspection was done on the i
25
~.
Maybe the in' pection could A
It is a possibility.
a have been done on the % and dated wrong or i
I something.
I am not sure of that.
3 0
Well, the sheet with the calibration times, that 2
was also dated thM ll(
l 3
A Right.
O How often would you make an error like that?
}
5 A
Well, I never carried a watch with me.
I never 6
knew what a lot of dates were.
I really can't 7
tell you.
I don't know if I done it in error or if 9
it was all done on thelllllf and I dated it the 10 11 or what.
12 O
Well, there is a time difference between 8:00 33 o' clock in the morning and 3:25 in the evening 14 on these two sheets.
15 A
Well, maybe this thing could have actually been 16
~
performed on the and I dated it the I really can't tell you now.
18 19 0
- Well,
'was it common --
20 A
For me to make mistakes?
21 O
Yes.
A Yes.
23 0
Was it common for you to backdate inspections?
24 A
No.
I never backdated inspections.
I never 25 backdated inspections or not knowingly I never backdated one.
s1 g
you just told me that it may have been performed on the but you may have dated it the so that is backdating an inspection.
l 2
3 A.
That is true.
I might have overlooked something.
s 4
I don't know.
I can't say.
MR. WALKER:
Could you have been directed 6
to backdate that?
7 THE WITNESS:
Well, nobody would ever tell j
8 me that.
As far as that, no, nobody.
I was neve:
9 told to backdate anything other than my 10 i
That was backdated prior to 11 12 13 There are a lot of times that I didn't know the dates.
There are a lot of times that I Id 15 didn't know the dates at all.
MR. WALKER:
assisted you on 37 that.
Does he go through and make sure that the g
dates and the times are correct?
39 20 THE WITNESS:
Well, that was his job at the 21 site to make sure that the documentation was 22 dated right and filled out correctly.
BY MR. KALKMAN:
I have another report here.
This is O
25 an ultrasonic examination report No. 266-E.
It shows the instruments calibrated on the 1
64 The final report is dated'the %
of can you explain the inconsistent dates there?
2 3
A Well, that could have been the same thing.
I am l
not really sure.
I could not,tell you.
I just i
d 5
couldn't tell you.
6 How, there are a lot of times that the 7
inspection might have been the day before but the 8
paperwork might not have been done until the day after.
j.
p G
Okay.
I have another ultrasonic examination
(
12 Report No. 282.
The top of the report shows 13 It shows that you signed off on this paperwork was made out by h A
- Well, Maybe this particular inspection wasn't done or wasn't finalized until that date.
i.
I don't know.
I am not sure.
39 I might not have even come back to work 20 21 until There were times that I was off for 22 a few days.
23 are you telling me that 0
24 who assisted you would calibrate the instrument 25 and perform the exam on the h ) and then you and sign off the would come along on
65 report without having been there when the examin-ation was performed?
A-W811' let's check and see when he was certified 2
3 as far as i,
4 IIR. WALKER:
What is his name?
5 THE WITNESS:
on the last 6
page.
I think that there is a in 7
there, too.
MR. KALK!!AN :
They have 10 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
What he could have done 11 12 here, you know, what he could have done, he
(
13 could have gone out and performed this inspection.
Id I then came right back behind him and checked it and signed as a hen.
I don't under-16 stand rhy that would be when he has " assistant" 17 marked there because he was a l
MR. KALKMAN:
Unless the date on the certi-g fication wt.s incorrect.
20 21 THE WITNESS:
Well, it was somewhere in 22 there when he was certified.
That is the reason 23 that I asked you to go back to that.
A lot of
)wouldgooutandperformhisin-time 25 spections.
He wasn't sure of the inspections though.
i i
m
66 I would then go out after him and check.
knew that. E ~had asked me numerous times to go back because of some particular 2
3 joints that he was afraid of.
4 More than likely, this whole report is made 5
out by
' I can'tzecall what it was on though.
6 t
BY MR. KALK!!AN:
g
_your time records show that you were 8
working on the date that the inspection was 9
actually performed, A.
Okay.
g 12 0
W uldn't it be likely chat you would have
\\
13 reviewed that or checked it the same date?
i i.
14 A
Well, not if he didn't get the paperwork done.
15 i.
If the paperwork wasn't done until, say, until
]then the paperwork wouldn't have been 17 signed off until I reviewed it.
I don't know if that is what particularly happened here.
20 What it looks like, every bit of this is 21 handwriting, the sketches, every-22 thing.
The only thing is I signed off as a 23 I had gone back 24 numerous occasions and inspected things behind because of the fact that he was not sure of his own inspections.
That is the only thing that
3 67 I know.
1 is the only thing that In other words, that 1
I I know that could have possibly happened.
2 wouldn't have filled out documentation because 1
'3 the documentation filled out.
4 he's already got UltrasonicexaminationReportNo.f 5
g All right.
The instruments
{
0 the inspection is date
~
You then signed off 7
were calibrated on
' Does that mean that on 9
performed the inspection?
This is all my handwriting. This is all my 10 A
Ho.
33 Nobody performed an inspection handwriting here.
12 g
like that.
13 4
Could you explain the different dates then?
Id 0
then?
Was the inspection done on the 15 A
Well, I don't have any idea now.
16
'and the Was the inspection done on the O
paperwork done on the g
I don't know A
It could be.
It could have been.
20 w.
I cannot tell you no I really cannot tell you.
21 The inspection might have been done and then 22 23 I
went back out and redid it.
It is hard to I couldn't tell I really don't know.
you now.
l I really don't know because'there have been 25 you.
around times when some of the paperwork would sit
68 the office for about three or four days before I completed it.
onInspectionNo.dhlgk)Ihaveaquestiononthat.
g 2
3 You worked five and a half hours on 4
5 A
Right.
6 g
What time normally would you start your shift?
7 A
Well, normally I am supposed to be there at 8
7:00 o' clock.
Sometimes I come in at 3:00 9
o' clock.
Sometimes I wouldn't come in until 10:00 o' clock.
3; 12 g
would it be unusual to work five and 13 a half hours and not perform the inspection until Id mid to late afternoon?
A Yes.
I might not have come in until noon.
At 16 one time I was doing quite a bit of drinking 17 there.
I would set my own hours more or less be-cause I knew that I could get away with it.
39 20 I don't know how to answer you on something 21 like that there.
I mean, if you went through 22 the total times that I punched in and punched out 23 some of them are pretty erratic.
O What I have with me here is 25 A
For Wismer & Becker?
I g
What is the other terminology for "A"
scans?
-w--
w-
Ke A
Volumetric inspection or "C"
scan.
1 0
Did you perform more than 64 do you think?
2 A
Possibly, yes.
i 3
0 Do you think that this is an accurate number of inspections?
A God only knows.
I don't know. I really don't 5
6 know. I know that I performed a lot of damn 7
inspections.
However, I can't tell you if that is all 9
that I done or not. I really can't tell you.
10 11 O
Now, could you briefly look at the signatures on 12 these reports and see if you can identify those 4
13 as your signatures?
A (Examining) Ok ay.
Is this supposedly all of 14 15 them for Wismer & Becker?
16 0
Yes.
l A
I wish that I had the time because I would go 18 through this and see if the flue heads are docu-19 20 mented.
21 MR. WALKER:
Let's go off the record.
discussion held off the record.)
(Whereupon, 23 BY MR. KALKMAN:
24 0
On the record.
The inspection reports then of the ultrasonic examinations, the
- reports,
}isthatallyoursignature?
O 70 The only one that I A
They are all my signature.
have doubts on is mode of transmission where j
somebody scratched out longitudinal and put my 2
initials in there. Those are not my initials.
3 I did not d
I mean, they are my initials but That wouldn't have any bearing whatsoever 5
do it.
l on an inspection.
All of that was for mode of 7
transmission.
8 G
The rest of that document is your signature?
A Yes, the rest of that document is my signature.
Now, you also estimated that you performed more O
jj inspections, ultrasonic inspections than what we 12 i
13 have identified?
Id A
Yes, sir.
I know that there are numerous more inspections on these flue heads.
15 the flue 16 First of all, would you explain what 0
17 heads are?
18 A
I believe it is a support for the main steam g
lines coming from the reactor through air lock 20 in the steam tunnel areas.
21 I
22 0
The problem was what?
23 A
Well, this is one of the one-inch thick ones.
24 The problem was -- you have got that drawing there -- I can't remember the exact size, but the 25 flue head started off problem was originally the i
t
)
71 at two and half inch thick naterial according to i
this 236 report.
There was a fu'll penetration j
2 weld made.
At the time the ultrasonic inspection 3
was not verified.
4 Engineering made a decision to add one inch 5
of carbon steel material on to of the two and 6
i a half existing inches.
There was a 45 degree 7
bevel cut on the one-inch and this also was 8
incorporated along with the other fillet weld.
Later on the inspection was performed by 10 on the three and a half inch ij 12 material.
That was supposedly a valid inspection I
13 There was no way to perform that inspection with Id an open bond between the one inch and two and a 15 half inches.
toff lllg The inspection was addressed
,_and to De.troit Edison's i
18 l
20 Wismer & Becker's 21 We reported that the inspection could not be 22 performed from the side that 23 stated that he had performed the inspection.
In 24 other words, it couldn't be performed from the 25 position and the side that Detroit Edison's said that it was performed i
i
72 in turn wo a focus transducer and from by using went and pulled the documentation for-the con-struction.
We laid all of the flue heads out f
1 l
2 for lack of fusion and linear-1 and found rejects 3
g ity indication in the heat affected zones and
.i 4
5 the fusion areas.
Those were inspection reports that should be in g
flue heads that you found non-7 Are those here.
8 conformances?
they ended up as 10CFR 50.SS(E) 9 A
Yes.
In fact, f
10 I was then told they were since I left Fermi.
33
}
cut out and repaired.
I 12 l
(
They should have been reinspected?
13 0
That would have been by N
Yes, reinspected.
A There should have been an initial rejection on 15 The only rejection is them which there was not.
16 I
and myself performed 17 the one wher j,
There are numerous others.
the inspection.
19 this is Report No. k 20 0
- Now, There There should be a lot more of these.
21 A
22 was a damn file like this on them.
Each one that you rejected?
23 0
is a lot more of 24 After this date there A
Yes.
was brought in these someplace.
to lot of allegations that I was making due to a
{
I I
i 73_
I He told me that I didn't know 1
what the hell I was talking about.
He then l
2 brought another Inspector in.
i 3
He told him the same thing that I told him.
