ML20199G905
| ML20199G905 | |
| 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 8607020520 | |
| Download: ML20199G905 (25) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _
l d
j l,'*
l' I
CR20836.0
)
OMT/sjg
)
y _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
i i
j 2
BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
3' COMANCHE PEAK TECHNICALtREVIEW TEAM f
4 CLOSEOUT INTERVIEW 5
i.
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 6
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
Suite 402 7
444 North Capitol Street, N.E.
Washington, D.
C.
8 9
10 PRESENT:
l l
11 I2 NRC Stiaff:
l 13 R. C. ThNG SHANNON PHILLIPS 14 DOYLE HUNNICUT DICK BANGART 15 BOB PHILLIO g DAVID JENG j 16 17 18 19 20 s
21 t
.I 22
,l 23
~
i 24 Ace Federal Reponees, lac.
60102052 860623
]
-l GARDE 86-A-18 PDR t
s.
s m.
1
~
- ^8360 01 01.
2 i :
I LIVEbw 1
PROCEEDINGS l
2 MS. TANG:
For the record.
This is a telephone 3
interview o for the purpose o f providing I
4 feedback regarding NRC's Comanche Peak Technical Review Team 5
assessment of certain woncerns raised b a_ bout l
l 6
the construction of the facility.
7 Present at this interview are Mr. David Jang, t
I 8
Shannon Phillips, Doyle Hunnicut, Dick Bangart and later on, t
9 we will have Mr. Bob Philleo, and my sel f, R. C. Tang, also 10-with the NRC Review Team.
11' since we have talked to you once l
12 be fore on you are familiar with the mission of the l
13 NRC's Techical Review Team for Comanche Peak.
l'4 Ye s, ma ' am, I am.
15 MS. TANG:
Also, are familiar with the separate ~
16 groups we have working on different issues.
17 Yes, ma'am.
l 18 MS. TANG:
Now I would like to turn over to 19 Mr. Dick Bangart first on some o f the issues.
And if you h
l 20 have any questions, please stop at any time and ask.
Dick.
I 21 MR. BANGART:
we have a group of 22 about 20-some allegatilons assigned to us, and we're based in l
23 the Region 4 o ffice in Arlington, Texa s.
And Mr. Hunnicut 24 followed up on one of the concerns that you have raised, and 25 Mr. Phillips followed up on the other, and they will be L
e e
S 9
y e
g
. - _... ~. - _.
8360 01 02 3
LIVEbw 1
providing to you now an explanation of what they did-to 2
follow up on a concern and the preliminary finding that 3
we've arrived at.
4 So Doyle, why don't you start?
5 MR. HUNNICUT:.
Okay.
you and I had a 6
telephone conversat. ion 7
h.ca9b V
\\
8 MR. HUNNICUT:
Right.
At which time you(prought) 9 that a guide tube had been damaged in some manner on the l}p14Y 10 reactor vessel internally.
11 Yes, sir.
12 MR. HUNNICUT:
We went through all of the 13 available record and physically inspected the various
)
14 internal components.
We found that one reactor component, th er g) w, * /z _.?
15 speci fically, a (r.nermal couple) column that resembles a guide 16 tube, but is smaller in diameter, was bent out of line 17 approximnately two f.e e t.
~
18 Yes.
That's probably what I was 19 talking about.
Yes, sir, that's the same one then.
20 MR. HUNNICUT:
All right, sir.
And we verified beerl 21 that it had h properly brought back into parallel within 22 acceptable limits, that-there were no scratches, gouges, 23 dents or crimps in it at any time, that it. per formed its 24 function within the specifications required.
25
'Yes, sir.
That's just all I needed i
O e
.l
1 8360 01 03 4
LIVEbw 1
to know.
I didn't know if it had been reported or not, or i
2 if it had even been --
3 MR. HUNNICUT:
An NCR was written in March, and 4
since I'm home, I do not have the number o f it, but, of 5
course, I'd be happy to furnish it to you, but the NCR did 6
describe what happened.
S pec i fica lly, they moved the bridge 7
of the crane, and there was no flagman in, position to see 8
that the bottom o f the bridge crane did push the 9
thermocoupled column out of its perpendicular position.
10 It wa s documented, it was reported by the #
11 L icen see, and it was satis factorily re solved by removing any 12 damage that was there, because there was no damage, phy sical
~
13 damage apparent, and the fact that subsequent testing 14 verified that it per form its function.
