ML20082C154
| ML20082C154 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1983 |
| From: | Owen W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082C119 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-434 NUDOCS 8311210481 | |
| Download: ML20082C154 (154) | |
Text
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ -
es-s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: ) Docket Nos.
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) 50-413 (Catawba Nuclear Station ) 50-414
< Units 1 & 2) )
COPY I, Barbara V. Haas, Commissioner and Notary Public, pro-ceeded to take the deposition of Warren H. Owen on the fifteent:1 day of July, 1983, beginning at 8:15 o' clock A.M. in'the O offices of Duke Power Company, South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina.
DEPOSITION OF WARREN H. OWEN 44oi Colvd Rd.
ASSOCidted n o. so. .o ,
o Chodotte NC. zatu -
( court l\eportCIS 7o4 364.ws O
A3$ 8311210481 830825 D PDR FOIA AHLERS 83-a.'34 PDR
_ _ __u_ ______u________________:_________________ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
r s
! WARREN H. OWEN, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
{ 3 2 EXAMINATION: (By Mr. Guild) ;
i 3 RR. GIBSON: This is Mr. Warren Owen, Executive Vice-4 President for Design Engineering Construct. ion available for s
5 , deposition. Two matters I want to take up before we begin.
$ We're making available, as previously discussed, January 11, 7 1982, memo from R. L. Dick to W. H. Owen re, Quality Awareness.
9 I think we've had some discussion about the Quality Awareness
- Program previously. I think Mr. Owen and Mr. Dick answered 10 questions about this matter. With respect to the depositions,
!! I presume we're proceeding under the same stipulations as the
'2 prior depositions.
Q.
13 Yes.
1
( 14 MR. GIBSON: Present for the company will be Mr. Grier -
15 and Mr. Bell.
" 16 Q. Mr. Owen, my name is Robert Guild. I'm counsel for 17 Palmetto Alliance, intervener in the Catawba operating license
- )
18 procedures. I trust .you're aware that Palmetto Alliance
'I 19 filed for litigation a contention question'of quality assurance 20 at the Catawba site construction. Are you generally aware of 21 that! .[
L 22 A. Yes, sir, I am.
I:
23 Q. I want to ask you a ser.ies of questions for the purpose of a
24 learning more about that subject, this subject of quality assurance at Catawba. If I'm not speaking clearly or you don't I
25 2
i
(- ~
N 1
o il ,
m** * * ** ** * * * ;-
. . , *
- UN .2 7 . . . _.3_ . . m [~ ' 7 ' [' 7 * "' ( . .,, ._ [***
s
/
{
! understand how I'm using a term, please stop me and ask for 2 clarification. I will presume that your answers otherwise are 3 responsive to the question, and you did understand the question 4 rather. Let me show you a copy of Contention 6 and ask you 5 to take a few moments and review that please. This is simply 6 a quotation of the text of that Contention with a few additional 7 items that related to it. It's from December 31, 1982, response 8 by the company to a series of questions that Palmetto Alliance 0 If you would, Mr. Owen, beginning.on asked in the case.
10 page 3 of the single-spaced indented quote and extend mostly 11 down to page 4. Would you read that to yourself, sir?
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. Thank you, sir, hand that back to me. Have you seen that C. 34 Contention before, Mr. Owen?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. When was that, if you recall?
17 A. I don't recall receiving a copy of that information and 18 reading it.
l'
- i O. Who circulates those to you, if you recall?
'I
- 20 A. If it was received in the Legal Department, they circulate 21 it. -
22 Q. Mr. Owen, you presently are Executive-Vice-President for
- 23 Design Engineering and Construction you say?
24 g, 33- the title, it's just Engineering and Construction.
l 25 Q. If you would, sir, relate your work history with Duke Power! ,
i 1 3 i
, k.
1 o
l '.
l [ ~ -~ - - -. - .-. . . t ., =.= . : n; ; - ... . . w;~;:::: x. ;;; , . :;;: . ; :: p :-
J
(
i Company, if you can tell me the best that you recall, the dates 2 you came to the company and the dates you held various positions 3
that yoy held.
4
,A. Well, the last thirty-five years-- I came with the company 5 iu 79bruary of 1948; and in our Production Department, it was
$ called Steam Production at that time, I worked in two different 7 steam plants and in the general office till about 1962 or 3 3 . and then I moved to the Engineering Department, and I think
' l' my title was Senior Engineer. I don't really recall, and I 10 worked on the Design of a couple of our. power plants, and il then in 1966, I was made, what was the title, it was called 12 Principal Mechanical Engineer. Then in 1971 or '72, I was 13 made Vice-President of Design Engineering, and then in 1978,
( 14 I was made Senior Vice-President for Engineering and 15 Construction. And then in '82, Executive Vice-President. I 16!went on the Board 11:. 1978. I have been a member of the 17 Executive Committee of the company since then.
18 Q. Since then?
i 19
! A. Since ' 78 when I went on the Board.
t 20 Q. Would you give me a summary of your duties, Mr. Owen, in 21 your present position?
~
22 g, well, Ism part of the executive management for the company.
23 As such, I serve on a number of corporate committees. That's 24 a good'part of my activity, four different departments or groupis 25 report to me: Design Engineering, Construction, Quality 4
n l
l L
.,-.- . . _ . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . .___,_.,...4 . ._ _ _,_m . . . . . _ . _ _ . . . ._ . . ._
^
t
~
i o
(
1 Assurance, and Project Control, which is a group of staff 2 people. , !
t 3 Q. What does the Project Control Department or group do?
4 A Well, they primarily provide me with budget and cost l 5 control information, provide an overview of our scheduling, o interface with other departments on work that we are doing 7 other than the major projects we perform, engineering work a for a lot of the other departments in the company.
o Q. What's the Catawba Special Group?
10 A. The Catawba Special Group no longer reports to me. That 11 was a group we set up when we signed our contract with the 12 Power Agency of North Carolina.
13 Q. What do they do?
( 14 A. They provide interface with those buyers. They channel 15 information from them to the various departments of the 16 company and the other way.
17 Q. To whom do they report?
i 18 A. They report to Don Denton now. Once the Interconnection 19 Agreement had been put into operation, it has been our plan 20 all along to transfer that to someone who will have continuing 21 responsibility for that.
22 Q. What area is Mr. Denton?
23 A. He is Senior Vice-President for Marketing. Part of his 24 responsibil'ity is to deal with all of our customers.
25 Q. What corporate committees do you serve on, Mr. Owen, that 5
(
- t* - - . . . .. . . . . . . . . . , . .... . . ., , . , ,_,,m,_,, ,, , , _ , , , ,
, . _ . , . , . . . . . ~ . .
. . . . . _ .m.,
l o
/
are material to the area of construction?
? A. Well, of course, our Executive Committee provides overview 3 and approving major work orders and actually is responsible 4 for running the company in between Board meetings. So I'm on i
5 l the Retirement Plan Committee, but not on any committee other o than the Executive Committee that deals with engineering or 7 Construction matters.
a Q. To whom do you report, Mr. Owen?
9 A. I report to Bill Lee, our Chief Executive.
10 Q. Who held your position or the position most comparable to 11 yours before you, Mr. Owen?
12 A. Bill Lee. Bill was Executive Vice-President.
13 Q. For Engineering and Construction?
( 14 A. I think the title was just simply Executive Vice-Pre.,1 dent 15 at that time.
16 Q. Did he hold a position responsible for Engineering 17 Construction before?
18 A. I'm sorry.
f 19 Q. Did he hold the position?
f ,
' 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In charge of Engineerint Construction?
22 A. Yes, he ess'entially, the same department reported to him 23 at that time plra some other departments.
24 Q. With respect to the Corporate Quality Assurance Department,
- 25 did he have the same responsibility for that department that 6
k i r
f i
n _ ;_i _ ....+-,.4 . _ _ - - . ..y-,7...~.-
. , . . < . . . .~,.e.,, m..__~~m... ~. %.3,,.,. ,
_y- . .-
i a
j i you now hold and vice versa?
2 A. Yes, when he was Senior Vice-President and Executive Vice-3 Presiden.t, he had a title of Senior Vice-President prior to
~
4 the Executive Vice-President. Quality Assurance Department 5 reported to him.
6 Q. And reports to you now?
7 A. Yes. Prior to '71, no I guess it was '74, prior to '74, B our Quality Assurance activities were in each of the line o departments; and while I was Vice-President of Engineering, I 10 l had a group of people performing the quality assurance 11 functions.
12 Q. For a substantial period of time after the Quality 13 Assurance Department was organized, the Quality Control
(. 14 Inspection function reported to the Construction Department, 15 is that correct?
16 A. When we formed the Quality Assurance Department in '74, I 17 believe it was, the decision was made then to have the IB Quality control functions, the inspectors' schedule adminis-19 tered by the Construction Department. They were given 20 functional guidance by Quality Assurance Department.
l 21 Q. Explain for ms the distinction, as you understand.
22 A. The criteria they worked, and the certification and train-23 ing was Quality Assurance Department. The Construction l
24 Department administere'd their time and scheduled their activi- [
i
- 25 ties, so they would be at the right place at the right time, !
'7 k.
t k
I P -- - . . . . . . . _ . . . . . , . , . , , , . ,, , , , ,, , , , , ,
-7 -- - . -,,.,........y..__.._
.+ __. . . _ . . _ , ., , _ _ _ - _ , , , , . , _, , __ , ,, .
N
( , perform their inspection work.
2 Q. Who was responsible,as between those two departments, for l 3 hiring, firing, promotion, and demotion of quality control
~
4 , people?
5 A. Well administratively the Construction Department was
$I responsible for that, the performance of their work, the 7 standards to which they worked. That aspect of their work a was administered by the Quality Assurance Department.
- They wrote the Quality Assurance procedures to which the 10lQ. inspectors performed their inspection function?
11 A. They set standards, they set certain requirements perform 12 certification.
13 Q. Training?
( 14 A. Training.
15 ' O . Quality Assurance did the training?
16 A. To the best of my recollection. I feel sure they did. I 17 would have to check the records.
18 And audit their work and perform surveillance?
Q.
I' A. Yes. I don't recollect we used the surveillance termin-20 ology much in those days.
21 Q. Performed and, audit function?
22 A. Yes.
23 In 1981 I understand, early '81, the Quality Control Q.
2d Inspection function was transferred for all purposes under the 25 Quality Assurance Department, is that right?
l 8 I
- ~w* - - ... . ,_
i l
,A. That's correct, February of '81, I believe. j
( l 2 Q. Explain to me how that came to pass and why,Mr. Owen, why 3 the change was made?
d A. As I recall when we formed the Quality Assurance Department ,
5 there was some discussion then as to the relative merits of 6 having Quality Control as part of the Quality Assurance 7 Department or just functional guidance from Quality Assurance.
8 Because it was a new department, I didn't make the decision.
Bill Lee made the ultimate decision. I did participate in 10 some of the discussions. I think our feeling was we wanted j 11 to get the new department off the ground before given these 12 many people represented by the Quality Control Inspectors then.
13 Q. Give me an idea of how many people we would be talking
( 14 about just in proportion.
15 A. I don't recall that.
16 Would the Quality Control--
Q.
17 A. It would be larger, much larger in number of people than
' 18 Quality Assurance people, 19 Quality Control people, inspectors, are more numerous f Q.
20 than the others in the Quality Assurance Department?
21 A. Right. So the decision was made then that we would do-22 this. We would monitor it and see if we found any problems.
23 We didn't; and we went on, obviously, for a number of. years, 24 six or seven years, as I recall the original recommendation j 25 that we probably ought to move the Quality Control function over 1 i b 9 LL u
h j
u I
~
y-- -
, _ 3 3,-- 3
.,_-~. - _. = __ ,
s I
l
( under Quality Assurance came from Bob Dick, our Construction l
\
2 Vice-President. He and I both are very much involved in the 3 organizational decisions and the input to that. We felt the d, Quality Assurance Department had matured to the point where i
5 ; they had all the necessary administrative kind of persons and 6 company policies that they could handle it, and we made the 7 move in February of '81.
a Q. Were there responsibilities that come to mind as significant,-
9 Mr. Owen, for not having moved-it earlier?
10 A. No, I don't think. It was never considered and rejected.
11 We did not consider it till late '80 and moved it early '81.
12 Q. In what manner do you mean the term matured when you talk 13 about the department became matured? -
- (,
id A. Well, we had personnel-related people that had learned to is interface with other administrative departments in the companie s.
16 Personnel Department and Accounting Department and the whole 17 thing.- They go on administratively with any employee, l 18 Assurance, all the benefit programs.
! 19 Q. When the transfer was made in early '81, were there signifi -
20 cant transfers of administrative, additional administrative, 21 people into the,QA Department to support their QC?
22 A. Oh, yes.- ~ I don't have the numbers or names, but transfer
[
r
' 23 the support people along with the personnel at'each of the t 24 projects.
i 25 Q. Largely the support people that had earlier supported QC, f
10-I-
!( ;
i i
i -
l
.----.~--......-....~3 -- -~; _. . -. -. y ..-~vn ~- .
/
9
(
QC inspectors had been under construction, is that right? l Yes. To do that, we would have to hire additional people, I
2 A.
l 3 and we didn't want to.
Mr. Owen, are you familiar with Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 4 Q.
5 Quality Assurance Criterion?
6 A. I know what it is.
7 Q. Are you familiar with Criterion 1 Organization? Let me a show you a copy of that to refresh your recollection.
9 A. I have read it.
O f Q.
What I want to direct your attention to and ask you is
)
11 'with respect to that Criterion Number 1 regarding Organization, 12 how does the respective organization of the Quality Control 13 function first, as originally organized under the Construction
( 14 Department, and, second, as ultimately organized under Quality I
15 ' Assurance, how does it bear on compliance in your judgment 16 with that Criterion?
17 A. I believe it is clear that it complies either way.
t 18 Certainly did the job and met all the requirements of the 0 '9 Regulatory Agency very well while it was administered by the 20 Construction Department and certainly applies when they're 21 all in the same department.
22 Q. It has no effect whatsoever in your opinion?
23 A. I haven' t noticed any change in performance other than 24 the normal kinds of things you run into for a few days when i
25 you reassign people and have meetings and explain to them the ,
l 11 !
q:
k- l i.
i l
1 ll.....
- ( n
~
- a. c-...y
- i
- I
-( new relationships.
2 Q. How do you understand the principle of independence from 3 cost and. scheduling pressures reflected in Criteria 1?
d A. I don't think it's Quality Assurance Departments. I don't 5 think Quality Assurance Department is concerned about cost 6 other than doing their assigned work in a cost effective manner 7 and from a standpoint of scheduling, they have a scheduling 8 obligation to provide the necessary resources when and where
- they are needed, and it's our plan to have those resources
'O available.
II Q. How about the Construction Department?
12 A. Well, Construction Department has a responsibility to build 33 a plant that meets all the quality requirements and all of 14 the requirements set up by the applicabic codes and standards 15 and although specified by Engineering Department, and they have
"" the responsibility to do that in a cost effective manner and 17 to meet their schedule.
18 Q. Would you agree that the Construction Department does have l cost and scheduling pressures?
20 A. I would agree that any part of an organization has responsi -
21 bility to carry out their work in a planned and scheduled and 22 in a cost effective manner. We all contribute to the cost 23 of the ultimate product.
24 You don't believe it's any significant difference with Q.
25 respect to first the general organizational criterion of ;
12 I
- k. t t
n 1
1
-;~ e . -
. _ . . _ . - - _ _ _ . . ., _ . _ _ _ . . _ y ._._ _ _ , _ _ , , . _,; _,
u
(
' Appendix B and second, to the principle of independence from 2 cost and scheduling pressure, no significant bearing on 3 wh. ether the Quality Control inspection is under the Inspection 4 Department or Quality Assurance Department?
5 ' A. No, I think the Criteria 1 does not in any way indicate 6 that people should not be cost conscious. They should be 7 responsible for their own part of their cost and not feel a pressure for somebody else's part of the operation.
O Q. Just, for example, by comparison and tell me if you don't to think this comparison is apt. Duke has internal audit 11 functions?
12 A. You mean financial audit?
13 Q. Yes.
(. 14 A. Yes.
is Q. Does that internal audit function report to a line sales 16 or production department? /
17 A. It reports to the corporation, a corporate overseer.
18 Q. Who?
19 A. Reports, I guess, to Bill Lee.
20 Q. It reports to Mr. Lee in order to maintain independence 21 from the line sale's or operational people that it's supposed 22 to audit, is that a fair characterization?
23 A. For the same reason Quality Assurance Depa'rtment reports
?
24 to me. l l i
25 Q. What I'm interested in, is your opinion on that principle 13 i b
- ~ * "" * * * ** - +=
- - - * * ' Y,5 -~ *, ,1* N O _
I
- i
(
i as to Quality Control inspection function. Why wouldn't it j I
l 2 follow that it would be more appropriate for the performance 1
3 of, Quality Control inspection audit function if you will have d them assigned to independent QA Department as opposed to line 5 construction?
6 A. I think you have got to understand the difference between 7 Quality Assurance activities and Quality Control activities.
B Quality Control activities are inspection activities, they 9 are well-defined, detailed inspections, and it's ultimately
'O the Quality Assurance function of the Quality Assurance
'l Department that sets up the program and provides for the 12 resolution of the problems and assurance of the documentation 33 that in the case that those deficiencies are properly resolved.
(. 'd O. Am I reading you correctly, Mr. Owen, if I say that it's
'S the Quality Assurance function of the department, not Quality I6 Control inspection function, that requires some independence 17 from the line construction, and that's satisfied by having an i
'8 independent department, is that correct? .
i 19 A. Yes, that's essentiall.y correct. I think you will find 20 it's rather common in the industry to have the Quality 21 Control inspection' forces working for the contractor would be 22 broad on the job, of course, we bring very few contractors on 23 the job having our own Construction Department, so it was not 24 unusual at'all, based on my experience in the industry, to have 25 Quality Centrol as part of the Construction Department. ,
! 1 14 1 I
1 k i - -- . . ..~ . .. . . . . . . _ . _ , . . . . , , _ , . , _ . ,,
{
i i- ,- i i
O. Let me ask a little on that score. Is it in your under-(
2 standing common to have a QC inspection function reporting to 3 thq utili'ty operator for whom the general contractor in a d typical situation is--
5 A. I don't understand the question.
6 Q. Duke is unique in design and Construction as well as' 7 operating its own power plants.
6 A. Somewhat unique. Others do some of the same things. I 9 ! don't think very many do as much as we do.
I 10 l Q.
Do you know any investor-owned utility that does design il construction, operates its nuclear plant?
12 A. If you say investor-owned, the TVA comes closest, but they 13 are not investor-owned. A number of others do construction,
(,
3d engineering and management. I don't know any one that does 15 as much as we do.
36 Q. The rule generally would be to have.a utility that was 17 going to operate a facility, a nuclear plant, hire a general i
38 ' contractor to construct the facility for them?
i I
l' A. That's the general practice in the industry.
j
+ 20 Within the confines of that general practice is your under-Q. ,
21 standing that commonly the Quality Control inspection function 22 reports to that contractor, is that what you're telling me 23 earlier?
l i 24 Yes.
- A. l l
25 Q. Do you know of common practice for that Quality Control '
15 I
. (. J i
'l
- j. . . _ _ ~
,-...7--.---,,
.-e.,_,.--
-..-~7-~;---.
.-- + -
I i I inspection function to report to the utility that its contract '
[
2 ing for the plant the other way? l
- ! l
{ 3 A. I'm certain that you could build up those kinds of i .
4 ihspection capabilities. My experience would tell me that j 5 it's unlikely that many companies are doing that because you j e have got to have something for those people to do in between 7 building plants and a single utility might not be able to l a retain them on their payroll.
9 Q. Your belief is it would not be common to have it organized 10 that way?
4 11 A. I just don't recall having talked to anyone about that 12 kind or organization.
13 Q. Are you aware of any organization where the Quality C 14 Control inspection function would be performed independently
. 15 ' of the contractor?
i I 16 A. I'm sure there probably is somewhere. I just have not made n
[ 17 any study.
IB Q. Mr. Owen, there has been some testimony earlier about the h':
J 19 position analysis performed for the job of inspector, and b 20 its bearing on the pay classification of Welding Inspectors.
I 21 Are you familiar with the reclassification that resulted in 22 pay grade change'for Welding Inspectors effective < bout 23 July of 'Bl?
24 A. Yes. .
25 Q. Now I want to go back. I want to understand to the extent
, 16
(
i
.a - - - .. ,., , .e e o s ., se e _. n . - - -- ~ -, -. sv , ,~-. .-.-,.r. < < . , ,
~ - - - - -. --- ~ ~ -
i e 1
you know how the job descriptions or position analysis were
(
2 arrived at for inspectors when the company initially created 3 the inspection function in construction of nuclear facilities,
,t -
d A. Well, I can't give you the exact dates, but when we were
- 5 originally starting a more rigorous kind of inspection function i l l 6 and we had felt necessary in our previous construction ;
7 experience, the only kinds of people that had done well in 8 inspection, we felt at that time, were our welders, so we
- picked and solicited among the inspectors,among the welders, 30 recuits to fill our inspection, our initial inspection range 11 and though this was-- I was not personally involved in this,
-12 we set in the beginning these later matters you talked about 33 it was clear that we set up different, a different pay scale c.
- 14 of a few cents an hour to entice, if you will, the inspector, 5 the welder, to become an inspector; and that worked very well 16 for us for a lot of years and later it became apparent that 17 the welding inspection activities were becoming so prescribed l ,
I '8 and that it was not always welding experience that you needed, 19 but it was training in the' techniques that were being developed I.-
20 for welding inspection. So we began to look at that welding 21 position. Again,.jo train and bring people into that that 22 did not have extensive welding experience as our original 23 inspectors did. Somewhere along in between those.two times, ,
~
24 we went. to -the performance and job description, . job analysis ,
I 25 kind of approach you have referred to. That first caused a
, j
- 17 !
l -l i
'~.' .-}^.
^
- '};:';"
X ^_; .- :(*' "-'l
- ~ ~ ~ '
l s
greater premium for Welding Inspectors and thdn later took
( !
2 it away.
t 3 Q. The greater premium based on the requirement of work
- t 4, experience as a welder or practice?
5'A. That practice plus we have an internal committee that 3, reviews a job description based on the techniques developed 7 by the consultant we use. That committee evaluates that a job and tries to achieve internal equity so that a welder
- 9. bears the appropriate relationship to a carpenter, to a to plant operator, to a secretary, and that's an on-going ti process that's been in use since, I guess, about the mid 12 seventies.
13 Q. That mid seventies would be with the time that position
- 14 analyses were performed for the positions of inspectors?
15 A. I don't know in what order they got to them. We started to all the way through the company. 'I was not a member of that 17 committee. I was a member of the Executive Committee that 18 did the same thing for our executive personnel, but they took 19 all the hundreds of jobs in the company and methodically 1 20 went through each one of them.
21 Q. The position of Welding Inspector was reclassified and 22 the decision was made effective by July, ' 81?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Was the position analysis for Welding Inspector or for 25 Inspec' tor performed just prior to July of '81?
- i l 18 k l t
i l
l
- 7 * "- a* *,t-+ ,
e ) + * .j...,.. 2 _, ,
h r +
--, --.....,,~.,.m. .,, _ , ,_ . _ , , , ,
i t
.: I a l A. No, it was reviewed in that period. As I recall, about .I
[
2 1980, we went through a review. We continuously review. ;
3 Whenever some member of a department management indicates that
' 4 they ha e a concern either externally or internally about the 5 equity that exists, and usually we try to, and usually take a 6 look at the external competitive aspect of it, and sort of an 7 on-going basis internally when there seems to be a need to do a it. As I recall, there was sort of a general review in '80 9 which caused an increase in the differential between what we 13l call our top craft pay, in some of the inspection categories.
l I
11 Q. To the advantage of the inspection?
12 A. To the advantage of the inspectors. Then that was sometime 13 after that, I don't recall the exact time because I was not C 14 directly involved in it, but we looked externally and found
~
is we were in a very-- more than competitive position for 16 inspection. Inspectors' compensation pay, and ask that they 17 again take a look at it. And they did, and in the Fall of '80 le or '81, it had to be sometime in that time frame, we made the
!- 19 decision that thorough review of those studies that there was
~
t 20 an inequity there, and we needed to correct that inequity. We 21 have a standard procedure for doing that which does not 22 immediately make the correction, but over a period of time, 1
23 makes the correction by withholding a portion of their annual-24 increase so that no one's pay is ever cut. It's restrained till l
i 25 it gets back'in line with whatever the province is.
_l 19 4
{ b
'T a
-..e-....
. . . ... , ,...; . .m,~ _, . , , ,, , ,
.. . __m _ . _ . _ . . .
, _ . . , . . _ .m _ . _ . , . ._.. .. ,
l j __
~
l ;
i
! 1 Q. Fall, '80, Spring, '81, was based on the focus on the
.(
2 external competitiveness?
3 A. No, it was driven by the external competitiveness.
You 4 have a balance that you have to maintain. You can't let either 5lonebetheonlysignificantfactor. You have to have a o measure of internal equity or your people are always unhappy.
