ML20205Q742
| ML20205Q742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1984 |
| From: | NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204J134 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8606030047 | |
| Download: ML20205Q742 (133) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ .
QV i
3
' .6
'4
- I i
3 P .
P, g
6 . - .
h 3 0 .x ,r'
- i i .
h -
~ ,
4 to 1i VOLUIC II 12 .
NUCLEAR FIGULATORY CO!24ISSION C
!7 Technical Review Tear Staff . . .
t*
f, or II /
. . tN
/ / O."' ~ *Y
/~ qqG .I ,g in
/. p '
l ; i. .
/
Y
} l~
/
f, t ) ' <
4 #
f l '
j , ,, s O. plA6 I ;20 1' '
s g(
s 1 .
l ll . '-
h' .
(
i ,.
22 l, 21 24 Carmen Gooden, CSR, RP R Neverter 7, 1904 3,
Taken k,y:
=_=- e.., _
F0lA-85-59 ,g
91 1 would be ene, would it not, where they should have had 4000 i
2 FSI, or should they just have had 2500?
J MR. SHAO: All the structure concrete is 4Uuu.
4 You mentioned something about using this 5 2500. filling a cavity--
. 6 MR. SHAO: Yes, filling--
7 Was any of it to fill cavi' ties within the
- 8 building itself, for example? .
9 MR. SHAO: As I understand, all the 2500 is not structure 10 ,
concrete. Mainly it's a filling concrete, like I said--
11 I know about the filling, but if they're 12 using that., I don't know how you came up--to find out where j
13 l they used the 2500, but maybe they designed it at 2500 r:,ix, i 14 yet the engineer is trying to say we want 4000 and they just 15 Put it in there; FIREMWiNeMGME99tra"1MitftE6 16 MR. SHAO: Your concern is maybe the 25 and
, 1 -
t 17 when they're doing the analysis, they assu e its 4000.
t .
[ 15i It was written in the tiCR. If thcy screwed
,, 19 up one way, they can also go the other way.
i i
$ 20 MR. ShAO: Let me understand your concern. His concern I
- 21 is che concrete is 2500 PSI, but the analyst thought it was t -
22 4000 and then in the calculation they are ast uming r 4000, 23 right?
' (Nods) 24 i
25 MR. EllAO : I'll check that out for you. .
l 6
e 92 g . MR. Pli1LLEO : I can't preclude that happening. I I
2 wasn't there. As they, lined up each pour, there was entered 3
l into the record ahead of the pour a request for a particular ;
4 number of mix and that was what we were going with. So they 5 actually--they consciously asked for'a three-hundred-and-
- 6 something mix when they got 2500 PSI mix concrete. They may have esked for the wron~g thing, but somebody asked for that , '
- - particular concrete.
3 9
MR. S h.'so : I did ask the applicant the questicn: Where 10 is the 2500 PSI used? He said only in the non-structured I
g; concreto.
12 A problem that I have found in tne past two years with the NRC is they go and ask the applicant a I 13 l y fquestionandtheapplicanttellsthemwhattheywanttohear, g i and that's the end of it. The NRC doesn' t go one step
, further and check to see if the applicant is telling the i i g ,_ truth or not. rer exampic, the ceiling in the control room:
gg they asked the applicant and the applicant told ther , anc 39 they wrote a report justifying its didn't even think.
s i 20 MR. SHAO: I saw the report; I have no comment.
a
?
If it's not required to be seismic, don't trake the damn thing seismic. Change thn NSR. If the 22 ;
applicant says we used it here and no one checks, everyonc j holieves what the applicant said. The applicant can make 24 l l
g a mistake when they're discussing stuff with the NRC. I 25 , ,g e
e J__ -__ - _ _ _ _ _ -- -- -y.- __
93 i
I think that's happened quite a bit; I don ' t know i f i t 's on i
2 Purpose or by accident, but a lot of thinos get slipped by
, havinc--
l 4 MR. NOONAN: Let me talk that just a little bit. I 5 understand your concern. I know where you're coming from.
Larry will go back and 6
.a s WN144Teft %
7 en, wha ra- +h j e fonckdh-was-wsd"--"'-u-*-- - +h= nroocr g ==';;;;.
9 MR. SHAO: I understand your concern; I will check into i it.
10 I
- , MR. NOONAN
- We will core back and tell you just what I '
32 we did just so we can see what--the procedure that we used I
13 l to go back and verify that he did what he was supposed to do.,
i 34 We'll come back and we will tell you that.
15 Again, that was just one exar plc, the contrel g ! room.' 1s;e havo
+ h= + h i__n a,wl + h-* h= r= n = t u = 4 = ra h
- b-a t eb-m,3a ,
i.
- lani.Lnear*mana '
>t==_eh a .)$. The applicant says--and this I l
l g is in the SIT report--they reviewed so many supports and only
- g9 one out of sixty was in danger. Now, when they go to do
.'s i
a 20 their Motion for Summary Disposition, they find that they t
have a problem. But the staff accepted what the applicant 21 had said and didn't go any further. '~
23 MR. NOONAN: When you say "the staff", can you tell tre -
l who?
y SIT report.
s e66* e
. _ _ , _ *: ,5r ,, -
94
] MR. SHAO: Phen you go looking for the 2500 PSI, make N
( l 1
2 sure in the calculations they used 2500 PSI allcwabic, not i .
3 4000.
4 Also, anytime you're looking at calculations, 5 one thing that we've come across a lot in answers to discovery
.., 6 that we've gotten regarding the Summary Disposition Motions l' 7 is that many times they haven't kept their'oriainal calcu-L
. 8 lations, and we'd be interested in knowing whether these are 9 the original calculations or not.
10 !*R. SiiAO : We don't want new calculations.
3; MS. VIETTI: before you care in, I think Jcsc may 32 have r.:entioned that it has been our practice witle this 13 l 'lechnical Review Teas. that the basic philosophy was not just ,
g4 to look at the paper and just talk to the applicants. he 33 askoo people to go beyond the paperwork and kick the tires, g I quote-unquote, go see what is actually there in the plant, l' !
{.
,- and that's why we had people on site for eight to ten weeks g so that they were there on site and not only could get the g9 paper but could go into the plant and look, too. So that
, 20 tras something that we were doing when we were on ' site.
{
MR. SHAO: Essentially, we took a different approach l g s
f rom what you're used to. -
MR. CALVO You mentioned a particular report from 23
- Region 4 and, again, I grant you that Region 4 did a litited
,,4 l r vi w. Th y didn't ask' the right kind of question, and the
.i~5 '
l . l e
l A ! L .
95 I question was it showed the analysis that was to be appli- !
2 cable. I believe we went up there to the ceiling--well, only I
3 partially--but we truly saw it, and we looked at it and there 4 were some questions about it. I believe what Region 4--they ,
5 were told there was a problem and what they did--I think theyi 6 would have done this similar to what you see in others '
7 because i.t was not easy to get there. I think they took that
. 8 as the basis that if it was good in there, it would have 9 been good up there. '_M ^' - C= -- "-* ' _
~.LM empas t .
10 " '"-'""o questren. That one more question f
g; is: Show to the analysis. And the other question: Lct rc l '
g2 l
go ahead and see it to see if I agree with you. but, again, t
they did a limited audit.
13 l Keep in mind we all do audits and ;
y the depth of it is depending on how cuch time we had and how 15 ,
scri us w feci about that particular one, so I'm sure--you 16 l have brought things to our attention. We'll focus into it.
i I
- 3 If I would have been reinformed and started over again and l .
i i h know what I had to do, I would have concentrated r.y audit
, 39 maybe in those areas that appear to be of more significance
! 20 there.
i
! y MR. PHILLEO This particular issue hadn't core to my 1
' l I attention when I was on site. This came up in your letter 23 the first time I was aware that this sort of thine was in
- i issuo. e 24
,* ,3
!!n. KEI!!IG: Let me make one clarification for the
- l. - l o
e 9
w - - - ____--_ ---. _.-- - -_-_-- - _ ___.- _ - -. . _ _ - _ - - . - - _ _ _ - - . - - . - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - . - - _ . . - - - - - - _ - . _ - . _ _ - . - _ . - - - _ _ _ __.____.--2
96' I -
record. The Special Inspection Team inspection that was I I
2 conducted at Comanche Peak was not a Region 4 inspection.
I a It was a Region 2 inspection, and if my recory servos c.c 4 correctly, that inspection was done to try to get a feel for l 5 how serious the problems were at Comanche Peak, not to look i 6 in depth at any problems that came up or that were previously 7 known. It was kind of a foundation for this TRT: is that
. 8 not correct?
,,9 ! MS. VIETTI: I think you're confused. lic's talking 10 about a regional inspection report that was done-- i gg MR. CALVO: lie also was talking about the April 1964 l t i; ,
special review tear--
1 13 MS. VIETTI: No, that's the special review tear report.,
ga MR. CALVO: It that's the case, then what you say 33 ,
doesn't apply. It sounds good, but it doesn't apply.
p, I There was two reports: a-fwL- -
- 7 d a .
l g; ff."'
- - *5, is MR. CALVO: Then we must have misunderstood you because
- g9 I understood the same thing he understood, that the special l 20 review team, that happened somewhere around April 1984, and j 21 that preceded the TRT,;and if he's not talking about that-- I l
g MS. VIETTI: No, he's not talking about that.
23 Let me clarify for the record. The SIT :
o g report was the result of the testirony in the Septerier 1962 i
l 25 operating license hearings where the Special Inspection Tean,l
! l
. \
e P,
l 97 1 or SIT, went out and reviewed things regarding allegations .
2 o f. known as th alle-j 3 gations. This was separate.from the CAT team report which j i I 4 was the Construction Appraisal Team report which came'out ine i
t 5 . February or March of 1983. That was a separate thing '
)
l,0 6 entirely. He's not talking about the CAT report; he's talk-i j -
ing about the SIT report.
l- ,
8 MR. SHAO: The SIT report consists of four merbers; Jcc i
. 9 Tappia, Bob Taylor, Paul Chen, and another ran from India, 1
10 Dr. Rajan. And that's the report you're talking about.
l gg Yes.
12 l HR. PilILLEO: If you want to get back'to cylincer 13 l strength again, having dismissed the standard cured cylinders:
yj as not being deficient, there remain 108 field-cured cylinders
- l. g, a you cited which, in fact, did.not rect specification require -
16 ments. I say specification require: rents, not specifications,'
, i l l l g. because Loth the job specification and the ACI code require-gg ment are that if the field-cured cylinders fail to rect a j ,, .. ; gg specified value, hsemenprogmatg43 i : I
] l 20
' t 9a c conste has failedt_thov nah' hunas l s
- - - - . .=_. __._ _ _ .
- g i 4,macW)-- . ~w mm .N h=5=a*=adab And so that is the i I status of these 108, but of these 108, only three were in 22 23 the structural flexural mo'de that are really required by this >
24 l specification, and the code there is.that in this ten digit e
p r number, the first digit in the rtiddle group of four .
i 25 0
4 l
$ %b '
.---A j e4. I-4 %w.m_,,_,,,m 4-,-r- m W '# Ik*""' "'I I b F E
- h I h I O 4- % d- 50. % '- JJAFIEOEIIIM '
' OO
l l
l 98 !
1 .' gives the type structure, and if that is a seven, it is a l
l 2 beamer slab; and there are only three in this whole document--
I J there are only three tnat have the digit seven.
Tney'rethe!
4 only ones for which this more stringent requirement is' really 5 necessary. They are in the Safeguards Building and the 6 Auxiliary Building, and they're all on page 33 it turns out, 7 and their strengths were 3891, 3407 and 3956. So two of the$
~
S are so close to 4000 that I don't think anybody would worry
. 9 about the safety implications, so that just leaves one ,3*k*"9)
I
-r 10 L A 2 matte m f ---^_. -^ - m That was the li suspended slab that had by 28 days failed quite a bit to rect 12 ;
the design strengths, and that was the only place in your 13 l wnole document that it seems to me that the Schmidt hammer -
14 l was really relevant. We needed something to find out if 15 that concrete was behaving well, and the hammer test indicates 16 that it did gain strength all right. So for the type of con-I !
! 17 crete represented by the other 105 cylinders, the ACI cold
! Is weather standard mercly requires that first the laboratory-
- cured cylinders be adeguate to show that the concrete that 19 i
i 20 went in was all right and that the concrete merely be pro-
! 21 tected from freezing for three days. Beyond that it's t
i assumed it will gain enough strength. ummvennawriesrsixegs 22 23 NWAW12122nDIN.ame,Ehi gMV A
-hb
~ --
) [ es* fA _-
. er f
23 e it doesn't really impact the safety of that r
p ^ 4 - ~v - <
99 1! structure, except for that one slab that had low strength.
2 That was one that sot-ebody needed to worry about and they did.
3l I think the testing shows that 'it was all right. l
'4 Now, you were ' relying on the Schmidt haener?
5 MR. Pl!ILLEO: As a cornparative' test; where you have
'. 6 questionable concrete, to compare that with concrete that's 7 not in question.
8 I'm working on a job right now. We're
- 9 putting up a 15-story hotel. They had a seven-day test. It 10 l was below strength. It's a fast-track job so they wanted to 11 l avoid tearing a column down, so they went to use the Windsor I
12 probes but the purpose of using the Windsor probe was to -
I ;
43 , determine if they needed to take a core sample. If it. failed 14 i the Windsor probe, then they'd tear the column down, no I
15 reason to do a core sample. If it passed the Windsor probe, 16 ;
then they were going to go to a core sample to verify t!.c l 17 l strength. It's apparently--in ecsence, my concern here is j is tney're going to use--they used an inadequate--you know that
- ; I 19 that test is no good. They get 7000-pound concrete using i
! 20 a Schmidt hammer. ,
I i 21 HR. PHILLEO That's using a standard calibrat, ion.
Yes; that's not useful.
22 l 21 MR. PHILLEO No. I admit that's completely not useful, 24 l to do that. The rnanufacturer puts a calibration on t'he sido 1
25 of the harmer that people are inclined to use. All I ever !
l
~
l
~ .
Q
100 l
! 1 want reported is just rebound numbers. If you have two I I 2 concretes of approxitvately the same age, configuration and
?
6 3 moisture content, and one has passed all the tests, you hr.ve 4 no question about it. If ycu make a statistically adequate '
5 number of tests on that one and a statistically adequate .
6 number of tests on ~ the concrete that has your concern, if i
1 those numbers are equal, I think you're entitled to say that
'. 8 the strengths are equal. I would not tell you what the 9 strength.is. I'd just say the strength in this area that 10
' we're concerned about is as good as the strength over there
'l '
gg where we're not concerned.
! ~
I g2 MR. SF.I.0 : Only for comparative purpose. Dcn' t use the 13 nanufacturing calibration. You get extra strength; that's 14 the wrong number. If you compare the same age, same 15 , toisture, then you can know the uniformity of the concrete.
16 That's the purpose of Schmidt hammer. l I i ,
j -
?!R. Pl!ILLEO: I will not accept that as an acceptance I
test for concrete, but in concrete in place, I think it's
- g9 useful for that type of comparative testing. ,
l 20 When you do this Schmidt hammer test, though--
e s Well, I think there are several concerns that we have. First 21 i
thing is you have to know what you're doing, and I think 22 i re s a Mg quesdon in our min V !
23 th aca wey c ((b g
l There is soretlting else that I don'*t l l ee av k 6
101 I know if y'all are faciliar with or not. A lot of these tests l i 2 and things were donc ~by Hunt Corpany. Now, I'd be hard-3 pressed at tais point to go back and find tnis, and I'm net 4 ,
sure if there was anything of ficial filed or if it was just 5 in the paper when it happened, but it's my recollection that 6 back--I want to say '79 or so; I'm not sure if that's right--
7 that basically they removed the Hunt Corpany from the job
. 8 and the Utility took over doing this. There were also a 9 i lot of allegations about defective concrete at that tire, 10 which Region 4 lookec at, and we don't think they looked at i
li it adequately that tiro; but I think that there's a strong 12 , quastion in our minds as to the validity of any of these 13 test results that they have attached to these nonconformance ,
y reports.
i 15 MR. PliILLEO: I can't vouch for the accuracy of the i
testing. I can only say I think there are relatively few i ,
j ;- places wherc the tests are real pertinent. This one slab--
g is that slab is still available for testing, so they're going 19 to have to do sor.e testing and they can go back and pur.p
! 20 that one again. There were several cases where there was scrc
. i i 21 neern about early freering of the concrete, and they used a
22 the Schmidt harmer there, but these cases were--again, it was
^ Procedural, -
23 2- %
- u_r_-_araeurn..was~1 L dccron %
\
23
, < _.- - --- . hk4 rma h m t wae -
- ViolatiCL of.CurinC - --
r-.
6 'd.im-4 ee e o
j 102 c x _ _ __ _ /
t . spec w ceina'=htut once concrete is three days old, it's l - l l 2 i istr.une to freezing, so it couldn't have been harmed even if 3 the allegation was correct that the protection came off and l
4 it got exposed to 12-degree air. So there they did a fair T
5 amount of Scht-idt hairmer testing to prove that the concrete
. 6 hadn't frozen. That's fine, but I think it was unnecessary,
~
t l
i
- It's conservative; it's on the safe side, but physically ,
~
8 the concrete couldn't have been damaged even under the horror 9 , story that was told about the absence of protection, so I l
10 think we're not hanging our hat on very much Sch::.idt harrer I think mostly it boils down to this one Safeguards,
\
testing.
3j l 12 i Building slab which could be tested anytime as far as that's I
13 l concerned.
14 l Back tc this deal about the Reactor tic. 2 8
cavity wall. Is that 2500--is that. designed for 2500 strength?
15 t
16 MR. PHILLEO: I doubt it.
, g It's on page 2 through 4 of Attace. cont 3.
j gg MR. Pl!ILLEO: Is that the 0352755--
,. 39 The number is 2015781001.
If I'm . lucky, we may have locked that one
~
MR. PHILLEO:
i 20 S
j up. Yes, 2015761001. That was 4000 pounds. That was mix-21 t
204, so we have confirmed that one.
22 It wasn't clear--okay. Apparently,: what ,
23 they said in this nonconformance report was that there were 24 ,
1
'There's nothing to indicate that it was, concerns about this. l
.l
- 6 .' . ,,
,. 1 .g 6
- h N .'3
103 l l
1 ever retested after thcir concerns--
2 MR. Pli1LLEO: T[11s is where the concerns were that the t
3 field c3linuers got r..ishandled and no longer representcc ti.e .
I 4 parent concrete, and they finally had to conclude that once 5 this was discovered it was too late to do anything about it 6 the information was all lost. Again, this was the sort of 7 concrete that was not loaded early in the flexural rnode so
~
. 8 - -- cc -
=-_ i?M .ere's not a tech-9 , nical problem because it's the kind of stuff that only.has '
1 1
10 to be protected from freezing for three days and then it will I
' I 11 gain strength when the warm weather cc: es. So there 's pa,ner l -
12 work to be resolved but there's no safety problen., I think.
13 Wha't I'm concerned about is: What is the y j strength of' that concrete? l t !
15 i MR. FliILLLO: Well, it's 4000 PSI concrete as verifiec 1
16 by laboratory strength and after it's been subjected to *
, i
.. sufficient high terrperature the field concrete will be that
. n.
I' J g strong or stronger.
- g9 Even at the surface, efter it's been frozen ~<
20 MR. PHILLEO: Yes. Once it's gotten to 500 PSI com-
'i
,, pressive strength, it's not going to be dar aged by freezing. '
From what I read from these documerits was field-cured cylinders, even if mishandled or whatever, repre-",
24 .
sented the concrete in. the field.
I MR. PHILLEO:
Tnat's the purpose, cf course. I 2a. In this l
N.*
.a: - - - - - - - - - - - . ': _- -_ *th
._._s __
.._s._..- - - - - , - . - - - ~ ,.- . . , , . . _.m..
104 I particular case, apparently they didn't; but that's what 2 ! they're there for. i-3 l There was nothing on here saying that they 4 did not represent what was in the field, and the design of I
5 the buildings is more disflexural; it 's compressive streng t...
And they're taking a gross section when they design the
. 6 I
7 buildings and if they've got a problem with the field-cured ,
8 cylinders, they shouldn't have gone to all this mass of pat er 9
l work. I mean, it wasn't within one day; this is over'a'inoct ,
! l 10 l .a whole year they had a problem like this, and then to find 11 l out it's only 2500-pound concrete and create all this work. i I
12 Then they say that these field-cured cylinders, it's going.to l
13 , be representative of what's going on in the field. I ja ! MR. PHILLEC: I think their paper work problen. was they I
15 had a specification requirement to regularly rake and test 16 i field-cured cylinders. This was a little case of overkill.
} g- l Fcr r.ost of the concrete that wouldn't be necessary, but they gg were stuck with it in the specifications. So they had to 39 dispose of ther one way or the:other, so. they had to nake and
,. I 20 test field-cured cylinders. Presumably when they failed to ,
t 21 n.ake 85 percent of the laboratory-cured, the contractor was ,
- ~
22 bli, gated to improve the protection. That, again, was a case
, g of overkill. There was not real reason to overprotect, but !
\
- l
' 24 l they' wrote the sp.ecifications.around the high-class building ! h requirements. \
3
6 105 1
l I guess a little bit of concern on this is: '
2 I Did they have protection on the building itself when they 3 made this? l 4 fir. PliILLEO: Uell, yeth, the minimum requirements of 5 the ACI cold weather stancard would only give you about 50 6
percent of the 28-day labcratory-cured strength at 28 days, 7 so a field cylinder that satisfied all requirernents of the 6
ACI cold weather standard for non-flexural me:.bers could 9
only have 50 percent cf the 20-day strength.
10 { So really, all you need is sone assurance that, first, 11 ! the laboratory-cured cylinders met this strength and, second, 12 there was three days of protection against freezing. If 13 g those are met, the stuff will eventually pain strengtn. It I
- la may take it until April but it will eventually sct to 4000 15 ! or better.
16 , tiR. SHAO: T_"' ^-1 - O_ __ Z- M . A ;*m e w W e==a:e j 17 l p =M- %gGm-~ Eeuunm,dIMig as far as safety is i
- 15 concerned, so all you need is 50 percent.
< There will be no - i
'; 19 harm to it.
- i. .
,. . i 20 MS. VIETTI: Let me just mention something that you mentioned about falsification of records that were be.ing t 21 I
t
. .' 22 .done at the Hunt Company--or. you said ,the Hunt--
23 They were allegations about-- 3 24'{ MC. VIETTI: Right. Ue, as I said when we rade this t
25 . comprehensive list, reviewed a' lot of the inspection reports I I
- h p' ..
I 106 1
that the Region did and incorporated those allegations or l .
I 2 concerns into our tracking systerr, and they have been '
i a revisited; so I know that Larry Shao's group has done work l
l 4 on it. It's one of the open issues that was in the Septer-Ler 5 18th letter where the documentation was not there that gave 6 us the assurance when we asked for additional information, 7 and that's being pursued. We have followed up on that.
. 'd MR. SHAO: I want to make sure that Mark--50 percent, I
4 85 percent, about freezing--do you have any more questiens i
10 in this area? We agree with you that there is a violation
{ !
1; . procedure, but I think mainly Bob is talking abcut safety--
1.! R. PHILLLO: I e4ECuG54gyi 13 lh P '
14 -
There are two different things we're looking 15 at.
I 16 MR. SHAO: L TJ2'.,7.C y : = " " N * " diw m T M 9 I
t i
- 1- ,
!!R . PHILLEO; I'r- just talking about structural safety.
i is The reason this all carte up, as you know 19 from reading our answer to their Motion for Summary Dispo-
' .i i 20 sition, is because of the applicant's statement--
- ' j gy MR. PHILLEO:. --all the concrete was 4500 or 5000. I i
t 22 wasn't too crazy about that statement. I don' t work 'for 23 the applicant. !
24 ,
"The manufacturer's tests were conducted i
25 - with concrete which had a strength of between 2850 and 3220 l
107 j PSI (approxirrately 3000 FSI) . While the condrete at Cor.ancne 7 Peak. is designed for 4000 ' PSI, it actually ranges frc:- 45CO 3 to above 5000 PSI."
, 4 MR. Pl!ILLEO : h' hat is implied here--and I am hot in a l .
5 i position to say whether the imp.}ication is correct--is that.
n 6 the anchors are only in 4000rPound concrete.
l .
l 7 i . They did their tests in 5000-pound concrctc.,
8 though. That was in our answer. I don't know if you're q involved with that answer or not.
jg f .R . PiiILLEO: No, I'r. not, but I suspect that that's
); correct; but I can't state on the record that all the jy . anchors are in the 4000 PSI design concrete. I doubt if t'c .
j3 .trutn is otherwise, but I'm not in a position tc say that.
,. Okay. 7.t any rate, I think it's cLvious l a.
that their statement at a very minitur. needed qualificatic...
16
. . stateu nt is n d q d e corrcc as n
- ,. stands; to say that Cor.anche Peak concrete was desicnec for 4000 is an oversirplification. Sen.c of it was cLvicurly i
l 39 designed for 2500, but it may well be that all the'ccncretc l
, I -
! 20 i "t".ininS ^" h r8 "** d*81 9 "*d f r 4 -
- I guess on mos.,t of this, rather than goi 4 through this item by item, it would be better to wait for
- your report and then we can ask questions after we get the i
report. I think taat uculd Le a lot sirplc.r on a' lot of thib, with one exception. Page 32 of Attachtrenti D below all the
, . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .....;^ ,. .
