ML20099D325

Forwards Documents Identified in Items 1 Through 11 & Document Identified in Item 15,per ASLB 841116 Memo Re Lipinsky Privileges.Aslb Memo Exempted Items 12,13 & 14 from Discovery.Related Correspondence

ML20099D325
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/17/1984
From:	Watkins M BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Bloch P, Grossman H, Jordan W Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20099D326	List: ML20099D325 ML20099D338
References
CON-#484-183 OL-2, NUDOCS 8411200317
Download: ML20099D325 (23)

Text

l

'~

m+

~ ~

.,- a +

n .  ! '

,l!;  ; +

g . ;p. -

.. to , ,

f, (RELATED COR'RESI'ONDENCE -

m m- _ w

.;.w .

^

'w~a.. ,

A  : Law OrriccNb X ,

N 00CXETED '

. . ,. .m .. .~. '

' ^ ' > USuRC . .,:

ICISHOP, LISERMANAOOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS : . .

EJ "

/g'2OO SEVENTEENTH hTRECT, N.W. _ ,, ., ,, . , ..

. IN' N EW YORK ~ >

GA ,

wAghlNGTON, D C.2OO36 4 5 bhY } h j hhW$[40P, USERMAN & CodK -

m ,

7

~

• ., l7(2O2) 857-9800,: ' - , \ 'sess AvCNUE Or,THE AMERICAS

}ig - NEW YORM,NEW YORM 100365

- ' TELEX 440574 INTLAW Ul ~"P '

(2 2) 704-CiOO

, , }f, TELEX 232?S7 ;pc r "-

.. 4 >

.;x s ,

d

• t .' WRITEWS DIRECT DIAL ..  !

November.-17h 19841 , (,0 ) .

u o

t -: n- N

.n.'

9 .j i

' ' ~

,e' " Peter B. ' Blodi,1Esq. . Dr. Walter;H.JJordan1 AtomicfSafety,land Licensing 1 .881: West Outer Drive.

.OakiRidge,' Tennessee:

- _ Board . 37830i

~

LU.S.1 Nuclear-Regulatory

' ' ,~_

Commission '

W  ; Washington,LD.C; i2055'5-

. .p

, . Herbert'Grossman/ Esq.' .

~

! Atomic . Safety and Licensing,

. Board

~

'U.S.-NucleariRegulatory;

' Commission:

' Y Washington, D.C.: 120555

'< 'Re: . Texas ~ Utilities Electric Company,tet~al'.

~ (Comanche PeakiSteam Electric Stat En 7 s

Units l'and 2),JDocket.Nos. 50-445-2,-

50-446-2 Gentlemen:

Pursuant to the-Board's Memorandum (Lipinsky privileges) of-November.16, we enclose copies of the-documents identified-

~in. items:1Ethrough 11, and the document-identified in item 15. '

The Board's_ Memorandum exempted items 12, 13 and 14 from Ldiscovery.-

On Friday evening,-' November 16, the Board's Chairman .

auth'orized. deletion =of one sentence from item 8 and two

sentences ~in item 15.- Thesecentries are described in

? Applicants.' letter.to'the Board' dated November (16, 1984. t espectfully submitted, 1 y

-McNeill Watkins.II J l Counsel for Applicants Enclosures.

m g

cc

) .(w/ enc: .serviceilist)J .

1. . c A

p' ooc, o,

^

.=

g)3 ww- -+ . ~ + , . , .

.=-

m pm. _ wn .. - w, .

x r -

1

~

AF.

fe, < M Q ' a ri; c,,;g - . , s : b '-  ;

3, ..3 ?!' $ . M:; i r N $L a s

,U"

~

^ '

+

> > s - ,

@Es

,>f..

., . @soMdco erg , _ , _

& y . s - - '

• p3 #' 6E G EVolS E & :L!!? E RMAN : . . . -

ec hwav 3p _ J f Sflg, c ,.4ya,j.g g ,.,g g,,_,,g -

o '

new ven6 neu sopa ioco.

' ~' #'***'*"**

S ';AI, . ~ .w . vbb.eds, s bu,'o c. co'oss '-

p yc7  ;;g,,j,;g,,,, s - 4

, ,r 1

< s ,

r

>.,. .. e m sr c c,,

,g,.,"4

.,4

a e

,,,,,,,,e ,,yg,m o ,o ,c.,3

' ~ ' '

S- i . -

~lucas.o sooo.

~ ^

[ #

, ' 'yL , ,

A" 1

3 .

. sj. "

,.y '

s < ,

u _ -

=

m . .

_ % T . &' '

December

_3,219831 - -

x _

~

+

i -

l Z z A

( .

.. ,',. ..]. . .. . O '

~

f r '

OVERNIGHT-DELIVERYJ .

, -: -  ; a. -

P

, J '..

LMr'.; Joseph (Lipinskyi' f N L .

M'

, q i

~

jOliver:B. Cannoni C Son',: zinc. '

i K5600:WoodlandEAvenue- .. . . ,

, . Philadelphia', fPenn'sylvanid : . .1914 3. P, s.

7

Dear Joe:

? ,

.Attaclied for:your~informationk khei draft,_une'dited ~

j -

1

- ~Q_and?Atthat.Lyou'andrIlprepared[onlNovember 22. 'I haveenot-E _ .hadia;chanceitoJedit;it.yet.;7Furthgrflyoutand,I'will'have Lt'o' prepare.a'dditional" testimony =as 7 anTintroductio'n' discuss--

t",

ing the circumstancesisurrounding'yonr/vis'it;to'the'. site and. -

so . forth.- We-need.to do that before ou'r' meeting next

~

Wednesday with LHawk'insein-Chicago.

