ML20199G916
Text
l D
=
e cj 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAb}
TECHNICAL INTERVIEW-4 5
6 i
7 We'dnesday, November 14, 1984 8
The interview was commenced at 4:15 p.m.
O PRESENT:
MR. JO!!N ZUDANS Technical Review Team Staff 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 g
MR. BOD llUDDARD I4 Technical Review Team Staff 2
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 15 Washington, D. C.
20555
]
6 MR. Sif00 !!OU 3
Technical Review Team Staff g7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission-f Washington, D. C.
20555 18 MR. ROBERT MASTERSON
=
[
Technical Review Team Staff j
Nuclear Regulatory Commission y*
r Washington, D. C.
20555 21 MR. JAMES MALONSON l
Technical Review Team Staff 3
Nucicar Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
,,g MR. Cl!ARLES RICliARD
,,4 Technical Review Team Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
.. c..
0607020525 0606J3
}
l 1
PDH FOIA 1
OARDE06-A-10 POR fl
l 1
i 9
iC 1
PRESENT:
(Continued) l l-2 MR. CHARLES HAUTHNEY
)
Technical Review Team Staff l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
3 1
Washington, D.
C.
20555 l
4 I
l l
7 8
1 i
{
9 I
10 1
1 j
11 1
12 13 I
I 14 l
i.
15 9
]
16 0
".s 17 l
18 i.
t 19 R
h
~
21 5
1 22 l
24 I
e j
3.
e 6
e e
9 g
g 4
I PROCEEDINGS 2
MR. ZUDKJS:
This is an interview of 3
for the purpose of providing feedback regarding' Tech:
4 Review Team assessment of certain concerns raised by 5
Comanche Peak facility.
The location of this interv.
6 is The time of the in 7
is 6:15 beginning and, as agreed, this interview is 8
transcribed.
(
8 I don't know how much you know about the Techni:
10 Review Team.
Have you been briefed by the NRC Techn.
11 Review Team at all?
12 To a certain extent.
We're just t' I
to unravel the mysteries.
14 btR. ZUDANS:
Yes.
Well, basically.
I can go ir I
15 little more detail, but not much more; okay?
16
' understand what you're attemptinc do fully.
1 MR. ZUDANS:
Yeah.
And so there are different I8 l
disciplines and basically what we have here is a mect-20 l
discipline here today to talk to you.
{
21 The concerns which you brought up were brought u l
22 during several interviews that you had with our folks 23 of this year.
I think about three.
I think k 24
]That--
the I
25 not involved, first of all, but there were people tha 1
I.
L n-
.R
.,_____sJ#m4 k.
__n-d%
% ^ : U
- ^'
^
i 1
had talked to you.
Amongst them, I believe Mr. Bob
'2 Hubbard talked to you and Bob Masterson talked to you 3
on the phone one time.
l Uh-huh.
5 MR. ZUDANS:
And, Charlie, were you involved in any 6
of these?
l 7
MR. RICIIARD :
No.
8 MR. ZUDANS:
No, okay.
9 Well, what we would like to do is to just go around 10 the table with each of the items, describe them to you, describe to you how we -- what we did to go into the item 12 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 14 Masterson pick up his item, describe it, and go on from 3
15 I
there.
3 MR. MASTERSON:
Okay.
I worked on your concern 8
17 j
on the heat exchangers that had the -- support the l
18 r
supports the tubing inside where there have been some i
f 19 burn-throughs on the welding and, according to your concern, m
8 you were not satisfied tnat there was any follow-up
~
21 3
inspection done on those particular 'upports.
Is that s
I n
a basically the ---
t Right.
Well, it was only half inspected, 24 those straps.
M i
MR. MABTERSON:
The straps had boon ---
l 5.
'e
1
~
Just half of them were inspected, half
~
2 the welds.
3 MR. MASTERSON:
Half the welds, okay.
Do you want me to go through the whole thing?
4 think you should go into as much 5
MR. ZUDANS:
Yeah, I detail as possible so there's nothing left out.
6 7
MR. MASTERSON:
All right.
Basically, from what I 8
read in the transcript, these heat exchangers were not I
defined exactly so I had to do some research on these.
8 followed your instructions, you said they were located in 10 I actually the 790 level in the Yorks Building and what II is that they were just inside the Safeguard 12 found out 13 Building at the 790 level.
There were two compartments, I4 number 68 and 69.
15
_ Yeah, that's right, each one.
I 3
I MR. MASTERSON:
And they each had a containment spray heat exchanger and an RHR heat exchanger in each compartment.
0 17 o
I Uh-huh.
I8 MR. MASTERSON:
Okay.
So what I did then was I did f
i an NCR check on all four heat exchangers looking for 20 I
found evidence on NCR'u written like you described and I that on the RHR heat exchangers there had not been any NCR's written the way you described.
I found one on each of the Just to make sure that P
containment spray heat exchangers.
24 I could take tho'other two and take them out of the picture, 25 6.
s A
s 1
I went to Westinghouse and I had them pull out those 2
i drawings for me and I found out that the support straps 3
that you were -- that you had talked about for the 4
containment spray heat exchangers had been installed at 5
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.
_Antivibration.
