ML20198K588

Transcript of 841114 Technical Interview in Granbury,Tx Re Assessment of Concerns Raised by Util.Pp 1-37

ML20198K588
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/14/1984
From:	NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20197J316	List: ML20197J311 ML20198K377 ML20198K383 ML20198K450 ML20198K456 ML20198K467 ML20198K472 ML20198K479 ML20198K489 ML20198K502 ML20198K506 ML20198K511 ML20198K513 ML20198K518 ML20198K527 ML20198K537 ML20198K556 ML20198K562 ML20198K568 ML20198K574 ML20198K581 ML20198K588 ML20198K600 ML20198K844 ML20198K853 ML20198K872 ML20198L117 ML20198L169 ML20198L186 ML20198L203 ML20198L212 ML20198L218 ML20198L235 ML20198L257 ML20198L261 ML20198L275 ML20198L291 ML20198L303 ML20198L317 ML20198L325 ML20198L337 ML20198L367 ML20198L379 ML20198L384 ML20198L388 ML20198L395 ML20198L401 ML20198L406 ML20198L420 ML20198L431 ... further results
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8606040059
Download: ML20198K588 (38)

Text

.

g .. .

~. ' s ( r5' s

1. t_ . a G ! \ A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM'4ISSION Technical Review Team Staf# h J

S yok V :.

I ** o ': . ' ~ * .

V .

l .

\

s Date: November 14, 1984 Reporter arenaa C. nein, cSR .' . ,

0 b c @ 0 110:tatz1 .

Cho{suiond LLg 303 West Tenth P. O. Box 17706 Fort Worth, T =m. l (Metre ,7,, ,,,

I B606040059 860527 PDR FOIA GARDE 85-59 PDR ,

7.,

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM'11SSI.ON. .

TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM TECHNICAL INTERVIEW -

4 5 -'s 6 ,

Wednesday, November 14, 1984 .

Granbury, Texas

~

8 The interview was commenced at 4:15 p.m. .

10 PRESENT:

\

I MR. JOHN ZUDANS Technical Review Team Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ,

MR. BOB HUBBARD

• I4 Technical Review Team Staff

Nuclear Regulatory' Commission j 15 Washington, D. C. 20555' 2

[ ~

16 MR. SHOU HOU e

v Technical Review Team Staff 17 .

g Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

, 18 .

t

! MR. ROBERT MASTERSON I'

Technical Review Team Staff j Nuclear Regulatory Commission a Washington, D. C. 20555 2 21

- MR. JAMES MALONSON i 2,~

Technical Review Team Staff

$ Nuclear Regulatory Commission g Washington, D. C. 20555 .

MR. CHARLES RICHARD 24 Technical Review Team Staff

, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 2.

,t 1

PRESENT: (Continued) 2 ~~~ ~~ '

MR. CHARLES HAUTHNEY '

3 Technical Review Team Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Washington, D. C. 20555

~

MR. DON NISICH '

P. O. Box 1136 - '

Stephenville, Texas 76401 .

6 7

8 ,

9 .

10

\

11 12 13 .. .

. 14

.I 5 15 2

[ 16 0

• 17 e -

3 j' 18 r -

e t ... . . ..

1. 19 . .

S 20

. . ~

21 .e a

5 22

{

23 .

. 24 i

3.

=- - . - . - - . . - _ -

C 1

PROCEED INGS

~~

.~. # - . .. .  :

2 MR. ZUDANS :- This is an, interview of Mr. Don Nisi'ch 3

. for the purpose of providing feedback.rega ding Technical 4

Review Team assessment of certain concerns raised by the 5

Comanche Peak facility. The location of this intervkdv 6

is Granbury Inn Conference Room. The time of the interview 7

is 6:15 beginning and, as agreed, this interview is beinc 8

transcribed.

8 I don't know how much you know about the Technical, 10 Review Team. Have you been briefed by the NRC Technical

\

11 Review Team at all?

12 MR. NISICH: To a certain extent. We're just trying 13

• to' unravel the mysteries .

. 14 MR. ZUDANS: Yes. Well, basically. I can go into a 15 little more detail, but not much more; okay?

3

[ 16 R. NISICH I understand what you're attempting to o

u 17

• g do fully.

2 I8

! MR. ZUDANS: Yeah. And so there areadifferent 18 l discipli'nes and basically what we have here is a mechanical i

I 20 r discipline here today to talk do you.

~

~

j 21 The concerns which'you" brought up were brought up

! 22 s during several interviews that you had with cur folks in 23 August of this year. I think about three. I think was 24 the 3rd, the 24th and the 25th of August. That -- I was "5

not involved, first of all, but there were people that 4.

• C I had talked to you. Amongst them, I believe Mr. Bob

~ ~

Hubbard talked to'you and Bob.Masterson ta'5ked "to ' yon on the phone one time. ..

. NISICH Uh-huh.

5 MR. ZUDANS: And, Charlie, were you involved in any 6 .

of these?

7 MR. RICHARD: No. .

8 No, okay.

MR. ZUDANS:

9 Well, what we would like to do is to just go around .

[ the table with each of the items, describe them to you,

't i

3 11 describe to you how we -- what we did to go into the item 4

t and how we have -- what our conclusions are based on what 13 we have found. Okay? And so why don't I*just let Bob t

14 Masterson pick up his item, describe it, and go on from M

15 * ,

there.

{

I MR. MASTERSON: Okay. hoh I worked on your concern

'O 17 on the heat exchangers that had the -- support *the --

?,

• 18 i

- supports the tubing inside where there have been some i t* .

y 19 burn-throughs on the welding and, according to your concern, I 20 you were not satisfied that there was any follow-up i

' 3 . ,

a 21 inspection done on those particular supports. Is that l

j I 22 I 2 basically the ---

23 R. NISICH

': Right. Well, it was only half inspected,

, 24 those straps.

25 The straps had been ---

MR. MASTERSON:

5.

i. "- -L----m - _ _____-g..,.., __ _ _ _ _ _

~.. -m i (s 1

MR. NISICh': Just half of them were inspected, half

'~ ' '

' ' ~ '

2 '

the welds. -

3

. MR. MASTERSON: Half the welds, okay. Do.you want me 4

to go through the whole thing?

5 MR. ZUDANS: Yeah, I think you should go into a$'much 6 detail as possible so there's nothing left out." .

7 MR. MASTERSON: All right. Basically, from what I .

8 read in the transcript, these heat exchangers were not 8

defined exactly so I had to do some research on these.~,I 10 followed your instructions, you said they were located in s

Il the 790 level in the! k2 Building and what I actually 12 found out is that they were just inside the Safeguard IU Building at the 790 level. There were t*wo compartments,

• I4 number 68 and 69.

.5 Yeah, that's right, each one.

