ML20206U500

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Transcript of 841115 Interview Providing Feedback Re Technical Review Team Assessment of Concerns
ML20206U500
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 11/15/1984
From:
NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:
Shared Package
ML19284C882 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8607100507
Download: ML20206U500 (20)
v • d • e


Text

n v's ,s '. .. .. -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p Technical Review Team Staff i

Date November 15, 1984 i Reporter arenda c. nein, cSR l

0 b 8 d isociates s fua., ts.d kg 303 West Tenth P. O. Box 17706 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 707'lG, '?., "

h.- *

  • ',,, r' (%

b 'w/

,b-(Metro) 429 3279

}1w 4e!.," . ' ..-l %.

8607100507 860624 PDR FOIA 7 CARDE85-59 PDR -

I

t I UtiITED STATES OF M1 ERICA l NCCLEAR REGULATORY CO:O"ISSIO::

o l 7::OiUICAL REVID? TEAM

! l 3

TECHNICAL L aTERVID7 i

4 i

5 6

i i i

7 Thurs. lay, November 15, 1924 l

g l

9 The interview was commenced at 4:00 p.m.

s 1

! 10 l PRESENT: 1

" MR. CHARLES HAUTHNEY

, l U. S. Nuclear keyulatory Commission l

~

Washington, D. C. 20555  ;

13 MR. JOHN ZUDANS U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14 I!ashington, D. C. 20555 i i ,

e I a 15

  • f1R . WILLIMI WILLS i 3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 8

= Washington, D. C. 20555 l I

8 1' o.

MR. CO:: RAD rJcCRACKE::

  • U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • I8 Washinston, D. C. 20555 i

20

~

21 i 22 ,

f i 23 4 l l'

24 l

.t  ;

Oli h . ,

i l

t

1 P ROCCED I NGS 2 MR. HAUTIUSY : 'i'h i s is an interview or 3 for tho purpone of providing feedback regarding Technical i

4 Review Team assessmer t of coacerns raised about the l 5 Comanche Peak facility. The date is November 17., 1984 ,

6 and the time is 15:54 central standard time. The location j 8

9 Representing the Technical Review Team are Mr.

10 Charles Hauthney, Mr. John Zudans. For the Coa:ings Group ,

11 leader, Mr. Conrad McCracken and on the Coatings Team, 12 Mr. William Wells. is here.

13 As agreed to, this meeting is being transe-ibed.

14 As those present will probably know, the mi.r., ion of ,

I 5 15 the Technical Review Team has been to pursue issues raised l

[ 16 by certain individuals familiar with the Comanene Peak 8

e 17 station and to determine whether or not those issues have 1

18 safety significance and require corrective actirn on the -

L r

j 19 part of the applicant or the Nuclear Regulator. Cc= mission.

s 20 One thing I'd like to dc at this

[

2 21 time if you could help me is -- you've prooably given tnis j

22 information before, but for the purpose of this record 23 if you could Just summarize your relationship tc Comanc u ,

26 Peak, your pc ried cf employment there, particul.:

l 25 activities you did. I'd find that :alpful.

1 i!

i

!I H

q I

\

l # -

1 l -

All right. I 2

i I 3 1

4 I

i u i' 5

I MR. HAUTHI;EY: Were you a i

! 6 -

then? I

' i i I '

Yeah.

l 8 l MR. HAUTHNEY: Okay.

j ,

I t.-

10 i MR. HAUTHSEY: You have talked to the Technical 11 i

i Review Teau pers-one.t he f ore, have you not, or is this the l I in~ 1 j l first time?

l

( ,

i 13 I've talked to sc many people ---

14 MR. H A U T el: E i : It's hard to remember? All richt.

[l Well, at this time I'd like to turn the presentation ccer t

15 1

3 16 to :ir. Wells to talk about the issues that you've raised e r l I' j

i and crovide you the feedback.

3 3

3 , , , , . . ,

1 =

18 J Okay. B a s i c a l l , qupg V r,,o, d"p".. h..-..,...-

a s : 2.n.v.. e s tig

,,,, . ged i y :e.R . WELLS: i . .

t i #-.-5 m 3. +-  !

i  !

