ML20078L728
| ML20078L728 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1983 |
| From: | Henry W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078L617 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-434 NUDOCS 8310240049 | |
| Download: ML20078L728 (133) | |
Text
l*o r
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of: ) Docket Nos.
DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL ) 50-413 (Catawba Nuclear Station ) 50-414 Units 1 and 2) )
t Deposition of:
Wayne Odell Henry l June 28, 1983 8310240049 830sto
, . . PDR FOIA g AHLERS83-434 PDR Evelyn Berger Associates STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE P. C. BOX 19444
3 n.- O p .o L A W Y E R'S N OT E S n u.
t h
h I ~
v ll 4
i I
i
, y*
1 The deposition of Wayne Odell Henry was taken on the 28th 2 day of June 1983 at the legal offices of Duke Power Company, 3
500 South Church Street in Charlotte, North Carolina. ,
4 APPEARANCES:
4 5 For Duke Power Company - Ronald'L. Gibson, Esq.
951 South Independence Blvd.
6 Charlotte, North Carolina 7 For Nuclear Regulatory - George Johnson, Esq.
Commission Office of the Executive 8 Legal Director Mail Stop 9604 9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Washington, D. C. 20555 11 Robert Guild, Esq.
For Palmetto Alliance -
2135 1/2 Devine Street 12 Columbia, South Carolina 29205 13 (The deposition commenced at 11:14 a.m.)
14 WAYNE ODELL HENRY, 15 having been first duly sworn, was examined and deposed.as 16 go11ogg, 17 BY MR. GUILD:
18 g Mr. Henry, would you state your full name and your I
19 business address for the record, please?
20 A. My name is Wayne Odell Henry, and my business address is 21 422 South Church Streat, Charlotte, 28242.
22 4 All right, sir.
23 That is Duke Power corporate offices.
A.
~ 24 4 And you are employed by Duke Power Company, are you not?
25 A. That's correct.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES, STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
e o A ') .
- 1 g 'In what capacity?
2 A I am the quality. assurance manager of technical services, 3
QA department.
4
! 0 All right, sir. My name is Bob Guild, and I am counsel 5
j for the Palmetto Alliance, an intervenor.in the Catawba operating 6
license case, and we have filed a contention that has been 7
identified as Palmetto Alliance Contention 6, which the licensing 8
board has admitted for litigation, and it raises questions about quality assurance and construction at Catawba. Are you to generally aware of that?
II A I am generally, aware of that, yes.
12 O I want to show you a' document that is dated December I3 i 31st, 1982, and your company's response to some interrogatories I4 l by Palmetto Alliance, and on page 3 of that document there is 15 quoted the text of the contention as originally filed and then l
16 as admitted by the licensing board, with some revision. Let
" me ask you to take a few moments and just review that if I8 you will. It's the single-spaced, indented quotation that I8 begins on that page and goes to the next.
90 MR. GIBSON: While he is reading that, Mr. Guild, I
- 1 repeat as I did in earlier depositions, wo take the position 22 that the scope of the deposition is limited in accordance os' with the board's two most recent orders, narrowing Contention d .
o4 G All right, sir. Have you had a chance to review that? s A Yes.
EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvlCE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CANOWNA
v -
1 o o
. ] ,
l l
l 1
O All right. Mr. Henry, can you identify the document that I l 2 just had you looking at? Have you seen that before?
3 A Yes, I h' ave seen it.
4 0 All right, sir. I am going to show you documents dated 5
February 28th, 1983, and it is a supplemental response by 6
the company'to Palmetto Alliance's discovery request, and 7 ask you if you can identify that document.
8 A Yes, I have seen this before.
9 0 All right, sir. And finally, thirdly, a document that is 10 dated March 25th, and its'. response by the company to Palmetto 11 Alliance followup interrogatories. Can you identify that 12 document?
13 A I have seen that one also.
14 0 All right, sir. Did you participate in any manner in 15 preparing the company's responses to the interrogatories that 16 are contained in those documents with respect to Contention 6?
I 17 A Yes.
18 0 would you describe your participation?
19 L Our participation was primarily a coordinating role, and 20 in that capacity providing the resources and primarily working 2I with Glenn Bell, that you deposed earlier, that worked for 22 me, and coordinating with the legal department those documents 23 and requests that come to us and getting those responses from D the right parties in quality assurance and getting them back -
25 l to legal.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
_._,--_.,,,_.,_...--....~..m-
O S o
_4
-b 1 0 Who else participated in preparing those responses, Mr.
2 Henry?
3 A various people, depending on who had documents or knowledge 4 'as to what the interrogatory was addressing.
5 g Who?
6 A I could name names who did participate. Mr. Grier, my 7 boss, Larry Davison was a principal contact being located at 8 Catawba, and'I'would say those were the principal ones, but of 9 course oyher people who may have worked for them may have been 10 involved in collecting documents and providing answers.
11 g To your knowledcre, you, Mr. Grier and Mr. Davison were 12 the principal persons responsible for preparing those responses?
i 13 A On the technical matters, as it got in the personnel areas, 14 Neil Alexander, who is our manager of administrative services, t
15 which includes personnel, would 'have been a principal party l 16 in those areas.
17 You did not submit an affidavit reflecting your participa-0 18 tion in preparing those responses, did you, Mr. Henry?
19 A To my knowledge, I didn't.
20 You don't recall?
4 21 A No, I did not submit one personally.
22 All right, sir. Let's go through these. Let's see if we 0
23 can shortcut this a little bit. In Mr. Bell's deposition he 24 indicated, as you have, that you participated in preparing the 25 responses. Your participation is not reflected in any of the EVELYN SERT.ER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NO8FTH CAROUNA
. 1 1
responses where asked to indicate who was preparing the 2
responses. Explicitly the applicants indicated that Mr. Bell 3
and Mr. Roger Ouellette, and Mr. Bell was deposed b'ecause he 4
- was indicated as the person responsible. I learn now that he 5
says that you and Mr. Grier and Mr..Davison are, and is that 6
accurate, you, Mr. Grier and Mr. Davison are principally responsible?
8 A For the technical areas, yes.
9 0 And then you have added for personnel, Mr. Alexander?
10 A That's correct.
II Q Now, to have a complete understanding of who participated, 19-are there others that should be indicated as making a significant
.5 1
contribution so I will know?
14 A I would say no others making a-significant contribution, 15 but as I did state earlier, all of those people have others 16 who work for them and they may have been asked to help collect 17 documents or pull information from their files, but as far as 18 a significant contribution, no.
19 G All right, sir. Of the three of you or the four of you, 20 Grier, Davison, Henry and Alexander, who had the most significant 21 contribution to preparing responses?
i A I don't know that I could answer that as to which one was 93 more significant.
.s 24 0 Who spent the most time answering them, if you know? --
A. Probably Mr. Davison but eartninly T ennlan't may that for EVELYN SSRGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. MORTH CAROWMA
. _ _ _ . . . . . _ . . . _ - . . . , _ , _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ , _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ , - . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ , . , . _ - ~.
-G-I sure.
2 G Who could best answer the questions conc'erning the' process ;
3 and.the circumstances of preparing those responses?
4 A I think any one of those four could answer that. I 5 could answer it, process.
] 6 4 I am going to try to save some time, but we have got all 7 four of those gentlemen lined up, and you are the first, so 8 we will start with you, sir.
9 A Okay. The process basically involved our legal department.
10 trying to understand what the requests had been, what the .
11 interrogatories were, and then coming to me or to Mr. Bell. As 12 I mentioned, both of us were identified as coordinators betweet 13 legal and QA. Then from that point we would collect the infor-14 mation from whatever sources that might be available within the 15 quality assurance department, collect that information and 16 get it back to the legal department, where they would then 17 put it in a necessary form, or meet the required deadline, 18 submit it to the board, whatever that may be.
19 S' I am interested primarily, Mr. Henry, in the process as it 20 relates to the identification and production of documents, 21 and would your answer be the same with respect to that subject?
22 A My answer would be the same, that it would be an understand-23 ing by legal as to what you asked for and then for us to 24 communicate that to the people who might have the answers of 25 the documents and produce those.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SEmICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
_ , , - _ _ _ __, . _ . _ _ . . , _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ , _ _ . _, _ . . _ , _ _ , , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ , - . . __,_____4._.._._....,__.,-
~
1 Q All,right, sir. Was your role with respect to 2
documents limited to simply transmitting those documents from 3
quality assurance to legal?
4 A. That was the major effort, but of course if there were 5
documents that I had that were required, they were also 6
produced. I was not only the coordinator but a party to 7
trying to answer those questions if it pertained,to an area 8
where I had information.
9 0 All right, sir. Well, let's talk about that for a moment to then. What I first want to understand is, Mr. Bell, I think, Il to fairly represent his characterization or his role was, that 12 he simply carried documents from point A to point B, quality 13 assurance to legal?
14 MR. GIBSON: I would object to the characterization but is will allow him to answer the question.
16 MR. GUILD: If that is not a fair characterization, I want I7 to inform the witness correctly and if you can submit a more I8 accurate one, please do so.
8 MR. GIBSON: I think he testified, among his duties, he l
w)
~
carried documents over here.
1
~
MR. GUILD: If he did more than that, I would like to know
.n what it was.
93 MR. GIBSON: I am just adding that to your chsracterizaticn.
' 2#
MR. GUILDS Is there anything aise that; the witness should.
~25 know, Counsel, that would fairiv represent Mr. Boll's' role?
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAmouMA
1 MR. GIBSON: I have nothing else to add, Mr. Guild.
2 g Mr. Bell said that he transmitted the document and that 3
if he read any of'the documents, it was for his own curiosity 4
and not part of his responsibilities with respect to respondinc .
5 Did you have a similar limitation on your role or did you review 6
and read.the documents that were made available to you?
7 A Answering your last question, yes, I read the documents.
8 G All right, sir.
8 A That came through me.
IO O Was that part of your responsibility, or did you do it II for your own curiosity, as Mr. Bell testified?
12 A I would not use your words, characterizing it as part of 13 my responsibility, but I feel it was more than curiosity. I I4 read the document to see what they communicated to me so that I 15 could logically discuss those with Ron and others, to make sure I8 they presented a fair representation of what we were represent-17 ing.
I8 G Fine. So you participated in the substantive analysis I8 and review o$ the documents that were produced, is that fair?
A I conducted a review of the documents that.were sent over 91
~
to legal.
i 0 All right. Now then, in addition to that,pu identified 93 some documents with regard to which you were the source, or os that were your documents, is that right? '
A What I earlier said is that I reviewed my files for documents l
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENCTYPE REPORTING SERVtCE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROLINA
9 1
thatmighthavehelpedanswerthequestionsormig51thave 2 been pertinent to the questions that were being asked.
3
, 0 Yes, and did you find any document's in your files'that 4 fit that description?
f 5 g .I can oialy recall one document that was in my file, and 6 that invol'ved an exit interview that was held several years 7
ago and transmitted over to legal.
i .
8
- 0 Who was the subject of that exit interview? Do you recal3 ?
9 A Marvin Johnson, an engineer at Catawba.
10 4 All right, sir. I show you a document and ask you if you 11 can identify that document.
12 A Yes, that's my signature.
13 i
G That's your signature?
14 g ye,,
(
15 g All right, sir. Describe the document.
16 l A The document is a memo in the file, with copies to Glenn i
17 Bell, George Grier and Al Carr. I assume the one that is marked 18 out is Larry Davison or Bob Morgan or someone else at Catawba.
19 What it is documenting is the search for additional informatior.
20 l that pertained to something we were trying to answer for legal i
j 21 and summaries that we did that search and that the documents 22 were produced.
23 4 All right, sir. Is that document a copy of a document
~
24 that is in your file or was in your file?
25 A This is a copy of the original letter that either went to EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvlCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA o
,-y.-rv,e.,_--- . - - . , . - . , - ,..-,,,,_.-r-------..,n.,. - a,.-._nm.._,--- . , - - - - , - , , , _ - ----.---,.-,,--,,_--,,c,- , - - - - - - - - . - . , - - , , - - , - - . , . . - . -
1 one of these gentlemen or was in the file.
2 g Well, when you write a memo to file, do you retain at leaot 3 one ccpy in your file? .
4 A Yes, that's our practice.
5 4 So that document would not only appear in the files of the l 6 gentlemen who were copied, but it would appear in your file, 7 be lodged in your file, is that right?
8 A Not in this form.
9 Q Without the handwriting notations?
10 A Right, correct.
11 g Did you identify that document in your file when you 12 reviewed your files to determine whether there were documents i
13 responsive to Palmetto's interrogatories and requests?
14 A No, I actually produced this document to send those documants 15 to legal to make those available as part of that process.
16 Q Did you understand the last question?
17 A I thought I did. Would you repeat it?
18 O Sure. Did you find that document, when you reviewed your 19 files, to determine documents responsive to Palmetto's request, 20 and if you didn't, why not, and if you did, how come I didn't 21 get it from you?
22 A Okay. Yes, I understood your question before, and my answer 23 is the same. When I reviewed the file, this document was not 24 in there because this document was produced as part of subsequent 25 reviews to produce files to give to legal that were then 3 EVELYN eERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CARouMA
i presumably to Palmetto Alliance.
2 r One of the problems I am having, Mr. Henry, I am trying to 3 understand, and if you would just give me a general ciarifica-4 tiony 'perhaps we can move forward. It's our position that the j 5 company has not been responsive in producing documents. I P
6 am interested in what the process was that produced the documer,ts l
7 that we in fact got, and I am interested in your role in that s' and your knowledge of that. Now, in this specific regard we 9 got a copy of a memo that you wrote to your file. We got a copy to presumably from someone else who was circulating that copy, l
11, handwritten notes on it that appear to be made by one of the 12 persons copied. Mr. Morgan, correct?
i 13 A That's correct.
14 S We didn't get. that memo either in' his noted form or -
15 either in its marked-up form or original form, from you, and tta 16 inference that I drew from that, sir, and I want to ask you l
17 whether it's accurate or fair or unfair, is that you didn't
- 18 produce that document, though it was in your file, and that the re <
19 must be some reason for-that.
20 Now, is that an accurate understanding, that that 21 document was in your file in its original form, that either you 22 didn't find it or you found it and decided not to produce it, 23 and if that is accurate, how about explaining why?
2r A okay. I don't agree that it's accurate, but I will 25 explain to the best of my ability what happened here. March EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYps REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
_,__.--~___...--_._-,__m._. , _ _ . _ . , , . _ _ _ . _ . . - , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ . _ _
.. I 17th is the day of the memo, so that's the date it would be 2
in my files that this was written.
3 0 All right.
4 A Subsequent to that, the information that was identified 5
here was collected and was transmitted to legal as part of 6
what started the entire process, that is, being responsive 7
to what we understood you had asked for and we were required 8
to give you, records of any disputes, so this memo sus 9
identifying the situation where there might be a record showing to the search that we did for the record, and giving a status as 11
. of March 17th and than subsequent to that, the..four welds that 12 were identified in this document as potentially being disputes I3 was sent to legal,. and those are the facts.
I4 g All right, sir. Why wasn't that document not produced 15 from your file?
16 A It wasn't produced because it was stood'on its own and giv en II to legal to say here is what we are doing to carry out what I8 has been asked for.
G Did you perform the review and reach the conclusion that 90
~
that document was not required to be produced?
- 1 MR. GIBSON: Excuse me, Mr. Guild. I am not sure I understand where we are. Are you contending that this memo 93 without the notations and attachments was not produced in
- 24 discovery?
MR. GUILD: Yes.
EVELYN SENGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CNARLOTTE, NOHTM CAROUN4
1 MR. GIBSON: At all? -
2
. MR. GUILD:
Yes. I am not aware of it if it has been,
'3
, Counsel. I am aware of a copy, and I am aware of what the 4
witness has testi'fied.
5
, MR. GIBSON: I am talking about a copy. Are you saying
)
6 that you did not receive the original memo, and therefore the 7
document was not produced in discovery and therefore we have 8
not baan responsive to interrogatories or responsive to 8
requests?
10 MR. GUILD: Yes.
11
- MR. GIBSON
- Well, Mr. G,uild, you can proceed with your I2 questions, but I can tell you that'in instances where a copy I3 of the document showed the substance of that document and was I4 attached to later documents that were a followup or were is responsive to that memo, to give you this document, we felt is i was aufficient, rather than give you a copy and the document 17 again. There may have been some instances where you also I8
, received a memo and got it two or three times, but where it i
I8 was clear, as in that instance, that you were getting the copy oo
~
l of the memo as a packet or included with other data, you would 91 not have gotten another copy of this memo, a duplicate copy.
We hold out the number of duplicatos simply to not give you an 03 extra couple hundred of pages of copias of things that were 1
o4
~
already being produced, so that may clear up some of your 25 understandina of what in aninn nn; hn e- +h4= A~i--nt === pr~ era _
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
I to you, now maybe not in the form you would have liked it 2
but the document was produced to you. With that, maybe that 3
will save some time and you can' proceed with the questions.
4 g Is that an accurate description of the process as you 5
understand it?
l 6
A That's accurate, yes, sir.
'I G Now, the question, I guess, that still remains is, did you.
8 perform the review and reach the conclusion that that document 9
in its original form need not be produced? Was that your 10 function and your decision, sir?
11 A I think !!r. Gibson's characterization was accurate as to 12 what happened, and I like that answer. If you want me to restate la it, I will.
I4 4 That's what lawyers are for, sir, but I want what you know 15 and what you believe and what your opinion is, and the question :
16 I will try to restate, and that is this, Mr. Henry You told I
me that in part your responsibility was to review your own
'8 files, and you found only one document, and that document was I8 not the one we have just been talking about.
20 A That's correct.
91 G All right, sir. My question to you, sir, did you find that document, the one'we are talking about now, and did you in any way, shape or form contribute to the decision not'to h
k 21 produce that document, and if you did contribute, tell me \
25 A.
what your role was.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STSNOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
.- -- , . _. , , , . . - , - . ,._-_--n , . - _ . , _._ -___._,. . .- ., . - .
1 .
MR. GIBSON: I object to the form, but he can answer.
2 The document was produced though your question has the phrase 3
in it "not to produce the document." You may answer.
4 A With that -- if you are talking about me, my file and my 5
letter, I will answer to say that I knew that this' document 6
and the other information that was required by it was produced.
7 Therefore I did not produce another copy of this. letter from 8
my file.
9 G All right, sir. Now, I want to make sure, Mr, Henry, 10 that there aren't things that got lost in the shuffle of that 11 sort,. How can we know or have some level of confidence, 12 if we can, that in fact we have received all of these documents ,
13 that you in fact have only eliminated duplicate copies of the 14 same document?
15 A I can tell you that that is what was done, the process l
16
! that was described, the way we produce the documents, and i
17 that as an example, if there are others like this that serve I8 as a role to have some other action taken and then later 19 produced, no, you would not have gotten those intentially,
" but as Mr. Gibson said, sometimes they came in separate files, 91
~
and you may have duplicates in some cases and not in others.
G You completely lost me there, sir. You are saying i o' l
documents of that character would not have been produced?
l o4 l
A No, I am saying, as we said, this document was produchd.
- 5 Documents of this character would be produced.
kVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvH",E. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA [
'8 -
1
? It wasn't 4 accident that we got.this particular one?
2 A ,It was not an accident that you got this one.
3 G Tell me how you knew that we were going to get this copy, 4 the one that Mr. Morgan's files unearthed, and therefore 5 you decided to withhold the one from your file.
6 MR. GIBSON: I object to the term " withhold." He can 7 answer the question.
8 h. As my memo stated, the review was being conducted at 9 Catawba. They were directed to forward any documents produced 10 that reflected disputes, and then I would forward those on to 11 Al Carr. Mr. Morgan did produce those, sent those to me, 12 basically carrying out.the action that was identified in 13 this memo that would be done. I then put those in, servicing 14 in a coordinating role and passed those on to the legal depart-15 ment. So the loop was closed, in my opinion.
