ML20198H850
| ML20198H850 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1984 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198H622 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8605300575 | |
| Download: ML20198H850 (47) | |
Text
. =. :- -. .- . . . - - . . .. =. .. = . . -- -
UNITED STATES i $.,.. CLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSIONE
.i l
l l
\ _ ':
l 1
eo IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
'a INTERVIEW OF l
i
, . . , +
l ';.
' g,.
t
} ,
- h*.
. ;^'
t s
- * . c ,0?'.*_ ;
- N - <
1 i ,
i .
i LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C.
PAGES: 1 - 45 *
) -
l DATE: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1984 V.
fi . .
(
I I
i AG-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
oWaxlW dQ 444 North CapitolStreet ~ O Washmgton, D.C. 20001 (202) 347e'700 MU -
C1 -
t 8605300575 860513 MOME QNQ
! PDR FOIA GARDE 85-59 PDR hl-
_ . _ . _ _ . . . . . _ . . _ _ _m : . m. A . _ .. ;......_.._._...
4
- CR21068.0 f LOU /sjg 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM INTERVIEW TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ,
.; l 5 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
' Suite 402 '
6 444 North Capitol Street t Washington, D. C.
7 Thursday, November 8, 1984 j 8 The telephone conference call to interview Stanley 1
- 9 Miles was convened at 1
- 10 p.m.
I 10 PRESENT:
1 11 ,
Interviewee ,
g
! RC STAFF:
12
. A. VIETTI 13 W. SMITH D. HUNNICUTT 14 j J. ZUDANS V. NOONAN 15 D. HUNTER B. MASTERSON B. HUBBARD 0
S. HOU 17 ' -
18 19 ,
20 21 22 23 24 :'
Ace-r sans neponm ene.
25
'. ..: . _ . . l - - . _. . . . ~ .. ~ L u : _ .- ~ . T.'. n .~. ..-,. . _ . - . ;: . . : . - . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
e 2
06SO 01 01 LOUbw 1 PROCEEDINGS MS. VIETTI: This is Annette Vietti s peak ing.
2 3 ,
For the record, this is an interview o f 4 for the purpase o f providing feedback for the 5 Technical Review Team assessment of certain concerns made by 6 the Comanche Peak fac ility .
7 I believe that you have been contacted by several j
8 people at the NRC, someone from our O f fice o f 9 Investigations, and I believe you did have an interview with 10 them. Also you have been contacted, i f I 'm not -- unless and I 11 you correct me -- by Dick Westman and Bob Hubbard, 12 believe that you had an interview with them, where they 13 discussed some of your concerns on the Comanche Peak 14 facility.
15 Is that correct 16 Correct.
MS. VIETTI: Okay. What the purp3se o f this 17 18 interview is, is to provide you feedback on those concerns 19 that you raised during the interview, and I will let Bob 20 Hubbard and Bob Masterson cover some o f the concerns that 21 you had concerning loading problems.
22 That's correct.
MS. VIETTI: Bob, why don't you go ahead.
23 MR. MASTERSON:
This is Bob Masterson speaking.
24 we looked at one o f your concerns about 25
..-......-.......--.'L-a...a ...=. :, , ... ,.: -..,,..~ . - ... ..
i l
3 0600 01 02 in the same LOUbw I welding and concrete chipping being per formed 2 area simultaneously.
l.
Yes.
- i. 3 MR. MASTERSON:
You remember that particular 4
5 concern?
Yes.
6 MR. MASTERSON: Okay. We interviewed Brown & Root 7
facility in 1981, in 8 QC personnel who were working at the J 9 December, and they could not remember any instances o f that 10 particular -- o f those acts going on at the same time.
I'm sure they couldn't.
11 Okay. We also talked to quite a 12 MR. MASTERSON:
13 few welders who were also in the facility at that time and
- , , 1 14 none o f them could give us any in formation or couldn't 15 recall that occurring.
Let me ask you something.
16 MR. MASTERSON: Okay.
17 Were those welders still working out 18 19 there that you interviewed?
4 MR. MASTERSON: Yes, they were.
20 21 Well, that should tell you something.
22 MR. MASTERSON: Well, that's all we can do is 23 interview the people that we know were working at the 24 facility in the time frame you gave us.
25 I understand that. But I can also
.....:......--..- . := . . .. u . - . . .:., . . .. . . , - ..- . . : .. . . . . . . . - . . .
4 4
0600 01 03 LOUbw 1 give the names o f the people that were standing right there 2 when it happened.
I f you want to do that now, we 3 MR. MASTERSON:
4 would be glad to take that in formation down.
5 Let me give you some that are still 6 out there on the job site that were interviewed by Brooks 7 Gri f fin.
8 Do you remember him?
9 MS. VIETTI: We know who he is.
10 Pardon?
11 MS. VIETTI: He's one o f our O ffice of 12 Investigation --
He came out. I was on the job in 13 14 Seminole, Texas. He came out and interviewed me there and 15 came back to check my story, you know, with some welders l
i 16 that were welding there at the site and, o f course, they 17 sold him the same thing I told him. He had reinterviews 18 with them three or four times and asked if they were sure --
in l
19 he asked them the same questions he asked me, you know, and basically said the same 20 cross re ference to my story, 21 thing I did.
22 They were there when it happer ad.
MR. MASTERSON: Can you tell me the date o f this ;
23 24 interview with Mr. Grif fin?
25 No, but it'.s on a sheet that I gave,
~
d .. . c... .. .._ - . _ ._ .._,,_,,., _ , , ,, , _ , , _,
}
5 0680 01 04 LOUbw 1 a deposit ion.
MR. MASTERSON: Okay. It's in your testimony?
2 Yes. And also I'd like to straighten 3
' 4 one thing out that was on that testimony, is that he had one 5 incident there where welders were threatened to weld more 6 rod s --
7 MR. MASTERSON: That's a separate concern, and r
8 we're going to get to that next, so maybe we should just i
9 stick to the concrete chipping.
Fine. Well, what you're saying is 10 11 this. Let me sum this up from my viewpoint so you 12 understand where I'm at.
f I
13 MR. MASTERSON: Okay.
14 What I saw was not second-hand 15 evidence. I was standing right there when it happened. I 16 -- ever attempt that I told you o f. I f you don't believe l
l this, then you can check with N. Reynolds. And in the 17 it
$ 18 deposition he asked me several questions about some 19 incidents that I told him. When he checked these, he found 20 them all to be true, and he can tell you that. He can tell that I know what I'm talking about. I know what I saw, and 21 22 you can ask all the others you want to ask.
23 MR. MASTERSON: Can you give me some o f the names 24 of some o f the welders that were there and also saw this 25 ha ppen?
l
" = = ' - - _
. = = : -- - --~. .:.. =:: . . - . . . .:. .
4 0680 dl 05 6 LOUbw 1 One of those welders would be -- he 2 was in the room right next to me. He knew what was going in r 3 there, because he came over and we talked, you know. One o f 4 the welders was a pipe welder. He was standing right there 5 on site. His name wa s Ricky -- that ' s R-i-c-k-y -- I can ' t 6 remember his last name. I can find out, because I can have 7 it checked.
