ML20207A571

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Transcript of 841115 Interview to Provide Feedback Re Technical Review Team Assessment of Concerns
ML20207A571
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 11/15/1984
From:
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
Shared Package
ML19284C882 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8607160029
Download: ML20207A571 (11)
v • d • e


Text

~~,

e ~.

$ Q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Technical Review Team Staff Date: November 15, 1984 Reporter: arenda c. sein, cSR t

C cS A &110 tatz1

- 'As(wisnd Lil' ling

! 303 West Tenth P. O. Box 177g f711 ,* p I Fort(Metro)

Worth, Texas 429-3f 79,j ' 76]ph(j pu, ** ;"^;,i*,'-.

8607160029 860624 C PDR FOIA l g)

CARDE85-59 PDR ..

t \

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8

2 TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM

' TECHNICAL INTERVIEW 4

5 i

6 7 , November 15, 1984 Thu 8

9 The interview was commenced at 7:30 p.m.

10 PRESENT:

' 11 MR. CHARLES HAUTHNEY U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2

Washington, D. C. 20555 l .

13 MR. WILLI,AM WELLS U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g4 Washington, D. C. 20555

,e a

j 15 MR. CONRAD McCRACKEN j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16

" 17 MR. W. CARL JORDAN l

i i =

Attorney at Law

l. 18 Vinson & Elkins

! r First City Tower l

gg Houston, Texas 77002 1 '

l 20 a 21 l

22 l

23 24 25 2.

i

?

-n I g 1

1

'P R O C E E D INGS I

I i 2 MR. HAUTHNEY: This is an interview of 3

for the purpose of providing feedback regarding the 4

Technical Review Team's assessment of certain concerns 5 raised about the Comanche Peak facility. The location of 6

this interview is -

7 and the date is November 15, 1984 8

and the time is 19:33 central standard time.

Present at this interview are myself, Mr. Charles I

10 Hauthney, representing the Technical Review Team, Mr.

11 Conrad McCracken from the head of thc Coatings Group for 12 the Technical Review Team, Mr. William Wells, who's on the Coatings Group, and his counsel.

MR. JORDAN: Carl Jordan.

15

'MR. HAUTHNEY: Carl Jordan.

Okay. As agreed prior to the meeting, this meeting 17 is being transcribed.

18 Let ne just briefly describe and remind you of what 19 the mission of the Technical Review Team has been. It's 20 been to examine concerns or issues raised about the 21 design and construction of the Comanche Peak station and 22 to determine the merits of those concerns and ultimat.ely 23 their safety significance and whether any corrective action' s 24 been required. So that's been our basic charter.

25 One of the things that will be helpful to me is if 3.

l

l  !

  • i  !

l l l

Peak, ,

I you could briefly clarify your status at Comanche  !

1 I

what your employment conditions have been and what jobs 1 2 s

\

l 3 and qualifications you've had there.

l 4

5 6

7 And at Comanche Peak?

8 MR. HAUTHNEY:

9 Uh-huh.

Charlie, excuse me for a second. I meant 10 MR. JORDAN:

I 11 to ask you just before we got started.

I 12 MR. HAUTHNEY:

Should we go off the record?

i No, huh-uh. Since this is being 13 MR. JORDAN:

j 14 transcribed, I assume there's not going to be is that 15 l 5 I -

1 2 right?

MR. HAUTHNEY:

m I

!E

MR. JORDAN: All right.

I E 20 MR. HAUTHNEY:

One other thing that would help is if E

21 you would summarize any prior contacts you've had with our i

Do you remember times

!C 2 NRC Technical Review Team personnel.

~~'

and dates?

No, sir. Times and dates I absolutely l

i

S

> don't remember.

I 4.

1 MR. HAUTHNEY: Okay. At this point then I,'d like to i

2 turn over the presentation to Mr. Wells.

Okay.

4 MR. WELLS: Okay. Our team looked at the coatings and 5

paints area at Comanche Peak and we were investigating 6

specific concerns that were raised by individuals or that 7

arose as a result of the discussions with various 8

individuals and based on our investigations of those 9

concerns we also expanded our investigation and made an 10 evaluation of the overall coatings program at Comanche 11 Peak.

12 We have found certain substantive additional 13 deficiencies in the coatings area in addition to those 14 which were raise 1 by these specific concerns. The 5 15 g applicant and the NRC staff are conducting a thorough

=

8 16

  • reevaluation of the coatings overall and we anticipate that O

17 the results of our reevaluation will be published some time

{

! 18 in January of '85 in a supplemental safety evaluation g

p 19 g report.

! A)
  • And I guess a little further to clarify what our

,: 21

investigation consisted of, we -- we looked at seven major I 22
areas of the coatings program. They were areas t. hat were 23 kind of logical divisions of the overall coatinga orogran 24 as well as areas that were concerned with various specific 25 issues of concern that had been raised. The areas that i

5.

y

)

i we looked at were the back fit test program, the design i 2 basis accident qualification of the coatings materials. l 3

We looked at traceability of materials.

Uh-huh.

MR. WELLS: We looked at procedures in relation tc 6

coatings, not just written procedures but also the actual

! 7 i

methods that were employed for doing coating related 8

activities on site. We looked at reports and records of 9

work and deficiencies basically involving a look at 10 inspection reports, noncon .ormance reports , and (lesigns 11' change authorizations. We evaluated the subject of the 12 l coating exempt log ,which I think you know what that is.

Uh-huh, sure.

