ML20078L770
| ML20078L770 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1983 |
| From: | Willie Lee DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078L617 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-434 NUDOCS 8310240061 | |
| Download: ML20078L770 (78) | |
Text
'
t 3
U NIT ED STATES OF A M ERIC A NUCLEAR REGULATORY C O M MIS SIO N BEFORE THE A T O MIC SAFETY AND LIC E NSIN G BOAR D In the Matter of: ) -
)
l DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413
) 50 414
- (Catawba Nuclear S t a tio n s , )
l U nit s 1 and 2) )
JULY 12, 1983 3:15 P.M.
D E P OSITION OF:
W IL LI A M S. LEE
[t M ggoyo 061 830810 Evelyn Berger Associates i
AHLERSB3-434 PDR STENOTYPE REPORTING SERVICE g e. O. eOx s e4u
2
{
2 ROBERT GUILD, ESO.
C olumbi a, S. C.
3 Couns el on B e half of Intervenor, Palmetto 4 A llia n c e C o r po r ation 5 B E B EV OIS E 8E LI B ER M A N, ESQS.
W a s hi n g to n, D. C.
6 BY: J. Michael M c G e rr y, III, Esq.
7 ALBERT V. CARR, JR., ESO.
RONALD L. GIB S O N, ESQ.
8 C ha rlotte, N. C.
9 Counsel on B e half of A p pli c a nt, Duke Power Company 10 Also P r e s ent:
11 Roger Ouellett e 12 Duke Power Company 13 Glenn H. Bell Duke Power Company 14 W illia m O. Henry 15 Duke Power Company 16 Brenda Fingers Duke Power Company 17 K an na poli s Office 18 Michael F. Lowe Palmetto Allia nc e 19 P hil Jos 20 Palmetto A llia n c e 21 Betsy L evita s C a r olin a Environmental 22 S tu dy Group 23 I N D E X 1 24 WIT NE S S DIR ECT CROSS 25 W illi a m S. Lee 5 73 EVE LYN S. BERGER
_ 0FFICIAL court REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CMADLOWE. r3 E
2A d-l 1 E X H I B I T S 2
NUM B ER DESCRIPTION PAGE 3
Lee Exhibit One Letter to Mr. Lee 4 from Mr. Owen dated 1/21/82 61 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 i
! 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EVELYN $. BERGER
_ 0FFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. 5. Di$f RICT COURT ll CH ARLOTTE. N C.
3 1 T he D e po sition of W illi a m F. Lee is taken 2 at the corporate o f fi c e s of Duke Power Company, 3 C ha rlo tt e , N o r th C a r o lin a , on this the 12th day of 4 J uly , 1983, in the presence of Robert G uild , Attorney 5 for the Intervenor; and J. Michael McGarry, Albe rt 6 V. Carr and R on ald L. Gib s o n, Attorneys for th e 7 A p plic a nt.
8 A ll f o r malitie s as to c a ption, c e rtific a te 9 and t r an s mi s s io n are waived. It is agreed that 10 Lynn B. G illi a m , Notary P u b li c in and for the Ftate 11 of North C a ro lin a , may take said Deposition in 12 m ac hin e shorthand and tr an s c ribe the same to type-13 w ri tin g.
14 Said D e po sitio n is taken subject alone to 15 te s timony for c o mne t en c y, relevancy and m ate rialit y; 1
l 16 and all obj e c tion s , save as to the form of qu e s tion s 17 asked, are reserved u ntil the fi c a r i n g .
18 19 I
,. L L I A V S. LEE, 20 having been fir s t duly sworn to tell the truth, was l
1 21 e xa mine d and te s tifi ed as f ollo w s :
22 23 R. SIESCN: ';r. G u ild, Mr. Lee l
l l 24 i ,; y s ii 721 e for G e no sition oursuant to l 25 your Notice of June 21, N o tic e of his Evrtyn S. BtRotR l OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
( U. S OtSTRICT COURT PMARLOTTE N O
4 1 D e po s itio n for July 1, 1983.
2 As ind i c a t ed in p rio r correspondence, 3 Mr. Lee was not available either July 6 4 or July 12, based on our e a rli e r discussio ns 5 with you.
6 His D e po sition was scheduled for 7 ten a.m. on July 12 and then rescheduled 8 for eight a.m. on July 12 and again, at 9 your request, scheduled for three o 'clo c k 10 to da y.
11 Mr. Lee will be a v aila ble for the 12 remainder of the business day. W ith 13 respect to s tipula tio n s , 1 as sume we are 14 proceeding as we have ea rlie r; that is all 15 que s tion s are deemed o bj ec te d to except as 16 to f o rm.
17 We note at the be ginnin g of the 18 D e po s itio n that the scope will be limit e d 19 according to the two mo s t recent Board 20 O rd er s to Guality C ont rol and Cuality 21 Assurance in welding concerns at Catawba.
22 Present f rom Duke are Ron Gibson and 23 Albert Carr and Mic h a el McGarry. F rom 24 the ^ u alit - . asurance De pa rt ment, Mr. S e ll 25 and Mr. Henry; and from the Licensing EvrtyN S. BERota OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CcW1GRVE, ra 4
Loo - Diroct 5 1 area, M r. Roger O u e ll e t t e .
2 A c c o mp a n yin g Mr. Lee is Ms. Fingers 3 from the K a nn a poli s of fic e of Duke Power.
4 MR. G UIL D : What is her po sition ?
5 MR. GIBSON: Cu s tome r R e pr e s en tativ e, 6 who has a part of the c o m pa n y 's a c tiviti e s 7 with a s sis ting M r. Lee in various ac tivitic s 8 today; and present for Palmetto A llia n c e ?
9 MR. GUILD: My name is R obert 10 Guild, I am Counsel for Palmetto A llianc e, 11 an Intervenor in the o pe r a tin g lic e n s e 12 proceeding.
13 With me, M r. Lee, as I i n t r o d u c e d.
14 off the Record, Mr. .%ichael Lowe, P hilli p 15 Jos and Setty L evita s, who is watching 16 the tape recorder.
17 MR. GIBSON: With respect to docu.
18 m ent p ro duc tio n pursuant to your No tic e of 19 D e po s itio n and the A oplic a nt's c on tinui n g 20 o bli ga ti o n to identify discoverable ite m s, 21 we are producing today a January 21, 1982, 22 memorandum f rom L. H. Owen to W. S.
23 Lee, of which I am oroviding you a copy.
24 ,. I n 7 c 7 n, :Ixm 7:mN 25 SY MR. GUILD:
Evt LYN $. BERGER OFFICI AL COURT REPORTER U. S. DIST RICT COURT CH A RLOTTE, n c.
Loo - Direct 6 1 C M r. Lee, w ould you state your full name 2 and your business address for the Record, plea s e ?
3 A W illi a m S. Lee, Sox 33179, C harlo tte, 4 North C a r olina , zip 28242. <
5 Q T ha t is the G e n e ra l Of fic e s of Duke Power' 6 a yes, 7 O What po sitio n do you now hold with the 8 company ?
9 A C hair man and C h i e, f Executive O f fic e r.
10 Q C an you give me a thumbnail s ketch of the 11 po s ition s you have held with the company; and to the 12 best of your r e c olle c ti on, Lee, M r. the dates that 13 you proceeded to those p a r ticula r po sitions ?
14 A I joined th e company in January, '55, as a 15 Junior D e signe r in the Engine e rin g Department engagod 16 in design of power plants.
17 I wa s oro mo te d to Designer and S e nio r l
l 18 D e signe r, and wha t e ve r the titl e s were f ollowin g that; 19 and in O c tobe r, '59, I was made A s sis tant to the 20
- C hi ef E n gin e e r, along with another person of the samo 1
21 ti tl e ,
j 22 We reported to the Vice President Engineer 23 for the management of the E r. g i n e e r i n g D e pa r t ment, l
24 In May of 1962, I wa s made E n gin e e rin g Manager and i
25 placed in charge of an E n gin e e rin g D e pa r t m en t.
EVELYN $. BERGER l ofreciaL coumT mtponTER
{ u. s. DISTmict court
, CH ARLOTTE. fR C' -- -
Loo - Direct 7 1 In O c tob e r, 1965, I was made Vice P r e s id e.a t, 2 E ngin e e rin g, which at that ti m e was r e ally a change 3 in title but not of f unc tio n.
4 I continued to be in charge of the E n gin e e r -
5 ing D e pa r tm e n t. In 1968 I was elec ted to the Board 6 of Directors of th e c o m p an y.
7 In 1971, I was named Senior Vice P re sident, 8 E n gin e e rin g and C o n s t r u c tio n, and named to the 9 E x e cu ti v e C o m mit t e e of the Board of Directors of the 10 company.
11 In 1976, I was made Executive Vice P r e side nt, 12 and in 1978, I was named P r e sident and C hi ef O p e r a ti n g 13 O f fi c e r.
14 A pril 30, 1982, I was elected Chairman and 15 C hi ef Ex e c utiv e Of fic e r.
16 O A ll right, sir; Mr. Lee, to whom did you 1
17 report in 1971, when you were a Senior Vice P r e sid ent, 18 E n gin e e ring and C on s t ruc tion ?
19 A Mr. f3 3 Parker, who at that tim e was 20 named E x e c u ti v e Vic e D resident and General Mana ge r.
21 O Tere you at that tim e the Senior O f fic e r 22 of the company in charge of Construction a ctivitie s ?
23 A le; inning at that tim e , yes.
l 24 C ' hat wa, your ela tio n s hip to the c om pan y's l
25 Q u a li t y Assurance Programs with resoect to C o n s t r u c t..o n EvtLYN $. BERGER
[ omC AL court RepoRitR I
U. S. DISTRICT court l QM ARLoWE, f3. C,
Lee - Direct 8 1 a c ti vi tie s , Mr. Lee, if there was any program at that l l
2 time ? I 3 A I wa s named by Mr. Parker as the C o r po r a, t e 4 O f fic e r responsible for Q u ali t y A s suranc e; and in that 5 capacity I, of course, reported t o him.
6 But there were f un ction s in other depart-7 ments that did not report to me where C u a li t y 8 Assurance was important, such that the Q u a li t y 9 Assurance a c tivitie s in those other o r g aniz atio n al 10 u ni t s reported to me.
11 O Was there at that ti m e an inde p e nd e ntly 12 organized Qualit y A s su ra nc e Department at Duke Power 13 C ompany ?
14 A I do n' t remember when that happened, I l
15 think it was s om eti m e after May, '71, that that 16 occurred.
17 I don't re me mbe r exac tly. For a time there i
l 18 the O u a li t y f un c tio n for nuclear plants was performed 19 within the then exis tin g o r ga niz a tio nal component, as 20 they had done for a number of years in c on ne c tion 21 with the design and the c o n s t ru c tio n of large dam s 22 as well as our wh,re public safety was involved, 23 coal fir e d power plants.
24 It was at some time af ter that tha: we 25 organized the Cuality A s sura nc e De p artm ent as a l EVELYN $. BERGER l OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1
- u. S. DISTRICT court CH ARLOTTE. N. C.
l i
l Leo - Direct 9 1 s eparate o r g aniz atio nal unit that was independent in ,
1 l
2 it s r e po r tin g authority f rom the othe r departments. j l
3 Q A ll right, sir; regardless of the s p e c ific 4 points in time in which the department became inde-5 pendent, Mr. Lee, if we were to lo o k at the func tio ns ,
I I 6 the Qualit y A s su ra nc e func tion s prior to that e s t a bli s h-7 ment of an independent department, would we see- )
8 persons whose e x p li c i t titles r efle c t e d Quality 9 Assurance duties ?
10 A Yes, we would have found inspectors and 11 that sort of thing.
12 C How about CA E n gine e r s , for e xa m ple; do 13 you r ec all ?
14 A No, I don't. I do n' t remember when the
! 15 term " Quality A s suranc e, " was coined.
16 O W ould it have been prior to the organization 17 of the department ?
18 A I don't remember the date of the A pp endix 19 .3.
l l 20 Q Yes?
l l 21 A Yes.
22 C V hat was th e date of A pp endix B; would it 23 be co nte mpo ra ne ou s with the AEC Standard s ?
24 A It would hav e been sometime af ter th e 25 public a tio n of A ppendix B that the term " Q u alit y EVE LYN $. BERGER OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRtCT COURT
@H A R LOTT En N. C.
Loo - Direct 10 1
A s s u r anc e," ' began to be r e c o gni z ed as a term.
2 O Now, at the point where y o it held the po sitn on 3 of Senior Vice P re side nt for En gine e rin g and 4 C on s t ru ction, you were also a person with the title 5 C o r po r a te Qualit y Assurance Manager?
6 A S ho rtly af ter my a ppointme nt as Senior 7 Vice President, some time th er eaf te r M r. Parker 8 designated me as the guy in the company that was in 9 charge of Cuality A s su ranc e.