W i r M - m _ U N. 03*LD 'O '

i l _

. . . . . . . , , , "'N- '. ~ >

I 20 ,,i ,, g -q..

2 l wC u _ u ". ".~ cd-ban. du-se1 f.. a nd'N

/ .,,a-*Dunbe r.., of, , o , ther . -;,eghn. g . l

' i ,

h i 21 Cs.._s-de" a anc caseu4 on ou* rovi w of those concer".s we alSo l( . *

' :- - - l ll I 22 ca. investigatica to include an overall evaluation of

-e l.

j . . - _

}

g6 DYid.fr .. "

coat:nga pro 9Cd5 't E ggg3nggg pg3k and a9 T ,rO UL w C g,, g> . L{ ' " g i , , . - -

24 A i

yf:f.Um t.i o p .. W9 - {l a '.0 ,:-[ g u-dM.h u ,}

- - .e". ;*a..*.b"*'* O'~ ~$'$ 3n t b7'. . .'" y 4 < 4. 4 i .

[ .

2 . .. . . . hwi c h, w. . ere.rmiseu

.. - .,... ~ 3 - *ga ; * * * *) j a ' 'h,, c,i,:,~.i. nw

- . ,mmr.

. ,. wanal .,, abo.ve,,those i .

i l i L

i

l I

. the individuals who expressed concerns to us. l l

2 The applicant and the NRC staff are conducting now 3

thorough reevaluation of the coatings area and we anticipate 4

that the results oC our reevaluation will be issued in a 5

supplemental safety evaluation some time around January of 6

next year.

7 Now, we've identified three specific concerns which 8

were expressed by you. Two of these have been substantiated 9

to some extent by our investigation and the third could not 10 be confirmed by our investigation. So I want to talk a i

II little' bit about each one of those to make sure, first of 12 all that, in fact, we looked at the area that was your 13 concern and to tell you a little bit about what we found.-

14 We are going to be requiring certain actions to be A

j 15 performed by the applicant, but those decisions as to what l 16 applicants are going to be required are not final at this 0 17

? point so we won't be able to talk about that, but we will a

e g3

} be able to tell you what we found in the areas where you i

19 f

- were concerned.

I i I The [ $ t.e U s a general one that the @ cd b,3 1Vy.]'g wu r.wmemmt%%we 21 ThcoEIw;em[Awas ngs mats nqLalwayamaintaEeN We tock i 22 a very thorough look at the entire subject of traceability. l 23 We looked at the procedures, we looked at the records, 2;

and basically we substantiated your con.:ern that, in fact, 25 there were a variety of dif ferent ways in which traceability I

5.

t .p - -

h; r m b- =, - 1 m n r r3 . s4- _ h o3h@d r *)NF j ^ ~ ~ '

'L^-

^ -^ ~~~ ' -t7

-dufing which'hid, 7wD[nYDibh"- A-,

t m_e c_ -

t a ~~w 3

thedraceability .' ' / So ,s~br .f ace,, v2nrAmr+-nenE97 'S4jg

- - ~

4 ...

t - ~ 2-, . ,

ineth'at 7 oric~ern O We have found that that, indeed, was the 5

case. ,

i 6

Now, is that -- to your memory, does that basical'y ,

7 express the concern that you had in that area?

Uh-huh.

8 is the MR.'UELLS: Okay. The next one 10 concern that a Q'prt!ctor*-fod . the nicht .shigg, - '. 1 - , , .

~.-c 9; - . . , . . -- j.-

{. y- e 3r-Cable,L_i,nspect,o,,n  :._ ny-t- cm ahn. Rngggg 11 s - - - _ . .,

,e i r t

12 I ._ me-res - ._.

lever m rfnrmi._.z.rtq__, the. in:: se. .. , - ..-er*4me-M--

[Right.

14 MR. UELLS: Okay. That one w3 were not able to I

i 15 confirm.

. 2.--m.~,.,---.