(MR. NISICH-

! 16 MR. MASTERSON: And they each had a containment spray 0 17 o heat exchanger and an RHR heat exchanger in each compartment.

1 18 MR. MISICHd b Uh-huh.

• U So what I did then was I did

• MR.* MASTERSON: Okay.

fs E 20 V an NCR check on all four heat exchangers looking for

21 *d -

evidence on NCR's written like you described and I found g

22

! that on the RHR heat exchangers there had not been any NCR's 23 written the way you described. I found one on each of the 24 containment spray heat exchangers. Just to make sure that ,

i U I could take the other two and take them out of the picture,'

6.

C-1 I went to Westinghouse and I had them pull out those M 2 .

~ *- ,

drawings for me and I found out that the support straps

~

that you were -- that you had talked about for the 4

containment spray heat exchangers had been installed at 5 .' s the plant site -- I mean -- I'm sorry, at the manufacturer's 6

location for the RHR heat exchangers. So they were not 7

part of the modification that you were describing on site. .

8 So the only two that I could find were the two containment 9

spray heat exchangers where this modification took place.

10 g . NISICH Antivibration.

11 MR. MASTERSON: Antivibration straps. Okay'.

12 The way it turned out was that the Westinghouse --

13 '

• the two RHR heat exthangers were purghased by Westinghouse

• 14 as opposed to the containment spray heat exchangers which j 15 j were purchased by the site themselv,es and the Westinghouse 8 16 exchangers already had these straps put on. So they were ,

0 I 17 ,

j not subject to any inspection on site. So I took those l

l 18 ,

I

{ two ou,t of the picture and I put on my ,SNR ,the two a

19 . .

y containment spray heat exchangers.

l

!' 20 I got the copies of.your N'CR, okay, and. it describ'ed 21 s exactly what the problems were and I found that the other j 22  !

- heat exchangers also had a similar NCR.

23

. NISIC Right.

24 l l

MR. MASTERSON: But it was written by somebody else.

25  %

R. NISICH  : Right.

7.

i l

~

A LC 1

MR. MASTERSON: Okay. When I -- when I did the

. . . ~

2 research on the '-- on the NCR, okay, the weld data car'd 3

that I looked at for this operation had been signed off 4

by yourself and the final operation for the visual 5

inspection of that weld, you had signed it off and t en 6

you had lined through on all of the welds thar. were shown, 7

okay, indicating that you were taking -- actirg -- in effect, .

8 taking back the inspection.

9 -

MR. NISICH Yeah, right. .

s 0

MR. MASTERSON: Okay. I found then on that weld II data card a note by your supervisor, a Mr. Snow, indicating 12 that the inspection was being accepted based on the 13 -

• manuf acturer's inspection of this heat exchanger weld

• I4 '

modification.

M

• 15 I further found a documentation of -- from the 3

8 16 manufacturer, Joseph Oad Corporation ---

0

? (MR. NISIC) Uh-huh.

• gg l lg MR. MASTERSON: --- where they had come* in and inspected

• 19 thes4 welds on both of the heat exchangers and had accepted a

2 i

m the welds, the frontal condititn as being non -- where i 21

,a . n g they would have no apparent safety problems with that l

{ 22

burns, that they would operate in the way they were 23 designed to operate. So the manufacturer had ccme i$and done its inspection. I, in turn, contacted Joseph Oad 25 and talked to the individual and he did verify that he 8.

-l~ m LC 1

had inspected these welds.

kR. NISICH  : Right.

• e-

,. - 3 ~

MR. MASTERSON: Okay.

Where the was was that they were h . NISICh - s 5 .

trying to get me to sign of f welds that I had not seen.

6 MR. MASTERSON: That's -- that's the way I read it, 7 -

that's correct.

And that I told them that I would sign h.NISIC .

9 off based - it was a Telex --- -

10 s MR. MASTERSON: Yes.

11 e MR. NISICH:' ---

in the packing house --- -

12 M

MR. MASTERSON: Yes.

13 =

. Based on the Telex.and note it and they NISIC}l 14 didn't want that. .

i 15 MR. MASTERSON:

Well, that's eventually what they g

l 16 ended up doing.

kR. NISIC I understand that, but they didn't want 18 .

it. .

[ ...

19 -

MR. MASTERSON: Well, let me continue here; okay?

5 h.NISIC Okay. ,' , ,

j MR. MASTERSON: As I tracked both NCR's they both 22 l- had the same type of documentation except that on the 23 other NCR, the one that you were not involved with, the 24 visual inspection part on the weld data card was operation 25 number four which was signed off by a Brown & Root 9.

J - - - . ..

. 1

- i 1

-inspector. So besides -- besides the manufacturer's 2 inspector, there,was a Brown & Root insp'sct'on i o'n"the>other 3 heat exchanger. I talked to that individual and he 4 remembered doing it. He even told me the date off the top 5 of his head and he was correct with the date. So I has 6

pretty much assured that he had done this. He verifieql 7

that that was his signature, but there was no evidence ,

8 that anybody had gone back on your particular NCR and done 8

a Brown & Root inspection which they are required to do by 10 procedure.

\ ~

11 MR. NISICH  : I know.

s 12 MR. MASTERSON: Okay. The -- the note on the weld 13 data card by the supervisor saying that te was accepting I4 it based on the manufacturer's inspection was what they-j 15 were basing their inspection on. Cdcay? We found that that 3

{ 16 was unacceptable. Okay? So as part of our resolution of C

I7 this particular concern, they will have to answer that as l

3

! 18 to what procedures they're using to show that a 19 manufacturer's inspection can be substituted for a QC l 20 r inspection. Okay? So we did f.ind that your concern was

- . - ~

21 substantiated on that pdfdibular NCR.

22

! R. NISICH) I'm not concerned with the other heat 23 exchangers because I wasn't involved then.

24 MR. MASTERSON: Well, we looked at it anyway because 25 we wanted to make sure that all the paper work was there 10.

....s .-. .. .. . -

..,-.m.. _.y.- . . , .

]G I

1 because they definitely were related.

O (31. NISICli Okay. Same type of Nd5.

~ '

. MR. MASTERSON: It was identical. documentation, that's 4

correct.

'5 Yeah, okay.

(R. NISICH) 6 -

MR. MASTERSON: Okay. So the basic conclusion here 7

is that we did find that your. concern was substantiated and ,

8 -

we -- and they -- Brown & Root was not able to come across g .

to us with any reasons why they.had not' inspected-the~ ,

10 exchangers themselves -- the modifications on the exchangers 11 themselves.

12

($R.NISICE} I know why, but it's not worth going into.

O 13

• MR. MASTERSON: Well --- .'

• That's ---

, (hR. NISIdh: '

5 15 .

g . MR. MASTERSON: When this NCRegets - issued , that will

[ 16 be -- the ball will be in their court. They will have to 0 17

{ respond to the NCR.

