ML20155B557
| ML20155B557 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1986 |
| From: | Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Roisman A TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155B560 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604160234 | |
| Download: ML20155B557 (26) | |
Text
_
~
APR 8 1986 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Citizens Clinic Director 2000 P Street, N.W.
Government Accountability Project Suite 611 1901 Q Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20009
Dear Mr. Roisman and Ms. Garde:
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATIONS / CORRECTIONS TO NOVEMBER 19 and 20, 1985 TRANSCRIPT As we identified in our meeting on November 19 and 20,1985, we provided the NRC participants with a copy of the transcript to make any clarifications / corrections necessary. These clarifications / corrections have been identified and noted in the enclosed transcript pages. These clarifications / corrections are marked by a bar in the margin and are on the following enclosed pages of the transcript:
1, 2, 15, 30, 43, 67, 94, 105, 147, 164, 165, 199, 208, 213, 244.1, 228, 229, 235, 245, 252, 267, and 273.
In addition, my response to Mr. Roisman's question on page' 232 needs to be supplemented. Mr. Roisman wanted to know if all of the TRT concerns are encompassed within the CPRT program plan. My response should be as follows: That's correct, with the exception of SSER 9.
Actions required by SSER 9 to document the status of some coatings and to implement a program for protective coatings maintenance were responded to in a separate submittal, dated November 18, 1985.
Sincerely, Vincent S. Noonan, Director PWR Project Directorate No. 5 Division of Licensing-A
Enclosure:
pages of transcript cc: See next page Distribution:
g, V
Doctet J1Jes 3 T. Novak J. Partlow gf NRC PDR OELD M. Rushbrook o
y hq f[g LPDR E. Jordan ACRS (10)
PD#5 Rdg. File B. Grimes
- See previous concurrence V
A j
PD#5*
P PD#5*
(
,6 DIR:PD.
g CEarly:js ook CTrammell L hand er VN a
/
QO h, 02/14/86 02/44/86 02/19/86 0
"] /86 fl h.C a/96w 0FFICIAL' RECORD-COPY noy/6ozsD
AMt s1est ntifony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Citizens Clinic Director 2000 P Street, N.W.
Government Accountabili Project Suite 611 1901 Que Street, N.W.
Washington, D C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20 9
Dear Mr. Roisman and Ms. Garde:
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATIONS / CORRECTIONS TO NOVEMBER 19 and 20 1985 TRANSCRIPT As we identified in our meeting on November 19 and 20 1985, we provided the NRC participants with a copy of the transcript t make any clarifications /
corrections necessary. These clarifications /corre ions have been identified and noted in the enclosed transcript pages. Thes clarifications /
corrections _are marked by a bar in the margin a are on the following enclosed pages of the transcript:
1, 2, 15, 3, 43, 67, 94, 105, 147, 164, 165,-199, 208, 213, 224.1, 228, 229, 235, 245 252, 267, and 273.
In addition, Mr. Noonan's response to Mr.
isman't question on page 232 needs to be supplemented. Mr. Poisman wanted t know if all of the TRT. concerns are encompassed within the CPRT program plan Mr. Noonan's response should be as follows: Tbat's correct, with the exception of SSER 9.
Actions required by SSER 9 to document the status of some/;oatings and to implement a program for protective coatings maintenance were 'esponded to in a separate submittal, r
dated November 18, 1985.
Sincerely, Vincent S. Noonan, Director
/
PWR Project Directorate #5 f
f Division of PWR Licensing-A
/
Enclosure:
pages of transcript y
/
cc: See next page Distribution:
' Docket File NRC PDR~
Local PDR PD#5 Readinghile T. Novak OELD E.Jorda/
B. Grime's J. Papilow M. Rushbrook ACRS(10)
- /$ee next page for previous concurrences
/
UTC :PD#5
.PD#5
- PD#5
- ELD
- PD#5 NAME :CEarly*
- AVietti_ Cook
- CTramell*:LChandler
- VSNoonan DATE :02/14/06
- 2/14/86
- 2/19/86
- / /86
/ /86 Sf8EINYLJTMEAR@
m APR 8 1885.
,/
.e
/
,/
/
k'nthonyZ.Roisman,Esq.