16 All right, sir.
0 17 MR. GUILD: Let's mark th,is for identification as the first 18 hearing exhibit for Mr. Henry in this deposition, please.
19 (Thereupon, deposition exhibit number 1 was receivsd and marked for 20 identification.)
21 G Are the notes that arc attached here yours?
22 A No, those are not my notes.
23 G Whose notes are they?
\
24 A I can't say for sure because they are not signed.
25 G What's your understanding of whose notec they are?
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA i
- _ . . _ - - - . - ~ -. - - - - - - - - - . - -_-
1 A My understanding of those notes is that Mr. Morgan, again 2 responding to this request, was transmitting this information 3 to be responsive to that.
4 G They are Mr. Morgan's tiotes?
5 A I can't say that, whether he actually wrote this, no, 6 they are not signed notes.
7 O The text of this memo 1.at you wrote that is over your 8 signature reflects as follows: "In requesting previous 9 supervisors at Catawba documents which may show a dispute, R. P.
10 Ruth identified the concern on my attached notes." Where are 11 your attached notes, Mr. Henry? ,
12 A I don't know.
13 0 What did your attached notes reflect?
14 A The attached notes reflected what Mr. Ruth identified 15 that might be considered as a dispute because he remembtred 16 instances such as these four welds that were identified, where 17 an individual had not originally signed off the document and 18 then it later had been signed off.
19 G Why were your attached notes not produced? I don't think 20 your lawyer is going to help you on this.
21 MR. GIBSON: I object to your statement. I am going to 22 confer with Mr. Henry.
23 (The witness conferred with his attorney.)
24 0 Your answer?
25 A' What I wanted to say is, I don't know that they have not t
' evetvm menosa associares. steworype neponriuo samveen. cuantorre, wonrw camouma
. I been produced but certainly what I wanted to tell you is that 2 these are not the notes that were attached to my letter. In 3 other words, this is a response to what I had summarized here 4 but I don't want to say that they haven't been produced. I 5 don't know that they have not been sent.
6 0 All right, sir. Well, I represent that they hadn't. In 7 your judgment ==
8 MR. GIBSON: I move to strike that statement. It's not 9 a question. I regt.est that you ask questions.
10 MR. GUILD: I represent that they have not. If you are 11 interested in the facts, and, counsel, you-have conferred with 12 your client, and you instructed him part on his answer, and 13 for clarification for the record I will state to you that I -
14 represent that those notes have not been forwarded to Palmetto 15 Alliance.
l
[ 16 MR. GIBSON: You represented throughout this proceeding 17 that you are familiar with what has been produced, and the l
18 record reflects the status of that. Answer the question.
19 MR. GUILDr Counsel, do you dispute that they haven't M been produced?
l 21 MR; GIBSON: Ask the question. This is not counsel's i
! 22 deposition. Ask the question.
l 23 MR. GUILD: I ask thet the deposition reflect whether or i' 24 not those documents have been produced. It's a simple matter, I
j 2 Counsel. I don't want to be fighting over somethisg,. If I am I
l l EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NOMTM CAROUNA
, _ _ . . . . _ , . . . - - - - - - ~ - - - - - -
-19 ,
I in error, please correct me, but I represent to you that I 2 believe that those have not been produced, and I want to unders.tand a this. .
4 MR. GIBSON: You have changed your representation. 7te.
5 Henry has represented what he knows on the question and the 6 subject. I ask you now to direct another question to him.
7 G Should those notes have been produced in your judgment, 8 sir?
9 A In my judgment, if the notes were adequately communicated to to the people who got it for action and they produced the 11 documents that showed whether there was or was not a dispute, 12 it would seem to me to be irrelevant whether they were there 13 or not.
14 G Your answer is no, they shouldn't have been?
15 MR. GIBSON: His answer is what he answered, Mr. Guild.
16 Ask another question.
17 0 Is it your belief they should not have been produced, l 18 sir? I want to understand clearly yes or no, and add whatever l 19 explanation.
l M MR. GIBSON: He answered without answering yes or no, 21 and you are doing like you have done before in insisting on a 22 yes or no answer.
23 A I am comfortable with the answer I just gave.
i 24 0 Do you decline to answer the question?
3 MR. GIBSON: He does not decline, Mr. Guild. Wait until EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING $$RVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLJNA
29 I another question is presented.
2 MR. GUILD ' I am waiting for the witness to answer the 3 question. -
4 MR. GIBSON: I am directing him to not answer unless he 5 has a further answer. Do you have a further answer, Mr. Henry?
6 L No.
7 MR. GIBSON: Ask another question, Mr. Guild.
8 % Mr. Henry, a little bit of confusion here, sir. First 9 we get responses to interrogatories and requests who say they to have been answered by people who didn't answer them.
11 MR. GIBSON: I object to that question.
12 0 ' And then we get sworn testimony saying that you in part 13 answered them, and you have Confirmed that and identified 14 other individuals who participated in answering, one of whom 15 sits in the room whose sworn testimony will follow, and the 16 other who will be questioned as well, sir.
17 Now, I want to understand the truth, Mr. Henry, and you 18 are under oath, sir, and all I have is one document in front of l
19 me and I don't want to make a tempest in a teapot but all I have, 20 sir, is one document that I know of that we can use as exemplary 21 of what your role and contribution has been to this process, 22 and it has your name on it, sir. I just want a fair under- r 23 standing of where we got where we are, sir, to understand
~
24 where you are coming from and what your responsibilities are.
1 1 25 This docu:aent on the face of it reflectc that you attached EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERveCE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
1 notes which were part of your substantive instructions to the 2 people who were collecting documents in response to our request;,
3 isn't that fair?
4 A No, I don't think that is fair.
5 S Correct me, then. Please state where I am in error in tha.t 6 characterization, sir.
7 A. The notes, to the best of my recollection, were hand-8 scribbled notes based on the phone communications with Mr. Ruth ., '
9 this possible dispute that would be on documents that would be 10 available. Those are notes I took when taking the phone call, 11 and it is my opinion that I could have written the memo and jus t 12 thrown those away. All they were doing was documenting the data 13 I got the phone call, that I talked to Mr. Ruth and he said that.
14 At that point I wrote the memo to make sure the proper action 15 was taken on Mr. Ruth's concern, directed the individuals at 16 Catawba to conduct that search, they did that, turned the 17 documents in, we turned them into legal. If that sounds like 18 what I said before, I am sorry.
19 G Okay. Supply for me now your identification of the concern 20 which was contained on those attached notes, sir.
! 21 A The concern that was contained on those attached notes as 22 identified to me by Mr. Ruth was that there could possibly
(
l 23 be pieces of papers in the Catawba file where an inspector may
- 24 have made additional notes on the process control rather i
25 than 'just signing off the document to say I accept or I reject or EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
.- -- - - , - - - , , - . , - - , , - - - - - . . - . - - - - . - _ . . - - , - - . - - - . . = . . , . . , - - . . - - , - - - , . . , - -
o .
I whatever his normal function might be. He may have made other 2 notes. The concern expressed by Mr. Ruth was that those additiona3 3 notes could be construed by someone to reflect a dispute.
4 Therefore since it might reflect a dispute and we were in the 5 process of trying to produce all documents that did show a 6 dispute, we conducted the search that is mentioned here and 7 identified the four items or one item covering f0u.t aimilar 8 situations in attached notes, and that's the process or t.
9 situation as I recall it.
10 g Are those notes in your file now?
11 A They may be.
12 g Do you know?
13 A I don't know.
14 S All right, sir. I show you a copy of the notice of 15 deposition that is prepared for you, sir. Can you identify 16 that document?
l 17 A Yes.
l 18 g Has that been served on you before?
19 A It has been given to me.
20 g All right, sir. Have you read it befora?
i 21 A Yes.
l
- 22 4 Would you read the middle paragraph in the text for 23 the record, please?
~ 24 A You want me to read it?
l 25 g Yes. Aloud.
.v.o. .. .. ...ociar... .r.~om. awo r-a ..mac . ca*=.orr.. ao- caaouaa L _ _ . . - . -- _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
o .
1 A "You are required to attend and may be represented'by 2 counsel and are required to bring with you any and all documents 3 in your possession or subject to your control reflecting your '
4 knowledge of the above-described matters upon which you will' 5 be examined."
6 G Did you bring those documents with you today?
7 A I did not bring any documents with me.
8 0 Why did you not bring any documents with you?
9 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, I will interject here. As-has beer.
10 in earlier depositions, we have searched Mr. Henry's files 11 as a part of the discovery process in this case, and reviewed 12 his files prior to his coming to the deposition. We take the 9
13 position, as we have done in earlier deposit. ions, that 14 every document Mr. Henry has that is responsive to discovery 15 has been produced. As has been the case with other gentlemen, i
16 they have produced other documents that they have located.
17 We have no further documents regarding Mr. Henry, and there are 18 no others to be produced at this time.
19 MR. GUILD: We would ask that you produce the notes 20 that are clearly referenced in the one document that has been 21 produced so far, and those notes clearly relate to the subject 22 of welding at Catawba and I desire to examine the witness 23 further from the notes and would ask that he get those notes.
24 MR. GIBSON: I am telling you to put that on the list of 25 items you intend to take up with the board. We will not go EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
1 to search the file again. We have searched and produced every-2 . thing deemed to be relevant and discoverable as the case now
'a stands. If you have any further questions of Mr. Henry -
4 MR. GUILD: Do you refuse to adjourn the deposition and
-5 instruct your witness to get the document that has now been 6 identified?
7 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Henry has indicated that he does not knot 8 if the. document exists, that he has reviewed his file and we 9 have, produced everything discoverable. We will not, adjourn the 10 deposition for that purpose. If you have any ether questions, 11 Mr. Henry is available to answer them.
12 MR. GUILD: All right, sir. Please do note that I would 13 intend to examine the witness from the document that is 14 referenced here and you ht.ve declined to produce that document.
15 MR. GIBSON: I think the record reflects what both of 16 our comments are, and I don't agree with your characterization, 17 but we will let the record reflect what it reflects. Carry on l 18 with your questions, Mr. Guild. .
i 19 % Just for clarity, sir, can you assure me that it's not j 20 simply a matter of an error and oversight that the document l 21 was omitted but that it reflects a reasonable judgment that f
22 the document should not have been produced, the note that we 23 are talking about here, sir? I just want to understand whether
-' 24 it is a reasonable position, as far as you know, sir, that thosie 25 notes should not have been produced and were not produced.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOClaTES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CARouNA
25-1 A I felt I answered that question before.
2 4 Yes. Can you exclude it's simply an error and oversight?
3 I just want to make sure that that's not your position, that 4
-they weren't produced for that reason.
5 A I don't understand the question. Would you rephrase the 6
question, please?
7 4 Yes. Those notes were not produced, I represent, and I 8
ask you to assume they weren't. If we can't establish that -
9 MR. GIBSON: We object to the form, but he can answer.
10 g If I ask you to just assume they weren't produced, sir, 11 can we exclude that the basir for their nonproduction was not 12 simply an oversight or an error?
13 A I will try to answer your question if I understand it.
14 Q Please.
15 A If they were not produced, it is my opinion that they 16 would not have been produced because they were not relevant 17 to the question that was asked, and the final documents that were I8 produced that did show in our view all of the documents 19 that we felt represented disputes, and that was the purpose of 2
the memo.
2I O All right, sir. Did you prepara any other memos to file 22 reflecting the process for identifying and producing documents, 23 Mr. Henry, other than this that has been identified?
24 A Yes.
25 G You did? Did you produce those memos?
avetv~ .. .. ...ociares. sr=~ome awoariao sam"cs. caaa'orra acara c^aoua^
g
- o
~
I A I don't know.
2 g You don't know?
8 A I don' t know.
4 S Are they in your file?
5 A y,,, ,
6 G All right. How many other memos did you prepare? Give me I
an approximation. I don't expect --
8 A I don't know. Maybe six, eight.
8 0 What was the character? What were the characters of the IU other memos?
II A The characters of those would have been, again, fulfilling' I2 the coordinating role to communicate with primarily the quality I
- assurance people who might have documents or information that 1
14 legal had requested of us. Using the normal means and communicat-l ing that type of information to certain people would be to write 16 a memo and ask them to produce it by required date, a certain 17 number of copies or whatever it may be, and then turn those over to legal.
t I 19 G All right. Would those mamns have been to the same people oo
~
that are indicated on that memo?
21 A Some would have been, yes.
22 O All right. Mr. Bell, Mr. Grier, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Carr?
23 A But not in all cases.
l 24 G All right, sir. Who else would have been included in
! 25 l mamns of the charmeterm th=t ynn innk daarr4had? -
f EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENCTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
1 A Some of the memos may have been addressed to Mr. Gibson 2 rather than Mr. Carr. .
3 0 Okay. Some in legal. How about persons other than legal?
4 A It's possible that a memo, as I have identified Mr. Alexarder.
5 g Personnel-related matter?
l 6 A Personnel, yes.
l l 7 S All right. The memo that has been identified, I will l
8 ask that it be attached to your deposition as exhibit number 1.
9 MR. GIBSON: When you say attached to the depositions, io are you referring to transcripts that Palmetto might make and 11 be filed, or are you asking the court reporter here at the 12 request of applicants to mark that item?
13 MR. GUILD: Whatever you want to do, Mr. Gibson.
14 MR. GIBSON: You are in charge. I am just trying to 15 understand what you are doing.
16 MR. GUILD: If you want a copy of that attached to your 17 transcription, you are certainly welcome to do that, and I am l asking that both the record reflect that it be identified as 18 19 a hearing exhibit, and if you WCuld like the court reporter to 20 attach it to the deposition you are having produced, do so.
21 MR. GIBSON: I am asking what you are intending. That's 22 all, Mr. Guild.
23 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
- -/ 24 % Tell me what your duties are in your position. ,
l 25 A. As I mentioned, I am in charge _of technical services for the EVELYN SERGEM ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NMRTM CAROUNA s
1 quality assurance department. Primary functions are the area 2 of quality assurance procedures, also the procurement process, 3 vendor records and surveillances, carrying out the quality 4 assurance program as regards the designing engineer department.
5 Those are the primary areas of my responsibility.
6 S All right. And you report to whom, sir?
7 A I report to Mr. G. W. Grier.
8 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, it is now 12:00 o' clock. Could 9 you search for a convenient breaking point within the next 10 15 minutes?
11 - MR. GUILD: Sure.
12 0 I am going to show you a document that is a figure 17.1-4 13 from amendment 6 to the company's quality assurance program 14 Topical Report. It is entitled " Quality Assurance Department 15 organizational Chart." Can you identify that'ocument? d 16 A It is the document you stated.
l 17 g Does that reflect the current organization in the quality 18 assurance department?
19 L Yes.
20 g All right, sir.
21 MR. GUILD: If we can have this identified and marked as 22 exhibit number 2 to Mr. Henry's deposition.
23 (Thereupon, deposition exhibit number 2 was received and marked for 24 identification.)
25 4 Mr. Henry, who is primarily responsible for maintaining
.mm .. . ...oeiar .. sra~on e == oe a ==avics caaaw"* aca' c^awa^
~29-1 the records of the quality assurance department?
2 ~A Primarily the records would be maintained at the location
, 3 of the site. That would be a vault, a storage location at the 4 site.
5 0 All right, sir. Who is primarily responsible for maintain-6 ing the quality assurance department's records?
7 A The senior individual at whatever location is required to 8 maintain those records would be the primary individual responsi ble 9 for them.
10 g All right, sir. I am looking at this organizational chart 11 that has been identified as exhibit 2 to your deposition, and 12 I notice that also reporting to the corporate QA manager on the 13 same functional level is QA manager for operations?
14 A That's correct.
15 g QA manager for vendors?
16 A Correct.
l 17 0 QA manager for administrative services?
l l
18 A Yes.
l l
19 And Senior QA supervisor, audits?
l O 20 A Yes.
21 O Now, under you, you are the QA manager for technical 22 services?
l 23 A That's correct.
24 l 0 Are boxes that reflect the functions of design, quality 25 assurance, quality assurance procedures and NDE?
f I
EVELYN BERGE4 ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CARCUNA I
\ 1 A Yes. .
2 g And procureme.nt and records?
3 A Right. -
4 S Are you the person at the QA manager level primarily 5 responsible for maintaining records?
6 A Not primarily. There are records that I am responsible 7 for. The block you have just indicated there indicates a 8 required review of certain vendor documentation, and I am 9 responsible for doing that, or having people to do that.
10 g All right, sir. Those records relate to procurement 11 then? .
12 A That's correct.
13 g Who of the persons at the uA manager level has the primary 14 responsibility for the records of the quality assurance progran ,
15 and department?
16 A All of the manager level individuals indicated here would 17 have some responsibility for some quality assurance records.
l 18 As I mentioned, the procurement vendors would be mine. There 19 are;others that would not be my respons'ibility.
20 Q All right, sir. Let's make the focus documents that 21 are responsive to the discovery request that Palmetto Alliance 22 has made in which you participated in reviewing, and help me 23 understand, sir, who among the folks who are shown on this l
24 chart here has what responsibility for maintaining the custody 25 of the records that we are talking about now.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvlCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA
^*
- 1 A Okay. Which records are you referring to?
2 A I don't know what records you have, so you are going to 3 have to tell me.
4 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, would you state clearly for the 5 record how you contend that is covered by the board's narrowing 6 of the contention of quality control and quality assurance and 7 welding? I want to be clear before I instruct him not to 8 answer.
9 MR. GUILD: You just have to make your judgment the way 10 you see fit, Counsel.
l 11 MR. GIBSON: Are you indicating you will not state how yot.
12 believe this is relevant?
13 MR. GUILD: Counsel, I am not going to Ongage in a l 14 colloquy with you. I believe the question is clear. If you t
15 want to instruct the witness not to answer the question, you 16 go ahead and do so.
17 MR. GIBSON: The question is clear. I am trying to 18 understand your rationale for it being included in giving the 19 board's recommendation. I am asking you to state that so I 20 will understand it so I wis11 not needlessly object. Are you 21 indicating you_are refusing to state that?
22 1G. GUILD: Counsel, I am trying to deterinine what this 23 witness's involvement was in the identification of records 24 that are responvive to discovery requests made by Palmetto l
25
, A$.liance on this contention. Now, first I am told that a l . m .......,. .. ... ~o .... .,~o... ... . _ ,.... m i
I different person other than .this witness uns responsible for
~2 answering those interrogatories.
3 MR. GIBSON: You are not answering my question. My 4 question is, how are these questions about who is responsible 5 for records included within the narrowed scope of Contention 6 6 where the board indicated you may take depositions concerning i
7 quality assurance and quality control? Again, if you will 8 just state that, you have no problem with having Mr. Henry 9 answer.
10 MR. GUILD: You have interrupted me again, Counsel. If 11 you just want to make a speech, Mr. Gibson, make a speech.
12 If you want to instruct your witness to not answer the question 13 and you want to produce another subject for dispute for the 14 board, we will do so, sir. I have a question pending.
15 MR. GIBSON: Would you repeat your question?
16 G Explain to me who is responsible for maintaining the custody 17 of records in the quality assurance department, the quality 18 assurance program as it relates to the Catawba facility.
19 MR. GIBSON: Go ahead and answer *if you know.
20 A This individual here would be responsible for all -
21 g Please identify. The transcript won't reflect you are 22 pointing.
23 A I was going to do that. You previously asked about the
~--' 24 In..the audits
. managers or the people reporting to this level.
25 area, that supervisor is responsible for the audits records EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERytCE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
- m. I that he produces, and likewise all of the other managers are.
2 responsible for the quality assurance records that are produ_ced 3 in their area of responsibility. The area you had mentioned 4 about records under my responsibility is mentioned as a spec'al i 5 case because, as we discussed, those are the procurement 6 documents, where we have a requirement for quality assurance 7 records, and those records are reviewed by my staff.
8 g All right, sir. Help me understand, Mr. Henry, how the 9 documents that are the subject of the memo that has been 10 identified as hearing exhibit 1 are documents for which you 11 as the manager for technical services have responsibility?