7 And you have to have a measure of external competitiveness 3 or you're not going to retain your people.
? Q. Or you're paying too much?
'O A. Or you're paying too much, and that's not professional.
11 Q. In this instance, it was the recognition that you were 12 paying more than the market essentially?
13 A. That caused us to ask that they take a good hard look at
(. 14 the internal equities as well, and there is a matter of judgmen:
15 involved in that kind of committee activity, a group of trained lo senior,relatively senior, not inexperienced people, sit around 17 the table and based on their training they receive from con-18 sultants from our people internally and do their best to 19 evaluate the job, but there are a number of jobs that are being 20 adjusted every year.
21 Q. Let me focus o'n this point. First, the external compet-22 itiveness standard. What is your feeling, Mr. Owen, for the 23 prevailing conditions at the point where you created the 24 poisition of Welding Inspector from using primarily experienced 25 welders? Was that the practice among other constructors at .the I
20 ,
(
. . - . . = . . . . , .
I e i 1
< , time?
f 2 A. I think so. I think so. That was a relatively new a di.scipline or craft or kind of position, and it was developing 4 and has been developing since then; and I think the standard r
- 5 practice that we saw was that people needed based their i
2 oI inspection on their previous welding experience rather than on 7 a big book of standards.
8 Q. This was tied or not, if not unique , at least tied to the i
j 9 development of the need for rigorous inspection criteria for to nuclear construction, is that fair?
11 A. Well, it was tied to the development of Appendix B and 12 all that sort of-- the whole concept of having a body of
^
13 documents and a plan, if you will, to assure or show that you 14 had met these requirements.
15 Q. In the nuclear construction area?
16 A. Yes, it was more developed, it was developing as a result l 17 of the nuclear technology, high capital cost involved in that, 1
j 18 and the need to make sure the plant is built properly, both l
- i 19 for safety reasons and because you have a whale of an invest-
!I' 20 ment that you w' ant to operate properly.
21 Q. Did you have w'lding e inspection for your non-nuclear 22 facilities?
2 l 23 A. Yes, we do a certain level of inspection, but previous to 1
24 that, it was done by the craft themselves, supervision. We
- i - 25 did radiography just as we do now. We use more techniques-andj i
. 21'
(
a 1
4 6
- 7* r& 4 %f aw e. S c. mea -4, 4 , , -. ,,, e., - epgewa a *-e ce-em,=- e -4 ,,,_e.-g.-
,-s .eq= -,,.a.s .ep., . .,ay
~
- l
[
more techniques have been developed in the last ten or fifteen ;
I; 2 l years.
3 Q ., You didn't have the position of Welding Inspector at, say, 2 a steam station?
5 A. No.
i o ' O. I want to understand to the extent you know what you think 7
i the experience was of the rest of the industry, were they, 3 as the body of standards developed in welding, moving similarly
' * ,to relying on non-craft people to perform Welding Inspectors, 7 ! do you know?
I 1
fA. I can't answer that. I don't know.
12 Q. At this point, were you--
13 A. I will say this, though. very frequently because we retain
( 14 our people, we have an ongoing program that we may take--
- 15 l may do more training and may have a practice that's not 16 ' generally the industry's practice where they may go to a new 17 contractor every time. We don't. We know who the contractor i
j 18 will be for our next plant so we can afford to spend more money 1
19 on training and upgrading of people. That is my point.
i
+
20 Q. How does that bear on the position of Welding Inspector?
21 A. We might be wi'lling to spend a lot of effort-in-training i; 22 a Welding Inspector because we know we're going to retain his.
L 23 services. If you're going outside to hire somebody, you want g
24 an experienced person the day one. You don't want to pay for l
. 25 training costs because you're going to let him goLwhen the job l 1
h 22 l l ;
p a
. .F" ' fi~ " 7 *
..___,.;*.,__ * , , _,, . ,,, ,, _ , , ;f* .1 - {~',, j*; ; . , * ,
- - ~ * - , , ,
- i ~~- -.
.. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ i 1
c
, \
/
i 8 is over; and from that standpoint, our whole company has more
(
2 training in personnel development than other companies that I 3 see because of the difference in the company and because they d
don't want that. They just don't have an ongoing need for 5 Welding Inspectors.
I 6
Q. By comparison another company who was relying on contractors 7 would be more likely to pay the premium to hire someone who a had immediate inspection skills rather than investing in
' training someone?
i 10 A. No, I would say they are not willing to pay the training Il costs. Some contractor that's out selling their inspection .
12 services would either have to bear that training cost against l3 a point where they can sell that person's. services and that j
( ~ Id ultimately, because of their different approach, it's equally 15 applicable; it's just different than ours. The very same 16 reason that we're willing to spend the money to build over the 17 year. We spend money to build resources to have an Engineering it j 18 and Construction Department and now a QA Department.
1!
l l'
Q. I'm trying to understand for comparative purposes .what is 1
your judgment- for someone- who you say is not_ willing to put
~
20 j'
ul l
21 the-investment {nto training, how would they handle lit?
4 22
'A. They would go to a contractor and say I want'six inspectors I
i 23 and I want this level of qualifications for those inspectors, e
and they would expect to get people that met those. - We would,
~
24 ,
25 on the other. hand, _ decide that we may need another Welding l
!! 23
(
f i$-
(af ,
i r_ . . .. ._. a __ _ . . _ _ _
-. c. 1 s ., __ w r ~ _m e - .* y e .,- __ n y _
.r a-e ~ g . m ~ v .s e , .-~a, ~
s . '
(
I Inspector two years from now and put someone in a two year ;
2 training program so they were fully qualified when that job ;
3 opening,came. That's a burden we're willing to carry because
~
4 lwe'knowthatpersonlikelyistobewithusformany,many 5: years and will become a very valuable employee.
6 Q. What bearing, if any, on this matter would your likely 7 future construction needs in the nuclear area have,particularly a looking to a point where you would complete construction of 9 Catawba and not likely have significant additional nuclear i3 construction, what bearing would that have on this decision, it if any?
12 A. On that decision to train?
'3 Q. To invest for training for inspectors.
l' A. If there was a diminishing workload out there, then, is obviously, we would not be training. We try to look ahead and 36 plan, and we would not be bringing people on board to train 37 for any position that are going to be nonexistent. While we
'8 have no more nuclear plants contemplated after Catawba, we If 39 certainly will need additional generation in the future.
Albeit there does appear to be a period of time when our work-
~
20 p 2' load is going to , be greatly reduced.
22 Q. Help me understand, why would you invest in significant i
23 training of Welding Inspectors in the time period after81?
24 A. I didn't say we did. We haven't.
25 - You haven ' t?
!. j Q.
7 p 24 1
il
,I t:
. . . , ~ . .
g.. . . - _ . . _ . _
-. - ~
A. No. We were talking about the philosophy and our past
(
2 practices and how we got to the point where we were thinking 3 about training all of our inspectors. That's when we still--
~
d that was in the early mid seventics when we could see that the 5' latter part of seventy was whcn it appeared that we had a o substantial growing construction program in front of us till 7 '73 came along and the recession extended even till now. So a there has been a limited amount of building up of those forces.
,In fact, we probably are going the other way now or soon will 10 ibe and to offset that, we think we have a very valuable asset il in our experienced work force; and as those excess resources 12 become available, we're going into business like the other 13 contractors I will be talking about and beginning to offer our
( 14 l
services to other companies, and certainly, our inspection is capability will be one of those that we hope will be in great l'
16 demand.
17 Q. In the nuclear construction field?
i 18 Well, any construction field. Regular inspection goes on A.
19 The things that techniques and good
! in non-nuclear areas now.
! 20 things we have learned about inspection techniques, we are e
21 offering into other parts of our work.
22 What I'm trying to, I guess, understand to this point, wouli Q.
23 you likely use Welding Inspectors'who'you train to do nuclear 24 construction, welding inspection, on a . contract basis for j 25 someone else?
e 25 k_ ;
t t
l5 lt
- ' " ~ '
[..[ . . _ . -
,. ._.. [. 4__. , p. 3 : . h _. $. ,
"l'* ' , ,Q ,
- l A. Oh, yes . If we can get a contract. You know, you have to
(
2 make a sale first. But we have not aggressively sought that !
3 kind of work yet because we don't have those excess resources 4 n'o w .
5: Q. Now with regard to the position analysis for Welding 1
6 Inspectors, this committee function, tell me a little more 7
about what the committee is and who it is and who had been B
responsible for having done that analysis.
9 That's a corporate
,A. I don't know who was on the committee.
IO kind of function handled by our Peronnel Department people, il and I don't recall specifically who would be on the committee; 12 but I know it would generally be people who were experienced 33 in it would be someone on there from Quality Assurance
( I4 Department, some representatives from Personnel Department, is some people who were familiar with construction work, so you
'6 could have some percentagism taking place during the 37 committee discussion. We having a standing committee for 38 nonexempt positions and occasionally appoint a special committee to do it, and I don't know which approach was used 20 I just looked at the results of their work.
at that time.
21 Q. Who would have been responsible? To whom would this 22 committee report and who is the management person who would be 23 responsible?
24 Well, their function- 'that's done under the' auspices of A.
25 our Personnel Department, and they are responsible, salaried, l u 7._. . . .
. ~.
1
' i a
administration in this whole project. They don't report to
(
2 them in that the Personnel man doasn't make the decision, the 3 results ,of that came to or were given to the department head, 4 Quality Assurance head, and to me, and we looked at it, just as 5 l we did in '80 when they said increase it, we said okay. Later o on, they said decrease it, and we did.
7 Q. The decision was whose?
8 A. Ultimately mine.
9 Q. You were responsible for approving the position analysis?
i 10 ! A. I approved the recommendation for the salary range, which l 11 is based on the project and the position analysis.
12 Q. Who adopted or who approved the position analysis,
- 13 Mr. Owen?
( 14 A. Well, a position analysis is done by people in our Personnel 15 Department who are trained to write them. They talked to the 16 representative number of the incumbents in the job being
- 17 evaluated. They talked to the supervision of those people,
.i 18 and then they write a description of that job which is reviewed
- i 19 with both of those people involved, and then that becomes ll it 20 a position analysis.
+ 21 Q. I guess if nofone does tell me but does anyone, as a manage-
!! 22 ment decision, approve that job description?
23 A. Yes, the department has to approve that.. It approves it. ,
24 I don't know the approval process, per se, but there is an 25 approval process.
it
!! ~
27 l ,
F
- ~. - s.. . . , . . . . . . . ..,,. , - . .
. _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ ____ __ -- _T T_L __J __ _ T_':_ l'_ _T_' U ::_": T ~ ~:~ :_ m i .____-~
_: _ _ - _ _ - _. L __ : _ _ _ _ _ _
s s
'O. Who would be responsible for approving that in this case?
[
2 Would it be your position to adopt that job?
3 A, No ,' I don't get involved in that level.
4 MR. GIBSON: Excuse me, Mr. Guild. We're flip-flopping 5 , terms , and I'm confused on the one hand where they were j $ talking about position analysis or position descriptions. If 7 I missed you and you changed subjects, fine, I'm unclear.
a I thought they were connected.
Q.
- MR. GIBSON: I thought on one hand the position 10' description was done earlier, and the' position analysis of 11 the Welding Inspector job was done as a part of the pay 12 reclassification. As I understand, there could be some dif-33 ference, but I thought you were using the terms synonymously.
[ id O. I want to be clear, too. You're confusing me more now, is Mr. Gibson.
'o A. I'm differentiating between a piece of papar that says 17 this is what the job consists of and this is what the
'l 18 accountabilities are and the piece of paper that says this is i
'! 19 the committee's decision about what that pay range ought to i
20 be for that particular-- I get involved in the pay raise 21 that they recommend. At that time, I read this position 22 description as a matter of information. That is their 23 responsibility to develop that and assure that through the 24 company process, that that is as valid as it .can be, and I 25 don't question it. I'm looking to see if I think they have made.
28 !
( l l
lt iI f
li if i>
[+--.-. . - . #. , , , _ , . . , , . , , , , , , _ ,.
i t a reasonable decision as far as that pay range is concerned
[ '
2 and provide those other considerations that the committee 3 itself may not be able to provide.
s Q. Wha is the document then that reflects the qualifications 5; that are required of the position of the job?
) !
$ A. Qualifications?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. I don't want to get mixed up between salary compensation o analysis part of the qualifications that Quality Assurance 10 Department imposes in and requires that a person meet in 11 iorder--
12 Q. Let me-- I guess the material point is this, it seems, as 13 part of the pay reclassification or part of the change,in any
( i5 event, the decision was reached to not require previous weldin'g is experience, correct?
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 Q. How was that change in job qualification, if you will, 18 reflected in a job description or management decision is what 19 I want to understand. The management decision to approve that 20 , change in qualification.
21 A. Well, as I recall, that decision that that was not neces-22 sary was based on some experience, some experience that we had 23 with non-welder Welding Inspectors. We tried that, and it 24 worked.very well. We were able to fully qualify people to do l
25 that kind of work, and did not need to have that welding 29 a .- g. >.C-- M. *** *rp *s es,e s., g4 g p q p g,M ,, m.y4y +&Me yT *
- 9"J F b*
-- I i
experience. It did not mean that it excluded someone from
.[
2 being an inspector. l 3 Q. Right, I understand that, and I want to talk about that. !
4 My point is, who was a management decision was responsible 5 for saying yes, we don't need welding experience?
o A. That was a program that we undertook in the Quality 7 Assurance Department to satisfy themselves that it was not a necessary.
7 Q. So, who made the decision it wasn't necessary?
10 A. Quality Assurance made that recommendation to me.
11 Q. And you made the decision?
12 A. I concurred in it.
13 Q. You're the boss, you approved the decision, is that right?
(- 14 A. You put too much emphasis on it. I concurred in the -
15 decision. I locked to those people. They are fully qualified,
!$ each of those department heads is absolutely qualified to 17 manage their own area, and they review tnose kinds of decisions 18 with an.
19 Q. You mean Mr. Wells, is that what you're talking about in
.t
! 20 this case?
21 A. Jim was Quality Assurance Manager at that time.
22 Q. Mr. Wells made the decision in this instance?
23 A. He made the decision. He thought it was right and made a 24 recommendation, and I concurred. He had the perfect right and 25 responsibility and authority to do it. We talked.about many ,
. 30 i
- k. --.
l l' ,,- . . . . . . . . , . . , ,_
1 things that doesn't require my formal approval.
(
I 2 Q. This didn't, but you knew about it?
3 A. I knew about it.
4 Q. What study analysis did Mr. Wells make of the qualification ,
5 this qualification for Welding Inspectors, if you know?
o A. I don't recall any of the details. I just remember dis-7 cussing and being interested in how much review they had done, a how much monitoring, how much training it took to develop 9 someone, how much time was involved; and it seemed to me 1 10 the program had been worked out in a very satisfactory manner.
Q. Mr. Owen, I want to understand how you assured yourself 11 4- 12 that the inspection work would suffer at the consequence of 13 reducing the qualifications of Welding Inspector, eliminating
( 14 welding experience requirement, if you will?
4 A. You know, I look at a number of things like that frequently 15 16 and the way you assure yourself is to have qualified people 17 in those management positions and in the positions that support O 18 them, so I have as much as you're doing. 'I ask questions and n
i t
!i 19 I probe, and if I don't find any soft spots, .I judge if the 20 work is well done. If I happen to have personal experience
< 21 in it, my background was instrumentation and control in h
22 computers, obviously I can ask more detailed questions there than I can in other areas, but I use my experience in asking 1
23 i:l' 24 those questions and being satisfied that the competence of the- :
D If not, I ask for <
!j 25 people involved that the job is well done.
31 w
,t I
il ii - - ,...g ,3 , . . . . , , , .
j-m< *ee +*- - - '
_1, l j
. _ . . , , y s. . . _ _ . ,
~
t
! l additional information or additional study.
(
2 Q. Did you ask for any additional information in this case?
3 A , . No . -
4 Q. That was based on your confidence in Mr. Wells?
5 A. Yes, very much so.
6 Q. Did you ask Mr. Wells that question, those words, or in 7 substance, will the inspection work suffer or will the work get a done or will we be reducing our standards or that kind of
- thing?
I 10 ! A. Absolutely.
'l
.Q. What did he say to that?
12 A. There is a study and experience indicated that the training 13 program that we had produced inspectors that was every bit as
( 14 qualified as our past inspectors and, in fact, in many ways, is maybe better.
16 Q. In what ways better as you understood?
17 A. More training. Somewhat more at ease with the very involved
'8
[ i and complex documentation and paper work. Certainly no j :
'9 relaxation of our standards.
20 Q. Did Mr. Wells relate to you what study or analysis he had 21 done to reach that conclusion?
22 A. We discussed the program of people that had gone through
, 23 the program.
24 What program is that?
Q.
.t 25 A. The study, the work they had done to see that the ll i
l l 32 i k .
,!I
?
[ [ -- . . , , , _ .. -..,.,_-.rm .. ,.u.....,, s._ ...,m ., . . . , . . . _ . ..m.._
/
4 inspector, that the non-welding experienced inspector, was abiq 7
2 te do the work.
3 Q. .I'm sorry. I discussed with you the program and the a training program, is that what you had in mind?
5 , A. Well, the training program and the people we put through o the program.
7 Q. I see, and since you still had the requirement that you a had prior welding experience, where did you have the Welding o; Inspectors that had gone through the training programt to A. We did this at one of the other projects.
11 Q. Was that at Cherokee?
12 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q. What did he relate to you about the experience of non-
[ 14 welding inspectors at Cherokee?
15 A. That has been a long time ago, and I just recall we dis-le cussed it. He had every confidence that they looked into it 17 thoroughly. I explored that and it seemed okay to me, and we i
is were making our plans, too, as we expanded our work force i
19 which we are not doing, but as we were making plans to expand I
, 20 uur work force', we were going to undertake to train a repre-21 sentative number of a mix of inspection force, some with and 22 some without prior welding experience.
> 23 Q. As it turned out, you didn't replace all of the existing 4
24 Welding Inspectors who had welding experience with trained 25 inspectors without welding experience, you interfaced the new 33
. ( ,
_ , . ,s .-,r-.- _, . . . . . . . - - . . .
+ 1 a
i inspectors with the old, correct?
g 2 A. Yes, that was never our intention to one day say, we don't ,
3 need your welding experience. We had plenty of work in the d iw61 ding crafts if they had wanted to go back in the welding I
5, crafts, and we certainly at that time felt like we might still
$'have a growing workload in front of us and might again some 7 day.
3 Q. My point is this new qualification requirement and chain in
- pay grade associated with it was placed on Welding Inspectors
'O ; who largely met the earlier requirement and had welding i
11 ' experience?
12 A. yes.
13 Q. And for that reason, had the effect of reducing their
- (, 18 pay classification?
15 A. Over time.
16 Changed their pay?
Q.
- 7 A. Changed the pay classification and the pay range on the
'8 date we implemented. Any new person coming into that classifi-
cation, even if they had prior welding experience, would have 20 topped out if the top of that range and over a period of time, 21 it brought the previous inspectors back into line by letting 22 the classification move up to their pay.
23 Q. They go'; lower levels of increase on the annual general 24 increase?
25 A. Right. !
. 34 l
( !
- '* * *9*r 'deur >, a-e,e e, _,e A > , -q .,, .
-~ . . . , , - . _ _ .- . _ , ,
' i
- ; 1 i
L I Q. Then other employees to make the gradual adjustment? j g
2 A. Right, that's a practice we have whenever we have an I'
3 employee who is being paid outside of his established range.
1 _ ,-
4 QI. You knew, though, that this change would affect existing 5 Welding Inspectors. What understanding or anticipation did 6 you have at that point-where you were making this change on s 7 the effect of the existing Welding Inspectcrs?
8 A. I certainly didn't think it was going to make them happy.
0$ It wouldn't have made me happy. We anticipated there would be f
to some concern, and that concern based on prior experience can 11 manifest itself in a lot of different ways. Sometimes people l 12 get mad and quit. Sometimes people develop other frustrations 13 in their jobs. We have an employee recourse procedure which
( 14 we are encouraging our employees to use, and we certainly-
~
15 encouraged it at a time like that. We felt confident that we 16 were not going to lose a large number of them or we would have 17 had mighty serious thoughts about doing it. They were being i 18 well paid for what they were doing, and we thought in fairness i 19 to everybody concerned, the program has to work.- When it works
' 20 in favor, they like it; when it doesn't, they don't.
21 Q. You didn't th, ink it would have an effect that it did in 22 this instance? " .
23 A. I expected to get a lot of employee recourse procedures, ,
24 processes or requests out of it, and we did.
25 Q. Mr. Owen, Mrs. Addis' testimony was to the effect that she 1
- 35 i
k ]-
t
- * .e.w e +a , , ,, . , , ,
6'*'* * * . . . . ,
l *
- 1.
i ,' l I
' 'could not recall ever having more than one at a time on any
(
- 2 subject, is that your experience?
3 A.- Well', I don't recall the numbers. I thought it wasn't going 4 to make people happy to see this part of their pay disappear.
5 !If you're saying was I surprised that we got twenty or thirty
?
6 whatever it was--
7 Q. Forty?
I i a A. Forty whatever it was, I guess I was a little surprised at that, but it was not a surprise that we got a concern or
'O recourse about it.
O. I want to understand in the normal course of your planning 12 your experience wasn't to the contrary of Mrs. Addis', you're
'3 not aware of instances where you had more than one at a time?
' C~
A. I don't recall, but you don't-- you look at the possibilitil as-15 that are out there, as I mentioned, the possibility was that
'6 all the inspectors could leave. That would be very difficult; 4
3
and if we thought that was going to be the case, we certainly l
'8 would have given-- might not have done it. We were convinced i
" that we would not have that kind of reactior,. If we had one ,
h 20 recourse or forty recourses on a generic matter like this, we.
21 treat the one just as seriously as we treat the forty.
22 Q. You do?
23 A. We take every recourse--
U 24 Q. So you think from an employee relations standpoint, from a 25 work standpoint, from a management effectiveness standpoint, ll .
36 I h h o
D
'* 'w
-*. -e- .-.%-- ..,.-m._.- . ,6 op ,,,,,.,,,y,,, , , , . , ,
- 1
/
, you think it's just as significant to have forty as to have 2 one, Mr. Owen, is that your testimony?
3 A. The recourse procedure is there for two things: you want 4 to make'sure where you have a real problem that your employees 5 can feel comfortable in entering a recourse knowing there will o be no punitive action as a result of doing that; and you want 7 an employee to feel that if he has a perception of one, of a a, wrong, that he can seek redress and hopefully also feel l
7 comfortable when he gets told no. We followed our procedures 10' and did what we were supposed to. From the standpoint of Il following the recourse, carrying out the total reviews at each 12 level, and making the ultimate decision at the level of the 13 President, it would have been handled exactly the same if we
(- 14 had one as if we had forty. If you're asking me am I con-15 cerned about the things that came out of our investigations, lo I'm glad that we determined that we needed some additional 17 training and some improvement in our communications. That's is one of the reasons we have employee recourse procedures so i l' those things come to light and we can quickly go about pro-
! 20 viding that sort of work environment that the people like.
21 Q. Are those the most significant conclusions of your review 22 of those recourses and those concerns and additional training 23 and improved communications?
24 A. Some improvement in our~ procedures. Improvement in our 25 communications. Improvementinsometrainingandtomakesurel l . 37 !
k p 7
- r -- '- - - . . , . - .
L -. . - ..,...--.a...,.......-:,, , , . . . . , , . . . . .,,.,. g.
1 a
that all employees up and down the line understand their - i
( !
l 2 relative roles. I would say those are the three things.
3 Q. How do you think the inspectors misunderstood their 4 re'lative' roles?
5:A. I don't think they were doing-- I think they felt that they o needed additional support from their management as they called 7 it. I think I characterized that as they needed additional a information about how some of their identified problems were 7 being resolved. That's not unusual in my experience to find 13 that the identifier of problems sometimes doesn't get as il I much feedback as they would like on the problem they have 12 identified.
13 Q. Does that represent a misunderstanding of their relative C 14 role?
15 A. Well, I think obviously it came a better understanding 16 of the role that the engineer and the technical support person 17 plays in the resolution of a problem. Modification of some
' 18 of the procedures made it clear. I understand as to what the
' 19 criteria really is, but I would say at the heart of the whole--
20 of the recommendations that came out of the various teams that 21 took a look at the concerns expressed by the Welding Inspectors 22 was communications. It's easy to say, but it takes a lot of 23 minding th'e store to have good communication.
24 Q. How about the role of the inspector relative to craft?
~
25 A. I guess in my discussions with the inspectors, they felt I
K . 38 (c
I - * * + ,
, , - -..... .+ . . , , , ,,, ,,,,. ,
+
i
- m., - -. g. -----v.. .,,.4
- . ,.., ,,,,. ,g _y. , _ , , , , , , ,
4 a
g I
,' i
' that they ought to be paid more money because I have to tell ;
( - i 2 the craft what to do, and the emphasis they were placing on 3 it, is t, hat I'm really the craf tsmen's supervisor or where d in reality they have an obligation,as anyone does on a team, 5 to provide their expertise when and where it can be useful.
