Text

Transcript of a Vega 840817 Prefiled Testimony Re Qa/Qc Program.Supporting Documentation Encl
	ML20095D626
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/17/1984
From:	Vega A; TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20095D591	List: ML20095D589; ML20095D592; ML20095D595; ML20095D599; ML20095D601; ML20095D606; ML20095D613; ML20095D616; ML20095D621; ML20095D626; ML20095D628;
References
	OL-2, NUDOCS 8408230414
	Download: ML20095D626 (117)
	v • d • e

_ L _ _ _ _ _. .. _

l 36660 l

I t .1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O 2 eErORE Tae ATOM 1C SAFETY s t1CENS1No eOARD 3 IN THE MATTER OF )

)

4 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) DOCKET _NOS.

COMPANY, ET AL ) 50-445 5 ) 50-446 (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ) .

6 ELECTRIC' STATION, UNITS )

\p g_!S.'[gy, 1 AND 2) ) .s, y

C[f L'OCT:n v,(j

\

w ,

8 lt AUG."')m4.-h C Ec= Trac 9 g,r ED,victI na ,

CD'4X $./

/ /

10 h ty g PREFILED TESTIMONY O y 11 ANTONIO VEGA AUGUST' 17, 1984 l2 r? ~~~T P'?""~7 f . . J . * !?

p .,4/. p { dd L 2-

"'....../..-<.r 13 g_pggQ 14 15

-16 17 PREFILED TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO VEGA, taken 'on the 18 17th day of August, 1984, in the above-styled and 19 numbered cause, at Glen Rose Motor Inn located at 20 Highway 67 & FM Road 201, in the City of Glen Rose, 21 County of Somervell-and State-of Texas, before Janet 22 E. Schaffer, a Certified ~ Shorthand Reporter in and 23 for the State of Texas.

24 25 8408230414 840821 PDR T ADOCK 05000445 ppy FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

n; - _.

- _~

,g. .

-, , ;366G1:

N -

.a .

- c. -

a

~

c

,, ,x '

lif,

. .: A P PE AR ANC E S : . .

s 7yp [ --

%! I 2[ ,

BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL 1 REYNOLDS. .

x Attorneyscat Lawi ',

c3 :

12 0 0 S e v e ri t e e n t h i s t r e e t ,' .N . W . . ' ~

1 Washington,~D.C.< 20036 ,

+

4 g

-a3

!BY .

Bruce-L. Downey,<Esq. ,. l 1

75-APPEARING FOR APPLICANTS

- +

~

6

,, , c-4 -l 77 ,-

. r j

, y - - ,

~

8 '

p. >

[ s .-

. s t 10 * ' '

-~

4 .

r. , x

y. o-11 .-

e.

[

12 TO .

14 '

d.

i

Y 15'

3 s

. .' l 6 - -

1 :

c -

- ~- ' '

?

a. , . -

s s, .<-

.178;- -< - '

-s , ,

l ,

, .. - y

18 ' . -

- 19.~ .

r.,.

te.

2 0 '. ,

a

< ; 21g gs -

iE ,

\22: . .

j. -

.s_

23 .

o

,. :24 '

25. .

y . , . ,

- 5 y

~

c , ., ..

t _

-u . > s -

a

.n=.'

~

- - : ~0 - FEDERAL' COURT REPORTERS. - -

. M

., * , 5 y

~36662

^

w ?_ -w q r :s s.

$', 4

,' s '- -

. m - + -

N1

~9' I - N' L D E X *

.+ . s. - _ , .

_ 4

, g y 1 ' %

, s *~

' '?!t' '* p). 12 c 1 WITNESS: - ANTONIO'VEGA -

2 v; - , - ,,; e-4,

. L Examination.by Mr. Downey;. :-

Page -

( 3; e.

- ;;;; .+ + -

8__

- ca.r .. >

. I ' .j ' '

s['.

- 1 N - DEPOSITION -(VEG A ),. EXHIB ITS .

D',

Si' ' ' "

' ~

Exhibit" Number ~ li

.' 1 .

-R ' -

Page.7 . ,

~

E

~

i y.. L6 -'Exh i bit / N umbe r : 2 Page-15

E x h i b i t' N u m b e r;. 3 _

Page 19'

q. .s -_7 - ,

.q , -

8 -

~

.e

^ ~ "

'9- <u J, .

10 4.. ~

, ; . . ., , i ro ,

11

., 1 <.

. -t- -

I k i A i f y . '

. /

l-h 3, f

_ 31 3 4_ < .

s3= ^

, ;14, . :, w

g. - .

.e ,

y : u.

~

15 <

e '

e

. r x

]I

'1 61 , .

, . , ,. i

.. 1 . o _ .%- *

' "g.

y t.

, ~ c . ,.1.7 - -

~; _ ,

7 .V ,j ! < S .- ,,

'.1 81 .

4

a. , , T i r

=19 - ,

e . ., -

204 ,

-r .

~, r p -

- 21 ~

n.

g.-(' +

e

2 2 '

.%c 4 3

C 2 3.- ~

.'24 -

p, .

. >:'( J. -

, 2 5.

4 ?r

.,

p ,

2' ."

L *d .' ""

' FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

~ ~ '

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

[

~

o

36,66_3'

~n[h, , .,

.n .

- .. q .

. s

-c ,

w

w. .. ,1 , ANTONIO ~ VEGA,.

_q ,

<(

j: r(-- --- , , .

v). -

2 ,.:the . wi tness he reinbe f o re named ,. ha ving 'b.ee n

"< ..3 :previously duly cautioned and sworn to tell the 4- truth,.the-whole truth and nothing but the truth, ,

~

. . 5- ;was' examined on'his oath as'follows:-

9; ,

~6= , MR O DO.WNEY: -This'is the resumption of e -

7, 'the deposition of Antonio Vega. Mr.-Vega's' 8- deposit' ion ~ in this proceeding w'as commenced-upon

,. , ~ ,

J9' crosskexamination of the.Intervenor CASE. At'the

-10 conclusion of'his cross-examination, the deposition x

-~ 11 iasiadjourne'd. 'It's now being-recommenced'for the-12J purp'.ose of presenting direct evidence on behalf.of_

13 _the Applicant. Mr. Vega has previous 1.y.been. sworn o ps/ -

~

. -14 .as a' witness 1n this proceeding, and I'll remind J him 5J15 nowLthatLh"e is still testifying under oath. .

16 " EXAMINATION

~

- _17 BY'MR. DOWNEYs. .

^ . ;

.18 - Q. Mr.svega, prior'to assuming yo u r ..cu r ren t? .

F"~ _-19 position'at Comanche Peak, what.~ job did you-h'old.

7- ;20 with TUGCo? +

t. ^ 21 -A.. Prior.to becoming site QA manager, I was

i22, the Quality-Assurance Services'_Suservisor s out-of

s ... _

23. Dallas.

c. .

24 Q. Andlin that. position'as-Qual'1ty-Assurance

.p - ~

~-

2 5' , services Sup'ervisor, what contac't did-.you have;with

/

4

' O ., [. :..-.-._ _ i. _ %, _, [ . . , . _

C, .,_ a - m .. , ,

~ - . -

.- . .~ .

(

i r .

36664

> p ,.

1 the Comanche 7 Peak site QA/QC organization?

( '2~- -A.- In'my previous position I had the audit

~

. 3 function 1 reporting to me. As such, I had.close 4 contact-with-all a u'd i t a' t h a t were.done atythe site,'

5 including audits of construction, startup, testing, 6 operations and the Quality Assurance function. I

~

- ;7 - also~had a{ site ' surveillance organization t.hatu

~

(8 reported-to me in Dallas that was responsiblesf.or

'9 making sure'that all the different organizations a t'

~

.10 the site we re .. d o i ng their activities in full.

.1 1 = compliance'with our commitments.

As a result ofcthese activities~ in"your I

o i 12 Q.

~

,% 13 prior position, did-you become(familiar with the

(.J.

l' 4 operation of the QA/QC Department at Comanche' Peak? <

.. ~

15 ' ' A. 'Yes,.I did. v

,And'did. you become familiar.with the y- 16 Q;

~

17 . policies'of.that organ 1zation?, -

+

s . .

r '18 ' A '. ;Yes, . I was. .