15 MR. BANGART:
This is Dick Bangart again, I 16 believe also, Doyle, that in looking into this matter, we 17 were con fident that the utility had learned a lesson from 18 this event that did occur, and that when they were moving 19 that crane in the future, they were going to have people 20 stationed in the area to be sure th t there was proper 21 clearance between the components f])the crane itself.
22 Is that not correct?
23 MR. HUNNICUT:
It's partially correct..
24 S pec i fically, a procedure that had been written but not 25 implemented when this incident occurred, has been fully 4
i f
1 8360 01 04 5
a I'
LIVEbw 1
verified that all positions of the crane are to where it 2
will be locked out or interlocks will prevent it from moving 3
into the vessel or -- I'm sorry, the upper internal area.
l 4
- And in the event they do bypass any of these installed j
5 sa feguards to keep the crane from moving where it should not 6
!be, there will flagman to prevent cont, act between the i
)
7 bridge crane any any components.
i f
8 This is and that's I
l l
9 satis factory, you know.
That's all I needed to know.
I'm 10 glad it's been cleared up.
i 11 MR. HUNNICUT:
All right, sir.
I'll just stand i
l l
12 by.
f 13 MS. TANG:
Sounds good, Mr. Hunnicat.
i 14 MR. BANGART:
Okay, the next item that we in f
}
15 Region 4 followed up on was handled by Mr. Shannon Phillips, 16 and he can describe his action regarding that concern.
17 MR. PHILLIPS:
- Hello, how are you i
i i
18 today?
19
} Just fin e.
a i
20 MR. PHILLIPS:
I'm the senior resident in spector I
1 l
21 who was assigned here just this March 18, 1984.
And I was 22 assigned to work on two of your concerns.
Two engineers 23 worked on your concerns regarding, number one, internal it::s or.!
?
24 wires that were broken and rolar crane M cables
[/d-b 5
[
25
'( phonetic).
1
(
b i
c
8360 01 05 6
LIVEbw 1
Yes, sir.
'nd the second part pertains to, 2
MR. PHILLIPS:
A 3
the polar crane hit unspecified hangers while it was
/f[d' 4
operating.
5
~
~ Yes.
6 MR. PHILLIPS:
Rotating around.
7 And what I'd like to do first of all is to cover 8
with you what we, looked at during our evaluation o f the '
.. p e --. 3,L 9
sto cables (phonetic), Unit 1.
10 On August 30th, NRC inspectors and a company fes ned.
11 representative went out and visually inspected the < ist 12
. cables, and at this particular time, there was no damage to 13 those cables.
14 On the outside?
15 MR. PHILLIPS:
That's right.
As far as we could 16 see, there was no damage at all to them.
17 Right.
18 MR. PHILLIPS:
That's not to say they weren' t i
19 damaged in the past and had been, but if they were be fore, 20 they had been repaired.
l 21 The damages I wa taJ1 king about --
22 All right, do you know any anything the i M cables, the 23 way they're made?
24 MR.- PHILLIPS:
I have a fair idea.
25 On the outside, it's got a covering l
C e
8360 01 06 7
LIVEbw I
and then on the inside, there are different wires and they i
2 go smaller and smaller to the center, you know?
3 MR. PHILLIPS:
Yes.
4
~And the smallest wire is in the 1
5 middle.
6 MR. PHILLIPS:
Uh-huh.
7 But the weight o f those cables 8
hanging, we found, was breaking the small cables insides > is 9
what I was talking about.
You couldn't see it from the 7
y 10 outside.
There wouldn't be any damage on the outside o f the
[.
11 cable.
When we were terminating the polar crane for L
)
12 permanent plant use, we were running out o f ires, because a s t*
- n '
13 we found that the inside wire on the teto cables was 14 broken on several o f them.
l l
l 15 MR. PHILLIPS:
Okay.
Now we did not look at the l
}
16 inside wires per se.
I i
i 17
' Okay.
18 MR. PHILLIPS:
However, what we did look at were i
19 bigger tests (?) which should have revealed broken wires on 20 the inside.
But we may go back and take another look at 21 that particular item, a fter this conversation, there is a l
22 way to look at that.
23
.Ye s, sir.
I 24 MR. PHILLIPS:
Then on September 12, 1984, we we'nt t
25 back out again, and this time we looked into junction boxes L~
l l
i 4
- - _ - - -... -. - - -... -.. ~
______h-.
3
8360 01 07 8
LIVEbw
~1 to make sure that t' hey were properly terminated, and we 2
found no broken wires or nonterminated wires inside the 3
boxes.