8 MS. VIETTI: I s the first name "Ricky"?
9 Right. The pipe fitter's la st name was 10 11 MS. VIETTI:
12 Yes. I believe he's still on the job 13 site.
}
14 MR. MASTERSON: What's his first name? I 15 I don't know. He later became a 16 foreman out there.
17 MR. MASTERSON: Did you give any names to the 18 lawyer, Mr. Reynold s?
19 Sure. I sure did.
20 MR. MASTERSON: Were the names in the deposition?
21 I believe they were.
! 22 MR. MASTERSON: Is this is Reynolds still 23 located in the Fort Worth area?
j 24 MS. VIETTI: He's the lawyer for Texas Utilitie s, 25 and he's located in Wa shiongton, ,D.C. I know who he is, l
l:... . u - ....'a.... z. , . ~ . . :'. :
~ ^
~
. . . - .:... .......-.~.:1 4
J 7
0680 01 06 LOUbw 1 Bob. The OI report was issued on March 7th that contained 2 the interview that we had with you.
3 D id yo u g ive B rook s G r i f fin tho se name s in that 4 interview?
Yes, I believe I did.
5 MS. VIETTI: Okay. We have a copy o f that.
6 MR. MASTERSON:
March 7 o f what year?
' 7 8
Let's see. I le ft there in '82. That 9 would probably be '81. That incident occurred in the valve 10 room.
11 MR. MASTERSON: Which valve room?
Let's see. Should have been the lower 12 13 valve room on Reactor 1.
14 MR. MASTERSON: Can you tell me which elevation 15 that was?
[C No , I can't right now. I f I was back 16 17 up there -- it's been 2-1/2 years.
~ ~ ' ~
i MR. MASTERSON: Okay.
I 18 is this the only incidence o f this l 19 20 occurrence that ou can recall?
21 There was another occurrence where arc 22 gouging was going on in the same room with welding.
MR. MASTERSON:
Concrete chipping and welding j
23 24 together?
Well, it's the same thing. It's a 25
._ .._i, _ _Z.;Z __. _ _ ._,___.~_...s.... TTi : _ _ . , ..._..._.__.....m.<aL.._.
- l 8
0680 01 07 f
4 LOUbw I source o f contamination.
2 This occurred in the North Valve Room in Auxiliary 3 B uilding, Reactor 2.
4 MR. MASTERSON: Okay. I think I know where that 5 is.
6 Did you witness that occurrence also?
7 Yes. So did all the welders.
8 MR. MASTERSON: Can you give me some names?
9
- MR. GALL: I could. The welder's name at that Whether 10 time was 11 he's there now, I don *t know. He's fron>
(C 12 MR. MASTERSON: Mr. Miles, you indicated, if we go 13 back to the first occurrence that took place in the lower 14 valve room o f Reactor Building 1 --
15 Right.
16 MR. MASTERSON: You had indicated that CQ l 17 eventually stoped the work in process?
18 Yes.
19 MR. MASTERSON: How long a fter both operations 20 were going on did the CQ stop the operation?
21 Let's see. He stopped that operation 22 while it as going on, while the weld was going on. I wa s i
f 23 there when they started to cut the piece o f pipe. I don't i
24 know if, you know, that was continued or not. I assume it, 25 since there was a pipe general foreman there.
L l
, ',. ..a ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . .
. . .. - - . . . . . . . . . - . . u a . ..u. . a .u i
- l I :
l i
9 0680 01 08 i
LOUbw' 1 MR. MASTERSON: What my question really is, do you i '2 know if this was going on for five minutes or two hours 3 be fore CQ stopped it?
4 Approximately one hour.
MR. MASTERSON: Okay. Well, based upon what we I 5 l 6 have reviewed so far, and the fact we had no names of I
I 7 welders we could interview to substantiate your allegations, 8 the conclusion we have reached is that we could not
- b. 9 substantiate your allegations, but we also pointed out that .
l 10 since CO was aware o f the operation and stopped the 1
4 11 o pe ration, that the CQ system was, in fact , working.
12 I understand.
MR. MASTERSON: On that, I don't have any more 13 14 questions or anything else to say.
15 MS. VIETTI: Okay.
I 16 We're going to be looking into this, based on the 17 additional in formation that we got from 18 I s th'at~ correct 7 Bob?
19 MR. MASTERSON: That 's correct.
20 21 22 23 24 25
g-
'~
l 10 l
0680 02 01 few more questions,
, I ' d like to a sk a 1
LOU /bc 2 i f I may .
Sure.
MS. VIETTI:
3 let me tell you, if you're thinking 4 in formation that we have 5
we're completed with 'giving you the We still have three other 6 investigated, we have not.
7 concerns to address to you.
Okay. I'd like to ask you some 8
I thought about several times and I 9 additional points that that knows, and never have had an opportunity to ask anyone 10 11 probably they know. someone I would like to ask you probably because 12 to my question.
13 on the end. o f this line may know the answer Okay. Go ahead.
14 MS. VIETTI: In five years.
I worked out there 15 Hal f o f tho se year s 16 fact, a little bit over five years. I have never, were associated with site-related subjects.
17 le ft that fac i.lity ,
1G unti.1 about two or three monthsI awouldn' fter I t know him or in spector .
19 I had never seen an NRC Now if His name wa s Taylor -- T-a-y-1-o-r .
20 anyone else. why did I not see 21 NRC was doing its job all those years, 22 him? f I can't tell you right now what the I 23 MS. VIETTI: f Bob Taylor is no longer at the l 24 situation was at that time. f There are other resident t 25 Comanche Peak plant site. f 1
I f
f i
i I
..-....--.: ..a. . . . - . . . . . . . . . a. .. . .- a ..w. .i . . L. ~ w .
1 1 -
i
'I, 11 f 0680 02 02 s
LOU /bc 1 inspectors that have taken over that po sition.
2 Well, is there an investigation 1 3 concerning Cutter, concerning any improprieties?
a 4 MS. VIETTI: To be per fectly hone st, I do not know 5 if there is or not.
6 Well, you know, to me, it was very 7 suspicious that a man didn't show up to inspect the very 8 crit ical points. I f that was his job, I didn't see him for 9 five years. And I was wondering about that.
10 So my real question is this. I suppo se , on top o f
't
- 11 everything else, why hasn' t this been done -- this level o f investigational inspection -- up to this point?
12 You realize there's been thousands of welds run
/][C) l3 14 and OC obviously wasn't doing its job up until now. I mean, 15 100 percent of what it could have done. Now why is that?
/
1 1 16 MS. VIETTI: Well, I have to tell you, the Nuclear i
17 Regulatory Commission does not in spect 100 percent of the a
l 18 plant. We inspect a very small percentage o f the plant and h 19 we have to rely on the applicant to carry out the h 20 commitments that they have made to the Nuclear Regulatory 21 Commission. ,
22 I understand. I understand that you I !
23 don't have the personnel to do that with.
a 24 MS. VIETTI: Correct.
