ML20137E320
| ML20137E320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/02/1982 |
| From: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136F037 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8601170227 | |
| Download: ML20137E320 (13) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
?.[ i k~ l W 3 g;7: 9-2-1982
' (r .
,aIIkg [MC.N nor-M J u kvC C,nmirmnw'al: -y (pgMR4nihL- ;3 C
' ,'hereoy make tne f:ii: wing voluntary stata=an:
. K. herr, wno nas 1 cent 1rt.ec hinself to me as In Investicator witn t ciaar .teculatory Ccm:nission.
bard having ' een c mace to me.
r worked at the Comanche Peak Construction site for Brown & Root'as an elec
$n e te
<orked on the termination check out crew.
I On June 14, 1982,I prepared a statement- covering areas of concern that .I 7C had with various practices that the electrical department was doin prepared my statement upon the recuest of a friend of h mine l t ical department, ,,,
.who ask me if I had any problems or concerns with t e e ec rand told me tha hearings on the Glen Rose Comanche Peak Nuclear Power site at Ft. Worthgd'y/f Mr. Herr and Mrs L. Martin of the NRC have gone over with me the concerns that I mentioned in my statement.
I would like to point out that most of my concerns deal with Beck Cable __ *j c that is nnn-safety.
In my June 14, 198jl, statement I mentioned signed reports that could identi-fy faults. These These reports that I refer to are cable termination cards cards have sign off blocks for the craft, their and cable pull cards. Any comment that supervisor and O. C., also k there is an area for comments.
I may have made on these cards wcuid have to be addressed by Q. C corrected before Q. C.
of the corrective action. To theHowever, best of my knowledge I documented all of most of my work was in non-safety my concerns on the above cards.
, related m as.
I have drawn a map of the Auxiliary . Building Reactor #1 and located the area This area or control panel has both safety and non-safety
' of my wiring. concern.Mr. Herr stated he would contact me later and report the results of the NRC inspection in this area.
l I have also drawn a map of the Switchroom area and have located my concern I in Reactor Building #1, Grould Level, just left to the door entrance.
worked with _ black cable and I recall that Black Cable is non-safety related.
in the control l I have also drawn a map of the Annunciator Logic Panels,I worked with Black om, Reactor #1 and have located my area of concern.
y.ble and I understand that this area is also non-safety related. l c.
- r.otor Con-Mr. Herr and Mr. Martin discussed my area of concern in the .'In my statement I said that trol Center in the Circulating Water System.1000MCM cable was present in the Mo Mr. Kerr told me as of this could have been 750 mcm. I am not sure.
August 30,~1982, this area was inspected by the NRC concerns andidentified were the lugs andand wire were found to be correct.left in Apparenti 7O
- c axxnx corrected after I My concerns with improper installation and checkout of cannon type plugs was f
- Page e, of k 'Pages , ,
8601170227 851213
[/f.-
y .. . r( .c . . ,
- - two
n
,; i .,*. l .
.,.icntly,identi'f.ied by 'the NRC documa- < " i n MEC-inspection report
. ,5 / 8 0- 1-3 that I have read 'today' (Septer.. u r 2',. 1982) and addressed to my = (
1
_isfactions.
As to the rest.o.f my concerns regarding damace,' cable by sharp edges, and/or other means, Mr. Herr has shown me.a number of Non-Conformance Reports (NCR) that address these concerns. Most of these NCR were discovered and corrected after I left the site.
My concern about the repair / patch of cable damage have been addressed by a procedure thati was published in October 1980, that outlines the repair pro-cedure requirement. I did not know about this procedure because 'it was pubilished after I left, however I have raead the proc ~edure (eel-13 Bev. 2) and have no further concerns.
I can ocate the e, xact area 1here cables were too short and were pulled .
tight for termination however I realize that on safety-related cable, Quality Control checks and pre-requisite testing would have identified and corrected my concerns.In the MCC Rm,BLK Cable, CCW(1 cable too tight) . In the Spreader Rm, either BLK or orange as per the map I gave to Mr. Herr.