4 In addition to that, we a sked for several 5
inspection reports or noncon fbrmance reports.
However, they 6
do not do inspections on these cables, and the reason that 7
they don't is because they're classified as nonsa fety, and 8
as such,. they're not really required to per form inspections 9
and to document noncon formance.
And the reason for that is 10 they're not necessary for the sa fe shutdown o f the plant.
11 But as far as we could tell visually looking at the cranes, l
12 everything was okay.
13 In addition to that, when we go to the second y -28 14 item, in $erms of one polar crane hitting unspecified 15 hangers, we did have 'the crane operator rotate the crane 16 three times for us.
And of course, it properly operated, 17 including to us at that particular time there was no problem 18 with operation.
19 Well, that's possible.
They could 20 have fixed it, I'm sure they did, by that time.
21 MR. PHILLIPS:
Right.
22 On the particular item ~ relative to hitting 23 unspecified hangers during the t ree rotations, we rode the, l
24 crane, and we could not find any; inter ferences whereby items l
25 wouild have hit one another; however, we did find, in looking l
P e
9 8360 01 08 LIVEbw 1
back at the record s,' that sometime ago, a noncon formance t.
2 report was written, M-82 0064, which documented that there 4-problem in uplifting or striking crane girder 3
was a this was documented in NCR and 4
stif fener plates.
- However, l
5 action, as described in Change Author lization No. 11311 Rev 1 6
took care of this particular problem.i 7
In addition to that, we fel't it was necessary to 8
go another step, and so we talked to the crane operator and if there were any instances where the 9
a s'ked him, you know, 10 limit switche s didn' t cut out properly.
They could 11 particularly not sto p, have an interference of some so rt.
In fact, he 12 And he knew o f no problems whatsoever.
demonstrated the operation of the bridge crane, running it 13 14 several times to show that the limit switch cut out and the 15 signal lights indicated.
far as he was concerned, he operates 16 So again, as 17 the crane quite o ften, and as far as we could determine from 18 discussions had no problems.
There had been some problems 19 in the past, and everything was fixed to his satisfaction.
Well, they probably then resolved 20 21 that problem be fore -- just, you know, fixed it, like you lJ 22 said, it was documented, and they fixed 'it.
I 23 MR. PHILLIPS:
So basically, I guess those were Do you have any queskions?
24 our finding s.
Did you all check into the crack i
25 1
i 6
6
b 8360 01 09 10 LIVEbw 1
underneath the core, crack?
2 MS. TANG:
Okay.
That will be the next issue.
3 Now do you have any questions for (the last two 4
items so far?
t 5
~ No, I don't.
Abe you satisfied with the finding s?
6 MS. TANG:
7 Yes, I am.
8 MS. TANG:
And did they understand your concerns 9
correctly?
10
~
Yes, ma'am.
11 MS. TANG:
Okay, we're going to ask Messrs 12 Bangart, Hunnicut to stay on the line brie fly with us, just i
13 in case you have any more questions at the endt all right?
14 Fine.
15 MS. TANG:
Dave, Philleo is not on the line yet; 16 right?
17 MR. JANG:
I don't know.
18 MS. TANG:
You might have to discuss with 19 on that AC-44, the cracks and, you know, the 20 concrete bottom o f the vessel.
21 MR. JANG:
Okay.
22 MS. TANG:
And if Phileo gets on the line, fine.
23 Otherwise, we'll just -- but you will handle that item, if 24 he has any more questions.
25 MR. JANG ~
this is David Jang.
Itam 1
\\
il
8360 01 10 11 LIVEbw 1
and NRC TRT reviewer, covering your concerns related to the i,.L a
crack $hich you indicated existed in the concrete f))) below 2
c c < inaudible. )
3 the 4
I think I'd like to commend you for indicating 5
this concern, because it is a fact we discovered the cut was 6
there, and I'd like to spend sometime to explain to you how 7
we investigated your concerns and how we come to conclusions 8
from (inaudible) our considerations approach.
9 Now this cut was known to the Applicant and to the
.:n. ~
10 people who were involved in the construction and earlier G2D 11 NCR E 660 (?) was written reporting this crack.
And upon 12 such NCR identification, a (inaudible) engineer was directed 13 to investigate the extent o f the crack and what was the 14 cause of such a cut and what is the significance to 15 (inaudible) sa fety.
16 This (inaudible) engineer reported that the crack 17 existed, and the crack was primarily due to the (inaudible) 18 concrete which was poured in one pour without any 19 construction joint, and also by the use of very rigid inside
$V (': / * :.'
