ML20237G369
| ML20237G369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1984 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237G338 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-744 NUDOCS 8708140047 | |
| Download: ML20237G369 (60) | |
Text
l
, f
. j 1/13/84 KIRSH: Okay, let's continue again. ,
e ,
g Okay, we' re still talkina about DCN 006 and 007.
Let e see if'I can recall where we were at. We were talkina about the FTPRs down here to instruct the craft to use arcater I care when grinding off attachments. Well, to me this doesn' t i
seem adecuate because, number one, no effort was made to identify i the craft that did that job. In my opinion, those people either need to be reinstructed as to what's recuired on pipina or they shouldn't be working in a nuclear power plant if they' re gonna be grinding pipe of f, damaging pipe the way they did there. They were obviously unaware of their fit-up requirement on the process sheet and they made an attempt to cover up their poor workmanship ]
and they really screwed it up when the ground into t'he oice and....
KIRS H : What was ever done to resolve this whole thing. You had gone through points back here with the little drawina that you turned in where they gouged and cut the pipe, hurt the pipe.... What was ever done to fix this whole thing?
r s Well, those gouges were blended per this n
disposition on 006. That would all be documented with the original DCN which, if you so desired, you could go ask Pegay .
l Schalwitez for it and she should be able to provide you with all the documentation of how this was dispositioned and closed out.
KI RSH : Peggy who?
" 87001A0047 070812 d was deleted PDR i acco an i hoNNAYAA ut. exem,,,, 4 geedom or torormetio, ,
-~
d T .-13-84 -1 j Lfff- W & , 7D f
Peggy Schalwitcz. She's our DCN specialist and l
s /
tracks all of them and logs them in and everything. The thing that really bothered me about this whole thing right of f the bat war when I got my copy of this DCN back, I noticed this comment put on here by some unidentified person 'and says "the pads were removed due to incorrect fit-up". Well, if you never had a fit-up verification on your process sheet, it's pretty hard to get an incorrect fit-up because, to my knowledge, no fit-up was i ver looked at on. there. So I felt that nobody, . . . number one, I 61dn' t f eel anybody should t.c writing any comments in that block of that DCN because my signature is on that right there. If thev want to make comments, there's a comment block dorn here that they can make comments in, or they can put it in the engineering disposition, or they could put it anywhere on the sheet, but when l
my signature goes on this block, I feel that that is my legally binding statement as a judicial representative of Pullman Power Products, and I wrote No. 7 ... I asked my lead man about that the morning that I wrote No. 7, w'hich was the lith, and referenced an unauthorized alteration of DCN 1604-006 and clarification of information that I'd become aware of through investigating process sheets and things like that. I looked back through it. And this is where we get' to your question you asked me the other night, How can you verify that this was a legitimate .
DCN7 And the answer right now is that you can't because this was lost when it went back to the of fice. And let me explain how that all came about. I made this copy, pardon me, I wrote this D CN , I gave it to my lead man. My lead man took it down to the i
1-13 2
3 l
1 l
of fice and got S teve Kapsalis, right here, to sign for the field engineer. But I just put a note on. I said, " Rick, when you read this in the morning you'll understand why I couLdn' t get a field engineer to sign it." He took it down and got this i guy to f sign it. Now at that time this guy should have dispositioned it, I but it was brought back to me by Marks, my lead man, Rick Marks, and said they want you to disposition it. The engineer down here wrote the steps to prevent recurrence, which would be " engineer involved has been notified to make an attempt to contact the responsible QC inspector prior to alteration of the DCN. This is verified by the signature to follow. They did come back and on the official copy of this, the guy did sign and date this after I wrote this one. N ow , what happened with this, was it was brought back to me for a recommended disposition. Well, at the time I didn' t know it, but I don' t make recommended dispositions on DCN s . I identify conditions and the field engineers make the di sposi tions . But in this case, .I dispositioned it as I was instructed by my lead man to add engineering comments on an attached sheet or have the responsible OC inspector amend the D CN . The comment section of the f orm could be used with the approval of the OA/0C manager because, looking over the form, it appears that that block is reserved for his comments. This DCN was rather hot at the time, so my lead man, Merrill Ledgerton, came back, out to the field, got the DCN f rom me and instructed j me... told me he was going to hand-carry this down to the office I and from there on I never saw the DCN again. I got a letter ...
or a memo f rom Peggy Schalwitez on December 12, I believe, J
stating that she did not have any . . . pardon me, it was right before the ASNE audit that this occurred. It was the 12th of December that I got the notice f rom Peggy saying we , don' t have record of your DCN #007. I replied verbally and she: wanted it in writing, but I replied (phone rings and interrupts) ... anyway, back to your original question the other night, the only way you can verify this is by looking at those process sheets. This DCN right her e, for whatever reason or however it occurred, was lost and the only copies to my knowledge of this DCN is my own personal log copy which I told them I would be happy to provide if they would so desire. I never received an answer. 1 KI RSH: Well, if I were to take this over to them and say where in the hell is 1604 -0 07, you know what that's gonna do to you. Do you want me to do it?
,' T No.
KI FGH: You know what it's going to do to you. Because if I go ask thia dumb s s question. . . .
You could go in there and say, well look, I' ve u J audited this guy's log and he has a DCN #007 in here and I've looked through your log and I notice it's not there. What happened to it?
KI RSH: Yeah, I've got a copy of your log. )
i Alright. And you'll find this in my log. .
KIRSH: Okay, good enough.
) You won' t find the of ficial copy of it because I N
never got it back. The only copy you'll see is the copy that I made of it when I ... first, you know, I took it on everybody's 84 -4
word that everything came back to you around there, but I learned real cuick that whatever you make out there, whatever kind of documentation you write, you make a copy of it for your own personal record, because if you don' t things like this tend to happen.
KIRSH : Okay, so I' ve got a copy of your log. It was in your log.
There will be no problem going back over there.
2 I don' t see any problem with that at all.
i '
'CLE WETT : Tim, you said that you asked them whether they would like you to provide a copy of your copy of $007 for them, and never received a reply. When did you say that you'd be willing to do that?
I'm not sure. I believe it was when I got the
- /
first notice that that DCN was missing or ... I believe Merrill came back sometime af ter the ASME audit and just casually asked me what became of that DCN, and I said well, to my knowledge, I never received the other copy of it.
CLEWETT: Who did the hand-carrying to the OC office?
That was Merrill Ledgerton.
KIRSH: ,Okay, are we done with that topic?
I just thought it was a little odd that the thing ;
would disappear like that. If you' re satisfied that vou know how I
this all came about.
- I KIRSH : I think so.
~
l Okay. Let's see. Okay, let's move on to #5.
This Is the steps that prevent recurrence to the record of training (?) . This is in relation to DCN 1465-002, which was S
- k-13 5 l ,
l l l
J written. by an engineer, Larry McClay, countersigned by his lead, Tony Pacifico. I believe by this time these guys were a little-irritated with the f act that I wrote as many DCNs a,s I did, and these guys conjured up this DCN to make me look bad is basically l why I believe this happened. And in relation to. . . .
KI RSH : ' Let me read it here, first of all. How is this '
supposed to make you look bad?
Okay, this is a DCN that is written against me.
Eecause they' re saying that I bought off ... if you look on the process sheet, that sheet right there, you'll see that line llB ,
type clearance in accordance with drawina, sioned off his old work which is generally acceptable as is, it's signed of f by j me. Okay, I'm saying that the pipe clearances are acceotable on l
thLs hangar. I should go through the whole story on this and we'll just start out with harassment and intimidation by the !
enqioeer and a certain craf t superintendent on this hangar. The way I got involved with this ... me find the day . . . I got
~
involved with this when a field engineer walked up to me and said, come on down and do a pre-inspect on this hangar 2085R. I believe that's the number, yeah, 2085R. It's a diesel fuel oil system hangar, it's located down in the vaults on the west end of the turbine building. I belive that was around August 18. I'd also like to call your attention on the back of one before, which -
doesn' t matter. On the 9th you have my compensation on the daily of the 9th with Tony Pacifico. ,
KI RSH: Just a second here, I want to find August 18th, and on the 9th.
,r ~
l l-13 6
\
l i
't . . - .
I believe you highlighted that. Yeah, you got this. Okay, this is the consultation. Now, you go onto....
KI RSH : It's August 8th.
i .
It's the 8th that you're looking at?-
KI RSH: Um-hum. Okay, here's August 9th, okay, got it.
/
Okay, on the 9th there's a consultation with Tony Pacifico for this hangar 185R which you got. Okay, on the 10th there's a detailed description . . . you see the next one after that ...
it's a detailed description of how I came about the items that were written up on 007, . so you can ref erence that when you go.
That describes the research that I did over the thina.
One interesting thing that I found out at that time was rod room 1 attendants do not count electrodes when they come back in.
LOCKE PT: What, Pullman?
Pullman's, yeah. I believe they' re doina it now, 1 but at the time they weren' t. That's how I believe these guys weren' t caught for what they did, because, you know, you have unauthorized welding right there. They should have noted that on that requisition that the rod was used things got going . Okay, so we . Okay, here I'd like to point out an item of intimidation by my own supervision. On the lith. August lith.
CLEWETT: Are we still on topic #5?
Yeah, we're still talking about the DCN although now ... there is another reference to 185R this day which was the day that I wrote the DCN which was the lith.
KIRSH: And then this 185R is an intimidation?
L-13 7
/
Yeah, this has to do with a bit of intimidation right there. Certain foremen came in that morning ... they were getting ready to do the re-work on the hangar and they wanted a l
read verification of location and, to my knowledge ht the time, I l was instructed that when locations were verified, they had to ;
i have a copy of the ISO diagram there at the field to verify that i location on the pipe. Well, I went out there and looked at it i and they didn't have a copy of the ISO, they had a copy of the hangar package. So I just said, well, I' ve got to see the ISO because, at that time that was all I knew. There was supposed to be an ISO there, and I'd learned that f rom other inspectors and !
not through any kind of formal training on the part of the QC department. The foreman was irritated that I was holding him up for an ISO diagram because he didn' t have it, and I later ._. my lead man was brought in. It became a shouting match, and I was basically told that, well, if they got the hangar package and the '
hangar's there then you can verify the location because that's where the hangar is, and these lug attachments or these oipe attachments really were considered cart of the hangar. They're not considered ... they're considered pipe attachments up to weld attaching those to the pipe, then they become part of the hangar.