10 I've forgotten ex a c tly what title he associated 11 with it; but my o f fic ia l title was Senior Vice P re sid ent 12 in charge of E n gin e e rin g and C on s t ru c tion.
13 C T hi s is a very poor copy, I' m afraid; and l
l 14 I a polo giz e, but this is a decision of the Nuclear 15 R e gula to ry Commis sion, A L A 314 3, S eptembe r 6, 1973, 16 There is a footnote there, sir, if you can 17 kind of scan and read that maybe that wo ul d refresh 18 your r e c olle c tio n.
19 A T hi s is about Mc C ulr e.
20 C Yes, sir; but Cuality Assurance f unc tio n s ,
21 it is Fcotnote 11.
22 MR. GISSON: V. e are trying to locate 23 a better copy, Mr. G uild . We ought to 24 have that in a few moments.
25 EVELYN $. BERGER OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT ram /YRMn?ff, fa. (2.
.L o o - Direct 11 1 BY MR. GUILD:
2 O That is all I' m r e f e r r i n .; to.
- r. Lee, 3 can you make that out? Does that r e fle c t the dual 4 po sitio n s that we had reference to, the C o rpo ra te 5 QA Manager and the :i e ni o r Vice President. E n gin e e r .-
6 ing and .C on s truc tion, whi c h you held at that time ?
7 A Yes.
8 Q A nd I think we read it. Now here is my 9 copy of 10 C F R , A p pe ndix B, M r. Lee (indic a tin g ) .
10 A pp endix S, a citation refers to a 1970 Federal 11 R e gis te r P u blic a ti o n.
12 Would that have been a p p r o xim a t ely the 13 tim e or the r eaf t er when you were explicitly a s signe d 14 Quality Assurance re s pon sibilitie s for Nuclear 15 C o n s t ru c tion ?
16 A That says June, 1970, as amended in 17 September, '71, as amended in January, '75 I 18 don't re m embe r the various e dition s.
19 O No, but it appears to be the e a rlie s t date 20 at which there was a publi s h e d A ppendix B.
21 A I became Vice P re sident in late A p ril or 22 early M a y, 19 71, right before that S e pt ember, '71, 23 revision.
24 O Do you r < member whether or not there was 25 an ex plic i t Ouality Assurance Program in Nuclear EVELYN $. BERGER l OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT RI'OLYMMnPR N. @.
Loo - Direct 12 1 C on st ruction at the tim e you became S e nio r Vice 2 P re sident ?
3 A There was an In s pe c tio n Program as we 4 have had at our other plants.
5 O Do you remember when you named it 6 Q u a li t y Assurance?
7 A We had, for example, test. laboratories 8 to test th e ma te rials that we us ed in c on s tru c tion.
9 We had in s p ec to r s to test the slump of th e concrete 10 and placing of the concrete and that sort of thing 11 before auclear came along.
12 We did that with our other plants.
13 O All right, sir; I directed your attention to 14 the footnote, and at Page 165 of the report that I 15 have, again, F o otnot e 11, that r e fl e c t s this obser-l 16 vation:
l 17 The S ta ff's approval of the A p pli c a nt 's 18 current Oualit y A s su ranc e Program was with the 19 under standin g there would be a separate Corporate 20 A s surance Manager, that po s itio n being fill ed by the 21 A pplic a n t's Vice P re s id e nt, E n gin e e rin g and 22 C on s t ru c tion.
23 Tho was acting in Du k e's c a pa cit y; that 24 would have been yourreif?
25 A Yes, I a s sume.
EVELYN $. BERGER OFFICIAL court REPORTER
- u. S. DISTRICT COURT CHARLQTTE. N C.
Loo - Diroct 13 1 Q He will have the duty and r e s pon sibility to 2 assure that the separace Corporate C ualit y nasurance 3 Pro g ram be effected in a timely manner; othe rwis e 4 the understanding of the separate Quality Assurance 5 function will not be very m e a ni n g iu i.
6 We b e li e v e the Corporate Manager of the 7 QA po sition chould be fille d as quickly as possible, 8 to commence January, '73, as being the outside 9 li mit s for s uc h a ctio n.
10 In that connection, sir, let me ask you to 11 take a look at another document dated A u gu s t 13, 1973; 12 and fi r s t as k you to take a look at that (in di c a tin g) .
13 Can you id e ntif y i t, sir?
14 A Do you want me to read the whole thing?
15 O No, sir; I wanted you to e xa min e it. Havo 16 you seen that befo re ?
17 A I don't r ecall ha vin g seen it.
18 Q I want to direct your attention to a couple 19 points. T hi s is i d e ntifi e d as titled, " Safety Evaluation 20 Report, C at awba Nuclear S t a tio n, U nit s 1and 2, 21 Qualit y A s su ra nc e, " memorandum to R. C. DeYoung 22 f rom Pobert L. Tede s co at the then, I a s su me, A tomic 23 Energy Co m mi s sio n.
24 y ,fi a n t e d to di r e c t your attention to what 25 has been indic at ed in the face of this report as p en di n g EvtLYN $, SERGER OFFICIAL court REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT court FbdARLOTTE N (
Loo - Diroct 14 l
1 que s tion s , what I will c ha r a c t e ri z e as pending 2 qu e s tion s , regarding tne c o m pa n y 's c ua li ty assurance 3 P ro g r am.
4 T he o b s e r va tion is the pro gram acc eptable 5 for Design and C o n s tr uc tio n s ubj ec t to the f ollo w in g 6 items:
7 First, c la rific a tio n of the independenco, 8 r e s po n s ibiliti e s , autho ritie s , and s pe cific r ou tine 9 dutie s of the Electrical, M e c ha nic al, % elding /N D E, j
10 and Civil Inspectors.
l 11 What is your understanding of the AEC or 12 NRC'S que stion r e garding your Quality assurance 13 Program in that regard?
l 14 A My un d e r s ta ndin g only comes f rom reading l
15 the documents attached to the back of that, which is l
16 the Safety E valu ation R e po rt, it s elf; and in that docu.
17 ment they conclude that the o r g a ni z a tio n al independence 18 of the inspectors you cited was s atis f ac to ry, and 19 their re po rtin g and functioning were s a tis f ac to r y based 20 upon their o b s e r va tion s in th e field of what was goins 21 on.
22 p, u t what th e y wanted was documentation 23 of what the situation was f rom the A o plic a n t s . What 24 33at ;3 r e r a -. r t n _ to 13 .! a c um e n t a t i o n of what you 25 found.
Evt LYN $ BERGER OFFICIAL court REPORTER U. $. DISTRICT court FM ARL OTTf. N C.
Loo - Diroet 15 1 O What was the ba sis of your under s tanding 2 of the que s tio n ? t hy do they raise that que s tl an ?
3 A At the time they wanted d o c u m e nt a tio n of 4 everything; it was also at a period in which we had th r e e separate groups of NRC r e vie win g three s eparat e 5
6 projects; and all of a sudden we f ound tha t the three 7 separate NRC groups were ma kin g int e r p r eta tion s of 8 A P P e n dix B with respect to Q u a li t y assurance o r g a ni-9 z ati on s somewhat diff e re ntly from one another.
10 0 Slow down a second. Three dif f e rent pla nt s 11 all under c o ns t ru c tio n at the same time ?
12 A Yes.
13 O So c o nflic tin g inte rp re tation s a mon g the 14 three plants based on who it was the Commis sion wa s 15 looking at7 16 A Yes, but there were d e t a il s of where is the 17 d o c u m e n ta tio n of where those inspectors report and 18 someone might ask one que stion and another person 19 ask a nothe r dif f e re nt type of que stion, and we were 20 getting rip s awed by requests for information from 21 three groups.
22 O Do you have an understanding of why the 23 qu e stion regarding d o c u m en t a tion of the r e s po n s ibili t i e s.
24 duti e s , et cetera o f in s p ec to r s was r ai s e d at Catawbr ?
25 A Because, as I understand it f rom the EVELYN S. BERGER OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CTRt 0WE, C3. R l
Leo - Diroct 16 1 e nc lo s ur e, it was not clear f rom what was said in 2 the SAR. where they reported or what they did; so 3 the NRC made some finding s and found out where they 4 reported, and that was okay, but ist's get a document .
5 Q And is it your un de r s ta ndin g that that item 6 was s uc c e s s f ully corrected ?
7 A Yes, it was, but it was decided to correct 8 it in a pionee ring s o rt of way.
9 Q How is that, Mr. Lee?
10 A We wrote a g e ne ric Quality A s suranc e 11 document.
12 O How do you understand that and what did 13 you run into ?
14 A W ell, we wanted to h ave not only inside 15 our c om pa ny but in a ll dif f er en t boards and organi-16 z a ti on s that were r evi e wi n g Quality A s surance, NRC, 17 AEC, Staff H e a ring Boards, O p e r atin g License Hear-f 18 C on s t ru ction P e r mit H ea ring s going o n; ings g oi n g on, 10 and we wanted to have a unif o r m, throughout the j
20 c om pa n y, nuclear program, a Cuality Assurance 21 Program and procedures that everyone und er s too d.
22 O Is that in s om e way to address this ripsaw 23 experience ?
24 A Yeah, at Oconee and > c G uir e we were 25 g e ttin g diff e r e nt r e a c tion s and dif f e rent requests; and EVELYN $. BERGER OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CHARLOTTE, N C
Loo - Diroct 17 5
1 so we filed the document saying this is the way we 2 are going to march, and we got the NRC to review 3 that in its e ntir e t y and to approve it; and we said 4 now apply that to Docket Number so and so and so 5 and so; and that is all the nuclear plants, and that 6 resolved such que s tion s as you have cited here, lac k 7 of documentation as to where somebody reports.
8 O W ould this be gene rally called your topical 9 report on Quality A s surance and the va rious amend-10 ments to that?
11 A Yes.
12 O y, o u l d that have been, was there an yt hing 13 out of order relative to the way other lic en s e e s 14 handled that que s tion ?
15 Do you know?
16 A To my r e c oll e c tion we were the fir s t l
l 17 A pplic ant to file a to pic a l r e po r t.
18 O What was the p ra c tic e of other con s truction s, l
1 19 if you kmw?
20 A Just put it in a Chapter 17 and every PSAR 21 and FSAR, and the problem that we found there, for l
22 some reason you were in the r a t c h e tin g process, you l 23 change one Chapter 17 for one plant at one stage and l
l 24 try to chana e all *Se othern.
l l 25 We found ourselves with inconsistent EV E LYN $. BERGER OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT EH ARWTTfL N. 2.
Leo - Diroct 18 1 Chapter 17's, and we decided to go to pic al. I b eli e v e 2 it was Chapter 17.
3 C It says Chapte r 17 here.
4 A % ha te ve r.
5 Q A ll right, sir; there is a reference to a 6 need f or documentation of D u ke 's definition of the 7 terms " A dmini s t ra tive R e po rtin g" and "Func tion al 8 R e portin g. "
9 How about giving me your understanding of 10 what the s i gnific anc e of those terms were as you 11 used them?
12 A As we formed the Quality Assurance D e part-13 ment as a separate and independent entity, remember 14 I wa s wea rin g two hats. Vice P r esident of E n gin e e rin g 15 and C on s t ru ctio n and the C o r po ra te Quality A s s u ra n c ia 16 guy.
t i 17 In order to get the technical aspects of 18 Quality Assurance under way, I did not want at the i 19 outset to set up a s e pa rate p a y r o ll, separate v a c a tio r.
20 records and s e pa r a te lines of a d mini s t r a tiv e report-21 ing and personnel record k e e pin g and time sheets a n c.
22 wha t n o t, but I wanted functional au tho rit y, that is 23 the procedures, the technical asoects, what was 24 acc eptable and not a c c e nt,bl e, enme under my a ut ho rit y; 25 but I wanted these p eo ple to stay for a tim e on the EVE LYN $. @ERGER OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT FH ARL OTTf. N C.
Loo - Direct 19 1 p ay roll of the line d e p ar tment s that were doing the 2 work.
3 T hi s was a management technique in order 4 to get the independent route started, and it was af ter 5 we had e s ta bli s h e d the f un c tion al or technical or 6 procedural aspects consistent with the to pic al report 7 in A ppendix 3, that then I selected a Quality A s su r anc e 8 Manager and moved all the p eo ple under a new depart -
9 ment and therefore both ad mini s t ra tiv e and func tio na l 10 authority were vested in the Corporate Quality 1 11 Assurance M anag er, who reported for a ll purposes, 12 to me.
13 But you have to start somewhere, and I 14 ele c t e d the management technique of leaving a d mi ni-15 s t ra tive control and management under the exi s tin g 16 line departments for s ta rtin g out with functional
~
17 control, so that my time was not spent deciding who 18 could take vac ation s when, so much as here are the l
l 19 technical criteria we are going to put in plac e.
l 20 Q Are you aware, M r. Lee, that administrative 21 and functional distinction was used with respect to 22 Q u a li t y C o nt rol Inspectors up u ntil early 19 31, at 1
i 23 C a tawba ?