. ;j n . r .
a 10E I sets of numbers there, there's a note that one of these con-
~ l 2 crete pours is the pour in which the '
I
,s e of our concerns there wad - - .. .-.deggs -
. 4 i a:r- -~ r- - =w---u *- - @*"
5 qgggg[FEtmTPh=trwe thhWlf%nd it was not clear--well, there 6 were several problems with it. OnwM" " C* ' ~ h s %.
~~~
7 o W ' * --- --
.__ .w u r.n enis particular concrete
. 8 ; u - -- _ _ , M a n =;- a , M l e . A .v w e r uning is=thati""""'
9 rgutt of the testin9 that was d,qng_t}1er._basl,,_p;o,,,sagW-n1es, two l w, 10 g rou n ** ^' e =nle wrather , 1!In iney us e c , lik~e fi I87cE iiC*'
l 11 cyijsutsssairmrutateFowymd _prEhEETn'tidfE pfreiculay l
12 g or.L.rd? w.@ogakerambreakWiW#rn7d~cilinnTflirough 13 l these.
14 ,
t (A short break was taken.)
15 i MR. NOONAN: Let's go back on the record. I think I'll I
16 let you pick up where you left off.
1 Cksy. I think I've decided not to cursue
{ Is the crack in the base trat at this point. We 'll gc ahead with '
=
19 some of the other things and get back to that hopefully. I
.r ,
i 20 guess why don't you go ahead with what you were saying abcut
.5 21 what y'all had looked at for benefit?
.s 22 MR. PHILLEO: I think unless as some questions 23 tha't I've worn out this business :in Attachrent' D on the 3 cylinder strength, but I'll be clad to pursue it to any 1
.)5 lengths you want. . ..
a s
a.,, ~ ~ > . .
t 109 1
Not at this tine.
2l MS. ELLIS: We'll go ahead and defer this until later.
3 MR. NOONAN: Is that all we have? j l
4 MS. ELLIS: Yes, I guess, on the concrete.
5 MR. NOONAN: Do you want to go to the 6 Sure.
MR. SHAO: In the control room--I think you're familiar
.. 7 8 with Regulation 129--
9 , MR. NOONAN: Larry, excuse me. Maybe you can explain, maybe go back in a little more detail for as to your 10 j3 l involvement and J.ose 's involvement.
12 i !!R. SHAO: Okay. I think originally allegations cc:re
! from you. Let 2,c read your allegation here. I think the 13 y original allegation is "The fuel run conduit, the drywall 4
15
^^"'"~Tagating installYif4n'rthe'WcaiLWe the 6cTTirrtpaputreb 3 I ____ _
16 ' D# N"""1 w w. i s2:rreamag- isr.ic _wg and arc j 3- j "C;',teTQ%nd these items may f ail as a result f a seisr.ic event." It was originally handled by Jose in-i Ib
~
39 this area mainly because a lot of electrical components, and i ~
then I think Jose and his cohort, George Myer, went up to the
,. I .20 g
control room, look at the ceiling, anh =aWh+smalW t he s' aid maybe he should involve my group to' g look.at it because my group do a lot of seismic work. ,
'My pecple star't looking into it, ad *^ ~. - caat-mu,+~
a" m cion wh = m ' i d . The reason it's valid is Comanche Peak
- 23 --
l 2
. ..e..s--.. *. .......;.
^ 1**' . ,.,<g'.
. ' q:_
110 1 is committed to design according to Regulation 129. Regu-2 i lation 129 is so-called seismic classification.- Regulation i
3 129 said that classifications of two types: one is seismic l
4 category one and non-seismic category one. The. seismic 5 category one is defined as' those components and structures 6 that are required for safety functions. Non-seismic category 7 one ard those components that are not safety related; they're S called non-seismic category one, but also Regulation 129 9 said for these non-category one they should be designed in i
10 such a way that failure would not adversely affect the l
11 safety function of safety-related components or cause injury l
12 to operators.
13 l We looked into this, but we didn't believe what the '
14 l control room had said about this paragraph. In the control 2
15 rcom--on the top cf the control room there is seismic category
- 16. ong, seismic category two and non-seismic. In Comanche Feak I i i
- 7 they introduced another - .. v m_ ,JE.A.c +=~ * ~ -
i g3 They do a so-called damage study. Ehen they do a data.g,c 19 study, they look at the physical geometry of the component, f
l i 20 and do a little bit simplified dynamic study to make sure i.
l .; i
'i i 21 if the component fail if it can affect the safety function j
22 f categ ry one components,-
~
23 When they did that' study,: did they consider ,
,4 two over one, a projectile; for. example, going horizontally--
l
'25 MR. SHAO: They did a. projectile. -
G
)
a w' w,. w..
. m,w.1 ; -
o.-
7 _. 111 j Was that done by the Structural Group? j
~
l 2l MR. SHAO: They.are a special group headed by west.
3 There's a special group called West; done'by West. They're j 4 called Damage Study Group.
5 I'm concerned if~the people were qualified
,. 6 to do it.
7 MR. SHAO: It's a very simplified--it's a very simple 8 prognosis you're talking about. It's not very fancy.
9 They had unstable pipe supports out there 10 ; so I wculdn't' doubt that. I'm concerned that even the l-11 simplest stuff gets overlo'oked.
l ,
12 l MR. SHAO: Let me get into--I have some concern with 13 their calculations later on. Okay. As you said, they do a I 14 damage study again. They nar.ed a class category two or non-15
! seismic. For a non-seismic they do nothing, right, because l
16 - according to their analysis it would not affect any other i i
-t 17 ccmponents. For category two they are supposed to do a ;
l :
1 i3 s'eisric analysis to show that it would not fail. ihey're g l I
.; 39
~
supposed to do that. I have no problem with the criteria, i ,
i 20 but I do have a problem with implementation. Okay.
21 At the top of control room ceiling there are three s . .
P iPes. They're h'ating, e ventilating and air conditioning 22 and safety-related conduits. They're considered as seistric 23
.,4
, category one so they have to do a full-blown dynamic analysis.
For non-safety-related conduits, light fixtures, they're 25 T
. . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . _ _ . .. . .A
. , .e . -
. . N. .
- 4* , . .i<91.n ;b * . .- i
r f
112 3 j considered to be a scismic category two coc.poncnt; and for l I
2 Sloping sus} ended drywall ceiling, acoustical suspended I 3 ceiling, louvored suspended ceiling, they are classified as i
4 non-seismic. I said, "Why do you classify these as non- ,
i 5 seismic?" They' claim these are very small pieces. In their 6 judgment if they fall it would not hurt the operator or would 7 not affect the safety function of the safety-related com-8 pcnent. We say we don't agree because operator can be' hurt 9 ,
by quite a small piece of element go into his eyes an'd'may 10 l affect it.
hert2cirener.7.honrasWOW 11
! s I
12 Also,'on seismic category two we look at their calcula-tion. Tr ;- -- - -
13
--+wW H ed wt* *** ***yselYM1Fs'Mi"4"*byt.=gy
,, d T=n -- - 7;.emic whlysN.~
- l j '1R. WALSE. This is where they had a problem before.
i 16 i t. hen they did tneir cable trays they did not take into multi-
- j '
- l _e
- motor responses i .ich is an increase by 50 percent when you're g 33 using--
~
i ~
8 -
l 20 The reason the 1.5 is to account for the motor mode and also .
- g the other uncertainties, but our question is beyond .this.
22 When -they do a category two anal;is' s, there is a non-seisr.ic-,
g they're interaction effect also'.
You.can take interaction l effect.- l Okay. .I understand.
~
9 O
is e
I 113 1 COURT REPORTER: I couldn't underst'and what you just j 2 l said.
3 MR. PHILLEO: Interaction is the key word. l l
4 MR. SHAO: The interaction between the so-called 5 category two and non-seismic items.
. 6 P - r d^2 e ynam m a m y n xh4 z- ,ot$nly havede 7 F Q _ategorygtw g e g 4 ha 8 1_
N M'6d h e .siled-iZh-seiE E fEEEFiiFEiFdyEcElFSEN M
-- - - - - . _ , _ ._g 9 -T O eerwisc., de-calculat. ion-%s-n u c.o g 10 i! I also have a problem with their implication practice.
11 l So for that reason we wanted to look at the whole problem. .
~12 I again. First, look at a classification, whether this should 13 be category two or non-seismic. For the category two they la I have to redo the calculations to make sure they do it right.
c 13 fOneisdynamicir.plicationfactors; one is interaction effect.
I 16 , In addition to control room, another question is they i '
i 17 i
should core up with a study. If you have a probler. here, 1
i n maybe there's a probler somewhere else in the plant, the
' ; 19 same type of problem. So far, the program plan they sub-i
< s 20 mitted they addressed the control ceiling, but they didn't a
21 address adequately elsewhere in the plant. So we are,to k
22 f llow up on this.
23 MR. NOONAN: We took one other action on this one. t i
24 , They're in the process of replacing the ceiling cut there.
.. I 25 I understand they're doing it on the Unit Two side of the i
- - ~ - ~ - - ~o- .
114 1 ' control roor., but we plan to go back.
i 2 MR. SliAO: I think'it's a good idea. Let's have a j i
3 meeting first.before they do all of this, 4 MR. NOONAN: We'll probably corre out there and have a l
5 meeting with them and have people go in there and see what
,- 6 they're doing before they get too far along. We've taken l 7 that as an action, and we will do that.
8 MR. CALVO: in one of those items, I guess, in the 9 , other areas of the plant is the conduits that are less than i
10 i two and greater than two. They look like--the rule they l-11 use, if it was less than two we don't have to de anything uit';
, 12 j it, but if implications vill be less than two inches conduit their failure, if it happened to be in a seismic category j 13 l i l
14 j
one. area which tests safety-related equipment and also a.s ;
15 i inhabited by the operator, so they got to consider the con-l 4
16 duit.
I i' i :- Also, the greater than two inches the question is: Yes, I
i is they had done--they look like they had the heavicst cable
- restraints to hold it, but, again, do an analysis again--I 19 20 think maybe you saw' evidence to.the effect they had attached l
' i an analysis; whether it has been approved by the mechanical
'l l i 21 l
,t ...
gr UP or not I don ' t know.
22 ,
23 MR. S!!AO: We 'should have the analysis.
I g , MR. CALVO: Thats how.the conduit entered the picture, 25 n t only in the control room ceiling but all.over the plant.!
O
- *' *-
- mm. ,
.. ,, , a
115 1 Another concern--it's got to do with the 2 ; cable trays--but I've worked with Ecchtal and I know how 3 these companies work. .You have one organization that does ,
4 a certain item and people go from--they reay be in a 5 structural group but they'll do cable trays for six months
.. 6 and then go to conduit support and then maybe H&V supports.
7 Here they didn't do H&V but it's all within the same structura'_
8 group which is Gibson Hill.
9 , When CYGNA came out with their report, CYGNA hadn.'t i
l 10 considered the 50-percent increase for multi-motor responses--
l 11 MR. SHAO: When they do an equivalent static load 12 ! analysis. ,
--which is, from what I understand the i 13 14 j original calculations were based on, the equivalent static 15 i load method. p ; omer.oc umce li,' dzM'""Ill haFrfot -
I -- rme CaEle' i.Iafs,-~ Andthe uuuuu m tha t+nefie:how 16 .
l i l i 17 ._m 4* '
"" ' MMM
- M o.9 e kror A-1:=structurci group,=chehw i g 3 r_ + "" " - ^ d t-hc_cmd=mv.Luli.gdoed-mqthod,Tused t!-%,-
, 9 g ercent inc pr4Mhey-vtih" _4rnochnne 4 tp.
s -
~
20 MR. SIIAO: Thn , ~ m n preen _*- isqNg.ptuvisieny---TTiE ;
hat,. Lv uo enat.
k 21 22 Gibson Hill is trying to come back and say--
23 MR. SHAO: Alternatively they can do that. They don't l g iihave to use the 50' percent if they do a full dynaric test.
25
.I understand that position, but that has not 0' '
116 1
- been done. It was not done in the original calculations.
I 2 ' Nou, if you. just go ind look at cable trays and say that l a we can qualify; all the cal lc trays are using a core comt,li-a cated or a more precise dynamic analysis, they'd have to do 5 it for every damn tray in there or go back and start pulling 6 off their conservatism load or whatever.
7 Now, we've got the cable trays saved, but they forgot 4 8 to do it for conduit supports. Now they have to do it for
(
ii.
9 conduit supports.
Then you've got other itens in that build-i, i
ing, maybe stairs, W i 10 - yR+^
Y j t
_ _ _ . 6
- !!R . CHAO
- h'e u , yod 7?iihk the whYl 8 1Ynt Uu;y did av i.' .
l hc 1 5 factor?'
12 ,
i 13 It came out of the structural group.
l Some-14 one should have noticed it. If I had worked in designing i
15 : of the stairs for Gibson Hill and I used a 50-percent incre c sc. ,
I 16 l when I go to do a cable tray support, I'm going to use that
.I i i- same 50-percent increase.
I I i is MR. SliAO: CYG'.iA didn't do that, too. You say Gibscn l -
i j 19 didn't do that; CYGNA didn't--
^
20 Swnew lou 1 N th C " =" = ' '
2i - --- - - " - - @ JJJ a b- - > ~EeI z_______.___--A-- 2__ _
._ ..q __.. Mr ,r ../ri-aggeIuYibn s"-
5 M N kno.( f 23 ptMEP6EfiUndidCTCbTiffaF ! } l m '
5 1 - - - -. _ = - _ i iL (
.,4 hd. .i t h.+ho -= +-= m == =++h.
i .
a A,3
117 1
1 ' MR.'SHAO: I wrote the provision so I know this was l
2 ,
the e m minhes M=7bM%tegygoni,t fhey_didn ' t use _that 4
j
. i 3 50 N "# ^" M 1.edy&_ ,
I
' " " ^
4 It' 7gt.
5 MR. SHAO: I see. Can you think of the particular 2 6 record? ;
t' 7 It's May of this year.
. 8 M It's Thursday morning; May 1s i l
9 ,
MR. S117 3 : May 1st of 1984. ;
10 Yes, in the transcript of the operator's j 11 license. ;
12 It sort of shocked ne when he carte out and 13 said they were going to look into it, 'but I haven't heard i I
14 anything about it. If they did it for the cable trays--and 15 l I know how these companies operate, these people--they reay i I
16 have also done it for all the other structures, that they i I i
g- ,
used the equivalent static load rethod. ;
l \
gg ,
MR. SIGO: The 1.5 factor is extra-conscrvative. If
- 39 you want quick and dirty, you want extra-conservative, so
!, 20 there's another factor to be accounted for. .
21 _
The way they did their calculations I 22 wouldn't call it really conservative. They assumed'one 23 span loading and they just used that; they did not consider
,. j multi-nodal.
_y 25
!'R . SIIAO: But they used a peak response plus 1.5.
., . L.:;.
. r :. .<- ., -
, 118 j ,
We're also assuring everything is rigid.
l 2 If y u're goina to go to the peak, that's fine.
3 ~l ttR . SHAO: Ue have done a. lot of analyses, and we uscG.
I !
4 peak response plus 1.5 using'enevelope, all kinds of 5 responses.
6 MR. NOONAN: The concern here is they didn't use the 7
position.
MR. SHAO: We should do some g We will pursue that.
o calculations.
10 MR. NOONAN: ,Uhen you-say "we" should do it, you nean -
"we"?
11 .
3 ,* .
IIR. SLAO: NRC.
13 l MR. CALVO: Wh'at you're looking for is that the analysis
,4 consistency and adequacy are essentially the sar.e, both for i conduits, cable trays, or--
l a.
I g MR. SHAO: He said the whole plant.
g The Gibson !!ill, yeah. You take one
! 15 sacple from Gibson 1.ill cable tray supports and find out 39 the structural group didn't do it there. That's the only
! evidence you have.
,a 20 ,
?
M'R . SHAO: Any indication you have not done this else-
! 21 s
I where in the plant? -
22 ,
The implicat' ion is definitely tihere. :
l MR. ZUDANS: . Wait a minute. Are you saying just Gibson 21 I
f i hill?
25 -
l
- ';;; Q;. l. , ' '
~,
~ " ' ~ ' ~ - - - - -- ' "
T---- - - - - -
119 I That's what the CYGNA report was at. Look-2 ing at the structural,. the only thing we saw was cable tray
? i 3 supports and taey cidn't do it.
4 tiR. . SHAO: But why CYGNA didn't pick it up I don't under-5 stand.
6 : I question their credibility. They should 7 have picked it up.
- - 8 MR. CALVO: why did we miss it? Because I am 9 looking into the cable tray supports and we look at a cable 10 tray loading, 50 percent, and we want to know what kind of i
11 . seisnic calculations will be done because of additional l !
12 loading, and looking at the. paper work, is there sc:e kind 13 of way to Eal.1'our attention that this thing come up? ,
14 MR. NOONAN: The audit should have said that.
I 15 The other problem is when they dic. their 16 l cable tray designs, they used a generic design. They did I : !
1- one. They said, "This cable tray is going to be used }
15 throughout the plant." And it is used throughout.the ,
{
- 19 plant. The thing is that when they did their allowable
'i
! 20 stresses, they used the allowable stresses for the Auxiliary i 21 Building which allows the stresses to exceed yield.
!' "~
22 MR. SHAO: For SSE or-- l j' , 23 For SSE. According to their FSR that's acceptable for their cable tray supports to exceed the yi d g i 25 for the Auxiliary Builcing and the Safeguard, but not for l
Y g % i %
f
120 t
I the-Containtrent Building. The supports that were generically, l
. 2 designeEl are used in the Containrr.ent Buildinc as well as the .
3 Auxiliary Building and the stresses are above the yield l 1
4 because they are a generic cesign. They were designed for 5 the Auxiliary Building, but they're used within the contain- N l . 6 rent.
7 18. SHAO: What do you mean by allowable stresses in S this case?
9 Their allowable stresses are--
10 MR. SHAO: Is it . 7 ultimate? What nur.ber did they use?
i 11 l 1.2 yield?
~
12 i 1.5 normal operating which puts the allowable 13 above yield.
14 l MR. SHAO: Usually, nornal allowable is 230 yield, so 15 1.5 is just 7 yield.
I 16 MR. ZUDANS: That's exactly at yield; 1.5 tires two-
[ g- . thirds.
i is It's above yield, though.
19 MR. SHAO: Unless it's stainless material.
~
20 It's common steel. ;
- l. j 21 MR. SHAO: Common steel, 1.5 shouldn't go. Corman steel, g . .
the original allowable is 230 yield, according to Section 3.
{' 22 .j
-23 If y v look at the CYGNA report--
- ! MR. ' NOONAN : Just at.the--
3 25 Phase 1 and 2. Look what they itse for the I
4
== r . < * . . . . . . . . - . . . , . . .. . . . , , , , , , , ,
W A? _a ..._______ ' %.' % se -A '
121 1 allowable stresses for cable tray supports, and those are 1 -
~
2 ; the sarre stresses they used in the Containreent Luilding. I 3 think that should clarify what the problem is, g
4 I don't have the numbers on hanc.
5 MR. SHAO: Your concern is that allowables go beyond 6 yield?
7 In the Containrent, yes. It'. a generic 8 design. m.__. .d.4 .:t--consideWt -this*mertctde%rtiy* is 9 _flo t re_n H ~_-the-F9F-- 1 r.;u ui ++n b - fut - the-.Gontai-neen t-Eui-ldi nc--- =,,
f' 10 : Tnat was not.wi_ thin -GYmm'* rco,ce, se Lt.cy dia 4.0L addicss -O l
3y it 2 - W- --mWov ee ~; ,y i,; g ,, - u , , 3 w & J, i L.
. ..;cy ciQ.%
_-- u m _-- -
g2 g 2 _ . _ _ m.w m . m 13 l MR. SHAO: What do you mean the CYGNA report didn't-- l 34 g MR. NOONAN: Dave Turro is reviewing that CYC::A report 15 and we just took the Phase 3 report and we're sending it out g to Idaho to let them revicw it. It's going to be donc under I !
g
- y. , Gunther's group, but Tot Eridges is going tc be the nare of I
~
- 33 the 1-erscn who is c.cino it. That's 1 ase 3, thouch. Thase
- 39 1 and 2, I think, was done by the staff.
20 MR. CALVO: [It was done by the staff.
. 4
- i Does the staff rean Dave Turro?
. ,, I P.R . SHAO: '
s 22 MR. NOONAN: DaveTurrowouldbethe:onethatkookedat .
that. I 23 l That's where chat would have 'Leen--the cal.le 2s, trats would have been Phase.1 and 2 If y'all have any l
. l t
l'22 I - problen:s finding sore of this stuff, yell and sec 'll try to-I .
~
2 find it. -
3 MR. SHAO: 'I'm not clear about your concern yet. You~
l ,
s -
'4 say they're using--
5 The allowables for the containrent are rore '
6 strict than for the Auxiliary Building. The supports were 7 designed for the Auxiliary Building which was a higher 8 allowable--
9 PR. Shl.O: They'rc using allowable for the .'.uxiliary 10 j Euilding or Auxiliary Bailding supports?
I1 The support is used throughout the plant, ,
12 but they're using allevables as if they're only in the 13 Auxiliary Euilding. I 14 l k!R . SLAO: Building, not Auxiliary Building support.
I 13 Cable tray support within the Auxiliary l
6 . duilding. I i ! i
-l 1; ,
MR. SliAO: Let te ask the question again. You say the g is allouable for the cable tray support is used as allowabl,e ,
l
. ; 39 for Auxiliary Building?
I 20; MR. NOONAN: No.
I
< j 21 ?!R . PHILLEO: The Auxiliary Building is permitted--the 22 supp rts are permitted to exceed yield. In containment
=
' ' i
,3-they are not. They.'re using a common design throughout. ,
E g The thino is only acceptable within the Auxiliary Building. '
. 25.
p'I ,
r- ,
t e
4e e, 6 h/4 M S,vw,. 'Ja
,:3 ',
191 i
I MR. NOONAN: The Auxiliary Building is--the allowable 2 stresses for those supports, for the supports in that Luild-3 ing, they're using also in the containc.ent; san.c allowables.
4 MR. SHAO: Containment support allowables are the sare 5 as the Auxiliary Building supports.
. 6 MR. NOONAN: Yes.
7 MR. S!!AO: In the FSAR they're supposed to be different.
. 8 I think I understand it. I think the reason containrent sup-9 port at a lower allowable may be they treat containrent sup-10 f port as a so-called errergency function; they treat it like a i
11 normal allowable.
12 I don't know why they came up with it. I ' ..
13 l not saying I agreed with what they're doing in the Auxiliary ;
la building. I thought they couldn't exceed .5 of yield, Lut 15 ; they're not recting their FSAR requirerents.
16 MR. NOONAN: Let's go back and look and see what the i ;
i g FSAR says; then ue'll go back and see what the CYGNA rer.crt s
I j says--
19 CYGNA did not address the containment.
i 20 MR. SHAO: His concern is the containtoent support.
.a '
3 i
21 Containrent support is supposed to have a lower allowable /
22 but they use the sane allowable. -'
23 MR. NOONAN:- What. Larry is thinking about is there is g g a-possibility that could be okay. he's thinking about a l
25 . case where you might be allowed, but we'll go back and che .!
I.
y e
-..-y.,.....
I. . .. s f '
124 1 i Then when they attached the support to the l i 2 cable tray, to the caE)le tray to support the structural steel',
3 they drill a hole through the ~ flange cf the channel- .~ost of 6
5 4 therr. are channels--and that hole' through the channel reduces 5 the section modules.
6 MR. SHAO: It goes through a web or it goes through a 7 flange?
. 8 Through the flange. That reduction has not 9 ! been accounted for in the calculations, and according to the l U
10 ,
-code, steel code, if it exceeds 15 percent of the flange, ;
, . . y.
~
you've got to reduce it. It's considerably rore than 15 I ;
1! e i
12 , parcent. I think half of the flange is tissing because it's
! t 13 g a channel, it's only on one side, and when you're drilling a la threc-quarter-inch helt en an inch-and-a-half flange, there's 15 not ruch left.
i 16 MR. SHAO: That's also in the CYGNA report?
l~ ~-
i MR. SHAO: That's in the-- . ;
19 Everything on the cable tray supports carc i 20 out of the CYGNA report, yeah.
l 2I 'NR. CALVO: We did look at the cable tray attachments
- ~
22 to the saismic supports. I guess the concern was thdt they 23 were not being installed according to the design. We j 24 ; inspected 60 of those cable tray attachrents in the Safeguards I Building, and we found in the sample we selected it was in 25 I
)
Nh ,
l' ,h4 : y( , '
- *~
' ~
1?s 1l accordance with the design.
2 MR. PIIILLEO: It's.the desion he's questioning.
3 I'r not questioning if t'.cy were Luilt right 4 or wrong.
5 MR. CALVO: What I'm saying--I'm saying it was built in ,
6 accordance with the drawings. '
7 MR. SHAO: His question is on analysis.
g MR. CALVO : Okay; analysis.