12 - A okay. The reason that is so is because of my coordinating 13 role that I explained earlier in providing a focal point for le! gal 14 to have someone to contact in quality assurance. And in carry- -
15 ing out that coordinating role in getting the documents to 16 legal in a timely manner, I produced that memo and had those 17 discussions that said produce these records that another manag ar 18 may have been responsible for, which he did, and then 19 I turned them over to legal.
I 20 0 Was another manager responsible for the documents of the 21 sort identified in this memo?
22 A Yes.
23 g And who was that manager?
24 A That manager would have been the projects QA manager 25 at Catawba.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE NORTM CAROUNA
~. 1 S Who was?'
2 A Who is L. R. Davison.
3 4 Larry Davison?
4 A That's correct.
5 0 All right, sir. And Mr. Davison is the manager responsible 6 for documents regarding quality control at Catawba?
7 A As regards the construction activities.
8 0 Yes.
9 A Not operations.
10 4 And that's the subject of our concern and not operations, 11 so he is the manager responsible for QC construction related 12 documents?
13 A That is correct.
14 i
MR. GIBSON: Perhaps we can beak for lunch. We will take 15 an hour for lunch. It is now 11 minutes after 12 16 (Thereupon, the lunch recess was taken from 12:11 p.m.
l 17 to 1:17 p.m.)
18 l G Mr. Henry, I have shown you a couple of documents that 19 are responses by the company to Palmetto Alliance discovery 20 request, and I believe your earlier answer was you participated 21 in preparing those responses?
22 g y,,,
23 The first document that I showed you was O All right, sir.
i
24 the December 31st responserand let me direct your attention to
" page 41 of that response, and there is contained the company's EVELYN SERGER AS$0CIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE, CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAmouMA
'I answer to interrogatories 23 and 25. Let me show you that 2 document. Did you participate in preparing that response?
3' A - Yes.
4 0 All right, sir. The bottom of page 41, the company's 5 response states: ' Applicants do not now represent that this
'6 list'is complete. Applicants are continuing their search to 7 determine whether there are additional documents within the 8 scope of interrogatories 23 and 25."
9 On the following page there are identified several,documer,ts .
10 Did you participate in the identity of the documents that 11 are set forth there?
12 A Yes.
13 G Describe the participation. What did you do?
14 A The coordinating role I performed, and all of these would 1
15 have been available through me to get to legal. I can't say 16 which of any of these were specifically documents that were 17 under my control prior to getting them in that coordinating 18 role. I don't know if one of these is the exit interview 19 we talked about.
20 0 All right, sir. There are only nine documents listed
'!1 in that response, isn't that right?
22 A Yes.
23 0 How did you come to identify only nine documents as
. 24 responsive at that tims to interrogatories 23 and 25?
25 A We were a'sked questions that took a day to list, but at EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMAmLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
'l that time that's all we had.
2 g I would ask that you not confer with,Mr. Gibson prior .to 3 responding.
1 4 MR. GIBSON: You are indicating that you are objecting 5 to him-conferring with counsel?
6 MR. GUILD: I would like to reflect the witness's answer 7 to the question without being prompted by Mr. Gibson.
8 MR. GIBSON: I resent the implication there is a prompting .
9 I am conferring with the witness as I deem it necessary and 10 he deems it necessary. He asked to confer with me, and we 11 will do that whenever necessary.
12 MR. GUILD: I ask that the witness not confer with you.
13 MR. GIBSON: In spite of what you are asking, I am instruct-14 ing you as to how we are going to do that.
15 MR. GUILD: I would like to reflect the counsel 16 instructing the witness how to answer that question.
17 MR. GIBSON: I instructed the witness to go ahead and axplain ,
18 his answer and to reveal what he is asking about on this deposition 19 record..
20 MR. GUILD: I renew my request that the witness not confer 21 with counsel or that the counsel not instruct the witness as 22 to his answers to questions.
23 MR. GIBSON: Counsel has not instructed the witness as 24 to answers to questions. Counsel has provided counsel to the 25 witness as is the role of counsel, Mr. Guild. Go ahead Mr. Hancy.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvlCE. CHARLOTTE, NORTM CAROUNA
m 1 A Yes, at the time of 'his t document, those nine documents 2 mentioned here were the ones that were responsive to this 3 item. The question I had was the statement "D'o not represent 4 this list as now complete." of course that is the phrase that 5 was put in the legal document that was filed with the board.
6 I just want to make it clear that I am talking about the docu-7 ments we have here at this point in time are the ones that we 8 had coordinated those responses and given to our legal department. ,
9 4 All right, sir. Now, that response is dated the 31st of to December 1982. Do you represent, sir, that those are all of 11 the documents known to you that were responsive to that inter--
12 rogatory as of that date?
13 A I represent that these are the documents that I had given 14 to legal. Now, I do not represent that there may have been is some other actions ongoing before the board as to whether some 16 things were in or out, and I don't recall those dates.
17 g Do you understand the question as asked, sir? I will i
18 repeat it.
19 A I understand the question.
20 And is your answer that those are all of the documents known 0
21 I am not asking you to guess what to you, sir, at the time?
22 I want to know what you knew, someone else may have'known.
23 Are those as best you can recall, as of the 31st of December.
~ 24 all of the documents you knew of at that time that were responsive 25 to that request?
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAmobiMA
-_ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ , , _ _ , . . .,,_m--- ..._ - , _ _ . -
1 A Yes.
~
2 G All right, sir. I am going to show you another document 3 and this is applicant's February 28th response, and at page 14
- 4 I show you paragraph number 6.. Does that reflect, Mr. Henry.
l 5 - you recognize that document, don't you? You have already 6 identified it, I believe.
l 7 A Yes.
l 8 G Paragraph number 6, doesn't that indicate that you 9 participated 'in a meeting on the 7th in response to Contention 10 6 in April of 19827 11 A Yes.
12 0 Did you participate in a meeting in April of 19827 13 A To the best of my recollection, yes.
14 0 All right, sir. What was the subject of that tr.eeting? -
-l 15 MR. GIBSON: bbjection, aitd instruct him not to answer. ~
16 Mr. Guild, I think from what is" Indicated. there, that iras a
- 17 meeting, a description of a meeting as/ indicated them afd' '
_. ,.~ ,
18 I instruct him not to answer any further than is indicsted in '
.'; i 19 answers to interrogatoriais. ,
.. i
_ , a 20 MR. GUILD: Mr. dibson, you put me in a difficult'positior .,
21 sir, and believe your instruction is inuproper and considerably 22 overbroad. You have exertei an objection on the basis of 23 privilege to' producing documents that are identifie?.'in the
'~
24 document that I have referrad;to. I su not asking him to pro-
~
25 duce those documents.- I am asking him to describe to the best EVELYN SERGER Adt.MlaiR5. STENOTYPE REPORTING $ERMCE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CARouMA
---_..l-_ ,,_._.-_._f____-.. e,._.__., ._1
I of his knowledge what had happened at a meeting. Now, are you 2
asserting an attorney-client privilege -
3 MR. GIBSONS. I am asserting a.n attorney-client privilege.
4 I am not changing that position. You may ask another question, 5
Mr. Guild.
6 MR. GUILD: Are you instructing him not to answer?
7 MR. GIBSON: The answer to that question appears in those 8
answers to interrogatories.
9 MR. GUILD: No, it does not. You can't presume what'the 10 witness's answer is, sir.
11 MR. GIBSON: I am instructing him not to answer any further 12 than is indicated in those responses. If you have another ,
13 question, Mr. Guild, ask the witness.
14 CL Did you discuss producing documents or the process for
- 3 producing documents responsive to interrogatories 25 and 16 23 on Contention 6 on or about the time indicated in this 17 document, that is, in April, approximately April 23rd, 1982, 18 Mr. Henry?
19 MR. GIBSON: Objection, instruct him not to answer. You 20 may ask Mr. Henry what he' did in terms of his coordinating 2I role to produce documents for Palmetto Alliance.
22 MR. GUILD: I would like the question answered as asked, 3
C ounsel. Are you instructing him not to answer?
MR. GIBSON: As I say, he is not answering that question.
25 I have indicated to you the kinds of questions you may ask him.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvM"E. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAmouNA
- - , - - . . , , , . . . . , , - , , - , - - . - .~, .. - - ....- ----..- .,-,., __ - - -- -.
,. 1 MR. GUILD: I am making a list here, Counsel --
2 MR. GIBSON: That is your prerogative. Ask another 3 question.
4 G What did you do at the April 23rd meeting with respecti 1
5 to reviewing documents or preparing to identify documents 6 responsive to interrogatories 23 and 25?
7 MR. GIBSON: Objection. Instruct him not to answer. You 8 may get similar information or perhaps the same information 9 by asking him what he has done in his role. I will not have him to discuss meetings involving counsel where legal strategy was 11 discussed,,and I have instructed him not to answer. Now, do 12 you have another question, Mr. Guild?
13 MR. GUILD: Mr. Gibson, I am going to try very hard, but 3 14 think your objections are misplaced and thwart substantially 15 my efforts to obtain relevant information from this witness.
16 MR. GIBSON: That is to be determined by the board. Ask 17 another question.
I 18 G Recognize your lawyer's instructions to you, sir, which 19 I contest. What did you do, Mr. Henry, you, sir, independent 20 of any consultation with your lawyer, what did you do with I
l l 21 respect to identifying documents responsive to Contention 6, l 22 interrogatories 23 and 25 on or about the date indicated?
l 23 MR. GIBSON: I am going to confer with the witness, and 24 you are free to let the record reflect that, Mr. Guild.
25 (The witness conferred with his attorney.)
EVELTN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
. 4 1
MR. GIBSON: He is prepared to answer.
2 MR. GUILD: Did you instruct the witness as to his answeri 1
3 MR. GIBSON: I advised my client as to how he might answer 4
that question consistent with attorney-client privilege. You 5 may answer, Mr. Henry.
6 A Would you restate the question?
7 S No, sir, I won't restate the question. You have consulted 8
your lawyer, he has instructed you how to answer the question, 9
sir, you clearly had an opportunity to discuss exactly pur 10 answer, and I am not going to go through a charade of repeating .
11 MR. GIBSON: Are you going to argue with the witness?
12
, MR. GUILD No, sir, I am asking the witness to respond 13 as asked.
14 MR. GIBSON: Would you repeat the question?
15 MR. GUILD: Would the reporter read the question back, 16 please?
17 (Thereupon, the pending question was read back by the 18 court reporter.)
19 4 Do you need the document to respond to the question, sir?
20 A Yes.
21 MR. GUILD: The record should reflect I am showing the 22 witness the February 28th response.
23 A To the best of my recollection, that April date that is
" 24 mentioned there, what we did was discuss the areas of l
25 responsibility, those areas that would be in my crimary concern .
EvELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAmouMA
I those areas that would be in the quality assurance area and l
l 2 therefore require us to perform s>me role in being responsive 3 to whatever questions legal might ask.
I 4 S Yes.
I i
, 5 A And you asked about documents. To the best of my l
l 6 recollection, we discussed no discovery or production of 7 documents at that meeting.
l 8 4 All right, sir. .
When did you first discuss your role in
, 9 identifying and producing documents responsive to those 1
l 10 interrogatories on Contention 67 l 11 A I don't recall.
12 O When approximately, to the best of your recollection?
~
13 A I can't recall a date.
14 g All right, sir.
15 A But it would have been in response to when legal said l
16 the time has now come to produce the documents. I would imagine 17 that's available sosewhere in the record. I don't recall the 18 date.
l 19 4 That record has not been made available to me, sir, so 20 I am trying to get the information from you. Now, to refresh 21 your recollection, the best I can, sir, you received, or 22 the company received our interrogatories on Contention 6 on 23 or about April 20th, 19827 24 A No argument.
25 Do you agree with that?
O EVELYN SENGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
- 1. A I don't recall the date.
i -
2 O I am going to show you company's first response, which l 3 is dated December 31st, and does that not reflect that those 1
4 questions were filed on April 20th,1982, those interrogatoriasi?
5 A Yes.
6 4 And then you met on the 23rd of April to discuss in part 7 your response to those interrogatories, yes?
8 A I don't recall. I have given you what I recall about 9 the April 23rd, '82, meeting, and-I don't recall anything else 10 about the meeting.
11 G All right, sir, but you did meet on April 23rd, didn't 12 you? I am trying to pick up the trail here.
~
i 13 A Again, that date is only familiar to me by what you just 14 showed me but I am assuming that is correct, and we met on 15 the 23rd. ,
16 And you didn't respond until the December 31st document, S
17 correct? This is your response to the interrogatories with 18 regard to Contention 6?
19 A Your question, we didn't respond until then, if that's l
29 the first response, yes, but I don't know those dates.
21 g Well, I ask you to accept that, sir, that this is the 22 pleading, and this is your first response, and you don't 23 know to the contrary, do you, and if you do, please correct 24 me, and I believe -
25 A I don't know that to be correct or incorrect.
EVELYN .tRGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTrNG SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAmouNA
1 0 All right, sir. If you will accept, sir, that December 2 31st is the document and wherein the company responded,and in l
3 thatresponseyousaidyouhaveenlyidentibiedninedocuments.
4 I want 'to understand, sir, what you did between April and 5 December to identify documents, if anything, and why did it tak e t
t e you those months to identify ~nine documents, sir, if you know?
7 MR. GIBSON: I think he has answered that question.
8 G can you answer the question, sir?
9 A I don't think so any better than I already have.
10 % When did you begin attempting to identify documents that 11 led to the identity of nine documents in December?
12 A I think I already answered that too. I don't recall.
13 0 You don't remember?
14 A I don't ramamher.
15 G Do you have your files with you, sir?
16 A No.
17 MR. GIBSON: We will cross that bridge, Mr. Guild, and i
18 our response is the same.
l 19 MR. GUILD It may be, sir, but let me ash the question.
l 20 It's my deposition.
21 4 Would consultation with your files refresh your recollection 22 as to when you did what with respect to identifying documents, 23 sir?
- 24 A It possibly could.
25 G Would you refer to your files? Do whatever you need to EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTN CAROUNA e
. - - - _ _ _ _,. ..,_-.-_v. - , - . , , , - , _ _ , , . , _ _ _ , . _ - , . , . . . _ . _.._n-,-, _ _ - . - , , . - , - . , . _ , ,
s e
- 1 do to refresh your recollection so I can get responsive answers ;
2 to my deposition questions.
3 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, we are not going to refer to any 4 other files. I am suggesting you put that on the list of 5 matters to take up with the board. If you have' another questien 6 of Mr. Henry, feel free to ask him.
7 MR. GUILD: You decline to honor my request that Mr. Henry 8 consult his records to refresh his recollection as to when he 9 identified documents?
10 MR. GIBSON: Yes, I do. If you have another question, 11 ask him.
12 4 Do you maintain a calendar or a diary that reflects 13 the work that you performed for Duke Power Company, sir?
14 L' No.
15 O Do you maintain any other notes or memoranda' reflecting 16 dates, responsibilities, due dates or work performed for 17 Duke Power Company?
18 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, how is that involved with quality 19 control and quality assurance in welding at Catawba, would you 20 please state for the record?
l 21 MR. GUILL: I intend to subpoena this man's file documents ,
22 Mr. Gibson, either for pirposes of pursuing discovery in this 23 case or at the hearing in this case on the question of whether
- 24 or not documents responsive to our discovery request with 25 respect to quality assurance and welding at Catawba have in fact EvtLym .ERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvlCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
d 1
been produced, sir. Now, I wish to establish on this record 2 at this deposition, sir, as permitted in the discovery rules 3 of C.ommission Rules of Practice the identity, nature, custody 4 and location of documents which I have notified you I. intend 5 to seek production of, and I ask the witness to respond to the G question.
7 HR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, it appears to me that consistent 8 with the Commission Rules of Practice, the board has placed 9 certain limitations on the scope of this deposition, and we 10 sat here and I think allowed you to spend a lot of time beyond 11 that scope without objecting. I am going to instruct him 12 to answer to the extent he maintains any records so that 13 you will have that identification and then we will move on to 14 another subject because we are not going to allow any more 15 questions about that.
16 l MR. GUILD: Sir, you just instruct your witness as you 17 choose, and,Mr. Gibson, we will seek what relief we need to.
18 MR. GIBSON: That is my understanding of what we are going 19 to do 50 let's proceed with the deposition.
20 MR. GUILD: I intend to ask the questions that I intend 21 to ask.
22 MR. GIBSON: I intend to advise him how to answer on which 23 ones he has answered.
24 You have been dcing it consistently and the MR. GUILD:
25 record should reflect it.
EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING STRvtCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
1 1 MR. GIBSON: He is my client. Ask another question.
2 MR. GUILD: I would like the question answered pending.
3 A I am sorry, I will have to have that one read then.
4 MR. GIBSON: Are you asking him if he maintains a calendar?
5 MR. GUILD: Please don't interrupt again.
6 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, I indicated to you earlier --
7 MR. GUILD: We are simply going to have to have the question 8 read one more time. If the witness is inc%.ible of answering 9 the question, he should so state, but I want the question the 10 way as'ted for the second time.
11 MR. GIBSON: I will just have to repeat to you I am not 12 going to have the witness answer a question that I don't 13 understand, and I am simply trying to clarify it for myself and 14 his sake. I understand you object to that, but absent some 15 indication from the board that my conduct in this area is impreper , -
16 I am still going to proceed this way.
l l
17 MR. GUILD: Counsel, if I had an opportunity to seek a 1
18 ruling from the chairman of the board now, I would do so, and I 19 would have done so an hour ago.
20 MR. GIBSON: You don't have to pound on the table. I s
21 hear you.
22 MR. GUILD: Counsel, you know well the board chairman 23 is untvailable. Then is no presiding officer who can rule on l ~.
' 24 any matters pending between us, sir, and I am therefore 25 completely powerless to seek any remedy against your behavior, l
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
., .-- -, -.-- - - . , . . - - , - . . ,----------,.,.,_ , ,,. , n ., - - ,-..- ---- _ , -. ---....- ,,- ,_,-- -
s s 1 sir.
2 MR. GIBSON: Do you maintain a calendar of any sort?
3 A Yes.
4 MR. GIBSON: Okay. Ask another question, Mr. Guild.
5 0' Where is that calendar, sir?
6 A The calendar is in my office.
7 g And how far back does that calendar go, sir?
8 A That calendar starts December 1982 9 0 What notations did you make on that calendar?
10 MR. GIBSON: I am going to instruct him not to answer any 11 further. He has identified the calendar. If you have other 12 questions, move on.
13 G I want to know what information is contained in that 14 calendar so I can seek specifically the information of document;s
(
15 that I intend to require production of.
16 MR. GIBSON: I think we are beyond the scope. I am I 17 instructing him not to answer. Move on to something else.
18 MR. GUILD: The question is pending. Are you instructing 19 him not to answer?
l l 20 MR. GIBSON: I am instructing him not to answer, Ask 21 another question.
'22 G Does that calendar reflect work performed for Duke Power 23 Company with respect to your responsibilities in responding
' 24 l
to the discovery request by Palmetto Alliance, sir?
o.5 MR. GIBSON: You may answer.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
-49 1 A Only as regards if it had stated on there a meeting or a 2 time of certain people to be with, the normal things one would 3 keep on a calendar.
4 G Would those normal. things one would' keep on a calendar 5 in this case include such things, for example, a date when 6 you are required to have completed a search for documents or 7 made aninquiry or produced documents for legal in response to i 8 a Palmetto Alliance request?
9 A No.
10 G If you had a meeting where you were to discuss the 11 results of a review of documents, would that meeting be 12 indicated on that calendar?
13 A In most cases, yes.
14 G If you had a meeting in which you were to meet with 15 personnel to review documents, would that meeting be indicated 16 on that calendar?
