ML20199H537
| ML20199H537 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Comanche Peak |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1986 |
| From: | NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A302 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-299, FOIA-85-59, FOIA-86-A-18 NUDOCS 8607030359 | |
| Download: ML20199H537 (22) | |
Text
_
UN11ED STATES.
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
FEEDBACK INTERVIEW WITH COMANCHE PEAK TECHINAL REVIEW TEAM l
l 1
LOCATION:
PAGES:
1 - 11 DATE:
70 9 860623 GARDE 86-A-18 PDR AG-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Oftw w 444 North CapitolStreet IA Washington, D.C. 20001 g==
J (202)347-3700 hh
.Nanoswres covsaacz
R22996.0 l
1 GB/sjg,'
I-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
3 COMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM
~
l 4
FEEDBACK INTERVIEW 5
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
444 North Capitol Street, N.E. !
6 Suite 402 Washington, D.
C.
7 9
The telephone conference in the above-entitled matter nvened at 9:00 a.m.
10 Il PRESENT:
12 CHET POSLUSNY NRR Comanche Psak Technical Review Team 13 DAVID JENG NRR Cohlanche Peak Technical Review Team 34 15 16 17 j
18 19 20 21 l
l 22 23 6-5 FCIA-85-59
9960 01 01 2
1 AGDacb 1
PROCEED INGS 2
MR. POSLUSNY:
On the record.
3 The purpose of this meetino, for the record, this 4
is an interview -- feedback interview with 5
for=the purpose of discussing the Technical Review Team's 6
assessment of certain concerns raised about the Comanche 7
Peak facility.
The interview is being conducted by 8
telephone.
Present are myself, Mr. Poslusny, Mr. Jeng, the 9
Court Reporter and 10 As agreed, this interview is being transcribed 11 and a copy will be provided to you, 12 '
Basically -- I'm not sure you.'re familiar with 13 what the Technical Review Team has done, but over the past l
14 year and a half or so we have been following up allegations l
l 15 from various sources and the result of these followups are 16 being' published in what we call NRC SSER's, Supplemental 1
17 Safety Evaluation Reports.
18 I'm familiar with all that.
19 MR. POSLUSNY:
Fine.
20 Well basically then we'd like to discuss what 21 we've looked at cencerning your allegation and Mr. Jena vill 22
, talk about it right now.
23 MR. JENG:
Good mornin 24 Good morning.
25 MR. JENG:
Can you hear me well?
l l
r ir 9960 01 02 3
1 AGBagb 1
Yes.
2 MR. JENG:
Let me.just describe what'in our last 3
interv.iew was said.
Based on information you were concerned 4
that during April or May 1977 some non-approved backfill 5
containing concrete, rocks and trash may have been placed at l
l 6
the intersection of the containment structure and the fue3 7
handling building for the purpose of temporarily supportinc 8
a crane ope' ration.
9 Right.
10 MR. JENG:
You were concerned with, number one, j
1 11 this kind of material shouldn't be there and, number two, 1
12 what was done to them if they should not have.been placed 13 there.
1 14 Am I correct in describing your ebncerns?
l 15 Yes.
16 MR. JENG :
Okay.
l 17 Given your concern, we did th'e following ing to 18 find out more about the concerns:
we and a party of the 19 team, two or three people, went down to the site and looked 20 at the area of concern, spoke to the people who were then 21 involved in that kind of operation you described, who 22 happened to be there was Mr. Osborne, and we looked at the I
c 23 following documentation.
24 Number _one, we looked at'the CPSES, that is, 25 Comanche Peak Steam Electric ~ Station FSAR --
G
r 9960 01 03 4
1 AGBaob 1
Ri9 t.
h Section 2.5.4.5, excavation and 2
MR. JENG:
3 backfill.
We looked at a particular figure, 2.5.4/27 in 4
that FSAR, which defines which structures and components of 5
the plant complex should be backfilled with safety-related 6
materials and which need not be backfilled with such i
1 7
safety-related materials.
i 8
'We also looked at the many documents such as the j
soil backfill placement signature cards which 9
ou 10 may have knowledge of And 11 al.so we looked at the density of soil interest second metal 12 test repcrts.