20 forms which prevented the normal sinkage of the concrete as 21 it dries.
22 These are the reasons which causes such a crack, 23 as reported by this engineer.
24 Now subsequent to this report, an NRC Region 4 25 structural engineer was also assigned to look into that
)
~ -.
8360 01 11 12 LIVEbw I
situation, and he reported to the ASLB hearings proceedings 2
about his findings in a June 9, 1982 report.
3 (Inaudible) that Region 4 engineer's opinion about 4
the crack (inaudible) in agreement with the independently 5
evaluated (inaudible) finding s.
6 Now upon these two reports made available to the 7
public, the TRT came into being, and we, namely, mysel f and who 8
another expert, Mr. Philleo is not available at this time, g
j 9
were assigned to look in the situation independently without i
10 being influenced by these two previous findings.
j 11 And what we did was, we took a look at the NCRs l
12 and the concrete pouring packages which pertain to that i
I 13 particular pour and look at the drawings.
We found that the 14 type of a massive structure which we are dealing with would 15 normally require more than one pour with the use of 16 construction joints.
17 It turned out we found out the option was given to 18 the constructors to either use one pour or use the pour with 19 (inaudible) joints in the pin.
20 Now for some rea son, the constructor chose the 21 option of one pour and there fore we found that there's the 22 crack that you indicated which developed from the inner side 23 all the way to the (inaudible) carriage wall.
24 And also, you probably also know there was another 25 cut which occurred at the mid span of some 20 feet H
8360 01 12 13 LIVEbw 1
beam (?).
2 And this crack, as we investigated, repaired by 3
epoxy resins (inaudible) to seal off the cracks to make it 4
water proo f, (inaudible) that the water doesn't have to get 5
inside the rebars to induce corrosion.
6 Let me come back to how we assist in (inaudible) 7 these cracks with you (inaudible) notify us.
8 Now in the first crack (inaudible) concrete was 9
de signed in combination with rebar (inaudible).
In order 10 for the rebar to (inaudible), you got to exchange at the 11 (inaudible).
12 When the rebar is strengthened (?), the concrete 13 has got to move together because we bonded the rebar (?),
14 and due to the nature the concrete is very weak in 15 (inaudible), so they had to crack.
So the cracking 16 phenomenon in the rein forced concrete structure element (?)
17 is known to be a necessity, in order for a beam (inaudible),
18 it's very large (?).
Okay?
19 This is the basic question throughout the 20 understanding o f the rein forced concrete pours.
I believe 21 you may or may not know this, but that's the situation.
22 The only difference here is, in a normally 23 well-designed situation with proper construction joints and 24 with proper distribution o f the rebars, there is small in 25 this opening size (?) that normally (inaudible).
But they
8360 01 13 14
);:
- o s,..
LIVEbw I
are dispu in the very small interbars.
2 Now if we are not providing a proper construction 3
joint in very heavy constructio,n such as this, then due to s:
for concrete to Ji ]j), it would crack.
It's got to
]
4 the need 5
crack.
And this is what happened in this particular case, 6
because we did not provide the construction joints to 7
prevent the location o f the crack (?)
8 Now in some o f the (inaudible), I think the primary /importance is to rely on the rebar, which were 9
A...A
%puted[in these concrete structure, and they (inaudible).
dis 10 11 Now with the particular situation here, if the 12 structure is designed to (inaudible), earthquake load (?)
13 and accident load.
Now the fact is that earthquake and the 14 accident load will come much later.
It's not supposed to 15 occur the accident, but what if it occurred, then that would 16 come much, much later.
17 And in order to carry such a big load, we have put 18 a lot of rebars inside there, which are well distributed 19 there.
Because o f the fact rebars are amply provided there, 20 they would provide what was needed to resist the loading, 21 including the (inaudible), which was induced by the 22 accident.
l 23 So during the accident, the application o f the 24 pressure load, the concrete will crack (inaudible), but if 25 it will be okay because of the fact we have now rebars, it
(
l i
9 T
8360 01 14 15 LIVEbw 1
a load (?).
2 So I'm trying to explain to you the cracks that we 3
observed in the concrete, really it doesn't matter from the 4
standpoint o f a structure in (inaudible) because we have a 5
very ample amount of rebars properly distributed.
And this 6
comes to that beam which I mentioned to you earlier, which 7
we also discover (inaudible) crack.
And this takes more 8
(inaudible) beam with the, opening.