I think' it' would .be , wise. if you and . I meet _ at 4 : 00. p.m.

on Wednesday'.in.th'e lobbyLof.the O' Hare Hilton. This would-give.us'an hour to talk before we meet with Hawkin's. If you need to talk.Io me, you can'rcach me throt gh my secretary,

Ela in e' ' Reap, at '(202) 657-9818.- I will be out.of the city

Mondayfthrough Wedn'esday,

and will b

,from1 Seattle on. Wednesday afternoon.p flying'Jinto' Chicago-

-Sincerely, Nicholas S. Reynolds 3

+ i;NSR/er?

Attachment-Y "

J 'f 1

~

J.

• n -

c.-  :-

4: .

> w;y . ' '

y_ - .- -w .

.#~,

. x_. _ _ _4, _,.,_ .~

r&. r _i.: % 2? L .. . .__._

[ '_

y_

- m- . -_.- -- - - - -

ice 1 a- .

I 3 . [

M a

~A.- ' Material 2 Storage' - -

p  %~, , e e

f Q. : ~Mr.~Lipinsky,1regardingJyour statement.that " Comanche: N

' ~ Phak has problems linc areas of(material.storasa,? 3p

^ ' '

e_. .

describe :the- problems with which you were . coni:2rned.

A.'  ;(Lipinsky)1When-I visitedJthe Comanche Peak site,-I was -

~

lookingLfor.certain thingsLthat would indicatesto me

, good-material (storage practices.- .I: looked.for.such

. things asistatus-indicator. tags, reject areas,'-and' hold.

areas. Reject areas are~ locations lwhere paint thatihas.

~

been; rejected-is stored.

Hold areas-are locations}where

^ ~

material:that.cannot-be'used is-stored. I saw-no indication'of the use of. tags and I.'saw no reject areas or hold areas. Further, regarding the control of-paint

. materialLir. general, I saw no system for tracking for controllof mixed material.

- Q. Does.the fact that you did not see these items-personally establish that-the methods and procedures at Cemanche Peak are inadequate to accomplish the objectives?

-A. (Lipinsky) No, I am not saying that. What I am saying y

is that I did not see these items. They may be there, or: Comanche Peak may have another way of implementing -

. thece practices.- For example, I understand that they have'a. traveller system that provides control for mixed

. paint-materials.

e

$.,mp y . $., e.4=-- m k Ww + smew._4b.m er ,9-

_.ae-eoe s.%g.w s.gy.msm * =@ s*sy- 4--w.-,w y. --4g

._ ,; ': s '

~ m.. e.,geww*

[._ -

._ ; ~ . h ._

8W _q , wu

- ;y w

, x ,v mn

. y' - y. - -

, y '

FM pp., _

-W ,

~

'y# , ',

c":

J

)

~

~-

ph

• s T 1

J ,

1

, s ; 2 - _1 ,

y- .m , ,

< *'f', 1

I

- V QL

• JMr.jNorrisl,jare(yo~urfamiliar -

with thel traveller. system' --

'3 w

a -

~

[ 'y  : employedI a'tfComanchs ? Peak [for Ftheicontrol]of ..mixe(

.paintimatsrial?'. ' .4 .

~

I_s.J

.. ~ x

.a ,

/

/4: .

s i ':: A1 (('Norris )[Yes~. : WhildiIlwas examining.;afpaintccontain'er i

' J [insiddithe (con'tainment?:fI' noticed {thati-itihsdi:as formi q.

iscotEhltapedIlfto Lit" Yhich7 indicated when thi material- was -

niixed, batchi numberc btype %fl material, : etc. LInjshort,;

~, , . . .'?!

LallEofJtherinformationlyoutwouldJexpect:per ANSI l'084P.*

'. a. ,

l LQh ~Mr.:Lipinsky,$doesjthe~trav$11sr'systemEt hat'Mr.?Norris a Ldescrib s-a'dequately)substitutesforJthelstatusiindi '

~

Jcator. tags 1thathyougcxpected:to see? .

4 .

JA. (Lip'insky) ' Ye s . . This' method.of1 tracing' mixed' material-is adequate din omy - jud'gmerit. - IIadI known' of ~ this tiravel.ler;

. system before I. wrote my-August 8 memorandum, ILwould have;

~

1 had no - basis to criticize the method of handling-'of mixed materials. .

Q. 'Are.you familiar'with Mr. X's testimony i regarding the procedures at Comanche Peak for handling reject'e'd' paint or-where paint is. isolated from use?

A. (Lipi n' sky) Yes. I read ?fr. X's testimony.

InLview of that testimony, do you continue to believe

~

--;. -~Q.

that'there are problems at Comanche Peak regarding.the i

absence'of, reject areas and hold areas? .

g ;A.  :(Lipinsky) No. The. description in Mr. X's testimony of--

p f

_, . 7 l

ms - ._

L; _ _ .

" -~ ~~~~~~d ~?

~ ~~~l ,

- x y- , . .

,: ~

[f -

~

' 3 ': - J 1

andLpaintiof iddoterminate quality appearsfadsquate in

[;f

- my judgment. ?Again,;had I-been familiar.with these.

9 .

k'.

procedures TIfwould noti.have-criticized thesefaspects.

. of material;storageEin my; August 8Jmemorandum.

. x

- Q.

ThenEin' sum',cdoiyou remain 3 critical of:the. Comanche

Peak? procedures. !orf materialL storage?. .

'(LipinskY) No.- 'Bashd'onimy understanding of.$he Comanche"

~

A.

~-

- Peak program for materialDstorag,el, I have no criticisms ~.