4 I then told him that he didnt know what the hell 5
he was talking about.
This is the ISI man.
inspectionforthisNo.[lIEElhwas Now, this 7
invalid because there was no procedure for this.
G Is that indicated on the report?
l 9
10 A
No. I don't see anything else.
I was looking for 11 it.
12 One thing we didn't have is procedure, and I3 the other thing we didn't have is a calibration 14 block for this inspection.
What Detroit Edison 15 tried to do is dissimulate that calibration on a 16 production part in the steam tunnel.
The holes g
that were drilled could not be seen. We tried 18 19 telling them the way that they were constructed 20 that it would be only through longitudinal in-21 spection only from the far end of the block.
These are all with longitudinal.
There is none 23 for shearwave.
24 We then documented the shearwave inspection j
showing that it couldn't be performed.
This all shows longitudinal inspection.
It doesn't l
74 show no shearwave whatsoever.
This is on the flue head, too.
T'his is just Also, sero degree a different report, No.}llll 2
This is flue head longitudinal inspection.
3 number, Report No.
' This inspection could
~
the one-inch be performed because this is one of 5
This is a valid inspection thick inspections.
here.
This is also a valid inspection here.
7 the whole flue 8
According to your understanding, G
head incident was reported on a 10CFR 50.55 (E)?
9 10 team foruarded Yes, because Detroit Edison's safe A
11 me a letter stating that they were addressed on
(
12 10CFR 50. 55 (E) and that they had been repaired 13 a
time.
or in the state of being repaired at that Id did some of the inspections on the 15 0
16 repaired ones?
17 A
Yes.
18 I would just like to ask you MR. WALKER:
19 a question as to something that you said earlier 20 for a time period You indicated earlier that 21 you had some erratic times that you were 22
- there, j
coming in. You mentioned it briefly just before 23 l
in a You said that you were coming 24 the recess.
25 little erratic.
Sometimes I was drinking a l ot.
THE WITNESS:
.m--,-
--w 7
,,.7 w-,
.,,,---,e-- - -, -
w
75 MR. WALKER:
Well, in those instances 1
I don't know how many instances there may have 2
been -- during those instances were you ever 3
approached by the management of NES about not 4
being there in order to conduct inspections?
5 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
MR. WALKER:
who would have
- Y*"
8 9
THE WITNESS:
'or 10 MR. WALKER:
Were you ever approached by 11 either one of those gentlemen or anyone else for 12 that matter to write up inspections which had l
been conducted previously by a Level I person L
l 14 because of your absence?
15 THE WITNESS: No.
16 MR. WALKER:
Or was there any request for 37 18 your to sign any blank data because of your 19 absences?
20 THE WITNESC No, not as far as I can 21 recollect.
A lot of times I was taking off, you know.
Like I found out I was.a in 23 1980.
I would periodically take off and go.get 24 a
where it would take an hour in the morning or an hour in the afternoon.
There were also other times that I just
--=
76 didn't want to get up out of bed, so I didn't get up out of bed to come in.
MR. WALKER:
Well, for those reasons or 2
3 whatever reasons, was there ever any pressure 4
put on you to sign something off?
5 THE WITNESS:
I was never pressured to sign 6
something off that another inspector had perform-g.
inspector had performed.
l ed or that a 8
The only time that I ever signed documentation l
I when a was performing the work when I was right in the immediate area with that person. I g
watched him do the inspection.
He would be right 12 13 in my eyesight when the inspection was done.
s Id MR. WALKER:
More or less as an overseer 15 or a supervisor of his work?
16 THE WITNESS:
Right.
17 BY MR. KALKMAN:
18 O
Now, the only other question that I have relates g
20 to the allegation about the jet pumps.
Do you l
I 21 have any personal knowledge of the jet pump l
22 incident?
l A
No.
The jet pump incident happened prior to me 23 24 being employed with NES.
I saw x-ray film on 25 the welds. The welds are apiece of shit.
I B
These are welds that were actually on the pumps?
7 i
i 77 A
Yes.
O They weren't performed at the site?
A They were performed at the site before the 2
internals and so forth were put in through 3
4 direction of which at the 5
time he was with Daniels as a Senior Welding 6
Engineer.
O The welds that we are talking about are not 1
8 factory welds on the jet pumps?
l 9
l A
Yes, they can be. I am not sure.
I don't know 10 if they were factory welds or not.
I am not sure g
As far as that goes, you have to go back to 12 You have to go back to 13 14 i
15 0
You saw the x-rays?
16 A
Yes, I seen some of the x-rays.
17 G
They were rejectable?
18 A
Yes, they were rejectable. They were a piece of 19 shit.
There were cracks along the fusion.
They 20 1
were all full of everything.
21 if Detroit Edison went through 22 I am not sure Daniels because Daniels held NES's contract.
All 23 24 I know was that had told me that with Daniels seen the welding engineer and he wanted a particular weld shot on
78 the jet pumps, on all of the jet pumps in there.
Because of the configuration of the loca-tion of the weld, it couldn't be exposed on 2
3 4 1/2 X 10 film.
At that time
_ as the w
4 night shift supervisor.
He took a 7 X 17 film 5
and stuck the film in and curved it around the 6
location where they are going to make this 7
exposure.
8 At that time they picked up two separate 9
welds. The weld that was above the one that was 10 to be radiographed, that was all ful'1 of kinds of 33 toldtojkEEEEE 12 indications.
When this was 13 he in turn told somebody in NES Id that he wanted the film altered so it wouldn't come out or that it wouldn't be seen.
16 At that time, who is the Project Manager, and for NES at that time, they approache 9
20 and wanted him to alter the film 21 told them that he would not alter the film.
22 anc then went 23 into the dark room and when the film came out it 24 had been cut.
Some of the film was picked up by
'and was turned in to Detroit Edison's Quality Assurance Department which nothir.g
82 employed by NES, would all of the forms be Wismer & Becker forms?
THE WITNESS:
Not all of them, no.
Not all 2
3 of them, no.
The ones for thickness and shear-4 wave inspection with Wismer & Becker would be on 5
this type of a form.
WAco was done on their own 6
form because they held the structural steel 7
contract.
8 BY I!R. KALK!!AN :
g just a few remaining questions. Have I or any other Nuclear Regulatory Commission j;
representative threatened you in any manner or 12 13 offered you any reward in return for this state-Id ment?
15 A
No.
16 0
Have you given the statement freely and volun-17 tarily?
A Yes.
39 add f
20 0
In there anything further that you care to 21 for the record?
22 A
No.
23 MR. KALKMAN:
Okay. I have no further questions.
Thank you, 25 (Interview concluded) 1
CRTIFICATE CF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the s..AED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of NAME OF PROCEEDING: DNESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW (CLOSEQ MEETING) s
~
DOCKET No.*:
NONE l
- PIA G:
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK t
'DATE:
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original i
transcript thedeof for the file of the United States Nuclear 11atory Commission.
.)
/
.'... /
(sigt).
[N.(W I 4 : ", S (TYPED) Richard J.
Klak official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation t
l l
=
.I
J
'D4 UNITED STATES p'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION lil
- %.....+
TELSEELUN OLE IS W REPORT OF INTERVIEW o
ate, Michigan On July 9, 1984 a oxi 2:00 n NRC Inve r H. G. Walker and I in rviewed at the relatin to his omer plo t as a Leve II QC Inspector for Nuclear ergy Service (NES) at the Femi 2 Nuclear Power Plant.
related that he was employed by NES from August 1982 through August 983, an during that time period, he was the only certified UT NDE Inspector employed by NES at Femi 2.
related several allegati s
ating to his employment with NES (see
{
attac e
, but more specifically,I addressed the issue of an alleged forgery of his name on a May 31, ;
NES DE Inspection Report relatinq to the UT inspection of a weld.
. stated that he did n recal' perfoming the test and the signature did not appear to be his.
brought that allegation and the others attached to the attention o Co SAFETEAM when he attended his employment temination exit interview.
\\
i f
fesa James N. Kalkman Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III
Attachment:
As stated I
.gllp EXHIBIT 1 b.
- ** '8e UNITED STATES
~
J';
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 v. '. I orricE oF INVESTIG ATIONS FIELD OFFICE. IIiGioN iff TEL LL of 6m OLE REPORT OF INTERVIEW I
Location Perry, Ohio On January 8,1985, et approximately 3:00 p.m., I interviewed.
in the presence of John GROBE, NRC Serd.or Resident Inspector, Perry Nuclear Power Station, relating to fonner employment as an Electrical r for L.K. C ek Comp ny at the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power St ated that as em at Fenni 2 t Perry Nuclear Power Station, that several weeks pr or t this interview, a person from the DECO SAFETEAM contacted M to inquire i ould be willing to discuss M SAFETEAM allegations with the NRC.
declined to talk to the NRC at that time.
(
advised that in late 1983, a Comstock clerical person approached ith.s r duit Installation Checklists which a n1 con-tained n
as QC Inspector however, name was signed by someone e se.
stated that ew from obse ing the si nature me that t
- nager, name.
reached ith t orgeries an de ed hay ng signe
- name, eft the inspection check s w th
(
Mand did nothing further as far as reporting the incident. W stated that Msubsequently conducted a record review of omstock ins e io files, and did not find any other inspection reports tampered with.
recalled that a week or two after the identification of the forged signatures, DECO SAFETEAM or Nuclear Security contactedMrelating to the
{
forgeries. The investigators already had copies of the docunents with the Isifications DECO investigated the matter and in late December 1983, s escorted fr ermi 2 and not 11 owed eturn to the site.
stated that elieves signed name to the documents because they w re go f ends, and he probably t that if a questi er come up, would cover up the forgeries by saying it was handwriting.
also addressed the issue M raised in $ SAFETEAM interview of signing several hundred inspection reports without having been afforded the time to verify whether the punchlist, DDR or FSCR identifying rejectable items, had been dispositioned. The o f r~e documents referred to above were two of that type of document.
stated thatMsigning those documents only meant that L.K. Comstock's nspection was complete, no t at all hold points were verified.
stated that subseouent to sign off on the QC inspections, DECO verified the punchlists acceptability as witnessed by da es in remarks section of the reports following the sign off dates.
reviewed L.K. Comstock QC inspections CSC 028 and CSC 029 and had difficulty explaining the inspection and report writing i
EXHIBIT 1 I33
- "80 UNITED STATES t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g'
n CFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE, REGloN H1
% y,*',
GLEELS?OLLNSIS sEm Interviewee Location Telephone On February 4,1985 at approximately 11:00 a.m..
eturned my telephone message from Toledo, Ohio.
