ML20204G809
| ML20204G809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204G795 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608070394 | |
| Download: ML20204G809 (218) | |
Text
.- .- . _ _ _ _ _ _ -
ENCLOSURE 1 ORIGINAL
^
UA11EU STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
MEETING TO DISCUSS SSER NO. 8-COMANCHE PEAK
- g. '
LOCATION: BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES: 1 - ?.15
- DATE
- THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1986 j l
l l
Aa-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
~
Offhal34crters 444 North tolStreet )
8600070394 860731 Washington, C.20001 PDR ADOCK 0500 5 (202) 347-7/00 f NATIONWIDE COVERACE
I CR27070.0 REE/sjg 1
- - - - - - - . 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
MEETING TO DISCUSS 4 SSER NO. 8 - COMANCHE PEAK 5 ;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6 -
Room 110 7920 Norfolk Avenue 7 Bethesda, Maryland 8
Thursday, June 5, 1986 9
The meeting convened at 9:00 a.m.
0 11 PRESENT:
12 CINDY EARLY, NRC ANNETTE VIETTI-COOK, NRC
('-
13 H. S. PHILLIPS, NRC RICHARD BANGART, NRC .-
14 ROBERT E. PHILLEO, Consultant to NRC LARRY SHAO, NRC 15 DAVID C. J G, NRC CHARLES H ER, NRC/BNL GEARY S. MIZU , NRC/ ELD 16 RICHARD BACHMANN, NRC/ ELD JOSEPH SCINTO, NRC/ ELD 17 JACK REDDING, TUGCO BILLIE GARDE, TLPJ/ CASE 18 ADAM PALMER, TLPJ/ CASE ANTHONY ROISMAN, TLPJ/ CASE 19 JOE S"MIC, E LO 'l !
CHARLES TRAMM LL, NRC 20 CHARLES J. GHNEY, COMEX(NRC Contractor)
RONALD L. BALLARD, NRC 21 E. TOMLINSON,-NRC 22 23 24 1 25 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
-- _ _- . . 347 3700 _ _ _ -
3 l
l 27070.0 2 REE 1
l 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 j MR. MIZUNO: Good morning. My name is Geary 3 Mizuno. I am one of the counsel for the NRC Staff. Today '
4 we are continuing and hopefully completing an informal l
5j discov6ry meeting between the intervenor CASE and the NRC l
l 6 ' Staff. The subject of the meeting will be the 7 miscellaneous and civil structural issues that were 8 discussed in the Staff's SSER number 8.
9 The Staff's original meeting was held over two l l 1 10 j days in November of 1985. At that time we had not ;
11 l completed the miscellaneous and civil structural issues.
12 And the Staff agreed to provide the gentlemen, the staff of ;
- 13 people, at a later time so that CASE could finish its 14 informal discovery. It was.to be rescheduled for April 17, 15 1986, but due to a problem with Mr. Shao's availability, 16 CASE allowed us to reschedule the meeting. With the 17 agreement of the parties, we rescheduled it for today. I -
i 18 believe the meeting we have agreed to hold from 9:00 to 19 2:00 p.m. !
20 i I want to tell Billie that we do have a problem i
21 i in Mr. Bangart's availability because he has a flight i
22 scheduled for 3:00. So I thought maybe we would stop at a 23 little bit before lunch and see where you are and if we 24 haven't finished the questions with the civil structural 25 issues with Mr. Shao, that you could possibly go on to -
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. ll02 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
=
i 27070.0 '. 3 REE
]
b 1 Mr. Bangart and then complete Mr. Shao after we finish.
a 2 MS. GARDE: Could you then, if --
3 MR. MIZUNO: Or you could start with him. I 4 don't really care.
5 MS. GARDE: Could you tell me before lunch or 6 around lunchtime what issues he is responsible for, what 7 categories?
8 MR. MIZUNO: I think it is just miscellaneous.
9 MS. GARDE: Can you give me category number?
10 MR. BANGART: I had management lead 11 responsibility for this set of all miscellaneous 12 allegations with the TRT responsibility.
13 MS. GARDE: Page 97?
C, 14 MR. PHILLEO: Yes.
MR. SHAO: Yes.
15 ] .
16 MS. GARDE: Did you work primarily on some of 17 these issues more than others? '
t 18 MR. BANGART: Yes, I did. I was directly 19 .; involved in some more than others because on some 20 allegations, Mr. Shannon Phillips provided the direct 21 e supervision of the people, actually looking at the 22 allegations. Others I provided that direction.
23 MS. GARDE: Could you please turn to page K-12 24 and K-13 where there is a list by category number, which is 25 how I prepared my questions. Tell me which issues you were -
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! ;lJ2-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
W
)
27070.0 '
4 REE -
1 l primary supervisor for. Is tha t possible? Just go through 2,
the numbers and I will check them off.
l 3 MR. BANGART: Category 1, category 4, 9, 14, 15, 4 16. Those are the ones that I was responsible for.
I 5' MS. GARDE: Thank you.
l 6 MR. MIZUNO: Before we continue, can I just 7 direct all the Staf f people that they should speak quite 8 loudly since we don't have microphones for the reporter and 9 since this is kind of a noisy room.
10j Before we start, can we just identify ourselves 11 l for the record, starting with Ms. Vietti.
12 MS. VIETTI-COOK: Annette Vietti-Cook, project 13 manager, Comanche Peak, with the NRC.
14 ! MR. PHILLIPS: H.S. Phillips, senior resident J
15 ! inspector. i 16 MR. BANGART: Richard Bangart. Director of the 17 division of radiation safety and safeguards in the Region 4 i i
18 office. I
~
19 . MR. PHILLEO: Bob Philleo.
1 20 l MR. SHAO: Larry Shao, civil mechanical leaders l
21 j looking at allegations.
I 22 MR. JENG: David Jeng. I was the subgroup 23 leader in the civil structural areas. ;
24 MR. HOFMAYER: Charles Hofmayer with Brookhaven 25 National Lab. I was a member of the TRT civil structural s
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage e 800-336 6646
1 27070.0 1 5 REE j 4
1 area.
4 .
2l MR. SCINTO: I am Joe Scinto, one of the lawyers 3 for the Staff.
4 ,
MR. MIZUNO: I identified myself earlier as 5 Geary Mizuno.
6 MR. BACHMANN: Richard Bachmann, counsel for NRC 7 Staff.
8 MS. GARDE: Billie Garde, representing CASE.
9 MR. ROISMAN: Tony Roisman, also representing 10 CASE. ,
11 MR. PALMER: Adam Palmer, also representing CASE.
12 MS. EARLY: Cindy Early, NRC project manager,
< 13 Comanche Peak.
s, 14 MR. TRA.tMELL: Charles Trammell, one of the 15 l assigned project managers to Comanche Peak.
16 MR. MIZUNO: I guess we can begin.
17 MR. ROISMAN: I had a couple of just preliminary ~ j i
18 questions. I want te nake sure that we understand the i 19 3 ground rules again so that we don't depart from it. Can 20 l you just tell me what the Staff's understanding is of the l
21 limits on the kind of questions that we can ask these 22 people? I think it is simplest if you tell me what you 23 think it is. If you think that is the right one, that will 24 be it.
25 MR. MIZUNO: I believe that we had previously I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433(H5646
27070.0 :I - 6 REE j
?
i 1 agreed that the questions would generally cover the TRTs 1
2i work and would not go into the question of the Staff's 3 follow up, the CPRT-type things.
4 MR. ROISMAN: It would include the SSER?
5 j MR. MIZUNO: Yes.
l 6l MR. ROISMAN: And it would include -- what did 7 you mean by or what did you intend by questions related to 8 things that were in there?
9 MR. MIZUNO: Yes. In SSER 8, yes.
10 ! MR. ROISMAN: Rig ht . Within the boundaries of 11 ) the SSER we are looking at.
12 j Can we use existing data to help explicate what 13 ' they mean? In other words, if they say, what I meant by 14 l this was so and so, can we say, well, can you relate that i
15 ) to, and then use something that is 1986 information and say, 16 what does that mean with respect to this, so that we 17 understand better what they meant? !
18 MR. SCINTO: I would think so. But I would not l t
19 . be surprised to see people not having thought that out and i 1 ...
20 l i
not being able to give you an answer.
I 21 1 MR. ROISMAN: We could take an example out of 1
22 ' CPRT and say: you told them they should do X. Using this 23 example out of the CPRT, is that what you had in mind when 24 you said you should do X?
25 MR. SCINTO: Correct. There is no question --
J f
1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(H5646
1 27070.0 i -
7 REE $
.- k 1J you are asking what they had in mind at the time when they 2 wrote the SER. That is a fair question. It may not be 3 what they have in mind now. I just -- I just want our 4 people to understand, too.
5 He is asking you what you had in mind when you 6 wrote the SSER. And he will use various things thit may 7 have come up to see if he can find out what you had in mind 8 at that time.
9 MR. ROISMAN: And the question that I cannot ask l 10 is: do you still have that in mind?
11 MR. SCINTO: I agree. That is a question that 12 is not appropriate.
13 MR. ROISMAN: All right.
(_.e !
14 MS. VIETTI-COOK: For instance, Dick Bangart has 15 been out of this, he is not following up what the CPRT is 16 ~ doing. So if you do that, these people might not know --
17 you might have to explain what the CPRT is doing. He has 18 gone on to a new job. He is not following up what the CPRT j 19 , is doing.
i 20 ( MS. GARDE: We will ask that, i
21 1 MR. ROISMAN: We might use the example, like you 1'
22 might use a hypothetical, so that we could understand what 23 he meant. So we would ask him a question hypothetically 24 that gave him information which we wanted to know if that 25 were the inf ormation , is that what you would have meant, .
i l
l' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(HM46
4 27070.0 l 8 REE ,
1 's! rather than, what did the CPRT do and what do you think J
2! that that means. It would be on that basis where he would
. 3 have to say: I don't know.
4 MR. PHILLIPS: That also applies to me because I 5 am currently assigned for work on unit 2 and do not follow 6 up on these issues.
7 MR. ROISMAN: Okay.
8 Secondly, I understand that --
9 MR. SCINTO: Do you people understand, Larry --
10 MR. PHILLEO: I understand.
11 MR. SHAO: I underscand.
3 12 MR. ROISMAN: If any of you guys slip up --
l 13 l MR. SCINTO:. I will fix it up on testimony.
14 MR. ROISMAN: I understand that the -- I just 15 need some clarification on this: it has been made clear to 16 . us by the lawyers that your understanding of where we ended 17 last time was that all that is left is the miscellaneous 18' and the civil structural. I 19 , MR. MIZUNO: That is correct.
20 3 MR. ROISMAN: I just didn't have that 4
recollection. Is there something near the end of the 21 'I 22 transcript that pinned that down?
23 MR. MIZUNO: I don' t have the transcript before ,
24 me, but I know we had some letters going back and forth to 25 that effect. We originally thought it was mechanical, but i
l f
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(H5646
~;;;J
- .y. {3 l ~.a
- c- ;Q 70.0 .
9 ,
%f
.i m o.y 4 >
1; h
1j I thought we had concluded that. "
t 2! MR. SCINTO: Let me put it this way: Really, ,
3 l that is something we can probably work out among us. It is ,
4 kind of irrelevant for this morning because they are really 5 not prepared for anything but those. We asked them to be .
.. 50 -
6 prepared for those two subjects. 6, 3;g,,
r.wa 7 MR. ROISMAN: I know Mr. Shao is always prepared, Nh
- u. .%. ,
8 even on the questions that he was asked last time. , # g.
t@3 ...s 9 MR. SHAO: Thank you. VM -
D. Q 10 MR. SCINTO: I like to have a discussion with . A, .
11 Mr. Shao about his preparation before we go into areas. %
12 But he is prepared on the two subject matters.
13 MR. SHAO: I think mechanically I am not
~. ;
14 prepared today. bij 15 MS. GARDE: I think that there is a little W
- t m.g:
p 16 , question that there may be some issues in mechanical that ,
Uf; 17 we didn't get finished, but frankly, I didn't go into a lot .'
18 of detail on the transcript of si.ther to determine if that 19 ;
is true or not. 'N r 20 !
a
- s!lO MR. SCINTO: We can work out those questions. WW 21 j l
MR. ROISMAN: Finally, I understand Mr. Bangart
$N0
[3.g:;s
~ q.
l f .s 22 has to get, has a 3:00 plane to get. I think we can ,
y l,1f 23 probably accommodate by getting to his questions. If it
.' _ 7 . d 24 appears, however, that by running past 2:00 to, say, 3:00, ! ~
i 25 we could finish up, do you all have any objection to that, '
.a.;, '
h)
,+, N c #:\y.g,. -
i , , i3 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. " %d 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
i 27070.0 l 10 REE ;
i 1h assuming that we get Mr. Bangart out of here?
2j MR. SCINTO: We do not view 2:00 as a deadline.
3 We view 2:00 as the approximate time we were shooting for.
4 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. I won't be here the whole 5* time but Ms. Garde has changed her status dramatically.
~
6 She has graduated from law school.
7 (Applause.)
8 HR. ROISMAN: So whoever within the Staff has been worried about that so much, you may stop worrying.
9l 10 l With a little luck, she is going to pass the bar.
11 l Adam Palmer is now serving the role of our new 12 law student who you can complain about because he has not 13 l graduated from law school. We wanted to fil'1 every slot.
14 MS. GARDE: I want to do a few background 15 l questions just to bring us up to date. To the extent that 16 you might need to refer to the SSER, I think looking at the 17 introduction section, K-1 through K-6. However, would you 18 please tell me, Mr. Shao, when you were first assigned to 19 ;' the Comanche Peak team? )
I 20 MR. SHAO: I was first assigned to the Comanche 21 { Peak I think right af ter the Labor Day, I joined the whole 1 l 22 -
team and went to the site. l l
23 MS. GARDE: This is Labor Day of 1984? ; l 1
24 MR. SHAO: Yes. l 25 MS. GARDE: Do you want to consult?
l i I i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
J , 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6
s 27070.0 ; 11 REE ;'
d 4!
To\g 8 1 '
MS. VIETTI-COOK: It was actually Jun; 5."= It I:
2l must have been 4th of July.
3 MS. GARDE: Did you spend the summer in Glen 4 Rose?
5 MR. SHAO: Yes, I did. The whole summer.
6 MR. ROISMAN: Then your inability to remember 7 things clearly is understood.
8 MS. GARDE: In any event, soon after a holiday, 9 you disappeared to Glen Rose.
10 MR. SHAO: Right.
11 l MS. GARDE: Were you assigned to the special 12 ! review team that began work in April of 1984?
I
, 13 l MR. SHAO: No. I was not involved in that team.
14 MS. GARDE: Who appointed you to the technical 15 ) review tecm?
16 MR. SHAO: I think at that time it was Stello 17 and Eisenhut I think asked me to join the team.
18 MS. GARDE: Just as a way of brief background, l
19 ; what assignment were you working on prior to joining 20 1 Comanche Peak?
21 MR. SHAO: I was, and am still now, a deputy i
22 ' director of division of engineering technology. You see, I 23 am off Comanche Peak. ,
24 MS. GARDE: Now, after you were assigned to the 25 technical review team, were you provided with materials to -l
. i i < l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(HWW6
~
1 i
- 27070.0 i 12 REE l
2 1)g review, to prepare for your trip to Glen Rose?
2l MR. SHAO: Yes. That happened maybe about a 1
3 couple weeks before we left for Texas. I think Annette 4 Vietti and Dick Wessman, I believe they prepared the whole 5 document with the instructions and everything and also Dick 6 Wessman and Annette Vietti assembled all these dif ferent 7 allegations and they organized in a fashion that my people 8 can work on.
9 MS. GARDE: Did you, when you received the 10 materials, you said that it contained allegations. I want
~
11 to focus in a little bit on that. When you received the 12 ' allegations in the civil structural area, were they already
- 13 ; broken down by specific allegations as we now know them in
~. .
14 lj the SSER?
15 J MR. SHAO: It was broken down but we made quite 16 a few changes to make more sense.
17 MS. GARDE: To the best of your ability to 18 recall, will you please describe the materials that you l 19 were given to review to prepare prior to your going down to 20 ' Glen Rose?
21 ; MR. SHAO: The material we got is about what a
22 kind of problem we have, what kind of instruction about how 23 should we go about with the job and general construction, -
24 and also we have allegations in different categories.
25 MS. GARDE: Did you participate in categorizing 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
, ;L.
- l E e ps 7070.0 EE j
13 ({
1 j the allegations? -
3 2f 1 MR. SHAO: Actually, I didn't originally s 3 participate in categorizing, but when we were looking to I 4 the allegations, I participated in recategorizing.
5 MS. GARDE: Was this, that work that you just l 9, 6 described, done during the summer of 1984? li s.i 7 MR. SHAO: Yes. L4
~
- Q B,m 8 MS. GARDE
- Off the record. ip iM$
9 (Discussion off the record.) pa r.n t%
10 MS. GARDE: I am going to show you a document T[.
15 2 11 f entitled "Te.chnical Review Team Guidance ," dated June of M
! . E,1 12 1984. For the record , this document was received through g;,
s 13 FOIA 85-59. I would like you to review this briefly and f.;p7, hI4 14 l tell me if these are the instructions that you received 15 3 prior to your going to Glen Rose. [7[. '
16 MR. SHAO: I think so. ,
. 1 g
17 This thing was passed out to all the group i i 4 18 leaders and to each member. ! .f;}j; EL 19 MS. GARDE: This is the guidance that you were y
y 20 i given?
hh 21 MR. SHAO: Right.
22 MS. GARDE: And this was given to you by W ig?}
fi 23 Mr. Ippolito? gj*
24 MR. SHAO:
Yes. '
fi",
.c -:
25 W
MS. GARDE: When you initially were appointed to ' dG M
- @k r.
.i
$h d
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. kI'
, 202 347 3:00 saiionwide covetage sos 336-664
-lq
I w %::
- ja ;i.i; M.%'
e4 , se i e
"l*.-
s?g
.0 14 . iN.NI .,
r
)z t, . . . .. i the TRT, were you in the role as the civil structural '
I
~"l 1 2i leader?
3 MR. SHAO: I was in charge of civil structural 1 4 and mechanical, yes.
k 5 i MS. GARDE: And who was initially assigned to -
_,1 6i you from the NRC Staff to assist with the civil structurai pb$d l -
Q:j rf,D 4R 7 issues, set aside the mechanical issues?
R efy4M J U
MR. SHAO: Dave Jeng and also Tapia, Joe Tapia.
dshk Wwgl 8l '
l 9' MS. GARDE: And Joe Tapia is from region 4. '$9Yd:b
- iTM 02.iki$$
10 MR. SHAO: Yes. And I appointed Dave Jeng. 'is. 'fbS j j .v 11 l MS. GARDE: Did you also have consultants? .sy ap[.
- ~Q,..,
a 12 MR. SHAO: I have, I had my own consultants. ' $g, Bob Philleo, Charlie Hofmayer, Terry Link.
13 l John Deavers. -[. b %
14 MS. GARDE: And --
15 hi MR. SHAO: This was on civil structural. '
t 16 ,
MS. GARDE: So you had four consultants and two t, ,
r, 17 NRC Staff? ,
+ l 1,x-.7e
[' L ",
18 MR. SHAO: Three. Including myself.
it "Mia 19 4 MS. GARDE: Three including yourself. Now, did "' '
l l 20 4 the consultants join the team here in Bethesda? Did they l
21 come here first to get briefed and instructed? ,
22 MR. SHAO: It was briefed at Texas. It was a egy 23 kickoff meeting in -- general management kickoff meeting in SM:ian ggg
.;w - u y y 24 Texas. ,
gp v.
19 %
25 MS. GARDE: Now, Mr. Shao, you have talked about S,M
&w;%M W:a na;i :
w\
w; a
vw:
w: 42:.;
g@9 i
2 yf'y
. Acz-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j ;jk i 202.M73700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M646
{,;gpf:l:(
1 .
3
. 34
! r{ ,y .
- i,u 070.0 j 15 -9 E g x l -
t 1 ;l the allegations that you were given in some form prior to 11 4
2 1 you starting work on the project. Did you participate in
- 3 interviews with any of the sources of the allegations? ';;
4 MR. SHAO: Yes. Me personally? i i
5 MS. GARDE: Yes. eE' i d5 -
6 MR. SHAO: A few, yes. But not every one. '. . f 9
>.,:y..x 7 MS. GARDE: Were they interviewed before the [dj
.u ..j 8 allegation was given to you by your management up here, DM w33
- 9 Ms. Cook or --
10 MR. SHAO: After'. After we got allegations.
ifh N
Q:C 11 Usually the procedure we took is, we look at allegation. j.[
12 I It is sometimes very clear. We didn't do the interview. (('((
m;:,
13 But if some allegation is not clear, we asked for interview
[ TON v
14 because there are a lot of areas, mechanical, quite a t
& i ~
15 ! number of them. So we picked the one that is not clear to -
16 us, we talked to the people. After we look at it. # ~
17 MS. GARDE: Okay. So it was basically your ;
18 decision on whether or not you needed to try to contact an @%d
'#.1 19 ; alleger? g'*.
I 20 MR. SHAO: Right. Mostly my decision.
6 ;
21 . !
MS. GARDE: Did you get input from your staff on
. .;1:s 22 that? 93
! 23 MR. SHAO: Yes. Mostly input from staff. Let's .
3[p3 r
7$
E eg .
24 say Bob Philleo looking at this and say, Larry, I better [@
25 talk to these guys because it is not very clear. I don' t '
k[.w N .lc 7'*i:l i.
$1%
e q$j u
$nu j . g i
~
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
DM gjQ 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M646 F-l
.. - . - . _ _ %: ;*$?
27070.0 l 16 REE !
h i
l i know what he means.
?
2 i MS. GARDE: At some point after you arrived in 3 Glen Rose, did you prepare an action plan for dealing with 4 each allegation?
5 MR. SHAO: Yes, we did.
6 MS. GARDE: Was this action plan approved by 7 your management or was it essentially you were as high as 8 it went?
9 MR. SHAO: I think mainly, even though -- I 10 j think mainly I was assigned to it. I approved it.
11 ! MS. GARDE: And I am going to show you an action 12 plan -- let the record reflect that I am showing him a s 13 j three-page document which says " Comanche Peak Open Issue
.'I 14 l, Action Plan; Task: Civil Structural Category 8." It says k
15 l reference number AOC-123746 and 51. I am not going to ask -
16 you about the facts on this. I just want to ask you a 17 couple questions on the format. What this means. If you 18 will look at that for a minute, please.
19 J Now, the third underlined kind of bracket on l -
20 i this page is " characterization." Is this the i
21 { characterization that you performed or the characterization 22 that was given to you of the allegation?
23 MR. SHAO: I think mainly it is a summarization. !
i 24 MS. GARDE: And then the next category is " initial l
\
25 assessment of significance." Setting aside the specific I
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
l 27070.0 17 REE I 4
.. 4 4
1y one but usire, that as an example, would you please describe 2 the process by which you arrived at the initial assessment 3 of significance for each of the allegation categories that 4 you had?
5 MR. SHAO: Okay. Let's just use this one here 6 as an example. Obviously the allegation of concrete 7 compressor strength can be very important for all 8 structures. Certain to me may not be as important, like, 9 let's say, air entrapment falsification. It would not be 10 as important as corpressor strength because so long as you 11 have the strength, even something wrong with the air 12 entrapment is okay.
., 13 MS. GARDE: What I am hearing you say is an i
14 analysis of what you now are looking at and reading. What 15 i I want to know is the process that you went through when i 16 you determined that. Let me give you some examples. Did 17 you look at the FSAR? Did you go back to the NRC's --
18 MR. SHAO: That is this approach to this.
19 ; MS. GARDE: But that, isn't this approach to 20 ! resolution how you are going to resolve the issue?
I 21 ; MR. SHAO: Yes.
22 MS. GARDE: I want to know what steps you went 23 through to determine how significant an allegation was at r i 24 the outset. Was it -- let me ask you a couple questions. '
25 Was it a group decision? Did you sit down and discuss an -
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase , 800 336-6646
', ,1 27070.0 18
.REE I allegation and decide how significant it was?
2 MR. SHAO: This is mainly prepared by the person 3 who worked on this mostly. In this case it was prepared by 4 Charlie Hofmayer.
5 MS. GARDE: For this specific one. ;,,
d 6i MR. SHAO: It was a working paper. [}
D 7 MS. GARDE: Why don't we give it to Mr. Hofmayer.
l}
8 Do you understand my question? bl
" n 9 MR. HOFMAYER: Yes. If I am correct, what we ')$
3 10 l did was we reviewed what was in the file in terms of the (
t' 11 I information we had concerning the allegation and it was '
i 12 1 just an initial judgment as to how we categorized these !,
I 13 l things. Ultimately I believe'that the goal was that if [
'h I5 14 a there was any reason to prioritize these things, we would i k $
15 j have a better feel for which ones we might chase faster
{
w 16 than the others. This was an initial planning tool. p e
17 MR. SHAO: The planning tool. Really, this is $
p 18 very preliminary. We look at this. 'You know, you prepare 19 something and say: this is what we want to do. But during l
, 20 the process of investigating, this may be changed. h s
n 21 MS. GARDE: Okay. I still don't feel S.:
e 22 comfortable in my, in what I am seeking. Maybe I am not 23 explaining my question well enough. I want to know if
{
24 there was any organized process by which you assigned to [.
E 25 these allegations a certain level of significance or ~
4 k
i b ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646 -
27070.0 19 REE ;
.. a
. 1$ whether it was just kind of seat-of-the-pants judgment 2 without reference to any other documents or regulations?
i 3l MR. HOFMAYER: It was the latter, basically:
4 judgment.
5 MR. SHAO: I think the process -- may I borrow 6 this? I think the process is there.
7 MS. GARDE: If you show me where it is spelled 8 out in that, that would be very helpful.
9 Here. A lot of instructions to technical review 10 team, a lot of'our process is there.
11 MS. GARDE: Mr. Shao is referring to attachment 12 3 of the technical review team guidance. Could you point 13 out specifically where,in here -- take the time to look at 14 it -- it talks about making the . initial assessment of 15 ; significance?
16 ' Mr. Hofmayer, can you identify where that piece 17 of paper appears or those allegations appear in SSER 87 i 18 MR. HOFMAYER: Where they appear in the SER? :
19 MS. GARDE: Yes.
20 i MR. HOFMAYER: That is category 8.
21 l MR. PHILLEO: Page 59.
l 22 MS. GARDE: Thank you.
23 MR. SHAO: Okay. I show you where it is. I 24 found it. It says develop in a document approach to 25 resolutions plan is attached in annex 2. If you look at -
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
l . .? l
, .1 4\
,j
- 7070.0 ;I -
20 j
- EE 1 1 'i annex 2, initial assessment is right there. This form is l'
2j right there.
l 3 MS. GARDE: Okay. Now, after the initial ,
4 assessment.of significance is made and written up, did that l '
5' have to have any management approval? Did that have to go ..j
!1:
6 I
to Mr. Ippolito?
fl@
7 ' MR. SHAO: I don' t think so. I just would look iy b
8 at it. This, whatever he put on here is not really
- .+
9 important. The one that we really put on here is the one i-!
10 , that is important. f4'
- h i
11 I
MS. GARDE: The final SSER? Y.I
- d' 12 j MR. SHAO
- Yes. , ';
\ .>
MS. GARDE: Let's go to the next category: [;j 13 l m: .
14 i, Approach to resolutions. Now, was that designed or written M 15 ;: up by each individual working on each allegation category? %
r 16 MR. SHAO: Rig ht . 4 '
M.
17 MS. GARDE: Was that approved by you? : ?-
e l
18 MR. SHAO: Yes. And also Dave Jeng.
l
'j n,
19 4 MS. GARDE: So what went into the process of E;j:
h 20 developing the approach to the resolution? fi a
N:
l 21 j MR. SHAO: The process mainly is the guy who g a
22 looks at allegation and says: I should do this and I 3
(fl 23 should check this and put it on this. And put it on here. ,,
' r*,4 24 MS. GARDE: Okay. Did you check the resolutions 25 6
written by people underneath you? Did you go over with the '
- &p
.N
(. h W
.G 5
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. d v.a 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ,
)
4
- l 27070.0 1 21 REE i
~
i 11 consultants each of the approaches to resolving each issue?
3 2f MR. SHAO: Yes.
3 MS. GARDE: At what point in the process did you 4 then get back with the alleger to see if you were on track?
o 5 MR. SHAO: Mostly coming from the reviewer. If 6 the reviewer says, start looking, looking, for instance, 7 suppose there is something wrong at this area. He goes to 8 the site and looks at this area and he finds nothing wrong.
9 For instance, some places they talk about unit 1 and 10 actually mean unit 2. You look at unit 1 and there is 11 nothing wrong there. Then they look at a document which 12 says: there was a history, something about unit 2 wrong.
13 I am just making example. So he says, I have to talk to w.>
14 the alleger, whether he means unit 1 or unit 2.
15 g MS. GARDE: You lost me somewhere in here.
16 '
MR. SHAO: When we start doing the investigation, 17 you look at allegation. He looks at, sometimes it doesn't !
18 make sense. !
19 , MS. GARDE: You didn't get back with the alleger 20 at the completion of designing the approach to resolving 21 the resolution? You didn't get back with the alleger until 22 after you --
23 MR. SHAO: Sometimes it can be before. It 24 depends on the issue. Sometimes people tried to prepare 25 this paper -- nost of the time afterwards. '
u ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
- i l
27070.0 22 REE
- l 1l :l MS. GARDE:
Now, the next category is "related 2i open issue identification." What is the process that you 3 used to identify other open issues --
4 MR. SHAO: Let me look at that.
5 MS. GARDE: --
that were related to the 6 allegation that is the subject of this action plan.
7 MR. SHAO: We didn't write anything on this one.
8 MS. GARDE: I have some other examples if you 9 need them. ,
10 (Pause.)
11 MS. GARDE: I am showing Mr. Shao a document i
12 ' that was released under FOIA. It is number, document 13 l number C634 under 85-59. He is looking at page 2, "related 14 l open issue identification."
15 Do you understand my question?
16 MR. SHAO: Yes. What is the process to do this?
l 17 MS. GARDE: Yes, what is the process that you l 18 went through to determine there was other related open ;
19 ' issues?
20 MR. SHAO: The process I think, as they say, 21l '
using all open items, look at previous findings.
22 MS. GARDE: I don' t need to know specifically on i
23 this one. I want to know how, when you had an allegation, 24 you decided there was other related issues?
25 MR. SHAO: I think you look through the hearing i
f ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
', ,202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33 6 6646
T 27070.0 3 23 i
REE P '
. l 1
- j. records. You look through all the FSAR. Look through all 2 the documents. I think the methodology I think is over 3 here. You look reading full report. You look at FSAR.
4 Look at a drawing, look at analysis and see whether there 5 are any other open issues.
6 MS. GARDE: When you say open issues, you mean 7 other open allegations?
8 MR. SHAO: Anything -- suppose, let's say, some 9 watchdog issue, say he has a problem with stability or 10 something like that, 11 MS. GARDE: Okay. So let me characterize what I 12 think you said. Correct me if I am wrong. The related 3 13 open issue identification category is other issues that are 14 independently identified by other allegers or the hearing
, 15 ,
board. It is not your own analysis.
16 MR. SHAO: No.,
17 MS. GARDE: For example -- I am just using a :
l 18 hypothetical -- if an allegation involved a poorly-trained 19 QC inspector, this category would not says poor training i
20 j of QC inspectors?
21 '
MR. SHAO: I don't believe so. Bob, do you know?
22 How do you use this section when you worked on this?
23 MR. PHILLEO: Let ne just make a brief statement 24 here that may not be important but it may prevent the 25 appearance of conflict later on. I was a little late -
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1 l
27070.0 l 24 REE .
k I s
1l joining the group. I was out of the country when the group i
2 was asser. bled, so I didn't get down there until later in 3 i the sunmer. I did not attend the briefing session that was (.
4 mentioned. And these documents were all prepared by the ;
9 5 time I got there. g 6 MS. GARDE: Okay. j E
7 MR. PHILLEO: I am a little bit of an outsider a N
8 coming in on this. I did review them and thought that they f
G 9 served as a good basis for procedures. They just stated p
)
10 the obvious steps one would go through, taking into account ;
6 L
11 the fact that we might have to change the things as we went ;
12 along. f
- 13 My understanding of this was that as we were 14 (; going through the process of resolving the allegations, 1
15 I there was a possibility that we would find other items that 16 needed treatment. This was a recognition of that fact.
ti 17 MS. GARDE: So this category really deals with
[,:
18 pulling together other allegations and other open issues g 19 , from sources that were already written up? {
5 3
20 l' MR. SHAO: Suppose you look at this, there is p 4 ,4 21j some other problem somewhere in the past. .
22 MS. GARDE: It doesn't reflect any independent l 23 analysis of what other issues may be? i ,
24 MR. SHAO: No.
25 MS. GARDE: Is there anyone that has a different e
E j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 4 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 5
27070.0 25 REE ,.
- ~
'l 1 l understanding -- since I am asking generic questions -- is 2i there anyone that has a different understanding of that?
3 Mr. Hofmayer?
4 MR. HOFMAYER: No.
5 MS. GARDE: Mr. Jeng?
6 MR. JENG: No.
7 Other categories on the open action plan status, 8 in these cases, almost all of the ones that looked at are 9 always open.
10 MR. SHAO: This paper was prepared about a week after we were at the site. The whole series.
11 l 12 MS. GARDE: Now, the third page of the document 13 that.you are looking at, a document called annex 1, has a ss '
14 i signature line on the bottom of the page. Could you,please 15 explain to me what these signatures -- signature lines are 16 for? If the document was signed, what does that indicate?
17 MR. SHAO: It is eventually when we wrote, when 18 we finished the report, each category was signed away like f 19 this. There was -- you didn't see -- it is not in this 20 i report. Category 1, all of category 1 had been written up, i
21 4 each one had been signed like this. For instance, this l
22 report here, each category had been signed by the worker, 23 Dave Jeng and myself.
24 MS. GARDE: Now, I don't completely understand 25 what you are telling me. Were the signatures on the -
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1 i
f 27070.0 d 26 REE l i
1 !! document to indicate that these people agreed with the plan 1
2 i' that you were going to follow or with the work that had 3 been completed?
4 MR. JENG: I am Dave Jeng. I would like to Supp\eimenk 5 suppler.t-Mr. Shao's answer to your question on this one. I 6 i think this is nothing but the tracking system which we 7 tried to use to give us access to what the status is at a 8 given time or given items. For instance, if this was 9 assigned to me and I was the subgroup leader and would 10 i; assign it to one of the reviewers. This system was 11 ! '
intended -- we are so busy doing more important 12 investigation, we didn' t actually follow through this one.