B. Workmanship.

Q. Mr.,Lipinsky,-what are the-specific areas of. workmanship that you believed raised problems at comanche Peak?

p A. - (Lipinsky) - First, I sawLindications reflecting on-the

_ quality of paint application'such as sags and runs.'in ,

~

applied paint. I should say, however, that what I saw was;really no different from what I have:seen at most other job sites involving construction of nuclear pcwer plants.. Sags and runs are typically encounterad in cured films. They may be acceptable or unacceptable ~,

depending on the procedural / specification re'quirements.

They-are routinely.: inspected by QC inspectors for p requirements, and if rejected, compliance with~these would necessitate either rework or a disposition by engineering as acceptable. .

1 k

+= , M- r ,..y ,

7'. 7 . -,

m, .

3 - -

+ :Q..

1:ere.' there z any areas ofL work: qualifiedhissues 'that ~

m

.formedithe.basishfor youristatement-1nithe-August 81

~

" memorandum?-

1A.';

((Lipinsky) : No, - my memorandum on' this ' point was" base'd on my' observation of cagsiand1 runs'in curedLapplied paint.

.Q.

Are, there other issues < that lead sto; your - criticism cif  :

{: workmansh'ip.overall? -

-A. (Lipinsky)

Yes, I':was concerned about the qualification 3

and indoctrination' of craft in; the painting'. areas. 'I;lwas:

-led 1to1 believe'.that there was.no-practical testing'of skills-during the training'processtfor painters. This was based'on conversations'I had with a'few individu , ..

However, I understand that the training andlindoctrinati on

~ .

-. program a't the sitie'does-include't..e. actual applica' tion of paint;Sy the craft; as a test for competence.

fact,

'Given that my concern regarding this aspect is' satisfied -

I also was concerned that there was no monitoring.

by QC of.the qua'lification process for craft. I now understand that QC conducts a visual examination of te results of the film applied by the craft during the-qualification and indoctrination program.- I think that

/L this inp'ut by QC is important because it assures that

.the applicator '

can apply the-film in a manner that would

. meet, quality requirements. .

20..

What-is the basis for your understanding er fl ected in your-previous' answer that painters are qualified by

~

e Q ,. +

."'9

__,,..n

~ ,,4 -n.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ew . . ,4m o.-w -= ' " '

, ~

g 3.' 'A

,. y , , c --

y -

v';.' " V TT *

' . ; ,- 3 . *J -

o

" h g_- -

' - 4

. x.

.,5.

testiand' that[QC con ~ ducts l visual inspectionLof those-e- x ' '- l test iresults'? .

DA'. : (Lipinsky) ILobserved paintersiundergoing suchstost'ing-;

1when I.'was:on.! sit'e onHAugust19 10. My understanding "regardingftheTvisual QCLinspection:is basedcupon'my.

-reviewLof theftestimony ,of,MrL X., -

. . C .- - ~ ANSI Requirem'ents-

--Q. Mr.-Lipin~ sky,; please' describe your concerns.regarding.

= compliancewith ANSI requirements.at: Comanche Peak.. -

A. [(Lipinsky) The -' areas on~ wh'ich LI focused - were painter -

. . qualification . forms ~and the adequacy _ of daily in's pection:

f reports. In order to' meet-ANSI standards, the program must ~ assure that the pertinent data is recorded regarding both' painter qualifications and daily inspections. I was concerned basu upon my -conversations with a few individuals that there were Mot provisions for recording all pertinent information. 'I do not recall specifically what documenta-tion'there was for my concern, but just that I was left with the. impression that the documentation was not

- completely adequate. Bear in mind that my visit to the Comanche Peak site was very short, 2nd that this prevented -

~

- me from conducting any in-depth ~ review of their program.

^

Forf exunple, I did.not pursue this-specific concern due

~

, to - the - short duration of my site visit.

e a w WM L +

8 - D" "

'Y-

g, .

y-

.# g- -

.s >

, . ,  : m -

_;' g

_ ;

>a q-, , rN 3 76 z

i

~

• Q'.- - . '

. ~

m .

~ '"

J , - Q.

lDo?;pou?havetanylreasonjnowlto be confident 4 that!I the gg o ,

2ANSIJbequirements areibeingimetJin-thesefareas?att ~

~

• ~

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

c-1CcmancheiPea Q o

'y

_ ' 73, ('Lipin' sky)hYes.; fA's; a.. resultiofifurt'hsr ! discussio'ns SthatkIshadt withipersohnelfont thetproject site, <I--believe K.x .

~

[, _ ;thatLau'ditsrof.sufficieht$depti and scope T 5wou'ldihave

. . , n -, ,

. uncove' red ( problems;withi compliancelwith ; ANSI <; standards

~~ifisuch problems esisted. ' My 'understan' dingE:is Jthat '

ethere have;been:manycaudits.withLno s'ign'ificant$ findings?

relating? oithese t matters.v

. Q. Mr. Norris.,do:you havelany3 concerns"regardirg; compliance; e iby:theicomanche. Peak project with: ANSI requirements?.-

h .

- A. r (Norris) No.- Based on;my: entry interview.w'ith Mr. c Tolson :.and .subsequ'ent m'eet.ings -with. Tolson,: 'Merritt- and-4-

others connected-.with the construction of Comanche' Peak, I have a high degree of confidence that the work is

'being done-in'accordance with the standards.< There may be difficulties at Comanche. Peak simi-lar to those;being experienced at most nuclear projects under construction

!" in 1983, but I am confidenti that they are being adequately

. addressed.

