ML20082C166

Transcript of DF Markle Deposition in Charlotte,Nc.Pp 1-24

ML20082C166
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	07/15/1983
From:	Markle D DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20082C119	List: ML20082C124 ML20082C127 ML20082C134 ML20082C139 ML20082C142 ML20082C147 ML20082C154 ML20082C163 ML20082C166
References
FOIA-83-434 NUDOCS 8311210484
Download: ML20082C166 (24)

Text

'

4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CObD1ISSION 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, proceeded to take the deposition of Donald Franklin Markle on the fif teenth day of July, 1983, beginning at 4:20 o' clock

( p.m. in the offices of Duke Power Company, South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina.

DEPOSITION OF DONALD FRANKLIN MARKLE l

J i

l i

44o Col.d Rd.

Assc>ciatec n o s m o. ,

Chorlotte NC. tatu Court porters 704 364 3i7s

('

A#

8311210484 830825 PDR FOIA AHLERS83-434 PDR

E o

DONALD FRANKLIN MARKLE, being first duly sworn, testified as 2 follows:

3 EXAMIN T. TION : (By Mr. Guild)

J MR. GIBSON: Mr. Markle is available for deposition.

5 A couple of quick procedural matters. I assume we are

$ proceeding under our familiar set of stipulations?

I 7 l0 Yes.

i 9 MR. GIBSON: Present are Mr. Bell and !!r. Grier. As

• indicated to you yesterday, Mr. Markle would attempt during i3 the morning to see if any other documents relating to welding li and the nonconformance evaluation teata existed. Mr. Markle

'2 . has discovered that one item was not included, and we are l

13 l making that available today. Also, he discovered that in

( " your set, one packet was incomplete, so he has added other

'5 i documents to make it complete, and we're giving you the docu-1 S ments you already have to make the set complete. Now that I l 17 ' have confused you, you can ask him what these are.

'a,Q. Which NCI was incomplete?

'9 A. What happened, this one here, what you received was just 20 the cover letter and the sixteen evaluation on theLback without  ;

21 the.NCI, so I got'a copy, a good copy of the-NCI, and inserted 22 l that.

23 The NCI' 155867 Q.

24 A. Yes, sir. This one her1 was inadvertently mixed up and.

25. had a cover sheet carrying the NCI number 143 something which

. . 2L .t :

L.

• l

a was on an electrical problem and underneath the cover sheet ,

(

1 2 for it was NCI 15405 which is a welding problem, so I separated 3 that out and got you the correct NCI that you really should J have.

5 Q. That's 15405?

6 A. Yes, sir.

Let's kind of start at the beginning again. Mr. Markle, 7

Q.

8 for the record, your full name, please.

• ,A. Donald Franklin Markle.

I I 10 O . What position do you hold with the company?

l ti iA. I'm a Senior Quality Assurance Specialist.

12 Q. To whom do you report, sir?

,l 33 A. Mr. Clarence Robinson.

( 'd I Q. Who is Mr. Robinson?

15 A. Mr. Robinson is the Supervisor.for the QA Vendors.

'$ Mechanical Group.

37 Is that your area of work?

Q.

is A. Yes, sir.

O. QA Vendors Mechanical?-

20iA. Yes, sir.

21 Q.- What are your principal duties?

22 A. Inthisarea,principalduties-aredoingsurveying, audits,l 23 and evaluations of our vendors plus surveillance and equipment l 2d that they supply to us. As an additional duty, I was assigned '

25 to the NCI Evaluation Team. i 3 4 k.

- -. - . . . . .  :.: . a _ . : a _

i

e-

~ ~ ~ -

l '

Q. What is your professional training and experience,

{

1 I

'I Mr. Markle?