13 l ,
This is sort of working paper. We didn't feel that 14 l strongly that this would be followed. In fact, it was not 15 followed. But I did personally review and approve the
~
16 preposed approaches in this. ,
i 17 MS. GARDE: Were there documents that you did !
18 sign that approved an action plan? l 19 MR. JENG: To the best of my recollection, we 20 didn't. I may have signed some of them, but as I said, J
21 i this was not fully enforced.
22 MS. GARDE: So initially in Washington this 23 looked like a good idea but in practice on the site it 24 didn't end up being implemented?
25 MR. JENG: I wasn't even sure whether this was l l l . ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, :02 347 3700 Nadonwide coverase 800-336 6646
27070.0 -
j 27 REE ; ,
.. 1 1 j established in Washington.
i MR. SHAO: It was established in Washington.
2]
3 l MR. JENG: Okay.
4 MR. SHAO: That is part of this package.
5 ; MS. GARDE: Right.
6 MR. PHILLEO: As we started investigating, 7 frequently the trail would lead in the directions that had 8 not been anticipated when this was written. We did not go 9 through the steps of revising this plan. We just followed 10 the trail wherever it led us.
11 MS. GARDE: In Mr. Calvo's absence, L will then 12 use his famous terms where is the auditable trail of what 13 you did?
~
14 ,
MR. SHAO: Whatever -- I think whatever we tried 15 to put it in the report. What we did, everything.
]
16 MS. GARDE: But where was that written up?
l 17 MR. JENG: Let me answer. Also we did not l 18 follow this line. We agreed this is not an auditable trail. I 19 But we did have other more different ways of doing that.
20 l Every time a reviewer looked into an allegation, came up i
21 a with a so-called first working paper draft, that is the I
22 signature form which is the numbers on the table. As they 23 go through the approval by the group leader, after my 24 subgroup approval, we sent it to Mr. Shao and he approved.
25 Ue sent it to Mr. Ippolito to sign. And given the reason, -
i t
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-66 4
i ,
I 27070.0 28 l REE j
4 1f has been approved by up to Mr. Ippolito, if there are -
2 changes, we will change and that will go through another 3i approval chain. So that is the trail which you can follow 4 for each revised revisions. Which one it would lead to --
5 MS. GARDE: Are you talking about --
I 7 MS. GARDE: After you completed your inspection?
8 MR. JENG: Well, as you know, the allegation 9 investigation is an ongoing process at the site. It as a 10 given issue is looked at, a reviewer is supposed to i
11 t document his assessment at that given time into one type of i
12 ' draft. We called revision 0, 1, 2, 3. It goes through 13 ! sometimes different review processes. We changed back and 14( forth. That would be documented on the signature sheet 15 ;l which is tractable. I think it is on the record.
16, MS. GARDE: But what my questions go to, and I 17 haven't gotten to the drafts of the write-ups, what my '
18 questions go to is the process by which you planned to '
19 1 pursue the allegations.
20 Mr. Philleo said that that changed when you got d
21j out in the field.
22 MR. JENG: Yes.
23 MS. GARDE: As would be expected, sometimes the 24 plan that was written up either in Washington or at the 25 site wasn't necessarily adequate. You ran into a brick i
i
, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202 34*.3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
27070.0 29 REE j em .,
5 1 wall or whatever happened and you had to modify it. What I 2 , am looking.for is whether there is another document.besides 2
3 the original open issue action plan that documents what you f
4 actually did in the field to pursue an allegation?
I 5 j MR. JENG: No'. The next document is the draft 6 of the SSER.
7 MS. GARDE: Which summarizes what you did?
8 MR. SHAO: Hopefully in our report, try to 9 describe what we did. We were instructing the staff to 10 write as much as -- describe what the TRT did. -
11 MS. GARDE: I would like to ask each of you what 12 is your current involvement with Comanche Peak, but just a 13 minute.
\. ,
14 l (Discussion off the record.)
i 15 j MS. GARDE: Let me start with Mr. Hofmayer.
16 MR. HOFMAYER: I still serve as a consultant to 17 the NRC concerning follow up review on Comanche Peak.
18 MS. GARDE: And have you been actively involved !
i 19 3 in the recent past, I mean within the last six to nine 1
20 e months?
I 21 1 MR. HOFMAYER: Yes.
l 22 MR. JENG: After Mr. Shao left and we lost a ,
23 very good leadership, I was fortunately tagged on to be the 24 responsible party covering the civil structural areas. I 25 hope I can do as good a job as Mr. Shao has been doing. '
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
i 270?O.0 j 30 REE ;
}
a 1
q MR. SHAO: My current involvement is this I
2 section. That is all.
~
3l MS. GARDE: When was your last active 4 involvement?
5 MR. SHAO: My official detail, off in April, but 6l I also helped working on the SSER coming out on the program.
7 MS. GARDE: Did you work on SSER 13?
8 MR. SHAO: Yes.
9 MR. PHILLEO Whatever Dr. Hofmayer said applies 10 l to me. ,
l
.11 i MS. GARDE: You are still there?
12 MR. PHILLEO: Yes.
13 ! MR. BANGART: My direct involvement ended in the fa'll of 1984 when the team, the full team left the site and 14 I 15 I phased out over this course of the next few months and I 16 currently have no involvement relative to these issues at 17 Comanche Peak.
18 MR. PHILLIPS: My involvement with these issues 19 ended essentially when the Region 4 Comanche Peak group was 20 ) formed and responsibilities were assigned. I wa,s assigned
< n l
21 ; to do inspections on unit 2 which ---
22 involved with these issues. .
23 MS. GARDE: Did you participate in the writing 24 of SSER 13?
25 MR. PHILLIPS: As I recall, I participated in --
! I l
l J
G ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 34664
. - _ . ~ - _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ ,
,. , j l
27070.0 31 REE .
]
y i l
1 MS. VIETTI-COOK: 13. .
2
) MR. PHILLIPS: No.
3! MS. GARDE: If we could take just a very short 4 break.
5 MR. MIZUNO: That is fine. Off the record.
6 (Discussion off the record.)
7 MR. ROISMAN: I am interested in particular in 8 allegation number AQ-64, which is discussed on pages K-93 9 and 94. Who is willing to take the blame for this one?
i 10 MR. SHAO:. Actually we have worked on this 11 allegation, I think both Dave Jeng and Dr. Hofmayer and 12 Philleo are very familiar with this.
13 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. I also have here a document, s.
14 " Comanche Peak Open Issue Action Plan." And then another 15 !, one attached to it, " Comanche Peak Allegation Work Package."
16 Now, first of all, who wrote this?
17 MR. SHAO: It was written by Mr. Jeng. Joe l l
18 Tapia wrote this. He is from Region 4. i 19 MR. ROISMAN: And do you know when this was 20 l prepared?
I 21 ' MR. SHAO: It was prepared first we went to the 22 site. .
23 MR. ROISMAN: Did any of you who ended up 24 working on this issue participate in the preparation of 25 this plan? '
i I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6646
- - _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .__ - - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . ~ _ _ - - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _______ _ _ _
I 27070.0 -
32 REE i
1( :
MR. JENG: I participated in the preparation of 2, this plan and to a lesser extent, I think Dr. Hofmayer did, t
3 too, because Joe was sort of working on the first level of 4 supervision of Dr. Hofmayer and I was a subgroup leader.
5 So the answer is yes. I was a party to that, t
6 MR. ROISMAN: Was Mr. Tapia, do you know, was he 7 involved in the original Region 4 examination of this issue?
8 MR. JENG: At the time I didn't know he was, but 9 later on --
10 a MR. SHAO: But he was not involved in this issue.
11 AQ-64 issue.
12 MR. ROISMAN: Before it got that letter, as you
, 13 l know, there was an alleger at the site who had raised this 14 issue. My question is, was Mr. Tapia involved on behalf of i
15 Region 4 in Region 4's original evaluation of this?
16 MR. SHAO: We believe not.
17 MR. HOFMAYER: I believe in my recollection of ,
t 18 the situation was that he was not involved in the i 19 investigation of that. I think Mr. Tapia knew of this 20 issue because I think he was involved in a related matter 21 j concerning the crack in the reactor cavity liner, so that 22 they were kind of intermingled.
23 Bob, do you recollect that?
24 MR. PHILLEO: I just don' t know.
25 MR. ROISMAN: Before you decided what the action l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
a 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33tWM46
4 27070.0 ? . 33 REE 1
1 ;j plan should be, what effort did any of you make to find out i
2 the extent to which, if at all, this was an issue that had 3l been previously explored and investigated in the context of 4 the Comanche Peak reviews or licensing process or anything?
5 MR. SHAO: I think the instruction was, look at 6 all previous documents related to the issue. We were aware 7 that there was some previous issue related to the A0-64.
8 MR. ROISMAN: If you look at the list here, 9 approach to resolutions, there is a relatively detailed 10 ' list here like review inspection reports and those reports I
11 you identify. " Interview the NRC inspector present during 12 I the excavation process," et cetera.
13 But there is nothing here that says specifically 14 that you should go and identify all of the documents or at 15 least I didn't see it there. Maybe I am missing it.
5 16 MR. JENG: As I said, in first or second weeks 17 after we were at the site, each reviewer was assigned the .
I 18 particular category of allegations. And when that happens, l 19 reviewers start a file of allegations which was prepared by 20 the project staff: Annette Vietti and Dick Wessman then.
i' 21 j In one case, it may be one or two pieces of paper sticking 1
22 out f rom a transcript stating the paragraph where there is 23 some concern stated. So there is, the file is a very 24 complete or most often than not, they are very brief.
25 Given that file readings and whatever he can get from the '
i l
?
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1 3
27070.0 l 34 REE
- 1 reference which was listed in the readings, he tried to t
2! propose this kind of approaches. This is nothing but the 3 initial planning type working paper and nothing should be 4 construed more than that. .
5 MR. ROISMAN: So that the process was, someone 6 else would have taken the allegation, prepared a package of 7 what they believed were all the relevant materials for 8 those of you who would actually be doing the action plans 9 and for whom this may be a brand new issue. And that you 10 would then, using that stack of materials, -- ,
11 MR. JENG: As a starting point.
12 i MR. ROISMAN: As your starting point to define 13 l your action plan.
14 l MR. JENG: Rig ht .
15 , MR. ROISMAN: I assume then that that means that 16 if that person who prepared the package had left out some 17 critical document, at least in the action plan you would 18 not have identified the critical document because you 19 weren't trying to start from scratch. You were trying to 20 I start from a file prepared for you to develop your action i
21 j plan.
22 MR. SHAO: Yes.
23 MR. ROISMAN: I am afraid when you say "yes,"
24 she is going to look like "yes" in the transcript. You may l 25 have meant, yes, I understand your question. Did you mean I
)
i l .
I
, ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
i 27070.0 35 REE $
.. ?
1 yes, that you thought what I said was right?
2 i MR. SHAO: Yes.
L 3 MR. PHILLEO If I understood you, you said that 4 if the action plan did not contain a reference to a 5 critical document, that critical document would never be 6 examined.
7 MR. ROISMAN: I understand that once you started 8 looking at the action plan, that you might then expand the 9 scope of what you looked at as you began to look at it.
10 But I was, all I am looking at now is just the action plan, 11 how it got developed.
I 12 MR. SHAO: Okay. Maybe -- this action plan is
,- 13 prepared very preliminarily. But we didn't revise this. I 14 start looking to this, a lot has been -- looking' at the 15 , records, I told the staff, many times, even if they finish 16 the job, make sure everybody goes back and look, make sure 17 that, include all the hearing stuff. The hearing stuff is i
18 very important. All the past hearings. We look at a 19 j couple of times. Make sure people know what was going on 20 l in the past.
I 21 4 MR. ROISMAN: Is it fair to say that based upon
}"
22 the -- you had a lot of allegations to look at.
23 MR. SHAO: Yes.
24 MR. ROISMAN: You were under some pressure to 25 try to get this done. I mean, each action plan gives a '
i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
- i
~
i 27070.0 ! 36 REE
,- i
-- 1' deadline by which you are supposed to finish.
- 2 MR. SHAO
- Rig ht .
! i 1
3 MR. ROISMAN: Is it fair to say then that when 4j you looked at the packets, information in those packets 5l might lead you to believe that this is an allegation that '
6 looks like it is probably not going to have much validity 7 to it and here is one over here that looks like it has a 4
8 lot of questions and you make at least a subjective
- 9 judgment that this requires more attention than that. Is i
10 that fair?
q 11 l MR. SHAO: That is fair.
! 12 I MR. ROISMAN: Can you remember which category 13 you would have fit this one into? Did this look like one i
14 ! that you were going to have to devote a lot of time to or i
1, 15 4 i
did it look like one that you thought was pretty well 1
16 ., resolved?
i' 17 MR. SHAO: If I don't know all the hearing i I
18 background in the past, just looking at the subject itself, j 19 I don't feel it is a difficult subject. My intuition told 20 me it is not a problem. If I don't know all the past I
I
! 21 i background, just looking at the subject itself.
i 22 MR. ROISMAN: You seem to be answering my l 23 question hypothetically, "if I don' t know." What actually, i t
! 24 can you remember what actually was going through your heads 25 as you were looking at the packet for this particular one?
l i
l
- ! ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 i 202 347.)?00 Nationwide Covetage M )) M 646 -
._._ ~___._ _ _ _._.___,_____ _ _. _
i.
27070.0 .
37 REE 4 5
r) a
=
\- 1) MR. SHAO: Because at that time I looked at the 2 i title and said, what can invalidate the seismic if there is 3l some property of the soil changes? If they are replaced by I
4 identical soil properties, in my intuition, it is not a 5 major problem.
6 MR. ROISMAN: Is identical critical? That is, 7 would it matter? Stronger isn't necessarily better than, 8 is that --
9 MR. SHAO: Had to be similar.
10 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. So go on. I am sorry. So 11 you are saying, if that -- if it were going to affect 12 seismic properties, that is what had to happen.
, 13 MR. SHAO: If I was starting this problem from 14 the beginning, don't know all the past --
15 MR. ROISMAN: I am sorry. I am not asking you 16 to tell me now as though you are seeing the action plan for i
17 the first time, how you would approach it. I am trying to, 18 to the extent you can remember, asking you to tell me how i
- I 19 , in fact you approached it.
20 j Maybe you are not the right one to answer it. I 21 want to know, did you start off thinking, did you start o'ff 1
22 thinking that this was one of these problems that was going 4
23 to require,a lot of your attention or did you start off 24 thinking that this was one of these problems that probably 25 wouldn't? ,
I l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202 347 3700 Nattonwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1 2707000 >
38
, REE ,
m '
\
1, MR. JENG: Let me answer the question. When 2f Mr. Tapia proposed this particular approach and based on 3 review of his proposal, based again on my experience in the 4 seismic dynamic analysis and the attendant knowledge on the 5l behavior of rock given the behavior resting upon rocks, I 6 would concur with Mr. Shao's point that I didn't at that 7 time judge that this is not one of those w, ore difficult 8 allegations to look at the ef fects, assess the merits of 9 the issue and come to a conclusion. So the answer is yes, 10 ! I considered this was one of those items which I felt was l
11 l much easier to come to a proper resolution after 12 examination of the f acts and the documented records.
13 l MR. ROISMAN: Now, do you remember if at any
'14 point as you were developing the final action plan and 15 ) looking at the packets, was there ever mentioned to you the 16 fact that this issue had actually been the subject of a 17 hearing board decision?
18 MR. JENG: Joe Tapia, when I -- as I told you, I i <
19 was aware that he had some knowledge of previous ongoings I
20 . which may have relationship to this particular hearing you 1
21 ; are referring to. But after assigning the task to him, he 22 l told me he had looked into some 705 hearings. But at that 23 time I felt that this was strictly taking care of an issue .
24 which can be resolved on the merit of the issue alone. So, 25 besides, I am overstepping his activity, his conclusion i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 Nationwide Conerage 800 3)& 6646
_ _ _ , ~ _ _ _ _ _ __. _. __ _ _ __ ___ ._ . _ 347.) ?00_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _
i.
27070.0 [ -
39 REE j
'h ' (
-- I anyway. So I decided that was proper for him to continue
- 2 and Hofmayer and myself to oversight his conclusions and 3 see if we can endorse his findings.
4 MR. ROISMAN: You are talking about Tapia.
5 MR. JENG: Yes. I happened to learn later that 6 i he had some knowledge, some exposure to the earlier 7 hearings which may have relationship to this.
8 MR. ROISMAN: Did you ever learn what it was 9 that the board concluded regarding this issue?
10 MR. JENG: Later on I read some of the 11 transcript and I learned --
12 MR. ROISMAN: I am not talking about the 13 transcript. I am talking about the board's initial 14 l preliminary decisions and its valuation of this question i
15 I with findings on this question. Did you ever read those?
3
. 16 MR. JENG: I think I should say I read in very 17 brief to the extent I felt it was necessary for me to 18 perform the job. In my knowledge, I should admit, it is i 19 , very limited. If you are asking me in detail, I should say 1
20 i I am not that cognizant of such details. But I did read 21 ; those to the extent I felt needed to perform my 22 investigation in a competent, adequate manner.
23 MR. ROISMAN: Is it fair to say that you did not 24 consider it particularly relevant from a technical 25 perspective what the board concluded? '
l i
ACE.FEDE:tAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cov, rase 800 336e66
l .
l
< l 27070.0 '
40 REE
, a 1 k'l MR. JENG: I guess I should say yes, at that
]
2l time.
3 MR. ROISMAN: I didn't think that we could get a 4 chance to talk to you today but they have now implicated 5 you in this process. Did you participate in the 6 preparation of the package of materials that Mr. Shao 7 talked about having been prepared for the people that 8 developed their action plan from?
9 MS. VIETTI-COOK: Myself and Dick Wessman did it 10 and we read all the documents: the OI reports, the 11 inspection reports, some of the hearing documents, et 12 cetera, and we compiled the list of all the allegations.
13l And then what we did is we prepared some sample packages i
14 I which we then gave to the Region and said: This is what we 15 ,,l want you to put together. We want you to take all of these 16 references.
l 17 We listed all of them that we knew about when we 4 18 -- we would list the allegation and the reference at that l 19 j time, you know, to wherever we pulled the allegation out of.
l
( 20 { And then the Region, following that sample package, some 21 la sample packages that we gave them, would pull out the pages l
22 ; of the transcript or the OI report or the inspection 23 reports that were applicable and put them into the files.
l 24 And those were the packages that, the files that were given 25 to the TRT teams.
i I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646 1
l i
27070.0 $ 41 REE l
, -s Q v
1] MR. ROISMAN: Was this one of the samples that 2i you actually prepared or you and Mr. Wessman prepared?
3 MS. VIETTI-COOK: I can't tell you whether it 4 was or not. I am not sure. Most of them were done by the 5 regions so the likelihood of it is that it was done by the 6 Region because we just did like maybe a handful of them to 7 give them a sample of what we wanted as products. So we 8 maybe did a half a dozen of them and the rest of them were 9 done by the Region. So the likelihood is that it was done 10 by the Region.
l 11 l MR. ROISMAN: Would you have expected that if 12 I there were hearing board conclusions about an allegation, I
13 that those would be included in the packets that went to 14 the group that was preparing the action plans?
15 l MS. VIETTI-COOK: What we did is we tried to 16 give them as much information as we knew about on, you know, 17 just from our general knowledge of reading all of the ,
i 18 documents that we read, but we did later on ask the group 19 - leaders to go back to the hearing records and make sure i
20 i that they were aware of what went on in the hearing if that 21 ; issue was raised in the hearing. So I believe the group 22 leaders and their people did do that.
23 MR. ROISMAN: Is there some distinction here 24 that you are intending to rake between the hearing record 25 and the hearing board decisions?
- l i
l i
i
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(H%46
I I 27070.0 l 42 REE ,
9
~
l MS. VIETTI-COOK: No. I am not. When I say 2 hearing record, that includes everything going on in the ;
3 hearing.
4 MR. ROISMAN: Now in retrospect, having heard 5I what these gentlemen said, does it surprise you that in 6 their packet the hearing board decision on the allegation 7 was not included?
8 MS. VIETTI-COOK It doesn't surprise me. I 9 mean, we tried to give them as much information as we knew 10 about at the time and I was not as familiar with the 11 - hearing and Dick wasn't as familiar with the hearing as 12 some other peop'le were. So like, for instancs, Joe Tapia 13 i may have been aware of the hearing. He got this file, he 14 i looked through it. He says, hey, I remember something l
15 i about this being mentioned in the hearings and then you go 16 to the hearing record and look it up.
17 MR. ROISMAN: My understanding of what they have i 18 testified is that their packet didn't have the hearing !
19 board's decision on this issue in it?
20 MS. VIETTI-COOK: That could very well be the i
21 i case. We may have read it in an inspection report, it 22 might have been followed up in an inspection report, it 23 could have been followed up in an OI investigation, 24 whatever, that we looked at, that we got it from some other '
25 source besides the hearing. We didn' t -- Dick and I may
~
2 1
- ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
d b
27070.0 4 43 REE ,
d 1 . not have known that it was in the hearing, okay?
2 But then during the investigation, it was, l
3 somebody said, hey, this was covered in the hearing, so 4 they may have gone back and looked at the hearing record.
5l So it would not have surprised me that it wasn't in the 6 original packet.
7 MR. JENG: I testified that my package did not 8 include the hearing record. I don't recall I said that. I 9 may have said that, but I don't mean that. I wasn't sure 10 whether there was such a record or not. I have to look at 11 the file now. But they may or may not have it in there. I 12 want to make the record straight.
13 MR. ROISMAN: I appreciate that clarification.
14 If we want to attempt to reconstruct your 15 i process, will we find in the response to the appropriate 16 Freedom of Information Act request a packet that would be 17 identified as the packet that was used and evaluated for f 18 purposes of developing the action plan that -- [
19 MR. JENG: Yes. But we used to work in the
)
20 Rockville of fice and the stuff was in the file. Later on i
21 '
it was moved to the air rights building in some rooms. I 22 have been transferred back to this office. So since the 23 moving from my office to another, I have not had personal 24 control of that. But it should be there. I am saying, it 25 could be lost. -
w i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversge 800-336-6646
) !
27070.0 -
44 REE 1' MR. SHAO: The answer is yes.
2 !! MS. VIETTI-COOK: Can I answer that?
3 MR. ROISMANt That caveat always applies. I 4 MS. VIETTI-COOK: When the FOIA came in for all 5 the documents related to the TRT, we asked thr; guys to 6 document all, make lists up for us of what was in their 7 files and provide us with the files so we could copy them 8 at the time we received the FOIA. And that is what we did.
9 We copied them and gave them back their originals. So we 10 gave to FOIA what the original copy looked at. Whether he 11 l knows where his files are or not, we made a copy and that 12 is what went over to FOIA.
13 MR. ROISMAN: So we could go back and actually 14 test whether in fact the hearing board decision was 15 fi included in the original packet or not by going and looking 16 i at what -- it hasn't been integrated into some bigger thing; 17 it is identifiable as the package that was used to develop l
18 the action plan? i 19 . MS. VIETTI-COOK: It should be. That is the way 1
20 ) we sent it over to FOIA. I don't know how FOIA sends it to i
21 : the public document room.
22 . MR. ROISMAN: I understand. Nobody wants to 23 take responsibility for the next guy's task. That is quite 24 understandable.
25 Now, le t's get into the merits of this I
- ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
27070.0 *
. 45 REE ,
t 1
1 particular allegation. What did you use to determine what 25 the magnitude was of the original overbreak? What was it 3 that you looked at in order to determine what the magnitude 4 of the original overbreak is? That is, its breadth and 5 depth.
6 MR. JENG: I wasn't the reviewer. Joe Tapia was 7 the reviewer, so the process should start with he would 8 look at the available information in the file and what 9 knowledge he may have which may pertain to this issue and 10 he proposed a first draft of a findings and resolutions.
11 l That particular draft was reviewed by me and I fully 12 concurred with his assessment, his scope and depth of
". 13 evaluation, and on that basis, I recommended Mr. Shao to
.w 14 take a look and he did take a look. And we sort of 15 I; achieved a consensus. This partic.ular resolution is 16 presented in the SSER draft, in the subsequent draft 17 revisions. Indeed, good competent way of solving, !
i 18 resolving the issues. j 19 MR. ROISMAN: Assuming that Mr. Tapia's 20 description of the scope of the problem was correct in the l
i 21 ; first instance, isn' t that true?
22 MR. JENG: Yes. I have no reason to doubt that.
23 MR. ROISMAN: But you did not independently 24 attempt -- if he came in and said, the overbreak problem 25 consisted of two patches under unit 1, when in fact it '
s.
l -
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
800 202 347 3700
_ _ Nationwide
_ . _ _ . Coverase
._ __ __ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ 336-6646 _ -. - . __.
1 27070.0 h 46 RE' .
^
9 1E consisted of 20 patches all over the site -- this is
?
23a hypothetical -- you didn't have any way of independently 3 verifying that, nor did you make any attempt to do so. Is 4 that correct?
5 MR. JENG: No. I, as the first level supervisor, 6 did personally go through the pertinent pages of FSAR, the 7 documents referred in his write-up, and look at the basis 8 he based upon coming to some recommendations or resolution.
9 But I did not, I did not -- he mentioned about contention 7.
10 I did not personally at that time go into the details of 11 reading those things. I just accepted what he knew about these proceedings'and I felt, taking into consideration
~
12 I
13 what was so clearcut at that time and even now, that I felt 14 from the strict taking care of consideration, the issue is 15 , really a proper solution.
16 . MR. ROISMAN: The process was that Mr. Tapia 17 describes, if you will, the magnitude of the problem, that l
18 is of the overbreak, relying on the FSAR, which you then 19 , looked at yourself and concluded that the FSAR had been 20 properly interpreted by Mr. Tapia and that became the i
21 ( starting point of the extent of the overbreak. Is that 1
22 correct?
23 MR. SHAO: Excuse me. This allegation is 24 related to the overbreak for unit 1 containment building, 25 very specific allegation. So he looked at the unit 1 I
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
a 202 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
. . - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _347-3700_ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . - . - - - - .
27070.0 i 47 l REE I g
1 1 containment building. But both Mr. Jeng and myself have 2 been working'on this assignment for years. At that time la 3 our judgment, our judgment said that this overbreak and 4d overexcavation problem on unit 1 containment building would i
not affect unit 1 containment building. But actually, the 5l 6 conclusion should be proposed to other places, too, if the 7 material essentially is similar, the replacement material.
8l MR. JENG: I would like to make correction. You I
9 said, did I base upon the FSAR in coming to the solution.
10 The answer is no. We based not only on the FSAR, on the 11 material ref erenced there , too, and what other information 12 which Joe Tapia as the reviewer may have been exposed to 13 ! and discussions on the provisional basis among ourselves, 14 and these are others things which had a point in coming to 15 the conclusion.
16 MR. ROISMAN: I realize that you looked at more 17 than the FSAR and did more than the FSAR analysis to decide 18 whether the allegation was valid. I was trying to find out 19 what you looked at to determine what was the scope of the 20 i overbreak, how much overbreak had occurred. As I I
21 understand it, that was Mr. Tapia gave you that information 22 ' and he used the FSAR to develop that and you looked at the ,
23 FSAR and agreed with his description of the scope of the 24 overbreak. Is that right?
25 -
MR. JENG: Yes. With the description in the '
l l
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l
?
3 1
27070.0 i 48 REE ,
e
- l n
1: documents, drawings referred to there. Referred to in the 3
FSAR. There are some 22 pages of pictures of overbreaks.
2!]
- 3) I I want to make that point.
4 MR. ROISMAN: If I understand the process, again, 5t that you all go through in developing this -- you would, G you did not limit your investigation narrowly to the words 7 of the alleger, but as the trail opened up, you would look 8 further if that was warranted. Is that right?
~
9 MR. JENG: Yes. That has always been the case.
10 Although we may fail in some cases.
11 MR. ROISMAN: Were you at any time aware of the 12 fact that the licensing board reached the conclusion -- I 13 will now quote, this is from the board's September 23rd, 14 1983 memorandum and order, pages 37 to 40. In that area.
i 15 ; " Failure to describe the rock overbreak problem in a 16 reasonable manner in the FSAR constitutes a material false 17 statement under 10 CFR 50.100." l 18 ,
Were you. aware that the board had made'that !
19 1 conclusion?
l 20 - MR. JENG: I wasn't aware of such a conclusion
- i. work 21l n until after we had done with the site 9Ndde and Came back to 22 the Rockville office. My b t roccilecticr. use th:t ! ws:
1 23 -ir airport, screehere, I could be wrcr.g. At that time I ;
24 was given by Mr. Shao a confidential data from CASE to 25 Mr. Noonan with attachments. And the content of that
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, 202-387-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
i 27070.0 !, 49 REE ,
,~
]
- 1) :i transmittal cade me aware that there was such a situation.
2j MR. ROISMAN: What did you do then?
3 f MR. JENG: We were instructed to go over the l
4 j additional information provided by CASE and then we - at 1
5l that time I got involved with Dr. Hofmayer and Mr. Philleo 6 into the joint evaluation of this particular package of 7 information and we evaluated the impact and we came up with 8 an opinion which is still on a working level activity now.
9 MR. SHAO: A lot of conclusions we wrote based 10 on judgment. So after that, we performed some analysis to 11 make sure our judgment was right. And then -- and the 12 analysis indicated our judgment was right.
r, 13 MR. ROISMAN: Are you telling me that really the
\ ,
14 section, pages K-93 and 94, are really superseded by some 15 subsequent analyses which you have done subsequent to the 16 '
time that that report --
17 MR. JENG: Further reinforced.
18 MR. SHAO: I think whatever we say is still good. ,
19 ; But these are mainly a lot of -- we have very simplified 20 i calculations. But now we have computed and backed it up.
21 '
MR. ROISMAN: Let's take a look at some of the 22 things that you say here. You say, for instance, at K-93, 23 that the ASLB granted summary disposition of contention .
24 number 67 based on the finding that no genuine issue as to 25 any material facts was shown by any of the filings. TRT '
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6
j i
27070.0 0 50 REE ;
l 1: alse reviewed the affidavit and statements filed by TUEC 2 and by the NRR NRC in support of the motion for sunmary 1
3f l disposition. These documents adequately described rock 4 overbreak, accompanying fissures and subsequent repairs.
5- Do you still think that is a correct statement?
l 6l That those documents accurately describe rock overbreak and 7 accompanying fissures and subsequent repairs?
8 MR. SHAO: Related to unit 1 containment 9 building.
10 ! MR. ROISMAN: So you did limit your 11 l investigation of this allegation just to the containment 1 12 unit? Even though the magnitude of the overbreak proble' 13 went to several other buildings?
~
14 MR. JENG: No. We did, at the beginning, asse'ss 15 the, with particular attention to unit 1, concerns as it is 16 alleged. However, in our causal evaluation, certainly we i
17 considered similar occurrences in the other units and what ;
18 would be the impact given such an overbreak. We did 19 j consider on an overall basis.
20 MR. SHAO: We didn't discuss it here.
l 21j MR. JENG: We didn't discuss it but it went 22 through in our mental processes.
I 23 MR. ROISMAN: Why doesn't it show up here?
24 MR. JENG: We at that time decided that we only 25 needed to address unit 1. Could have been shown though.
l i
I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
a i l 27070.0 4 51 l REE g
4 1 !! MR. ROISMAN: Was that your decision or was that i
2 j the decision of people reviewing your work?
3h MR. JENG: The reviewer has che initial decision I
4 of what the scope is he is going to propose. This happened 5 to be the scope he proposed and I as the reviewing staff 6 happened to agree with this kind of presentation.
7 MR. ROISMAN: Who was the reviewer with?
8 MR. JENG: Joe Tapia.
9 MR. ROISMAN: So he decided and you concurred 10 that although there were overbreak problems at least of a 11 somewhat similar nature on other buildings, safety-related 12 l buildings at the site, you would not discuss that in this
-- 13 SSER?
14 MR. JENG: Well, actually there is no such a 15 conscious decision, would not discuss. It was just 16 '
initially this came out, this is what he proposed to be the 17 scope and I, as experienced staff, reviewed the scope and I l l
18 felt this adequately addressed the issue at hand and 19 j concurred with the scope of presentation.
1
.20 l MR. ROISMAN: Let's concede for a moment that 21 ,
the issue at hand, at least initially, is the allegation 22 which is the unit 1 containment building overbreak problem.
23 Are you saying that it made no difference to you that the 24 overbreak problem in fact occurred at several other 25 buildings? You thought you had no obligation to report -
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 300 336-6646
I i
27070.0 j 52 REE 1 that?
2 MR. SHAO: We feel that if the response at the i
3 i containment building would change significantly, then we i
4 ; better look at other things. Here we do some simplified 5 l; analysis and look at this building. It looks like not a i
6i problem. So it looks like it is not a generic problem in 7 our mind. If we have a negative answer, then we better 8l start looking at everything else.
9 MR. ROISMAN: I am having real trouble 10 understanding that. I take it -- I don't know what you 11 l mean by generic problem, but isn't it true that if the 12 l overbreaking occurred at several buildings, that th'e I
13 l overbreaking was generic, not limited to containment for 14 unit I?
15 ) MR. JENG: Mr. Shao is talking about the general 16 impact was not generic.
i 17 MR. SHAO: Let me make example. If I have a l
18 tumor here, a cyst here and a cyst here and a cyst here, i 19 l and the doctor opens here , looks , there is no cancer here, 20 then I don't worry about the other things. If there is a
21 cancer here, I start looking at other things. That is an 22 analogy I try to make.
23 MR. ROISMAN: Let's -- you say down here at the 24 bottom of, still on K-93, a little further down on the same 25 paragraph, you say, "these figures" -- referring to the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC-
, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 4
4 27070.0 i 53 REE j 4
1 i FSAR now --
\
2 MR. JENG: Which paragraph?
33 MR. ROISMAN: On page K-93, begins with the 4 : words, "by order of March 5." I am looking down five lines i
5l from the bottom. "These figures show *. hat the area of 6 overexcavation represented a small portion of the entire 7 excavated area." And you reference FSAR pages. Correct?
8 '
MR. JENG: Yes.
9 MR. ROISMAN: And at the bottom of page K-93, 10 carrying over -- well, particularly at the top of page K-94, 11 one of the principal bases for your determination that the 12 problem is not safety significant is that the area affected
- e. 13 by the replacement work was relatively small. Correct?
-i MR. JENG: Yes.
14 ,k 15 i4 MR. ROISMAN: But as I understand what we now 16 , all know, the total area of replacement was not small. It i
17 involved several other buildings. How are you able to make l 18 the statement, given that you knew that -- !
19 MR. JENG: From the engineering standpoint, 20 $ seismic engineering standpoint, as well as structural 21 ; foundational standpoint, we still maintain that the 22 overbreak volume involved compared to the total volume of 23 excavation which took place in those two units was 24 relatively small. That is still our opinion.