KIRSH : I don' t see this in here, that . . . all I'm seeing is you' re' going to amend DCN 1604. . . .
N ,
j 1 For unauthorized as per . Then I have, !
foreman came in harassing Bill Cargill for reauiring ISO diagram to verify locations.
KI RSH: Who's Bill Cargill?
l T
l-13 8 1 i
.___________________-___-_-_____-_-__D
I I He's the production f oreman who came out there, I and I should add that I' ve had a pretty good working relation .;
with him since. This was just kind of the first, you know, new i l
OC on the job. Let's see what we can do with him, ype deal. l And then per verbal instruction with Rick Marks #006 will be amended to identify who altered original DCN #007. I will sian for location verification so work can proceed on DCN 9006.
That's what they were getting ready to do the e, was do the i
re-work on that. (007 will be forthcoming to explain f urther investigation of this discrepant condition. So I went down and I did verify the location and repair and removed the hole tagged, and I believe I was coerced by the foreman to verify the .
Later on that morning, if you see #252A down there, that's the air intake header on the diesel f uel system . . .
not the diesel fuel, but just the diesel generator. And I' m not sure which generator it's on. They were going to weld a wrapper plate on this. I believe that's a Class E line. I t's not saf ety-r el ated, but this is ... ~oh, pardon me, is that whole diesel area safety-related or is the piping still subject to the system.
LOCKE RT : There's certain , I believe.
[
q{yKI ESH It depends. It depends.
~ LOCKE RT : Yeah, some of it is, some of it is. .
'KI RSH : But if I can find out where 252A is, and I can find out whethcr f t is Class 1.
Yeah, it is design Class 1, code Class E.
.y /
KI RSH: Code Class E?
- s i 'l-13-84 -9
,t---.x t Code Class E, yeah.
l KI RSH: Desian Class 1 ... I'm going to have to find out i l
what ... what is this 252A on?
What thi s is in ref erence to is . . . [. came up I
- there and it was the same foreman, Bill Cargill, and he is ...
they were getting ready to put two wrapper plates completelv around, I believe, it's a 30" or 24" pipe. It's a laroe diameter pipe and it has split wrapper plates that they were going to weld togt.her on the vertical seams with partial penetration groove welds. And it was my understanding that they didn' t want to penetrate into the pipe to do that, so I came up and they wanted me to fix up the fit-up that they had there. Well, the fit-up was out of our ESD tolerances f or joint fi t-up, which is . .. and I had addressed a question to my supervisors about the space between the edge of the bevel, the wrapper plate and the pipe.
There was a good 1/8" back there behind the edge of the bevel, and that didn' t look like a sound welding procedure to me, and I just told them well you' re going to have to get this back tightened up a little better. And they got one side tightened up, and the other side was way out of ESD tolerance. For a partial penetration groove weld, you're allowed 0 to 3/16ths of a root opening. The root opening that they have on this was better than 5/16ths in some places, tapering down to 3/16ths at the bottom. It was barely acceptable at the bot tom, but completely unacceptable the rest of the way up the joint. Again, see, when you start holding up the craft out there, the immediate response is they call your lead man and your supervisor, and they're down 1-13 10
, /
there instcntly because they have radios, and my lead man, Rick Marks, and his supervisor and my supervisor, Jef f Sharbino, came down there and looked at the joint fit-up, and Jef f Sharbino kind of pulled me aside and said, you can buy that fit-up!. Well, if I buy that fit-up, it's going to be per verbal instructions of Jef f Sharbino and noted as such. And Jeff kind of looked at me as if, oooh. What he said to me next, he said, well, you know sometimes you got to use a little common sense out here. And I explained to Jef f that I couldn' t use common sense because I had this ESD-223 right here that told me how I had to ao about doino my ins pections, and if we wanted to talk about common sense, I'd just like to toss that thing off the scaffold, be ca us e I w a s . . .
ESD-223 is written in a very vague manner so that i t can be interpreted in a lot of diff erent ways. An ywa y, that's an instance that I'd like to show where my supervisor came out and, knowing that it was out of the code specifications, told me that I could accept it. Unfortunately by then I was getting to the point where I realized I don' t have to believe everythino they tell me, because it's not always correct.
,EE RRANDEZ : Was it a QC hole point, the fi t-up?
)Yes. On a partial penetration groove weld, a full penetration groove weld for any pipe attachments, they are hole points for fit-ups.
)3ERNANDEZ : Did you sign the fit-up?
No, I did not. Another inspector was up there at
/
the time for ... I really don' t know why they even called me up there, but the other inspector up there accepted the fit-uo.
/ \
1-13 11
~
HE RNANDEZ : Exactly like it was?
Exactly like it was.
HE RNANDEZ : Did you leave the area prior to the inspector accepting the fit-up? ;
I left the area as he was doing it. I was rather fed up with the whole process, that my lead man would come out there and he would not back me and make them . . . you know, essentially make the fit-up right. It was a rather difficult fit-up to make. They were rolled plates, the plates had sprung, so it's a tough fit-up, but that was the point I was making that I'm not allowed to use that common sense. I have to go by what it says in that ESD.
HE RNANDEZ : This line was what? What line was this? I mean, what system?
KI RSH: What's the inspector's name?
It's the air intake system. That accepted the joint'? Or that....
KI RSH: It's the air intake system for the diesel?
/ ^
Yeah.- The inspector that accepted it?
KI RSH: Um- Nn.
/ s His name was Roger Fisher. I believe he was coerced into that too. I don' t think that he really wanted to, but I don' t know. ,
HE RNANDEZ : What measures were they takino to ... were the craf t taking to bring that within the tolerance of ESD?
} The foreman Cargill and his welder were up there, and Cargill had about a 15-pound sledgehanner and, to tighten up 1 \ s l I
' 1-13 12
[
L _ - - - - - - - - - -
the one sid3 to gat the beval cdga back on tha joint of the pipe so that it was acceptable on that, he had the welder out a tack l weld on the plite, and then he just took the hammer and started beating the hell out of it.
Just tack welded it on hnd then beat it onto the pipe so that it tightened the gap up. I l
never did get an answer. I addressed a cuestion to Sharbino and. !
Marks about what is an acceptable tolerance for that, you know, the edge of bevel to edge of backing strip, because really in i that case it was almost a backing strip, and I never really did get an answer out of th.at cuestion. I also addressed that question to Carol Carner in a training session what time, and he ref used to answer that question.
KI RSH: Did he ... how did he refuse? Did he say, I'm not l willing to answer that oues tion, or. . . .?
3' I asked him, and this was in relation to some other partial penetration oroove welding that was being done, and I asked him to clarify a joint desian and this was, I believe this was a morning training session. It was held at 6:00 in the morning when We got to work. It was approximately 7:00 and, due to their scheduling ineptitude, thev kept the OC inspectors all out of the field for an hour. They were getting phone calls f rom i the craf ts saying, hey, where is everybody. And I asked this (
question of Cdtner. Carner looked at his watch and he said,
" Alright, everybody back to work." And he never answered my question in that training session. I was not very pleased with that. I f elt he wasn' t doing .
l l :
l s
3
'l-13 13 ;
l
\ r f 1
J KI RSH: Did you roaddress tha cuestion to Harold Carner at a later date?
Not really. I was just ... after that I got the idea that it was really like talking to a brick wall { to go in and i j
talk to Harold Carner, because sometimes he'd say one thina ar.d the next week his whole story would change.
HE RNANDEZ : Don' t you have a welding engineer that's availa ble? There are no welding engineers workino for Pullman 4 i
Power Products to my knowledge at Diablo Canyon. They have a ,
corporate engineer back in Williamsoort, who sent me the letter that Steve ref erenced in his thing about weldina stainless electrodes, but to my knowledge ... what they do have out there i s, a while back they hired certified welding inspectors, people that hold an AWS/CWI and they put them in the engineering department to do engineering preinspects on hangars prior to work, and they called those guys weldino engineers. You know.
How you call . . . most of them were not even qualified to be welding inspectors yet because they didn't really know what they were looking at. We had some problems with these guys. They came out and started looking at welding af ter the OC inspector had done it and, in one case, one of these cuys ordered rework on a hangar that was completely acceptable. And I believe he got 3 days off over , but there was a bit of a problem at that time and everybody was worried that they were there to pace '
us and whatever.
CLEWETT: When you say he got 3 days off, you mean he was suspended without pay for 3 days?
i ~
1-13 14
/
- ~
Yoch, h2 was givan 3 days of f without pay. Hero's another interesting one on 8/13/83.
CLEWETT: before we go to that, there's one thing I want to clarify with that other thing. Is my unders'tanding correct that what happened is that you were broucht 'up there and they wanted you to approve the fit-up, and you wouldn' t accrove that thing, so then your lead man was brought in and he urged I that you use common sense and approve it, and then after you still wouldn' t, then they called in another inspector to get him to approve it?
I believe the other inspector was working on an adjacent hangar at the time, and he had got done with his inspection on that hangar, and he happened to be in the area, and he said, well, I'll take care of it. So I said, fine, that's all that's required of me and I went on to whatever the next inspection was. I was not going to accept that fit-up.
CLEWETT: You were saying something about August 13, I thing.