3 ! A. - I entered the Navy in 1954 and after boot camp, attended l i l

4 ' Machinists Mate Class A School, graduating first in the class, I

5 and being a smart fellow, I was then, I had the ability to o choose what ship I wanted to go to out of a list of about i ,

I

)

7 ;five hundred ships they had, and I picked a destroyer.

i j a l went aboard there as a fireman apprentice and less than four i I 7 years, had advanced to First Class, whereupon I got out of the 1

i 1

' 10INavy in 1958 for a grand total of twenty-six days because it jwas during the height of the recession, and I decided that the i

11 I would go back in the Navy. And I 12loutsidewasn'tsogood.

$ i I went aboard 4

13 l decided to make it a car.eer and re-enlisted. 1

(-

4 l

14l:another destroyer and with less than eight years in service, I

15'was promoted to Chief Petty Officer; just prior to being pro-4 i

1$ jmoted to Chief Petty Officer in 1960, I applied for and was I

accepted to Nuclear Power School. I attended six months of i 17 IB ' Nuclear Power School basic training in New London, Connecticut, t

i i

19 and six months of proto-type training in ' West Milton, New York, L

After that, I

)

20,where I was the first one to qualify in-house.

21 volunteered for submarines because the money seemed a little 1 22 ! better and went to Basic Submarine School in New London, 23 Connecticut. From there, I was assigned to the USS Triton,-

24 which was in overhaul'in the Electric. Boat Company-in Gratin.

25 Performed duties as a reactor to supervisor and Engine Room 2 .

t 4

k. ,

I

. . . ~ . . . . . . .

. . . _ ~ . - . --

1 and Auxiliary Room 2 supervisor. Had about forty-five people

{

2 working for me at that time. Came out of the shipyard, stayed  !

3 i on the Triton for about four years, went to shore duty as an 4

i instructor at Basic Submarine School, where I took the test I was ultimately selected 5 , for advancement to Warrant Of ficer.

6 for Warrant and from there, I went to Damage Control Assistant 7 School in Philadelphia. This school consisted of firefighting ej techniques and biological and chemical warfare and things like

• lthat.

From there, I was assigned to the USS Orion as the '

i t

10,R2 Division Repairs Officer, and that capacity, I would repair il i

both diesel and nuclear powered submarines. Also, while on 12 Orion, I picked up colateral duties of Nuclear Repairs Of ficer 13 Planning and Estimating Officer. In this capacity, I would

( 14 Jwrite all the repair procedures for any nuclear type job on 6.- At is , any of the submarines assigned to Submarine Squadron 16 : I that time, R2 Division, we had about two hundred and fifty 17 personnel working for me.

18 Q. In Charleston?

1* A. No, this was in Norfolk, Virginia. Orion got transferred 20,to Charleston later on; just prior to leaving the Orion, I 21 did a tour of six months as Assistant Repairs Officer where 22 I had the whole repair department working basically for me, i i

23 which amounted to about two thousand people. And, of course, j 2d you have all of the different division officers reporting to '{

25 you then. From there I was assigned to the USS L. Y.-Spear i

5 k

s which was a brand new submarine tender being built in the 2 Full River Shipyard in Quincy, Mass., and I was assigned as 3 the Damage Control Assistant. We completed building the ship  !

4 .and took it to Norfolk and outfitted it, and we went to i

5 , Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where we went through refresher training 6iand the primary thing on refresher training was training the 7 Crew to handle any type of battle damage or any type of fire, B conditions aboard ship and all. And we left there with the 7 highest mark in the capital ship or ship the size that the i

10 [ Spear had received since they had started refresher training i

11 Idown there, which I felt was very significant. We got back 12l i to Norfolk and af ter spending about twelve weeks out of Norfolk 13 and away from my family and the Captain came up to me and said:

\r - 14 " Don, I hate to ask you this, but how would you like to go 15 to the USS Kitty Hawk," which is a submarine rescue vessel, I$ as the engineer?

17 A. I said that didn't sound too bad to me. I would be glad to IB ' do it if that's where. the Navy wanted me to go. I proceeded 19 to get a little more information on it. This happened to be 20 on a Thursday. He said: "You will report aboard there on 21 Friday. This is 'not really the worst of it. In two weeks, 22 the ship will be leaving for the Mediterranean for a six month cruise. Do you still want to go?" I. decided that I would becautK 23 2d it would help me toward promotion, so he said: "Now, for the 25 worst of the.whole deal is the two weeks between now and when 6 l-

o

~ __ _ _ _ _ . . _- - . . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . ._ ,

you go to the Mediterranean, you will be going out to Little

(

i 2 Creek Amphibious Base for refresher training for the Kitty i 1  !!awk who was thrown out of there six months ago for a bad J attitude." Having just gone through that, I was really ready 5 for them. That week, I spent probably about seventy-two hours I

$ taking enough information and getting some things through the 7 Supply Department to outfit the Kitty llawk to be ready to go l l

8 t to refresher training.

k Q. Mr. Markle, I hate to do this to you, sir, what I want .