25 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. Do you quantify l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 6
1 !
.i 27070.0 l 54 REE j ;
t- i 1 "relatively small"?
2 MR. JENG: Well, I think --
3 MR. ROISMAN: 10 percent?
4l MR. JENG: I am not really prepared to give you 5lj numbers because numbers tend to be subject to argument.
6j But I --
MR. ROISMAN: I am not going to argue with you.
7l I 8 MR. JENG: I think it is better than being able 9 to define what is relatively small than I, an engineer, can i
10 ! do. I would trust your judgment.
11 f MR. ROISMAN: Well, unfortunately, they are not I
12 ! going to use my judgment in the hearing. If they did, we
's, 13 could end the hearing right now.
- f. .?
But I need to know your judgment. That is, I 14 l need to know when you, using your engineering judgment, 15 ]
16 think relatively small becomes relatively medium?
17 MR. JENG: Are you asking quantitative l 18 definition of what is relatively small? l i
19 MR. ROISMAN: I don' t want you to do it in the 20 k abstract. We have a real plant and a real amount of i
21 j overbreak. How much overbreak did we have here? What 4
22 <
percentage of all the excavation was the overbreak related i
23 to?
24 MR. JENG: Would you like me to answer this 25 question?
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
27070.0 "
55
'REE 4 il
<. 9 1 ) MR. SCINTO: He is asking you at you meant by 2
l what you wrote. M l
3 ,
MR. JENG: I would -- first of all, different i
4 .i people have different sense of relativeness, large or small, 3
5l but from my standpoint, I would say in the engineering 6 practice, 10 to 15 percent is what I would consider to be 7 small. That is my personal opinion.
8 MR. ROISMAN: Listen, your opinion is real 9 important because you are the expert here. So it is not --
10 . MR. JENG: I am one of the experts who happened 11 to be involved in this.
12 l MR. ROISMAN: It is not like who is better, the 13 h Redskins, the Cowboys.
r s, i
( : .
14 MR. JENG: I happen to like Redskins.
15 !,j MR. ROISMAN: Do you know what percentage of the 16 excavated area had overbreak? Did you make a determination ,
i 17 of that in the course of your analysis? l 18 MR. JENG: Did we -- I think we have come up to 19 ;; you -- we may or may not have in the data evaluation after i
20 1 the AQ-64. Did we do that?
l 21 ; MR. PHILLEO: Well, this gets a little difficult.
22 I am not sure how free we are to discuss this. I have 23 become quite familiar with this problem in recent months.
l 24 I had no involvement with it at the time the SSER was l 25 written. So if we are speaking of the process through '
1 t
i I i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I
,l :02 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
l 1
1 i
f 27070.0 56 REE j d
1g which the SSER came about, all I can do is give you a blank i
2j stare. The stuff we've become familiar with lately was in l
3l response to some confidential transfer of paper between us
(
l 4 and CASE. It is not clear to me how much of that we can 5 discuss here.
6 MR. SCINTO: We are here trying to determine 7 what you meant by what the Staff who was responsible for 8 writing this SSER meant in its discussion that Mr. Roissan 9 pointed out about portions being small. Mr. Roisman is 10 pursuing with you what is meant by this. He is using 11 additional sources to try to elicit from you an 12 understanding of what you meant at that time.
13 MR. PHILLEO: I will have to remain silent on 14 that.
15 , MR. SCINTO: Whatever information you have now, 16 ! if it bears upon what you meant at that time --
17 MR. SHAO: But it was written here, the small l
18 portion of the unit 1 containment building. I think j 19 Mr. Roisman is asking other buildings right now.
20 ' MR. SCINTO: Let's start with -- he is asking i
you questions about what you wrote.
21l .
22 MR. ROISMAN: But I am also asking the question 23 whether in the context of the statements that you made here, 24 whether if -- whether the statement "it was a relatively l
l 25 small portion of the containment building" is a statement l
I I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. - -_ _ _ l . __
-_ ? ? -_-- '
, lY ud j
7070.0 l 57 SE q $g.
1 that you think is a relevant statement if at the time you Q
3M 1
24 2 ! wrot'e it you had known that overbreak had occurred at YNp 3 ,
several places other than the unit 1 containment building Eyd
' WN .
4 so that you would have had to, in order to make the M hu 5 statement "small," have had to determine the magnitude of
- 6 all the overbreak as compared to all the excavation at the j 7 site? ,
8 MR. JENG: Let me -- I would like to tell you h 9l the best way I can recollect, how I, as the first line 10 reviewer, come to this conclusion of "relatively small" 11 statement. First of all, I look at that plan view which 12 was referred in the SSER of which shows a plan view of the f}h 13 unit 1 containment foundation base with an area showing the kh hg
,r, yf 14 l overbreak. And comparing that area to the total area, it M 15 was judged by the reviewer and by myself to be small.
16 Second thing I did was, what about this site of 17 excavation, which would have become there, at that time I 18 think I made a judgment that based on my some 20 years of '
"p i
19 :
experience in the earthquake engineering, knowing these y,-
20 : materials are rocks, okay, and the rock simply does not l 21 l affect the seismic response there, as compared to what a 2.
22 would have been if you were on very soft soil. So based on ,
h ,.
$7 23 that knowledge and the other knowledge about the seismic [$$
<w:b a
24 responses of structures, I formed a conscious decision that g) 25 the excavation from a volume standpoint is really not that .
l.i.6 9'i '
NFd i pli l 29:
A' g '
l k 7.e ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. [Q
. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 !jyk
j 27070.0 :) 58 REE , , ,
l big. So I concurred with the opinion, it is relatively 1l s I
2]i small.
i 3p MR. ROISMAN: All right. You referred to the l
4 patched area.
5 MR. JENG: Right.
6 MR. ROISMAN: Is this the FSAR page that you 7 Jooked at?
8 MR. JENG: Yes.
9 MR. ROISMAN: Just for the record, this is 10 Comanche Peak SES, final safety analysis report, units 1 1
11 i and 2, fracture map unit 1 foundation, figure 2. 5.4-33 B.
12 l MR. JENG: Right.
I r- 13 l MR. ROISMAN: So we know we are talking -- this
\-'
i 14 ! is the one you are referring to?
i 15 ' MR. JENG: Rig ht.
16 MR. ROISMAN: Is it a fair assumption that if 17 this were an inaccurate -- if it were an inaccurate l 18 description, then whether it was small or not couldn't be 19 -
determined from this figure?
20 i, MR. JENG: As I told you, this is only one of d
21 q the several f actors I considered in coming to the t'
22 conclusion of smallness.
23 MR. ROISMAN: What else other than the --
24 MR. JENG: I looked at the excavation fault 25 which is referred to in the SSER. This is some 20 -- go to i
N 1
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
s 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
i.
27070.0 59 REE ; ,
... h i
1 .1 the next one.
2l MR. ROISMAN: Is this it?
l 3 l MR. JENG: Yes. All these were considered in 4 the evaluation. Go to some more. There are so many 5 pictures.
6 MR. ROISMAN: All right. Okay.
7 MR. SHAO: You look at plane and elevation.
8 MR. ROISMAN: I see two elevations, it looks 9 like: reactor wall and containment wall elevations. Here 10 those the next two? It is figure 2.5.4-34 and figure 11 2.5.4-35.?
12 MR. JENG: I would like also to add that the, on
-)'
13 l the SSER K-93, second from last paragraph, second from last 14 sentence, FSAR figure 2.5.4 sheets 1 through 21, these are 15 all the information we looked at. If you look at those --
16 these are the pictures.
17 MR. ROISMAN: These are the photos?
18 MR. JENG: Which would give us an indication'of 19 , to what extent there is overbreak on the sf.te. i 20 4 MR. ROISMAN: All of these, of course, are unit 21 ! I containment?
l 22 MR. SHAO: Right. .
23 MR. ROISMAN: Because that was the focus of the 24 original allegation?
25 MR. JENG: Rig ht . -
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, 202 347 3700 Nadenwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I 4
J 27070,0 l 60 REE 3 y- :
1 14
- MR. ROISMAN: And Mr. Tapia made the decision to j
- 2) limit the look to the unit 1 overbreak question and you 3f concurred in that?
4 MR. JENG: I am not sure. He just, as the 5 reviewer, looked at all this information and later on, I i
6 learned he was exposed to some hearing information and he 7 came to this particular proposal and the particular depth 8j of scope of the SSER. And I, as the first-line reviewing 9 official, evaluated from a technical basis and I concurred :
10 his findings.
i 11 l MR. ROISMAN: As you examined the documents that 12 j you looked at, did you make any attempt to determine (7) 13 l whether the documents accurately described either the v,
\
14 ; events that transpired, say if they were a statement by someone, or the conditions that existed? Did you 15 )
16 independently test to see if the documents were accurate?
17 MR. JENG: Yes. For example, we made l l
18 arrangement with the inspector for Region 4, who was ;
i 19 described at the site , doing those excavations, and we went 20 to the Arlington of fice of Region 4 around personally, I i
21 j think Bob Philleo and myself and two of us and Tapia
, d l 22 interviewed Bob Stewart, the Region 4 on-site inspector who 23 was involved in the inspection of that excavation, and 24 asked about what was done in those days and what was the 25 information which he may have, in addition to what we have.
l i
t
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
d 20M47 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
. , _ . ~ _ . _ , _ . _ - - _ . . _ _ . -
5 -
i i
27070.0 1 61 REE -
r- b 1 !j And that is one example what we did.
2 MR. ROISMAN: What else did you do to attempt to l
38 verify the accuracy of what you were learning?
4 MR. JENG: Okay. I think we also read at one 5 NRR reviewer, Dr. -- I forgot his name -- Thompson, who was
- 6 the NRR reviewer of this subject when the licensee was 7 applying for the operating license. And we looked at his 8 affidavits covering the same subject. I happened to concur 9 to his opinion.
10 MR. ROISMAN: Is that what you call at the top l l
11 of K-94 the foundation report?
i 12 MR. JENG: Right.
r s. 13 MR. ROISMAN: In other words, that was the NRR
(~~!
14 document prepared?
15 MR. JENG: Right. But most importantly, really, i l 16 on this particular issue, based on our years of experience l 17 in licensing, we have reviewed some 50, 60 nuclear power !
t 18 plants' seismic analysis and many of which has base rock i
19 ; material like Comanche Peak. And we know so much about the 20 l response, the behavior of structure given such a foundation.
1 21 And we discussed it among ourselves and we come to the 22 conclusion that this really is not the major concern and 23 the response will not be affected given such an overbreak.
24 MR. ROISMAN: But --
25 MR. SHAO: Based on experience, we did not feel 5 I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- . . _ . . . L -
-._ ? . ? ? _ -. - .. ?'- . - _ - _ , ? _ - . - .- _ . . - .
l i
27070.0 62 REE 1 it was a safety issue.
2 MR. ROISMAN: I take it that that judgment is 3f critically impacted by whether the input data that you used i
4[ was accurate or inaccurate?
5 MR. JENG: Of course. But there is the rock.
6 The assumption primary is the rock foundation.
7 MR. SHAO: I am talking about the foundation.
8 Soil is rock and it didn' t make any difference. -
9 MR. ROISMAN: Let's take a hypothetical. Let's 10 say that 25 percent of the unit I containment building had 11 ! overbreak. And thr.t that 25 percent overbreak was filled l
12 l in with loose rock over which dental concrete was poured.
I 13 Would that -- would you still say it doesn't matter?
14 MR. SHAO: I think the calculation, if you do 15 sore calculations, it wouldn't matter too much. So long as 16 i you have the right so-called density. So long as rock, so t
17 lor.g as it has certain toughness.
18 MR. ROISMAN: But if you had, if you had loose i i
rock in the hole into which the concrete was~ poured, you 19)-
20 $ wouldn't know whether you had voids in there or not, would f 4 21 l you?
22 MR. SHAO:' Voids is a different story.
23 MR. ROISMAN: But if you had a big pile of loose 24 rock and someone poured concrete over the pile, you '
25 would n' t know if you had the voids in there, would you?
l i ,
i 2
- l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-336 6646
. . - _ _ ___ _ - - . . , - . _ . , _ . - ._ - ~ , _ - - ._ _ - - . . . - - . _ . _ . . _ .-- - , - _ . - _ . , _ . _ _
1 27070.0 ', 63 aEE l1,
,. s 1} MR. JENG: Mr. Roisman, let me add more 2 information to answer your question. Even if there were
, 3 loose rock, which I am not sure, okay? -- loose rock 4 properly compact can take loading as you may have 5 experienced in your back year operation. Sand, given a 6 proper compaction and given proper water level, can take as 7 much loading as solid rock. It is really, even loose rock 8 is not that big deal given the right conditions, right 9 controls. So when he said, it could matter --
10 MR. SHAO: He said a lot of voids, that is a 11 different story.
12 MR. ROISMAN: Except for the conversation with es 13 Mr. Stewart, you didn't have any independent verification
.)
14 that there were not lets of rocks in the hole and that 15 l there were not voids if a lot of rocks were there, isn't 1
16 '
that true?
17 MR. SHAO: Yes.
18 MR. JENG: I thought the kind of independent f
19 , verification to ascertain that if there were a lot of loose 20 $ rock, I came to the conclusion, it is de facto stuff. How 1
21 I couldn't do anything more fcanIcometothatconclusion?
22 than talk to the people who were at the site and guess what 23 their information was. Do you want me to excavate? I 24 didn't think what was feasible.
i 25 MR. ROISMAN: Let's get to the nub of it. The '
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTEE >, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
i 27070.0 64 REE ,
~.
j 1 ; nub of it is that in conducting your analysis, you felt j
2j compelled by a combination of practicality and sort of 3 operating assumptions that you had, that you decided to 4 deal with this as though no one was lying and that the 5 practichlity of testing the validity of things that you 6 heard or saw written was not -- it wasn't feasible to 7 actually go and drill holes, do some, tear up some of the 8 area and check it out yourself. Is that true?
9 MR. JENG: Not quite. That is just one 10 particular practicality consideration, whether one can do 11 independent verification of the issue, whether there is 12 indeed loose rock. But our merit of finding is that based w 13 i on experience, knowledge of the behavior of rocks, i I
~
14 knowledge of the structure response given earthquake 15 disturbances prior to a base rock such as Comanche Peak's 16 . and all other things, and we come to the conclusion that 17 there is no safety significance on this issue.
18 MR. ROISMAN: But in fact, you have no -- except i
for your conversation with Mr. Stewart and the reliance on 19 l.
20 documents provided by the applicant, you do not have a '
21 ' basis to say that there are not voids in the overbreak area 22 " in the unit 1 contaimment building? i i
- 23 MR. JENG
- I guess I have considered that I have l 24 no basis because I didn't dig myself. But that factor was 25 considered in the fashion that what is there is loose rocks, I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
27070.0 65 REE g i
e, r i
13 you know, so what? I considered the consequences of such 2 assumption. Although it may not be true. But having 3l considered such assumption, I still came to the same 4 I conclusion: that the behavior of the structure response at 5 ! that concentration would not be changed. By the way, this 6 particular judgment which took place at the time was 7 reinforced by our follow-up analysis performed in response 8 to later concerns raised in the --
9 MR. ROISMAN: Nonetheless, you assumed that if 10 there w'as loose rock in there and if it was compact 11 properly, then the very fact that there was loose rock l
12 wouldn't in and of itself invalidate --
-m g 13 MR. SHAO: Even loosely compact wouldn't make a 14 difference. Even just locsely put in, it wouldn't make any 1
15 i difference to us. -
16 MR. ROISMAN: Explain that to me.
17 MR. SHAO: Because the velocity doesn't really f 18 change. I l
19 ; MR. ROISMAN: I thought you earlier said that --
i 20 MR. SHAO: Unless there is a big void. I said loosely packed.
21 l 22 MR. ROISMAN: I then --
23 MR. SHAO: But then it really does depend, it 24 depends upon the configuration of the hole that is being 25 filled and the configuration of the rocks, if any, that are
- i I l ;
I 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1 4
4 27070.0 f 66 ,
REE '
i , ,
13 filling it, doesn't it?
2$ 4 MR. SHAO: So long as it is filled.
1 3 MR. ROISMAN: But are you using " filled" in some 4 technical sense? To me, " fill," means, I throw a lot of d
I 5 crap in the hole and then I cover it with concrete.
6 MR. SHAO: So long as they are throwing the 7 loose rocks --
8 MR. ROISMAN: But if the rocks go in there and 9 they end up leaning against each other so that they create 10 l a void, if the rocks are big, if they are five-foot square I
11 i rocks instead of two-inch rocks, then you can get a void; 12 isn' t that true?
13 MR. JENG: Mr. Roisman --
i ;
14 p MR. ROISMAN: Wait. Isn't that true?
15 MR. SHAO: I personally in my judgment would i
16 i still, even unless a void had to be very large.
17 MR. ROISMAN: How large?
18 MR. SHAO: I cannot tell you by number but you 19 . have to talk about a --
?
20 MR. ROISMAN: Bigger than this room?
21 1 MR. SHAO: Maybe one-third of the room.
1 :
22 MR. ROISMAN: Bigger than you?
23 MR. SHAO: Bigger than me.
I 24 MR. ROISMAN: You have done those bounding 25 calculations?
4 l
I l .
i 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6
27070.0 67 REE $
f, $
1 MR. SHAO: Based on my years of experience.
2i MR. ROISMAN: But not based u'pon some --
ti 3 MR. JENG: I would like to supplant two items.
{
4 In answer to your hypothetical question that if there were 5 loose rocks, big voids, given such assumption, knowing that 6 the practice of engineering construction of such a heavy 7 type, particularly as they are pertaining to nuclear plants 8 which has much more rigorous QA/QC requirements, it is my ,
9 belief that the chance having a loose rock lay in the very, a
10 l you know, spaces with a lot of void is small, but we did 11 l: consider such an unlikely possibility and what are the 12 consequences from that standpoint and my conclusion is the r3: 13 same as Mr. Shao's.
14 i Secondly, in our elemental analysis which is to 15 be used to further provide basis of our earlier judgment, 16 we did consider the looseness of the underlying rocks by 17 changing the sheer wind velocities from very unlikely low !
18 strength range to very high ranges and compared all the 19 , options and what the response impact would change. And it 20 j still didn't change. And the results show there are almost
~;
21 j no changes. This further enforced our earlier opinion.
i 22 MR. ROISMAN: Did you file conservatism or did 23 you isolate each conservatism and run your calculation 24 separately? Did you assume that the amount of the 25 overbreak was larger than your original assumption and that '
i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
1 I i 27070.0 f- -
68 l REE 1l '
there were voids and that the dental concrete was actually l
2, stronger rather than the same strength and then run your 3l calculation and then conclude it didn't make any difference?
4 l MR. JENG: We covered many cases you have
- 5. mentioned in separate ways. Ranging from a case where the 6 voids would be much larger than what we can best determine 7 based on the interview, the documents in the file, and also 8 we assumed the strength of that' rock almost from a very low 9 strength, we got the presumption in all of our evaluation.
10 So we did put very, very low strength type material to i
11 l cover the lower end and running the analysis to the highest I
12 range, what if our assessment is rock, if the rock is 13 stronger than what we considered to be in the base 14 l assessment and covered for the whole ranges. We came to 3
15 the conclusion that final response indeed is not affected 16 by such cases.
17 MR. ROISMAN: Let me just be clear because you f
18 , used the word " separate." I had asked you whether you i 19 combined them all into a single computer run. Did you 20 l combine all of your most conservative assumptions for each i
21 i of the factors that were potential variables in one 22 ' computer run to see if you still stayed within the 23 permissible limits?
24 MR. JENG: What other factors are you asking 25 about?
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
i 4
27070.0 F 69 REE g ,
1 - MR. ROISMAN: All the ones you included.
2j MR. JENG: Could you list it?
3 MR. ROISMAN: I don't know which ones you 4 considered.
5 MR. JENG: We considered in terms of size of the 6 voids, in terms of height and width. I think we considered 7 the strengths, which ranged from very soft soil to very 8 hard rock and that in our judgment should bond whatever 9 conditions existing in that particular site.
10 ' MR. ROISMAN: In terms of the hard rock, did you 11 consider that you had dental concrete in there which itself 12 was harder than any of the rock?
13 i MR. JENG: Yes. Dental rock was used to replace 14 where there were voids or excavation, overexcavation was 15 created. Remember, there were sites of overexcavation. We 16 did throw in dental concrete. We changed the property of 17 dental concrete such that they represent from very low, low j 18 strength material to very, very high, very, very high rock.
19 j MR. ROISMAN: Higher, stronger than the -- j i
20 l MR. SHAO: Stronger than.
l 21 MR. ROISMAN: And did you also include -- I 22 wasn't clear what you were just saying. Did you also mean ,
23 to say that you included the possibility that the area of 24 the overbreak was bigger?
25 MR. JENG: Yes. -
l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
h 27070.0 ; 70 REE j
, i 1 MR. ROISMAN: So there were three variables 2i which you looked at the conservative ranges of. One was 3 the strength of the dental concrete?
4 MR. JENG: Yes.
5 MR. ROISMAN: The size of the void?
6 MR. JENG: Yes.
7 MR. ROISMAN: And the size of the overbreak?
8 MR. JENG: Yes. That size, the second item to 9 me is equal. We assigned that dental concrete dimension, 10 width and depth, which is used to fill the overexcavated 11 volume there and so once you use the much larger dental l
12 concrete volume than what is assumed to be *there, it would
, 13 : cover your three points.
i 14 p MR. ROISMAN: My question is, did you run the
- l 15 calculation when you made the most conservative assumptions 16 for each of those three, all at once? ;
17 MR. JENG: Yes. ;
18 MR. ROISMAN: Or did you do it as a separate -- 1 19 l MR. JENG: All at once. And we have separate 1
combinations. If you want specific, I think we have to 20 ]
4 21 i check. But I think we covered various cases.
l 22 ' MR. SHAO: The answer to it --
23 MR. ROISMAN: I am going to stop there because I 24 think the next line of questions, you were very indulgent l
25 by letting them answer questions that arguably deal with i
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6 9 6
1 27070.0 .
71 REE l
1 , the new analys*is. But I would like to note, when will we l 2 see the new' analysis? I want to see the output. I assume 3 that it ultimately will be --
4 MR. MIZUNO: It is going to be published. I 5 don't think the Staff has decided whether it is going to be 6 published as an SSER or some other document. And we 7 haven't even begun to see their stuff for review. So we 8 can't even tell you when it will be published. That is all 9 I can say. I don' t know when it is going to be published.
10 MR. SCINTO: We are in fact intending to make it 11 available, to be published.
12 MR. SHAO: Off the record.
. 13 (Discussion off the record.)
14 l MR. ROISMAN: Let's go on.
i 15 l MR. SCINTO: Let me interject for a moment, 16 because of Mr. Bangart's timing question, it is 11:00. We 17 want to get Mr. Bangart out of here to make a 3:00 plane. ,
18 MS. GARDE: What time does that mean he has to f i
19 ; leave?
'i 20 i MR. BANGART: No later than 2:00.
1 21 I MR. ROISMAN: How little time are you willing to 22 take at lunch? Are you willing to take a 30-minute lunch?
23 MR. SCINTO: Whoever you are working on at the l
24 moment can take a very short lunch and the other people 25 could take a little longer. -
i i
i 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
_ . _ ._ _-347-3700_ . _ _ _ . . _ . .
i 27070.0 72 REE l
~ l 1l MR. ROISMAN: Well, I think it will be 2 Mr. Bangart. I think I can continue for a while. But we i
3 will -- you will make your plane if the plane leaves at 4 3:00, if you leave here at 2:00. I think we will get him 5 out of here by 2:00.
6 MR. SCINTO: Thank you.
7 Let's -- going back to K-93, you say in the 8 middle of the same paragraph that we have been on, the one 9 that begins "by order of March 5": "The TRT reviewed the 10 procedures utilized to replace fractured rock with dental 11 concrete and to grout Surrounding fissures and the 12 accompanying compressor test results."
e 13 What basis did you have for determining whether 14 the procedures were in fact followed?
i 15 ,
MR. JENG: I think the reviewer, in this 16 particular case, Joe Tapia, was the one who reviewed these 17 procedures. I did not personally review these procedures.
1 18 MR. ROISMAN: Assuming the procedures were l l
19 reviewed, the review was proper and it was concluded that 20 ! these were really super procedures, how did you know that 21 ,, the procedures were followed at the time that the work was 3
22 1 done?
23 MR. JENG: I think we could not tell, but based 24 on the proper -- my answer is this: based on my 25 understanding of the OA/Oc requirement which was in effect e
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
] Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 4 202-347-3700
V I
I 27070.0 f 73 REE 1 at the site of such operation, that should have been 2 assured or implemented. It may not have been in theory.
3 Also I did talk to the Stewart, Bob Stewart.
4 ,
MR. ROISMAN: We will get to Mr. Stewart in a 5 second. I am going to let you tell me about that 6 conversation.
7 MR. JENG: I think, too, I have to say that 8 based on my understanding of the regulations applied, I 9 have good reason to believe that should have been 10 implemented. That has been my experience, although there 11 are some regulations, as we have identified in these 12 reports, in several locations.
13 MR. ROISMAN: Well, you on several occasions l
14 referred to your experience at other nuclear plants, et 15 cetera. Based upon these documents and in particular the 16 i SSER 11, is it your judgment that the Comanche Peak plant 17 is like other nuclear plants? l 18 MR. SHAO: Maybe I let Bob Philleo talk about ;
i 19 , this.
l 4
20 ] MR. PHILLEO: I don' t want to pose as a real 1
21 ; nuclear plant expert, although I have been a consultant on 22 ' six plants, so I have some feel for it, and usually in very ;
23 specific parts of the plants, though I don't have an 1 24 overall background as a nuclear engineer, but I have a lot 25 of experience in nonnuclear construction. I have very -
I
\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
a 202 347 3700 Wationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
_ _ - . _ _ _ _ __ . _ ______. ....-. --_, _ _ _.-._.___._.___-- _ -____..._, _ __ _ o
s i
'27070.0 l 74 REE 4
i 1j little concern in general for the structural aspects of 2, Comanche Peak. It compared f avorably with the other 3 nuclear plants I am familiar with and very favorably with 4 nost nonnuclear construction. Particularly I think it is 5 quite well documented. I don't think, except for the few 6 issues that surfaced in this, I don' t think documentation 7 was a problem. In fact, the documentation was good enough 8 that we were able to detect some of the things that went 9 wrong from the available~ documentation.
10 I think in the particular area we are talking 11 about, the dental concrete, in this recent review, I have 12 had occasion to look in some detail at the documentation of 13 the dental concrete. It is extremely detailed. I have 14 : never seen inspectors reports that go into such great 15 i explanation of minor items.
16 I think that the structural aspects of Comanche 1
17 Peax were pretty well handled except for the few things i i
18 that we have surfaced as open issues. And the 19 documentation of this dental concrete thing was quite good.
20 j ;MR. ROISMAN: Was that documentation 21 i contemporaneous with the events?
i 22 ~ MR. PHILLEO: No. This was inspector's reports i
23 as it was going on.
i 24 MR. ROISMAN: There is a finding in the j 25 licensing board's decision of July 29, 1983, to the effect i
i I
I I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6 9 6
27070.0 '
75 REE -
h 2l that "the NRC cited the applicants" -- I assume that means 4
2 some notice of violation was sent -- "for failing to have 3 and to utilize quality control procedures for excavation 4 for these safety-related structures."
5 MR. PHILLEO: That was the excavation itself.
6 I The procedure they started off with was to have an 7' excavation engineer on hand who watched the whole thing and 8 told them when to stop. And the overbreak was the result l
9 of his observations that the first blasts did some 4
i 10 l ,
fracturing and beyond that. So it required them to go 11 k ahead and take out some more.
f 12 j There was no formal QA/QC procedure for the 13 f excavation itself. Although the procedures set up by the 4
14 a consultant to handled the excavation had all the aspects of 15 i the QA/QC program. So that information is quite detailed, 16 j too. It was a very conscious excavation engineer who j i 17 3 produced the overbreak because he kept finding more breaks !
I l 18 i in the circumference of the rock. But the citation was l
19 1 that this was done without a formal QA/QC procedure.
i 20 j So I think nobody has questioned that all the
, 21 ! information was there or would have been there if there had l l 22 ' been a QA procedure. Just in a bureaucratic sense, there 23 was no QA procedure for the excavation. That is the basis 24 of the citation. ,
25 MR. ROISMAN: It wasn't necessarily trended then,
$3)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage , p 800 33H646 m n ~ ~~-, ;-~w _ , . . ___ ~n_ _ m a -w dwm~_.
27070.0 76 REE O
>' 1 right? It wasn't just that the title of the document was 2 wrong. The QA/QC failures were that the documentation was 3 not put into the QA/0C system for trending by the audit 4 people or trending by others?
5 MR. PHILLEO: Yes, but it all existed.
6l MR. ROISMAN: But that is not an inconsiderable 7 difference. You don't mean to tell me that trending 8 i doesn't make any difference?
94 MR. PHILLEO: No. It was just found that there 10 f was no QA procedure for the excavation. It was handled 11 .; outside of the old QA regime. But the replacement of the 12 4 dental concrete was in a OA procedure. That was very
- 13 carefully documented.
./
9 14 MR. ROISMAN: Now, so that going now back to the ;
15 , K-93 page, in addition to the review of the procedures 16 themselves, did somebody actually go back and look at the 17 documentation that existed to see if the inspectors had 18 ' reported that the procedures were in fact being followed? ;
19 MR. JENG: Joe Tapia performed the evaluation, 20 i including documentations and what was available to him then, 21 and in his opinion, he told me he reviewed all the 22 l information and had come to this particular recommendation 23 of which I reviewed. I found it to be reasonable and 24 adequate. What detail, you may want to in the future ask 25 Joe Tapia.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 233H646
27070.0 77 REE l
A 1 MR. PHILLEO: I have reviewed all that. I hadn't at the time this was written, so I didn't contribute 2l 3 to this, but if you are just interested in what is there, I 4 can discuss that.
l 5 MR. ROISMAN: 'I don' t know whether or not that !
l 6 ,
is within our scope. He is talking about the fact that 7l outside the preparation for this SSER, he looked at some of
- 8 ,
the stuff and would give me some opinions about the
! '9 accuracy of what is now in the SSER. As I understand it, 10 ;
that is off base at this point.
11 j MR. MIZUNO: I think we can go ahead and give 12 your opinion on that. But as long as we don't start going j
^ '
.f . 13 too deeply into his --
.s e 14 MR. ROISMAN: Okay.
15 - MR. SCINTO: Let's leave it off.
I 16 MR. ROISMAN: If we are going to open it, let's 17 open it. I don't want to get some roundhouse conclusion 18 here and then told, when I want to probe it: No, that is I 19 j outside the scope.
i 20 ' MR. MIZUNO: Okay. We won' t get into it.
21 MR. SCINTO: I think that probably would be more 22 l productive that way.
23 MR. ROISMAN: We have now concluded that you are 24 out of order.
25 MR. SCINTO: Just to remind you, we are talking O
ACE-FEDERAi REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nascnwde Coverage 800 336 6646
27070.0 78 REE )
1 about this document and what it says and what the Staff 2 intended to say in this document. Before we got into a 3 subject matter, because there was some discussion of trying 4 to get the description of what was meant in the document, 5 it proceeded beyond to get an understanding of that by 6 reference to other stuff. It proceeded to some degree 7 after that. That is an ef fort to try to understand this 8
document. We have -- we are not generally discussing 9 things that happened subsequently.
10 ! MR. ROISMAN: Now, let's get to Mr. Stewart. At i
11 ! the end of this paragraph we have been looking at, the j
12 a statement appears that "TRT interviewed the NRC inspector g 13 .,! who was present during the excavation process and verified
~/ 4 14 '
the conditions presented in the FSAR."
15 - First, who interviewed him?
16 i MR. JENG: I think myself and Bob Philleo. And 17 Joe Tapia may have been there, right?
18 i MR. PHILLEO: I think he was. I should point l
19[ out, we were interviewing him on several items, so I had my 20 l own fish to fry at that case. So I was not particularly 21 concerned with that part of the interview that dealt with 22 , this issue. Although I was there.
23 MR. ROISMAN: When did this take place?
24 MR. PHILLEO: July or August.
25 MR. ROISMAN: Of what year?
O L)
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwid co r soo.33ui646
27070.0 79 REE h
1 MR. JENG: '84. Must be August.
2 MR. ROISMAN: Did you record the interview?
3 MR. JENG: No, just between two working NRC l 4 Staff of different offices. We just talked on a working 5 level. l 6 HR. ROISMAN: Did you make notes?
7 MR. JENG: I didn't myself personally make any 8 notes.
9 , MR. PHILLEO: I didn't make notes on this. I 10 made notes on the particular issue of which I was l
11 investigating.
12 MR. ROISMAN: So at that point you were not
-s, 13 3 investigating this particular --
14 MR. ROISMAN: Right.
15 MR. PHILLEO: Rig ht .
16 MR. ROISMAN: Do you know if Mr. Tapia made 17 notes or if Mr. Stewart made notes?-
18 MR. JENG: I don' t think he made any. We were 19 j
. just talking.
20 ! MR. ROISMAN: You were all face to face.
I I 21 MR. JENG: Yes.
i 22 MR. ROISMAN: How long was the interview?
23 MR. JENG: I would say about 20-30 minutes.
24 MR. PHILLEO No. We went. firs't thing -- well, 25 yes, probably on this issue.
-s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -
2o2 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
27070.0 80 l REE l 1 MR. ROISMAN: About 20 minutes.
2 MR. PHILLEO: The interview lasted more than 3 half a day.
4 MR. JENG: Many issues.
5 MR. ROISMAN: But this particular issue may be 6 20 minutes?
7 MR. JENG: Yes.
8 MR. ROISMAN: What did he tell you was his role 9 in being present during the excavation process? What role 10 j did he actually play?
MR. JENG: This is recollection. He told us he 11]
12 j was the, then Region 4 on-site inspector covering this 13 f excavation operation. He was present at the site when the
- ,, i 14 excavation was taking place.
l 15 MR. ROISMAN: But does that mean that he was at 16 the site -- was he watching the excavation?
17 MR. JENG: That was my understanding.
18 MR. ROISMAN: All the time?
19f MR. JENG: Not all the time, but whenever the i
20 i on-site inspector would be present during operation, that i
21 was my understanding. I didn' t pursue specifically, were you all the time there when things were going on. I didn't 22 l 23 follow that kind of questioning. I presumed, the inspector 24 on site would be there when things were going on.
25 MR. ROISMAN: Do you know whether he was there 3
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 336 4646
l 27070.0 81 REE 1 at the time that the overbreak occurred? ,
2 MR. JENG: I don't know. But based on my 3 understanding of engineering practice, the overbreak took 4 so long a period, every time there was blasting they would 5 have overbreak. So being an inspector, I would presume, I 6 guess he must have seen some of them.