17 A In most cases, yes.
18 G Mr. Henry, I am going to instruct you, sir, to maintain 19 the integrity of that calendar, to destroy --
20 MR. GIBSON: You are asking him, as I understand it, isn't 21 that correct, Mr. Guild?
22 MR. GUILD: I ara going to instruct him.
23 MR. GIBSON: You are asking him, aren't you, Mr. Guild?
o- 24 I'am putting you on notice, sir, that I intend to seek G
25 production of those documents. Do you understand, sir?
EVELYN SEnGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
1 MR. GIBSON: He is not going to respond until we are 2 straight on what you are asking him, Mr. Guild.
3 MR. GUILD: Do you understand, Counsel?
MR. GIBSON: I am asking you a question. Are you requestiag 4
5 that he to the best of his atd.lity maintain his calendar until 6 this proceeding is over?
7 MR. GUILD: That's correct.
8 O Do you understand that, sir?
9 A Yes.
10 0 Will you do that?
11 A I will do that.
O For the record, Mr. Henry, can you tell me to the best of 12
. ~.
33 your secollection when the nine documents that are listed in you r g company's December 31st response were identified?
A No, I can't give you anything other than before the day 15 o a ocument. I reaHy can't say when day were MenMed .
16 0 All right, sir. Page 41 reflects the following: " Applicants g
,g are continuing their search to determine whethsr there are 7g additional documents." Were you in part responsible for that search?
20 L Y"'
21
\
g What was your responsibility?
g A My responsibility was as stated before, in carrying out this role of legal, identify the needs or for whatever reason r documents that we2e thought to be held by QA, we needed to search EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
..._.,__.____-.________...__.___.___,__.-_--.____,_.._-,_-,,_..m , _ , , _ , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ , .
^
t I for them. I was the principal contact and the coordinator 2 to try to obtain those documents.
3 0 All right, sir. This document, this December 31st answer 4 reflects that a search was continuing, isn't that correct?
5 A Yes.
6 0 Was them a search under way at that time? Is that a true 7 statement?
8 A Yes.
9 0 All right, sir. And you were in part responsible for 10 the search that was then pending, is that correct, sir?
11 A Yes.
12 0 What did you do?
13 A I can't recall specifically what I did or all I did but i
14 it was in that role as a coordinator in being responsive to i
15 what our legal staff needed.
16 0 All right, sir. What were your instructions with respect 17 to the scope of the search?
i 18 A To be responsive to the questions that were asked and the 19 documents that pertained to them, j 20 0 And you had those questions available to you?
l l 21 A Yes.
22 0 And you knew what interrogatories 23 and 25 or the other 23 interrogatories on Contention 67 i
I s 24 A Yes.
25 0 All right, sir.
EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
- o I MR. JOHNSON: I don't understand something. You are 2 asking him to clarify whathe did at a time that is removed by 3
many months. It seems to me that the question is not what he 4 knew and what he was doing then because as far as the board 5 has ruled', they have already given you the benefit of the doubt 6 and said that certain documents were given to you at some later 7 date, so the question now should be, shouldn't it, what document;s 8 does he have that he hasn't produced rather than the timing 9 of the production? I just don't see the point of discussing 10 this particular facet of the question because you have already 11 gotten the board to agree with you that some of these documents l
12 weren't produced as soon as you would have liked. Do you l
l 13 follow the drift of what I am getting at?
14 MR. GUILD: I hear you, Mr. Johnson, but I don't think 15 you are being very helpful. Finish your comments, if you would.
16 MR. JOHNSON: Well, my comments simply is that the line l 17 of questioning, I think the board has already ruled in your l 18 favor on the question of whether all of the documents that you 19 are seeking were produced at this time that we are talking 20 about, and given you more time, as a result, to take depositior s 21 and pursuing how - ,what he looked at at that time is a questic n 22 that the board has already decided indirectly that you are 23 entitled to certain additional discovery and now is the time J 24 to get that discovery, not to go over this issue that has 25 already been decided, that's all.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE, CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
i
\
l 1
0 Mr. Henry, did you cause a written request or an oral 2 request to be made to persons in order that the search referred 3 to in.this for documents might be effected?
4 A Yes.
5 g would that request on your part have been at a time as 6 indicated -- as suggested in this document, the December 31st 7 response, before this response was written? Do you follow me, 8 sir?
9 A I follow you but I can't recall.
10 0 All right, sir. And again you have copies of any memos 11 that you would have transmitted to others in order to effect 12 that search. If you wrote a memo to somebody in QC at Catawba
~
13 and said let's look for, please search your files for X, that 14 memo would be in your file, is that correct, sir?
15 A It should be.
16 0 And you may have written such a memo, is that a fair 17 statement?
18 A Yes.
19 0 All right, sir. Now, I want to show you the company's, 20 again the February 28th response, and direct your attention to 21 page 29, and this is again with respect to interrogatories 23 22 and 25. Read for the record, if you would, sir, the'first 23 paragraph of the text of the answer.
l
, 5 24 A The following documents relate to, one, disagreements, 25 differences of opinion between quality assurance inspectors EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROLINA
I and their'own superviscrs and their management within the scope 2 of interrogatory 23 which have not been resolved between the 3 supervisor and the inspector; and, two, to complaints or 4 suggestions by workers within the scope of interrogatory number 5 25 known by Duke Power Company management.
6 All right, sir. The key' phrases that I want to ask you 0
7 about, sir, are, first, the phrase that says, "which have not 8 been resolved as between the supervisor and the inspector."
9 What does that phrase mean to you, sir, and what is the .. a:
10 significance of it and in light of the search for documents that 11 you were then performing, please, as you know it?
12 A What that means to me is if there is a document that would 13 show that there was a difference of opinibn at some point 14 in time between an inspector and a supervisor but subsequent 15 information on that document or some other related document 16 resolved that concern or difference of opinion, then no 17 difference of opinion existed.
IS O Yes, sir, and therefore no document reflective only of that 19 dispute between the inspector and supervisor was identified 20 or produced?
21 A I can't say that no document that meets my interpretation 22 of that was not produced. I don't know that.
23 0 What I want to understand is what you do knew, Mr. Henry, j 24 and what is the significance of that phrase with respect to 25 any limits that were on the review or identity or search, as EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAmouMA
1 you know it, sir, and as you performed.
2 A The limitation to me is that if there was a question on 3 these documents that might indicate that it was a dispute or a 4 difference of opinion, but then it wais within that document or 5 related document shown not to be that way, then it was resolved ,
6 it was a matter of that record and that document standing on its 7 own, so it did not reflect that dispute, difference of opinion.
8 0 All right, sir. And at that point in time, again the 9 point in time when the February 28th responses were served, had to you in fact identified documents reflecting disputes that were 11 resolved between inspectors and supervisors?
12 A I have not.
13 0 To your knowledge, had anyone with the Duke Power Company?
14 A To my knowledge, no.
15 G Now, why was that limiting phrase ' Employed either in the 16 search or the response," if you. knew, or in the instructions tc 17 you or from you to others regarding the search for documents 18 under those interrogatories?
19 A I don't know.
20 0 Who was responsible for that portion of the response, if 21 you know?
22 A I don't know.
l l 23 0 It was not you?
I l
._ / 24 A You are talking about specifically the words whers you 25 started a question, "which have not been resolved'.?-
EVELYN EERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA l
1 O Yes, that's correct. -
2 A I was not responsible for that wording.
3 0 And you don't know who was?
4 A. No.
5 0 Would it have been Mr. Grier or Mr. Davison?
6 A To my knowledge, no.
7 G Would it have b2en someone in the legal department?
8 A Not to my direct knowledge, but I would say yes.
9 S Were you a participant in any discussions with respect to to the use of that phrase and response?
11 A Not that I recall.
12 O What I want to understand, Mr. Henry, and if I am missing 13 the point, please try to break it out for me, but it seems one 14 could draw from that answer that when you sat down, you said 15 how are we going to identify these documents, that you might 16 have figured well, there is a class of documents that we don't 17 think is really important or we don't think is really to the
! 18 point or we don't think is rea.uy responsive, and it's described 19 by that phrase, all right, sir, and therefore we are going to 20 presume that that's not something we are going to produce, and l
21 we are going to tell them that that's not what we are producing ,
(
22 Now, if that's the fair kind of shorthand for what went an, 23 you know, I would like for you to confirm that. If I am just
,) 24 off base or my presumption is not correct, tell me that, but l 25 you get the drift of what I am trying to get you to tell me about EVELYN EERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTTPE REPOfr71MG SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA l
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . - ~ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _
t 1 it?
2 A I think so but let me talk to Mr. Gibson a second.
3 0 Please do.
4 (The witness conferred with his attorney.)
5 A I guess that didn't help a whole lot. I don't know how 6 to answer your characterization of what we may have done with 7 it. I am telling you what I did with it, and to my knowledge 8 it was not a statement I used in collecting documents, and to the 9 best of my recollection had no documents that anyone reported 10 to be a dispute or disagreement and that I judged, no, it's 11 resolved, therefore don't turn it in if that's what you are 12 after.
13 0 Yes, sir. Let me put it this way. Let me represent 14 this now.
15 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, I have some trouble with your 16 r8 Presenting certain assumptions and if you could possibly 17 ask questions, it might save me from interrupting you unnecessarily l gg MR. GUILD: Let me try this, Counsel. What Mr. Henry's 19 es ny is gdng to look Me amer you have inshuded Mm 20 and conferred with him repeatedly, I don't know, but I am going 21 to try to see if I can put this in front of him and you, and you
~
22 can do whatever you want to with it, but I want to try to get l
, ,, some truth and some information.
s] 34 0 I represent to you, sir, and I am going to ask you a g series of questions following, but I represent to you, sir, EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERylCE. CMARLOTTE, NORTH CAmouMA
' ~
I that after that February 28th responne was served,,I
~
2 conferred with your counse:1, and I said, to paraphrase. now, 3 our Contention 6 says that because of pressure brought to bear 4 by management, inspectors approve faulty. workmanship, and so 5 when I read that limiting phrase, the phrase that says "Not 6 resolved as between the inspector and supervision," it occurred 7 to me that that goes to the heart of our concern, that there g were disputes that never got beyond that supervision because 9 the supervision applied pressure on the inspectors to not carry to their disputes further. That's what I said in paraphrase 11 to your counsel, and in paraphrasing their response, they said, 12 "Oh, well, that's a good point. We will look further and 13 conduct a further search to see if there are documents that go 14 beyond that limiting phrase," and they did, or at least they is represented to me that they did, and there was more information o c ng.
16 All right, sir. Now, that representation having been made, 17 sir, what I want to understand, and why I am trying to direct 18 g
these questions to you, sir, I want to know who did that search ,
sir, and what that search looked like and what you found, and 20 I have understood in part from your answers that you were 21 Partially responsible for the search that was performed. First 22
! g3 of all, were you in fact partially responsible for the search that was performed?
24 l g A Yes.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
~ . --- - _ ~ _ - _ .- _ . , , -_ _-_,-_--,,.
'l G And did your counsel or management or somebody come to you 2 and say, in effect, Mr. Henry, let's look,for documents that ,
3 f'all within that limiting phrase, reflecting disputes that may 4 have been resolved between the inspector and the supervisor, 5 and someone asked you to conduct that. search?
6 A I don't recall a search where those specific words that 7 you just used were directe1 to me, to go search it in that manner.
g G Anything like that, sir? I am not trying to be too narrow 9 or overly technical about it.
10 MR. GIBSON: What is the time frame you are talking about, 11 Mr. Guild?
12 MR. WILD: Counsel, this is after the February 28th 13 response, very shortly after February 28th. It would have been 14 early March probably.
15 A Of '83?
16 G Yes, sir, of '83. .
17 A I don't recall --
18 G All right,
-- c sel g M ng me e.at ins m d on.
19 0 And you don't recall having that instruction or instructicns 20 21 to that effect from anybody?
^
A Not with the specific points you have mentioned about dis-22 g putes that may have been resolved.
/ G All right, sir.
24 A I am not saying that I was not coordinating any other EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvlCE. CHARLOTTE NGRTM CAROUNA
I responses or answering legal's questions or collecting documents .
2 g All right, sir. If you don't recall -- first of all, you l
3 are not the one, is that what, you are telling me, that conducted 4 that search, if that search were conducted e all? You don't 5 have knowledge of it yourself, is that right? !
6 A Not the way you characterize it.
7 0 Fine. And you are responding to the substance of my g question, I take it, sir, and I am not trying to be overly technical or narrow, 9
in A No, the way you characterise it and that date, no, I was 11 not told to go do that search the way you characterize it.
12 g Are you aware of anybody else who had the responsibility 13 of conducting that search or I will refer to it as that search?
g A No.
g All right, sir.
15
- 16
. eW ave o condnue CW search to Und l
17 that then.
gg MR. GIBSON: Objection. Move to strike the side comments.
1g MR. GUILD: Tell me who is the witness who does know this since we have not had an accurate indication of who supplied 20 these interrogatory responses' .
21 MR. GIBSON: I indicated to you earlier that if you 22 would ask him what he did with respect to searching for documents and without some of these characterizations, you could g
l probably get the information requested.
,,0 EVELYN SE#43ER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERytCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
e o
, i MR. GUILD: I am trying to do that, Counsel.
2 MR. GIBSON: Direct'your questions, Mr. Guild.
3 MR. GUILD: Mr. Grier,.of course, will come after this 4 witness and then we will have Mr. Davison and maybe we can 5 find out, you know, days'from now, who really does.know the 6 answers to these questions. But, Counsel, you would save us 7
all a lot of time, if you know, if you would just supply the
.g information.
9 MR.'GIBSON: Counsel, if you have a question, ask Mr. Henry.
10 MR. WILD: That is a request of counsel, if you know, 11 r if the company can find out who does have this'information.
12 I w uld not hunt the peanut, as you said.
4 13 MR. GIBSON: I will indicate to you that we are making available the people who have knowledge about the search of 14 15 documents. Mr. Henry is one of them. I told you to ask him 16 for documents. You danced around that, but you don't focus g
18 I repeat, ask Mr. Henry about his involvement with the search g
f r documents.
0 O Turn to page 43. Initials appear at the bottom of page l 437 A Right.
O Whose initials?
A G.H.D.,.D.A.~and M.L.C. .
EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES, STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROLINA
8 e a
, 1 g What are your initials?
2 A W.O.H.
3 0 Your initials don't. appear there, do they?
4 A No.
5 0 You did participate in responding to those interrogatories ,
6 didn't you, 23 and 257 7 A Yes.
8 0 Why aren't your initials there, sir?
9 A It's my understanding that those initials there would be 10 an hdividual that our legal staff could refer to as having 11 collected the information and gotten it over to them, therefore 12 somebody to go back to and these people would not necessarily 13 and in all likelihood would not have actually prepared the 14 answers.
j 15 g They didn't answer those questions?
16 A Well, I don't know who D.A. and M.L.C. are.
l 17 0 You don't know?
18 A No.
19 0 You don'thnow who D.A. and M.L.C. are?
l l
20 A I say no.
21 g All right, sir. A man named Childress works for the company?
22 A Yes.
23 0 What is his full name?
! ,' 24 A Mike.
25 g L. Childress?
l l
l l EvELvN eERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA
e a 1 A That's a good assumption. I don't know his middle 2 initial.
3 g What is his job, sir?
4 A He works in design engineering.
5 g was Mr. Childross involved in some form or fashion in 6 Preparing the responses to those interrogatories, if you know?
7 A I know he would have been involved again in a coordinating 3
role. I am not taking exception to your word " preparing,"
g but just to make it clear again, I know he would have been 10 involved in helping assemble these answers and documents.
11 g Is there a David Abernathy who works for the company?
12 A Yes.
13 g Who is Mr. Abernathy?
A He works in construction.
14 g What does he do, if you know?
15 16 e s n de personnel area of coMncdon.
g Did idr. Abernathy participate in preparing responses to 17
- 9 "'
18 l
g A Some, yes.
0 All right, sir. Would that he D.A. and M.L.C.?
20 A That is probably true.
O Anybody else participate that I haven't guessed yet, that you know of, that you haven't identified yet?
A You are identifying these, sir?
.. 24 O Anybody else, you know, sir?
.v.tva .. .a ...ociar... .r.aom. a manno =vice. cana'orr.. aoara caaouaa
1
, e A Yes, W.O.H. participated.
2 4 That's you.
3 A That's me.
4 S Anybody else you know of? We have talked about Mr. Grier, 5
We have talked about Mr. Davison, and now we have talked about 6
Mr. Childress and Mr. Abernathy and yourself. Anybody else you want to talk about?
8 L Mr. Gibson and Mr. Carr.
S That's-it?
10 L I could read it and probably give you others that 11 participated in it. ,
12 4 Please do. Please give me as complete a list as you can, 13 sir, because I would like to get down and to know who did what.
14 A Okay. I have given you Mr. Grier, Mr. Davison, Mr.
15 Alexander, myself, Glenn Bell, and our' legal folks you have 16 identified, and I have agreed that this is probably David 17 Abernathy and Mike Childress, and it is entirely possible that 18 the staffs of several of those people may have helped them in 19
. collecting those documents.
2U S Who would those be?
2I A Those would be any number of people who may work for Mr.
22 Davison or Mr. Grier or Mr. Abernathy and I don't know all iof 23 those people.
24 S All I want to know - all I am asking from you, Mr. Henry, 20 is who you know, what you know. I don't want you to quess.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvlCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
1 I don't want you to speculate. I want you to tell me who you 2 know. And if you know, just be candid and t' ell me. Please 3 don't hold anything back that you do know.
4 A I am not holding anything back. I know a lot of people i 5 who work. for the company. It's my understanding ~that it was 6 legal's responsibility to put together these answers to be j 7 - as responsive as possible, and they used the resources and people 1
8 whose jobs were involved with these areas, and that could be 9 a large number of people.
10 g I want to know who you know of, if you know of anybody .
11 other than the people I have identified so far.
12 A I have given you the people I know of.
13 G Allright, sir, completely *[
14 A No, I did not say that.
l 15 0 Then do that. Give it to me completely, the people you l
16 n w of, sir.
17 MR. GIBSON: Is the hangup you are trying to get some other names that he is describing where they might be? Just 18 19 trying to interpret what might be the hangup.
MR. GUILD: I really don't know, Counsel. I certainly 20 don't presume what is in the witness's head.
23 A I can tell you what is in my head. Every one of those 22 l 23 guys, if he wrote anything, has a secretary working for him.
k- O Right.
24
! 25 A And I guess it's your job to ask the questions, but I EVELYN SENGER ASSOCIATES STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NONTM CAROUNA t
--~,-g ..w,.-,-,....,--,.n-,, _,..--,r-.-- ,,,,--,m, , , , - - , - - . - . - _ _ , - - - - - . ----,
t O O
'? -66 .
s 1 don't understand how many people you would want me tio' answer 2 who have touched or seen some or a portion of this document.
3 g Well, I guess I will put it this way, Mr.'Hanry. My problem 4 is', I don't think that I have gotten= i a truthful and complate 5 answer to who participated in responding to those interrogatorie s , ':
6 either on the face of them or through your testi$ ny until new, 7 sir, because you ney identified 'two more people rho had wrs 8 than ' insubstantial responsibilities sin.co their initials 9 appear on the document and,yours don't. Now, at the risk of to providing another loophole to drive through, sir,'I don't want
~
11 to know about clerical people who ans.fer dose interrogatories, 12 Although you are not a clerical person and you provided sub-13 stantive information or did substantive work in responss and your 14 name isn't anywhere indicated in there, but I want' to know about 15 the people who made substantive contributions to the process of l
16 responding, sir. If there are any others, I want te know them.
17 A. I will ar.swer that I know of no other people ~than tre ones ,
18 I have already mentioned who made substantive input to these 19 responsus.
. 'l 20 0 All richt, sir. Let me just make this a continuing 21 request, Mr. Henry. If anything occurs to you, any other names 22 come to mind,xsir, that fall within that description in the 23 course of the remainder of this deposition, planse supply them,
-- 24 okay?