9 MR. SHAO: I understaqd the concerns.
10 You didn' t realize you were opening Fandora 's.
t .
You see what happens when you let this engineer finc e
33 tox.
1 12 sorebody that he can talk to that will listen. See: s like j
13 l they want to do sorrething about it. '
g MR. SEAC: I understand.
I-;n. :3002:I' :
Is. >
I guess I'm just thinking out loud, Lu 16 { y u re q ing t bring people out here to look at'what they're i .
j g_ doint on that ceiling. D - --- -- r_ M- h iM-T O.c,: vaix w -
i 15 -
- MR. SHAO
- I'll get one laboratory to do this.
39 20 . NOONM: He speak of the ldorato n. We deal with ,
! 21 the Department of Energy Laboratory. ,
We're talking about '
a E
22 Idaho; Brookhaven; Livermore, California; Sandia. These are
, laboratories that we use--utilize,,as consultants. !
MR. SliAO: For the Governrent.
p .
- They don't work for 24 I
y' ; s industry. They o'nly work for us. !
2a. l
.y.
s
-3_ .
l l
~
qgg sa>w
J 126 5 '
1 HR. 1100N;W : They're strictly Government labcratories.
2 t.e use those all-the tin.e.as consultants, and they'rc a j 3 I I
source of manpower tnat we don't normally have in the agency.i ,
4 l MR. S!!AO : they have very good talents in terms of 5 analysis.
6 MR. NOONAN: What we try to do is select a lab that's 7 rcre suitable for the application, like we use EG&G-Idahc l 8 a lot because they built their own facility out there and 5
l l 9 ' they do ti.eir own piping work and they do their own suppcrt i !
l 10 . work. They do it for ther.sclves, so they're good people:
i 11 they've got the hardware experience.
I 12 l They should have stuck to the technical 13 I stuff and not gotten into the intinidation area. l 14 ' MR. NOONAN: They're a lab; they' re not part of tne :iM..
j3 i.e pay thern we pay then. for their services, but they core 16 in with a report and it's their report.
- e don't go throuch
! i i
g7 . and edit it out. It's their report.
I .
gs . . . . S1;;.0 ; Anytning else?
39 n-- _ murmsi-o Alegation- I~iGdi sode "tiir$c
~
20
.. ; J j 21 MR. ZUDANS: I have two iters here that are written on H
22 this list that are liner plates, and you need to tell me if .
.j ~
[N -23 these are the ones. One is incorrect ' fit of one stainless ,
g steel liner in the Reactor Euilding and Fuel E'uilding, and .
25 tneother'oneislinerplateweldsearsdonot;tatchdrawingj i
b, u., p , - .. g._ . . . ,.-..._...
127 1 ; locations on ' floor around Unit One Reactor Luilding. These
( 2 l are not the ones?
I
- Nc Tac cne I'r talking abcut is therc i
- '
.l l
,; a-- in the contain cnt they have a piping syste:r that goes 5 up, I think it's the containment spray, and MPSI has attached 6 to a plate that sticks out from the liner plate--it's a 7 horizontal plate: I think it's three-eighth's inch thick
, ", 9 plate--it's cantilevered off the line. It's the thick part 9 of the liner.
10 l 1.' hen I was working out there, I was working the STRUDL 33 Group analyzing, so what I did was I called the support pcin -
l \
12 ,
the liner plate itself, and I rrodeled in this three-cighth's 13 inen horizontal cantileverect plate that they had attached.
!j 34 When we analyzed the support, that plate had 100 KSI stress l
15 . on it. Unen I took it back, I gave it to "ISI and I let.the i
16 j know. They said, "We 'll have Gibson !!ill look at it. '-
i j
j-Gibsen's reply was that "It's part of our design" because g3 it's part of tne liner plate--they had already attached it--
- g9 and for us not to code it in anyrr. ore. I 1 i . l
! 20 MR. SliAO: The 100 KSI due to what loading? i 21 I f rget what loading combination it was. !
MR. SliAO: SK loading or-- .
23 n was--I'm not sure; I'd say OE ,
but 100 F.rI--
24 r MR. SliAO : The use strength is only 30 KSI.
l
- *.em .
- _ 2 .*
126 I The yield was 30.
l ;
~
2 MR. SHAO: 'The yield strength was 30 i<SI.
'3' j So we were told not~to model that part in i 4 anysore because it'was Gibson Hill's design, so we analyzed 5 the support not without the three-eighth's horizontal platc.
6 That's the way it was left.
MR. NOOh?.N: When you said you were told that, who told S you that?
9 I don't want to get the guy in trouble.
10 ; MR. NOONAN: No, just--
11 l MPSI; it was an MPSI support .
12 MR. St.AO: Okay. We can locate the place you're talking 13 about. I y I forget the elevation. You can see r.he 15 der e; whatever elevation you're at, it 's the ccer.on eleva-16 , tion so you can see the dome, the crane, the to; floor j 3- l elevation. You can see the piping going up the side and y3 it's those supports that are attached there; you'll sec a
- plate sticking out.
39 They have a tube steel merber on top of i
i 20 the plate and below the plate. I forget how it's attached ,
8 I 21 to the plate, but there is a plate that sticks out. They're l' g
using--I think it's a three-eighth's inch plate. - .i t
21 MR. SHAO: , Maybe a cantilevered plate. Do you think ;
it's an IGSI support or Gibson Eill design?
23 M The three-eighth.s inch plate is a cibscn l
- - ~ . . . . . -.-~e-.. . . . . . -
(. , * .,
- v: -
- r s' i e
3 120 I
1 Eill desien: the tube steel is MPSI.
l 2
l MR. Si!AO: If we. locate the plates, is it possible to--
3 I coubt it. Get back in touch with n.e or 4 l I'll get in touch with Mark. k'e can do something. We'll try 5 to figure out now to pcint you to it.
,- 6 I think it was in the newspaper.
7 MS, VIETTI: Had you raised this before in the hearingc?
8 Where did it appear?
9 I told it to Joe Cinto; I rcrerter that.
10 ; FS. VIETTI: At a hearing? Do you think it would have 33 appeared in a transcript or anything?
12 ; I don't think it was in the hearinc.
13 I remerber speaking to Joe Cinto and he--
j4 I forget what his reply had been because I had drawn a dia-15 t
gram f r hir, a picture of what--
g MS. VIETTI: I was just trying to see if we could i !
j 3- locato--I was trying tc figure out Lecause I was one of the peor.le that put this cor..prehensive list together, anc i' t' ys 39 did not sound familiar to me. I was trying to see where s
! ;20 we may not have picked it up from, whether it was in a trans-
'j g cript or special report or--
MR. CALVO: Let me help you with this. Y6u hiv'e the
- k. physical arrangement drawings for Coeanche Peak where you 23 h, ,,
pinpoint the area.by looking at it. iihen'you have the FSAR, e _
i 25 l CASE has the FSAR, do you have a Section One; do you have '
l t
a hb.y W ----- . -- -
- - - - - - - - - - - ~-
. ?- - -
._ _ _ , _ .. ,m. e._.. . . .
4 130 I the physical arrangcr.ent drawings? Ey looking at it, I l . ,
2 think you can indicate _the. location, 'he quadrant, and every-t 3-- thing else.
4 l MR. SHAO: If you can pinpoint an area for us, we would 5 appreciate that.
- l. 6 I wouldn't be able to say, you know, how 7 rany pipes do they have going up the side of the liner to
- S the top floor. It can only be, like,.five or six. This was 9 in pretty much like a generic. You're looking at MPSI, so 10 f ind out how many of those piping systens were done by MrSI i
11 , and you've found your itet.
I 12 j It's not tiie kind of thing you can tell by 13 l looking at a drawing. ;
14 j I don't think so. I'd look odt and I'd
~
15 say, "Every one of these. Pick them out." And you' d do t..e i
1 f. sare thing, because they're not going to show the pipe
- i
! l- support configuration on these drawings. Grinnell has get j is sorething in therc; r.aybe Grinnell did the containcent' spra2 .
i 19 l This is another system that's in there.
i 20 MR. SHAO: Let us try. I may have to core back to you
.I 2 21 to see where we can find the location. '
s 22 Could you find it? ,
I: don't 23 Just as easily as an'yone else.
3., think it would :be that.dif ficult 'to look..
t ,-
25 MR. SHAO: We ~can go through the' plant and look.
l W
< .d ; , ', c '. ., ,
' v- -
- -- : . - - , , & W , .
- ..s .m s_ .
. s 131
]~ There was no kickers to hold the support r ,-
l 2 ;
up, not at the tite "I was there.
3 MR. ShAO: o' ut i.aat problem can be easily fixed if you 4 had a bracket.
5 Exactly. 8M. Th*s5Etliie'lY@sff'IUnTf2sulviUc 6 +
the problemMrat.y-ha t getow.-- -ReRr -thtllZ::tREC,Eg::not:27@r j 7 geflcl it ;..y :>rc . S
_ _ Thet's-ho w m al uyun S xo@_1.eegy If the j 8 thing is-over.-100 k' AI and- yco _ don ' t-modo 1 = i+= =# 4 e-ingt;;:-
e-9 M other thrm w-en -w ny y, ny-, Mao-we-dcr"t nave T 10 "'""~
i g; ,
!!R. SilAO: 1:e r.ay hcvc to go to the plant and take a -
I I
12 :
look at it. I'll get somebody to look at it.
13 : Let us know if you need help.
3.g ,
P.R . SMITli: The top operating level; 80, 90, I think it t
I
. I s. ,
is--
I y It's about 60 feet to the top of the dome, I I- 40 fcct; it's that level.
I p MR. SS'.ITE : I've got a piece of the arrangement for 832 3
gg level with me here, but I don't think that would help you.
I 20 Y u're talking about all the way up. ,
21 _ On the top level, the air conditioning level.
They.have a large air conditioner on that floor. .I don't ..
!^ 23 know if it was for construction or for operation,'ut I b
i retecher there was a large air conditiening unit er somethiny 4
like that on tliat level. .
2a. -
e f.
/,e "Y
- 9
, - ~ ~ - . . . . . .
Kw . . , . . . . . , ,,_ ,,,,;.,
.'e, . , , , , , , , , , {.
.C , .n 0:3nh ,.
131
- P.. Li.; O : c'll follov up or. it.
..M. ::CO::N:: Dc we tre.nti to de ar.; thinc nere with Lstry 3 . as. a n.s a r e a'.-
4 1. hat el'e s were you--
c; I , . MR . SHAO: This liner plate--, . s 6
We interrupted you when you were trying tc tell us about sorething. **
g MR. SEAO: I think I finished the control room. I finished the control room, right?
I think so.
- .* ." . ?!OTIA :: Is thcre anything cisc,
) .; l'K. Ci.AO :
. The only area we havs. is the icse r.at c raci. .
g MR. NOOI A 1: I would like to go into the base c.at crac;,.
g i c t. talhec; to rce on the I. hone the other day al.out th:t. I would. like to trake sure we understant tnat.
AqM@@M s%
1 n
g et- _-,,..n..,
__ m
?:h . Shl.0 : I;c t the surr.ary dispositicn. .
,; gg MR. NOONAN: Excuse me. We have two people back in t'.x l
i i NRC,#' John Finnoran and Dave Terao, working this. These arc
& 20 +.
I e '
~ ' ' .
NRC people. They're workinE the sum.ary dispositibn. 'Thcy 22 couldn't'come coday, but we thought if there's something you
, wanted to tell us, we can take 3.t bach to them and we'll hcVe then look at it. I don't have the right people here to go
, into the cietcils of what you're talking about., '1 hey briefec
~ . . . . .
.. .. ._... ., , _ . , , ,, 7 , , , , ,
~
133 I l me the otner cay on supports and particularly the one that l '
2 you were talking about, the stability of it. I wanted to get 3 an understanding of what that was, and they talked to me 4 about that. I don't know the background. I don't know all 5 the details, but I will make-them available.in the near 6 future, I'll say that. I'm trying to keep rry schedule going 7 and I'll try to rake thee available to talk to you. We do 8 plan to come back here, a number of times yet to talk to other 9 ,
pecple in this area who have expressed concerns. We can l l 10 ' have them come back and talk to you directly about that par- i l
i ticular issue, but if there-is anything you want us to look ,
l 1 12 i into or check that we don't already know about, just say it , I 13 l and we'll at least put it on the record and we'll have the
- 14 ;
people look at it.
15 I can' t think at this time. If it comes 16 to ry mind, I'll tell and ill let you know.
. I i
g- ;
The probice is when I was out there, I didn't write everythint.
g g3 down. t'aybe I shculd have. The last week I was there,,,that's
,; g9 when I should have started doing it, but I didn't start until
{ 20 kednesday and by that time it was too late. Even then, a lot f 21 f this stuf f, like the control roor. , when I testified, I f rg t all about it.
22 23 E. AN. Let me ask a question. How long ago has l it been since you've been outithere?
25 Alm s t two-and-a-half years ,
e e- e e e . =
- 1 .. .
i .
i' .
~
134 1 June '82.
2 MR. NOONAn: I I just wcnderec' how It s"not irrortant.
., long'it has Lccr..
1 I'm sure there have Lcen changes Lecause 5 ; they'ye revised their PSE manual now.
r .
., 6 .MR. NOONAN: When we look gat things, we need to know 7 '
how long it's been since you've looked at it so if w'e see
- s .i.
'. 8 l things differently we can start asking questions based on 9 what ycu tell us and what we see.
10 There is one other item. One of the things I: is the--ycu were saying about the seisric Category One and -
i .: ;vo structures.
- hen I was cut therc, I rcrcrLcr goin:--it 13 was adjacent to the Containment Building and you went through I;
a door and it locked like the Safeguards Building was 13 integrally attached to the Containrent Suildinv. 1.here it's 16 located I don't know, except it's at a doorway. I don't know if it's one or Two. It drew my attention because I kncu
- - it was the Containrent T.uilding. I knew therc vas supposed 19 to be a gap there or some type.cf barrier or foan, depending.
- 20 - ' !!R . SliAO
- Okay. I understand,your concern. If you 3 '
~~ ' 3
.' 21 notice, our question to the' applicant or licensee of wh'a~tever i . . . .
it is, we not only worry about Category one structuFes, .we
~
4, I I
23 ; worry 'about adjacent category One and Non-Category O e
.,, structures, if they're supposed tc have a gar, too, because -
23 you' knew dynamic analysis. If : there 's no gap--even though V
l.. .;
. i.;z-jp; -'
._.4__ _
i .
- 135 1 I non-seiscic, it ray affect the soistic part of It'. If ycu i*
2 look a.t our question yery carefully, we say cap between con-3 ,
creta structure. 1.e uen ' t say Letween Catescry -r.e struct.ure.s .
l 4 Eo we would also worry betwcen Category One and ;on-Category 5 One. ,
6 This did not appear to even have the foam.
7 MC _,:_ - a*- =b ----- ~ -
= r.np ne all, Thn.p's *Dreer . - "
1 -
-~_,_....x.
8 ^" * ~ ' -R =_ m a-me sa d_f T _ ym+y~=eeath,escx1T:u=_ny ~)
, ~
9 --1 m myc mua ---
+- . _ . .
y, ,7 m - p s m L;.;.a __ h @ av..e.w.ne.a r -- .. ..
i.
.tv .
10 5 4- - f4 -
gj I don't know where the cicvation is--
l 12 !*R. CHIO:
. . Uc realize there is an area titey have no gap.'
i 13 I think cost of the rest of that is in the ;
34 stuff that we 9. ave to so you should have it.
MR. h00U;c;: It was on Monday, I believe, we received 15 .
16- ; the CASE corr.ents. Do you have a copy?
- - MR. SHAO
- The attachraents were not completed; a lot of i
i 15 attachrents that I couldn't find.
19 I haven't received ty copy of this yet. It
! 20 looks like they retyped it. i l
l
. [ 21 MR. SHAO:< They said attachrent; I couldn't find the i
attachments. -
22-
- f. MR. NOONAN: Did you look at the other package that care?
' I MR.'CALU6: I fcund the sare thing; the attacht.ient was 24
.,.2 a
l nissing. y'got that-- -
9 e
~ " ' ## ..-e. ehe-
.,,k.*4," :.
s . - .... . : .t *. C. . .. , , , . . _ _ _
___? , . ';
- l- ,
'b'
136 i ML. S11AO : I got it yesterday.
2 MR. HOONA'!: I 'also sent you the stuf f that GAP gave 3 us. It was a thicker package.
l t 4 !
MR. SHAO: I never received that.
5 MR. NOONA'i: You didn't receive it either?
6 MR. CALVO:
, No, no. I got the thicker package, but the 7
attachr.ents mentioned in that was not in ny package.
8 MR. NOONAN: I guess I need to go back and see what 9
that attachment is that's referenced in there and where it is.
10 , MF. VIETTI: I don't know what we're lcoking at.
i MR. HOONAN: This is what we sent out yesterday.
11 l 12 ! I don't have their copy of that. 'I assume I
13 it's the same stuff, but it may be in different order.
14 j MR. 1;OONAN:
This is the CASE response tc the program
) 35 : plan. Darrell asked s
o submit the conr.ents to l e, us within - the week af ter the last ceting we had. t'e ect
!. 17 .! the package, what we call the GAP package, but the CASL stuff
,1 was not included. We got that yesterday. That's what this i l
..; 19 l is right here.
i It looks like an' attachment is missinc. Ve
- l i 20 need to go back and double-check that.
21 I think those are the same and everything, buI 22 I think they're in different. order, so I really~need to ,
23 get'a copy of that and compare it and then-- e
.)
34 ! f *R. SliAO: You can keep this copy.
25 That will be good. I'll double-check and
,a
- e. + .
e w <e . Gweet
.h I .
I h -
. . . . . . . - - ~, a. ,,__,..;. >
137 1 ! make sure we sent ' then the attachments, first of all.
- f 2 ~ tiR . SHIO: It said attachrent. I couldn't find it.
I 3 1 MR. CALVO. I read all this; I got the same problem. t 4 MR. NOONAN: There 's an attachment that 's r,'.issing.
5 I'll double-check; we might not have sent 6
them all the attachments.
- . 7 A few more things. Was your group looking 8 into the NCR program, how it's used?
l 9 MS. VIETTI:
j Our Quality Assurance-Quality Control Group 10 l is part of the TRT, but they're still evaluating some of the 11 ! results. They were one of the last groups to leave the site.'
i 12 ' They went for a 5th session.
I They're still evaluating ser.e 13 of their results, but our team leader isn't here today.
i 11 ^ -NOON;s-r T et re _tqlL vau what.we-awMm - --The
,g 15 YgaEm y__AsAurabce d d i'4 p M '_ %gone--throuqb -a-lot of .
16 { the tr.in'trs -They -looked-at-a-lot of the~atregatioiiEithat I l d..)
17 I were~rTde uud7tleyfe% ulua i.1,ngt-thFs3~C'TnEy. _'re'in the l
j nrcress cf
16 _, , &wca-l.Mafetemn*mF*ms . F. e i F 4 19 have a small report out for each allegat' ion. They're in k i*
- l i 20 the process of doing that.
What we want to do next is take ll' i
21 that group of. people and bring them down here and have them -
22 talk to the people that have made these allegations and do i 23 . the sarte thing as we're doing right here, the sare exact, :)" !
i ,
.l identical format. We'll'have a reporter, we'll have the
~4 ,
l
.25 - technical people here, and then the people that are involve h' h !
Y pl,id w $.
y s t
- .. .$~~ ':'w~;-' ~ :;
'. - - ... . .. e. n-
13b 1! with the allegations or who made the concerns; we'll do this l
2 ' kind of talking to show ther what we did. Wc'll try to do i
a this Loforc we give this to the Utility, i.e want to talk tc i
4 the people who are involved in the allegations before we 5 give it to the Utility.
6 Now, I'm trying to do that--I'll give you a tentative 7 date--I'm trying to do that next week. We're in the process 8 of calling people who have made allegations, trying to set 9 up times with them, and it would be done in Granbury where 10 l they would be accessible, probably at one of the hotels down i
ji there. If you want to talk to that group, just let rte know 12 and we'll set up a time.
I don't know if it's a proper procedure or 13 l 14 , not, but there's an NCR thct Juanita has that she's gotten l
15 n discovery--I call it the J. Fatton .NCR--and in this ;CR g
16 l he wrote down what the allegation was, that they were in l
]' g >
violation of 10CFR50.55(e).
l l- y g !!R. NOONAN: It's called the J. Fatton--
19 _ i__non u_J Tow waars #
! 20 R-mmma r-is -on-itMhat -:M--Pe"4e1^n 4. Lr-Bemrit *h
,' ; 21 k *h applicant-has- cottenu of--the-viel a t ! ^ n an" n ".~3-it ter4,
~~
g - 22 ~__it for tha4r nt m purpose anquerything--was oKAQdyr ,
' 23 1.ay ratyped4he-whole-NCR-and-answered-what-thergafft4tten- ,N 1- __ ,
. 2c.ac, T Ann't thinkthat'sproper.'1:,.1hele'Yi_qfj f.'
r
,,4 a .
g y ml..inal ou it was- a c ne 'etyped i.t.
- u. ;
p..
,, a. -
It's obviously g
e**
?/ - - - - . . . .
. _ . . , , , . . , , 4 ;, ,;; , ,
e ,;h : t *. .
_.,. ,,)g,:*!;[j',&f;$'}?..
y '
c-... .
...._............_,,.m.. . . . . -
% -ee 139 I typedNO '
I 2
I
'15 . VITTTI: I'll tell you we've had nur erous allega-
,3 tions on various ..CR's , assu=ka.krjpMrt;A1,a,taour 9 whrW5Groupiise 4 lockingat 4 Ein-a,_pIqgramatic=@YvF'sytEffi~c* examples %
5 @e V,qu_just-cited. I'm not sure that that's one of ther,
~
6 but they have specific examples that they looked at and then , :
7 they took a percentage of them and were going through ther. ( j 8 to see whether their document system was working as it 9 should. .
10 So I know that that is an area that is being ico).ed at, - i l
gg iCF 's specifically--that 's a categcry--and wc have .u c.rcur l !
12 , allecations, specific al1egations, that werc being leched at 13 l in that category. I'm not sure that that specific NCR had [
34 been looked at, but I know that our group is addressing liCR's 15 ,
anc the program in general.
! !!R. NOONAN, In order for me to follow up on this, can
}
}
~
g- I have Ji- Gagliardo--he's ry deputy, but he's been lecking l
I Is at all these things in the GA-0C arca--cculd I hcve .:ir ' talk
- 39 to you so you can give hir a little bit better inferration
! 20 that he can go back and check? .
21 y u k'now the CASE exhibit numberc.
~
,, mm, l. e got a _ c here. .
. . _ , 1 11 ha e ,1. eag11areo ca11. . 1e t_re.
,2 j be okay? - i
'le s . .,
~
- - t 4 *
"4...,
[';; id) '. N a, .
- D i
~'
S...... ...
- - - . _ _ _ _ ~..
-,s.. '
f .
140 7 1
MR. ?iOO!!AN: I'll try to have hir call ycu tororror and I l
2
' you can tell hin. directly what it is so wc can' go back and .
3 see whether we lookec at it or not. I don' t know the answer i
4 right now. '
5 MR. ZUDANS: That is a nonconformance report on a 6 10CFR50. 55 (e) that they did not report?
7 Correct. They rewrote it and there 's 8
nothing in Revision 1 of the NCR that they were in violaticn. ;
.. a 9 I think--
10 I don ' t know that they said it was 50.55 (e) ,
11 . did they?
I '
12 , N - 2p m e m '
breakdowm of t))eM e M 13 i eAssurancormsyn -an&hs==uttruh'eWl't #ds9n- VGIa FN'f c
il A.
14
{ and he said the AS!2. code and the 10CFR and they took that 15 ; out. Maybe they wrote down 10CFR and they changed the 16 violation to the AFFE code, i i i
k 1; . MR. ::UDANS : The only reascn I asked thct is becausc t
i n 10CFR50.55(c) is reporting of construction deficienciss'.
- t
, 19 ; That's the log. That's reporting construction deficiencies.
j 20 To find a deviation in the work that you're doing in the i
8 21 Plant, you have to notify the NRC if that could pose a 22 significant safety hazard if it was not correctied during the
.I'm keying in on l0CTR50.55 (e)
~
23 lifetire of the plant.
i g ! specifically because you said it. I'm just wondering because l . I
-/ - - ~
-t 25 that would come out of--right out of the plant, and you would; 6
..y.
- . . g. . . . - -
g------=
141 I see it.
l . ;
2 MR. SMITH: I was going tc ask a sir.ilar question. De you recall the NCR saying that sorneone violated 50.55(e) or I
~
3 l
4 in failing to report something--
l 5 The way they were handling the prcLlen. was j 6 in violation. For., example A y g er,e;usingra:CMCr.andr.the*
~
l . 7 docume nAs aid .there. .wasra"#ela:Effe"rsiY~ and they ' we re do in(7 t
?
8 gg3.f St thegl,d-nevery,was.-put.ritn.T. $jggggrjgigne5}q;oggchygC p 9 , a2mbe.umthcre . There was other problems. Ee had listed -
f 10 j like 12 iten:s that were wrong, and because of these he said 11 l that this is what you're in violation of and it was like a l 12 generic-type item, and they had revised it to say you were I l 13 ;.
in violation of the AS:I co'de.