7 MR. ROISMAN: Do you know whether when he saw it, 8 he knew he was looking at overbreak?
9 MR. JENG: No'.
10 j MR. ROISMAN: Do you know whether he was there 11 ' and viewed the repair operation?
12 e MR. JENG: It was my understanding he was there d
13 i to observe some of the repair operation.
. i a 14 l MR. ROISMAN: Do you know whether he saw loose 15 rock go into the excavated area that had to be filled back 16 in?
17 ) MR. JENG: I think I did. His answer, to the 18 best of my recollection, was that there is some overbreak. .
19 Normally such an operation would be bound to have that. He
]
20 35 was telling them to clear out all the loose rocks and 21 replace with dental concrete, whatever that procedure. He
+ ;
22 i was trying to enforce that procedure.
23 MR. ROISMAN: In other words, he observed some 24 engineer working for the contractor who was directing the 25 removal of loose rock from the overexcavated areas?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
- _ _ . . - . . - . - . - . _ ~ - - - .-
27070.0 82 REE 1 MR. JENG: .That is not the way he told me. As 2 Region 4 site inspector inspecting the excavation operation, 3 he recalled that there was some overbreaks as there 4 normally would be in such an operation and he did what was 5 needed, including telling them to clean the loose rocks and 6 replace with what was called for. In this case, dental 7 concrete, based on procedure --
8 MR. ROISMAN: So it was he who was telling them 9 to take the loose rock out of the overbreak area.
10 j MR. JENG: That is my recollection. My object 11 was to get what he knew about that. The best he can 12 , recollect. He told me this happened years ago from his 13 standpoint and so the information became very hazy and very 14 ' -- we just tried our best.
15 MR. ROISMAN: Do you remember whether he said 16 that he had seen the actual pouring of the dental concrete 17 into the overexcavated areas?
18 MR. JENG: I don't recall that. I haven't asked 19 j such particular question. But I presume, being a site i
20 l inspector, one must have seen such operation as part of his l I I
21 l job.
22 MR. ROISMAN: You mean seen it from time to time.
23 MR. JENG: Yes. That is my assumption. I 24 didn't ask him specifically.
l l 25 MR. ROISMAN: This same sentence, you say "the D--
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nadonwide Coverage 800 336 4646
l 1
27070.0 83 REE
( , 1 TRT" -- and then we-will skip this thing about interviewed I
2 --
" verified the conditions in the FSAR." How did you 3 verify the conditions that were presented in the FSAR?
4 MR. JENG: Again, this verification is primarily 5 done by reviewer and supplant by judgment by the reviewing a
6 official, myself. And just took the photographs, the
- 7 photographs.
8 MR. ROISMAN: And just so, to make sure I am
'l
{ 9 j clear on this, in doing that, you did not, you did not put 1 .
. 10 into your head, because it wasn't known to you at that i
11 8 moment, that the licensing board had concluded that the 12 4 FSAR description of the overbreak problem constituted a I
i , 13 $
. material false statement?
- . l 14 I MR. JENG: At that. time I wasn't aware of that. !
l 15 MR. ROISMAN: Have you ever deteamined whether 4 4
, 16 to what extent the FSAR was f alse?
17
- MR. PHILLEOs Yes.
18 MR. ROISMAN: You have gone back to find that 1
19 out? ,
, 20 f MR. SHAO: Yes.
21 MR. ROISMAN: Okay.
l 22 ;J Now, Mr. Shao, much earlier you talked about the 23 fact that it does make a seismic difference if the dental 24 concrete is stronger? ,
l ,
i 25 MR. SHAO: No, I didn't say that.
l
' (2) l e, ACE.FEDERAI REPORTERS, INC.
j 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
27070.0 84 REE
'3 1 MR. ROISMAN: I am sorry. I believe you did.
2 Are you saying now, it doesn't make any 3 difference if the dental concrete is stronger?
4 MR. SHAO: I don't believe. I only mentioned if
, 5 the void is so big.
6 MR. ROISMAN: I understand about the void. I ,
7 was talking about the dental concrete strength. In your 8 judgment --
9 MR. SHAO: I said similar. I mentioned similar.
MR. ROISMAN: Well, the words that are used here 10 h at K-93 at the very last line of the page is "were 11 f i 12 i essentially identical."
-s. 13 l! MR. SHAO: I see that.
es 14l~ MR. ROISMAN: I thought my earlier question was l
15 l to you, not using these words, was to find out if they i
weren't essentially identical, did that make a seismic 16 l 17 difference, even if the dental concrete was stronger rather 18 ! than weaker.
19 ! MR. SHAO: I think even stronger, I don't think 20 i it made that much difference.
21 MR. JENG: Again, I think he is generally 22 speaking right.
23 MR. SHAO: So long as -- you see, the thing that 24 is really important is sheer velocity. The stronger, the 25 higher. It won't make any difference.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nadonwide Coverage 800 3364646
27070.0 85 REE -
1 MR. ROISMAN: But to what extent does it matter 2 if the strength of the dif ferent underpinnings of the 3 containment building are different such that in the event 4 of an earthquake, the response --
5 MR. SHAO: Once rock reached certain sheer 6 velocity, then the calculation says that they are rigid.
7 They don't move. So stronger, that is why in my judgment, 8 stronger doesn't make any difference. If it would be 9l weaker, it would make more difference.
1 10 i MR. ROISMAN: Isn't it true, though, that this 11 particular kind of rock is itself relatively vulnerable to I
12 , cracking and -- which is one of the reasons they had the rs 13 ! overbreak problem -- is that this is not like granite and s.< .
14 it is a little bit more fracture oriented?
15 I MR. SHAO: Yes, but cracking won't change the 1
16 j seismic response. Cracking rock will not change the' '
17 seismic response -- even loose rocks, they have the same 18
- kind of seismic response.
19 h MR. ROISMAN: In terms of how much vibration l
20 l will be transmitted to --
21 MR. SHAO: It will not change.
22 MR. ROISMAN: I think we better, since he .is 23 critical, I am going to stop here without stopping the 24 subject. .
25 MR. SCINTO: We recognize that.
! k$)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nadoewide Coverage 800 336 4646 r,,-.
27070.0 86 REE
'-) 1 MR. ROISMAN: Do you want to take 20 minutes for 2 lunch right now or so? We will start with Mr. Bangart when 3 we get back or Ms. Garde will start with Mr. Bangart.
4 MR. MI2UNO: 12 noon.
MR. ROISMAN: Let's do that and then Mr. Shao 5l 6! and others don't have to be back that quickly because the 7 questions won't be addressed to them.
8 MR. SCINTO: Fine. They will be back because we 9l haven't dropped them.
4 10 (whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was 11 )< recessed, to reconvene at 12:00 noon, this same day.) i f
12 9 !
-- 13
) '
14
. I 15 64 16 i
17 -j 18 '
19 l 20 /
21 22 l 23 l 24
, 25 S
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Natknwide Coverage 800 336 6646
27070.0 87 REE 9 1 AFTERNOON SESSION (12:10 p.m.)
2 MS. GARDE: Back on the record.
3 Before our lunch break, we stopped in the civil 4 structural area to accommodate Mr. Bangart's schedule. But 5 I now understand that his schedule problems may have been 6 alleviated. So he will probably be here beyond 2:00. Is 7 that correct?
8 MR. SCINTO: He will be here until we finish 9 with miscellaneous.
10 MS. GARDE: Is there still a need for me to put 11 his , the things first? Would you prefer that I do that?
12 l MR. SCINTO: In the miscellaneous, I don't q 13 ! believe so.
b i 14 : MR. MIZUNO: No.
1 15 t MS. GARDE: Okay. Would you turn to page K-ll 16 in SSER 8, beginning with the miscellaneous group summary.
17 l I would like to go into some kind of general matters 1
18 regarding the miscellaneous group. Mr. Phillips, if you 19 have an answer, please feel free to jump in. Could you 20 please describe for me or expa.td on the description given 21 on K-11 and K-12 how an issue came to be labeled as 22 miscellaneous?
23 MR. BANGART: The actual categorization, as 24 described earlier, was initially done by the TRT people at 25 headquarters under the direction of Tom Ippolito. My O
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 80M364646
__ m A
27070.0 , 88 REE -
9 1 understanding is that those issues that did not clearly fit 2 into one of the technical group disciplines were given to 3 or assigned to the miscellaneous category.
4 We , in turn, as we gathered more information 5 regarding those issues, either kept them under our 6 jurisdiction or transferred those to other groups as 7 appropriate. There were , I believe , three transferred to 8 the mechanical group and one that was assigned to the 9 office of investigations.
10 MS. GARDE: Now, when the initial designation 11 was made, you said it was made in Washington by 'either i
12 Mr. Ippolito or people designated by Mr. Ippolito. Do you f;g 13 l know whether that designation was accomplished in a rough ss! ,
14 l time period?
15 MR. BANGART: It was roughly June of 1984.
1 16 ,
MS. GARDE: Do you know specifically who made 17 6 the designation?
18 MR. BANGART: I believe Mr. Wessman and 19 ! Ms. Vietti-Cook were involved in the assignment of i
20 categories.
21 MS. GARDE: Is that correct?
22 MS. VIETTI-COOK: Yes.
23 MS. GARDE: Let me direct the same question to 24 you. How did you decide when an issue, became a 25 miscellaneous issue as opposed to fitting into another one O
ACE-FEDERAd REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nanonwide Coverage 800 336 6646
27070.0 89 REE 1 of the technical categories.
2 MS. VIETTI-COOK: What we did is, we originally 3 had gone through and read many documents from many sources.
4 And we wrote brief descriptions of what the document --
5 what the allegation was and the reference document. Then 6 we took those brief descriptions and we put them into bins 7 and those are the five categories that we came up with.
8 From that brief description, as how we categorized them and 9 if it did not, if from that brief description it did not 10 l look like it appeared to be a civil structural issue or a 11 mechanical issue, we put it in the miscellaneous bin, if it i
12 did not appear to be QA/QC or the other categories.
-3 13 , Then af ter they got started, they may have sd 14 l looked at the issue and gotten further details than what we 15 had at the time and they may have decided, hey, this is a l
16 mechanical issue, let's transfer it. Or, it has a 17 mechanical implication, let's work with the mechanical 18 l group on this.
i 19 l MS. GARDE: Mr. Bangart, who were the 20 individuals assigned to pursue the miscellaneous issues 21 with you?
22 MR. BANGART: Let me just explain at the outset 23 that our team was staffed a little -- in a different 24 f ashion , perhaps , f rom some of the other groups. We had 25 essentially three contractors who were working for us in n
U ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nadonwide Coverage 800 336 6646
~
27070.0 90 REE D
N5 1 the TRT miscellaneous group. But I also had the ability to 2 call on other people within the Region to deal on 3 individual specific allegations. I did so.
4 So we had Mr. Phillips, the three contractors, 5 working full-time on the miscellaneous allegations, plus I 6 called on five people from the Region to also support the 7 miscellaneous effort on individual allegations.
8 MS. GARDE: Could you name the contractors?
9 MR. BANGART: Luke Jones, Jack Orbit and Brent 10 Payne.
11 MS. GARDE: Are they still contractors working 12 on Comanche Peak issues? *
- 13 i MR. BANGART: I don't know.
14 MR. Pl!ILLIPS: As soon as the SSERs were 15 l comple ted , I don' t recall that they have worked any more.
16 In fact, if they did a lo,t of the nitty-gritty work and so 17 fifwegot into any of those areas, I wouldn' t perhaps know 18 all of the answers to those questions. But I think I can 19 answer them because I worked very closely with them.
20 MS. GARDE: Besides Mr. Phillips, who are the l 21 five Region 4 individuals that you called upon for 22 assistance?
23 MR. BANGAllT: Russell Wise, W-i-s-e. James 24 Kelley, K--e-1-1-e-y. Lee Ellershaw, Doyle Hunnicut, and 25 Ward Smith.
3 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Natioewide Coverage 300 336 4646
. 3
.7070.0 91 !
- EE h 1 MS. GARDE: When you say that this is a 2 different arrangement than the other teams, TRT teams, in 3 what way was it different?
4 MR. BANGART: Only different in the sense that 5 my recollection is that they had staffs that were more or g 6 less permanently assigned during the TRT period. And I am jjj 9,
7 only -- I only pull out on a number of these five g!
L 8 individuals for specific actions and then they were not Q r:: .
9 l continuing members of the TRT. h;5 l Vi 10 !
l MS. GARDE: Prior to your being assigned to the (f 11 l TRT, had you had any contact with Comanche Feak site? U 12 l MR. BANGART: To the best of my recollection, no.
13 There may have been an occasion where I participated or x
14 ! interacted with the site in the emergency preparedness area. ll; gs 15 , But I don't recollect the specific time. lij 16 MS. GARDE And to the best of your knowledge , E73 g.; .
17 I I$
what about the othet five individuals?
18 5 MR. BANGART: Certainly Ward Smith had 19 l involvement because he was the resident inspector on the
.)
20 operations side of the house for Region 4. Mr. Kelley may 7 21 have had involvement because of preoperational inspections f, 22 conducted in a physical security area. Mr. Hunnicut did
- 23 have involvement because he was a section chief that had 24 first-level supervisory responsibility for the inspection 25 program at Comanche Peak.
.?
kh ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nadonwide Coverage 300 336-6646
[.a T
27070.0 92 REE G-1 MS. GARDE: And Mr. Wise?
2 MR. BANGART: I don' t believe he had involvement, 3 although he may have in the laboratory and analytical area 4 during the preoperational inspection program. If he did ,
5 that is where he would have been.
6 MS. GARDE: Beginning on page K-12 and K-13 7 there is a list of 20 categories in the miscellaneous area.
8 In these categories, just from my lay perspective of the 9
l charact'erization of the concern a'nd allegation, quite a i
10 ; number of them are technical issues. And I would like to 11 briefly -- I am not going to spend a lot of time on this, 12 l but I would like to briefly go through these by number and S 13 ask you why this does not fit into one of the other 14 technical categories, if you know why it did not or why it 15
] wasn't referred out.
4 Do you understand my question?
16 ; MR. BANGART: I understand your question. I 17 think -- I might best cover the question by first a general 18 $ response. If we felt that even though.there was a
. 19 technical discipline associated with a particular 20 allegation but we had the capability within my team to deal
, 21 with it in a technical sense and there was discussion l
i 22 ongoing throughout the summer between all technical teams, 23 we arrived at essentially a consensus decision as to 24 whether or not an allegation that did involve one of the 25 other groups' technical discipline, we arrived at that
)
ACE.FEDERAC REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nadonwide Coverase 800 336 6646
W) it
,r8 7070.0 93 (
3E 6'J:t
.3; l,
1 consensus decision as to whether it should stay with the 7 2 miscellaneous group or be transferred to one of the other 3 technical discipline groups. T>,
4 MS. GARDE: In light of that response, I direct 5 your attention to the top of page K-12, if you will, a k C*
6 continuation of the first paragraph issue where it said, "a (Y3 7 total of 29 allegations were designated as miscellaneous."
A 8 And then the definition, i.e. , "their subject matter did (hd t
i I$)
9 i not fall within the scope of responsibility of one of the
}
10 lotherTRTtechnicaldisciplines." Your answer has (h$
oa 11 4 essentially added another sentence for explanation, for G 3 .
12 i want of a better word, about what a miscellaneous. category l
13 i is. Is that correct? . :q .
L;:t 14 !. MR. BANGART: Yes.
b $=
15 MS. GARDE: So it isn't necessarily true that g{yi c
16 i the issues listed under, in this category don't follow into t,y U,.d >
17 [ another technical discipline? P< f ,
i 18 MR. BANGART: There is certainly scme overlap on 1
19 I the allegations that we looked at with some of the other -g e
20 technical disciplines. ; ^fj m
21 MS. GARDE And the decision to keep it within It su 22 the miscellaneous category was based on the availability of l 23 resources to you to deal with the issuer is that correct? ,
L 24 MR. BANGART: And the complexity, not only y, availability in terms of numbers but the availability in b 25 ij m
3 N
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 'Pi 202.M7 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646 ]
27070.0 94 REE h
- 1 terms of adequate technical expertise to explore it.
2 MS. GARDE: And who made that decision?
3 MR. BANGART: That was essentially, as I 4 indicated earlier, a consensus decision between the 5 supervisors and managers of the TRT effort.
6 MS. GARDE: Here in Washington?
7 MR. BANGART: No. This was after we were on 8 site. We held essentially daily meetings among the group 9 leaders, individual group leaders with TRT manager, and 10 those kinds of issues were one of the topics that were 11 covered in that daily discussion.
12 MS. GARDE: I am a little conf used. Le t me go
-. 13 back over my notes to point out the confusion. You can 14 correct it.
15 I first asked you when and by whom these issues 16 , were designated as miscellaneous. Your response was, that 17 it was done in D.C. by Mr. Ippolito and Mr. Wessman and 18 l Ms. Vietti-Cook.
19 MR. BANGART: That is coErect.
20 MS. GARDE: But you just now answered and said 21 that the designation was made with, on the site with Region 22 4 people, based on other circumstances besides those 23 identified on page K-11 and K-12.
24 MR. BANGART: The final designation as to 25 whether they stayed with the miscellaneous group or whether !
I
- 5) I l
ACE.FEDERAI REPORTERS, INC.
2a2 347 3700 N.oon ia. cover soo.336-6646
l 27070.0 95 REE
- 1 they were transferred to another group.
2 MS. GARDE: Okay. Did the original 3 miscellaneous categories have many more issues than those 4 you see here?
5 MR. BANGART: The text states that there were 29 6 originally.
7 MS. GARDE: That is the original number that 8 came out of Washington?
9 MR. BANGART: Ye s .
10 MS. GARDE: Then the paragraph states, the 25 of 11 the allegations were consolidated and four were referred 12 out.
.m 13 MR. BANGART: That is correct.
j w I 14 l MS. GARDE: Going back to my original cuestion, 1
15 what I would like to do is go through some of these and 16 have you explain to me to the best of your knowledge why it 17 was not referred out to another technical group. Category i i 18 ! number 2, on reactor pressure vessel. [
l 19 MR. BANGART: One factor -- there may have been 20 others, but one f actor that I remember in this particular 21 allegation is that that was one with which Region 4 had 22 developed a great deal of familiarity. And because of that 23 fact, we felt that people on the miscellaneous team who 24 were largely from Region 4 would be in the best position to 25 explore that further.
9 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
27070.0 96 REE s 1 MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I would say probably a 2 factor were areas, if you look at the original allegations, 3 it is really not that technical in nature. For example, 4 something either physically touched the side of the 5 concrete wall or it didn' t as opposed to if they had asked 6 me to icok at the seismic analysis for the concrete. Then 7 I would immediately have told Dick, I don' t have that kind 8 of capability. You will have to give it to civil 9 structural, someone who can do seismic analysis. l l
10 MS. GARDE: Both of your answers are '
11 explanations. What I need to know, to the best of your 1,2 ability to recall, because I know we are talking about a 7s 13 long time ago here , which was it? Was it Mr. Phillips's s
14 explanation that it was a very simple issue, kind of a no 15 l go, go situation, that it was easy to do, simple , and that i
16 is why it was left to miscellaneous or is it because you, I 17 Region 4, already had a lot of experience with the reactor I 18 i pressure vessel? Or is it some combination of both.
19 MR. BANGART: It is a combination of both.
20 MS. GARDE: Could you expand on that?
21 MR. BANGART: No. It was a combination of both.
22 It was also a -- factors that went into these kind of 23 decisions included distribution of workload among the 24 groups. ,
25 MS. GARDE: Let's go to number 4.
-s O
ACE-FEDERAI REPORTERS, INC. .
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 300 33H646 n . - .
m .- - ,_
27070.0 97 REE fS A5) 1 MR. BANGART: That clearly falls in the 2 miscellaneous category.
3 MS. GARDE: Yes, I am sorry. Number 6. Why was 4 number 6 not referred out to another technical area?
5 MR. BANGART: We felt that we had adequate 6 amount of resources and expertise to deal with that one 7 ourselves.
8 MS. GARDE: If it had gone to a technical area ,
9 what area would it have gone to?
10 .
MR. PHILLIPS: Mechanical, I would think.
1 I
11 i MR. BANGART: I concur.
I 12 ! MS. GARDE: Number 7.
l 13 i. MR. BANGART: That one, again, was a combination si l
~
14 l of the fact that we had resources and expertise and the I
15 fact that we had had involvement in the Region with that i
I 16 issue prior to the TRT being formed.
17 MR. PHILLIPS: To explain just a moment, he is i
18 i saying expertise , we had the expertise that we had with i G 19 ! re spect to the consultant gas f one 3mechanical engineer with a
20 a great deal of experience and one3 design engineer, if I 21 remember correctly, who was a mechanical engineer. The se ,
22 both these persons were generalists and they were able to have 23 look into general areas in terms of disciplines. They eee' 24 worked probably some in electrical, some in mechanical.
25 They were more generalists. But by profession they were ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
27070.0 ~
98 -
REE T
d 1 mechanical engineers though. And they did have engineering 2 expertise.
3 MS. GARDE: Isn't it true, Mr. Bangart, that the 4 answer that you just gave me, that Region 4 had had 5 involvement with the issue prior to the TRT being formed, 6 would apply to all the allegations in all the SSERs?
7 MR. BANGART: I don' t believe so. By 8 involvement, I mean we had conducted inspections that dealt 9 with the issue that was brought forth in the allegation.
10 That was the case with the main condenser allegation: we 11 . had had correspondence with the utility in regard to that 12 particular item.
- 13 MS. GARDE: You don't think that answer would
..I 14 apply to the majority of the issues covered in the SSERs?
l 15 j MR. BANGART: Rephrase your question again? I 16 ! am not sure I understand it.
17 MS. GARDE: Isn't it true that Region 4 had I primary responsibility for audit and review and inspection 18 I
19 of Comanche Peak up until the time the TRT came in?
20 MR. BANGART: That is correct.
21 MS. GARDE: During that time period , 1974-1976, 22 beginning of construction, until 1984, Region 4 performed 23 numerous inspection reports. Is that correct?
24 MR. BANGART: That is correct.
25 MS. GARDE: Many of the issues in this SSER, 7, D
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.nm Naionwh Coww ,
23M
27070.0 99
.REE J l 8, 9, 10 and 11, were treated at some time during the ;
2 inspection history of the plant prior to them being revisited 3 by the TRT; isn't that correct?
4 MR. BANGART: That is correct to a degree.
5 There were allegations that had previously been compiled by 6 Region 4 that we had not conducted or had not necessarily 7 completed or started inspections of. There were other 8 issues that were captured under the TRT that were not l
9 within the existing allegation system within Region 4.
10 j They cast a very broad network to capture any concern and l
11 i call it an allegation broader than the Region had done i
12 I prior to that point in time. They canvassed newspapers to 1
13 pull items out of newspapers. We had not necessarily given i
~
14 that broad a view to allegations in the region prior to 4
15 that time.
16 l MS. GARDE: Going back to my original question, 17 I am trying to find out why things that on the face look 18 like - technical issues that should have been in mechanical 19 or civil structural ended up here in this category. If it l
20 is a case-by-case basis, then I don't want to spend all day 21 on this.
22 MR. BANGART: I agree with you that some of 23 these have elements that involve disciplines addressed
- 24 mainly by other groups.
l 25 MS. GARDE: Well, let's just keep going. Number e
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ _ _ _,__ _ _202 347 3700_ ___ _ , ___ Naionwi& W .,________ 2 3 M _ ,__ _ _ _
27070.0 100 REE 1 8. To the best of your recollection, why is this in 2 miscellaneous instead of another category? I assume it 3 would be mechanical? ,
4 MR. BANGART: I agree that if it had been 5 transferred it would have been transferred to mechanical.
6 That particular allegation, I believe , the reason was just 7 the straightforward f act that we had resources and 8 expertise to handle that one ourselves.
9 MS. GARDE: Mr. Phillips, would you like to add 10 something to that answer?
11 ,
MR. PHILLIPS: I think probably it might be --
l 12 it may be that it would have been better in civil s, 13 structural because the anchor bolts were embedded in i
t-14 concrete which goes to civil structural type of issues and l
15 l there may be some mechanical aspects of it, too. So it 16 could have been in there.
17 MS. GARDE: Number 10? Diesel generators?
18 MR. BANGART: Diesel generators involved in the 19 resolution of that allegation, we called upon Ward Smith, 20 who had been given the responsibility to follow the TDI 21 diesel generator problem as it related to Comanche Peak as 22 a part of his resident inspector duties. He is by far the 23 most knowledgeable and expert person available to us. That 24 is why it stayed with the miscellaneous group. And because 25 of my position, I had the authority to do that.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Naionwide Coverase 800 336-6646
6 27070.0 101 REE -
3 1 MS. GARDE: Is it a correct statement that the 2 TRT never got into the TDI diesel generator issue?
3 MR. BANGART: Not as sweeping a statement as 4 that. Certainly our write-up of the allegation points to 5 the fact that we drew our conclusion at least in part 6 because of the TDI issue that was being resolved 7 generically and at Comanche Peak specifically.
8 MS. GARDE: Number 11.
9 MR. BANGART: That was -- that was a combination 10 of reasons. First of all, we had done previous inspection 11 work related to matters involving the polar crane and we 12 had resources and expertise to deal with that.
13 i MS. GARDE: Number 12?
14 l MR. BANGART: I believe that was just the fact 15 , that we had the resource and expertise. There weren't any 16 3 other extenuating reasons. Is that correct?
3 17 i MR. PHILLIPS: Ye s .
18 d MS. GARDE: Number 13?
19 l MR. BANGART: Same justification.
I 20 MS. GARDE: Resources --
21 l MR. BANGART: And expertise available to us.
22 MS. GARDE: Number 167 23 MR. BANGART: 16 was another combination of 24 reasons. We did have people who had inspection involvement 25 in that particular issue and we had the necessary resources ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202.p7 3700 NM Coverage 80033F44
27070.0 102 REE 1 to handle that under the miscellaneous group.
2 MS. GARDE: Number 177 3 MR. BANGART: Again, combination of what had 4 been -involved earlier. And we essentially continued with 5 that effort, using regional people.
6 MS. GARDE: And number 19.
7 MR. BANGART: It was tied to other polar crane 8 issues so we thought that was best to be kept with the 9 miscellaneous team.
10 MS. GARDE: Now, throughout your answers, you 11 have been using the term "we thoug ht" and "we decided."
12 Who is the "we" that participated in the decision that
- 13 l Region 4 had the resources and expertise or there was other
~
i 14 i overriding issues or reasons why these issues should be 15 handled by the miscellaneous group.
16 MR. BANGART: The initial decision certainly I f
I 17 guess would have to be assigned to me. There were l
18 .
discussions, as I indicated earlier, about progress and l 19 resolution of allegations among all the group leaders. And 20 neither other group leaders nor TRT management 21 independently identified additional allegations that should 22 be transferred to other groups.
23 MS. GARDE: I want to go back over the list and 24 go over the nontechnical issues. I have a few questions on 25 those.
h
- U l 1 i
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I msatim an66646 ._ o
27070.0 103 REE D-1 Category number 1: nuclear fuel was received i 2 prior to issuance of special nuclear material license, was ,
i 3 this considered as a wrongdoing issue at all?
4 MR. BANGART: We had a number of allegations 5 that were, clearly on the surface at least, involving 6 issues that were nonnuclear safety-related. But 7 nevertheless, we, as a TRT, felt that it was important to 8 look at these. On the one hand, to see if there was 9 something associated with an individual allegation that did 10 impact the safety-related activity; and, secondly, even 11' though a matter may not be safe ty-related in the sense that 12 it is normally used, it may be important to safety in the g 13 ,
sense that proper transport of radioactive material is W \
14 '
important in the general kind of safety category.
15 Radiation protection is important to us 39 regulators.
16 Drug use is important to us. So we chose to look at these l
17 l from those two standpoints: One , did they impact a i
18 safety-related area and secondly, in and of itself, is it i
19 ! an important safety issue to us. But not necessarily 20 safety-related in the sense that it is normally used.
21 MS. GARDE: Okay.
22 MR. BANGART: I may have skirted the direct 23 question.
24 MS. GARDE: The question was regarding 25 wrong-doing but I will come back to that.
l l l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
.m y- - ; _-n.-.c.,e_.~----= -..g. m - p .y. r . y .-. pg. . . ~_ - . . --. -- -- _.
I
27070.0 -104 REE 1 Number 3: Comanche Peak PSAR contains errors.
2 Was this re ferred to the quality, quality assurance ,
3 quality control team or why wasn' t, if it wasn' t?
4 MR. BANGART: It was not transferred to them 5 certainly during the summer when we were on site there. My 6 understanding is that af ter the fact that all the l
7 allegations that we looked at were eventually, the 8 ,
write-ups associated with them were eventually reviewed by 9 the OA/QC group to see if there were findings that were 10 i important to the OA/OC group in terms of their 11 l determination of what the quality of that particular 12 program was at the site.
13 g MS. GARDE: Does that answer equally apply to 14 l number 9, Haywood Tyler pump deficiencies?
15 MR. BANGART: That answer generally applies, yes.
16 The Haywood Tyler pump issue and the adequacy of the 17 i quality assurance program at that company, as you may be 18 aware, was dealt with extensively but on a separate path 19 prior to the formation of the TRT.
20 i MS. GARDE: You are referring to the 21 investigation into the Haywood Tyler pump deficiencies of 22 1983 primarily?
l 23 MR. BANGART: Yes.
24 MS. GARDE: One follow-up question: At the time 25 that that investigation was conducted, did Region 4 require v
,9
-- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nationwide Coverase 800 336-6646
.[ _ 202 347 3700 _ _
27070.0 105 REE
)
1- each of the utilities receiving Haywood Tyler pumps to 2 review the vendor quality assurance program, the vendor 3 quality assurance program at the site?
4 MR. BANGART: I don' t know the answer to that 5 question.
6 MR. PHILLIPS: Well, what happened there , an IE l 7 bulletin was issued to all of the licensees and applicants 8 which should have had that particular outcome, but we can 9 j only speak with regard to Com"anche Peak. I don't know what ,
10 l Region 4 did with respect to the other sites. j
. i-11 h MR. BANGART: My recollection is that bulletin j i.
12 was more specific to Haywood Tyler pump company and not .
S 13 ( necessarily to review your vendor OA program. j
) '
14 MS. GARDE: That is my question. I will come 15 ] back to that when we get to the specific part.
i 16 4 MR. BANGART: I have to research that.
17 MS. GARDE: Okay.
4 18 MR. PHILLIPS: I have my finger on that answer.
J 19 i MS. GARDE: Well, you can supplement it, but I l
20 am not there ye t .
21 MR. PHILLIPS: What I was referring to in the l
22 write-up, miscellaneous 9, about the third or fourth 23 paragraph down it speaks about IE bulletin 83-05 to 24 licensees and to applicants on May 13, 1983, and it goes on 25 to explain, this bulletin addressed Haywood Tyler's failure i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. f 202-347 3700 Ntionwide Coverage 800 336 6646
.- - - _ - - - . - - - - - . _ . - - _ , , _ _ - _ - - - - _. - - - - . . _ . . . _ . ... ._f
27070.0 106 REE h
s- 1 to ef fectively implement.the QA program and required that 2 specific actions be taken by the holders of operating 3 license and construction permits who were using or planning 4 to use Haywood Tyler pumps and safety systems.
5 MS. GARDE: Does the write-up go on to say what 6 it requires for specific applicants or licensees?
7 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it does. Subsequent 8 paragraph. Do you want me to read that, too?
9 MS. GARDE: No. We will come back to it.
10 All right. Category number 16 on page -- the I
11 same question. Do you remember what the pending question 12 l is?
13 MR. BANGART: Why don' t you repeat it for me.
73 ,
14 ! MS. GARDE: I am trying to determine why these
.i 15 1 issues that we have been going over, which are not -- I 16 l covered 16already.
17 MR. BANGART: I think we already went through i
18 that.
19 MS. GARDE: Okay. I am sorry. On drug abuse.
20 Was drug abuse considered by the quality control / quality J
21 assurance team or was it referred to that team?
22 MR. BANGART: There was no specific referral of 23 that matter made to the QA/QC team.
24 MS. GARDE: On page K-14, the second paragraph, 25 would you read that to yourself please.
e d
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
d 27070.0 107 '
REE
' The last sentence of 'the second paragraph refers 1
2 to the TUEC had identified and corrected or was in the 3 process of correcting problems described in allegations.
4 Does that explanation include issues that TUEC had been 5 made aware of by the TRT and was in the process of 6 correcting based on the TRT's identification of these 7 issues to TUEC?
8 MR. BANGART: I understand the question. I 9 l don't personally know the answer to that. I don't 10 recollect the answer to it.
I 11 !
MS. GARDE: Mr. Phillips?
1 12 3 MR. PHILLIPS: Let me think just a moment. I l
13 !
was trying to think of an example. I think probably an
) i 14 i example there would be perhaps the reactor vessel that was i
15 l found or alleged to have touched the wall during hot 16 l f unctional testing. That was the case where they 17 themselves had identified the problem and subsequently made 18 . a 50.55(e) report to.the NRC. That would be one example.
1 19 Right offhand, I can'*t give you all the other examples 20 where TUEC had identified the problem and was in the 21 process of correcting it or was going to correct it.
l 22 MS. GARDE: My concern is, as you read through 23 this whole page -- let me give you this by way of 24 background with my next question. Following this paragraph 25 you go into issues of potential safety significance.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
l l
27070.0 108 REE A
1 However, in tne paragraph that we are looking at, we have 2 got 10 matters that are classified as safety-related and 3 four which have potential safety significance and generic 4 implications. And the implication or the inference of the 5 next sentence is that those that TUEC had identified and 6 corrected or was in the process of correcting were then not 7 pursued in the rest of this issue.
8 MR. CANGART: That is not a correct implication.
9 i MS. GARDE: Explain to me what this paragraph 10 ,
means.
I 11 MR. BANGART: That sentence, I believe, is only l
12 a f actual statement that the utility had indeed initiated 13 action on certain of these allegations that did have safety 7-14 significance and generic implications. Nothing more than l
15 that. It is just a statement of fact. That is supported 16 by the write-ups.
17 MS. GARDE: And whether or not TUEC had 18 I identified and corrected or was in the process of i
19 correcting these problems, it did not -- that didn't 20 l necessarily mean that an issue was then closed out and not 21 pursued?