25 A. I will.t2y.
evetva menon= associates. srs=obes menonvino se=vice. ematorre. nonrw c4=tv.2*a
-. - -. - _ - - - . - - . . - _ _ - _ - _ . _ , - - . - . - - - , ~ - _ . _- - -
. . - _ . _ = _ - . _ - - - - . - -. - _ _
' 1 0 Now, finally, sir, on the third go-round we have a March 2
25th response. Page 22 of that document is a follow-up 3
'interrogatory number 9, the company's response to it, Did you 4
participate in preparing the response as indicated there, sir? 1 5
A y,,,
0 0 What was the nature of your participation, sir?
7 A My participation was again as being the coordinator and 8
the collector of the documents that were responsive to this and 8
transferring those over to our legal staff.
IO O All right, sir. Now then, first let's start with that, 11 As your lawyer suggested, tell me what you did.
I
, A As I recall, there was a period where we collected the I
information from the consultant who was involved in the welding 14 inspector task force. Of course his report was already on 15 file, and we had to send all of his notes, transfer those over 16 to legal.
i
- I S Did you do that, sir?
18 A Yes, 19 Did you contact Mr. Zwissler?
l 20 l
A Yes.
21 G Did you call him, write him, how did you contact him?
A 'I called Mr. Zwissler and then I followed up that call 23 with a memo telling him to send us those documents, which we s 24 received and turned over.
25 g in Far as wmi Irenw; huum ymi nenAiye=A that mama m n_ A v= = nan ,
ma?
system enneen associates. sTsNOTYPE REPORTING seRvlCE. CMamLOTTE. MORTH CAROLtMa 4
.- ~ -- ,n- - - - - . . , - - - - - - - , - - . - - - - - - - , , - , , , , - - - - -- - ,- r.------ ,,-- , - - , - .
. =
I L As far as I know - my memo?
2 g y,,, ,gg, 3
A As far as I know, no.
4 G What did you ask Mr. Zwissler for?
5 L I asked Mr. Zwissler to send all of his notes pertaining 6
to his involvement of the welding inspector task force, that we were now required to turn that over as part of this hearing 8
proceeding.
8 G All right, sir. What else did you do with respect to respond-10 ing to that interrogatory?
11 A I don't recall any other specific answers.
O All right. Now then, sir, with respect to the initial 13
^
search for documents responsive to interrogatories 23 and 25, tell me what you did.
t 15 l
A As I recollect, I carried out that same role of discussing 16 l with counsel what was being asked for, when he would need it 17 and then going about the search and collecting the documents, l
' 18 either myself or Mr. Bell, and then transmitting those over to 19 l legal.
20 l 0 Did you ever go to the Catawba site?
21 A Yes.
v
~~
G When did you do that?
A I don't recall the dates.
s 24 0 Give me an approximation, your best recollection, Mr. Henrr.
25 Mara than nna neemminn?
EVE 6YN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SSRvlCE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROLINA
- o
' I A Yes.
2 0 For what purpose?
3 A Well, my job carries me ther.e pretty often anyway, but I 4
, assume you are talking about in regards to this discovery from 5 the previous line of questions. -
6 Yes, sir.
0 7 A Remember, the occasion where we went with our legal 8
representatives to go request documents from-any QA personnel 9
that might reflect disputes or differences of opinion, dis-10 agreements.
II O Now, approximately March of this year did you do that?
12 l A That would be a good guess but I really can't recall.
13 0 All right, sir. Describe the circumstances and what 14 happened.
15 A The circumstances were that we - I reserved a rather 16 large conference room and then brought crews of people in II and gave them the information on what we were trying to ,do and i
18 asked them to produce any documents that they had that might 19 reflect these things that the board had direc:ted that we give.
2U They were instructed to whom to give those documents. That 21 person was told.how to copy them and then ultimately to get 22 them on to me, at which point I would get them on to legal.
23 0 First of all, who did you go with to Catawba that time?
u .n A The one occasion I recall, I rode down with Mr. Carr.
25 :
g All right. Who else was with you, or who else was -
EvgLYN SENGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
" 0
-70
~~
f '
participating in the meeting?
2 A Present there was Mr. Carr,.Mr. McCrary, Mr. Grier, and I 3
mentioned tir. Davison,of course his job, Mr. Davison.
4 0 All right, sir. When the crews came in, how did the crews i 5
come in? What crew are you referring to?
6 A I am referring t.o all inspectors and other QA people who 7
might have documents that would be responsive to that request, 8
so except for everybody - everybody there was given a time 9
6.xpected to be there.
10 0 Broken down by craft?
11 A As much as possible, as I recall, it was by crew, but of course some of them would be a couple of crews together.
13 S Do welding inspectors all come in at one time, for example?
14 A To my knowledge, all of them would not have been there at 15 one time.
16 0 A couple of different welding inspector crews come in?
17 A Yes. .
18 0 There are lots of welding inspectors?
19 l A That's a large crew..
1 20 0 How do you break welding inspectors down? Shifts?
21 A _I can't recall. It's possible but, as I recall, very oo unlikely that all of the welding inspectors would have been in
~
l 23 l one crew. Some would have been at one time, another another
-- 24 l time.
n AnA &han al an+e4 cal inspan&nve m& m Afffarant & 4 *na parhaps ?
svrtvu sanoen associatus srsworves aeroarie.a sanwice. cuantorra. Nowrw camouma
I 4
A As I s&id, everybody came in at some point in time, but 2
some electricals could have been at welding, and the request 3
for documents and the presentation was a repeat.
4 O All right, sir. And besides the inspectors, or all of the 5
inspectors, who else attended?
6 l A Well, as I mentioned, everybody in QA. The supervisors are 7
the people there, and for a couple of there sessions Mr. Van Dcorn 8
of the NRC was there.
9 ~
O Anybody else that you recall? Any other NRC people?
10 A No. I don't recall any.
II G Any other Duke people that you can recall?
I A outside of QA, none that I recall.
13 G All right, sir. Who of the QA people?
14 A Mr. Grier, Mr. Carr and Mr. McCrary.
15 G Did they have' prepared remarks?
16 '
A Not that they read, but they had - no, they did not 17 have prepared remarks that they read.
18 G Did they have noted that they read from, to the best of 19 your recollection?
20 A I don't recall seeing any of them using notes, but I 21 can't say that no one had notes.
G Are you aware they prepared notes for this presentation?
23
,, A I am aware that prior to going down, yes, legal had
+
t
-s 24 prepared an outline of the points they felt should be covered.
25 a All ricrh e ; mir. And whme warm *haam nainen? wha & was EvatvN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA
t covered?
2 A To give an overview, explanation, to these people that we 3 were involved in the hearing, that the discovery process was 4 going on, and that one of the points was to state that as 5 a result of this discovery process, the names, addresses and 6 phone numbers of the people were given to the people who had 7 requested them at the direction of the board, and then to 8 state the requirement -
9 G Let me slow you down a second. Who did that part, if it to was one of the people, if you can recall?
11 A I can't recall specifically who made that portion.
12 0 One of the lawyers talking about--the hearing process?
13 A Yes, they did.
14 0 That is either Mr. Carr or Mr. McCrary?
15 A Right.
j 16 G All right, continue. If you just let me know who the 17 speaker is, as best you can recall.
18 A Okay. And then, as I recall at that point, the main purpose 19 of the session then was to request of these people any documents 20 that they had that might reflect disputes or disagreements, and 21 that they were to produce them, and they were given an 22 employee relationship representative -- she was identified as 23 the person they should turn their documents in to. That person
(- 24 would then send them on to me.
i 25 4 Who was that employee relationship representative?
~.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NOMTM CAROUNA e
I '
A Debbie Ensley. I should state Debbie -- I said amployee 2
relationship, but'that is within the QA department. She was 3
in the QA department..
4 S She was.at the Catawba site?
A She was at that time.
6 G Where does she work now?
7 A She works in the general office now.
8 G- In quality assurance?
9 A In quality assurance, correct.
10 0 All right. Who made the part of the presentation concerning 11 the documents? .
A Either Mr. Carr or Mr. McCrary or some combination of 13 the two.
14 g All right, sir. Anything else? What other points were 15 '
presented?
16 A Those were the significant points, all of the points that I recall that we were making at that. presentation.
18 4 What did Mr. Grier have to say?
19 A Mr. Grier basically opened the meeting, and of course is the 20 boss of all of these people, welcomed them there and identified 21 the people that he had brought with him, basically Mr. Carr and 22 Mr. McCrary, and explained that they would then be covering 23
.. the points that I just mentioned.
l _J y~
g All rignt. Were there any questions from the people 25 who were hearing this?
SWFLYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvlCE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
-74 1 A Yes.
- 2 0 What were the questions?
3 A I don't recall all of the questions. I recall a question 4 having to do with do I have to talk to these people, and some 5 questions along that line.
6 0 What was the response to the question?
7 A The response was that you are free to talk to anybody 8 you choose to talk to, but that you do not hava to talk to 9 anybody if you don't want to talk to anybody.
10 0 And who specifically was this reference made to? Who l 11 talked to whom?
12 A "Intervenors" was the term used.
1 13 0 All right. Any other questions you recall?
i 14 A I guess in the same vein it seems that I recall an l
l 15 individual saying do they have the right to come on my property .
16 And the answer, at that point you are a private' citisen, and 17 just conduct yourself as you would when you are with anyone else.
18 0 Did Mr. Van Doorn have anything to say?
19 A No.
'M Q All right, sir. What documents then came your way by way 21 of this process?
22 A The documents that wero produced were those that the 23 individuals who we had talked to who might have felt would
" 24 represent a dispute or disagreement, and, as I. recall, that pro -
25 duced documents from seven or eight people, altogether maybe l
avatvm ennosa associaras. sranorves asconvino suavice. cuantorTu. monrw canotina
1 an inch of documents. -
2 g And'did you review those documents?
3 A Yes'.
4
~
4 What did you do with them after you reviewed them?
5 A I transferred those on to legal.
6 4 Did you transfer all of them on?
7 A Yes.
8 0 And do you know whether those were produced?
9 1 I don't know for sure.
10 0 All right, sir. Have you received any documents since?
11 g y,,,
12 4 What have you done with those?
13 A I have passed those on to legal.
14 4 Have those documents been produced?
I 15 A Have been produced to legal by me.
l l 16 4 Do you know whether they have been produced to Palmetto II Alliance?
18 A I don't know for sure.
I9 G Do you have any understanding whether they have been 90 l
produced or not?
91
~
A So far as I know, they have been available, and they were 22 there, but I don't know. My job was to get them to legal, 93 and I didn't physically copy them from that point. That's 1 -'.
o4
~.. -
what I am saying, I don't know for sure but it's my under-5 standing that, to the best of my knowledce, local took those EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
. - _ - , . . - . . - , , - ,- . _ - - - - . , ._ . . - . _ . , . , _ .. ~ , . , - , - . _ - , - , , , - . - . _ _ - , - , . . . . _ - . _ -
I and represented them as they were, and they were available.
2 '
O Available where?
8 A. Available either in the document room,when it was set 4
up or passed on to Palmetto Alliance or whatever legal was 5
doing with them.
8 G All right, sir. Do you know of any documents that were 7
identified that were not passed on to Palmetto Alliance?
8 A I don't know of r.ny.
9 S Mr. Henry, I am going to show you a six-inch stack of 10 documents that were given to me this morning. Can you identify II those?
I (The witness looks at the documents.)
I A Yourcquestion, can I ident.(fy them, I recognize all of 14 them, and, yes, each one I could identify what it is.
15 4 What are they? I don't mean.for you to go through the 16 entire stack. Can you repre sent what those documents are?
17 Have you seen them before?
i 18 l A Some I have seen before.
19 S Do you know - let me short circuit this. Do you know how 20 they came my way this morning? Did you have anything to do 21 with that?
oo
~~
A Yes.
23 0 Why don't you just tell me about it then?
- 1. .' 24 A I provided the clerk who copied these. Again, I don't ,
! knent all of them. I haven't been throuch all of them, but I EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVfCE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAmouMA
1 provided the clerk to copy the documents very similar to these, 2 and I assume those are the same documents that we copied and 3 gave to legal.
4 % How did those documents come to your attention, sir?
\ 5 i; came to my attention -- I'am trying to remember first.
6 I guess from Mr. Gibson.
7 g Counsel?
8 A Yes. That there were these documents, that I now choose
'9 to copy and get them over to legal and then decide what, if 10 anything, we should do with them.
11 0 They came from legal? .
12 A No, the document did not come,from legal.
13 G They came from Mr. Gibson?
14 A You asked how I learned about them or the situation.
15 g Right.
16 A Mr. Gibson informed me that there were additional 17 documents that we should copy and get them over to him for him 18 to decide whether or not they should be given to you.
19 Tell me what your understanding is as to how those 4
20 documents came to be identified".
21 A My understanding is that these documents were in the l
22 possession of Bill Bradley, and he questioned whether or not they 23 should be copied and made available to legal. And, of course, 24 as I just described, Mr. Gibson said yes,' copy them, and now 25 we have done that and given them to legal.
1 avatvm senaan associares. stenorvre mercarino seavice. cuantorra. nonrw camouma
7 .s . 1 0 Who did Mr. Bradley inform, if you know?
2 A I . don' t know. I heard it from Mr. Gibson, so I would 3 presume that it got to him through some means.
4 % Where does Mr. Bradley work? What is his job?
5 A He works in the quality assurance in the general office 6 here.
7 G All right. What's his job?
8 A He is assistant to the corporate QA manager.
9 0 Mr. Grier?
10 A Mr. Grier, that's correct.
11 All right.
G Is Mr. Bradley the person responsible for -
12 implementation to the recommendation of the welding inspector 13 task force?
14 A He is responsible for seeing that the task force's recommendao 15 tions were implemented, that the assignments were passed out, 16 that some record was kept, that all of the items that were " ..
17 identified in there did get assigned to somebody to carry out 18 the action.
19 Had you ever contacted t. Bradley by word of mouth G
20 or by writing in the context of search for documents? Do you
~
21 know whether he was ever contacted by others?
22 A To answer your first question first, yes, I had contact 23 with him to get a copy of the welding inspector task force docu< -
24 ment that was turned over to legal. As I recall, that was 25 The second question was, would you repeat, verbal to him.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvlCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM *AROUNA
- -- - - ,.---n -
s .
79-1 please.
2 S You got the gist of it. Did you ask Mr. Bradley then or 3 later to identify documents known to him that were responsive 4 to Palmetto Alliance interrogatories?
5 A I did not.
6 O Do you know if anyone ever.did?
7 A I don't know that, no.
8 0 'Do you know if Mr. Bradley identified these documents 9 after he was notified that his deposition was going to be 10 taken in this case?
11 A ,I don't know that.
12 % When did you learn your deposition was going to be taken 13 in this case? The date on the face of it was the 21st of 14 June. It was probably put in the mail on that day.
15 A I knew on Wednesday of last week, which I guess was 16 the 22nd.
17 0 Do you know whether Mr. Bradley identified these documents 18 after that day?
19 A It came to my attention after that date. I don't know 20 that.
21 4 All right, sir. Mr. Henry, what I want to understand, l
22 let's assume this is the process, and I don't know what it is, 23 and if you know otherwise, tell me. Assume that Mr. Bradley f
'- 24 learned first that he might have documents that were relevant l
! 25 to quality control welding at Catawba only after being informed eveu u.a . ...ocarn. .reaorwe aseoama ==av== caam orr= ~oam caaouaa
O 1 that his deposition was going to be taken on that subject and ttat 2 " documents in that connection would be the subject of the deposi. -
3 tion questions. -Let's assume that'Mr. Bradley, since he was not contacted by you beforehand seeking documents, had no other
~
4 5 reason to produce documents that'were in his possession. Might 6 there be others within Duke Power Company who similarly have 7 documents relevant'to welding at Catawba who you missed?
8 MR. GIBSON: Object to the form. He may answer although 9 it' includes some assumptions that are objectionable.
10 A I don't know of anyone else that would have documents 11 that would provide any substantive information or new infor-i , ,
12 mation. '
i- 13
% You say you don't know of any other besides Mr. Bradley i
l 14 now. Why did you miss Mr. Bradley?
l 15 A I don't know why Mr. Bradley was missing.
16 Q Are there other persons in quality assurance who no one 17 has ever asked that would be in a position similar to Mr.
18 Bradley?
1 19 A. No.
20 g Are there other persons in construction who might have knowl-l 21 ' edge who you just never asked?
l 22 A Yes, I have knowledge.
23 O And therefore have documents?
- 24 A It's possible.
25 g Mr. Henry, I want to show you a document and ask you EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
4
' I if you can identify it, sir. Don't worry about the text on 2 Look on the back, if you would, of the second the front.
3 page. Does your signature appear on that page?
4 A Yes.
5 g All right, sir. In what capacity did you have occasion 6
to sign that paper? What were the circumstances?
7 A I signed that in my capacity as a supervisor of the 8 two individuals who had previously signed the document.
9 What position did you hold at that time?
0 10 I was in the same position I am in now.
A
" G All right, sir. That's a nonconforming item report?
s 12 A That's correct.
13 g Ahd'what's the number on it, just so we can be clear?
I4 Twelve thousand five hundred forty-nine.
A I
15 g All right, sir. Is it customary for you to sign off 16 j on NCI's?
17 A Some, yes.
l i 18
- G What kind of circumstances?
I8 A In the circumstances where my people might be performing
/
20 j the evaluation or resolving the NCI.
91 You resolved that NCI, you approved G; All right, sir.
i 22 the resolution of the NCI, in effect?
23 A Yes.
- o4 l
4 Are you a welder by training?
95 A No.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvtCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
1 0 Do you have any expertise in welding?
2 A No. expertise in welding.'
3 O' Do you have any expertise in radiography?
4 A No.
'5' G Any expertise in welding inspection?
6 A Not as an inspector, no.
7 MR. GUILD: Let's mark this as the second one to the Henry 8
deposition. '
9 (Thereupon, deposition exhibit 10 number 2 was received and marked for identification.)
11 G Mr. Henry, how long have you been in your present positior ,
12 sir?
13 L Since February of '81.
14 4 What did you do before that?
15 A Before that I was the QA manager construction, and that 16 was from the period of January '80 to February of '81.
II 4 Who holds that position now?
18 A The position similar to that is held by Larry Davison, 19 though it is substantially changed because of reorganization.
20 0 Okay. Tell me how it has changed. Help me to understand 21 what the roles are.
22 L The major change would be the change that was made in 23 February of '81, when quality control inspectors and their
- 24 supervision, who had previously been'in the construction 05 department, were transferred to cuality assurance depar+= ant-EVELYN SERGER ASSOctATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROLlNA
3 1 g Did you have responsibility for supervising quality 2 control when you held the position of quality assurance manager 3 construction?
4 A No, not supervising people in quality control.
5 G Explain to me, Mr. Henry, wh'ta change took place in 6 February of 881 with respect to this reorganization and why the 7 thange was effected.
8 A As I mentioned, the major change was bringing over the 9 people, primarily inspectors who had been in the construction 10 department, to the quality assurance department, and that 11 basically necessitated two moves to accommodate that -- one, 12 the establishment of a personnel division because of the .
13 large numbers of people there; and then the other, the senior ,
14 QA individuals or the projects QA organization, as we now 15 call what had been construction, was a much larger division.
16 So again mostly numbers as far as moving people and the 17 admission of large numbers of people or the additional l
' 18 responsibility ot' QA when it had not been the case in those 19 numbers before.
l 20 0 I guess I missed your second point. The first point 21 was there established a personnel division because there was a 22 large influx' of new people, the inspectors, l
l 93 A Right.
l 1
- 24 And the second point I just missed.
O 25 A The second point would be, it's basically a subset of the EVELYM SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROWNA
_ .- ..____._m __ __. .
f
- 1 first, and that is these large numbers of peoplb are now 2 within the quality assurance department, so the construction 3 QA division is now much larger than it-had been before, and so 4 the supervisory structure within that division was changed 5 also.
6 g And how was that supervisory structure changed?