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde
/
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Citizens Clinic Director /
2000 P Street, N. W.
Government Accountability,, Project Suite 611 1901 Que Street, N.W.
/
Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20009'
Dear Mr. Roisman and Ms. Garde:
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATIONS / CORRECTIONS TO NOVEMBER 19 and 20, 1.985 TRANSCRIPT
/.
As we identified in our meeting on November 19 and 20,19,85, we provided the NRC participants with a copy of the transcript to make any clarifications /
corrections necessary. These clarifications / corrections have been identified and noted in the enclosed transcript pages. These clarifications /
corrections are marked by a bar in the margin and art on the following enclosed pages of the tr nscript:
1, 2, 15, 30, 43',' 67, 94, 105, 147, 164, 165, 199, 208, 213, 224.1, 228, 229, 232, 235, 245', 252, 267, and 273.
/
Sincer ly, incent S. Noonan, Director PWR Project Directorate #5 Division of PWR Licensing-A
Enclosure:
pages of transcript cc: See next page Distribution:
Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR L
PD#5 Reading File T. Novak OELD F
E. Jordan B. Grimes J. Partlow M. Rushbrook ACRS(10) /
- See pr vious concurrence f
- 0FC :PDP5*
- PD#5
- PD#5
- ELD
- PD#5 8
- ._ _ _
- _ __ _ _...... _ _f(_ti -f20 k NAME :
i ell
- LChandler
- VSNoonan s.____:
- 4A4/85. ___ _ __ _ _ _ : 1 A, /8 5
- DATE td/
O
- /
d
/ /85
/ /85 y
g 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
~
I r aroy
~I 4'
UNITED STATES j
[
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
g
'j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%C+.CE*/
APR 8 1986 4
2
.)
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Ls Trial lawyers for Public Justice Government Accountability Project 2000 P Street, N.W.
1555 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Suite 611 Suite 202 Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036
.i
Dear Mr. Roisman and Ms. Garde:
.i 7j
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATIONS / CORRECTIONS TO NOVEMBER 19 and 20, 1985
?
. TRANSCRIPT 3
1 As we identified in our meeting on November 19 and 20,1985, we provided the NRC participants with a copy of the transcript to make any clarifications / corrections necessary. These clarifications / corrections have been identified and noted in the enclosed transcript pages. These clarifications / corrections are marked by a bar in the margin and are on the following enclosed pages of the transcript:
1, 2, 15, 30, 43, 67, 94, 105, 147, 164, 165, 190, 208, 213, 224.1, 228, 229, 235, 245, 252, 267, and 273.
-l In addition, my response to Mr. Roisman's question on page 232 needs to be supplemented. Mr. Roisman wanted to know if all of the TRT concerns are encompassed within the CPRT program plan. My response should be as follows: That's correct, with the exception of SSER 9.
Actions required by SSER 9 to document the status of some coatings and to implement a program for protective coatings maintenance were responded to in a separate submittal, dated November 18, 1985.
Sincerely, W.N n
WR Proj ect rectorate No. 5 Divisior of Licensing-A
Enclosure:
pages of transcript cc: See next page j
dn i
di l
i i
i
CR249'41.0 38"/9,$9 I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
MEETING OF NRC STAFF WITH CASE 4
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue 5
Room P-ll8 Bethesda, Maryland 6
l Tuesday, November 19, 1985
[
7 Lad The meeting convened at 9:02 a.m.,,ptxrence Chandler, i
8 Office of the Executive Legal Director, presiding.
9 ATTENDEES:
10 ANNETTE VIETTI-COOK, NRR/DL/CPP T. A.
IPPOLITO, AEOD 11 H. H. LIVERMORE, NRC - Reg. II C. J. HALE, NRC - Reg. IV ll 12 H.,S.
PHILLIPS, NRC - Reg. IV C. E. McCRACKEN, NRC/NRR
(
CHET POSLUSNY, NRC/NRR/DL/CPP 13 ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN, CASE / Trial Lawyers for Public l
Justice 14 BILLIE GARDE, CASE / Trial Lawyers for Public Justice LAWRENCE J. CHANDLER, NRC/OELD 15 LARRY SHAO, NRC
' JOSE A.