I advised that I had been attempting to contact him for several months and had made one trip t 1d.
Ohio, where I located a friend of his and t my card and numbe related that he was currently working as in Toledo, and he did not have a pennanent residence e he could e contacted.
I asked to recall his alle ation and t specifically describe his alleged wr ng u ermination for me, concern was that he was required to rework welds on the reactor recircula on system in November 1981 that had already been NDE ap ved in Jul 981. Some of those welds had originally been perf by another welder who 11e edly had l
vision problems.
__,s t a t that he w given weld rod by the Wismer & Becker dr supervisor, and directed to rewor we ds" I.
without documentation, had no question as to the acceptability of the weld reworke, buf he knew that the work should have been documente elated that he only performed about five reworks a then told thatherefusedtocontinuetherework.
was subsequent y termin e official reason for being aw from is work area.
I questioned bout his relationship with and he related that he knew a long time through th loca we ers union their differences regarding union politics w@ent back a long way, shop in Monroe, Mich gan.
indicated that he and were not friends ecalled th he did regain employment at Fenni 2 with Wismer &
B er i however, it was prearranged that he would not work under supervision. At the time of this interview, M did not appear to be disgruntled or in any way p turbed by the events surrounding his alleged t
ination in It was my perc on from the discussion th that he accepted being fired in because he disliked nd did not want to work for or with him. _
also recalled that he was concerned about Wismer & Becker so derin copper tubing in the control rod drive system wit 50 50 1 der,.which believed to be the inappropriate type of solder.
concern was that the solder would not withstand the high temperatures in the event of an accident.
A'.nw/NUrw ames N. Kalkman, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III l
\\
\\
EXHIBIT 3 4
l UNITED STATES f\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
o k*
,I OFFICE oF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGloN 111 N.....*
cLEEL LL IS W REPORT OF INTERVIEW I
Location Newport, Michigan On January 17, 1985, at approximately 1:00 p.m., I interviewed o his former employment as a QC Inspector for L.K. Coms k Company r
at the Fenni 2 Nuclear Power Station. Mr.
stated that he has concerns as to the acceptability of L.K. Comstock's ocu-mentation of inspection work perfonned by L.K. Comstock inspectors. DETVAY related that on many occasions, inspection records would be lost, conduit and cable tray runs would be torn out after inspection and rebuilt without reinspection, and on occasion, the rework / repair construction perfonned by Bechtel on Comstock conduit, etc., often times ended up condition than the original Comstock work that was rejected. Mr.
tated that he has little confidence in the Comstock inspection documen on as e d
by two L.K. Comstock inspecti ists CSC 028 and CSC 029, which reviewed in my presence. Mr.
who was familiar with those inspection forms, areas of inspection, an idual inspectors could not explain who actually performed the inspections, when they were per, formed, and he dispositions were other than they were turned over to Deco. Mr.
indicated that CSC-028 and CSC-029 were typical of the L.K. Comstock documentation.
Mr.
,./ corroborates other present and former L.K. C tock nspectors regarding the state of the Comstock documentation. Mr.
rovided a partial list of DDRs and F ich he wrote relating to s concerns resulting from inspections.
ecalled that Comstock hired a group of inspectors late in the proje pr'ior to document turnover who did not receive l
the same training given to in arlier on in the project. Most of l
those new inspectors were, in opinion, insufficiently trained to perform an adequate inspection. One cident was recalled where one day an L.K. Comstock employee was a clerk and the next day a Level I QC Inspector.
Mr.
was a co-worker of and recalled the time period of the ur sdictional system turnover o.
He was personally involved ir.
o the record sign-off as was althou h he di not express his concern as to the acceptability of at proce s.
Mr.
Ewas aware of the forgery incident, but had no coninents regarding that o at'on.
I Upon th ion of the L.
ock work at Fermi,Mwas offered work at however, he declined the work because of his frus on w Comstock's
'of quality concern.
i nidXb~
James N. Kalkman, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III EXHIBIT 8 l
I l
L. l -
- ** " 2%,
UNITED STATES p'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE, REGION lli GL5 EL LL olS m REPORT OF INTERVIEW In ervi Location Braidwood, Illinois On ary 13, 1985, at approximately 2:00 p.m., I interviewed M a L.K. Comstock Company Level I Quality Control inspector at the Braidwood Nuclear Power Station. Mr previously worked for Comstock from ermi 2 Nuclear Power Station. Mr.
as a
-wor er of who alleged QC inspection record fa sification and harassment and in idation by Comstock management.
i Mr.Mstated that he did not observe nor did he have n knowledge of Comstock QC record falsification at Fermi. Also, Mr.
did not experience any management pressure to sign-off inspections without veri-fication as to the acceptability of the work described in those documents.
Mr.M/did experience L.K. Comstock losing documentation of inspections which caused reinspections, and he also recalled writing a Deviation Disposition Request (DDR) based upon rework that took place in the cable l
spreading room after QC inspection had been completed.
Mr.
left Fermi 2 prior to the QC inspection record forgery incident; there ore, he was also not involved with the jurisdictional system turnover of L.K. Comstock product to DECO.
Mr.Mreviewed L.K. Comstock Conduit Installation Checklists CSC 028, CSC 028-1, and CSC 029, and explained the Comstock inspection process, including the process of writing DDRs when the QC inspector identifies a rejectable item.
Mr.Mwas complimentary of the Comstock work at Fenni and had no reservations about accepting employment with Comstock of Braidwood, gys.w f*l.'
Yww" James N. Kalkman, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III N
EXHIBIT 9
~
- - ~ - - ' ' ' " " ' ' " ~ ' ' ' " ^ ^
UNITED ST ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y'
0FFICE OF INVESTIG ATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION til
..f otEEtSNSL$NisYm
% *... /
REPORT OF INTERVIEW Location Interviewee Monroe, Michigan On February 26, 1985, at approximately 2:00 p.m., I interviewed relating to his former employment as a QC Level II Conduit Inspector Mr.
L.K. Comstock Company at the Fenni 2 Nuclear Power Sta He wa related that he worked for L.K. Comstock to conti ue work ng nn e as when Comstock comp eted their contract at but he was only offerect a for L.K. Comstock '
declined the L.K. Comstock position at M M
offer and obtained e lated that he was n general satisfied wi e corroborated other L.K. Comstock QC with the on tock work at ermi.
Inspectors' statements that inspection reports were lost, and rework had been performed on conduit that had previously been QC accepted. M/
l He did not related, however, that those incidents were few and f ar between.He was not questioned a experience harassment or intimidation of any kind.
to his inspections regarding rejectable items.
nspection record falsification by knew of the offer an explanation as to motive for but coula no sifying th se documents, unless they were the only remaining documents turn an area of the plant over to Deco and since it was only a jur I
turnover document that needed to be was more cost / schedule conscious the documents as inconsequential, than quality conscious, related that prior to his tennination from Fermi 2, he worked in He stated that DECO's punchlist system appeared flawed in that often punchlists would overlap, causing redundant inspections of punchliste areas and also potentially missing the reinspection of other areas, was not more specific relating to his perceived problem with punchit
-ra~~
s t.w James N. Kalkman, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III i
EXHIBIT 10 l
y,
( g " ** *%,
g
- x
{ ? M,Yje ;
UNITEo STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
I OFFICE OF INVESitGATioNS FIELD OFFICE. REGloN t ot$E$S EttYN 15 6 m REPORT OF INTERVIEW Interviewee Location On
[a Southgate, Michigan an inter pproximate 2:00 relating to at the
, NRC Investigator H. G alker Service (NE er emp oyment as an at the Fermi 2 Nuclear Pcwer Plant.
for Nuclear Energy,
Michigan related that 8 was emp1 anuar as the Project with NES acer's rom la d tha recalled that one NES NDE Inspector, 2
Nuclearinspection repor,t was forged. alleged that one of his signatures prior to forgery. Security Department conducted an investigaAs a result of that asonic weld Apparently, a NES Level II QC Inspector regardir g tbt alleged performin son the UT test and named escribed on the allegedly 7 admitted Nuc ea as the individual who signed ed inspec e ort.
e of the forgery. r n report curity I estigators interrogated to that with the incident and walked o stated that she denied accusing of the interview.
ing anyt ng to do indicate hat oye NES, and was the recalled that NDE In pector bsent from % 'UT certified close friends shortly after work quite o spector NES roject Manager forgery incident.
became stated that The forgery incident an believes M was terminated from N 5 beca that alleged part in that incident.
Nuclear Security Investigators did not from use of
.also related in whic id volunteer to r vide a Jt of handwriting to 01 request a han rote name and the name i
gfor future evaluation.
I k]bm t
. w.a< ?
Office of InvestigationsJames N. Kalkman, In Field Office, Region III I
/
EXHIBIT 9 i
I
--c s -
m.
.s-~.,
= wa 9
,p
.4 i.,
a o
4 r.
- 4 s a
a r-.,
g 3,.,
l N'
)
.i,..
/
6 -
y s
. s p..
s, k
K,'-
~
., r
. :1 w
q.*
s,.a-p f.
s e
. t. -
- ,7 3
g 4
r 4., y
,p t
e r,;
- P.
~
1 iy _
s
- r.,
r r.
,s
- t. ' At?
s W
I
- 6 e,
a'-
t sp e
l 1
- d. }
..g.
i j'
..g.
W
..s 4
e jd
%+
e t'
s, ;
c r
r f
, E.
l Y[',
I.
f s
A'y
(
4
-g
.s
.y.
3As-
.., j,,
.YA y
a-b e
_g
.4 f
.' < s. Q;.
i o
.s 9
4.
, +.
g-.
.3.
9
.s
, a' a 'f<
t 4 v s-L
,.x.,..,.
e 1
.V
- g -
I 9
~p3 4*
f ',:
,+
qs y
s.._.,
W.
.~,..-.-
1
... ~..
. c
.'i
, f -.. ' ',
. [
^ '
.>. g
- g....,...... A> 7.Qu%.. s W '.
.,;: ?;. h,, g. g g.
Vl (f ;, -
g' t'-
., 7.
~
n.y 9:
~.....
.a
- y y 7
s..-
8 EXHIBIT 9 r"
/
- r.3 L.__
4 hkr.
p N.