I b

!=

!- D. Coating' Integrity (Q. Mr. Lipinsky, please describe your specific concern regarding coating integrity.

e r-

...,~ ~

' . t y . ww=ipem mee,-e*%*- e 9* + M EhM We w** 4 8*WM

• M*Ws4 * , " ' -7 x >

_ _ _ "__".*"*T*N- , c ' (_ ^

= --

gym y' y

- m = -

~'

y '

4 e,. z {e

.- - : 7? - - "'+

Qii,; .

_ c ,

t "N. .

)

fA1 s.y  ; ~

((Lipinsky) Based on"myj ob' serv _ations lof:: ngthe' p .

0# - off previouslyl applied 1ziiic3 paint.. (CAtll) , J I!was . .

cerned

" con Ny  % _[ ithatlan;excessivefamountlofspowe s

r ; sanding';was-lbeing L j- ,

'perfhrmedthat"could. result.inpooraad'hesio'n

. coat. .

e top

~

Ildidl not istudy. the' ~specificatioris 'forc the paint.

Th'isiwasisimply r.

myLobservation/ based'up~one pas

. and what IlsawLin' the vfield- .

g - -

THowever,Lbased on subsequent:

, .g

)

cconversations', ILunderstand#

1. 7, ,ls :r that. Comanche-Peak'.has a' letter';

y , 4 Efrom the coa'tingc manufacturer addressing.,this. further,-

p ,p , .

I have 3 reviewed ithel testimonyho'f e- Y and' 7 .

based upon th at ._ te stimony, Sv ., .this: issue has been raised ~with the w - H. -

' ' #l

=anufacturer and: adequately! addressed Q.

a

.:Does -the iss' ue Din your : August L8 memorandum garding re m ,

Phenoline~305 involve the same circumsta -

nces as the (CXill matter.oiscussed ab ove? .

- A .-

(Lipinsky) Yes.

My~ concern with Phenoline 305 was that there was little or no surface preparation other than . .

, g s'olvent coat. Again, wiping' performed before the application of I now understand that this issue has been-discussed and resolved with the rer.manufactuThis

.atter is addressed in the testimony of.Mr. X.

Y. -

i E.

Morale Problems

-Q.

Mr.-Lipinsky, please. describe your:understandi ng of

-morale problems at Co manche Peak.

Y I a e

4,,.

ch.. - . . , ..Y?"' .~ .?v. .

,g.-+-***""

e L-#

.....A.A-e# - -

• _ _, _ ,_' e...-. ~ ~~*~ ~ ~~

[; * * ' ~

,.3 .

__mx. . - . . _ .

&= *~

x w - ,

m w w 4-:ltn , , c n  ; aN

" ~ *. ' ' -

~

(

- .a , ,

-=.

~

.TA.% )(Lipinsky)/The rbasis forf:hy) concern .that'moraleiproblems:-

j e

.existediat Comanche P$ak w'as:'myfdiscussion o with several.

' L

. L .

QCLinspector'sn JManagement atitheJsit'e acknowledged (that t . .+ .

s^ . Ethelmoralejwas?notfhigh,fandEstated!that they-were

~

g .t taking L s teps .j toir ectifyf t-he ? matte r. - I;have no~ basis-Jfor ~ concluding'. thatl the: morale l attitude'_ at[i.h'e. site -

~

was:detrimentalfto1 quality.

?I believeithat..the:most.

w_ v.

important. thing is.that management'is aware-.of.itLand-

i. ,

is'taking'~ steps /totrectify it.

(

1 F.- L Observation's/ Opinions

.- Q . . Mr..Lipinsky, what w'as the basisLfor youristatement'

-drawing a parallel between. Comanche Peak an'd Zimmer "to some e'xtent.?"

A. -(Lipinsky) Eased: on my : initial impression, as reflected.

-in.my August-8 memorandum,.I felt that' Comanche Peak might be.develeping into a Zi:.a or -type sit':ation, that-is perhaps requiring the rework of coating. Again, based on J information and conversations I have had'with site

personnel: subsequent to my August 8 memorandum, I ,

Cased upon my

~

believe that'my conclusion was in error.

k understanding now of the program and procedures.in-place

.at_ Comanche Peak,1 I believe that there is no parallel

~

between Comanche Peak and Zimmer.

^

p Q._ Mr. Norris, do you'see any-parallel betwcen Comanche Peak and Zimmer inLthe paint. arena?-

, : 4-

.LJ ,

n ,Qa y.---W: y 2 .-& . w . y.J . _ . '_ p ._ . , _ ,

~. ~. .

ly y ,

W n -;9 --

y? ,

9 _

F k 4 g

l-(pocris ) ? Notl 'at t aill! -I believeVthatithe ; paint': program at

~

,  ; A . :- -

/ 9

- Comanche PeakL i's 'in> accordanc'e with510 IC. F. R.. Part ' 50, Appendix B. The: paint.programLat Zimme r ..wa si no t .

~

> e lO;- fir.; Lipinsky,1.whatlis the basis: for: your opi'nion"in the -

9

. Aug0st -8 J memorandum: tha't management .at: Comanche Peak was.! disinterested 1iniquality-and.actuallyEattempted to-y > Ldiscourage..effortsito report qualitylproblems?:

,, . r 3A.- (Lipinsky) Thei answeri to: that . question is .in :two parts.: 7 First, inimy:brief' discussion with Mr. Tolson,.-I .

attempted te! express my-concernsfregarding'certain quality matters,.but'he understood'my concerns to. relate to licensing' questions. He-stated.that he was not-concerned with licensing' questions, but my impression _

was that.he was. expressing disinterest in quality. matters.-

I was frankly very surprised.by his answer (as I interpreted

~

it at that' time), but did'not pursue it with him then.

Subsequent discussions.with Tolson have convinced me that'

'he'is in fact" sincere and concerned about the overall quality of the project.