CALVO, NRC y
16 VINCENT S. NOOMAN, NRC l
GEARY S. MIZUNO, NRC-ELD CHARLES M. TRAMMELL, NRC 17 }
RICHARD H. WESSMAN, NRC SHOU-NIEN HOU, NRC 18 R. W.
HUBBARD, NRC
'V.
P.
FERRARINI, TRT c
19 R.
MASTERSON, TRT W.
P.
CHEN, TRT 20 SPOTTSWOOD B. BURWELL, NRC/NRR/CPP C. D.
RICHARDS, TRT J. H. MALONSON, TRT 2I M. W.
ELI, TRT R. W.
BCNNENBERG, TRT 22 V. W. WATSON, TRT i
VICTOR L. WENCZEL, TRT
~
23 T.
E.
CURRY, TRT WILLIAM C. WELLS, TRT
(
24 DAVID L. MEYER,.NRC/ADM/DRR/FOIA JOE GAWLEY, NRC/ADM/DRR/FOIA AL SERKIZ, NRC/NRR/ DST i
25 PAUL KESHISHIAN, TRT-Consultan't
-- continued --
l E
I
..m.
24941.0 2
KSW l
PROCEEDINGS I
L.a.tJ 2
MR. CHANDLER:
Good morning, I'm Stkrence 3
Chandler with the Office of Executive Legal Director.
This 4
morning there will be a public meeting which has been 5
agreed to between the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory 6
Coramission and Intervenor, Citizens Association for Sound 7
Energy.
8 Citizens Association for Sound Energy this 9
morning is represented by Anthony Roisman and Ms. Billie 20 Garde.
I will : urn it over to Mr. Roisman in a moment for 11 any opening comments or thoughts he may have.
12 Notice of this meeting was provided -- and in f
(
13 addition I see representatives of the Applicant in the rear 14 of the room.
Mr. Noonan, in a moment, will make some 15 opening comn ents, and further discuss the conduct of this I
16 meeting.
17 Essentially, this meeting is being conducted as 18 outlined very generally in the joint stipulation of Staff 19 and Citizens Association for Sound Energy Request for 20 Subpoenas, a document dated October 23, 1985, filed with l
21 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this proceeding on l
22 that date.
23 The general subject of this meeting will be a 24 discussior, and questioning.by Citizens As'sociation for 25 Sound Energy on the matters discussed in one 3taff's s
2 o
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- m. m - -, _ e. _ _ _ _ _
~..
24,94f.0.
15
'KSW l
1 that.
If there were elemer.ts of wrongdoing, they would 2
look at that portion of it.
We would cooperate -- in their 3
review of investigating wrongdoing there were possible 4
technical issues involved, then we would cooperate with 5
each other.
We would extract from that portion of the 6
issue, the technical issues.
I would then transform them 7
into " allegations,"
and insert them into the technical 3
review team review process.
But the technical review team, 9
Nor NRR, as far as I know, looks at wrongdoing, and as I 10 understand it, intimidation and harassment is included as a 11 responsibility of OI.
I stand to be corrected but that was 12 my understanding at the time.
(
13 MR. ROISMAN:
Is it -- I'm troublec by the term 14
" wrongdoing."
If a OC inspector -- if you learn that a OC
^
15 inspactor approved something that shouldn't have been 16 approved -- you're doing a review, you find something, you 17 check back and see that he signed'off on something as 18 satisfactory and it wasn't satisfactory, and it was a 19
- mistake, Is that wrongdoing by the OC inspector, without getting to the question of why he did it?
21 MR. IPPOLITO:
I think it is a judgment call on 22 the part of whoever uncovers this.
If it looks like a 23 typical human error, that's one thing.
If it was 24 determined to be premeditated or whatever "hava you, 25 purposefully done, that's another matter.
e..nd if we
{
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 u
2 4 9.4 '. 0 30 1
KSW 1
didn't know what he was doing.
Would the technical review
?
2 team consider that part of what its responsibility w'as, 3
then, to go and inspect all of the things that that 4
inspector had evaluated to determine whether other f
5 technical problems slipped by the process because this one i
G untrained inspector was doing the inspections?
I 7
MR. IPPOLITO:
No.
.e identified -- the modus W
8 operandi, if you will, of the technical review team is to
- v.