19 Q. -

When you assumed your current _ position as-w e , .20= site QA; manager,.did.you review;the state of QA/QC

. , 21. program? < -

. 2 2C >

A. I had been, Tin contact'with thei. activities

. :23 ~in Quality Assurance'at'the site, and so to a'

2 41 certain extent -- it wasn't a review that. started /at

' k f' 25 that point, b u't I certainly did take into f

/

FEDERAL ~ COURT REPORTERS ,

>g

,.w

.-/

~

p ,

+~

36665.

1

[f'y x

f Q >

n e %,

f. ~ , .

g ,

,,- , 1:, < considera tionWhat' LI :wa's 'awa re of prior coming over.

rma.' , , , ,

J t 7 ~a ud

+ 2 O - ~I.E d i d v i's'i t . w i t h key members of my staff: to-

&' , ?. .),

W 13 . g e t t h e i r + 1.n p u t s ,c .t h e i r insights, their e v a l u a t i o'n s - ,

.e -

s4: , <,. ..their r e c o mm e n d a't i o n s ' a's ' t o w h'a t - we"l c o u l d ~ d o ? t'o : ' '

1

.m 3 - .

5 improves the) program at. c o m'a n c h e . P e a k'. N

.g . ,

65 _Q.. LIsjit fair.to.say thattyou conducted a\ ?

Q _y

~_ _

,' - 7f v' fairly' comprehensive review of1the 2 program at ,

t h' e - ,

-8' >

time you" assumed your current posit'on?-

". A .-

+g

.9. -

Takin. g into consideration'the knowledge.

. s. -.

M"!10)

~ ~ ~

that-IfbroughtLwith"me from my. previous'positi.on,f I -

3 ,

' > il?

r -

gl w o u l d ? s a y y e's '. w ,

~~ , _, _ _

11 2 Q.- A'nd 'wh a t " wa s' yo u r ; a s^s e s sm en ti o f ' th e - p r og ram n 4+.- .. . ,,

.+

~ 1:3 ' at>the. time'you completed this. review? - ,

Li ) ,, . .

~

c . y .

, ' , - 14; [ A. It'was my1 conclusion that we;had an ,

~.

t -[ ,a E < _

Y

.

L151 , effective; Quality *As'surance prosramjatsComanche' Peak.,

. ? . e

. ;16 nit ~ was;myJconclusion1that it would bedappropriate to

~ '

, v L T' 17f reemphasize some'of1the existing policies, practices,.

gp - u. + ,

U" 18 ?managentent polic'es i to all site;Qualit'yfAssurance,

u. \

N.,1 x l19[ Quality.iControl people. I felt that it'would be' O

~ appropriate to doithis, whil'e .a titheT s'ame time'.

~

7 120 f _

, , 5 21 ~ , : personally embracingvthese~ standing policies, and_

,_y -

, %;. 3 .- , _

t

)

m 722- ;g

<did . so primarily'in s a meeting that;took;placeEonl

, m u ~ ~_ . .

I stibsequently- documentedE those

?

[' 'i : 2 k March ~ 16 th . - ,

-g -

v ~,

_ ~m y;

T2 4 'i' discussions'in a memo dated Ma r c h J 2 2 nd., .19 -

~

8 4. .

nt , A "2 5? ,7 Subsequent to'that memo, I made:itc a point ~

.% ~ .

W -

4 ,

l hi;j- ,

IO= *

,u ,+

yy e-

, , ;[ : ' t u 's S+ 1

53 -c

~ ~

g f .A ~

FEDERAL COURT' REPORTERS..n f -w

~ . - . ~ .. , , - . . ,

..._--7_

t.r - p'- t .c . r .q > .

366,66 n ., 1

.e ._.

1 - .

2; - . m ,, ._

--).

,w., -

C9 s . w , ,_. - y; 1 l' toivisitiwith _- . , ..

7*

the'differen,tzQuality1 control / Quality #

3

'A

[ $12. 3, g

-I)'

'2- A'ssurance Divisions on-site, personally reempha' sized '

g;,a > '

3 ,3.7,.

'"yj .

3 fthe keyfpoints of th'e' 1e t te r: a nd ', pe rsona lly

'f y <E _ f r _

L .

e "

. g. 94- ,

expressed. support for these policies and.provided~ ,

I a.verybody:with.anEopportunity to;come.in'and express

~

i

,, '5 '

, . ju , ;.-

" M6 Lany comments,.any concer_ns lhtter, any4 observatio

~ ~

) '

g i . . .

4. .

. @ :e -! _ 7 ft h e y? m i g h t "h~a v'e relative:to any matter that~affected

, a. 7. >-

m. _.

18 ' 'their' job.)- -

7 -

s _

et f, ' 9, ., 0.- _Mr.,Vega, I want to .

pick up on a, couple .,

, = ~ : "

. ~

10c points.in:your last' answer. '

You say that..you: .

, a.

~1N

~

~ prepared'a: memorandum to;all site;QA/QC personnel.

z J _

^

12 L - ,

Ild like "you to:reviewitEe document that's b'e e'n .

.f , ' 13 marked for id'entification as Vega.Exhib'it 1 and ask' '

~ '

, % ;. A14 j you if you;can identify that document as-the- ( -

( "i o 715 memorandum you prepared. -

4,* -m , ,

~_ > - ,

-1 A. Yes. .,VegajExhibit.1 is the. memo that.I"., -

, , -' sg :1 G.

<;a , ;. ~

u

a. 7-9 17, 1 referred to. It'is edatied March 122nd., tit' is' 73 . ? <

i

~

. _ ,18 ' addressed-to,sitecQA/QC personnel. The subject.of

}' '19 thats memolis:QA policy.

q ,7 '

20' <

Q.y. Mr.s Vega,: .you-testified thatiyou met'with .

q

'j y 21 311' site QA/QC' personnel; is that correct?

e s '

,}2'

- A. ,

That I's correct.

23? _

lQ . ~ ^Did(you. meet with'them in one meeting, or -

. , n ,

v 24- '/ did' you have several me'etings with smaller groups?:

n M

'25: A .4 q Wethad}several meetings with" smaller groups.,

5

)- g g s

6 .-

m i{ .

f. ~

hgr ~FEDERAli COURT REPORTERS

! ~

, _ . - c a _ _

o ,

'36667-e: *

, / >

~

3 s ejl ~

Q. An'd id i d ( yo u . i nv'i t e those present at these-

, ~

^

[,.; f2 * (meetings tolexpressfany> concerns they had to you

. 7 g . >

3' personally?

4 = A .: Certainly, I did.

~ Andbdid they,do.so?

5 Q. -

'6 A. 'Yes. LT h'eren w as free communicationfof ideas, 7, of~. thoughts, ahd -in s'ome cases,*.concerna. ~

28- .

Q. And_did you receive, in these_ meetings, any l9 compla'ints or concerns;about harassment, 10 intimidation or th r e a't s of Quality! Control / Quality-1 1~ As'surance' personnel? -

A 1 , A. No,-I did not..

13- .Q. Did you form a judgment about whether the '

7-)3

' 14 - harassments, intimidation and threatening,offouality

15 Assurance / Quality Control'pe'rsonnel was asproblem'at "

s 16 'the' site?- .

17 A. -I concluded that it wa's not~a problem.-

e.

'18 Q.- Picking' up with,your testimony on'Vega'

[ ' 19 .

Exhibit 1,.Nr..Vega, I'd like .to direct'your 20 -attention E to. numbered paragraph one of.your

~

21-memorandum. '

- 22 ,'A.. Yes.

23 .Q. ,Why did you' include the paragraph number

. . 24J one?'_ .

'(~T.

\

' ') '25- .

.A.

I wanted to emphasize to-all. personnel that-

, p '_ -

_ FEDERAL COURT. REPORTERS-

.,- __, ._..m -

v , ,m ..