Yeah. On the 13th of August, that was an
\
}
interesting day. They came through with this thing called a punch list. They really had no legitimate documentation for everything they were doing on that day. That would be on the 13th of August. You'll see here we got punch list 85B1 where I I rejected an installation to the engineer for no drawing specifying the lug clearance. Basically, they came up ... this j is all Class E work. It's kind of strange that they wouldn' t have a drawing for this hangar anywhere, and then the thing that e
84 - l'5
}/
I got was, well, we don' t have a drawina for this. The y basically went over to Unit 2, grabbed a pipe clamp off of something because they couldn' t buy this pipe clamp anymore to fit this pipe and put it over here in Unit 1, so wh5,tever it came of f in Unit 2, I don' t know. It's still sitting there without a pipe clamp. But that was one interesting item that came along that day. We started working on 185R. As you can see, this is that the DCN has been cleared now and we're attaching the original plates on there. I was going to address a memo to Harold Carner about water filters on air tools, but I got so....
KIRSH: This is the 185R? In other words, this is the one you're talking about with the CCW ... this is the CCW line and you saye thatN they were welding on 185R with a line f ull again?
This was after ... this is when they were actually welding on the line full of water right now. Field weld N o. 13 77B , 1414C&D, and that's also on a pipino process sheet, and the flow is right af ter that sheet. See, when you do pipina, you have a different sheet that you use as a ... to do that.
See, and I had noticed that these guys when they were using their air tools up there, there was water in the line and they're blowing water all over their weld joint fit-ups, so I asked them to clean the water off and make sure they got it flame-dried and ,
everything. I was going to address a memo to Harold Carner about the water filters on air tools, but I never did on this particular one. I wrote it in there that I was going to do it, but I got . . . with everything else. You' re basically 1-13 16 1
I
~
kept in a constant state ... at this particular time in tFat building, things were really hot. We were having a lot of work. You didn' t even have time to sit down and do your paperwork, and I think it was . Like I ra y, all these punch list items are pretty interesting.
- KI RSH: What specifically is the discrepant condi tion which each ,of these punch list items?
Well, the condition that I saw was they didn' t have 'a design drawing for any of it.
KIRSH: Are these Class 1 installations?
/
- Some of them I believe were. I KI RSH: Which ones?
I'm not sure because I didn' t have a design drawing to go off of. One of them came on . . . they a hangar on a stater cooling line ... I believe that may not be Class 1.
KIRSH: Well these are Class E here. Inspector to Class E. Punch list items inspected are Class E, Code Class 2 and OC participation is recuired by PG&E at DR coverino the work. This is why no documentation is used to insoect. Okay, so what you're saying is these punch list items are Class E.
s /
} It was covered under a blanket DR.
KIRSH: But you' re saying they' re Class E. !
Yeah.
KIRSH: ,
Okay.
It just seems strange to me that even though it's Class E, I would think they'd have the drawing for us, especially
- 1-13 17
/
I whnn thay' r.o 'likely to know . . 85B1 at the top of that page, where they're asking me to go out and inspect a pipe clamp l installation. Well, you have to know.... We' re talkina about punch list 85B1... and they wanted me to inspect a lug installation, but there's no drawing to establish what the lug clearance had to be. It was a riser clamp and in some cases you have a 1/16th lug clearance, some cases you have 0 lug clearance. And the engineer gets ine and says, here, go out and verify that this clamp's put in. And I just said, well, I can' t do that because there's nothing to verify it to. Okay, I' d like to get moving onto some of the ... let's just get into 2085R and we'll eventually end it on those STPRs there on this item, and then I have one more hangar to show oipe welding. I' m looking at my daily for 8/15/83. Okay, so the way I came upon this was I was told by the foreman that a weld repair....
KI RSH: '
Some of one what now? Where are we 7t?
r 2085R.
KIRSH : First entry?
Yeah. It says " informed by foreman Milt Andrews that weld repair required not ready for toroue -- set of
". What they were doing was they were workina on this hangar and then a field engineer came up and the next entry to 2085R and asked me to come do a preinspect on the hangar prior to final inspection, which is not a normal procedure. And besides, I looked a"t the hangar package and said, well, somebody's already done this. Now the preinspect is where you initiate the DR4678 m *
'l-13 18
on old work, .which is a. generic Unit 1 DR for discrepant welding on old work. As you can see, I went down there and I reinspected this and we wrote a DR4678 on the old work, and there was a prior preinspect by Ray Nogev, who's another i ns pe ct or , and that was either lost or it was never incorocrated into the package. We came oack to it again that day. I had to write a DCN for the undersized lug weld that I established with this on that. That's noted below there. "DCN written f or undersized welds on west lug. Per instructions of Harold Carner, eastern lug location dispositioned by field engineer, Carl Gal uzzo. . . . "
KI RSH: Where's that at? Where are we at? Oh, okay.
We' re down here at the bottom. "...To be acceptable as lug is a pipe attachment and is covered by piping specs which du not define overweld." I was saying that the. weld on the lug was oversized, the design drawina by more than 50%,
which is the allowable ESD. I was not trained in any pipino r equ i r ement s . That there is noloverweld. So I was out there
)
saying, well we' ve got a deficient condi tion when I really didn' t know for a fact that it was deficient, because I believe that I was not properly trained in those piping specs, and I don' t believe any inspectors out there are.
HE RNANDEZ : So you're just saying that there was not a problem with the overweld. Is that what you' re saying?
Not according to our specifications.
HE RNANDEZ : You were just deficient training.
/
Yeah, basically.
N 84 - 19
HEFNANDEZ: Okay.
i I was not aware that ... I was applying hangar tolerances to piping is what it was.
HEPNANDEZ: Okay. '
So we wrote the DR on that, and I al o noticed that a fish plate on the hangar was out of the specific ESD tolerances, Section 6.3.5 and 6.3.6.2. At the time the engineer {
was trying to obtain permission from PG&E to use epoxy grout to f ill in . . . what they have is they had oversized anchor holes that they fish-plated with oversized holes in the fish olates, and fish plates that were not within acceptable ESD tolerances. I i
So this guy's solution to the whole thing was, well, what we're going to do is we' re just going to fill the whole plate up with grout, we're going to verify that this epoxv grout ... that seal coat 658N . . . came up through the anchor holes, sealed around the
{
anchor, we torqued the anchor down and that would be suf ficient !
l grounds to abandon the fish plates so that they were now not covered under ESD requirements. Now that was basically what we did. T ha t was a r eal zoo down ther e i n tha t va ul t. . . . '
KI RSH: Well, wait a minute. I'm trying to figure out what is really . . . you abandoned that anchor location? l
)
We didn' t abandon the anchor. What we abandoned was the fish /plate which was used to coverup an oversized hole.
What happened on this day . . . they origin e.11y had down in the floor. They decided, well, we' re gonna put ouick bolts down in the ... do you know the diff erence between a and a quick bolt?
1-13 20
/
/
I KI RSH: Yo a h .-
r We drilled holes through the original base plates a bout an eighth of an inch wider than the shell, so we can pull the shell out, and then we put an inch and a quarter or a one- ;
inch Hilsey quick bolt into each . Ther6 are four base plates on this hangar. T he base plates were warped oretty well f rom welding on them before, which has to do with ti.e grouting procedure that I'll describe in a minute that I... .
KI RSH : Is it acceptable to use grout to fill in around the bol t?
At this time, it was not. The guy had to get ...
/
this guy, Carl Deluzo, had to get special PG&E permission. . . .
KI RSH: But he did obtain it, then you' re sayina. Obviously he must have obtained it. i l
I believe he did because they got it on TC authorization that they could do that.
KI RSH: Okay, now what problem are we describing here?
During the course of the workmanship on this
/
hangar, there is a certain superintendent, Rich Babino, who 7 ' d already engaged in previous occasions who was not too cooperative in OC, let's say. About every half hour or hour, he'd come down there and ask the foreman if the hangar was bought yet. Did the guy buy it off, you know. And I was saying, no, we haven' t cot a buy-off yet because we still have welds that need repair or whatever the requirement was. They basically had some pretty bad
... the first time I looked at it, the workmanship on the welding was not up to acceptable standards.
'l-13 21
/
KI RSH: .Wharo's that at on this page here? ;
It's probably on the next page where we did an informational final on it. Yeah, see 2085R on 8/16/83 where we consulted first with the field engineer for acceptability of the grouting base plates and abandoned fish plates for Nhis TC which you can find in the hangar package. And then we did an informational final on hangar welds, waited approximately one hour for the engineer to return the , now on a new revised TC to include the grouting procedure, we set the 1" cuick bolts, the south plate, final torque, and checked the anchor . . .
actually, that was an torque just to make sure that the anchors were going to set alright when we untorque them again. The problem over this hangar was that there was a lot of craf t pressure to buy this hangar of f, you know. It was like, l why don' t you get down there. Are you done yet? And these guys were . . . I wrote up the DR4678. I wish I had a copy of it. The field engineer ref used to disposition one item on the thing. I was saying that there was old work welding that was covered up by a coat of paint that I could not disposition, and so he was saying, well, I can't disposi tion what you're saying because it doesn' t say anything, and we had some arguments about that....
KI RSH : How does this relate to harassment or intimidation or ... it seems to me that this would more necessarily f all into the category of discussion between you and somebody that didn't agree with you.
Normally that's what it would be, but the engineer just kept trying to make me look like a total idiot. He actually 1-13 22
took me down, ws had the au2stion over the lug welds, we went down to Harold Carner's office and guy sat there in front of Harold Carner and told Carner in my presence what a green inspector I was, that I di:?7' t know what I was doing, and ,
proceeded to give Carner this kind of run-down.
I told the ouv I i may be a little new the way things were done in Diablo, but I usually try to follow the codes and soecs as best I understand them.
KI RSH: So what happened then?
Well then we went back. Carner told me that that over-weld was alright. This was in relation to an are strike that was on the lug weld that I claimed was on . . . I was again unaware that an arc strike on a lug was considered part of the '
hangar so they could remove....
KI RSH: Where are we at now?
r We are still on the 16th. Okay, now we get to the 17th, and he's already approved the grouting procedure here.
KI RSH: No, but ...
and I still don' t understand the issue of intimidation or harassment here.