4'
.-.i._s...
a.
r
.u ma.-. m.a ' A '..',I
'M E UEFt
v "'
UNITED STATES j
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
~
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGloN til ctSEtSLN'YLLNois Em REPORT OF INTERVIEW 2
Irtterviewee Location hl Telephone On December 17, 1984 at a imatel
- 00 p.m., D. Knop K. Ward and I telephonically interviewe
~regarding allegations of wrongdoing by Nuclear Energy Service NES) at the Femi 2 Nuclear Power Plant.
Wismer PBecker ]at Femi. W.related that the UT-thickness form wa used by all contractors and that inspection could be perfomed by UT Level I's if a DM was asked for the examination.
If Shearwave was the preferred test, then a Level II inspector was required. Regarding the UT inspections, i.e.,
A-Scan, Shearwave, etc., a NE
.II was required to physically observe or perform the examination.
stated that Wis B
er and WACO had
}
respective UT foms for that type of examination.
.related that he perfonned UT inspections, some of which were for evaluation and others for information only, the latter usually when a procedure for the area of 1
inspection had not been provided by Deco or Daniels.
1
(
Mr. Knop aske n his statement relating to pre-signing inspec-tion report fonns.
recalled that he would, on occasion, pre-sign pections to al ow a Level illinthedatafromaninspectionthat had previousi
. ould then review the UT inspection on w
the llowing day.
re e
- hat he pre-signed forms on two to three occasions.
Mr. Ward as some questions relating to his credentials as a NDE inspector.
a o asked about statements of perfonning UTs without transducers, which larified an that the actual UT was not per-fonned, just the paper completed. <
ualified that statement as hearsay of events occurring prior to his employment at Fermi 2 Ward also inquired as to NES' calibration of the UT instruments, to which tated that he was not aware of any offsite ihr ion having taken place uring the time period that he was at Fenni.
tated that NES had no calibration procedure onsite, so he calibrated y experience only.
Mr. K a
d f NES Level I's performed Level II work at Fenni, to which espon e in the affinnative, as to hearsay.
I e
l EXHIBIT 1
e I asked Knop and Ward if they wished to questionM) Knop stated eferring to the allegations relating to the jet pumps or flued heads. Mr.
Jacobson had taken care of those issues.
The interview was terminated at approximately 1:20 p.m.
r WU 5
4 e
./ am,4f8 J es N. Kalkman, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III 1
e 2
,, a g "%q UNITED STATES I
p g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
I OFFICE oF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION lli
/
GL EL LL 1
m REPORT OF INTERVIEW l
1 rviewee Location Newport, Michigan On February 27, 1985 at appro 12 noon, NRC Investigator H. G. Walker and I interviewe elating to his employment withNuclearEnergyService(
at i 2 Nuclear Power Plant.
is currently employed by NES and has worked at Femi since tembe 1.
He is a certified NDE Level II RT, MT, PT d
T Inspector. Regarding the i ction ord forgery of the inspection on May 31, 1983,
. advised that he ha 1 rec knowledge about the inciden not wish to speculate as to the actions of the parties involved. He personally had not observed or experienced any record falsification during his employment with NES.
ardi e allegation as to the trimed radiographs of the jet pumps, stated that he personally radiographed several of the jet pumps the film. He stated that one of the welds appearing on the film a
serve was rejectable using the ASME code requirements. He stated that NES was rected Daniels Corporation to trim the rejectable weld from the film.
did not acutally observe the triming, but he does know that it occur advised that he wrote a Quality Concern Report based on the film riming 1 cident, because it appeared t to coverup a deficiency in construction.
m that QAgiels was attempting stated that the Femi SAFETEAM reviewed the concern and later ad sed hi lat the trimed film s revie by DECO and General Electric, and the issue had been resolved.
thought the SAFETEAM response was questionable, because he that all of the trimed film had been destroyed; however, he did erstoo not question the SAFETEAM findings.
4W N
~ - - - -.
James N. Kalkman Investigator Office of Investigations Field Offi.ce, Region III
[
J
)
EXHIBIT 23
UNITED STATES 3'.
'e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k*
OFFICE oF INVESTIG ATioNS FIELD OFFICE. REGloN 111 OLETELSEELLiN
'+
IS I W REPORT OF INTERVIEW I
rviewee m
Location Monroe, Michigan i
J r 1 pproximately 4:00 p.m., I interviewed relating t is fome ployment of eleven years h Nuc. ear nergy ervice (NES).
ated tha igned to the Femi 2 Nuclear Power Plant at which time his employment was terminate.
P recalled that in November 1983, when the UT report orgery was identified, he was o dical 1 e.
When e to the Femi site, NES Acting Superviso advised that ad rfomed a UT examination after w ich an eve I Inspector, rote up the report and signe name o the re related that he was fire rom r
forcery, ev n t ough the responsibility for the i tw stated that he had no knowledge of re-s n
on lists to be filled in ater by Level inspecto
, nor did ave knowledge of ning any QC inspection reports.
dvised that he authority to sign his me for strative purposes, lled that NES HQ sent to the Femi 2 ite o per om an inspection record revie ed that found no problems such as identified by the orgery.
Regarding the jet pump allegation made b stated that NES RT inspection of the t pump wel show u a cep a e actory welds per NES inspection criteria.
stated that either Daniels or Wismer &
Becker agement directed N to t deficient welds from the RT film.
stated that to his knowledge the RT film was not trimed by NES tied to DECO showing deficient welds.
Regarding the flued head allegation b related that the NES UT procedure for inspec ads was equate to properly view the entire weld area.
justification for acceptance of the flued he recalled that an engineering s was accepted; however, to the best of his knowledge, the flued heads were never 100% inspected.
dnn W
James N. Kalkman, Investigator Office of Investigations j
Field Office, Region III j
l EXHIBIT 24
l F'
o* "809 UNITED STATES g -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
'.,E OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGloN lil GL5EtS?UEtAISiS'sSm REPORT OF INTERVIEW oe, Michigan tember 1 t approximately 9:00 a.m., I interviewed relating to his employment as a QC Level II Inspector with Nuclear nergy ervice (NES) at the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant.
ork or NES for app xima ly 5 years and is PT, and U rtified.
worked UT un frequently, because he was going for U rtification, as no knowledge of the ay J 983 UT ction incident other tha
, hearsay knowledge, and no knowledge of pre-signed UT reports or forging signatures on in ection reports.
rd that was good at writing and
,e Y-)f n
(
James N. Kalkman, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III l
l 1
/
)
)
EXHIBIT 30
c,M t
84 UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGloN lla GLETEL LL IS 8 m REPORT OF INTERVIEW 1
terviewee Location Telephone On January 7,1985 at approximately 2:30 p.m., I interviewe by telephone relating to his former employment as a UT Level NDE Inspec or for Nuclear Energy Service (NES) at Fenni 2 Nuclear Power Plant.
related that he had recently been laid-off at Fermi 2 because he failed to pass the requ d medical exami that prior s termination ecalled that he worked as a Level 1 UT inspector under and denied ever hav
'tten i report data o re-signed ection f nas, as d
had done on several occasions.
stated t
A-Scan inspection forms; however, i is knowledge, never pre-signed UT-thickness forms, ble that he may have pre-signed also related that prior to his leaving Fermi 2, he experienced a roblem wit i ultrasonic testing flued heads, in that he rejected several and was subsequently overruled by Wismer & Becker, sta d that an ASME Code allowed for acceptance of the welds rejected b l
l stated that e did not xperience anyone falsifying records at and oni knew of th incident from shop talk.
]
f)bs -,
.srx*
m James N. Kalkman, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III i
EXHIBIT 30
,p* ** " '
- UNITED STATFS l
y' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[.
OFFICE oF INVESTIG ATioNS FIELD OFFICE, REGION 111
% [, '
GLNEtS? EEL $NolS T
REPORT OF INTERVIEW I erviewee Location Telephone On January 7, 85 at ap ximately 9:30 a.m., I interviewe by telephone.
related that he was fonnerly employe y u Energy Service ES at Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant as a NDE Level II UT Inspector, e r ceded as the NES Level UT I pector and r 1 d that worked under im as a ~ assistant. Wh f t Femi, had not yet passed his Level II certification.
did not recall hearing of the incident in which NDE inspection reports were rged or falsified, and to the best of his k dae, t type of violation did not occur while he was employed by NES.
did not perceive any problems with NDE records at ermi and Fasically that NES was a well run organization.
did know but did not know or hear of her falsifying nspection records.
only recollection of a problem at Fenni 2 involved the ultrasonic testing o flued head supports 1 eyed the procedure for inspecting flued heads was unacceptable.
reported his concern to DECO and the issue was ultimately resolv left NES for employment with Westinghouse.
i w J'Y
- =
James N. Kalkman, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III
/
k)
EXHIBIT 32
[j# 48%
UNITED STATES k
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
OFFICE OF INVESTIG ATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION lit
%lp "
o#
GLE EL LhN IS W REPORT OF INTERVIEW I terviewee Location Newport, Michigan On February 27, 1985 at approx 00 a.m., NRC Investigator H. G. Walker and I interviewe relating to his present employment with Nuclear Energy Service (N at the enni 2 Nuclear Power Plant.
Mr stated that he has worked for NES since and is a cert fied NDE Level II PT, MT, and Leve I UT InTpector.
advised that he had no k owledge of the inspection record forgery other ik.
apparently wor sd on the opposite shift than also could not recall the jet pump RT film triming incident, ere ore, he had no infonnation to relate.
n
%.4 )/ 5$-' -
" James N. Kalkman, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III EXHIBIT 33
c/
UNITED STATES
[/ "
{
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,8 OFHCE oF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE, REGION 111
%....8 GL EL LL IS 137 REPORT OF INTERVIEW 1 terviewee Location 3Stuart H. Leach Newport, Michigan On December 14, 1983, I interviewed Mr. Stuart H. Leach, Director of the Nuclear Security program for Detroit Edison Company (DECO) at the Fenni 2 Nuclear Power Plant.
Mr. Leach stated that he was ultimately responsible for the investigation of the alleged forgery of Nuclear Energy Service's (NES) document No. 5296, dated May 31, 1983, relating to the ultrasonic thickness measurement test.
Mr. Leach explained that John P. Drew, Supervisor of the Investigations Unit, Nuclear Security, would brief me and answer any questions relevant to their investigation of the incident. Mr. Leach was asked if they could provide the USNRC with copies of their investigati';e report on this incident. Mr. Leach responded that he would have to consult with DECO's legal staff, but that they normally required a subpoena to turn over any copies of their investigation reports.