11 MR. MASTERSON:
Antivibration straps.
Okay.
12 The way it turned out was that the Westinghouse --
13 the two RHR heat exchangers were purchased by Westinghouse 14 as opposed to the containment spray heat exchangers which 15 were purchased by the site themselves and the Westinghouse 16 exchangers already had these straps put on.
So they were 17 not subject to any inspection on site.
So I took those 18 F1G. Ii.
two out of the picture and I put on my.SNf>the two
'I 19 containment spray heat exchangers.
m I got the copies of your NCR, okay, and it described 21 exactly what the problems were and I found that the other 22
[
heat exchangers also had a similar NCR.
l Right.
24
\\
MR. MASTERSON:
But it was written by somebody else.
6 Right.
7.-
l
q
,.l t
1 MR. MASTERSON:
Okay.
When I when I did the research on the -- on the NCR, okay, the weld data card 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 then 6
you had lined through on all of the welds that were shown, 7
okay, indicating that you were taking -- acting -- in ef fect, 8~
taking back the inspection.
-Yeah, right.
10 MR. MASTERSbN:
Okay.
I found then on that weld j
II 5dicating data card a note by your supervisor 12 that the inspection was being accepted based on the j
13 manufacturer's inspection of this heat exchanger weld 14 modification.
15 I further found a documentation of -- from the 16 manufacturer, Joseph Oad Corporation ---
Uh-huh.
18 I
MR. MASTERSON: --- where they had come in and inspected s:
19 I
these welds on both of the heat exchangers and hai accepted l
20 h
the welds, the frontal condition as being non -- where
!J 21 they would have no apparent safety problems with that 22 burns, that they would operate in the way they were l
designed to operate.
So the manufacturer had come in and 24 done its inspection.
I, in turn,' contacted Joseph Oad and talked to -the individual and he did verify that he 8.
e i
P 9
9 i
- n.
A Am2 d A d i ww Am m1..
L Ci m
u m -
MUM'n
'ba d
~
,l,
I had inspected these welds.
Right.
3 MR. MASTERSON:
Okay.
Where the 5
was was that they were trying to get me to sign off welds that I had not seen.
6 MR. MASTERSON:
Tha t 's -- tha t 's the way I read it,
7 that's correct.
And that I told them that I would sign 9
off based -- it was a Telex ---
10 MR. MASTERSON:
Yes.
_--- in the packing house ---
12 MR. MASTERSON:
Yes.
13 Based on the Telex and note it and they 14 didn't want that.
15 3
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, that's eventually what they l
16 ended up doing.
0 17 I understand that, but they didn't want I
18
[
it.
ID l
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, let me continue here; okay?
E.
20 3kay.
3.
21
~
MR. MASTERSON:
As I tracked both NCR's they both 22 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.
ee e
a a
~
l l
inspector.
1
.So besides -- besides the manufacturer's i
l 2
inspector, there was a Brown &
i 3'
Root inspection on the other heat exchanger.
,I talkad to that individual and he 4
remembered doing it.
He even told me the date off the top i
5 of his head and he was ccrrect with the date.
f So I was 6
pretty much assured that he had done this.
He verified i
7 that that was his signature, but there was no evidence 4
I 8
that anybody had gone back on your particular NCR and d one 8
a Brown & Root inspection which they are required to do by 10 procedure.
11 I know.
12 MR. MASTERSON:
Okay.
The -- the note on the weld 13 data card by the supervisor saying that he was accepti I'
ng it based on the manufacturer's inspection was what they 15 were basing their inspection on.
W Okay?
We found that that
{
16 was unacceptable.
Okay?
So as part of our resolution of 17
{
i this particular concern, they will have to adswer that- - - - - -- i
~~
as 18 i
j to what procedures they're using to show_that a,1 19 3
manufacturer's inspection can be subst1huDd For--a QC ;
e 20 tidii.
ykay?
So we did find that your concern was 21 substantiated on that particular NCR.
t j
22 7,m not concerned with the other heat
{
23 exchangers because I wasn 't involved then.
I l
24 MR. MASTERSON:
Well, we looked at it anyway because 1
L 25 we wanted.to make.sure.that all the paper work was there I
A 4
L a
10.
l
l l
1 because they definitely were related.
ay.
Same type of NCR.
3 MR. MASTERSON:
It was identical documentation, that's I 4
Correct.
Yeah, okay.
6 MR. MASTERSON:
Okay.
So the basic conclusion here i
7 is that we did find that your concern was substantiated and 8
we -- and they -- Brown & Root was not able to come across 9
to us with any reasons why they had not inspected the 10 exchangers themselves -- the modifications on the exchangers 11 themselves.
I know why, but it's not worth going into.
13
'MR. MASTERSON:
Well ---
That's ---
{ MR. MASTERSON:
5 15 When this NCR gets issued, that will g
.8 16 be -- the ball will be in their court.
They will have to O
u 17 j
respond to the NCR.
311 right.
Well, I appreciate your 19 g
diligence in the matter.
I 20 MR. ZUDANS:
Well, that's what we call the corrective
~
21 3
action portion of this.
If there are any issues that you 22 E
have raised or anyone else has raised that are significant, 23 we, after reviewing, feel they are significant, we will
' 24
'take corrective action on the facilities before we allow 25 them to go further.