/
Well, you'd have to know Mr. Babino to really cet into that, and I can only say it as the guy was applying a lot of pressure, him and the engineer, on me trying to say that, well, you can buy that, that's acceptable work, and as it was I ended up getting an STPR over this thing. A DCN was written against me -
l on something that I did not consider to be legitimately a l
l deficient condition.
I l-13 23 l
l l - - _ - - - - - _ _ -
LOCKE Rr s A DCN wzs wri tten about you because you would not accept this?
No, this had something else to do with it af ter the final _ stage. But the one that gets , interesting is on the 18th here. Actually the 17th. I have an? amended ...
what happened was I was unf amiliar with the grouting procedure, and you see 'the one that says amended version on file. This was 3
one that I amended to . . . I thought that when I'd first looked at it that it had been grouted and in f act the only thing that was done was the epoxy down was put around it prior to putting the grout into the hangar. I t's a two-step process. I was never instructed as to how that grouting procedure Qoes in. We have nothing in our ESD that describes how it's done, except for the containment liner, which is a completely diff erent procedure.
This was a brand new procedure. You can see here that I talked to four people on ... this is the 17th now. It's the first entry
... actually the second entry for 2085R. I talked to Dan Gados who was a foreman, Tony Pacifico,an engineer, Milt Andrews a general foreman, and Rich Babino the superintendent about the night shift work on this hangar. The supervision were under the erroneous opinion that the hangar final workmanship had been accepted, although when I ? 3f t on the 16th I gave no such indication. The engineer there told the foreman that the hangar was bought off. It was 100%. That's what they were looking -
for. They wanted to tell Bechtel people that the hangar was, you know, Afl, ready, done. Well what happened was the superintendent went telling all his bosses that the hangar was
done wh2n in f cet .it wasn' t, cnd it came back on him. I informed i
the engineer, Carl Baluso, the hangar reauired hole size verification on the south base plate, Oc verification of the grout installation and final toroue. Also the zerc ,fittinas that were out of these DSD requirements, and these were hut on the plate by the engineer. He j ust walked down there with the craf t down there, took my pencil wi thout a drawing ... or, pardon me, '
my red f elt pen, and just told the guy, the welder and the fitter, okay I want a zerc fitting here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here ... and without any kind of drawing at all, just put these points on the plate that were out of ESD requirements.
HE RNAN DEZ : What a zere fittings used for?
They' re used to pump the seal coat grout down into that plate.
KI RSH : Is it normal practice to have a drawing showina zerc fitting location, because as I understand it when you pump that seal coat grout in there the zere fitting is abandoned anyway and reall has no f unction following that.
I t i s, bu t it's required to be out of the str uctur al . . . basi cally, the vault circle area on the clay.
KI RSH: Okay, but tell me, are zerc fittings normally shown on a drawing?' Is that normal practice out there or is that. . .?
e They are if they' re within ESD tolerances, but they have to be put in with an ESD tolerance. These were not. .
Because the guy just said, here's where I want them and he didn' t bother to check the ESD to see if they were within tolerance.
HE RNANDEZ : But does the ESD ... does address zerc fittings.
/
It specif ically addresses. . . .
i-KI RSH: /Whi'ch ESD?
ESD 223, S ection 6.3.9.3 and 6.3.9.3. 3.
! KI RSH: Okay.
Okay, they were put on in my presence;without a drawing. A question arose as to whether final toroue should be applied before or af ter grouting. For Harold Carner, the greut was to be applied . . . the grout was to be applied af ter final torque.
That's what Harold Carner told me, that the final toraue '
would be done and then the grout would be souirted in. Galuza disagreed and I told him to confirm with Carner. I also informed the night shif t, Jerry Aires and Guy Smith, PDC night shif t, is the hangar status. Rich Babino approached engineer, Jim Christians, and myself and asked if the hangar was boucht. His tone was one to indicate that it had better be boucht by now and I
f elt that was an intimidation attempt and I did not even answer that, because at this time this guy had just basically gotten completely on my nerves and was, in my opinion, just trying to harass me into buying the hangar. Yeah, I did on that dav accept the workmanship for the new work, accepted the old work for DR 4678 dispositioning and noted it on the process sheet, and the hangar requires verification of grouting procedure, a TC change for the zerc fitting, and the U-bolt on pipe with the hole '
drilled through the weld. Okay, now this is where the real thing ,
started.
If you look at 45, the STPRs, you'll see the original TC that the guy drew. This is a. . . .
t
'l-13 26 I
KI RSH Where are we at on U-bolt on pipe h3ro? Where does
[ it say in this ... right up here.
Okay, it's down there on the bottom, right be f or e the MFPI entry there. I had to take my MPPI test at that time.
I f you look at the STPR package there, #5, you'll see the original approved for construction drawing showing the hancar.
KI RSH: Okay, where am I at ... where am I at now? I' m trying to figure out and to follow all this through.
15 there. Probably the one right .
Okay, and you'll see the ouick fix that the guy drew. Now, originally, he did not have this part in the top ... next pace after that one there. Yeah. Originally . . . you'll notice . . . I made him draw this view because, number one, he claimed that this view right here was adeouately showing how those nuts and U-bolt was put in there.
CLE WETT.: where that appears on the page.
Okay, that's down in about the mid or mid-lower right-hand corner of the page ref erencing Item 17, and a riaht ;
side view of line ... actually, pardon me, that's a top view looking down on the U-bolt there. N ow , what I looked at on this hangar was the fact that if you look at this view in the upper right-hand corner you'll see that the U-bolt holes are drilled right through the weld, and the nuts are not even down on ;
anything. These things are j us t . . . the nuts' sittino there in ,
the weld and rather than put a ... normally things have to be double-nutted or things like that out there. They had to stake these nuts, and when the guy staked the nuts . .. I mean staking
/' s 1-13 27
. l 1
nuts' is not really a real good way ' to lock , threads. There's much i better ways to lock threads. I .can provide you a TC showing where people have said that " spoiling the threads" is an acceptable procedure.
s J1ER9AND Z : Wha t ' s a T C? ,-
A TC is what this is called. I t's a tolerance clarification. This is basically an allowable deviation outside of ESD tolerance to the approve f or construction drawino.
KI R3H : Staking the nuts ... is it allowed out?
It is allowed.
/
KI RSH: ' Okay, so what's wrong with staking the nuts?
Well, it damages the threads.
KI RSH : You don' t ever want to take them off again anyway.
If you do take them of f, you'd want to be putting a new U-bolt on it anyway. ,
You may be, but a lot of times they use the original U-bolt.
KI RSH: ~
Well, you don' t want to....
But damaging the threads. . . .
I KIRSH: Well, what's wrong with damaging the threads. Let's get into that.
~
/
It's putting a stress raiser into that U-bolt right there t that thread.
KIRSH:, Which thread where?
Well, they take a chisel ... normally, if you do l it right, I'll agree with you there, if you do it right it's ,
acceptable, but what they do, instead of putting your chisel down '
l
'l-13 28 :
~_ ,
i l
there and just barely nicking the threads and puttina it into the nut, they take and they put the chisel right at a 90-degree to that nut and just bang and gouge into the threads.
KI RSH: Where at now?
If you were to take..... .
KI RSH: ,
Where do they put the chisel?
They' ll put the chisel right in here.
~
,KI RSH : Okay.
And instead of holding it down like this and staking the nut, or at a partial angle to just catch a little bit of the threads and stake the nut, they put the chisel in there just like that at 90 degrees and bang a big bead into the threads.
KI RSH: Okay, now why is that ... which way is the tension in that bolt?
I t's vertical.
KI RSH: Okay, is this the end of the bolt up here?
- No, the U-bolt is going like this.
KI RSH : The U-bolt is going,'like this.
Yeah. So you' ve got tencile stresses in there and you' ve got a notch that's. . . .
KI RSH: Is there tencile stresses normally on a U-bolt?
If it's torqued down . .. well, probably not up here there isn' t. but down in this area there is where there's
. . . there's also locking nuts. . . .
KIRSH: The normal condition though on this U-bolt is where the pipe sits inside of this thing there's a tolerance. I t's not strapped right down tight on the pipe is it?
,1-13 29
It's only meant to be f ree to slide axicily in this, but I' va bsen down in there when' these pipes or pumps are running and they bang around on these U-bolts auite a hit when the pump kicks off and when the nump kicks on. And you get a good kick in that line, and at that time if the pi e were to kick up, you would have a tensile stress in that bolt.
HE RNANDEZ : This is the end of the bolt here.
1 No, this is the plate that the bolt's put through. ;
HE RNANDEZ : Where is the end of the bolt? I' m conf used.
The end of the bolt would be . .. this here is the plate and then this here is the angle iron that the olate's welded onto. He should have showed a more complete view. . . .
HE RNANDEZ : Okay, but they usually upset the threads at the end of the bolt.
Yeah.
HE RNANDEZ : Right? You want the nut ... this looks like this is the top. You see this whole thing. This is the. . . .
The main issue here is the nut is riaht down, wedged down onto the weld.
KI RS H : Okay.
- NowI had to ... it took several phone calls to superintendents to get the guy to actually put this view on this thing, because he was claiming that this view was adeauate. I mean, do you think that there adequately to fix that condi tion?
KIRSH: Is it acceptable to drill through a weld and ...
1 with a U-bolt.
f l
l
)
l
/1-13 30 j
)
l i
7
.[
Not . per ESD tolorgnes.
KIRSH : Not f or ESD, okay. .Then what happanad? iDid you
. write this up on.a DCN?'
m.
No, because he- has it ouick-fixed now. Anythina that's on quick-fix is signed 'up here by . .. see t e way this -
works is the originating engineer signs down here, a PTGC PGt,E authorization engineer signs right here ... as long 'as he's got ;
these two signatures I have' to buy whatever's on this ouick-
'fix. And, you know, it's not my job they're using the engineer out there anyway.
KIRSH : I understand.
CLEWETT: Is a quick-fix the same thing as a tolerance L clarifi ca tion? -
Well, the of ficial title for this in Unit- 1 is a pipe support drawing tolerance clarification, abbreviated TC, with a number that's given for each individual engineer here.
l This number right here is this engineer right here's unioue numbe r .