1 13 And having looked at all these things, number 14 one,.I would like to congrhtula d memory 15 that indeed such kind of a crane operation did take place in 16 the near area of the intersection of containment and the 17 fuel handling building.
However, we also found out the only 18 safety-related items which are nearby the area you 19 described, the so-called service water pipe trench which 20 runs from the service water infrastructure to the place, the 21 intersection between the containment and the fuel handling 22 building.
And we have concluded that some of your area of 23 concern may have been in'volved in this pipe trench location 24 as shown bv the ficure I quoted earlier.
25 And we have concluded that
- or the
a v
9960 014 5
0 1
AGBaob 1
pipe trench FSAR required safety-related backfill materials 2
and, based on our examination of the sianature cards and the 3
density tests, we have determined that they have followed 4
all the specification requirements and density recuirements 5
and procedure of placement requirements in doina the proner 6
placement and the proper control materials.
The area --
7 Most of the area you mentioned was a non-safety-related area 8
except a minor portion which may have been intersected by 9
the pipe trench.
10 So since the pipe trench as a safety-related area 11 has been properly placed with the proper safety-related 12 material and properly controlled with documentation and 13 signature cards and so on, the safety-related items appeared 14 to be properly constructed and placed.
15 Now your concern was correct, such occurrence as 16 described by you did appear to have taken place but we feel 17 since they are not safety-related it is their commitment i
18 whether they have been taken away or not, you know, apoears 19 to be not that'sionificant from the standpoint of safety.
I 20 So to put it in conclusion ther your i
21 memory seems correct, there were some occurrences as 22 described by you and we looked at all the project documents 23 and the commitment by the Comanche Peak Applicant and we 24 determined that all the safety-related items were properly 25 constructed and placed and the area you mentioned may have i
6 960 01 05 AGBagb 1
been a part of the pipe tr'ench but this pipe trench has been 2
constructed and shown to be properJy placed with the 3
signature cards and the density of the soil, we determined 4
that your concerns may not have some sicnificance from the 5
standpoint of safety.
6 So at this time I'd like to let you nroceed if 7
you have cuestions or you want to add some comments.
8 Okay.
One just curiosity -- to 9
satisfy my curiosity:
when was the pipe trench out in?
10 MR. JENG:
The pipe trench was put in --
11 What year, just the year?
Roughly.
12 Was it after '777 13 MR. JENG:
Well I cannot tell you exactly when.
14 But think the important thing is that all those
-15 areas which need to be safety-related were properly placed 16 with safety-related materials.
17 In other words you're saying that any 18 of the backfill up to and adjoining the containment or the 19 fuel handling building was non-safety then?
i 20 MR. JENG:
Right.
And that's what the FSAP --
21 Okay.
That's good.
I did not have 22 access to the FSAR at that time, of course.
23 MR. JENG:
Okay.
I would be prepared:to send you 24 this kind of information if you so wish.
25 No, no, that's okay.
I just wanted
l
~~
L 7
.9960 01 06 f
- l AGBagb 1
you-all to check it out because since.then -- well it d
3 4
the containment is safety-related; you know, some jobs are, 5
some aren't.
6 MR. JENG:
Right.
7 Okay.
At that time, of course 8
a lot was new 9
to me.
But since then most of the sites that -- any
~
10 backfill adjoining the containment has been safety-related 11 but, of course, that was a unique site there.
12 That's all, I just wanted to make sure --
13 MR. JENG:
I understand.
If you wish to we could 14
-- when we send you a copy of'our SSER supplement, we could 15 attach this figure of the FSAR which shows what portion 16 should be Category I safety-related and what others should 17 not be and you'll see from that figure that the area of your 18 concern is primarily non-safety-related.
19 No, that's fine.
You don't have to de 20 that because that was -- since then, you know, a lot of the 21 sites have been -- anything around any of the containments 22 and fuel buildings always have been and that was my -- and 23 I've said before, maybe dhis stuff wasn't, maybe it was 24 taken out in the FSAR.