9 determine whether or not they feel, after doing their 10 review, that there was or was not -- that the allegation 11 was subste.ntiated or not.
Ifitwasf[hsubstantiatedwe 12 would stop there, and the burden as to the depth and g
13 breadth of that problem was placed on the licensee.
14 MR. ROISMAN:
Do you know why that decision was 15 reached, why it was decided that the technical review team 16 would stop at that point?
17 MR. IPPOLITO:
Because I could not possibly 18 follow that course of action in everything that technical 19 review team was doing.
The 40 or 50 people on site was 20 totally inadequate to review each of the things for breadth 21 and depth.
That was not the way we set it up and clearly CVP 22 not the way -- we just couldn't afford it and,it was not1HP 23 responsibility.
24 The responsibility for building that plant, for 25 building it safely, was the 711ce ns ee.'s, and once we had the l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2o2 347 3700 Nation-ide coverase soo 3364646
~
(.
24941.0 i-KSW 43 l
MR. IPPOLITO:
Paul Bemis.
2 MR. ROISMAN:
Do you endorse what's there?
i 3
MR. IPPOLITO:
Yes.
I signed it.
4 MR. ROISMAN:
Did you endorse it because you 5
knew it was right or because you trusted Mr. Bemis wouldn't 6
have said it was there if it wasn't right?
ogceed m u\\unon of 7
MR. IPPOLITO:
I [:$$ I:_
- YpIE I had s
8 good people.
This was the conclusions of their findings, 9
and that was satisf'actory with me.
10 MR. ROISMAN:
Looking at the executive summary 11 on page 4, this statement appears:
"The team's findings 4
12 indicated that the applicant's management control over the I
l 13 construction, inspection and testing programs is generally 14 effective and is receiving proper management attention."
15 What is meant by that statement?
16 MR. IPPOLITO:
Within the context of this quick 4
17 look, the degree of control of the applicant's management, l
18 I had to determine as to whether construction should j
19 continue.
Some of the information that I was receiving 20 early on was describing the construction control as out of 21 hand.
I had to make the finding personally myself whether 22 or not this was in fact the case.
Is construction out of l
23 hand, and what that means is that, hey, we looked, 10 days 24 or whatever it was, less than 10 days.
What we saw, it is i
25 not out of hand.
That's all it says.
.e i
1 i
)
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m.m u
u.
~
I i
24941.0 67 L
KS'W l
l
(
r 1
MS. GARDE:
If you had an allegation -- you said I
2 you had about 300 allegations --
3 MR. IPPOLITO:
Not at this time.
g-l O
4 MS. GARDE:
You hadn't looked at an1 allegations?
5 MR. IPPOLITO:
No, my people were in Washington tryingtocomeupwithwhateverthat(NwMexicoonewas.
6 7
This was not with me.
That is what they were doing at the f
l 8
time.
[
9 MS. GARDE:
Knowledge that the Nuclear i
10 Regulatory Commission as an organization had was not 11 necessarily transmitted to the team at all?
12 MR. IPPOLITO:
That's correct.
13 MR. CHANDLER:
If I could ask you to wait until goosh,oner 14 the :: quest-is through so we have the question on the a
15 record and then the answer, rather than mid-way through the i
16 question, it might help.
17 MR. IPPOLITO:
I will do that.
18 MS. GARDE:
Which of the members were in charge 19 of the quality assurance / quality control look?
20 MR. IPPOLITO:
On page 3, executive summary, 21 Paul Bemis, section chief.
He had -- we tried to identify 22 who was expert in what area.
23 MS. GARDE:
Okay, I didn't understand that the 24 in the executive summary, the people's names with their J
25 expertise necessarily would coordinate with who did what in 4
5 I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33&MM
~-
24941.0 94 KSW k
)
connection to the rest of management on the site, which of 2
course is an impossibility of appendix B being complied 3
with -- how could it not matter?
4 Let's say that it was 10 people, they had their 5
own supervisor, own QA/QC people and worked only on the 6
auxiliary building, and the applicant comes back and says, 7
we've checked the concrete strength for everything in the 8
auxiliary building and it all passed muster.
We did not 9
find out why.