14 ! MS. VIETTI: If we can focus on the ;;CR, we can get i l
15 the inforr.ation we need to investigate it.
l -
16 l 4bA6- ihmWf-i-lemI tAsan_g%,,',;,u a].,i,ty, l7 l
! ^8 S Paf.p e progn m Ttas%ia tjgfj,1,e,g, ,
j 15 !*R. UOOiU.'s : I'll he.vc Cin call you tomorrou. I guess ,
- g" 19 with that, are we done with the civil area right now?
i
,, $ 20 MR. SHAO: Do you have anything more on civil area, g I
- 21 civil-mechanical? ,,,,
22 I think that's it. ;
33 MR. NOONAN: Why don't I let you take the lea'd. What j i '
24 clse d you want to tell us?
~
- 23 Okay. There's one thing that I knew Mark
. - . . ..- .. .. c . .
,, , p .g .. .) , . ,, , ;, ,, , ____-
142 f
1 ' is interested in and that was the part about the hot I i 2 functional test and stuf f. Dc you really want to get into
.3 that tonight? +
1 4 From what I read of their hot functional 5 tests, they didn't have the snubbers in, a lot of them, when ***
6 they tested, when they did the hot functional tests, and 7 they were binding a lot of them or the piping wasn't roving i 8
They're supposed to move the right picr as it was calculated.
z i
, 9 that was going to the Icft and that was what was causing the 10 ' problems. It's more of an.cngineering philoscphy and it i
11 would indicate that--because this is just a thercal loading '
l l
12 , wnich shouloc' c highly predictable, but because of the way 13 l they've designed the pipe support-- i 14 . MR. SHAO: Is that a mechanical snubber or--
15 : P.cchanical, I believe, that they're using I
16 out there. I don't know if--I have not seen anything frcr i
i
- 17 - the staf f requiring the a .plicant to address v1.y this is i
g3 cccurring, what's wrong with their analysis, not to go qut 39 there and fix the snubber so it won't bind, but what's wrong i
! 20 with their analysis that they can't predict this because og they're not going to be able to, in the event of a dynamic 1
22 1 ad, go out there and fix the snubber because'their analysis 23 isn't worth two cents. i E l Uhat the problem is is the stif fness of their supports 21 25 is wrong is why the things aren't moving, and there's .
i
,.... . . ~ - . . . . .
?, ,
. 7 - -
__~.._. . _ . . . . _ _ . . _ .
. ._ 1 143 1l WongMthMeWsMt2ptg.grgtaggp I 2 ggggsta>,,aressettin esth#ses b1TuTQggp%argap.t;;f.Av.inc;;,in;.$n,e
\
3 l emMr-ted-fan i mn +hT chntr1 Q e. To go through the 7914 I 4 Bulletin requirements they should be able to predict the 5 movement through the thermal leads. That's all this was,
. 6 and dead load. Unless there was--maybe that thing was, the 7 piping system, was put in under pressure and now they've 6 got a load in there because it was pushed in or used the 9 polar crane to move it and get it in place. Now you've 10 prestressed your pipe 'and it's not going to move until you 11 i remove that prestressing force which throws the calculations i I
12 off because there's no prestress force input in the pipe i
13 l stress analysis. Maybe that's the pro'.lem. r I haven't seen
- 1. anythina from the staff requiring the applicant to address 15 why this was occurring.
I 16 ,
MR. Si.AO : Have you addressed this issue?
j 1- i Mn. SMITH: In the first place, they had a lot of pipe
{ 16 su,nports, either out and documented or that did not pacf. as
l predicted, as ycu say. That's the purpose of the therrc' l 19 '
i
$ 20 expansion test, to prove that what you calculated is, in ,
t 21 fact, true. It's normal and it's expected. For that reasor.
f 22 we don't consider any of those supports operable until they ;
l g have conducted this test. What's nade the HTT incortplete l l l
g is t. hat t!.ey had a lot of those supports gonc cr that were l I hinding. They removed them to retrove the stress that it was I l l l
1 -
.~ . . _ . .
144 I
l causing and ended up with a very long list of approximately ,
i 2 ? 50 percent of supports, snubbers and so'on that had to be 3 retested, in many cases redesigned, because the niovement j 4 was not as anticipated. I don't think you were here when we i
5 centioned it, but they are getting ready to corrence another 6 HFT and all of the supports and snubbers based on figures
. 7 that they were able to get during the first lift are now 8 installed, are identified in the test procedure by computer 9 ; run and in the containment versus white flags and tags and 10 i so on, and this HFT will complete that test; that's the deal.
I 11 l Whether or not everything was covered with so n.any ;
i 12 supports rissing remains to be seen. I fully expect when 13 they finish the I:FT this tine around, they'll still have I 14 I sore areas that have to be justified or replaced in tcrms i
13 of supports. Again, you're talking about a very, very i
, 16 g complex piece of retal there with the piping systers, anc
?
I I- you can calculate within practical limits what it's going 3
- Is to co but you never really know until you do it.
19 Tneir philosophy was "Let's see how well i., k 20 your prediction was."
What I had seen out of their tests ,,
3
! 21 was it was not doing what they had anticipated, and on rest f the items that they found it was written down that they'll
, 22 2
l .
h- 2'1 install it prior to fuel load. There was no indication they,
'l ~
werc going to be retested. '
94 . l N- 7[ f MR. SMIT!!: That may.be the impression, and.that was ,
l~
i (
f
.,h, . ,
- . -+ ~ -- llL- -
' ~ - - - - - - - - - - - -- .t.
145 I because they had planned to defer these until after fuel 2 loading and do it during the next expected 'lirT. Now, from 3 a historical standpoint, that's practical to an extent, '
l .
4 depending on the amount of testing you're planning on dcing 5 after fuel loading. In this case, with the course of event:
6 here, they found it practical and smart to go ahead and heat 7 up now and do this testing prior to fuel loading; and that f
8 makes a lot'of concerns go away because now you're putting 9 . the fuel in the pot with more of this stuff done.
10 So we have looked at the--we centioned this before you 11 l came in--we looked at what testing was coepleted, looked 12 i at the records, looked at the documentation they had to show I
13 which was not installed, which, bound on them, which needed 14 redesign; and we are now--in fact, I have just completed 15 l a review of the new thereal expansion test which is goin's to lo , be under tae initial start-up program, precorc as they cc.11 1
! 17 l it, and I reviewed that as a resident inspector and we will i
=
13 1.,e t..onitoring the test as it progresses through this ne.~.t
. t 19 30 or 40 days.
. I i 20 Do you have any specific questions? .
I 21 Not in regard to the hot finctional test.
22 I remember some tiro ago I had reviewed tho information on .
. 23 the original lift, and it seerred to be deficient, their ;
I 24 analysi's was deficient, and, retesting it with snubbers in l
I so it wouldn't bind, they had still not changed the prediction.
25 l i i
i
- ~
4
.' 4 ;( . v * ,
4_
=**
<,,y,~s....~. -
.. s 1
. m.., s _ .,
4 146 1
Their calculation still said the pipe moves to the right '
l .
2 i '!
, when in reality it goes to the left. In that cold spring, I 3
l in effect, that will also work under the dynamic condition, l
4 but since they're going to be redoing it, maybe they'll 5 correct ser.e of those problems so it will go in the right direction, the piping.
6 7
, MR. NOONAN: What other problem--not just Coranche 8 Peak but any plant--when they do these kinds of things, they 9
run these analyses, they use the most sophisticated cede 10 l they can come up with, super pipe or whatever, and they do 11 these calculations but, in fact, you get out there anc you g
12 i ~
see the way it's actually built, things are not quite done f 13 the way it's analyzed; so the movements don't coec out to I 14 ;' be the same. Parts of--you centioned 7914.
< I was involved j5 in that one. The concern we had was basically that computer I
je '
i I analysis didn't tatch what was done in the fic1d, and ve i
) l- ,
made that a Lulletin. Uc made these plants go back out and--
!- lb tm. S11AO: 7514 you have a problem because a lot of i
19 i construction systems analyzed and actually they are not the i
! 20 same, so we asked them to redo them.
I i
,I 21 HR. NOONAN: The as-built is a big probler to us.
t 22 Industry-wide asJbuilts are problems with us.',
- 23 The applicant's position was we're going to 3 I rely everything on the as-built program, so there should be '
23 no probler since they have 'got an as-built ' program. That's i
f
., , - - - - - - ~ ~ - - > . . . . . . , . . . , . ' .; '
g ;
- i
147 I
l what they're relying everything on. They have a CMC prograr. .
2! that isn't worth two cents, but there's poing to be no prob-3 l lem because we're going to have an as-built program that l
4 takes care of everything. Then they go to hot functional l
5 test and they can't work it out.
6 MR. S!!AO : Sometimes these kind of sup' ports, it's very 7 dif ficult to simulate the stif fness, but if you use sor:,ethinc; S raw stiffness sometires the definition would not be the sare.
9 : That's where the hot functional test will tell you whether
- 10. ; the calculations are richt or wrong. t;e have sore experirents 11 j we have to do. We do it many times. Even the simple piping,;
12 I
piping flexibility analysis, sometire you can't get the 13 definition right because maybe the stiffness forr.ula may not '
la I be the sare.
15 That was ry concern.
16 l . R. *.;OC:JA::: As I told I car.c out of the cerc-i 37 space industry. v.c did a lot of modeling there, a lot of j 13 dynar..ic anclyses. i.e'd go out and test and scretir es it I
,f~ 19 wasn't so good, and we'd go back to the drawing board; but,
. 20 you know, we missed, the stiffness wasn't right or we didn't j 21 have the rrodel--
22 ike you said, you go back to the drawing
-21 board. There was no indication that they were going to go ,
i Lack.
24 l ,
l j ,
25 l !!R. NooNAN: We've gtt to go back to the drawing board.
i
- s. c 7
t e
E 14C I Anything else in the testing area?
l .
s
. 2 ,
Nc.
3 l MR. NOONAN; Then I guess, Juanita, why don't you just--l 4 let's proceed.
5 I know y'all are going to starve before I t', 6 get through.
f 7 The crack in the base cat: I've got most of this in 8 written form for you, .so I think that will help. I'll try 9 to just go through this kind of quickly because I've get cost 1
10 i of this stuf f that I'rr going to be talking about written down l
13 here. *a e've always been very concerned with this crach in t;u.
12 i base nat.. One of the reasons we've been concerned is that 13 ! all the documentation that was ever introduced by anybody, !
14 j and reost of it was introduced by us, indicajed tha g .e crack <
x-C g E 4nJh O m o tat--they had a vertical crack that extended I
16 corplctely through the seven-foot thick cat near the center i
- 37 of its ridspan across the cavity; not the radiatier. shield i
g is on the cide, across the cavity. I've got a lot of docOr.*cnt:
39 l here and so on that I want to leave with you, but the bottor.
i
! 20 line is we have been hearing for years from a lot of different
- 21 PeoP c, some of whom we haven't even been able to get in l
22 t uch with again, that t o '. ' 23 w thawwsitaien%Fn k
, ,a g t on the s_ijs e.u. f -e+una.1..-+w.** m m % v y
. 1
, 2, -
==,w ,
23 .
ne=m.c.h.. v,una.eanramwammurascene:.9 ear,l -
e
); j4 ,. -. . - . - . - .. ......
- ,.;.g. .. _. .
10 I side, all the way, the whole pour, in other words .
l I i 2 I t yn e-nnniderd9yudar.gsamiehanswita.e 4 tminuicated ;
i 3 maisanneau:And,there are several things about tnat tnat have l
4 bothered us through the years. One thing is that in testi -
5 fying during the hearings, mode l2fL,.the;meople-tad never sein
, 6 themeracks==--Most of the applicant's witnesses had never seen 7 the crack. Joe Tapia with the NRC staff testified in Junc S '82 hearings--this is to the best of my rocclicction because 9 I didn't have tire to look up the transcript--he had spent i
10 . about cight hours investigating the crack in the base r.at.
l 11 . That investigation revealed documentation which, like I say, l
12 ,
- r. tost of that we had, anc talking to the applicant's witnesses 13 or the applicant's people on site. I think--I'c. not positive '
14 about this at all without checking the transcript-i,.t utathes e 15 ,
C M e8t-i-bied h0-had= sal $.nci'E:Es T p3 E n"tT. I M s m h W S" e e ew h eas. I'm not positive about that. 1 I
l i
i- Cnc cf the things that bothered us was if you Icci.
l p thrcug'. tae nonconferr.ance reports, you'll find that alecs:
l I 19 l all of them, or rest of then anyway, where there is any i
j 20 question as to dimensions or location or anythin,9 li);c_thqt, ;
, . . -e-+- - - .s --
. \
j 21 they have a drawin_g_ attached.
1 cw 22 PQ cracDnf jsc;'r u',~ M dras b e ,,,1 h n 2I.s
.e.. .-
23 c very the applicant provided us with a copy of a drawing g i that somebody had backtracked and made just to give us an '
I i
~35 idca of where it might Le. i I
e emee- e an e e e e,a ee a e em , e meo ese e -e e .ee p 6e e e
.w= . , , , .
150 I There was just an engineer there on site--not at the j
1 2 l time it happened; but at the tir.e of discovery. This is 3
l CASE Exhibit 28 which we used in our summary disposition [
4 motion, and that's this document right here. You can't see 5 it too well. They showed with a line where it had gone 6 across here and across here, but this was just sopebody's 7 estimate on site. It wasn't really documentation by any 8 neans.
9 , MR. P!IILLEO: You can see where it is fror. the tcp.
l 10 .
It's been patched which has no structural significance. _You A
i1 l can see the top of it.
12 Now, the other thing is the applicants in 13 the hearings--I didn't have time to pull all these drawings I 14 j and I didn't have time to pull the applicant's document--
2 Ir introduced a drawing, not of the crack, just a drawing, and go everybody stood around the board up there and tried tc I i
(
- 3-l figure out where-the-Eam-hill the crack was.
[ n ::R. Pl:ILLEO : There was some ccnfusion on the .-ir'r 6r
. ; image there.
39 I read that transcript. They came back an
. 1
! < 20 hour later with a new drawing,jwhich things were reversed I
21 again.
22 It was sort of Twilight Zone time. It was ii 21 a 'very strange sort of proceeding there. -
My point is ,that. the Doard didn't make any ruling t.ased '
3 t
L, 25 n documentation.: They made their ruling based on testimony, y, I b
e*
, =- e e . . . . . . . . e
- i, e 4 p'. . *
. f _' / ' a . f s_ f t }/ , ?
, , . _ . ~ , , ,,. . ,_ _ < . ,
151 1 and the decurentation which they were supplied all says the !
l . l 2 sano thing, like I said before. There's no decurentation to 3 support what tne applicant said about this being just on the l
4 sides. There's none whatsoever that I've seen or that they 5 ever produced. Another thing is that allegations keep coring
. 6 up about this, and I probably would not have brought it up .
again now except for two things. One thing is--or both of 8 these,actually were investigation reports which we just got 9 recently from the office of Investigation, and one of ther is 10 Report No. 04-84-016, and I'll give you copies of these. The.
i ig othcr one is CASL No. 4-83-00C. There are twc things ncto-l 12 , wortny about these. One is On this first repert--let's takt 13 l then in reverse order. The second report first: 4-83006.
14 ;
In 1983, af ter theso hoarings were held--the hearings were s 15 , held in June 1982, by the way, and not in 1981 as it states m in this r'eport. I could go into sore detail about the i 1 i
1; deficiencies cf this report, but I wen't takc c lot of tire is to de that. But apparently the Utility told ther. that .this
- had been done in 1981, and they didn't check and took their
,, 19
! 20 w rd for it. It says that it was exar.ined before the l 21 Licensing B ard in early 1981 and no problers were found.
That is not correct. This could be important because one 22
~23 f the statements made by the investigator at the bottom of the interview with Ronald Tolson on page 8 of this rcpcrt states that basically they didn't ask hit the specifics about' 9.a.
l
152 I the alleger's ccncerns because of the confidentiality prob-2 let, and they said, "Inasruch as Tolsen's staterents regard-a ing hCR ' blank' and its revisions are substantiated Li tae 4 j I;CR ' blank' documentation package, there appears to be.nc 5 factual basis on which to substantiate ' blank's' claim that 6 another revision to NCR ' blank' was made in ' blank' 1981, 7 more than ' blank' after the corrective action was acceeplishec 8 and conths af ter the issues were examined befero ASLE."
I 9 So part of the conclusions of the investigater are 10 -
based on this erroneous infornation that was civen to then 11 tc start with.
I 12
,Another thingt the purpose of this investigation was t 13 j. determine whether documentation relative to cracks discove
l .: in the concrete base rat of Reactor Containment Euilding Cne i
- 15 at Coranche Peak was altered, falsified or contained forged P-16 signature., av oggo aus y u..a a a A Aeger on aat e?? 8, 19 8 3, i _
! !- _ _- w..u u tnere nou .Ee.. .aAs1.Acaw.ua G. uii.E E.".'ition, j g3 They went through here and for various reasons dccided.t. hat Okw
- I that was not true.
19 l l
.; l i 20 As I stated, I think their report was deficient in
.=
21 several ways. I've got little yellow tags on here for you 6
8 22 that have notes on them to point you to specific page's. One 23 think that's in question in my mind on page 7 is what the l l 7,
. investigator looked at. It states, for instance, that
,3
. records disclosed that the ilCR t.uch-and-such which was l g
153 I originally submitted on such-and-such was revised on three l -
i It was r,evised on four 2 occasiens. That's not correct.
.3 occasions and, in fact, there were two Rcvisicn l's anc t:.at 's
!~
4 q in the record.
5 It's not clear to me from this report--I would assume
. 6 that they saw the originals--I mean the original documents 7 that were signed by the people and so forth.
8 Another thing that was not noted is that the concretc 4 pt4suussysetme-h%3rtar wh5rr6btfTs&dtW12id.E5Niiffd% fits'#i'sc !
4 10 t d. I have a ecpy of the document here. It was i
- adeitted into' evidence in cur hearings. The concretc pour 12 card for this was lost. I tpeawesomttttrdNhYff!?'To*F5tc*tTa%"
13 l 72 t_'r % -'u nncanforna,nce rep. ort.yher g egepompr.essj.ve i
14 sr tvtegts ,n~* h 4.a:-nar.t i egt i arfnewff6'Fd6n*cW5Mdst@5' 15 .
- ersoccisanattn%r.-f.1lerJ- -on't have a complete package I here--there are pages missing from this report even; I don't g
i e
- g- have all the pages even, and I've indicated this in that, too.
l . :
j ; VIETTI: We have access to those reports.
, , 39 Y'all could find these, I know. On page 9 20 there's-a note that says, "Due to ' blank'--the alleger's--
~
21 request f r confidentiality of a personal nature of his -
t 22
' blank' 1983 conversation with ' blank', no interview'cf
-23 lan was conducted." Ws is. sometMng dat Pd fed a '!
l g lot better if y'all locked into as I think whoever he was ,
supposed to have talked to there should be talked to because!
3 +
l 1
]
154
. I ; apparently the OI didn't even talk to whoever he had spoken- ,
2 with about this. It might be that they might be able to 3l shed some light on whether or not there was actual falsi- !
4 fication of documentations.
5 onc reason that I'm concerned about this is that even 6 this by itself might. not have been enough for me to bring 7 this back up except there's also the other OI report, Q4-84-C10, S where on February 28, 1984, OI received a phone call fron 9 , Scott Seahorn, a former brown and Root electrician, and onc i
10 ; of his concerns which is listed here involved cracks in the 33 ! concrete pad at the bottom of the reactor core. I can't read I; what : crc of the o.thers are here, but that particular onc--
l .
13 F.E. VIETTI: We have been in contact with them. Let
- y l re just tell you one thing real quick. When we started com-13 Filing this list, ryself and Dick Wessran picked out in red 16 i all the v1 reports that had been issued to date and then the
! 17 i ones that hadn't been issued' Dick went and reviewed the ,
j g3 information that was available to the date that we corpilci
'.: 39 l the listing; and what we were looking for were not the wrcr.c-t
! 20 doing intimidation issues, which is what OI handles we were 21 1 king for the technical issues or the intimidation , issues that could be ir. plied technical issues. If this guy was 22 21 intimidated, what could it have affected, okay, that he had l
been working on? So we have access to those reports, and thc; 24 l. ,
73 l technical issues were pulled out and put into our listing, i I .
- OD" . DO
i 155 1
l' and our guys have been working on these particular allega-2 tions.
3 So you're familiar with these already.
4 MS. VIETTI: Yes. That particular individual we had 5
interviewed and, in fact, Dick Wessman went to interview hir 6
with one of Larry Shao's people. These issues were discusscG, 7
etc. , so I want you to know that we have looked. This isn't 8
new information to us.
9 MR. NOONAN: Let no ask a question. Have we talked to 10 this person here?
I 33 , M5. VIETTI: Yes.
I i
12 ; MR. HOONAN: Recently?
[3 l MR. SHA : Last week, yes. He was happy with that; he i e
14 g was satisfied with that finding.
15 t MR. NOONAN: Was this a telephone interview?
I g MR. SHAO: Telephone interview.
I !
It was a very good '
l
~ 3- .inding.
p MS. VIETTI:
1:e had talked to hir initially to clanify 1 l
.J .
39 the allegation that was made in three OI reports to make
[' 20 sure that yes, we're going in the right direction.
j 21 MR. SHAO: i I
t We closed out with him last week. '
22 HR. NOONAN: You're going to address that in your SER? !
MR. SEAO:
I We're going to say we talked to the alleger. .
I One of the things that we 've. always been 25 t Id, too, is~ chat--by several people--is that this particulari i.
- ao ama . e e .mee, e .g. .ee ., eee. ewe. ,
. ,,,e,,,,,,e,,,,,
e e* ,
. ee e e e epee
.e. ee
I 156 j 1 7 ww. x
_ _ ~ , v ut wua
~k=Aoh4A lergggg ,
2 w A c.. -..e .
rensec J~'?~C ALun h s 6 vim:.c w v..u d w W s.
.$ - em .
u.u l m a rete pour card shows that it was en 'iarc;i-- .
4 21st--ckay. l This in the replacement concrete pour card, and 5 it statos on here, "Thic card issued to replace card under 6
. sare number which was lost. This concrete pour states " cat 7
at 812 and retainder of mat in center of cavity Containcent 8 No. 1."
t The date of the pour initially was 3-21-77. That 9
was marked out and it s'as rarked on there 3-21-77.
10 MK. PHILLEO:
, I think--I went througn that wnole pour 3; pachac(, Thit is a tro: endcus pour ard there's about 300 12 cf the s),ips free caCh truch3 cad, til of w.nich 5.cre dated ,
s I 13 l think that date is cortcet.
y4 You thini, it,was 3-21-17, OI.cy. There's
\ y ',
another reason why I had tended to place sor.c credibility i
i in that and that is because of a staterent that w as rade--
j g.
and at this point in tire I'm not sure who I.ade it"-hut I
g recall when we had gonc dovn to the plant to go through the \
39 plant--I believe it was when corra,iscioner Roberts 6'6L there--
i 20
-. and during the conversation when wo wore driving arcund the g
s plant, one of the Utility people who was in the frcnt seat i with Cctrnissioner Roberts--we were in a little van ' th'ing--
l- 23 Y ** * "9 * * " "## E# # "" "'" # #
r- i Roberts said socething about the concrete paur, 'and thic L 5
. a.
- l. fellow said sorething about it was t>oured on a veckend and l
l
- t p _
i e
157.
I that they had changed their procedure for the second unit I i i ,
-2 because it had scro problems. And that's ancther reason why '
3 I han thought that very probably what we had nearc from 4 people on site was perhaps correct.
5 We've also been told by many people--there's affidavits 6 and stuff on the record that even mention this, I think--
7 that anytime anybody wants to get scrething done that they 8 . don't want watched too closely, that they do it on a weekend 9 '
when there are less OC people arround. This is what we've i
I 10 been told happened with this particular concrete. pour.
I e
11 .v.any of our concerns I'll hand to you in written forr.
12 , so I won't have to go through all of them. icu nect to kec;.
13 l in mind the tin.e frame when we're doing thcsc. Fart of them ;
14 are frem our original answer to the applicant's Motien ftr P 15 Summary Disposition dated June 2, '82, and part of tner are 16 I from CASC's Provisional Proposed Findings and Facts dated
- 6 j i
i- rehruary 24, 1983. The information is pretty ruch t.c sarc l ,
15 in both of ther, and it goes into a little core detail as to
{ ,
- each specific item. I'll just leave that with you on most 19 i
8 6 20 of it.
. # r 21 There are a couple of things that are noteworthy, though.
22 One thing is that applicants hadn't planned for thi's ' kind of I 23 crack. Even though they testified that this was a very g , cotron sort of occurrence, it happened all the tirc, but apparene17 they haen't p1annoe for it. l 23 Theyst.tedthatthe; 1
J' .
156 I . j specu.u -
M in't 3 address __c_racPs rc1At4 C o_any 2 This was an unusual situation because 3 f it states in the documentation which we've :got attached l L 4 here that a copy of the memo was handcarried to Rcnald Tolscn f
5 who was the 2C Site QA Supervisor on April 26, 1977. Just
\
6 from a logic standpoint, it does not make sense to us that ,
7 for something that is so common that there's no problem with, ,
) ,
8 you don't handcarry a memo to the head QA guy on site the 9 ,
day you fin 6 out about it. That just doesn't rake any sensc s
10 . to us.