7 A Well, the najor change from the top down being that 8 Larry Davison, who had supervised the quality control function 9 at Catawba, became the manager of the projects division, which to included all of the QA and inspection functions at our construc-11 tion sites, at that time including the Catawba, McGuire and 12 cherokee.
13 g All right. Why was that change made?
14 A That change was made primarily to aid- in the admission 15 of running the department and the quality assurance functions l 16 were still as they had always been, and it seemed that the I 17 time was appropriate and the department was mature enough to take 18 on those large numbers of people in the administrative burden 19 in addition to the QA technical functions that had always l .
l 20 been there, and it just seemed appropriate to incorporate that 21 under one manager and do it as a- department. That's my 22 understanding.
(
23 4 Did you participate in that change?
24 A I participated in the sense that when the change was 25 made, I switched jobs, so I would say yes.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOWPE REPORTING SERvtCE CHARLOTTE. NOMTM CAROUNA
1 0 Did you particiapte in either the planning for that 2
change or th's decision to make the change?
3 A I participated in relaying to my management my opinions as to whether or not it would make the administration 1.of our 5
department better or improve our ability to do our job, whether 6
it was a good idea or a bad idea.
O What was your opinion?
8 A My opinion was that it would be a good move to consolidate 9
the quality assurance and quality control functions in one 10 department.
11 g All right, sir. What was your opinion as to the effect of this reorganization on the quality control function?
13 A My opinion was that it should make the lines of 14 responsibility clearer, and, if anything, improve the ability 15 to manage that department in carrying on our duties.
16 g How do you understand the terms " functional supervision" 17 and " administrative supervision" as they are used in this 18 context?
19 A Basically that's my understanding of the terms I would 20 have used in explaining what I just did, that is, we had 21 functional responsibility for the quality assurance prior to 22 the merger -
23
, O I am sorry, we -
24 A CA. I was in the quality assurance department prior to
- .3 Pahr"""' Of ' 31.
EVELYN BERGER ASSOctATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvtCE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAR 3UNA
' ' I G Yes.
2 A And we had, we in QA, had functional responsibility for 3
tliat quality control. activity, and the administratiive activitie s 4
was primarily I would associate with the tirakesping schedule, 5
scheduling, planning, number of people, that' sort of thing 8
was in the construction department. So the functional was in 7
QA prior to February of '81. The ad ninistration of the inspectors 8
was in the construction department.
9 0 Was it your opinion, do I understand fairly that your to opinion was having unified that supervision, both the functional, II administrative, having represented a clarification of the line I
of responsibility?
I A Yes.
I#
Q Are you familiar with the provisions of appendix B of 15 16 CFR, part 50? .
16 A Yes.
17 O Do you understand those to be the Nuclear Begulatory 18 Commission quality assurance criteria?
19 A Yes.
90 g Is part of your responsibility assuring that those 91
~
criteria are met with respect to the carrying out of the quality assurance program with respect to Catawba?
23 A Yes.
.a .n 0 All right, sir. Are you familiar with the first criteria, 25 that titia organiTm+4nn') Tat ma gat you te taka 5 leek St it avsLYw e:RonR ASSOCIATES. sTENOTYPE RgpORTING SERvtCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUMA
. i -
(- - 1 and refresh your recollection.
2 A Yes.
3 4 In your opinion is there any significance ~ to the organiza- -
4 tional-structure either before or after the February '81 5 reorganization with respect to compliance with quality assuranc e 6 criterion 17 7 A No.
8 G Have you ever supervised the quality control function in 9 construction at Catawba?
10 A No.
11 Have you ever been the chain of supervision over that O
'12 function? -
t .s 13 A Only as I related before, prior to February of '81, where 14 functionally :I had. responsibility through other supervisors 15 for that function. .
16 And in that capacity as indicated by your role reflected O
17 on the NCI, you participated in supervision of quality control 18 in that instance in approving the resolution of an NCI?
19 A No.
20 0 Help me understand that.
21 A Okay. As I said, this is after February of '81.
22 G Fine.
23 A And these are individuals that I supervised, but they are -
(, ,
24 not inspectors.
25 0 I see. So both before and after, you had responsibilities I
sveLTN seRosR AssociATas. sTaNOTYPE REPORTING sERvfCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
~
1 that included supervision of quality control work?
2 A I had responsibilities for supervision of quality assurancs 3 people who prior to February of.'31 had functional responsibility 4 for the quality control activity. After February of '81 I
$ still supervised quality assurance individuals but those
- 6 individuals do not fall in the supervisory chain of any inspectors.
7 0 All right, sir.
8 A If that helps.
9 0 Yes. But your role today under the piesent organization 10 includes approving NCI's, the resolution of NCI's?
11 A Yas.
12 O Including in the area of welding?
13 A Yes.
14 0 All right, sir. Now, before February of '81, when QA had i
l ,
15 functional. authority over the quality control inspection 16 function but not administrative authority, how was your 17 responsibility different? Let's take an example before you 18 answer the general question. Would you have done then as you 19 do now, that is, approved the resolution of NCI's?
20 L Yes, I would on occasion have approved resolution or 21 disposition of NCI's.
l 22 O All right, sir. Why were quality control functions l
l_ #23 under construction before February of 'Bl?
r' 24 A It's my understanding that it was a continuation of in 25 many ways an activity, that it served Duke well in that when
!: EVEL fN SERGER ASSOCIATES, STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
e .
1 a quality assurance department was e stablished, when it was 2 established, the ad.ninistration of the large numbers of 3 inspectors traditionally had been done by construction and 4 that had served oc.r purpose as well, and the mechanisms were 5 in place, the supervision was there, and so that personnel 6 burden was' deemed more efficient to continue it that way.
7 0 What changed that made it appropriate to reorganize 8 those functions in February of '817 9 L I don't believe I can give a better answer than what I 10 gave before in that the maturity of QA and the feeling or the 11 recognition that the lines of responsibility could be made 12 much clearer by having functional administrative duties combined 13 in one department and one chain of supervision.
14
% All right.
15 A It is a change that we chose to make or our management is chose to make because it would improve those lines of II responsibility.
I8 4 Why wasn't it made earlier?
18 It was not made earlier because it wasn't deemed appropria te, A
20 Nor was it required to be oc ne and it wasn't necessary to do it.
21 in February of '81.
(
22 a Help me understand, if there is a basis, why at the time 23 in February of '81 and not before, why more appropriate then V) y-than before?
a A Nothing magic about February of '81 that I am aware of.
...,~.. ..... ,.,....,. - -., - ....- ,,. - _ .
\
l - - . . , - - , - . -. __ ___.- _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e
- 1 It's just a date, and that is when it was done. -
2 0 And had it been in the works for some time before that?
3 A To my recollection, it had been considered from day one, 4 as to recognizing that quality control is not a separate 5 and distinct function from quality assurance, but also recogniz-6 ing the administration and the personnel portion of the people 7 can be done somewhere else, so I don't think it was considered 8 at this time for the first time or that there was anything magic 9 about that date being picked. It just happened.
10 0 Are you aware of any role by the Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission in suggesting, urging or recommending or requiring 12 the change?
'~
13 A No, none.
14 S Was the approval of the NCR sought in making the change?
15 A They were advised that we were going to do that, and filed 16 the appropriate organization charts with them.
17 0 And what was their response, if anything?
18 A Their response was fine. I mean, I don't want to say that 19 like a quote.
20 g Did they make any substantive response that you know of?
21 A Non's that I am aware of.
22 0 Just took the papers and said "We acknowledge this"?
23 A They acknowledged that we were continuing the same
., 24 functions in thersame requirements and procedures in place that 25 we had before, and that this was to them what it was to us, eviv~ .. . 4..ocians. snaarv,= a nonnuo s==vice. cama'orra aoara c^aoua^
e .
I a consolidation of the supervisory responsibil'ities and just
~
2 making that line of responsibility clearer.
3 G All right, sir. Did this reorganization have any effect 4 on the effectiveness with which the welding inspection function 5 was performed at Catawba?
6 A. None that I am aware of.
7 G Would you have been aware if there was such an effect?
8 A Possibly.
9 0 But you know of no such effect?
10 A I know of no effect.
11 G Mr. Henry, I want to show you a document, 0834, NRC 12 Licensee Assessments. Can you identify that? Have you ever seen 13 that before? I direct your attention to page B-1. It's towards 14 the very rear.
15 A On Catawba?
16 0 Yes, sir. This is the 1971 SALP report, S-A-L-P. Have 17 you ever seen that before?
18 A I don't recall seeing this sununary statement, but I am 19 familiar with the SALP report on Catawba.
20 0 There are two SALP reports on Catawba, right?
21 A Right.
22 O This is their first of the two, and you may or may not 23 have seen it is your testimony?
- d 24 A This is a summary, and I don't know. You asked if I had 25 seen this document. I don't recall seeing this smnmary statement.
i EVELYN SEROGR ASSoctATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
- t .
I S Are you aware of the NRC SALP review board?s 1981 rating 2
of Catawba construction as below average?
3 A Yes. As I said, I h've a seen the SALP report. I just
' 4 didn't want to not answer your question in this form.
5 I don't recall seeing that, but I am familiar with the SALP 6
report, yes.
7 4 Are you familiar with their findings with respect to 8
quality assurance at Catawba?
8 A Yes.
I G You are aware of their observation at page B-1 of this II report, that Catawba received a relatively large number of 12 items of noncompliance when compared to other power reactory I
- facilities?
14 A Yes.
15 S And most of these item's of noncompliance were contributed 16 to weakness in the licensee's quality assurance and management 17 overview process?
18 l A Yes.
19 4 What corrective action, if any, are you aware of was taken 20 to address those findings?
21 L I am aware of a study by Duke of the report to try to 22 '
understand what NRC's . characterization meant and when they 23 assigned that below average rating, whether or not it was based
~24 on the facts as we saw them. As far as specific corrective 25 actions as a result of the SALP report, I don't know of any EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STWNOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
" -' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ' '
B
' ' 'l specific corrective actions at the time the report was received 2 that we either felt necessary or that were imposed on us by NRC, 3 so I don't know of any specific ones.
4 0 I see. Now, what was the nature of the study that was 5 performed? .
6 A Well, the nature of the study w 4s NRC had submitted the 7 report, they had indicated that Catawba was below average, an a their rating went, or above an abnormally high number of 9 areas to meet their noncompliances, so the study involved a re-10 view of the reports for those individual noncompliances would 11 have been identified by NRC, the responses we gave, and to 12 reassess whether or not the corrective actions that we 13 took at that time, at the time of the specific noncompliance, 14 was still valid or whether anything further was needed. As 15 I just stated, as I recall, that review confirmed that we had 16 already put into place corrective actions, improved training 1
17 or better procedures that addresssa the things that the NRC had ,
l 18 now summarized in this report. !
l 19 Were you involved in the conduct of this 0 All right. l 20 study and preparotion of this review?
21 g y,,,
l 22 What was your responsibility?
0 23 A My responsibility was to - I attended the presentation
' 24 by NRC of that report, and then I received my hard copy of the 25 report and reviewed that language and then reviewed those reports, l
eveu~ ...c.. ...oeiar... .r ~orm m rma ..=ic . c=awrr . ~om c4-= l
s ,
1 as I just mentioned, to make sure that the actions that ve were
- 2 already taking were appropriate er whether or not to decide whether 3 they needed any, additional actions.
4 G First of 'all, let's start with the first' point pu made.
5 You attended a presentation. How is that presentation made?
6 A It's NRC's practice, or was in SALP, to present that to the 7 management of'the company involved.
8 0 All right, sir. This report as published. in August of 9 e 81, or the nere rates in front of you. Would that have been 10 close to the tir.e that the presentation was made, to the 11 best of your recollection?
12 A No. ,
There are two SALP reports', Mr. henry?
~
13 l G d sl 14 A Yes.
15 g You are thinking of the second one perhaps, in '82?
16 A No, I think you may be. What's the date of the first onel 17 O That is the first one that you have there.
18 A What's the date of the second one? ,
19 0 It should be '82. Mr. Henry, the me.cond one has a 20 summary and then quite a bit of detail attached to it, station 21 by station analysis. This is all I know of it, as.the first 22 SALP report..
23 A This, as I said, I have not seen this document, and these
~'
24 dates of the evaluation period don't -- are not my recollection 25 of when I reviewed. '
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORfM CAROUNA .
- e. o
-... 1 0 They are earlier dates?
2 A No. As I recall, the first report went through May of 3
'80, but that's my recollection.
4 O .All right.
5 A I just haven't seen -
6 0 What are the evaluation reports?
I 7 A This document, but the summary statements do agree with.
8 what I recall in the first SALP report as to whatever those 9
dates were that we got a below average rating, and quality 10 assurance and management overview was cited in th'at report.
11 O What is the, review period that is on the face of this 12 summary?
13 A 9-1-79 to 8-31-80, and I just can't recall when this 14 SALP report is,,but that may be accurate.
15 4 All'right, sir. Now, did you prepara a written report?
16 A I don't recall preparing a written report.
17
- % Did you make a report to Duke management as a result of 18 your review?
18 A I recall marking the copy of the report and routing that 20 to my management that here is what'I think caused this particul ar 21 activity, and here is what we are doing about it.
22 G Who is your management that you reported to?
23 A My management at that time was Jim Wells.
24
% He was the corporate QA manager?
25 A That's correct.
EVELYN 3ERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROLINA
i ,
l l
I
.' g Were you aware of any other meetings or reports that were 2
made to higher Duke management in response to the SALP 1 1
3 '
report?
4 A I am not aware of any specific reports that were made 5
to higher management, no.
6 0' All right.
A Let me correct that. I am aware that, I donft remember 8
the date, but I believe it would have been report 1, that was 8
identified or substitted as a possible question that the SEC would to rule on to go before a stockholders' meeting. And I don't II recall the date of that stockholders' meeting, but some 12
, individuals, stockholders, .had requested that that be a questior t 13 presented before the board at a stockholders' meeting, and I 14 did participate in giving my views to our legal staff as to why 15 that was inappropriate for that, and then that was sent -
16 I believe it is SEC that would rule on the appropriateness of 17 those stock questions.
18 l
G That is the only review you recall making of the SALP 1 19 report?
l 20 l A Other than the verbal or marked-up thing to my previous 21 management, my boss.
22 g Mr. Wells?
23 A Mr. Wells. ,
\
..- 24 0 All right, sir. What corrective action are you aware ofi <
3
\ y
\
that wam & m1ran 7 4 f amr?
EYELfN SENGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE mePORTING SERVICE. CHA%OTTE. NORTM CAnOUNA
\_
-_m.__._.. - ___.._.___. _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 A As I said, no specific corrective action that I recall
- 2. as a result of receiving that report at that time. As you 3 note, the report is downstream and is a compilation of 4 activities that'have occurred over some previous _ time period.
5 A program requires, as those deficiencies are identified, they 6
are corrected and corrective l action taken on them at th-' *d .
7 So, as I recall, my review, when the whole report was put 8
together, to my satisfaction, had confirmed that we already .had 9 in place corrective actions to preclude the cause of that 10 l
type in the future.
II G Let me call your attention specifically to this finding.
12 Catawba received a relatively large number of noncompliance 13 when compared with other power reactor facilities under I4 What corrective action was taken with regard to the construction.
15 substantive find'ing, that is, a large number of noncomforming 18 items, either occurring after that report was issued or after II the initial finding was made, that is the basis for that report?
I8 A I don't read that the way I understand you htst read it.
I9 I think you read noncompliances, and then you may have compared 20 that to nonconforming items, and I don't read that that way.
91
- G All right. So that said, "What corrective action was 22 taken?"
03' A Okay, corrective action that I say would have been taken,
- l. t 94 the way I read this, is that the causes of those infractions or 05 noncom >11ances where the NRC had observed and civen as violations,
! evatvu esnoen associares. stimorves aseo=rina saavics. cuantorre. NORrH CAROUNA
... ~ _. - _ _ _ _. _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _,__ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - ____. _,_
. - _ =. . .
e ,
I had already been taken.
2 S Yes, and what were those corrective actions?
3 A They would liave depended on the specific violation that 4 occurred. If it were a failure to follow a procedure by one or 5 more individuals, a typical corrective action may have been to 6 retrain those people, but I can't say what they were an'd don't 72 recall what all the corrective actions were. What I am saying l
l 8 is, corrective actions had been taken on all of the violations 9 and the noncompliances that NRC had given us.
0 There were numerous items of noncompliances involving
( 10 l 11 failure to follow procedures involving welding, it goes on, 12 quality control, records control, and electrical equipment
~
13 installation. Focus on two,' welding and quality control inspec-14 tions. What corrective action.was taken with respect to the 15 finding of numerous items of noncompliance in welding and QC 16 inspection?
l 17 A I can't say specifically based on what those noncompliance s i
i 18 were as to what the infraction may have been in the welding 19 Process or what inspections may not have been done proper or l 20 whatever. I don't recall what those were.
21 0 All right. And you don't recall the corrective action?
l 22 A No, because the corrective action would be tailored to 23 the infractions, so if I don't recall the infraction, it would us 24 just be speculation as to what corrective action we took on 25 something I don't remember the infraction..
3 EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
O 9
, 1 g All right, sir. Are you aware of the complaints by a' 2 large number of Catawba welding inspectors regarding technical 3 and nontechnical concerns that led to the formation of a' welding 4 inspector task force at Catawba and subsequent followup action ~/
5 MR. GIBSON: Excuse me. This seems to be shifting to another-6 topic area, so it might be a good time to take a moment to 7 assess the time and perhaps even take a short break. I have 8
been advised that Mr.. Rogers' quitting time at Catawba I assumed 9 was 5:00 o' clock is 4:00 o' clock. Are you in a position to say
! 10 anything about the schedule following Mr. Henry?
11 MR. GUILD: Sure. What time is it now?
12 MR. GIBSON: It is now 3:25, 3:22, something along that i
13 line.
14 MR. GUILD: Okay.
15 MR. GIBSON: I can't represent Mr. Dick's availability
! 16 term, and I haven't cheded on Mr. Rogers. h. DM is l
across the street and can be here in ten minutes at the most, l 17 but I thought it might be a good tine for us to touch base 13 asoue that.
l ,,
20 MR. GUILD: Why don't you ask Mr. Rogers to come back them .
21 MR. GIBSON: What I am saying is, his quitting time has g already occurred or will occur beyond the time he gets here.
I expect he will come. Does this say we can now release Mr.
g3 Dick and then talk with you later about his availability?
24 MR. GUILD: No, let's get Mr. Rogers to come in. We g
EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE CHARLOTTE. NORTH CARCUNA
b o
-100-
.. I will finish with him very quickly and then we will do as best 2
we can in fitting.Mr.. Dick in.
3 MR. GIBSON: I suggest that we take a short break so I 4
can make those arrangements.
5 (Thereupon, a recess was taken from 3:25 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. )
.6
- ' ' *Y N '
respect to Mr. Wells, Duke will make Mr. Wells available at 7
Company expense, with the exception of the witness fee, which 9
g July 8th, in the morning. I think his preference and our preference is the morning because of some other commitments Mr. Wells has but he could be available on the afternoon of July 7th and we will await some confirmation from you as to whether you want to depose him at that time and confirm a specific time.
MR. GUILD: Good. That's great. He has a commitment that is going to take him away for the 9th, is that right, or the loth?
18 MR. GIBSON: I think the following week he will begin a 19 two-week inspection at some location I am not familiar with, but will be essentially out of pocket I believe two weeks following.
22 MR. GUILD: Okay, good. Well, I will let you know on that 23 q, g4 O Mr. Henry, I believe before the break you had ackncwledged 25 evatyn sanoen associares. svenorvre nerownwa samnca. cuantorra. Nowrw camouna
O 9 101_
I that you are aware of what'I will just call hereafter the 2 welding-inspector complaints at catawba?
3 A Yes.
4 S And how did those.come to your attention?
5 A Those came to my attention in -- as I recollect, those cane N
6 to my attention in reviewing or in reading the report that was 7 put together to investigate the concerns that wem there. I 8 don't ra===her the date of that report but that would have 9 been the report that the task force put together.