22 MR. BANGART: In no way. In fact, the general 23 guidance that the team as a whole received was that we were 24 not to accept what was there on the record as we initiate 25 our efforts. We were to go beyond, look deeper, look
- k ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
EBCF- R _ h e c m ase_ _ _ _ ___ Amm6
27070.0 109 REE 9
s/ 1 broader in scope , look for additional issues that might be 2 associated with the particular allegation or problem so l
3 tha t we , indeed, scoped that issue suf ficiently so that, l l
4 and as an objective, that if any other allegations came 1
5 forward in a given subject area, we had looked at it I 6 extensively enough that even additional issues could be put 7 to bed because of work that the TRT had done. So that was 8 our marching orders, in ef fect.
9 MS. GARDE: I understand. I 10 l On page K-15, the second paragraph, would you i
11 ) please explain what is meant in this paragraph by the te rms 12 g " unfounded" -- the term " unfounded"?
i 13 l MR. BANGART: They were not factual.
t 14 ! MS. GARDE: Could you expand on that?
15 l MR. BANGART: We first literally read the d
16 i allegation. One of the parts of our review was to see i
17 l whe ther or not the allegation was in fact supported by 18 i evidence that we tried to get in as independent a fashion l N l I
19 as we could.
20 So " unfounded," in that sense , means that we 21 could not find independent facts to support the 22 truthfulness of the claim in the allegation. " Unfounded" 23 may also -- is being used here in the sense that it is not 24 a matter that is of safety significance.
25 MS. GARDE: Now, have you gone onto the next
-~
41)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
PM'-3'*- _ _ _ y .aaa p c m .a_ _
mssum __ _,_
27070.0 110 REE 9
'- ' 1 phrase , "or involve nonsafety-related issues" or does 2 " unfounded" mean that there is no safety significance?
3 Could it also mean there is no safety significance?
4 MR. BANGART: Given the way that sentence is 5 structured, I think " unfounded" means, my belief is 6 " unfounded" means it wasn't factual. Because we have 7 specifically included words relative to the safety or 8 nonsafety-related matter.
9 MS. GARDE: So then the next phrase, "or involve 10 j nonsafety-related issues," means that an allegation could 11 be true , but whatever it was about was not sa fe ty-rela ted?
12 MR. BANGART: Yes.
13 ,
MS. GARDE: The next phrase, "or the deficiency 14 f was identified by TUEC's QA/QC program and corrective i
15 ,
action had been completed that were acceptable to the TRT,"
16 h would you explain to me why that terminology or
- 17 characterization was used in discussing the 21 of the 24 18 .
allegations, given your last explanation that your I
19 ;
instructions for tne TRT were not to rely on any of the 20 TUEC's own resolutions?
21 MR. BANGART: Aga in , we did -- the f ac t that 22 TUEC had resolved an item did not mean that we did not look ,
1 23 at it. It was resolved to the TRT's satisfaction. I 24 'The re fore , this is a summary statement that describes the 25 bases and criteria which we used for concluding that we had O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 s . m_ e. 1 . -- - ,_ p -. ~ : =e.w -.
_..,._-A_.r
..g m - - ~3 .= .
27070.0 111 REE IN
' 1 only a few issues that remained outstanding, that* we had to 2 seek action on. That I read as a summary statement for 3 section 323.
4 MS. GARDE: I am finished with my general 5 questions. I want to start on some specific areas. One 6 more general question. Mr. Bangart, you may have said this 7 before -- if you did, I apologize -- did you say that you 8 are not involved in the review of the adequacy of the CPRT 9 program plan and you respond to the issues identified in 10 f this SSER?
I 11 l MR. BANGART: I.have had no involvement in that h
12 j area.
l
. 13 ; MS. GARDE: Mr. Phillips?
n.i .
14 ! MR. PHILLIPS: No direct responsibility for that
?
15 i! area. However , sometimes in my routine ins pe ction , I may l
16 j cross the line and have to coordinate with other persons on 17 i, that team.
a 1
18
- MS. GARDE: You mean that are working with the l
19 resolution of the TRT issues?
20 MR. PHILLIPS: Right. That is possible. To 21 clarify, I am specifically responsible for unit 2 22 inspe ction .
23 MS. GARDE: You had said that before on the 24 record.
25 I want to turn to AM-1, which I believe is on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ - . ._ _ , _ . _ _ _ . SHkk7 3700 __ , _ Nationwide Coverage _
800 33H646 _ _ _ __, _ ___ _
.6 27070.'O 112 REE ,
D
page -- it is not in here .
1 The write-ups begin with 2 allegation number AM-2 on page K-97. And the only 3 discussion of AM-1 was in the summary of the allegations 4 which was on page K-23. Would you turn to that, please. I 5 apologize if my page numbers are a little mixed up. I 6 wasn't as conscientious about writing page numbers as I 7 worked on my questions. Do you see that write-up?
8 MR. BANGART: Yes.
9 l MS. GARDE: Would you please explain what AM-1 1
10 is, what is the actual allegation?
l I
11 MR. BANGART: I don't recollect the spe cifics .
l 12 k We would have to go to the category designations that are I
- 13 ! identified here on page K-23 that were addressed by the
-s j 14 ; electrical group and mechanical group and the QA/QC group.
15 MS. GARDE: I don't have the next, either seven i
16 or, I guess that would be 10 SSERs here. Do you have any l
17 of them here?
18 I do have SSER 11. I have marked AQ-lll. Le t 19 l me show you that and ask if that refreshes your l
20 recollection at all on what this issue is.
21 MR. MIZUNO: Before you go any further, I am 22 just wondering, are you just asking them to recall if they 23 saw that at some point? Because if they didn' t actually do 24 the review, then --
25 MS. GARDE: There is no review.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
212 147-1700 Nationwide Covertae 800_-3W
27070.0 113 REE D 1 MS. VIETTI-COOK: Can I expand on that?
- 2 MS. GARDE: Please do.
3 MS. VIETTI-COOK: What happened was, sometimes 4 when Dick and I were going through and looking at all these 5 documents or whatever, we wanted to make sure that we did 6 not miss anything. So we put in a lot of things that may 7 be addressed elsewhere. From my records here , I think it 8 may have been a line item which we created in like a 1
9 computer or on the 55-20 which said, 19 technical issue s 10 , from Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing which we had 11 $ from a document or something that we had . Okay?
12 And when we' really looked into it further, we 13 had assigned it a number. Then when we looked into it 14 l f urther , , we said, these are the 19 issues or however many 15 j issues there were and they were being addressed elsewhere 4
. 16 { by the other group leaders and they were, this was a 17 f duplicate. It was a general statement. And it was i
18 4 duplicative of work that was being done by other groups.
19 l And these were the allegation numbers that were addressing 20 those 19 or those issues.
21 MS. GARDE: Are you saying that that is what 22 happened in this case?
23 MS. VIETTI-COOK: I think that is what happened 24 based on what I am looking at.
25 MS. GARDE: Would you just describe for the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nanoowide Coverage 2 3364646
, s
27070.0 114 REE n
N 'l record what it is that you are looking at that makes you 2 believe that?
3 MS. VIETTI-COOK: It was our allegation tracking 4 system.
5 MS. GARDE: And Mr. Bangart, does that -- are 6 you satisfied with that answer as an explanation that 7 sounds familiar,or adequate to you on AM-l?
8 MR. BANGART: It sounds correct to me. I don't I
9 i have a great deal of detailed information in my mind about 10 : that, however.
I 11 MS. GARDE: I would -like to have you read AQ-lll, l
12 l which is on page 030 of SSER Number 11 and see if -- AQ-lll.
1 13 I Do you have an SSER 11 there?
4 14 MR. BANGART: Yes.
15 j MS. GARDE: Do you see page 030? It is in the 16 j beginning.
i 17 MR. PHILLIPS: Okay. We have found it.
l 18
) MS. GARDE: My only question is, looking at this 19 l specific allegation, which is referenced in AM-1, is l
20 Annette's explanation of what probably happens consistent 21 with any other knowledge that you may have about AM-l?
22 MR. BANGART: Yes.
23 MS, VIETTI-COOK: What happened is, we didn' t 24 want to just lose a number. We didn't.want to start with 25 AQ-2, even though those --
I 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33Ml646 )
_ . - - _ . _ - - , _ _ _ . . _---_ _.- __.-T~~- _._-
27070.0 115 REE I
1 MS. GARDE: Because I, then I asked where is 2 AQ-1.
3 MS. VIETTI-COOK: We didn't want to lose a 4 number. We wanted to say, this was a general concern.
5 When we looked into it further, it was these specific 6 concerns and they are being done elsewhere and then, 7 therefore , we could account for that number. We had 8 already assigned it -- it was a line item and we had 9 assigned it a number.
i 10 l MS. GARDE: Le t's go on to AM-2.
11 AM-2 is the allegation that deals with an 12 l allegation that nuclear fuel was received prior to issuance l
13 l of a special nuclear material license.
il 14 !! Did you have direct responsibility for this, a
15 investigating this allegation?
16 'i MR. BANGART: Yes.
l 17 i MS. GARDE: And did you supervise someone else 1
18 or did you perform this review? ,
19 l MR. BANGART: The person who performed this 20 review reported directly to me on this particular 21 allegation.
22 MS. GARDE: Now, would it be a correct 23 characterization of the resolution of this issue to say 24 that the NRC concluded that this didn' t happen, that 25 nuclear fuel was not received prior to issuance of a ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364646
27070.0 116 REE l
3 1
> 1 special nuclear material license?
2 MR. BANGART: Yes.
3 MS. GARDE: Now, in item number 5, conclusion 4 and Staff positions, there is a statement that TUEC had an 5 adequate program to receive fuel and did not actually 6 receive fuel on site prior to issuance of the license.
7 I want to pose to you a hypothetical. Had your 8 investigation determined that the allegation was correct 9 i and fuel had been received, what corrective action would 10 you have recommended on this issue?
11 i MR. BANGART: We would have -- that would have, 12 l that kind of hypothetical event, had it occurred, would 13 have initiated a great deal of inspection and investigative l
14 ; type activity on the part of the NRC. And I can't 15 speculate now as to what the outcome --
l 16 MS. GARDE: I am not asking you to do that.
17 MR. BANGART: I am saying that that would be f
18 , treated as a matter that would be viewed with a great deal 19 I of significance, if it had occurred.
20 MS. GARDE: When you said investigative activity, 21 were you referring to the Of fice of Investigations?
i 22 MR. BANGART: In a situation like that, if that 23 is one of the things that we are always sensitive to, is 24 whether or not there is wrong-doing associated with an 25 activity. And given the hypothesis that you put forward, w
U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 4646
._:_-- _=_-
- - ~ ~ . - - - _ _ . . _ _ __ _ _
27070.0 117 REE 1 it had the kind of elements in it that would cause us to 2 think about whether or not there was wrong-doing ' associated 3 with it.
4 MS. GARDE: Moving on to AM-3 and 23-B, starting 5 on page K-99.
6 This is the issue dealing with the reactor 7 pressure vessel. I would like you to look on page K-100 at 8 the second paragraph, specifically the end of the paragraph k
9 J about Gibson Hill's failure to incorporate the change.
i 10 l Now go to page K-101, the conclusion section, 11 the second paragraph. My question is, is this action by 4
12 is cited in the end of the l Gibson Hill the concern that 13 ! second paragraph on peripheral issues, failure to show 14 i proper design change were communicated between 15 ; organizations? Do you see that?
16 MR. BANGART: Ye s .
17 MS. GARDE: Is that the problem that is 18 1 addressed in the conclusion?
1 19 MR. BANGART: Yes. I will have Mr. Phillips .
20 responsed to that.
21 MR. PHILLIPS: That is.
22 MS. GARDE: Was this issue referred to the OA/QC -
23 group for consideration?
24 MR. PHILLIPS: Just a moment.
25 Yes, it was, n
l b
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Ml646
- . . -, y-,,ym me-.em m . c 3s mnyw e._-----_-___---_-_--__,_-u....,rx--
- - ----- m - - . ,,y . . . .
vlU W-70.0 118
,w d
E?h$
.93; 1 MS. GARDE: Could you identify, if possible, 2 where in the SSER 11 it was dealt with? -
3 MR. PHILLIPS: I believe it is in Appendix K. U 4 MR. SHAO: It is in P. IM 5 MR. PHILLIPS: P. Excuse me. If I can go back
.,t 6 where they talked about generic impact. 5*.,
K 7 MS. GARDE: Let me tell you, Mr. Phillips, the hj$3 fd ug.d 8 only reference I could find to it in P-42, on page P-42, I ISN4
?$I?$
9 don't represent that that is a comp!.ete detailed fgel e Wi?
10 . line-by-line review of appendix P. But that is the only 2M.i 11 l reference I could find to it. Do you see it? It is AM-3 M
Q.q 12 ! and AM-23(b) which -- . '$'..
l N?
13 I MR. PHILLIPS: I believe that represents my /k, <
Nug ,
I 14 submittal of that as a OA issue to that team and this is Ed5!
ou e- inpu+. [Mj 15 of their review of wMr C$fp l the result no. A 16 MS. GARDE: Do you note on this issue where it 17 says " generic impact category 1" in the right-hand column? f4 d 4 3 18 j
! MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. ,
l Sf[
pg.,
cp 19 i MS. GARDE: Do you know what that category means? T_
yWp 20 It is explained in the chart here. Are you familiar with i.h *( .
j Q 21 it or do you need to review it? > d us n -n, 22 MR. MIZUNO:. Ms. Garde, I am not sure that is gg.p i.kQ) 23 appropria te for you to ask questions about that because for MI:l 3
24 one thing, you did ask questions of Mr. Livermore and his #
wp@q
- 'i+
25 group regarding this chart. I don't think Mr. Phillips had ,~l w :s e
M. 1
$@i 6%
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. h[,
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 300 336 4646 fi
- - . . - .---.,-s.m.,,_.. _
.- ..u . ._.s &.i - : r=.m.m... . . . - ~ g
27070.0 119 REE
)
1 a role in preparing this chart, although you could ask him 2 right now and find out. Did you have a role in o';eparing 3 this chart?
4 MR. PHILLIPS: No. ,
5 MR. MIZUNO: On that basis --
6 MS. GARDE: This isn't formal deposition. This 7 is informal discovery. It is clear to me if he identified 8 the issue and this is how the issue was dealt with, that it 9 is a legitimate line of inquiry to go into. If he agrees 10 or disagrees with how it was characterized and how it was l
, 11 dealt'with.
h I
! 12 l MR. MIZUNO: If you want to ask him that --
l 13 l MS. GARDE: I am getting ready to ask him that.
1 14 ! MR. MIZUNO: I j ust don' t wan t -- I wculdn't 15 him answering a question that says: How was it l want
, 16 l prepared or what was the basis for the categorization. But 17 l whether he agrees with it or not, that is -- as a person, g
f 18 ' his personal opinion, yes.
19 [ MR. PHILLIPS: What can I say now? I am not 20 sure. I lost you. You lost me.
21 MR. SCINTO: Request the question.
22 MS. GARDE: Where my line of inquiry was cut off 23 was I asked you if you understood what a category 1 rating 24 was under " generic impact"?
25 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nanonwide Coverase 800 336 4646
27070.0 120 REE Dd 1 MS. GARDE: Now, do you agree with my 1
2 understanding that that is the lowest level of generic 3 impact an issue can have?
4 MR. PHILLIPS: I understand that that is do.
5 MS. GARDE: Do you agree with the rating that 6 was given to the se two issues, AM-3 and AM-23(b) , as a low 7 generic impact?
8 MR. PHILLIPS: I agree with it because I believe 9 I categorized it as such.
i 10 l MS. GARDE: Did you participate in categorizing 11 l the issues for the QA/QC group?
12 } MR. PHILLIPS: I gave an input on the items I I
.-s 13 i considered that had some significance with respect to QA s ,/ I
! 14 ,1 and at the same time , if I remember correctly, I gave a 15 designator and you must understand that I was looking at l
16 only a few items. I only found one such thing. So 17 therefore I recommended a 1. ~I couldn't recommend any more 18 [ than that.
l l
19 -
MS. GARDE: Let me ask a couple kind of basic 20 questions then. When you or Mr. Bangart identified an 21 issue that had quality assurance / quality control i
22 implications in the miscellaneous issues, d'id you prepare a 23 referral document? I mean, if I ever get all the documents 24 under 85-59 and more realistically, if I ever get through 25 them all, will I be able to find, for instance , on this i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 2nz-3c-m _ , _ ,JQa Q y3y , , ,, _
27070.0 121 REE Sh
- 1 issue, an actual hard copy document that refers this issue 2 to the OA/0C group which contains your recommendations?
3 That is a general question to both you and Mr. Bangart.
i 4 MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think Mr. Bangart was --
5 MR. BANGART: There will not be such a document 6 that was written during the time that the TRT was in the 7 field doing its work. From that point on, I will defer to 1
8 l Mr. Phillips.
I 9 MR. PHILLIPS: It was on a verbal basis. I 10 believe during the time that Mr. Bangart and I were working )
l 11 on site together. Subsequent to that, when everything was 1
12 ( being reviewed to put everything together generically, I I
-s, 13 : was asked to give that input to the OA team, in which case 4
.)
14 j I did -- I don't recall -- I did make notes. I don't know i
15 4 whether I left those notes or not. I may have discarded 9
16 i che notes once I had discussed with Mr. Livermore. If they 17 8 exist, they will be in the box of records with all of my 18 l other folders that have our field notes. I am not sure 19 ! whether that exists or not.
20 MS. GARDE: So it was a somewhat informal l
l 21 process in terms of your recommendations or anyone's 22 recommendations af ter the summer field work was completed 23 into the process of the SSER writing of communicating what 24 your recommendation was about a particular issue?
25 MR. PHILLIPS: It was formal to the extent that 9
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3)3 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(H564 .
27070.0 122 REE y 1 it sent those notes to Mr. Livermore. Now, he called me 2 af ter that and discussed them with me and what he did with 3 the notes I gave to hir4, my responsibility ended at that 4 point. I don't know anything else about it.
5 MS. GARDE: And your notes were not -- like, :
2, 6 there isn' t a form somewhere of that kind that kind of f4 7 transmitted --
8 MR. PHILLIPS: There was no requirement for me h N
9 to even. send notes, but I did. !)
l E 10 MS. GARDE: Let's go back then to this specific j i.
Now, it has been given in SSER 11 a generic impact "
11 : issue.
q 12 I category of 1. What is the basis of your conclusion that l
13 1 that is the category it should have received? ,
e ?
I 14 '! MR. PHILLIPS: I read the criteria which is 1
15 ! number 1, for example, that stated, indicates an isolated y t 2 16 . occurrence on very -- or very few occurrences and with h I il 17 ( respect to the work that cur group did, it was the only $
3 18 f instance we found. And, the re f ore , I considered it 19 isolated. Not unimportant, but isolated in terms of lj d
20 numbers and frequencies of what we found. y 4
21 MS. GARDE: Did you set out to do some kind of E b
22 random inspection to determine how frequently this may have
{
23 occurred?
24 MR. PHILLIPS: No. -
,[
25 MS. GARDE: Did you attempt to establish, by 2 k
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
. _ . . _ _ = - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _
i!
27070.0 123 REE S
1 revi, ewing 100 percent of the documentation, how of ten this 2 communication problem may have occurred?
3 MR. PHILLIPS: No.
4 MS. GARDE: What is the basis for your 5 conclusion that it was a very -- what is your conclusion 6 that the occurrence was isolated and that there were very 7 few occurrences?
8 MR. PHILLIPS: As I said before , it was just I
9 based on our limited inspection.
l 10 j MS. GARDE: Based on. looking at the write-up ,
11 l can you determine how limited your inspection was? How far 12 j did you go in attempting to confirm that the failure to 13 assure that proper design changes were communicated between 14 organizations was limited?
15 f MR. PHILLIPS: The way we were looking at it,
- l 16 there were only two vessels. And we looked at unit 1 17 vessel and we found this occurrence. We looked at unit 2 18 i vessel to a lesser degree and we , of course , did not make j
~
19 any such finding. So there was a population of 2. One we 20 found the problem with; the other we didn' t. And that is 21 the reason in the action plan we asked the utility to 22 assure us by a review of nonsafety-related design changes 23 to assure that they had not made some, that they may have 24 made a design change in a nonsafety area that impacted a 25 safety area. And we asked them to do it, because there is
)
i ACE-FEDERAC REPORTERS, INC.
E-347-3700 Nationwide Comage 800 336 6646
-mm
i 27070.0 124 l
-REE :
l "3
,J l no way we could have the manpower enough to perform such a 2 review. And we had already established a problem and it 3 was incumbent on them to come back and demonstrate to us 4 that it didn't exist elsewhere. In which case they are 5 still doing.
6 MS. GARDE: Mr. Phillips, what I want to 7 understand. Le t me try to rephrase my question -- is that 8 to me, as a representative intervenor, this is an important 9 l problem, failure to communicate proper design changes. And 10 it is closely related to sounds like , looks like, a lot of I
11 ,
other serious problems talked about in the QA/QC SSER. Ye t 12 k it is rated with a generic impact of 1. I want to make 1
-3 13 l sure that I understand that -- the basis for giving that
-:.)
14 l category is because 4
you only looked at two and you only i
15 4 found it once, which is 50 percent of what you looked at.
A 16 MR. PHILLIPS: Right.
I 17 l MS. GARDE: That that is the reason why you 18 1 decided it was a very limited occurrence, had a very i
19 I limited occurrence.
20 MR. PHILLIPS: Only from the standpoint of our 21 team. Mr. Livermore would have had and did have the 22 opportunity to review my submissf 00 to him which says 1, 23 and if he knew in his experfor'n f.' the QA team that there 24 were many others, he could have upgraded it. I can't 25 address that. Only Mr. Livermore would be able to answer O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
..,_- -_..s_ - u,-- - - - - -
27070.0 125 REE
) 1 the question if there were other occurrences, other than 2 what I had as a very small piece of the pie.
3 MR. BANGART: Le t me add that I believe that the 4 actions that we requested of the utility have not been ;
l 5 minimized because of this category 1 designation. Those 6 actions that we requested that he look at the issue of are 7 nonsafety-related changes going to impact safety-related 8 areas is a general one and that would have been an action 9 ;
that would have been requested, regardless of what his l
10 -
recommendation was . for the QA/QC network.
11 MS. GARDE: Thank you. The action that was l
12 required of TUEC in response to this finding, can you
-, 13 ,
identify in what part of the CPRT plan it is being s ,
14 addressed? '
15 $ MR. SCINTO: Why don' t you establish whether i
16 they are familiar with the plan.
l 17 MS. GARDE: Are you f amiliar with the CPRT plan?
18 i M R. PHILLIPS: Yes, I am.
l l 19 !
MS. GARDE: Do you have any knowledge that that 20 issue is being addressed?
21 MR. PHILLIPS: Ye s , it is being addressed.
22 Mr. Shao may know the particular number. I do not know the 23 number.
24 MR. SHAO: I think it is ISAP.
25 MS. GARDE: Have you reviewed the ISAP to see if 9
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 l s m----~ r ~ ~ - ~~ ,~ n~gq =:w-- -~ ~ -- ~ ~ ~ .m ~.- - ~. nn~ vr. yg -- g _m-~r Mw l
27070.0 126 REE -
D 1 it addresses the concern you identified in this issue?
2 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I have.
3 MS. GARDE: When did you do that review?
4 MR. PHILLIPS: I can' t remember the approximate 5 time, but it was when the ISAP first came out and someone 6 at headquarters NRR asked for comments on that, on those 7 ISAPs that each one of us were involved in.
8 MS. GARDE: I would like to ask him to identify 9 where in the or what issue or -- let's take a small break 10 and let them identify, if it is possible , either Mr. Shao 11 ; or Mr. Phillips, where it is or what issue it is. Would a
12 you object to that?
13 I MR. SCINTO: Not at all.
) 5 14 8 MS. GARDE: Why don' t we take about a two-minute 15 j break.
16 j (Recess.)
17 MR. PHILLIPS: The answer to your question as to 18 I where it can be found is ISAP 6-A and 2-C. 6-A deals with ,
4 l I
19 the vessel gap and the other deals with Larry's area.
20 MR. SHAO: Gap between buildings.
21 MS. GARDE: Thank you very much.
22 I am going on to another issue. I am going to 23 AM-6, which is on page K-107. In the conclusion at the I
24 bottom of the page, I would like to know, do either 25 Mr. Phillips or Mr. Bangart -- what is the basis for the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3 % 6646
O I,;k ry
'070.0 127 EiiI
- E E" d
1 determination that TUEC and vendor personnel performed 2 visual inspections, with hydrostatic start-up testing and 3 found no unacceptable conditions? Who did this one?
4 MR. PHILLIPS: I did.
5 MS. GARDE: Who did the inspections? hk
?$l$
6 MR. PHILLIPS: In the paragraphs on page K-107, fjg 7 the first statement, the TRT review applicable to design h I$d 8 procurement and vendor inspection described in the safety
{y%,
h, 9 analysis report, that is one reference; and then vendor h Ib 10 i I
surveillance referenced that was performed in Germany by g4 g . .,
11 lGibsonHillengineerandrecords indicate that that [' E a p 12 l engineer visually examined unit 1 operation of turbine , L j b' 13 i witnessed hydrostatic testing and reviewed supporting ((;
14 j documentation which included nondestructive examination
. I h'Ts
- u. ,
15 record.,. The vendor surveillance report on unit 1
{
16 lconcludedthat inspection and testing showed 'the casing to b.y 17 !besatisfactory. b gf.
18 i MS. GARDE: So the basis for your determination 3; .,
8 h
19 l was reliance on only the items identified above and the $$$i! ~.,
20 assessment of safety significance? 7@
21 MR. PHILLIPS: Not only those. Others were g aj.. ~ ,
22 interviews conducted with the test personnel, lead start-up ,[
i[E 23 engineer, and also the review of a final test which was n.<l bk 24 documented and which showed that there were no such cracks 25 detected during testing. 4;) -
Pa Xp ll%
l -I E-T
. MO
~ fib 3 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ffi 202-347 4 700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 4646 Mf
[Mj !
- . ,,w N
- $1 \
)70.0 128 I' N I C i:
1 MS.' GARDE: Okay. Mr. Phillips, to what extent, 2 if you could assign percentages here, did you rely on the i 3 work you actually did on the site as opposed to the vendor's 4 surveillance records that are referenced in the first two 5 paragraphs, the FSAR and the vendor surveillance records. b-N bM.M 6 MR. PHILLIPS: What percentage? (Yi L, 4 7 MS. GARDE: I am asking you if you can recall d
8 how much of the reliance that you placed -- how much W@d I
- P-1 9 l reliance you placed on the vendor surveillance record l
Q-j,~
10 performed in Germany? h' p
11 . MR. PHILLIPS: It was just, it was part of the ['
I
}
12 total reliance that it was tested at two different times. a. . .
- W 13 ; I probably would have placed more reliance on the -- it is i {%yh li 14 hard to say. Both tests were capable of detecting the leak, l ifl4 15 , if conducted properly. I have no reason to believe that 1 t i 16 they were not conducted properly. It may be a toss up as
'; N 17 1
, to which was -- however, since the -- I probably would yo" i i 18 ! replace , would have placed for reliance on the last one -t, 1 Qn 19 l simply because it was done probably af ter the time frame //M EW t
I 20 that the allegation was brought forward or sometime in that k,:.v .)
4 r. .-.
21 area.
g{:j pd 22 MS. GARDE: When you say the last one, you mean 4).f9 4-23 your interviews with supervisor and the review of the tests? %.r
>W*
24 MR. PHILLIPS: That would have been the last .
25 test perfomed, yes. ;g
[ FIN .
4)W'
[. ,
. ;tt. ,,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3]2 347 37Q1) NCoverage SM M' f
27070.0 129
-REE 7/
1 MS. GARDE: Did you retain a copy of those te st 2 results?
3 MR. PHILLIPS: I don' t recall if we have those 4 in our work folders or not.
5 MS. GARDE: Did you prepare interview notes of 6 the TUEC supervisor that you talked to?
7 MR. PHILLIPS: As I remember, I believe we did. :
8 MS. GARDE: And did you also prepare interview 9 notes of the lead start-up engineer?
10 MR. PHILLIPS: I am going on memory. Another l
11 gentleman was involved with inspecting this particular item.
12 MS. GARDE: Who was that?
13 i MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Payne.
i t
14 MS. GARDE: Was he identified in the beginning?
15 1 MR. BANGART: Ye s .
l 16 ; MR. PHILLIPS: I believe that he did because I 17 asked each person to, not to write out a conversation memo 18 for everything that you did or you would have hundreds, but 19 l I
those that were significant conversations that took place, 20 it should have been done. I believe it was done. l 21 MS. GARDE: The last paragraph in the assessment 22 of safety significance is the TRT inspected the outside and 23 found no cracks. Did you conduct that inspection?
24 MR. PHILLIPS: I participated in it.
25 MS. GARDE: Was that inspection documented on 2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage EDO3M646____ _ _
27070.0 130 REE
~5 1 some form?
2 MR. PHILLIPS: No.
3 MS. GARDE: Could you describe the inspection?
4 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Payne and I went to the 5 subject area where this particular piece of equipment was 6 located and visually examined, to the best of our ability,
- s. e. l 7 the whole surface outside surface of the casing.
8 MS. GARDE: How big an area is this?
9 MR. PHILLIPS: A piece of equipment that is huge.
10 It is probably twice as wide as this table and maybe 1-1/2 11 times as long.
12 l MS. GARDE: When you say you visually observed l the outside of it, you didn't look at every square inch, 13 3 11 14 H did you?
il 15 l MR. PHILLIPS: We just -- we did wnat you would 16 l normally do when you perform a visual inspection. We l
17 [ looked at, we didn't have a magnifying glass because --
18 freally, in this particular case , you are talking about i
19 steel, a steel casing that is probably six, eight, 10 ond 20 inches thick d'A gfo just minor surf ace , minor surface cracks l 21 or anything like that, which they could very well be there ,
22 but they are nominal. They are of no consequence in a 23 piece of steel that is that thick.
24 MS. GARDE: Who went with you on the walkdown 25 inspection?
7 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cowage 800 33MM
27070.0 131 REE 9 '
1 MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Payne. I went with with 2 Mr. Payne, in fact, to watch how well Mr. Payne was doing 3 his work. That was the object. And to see for myself, of 4 course , what it was.
5 MS. GARDE: Now, the last sentence before you 6 get into the conclusions, it says the TRT did not request 7 removal of insulation. Would you describe the piece of 8 equipment and what the insulation prevented you from seeing?
9 I can't picture this piece of equipment.
10 l MR. PHILLIPS: The piece of equipment is l
11 [ probably about 6-1/2, seven feet high. Maybe sf x or seven
- I 12 l feet wide and 12 to 14 feet long. And then once all the I
13 ! work, the piping to it is comple ted , for reasons of 9
14 l conserving heat, they put a shield around it to inches --
a 15 insulated shielding to retain the heat and prevent heat 16 i loss. And that is the piece of equipment that you asked me 17 , to describe.
I e 18 l MS. GARDE: Where on the piece of equipment is I
19 l the insulation?
20 MR. PHILLIPS: On the outside .
21 MS. GARDE: It is all around it?
22 MR. PHILLIPS: All around it.
23 MS. GARDE: When you did your walkdown, weren' t 24 you just looking at the insulation?
25 MR. BANGART: The insulation was on one turbine.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
27070.0 132 REE
)'
J 1
~
And there were two turbines that they visually inspected.
2 MS. GARDE: Yes. But when you did that, you 3 were only looking, the second one , the insulation is on the 4 unit 1. When you looked at the unit 1 to determine , you 5 just looked at the insulation?
6 MR. PHILLIPS: That is correct. We did not ask 7 them to remove the insulation off of unit 1.
8 MS. GARDE: And the reason that you did that was 9 because you didn' t find anything on unit 2?
10 MR. PHILLIPS: We didn't find anything on unit 2 11 j and also the second reason was, it was already, it had 12 l already been tested and they found no problems and the s 13 third reason was, it is not a safety-related piece of
-) i 14 l equipment that can have any ef fect on safe shutdown of the l
15 plant. So therefore , we didn' t consider it necessary to 16 j pursue it further.
i 17 MS. GARDE: You didn't know -- excuse me. I 18 will rephrase my question to Mr. Trammell. Did you know l
19 whether or not the allegation dealt with the unit 1 turbine?
20 MR. PHILLIPS: As I understand, we were unable 21 to locate the alleger. We asked to talk with him but we 22 were unable to determine unit 1 or unit 2. That is the 23 reason we looked at both units.
24 MS. GARDE: Going on page K-11, on miscellaneous 25 category 7, who was responsible for this item?
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202.p7.pco Nationwide Comage 800 M6 6646
27070.0 133 REE 1 MR. PHILLIPS: I was.
2 MS. GARDE: Turn to page K-113. Look at 3 paragraph 3 under " conclusion" where you state that the 4 allegation was not substantiated, however, and then you go 5 into the fabrication problems and condenser redesign and 6 misalignment that occurred. But not as alleged.
7 Did you interview the alleger in this case?
8 MR. PHILLIPS: During the time that we were 1
9 l performing this particular inspection, I believe that we 10 i asked to interview the individual and someone else 11 l interviewed the individual and gave us his comments.
12 ! MS. GARDE: Can you shed further light on his
- 13 answer?
/
14 J
] MS. VIETTI-COOK: Let me look real quick. Okay?
15 MS. GARDE: Sure.
16 T MS. VIETTI-COOK: I do have a feedback inte rview 17 L down here for him with the individual.
18 l MS. GARDE: Was the feedback interview -- do you 19 have a date for it, because page K-ll3 states that there 20 was not, the alleger could not be located for a feedback 21 in te rview.
22 MS. VIETTI-COOK: I have March 6, 1985.
23 MR. PHILLIPS: Could I clarify?
24 MS. GARDE: Ye s .
25 MR. PHILLIPS: At the time this was written, h
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase m336 6646
l 27070.0 134 REE N
- 1 that was true. I believe subsequently Mr. Noonan had 2 members of his particular TRT group give, for miscellaneous 3 and mechanical items, to give feedback, as I believe the 4 4 individual was located, and subsequently feedback was j 5 provided to this particular alleger in that particular 6 meeting.
7 MS. GARDE: Were you a participant in that 8 feedback interview?
9 MR. PHILLIPS: Ye s .
10 MS. GARDE: Do you recall whether or not the 11 3 alleger agreed with the resolution of this issue?
i 12 MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think he . totally agreed
- 13 with the conclusion.
.j 14
) MS. GARDE: Do you recall why?
3 15 MR. PHILLIPS: I think probably because he i
16 l maintained that that is what he had witnesssd and he just i
17 l -- excuse me a moment. Le t me think of the wording I want i
18 to use. ,
19 MS. VIETTI-COOK: Can I talk to you for a second.
l 20 (Discussion of f the record. )
21 MR. PHILLIPS: It was pointed -- a point was 22 given to me, which I have probably forgotten, too, but we 23 did have a walk-through with this particular alleger af ter 24 the feedback session. And he pointed out to us some areas 25 that he considered physical evidence of cracks. For ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nadonwide Coverage M3366646
27070.0 135 .