6 But you have to separate providing your know-how and saying 7 that I deserve more money because I'm responsible for that.
a I feel free to tell my counterparts in other parts of the
'tcompany based on my experience here's what I think you should 10 do, but I don't manage their damn work, and I don't work 11 ' under-- I'm not bothered by the feeling that I ought to be 12 paid more because I'm helping him more than he's helping me.
'3 ' That's not the way a team feels, and I think they have got the C. d feeling that I want more money. I want to keep this additional is premium I have got because I know more than the other guy.
16 Q. How about because they have more responsibility?
17 A. They didn't have that responsibility. That's exactly 8
my point. They were not managing the craft even though they i
39 were trying to convince themselves that they were expected to
. 20 do that.
6 e
21 Were they expected to do that?
Q.
l 22 A. No.
23 Did they do that?
Q.
f 24 A. No. As I said, they are expected,as anyone that is on l;
25 the team, to provide support and help when they can.
- 39 k.
b J
.g,, - w -es - s a ,e.e y -+ 4., .e t -- Ee -
__ ..3 .~...g --~. + ee .e< ,w,, . _ ,
F i
O. What about when an inspector rejects a piece of work, g
2 a weld? l f I
3 A. ~
What,do you mean by reject?
4 ,0. ' Tells the welder that it's not consistent with specifica-
~
5: tions, doesn't meet the inspection criteria?
J I
o I A. If that inspector was out there and he was walking by and 7 he was going to inspect this weld later and he saw it was 3 deficient in some respect, I would fully expect him to advise o that welder of that at that time. That's the cost effective 10 thing to do. Fix it in process before the inspection takes 11 place. I don't recall that supervising as they did and felt 12 or tried to.
13 Q. That's just doing his job?
(- 14 'A. That's just doing his job.
15 Q. He's expected to do that?
16 A. Sure.
17 Q. That's not managing or supervising the craf t?
You would expect the foreman to do the same thing if 18 A. No.
' 19 he happened to walk by.
20 Q. But it's the job of the inspector to check that weld in 21 the normal course 'of his duties?
22 f A. When the time comes, it's the job of the inspector to 23 inspect the weld.
24 Q. When the time comes and the welder is there because it's j 25 in process, the whole point of the inspection is to point in it
" 40
(
a 1
- - ~ e q e a. s,,,
1
. _ . . 1' i
' i i the course, in the normal course of the preplanned inspections .
I !
i 2 the weld is not up to specifications, the Welding Inspector 3 does his job and rejects the work. What is your understanding
~
4 of what the proper role of the inspector and the craft is at 5 that point, Mr. Owen?
l e 'A. Well, you want that to be a constructive interface. You 7 don't mind a little friction there as always exists as your a internal auditor you are talking about coming around. I'm 9 here to help you is one of the standard lines. He is there to You would io j help, but you don't udnd a little friction there.
ii I hope--
12 Q. Nobody likes somebody looking over their shoulder, fair?
13 A. No one likes being told your work isn't any good. You 14 write lousy. I can't read it upside down.
15 Q. True. Read it right side.up.
13 A. You want people to understand that that's their job, and 17 you would like for it to be Constructive, and then you would l.
1 is like for the inspector to say that doesn't meet requirements, 19 and here's why; and it may be something that is relatively i 20 simple and fixed immediately. Hopefully that kind of things 21 are caught in process. I'm talking philosophically. If you 22 want to talk about exact details of the inspection process, I
23 and the fine-tuning of that interface, you have to talk to i
- 24 someone oth' e r than me. But philosophically, we want any i 25 persons' know-how, but we don't want them to misunderstand what l 41 p
(
a a
- l I
- 7. . . . . ~ . . . ,
,, _ . . _. .. . ~
._..._..__7..._. . . . . . , ,
^
~ \ l l ,
a i their responsibilities are, their obligations are one thing; their responsibilities are something else because if they i 2
3 misunderstand, if they truly felt they were directing the craft, khentheyhadarighttoexpectmoremoneyforthat.
4 5 But they were not and should not have been.
o Q. And didn't feel that way?
7 A. They say they felt that way.
3 Q. But didn't feel that way.
9 A. I say they truly not doing that; they may feel they were to doing that.
11 Q. But they said--
12 A. I tried to make that distinction earlier. There is a 13 difference between what really happens to people and what
(. . 14 they perceive happens to them sometimes; and from a manager's is standpoint, you have to deal with both problems, and you have 16 to be able to deal with both.
17 Q. But in this instance, the critical distinction is not j is what a perception of the Welding Inspector was, but what you i 19 have, but what you as management expect of them.
- l 20 A. Exactly. The last time I met with them,I.tried to make tha 21 point very clear. ,They could not,either under our policies L
22 or those of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, be responsible 1
23 for the craft and also cesponsible for inspecting it. That 24 did not mean, though, they could not provide assistance just
, 25 as I would or anyone would do that is on the team.
o .
42 h ( '
E ii
-g.... .- - . . .. . , . . , , . . . ... .~ , g .. . . , , , ,
1 , .
].
I Let's focus on the specifics in the case that I presented i,Q.
2 to you and you're not going to spend your time being a Welding 3 Inspector, and I'm not asking you in that context, but a 4 manager that's establishing basic r.anagement principles in 5 play here, the Welding Inspector flunks the welder's work 1
e and the welder is right there because that's in the normal 7 course of his duty to be there, and he explains to the welder a the specification that is not met, why he cannot approve the o work. That's his job, correct, to do that?
to A. Certainly if he is asked or even if he is not asked if 11 the man is there, I would philosophically be in favor of that.
12 Q. He does that then and then his job--
13 A. Or to that man's foreman.
14 Q. Or to that man's foreman.
25 A. If the foreman is nearby. Certainly I would hope he talks is to them.
17 Q. He explains to the craftsman dcing the work or to the I
is craftsman supervisor if he is there and then.what is his l 191 responsibility from that point?
t 4 20 A. I don't understand what you mean by responsibility?
21 Q. He's standing [there, he has flunked the man's weld, and 22 he has explained to him why the weld didn't pass.
23 A. It's not his responsibility to fix it.
24 Q. He.'doesn't pick up the welding rod and the other equipment 25 and do the work over? What does he do? I
{
.43 k- -
i, 1
- . - ..a... . . . - . - . . . . . - - -.
, ,, . . . . . ~ . , , . . .
~
, l 1
A. Well, he has, if it's an inspection point, and he has the
(
2 inspection process, then has has rejected the weld.
3 Q.. But that's the end of his responsibility?
4 A. He has the responsibility to complete his paper work under 5 ' the procedures and put that into the process.
6 Q. That's it?
7 A. I don't understand what it is that-- as far as that event
- 3 is concerned, he has completed his paper work;if the procedure i requires him to do something more, that's what he should do.
u) 9. I'm interested in the relationship between the welder and il the craftsman. That's the end of the Welding Inspector 12 responsibility, as you understand, with respect to .his relation-33 ship with the craft at that point, is to say--
(- 'd A. It's the craft's responsibility then to take that weld 15 and get it fixed. It's a radiograph, and there is a defect in 16 the weld. We have got to fix the defect.
37 The Welding Inspector has found the Q. There is a defect.
i 1 is weld does not meet the inspection criteria, and.he tells him 19 that. The welder says, "Well, how do I fix it?' What do I do i
20 now to satisfy the inspection criteria?" What is the Welding 21 Inspector supposed to do?
22 A. He ought to tell him to see his foreman.
- 23 Not the Welding Inspector to respond to that question in Q.
24 that fo'm r generally speaking, is that~your opinion? You have
] 25 to speak one way or another.
I!
L 44
([
L u
I i
{ * * " -: ,-.:_.- _ _ s-s. : . , , , , _ . , _ , , ., y , , , . . , , _., , , ._ . , , ,,s,
e i e
i A. I said his responsibility is to tell him to go see the k foreman. He has already told him why the weld was undercut 2
3 or in ca,se of the radiograph, that there was a defect in it.
4 That's pretty obvious.
5 Q. But even in the case where it's not pretty obvious, as 6
long as he's told him why it doesn't meet the spec or other-7 wise and it's not acceptable from the inspection.
a A. I don't want the inspectors saying that situation could be improved if you had changed your process somehow. That's o
30 a responsibility of the craft to keep the welders trained, n keep them qualified.
12 Q. So he is not supposed to engage in the generic problem-13 solving for the welding craft?
( i4 A. He helps identify them.
Q. But he is not supposed to say: "Go get more training,"
33 to we can agree on that?
i7 A. If he wants to give that sort of advice if he feels that
't way, I would expect him to go talk to-- my advice to him would i is
.! he to go see the foreman or the general foreman for welding
! pp 20 and say I only looked at representative numbers of these
- 9. .
21 peoPl e, but it se,dms to me we're having a lot of problems in this area. Good' communication. Not a requirement, but a 22 23 good contribution, if he felt that way.
! 24 Q. But he's not supposed to tell the welder how to repair the
.! 25 work?
! 45 a
f y_ , ,
^s.w se e ,
~* * ~ ~ p__ , 4 ,
4 1
e A. I don't want him to.
2 Q. Mr. Owen, as a practical matter and as human relations 3 matter, don't you expect that it was natural or likely tiist a 4 ,W61 ding Inspector who was also an experienced craf t welder, I
5 knew how to fix the work, was going to engage in some instruc-1 o ' tion and direction of the craf t in order to aid the craft in 7 doing an acceptable job the second time around?
3 A. I said we would like to see a constructive interface there.
- lIfhehasadvice,certainlyhecangiveit. That craftsman has I
w a responsibility to talk with his foreman and perform that I
it ' work in an appropriate manner based on construction process 12 and criteria, and there's a difference between a constructive 13 . interface is what I'm trying to describe to you, is I'm trying I'm trying to u lto have a constructive interface with you now.
15 { tell you what I believe and what I understand. I could sit i
1$landsayyesorno,butIwantconstructiveinterfacethere 17I 'where you can say-- you have already said I'm not a Welding 18 Inspector, I'm not, but I'm talking about human relations
-f f 19 aspect.
! 20,0. That's right.
21 A. I would say reject this. weld and here's why I want you to 22 understand that'and based on my experience, this is the way 23 to avoid that in the future. Why don't you talk to your 24 foreman about it? I would say good constructive human relation a.:
25 It's hard for anybody to get mad at that. -I . looked at that weld, l
46
(' i
-.s- g =m,,se- g p.- 1 g , em. - - -. . . . . ,
3 o
g i 'and I said, " Boy, that's a dumb piece of work. That's 2 rajected." I might expect the other guy to be a little feisty 3 about it, and I don't want that kind of interface; but, I 4 guess, r'ealistically, all of us are human beings and sometimes 5 that kind of interface gets a little bit raw, but they know o their jobs and they stick to them.
7 Q. I guess the point of my last question, Mr. Owen, is this:
8 you put people in there who were experienced craftsmen, so
' it wasn't simply a question of knowing the inspection criteria, 10 knowing the book, it wasn't a matter of being trained in how 11 to inspect. They were also trained and experienced in how to 12 weld, and my question to you as a manager was, wasn't it 13 normal to expect that there would be more than simply the
( Id exchange that you have outlined and, in fact, the Welding 15 Inspector would say: " Listen, I did that kind of weld for 16 ten years and here's how to do it," wouldn't you expect that
'7 to happen?
[ 18 A. You're not surprised that it does happen. It deenn't b
l' happen everywhere. Let me see if I can give you an analogy now ,
-l 20 When I get promoted from one job to the next and someone is t 21 appointed to take my place, I can have a constructive relation-
!i 22 ship with that p'erson if I restrain myself sometimes in saying, 23 "My God, if I was you, I would do it that way." You have got
. 24 to let.them grow; and when I say constructive interface there, F 25 I want them to have a lot of respect for the dignity and work
.. 47 l
k
,b i'
I!
. , . ~ . _ .. . . . , . . , . . . , _ . .
7
_ _ __ . .- _ _ _ . _= _- - . .
e I
i i
f i
y'
' of the person on the other side of that interface.
/
2 Q. I'm sorry?
3 A. I think I finished. I don't know what I was saying. I
'~
4 can't think of a better word than constructive for that 5 interface, o 0 Would you expect, Mr. Owen, that that problem would be 7 less-- the less pronounced where the Welding Inspector did not a have the background of experience that would tempt him to go
- beyond simply informing the welder of the basis for his 10 rejection and essentially trying to do his job for him?
11 A. I don't really know. I would expect, as we undertook at 12 that time,in these kinds of human relation situations came up 13 to our attention. I would expect that some emphasis, some
(~ 14 awareness, of the techniques in human relations interfaces is with other people would be the quickest way to cure it.
16 Awareness of the potential for problems is often all it takes 17 for a good person to say maybe I can say this in a little is different way, that it really wouldn't rub salt in the wound, 19 and all of a sudden, things are positive and our problems are 20 lessened.
21 Q. You're aware fhat a number of concerns were expressed by 22 the Welding Inspectors of harassment by craft and craft 23 supervision in performance and in their work, correct?
24 A. Are'you talking about those concerns expressed in 25 December during the pay recourse investigation?
48 l
0 g >g . * .g -ees aw
- D' *=e e - m-en- e g ** 9-e=<, .t*e<
., . ~,,,-n..... ~ ~ - . - - .-s-,~.e . o . w m ,- . --,v-y~ -. n n . - ~ - , a . s ,
.g-
i J
' I want you to tell me, but first of all, were you O.
(
2 generally--
3 A.. .Those are the ones I'm aware of.
d j Q. You're aware that people raised questions concerning 5 harassment by craft of the craft supervision performing their
$ work, yes?
7 A. The words harassed were used in some of those, as I recall.
B Q. I want to understand what you mean. What you understand
- by the term harassment. How you use it and how you expect
- 10. people working for you will understand the term harassment, l
il Mr. Owen?
12 A. Well, I think in my view, harassment is often in the eye 13 of the beholder. We define harassment as some annoying
(' id persistent act that affects the work and can become harassment is in one situation, it's not harassment in another because of 16 the individuals involved. Abusive language to people who are 17 used to abusive language, abusive kinds of words, may not e
18 be a problem. To others, that's a very real concern. Smoking, 39 particularly in the office area. A lack of sensitivity on 20 one employee's part and concerns about smoking could be 21 escalated to the point of harassment. So it's very much a 22 perception judgment kind of thing. We have harassment procedures 23 that encourage our employees to use the employee recourse pro-2d cedure'so that we can help resolve those kinds of situations.
' 25 Q. Are you referring to QA Department harassment procedure? f 49
(
l I
.i
- * * - *-- , -/A a g . .e, - 3 t
, ,,, .. ,,,,,,,g .g ,4g . , , _
4 1
A. We have a corporate procedure, as I reca~1, both
(
2 construction and QA, have a process where we have a corporate ,
3 policy and procedure and then the individual department can do d what we call blue sheets. They are not always blue sheet, but 5 the expand on that policy for their own particular area where o they may use names in terminology.
7 Q. There's a corporate harassment policy?
a A. Yes.
7 Q. That's the definition you had in mind when you--
10 That's what we have tried to, yes. i
- A.
' il Q. Is harassment acceptable behavior?
12 A. No. The policy says that harassment is not an acceptable 13 behavior.
( Id O. It's prohibitive?
is A. It's prohibitive.
16 Q. And subject to disciplinary action?
17 A. Subject to disciplinary action. If it's harassment, the
,1 ll 18 perception it's harassment, it has to go through review
- t I 19 process for it to be determined as harassment.
20 Q. Are you aware of any case in which Duke Power Company has 21 found harassment?'
22 A. We have terminated people for harassment.
- t 23 Q. You have?
24 A. I . sit on the Executive Committee and generally if it's a 25 harassment here in this building, sexual harassment or race, or u;
50
('
I
- ll
'l l 'c i
\\
. . , . . . . - . - , . _ . . . . . , _ . , . - ~ , . , ,r-, .
- ~
I ,
i anything like that, that's generally discussed at the table;
(
2 taking some action as a result of harassment, somebody has been 3 termina,ted, and we are made aware of that.
d Q. In what instance have you terminated anyone for harass-5 ment?
6 A. I don't recall specific cases. I haven't been involved 7 in them directly personally in one where we have terminated one .
8 As I said, they have come to the Executive Committee.
7 Q. Were they racial and sexual harassment?
30 A. The one specific, the only one I can recall right now was 11 a sexual harassment.
12 Q. How about harassment of an inspector, are you aware of any 13 instances where the company has found harassment involved
( ld charged by the inspector?
15 A. Out at one of the projects?
16 Yes, sir.
Q.
17 A. I know there have been some recourses. written. I don't
'8 recall any specific case where there was a termination, but i
l' expect there has been. I'm sure there has been.
20 Are you sure?
Q.
21 A. Let me take that back.
I think I recall one case where 22 we dischdrged a supervisor for striking an employee.
>i 23 Q. That was harassment?
24 Well, they complained about it.
A.
ll 25 Q. That's what I want to understand. It was harassment?
fi
',(
I l-51 1
I
,* , [* ' . . . _
~'
...,7 ,.m. YC 7,2' C.,' C .._
.,,,,[.;** '*"*Q.',
. , . , , _ , _ g't " Q*j*J eg " * ,* ,'fy , - _,
\
i i l l , !
i I i'A. I would certainly think if it had gone on, it would be 2 harassment. We didn't--
3 Q. It wasn't harassment? I want to understand. You have used 4 a' term, and it has been used frequently, and I want to under-5 stand if you have ever found harassment and help me understand e what the instance was so I can know--
7 A. I'm not familiar with that in any detail.
S Q. Your belief is th%t the company found a case of harassment 9 and as a consequence, discharged a supervisor?
10 A. Yes.
Il 'Q. What else do you know about that?
12 A. That incident?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. I don't recall. It's been some time ago.
15 Q. Was it at Catawba?
16 A. I don't recall. ,
17 Q. Did it involve an inspector?
18 A. No, I don't think so.
i 19 Q. Did it involve use of harassment, corporate harassment 20 procedure?
21 A. It involved h{rassment policy as a statement of principle.
22 It did not involve employee recourse procedures, as I recall.
23 You're testing my memory.
2d O. What you are aware, there is another corporate harassment-25 policy and procedure?
52 k I li
i l.
i 'A. Yes.
{
2 Q. What I want to understand, was thir under the harassment 3 procedure, do you know?
d 5. I don't recall what the termination wording was. Striking
- 5. an employee. One employee striking another is cause for 6 disciplinary action under the harassment procedure.
7 Q. What I want to understand though, is do you know whether a or not the harassment procedure was employed in resolving 9 this?
A 30 A. No.
11 Q. You just don't know?
12 A. No.
'3 Q. Are you aware of any instance in which harassment Id involving an inspector was found by the company?
15 A. I recall in the memo that Gail Addis wrote to me and to flowing out of pay recourse, the use of the word harassment 17 at least one time.
i.
18
- Q. Yes.
l l' A. And those did not-- those concerns were part of the 20 list of concerns that we got--that were used in our Task 21 Force resolution,'
22 H Q. Yes. -
l 23 I did not---none of those concerns were pursued as far A.
ll 24 as I know through the employee recourse procedure where 25 harassment was determined to have taken place.
53 li (
l!
t
'h
- i
~t l l e --
i Again, do you know of any other instances in which harassment 2 was found involving an inspector?
3 A. No.
4 Q. I guess my general concern, if you can help me beyond this, 5 if not, tell me that, please. As you state, harassment may 6 be in the eye of the beholder. My concern, my question is, 7 has it ever existed in the eyes of Duke management? Have you 8 ever found harassment and, therefore, is there any basis and 9 experience for understanding what in Duke management's mind to constitutes harassment, Mr. Owen?
11 A. I'm certain there is. It's not really my responsibility 12 to be dealing with those. We have a Personnel Department 13 with strong employee relations. The section that is charged
( 14 with dealing independently with those reviews have expressed is harassment concerns. The departments of employee relations 16 the Personnel Department has independent, and then if that 1-7 recourse is pursued, if we can't resolve the disagreement or li 18 that perception of harassment, or if it really is harassment,
.i, 19 generally that's very quickly handled at the departmental 1 20 level, so it does not get to be something that would be 21 escalated to my level.
22 Q. Would it sur rise you, sir, if it were the case that there i
L 23 never was a charge in harassment that was found to have repre-L 24 sented harassment under the harassment procedure?
25 A. It would surprise me if there had never been a termination I' 54 u
I t
j . -. -- . - -. . . . . . _ , , . . . , . .. . ,, _ , , ,,
- y. _
~ . . , . . , , - . --
, l l
i by harassment. I just know human beings.
g 2 Q. You think harassment existed and you never found any?
3 You're not aware of any that were found?
4 A. You're mischaracterizing what I said. I said I'm not 5 involved in that. You said if I would be surprised if there 6 were no cases of harassment, and I said yes, I would be 7 surprised. I know over twenty thousand people, why we try to a be very much better than the general population. You don't
- ; have to read the newspapers very much to see where disagreementp I
10 take place, and some of those escalate to the point of 11 harassment.
12 Q. Would it surprise you if you never concluded that harass-13 ment existed, you never found harassment?
14 A. Let me state my answer differently than your question.
15 I'm a realist enough to know that when you have large numbers 16 of people engaged in anything such as our twenty thousand 17 people are, that there will be cases of harassment. Those
[ 18 harassments generally are the ones that are really harassment, f
19 intimidation of one person on another's part, those are very i
20 quickly identified and action taken by the department resulting 21 in termination, and they don't have to go through employee 22 recourse procedure where you have got this fine line of 23 whether or not it may be harassment.
. 24 Q. I'm trying to fairly read you, and I'm not trying to
] 25 belabor the point, but I want to understand you clearly. i
]
i L 55
(
4 q
+
i i l i i
- s. -
i e
l
,Your expectation is harassment probably occurred, but it l
[
2 wouldn't surprise you if there was not a formal determination I l
3 or, finding of harassment. It would have been handled by some d
,other form.
5 A. Handled by termination.
6 i Q. Without necessarily conclusions expressed that harassment 7 occurred.
a A. Without necessarily depending on the word harassment.
- !Q. My concern, Mr. Owen, is that you have a policy that says 10 harassment is prohibitive and you stated you don't think it 11
- was good and shouldn't happen; it's likely to happen given 4
12 human relations and the number of people involved, but I am 13 not aware of any instance where your company has actually Id said to an employee who complained of harassment, "Yes, you isIwere harassed, and that was wrong." I'm not aware of any, 16 and I want you to help me understand a case where it was 17 actually harassment and you said, "You're right. It shouldn't-
- i; 38 have happened," and you don't know of any?
l 19 Systematic kinds of harassment, I don't know of any.
A.
20 SHORT RECESS (10:10 a.m.)
4 21 CONTINUING EXAMINA' TION: {By Mr. Guild) (10:20 a.m.)
ti 22 Q. .Mr. Owen, on'this same point we left where you said a-23 policy and you say harassment is prohibitive and you said a 24 process that you tell people will redress their perceived
- t
- 25 wrongs, in this case, that would addressJtheir perception of tt 56 l k u
i!-
l:
,;-~--- : = - . , =: = = . == = - ==.....:==. .y=.-
- . I o
g their being harassed, and then you dismissed every instant of 2 harassment as merely coumunication problems or disputes or 3 commo.n argument. Don't you fairly think that your employees 4 don't take seriously your initial commitment to dealing with 5 harassment, the prohibiting harassment?
o A. No, I don't think our employees take their opportunity to
. 7 seek redress lightly. I think they feel very comfortable with 8 it. They use it. I don't recall any cases where the Welding Inspectors have filed a grievance on or recourse on harassment 7
10 that went through the process and got to my level. That was 11 the only thing I was saying.
12 Q. Do you know about the case of Max Reep?
13 A. No.
f id Q. Would you be surprised if that's the only recourse that i.
15 has ever been-- harassment recourse in the QA Department?
16 A. I don't know anything about the Reep case.
17 Q. I commend it to you, Mr. Owen, you might want to take a 18 look at it. It wouldn't come to you as a matter of course
- 19 anyway, would it?
- l
.i 20 A. Not unless it had been pursued through the various appeal 21 processes and reach my level.
22 Q. If it were pursued through the QA Department and only in
. 23 the QA Department, it wouldn't come to your attention?
g, If . it was resolved in the QA Department that sty individual
~
24 25 has the right, if he feels he does not get satisfactory con-57-I j) k.
i m ,- 2._. m_. _.. s._.. .u__ _. ,..y.,,,._. .
- -, - - , - . , - . ~ _ , _ . , . , - , _ , . .- , . . _ , , ' -
J l J
sideration, can pursue it to the highest level; and when it 2 goes to that highest level, then I'm made aware of it then. l 3 I',m not.in the direct line, but I'm made aware of it and make 4 myself familiar with it.
5 Q. A number of Welding Inspectors in the time frame '81, late o ! '81, early '82, expressed dissatisf action with their resolution 7 of their concern about Mr. Davison and Mr. Wells within the 3 QA Department and wanted to get you involved, didn't they?
7 A. Yes.
10 Q. Sought your involvement and wanted to talk to you?
11 A. I think I recall that that was an expression. That was 12 expressed to me that they would like to talk to me.
13 Q. And how did that come to your aEtention, if you remember?
( 14 A. I believe Jim Wells expressed that to me. That is, they
- S had some of the inspectors that said they would like to talk 16 to me. I think that took place in that time frame.