11.
4
... = n
~
l l
Well, you people, being the technical i
2 end of it, are more concerned with the safety of it.
3 MR. ZUDANS:
Right.
_ As opposed to -- although, I was concerned, 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 10 out there trying to track all this stuff down.
11 MR. ZUDANS:
We appreciate what you're saying, but we 12 want you to know that ---
Yeah.
14 MR. ZUDANS:
--- our efforts are to address your 1
0 i
15 i
concerns and, in addition, to look for symptoms that the j
8 16 utility is showing us.
, Yeah.
18 g
MR. ZUDANS:
Based on this kind of one example.
19 Are there others like this?
Okay.
Yeah, well, but my further concern was 21 g
an attempt to get me to do something where, as far as I'm I
22 concerned, other things that I have seen led up to you 23 gentlemen being here today to start with.
24
. ZUDANS:
Yeah.
MR.
_ot all accusations -- I realize that l
12.
.l l
r
,s
3 1
I i
everybody's running around making accusations; however, 2
enough of.them would cause an inspection of a plant such 3
as people are doing.
4 MR. ZUDANS:
Well, I can assure you that there's a 5
pretty large ---
_ Yeah, I know.
7 MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
Is that it then?
8 MR. MASTERSON:
Yeah.
I might want to mention to Don 9
that in evaluating your concern we did pick up another 10 associated concern of our own that there -- whether there 11 should or should not have been an ANI review on this 12 particular modification and we're also asking the facility 13 to give us feedback on that also.
Yeah.
Well, okay.
5 15 g
MR. MASTERSON:
That's just for your own information.
Okay.
Well, thank you.
17 f-MR. ZUDANS:
Bob, why don't you cover your area?
2 18 MR. HUBBARD:
Oh, all right.
t 3
19 g
MR. ZUDANS:
All right?
t g
I MR. HUBBARD:
The one I Jnoked inte as the.
21 s-j concern you had about the issue record cards for the oxygen n
S
-- weld oxygen analyzers and so, just to kind of -- I'll 23 back up a 1,ittle bit and go through'it.
I'm repeating what 24 you know, but just for the sake of the record.
There's
'M certain measuring and test equipment that is kept in the 13.
4
~w --
. - - - -- y
^
^
l.
a I
t calibration lab and there are two documents ma'intained onf i
2 this test equipment.
I In particular, the oxygen analyzer 3
that you are particularly concerned about.
One is a 4
1 calibration record which is a permanent record kept in the 1
5 lab which records each time an instrument is calibrated.
?
i The second record is the issue record card and that's a i
~,
i card that is prepared at the time each instrument I
is issued !
8 to one of the craft to use and the issue record card is --
l 9
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.
13
- that, on the weld data card which is associated with the 14 weld, the purging of the weld, that the oxygen analyzer i
15 g
was used on also has a notation of the issue record card 8
16 on--orthecxgenanlyzer.andwhenit'wascalibratedf f
Cu g7 s-m 2
and _tha -number-2
~~
s Right.
19 MR. HUBBARD:
r-I
--- on _t_h.e.__w'. e. l.d.. da ta ca rd j All right.
[;
21 MR. HUBBARD:
So your concern was tha't you found I
22 that the c,a,lG.
-,---,-----~*~~N-ra tion _. lab had k,ep t _.the...issua.. record cards]
23 and then, all of a sudden, th aj-were
... ~.
24 told to destroy _the:}
'hicE~thU..@. and then at a la:e.r date th.eywe. retold'toj.
25 s.-
start. keeping,they- -. fd it looked mighty suspicioun.
gain a
~
l 14.
t e
E.dume 1 -
a
f I
1 as to why they would be throwing them away and then keeping l 2
them again.
So what I did is I backtraced through the l
I 3
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 j 8
procedure is prepared from the ANSI and the ANSI 9
specification says that you must keep the calibration record, 10 the permanent calibration record; however, you need only 11 keep the issue record card as long -- until the next time the instrument is recalibrated then you can throw it away 13 and this is what it says in the procedure.
Now ---
You mean ANSI, not the procedure.
5 15 g
MR. HUBBARD:
Yeah, ANSI.
All right.
17
{
MR. HUBBARD:
And so I suppose this is what happens l
18 g
when you are -- start collecting records.
The calibration h
19 g
lab kept, not only the permanent records, they also kept I
20 3
the issue record cards beyond when they were supposed to 21 y
according to ANSI.
As a matter of fact, there was a memo, I
n I
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 15.
l
l, I
2 two are related or not, I don't know, but they were starting l 2
to have problems with stcrage space for the issue record
]
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
l 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 though in essence is what is even though it'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 13 again.
So what you saw was this period between June and 14 January when they were throwing the cards away and then i
15 j
they decided to keep them, but the keeping them.again was 8
16 beyond what they were required to do so that throwing them 8
17 l
away was still within the allowable ANSI requirements and ta i
keeping them was in addition to that.
So they 're keeping h
19 i
them for some reason but that's really beside the point.
E 20 Well, the problem being how do they 21 5
kno
-- in other words, as I expressed to you, because I l
n 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 -
-- of this instrument on the weld data card and had to go 25 back at a later date to do it.
