ML20206U500
| ML20206U500 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1984 |
| From: | NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19284C882 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8607100507 | |
| Download: ML20206U500 (20) | |
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 h.-
r' (%
Fort Worth, Texas 76102 707'lG, '?.,
,b-e! ". '..-l %.
b 'w/
(Metro) 429 3279
}1 w 4.,
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 4
i i
5 6
i i
i 7
l Thurs. lay, November 15, 1924 g
9 The interview was commenced at 4:00 p.m.
1 s
10 l
PRESENT:
MR. CHARLES HAUTHNEY l
U.
S.
Nuclear keyulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
~
13 MR. JOHN ZUDANS U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14 I!ashington, D.
C.
20555 i
i e
I 15 a
f1R. WILLIMI WILLS i
3 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8
16 Washington, D.
C.
20555
=
l I
8 1'
MR. CO:: RAD rJcCRACKE::
o.
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
17 station and to determine whether or not those issues have e
1 18 safety significance and require corrective actirn on the L*
rj part of the applicant or the Nuclear Regulator. Cc= mission.
19 s
[
20 One thing I'd like to dc at this 21 time if you could help me is -- you've prooably given tnis 2
j 22 information before, but for the purpose of this record if you could Just summarize your relationship tc Comanc u 23 l
Peak, your pc ried cf employment there, particul.:
26 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 I
5 MR. HAUTHI;EY:
Were you a i
6 then?
I i
i I
Yeah.
l 8
MR. HAUTHNEY:
Okay.
j I
t.-
10 i
MR. HAUTHSEY:
You have talked to the Technical 11 he ore, have you not, or is this the f
Review Teau pers-one.t i
i l
I in 1
j l
first time?
~
i 13
(
l I've talked to sc many people 14 MR. H A U T el: E i :
It's hard to remember?
All richt.
[l 15 t
Well, at this time I'd like to turn the presentation ccer 3
16 to :ir. Wells to talk about the issues that you've raised 1
l I'
e r
j i
and crovide you the feedback.
3 3
3 B a s i c a l l, V r,,o, d"p". h..-..,...-,,,,. ged 18 J
1
=
i qupg
. a s : 2.n.v.. e s tig i
y
- e.R. WELLS:
Okay.
t i
- -.-5 m 3.
+-
W i r M - m _ U N. 03*LD
'O i
'. ~
i l
"'N-w u _ u ". ".~ cd-ban. du-se1 f.. a nd'N.,,a-*Dunbe r.., of,, o ther eghn.
. -;, g.
-q..
l I
20
,,i,, g l
C
/
2 h
i i
21 l(
4 on ou* rovi w of those concer".s we alSo Cs.._s-de" l
a ll anc caseu l
I 22 j
ca. investigatica to include an overall evaluation of
-e
}
g6 DYid.fr..
coat:nga pro 9Cd5
't E ggg3nggg pg3k and a9 T,rO UL w C g,, g>. L{ ' " g i
24 yf:f.Um t.i o p.. W9 - {l a '.0,:-[ g u dM.h e". ;*a..*.b"*'* O'~ ~$'$ 3n t b7'...'" y 4 < 4. 4 i
A
,}
u i
[
a ' 'h,,, ~. -.,.,. w.,,
...... h i c h, w....
-.,... ~
3 - *g ; * * * *)
2
c,i :,.i nw mmr. anal abo.ve,,those w ere.rmiseu j
a 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
15 j
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
f 19 were concerned.
I I
The [ $ t.e U s a general one that the @ cd b,3 1Vy.]'g i
ThcoEIw;em[Awas nqLalwayamaintaEeN We tock wu r.wmemmt%%we 21 ngs mats 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 - -
. s _ 3h@d *)NF j ^ ~ ~
h; r m b- =, - 1 m n r r3 4-h o r
'L
^ -^ ~~~ ' -t7
^-
-dufing which'hid, 7wD[nYDibh"- A-, m_e c_
t t
thedraceability.' ' / So,s~br.f ace,, v2nrAmr+-nenE97 'S4jg
~
a
~~w 3
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 express the concern that you had in that area?