10 to find out is what the Orion is doing up at Goose Creek, t il but our time rapidly is evaporating, and I'll have to ask you

'2 to tell me first how you came to work for Duke Power Company.

'3 A. Well, there's a couple of other jobs I ought to.tell you

( 14 '.about first, but my last job in the Navy, by the way, prior to I

'5l coming to Duke was Force Training Officer for Com Sub Land,

{

i l t '$ ! and I didn't have too many people working for me, -but I had a 17 budget of over 3.7 billion dollars. I didn't understand what 18 a million was, let alone 3.7 billion. I came to work for

'9 Duke after retirement in the Navy,.after twenty-two years of 20 service, and I came to work for Duke in 1976. I l

21 Q. What was your position when you came to work?

22 l A.

i I was a Quality Assurance Specialist.

^

23 Q. Was that the position you held before your promotion to )

{

24 Senior'QA Specialist?

l 25 g, y,,,

7-b.

I

.. m _ _ _ _

e ~

s Q. What did you do as Senior QA Specialist? ,

(

2 A. As QA Specialist, I worked toward qualifying as an auditor ;i 3 ' and I did surveillance on equipment we were buying.

4 Q. Vendor surveillance?

5 . A. Yes, sir.

$ Q. When were you appointed to the Nonconformance Evaluation 7

l Team?

i 3 l A. In August of '82.

i

? l0. Has that work taken a significant amount of your time?

i It depends on how you classify significant. It takes a

'O l A.

i

't l goodly portion, yes.

12 Q. Give me an idea of how much time that is.

13 . A . Well, other than the day we meet and we schedule to meet

( 12lonTuesdayfrom9:30inthemorningtill12:00,wehave I

15 ', extended them several times because we get a little behind to 16 a full day, and I would say it would take at least a day and 17 a half of the week that I was available with NCI Team.

'8 Q. So another day besides the morning you typically spent N on Tuesday?

20 !A. Well, I'll say a day and a half because a lot of times we 21 worked a whole-day'.

You spent another half day outside doing other work involv-

~

22 Q.

23 ing the team?

2d A. Uh-huh.

25 Q. -You met every week? .

i 8- j i ( I i'

+

s A. Well, not every week. There have been some weeks when we ,

i

(  !

2 haven't. I've been able to get a quorum or Mr. Bradley was  :

3 not available.

4 ,Q. Who were the other members of the team?

5 A. Mike Couch.

What area does he work in? What is his position?

6 Q.

(

A. He works at McGuire Nuclear Station. He's a Senior j

7 9iEngineer. Jim Crenshaw, he works in Electrical Design

• lEngiraeringGroupandisaSeniorEngineer.

10 Q. All right, sir.

11 A. Steve Van Mossen, he works at-- over in the Wachovia i 12 Building, and he's a Senior Engineer, and Raj-- boy, you've I 13 ;got me on this name, but

( id Q. R-A-J7 15 A. Yes, R-A-J Bhatnager.

i 16 Q. What does that gentleman doi What is his position?

17 A. He's a Senior Engineer Civil Design.

18 Q. Tell me what your. understanding is of the mission of the 19 ' Nonconformance Evaluation Team, Mr. Markle.

20 A. Well, the Nonconformance Evaluation Team was set up to--

21

, remember, this is my version, was set up_to more or less .

l 22 streamlineormakemoreefficientthemeansofhandlingNCI's.j i 23 We were not in the flow, the natural or normal flow path, of l 24 the NCI's, but we would look at them as an after-the-fact 25 review to see that several things, dispositions, were correct.

9 i

(

The Criteria 16 Evaluation was correct. Also, as a sidelight,

(

2 I we were looking at the time frame from origination to dispo- .

3 sition a,dn comprehension.

a 0. What about the time frame? ,

5 A. Seeing what the span was and finding if there would be j i

s maybe a more expedient manner to get the answer we required.

O. See if it took too long to resolve the NCI?

3 A. Not really too long, but to see if the time frame really j f

7 between the disposition and the Criteria 16 was made a little j l

a long, yes, sir.