' p.confdc _- .not_iceruconT.,2.rmat.Lantt: om. any JY_.n_e h g

16 i F-- $ hat th11'ECIiaTi,Ndeis:N.e occurre<6 eld f rom the O

v .-Nrs - - . - - - , - - - . , e-w r'- ""% s J

17 rgf1 7'rl e_L t* }T." 4-_ _ n =c f c.t- f 9 ' 8-N.4 4-!: -emM v,ih 4 a=h a gam _ p. 2@Qi,ry.,J,g s  %

-..-..-..e~r~-

ni s~4Nry#-< *me-,--nn swhtAw.1M[.pgLthgo "-lWhO\

a .

18 . . . .

rd rf..,~1 tn et

^

^

e e. pus. * -- . _ . . r-,- _ . ,, _

w * : d, orine_+h.e h,A k ana

i F i no I Yeah.

21 So that one was basically indetecoinacle.

MR. WELLS:

I 22 i We weren't able to confirm that.

l '

l It was there, it was just very harc 24 t to prove.

b 23 1' MR. GLLS: Wah, there wa :m ' t a n' tra 1 t! .i t . . '

I I

I I could rollow there to find any more out about that sub;ect.  ;

2 ~ Yeah.

3 Le third item, again, relates somewhat MR. WELLS:

4 to traceability of paint and we believe your concern was 5 that hb(wkpliwash2iTd'WC_oNELAnAMAtilal ('~

6 rg;GP'Brhmm6assa;caae#Acie Tryssggld th5%ue=chway. ail  ;

8 Uh-huh.

O MR. UELLS: Okay. And that, I think I probably want 10 to talk at a little bit more length. I've got some -W.e s ,

i II I frcT our investigation here. As part of our inrestigation i

I 12 in the traceability question, we looked at the possibility I 13 I that coating materials would have lost traceability'thrcugh 14 beinc contaminated or altered in some way so that they m

15 were different from what had been provided by the 2

8 a

16 manufacturer or what should have been provided equivalent i -.

$ g' to the oricinal materials that were tested and *.7

- . found].

i, 2

f ,th re e- spec.b fic~in o t-Jni6?iht WH6r FETEOY7[$15A $$${$I$]

f l ietacted in~thcSnWn%3n, %1-1 d thrc'd'6f %h'ein heb docume316dl.7i 5

I

_ h nconrormance report 3!"j 20 .

l I

i 1 -

~

21

[6ne~'bpecific nonconf ormanc.; report which we believe i 3 on

~~

f is the one you % re concerned with had to do with a 1

.i . L '*'*guete meuemyuh, _ ,, -- .-- - - -- , ,,...__,,_,.q n}

il lidt"cl-Mf' ~c,,,,rbo-*

, f.

inc 1.],. tnat._ had - emM.Lg"gi,g,.J tLigi,m.]

a  !

[ I 2i (! a.

,J n

,q A.o_. . , b3 grease .

25 Uh '.uh.

S

l I

l l

I

  • MR. WELLS: And in the case of that nonconform.ance o I '

~

l report the original revision of the nonconformance said, I

3 '

(Reading) "As a disposition to strain and use as i :, "

I 4

And there was a later revision to the nonconformance 5

report which said, (Reading) " Return material to the j 6

vendor."

Right. I was concerned about the time 8

span ---

9 MR. WELLS: Right.

in between.

11 MR. WELLS: .Right. And we thought that was the trea, 1

12  ;

i the time span in between. Basically the reason the 13 disposition was changed is because it was determined as 14 a practical matter on the job that the straining disposition 15 j

did not, in fact, work to remove these particles. This 8 16 occurred in October of 1979 and I think we found rev zero 0 ,,

' g l { was issued on October 2nd and rev one was issued o..  ;

4 October 17th of that year. Sowhatwedidwas.{E:h,hke I '

[alY.. ..-

o..f Th_7.. indp$ c$$dA[.$b)S3h E k b 3 N M.eF.anf.,f 20 * - ~ ~ ~

  • I .F.oTeiibworsth. aryeaf and what we icund was that th~e re #.