HERNANDEZ : The process was originally , prior ...
quick-fix.
It still is in Unit 2. They call them quick-fixes in Unit 2. I understood it when the newspaper got I
bent out of shape. They didn' t like that. But anyway, getting 1
)
back to that it was a real battle to get the guy to put this view ]
on the drawing there, and he was a little bent out of shape because his supervision told him . .. this guy has the attitude that QC really should just do whatever the engineering says and l
r m 1-13 31 l
l
ha specifically told ma . .. I said, wall, look, you' know, I- got to go by ES'D tolGrences here. Tha guy goes, well, your ESD screwed up. ' And I go, well I know it's screwed up but it's all I I got and it's written for a reason, so I have to adhere to it.
And' he proceeded to give me a lecture about, well,.you know, sometimes you got to use common sense out here, again. And I just wasn' t buying that because my job doesn' t involve common sense as f ar ' as . . . it does in a.... If I was to be as stringent as I could be, they'd never get anything done. But anyway, the main item of concern of mine on this basically now that we've gone through . . . and up til now there's been a lot of intimidation, I believe, and I have a witness that can testif y to this,also on this.
KI RSH: Let's a . . . let me go of f tape. I cot to change.
/ ,
Okay( you were saying something about ... some more about intimidation?
/
Yeah, we were talking about the . . . a lot of . . .
l up to this point . . . now we're ready to grout the base plates on l this hangar and, up to there, .Mr. Babino had been a real oain and thorn in my side so to speak, trying to ... he was down there l
about every, I don' t know, he was down there auite f recuently I l
would say with, you know, just applying pressure to make sure that this thing got bought today or, you know, he was going to go down the road, or there were statements made that if the fitter and welder didn' t have this particular thing welded today they were going to be down the road, or these kind of statements that I really didn' t help out too much. Okay, so now we' re looking at
/ T l-13 32
tha 18th, which I beliova is a Saturday. My first entry en 2085R there is I ' consulted with field engineer, Jim Christianson, to f ully grout of fice. It was determined that the grout had been installed. Up to this peint, we had thought, because we were not trained how that. grouting. procedure worked, we thought that they put the grout in there already when what they put in was a dam
... epoxy dams to hold the grout. So back there I said was I thought was grout was actually the dams installed prior to grouting. I informed Christianson and Babino that the final acceptance hangar recuires, before final acceptance, the hanaar requires grouting for the TC procedure, QC verification of grout coming up through the holes to be abandoned, and TCs to chance zerc fitting locations and U-bolt nutting on the U-bolt drilled through the weld, due to the f act that there was a cap between the nut and the bearing surf ace, bolt sizes in the base plate require verification. They still had a hole point for that that j l
wasn' t off yet.
KI RSH: Okay.
So we consulted with engineering and it is the la acceptance of weld change fill-it to partial pen or CUT joints
. . . I believe that was something else that didn' t apply to this hangar. Okay, and then the last entry of that day, I checked the status of the hangar with Bill Young, Jim Christianson and Carl Delouzo. They were all down in the vault . . . Bill Young's a PG&E ins pe ctor . Young was emplaining to Galouzo that zerc fittings -
were out of ESD tolerances. I explained to them that a TC was necessary for the uneven bolt on the U-bolt there. The hole
, T
!1-13 33 I
l 4
drilled through the weld. So the grout personnel came in and we grouted and torqued the anchors, and there's the toraue verification. The first batch of grout ran out after fillina j both base plates for final toraue. We were informed that another crew was gonna come but they never did. So we only toraued two !
base plates out there. Now what happened next is on page 19 ...
or pardon me, on the 19th, the next ... a day later l
. The grouting procedure that happened ... what happened down there is they had a little hole in their epox3 dam l and . .. we can j ust read along here. "This is to clarify events occurring on this hangar on the 19th. I arrived to verify final torque and grout to the holes per the process sheet requirements. The grouting crew was present and the crew and myself went down in the vault. The DC were outside the vault."
One cf the crew asked the QC . . . or, asked the people that were down there if the QC should be there to verify the arout comina out of the tubes . . . the riser tubes that come out of the dams. i And the reply was, " Don' t worry. .'H e' ll buy it." Okay, "We injected the grout and final torcue to both eastern base plates !
and then the crew ran out of grout." Okay, this is a catalyzed grout, it's mixed and they got to shoot it in there or it'll ,
harden on them. "I was under the impression more grout was going to be mixed, but the supervisor returned and said the day crew i couldn' t work overtime. At this point, the supervision tried to get the swing crew down there to do the west base plates. I waited with the vault open until 6:00 PM in case they showed up to do it, although they never did." I went back down into the 1-13 34
/
?
vault to get the torque wrench number of f the hangar, and at this time I noticed there was a little hole in the bottom of the dam below the level of the fish plates that they were trykng to fill with grout. About approximately a quart of arout leaked out that l
hole onto the floor of the vault. We pumped approximately 2-3 l 1
quarts per base plate, so I know that that grout was not at the l l
intended level of their fill-up the fish plates. Althouch, my responsibilities in the whole thing as f ar as verifyina that the j i
grout came up through the abandoned anchor holes and torqued it down where . . . we were covered there. But I guestioned as to whether that was . . . common sense says it's not f ulfillina the objective that they're trying to get out of it. So I' ve noted down here that there was a dam ... "a hole in the dam below the level of the fish plates and suf ficient auantity to be reasonably sure there was really no grout in the elonaated holes" that thev were trying to fill up to begin with. "This was noticed because the plates were cleaned prior to final torque" and we cleaned up the whole area, and when I came back out there was a big pool of that seal coat grout laying ... the floor is inclined in that vault it rains so it will drain out. I noted there, "Although our responsibility is covered, I believe that the grouting requirements for this hangar have not been met on the eas t plate. The west plates are still to be grouted." I addressed a memo to Jeff Sharbino about this, af ter thinking about it on the 20th....
How come you didn' t write a DDN?
[I RSH :
7
- Well, because, I asked about that.
fs /
$1-13 35
~ KI RS H : A DON .
i A DO4 is- a Pullman in-house condition. I can't l J
write. a DCN on a Folley ' grout procedure, I was told. That was
- -j what. my lead people told me. I auestioned this whole; procedure- ;
at the time. I said, heh, this j ust doesn' t look right. So j af ter talking to another inspector . . . here on the 20th we grouted and torqued the west base plates. . . .
KIPSH: Well, isn' t the Folley inspector reauired to. do the inspections of the grouting?
They . . . I' m not sure what their inspection requirements are.
KIFGH: Do you normally sign off for acceotable grouting?
No, no, no, I don' t . . . in this particular case I signed of f that the grout was up around the anchors, - but yeah, they sign off all the applicable grouting of ouality control.
And that attitude or . . . what I was told was, look, they got a OC de pa r tme nt, they signed it of f, so it's acceptable. Don' t worry But what they did was'when they came in there and
~
a bout it.
grouted these west base plates on the 20th, what hapoened was the guys noticed that. . . . Apparently their QC ... what they have to do is they have to verify that the grout rose in the riser tubes above the level that they were trying to get at. Well, what they did was they came back down in there when they grouted the west .
base plates, and that's the reason I wrote this memo that day, and they back-filled the tubes with grout. They put zerc fittings in the tubes and filled them up with grout. And I said to the guys down there, I'm going, heh, what are you doing
'l-13 36 l
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - D
there? And they' re going, well, we' re back-fillino the void in the plate, ri ght? Well, I know that the bottom of that tube is plugged because the grout's hardened in there and th,ere was no way to get it in there. And even if you could, where's the air gonna go that's trapped inside that base plate? Because the other tubes were sealed as well. So what they . . . in my opinion, what they were doing was back-filling those tubes so that the QC inspector that came down and looked at the tubes would accept it.
I KI RSH: Is there anyway right now that we can go out there !
{
and determine whether or not that goddamned hole is arouted or l l
not?p No.
KIRSH : What do you want me to do about it?
It's an indeterminant cuality situation.
KI RSH : Well, what can I do right now about i t?
/
Well, I'm just saying that the quality at that point is indeterminable.
KI RSH : I understand that, ,but I....
LOCKE RT : It's a valid complaint that the cuality can' t be determined.
KIRSH: I understand.
i I mean, that's the whole purpose of the cuality control( prog /ram.
LOCKE RTg It's your job to determine how to deal with that.
You' ve got to determine a quality out there that's
\- /
. . . and her e' s anothe r . . . .
KIRSH: Which base plate is the one?
r l-13 37
/
/ ~ '
It would be the southeastern base plate on that
/
hangar.
KI RSH: This one here?
Pardon me, it's the northeastern bas,e plate. As you' re looking in this, the view of the hangar right here....
Okay, you' re looking north, and this plate right here .. . it would be the one that's just behind this plate that you're looking at. It would be Item 16 in the most northeast location. I questioned acceptability of back-filling the holes, so I addressed this memo to my lead man, Jef f Sharbino. . . . Do you have a copy of that? It's on the 20th.
KIRSH : I don' t know. Just let me get something else down here please.
This memo, I basically just asked him if that was an acceptable procedure. And I wanted him to co ask Folley and get it in writing that, yeah, it's acceptable, or no it isn' t, and then that way their OC would have to deal with it. Well, I never got a reply to this memo., I gave him another copy of it.
I basically just made a copy of this and handed it to him at a later date, and I don' t remember what the date was, asking Jef f, do you remember this memo and are you going to give me a reply on it. But I have still yet to get a reply on that. That's pretty much typical of the way a memo addressed to anvene of our immediate supervisors goes.
KI RSH: Yes. Excuse me please, John. I'm very sorry that I got a little bit upset. I'm very tired and it's been a lono three weeks.
'l-13 38
CLEWETT: I can understand that.
KI RSH : I will address your problem. I will resolve your problem in an acceptable manner. ,
CLEWETT : Thank you. ;
KIRSH: Alrigh t , continue on please.