With regard to1my original observation that manage-ment-at Ccmanche Peak attempted to discourage efforts to report quality problems, the bases for this were the

' ~

(rather-than non-conformance reports) w fact-that inspection reports /are used. routinely for paint inspections and the fact that OC was not participating-in applicator qI2alification, on-the first point, I was j

1

1. =

l . $', ,,

h. V , ' ' " -- ~ ) r~,e %c c 7" yDW [? [ ' *'-d* *',-9*'

't '

+= *h . a*~~~-' ~

---*g * , , ,. ,,,y,wo .,4.u g.. .,

fIdD it- M i '

v. -- .- -- -= -

t.: .

- do y_ _

\ +

.]

, c x- s

.- .sq

lhdIhkbelieve4y. af few fin'spectors withiwhom c HI spoke; '

,(that:bsdid'notLaequatelyzdocument(non-conformingi condh.tions . VI did not revi~ew thefspecific.1. procedure

, l for issuing irs . to verify; the L inspectors ' 1 claims e g

. . . . .. e

.__lMcwever,:basedy.upon myeunderstanding of:the procedures W .

employed:at:ComanchePeak-inlthe"use of? irs--toLdocument

~

, .non--conforming conditions, I-;now have concluded that

. this approachLis acceptabletfrom a qualitylassurance

- s tandpoin t. .

Th'e. basis for my-understanding-is the=

r Ttestimony.offMr. X.

-Regarding.my.originalcimpression'that QC was not involved in'the inspection-.of test resultsEfor J

t 9 -..

applicator'. qualification,'as noted earlier:in thi's'.

testimony,1I_now understand'that QC in fact does visually'. inspect these test results, and that : satisfies my concern in this area.

Q. M1at is ycur conclusion today with regard to the attitude of management at Comanche Peak regarding-quality

.in~ general'and:the reporting of non-conforming-conditions ~

specifically.

A. (Lipinsky) Subsequent to my- August 8 memorandum and based E on conversations with site management, site management

.is'insfact concerned-and interested in maintaining quality n

t ip the project, and management encourages the reporting Lof;non-confoming conditions or any other quality concern.

~

9

- e '-

en e_G 4". ~ . M*6M # "**~"~"*4T #"'"*'" ^ ' " * ** - " ' ' ' - '

tm .x. . q. .; . _

7. ; g- ,

=s o , ,

y ,- , -

~ .y m -

_ m t 1.L _ .

, . a: '

y .

% .Q.

What[is the .b' asis fo r1your; statement;that rBrown & soot..

f ' ~

1~ #

<~"'~ -

. 'is i h'ostil'e . to t anf au'dit andi that n'o-action '.would be taken -

-~

'by Brown"&LRoot even.if! problems were detectedfin an au'dit??

c (Lipinsky) FirstfI( would 511ke to ' cc.rrect. myself where

A.J IEreferred~torBrown.&'LRoot.

lI,should:haveLreferred to.. '

u

.TUGCd. During!thehexit meeting on July'28land subsequent' meetings.onjsite,LMr.1Tolson repeatedly stated an.

' audit;by;myself would;be" redundant..

Q.- fhowfdo:you feel about'itntoday?

A. '(Lipinsky)?As recently asiNovember 10, 1983,fMr. Tolson:

has again stated .his opinion thatL an . audit by myself would!

s Mr. Tolson's confidence is very high 0 not be productive.

'. based on the fact that the-Comanche Peak program-has, been' subjected to'numerou's internal' and1 external' audits.-

-  ! Q. Do you-believe'today that an audit of the Comanche Peak QC program as it applies to paint-is necess'ary?.

A .-

i i

(Lipinsky) No. In view of the past audits and ongoing NRC review of that program,.I_ agree with-Mr.. T.olson.that an=

additional audit is unnecessary.>

What was the basis for your suggestion that a rework j[  ? Q..

contract' was necessary and that the paint -ciready _ applied

'was not " salvageable to any-meaningful extent?"

- .A. -(Lipinsky) The basis for that' statement was my overall.

sc *  ;.

1 conclusion,; based upon'the information-reported in my h

4 August--8: memorandum, that the-paint program at Comanc e c.m - - _ -  ;.

W" *e Nm Wa be..s*-- m.& &Q , . _ . ~ . . _ _ _ _ ,

_ _ m _ - . . .

ggy 3 . = .

8 3 *

, r ,: . : - .. ,

j: . s.;; - ,

. 121 -- -

~

l .

If :- . :. _.

s Peak'ffr6m: afqualityistan<11 tointThadl serious problems.

$' MyfimpressionLwas.-thatLin a rework situation,Jit would s 9

< be ~ easier Jto. perform a completeo rework rather; than . attempt =

4 Ltb!' salvage 1 portions ofUthe-existing; paint.

I bel.ieveitoday,/wihh:the information1.that1has bonn(prosented'to me, that rowork activities are?not--

necessary;at.Com'a'nche: Peak. .My. concerns'have proven to be unfounded and I :am satisfied: based ;uponlmy.

a understanding.of.th'e'. situation:that the; quality.of the paint at-Comanche Peak is! adequate.

lG -

6

+

N =* *w-eme-w w A' n = e. + - - .. .,;.,, , ,

lu~ ,-F t, m u

.s_._

^ ..l,

~,, .

d

/D ~

1. - * . . . . ,x.-

' DEPARTMENTAL CORR.ESPONDENCE

'^ w1 -

~

s:- r "

' QAD-S A- 0013S ,

- /Janusry 10, 1984' jyg ' 10BC Job Nc lH8301: Trip Report -(1/9/84 Trio to Wash.D.C. ' to Meet -w/TUGC0 Attornies

' Files : j cc: RBR, RAT, . JJN,iH8301 Q. A. Files

~

gj; .

pg6 : iJ6JILipinsky S

, . .. .. m. . .. _ , . . _ , . , _ ,

' ~

e

?. '

~

O

~

. 10n January 9, 1984,Jthelwriter traveled with RAT:to'the Washington,.