25 But at the time any backfilling excavation for l
l l
i
)960 01 07-8 L
AGBagb l
your duct banks, we had to go up and do all the testing and j
)
'2.
it was all inspected --
3 MR. JENG:
That's right, yes, they belong to the 4
Category I safety-related.
5 Right, and at the time the client 6
could have been just saying we want to inspect everything
~
7 not knowing what was going to come on down the road.
So 8
that's fine.
I just wanted to make sure.
9 MR. POSLUSNY:
Do you believ we
-10 have addressed your concerns?
l 11 Yes, yes.
As long as you-all have 12 gone in there and said it's not safety-related.
Because as 13 I said, on numerous other sites your backfill has been and I 14 couldn't -- you know, I didn't know back then, I don't think 15 I-had ever seen a drawing 17 MR. POSLUSNY:
I see.
18 And since then any backfill -- but not 19 all sites are alike.
As long as it's in the FSAR that's 20 good with me.
21 MR. POSLUSNY:
All right.
22 Is there anything else you'd like to bring up, 2'3 sir?
24 No, I can't think, as long as they've 25 looked at -- and that probably takes care of all the
i i
E960 01 08 9
R.
AGBagb 1
backfill because if that's not then none of the other around 2
the building would be.
And at the time Texas Utilities had
'3 all your duct banks and 4
everything had to be tested and, you know, we made them take 5
a lot of material out but they were probably playing it 6
safe, not knowing, you know, what was going to be reauired 7
down the road.
8 MR. JENG:
just want to be quite 9
clear -- that you are clear that that bank you mentioned in 10 the service water pipe trench backfill was safety-related 11 and they were properly placed with such material and 12 properly controlled; just.to suppor memory, he 13 mentioned that they were safety-related.
14 Okay.
Then that was what was 15 concerning me because in that area, you know, within 50 feet 16 of that area we have a lot of duct banks going around
'17 through there and had 18 to assume that 19 all the soil -- because we were told it was -- of course, we 20 were told we watched everything by the client.
And that was 21 the only concern.
As long as you have looked it up and 22 you found the area -- it's not hard.to find what I'm 23 describing, it's the whole area up against the containment 24
-- so that's fine, I have no problem.
25 You know, it sounds like you-all have gone into i
l l
10 9960 01 09 1
AGBagb 1
it so I don't have a problem.
That was my only concern was 2
just that area right in there.
3 MR. POSLUSNY:
Right.
Then for the record, have you given your statements to us freely and voluntarily?
4 5
Yes.
I 6
MR. POSLUSNY:
I want to thank you for your time f
7
~ and we will be glad to send you a copy of this transcript l
8 and, in addition, a copy of the SSER.
9 Okay.
10 Who do you work for?
11 MR. POSLUSNY:
Both of us work for Vince Noonan.
l'2 13 14 7
15 MR. POSLUSNY:
under the
\\
l 16 Division of Licensing in FRR.
17 Okay.
Now on above -- Did you say 18 Noonan?
19 MR. POSLUSNY:
Noonan is the director of this I
l 20 project and we work under Mr. Thompson, who is the division j
21 director in Licensing.
l l
.\\
l
9960 01 10 11 1
AGBagb 1
MR. JhNG:
One person's name is Mr. Lai ry 'Shac i
3 Right.
4 MR. JENG:
He was 5
mentioning you, you were very, you know, constructive in 6
providing your opinion.
He was praising you.
7 Okay.
That sounds cood.
I appreciate l
8 you guys getting back with me; you didn't have to, but I 9
appreciate it.
10 MR. POSLUSNY:
Very good.
11 Off the record.
12 (Whereupon, at 9:20 a.m.,
the telephone 13 conference was concluied.)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER T
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
FEEDBACK DISCU O
NCHE PEAK INTERVIEW WITH l
l DOCKET NO.:
PLACE:
DATE :-
l were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof'for the file of the United' States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sict) d/
(TYPED)
ANEE G.