So anyway, we bought the workmanship on the hangar. N ow , when you buy the workmanship, or accept the workmanship, we'll go back to this field process sheet.... You i
accept the workmanship, you verify it ... all these items down here ... the pipe clearance is in accordance with the drawino.
The only things you don' t do at the final workmanship stage is this one here. Drawing Changes Noted, Item 2, and Item lla, l
Components and Dimensions Comply With Drawine and Material List. So at the time of final workmanship I do not measure any dimensions on that hangar. All I look at is I look at the welding to make sure the welding's good, acceptable to the design drawing, and I check these items heres pipe clearance, riser cl amp, all these items down he(e. Okay, and if that's acceptable I initial and date it in here. It says provide the foremans, date it, and all here, everything. And then we sian here. Well, sometime later the hangar . . . af ter I file the final workmanship, it goes into the as-built stage, and during the as-built, the guy noticed that ... it's kind of hard to see whether you can come up with this. Okay, and they're ref erencing ... you look at this design drawing here. We' re talking about Item 13a right there, and Item 17. These two anale iron pieces here. And you can see in this drawing that it shows the Item 17 is resting on the
, s 1-13 39
pi pe . Now whnt th2y heva is thay hava a conc 3ntric reducer richt there so that Item 13a is approximately 17/16ths below the pi pe . That's what that dimension that's highlighted, that's blacked out, says. Okay, during as-buildino they found that this TC that Mr. Galuza drew up right here, you'll notice that he drew a 0 gap typical for ... he shows Item 17 here and Item 13a as being resting on the reduced section of the pipe there. Well, during as-building what they said was that this 0-typical applies over here to this thing, which is not even anywhere near the pipe. Okay, now I noticed that when I was doina final workmanship but by that time it seemed that, you know, everybody was just getting so hot under the collar that that was more of an as-built problem that would be covered at the time of as-buildina and that the guy that did the final workmanship inspection would verify that dimension. Because I did not consider that to be a pipe clearance dimension ... like this. Okay, now they' re saying that this 0-typical applies over here to Item 17a. So the guy wrote a quick-fix durino as-building here, which is leoal to do, and that should not be in work, it should be past work, because the workmanship's finished on it. The hangar number's wrono on this thing. It's 2085S. The hangar's actually 2085R. He says,
" Request acceptance of the 13/16ths gap between 13a and the oipe to disposition this DCN 1465002". This item acts as a
^
Z-restraint with Item 15, which is a lug. The 13/16ths cap adequate movement because pipe is . . . I can' t even understand what this guy's saying. It says, "This item acts as Z-restraint with Item 15, 3/16ths gap adequate movement because pipe is s
\
1-13 40
/
restrained i'n Y direction by Itcm 17." You know, I mean, I understand engineers have poor English, but it's kind of hard to understand. Well, anyway they wrote a DCN for this right here against me saying that I did not ... or, that I missed a pipe clearance on this thing, which I do not believe to be the valid PCN and I went over and asked him about it. I said, well, how can you apply this typical right here, it's not a typical location because the pipe diameter's diff erent, anc it's not a typical location because the item numbers are dif ferent.
Now the use of the word " typical" out there gets thrown around quite a bit.
HEPNANDEZ : Why do you keep sayino that they wrote a DCN against you?
) Because this DCN was logged against me. I had to sign this tb ng here, which is Steps to Prevent Recurrence, which means I was retrained because I screwed up, supposedly, and bought a pipe clearance that was ... or, I f ailed to catch that. They' re claiming that that's a pipe clearance. I went and talked to the engineer and he still said, "Well, what's it matter. Is this the first DCN you got written against you?"
Well, whether it is or not, it's still, according to Harold Carner, and I ref erenced it like this as you can see on this training record of QC personnel, I wrote that "This ref erence is an acceptable condition prior to DC final acceptance per Harold Carner. DCNs are not required under these circumstances."
Because it's still in work. It's an as-built problem. But I believe these guys, for whatever reason, a little irritated at me
'l-13 41
/
over this wholo- hangar, co thay contrivsd this whole DCN right here and....
HE RNANDEZ : Well what happens . . . I guess I don' t f ollow.
What happens? So why did they write a DCN aQainst hou? Or you consider that they write a DCN against you?
i Well, it's just that this particular DCN ... or J
any DCN like this would go against my record as an inspector and it could, if I got enouah of these they'd fire me or somethina.
l Or they could use this as a disciplinary action, saying that he scre.ied up here and if you do it again ... like if this were a DR, Jarold Carner's now giving people letters sayino now your integrity as an inspector is in cuestion and the next time it happens we'll have no choice but to terminate you.
fE RNAN D_EZZ :Does it specifically name you there and say. . . .
It does because it specifically says DC supervisor to document steps to prevent recurrence. This is our documentation of the steps to prevent recurrence. I have to sign the training record here. You'll notice I was instructed by myself and I signed it by myself because. . . . The way this works is this is the training record right here. My lead man comes up to me, in the morning usually, he goes, here, you got a DCN against you. Read this and sign it. So I read it and I go over and bat it out with the engineer. But the main point of this is that it's not really a deficient condition if you can acceot it '
1 1
on a tolerance clarification. Now if it were this type gap rioht i i
here, this has to be 0-typical. This one here has to be zero, I and if that were like 3/32nds, then it would be legitimate. But 1
this is not legitimate 7-kl-13 42 '
L I
l l
i HE RNANDEZ : ou say that i t's not a legitimate DCN beca use you can accept it on the....
) On the tolerance clarification. See it's
/ !
still.... .
HE RNANDEZ : The tolerance.... Well, isn' t that j ust goine backg to the 4ngineer and saying it isn't acceptable. l It still in the works at this time. I t can be changed on the drawing and then it can still be verified by an '
i ns pe ct or . In f act, I don' t ever look at that dimension. That is the dimension right there. And you don't check dimensions on a drawing until the final stage. So do you have anymore questions on the DCN here or the steps to prevent recurrence?
KIRSH : No.
,HE RNANDEZ : No.
Okay, the last one I'd like to get onto here is this 249R. It's the lact package in the drawing. What we have here is we have an as-built drawing, as you can see by this stamp here. You' ve got the proof f or construction. What I' d like to show of this is, number one, in Detail 2 here they're showing you a joint design for a doubler plate that goes on this oice. I believe this is design Class 1, code Class E, but I think is an E special if I'm not mistaken. Maybe this is code Class E.
Anyway, this joint design right here is out of the welding procedure specification requirements for the type of weld that they wanted. They wanted a f ull pen weld on this using pipe as a backing strip. And what they have here is a partial penetration j oint fit-up. So I called that to the attention of the angineer,
/
84 - 43
~ /
cnd you can sco on this drcwing ... cnd alco horo's anothat one that they had on this. This drawing came out like this. They had this weld symbol here that showed a double V weld, ar r ow side, other side typical with this wrapper plate. Where they were meaning . . . whoever drew this thought that that symbol meant this be applied here and this one went to the other side of the pi pe , which i s not correct. I told them if they wanted to use that symbol that they would have to get a welder that's about that high to get back behind that strip there. A nyway , I got then to change the symbol and you can see I accepted the fit-up on this. This is a good example of how disorganized the whole QC acceptance process is out there. I' ve brought up to Frank Leoty and Horold Carner that what we really need for these kind of joints is a field process sheet that identifies each weld that gets OC participation so that when you go to do the final on this, you know, you can imagine looking at this how dif ficult it would be to figure out if everybody ... if all those joints that had to be OC fit-up accepted were actually acceptable. Anyway, they changed that. The real thing that ... they got into a real harassment and intimidation deal with this, was the welding of this beam that these things are attached to. This W14x90 per l
materials list for 242SL. What they did was they fabricated two i
of these beams to make them about 40 feet long, that they put up I I
in the north end of the turbine building and to structural -
l columns up there. I ' m not a structural engineer, but the i connections that they made to this structural beam look reallv shakey. And PG&E was up there prior to the last NCR walk-down in
/'
'h 1-13 44
/
l l
there, and they were really taking a hard look at this hancar as I remember, because they thought it was mighty shakey as well.
What they did on these beams was they used an unqualified joint design that I pointed out at'the time. They wanted ye to come uo and accept the weld fit-up on the beams here when th'ey went to weld them together. The problem was they hao, number one, again a deviation....
KI RSH: Which weld?
Okay, it's not referenced on this drawino. I t' s in this beam / right here.
HE FNANDEZ : Is there another section shown?
/ m It may show it on here somewhere. That's the way s /
I'd have had it drawn.
HE RNANDEZ : Wouldn' t those beams be pretty ?
N o, they were f ab down on the floor, but . .. the j
item number of the be am. . . .
,HE RNAN DEZ : Essentially, are they two I-beams?
Yeah, their wide. flange 14x90's which are pretty heavy-duty be ams.
HE RNANDEZ : So they' re making build-up members.
Well, they made this beam up so they could out it between thes/ e structural columns to add these places where they could put the sway straps on.
KIRSH: Which weld was made with an unqualified joint -
desigp? )
It's not shown on this drawing, I don' t believe.
Q /
It's shown on a drawing for the adjacent hangar, which is 242SL. But it's in thig beam xtight here.
84 - 45
KIRSH: Which. ah.....
We'd have to look at 242SL to find the weld.
/
CLEWETT :. the weld going the length of the beam?
Yeah, well, no. Here, I can giv's yod a cuick sketch of what it is. Here's your beam. Okay, you re looking at the flange of the beam. The two beams fit-up like this.
Actually, they' re poked out when I looked ar. them. The weld symbol were as f ollows. This was typical. Okay, when I came up there and looked at it, I brought up to my supervision that this was a deviation f rom the aualified welding procedure specification because it doesn' t sav srecificallv that you can allow two-sided wel6ing with that.
KI RSH: , Which welding procedure specification?