17 Q. Early Januarf, '82?
i la A. Yes.
i' Q. What did you do as a result of that?
20 A. Well, that was in that time frame when Gail Addis first 21 brought those concerns which seemed to be above and beyond the 22 : considerations in the pay recourse to my attention, and it was 23 early December, December 4th is the date that sticks in my 24 mind, that's when--
p 25 Q. I would like to show you this memo, December 3, '81, P
L 58
( ;
c n-- ,: n- ,m
.. [ ,= = y;;;; : 1:_w= :::
,:-.. - z .,
e i
.'Mrs. Addis' memo to you that you're talking about?
( .
2 A. That's it. I asked her-- She came to me either that day 3 of_the day before and said that in the course of their 4 investigation, what we call Level 2, Personnel Department is 5 ', looking into it, that these inspectors had expressed these o concerns that sort of ran the gamut, and I said: "Let's 7 separate that from the pay recourse", and that's when I talked B to Bill Lee, and we decided that we would appoint a Task 0 ! Force to investigate these concerns, those things that had to 10
- do with technical concerns as opposed to the pay recourse.
11 'Q. Mrs. Addis came to you and she presented the memo that 12 you have in front of you, the December 3rd memo?
13 A. My recollection is she came to talk to me about it with 14 some of her notes, and I said I would like for you to put in 15 writing so we'll have it for the record. I don't recall if to she did it the same day or whether that was the next morning
'7 she gave it to me. Shortly after I asked for it.
' IB Q. Did she meet with you again and brought you the memo?
l '
! 19 A. I don't recall whether she handed it to me or whether she i
20 left it with my secretary, but it came promptly, and I talked 21 with Bill Lee about it and maybe December 4th is the date of 22 his letter. I don't recall.
23 Q. When did you talk to Mr. Lee?
24 A. I' talked to him, I believe, if he was here, I think I l 25 talked to him immediately after Gail talked to me the'first tim <t.
t lt i !
59
(
n H
- - - < - - .,p.-. ..y. , .. ,, , . , , , , , _ . ,_ _ , ,_ ,,
1 But I know specifically I talked to him and showed him this
(
2 memo.
3 Q. Yog may have talked to him twice?
4 A. I may have. My recommendation to him was that he ought 5 to take these concerns seriously and we ought to appoint a 6 Task Force to quickly take a look at what the general nature 7 of the problem was,which we did, which I did immediately.
a O. How about the specific problem?
9 ' A. Well, my immediate concern was I wanted to find out i
30 whether we have got any technical inadequacies in the plant l'
31 and that was my charge to that original three-man Task Force.
12 I didn't prejudge what that was going to show. I was having 13 other discussions with Jim Wells and his managers about getting Id a specific list of technical concerns so that we could pursue I5 each and every one of those to determine if we had expected
'o any inadequate work in the plant; but my immediate concern 17 with this Task Force was to do two things: one was to see 38 if in their judgment and give them time to pursue all of the l' concerns, but in their judgment, were there any technical 20 inadequacies, and, secondly, help me to define the problem as 21 it might exist. 'So I gave them from I think I met with them 22 within a week after that, I believe it was just about a week 23 later, I had selected the people after talking with others in 24 the company, about I wanted to see your people, I wanted 25 senior people with experience that I could be confident to call!
60 k
O
' i l
l
- . . . . - _ .s.... - . , _.. . , , . . . _ .
~ - -
~
_ i a spade a spade, and I gave them, I said: "I would like to
-(
2 have it by the end of the year," and they didn't want it to dragi 3 out and ,they met that. I think they gave it to me about the 4 end'of the year. They gave me their report.
5 Q. I'm a little confused. You instructed Wells to get a list 6 of-- get the specific technical concerns from the Welding 7 Inspectors, but you wanted the technical inadequacies to be B determined, which this three-man Task Force--
7 A. I obviously was not going to stop my relation with the 10 management, the QA Department, and I was talking with them 13 about the things that they thought and I thought might be 12 needed to be done, particularly those things from a human 13 relations kind of standpoint. You could see very clearly on
(" 14 some of these comments that there were kind of reactions that 15 we talked about earlier when I don't like to have my pay cut, 16 I'm worth more than that. I do more. Those kinds of things 17 clearly show they needed to be some work in the area of j
18 defining and discussing the appropriate responsibilities and
! 19 objectives the inspectors or craft people, so I had continuing 20 discussions going with' Jim Wells on what I thought he needed 21 to be doing; with Bob f Dick on what I thought he needed to be 22 doing from a construction craft standpoint.. That's when I 23 made the decision to implement the Quality Awareness Program' b 24 to make sure the craft understood clearly their responsibilitie:s.
f ; -
25 So that was going on. At the same time, I wanted someone 61 k i u
l i
q.7" ' i
_ . l. u !_l,, ; _ _ _ _..1 Cf,'l.E. I,. , .d., (17 .d f. , ;~~ 7~ 7 7_ ~_
e !
independent of either of those departments, to interview a
-(
2' large number of these inspectors. I didn't insist they did 3 al1 of them. I said, " Interview a lot of them and put your 4 own assessment after talking with them of what the problem 5 was," and they did, I think, talk to about thirty. It wasn't 6 two or three. It was twenty or thirty. Reported back to me 7 and their observations and their recommendations about what a they thought needed to be done.
'.Q. Well, I guess what I'm trying to understand is I can see ;
l 10 the division between the human relations side that you were il going to do over the longer haul with Mr. Wells within his 12 department, add your interest in determining the technical 13 side, but, ultimately, you wound up getting very specific
'd detailed technical concerns and pursuing those, correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Was that the charge of this first Task Force?
Q.
17 A. No, no.
{ is Q. Help me understand why this Task Force had a different
" responsibility in the technical area?
i 20 A. I wanted a judgment by a small group of experienced people 21 about what is the ' magnitude of the potential scope of the 22 problem, which I thought they could, with specific assignment 23 and opportunity, to talk to the inspectors involved, could r
24 give me an insight that I could have gone and done it myself.
I 25 I just had many other things I needed to do, so.this was an l l
[ o 62 l k.
4
- t
. .... . . . , ..,..._g.. , _ ._ , ,_ _ , _ __ _
- I I
a !
i ' extension of what I felt was my responsibility. I did not !
( !
2 specifically, did not ask them to get locked in on any l 3 particular technical concern and try to pursue it because that 4 doesnob--Icannotdoinafewweeks' time. I don't remember l We're talking during that time frame about 5 the exact time.
6 the following Task Force you referred to.
7 Q. So at that point, you anticipated a more detailed follow a on a piece of work that would address specific technical 9 concerns?
10 A. If it turned out-- I'm sure my feeling at the time was 11 if it turned out there are technical concerns, we have a 12 technical recourse procedure that generally defines how you 13 go about investigating that, and so that was my thought. We
(. 14 needed to get a list of those concerns very specific, very 15 detailed and complete, and then let that Task Force take as 16 long as it needed to research each of those.
17 Q. From the information Mrs. Addis gave you in her meeting 18 with you and the notes she presented to you in her memo, 19 you were aware that first that inspectors' specific technical
'l' 20 concerns regarding the resolution of inspection function, 21 nonconforming ite,ms, et cetera, and they communicated those 22 concerns to her?
23 A. Well, I had this. I had their words. I don't know what 24 those words meant, but I certainly wanted and intended to j 25 determine the extent of their concern. They were totally 63
(
o ,
i
'e W - :: : . . -. . . ; : ;-;z g. =: x - :; ;_ ._ ._ ;;g . . _ _ _
I g
generated by the-- % don't like my pay cut kind of thing.
2 That was one thing. I couldn't sit there and judge. I didn't' '
3 feel I wanted to. I wanted to know the total score, and I J did not expect to find anything that was a major problem from 5' a management standpoint, but I did want some independence; 6 somebody had raised a flag, and I wanted to see what it was.
7 Q. Mrs. Addis' December 3rd memo, Mr. Owen, the first entry, 3 Burr 11-4-81 Catawba, we have had craft supervision coming in
,here that can't read blueprints. Paper work major problems.
10 I have had to face feeling I would be fired in order to see M l work done right. I caught a bad weld and wrote an NCI due to 12 lack of fusion. Technical Support said no. ANI and NRC saw
'3 it and agreed. Then I heard Davison and Wells wanted to 14 investigate and talk to NBC, and I didn't even talk to NRC.
15 Doesn't that flag from the very first a specific technical 16 ' concern having to do with a piece of workmanship as well as 17 management problems, interference, or potential interference, 18 with the man's opportunity to complain to the NRC, all of 19 those issues?
20 A. Certainly in Mr. Burr's eyes it must have. As I said, I 21 read through this lin its entirety. I said: "Let's separate 22 pay recourse from the pursuit of the technical recourse," and 23 I appointed the first Task Force to give me some insight into 24 the seriousness of the problem. I had every confidence, as I i
25 said, there was not a serious judgment problem; but you don't ['
64 y l
( l l
3
t l
- I You have to have some- j
( sit in the office here and make that.
2i body that is technically oriented go out and talk to these ;
s 3 Gail just accepted what they said.
folks in some department.
d i
She didn't ask them any questions. Didn't ask has this 5
,resulted in any unsafe work. That wasn't her job. She did
- the very appropriate thing. She came and said: "This is a 7
technical side of the issue, and somebody else ought to look 3
into that."
O. What did you tell Mr. Lee?
'O A. I told him that there was a pay recourse coming and had
' ' not reached his level yet, but this four or five page-- four 12 pages of comments by those inspectors maybe want to have a 13 Task Force talk to them to get a clear idea of what their d
concerns were and what the problem might be, if any, and that 15 I wanted to pursue that in parallel with the pay recourse;
'6 that it might not be any good probably completed in the same time frame, and it was another reason to separate them.
'8
- Q. What was his response?
A. He said I think I agree with you, and I said I want you 20 to do it expeditiously. If there are problems, let's uncover 21 then. and let's fid them.
22 Q. Did you discuss--
23
. A. I don't know if those are his exact words. I left the 24 office with that impression. I came in with them and came out 25 with them.
. 65 b
i
. - - - - - - ~ - - -
- 3 -- ;_ , _
- - -~~. .
_ -_-;-- ----~3-_- 3 --
~
l I I
- Q. You discussed the composition of the Task Force? I 7
2 A. With him, I don't recall. He just said you have got any 3 resources anywhere in the company you want, this was his a support for me. I could pick the people. They would be made 5 available and be excused from their other responsibilities o for this two or three weeks of intensive discussion.
7 Q. How did you determine the membership of the first Task a Force, Mr. Owen?
o A. Well, I wanted professionals. I wanted someone who I thought i
I 10 could be good at interviewing people. Earl Holen from one 11 of our subsidiaries as the Chairman, Earl had a lot of 12 experience in dealing with defenders and negotiating full 13 contracts and what not, and I thought that would be good. I 14 picked a very competent senior manager from the Engineering 15 Department, and Ed Meekin, third, was one of our fossil lo fuel stations and had many years experience in managing and 17 relating to craft-oriented people who worked for him. I 18 discussed that selection with corporate officers involved in 19 each of these areas to see if they agreed with my assessments.
' 20 In fact, they suggested some of the people. Have you con-21 sidered several alternatives in each case?
22 Q. Who is R. M. Bisanar?
23 A. Bob is in the Legal Department and was working on, as I 24 recall, on the employee recourse procedure. ;
25 Q. What was his responsibility with regard to the Task Force !
66 k' !
n,
.--..s.
- 9 * + * * % 4 - - g-
$ g p.9- a%..
' I or inspector concerns?
( /
2 A. None.
3 Q. Why.was he involved?
4
,A. He was not. I was keeping him informed of our parallel.
5,Q. What was his involvement in that matter?
$ A. Didn't I also send a copy to Gail Addis?
7 Q. You did, I'm sorry. I don't understand what was 3 Mr. Bisanar's involvement in the matter?
- A. He was working with Gail Addis on the employee recourse, D as I recall.
Il Q. What was his responsibility on the employee recourse?
12 A. I don' t know. Our Legal Department is frequently involved 13 in it.
( 14 Q. What is Mr. Bisanar's area of responsibility?
15 A. He is in the Legal Department.
16 Q. What does he do in the Legal D partment?
17 A. He deals with employee relations.
18 Q. Labor law?
19 A. I guess Bob's responsibility would include labor law. I 20 . get involved with him through employee recourse matters, those 21 that he is involved. His background and charges may flow 22 from EEOC kind'of charges.
23 Q. I want to show you a January 21, 1982, document, can you 24 identify that? l j 25 A. That was a meeting.
l
- 67 k.
l:
- ".~/
C~.'._,....,.... .. _,,(."* , . , ,*
7,*r _ ,, r , r *3 _q- ,, = *
,7..-..- -
. - ~ .
~
/
s Q. Tell me about the document first. Can we identify the ,
( s t
2 document?
3 A ., It's a letter I wrote to Bill Lee on January 21, 1982.
4 I want to ask you about it. Let's mark it first. This
- Q.
5 will be Exhibit 1. Let me use my copy while we're getting 6 that one copied. You started to say, and I interrupted you, 7 you reflected n meeting.
8 A. As I recall, this was a meeting that in Bill Lee's office 7 to review the pay recourse and to make the final decision on i
10 that recourse. I really believe that he had generally come 11 to a decision, but we have these folks together representing 12 the various departments so that we could discuss the potential 13 reaction as we discussed earlier, the resolution of the pay k 14 recourse.
15 Q. What was discussed as to the potential reaction?
16 A. Well, the alternatives that you try to be prepared for 17 were that one end of the scale they could all quit, there could i
18 have been some sort of protest. We walk off the job today.
17 Ultimately there could have, it could have resulted in an 20 organizing effort; it could have resulted in we'll go to the 21 NRC. It could hav'e resulted in use of the news media. And ,
we wanted to know what we would do with respect to keeping the
~
22 23 job going in case of any of.those, those things or any com-24 bination of those things happened.
t o '
] 25 Q. Who is Tom McCracken?
68 b
e * " " * * ~; ~- 1 J 7. * , ff ~ ..,l, _ . */ - * " ' ni -
3
^~
N 4 #
! .A. He is Gail Addis' boss in Personnel Department.
2 Q. In charge of employee relations? I 3 A. .That,'s not his title. She is in charge of employee a
d . relations, but he has training in employee relations in a 5 ; number of related personnel areas.
6 Q. Austin Thies?
7 A. Austin Thies is my counterpart in the production end of i I
l j B the company. He runs the power plants.
- Q. Why was Mr. Thies involved in the meeting? j 10 A. Well, the people that work in the operating nuclear plants
- . Il and he were there making preparations for start-up at Catawba 12 have people who work side by side with our craft people and our 13 Welding Inspectors, and it was a matter of communication and
(
14 keeping them advised of what we were going-to do so they 1
15 could properly prepare their people to know what was happening i-16 rather than to depend on the rumor mill.
lj 37 Q. Paragraph 3, Tom McCracken,' Bob Bisanar, and Jim Grogan 18 have been most helpful with Jim Wells, Larry Davison, and 19 Jess Barbour in preparing for discussions with supervisors at J: .
l,i 20 the end of the work day on_ Friday. What was Mr. Bisanar's h ,
j -21 contribution? '
O .
- 22 A. I don't recall'specifically. We. wanted to make sure'that 23 supervision in Construction Department and the' Production-24 Department as well as QA Department heard this same message at
,1
!! 25 the same time, and that we weren't out of kilter 'as L far .as 69 b- '
i 1
4 u
II
- , - - ~ - . - ..-.a -
. ~ . .
. c.- ...,i, . . ,
- - . . . . . -3
' i people knowing what was-- it's not unusual to have this kind I I 2 of meeting to set up communications in an attempt to have l 3 people hear the story.
4 Q. Who's Fred Stewart?
i 5 A. Homer Deakins-- excuse me, Fred Stewart is a labor-- part t
6 of a firm we retain for labor relations.
7 Q. Is that a lawyer?
B A. A lawyer, yes. We had asked, and we use them and have
- used them in the past, and I wanted to have a meeting with 10 Bisanar and that firm to discuss what actions they felt we 11 needed to take in case an organizing effort came along.
12 Q. An effort to get a union you're talking about?
13 A. Yes.
3d O. Bob Bisanar is proceeding with plans to have Homer Deakins 15 and/or Fred Stewart on standby for possible use next week. In 16 any event, we plan to use them in the coming weeks, 17 Mr. Deakins.
18 A. I believe Fred Stewart-- Homer Deakins is in the same law f
19 firm.
- i '
20 Q. What is that law firm?
21 A. Greenville, South Carolina, Hollingsworth.
22 Q. Haynesworth?
y 23 A. Haynesworth, it's Haynesworth.
24 Ogletree, Deakins, Smoke, Stewart?
Q.
25 You got it.
- A. !
! l
- 10 I
(
i E
- - - - - . - . , . , ,,w-,
. e ~ % ,., -. - - - .~~ ~ , , - --, , -
- l s
e
, O. Labor law firm?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q., So to speak. I believe Mr. Gibson may have litigated on d the other side of those folks on numerous occasions. How did i
5 you use them in the coming weeks, Mr. Owen?
6;A. As I recall, we had one meeting. I had one meeting with Fred Stewart, and we primarily used them to see if they could l
a provide some guidance on interview techniques, I suppose is
- what I would call it, employee forum kind of things where you 10 get a group of people together and try to determine in some il detail what it is that might be bothering them, and we used 12 that at their advice in our efforts to be sure that the 13 Welding Inspectors listed for us, described for us, all of the
( 'd things that were bothering them.
is Q. They helped construct the interview formats you had by the 16 : Task Force?
17 A. I don't know whether they helped construct them or whether
'8 they just provided some advice, and we took it from there. I 19 think I recall once we came up with the plan, we did either 20 discuss it, I didn't, but someone discussed it with them by 21 phone or maybe even met with them, I couldn't be sure.
22 Q. But you met'with them and discussed the subject?
23 One time, as I recall.
A.
24 Q. Jim Wells consulted with Ken Clark. Who is Mr. Clark?
y 25 A. He is our Vice-President of Corporate Communications,
? 71 4 k -i u
i
't "l '* * ; *.; . . , ,, , , , , l[y , ~ * * * * *ee ~*
._?
~
~~ '* e~-
~ , .. _
I
}*[ ;,_ _ _
s
- 1 i
- /
Public Relations.
2- Q. To develop a statement for the company in case this 3 becomes a news event over the weekend or next week. Ken is 4 make a recommendation as to content for the state-lgoingt 5 ment and the procedures for making the statement if necessary, i
6 Was there a statement made?
7 A. No.
3 Q. It wasn't necessary?
9 A. It wasn't any immediate event. If they had walked off the i
10 l job, I'm sure a statement would have been necessary because l
l 11 it was disappointing that inspectors--
12 Q. You didn't issue a press release to announce that you 13 were rejecting their recourses?
14 A. No, we don't issue press releases on personnel matters.
15 Q. You issue press releases if it gets out?
16 A. That's certainly a mischaracterization of what I said.
17 Q. Well, you were ready to issue a press release, but you 18 didn't?
ll
] 19 A. I said if they walked of f the job, that becomes of interest i
! 20 to the newspaper, and we would make a statement on that. If 21 the newspaper came,and said what are you doing about the 22 employees'payrebourse,wesaythat'sapersonnelmatter,and 23 we don't discuss that with anyone other than the employee.
2d Q. You weren't going to make it of interest if it wasn't of 25 interest otherwise? That's basically what the story was?
72 B
5
);,-
li ' ' - W e 9
- i s
A. The pay recourse would not have been of interest. I ,
2 respect the employees' right to have his personnel-related 3 matters discussed with him and not the newspaper.
4,Q Tha sounds fine, Mr. Owen, but we are talking about 5 dozens of-- one hundred technical concerns about how Catawba 6 ' Plant Quality Assurance work was done.
7 A. Not at this stage. This was the pay recourse. It doesn't a have anything to do with--
9 Q. It doesn't have anything to do with it?
M A. I indicated earlier to you that we separated the two. We
' i M l wanted to resolve the pay recourse as expeditiously as possible 12 and had the other effort going.
'3 Q. Let's look at paragraph 6. Did you go to the NRC about the 14 pay recourse and talk to Mr. Bryant about the pay recourse, 15 Mr. Owen?
Io A. I told him what we were doing with the pay recourse. I 17 probably also mentioned to him that we had the other technical 41 l
- ii 18 Task Force going, that as I listed earlier for you, some of
,t
!I l' the alternatives we felt that the inspectors might well take.
n I 23 They might well'say'I want to call up the NRC and talk to them 21 about it. I have,a practice of when I'm involved or inter-
- 22 acting with the people or other organizations to try to keep-23 them advised.
24 Q. I guess my point in the question, Mr. Owen, is you
'- 25 separated the issues real cleanly when talking about not talking l 73
(. .l i
r I-
.-..-:-....,,.n,..-- - .-, . _ ;. ., ,3 .
I l
~
! I l to the press about this because it's totally pay recourse, but
(
2 when talking to the NRC, you recognized it had implications 3 or-the N,RC had responsibility which had nothing to do with the d
l employees' relations or the pay questions. They supervised 5 I the safety of construction at Catawba. You saw the connection
$ there, didn't you? The potential?
7 A. Sure there was a potential connection. This one had to a do with the pay recourse, the inspectors were in my judgment
- and in the judgment of those who had made this initial Task to Force report, was that the inspectors were trying to find 11 every way they could to justify to their management, me, Bill 12 Lee, they ought to retain their higher pay grade.
13 And they conjured up these technical concerns in order to Q.
(, id do that, is that your position?
15 You will have to do-- I don't know what conjure up-- I go A.
lo by what they wrote.
17 They wrote and said those things to bolster their position Q.
j 18 on pay?
39 A. Some of them. Some of them I'm convinced.
20 Q. All of them?
21 A. I don't.think'all of them were because-some of the concerns 22 they expressed occurred prior to the time when their pay grade 23 was reduced, so, obviously, those didn't have anything to do 24 with it'.
j '
25 Q. Which ones were those? l 74 -'
L k.
u
(
u s'
t
? Jg , o.-~ ee -m. ..meo 4 y ;- m -.<w~w ee-sw,,,
. . oom-w . -- .e we m3 - <w 4 + o s, p
. e+ r y - -m.,-- ,,,,...m.- ,
, w y g ey y -- --
l f
T
! A. I can't answer that. I know that a hundred twenty or 2
thirty we finally discreetly identified occurred over a number j '
i 3 of. years, so, obviously, they couldn't all be conjured up, as
~
d you characterized it, as a result of pay.
5 > Q. That's my word, but I'm really trying to understand your o position, and I understood you to suggest that your view was !
7 that they didn't exist-- they didn't exist independent of the a pay concern in substance, Mr. Owen, that the concerns were 9l expressed to bolster their pay position.
10 A. If I had been sure of that, I wouldn't have spent all the 31 money and effort and time we spent on the technical Task 12 Force, the thousands of manhours and effort there so, obviousl:(,
13 I was not going to make the decision that they were all like 3d that.
15 Q. Did you reach that conclusion after you spent all that time?
16 Is that the conclusion you're expressing?
37 A. No, I told you earlier what I thought the conclusion of i
i,: la the Task Force was. One is that we.had communication problems, 19 and we ought to work on that.
We had technical concerns that
- i
} 20 were being generated out of that area where you are striving for a very high le$el of performance and in your procedures 21 22 can cause misunderstandings, and you continually are trying 23 to make.sure your procedures are clear and we adjusted some l 24 procedures as a result of the Task Force, and we found even a
25 a place or two where we went back and actually looked at-the 75 h .i a
d 3
- ( ~ : ' -.
- - 7 7 3 ; , . u s . a.:..; .-~2
- : _ .. . : . ~.
J-.: ~4 .: :g ;
a
. work. Numerous places where we actually looked at the work l i
2 to confirm that the work was adequate, and there wasn't some- f 3 thing ip the documentation that didn't give us adequate 4 assurance.
5 Q. Numerous places where you actually reworked the work?
6 A. I don't recall numerous places we had rework to do.
i 7 Q. You're not aware of any?
8 A. I think we added to-- did a little modification to one i
- weld. 'I remember some discussion about that. We did some H) reinspection, but I don't recall certainly there was not any-Il thing significant of rework, and I don't recall any significant 12 number of cases where there was some rework. They found no 13 places where there was anything that had been installed in
(.'
id the plant that did not meet the requirements of safe per-15 formance, safe operation.
I 16 None?
Q.
17 A. None.
q 18 Why did you inform the NRC?
.! Q.
19 I told you once that if there are things that happen A.
- f 20 around our job, my practice is to let those people who I feel l
i 21 might be interested anow about it. Telephone call doesn't I;
22 hurt.
23 I guess what I'm trying to understand is whi did you Q.
24 think the NRC would be interested in this matter? What is I;
!- 25 5 the point?
I lI '
- 76 l
I
,~. . . . . . . .
- +--o-4 ..._..........-,.;.~....a - -
, .~ s,. .,~w..
~ - ~ ~ v , e n - n ,, , , - -, _,
. I i
i A. The pay recourse?