MR. HELLS: That's the record that's kept of non-

< _a g 15 I

j qualified coatings and we looked at the. general area of 8 16 training for craft personnel, supervisory personnel, and 17 l{0 inspection personnel.

Uh-huh.

19 ij MR. WELLS
I guess the reason we're talking '

f 20

f specifically to you is that you were involved in discussions 21

,i earlier with our team on a specific issue and we wanted you i I 22

]f to know where our investigation has led in regards to that 23 specific issue.

All right.

MR. WELLS: And that item according to our records i

6.

i

I had to do with an area outside of the skimmer pump room t

2 . .

In unit one.

Uh-huh.

4

,. . n . a. . . - _ , _ - -  ; ._.x::~.y,z ~.7- .wy t h ra.Tx h --- a y - - + 4 h p e q 1 s b .y ..UherE_there. ...,.,..,.,,,,,. _j r ...

5 m- - .m - s ., , .; C st +; r rJ.- 5= T' <'

d<e=re - nt/e corr +hai suu b cnn e L ,u Uh-huh.

i 7 MR. WELLS: All right. And the seal coat was then 8

painted with those stains on it.

Uh-huh.

4 10 MR. WELLS: The concern was that the stains were going 11 to be detrimental to the performance of the coating and that i 12 J the top coat would not properly adhere to the stains.

Uh-huh.

i MR. WELLS: Basically what we found is that that Ja

.i 15 Ii concern was substantiated in that those stains, in fact, e

-l 8 16

  • O existed and we confirmed that those stains existed; u 17 however, l{
  • 18 h
  • 19 ih

! 20

==mmiem===amsuur -

lf MR. WELLS: There are other areas where that is a I

problem. So in one sens.? that concern has pointed us 24 further along that same trail.

Uh-huh.

7.

I

l I

MR. WELLS: But in that particular area we confirmed ,

' )

2 these stains did exist but our evaluation was that they 3 >

were not detrimental.

4 Uh-huh. l I

5 And that's basically where we wound up MR. WELLS: i I

6 There are going to be certain corrective  !

with that item.

i 7

actions required by the owners of Comanche Peak because of  :

I I

8 the evaluations that we made of the coatings program 9 It has not been determined precisely what those j overall.

10 actions are going to be, that is still under discussion. . ,

11 So we're not at liberty to discuss that with you exccpt 12 that there will be some actions taken as a result of our i

i 13 investigation and I guess basically that's it. We wanted 14 to confirm that we were, in fact, looking at the correct A

j 15 area and to let you know what we had found.

l 2 MR. IIAUTHNEY: Well, I guess at this point I need to 2

18 emphasize a couple of things that were made earlier. We g

A 5

19 intend by our schedule to publish the results of our 20 evaluation in the coatings area in a supplemental safety E

21 evaluation report that should be issued in January of '35.

! 2 2 This and the other concerns would be described in that 23 Where appropriate, when the decision's particular report.  ;

been made, we'll request that corrective action be taken 25 by the applicant, Texas Utilities Generating Company.

S.

l l

l 1

At this point I'd like to ask you if you have anything

\

2 l further to add to our discussion of this issue? '

On t':is particular issue --- ,

'- l 4

MR. IIAUTHNEY : Yes.

I

--- here, the liner plate was scrubbed 6

several times before we were allowed to paint them by the 7

QC personnel and we ended up on that particular case with

! their supervision down there and ended up with some 9

engineers to look at the liner plate there also before it was allowed for us to paint it. So at the time it was

(

l 11 -

painted we feel as though I'm sure we have everybody's  ;

i 12 blessing that indeed those stains were indeed not I

i

'13 l detrimental to further coatings.

14 MR. IIAUTHNEY: Well, do you feel based on the feedback ig 15 that you've gotten that we've adequately addressed this j 16 issue?

O Sounds as though, uh-huh.

, 18 MR. HAUTHNEY: Okay. Do you have any additional

{

i 19

concerns or issues you want to bring up at this time?

I I I can't think of anything, huh-uh.

21
MR. HAUTbNEY
IIave you attended this meeting and l 22
discussed this item with us freely and voluntarily?

You bet.

24 MR. IIAUTHNEY: Well, then, if that's the case that 25 concludes this meeting and I'm ready to go off the record 9.

l

__ _ _L

i

. I I and we will send you a copy of the transcript if you s

i 2

desire. We'll need your address.

3 4 (End of proceedings.)

5 6

7 8

9 10

. 11 '

i 6

13 i l

14 a 15 G

l 16 e

17 2

3 18 i

4 .

i 19 I

\

t

{ i e I i 20 I

21  :

I 22 :: a

t i

23 l l

24 I

.j i 25 cl I

b 10.

n 1

h it ,

ll l

1 CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS .

  • 2 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 3

before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 l In the matter of: COMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL INTERVH.W l

5 NOVEMBER 15, 1984 Date of Proceedings: l 6

Place of Proceedings:

W ,

7

were held as herein appears, and that this is the original l 8

transcript for the file of the Commission. j 9

BRENDA C. IlEIN Certified Shorthand Reportar I g

12 s.O.'

/ . : m . .L". $. lJ...~

Certified Shorthand Reporter  !

14 l

5 15 j e

] 16 0 17

? I 3

l 18 r

g 19 i, E

=

I 20 t

l .

' ~

21 3

22 l,

l 23 l

24 25

' 11.

l

.j,g1o;; i I . . . . __. _

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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20207A571&oldid=3052696"