, 366G8 n- '

^

) - y eg .-

1- :the' policies that'are stated in th'is letter had been 3

,f([])- 12- existing /since-day one at. comanche Peak. TUGC0-

< >::r -

s ~3 ~ management: has be en a nd' r ema i ns ' t'o ta lly ~ c'ommi tted to- , l

. u 4' a' safe and reliable plant. I wanted to reemphasize

-that,'and I-personallySwanted-'to endorse-it myself.

5

[

6i s ? Q.. Is it fair to say, as the new man on the 7- ' block,: you wanted people to realize that you were 8 , committed to these policies? "'

-: 9 A. That is correct.

~

10 Q. And-would that be true with the other

-1 11 policies' identified in Vega Exhibit:17

, 12s , A. Yes.' Again, they repeat policies that have -

~y 13 been i n . p l a c e ', . . a n d ' I 'we'n t e d to:'make,sure that -'

eg 14 everybody understood that I personally en'dorsedithem, 15 .I personally supported them, and I w'a n t e d . t o 16 reemphasize some of these key; poin ts =Lto some of our- -

4

~

~17 ~ people.

18 Q. M r . -- V e g a , - I ' d i l i k e to direct.your' attention 19 to-paragraphLthree o f - Vega:' Exhibi t 1, and in' that'

20. paragraph.particularly~I'd like to direct your-e 21! attention to the sentence,-quote, "I wished to

22 encourage the use of the Request for'Information and 23 C1'arification asra means to communicate questions on

~

" 24-procedures and. instructions," close" quote.

^'

25' My question to you, Mr. Vega,~is, was the'

)

c" - ._ . . --

FEDERAL' COURT ~ REPORTERS

m. - - _ . _,

g- - ^m

s. v f36669=

_7 , sg - ,

, L,~ , -

v y , .

9

,_ .2

'i - * '

n W ,

^

c 7;, ,

..s e .;

t- ..L s ~

-Fw t E .. ,

, 1" RFIC anle xi siti ng s p'roced u re a t Comanche [ Peak at:theG h 1

2; g

time [you'as'sumed'your current position?L i'

,' p :

3; (A.

Y e s ,.'i t i w a s . -

The' RFIC'has' been in place s ': M'- ( .

f; ,

-.2 4 for many;yearsEat a-Comanche: Peak. It was- a2 t'ool that

.^ p' . . .

, g. y / <_ 4

'it

( ff:-;':

, ~

5

-51 ,

was specifica11yfdesigned as a-means"to clarifyLor;'

..t s.

ws '

~

. 6. provideradditiona10information'on any subject that'_, .

.9 _ i

,c 2

7 _an inspector might have'.' relevant to his procedures.7

~

8: (IJ.me rely, wanted (to ' reempha si ze -tha t Jt is' a' use f ul

48-

, ,7 ,- ,.k n

[.'

y 9 tool' and that; cit should be-taken full .advantagecof

210' i and encourage.ita use.- .

?

=

.Y , . - . _

n

~

.~[

lli Q. _Mr. Vega/: the'next-sentence in paragraph.

'r .

" m 12& three~of Vega Exhibit.1 -

read ~s,. quote, "I also wish M ,

Y

s

n;. ' mx N _'13' cto;pdint;out'.: th'e r avalIadility of Mr. B o y c e ' G r i e r e t o ;

L ). .

a=%

b f J4 1 listenSto any of you(concerns','" close; quote.'4

+

% 4 z 15 Why.,d id . yo uf, ' include {tha t ' se n tences insyour v

~

H

16 -

policy (statement? -

5 .

j .:

s - 171 A.* 'Well',0MrR GrierLhas been at-the siteLan'd:

, +

.~. : -

at_. the siteJbefore -I.~came onsboard.

-18 < wa's Mr. Grier.

+

1_9 has.been?available to li s tie n t'o any con'c erns l.-II 4

-20 wante'd'to ragain? reemphasize f his" availability and

n. .. , .. ,

^..'

, : 21, endorse the? full;availabilitycof Mr. Grier. I.

, g +-b .,

22i .

wanted toimakegsuregthat'everybo'dy again-w$s

~

'2 3 ; encourageditostake' full a d va n t a g e :o"f this. ,

i,^f* 1 ^ . -

Yv , _ . . , .

" :x 2 41 -

cf .. . Q. Istitsfair:cto.say you thoughtEMr. Grier l $?); '

l Ml M ' *i25- 's e r v e d :al., us e f ul p u r po s e and ~- you wan ted-: people to use 3

~ ,

y

~

., ' N.

[

I ~[ FEDERAL; COURT REbORTERS'

_ g -

[

-sw ;- -

+ - - ., . ._ _ , - _ , ,

7 u.

. .c .

+ . ., ,

<-i36670 c .- , ,,

, 9

, . v, -e

~

m

.+ ^ ,

e [,I[

i. .' .V., .l' his services?f. _

~

.g-a,A* _-. ' , :2 A. Yes,.that;is'correcti' x -

3? Q.1 : Skipping- dn 'd ownt a: few sentences i n' i

![

14 l pa rag raph _ threen 'o f VegaJ E x h'i b i t ~ 1,1 yo u r s t a t e d , q u o t e ,- lt

~ . .

.5l

" I-' ma i n ta i n' ' a n ' o p e n -- d o o r. p olic y .'.' Please feel free .

z. ..

' ~

s *

~

, ., 4 6.- .to visit.with?me at any,timef," close quote.. , ,

^

_ f Whatiwas the purpo'se of. including,this -

r ~

'8- . s.ta tem en t i o f f the open-door policy.infyour_ memorandum-

'9 'to-site personnel? .

Pw A -A.

'I .. wa n t e d ~ t o

.' . make sure that everybody.

~

l10-

..v. ~

i

11- understood tha't.I.am interested in any problems that-g ,

y . . f ; ,

i t, ~12. ,

.any; inspector;might have,-wh' ether th e y 'a.r e r e a'l o r -

.c ..

~. . .functioniat'the site l's to jp , 13 perceived.- Myrmain ~'

+

O

~ -

s..

...~

_~. ,, . ...

.14 ~

a 's s u r e a n effective ~ Quality: Assurance program;andEto

~

yf '

15' fprovide management s pport-for tha't QA. program. 'To

~ ._

,[e

'16 do so,:I]believe that communication-is an a b s o'l u t e~

~

1 '17 Jn'ecessity. s t , ; .

[Anfopen4 door'polisy is so'me thing ^ tha t Lis

' ~

~

18' .

e ,

~

- ~ 19 . necessary 'and some thing .:tha t .I certainly wanted to-f 12 0 emphasize and aga'in-personally,endorseEand. encourage , .

s m. . -

~

, , "21; people to use without' fear.of retribution.

xy , >

c W '22 Q. M r . Ve g' a ,' i s the open-door pol _ icy you-v .

r

>3 ^

4 23- enunciated in?Vega Exhibit'lia corporate policy? -

t ,

24: .

-A. Yes,;;it-is) ,

St'~Y N 1 ?25 Q.- A n d i t' ' s one that's in effect at a11[ levels e --,.

+

FEDERAL COURT 1 REPORTERS

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

=

36671.

1 . u e c r \ ,

t r - :)

l' at TUGCO; is'that; correct?

h

- 2 :-

^

A. >

That.is'c'orrect.

?

3 10. . 'And when did you first;become aware of that

~4. .

' policy? ,

5; A.- -I'can.go back.-to the first day that I 1

~

6~ reporte'd'to_ work at Texas' Utilities Services.when'we J7 me ti ' wi t h the pres'ident.of' Tex s Utilities' Services,:

. hl 4/W 07 8 a-gentleman named Perry &&?iiw6, who is now the c'9 'chiirman of.the board'and chief executive officer of

10. Texas: Utilities.

~

11' -Atjthat time.he emphasized his ava'ilability. -;

~

12

~

Jand his support and charged us with not only' making

~

.13 . sure that Comanche Peak met.all-the regulatory-V(5-14.' . requirements,-but that'becauseiof our Quality Assurance! involvement, ComanchefPeak' would-be' a1/

~

-15. 6 ,

16 ~ sa f e r .-:a nd a > mo re reliable p l a n t .- In this contextl

+ .17 " then,.he offered his support a'n d s ta t e d - hi s ~; -

~

18-

~

availability to-.the Quality' Assurance o r g a'n i z a t i o n'.