In a number of pours we didn't look at the 10 stuff but it doesn't matter because we know they only 11 worked on one building.' Why is it not still important to 12 know, was the reason we didn't look at those whether they I
13 themselves had a flaw or whether it was.he_cause they were 14 not properly instrdcted by the supervisors for concrete on n
15 the plant, or the supervisors for QA/QC on the plant or 16 something like that?
17 MR. CHANDLER:
I think we're veering off course 18 here somewhat and straying into what Staff may look to in 19 the future in terms of requirements for activities we will b
CPRT j
20 be looking at, in terms of get well programs, 07RTs, 21 whatever, rather than the retrospective of what the TRT did 22 and how it did it, and why it did what it did as documented l
23 in the various SERs, and rather than go into speculation as 24 to what the Staff will be looking for and'why, if we could 25 maybe keep our focus back on the point.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nanonwide Coverase 800 33 4 646
24941.0 105 k
i 1
we talked to somewhere between 15 and 20 a egers.
Those
{
2 were the ones we felt we needed to talk to to clarify 3
iss0es they already raised or in a couple of occasions they 4
were identified to us as a new alleger during the course of 5
our time on site.
6 MR. ROISHAN:
What was the value, in your 7
judgment, of site visits as compared to the work done after l
8 the site visit?
What were your people getting by being on t
9 site that they couldn't get if they didn't go to the site?
l l
10 What sort of things?
11 MR. IPPOLITO:
We had -- at the site we had all 12 that we needed.
We had the documents eight there.
Those i
13 were the documents we wanted to see, not something that l
14 could be sent to us.
The systems were installed there.
l
~
15 Right there.
Let's go look at them.
Let's see beyond the 16 problem that was identified.
In other words, if it is a l
17 hanger in this area, let's look at hangers in other areas.
18 The third dimension is that you could not get out of 19 working out of an office up here.
I 20 MR. ROISHAN:
In your judgment was it valuable 21 to be able to go in and see the whole file in which some 22 particular document that you may have been interested in 23 was placed, rather than tc. rely on the applicants to send 24 you the document?
I 25 MS. IPPOLITO:
Our objective was to RAL REPORTERS. INC,
24.941.0 147 KSW k
l to my attention or Vince's attention.
It then might be 2
referred to OI to look into.
3 MR. CALVO:
You can go further than that.
If 4
the situation is there, it wouldn't come to me because the 5
way the system was set up that had been taken care of.
I'm 6
here nice and clean, looking at the quality of the 7
installation.
It will never reach my level because I only 8
look at the technical merits of he allegation, not if 9
there was wrongdoing.
That's somebody else's 10 responsibility on that level.
11 MR. ROISMAN:
Let me ask Mr. Ippoli.to a question.
12 Is it your understanding that to the extent that the root 1
~
13 cause of a particular problem when traced all the way back 14 was that management had an attitude about safety that was 15 not to do what the regulations required down the middle but 16 to try to get by as cheaply as possible,.that if that were 17 the root cause, that that's a root cause which would be of 18 interest and the investigation would be being done at OI 19 and not* by the technical review team at all?
20 MR. IPPOLITO:
You are coming at it rather 21 strangely.
We went out and looked at a number of 22 allegations.
Some were proven to be correct.
We asked the 23 licensee, go and determine the root cause.
We expect it.
\\ sH ors 24 Were they not 5054fficatcrs?,
25 MR. CHANDLER:
I don't think so.
{
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
707.147.1100 Nadonwide Coverase 800 116.6646
o 24941.0 164 KSW k
1 MR. ROISMAN:
What I'm trying to understand is 2
when you were incorporating into the orginal technical 3
review team the results of OI investigations, some of which 4
had findings of wrongdoing and proposed fines were issued 5
or are still outstanding with regard to that, the technical 6
review team did not use those as generic implication 7
indications to define the scope of how far you would look 8
to see how bad the problem was.
9 MR. NOONAN:
Let me interrupt here a second.
10 I'll take an example.
If there was a wrongdoing finding by 11 OI that says a OA inspector falsified records, it would be 12 our responsibility to see what that QA inspector did to t
13 find out how that work was affected.
That's what the 14 process calls for.
Thats what we're doing.
15 MR. ROISMAN:
What do you do with a finding that 16 the inspector was harassed by a high level supervisor?