I b,
I1 i N'd - Um" ' d'"" ' "" ~ """M ""werclisir~es11y-other- than whaj . ,
J 12
' I E ve gone int.o and wtrat- are aitbehed to these- dociidents '
l i 13 whLc k ia_uisu_verv unusual--fgCICR'.sCJ_YoHJus'uhlly"liiv6 CQ ' '
la '
dir ep.ionrr-speeffied =veryprecisch3n-JiCR's,;. and there;was. .
p .<-- -
- , never.,smy ,s.t.udy ~ _analy. sis or anything_like..that introduced gg <- n de e t i-t . -
irr y!i' ,,
f >
1 3; j in addition to these two things, there was another j is allegation which was rade in Inspection Poport 7's2t/7925, I
19 l and this was never investigated by the NRC. This was one, 20 I Lelieve, which was done by--I think that was done by ,
?! ...
2., !!R. P1:ILLE0: What we the nature of the allegation 7
-2 .
It was trade about the crackinc of the flocr slaL c nerete. I've got a copy of the inspection repcrt 24 right. here. He was told that this was general cracking of 25
. - - ~ . . _ . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .]. g [ y g . ,
l 159 i j the floor slab concr.ete in the plant buildings, and one'of 2 the interesting things about this particular document is 3 l that the definition here of a hairline crack given .by the l
.: I NRC in this particular report on page 7 under Allegation 4!.
5 does not seer to fit the de'ini' tion of a hairline crack w;.ici.
. 6 was given in the hearings. It appears from this, it states,
... 7 Such cracking is usually very tight en*-haSinves,tica.tec -
8 e230saasumbadatMc J:.cnegt;e_toghe,cos_t.yex.tcriora layere4oa 9 . Wer^inw.st;c.chtypscally one to two inches below t'he ~
l 10 surface." Lut in the testimony in the hearings, the testi-I jj l rony stated--I can't find it right now, what the testirony 12 itself stated, but at any rate--
13 !!R. PilILLEO : Are you looking for testimony on the crack y I in the base rat?
15 Yes; right.
16 ,
.MR . Pl!ILLEC: And comparing that with the ficcr craci.s~
37 ; hhat I'm saying is that there have been y
jg allegations for years about cracks in the base mat, cracks g
39 I
in ull of thece places, and generally what's happened is
, 20 that the reports that have been investigate,h-firsts,9fy,aJ1mg 21 M11. ,
That part was not investigated at all, and it states that in the repcrt.
The main part of interest about that particular report 1
g.
N i y ; -
is the definition of the shrinkace cracks. Eut there have l
,q-j been allegations for years about this crack in the base mat, t t _. . 1 9
i'* ggr *** * -*em em ene .. . . e e m. ,e . . .
160 1l and the documentation which has been introduced indicates 2 to us that it goes all the way under the reactor itself.
3 ,I contrary to what the testimony was.
4 I guess what.I'm saying is I'd like for somebody that 5
I have some confidence in--or that CASE has son.e confidence
. 6 in--to look into this thoroughly and to look at this docu-
.- 7 mentation and then to sit here and look me in the eye and 8 say that based on documentation and based on what I know 9 personally and not just what the Utility told me, I can tell j
10 j you sesetteeWuetNhM That's 11 I basically what I'm askine, I guess.
12 MR. ;OONA:;: Let me ask a question. Bob, did you gc 13 into the Centainment and look at the base rat?
l-1 MR. PHILLEO Uhat can be seen of it. 111 you can get 13 l
at now is the top, but in general this is all quite heavily I
16 ,
' reinforced and cracks in reinforced concrete aren't nearly
, i 17 ! the concern for safety as they are in unreinforced. Most of
{ is ry haci. ground is in r: ass concrete structures where we worry 19 a whole lot about cracks because they destroy the stability 1
$ 20 of the structure, but reinforced concrete is designed in a 8
j 21 cracked condition because it has to crack in order to work i
22 so it's only diagonal shear cracks that we get pretty ,
21 excited about in reinforced concrete, and this all appears 24 to be in a vertical plane and it's at the conter of the span.
3 tihere it is in this bear over the cavity it's at r.idspan and I
\
. _ . _ , . . ~ . . . - - , ~ .~ ~
l 161 I I that's where you like to have the cracks because there's 1 2 practically zero shear there; so when you put constructicn )
3 joints in you put them in at midspan because all the forces !
4 are normal forces and you have no shear. ,
I 5 Even if all we were concerned with was the beam effect, 6 the crack is right where we would want it. I say the thing 7 that really protects us in this is that the critical design 8 stress in this is the accident load that puts pressure on the i
9 i inside, and there everything is carried by the steci. The i
10 ; concrete is given no credit at all for the tension that's 11 l produced by the accident. So the crack is immaterial in the 12 nest critical loading condition, and relatively unimportant 13 in the flexural condition which is the normal surface lead I
N condition.
I 15 half the beam is in compression and half is in tension.
I 16 ;
Tnc corr.pression part closes up when it's loaded. The tension
! 17 I part has to crack and if there is a wide crack there, it i 15 cerely changes the distribution of cracks. Instead of having 19 a lot of very srall cracks, you may have one larger crack, i
a 20 but the total crack is a determinable constant in either case.
i 21 S just in the nature of the structure a vertical crack isn't t
much safety concern. I 22 21 !!R. SHAO: Technically, I don't think there would be a conccrn because, as Eob said, the reinforced steel--we count , e 25 n the steel taking all the load.
l ,
- - *- * +eeuwe e..e es e e .e i
- .- ~. -
8 I 162 1 ; MR. Pl.ILLEO: There's even a further case that the ;
! e 1 2
din.ensioning of this thing was deterrined by shielding recuire-3 ments rather than structural, so the whole thing is bigger j 4 than it needs to be structurally just to get enough mass in 5 there for shielding, so the stresses are quite icw- .
6 MR. NOONAN: I was wondering whether or not we could get 7 in the area, if the area is accessible.
8 MR. Sl;AO: The area is not accessible anymore. It was i
9 poured in '77. '
10 , MR. HOONAN: 1; hat I'm thinking is to r..ake onc corc i
11 atterpt to go in there and see what we can sec.
l 12 ! MR. Pl!ILLEO: I don't believe you can get at anything
- 13 except the top--the top they just repaired for operational 14 i reasons.
)
n I MR. Sl:AO : What do you want to see about it? The l
I t, cracks--
i MR. 1;OONA'" : Yes, to get--
- 17 I j ni MR. Ei.AO : Lut you need-an accounting of the crack'. Tho
- ; steel is doing the work, 19 i
} 20 MR. NOONAN: I understand the technical part of it.
- t i 21 11R. SIIAO : The steel is doing the job.
MR. NOONAN: Let me take the package and--
22 i
MR. SHAO: lic'll go look into that--
23 I MR. Pl!ILLEO: There are a lot of paperwcrk issues--
I ,
MR. SHAO: We'll go look at paperwork, but technically 25 l {
l l
. 163 I we're not that concer.ned because it's heavily reinforced-2l concrete structures.
3l MR. PHILLEO: Part of the thing that you just discussed--
I 4 this was an extraordinary pour. It did create all sorts of 5 organizational probler..s on site. They did a lot of plannin-
', 6 for this as I read the record, and they amassed a big 7 quality control organization for this one day that ran about
's 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> or sorething--I forget how long it took them--it 9 ! was a big deal in which they had to arass a whole bunch of I
10 quality control people, a whole bunch of crafts people to
~
11 l get this big thing in. The contractor exercised the option 12 ! of doing it all in one pour. If they had done it in two l l l 13 pours as was the other option, they'd just have a constructic'n y I joint where the crack is.
15 i R. !!OONAN: We'13 take the information and we'll go I
1 k at it, be'll come back and tell you whether ve can do 16 ;
I
- ,_ anymore or--
16 There's one more thing that I'd like to have 39 included--not necessarily everybody--you said they had a '
! 20 "#9" OA ""C UI E* P * ' w uld ma e us feel a lo T
{
. 21 better if you would. chec)t or at least spot-check soce of th g
people ~ who supposedly were there on that day just to see if -
they were there on the weekend.
24 i MR. PIIILLEO: There' vere tuo allecations on the testine
~ ~
je'onthatpour. -One was that all the required testing wasn't
~
I i
. . /.%.& -
-7 ._
. . . .a ---3. .-
164 I l done. We could confirm,that the records show every required 1
2 ,
test was run, Lut there was a second allegation that seme 3
l the tests were falsified, and that's been addressed.
4 MR. SHAO: We'll check to see if March 21st was on.a.
5 weekend.
6 MR. ZUDANS: We know that that's a Monday.
7 MR. SEAO: March 21st was a Monday. '
8 MR. PHILLEO: That's no longer in contention.
9 MR. ZUDANS: Is all the information that you covered I
10 in here?
11 l There's some more here. One of our prob-i 12 lens with the hearings is that we had no expert witnesses i '
13 , or anything like that. They had witnesses to' testify. F. e j4 I had lost touch with the witnesses a long time ago because 15 these pours were done several years before we had the l
16 hccrings probably, and we lost touch with sote of the i !
j 37 j witnesses that would have testified about all t.'.is. There
- g 33 have been so many people over the years that have told us
- about it and talked about it.
39, Ke're still concerned about i 20 it. ,
b 21 MR. PHILLEO: Certainly there's no contention about t _
22 whether the crack existed or not. It is there. I can't say f r sure what the extent of 'it is, but I haven't:really been i
-23
% I
- ,'g !
concerned.
24 The type structure it is, it'could crack all the '
1
,.-l. '
- ,3 .
way under and it wouldn't be a safety matter.
- v. m i f%4 t
, i J ,
a
- _c ae .
165 1 Now, you have the rcactor and under.the 2 reactor you have the shielding and so forth. You have the 3 tretal shield--does that cover everything?
g 4 MR. PHILLEO: Yes, I think that's part of the probler.
5 in gettine a look at it. There's steel between--
6 Between everything; it is totally enclosed.
, 7 So there would not be a problem if there were a leak of 8 radioactive water or anything like that seeping through the t
9 , concrete because it would have to get through the steel l
10 ' first; is that the idea?
11 l MR. PHILLEO: Yes.
1 t
12 i MR. SHAO: I don't think there is liner there.
13 l ffR. PHILLEO: I know the crack goes to a steel liner on 14 one end. I forget the exact configuration.
. 15 ! MR. NOONAN: We'll go back and look to :nake sure and l 1 l g3 ,
wc'll tell you what we founc.
3 i g- Tnis is a copy--if you need it--tnis is 15 just a copy of all tne stuff. I guess you've ect cll the l
- 39 stuff on the Richmond. insert stuff and the Attachment D and /
i
~ i 20 all that. There is one additional one that I don't think that
. s ,
1 5 21 y u ve 9 t that has to do with this NCR that we referencec.,
f but I didn't attach because it was already in' the record, but .
,g it's a copy of the liCR that has this particular one about--
that the crack in the. base nat} was contained in. I a
)
I g -
~i g ,
- b. '[ - * . t 4 - ,
[Q , e
t 166 3
, MR. PliILLLO: I, don't tnink I've seen it. -
2 one that always cets cited in connection with the base rr.at 3l crack, j
4 This is the deal with the .Richrond inserts 5
/
that was c.cntioned in that. h a ences always botherM s, 6 *nn- ' i6^
-^4=-iA - e M ike tie original concrete pour card 4
, 7 12- = % 1 n s t . . lik e + hn a r _i .9 1 ne-1;iuosius or this particunG ..CJv S wheqe this particular concrete pour is_ included ;
-These, 9 , _ things always_bc_ther.us. here these are..-I've--c"' t'ger --
10 .
1 tm,,d <~ 4cu_ #
11 l Another thing that bothers me with that particular NCR I
12 is if you'll notice, that--I want to say in all other I
13 instances, but I'm not positive that's true, bt W.- '
t'-i t i ic A' ~
j4 1 sther instqs _uMat-ncnc6n~fo5nanc'e Treportcq 15 themastakeawo setswfggesMharo 's only._one_sanp.le_ in, Ib ;
there fcr that parti _cul a r_ concrete-r:our.
u -
.That locks.m'cnn m m %.-+ .
-I 17 :# -
} 16 Like I say, a let of times coincicences may Le just z
39 coincidences, but when you keep getting little things like ih-20 that that keep on popping up, they get to be worrisome.
?
i 21 MR. !!OONA'i: All that is associated with that cne pour?
22 Right.
t P.R. Pl!ILLEO:
['
- g. It was the biggest one on the job. ,
I' I fir. SHAO: ilow nany?
f
- i.
24 l .
.l E l i MR. Pi!ILLEO: .Three-thousand-and-sor.e thing .
- f. 3.a. i
,, ' 4 I
e d, , ff '~ '
' ~ ~ ' ' '
,; , y -* , - - ~
~16 1
In addition--still reoarding concrete but
' ~
2 a little bit differcnt.arca, different concern--I have pulled 1
a several nonconforniance' reports about specific p c.uler..s with !
4 tne concrete, and one of the reasons I did this is because f
5 l
it doesn't seem that anyone has ever real.ly addressed why 6
there. appeared to be so much defective concrete, how that 7 happe'ned, again, the root cause of these things. Even if ,
8 they went- back and corrected then and some of the:r they 9
corrected by using as-is; but why these things kept happeninc,.,
i w 10 ' no one ever seems to have addressed that or tried to look at I
?
11 1 it, ar.d I think--I dcn't knew' whether it will Lc as startlint d/
I 12
- to you as it was to us when we first s'aw the sc, but I t'.ini. .
13 fthattheextentofsomeofthevoidsintheconcreteandthe 14 defective concrete, the extent of the proble: out there 15 , really surprised us; and I have attached sore taere--that's '
I 16 something that I'd sort of like to have addressed in some
- i.
k>
- - way. ,
i is i:.. Pl!II. LEO: 1;e have addressed a number of these.. I
. 19 don 't know if they're the same one that you have or not, but i
$ 20 we have several allegations on that general area.
' i 21 I guess what I'm gettine at is not so much 22 the individual ones'but the ones where it seemed like'there 23 is so much and where there is such:a.large problem with a
~
34 l particular pour where y~ou have so many-voids in it and so 25 forth. ,
i
- * " ' "
- w***
[ -
O ib '5
_m -_-
168 i MR. PF.ILLEO: T.c problems are almost primarily workman-2I ship at'the placement. As I say, all the concrete is judged 3 l by the laboratory-cured cylinders. It'was okay, but there 4 were sore cases of honeycomb and internal voids and we've 5 addressed all that have come to our attention'.
. 6 MR. NOONAN: Was it not considered excessive, in your
. 7 opinion--that you looked at?
8 MR. Pl;ILLEO: No. The workmanship didn't match the 9 i general quality of the concrete, but the number of thesc 1
didn't seem excessive for. the size of the project. There 10 l 11 l' were some that were inexcusable and they had to remove some I
- 12 concrete in scme places, but it was about run-of-the-rill 13 for--I think the concrete quality was quite good, the prcduct 14 I that came out to the form. The problems were almost entirely.
15 workranship at the forn. That wasn't as good as the con-16 crete quality, but probably fairly typical in that kind cf
$ 17 . work.
j is I've got--I guess I'll ,just read this list
; and then give these to you. These are: CASE Exhibit 487, 19 I
,5 20 which is NCR 838; CASE Exhibit 490, C1112; CASE Exhibi't 492',
j 21 C1170; CASE Exhibit 500, C1335; CASE Exhibit 502, C1389; t
CASE Exhibit 503, Cl367; CASE Exhibit 506, Cl303; CASE
- 22. ,
i b
23 Exhibit 507, C1294; CASE Exhibit 528[ C571Rl;; CASE Exhibit l l
3 1
24 533, C723; CASE Exhibit 535,' Cl338; CASE Exhibit 536, C1766; j ll
- 9. a. .
CASE Exhibit 537, C1766, Revision 1;-CASE Exhibit 538, C1766l 1
G l -
l,,,-
. .u _ . . . .
1 169 l 1 ~Rcvision 2; CASE Exhibit 539, C1764, Revision 1; CASE Exhibit l
2 # 540, C1784; CAEE Exhibit 541, C1784, Revision 2: CASE Exhibit 3 542, C1784, Revision 3. l 4 These I've included all the revisions so you'll get the !
! 1 5 corplete picture.
6 MR. PHILLEO: I expect most of those we haven't looked 7 at because those were not in the contentions, I guess. Tncre S are no allegations made on rnany of those, so we didn't looh I
9 at all 1;CR's, of course.
10 I think our concern, like I say, is sort 11 l of the overa)d. quality just didn't seem to be there in many j 12 i instances. Now, those are not all of them, obviously, but l 1 13 1i I think they'll kind of give you an idea of some of our y l concerns and some of the specific types of probler s that they
! were encountering, too.
15 16 In scne areas, even if they went back and tried to j i I g 3- g repair the void that they had found, I guess our question is:
g3 ; Where you have some of the problers of the magnitude they've
- 39 got, how do you go back and really repair there without just
' i 20 starting over?
, .!' g
.- 21 MR. PIIILLEO: In scme cases, they did start over, but I'm probably not familiar with these cases. If there was - -
t no allegation in connection with them, I'didn't see them. 1 24
! wcn'.t cornent.
25 I'm alm st through. i S
. . . , a.. . . _ . , . . . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . _ . .. . _ . . . _ . . _ . . . _ . _ .
,.-.. ~
170 1
I MR. NCONAN: Larry, may I ask for the record: liow do l you plan to handle this?
2 .
~.R . S LI.0 : - cL is the best cuv tc work on it. The 3
i 4 trouble is he's scheduled--for the next three weeks he's 5 everywhere. He's busy, but.he's the right guy to work on
. 6 this.
7 tiR . NOONAN: Is there any kind of work we can do for 8 you, Bob, as far as some of the things that we can look at 9 for you; any way we can help you?
MR. PliILLEO: My answer is like hers: I'll get to it 10 i- ,
3; as soon as I can.
g; Cne of the things that richt be helpful fo r sor.cbody would be to sort of group those for hir because I 13 l 34 think that I just had ther in order as I pulled ther out of my file. They'rc not grouped or anythinc; lihc that.
la. i l I have a copy here--for whatever benefit it v.ight be 16 i I g if anybody is looking at this part of it--it just has to dc
- with the Board's order as to what happened about this par-15 ,
- 39 ticular matter. I just tagged that part that addresses j 20 that just so .you'll be f amiliar with the background. This
, , f is on the crack in the base mat. I tagged just that part of it. .
22 ,
MR. NOONAN: It's marked here. It's Proposed Addition I
i Dccisicn.
There's one thing that I've got copied for
,; , ' +--..~ '
.r* h
171 1 l you here that I know you'll be delighted to have, and this s
2 is CASE's October 18, '82 response to the Leard's directive .
I 3 l regarding CASE's *xhibits. This is where we had to cut down 4 on some of the exhibits that we introduced into evidence.
5 The only reason I'm attaching this is because this has listec 6 some nonconformance reports, not just the ones that I've
- 7 attached here, but also some others that I didn ' t have tir:e S to pull, and also some that we withdrew; but if you find a l
9 problem witn any of the things, you might want to look at l
it a little further and these are sort of grouped as to 10 j 11 ! subject matter so you could find a nonconformance report ,
i 12 you might want to go to and follow up on it. I have those I
13 attachec.
p 14 I 3150, in recard to this, there's another area that l
15 I'm still concerned abcut and CASE is still concerned about i
16 ; and our witnesses are still concerned about, and that is y at Ccranche reak, where
! 17 l A{' uy="%eg--M? d j is , the pipe they have ordered has coce in where it is less i 19 than what minirum wall specifications are supposed to bc.
I
-! 20 There were numerous items about that that were introduced ;
into evidence. I didn't have tire to bring those all. T. .e e 21 i
i last time we saw the nonconformance reports on this in 1982, 22 21 the applicants had withdrawn--or had closed out several non-l 24 conformance reports, and there vere various revisions of f
25 DCA's, Design Change Authorizations, which had been done l l
172 (
a which reo;,eticc; a lot. of r.lcse .iCR's. '
1 hey 1.cc cr2.cneously 2 closed ther. out base ~d on certain assurptions. sorei.,cdy looked at those assumptions and apparently said, "You can't 3 _
4 do tais." They went back and reopened these- under one ncn-5 t
conformance report which was roughly 12 inches deep when ! {/
s,
~
V 6 . saw.it last.
~
This was something that in the hearings we weren't really ever able to pursue adequately and sotothing that has been a concern of ours and our witnesses for a lonc 8 r
.l 9 tire, but we'd like to have somebody take a lech at it and .
'i 8*
10 .
find out what-the-Sam-Hill ever happened about the rinimum jg wall violations. What we're concerned about is that they ray . #
12 have gone ahead and closed out these itens without having i(
i 13 adequate calculations to justify closing out the problem with 14 the r.inimum wall violations. In other words, we're concernec. ,
f j3 that sor.e of the pipes out there may be--the walls reay be #
16 too thin. That's basically what our better-line ccncern is i
j -
with that one.
!* h . w. . ..OON.U : Larr M C any of your peopic 1cck a.t. any- "
-; 39 g . thie 14 h4 hat-?- JW
. j .
. s 20 . - JC " " " - - e 21 j This was o e that was--I thin 22 brouyht it up in his testimony. That may be even addressed
~
23 I ;somewhere in that Board order. I think it is, but anyway,-
.:4 there wasn't really that ruch in' the record about it. The
- a.
Board didn' t do anythino about it, but it's something that
- " * * * * * ***"*
- 98*O 6 mgeg, , ,, g ,,g -p
'I b.,.
, Nh h d;.' ' Q ,.' , l' '. .
173 we've been conccrned aLout for a long time and our 5.itnessec 2 have been, too. If they do have calculationc, we'd like tc
.3 have somebody check ther. to r.ake sure they support what c' 4 . they're supposed to support, especially since we've had so 5 I much. trouble with it all. - 4 I
6 Another of our concerns in this regard is when you have 5
. l
, that rany things, if you find out that your calculations arc 8 j wrong and that these won't pass, that they're not up to snuff, 4 what are the* going to do about ther all?
It's the kind of pi thing that we're concerned that right be casy to get glossec
~
II over.
12 Y.L . VITTTI: L.~e have been in contact with I-:r. J.tchison 13 on several occasions so you can talk--I would check, though, 14 and see because we've talked to hir.t several tirres.
3.5 Chuck knows so reany things that went on out there.
i 217.. CliAO: lie gave us quite a few--around a hundred j o allegations--and we sarpled the: .
19 i This is one he probably forgot all about.
- f 20 i *,, M . ZUDANS: Is there a document you want to--
21 _
'Okay; yes. 'This is the document I was 1
22 l tawing about. On the summary of our documents tha't we l
< 23 ; introduced into evidence. there is some infornation on--
,q MR. SHAO: You said nainly on the pipe wall thickness?
.5 2
Right; and on the concrete,.too. There are
~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ "-
1 l_ _ ) ~ ~ N ~ -
P r -^
n l
, I i
- ..- - - - . . -- 174 two ti.ings I've sat en the front, what pages they are hetn
. Cn.
4 3 fir . I'OO:U : The pages are marked, Larry. There are ,,'
4 . yellow slips of paper there.
5 There's an'other ~ r: fetter which we haven ' t 6
l reall? been able to address in the hearings that was brought 1
- w. 1,
, - , , h<-w . , .af4 y rnee _AuthnrEaaA*.Mue_InarmTnspectinn--]n g ,
8 l an M % aise yon w opyeof,all of.,these. -
The reason I'm .,
zaissa o
giving you all of these i%=i.;c.2"IE"dII6CI:if30ur>_oyg %
10 O DM**~ __
.agd we've got--what I'll be giving you is gi CASE 's Motions tecardi-ncWJ ;Momunen.*:p;i.atec2Rugust:sf1AdJp 12 Utcmthe8 ttach g s. In the attachcents we go into sor'e ,
13 detail about our concerns and reference.the specific docu-Su ,3 34 ments that are attached that have to do wit?. these concerns..
4 5
r--'"'? -
7< M-9 esconcernedawjaWA,ga,rlicu, _ _ %
I t.
lar_ded;pments ,
and with.ethe w-trends..that.xe.think they.sjlow
.,. p g accgynnodoJ- terdceu.7.ent!#:hnd--Ede'6fding" to' wha t.-we . sty her -we =uc=p6t- ea ci+ - dn~626'f~ the~f 'sJGan e_.-~
\ i.
h zec. .
39 j In addition, there is included in here a section about o '20 ,gwp11 e
' y4 ns, and we referenced some specific
. t . . .e .
21 ; docupents that are attached here so that needs to sort of be' included with the minimum wall part here.
. 23 ! Therei.s Une other small problem here that I want to 2.1 call your attention to here specifically that has to do
?.
, There were several supports that t
,. _, .1 : 7 % -. ..:'.. --.--. . b. - ' .a- - - -
. ".Y '~~ .-
r.
175 i l 1 wApr-cadcd_ f. rot _ Class tc-eiass-lv ane-these, ar. - -
1
' - ~ ^ " "> and in addressinc 2
3 apparent 1v RTS in-core _insern-r-- .