19 So I can trace that back to earlyi1973. -

20 Q. Mr.-Vega, directing your attention to ,

21 paragraph four of Vega Exhibit 1,-I'11: summarize- a

. =

-22 that paragraph'as being one that describes a-23 reorganization of the Quality Assurance programi 'is

-2 4 ' that affair characterization?.

T' - .~

25 A. Yes, it is.

c

, F E D'E R A L COURTEREPORTERS ,

~ -- -

g _

-'36672

q

,H 3 -

i 6

g ~

- 'l~

' O'. . What w'asithe nature of the reorganization J .

(f [) ' . 2 idescribed in\ paragraph four?

~ ~ ..

^3.

N A'.. [ Prior to..me. coming torthe site, Quality

.]Y/>/rff2l jf 4 ' Engineering r=rar+r h;d te ;;-to the site, Quality

, ~L. 4 5 ~AssuranceEsupervisor. After ~~

"-- p t 6 Q. . Mr.'Tolson?

+ 171 A. That is right. When I camerto-the'si'te, -

- 8 the QualityLAssurance --

the Quality Engineering 9 fu'nction reported to Dallas. :We felt that this was J

.10 J can improvement to-the program, al.though-we.didn't ,

- : 11 believe that there was.any problems there.

"12 One of the things that'I had heard.during

.13 our discussions and contacts =with-theJsite people-is-14 that.at- times Quality' Engineering'was seen ;as:

15 catering to the construction. organization, because

_ <16 they change their inspection procedures to address-

17. change ~s'in engineering requirements.

~

1: - -- 18 I wanted -- and'not only,myself, but my

. 19 ' s'u p e r v i s o r ,, M r . Chapman, the corporate-. manager-20- -

. Quality-Assurance ~~ wanted to.make.sure that there.

21 was~a very visibl~~e independence to : add ress this

~

f2 2 ' perception among some of the people, some of the-

> q

, 23

~~

.~i n s pe c to rs . Even t h 'o u g h this:is.not.a required

- 2'4 . ' independence, we believeothat it was~an enrichment ~

.f}.

125 to-.the previous organization. ILwholdheartedly' _

+..

,) '

_A,

+

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

= _e .e .

_ ,- - *' t 4 , ,

36673 n p. ,

~

, .1" supported it,.and I wanted again.to. personally

,m l;. j 2 en'dorse-it'and_ express the belief that the p'rimary N' '

functionlof., Quality: Engineering? organization at- ,

i >

< Comanche' Peak would contin'ue to$make'sure that

. c j; 5- D i n s p e c't i'o n p r o c'e d u r e s a d'd'r e s s' t h's design '

.t'. * '

~

r -

3 ,

-;6] requirements, ^ t h'a t : they.would be~ clea'rDand concise.

i 7 :We saw ' this as; an --improvement to' t h'e Qualityi 3 8 Ass'urance program;at ComancheoPedk.

+

9g

~

_Q. Skipping I down to th'e next paragraph In i Vega. ,

I

[10 Exhibit '1, which is. 'unnumbe r ed , yEu stateJthat you ,

} .

11 intendeditofemphasize communication ~in procedural _

l'2 changes of inspectors'; 1[s[that-a.fal1

.- N ' 13' -characterization of thattparagraph?.

y(g x -

, 14 A. Yes, it is. in n

'Why1did you. include _th'at pa r a'g ra ph ? '

15 -Q. 1 A. At times,:again, whenia change is'made.to a

,l 17 _

procedure, an inspector.may not;know the'different -

18- ' inspection programs that'we have on' site, thes

'19 -different testing programs [$ hat wo.have on site. An

<20 ~ , inspector might not be aware of the different'

. '21 elements of the Quality Assurance program that might: .

~

22' <

. render a certain i'nspection unnecessary. -

he felt. th a t' 'i t was appropriate 23 to._ explain 1 ;24 to the inspectors'in a systematic manner instances

/m

-f l's b~' 25:

~

where ~ changes were'made to p r o c e d 'u r o s .

'Why.is this s

J __ _ FEDERAL' COURT _ REPORTERS

L _

36674

' s f

.V

, 1 procedure change being_made?

Why is thevoverall

()f

. ;2 inspection function as good:or perhaps better than .

t 3 Ewhat it was'before?

c. ,

4- . At our. management level we are aware of the c

4 5 ;different elements of the Quality Assurance. program,

6. 'and-in many cases _this is.the primary: reason for our n! <

77 - so'urce'of confidence in tNe programs at.IComanche 8 Peak. ,

We wanted.to' share some of this pers'pective.

9 ~with.our' inspectors so that- they,4 too, could .

- 10 -understand how extensive and ~ how broad, and, in some 11- cases',.how redundant.~our i n s p e'c t i o n .? p r og r a m s are at

~

- 12~ Comanche Peak.

r,As 13. ,'Q.- (Mr. V e g a , f.I ' d like to direct your attention ,

L) '

14 'to~ the second document that's been' marked for-15 identification as Vega Exhibit 2, and it's a 16 ~ document of three'pages, a cover memorandum and then 4 1 17l a.two-page attachment. Would you; describe, if you-

- 18 1could, or . identify, if you.could, Vega Exhibit 2?

' 19 ~A. Yes. .ThisTdocumentDis an end'rsement o ofinn y - <-

3 20 existing policy... I' wanted to emphasize:-w i

~

.. ~ , _

- 21' Q.. Mr. Ve g a '~, . c o u l d you identify what the1

_ 22 policy is, because.the writtentrecord won't reflect

, 23 lwhat we're sesing. .

' ~

24 'A. II'm sorry; _

I was endorsing Section 14,

..\n

'"#' . 25 Revision l ', dated November 7, 1983, to the-Brown &

s. _

~

FEDERALLbbORT REPORTERS

r, J ~ .

36675 s ' l- . R o o't ' s . S u p e r v i s o r s ' H a'n'd b o o k . And the document. .

Hl) 2' 'ma r ke d Vega Exhibit 2 includes'tho4 attached 1section '.

3 out of the Brown & Root m a n u a l'. I ~ wanted Eto- l

.4 ' personally en'dorse this particular standard. I o -

t- ' 5' wanted to do this.in an effort to ensure that all of 6.- our: inspec to rs , ' rega rdless 'of1 wha t.. companyJthey . wo rk

7. for, whether ~they.be Ebasco, whether they be: United 8 E ng i n e e r's , whethe'r they be B r o w n ~ ' & ' 'R o o t or. TUGCO,

. 9~ would be subject.to ~ a consistent; standard.,

x

. 10'_ I wanted to make su re_ ftha t my supervisors L 1f understood that we'have'a responsibill"tyfto.'

t 12 s communicate our inspectors' per f ormance -to them.- It j Xf eq 13 is_our objective to make every inspector,out there -

D' '

14~ .a s proficient:as,heican be. In: order t o - d o' t h a t~, . w'e 15'

~

have to provide him. feedback as to what[he'is doing.

_16 .right a nd .. wha t he is!doingfwrong. ,

1

, 17- The' pu'rpose of this memo then was not only 18 .to' embrace a uniform _ standard, but also to encourage 19 'i ts implementation and thereby provide-feedback to

~

20 the inspectors as to what the performance tis and

~

21 also to prescribe uniform actions on the'part of'all supervisors-at' Comanche Peak'to assure. consistent

~

22-

' implementation on performance ~ matters.

'23 24 Q. Mr. Vega, the date of Vega Exhibit 2 is ^

I[' 25 April 26th, 1984; is that correct?

' FEDERAL' COURT ~ REPORTERS _

gv - -

O ~ -

-136676~

4

[ '

' fl A." That;is'. correct.

I4.j_ 2.

}Q. In issuing this. policy statement and this

~

3' endorsement,'were:you adopting prior practices, as

. '4 your own practice, In disciplinary matters at 5 .. 'C$manche Peak?' ;

,. e 6- -A. Y e s'.