2 Q. Whatever you are calling or having Mr. Wells call Jack 3 Bryant about.
~
4 ;A. Can we clear up what we called about?
5-Q. Please do.
o A. Again, we called about the pay recourse.
7 Q. Why on earth did you think they would be interested on a that subject?
7 A. Because the inspectors previously talked to the resident
'O NRC inspector, and they wanted to make it an NRC matter with 1: respect to pay. It was obviously not. That doesn't mean I 12 don't tell them when an investigation or Task Force is going 13 on or something signficant is going to occur.
14 Q. But it was the pay thing you were telling them about and -
15 not the technical concerns?
16 A. We were going to resolve the pay recourse on Friday, 17 whatever the date was, Friday after January 21st; and that if
- . is anything took place, if they walked off the job or somebody
! 19 picked up the phone and says what's going on,'we would know.
20 Q. As of January 21st, you had already had one Task Force 21 work complete itself, complete .its work and you either had or j 22 anticipated having a second Task Force or, in fact, you had 23 already solicited specific technical concerns to be--
n 24 A. It was.about mid January, as I recall, that.QA management 25 met with the inspectors and began to tabulate and ask for their 77
. .- . , . . . _ . .. ., . , , , _ , . , , , , , . . _2, ._ ,_ , , ,_g,___ ,
" t I
tabulations of their concerns. I'm not sure. I would have to '
[
2 check some dates on when I actually appointed that Task Force 3 or asked--
d Q . But you knew that there were additional technical concerns 5, as of this time, didn't you?
I I
6 A. Oh, yes. We started out from the very beginning, as I 7 indicated to you, that that was likely to be necessary.
B Q. Did you see that Mr. Bryant at the NRC was informed of the 9 existence of those additional technical concerns, the work 10 of your first Task Force and your plan to respond to those 11 technical concerns?
12 A. I don't recall. I wouldn't say I didn't, but I don' t recall 13 any specific discussion of the results of the first Task Forcs Id report with them because it was somewhat general in nature.
15 We did at some stage advise the NRC in Atlanta that we were to going to have that Task Force, the second Task Force, you're 17 talking about, technical Task Force, look into those concerns 18 and we would share with the NRC, either through their local 9
- "i resident inspector or however they wanted to do it, the list 20 of those concerns.
21 Q. I want to focub on this point in time. You had contacted i
22 with Mr. Bryant yourself? l 23 A. I don't recall having any contact. At some stage, I did 24 talk with O 'Reilly about th'e second Tast Force. l l
You ultimately talked with O'Reilly, but at this stage, you!
25 l; Q.
.- t ,
o i i 78 .
,k i !
! l f ~. . .
i ,
n -
i /
'didn't talk to anybody at the NRC, you, Mr. Owen?
2 A. I don't recall.
3 Q., .But ;Mr. Wells did, as indicated in this memo?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Mr. Wells told you he did?
6 A. I asked him to.
7 Q. What did you ask him to tell him, just the pay decision?
a A. Just the pay decision as far as I can recall. That was, 9,I think, that's why I wrote it in this memo because this j 10 was a meeting to discuss what we had done about the pay i
j il recourse, and I think I read here, by the way, Bryant's comment 12 to Jim was he appreciated being forewarned and didn't under-13 stand why the inspectors felt there was a pay problem. The C. 14 NRC had some sort of Task Force which I never asked about 15 or understood, but said the inspectors were being paid less lo than craf t in most locations, not more as was our case. But
- 17 I didn't-- that was not of much interest to me.
l
'! 18 Q. You put down in your memo to Mr. Lee, it's interesting I;
19 enough there?
I 20 A. I said by the way, we aren't hurting anybody. They are
! 21 _not being treated $nfairly. . That's what our internal--
22 that's what our review of external competitiveness already-
, 23 showed us. That doesn't mean that nationwide we go'look at-g 24 those we compete with.
i, i 25 Q. .Mr. Bryant expressed the point of view as of.this date he
. -79 p
(.
i.
li i
I!
'[,+=.. ...-.2.. ._.i,.y..,, ._...,,,..yj .,___,.,...,a....,,,_,, ,.
i ~ - - - - - . _ . - - 5_ _. _
l can't understand why there would be a pay problem, the pay
{ I
- i 2
- problem is what you told them about at this point?
3 A. Yes.,
J Q.
You had Mr. Wells tell him about the pay problem. Why 5 ' didn't you have Mr. Wells tell him there were pending technical
- 6 concerns expressed by the Welding Inspectors?
7 A. I may have. I didn't tell him don't tell him about that.
a Q. Why did you tell him to do that, why did you instruct 9
j wells to communicate the technical concerns or existence of 10 those concerns to the NRC?
11 A. The resident inspector knew about-- we were soliciting 12 these.
13 Q. He did?
Id A. Sure, he did.
< 15 Q. When did he know?
16 A. I didn't tell him.
17 Q. Did you see he was told?
3 5 18 A. I recall that at some stage shortly after the time that i 19 I appointed the Task Force, that I told the NRC in Atlanta, 20 and I recall I probably talked to O'Reilly or Dick Lewis 21 that we were going to have this Task Force that we would share the list of concerns. They were obviously aware there 22 23 were concerns because some of the inspectors, as I understood 24 it, had previously gone into talk with the resident inspector, f 25 and we would let them know what the results of our investigation t
80
- k. .
i
- 8' * "" *
- ** 8 - * * '"
6 ** **
/ - ,m..
_ i
$ E
, 1 was, i
(
2 Q. But you're saying that Kim Van Doorn, the resident at 3 Catawba as of this date, the twenty-first of January, he knew 4 about the existence of the technical concerns and what you 5 were doing about them?
$ A. I don' t know. I said about that time is when-- we have 7 a Practice there, I'm sure, just like mine of keeping them a informed of what we are doing, so I feel reasonably comfortable 7 that he knew.
10 Q. I guess my question to you, and I'm still trying to under-II stand, Mr. Owen, why didn't you ask Mr. Wells to pass on to 12 Mr. Bryant or the NRC the technical matters as well as the 13 pay issue at this point, tell them that there were also
( 14 pending technical questions.
15 A. I may have. That just didn't have anything to do with the 16 pay recourse.
17 Q. You may have, but you don't remember whether you did or if is not?
- l i
19 A. I don't remember whether I did. Certainly, he is free f 20 to tell about without my instructing him to do it. This was 21 obviously what it<was, an effort to try to get prepared for 22 that Friday on all fronts.
23 Q. I need an opportunity right away to talk with you about 24 this entire matter. That's you, Mr. Owen, to Mr. Lee. Did you l 25 get that opportunity?
81 k'
I l
t
?,.,.--. -. . . . ., .. . , . . . . . .
r - - - -. . .,.. ,,.. _ , . . . ~ . . _ , , __
[ ,
e ,
' I g
A. I believe-- I'm sure I had opportunities through there. l l
2 As I recall at the very end of this meeting when we got every 3 thing all wrapped up and how the letters were going to be 2 prepared since there were a large number of them and when he was 5 going to be able to read them and sign them, what he wanted 6 in each one of them, I recall that we had a brief discussion 7 while we had Jim Wells there. We sort of discussed the status 8 of where we stood on getting technical concerns together and 9 progress on appointing the Task Force. Without checking the 10 dates in some of my memos on the chronology, I wrote the 11 chronology just for my own purpose of things going on on all 12 three of those areas I mentioned that I don't know what that 13 discussion entailed.
(- 14 Q. Can you identify this document, Mr. Owen?
15 A. That's the chronology that I wrote.
'6 Q. Is that your handwriting?
17 A. That's my handwriting.
18 Q. And a copy?
.I
! 19 A. A copy of the document that I wrote, and I think it was i
20 twenty-two or twenty-three, it was when I had, shortly after 21 I had talked with[ John Jackson at Management Analysis 22 Corporation and gotten their commitment that they would send l=
23 someone because obviously between the twenty-second and 2d twenty'-fifth, as I say there,--
l 25 When did you prepare that document?
ll Q. .
I I
- 82 i k l u
- i
. . - - - ,, _,_ . . . , ,. -- at. - - . .
i , j I
1 'A. When?
2 Q. Yes, if you can recall.
3 A. I think it was the twenty-third.
d Q. This paper here?
5 A. Yes, this was the twenty-third, I think. I was sitting 6 home one night and saying I'm going to list all the things 7 we have got going on, so I won't fail to follow up on anything.;
I a Q. Let's mark that as Exhibit 2.
7 SHORT RECESS (11:15 a.m.)
to CONTINUING EXAMINATION: (By Mr. Guild) (ll: 20 a.m.)
11 Q. I was showing you, and you had identified a chronology 12 and I'm not sure I had a complete one for you. I showed you 13 a document that is entitled " Status - Safety Allegations" at
(' 14 the top?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Does this go along with it. First, it's four handwritten 17 pages that begins chronology.
18 This is the chronology that I wrote again trying to make
]i A.
19 sure I understood the time of when things happened solely i
1 20 related to the pay history of the Welding Inspectors.
21 Did you do that at the same time you did the first docu-Q.
22 ment there?
r 23 A. I can't answer that. I just really don't know. This was 24 done just from my personal use in trying to make sure I had E
- 25 things in their proper order, and you can see from some inserts, 83
(
I i
i
! . ~. . . - _ .. . _ . . . _ _ . . . ,
i i
. some questions on my part that I wasn't sure of the exact order. l But that was done by you, you made that? l 2 Q.
3 A. Yes.
Do you recognize-- there's some handwritten notes, do you
~
4 Q.
5 know whose marginal notations those are?
6 A. No, I haven't studied them, but I don't recognize the 7 handwriting. No, I think I gave this to several people. Well, a I left some blanks and had some questions. How about telling 9 me what should go on in those blanks.
10 Q. Then a typewritten one-page chronology. I think probably 11 takes off the last one under January, '82. Did you have that 12 prepared?
13 A. I certainly can't say that I didn't have it prepared, but 14 I don't think I did. I don't think I had that much involvemen't is in this mid February area to know that on a given date that 16 Parks briefed somebody. I would suspect that someone else 17 prepared that.
- 18 Q. Finally, a page that appears to reflect some salary 19 comparisons between Welding Inspectors and Welders, not yours?
20 A. Not prepared by me. Not my handwriting. I don't recall 21 ever seeing, everlhaving seen that before. I would say I 22 didn't see it sometime before.
23 Q. Can you verify that that is a comparison of the Welding 24 Inspector and Welder pay grades over a period of time? .
I 25 A. No, I cannot. I can't verify the accuracy. l 84 Lk o
a
,j-.r .. . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . , , . .__
. . , . . . . . . , _ . . . . ..s.. , . ,
_ i.
O. Who would know?
2 A. Well, the records wculd be available. Someone in Quality Assurance administrative end. The corporate salary 3
4 a'bmini tration people have all of the information.
5 Q. Let's mark the ones you did identify as being yours, the chronology document, let's mark that as Exhibit 3. Look o
7 at the last page of it, sir.
3 A. I think that is part of a compilation of information that i
7 I put together to hand to the Task Force when I met with them 10 on December loth.
11 Q. The first Task Force?
12 A. The Task Force, and there was again, you will notice some 13 blanks in there where I thought there were things they ought
( 14 to know, but I couldn't give them exact figures, but I did is want to get them working in a hurry and trying to organize a 16 little bit for them.
17 Q. Let's mark that Exhibit 4.
I think that's it, but it may I 18 A. I didn't recall seeing this.
5 19 very well have been modified.
20 Q. What do you have here?
I would like to 'have a complete set 21 of what Mr. Owen has. .-
22 MR. GIBSON: You have this. It's the document sub-23 mitted and identified as having come from Mr. Owen's file.
24 This document could have come from another place, although it i: 25 involves Mr. Owen. This is stuff you have, and there's a 9
' 85 u
- ~ ;
I o
I ! difference in the two documents. We have kept our stuff 2 in the order it was given to you and identified originally.
3 Q. Let',s identify the version that Mr. Owen had. Can I 4 identify that? Why don't you omit the Addis memo because we 5 have already put that in separately?
6 MR. GIBSON: It appears the material included on the 7 end of your copy is a summary of these attachments here that B could have been done by Mr. Owen or scmebody else.
9 A. Well, they might have asked my secretary to retype it. I 10 might have asked her to retype it. I think it's just-- I 11 believe this is the document I used on the loth that I handed 12 to Earl Holen saying here's a little bit of history to save 13 you some time, and I don't know where the Attachment 2 came 14 from, and I do#'t recall specifically doi;.3 that additional j
15 section; but she had the original of the copy and I may have 16 asked her to add that information for some report.
17 Q. Let's mark the original of that please. This~is your j is chronology marked as Number 3 and the last page of that there 19 is an entry of January 7, ' 82, me t with Be au Ro ss , QA
- ' 20 Supervisor, at Catawba. Memo attached.
! 21 A. Uh-huh. ,',
22 Q. What did you meet with Mr. Ross about?-
23 A. He asked to come talk to me about the pay recourse.
24 g, gli right, did he present you a memo reflecting his 25 views about the reclassification on the pay issue?
ll li l' , 86 h b'
. . . , . . - -.,..n-
. ~ - , , - - . .
. . ;,. .... ,...[ ..
. .-., ,,. . . - . .:.-,,,... ~ - . . . - . . _ .
. . . -- .- - . - ~ . ,
, I l i A. I don't recall. We had a long discussion that day, more 2 than ten minutes, and I mostly listened to what he had to say. .
3 Q. What did Mr. Ross say generally?
' d A. That I guess I could characterize it as I'm not sure you 5 fully appreciate the difficulties of our job, of the inspectors 6 that work for him, that it was a difficult interface. That is 7 the kind of recollection that I have.
B Q. And that they were deserving of the pay grade that they 9 originally had before the downgrade?
30 A. Well, this was prior to that. That was prior to the--
11 Q. Prior to the final decision?
12 A. It had already gone through two levels at that tima, so 33 I gathered he wanted to make sure that I understood how he
( d felt and how he thought the employees felt.
I is Did he change your mind?
Q.
16 A. No.
37 Let's look at page 3 of this document, the summary that Q.
- t j '8 you prepared that's been numbered 4. Under 2, the Task Force.
il
", The safety implications of any suggested deteriorations in the 1
j 20 interface between our QA personnel and those that design, 21 construct, operate, and maintain our nuclear power plants are p
li 22 serious.
23 MR. GIBSON: Where are you reading from?
o l:
2' Q. Under'2,-page 3. Would you agree that you concluded there
- t 25 was a deterioration in the interface between the QC inspectors
{.
v li - 87 l
1 i
y--, :.
- - . - -. , . _ . - . . ; - , u -- ..
--- , u . ,.:.,._,.
. :. e. .
1 i
- r
(- ,
. and the craft?
2 A. I recall pretty specifically why I made that statement 3 like that. I think to be honest I would have to say I did not )
4 believe we had any serious problems, but I didn't want this 5' Task Force to take off with any preconceived notions of how A
6 they thought I wanted this to come out. So I remember saying i
7 to them and. writing this little part to say that I want you a to call it like it is, and I tried to make clear to those 9 three, I tried to select first people thuc I didn't need to i
10 say that to, but I wanted to say that to them anyway. I didn't 11 think it was appropriate. I wanted the assurance that they 12 didn't start out by saying it's only this big. I wanted them 13 to call it.
j .
i 14 Q. Even though you believed it was only this big?
15 A. I had confidence in my people on the project. I'm on the 16 job. I just could not see .how there could be any serious 1:7 problem.
ii j 18 Q. But my point, I guess, in asking the question first, was N
19 do you agree that after all was said and done, the conclusions 3
20 of the Task Force was there was a deterioration in, as you f, 21 use the term, interface between QC personnel and in this h
j! 22 instance those that constructed Catawba Nuclear Plant.
- 23 A. What that says is that the safety implications of any'
~
o 24 deteri~ oration would be serious and merit our immediate q 25 attention. If you let a deterioration in an. interface go on and i
o 88 I
(
I w* . - -. - --* .. ..,
7 .
...,77 - , . ~ , _ . . . .. . , . , , ,. , ,.g,,_,., ,
_ ,,, , . _ - , _ _ _ _ , _,a, _ , , , , _ , , , , , . . . . .
r s
1 on and on and on, it's bound to get worse and worse and worse i !
2 and worse and if you pay attention to what you're managing 3 and.when there's this opportunity to take a good look at some-4 thing and do something about it, then that deterioration can 5 . be just that, it's a short-term deterioration and you ful-6 fill your management obligation to correct it.
7 Q. The question of addressing it and corrective action is a another matter. My question to you, Mr. Owen, is do you 9 agree that the Task Force concluded that there was a serious to deterioration?
11 'A. No, I don't agree to that characterization of it. They 12 said there was a need for communications, training, to improve 13 that relation. There was a need for modification of procedures Id to try to better define some of those nuances at the scene is of the scale where you're seeking for excellence, and so that 16 wouldn't be these misunderstandings. I don't think I could 17 read into any one of the statements in the first Task Force 18 report to me that there was any-- I recall they made the t
l' statement there had been no, in their opinion, no substandard 20 work accepted.
21 Q. That's not my question. My question to you, Mr. Owen, is 22 after all was said and done, the final review of all these 23 concerns much later on, do you agree they concluded there had 24 been a' deterioration in the interface,as you have used-that 1 i '
- 25 term,between the inspectors and the craft?
I 89 b
j
q l
l I would agree they found it wan not perfect. There was an
( t A.
2 opportunity there for improvement, but it never had fallen 3 below a. level that caused us to accept any substandard work.
4 Q. Or miss substandard work?
I 5 A. Or what?
o Q. Or miss substandard work?
7 A. We found no evidence of any work in the plant that was 8 below the acceptable level.
9 Q. That's not my question. Sometimes you eliminate-- you con-10 clude they didn't accept any substandard work, right? There il isn't any substandard work?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. They didn't accept any substandard work?
(- 14 A. Right.
15 Q. There's another class of work that's maybe substandard 16 that they didn't find, and I want to understand--
17 A. The project doesn't work that way. They have to carry
.i 18 out the inspections that are set up. They don't just wander l
i 19 through the plant and decide we'll take a look at that, that's 1
20 a program-- that's a plant project where they inspect in 21 accordance with cr'iteria and standards set up by the engineers 22 and the codes and the standards.
l 23 Q. You're confident as to that second class of things, the 24 substandard work that wasn't detected that there wasn't any 25 of that either?
i 90 u
. ~ .. [ \ , #
$,, ,h [ ' . , ..
, , ,,g. , a
' j e i
' I l _
I o
i r A. Certainly. If there uns, we would be fixing it.
2 Q. If you knew where it was?
i
, 3 A. Yes.
4 Q~. How' about your confider.t that the interface has always 5 been acceptable and if it perfect, at least acceptable at all 6 times?
7 A. It has been adequate. We set our standards somewhat in i a excess of what any requirement might be.
I 9 Q. There's no requirement for their interface, right? That's 10 something you set up to implement requirements. The inter-11 face is something you, Warren Owen, and people that work for
- 12 you establish, in order to implement requirements, don't you?
13 A. The intent of that sentence is to say that if you let 4
i
( 14 a deterioration in an interfaCG go on long enough, it might 15 have an' influence on the work, the quality of the work. You 4
16 don't have to like somebody to work with them on an interface, 17 but it doesn't hurt to have an agreeable kind of interface;
! 18 and my point there was we have got that kind of deterioration
! 19 going on. We need to do something about it before it goes on
}
, 20 long enough to have this problem.
21 Q. How about craft or craft supervisors threatening to throw 22 supervisors'off scaffolds for failing to inspect their work, is that deterioration between the interface of the QA in craft?
~
23 7
24 A. I'm not aware of that, but I do know that on any con- .
25 struction job, there is strong language.
91 k-l-
i
. , *..g7 . .; . . , . , . . .
4 -=,*---- , .
,,__..._,w-___... ._.t a ,,_,.... , ,. , _ ; s _, , , . , , , . .
[. 4 ....,.,.,___..~,;, m. , s . . ,
~
1
, i
/
. i Q. Is that deterioration of interface in your opinion?
2 A. If it was done very many times, it certainly would be.
3 Q.,
You, don't have to fall off a scaffold or get thrown off 4 a' scaffold too many times to--
5 'A. Did someone fall off or get thrown off?
o Q. How many times do you threaten, do you have to threaten 7 to throw someone off a scaffold before it would be deterior-a ation in interface?
9 A. You're talking to each other in terms of like that are 10 a long way from being a real threat.
11 Q. How about pointing a rifle at you as you're riding down the 12 highway leaving the site because you failed to approve someone' s 13 work?
14 MR. GIBSON: I assume you're asking him hypothetical 15 questions, Mr. Guild, is that correct?
16 Q. We want to talk about a specific. We can talk about 17 a specific.
18 MR. GIBSON: I want to understand whether you're repre-19 senting that's a proven incident or how you're characterizing 20 it.
2 Q. I'm asking hip a hypothetical at this point, Mr. Owen, if 22 he has any interest in the matter, we can pursue the specifics.
23 I want to know in the abstract, Mr. Owen, whether or not a 24 craftsman pointing a rifle at an inspector represents a 25 deterioration of QA craft interface?
. 92 L
/
. . . . - . - .A
e :
A. I would have no idea why he was doing that if that were .
( 2 done. It could be about a work-related matter or'non-work-3 related matter. ,
i 4 Q. ' That was not a deterioration of interface?
5 A. Not off the job. He may be having problems totally o unrelated to the work.
7 Q. Good interface there?
3 A. That's not the interface out there. Interface is at work.
? Q. How about threatening to knock somebody's teeth out, is O that good interface?
11 A. I have said things like that at some times.
12 Q. Were you interfacing right when you said it?
13 A. I probably wasn't very constructive.
(' 14 Q. Is it good interface if craftsmen threaten the inspectors 15 to knock their teeth out?
16 A. You can have a good interface as far as getting the job 17 done. You don't have that constructive interface that I was 18 talking about which is team effort, the obligation to support I L9 the whole endeavor and not just to get by.
' 20 Q. None of those interfaces incidences trouble you?
21 A. If they were proven, if they were investigated and they L
22 were a continuing sort of thing, then I would insist we have 23 some sort of training or some sort of disciplinary action to l
l 24 resolve tho'se.
L 25 Q. Are you aware of instances of the sort I have described l
l 93 .
t
~
" h
s
, i
' being investigated by the Task Force?
( 2 A. No, I'm not.
3 Q. You',re not? I have read the words. I did not participate 4 i~n~that investigation, but I'm not making these things up out 5(ofwholecloth,Imeanyourownpeople,yourowninspectors 6 at Catawba Nuclear Plant talked about a rifle being pointed 7 at an inspector and in the inspector's mind, because of work, a somethingtheinspectordidatwork,you'reawareofinstancesl
? like that, aren't you, Mr. Owen? You heard about that, I'm 0 not making it up, am I? ;
i t iA. I read the words, but the investigation-- did not result 12 in any sort of disciplinary action on that instance as far 13 as I know.
1
( 14 Q. You recall that only because the craf tsmen involved quit is , voluntarily and there wasn' t anybody to discipline, do you is remember that?
17 A. If he left voluntarily, we didn't have to terminate him o
- la . if that had been proven to be a case that merited it.
I 10 Q. No deterioration of interface there?
20 A. I think you're mixed up. The interface doesn't occur off 21 the job. It occuys on the job.
22 Q. That's no problem as far as you're concerned? It didn't 23 reflect a problem that was worth dealing with another way?
24 A. I guess you have to realize that we have to manage our 4
25 employees while they are at work. We are not certainly, and
, 94 b
I t
o 4 -e o y g- -
6 ,ar. p "'4 %
a it would be a mistake if we got too involved in their private ,
( 2 lives.
3 Q. I'm.not making up documented concern about craft 4 supervisors threatening Welding Inspectors, threatening to 5 throw Welding Inspectors off scaffolds for not approving 6' their work? Do you recall an instance of that sort?
7 A. I think I recall reading those words. Again, that did not a go on. They didn't throw him off. I think you can have dis-O agreements and unless they escalate to the point where some I W action is taken, it's merely a disagreement. If I try to 31 i run a project and said you shall not ever raise your voice to 1
12 someone else, you cannot have a disagreement, then I think 13,I'm achieving-- trying to achieve something that's unrealistic.
( 2d Q. You didn't-- Nothing got done about that as far as you is know?
16 A. I don't know.
37 Q. You're not aware of it?
- i j '8 iA. It did not get to my level. )
l 6 I' That doesn't trouble you that something routine interfacing?
- ! O.
"I 20
- A. In the first place, it's not routine and it's not charac-21 teristic. .,'
22 But it wouldn't trouble you if it were, I want to under-
- Q.
23 stand? i
.j 2' A. Lertainly that would trouble me. I define to start with !
25 i the fact that a practice which annoys someone else and I cer- ,
95 s
(
N
. . . . . . - - . . . . , , . - ~ . . . ,. _ ,- . .- .
tainly think it would annoy him to say you'd throw him off if
( 2 he believed he would do it, but one that persistently con-3 stitutes attempted harassment and ought to be reported and
~
4 ought to be handled.
5 Q. It's attempted harassment if it persists?
o! A. Well, it would be declared harassment once reviewed, and 7 the facts were known. I guess the thing you fail to understand; a is words said like this need to be investigated. They may or e not be true. They may or may not be complete as to why the 10 instant occurred. How do you know that the inspector didn't .
say I will throw you off. !