I iI Q. Help me understand. By disposition, you mean corrective 12 action taken on that specific deficiency? What do you mean >

13 disposition to Criterion 167

( 14 A. When an NCI is written, it's sent to the appropriate people 5 for disposition. Disposition in my view right now is the 16 action required to correct the nonconformance.

17 Q. Then from that point in time to the correction of the 18 nonconformance to what?

19 A. To the nvaluation of the Criterion 16 and in_no case, did 20 .we find the experience were really extensive.

21 Q. Who was responsible for the Criterion 16 Evaluation?

22 A. On which NCI, sir?

23 Q. As a general matter, matter of policy or procedure or prac-24 tice, much more important, practice.

A. People who are responsible for that vary throughout the 4

25

-~. .m.. . _ . .

, company. You couldn't name just one person.

(

2 Q. How was the matter of practice, would it be determined -

3 who would take responsibility for Criterion 16 Evaluation? l 4 A. That is done in the form where if the disposition of it 5 was assigned to Design Engineering, the Criteria 16 would be o I assigned to the same department who handled the disposition 7 but not necessarily.the same person.

B j Q. How would it be determined who in that department would 9 f take responsibility for that Criterion 16 Evaluation?

'o A.

I I really couldn't answer that because that would be up to 11] the department person.

12 Q. Does that practice vary from department to department?

13 A. No, not necessarily. I think they pretty much have a

( 14 set out program. Now you have to remember this is,I'm talking 15 about for the new change to the 0-1 and R-6.

B Q. That change being the change in effect only last month, 17 June, '83, the effective change?

18 A. Yes.

19 . Q . And now who handles those things?

l-20 A. Well, each department has somebody assigned in writing. Il 21 couldn't tell you'the names. I know for QA Mr. Bradley.

22 Q. Before, it was not necessarily in writing and not neces-23 sarily set out in writing anywhere, who for each department j j-24 handled the 16 Evaluation?

25 A. It wasn't assigned to any one person.

'll k b

o . . . ..

Q. It varied from one NCI to another?

2 ' A. Yes, depending on the area of expertise. <

1 Q. Did ,that variation result in the variation effectiveness.

4 iof Criterion 16 in your opinion?

5 A. No, sir.

5iQ. Why was it changed?

7 A. Well, I think it was changed mainly because there was no 3 problem with what we were doing. We just felt that to get a

? 'little more cohesiveness, I believe, I really didn't have the i

D say on why it was changed. I just know that it was.

Q. Now the results of your work are reflected in correspondenc e i

12 ' that Mr. Bradley, Chairman, directs to the appropriate people

3 1if further action needs to be taken pursuant to your work,

\ '

(^ Id Icorrect? The Team's work?

5.A. Do you mean by sending the NCI's back with a cover letter?

$ Q. Yes, the cover letter reflects what you decide needs to

'7 be done?

'S What the direction is, yes.

jA.

W!. Q And the response to that direction is contained'in the 20 correspondence that comes back?

21 A. Yes, to Mr. Bradley.

22 Q. Has your Team identified in your judgment any significant 2J items that need -to -be corrected?

24 A.- You mean in a technical nature? .

25 First technical.

Q.  %

t'4 12 i

A. No, sir, we found no real technical problems with the

(

2 resolution. I 3 i Q. Now. technical, how do you use the term technical?

d

A. Disposition or corrective action taken.

5 l Q. By using technical in the hardware sense of the term, you 6 say no significant technical problems with the resolution.

7 You're talking about procedures?

8 ! A. I mean that the disposition of the corrective action

! assigned was made in good engineering judgment.

?

I i

What I want to under ,

0 ' O. How about Criterion 16 Evaluations?

'l stand is does your team meet any significant findings with 12 respect to Criterion 16 Evaluations?

13 A. No significant findings.

Most of the NCI's were returned, I

( '4 were returned because of some phrase in there that we felt l 15 should be stronger. We didn't want to see a phrase like we 16 felt or it's felt, something like this. We wanted definite 17 statements so that it wasn't just somebody's feeling that was ta noted on there; that_there was some concrete evidence of why

, it was done.