Welding procedure 7A, which is basically a carbon steel stick welding procedure of P1 tb P1 material, KI RSH: Just a second.
r -
And I have that listed in the dailies under a list hangar. /
/
HE RNANDEZ :
~
/ ,
Yeah, all your 7A welding procedures, all joint designs ... it says in the procedure "shall utilize a backing s tri p" . I brought this up. This didn' t really bother me so much. At the time it did bother me, but I was told, well, we've been doing it like this for 10 years and we're not goina to change now. This is reasonably sound welding procedures. You weld one side, you back grind, fou weld the other. The thina that was unsound was the weld fit-up on the flanges f- "'s 1-13 46
/
.- H.ere you have your single bevel fit-up. When we first looked at it, the bevel angle was completely insufficient. It was like 30 degrees in here, that thev 'couldn' t get in there. And then they cut it apart, theygrohndtheangle, they refit it. Now the second time around, we came up there and they had the required 45-degree angle here, but what they had l l
also was a feather edge on this bevel and they had about a 1/4" route opening in here. And the guys told me ... this guy who's a welding f or eman , who's been . . . from everything I . . . and S teve Bode can tes tif y to this . .'. have seen out there, this 90' s function is to come out and try and talk OC inspectors into buying marginally acceptabl or rejectable work. Whatever you Want to....
HE BNANDEZ : Is there a tolerance on that gap?
Yeah, there is. The welding procedure specif ication . . . act ually, the welding procedure specification 7A does not allow open route welding from a two-sided welding, which is what they did. And what I couldn' t understand is they already had the Y Class web poked out, so I told them, look, if you want me to buy this you either put a backing strip in there
... then they just have to move it out a little bit to be within the spe cs . . . that's 3/16ths to whatever. Yeah, I don' t think they....
HE RNANDEZ : It's a quarter inch .
i m And put a backing strip in there and weld it ';.h a t way, or tighten up the gaps to the 8889 procedure requirement and do the route pass with gas tungsten are welding. Well, the guy
/' \
1-13 47 a
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - '
told me we don' t want to use gas tungsten are because it will put too much heat into the joint. I explained to him that this is a restrained joint and that they should be preheating them. But they want to get.... :
HE RNANDEZ : What are the size of the members? .
These were 3/4" so they weren't required to preheat i t, but I was overstepping my bounds as an inspector saying they should heat it.
KI RSH: Stretched it a little bit, didn' t you?
They should be preheatino all that stuff that's s
3 /4 " .
yI RSH: Why? Where does it say that?
It doesn' t, but in my opinion good welding ...
they experience a good deal of crackina out there on those kind of . . . on material that's 3/4" and greater. Any specs that I' ve ever worked with on other jobs, generally when you get up to 3/4" is where you do preheating, rather than over 3/4". And the specification for a 50-degree preheat below 3/4 " jus t doesn' t make any sense at all. You come out with these process sheets that say a 50-degree preheat is reauired. Which....
HERNANDEZ : Ambience test?
Well, yeah, but>...
hIEWETT The big thing is that it was an unqualified joint, is that. .. -
f
/ That's right.
/
CLEWETT: That alone would disqualify it.
/ 's 1-13 40 s
i So this .got into a real battle right hare with the
\ J auote welding foreman. I told him, look, I can' t buy this joint design. I brought the welding procedures specification book out there. I showed him, look, here's your qualified joint design, so use one of these and I'll buy it. Well, this became a political battle, they called up Frank Leoty, Frank Leoty comes out there, they get my lead man out there, Rick Marks. Leoty looks at it; he . thinks it's a rupture restraint which does allow this kind of welding, but in f act it is not a restraint, it's a hangar. And then Leoty tells Marks that Marks ... he tells him, you can buy that fit-up on that, that it's an acceptable joint.
So Marks tells me, well, from now on just let me handle this thing. Take off. Go do something else. S o. . . .
KI RSH : - How does that represent intimidation and harassment?
r Because this guy, the welding foreman, goes to my supe ' vision 'and my boss and tells them that I'm holdina up production because I'm asking for a qualified joint design, and my boss comes out there and tells my lead man that he can buy an unqualified joint design, and my lead man buys it.
KI RSH . Okay.
r So, that what was really got to me about this whole thing'.'
KI RSH:
~~
I understand now.
7-It really was a very simple matter of puttino a '
%. l backing strip in there. The only reason I can see that they did it the way they did is it took 4 days longer than it should have. The guys welded this thing up, and I told them, look, you 84 - 49
. /
_____-_-__a
weld it like that you' re going to get pure garbage in that route pass, which is exactly what they got. They cut it apart that night on night shift, came back in on' Monday . . . and on this particular Monday we brought the PTOC inspectors up there and let them know what was going on with this thing. Well[ it's R :00' in the morning ... I believe this was a Tuesday. It was after the Labor Day. holiday. It's recorded in the dailies here. Anyway, Mr. Babino came up that morning and he was extremely irate that we had even brought PGsE. in on it without his consideration, and myself and my partner, Craig Meager, and the other PTCG inspectors noticed that 10 feet before Mr. Babino
- cot before us, the guy just smelled like he was lit. I will' swear to this that he was either ouk all night partying or whatever, but he was drunk that morning on the job. I have that also documented in the personal log that I keep. Basically what it was was I'd sit down every night and type up a page or two of events that occurred that day. Mr. Babino was definitely drunk that mornina and he was very irrational the way he acted. He came up and he looked at us and he said, "Who got PG&E in on this?" And we said, "We did, Rich. You got a problem with that?" And he goes, "Well we'll see about that!" And he just stormed off. Nothing really tecame of it. But that Monday morning they had cut the joint apart because of the poor route pass they got in it ... I don' t know if it was Monday or Tuesday. I can look through the ,
dailies. They cut that apart because of the poor route pass that they got on it. Now how about that. I pulled it open to the right one. It's the 8/29 daily. They cut the joint apart e -
84 - 50
\
l
because of the poor route pass, and now they had refitted it.
This time I believe they had backing strips in there, and they called Rick Marks over there . . . or, I called Rick Marks over, because I wanted to make him aware of the fact that they'd cut the joint apart and now his signature's on the joint fit-up from a couple days ago, when it's not the joint fit-up that they have anymore. So that's in ref erence to 245R. Okay, these two beams were being f abbed up at the same time. They're identical on 249R and 245R. If I' d known I' d have ref erenced that one, and there's got to be a 249R. Yeah, okay, on the 8/27 daily, right before that is an explanation of what went on there in reference to 245R and 249R. If you look at that I have "per Harold Carner and Merrill Ledgerton, my lead, verbal instructions, it is acceptable to weld an open route joint with a 7A welding procedure provided the route pass is back-gouged for grinding verified by OC."
KIRSH: Where's that at?
Okay, that's on the 8/27 daily, pull it r ght out here. Yeah, right about Section ___. So basically they told me, well, don' t work on this anymore. We'll let Rick Marks handle it and he took care of it all, bought off all of the fit-ups on those joints. Basically let them do exactly what they wanted, although it was an unqualified welding procedure and an unqualified joint design. Some other items on this that were ,
significant ... if you look on the back of the process sheet there, there's two process sheets for this.
EERNANDEZ: Hold on here.
[
]'l-13 51
/
I've got two process sheets in the package. Now I was called to do the final inspection on 2 ... oh, here's another one that was a real interesting problem on this that Carner ...
this is the question that Carner ref used to answer in.the training session, as a matter of fact. Notice here, you have a 1-1/4" partial penetration weld by virtue of the fact that they' re making it with 7A welding procedures.
KI RSH : Just a second. I' ve got to find t he sheet.
It's toward the back. This is for info only, but it's part of a legitimate PC . .. this was one of ny, cuestions.
g And Mr. Carl Delouza was the engineer that was involved with this one also. Okay, the material thickness here is 1-1/4" also. So I said, look, if you' re calling out a 1-1/4 " weld on 1-1/4 "
thickness, it's a f ull penetration weld. You either got to use a backing strip or an 88f 9 welding procedure. This engineer tells me, no, no, the designer wants a partial penetration weld there. I said, well, you just can' t do it with the existino procedures that you got. Well, it ended up we went down to Carner and Carner directed me to accept a weld if we ... the way it worked out, is we butted this up with a feather edae, and we welded it with a 7A welding procedure. Which I didn' t f eel was the way to do it, but for ... I bought it on Carner's word that that was acceptable. Because, you know, you go to the OA/OC manager, you got to take his word for something. Although anymore my opinion is that Harold Carner is not too competent to be making welding decisions out there. I'm sorry to say that.
So anyway, I questioned the validity of using a f ull penetration
,/ .
1-13 52
~
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -^
... calling a f ull penetration weld a partial penetration weld. !
Well since then, Harold Carner's changed his story and said that now a par ti al penet ration . . . or , this is not an acceptable procedure. That if that were called out it would be a f ull penetration procedure. Due to the fact that he cave me two stories I asked him in a training session to clarify this, and that was the training session where he cut me of f and said, i alright, everybody back to work. That was the weld in question, right there. Okay, now moving on about 4 more or 5 more pages ,
here, ... the main point is aoain, it's another unqualified joint ]
design. 1 l
HERNANDEZ : Because no backing bar?
No backing bar, that's right. Okay, now we're looking at the process sheet here that has my initials for verifying a solid coupling installed concentric and the fit-up of Item 20 and 21 to existing steel.
KI RSH: Where are we at now?
/
We're on the field. process sheet for Rev. 3.