Do 17 you look at all the people that high level supervisor l
18 supervised to determine whether their work was also d
p 19 affecte8?
il 1
20 MR. NOONAN:
Our process calls for us to look at 21 the quality of that plant.
How was the quality of that 22 plant affected by that intimidation.
That's what the 23 process calls for us to do.
Roismcn 24 MR. 4HAO:
The qugstion is, how did you handle l
l 25 the OI findings on Messrs. Dunham and'Atcheson?
l
{
me. 4he d\\oc s u n W oox6 noN
%. om ng n c my o 9 *s n 6hW ds MC R d'S(" " ; Ihh ca r%w Pnts' i c6di6ucAs l
Gco mg cMt.nb i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l w w sw v.,..w.c _ _
.no,,,,,,,
s 24941.0 165 KSW k
1 MR. NOONAN:
I can' remember Dunham.
I think 2
you need to ask the particular group leader.
3 MR. ROISMAN:
And P.r. Atcheson?
4 MR. NOONAN:
Mr. Shao.
He would look at those 5
particular allegations, technically.
6 MR. ROISMAN:
Both those gentlemen are public.
7 We can speak without fear.
8 MR. CHANDLER:
We have made commitments to 9
various individuals not to disclose their names, of 10 irrespective w21dr the arrangement you have with them.
11 MR. NOONAN:
I do have at least verbal promises 12 we would not use people's names.
t 13 FROM THE FLOOR:
Can we strike the names from o
14 the transcript?
15 MR. CHANDLER:
Off the record.
16 (Discussion off the record.)
17 MS. GARDE:
I'm not going to ask anymore 18 questions on AOE-1.
Let's go back to the beginning.
I'm 19 still on the first sentence on J-4.
We got up through 20 potential generic implications.
The next phrase is "any 21 indication of potential management breakdown."
Now, how 22 did you determine that, whether there was indication of 23 potential management breakdown?
24 MR. CALVO:
I thJnk I based -- I don't remember
(
25 that I addressed that subject, but I'believe that the SSER s
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
w u, ~
u
- u. e mm au
24941.0 199
.KS#
(
l MR. IPPOLITO:
I'm neA o.os o.n o$ c.n3 hnd esport.
2 MR. ROISMAN:
How would we document Brookhaven's 3
further input into the technical review team if there's not 4
a final report from them?
Mr. McCracken?
5 MR. MC CRACKEN:
The Brookhaven people who 6
remained involved were contributors to the various 7
categories in the back of appendix M, which is attachment 2 8
to it.
The names of those irdividuals are listed upon page 9
1-3, again with their various affiliations.
s
~
10 MS. VIETTI-COOK:
Instead of reporting to 11 region 4 they reported to Phil Matthews as technical review
/
12 team team leader.
13 MR. MC CRACKEN:
Yes.
{
14 MR. ROISMAN:
But when they were reporting to 15 region 4 they issued an interim report and when they 16 reported to Phil Matthews there's no document that they 17 signed and sent to represent their final conclusions on 18 this; is that correct?
So in that sense they changed their 19 role.
20 MR. IPPOLITO:
That's exactly what I said.
21 MR. MC CRACKEN:
The role changed for the 22 sections, the categories that they were responsible for in 23 appendix M, they signed them.
Those were transmitted to us 24 and signed by them.
25 MR. ROISMAN:
IfiI want to see what is their
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646 i
~
24941.0 208 CSW
(
1 insignificant amount of the total coatings area because 2
they were talking about small areas.
They were specific 3
examples of areas a couple of square feet instead of large 4
areas of coated surfaces.
If we had only look'd at the e
5 individual allegations instead of doing a broad generic 6
review of the coatings area, we would h="e ome to a l
7 totally different conclusion, I suspect.
L 8
MR. ROISMAN:
In doing a broad generic review, 9
you did not go back and reinspect the entire paint coatings 10 in the plant; is that correct?
11 MR. MC CRACKEN:
-Me. Ye s,4 o both gyssMons.
12 MR. ROISMAN:
You made a judgment as to what you 13 would look at to be able to say that you could make some i
1 14 l generic conclusions aboyt the paint coatings program?
15 MR. MC CRACKEN:
Yes.