20 O. How about the identification of the root cause of deficien-21 cies? Did you id$ntify any significant problems or need for 22 further action regarding that?

23 A. Most of the ones that we sent back for root causes, we l 24 sent back as a training thing mainly to help the people under-25 stand what root cause really was. 1 13 1 k

I

^ ~ -

.=,..-._e... w.-

/

t Q. What do you mean by that, what root cause?  ;

[ I might 2'A. Well, let me see if I can think of an example. -j 4

3 have written an NCI and said that the root cause was failure of somebody to follow a procedure or miss a whole point when,.

5;infact, this was not the case. It was the failure of

• following the process control.

Q. Give me an example of how something would be failure to

- lfollowprocesscontrol, failure to sign off on the right box? Put the right date?

.., ,A! . Failure to put down possibly the right date could be one ior missing the date, initialing it and' missing'the date, or

'2 maybe putting down the beat number and transposing two numbers, I

putting in the wrong sequence. '

( I4 O. In that case, you would determine that the root cause was

" l improperly stated. It was not a failure to follow-proce6.ure, u~

a failure to transpose numbers properly?

,7'A. Yes, sir.

You send it back and say that's what you should have

~

, Q.

10 identified as the. root cause corrected,'is that an example?

'O A. Yes, sir.

Nothing significant in termsLof failures to properly-

~

Q.

'2 identify root _causes?

3 '

A. Nothing really significant, no, sir.

I 24 Q. How about failure to' identify generic problems?.

25 A. 'I think that's a word that -gets overused quite a bit, generie I

. 14- j! :

(

think we really found anything that significant with I don't

( ,

I think I 2 finding a generic problem in an awful lot of cases, '

l i

3 pe,ople use the word generic and it's overused, really.-

a,Q. So you found cases where it was not properly used or the 5

generic problem was indicated in the resolution or in the o Criterion 16 Evaluation and it was notin fact generic in your 7 judgment?

B A. In the team's judgment.

G What would you do in that case? What did you do in those

-Q. i cases?

10 I 11 A. In those particular cases, we sent it back again as a 12 training exercise. If you look at the number of NCI's we 13l looked at, there was like some fourteen hundred tha*. the team  !

(, 14 l

looked at. We sent back seventy-three, a very small percentage.

15 O. Hcw many of those had to do with welding?

16 A. Seventeen, I believe, which is like one percent.

17 Q.

What was the most frequent area of the seventy-three that l t

18 you sent back? How did those break down, if you can tell me?

W A. I really couldn't tell you. You mean as far as--

20 Q. Well, for seventeen welding, were there twenty-five~in.

something else or' fifty in something else? Is seventeen the 21 22 'I largest single area or-give me some feeling for what the l r

l 23 significance in terms of numbers is of the seventeen weldings.l l

24 A. The only reason I know there were seventeen welding'is l

25 because I counted:the ones we turned over_and looked through 15

(

l 1

s to insure those were all. I really can't give you that good

(

2 a feel for what the other ones deal into.

3 . Q. .What is your opinion about the most frequent areas in terms; l

Was welding the most d

lofspecificcraftinthecraftarea?  ;

5 common, less common?

$ A. I don't think you could say any one stuck out as a real 7 flag, you know. I don't think there was any one area that a was real dominant. This is just speculation because, again, I

I would say 7 I have not sat down and sorted these into areas.-

G ,that there would probably be as many receiving inspection things as there is welding.

2 Q. Receiving? Vendor-related materials?

13 l A . Yes.

14 Q. Mr. Markle, I'm looking at just one that's not anything.

i 15 It's not anything out of the ordinary, just identify the form.

16 l 7 em looking at a form that says at the top " Attachment to

'7INCI Report Number Blank and Appendix B Criterion 16 Evaluation" ,

I It's 18 !It's a form and this particular example is filled out.

I*

NCI 16668. Is that form completed for every NCI?

20 A. Now?

2 21 Q. Yes.

22

.A. Not under the new procedure, no, sir.

23 Q. Under the old procedure and before the last month, was i

24 it completed for all NCI's?

25 A. There was a form attached, yes, but as far as completion, I!

16  ?

1

O would say no.

{ ,

2 Q. There was a form which wasn't completed?

4 3 A. Not.every block filled out.