10 0 That would be the first task force report?
11 A I hesitate to say a numer, but, yes, say the first welding 12 inspector technical task force.
13 0 The technical task force, the one that was organized 14 at the direction of Mr. Lee in early December of '817
'5 1 A That sounds correct.
16 O And a report published before the end of that month, late 17 December817 18 A Yes.
19 Q And so that report was the first you learned of those t 20 concerns?
l 21 A As I recall, yes.
l 22 g Then generally, if you would, describe your involven'ent a3 in, if any, in responding to those concerns or investigating l
those concerns.-
l K/ 24 25 A As I recall, my involvement would have been input to EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE, NORTM CAROUNA
e 3 -102-I my management for the, areas that were addressed, communications 2 could be improved, and whether or not there were ways we could 3 improve that communication.
4 g communication from who to whom?
5 A As I recall, it was addressing the fact this need for 6 better communication between QA supervision and the inspectors, 7 period.
8 G All right. And is that the limits of your involvement 9 and response?
10 A That's all I recall at that time. Now, I say the limit, 11 of course since we got into this discovery phase, those documents 12 were available, and I have read those again, and I know they 13 have been submitted. That's all I recall.
14 g All right. That's the limit of your substantive l 15 involvement in either investigating those concerns or responding 16 to them?
i 1
17 A In that report, yes.
18 g I don't want to artificially limit the scope of the 19 inquiry, Mr. Henry. I am not limiting it to that report now, 20 but I want to address the subject of the welding inspector 1 21 concerns and understand what the scope of your involvement
(
22 was.
23 A Okay. Then after that task force, welding inspe'; tor task
- t. ;, 24 force two to address technical concerns that may have been 25 identified in the first task force, and it was determined to -
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CANCUNA n ,. -,. , , . . , - - , , . . . , - - - . - - . - - , - - . - - , . . . - - - - , - , - - . _ - - - - - - - _ - - - . . , . . , . . - . .
o *
-103-1 proceed with that task force which was set up t'o investigate 2 those welding inspector technical concerns, and my primary in-3 involvement there was to provide one of my people, an individual 4
who works for me, to serve on that task force and make him 5 available to participate in the-technical evaluation of those 6 Welding inspector concerns.
7 g Who was that person?
8 A Larry Coggins.
9 % What is Mr. Coggins' job?
A Mr. Coggins is a QA engineer. That's a job title, and 10 11 he supervises a -- he is one of three supervisors who reports 12 to me.
13 0 Who are the other supervisors that report to you?
14 A The other two are Tom Roberts and Charles Bell.
15 0 What are their positions?
16 A Their titles ana QA supervisor within my division, technica l 17 services, but their title is QA supervisor.
gg g Mr. Coggins was in fact the chairman of the task force 2, was he not?
19 20 L For a brief period, for a matter of not more than a week l
or two, as I recall. The task force report as it was seen 21 22 in its final form and throughout most of the period of that 1
o3 investigation, Mr. Coggins was not the chairman.
1 l i _, 24 0 All right. So you participated in responding to the g
first report by being involved in the subject of improving l
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES, STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAmouMA
+ ,
-104-1 pommunication between QA supervision and inspectors,.and the 2 second task force by providing Mr. Coggins with service on that 3
task force. Is that the limits of your involvement?
4 A No, as the additional involvement would have been to --
5 one ther role I played in that was when it was decided to 6
bring in a consultant to provide.that independent review of that task force, I served I think we can characterize as a contact 7
3 for him, to make sure arrangements were made, that he had an g office to work out of, to provide a vehicle, whatever it took 10 f r him to carry out his duties. And then my ultimate involvement 11 would then have been, if any of the recommendations of the task 12 f rce, taken it to the end, actions were required that would have been in my area of responsibility, I would have been responsibl's for carrying out those actions.
l l 0 And there were recommendations in your area of responsibilLty?
' A Yes, there were.
16 0 Would you describe those?
A Primarily they were in the area of review of procedures !
l l to see if they were clear, complete, if they had been subject L 19 to some different interpretations, was there a way to better word that, provide some training sessions so that we all understand the clear purpose and intent of those procedures, i
l and there were a number of procedures that were reviewed by 23 l
l even myself or people working for me in carrying out specific recommendations from the task force report, the second task
.,0 EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
I
-105-l l
- - -. I force report.
I 2 0 And a number of procedural changes?
3 A Some procedures were changed, yes.
4 0 What were the most'significant changes in procedures?
5 A I think maybe the sost significant changes were in the 6 area of trying to make it clear what an individual's 7 responsibility was and that then if a document was to proceed g somewhere else, that it would be' clear what the additional 9 responsibilities would be. And all of that goes to say that to trying to improve the communications, the individual who may 11 have written the procedure originally may have understood 12 exactly his intent, but now as others have to implement it, 13 quite often it was necessary to give additional words, maybe 14 even some additional administrative det&il to make it clear 15 what was done in the field.
16 0 You are referring to what documents?
l 17 A At this point I would be referring to QA procedures.
ig 4 Documents that reflect QA procedures, procedural policy-19 directives?
l gg A No, I am sorry, when you say document, if a QA procedure 21 identifies a document that is to be used in carrying out that t
l 22 Procedure. In reviewing these procedures, it was to -- we tried l
23 to improve the handling of the documents that were required by j, 24 the procedures and make the responsibilities quite clear as g to what one individual might be -- what his job was as far as EvELvN oERoER AssoclATES, STENOTYPE REPOfmMG SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAmouNA
-106-
.o I whether it was a review, a signofffor what his particular job
'2 may be.
3 0 Again I am interested in the most significant changes.. ,
4 A I am not trying to avoid your question but I think we
'5 ' previously identified altoget.her probably six or eight procedur es 6 that were changed as a result of the review precipitated by 8
7 that task force. I don't know -- in my mind I don t know which 8 one was more significant than the others, and I guess for me to 9 answer, I wouldn't characterize one as being more significant to than.the other. They were all reviewed where the task force 11 said, "This may not be perfectly clear to everyone, if it's 12 in my area, Henry, you go review it and try to come up with some 13 clearer language if that is possible." And I can't honestly 14 tell you that I feel one was more significant than the other.
15 0 All right. What are the documents that you have reference 16 to? Again, the significant.
17 A The documents that I referred to, what I just spoke of 18 here?
19 G Yes.
20 A Those would be docu=ents that would be required to be 21 Produced by the procedure.
22 0 Yes.
23 L For instance, if it were a document requiring a piece of
) 24 process control to be produced by technical staff to be given to a craftsman that would then be turned over to an inspector, 25 EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES, ETENOTYPE REPORTING SERYtCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
-107-
- p. I that would again be reviewed by QA'. This would be a typical 2 process of which a piece of process control might be generated 3 and used. Usually that piece of process control is something 4 that is identified and required to be used by the QA procedure.
5 0 were there any significant changes that affected the use 6 in proceeding of nonconforming item reports?
7 L The only thing in that area that to me was significant 8 was an emphasis, and I don't really recall so much in this area 9 whether it was procedure change, that an NCI, when written, 10 should be dealt with on that form, such that the record is 11 clear, how it was handled and provide a situation for whomever 12 made the disposition, that it is clear who did it and the reasons s
13 for his doing it. I feel that was probably the most significant 14 change to the NCI activities as a result of that task force.
15 0- And were those changes and procedures in your area of 16 responsibility?
17 A. Yes.
ig O Was any significant change effected in the,. circumstance 19 in which a quality control inspector was required to complete l
l 20 a nonconforming item report?
l 21 A No, but in reviewing that procedure and others, we tried 22 to give clearer direction as to which document might be more 23 appropriate in certain situations. -
0 All right. What were the choices among documents that s 24 25 might be appropriate in different circumstances?
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPONTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NOMTM CAROUNA
w .
-108-
, 1 A If you are referring to an inspector, he would have, as 2
.we talked about, the process control, whereby he is performing 3 his job inspecting something to accept or reject.
4 S Let's talk about a weld, to use a concrete example.
5 L A weld, if he is called to inspect, there would be in 6 almost al1 cases an opportunity, and a requirement, where he 7 would sign off that document that he had . accepted the weld.
8 He, of course, does not sign that off until it has been 9 accepted by him, that it meets the criteria that are given in his 10 inspection. If it is a minor and readily correctable item and 11 the welder or his foreman is available such that that item can 12 be corrected on the spot, that is an option available to him,
~
13 to point out the minor discrepancy and have the craftsman 14 correct it, at which point if he corrects it to the inspector's 15 satisfaction, the inspector would sign off on the document 16 accepting the weld.
17 Q Let me stop you right there. If that were the case, 18 -as you just posed, would the procedure either before or af ter a
, 19 change call for the welding inspector to note the discrepancy?
20 A No, it would not require him to note minor, really 21 correctable, discrepancies.
22 O Both before and after any procedural changes resulting 23 from this task force?
.' - t, t
24 L That's correct.
25 g No change in that regard?
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvlCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
o .
-109-1 A No change in that regard as to what he would be required 2 to do.
3 0 .I stopped yes as you were describing the circumstances.
4 A Okay. The other choice in that process where the weld 5 is unacceptable to the~ inspector would be to just not sign ,
6 for the weld that it is acceptable, if he feels it isn't, and 7 advise either his supervision or the craft people or their 8 supervision that I am not accepting the weld, you need to rework 9 it and recall me when I inspect it. In that case it is reworked to to his satisfaction and at that point he would sign it off.
11 That's very similar to the first case, the difference being 12 if it is minor and readily correctable and someone is available 13 to do it. But in the latter case, it is something that he 14 considers minor and readily correctable. In most cases if an 15 individual is not there to communicate with directly and get it is corrected, he would need to take some other steps to assure 17 that it did get corrected.
18 g All right. And how would those steps differ than in the i
19 first instance?
l l 20 A He would have a couple of choices. He could write an i
21 inspection deficiency report. It could document that on the 22 form.
23 0 What form would that be?
24 A That would be a form R-2A, stating what he found, and 25 that would be the piece of paper that would assure that it got EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERYtCE. CMARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
-110- ,
. I to the right peop1's and got corrected and back to him'for 2 reinspection.
3 g Is that title form The Inspection ' Deficiency Report?
4 L The title of the form covered two periods in time, as 5 I recall, c. sed to be corrective action, and it is now called --
6 I don't recall the exact name of that.
7 0 I will have to give you a utack of papers. I have just 8 handed you the documents that were given to me this morning 9 by counsel that I understood came from Mr. Bradley. Mr. Bradley 10 was the one who was responsible for implementing the task force 11 recommendations, isn't he?
12 L Yes. This is not necessarily giving us what you want.
If it's now the title of .R-2A, it's only R-2A included in 13 14 here, and one of the latest revisions would give us that current 15 title. Prior to the task force it was called corrective 16 action, and the title at one time was considered or may have been their inspection deficiency report. However, that form, 17 18 there are people other than inspectors who find deficiencies, and that form is now currently used by people other than 39 20 inspectors. I just don't recall what we named it, and it may 21 just be deficiency report.
l 22 g How about looking in there and see if you can find it?
l l
93 A I don't see it in here and I would doubt that it is in here.
g Here is another stack, and see if you can l {-
l '
24 All right.
help me with this one. I have a stack of documents with a 25 EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE RSPORTING SERvlCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROn.INA
o ,
-111-s 1 cover letter of' March 7th, 1983, and it is from you to Mr. l l
2 Carr. Does that reflect procedure changes resulting from the ,
3 task force report? - -
4 A Yes.
5 G All right.
6 A And as you can see, R-2A, that is procedure R-2, it was 7 not changed as a result of the task force, but as you got me g into the example to say what an inspector would do, say ha 9 would fill out this report, so I am comfortable with calling it to a deficiency report because that is what it is, and I just 11 want to make it clear to you, although our example here is an 12 inspector signing it, it is not a report that might only be 13 used by an inspector recording deficiency.
14 O All right, sir. Now, so your second example, the inspector 15 has the choice of writing a deficiency report?
16 A Right.
17 0 And that is under procedure number R-2A?
ig A The procedure is R-2. There is a form R-2A within that ig procedure.
4 And form R-2A is the form we just can't put our hands on?
20 21 A Right.
g All right, sir. Now, what's his other choices?
22 A His other choices, in some portions of the process control 23 that he is using, it provides an accept or reject block en the 34 g form, and if he rejects it, he then might or would on the form avian .. .. ...ociar. .r. orre. .onn .. v.c . c . om. ~om ca ou~. g
I a ,
I
-112-
, m. .I reject it, send it back to be reworked. When it was reworked, 2 it would'be resubmitted to him, he would reinspect it. If h6 3 accepts it, he accepts-it.
4 g All right. What other choices?
5 A Then-he has an additional choice to nonconform an item that 6 he considers nonconforming in accordance with the procedure 7 01, which is a nonconforming item procedure.
8 G All right. And when would the inspector choose that alterna-9 tive?
10 A He would choose that alternative in almost all cases 11 if he found a deficiency that were not part of his planned 12 activity that he was inspecting for, such that it were a com-
.6
~
13 P lated activity and was now found to be deficient or there 14 was no other activity that was to inspect this and accept it l
l 15 and he just happened to discover that problem. In almost all 16 cases that would be defined as a nonconforming item.
17 g All right. Any other alternatives?
ig A Iguessthereisoneotheralternat).vethataddresses 19 it, and that would be to stop the work if the situation prevailed, l
20 but that would involve in getting to that, writing nonconformance 21 so that is basically a nonconforming condition anyway. That's 22 all of the ones I can think of.
l
! 23 4 All right. Now, those choices are choices that are
,/ 24 available to a welding inspector under present procedures?
25 A Yes.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STEhCTYPE REPORTING SERVICE CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
o ,
-113-1 g All right. Now, what were the choices available to a ,
welding inspector prior to the procedural changes prior to the 2
3 task report?
4 A All of those choices were available to him prior to the 5 task force also.
6 S All right. And what procedural changes with respect to 7 those choices was implemented as a result of the task force?
8 A The changes were to try to make the language clearer 9 such that it would be more obvious to the inspector, the 10 example you are using here, of when to use which form.
11 our language previous to that, and I think identified by the 12 task force, is that an inspector might not be clear as to 3
13 when he should use a nonconformance under the R-2A, and if we 14 could make that clear, we should do it, and I think the language 15 -- well, we think made clearer. Includeiwith that task force 16 recommendation was to provide training to all people to use that 17 procedure and to help them to understand the intent in how l
18 to use it.
19 Q Was the effect of that procedural change to increase the 20 number of instances where a welding inspector would utili e 21 an R-2A as opposed to an NCI?
22 A I can't say that the net effect of that was there but 23 in saying that the language was not clear, I think we would
.j 24 say that in making it clearer, if one had used an NCI where 25 now the language is clearer and he now uses an R-2A, then the EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERveCE, CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
- - . . , , , , , . , _ . _ . _ - . . - . - . . . - _ . . . _ , . . , , _ - , - . _ - . _ _ - - . ~ , _ , . , , _ - . _ - - .
= ,
-114-1 net effect would be to reduce the NCI's, but the intent of the 2 change was to try to make it clear to the inspector or other usas.
3 If tihere is a better form to use in this situation that meets 4 all of the requirements, you use that one and not have him in 5 addition to doing his job of inspecting the item, accepting and 6 rejecting, having to debate which is the correct form. The 7 procedure could be made clearer, and we tried to do that, and wo 8
think it is clearer now.
9 Is it your opinion, Mr. Henry, in the case of'a minor G
10 item, a minor discrepancy but one where the craft and/or 11 craft supervision is not immadiately available to correct the I2 s deficiency, that the use of the R-2A is more appropriate than I3 the use of m NCI?
I4 A If it were a planned inspection and activity the inspector 15 was required to look for and expected to find, I think an R-2A 16 would be more appropriate than an NCI.
II
- 4 Help me understand what that definition means. Let's 18 make a reference to the specifics of the procedure at this I8 point. Procedure Ql.
90
~
A Okay. Now, you don't have the procedure in here, I don't 91
~
think.
~
G I don't know what I have in thore. It was just given n-to me this morning.
L- 04 A Do you want to refer to procedure 17 -
a5
~
a Yes. That's what I would like to do.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLCTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
- . _ - _ _ . _ _ - - _ . - - - - - _ . . - . . . . - - . - . _ , , - - - . _ . , - , . . - , - . - . ~ , . _ - - - , . - - - . -
-115-3 1 A I don't know"if you are going to get that from here.
2 4 In that rolling chart I am informed are all of the 3
documents that have been identified in response to discovery ir 4
Contention S.
5 MR. GIBSON: What document do you want him to refer to 6
again so that we can attempt to find it?
I MR. GUILD: The procedure that he just referenced to.
8 MR. GIBSON: Which one is that?
9 MR. GUILDS Q1 10 MR. GIBSON: Were these documents attached to what was II shown earlier or just the mamn?
12 3 MR. GUILD I think all of them were attached together.
I3 A Yes, these are two separate ones here. Okay.
I4 0 Is this procedure Q17 15 .
L y,,,
16
% All right. Now, this is the -- 17 is the current II version?
I8 A Yes.
I8 0 And this is with the change resulting from the welding oo
~
task force report?
91 A It includes that, yes.
2 g All right, sir. Now, direct my attention to the definitionaR 23
_ change that specifies the conditions in which a nonconforming
~s- o4
~
item is to be written.
A Okay. If you look in neone, the change bar up there. when EbELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROLINA
~ ,
-116-~
4
"- 1 I was speaking to you, the discrepancies discovered during 2
preplanned inspections may be identified and resolved in 3
accordance with the process procedure or procedure R-2 So 4
in our example we identified where he had process control 5
where he could get it. corrected thereon. or say'he has got the 6
choice of using procedure R-2. The process procedurr, doesn't 7
handle that.
8 0 I am sorry. The choice is. R-2 or - ,
9 A Well, just reading the last sentence of the scope I just 10 read.
11 g y,,,
12
, A It says -
I3 G In accordance with the process procedure?
14 A or procedure R-2. What he is doing is preplanned inspec-15 tions.
16 G Process procedure meaning noting it on the process control II form?
18 g y,,,
I9 G Reject?
20 A That would be one. Not all points in all process control
- 1 forms have accept or reject. Process procedure, where if he is within a specific QA procedure that has the forms and the 23 necessary controls or the direction within that procedure to get
--' 24 it and correct it, then he would use that procedure. If there 25 is a procedure that doesn't have that detail and he is doina a i
EvtLvm esRoan AssoclATE5. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERvlCE. CMARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
a ,
-117-,
i 1
preplanned inspection, he would then have the choice of using 2
procedure R-2, which he would use the R-2A.
3
'S All Wight, sir. When, if at all, a deficiency or a 4
discrepancy is discovered in- the course of preplanned inspection, 5
when is the inspector to write a nonconforming item?
6 A If he is doing a preplanned inspection and he finds what 7
he is expected to find and it is not an unusual or a gross 8
situation, which it should not be if he finds what he is 8
looking for and expects to find, he would be following either 10 the procedure he is in or procedure R-2 and would not be II required under those conditions to write a nonconformance.
12 g Help me find in procedure Q1 the language which would I3 instruct an inspector in applying the terms that you just I4 used, " unusual or gross".
15 A. Okay. Once again, if you look at the scope, the first I8 sentence saying in almost all cases an inspector would be work-I ing to some other QA procedure, and that procedure, one of I8 its intents is to provide direction and control over whatever I*
situations that individual, in this case an inspector, may
\
1
%~ '
find while he is working on whatever he is working on. If i "1
that adequate control over a discrepancy is not found within that area, then the scope of 01, which he would also be trained l
al
~
in, expected and allowed to use, would say this is the procedtir< a that is available for him to use. .
25 CA All right. I tindarshand thne ansvar_ show mm in t h a' i
EVELYN SERGER ASSoctATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NOWTH CAROUNA
a ,
-118-
.s 1 terms of Q1, if it is here, and if it isn't, just tell me 2 that, where there is a standard for judgment about the severity 3 of the discrepancy. That's what I heard you say, the gross or 4 unusual characteristics of the discrepancy.