4 4-i ; l'j' , 7' ,0.. Is ~it a f ai r. cha racte riza tlon of yo'u r- s

. 8 tentimony that yo'u. wa n ted - to add'your personal 9 .e n d o'r s e m e n t to t h'i s - p o l i c y ? ,

~ 10- ~A. Yes.. Icbelieve I state'd that I wanted to

.y. =-

- 11 add-my personal endorsement ~ to , thiis policy.. '

t 12-

~

Q. Mr. Vega,I'd like';to direct ~ your' attention.

yy + .13 to page three of Vega E x h'i b i t . 2 , and'specitically

%). , .

. ;~

14 I'd'like!to direct your attentionito paragraph'C. -

1 15 Imposition.of Disciplin'e , subpa rag raph; If o ur ,

~

.. s.

>16 -, .sub subparagraph'little c. Illl a s k . y o.u..i f 1 .

~

'17 = pa rag raph ~ C4 (c) reflects the entire" list ;of t' hose-

['- ' I'18 Jdisciplinary' infractions for which.somebody woub'.'be .

19 subject'to an-immediate terminati$n? '

20 A. No, this is notIan all -inclusive list. ~

1 I

, ~ 21 Q. .Would;you' identify som'e' :othe r I tems th a't

.s ..

~

.22 'might result-in QC/QA instector being? subject to -

-iram e d i a t e termination?'

23 - .

. . . 2 4.-

~'

A. Certainly. Fighting on the job would ,,

.[} +* 2 25 result.in immediate-termination.

Certainly FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS'

m_ , m -- -

. . x

'366777

' ~

~

a n ,.- . -

1_

. s w

?. .,

s . ' .s, . _ _

4-

34

~ ,f.f, u.g wi. -

v.

y, . r, y f.. S

,'h ah/ .

+ ' ' e s' ,

- (a _+ .

U.mp;- ?

.anothe'r person,vas'saulting anotiereperson-11 .

~. .

g 4, - c J a t ta c k i:ng

~1 ,

$k .- ..c~ . 2 Nh: .

ac MJ 2: would'be a basis,forfismediate: termination". a rugy , ..

< 'I t is ' .,- .

p +

,,,A

~

'3 ' notcan.all-inclusive-list.u .

,H

-i. . . . .

i

,4 -

'Q. . . Failure - to follow directions ofithe-a m

} ..

. m Y S s upe rvi so'r ' wo uld .. be c a no th e r ca us e .f o r imm'ed ia te - f k-

~

'6 , termination? < >

3

v 3 . .

a~ ,

f g 17' '

LA. 4:certainly,: insubordination would"beTbasi's y 7^ ;y c .

t r r . . .

..s 4

.i

.; .e

~

8- '

f o r ^im~ media tef te rmina t'i on , but- I would want to make

+

n # _

c -

, . .; ( _ . .

' very?sure'.that-itLis-understood'that a~ directiveto.- .s t-LK

. ~

, 19 w, . a -

_s t 1,

jic- N El o d o.an. ac tivity. in::non-complianceLWi th Ta Lproced ure 4 : ,

r-

.c +

. ' p2 ~ q 111 'would n o t ; b~e t. considered insubordination.t 6D'i r e c tI ng ' <

^~{

m. - . _ , -

c . ,.,

f ~, -F

?

12,1- somebody to'd'o9something' at variance withja 4 r

, ,. - n. ,

+ -

.;a

. , . . . . v-

g 7 213 ~ procedurekis nottsupported-by managsment,n:and suchfa_

a -

r . -

, , . 4 ld i rec tion 1to 'a :subordi'na te ' would : noti be. tolera ce'd.; ,f D 1 J '

4

.- p 3

. -_ . a, s . 3 r .

~

+

4 ' 15 : Q.J. <Wouldca supervisor..be subject to serious .+ [

i ja - 4 ' iJ

( .

.. ? -

va - sdisciplinary1 action 'if,he or shelinstructodean - '

16c x .

~

.. . -. D

g

s .

.17 :employeeyto act. contrary to-the?proced'res?. u .

9 . , ,. c 9

o. 18- -

A.' ~ Absolutely.

r. -

4 ,

.n .

w . - <m

( ' lF ,

191

~

Q. : M r . 1 .V e g a ,. I ' d. l i k e to'now direct your. O j

. - a ..

~ ,' 301' :sttention' tolcan- exhibit th a't 's ' b e e n m a r k e'd for-7 sL . , ,

y *[

321; l'dentification

<. , =

as]Vega. Exhibit 3, and

I'd ask you to ;

i d e n t i f y.' V e g a [E x h i b i t [3, ifEyou ca'.

^ "'

J.- 22" '

n ,

/

, - - .s. . ,

y m ,

23 A. ' ;Y e s'.1 This document describes:Mr. Mike ,

p ; <

k .= ,

2 4 :' Spence'ssinvolvement_in~ meetings.that haveotaken

(?- ,

!25

place'with/QC' inspectors at Comanche . Peak.

Mr. ,' m 1 F ; J. - ,",, h '

F - t "- 7 A

~ '

j' '

r - .

p "r . g ,

l

.. ..-. _. . k. , ," t- - . . ~ - . . , . , ' .

_ J

~ -. - .

FEDERAL . . .C. O - U _ ,R-T.'..R . -E.P - O . -R-T. E- R _ S , .' . . - - - _ - . - . . .

c- , # .-

, ~ ,

~'

36678; i

.c -

'l 1 Spence 'is the~ president _of: Texas Utilities

] ' 2' lGeneratingjCompany.t Mr. Spence wanted to make 3: himself available -- to use his. phrase?-- t'o ~ provide ,

, 4 ~ an open season on the president of TUGCd, make 5 ' himself ava'ilable to inspectors, to listen to their ,

, 6; concernn;, _ their ' ideas', . their input,'and to

7x : personally emphasize top management's' commitments to i ,,

8 the policies that are-defined in my lettertof Harch-

'91 ~ 2'2nd, I982.

V '

10 Q. That's Vega Exhibit l'? ' ,

l' 1 'A.- That is correct. Mr.; Spence wanted to -

12 state personally top _ management.',a commitment.to a

. '13 strong and. effective Quality Assurance program, to a 14 safe and r el i a b'l e plant, to freeccommunication;

~

15 , without any fear ofr recrimination. He' wanted.to

~

i6'

~

reemphasize.Mr. Grier'sfavai1 ability, and he wanted' 4,

17 to reemphasize.open-door. poli ~cy at all levelsL.of 18 managem'ent within TUGCO. .

~

19 Mr.-Spence' attended a: number of1 meetings 20 with-QCfinspectors, different organizations, A

~

/21 ., "different: times, different 2 d a[t'e s , to make these 22' points. ,

12 3 . Q.- A.nd the memorandum in paragraph two 24 indicates that there --

strike that.

.p)._

a' .

25- In paragraph one of Vega ~ Exhibit 3 it p #

. g.

".~ <

m _

r FEDERAL' COURT' REPORTERS _ _ ,

P -

r 7; .36G79

^

l n L u. .

5 l' C 1 indicates-the a t t e n'da n ce rosters'for-the formal

(,)\' 2. meetingsJare ~ attached. My review of Vega Exhibit?3

.> 3 .

f ;_ '3 sugg es ts ;they a ren '.,t .

-a t tached to this. copy.. -

'4 a ,

-Mr. Vega, can you s'tateJapproxima't'ely how

_5 many:QC. inspectors met with'Mr. Spence in these'

' ~

7 ~ ~ "

6- m e e t i n g's ?. * .

/ (75 A.' Mr. Spence: met'with the inspectors out;of d

- 8.$ the; Control Building,.Safegua,rds Building, React'or r

'< .1 9 ' Building. ,If my memory serves mel correct, the-

~

i ,

' ^

10. number probably would run around-between 60 and-75.- ,

' ~

.11 Q. And you personal'ly attended each of these.~ '

s .+

~

12:_ sessions? i

,n 13 A. -I-personally attended tihese sessions.

~

'I N' . _

. .. . ~ .