(R.NISICf) All right. Well,*I appreciate your h 19 dili'gence in'the matter.

20 r MR. ZUDANS: Well, that's-what we call the corrective I 21 - * * '

j action portion of this.' **If' there are any issues that you I 22 2 have raised or anyone else has raised that a ce significant, 23 we, after reviewing, feel they are significant, we w'ill 24 take corrective action on the facilities before we allow

(]) .

them to go further.

11.

~ . - . . - ,- -

• b d I

(,MR . NISICE: Well, you people, being the technical

() 2 end of it, are more concerned with the'3'afety ofi't.

~

. MR. ZUDANS: Right. ,,

..As opposed to -- although, I was concerned (kR.NISIC) 5 with the safety of it, but I also was concerned with them 6

attempting to get me to do something that wasn't right and 7

without muddying the water any more ---

• 8 MR. ZUDANS: Uh-huh.

--- because I know you're having a ball (RR. NISIC 10 out there trying to track all this stuff down, s

11 MR. ZUDANS: We-appreciate what you're saying, but we 12 want you to know that ---

h.NISIC Yeah.

• MR. ZUDANS: --- our efforts are to address your M s 15 .

Iv concerns and, in addition, to look for symptoms that the

~

8 16 utility is showing us.

O h.NISIC Yeah. .

18 MR. ZUDANS: Based on this kind of one example.

{

j gg

.Are there others like this?

Okay.

I Yeah, well,.but my further concern was

[ hR. NISIC - - -

21 .

• j an attempt to get me to*ao something where, as far as I'm j

22 concerned, other things that I have seen led up to you 23

• gentlemen being here today.to start with. ,

MR. ZUDANS: Yeah.

(]}*

d$3.NISICE) Not all accusations -- I realize that

- ', . , 12.

l

-e- - '. * . ss*

. . . . . ~ , . . . - . _ . , . , , , , , , , , _ , _ _ , _ . , , , , _

1 (,,s I

everybody's running around making accusations; however, O 2 enough of them would cause an inspection of a plan't snch

~

3

. .- as people are doing. ,

4 MR.'ZUDANS: Well," I can assure you that there's a 5 '

pretty large --- $

~

(hR. NISIC ) Yeah, I know. .

7 ~

MR. ZUDANS: Okay. Is that it then? ,

MR". MASTERSON: Yeah. Imightwanttomentionto(DodQ 9

that in evaluating your concern we' did pick up another, 10 associated concern of our own that there -- whether there s

11 should or sh'ould not have been an ANI review on this 12 particular modification and we're also asking the f acility

( to give us feedback'on.that also. *

(bS.NISICH Yeah. Well, okay,.

15 MR. MASTERSON: .That's just for your own information.

i .

u (hR. NISICh.)Okay,. .

Well, thank'you.

g7 .

! MR. ZUDANS: ' Bob, why don't you cover your area?

l 18 MR. HUBBARD:

Oh, all right. '

g r -

MR. ZUDANS: All right?

I 20 r MR. RUBBARD: The one I lookedinto,(~D,okhwasthe-concern you' had .about t' hie' Issue record cards for the oxygen 2

!' -- weld oxygen analyzers and so, just to kind of -- I'll 23 back up a little bit and go through it. I'm repeati.ng what 24

.you know, but just for the sake of the record. There's

[]} .

25 certain measuring and test equipment that is kept in the

,; . . 13, n- ,,  ? - - ..- .

. . . ~ . > , .  % .. . . . , . . , .

..,,.3 ..%m.... . - . . . , .-_. .. .- ,, . - , , s..

. as b

1 calibration lab and there are two documents maintained on O 2 this test equipment. In particular, the" oxy"ge'n a'nalyzdr 3

, that you are particularly concerned about. On.e. is a 4

calibration record which is a permanent record kept.in the 5

lab which records each time an instrument is calibrated.

6 The second record is the-issue record card and that's a.

7 card that is prepared at the time each instrument is issued ,

8 to one of the craft to use and the issue record card is --

information is recorded on the issue record card at the-10 time the instrument'is returned and as to where it was 11 used.

12 Now, the concern that you had -- oh, in addition to

() .th at , on the weld data card which is associated with the

= weld, the purging of the weld, that the oxygen analyzer -

A 15 I was used on also has a notation of the issue record card 3 .

8-16 on -- or the oxygen analyzer and when it was calibrated o

u 17 g and the number --- +

3 (hR. NISIC h Right'. -

, 1, r MR. EUBBARD: --- on the weld data card.

I E

(hR.NISIdf): All right. .

E 21 j MR. HUBBARD: So yodf*c6ncern was that you found n

!' that the calibrati6n lab had kept the issue record cards 23 and then, all of a sudden, they were told to destroy them which they did and then at a later date they were told to

({} 25

. start. keeping.them again and it icoked mighty suspicious 14.

3 .

..  ;.'.l

.- /

G 1

as to why they would be throwing them away and then keeping O them again.

~

So what I did is. I backtrace'd through~ the

• procedure and the requirements necessary for the 4 -

documentation on the calibration record and the issue record 5 '

card to find out just what the requirements were and'the 6

specifications require that -- or the basis for the record-7 .

keeping comes from an ANSI specification and a Brown & Root ,

8 procedure'is prepared from the ANSI and the ANSI

. specification says that you must keep the calibration fecord, 10

. the permanent calibration record; however,.you need only 11 keep the issue record card as long -- until the next time 12 the instrument is recalibrated then you can throw it away and this is what it says in the procedur&. Now ---

. 14

. NISICH  : You mean ANSI, not the procedure.

~ . s i= 15 MR. HUBBARD: Yeah, ANSI. <

3 u

h.NISIC All right.

17 j MR. HUBBARD: And so I suppose this is what happens 18 when you .are -- start collecting records. The calibration

{ ,

lab Xept', not'only the permanent records, they also kept

! N r the issue record cards beyond when they were supposed to

~

5 21 , ,: .

s according to ANSI. As a matter of fact, there was a memo, l n

- Brown & Root memo, in December of 1980 that I -- that they 23 '

gave me that indicated that they were told they didn't 24 . .

(]),,,,,, need the file and keep them, but they still continued to 25

. . do so and along about June of 1983 -- now, whether these

..J .

15.

~***t* e , .*

s' , ..

A i l.)

I two are related or not, I don't know, but they were starting O 2 to have problems with storage. space for the issue record 3

cards. They were getting an awful lot of them. They 4

received another letter verifying the original Brown &

5 Root memo saying that, again, they were not -- they didn't 6

have to keep these issue record cards. This was in June 7

of '83. So that's when they started throwing them away. .