24 A I think that was '32 my daten are slippine 1
25 a bit; but there was a reorganization that did not EVELYN $. BERGER
' - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER l
U. S. Ol57RICT COURT PMASit1TTF M f*
Loo - Direct 20 1 b rin g the Quality C ontrol Ins pec tor f u n c ti o n under tha 2 Quality A s suranc e Department for both functional /
3 a dminis tra tive purposes un til rathe r late in the game .
4 T ha t is for a slightly diff e r ent reason the: e.
5 The a dminis tr ative and f unctional controls are some-6 what dif f e r ent than I described back in my ti m e .
7 C What I want to understand, sir, if you 8 know, were those, the terms as ycu u s e d the m, used 9 in the same manne r to reflect the di s ti nc tio n and 10 r e s ponsibility and supervision of inspectors later on?
11 A G en e r ally s o, th e inspectors later on who 12 were in the C o n s t ruc tion Department inspected to the 13 c rit e ria and procedures et tablished by the Quality 14 A s s urance D e pa r tm en t.
15 The a d mini s t r a ti v e control of inspectors in 16 the C on s t ruc tion D e p a r t :n e n t also included s ch e dulin g 17 their work.
18 The C on s t ruc tion D e pa rtm ent knew best 19 what was going to be done next.
20 Q And was that s ch edulin g r e s p o n s ibilit y or 2* authority, that was in addition to the r e s po n s ibility 22 that would have been i ncluded as you u s ed the terms l
23 "ad mini s tr a tiv e" and " f u n c tio n a l" b e f o'r a ?
24 A n ,111y, it .v o u l.1 he e mb r a c ed in a d mi ni-25 s t r a tiv e r e s pon sibility in eit h e r case.
I EVELYN $. BERGER l _. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER l U. 5. DISTRICT COURT CMantoTTE, a cm __
Loo - Direct 21 1 O And then I int e r rupt e d you. You started 2 to tell me why you thought there was a sig nific a nt 3 dif f e r en c e in the reasons why the inspectors were 4 o r g aniz a tion ally kept that way.
5 A W ell, the main dif f e renc e in my r e c oll e c tic > n 6 was that with re s pect to the Catawba inspectors who.
7 were on the C on s t ruc tion Department organization and 8 then moved to the Quality Assurance Department 9 o r g ani z a tion, th os e inspectors were under my super-10 vision f or all pur po s e s .
11 Back in the early days of the Q u ali t y 12 Assurance D e pa r tm ent, Mr. Parker had assigned me 13 as Quality Assurance Manager, and this gave me 14 f un c tio n al authority for Qu a lit y Assurance M ana ge r s 15 of the c om pany, but a dmini s t r a tiv e management of 16 those people was in some cases vested, the depart-17 ments that did not report to me, was ves ted in other 18 peo ple who reported separately to Mr. Parker.
19 So in that way, there was a diff e re nc e in 20 my scope of f unc tion al and a dminis tr a tive m ana ge-21 ment authority.
22 O A ll ri g ht, sir; Page Two of the document 23 that was attache d to th e memo, we have ref erred to 24 th e AEC c omm e n t s f rom the draf t of the SER for 25 Quality Assurance at C at awb a.
EvELYN $. BERGER OFFICI AL COURT REPORTER U. 5. DISTRICT COURT CHARLOTTE, N. 9
Loo - Diroet 22 1 "At the present time the po sition s of 2 Corporate CA .u a n a r,e r aad . e nio r Vice Presidaat for 3 Engineering and C o n s t r uc tion are filled by the same 4 indi vidu al. "
5 "The Staff que stioned the a c c ep ta bili t y of 6 this organizational a r r an g e men t, wherein the same 7 individual has multiple dutie s, to eff ec tively imple-8 ment the QA P ro g ra m. "
9 "As a r e sult of extensive discussion of 10 this m atte r, DPC has committed to a p p oin t a f ull- ti m e 11 C o r po ra te QA Manager by no later than July, 1974, 12 and has o the rwis e cla rifi ed d eline ation of s taffin g and 13 assignments that appear to safeguard a g a i n s.t dilution 14 of GA eff ort during this interim period of organiza-15 tio n. "
16 First, why wa s it de te rmin ed, how did you 17 und e r s ta nd the d e t e r mi n a tion to vest you with the 18 dual r e s ponsibility o f CA Manager, Corporate CA 19 Manager; as well as Serior Vice President for 20 Engineering and Cons t ruction ?
21 A I told Mr. Parker it was important, and 22 that eithe r he did it or he would dest;nate me or 23 A u s tin T hie s to do it; and I recommended he do it 24 to me.
25 O A ll right, sir. You thought it was too EVE LYN $. 8(4GER OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT "WARfnTTF N P
Loo - Direct 23 1 important to assign to someone else?
2 A Yes, and I thought I was, b e c a u .s e af my 3 p a r ti c ul a r background I was more qualified to give it 4 my attention than, frankly, was he.
5 O What was Mr. T hie s ' area of responsi-6 bility ?
7 A His area of re s pon sibility was Op er a tio n s .
8 T hi s was in '73/'74, when we had s even units in 9 various stages of c ons truction, of which one, then 10 two, then thr e e, were operational; and we had six 11 more c o m mi t t e d, and mo s t of the effort was in D e sig n 12 and C on s t ru cti o n in terms of numb e r s of people 13 involved in Quality A s suranc e.
14 O And you, being the C on s t ruction Engineer-15 in g person more appropriate to handle that?
16 A Th at 's correct.
17 O Did you say M r. Parker has a choice, either 18 he takes it or he delegate it or assign it to one who
- 19 reported to him and tell all the others that r e oo rt to 20 him this guy has it?
21 A Yes.
22 O And Mr. P a rk e r 's po s ition at that tim e ?
23 A In 1971, he was mad e E cecutive Vice 24 P re sident and General M an a g e r. At some point there-25 af te r he was made P r e sid en t and Chie f Operating EVELYN S. BERGER OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CHARLOTTE. N. C.
Los . Direct 24 1 O ffic e r; I don't remember exactly when.
2 Q A ll right.
3 A His scope did not chan3e, his title changet.
4 O B ut in any e v e nt the scope of his r e s po ns i-5 bili tie s were beyond C on s t ruction and Engineering 6 and O pera tions ?
7 It included all the a c tivitie s of the c o mp art y ?
8 A All the operational activitie s of the c o m p a rt y, 9 r e tail and wha te ve r.
10 Q A nd what of those areas was M r. P ar ke r 's 11 background?
12 A Mr. Parker spent the fir s t two docen yeari 13 of this company with Mill Power Supply Company in 14 Purchasing; and he joined Duke Power in about I thini 15 1962.
16 Q His background wa s n't in C ons t ruction ?
(
17 A No, he was a graduate Electrical E n gin e e r ,
18 b ut his professional cdreer had largely been in 19 P ur ch a sin g and Sales.
20 Q Were you a pa rtici pa nt in the extensive 21 dis cu s sion s that the AEC had reference to in this 22 document conc er ning th e as signment of this fu nc tion; 1
l 23 do you r e c all ?
24 A I d o n't recall, r.
G uil 1.
25 O A ll ri gh t, the point that I raise or appear EVELYN $. BERGER OFFICI AL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CH APLOTTE, N. C.
Loo . Diroct 25 1 to raise here is whe the r or not there was a d il u t io n 2 of the QA eff o rt s, whether or not a pe r s on's multiplc 3 d uti e s , such as you had at the time, could eff e c tively 4 implement the QA P r o g ra m.
5 A Are you reading or interpreting their 6 words?
7 Q I' m doing a little bit of both. I would be 8 happy to have you interpret it, you r s elf. I am try-9 ing to put it in a nuts hell and get you to interpret i t.
10 you r s elf.
11 Do you r e c all it in a nu t s h ell if you do n' t 12 r e c all the actual di s cu s sio n ?
13 A I don't remember the discussions; I 14 remember that to start up s o me thin g originally new 15 and e s tablis h the procedures and r equir e ment s and 16 whatnot is a tough a s signment.
17 I wanted to be p e r s on ally involved in getting l
18 that done, and in that I would have the opportunity to 19 interface with my people to see how they contributed j 20 to the efforts and s ee what their levels of competency 21 were; so I elected to carry this more mys elf f o r a l
22 ti m e and put it to ge the r.
23 A nd in that process, I was able to id e nti-24 fy c e r t ain per:onc whoso experience and competence 25 were demonstrated; and then we developed a depa r t-l EVELYN $ SERGER OFFICI AL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT f* Matt MTTE N f
Los - Dir e c t 26 4
1 ment and named a f ull- tim a person.
2 Q All ri ght, sir; had it been your plan f rom 3 the start to have s omeon e do this work, head the 4 Quality Assurance De pa rtment f u l l t i m e, independent of 5 you?
6 A yes, 7 Q V. a s that m ade clear to the A EC; do you 8 know?
9 A I don't recall, I'm sure it was, that at 10 some point in ti m e that would be it, but I wanted to 11 have pe rs o n al hands on involvement in putting it 12 to ge the r.
13 One of the p r o ble m s at that ti me was, and 14 it was f rom inside the company, this was i m p o r t a nt 15 to interface with the NaC on all lic e n sin g ma tt e r s .
1 16 For Oconee had been transferred to what was called l
17 the Steam Department, and bi R C was a s ki n g a lot of 1
18 qu e s tian s about Cuality Assurance of the Fteam De-19 partment.
20 The :s: c G ui r e ,roject was in the c o n s t ru c ti<> n 21 The Catawba p r oj e c t was in an e a r li e r p e r mi t stage.
22 phase of the c on s t ru c tion p e r mit stage.
23 I was the Senior Vice President of E n gi-24 n e e rin g and C o n s t ru c tion and a member of the noard 25 of Directors.
EVELYN $. BERGER OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT
- M A RI OTTf' N P
Loo - Direct 27 1 It was impo r ta nt in my mind to make sure 2 that i n t e r n a lly there was a clear r e c o gnitio n of the 3 impo r ta nc e of Q u a lit y Assurance by me retaining that 4 ti tl e until we put this thin g together, and that w e nt 5 with my other title.
6 Q A ll right, let me see if I can unde r s ta nd 7 a little better, .'J r . Lee. I sense from some of this 8 review of documents and que s tionin g other people, 9 that there is sort of an unspoken a t titu d e , perhaps 10 among maybe some of the NRC people or some of the 11 Duke people, that Cuality A s suranc e is sort of a 12 m a'c e vorh f un c tio n.
13 I' m not a a,yi n g it is not co mmitted to 14 qualit y, but tse paperwork having a separate depart-15 ment is tr ying to s a tis f y the regulators that there is 16 this work doing f unc tion, if you will, is a make work 17 and sort of a fif th wh e el kind of f u n c tio n .
18 Am I rea din g you c o r r e c tly in trying to 19 address that sort of p e r c e p tio n or concern when you l
! 20 are talking about your trying to e s ta bli s h the impor-l 21 tance of this f unction ?
22 A I thin k you have mis characte rized it; I' v e never heard the phrase "make work f un ction" before 1
24 you just said it.
25 O Nor the substance of what I just said, that EvtLYN S. BERctR
_._ 0FFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CHARLOTTE, N. C.
Loo - Direct 23 1 is not right and foreign to your unde rs tanding ?
2 P eo ple who are busy and tryin g to do their 3 job and are always held accountable for quality 4 r e s ult s , g e n e r ally do not welcome auditor s and 5 in s p ec to r s ; f air ?
6 A Fair.
7 C O k a y, so here we were e s t ablis hing with 8 new line and f unctional a utho rit y, a group of f olks 9 who would have the f un c tio n of audit and in s p e c tio n, 10 and it was important to do everything in the company .
11 They receive the signal this was i mp o r ta nt 12 c om pany wide and had the backing of a Senior O f fi c e r 13 of the c o m p an y.
14 A I do n' t make work; it was a .s i g n a l of 15 im po r tan c e.
16 Q Now much later. '4 r . Lee, thl= concern, 17 and I' m perhaps not ex pre s sin g it fairly or in a way i
18 that a dequ a t ely r e fle c t s the subtletier, but this concern l 19 of ha vin g someone look over your shoulder and it 20 being interferring with ; c t tin g the job done, I percei ve 21 that c o min g to the fore in the text between the 22 in s p e c to r s at Catawba and the Craft who were b ei n g 23 inspected by those inspectors as well as suoervision 24 on both sides.
25 You are f amilia r and aware of the concern a EVEtYN $. SERGER
_ 0FF!CIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT uaninTvr w e
Loo - Diroct 29 1 expressed by the W e ld in g Inspectors at Catawba in 2 late 1981 and early 19827 3 A Yes, g e n e r a lly so.