% 14 might add tihat Mr. Clements, the vice" president !of~ -

- n

- 15- ' nucle'ar' operations, also attended-some of these; '

, 7 o

.w 16 meetings.- - -

~ 17 Q. And a't' the s e meetings did Mr.'SplenceDinvi'te

, 18- comments and'criticismsJfrom those'at ending?.;

1 9 .-- A .7 Yes, he did.

20l .-0. LIn these. meetings ~did ..the Quality Control- '

~

, , 21- inspectors. voice complaints <and criticisms to;M'r., #

., e

'~

.i 22 ' Spence? ..'

-23 -

,Du r ing : the s'e session's with Mr. Spence,'Mr.

-c .2 4 Clements, yourself and'.the Quality control. ,

_p i .

^"

p"' f i n s p e c t o r s , . d.i d : thos'e inspectors wh'o were in J

25' >

+

n 5. .

e e , . .

N.s ' t _ _~

FEDERAL; COURT REPORTERS-

~~'

L; et ~

36680 s

Y

n r

~

3 .. s .

, -11 -

attend'ance.voiceEcomplaints and criticisms to Mr.

h~

2 tip e n c e ? - N ,

<31 A .- ~Yes,J there were some complaints a n d. v -

h

~

4 criticisms ~ voiced.

5. Q. And wereiany of those complaints 't h a t the 6' Ouality control' inspectors had been harassed,

.7 intimidated or. threatened on the site? ,

8 ~ A. No, not at all.

7 9 -- - 0. What werensomel.of.the complaints that you.

. :10 recall being-voiced, Mr. Vega?

. 1 11 A. .O n e of the complaints ~that I' remember being 12 . voiced was,-the controls that we have on:the

.ps 13 permanent qplant records vault. I remember one .

As.) ,

~

414. inspector; felt that he should'have free access, 15 unrestricted access to the permanent plant records-

': 16 vault.

=17 . Ilexplained to him that we were r e s p o n's i bl e 18 'for security of those records, and that, by 19 regulation,1we had'to have con t r ol s jnt the' .

2 20 safeguards ofithose records. I. assured"him that we ,

21 would make: access as convenient-as we coul'd when he'

~

22 had a legitimate'need to have access to th'ose-

23- records, but that the controls that werelin place.

_ 24' were indeed:necessary.

, n.

' '~'-

25 0.. .Do,'you recall other complaints, Mr. Vega?-

f

m. _ FEDERAL COURT-REPORTER $ j

m ._ '

.- ; g.~- c - v -- - -

l c;-

w,-

4:

L 9' , y0f c

q. 36681 ;

3 y. . .c -t j ^

- ' +;

, or. < -

'9 ,

o 1 1 *

~

L -

~

AL iYes. Inremember thereiwere several *I #

. , ? .

c .

.. 4

, m , >

3 - .y 9

l (** j ' 2--

-comments,'severalmquestions~ relative to-thet -

r ps a.

,4

.3: j, . company.s plans for Unit.2. - ~

-There were some1.e ~ <

y .

1 4

. 43 complaints -' -

t C

' x ._ . :-

t c.

.5;

- Le t me -i n te r r up t ,_ M r. : Veg a .

~

y

_. f 0.? ,

You:sayithe [

"i ' .6 d ' : ompany's' plans.for Un'it12.

Would you. describe. that .'

- plittle ]h s

e- ; s

~ '

7.. N more fully, please. -

- c: ; '

F. 3 k ^A.- . .p

..' D e's .- As in any construction 4projech,/there d

. a-' > :7 QL

.- m t o

x 9- ~ a r e' r u m c't s .M Insp'ec to rs 't$a/J abou t some ofc the other; .

o4, - Sb .,

'1 u, -- a I.O' nuclearyplantslinSthe country.L, . And;they,. asked Mr. t ,

. y 3! Spence:whether the company; bad 'the financial ~

1 11 -

k. 5 -;r

.c .. .

. - 4 - -

resources-to ' continue < wi th (Uni t.c 2.

~

-: 12: .

Mr.Espence. - ,

. . v ,

'" #5

. . s ( ,

2 <

~

13- explained tp' them that, yes,$we.did, and'we;had< -t f "

, R. . ": y ,

I14- every i n t e n t !'o n : to continue with Unit ~ 2Sas soon' Ja s; ~

n< .

3 , , v a j5: , weD f i n i s'h'e d' u p U ni t 1.

. "M j <

,;~' - , .

J ,

iv T61 J gIlremember-there ~ weref,also some, comments. .

p

.g--). %. . s3 ' t.

.=,, [FI. -

.s:

a n :s

, . p -

17 / ' s;A(aIe ', r el e va n t; to t h e 'i n s p e c t o r s ~ ~f e,l tEthat . theire"were

' f m, . -

P % y

~)

some very: positive aspects to o,urtQuality Assurance

' ~. 4

_i l8

, w -

. 3. .

~

~ 19 - program'ats Comanche Peak.. They' stated.aifrustration

'; .; 'n .. - e ,

n

-20

,.,t ,h a t " a l l. t o o : o'f t e n the only[ thing?that?they. read;and.

~

s, .[

-r i f/ chat their.famifies read and:thatStheir rieighb' ors

~

21?

v

~' '

, \. 1, i

'/' ,

q,221 " read'in the newspaper was neg,ative. ,

4

[,

, I I o f' I l23

.The~ inspectors' expressed aLfrustrationE that

w. .

t . . .~ 2 4 .- a we'haveia ,very. good program atgComanche' Peak,-and' 1-

~ ' '

? O, . ' ' ", av '

2b (one ' th rt s sho uld be publicized 3more, suggesting that.

y, Ay,. 1x( '

f ' -~,.-I 4 i

,k. . .

u , ~-% ,

at 9 ;;'

-[ q -

< FEDERAL

. 4 COURT REPORTERS. <

-e .- - .

- - '36682-

's V .

. , ,~t

L .the company,be more aggressive lin~presendingEthe;

y

-x 42 1 positive side, in pres'enting the Qua'lity' Assurance '

c -

a 4 23 program at Comanche' Peak, which inspect' ors believed ,

lL was a.very good prog ram.. ,

'S . -There were alsofsome other comments ~fo

~

.6- general.-interest relative to nuclear _ power. Th e r e ..

7 were some' questions"as'to whethern fossil plants,;I 8 believe, weretalso, to a certain extent, subject to: '

~9 the same. kind of controversy. These are some.of'the- i

c 10 thingsDthat-I- remember wore mentioned to 11r.. Spence.

remember the~ history oflthe' CMC, the

~

11 0h , 'I 12 Component Modification Card; that. question camenup,

/3 13- ,and I addressed that.

Qj 14 Q. What.was-that question, Mr. Vega?

15 ,A. Some inspectors had a perception that the ,

16- CMC was merely a convenience tool for construction.

^

, 17 ' W'e explained how the CMC came'into being. And'I ,

18 remember using the1 specific 7 example of. base-plates

~

' ~

,; 19 for hangers. At one point.-we would drill four 20 symmetrical: holes on-albase plate, and then~we would'.

21: drill the holes into:the ceiling. 'In.many cases.we.

22 ;would hit rebar.'-We 'would then'have to go back.and- ,

23 redo the plate. ,

a- .

f L.- ( ,

24 The CMC' allowed.the holes to be drilled [in l' ') [2 5 ' 'the concreto,-and'when we got four holesithat met

+

E ," ._ -

FEDERAL-COURT REPORTERS _

gj

- ^ ,- . 2 3.. ~1

-7u "n ,

a? . .,

i -

y. ,

~

36683 t

+ ,

- , s t,.

- ~

,1: , design' requirements'by Way of'rebar interferences-

-[

\ .

.,f .

P-'

%j .2 and everything, then welwould, record .the . bolt Y '"

~

.J .. .. .. .

3~ -configuration-on-.the Component Modification Card.

. ' n . .. .

8 +

. ( 4' .'

"_A n d. that Component M~odification Card would then

. -. c ,

f

~5) .documentEtheDsucce'ssfu1Mbolt pattern. ,

. And in th'i s 3

A 6 ?particular. case, Tit enhanced the-way the. engineering c X

, p ,_

~

'7 sand 7 construction.-activities were recorded. And We v y e

_ _ } ,

8 .ex pla ined " the. -benefi t 4 of'this.particular) document.