F9 Mhr m-wasn ' t~rea1'ly 1oodrifat~the concern tr.at w e ' w%
~
. _ - c
~~
'M~ =
- l- ! 1 i
4 ,
c_oncerned about. 'Phey =Were looking at somethin~g~a~litKle" w' , s. >. ( g..
different. - Our concern <is when these were upgraded,;w,ere 5 '
l es r v. -
+. -, . ,
I don't.know exactly what calcu-6l ,-
the'ealculations upgraded?
at - -
- . s % .,
l
' 7 I
lations are normally done oh the in-core instrument supports. <
. 4,. v 4 -
y4 l
~
8 On tlie pipe supports I kn'ok that the Class 1 supportfi are l 9 included in their stress problers and so forth, and I don't 10 know if that's true with these; but that's our prir.ary con-11 cern, if they have been properly included and the calculaticns .o, l 1.: are right for that inclusion, if they de such a thing wit.. .
- 13 them. -
14 That particular one that I was talking about on the 4
15 reclassification is CASL Exhibit 1056, SIS Report 371.
16 There's one other one included in these docurents which'is i
j I- (ACL Exhibit 1054, SIS r.epert 10-03, and it has to do with is a problem that was perceived by the 1.:11, and le t r. e j us.t
! D 19 l quote passages from this..w. h.j.ch wou.ld....probabl. y be the' 'f astes t .
i .n s.
l . r e e. . 3 o ..
i ? . 20 ' wag t.,
.,wg
, Aq. 7 . , g ', . . 3. u - .
~:-
- y.,. , a q.
- . .. 9 ,.
! 21 I had requested that tM disposition address corrective
^
' sr i n . . ..,. y. i 22 m :ynction to preclude repetition of the unauthorizec use 7 s .
.. . . ,, s.
i
- 23 '
W' "%e r-to#si resd'2'th'e7h6fitortt.a. l--me..m.b.4ers of a ~
21 b Y@s- =@gyegggu_igance. ::
3, have been inforced that Pipe Support Engineering takes
. m m. ..
17L i
I etive.ac_ti_on. .Appar9ntly:Engiy eQTrt!i 2 ne helei-mseto-if actor.':-in:. stresses .ir.posedron:weg 3 , am- = Wipe =s.upport merbersrby=farceably. 'springin_gg
- s. " '
-4 '
those-memb_ers.g This a. rationale u ,, G is not acceptable *t& u the p ~ .. v .
Ij * ' ~
ENIA. It is our Tpfdic'n 7hdt*u$73 of power e7;u'i'pfen'k,
., n . 64 :- ,, sr .. .. ,
6
'dedges, 6*
etc., to correc.t., titis fabrication is a 'c'e'nstrhetien
- . 1
>< g. .
t process as defined ig s.ect, ion 10 of Brown an(RgotL',s wl.M. ,
9 .. * .- *- py a. [.
{.
8 Failure to address this problem will result inu perpstu- ....
9 ation of craft perscnnel using applied fcree and issuance.c k
10 of nonconformance reports by QC."
11 , This is similar to the concern raised by Ecb Messerly 12 about the use of the polar cranc to force the 32-inch r.ain 13 steam line into position. Apparently it is quite a probler.
14 at the plant as er . In fact, on the 15 second page there is a remo, handwritten vero, to Gordon ]
16 Purdy f ror Jay Ryan. iic discusses this, and he says.
I7 "TfG=seWNCR was casWiRLidWse-as-Qgcn 16 indicates that_this_pr.ac.tice is,not_a prJ M g To 1
-~. * *4 (19 ' /the-contrary, 1t ds very similar to using fity p clamps j % <* + d- % , 4 ,
i -
l
=,naLen piping to align the inte..rnal. . ~ diameters or.Qe use . %v..
12
, , %. 9. e 0
"'of hydraulic jacks to allgn large diameter piping for
!. ~21
- e. s :
~
22 ' fit-up. This latter item wasw.also
(
documented cn an SIS ?
23 years ago when we were having problems fitting upa 30-y-
inch sh pipe weld a,v m eptidemn19wsT6Ws@%fftf6sno (,
. corrective action since-it_wasfindustry.:pract ce. As 25 ' _
_ __ - . _ . . -m.. -
r t 177 1
in this case, we plan to.take no corrective action cs 2
what we're doing is acceptable to Engirieering as docu-3 , tr.ented 'in NCR 11.809. "
4 i We don' t have that NCR, by the way. The ANI closed ,
F '5
- m.. +; s .
-this dtem out " based on PSE Chief *Bngineer Jay Ryan assurinc-9 v. . t .
s-
- +...
- 6 responsibility." e* l '-
,y . &+ -
w y e. .-
7
?strtur s- concern is that if w appears that they may be doing ~
c
'8 .t. gr this all over the plant 'an'd have been doing it' for 'ye$r$, td 9
anc it's been brought to their attention before by the.ANI's 10 and it's been dispositioned before, and thef're going to con-gg tinue doing it, he'rc concerned because of the stresses ant.
12 so forth that are put on the equipr'ent and on the supports i 13 when they do this sort of. thing. ,,
o dtafeelytha.t._L Q -
14 AdpquAt,.ht gose_ it, .out likeMIAdid,basesi.smathe_ .sav-sgj 15 D" ineer at th,egipt;;arThis is cur conccrn there.
g MS. VIETTI: I can tell you briefly on the one particular i
l 17 allegation about the coil-sprung pipc--:: think,it was the 33 rain stear line?--Larry's group is doing an investigation of
,; *~. , ,'j g l that. He has performed,an investi:gation of that.
That is
- *o
, , Q w$20- an 1, % y.
ngthatwehadlobkdatspecifically. Now, 'i,s i;s
^
- .-.,.; 7 v.~ '-
g_ iy .*
21 * **Ning we'll have to look at in more detail.
1 ue
- r wnnusur- - ma- u=-.
s j? .n-22 ^
N %4,.$N2
, g--a g,
23 , seas- MNmv
.,x i
g .
I'm afraid instead of y'alliclearing up a lot-i 25 ; f t ings that you just ended up with a lot core work.
I ;
....... ~ , ,; q.
178 1 , MR. NOONAN: The purpose of coming down here to talk to -
2 you is basically to get this kind of feedback. Ee want to 3 ! make sure that we look at the concerns as you have identified 4- , them to us, and also I'll make an offer that if yo'u--thl's is '
1 o e. 3 ,
r ! .w m .e . . i ~ .,.. . e ,- ,,
r .
l
\
5 the.- gwe want to handle future
~
w meetings like this.t. with -
1 R- .g v..
l* 6 other1, people; maybe not this Aig of a group-- 4 7- [ t --or this a.te at night. ., ,..
S , MR. NOONAN: If you feel that this is adequate or inac.e-l 9 quate, we'd like to have that kind cf feedback.
10 I think this is great. I think this is a 33 1
really wonderful way to handle this. I will say again how
.12 much I appreciate all of you s.taying so late--without dinner.
13 112. NOONAN: Are we finished for the night? ,
ga Yes, I think so.
15 MR. NOONAN: I want to thank you very ruch and you, tec, 16 erry, for sitting threugh all of this. he'll take this i
b
- j- back. I'll make arrangements for typing up the transcript '
i i
16 and having it available as soon as possible.
.g ; - l
.n .
39 , I think that w'ourd 'be"a bicr h'elp.
+. : - w A, . A
.! k vc
- NR. SHAO: . Also, .i.t'hvery goodigtalk to Mark first-
, i+ .: it 9 wt, *.F M -- -
- > F e .
- , he3 out his concerns. '
. .,, 21 s.
.n .,.
22 _
Yes,Ithinkthaktahelpful. I t$1nk Jt g .
makes hirr feel a lot better, too. N
i
_g MR. NOONAN: With that, I think we'll close out the
- a_ .
I meeting. I guess one other thing I want to say to you is i
,..,,. , , , , , , , _ ,, L., , _
l 179 I .
i we'll probably have another meeting sitilar to this for.the 2 :h_b We are trying to have the people come dcwn and 3 -
talk to the people thne endo a11an,+4m m N u411 do the C.= . .
F 4l sarnh_. ...3
-m_ ..-.-
/ w ..
yvu bass. cal-lmhave-the--people-here-t etaR L. c
-l ~ ~-
N M C.'"
5 ~1 Know 'tih"a I$ ^o'f interest to y,ou.
. 6 3- q Yes, definiteIy... ,
s- ,
. .s,
- 7 g.. M. R . NOONAN: With that./ .I'll close.
w-j
- s. s .
i (This teeting was recessed at 10:30 p.m.)
9 10 11 i 12.
13 14 15
~
lo ;
i '
h II E
!* 15
,. i .,
+ - , -
19 - l .
j p- l J< . O, .h gia ,;f
'~
! (si w 't ;u .
'G;- .oes f y' .ny -
. . , e. - v- .
d
4_ 4- '.
d ,
- {4 sQ. e e .,
I e ., $a C 4, 22 - .s af s i '
7 *'
~ 23 24 .
6 *O * .
et , .
Il
- l 180 1 CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS !
2 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before 3- the Nuclear Regulatory Cor:urtission g~ 4 ; a w.,
- 7 ~' <<
< In the Matter of: . nCQMANCSE 98&K TECHNICAL ~ INTERVIEW 5, su s~ p ne .- n ,so w. m y n ,e.. .
~
'f
- tate'of Proceedings: November 7, 1984 +s 6 * ** .<' ' *%
4 g va* T ' , ,. ' '- %gac.4 of Proc'eediriga : 45$tidfth, Texak-4
%4 gr
95W N s! It' %' e 4%, O-g e s-o ~
sr x- g g were held as herein appears, and that this is the ori'inal
" ' S
[
9 transcript for the file of the Cormission.
10 11 12 Carmen Gooden Certified Shorthand Reportcr 13 s' /.
jY .i ')
2 15 53Mu d M M EN_
Wrtified Sh6rthand Reporter 16 i 17 5 15 .
.m.
,19 1 , .
s.
- MS .%
'. i .. 20 Le
< i. +% ,
p ,.
y
-e , ;, '
(-
I *? 6' r i 21 4-l > f. 4 ...,.,
22 OA * '
> . g.: ,
23 . .am.
24 i
25 l - -
l
Attachment A s RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRT REORGANIZATION Our recommendations Regulatory Commission (NRC)incorporate the best of the various Nuclear
! Government Accountability Projectinspection and review programs which the (GAP) has worked wit We believe that with successful implementation of the c%since urrent Techni-1980.
i cal Review Te'am (TRT) plans along with the modifications described
' below,the NRC should be able to ascertain the actual condition of Comanche Peak, resolve all pending allegations require the appro-priate utility review or reinspection program,,and provide assurance that all concerns of the workforce have been found by the NRC now instead of on the eve of licensing. ,1f -
i
- 1. Expanded Field Inspection Effort 26 letter We have previously explained this item in our September to Darrell TRT effort to date. In Eisenhut short, regarding the inadequacies of the only pursue allegations. our concern is that the TRT effort will We know that the NRC's concept for these special inspection efforts is to follow an allegation until it is confirmin'd or as substantiated and then etc.
" root cause evaluation," turn it over to the utility for such things Such an effort is incomplete when the objective of the special inspection effort is to determine" root cause."
allegers at Comanche Peak. Admittedly there is a large number of allegations and However, it is not acceptable for the dently report all significant violations. agency to depend upon the willingness o dangerously optimistic. Such an attitude would be resources. We also recognize that the NRC does not have unlimited "whole building" Therefore we suggest that the agency conduct either a or " vertical slice" inspection as a means of deter-mining the validity of the projects design and~ construction status.
area or system Wethat suggest that such an inspection be conducted of an is completed.
the accuracy of the final design documents.This will enable the NRC to check of course, be unannounced if it is going to have any legitimacy.Such an inspectio 1
As the NRC well knows it is an unfortunate, but predictable phenomena that members of a nuclear plant workforce wait until the last possible minute before making their concerns about plant safety known.
This is a result of a combination of factors-including the belief that the problem will be resolved before start-up and fear of losing their job. .
- s
~
FC1A-85-59
.Q -
e Further we propose that the QA TRT personnel conduct a docume'ntation audit of a sample of construction work in progress. To assess the extent that documentation problems invalidate ongoing con-struction and. inspection work.
- 2. Incorporation of Source Review our recommendations in this area stens.from our dis-appointment about how the TRT effort has failed to utilize the know-ledgeable members of the workforce who brought the problems to the a'.tention of the NRC. (See also September 26, 1984 letter to Darrell Eisenhut from Billie Garde).
We suggest that the TRT appoint a coordinato'r'to deal specifically with the allegers in order to both utilize their ex-perience and expertise to the fullest extent. Further, the coor-dinator would insure that the NRC inspection is of the same defi-ciencies the alleger identified.
We have found in the past that taking the allegers on the site one of the best ways to take advantage of the level of detail and assistance which they can provide. That approach would be parti-cularly helpful at Comanche Peak, especially among those personnel with experience in documentation.
Finally, we propose that the. NRC establish a methodology which provides equal time (including preparation time) to the allegers to review the responses proposed by TUGCO to the TRT findings.
This could best be accomplished through tha establish-ment of a review panel composed of members of the public, former ,
CPSES employees, intervenors and any experts which were retained by ,
the intervenors to review the adequacy of the. resolutions proposed by TUGCo.
This process would institutionalize much of the time consuming effort of recontacting the various members of the public or ;
allegers for their comments on a particular response. Further, it '
would provide a process in which the NRC staff - rather than a single representative - could direct questions at the intervenors or allegers who raised the concerns. These types of meetings have been going on .;
informally at plants where.there are allegations and disputes over !
resolutions, however these. types of meetings have rarely been institu- !
tionalized. If such a procedure is considered GAP will provide the mechanism for setting up the meetings, contacting the appropri-ate group of allegers, and' insuring that the personnel have the ques-tions and materials necessary-to adequately prepare for the meeting.
p >- . . - ..
l i
,. . ., . _ _ ~ - _ _ _ - - . . . - - _ - _ .--______,_- - , . . - ~ . ~ _ - -. . - - _ _ .
3 have to be held obviously in Texas. much meetings would, by financial necessity, wculd be broken down by eit. herby discipline afficiency we or expect by particular that thesystems meeting, (i.e. problems in start-up, documentation deficiencies)
- 3. gAllegation Recruitment Program GAP has been inundated with requests for help by Alle- '
gers and intervencrs at nuclear power plants accross the country. The primary reason cited for contacting um for help in investigating. prob-lems is a deep distrust in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ,
We have determined that this distruist ascng int;ervenors stems from a history of broken promises by the agenc ~
professional and of ten rude treatment, by the agencylawyers, ,
,y cfficials, un-and legalblatant arguments. agency-industry ' hot-e.obbing" on techniscal issues and_ _ _ _
on the side of the public. Intervenors soon learn'that the agency is rarely ~ .
Workers who contact us, however, usually P. ave'either' littleagency the or no prior experience can not be trusted. with the NRC or have only ' hear 4' that determined attitude Most workers against (except the NRC. those in Regicn IV) have no pre-They think that the agency wants to make sure a plant is safe and the rules are followed, they turn to GAP as a way to get their concerns to the agency.
mondously successful.at almost every plant.Our program for flushing out all gram view should be adopted by the agency as part ofWe believe a similar pro-at each plant to preclude last minute allegation crises. final agency Were-sug-gast that Comanche Peak be the place to start. ,
Outlined below are the steps we think should be taken at this time at Comanche Peak plant to preclude a deluge of allegations throughout the remainder of the plant construction.
1.
Establishment workers of antheir to report NRCconcerns.
" hotline" for Comanche Peak 2
An on-site NRC information program in which the TRT,
, its purposes, are explained and the conditions of confidentiality 3.
Publication and availability of the TRT's unanswered -
questions supply the answers.
to those members of the workforce who can i
rm - - . .
..........,.....,3.....,,.7 I' .
i
_4_
s . l
- 4. Establishment of a separate NRC exit interview and in-formation sheet for all departing employees, explain-ing their Department of Labor rights and their rights and obligations under the law to report problems.
(GAP will be glad to provide a copy of the form we use during our major investigations) '
- 5. A structural " debriefing" program which is conducted by skilled interviewers as opposed to technical.in- ,
- spectors.
- GAP representatives will be glad to meet with any or all members of the TRT to discuss in more detail any of our proposals des-cribed in this attachment. .
4 1
i 3 b J
1 e
ye -
_ - - _ . _ . - - _ - - - - - - - - - . -- - - - - - ' - - ~ - ~~
gc
'ANI REPdRTS - DESIGN, ETC.
The ANI Reports and Records listed here may have applicability to ths Allegations (stated in the Board's 3/15/84 Order, page 20, to be: "Now also referred to as Design Decision allegations, since the Boatd shares many of these concerns. Obviously a continuing, litigable concern."). In addition, there are some which may be pertinent and material to the Motions for Summary Disposition on design and design OA issues which Applicants have filed. We are asking to review them for applicability.
Further, some of these are important in the context of the global issues regarding Applicants' noncompliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B (see discussion in Board's 3/15/84 Memorandum (Clarification of Open Issues), bottom of page 4 continued top of page 5' . , Some are also the type of info, mat 16n which would be included as part of CASE's Trends or Patterns of Non-Conforming Conditions (see discussion in CASE's 4/2/84 Motions Regarding Board's 3/15/84 Memorandum (Clarification cf Open Issues), pagos 18 and 19). In addition, some of these are relevant to portions of CASE's proposed new contention which we will be filing in the near future.
From ANT SIS Records and Reports:
1 ANI: Hundreds of modification hanger process control packages (both in process and completed) are in nonconformance with ASME NA-5241, NA4540, NA-4452; work done beyond the scope of work required by CMC or new revision to I
9
~
1 FCA8b-09
. ._ _ ..-..u nia , ,/
. u. , _ _ . _ . .;c: - - - -
u - -
h ,. . ~.
e i
b1'u eline'= status of material verification and visual examination of welds '
is indeterminate and must Fe categorized as being deficient (see CASE ,
Exhibit 1,023,,ANI SIS Record S39 314, 10/14/62).
- ANI (page 1)
- ".. .why doEs open #8 address all welds, and what ,
objective evidence existo in the field tb indicate all other welds having been previously inspected?" 12/27/S2 B&R Answer: "As far as objective evidence existing in the field to indicate all other welds have been previously inspected nothing currently exists, as the original package is in i
the vault. The OC inspectors are inspecting to current modification
- packages, that have been initiated by Welding Engineering." (Emph& sis ,
j
] added.) (See CASE Exhibit 1,027, ANI SIS Report 932 10-016, 12/20/82.)
i a i Grinding of CB&1 Weld cour.ecting the piping to the containment liner; l in this esse penetration piping is also the process piping.
No code data teport covering the welds connecting the pipe to the liner.
Code requirements not met -- letter f rom CB6I (copy attached) states that the penetration piping does not meet the requirements of the 1974 Code because of differences of NUE requirements. (See CASE Exhibit 1,028, ANI SIS Report 932 18-005, 1/10/83; closed 1/13/83 by issue of ANI SIS Record 939 334,)
1 Code requirements noc met (see CASE Exhibit 1,028,18-095, pteceding);
ANI, p. 2: " Contrary to the above, the subject parts are not in ' full'
~
t
. t a
1 >
3
^
.,. .., V. ,,, ,
t 6 i- ,
a ee- .
comp.liance with the ASNS Code. They still do not meet the requirements of
. NA-1140 (c). (esphasis in the original). Answer: "DCA #16,054 to MS-100 and SS-14 has been isse:ed adopting NCA-1140 of 1980 Edition Summer 81 Addenda.
This proiides the Owner designating any parts of the Component applicable Code Edition and sddenda." ANI marke.d satisfactory, " Concur that NCA-1140 of 20 Ed SS1 Addenda will r.esolve the probica." (See CASE Exhibit 1,029, ANI S1S RecGrd 939 334, 1/13/83; reopens 939 51, closea CASE Exhibit 1,028, 932,13-005.)
(This ties in with CAST's concerns regard.ing App}icants' picking and chcosing portions of the ASME code to comply with, without propet justification oE consideration of other aspects which might be affected, and with a purpose which appcata to be to lessen code regiyiracents. See CASE's
, q 4/25/84 letter to the Board, which was denied as a Motion for Discovery.)
1 Tests -- hydrcstatic tests held at lower PSIG than dssign pressure.
(jge CASE Exhibit 1,031, ANI SIS Record 939 341, 3/8/83.)
Changes to controlled drawingo, written in by hand in ink; drawfng
.'llegible, i
Major (generic) problem -- denwing control -- ANI (page 2): "This has become a continuing problem with the DRG group, Control #83 drawings. This does not include the Iso's taken back for illegibility when presented with documentation or missing CMC's .in packages." (See CASE Exhibit 1,030, ANI SIS Record 939 339, 3/1/83.)
3
. - n ,._ .. . . _.
Response was returned unsatisfactory because: no corrective action is addressed concerning this generic problem, or for the correction of illegible drawing in the files, nor the ones issued from DCC; the problem mentioned here concerns njl CMC with the documentation when presented for final review. A final review cannot be performed if you do not have the correct design document in hand. (See CASE Exhibit 1,030, ANI SIS Record 939 339, 3/1/83.)
Non-conforming material -- welded attachments to Class 1 piping -- see HSB 932 #9-002, HSB 932 '#9-002-2, HSB 932 #9-002-2, NCR #M4311, NCR #M5735.
Corrective Action -- No act.Lon had been taken by B&R to stop further processing after the non-conformance was discussed; when discovered again, non-conforpance was identified and.resulted in generation of an NCR. ANI I
requested a review of Unit 2 to identify possible other instances of similar nonconformances; and a demonstration of the centrol features of B&R's program that assure the issuance of conforming Class 1 attachment material in the field. B&R 6/7/83 Answer: none in Unit 2; present control features will assure issuance of confornirg Class-I attachment material to the field.
(joe CASE Exhibit 1,033, ANI SIS Peport 932 9-002A, 4/21/83.)
Major (generic) problem -- support fabrication and subsequent inspection (e.g., undersized fillet welds).
Document (drawing) control -- uncontrolled drawings. (See CASE Exhibit 1,035, ANI SIS Report 932 C-044, 5/26/83.)
pocument Control -- controlled stamp not used. (See CASE Exhibit 1,037, AN1 SIS Record 939 355, 6/7/83.)
4
~ *
'gd Document Control and Welding -- vague weld symbols. (See CASE Exhibit 1,038, ANI Sis Report 932 4-003-2, 6/22/83.)
l NCR did not correct nonconforming condition. Document Control -- as- !
constructed drawings. ANI stated (pages 2 and 3) that pipe support engineer
" questioned the integrity and' knowledge of Brown & Root personnel and myself. If this is to be a continuing situation, perhaps it would be best l
not to explain reasons for our ( ANI's) actions, since this is not the first time that an ANI has taken harsh verbal abuse from Engineering people. . . .
l
. l At this time, I am requesting that if Engineering has a problem concerning l
)
- the ANI's they contact you (Gordon Purdy, B&R QA Manager) or your I designee (s), and do not communicate directly to us. (Emphases added.)
N 8/1/83 Answer from G. R. Purdy, Site QA Manager: "I share your concern over the rather flippant response provided by Engineering . . . the Project environment is currently conducive to frustrations. . ." (Emphases added.)
(See attachment to G-051.)
Weld symbols on VCD do not show true weld configuration. (See CASE Exhibit 1,039, ANI SIS Report 932 G-051, 6/19/83.)
Document Control (removal and reinstallation of snubbers with an IRN).
(See CASE Exhibit 1,040, ANI SIS Report 10-022, 6/30/83.)
Document Control -- lack of control of stamps (numerous drawings in field). Nkjor (generic) problem -- uncontrolled documents (drawing 1). (See CASE Exhibit 1,041, ANI SIS Record 939 356, 7/1/83.)
n p.
5 ,
I i
I **
,_ g - - , __ ' - .. . . - , _ - . ., -.
._.. . .-...-._2 N - ... ... - ..---- ~ - - - - -----l 1
l l
Serious Breakdown -- ANI: "Upon discussion with QCI Lead . . . he understands the requirement for NDE (nondestructive examination) of full fillet welds is for only inprocess inspections. . .. The O.C. inspectors knew nothing about a requirement for PT of full fillets. (These are very knowledgeable inspectors . . . ) It is apparent that there is a severe breakdown of communication between OA, upper management OC, and the OC inspectors in the field involved in VCD walkdowns." (Emphases added.) "For this reason, and the hangers listed in this 939 ALL Class 1-VCD walkdowns are indeterminate. I am also requesting that ALL QC inspectors and their leads receive documented training into the criteria of inspecting Class l' supports which may have full fillet welds included in the hanger."
(Emphases in the original.) E Note: Closed because no Class I hanger packages have been presented to ANI for final acceptance; will be reopened if any discrepancies are found at that time. (See CASE Exhibit 1,042, ANI SIS Record 939 357, 7/2/83.)
No response to 361 received; CAR S54R1 has not been closed or extended; improperly marked drawings and uncontrolled drawings. (Document Control Satellites are identified, including breakdown of each satellite's location, etc.; see CASE Exhibit 1,044, ANI SIS Record 939 361A, 8/11/83.)