All right?
So when I I
16.
]
d
' h EP I
I
l l.
I 1
went back at the later date I found out that they were 2
destroyed so there was no way I could say that the 3
instrument was used and which one was 'used or if any I
4 l
was used at all.
5 r
MR. HUBBARD:
That's correct.
6
, And not only myself, I know other I
inspectors had done it and yet they keep coming up with 8
due dates and numbers from records that don't exist.
i; 9
MR. HUBBARD:
Well, I think I -- I ran through this 10 one time before.
There 's no way in the world to check l
11 this.
I Yeah,-I know.
13 MR. HUBBARD:
That if you're a QC inspector, all you I4 have to do is go find a weld data card where the weld 15 j
was performed during the same period of time that your 8
16 weld was and to copy off that information and there's no 3
17 g
way to check it because the issue record cards are gone.
a That's right, but even if ---
19 d
[
MR. HUBBARD:
There's no way to substantiate it or I
I 20 i
E not substantiate that.
Well, that's what I'm saying.
Z!
I MR. HUBBARD:
It's just something that -- the only l
thing about it 24
{
If iti wasn't a requirement and it's not 25 a Brown & Root requirement, then the inspector should not 17.
l g'
.9 t.
ma. '
r y
4
+8-F, m.
I6
l '
l 1
be required to write an NCR against himself for procedural 2
~
violation.
{
3 I
MR. HUBBARD:
Well, that's possible.
I don' t know.
4 i
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
_ eah, I can understand that.
Y 8
MR. EUBBARD1 And we -- so we know that you used 9
calibrated equipment.
Now, that is the safety significance 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 13 solveable because we both recognize it's a possibility and 14 there's no way to deny it or not deny it.
15 ha
.Uh-huh.
8 16 MR. HUBBARD:
So that's what was -- what I finally u
17 came to the conclusion is that Brown & Root did act 18 j
within their requirements.on the destruction and the g.
19 g
retention of the records.
The additional concern you had 20
[
is what you expressed earlier to me was something that I --
21 i
I can't deny or -- you know, as you agreed as I recall the j
22 last time we talked about it.
23
' Yeah.
24 l
MR. HUBBARD:
There isn't much you can do about it.
No.
18.
i
1 MR. HUBBARD:
During that period of time, j
No, I understand that, but the same thing l 3
is when an inspector there, and I know they've done it, f
4 f ailed to make this entry, then there is no way that they 5
can substantiate that anything was used at all.
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 to 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 I3 possible that's why they started collecting them again, I4 you know, on their own.
Who knows?
Even if they're a
15 not required -- well.
2 g
16 MR. HUBBARD:
That's neither here nor there.
E 17 o
MR. ZUDANS:
That's right.
That's why I say it's 3
f conjecture and I shouldn't be making it.
18 2
18 f
MR. HUBBARD:
Are you satisfied with what I found, I
E 20
=
21 I'm satisfied with it if ANSI doesn't 5
l requira it.
I'm dissatisfied with the fact that there is 22 23 a procedure to be followed and you've got to follow it and
- 4 if it if it's -- in other words, a nuclear power plant 25 with all -- with all the ANSI and anything else must t
19..
l
--WP 1
.I follow it, then they can't take away from it, but they can I
2 bettar it and if they better it they 've got to do it until 3
they change the procedure.
4 MR. HUBBARD:
Well, since it was never required - -
5
_ It's required in the procedure.
6 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 Well, then, if you go back and look at 10 the procedure, you ' '.1 see it.
11 MR. HUBBARD:
Well, then, it would have to have been 12 revised.
I That's right.
MR. HUBBARD:
Yeah.
And it wasn't.
If it's a requirement, a
16
'it must be done.
Another requirement by Brown & Root 8
17 g
corporate policy as far as these things are concerned is 2
18
{
if you disagree with the procedure you still have to e
19 follow it until you change it.
I L
N I
MR. HUBBARD:
Uh-huh.
I
~ so ___
l n
i MR. ZUDANS:
Well, at any rate, I think that I'm 23 hearing from Bob that really that's 'about as far as we 24 can: go with this -- with this issue.
u MR. MASTERSON:
Well, maybe Bob knows whether that 20.
.s L
1
4 a
t I
procedure was revised or not.
2
.MR.
I!UBBARD:
I'll have to do that, Bob.
I'll have 3
to do it, t
I Yeah.
It wasn't revised at that date,
5 I'll put it to you that way.
It was not revised at that I
6 i
date.
If a man is forced ---
i i
7 l
MR. HUBBARD:
Yeah.
l
~
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 ---
--- shouldn ' t exis t in the first place 13 as you put it ---
i 14 MR. HUBBARD:
The NCR, though, would have been
-M 15
-j written against -- if he wrote one, it would have been 8
16 written against his not adding information to the issue 8
17 l 2 record cards.
It's a violation.
It was a requirement 1e 5
MR. HUBBARD:
That doesn't have anything to do with Ir m
I if the issue record card was recorded or not because, see, 21 he would have made an error in not putting down the i
n information on the weld data card when he was supposed to.
l
\\_ It's still a procedural violation and I
24 it.'s mandatory that it's done and you can ' t ge.t the 3
information.