7 Uh-huh.
8 MR.'UELLS:
Okay.
The next one is the 10 concern that a Q'prt!ctor*-fod. the nicht.shigg, - '.
1 s
~.-c 9; -..,.. --
j.-
{. y-e r-11 3 Cable,L_i,nspect,o,,n :._ ny-t-cm ahn. Rngggg i
r
,e t
12 I
lever m rfnrmi._.z.rtq__, the. in se..., -..-er*4me-M--
me-res -
[Right.
14 MR. UELLS:
Okay.
That one w3 were not able to I i 15 2.--m.~,.,---.
' p.confdc _-.not_iceruconT.,2.rmat.Lantt: om. any JY_.n_e h confirm.
g
$ hat th11'ECIiaTi,Ndeis:N.e occurre<6 eld f rom the 16 i
F--
- - -., e-w r'- ""%
s O
7'rl
.-Nrs - -
17 v
f 9 ' 8-N.4 -!: -emM v,ih 4 a=h a gam _ p. 2@Qi,ry.,J,g e_L t* }T." 4-_ _ n =c f c.t-4 rgf1 J
s rf..,~1 s~4Nry#-< *me-,--nn swhtAw.1M[.pgLthgo "-lWhO\\
ni tn et
-..-..-..e~r~-
a 18 r
d
^
^
e e. pus. * --
r-,-w * : d, orine_+h.e h,A k ana i
F i
no I
Yeah.
21 MR. WELLS:
So that one was basically indetecoinacle.
I 22 i
We weren't able to confirm that.
l It was there, it was just very harc l
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 MR. WELLS:
Le third item, again, relates somewhat 4
to traceability of paint and we believe your concern was that hb(wkpliwash2iTd'WC_oNELAnAMAtilal
('~
5 rg;GP'Brhmm6assa;caae#Acie Tryssggld 6
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 in the traceability question, we looked at the possibility I
12 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 16 manufacturer or what should have been provided equivalent a
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 $$${$I$]
ietacted in~thcSnWn%3n, %1-1 thrc'd'6f %h'ein heb docume316dl.7 f
l d
i 5
I 20
_ h nconrormance report 3!"j l
I i
1 21
~
[6ne~'bpecific nonconf ormanc.; report which we believe i
3 on f
is the one you % re concerned with had to do with a
~~
1
.i f.
. L '*'*guete meuemyuh, _,, --.--
,,...__,,_,.q n}
il lidt"cl-Mf' ~c,,,,rbo-* inc 1.],. tnat._ had - emM.Lg"gi,g,.J tLigi,m.]
[
a I
(!
n 2i A..., b3.
a.
,J
,q o_
grease 25 Uh
'.uh.
S
l I
l l
I MR. WELLS:
And in the case of that nonconform.ance o
I l
report the original revision of the nonconformance said,
~
I 3
(Reading) "As a disposition to strain and use as i :, "
I 4
And there was a later revision to the nonconformance 5
report which said, (Reading) " Return material to the j
6 vendor."
Right.
I was concerned about the time 8
span ---
9 MR. WELLS:
Right.
in between.
11 MR. WELLS:.Right.
And we thought that was the trea, 1
12 i
the time span in between.
Basically the reason the 13 disposition was changed is because it was determined as 14 a practical matter on the job that the straining disposition 15 j
did not, in fact, work to remove these particles.
This 8
16 occurred in October of 1979 and I think we found rev zero 0
l
{
was issued on October 2nd and rev one was issued o..
g October 17th of that year.
Sowhatwedidwas.{E:h,hke 4
[alY.. o..f Th_7.. indp$
c$$dA[.$b)S3h E k b 3 N M.eF.anf.,f I
I 20
.F.oTeiibworsth. aryeaf and what we
- - ~ ~ ~
- icund was that th~e re #.