I would like to clarify as statement I made on cadwelds. I said that I could not check for damage but what I meant to say is that I did n'ot check for damage. . My concern is th +- asbestos covering was only for an area of three feet and believed it hav vered an area of six feet.
I now realize that subsequent megger tests and Q. C. Survelliance would identified damaged cable. 7e Mr. Herr has asked me if I have any other concern or area of concern that I wish to convey and I have no other concerns except as identified on my e 14, 1980, statement and in this statement.
1 .
l p , .. hjSi,.'ir a
.' ,m. .
,3 u O G G h ."'
~
' 3 M k Q ,]}. ;?.,{ 0 L,-(. .,ii
^
7c
' 7 C ,
I have read the foregoing statement consisting of g typewritten /h=*@%n pages. 'I have made any necessary corrections and have initialed them. I have signed my name in tha margin of each page. This statement is the truth to the best of my knowledge and belief. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on SE/7* -2,146 at / :09 lj'72 (Date) (Time) 7 howf Subscribed and sworn to before me at 1306, this p10ayr/Sagr ,
1993 at WITNESS /,w o [p, .A1.
, Richard K. Herr, NRC Investi, gator,.
. - . . . AUTHf 'Sec. :161c'AEA.1954'as amende.d -
[_.
PAGE (.2 ) . 0F -( .q ) . PAGE.S .~ . ,' .
- - ...s:;;p:*' .. -
- 1. ..... ,..y.
~ , .
. y er c, , .
- l}
~
' $f C t,'"
'[cc c Trri: A r_
- .' . vt, "
t
- l,
-. - -1, n, n t-
/$^ ' . , . . - r
~
- - p
. e
' ' , , --ag -
',gy / i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U#3
- NUCLIAA REGULATORY COMMI553ON
, y__ !
A r~ts o*v t r 'lS:r.-/s
/ ;M / t.
Y l/> / f er *K $ (f,/
k the EnAttti of: "' S
% c*v 4 *r.g a N' /9 f m e f*
h- p irrt n. _
TEXAS UTILITIES EI.ECTRIC C. W M , e e al j I{v ;) , Docket No. 5 0-4 45 ver "*w ' 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 r 2) d ' ' " I) e t IN CAMERA
-:8 .
l l
Deposi of of:.
APPLICANTS' DI$COVERY DEPOSITION. VOLUME II Location: Clen'Roac, Texas '
Pages: _ 339 - 564 Oste: Friday, July 20 1984.
g, .G ,9 W
L eig t-t i -
rArtoussocar S .
.e
^
?- ., ,
.. ~, ,
- C lC '
A
.' . h..
s, - .
Sure. * %>
9f ,
4 .
.a t
- /g A "should be three feet between trays separated -
horizontally, five fe et between trays separated vertically. .[ .I' Ej '
la addition, high energy electrical equipment. such as *f '
l H.: . 3
- ! JI
${ 1 ,
switchgear s. transformers,. and rotating equipnent is I
I
[G.l h#-
i.
M ~?
are installed in enclosed !bI
%' ";.*e ,; .
exi:1uded and power cables - t F3 i f acev6ys that qualify ss barriers." l53j- et
- E,
- * 1 . -
s'
[w[ y Ohara a;s*:. va 'ra talki=g :ha:: the r. .r M ', ',
.g
- 3. . . ..-
e ,
. 1-4 cables have to be in enclosed raceways, qualifying aa ,
- l. 3
- Cf '
- :k l ? > .
98 barriers, which a ladder tray d6es not qualify as a barrier y , 4.. ,
s, l %7i*s-
' $. ., j P
without a protective cover on ths bottom. .... s
.w e ,$,.;.i j 4 I
- 3 "Or there are no power cables, the minimum './,=*Nf,
,?
L l( ;3 separation distance may be specified in 5.1.3.
- u Weee plant vw-i; .f.ij -
- g. arrangement preclude maintaining the minimum separation y"p, !
t l?y ~,;
l ,' distance, the redundant circuits should be run in solid
..pl' *-
y
.)3 S
'l enclosed raceways that qualify as barriers." i I! i ,
d ; ~. ,
"l Again. 1 make the comment that ladder trays ([ .'{[
8! do not qus11fy as enclosed barriers andtchereby runninga .
