Page 20


. . . . . . and certified as competent . . . too often an installation clearly accomplished forming installation in advance of QC never addressed. “I’m not sure that what TU is doing is different from what other utilities have done . . . but I don’t like it.” Then there is a warning: The licensee may now “use his full powers to be less construction deficiencies . . . going through the necessary formalities report to us. . . ” In contrast to his abov concerns, Resident Inspe 1982 told the ASLB pa hearings that Coman safe he would “buil it” and move his lifetime of the pla The problem March meetin by the NR Team in January an “Potential Some of the electrical and i tion, i.e., imp trays with som heat-carrying al equipment trical failures tions of pipe out-of-date de too many de installed HV equipment wi “Contrary t attorney g took no int . . ., Jim ciencies; cedures, tors; poor s related equi emergency and could properly ce I inspectors violation of quently con identify an struction breakdown and poor d ming cond trail” wher problem fro tion. Many of the identified problems give weight to CASE witness’s allegations of shoddy construction and poor design. \(TO, In rebuttal testimony, B&R QA/QC manager Ron Tolson said “We don’t think there is a problem,” even after admitting that paper records are incomplete. Tolson said that the proper work was done even if there are no records to prove it. TU spokesmen rt r that all orthe problems fOund would ha been found by the company’s own inectors in the final “100% reinspe,cn” of the plant, scheduled to begin fter construction is finished. The NRC isal team said that was disturbince many of the areas to be inwould be covered up by then or le to the inspectors. One out that most ants in “It seems to me then that you only plan to have a plan,” Board member Dr. Walter Jordon said to the FEMA witnesses. Jordon, a retired nuclear physicist who sat on the TMI 1 restart Board and was once assistant director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, pressed the agency witnesses hard for clear answers. Noting that there are no nuclear engineers within the different responsi ble state agencies \(the Department of Public Safety and the Department of ask “Does the state feel uncomfortable in havi to rely on the utility [for its in there are no nuclear s within the ‘Me agencies .. ‘Does the e in having to lity?” of a nuclear sland, the ed to put staff to e they no do,” Jordon Alton Armgen bubble lay it down, A TU witness interrupt0, “We won’t ‘do that . . we have a lot at stake. . . “Yes,” Jordon comrne0d, “several billion dollars.” Jordon seemed particutiirly disturbed the lack of expertise which would be to the county at the Mc early stages of a nuqear accident, when the burden of decision to evacuate would be solely on his shbulders. The usual situation,” ‘,Jordon said, ‘ill be like TMI: is the lUrogen bub e ‘going to explode? TheNrate is in no sition now to make that, judgment,” either will be the coun t y judge, Jor pointed out, who might have to e, with very little realjnformation, e middle of a freezing inter night unot to evacuat ldren and nt women. ..,.’; at the ret the plant s before the eorge Crump g in his office heard them. ed during the ens failed heard by but were t of those t. 4 sit fiftee ency es identifie at agency an he state’s, ing they a e FEMA “commi will be ” ills” sch 4,, 4! .:WWw s “Noting th engine different respon Jordan aske ee4comforta viz the formation a ate of Pennsylvania h e nuclear engineers assess any future proble onger trust the utility. .. “What are you going asked state DPS witness strong, “if there is a by . . . the utility is liable tc isn’t it?” er testimony rev warning sirens in ested several w s and that Judg ervell County si court house, ne st w co THE TEXAS OBSERVER 5