8 Then, apparently, the.QAQC changed their minds because they 9 .

came out'with another letter saying that, well, even thopgh 10 '

-- in essence is what it said, Don, is even though it's s

11 not required we're going to start keeping the issue record 12 cards again and so that's when they started keeping them O

again.

So what you saw was this perio,d between June and 14 .

January when they were throwing the cards away and then i

15 ~

they decided to keep them, but the keeping them again was 3 16 beyond what they were required to do so that throwing them 0 17

{ away was still within the allowable ANSI requirements and 18 j keeping them was in addition to that.'

So they're keeping g .

2 them for some reason but that's really beside the point.

I 20 f h.NISIC Well, th,e problem being how- -do they 21 . . . .

i know -- in other words, as I expressed to you, because I 22 l* have done it and I know every other inspector has done it 23 .

is forgotten to note the number and the due date of this 24 ' ~

card and had to go O 25

-- oc ent instrument on the weld d t back at a later date to do it. All right? So when I

l. ts, g

,. . . . . w , i

L I went back at the later date I found out that they were O 2 destroyed so there was no way I could saY~'thdtths * * ,

3

. instrument was used and which one was used or if any 4

, was used at all.

5 ' '

MR '. HUBBARD: That's correct. - s l . . .

^

MR. NISICH And not only myself', I know oth'er .

inspectors had done it and yet they keep coming up with 8

due, dates aad numbers from records that don't exist.

8 MR. HUBBARD: Well, I think I - .I ran through this 10 one time 'before. There's no way in the world to check

\

11 '

this.

'12

', hR. NISICH- Yeah, I know.

O -

MR. a0BBARD: 'Thet if you're a oC inegector, el1 vou N

. have to do is go find a weld data car where the weld i

15 wasperformedduringthdsameperiod[cftimethatyour ,

. ., . . . . ~

g 16 weld was and.to copy 6ff that'information and there's no

! O 17 y way to' check it because the issue record cards.are gone.

a

! QR. NISICh That's right, but even if,'---

1 . . . . " . . . . . .

18 MR. HUBBARD: There's no way to substantiate it or 2 20 I not substantiate that. . .

I Well, tlrdt's what I'm saying. -

hR. NISICh MR. HUBBARD: . It 's just so'methi g . tha t -- the only j thing about it h oh that ---

• MR. NISIch If it wasn't a requirement and it's not a Brown & Roo.t. requirement, then the inspector should not

. . k' . .

17,

& /

% - '# # g .M

• y

. . s . . . ,,,.

? -

-. . ~ - ~ - n -..n + ~ . . , - . - - - - - - . .-.-.~.,...--n-e ----a. -+

.,y...,, -- ,. -

= . _ - .= .. - . _ - . _ . - _ _ .

1c.

I be required to write an NCR against himself for procedural O 2 violation.

• I 3 MR. HUBBARD: Well, that's possible. I don't know.

4 I can't discuss that with you. My only -- my point being 5 '

this: Is that we do know these instruments were 6 -

calibrated when'they were issued.

• i 7 5 w{ MR.y , NISICH Yeah, I'can understand that. .

s .

• MR. HUBBARD: And we -- so we know that you used

, ~

calibrated equipment. -Now, that is the' safety signifigance 10 of it is that this was done. Now, what we're talking about 11 is a documentation. I don't know whether you'd call it a 12

, problem or not. It's something that is not readily O 13 .

solveable because we both recognize it's a possibility and 14 there's no way to deny it or not deny it.

R. NISIC Uh-huh. '

[ 16 MR. HUBBARD: So that's what was -- what I finally 0 17

{ came to the conclusion is that Brown & Root did act 18

• within their requirements on the destructi'o.n and the

[ retehtio'n of the records. The additional concern you had 2 20 l

is what you expressed earlier tt) me was something that'I --

l 3 21 .;.

$ I can't deny or -- you know,.as you agreed as I recall the

! 22 2

l last time we talked about it.

I 23

. NISICF : Yeah.

, 24 . . . .

, , . MR. HUBBARD: There isn't much you can do about it.

25

. NISIC[ No.

~

18.

.. .; .f 1, .

. m ,. .... .,

.,.~..:.,

_ , . . _ ..,-.m..... , . - _ . . -- .._._ .. - . . . , __ _ _ . _ - . . . . . .-_..

f l

O 1

MR. HUBBARD: During that period of time.

2

, No , I understand that, 'b'ut tlie same thing

~

{MR. NISICH 3

, is when an inspector there, and I know they've,done it, 4

failed to make this entry, then there is no way that they 5 ~

can substantiate that anything was used at all. - s 6

MR. HUBBARD: That's right. That's right. 'I agree ,

7 but since they started collecting the cards again, now 8

they can do it. -

8

Yeah,.but that' space of time in between (MR.NISIC 10 there.is blank.

11 MR. ZUDANS: It's quite possible and this is not 12 supposed to be --- put in conjecture in here, but it's 13 possible that's why they started collecting them again,

' I4

. you know, on their own. Who knows? Even if they're -

15 not required -- well. -

a g 16 MR. HUBBARD: That's neither here nor there.

0 17 g MR. ZUDANS: That's right. That's why I say it's a

18

-1 f . conjecture and I shouldn't be making it. .

18 E

MR. HUBBARD: . Are you satisfied with what I found, 20 l Don? ,

21 I'm sati fled with it if ANSI doesn't

.NISICH]

j 22 require it. I'm dissatisfied 'with the fact that there is 23 a procedure to be followed and you've got to follow if and

• 94 if i: -

f it's -- in other words, a nuclear power plant J

25

, with all -- with all the ANSI and anything else must 7

. ..  ; . . . . _ 19,

-,., . , ,_ y ,. . . , ,

e

' aP+9mh 9 4-g- .e&N-=-446 m e *  % "W 4 g-* me eese -W- * WmgS*h Onagmw' N99v**

• v "9P4De*M*@* f ** ** 9 W M** W^ .- ""**% *

]g I follow it, then they can't take away from it, but they can 2

better it and if .they better it they've C6t to" dd ~it until 3

. they change the procedure. , ,

4 MR. HUBBARD :- Well, since it was never required ---

5 '

MR. NISIC ) It's required in the procedure. - .

MR. HUBBARD: No, it wouldn't have been because then 7

they couldn't have taken it out without changing the .

8 procedure'and putting a procedure in.

8 (ht. NISICIh Well, then, if you go -back and look at 10 the procedure, you'll see it.

\

11 MR. HUBBARD: Well, then, it would have to have been 12 .

revised.

O n. N1S1C3 Thet's riehe. ,

MR. HUBBARD: Yeah.

{}gt. NISIC f And it wasn't. Id it's a requirement, 8 16

= it must be done. Another requirement by Brown & Root 8 17 e corporate policy as far as these things are concerned is

'18 if you disagree with the ' procedure you still have to l ... . . . . . . '

39

} follow it until you change it.