, ,__ ~ _ _ = -

f, gat

=

The'$_ch$_b47,L tht$ha.td_MQ3cy,yp,,Id 7.@f f, r ,

on

a .. e, . n n - .-

i.

t_EE.cWE"hTI'ev.at.becruap9.1.ted.a ). There was no evidence N in tne records that that batch had been applied. 3a in the case 0 1.' that particular concern that this b.ltCh '. . I u '

G IM .I N ilii d O l } hdd be e n d p p '. le d d u r . n :: the t t:re L u t v. . .'

e l

i the revision -- the first issue of the revision of the l 2 a- , ., sra, n o n C o n f o r!".a n C e r e p o r t , - ---- ~ _-^ -~-u- - - - ,

3 --.c t.-

Okay.

5 But because you had raised at that  :

MR. UELLS: I 6

concern, as I said, we looked at the general issue of 7

material that had become contaminated or altered and we, 8

in fact, found other cases and we found two other 9

nonconforniance reports in particular which we studied 10 and examined the surrounding circumstanc.as, looked at ,

11 the inspection reports and the areas involved and what we 12 found in those other two canes that there were, in fact, abnormalities seen in the paint. /In~~o'He"~6a'sel therejasWj]

14

' ca s%5"_th'.e~rF' w -.-. --.- .~.- .ere p_a.rt.i,c.lc s/c;.a..n. d 'f"

. . . ~ . .

gment:-float7 p,_.e . . . ..n.one i.

a -_t. y " a_n d._... f_o_y 15 _ - - _ . . ...

, ~ m_E_E. W. w. e..

p not_ he_r-g

=-= .e..n_s _ _e_ t t. .heWw.-_as "a'2 d._ol..cr',

-au _uu .

6 n n ed . . , . - cI p5k-M_ m'ffe9dfitWi'aYI$Eh85538.I@.e.~jm*u.s,v,.us:w=a.n,c.i,.

g.e , , , . _ -

e.z=%,n7

.g

~3 w.y ym.~. .

( !: 17 ,,,

_po t..ca termine .t. hat ~ therc. .". ka s . a.n.ma__c.e.

.ua cm. ted Ju s t1 r_ica,,,,r',i,c.n .f.

3

~ . . . m l 18 e lu s.. ... ting'ItMQigditbriaKafi:i--,,. .._ d] So I guess the bottom line ,

y _

  • - q is that although the specific item 20 5 that you raised having to do with grease contamination  !

. 21 we did not confirm, but in looking at that area you had I l

3 (

- ~

pointed us in the co r rec t d i re c tion bec a u se F,r. .?cG'n.~d, *th'a..t")

1 2~9 i . . . . .

r

- . . ,a.- .. c . . . . .- < ~. :=2 l 23 i

(..h....,,rt F.%WF 6Eh.

e.a  ;, _. er^c

-- -.~~.

_ .. --,p .ases o f_.ccatamina..,teil.;or

-- -- - unus,ua.Ltc. a tat' ,

2I ...... . <a n ..==. ,9

.,.=: _

\* *w=h i. c. .h .w.a s .wi

'..u c e d. ut.,.,'E h...- o. . .-. ., . . . , ..

  • s . ,. . -... r. a.de..qua te Ju.s ti f.i.

-*dQ d n */ $ C ,l U C'l CE DO a n '; S O u r CO .3 i.

l

4

]

" 1 '

your organization make audits of suppliers of the paint 2

I or is that ~.andled strictly out of "omanche Peak?

i' 3 .

MR. WELLS: In the case of Comanche Peak, audits are 4

performed by the applicant or by their contractors or l 5

representatives. There have been audits performed of the 8 I manufacturers by TUGCO and earlier by Brown & Root and we  ;

l 7 did examine the records of those audits, but we did not i 8 i find that the subject of those audits was this problem 9

with the contamination in the paint.

Did you happen to find -- did you l 11

{ happen to find.any type of audit information ccncerning o r- - i f }

MR. WELLS: I don't recall seeing anything like ~~ that.

l

?