4 O A nd you have been involved in addressing 5 th ei r E m plo y e e R ecour s e s and also p a r t icipa tin g in 6 review of the in ve stigation of those concerns?
7 A 7,3, 8 Q All right, sir; now an un d e rl yin g , again, 9 I am pe r c eivin g that I want to have you comment on 10 a sense expre s s ed on the part of these inspectors 11 that persons who are bus y ab ou t ge ttin g the job done 12 of b uildin g a plant n a tu r ally have come anta g oni s m 13 or resistance to having inspectors looking over their 14 shoulder, and the in s p e c to r s looked for the kind of 15 s pu rt that you described early in training to e s tablis h 16 someone saying this is an im po rtan t function and we 17 are committed to Quality A s s urance: and you have to 18 respect and hono r these people in trying to do their 19
),3, 20 Now did you perceive any of that kind of 21 tension, if I'm wrong in the wa y I c h a r a c te ri z e d it, 22 tell me?
23 A I think f rom time to ti m e there have been 24 p oc k e t s of tha t sort of c ont e ntion between those who 25 do the work and th o s e who insoect it.
EVE LYN S. BcRorm
,,_. OFFICIAL court REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT
Loo - Diroct 30 1 One of the important things though, in 2 e s ta blis hin g the Q u a li t y Assurance D e pa rtm en t, was 3 to i nc ul pa t e in everyones' minds an attitud e and 4 perform a c tio n that we tre all a part of the s a me term 5 and that our job together is to get it done with 6 quality, get it done safely, get it done e c on o mi c a lly ;
7 and all of us to pe rf or m and cooperate as best we 8 can.
9 A nd sometimes that has been our obj e ctive 10 and that, I think, we have stated very clearly at the 11 same tim e , and s om e time s it isn't always perfect and 12 we get pockets where c o mmu nic a tio n is not as good 13 as it should be, and we have to turn around and solve 14 that problem.
, 15 If we never had problems, we wouldn't need I
t l 16 a lot of us.
1 l
l 17 O A ll right, sir; now would you agree with l 18 me, L' r . Lee, that if we can d e c e rib e the r ela tio n-19 s hio between the in s oc ction a udi tin g f un c tio n, the l
20 CA Po r tion of the comenny in C o n s t ru c tion, if you will, 1
21 the r ela ti o n s hip between it and the line people who 22 are doing the work, and in this instance b uil d in g the l
23 Catawba plant, that that relationship on one end would l
24 be over in s p ection, a Quality . ,surance interferring i
l
( 25 with the lin e pe rf o rma nc e of work, doing too much; i EvtLYN S. BERGER l _ orriciAL court REPORTER U. S. oISTRICT court l ruaninTTr ni e
Loo - Direct 31 1 ard on the other hand of the c o n tinuu m, the Cuality 2 A ss urance ina pe c tion auditin g f unction, doin g too 3 little, C raf t and line people not being eff e c tively 4 a udit e d and the lin e being some place in th e middle, 5 is that a fair c h a r a c t e ri z a tio n; and your job is to 6 try to keep their r ela tio n s hip in that b a l a t. c e d po sitic a ?
7 il o w do you f e el the r ela tio n s hip was 8 r efle c t e d at the ti m e of this V. e l din g I n s p e c t o r 9 incident at C ataw ba ?
10 yrhich end of the c o n ti n uum fairly r e fle c t s
"~
11 the status of aff air s of elding In s pector s ?
12 A '
.r. C ulld, you have given a long d e s c rip.
13 tion of your p e r c e ptio n of the Cuality a saurance 14 P ro gr am in r e la tio n s hip to the iine people, to whic h 15 I do n' t n e c e s s a rily subscribe.
16 Then you have asked me two qu e s tio n s .
17 You firs t asked me if you had charneterized it 18 p ro pe rly.
19 I don't think you did. Then you asked me 20 a no th e r qu e a ion, but my mind was on the cha r a c t e ri-21 = a tio n.
22 \.ould you try again, pleas e ?
23 O n il right, sir; Ict me put it in more 24 concrete terms: Your N' r . Grier, the present 25 l Corporate Manager for Cuality Assurance--
EVE LYN $. BERGER
_ 0FFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT r i s a mi STT F as e
Los . Direct 32 i
1 A N o, m yi na m e is Lee.
2 O I am not s a yin g you are, but you have a 3 C or po ra te Manager, M r. G rie r ?
4 A Yes.
5 O Y ou r ur. Grier t e s tifi e d e a r lie r , and your 6 i: r . G rie r laid out to the best I could de s c rib e, that 7 c ontinuu m; but in the c o n t e .x t of a- s pe cific inspector 8 performing a s p e cific f un c tion.
9 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, I object 10 to that d e sc riptio n of ?.? r . Grier's dia g r a m 11 d ra wn in his D e po sitio n.
12 I don't think that adequately describe s 13 it.
14 .L R . CLILD: It may be helpful if 15 you let me finish my c ha r a c t e riza tion 16 before you did that.
17 .N f R . GI BS ON: ' I thought you were l
l 18 fi ni s h e d by th e in fl a c ti o n in your voice.
19 Jo ahead.
! 20 21 2Y MR. CUILO:
22 Ic was an illu s t r a tio n in substance pro-Q l
23 duced by your present hianager of Quality Assurance 24 in trying to d e s c rib e the c on tinuu m by over in s p e c tin g l
25 on one side to under in s ne ctin g on the other side -
[VELYN S. BERGER 0FFICI AL COURT REPORTER ,
- u. S. DISTRICT court
Loo - Diroct 33 I where work suff ered where components f ailed in 2 service.
3 It is a dia gram, a li n e , a ra d h e was trying 4 to indicate where the standard of w o r kma n s hip fail 5 and where someone mi ;h t err on the side of over 6 inapecting versus under in s p ec tin g.
7 That was s o m e thin g .b r . George G rie r u s e ti .
8 I don't have it in f ront of me. i. h t. t I want to have 9 you do, is look at that function, look at that sort of 10 metaphor and tell me which end of that c ontinuu m in 11 your judgment work was being performed at the point 12 where the W eldin g In s p e c to r s expressed their concerns.
13 Was there erring on over in s p e ctio n or 14 under in s p ec ti on ?
I 15 M R. GI 230 N: I repeat my o bj e c tio n l
16 to the f o r m; I don't think you accurately 17 described M r. G rie r 's c om ment s to you and 18 the diagram he drew.
19 To the extent ?'r. Lee can answer the 20 ,t u e s t i o n , I vill allow him to.
l 21 PR. GUILD: C ou n s el, I don't want t
1 22 to mis s ta te the Record. If you have a 23 better d e s c rip tio n, please offer it or maybe 24 if we can have the Exhibit. I would like an 25 accurate reflection for the Witne s s to EVELYN $, BERGER
'. _ 0FFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT
- PadARInTTE M P
Loo - Diroct 34 l
1 r e s pond to. l l
2 If I made a mi s s tat e m e nt, please 1
3 correct me. I 4 MR. GIBSON: If you can locate the 1 5 document drawn by h. r . Grier, use it to 6 the e :c t e n t that is f ea sible.
7 MR. G UIL D : I don't have that p a r ti c -
8 ular E xhibit , Counsel.
9 MR. GIBSON: I am going to let the 10 Record and Mr. C rie r's D e po sitio n r e fl e c t 11 wha t his d e s c rip tio n was.
12 L' r . Lee can answer to the extent he 13 can as you have d e s c ribe d it. I am inter.
14 posing an oojection to your d e s c rip ti on.
~
15 If you have that dia gr am; I think it is 16 obvious the D e po sitio n has not been tran-17 scribed at this early date.
18 They were only taken last week.
19 Nf R . G1ILD: I don't own those 20 e p a .; 1 t i o n s .
21 ,.1 R .
. GI D E O ?i: ?icit h e r do I, M r.
22 Guild; they have not been returned.
23 24 BY MR. GUILD:
25 O If you know of errors. olease state it for EvtLYN S. 8tRotR
, OFFICI AL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT
Loo - Diroet 35 i
i the Record.
2 MR. GIBSON: I will let Mr. Lee 3 attempt to answer as best he can.
4 THE VIIT N E S S : I have no idea a s to 5 whether the V.elding Inspectors at C a ta wb a 6 were over in s p e ctin g, under in s p e c tin g, or 7 in s p e c ting in juat the right a mount.
8 1 don't think that was the real germa ine 9 p r o ble m as brought to me and as I under.
10 stood it at the time.
11 However the work was inspected, the 12 work and the assessed problems in c o mmuni-13 c a ti on s that we had amongst the people, we 14 came up with the conclusion that the qual.
15 ity, that the c o mmunic ation s did need im-16 proving to resolve the problems brought to 17 m e.
18 The problems were not c h a r a c t e ri z e d 19 by over in s p ec tio n or under in a pe c tin g.
20 0 'Iow did if o u understand the p r o blem ?
21 A The p e o pl e were upset because their pay 22 had not kept up rela tive to their peers.
23 O You did not und e r s tand it as r e fle c tin g the 24 problem with the way their job was b ein g done?
25 A .In ve s tig a tion of that problem then resolved EvrtvN S. Stacta
~ , OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. 5. Di$TRICT COURT FWAAlATTE bl f* .-
Loo - Direct 36 1 that.
2 They had concerns about how their reports 3 of non conf orming items were bein g handled and 4 resolved and agitated, and that brought in the new 5 proble m.
6 Q W hich was?
7 A Ylhich was whether or not we have good
~
8 q ua li t y at C atawba, and I took immediate ac tio n on 9 that issue and directed the a ppoint m e nt of a Task 10 Force independent of C at awba to go in an d inve s tigate 11 that p r o bl em.
12 O Wha t action did you take on the other 13 issue, the issue of how the nonc o nf o r ming items were 14 handled ?
15 A That is the one I' m talking a bo ut . That 16 is the one where I directed the a p po int m e nt of an l 17 independent Task Force.
18 C Wha t I want to understand is--
19 A I to ok imm ediate action with respect to the 20 q ua li t y alle ;a tio ns. Through separate channels I l 21 to ok action with respect to the c on ce rn s that people 22 had about their pay r e la tiv e to othe re.
i 23 O W ell, that was to deny their recourse and 24 conform the pay reduction; correct?
l l
25 A That was the ultimate outcome af te r my EVE LYN $. BERGER
- OFFtCIAL COURT REPORTER ,
l U. S. DISTRICT COURT ruaatnTTF M f
Loo - Diroct 37 1 investigation.
2 Q How did it come to your a tt e ntio n. M r. L c. e ,
3 that the inspectors were concerned about more than 4 just their pay?
5 A Part of th e Recourse Procedure is to in-6 v e s ti g at e by interviews; and it was during the inter-t 7 viewing process that some of those in t e r vie we d ex-8 pre s s ed conc e rn that their in s p e c tio n reports were, 9 nonco nf o r ming it em reports were bein g adjudicated 10 by higher levels.
11 And they did not feel the y we re told why or 12 given the t r ai nin g or communicated with as to why 13 this was happening. '
14 C T ha t was a q u e s t '. o n of q u ali t y ?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q V. hi c h w a s dif f er ent f rom the qu e s tio n of 17 is my pay f air ? Do you think the qu e s tio n s go 18 to gether ?
19 A V ell, they both r e fle c t a level of c onc e rn i
20 and unrest, so in that context they c e rt ainly g o 21 together.
22 C Now at th e point where you came to under-23 stand the %elding In sp e c to r s had quality concerns, 24 had you resolved the pay question ?
25 A No.
EVELYN $, BERGER
__ 0FFICIAL COURT REPORTER U- S. DISTRICT COURT FWARfnTTF N P
Loo - Diroet 38 1 O Help me understand how you handled that 2 part of the inspectors' concern, the pay qu e s tio n.
3 A V. e l l , I had been involved with th e pay 4 qu e s tion for a year or two or more prior to that; 5 and an analy si a of the job contents of the inspectors, 6 including their knowledge in problem solving and 7 working c onditio n s , the other aspects of what was 8 r eq ui r e d of their p e rf o r manc e, in dicated that compar ed 9 to the standards of knowledge and problem solving 10 and whatnot of those non-C raf t but nonexempt ty p e 11 p e o ple as pa rt of a job and task e v al u a ti o n that was 12 that the inspectors were not being paid or g oin g o n, 13 were being paid more c'la n the job required.
14 A check with external co mpe titivene s s 15 showed inspectors were being paid elsewhere less 16 than some of the top C raf t p eo ple.
17 The inspectors at Duke Power?
O 18 But also our A No, no; other co mpanie s.
19 E quit y showed internal evaluation vis-a-vic E:dernal 20 it should have been a Class 10 ins t ead of a Class 11, 21 sc you don't go around and decrease s o me body's pay 22 that has b e en wo r kin g hard, even though you fin d 23 what you are pa yin g th em is not j u s t ifi e d .