R 25 But, surely, the se people that are P
..a.--... .. - -. .-.......c...L. .. . : .-- , .. x, ,u., , .. : a J. k ::.i M s.n D I
~
l 0680 02 03 12 i
LOU /bc 1 building that plant, the QC that represents the client and 2 also the builder, they should be up to a certain criteria.
l 3 Wouldn't you agree with that?
i 4 MS. VIETTI: Yes. The applicant has committed to 5 certain procedure and quality assurance, a quality control 6 program, which they have to abide by. And, i f, indeed, they 7 are not abiding by it and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in 8 their investigation, find s fault with that, we would cite 9 them for it and give them a violation for not carrying out 10 commitments made to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
11 I see. That's very good. I suppo se
.C 12 that's all my questions. I would like to make a sugge stion 13 though for the bene fit o f this State, because this is my 14 home state. I have been here all my life. My families have 15 all been here since 1821 and this is my major concern. The 16 plant itself may be a source o f contamination and I'd like 17 to make a suggestion if I may, that I would like to see some 18 agency, pre ferrably not governmental, someone that has some 19 integrity of longstanding, monitor the levels o f 20 radioactivity on that lake and Squaw Creek and also the 21 mouth o f Squaw Creek where it runs into the Brazos River.
22 In case something doe s happen there, I'd like to have a 23 reliable source monitoring that. That 's my sugge stion.
24 MS. VIETTI: Okmy. I can tell you that the 25 Nuclear Regulatory Commission does do the monitoring that
a--. --- - - . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . ;~ .u . > : , . w i.s: . ;..u.. a w = .
h I 0600 02 04 13 LOU /bc 1 you are speaking o f. However, I understand that you would f
1 i
2 hope that someone else besides us would do that?
3 Well, the reason I say that, is
- 4 because 1. have two prior re ferences to your personnel. One a
5 o f them is Taylor and the other is Brooks Grif fin. I don't 6 think I would want that type o f individual monitoring that 7 and be responsible for reporting the levels of radioactivity 8 within those waterways.
9 MS. VIETTI: I understand what you're saying. I 10 believe that Westman has explained to you the level of 11 people that we have involved in this technical review team NC) 12 and it has come to our attention that there were several 13 people with concerns on Comanche Peak. And that's why the l 1
14 Executive Director for Operations put together this task 15 fo rce , and over 50 highly technical people to work down at 16 the plant site and be there, and not only at paper, talk to 17 peo ple , look at the actual hardware, et cetera.
18 That's reassuring to a certain point.
19 You understand I have a little bit o f skepticism along those 20 lines.
21 MS. VIETTI: I understand fully. Would you like 22 us to continue to go over the other three concerns that you 23 raised?
24 Yes.
25 y. VIETTI: Okay. Bob Hubbard, would you li.ke to
\
..:.._.._-.-.~,..: .. ~ ~. a :. . . .'. a:. . w :LL .a.:.i.t b : ..c:.d.t: .. . . :.2 , x i
?
14 0680 02 05 LOU /bc 1 continue?
2 MR. HUBBARD: Yes. This is Bob Hubbard speaking.
[f 1.
3 you remember that Dick Westman and I came out to your 4 home and talked to vou one day?
5 Yes, I remember it quite well.
L 6 MR. HUBB ARD: Particularly the subject that I 3
~
7 investigated, Stan, was the comment that you mentioned was j
j 8 made one morning at a sa fety meeting by the welding foreman l
l 9 when you and the welders were altogether, that two o f the i
i 10 welders had been burning 206 rods a day -- 240, as I recall 3
4 11 the number -- and if the other welders didn't get going and
{
.4
'Kc ) 12 start burning at least 200, why, then there would be some k
}
13 re percu s sion s.
14 Yes.
15 MR. HUBBARD: Well, I stepped into that, and
} 16 here's what I found . You mentioned at the time that this
!- had occurred during the winter of 1981, as I recall --
17 18 I believe that's correct.
19 MR. HUBBARD: And, sometime during the
]
20 w intertime _. So I went and chose a week -- actually, it 21 almost amounted to two weeks -- during a period from
) 22 December 5th to December 17th and I went into the weld 23 record for Patterson and Shackle ford, the two fellows you i
1 24 had mentioned.
25 Right.
l
.. , . . . _ . . . ~m...;. .3 . _. . ~ . ~ . u. .a . 1, . c . L . :. . .. i!. ...J.16.. L.,.a ; L. 1u: , .,. a ... . L L < . . .. . . .. .. .. -
1 l
15 0680 02 06 1 MR. HUBBARD: And tracked down what they had been LOU /bc 2 doing during that period o f time.
3 Yes.
4 MR. HUBB ARD: And now the period was just 5 arbh.trarilychosen. You know, mid-winter, somewhere along 6 in December-January, so I had no particular reason for 7 choosing that time. It happened that during that time they 8 were working on some pipe whip restraints. The welds that 9 they were working on were both fillet welds and full 10 penetration weld s.
l 11 I had a real difficult time finding what 12 Shackle ford was doing during that time. There were two or 13 three days that he had withdrawn, oh, 15 or 20 rods, but the i 14 rest o f the time he must have been doing fitup work, or 15 something li.ke that, 16 B ut I did find a fairly complete record o f 17 Patterson and the rods he had worked on.
18 Yes.
19 MR. HUBBARD: And it varied from -- well, there 20 was one day when he withdrew two rods and the most he had 21 done was 124 on one shift.
22 All right. If you'11 let me inject 23 something in the conversation here, I am going through the 24 address book I have right here on the paper in front o f me.
25 This is the general foreman at the time. He can tell you 1
n _ , .:.' , a. , _ . , ,.;. ;; 2._ u,. .;
__ , -_ I l
l i .
I J ,
lI 16 W 0680 02 07 4 .
1 about these events. He may be more closely associated with LOU /bc this as far as the time is concerned. They help you to 2
l- 3 check that date. He may know this.
l 4 MR. HUBBARD: h.et me get back to you for a t
B 1 5 second. Now, the foreman was the welding foreman that made 6 this statement?
7 No, it wa s the superintendant.
8 MR. HUBBARD: It was the superintendant and the 9 general foreman was above the superintendant?
10 No. He was right beneath him.
11 MR. HUBBARD: He's right beneath the super?
]
12 Yes.
13 MR. HUBBARD: Was he at the meeting?
14 Yes.
15 MR. HUBBARD: Okay.
16 Everyone in our department was there, 17 leaving out absentee s.
j 18 MR. HUBBARD: Okay.
19 The welders at the time can tell you They were all, you know, pre sent. Let me get
! 20 about that.
il The name is t
i 21 this address here o f the general foreman.
22
!! 23 MR. HUBBARD: Is he still working there, 24 No, he 's in 25 MR. HUBBARD: Do you have his phone number?
. . . . . . . . .. -. . , . . . .. . . . . i. . . . c.:3. .x ~ .- : a . . - - an. 1..- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .
1 .
0680 02 08 17 LOU /bc 1 Yes, I do. If I can find the thing.