1, j MR. WELLS: Okay. l j

19 MR. WELLS
I don't recal seeing l g
. 20 l j l r the reports although I may have well looked a t that audit i .

'  ; 21 j because we did look at audits that were performed of i

i:

i 22 '

carbo and, as I said, basically we didn't find that the ,

l i

) 23 i

aualting process addressed itself to this issue c: ' c. a t . i 1 l 24

! i l

was contamina ted paint. e I l n) i Okay. j 1

J 11.

! a j u

l a

)

j

\ \

i l

1 l i .

MR. WELLS: Fo basically that's -- thct's our sumnary i 2

of what .re found in 1^ching into the areas where ycu had l 3 expressed concern. I guess that about wraps it up as far 4

l as our report to you on what it is tha.t we've seen.

i 5 >

As I said, there will be certain actions that we are 6

i going to require that the applicant perform in relation l 7

to these and other concerns, but it has not been finalized i 2

! 8 just what actions those are going to be at this point, .

l ,

Okay. ~j [

-- } l 10 1 MR. HAUTHNEY: I'd like to supplement the ans cr to I

11 As I understood it -- well, your question you just asked.

I 12 that you're obviously fanilar with audits of suppliers l

i 13 are performed by the constructor or a utility company. ,

t e NRC in its vendor

~

. inspection branch which is back in UFshington does perform, '

8 16 again on a sampling basis, audits of vendors and they S 17 perform those audits through part 21. That's the j

l 18 regulatory vehicle that allows them to get in the door.

f 1

19 i

Whether or~not they've done a recent audit with these type i

!* 20 of attributes of this company, I wouldn't know, but therc

21 is a system where the NRC directly does inspections of i 22 nuclear quality related suppliers ---

I "3

~

Oh, okay.

24 MR. II AUTH::E'i : --- and equipment suopliers.

I 25 u ' s'? t0 j M.? . :UDA!b

' Coulst I ask one cf jou two < _

t

'l 'l i

J 1

expand a little bit on the overall program that you're '

2 looking into the coatings program at *:omanche Peak? Maybe ,

t 3

that would help Enderstand that we're not  ;

4 just addressing specific issues but the L igger overall {

i 5

program, j t

6 l MR. WELLS: Would you like for me to talk about the 1

7 general areas we investigated? Yeah, basically we 8

investigated seven major areas of the program. Let me see 9

this -- let me pull out our stack of reports which are 10 in graph stage.

11 We investigated the back fit test program is an item lo~

and we investigated the design basis accident qualification l' 13 testing for the coatinge, we. investigated the traceability 14 issue, we investigated the procedures that is both the R

15 written documents and the actual methods tha t were used to 2

8 16

  • do all the coatings work, related activities, surface 8 1-

? preparation, application, inspection, cure, the whole works.t i Uh-huh.  !

< 19 i MR. WELLS: We examined the general subjecr of I i og reporting of results including a specific look at inspection '

I ~

I

21
reports, noncon"ormance reports, and the change documentation  !

I I 22 We looked at the protective coatings exempt log

. the DCA's. ,

23 l

, as a separate item. That's a log they use to record any 24 material that is not fully up to the requirements and we on lcCkati at th; gcncral area Of train'ng o: person 0 i n VC ' Vt't!

I e

l I

f

J l

. . 1 l l in the coatings program both painters and inspectors and 2 l other related types and each one of those areas we loc?.ed 3

at specific concerns which were raised by individual _ ,

5 4

such as yourself a:ia we also took an overall look into that  :

1 5

area to form an evaluation of how the applicant had handled ,

6 '

that particular aspect of the coatings program.

_ Okay.

8 MR. WELLS: So that's basically what our investigation 9

consis'ted of.

10 MR. HAUTHNEY: One thing I'd like to add, we used the ,

.11 term " applicant" and that's sort of an NRC term that rxans .

12 the utility company that's applying for an operating 13 license. So we =can the utility in case that isn't clear.