.c(
Le
'a.':
- I conduit within one inch of the bottom of a ladder tray is :
7 23 l in violation of m intaining the separation criteria'between ;f I }M y
i U the redundant trains.
(I .5 I . .; ,
i It says "other barriers abould be provided .g
' * :. t ji63 k)ll..
d 23 between redundant circuits, if this is not the case." Whic.h s v. :
S.!
M a solid cover on tho' bottom of a ladder tray does provide , g t ; ~, ~
t j M an additional barrier. * * ..- l q
- gw.....
- ; ~. . *. j. ;l; f g
( .. "Y . I 4h
- t
!. s;.
0 l b . ib ( ~~i' -
% i
~
- .N.C s . r
-y*%
_ w m 5.. m m n u t.~i e m . m . m .;g.7,q , A. % g .p q ;.;pf y ... ,y
'. { i' '
~ -
.i - -
I
,g WIDAv:T O!: ,
i I l 251 ices are in Dundles of caDies and the na:ard extends *
< l sayond the c a tt l e that has been S P 1 1.c e d to tne cables that I
tortound it. W I
. i s
It is my understanding ,that butt sp11cing is 8 . tateifically prohibited by the t* R C . I have confirmed this ( be li e f ty contacting t he IJRC Reg ion V Of f ice. In
- 1 , r.
t 8&rticular, it is my understanding that Regulatory Guide , . i 1.75 Specifies that cable. sp)1ces in raceways should be i 4 . Prohibit ed and further, that if such splices do exist, the * *
*l 4, result ing design should be justified by analysis and .
submit t ed as pa r t of the PSAR. However, at Comanche Peak,
- DCA 19264 and several other DCA's allow butt splicing of e.
a ' cua l i t y cad 1es. At Comanche Pet.R not only do the butt " e i Splices exist, but in some cases no notation it made on ?. 3~ r des i gn drawings that the splices exist. As a result, there }' I a. ,-
- Ety be no record of where butt sp) ices have been made. It s :
h
] is my belief that it will be necessary to' reinspect all x
~
2 [. 1
! caoles and conduits for butt solices since no records are .
9 4 e kcot of their entstence or location.
\
I 0,5 o I t * *. I am particularly concerned aDout the practice of butt ... 531tcing because of its potential for starting fires. and . t.e c a u s e it is my cuperience that there are many fossil 'f u e l
. - [
1.' ,. , . , b . T. ,
, 12 .
~. . ., ; Q .7 - .
4.. L , w. s .
- w. . .._
. . . _ . . o ,
m ...u,. . _ . -
+i
-970Av1T OF
' 3c. *
~
l 1 4 l ter illustrattve purposes anc I believe indicate an overall 1 { teilur e t t the QA/OO program at Comanche P e a l: . ~ l
, t o L i My secono category of concerns regards pr3cecures (nat .h i
g
! talieve represent a c .t.u a l v i o l a t 3,p.rts., o f ufe.c i.f sr.
.. .. I
} ,
r 4 9 u l a.t._i o.n.s E n d , in some instances, eapresent substantia 1 { saf et y hazards. I also De11 eve the fo1)owing a;,:arap t e s *
, fur 1ner indicate the b r ent down of the-QA/QC prograsm at .
b tor. an c h e P e al. . F.
* ~
I As an example, I,believe that Cable Separation p k
!!Pscification 2323-ES-100. r< e v .
2, is in violation of
~
fit 1ulatory Guide 1.75. A portion of ES-100, Section .
. L s 4.11.3.2, provides. "tm))ntmum separation between a conduit . .
f, . f(safety related or non safety related) and a bottota or side
+ 7
. (f a tray (solid Dottom or ladderi shall b6 one i ncn."
} b 1
i Tr. t s is not consistent with t h e it.i n i m u sn separations . IL a ". j required by Fregula t or y Guide 1*. 7 5 , which provides L t. h. a t -
,. U jj Concult separation shoulo De at least five feet from the #
' p..