You have to write an NCR against yourself.
21.
1 I
t
l MR. HUBBARD:
You missed my point What I'm saying is that the require. ment to put,the information down l
i
'4 3
the weld data card has nothing to do with whether they j
on keep their issue record cards or not.
If -- if he misses j
5 putting the information down, if he forgets to do it, then 6
he has created a nonconformist because he's supposed to l
7 :
I l
do it.
The fact that he could have gone over previously I
8 j
and gotten the information from the issue record card is 9
beside the point.
That's a way out for him, but if the I
l 10 information isn't available then he should have written an I
11 NCR.
He shouldn't have -- we both admit he shouldn't go 12 falsify it and get it from another card.
Yeah.
.In other words ---
2 14 MR. HUBBARD:
That's bad news.
3 In other words, he still has to do it 8
16 in order for anything during that period of time ---
i O
v 17
{
MR. HUBBARD:
If he made -- if he made the mistake I
18 g
of not putting it down at the time he was supposed to.
s 7 That's right.
(
L
%)
I MR. HUBBARD:
That's right.
But we recognize that 7,
l s
21
[
j that's a violation, but the f act that they were able to
(
22 go and get the information somewhere else~and falsify it ---
Yeah.
24
,!l MR. HUBBARD:
The weld data card is wrong and they M
but.that's got nothing to do with should have made a NCR, 1
22.
s.
[
^ ^ ' 'W-AM r s L IAnA L
..nm.
1 L-l I
the retention of the issue record cards.
All the issue 2
records -- it just gave them a chance to get a second 3
chance at putting the information down.
4 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.
8 MR. HUBBARD:
Yeah.
I don't know how you'd ever do it.
10 Yeah, I know.
U MR. HUBBARD:
Don't ask me to do it.
I don't 1ike 12 Granbury that much.
But anyway it's like I say, if a man 14
-- because the procedures that are written are written 15 3
supposedly to decode or code, whatever's involved, and 4
g 16 also they inject the words "shall", "should", and "may",
8 17 g
and the word "shall" existed.
MR. HUBBARD:
Okay.
I'll tell you what I'll do IO l
Tomorrow I'll go out and I'll verify the dates of g
i v
i these letters against the procedure about retention of the 21 issue record cards.
.And this letter here that you're telling about which I told you about last' August ---
MR. HUBBARD:
Uh-huh.
Uh-huh.
They told me it was just issued, somebody 9
3 23.
e 4
g
l I
clouded something someplace, and then he said he kept 2
that letter because he couldn't understand why he was told 3
to destroy them -- those records.
4 MR. HUBBARD:
Yeah, he kept the letter. He gave me a 5
copy.
l l
Yeah.
l 7
MR. HUBBARD:
But that's just the normal way of doing 8
it.
He went ahead and destroyed them.
. Well, he covered himself when he kept 10 the letter.
11 MR. HUBBARD:
Well, yeah, he kept the letter telling l
12 them to start it up again, too.
Yeah.
14 MR. HUBBARD:
But that's just normal protection.
_ Yeah.
8 16
- MR. HUBBARD:
No problem there.
8 17 2
Okay.
I think we've covered it.
3 18 g
MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
Charles, would you cover your a
19 a
area for us?
g r
20 f
MR. RICHARD:
Okay.
it seems that we 're really 21 not certain that this is one of your concerns, though we
[
22 have'it titled as such.
Concerning the fuel pool liners.
23 The way the ---
24 MR. HOU:
Yeah.
25 MR. RICHARD:
--- concern reads is that liner plate 24.
l
,gg
.l
I welds, welds seams do not match' drawing location on the 2
floor around unit.one reactor vessel.
Now, does that ---
3 No.
4 MR. HOU:
Could be other people's.
5 No, I don't believe I I raised that 6
issue.
I don't believe I did.
I may have.
}
MR. HOU:
I think.we may have other peopl 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.
Proba,bl 13 I don't think I raised that issue.
14 l
MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
We appreciate you being frank 15 l
j with that because we have some -- a significant number 4
8 16 and sometimes these things are mixed up between one or the 0
17 o
other.
a Well, with all the -- with everything 19 e
you people have to go through, I can understand something l
1 i
m i
getting mixed up.
21 l
MR. HOU:
There are several hundred of these.
l 1
22 MR. ZUDANS:
All right.
We'll defer that one to the 23 appropriate individual.
m Malonso would you cover yot rs?
l MR. MALONSON:
I'd like to go.off the record for a 25.
r b
_._m, r.
m
. =
,,,m.~~
.o
LF 1
minute.
2 MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
Fine.
3 i
(Whereupon, an off-the-record I
4 discussion was had after which l 5
the proceedings continued 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 in a penetration in unit two, Comanche Peak unit two.
You ' re using the term " cut plate".
12 MR. MALONSON:
It was a cut piece of plate, dimensions.
I3 Go ahead.
MR. MALONSON:
It was dimension to some inch dimensions.
~
bkay.
Go ahead.
15 8
16 MR. MALONSON:
Okay.
And it was in a support marked 8
5 17 o
number SI207340lS32R.