11 12 Q. I commend to you the Max Reep case representing an 13 inspector who tried to follow your suggestion and didn't get i
14 much anywhere with it. Check it out. .
l
{ l 15 MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, I'm going to object to your to question if it's a question or your statement, if it's just a 17 statement. If you have more questions, I will let him answer i is it.
19 Q. If that troubles you, counsel, I will withdraw the remark.
20 I do think if Mr. Owen feels confident, he has the full set of 21 information and f, eels comfortable about the way matters are 22 handled, he oug N to look at that instant, and I suggest to '
23 him--
( 24 MR. GIBSON: If you have questions of Mr. Owen, proceedi 25 with'them.
o 96
! i
(-
M o
Q. I do. .
?
( <
MR. GIBSON: This is not the time for you to tell 2
3 Mr. Owen to run Duke Power or run his shop. It's the time to ,
4 .
ask gudstions and try to understand what's going on.
5 Q. I thought he was interested in doing a better job.
3 MR. GIBSON: He is, but he disagrees with you about If you have some questions, proceed with those.
7 some matters.
'O. Check it out, though, if you would. How about do you feel 3
9i the same way about the instance of the inspector being l
0 , threatened to knock his teeth out by a craftsman, the same kind' i
ti of thing, Mr. Owen?
'2 A. Mr. Guild, in a large organization, you provide the programs I
23 ' and the competent people to manage those programs. We have
( 14 employee relations people on the program whose job it is to
- l
- s ~ make themselves available to any employee who has that kind of l 13 ; problem we're talking about. We have the Personnel Department,
!7 ! employee relations professionals, specialists who we charge l
j :a ;with the obligation to investigate and handle those matters.
19 That's not my responsibility to investigate each one. I pro-i :o vide the program and support the program.
21 Q. My question to you, I guess, Mr. Owen, is I don't expect 22 , you to do that, and my problem and my line of questions is'not 23 why Warren Owen didn't find out about those things, my question 24 and general line of questions with respect to these instances 25 are, are you confident that the people you entrust'to do that l i l 97 ;
O .
(.. '
l t>
e' en e===w .. . -+
, . , . _s -
.m.m-,. e.,
- e.- . . ->gs +..'.*-eg,..
44 ,
,, ., ,7%.~.- ,, . ~ - + .
_ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - . l l
, i 1 job were doing that job and are doing that j'ob? ,
i
( 2 A. Yes. l 3 Q. And those instances don't raise any questions in your mind 4
- ibout Either of those things, before or after?
5 ; A. Not after we have the investigation. So the answer is 6' hell, yes.
7 Q. Hell, yes, before and hell, yes, after, is that right?
a! A. Confident of the program and the people and after the 9 investigation says there is not a problem or was a problem 10'and this is the way it was resolved? Somebody was terminated, i
11 ' some change was made, and I'm confident and continue to be 12 confident as long as the program works.
13 Q. And it always has?
( 'd A. It always has. . I I
'S Q. Great, as long as we understand each other. You went and
'$ talked to Welding Inspectors and communicated to them, didn't 17 you?
l 18 A. Are you talking about the statement I made to them at the ;i l' end of the pay recourse?
]ll 20 Q. Yes.
, 21 A. Yes, I talked to every one of them that was there that day.
22 gem not sure there wasn't someone absent that day. l 2J Q. You made a speech? f l 24 g, yes, [
25 Who wrote your speech for you?
! Q.
=i l! 98 l i i u - - - . . . ,
,se sg er . , m_... , . . , , , ,,, ,
'M 7-
,_ ,y ..
~
\
A. I did. Every damn word of it. Excuse me, every word of l i
( 2 it.
3 Q. What was the reaction of the inspectors to your talk, d .Mr. Owen? Convinced?
l 5 A. For the most part, I think they understood that the pay j'
$ recourse was finished, done, since the misunderstanding of 7 that; I think from the reaction, they believed we were going i
a to thoroughly investigate their technical concerns. [
O. Did they have any questions? -l 30 A. Oh, yes, we had some questions afterwards.
Il Q. Do you remember Mr. Rockholt asking you some questions?
12 A. I remember I think them asking about-- someone asking,
- 3 it may not have been him, about going to the NRC.
( 'd Q. What did you say about that? l 15 A. I said if you have a concern about the safety of this 16 i plant, you not only have the opportunity to go to the NRC, 17 you have the obligation to go to the NRC, and I think I said
' '8 it in just about those words because that one made me mad.
Q. Why did it make you mad?
20 A. Because he knows that, you know, he wasn't to play games l
21 with me. I will go to the NRC. There is a notice right there 22 that says you better go to the' NRC, and I want to run this i 23 business and deal with people as human beings. I don't want 24 people pla'ying games with me, and I don't play games with them, 25 and he knew he had the right to go. I wanted him to make sure !
l I L 99 ;
e V.
v -r. s ,_
he understood I wanted him to go if he had a concern.
( 2 Q. I mean you're aware the very first complaint'from a Weldingi 3 Inspector presented by Mrs. Addis in her memo on supervision? )
4 'A . I was aware of his words, not that that was a fact.
5 Q. I mean okay, let's start from there. You've got to have l
6 an expression of concern or belief that you have a problem 7 before you Can even get to the point of you, as a manager, a finding out that there is a problem or isn't a problem, and j i
9 someone brought to your attention at the point where you had l 10 this exchange with the inspectors a month before that, that j 11 they were worried about their supervision interfering with l' 12 their right to go to the NRC, at least saying that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In that light, Mr. Owen, didn't that add some dimension ;
(- I is beyond an inspector simply giving you a hard time or threatening to you with the NRC business?
17 A. It wasn't threatening me.
19 Q. That's what I heard you saying. You got mad because they're i 19 holding over your head the notion of going to the NRC?
20fA. I said I got mad because he wanted to play games, that's 21 not holding anything. l Playing games. !
22 Q.
23 A. This was Mr. Burr that made that.
24 Q. A different man?
25 A. Yes.
100 l
,t - -- --- -
- c. . - ~ _
s ,. _ .. _.
o Q. Does that mean--
( A. You know, these are 2 I don't know what Rockholt said.
3 statements that merit investigation. No question about that.
4 They d'on't merit acceptance on their face value.
5 O. The only point I'm making and want you to address, o Mr. Owen, someone had already brought up to you a concern 7 about their management interfering with their ability to go 3 to the NRC. That didn't at least make an issue to you whether
- it existed?
l
'OjA. The fact it existed caused the appointment of the Task i
'l
' Force, and that time when I talked to them in late January, 12 that Task Force report was not-- the second Task Force report
- 3 ; on the technical concerns was not complete.
( 'd
!Q. Well, the issue of whether they had a free access to the.
IS NRC or were discouraged or encouraged, that wasn't looked into 4 by the Task Force, was it?
I 17 iA.
i Yes, it was. It was looked into by the department manage-j I 18 ment.
M Il: Q. It was? Did th'ey do a report on that?
20 A. No, I don't recall. I didn't ask for an investigation.
21 Q. But what did 'they find, if they did look at it?
~
22
.A. No hesitancy about going to the NRC at all because a number 23 of them had gone in to talk to the resident inspector.
24 Q. In fact, a number of them went to the resident inspector 25 i within a week of you making the speech to them, right? ,
101 '
(i 4
t 1 I
A. They may have.
2, Q. Well, you later found out. Let me show you a' document 3 ' that's dated 3-15-82 and a mesmo from Mr. Van Doorn to J M . Ald rson and they both work for the Nuclear Regulatory 5 Commission, have you seen that document before?
$ A. No.
7 Q. I want you to take a look at it.
a.A. That particular letter is certainly news to me, but I do
- know that-- I'm aware of the final report conclusions by the
!O NRC that we haven't accepted any substandard work that we i 11
- don't have any problems that cause them to have any concerns, 12 so I suppose that's some sort of interim statement in the '
13 course of that investigation.
( 14 Q. It reflects Mr. Van Doorn's memo to Mr. Alderson that on is February 1, 1982, some unspecified numbers deleted QC 1 16 Welding Inspection personnel requested appointments to discuss 17 concerns, et cetera. I 18 A. I guess they took me at my word. I said you do that, l' and there will be no punitive reaction to you doing it.
20 Q. Each individual expressed to me his concern that DPC 21 would attempt to whitewash technical concerns, i.e., saying g 22 the concerns were related to the recent pay adjustments.
I 23 A. I don't think-- that may have been their feeling at that 24 time. I don't think there was a feeling in the end because I
, 25 - we went back to each inspector and asked are you satisfied that .
- 102 f
y e
.4
..n sn ,_,, .
e
- m. ., _ , n,
- y* a e. .-.
< , i
- . 1 we have thoroughly investigated? If you haven't, say so, and i
( we will follow up or something else. As I recall, there were 2
I 3 three or four items. I'm not sure, three or four different
.: ,p'eople where they did ask we do a little more than we did, and 5 it's clearly my understanding that not one single inspector 3 feels there's anything inadequate in the plant, and they are 7 l all still here.
3 Q. They each stated that, a lack of support for implerentation' 2 of the welding program by QC Welding Inspectors has existed a 'for years? !
i: A. That's what they may have said, i -
'2 ; Q. They were telling you that?
i 3 3 ! A. No, nothing that I have seen in any of this has indicated
( :4 there has been any breakdown in the program.
i It has not been' '
15 perfect, but it doesn't have to be perfect.
4 Q. They stated that they have tried to implement the letter
!7 f of the QA program and repeatedly were beat back by site manage- l-1
' S ; ment, i.e., told they were overinspecting and told they 17l misinterpreted the procedure and told not to write NCI's on i
23 ' some significant violation of the QA program, been harassed 21 on the job, witnessed answers on NCI's t. hat were inadequate i
L 22 ' and written to make the inspector look bad, and told to 23 falsify records. See enclosure 2.
l:
L 24 A. I'm sure he's passing on the same kind of thing that's on 25 this list from Gail Addis that he is reporting what is said. '
103 ,
b r- - - _ . _ . __ .__o.. .,.,,;.1., _ , _ _ , . . , ,,
I don't think he drew the conclusion there that it was correct.! i 2 Q. Right.
3 ' A. I'm sure I would have heard from them if they felt that
~
J wehadbeficiencies.
! 5 Q. Let me show you"another one and see if you have seen this
$' one. Mr. P. K. Van Doorn to Mr. J. Y. Voorhis. Have you ever 7 seen that document?
8 A. No.
9 j Q. Take a few minutes and read it over.
l 10 A. What's the date? 1 11 Q. It's given to me by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 12 I have no idea.
13 7. Where are pages 5 and 11 of our Task Force report, he I
( 14 refers to them. -
15 I Q. I don't know either.
16 A. No, I haven't seen this. It's just an interim kind of thing.,
17 Q. Mr. Van Doorn says to Mr. Voorhis, the Chief Investigator 18 Region 2, I have performed the preliminary review of Duke
- - i l'{PowerCompanyTaskForceeffortaddressingsubjectconcerns.
20 MR. GIBSON: Do you want us to make available to him a 21 copy? ,
22 Q. Only for his convenience.
23 MR. GIBSON: If he needs one in answering the questions l, ,
24 we will, 25 Q. Itdoesappearthatsomedegreeoffalsificationofrecords! e r!
, 104 !
I' b
7~
. r. . -. . - .;..= =_:,- - _ _ _._
- x. =. ~ , - . , .
1
/
has occurred. This is Mr. Van Doorn talking. No significant
( 2l hardware discrepancies have been identified; however, review 3 is yet to be completed. DPC has recognized the falsification g i .- -
4' issue, and there's a reference to the pages and has recommended 5 training of inspectors and supervisors. Some harassment of 3 inspectors by craft apparently occurred primarily verbal. One
' instance which apparently happened several years ago involved 3
ja craftsman pointing a rifle at an inspector at an off-site j
'flocation. The craftsman apparently quit before he could be t
'O ifired. Also claiiaed that inspectors rere verbally harassed by i
, supervisors about coming to the NRC and some inspectors are I
i2jafraid to talk to the NRC. Mr. Van Doorn appears to have I
'3 ; ' concluded that there were at this time significant problems, j
( 'd as he identified, Mr. Owen. That just doesn't square with you'rb-1 is in my opinion, rosy view of things.
i I$ ! MR. GIBSON: What's your question to him based on that?
'7!Q. How do you understand that? Why is the NRC finding
'8l! harassment and falsification of records?
" A. He says falsification as we described. My recollection is 20 that sort of marginal identification of falsification.
21 Q. What is your u'nderstanding? How do you understand that, 22 sir?
23 Certainly there was not falsification in the sense that A.
2' one of- our inspectors knowingly accepted inadequate work and ,
?
- 25 then said it was adequate.
105 l
?
?
7'..*".." $ I[, . , - -
ee-e' *"* -
.i" ; - m .g- 'e..*
. *4;-6# * < " , ' * 'q
I
= '.
I i
Q. How about knowingly accepting work they didn't even !
g \
2 inspect? ;
3 A. He makes a reference, and let me see what he says.
4 Q. I don't have that reference. Do you understand?
5 A. I understand in the end that their investigation indicated 6' that there was no serious concerns, there was no request for 7 management meeting with me. No, you're reading it out of a context from the middle of the investigation.
9,Q. I'm reading the whole thing. I'm not reading out of con-10l text. If I'm unfairly pulling content out of the document, 11 you tell me, but that's the document. j i
12 A. The document is out of context in the full investigation. i 13 Q. Mr. Van Doorn ultimately receded from the position he
( 14 expressed here, is that your view?
15 A. The NRC did not come to me and say you need to do something to other than what you're doing.
17 Q. Does that mean thei; changed their mind on these things?
18 A. I don't know. They did not require any changes on my ,
t l'
part.
20 , Q . Why did you retain the management people to come in and i
21 deal with this matter?
22 A. Well, I wanted some assurance that we had the right kind of 23 qualifications on the Task Force.
24 Q. Task Force 2?
25 A. Task Force 2. I wanted some-- I wanted MAC to see if they ';
106 k
- t. .~ _ -.. _ . _ _ . . . _. . . _
~~
/ i knew of any interview techniques, anything that we could do
( 2 to bring forth any more concerns that had not been expressed. I 3
I wanted them to have access to.the Welding Inspectors to what-4 ever extent they felt necessary to be aware of their verbal
~
5 concerns as*well as their written concerns. They had access
't o'to all of the documentation. I wanted them to be prepared to 7 say to me, and I gave Bill Lee the same opportunity for them s to talk with him, and I wanted them to be prepared to say a ! that they had done those things and in case there was some t
1 0.need later.
l 11 'Q. What do you mean by that?
'2 ! A. In case it came up in the hearing, just as it has now.
i 13 ! Q. You wanted them to be prepared to vouch for the validity i
( 14 of your Task Force work?
15 A. Absolutely.
- $ Q. And to vouch for it to the NRC and licensing persons?
17 A. I wanted them to first make sure we were doing it ri'ght I
- 18 and then be willing to say that.
.l
! 19 Q. In the licensing process?
l' 20 A. In the licensing process, the NRC or anybody. My boss.
! 21 ,O. They specifically-- you specifically contracted with them I
22 l to prepare to testify in hearings if necessary.
23 A. I included that as the scope, somenhing I expected them to 24 be prepared to do. I don't know that .my preparation has been N
done or is necessary. !
25 1 107 i 1
,; (.
u
- i
.I . . _ . . ,.. . _ _ _ . . . . _ . , _ , , , _
3- - . . -
/
i
. Q. Well, I mean they understood from day one that was part of {
(
i 2 their charge, correct?
l 3 A. Yes, I wrote it in the scope.
d MR. GIBSON: It's almost 12:15. Would proceeding for 5 a few minutes allow you to finish completely with Mr. Owen?
No, it wouldn't. It's going to take a good bit longer.
6 l Q.
7 Let me finish this line.
a MR. GIBSON: Will that take very long?
I Who is Mr. Jackson, Mr. Owen? I 9 It shouldn't.
l Q.
'O A. John Jackson is a partner in Management Analysis i U ' Corporation.
12 Q. How did you come to deal with Mr. Jackson or how did you- f 13 come to deal with MAC7 -
(. 'd A. Well, I was well aware of their professional reputation.
15 I met Mr. Jackson. I knew through business associations over
'$ the years his partner and contacted them to see if they had
'7 experience, you know, long experience, a long experienced ,
i8 man with good long credentials in Quality Assurance area.
4 l ",Q. What prior contact had you had with Mr. Jackson or his.
l I
20 ipartner?
21 A. I had known his partner many years; and when he was workingi 22 I for a manufacturing firm, I had no contact with him for many l 23 years. We saw their business reputation. ,
24 Q. What did you know of MAC's work, the Management Analysis !
j 25 work, at the time you contacted them?
108 L (_ ~
't u
a.. ., _
A. Just that they had done work for other utilities and had
[ 2 thoroughly professional representation.
J lQ. They had done work in this area, in Quality Assurance a area?
5 A. As I said, my call to him was to see if he had someone
$ who had indisputable credentials in the Quality Assurance area.
7 -Q. I'm trying to understand what was the nature of the work 3 you knew by reputation MAC did?
? !
A. Consulting management consulting kinds of work. Engineering i
- 0 , consulting. }
- 'Q. In the engineering area?
'2 A. In the engineering area.
I 13 l Q.
What kind of work were you aware of at the time? i I
I don't recall, just in the literature and in my dis-(- id A. ;
s 25 cussions with my peers in the industry, they are high on i
lo'their capabilities.
I
'? Q. AsaresultofyourcontactwithMr. Jackson,yourquestionj 18 to him, did they have anybody, and what was his response?
19!A. He discussed the credentials for a Mr. Luke Swisler. I l
20 ' asked him to ma'ke me a proposal based on the scope I defined i
22 carlier, and they;did. Then I met with Mr. Swisler. ,
22 ' Q. What did he say about Mr. Swisler? What did he tell you 23 about Mr. Swisler when you talked with him?
24 A. He. told me of his years of experience in Quality Assurance 25 field, his involvement in a number of missile projects as 109 b
_ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - . _ 2 _
Quality Assurance manager. He told me of his dvailability f
f 2
as far as timing was concerned, and then he sent me the i 3 proposal.
4 Q. Did he tell you of his work at South Texas Project? l t
5 A. I don't recall discussing that South Texas Project with I'm-- in fact, I'm pretty sure I did not. I e' John Jackson.
7 did discuss it with Mr. Swisler when he came. .
a Q. You met with Mr. Swisler, let's see, the 25th of January?
o , Jackson advised Lew Swisler would be in Charlotte May 25th?
i I ;
a A. Yes.
11 IQ. What did Mr. Swisler tell you about his work at South 12 Texas?
i3 A. Oh,wedidn'tspendmuchtimetalkingabouthisindividuall experience. We discussed-- I was interested in whether he
(~ i4 ,
is had done much work, you know, hands on kind of work in the 4 is Quality Assurance area, and he obviously had over the years.
17 We spent most of that first meeting discussing what I had put I is in motion and how much time he thought he would need to spend. l 1
to I told him to spend as much time as he needed, and I recall we '
3
- i. 20 , discussed the fact that I wanted to talk with him privately j 21 every tirae he came to town.
/ :
. 22 Q. What did he have to say about his work at South Texas? j 23 A. I don't recall. _l
! 24 Q. Did he tell you he had worked at South Texas? l 25 A. Yes, I think that was in his resume.
a llo
' i
.( -'
W y'. * "
e - m N. ,, _e .,. , ,. _ _ , , . _ ,_ _
/
Q. His resume came by cover and appears to have been sent to
( '
2jyou after the meeting. It's dated January 27th.
3 A. ,
Maybe.the proposal was made after January. I'm not sure
~
2 whether I got the proposal befor*e I met with him on the 25th 5 .or he may have brought a copy of that, of his resume, with i
$'him. I do have in my files a proposal from them.
7 Q. I'm interested in the South Texas. He informed you he 3 had done work at South Texas?
9 A. I think I recall that or I read it. l 0 Q. In his resume? I'm looking at a copy of it, 1980 to present.
l Overall responsibility for MAC QA activities on the South 12 Texas Nuclear Power Generation Project served as site QA 1 I
'3 for AE/ Construction Manager and later as Primary QA Consultant {
i
( 14l responsible for the utility licensee. Assisted clients in 15 preparation to answers to NRC show cause order and implementa-
'$ tion of corrective action programs which resulted in NRC
'7 approval to ecntinue construction. Were you aware of that?
l q te .A. I don't recall any discussion about that. We just sort
)
of ticked off the various places he werked ever the years.
20 IQ. Do you remember reading that in his resume when you got his
' l 21 .resumo? /
22 .A. I don't remember that South Texas was one of the places he i j 23 worked or MAC had worked.
2d That he~, Swisler, had responsibility for that work there, Q. I i
25 you knew that?
j
- 111 h
1 e
. . ,m. -+. g.-c., - - ,. m., -+re-. . . ,ew.. --,......--e- , - - - . . , . - , , , , - ,-
_ ._ . . - . = - . - _. - .-. _
/ i A. I don' t recall that specifically, i 2 MR. GIBSONt I suggest we break for lunch, Mr. Guild, ,
t 3 if you're going to be much longer on this line of questioning.
4 , Q .# Swisler's April 26, 1982, letter to you, Mr. Owen, 5, includes a copy of the MAC report. He says my file containing; 4
1 I
o ' the interviews and notes are being retained by MAC in case 7 myactivitiesneedtobesubstantiatedorsupportdocumentatioq I a!in the event I may be requested to testify in regard to my I l 9 opinion of the work performed by the Task Force and those to involved in the resolution. In accordance with your suggestion, 11 I MAC is maintainiag subject contract in open status. Is that I
i 12 contract open? !
'3 l A. It is until we determine whether we are going to use his
( 14 I
services for their testimony.
is ! Q. What does it mean maintaining?
16 A. Nothing. It means they don't close up their files.
17 Q. You suggested to them they keep the files open for that l
i 5 18 purpose?
j 19 A. Certainly don't want that documentation to be disposed of.
'l" 20 Q. It hasn't been, I will assure you. Let's take a break now.
h l 21 LUFCHEON RECESS (12 : 20 p.m.) ,
22 CONTINUING EXAMINATION: (By Mr. Guild) (1:30 p.m.) l l
23 Q. Mr. Owen, in the course of the F.elding Inspectors' concerns' ;
q 24 being expressed and the review of those concerns, we have seen(
' I j 25 thatanumberofpersonnelactionswererecommendedby.variousl 112 k -
1 i
u .
"' ' " ~ ' *
- 7 T" '. T -. - __
, .,,..J' ':, ' ' . . l.. . . . , ,
, ~.- l[ . ? * ~ . * }. .T. ..l* ' '.
People who looked at the problems. Do you understand that
( > a s 2 l one of the recommendations, not Task Force recommendations, but 3 one of the recommendations that came forward that was acted on 4 - was a transfer of Mr. Baldwin, who was Technical Supervisor 5 over Welding Inspectors, are you aware of that?
$'A. Yes.
7 Q. And that in his place, a Mr. Art Allum was put in as 3 a supervisor, Technical Supervisor, over the Welding Inspectorsy I
- A. Yes.
10 Q. Are you aware of a recommendation to transfer Mr. Beau 11 .Ross, one of the Supervising Technicians First Level Supervisor?
I 12 ' A . I think that was also part of a recommendation.
! l Those were recommendations made by Mr. Wells to you?
13' l 1.
(, 14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Why v,asn't Mr. Ross transferred?
We discussed the reasons for that in that it didn't seem 1$ lA.
17 to be any reason to do it.
I '3 10. I mean the recommendation was made by Mr. Wells to do that.
- t
'I- l' A. Yes
'i 20 1
- 0. And he took that up with you?
21 A. We discussed it and decided that was not necess'ry.
I 22 ! O . Why not? Why wasn't it necessary in your opinion as you 23 understand it?
24 A,. He in'most ways was doing a perfectly satisfactory job.
r 25 Q. Why do you think Mr. Wells, why did Mr. Wells recommend 113 C
u ll 1
m -> - . -- , . . - _ .
7 , ,, , , , , . , _,
= ,
, 1 J
Mr. Ross' transfer?
e A. I don't recall that it was a very strong recommendation.
3 ! We had sort of a part of several alternatives that we dis-' :
J cussed. I believe Art Allum came from our-- one of our other 5 projects, and we had available resources there that we needed
$ . to fit in some way, and we made a lateral transfer with Charles i
7 Baldwin and put Art Allum in that job. That was enough change 3 and we just didn't want to see too much change in that area.
i i
- 'O. Mr. Wells had recommended both changes, transfer of i I Charles Baldwin and transfer of Beau Ross.
I 11 i A. The recommendation may be a little strong. It was one I 12 alternative we discussed. l
\
13 I Q. He made a recommendation to you in a written memo, and he
( 'd listed two management organizational changes, one being the I is l change of Mr. Baldwin and one being the change of Mr. Ross?
i
'$ A. I don't recall the exact wording. I recall it as being l 37lmoreofanalternativethatwasbeingconsidered. ! ,
'8 Q. Would it help refresh your recollection if I showed you ,
i r
l 3* j that memo? {
a t !