14 I guess in summary then, the types of issues that 15 5 we found that have been triggered by your types of issues o

8 16 that you've raised have led us to find other problems C

" 17 that are worthy of corrective action and the extent and f=  !

i l i

l 18 depth of that corrective action hasn't been completely

= 1 e 19 I i formulated, but we will publish the results of our E.

5' 20 l -- 3ER which is a safety evalua tion i evaluation in ar SA -- S

- i

21  ;

3 l report and it's -- that's scheduled for publication in i 22

, January of '85 and when that's out, we'll also recuire

'l 23 0

e appropriate amounts of corrective actions by Texas Uti ' ti s . '

24 .!

Generating Comp.'.ny.

25 i gues2 at 1.ts peint in tne .r.ce ting 1'd 1 i i:o to e d e

- i I i I ,

I I

ash if you have anything further that you want to add :: i I

o this discussion on the issues that you've raised? l' I

Ckay. You said you did investiga:icns 4

on .the surface preparation?

5 Yes, MR. WELLS:

kihat were your findings on that?

7 MR. WELLS: In what specific area?

There for a long period of time 9

surface preparation was -- was called out for one to three 10 ,

minute pro. file.

11 MR. HELLS: Uh-huh.

And that was all changed eventuall. to l 13 different types of power tooling.

14 MR. WELLS: Yeah, I know what you're talking about, I .

15 the power tooling question for repairs. Basically we found 8 16 We found tha:

  • that that had not been handled properly.

3 17 there was inadequate rigorous requirements and inspec:;ons (

i I

18 to make sure that the surface was adequately roughene:. to l

?

~

19 make sure the paint would adhere. l i

=,

Did I hear you say " repairs"? l l

21 MR. WELLS: h'e ll , the power tool cleaning method was j i

I 22 used in general after a large portion of the plant h a s. 1 l

23 '

been originally painted.

Yeah.

25 i I MR. \ ELLS : It was used in considerable n u:nbe r -

II S t .1 li a

l I areas but basically as a repair type surface preparation 2 for ar area that clready had paint on it.

3 There in a lot of cases they were using 4 Not only for repairs, it for overall surface preparation.

5 but for ---  ;

6 MR. WELLS: Can you give me an example of what you 7

mean? Talking like for a newly installed hanger or something 8

like that?

9 Yeah, uh-huh.

0 Yeah, I'm considering that basically as a gg.. WELLS:

II

, repair-type operation where they've newly installed scmething 10~

in an area that's already been coated some time in the past.

13 Yeah.

14 MR. WELLS: Yeah.

- ~

15 And you didn't find any big areas of j 16 concern where they were doing that? l 1

I 8 1' e MR. WELLS: Yes, oh, we found a concern. We found i

l [

18 that the method they had used both the written procedures I l

e i

19 and the way they actually went about doing the power tcol 5

I I

20 cleaning as well as the inspection of po er tool cleaning  ;

21 were not adequate to assure that the surface was adequately .

E no roughened and cleaned to make sure the paint would stick.

3 Okay.

I 94 i

~

j MR. KELLS: We found that what they did was not 25 a adequate.

4 i

f

~~

I That was one of my main concerns.

1 2 I should note just so that you're clear MR. UELL6:

l 3

that, you know, when I'm talking about 4

they're ones I've isolated as being concerns that you had 5 ou may well have had some other ,

6 concerns that we looked at as part of another l 7

investigation ---

Yeah.

9 and they're not. flagged as ones to MR. WELLS: ---

10 be discussed with you because they weren't ones that were II 2 unique to you, that you specifically brought out.  ;

12

- And I had -- I had one other concern i

l 13 in the testing of different areas, adhesion testing.

I

~

I 14 MR. WELLE Uh-huh.

~

It seemed -- there for a lor.g time it l 6

[ seemed to be a cure all for certain questions raised about O - .

U 17 e the -- about the paint, you know.

i 18 You're referring to the back F.it test MR. WELLS:

i
  • 19 l

- program?

=-

  • Yeah. l
21 MR. WELLS
Yeah, that was -- as I.said, tnat was one l i

? oo

~~

of those specific areas we investigated. j Okay.