Mr. Leach stated that I was welcome to review any documents that they had on the incident, but that I could not copy anything.
C Richard C. Paul, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III J
1 l
I EXHIBIT 34
'4%g\\
UNITED STATES I
p-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION lli
/
GL5EI" L
IS T REPORT OF INTERVIEW bterviewee Location
{JohnP. Drew Newport, Michigan On December 14, 1983, I interviewe
- r. John P. Dre Supervisor, Investigations Unit, Nuclear Securi for Detroit Edison Company (DECO) at the Femi 2 Nuclear Power Plant, fMr.Drewhtatedthathesupervisedtheinvesiat'nofthe.llegationsof forgery of quality control documents made by who was employed by Nuclear Energy Service (NES), a contractor' working at Fermi 2.
According thr. Drewf the allegations made by% occurred at an exit interview conducted by the DECO SAFETEAM (Ref:
SAFETEAM Concern #3850).
was teminated by NES for attendance problems. The allegation by was that his signature had been forged on document No. 5296, which as a UT-thickness measurement report dated May 31, 1983.
hr.Drewstatedthathisofficethencon ted an vestigation of this allegation (Ref:
DECO Case No.83-737). Mr. Drew tated that the Michigan State Police (MSP) Crime Laboratory had conducted handwriting examination of the questioned document (No. 5296) and known handwriting of Evans (Ref:
MSP Lab No. 13265-83). Mr. Drew let me exaraine the MSP lQ report and it stated that the signature on the NES report was no{,gQignature.
Mr. Drew stated that NES was contracted by DECO to inspect work done by Wismer & Becker, another site contractor working at Fermi.
Mr. Drew let me examine several statements taken by DECO Security, but stated that I needed a subpoena to obtain copies of any of DECO's documents.
Mr. Drew said that DECO Security had concluded that the forgery was an isolated occurrence and was not a widespread practice at Femi 2.
The DECO investigation had detemined that the intent behi the forgery was that the request for the NES inspection was a rush job and Level I inspector, l
was not ailable to sign the inspection report, s a NES l
{
signed it to expedite the job.
w ided.an addr current rks f Mr. Drew said that during an interview of on October 20, 1983, k l
had alleged that there were other forgeri is name on some A-Scan tests.
l According to Mr. Drew, DECO Security had examined these A-Scan docume t the relevant period and could not find any A-Scan documents signed by
-[J
\\
EXHIBIT 35
/
\\
At this time I examined the statements made by and witnesses to the incident.
('
C M
Richard C. Paul, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III
/
7 s-f, 9.,
UNITED STATES i
f'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.(
[
WASHINGTON, d.C. 20555 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS REPORT REVIEW REPORT NUMBER J-6(-d9 DATE 48-Cl-5f SUBJECT soc ?;nd /c cw? noem,,1w i.e u-nc,x w,i,,se;mt w :/ m,.
f+v.,r,c 'sc cien & N -F shner //m of RWi%u scramte er,crahed,cnrency
- 1. OVERALL REVIEW
[-007)
A. PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION x
l B. REPORT CONTENT
,k
- 1) READABILITY gan
- 2) lei 1GTH M
l
- 3) ACCURACY (A
w
- 4) THOROUGHNESS
/62@
C. ADi41iilSTRATIVE
- 1) SPELLING
- cS>
- 2) TYPOGRAPHICAL 6o 57)
- 3) FORMAT CoSD D. RETURN TO 01 FIELD OFFICE
////
I'
- 1) TY' PING
- 2) INVESTIGATION II!TERVIEWS RECORDS ISSUES UNADRESSED MISCELLANEOUS E. C0it4EHTS
o.
- 6 4 UNITED STATES y.,
- g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGloN lil 4*A.'."../
ctE EL LLFNol 6 137 REPORT OF INTERVIEW viewee Location Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Plant On at approximately 5:30 p.m., NRC Investigator H. G. Walker i terviewed regarding his former er:ployment as a UT Inspector for Nuclear Energy Service (NES) at the Fent.i 2 Nucleer ower Plant, related that he was employed by NES fror workino rimarily as a UT Inspector and also as the cay shi t suptr-.
- visor, stated that he had not experienced any problems with getting inspection reports through his reviewers, ar.
did n experience a problem with pressure to accept rejectable welds.,
also stated t observe any record falsification during his NES employmer.t.
advised that in the summer or fall of 1983, while he was enp et the Zi er Nu 1 ower Plant, he rec ed a tel hone call from NES who stated t t NES Project Manager, want cument which knew hould not sign.
Accordin id not describe the type of document and
% g to di not nd out di sicn h t document.
- However, I
several weeks later, te ephor d-again and tated that i
Detroit E ison Com ny wanted to sion a statement advised opt to sign anything. h r. elated t at e did not know of thelWinspection report falsi]icati n a f
NS since he was not employed by NES at that time, nor has he ever net RegardingtheallegationofthejetpumpweldRTtrimming,[thefilm.
stated that he,was directly involved with the RT and reading It is @ g opinion that both we picked up on the film were rejectable and the we d t1at from Daniels Corporation directed to be trimmed, had wha onsidered lin r inci and por sta at NES Manager aske to trim th et mp film; however There ore, served trim the film.
related that he was ater advised that the trimnied weld was non-safety re ated.
I asked to review several copies of Wisner & Be UT-thickness inspection reports which he perfortned at Fertni.
I questioned signature on those documents because of the diverse signature, telephoned several weeks later to advise that he recognized all of the sample UT-thickness reports as his signature.
l
)
~~
ix James N. Kalkman, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region III y,-.w, m,m--_---
y---u.
--mv-m-,-
m wm----m~
- rW v
m-'w=v
- ' ' " ~ ' " " ' ~ ' ~ " ' " ' -
l l>l:VI ATION 1)lSI'USITION llEQl'EST
- N ENI(ICO l'EllMI 2 l
... s. u.i n
..... i u, s... s u.. i s..
. a n... n sas.:
i.o,i.y...
dd/4/
1
.,, 3 8//-/f S 9@M-86.2. NO
^["' 'h [
7-d-81 si,, i
'" '" "' Jet Pump diffuser to adapt or welds - R.T. reject hil h h
' SI A h N'
sis
\\'
3'I\\l C 3'8% L.*i.e
.. 's i s s. I e a
N' Mti.
l I
f0fhWM l \\ \\l f
.. a u..s s, s...s p.si.. u..
... u.., si u,., i so,, h a s,.,, m M,c...
RB2 G.E. I&SE l
G.E. NED N/A N/A i,n. u w-See attached list.
l 1.u w.. s. v i n.
x,.
....... i s n : s i...... s.,..s.
s, s,.., s s i,,,,,
..,,s,,,,,
197R603 PQA b;Qhlb..i i>u i p _. i.
7-2-81 y/
l 3.
..:....s.
514. h L J, C T y; gig C,,7,q g I
-radiograph welds 1 thru 20 to correct all problems with film qua
.e. im-
_pperly identifi_ed radiographs, Ug, no number belt, improper repair status, artifacts and clarification) as listed on sheets 2 and 3.
Final disposition wilI be made per 1
the results of these re-shots.
.WA coritractor.no )onget.on_sile,.
. -.. -. _ -. - _. _ - -... ~ - -
~. - - ---
M!
l
- 7. 7. f I
_ _,,,........,. :. -.. s. n... s,..
i
( l'N { \\
- 1. ).'l C *.. Q %. l. M C bl.1 % li N 1 *. '. ) '4 :H.h
- 7
-=
__m
- .e'..t.
.sn, e....
.v..._.,.
l l
t niu
>x-5.
1
_,__,,,,__,)
i IBIT 16._is. i.e. n,
.... i i i :... i.. :......... o, n.,, i. s i c, s es eie
..,.....,.>o y.s.,..
,i...
...'s
[{.
J e
e
. ~
Di>It roNgiNt'NIION Sill i 'I f
h dj/1)l-l0Q-[Q-l9ddfCQ-ldOh sm n 3
..r 3
I)l)lt s,,s..
dL/l/l l Jet Pump Number Deficiencies 15 Ug. over.020" 16 Ug. over.020" 17 Ug. over.020" 18
- a. Incomplete fussion in view D-E
- b. Incomplete penetration in view D-E
- c. Aligned porosity in view E-A, C-D
- d. Porosity (over sized) in view C-D
- e. Improperly identified radiograph (No Job Number) 19 Improperly identified radiograph (No Job Number) 20,,
a-Aligned porosity in view A-B
- b. Film artifacts render film unreadable view E-A
- c. Need reshot for clarification view A-E O
l I
o e
' kh ek.
e Jr
DATE '/-2 9-8/
2CI R e e cts
[ TeT Purno systems)
YS l ISO UELD.*
DATE DEN UG ID PEN CO.'WENT
'Np !,
Ol IO $ 10N2 V lj O V
CV iW Vielu [C-D)
Xilm hAS o
l l
tu o Jo b "
\\
mo:
0 3.
10 i 4 '39 l l ll O el
.T F Awd vu A c c e o7~A blC E lnNaa7 1
l k
ZW dit ATloni id View (A-13) T F iW l
Vie w(E-A )
Film h A3 TVO To b N D
03 lo l 18h9 /
/
O
/
c v ia view lo-st rilm has we Toh=
.N OH 10hltlJE /
V O
V Film h As wo Tob#
InI Ob 10il *1'l l ')2 Vl 1l 0
sl Film kAS UD Tob #
No' IO 10 Nko! 79 V Ll l 0 l Film hAS we 3~ob "
Ii 10 Y36 38 V Ll O
l/
Alio rved Pot osiTy iw Vie ws
\\
l C A-9. D-E i E~A) wiTh T C iv
\\
0 l
v iew (G-A)
C ilm hat un Tob" mo l 'k 10 3L' 18 tl /
O V
FiIm hat wo Tob *
^l J 8-,
10 l') b h8 V /
O ll IV/IP id VEew (D-E) A liowed j
l l
Poros iTv ie Vieto (E-A) f(C-D) l l
l Poros;Tv (si2e) tu view (c-o1 cilm l
l l
l has vo Toh
- mp_.
I9 10l20lJR l Ll l 0
/
Film ha.r wo Tob S Y
l l
i l
i N
r N
l l
l l -!