N-5 -- ANI's have rejected majority of submitted N-5's; one subsystem N-5 for SF-1 was submitted for ANI signature with an open CAR in effect against component supports for the Spent Fuel Heat Exchangers. ,
l t
s I l 6
i e
--- Y- ,_.--.n--7-v.,-n.. - - -. . - ---.- , , - - . --,,
l l Q ; .-
l (Hanger Task Groups discussed - p. 8 of answer.)
ANI Access -- ANI's' are consistently being denied access (hydro tests; N-5; vault); incorrect interpretation of program was cause (Attachment 3,
' ~
from Gordon=Purdy).
j (open SIS iteports listed - p. 5 and 6 of answer.)
Document Control: ,
(ANI's can no longer accept inprocess inspections to unintelligible CMC's, etc.);
s drawings: many drawings ID'd shims as primary support members (page 10 of answer);
drawings: some drawings do not reflect other supports (including Class
- 5) attached to the structure of the support (page 10 of answer); ,
s design: early NPSI designs differentiate between primary and secondary members, some Class 1 drawings ID primary members (impacts material traceability requirements) while others do not (page 11 of answer);
ANI confidence in inspections performed to Engineering hanger sketches as revised by CMC is zero; hundreds of NCR's and IR's ID'd on final walkdowns to As-Built VCD/DRD drawings (answer, page 13);
the historical aspects of the CPSES pipe support program are a reality...the historical trail would often be confusing and cumbersome (answer, page 14);
w a
7 Y
~
~.._, ~
. _ . . . .-u.. _. -- . _ _ . . _ _ . ..
see also Attachments 5 and 7; design change not changed on VCD to indicate as-built condition (Attachment 8, HSB audit), " Design analysis safety factors are implemented to account for these dimensional difference." "Use-as-is." Common problem.
Manual not found, not controlled, etc. (see Attachment 8, HSB audit);
(manual discontinued, see Answer, Attachment 9.)
ANI's semi-annual ANSI N626 Audit, 7/13-14/83, (Attachment 8).
Corrective Action (see also Document Control) --ANI's won't sign until corrected; CAR S-54; thousands of drawings were involved (page 9 of answer);
CAR's voided (see Attachment 8, HSB audit).
2 (DCA 18475, to S'pecification MS-100, to reflect that all embed plate material is A-36 unless noted otherwise on the drawing; page 10 of answer.)
(Established CP Pipe Support and Oversite Group -- new hanger team, "due to urgency of the pipe support problems" -- Attachment 10.)
(3 Hanger Task Groups (HTG) established -- Attachment 11.) see CASE Exhibit 1,045, ANI SIS Record 939 363A, 8/18/83.)
NCR's -- Closure of NCR's affecting piping deviations - might have caused further distortion and/or movement, creating a problem of greater magnitude; Generic NCR M2807. (See CASE Exhibit 1,047, ANI SIS Report 932 16-009, 9/27/83.)
l 8 l
l
. . - - . . . - ...-.- n. ..-.-_..: .. -- .
zw
~
Corrective Action -- has not resulted in correction of generic problem.
Major (generic) problem -- non-conforming material used on attachments for Class I attachments. (See CASE Exhibit 1,051, ANI SIS Record 939 169, 11/9/83; see also: 939 360; 932: 9-002, 9-002A (CASE Exhibit 1,033), 9-002-1, 9-002-2, and 9-002B. )
Nonconforming material -- Class 1 piping attachment material installed in the field; Class 2 pressure retaining material after installation in Class 1 fabrication. (See CASE Exhibit 1,052, ANI SIS Record 939 367-A, 10/31/83, and CASE Exhibit 1,053, ANI SIS Record 939 367-B, 11/18/83; see also CASE Exhibf .,051, SIS Record 939 369, 11/9/83.)
Major pro' -- use of applied force during fabrication of component supports: un ed use of a porta-power to spread the horizontal members of a box .apport in order to achieve required clearance. ANI stated: "I have been informed that Pipe Support Engineering takes exception to any corrective action... Engineering claims to ' factor' in stresses imposed on weldments and pipe support members 'cy forcibly ' springing' those members. This rationale is not acceptable to the ANIA... Failure to address this problem will result in perpetuation of craf t personnel using applied force and issuance of NCR's by QC." (Emphases added.)
ANI: "This 932 closed based on PSE Chief Engineer Jay Ryan assuming responsibility. (Signed) M. Coats 5/16/84" See CASE Exhibit 1,054, ANI SIS Report 10-030, 1/5/84.
l l 9 l
l i
w
V v
NCR's -- voided; used to upgrade supports from Class 2 to Class 1.
(See CASE Exhibit 1,056, ANI SIS Record 939 371, 2/6/84.
Major problem (though not specifically identified by ANI as such) --
f i upgrading supports f rom Class 2 to Class I;_ possibly with non-con orm ng material. (See CASE Exhibit 1,056, ANI SIS Record 939 371, 2/6/84.)
NCR's. (See CASE Exhibit Training -- need to reinstruct personnel re:
1,056, ANI SIS Record 939 371, 2/6/84.)
Impact Testing - Supports found which have welded attachments which recuire impact testing but the detail sketch does not specify this as a 932 5-002A, 2/10/84.)
requirement. (See CASE Exhibit 1,057, ANI SIS Report (Subsequent revision of Design Specifications mandatet material meet impact requirements. Deficiencies were not ID'd until completion or near Some are being recertified; Answer 2/17/84, completion of fabrication.
attached to CASC Exhibit 1,057, ANI SIS Report 932 5-002A.)
Re: hidden welds on support, in regards to interpass temperature while velding to embed plates. admitted he did not know the thickness of the embed plate he was welding to, nor did he check the interpass temperature during welding. (See CASE Exhibit 1,058, ANI SIS Report 932 10-032, 2/17/84.)
Training -- 3/9/84: Welder retrained; QC department instructed to monitor preheat and interpass temperatures 2 days per week, to be implemented by 3/12/84. (See attachment to CASE Exhibit 1,058, ANI SIS I Report 932 10-032.) I
~ 10 i
~
I
-. . .?. .
- _ ~ _ - . . - .... ----..- . . . . - - - - . - -
t
.\ ' . .
i Impact Testing - welded attachments to Large Bore Main Steam and Feed Water Piping; "Due to repeated identification of non-compliance with Design Specification requirements for notch toughness material to be used in above applications request that all packages on these systems be re-presented to the ANI for establishment of hold points." (See CASE Exhibit 1,060, ANI SIS Report 932 10-034, 4/18/84.) -
5/8/84 Answer (attached to CASE Exhibit 1,060, ANI SIS Report 932 10-034): W. E. Baker, Pipe Welding Engineer, has instructed his personnel to route the subject packages to ANI.
5/16/84 (attached to CASE Exhibit 1,060, ANI SIS Repoort 932 10-034):
Acceptable for closure; PSE is in process of reviewing all affected
, . ..c supports.
2 i -
e I
11
.$.. _ . . _ _ . . . ~ . . 9 y . m, n - g p. g
. -n : .. .
a ./
1
- t, I (~
il N]
-l
'ANI REPORTS - MINIMUM WALL O
h .
- d .
The problem of minimum wall pipe has been a recurring one at Comanche N Peak for many years,
- ]
^
although Applicants* would have the Board believe that
'I this is a problem which they have taken care of. However, CASE does not believe that this issue has been adequately dealt with, as discussed below .
There is already a history in the record of these proceedings regarding minimum wall violations. When CASE filed its 10/18/82 Response to Board's Directive Regarding CASE Exhibits (pages 30 and 31), we withdrew all a but couple of typical NCR's to illustrate (slong with the information in the NCR
~
log, CAS$ Exhibit 38,' ' accepted into evidence 6/9/82, at Tr.
1349) the extent of the problem.
(See CASE Exhibits 406 and 493, accepted into evidence in accordance with the Board's Order (Proposed Findings of Fact; CASE Exhibits) of 12/7/82, and admitted into evidence in the May 1983 hearings; rew we withd CASE Exhibits 404, 405, and 407 through 440 because of their shee r bulk.)
We call the Board's attention in particular to CASE Exhibits 449rough th 459 (admitted at the same time), which are various revisions of Design Change
(
E Authorizations (DCA's) which give the history and information ardingreg this k problem.
i Numerous NCR's which had been previously closed out were ened reop under one huge NCR (No. 462) which was about a foot thick.
In addition, CASE Witness testified regarding minimum wall violations during the July 1982 hearings, which was addressed e by th Board in its 7/29/83 Proposed initial Decision (Concerningc aspe s of t '
{
construction quality control, emergency planning and Board questions) , at pages 46-47:
, F0lA-85-59 1,. - -
m
final allegation was that minimum wall thickness v o ations a ecurred in piping /201/. He testified that an NCR had been written on this matter and had led to two backfit programs /202/.
' As far as he knew the NCR had not been closed /203/. Since an NCR had been written on the problem and there are controls requiring that there be an appropriate disposition, we find that this allegation demonstrates the correct working of the quality ass'urance program and
~
does not present an allegation that we should pursue sua sponte."
"/201/ ([cchisonTestimony,CASEEx.650,at63.
"/202/ Id. at 63-64
~
"/203/ 3. at 64."
However, the Board's Order does not deal with another aspect of this problem, and there is nothing in the record of these proceedings to indicate that it has been considered by Applicants. CASE believes that it should have been factored into Aphlicants' factors of safety as a reduction in -
i those factors; we do not believe Applicants have done this. This is therefore applicable to Applicants' Motion for Suasary Di,sposition on safety factors.
The following information from ANI Reports and Records indicates the ANI's serious concern about this problem and supports CASE's position.
From ANI Reports and Records:
Welding repairs accomplished (attempted) by grinding; no documentation found concerning these repairs being accomplished prior to release of material to field; areas not marked as required and no documentation of PT, 1
UT or minimum wall checked could be found." (Emphasis added.) (See CASE l Exhibit 1,024, ANI SIS Report 932 11-006, 10/14/82, and 11-006-i, 10/27/82) 2 I
t
- 1. - v - ... ,- -
1 's ~ e' Minimum Wall -- CP-CPM 6.9D states that minor defer.ts will be removed
, by grinding; however, minimum wall must be checked and documented; it was i
i not. (See CASE Exhibit 1,024, ANI SIS Report 11-006, 10/14/82, and 11-006-i j 1, 10/27/82.)
Serious Breakdown - Reporting of Nonconformances -- ANI, page 2: "It is very evident that the training and indoctrination program outlined in Section III fo the QA Manual is not being implemented, due to the number of are strikes and base metal non conformances being found by ANI's and 0.C.
Inspectors during walkdowns and at non destructive examinations...Due to
. .. , . . . + . . - .
numerous sections of pipe being received that are so close to minimum wall at time of receiving, it becomes even more critical that all are strikes and base metal non conformances are reported and documented promptly." (First emphasis added; second emphasis in the original.) (See CASE Exhibit 1,026, ANI SIS Record 327, 11/18/82.)
I e
l 1
3 !
3..~ i. -
3 SIS REPORT -
(
s
~
CASE EXHIBIT NO.1,054 h THE HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION and :' sL*RANCE COMP.uY uax rumn.com ru:cr maua 10-030 TO: DATE
' l SHEET Purdv. Site 0. A. hanager Jan. 5, 1984 1 lOF 1 ka:. Cordon H.O./8 RANCH CFFICE Marvin Coats. Lead ANI Houston ORGANIZATION Brown & Root, Inc. (
LOCATION STREET C1TY COUNTY STATE ZIP COCE CPSES Box 1001 Clan Rose Somervell Texas 76043 CERSON CONTACTED (GIVE NAME AND OFFIC:AL TITLE) CONTRACT /P.O. No.
35-1195-05
GEASON FOR VIStT Full time contract COPtES SENT TO:
CH.O. En, C e . sis O Chi.< ia. , On.,4.a.: *-,.<, sis 20.h. <s 45): ANI fi1e S u b j _e c t : _ Use,o_f Applied Force During Fabrication of
)
Component Supports Re: NCR M 11.809 (Support No. CC-1-048-001-A33R) _
This report is written in response to Brown & Root's request that I 'a c c e p t the disposition of the referenced NCR. )
_ I had reouested that the disposition address Corrective Action
\
to preclude repetition of the unauthorized use of a porta-cover to spread the horizontal members of a box support in order to achieve reouired clearance. I have been informed that Pipe Support Engineering takes exception to any corrective a c t'i o n .
t.6 ' ,
Anoarentiv Engineering claimsi to " Factor" in stresses imposed on .
weldments and oice suonort members by forcibly " Springing" those members.
This rationale is not acceptable to the ANIA. It is our opinion that use of oover equipment...wedres, etc. to c o r re c eimis f a b ric a t io n is 5..
a construction orocess as defined in Section 10 of Brov*ELA Root's,Q.A.M.
Failure to address this problem vill result in perpetu'ation o f.
A FP2fP n o ? tt n M M a l utime snel4ed Fmpaa sad 4 q q u a n e ., af ynn f a n f n n n e n.
,, ONOED . 98 - _
l
, QOVER SIGNED
,,,......m.
{^]_gg
...r
~
~
.27:fsmf.z.;G,f s-r-w
.7%rx :f.A!?by difEaf: fff //-03d -
.77s refhz? JTf syfraat- .f Vd 2 # C- /./l /s 3 sagd b aercerxdadd "we f egr4WM drufjffrkafaz f ary wrex/ sygyv7z<r ".
ra rsjw.icce -ac asyms <.<< a <r rdd-nefr.a& Afef #A,preafee & .aer e .-
fro /dee. 7 7 d e cs x 6 'e rf., <U E <*f r.arfer dr exy ify c/epar cz,ppiy & e/p:e. We kretxe aMr.m-ferr,, sr- de <.re y'./prou-ffdr /d e/$z /sy ofrxaferfyryf i
jnff . .77b /ef&r & sas e/.e asemdd a . a.#1* . .
a p r. c h z... n .sesc ,sesz.ey;
,)V'A'~r 4059 y a /d"'F W/jar <<htl
" W /afs ssdy 6e2frn 77 cJmV ed.>rs depww...,
-l; y?fttz5$ . & k.*;z%3. hate,j.; <<, Wa yp>Mpm .rs i.cs h c cts(4(ff /n s . a d a e f M e x z'# yet# L &*i'm 4 afe
~
ei _
e lyec3Wes/e vs afie&e,<>f.seuskyw- -
n, .62.'2 2W:5sz. f.g foJ., ';
7
~ f, t. pf .; , :: . . ..
j
' 4 ' :..
^
ldn'r'
- b. -
q ,s. ,a.a, ,,
- w. . r ..>. ,. ..
-~~^ ,
t a
_,p . ,.--_--,,_.-.,,,,,7, -,, _y ,. ,, --...-.,,_,-v.-._w--, ,,. w--y,-.y.. , . -- - -
sMCfRoot.lnc.
4 i-INTEROFFICE .'EMO IM# 27,150 May 8, 1984 -
TO: M. Coats FROM: J.T. Blixt
SUBJECT:
In regards to the inspector's concern expressed in this SIS Report, please find attached the response from Construction and Engineering.
l If you have any questions regarding this, please concact me at extension 459. .
1 ArMOh J.T.~ Bl'1xt
~ ~
QE Group Supervisor
- JI3/ba cc
- . G.R. Purdy R. Siever G.L. Morris, Jr.
QA File fgiJ f]L MJU f4Jdb 09 Jd Nt/A
- pasiaas- % izw A rs ~ n. a k m ,s u rv.
1
.m
-= alm y -.-
mww--.-%---ie --r----,-w-e .--.w.i y- - - , , , - - - - - --ycw -- . - - - - --,----~*y ,,.----,,,w- y y----.i.g---- - - -yw7-~. w.v we- , wy---r,--p- - -- v -,rw
__ _ . _ . .-. - -.- .- t. -. . - . .
. '. . . 1,
,
- BrownbrRoof.Inc.
CASE EXHIBIT 1,057 INTEROFFI; . U.0 IM# 26,702 January 23, 1984 sIQ:~ B. Walker FROM: J.T. Blixt l
SUBJECT:
CPSES, 35-1195 SIS Report 5-002.
- 1. Reference CPP 12,978
. The following situation is a isolated case. CPP 12,978 addresses a list of all intergal attachments that require impact testing. In the letter which was generated by Large Bore Engineering, it stated that material requiring impact testing will be noted on the hanger detail sketch. This particular support is one support on this letter that the. detail. sketch has not been revised as of this date. The following detail sketch will be esvised by Large Bo're Engineering.
- 2. The following support MS-1-001-00S-C77K was received pre-fabricated on the job site in the year of 1979 with. manufacturer's data report '
NF-2. As that. time MS-46A, Revision Z was applicable and impact testing wasn't required. Ref. 2323-MS-46A, page 358, para. 3.11.B.
If there are any questions regarding this response, please contact me at extension 459. ,
. J.T. Blixt QE Group Superviser JTB/ba cc: G.R. Purdy R. Siever G.L. Morris, Jr.
C L'A-85-59 l ._ _ .__
__ ._ __ -. 1 . - - .- - -
. n. . se . , , , , ,
q'..... -
e SIS REPORT ha THE HARTFORD STEAAt BOI:.ER INSPECTION an.
n.wtrown.co3su ricterneia: ' $UR.UCE CCatPANY 5-002A
! [ ' To:
cATE SHEET
! 1.. Manager 2-10-84
'"""[GordonPurdy, Site Q. 1 l o7 ~ .
i Robert Byers, ANI H.o.esRAncH orrict j oRGANtZATioN Houston _
i Brown & Root. Inc.
- LOCAfloM STREET CITY COUNTY STATE ZIP CO?
{ , CPSES Box 1001 Glen Rose Somervell Texas
! 7 6 0 4 ~._
Person courAcTEo (civt Naut Ano orriCAa. T TLE) CONTRACT /PM. P'-
reason FoR VISIT 35-1195-U5
! Full time contract
- CoPtES SENT To:
C H.o. Ea, c . sis O o a.8 ra. ER i a u sis Sc4 , rs ify): ANI file 1
} '
REF: IM #26,7,0_2 0 j -
(1) I disacree with the statement "The followinq situation is .
a isolated case". In that two ' additional supports were i
4
]
found with the same deficiencies.
'1 Manger supports MS-1-03-007-C72K and MS-1-002-013-C72K J
both have welded attachments which require impact testing ,_
but h e detail sketch does not sp,eci_fy this as a requirement.
1 G.L .A13houch this support did not cricinally require impacted 1 ,
_ material. Subsequent revision of the Design Specificat-ions mandates this material meet impact requirements.
J
}
s In summation this Inscectors concerns are as follows:
j A. The number of additig,nal supports that exists in the j field in which irgpact requirements have been overlooked. ;
.B .
These deficiencies were not identified until completion _,,
i or near completion of fa_brication. 1 3- .
h"~~
- gr ~
1
( tl W
h?
ix j
ha . W .
s"' M 2 /J. ,,,, V4t[ 95W - Ownn
. e ...t___._. i 3
=
ex-e- . *+ *
- , . . . . , . - - . - ~ , - . , . - - . . . - - - - . - , . , - ,,n_.-, .._._,----.,-,v.-.,,,,,_,,.,--.n,,,,n.-,.~w__,,-.n,..,.w.--, w.,r--,-,--
I l
_ __ . _ . . . . - - - l
. . m.- . . - .: . -- - - . .: .. .
,' Sp=d Lotter.
~
l,
\ r.' V w San e ,. ,,, D. m. Leu,>, '
- ,-y .
l*
Suklect ,
IJ AIlfftb*flDU
\
l . . . . . .
- MESSAGE oei.
1 f A f/7 is PL M R- M bM $A) 011 A A_0 AA **
gJJA* A J.- LLns wdA1 A.eLuAs- a w-oiw-mu / m-1-m-m mnw ,/
'w -on-no w s u f nu-soy-cor-mw '
naoau81-i.nbu /
P14-lAn%bo7-t" Jr/'
An k upa w J L A n,,a & &L ggt/ '
ai
... ^
S.-Jk)7)evb. fap REPLY '
- o. ,,
l I
l l
l Signed
- C*'"?*"
RECIPIENT-RETAIN WHITE COPY. RETURN PINK COPY.
. - , - , , . . . _ - - _ - , -,n - ,n _
,-,_-,,w.--,-4 -,7 _ ,,....-y-, -
-,--,,,------n--,-
___ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ l MN
}
! INTEROFFIC. . l.MO
- n IMP 26,856 March 13, 1984
-l j- To: M. Coats _
! TROM: J.T. Blixt I !
SUBJECT:
CPSES, 35-1195 SIS Report 5-002A.
1 A. Hanger Engineering has been notified of our concern with the subject addressed on SIS Report 5-002 and 5-002A. The attached list reflects the only hanger detail sketches left that have no't been revised as of this date, to indicate impact requirements on the sketch as stated ;
per CPP-12,978.
- 3. - Engineering has notified me that these deficiencies were being identified on a case by case basis. Engineering has been notified that in order to certify these hangers, we need the detail sketches revised to indicate impact requirements. Engineering is now in the process of recertifying the hanger detail sketches that need impact testing on the sketches (Ref. accached letter).
If there are any questions regarding this response, please contact me at extension 459.
J.T. Blixt QE Group Supervisor JTB/ba cc: G.R. Purdy
- R. Siever G.L. Morris, Jr.
heptus/ s_n y - 0 3//4JW l
4 l
l l
i l
, l 1 l i
l
-e,.o a e N
j 4
SIS REPORT
(': ~ CASE EXHIBIT NO 1,055 .
%g Tas waaTrono sTsa3s Boit.En issescrios r. Ni.:aas en co3trasy a_cn HA M i l-e lHl), t 'll%% B 6. l lt'l 1 imitJ CATE SHEET OF l.N$. t ,_/ i fst h N/_h k. the $uty.L f / A (4 / ?-
FROM:
/ ' # H OFFICE
- d. IkJ4.1 ,
Aki H.O./BRkANnd C RGANIZATIC AWl LOCATION STREET CIT.Y COUNTY STATE ZIP COCE bh$$ YYAn L $v CONTRACT / P.O. NO.
PERSON CONT CTE} (GIVE NAME ANO OFFICIAL TITLE)
. //.d tA kt $ $ .$ $4d s 2L$ ' ' '
L ? w im REASON FOR VistT ,
AL l hv //71.YktdY~
a8.0. u. a... sis aCs.n....., sR , % ,. sis a C+.,<s.. e jf A y 2 _ g s w b i .Eth "' 1170/ Ca2fu_:4d) dA a d ce m).r . A 4 park A+ o<~4_.4.w
_8ud(4d Pik A ts. Atd * $ u&a ez. N9. // 2 .2f_,,, :fd <
g GZ_-LaL-JD.11__d m a. t apuv21 - mf.wMg]_,p_A,.c ,
,. b .. h u. lL W ,w n c:d.w = _ . . -- . . . -
g - - -
= . . . . - - - . . . - . . . . . . . . - . - - . _ . .
I e
J fh h _ .. .
aOVER l h , I w
m --e
- "'.W. @%8fM M%M* % ?T TA%~:
.MW5U.*1d%:tIQ:N;y'f:.MiiQ :%f.
- TR .t+. p. Ei Etownc Root.!nc.
INTEROFFICE MEFC I.Y - 2670[ January 23, 1933 TO: Garfon Pardy FROM: W.E. Baker , -
'SUhlECT: Q.C. Proc 3 dure Tiefarence on Pipe Hanger Occumentatf or Due to the issuance of 0.6. Progedurc QIs0Af 11.2-28, Rev. O, the current Q.C. Frec,edure referenced on Aznger Weld Data Cards 15 opsolete. In order to use the txistino cards in stock, hold down constructics ccsts, thd avoid recall of WOC's in usei Q.C. iiispectors are being authorized by this cero tc if ne ;hru the O.C. procedura listcc on the Wsis Data Card, in!tial and date the line-thru, and add tha field. WeIdicg (icur ent procedure r ference fcr those WOC's already issued tc the ,
prior c6 issuance.ginteHng s cer;onnel will corr.1ct tho39 cards lef t in As neeged, nes card stock vil' b3 printed witR the correct t
refersace. Thit accion will facilitate censtruct on and )reclude the unneces-sary printing of ten c3rd stock f?r minor chacses.
i
$$ k W _
W.E. Saker '
Sr. Project Welding Engineer ,
WEB / tin '
cc: ANI /[G ,
y a ,En --
. I --
E
% *
- e.
.s. .
1
--e 3.-.. . . ,, ...y.
g gg.y., . , g. .
, y . - ,--} w.e
, M,K 'stS RECORD FOR MONITURING Q.A /Q.C. PROGRAMS
~ CASE EXHIBIT NO.1,056
, Tilli HARTFORD STE.ut BOILER INSPECTION ara SURA.NCE COMPANY ll ARTTOl48). 4%)M L(.TICI.,7 unl@J
'.I 371 fC .mem. .M f^.e -
. alt cf
.,$ Mr. Gordon Purdy, Site O. A. Manacer Feb. 6, 1984
$w(ET 5
C
6LTCuf. 5 648'*m. ast uusP. .mamos m8p. AGCm Cd , tQ c')g3T.y 1 lt 4.fGdG4 6 W84 Om4FJ
@U Brown G Inc. Housten Houst.cn Ffollow Up -
C a.awr.s i
metou4
" h l_ **'* *'" Rco t ,
- Fi. d
'tCPSES Glen Rose, Texas 76043 C8888 E Asuaisir I
Oa:so.it/,...... C i - . . .