2 I have several cards here. He gave me a card not too long
) 3 ago. One second, please, and I can check my files here.
4 ( A pause. )
5 Here it is:
6 MR. HUBBARD:
7 Right.
8 MR. HUBBARD:
9 Right.
10 MR. HUBBARD:
p 11 That 's correct.
12 /
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 i
20
! 21 22 23 24 25 i
A i
i
. a u . .. . c_l . a a . C . l n,::; , g_ ,. ,_ , ;; ,_. , .. .. . , _ , , , _,
d 18 0680 03 01 1 MR. HUBBARD: Okay. Let me go on a 1ittle bit LOU /bc l 2 beyond what I have already told you and tell you some other E 3 things that I ran across.
4 All right.
! 5 MR. HUBBARD: It's understandable to me anyway
' 6 why, you know, a general foreman might, as you say, 7 encourage welders to increase their output. That 's part o f 8 his job, to get as much work as he can out o f people.
9 Let me explain something to you. I l
10 think you're misunderstanding something there because 11 the general foreman, knew his business. He l 12 knew that was a ' mistake.
f' ,
13 MR. HUBBARD: Well, yeah --
1 14 The superintendant didn't know his 15 business and that's why he made the mistake.
16 MR. HUBBARD: You mean in making the statement?
17 Yes.
18 MR. HUBBARD: I won't argue that-point. My point 19 is this. That we don' t really know that Shackle ford and 20 Patterson did actually burn 240 rods a day. It may be that 21 the foreman exaggerated what they were doing to set a higher 22 goal than he knew the other welders could meet in an attempt to get them to produce some more. This is a possible. You i 23 24 know, I haven't found any in formation --
25 I understand --
.. s . .;. , .__;,_,c ,,),,,_,,____ ,_
~
i .
19 0680 03 02 d,
1 MR. HUBBARD: --on that many rod s.
l LOU /bc 2 I can see why you would arrive at the 3 conclusion but I was there at the time.
4 MR. HUBBARD: But, you see, even if you are there 5 and heard it -- I'm not saying you didnt hear that, l
l 6 at all. All I'm saying is that there is no evidence that we i 7 can find that Shackle ford and Patterson actually did do what 8 the foreman said they were doing. You know, they could be l
9 burning 150 and he'd say, "Well, they're burning 240," to 10 set a higher goal that people could reach. But my point is 11 that it may be that when I found that one of them was j 12 burning 124, under the circumstances, doing the type o f weld i f} C.* 13 that they were doing, that might have been pretty good. And 14 so the foreman used the higher figure , which may or may not t
15 have been true.
16 Yes.
17 MR. HUBB ARD: You know, just to encourage other 18 people to go on. But the main point I found in
. 19 investigating the whole thing was that, as you and I 20 discussed that day, you indicated that this action o f people i 21 in trying to increase their output, causing hotter rods, I 22 hotter welds, and the resulting warpage in the place and the 23 light that you described to us that day, was caught 24 presumably by OC. And, as a result o f being caught, the
< 25 practice was stopped a fter two or three weeks. You told me
_ _ _ _ -. - - . -: _:.u.
= w:. 9s..:.x; . aa _. .. .w..... . . .-. u.._.. a .- : - - . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . ..
0680 03 03 20 LOU /bc 1 there was another meeting of the welders only and they were 2 told, " Hey, slow down, we're getting too many rejections 3 being picked up by QC. " l 4 Right.
5 MR. HUBBARD: My point that I get from that is 6 that the QC system was working, that pre sumably, and from 7 what I can find and there were no noncon forming items as a 8 result o f this threat.
9 This incident?
[ 10 MR. HUBBARD: Yes.
11 Okay.
12 MR. HUBBARD: So when we look at the overall 13 scene, Stan, in terms o f what e f fect this threat -- I gue ss 14 you could call it -- on the sa fety o f the plant, I find that 15 what you mentioned ritay or may not have occurred. I don't 16 think you, you know, it may or may not. I can't find it 17 unle ss I tal}. to other people, and like, Mr. Ted Ferga and 18 the 1ike, and even if=we did, I find no sa fety signi.ficance 19 resulted from this threat.
20 And this is how it all boils down to the bottom l 21 line, hat I find in looking at the whole thing.
l 22 I understand that.
i l 23 MR. HUBB ARD :' You know, I can't --
24 What you're saying is you can't find 25 any evidence that would verify my story.
.. . x. . .a m 2. . . . . _ _. _ _ _.. . . i ._Z ,1 _ , _ _ , 1 ._ ,, .,, , , ,_, , ,_ ,,
I 1
21 ;
l 0600 03 04 )
4 1 MR. HUBBARD: No. I can't find any evidence that l LOU /bc l 2 would verify your story, and I can't find any evidence that
- 3 wouldn't verify your story.
4 I can understand that viewpoint and I l 5 understand it's also taken by a lot o f governmental J
6 agencies.
- 7 MR. HUBBARD: Well --
8 And that's it.
' The point o f it is, if the QC 9 MR. HUBBARD:
10 picked up the items that were being done incorrectly --
11 Then you're saying they picked them 12 all up?
I have no choice but to do that. I 13 MR. HUBBARD:
14 have no choice, because I don' t know o f any that 15 weren't picked up or any evidence there ere any le ft over 16 a fterward .
17 Okay. Let me give you two phone 18 numbers and it will take something like 30 minutes for you 19 to run a recheck on this, if you don' t mind.
20 MR. HUBBARD: Are they going to tell me 21 specifically name items that had gotten by QC7 22 I don't know what they're going to say 23 but I know they'll tell you the truth. I worked with them 24 for five years.
25 MR. HUBB ARD: Hey, now listen, I'm not w
Ji 2.1 &.:. ... . ..a....- ...w......c...~....-: .. x - . .- . . . . .i w -.:....~.. .
i l
l 22 0680 03 05 LOU /bc 1 denying that what you heard -- that you didn't hear what you 2 heard.
3 Yes.
4 MR. HUBBARD: I'm saying that even if you did hear 5 it, there was no sa fety factor.
6 I understand that.
7 MR. HUBBARD: That was the result.
f I understand that and I can understand 8
9 your viewpoint. But you have to understand one thing. Bear 10 in mind this one factor. And that is that I knew the men 11 that made the statements and' I also knew the men that were h12 doing the welding.
MR. HUBBARD: I can't argue that point with you, 13 15 F ine . Fine.
16 MR. HUBB ARD: The only thing I can say is that 17 supposing I do find -- and it's very possible I wi.ll when I
~
-- 1 8 ~ itialk to nd the others and they agree with what you 19 say. I don't see where that's going to change my final 20 conclusion.
That's fine. That's fine. I 21 Okay.
22 just want you to know I'm telling you the truth.
23 MR. HUBBARD: I didn't ever deny that you weren't, want to make sure you do.
25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .- .-...-. -. .a..;_ .., . , .. . .. .. . . , . . . . . . . . , . . - .
1
.i
,1 1
0680 03 06 23 LOU /bc 1 MR. HUBBARD: Rest assured, I believe you are 2 telling the truth.