16 MR. ROISMAN:
Where in this document have you 17 set out the criteria you use for deciding what that f
18 investigation should look like to know that it would be 19 adequate to draw generic conclusions from it?
20 MR. MC CRACKEN:
We did not set out those 4f 21 criteria in this document.
Those determinations were made 22 by the group of people who were assigned to the TRT who 23 were put there because of their expertise in this area.
24 MR. ROISMAN:
Did they document that?
Will I 25 have to go through the paint coatings documents, assuming ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
24941.0 213 KSW k
1 coatings can fail, which would then be, what is in the vamps 2
coatings exempt log and where is it in relation to sums and 3
so on.
4 MR. ROISMAN:
You might have had a conclusion in 5
appendix L that enough of the coatings could fail without 6
having an effect on the emergen'cy core cooling system and 7
the nature of where they were in the plant that what was on 8
the coatings exempt log would be, admittedly after the fact, 9
okay, even though the way it got on the exempt log was not 10 okay?
11 MR. MC CRACKEN:
I don't think I concluded in 12 too many cases that the way it got on the coatings exempt Har i
13 log was okay.
There were some cases that we felt things 3
14 should be on the coatings exempt log that were not, but I 15 don't think we concluded that anything put on the coatings 16 exempt log was incorrectly put on there.
17 MR. ROISMAN:
Then I need you to explain on M 18 119 you have a statement, and maybe it is the difference 19 between calling something indeterminate and making a 20 conclusion about it, but the next to last paragraph says 21 "The implication of the 20 percent CEL value is that the 22 remaining 80 percent of the coatings are of satisfactory 23 quality.
However, such an implication cannot be considered I
l 24, valid until the resolution of other techn'ical review team 25 concerns such as assurance of DBA qualifications of I
b ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L smsvarir.~n e
e
7 j
224.1 I
e l
ATTENDEES (Continued):
2 V.
L. WENCZEL, TRT 3
J. H. MALONSON, TRT l
R. H. WESSMAN,'NRC/NRR/DL 4
WILLIAM C. WELLS, TRT R. W.
HUBBAUSS, TRT 5
VICTOR FERRARINI, TRT R. MASTERSON, TRT C. D. RICHARDS, TRT 0
W. P. CHEN, TRT BOB PHILLEO, TRT 7
CHARLES HOFMAYER, TRT DAVID C. JENG, TRT 8
C. E. m ccacu m T RT 9
10 11 12 j
13 14 j
15 16 17
{
18 l
i l
19 i
20 f
21
.i t
22 l.
~
23 24 rei Remmes, Inc.
,25 l
i m
+
1942.0 iW 228 I
the context of the CPRT and what is that and l' does it 2
fit into it?
3 em. NCONAN:
Let me read the paragraph here.
4 okay, reask the question.
e 5
MR. ROISMANr Beginning about the middle of the
{
6 paragraph on gage M-6, there's a discussion of the NRC
^
7 meeting or the TRT meeting with TUEC representatives to s
d'iscuss somethine..iescribed as the proposed program plan, 8
9, and then in the next sentence, a partially revised program l
10 plan; then the reference is made to a November 29 letter 11 and finally to the January 8,
'85 letter.
What is this i
12 revised and proposed program plan and how does,iti fit into '
- 13 '
what we now know as the CPRT7
,,14 MR. NCONAN:
We have in front of us, I gi.tess the 15 program plan that we now have on the docket is the revised 16
' program plan for the CPRT.
That is the only program plans l
17 I'm aware of that are called revised program.
That's the 18 CPRT activities.
It ha's the work done by C, the. Tora 1ses 19 work, -ffHtte, the self-initiated programs, and that is also 20 the same program plan the Staff has new sent out questions s,
21 on which we' call the prograsumatic question, 11 programmatic 22 questions and all the other e
'tions we had on individual 35A9s 4'
23 m
Did -that answer yon..-, estion?
24-MR. ROISMAN:
Well, you,are answering bu,t I 25 don't know whether I'm understanding.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
l aspr-me Mnemmedecaense
- =
' ^*
~~.-u..--.r-
- . -- @ W~;-
,;__., y.,
.i r
=* -
c y-="-
m..
n
- - ' ' ' ~ ~ ~