.,f t,ottom of a tray and t h'r e e feet from the 3400, e.
except in ik,**
' j
*j t r.e cad)e spreadine room where it can be two. feat frorn the ~i l '
".h s i d 6 and tnreo feet from the bottom. ,_,
I ? .; #
)
$ )' k .'* .
I am particularly concerned a'b o u t the above situation 1
@i i
IN
.4 .
m .
. , o ., .
k' j
# . $- F 14% 4
- ^
.s.. . - - . . . - . ,. . .m.... . . , ,, . . - 4
.y ..
~. . . l 1
SUAZA-*HX M Gihbs & E111,.I=c.
"A" specifica:ic: 23:3-Is.-100 Revisien 2 cc ober 15, 1980 -W S
Page 4-41 ' 3 E :28 2 .
':=UL::2t A '
0z'Di *'.kT - " 12:1A 3 ;* w J l . na s :
. 6 ,
g n . !
. z. . - ,'. i=* .
- b. e .
(
.t-v-
1
~
k A T7JOI A i i' 1:2! C i I
':'?%:28 3 CO.wu.s
{ 1 r 50!*:3 M 2 Cit 3
- ??AT REQC2D WE3 i 3a..M SDARA:" C1 i IS '"3 ':2Mt ACCI2 OR SC .
(a) 3'-C" is 3C34 N a 4
*?.AIN A CR Gent:12. ?lan:
':'2A 2t C Maa
- (h) '2'-0" Cabla
$;rseddag l Area 4-i (c) With solid .
c:avu 4"
' 'dhern p :ctical this Accs;ta.bla 4 ii=~~~~m st be 3 '--h ea. Lu.is. ) [
t* ; m:le.. red f (d) See De- '1 33' s ,
- ~
en Il-17c2-01 ).
._J .
. . f=r iss.u13 -
..._ . _ _ - ~ . . . . . . . . .. .. .. _. . , .. ., , - -
v i Gibbs & E111, Inc. Specification 2323-E5-100 Revision 2 oct=ber 15, 1920 ' t Page 4 39 i (b) A ni-+ w of 1 rect herinentally and 3 fee vertical $y is recnized bervee= =d d= : - rays in the cable sp::ading area and centzel recm. , 4.11.3.2 separt:1:n Distance for C "its t _ne sini=.=n separa i=n distances given be: sin are no: i to be us'ad as 'no -.a1 ersetice", but a s a be appiied . in field
- ou-ing CD:='"*d. of cen_uit only where greate: separa:1cn eenet be '
(1) Mi-4-t- separt:1cn berveen conduits having different "racavay functions" shall be one (1) inch. ..ry
'~ * ' '
i (2) 1" dm separation between a conduit containine i safe:v related cahies and the .ap of an e pen ::ay having
- diffsrs= rain or e%=--e1. shall ,be 2 '0" in enkle spesading L roca a=d 3 '0" in general plant area. When it is :
to =aintain "-'s i=possible , separation, the d.istance say be reduced .o b' '; - 4-inch where a solid cover is provided (see drawing s2333-El-17C2-01 da:Ai1 38). When cowrhd- above an open trav u c=utains one (1) inch =csand saf a:v related emblemj the minin.nz separation is i no ::ay covers are requirsd. Minimun * ,
. separatica herween a conduit (safety related or non safety related) and a betteza or side of a r:my (solid botten or ,
ladder)
"3'.
shall be ene-inch. See Separation sketches "A" and !. t I f. r ! ( 3 ) P'd * -"" separatica of six feet ? he:veen 6. 9 kV c=n:t:.1. (racevay(function 6'Q") 10,shall be maintained ' nuclear instr.=nentait=n system (NIS) c nduits 1G or and cable 2.K) and L (racevay functions G3., SW, 63 and 6Y.) ray ! 7 ; (4) Mininum sepa: 2:Lon of Vo feet he .veen eenduits having racewayfur.criena (3'0") *shall 20,be 2G=aintained and 2K; 30, A i 3G and 3K, 50, 50 and 5K; 60, Sc and SK; 5R, 5W, 53, iY and .. nuclear (raeswayinst:n=entatica func icas 51, SW system 53 and(NIs) SY). conduits or cable tray [; [ Mininum separa:ics of i six 2G 00, feetend ( 62K; ' O 50, ) shall ic andbeSK maintained and N;S between cables not racevav in' cen:ini: f*.:.nctions - (e.g., near electrical penetratices). ; e e e . L
] e'9i W;
p _ _ _ _ , , _ y e-v -'"' _, _ 1 - v=r -'-v '
,4--
. e O .
