ML20237L616

From kanterella
Revision as of 07:16, 24 January 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of Ef Fox 860717 Investigative Interview in Bethesda,Md Re Insp at Plant.Pp 1-16
ML20237L616
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 07/17/1986
From: Fox E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:
Shared Package
ML20237F760 List: ... further results
References
NUDOCS 8708200279
Download: ML20237L616 (18)
v • d • e


Text

~ -

O R G N A'f_

l l Uh1TED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

I l

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:

INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF EDWIN F. FOX, JR.

i l

I

(

l I

LOCATION: BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES: 1 - 16 I

DATE: THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1986 1

i I

l t

1 AG-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.  :

s i

g' -

Washmgtor Attachment Q -

70819 M)

s. 37082 DO SOOO445

\FDR, PDR NATIONWIDE COYDLACE

  • *'ev* v t MW9_ y eq.7,ee 42 gen.www==gsa*<eng...m.. 49 .,s.w., ,%. _ _ _ , , . . . , , , , , , . _ . , , , . .,

r .

'\

',o . .i .

~

n )

, .: t ,

~,.

/

. /

5612 01 01- -

f IL#

r  :

.' . - Mimie 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERIdA L l

~

i 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.- .i 3 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS I i

4 . ' Office of Inspector & Auditor: ,

j -.

5- '

,4340 East-West Highway

)

6 -

Fourth Floor, Conference: Room .

7 Bethesda, Maryland '

/ I

^

8 Thursday,. June 17, 1986 9 The investigative interview convened at 12:20 p.m..

- 10 0 PR'ESENT:

11 i EDWIN F.. FOX, Jr., Interviewee i

, 12 l STEPHEN GOLDBERG .

4

, r 13 ,

Detailed Office of Inspector and" Auditor-

) .n 14 l

, GEORGE MULLEY ,

15 i

~

AFSiStant Director for Investigations.

)ll I

5 i

16 !; Office of Inspector.and Auditor "

?

17 ! Nuclear Regulatory Commission l l 18

~

19 -

l 20 -

21

\

22 23 '

l > i 24 ,

! 1 ,

j 25 I - 'd ._

,/ ~l

~

- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS; INC. ,

202 347 3700 Nationwide Covmse 8003%#e6 i!

---.--m-,--.-~,.. . - . - . . .o, .. _. _.,, .,,

5612 01'.02 2 e Mimie i ' PROCEEDINGS

, 2 MR. MULLEY: The time is 12":20 on the 17th of 3 July 1986. We are in the CIA conference room, NRC Bethesda, 4 Maryland. y 5 Present is Mr. Ed Fox;from I&E, myself, George 6 Mulley, Assistant @irector for Investigations, OIA; 7 Mr. Steve Goldberg, who is a Technical Advisor to OIA, and 8

l the court reporter, Ms. Mimie Meltzer.

9 We are here today to discuss with Mr. Fox i

10 information he..may have concerning an* issue that was-l l

11 developed caring an inspection at Comanche Peak. I would.

t l 12 llke to turn c7er the interview, 11 I could, to l t 13 Mr. Goldberg, who will ask some questions.

14 i Whereupon, -

~ ~

15 EDWIN J. FOX, JR.

\ .

l 16 was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, l e I

17 was examined and testified as follows:

18 MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, George.

19 During the course of our discussions last week, l 20 we ran- interviews in Region IV with Region 'IV personnel. ,

l 21 And mention was made of activity going on by the vendor ,

l.

22 branch.in other parts of NRC-concernind.BIGCO fire 23 penetration seals.

24 I bdlieve your name was mentioned as somebody l

t 25 knowledgeable of recent activity in-this area, and what I .__

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.  :

l. _

202 347 3"00 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4 646 i

m..; y_.._,.,,,-.._,.~.._. . . . - . - - - .-

,, t 4 u

1 5612 01 03 3 s Mimie 1 would like to do is start, Ed, by asking you your 2 knowledge of this area, and what conta't c you have had with 3 Region IV in this particular issue.

4 THE WITNESS: The contact I have had with 5 respect to BISCO has been with the allegations management j l

6 system.  !

i 7 In allegations management systems, there have j

I l 8 been allegations made concerning BISCO and so'me of the stuff 9 that. BISCO does, I guess.

10 ! The source of one of the allegations I can't I 1

11 really tell you because there.is sort of like a confidential l

, 12 f agreement there. But I guess it boils down to really three  ;

i -

13 general areas. i 14 One is, does BISCO's tests meet the requirements.