M i MR. HUBBARD: Uh-huh. .

k. NISI h So --* "

s

! MR. ZUDANS: Well, at any rate, I think that I'm hearing from Bob that really that's about as far as de 24 . . .

can go .with this - with this issue.

{} , ,

25 I

MR. MASTERSON: Well, maybe Bob knows whether that

. r . .. .

20.

i . . . ,. . .. . - ,. ,, . . . ,

, . . *' ,. ,er 4 mw e, a- 9 c., +-

_- +e -*

fc I procedure was revised or not.

2 MR. HUBBARD:. I 'll have to do that , Tob ." 'I'if have

. to do it. ,

. ~

4

@ . NISICH  : Yeah. It wasn't revised at that date, s

5 I'll put it to you that way. It was not revised at tha't 6 '

date. If a ma'n is forced --- .

7 MR. HUBBARD: Yeah. .

8

.'NISIC If a man is forced to write an NCR

~

9 against himself for a . procedural violation on something-10 that ---

\

11 MR. HUBBARD: Well, now ---

h NISIC  : --- shouldn't exist in the first place O ..

es you gue ie ---

• MR. HUBBARD: The NCR, though, would have been j.

15 written again.st -- if he wrot'e one,,'it would have been 7 .

3 16 written against his not adding information to the issue O

• 17 2 record cards. =

3 .- .

' 18 NISICH '.It's a violation. It was a requirement ----

l s .....

1, 5 . MR. HUBBARD: That doesn't have anything to do with 2 m E if the issue record card was recorded or not because, see, 21 '.

• j he would have made an err 6i in not putting down the

! 22 2 information on the weld data card when he was supposed to.

23 "

MR. NISICH It's still a procedural violation and

/ '

24 * -

lit's' mandatory that it's done and you can' t get the O  ;

v .

25 l

information. - You have to write an NCR against yourself.

u .

.. -* 'an >

' . s.

s.

. . .e . , L , ,p . r. c y . ~ . . .

.'i .. , - ss p. ; . f' . ? '.'

. L. .

a

.' C-I I

MR. HUBBARD: You missed my point,fDon] What I'm ,

O 2 saying is that the requirement to put the"'Informat'iod do'wn 3

. on the weld data card has nothing to do with wh. ether they -

I 4 '

. keep their issue record cards or not. If -- if he misses 5 '

putting the information down, if he f orgets to do it, -then hehascreatedanonconformhh?becausehe'ssuppos'edto.

7 do it. The fact that he could have gone over previously 8

and gotten the information..from the issue record card is beside the point. That's a way out for him, but if the -

10 information isn't available then he should have written an s

11 NCR. He shouldn't have - _ we both admit he shouldn' t go 12 f alsify it and get it from another card.

Yeah. In other words (R. NISIC h MR. HUBBARD: That's bad news.

c

, (h.NISIC , .In other words, he ,still has to do it 8 16 in order for anything during that period of time ---

0 17 1

3 MR. HUBBARD: If he made -- if he made the* mistake

- 18

, g of not putting it down at the time he was supposed to.

19 ll 20 h . NISIC ) That's.right.

MR. HUBBARD: That's right, But we recognize that-3 21 -

j that's a violation, but the' f'act that they were able to

'! 22

2 go and get the information somewhere else and falsify it ---

hbl. NISIC$) Yeah.

.MR. .HUBBARD: The weld data card is wrong and they

[}

25 should hav,e made a NCR, but that's got nothing to do with

, -sn- ,

7 _.

. s

. l I

the retention of the issue record cards. All the issue O

V 2 records -- it just gave them a chance tcy get a' second ,

3 chance at[ putting the information down.

4 MR. NISIC Yeah, right. Well, I can understand 5 that and I appreciate that, but by the same token, it!'s 6 like I' expressed to you, of course, that would be a ,

7 witch hunt to go through the vault and go through all 8 those records.

9 MR. HUBBARD: Yeah. I don't know hos you'd ever do it.

10 MR. NISIC Yeah, I know.

11 MR. HUBBARD: Don't ask me to do it. I don't like 12 Granbury that much.

] 13 . MR. NISICH But anyway it's like I.say, if a man 14 -- because the procedures that are written are written 15 supposedly to decode or code, whate,ver's involved, and

] 16 also they inject the words "shall", "should", and "may",

0 17

$ and the word ".shall" existed. .

1 18 y MR. HUBBARD: .Okay. I'll tell..you wh,at I'll do, 18 hon [. Totnorrow .I'Il go out and I':lllerify the dates of Iy 20 these letters against the proce, dure about retention of the 21 -

2 issue record cards. -- -

k NISIC And this letter here that you 're telling 23 -

about which I told you about last August ---

MR. HUBBARD: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. .

5

.,,,, 1R . NISIC]H They told me it was just issued, somebody 23.

. . s- . . . . . . .

. . . v.. . , . . , ~. , ,

(

~

.J_ __.. r . .

_ , . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ - .. _ . - ~. . _.

1c_.

I clouded something someplace, and then he said he kept

{\ 2 that letter becau.se he couldn ' t understan'd wfty he' Qas t'old

~

3 to destroy-them -- those records.

4 MR. HUBBARD: Yeah, he kept the letter. He gave me a 5 e copy. - t 6

.Y MR. NISICE : Yeah. ~

7

, MR . HUBBARD: But that's just the normal way of doing 8

it. He went ahead and destroyed them.

MR. NISICH Well, he covered himself' when h'e kept-m the letter.

II MR._HUBBARD: Well, yeah, he kept the letter telling 12 them to start it up again, too.

MR. NISI  : Yeah. -

1.

. MR. HUBBARD: But that's just normal protection.

~

15 - .

.{ MR. NISICH : Yeah. ,

f 16 MR. HUBBARD: No problem there.

0 17 g

3 Okay. I think'we've covered it. .

18 .

l MR. ZUDANS: Okay. Charles, would yoq cover your 19 s..~ . . . . .

e area for us?

2 20 i

MR.' RICHARD: Okay. hon] i.t seems that we 're really

21

• j .. .. -

not certain that this is ' cme

• of your concerns , 'though we

! 22 -

? have it titled as such. Concerning the fuel pool liners.

The way the ---

. 24 . .

, 4 ,

~ MR. HOU: , Yeah.

25

. -MR.. RICHARD: --- concern reads is that liner plate

..-s s i .

- e -.

1 24.

- ~ . . - .-

= = = - . . - . . . ~ ~ ,%%--.

. - - - - ~ _ - - . . - - ---.. ,

m IC I

welds, welds seams do not match drawing location on the 2

floor around unit one reactor vessel. -

No'w , d oe s ' th'a t '--

, MR. NISICH No.