• D.C. office'of Bishop,.Liberman, Cook, Purcell:& Reynolds (formerly; D: ,

LDebevoise & Liberman). . - The' writer and RAT met Mr. . Mc Neill Watkins:II E(Bishop,-Liberman, Cook, Purcell:&.Reynolds).at approximately 1400 houz% ' '

f t(EST)7 and proceeded-to the 6th floor conference room.

t.

The.following was' discussed with Mr. :Watkins:-

~

~

-- -. Copy of tiranscript of11/4/84' meeting yith the NRC -hJJL to call

- Mr.. Hawkins'._ (NRC);if_' a ' copy of the transcript :is ;not recei ved by.

1/11/84. . Also.JJL .to review and commention transcript and go.

.over with Mr. 'Watkins. ~

~

~

- ' StatusLon final draft of. transcript from 11/10 and 11/11/83-h- ' ' ~

meeting at' Comanche Peak.

Mr. Watkins went~over with RAT: what" role RAT played in 08C:

efforts at Comanche' Peak; what opinions RAT formed as'a result ~of< '

his site ' visit; other questions along-a similar line.

3 -

Mr. Watkins. started to prepare testimony-(Ms. E. Reap took notes)'

with RAT (copy. attached).

. - JJL went over RBR comments to draft of testimony also JJL-

-. comments.on t'estimony. ,

-Mr. N. S. Reynolds joined meeting and the following was discussed:

- Went over qualifica,t ions-(in general),of RAT and JJL.

- Briefly discussed JJN qualifications and job function.

-- Again briefly reviewed-draft of JJL testimony'. s 9

Y ll f

k 1  ;

6

• 3-.

I y 9' MW* '**, . - " * *' bP T 4-..g.ra 44..-+Lh.=a.wm,. .ad. N #4 I hi-. * . - - :-*s;% -..4 _ ,,

., , - , 4- .- , . . . _ - - , _ _ ,. ._; . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . _ _ ,

v+ - - -

M < /-w; , a -

A

+"

~ , -

': . ,, y..

<. i.....

H'00CrJob1NKH830llTrip.

.. < , - + , -t

Report:( ,A J /9/84h 52- "

' QAD-84 0013 1

" ~ '

~

~'

fJaNary.,10l1984)

- # _ u

_3;  ::( , l ,

~

o

,. jf .

y JMr.HomebC.,Schmidt)(Manager,,NuclearServices-Texas:Utilitiie'sLServ j

!Inc.) doined ' meetings u-; l Discussed >1ogicIiehind

~

t JJLi"changihg"[ opinion on concerns an

'JJL'when on' site-~on 11/9/83.

k Discussed whichidraft offthe trip reportito be attached:to'JJLM estimony.-~ id: ~

l(will use signed trip report with QAD;nt.rnber-datedc8/8/83) - to avo

~

= potential problems'and:due-to-facti.that NRC/ Board;have a. cop ~ '

? report; . .,

-JJN,l RAT;and JJLito come toiattorney'sioffice a

,1 , ,-<

~ ~ ' '

also' asked that. RAT-~or J 1 ' confirm =with JJN).- W th, Texas,.on-11 gJJN,_ RAT and JJL1should also_ plan..to arrive ini Fort or ~

2/6/84',1 fdr ASLB Hearings.and ' plan on staying at le'ast one week.'

~

After'the NRC presentation'before the ASLB (JJN/ RAT /JJL maylhave to present Lif needed.as' rebuttal witnesses) additionali time / testimo '

required.ofcJJN/ RAT /JJL11n April 1984. _. .. __

)

i -

- ;JJL provided"a copy of an additional filing',1made'by CASEn(c'opy ~'

D - J0therimiscellaneous items'were discussed.

NOTE::ThewriterisfnotsureLif)DBCisbgingreimbursedforthetimespentby.

. Cannon-personne llon these matters, but with this considerable expenditure of time:

~

. {"

' Cannon:should consider billing for time: spent.-

.Also, the writer wou ldlsuggest'that JJN come to_ Philadelphia on 2/1/84.so that

,RBR can be briefed by JJN/ RAT /JJL.on status .of activities..

~ T'.. [b ,

J J.Lipi(

l

'JJL:cf'

[ (Attachments-

~

--y.

} .

j:

e.

l-'4. e p g .w . , ., ,

[* -a

mywy _ ;

v3:

.o'

~

Q.

LMr. Trallo, pleasecstate your:name,_ business: address and?e'ducational:and professionaliqualifications.

A. (Trallo))My/name<is? Ralph A. Trallo.- I.am employed.- -

-m -

by'O. B. -L Cannon E &'- Son , ' Inc.' ,- 560 0 - Woodland Avenue,.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania . 19143,.inJthe positionLof ,

1ViceLPresident,, Production ~ Services. 'A? statement of my educational 7 and. professional-qualifications'is'..

attached.. .

Q. What-are your responsibilities as Vice President',

Production Services of O. B.. Cannon?

A. (Trallo) I have charge of all field' operations, including I- ' field supervision,Lequipment, labor relations, quality services and loss control activities. Organizationally,-

Y Mr. Lipinsky reports directly to me.

Q, When did you first become involved with O. B. Cannon's work at the Comanche Peak site?