15 I The second one, do the utilities have test 16 reports.

17 And three, there is some concern that maybe the 18 authorized nuclear insurers, the ANIS or other folks do not 19 want to rely on the penetrations as meeting those test ,

20 requirements.

21 In the first instance of test reports being 22 maintained by the utilities, which was one allegation we 23 '

want to look at -- and there is an inspection report on file 9

24 ~ and I gave a copy to Steve -- we found out that the utility, 25 Salem I think in this case, does have test reports, which _

, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4 646

5612 01 04 l 4 4 Mimie 1 was what the alleger was saying when he first started out.

When we found the test repo'rts, we were kind of 2

3 amazed. But we also looked at them not from the standpoint 4 that the utility just had the test reports, but did the 5 test reports meet the requirements.

6 So we had a consultant or a qualified individual l 7 contracted to NRC look at them. And that person stated that 8 they were acceptable, they met the three-hour fire 1

9 resistance barrier as required by -- I thirk it is ASTME 10 119.

11 With that information we went to BISCO and 12 presented that to them and showed them that the utility, 13 Salem in this case, did have test records. That the tests )

l 14 i did meet the requirements of ASTME 119. Those two items.

15 They were amazed, the fact that they met the test l 16 requirements and that -- I guess not from the standpoint --  !

l 17 ,

well, maybe they were amazed from the standpoint that they 18 had the records. Their test engineers stated that they met 19 the test requirements and they passed and everything looked 20 okay to him, as well.

l 21 So there was no problems with the fact that the l

i 22 utility had the records, and that the tests met the 23 requirements of ASTME 119.

( 24 Second issue in an allegation that came in 25 concerning BISCO -- I can't remember the exact details about ,,l l

. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364646 .

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

_______._.___w

n .

5612 01 05 5 i Mimie 1 that one. But I can run this down later for you if I can 2 get the records on those.

1 3 And the other one with the ANI, Region III'was 4 looking into one of them and we got some information  !

i 5 concerning a Region III Inspection Report which I passed on 6 to the vendors.

7 But in all three instances, the vendor branch'has l t i l 8 been the lead office to -- not necessarily the lead office,

, l 9 but at least in the first instance concerning the test l

10 reports, the vendor branch was the lead, and I accompanied 11 Bob Oller on that inspection. And we did an; Inspection l 12 Report.

l 13  ;

on the other two I have been monitoring just the l 14 vendor branch, the allegation coordinator, which I am no 15 l longer allegation coordinator. But there are files to J l 16 I support all those three items, I believe.

I 17 l MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall the status now? I r.

18 BISCO still being reviewed by vendor branch or other peopic 19 in the NRC?

20 THE WITNESS: Well, in the first instance on the 21 first allegation, which is the one I just gave you the 22 Inspection Report on, that was closed.

23 The other two I am not sure about. I would have 24 to check them out.

25 But we do have a concern, a Part 21 notification ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage ' m3364646 , ,

L-_:_~___T_~_ T_T_T:_ -_, _ _~_v:?_~nTT:r_~27_^^ L- T_T .

.5612 01 06 i 6

2 Mimie 1 which we received from Region IV concerning -- I think it is 2 Texas Utility and some type of materia'l. I can't remember 3 the exact details -- concerning the Part 21 notification.

4 But with respect to that particular notification and the 5 concerns expressed therein by Region IV, we determined --

6 we, being I&E -- determined that there needed to be a 7 technical resolution made from NRR's perspective as to what 8 l is the requirement for the guidelines that we need for our l

9 ' inspectors to go out and look at penetrations.

10 MR. GOLDBERG: Does that mean that there are ,

i 11 conflicting standards in this area, or conflicting 12 requirements?

9 13 THE WITNESS: It would appear that there is --

14 like I was talking to you before, there is the branch 15 technical position statement, there is the ASTME 119, and 16 IEEE standard. And a fourth one. I can't think of what it 17 is.

18 I haven't reviewed them all, but there may be 19 some conflicting information in there.

20 The concern, I think, comes down to -- well, 21 maybe there is two concerns: The penetration is made in the 22 containment, and they seal it with a certified material l

23 which some people have proprietary rights concerning, and 24 even the methodology for putting that material in there is 25 proprietary in certain instances. ,,

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

~

M.347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646 i

-5612 01 07 7 6 Mimie 1 To put it in is a technQue. And some of the 2 utilities. utilize BISCO to do it, some'of them train their l

3 own people to do it. Nine times out of ten, as far as I )

t know, there is a procedure to do it, and the people are l l l 5 qualified and trained, and that is what the inspector looks l l

6 at. I had to go to look at that, too.