4 MR. HOU: Could be other people's.

5

. NISICH No, I don't believe I --

I raised that 6

issue. I don't believe I did. I may have. .

MR. HOU: I thinkwemayhaveotherpeople,not(Don) ,

8 MR. RICHARD: Yeah. So it's obviously other people.

9 We do have another person --- -

10 MR. HOU: That's.right.

\

!. 11

, MR. RICHARD: --- listed that concern.

12  %

MR. NISICH ProbablyhuzieNeumeier]

I don 't think raised that issue.

• MR. ZUDANS: Okay. We appreciate you being frank

~

a i

• 15

.f with that because we have some -- a. significant number 8* 16 0

and sometimes these things are mixed up between one or the 17 i

?

3 o ther . -

h.NISICH Well, with all the -- with everything 9

E you people have to go through, I can understand something

=

20 E

getting mixed up. -

21 -

g MR. HOU

There are' *s'everal hundred of these.

{. 22 MR. ZUDANS: All right. We'll defer that one to the appropriate individual. MI[h'kk'E 24 - .

Jim Ma~1onson, would you cover yours?

25 MR. MALONSON: I'd like to go off the record for a 4 '

25.

i e o mses e, - e me e v. ,+ - = -

o ns . -<o- ~~ c'* ' * * * 'v* ' * ' ' " * * * ' ' * ^ ~ ' ~

/

I G

,, minute.

k' 2 MR. ZUDANS: , Okay. Fine. * * * ~' -

3 4

(Whereupon, an off-the-record 5

discussion was had after which the proceedings continue'ds as follows.)

6 -

7 MR. MALONSON: Your concern was in regard to a missing 8

or an incorrect heat number that was marked on a piece of 8

cut plate carbon steel plate that was used in a pipe support 10 in a penetration in unit two, Comanche Peak unit two.

s ~ -

11 (4R. NISICE -

You're using the term " cut plate".

12 MR. MALONSON: It was a cut piece of plate, dimensions.

13

(} .( . NISICH Go ahead. .

I4 N

, MR. MALONSON: It was dimension to some inch dimensions.

A j

v 15 MR. NISICH: Okay. Go ahead. ,

3 16 MR. MALONSON: Okay. And it was in a support marked

$ 1 e

s number SI207340lS32R. You stated, I believe, you were 18 concerned that when you were asked to verify the transfer of g 19 ~ * * - - * *

• 3 the hpat number you couldn't do it because there was a 2

I 20 t

-- some anomaly in the paper work. It involved national --

21 g excuse me, nuclear type support" industries, hPSI, piece 3 22 2 number six listed twice on the material tracer.

23 MR. NISICH Right.

• s 24

['~J}, . MR. F1ALONSON: Okay. I've started out with the support

~ '

25 '

' package and traced down the material requisition that 26.

b* s,. s.  ;* ',

- , . . .---.-_ -~,,._. . _ , . - _ - . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . ~ _ , . , . _ - . . - -.m

~

(

1 ordered the material from the shop. The material 2 requisition stated that it was a vendor supplied piece.

(v-) '

3 I then went to the receiving inspection records to verify

~

4 whether or not that piece was received in ths shop and I 5 found the material tracer and I found two item numbers -- ,

6 two item number six. Obviously some kind of an error 7 because one of the items was a stainless steel plate, 8 piece of stainless steel, and one was a piece of carbon 9 Steel plate. I then traced the material requisition to

to the fab shop where they cut the balance of the materia 1, s ii the other plate items, item number six, for instance.

12 MR. NISICH Uh-huh.

13 MR. MALONSON: And I looked at the inspection records O 34 and the material identification log gnd so forth and I 15 talkedwith(edNeelhandweresolvedtheitemtothe lN 16 point where the NPSI tracer was ad ' error. We got a t

37 corrected copy of the tracer from NPSI to identify the i .

a

- 18 right piece. It was placed in the hanger package to a

c -

d 19 docume..nt what was there and I talked...wi.th ed Neely about s .

. . a.

[ his endo'rsements on the MIL, the (SPELLING) M-I-L, and he g 20

5 said his endorsement was.solel/ to correct a transcript' ion 21 , ,

error when the other inspector verified the transfer of 22 the heat number.

I essence, what you said in -- what you stated in

() -

25 27.

.,u...v~,se * *=-*w** w - *-~me=~'s** 9 ^ ^ ^ - "**' ~ * " * ' * * " ' " ' * * ' ' ' ' ' '

s---.s-.m.m .

CL

,, extent that there was an error in the paper work, not that i>

V 2 - - - -

-- - ~ '

the piece wasn't traceable.

MR. NISICH Well, true. I realize that.,.but I also 4

realize I could not sign it off until it was resolved, the error. '

~

6 MR. MALONSON: Well, you had some concern because.

7 he went and got another inspector to resolve it. ,

8 MR. NISICH  : Yes, he did, w

9 MR. MALONSON: And my deductions of the events as-.

10 they occurred, if you will, without -- if you -- prior to

\

the time I spoke to(ked Ne -- is that his first.name?

(TedNeely Os/

13 .

P MR. NISICH. Yeah, *

'~-

MR. MALONSON: Was that it was solely an error in 15 5 paper work because there were four< pieces of cut plate 8

16 involved, some to a -- three pieces of stainless steel 8 1;  ;

j and one piece of carbon steel and if I went to the drawing 18 g and just took the dimensions, I know that the carbon steel 1,

plate th'at I 'have was one of the item sixes in error on s

! M) the NPSI' tracer. -

3 21 , .:

g MR. NISICH Uh-huh.

MR. MALONSON: And then I went to(TedNeel([andasked ZI .

him why his signature on the M-I-L, and his signature on

~

24 .

• the M-I-L.was because the other inspector had transcribed

(}

$5 the number wrong onto the M-I-L. So there was three or 28.

\ r ,

.. v .

~NR-e4 %M$%.=xhtey rea ein-e 6 a g h%g y, ,e s+e- * @eng qq oqww e & == >gg

+, = e

6C 1 four places where the number was recorded correctly, but

(~)

(s/ 2 when the inspector's verification of the-piece number yas 3 written on the M-I-L, he wrote the number out of position 4 and I found really that it was reasonable forCNeelya when 5 he couldn't -- you know, when he couldn't get agreem,en,t 6 with you -- as your supervisor, when he couldn't get .

7 agreement with you, that the numbers he deduced were the 8 correct numbers that it was reasonable for him to go get 9 another inspector to move the job. I also found out that 10 thesupervisor--yoursupervisor,(, eel , was -- should s

11 have followed up to get the corrected paper work or perhaps 12 should have discussed that with you.

MR. NISICH: Yeah.