4 ,Q. What was the procedure requirement at the time? Did the 5 procedure call for it to be completed for each NCI?

6 A. Unless the end of the block there was a statement saying i

7 not significant, no Criterion 16 required. I B Q. Now that would be the block that appears on the NCI 9

lQ-1A Form? f I

10 ! A. Yes, sir. ,

I 11 Q. What block is that? f 12 A. Well, you have got where it would be assigned, assigned 13 j Criteria 16 Evaluation. Assigned to and now if there was

( 14 an NA in there, it would still be a sheet attached, but no is Criteria 16.

'd ! Q. Putting NA in the Criterion 16 block on the 0-1A would i

17 iindicate what?

is A. The NCI was not significant and required a Criterion 16 l'

Evaluation.

20 Q. Under the present procedure, .when it was written NA in 21 that block, there'would be a blank form attached, correct?

22 A. There would be a form there, but on that form, the attitude' 23 is that although a criteria 16 Evaluation is not required, to 24 figure out the fact that one is not required, you basically 25 have to do one. So if you do a Criteria 16 and you find that's!

17

(

l l

i

J not required, it's not as significant an item then, then they '

2 I would have had on the form Not Sigificant Criteria 16 required.

3 Q. In the example here, line 2 says problem is significant, 4 yes, no. You would check the no block there, is that how you 5 ; would complete it? -I

! That one

$'A. Not in all cases. There would be some cases.

7 is checked not block but yet Criterion 16 has been done.

3 I

Q. It varied from individual NCI to NCI how it was done?

? !A. Somewhat.

I

' , Q. Now under the present procedure, what is done? Was the

!! -Criterion 16 Evaluation--

l There are personnel assigned at the site who assign the 12 l A.

?3 significance to the NCI. The NCI is determined to be

(- 12 significant. It's then sent to the R-6 Coordinator for that l

3 'particular department who then coordinates the response on the i

!$ 'R-6.

17 Q. That's the R-6A Form?

18 A. Yes, sir.

19 Q. R-6 Procedure governs how its handled if it's significant?

20 4 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Who is responsible for making the significant determination 22 of the NCI?

23 A. I'm not that familiar with the people's names, but there is 24 one in the department down at Catawba.

25 Q. QA have somebody?

18

(

. : . : . . . . .a -,~ . . -,. -

, - - ~ ~ '

A. Yes.

(  !

i 2 l Q.

One person who is responsible?

I 3 ' A. I really don't know. I believe there is only one down ,

J there. Maybe there is two. I don't know.

5 Q. Construction person in Construction?

6 A. Yes, I would say so.

7 Q. Design Engineering?

9 A. Uh-huh.

9 l Q. Did your team find significant-- make significant findings !

M with respect to the identification of the repetitiveness of 11 'the problems, the problems which were repetitive in your 12 judgment?

13 A. We found some that were repetitive. You're going to find

( 14 them in any system that has as many people as we have working 15 down there. Yes, we had some repetitive ones.

lo

Q. Did you make any significant findings with respect to i

17 competitive problems?

18 A. No.

l' Q. Nothing significant in that score?

20 A. No.

21 Q. What would you do typically with problems as far as action 22 by your team with problems you identified as repetitive?

23 A. We would get back to the people and tell them that the 24 correc'tive action we~ felt was right, and we would also-ask f-25 them for more training-in that particular area if it was 19 i

(. l

.~ ..

o required. In some cases where we found things that were

(

2 repetitive, it would be the fact that a number of them would 3 come in, at one time primarily because one system might be ,

a working on more at one time. ,

5 'Q. What is the most, what is the area where that occurred 3 most, if you recall?

7 A. Again, I don't think there was any area that would stick a out that, you know, that would really come out as a highlight.

? .

Q. Mr. Markle, was it your practice to go to the plant to

-- l actually inspect workmanship that was the subject of- NCI's?

't

[A. I have been to the plant, yes.

12 li Q. How often did you do that?

13 A. That would vary from month to month. It would depend also

( 14  ;,on the NCI itself. Now I would do this not as a member of the 15i : NCI team but as a member of the mechanical organization.

It Q. I'm interested as a member of the. team, would you go look 17 at any of the NCI's that were the subject of your team's review?