I was especially concerned about the Q (safety-related) cable that was in the F g cable spriad room being spliced, and one of the main reasons , Q cable. I gave them the location and we discussed the statement that I made- -p at the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission hearing. We wanted to know what the NRC l was going to do about the spliced Q cable. ' I have other infomation that I believe shows that pipe supports and pipe i hangers are not located in the proper areas, that there are faulty welds onThey trie the supports. They kept asking us questions about it. my conversations. They tried to say thing and make me say things that were not true. As far as I'm concerned, we were badgered in the conversations that we - had. We kept trying to find out what they were going to do about that spliced cable. The meeting went on for about an hour and forty-five minutes and and I decided to go ahead and leave. I don't think that they tried to take I felt they were trying to intimidate us. me sericusly at all. They tried to feel me out. I think what they really wanted to do was to find out what other information I had, if I had a grudge againstI
- h. them (the Nuclear Regulatory Comission or Brown & Root), which I did not.
cabe out of Brown & Root with a very high classification, they were very much I left of my own accord. I had intentions of going back willing to rehire me.to school and also, the other main reason that I left was that I couldn I thought that they wire not treating' the what was going on at the plant. I knew that.these prob 1 cms or faalts were being problem areas as they should. conducted or were going on, and i tried to stop it keep my mouth shut about it. Sc. the only recourse as far as I knew was to go ahead and quit. l t Bob Stewart telephoned me after the meeting I believe on Friday (l'l/12/82). He asked me why I didn't come down and give them the papers, and I told him that at this time I have no intsntions of giving him the papers, for the reason The that I felt that he wasn't goirq to do anything about the spliced Q cable. conversation went something likr his, to the best of my recollection. He made several coments like, "Well, if we don't have that infomation, how do you expect us to do it?" HeAnd I said, "Well, I gave you a location I expect you to locate said, "How can we go through a couple of thcusand cables in that thi's are'a." You have a job to do it. You're area?" And I said, "Well, it's a spliced cable. being paid to do that job." He said, "Well . how can we do it without your draw-ings?"' I said, "I gave you the locatien of where oseit was, you can drawings go and to us?" find"No, - I said, it." He 'said, "Well, are you ooi to brin I'm going to turn them over to And I asked him also if someone else was listening in on the p one conversation. His answer was 'no.
~ -
I told h'lin'that I. had talked to an engineering professor a't.UTA and let tiim. . r listen t'o the tape and loo'k at my drawings and he suggested not to do anythin,g ..
-- not to let any of th out of my hands -- in fact, he suggested not to And to just go ahaad and hold them but even turn them over to t areas w ere I can locate them sometime if anything ever scatter them to differ ,
I, does happen like'a fire or . accident at my home, or if a thief accidentally does . - take one box of information that I have. And Mr. Stewart also tried to figure , ,
- out what papers I did have an'd I told him I wasn't going. to talk to him about 4 .s
/ ,
~
~ g : - . . m . . .. . (,
3 ,, , _
CASE ATTACHMMI 11 - Tqe 2 And he said, "Well, you made statements and yos're You going know, to myhave state-it any more. And I said,
. to back them up." You know, you're badgering me now, you badgered me during 4 "I have all the in'fonnation.