.V.. w '1,

.9 ,

These are some of the things . that'come to v,

, s a

'10 % . mind.. . .-

r. +

s -

'11 EQ. DidLMr. Spence _ follow.up _on,any : of the ,

y . ,

..[! 12 _ points thatswere raised at.these meetings?

- y '

~13;

,A - LA..N Yes_, he'did.

v) . . ,, .

D14

~ 0.- - Wh i, c h . o n e s ? Do you recall?) *

)15 , . A .* I.know that;Mr. Spence visited"with some of

(

V . 4-

' I '6 ' o6r publi'c-information personnel,'and he:sent a'

~l n ' .

~

4 ITC l e t t e r i t:a'c k to one of the' gentlemen that, suggested i

18 commukityfinvolvement in e'ducating'the publicJon the.

m-

< benefits ofinuclear power and the merits of our

~

, 19 t , ,.

~

.20 Qual 1ty' Assurance program. I don'tTknow exactly-

'y ~

21 what-was s a l'di, but I do know t h a t" ti r . - S p e n c e ' s e n t . a

< ~ ..y -

w .

' M,7 2 2

^:

letter ~bacN.to one of the inspectors thanking him:

g- , . . .

,\. 23 , for the,; suggestion and a brief-description ofs t' h c y .

u . ,..it - - * * ~ he had Iaken. A n d I . A.r.u w; tlii s - 1/v e a u s e

' y' 25

);.

hs-copied-meton the le ttd r an,d ssnt nr. e the!1etter, y ., l 'k

q J -

. .y '

t

.((

4

, ]% ,

, t% ; [f i I

. -- . FEDERAL 1 COURT REPORTERS - . - --- ,

1

~ , - - -

n- > '

L 336604:

^

q. ,

, u

. 3 4

1; addressed'to-theJinspector incan envelope..which~he

Ji 2' (as' kid.me to deliver: personally to',the inspector,-

NS 3 which-I did. And this took place on two ~ occasions' '

4 .that I can remember'..

F L 5' .Q. fSo Mr.JS' pence personally responded to',two *

'g ,

^

n ; . ,

t f 6 .,

ofLthe concerns that had.beenl raised at the meeting? ,.

o 7' ,. A. Lyes.' Mr. Spence did" personally respond.to-

18. thean_and. personally gave this his personal . .

.. t b -

. 9:

attention.-

10 Q. :Did'yo'u detect any hesitancy,on the,part of 11: :the inspectors to speak up during.these meetings?

+ "

12; A. Absolutely not.; I.believe that: there was.

,jyl 13' freendiscussion. The._ inspectors -several.of them,.

nx; ,

.s G 14 ~ stopped me- in the hallmand indicated their pleasuro 15 .at having met with Mr.1 Spence a nd~ 'co nv eyed ,. lin .

v g- -

116 ,

. general','a good: feeling about- the mee ting s e tiha ti too k-2,17 ~ 7 place. >

18< 'Q. Mr.-Vega,;in-your cross-examinat' ion.you; <

~\

c ,

~

, : 19 - eindicated that.you h'ad conducted some investigations

. . .i ,

4 ,

2 0; 3, . .

IntoLallegations of1 harassment.andLintimidationTof 3

[21? Einspectors; prior,_to-becoming site'OAimanagers;-is .

~^

Je -22 $that correct? ,

4 l - 2 3.. , A. Yes, I.did.

s .-

.. :.h

' J. '

T24 JQ. ~lHow'many such investigations did you

[;gfi

- 2 S' ' conduct?I ,

+

r . .

t(I v V. n

~

,A.

tFEDERAL-COURT; REPORTERS

36665%

P

< *{

. 7 1 *.

' ~

-1 A. I c.onducted~one investigation into an ,

~ ' 'l (j ; 2 alleged-incident _ of harassment, intimidation and l,

> +

" - 3' threats. '

V.

~

, 4 -

' O. . Who-had raised that allegation?-

a A.

L!F Mr. Bill 1Dunham.

..c .

6= 0 And what_was1the scope of.your 7: "

~1 n v e s t ig a t i o n ?.

+

8 A. Thc scope was. to determine whether Mr.

. =9' Dunham had-been' terminated because he_had' expressed- '

~

10 any concern or because he complained ~f o alleged

11 ; harassment, intimidation or? threats.

12 I- also looked into the technical ma'ters t 13 that'Mr. Dun, ham raised.

,/ S I' talked to every ,

KJ ~

', l'4 protective coatings inspector on site,2both{ day and

, 15 . n i g h t; s h i. f t . .I ev en' tal'k ed to people who-had ~1 eft 116 'the-site. In essence, itz was ~an inv'estigation into 17 sthe', protective coatings program.and. personnel .,

18- ' relationships within1the' protective coatings

.19 -- o r g a n i z a t i o n , including engineering..

20- o Q.- And what ~ were the results of your 21' investigation?

22 , A.. In1 summary, I concluded that our protective-

-23' icoatingsrmetLall applicable requirements.

4 .

24 <

0.. That was your conclusion'on the t e c h n c'a'l-( 3,. '

'* 125- pointst.is that right?

4 ..,-

(

.- V

~

~ ' *

. . ~ .~- .. FEDERAL COdRT REP.ORTERSI -.

. 4 . -

X . -

'36606- '

. s > s ,- -

4' '

~

l

' 1? ' 'A. -That~is correct.- I also concluded Ihat l

,. _ l

,[) 42 -there hadIbeen no-! incidents of' harassment, l3~ ' intimidation orFthreats.. I concluded that there had 2- l 4 gbeenfinstances of poor communica tion and poor

, 1

' 5! supervisory practices, but.these findings-were not

6. related todtheiharassment or intimidation of.

. -7 ,

inspectors.: ,

~

.y ? 8' O. At'the time that.you conducted this .

i: . 9 -investigation, had'the supervisory'. personnel in the:

/10 yprotectiveicoatings area been changed?

11 A. ,

.Yes. When I conducted my investigationi 12 the supervisor in question was no longer'at. comanche '

fs l'3 '

Peak.s

'L) .

~

14 - 0 .' And who was.that supervisor?

t

-I5 -A. ^AR gentl'eman by3 the name' of HarryJWilliam's.

L16' O. Did you find;any evidence to. support-Mr.

4 17 x , Dunham'scallegation th t he had been terminated'for,

' raising . complaints ?.

. z :

11 9 A. TAbsolutely not. .

i 20 . Q. .M r . Vega, during your. cross-examination you-J21 testifiediabout several QAI files. I'd like to pick

22 up--on'the;various files that you testified about and

~

23 some-other files"and ask you a few more questions;on

24. them. I'd like to first ask you about QAI File 0002, (3'

. 25 a file-involving 'a complaint of Mr. Perlaki. ,

k

. FEDERAL. COURT REPORTERS

I Were you site QA manager at the time the

() 2 matter involving Mr. Perlaki arose?

3 A. HN o , I was not on site at that time.

4 0. Have you reviewed the file of Mr. Perlaki's 5 complaint?

6 A. Yes, I have.

7. Q. What were the findings of that 8 investigation, to the best you recall?

9 A. In summary, Mr. Perlaki had conducted an 10 inspection. During the time of his inspection 11 several construction people had been in the vicinity 12 where he was conducting.his investigation, and there

-13 was some discussion as to the acceptability of the

'14 items that he was looking at. Mr. Perlaki accepted 15 these items. The next day he reconsidered and 16 decided that what he had. accepted was rejectable.

17 He went to his supervisor, stated a feeling 18 of uncomfortableness the previous day,-identified 19 the item as non-conforming. His supervisor visited 20 with him. It was made very clear to the inspector 21- that he was the person would determine what was 22 acceptable and that.any discussions that were held

-23 in his presence would have no bearing on the 24 acceptability or rejectability of an item. The 25 inspector acknowledged this. He acknowledged this l FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

V; ; :w

~ - _- . ' -

~

36688 a '

a-t . . .