You stated, I believe, you were 3
18 j
concerned that when you were asked to verify the transfer of t
19 the heat number you couldn't do it because there was a
=
I m
l' i
some anomaly in the paper work.
It involved national --
21 9
excuse me, nuclear type support industries, NPSI, piece i
n number six listed twice on the material tracer.
Right.
24
-MR.' MALONSON: :Okay.
I've started out' with the support 25 package and traced down the material requisition that 26.
O e
9
.m
+
-A rM @
..l...
l l
1 i ordered the' material from the shop.
The material' I
2 i requisition stated that it was a vendor supplied piece.
3 I then went to the receiving inspection record's to verify i
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 io the fab shqp where they cut the balance of the material, 11 the other plate items, item number six, for instance.
12 Uh-huh.
'MR.
MALONSON:
And I looked at the inspection records 13 y
and.the material identification log and so forth and I talked with
,and we resolved the item to the 15 point where the NPSI tracer was an error.
We got a 16
- j corrected copy of the tracer from NPSI to identify the 37 right piece.
It was placed in the hanger package to 18 e
document what was there and I talked with
'about jg ai his endorsements on the MIL, the (SPELLING)
M-I-L, and he 20 g
f said his endorsement was solely to correct a transcription 21 g
error when the other inspector verified the transfer of the heat number.
23 I essence, what you said in -- what you stated in your concern was correct, but it w'as only correct to the 27.
A 3
t g
~
i 1 I I
-l extent that there was an error in the paper work, not that i
the piece wasn't traceable.
.i
[ dell, true.
I realize that, but I also 4 '
realize I could not sign it off until it was resolved, I
5
.tne error.
6 e-MR. MALONSON:
Well, you had some concern because Y'
g went and got another inspector to resolve it.
Yes, he did.
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[
-- is that his first name?
l i
Yeah.
14 MR. MALONSON:
Was that it was solely an error in e
15 paper work because there were four pieces of cut plate 8
16 involved, some to a -- three pieces of stainless steel 0
i 17
{
and one piece of carbon steel and if I went to the drawing l
18 g
and just took the dimensions, I know that the carbon steel 1
19 1
plate that I have was one of the item sixes in error on l
I 5
20 the NPSI tracer.
I 21 Uh-huh.
3 MR. MALONSON:
And then I went to and asked 3
23 l
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
(
y the number wrong onto the M-I-L.
So there.was three or 28.
l.
~
w A ~
.Ana w4tt' W
w-
1 1
four places where the number was recorded correctly, but 2
when the inspector's verification of the piede number was 3
written on the M-I-L, he wrote the number out of position l
1 4
and I found really that it was reasonable for Neely, when 5
he couldn't -- you know, when he couldn't get agreement 6
with you -- as your supervisor, when he couldn't get i
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 l the supervisor -- your supervisor hould 11 have followed up to get the corrected paper work or perhaps 12 should have discussed that with you.
13 -
Yeah.
14 MR. MALONSON:
Now, to verify everything that I've 5
15 told you, I went through the records for the support, the
- .j 16 component modification cards involved in the support, I O
l 17 discussed it with the welding engineering people because 3j 18 in its initial stages it looked like a bimetal weld, 2
i h
19 stainless steel to carbon steel which was later corrected l
3 l
N to be all carbon steel, and I went to the Receiving
(
21 Inspection Department and talked to the receiving inspection 3
f E
foreman.
I pointed out the error to him, the error on the U
NPSI tracer.
He -- while I was with.him, he called NPSI 24 and asked them to verify their' paper work.
He did it M
initially through the site representative for NPSI ---
29.
l E
t l
e I
~f
~Uh-huh.
and they telecopied a corrected 2
MR. MALONSON: ' ---
3 report which I walked.down to assure that it was put into i
4 the hanger packagc.
do we come to the point where the 5
number that's recorded as the heat number is the number i
6 that's recorded as the corrected item five on the NPSI l
tracer.
So I found, I believe, that it was reasonable 7
8 o keep the job going by getting another 9
inspector to verify it.
I -- once again I'm repeating 10-myself, but he should have done the follow through to get 11 the corrected paper work.
12 Well, I accept it as long as you found 13 it's right.
It's simple as that.
l I4 MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
15 MR. MALONSON:
Do you have any other questions in
{
16 regard to it?
4 17
) No.
It just wasn't right when I was
{
18 involved with it and when he pulled this other person aside, j
the craftsman, and said, " Don't worry.
I'll take care of I8 i
h it."
Then that's when I said, "Okay."
MR. ZUDANS:
Maybe the language that was used was 21 7
l the problem.
22 23 Yeah, right, very inappropriate.
24 MR. MALONSON:
Thank you.
MR. ZUDANS:
All right.
That's it?
(
30.
l
t I
I MR. MALONSON:
Yes.
t 2
MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
You may or may not know this, but l
3 the results of all the items that we talked about will be published in a safety evaluatidn report on or about January 4
1985.
If you wish, we will gladly send you a copy of the 5
6 items which involve your concerns and the NCR's.
For that j
to purpose, we'll probably need your address to send it 7
l a
you.