A. (Trallo) Although I was aware of.the work from the onset in th" e~early summer of 1983, I became involved in the details'of this project approximately'the first of November 1983,-when I was assigned the duties of y_ .

/ Cannon Task Group Chairman for the coatings overview at Comanche Peak. I understand that TUGCO had asked 0.LB. Cannon.to further address the issues contained in -

ieu.k q d ej,.m u te e,,weq . w e-

+ e m - s ee . --+ =,y - .e A _. u.

y m y; q, R

7< q[ 9;'.  ;

, . a.. i,4 m

,m ~~

. $, & +p;lf y

v~ p m.m ~

a.

I hc ,

g e.. ) ,e .M v: m ;;

- N'

.2 kk .z I 7 -

- p ". 'm' . e )

I' . .

+

kNS M . , , p. %

pAu . s y ; -y . :stg8;TriNRepor "l - Mrg Roth ,jiNe :

_. m

k. .

--m =

@  ?

M' Presidentlof- Os f B' i 1 Cannon,laskedhme~itoitakei ch 3rge:iof ~

E'

^ '

~ '

, . , m ..

t 1 d th~atieffort.; ,

M ,' -

' , u

:

y e:;. - '

_When:did you firs *.svisi,t;the; site.-

, 1 -. . .

?N .10. - ,~. <

&;; k; W

4 7A,, f(Trallo)JMylfirst,and' N

& only v e

W 'is~itjtoJthe'sitenwas' .

~ ,

m; 4.1 ' :-Novembert10?andf11,71983i -

w

., e b4J. -

7 Fr . . . . . :y - .. .,

~

Q; iWere you familiarEwithitheDissues'identifiedibyEMr.- 1

Lipin$kysinihis[Augusti8 memorandum?J .

s / .

t,- LQ.1  ?(Trallo) Lyes,6Idhad reviewed /th'e meinorandum -'an'd ldiscussel, w . w

~::. .Ni

--its :. contents : with ' Mr. Lipinsky. -

_ s

.. %: . .  ! J . . ..

Q .1 iWhatitook. place on1 November 10 a.tEComanche Peak?-

1 .

-A.: (Trallo))A7round-table 1 meeting was heldLwith Cannon ~ -

cpersonnelfand1TUGCO/TUSI personnel. ,

(y ' iQ'. What was the purpose of the. meeting?

-. A . _- (Trallo) The purpose .of the meeting ~ .was to review. thef i' x items. detailed in Mr. Lipinsky's August ~8 Trip Report.

~We discussed each of the issues identified.'in

!: Mr. Lipinsky's Trip-Report, item bycitem. Ba' sed on i.

i the-information provided to me by TUGCb representatives, .

-I satisfied myselfiindependentlyLthat the concerns I' . expressed.by Mr. Lipinsky.were unfounded.

Q. Wouldlit hade been consistent with.the corporate 4 policy y .

h  ;/[ cof O. B. Cannon =for-Mr. Lipinskys' August 8 Trip Report L  : ~ to: be :made public?

? A . .; (Trallo) -No, it is totally against corporate policy.

sw ,

p t-9 i

w_ c y m , - -

_h[ - . . . , .- .. .' ,

, . - = -

< +

- m -; .

, ,. y ,

-. -: '3 -

w ..

.A

.;x w[.{! k J g. - , AsIf ar "as.;; O.-

f B.o Cannon- was concerned,- wha t::did.

.:2u ,

dir.3 Lipiisky's Aug'ust! 81 Trip Report represent?-

-a . .

sA. . .(Trallo)1It represented Mr. Lipinsky's personal ~' notes-4 .

. to.. file?regarding the.~ activities that took place during~~

1his site' visit.

Q.. ;In summary,;as Mr.lLipinsky's supervisor, are you

satisfie'd:thaElTexas Utilities has fullyfaddressed.-

all~ofithe concerns identidied by.Mr. LipinEky in his-

~ Trip Report?- .

- A. (Trallo).-Based-on the information pr'esented to me byL TUGCO representatives at,the-meeting, -

w T

8 t *

, 9 e N

. . e O

4

/

o S

9

• G e

9 e s- e W*a W <*eww-v=* =e, - e + .>-3 ,gne gy-w w-we*e--w ww vw-' --*ev T-w-y  % r v** -

• U LI V 4:, f5 2:3.. L AIN IN UlN C.d 0 V - ' ' ' '

• DEPARTMDITAL CORRESPOhDENCE

(%D-84-0067 DATE nbr" wr M- N H8301ActivitienhndTelecheneConversationsonFebruary12thand13th,(984

, Mr. R.-B. Both cc: R. Trallo, J. Norris, M Joseoh J.-Lipinsky February 12,'1984 i Approximately 1615-hours (EST) telephone conversation with Bill Horn (Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds) . Bill Horn reviewed an affidavit for J E signature. B. Horn exclained that M. Watkins (Bishoo, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds) felt that the affidavit was needed to keep J E out of the Dunham labor case.

After JA said there appeared to be no problem with the affidavit, 9.' Horn called'Joel Epstein (Philadelphia Useney) . J. Epstein was to try and contact a notary (JA was to contact D. Eckman in the event J. Epstein could not find a notary) and advise JA on arrival of affidavit.

- Approximately 1640 hours0.019 days <br />0.456 hours <br />0.00271 weeks <br />6.2402e-4 months <br /> (EST) JA contacted and advised RBR of situation.

- Approximately 1650 hours0.0191 days <br />0.458 hours <br />0.00273 weeks <br />6.27825e-4 months <br /> (EST) JE contacted D. Eckman to arrange notary service.= if required.