N I
N i
l u
I
(
\\
~,
\\^\\
4'
\\
(~YN t
t N
h i
I N
.qvituto
DATE Y-2 9-81
- I Re 5 hool'~
s
)
?C:
(2 e re cts C 3 er Pumo S wTe M (S I ISO WELD #
DATE '
JEN UG ID PEN CdMMENT g)
OC 8I Il 38' ReskooT l oo *lo U G unspccepTd md 01 IO! 34 'I B / /
O
/
ZP iW View (A-B) 2P@1 Pinces T v vie tJ (D-F Re D Air s hnT )
a 1
1 l
\\
Pe S hoot 100 % 'wi n *c be lT.
I l
RenAir film Does voT re flecT Pe onir STATv1 ALL Film Are i
\\
wiTu ovT To h
- OR 8 59\\ '12 Re s hooY 100% V G UNAcc e pTA ble l) 09 9 W 38 Re S hnoT loo */o U G UM A cc ecTA b le m
I3 8\\ tb ! 18
~
PeshooT 100 % VG uw Acc epTA ble.
ljj\\
I4 8' Ib b8 Re s hoot 100% U G uun ctepTable Re Shoot 100% US VW AcceoT*A hle
'r. r, lC 80 3i '18 i
- -\\
\\b 9
I.1 18l
^
Re s hoot to0 */o vG Un) A ccepT A blE Y"
9 l9 ! 28
"' ReshooT loo */o U G uw Acc ecTAlle I J..
10 l_Oi18 28 V t/
O V
Re Shoot vieta (A-E) fse cInrir.ki N
i l
l iod A dd (E - A) for film art;4 Acts l
k l
l l Allo wed PorosiTv @ (A-n) F,%
L N
1 i
i A J,vo ros =
N I
l
)
N N
i N
l l
N N
i N
[
I o
1 x
R
~ x ll \\
'~~l i
1 l
N l
l l
N l
N N N
J s
i
/ep W I C.*.i'$ II.*h 3 h C I. !.. I
't..Ida.L*fw*rWS r);,y.
4 L.N FT,. U T MA.ic.N.'.O
'..UO! I N/. T.* 0 N
.3 Fun i'.F.-ti; i :: 2v. 6<3:.
c e u.::... :
3..z za :
~
ca:e
.wgc. :: :.=.e :
a>i.smre (BEcEER/6.33-36W Caeff 4-/7-83 2 76 6~
ac: o r :.c c s : l o n e:an or.eic sumoer FAD TArsur FW-15 S'fd*/fo Surface Cor.dition Type of Ma terial Temp. of Ma terial S/h00TH CAeBDU 575E-A M Bt& N T-scuzp.ane asee
- anse uce lTes:
a ::?.
O'J. I2EffACTO5CDPe~
AG2DTECH YL" N/4'0363i AS416 72VloOC, Mef. nod J'Jcc Scan..ing Monnod Sens;: v1ty Levei dtjyrnd PAPAGE' C(W//plCdW IS~dB Type C[ ~<icrX
/
NO. of Items Acceptec No. Of I: ems Rej.
New @
Rework.{,}
N/A 2
C-Cracks, P-Por:sity, NT-Non Tusion, S-Slag, *I-Linear Indica:1cn, LA-Lamina:icn, CTP.ER-Specify
\\
~
1,rea or *uariccc Acc. Reo.l;;ci.
Rema:A4 Ccde Fh/-IS'
\\YLMF W6' MTACHEP. SKGTcHs =
t 1=W. /4, i
_]
Aff,
't n
4 i
i l
l l
\\
l I
i I
I i
.I
~
l i
i I
t
-~
t 1
I
.I l
l
.5 S
=_
NCE Level I Oare O 83 ert. N.:.
C A./O
>c:a 9 / 7/#3 ce: ::.
NoE r.evni r:
No.
Cust uc tJi tnoc: sed By Date NDE Level III Ca te Cert. No.
EXHIBIT 15,
t 5: ar tv. ms, sa::mee.
.:r e c4 uca
,u:
- w. wns
- e. 2. ani ::44 :::w..n. :st :r-*=:4 g
i g.:t-2.t: uta.;;ot ns m.mo.i c::sr *. uto:
W ?., 3 tus.~.1 TA. t.
._' /
yWu n'in in Al
/
REIbkr#
2'/fe 6 7'/c/- / f M-f.>)-r).
REFERE7JCf
.m lb 1
/
N 4
\\
/(
s
(
~
/ENGTH Oft /ID/dATICAl 7%"
T6Prf/ OF//lb/d/)7]et]
S/f"
/!
LENGTf/ FRotn REWPENCE S'30 TTPE'01= IMDle A770Al
/.A CK o f /=dSlofl l
PeedstrAsE efpac grx,pf l
A&"EPD9Hd6 AedGP7~
(I2W) ws cey n.
3.y p g. in i <> U ~--- - --- K
((t-/$'
/
r?n RVFEREWff graekf w w
/
N k
/
\\
q f
m LENGTH OFIUDMATICl)
/V1 T>GPr// OF///b/d/ff]$lJ LENGTH FRom REFEPsycE 8so" MOF /Albid ATICA) ting pf fastggf PeeceirrAsE ofpac spo Yo A619n9MdE MdEp7~
(f2 &
Me wvazr DATE W7S3 l
f(pg v oc era e o AJ J
Kb / Dk7
2 fG.I - l(o es.
sm n wrenewer w re w s w d
/
\\
/
\\ [
q s
W i
/ENGTH OF/@MATiell
/"
TAPT1/ OF///b/dgfjgt]
V8 iENGTH FRom RemacycE'
.8Sb '
(
TYPE'of IAlbid AT70Al Lack 6FFastoAl PE%dEAtTAGE ofDAc
/50fg Amermaer suerr
@arecB ws cer
~m
F xavic in tou"'
f Reporer
- y R J-M ns T.93 11
)?& EREWCf AwfErswEy lFW/4
~g
/
\\
\\
./
/
a
/(.
m
(
l LENGTH OF/MD/ DATIO //
4(t T>EPrff oF/Nb/d/)Tl6 Al
- l8 LEllGTH FRom REFErracE Bro" TYPE'0F /Alble AT70Al d 4 c k o f F u.5/e d PexdEAtrAGE ofDAc
/ / 3 $is MES &
DATE
~/7-83
-r---,,-
a f
6 e
/"-
/.\\
N yy,c
/
\\
\\
e 5
.(
e e9 eP e
9 9
LMAT/CJ/ Of Dif50
'l ' l l '.d.y A
4l-G l 3
1 5 0
=>- I#
F R OP1 O REFE%EMdE~=
[
- 1 z t ' n n ; ".s "- s ts "
7W-Wz "
2_
3 WTc / Vs' 4
NIfToW
^ ^ ^ '
l
.wT>i? iviinu *
.-i R e p g,74 7 s-g l
bo7t{
S U ' / b~
4 Fc~) - /6 f 'j - f-J3 03 i
L ROEREWT
&1RENCfW lb
/
\\
N
/p
\\ [
ignorcarlbkl
/ENGYH OF/MD/dATioAl 36I/z/
DEPrf/ofjybig;;77g;j
,gx e iENGTH FRom REM 2eucE
'lZ Tyrref tilbiem70Al GEometrac (ancxats BMl..
1 PEECEAtTAGf 0fDA6 2@Vo as covar DATE Y-/7-/I 1
L
ULTRA 5dNIC TECHNIQUE SHEET for Ut.1.D.P NTS Form E.F.-1?'
Custoscr / ISO Number Date Report Number 3~88% ~OAElE Y'l?* b 2 }& f Susface Condition Joint Type & Thickness Joint Radius or Diameter
.5mooTH Full PfMG' YZ "
M/A Examinatio Standard Acceptance Standard
' NDE Procedure Number M
gg g gg ggg Un-Q-109 R6V. 4 H2thod Used Mode of Transmission Stage of Manufacture m urse7~
3HEi92 COMPLETE Scanning Hethod and Direction Overlap Speed Manual Scan Auto Scan
$ 2{lff,fl M &/Ol'l.A2 ED Y l llfA Equipment Tranceducer J/A/ VC363 Shape Angle f.d'.Jl2EFl.AC7DSCOFE~
- it"D/A.
'"9 ' 2.ECM//L RDUNO 45* l Calibration Curve Transfer Mech. or Response Hole Couplent i Nodel Multi Nele Other Correction p Decibles 8/32 50//dTR/2C6 JOINT CONFIGURATION SKETCH and SCANNING DIRECTION: ggfEC70 R@RY&76 C 1 NED LEVEL I DATE <///7/ff CERT. NO. DATE Y[/7 NED L 1 CERT. NO. CUSTOMER ~ ~ WITNESSED BY DATE LEVEL 111 DATE CERT. NO. O{ eere v rossem e co6 s u.. saca us.re. caur o+=.a i f w.e s ee.....: e o e.. seee, s e.. c= = ~
- v.... - 4... c...
e.e s... .3e u. .==ieiee.
~ W I S..*.t: R /. B E C K E.i w - c.w-n 4 > . C :: C sT.'.: i UTRA3t::i:C :.:. :1:.%AT ~ C:: 1.' S T n-. i. T...; ) (3:V. 5:62) O, ; ; ;m..- / 2 G N.r.:o r Oate
- - epo r t *;umce r
/d v/db a)/sme:2L8KkEe/G33-3096 duEI2 y-wr3 274 8 ~ Jos or I.o ca ti.on Plan or Waia Numoer Surface ;oncittcn FM) /'If'FW-/6 FAB TA5W Type or Ma terini Temp. of Material s SP)o0TH CA289d 37'EEC-AMB/EN T' Eculpment Used Transd ucer Test 3'ccx a.rizenscrascow Aerortcy Yz" ///9742 Asmr ??%o'04 Se tnod Usec Scanning Metnod Sensitiv :y Leve4 DWA$T ?AEN$l$ENYDENDf A. /OdB Type of UcrX No. of I'tems Accepted No. of Iterns Re). New @ Rewor$ l\\([! C-Cracks, P-Por sity, NF-Non Fus ion, 5-Slag, *.!-Linear Indica:1on, LA-Lamination, OTHER-Specify Area or Surf ace Acc. Re2 1 ef. Re.Ta rx s 0 ICcdo Fk)-/b' ?><.1 5 69MNRT/DAl A/DTED \\ pg. j fo M si a l I I I i l l I I i I l l i l l l l I i i l t l I I I I A/G5 c. EVE. 3:e V/Mh5 er:. --n : Ls.a2 C u.:. Yd 8 NDE L 1 I to Cert. No. Cust.ame: Witnessed By Date NDE Laval III Da te Cert. No. ( h e.n tn. -- . o. :n,..:a .4 m
- ali:*.C IN8In:
- f. 2. 301 !!H. Ia'tA-'*iT4. ML;tys:A fr.:' N !: uta cocz its pl.$tn
- at:.st e.1416%
O .N?,3.LEld.I'!~A1.N"). s.