8 You'll have one.
MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
As you have seen, where we found f
10 II the concerns that you have brought up significant we have I
12
-- we plan to take corrective action on -- against TUGCO
$...;M.
l and this is obviously for thees [ of good procedure and f
I3 i
14 also safety for the plant for the future.
15 We'd like to know at this time whether you have l
T
- 3 16 anything further to add to this record, any more concerns J
l!
17 l
or anything like that that you might have regarding the i
- i Comanche Peak facility.
18 it I8 Well, yeah.
What happened to the ll allegation of signing off NCR's before the work was
' ~
21
{-
completed?
,' l 22 MR. IIUBBARD:
Elucidate.
What -- tell us a little 0
On the VA line up in the eight something, 25 an auxillary building igned off the NCR's 31.
l
1
~
i 4
I prior to completion of the work.
2 MR. l1ASTERSON:
i.'as that discussed in the last time 3
i 1
l 4
i Yeah, it was in the ---
5 1
MR. HOU:
Wait.
Let me look on record.
_ 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 M.3,g,MALONSON:
Do you want to stay on the record for no this discassion?
11 MR. ZUDANS:
We can go off the record just to find
)
12 where we are.
13 i
14 (Whereupon, an off-the-record
,i 15 discussion was had after which j
the proceedings continued as
[
16 follows.)
E 17 g
MR. ZUDANS:
We have talked to individuals that.we I
3 18
)
thought might be able to give us the information that you 19 were concerned about and it turns out that they don't have 5
i the records with them.
Okay?
They are not able to K
21 g
assimilate that issue ---
e ieah.
23 MR. ZUDANS:
--- at this time.
So wlat I propose that we do is that we will contact you agdin probably either on the phone so you won't have to travel here or:do.a'nything 32.
1 like that or cover this in some detail with -- apparently 2
there are other people that have this same concern.
Okay?
3 At any rate, you will be briefe'd in some form.
, Well, that portion of it isn't ready.
s MR. ZUDANS:
That's the problem right.now.
t isn't ready and it's within a l
7 l
different group.
There's no sense in discussing it until they are ready.
9 MR. ZUDANS:
Absolutely.
And I was hoping you would to understand that.
The problem we're having right now is 11 we would like to address that with you because you're here 12 and we can sit face to face and talk, but unfortunately 13 we found that this is not possible at this time.
14 So, at any rate, the other thing I wanted to ask you 15 j
is:
Do'you have any new concerns or any additional concerns 9
8 16 that you might have that have not been brought up before?
O No.
I believe that you -- I ran into a is
{
thing that -- well, no.
19 MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
Just for the record, could you g
I 3)
I please repeat in some detail the issue that we did not 21 g
cover because I am personally not aware of that one.
I H
didn't understand that one.
There was some -- maybe you j
n could repeat it for me because I don't remember exactly i
24 what the issue was that we did not -- weren't able to cover 25 with you.
i 33.
8 6
A i
su b
1 Oh, on the VA line ---
2 MR. ZUDANS:
Z?
3
~
VA line.
4 MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
5 In the Auxillary Building, there was a 6
gouge in the flange of a pipe and it was deep enough and needed to be attempted to be repaired It was, you l
7 g
8 know, cerated 9
MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
10 7 -- type flange so I wrote an NCR and 11 they attempted to resolve the problem by welding the gouge l
Il and grinding it back down ---
13 MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
14
--- and place the spool back into the
-j system.
15
}
16 MR. ZUDANS:
Uh-huh.
o 17 But, even with the welding of tl.e pipe f
and everything the -- the flange still leaked.
I8 I
f MR. ZUDANS:
Oh, it was ---
I And continued to leak and they couldn't 21 resolve the problem and I could not sign off an NCR until l
the problem was resolved an gned it off 22 23 because they kept trying to get me to sign it off and I 24 said, "There isn't any way I can sign it off until it's 25 finished and the only way it can be finished is for the 34.
t
,aiiaeim ai ere e
' ^_. - -
h
L 1
spool to be placed back into the system and then a 2
dimensional inspection and checking to see that it doesn't 3
leak."
The job wasn't completed.
4 MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
So the job was not completed and 5
someone signed it off?
6 signed it off and when I went 7
back in there I happened to stop by the N,CR office and I 8
- said, "I believe I might be able to sign that NCR this 8
afternoon, sign it off possibly, because they've been 10 bugging me to sign off."
They kept calling it a hot item 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 --
I3 arbitrarily sign off an NCR."
Well, when I returned there I4 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 c
h II MR. ZUDANS:
And he didn't tell you why he signed it f
18 off?
Just for the expediency' 1
I I8 Because it was a hot item.
O MR. ZUDANS:
I see.
Okay.
Well ---
r I gave that to you people.
3 MR. HUBBARD:
Yeah, this was the one that the QA fellow ---
~
24 Okay.
I'm sorry.
MR. ZUDANS:
I'm just'trying to get -- I understand
'3 5.
L
.t 6
O i.
9-p-
a
1 it's repetitious, but I just wanted to make sure on this record that we get tne detail of the outstanding issue 3
which we still have to contact you on.
4
~ Yeah.
5 MR. ZUDANS:
'Okay.
Would you like to receive both 6
the NOR and the transcript of this interview today?