24 At least that was mf decision in thia 25 3ut rather, instanen. Mr. Owe t cons ultin n with me.
EVE LYN $ BERGER
_ OFPCIAL COURT REPORTER U. 5 DISTRICT COURT CN OWE, m E
Loo - Direct 39 1 the next time there is a general raise f o r folks , then 2 you give the p e o pl e who have been paid more than they 3 s ho uld be or than found they should be, less of a 4 raise.
5 And ultimately bring them to the level at 6 which they should be, which was .l o n e . A nd by the 7 F a ll of '81, that had been fini a h e d; but p rio r to that 8 the in s p e c to r s , for e :c a m p l e , had b e en p aid more than 9 a w eld e r, than a C e r tified Nuclear 'h e l d e r .
10 So it was important to a C e r tifi e d Nuclear 1; W el d e r , perhaps, that if he was going to have advance-12 ment he s ho uld become an in s p e c to r.
13 So with that dif f e r en tini, some of them 14 did. Then the dif f e r en tial was elimina t ed. There was 15 a good deal of unrest as a re sult of that.
l 16 One of the ele ment s, after r e viewin g the I
r 17 situation in th e F all of '81, and early '82, 1 con-18 cluded that all of the t hi n g s had been done as they 1
19 should be insofar as e s t a bli s hin ; th e pay grade; but 20 the co m munic a tion e had not been very w e ll handled, 21 but some of the people might have become inspectors 22 who were weldera because they thought it would get
- 23 them more money, and if any of those people would 24 like to now return to welcin g, we would make it 25 eas y f or them to do so because they have been induced EVELYN S. BERGER l _. OFFICIAL court REPORTER
- u. S. DISTRICT COURT
- HAR'FTTF N F
Lao - Direct 40 1 to take the inspector route because of more money; 2 and now that money has been reduced.
3 We wanted them to have their choice of 4 which way to go.
5 Q Let me understand, if I can, .Ni r . Lee, 6 what component of this r e vie w that you described 7 took place af ter the i. eldin g In s p e c to r s expressed 8 th ei r recourses?
9 W ha t was th e response to their rec ou rs e 10 and what was the r e sp o n s e of having the pay r ecla s si -
11 fi c a ti o n in the fir st in stanc e ?
12 A It was still talking about the pay aspects 13 and not th e qualit y -- wa s it v ali d , is it right, were 14 they right?
15 I s a tisfied m y s elf that the proper homewor k 16 had been done, and the experts had been brought to 17 bear, and it was right.
18 It is alwa y s tough to tell s om ebody your 19 job is not as i mpo r tant as we once thought it w.s.
20 0 ..ad that is what you are s ying ?
21 A That is wh a t I'm s a yin ;; it did not r e q uir o 22 as high a q u alifi c a ti o n to inspect as we once said it 23 was, and that is consistent w it h our findin g s and NRC.
24 It is impo rt ant that the welder perform a 25 very high quality, and perhap s is of more importance EVE LYN S. BERGER
_ 0FFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT
_CMARLQIII N. C.
Loo - Diroct 41 1 than the inspector, or at least equal; but we had a 2 diff e r ential.
3 Q A ll right, give me an idea of what you did 4 to perform this review to take a look and m ak e sure 5 it had been done right the fi r s t tim e ?
6 A T alke d to people in versonnel whc, said i t.
7 and had th em describe to me the process the y went 8 th ro u gh.
9 Yv h o w o u ld taese people have been, Mr.
Q 10 g,,7 11 a - e o ple under Joe ., ~ a j o r ; we h a *.' come mee t-12 ings in my o ffic e, or at least one m e e tin g. C a ll 13 Addis was there.
14 Q ho
- i. is Lt. 2.4 a j o r ?
15 A He is V ic e President o f P e r s onnel.
16 Q % hat is the other guy's na me ?
17 A It wa s n' t eithe r of you; s om e bearded guy 18 other than ':r.
Olbson.
19 .,! 2 OISION: ..r. Guild is not employe 20 and I have been e m ploy ed a short by duke, 21 so neither of us; time, no.
22 THE W IT N ESS : I think mayb e Fain 23 was there, but there was another f e llo w.
24 5
c 3Y M R_ GUILD!
EVELYN $ BERGER
_ 0FFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. 5. DesTatCT COURT FH ARLOTTF. N C.
Loo - Direct 42 1 O If it comes to you, let me know, Mr. Lee; 2 and it was r e all y a matter of a me etin g and reviewin g 3 what had been done and c onfi rmin g that it had been 4 done c o r r e c tly the fir s t time ?
5 3 yes, 6 G And that conclusion was r e fle c t e d in memos ?
7 You sent me mo s , you finally dir e cted to the V. c 1 d i n g 8 Inspectors an a nno unc e m e n t of the r e s ul t s of your 9
d ecision ?
10 A Yes.
11 Let me understand this: As a part of that O
12 Lee, or part of the original r evie w, r e view, Mr.
13 what c on side r a tion s , if any, were given to the in pac h 14 of the r e cla s sific a tio n on the e f f ec tiven e s s of the 15 W el di n g In s p e c tion work or the ef f e c tiven e s s of 1
16 Q u a li t y Assurance and welding of that r ecla s sification ?
17 A i" e l l , full c o n side r a tio n was given. It was 18 l f elt at that ti m e that the r e cla s s ific a tio n would not 19 detract from the q ua li t y of the i ns pe c tio n being per-20 fo r m e d, wha ts oe ve r.
21 g a hy 7 22 A he did not see any reason why they should, 23 the same people would be doing it. They wo uld n' t 24 get raises as large as some other people, it was 25 important to c o m munic a t e well and ex plain it to these EVELYN $, BERGER
.. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. OISTRICT COURT F hi a Ett MTTr M F
l Los - Direct 43 s
1 people, 2 A tte mpt s were b ei n g made through super-3 vision to do that, end in any case, 1 say it worked i
- 4 and in some cases it didn't work as well as others, j 5 O Two eff ects, one over the lo n g-t e r m, you 6 will be employin g inspectors who have less stringent j
1 7 q ua li fic a ti o n s than in the past, I believe le s s work l 8 experience as in this instance, welder s, less experi-9 e n ced in the actual craf t the y are in s pecting ?
10 A No, I 'd o n't think the q ua lifi c a tio n s change.
11 I think the evaluation of the ne c e s s a r y qualifica tio n s 12 converted to pay change that had not been done before.
13 Q W ell, I mean it is a market economy out 14 If you pay less, there for jobs li k e e ve rythin g else.
16 all thing s being you will get less qu ali fi e d people, 16 equal.
17 A W ell, I don't think the correlary is 18 n e c e s s a rily true , if you pay double the amount you 19 get ne c e s s a rily better in s p e c tio n.
20 Right, but you und er stand the re is a Q
21 r ela tio n s hip between the amount of work you get out 22 of somebody and the a mo un t you pay him ?
23 A That is one of the four or five element s 24 that are important as to th e quality of wo rk pe r-25 fo rm e d.
EVELYN $. BERGER
_ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT PWaninTTr N f*
l Loo - Diroet 44 i
1 Q In any event, there is g oin g to be--
2 A And, i n c id e n t ally, it ranks about five in 3 terms of motivating people to do the job.
4 O If you could do it in less than 30 seconda n 5 how about tellin g me what the other four a r e, Mr.
6 Lee.
7 A W ell, to do a good job does the person hav e 8 the kn o wle d g e to do it; does the person have the tool.s 9 to do it ? Does th e o r g a nis a tio n provide the atmo s ph ere 10 in which it can be done; does the person want to do 11 it ?
l 12 O Pay comes in somewhere.
13 A A n. element of the latter is pay, but that i
14 is not the only element.
l 15 Q I see, a ll right, sir. W ell, I believe I 16 understood you to say this before, the r ecla s sific atio n 17 d e t e r min e d that less q ualific ation s were required to 18 perform the in spection func tion ?
19 A If I s aid that, that isn't quit e co r r e c t:
20 Our recla s sification dete rmined that fo r the qualifi-21 c a ti o n s , we had never done a job and ta s k analysis 22 before; but for the qu alific a tio n s r equir ed of an 23 inspector in the pay peaking order, they were b eing 24 p aid too much.
25 Q A ll right, sir; you have an eff ect EvtLYN $. SERGER
_ OFFICIAL court REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT CCURT C00/MA@WE, D %
Los - Direct 45 1 immediately on the class of people alre ady holding 2 that job.
3 They will get paid less. If you take it 4 awa y. f rom the m today or their rate of increase will 5 be cut back to the level you think is appropriate, 6 over the longer ha ul you bring in new hires at a low o r 7 rate of pay with dif f e r ent qu ali fi c a tio n s , s h all we 8 say, paid le s s.
9 Now, firs t with r e s pec t--
10 A That wa s your conclusion; I don't agree 11 with it.
12 Q W ha t is wrong about that?
13 A We were able to find fully qualified people 14 fo r in spec tion po sition s at the new rate of pay, and l
l 15 we have been.
16 O I follow you and I un de r s tand your po sition l
17 to that ef f e c t. You will agree, wouldn't you, or 18 don't you unders tand, as I have heard said, that 19 W eldin g Inspectors formerly were required to have 20 two years' experience as welde r s.
l 21 That was by custom and p r a c tic e on the l
l 22 job, to require two years' prior experience as a 23 welde r ?
24 A I don't r e c o lle c t that s p e cifi cally.
25 Q S ca m e prior expe rienc e in the weldin g craf t EVE LYN $,BERGER
_ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT
@00fA@M CD- @- _ - , _ - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Loo - Direct 46 1 to be a W eldin g In s p ec to r; do you understand that?
2 A I think s o, but I'm not absolute.
3 Q After the re cla s sific ation no prior expe ri-4 ence--part of that q u a,11fi c a ti o n was not to have p rio r 5 craf t experience as a we ld e r .
6 Is that co ns is t ent with your un d e r s tanding 7 of the r e cla s s ific ation ?
8 A I would accept that subject to check.
9 Q And that r e cla s sific a tion with the lower 10 r equir e men t s for experience in the c raf t po sitio n canse 11 with a lower rate of pay?
12 A Yes, but now you are equating qualifications 13 as a weld e r from your kno wl e d g e as es sential to 14 qualifications as an in s p e c to r.
15 O I am not s a yin g they are o r not, Mr. Lee.
l l
16 I am s a yi n g they were o ri gin ally i n c i t.d e d , but they 17 were af te rwa r d s --
18 A Babe R u th may have been a lousy u m pir e, 19 and an umpire does not have to hit a lot of homeruns.
20 Q Perhaps; but s om e one thought it was a good 21 idea to have Welding Inspectors who were weld e r s .
22 A A nd for awhile that is where we drew them 23 f rom.
24 Q And they did until July of '81, when you 25 r ecla s sifi ed their oav. Thereaf ter you drew oeople Evt LYN S. BERGER
, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CH A RIDTTF N C, ,
Loo - Direct 47 1 who weren't welders previously for % elding 2 Inspec to rs ?
3 A Correct, I guess. Mr. G uil d , I was not 4 s ele c tin g the individ uals .
5 O In de p end ently is it you r under s tanding then 6 in accordance with your decision you were getting 7
people for W eldin g Inspectors who were not previously 8 welder s ?
9 A A s s umably so.
10 0 People were paid less than they would have 11 b een paid under the old system?
12 A They stayed on the job. If they are 13 in s p ec to r s they are paid as much as the weld e r s .
14 O But less than they would have been prio r 15 to the r e cla s s ific a ti on ?
16 A I guess so.
17 Q What was your f eelin g o r understanding or 18 what r e vi e w did you do about the diec t on these two 19 cla s s e s of p eo ple and their work?
20 Didn't you understand there would be s o me 21 morale effect on people who would be told their job 22 was wo rth less than before ?
23 A Mr. G uild , there la m o r ale eff ect in an 24 awful lot of things that I d c, as a M ana ge r; and I havo 25 to work hard to mitt e n t e litti, thinen that tend to
' EVELYN $. BERGER
., OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U S. DISTRICT COURT CW AR' QTTE, N O
1 Loo - Direct 48 1 hurt morale and to reinforce thin g s to help improve 2 mo rale.
3 That is part of my job. There is mo rale 4 effect in an awful lot of things we do throughout the 5 company; and that was one of the painful thing s about 6 this.
7 Equity and f airnes s said to everyone in 8 the company that people should be paid according to 9 the content of the job they hold.
10 Inte rn al equity and c o mp en s a tio n, whether 11 you work in K a n na po li s or Charlotte or C at awb a, says 12 it ought to have pay compensation right with the 13 qualification s ne ce s s ary for the job.
14 A nd in analyzing many jobs, there were 15 a dj u s t m en t s necessary. This was one that had a 16 down tic k.
17 The down tic k was handled by a period of 18 ti m e by simply not ha vin g as high a raise. E quit y, 19 th ou gh, to everyone, including the s e people, said you l
20 ought to give them the right signals by paying them 21 according to the q ualific a ti o n s and the contents of l
22 the job they perform.