~ + ULTRASONIC TECHNIQUE SHEET f or WLt.DMENTS Torm E.F.-!*.1 ~ , Cust o:ser / 150 Number Date Report Nocher '3/G53-56% Ca2/Z </~/4-93 2 '] 6 C ... face Condition Joint Type 4. Thickness Joint Radius or Diaceter Sm6 erg Fa'U. WN W Yz" ^!'A / Exemination Standard Acceptance Standard NDE Procedure Number ASmg sgcriort22T NB -SD66 " + * *
- W' I*
H2thod Used Mode of Transmission Stage of Manufacture C& #ACT cDs/61771DiA/4L Mn7mE Secnning Method and Direction Overlap Speed Manual Scan Auto Scan FA2A(_lf~( WEWDicl11)): to / Nh Equipment Tranceducer ///77YZ Shape Angle V2 " '"9 ' E.2S~MA' Pourtu o* t.tG. REFW6foSC&PG~ '
- m Ce.libration Curve Transfer Mech. or Response Hole Couplent fNy g Multi Hole
$[yg" gggg 1 Other Correction g De:ibles %....w Je1@T CONFICURATION SKETCH and SCANNING DIRECTION: 'l l - 3CAUNIAIG DIRECT 10Al, 4 ki e - +. I f Y lf%fl4 [\\ \\ r lF%IIC J[b \\ l l NED LEVEL I DATE '/~/7-df CERT. NO. Af6:!i NED LEVEL I DATE Y/7N CERT. NO. CUSTOMER WITNESSED BY DATE LEVEL 111 DATE CERT. NO. n .... m.... a u... m. -.... c t. .a 4.......: e o s.. siee. : - ... c. l a... c...
}'.* % /Vt/MY44t W O8){b6 f ',5l?.$$.'?$$< \\ INFCnt.1 2.lON_ __ _A C_Cl. ' NCE R EPOR TA n t.E . L_J SAT!SFimTOlt Y tFI.TRASON LC CAT,TBRATION TECHNIollE SifEFT 5'o r m E. F. .l. 4 2 YES F! MO O CONTR ACT_ a)/5/>fE/2[86Cl(6R JOB k CONTROL NO._ .. l~, UNSATISI' ACTOR Y _O2/- 7[dd DATE 4/-/7,83 COM PONENT: Gup /2. OTY 2. SSAM, PAirr OR CODE NO. : /rW- /S, FW-E TYPE SEAM: GIRTil O LONG [-] SPECIFICATION _ /PSm6~SM ETJ8-Q-/07 REV6 R EEElvlNG O COM PLETE 15 PROCESS [ FINALQ ,T E ///J-fdOO R E.I. NO. 2 RECORD g INSPECTOll(S CUSTOM EII.. o/7~ ED/50A/. l T EST DAC SET-UP nM o.HAZ @ 45 @ 60 SENSITIVITY n DU COARSE ico 'i '8 '8 'i'i' i' I '8 'i'l- /5 DD FINE B R._Q_% I. D. O O.D. O on i DAMPING _f)f4 i I W DLOCK ANGLE $/ ~ 5 X Fil MOUENCY J. 0 LJ 2.25 @s.00 CALittil ATION llLOCK NO 4/40[, OTHER
- M Tl'. ANSDUCElt S/N
- -/d303 2
JACK R@ X T <a Til ANSDUCER SIZE Y2.# D/S - it E.1 E C T so ~ ] @OFF O ONOi/801/401/2O3/.I y EQUIPMD4T S/N /Co/SC / 20 MODEL_.(/.0~ /W/~lWFi)$dOW 0 CAL 1DR ATION DATE: 4-//-F3 I, I. i, I, I, I - i I,_t._L_i_I_2_j ] SWEEP RATE 6" <TO 1 ~ -; = 3 3g' 3 'o g 7-- y 3 CALIBRATION DUE DATE:/O-//-P$ppgggg g is 2. 3 V S-REPRATE i COUPLANT: WATEltQ GLYCERINc0 muu/u6 L4;1/64 2/dr3 0OrnERs soetormer mggggg Eyo<:EN 30 TiuE Or TEST TEMPERATURE: gA7Cg #8/23 LINEARITY CIIECKS SINCon _CA LinR ATION -8[A DH @ 10X one sx g(OO DUAL AMBlENT@ ELEVATEDO o F DB @ 2X t F3NAL CALIBRATION TIME 7'30 MATERIAL CALIBRATION CALIBRATION STIEET NO._2]4 T)
l 1 i i / Y 3 R 3 O YO 7~ g M 4 E 2 T t / y 7 l C oC f @D 8 2_ l L L Nf A / L "E O g A R A O ^N C I d y U N f' S N C CF I / O I 7 s_ D O T lo C' i I I N R )f O F l I P D ~. 6 T S CI A E "" D 1 R J / U T I TS l 8 / S A C E/ A i AN E TkR d T T O, ~5 A SU E R E 8 1 O A ^ i E 4 D B 0f H f I 0 B C' D P / S / f N ~ / O LS f E O2 ) s_' oY M A N f 7 fR l E Y A E C O W,f_ E S T DL T T N I N L T l S E A E A A O E [~~ C RD EC OF G y D E / t l N/ T' N Tr T M I I I R R cop P . W_ O.g 8' P I A AO A U EB M' Eg EE E R R TL EM t M TM _O 1 I / ' I. I. E C,N 5 l P T A A fO4 QE-/NRR 8' A t ) ^ E W W S t C S S R N MC l F PF / GI D it i f* D/ f - 1 ] I N Qt OA Cn O E l S /CW dR i E I I o yA f W T Y Z 4 L ~]Ro E R t I O O M g oR g f l R@(N3_S a H e1 g 8' O e 4, .b n T w M r C_ GT t_ uL l Al 2 / iA E i I E V/ U .P i 7 4 M A C g4 l 8 I i O ,T E i NM OC g/ T I l c F A E E C F S N f 2 L G ,t T A x i s E A V K O I I O S O [V 1 ~ D_ C T R 5= E( I m 1 T E s E X r i~i 0xX A o N L6 1 T i 8' 2 A 6 1 s 2 R I i O Z1 V C B a I a y y @e@ C Z9 E e f Y L I O6 g l T nD B A f k2 E i N +/ DD y 2 oR D C I l D f ?< B g N sA L ?, O yeNMi I ?l T E A B I i A J YO/ F s h N E h cI T J l f A L F S R QG o 0 0 o '0 o i 1 0 c 9 Nr e ( 2 2 Q Ou D r. i W E l( L ~T 4 3E o Uor l f E n C W /R7N /x O I E C L N c 0O S o / I 5 /' A o 3 S. 9 O - H B P 7 / M 7 Z E O F O 6 D 7 V D X C f o# 0 / f o-C W 1 / E o T f 7 7 6 / fY T O C 1 f 9 "z f-R / h O O / r T E L E A N f T 9 O /r (2 s 0 O N D / 3 C / T G nf E R / A / g I 3 (' G'ACO K M I I 4 T T T G N T OE_C o fT: 5 M C E D E __R A A G S 4 / F:c L O E R R V / TE E 0U S E I T N M~l ER T, @ D. G L N Z H D E ( A U .I l / T T L N / I N L C EA A S S /eDD A A E l TO C A NE C A A N Z ET I M S t N NW 0 R I T. OO 3 E } R OSFLC A l K O E E T I C T PEI PE I C T C C N u T T T P @ I I I C o NMP EMP
- g. O.
N A U U E N
- w. M l
A A r S 0 OOY PO 0 O D M L E T t t nA f.~ 9. CCTSCI JD N S S i t L nT N i l A @ /. N N P E D l i ~ P x E i l R W b A A U D L L U S R I I i E T 1 M T. 3 A R R QO A A O E M 1 I I D D C T T E MC C C T A U i il1
Nuciese E0wer Plant N2 150728 q M ELECTR CA en MEC A CAL REQUEST FOR NON-DESTRUCTIVE EX AMINATION ~ 3 ate Service Requested Radiography L. Pentrant Visual Mag. Particle Ultra Sonic -roreman Location Line No A Ib b 09 6 YOR )2 isometric No Weld No. Welder, Root Acceptance Class Welder, Fill I h D[R /\\M ~~ S( Wall Material n i Repair New Repair Pre p. Partial Reot Wild Procedure No. This Point is a Hold Point For: Q.A. C.I. A.t. R: marks: NT hJ Yl /f7l0 A Date Senior Welding Engr. EF1 ..--e
g ~ s
- .. M T 'S
- i STiJs,'S F.EC C :,
i t I 8'
- * * ? a O '.5. T'. * *p
- is 1: t,e L.a : e e
- m r$t' t.e a ;-
- ca'; a e to P.at 0::s e- 'e a' we to a c,se c ' a..t ar e t's M Ca s t l' et t*-a p
- ai c ::,,' e: cs.*; tN r
X ti.. *epte t <*; re od..n: cate
- No C atge" se trie r.rus b s,:6. 8,ees tm or.g na m t et s6e be eV brN cm L&Ds tc Feew 69er:
r O'*.ce of la.er sat.ons Colt A.rW98" Catiscov ' C8 8 s*t ' "' "' ^ "'"' O3-84-021 1 c "g N,""cW,,'" i u..i i... a. "" 01F0:RIII --]=.e,... v. u.eoo. ke4C1 FLKMI 11: Harassment & Intimidation of QA/QC cssicyo vg Kalkman personnel and resume falsification ST ATUS t.'re:rty core, and pro.oor a br,r erscrerera) r 10/19/84 - This allegation was received by RIII on 9/28/83. The allegation is that Comstock Electric QA/QC i.nspectors were/are subjected to duress in order to ensure QA documents are signed off. It was also alleged that resumes were Falsified by QA/QC personnel. 10/31/84 - No Change 11/30/84 No change. ECD Unknown. 12/31/84 - This allegation is under active 01:RIII investigation by Investigator J. Kalkman. Extimated completion date is April 1985. 01/31/85 - In 01/85, 0I:RIII interviewed the Comstock alleger and a former Comstock QC Inspector who was a co-worker of the alleger. Further Comstock employee interviews are anticipated. 02/28/85 - On February 26,1985, 01:RIII interviewed a former L.K. Comstock QC Inspector in an attempt to corroborate the allegation of record falsification and intimidation. Additional interviews are anticipated. 3, l \\ i
^ NR POnu ses u.8. muCLa AuszuLAT40V Cohwi3810N INVESTIGATION STATUS RECORD INSTRUCTIOest. This term is to be completed wherever se.ficant oct.wity hoe ca:urred relative to a case or et least eery E days if no change hos occurred awa6 the E dey reporting per od,iruf.cete No Change"in the status beach, Keep the oripnel with the case fete and aeruf one copy to Headquarters, Offe of lavest geticas. CASE Nuesogn CAttGomy De FICE O OPE RATING RE ACTom e. seeDawsDUAL LICt48t t 3-84-021 _.x_ * "gNRy"C?"#" = =AvtaiAw*ust 01F0:RIII v vtNDom x.0Tnta
- uote' FERMI - Harassment and Intimidation of QA/QC AwG~to vo JN Kalkman Personnel and Resume Falsification STATUS (Spec 4 dere, and proraale e eref alueersprenf 04/19/85 - This Inquiry was upgraded to an investigation resulting from the substantiation of wrongdoing, i.e., QC Record Falsification by L.K. Comstock Company at Fenni 2 Nuclear Power Station.