5 LOOM Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation N
1 suma
m\\p
~
G i
2 7
..a 3
4 7
5
,DO N O-~ JLSC _0S E 6
l 7
i 8
l 9
l i
10 l
l 11 12 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 13 Technical' Review Team Staff I
14 15 16 17 18 I 19 1
20 k
30 N O-~ 3!SC _OS!E 2'
22 w
,[
23 hiA-oecad h h b h,
2s Teen bn caenagen,cSR, nR t
Catmzn @ooden y
a e
- m- -------- -
..4, 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM 3
4 TECHNICAL INT $RVIEW 5
6 l
Monday, December 10, 1984 Granbury, Texas s
I This interview was commenced at 2:30 p.m.
I 10 PRESENT:
l 11 MR. JOHN J.
ZUDANS I
Technical Review Team Staff 12 l Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D. C.
20555 13 l MR. VINCE NOONAN 14 Technical Review Team Staff i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 13 Washington, D. C.
20555 l
16 l MR. JIM MALONSON Technical Review Team Staff l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17 Washington,D. C.
20555 MR. CLIFF HALE 19 Technical Review Team Staff Region 4 20 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Arlington, Texas 21 MR. T. E. CURRY
-a 22 Technical Review Team Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Idaho Falls, Idaho 24 25 G
l 2
I PRESENT:
(Continued) 2 MR. VIC WENCZEL Technical Review Team Staff 3
Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
4 MR. VERN WATSON 5
Technical Review Team Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6
7 8
9 10 11 s
\\
12 l
13 n
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
- .1 :
22 tra.-.. c,s r s: -
23
,i:1 7
,3
- ., r. c -
..s t l
24
~
s '.
25 e
- en*
J
1 i
a
=
2 3
4 5
D0 \\'O~ JLSC_0SE 6
7 I
8 i
9 l
10 l
11 l
12 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 13 Technical Review Team Staff 14 15 16 17 lb I i
19 l i
20 s
l 30 N O" JISC _039 2'
le I'
'J 2'2 p'
, Lyg!
23 2-1 25 Taken by:
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR December 10, 1984
%IFIE/1 00 11
__2121 BuffALQ D!WE
l 1
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM 3
1 4
i TECHNICAL INTERVIEW a :
i j
6 Monday, December 10, 1984 l
Granbury, Texas i
S This interview was commenced at 2:30 p.m.
-9 i
i 10 PRESENT:
1I I MR. JOHN J.
ZUDANS Technical Review Team Staff 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 13 MR. VINCE NOONAN l
14 Technical Review Team Staff l.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 15 Washington, D.
C.
20555 16 !
MR. JIM MALONSON Technical Review Team Staff l~
Nuclear Regulatory Commission f
i Washington,D.
C.
20555 i
18
^
MR. CLIFF HALE 19 Technical Review Team Staff Region 4 20 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Arlington, Texas 21 MR. T. E.
CURRY
, c.
22 Technical Review Team Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Idaho Falls, Idaho 24 25 l
2 I
1 P RESENT :
(Continued) 2 MR. VIC WENCZEL..
Technical Review Team Staff 3
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Idaho Falls, Idaho l
4 MR. VERN WATSON I
l 5
Technical Review Team Staff i
Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission l
I
.....1..
y n % ', '.
~w ';,,-
- ....,p d
o 9.;
s -
.1
.. '. ' n
' a, p.
,, f, ' t I
, f.. - -
2 p,%,-'
t._
' ; y.
l
- d
- F 9
_'. y f.
g
- q -.
T. <.
i 10 i
g j eg;q ;...
. r
.40$... t '
11 p *<
.e __,-
.. =
4,(. + ~
l2
- /_.l { ? - ' _ '.. '.
L,\\
13 3
14 15 16 2
17 iS 19 20
- - 4 22 L..,.
1... -- e.
I 23
- e
,3 i -. 3 '.
j 24 25
.t
?
l Y,
IN'S*'
- r':MnW@p
. ~' % {5r *
.- n a
- ' t i % w w i.