That's the one right there. Okay, this was ... they wanted me to get the final workmanship on this, and I went up and I ins pect ed the hangar and on the back of that sheet I rejected the final workmanship, and you'll notice my comment right there. "I rejected the final workmanship for arc strikes, oversized welds, slag inclusions, undercut and incomplete welding of Item 16 to wide flange 14x90. There was visible slag between a backing strip in Item 12 and the gap between the backing strip was greater than 1/16th, which places the integrity of the route pass
/
l-13 53
i of the f ull pen weld in question. Okay, now I should add that the craf t when they made that weld called me and I came up there and I verifled, or, I inspected that weld, but ... and here I act to admit I screwed up, because I didn' t look at the backing strip. I looked at just the surface of the weld, because they were af raid that that would become inaccessible at a later time
... and I did accept the surface of that weld. I did not look at the backing strip. During the final inspection I looked at the backing strip. That's when I cuestioned the integrity of the route pass, and you know, even inspectors make mistakes out there. I signed the fit-up in error and put this note on there that I did not . . . see the reason I questioned that is because you' ve got a helluva lot of weight of that wide flance beam bas!cally hanging on this weld right here, and a couple of other supporting welds underneath it. That's what looks really shakey about the whole structural connection right there. In addition, it's putting an eccentric loading on the beams that are . . . the vertical beams in the north end of the building, where it could be put ting pr et ty large. . . .
pIRSH: What's specifically wrong now?
}Welltheslaginclusion... there's visible slag
\
behind the ba king strip. But after I put this note on there, you'll notice that the workmanship was accepted on the other hangar . .. or, pardon me, on the other drawing, or ... the other field process sheet. There's two process sheets with this. That would be the one following that. That's a . H er e this shows that your final workmanship was accepted. All these pu-u-s<
J -
are signed off. Now, the note on that . . . I pu t a note on this sheet when I rejected it also. " Reject final. See back of other sheet." And there's no mention made in there at all as to even addressing that slag behind the back-up strio or ... I talked to the engineer involved and told him, you know, i t. was my opinion that they should take that backing strip off and verify that that weld does not have slagging. >
KIRSH: You mean under Item 1 and 2 there's no mention of the backing strip. Is that what you're saving?
/ x Yeah, exactly. And then this guy says, "0C did not inspect any welds or workmanship per page 1 of the TC." The TC basically deleted the need f or inspection. Also, engineering
... why two process sheets to this thing in rev. 3? I t's basically . . . this shows, you know, a lot of the screwed up engineering you have to deal with out there. Her e' s TC s . . . you find TCs for the same thing, whether voided, and now we' re gonna do it this way, here it is voided again. It just ... it gets to be . . . you poi nt these things out. and the attitude is
. My final thing for tonight is this memo that I wrote to Harold Carner about the lack of training for f ab job i ns pe ctors. I think we talked about this . .. I'll just briefly run you through it. One day last week the f ab shop foreman puts these four copies ... these are copies of the four reauf sitions he laid on my desk. Obviously, the inspectors that sign these off were unaware of the requirement that this cooy has to be f orwarded to OA , because they lef t them with the f ab shop foreman. I was unaware of that myself, and the only way I found 1-13 55
1 out is the first requisition I signed I handed it back to the guy and the guy tore off the first sheet and gave. it to me. If he hadn' t- done that, I probably would have been leavino them there too, and that's why they cot the traceability problem!on piping that they' re . running into in QA right now. I'll tell you right now what they' re doing.
KIRSH: QA has got a traceability problem on pipino?
OA has got a big traceability problem on piping because they can' t find these original material requisitions, and right now they're down there sending inspectors out to look at something like a stancheon on a pipe, and I can provide you with numbers that . . . I looked at one today. They're telling me to go out, look at the stancheon, or look at whatever. I looked at a stancheon in a pressurizer today in the pressurizer of Unit 1 that was . . . I can' t remember the hangar number. I believe it was something 47, or 49SL. It was 49SL, whatever the prefix for the pressurizer hangar numbers are, I'm not sure. hnyway, I looked at that, and they' re telling me well, if you can find a heat and a P.O. number on that staqcheon then we can reconstruct the field warehouse requisition. And they claim that it's allowed in the ESDs. Well, to me what you have there is an indeterminant quality situation, because you don't know that that number that's on that pipe stancheon was put on at the warehouse or if the guy in the field scratched it on there, or you know.
And they tell me, well, you got to take somebody's word for it somewhere and I'm saying, no, that's not right because that's why you have a quality assurance program. You have to be able to 13 56
l ind2pendantly verify. that host End P.O. number os beino traceable back to end through material.
HE RNANDEZ : How many examples are there of this?,
\
g Well, I can give you some. I was given an ISO for ,
t Syst'em 18 that I would have to provide you the number with later.
RE RNANDEZ : Well, I quess I'm trying to say is, sorry 1. I
... is this a widespread problem or is it just isolated? LJ
/
I believe it's a lot more widespread than they would lead you to believe because I've been working out of the pipe in OA now for 3 weeks and cuite frecuently ... that's my job. I go down, I look for that warehouse copy. If I can' t find the warshouse copy ... normally what they have to do is they have to write a DR on that to get PG&E to accept it. Well, they' re telling me one ... the other day they told me, well, ,1f you go out there and you can verify that the heat and P.O. number on that lug or on that stancheon or whatever is the same as the heat and P.O. number that was written down on the field process sheet
... the piping process sheet, then they can reconstruct the warehouse requisition. And what they do is they sign a new requisition right there and they put that in the packace, and now they can close out the ISO.
HERNANDEZ ?
i ~
I don' t know if they' re predating it or if they're dating it with the today's date. I haven't seen any of these.
But today they sent me out on one where they said, here's a requi si tion. Go look at this stancheon in the pressurizer. If there's a heat and a P.O. number on it, write it down on this
/
<}
'l-13 57 l'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ -_ - - - - - - - -^ ' ~
requisition.here, and we'll use that to verif y the traceability. To me that's an indeterminant situation. You cannot verif y the OA participated in putting that number on that pipe, there's not a hold point on the process sheet for transf er of heat and P.O. number. I t's j us t . . . and they' re runnino into some real traceability problems right now.
KI RSH: Okay, we'll take a look at that.
HE RNANDEZ : Is the number put in by a stamp or is it etched on wi th a vibro?
f s I t's etched . . . in some cases it's etched on with i
a vibro, and in other cases it's put on with a stamp that is supposed to be a low stress stamp, but S teve's cuestion is this tube. Normally your low stress stamps are either the raised dot type, you know, with the printed dot stamp, or it's a real wide radius-type stamp. The stamps they use out there do not look like low stress stamps to me. You get a sharp bead notch, which l I
looks like a stress raiser on ... mostly they'll use that, some thicker type material. But still,'it doesn' t look like a low
{
stress stamp.
HEFNANDEZ: We've come to the end of this book it looks like. -
7 You guys have any other auestions?
'KI RSH : N o.
CLEWETT: I have one other question of you. I mean I know everybody's burned out right now. I'm not gonna suggest that we have any more meetings in the immediate f uture, but to aid you in l evaluating Steve's comments. I think he would like to be able to t' .
(1-13 58 l 1
i n.: /
i
do a similar sort of thing . The dif ficulty there is that he doesn't have a copy of these papers. I understand that you've gotten either the originals or a copy of his dpilles and his other materials f rom the company, and just as you:were able to provide Harold the other day with a copy of this listing of the UT i nspectors. . . .
KIRSH: Ahh, correction, I did not provide Harold with a copy of a listing of the Ur inspectors.
CLE WETT : Alri gh t , you allowed him to look at. . . .
KI RSH : H ar old examined. . . .
CLE WETT : Just as you allowed him to inspect that listina, I would like to set up sometime where Steve could inspect his dailies and take me through them and explain the specific instances that he feels were improper in his set of circumstances he has brought to you. So I would hope that we could at some point, as I say, it doesn' t have to be anytime real soon. I know that everybody's burned out, but I' d like to make some arrangement to do that at some point.
KI RS H : Leave me a telephone number for you. I will contact our attorney and we will decide whether or not that would be an appropriate action on our part.
CLEWETT : Okay, my telephone number where you can reach me for the next 2 days....
KI RSH: I will not be able to reach my attorney in the next 2 days.
CLEWETT : Okay, fine. Well then you can reach me in Washington at the number that I have given you. I will give it
, s
'/1-13 59
to you again. (202) 667-7904. You could also ... if you ' can' t reach me there, leave word with Tom Gennard at that number.
KIRSH: Okay the time now is 10:17 PM,
~
January 13th. That i
/
}
concludes the interview with Mr .
/
i t
J i
l l
I h
4 l-13 60
' GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
' Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street. N.W., Woshington. D.C. 20009 (202)234 9382 September 13, 1984 .
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Director E RE ,
Office of Administration h g QUEST. , sy 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington.DC 20555 , k Q p.,j/p h To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. E552, the Government i Accountability Project (GAP) request copies of any and all agency records and ]
information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, '
minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, summaries, interview reports, ;
procedures, , instructions, files, graphs, engineering analyses, charts, maps, photo- l graphs, agreements, handwritten notes, studies, data sheets, notebooks, books, tele- J phone messages, computations, voice recordinge. any other data compilations, interim 3 and/or final reports, status reports, and any other records relevant to and/or' s generated in connection with the Safety Evaluation Report related to the. operation of f the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and 2, NUREG-0675, Supplement No. 22, which providad the NRC Staff's further findings on whistleblower charges. We request ,
that each responsive document be identified by the allegation number (s) to which it may relate. ;
-If any of the materials covered by this request has been destroyed and/or' removed, please provide all surrounding documentation, including but not'11mited to a de-scription of the action (s) taken, relevant date(s), vnd justification (s) for the
~
action (s).
GAP request that fees be waived, because " findings information can be considered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 U.S.C. 85H(a)(4)(A). GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open l
government. Through legal representation, advice, entional conferences, films, pub-lications and public outreach, the project promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability. We are requesting the above information as part of an on-going monitoring project on the adequacy of the NRC's efforts to protect public safety and health at nuclear power plants.
For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the documents or portion of documents withheld. The index should provide a detailed justification'of your grounds for' claiming each exemption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the' document-or portion of the document withheld. This index is required under 'Vaughn v. Rosen(I),
484 F.2d. 820 (D.C. Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).
We look forward to your response to this request within ten days.
Your truly 0N Thomas Devine Cr stal Dixon' Legal Director -
Legal Intern l
4 ..
-[ w I[ ADUun Ar*~7~~K j f l(h i
-- _ -- o