REE N
"# 1 example, at the place where the copper tubes fit into the 2 condenser, they are flared to keep them from leaking. And 3 he asked me, do you see this crack at the end of the tube?
4 I said, yes, I do. That appears to be a flaring crack 5 which that is not. A flaring crack often occurs when you 6 put a little too much pressure and overflare.
7 So I did not -- I considered the fact that what 8
i he said was probably correct in terms of there were some 9 cracks there , but this particular write-up had already 10 occurred and the cracks that he showed me, as far as I 11 could tell from a technical standpoint, they appeared to be i
12 ! flaring cracks. It didn't appear to be anything, any more I
-w 13 5 than that that I could tell from just physically observing.
b) '!
14 j Plus the fact, we had reviewed the testing that had been 15 conducted by the engineers and the particular people 16 l
involved and the condenser functioned in accordance with 17 what it was designed to do. It had been built in 18 accordance with the design manufacturer's specifications, 19 [ and it was a nonsafety-related item in that it is not on 20 the O list and it is not something that has an impact on 21 the safe shutdown of the plant or those systems that 22 interf ace with that particular item.
23 I told the gentleman at that time that, yes, I 24 understand your concern, that there are cracks there. I 25 see -- and at the time of this inspection, this item was ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 3c.3700 Nadonwide Coverage NO3WW
27070.0 136 REE 1 closed up. We did not see it.
2 MS. GARDE: You are referring to the walkdown?
3 MR. PHILLIPS: No. At the time we did this 4 particular inspection for the TRT and documented these 5 results, the unit was not open for inspection. It was 6 closed up. We did not physically inspect it at that
, 7 particular point in time. We relied on the test results 8 rather than asking them to reopen a nonsafety-related item
,9 that had no impact on the safety of the plant as far as we 10 could de termine .
11 But when we went back on this walkdown several 12 l months later, we went by the condenser and the gentleman s 13 said , hey, that thing is open. Let's go look at it. I L) Il 14 !
! said, great, le t's go in it. So we took of f in it and we 15 ! looked at items that he was concerned with. I don't know 16 if that answers the original question. I forgot what the 17 l question was.
I 18 (Laughter.)
l 19 l MS. GARDE: You answered any questions I could 20 have possibly had on that. Tell me the story about the i
21 next one.
22 I only have one more question on that, which is 23 really a process. Maybe this is correctly directed to 24 Mr. Trammell. .
25 Is there any plan or program, program particular E)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nadonwide coverase 800 336 6646
27070'.0 137 REE
+
- 1 plan to amend or update these SSERs with information such 2 as described by Mr. Phillips and information that generally 3 has come in about an issue that is written up in an SSER 4 that is essentially finished?
5 This isn' t the only time that has occurred that 6 you got a hold of allegers af ter issues were written up and 7 the SSER is issued. What I am asking you is, are you 8 planning at some time to update this information with 9 turther information you have received, whether it is 10 interviews, post-interviews, disagreements or whatever.
11 MP. TRAMMELL: Let me confer a minute.
12 MS. GARDE: Okay.
-s 13 MR. TRAMMELL: Billie , there is no plan to keep s I 14 t these SSERs continually updated. We ' recognize that we may 15 get new allegations and there may be even maybe a revision 16 ltoanoldallegationwhichwewouldprobablypublish, resolve 17 l and investigate and publish probably an inspection report.
?
18 i There is a limited number of additional allegations which 4
19 would be reported out, probably in another SSER.
20 To the extent that these things become of fered l 21 in some way by the Staff as evidence or something like that, 22 we would be aware of our obligation to keep them updated, 23 if they were in that status. But there 'is no plan to keep 24 these things tuned up and updated just for that purpose.
25 MS. GARDE: I would like the record to reflect, 9
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
27070.0 138 REE
~)-
1 Mr. Scinto -- I am sure you can understand that CASE has a 2 concern and this is an example of it, but it is certainly 3 not the only example of it -- that there is subsequent 4 information, 'like the rock overbreak issue we talked about 5 this morning, this follow-up interview, which substantially 6 in some cases and maybe not so substantially in other cases 7 modifie s wha t is reported in these SSERs. And to the 8 extent that the board is relying on them or that the Staf f 9 is going to rely on them, that we must have in plenty of 10 time a comple te update on all information that the Staf f 11 has relevant to these issues.
12 MR. SCINTO: I understand the point you are l
-- 13 ,
making.
y d 14 1 MS. GARDE: All right. Moving on to AM-12, page 4
15 h K-ll5, I have only a few questions on this one. Who was 1
16 responsible for this one?
l 17 MR. PHILLIPS: I am.
18 i MS. GARDE: In the assessment of safety l l !
19 l significance, there is a discussion of TRT first reviewing 20 background material and documents. I will make two 21 specific references to the second and third paragraph under 22 section 4. Do you see that? ,
23 MR. PHILLIPS: Second and third full paragraphs, 24 I am there. K-115? .
25 MS. GARDE: Ye s . Do you see where you reviewed a
D)
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m m.mo n uon- w. o m ise muse 6
27070.0 139 REE -
9
' 1 background material and you reviewed TU's drawings. I have l 2 a very simple question. My question is, did you, as a 3 general rule , take possession of the things that you 4 reviewed so that those materials are either available under !
5 FOIA or that they would be available under discovery so 6 that we could test the accuracy of your conclusiens based 7 on looking at the same document *, or do we have to 8 independently try to get this material from TU?
9 MR. PHILLIPS: I don't recall about this 10 specific one how much information we have in the working 11 l file. Basically what we kept in the working file were
)'
12 those things that we considered to be highly important and
, 13 j supporting our conclusions. Sometimes -- I am not going to 14 say that was an absolute for keeping it. Sometimes maybe 15 j we ke pt enings that wouldn't fall into that particular 16 category. But in some instances where we felt like we l
17 might have to go back and perform follow-up inspection like 18 on drawings and stuff, we may very well have reproduced 19 those drawings and those would be in the files and would be 20 available under a FOIA.
21 MS. -GARDE : At the bottom of K--115, it is 22 stated that the TRT interviewed the millwright supervisor 23 and the QA/QC engineering personnel listed on the traveler.
24 Were notes kept of that interview? .
25 MR. PHILLIPS: They should have been.
9 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 336 4646 l -
27070.0 ,
140 l REE 3 #
1 MS. GARDE: Do you recall or do you have a 2 specific recollection of preparing notes of the interview 3 of the millwright supervisor?
4 MR. PHILLIPS: I think the gentleman who had 5 Leen doing the work for me would have done that.
6 MS. GARDE: Who would that be?
7 MR. PHILLIPS: That would be Mr. Luke Jones.
8 MS. GARDE: When you interviewed TU or Brown &
9 l Root personnel, did you offer as a general rule I
10 i confidentiality to these individuals?
11 MS. VIETTI-COOK: What was the question again?
12 MS. GARDE: I am asking as a general question, 13 l using this as an example , when the TRT interviewed the 14 ! millwright supervisor and the QA and QC engineering 15 i personnel listed on the traveler, whether or not they were i
16 i promised or offered confidentiality?
17 MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to discuss that with 18 '
Mr. Bangart for a minute?
19 i MS. GARDE: Fine.
20 (Discussion off the record. )
21 MR. BANGART: Let me just answer generally that 22 when we interacted with licensee people or licensee 23 contractor people in gathering information about these 24 allegations, we did not initiate ourselves with any 25 discussions about of fering of confidentiality. Certainly
.) .
ACE.FEDERAd REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Naticawide Coverage 300 33H646
- . _ _ _ - --__ \
27070.0 141 REE 3
l' if tha t issue had come up, then we would have taken it 2 under advisement and gotten back to our management to see 3 whether or not in that situation we could grant 4 confidentiality. Our individual reviewers of allegations 5 were not empowered at that time to grant confidentiality 6 themselves.
7 MS. GARDE: Okay. So to the extent tnat 8 interview notes of these discussions exist, they would not, 9 in your view, be covered under an NRC obligation to protect 10 i their identity?
11 MR. PHILLIPS: That is correct.
12 MR. SHAO: That is correct.
13 ! MS. GARDE: Again , Mr. Scinto , I have to make a 4 l 14 l comment for the record. I will turn this into a question.
i 15 '
In reviewing the ma*.orials made available under 85-59, I 1
16 have not, as a general rule, found any interviews, any such l '
17 8 interviews that support this. You don't recall, although 18 5 the digest of materials on 85-59 is getting pretty big, i
19 l whether or not they are identified on the index and then 20 withheld under a confidentiality or privacy exemption.
21 As a general rule, as we agreed upon over a year 22 ago, I am not pursuing documents that are being withheld by 23 the agency under confidentiality agreement. That agreement 24 does not go to interviews of TUEC personnel in cases such 25 as being discussed.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
I
'd 70.0 142 .
t 1
i 1 MR. SCINTO: It is my recollection that we are 2 talking about those with confidentiality. If we were, if 3 there were in fact interviews, notes of interviews, that c,
.,r 4 were kept that were within the scope of the FOIA that were 5 not related to confidential people, they should not be ,
6 withheld. V N
~
7 MS. GARDE: Could I ask that you just check with L it[ :if.gj 8 Mr. Grimsley on that. I am not asking you to go back i tp; 4'(*,
yg 9 through and identif y -- h3 y 4 10 ,i MR. SCINTO: We will make sure tha t we don' t ' ' y.[
l 6 11 g have that misunderstanding. u!W c.
p; 1,7 12 i MS. GARDE: Please notify me one way or the I F
l other?
13 .
bQ q GV 14 i MR. SCINTO: Sure. E'M $
i L 15 ) MS. GARDE: On page K-il6, under " actions j [g '
k(.
16 j required," it says "none." And then there is the statement M7! J Nhl) 17 ,
that if a violation is issued, TUEC will be required to k@j 18 ! take corrective action and respond. y [saa l
Oh.e 19 Is this a s ta tement that refers back to the p
- g. p -.,;
20 findings coming out of your review of this issue? [f[,
21 MR. PHILLIPS: This statement refers to -- if I h y
22 could find it here -- I think it is an instance. I don' t N)
.g y
23 see it right off. I will just explain it. I think it goes
..; y 24 to an instance where an unsatisfactory. condition was j'd[:f 25 ' identified in a letter but not a nonconformance report. I p{jh .
m., ,
f :. , >
p%;<
? G*.;
u:n T53%
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nedonwide Coverage 800 334 4646 f:.k 202 347 3700 914
27070.0 143 REE g
?
1 believe that was our problem, which was a side issue ,
2 something we found over and above.
3 MS. GARDE: When you say unsatisfactory item, 4
4 you mean that in reviewing site documentation you found an 5 unsatisfactory item identified in a site letter as opposed 6 to on deficiency paper?
7 MR. PHILLIPS: Le t me see if I can find the 8 paragraph.
9 MS. GARDE: Please do.
10 l MR. PHILLIPS: If you will notice on, under j
11 ll " assessment of safety significance ," fourth paragraph, 4
12 fabout the -- it starts there and it says: A review of 13 l installation documentation revealed that five out of 20 14 concrete anchor bolts were misaligned. TUSI letter, 15 l see CP-00825 dated March 2, 1979, documents the need for h
16 modif ying the base plate . poles. This letter wnich 17 ; describes the misalignment indicates that the bolts were 18 i not installed as required by the specification and drawing.
j 19 lAsaresult, the component modification card number 4263 I i 20 was approved June 8, 1979. The TRT found no nonconformance 21 reports in the quality assurance record vault.
22 Misalignment may have caused installation problems.
23 However, if the damage occurred at that time, it was n'ot
- 24 documented.
i 25 What we are saying is they didn' t use a proper j
r I
1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 23364H6
. _ ~.__' _ ______ _-. _ _ _- _ -_. Nationwide Coverser 202.M7 3700
4 27070.0 144 REE k# 1 instrument. We believe that that was a nonconforming 2 condition that should have been put on an NCR and not just
, 3 in a letter.
4 MS. GARDE: When you say if a violation is 5 issued, who would have issued the violation referred to in
! 6 this sentence?
7 MR. PHILLIPS: May I confer for a moment?
8 MS. GARDE: Fine.
9 (Discussion off the record. )
10 MR. SCINTO: Le t me interject for a moment, the 11 TRT didn't issue violations. TRT sent stuf f to the rest of I
12 l the system. Basically to the Region for determination of 13 whether in fact to issue a notice of violation. Is that
% ;) !
14 l the question you asked?
15 l MS. GARDE: Ye s . You are saying Region 4 would 16 I have issued the violation if it was going to be issued on I
17 this issue?
18 MR. SHAO: Rig ht .
i MR. SCINTO:
~
19 Right.
20 MR. SCINTO: He is also in Region 4. This was a 21 question that related to his functions in the TRT.
22 MS. GARDE: It was kind of an unusual statement I
23 because it -- well, I don' t need to tell you why it was 24 unusual.
25 MR. PHILLIPS: May I clarify?
O hCE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L-. . - - - - . _ - _ . _ - -m w? nm__M cm_ _8065**_ _ _ _ _
i 27070.0 145 i REE S
- 1 MS. GARDE: I wish you would.
2 MR. PHILLIPS: The clarification is, during this 3 effort, we were given the responsibility to write up 4 potential violations, for example. And those were 5 submitted to the head of the TRT and they were collectively, 6 to bring all that together and do whatever they were uidMn 7 supposed to do w+ttr the system to get those violations 8 issued finally. So it is sort of out of my control after I 9 wrote the potential violation as opposed to an inspection 10 report like I do each month. I go ahead and write the 11 !
violation in the report and submit it to management. So 12 l that is the dif ference.
l
.e , 13 i MS. GARDE: I want to then go back to the actual g ,.
14 l potential violation or deficiency that this statement in 1
15 f item 6 is referring to. I ask you if this was referred, 16 ! this item, that is, that a nonconforming condition was not 17 reported on a nonconformance report or any other type of 18 I control deficiency paper, was that referred to the OA/0C 19 team or SSER consideration?
20 MR. PHILLIPS: According to the notes I have on 21 tha t item, we did submit that as a OA item and gave it a 22 generic grading of 1.
23 MS. GARDE: Can you identify where in SSER 11 it 24 is referenced? I found it. It is right af ter the other l
25 two on page P-42.
i O
t ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nadonwide Comage 300 336 e646
= - - _ - - - - -- --
, - - . ,,,..-,--..-ve - - . . , - - - - - - - - - . , , - - , - _ , , . , - - - .
27070.0 146 REE
~' 1 Now, let me also ask you a couple questions 2 similar to what I asked you about the two categories above 3 this one on page P 42. Which is, to what extent did you 4 a ttempt to determine if this was a reoccurring problem?
5 MR. PHILLIPS: Could you ask the question again, 6 please?
7 MS. GARDE: Yes. Let me clarify that question.
8 Did you look at any other letters, TUSI letters, to 9 determine whe ther or not they identified deficiencies that 10 were not also identified on deficiency paper other than I
11 that referred to on page K-115?
12 MR. PHILLIPS: No, we did not. And the reason 13 g we didn' t was because it was our understanding that that
,d I 14 ; kind of review was being done by the OA/0C.
15 l MS. GARDE: Okay. AM-13, on the Haywood Tyler 16 pump de ficiencies. Mr. Bangart, are we bacx to you?
- 17 7 MR. BANGART: I believe we are.
18 ! MS. GARDE: In the conclusions on page K-ll8, 19 the TRT concludes that TUEC had identified Haywood Tyler 20 pumps, on site , tested the pumps, reported as required by 21 IEB 83-05.
22 Did you determine whether or not TUEC's vendor 23 ' inspection program had independently picked up Haywood 24 Tyler pump QA problems?
25 MR. BANGART: To the best of my recollection, we 3)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 3 4 6646
27070.0 147 REE
- 9 .
1 did not as part of the TRT ef fort. On a parallel path we 2 were looking at the vendor QA program of the licensee 3 outside of the scope of the TRT, but as part of the routine 4 inspection. So we were looking at that issue in a generic 5 sense, not just related to the Haywood Tyler pump.
6 MS. GARDE: Has that report been issued?
7 MR. BANGART: Yes.
8 MS. GARDE: Do you recall the number.
9 MR. PHILLIPS: 84-32, 84-11.
10 MS. GARDE: Was that ongoing at the time of the 11 TRT effort?
12 MR. BANGART: We initiated that during the time i 13 the TRT was on site. Mr. Phillips was not only wearing the 14 l hat of providing supervision over TRT members, he was also
-15 carrying out certain parts of the routine inspection i
16 g program. One of the major inspection activities that he 17 initiated that summer was the review of the utility's I 18 i vendor QA program.
19 MS. GARDE: Was that review initiated as a l
20 result of findings by the TRT?
21 MR. PHILLIPS: That review was initiated at the 22 request of Mr. Bangart.
23 MS. GARDE: What was the basis of your request?
24 MR. BANGART: One of the other hats that I wore 25 that summer was to get the routine inspection program O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33H446
-- . u
27070.0 148 REE l
l
- 1 completed to the point at which it was compatible with the l l 2 . construction of the plant. We were behind. And following 3 completing the routine inspection program, because of the 4 resources we had to devote prior to the TRT in resolving 5 allegations, so in looking at the inspection program 6 completion status, we identified a need to spend more
- 7 inspection effort in the vendor QA area. And if my memory e
8 is correct, Mr. Phillips was putting together the status of 3
9 the whole program for me and that was one of the areas that
'l
! 10 stood out as needing attention.
11 MS. GARDE: So then, to the extent that there
- 12 are issues raised about vendor QA issues, intervenors 13 should not look to the SSERs, they should look to this 14 inspection report? Is that correct?
15 l MR. BANGART: I don' t know the extent to which 16 l Mr. Livermore may have looked at vendor QA, but there 17 certainly is --
18 MS. GARDE: With that caveat --
19 MR. BANGART: There certainly is -- our 20 inspection reports that were authored by Mr. Phillips that 21 address that issue.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: There are two things here. Wha t 23 Mr. Bangart said is true. One of the consultants working l
- 24 for me looked at the entire vendor effort at TUGCO, Dallas.
i 25 That is the first point. The second point that we should D
i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2023c.3700 Naionwide Cowage 800 3 4 4646
27070.0 149 REE 7 '
S'ighi
-- 1 not lose eM e of is that NRC had prior to this inspection, 2 during this inspection, and af ter the inspection, a group i 3 known as the vendor program branch group that goes in and 4 looks at the vendor's QA programs and the product. And if 5 I remember correctly, the inspections, if my knowledge 6 serves me, the inspections had been done by that group of 7 Haywood Tyler.
1 8 MS. GARDE: I am familiar with the vendor 9 9 inspection branch. But my recollection is that they had or l
10 were about to move lock, stock and barrel to the D.C. --
11 MR. BANGART: That is correct.
l 12 f MS. GARDE: You mentioned a TUGCO vendor audit s 13 that was performed by one of your contractors or
> i
~
14 l consultants working for you. Was that done in conjunction 15 with 84-32?
16 MR. PHILLIPS: Ye s .
h 17 ! MS. GARDE: Who was that?
18 j: MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Thomas.
19 MS. GARDE: On page K-126, the conclusions and l
20 Staf f positions on issue , allegation number AM-17, Annette ,
f 21 was the alleger contacted with the findings or conclusions?
22 MS. VIETTI-COOK: Could you give me that
! 23 reference again?
I 24 MS. GARDE: It is allegation number AM-17. I am i 25 looking at page K-126.
i
! ACE FEDERAC REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage so0 33 H 646
N' 27070.0 150 REE Ql
. n,
\ .,l 1 ,
MS. VIETTI-COOK: Yes, there was a feedback .
2 in tervie w. _
3 MS. GARDE: Do your notes indicate what were the f n,
4 results of that feedback interview?
5 MS. VIETTI-COOK: No.
R 6 ,
MS. GARDE: You don't know if the alleger -- you h W
7 don' t know by looking at your notes if the alleger D N
8 concurred or disagreed with the Staff position? Q 9 MS. VIETTI-COOK: Hang on one se cond .
10 MS. GARDE: Sure.
11 MS. VIETTI-COOK: It doesn' t specifically say 12 I this, but I can see that we did do additional work, so -- ([*
n
/
13 I
because we did go on a plant site tour with the person. So )
14 it appears that we must have done some -- that he probably !}
l h 15 did not agree with the results and would have, you know,
[p 16 f said: I can show you more detail. And that is when we 17 ,
would have initiated a plant tour with the person.
d 18 '
MS. GARDE: Same que stion as be fore , what plans .
y.
)
19 l are there to provide this information as an update to this 20 SSER so we have the full investigation on this issue?
21 MS. VIETTI-COOK: I can't tell you right here ,
22 but my understanding is, if there is something incorrect in y 23 these SSERs, we would correct it. If these SSERs are , ];
d 24 which I believe they are correct, we would not do anything lj b
25 further to update them. We may eventually say something 'j ,
d
) H fi
. N
. p ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 4 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646 b
27070.0 151 REE
'9
- 1 that we did have a feedback interview with a person where 2 we said we , you know, .were unable to reach him or something.
3 But we have not had any plans to do any further update 4 other than if we had something incorrect in them, that we 5 would correct it.
6 MR. SCINTO: And I want to indicate that you 7 made the point be fore. I indicated on the record that I 8 heard your point.
9 MS. GARDE: I wasn' t going to make my point I
10 l again.
11 i MR. SCINTO: Your point will be heard.
12 MS. GARDE: On the next allegation, AM-18, I 13 ,
have no questions except for on page K-129, Anne tte , to see 14 if there has been further contact with the alleger not .
4 15 recorded in the SSER?
16 MS. VIETTI-COOK Pardon me?
l 17 f MS. GARDE: Has there been further contact with 18 ! the alleger not recorded in the SSER, who is the source of l
19 l AM-187 20 MS. VIETTI-COOK I will tell you, Billie , from 21 my records here , I have written down that we were unable to 22 contact the alleger, but Shannon tells me that they did 23 have further contact.
24 MS. GARDE: Is that written up anywhere?
25 MR. PHILLIPS: During plant tour, we had a f
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
1
- 27070.0 152 REE N
u 1 walkdown and the individual involved or individuals
> 2 involved with this particular allegation pointed out areas 3 where they considered examples of deficient material and as 4 I understood it, there would be , at that particular time ,
5 certain of the TRT members in the mechanical group were
%sg 6 present during that tour and gwould close out those 7 particular issues. And I don' t know where it stands past 8 that.
9 MS. GARDE Okay. I have only one question on 10 l AM-19 and then I propose that we take a reasonable break.
11 MR. PHILLIPS: If I could say, that same thing
- 12. I applies on a number of- the ones that you have pointed out,
, 13 i tnat there were some of the mechanical, individuals on the J l mechanical team where tnere were similar concerns that the y 14 1 l
15 ,
were looking at that pertained to their SSERs and those i
16 ] that pertained to my SSERs, they were present during the i by 17 1 tour and I understood that feedback would be givengthem on i
18 j those particular allegations and some new allegations that d i 19 were pointed out during that tour.
20 Nel, I was pretty clear, where I felt like that 21 I could see no further, I could see that they gave me no 22 further information, for example, that would change my 23 finding, I - I believe I told them at the time , I didn' t 24 plan to takei any further action on those items unless they 25 could give me some information to show where my finding was
!O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MI646
27070.0 153 REE 9 -
1 in error. I couldn' t see it. I was standing on my 2 findings.
3 MS. GARDE: I am partially inclined to ask 4 Mr. Bangart and Mr. Phillips to go over the allegations on 5 break to identify tha't , where there is further'information.
6 But I think I will just leave the record as it is, that at 7 some point we expect to be updated before we walk into 8 hearing on what additional information was received, if the 9 alleger cpposed it, changed their mind, you found him or i
10 whatever.
11 l MR. SCINTO: I understand.
12 MS. GARDE: One question on AM-19. On the NRC l
13 ,
Form 3. Who has what issue?
14 MR. BANGART: I.
1 15 MS. GARDE: Mr. Bangart, the Form 3 was revised, h
16 l I b,elieve, in ' 84 or possibly late 1983. Are you familiar 1
17 l with the revision?
18 MR. BANGART: I am not familiar with the 19 cpecifics of that revision, but that form is upcated as 20 phone numbers change, addresses change and so forth.
l 21 MS. GARDE: Let ue represent to you -- you don' t 22 have to believe it -- let me represent to you there was a l 23 significant modification to the form. I am not sure of the 24 time period, late 1983-1984, as a result of a Catawba board 25 decision. To the extent that your work discusses the Form G
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
27070.0 154 REE
'T 1 3 in this SSER, do you have knowledg,e if you are talking 2 about the old form or the new form? Setting aside the 3 phone numbers issue.
4 MR. BANGART: I don't have any knowledge 5 regarding the subject that you are exploring right now.
6 MS. GARDE: So you don't know if the form that 7 was to be posted was the one that was later ruled to be 8 somewhat misleading? You don't know?
9 MR. BANGART: No, I don't. I do know that when, 10 as a matter of course , we do review Form 3s, that in the 11 inspection process that we look to see if it is the la te st I
'12 revision.
13 ,
MS. GARDE: Okay. I would propose that we take 14 l about a 10-minute break before we begin the next allegation,
'd
.15 ! and my guess is that I have about another half hour on i
16 miscellaneous. But that is only a guess.
17 MR. SCINTO: I understand.
18 (Recess.) i 19 MS. GARDE: Back on the record.
20 First of all, before we go into a whole new area, 21 I think, Annette, you want to make a clarification. ,
I 22 MS. VIETTI-COOK: Yes. We were talking about AM ;
l 23 18 before and you had asked me whether we had given 24 feedback to the alleger. My records indicated that we had 25 not. I still believe that that is true. Then Shannon 3
ACE-FEDERA5 REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Naucowide Coverage 80 4336 4646
l l
27070.0 155 i
REE 7 ~
l Phillips said that he did give a tour to somebody who he 2 did discuss this allegation with and coincidentally, this i
3 person may have -- it was not the same alleger that made 4 the original allegation, but they coincidentally may have 5 raised a similar concern. So we were talking about two 6 different people.
7 MR. TRAMMELL: May I clarify or expand what I 8 said earlier, when you had asked a question about I
9 supplementing SSERs and a program to do that. I would like 10 to revise that slightly. I think the word " program" might 11 be a bit strong a word. We were planning on, for example ,
12 l on SSER number 8, we made some statements that we would be 13 conducting feedback interviews and things like that where 14 we hadn't completely finished the allegation. Cindy 15 l reminded me that we do have what they they call errata 16 sheets for those SSERS where we have updated to the degree 17 the feedback was now conducted and fthatweshowthat 18 l whatever the results of that were.
19 MS. GARDE: Have those been publicly released?
20 MR. TRAMMELL: No, this is in the final boarding 21 process. We were going to attach these to SSER as 22 appendices as they were issued to make sure that the old 23 SSER was accurate. Any place where NRC promised future 24 action, too, we were going to complete that action.
25 So I think " program" maybe is too strong a word, m
b.$
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nanoowide Coverage 800 33H646
1 27070.0 156 REE n
1 but we will keep these updated and to that degree.
2 Obviously if there was anything, if we find out in !
1 3 subsequent investigations anything went wrong, one way or 4 another we would certainly correct that. If we felt that 5 something tha t we said in a previous SSER was invalidated, 6 we would certainly correct it.
7 MS. GARDE: My chief concern, as I have 8 addressed on the record, is that at a reasonable time 9 before we get to hearing , that CASE be given the 10 l opportunity to have all the information that brings the l
11 so that we have full, complete , reliable g SSERs up to date 12 ! information and have time to review it before we get to l
13 I hearing. I would expect tnat you would have to update a 1
14 4 change as the time passes. We just want it as soon as 15 ] possible and no later than a reasonable time to prepare for hearing. I don't know what that is, because I don' t know 16 l 17 how much you are talking about.
18 I MR. TRAMMELL: We are working on such an update 19 right now and also some new -- publishing the results of 29 the investigation of new allegations.
21 MS. GARDEi We are up to allegaticn AM-21 on 22 page K-133. Woo had responsibility for this issue?
23 MR. BANGART: I did.
24 MS. GARDE: Mr. Bangart, on K-133, numbered 25 paragraph 3, characterization, you refer to a letter dated ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide coverase 800 336 6646 l
27070.0 157 l REE i 7
-' 1 March 7, 1984, containing an allegation of widespread drug 2 use. Was that letter publicly docketed?
3 MR. BANGART: I do not know the answer to that 4 question.
5 MS. GARDE: Do you know who the source of that 6 letter is?
7 MR. BANGART: I don' t remember the name of the 8 author.
9 MS. GARDE: Do you recall anything about the I
10 le tter?
11 MR. BANGART: Not at this point in time.
12 MS. GARDE: Mr. Phillips, do you recall anything 13 about this letter?
14 l MR. PHILLIPS: I remember reviewing the t
15 ! information with respect to this le tter or something, some 4
16 j testimony with respect to this issue.
17 MS. GARDE: Let me ask one more question, and I 18 i would like you to think about this a minute. I am i
19 l interested in determining whether or not the source of this 20 allegation was from a worker on the site as opposed to an 21 outside source such as CASE or a concerned citizen? To the i
22 extent that you can clarify between those two groups, does 23 that -- are you able to do that?
24 MRe PHILLIPS: I think it was an outside group, 25 but like I said, it has been some time since I have Q
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M646
_ -- ...._ -- - - - - - - - . -..n__ = - - _ , .
27070.0 158 REE o
a
'-' 1 reviewed this particular file. If it is an important point 2 that needs to be answered --
3 MR. SCINTO: If we have that information, 4 Billie --
5 . MR. PHILLIPS: We would have to go back and get 6 it.
7 MR. SCINTO: If we have the information, there 8 d oe sn ' t seem to be any reason why we can't tell you.
9 l MS. GARDE: If the letter was from a I
10 i confidential source, I am not requesting the le t ter . If it 11 I is a public document, I would like to know that.
12 MR. SCINTO: Right.
13 MS. GARDE: Assessment of safety significance ,
s_v 14 ,
item number 4, "the TRT reviewed background material." Let 15 me stop before I go further and ask, in this case, does the ;
6 16 l TRT refer to solely you?
17 MR. BANGART: It refers to me and the person who 18 did -- persons who did most of the work in terms of the '
19 actual review. That was James Kelley from Region 4 office 20 and Mr. Corbe tt , who looked at the smapling ef work (nat i 21 was described later on in this particular allegation.
22 MS. GARDE: What background material was l 23 reviewed, to the best of your knowledge?
24 MR. BANGART: The letter that is described in 25 the characterization section and other material that was O
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
I 27070.0 159 ;
REE l 3'
1 contained,in this folder that was put together, and it l
2 really is described by the rest of that sentence there.
3 MS. GARDE: Temporary instruction 2596/1. What '
'1 '
4 is a temporary instruction?
5 MR. BANGART: A temporary instruction is a i 6 document that is issued by the Of fice of Inspection and 7 Enforcement and it directs the Region to take a one-time 8 action generally in terms of specific inspection activity 0 9
l or it may be an inspection activity that will be later !
10 documented in some kind of permanent procedure. But there fi t
l 11 is an initial attempt to get an activity started so it is l l]
12 initiated by. temporary instruction and is later I
13 : incorporated into the I&E manual as a final inspection s
f 14 l procedure.
15 j MS. GARDE: The re s t o f tha t --
16 MR. BANGART: This happened to be a one-time 17 l instruction to carry out an activity.
4 18 ' MS. GARDE: Was it a one-time instruction from ;
!s 13 j I&E solely to Texas Utilities? ; j 20 MR. BANGART: No. This was Region-wide
( 21 instruction.
l l 22 MS. GARDE: So it was to Region 4 or the entire i i
23 country?
24 MR. BANGART: I think it was to all Regions. ,
1 25 MS. CARDE: And what was contained in that =
l i
-) t l
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202 347-3700 Nanonwide Coverage 800 336 6646
. . . _.~,o.-_ ,- -. . m,. - I.
27070.0 160 REE N
- 1 document?
2 MR. BANGART: The document directed the Regions 3 to go to each utility that had an operating plant or plant 4 under construction and to gather information relative to 5 that company's policy on the use of drugs and alcohol and 6 other matters as described in the last sentence of the 7 first paragraph in section a on page K-133.
8 MS. GARDE: Was such a report prepared by Region 9 47 10 MR. BANGART: Yes.
11 MS. GARDE: Was that report put into the public 12 documents room?
. 13 MR. BANGART: I don' t know the answer to that
)
14 l question.
15 MS. GARDE: Mr. Scinto, I need an answer to that 16 i que stion .
17 .MR. SCINTO: Yes.
18 l MS. GARDE: Are you aware of Freedom of 19 Information Act requasts for all information regarding the 1
20 drug and alcohol abuse problems or program at Comanche Peak?
21 MR. BANGART: Yes, I am.
22 MS. GARDE: Do you know if that report was 23 released in response to those docunients, requests?
24 MR. EANGART: I don' t remember if the report was 25 in the package that we put together. I have a clear i l
1 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
. . - . . . - , . e-- . - . , , y _ __._.,.m- ,.-y--,,,,y -,imy - --p---
27070.0 161 REE
-- 1 recollection that the, there was a NUREG report included in 2 there, and I believe a TI was included in there. I don't 3 remember if this specific Comanche Peak report was in it.
4 MS. GARDE: Now, in the background material that 5 was reviewed in preparation for conducting this inspection 6 effort, was the NUREG on drug and alcohol abuse programs 7 reviewed?
8 MR. BANGART: Yes. I believe the subject of the 9 NUREG was a review that occurred at a small number of 10 plants. And then a temporary instruction took the next 11 l step which said, the NRC needs to go out to all plants and 12 ask the same kinds of questions, gather the same kinds of 3 13 information.
ss 14 MS. GARDE: Now, in the next paragraph you talk 15 ! about a drug abuse prevention program in ef fect at CPSCS 16 since 1984. Are you referring in this paragraph only to 17 l tee establishment or existence of a program with no view 18 l toward implementation of the program? l
' \
19 MR. BANGART: I understand your question. I am 20 reading the paragraph to try to formulate the best answer 21 to that guestion.
22 I believe that the wording of this sentence ,
23 this paragraph, means that a program had been implemented.
24 MS. GARDE: Do you have personal knowledge 25 whether it had been implemented?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
27070.0 162 REE
' 1 MR. BANGART: My recollection of discussions
- 2 about this particular allegation with the reviewer is that 3 it had been implemented. I had not done personal or 4 undertaken any personal effort to directly ascertain 5 whe ther it had been implemented or not.
6 MS. GARDE: On page K-134, the first paragraph, 7 discussing an indoctrination program and recognizing 8 unusual behavior caused by alcohol and drug abuse, did you 9 review that program specifically?