(]) 13 .' , ,

, 14 MR. MALONSON: Now, to verify everything that I've j 15 told you, I went through the records for the support, the 4

l 16 component modification cards involved in the support, I o

17 discussed it with the welding engineering people because i

8 18 in its initial stages it looked like a bimetal weld, s .

I f 19 staih'l'es,,s steel t'o carbon steel which'was 1ater corrected i

e g 20 to be all carbon steel, and I went to the Receiving

{ 21 Inspection Department and: talk'ed to the receiving inspection 22 foreman. I pointed out the error to him, the error on the f

23 NPSI tracer. He -- while I was with him, he called UPSI

~

• 24

.a'n:d ask.ed teem to verify their paper work. He did it

- M+ ,

. initially throu.gh the site representative for NPSI ---

29.

o

~1 i C, 1

MR. NISICH Uh-huh.

V(3 2 MR. MALONSON: ---

and they telecopibd 'a ' corrected 3

. report which I walked.down to assure that it was put into 4

the hanger package. So we come to the point where the 5

number that's recorded as the heat number is the number

~

6 that's recorded as the corrected item five on th'e NPSI, 7 So I found, I believe, that it was reasonable tracer.

8 to keep the job going by getting another forffeel 9

inspector to verify it. I -- once again I'm repeating.

10 myself, but he should have done the follow through to get s

11 the corrected paper work.

12 R. NISIC Well, I accept it as long as you found

/~ 13

(_)N it#s right. It's simple as that. .

14 MR. ZUDANS: Okay.

15

, MR. MALONSON: Do you have any,'other questions in l 16 regard to it?

o' 17 ~

No, It just wasn't right when I was (R. NISIC }

j 18 involved with it. and when he pulled. this qther person aside ,

2 s .~ . . . . . .

• 19

$ the craftsman, and said, " Don't worry. I'll take care of 5

20 it." Then that's when I said, "Okay."

~

21 MR. ZUDANS: Maybe'the language that w$s used was 22 the problem.

(hk, NISIC ) Yaah, right, very inappropriate. -

24 '

o q)

. MR. MALONSON: Thank you. __._,., --

25

. MR. Z UDANS': All right. That's it?

. . .'. I 30.

,, 't 'e * *

~~.-..,...nn...n.. . - . - .- n_. , , . . .. _ - - ..,.-. .... -n., ., -

]

1 1G

-7 1

fpD CAjpg). a.b l MR. MALONSON: Yes. ,

?\

~

2 MR. ZUDANS: .Okay. You may or may n'6h kno'w t'h~it , but 3

the results of all the items that we talked about will be 4

, published in a safety evaluation report on or about January '

5 '

1985. If you wish, we will gladly send you a copy of the 6

items which involve your concerns and the NCR's. 'For that 7

purpose, we'll probably need your address to send it to 8 '

you.

9

. NISIC You'll have one. -

10 MR. ZUDANS: Okay. As you have seen, where we found A

11 '

the concerns that yeu have brought up significant we have i

12

-- we plan to take corrective action on -- against TUGCO O end this is chviouety for the eefe of eood grocedu=e ene I4 also safety for the plant for the future.

j 15 We'd like to know at this time whether you have a

i 16 anything further to add to this record, any more concerns 8 17 -

g or anything like that that you might have regarding the 3

18

[ Comanche Peak facility. -

19

. NISI Well, yeah. What haopened to the 2 20 i allegation of signing off NCR's before the work was completed? **'~

3

• 2

~

$ MR..HUBBARD: Elucidate. What -- tell us a little more. I can't recall that, h .

• p .

. NISIC On the VA line up in the eight something, o

• anauxillarybuildingwhereheely]signedofftheNCR's 31.

p '+ ,*

• 9 , ,

n. . - -- . -

.___.. . . ]

. /

.i b 1

prior to completion of the work.

2 . ..

MR. MASTERSON: Was that discussed in the last tim,e 3

. you met with Bob?

4 1MR. NISICH Yeah, it was in the ---

u 5

~ '

MR. HOU: Wait. Let me look on record.

{MR. NISICh Yeah, you might know something about it.

7 MR. ZUDANS: That's why we want to know. That's why .

8 . ,

we asked the question.

9 MR. MALONSON: Do you want to stay'on the record fpr

~

10 this discussion?

\

11 MR. ZUDANS: We can go off the record just to find 12 where we are.

13 , ,

14 (Whereupon, an off-the-record h 15 discussion was had after which 2 -

. the proceedings continued as

k. _

16 .

follows.)

0 -

u 17 g MR. ZUDANS: We have talked to individual.s that we s .

'18

thought might be able to give us the- information that you 4 ,

3, .

were I

encerned about and it turns out that they don't havo E 20 y the. records with them. Okay? They are not able to 21 -

s -

3 assimilate that issue

! ~ 22 i -- -

2 g.NISICH Yeah.

23 MR. ZUDANS: --- at this time. So what I propos*e that o4

~

. ~ -

twe do is that'we will contact you again probably either on 25 '- - -

the ph.one so .you won' t have to travel here or do anything e e .e - , g 32.

., e ~E .' -  !., e ' +, S

= = - ......--e*t ve r=e .e n a.- o r - + - - .g- m - ,a

. . , . , _ , . .m, ,.,# .- ,,p w.

'. /

,C

• 4 I - apparently like that or cover this in some detail with there are other people that have this sam'5'co'ncern".~~Okay?

3

. At any rate, you will be briefed in some form.

4

. . NISICH Well, that portion of it isn't ready.

5 MR. ZUDANS: That's the problem right now. -'s h.NISIC It isn't ready and it's within a .

7 different group. There's no sense in discussing it until ,

they are ready.

9 MR. ZUDANS: Absolutely. And I was hoping you would to unckerstand that. The problem we're having right now is s

11 we would like to address that with you because you're here and we can sit f ace to f ace- and talk, but unfortunately we' found that. this is not possible at this time.

So, at any rate, the other thing I wanted to ask you 2

15

{v is: Do you have any new concerns or,any additional concerns 8* 16 that you might have that have not been brought up before?

o NISIC : No. I believe that you - I ran into a 18 .

' thing that -- well, no. .

[ .. . . .- - *

} gg MR. 'I.UDANS: Okay. Just for the record, could you g

20 please repeat in some. detail the. issue that we did not i 21 cover because I am persona 11y not aware .of that one.

j I j

22 didn't understand that one. There was some -- maybe you 23 could repeat it for me because I don't remember exactly 24 .

shat the~ issue was that we did not -- weren't able to cover

. 25 .

~

with you.

33.

j,,,- , . * . .,,- -.

. .-, . . , - ...e, ..- - , ,. _

, _ __ . 1 3c 1 NISIC Oh, on the VA line ---

C' 2 MR. ZUDANS:, Z? ~' ' '

' ~ ~ - ,

M 3 MR. NISICH [

VA line.