~ _ _ = -
f, gat The'$_ch$_b47,L tht$ha.td_MQ3cy,yp,,Id 7.@f f,
=
r on
.. e,. n n -.-
t_EE.cWE"hTI'ev.at.becruap9.1.ted.a ). There was no evidence a
i.
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
,., sra, n o n C o n f o r!".a n C e r e p o r t, -
~ _-^
-~-u-a-
3
--.c t.-
Okay.
5 MR. UELLS:
But because you had raised at that 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]
' ca s 5"_th'.e~rF' w-.-. -.-.~.-.ere p_a.rt.i,c.lc s/c;.a..n. d 'f" 14
... ~..
7 p,_.e.....n.one %
gment:-float not_ he_r-g _ _e_
-au _uu m_ a
_ _... f_o_y i
15 p
=-=.e..n_s t t..heWw.-_as "a'2 d._ol..cr',, ~
E_E. -_t. y " a n d. W. w. e..
p5k-M_ m'ffe9dfitWi'aYI$Eh85538.I@.e.~jm*u.s,v,.us:w=a.n,c.i,. e.z=%,n7 6
n n ed cI g.e,,,. _
.g
_po t..ca termine.t. hat ~ therc..". ka s. a.n.ma__c.e. cm. ted Ju s t1 r_ica,,,,r',i,c.n.f.
(
17
~3 w.y ym.~.
.ua 3
l 18
~...
m lu s..... ting'ItMQigditbriaKafi:i--,,..._ d] So I guess the bottom line e
y q
is that although the specific item 20 that you raised having to do with grease contamination 5
we did not confirm, but in looking at that area you had I
21 3
l
(
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
pointed us in r
.- < ~. :=2 l
,a.-
c....
(.....,, F.%WF 6Eh. _..
-- -.~~. --,p.ases o f_.ccatamina..,teil.;or unus,ua.Ltc. a tat' 23 i
rt er^c
- h. e.a ;, _.
. <a n..==.
,9
\\* *w=h i. c..h.w.a s '..u c e d..,,'E h o.....,...,..
- s.,.. -... a.de..qua te Ju.s ti f.i r
2I
.,.=: _
.wi ut.
DO a n '; S O u r CO.3
-*dQ d n */ $ C,l U C'l CE i.
l
4
]
1 your organization make audits of suppliers of the paint 2
I or is that ~.andled strictly out of "omanche Peak?
3 i
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 I
8 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 find that the subject of those audits was this problem i
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 i
r-o f
}
~~ that.
l MR. WELLS:
I don't recall seeing anything like
?
1, j
MR. WELLS:
Okay.
l 19 j
MR. WELLS:
I don't recal seeing l
g l j 20 the reports although I may have well looked a t that audit i.
r l
21 because we did look at audits that were performed of j
i i
i 22 carbo and, as I said, basically we didn't find that the l
i
)
23 aualting process addressed itself to this issue c: ' c. a t i
i 1
l 24
! i l
was contamina ted paint.
e I
l n) i Okay.
j J
11.
1 a
j u
)
a j
\\
\\
i l
1 MR. WELLS:
Fo basically that's -- thct's our sumnary i.
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
as our report to you on what it is tha.t we've seen.
l i
5 As I said, there will be certain actions that we are 6
going to require that the applicant perform in relation l
i 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
[
10
}
l 1
MR. HAUTHNEY:
I'd like to supplement the ans cr to 11 your question you just asked.
As I understood it -- well, I
12 that l
you're obviously fanilar with audits of suppliers 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 j
perform those audits through part 21.
That's the l
18 in the door.
f regulatory vehicle that allows them to get 1
i 19 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 uj M.?. :UDA!b Coulst I ask one cf jou two <
s'?
t0 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 Enderstand that we're not that would help just addressing specific issues but the L igger overall
{
4 i
5
- program, j
t MR. WELLS:
Would you like for me to talk about the l
6 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 l'
lo and we investigated the design basis accident qualification
~
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 I
reporting of results including a specific look at inspection '
I og
~
21 reports, noncon"ormance reports, and the change documentation!
I I
22 the DCA's.