MR. WELLS: And we found problems in that area. i 4

25 All right.

1

!n. ,

'l

i

(

I  !

i .

! MR. WELLS: We found problems with the way they I 2

performed those tests.

'Yeca, cne of the main concerns of 4

mine, we were -- at that time we were using different ,

I types of epoxy glues to put those aluminum dollys on the i

6 ,

l paint.

l

.7 Uh-huh.

MR. WELLS:

~And I found in a lot of cases the 1

9 different types of epoxy glues that they were using, t 10 af ter the test was pulling phenoline would be gu=y.

11 -

MR. WELLS: Huh? I i

12 ' And I felt like that certair types of (

{

13 epoxy glue were having a chemical reaction on the paint 14 and, in all, I felt like I was really pulling the test --

M 5 15 the test was really pulling substrate instead of painu.

8 16

  • MR. WELLS: Uh-huh.

O And I was getting false tes:s on it.

~

r 18 l MR. WELLS: Yeah, we didn't look at the specific 19 concerns as to the kind of glues they used because the 8  !

i 20 kind of thing you're describing there would, ir fact, if i s

j 21 that kind of thing occurred, all it would cause is for l

=

i 22 them to get a lower reading .in terms of adhesic: value i

23 j rather than a higher reading and that wouldn't ce a problem i

24 l for us. What would be a problem is if they die s ome th in';

p!

25 - s;:ould ll t!'a t i:a u s ed them to get a higher reading when i

~ 17.

a f 1

i have been lower.

o

~

Yeah.

3 j i MR. HELLS: Follow aie? {

4 Yeah.

i 5

MR. WELLS: In other words, something that softens

6 1 the paint gives them a low reading ---

Yeah.

g MR. WELLS: --- isn't a concern to us bacause they've 9

got a recorded result that says that the adhesion isn't l 10 i

' encugh, but we fourd a reason where there were concerns ,

i 11 in other directions. That is to say that the results they i had that showed that the coatings was good may not have been 13 correct ---

14

,,  % ~ -Yeah.

5 15

. MR. WELLS: --- because of their method.

8 16 I believe that's it.

MR.'HAUTHNEY: Well, in -- I guess as you think back,

{

18 j and based on the status that we've given you today, '

19 i

do you feel that we've adequately addressed the concerns f; s

20 that you had?

I 21 Yes, I do.

I 22 }

I MR. HAUTHNEY: Okay. l i

'3 Sure do.

I ,

MR. HAUTHNEY: Do you have any additional tisues thit l l

25 l

yec'd like to bring up at this t ime .'

, i' ll

b I I;o t any other than those two I just 2

brought up.

3 t iR . HAUTul.'.7: Okay. Then have you held this rr.eeting  ;

I I

4 with us today freely and voluntarily? l Yes.

6 At that point we can go off the MR. HAUTHNEY:

7 record.

8 9 (End of proceedings.)

10 .

i 11 i

! l i

12 13 14 5 15 8 16 0 17 ,

e 5

l 18 ,

E l

19

= 1 I

20 j I

5 21

+

6

:l e

23 .j  :

L l n  :

24 h

2b 19.

t

l'

.- i l

I i

- CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS o

This is to certify that the attached proceedings 3

before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

i 4 I

' In the matter of: COMMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL INTER 7IEW

' f f

5 Date of Proceedings: NOVEMBER 14, 1984 li 6

Place of Proceedings:

7 were held as herein appears, an;l that this is the original 8

transcript for the file of the Commission.

9 10 ERENDA C. HEIN Certified Shorthand Reporter 11 f i

12 n n - ,

k8 s . .1  % w. .

13 Certified Shorthand Reporter' t

14 l

i 15

, 8 16 o  !

v 17 i a

! 5 l 18 1 1

p 19

l I

I, 20

=

21

! 22 t  :  ;

23 24 l e

I l 25 !,

o 31
a.

i

. . _ . . - _ - _ _ _ - . . _ _ .__ .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20206U500&oldid=3053110"