4 MR. ZUDANS: Okay.

s 5 In the Auxillary Building, there wdssa NISIC[:

6 gouge in the flange of.a pip and it.was deep en6 ugh ,

7 and needed to be attempted to be repaired. It was, you 8 know, cerated ---

~

- 9 MR. ZUDANS: Okay. ~

10 MR. NISICb --- type flange so I wrote an NCR and 11 they attempted to resolve the problem by welding the gouge 12 and grinding it back down ---

13 MR. ZUDANS: Okay. -

14

, MR. NISICH --- and place the spool back into the 15

. system. ,

{ 16 MR. ZUDANS: Uh-huh.

NISIC But, even with the welding of the-pipe

. 18 f2 and everything the -- the flange sti.ll leaked.

I -.MR..ZUDANS: Oh,.it was ---

t And continued,to leak and they couldn,'t k.'NISICH . .

}.

21 resolve ' the problem and 'I"could not sign of f an NCR until 22 theproblemwasresolvedandhdNeel signed it off 3

.because they kept trying to get me to sign it off anda I 24

., ; said,. ' -.'"Ths' re. Isn ' t any way I can sign it of f until it 's s

O. .'

V '

- ' finished and the only way it can be finished is for the q 9 ~9%

34.

. . e ., o; ...,.c.~.-~. ..--

%. , *,. 6

? A. ,.

.e7[

== ws,g .-.--w..,,,.. _ e ,.%,,,,. g -.

._.m,. ..,%, . . , , , , , . , _ , , o,m. . . _ , , , . .

x 1 spool to be placed back into the system and then a O 2 dimensional inspection and checking to see tMati it -doe sn ' t 3 leak." The job wasn't completed.

4 MR..ZUDANS: Okay. So the job was not completed and 5 someone signed it off? .' s 6 d Neel signed it off and wheh I went NISIC 7 back in there I happened to stop by the NCR office and I

.8 said',' "I believe.I might'be able to sign that NCR this 8 .rafternoon, sign it off possibly, because.they've been -

10 '

.They kept calling it a hot item bugging me to sign off."

\

11 - and'I said, "No matter how hot it is, until the job is 12 completed there's'no way that you can just sign off --

O erbitre=117 sien off en NCa." . We11, whee 1 returned ehere 14

. he told me that he signed it of f and another lead man told 15

-- pulled me aside and said he.didn',t agree with it either, 16- but it was done. -

0 17 o MR. ZUDANS: And he didn't tell you why ha signed it 3

.! fr 18 off? :Just for the. expediency? ,

' 18

. MR..NISICH BeSause it was a hob item.

• 20 i MR. ZUDANS: I see. Okay. ,Well ---

h NISI h I gave'tfat to you, people.

2

} MR. HUBBARD: Yeah, this was the one that the QA fellow ---

. h NISI h Okay. I'm sorry.

25 MR..ZUDANS: I'm just trying to get -- I understand 35.

. s .

- . . + , . ----en. -- - - .

n,.... ,.,,,.....n .....n.. ... - - . .

. (,

1 it's repetitious, but I just wanted to make sure on this 2

record that we get the detail of the outsYanding issue a 3

which we still have to' contact you on.

d Yeah.

{MR.NISICH 5 Would you like to receive both.

MR. ZUDANS: Okay.

the NCR and the transcript of this interview toda'y? ,

Yes, I would. .I need it. Has nothing h.NISICH to do with you people'.

0 No, that's fine.

MR. ZUDANS: -

10

. NISIC Another actio'n I have and I do need it.

II

'MR. ZUDANS:

- Okay. Would you please give the Court 12 Reporter your address and any other contact information O 23 which we mieht he ah1e to heve. .

vou cou>d write it on

.that piece of paper.

Are we o$f the regord now?

h.NISIC , ,

8 16 -

• MR. ZUDANS: 'No, I have one more question to ask you o

" 17 2 and then we can go off. .

a 18 g

Have.you given this statement to us today freely

gg E and voluntarily?

E

• 20 Yes, I have.

h.NISIC]: .

21- .

j MR. ZUDANS: Okay.

• We "can go of f the record now.

! 22 e

23 Supplement: *

"4 For the record, my name is MR. ZUDANS: Okay.

. 25 ' John Zudans and this morning at approximately 9 :00, r) 36.

.%.. , , - . ~ . . . _ . . . _ - . . , . . . . . _ . _ _ . . ~ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . - . - .

~

ic 1 F,Nisich came to the Granbury Hotel and called me to --

O 2 called on me to talk further on one of h3's c'oncer'n's 'that 3

. we presented a feedback report to him on 11-14--84.

4 The concern which he was still -- the concern that 5

he wanted to discuss again was concern AOH-22 which - -

6 involved missing or incorrect heat numbers on a plate. .

7-When I came to speak with h Nisich he felt that ,

8 he was still confused about how we resolved that particular 9 -

issue so I called Mr. Jim Malonson, (spelling)

M-A-L-O-N-S-O-N, and Mr. Malonson came to the meeting

,s 11 room with his materials since he was the Technical Review 12 Team Reviewer on this topic and he presented his material I*

toh.Ni'ic s in additional detail in order to try to

• " - eliminate any confusion that he might have had with e 1 n

j

~

15 regard to our resolution.

.l '

~ 16 At the conclusion of Mr. Malonson's presentation, 0 17 2 additional discussion ensued; however, at the completion 3 >,-

~ of^that discussion Nisic told us that.he was satisfied g

that he understood how we resolved that particular issue a

E 'and he now was -- did not have any more concerns.

I 21 -

j .

This is added to th'e'11'-14-84 record for completeness.

4 l 22 f

e (End of proceedings.)

g4 .

p . .

i b -

. 2s - .

37.

,.< ] :. . .

.g_.

wee ~~c..-.m,.e .4.~,..-... , , , .. s. . , , , . ,w%..g% ,

j t .

s 1 CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS

(~7 2 This is to certify that the attached *pr'oc'eedihgs * '

3 before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

4 In the matter of: COMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL INTERVIEW

'5 '

Date of Proceedings: NOVEMBER 14, 1984 -- s

~

6 Place of Proceedings: GRANBURY, TEXAS ,

7 were' held as herein appears, and that this is the original -

8

, transcript for'the file of the Commission.

9 ,

~ 10 BRENDA C. HEIN

\ Certified Shorthand Reporter

11 I ',NwA. d ~/d e-j Certified Shorthand Reporter O -

, 14

, e .

.15-

, a

• y - . ,

[

! 16 O

• 17

l? .

i 3 l 18  ;

r

• gg _

! w a . .

e 21 , ,;

• } .

l. 22 4

i

! 24 25 . .

4 . - .

38.

G

,0

. g a g . M f M l M

...,.7

_ _ _