We looked at the protective coatings exempt log 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 l
2 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 5
15 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 and f
that are worthy of corrective action and the extent l
=
i i
l 18 depth of that corrective action hasn't been completely
=
1 e
19 I E.
i formulated, but we will publish the results of our 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
appropriate amounts of corrective actions by Texas Uti ' ti s.'
e 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
this discussion on the issues that you've raised?
l' o'
I Ckay.
You said you did investiga:icns 4
on.the surface preparation?
5 MR. WELLS:
- Yes, kihat were your findings on that?
7 MR. WELLS: In what specific area?
There for a long period of time surface preparation was -- was called out for one to three 9
10 minute pro. file.
11 MR. HELLS:
Uh-huh.
l And that was all changed eventuall. to 13 different types of power tooling.
MR. WELLS:
Yeah, I know what you're talking about, 14 I
the power tooling question for repairs.
Basically we found 15 8
16 that that had not been handled properly.
We found tha:
there was inadequate rigorous requirements and inspec:;ons
(
3 17 i
I to make sure that the surface was adequately roughene:.
18 to l
?
~
19 i
make sure the paint would adhere.
l
=,
Did I hear you say " repairs"?
l l
MR. WELLS:
h'e ll, the power tool cleaning method was j
21 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 lia
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
it for overall surface preparation.
Not only for repairs, 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 gg.
WELLS:
Yeah, I'm considering that basically as a 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 l
j 16 concern where they were doing that?
1 I
8 1'
e MR. WELLS:
Yes, oh, we found a concern.
We found i
18 I
l
[
that the method they had used both the written procedures l
19 i
and the way they actually went about doing the power tcol e
5 I
20 I
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
MR. UELL6:
I should note just so that you're clear 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 unique to you, that you specifically brought out.
2 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 the -- about the paint, you know.
e i
18 MR. WELLS:
You're referring to the back F.it test 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
(
MR. WELLS:
We found problems with the way they I
i.
I 2
performed those tests.
'Yeca, cne of the main concerns of mine, we were -- at that time we were using different 4
I types of epoxy glues to put those aluminum dollys on the i
l 6
paint.
l
.7 MR. WELLS:
Uh-huh.
~And I found in a lot of cases the t
9 different types of epoxy glues that they were using, 10 af ter the test was pulling phenoline would be gu=y.
11 MR. WELLS:
Huh?
I i
And I felt like that certair types of
(
12
{
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 the test was really pulling substrate instead of painu.
15 8
16 MR. WELLS:
Uh-huh.
O And I was getting false tes:s on it.
18 l
~
r MR. WELLS:
Yeah, we didn't look at the specific 19 the concerns as to the kind of glues they used because 8
i 20 kind of thing you're describing there would, ir fact, if i
s 21 j
that kind of thing occurred, all it would cause is for l
=
i 22 lower reading.in terms of adhesic: value them to get a i
23 j
ce a problem rather than a higher reading and that wouldn't i
24 l
for us.
What would be a problem is if they die s ome th in';
p!
ll t!'a t i:a u s ed them to get a higher reading when
- s;:ould 25
~
17.
i
a f
1 i
have been lower.
o
~
Yeah.
3 j
MR. HELLS:
Follow aie?
{
i 4
Yeah.
i 5
MR. WELLS:
In other words, something that softens 6
1 the paint gives them a low reading ---
Yeah.
g isn't a concern to us bacause they've MR. WELLS:
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 and based on the status that we've given you today, j
s do you feel that we've adequately addressed the concerns f;
i 19 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 MR. HAUTHNEY:
At that point we can go off the 7
record.
8 9
(End of proceedings.)
10 11 i
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
I 4
In the matter of:
COMMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL INTER 7IEW f
f Date of Proceedings:
NOVEMBER 14, 1984 l
5 i
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
. 1 w.
k8 s 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter' 14 t
l i
15 8
16 o
17 i
v a
5 l
18 1
1 p
19 l
I I,
20
=
21 22 t
23 24 l
e I
l 25 o
- a.
31 i
. _ _