3 Thank's. There are a couple o f names I want -- names and phone numbers I want you to take down so p 4 I
- i 5 that at least I have done my part about it, if you want to, i 6 MR. HUBBARD: Ab solutely, Let's have them.
7 This fellow still works cut there.
8 He 's a welder. The name is lj 9 MR. HUBBARD: A welder out there on the site now, 10 11 Yes. He lives in l-13 MR. HUBBARD: You say you had another one, 14 Yes. This welder i 15 l
i 16 l
17 MR. HUBBARD: Okay. ,
18 MS. VIETTI: Okay. I thitik we can go on to the f
19 other two concerns that our people here investigated.
L 20 MR. HUBBARD: This is how. We're finished, right?
21 MS. VIETTI: Yes. You can hang up if you like.
l 22 No, wait a minute. Let me make sure with 23 24 are you complete with any comments for 25 those two gentlemen? ,
1
. . . . . . - ~ . - . - . . . .....-.--.a.-a........ . . . . - . . . . - . . . - ..- -
0680 03 07 24 LOU /bc 1 fe s.
2 MS. VIETTI: Okay.
l 3 Now I have with me Shannon Pillips.
4 MR. PHILLIPS: Hello, I'm Shannon 5 Phillips, Senior Resident Inspector at Comanche back in 6 January.
7 I see.
8 MR. PHILLIPS: And I worked on the water for the 9 ta sk force . So I didn't arrive on site until around June 10 the 18th o f '84, and I participated in working on this team.
11 Yes. ,
12 MR. PHILLIPS: Two engineers worked on your 1 13 concern and your concern basically was that failure to 14 follow procedures and generally poor workmanship on the 15 plar crane resulted in improper shimming and installation.
16 -
Yes.
17 MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. To give you just a little 18 bit o f background, another inspector -- another NRC resident 19 inspector -- had worked on this prior to our looking at it, 20 but we looked at it again.
21 Okay.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. Basically, in January o f 23 ' 84, Mr. Jim Cumming s, who also reported to the site as a 24 senior construction representative or inspector, inspected 25 your concerns in January o f '84.
, _ _ - - r._ ._
-. c
.,_.~ , . . . .....;_.~ -
-- . ,4.._ .. n. . a._.. ...
4 ._ ....a........
b
~
25 0680 03 08
~
1 Yes.
LOU /bc 2 MR. PHILLIPS: And, as a result, he substantiated 3 the fact that some o f the polar crane shims had in . fact been 4 cut o f f.
5 Thank you.
6 x MR. PHILLIPS: Also, he wrote a violation for 7 failtire to 'have quality control inspectors involved with the 8 installation o f the se shims. And this is documented in 9 Inspection Rcport 84'08, which is in a public document room
~
10 by now, I believe. As a result, the licensee has, of
](C) 11 course, gone back, done insrections and taken substantial 12 corrective action. 'And, o f course, whenever I go on a site, 13 we are asked to take another look at this from the task 14 force standpoint so it sort o f has been looked at a couple 15 or three times.
16 Good.
17 MR. PHILLIPS: And in our going out and looking, 18 we indeed found that, as in Mr. Cummings' re port, he stated 13 that there were come gaps that had been exceeded, or that 20 was an unresolved item in his particular report, and some o f l 21 the methodo).cgy on the welding shims in place, he had also
( .
l 22 questioned.
23 So it was that in formation , Mr. Corbett, who was 24 an engineer from EG and G&I -- went out and physically 25 inspected the polar crane again, 14-9-84 -- and, ba sically ,
Y.
l l
l
....._..._.m._,_.. . . _ . . . i... . _ _ . . ...m .. ..._... . , _ . ...m . - . . . . __A 0680 03 09 26 LOU /bc 1 we observed everything to be okay. There were still some 2 gaps. They had not completed all the work relative to the 3 gaps. On the vertical shims, you have two thing s. You have 4 the vertical shims that go up and down.
5 Yes.
6 MR. PHILLIPS: And then there's the plat form that 7 is tied in that has an embedment that is called a horizontal 8 shimming where your polar crane rail sit s down on it.
9 Yes.
10 MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. What we found, he went out 11 and looked at the top and found something. And so when we 12 went out we also found several o f the 28 crane girder 13 support brackets that had gaps other than such that the gaps 14 extended back up under the bearing sur face where your plates 15 and your rail crane sits.
16 We went back and met with the representatives of 17 TUCO and asked their engineers, you know, show us --
18 demonstrate to us why that's okay.
l 19 And we found out that there was no specification 20 relative to whether there should be a gap or not a gap under j 21 the bearing sur face of your crane rail. So they did, 22 however, produce a letter from G ib son, Hill Design Engineers 23 that said: Okay, it's okay if you have gaps under there so
(
24 long as they don't extend under the 20-inch bearing sur face 25 area.
4 3,
. w a a . :. cL . . . _ :
^'...^. .u' u.:--. L- .,.'~.L- -. ..... .-.- . . .. z . .. L L .= .w -.: =d * '+ : u -
27 Q680 03 10 1 Well, we found in a number o f instances that they LOU /bc 2 did extend under them, and we're going to ask the applicant 3 to do an evaluation and their engineers should do an 4 evaluation and tell us why that's okay, even though there is 5 no current requirement one way or another.
6 We want an evaluation to make sure that's okay.
7 And that's one thing we found .
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 d
.w :.c : a w .a 0680 04 01 28
^
LOUbw 1 I understand what you said, and there 2 are two other things. One is that I know that the polar 3 crane is being devaluated in lifting capacity.
4 Since they have done the major lifts with that, 5 since that time, since the time the polar crane incident 6 came into view, they have devaluated the rating on that li ft 7 on the polar crane, and I also recall that they use a polar 8 crane to launch into a choker that was secured around a 9 stainless pipe, in order to make the fit up, you know, that 10 was going through the wall of the reactor itself. And that 11 may be a result o f putting that strain on it, you know, this 12 nonbearing sur face you' re re ferring to.
13 MS. VIETTI: let me address that one 14 brie fly . I was not involved directly with that, but I have 15 seen that issue was being looked at by our Staff at NRR back 16 at headquarters, and we wrote a sa fety evaluation report on 17 the derating o f the crane. It is fairly normal practice 18 that the crane initially is used to make the heavy loads 19 during construction, and once those heavy loads have been 20 completed, it is fairly routine for the utility, in general, 21 to derate their polar crane, in order to -- because the 22 heavier loads, they would be lifting at the construction 23 would be the reactor vessel head and assembly, et cetera.
24 So it's not unusual for them to derate the polar 1
i 25 crane a fter those heavy loads o f construction are l
l l
l
. . . .~. . . . ~ ~ . .. :.. . .=a. _ ::. u -.u. .& . . a.....
1 i
i 1
29 l 0680 04 02 LOUbw 1 completed.
. 2 I understand that.
J 3 MS. VIETTI: Okay.
I 4 MR. PHILLIPS: This is Shannon Phillips again.