7, W u.'.s. m ~D g53 [ d. w ?
1MN N
a,.
+
w.; v 0'
- ..Q..c~
.r*
- U '.CC',J. D 7 ',1-U. S. POSTAL SERVICE l
'i.1 6;',*; -,
.rgyu M 2 -.
ROUTING SUP DEPT., OFFICE OR g ROOM NO.
vgtf u s
- /?.
- As2 W TO:
C SIGNArung
.,...r:mm..
a w...,
g "FMIJE O seE us hN
-Q I
l C As arouestro
~_,
E_.6-._
'/ CO PIF%
n s
a, c
,no,.
m.,-
o =Ao.uo.cn,a,.
3 C REAO AMO FILE emeig-g; o,,c,33,,y
- cno, O '~vestiaAre K 1. _MW_ ~(
L
' 0 RECOMMENDADON O au An arru g
i L
FROti:
l gyrgusson E
i
.i
\\
l i
Fo /A-85 #
htP? BOX k 0?
s g
I
. (
O N
v} I,'
[*\\)b
~
i i
x >,,
L'TTRA S-13 MN ].,_
t Aas. ttte (F%F 8 R***'"'
- R*"**I 14) wgg -
c r_r-I th@* %m,.. e;e w w.s M w s w ween %g &e ###!i t
4 s
+2 a
.,. r.:.
.. : w....
v.. w.. g.
s q :.~ _ e.... m.t..n u; e~ _. m.. s..........n. %y
~
..c.:....w.
.... f_ lg. ;;. 7 -
.: x, ; 3,_.-y, m y.,. y,..,m.
?
- . :l.
[._- -v; _. : - 5$ j.' } l_.
_l w;[-e:h[ ;.>,.' $ [ 7((IE l;}?
.Q" ' '~
j h.'..
)
d'I :.[
" !,,eneq*$&'(
.},
[ ' l[*.
- j'hfS /f h:f'h
. w~:g.w.+ hk
.fp m m u x y m.,.. m..f.. 4;:24 m..
.y.
_.. m z., -
3 :+ b Q,.:.
.. m. a q;ys g,;43;.c.3:::--7 Q,4 /_; y,,
m.,',,_, g z.
- 3.;,..; :,..
- .x.Q%, n-m
. c ~,_
%., y -p yp' 9. '.
a..'.. '.y.l, ;... -;. g - ).,..~. / ' j - ; '.; y :(.
'* ' g ;_.
. : L
... -,; ' ".. '. v. (.
.-. 6-t
',.,*7-r..
3 '*
'*'-a-
-i-
s WM C
D 9M$E8
'<, & ~ h
~
- w.,
%I, m M
[ 2.2 '.
.-J 'M2
-.e
, w.L.,, C' - r,d*'Y-7
-4,. t a..
y
^~r: t - h ';: M,tl
-;p_ y
-j
~n. ". r'J-2.y.
- u. a. Porrat sEnvece o
QFNj
%.g :,g ROUTING SUP R
AdN O*
i
_{,h ' [ (
b +
TO:
$10NATuaE
___y
~ ~ ~ ~
- wisp * ~':7+ ;
~
0 SEE ME G_ _k --' ' -
hY h
..h V (O P /F%
h [,"'o77, a
C REAO ANO RETT /RN l3 C READ AMO FILE C NECESSARY ACTION c.
[4 O 'NVESTIGATE
^
?%%!
lOaEcouMEuoAT 0 raEaAae Ruty 104 3
"'o*
l mEusio.
-z_C
_ -w %g;b I
J muw- -
i_
q I!
yl..d 1
m
=
i
.B JiliE r
1
?
1
[
e_=
=
h,-= M. -M
_m E
~-
5 m,
n y_
u
-,n-
.^% },glG[
_ j u
w=c x.m m
~
- - ~_.
^'
^'^
_I_ _^ 9 =en=' __ __ ww m1' "_?j
_n--
hT M
l
_- -.- gp1:2 - r
_._______g-l
v;i
,.- af
. -.