10 MR. BANGART: Not personally.
11 MS. GARDE: Did your consultant review that 12 program?
.- 13 MR. BANGART: The Region 4 employee who was
\ 'w/
14 , exploring this matter did. Yes.
15 f MS. GARDE: Did he 'make any determination, to 16 the best of your knowledge , on the adequacy of the program?
17 l MR. BANGART: His comments to me were that, in 18 !, his view, this company had one of the stronger programs 19 that he had observed in the nuclear industry for plants 20 under construction.
21 MS. GARDE: That is discussing TUEC's program?
l l 22 MR. BANGART: Yes.
23 MS. GARDE: That program was not the same 24 program that Brown & Root had, was it?.
25 MR. BANGART: That is correct.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6
7070.0 163 bd EE 97 p
i.
1 MS. GARDE: Now, what- ef fort was made to j 2 determine what Brown & Root's program was for drug and ,
9 3 ilcohol abuse?
4 MR. BANGART: Our reviewer looked at documents 5 that described programs or policies of both TUEC and Brown ,
6 & Root. I don't know the degree to which he conducted v<
7 interviews with Brown & Root representatives because it is j p
8 not documented here in the write-up. ki$
. 9 MS. GARDE: Do you know if there is a Brown & $j g
m 10 Root program for drug and alcohol abuse for its employees? [}
w 11 , MR. BANGART: No, I don't. fN
! F3 I
12 MS. GARDE: Do you recall asking the persons hk w,
13 that you supervised on this issue whether or not Brown & b3
" 4-y 14 J Root had a program?
15 $ MR. BANGART: We discussed what Brown & Root did d
j relative to gaining knowledge as to whether their employees ~
16 s
17 f abused either alcohol or drugs and the possibility that 18 , with abuse that it might affect the ir work. And the 19 l information that is documented here describes the extent to h) 63 20 which we gained information about what Brown & Root does.
21 Whether or not this is -- the limited amount of ef fort that b 22 they do put forth is incorporated into a policy on drug and 4 23 alcohol abuse , I don' t remember whether I asked that fd El 24 specific question. %
25 MS. GARDE: On page K--134 in the second W[
Id!w 1.r.,
lEA ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. id g~
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Mi646 F
27070.0 164 REE
~d
> J l paragraph it said , the last sentence says that "Other 2 screening measures, including the periodic use of dogs 3 trained to detect drugs were used to compensate for this 4 lack of screening." Besides the dogs, what screening 5 measures did Brown & Root have to detect the use of drugs 6 among its employees, if you know? Or Mr. Phillips, if you 7 know.
8 MR. BANGART: I don' t recollect.
9 -MR. PHILLIPS: I think probably at the writing 10 of this statement -- I had some input into it, and I think 11 because of firsthand knowledge I had of the site that we 12 are talking about, periodic use of dogs trained to detect g 13 drugs, and the other thing that would be used is e/
14 supervisory knowledge of their employees, you know, just 15 observations as to whether they are under the influence.
16 MS, GARDE: Do you know or did you know if Brown 17 , & Root supervisors were trained to detect unusual or 18 erratic behavior that may have been caused by alcohol or 19 drug abuse?
20 MR. PHILLIPS: I don' t believe we looked at tha t.
21 MS. GARDE: So to the extent that it was other 22 screening measures, the only other measure that Erown &
23 Root had at the time that you reviewed this was the 24 periodic use of dogs and the detection. by supervisors of 25 erratic or unusual behavior; is that correct?
1 ACE-FEDERA5 REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nanonwide coverase soo.3364646
27070.0 165 REE
)
i 1 MR. PHILLIPS: I think probably those are the 2 principal things. The reason that we didn't go that much 3 further into Brown & Root is that there was no requirement 4 -- there is no requirement, secur.i ty-wi se , for Brown & Root 5 to have such a program, and many of the sites that I have
! 6 been on, they don't have that much. They don't have the 7 dog s . They don ' t -- they are not that aware. Maybe not as 8 aware as Brown & Root was.
9 MS. GARDE: Do you know -- do either, 10 j Mr. Bangart, or Mr. Phillips, know what part of 10 CFR .
I 11 j would deal with drug abuse by employees, if it is dealt 12 with at all?
3 13 MR. BANGART: That is not incorpora ted into the
) 14 i
l regulation right now, except in terms of training 1
l 15 3, qualifications for physical security guard force members. ;
3 16 The Commission has it under development, a policy statement 17 .
on drug and alcohol abuse programs that utilities should 18 i implement.
19 MS. GARDE: Is that the colicy statement that ,
i 20 l has been under implemente tion review since March of 1982? f 21 MR. BANGART: Inat 4.ind ed time frame sounds f
I 22 about right to me. There have been discussions about 23 incorporating or revising regulations and/or addressing the l 24 issue through a policy statement.
25 MS. GARDE: Now, in the next paragraph, "TRT h ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6 6 l
27070.0 166 REE Dn
- 1 interviewed the county sherif f." Is that Frank Laramore?
2 Do you know?
3 MR. BANGART: I am not familiar with the name.
4 MR. PHILLIPS: I was not involved with that part.
5 MS. GARDE: Do we know what county we are 6 talking about?
7 MR. PHILLIPS: As I recall, from the standpoint 8 of write-up, it was Summerville.
Som se v e \\
a 9 MR. BANGART: I believe it was S;;;;rcille 10 County.
11 MR. PHILLIPS: The Glen Rose Courthouse where he l
i 12 I would be located.
5 13 MS. GARDE: The rest of that sentence says that (0/ i 14 "TUEC notified law enforcement authorities about the ir 3
15 ; investigation regarding drug involvement by Brown & Root 16 i employees and kept them advised of their findings." Are l
17 [ you aware or were you aware when you were doing this 18 investigation -- again, we are trying to assess what you 19 knew at the time this was written up -- whether TUEC itrelf
. l l
20 ( reviewed Brown & Root's actions regarding drug abuse?
21 MR. PHILLIPS: Actions in terms of what?
22 MR. BANGART: Could you be core specific?
23 MS. GARDE: Le t me go back. Brown & Root does 24 not have a specific program, it is a somewhat random 25 program?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- ~ _
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 23 6 . - - .
27070.0 167 REE S
- 1 MR. BANGART: Ye s . .
2 MS. GARDE: TUEC does have a specific program 3 but according to the write-up, it won' t really be 4 implemented until reactor operation, unless I 5 mischaracterize what it says on the bottom of 133.
6 MR. BANGART: That is relative to physical 7 security plan requirements only.
8 MS. GARDE: So TUEC's program already is ongoing?
9 MR. BANGART: Yes.
10 l MS. GARDE: What audit function or review 11 function are you aware of or were you aware of in preparing 12 f this write-up of TUEC's review of Brown & Root's employees?
13 MR. BANGART: The information that we had at
~
14 ! that point in time was captured in the report of -- that i
15 was issued, that was pursuant to the , this temporary
-16 4 instruction, 2596/1. One of the things that is covered or n
17 was covered in those meetings with the utilities was the 18 l extent to which they imposed requirements upon their 3
19 contractors to have drug and alcohol abuse detection l
20 programs and background investigation programs.
21 MS. GARDE: Th'at was helpful, but it didn' t 22 answer my question. I am trying to determine , af ter 23 reading this statement, if TUEC exercised some sort of 24 control over Brown & Root employees with their, Texas 25 Utility's drug abuse program, to the extent that TUEC is 9
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Ml646
1 l
27070.0 168 REE
'N 41 1 apparently, according to this paragraph, notifying law 2 enforcement authorities about Brown & Root employees. Do 3 you follow what I am trying to figure out?
4 MR. BANGART: You are asking if the TUEC -- TUEC 5 was, in effect, requiring Brown & Root to have something 6 comparable to their own program for their own employees?
7 'MS. GARDE: No. That is not what I am asking.
8 Give me a minute. I want to rephrase the question.
9 Did you participate in the interview of the 10 county sheriff?
11 ! MR. BANGART: No.
12 l MS. GARDE: Did you review any interview record l
-s 13 ;
of that conversation?
..) 0 14 MR. BANGART: I had conversations with l
15 i Mr. Kelley about the interview that he conducted with the 3
16 county sheriff.
17 MS. GARDE: Do you know if there was any 18 d write-up of this inte rview?
1 19 MR. BANGART: I don' t believe there was a formal 20 write-up. I am not aware of a formal write-up.
21 MS. GARDE: Notes of the inte rvie w?
22 MR. BANGART: I am sure the inspector took notes 23 at the time.
24 MS. GARDE: If you read that sentence ,
25 Mr. Bangart, do you understand that TUEC had independent 9
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
,- u ,2,nn m,m.a covm., ann.tm
27070.0 169 REE
~
1 knowledge about drug use by Brown & Root employees which it 4
2 provided to the county sherif f?
3 MR. BANGART: Ye s .
4 MS. GARDE: Do you know what the source of TUEC's 5 information was? ,
6 MR. BANGART: That was the networking interviews 7 that are described in the next paragraph. TUEC security 8 took the lead and conducted this investigation of drug use l
9 i by Brown & Root at the si te . It was the TUEC ef fort that 10 discovered the fact. There were this number apparently 11 involved with drug use .
12 i MS. GARDE: And so this paragraph, one' sentence l
13 l paragraph that we are looking at, refers to the June 1984 y i 14 ! drug incident?
I 15 l MR. BANGART: Yes.
I 16 MS. GARDE: In the next paragraph, when it
[
17 refers to "an incident occurred," does that term "an 13 incident" refer to one incident of drug use or the June f
, 19 1984, for lack of a better word, organized drug bust?
20 MR. BANGART: I believe this is in reference to 21 the one event.
22 MS. GARDE: Now, in the middle of the paragraph, 23 somewhere early in the paragraph, it talks about an alleged, 24 an allegation of on-site drug use by Brown & Root employees.
25 Did you, the NRC, seek to identify who that alleger was?
I 6
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- ._. . . - - . - - . - . - . W'# - - ??" - ._ __- - ?'# - - . ,
@3 27070.0 170 hl REE f.l 3
c.
1 MR. BANGART: I didn't personally. Others may -- i .,
I:
2 MS. VIETTI-COOK: Which one? Where was that (*
3 again?
4 MS. GARDE: On page K-134, there is a reference 5 to an alleger who apparently provided information to TUEC g 6 security regarding drug abuse by Brown & Root employees. 3 g
R 7 My question is, did the NRC seek to identify that alleger? 3 3
8 MS. VIETTI-COOK: I can tell you that we did j 3
9 talk to a couple allegers having to do with drug abuse. I 3 j!!
10 can't say that that is --
{4j l
11 ,
MS. GARDE: My first question is, did the TRT 12 l attempt to find out who this alleger was and interview him? (;
i$
13 Did someone from the TRT go to security and say, we want to j';;
e 14 i
9 l talk to the person who made the allegation of drug abuse . ,
u 15 !, that started the drug bust? Was that question asked or ,
16 l posed to TUEC security? Do you know?
I 17 l MS. VIETTI-COOK: I can't tell you that. I
'l 18 fdon'tknow. g i
19 MR. BANGART: I don't know. I 20 MS. GARDE: Mr. Phillips? "
21 MR. PHILLIPS: I was not involved with that part 22 of it. .
.a 23 MS. GARDE: Who on the NRC Staff would know the $)
24 answer to that question? ,
25 MR. BANGART: Most likely Mr. Kelley.
> h!
w Fs e
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '
b2 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MI646 L
27070.0 171 REE D#
1 MS. GARDE: Mr. Scinto, I would like to ask that 2 that question be directed to Mr. Kelley and the answer 3 provided to me.
4 MR. SCINTO: You would like the answer. And you 5 would like the person identified who answers it. It may or 6 may not be Mr. Kelley. We will start with Mr. Kelley.
7 MS. GARDE: Thank you.
8 Mr. Bangart, are you aware of whether or not the 9 TRT interviewed any of the 56 workers that TUEC security 10 intervie wed?
11 MR. BANGART: To the best of my recollection, 12 l they did not.
, 13 MS. GARDE:. Are you aware of whether any of the 14 56 workers who were interviewed by TUEC security in 1
15 { relation to this drug bust contacted the NRC about the drug i
16 I5 bust?
1 17 li MR. BANGART: I don' t remember whether that 18 occurred or not.
19 MS. GARDE: Mr. Phillips, do you know?
20 MR. PHILLIPS: No. I was involved in the ,
21 looking at the technical aspect of this item.
22 MS. GARDE: Annette , do you know if any of the 23 56 workers who were interviewed by 'TUEC contacted the NRC?
24 MS. VIETTI-COOK: I can't tell you. I don't 25 know.
8 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
_ _ _ _ _ __ __ .__ _. _ _ __ __ 202-347 3700_____ _ ___,. __._Nationyide Comase_ _ _ , _
23m
27070.0 172 REE
~% .
~ 1 MS. GARDE: To the extent tha t any of these 2 workers had contacted the NRC regarding the drug bust, 3 would it be reflected in this write-up?
4 MS. VIETTI-COOK: I don't know. I know that we 5 did talk to some allegers who made allegations of drug 6 abuse on site .
7 MS. GARDE: Do you know whether you talked to 8 workers who made allegations that the drug bust in June of 9 1984 was conducted in a discriminatory manner?
10 i MS. VIETTI-COOK: Whether that allegation was 11 i made?
12 l MS. GARDE: Ye s .
I 13 i MS. VIETTI-COOK: I think I have heard that l
14 g before. I mean , you know, in the back of my mind, I 15 ! remember something like that.
Q 16 l MS. GARDE: In the event that any workers did 17 contact the NRC with that allegation, would it have i
18 appeared in this write-up?
19 MR. PHILLIPS: I was responsible for the final ,
1 20 write-up. If there had been any information provided , that 21 would have been in the write-up with respect to not 22 identifying any allegern, but the general information would 23 have been given as a part of the findings.
24 MR. BANGART: If that matter had been raised at 25 the time when Mr. Kelley was doing the review, we would O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m2-347 3700 Ncoverase 800 WM""$
g;d k
~x l?
- 7070.0 173 N TEE iM !
!A 1 IN I 1 have looked into that or referred it to somebody else to Y 2 look at. I do not have any recollection of that kind of an :.
0 3 issue coming up during the time that we were conducting 4 this review.
iM S MS. GARDE: To the extent that it was raised, bi Y1 6 Anne tte , where else would it be covered in the SSERs? E L
n 7 MS. VIETTI-COOK: If someone had raised that at [g d.
8 the time we were on site, we would have given it to these .
9 I guys. If it was raised af ter these SSERs were in the form s-l !Y 10 , of being published, et cetera, we would input it into the hj l d3 11 system that we have and we would work on it, maybe be i
i M 12 concluding our evaluations at this time , or they would be p{
13 ,
in the Region 4 allegation tracking system.
I
@i 14 l MS. GARDE: Okay. Going on to the next $
41 15 i paragraph, "The TRT also interviewed the TUEC site OA L
16 i manager." Who conducted that interview from the TRT?
I k 17 l MP. PHILLIPS: I believe that was Mr. Corbett. g}
18 4
MS. GARDE: And who at the time, Mr. Phillips, I d'
41 19 l was the TUEC site QA manager?
{f 20 MR. PHILLIPS: I believe it was Tony Vega.
21 MS. GARDE: And who was his special Staf f ,
22 assistant, if you know? ,,
O 23 MR. BANGART: My best recollection is that that [$
!?*]
24 Staff assistant was Mr. Boyce Grier, but I may be wrong. g{
s 25 MS. GARDE: Were there any notes prepared of hf
)
k 47 3
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. b*
32 347.FJ3 NationwideW _800 33H646 _ _ _ , , __fi
l l
27070.0 174 REE f'\ l
- 1 this interview?
2 MR. PHILLIPS: I really wouldn' t be able to 1
3 answer that unless I looked at our working files to see.
4 Typically we try to document significant conversations. I 5 don' t recall whether we did this one or not. I would have 6 to look.
7 MS. GARDE: The rest of the paragraph indicates 8 that TUEC investigators informed the TRT that eight Brown &
9 Root QA/QC employees had been identified as being involved 10 with drugs.
1 11 ; Do you have a recollection of who those 12 employees were?
13 , MR. PHILLIPS: The answer to the question is, I 14 think that the names were divulged to Mr. Corbett and when 15 l he followed up on their work, some of the inspection he did g
16 on their work, he would have known the names.
17 MS. GARDE: Do you recall if you ever saw the 18 list of names?
I 19 l MR. PHILLIPS: I believe that I did. But I I
20 don't recall any of them.
21 MS. GARDE: Do you recall whether or not the 22 list of names included QA/QC supervisors?
23 MR. PHILLIPS: I don' t recall that aspect of it.
24 I thought it was only inspectors, but I may be wrong.
25 MS. GARDE: Mr. Phillips, did you review or are (I) l 1
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nationwide GhT 3 j
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ FWS-Fsm 000 336 6646
27070.0 175 REE 3
'- s 1 you aware of whether or not Mr. Corbett reviewed the NCR 2 referenced in the next paragraph 84-01840?
3 MR. PHILLIPS: I am aware that he did review it.
4 MS. GARDE: Did you review it?
5 MR. PHILLIPS: I reviewed it.
6 MS. GARDE: Your recollection of the -- does l 7 your recollection of what is in that NCR comport with the ,
8 description in the rest of the paragraph?
9 MR. PHILLIPS: On K-134?
10 MS. GARDE: Yes.
l 11 MR. PHILLIPS: I think the incident, whe re it 12 i says, "The NCR. addressed items in every system in units 1 l
13 : and 2 as those employees identified with drug involvement 14 had worked in all areas of unit 1 and 2," I believe that at 1
15 a least paraphrases what was in the NCR.
l 16 MS. GARDE: Is it your understanding that that 17 NCR limited the generic concern to only the work done by 18 tnose eight 0A/0C inspectors?
i 19 MR. PHILLIPS: I believe that it was limited to 1
20 those eight OC inspectors, OA/0C employees.
21 MS. GARDE: I apologize tnat I don' t have a copy 22 of the NCR to show you. Is there any chance that either of 23 you brought it along?
24 MR. BANGART: I don' t have it.
25 MS. GARDE: Mr. Scinto, I have a little ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Naionwide Coverage 800 336 6646 l
27070.0 176 REE
<3' 1 dif ficulty posing the next question. I am sure you will 2 object if I go over my bounds. What I would like to do is 3 pose a question that I don't think they can answer until 4 they review the actual NCR and ask that they review the NCR 5 and get back with the answer.
6 MR. ECINTO: Why don't you pose the question?
7 MS. GARDE: It is my recollection that the NCR, 8 as written, the one dated June 15, 1984, is generic to 9 every system in unit 1 and 2 by all employees because there 10 was no drug abuse detection program to determine who was or l
11 i was not using drugs, not limited to only those OC I
12 inspectors who resigned or were terminated as a result of l
- 13 l the June 1984 drug bust. What I would like to ask someone ss i 14 I to do is to review that NCR to determine if the write-up on i
15 l page K-134 accurately reflects what that NCR says.
i 16 l Is that -- have I explained myself?
17 MR. SCINTO: You have explained yourself.
18 '
MS. GARDE: Thank you.
I 19 Now, Mr. Phillips, is it --
20 MR. BANGART: Let me just add for the record 21 here that we felt, based on the work that was done by TUEC 22 security, that we had reason to believe that the problem 23 was not any more widespread than what is described here in 24 this write-up.
25 MS. GARDE: But you have no reference in this G
ACE-FEDERA5 REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 336 6646
.- e. .m.w c : w. c_a .c .
. . :=- ,,,,,,,n..._~ , _ w ,z
27070.0
- 177 REE TEh C' I write-up to any contrary information that may have been 2 provided to you by allegers?
3 MR. BANGART: That is correct.
4 MS. GARDE: And to the extent that such 5 information was provided, it was not considered in pursuing 6 this allegation?
7 MR. BANGART: That is correct.
8 MS. GARDE: At the end of the paragraph that we 9 are in the middle of, Mr. Phillips, there is a reference to 10 the "ANI's independent inspection of the QA/QC inspectors' 11 work." Three of the QA/QC inspectors work. Are you aware 12 of whe ther or not that ANI inspection is in fact a 13 paperwork review or actual inspection?
~ i 14 l MR. PHILLIPS: ANI does both hardware and 15 paperwork inspections of work where Brown & Root inspectors 16 i would inspect something and reach a conclusion.
17 g MS. GARDE: To what are you referring in this 18 ! last paragraph in the write-up, that paperwork inspection I
19 or actual inspection? 1 1
20 MP. PHILLIPS: I think it would be both.
l 21 MS6 GARDE: In the next paragraph, "The TRT 22 found that in response to the NCR TUEC, QA personnel 23 developed a reinspection program which assessed the 24 adequacy of the inspe c tions . "
25 Was it a written program? l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 n.--- ~. a-c .,
27070.0 178 REE
'3 1 MR. PHILLIPS: I believe it was reasonably -
2 formal because they were using the old standard 105 D 3 sampling. I think it was a written program.
4 MS. GARDE: Did you take possession of that 5 document? "You" meaning the TRT.
6 MR. BANGART: That question is coming up 7 re peatedly. We just can' t answer that on almost every case 8 because we don't have the files in front of us. We have 9 not recently gone through each of these files. We just 10 i don' t remember whether a specific piece of paper is in 11 the se individual files or not.
12 ES. GARDE: I can appreciate that. Where a
-- 13 ,
document is referenced that was part of the basis of your s' / l 14 decision, it is a fair question to ask if you recall having l
15 it. I completely understand that your answer may be , you 16 I don't know, but I am not going to stop asking that question, l
17 l if it provided information you may have relied on.
18 [ MR. BANGART: I tried.
19 MS. GARDE: I assume the answer is, you don' t 20 know?
21 MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know without looking at 22 our working files to see. I know we reviewed it. Whe ther 23 we would have retained that in our working files, I don' t 24 know. I would give you an educated guess, I don't believe 25 we did.
1
(
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nanonwule Coverage 2 336 6646
27070.0 179 REE
- 1 MS. GARDE: *In next paragraph, there is a 2 reference to TRT reviewing the results of the reinspection l 1
3 program. Do you recall whether that was a written-up l 4 report?
5 MR. PHILLIPS: As I understand, that was a 6 written report. As I recall.
7 MS. GARDE: I am afraid to ask now if you have a 8 copy of it. Do you know if you have a copy of it? Shall I 9 assume you don't remember that, whether or not there is a 10 copy of it?
11 MR. SCINTO: Billie , I think the people can l
12 answer that question. You don't have to assume it. If you 13 !
remember, say that. If you don't remember, you can give s !
14 l that answer, too.
15 i MR. PHILLIPS: I want to read the paragraph.
i 16 ! Maybe I can remember one way or another.
I 17 MR. SCINTO: Fine.
18 MS. GARDE: I know it has been a long day.
4 19 l MR. SCINTO: It is not --
20 MS. GARDE: I appreciate everyone's patience.
21 MR. PHILLIPS: All I remember is that we did 22 review the reinspection program and evaluated it, but 23 whether wa re tained a copy in our files, I don' t know.
24 MS. GARDE: Are you aware of whether or not the 25 OC inspectors involved were both from the ASME and non-ASME (5)
Acs-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 33 H 646
_____. _ _ _ _. 5
'l 27070.0 180 REE
~5' 1 area or from only one or only the other?
2 MR. PHILLIPS: I am trying to refresh my memory.
3 If you can give me a moment.
4 Again, I am going to say that I think that they 5 were ASME inspectors, but I don' t see it in the write-up 6 that it is explicitly ASME.
7 MS. GARDE: Are you familiar with or, Annette ,
8 are you aware of an allegation that only non-ASME QC, QA/QC 9 inspectors were involved in the drug bust?
10 -
MS. VIETTI-COOK: No.
11 .
MS. GARDE: To the extent that such an l
12 l allegation was made to the NRC, should it have been l
13 i included in this allegation?
4 i 14 j MS. VIETTI-COOK: We -- if we had it, we would 15 ! have at the time, we would have given it to them to 16 incorpora te in this.
17 MS. GARDE: On page 136, the conclusion. There 18 is a s ta tement , "In fact, these commitments to such a 19 program exceed current NRC requirements and standards."
20 Mr. Bangart, to revisit what you said previously, 21 isn't it true there are no NRC requirements and standards 22 regarding drug abuse programs for sites except those for f 23 security personnel?
24 MR. BANGART: Not specific stendards, that is 25 correct.
lb ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
am-u m m Naion@ Cg 32.N#46
27070.0 181 REE l l
?m
'~
l MS. GARDE: Item number 6 required that TUEC 2 provide a report of fir. dings, including final engineering 3 analysis of the minor deficiencies. Do you know if they 4 have done so?
5 MR. PHILLIPS: I think that has been concluded.
6 MS. GARDE: Do you know where?
7 MR. PHILLIDS: Excuse me , where?
8 MS. GARDE: Do you know where the findings are 9 reported?
10 MR. PHILLIPS: I have not seen that final report.
I 11 g MS. GARDE: Are you familiar with whether or not i
12 I it is included in any inspection report?
13 MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know.
s " I
-14 l MR. BANGART: I don't know if it is included or 15 not.
e -
16 3 MS. GARDE: Mr. Scinto, I will direct that 17 question to you also.
18 h MR. MIZUNO: What question is that?.
19 l MS. GARDE: On page K-136. There isa 20 requirement that TUEC provide a report of its findings. I 21 assume -- if I am wrong, please correct me -- that it is 22 referring to the findings of the drug abuse program or 23 investigation, which should include a final engineering 24 analysis of the minor deficiencies.
25 MR. MIZUNO: You would like to know whether we (2) ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6645 F T y q g e g:..m- --9%-, y.-m e y-w-,--m -
---,,------r- - - ---+,w . - - - . . , -y -
27070.0 182 REE 5 .
1 received that?
2 MS. GARDE: Yes.
3 Move on to AM 22 on page 137. In the conclusion 4 section number 5 on page K-38, it refers to a visual 5 inspection of the HVAC systems. Do you have knowledge of 6 whether or not this inspection was documented?
7 MR. BANGART: Certainly part of the visual 8 inspection ef fort was documented in the inspection, Region 9 4 inspection reports that are identified earlier in the 10 text.
11 l MS. GARDE: The next sen tence , "The HVAC system i
12 ! has been properly designed and analyzed by an independent 1
13 i seismic consultant." That analysis, was that provided in i
14 ,
writing?
1 15 i MR. BANGART: Yes.
1 16 MS. GARDE: Was it via a consultant retained by l
17 the NRC or was this a TUEC conconsultant?
18 MR. BANGART: I believe that was a TUEC 1
19 consultant.
20 MS. GARDE: Do you recall who it was?
21 MR. BANGART: It was CC -- Corporate Consulting
{
22 and Development Company, identified earlier in the te xt 23 with the acronym CCL.
24 MS. GARDE: Annette , is this one of the issues 25 that has been reopened based on further evidence?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33N
27070.0 183 REE sb
+ i 1 MR. SHAO: Ye s .
2 MS. GARDE: Will we be -- can we expect to see, 3 at some point in the future, another independent review of 4 this allegation?
5 MR. SHAO: Yes.
6 MS. GARDE: Okay. AM 24. The record should 7 reflect that Annette did not answer the questien.
8 I don' t have any more questions in this area.
9 MR. BANGART: Thank you.
10 MS. GARDE: Thank you very much for your 11 patience. Why don't we take a break and then come back to l
12 civil structural. Five minutes.
. 13 (Recess.)
- t l
'~
14 MS. GARDE: We are going to return now to rock 15 overbreak. I am going to attempt to finish up Mr. Roisman's 16 l articulate line of questioning with a few notes that he i
17 le f t me .
l 18 ! Beginning on the top of page K-94, the re is a i
~
19 re ference to a number of reports or documents, and I would 20 like to direct to you the question of where and what these 21 documents are. First of all, the foundation report 22 identified in the first line on the top of page K-94, what 23 report does that refer to?
24 MR. JENG: This is a report prepared by an NRC 25 Staff, Dr. Thompson, in the capacity of a technical !
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
F E 74 E Nation @ Comage _ _ - 800 336 6646 _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _
l 27070.0 184 REE
"'A l
' 1 reviewer when he was reviewing the normal, operating license 2 review task. And the report is part of the file. It 3 should be available.
4 MS. GARDE: So this was the original report that 5 you are referring to?
6 MR. JENG: Right.
7 MS. GARDE: Is this the report that was 8 originally submitted and used in front of the ASLB in the 9 l first, in the hearing on this issue?
i 10 MR. JENG: I recall that was the on the title l
I 11 affidavit, so I presume that must have been used for that 12 purpose.
- 13 ,
MS. GARDE: To what extent did you consider the i
~
14 concerns raised by the board regarding the report when you j
15 j decided to rely on it?
I 16 i MR. JENG: The discussion in the findings in the i
17 technical basis pr6vided in that report was one of the 13 several factors which was used in our deliberation of our 19 final conclusions.
20 MS. GARDE: You said "the information in the
~
21 report.7 22 MR. JENG: Right. Just one of the several as 23 respects.
24 MS. GARDE: But it is correct that you did not 25 ever consider the board's comments regarding that report in 8
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 336 6646
27070.0 185 REE S
I this issue? I am referring to this write up in SSER 8.
2 MR. JENG: Which particular board's comments?
3 MS. GARDE: ASLB's original findings regarding 4 this issue.
5 MR. JENG: As I said earlier, I wasn' t very 6 familiar with the particular details of this aspect. If 7 you can help me , you know, give me more detail about which 8 part you are talking about, I will try my best.
9 MS. GARDE: I can't. Mr. Roisman is the expert 10 on this area. I believe the question -- I will move on e.o 11 j another one .
12 MR. PHILLEO: The board's finding had to do with 13 ! the FSAR.
s lj
~
14 MS. GARDE: But is this report part of the basis 15 of the original FSAR?
16 MR. JENG: Ye s . Thompson's report.
17 p MR. SHAO: I think if I understand Billie's 18 questions, since there is a comment about ASLB on this 19 l particular report, did you remember there was such a 20 comment?
, 21 MR. PHILLEO: I am not aware that there was.
l 22 The FSAR contained a description of the excavation and I 23 don't think -- that was -- it was that description that the 24 board's findings concerned. .
25 MR. SHAO: Did ASLB comment on this report?
D ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ = _ _ _ _ _
l ._.
27070.0 186 REE 75.
A7 1 MR. PHILLEO Well, I hesitate to be too 2 positive, but I am certainly not aware of it.
3 MS. GARDE: You are answering the question based 4 on what you now know, not what was done then.
5 MR. PHILLEO: Ye s . I'm out of order again.
6 MS. GARDE: A little bit. Later on in the 7 paragraph there is a reference to an evaluation prepared by 8 geotechnical engineer, the NRC's of fice of NRR, supporting I
9 !
this conclusion. What is that evaluation?
10 l MR. JENG: This is the same, this is the 11 Thompson report.
12 l MS. GARDE: This also is the Thompson report.
- 13 MR. SHAO: Yes.
14 ,
MS. GARDE: Look at the paragraph. What you 15 ! just told me is that the evaluation supports the same l
16 document; it is the same document. You are saying it is 17 the same document. If you read the paragraph, it certainly, 18 it infers that there are two documents which support each l
19 I other.
20 MR. SHAO: Wait a minute. This foundation -
21 report is not Thompson.
22 MR. PHILLEO: That is the job report.
23 MR. SHAO: That is the applicant's report.
24 MR. JENG: Now -- I am sorry. I should retract 25 my answer.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 1 1
IT" -
, " ~
- _ ,-__ __ T_L9'" .~~~ ^L, -l
27070.0 187 REE N *
~
1 MS. GARDE: We.should go back to the foundation 2 report now?
3 MR. SHAO: Y3s. Applicant's foundation report.
4 MS. GARDE: Okay. Then let's correct the answer.
5 What is the foundation report that is referred to in the 6 first sentence of K-947 7 MR. JENG: I think I am not very particularly 8 clear of which particular report. It could be part of FSAR.
9 It could be some of that particular report which I do not 10 recall right now. I would like to have a chance to 11 4 ascertain before I come back.
4 12 l MS. GARDE: Could you please ascertain what that 13 report is and indica te to Mr. Scinto and he will tell me.
~
14 . MR. JENG: Okay.
a 15 j MS. GARDE: Are you clear that the evaluation 16 l' prepared by the geotechnical engineer is Mr. Thompson?
t 17 l MR. JENG: Ye s .
18 : MS. GARDE: This question may have been asked.
19 I didn' t prepare for this. Is this, Mr. Thompson, 20 evaluation already publicly available? This evaluation?
21 MR. JENG: To my knowledge, yes.
l 22 MS. GARDE: Going to the conclusion, at the end 23 of the first paragraph it says, "Accordingly, this 24 allegation has neither safety significance nor generic 25 implications." Does your conclusion, the NRC's conclusion O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Natienwide Coverage 800 33M446
27070.0 188 REE 1 refer in any way to the generic implication of a 2 misstatement in the FSAR?
3 MR. JENG: Which misstatement are you talking l
4 about?
5 MR. PHILLEO: It is the material false statement.
6 MS. GARDE: The material false statement that 7 the board referred to? .
8 MR. JENG: That knowledge came later. But let 9 me answer your question. I think that generic implication 10 is not he re , is strictly referring on the technical 11 consideration.
12 l MS. GARDE: So it does not refer to either 13 ;
material f alse statement or dealing with allegers or any
+
i kind of process deficiency which may be implied or ' inferred
~
14 a
15 ;
from the handling of this issue; is that correct?
l 16 I MR. JENG: No , because at that time --
17 -
MS. GARDE: Only technical issues?
18 i MR. JENG: Ye s .-
l 19 l MS. GARDE: Do you expect to draw new 20 conclusions based on your new data?
21 MR. SHAO: No.
22 MS. GARDE: Will you consider in your new review 23 generic implications as to material false statements or 24 only technical issues?
25 MR. JENG: You answer.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
-- m-.~,.-- .,-w -,.3
,,..m,, , .w,- . , - , ,y,-
27070.0 189 REE
'T '
1 MR. SHAO: Go ahe ad .
2 MR. JENG: I am not sure personally. I do not 3 clear on my understanding what " material false" you mean ,
f 4 whether it has been established as a matter of fact or not. '
5 This is beyond my scope. Somebody has to determine tnat.
6 But even assuming in a hypothetical situation that such a 7 statement is made , as to a false statement, I believe, 8 based on the information I have now, I believe it should 9 not affect one way or another our conclusion which have 10 l been impacted on the safety of the plant.
11 MS. GARDE: Your technical conclusion?
12 MR. JENG: Right.
13 MR. PHILLEO: The recent work has taken into ,
14 account the finding of the material false statement, which 15 I think is relevant to the question.
16 MS. GARDE: Yes. It is relevant to the question.
17 But if your view of generic implications has not changed, 18 that is, that you are only looking for the generic i
19 implications of technical matters, then intervenor's 20 concern is that there is still no consideration of the 21 material false statement in the FSAR. That is not going to 22 be taken care .of even when we see the new report, based on 23 what you are telling me.