5 I would like to continue on the other thing we l
1 j 6 found , in terms of the polar crane rails, is that there has 1-7 been some movement o f the rail and also the gaps between the
$ 8 end two and rails are supposed to be three-eighth inch l 9 nominal gap there, i
10 I recall that on the print.
11 MR. PHILLIPS: And we found that the gap varied r -
12 anywhere from 000 to .857. We' re also going to'a sk the 13 Applicant to address this in the same evaluation back to us 14 to demonstrate just why this should not be corrected, or if s
- 15 it makes a dif ference or whatever, from an engineering i
16 stand point .
17 I recall fitting the clips on that 18 originally, and I also recall fitting the additional clips l1 on that polar crane. I believe it was a two or three piece l
19 t
i 20 clip to alleviate that problem. Obviously, it hasn' t done k I was wondering about that, you know, but I don't 1 21 that.
22 know what has been done.
23 I thank you, Mr. Phillips, for telling me about 24 that, because I wondered about that.
25 MR. PHILLIPS: The other thing we found is that
-- u. . . . . . . . . . _ _ , ,_ ,, _ ,
30 l 0680 04 03 LOUbw 1 the two rail shin s, the plates had partially worked out from 2 under the rail. Al so , a fter we did two or three locations 3 o f this thing -- we looked it over as well as we could. I 4 mean, we really scrutinized the thing.
5 Very good.
6 MR. PHILLIPS: We also went and talked to the 7 polar crane operator because sometime s you can' t always see i
l 8 the fore st for the tree s, so to speak, and we asked him if 9 he knew of any additional problems, et cetera, from an l 10 operations standpoint, and he stated that as far a s he wa s l
l 11 concerned, the crane was operating satis factorily, and he 12 knew o f no apparent problem.
13 Do you recall the name o f that 14 operator?
MR. PHILLIPS: I can retrieve it perha ps. I don't 15 16 know whether I can retrieve it in the time we have allotted 17 here.
18 I understand that.
19 MR. PHILLIPS: We documented the conversation 20 somewhere.
21 Let me look just for a quick second, and I'll tell 22 you.
(Pause.)
23 24 MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you what. I'll come back 25 to this. I'll try to find it and get the name for you.
=
l 9
i t
l l
.. . . . . _ _ _ . .._._ _,_ 1. : . s ._ .-:; - , w ...' ,, . ; .m . - . .._.._a....--
B 4
31
, 0680 04 04 LOUbw 1 The reason I'm asking the question is 2 this. I know mo st o f -- well, I know all the operators that 3 operate that crane for five year s, up until recently, and i
. 4 know of one of them to be a very competent operator. I 5 wanted to know if he was satisfied with it, if that was the 6 individual that made the comment that he was satisfied with it, because there have been so many problems prior to any 7
> 8 work being done on it. That's my reason for asking the 9 question.
10 MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we certainly will try to find 11 out, if that is the proper name, and I've got a large file g ( 12 here to go through, so I'll try to get the name for you I 13 be fore the conversation ends.
14 Thank you.
15 MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. In terms o f the things that j
i 16 we found about the polar crane, first o f all, I'd like to 17 state that the polar crane itself and the operation is not 18 sa fety-related ; that is, in the FSAR, it '. s rated._aJL L 19 nonsa fety, and the reason it is, ic 's not required for the 1
20 sa fe shutdown o f the plant. It's needed to per form certain 21 function s, including maintenance operation type things, but 22 as far as sa fe shutdown, it's not required; however, it is 23 rated Seismic Category I, which means that it would be a 24 problem if it fell down.
25 So from the standpoint o f Seismic Category I, the l
)
l i
a >a : a . . .- , .....a.~...~a.~-............-. .-
l 1
32 0680 04 05 LOUbw 1 thing s that we found , we concluded that the issues that were and generic 4 2 brought up had both sa fety significance 4
3 implications.
- 4 I understand that.
5 MR. PHILLIPS: And one violation has already been issued by the senior resident inspector. We will await l
, 6
' 7 the evaluations o f Texas Utilities Generating Company, and j
8 then a fter they come back to us, we will make a determination at that point as to whether they have violated I
i 9 10 some NRC criteria -- one of the 18 criteria or one o f their 11 procedure s.
i Right now, since they didn't have a specification, l 12 13 it doesn't look like they have a requirement to have a gap, 14 and so faorth, but if it's something that appears. to be f
i 15 a significant sa fety concern, we will issue a violation.
l Thank you. I appreciate your concern 16 17 and your checking in on that.
18 MR. PHILLIPS: You're welcome.
19 MS. VIETTI: Okay.
20 We have another individual here. His name is Ward 21 Smith, and he will discussing another concern.
MR. SMITH: can you hear me all right?
22
(
Just fine .
23 MR. SMITH: As Annette said, my name is Ward 24 25 Smith. I was assigned to Comanche Peak as the operations 1
l l
_ . _ - . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ ~ . _: . L. . . s. _ _ . a .. m.. ._... - ... ._ ._. .._ , s .w .
v 33 0680 04 06 LOUbw 1 re sident in January o f this year.
2 The concern that I looked at is the one that you
- 3 indicated on the diesel generator.
4 Yes.
MR. SMITH: What we have here is that you have 5
6 indicated that one o f the two Unit 1 diesel generators was 7 damaged in May o f 1982.
8 Yes.
f MR. SMITH: We have no more other specifics on 9
10 that. Just to see if I went down the right path here, can 11 you shed any more light on that?
Now this is what I was told, because I 12 j ,
13 initially went in to put up a monorail, MR. SMITH: The small rail that runs over the s
14 diesel for moving parts out and in?
j 15 16 Well, I had to take that one down and 17 put a larger one up to remove the diesel generator.
- - -~1-8 MR. . -SMITH : .Okay. .
19 The diesel generator was damaged by 20 incompe tency. The individual went in there and attached a 21 come-along into a field coil and pulled out the wire, and I 22 know that -- I talked to a general superintendent that wa s 23 over in the plant at the time, and he wasn't aware this is 24 what happened, and they turned it as being sabotaged.
25 MR. SMITH: Okay. So the damage you're talking
" .. ~ ;u= . :. . - ,-
~
- . . . . . . - . . . ~ . ...... ..:...~...-. . ....~. . - . . . .
i i
34 l, 0680 04 07 LOUbw 1 about wa s on the electric end -- the field coil o f the 2 generator itsel f?
3 That 's on the -- let's see -- on the
/ 4 reactor tube. It woul'd be on the east side.
- 5 MR. SMITH: You had indicated that it was on one f'
6 o f the Unit 1 diesels; is that not correct?
On Unit 1; that's correct. I'm 7
i
.i 8 sorry.
i
! 9 MR. SMITH: Okay.
I 10 Now do you remember if it was the one on the east C, 11 side or the west side of Unit 17 l
12 East side.
l I
t 13 MR. SMITH: East side. So that would be Train A.
14 And as I understand what you are saying now, is someone had 15 taken a come-along and latched it onto one o f the field 16 winding s o f the coil in the generator?
l 17 That's true.