23 i A. I will accept your remembrance of it as a recommendation.
21 I don't know. ./ ,
22 ' O. What I want to understand is, if you had a hand in the 23 decision not to follow the second of those recommendations f 24 but follow the first, why wasn't the second recommendation i 25 followed?
12.-:
('
L
/
l C
t l .
A. As I said, Beau was doing a satisfactory job, and there
(.
i 2 ' wasn't any reason to move him, and we didn't have additional .
3 resources that we did with Art Allum. We tried to take the d best advantage of our available supervisory manpower.
S Q. Do you recall Mr. Wells identifying Mr. Ross as a block
$ ,to communications as part of the justification?
- 'A. I think I saw some of that wording.
sI O. Do you disagree with that conclusion and that basis to '{
' recommend beside the recommendation of not appropriate? l l
C ii A. My recollection is we discussed various alternatives and :
l
decided that was not necessary, and we didn't do it.
'2 Q. You have no other information about why you didn't do it?
13 ' A . I do not. j
( I'
!Q.
I What other alternatives did you discuss?
15 ' A . That and the change with the two that we have just discussed, I
.Allum and Baldwin.
'7 ) Q. You're aware that a number of Welding Inspectors and super-
'8 visors identified both Mr. Wells and Mr. Larry Davison as part, i
- l'of the problem, if you use those words, part of the problem.
i MlAreyouawareofthat?
I 21
.A. I believe that may have been the words they used.
t ,
22 . Q. And there were specific concerns cr complaints or allagcc 23 tions regarding Mr. Davison; for example, Mr. Davison being !
24 involved in verbally voiding or overriding nonconforming items I, 1
25 identified by Welding Inspectors, are you aware of that?
115 b
l I
l
i l
A. I'm aware that part of the concern centered around the
[ 2 fact that at that time, it was possible under our' procedures l, 1
3 to judge any nonconforming report was not necessary and to not f 4 record it. That was one of the procedures we changed.
5 Q. My point right now is with respect to Mr. Davison, are 6: you aware that Mr. Davison was the object of some concern and 7 Criticism of the Welding Inspectors in that regard? He had !
8 been the person at that time who was involved in the performanc'e 9 review which at times resulted in him verbally voiding NCI's, 10jare you aware of that? !
11 'A. I'm aware.
12 Q. And that there were concerns expressed about Mr. Wells, 13 about the support Mr. Wells, as they expressed it, was giving
( 14 to the inspectors and situations where inspectors and craft or 15 inspectors and craft supervision were involved in disputes abou't
!$ nonconforming items or other deficiencies?
17 A. I remember the words lack of management cupport with
- s respect to that interface.
i i
19 'Q. Mr. Wells is the Manager of Quality Assurar.ce Department? .
20 A. He is the Manager of the Quality Assurance Department. .
21 Q. Did you look into the question of Mr. Wells and 22 Mr. Davison's ef fectiveness ar.d their working with regard to 23 those concerns?
~
Part of our-- of the first Task Force was to review that
~
24 A.
i 25 whole situation and see what they felt that the weaknesses 116 L
i I '
were, and they indicated a need for improvement in communicationo
( 2 up and down that supervisory line; but still as I recall the 3
conclusion, it was a satisfactory situation, but one that could.
a de~impr'oved.
s Q. How about specifically with regard to Mr. Wells and 3 Mr. Davison, did you review all those concerns with regard 7 to them and the effectiveness of their work? !
I a l A. Wetalkedabouttheneedforanunusualeffortinfeedbackl
- 1 7 on why an NCI might not result in a need for any change or
- c ' if the need for good feedback from the technical support people' 11 ;on the resolution of the NCI.
I 12 l 0. How about Mr. Wells and Mr. Davison's work?
i 13 ' A . I found it satisfactory.
14 ,Q. That was your opinion of Mr. Wellt' work, it was satis-(
15 factory?
13 A. Certainly. It had been for many years.
17 iQ. Competent?
i f 18 A. Certainly, i
10 Q. More than competent?
i 20 A. Certainly. satisfactory.
21 'Q. Well, competent is a term of art that use in evaluating 22 your subordinates' work performance, isn't it, in the company?
23 A. From a salary administration standpoint.
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. That's correct.
e i 117 l .
Ii
- -- - - -- . . ~ . . . . . . . . _ . ~ , . . . . . . . . . . _ , _ ,_ . ,_, ,, .. ...
.~ i Q. Was Mr. Wells' work competent? ';
( 2 A. Yes. '
l l
Was it better than competent? s' 3 Q.
4 A I'm'not going to discuss-- I don't want to discuss,his 5 work was entirely satisfactory.
6 Q. I understand your reluctance, sir, but I'm asking you to 7 tell me of Mr. Wells' work, and the question is, what was l 8 Mr. Wells' work? What was your evaluation of his work?
- A. I believe my evaluation of his work, as I recall at that i
10 time, was entirely competent. l l
I 11 Q. Was it ever other than competent?
I 12 A. I don't recall it being so. It was in that job for nine 13 years.
( '4 Q. Mr. Davison, his work competent as far as you know? f 15 A. I did not make his performance review as far as I know.
16 Q. Wouldn't Mr. Wells at that time have evaluated Mr. Davison?
17 A. Yes, j 18 Q. Did you consider transferring or removing either Mr. Wells f,
i l' or Mr. Davison in response to the concerns that were expressed 9 20 to you?
.l !
o 21 j A. 3o, , ,
L 22 ! Q. Did you make any specific evaluation of the concerns .
23 expressed by the Welding Inspectors being expressly about 4
24 Mr. Davison and his work?
(! 25 A. I recall having a discussion with Jim about a question.
118 I
k.
I!
1.
k ji r.- =:- - - , -
- = - = a. _ . . ._ ,-~~ - - - _ .- 7- . . ~
I i Q. Mr. Wells?
( 2'A.
i Jim Wells about a question of whether Larry had instructed 3 anyone not to go to the NRC; and as I recall, Jim talked with 4 Larry about that and did some discussion of how that came about i
5 and how that perception might have been blown up in somebody's 3' mind.
7 How did you understand that as a result of that conver-Q.
3 lg sation?
7
!A. We suggest they would be fulfilling their obligation to us i '
D iif they would also bring those to our attention.
i 11
'Q. Concerning technical concerns?
'2 Yes, that was a technical recourse procedure was for and
,A.
13 ! that's the way we like our environment to be.
(. Id Q. You understood that's what Mr. Davison communicated to is ;the Welding Inspector through Mr. Wells?
$I A Yes.
l.
17 1 Q . Did you understand what he communicated was that they, ,
13lthe Welding Inspectors, should bring their concerna to the '
I "'
company first before they went to the NRC?
20 A. I think that may have been what was said. At least we
^
21 wanted to know about it also so that if there were problems, 22 kwe could get on with correcting those.
23 Any other way did you review the concerns expressed by Q.
24 Mr. Davison?
25 A. The concerns expressed by Mr. Davison?
- 119 k.
. g * . * * * ~ ' . ., [ [ ? ; ] f f", -a*a
l .
. Q. Expressed about Mr. Davison, sir.
( 2 l, A . Only the course of those Task Force investig'a tions.
t 3 Q. You made no other?
4 ,A. I made no direct interviews of anyone.
i 5 Q. Or other review?
oI A. The Task Force examined each one of their concerns.
7 Q. As far as you knew, they examined the concerns about !
a Mr. Davison?
9 l A. As far as I know.
10 Q. Now, the first Task Force, or you're talking about the 11 second Task Force?
i 12 A. Both.
13 Q. In what way did the first Task Force review or evaluate i l
l
(.. 34 concerns expressed by Davison or Wells?
f 1 15 A. They interviewed a large number cf inspectors to flush out,
!$ if you will, what those concerns were; and their report to me 17 was the.t it was a communications problen end not one serious 1
18 enough to start removing people from jobs. :
89,O. They made thot explicit finding to you?
20lA. And I asked those questions in our discussion.
l l 21 Q. They made th6sc recommendations or findings to you orally? i 22 A, yes, their written recommendation was that it was a matter ,
23 of communication; and in their opinion, certainly yield to l
24 I some increased emphasis; and as I-recall, I asked specifically ;
25 about is there any situation where we ought to consider any-i 120 '
k
more immediate action and the answer was no. *
( 2 Q. But then you did get the other recommendatioris from i
3 Mr. Wel.ls that you should move Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Ross?
4 h. That was independent of that. That, in fact, may have 5 been made earlier. I guess it was about the same time. The
$ , question, as I pointed out with Art Allum, is we had that i
7 f resource and we fit him into that organization and thought '
a 3',that would be a change for a new interface. We saw no reason i
0 to move Beau Ross. l C Q. Did you ever see any reason to move Beau Ross subsequently?{
'l A. I haven't had any discussion about moving him.
i2 Q. You're not aware of it?
!3 !i A. No. i b 14 Q. AreyouawareofanycriticismbyMr.Allumandsuggestionl 15 by Mr. Allum that Mr. Ross be moved?
I$ A. I'm not aware of any. ,
.L 1
17 l 0 What is your understanding of the circumstsnees of '
1 i
- 3'Mr. Wells' transfer to INPO?
- f g About the first of December at a meeting out'in San I' l A.
20 , Francisco, Chairman Paladino of the NRC made a speech to an 21 industry meeting"at which time of his clos!.ng remark was a 22 challenge to the industry that you ought to do something in
, 23 I the construction area similar to what INPO'has done. . I came 24 back from that meeting and talked with a number-- [
q 25 Q. As INPO had done in operations?
4 121, C
I-e
- t=-o 6+ . , .%, ,,, ,, , ,, ,
, .-T' .
=- . . - - - -- -.
J A. In operations.
( 2 Q. I'm sorry. >
l
- 3 A. I came back from that meeting, as I recall, and talked d ,by phone with a number of my counterparts in the industry, and i
5 we decided to have a meeting in Chicago like before the middle 6 of December, just very shortly af ter that. I took Jim Wells 7 , with me, and Jim and I went to that meeting and other ,
B. executives brought counterparts, and we discussed the merits l
' of that idea and decided that what came out of that meeting 70)wasarecommendationthatacoupleofusseethemanagement l
II ,down at INPO and to talk about the possibility of what has 12 turned out to be this construction project evaluation effort.
13 ' We met with them early in January, as I recall, and formulated
(, 'd several phases of that effort. INPO agreed to undertake it j
~
15 if we would do two things: one is go to the chief executives to of all the nuclear utilities and get their support for the 17 effort, which we agreed to do. Second was since there was no 3
IB money and nc resources in the INPO budget, that the partici-I
_pating utilities would agree to put experienced capable people
' 20 into the first year of the effort, and we did both of those 21 by the end of January; and Lill Lea and Dennis Wilkinson, ,
22 President of INPO, met with the commissioners, NRC commissioners.
23 in early February, and committed the project and got some t
I 24 encouragement to go ahead with it. And I felt compelled to
.; 25 give INPO a top-notch person, and we selected Jim Wells. Jim l! i~
1 122
~
u e
I h
' ~ ' -
- ~::-
. T. . . . .. -
. sq . _, , ,.,3;2.,:::; _~~ ,3. .
- . -* ,~' ~ , ' y _ _ : 3. x
._ _ .. ~ , _ ,
l had been involved in that two month effort to get it going, and' 2 he was our choice for that assignment.
3 Q. Did you weigh, the impact of moving Mr. Wells from the '
- po'sition of Corporate Quality Assurance Manager at the time i t
5 when these other matters were at Catawba?
3 ,A. Certainly we weighed it, but employee recourse matters had 7 been resolved by then, and if the first Task Force report 3 clearly indicated that the other aspects were manageable l ,
7, problems and Jim had some very qualified people working under i
10:him at the managerial level, so I felt comfortable with that :
11 change.
I 12 ! Q. Was Mr. Wells aware of his likely assignment to Atlanta
- 3 ! during the course of work setting this organization up? i I
l j
(' 14 lA.
We had discussed sometime in January the fact that if 15 j we got the chief executives' approval, that it was-- that 4 certainly Jim was one of the ones we had under consideration.
17 l Bill Lee was Chairman of the INPO Board of Directors at that I ;B time, and I had been instrumental in this effort, and we had ,
l
!* to be the first one to provide an experienced persen for that t
20 year because we were trying to entice other utilities to follow 1 2' suit. That's whp we made the assignoent. Jim wac the first 22 l person to go in'to that program.
23 Q. Is Mr. Wells to return to Duke?
24 A. He was'due to have returned earlier this year, but they ,
25 asked to keep him on board there till they could get through, '
1
123 l
(_
og,.,p, ,_,,_,fg , , ,, g4 m, ,p g ,,g g e% h em q>sr+- ss.w g-c .- *- *weia-. ,.g, awm. e e na e--=see gn,p , E p -. ,
- i
/
get their permanent team assembled and get through several j
( l I don't recall how much, but he is on his last t
2l evaluations.
i 3 [ evaluation now.
4 l Q. Whekisheduetoreturn?
5 A. He's due back at the end of this month, around the end of 6' the month.
7 Q. In what capacity will he return?
8 A. He is currently on the pr.yroll as an assistant to me,
- lwhich is just a way to keep him on the payroll while he is 10'off from that assignment. I have not discussed with Jim in i t
il any detail what my plans are. Generally we ho,' 3 to plan to j 12 use his long experience with us in this INPO experience in !,
t 13 our business diversification efforts. We have many, many i
(. 14 calls from our clients wanting support in the Quality .
is Assurance area, and he is certainly an asset there, and one l 16 that we ought to put in good position to get some of those 17 jobs. l
!a Q. Is he going to return in Corporate Quality Assuiance .
Manager pocition?
20 , g , po, I '
21 Q. Any other capacity in Quality Assurance Department? i l
22 A. No, he will be assigned in our business diversification l I
23 effort if some of the proposals we have made now pan out. !
, 24 Q. Is your opinion that Mr. Wells was in any way responsible j
j 25 for the communication deficiencies that were identified by the 124 r / !
L t
L L-l v- -- * -
. - -~ . , . _ . . . . _ _ . _ . .. .._. _ _
Task Force with regard to Quality Assurance Department and
( ?
2 ' Welding Inspectors? ,
3 A. Well, I guess I feel responsible. I guess anybody in a ma'nkgem$nt chain has to say they feel that responsibility. I 5 'didn't spend a lot of time trying to find a culprit. We spent 3,all of our time prior to Jim leaving, and I think since George 7 came on board, looking at the reinforcement we could do, I
a! training improvement, developuent in people, so I gave no i
? ! thought trying to find who was responsible or what group of I -
- o! people were responsible.
ii Q. I guess I'm asking you that now, Mr. Owen, what is your 12 opinion?
13 A. I don't think Jim made any significant contribution to th nor did Larry, the lack of communication sort of grows up
( 14
- 5 when people on each side of the issue don't put forth that
's I
I little extra ef fort to overcome the communication dif ficulties.
17 Q. Do you hold the Welding Inspectors responsible?
a A. No, I don't find-- I'm not trying to place blame with 1
i9 lanyone. They have certainly responded to our training as 20 . have our supervisors.
21 l0. j You don't place the responsibility on either part, but the 22 ! matter clearly a veloped, at least it has been identified, and I want to understand who is responsible if 23 you see it has?
24 no one was responsible? i 25 A. W'hy does somebody have to be responsible? i 125 u
'EP *Nme% SMae eyp 464 g- m, gg _
! i Q. Is it your opinion no one was responsible? -
2 A. I think communication difficulty grew up, and people were ,
3 not dealing with that quite as effectively as they could have, ind we took a look at it and devised the necessary training 4 j; 5' programs, and it looks like to me, the situation is being well!
o managed. It would have been well managed had Jim stayed.
7 Q. Who is responsible for that communication difficulty, 9 anybody?
9 A. In each individual case, the two people that happened to 10 ! , be involved that didn't communicate. They were the ones 11 in each case. You're saying should we have recognized a little!
12 earlier that we needed to do some additional training in 13 this area. I would have said great, had we recognized it
( 14 earlier. That would have been better. We started talking {
is about the reinforcement training and communications early in l 16 December even prior to the first Task Force report.
17 Q. Well, I mean from an observer's standpoint still, I per-18 , ceive the focus of all of the remedial measures on the
' 19 inspectors, you're going to train the inspectors, were going 20 ! to instruct the inspectors, and change the procedures the 21 inspectors use. 'Is that a f air perception? !
! l 22 A. No. l' 23 Q. Who else besides the inspectors is the object of that 24 remedial action?
25 A. We have had training for virtually every management person .l 126 L '
' " ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ "' *~ ro e o
~
i
_- l t
- t or supervisory person in the Quality Assurance Department. We *
( 2 have had training. i .
I 3
Q. Mr. Davison?
d ,A[ Yes Training in the crafts area. We developed our 5 Quality Awareness Program. We defined very clearly for the
$' craft and their supervision what their role is, so while we 7 spent most of the time talking about the Quality Assurance 1
3.and welding inspection, we did that across the board.
Q. Well, what new training did you do for the craft?
- Let me O understand what you mean by the craft training.
'l A. I can't give you any of the details of the program. I 12 just talked with Bob Dick about developing a program which 4
'3.he did and suggested to me.
'd 1 Let me show you this. You're talking about the Quality
(- .Q.
I is ; Awareness Program? I'm showing you a document January 11, 1982 ,
I6 f document to you from Mr. Dick.
! A . This is certainly part of it. This is not the entire ,
l l :s l ef fort.
O. What else is there?
20 The training.
A.
2' ! O. What training?,
22 :A. The training to identify for the craf t what their appro-23' l priate role is with respect to the Welding Inspectors or to 24 the inspection in general.
25 Q. I want you to describe that training for me.
t 127 i b fy- _ , . - ---. -..
0 i A. I cannot give you any of the details. You will have to ;
i
. 1 1
( 2,l talk to someone else.
3 . Q. You don't know anything else about the craft training?
4 I A I requested on both sides of that interface we do the 5
training necessary so the people clearly understand their o roles.
7 Q. You have been able to tell me about training for inspec- .
e s ; tors and that has been an exhaustive reflection of what that ol: training is, and I want to know if you know anything more i
10 !. about what was the training for craft? .
I n ; A. I said I don't know any more about it.
i2 Q. Did Mr. Dick give you anything more in writing other than
- 3 i the Quality Awareness memo you have there?
l i .
We had several dis-
^
I don't recall seeing anything else. l
(~. 14 A.
l is cussions about it starting in mid December.
le i Q. Let's mark this as Exhibit 5. Did you find other
- 7 references with Mr. Dick, do yoa have any more information i i
l is ! about the subject of training craft?
17 A. Reference to my December-- to the summary that I made, 23 l Exhibit 2, where I said in December, I asked R. L. Dick to
- ) ! develop a programsto reinforce the understanding that con-22 { struction part w'a s responsible for producing quality products. I 23 Q. Which page is that? I'm sorry.
24 A. That's. the last item. l 25 Q. The meeting? You had a meeting with him on January 15th to!
l i
. 128 i .
I
~ ~ . - --..w-., . . . .. . - . .
~
l : .
f discuss his plans?
( 2 I
A. Yes. /
3 Q. Those plans were attached as an Attachment 57 Would his 4
pla'ns h ve been reflected in the January lith memo to you?
5 A. I suspect he had that with him when we were discussing, o and I don't recall specifically. We spent most of the time 7 discussing alternatives and the kind of efforts and resources a he ought to put forth.
0,Q. Was this January lith memo the plan referenced here to the '
i to Attachment file?
ti .A. I don't recall. I don't recall seeing that before, but i
12 I don't recall.
13 i Q. You don't know if there was anything else besides this?
I
( 14 l A.
I No, I don't.
- s ' O. Mr. Owen, you're aware of the procedure changes that have 1s l; resulted from the recommendations of the Task Force or have 17 ! occurred as they related to the inspection?
18 A. I'm aware that the Task Force recommended that number of 19 areas that procedures be modified to clarify these problem 20 areas where misunderstandings were'different interpretations 22 were taking place. ,
22 ,Q. Are you aware of changes in the use of the Q-1 Procedure 23 for identifying nonconforming items?
24 A. I'.m not aware of that detail. I do know the modifications
?
25 that were proposed were researched by the department management 129 L j
- . _ _ . . . _ _ 3 i
l and necessary changes were carried out.
2 Q. Mr. Grier? .
l I
3 A. Yes.,
d Q. You are aware of the efforts to reduce the Q-1 Procedure 5 and place more emphasis on the use of the R-2 Procedure, 6 particularly in the welding area?
7 A. Well, I recall some general discussions that we had ,
8 between Construction and QA and Engineering and myself to 9 concerns that had been expressed that we use the.NCI process 30 too generally. That we had many of the things we were docu- ,
l~
11 menting were not unconforming items, but were in the process 12 kinds of deficiencies that ought to be corrected without an i3 NCI being generated. I'm not familiar with the form numbers Id or procedure numbers, but we had a general discussion about is the need to-- this was not specifically, or I don't even l
'6 recall at all being referred to as a welding-- in the welding 17 area; but just in general, we didn't want to use it as a I
i '8 casual process. l 39 Q. Would those discussions have taken place after the Welding 1>
20 Inspector concerns?
2 A. Before. I redall they were before that and the project 22 was devised, and I believe has generally run its course.
23 Q. Are you aware of earlier-NRC criticism of the number of 24 NCI's and subject of NCI's?
25 A. Yes, I guess that's what prompted us to get together and l 130
.('
1 I
t I
I jr;~~~~: ::= . . . . . _ . -- .=- q u _ . . _ . . _ . . , . , ,
- i discuss if the NRC indicated we were generatin'g more than they '
2 felt was necessary. ,
'I 3 Q. Are you aware of_the '81 Licensing Assessment Report below '
4 average' rating for Catawba construction?
~
?
5 'A. I certainly am.
3.Q.
The findings that there had been deficiencies in the 7 Quality Assurance program at Catawba?
I 3.A. I had discussions with the NRC about that.
o Q. That coupled with the conclusion there were numerous
- i unusually large number of nonconformances at Catawba compared
- to other facilities under construction?
12 A. That same report was when I discussed it with the NRC 1
- 3 was long after as is their process. Your report comes long after the time frame at which they consider your plant. I .
'( 14 One is that when
- s ' guess that would make a couple of points.
is we have a violation or a deficiency, the term they use, then 17 we and they make sure they provide some corrective action II ta right then. We do it very frequently before they know about h 19 ' it. They come in and declare a deficiency on our records but I 20 . we resolved it before they--
l 21 f Q. Or before you, inform them of it? ,
22lA. We don't inform them of everything we do every day. . All 23
! th e documentation is there for them to come and review. We 24 don' t inform them of . those things. They make their own [
25 evaluation. The second point I would make about that same
'i 131 k
Ce
,. , , . ., **;**"""",,['~, ,
] *{ * ,*]- y l f y * - . ..
t 0
t report is that every one of the classifications met their '
l
, ( 2 requirement. Below average was not below their standards as-l
- 3. they were very clear in their report. It was a very 4 inappropriate kind of criteria they set up because they made 5 no recognition of the volume of work that happened to be going o on at the site at that time. Only a gross account of numbers.
7 We pointed out they have abandoned the process and the last 9 ' SALP report, they told us verbally we were the best project 0 in the region. Of course, the report has no rating system in i 10' ! it now. l 11 'Q. They don't rate any of them below average? !
12 A. They don't rate anything. They rate individual character-13 , istics but don't give an overall rating. They rate outstandingj
( 14 in a number of areas and average in others and nothing below !
is average on the individual characteristics that they look at. I.
16,But, again, that was the nature of that review is after the 17 fact look at some period in time that occurs eighteen months, i
f i 18 f ; up to eighteen months prior, i I l l' ! Q. Who told you you were the best project in the region? l 20 A, o:Reilly was here that day. I don't recall who specificallY 21 !made the-- Commissioner Epplestein was here that day. I ;
22f remember two of them were here. Idon'trememberwhomadethel 1 23 presentation. l 24 Q. They ca'me to Charlotte? i.
. 25 A. They came here and met with, I believe, Bill Lee was there 4
i: 132
^(
a y
l
- f.
4 _. .-
,7 . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ . _ , , . . _ , . _ _ _ . . _ . ., .
/
that day. I certainly was there. Bob Dick was there. Dale, j
( ;
2 all of our management people. <
3 Q. O'Reilly or Epplestein told you you were the best project?
d A. I d'on't recall who made it. Several people that made 5 their parts in the presentation.
$'Q. You're making a couple of points, and I think that was that 7
you thought the standard using that SALP 1 Report was inappro-a priate because it didn't recognize the volume of work, and theyl changed it by the time of the second SALP Report, is that
'O anything else that you were going to say on it?
II A. No.
'2 ; Q. What would be, if you were going to use the number of non-
'3 conforming items but you wanted to account for the level of
" work at that time, what would be a more appropriate measure?
'5 A. One appropriate thing is to look at the various character-
'$ If there is no civil work going on, istics of the civil work.
l'!obviously you would have no violations'in the civil area. ,
'8 There has to_be some kind of recognition of the type of work f
i
l going on if you have a rating system at all.