24 MR. PHILLEOs It will.
25 MS. GARDE: Okay. How -- let me ask the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage -
800 336 4646
- _ - - m e ... _ _ m- --
- - - __ _=- _
27070.0 190 REE -
O A- 1 question and then if you want -- okay, fine.
2 MR. SCINTO: I am interested in hearing the 3 answer.
4 MS. GARDE: How is the new effort, if it is 5 technical only in nature, going to look at the generic 6 implications of the material false statement in the FSAR?
7 MR. PHILLEO Well, I didn't think we were going 8 to get into this today, but .there is no -- the material --
9 what is that legal term -- the material f alse statement i
10 only refers to the omission of material from the FSAR.
?
11 There is no contention that any of that material is in 12 error. The contention is that the FSAR does not include 13 everything it should have and that the omission of certain 14 material constitutes a material false statement.
15 i MS. GARDE: Your conclusion is not attempting to 4
16 address whether or not omission versus comission is a 17 material f alse statement, is it?
18 MR. PHILLEO: There is no technical issue he re .
4 i
, 19 The issue is a paperwork issue of what is required to be I
20 included in the FSAR.
l 21 MS. GARDE: .Are you, as technical experts, 22 attempting to answer ' that question?
23 MR. PHILLEO: I am not. It may be a regulatory 24 issue. But all the technical informat. ion is available and 25 nobody has alleged that it is not. It is just alleged that ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n.m.3m Nadonwide Coverage 800 33H646 l
27070.0 . 191 REE 9
%' 1 it is in the wrong place.
2 MR. SHAO: What he is saying, it may not be in 3 the FSAR, but the information is there.
4 MS. GARDE: I understand. We will just wait and 5 see what comes up. Then we will ask more questions.
6 MR. SHAO: Okay.
7 MS. GARDE: Mr. Roisman thanks you for your 8 pa tience .
9 I want to ask you to turn to page K-49. This is 10 l a category 6 and includes six allegations.
a 11 l Let me first ask you Mr. Shao, is there anyone 12 j here who has primary responsibility for this issue?
13 l MR. SHAO: Hofmayer.
14 l MR. JENG: Let me answer, Terry Langowski, who l
15 was one of the consultants to us was the primary reviewer 16 And he is not, not working with us, but we o ) on this item.
17 l will try to answer your questions.
3 18 l MS. GARDE: Did you work with him on this?
i 19 MR. HOFMAYER: Yes.
20 MS. GARDE: I don't want your trip to be wasted.
21 I will direct my questions to you.
22 Did you review the original source for each of 23 these allegations identified in number- 2 on page K-49?
24 MR. HOFKAYER: The original source meaning --
25 yes, where this came from?
O ACE-FEDERAi REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nadonwide Coverage 800 3 4 4646
27070.0 192 REE 1 -
MS. GARDE: Ye s .
2 MR. HOFMAYER: Yes, whatever it was. Did I 3 personally?
4 MS. GARDE: Yes.
5 MR. HOFMAYER: I believe I did. Because it was 6 a reference either to one or two reports or an IE report, 7 yes.
8 MS. GARDE: Did you -- were you involved with 9 this effort from the beginning?
10 MR. HOFMAYER: Ye s . This effort, if I recollect, 11 was be fore Mr. Langowski was assigned to the TRT. I 12 reviewed the original documents that came in and prepared a
,c3 13 work plan for it.
14 MS. GARDE: I am going to hand you a document 15 which is entitled Comanche Peak open issue action plan, i
16 i civil structural category 6. I have a couple questions on 17 it. But I need it back to ask the questions.
- Can I ask 18 I that you -- do you object to me standing behind the witness l
19 " so he can look at th.s document?
20 MR. SCINTO: If the witness doesn' t object, I 21 don't object.
22 MR. HOFMAYER: That is fine. I probably 23 prepared this.
24 MS. GARDE: Is it familiar to you?
i 25 MR. HOFMAYER: Yes. Basically it is the (b)
ACE-FEDERAi REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 4646
-4 s. ,.. x, i ss ..G 4 ,-. -. . - ;.? ;, -
~ ~ ," Mr- ** *. " r" C Tc".'?' *.hW/ - . , .
27070.0 193 REE D
d 1 document that we worked on when we initially started this i
2 effort.
3 MS. GARDE: On page 2 of this document, under AC I 1
4 37 and AOC 12, which is item C, it makes reference to 5 testimony of alleger, page 35 to 38.
6 Do you recall if you reviewed the entire 7 transcript or just those pages for that item?
8 MR. HOFMAYER: I believe I probably looked 9 beyond those pages, but I can't recall. I mean probably 10 what was in initial file when we wrote this up were only 11 those pages. But at one point, I can' t recollect whether 12 it is this specific issue, but there were times when it was
-~ 13 very difficult just to read that, so you had to read the h 14 beginning and the end. Whether this one , I particularly 1
15 l read the whole thing, I can' t tell you now.
16 MS. GARDE: Going down through item C, number 3, 17 ! it states, "If the allegation is determined as valid," and 4
18 f.thenit goes into performance engineering evaluation. If 19 you determined that it was not valid at that point, would 20 you have stopped on that, pursuing those two allegations?
21 MR. HOFMAYER: Offhand, I would say probably, 22 yes.
23 MS. GARDE: Le t me tell you . why I a sk tha t 24 que stion. This includes two allegations, one which is a 25 quality allegation., and one which is not designated as a O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 33H646
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ = -
27070.0 194 REE 1 quality allegation. My question to you is: Did you find 2 it necessary to determine the validity of your original 3 allegation to determine the quality concerns raised there?
4 MR. SHAO: We always look at quality. We look 5 at' -- we reference quality at least one , two, three , four, 6 five, six --
7 MS. GARDE: I believe you are --
8 MR. HOFMAYER: These are all referred to.
9 MS. GARDE: The que'stion I am asking is: If the l
10 l original allegation was determined to not be valid, would I '
11 you have gone forward anyway?
12 l MR. HOFMAYER: It still would have been a l
m 13 j quality issue.
d l 14 ; MS. GARDE: On page 3 of the document -- strike 15 that.
?
16 , On page 1 of the document, in the middle of the 17 initial assessment, there is a sentence , "One containmdnt 18 f issue relates to an alleged . intimidation of OC inspector in 19 I approving use of reinforcement." Where in this plan do you l 20 propose to deal with that allegation of intimidation?
21 MR. HOFMAYER: That was not our responsibility i 22 to look into intimidation per se. The issue was whether I 23 this had any safety significance. That is what we looked 24 at. The question of intimidation was being rereviewed but 25 not by us.
i i
r
. 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33Mi646
__ _ n--- _-
-..r-_. g. . , _ , - _ , _ . - _ . . _ , . . . , _ - ~,.m,_._,,..-_-_m._____r.-_.__, ..__m_,.._ .____,._,___._m -
__,,...,r
27070.0 195 REE 1 MS. GARDE: When you say this, you are not 2 referring to the act of intimidation. You are referring to 3 the --
4 MR. HOFMAYER: The question was whother this 5 resulted in something that led to some safety-significant 6 problem.
7 MS. GARDE: Okay. Do you recall, in looking at 8 this document, the action plan, which of the issues was the 9 incident in which there was harassment alleged? I can't l
10 tell by reading that document which one it is.
11 MR. HOFMAYER: It had to do with welding of a rebar, 12 j I believe. .I t think it was B.
,,- s 13 It was this. It is this one. It was AQC 12 and V i 14 ! AC 37. Those two.
il 15 l MR. SHAO: AQC 12 and AC --
16 MR. HOFMAYER: The discussion is basically on K-50, 17 the one referring to AQC 12 and AC 37.
18 i MS. GARDE: Can you hand me that document back, 19 j please.
20 MR. HOFMAYER: Ye s .
21 MS. GARDE: I am going to hand you a document 22 which is dated November 4, 1977. It is a Brown & Root 23 interoffice memo from H.C. Dode to P.L. Bussolini. I would 24 like to ask you to review this document to determine if 25 this was reviewed and used in your work on this allegation O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nahoewide Coverage 800 336 4646 th c .x .m m e r-.- - - m nte = r e - w-
27070.0 -
196 REE 1 record.
2 MR. HOFMAYER: I don' t recall seeing this.
3 Whe ther Mr. Langowski saw it, I can't say.
4 MS. GARDE: Could you -- I have another document 5 I also want to show you. Could you take the time to look 6 that over to see if it occurs in the same area that you are 7 talking about. Take a little more time than you' have to 8 refresh your recollection on whether or not this document 9 addresses the issues in this allegation category.
10 Of f the record.
11 (Discussion of f the record. )
12 MS. GARDE: I want to know if af ter having spent
'q ,
13 more time looking at the document, if it refreshes your 14 recollection as to whether or not that document was used in i 15 the work done on this allegation category?
l 16 '
MR. HOFMAYER: I, like I said before , I don't 17 recall that it has been used. I don't believe so.
i 18 i MS. GARDE: Okay. We have to go of f the record.
i 19 (Discussion of f the record. )
20 MS. GARDE: Mr. Hofmayer, do you have any 21 recollection of the materials that you reviewed in doing l
22 this allegation?
23 MR. HOFMAYER: Well, now, are you referring to 24 all of the allegations here?
l 25 MS. GARDE: All of the allegations in category 6.
O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2G2 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage an33H646
27070.0 197 REE O
b 1 MR. HOFMAYER: Like I mentioned, Mr. Langowski 2 primarily did the review. I would have to look at the file.
3 MR. SHAO: We have a -- we put on the reference 4 we used. We can check it. We have a copy of all the 5 references.
6 MR. PHILLEO: All the earlier drafts.
7 MR. HOFMAYER: I know in a number of cases 8 Mr. Langowski went through the different drawings, the 9 different NCRs that may have been related to this 10 particular document. They are generally referenced in this l
11 SER.
12 MS. GARDE: All my questions are based on this
(
q 13 missing document.
14 Let me skip to another document. Maybe I will 15 find it. I am going to come back to this issue if I find 16 i my other document. If not, I will have to plead sabotage.
i 17 ! - MR. SCINTO: Let's see what the questions are.
18 1 MS. GARDE: Larry, I am going to hand you a 19 document which is a numbered FOIA, 85-59 C361. It is 20 comments from J. Scinto, OELD. I assume that is you. I i
l 21 would like you to look that over for a minute. See if you 22 are familiar with that document.
23 MR. SHAO: Yes.
24 MS. GARDE: Do you recall when you got that 25 document?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nadone Coverage 2 33 H 646
i i
27070.0 198 REE 4 1 MR. SHAO: Ye s , I got it just before the --
2 MR. SCINTO: Do you mind if I stand behind the 3 witness?
4 MS. GARDE: No. I don' t mind that at all.
5 MR. PHILLEO: I would rather have her.
6 ( Laughter . )
7 MS. GARDE: Of you looked it over.
8 MR. SHAO: Yes.
9 MS. GARDE: Can you identify what comments --
10 strike that what document those comments went to? The 11 j organization of the document is kind of -- looks like by i
12 i paragraph, by paragraph number.
1
- 13 '
MR. SHAO: Yes.
14 MS. GARDE: Do you know what document tha t
,1 15 originally went to?
16 : MR. JENG: The documents to which this l
17 I
, particular document is referred to were what we consider to 18 be final draf ts from the technical group's standpoint of 19 the SSERs, which is the same as this one in the final, but 20 we send out to OELD for comments and then review and l
21 Mr. Scinto, upon reviewing our draf t, he prepared this l
22 comments. Besides marking on the copies we sent to him in 23 his manuscript.
24 MS. GARDE: Okay. So if I obtained the final 25 draft of, SSER number 8, I would be able to match the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage an33Md46
~~
~~~~-
-~7~- _ Z_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . , _ _ i _ . _ . _ _ _ _
27070.0 199 REE 3
C' 1 paragraphs there up to the paragraphs in the final draft, 2 is that accurate?
3 MR. JENG: No. The draft tha t we sent to 4 Mr. Scinto for review was not identical to this one. It 5 wasn't -- at that time it was not considered to be final 6 from a technical group standpoint. And I personally met 7 with Mr. Scinto and two other lawyers and went through and 8 explained and tried to resolve the comments. The 9 resolution of those comments became another draft which 10 went through another management review and went through 11 also the so-called editorial changes. Therefore, I cannot 12 l tell you that that particular draf t will be identical.
13 .,
MR. SCINTO: There is some draft --
~
14 MS. GARDE: Somewhere?
15 MR. SCINTO: -- which may or may not exist any 16 l more. But there is some draft to which those comments are 17 addressed. If you had it, you could go line by line, page 18 by page.
19 MR. SHAO: Maybe we can find it.
20 MS. GARDE: Some draf ts are available under 21 85-59, but not all drafts and not all drafts have all 22 sections. So this document raises a line of questions 23 regarding the processing of the SSERs from the time the 24 field work was completed to the time the actual hard copy 25 SSER was released. Wha t I would like to ask you is whether
$)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nanonwide Coverage 800 336-6646
~
27070.0 200 REE SD
/ 1 or not comments and questions and suggestions in this 2 document required resolution by going back to the site to 3 do more work. Does that -- does my question make sense to' 4 you?
5 MR. SHAO: Ye s . I understand what you are 6 saying. I don't think it required us -- most of the 7 questions we were able to resolve by meeting with 8 Mr. S'cinto. Did we do any additional site work to answer 9 some of these questions?
10 MR. JENG: Ms. Garde, the answer is no. The se 11 comments did not require us to go back to the site to do 12 additional investigation.
1.3 MS. GARDE: Let me direct your attention to a
.. I-
~
14 l comment in the middle of page 2. I realize it is somewhat l'5 : in the abstract since you can' t see what this went to. I h
16 I am identifying item IP4. Would you read that to yourself, 17 ( please. Since we are not attaching these documents into --
18 read this into the record.
19
- MR. SHAO: Number 1, page 4, middle OA/QC 20 sentence, you call the problem an isolated instance. I 21 don't see how you can call it an isolated instance with all 22 the other QA/QC problems you find in the civil structural 23 SSER.
24 This is your notes?
l 25 MS. GARDE: No.
rh 3
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 300 336 6646
. + - . - - - ,. , .---+,__,,_y,,, -_me + . - - - - , ,m . - -.-,-s_+w-- ._,p, ---,,--___--,--m,7, y, ,-..-y 9v----
27070.0 201 REE "
O, tu? 1 MR. SHAO: The absence of lab signature batch 2 ticket was found to be an isolated instance.
3 MR. PHILLEO: This is category 1, AC 19.
4 MS. GARDE: Are you familiar with this?
A 5 MR. PHILLEO: Yes. The allegation had to do 6 with the fact that unauthorized batch water was added to 7 ready mix trucks. Th'is was quite early in the job. And 8 there were seven -- the records show that seven trucks had 9 water added without laboratory signature, which was 10 required. And after this was discovered, they tightened up 11 the procedures and I never found any evidence of it 12 happening again.
. . , 13 ,
MS. GARDE: How much did you look at to 14 l determine that?
15 ,
MR. PHILLEO: I looked at over 1000 batch i
16 l tickets in connection with other allegations. And I never I
17 found that this occurred again. So I think this was a 18 result of a job being new and people not being aware of the 19 requirements. So that was why it was referred to as 20 isolated. It happened on one day and never happened again, 21 to my knowledge.
22 MS. GARDE: How many batch tickets total were 23 there at the site?
24 MR. PHILLEOs At the site? Oh, probably 60,000.
25 MS. GARDE: And how did you determine that the G
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m.347 3700 Nationwide Coverser 300 3364646
~ ww.v.r ..w.w . v. . .. ;. ;.G 2 ... ,.kb w. u :. .wm& ;
27070.0 202 REE
'h ,
1000 that you looked at was an adequate sample to determine
- 1 2 that the problem never occurred again?
3 MR. PHILLEO: Just that I looked at a wide 4 spectrum of such batch tickets and it was never alleged to 5 have happened again by anybody. I never saw it. So 6 frequently 60 is considered to be a good enough sample for 7 this purpose. I looked at many more than 60.
8 MS. GARDE: Mr. Shao, do you recall a discussion 9 with Mr. Scinto on this item?.
10 MR. SHAO: I think Mr. Jeng made --
11 MR. JENG: Mr. Shao was not present. I was the l
12 l person who met in person with Mr. Scinto and other lawyers 13 ,
to go over their comments.
~
14 MS. GARDE: And do you recall this comment i
15 3 specifically?
4 16 l MR. JENG: Yes. I recall this was one of the 17 subjects we discussed.
18 MS. GARDE: And af ter the discussion, was there I
19 a change made in the document?
20 MR. JENG: I don' t think so. I don't think so.
21 I was able to convince Mr. Scinto, I believe , that it 22 indeed was an isolated case.
23 MR. SHAO: If you have a problem, Mr. Scinto, 24 say so. -
25 ,
MR. SCINTO: Mr. Scinto is not going to discuss 5) l . i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 336 4646
~
I 27070.0 203 REE D
- 1 Mr. Scinto's conversation with the Staf f.
2 MR. PHILLEO: Tb term " isolated instance" was 3 removed from the text.
4 MS. GARDE: It was removed?
5 MR. JENG: Maybe my memory failed me. I am 6 sorry about that. Which page --
7 MR. PHILLEO: K-28. It is paragraph B,on K-28 8 and then af ter the editorial review then, everything got i
9 lumped into one paragraph on K-29. Yes, the term " isolated 10 instance" is no longer there. ,
11 MR. SHAO: Even though the term of " isolated 12 instance" is not there, we put on level 1. We did put on
., 13 level 1, which means isolated incidents.
~> k 14 l MS. GARDE: Compromise .
15 h MR. SHAO: Right.
16 MS. GARDE: I want to show you another example 17 on page 4. I will read the statement into the record. It 18 says, number 3P8, it says, "The conclusion is a significant 19 ove rs ta temen t . " As I see it from this write-up -- as to 20 QA/0C -- and then there is a numbered list of items which I 21 won' t read into the record. First of all, let me ask if 22 any of the people here can identify what item this i
23 particular comment is making reference to?
24 MR. PHILLEOs Yes, that is is category 2, the --
l 25 wait a minute. Or maybe it is 3. That is 3.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 300 336 4646
. . - . + , . - - - - - , , , . , . , _ _ _ _ _ _ , . __.~____,,,,m.._-,-....y..-.
,,m,...,, _. . . . ,_--..-.--._._.-m.. . _ _ . . ..,,.m._.-_._..-y_..m__. .
27070.0 204 REE
@\L/ 1 ,
MR. JENG: 3.
2 MR. PHILLEO: Page A-33, which has to do with 3 the incident during the rainstorm where concrete was placed 4 without any QA/QC control because the QA/QC inspectors went 5 home in the rain and there is more cases of codcrete placed 6 in cold weather that were the subject of allegations.
7 MS. GARDE: So when you see this phrase, 8 " conclusion is a significant overstatement," do you recall 9 what conclusion that referred to or is the conclusion still 10 in there?
11 MR. PHILLEO: I think that we made some 12 l modification of the wording there. Le t's see . The
... 13 conclusion is on page K-37 where it is being discussed here.
, e 14 ; MR. JENG: That is coming back to me now. I 15 4 think we did compromise sort. Our conclusion earlier as 16 presented to Mr. Scinto was quite assertive , very positive.
17 l There is no if but. The conclusion was: the structure is I
18 d ade qua te . This issue is immaterial from a safety 19 ! standpoint.
20 Upon hearing comments from Mr. Scinto, I did, I 21 recall, I think he had good points. He felt that one may 22 have to be more specific about what area you are discussing.
23 So I recall we added structural significance there. Our 24 earlier conclusion was much more general and broad. That 25 is the recollection I have. So we did change it a bit to ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.'
202 347 3700 Nadonwide Coverase 800 336 4646
27070.0 205 REE .
D
& 1 reflect the particular areas. we are primarily involved with.
2 MR. PHILLEO: I think we picked under the 3 section on QA/QC on page K-38, top paragraph now concedes 4 the weakness in the QA/QC system and in these particular 5 instances.
6 MR. SHAO: It is right here.
7 MS. GARDE: And that was changed as a result of 8 your discussions with Mr. Scinto?
9 MR. SHAO: I think so, yes.
10 j MS. GARDE: And you are referring to --
I 11 ;
MR. JENG: I am not sure. The only thing I i
12 l recollect was we changed from "no safety significance" to
. ., 13 " structurally no safety significance." That is the thing I 14 recall.
15 h MR. SHAO: Where do you see that?
3 16 MR. PHILLEO On K-37. The first sentence under 17 conclusions.
18 f MR. JENG: Yes. I think I, we added " structural."
! 19 From "no safety significance" to "no structural safe ty 20 significance." That was the type of resolution.
, 21 MS. GARDE: Af ter reviewing these comments and i
22 thinking back to the process by which these SSERs were 23 completed, did you meet with either Mr. Scinto or someone 24 else from OELD on more than one occasion in preparing these 25 SSERs?
9 i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202 347 3700 Nadonwide Coverage 800 33MI646 i
l 27070.0 206 l REE
?%
ul 1 MR. SHAO: Many occasions. Mr. Mizuno and 2 Scinto.
3 MR. JENG: Are you talking with particular 4 re ference to particular SSER?
5 MS. GARDE: I am talking in general.
6 MR. SHAO: 'Yes.
7 MS. GARDE: As a general procedure , did the SSER 8 draf ts go from yourself -- strike that.
9 Le t me ask it as a question. Once you had 10 ( prepared your first write-up on a specific allegaticn, who 11 1 was it submitted to?
l 12 l MR. SHAO: Submitted to Noonan but usually s 13 Noonan ran it to OELD for review.
~~
14 MS. GARDE: And then OELD would prepare comments.
4 15 iil
!R. SHAO: Sometimes comments, sometimes we had 16 ! meetings, f ace-to-face mee tings.
17 ;
MS. GARDE: Is that your recollection also?
18 MR..JENG: I would add on that, in the 19 particular case I was involved, the comments came in the 20 handwritten markup on the copy we sent to him.
21 MS. GARDE: So it came orally or possibly --
22 MR. JENG: On marked-up copies, and upon our 1
23 review --
24 MR. SHAO: In your case , I think you met with 25 the lawyers. In the mechanical, the whole week. I think I fS)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nataowide cowner 900 3M
- _ - __ n l
_ _~ _ ._
27070.0 207 REE D, ~
-' I we met for a whole week.
2 MR. SCINTO: If I can, I think you will find it 3 very rare that the comments are in that kind of writing.
4 It was very seldom enough time to convert the comments to a 5 written document. They are usually scratch notes on the 6 side and then a meeting would be held.
7 MS. GARDE: Now, af ter the lawyers had reviewed 8 the draft, was it returned to you?
9 MR. SHAO: Yes.
I 10 l MS. GARDE: And at no time were you required to 11 do more , go back to the site to do more site review based 12 i on the lawyer's comments?
13 l MR. JENG: On the items I was involved, no.
i
., I 14
! MS. GARDE: Mr. Shao?
15 MR. SHAO: I don' t remember we have to go back l
16 1 to site. A lot of it is clarification, the tone of the i
17 l report. Another thing, whether people can understand what 18 he sa id . l 19 l MS. GARDE: Did the lawyers' comments or l
I 20 suggestions frequently result in changes to the drafts?
21 MR. SHAO: We always made some changes.
22 MS. GARDE: Now, when the final draft was 23 prepared, did it also go through the same process?
24 MR. SHAO: Yes.
25 MS. GARDE: Now, who else in management reviewed 3)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
sn u71700 Nadonwide Coverase 300 336 4646
il N
!.i 27070.0 208 }i REE ?s h
1 that draf t besides Mr. Noonan and the lawyers? ,'
2 MR. SHAO: Supposedly Eisenhut. Who else? I 3 concurred and the lawyers concurred and Noonan concurred 4 4 and who.else?
5 MS. VIETTI-COOK: I don' t know that he did. ij h.
6 MR. SHAO: So mainly these three. Noonan, h
7 i?
myself and the lawyers?
8 MS. VIETTI-COOK: That is who I remember doing $
d 9 it. b 10 , MS. GARDE: Did you ever. have any meetings with U F.
h 11 Mr. Eisenhut regarding the SSERs? ki' 12 MR. SHAO: I don' t remember. $
lj rii 13 { MS. GARDE: Mr. Shao, how long have you worked fY P'3 14 f for the NRC? h, 15 l MR. SHAO: 14 years.
16 I MS. GARDE: How many SSERs have you prepared on 17 other plants besides Comanche Peak? [3 18 l MR. SHAO: Many. [
' g 19 MS. GARDE: Have you ever met with lawyers on W 20 those SSERs?
t 21 MR. SHAO: Not as much as on this one.
3 22 MS. GARDE: But you have to some extent. G 0
23 MR. SHAO: Yes. To some extent. $
n 24 MS. GARDE: Was it in the same process where you j w
25 were reviewing draf ts in preparation of issuance of an SSER,
}
} k.$
i,i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. b ts
_ 2 5 347:3700 _ __Nanonwide Coverage _ _ _ 300 336 4646 , _ _ _ ]J
27070.0 209 REE 7%
1 or was it af ter the SSER was issued in preparation for 2 trial or hearing?
3 MR. SHAO: This project has been more with the 4 lawyers, the lawyers are more involved.
5 MS. GARDE: But on other projects, was it prior 6 to the issuance of the SSER or af ter the issuance of the 7 SSER?
8 MR. SCINTO: Can I refresh his recollection?
9 MS. GARDE: Sure.
10 l MR. SCINTO: Do you remember the steam l
11 generators.
12 i MR. SHAO: Yes, we worked on it a long time.
I 13 !
MR. SCINTO: Before the issuance of .the SSER.
14 MR. SHAO: That was in 1975 -- 1976.
15 l MS. GARDE: That was the generic steam generator 16 issue?
17 MR. SCINTO: No. There were not -- this was ~
18 ! before the generic.
I 19 MR. SHAO: We worked very
- closely at that time.
20 MS. GARDE: Did you always agree with the 21 comments that the lawyers made?
22 MR. SHAO: Not necessarily.
23 MS. GARDE: Was there any time when the lawyers 24 suggested a change, as you recall, that you ultimately did l l
25 not adopt? l t's l
-) \
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347=3700 Nationwide _Coverase 800 33MI646 __
l 27070.0 210 REE ,
^%
~2 1 MR. SHAO: Yes, because sometimes the lawyers 2 maybe misunderstood what we said. And then we clarified it 3 and then he might say, well, my comments goes away.
4 MS. GARDE: Was it always a collegial process?
5 MR. SHAO: Yes.
6 MS. GARDE: I have no other questions on this 7 document. I have found the missing document. I can now 8 return to the last series of questions' I am going to ask. ,
9 If Mr. Hofmayer can' t answer them, I might not 10 have to ask them. I am going to show you what is also on 11 Brown & Root stationery. It is dated November 28, 1977.
12 i It is directed to Mr.' Tolson at Texas Utilities. It is an l
13 I eight-page letter, signed by Mr. Bussolini.
I
~'
14 Could you please review that document and see if h
a 15 8 you recall whether or not that document was used in the d
16 preparation and review of allegation category 6, civil 17 structural 6.
I I
18 : MR. HOFMAYER: Mr. Langowski may have reviewed i
19 this document. I can't tell for sure.
20 MS. GARDE: Have you reviewed that document?
21 MR. HOFMAYER: I don't recall seeing this 22 document.
23 MS. GARDE: Do you have any recollection on 24 whether that document was reviewed in the preparation of 25 allegation category 67 0
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
27070.0 211 REE 7 '
1 MR. HOFMAYER: I have no recollection that it 2 was. I can't say that it wasn't though.
3 MS. GARDE: Let me try one more question out of 4 this. If you can't answer it, Mr. Scinto, I will have to 5 ask you to produce at some point Mr. Langowski to answer 6 the se que s tions .
7 MR. SCINTO: Ask the questions. We will talk 8 about the problem.
9 MS. GARDE: Mr. Hofmayer, on page K-49, there is 10 a characterization A through D of four specific allegations.
11 . Do you see that?
12 MR. HOFMAYER: Yes.
-s 13 MS. GARDE: There is also a sentence that says,
~V I 14 j' in addition to these allegations, the Region 4 inspector 15 l requested the TRT review the following possible reportable 16 i design deficiencies involving reinforcing steel.
17 Can you review item E, which is -- includes
! i 18 e ignt numbered items, and determine whether these eight t l
19 numbered items in fact come from the November 28, 1977 20 letter which I have shown you?
l l 21 MS. GARDE: Off the record, discuss if you want 22 to.
23 MR. HOFMAYER: Each of these items I believe 24 there was a reportable deficiency. There was some document.
25 It wasn't this that one.
9 Acs-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347.ET0 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
27070.0 212 REE Na 1 MR. PHILLEO: It was DC 003 and DC 004 and DC 2 005.
3 MR. HOFMAYER: Those are in the file.
5 MR. HOFMAYER: I don't believe it was that 6 letter.
7 MR. MI2 UNO: One person at a time. l 8 MS. GARDE: And you have no knowledge that the 9 document which I have handed you, the November 28, 1977 10 letter, was ever considered in the preparation of this 11 issue?
l 12 j MR. HOFMAYER: I personally have no knowledge of 13 it. I cannot say that it was not considered.
/ !
14 L MR. HOFMAYER: Each of these came from a l
15 i reported deficiency. It was not in the form of that le tte r .
I 16 j Actually, I can recall that much.
17 MR. SHAO: But -- excuse me .
18 j (Discussion off the record. )
1 19 MS. GARDE: Back on the record.
20 MR. SHAO: I know Langowski is a very thorough l 21 guy. Whatever any document on this subject, he would look l
22 into this. That is my impression about him. But we can 23 ask him about the questions, whether he looked at this.
l
! 24 MR. HOFMAYER: I believe your question was 25 though, did these eight items come from that letter. And
[?h vu l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2 2 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33dWl646 1
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ._ _ _ _ . . _ . , . . ._ _
i 27070.0 213 REE Ch d 1 to the best of my recollection, they did not. There was a 2 separate file handed to us on each of these items which had 3 a reportable deficiency in it, which we were asked to look 4 into. Whether they reference that letter, that I don't 5 know.
6 MR. SHAO: That is DC 003, DC 004 and DC 005.
7 MR. PHILLEO: Some of them aren't covered. NCR 8 C810, which is discussed on page 3 of the letter, is, in 9 fact, item 5 in paragraph E. That is the first one I have 10 l been able to relate to this document. This paragraph here.
11 lThisis46--yes,allright. The next item is item 6.
12 And -- yes, the next item is item 7. Well, in a quick
.%. 13 ; check, they overlap in three places. 4, 5, and 6 are on
~j \
14 j page 3 of the le t te r .
15 MS. GARDE: Okay. Thank you.
16 Mr. Scinto, the problem that I have is that my 17 ,
questions, the questions that I want to pursue on this 18 l allegation category are essentially a comparison of the 19 information in this 1977 letter with how the TRT treated 20 the issue later. If Mr. Langowski or no other member of l
21 the TRT recalls considering that, then I have no questions 22 that I can pursue . If , however , Mr. Langowski has a 23 specific recollection, I would have questions and I 24 wouldn' t be opposed to putting those questions in a letter.
25 MR. SCINTO: I was going to say, why don' t we l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 m.w.s. no. - a.,m l l
-_ _ _ TE" ~. 2*T"'IET.5 T 1"
-~
TCT_T~Z"TN5_'
27070.0 214
- REE )
~5 .
-- 1 talk about what is the easiest way to handle it?
2 MR. HOFMAYER: Can we have a copy of that letter?
3 MS. GARDE: Can you copy this letter?
4 MR. SHAO: Let me right down the date.
5 MS. GARDE: It is C549 of FOIA 85-59.
6 MR. PHILLEO: You can got it from CASE on a FOIA 7 request.
8 MS. GARDE: Yes, you can FOIA me.
9 MR. JENG: Do you mind if we -- .
10 l MS. GARDE: No, I don' t mind. You can keep that I
11 for a minute. I want to take it with me when I leave. Why i
12 j don' t we conclude this session. I have no more questions I
-s 13 of the civil structural area and I will say at this time,
-i
~
A 14 / because Juanita was going to provide some in writing which 15 h have not arrived, to the extent that they are not covered 1
16 by Mr. Roisman or myself, we will put them in writing to 17 you.
18 ! MR. SHi,0 : Okay.
l 19 MS. GARDE: I think she told us them over the 20 phone and we have covered most of them. And with the 21 exception of the questions that I have identified on the 22 record and this document, and I had, I thought, about half 23 an hour worth of questions on this. So I would like to 24 reconvene a very short interview with Mr. Langowski if he 25 has knowledge.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
- . - . . _ . . ~ _ _- .. . - _ ___ -
27070.0 215 REE 1 MR. SCINTO: Whatever. We will contact him and 2 we will see from there where we go.
3 MS. GARDE: Thank you all for your patience and 4 for coming back.
5 MS. VIETTI-COOK: Let me mention one other thing.
6 As we did in the November 19-20 meeting, when we get this 7 transcript, I am going to send it to all the people that 8 talked at this meeting for them to review it, and if they 9 have any corrections, clarifications, they are going to 10 l make them and I will send them to you via board 11 notification or whatever, some sort of letter.
12 i MS. GARDE: Okay. Have a riice summer.
i
, 13 (Whereupon , at 4:45 p.m., the mee ting was.
.y
~
4 14 i recessed.)
i 15 3 i.
16 17 I I
18 i 19 !
i l
20 21 22 23 24 .
l 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M3M n..-~~~ . . + . _ _ _ _
_,u a-n~ e:- - - - - - - ~ v mr.~ ~- - -^
CERTIFICATE CF OFFICIAL REPORTER m
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: ,
NAME OF PROCEEDING: MEETING TO DISCUSS SSER NO. 8-COMANCHE PEAK ,
e e
DOCKET NO.:
PLACE: BETHESDA, MARYLAND
.~
DATE: THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1986 ,
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original
. transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt) C81 (TYPED)
REBECCA E. EYSTER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
1
Enclosure 2 STAFF ACTION ITEMS ITEM TRANSCRIPT PAGES
- 1) Check with Mr. Grimsley 141-142 regarding the release of confidential material
- 2) Determine the nature 157-158 of the source of a letter dated 3/7/84 and is it in the POR
- 3) Is temporary instruction 159-160 2596/1 in the PDR
- 4) Did the TRT attempt to identify 170-171 and interview an alleger who apparently provided information to TUEC security regarding drug abuse by 8 & R employees
- 5) Review the scope of NCR 84-01840 174-176
- 6) Has the NRC received a report 181-182 l from TUEC providing a final l engineering analysis of minor deficiencies j
- 7) Determine the identity of the 187 foundation report that is referred to in the first sentence of K-94
. ._.