'Yes, I would.
I need it.
Has nothing 8
to do with you people.
9 MR. ZUDANS:
No, that's fine.
'Another action I have and I do need it.
11
.M R. ZUDANS:
Okay.
Would you please give the Court 12 Reporter your address and any other contact information 13 whien we might be able to have.
You could write it on 14 that piece of paper.
Are we off the record now?
8 16 MR. ZUDANS:
No, I have 7ne more question to ask you O"
17
?
and then we can go off.
s 18 Have you given this statement to us today freely
=
i 19 E
and voluntarily?
Yes, I have.
i 21 j
MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
We can go off the record now.
I 22 j
Supplement 1 24 MR. ZUDANS:
Okay.
For the record, my r ame is 25 John Zudans and this morning at approximately 9:00 36.
g l
i.
.v i
I l
i I
came to called me to --
2 called on me to talk further on one of his concerns that 8
3 l
}
l we presented a feedback report to him on 11-14-84.
l 4
5 The concern which he was still -- the concern that l
i-t I
he wanted to discuss again was concern 5hlhich l
l 6
I involved missing or incorrect heat numbers on a plate.
}
When I came to speak with hefeltthat 8
he was still confused about how we resolved that particular 9
issue so I called Mr. Jim Malonson, (spelling) 10 I
M-A-L-O-N-S-O-N, and Mr. Malonson came to the meeting 11 room with his materials since he was the Technical Review j
12 Team Re' viewer on this topic ar.d he presented his material to in order to try to 1.
eliminate any confusion that he might have had with 15 a
, {
regard to ouriresolution.
i*8 16 At the conclusion of Mr. Malonson's presentation, i 8 17
)j additional discussion ensued; however, at the completion of that discussion was satisfied a g 19 i
that he understood how we resolved that particular issue 2
x l=5 2
and he now was -- did not have any more concerns.
j_
F' 21
' j This is added to the 11-14-84 record for completeness.
i !
22 m
(End of proceedings.)
7 24 25 l
l
', 3 7.
9 2-y K_-.
~
i I
CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS l
I This is to certify that the attached proceedings 3
before the Nuclear ?egulatory Commission l
4 In the matter of:
COMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL INTERVItW I
5 i
Date of Proceedings:
NOVEMBER 14, 1984
,'w Place of Proceedings:
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original '
8
. transcript for the file of the Commission.
9
\\
10 BRENDA C. IIEIN Certified Shorthand Reporter 11 12 t.
Certified Shorthand Reporter 13
{
t l
14
'i 15 A
W
[
16 Ou 17 e
1 l
18 r
i g
19 5
20
=
21 3
22 1
23 24 25 38.
l
.. n-M HEMORANDUM FOR:
File FROMt D. C. Jeng,'TRT Comanche Peak
SUBJECT:
ELEPHONE INTERVIEW WITH ALLEGER j
Time: 7:00 p.m Attendees:
D.
eng, R. C. Tang, R. Bangart, D. Hunnicut nd the recorder.
Allegation No. AC-44 D. Jeng did the interview with the alleger on behalf of TRT reviewer Mr. R. Phillio.
Mr. Philleo was not avai e at the time, however, effort was expended to get him to participate in the telephone interview.
concern with respect to AC-44 was the cracks which exist in
~
t e concrete pad below the reactor vecsel. During the interview,.Mr. Jeng first described the TRT reviewer's understanding of poncerns.
The TRT review of Non-conformance Report (NCR) C-65 nd ts eva uation of the conclusion drawn by a G&H engineer conc rning the cracks of the concrete pad were then described in detail t y Mr. Jeng.
l Mr. Jeng also mentioned th't an NRC Region IV engineer did perform his a
evaluation of the issue and reported his findings to the ASLB with the same conclusion obtained by the G&H engineer.
j
\\
The basic f.indings of TRT are: (1) that the pad is heavil with well distributed rebars to resist main loads (e.g., y reinforced earthquake and accident pressure loads) such that initial cracks like the ones observed would not affect the load carrying capacity of the pad, (2) that the crack was unavoidable because of the massive nature of the pad which was I
poured in one placement without provision of construction joints, (3) that
)
the cracks found were similar to the construction joints originally con-l ceived by the designer in his optional design using two pour scheme, t
(4) that the use of rigid forms in the annular space of the pad prevented normal shrinkage of the concrete which contributed to the formation of cracks, (5) that the cracks were repaired via use of epoxy to prevent rebar corrosion due to ingress of water through the cracks, and (6) tha_t the i
crack formed at mid span of a 20 ft. -deep beam would not affect its load carrying capacity.
l The TRT reviewer also indicated that reinforced concrete structures are designed to have well controlled cracks in order to carry their design loads.
I l
L FolA-85-Sy
- w. :
l 2-Upon hearing the aboveitechnical findings indicated that his concern related to the pad concrete cras s is fully resoTved. He also
~
i connended the thorough evaluation job performed by the TRT.
[
agreed to receive a copy of our SSER covering his concern.
e has no o jection for making the SSER available to the public.
The i
l issue is considered as fully resolved.
l-l D. C. Jeng '
I cc:
L. Shao l
t I
l L
i f
f e
0 e
O
.