18 MR. SMITH: And pulled on the monorail with that?
l 19 They pulled on, I believe, a housing 20 on the -- that was on the floor.
21 MR. SMITH: Okay. Well, let me mention something 22 to you. We did get o ff on the wrong +2 ack because we l
23 thought you were talking about some damage to the diesel l
1 24 engine its*1f.
25 No.
l r- -- --- - - - --
^
- .~ =
.2 . a.. ..a...........- . . - . . ~ - . .. :- .. . - . =.
f .
35 0680 04 08 However, in looking at this thing, we LOUbw 1 MR. SMITH:
so I think I might be 2 ended up looking at the whole works, f
3 able to alleviate your concern.
4 Okay.
5 MR. SMITH: I got into this diesel at the very f first assigned to 6 beginning o f this year, when I was 7 Comanche probably because I'm one o f the few people here 8 that has a diesel license.
9 I see.
MR. SMITH: That doesn' t make me an expert, but I 10 11 think I know one end o f a piston from anotner.
I bet you do.
12 13 MR. SMITH: And what had happened is, in 1983, in 4
at the Shoreham Nuclear Plant on Long Island, New 14 August, 15 York, one o f the crank sha fts from a diese1 made by the same 16 manufacturer broke in two during tFial.
17 Yes.
18 MR. SMITH: That brought about a big investigation 19 and the NRC called into question, the quality assurance 20 provisions that the manufacturer was making on these diesels
-- on all the diesels in the industry. Okay?
21 22 Right.
23 MR. SMITH: Now that manufacturer was 24 Transamerica DeLavalle. And there are 14 plants here in the 25 country that have that diesel, i. f I remember the number
- -~<-~ .-...n., .w. ._.._._ . , , _ _ _ , _
36 0680 04 09 LOUbw 1 correctly, and because there were so many plants involved, 2 Shoreham took the lead and developed what they call an 3 owners' group and they formed a large investigation to look 4 at all aspects of these diesel to see if they can, in fact, 5 be relied upon as a standby power source.
6 This investigation involved completely tearing A lot 7 down the two diesels on Unit 1 here at Comanche Peak.
8 o f nondestructive testing, such as x-ray o f a magniflux, dye 9 penetrant, visual.
10 You name it, they did it.
11 The diesel was then completely reassembled with a s 12 lot o f replacement pa rt s , because they did find some
}(C) 13 de fective pa rt s, and the manufacturer also had sent out 14 corre spondence saying that some o f their parts were in 15 question.
16 So those were replaced with a better quality, 17 better designed par t s.
18 So by the time they were finished with that thing, 19 both train A and train B o f the Unit 1 diesel had been 20 completely torn down and rebuilt.
21 I understand.
22 23 24 25 l
l
J.l..?~....L,...~.....~..,-.,..:..-...-.^........ . . . . . . . .. . . . .a. a. a.
0680 05 01 37 LOU /bc 1 MR. SMITH: Now, a fter that wa s done, I witnesses 2 a complete repeat of the preoperational test program for 3 thsoe diesels, which invo. , operating the generators 4 through all o f their paces.
5 Yes.
6 MR. SMITH: Now, that's a 6,900 volt generator.
7 Yes.
8 MR. SMITH: And I guarantee you, if those coils 9 were damaged in any way, they had to have been corrected; 10 otherwise, we would have had firework s.
11 Yes, I understand that. And I'm sure 12 they were corrected. What I'm saying, what I re fer to in my
, ) 13 previous discussion -- prior discussion -- was the fact that 14 there was an expenditure, a rewind on the electrical unit 15 generator that was in that building, and it was blamed on
~~
16 sabatoge when it was actually a coverup.
17 MR. SMITH: I see what you mean.
18 See what I mean?
19 MR. SMITH: Yes.
20 It was purposely done and the coverup, 21 o f course, was unknown to this general superintendant. Had 22 he known about it, he would have fired everyone, you know, 23 implicated in it. What they did was secure their job by 24 saying that they hadn't had anyone in there, that it was 25 sabatoged. But that is what I'm saying, that it was a big
.. :...,. . . . . . . _ _ . , . _ . . . . . . . _ _ , . _ . . , . , _ .. . ., ,1_ 1_,, L , , ,_ i l_~ ,_ .i .] ] ,
i l
i 0680 05 02 38 LOU /bc 1 coverup.
4 2 MR. SMITH: Okay. So, in other words, the people
' that had done this stupid thing, you might say, by tying a 3
- 4 come-a-long arc to an electrical winding, they didn' t want g .
5 to get disciplined?
6 That's right. l j 7 MR. SMITH: Okay.
8 That's right.
! 9 MR. SMITH: Now, were these structural people, h welders and fitters, or mechanics? What kind o f people were j
10 11 they?
12 Well, it was a particularly designated 13 group called the Bull Gang -- B-u-1-1 G-a-n-g.
14 MR. SMITH: Okay.
j 15 And their primary function at that 16 plant site was to move panels, heavy objects and transfer
.)
17 them down those hallways and place them in position.
l 18 MR. SMITH: Okay.
19 And this individual was sent into this j 20 diesel generator room to relocate something in that room, s
$ 21 and he attached the hook o f that come-a-long into that field l
,! 22 coil.
b h 23 MR. SMITH: Okay. The fact that --
24 I know what the problem wa s. He t 25 reported the damage to his foreman. His foreman realized
. ,.2, - - - . . .
. - . . - . . . . . . - . . - . . . . = . . . .. ..-.-....~..av.=.-.. : a. :w 0680 05 03 39 LOU /bc 1 and he talked it over with the general foreman and also the 2 superintendant. They realized that i f the truth came to 3 light, they wouldn't have a job, so they turned it in or let 4 them find it on the -- the Millwrights are the one that 5 found it. They just put their hands in their pocket, so to 6 speak, and walked away and the Millwrights, who were l
l 7 responsible for that diesel generator, found it within six 8 weeks a fter the damage had been done.
9 They, in turn, turned it into the general 10 supe r intendant, who was over them, and, o f course, it was 11 written up as sabatoge. But the problem there was a 12 coverup. It wasn't worrying about the diesel generator on 13 my part. I don't know how that became so con fused.
14 MS. VIETTI: I think the fact that since this 15 ha ppened, as we were reading one o f your interviews, we 16 sa id , " Hey, doe s this have a technical concern?" "Should we 17 worry about this diesel?"
18 I think that that worry was warranted.
19 MS. VIETTI: Okay.
20 Because, needless to say, if they were 21 capable of damaging that generator, they could have easily 22 damaged the motor just as well. They could have poured 23 something into an intake or, you know -- I mean, it's 24 po s sible . ,
25 MR. SMITH: Okay. So your concern is primarily is i l
..._..m...; ,_;,_,,,
-- - ~ . ~ . . . . . - . _,, , . ,
4 6
40 0680 05 04 function? Can we LOU /bc 1 that diesel generator going to perform its 2 rely on that?
True.