23 Q W ell, morale can be n eutral or n e g ative, 24 and you will a g r e e it wa s n 't po sitive on the W elding 25 In s p ec to r s ?
Ev tLYN $. BERGER
_ 0FFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CH AH OTTT N O
Loo - Direct 49 1 A That's right, it was n e gative because of 2 their relationship to their peer group, their relation-3 ship to inspectors.
4 C ompe tition with inspectors outside of 5 Duke Power was s till very good.
6 Q By what peer group do you mean?
7 A The welders.
8 Q And how was that effected?
9 A W ell, at one time some of them were welde r s .
10 They went over to be inspectors, and they were paid 11 a little more than they were as welde r s , and then the 12 dif f e r enc e di s a p p e a re d .
13 O So there is no diff e r enc e; the dif f e re nc e j
14 was eliminated by the re cla s sific ation ?
15 A yes, 16 Q Now what, if anything, did you do about 17 the m or als eff e c t of this r ecla s sification on the work 18 of the s e ins pe cto r s, Mr. Les?
19 A I dis cus s ed with Mr. Owen and Mr. W ells 1
20 the importance of eff ective c ommunic ation s as to why, 21 and the equity of the decision; and me e tin g s were held 22 with s up e r vi s o r s and supervisors with the people at 23 the same tim e that my letter was going out to the 24 individuals who were involved in the Recourse 25 proceeding.
EVELYN S. BERGER
_. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CfMOCMEt, ra (L
Loo - Diroct 50 1 O Wha t r e s pon sibilitie s did you place on Mr.
2 W ell s with respect to addressing these concerns?
3 L e t 's talk about the pay concerns now, the mo rale 4 issue.
5 A W ell, I' ve described the r e s po n s ibility I 6 put on Mr. Owen and M r. W ell s . C o m mu ni c a t e the 7 reasons for this decision and be as ef f ective in your 8 communications as you can.
9 O Did it work?
10 A Ithink perhaps it worked better than one 11 mi g ht expect. I unde r s tand that most of them are still 12 with us.
13 Q Mr. W ells is n't with you; is he?
14 A Yes, sir.
15 O He left very shortly af ter you announced 16 your decision on the recourse; didn't he?
17 A Mr. W ells is an employee of Duke Power 18 today.
19 O He is not employed in the capacity that he 20 was when you made him responsible for d e alin g with 21 this p roblem ?
22 A No, we had a new problem that came up.
23 I a sked that Mr. W ell s be assigned to the new 24 p ro ble m.
25 Q What was that ?
EVELYN $ SERGER
. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CH AR(QTTE, N C,
- - ~ . - . - - - . _ - -
Lee - Direct 51 1 A To put together a nationwide effort to b e t tie r 2 assure qu a li t y in the design and con s tructio n of 3 nuclear powe r plants.
4 Q And you assigned this new p r oble m to Mr.
5 Wells ?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q How did you do that, Mr. Lee?
8 A By a s kin g M r. W ell s to go to A tlanta to 9 work at INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power 10 O pe r a tio ns , to help set up Task Forces that would 11 s tudy what was required.
12 Mr. W e ll s provided leader ship to s e v e r al 13 of these Task Forces that developed the c rit e ria that 14 INPO is now using to e valu a t e design and c on s t r uc tion, 15 quality aspects of the nuclear power plants na tio nwid e 16 and now in several f or eign nation s.
17 O Did you meet with Mr. W e ll s to ask him 18 to take on this task?
19 A Yes. Owen W ell, I met with him. Mr.
20 met with him at greater length. He reported directly 21 to Mr. Owent but I met with M r. W ell s on a numb e r 22 of o c c a s io n s in A tlanta while he was pe rf o r min g that 23 task.
24 Q Did you meet with M r. W ell s b ef or e ha 25 departed for the job in A tlanta ?
EVELYN $. SERGER
_ 0FFICIAL court REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CHARLOTTE. N. C. __. _ _ _ _ _
Los - Direct 52 s
1 A I think so. I would think if I was here I 2 did. If he left when I was out of town, I did n' t.
3 O W hy didn't you leave M r. % ells in his 4 position as Corporate QA Manager while he was try-5 in g to solve the problem that was most i mm e dia t e ly 6 at hand, Mr. Lee?
7 That is the W e ldin g Inspector concerns?
8 A W ell, this Recourse Procedure had been 9
resolved. At the s a me time there was an u r g en t n e e d.
10 nationwide for somebody to do so methin g about the 11 quality of design and con struction of nuclear po we r 12 plants, the Diablo Canyon problem had come up, 13 Chairman Pa111dino had told the industry that the improve-14 m en t s were needed.
15 A Task Forc e of the industry was formed 16 The Task Force to decide how be st to undertake it.
17 concluded the best way to undertake it was to ask 18 IN P O to as sume r e s p o n sibilit y for it.
19 INP O did not have any personnel who had 20 experience in D e sign and C on s t ruction, and their 21 q ualit y was our concern, and Mr. W ells was the most 22 qualified guy in the United States with a s much 23 experience as anyone, and was therefore an exc e ll e n t 24 choice to a sk to start th e thing u p.
5 O You had in11 c on fi d e n e n in ht r _ W alle ?
EV ELYN S. BERGER
_ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CH ARLOTTE, N. C.
Lee - Direct 53 1 A Yes, sir; still do.
2 O You feel e onfide nt in the way he handled 3 his r e s po nsibilitie s as Corporate QA Manager ?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 Q And the way he handled ma tt e r s with the 6 W elding Ins pec to r concerns?
7 A Yes, sir; all the technical aspects of the 8 Q ua li t y Assurance ef fo rt s , M r. W ells handled in an 9 o ut s tandin g way.
10 He is recognized by his peers nationwide 11 on that c alib e r .
12 Q How about non-technical concerns?
13 A V/ o did no t c ommunic ate with tho s e people 14 as well as we perhaps could have. I think we all 15 r e ali z e d that in hindsight, 20--20, a little better 16 than we could have anticipated with foresight.
17 O T hi s is sort of a marked up copy here, bu' .
18 that has been pr e vio u s ly id en tifi e d as an Exhibit, 19 M r. L ee (indic atin g) .
20 It is a me mo r a ndu m, a note, letter, Mr.
21 W ells sent. It is addressed to all C a tawba W eldin g 22 Inspectors, January 21, 1982.
23 W ell s that he was depart-Had you told M r.
24 ing for Atlanta for this m i s t. . o n with IN PC at that 25 point?
EVE LYN $, @ERGER
,, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. OlsTRICT COURT CHARLOTTE N P
Loo - Direct 54 1 A I don't remember that; when? It was just 2 about this time f rame that the industry-wide Task 3 Force was approaching INPO.
4 Q Yes, and so you did not discuss that 5 appointment with M r. W ells until af te r the IN PO had 6 been contacted by the industry Ta sk Force? .
7 A I think this was all over by that time.
8 Q What was all over?
9 A By the time we r ealiz e d that INPO wa s 10 going to take this job.
11 Q Yes?
12 A It was after this, af ter January 21, 1982.
13 Q So you would not have told M r. W ell s about 14 his a s signment to Atlanta until after January?
15 A All right, sir.
16 O I guess the qu e s ti o n t h a t c o m e s to mind, 17 Mr. Lee, Mr. W ell s ' last c o nc lu din g paragraph to l 18 the W elding In spec to rs, "As is true in any work, l
19 working in a safe and e f fi ci e nt manner in that any 20 trust you may have los t in your supervision can be 21 r e s to r ed, and I intend to do my best to do so."
22 "I wan t you to understand that and do your 23 best in helping me a c c om pli o h this." And he leaves l 24 two weeks later.
l 25 Mr. Lee, is that good m an a c e m e nt. good
! Evst m S. BtRotR
- OFFICIAL court REPORTER I U. S. OlsTRICT COURT U N _ ___ _
-a.aA.
Loo - Direct 55 1 c ommunication ?
2 A We n.a d e a decision a short time later due 3 to an ur gent need that INPO had. I lef t this company 4 on two hours 8 no ti c e one time and was sent to another 5 in s tit uti on to work for days and nights, and I did n' t 6 know it two hours before I left.
7 But there was an urgent need.
8 Q A nd you came back ?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Mr. W ell s is gone.
11 A I' m expecting Jim W ells back here, too.
12 I've known Jim W e ll s for a very long period of ti m e .
13 Q But he is not c o min g back as Corporace 14 Manager of Quality Assurance?
15 A I don' t know what h e 'll do; I don't know.
16 Q So he hasn't been Corporate Quality 17 A s surance Manager since e a rly February, 1982, to 18 present?
19 A He has been at INPO putting together a 20 nationwide and international Quality Assurance ,
21 p ro g r am. You are talking about a Weldin g In s p ec to r 1
22 concern at C a t awb a.
23 O In your judgment there was no s i g n ifi c a n c e 24 to Mr. W e ll s ' d e p a r tin g, no si gnificanc e with respect 25 to morale of % elding Ins pe ctor s ?
i EVELYN $. BERGER
-. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. OlstRICT COURT RMN. A @o , , , - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
Loo . Diroct . 56 i 1 A I don' t think the ti min g of Mr. W ells '
2 departure to INPO had anything to do with this pay 3 Problem and the concern expressed by those in s pecto r s.
4 Q Nor did your filling the Corporate QA 5 Manager position with Mr. G ri e r have anything to do 6 with addre s sin g this p roble m ?
7 A Mr. G rier was selected because he could 8 bring a certain, in our view, aspect to the job that 9 was needed and timely.
10 Q Which wer e ?
11 A He not only has demonstrated high techni-12 cal c a p a bili ti e s , but very good ability as a c o m muni <-
13 cator.
14 O Improved abili ti e s as a c o mmunic a to r over 15 his predecessor?
16 A I don't know that I would say that; we all l
l 17 have a mixture of qu alifi c a ti on s and some are s t r on g <s r 18 and some are not as strong, and nobo'dy is perfect.
19 O I mean I just wanted a fair a s s e s s me nt, 20 if you know, if you have an opinion, was Mr. G rie r 21 more ca pable as a c o m mu nic a t o r than Mr. V. e ll s ?
22 A I didn't make tha t judgment. Mr. W ells 23 was needed at IN P O at the time to start a n atio nwi d e 24 pro gram.
25 Now the n, we are goin g to lo s e Mr. W ells ;
EVELYN $. BERGER
.. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CH ARLOTTE. N. C.
Loo - Direct 57 I who should we get to replace him ?
2 So we look around, wh at kind of person 3 do we need? We need a good c o mm unic ato r, highly 4 technical, competent, good ma n a g e m e nt track record; 5 and George G rie r wa s the selection that filled those 6 q u a lific ati o n s .
7 It was not necessary to put Mr. G rie r on 8 one scale and Wells on another. W ell s was the mo s t 9 experienced QA man that we knew in the nation; 10 therefore, he ought to go t o IN PO.
11 Now how to replace him, by s a yin g G eo r g e 12 G ri e r is a good co mmunic ato r is no way compared to 13 M r. Jim W ells as a c o mmunic a to r.
14 Q How about c o mpa ri n g Mr. W ells and Mr.
15 G ri e r on the a t t rib ut e s of eff ective communica tions ?
l 16 A I would like to discuss this with C ou ns el.
17 ( W h e r eu po n, the Witne s s and his l
18 Counsel conferred out of the h e a rin g 19 of the Court Re po rter. )
20 21 MR. GIBSON: Lee Mr. G uil d, Mr.
22 has given his vi e w of Mr. W ells and of 23 M r. G rie r; I am ins truc tin g him, af ter 24 conferring with hi m , not to sit here and 25 do a comparison today of the strengths and l EVELYN $. BERGER l ,. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. OlsTRtCT COURT CH ARLOTTE. N. C.
Leo - Direct 58 1 weaknesses of both persons.
2 MR. GUILD: Are you ins truc tin g him 3 not to answer the que s tio n I have posed to 4 him ?
5 The que s tion is pending, and I would 6 like i t.. a n s w e r e d .
7 THE WIT N E S S : Repeat the qu e s tio n.
8 9 BY MR. GUILD:
10 Q Compare W e ll s and Mr. G r'i e r on the 11 q ualit y you think is impo rtant; that is ef f ec tive 12 c o m muni c a tion s .
13 A I think Mr. W ell s and Mr. G rie r are both 14 eff e ctive co mmunic ator s.
15 Q Eith er is superior to the other ?
16 A Both are ef f e c tive co m munic a to r s .
17 MR. GIBSON: I have instructed M r.
18 Lee not to c a m p s. r e the ef f ec tivene s s of the 19 communication of Mr. Vi e ll's and Mr. G rie r.
20 MR. G UI LD : If you are in s t r u c tin g 21 him not to answer the qu e s ti on. I will take 22 it up with the Board.