20 ' Q . Do you have'a belief about a more appropriate general 21
. measure that does .use a number of nonconforming items but also l
22 I accounts for the level of work going on? l I
23 ' A. No, we don't use that. We use that approach to try to 24 manage,our. business. l 25 Q. Trend NCI's, don't you?
- i
? . . .
133 -
L l i
I l:
l,
\
l
i f i A. We trend a lot of things. j
(
l 2 Q. You trend NCI's? ,
3 A. Yes.
4 Q.2 You trend a number of NCI's over a period of time?
5 ! A. Yes.
6 Q. Your management in Construction and Quality Assurance 7 uses the number of NCI's trended as a measure of work, does 1
8 it not?
9 A. It uses a piece of input in the management process to 10 try to determine whether there are areas that need their !
11 ' attention or need additional training or whatever.
12 Q. So it's not appropriate for the NRC as a measure either?
13 It's your view that it was not, say, normalized for the
( 14 15 amount of work at the time?
A. That was the comment we made to them and we made two lo comments, as I recall. It does us little good in managing 17 the process to spend much time talking about a period that was ,
I IB a year or two years old. That gave us no information. It 19 helped us manage the ' job, so we, of course, on a day-by-day
]
i 20 basis, look at those deficiencies as we find them and correct
! 21 them so by that ti,me, it's ancient history. The other point 22i ! we made is if yo're going to use any kind of rating system 23 is that it's based on just numbers of things,you must have 24 some recognition that early in the life of the job, there I',
25 would be very few ana late in the life of the job, would be
. 134' k
=;. . .-
.. . . : =; -. .
m.. .
I few because there is little activity. Those were the two .
( 2 points we made to them. '
3 Q. Was there any corrective action taken to address the i 4
Qdality' Assurance Project deficiencies that were identified at S Catawba?
$:A. All of those actions were taken at the time of the defi-i 7 lciency. Not following the report that was covering a period ,
t 3l eighteen months old.
7 Q. So no corrective action was taken to address the findings !
I '
30;and the report itself?
l
'l 'A. None were necessary.
12 Q. Any corrective action that was taken other than that would
'3 , have been to address specific findings made earlier by the
( 14 lNRC? ;
I
?5 :A. Those were generally their evaluation, things we found in l
16;each case they would have to accept remedial action we have I i 17 taken. 1 13 Q. Why is that?
l
'j ' A. That's the way the system works. They come in and say
-l 20 .or examine you and declare this deficiency, and they follow-up 21 on that deficiency to see if he made a satisfactory correction l 22 to it both from a standpoint of specific nature of the >
23 deficiency and any generic application.
- I 24 Q. I guess' I may have misunderstood you. I understood you !
- j 25 to say that they are stuck with accepting the way you resolve t
- l 135 C --
)
1
,i '
. U
,- .- y . = 2. 2..: -
-; : : 7= - .~ - ,;-
. - - - . , = :- ,
[
~
the work. You mean it's their obligation to review the way 2 that you resolve the deficiency, is that what you're saying? !
3 I'm just not hearing right.
4 A. We 1, it's not a deficiency till they identify it as such.
5 Then something that has happened in the past on our job, they i
o decide this is a deficiency. They decide whether or not we 7 have taken the appropriate Corrective action, and it's not e closed till we do. When the SALP Report came along, all those 7 things had long been closed.
10 Q. The corrective action you took with regard to those ,
11 deficiencies would be identified in your specific responses I' 12 to,say, inspection reports that identified deficiencies, is 13 that right? l, 14 A. Documentation that grows through that whole inspection i 15 process.
16 Q. Are there any other documentation that you're aware of 17 that would describe significant response, significant corrective N
'i is action taken?
t .!.
19 No. That closes the loop on all of those. They all have f A.
20 to be cleared up before the job is ultimately finished.
Q. In October, the Catawba facility was the subject of 21
,'82, 22 an INPO Self-Initiated Evaluation. ')
I '
h 23 A. That Self-Initiated Evaluation concept was one of the two !
e n
24 alternatives that we looked at in what was called Phase 1 of l 25 the construction project evaluation effort.- When we met with
]
l h 136 k_
W^ - . ,
i
~
I i INPO management and a number of industry people in January of 2 '82, we said we need to do three things: we need to develop 3 a criteria that will be a basis for future evaluations, which d we did,'which they did.
~~
I didn't. Second thing we wanted to 5 . do was conduct several pilot evaluations with a team trained I
$ l by INPO drawing on their knowledge and experience in conducting 7 operational evaluations; and they have already been through 3 all of the plants, operating plants, from that standpoint. So 7 in the Summer, we conducted these two pilot evaluations all i 'O the time, massaging it and improving it and creating the il criteria that were adopted, as I said at that time, the first 12 draft of the INPO criteria. Then we asked every utility in the 13 country that was not too close to completion of the plant, so
( 'd it would be meaningful the work that we were doing,to conduct ~
15 a self-initiated evaluation to the INPO criteria. It was not lo,done by INPO, but it was done by various methods. Left up i
'7 ' to individual utilities to either do it themselves, join.
! '8 with another utility, and do it, or hire a contractor and do it. We chose to join with TVA and we had a team of half Duke 20
, people and half TVA people to conduct our self-initiated 21 evaluations firstlhere in our Catewba Plant and then six 22 weeks later, over at one of.their plants.
23 Same team?
Q.
24 A. We had the same team when we were over here, TVA was 1
i 25 manager of the Task Force, and when we were over there, one of 137 k
+ -
. . , = . , . -
I
. our people was manager of the Task Force, but all the same j 2 people were involved for the two.
I 3 Q. What was the TVA facility that was done?
J A.' Bellefont.
5 Q. What other criteria called that were adopted, the title 6 or name for those?
7 A. I believe it's Called Construction Project Evaluation.
B It's a term I have used. I think that's what they're called.
i 7 Q. Construction Project Evaluation Criteria? I 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Is that a published set of INPO standards?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. About the Summer, late Summer of '82, that's when it i
l
(. 14 !would be current? ;
is A. There was a version then. There have been some revisions
!$ to it since, and it would be the basis for the INPO evalu-17 ' ations which will take place in the future. Phase 2 of it !
l
'8 is programmed as INPO now makes a part of their budget and l l l' they are committed to the resources to do the evaluation
.l 20 l themselves.
I 21 Am I understanding correctly that the evaluation was done -
lQ. -
22i in October at Catawba?'
23 A. I think it was October. I i.
24 Q. That was part of the pilot project to develop the standards?
25 A. I guess I didn't really carry out what we agreed Lo do when;
. 138 ,
1
?
f j " -~ ~ .
" .. ._ .: . . _.. ; _;~ __ - - - - -
/ .
we made our plans in January of '82, is that by the end of the , .
l 2 year, we would run the pilot program. We would have self-3 initiated evaluations at all of the plants with results of d th'at guing to INPO for them to read what they could out of 5 it to assist in Phase 2, and we would make a decision early 6! in '83 as to whether or not we are going to have INPO teams to 7 do evaluations or whether we thought the Construction Project l
a Evaluation effort showed us something that would make us want 9 to do it that way. It had the obvious advantage of getting 70 your management more involved in the construction project. It I' has the disadvantage that you don't have a trained team of I2 l people who learned from going to project to project to project i
I
'3 ] the decision made by the INPO Board and supported by the
( ' industry that the INPO teams were best and would give us the is ' best insight into how well we were doing.
'1 I6 Q. In other words, approve the team that used consistent I
17Ipeople to evaluate? I
'8 A. The same group of people that would do it time after time
which is the approach we sort of expected to end up with 20
- because that's' the way we ended up in the operational area, i
f 21 lbut we wanted to g explore it.
22 l Q. Are those INPO teams formed now?
I 23 I A. Yes, that was Jim Wells' doing. They finished one or two 24 and are on either the second or third one now. .
j 25 Q. Are they going to evaluate Catawba?
139 i
l
- .; - u : _ - - - . c. =,
- .w .
- , . - ., : , . :?:. : =- . -,
. . . - - - =
_- g t
A. Yes.
( 2 Q. When is that going to happen? i ,
3 A. During the end of this year, as I recall.
4 *Q. They look at both units?
l They look at the project, so they look at both units. They 5 ! A.
1 6' look wherever the work is going on.
7 Q. It's a construction? ,
8 A. It's construction.
t 9-Q. Do you have a clear time to understand when they will do i t lo'it at Catawba?
11 I Yes, there is a date. I just don't recall it.
A.
. 12 Q. The Fall?
'3 A. It's October or November. I I
b What were the results of the self-initiated evaluation l id O.
15 of October, '82?
! '6 I A. No major findings is I think was the term they called, I
17 very comprehensive look at a lot of areas and from findings }
l 18 I think was the word they used, and we responded to each one l' of those as to whether we thought it was a valid finding or 20 I not and what we were going to do as a result of that.
s I
.l l
21 ! g , .By findings, those findings would be recommendations for -
l\ .!
lj 22 improvement or deficiencies? ,
i A. htere they would assure we got some input from TVA people 23
! i ir Obviously,i j 24 that say we are sure we can do that in a better way.
25 and reported that we had an exit interview of a report.that day l
140
~
i l\ **
^
^I
~' '
....,-__,1, f. C ,^~ **l' T_*:,1 . _ ._ ,
fy'~~ . . _ , _ P C , ' * * * -- , fi:t * ,- -
.=
i
/ I thattherewerenomajorfindings,nosignificantdeficiencies,'l
( 2 but some opportunities for improvement.
3 Q. What were the most important of those?
~
d A.- I don't recall anything that jumps out at me.
5 O. Were you aware of a recommendation regarding the trending
$ of construction deficiencies identified in the R-2 Procedure?
7 A. It may well have been that was the impetus that caused B us to ask Construction to start doing that work rather than 9
QA. l 10 They now trend R-2's?
Q.
I' A. Yes.
12 . Q . They didn't do that before?
'3 A. I believe you may be right.
( Id Q. You are aware that the R-2's as a result of the change is in procedures now are used to identify deficiencies in the
'$ welding area where they hadn't been before?
'7 A. I'm not that familiar with the change in the project.
'8 Q. Do you know whether or not deficiencies identified in welding on R-2's would have been trended before the recom-l 20 mendation was adopted?
21 A. No, I do not.,
22 iQ. Do you know when that recommendation was implemented?
23 It seems like to me our discussions were about last Summer, A.
24 the Summer of '81. I guess it was about last Summer that I ;i I- 25 was involved in some discussions about the need to have an f
141 1
- i
, in-process kind of track system that didn't get encumbered I
( 2 with all of the NRC process that helped us from a management ,
6 standpoint stay right on top of their work.
3 4 .Q . - I deally was addressing the change in trending of R-2's 5' recommended by the self-initiated now.
3 A. I'm not sure when that occurred. I did charge the 7 Quality Assurance Department in following-up on each one of a those findings and that was done.
9 Q. Did the self-initiated evaluation result in a rating of io the facility overall? .
11 A. No.
12 Q. That format is just not used?
13 A. No, INPO did look at all of the reports,as I recall, and
() - 14 they pulled out sort of a compendium of good practices that is they wanted to call to everybody's attention that came out I
to of that.
17 Q. At Catawba?
- is A. No, that was for all of the plants. They extracted what f to were identified as good practices from each one and brought 20 that to everyone's attention.
21 Q. No rating or ranga of facilities?
22 I A. That's not heir practice. !
23 Q. Who served on the Duke portion of that team? l 24 A. We had ten people drawn from areas of our company that are
- 25 not directly involved in the Catawba Design or Construction.
- 142 b
L l
? .
- .~., . . . . . . . . . , . , , ,
5
- w " g -*m 4- ,
_- t 1
i / I
? They came out of QA Construction or other-- i
( 2 Q. Can you recall any of the people? , j i
3 A. Al Huggett was our team captain.
4 Q~. . Is-he in the Construction Department?
5=A. He's in the Engineering Department at that time. He is o on my staff now. He was in the process of coming to my staff, l 7 and that was one of the responsibilities we had selected him 3 right at the end of his assignment.
9 Q. What does he do for you now?
10 ' A . He is actually in Project Control but he primari.I.y works
! 11 iin the support of some industry activities involved in--
1 l 12 Q. INPO activities?
13 A. Not INPO tight now. Atomic Industrial Forum and a couple
( 14 of others.
15 Q. Who else was on that team that you can recall?
16 A. Several people from Engineering, Wyke, Edmonds, I may be 17 wrong, I think it's Wyke and Edmonds, and Carrie York from j la the Construction Department, Lane Freiz from the Construction l
19 Department.
t i 20 Q. From Quality Assurance?
21 A. Yes, but I ca,n't recall who it was right now.
22 Q. Are you familiar with a team that has been organized under 23 Mr. Bradley's chairmanship that reviews the evaluation of L
24 nonconforming items?
25 A. That was part of that discussion that I referenced earlier .
L :
h 143 i l . i d'
l
. , , ,..y . . . .
4
. / i I l last year where we discussed philosophically I guess you mightj
( 2 say at my level what we wanted to do and the department heads l ;
i 3 put together a progranypart of which was this generic review a (ask force, and I did know, I do know that Bill Bradley was I
5 Chairman of that group.
6 Q. Do you see their work?
7 A. No, I don't review their work.
Do they ever report on the results of their work? I 8 Q.
I 9 A. Not directly to me. I have asked about how we are doing toiwith respect to meeting our plan and our schedule for ;
it implementing the various things that were in the original 12 plan.
13 Q. What original plan do you have reference to?
( 14 A. The results on meetings that I had with our department heads 15 and meetings they had together and, say, generically whether 16 , the things we wanted to do and make sure that we are not 17 overusing or underusing the nonconforming items system and that
] 18 we are doing a better than adequate job at looking at those
- i 19 generically.
20 Q. Is there a document that reflects that plan?
21 A. I suppose so,.,
22 Q. Would it be a memo from you?
23 A. No, it was put together by that group of department heads.
24 Q. Who are those department heads?
j 25 A. George Grier, Quality Assurance; and Bob Dick, Construction; I
144 R
j L
l
.. . . . - -, .... ,. .....=_:,...- .a .: , .
.. z . .. .
. w:.
i i
e 6 i
Lynwood Dale in Design Engineering. :
( I 2 Q. This would have been last Summer, the Summer of '82?
3 A. Last Summer, as I recall was about the culmination of d that, "so that work on generic implications of the NCI's, that 5';really was the driving impetus for sort of an industry-wide
$ emphasis on that sort of thing.
7 Q. The plan would have been earlier than the Summer of '82 a then?
i 9 A. I don't recall exactly. I just recall our discussion.
'O Just to be clear, they were totally independent of the welding li area.
12 Q. It affected the welding area, didn't it?
13 A. It affected the Construction, Design, QA, everybody.
'd O. It affected the identification of nonconforming items?
15
.A. No, it was primarily aimed in my recollection ac making 16 sure from a generic implication standpoint that we were making 37-a good look at every NCI.
'8
] Q. That's the team you're talking about, Mr. Bradley's group, 19 but you said--
20 A. In develop'ing that as an in-process sort of thing that 21 we no longer had-- felt any need to have this after the fact
- 22 -
review of NCI's.
23 Q. Let me understand this. Was this plan'about the way of ,
24 changing or documenting deficiencies away from NCI's, was'that 1
25 l in the process of being implemented prior to the Welding l 145 k I
~
e e
l;..,..-.._.
- e- --
, . .y , _ . .
..- - n.
. . . - - - . + . , . ..
E i
l /
- ' Inspector concerns?
2 A. I can't answer that. I have no recollection that they were.
3 tied together in any way, not in my mind, they weren't.
d d.~ We'll, fine.
5'A. Because we had met a year prior to that in some discussions 6 about that kind of effort.
7 Q. Yes, but what I want to understand is not whether you thin %
8 they are linked but I want to understand in time which came
' first, do you know whether or not the changes in the handling
'O of NCI's relative to in-process sorts of identification came
" first?
12 I don't know.
A. I can't answer that.
'3 Q. Who would know?
(. 'd A. Any one of those that I mentioned; George Grier would know.
15 Mr. Grier may need to be put under the gun again here, Q.
16 Mr. Owen.
'7 MR. GIBSON: You spent your nickel.
! '8 Q. It's convenient that these matters in describing the way i NCI handled it, never came up in Mr. Grier's deposition.
20 If MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, we discussed that once.
21 that's a question, we'll answer that; but his deposition 22 Perhaps you may not have asked reflects what it reflects.
23 the question, but that item was mentioned three times in the 2' notes that we have of this deposition and the transcript will 25 '
g reflect what it covers. ,
n
- 146 k
L
^
[
4 4
O ^~ '"" * %
. "' b.,.
O w - q - p e, ., , 4 ,
I I O. I certainly invite you to point that out to me, counsel, ,
( '
2 if that is the case.
3 MR. GIBSON: The transcript will reflect what it reflects.
J Please do point that out to me when we have a chance. What Q.
5 , other devices besides-- what other work groups, if any
$ besides this NCI review team, were developed in response to 1
7 this plan? ,
I i A. Which plan?
9 , 0. The plan you have been talking about, sir, the plan is i
'O I your word not mine, the plan that I'm dealing with, non-l 11 l conforming items.
12 lj A.That was the plan.
1 -
That is it, that task force period? ;
13 l Q.
( 14 A. As far as I recall. The thrust of my interest was seeing 15 that we were getting, milking all we could, out of NCI's i$ from the standpoint of generic implications.
17 Q. But you didn't write as many of them up in using process is ,. controls for things that you otherwise would have used NCI's I to for?
I 20 A. Obviously that was an improvement. I don't know of any 2'
other. /
22 Q. Did you approve-- I want to show you Exhibit 5 to, I 23 believe it's Mr. Bradley's deposition. Did you approve this 24 implementation of nonconformance evaluation team procedure? )
25 A. I don't recall having seen this before. That doesn't mean
' 147
{ -
I
~ ' ' ' -' .- . .i , ,, ; ~ ,., : r w .
~_~,__ .* 73 _- ,
I !
i I I that I haven't. I see lots of things everyday, but I don't j
( 2 recall. I certainly didn't sign it. -
3 Q. Your name doesn't appear on that?
d
,A. This is part of the implementation, and our discussions, 5
and there would be no reason for me to have to see it.
- You don't recall seeing it?
Q.
7
'A. No.
8 Q. Or approving it?
A. No.
l .
10fQ. Is that right?
A. It would not be necessary for me to approve it. If it had, 12 I would have signed it.
'3 Q. I'm going to show you Exhibit 4, I think also Mr. Bradley's' deposition, July 8, 1972, memo to file. Nonconformance is team's training. Did you ever see that document?
'* A. No.
Q. It says here in parallel with but not related to the is resolution of inspector concerns, the company will initiate
! ic an NCI evaluation team. This team will be charged with
. 20 t improving the overall quality of NCI resolutions by various 21 means, et ceteray The memo is dated July 8,1982. Does that reflect that the team was organized subsequent to that date?
23 A. It would infer- to me that our discussion, and I was 24 talking about that I held with the department heads in order i 25
! to carry out that work, is supported by that. That would 148 !
(- i.
l s i
- y ,
- I I
/ l.
l
' indicate that our meeting was earlier than that, which was part'
( l 2 of the implementation that I charged each of the' department i 3 heads with. Certainly consistent with my recollection that 4 it might have been going on in parallel although it was not 5 related to the other--
6 Q. This happened to be attached to one of the objectives of 7 the Welding Inspector Task Force Recommendations?
3 A. Yes.
9 Q. I want to show you Exhibit 6 to Mr. Bradley's deposition 10 ; September 3, 1982, memo, reflecting a memo at which you are il findicated to have been in attendance, do you recall that 12 meeting?
13 A. I recall the meeting. You asked if I recall the meeting
( 14 and I recall the meeting.
15 Q. W. H. Owen made a brief statement in regard to INPO 16 Self-Initiated Evaluation to be conducted at Catawba in ,
17 September. He assured Kim Van Doorn he is the resident i
18 inspector, right?
I 19 A. Yes.
20 , 0 That we would keep him informed of progress of this 21 evaluation and share results with him. Have you shared those 22' l results with Mr. Van Doorn?
23 A. We have certainly. To my knowledge, offered to; I don't 24 know that he has looked at it, but we have certainly of fered
- 25 to.
149
(
6
- - . . .. . _ . . . _ , - . . _ _ _ _ _ . . .. .~,. . . _ , , , _ , , , . . , , ,
l
, l -
i I
Q. How do you know, have you offered it to him?
(, 2 I
A. I said to my knowledge, we have offered it to him. '
My 3
advice to our folks was let's make it available. I believe d
we made a trip, as I recall, to Atlanta to describe in summary 5
form those results and offered to send them a copy if they 6
j wanted or to share the results.
7 Q. When did you go to Atlanta?
8 A. I don't recall.
O. Would it have been after October?
10 A. It had to be after October. It was after the report which l
'I was near the end of the year, near the first of this year 12 or something.
'3 Q. Did you meet with Mr. O'Reilly?
(. 'd A. We met with a group of people there. I can't-- five or is six people were present.
Q. Mr. O'Reilly was there?
'7 A. He was there and five or six of his staff people.
! '8 Q. Mr. Van Doorn there, do you recall?
I'
! A. I'm not sure. I don't believe so. I just don't recall.
o 20 Q. Do you recall providing him with any written report, 21 either the writted results of the INPO report or--
22 g, 7.'m not aware that it went to him.
23
, Q. Anything go to them, a written report?
A. NothingthatI'mawareofexceptthatverbalpresentation.l i
25 j Q. Did you make the presentation? ;
a '
150 ;
k.
- )
.i
- v. . .-.___
. . . - . .,.._..;.._.___,_,m
s
= l
- i
' l i A. No, I made an introduction, and I believe George Grier {
l
[ 2 made that. / . /
I !
3 Q. Are you informed of any significant findings by the 4 Bradley NCI Review Team?
5 ; A. Have I been? ,
o Q. Yes.
7 A. No.
a Q. That's all I have. Thank you.
9 EXAMINATION: (By Mr. Gibson) 10 Q. Mr. Owen, Mr. Guild asked you some questions concerning 11 ' harassment and possible findings. Do you remember those 12 general questions about harassment?
13 A. Yes, sir.
( 14 Q. Is it possible, as you understand the Duke procedures, -
15 for an incident or an allegation involving harassment to be 1$ resolved and action taken without the necessity of a recourse 17 being filed?
I t la A. Certainly.
L l 19 Q. In an incident where harassment is alleged to have 20 occurred and a' recourse is filed, is it possible, as you under-21 stand the procedures, for that incident to be resolved whatever 22 the finding at a stage of the recourse prior to your 23 getting involved in it?
24 A. Yes, it could be resolved at either of two levels 25 before I would be aware of it.
151 LL a
l!
L L- - ~- -
.c - . . . , , ,... _ , ,. ., , ,_ , . .. . , _ . . , . . . . , , ,.
t -
e l Q. Mr. Guild asked you some questions about hypothetical !
( 2 or real or alleged incidents of harassment that are alleged to' 3
have occurred off the Duke work site. Does Duke management d condone any kind of harassment or the kind of incidents 5t described by Mr. Guild as a part of its management philosophy?
6 A. Certainly not. Our policy says we don't condone harass-7 ment in any form. 3 8
Q. Finally, are you aware of anything that would cause you
' to question whether the Catawba Nuclear Station is safely
'O , built?
II A. Absolutely not.
12 13 WARREN H. OWEN .
(-
15 16 17
'l
'i 18 19 20 l
t i
23 l 24 I
- 1 1
25 5
152 i
(-
i 1
IVA _j___;-- ;_ - - -l AE -
- - - -. ?:,*.' ~ ' :l .* ,.- ,._..; ~ "; **lll G', ' ..~
', /
"( STATE OF NORTH CAROLE!A )
/
) CERTIFICATE 2
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG )
3 .. :
A 5
I, the undersigned Commissioner and Notary Public, in and 6
for the State of North Carolina, do hereby certify that 7
Warren H. Owen was duly sworn prior to the taking of his 8
deposition.
I do hereby certify that the foregoing one hundred fifty-
'O two pages constitute a true and accurate transcript of the evidence given by the said witness as taken down by me and 12 transcribed under my supervision.
'3 This the eighth day of August, 1983.
(- 14 15 16 BARBARA V. HAAS Commissioner and 37 Notary Public i
, jg My Commission Expires:
April 23, 1987 I
19 20 21 ,I 22 23 24
.i 25 153 ,
i 4
4 y::- - - . .
= - : . m . :,y. . . ... .--, .:..
. w. . , ,.. . .. . .... . , . , , . . . . g
I 1 i , l a
,. I INDEX 2
3 Exhibit 1 Page 68; Line 5 4 Exhibit 2 Page 83; Line 8 5 Exhibit 3 Page 85; Line 6 6 Exhibit 4 Page 85; Line 17 ,
7 Exhibit 5 Page 128; Line 16 8 ,
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I 16 17 i
f I 18 19
! 20 t
j 21 ,
h
- 22 ,
i 24 25 I
. 154 I
'l i
b i
l l,
.C ;; : ~: :...:
- 7 -.:::. T. : .,y . . . . ' ' ~ .. .*:';:,*. ;_ . c . - .. .. : ~ ~ .;:L, ~..,;, l,: ": ,,. , , ; .. ;*: ;n:.::-
c
' ~'