3 4 MR. SMITH: Okay. We feel that because o f the l
l 5 extensive teardown -- and I had my hand down in their started
! 6 crankcase, and every other piece o f equipuent that 7 that diesel -- in fact , both o f them. I have no reason to 8 believe that there is any problem with the reliability 9 stand point.
Well, since it has been tested, 10 s
I 11 neither have I.
)
MR. SMITH: And not only tested but the NRC was 12 4'
there every day. That was my little task.
13 I'll tell you what. I appreciate that
! 14 15 because you're one o f the few that I've run into that's done 16 such a thing.
l MR. SMITH: Okay.
/ 17 Thank you.
18 Is there anything else you have about
' 19 MR. SMITH:
20 it, or a question?
l That 's fine.
21 MR. SMITH: Okay. Thank you for your time.
22 l all of the MS. VIETTI: Let me tell you, 23 I
i 24 concerns that you raised, we are doing a OC evaluation on 25 them and we are going to be writing them up and putting them
[
o
~
l 41 0'680 05 05 j
}
LOU /bc 1 in a sa fety evaluation report which the NRC sta f f is going 4
2 to be issuing, along with several other individual concerns 3 from other people. And it's going to be available in in the 16
- 4 January -- approximately January -- and it will be U
) 5 public document room of the NRC, and we can make a copy a
6 available to you as well as a copy of this transcript, if 4
7 you would like it.
8 I would appreciate that.
MS. VIETTI: Okay. Let me tell you, somebody just I 9 10 brought to my attention -- it was Shannon Phillips -- had 11 located the name of the polar crane operator and hif name 12 wa C
He wasn't the one that I 13 I know that.
] ,
j 14 was talking about. He is a more recent operator.
MS. VIETTI: Okay. Who was the person you were 1 15 H
16 talking about?
q 17 Let's see. I believe it's -- let me j
6 18 think o f his name.
L 19 ( A pause. )
1 20 It was just prior to this fellow because he was 21 running for several years there. I can' t think o f his name right now. I know if I heard it, I would remember it.
1 I 1 22 23 knew him quite well at the time and one o f the -- well, I
$ 24 know the old rigger on that rig on that polar crane. His 25 name is d
.L
~
\ ~.....:..... . . . . . . . . . . .. l 'l.l,. -- : . . .. . . . .l~u . a .~ . 'ifl Tidkhil. LEE:3 '
l 0680 05 06 42 LOU /bc 1 MS VIETTI: Okay.
2 And I have known him quite well for 3 several years. He's fro 4 MS. VIETTI: Okay.
5 And I would, you know, really 6 appreciate what he had to say about it because he's been the 7 rigger on that since the polar crane went into place.
8 MS. VIETTI: Okay.
9 That's the one to check with if you 10 want to check with someone. I think' is kin to some 11 o f the powers that are within the rigging department.
Okay.
]12 MS. VIETTI:
13 You understand what I'm saying?
14 MS. VIETTI: Yes, I know what you're saying.
15 He would be patronizing, to say the l 16 least.
17 MS. VIETTI: Shannon Phillips is down at the plant 18 site every day so he can look into that and talk to the l
19 individual, if possible, if he's still at the plant.
20 Okay, that sounds really good.
21 MS. VIETTI: Okay. I feel, from the comments that 22 you have made and, understandably, I know you have been 23 contacted by several individuals, and you may have been 24 disillusioned with the NRC from time to time, but I want you 25 to know that we are taking into consideration your concerns l
l
. - , _ . .. . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . .. . . . . . .. u __v 1 , ,
. 2.2. . .;;.. x.: ..ka . : :L _: ma i
I 1 1 I
i 43 l 0680 05 07 LOU /bc 1 and, where appro priate, where your concerns are identi fied, 2 some inconsistencies, we are having Texas Utilities look at those things such as the shtms, et cetera. And, you know, 1 3 4 provide corrective action on that particular concern.
5 There's no animosity between me and 6 yourself and not even with NRC. I just feel like some o f
.I.
7 the personnel were negligent and let me say I really 8 appreciate your delving into this and giving it a thorough in s pection . I think it's belated. However, I think it's 9
10 not any fault o f your own.
11 MS. VIETTI: I think you're per fectly correct.
'N 12 Like I said, this team was dedicated to sa fety and that's 13 what we went in there to find out. Whether the concerns 14 that have been raised today and in the past years were 15 concerns, would' create a sa fety problem at that plant.
16 Yes.
17 MS. VIETTI: Okay. Do you have anything further 18 to add for the record?
19 Just one thing. The intake area o f 20 the sa fety reservoir, the supplementary reservoir, you know, 21 where the intake is?
22 MS. VIETTI: Our inspectors are acknowledging yes, 23 they do.
24 At one o f the breaker waters there, 25 one o f the gateways for the intake on the eastern side, D
~ - ' '
i . ._ _ ..___.._:. . ..._. '. 1, a.. . La <. .. '. .e.: . . .,a .a M ; : e..:;.J.X;;.a.cza_ _
44 0680 05 08 LOU /bc 1 there is a spring o f water that flows into that lake. I was 2 there when we built that particular structure.
3 A spring o f water flow s from the turbine auxillary 4 area and, of course, they couldn't shut it o ff. It flows a 5 lot of water from beneath that structure and that has always 6 been a concern to me. My concern has been contamination o f 7 water by radioactivity and I can understand that, of course, 8 that spring is probably filtered through several feet o f 9 limestone, but, as I said previously, there should be at 10 least three check stations for the presence o f 11 radioactivity. Probably, that sur face water reservoir would 12 be another side since the spring flow s from that area.
13 That's the only additional in formation that I 14 have.
MS. VIETTI: Okay. Just for the record, have you 15 16 given this statement to us today freely and voluntarily?
17 Completely .
18 MS. VIETTIt Okay. Let me ask you, do you have an
. _xxr -
19 address that we can send this information to you -- our 20 sa fety evaluation and a copy o f the transcript?
21 Yes, I do.
22 23 MS. VIETTI: Okay. we will send that out 24 to you when the transcript becomes available to us. And, 25 like I said, we will have completed our sa fety evaluation 1
/
-- --- - a.. . ...a.: . mu.2 cn.c._ _ ,
.. )
o i
i 45 .
680 05 09 LOU /bc 1 report about January, then send that.
2 That sounds really good.
3 MS. VIETTI: Okay. Thank you very much.
l 4 (Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the interview was 5 concluded.)
' 6 7
8 .
9 10 (C
11 12 13 14 ,
15 16 i
17
\
i 18 i
19 20 21 22 23 l.
24
' 25 k
. - - - _ _ , , ' .E mm
--m . - , -
>. ., p : .aa w. .u a;% a.aau-;- , c. .. . . .
n+
! . j CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER I i
I 3
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before
.{ . the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the I matter of:
, . NAME OF PROCEEDING: INTERVIEW OF DOCKET NO.:
'i PLACE: WASHINGTON, D. C.
I DATE: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1984 were held as herein appears, and that this is thes original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. .-
' (sigt (TYPED)
LOUIS P. WAIBEL Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation
- - _ _. , - . . - . . - -