7 The thing is, once the reactor is built, there is J 8 often a change. A change in either the routing of the 9 cable, or the cables are redone. So, therefore, they 10 destroy the penetration. j li 11 l Well, they have got to reseal the penetration.-

q 12 And in certain cases, they may or may not be putting the l

13 j barrier boards back in. '

14 f , As far as I can see, when I was up at Portlant j 15  !

t ,

Cement Association and a couple of other places, they get 16 k credit for the full three-hour rating which is -- that is I

17 what I believe is required. You need that barrier board l

18 left in place. Yet, when you have got folks pulling the 19 cables, they may be destroying the barrier board and not 20 putting it back up. That kind of thing.

21 MR. GOLDBERG: I'm going to show you a memo that 22 was written on April 4, 1986, and the subject is BISCO Fire 23 I Penetration Seals Test Report, PCA-76 and 748-183. It is a f

24- memo from Mr. Johnson to Mr. Partlow who I believe you work l

25 .for directly. -

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(6 3364646

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

5612 01 08 8

. Mimie 1 (Document handed to witness.)

2 Do you recall this? ,

3 THE WITNESS: Yes.

4 MR. GOLDBERG: Can you explain how you got it, 5 what you have done with it and have you read the attachment 6 to that memo that the memo refers to.

7 THE WITNESS: Answering the last first, I haven't 8 seen the attachments.

9 Answering the'first thing second, I got into this 10 mainly out of a self interest type of thing and the fact 11 that I knew BISCO and I could see there was a concern here 12 that we needed to get answered.

And what we were concerned about originally was 13 14 more or less the bureaucratic way of getting it resolved as 15 opposed to the safety concern. Although the safety concern j 16 here is great, the fact is that these folks had done fire

( 17 penetration seals at TUGCO and that these weren't meeting 18 the test requirements of three-hour fire rating. So the 19 question came up, well, we need a technical resolution 20 compared to what we need them to meet.

21 And there is another memo that comes along with 22 this that we sent to NRR for technical resolution and a 23 technical interface agreeement, TIA. The lead person on f 24 that being a Mr. Miller, I believM, at NRR.

t 25 MR. GOLDBERG: Did you at all get into contact ,,

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 3364646  !

i 5612 01 09 9 i i

\ Mimie 1 with Region IV on this matter, either with Mr. Phillips or 2 Mr. Westerman?

3 THE WITNESS: Yes. I talked to both Shannon l 4 Phillips and Tom Westerman, mainly to find out why they sent. I

/

5 it to us when the technical requirement was at issue, as 6 opposed to sending it to NRR.

7 And I.found out that the reason they sent..it to

( f i  !

B us was because they should have sent it to the vendor branch-

]

9 as opposed to the Division of' Inspection' Programs. But, i l 10 ! despite that I tried to make sure it got to the right. folks, 'l l

l 11 which is NRR in this case, to get it resolved. .

12 ,once we get a resolution, then we can go into a J 1 13 better inspection procedure. -

14' MR. MULLEY: So, regardless of who the ..

15 information was sent to, it was appropriate that it be sent 16 5 up here, is that correct? l 17 THE WITNESS: I don't have any doubt of'that, no.

18 What the region is saying to us with.this is tht?

19 we want some help or guidance with respect to your 1 20 u inspection, and that there is a safety concern there. 1 1

21. MR. MULLEY: This was a real safety concern.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes. It appears.to be a safety l 23 concern based upon what I see in-here.

24 MR. GOLDBERG:- Did you have any discussion 25 relative to.the specific finding in TUGCo or anything that' _

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. .

j. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 4646 e L._ rrrr= '~~" '~ '

' ~ ~

~

5612 01 10 i 10

. Mimie 1 came out of this where the specific finding or findings came 2 up, and where it was in the Inspection" Report or what have 3 you?

4 THE WITNESS: No. To be specific, no. I had no ,

5 discussions with that.

l 6 My discussions were primarily with Shannon l

7 Phillips and Tom Westerman as to why they sent them to us to l '

8 iron out a procedure error, to make sure that from now on we  !'