Il. the undersigned, have monitored your QA/QC manual or.: 7 - 4 ,0 J
- e. .. .
and find the fotfowmg sections:
,_ sa - = . rm ,
1._. 3.n.t.ciory:
,#"""****,=
, cyoc . ;a. r j on . , . . a. a .,. . . . ,
Section 16 _ Non conforming !tetrs . _ . . .
/
- g- .
EE E ,!'
arewn t. Root C.A. Manual and Q.A. Procedure.4CP-QAP-16.1 desigtata iu the Q.E. Grcup with :he re sponsibility to review NCRs clarity,. adequacy, and conformance to Code requirements. Che Q.C. Superintendeat/ Lead in
<-- given the respcasibility Of ensuring activities required by the NCR
'\ ~
$$f k 0"
- E ' * .B _
t CUSTCMER: Please deterice the, resoluticn of tnese items inN'*
dJte for comg.fettGn of Correc*Jhe actiers, so that items may be remonitored Cy: ' " '.
the ' CUSTOMER'S secticn beicw. 29d giva RES
/ / # f
w.
j piease ween ene ensinai ofinis form ter your recores and return a coef to inscector namee etiow.
le...u,/m..,,,,,,
- 5_. = s ne .e... 5,,,,.g um ma
- > a . a ,m w .o .. u .v w w a :ca,,a:
,Feb. 6, 19e4 -. ,-/J b .., 4tZ..,, 22.4[. ,
.~. s . .-, i ,
. . .- ~ . ~. . r :. . ~ ,
lui'm fa .uVA/ .;;*r'.ts' 1/4 .do.v'u/ry *- '
g : (
'GP ffY..
iI
~
w- -~
tJr N AK
\@ ? c ,, bus wi ma
) Wl_ Cy I wic ic - .. a c un. a . ,c . ..... w .
- l. the ucdersigned, have remonitored the above unsatisfactory conditions on:
3/Jo/fr
,.nd,_ ,., c ... . . ..., o.........,,,,,,.-.,.., -
h.9!' 8:t td i.tLA/s.u)m.u. (.rA'.:na), atid./ %&/ -umdz .wJ
? dwt.u. y .weawau , f4 cmAL u,:%.,d s2&L&y e ,m ,....., ...... o. , - . . , m,.....-,- EAR A OC Cri gp 9,7g A /4 2. -
4MMm n. M SWn A W 5 525: W l$h k & $hh W b h D ? b l
a-2 . g->,pejspe%.i SIS' Report 371 ~r Page 2 of 3' disposition are verified and/or witnessed, and to close the NCR af ter -
ensuring that sufficient documentation exicts to verify completion of the disposition, and that the supporting dccumentation is attached to or referenced on the NCR. Q.A. Procedure CP-QAP-16.l further stipulates that questionable NCR conditions are to be resolved in accordance with the O . C . and/or Q.E. Supervisors.
NCRs M-9946, M-9955, M-9956, M-9957 M-9958, M-9959, M-9964, M-9965, M-9969, M-9972, M-9980, M-9981, M-9985, and M-9987 were sub-mitted to me by the site Mechanical NDE Level III for ANI concurrence to closure.
He stated that the voided documents (as required by the NCR) were located in the vault. All of these NCR's were verified by Q.C. as being ccmplete.
COT's. I could not only), M-9980 (one locateNone of these COT's the previous NCRs made reference for NCR to the voided l's M-9985 (one only) , M-9972, and M-9987. I did locate the pre-vicus CCTs for NCR l's M-9985 (one only) , M-99 81, and M-9 980 and none of these travelers were voided.
NCR 41.M-9743 was written to upgrade support GHH-RTS-1-7 from Class 2 to Class There is nothing indicating that the list of welders was made from the welders symbols stamped on each joint. IR #AM04431 identified a Code nameplate on a strut which was stamped Class 2. In order to upgrade this strut to Class 1, the name plate was removed.
The IR was closed as satisf actory on 1/17/84. There is no indication on the NCR that a corrected data report was submitted. This NCR was verified as being complete by Q.C. on 1/23/84.
NCR iM-9740 2 to Class 1. Therewas written to upgrade support GHH-RTS-t-3 from Class is no' thing indicating that the list of welders }
was made from the welders symbols stamped on each joint. For welds 49, 50, 51, and 52, this would not have been feasible because these are hidden welds. (See IR 4 AM03612) .
complete by Q.C. on 1/21/84. This NCR was verified as being NCR iM-9744 2 to Class 1. was written to upgrade support GHH-RTS-1-8 from Class 1 There is no indication that the list of welders was made from the welders symbols stamped on each joint.
verified as being complete by Q.C. on 1/25/84. This NCR was j NCR $M-9739 2 to Class 1. was written to upgrade support GHH-RTS-1-2 from Claes There is no indication that the list of welders was made from the welders symbols stamped on each joint. This NCR was verified as being complete by Q.C. on 1/27/84. j l
1 i
i I
h
n .. ~~.~~~~~~ -.
j . { , .. , .
' . . .. . " ' ' '.'82.'4. . . *.CC ' "" ' "
- ': 2" ~
. SIS Report 371
{
Page 3 of 3
/ .1
{
i
\
i 2 to Class NCR SM-9742
- 1. was written to upgrads ' support GHH-RTS-1-6 from Class l on 12/19/83 indicating Q.C. inspector that welds J. Massey prepared an inspection report 1 I
. 1,2, 5,6,7,13,15,17,18,19,20,21,22, 33,34,35,36, (QC/E)
& 37 were not stamped with a welders symbol. W. Sims i issued an inspection report on 1/6/84 disclaiming the welder symbol stamping as not being required. This is in direct contrast with ine cisposition of the Nca.
on 1/30/84. Since these welds Inis Nva was verified as complete by Q.C. i were not stamped with a welders symbol, i the welders disposition. list could- not have been made in accordance with the NCR '
2 to Class NCR #97411. IRwas written to upgrade support GHH-RTS-1-5 frcm Class 6AM03611 was prepared by C. Saengerhausen on 12/19/83.
Item 3symbol welder of the stamps. IR stated that only welds 3,4,7, & 8 were identified with This item was deleted by W.
made to NCR M-9741 rev.l. C. Saengerhausen issuedSims an IR with a reference on 12/19/83 to revisa NCR M-9741, for which W.
Sims issued an IR on 1/6/84 disclaiming the need for an NCR revision because Welding Engineering had established welder to weld ' joint traceability. This is not in accordance with' the disposition of the NCR.
As stated in Saengerhausen's IR, welder to weld joint traceability could not be established per the NCR disposition.
Thsre is nothing referenced on the NCR, included in the NCR, nor included in the O. A. as hanger beingpackage acceptable which indicates for Class that the material was verified by 1 application.
th e -Q . C . On 1/9/84, I informed complied with. Group Supervisor that the disposition of thIis NCR could not be He stated that the only Code requirements are either welders joint. symbols stamped on the welds or a tabulation of welders to each He also stated that craf t produced a tabulation and that the acceptability of the tabulation was not up to him. This is in conflict with NA-4210. '
l listed is indicative of a need to reinstruct personnel involved\inIt is th preparing, and that reviewing, and closing NCR's to ensure that NCR's are clear \ I prior to Q.C. verification.the disposition is complete and ccmpletion is intelligibleI jh
)
i I
'1 '
g a D
-. -v_. - , - - - - _ - - - - , ,,- . , - _ . _ _ e _ . . ,--, , _ , _ . , - _ , _ _ - - , . , , - - - - - - --
,._.-,_,-w_ . , . - - - - . -
. . _ _ ___. . .1 - . -
l-BWeevnCrftmolkui l
INTEROFFIL : IMO i/
l~ IM# 26,916 March 13, 1984 i l
- TO
- W. Walker e
FROM: R. Siever
SUBJECT:
CPSES, 35-1195 SIS Reporr #371 Amended Response.
All NCRs referenced in paragraph 2 have been verified by QC and have the
. superseded Travelers and current Travelers referenced in the disposition.
The Quality Assurance Department has evaluated the method used by Welding Engineering, to map the welds on the RTS (incore instrument) supports.
We have remapped all welds and identified welds that do not have welder traceability on an Inspection Report.
Process documentation has been generated to remove all welds and have then revelded if traceability has not been established.
The NCRs referenced on the above SIS have been revised to reflect the above action.
NCR coordinators and QC Leads will be reinstructed in the requirements for reviewing, closing and revising NCRs.
'If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 204.
s c __
R7 SievEr
- QC Group Supervisor i
i RS/bn cct G.R. Purdy J.T. Blixt G.L. Morris. Jr.
5 8,
- D
-r . - . - , - - y - - - y-- . _~- . - . - - -
-. ~ ~
' lIi5 .i:/Mif 5,j.ir[
f.. .. >. .1-h2Injdd:E'
. M SIS REPORT GSE EXHIBIT NO.1,058 Ud ~ THE HARTFORD STE.Ol BOILER INSPECTION ar.- SURANCE COMPANY
, aw r> ono. c.onu.Tu:t r e.**
TO:
10-032
~
DATE SHEET Bob Sieve r, Q. C. Grouc Supervisor 2-17-04 1 lOF 1 FRCM:
H.Q./8 RANCH CFFICE Robert Byers , ANI Houston CRGANIZA TICN Brown f. Rect, Inc
~
LCCATION STREET CITY COUNTY STATE ZIP CCO CPSES Box 1001 Glen Rose Scme rvell Texas 7504; PERSON CCNTACTED (C;VE NAME AND CFFICIAL TITLE)
CONTRAOT/P O. ft
'Rb'ON FOR VISIT 35-1193-05i Full time contract
- COPtES SENT TC O n.c. E., c.. . sis O ow.s u. ., Gn. r.a. u. ,. sis Oe4 ,(s ity): ANI file An inspection of hidden welds en support number CC-2-008-403-S33R disclosed the followine discrecancy:
Welder A. Lopez, (welder's symbol "BGL*) was questioned by my- _
self in regards to intermass temperature while welding to embed platzs. .-
Mr. Leeen admitted he did not knew the thickness of the emmed plate h_e ... .
was weldine to, nor did he check the interpass temperature durinc welding.
Re ference decur.ents i 10.2 QAM WPS 11032
_~ :. . -- -
_ h(L] g g u ..
, . _ dM 4( '
'I r _. - .
/h:h Q$
~
I" IA Am A
s "" ' o 0. i . -
WIN * @ 14 / 6 3
i . . .
1s.
Ph0WnCfR30%.k1C.
1
! INTEROFFICI .'EMO .
i TO: R. Byers March 9, 1984 FROM: R. Stever
SUBJECT:
I i
The welder identified on the above SIS, has been retrained to the requirement of the WPS (see attachment).
The Quality Control department has been instructed to nonitor preheat and interpass temperatures two days per week (see attachment).
If you have any quest' ions, please contact me at extension 204.
b s.- __
'RS/ba w/actachment cc: G.R. Purdy ,
J.T. Blixt e G.I.. Morris, Jr. * '
l i e b Al oeryM4 n; + g/jjjg e
O b
b i
= t
p --. .. ... . . ... L- L - .
i .
s'
.. mg.ug - -
I i
I.
STRUCTURAL WELCER ORIENTATION j I have read the Structural Welcer Orientation and I agree to fo11cw tne requirements listed in it and the requirements listed below; (1) The requirements of the procedures used on the job site. :
(2) Tne requirements of the Welding Procedure $pecification (WPS).
This includes the preheat, interpass te srature, rcot gep, amperage, voltage, travel speed, maximu:n bq,td widtn. polarity, rod type and size. '
i
! urderstand that if I have any problem with the above I am to report it to eny Foreman or the Weld Tech, in the area.
Nameb.E.v.- .L 3 I Cate B 91 3 ~? LV 9 3adge f i O / _
. Symbol /*4fl ( !
- l This copy (3 to be placed in each welder $ certification file.
'i JEH/pam t i
1 m._
.- m; '
i
. . __ . . . . i - - -- -- -
- ls BUhn& Rod.!nc.
INTEROFFICI' .0 1
I
- i .
- To
- Distribution March 9, 1984 j FROM: R. Siever j StJ3 JECT: CPSES, 35-1195 Preheat And Interpass Temperature.
4 3
Quality Control shall monitor preheat and interpass temperatures at a minimum of two days per week. The QA/QC Building Supervisors shall ,
prepare an assignment schedule for each unit and assign one QCI for this activity to each unit. Result of this activity shall be recorded on the inprocess documentation for the item verified. This activity shall be implemented by March 12, 1934 E Siever QC Group Supervisor i
! RS/bs cc: G.R. Purdy J.T. Blixt D. Woodyard i
G. Bennetzen i D. Snow .
W. Mansfield L. Wilkerson
)
l l
l 1
, l I
i l
l l
- 0
..- . -.. - - . = . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . _ ..
1 e.,..= .n l
~ .
)
[* SIS REPORT !
CASE EXHIBIT NO.1,059
< THE HARTFORO STEA3t DOILCH INSPECT 10h INSUR ANCE COAtPANY
, HAu r>oun. Coswi TH;t 1 unio::
TO:
_ __ 10-033 i - Gordon'Purdy. Site 0. )CATE SNEET A. Manager 4-13-84 1 lCF1 FROM:
M.O./BAANCH CFFICE
- Jerrv Lvele. ANI Houston 4
QRGANIZATION
' B rown & Root. Inc.
LOCATION STREET CITY COUNTY STATE ZlP CCCE j C.P.S.E.S. Box 1001 Clen Rose Somervell Texas 75043 PER$QN CONTACTED (G1VE NAME AND CPFICfA1. TITLtd CCNTRACT/P 0. NO.
REASON FOR VISIT 35-1195-0561 Full time contrae.t CCPfES SENT TO: .
OH.C.EnsCoim.565 C 06 1inse , G ft. , east u e 545 @Cd (Se.eM ANI fi1e
_,, Subieeer Inseeerien R m rts. .,,_
- Referenene? CP-OAP-Il 1 I
I MTR Renere d.017 f
6 Onne?m?v en ehe shave refe?ances. ehe?e m?e Muse?ngs
~
Ynenmeetan 9enavee. tnetudf.e *k emde ns Tneneerfen tepeer. . _,
ekne mee nae hetne numbered.
Eramnlet Th? ended Inseeceton Reecres wrieten 4-11-84 .-
+
and 4-12-84 fm? 110. cc-I-CE-013 (feund durine M-S ?avieu hv ANT) .
-~
? bed r/2/79.. hi./- _.57.5
- 3.72 . a .rp. /rt'
.= . -
F0lAa85-5.. 9 k $ '
o"' Q%w./g (
4 O'evER w , , - . - . , . . -n,, - - - . - - . - - . - - . . . -
!. . .~ , ..
i . _
1*
{ . N(5Rcot.Iric.
i I
INTEROFF'. ~. MEMO 1
?
- IMP 27,131 DATE
- May 3, 1984 .
TO: M. Coats, ANI
- l FROM: J.T. Blixt i
SUBJECT:
CPSES, 35-1195
- I SIS Report 932 #10-033 and #11-011 In response to the above referenced reports the QA/QC Department has j been instructed to the following:
- Satisfactory Inspection Reports do not require an identification serial number. When a satisfactory inspection is performed on an item and the
- results of that inspection are recorded on an Inspection Report (IR),
i che IR shall contain sufficient identification to maintain traceability to the itas and shall become part of the item's documentation package along with the process documents.
Unsatisfactory inspections which are reported on an "Unsat,IR" require the assignment of serial numbers, traceable to a log, for tracking pur-poses to assure further processing and closure.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me at extension 459. -
4 I
J.T. Blixt, QE Group Supervisor ,
JT3/kda
- cc
- C.R. Purdy R. Siever G.I.. Morris, Jr.
1 .
i i
f
+ -r- ,gy-m-.- ,e-.--- . - - - - - --%, e- 4~.-v- ,,- ,--- -
l
. 1 I .
I ~ ,, a,6 SIS REPOSI W-LT3 w . ra:
9,- " CASE EXHIBIT N0.1,060 I
I l THE HARTFORD STEAM BOtt.ER INSPEETION an.: 'YSURANCE COMPANY I H AMTFOHO. CONNWTH't r os404 -
= .- 10-034 I i .TO: .- - -
DATE SHEET -
i --
Gordon. Purdy., Site .G.A.' . Manager ; - . 4 w- - - .
4-la 84 - 1 , [CF. -l.. l FROM: ~ '
H.O.J BRANCN CFFICE Marvin Coats _,..L._ANI .
_ . _ . Houston . .
l CRGANIZATION Brown f. Root, Inc.
LOCATION STREET CITY CCUNTY STATE ZIP CCCE C.P.S.E.S. Box 1001 Glen Rose Somervell Texas 76043 ,
PERSON CONTACTED (GIVE NAME AND OFFICIAL TITLE) CONTRACT /P.O. NO.
r.EAScN FoR vtS T 35-1195-0561 ,
Full time contract l i
COPtES SENT TO:
QH.O. En, C. $15 O oa. ra ., Gn a.: u , sis Sc,*., (s fy): ANI
Subject:
' Welded Attachments to Large Bore Main Steam W . .-. . . .. .
and Feed Water Pipine l
l Due to receated identification of non-compliance with Desien Scecification recuirements for notch touchness material to be used in above a.cet_ications,recuest that all packaces on
.~ -
these svstems be re-cresented to the ANI for establishment of hold coints.
lm.
^1
., . v.- . . . . , . . ,;
_ l l
\
1
.s oc' e n M CA A A Covra 5
3 " ' M g4 -
- 1 wa giJ-gy l
..........~,f
~
. 0 f65" l 1
_ _ _ _ _ -. ~ - . - - - - . --~
- P'i.I.'
d)')'r. .. O %^I I.N .h'MII.:M !.'...q . . . . . . .
Y ;,.r g W.~;.nnra9'~m 5 :Tp t?rn -+ M. .; 5,, u. 2,..vi.A ,.A.'.
- t*~~~1; %g .
- ~~s. >.. .
....m
- n. ~ : .~. :
-:- e. .
..'.+ r:er: nox.jee.t -:ou.w.
......t , . . . .- . u ec*:.
n.;. . . nxA.s ';;enar.u.
-n ;:.: .:'," s , 7.~
- ,7.,,4 ,
'. . ,* . 7 "
- [. . b f., E
.f .~ z .
. . . . ; . .., ~ .> .- .. .
3 .
[h.:. _ y . ;
V-r.-
- T i
.~
w ,
-9,
.n.,
.c. .
G.r- - . t .;... . ,
.i-I ,. . . n. . . .7.
1 . }q ,, t ggi;g.,b .f -.: . . . . . .:: .: . . - -
\
t P W L- l
)
., L. _J -
l mm A I 4 - l 9 d' 4 .
l I
y[* tt .rlT N K*W G b .i 5 /% 5- /0 8 i j l 9 .-# / 0
- O Q 9 ., B /V.i /RE G H C .5,7 *-.
n i, L l'HCKrJ G f .5 Chr- WCADto 17gesW .,---- - - - . .
~
. rsep: rse: m..
- . ro-a ,y'w. ~ac,.s >" t . .g age , resu.n -5.rwr:
l
. . 1[.:
t ,* , . m .n..
4 P.e b . y.n.7 neonc, ac , . , . -
A n Jp ? Y. ~. ..r.5..;-:.,,~4.v W.x .. .
..,.r:ps Qg. . ..
~ .
. . 4. W, w;; ..':: .9;9,g. 5 :;.. .. . .
PRMef*:?$kltE rc-o s .ure . vim mx r,1rnauw ... . ., ..
. .:W;IUT 1.?k,5.it '
. d.f. *;. ,s ' *
'.!?hy ryyGQs ,.:s .s . f~~- . .N : ,$, ' - ~ Q f. f..'.
- l' '
75$fSN!NNYf$@I$FN.'n!/$$$
S es u o L gc.a y ra c,ugi,y - wru,p,.ni Esti n.6 h-W' W .;R.v.C.- A
' gi w:.Q.gg$#;Y :. < _ ~~ T :.'cee1-M-4 s e;yc-0 .
I * '!?4-I.y.,M.-n ..
$'..if.d.f.:%1g[.@ M* f.'r !
gaafu I $UM"07
- " M .;.'%f
.%. - M.y: %?.??*5! - .. .. .; maw.*M.-.p. y
.s9 %,W.gq.,.r.w.=.:e-s y c.,,,x g , ,ym . %. 3 ,
.m.m >
.9 , ,i.,.
. . -.f,, ,- ,;
f y ogMV e,1.,;.:.. c..-< . ro. Mtv r-a m i% % .,
. . . . . . . .. , . [
Y '$ ' ~
- f. .- Q*
- ~ *~
- h., i / .;,..
! k
=Y hh5Y khkkhhh p~'
P'
=no RhiiR veme sma 1,
w a9p=n - .
- - - m --
m "? 2 f
l I k
t _ _ _ - .
a _Wd
" n. ' .
y " M E- i ,-- e ma
-- vJ.
% W WE-3, -
~
- s=m m -
i hm - - -
du[ -
li 2 -C__ - -
i
?
f.
.p --
I
-- . ~n -
g,G.fij j ,g.
7 _
_ _ )
i
.. O 'J-Y k**. _ '
. :t
'STpcMf3NW I'. SCpd l
,., W'UEM5 . ,g , b
'"7 >/": Tp d's *,1 .,
n'"
.s . . .
) .
%,...4dW> ..&q:s.+@ 7 g . . .
- _ _ _e -
z-m m , . .
' , .; - n
. [6,.
~. s.try
~
if.1,rd.,.[$.c:"q .'.i,f.,'b. . :: *
.g . . +.- e .
g
. f, :s*Y . .. . . . . .? *
- 5, .
. I.
. ,..a *. . . = , . - -
em
._.-i.w.y----,#w g-t-..ym---my._,.,-.y-------- ---.g.-g-q-qp-w-ye-p-----e---
, *~ h {f RDOt.k1C.
i i INTEROFFI "0 IMP 27,151 May 8, 19E4 i
l Tor M. Coats 1 .
l TROM: J.T. Blixt i
SUBJECT:
CPSES, 35-1195 i
SIS #10-034. '
l Mr. W.E. Baker, Pipe Welding Engineer, has instructed his personnel
,to route the subject packages to ANI.
J.T. Blixt QE Group Supervisor JTB/ba ec: G.R. Purdy R. Siever -
G.L. Morris, Jr.
WWW4CC /# 0A LaJa/E4 , f/E /c N hM oA' /hAGw& / VcL A " re-co J m r.
+
i
, , _ _ -. . _ . . . . . ~ - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ -
s :
s,
- m f
_ f \
! o g UNIT STATES /
g N #
f NUCLEAR REGUL TORY CQM 1 WASMNGTON, D. C. 20555 JAN 15 E85 / - n-J .
Y; Docket Nos.: 50-445/446 MEMORANDUM FOR: 1)arrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing i
FROM: Vincent S. Noonan, Director l Comanche Peak Project
SUBJECT:
NOVEMBER 14-16, 1984 TRIP REPORT TO COMANCHE PEAK l On Thursday, November 15, 1984, I requested that Texas Utilities (TV) make available QA/QC inspectors in all disciplines from Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2 for discussions with myself and Annette Vietti, a project manager on my staff.
We met with approximately 70 QA/QC inspectors in groups of five to ten throughout the day. The purpose of the meetings was to emphasize to the inspectors that the NRC must resolve all safety concerns before either unit can be licensed. We also~ assured each group that any inspector having a safety concern could discuss it in confidence with the NRC staff and to facilitate this opportunity, we would accept collect telephone calls. Ms. Vietti and I provided them with our telephone numbers by handing out our business cards.
We also discussed with them the NRC's concerns regarding TU supervisory attitudes toward the QA/QC issues they had raised. We emphasized to them'that the NRC will' attempt -to ensure that TU adequately addresses all safety concerns identified by QA/QC inspectors. Finally, we discussed with them the role of the NRC resident inspector in forwarding their concerns directly to me at NRC l headquarters. j It is too soon to tell how effective the meetings were, although it was )
obvious to us that the inspectors appreciated the interest taken by NRC in l fostering an rform their important work .
effectively. I That evening, three NRC staff members, three of our consultants and myself
, assembled for a pre-arranged feedback interview with one of our primary allegers, A-3. Although we waited a reasonable amount of time, alleger A-3 F0lA-85-59 v/u l z
l
_.____-.___..____...__-__,__--..__._.I
s ... - . . . _ . _ . . . .-. . -. . -- - - - - -
,/ A, '
- JAN 151985 i -
-?
! Darrell G. Eisenhut i 71
'. did not appear, so we concluded the meeting after making a reco[d of who had
,j attended and notin'g that the alleger did not attend. We will keep a file copy j of the record and provide a copy to the alleger. -
/ _
( ff.N nan, Director V Comanche 'eak roject cc: W. Dircks
, H. Denton E. Case .
H. Gagliardo R. Wessman S. Burwell J. Zudans
- R. C. Tang
. R. Bangart R. Keimig
. k snan; '
C. McCracken H. Livermort l
l l
t i
0 1
i f
l l
.-.