23 I have a qu e s tion pending and I would 24 like it answered.
25 MR, GIBSON: I have indicated our EVELYN $. BERGER
, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. 0157RICT COURT CPTOLOWE, C. R
Leo - Diroct 59 1 po s iti o n, that you are well aware of the 2 o pti on s available to you, and I would point 3 out, Mr. G u il d, it is close to five o' clock, 4 MR. GUILD: I have many other areca 5 of inqui ry. Are you in s truc tin g him not 6 to answer that que stion ?
7 MR. GIBSON: Fo r the fourth time, I 8 mm instructing him not to answer the 9 qu e s ti o n.
10 MR. G UILD : Fine, no need to raise 11 your voice; just instruct him not to a n s we r .
12 MR. GIBSON: I think the lack of 13 clarity comes f rom your part. If you have 14 other que s tion s, proceed.
15 16 BY MR. GUILD:
17 C Have you ever met with Mr. Riley concern-18 ing the Welding Inspector concerns?
19 A No, sir; not to my r e c olle c ti o n.
20 O The work of the Task Force that inve s ti-21 gated thos e concerns?
22 A I m e t vd t h M r . Owen with respect to the 23 Task Force at work. I m ay have met with the fi r s t 24 Task Force headed by Ea rl H e n ley o r certainly as 25 the Chairman.
EVELYN $. BERGER
_ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CHARLOTTE, N. C.
Loo - Direct 60 1 O Yes, sir; does that c o mple t e your a n s we r ?
i 2 A Yes.
3 Q Have you met with Mr. Henry _ concerning 4 the W eldin g In s p e c to r s ' concerns?
5 A Wayne Henry?
6 Q Yes.
7 A I think Wayne was in some of the m e etin g s 8 with me.
9 Q W hi ch m e e tin g s are those, sir?
10 A I do n' t r e c olle c t. Mr. G uil d.
11 O Have you met with M r. Henry on the 12 subject sinc e January or F e bru a r y of '82, more 13 r e c ently than that on this subject?
14 A I may have met with him in connection 15 with the report of the Task Force or the report and 16 findin g s of Mack, an independent c o n s ult a n t who was i
17 b r o u g ht in to look at this ma tt e r.
l 18 Q W hat was your r ela tion s hip with Mack?
19 Had you had prior d e alin g s with him ?
20 A Ihad no t; M r. Owen had had prior inter-21 faces with Mack and r e co mme nd ed that they be re-22 tained to make an independent study, and I concurrect
'3 in his r e c o mm e nda tio n.
l 24 MR. GUILD: L e t 's mark this docu-25 ment, the January 21st, 1982, letter that EvELYN S. BERGER I . OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER I
U. S. OISTRICT COURT f RHWTTIt, N. @.
Loo - Direct 61 1 you brought with you, Mr. Lee, as the 2 fi r s t Exhibit to your Deposition.
3 ( W h e r eupon, the document referred 4 to as letter to Mr. Lee from Mr. Owen 5 dated 1/21/82, was ma rk ed and received 6 by the C ou rt R e po rte r as Lee D e po sitio n 7 Exhibit One and ettered into the Re co rd. )
8 9 3Y MR. GUILD:
10 Q M r. Lee, are you f amiliar with the fir s t 11 SALP report, NR C 's S y s t e matic Licensing A s s es sment 12 N ur e g 84 pu blis h e d in Augu s t of '81?
13 A l' m not certain I can ide ntif y th at documen t.
14 Q A ll right, sir; I p a r ti cula rly direct your 15 a tt e ntio n to A p p e ndix 3, and that reflects the then l 16 r ati n g of the C c tawba plant as among seven f acilitie s 17 rated below average.
18 A W ha t is this report?
19 C That is the r e po rt to whic h that appendix 20 is attached. It is the Licensee A s se s s ment Group.
21 So this was the g e ne ri c report that in s pe c ts all plants.
22 Are you f amiliar wit h that report?
23 A Yes, I r e mem be r the report.
24 Q It grouped C a t awba b elow average, and the 25 third paragraph, " Summary of Findings." is r efle c t e d EVELYN $. BERGER CFFICIAL COURT REPORTER l U. S. OtSTRICT COURT CH ARLOTTE, N. C.
Loo - Direct 62
=
1 on the page that I'm showing you.
2 What I want to unde r stand is your reaction 3 to th at report and what c o r r e c tiv e a c tion, if any, 4 you understand was taken with regard to those 5 findin g s .
6 A My re ac tion to the report was to inspect, 7 of course, inquire the c rit e ria that were used for a 8 r a ti n g of above and below average.
9 I was advised that the r a ti n g was deter-10 mined by the numbe r of reports made to the NR C with 11 respect to nonco nf o rming items or other problems.
12 I then was advised that the numerical 13 number vrhich was- the bases of the r a tin g was influ-14 enced by the initia tiv e taken by the li c e n s e e in re-15 p o r tin g fi n din g s that the li c e n s e e has m ad e.
16 We have taken, I think, a great deal of 17 initiative to report to the NRC e ve r yt hing we have 18 ever found; so all of a sudden I had concern about 19 the quantification of nu mbe r of reports as in di c a ti n g 20 w he th e r somebody was average or better than averago 21 or poorer than average, whi c h is simply the nu mb e r 22 of reports which was used as the measurement basis; 23 and I now know the NR C had si mila r concerns and 24 therefore they abandoned that bases of measurement 95 on which t hi s report was b a a n r1 hecana. nreh.
EVELYN S BERGER
.. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT
_. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ___@C000SeWGa A @.
Los - Direct 63 1 m ali c io u s nature.
2 T hi s report came out in 19 81, and was for 3 a period that was th e n more than a year old, as I 4 remember.
5 In fact, it was for a period that began two 6 years before that and ended a year before that, and 7 it was during that time that we had made substantial 8 changes in the procedures used in the Quality 9 A s s uranc e P ro gra m.
10 We di s c u s s e d what else ne eded to be done 11 in order to make sure we had as high a c a li b e r 12 qu alit y insurance at C atawba as was needed; and 13 there were and s till a r e evolving inc r e me ntal improvo -
14 ments in that improvements were made of records 15 c on tr oll e d during that ti me .
16 I believ e this was about th e time that the 17 Q ua lit y Control Inspectors were move d over to the 18 Q u a li t y Assurance Department; whereas previously 19 th e y h e. d been in the C on s t ruc tio n D e pa r tment.
20 That was a change made during this time, 21 and if we went back to the records, we would see 22 lite r ally do zen s of changes in procedures during this l
23 time.
24 C Were changes in procedures eff ected at 25 Catawba, Mr. Lee, to reduce the raw number of non.
EVELYN $. BERGER
_ 0FFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CH ARLOTTE. N. C.
Loo - Direct 64 1 conforming items forwarded to th e NRC to try to 2 address this question o' simply basing a false report --
3 A we have never, in Duke Power Company, 4 wo r ried about that sort of measurement c rite ria or 5 responded to the use of that sort of measurement 6 c rit e ria for use by the NRC as indicated in this 7 report.
8 I don't think it is a valid c r i t e r io n to use, 9 but I do think that Quality Assurance Programs will 10 always be improved.
11 Q A re you aware that procedures have been 12 changed in the d o c u m en ta ti on of nonc o nf o r min g items 13 and c on s tr uction deficiencies at Catawba, and that 14 r e s ult ed in a r e du c tion la th e nu mb e r of nonc onf o r m-15 in g it e m reports and an increase in the process 16 control and other means of d o c u m e n ti n g d eficien cie s ?
17 1. N o, if that is so then what was the purpose 18 of the change?
19 are you aware of a Task Force that is Q
20 currently organized to r e vie w the proce s sing of 21 a team chaired by nonco nf o r min g it e m s at C at awba, 22 Mr. B r adley.
23 A You mean a back log of them ?
24 Q I don't know; a team that in c alled the 25 N on conf or manc e E v alua ti o n T eam; Mr. Bradley and EV ELYN $,8ERGER
_ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT CH ARLOTTE, N. C.
Loo - Direct 65 1 some re pr e s enta tive s of a v a ri e t y of other di s cipline s 2 meet and r e vi ew N CI's .
3 A I am not certain about that.
4 MR. GIBSON: Mr. G u il d, I b eli e v e 5 it is af ter five o' clock. I b e li e v e we 6 started a few mo m e n t s af te r five, so if 7 you have a few moment s of fini s hin g 8 qu e s tion s , we will let M r. Lee stay.
9 MR. GUILD: I have considerably more 10 que s tion s for Mr. Lee.
11 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Lee is not available 12 after bu sine s s hours to d a y, Mr. G u il d . If 13 you have a f ew more areas to be covered 14 in the next few minutes. I suggest you do t hat 15 BY MR. G UILD :
16 O Are you f amiliar with the use of the non-17 c onf o rmin g ite m report, the O1A r epo r t ?
18 A Mr. G uild, I may have been f a miliar with 19 that at one tim e, but I don't recollect that numb e r.
20 O A re you f amiliar with the use of the R2 21 procedure to document cons truc tion de ficiencie s ?
22 A No, sir.
23 C M r. Lee, Welding Inspectors u s ed non-24 conforming item reports to document c o n s t ru c tion 25 d e fi ci en ci e s that they noted in the course of a w e ldin g EVELYN $. BERGER
_ 0FFICIAL COURT REPORTER
- u. S. 0157RICT COURT
_- . - - - - . - - - - C H ARLOTTE N C.
Leo - Diroct 66 '
a i
1 in s pe c tion p r e viou sly at C a tawba.
2 Procedures were changed. W eldin g 3 Inspectors were t o l d <. n o t to use the n o n c o nf o r mi n g 4 it e m r e po rt but the procedure Cl to document 5 d e fi c i e n ci e s in welding that they noted in their 6 in s p e c tion s.
7 How would you understand a Vr e l d i n g 8 In s p e c to r to perceive that sort of in s t ruc tion in 9 li g h t of your e a rli e r s ta tement s when you observed 10 the Q u alit y Assurance Depa rtment ?
11 W ould n ' t you understand that as a W eldin g 12 Inspector being told not to do in s pe c tions ? V.' o u l d n ' t 13 you understand that as d e n e g a tin g the f un c tion of i 14 in s pec tion ?
15 A No, because I'm sure there is some mech-16 a ni s m by which they can report deficiencies.
17 C How do you know that?
18 A You have characterized s o m e thin g to me 19 that I am not f amiliar with; therefore, I reacted to 20 what you characterized because I don't b e li e v e you 21 c ha ra c te rize d it properly.
22 O You are not aware of the s p e cific s of how 23 the matter is handle d ?
24 A I' m not even aware of what you've 1
25 cha ra c te ri z e d.
EvELYN $. BERGER
.. OFFICIAL court REPORTER
- u. S. DISTRICT COURT FHARIDTTE N C.
g A
- Loo - Direct 67 1 Q But if you a s s ume those facts as I stated 1
l 2 them, your answer would have been the same ? '
l 3 A No, the answer wo ul d have been no, as I l 4 understood your qu es tion.
5 O Are you aware of the p r a c tic e of v e r b a lly 6 voiding th e no nc onf o r min g it e m s at Catawba ?
7 A No.
8 O If I asked you to accept that the practice 9 at C a tawba was that in s pe c to r s would, original non-10 conforming ite m reports, Q1A, they would document 11 a d efi ci e n c y that they id e n tifie d before that report 12 was logged by document control or assigned a number 4 13 for record control, that supervision f o llo w the i
14 p r a c ti c e of voiding that no nc onf o r min g item, of 15 in s t ru c tin g the inspector to destroy the f o r m, tear 16 it u p, but to void the NCI without it b e i n g d o c u m e n t e :1.
17 If you accept that s tate m ent of fact hyp;-
18 th e ti c ally, is that consistent with your understanding 19 of proper Q u alit y Assurance procedure?
,r 20 A If,the N CI was a safety related d eficie nc y, 21 then that is inconsistent with my understanding. If 22 the N CI had nothin g to do with s o m e t hin g safety 23 related, then it seems to me it could have been done 24 that way.
25 Q In who s e j ud gment ?
Ev! LYN $ BERGER OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT PuaalnTTF Rd P
Loo - Direct 68 1 A In the j ud gment of the highest r e vi ewin g 2 au th o rit y.
3 O In the judgment of such su pe rvis o r who 4 v e r b ally voided the NCI?
5 A If the supervisor is the hi gh e s t r e vie win g 6 authority, that would be the highest r e vi e win g 7 authority.
8 O If that was his judgment that it was not 9 safety related, it wo uld be consistent with the pro-10 cedure for him to ve rb ally void the NCIs ?
11 A I don't know the procedures, M r. G uild.
12 You asked is it right or wrong. I said if it is safet y 13 related it did not f o llo w the procedure, and if it is 14 not safety related, it di d n ' t matter.