9 Now again, we look at the rebar distribution and 10 the sheer capacity o f the beam, which happened to be a deep 11 beam?
I mean, the depth of the beam in a similar 12 proportion, a mych similar proportion is the span of the 13 beam, okay?
Not the normal beam used here in the 14 (inaudible.)
(Inaudible) long compared to the depth o f the 15 beam.
16 17 18 19 1
20 21 22 l
23 24 l
l 25 l
l
?
I l
l l,
t i
e
8360 02 01 16 OMTbur l'
MR. JENG:
Now, in this kind o f beam, a rod, a 2
steel rod, goes through (inaudible).
So they are only L
3 needed for the ' carrying. loading, again based on the rebar 4
(inaudible) bending moment.
5 So upon detailed examin stion of the situation, the
}
6 loading e f fect at the time o f the leading will be coming 7
from pressure due to accidents, and this sccident may or may 8
not occur.
But even if it occurs, the steel rod would be 9
carried by the rebar, and by that time the concrete would be 10 cut all over, everywhere.
11 Because of this situation, we come to the 12 conclusion that the cracks (inaudible) if something 13 occurred.
I f it does not occur, we introduced a proper i
14 (inaudible) joint.
15 However, even though it does occur, it doe sn ' t i
l 16 matter.
It doesn' t really a f fect the ability o f the l
17 structure, heating the rods -- in cooling the steel rod, and e r,l o:n j 18 on this basis we have to (xtend) to you, and hoping you 19 understand.
We concluded presumably that the structure 20 sa fety integrity is not a f fected by this crack.
t 21 And if you have any question or comments at this f
22' point?
23 This ia l
24 No, I don't have any questions, and it sounds like 25 you did a real thorough job, 'and I really do appreciate 4
f 6,
e e
q 8360 02 02 17 OMTbur 1
you explaining it to 'me, taking time out to explain it to 2
me.
3 MR. JENG:
Okay.
4 MS. TANG:
So you are satis fied with the find ing s l
5 with all three issues discussed tonight?
6 Yes, ma'am, but I would still like 7
them t check on either the very inside core of the p@sco>nced-Dt cables rather than the outside, 'you know.
8 9
MS. TMiG :
Yes.
10 That is the only other question that f
11 I would -- you know, that is the only other thing that I f'
il 12 would like for them just to check into, i f they didn ' t 13 mind.
14 HR. PilILLIPS:
We will follow up on that.
15 Okay.
16 MS. TMiG :
Well --
17 HR. DMiGART this is Dick Bangart.
18 lie may have heard Mr. Phillips descr Lbing it --
19 that we did look at the results o f the Hegger tests, and so 4
20 the conductivity,o f the wiring, at lea st in the test that we I
21 looked at, appeared to be acceptable when that t.esting was 22 done.
We will look at it further, but if I could get some i
23 reaction on your part whether or not you feel that the 24 Hegger test would have some pertinent in formation that would 25 Lndicate whether or not there are broken wires at this point e
e I
e e
8360 02 03 18 OMTbur 1
in time.
2 Well, all I was interested in, you 3
know, on those fenced-in cables they have like so many 4
spa re s.
5 HR. BANGART:
Yes.
6 And I think they would run out o f
{
7
' spares is what we were worried about, you know.
8 MR. B ANGART:
Yes.
9 That if it had continued to break 10 the cables like it was that there would be a problem.
But 11 you know, if they megged it out and everything and it works 12 fine, there is no problem.
13 But I was just questioning the amount of the 14 spares and why they had broke, or what had happened to the 15 wiring.
i 16 But, you know, if you megged it out and the wire l
17 is fino and, you know, it is working, there is no problem 18 there.
But I was just wondering about the spares, you 19 know.
20 MS. TANG:
Shannon, what do you say on that?
i 21 HR. Pl!ILLIPS:
Okay, this is Shannon Phillips l
22 again.
23
. Actually, we will take a look in terms o f looking 24 at,the use just to look into your concern.
Ilowever, in 25 terms of the cable ' operation, snumbet 'one, I don' t think i f e
O
I 8360 02 04 19 OMTbur 1
you h' ave enough continuity in there where cable is built 2
to per form its function -- that is one thing.
Even though 3
there might be, if it is a multi-strand wire, it would still f
4 per form the function.
I f
5 And, number two, even if this did not per form its I
6 functionj it would not have -- it would not prevent the sa fe
}
7 shutdown of a plant that is classi fied a s, above sa fety 9.