ment's backed up. that meeting, you're trying to discredit me now in this telephone conversation h that we're just having, and you tried to discredit me there, so I see no furt eg,. point in conducting our conversation any further." And I said, "I'll hedo said, what*b"Well, if you y feel that way, you go ahead and do what you have to do."And The totalthat was pretty m . I have_ to do." conversation lasted about ten minutes or less. When people that come in and have something to say, some infomation to give the Noclear Regulatory Comission, I think that the people are discredited. I think that they're not taken seriously, that the Nuclear Regulatory Comission says, "Well, that's no big deal, and you kncw, that's just a routine -- could . be a routine thing." And the people think, "Well, it's possible; these guys ought to know, they're a government agency, they're paid The way I see byit the now,government, they're independent, and they have no reason to lie." At least that I didn't l 1 believe that the NRC's not telling us the full story.And I think if they talked tol me
- get the full story. )
everybody else that way. hadn't been there and'I I don't know what I would have done if 'm sure that they would have made me hadn't had that tape recorder, because very mad. I got so_ upset during that meeting that I almost got up and walked (/ out. I literally cussed. I said some foul language, and I don't do that -- IThe' guy would don't get that mad. They were very, very tactful in doing it.There is one guy, Mr. Stewart, make a very good attorney in cross-examination. he could, who sat across the table and kept on popping questions at me as fast asThe s he popped questions to me. more logical questions. He felt me out. While Stewart badgered these questions one after another. Tomlinson asked more specific questions, and a little bit more .in detail, and that's where Stewart also just kept on popping questions, you know, to relate to these questions. And then, Richard Herr asked very classic questions, very detailed, direct,He sat b and he did more cut down than anything. And if I were to cross-examine somebody, that's the way I would Very cc,rLct it. I thought it was very good the way they did it, but very poor class.T low class. that I do not consider myself a low-class person. ' I consider myself up, you.I think the NR know, tive as high as the NRC people are if not higher.tried This is my sixth to make year me feel lik treated me as such, and I think I'm pretty well educated.in college, I would.have If hadn't been there with me, I would.have walked out.I would have said, "You' a to them', " o hell with it"' and walked' out. no more donversation, nothing else to say." And I would have probably gottlen and walked out because they were treating me very poor, they were treating me very bad. I didn't like the way that they conducted themselves.
.f,
"; 7 + . v...,....,.,,.j..,
- .1 [ )flf
o-
. . .?.
) CASE AT.TAtle.ENT 11. - page 3 I don'.t t If I had it to do over again, I don ' thirik ' that I would have gone.If somebody 'else had a think that anybody.else would go if they find outa g, situation that they knew that there was a fault , ldgt, in the plant not conducted in a proper procedure or notI doing anything about it, they wou't think I'd go to them. I wouldn'tI go think back there to them. I'd turn it over t I gave some of W i mation over to them. Coalition and I oug t that they might be the able information to the Armadillo to do something.about it. .'I knew from previous experience that the Nuclear Regulatory Comission down at Brown & Root had a n The people that worked there felt that the Nuclear right and doing what's wrong. I believe that there are people 49 5 Regulatory Comission was not doing their job.at the plant now that kn , Regulatory Commission didn't have the reputation that it does now. ., I think that it jeopardizes the people that work at the nuclear power plant when Brown & Root puts out their newsletter and makes statements about people that are talkir.g against them like the gentleman that has been fired a number of times Also my name was written up and many other people that did make. com talk to the Nuclear Regt.'atory Cornission were written up in the newsletter. This newsletter is put out onsite to all the employeesl or a'vailable employees onsite.to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission live in that area,;and m so are not u. sed to making this kind of money. ing a 53.00 an hour job and living in a one-room house with barely an hour one car run-ning, and now they have a job at Comanche peak making $ And not one or two beers in the new clothes and having parties every weekend.And when they see that their friends have refrigerator, but a case of beer. turned against them, which is the way that they really see it, they see that if they talk against Brown & Root, they talk against their brothers ard relatives (B&R), and they feel that, " Heck, we don't need you anymore," and they do not counsel one another anymore and they do fiot talk to them. 6
* - h, I-
, ., . g- . .
^ .-.
3.; y - .'ij . . , . ., . . . . , , y,y. , .p.;.
., ,cg .,.g.:,y ..,,..g.,
w . ,
. .. , .,, ,}}