18 A. You mean for the team?

19 Q. As part of the team's work, as part of your duties on the 20 team?

21 A. No, that was really not part of our character to do that.

22 We looked at it after the 16 Evaluation had been completed,.and j

23 we did not look at it during the normal process. We did not 24 look at it till after-it was completed, so there was no-reason 25 to go to the site.

l 20 {*

, i

o MR. GIBSON: Mr. Guild, I believe it's 5:00 o' clock.

{

2 Let's see if we can wrap him up in the next few minutes. ,

3 j A.

We were setting back as an overview after the evaluation 4 was completed.

5,Q. It says additionally, this is quoting from the Implementati'on oi of Nonconformance Evaluation Documents, this is document 7 signed by the department heads establishing a team. Addition-8 ally since NCI resolutions are to stand on their own, the

• , team shall not normally question or communicate with those I

'O t involved in a specific NCI resolution; however, where

'I appropriate communication with NCI results may take place.

12 When did you communicate with the people involved?

'3 A. That was the letters that were sent out?

( Id Q. Just by letter?

f5 g, yes,

'6 Q. You wouldn't otherwise talk to people?

A. In that regard to the NCI's no, sir.

'8

Q.

Nor would you look at the hardware involved? l f

A. No, sir.

20 You never did as far as you know?

Q.

8 23 No, sir.

A.

22 Q. Is your team's charter to continue with the present work?

23 A. We were chartered for a year. At this point in time, 24 we should finish up the last part of August with a year.

25 We'll be looking at the NCI's now under the new system to'see  !

21 i

( l

' ~ ~ "

1 i

t if we have made some improvement along them. l

[

2 Q. The NCI's beginning with the new Q-1 Procedures beginning 3 June? -

4 ,A. Yes, sir, and the R-6.

I 5 Are you going to review R-2A's?

lQ. No, sir. We are going to be looking at Q-l's to evaluate 6'A.

7 the new procedures and new flow path of the Q-l's and R-6 8 to insure that the significant Q-l's are in fact being

• required to have an R-6.

30 Q. Do you know of any group or person responsible for Il reviewing R-2A's to determine whether they are or are not 12 appropriately upgraded to Q-l?

13 A. Yes, at the site, the QA Department does that.

( Id O. And that is specified in the R-2 Procedure?

15 ' A . Yes, sir.

I*

Q. Why is the work of your evaluation team not specified in the Q-1 Procedure?

18 A. Mainly because we are not part of the Q-1 flow. We were I' chartered as after the fact organization to l'ook at the program 20 to see that it was being handled in an expedient manner, 21 an efficiently and effective manner.

22 Q. Do you also review the number of NCI's?

23 The number?

A.

24 Q. Yes.

t 25 A. We review all of them that have been written since we were-(  !

C..

. - . . . . ... - ...-...=

i

' \

' Was one of your tasks to see that there are not excessive numbei s

[  !

2 of NCI's that are not appropriate?

3 A, .No, sir. We weren't looking at the number of them. We 4 were looking at every one that came through.

s Q. Does the team receive any trend analysis of NCI's?

6 It was available to us. It's available to all people.

A.

7 I'm sorry? ,

Q.

8 A. It's available to any of the people on the NCI Team if 9 they wanted it.

'O Q. Do you see the trend analysis in your meetings?

13 A. No, we don't look at that.

12 Thank you.

Q.

l .

13  ?

14 DONALD FRANKLIN MARKLE 15 16 17 18 19 20 a

21 22 23 1

24 25 23 k

l L

T s

i STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) I

( ) CERTIFICATE 2 COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG )

3 4

5 I, the undersigned Commissioner and Notary Public, in  ;

I i

$ and for the State of North Carolina, do hereby certify that 7 Donald Franklin Markle was duly sworn prior to the taking B of his deposition.

? l I do hereby certify that the foregoing twenty-three pages 10 constitute a true and accurate transcript of the evidence 11 given by the said witness as taken down by me and transcribed 12 under my supervision.

13 This the ninth day of August, 1983. ,

. (- n is BARBARA V. HAAS le Commissioner and Notary Public 17

My Commission Expires

18 April 23, 1987 19 20 1 21 j

l 22 0

I 23 24 25 1 24-  !

( ),

I

% -, - - - .. . . - . . i