9 route this kind of concern to the appropriate party to get 10 it done. And my conversations with both Shannon Phillips

! 11 and Westerman indicate that they probably should have sent 12 it to the vendor branch initially and then resolved it 13 through NRR.

l i 14 MR. MULLEY: Were you aware of the fact that this 15 problem had been identified at Comanche Peak during 1985 16 inspection?

17 THE WITNESS: No. Not on Comanche' Peak. At 18 least I don't believe so, not at this time. Like I say, i

19 there was about -- I think there was two or three l 20 allegations concerning BISCO or penetrations, and those I 21 need'to go back and find out about. But we have three iteme 22 in the allegation management system now with respect to 23 penetrations.

24 MR. MULLEY: There was an NRC consultant who was 25 working out at Comanche Peak in '85 that identified these _

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. L 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646 i

- ..... :- m - , . - - . ..

s 5612 01 11 11 k Mimie 1 l problems.

l ,

2 I I was just wondering if the'information that he ]

3 identified have made it up to your level.

4 THE WITNESS: Without checking my allegation 5 files, the old ' files, I couldn't really be specific on that 1

6 point. But, there may be. The reason I'm hesitant on it is 7 because, normally if it is a generic implication type of an  !

8 allegation, I&E would handle it.

' ~

l 9' If i't is a plant-specific allegation, like in

! l 10 ,' this case Comanche Peak, then we normally -- and Comanche I 1 i

11 l Peak has its own special team and everything else -- we {

12 would refer it to the team.

i I i 13 i MR. GOLDBERG: In this case, doesn't it appear to j i

14 you that this is a generic issue, not just localized to j l

15 . Comanche Peak in this sense that this is a material and in i i

it 16 companies being used by more than one Licensee.

17 THE WITNESS: Could be, yes. It could be.

18 MR. GOLDBERG: So, referring it to I&E was not j 19 . inappropriate in that sense?

l 3 20 ' THE WITNESS: No. l l

21 i MR. GOLDBERG
Let me get to the real question, l i

! 22 , and that is, if one has got a finding, if the inspector hac l 23 a finding and it has generic implications -- but before it 24 goes out as an Inspection Report, would it be appropriate to I f , I

(

l 25 refer to I&E to get a gene-ic ruling on the issue prior to ,

l 1

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.  !

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 33& 6646 i

5612 01 12 i 12 A Mimie 1 it going out formally?

I 2 I THE WITNESS: That would de' pend, I believe, on a 3 number of things.

4 One is if the inspector was at a plant and he  !

S finds that something isn't meeting a requirement such as --

l l

6 to get away from damming toards -- but say for example ad l

, 7 instrument line or something like this, that the tubing l

l 8 isn't correct. What normally would happen is the vendor  !

l l 9 branch would go look at the tuning manufacturer, if in fact 10 the tubing was incorrect. And if we can substantiate the  !

11 fact that the tubing was being supplied to a number of 12 Licensees by that firm, which isn' t meeting the requirements 13 as they purport -- for example, tube line -- then we do our l 14 thing with them, too. We refer it to DOAJ and put out a l

15 bulletin and things like that.

16 And we have done that in the past.

17 In this particular case, it appears that the l 18 first allegation was that there were no test reports, when 19 in fact there were. And not only that, we even went a step 20 further -- that the test reports met the requirements. They 21 did meet the three-hour barrier.

i' 22 The other issues here are these particular ones, 23 not meeting it, maybe only TUGCO related right now, because 24 of either test procedure or the fact that they don't know f

t 25 what criterion to meet, or what is the' requirements for the _,

l 1

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 336 6646 ll

_______y__;;--e--:-v---------- --

1 l

5612 01 13 13 e l I. Mimie 1 issue.

]

1 2' The thing with the barrier,' like I was explaining l 3 to you, penetration, rather, the cable tray that goes

]

4 through the penetration in accordance with what is to be j t

5 tested, may be specified by NRR. However, when you actually 6 go into containment, there is a number of different arrays  ;

y 7 and possibilities of cables and trays in the geometry of t.he 8 penetration which could or could not -- may not -- affect '

the other fire barrier.

9l 10 There is various penetrations going through that 11 wall, coming up through the floor, down through the ceiling. And each one of those is prescribed by AMTME 119.

, 12lli 13 i They will be tested in a certain way, either with a direct l l

14 i hose application or not.

'l 15 j Some of them don't require the direct hose 16 application, for examle, and therefore they don't test it 17 that way.