5 A Okay. By that I mean that if an inspector is doing his 6 planned inspection, as said here, and he discovers a situation 7 that in his judgment is very unusual, although he was inspecting 8 in that area and is going in, and one would fully expect him 9 to find and see that, if it is of a very unusual gross nature, 10 that the judgment of the inspector might very well be to go ahead 11 and nonconform that.
12 g All right.
13 A And that would be perfectly acceptable in my opinion.
I l
14 4 Is that language that gives that guidance contained in i
15 the terms of procedure Ql, and if so, point that out to me.
16 A I don't see that language,in there, no.
17 G That is judgment then that the inspector would have to 18 supply for which there is no guidance contained in the terms 19 of procedure Ql?
20 L That's something available to him if in his judgment the 21 other procedures that he is working on don't adequately control 22 the situation he sees. He can write a nonconformance.
23 0 Is there another written procedure of the company that d 24 would spell out that standard?
25 A Not that I am aware of.
l .
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTM CAROUNA
A ,
j
-119-I Now, turn to I guess -- I don't)now how to cite this .
G 2 Is it. paragraph 5.1.7, page 47 procedure.
3 Okay.
A 4
S That details the circumstances under which and the 5 procedure by which an inspector would note a matter that is 6 for possible significant deficiency affecting safety, and 7 reporting to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR 8
50.55 (e) ?
9 A Right. Except if I heard you correctly, you said whereby IU an inspector would do that. That is not something that an '
a 11 inspector would be required to do to form an evaluation. Did .
12
'I hear you correctly?
7 13 g Yes. I may have misunderstocd. This is where an 14 inspector would note the possible reportability of a deficiency?
15 A No. .
16 g yo7 17 A This speaks to the requirement on Duke, and in this case, j 18 in this procedure, speaking of the requirement on the construction 19 project manager and quality assurance manager to assign people 20 who will evaluate the nonconformances, including those that 2I would have been written by inspectors, to determine if it is
~
significant enough to require reportability.
.>3 G I see.
A And those would not be inspectors who would be making ~
25 that further evaluation of reportability.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENCTYPE REPoprnNO SGRVICE. CMARLOTTS. NORTM CAROUNA
- - _ _ _ , . . , _ . - ,~_ - _ _ , _ _ _ - . - , - , , , . - , - - - - - . . _ , - - , - , , . , , . . _ _ - - . _ . , - .- ---- _--. . - . - - - - . _ . - - -
4 .
-120-1 g .
What I am looking for I guess is the initial judgment.
2 Is there a requirement or a procedure that would call for the 3
inspector to make'an initial judgment as to potential report-4 ability, and if so, point that out to me.
5 A No. He would not be making that determination. He 8
would be determining that it is a nonconformance. If he 7
determines that, he writes it, and then it would be assigned 8
to people who are trained and required to make this evaluation.
9 G And they would see the nonconformance and in due course 10 make the evaluation described in this procedure E, not the 11 inspector, they, the supervision?
12 A Right, or the individual assigned to do that.
I3 G Yes.
14 g y,,,
15 0 Now, if the inspector for a given deficiency followed 16 either the process control alternative or the corrective action II deficiency report R-2A alternative, how would the deficiency I8 be reviewed for potential reportability under 10 CFR 50.55.(e)?
I9 A The R-2 procedura requires all of those deficiencies 20 to be evaluated by the technical people to whom they are a signad 01 for that evaluation, to see if it is a nonconformance. So'even 22 though it is written up as a deficiency, it gets a review, 23 and if it needs to be escalated to a nonconformance, it is done 04 so, and then it is reviewed, gets this review as required by r
\
I 05 i
the nonconformance for potential reportability.
s 6
EvELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING ssRysCE. CMARLOTTE NORTH CAROUNA
. . . . . _ - , _ . . , _ - . _ . _ , , _ _ _ _ . _ _ . , . . .,.1 . _ _ , .
a o
-121-1 g once it is escalated to a nonconfo.~. ing item, Q1 would 2
govern that, and then having become a nonconforming item, it 3
would be reviewed for potential reportability?
4 A That's correct.
5 Now, help me find the procedure that describes that
. G 6 facet of completing an R-2As 7 A It is not in here.
8 0 Okay.
9 A Well, let me check to make sure. The required review and 10 escalation of R-2A is in procedure S-2.
11 4 Is that a procedure that was changed as a result of the 12 s task force report R-27 13 A I think - I guess I need to see that. I think no, but 14 once again, as you see, Q1 references R-2, so the language woulit 15 have been made consistent to make sure there was no inappropria te 16 cross-reference, but it was not a specific recommendation or II a specific action to go change R-2 and correct something in the 18 task force, as I recall.
19 MR. GUILD: Counsel, maybe you can help. I was trying 20 to put my hands earlier on a document that you sent to me 21 last week, and it was further changes. I think it was revision no 3 to the task force final report.
23 MR. JOHNSON: Do you want to use this?
/ 2r MR. GUILD: les, if you have a final copy.
5 0 Take a look at this and see if this will helo us.
I
! EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTH CARCUNA
+
. . , , , - .n . . ._ . . . .-----,---.-,,...,-.,--,,.-c. . - . , , , , , , - , . _ , . . .-,.,,,,.,----,--,-,.n- - , . - - - . . - , . . , - . - , . , - - - - , . - , - - - -
. 4
-122-I This is on the cover of June 22nd, and it's a letter with 2
the latest revision'of the task force report. Will that.at 3
least make a reference to R-2 and whether or not there was an 4
amendment?-
5 A No, no, I don't believe that's going to get you the R-2.
6 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, I,have asked Mr. Bell to give us 7
a copy of R-2.c As I understand it, because it was not changed, 8
it's not among the documents that were made available. As I understand it, that might speed- us up.}He is going to see if to he can put his hands on one shortly so if there in anotller II question or.two you can ask while he'is doing that, it might 12 speed us up.
13 MR. GUILD: Sure.
I4 g That document doesn't answer that question?
15 A Net that I can find.- '
I6 0 Does. the conryany maintain ste.tistical records of the II incidents of utilization of various procedures for ncting 18 construction deficiencies? -
I8 A Yes.
20 g specifically does the company maintain statistical records 21 of the number of nonconforming item reports for construction l 2 l
deficiencies at Catawba?
l 23 A Yes.
. 24 G In what form 'is that?
l 25 s A Well. thav are mi%erard in empterm; anA + hm, m 4 ga g E%ELW BEm3f4 ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPOMING $4AVeCS. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAnctJNA
-_..._.._- ;__.__ _ _ - _ _ . - - - . . - ~ .
-123-
, ... 1 of those kept so that the last number on the log is the number 2
of NCI's that have been written.
3
$ All right. Is that a report that reflects the number of 4
NCI's during a period of time or against time or per man-hour 5
of work on a jobsite or by some -- a statistical measure of the 6
incidents?
7 A Yes, there is a review done of the number of NCI's 8
over certain periods of time.
' 8 9 All right. And what's the form of that review?
IU L The one that I am familiar with is a review that we II call a trend analysis, to see what types and categories of 12
. NCI's may be our primary concern would be increasing and try to 1
I3 take appropriate corrective action and at least get a good I4 explanation as to why that would be the case.
15 4 And who 10 responsible for performing those trend analysen?
16 A The one I just spoke of, I am responsible for.
I O It's done by you?
I8 A
It's done by people under my direction, yes.
8 O And i.s there'a trend analysis performed of other proceduros 20 for noting construction deficiencies, say, the R-2 procedure?
21 A Yes, they are trended also.
22 0 And how about the use or process control for noting and 93 correcting construction deficiencies?
/ 24 ~
A Some process control may be specifically trended by some -
25 levels of management, supervision, in the form of renort. Others EVELTN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SSRvlCE. CHARLOTTE. NORT*e CAROUNA s
..m.._ , ,,___ r,.- , . . , , _ . . . - . _ - _ . - _ . _ - , _ , , , _ _ . _ . . _ - _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . - , . . - _ . - . _ - . . , _ _ _ , , , . , _ - . . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.._,m __. , ,
e .* -124-
~ 1 may just be available to those people in charge of the work 2 activities and not a formal trending of those per se.
3 G How about in the welding area at Catawba?
4 A In the welding area the review -- I am not aware of any 5 specific trend analysis other than documents that.are '-
6 deficiencies that might get reflected on either an NCI or an R- 2A.
7 0 All right.
8 A I am not aware of any trend analysis in any other areas.
9 0 Have such trend analyses of NCI's and R-2A's been performed 10 before and after the work of the welding task force and precedural 11 changes came from that?
12 A The answer to your first question, yes, they have been 13 performed before and after, but prior to the task force there 14 was no specific requirement in a procedure to trend the R-2A's.
15 G But now there is?
16 A There is now.
17 G And what procedure specified is that?
18 A It is in the procedure R-2 19 O That then would be a change procedure R-2 that resulted 20 in the task force?,
21 A No.
22 0 It just came after,. coincidentally?
23 g g ,,
'~' 24 ~
0 Well, Mr. Henry, it is fair to conclude that the proceduro l
25 l changes result (ng from the task force placed greater emphasis 1
EVELYN SERGER A.3SOCIATES. STEhw YPE REPORTING SGRVICE. CMARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
e ~
-125 - ,
1 on the use of the R-2 procedure as an alternative to the Q1 2 .
NCI procedure, isn't that fair?
A I would state that it provided clear direction to anyone 4
who may not have understood clearly'when to use Q1 or R-2 5 .
4 You did state in your opinion the net effect would be 6
likely increased use of the R-2 as an alternative to the NCI, i 7
the Q17 8
A I said, as I recall, that if someone were confused as to 9
which one to use, and he had chosen to use the NCI and now it in 10 clear language that an R-2A would be better, if that occurred, 11 then the not effect would be to reduce those numbers, but I 12 don't have those numbers and don't know that that's the case.
13 4 All right, sir. You wanted to make sure you capture 14 any changes and trend in the use of the n-2 and therefore the 15 procedure was specified to trend R-2's as well as NCI's, is 16 that fair?
17 A Now that we have the procedure here, to give you the speci:!ic 18 reason that we made the change and included trending of R-2A's 19 was that we were responding to an evaluation done by Duke Power 20 Company of Catawba in October of '82, and we had a finding on 21 ourselves there that it would be beneficial to us to trend thoso 22 R-2A's, and at that time we proceeded to change procedure 23 R-2 and made the changes as a result of that finding that we go':
U 24 on ourselves.
25 g what wa_s the nature of that evaluation?
EVELYN PERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROUNA
a x . .-. . _ .- .
O +
-126-1 A That was an evaluation that was conducted by a joint team 2
of Duke Power and TVA people who reviewed the design and 3
construction activities on Catawba Nuclear Station.
l 4 g was that a level 3 audit?
5 A No.
6 g l Was that a corporate audit?
7 A That was a self-initial evaluation of Catawba. i l 8 g It was a what now?
9 i A It was not done by INPO, but it was done in October of 10
'92 by a joint team of Duke and TVA people.
11 0 Was this an audit that was a part of the quality assurance 12 audit?
13 A Quality assurance was one significant area that was looked I
14 at.
l 15 g What was the purpose of this audit?
16 A The purpose of the audit was to evaluate the effectiveness 17 of the program.
18 g Wac the audit result submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory I9 Commission?
20 A They were made available to NRC, yes.
"I
~
g It was submitted to them?
' 22 A They were invited to the committee interview to hear the 93
~
findings and a presentation was mada to the NRC of what those
(
is . 24 findings were. Yes, they were well aware of the ongoing
~0 evaluation and the findings and the corrective actions from this .
EVELYN BENGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE. CHAMLOTTE, NORTM CAROLINA
e n
-127-What I would like to understand is, I have never seen
.]' S 2
that audit, and as far as I know, it has never been made 3
available to the parties to the license case, and what I 1 4
want to understand is, as a publicly available document, has 5
it first been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
6 A. One,.is it publicly'available? It's in the Duke Power 7
files, and in that regard it is not public, but it is available 8
to people who have a need to see it.
9 4 How about people who have an interest in seeing it, like 10 Palmetto Alliance?
11 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, if you want that document, you 12 can make a formal request for it, and we will determine whether 13 we will make it available, and if there is a controversy at tha':
14 ~
time, you can take that up with the board among the other thinga 15 you take up with the board.
j MR. GUILD: You hear my request right now.
l 17 MR. GIBSON: Subject to further review, submit a 18 request in writing. We will not make a copy available at 4:50 19
, this afternoon. I '.I l
20 MR. GUILD: Make a copy tomorrow. g i 21 MR. GIDSON You submit a, request in writing, I will let I
22 you know, take that matter up with the board with the others
,\
z.3 on your list. I am telling you we will review whether we 24 will make it available, but if ws don't, just include it in 25 th e = tte? y2u will take "; "ith the he"d.
EVELYN SENGER ASSOCIATES, STEMOTYPE REPORTING 888mCE. CHARLOTTE. 7008tTM CAROUNA
a r
-128-
' I Do you know whether it has been filed with the Nuclear G
2 Regulatory Commission?
8 A I don't recall filing,that with the NRC.
4 0 So you don't know whether it is on the public record in 5 You don't the public document room or available through NRC?
8 know?
7 A I don't know that, no.
8
% What deficiencies did that audit find?
9 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, I am going to instruct him to 10 limit his response to welding inspection and quality control at 11 Catawba, consistent with the board's narrowing of contention 6.
12 A I don't recall any findings in the welding area. I don't 13 recall at this time the findings that I would characterize as
" any specific to inspection but I will just say I don't recall.
15 G Again, Mr. Henry, for clarity, what is the name of this 16 report, the title?
II A As I recollect, 'Self-initiated Evaluation for Catawba to INPO, Design and Construction Criteria."
19 0 All right, sir. And do you have a copy of that report 20 in your custody?
2I A Not in my personal custody. I have access to it.
22 O You have access to it? Who has it in their custody?
23 Who is the appropriate person with Duke Power who would have a 4
copy of that in their files?
A. I quess the record copy is maintained in quality assuranen.
EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPCHtflNG SERVICE. CHARLOTTE, NORTM CAROUNA
, e.'
-129-
'. I G Mr. Grier?
2 A. No, he has assigned that to me. I have access - I don't 3
personally have it, but someone has that copy of that report.
4 G I just wonder who - if y'all are resisting --
5 MR. GIBSON: If we decide to make that available or if 6
we are ordered to make it available from the board, we will, so I think in terms of questions of finding it, I think 8'
you can probably speed it up.
9 MR. GUILD: Mr. Gibson, I, appreciate your cooperativeness, 10 but I intend to seek compulsory production of that document.
11 If you don't make it available voluntarily, and I would like I
.., to know who is the custodian,.and the rules say that is a 13 legitimate inquiry of discovery.
14 MR. GIBSON: I am offering that, if you want to proceed, 15 if we are ordered to, we will find it.
16 MR. GUILD: If you are not going to voluntarily produce it, I would like to draw a subpoena for it and would like to 18 l know who to serve that on.
19 G Mr. Henry, are you the appropriate person?
20-l A. I have access to it. As far as I am concerned, I am
'21 the appropriate person.
/
l Q All right, sir. Now, I want to understand back to the
'3 2
i I subject that prompted this digression. You now trend R-2A's i~ . 24 es well as NCI's, is that right?
25 L Th est men 7_enA4 47 b; L;,-J;A ;;,
, .mm .. . ..c m m,.mm -. = ~ c= == == = ca-
.--.(-.- ., . , - - - - _ , _ _ - - . - - - , , - - , - . . . - - , , - - . - , - . - - - , . - - - - - - . . . . - - - - . - - . . - - - . - .
-130-
, , 1 O And they were required to be trended after what point in 2 time, sir?
3 A After the changes were made to procedure R-2 in December 4 of '82.
5 0 All right, sir. Now, you have;a copy of procedure R-27 6 A Yes.
7 0 Okay. First, if you would, sir, indicate where it is 8 provided in that procedure that the R-2A's are trended.
9 A Okay. That is in paragraph 4.11.
10 0 And what does it say there?
11 A. "R-7.A's shall be trended to identify any developing or 12 existing trends adverse to quality. The results of this analysts 13 shall be provided to the project QA manager and project 14 manager."
15 All right, sir.
0 Now, how about also direct my attention 16 to the provisions of that procedure that specifies that the 17 R-2A is to be evaluated for purposes of determining whether it 18 is more appropriately treated as on a nonconforming item under 19 procedure Ql.
20 A. It is in paragraph 4.2.
21- 0 What does it say?
22 A "The individual designated by the project manager or 23 project QA manager shall evaluato the problem to determine if 24 it should be elevated to an NCI. An item shall always be 25 elevated to an NCI if any of the following conditions exist."
EVELYN BERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPC'.1 TING SERwpCE. CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLaNA
m
-131-1 e.s O And they are?
2 g. "The discrepancy represents a designed deficiency. Notes 3
Interpretations, clarifications and editorial changes on 4
designed documents are not considered design deficiencies and 5
should be resolved using the R-2A. The discrepancy requires 6
design evaluation other than interpretations, clarifications 7
or editorial changes. The discrepancy represents a manufacturer 8
discrepancy other than minor material discrepancies. The 9
discrepancy will require extensive rework. The discrepancy 10 represents a bypassed inspection hold point."
11 And finally, "The discrepancy was discovered at other 12 l , than a preplanned activity and no other required activities l
13 were planned that would check for this type of discrepancy."
I4 O All right, sir. And when,was that provision that you just 15 read of procedure R-2A adopted?
16 A As worded there, it wm approved on 12-29-82, but there 1
II would have been some transmittal time to reproduce the documentsi 18 and send them, so sometime after 12-29-82.
19 O May I hold the document, please? This shows up through a 20 L revision 9. Is that the current revision, as far as you know?
21 g y,,,
l 22 O Is this revision a completely new revision of the pro-23 cedure?
1,~,
' 24 A. It is a major rewrite, such that significant wording 25 changes were in there, and you will see the notation " entire EvgLYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPt REFOENG SEME. NMM. N UNM
~ s
-132-1 page revised."
2 0 At the bottom of the page, except the third page, which is 3
a new page?
4 A Right, and that's where the trending information appears.
5 g Yes. And is revision 9 the revision that was.the major 6
change in this procedure?
7 A Yes, as I recall. ,
8 MR. GUILDS I would like to ask that this be identified 9
as the next hearing exhibit, next exhibit to Mr. Henry's to deposition.
11 (Thereupon, deposition exhibit number 12 5 was received and marked.for identification.)
13 (Thereupon, Mr. Henry's deposition was adjourned at 14 5:02 p.m.)
15
- e 16 17 i
18 19 20 21 22 23
, 24 25 EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES, STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE, CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA
f"o ,
- +-
-133-1 I, Wayne Odell Henry, hereby certify that I have read 2 and understand the foregoing transcript and be'lieve it to be 3
a true, accurate and complete transcript of my testimony.
4 5
WAYNE ODELL HENRY 6
This deposition was signed in my presence by Wayne Odell 7
Henry on the day of 1983.
8 NOTARY PUBLIC 9
10 CERTIFICATE 11 ,
12 -
7, Ann P. Harris, court reporter and notary public, do 13 hereby certify that the foregoing 132 pages are a true, accurata I4 and complete transcript of the proceedings during the deposi-15 tion of Wayne Odell Henry; that Mr. Henry was duly sworn 16 prior to the taking of his deposition, and the parties were II present as stated.
I I also certify that I am not of, counsel for nor in the I
cmployment of any of the parties, and that I am not interested 90
~
either directly or indirectly, in the outcome of the lawsuit.
2I This 8th day of July 1983_.
Puh k 'T/'
,3
~
ANN P. HARRIS - NOTARY PUBLIC State of North Carolina County of Mecklenburg 24 My commission expires:
os
~
June 30, 1935 EVELYN SERGER ASSOCIATES. STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE CHARLOTTE. MORTH CAROUNA