04/30/85 - Report of Investigation has been written. Final ROI to be submitted to 01:HQ pending receipt of additional documentary evidence from DECO. 05/31/85 - On 05/21/85, final ROI was submitted to Field Office Director for signature. 06/30/85 - ROI issued on 06/14/85 to RIII Administrator. This report is CLOSED. f l a O
PAGE 2 L i UA. NUCLs A'l isIULAT;;;Y COMuissioes osac PonM ass INVESTIGATION STATUS RECORD inst:UcTeous: in,. so,- = to n. wn.o *=,.cfani.ci...e, e cun.o reini. to e c., n i n y ao a.v.. is no ce.n, n =vn.o es.n en. so a., r. pori.no e...ao. ine i. no o.n, in in si.iv. nee st. x in..,ienei.iin in. c. va..no no on. copy to w.. eau. i... Off o. of Invest.wi.on.. CASE hvasein CATEG0nv Op p CE O OrtnatassG REACT 0se e eseD.vtDUAL Lectasegg OIF0:RIII Q3-84-021 ] C -ggga ] ,,,,,,,At.,,,,L v vthDon x 0Tutm Au Gheo ro susac' FERMI - Harassment & Intimidation of QA/QC JN Kalkman Personnel and Resume Falsification
- TATUs (Sp.cdr d.r. arNf prorno.. Onef als.crpren) i 03/31/85 - 01 Report of Inquiry in darft, to be issued April 1985. No further investigation anticipated.
04/30/85 - On 04/19/85, this Inquiry was upgraded to an investigation resulting from the substantiation of wrongdoing, i.e., QC Record Falsification by LK Comstock Company at Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Station. This investigation will henceforth be numerically referred to as 3-84-021. This Inquiry is CLOSED. / sp
e .A NT OF ALLEGATIONS EXHI81T 1. NRC 0517 NRC Fors 307 ALLEGATION DATA FORM, 1. -~ . ALLEGATION NUMBER: -A-d 2. FACILITY: Name Unft No. Docket No. a. b v.'s. W' b. c. ~ ~~ 3 TYP OF REGULATED ACTIVITY:
- a. Reactor
.Ob. Vendor Oc. Materlats Od. Safeguards
- e. Other 4
RIAL 5 LICENSE NUPSER: 5. FUNCTIONALAREA(s): 3 Ca. Operations J[b. Construction Oc. Safeguards
- d. Transportation O e.. Emergency Jreparedness 3
- f. Onsite health any safoty Og. Offsite health and safety (
- h. Other th& l.s, l.u I
5. ai 11 DSgA!PTION(-J# m L. (.
- 4.
(. ce, L, r. L iu (c L A ((M e 3 A u~ o
- a. ar~ u <
ave /_ < a I +: .kAe.s L uGsn ab E ea Fem: / /1 ~ j 7. IRIPBER OF GONGLRN5: /k I L.. L. c. 8. SOURCE: I O a. contractor employee ! Ob. Licensee employee Oc. NRC es9 oyee Erd. Former esployee l O e. News media D f. Private cittaen I O g, Organization O f. Anonymous I Oh. Mher 9. CONFIDENTIALITY REQutsItp: Yes
- 10. DATE ALLEGATION RECEIVED:
g p f 1/ f* r / 11._ EMPLOYEE /0FFICE RECEIVING 6., jLie J.' N - 1 1
- 12. ACTION OFFICE CONTACT / PHONE:
- 13. SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE:
O High CJ Medf um O Low O None
- 14. BOARD NOTIFICATION RECOP9 TENDED: O Yes O No
- 15. 0! NOTIFIED:
O Yes O No
- 16. STATUS:
0 0 pen O Closed scheduled Completion Date: J,_f.__ Date Closed: / 3
- 17. WA5 ALLEGATI RTIATED:. Oyes O No O Partially c
- 18. WAS EMFORCEMENT ACTION TAKEN: O Yes O No O In Process 3
SEVERITY LEVEL: O! O II O III O IV OY
- 19. WA5 0! INVESTIGATION PERFORMED: Oves O No O In Process Jt
- 20. DID DISPOSITION RESULT IN LETTEA TO MODIFY OR REV0KE LICEN5E:
Oyes Ono 050.54(f) 030.32(d) 0 70.22(d) 0 40.31(6) M Disposition:
- 21. ALLEGER NOTIFIED UF ELostauT.: 'Q Tes a no
- 22. AEMARK5:
P
- 23. Cross RU LRENGE:
24.~ PROJECT MANAGER / PHONE: t I
- 25. APPLICANT'S CONSTRUCTION 00MPLETION DAIL: /_/-
i 1
- 26. BOARD NOTIFICATION ISSUED:
O Yes O a Exhibit 2
,A
- N ?.5 ;i- ; ; 15 OROLF"a 7
@.C.'"..".... O / < rh c A y .) (6D) 426-307f 70 m e. w N _./d // qc TRANSCRIBER: Address In ve s Mejev pa t.s _Q $ }D,, p]p,,-f}p,a,h DA TT. :. h pg. Q[, /pv C e f_Nues eg,, rus-- Ch ~ , (.iW(e :fr seid 1*. THE MATTER OF : 799 fy,.
- //
~ w z v c. i r m ACENCY: DOCKET NO:,_ MME /M//ve; { MONI TOR : s Tmq HRG. LO EXACT TIME ORDER FOR.M HANDED TO MJ:;I TCR B Y $ )__ t ) 9 ) g /hc Md. y iiEARING START //
- 47 BEGIN LUNCH-END LUNCH-HF.ARING END- //8C 3 2-REP FISENTING :
8 3-REP RESENTING : ~ I WITNESSES A DI RICT CROSS REDI"(ECT RECROSS VOIR DIRI Tapes Tapep Tapes Tapet Ta ce s 4 4 6 6 Tapes Tapet Tapet Tapes Tapel 0 8 e 8 lTapet Tapes Ta pel Ta pe t Tapes 14 lTapet Tapet Tape 8 Tapet Tapet ff f C 9 6 ITapel Tapel Tapes Tapet Tapet I f 8 e t lTapet Ta pel Tapet Tapet Tapep 10 8 1 0 0 lTapel Tapet Tapet Tapet Tapeg If f 8 8 8 EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED Tapet Tapet Tapet Tapet 8 i f f Tapet Tapel Tapet Tapet f i f 4 Tapei Tapel Tapel Tapet i f f i Tapet Tapet Tapet Tapes i i f f Tapet Tapet Tapes Tapes 4 4 I f TapeJ Tapel Ta pel Ta pe # 8 ) f 4 Ta pel Tapei Tape # Tapes fN f f i Tapel Tapet Ta pei Tapes i i i f Tapel Tapet Tapel Tapes-0 i f ,I} Wl
r j Ma{o b E~ 5'l< 7 / 9 Tr - ES/4 9/d/, k% 4 K c a v s p e c m A c,.,. e e + < t "* lkG PL. TDI-oo - O SC 4 oca) b D R W E -ib ?)6 O S C - d a e I,/ ! o g e n a a $ tle-E 3y M -. _ _ h, f, ,./ w I i -__.y_._.._._.______.._ .m m_ em e. u. e--e*- e.
- e e
e 6 m- .-e.- e e,** m@ m.ma e w ee-m a .e gh= -m m-gh n ,e +e m.e y
..ny,,, + M M Manno ML+M gu !s%n 5 0 W V 8 In & Y^ i e--. 1 .- 3 i g = w e m. y 4 4e +emuee e.ww - e e i j L-e ee -m e e S e,-ew. .--.a. e e mS e. ee e e e ismm$ m- -w e e e mare e a e e e-mem=Me ---@=m -en$6 Me ge m we m e ' M e.- WMO 6* 6 D We e we e ene mm- .ie w4e oee==u m-mmosum,-e.---,.es .p e ee ew, w e i m .-m a em
- w
+ .wm e*+e+y,--- -w=--- , -,, - -w-.me.----w,, ---a m-
I i ( .o....u c. i, ......o. Fdison EE7!!!m= August 5, 1981 EF2-54,139 Mr. James G. Keppler, Director Region iII U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Dear Mr. Keppler:
Subject:
10CFR50 55(e) Item on Defective GE isSE Welds (#31)
Reference:
Detroit Edison Letter EF2-53,563, dated July 2, 1981. This letter documents Information previously provided to the NRC by Mr. H. A. Walker of Detroit Edison in a telephone conversation with Mr. J. Smith of NRC Region lli on July 30, 1981. 9 -The above-referenced ' letter was submitted as Detroit Edison's final report on Defective GE lsSE Welds. Subsequent to this report, it was brought to our attention that additional defects had been noted in reviewing radiographs of other previously accepted GE isSE welds. We are, therefore, re-opening the subject 50.55(e) Item in order to address these additional problems. The welds were jet pump diffuser ~ to adapter welds and safe end nodification welds. These welds have been documented on Deviation Disposition Requests, and we are currently awaiting Engineering disposition. Another report on this problem, interim or final, will be submitted to you no later than November 4, 1981. If you have questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. H. A. Walker, Supervisor - Construction Quality Assurance. I I Very truly yours, h ~ u);.a s f HAW:mb F.XHIBIT 17 rf,UE 4 1921 e}}