3

- Approximately 1700 hours0.0197 days <br />0.472 hours <br />0.00281 weeks <br />6.4685e-4 months <br /> (ESP) telephone conversation with J. Epstein confirmed that D. Eckman would be needed.

- Approximately 1730 hours0.02 days <br />0.481 hours <br />0.00286 weeks <br />6.58265e-4 months <br /> (EST) telephone conversation with B. Horn (Rome

[301] 652-7451). J A had a question on the wording in paragraph number 7 of the affidavit. B. Horn agreed that the question had merit and ad/ised JE to try and-contact M. Watkins.

- Approximately 1900 hours0.022 days <br />0.528 hours <br />0.00314 weeks <br />7.2295e-4 months <br /> (EST) telephone conversation with M. Watkins (Fort Worth Americana (817] 870-1000) discussed affidavit and wording. l Affidavit is consistent with JE tescimony to date. J A to work on comnents to NRC testimony and forward to M. Watkins. Also advised by M.

Watkins that the Brookhaven Institute hired a consultant (M. Watkins couldn't recall the name though he recalled that the consultant was a 3- former EBASCO employee) to evaluate the coating efforts at Comanche Peak.

[

4 e

I' l .-

1

-- r ._ - - - - - - . ,. . . . . , . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _. ,__

WERU[ CANNON 7,38ONXI-NC. * , .s id ,

. m,

~

/ (W)-84-0067; February 13, 1984:

Page Two.- .

i 4

I SUMFCP: R8301' Activities.and Telephone Conversations'on February 12 C 13,j 1984~- - o c

o.

February.12,1984 (continued):

s- Approximately '1930 hours0.0223 days <br />0.536 hours <br />0.00319 weeks <br />7.34365e-4 months <br /> L (EST) telephone conversation Mth RAT to go _over .

H8301 situation. J A to call RAT and go over affidavit before signing;if:

ther,e..are any oroblems.

x v-L . Approximately 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> -(EST) c telephone conversation with M. Watkins. _

JJL to1 return signed and_ notarized affidavits to_' Delta Express Package -

Service at Philadalphia Airport. ,

, + . . .

^

- Appdoximately 2010 hour0.0233 days <br />0.558 hours <br />0.00332 weeks <br />7.64805e-4 months <br />s-(EST) teledione conversation with J. Epstein..

Inform J. Epstein on change of plans,with regard to courier. service arrangements)and provide directions to D. Eckman's residence. ,

- Approximately 2030 hours0.0235 days <br />0.564 hours <br />0.00336 weeks <br />7.72415e-4 months <br /> ~(EST) leave for D. Eckman residence. _ Arrive at D. Eckman's residence at approximately 2150. hours -(EST) .

Advised on arrival by D. Eckman that J. Epstein called to say-that the affidavit did not arrive and as a result J. Epstein will not be at~ D.

~

Eckman'.s residence.

g. ..

- Approximately 7200 hours0.0833 days <br />2 hours <br />0.0119 weeks <br />0.00274 months <br /> (EST) telephone conversation with M. Watkins.

. Affidavit to arrive at OBC Philadelphia Office around 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> (EST) on February 13, 1984. J E to sign and have notarized,'then return to courier for delivery to M. Watkins.

- ' Return home by 2250. hours (EST) .

. February 13, 1984

- Acoroximately 0820 hours0.00949 days <br />0.228 hours <br />0.00136 weeks <br />3.1201e-4 months <br /> (EST) up-date RRR on H8301 situation.

Approximately 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> (EST) up-date JJN on H8301 situation.

4/

L Miscellaneous telephone conversations with B.~ Horn on current affidavit

. status.

- Affidavits. arrived at aoproximately 1100 hours0.0127 days <br />0.306 hours <br />0.00182 weeks <br />4.1855e-4 months <br /> (EST)'JA reviewed affidavits with RRR.. J A signed affidavits, and returned the original and E

.one conv to courier. JJL had one copy telecopied to number provided by D.

H Horn (817) 336-6307.Debra or Janet) .

.[._ _ , u.. - .-l, , , _ _ . . . _ . . . _ . . . . _ . _ . . .._ _ .., ._ . _ . -

~ ~ ~

7f'5S]6 MHg.1

~ '

v

• n- c, . , ,

~

QMF 84-0067 .. s

- February 113,::1984 s Page Wee 9i ,

a f

' SUBJECP: J H8301 Activities and Telephone' Conversations on February'12:& 13, 1984J

~

O .- . .

~

February -13, -1984 - (continued)'

.. Copy of executed affidavit attached.

tore: Above is a sumary of the numer,ous telephone conversations over -

~

.the-last two_ days. Telywne . conversations of_ short duration .

were not recorded.or the contents were consolidated with other.

. telephone conversations.

4  : Do net hesitate to contact the writer for clarification or additional information.- -

1 1

- Lipins JJL:cf

Attachment s

O i

e

.j.

9 7

O -

f 6.,

e e-- e --r - , ,, , - , .w. ,-.,,m..-7 , _ , . . , , , . , , , . , - , ,.,7 . , . , _ , ,,3-y-%.-y.*r-v-*--

______-_-.-_-y - -

v' 7

[ .

^

1

• \'.;

.-.,, ,h3*(r..%

1 48 yll 9

~ ~

}.' -.

r ~

3-

. . . .i '. .. .

BISHOP, USERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS f 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET, N.W. '

WASHNGTON D.C. 20036 -

) -

To: .

.Mr. Joel.P. Epstein ,

415 S. . Van Pelt'C-5 Philadelphia',. PA. 191'46-( .

1 s

t FIRST CLASS MAIL  ;

d d

Y .

FE8.13 B&1 i

CA DC*!###5 i

i I

.