8 Right.
9 MR. PHILLIPS:
So I did want to reemphasize that 10 point.
11 I don't mind looking at all to see if they indeed 12 have used a lot of cables.
They might have to destruct to 13 be tested; in other words, to pull it apart to look inside 14 it.
15 I guess I could look at it in terms o f, number 16 one, seeing if they have been using a lot of cable, bring it 17 to their attention --
18 Sight.
j 19 MR. Pl!ILLIPS:
-- that they are running out o f 20 spa re s.
What I am trying to say is that it would really not 21 have any bearing on the sa fe operation.
22 Ye s, i f they had a shutdown.
}
23
'The only rea son I was concerned about the small l
24 w tring break is because all the smaller wiring goes to all 25 your linking switche s, or your small wire, and that was 5
a 8
6
=
~.
8360 02 05 20 OMTbur 1
the only problem I could think o f.that bad.
1
\\
2 I know that might not have anything to do with the 3
sa fe shutdown o f a plant, but it might cause trouble with
)
4 the crane.
\\
5 MR. BANGART:
Let me just say that -- this is Dick 6
Bangart again -- that we did have some other allegations 7
that our region wa s a ssigned to follow up on regarding 8
concerns, and there were r,ome other concerns addressed 9
regarding the polar crane, and it led us into the area of 10 what kir.d o f maintenance program wa s a ssociated with that, 11 and that is an issue that is going to be addressed in some 12 o f the other preliminary finding s.
i 13 So I think we will be raising that issue to the 14 attention of a utility, even though this is a nonsa fety 15 system that -- at least in our view -- although a formal 16 maintenance program may not be strictly required, that it 17 will be something that we will at least raise to their 18 attention and recommand to them, in all likelihood, one or 19 the other o f the findings on an allegation, follow up.
20 MS. TANG:
Is that satis factory to you, 21 l
22
}
Ye s, ma'am.
23 MS. TANG:
Okay.
24 Dick, I guess, you know, if Shannon later on gets 25 a chance to go in there and look and maybe just give llll Egg [
a call and discuss it.
S
n.._ _ _,-
l 8360 02 06 21
'OMTbur 1
MR. B ANGART:
Okay.
Ye s, I think we have 2
indicated that we will be glad to --
3 MS. TANG:
Looking into other o f his concerns 4
anyway --
5 MR. BANGART:
Right.
6 MS. TANG:
-- will be addressed 7
'All right.
j 6
MS. TANG:
We will not overlook these.
All right?
9 All righty.
10 MS. TANG:
We will not set up another con ference 11 call on that item.
l 12 But basically, it seems to me that these items are 13 closed.
4 14
_~
Right.
15 MS. TANG:
Okay.
Now, let me ask you a few quick i
16 questions, you know, for the procedure.
17 llave you given your statements to us today freely 18 and voluntarily?
19 Ye s, ma 'am.
20 MS. TANG:
And have we, NRC, adequately covered 21 your concerns regarding Comanche Peak?
{~
Yes, ma'am.
22 23 MS. TANG:
And do you have anything further you 24 would 1Lke to add for the record?
25 I think you all are doing a real e
O e
6 8
f 8360 02 07 22 OMTbur 1
thorough job..
2 MS. TANG:
Great.
Thank you for telling that they
{
3 have, you know, worked very hard.
4 Now, since you have no problem with these 5
preliminary findings that we have shared with you tonight, 6
the detailed evaluation will be publis'aed later en in a
/
7 re port.
It will be a supplemental sa fety evaluation report, 8
which we expect to publish sometime in January 1985, and I l
1 l
9 think we will provide the pertinent portions of that report l
1
)
10 to you.
l 11 All right?
l i
]
12 All right.
13 MS. TANG:
And i f you don' t have any more 14 questions, we will turn off the recorder, and I will get 15 your address, and we will give you a phone number you can
'16 reach our reviewers and reach me.
17 All right?
18 All right.
)
19 MS. TANG:
All right, this will conclude the 20 interview.
f 21 (Whereu pon, at 7 : 3 3 p.m., the investigative 22 interview was concluded. )
23 24 J
)
25 l-I e
s e
a
m___
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the snatter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW
?
DOCKET NO.:
PLACE:
WASHIRGTON, D. C.
'DATE:
ware held as herein appears, and that this is the original trcnscript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission.
(Sigt). kd Muo w M
(TYPED) Q i
JOSEPH MAGGIO Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPOR" RS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation 9
0 9
I 0
. 6
%