18 MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have anything else that y-19 want to add to the record?

20 THE WITNESS: No, the only thing I could say is 21 to help, maybe clarify this thing here, maybe help you guyt i

22 a little bit is to go back and look in the allegations 23 management system to see if we have anything specific on j 24 TUGCO or anything more on BISCO.

l 25 The thing with the way we developed the _

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4 86 .

5612.01 14 14 1

I. Mimie 1 allegation management system, which before was an allegation 2 tracking system, was to assure to the public and to 3 everybody, that when we got an allegation in NRC, regardless 4 of who made it and regardless of its content at that point 5 in time, we would look into it, not barring the safety 6 concern to get it in the system.

7 Maybe we are putting it into the system the same 8 time we are working on the safety concern, but at least we 9  ! put evecything in the system. l l l 10 So, to better answer your question on whether or 11 not this came out of Comanche Peak, we could always go back 12 into the system.

(

l 13 MR. MULLEY: Do you think it should be?

i 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. It should be in the system.

l I

15 i But I say that with tongue in cheek because I am not too 16 sure how that Comenche Peak team was working with respect to 1

1 17 -- l

\

18 MR. MULLEY: Well, if this was coming through th. l 19 ; Regicn.

]

20 MR. GOLDBERG: It would have to come through I

21 regional management.  !

l 22 MR. MULLEY: This was identified, this problem 23 was identified by Region inspection involving a resident i g 24 inspector and a consultant working for the resident j t

25 inspector.

ACE-FEIJ .2RAL REPORTERS, INC. ,

202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 2 336 6046 t

.o

5612 01 15 15 l

4 Mimie 1 THE' WITNESS: If it was,an allegation made, for 2 example, that BISCO fire penetrations'on 9-inch were not' I 3 meeting the requirements and not passing the three-hour fire 4 rating -- is that an allegation or is that a statement? ,

5 MR. MULLEY: That is a statement of finding, that 6 is a finding by the consultant and the inspector.

l 7 THE WITNESS: So that might not be an allegation 8 management system. The allegation might be that none -- no l 9 nine-inch penetrations made by BISCO can meet the fire 10 requirement would be an allegation. And that would be 11 l something we would have to follow up on.

12 MR. GOLDBERG: Let me ask you as an inspector, if i

13 l you were reviewing a deficiency report and it stated at that i

14 l time, before the knowledge of whether it met the fire test j l l 15 ! or not were available, that there was a deficiency, that i

16 f they did not have records to prove that it met the 17 three-hour test, would you expect that the utility would 18 have filed either a Part 5055(e) or a Part 21 notice at thc 19 time?

20 THE WITNESS: It depends upon the way that the 21 utility handles -- and I have been to Waterford and at lea:

22 looked up o'ne methodology for handling 5055(e) and Part 21 23 notification.

24 Normally the threshhold is when something is out 4

l 25 of tolerance, something is an erroneous procedure, or _

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

l .. _ .. .

4 5612 01 16 16

- Mimie 1 something like this -- but normally a utility specifies that, 2 i .partiucular requirement in its proceddres.

3 Then we.have the Part 21 and 5055(e) CFRs which 4 also trigger those kind of information.

( 5 I have to go back and look at those to see. But 6 those two items I would normally check.

7 Then when they do do them, I believe they are 8 supposed to be reviewed, too, at the same time.by the j 9 utility and stamped off and' signed off and everything else.

10 Again that depends on the utility's own procedures. But I 11 am sure they are qupposed to be. reviewed.

12 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

i, 13 MR. MULLEY: That's it.

14 (Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the investigative  !

-4 15 interview was concluded.) I 16 17 l

18 I l

19  !;

20  ;

21 i

22 23 24

'25 1

. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC..  !

3J2 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 i

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

. . . . . - . . . .. . . .. . . . .- , _ , . - - . . g.

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER

)

This is , to certify that the attached proh:eedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the I matter of:

l NAME OF PROCEEDING: INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF l EDWIN F. JOX, JR.

i l

1 DOCKET NO.:

  • i l

PLACE: BETHESDA, MARYLAND i

DATE: THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1986 l were held as herein appears, and that this is the original ,

I transcript thereof for the file of the United States" Nuclear I Regulatory Commission.

)

m ~

c l (sigt) N (TYPED) '

l MIMIE MELTZER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTEJtS, INC.

Reporter's Affiliation 1.*=w, w em.. ee.=..m -w .e w * ,um.--. c o-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20237L616&oldid=3111492"