15 Q That is your answer, it do e s n't matte r ?
16 A If it is not safety related.
17 Q I am not a s kin g you for a rote discussion 18 of a procedure; I want your opinion as to good 19 p r a c tic e , good Q u a li t y Assurance p r a c ti c e as the 20 fi r s t Quality A s su ranc e M a na g e r of Duke Qu alit y 21 A s s urance.
22 A If it is safety related, it ought to be 23 documented.
24 O And if it is not safety related in the 25 judgment of the supe 3 vising autho rity, it is u ni m p ortaat ?
[vt LYN S. BERctR O, 'lAL COURT AtPCRTER u ' DISTRICT COURT
, aatnTTF N F
.ro - Direct 69 1 A Then somebody used an NCI where it wa s n't 2 needed or ju s tifie d.
3 Q A nd it doesn't matter whether it is'docu-4 mented or not?
5 A I d on ' t think so.
6 C A ll right, if I can have a mom e nt, please; 7 hi r . Lee. I want to show you two other documents, 8 sir.
9 T hi s is a December 4, 1981, memo 10 (indic atin g). It appears to have your s i g na tu r e on it.
11 A Uh huh.
12 C Do you recognize that, sir?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Is that the memo that r e fle c t s your authorLz-15 ing a Task Force to review the Vi e ld i n g Inspector 16 technical concerns?
17 A Yes.
18 O Did you w rit e that memo, sir ?
19 A Yes.
20 C % hy was the work of the fir s t Task Force 21 not the end of the matter, hi r . Lee? Why was there 22 a second Task Force o r ganiz ed ?
23 A I b e li e v e hi r . Owen felt that it w ould be 24 good to have someone not in Duke Power Company 25 make an independent appraisal.
EVELYN $. SCRGER
__ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT C H AR'.O TT E . N C.
1 Loo - Diroct 70 I
1 The exact sequence of thinking le a din g up 2 to that, you will have to ask him.
3 Q A ll right, sir; I will get a chance to do 4 that. That would have been the Mack p e o pl e , the 5 c on sultant ?
6 A Yes.
7 Q A ll ri ght, sir; and a January 22nd, 1982, 8 memo (indic a tin g); can you identif y that, sir?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Did you w rit e th at ?
11 A Yes.
12 O To Mr. W ells ?
13 A Yes.
14 Did someone draf t that memo for you, sir 7 O
15 Can you r e c all--it is your response to the W eldin g 16 Inspector recourse lett er s, an explanation of the 17 pay decision; can you r e c a ll ?
18 A There were probably draf ts of this brought-
! 19 to me, but I b elie ve that--
20 Q By Ms. A ddis ?
21 A Maybe so; I b eli e v e that I probably did 1
22 some changes to it.
23 Q Can you r e c all wh e th er or not she pre-24 sented a draf t to you?
25 A I don't r e c all.
I EvtLYN $. 6(RGER
' _ 0FFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT
- *HAnt0T?F N P _
Loo - Direct 71 1 Q A ll right, sir: Mr. Lee, a f ter your 2 January decision on the recourse r e fl e c t e d in your 3 January 22nd memo to r. VJells, what was the 4 nature of your involve m e n t in responding to the 5 Welding Inspector concerns?
6 A I responded to each of the '. . e l d i n g 7 In s p ec to r s who had i ni tia t e d the R ecour se Procedure.
8 Q Yes?
9 A From ti m e to time for months the r eaf te r 10 I t a lk ed to Mr. Owen about the s it u a tio n.
11 C Did you receive writte n re co rt s ?
12 a O c c a s io na ll y I would, and would initial 13 it and send it back to hi m.
~
14 C Did you keen those in your file ?
15 A No.
16 O V. e r e those reports that were addressed to 17 you from .U r . Owen?
18 > It mayhava been or they r: a r have been 19 a d d r e n :: e d to him a n c! he sent one to me for my 20 in f o r m a tio n.
21 O It may have been both?
22 A It could have been.
23 Q a nd your p r a c tic e is if you read it you 24 would initini it ?
25 A I would initial it and send it back to him.
EVE LYN $. 6(RGER
_ 0FFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. OtSTRICT COURT PHARf9TTF N f*
Loo - Direct 72 m A 1 O How would you initial it ?
2 A " Lee."
3 O V'ould that be by your nam e ?
4 A "om e time s on the front page or s om e tim e s 5 a check mark.
6 O Ey your name ?
7 A Yeah.
8 O A ll right, sir--
9 A If I didn't think it was important to initial 10 it and check it or retu r n it, I would throw it in the 11 wa s te ba sket.
12 O A ll right, sir; I understand your record 13 k e e pin g s y s t e m. 1ou wo uldn ' t keep it in your file s, 14 sir?
15 A No, sir.
16 O A ll right, sir; your Lawyers are c allin g 17 ti m e ,
18 2. I was a v a ila ble when you asked, at ten 19 o' clock this mo r nin ;.
20 C Your Lawyers are keeping me bus y in 21 C olum bia, -s r. Lee. You have a legion of them, able 22 as they are.
23 I had other business in re s pondin g to this.
24 y ,.,p ecirte vnur bein- , v o i l '. 51 e ,
. r. Lee, Set for 25 the time I would love to talk to you on other m a t t e r ;i .
EvELYN $. BERGER
. OFFICIAL court REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT FWaninTTF M F
Lee -
Cro11 73 i
1 CROSS E X A taIN A TIO N 2 BY MR. GI",90N:
3 C. In response to que s tio n a of 2.i r . G uil d, 4 you stated as a r e s ult of the r e cla s sificatio n you had 5 to tell people that their job is not as valuable or 6
not as impo rtant as we once thought it was.
7 You were re f e r ring to the QA Inspectors' 8
job in responding to that qu e s tion ?
9-A I was r ef e r rin g to the level of their o a y, 10 of the O.. In s p ec t o r s .
11 C ' ere you s u g g e s ting that CA In s p e c tio n 12 f u n c ti c a was not as i mpo r t an t as it perhaps was befo re?
13 A N o, I didn't mean to imply that.
14 O 'ulth respect to your responses concerning 15 the chan;es in the q ualific a tio n s for t eldin g 16 In s p e c t o r s , includin; the weldin; experience; did this 17 r e s ult in a less q u a li fi e d V e l el i r. g In s oe c tor ?
18 . .
1 .a.
l 19 C. u a l i t y a is .. u k e s till as c a m mit t ed to 20 e.saurance today as when you i niti a ll y started the 21 p ro gr a m ?
22 MR. G UI LD: I hate to have to note l 23 this for the Record, but I c ouldn't c o n s t r u'c t 24 y ,n ,> r e ! . a r' i n ~ quection.
25 MR. GIBSON: State your objection EVELYN $. BERGER OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT "WARfnTTr N F
Lee - Croaa 74 1 and we will move on.
2 VR. CUILD: Ask the q u e stio n in a 3 n on-le a din g f a s hio n and--
4 MR. C I 3.e 0 N : Your o b j e e tion is noto d, 5 Mr. Guild.
6 MR. vCILD: 1. '/ only s u;;e s tio n, 7 Counsel, is that if the b it ne s s ' answers 8 have any sig nifica nc e at all, it should be 9 from his mouth and not yours.
10 If yo u want to take this c o p o r tu nit y 11 while the e p o s i t i o n is pending, instead of 12 later to do this, I su2 gest that the question 13 is o bj e c :i o n a b le because of the f o r m.
14 VR. GI 3S ON: For cl a rit y 's sake, 15 you have objected and I unde r s tand your 16 objection.
17 18 BY VR. O, I 'I S '3 N -
l 19 C 7tring que n tion s fron
-. Guild, I think 20 the qu e s tion or a series of phrases were used con-21 cerning CA being a fifth wheel for a make work 22 f u n c tion or perhaps not an important f u n c tio n.
23 In your vie v of Ca, was QA a make work 24 or a fif t h whe el or not impo-tant?
25 A I thou ght I made it clear I disagreed with Evt LYN S. BERc R 0FFICIA6 COU,1T REPORTER U. S. DISTRICT COURT PH..RIOTTF N P
Lee Cro e 75 1 V r. C ull d 's c h a r a c t e r12 a ti on of "make work" with 2 respect to GA: and certainly I disagree with any 3 c ha ra cte rization that it w o uld be a fifth wheel.
4 O J, r e you aware of a n yt hin g that would caus e 5 you to que s tio n wh ethe r the C c t awb a Nuclear . a ti o n 6 is s af ely built ?
7 A I am not.
8 MR. GIBSON: That is all I have.
9 ?.5 R . GUILD: I have nothing further.
10 FURTHEr THE DEDONENT S AIT H NOT .
11 (V/hereupon, the Denosition was 12 concluded at 5:20 p.m.)
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I, " illia m '. -ee, hereby c e r t i f */
20 that I h :t v e read and und e r s ta n d the foregoing tran-21 script and b elie ve it to be a true, accurate and 22 c o m pl e t e tra ns c rip t of my t e s timo ny.
23 24 25 W illi a m S. Lee l EVELYN $. BERGIR l .. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. OiSTRICT COURT
76 1 This D e po s itio n was signed in my 2 presence by W illia m S. Lee on the da y of July, 3 1983.
4 5
Notary P u biic 6
7 8
9 C E R T I F I C A I E 10 STATE OF NORTH C AR O LIN A 11 COUNTY OF V EC M LEN BU R G 12 I, L ,f n n R. illia m, do hereby c e r tif y 13 that the proceedings were by me reduced to m a c hi n e 14 shorthand in the presence of the Vitness, af te rwa rds 15 tr a n s c rib e d uoon a typewriter under my dir e c tio n; 16 and that the f o r e goin g is a true and correct tran-17 script of the proc ee din g s.
18 I further c e r tif y that these proceed-19 ingr were taken at the ti m e and olace in the fore-20 going c a nti a n s o e c i fied.
21 I further c e r tif y that I am no t a 22 r ela tive , Counsel or r. t t o r n e y for eitne r Party or 23 oth e rwis e interested in the out c o me o f this a c tio n.
24 IN V, I T N I: S S Y H E ll.C O F , I have here-25 unto set my . hand at Cha rlo tt e, North C a r olina , on EVELYN $. BERGER OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. S. Ol5TRICT COURT
' f W A Ri f'tTTF N P
77 t
i this the day of Tuly, 1983.
2 3
4 L Y N' o. C I L L I A .'. '
Court R epo rte r 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ?.! y Co mmi s s i o n ex pire s May 12, 1983 24 25 EVELYN $ BERGER
_ 0FFICIAL COURT REPORTER U. 5. DISTRICT COURT C3/YT'OWn7, N. G.
CONFIDENTIAL - 4 0 ~
)h Stwa. --
- s h* slo.QfN, g .tC
- 6
(( E2 '\,
s January 21, 1982 JAN 2
~
DUi2 FC'lE CQ. j-
- u. s. a.e p W S Lee I have made arrangements with the following list of people to meet with you at-ter..cnng&Mca aftem2:00.padodcuAWells, Tom McCracken, Ken Clark, Bob Bisanar, Jim Grogan, Hal Tucker, and Austin Thies. We have done the following:
- 1. Gail Addis has prepared and Jim Wells, Bob Bisanar and representatives from Steam Production and Construction have reviewed letters going to those that pursued the recourse. '
- 2. This letter providing the recourse decision will be mailed Friday morning.
Our experience has indicated that mailing it Thursday night causes problems when family members open letters and call the job on Friday.
3, Tom McCracken, Bob Bisanar and Jim Grogan have been most helpful with Jim Wells, Larry Davison and Jess Barbour in preparing for discussions with supervisors at the end of the workday on Friday. Their statement has been committed to writing and has been reviewed by Fred Stuart. A copy of that statement will be available this afternoon.
- 4. Bob Bisanar is proceeding with plans to have Homer Deakins and/or Fred Stuart on standby for possible use next week. In any event, we plan to use them in the coming weeks.
- 5. Jim Wells has consulted with Ken Clark to develop a statement for the company in case this becomes a news event over the weekend or next week.
Ken is going to make a recommendation as to content for the statement and the procedures for making the statement if necessary.
- 6. Jim Wells has notified Jack Bryant (NRC-Atlanta with responsibility for Duke) of the pote.itial for contact with the NRC by either the inspectors or news media representatives. We are also going to give the same infomation to the senior resident NRC representatives at each of the sites sometime tomorrow in case they are contacted over the weekend. By the way, Bryant's cormlent to Jim was that he appreciated being forewarned and did not understand why the irspectors felt there was a pay problem since he (Bryant) was on an NRC task force which found that inspectors were being paid less than craft in most locations.
P need"'au vggurwfrit7Tfg7it"asa'ylo *taWGMh"yofabd'ut"this' entire matter.
- x:
W H Owen WH0/mk
/
~N ,) -
' f/y l