-1. authority. .He, acknowledged the, .suppo rt, tha t1 he ' had'

,,;[

(y

- 2 and assured.his. supervisor.that<anIincident'-such-as.

s 3 t'his' wouldznot o c c u r ; a g a i n .-- .Relevantmer e x c u s ,e' me.-

4- Q. Onathe-other' side, what action was ta k e n' o

~

5; with' respects.to the-construction' crew? I > -

6' A. Mr. Tolson counseled the people from th's 7 construction. side;of'the-house as to what is and 8 ,

'what is notLappropriate ~r e'l a t i v e lto]d i s c u s s i o n s 'i'n

. 9 -the presence of QC . inspectors._ 3

.. . c .,; n 4 Was Mr. Per1aki a new 'nspector a t' .th i s ?.,

' ~

'10 Q.. i 11' ' time?. ,,

~ ~

12 A. I could'notitell you how much seniorityjM'r..

~

13 Perlaki has~1n this particular area. '

(-

w .

9

, 14 Q. In'your judgment', was--the resolution +of

.15 ithis complaint. satisfactory?. .

~ ,

- 16 A. Yes, it,was satisfactory.

~ ~

17' O . '. In your judgment, it was ~ handled properly?

~

'18 A .- I.believe it was handled properly.. ,

w:+

3 19 Q. - Mr.7 Vega,.are you familiar'with QAI file 20> ~00077 +.

i.

~

- 21, A. Yes,,I am.

22 Q. Does that file contain two separate 23 allegations, a ' t e c,h'n i c a l allegation and'an 24- allegation of harassment?

fm >

" 'w^l 25 A. -Yes. It involves a technical allegation e

J2 FEDERAL COURT REPORTEIS

l l

'36689 1 and'an allegation of harassment, but the person

() 2 making the allegation is described in the document 3 as working outside the Quality Assurance / Quality 4 Control organization.

5 Q. And has that person's name been kept 6 anonymous from you?

7 A. I don't know who the person is.

8 Q. And the technical allegation, has that been 9 addressed in the investigation?

10 A. Yes, it has been.

11 Q. And it's a closed matter; is that correct?

12 A. The technical allegation is a closed matter.

13 .Q. Was there any finding ,that there was a

.O 14 problem with the technical concerns?

15 A. Corrective actions are described in the 16 report. There is nothing that indicates that there 17 is a safety concern as a result of these allegations 18 and our investigation.

19 Q. And had there.been a safety concern, would 20 it have been brought to your attention?

21 A. Certainly it would have.

22 Q. And t' h c harassment allegation, is that 23 being closed out?

24 A. No. That particular item has not~been O 25 closed out. The investigation.has been done, but I.

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

~

36690 1 have not seen the final report on that issue.

([) 2 Q. Mr. Vega, are you familiar with'QAI file 3 0012; the matter raised Mr. Winckel.

4 A. 'Yes.

5 Q. Is Mr. Winckel a Quality Control inspector?

6 A. Yes, he is.

7 Q. Mr. Vega, what is your understanding of the 8 substance of.Mr. Winckel's complaint?

9 .A. There had been a discussion as to the need 10 for an inspection. The discussion got somewhat 11 heated; voices were raised. Mr. Winckel correctly 12 concluded that he did not have to put up with that,

~

13 and walked away. He subsequently reported that to 14 his supervisor.

15 Q. And that led to the QAI investigation?

16 A. That led to him visiting with Mr. Grier who 17 initiated an investigation into the entire matter.

18 Q. What were the results of that investigation?

19 A. In summary, the heated language used was 20 unprofessional and would not be tolerated.

21 Accordingly, the crafts person was counseled and 22 informed that such behavior is unacceptable.

23 It was also reemphasized to the inspector 24 that he has the authority to reject any item and to 25 insist on the inspections that he believes are FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

nar- - - -

r

-r ,

E < l36691)>

n. .;; ,

a:.x. <

4 - ,4 ,

,s , * 'h ,

regu1 red [

~

'1 !

. In1this' particular. case,.there w a s T s o m e--

em -

-c.

Q -

2: confusio'nLon the part of the-QC; inspector.

.In-that< '

43. ' r eg a rd ,- a'd d i ti o na.1 - t ra i n i ng was provided?to~the- -

4 - g en tl e"ma n , - a n d .: th e r e was'clarific'ation made to the -

v .< .

x. , ,

^

, _ ._ . 51 p r o c e"d u r e that wa's involved. -

. - 3

': 6- . Q .- In your judgment,;was;this'an appropriate V ,.

37 .d i s pos'i tion ' o f' this ma t te r? ,

s .

~ ;,:

8- - A ~. Yes, it. is. -,

a , ., , , -

..Has it been. reported to you t h a t . = M r .'-

^ '

9' _

- 0.. ,

[ ^ 10 ' Winckel,is satisfied.Lwith;the disposition ~of-this

^ '

11' m a't t e r ?

y f 4

l12 A. .Yes. Mr. Grieridiscussed the entire matter

a. <

p 13 with Mr. . Winckel"who expressed.his? satisfaction with-

,,y) +- <

' 14 the correst ve' actions taken.

g ?l5 0.y In your judgment, is this a serious problem , -

that~ was raised bycMr.? Winckel?.

~

16 '

v

. 17. -A. .IldonIt believe'that'there"-is a' serious 18 problem invo_1vedehere. If corrective' action fiad notL ,;

19 been :taken, it is the kindsof' situation thatScould- - -

e .

. 1 20 conceivably getToutrof hand.' - .

o . 1 c 21' -

I believe that wha t.~ ha ppe ne d 'h'e re c wa s ,a ,

~

" 22 .discussioniof interpretations of-requirements.

o

'2 3 '

~

There was some confusion;.the proc'edure-had to be-

. a 1 24 changed.

~

I believe wha t t e ' re- seeing here is .,

a G. _

25 -differences of' opinion'that r e a ll y g o't. b e yo n'd t he n

,c '

,-f f *y*. , f ,

{ FEDERALICOURT REPORTERS '

36692 E '

. .4 .

r 1 -pdintJthat[welwent them to, but we believe that-wei l,v).; :2 '

Jcertainly.got ahold of the tsituation.- s ,

k 4 .

"3 2 I'believe1that the s ys t e m' ' tha't wethave.on-

~

c. ,

4: . site to: address < differences.ofLopinion Land mi'or' n

5 flare-ups of this nature-does-work. While we do'not - -

rr . . , 4 6- I li k.a fori.these incid.ents to occur, we have to be ,

. .~ .

r e a l i s't i c and know tha t. ' we will not tota 11y>

'7-

,. .0 eliminate--them, but we.do - feel that - we have a1 system-

'9 -fr- place.' tha t addresses these,.that brings parties

- 1'0 _ together where we;.hav'e'a resolution-.of differences 11 1 'of opinion and' continue to. have a very. excellent 12; working. relationship between QualityjAssurance'and M- 13- the-craft. '

V _

, 14 0. Mr. Vega, do, yo u .- r e ca l'1 'te s t i f yi ng about 15 QAI file 0015, the file that was initiated because ,

16 ~fsa o complaint by Mr.7 Perry? w. ,,

17 ;A. Yes, I do remember that. ',

What's your understanding 'o f ' t h e substance' 18: Q.

21'9 of Mr. Perryis complaint? -What was the substbnce'of 2

-20' . tha t -: c om pla i n t ? 1 . , l 21 'A. An engineering drawing r e q u i'r e d' a certain 22

~

condition-that was considered-impractical by Mr.

'23 Fred Powers, who was the building manager in,theI

< l24 '

area in question. The inspector inspected the item

[' ") . .-

"25

.in accordance with what was on the, drawing, even #

t 's t

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

e =. w- - - - -

,- a n..

gy.On;yy -e y' ..v'

~

=.

1, 36693sa e t.. yp '.

+ ' '

b,;

4 7 ,

q -

,c, m

s

- g

.4

^

, . 4.

t , y ,

lm , - .

R -

Aiy "1" .thoughrI- believejthat1he~probably felt andfagreed; y

, - o Y ,_k (I. '

y

.- }2 ,

tha t. 'what was: o n - {th e drawing, strictly speaking,;wa's -

,, ~. - -

~

4 .

. e . ,

>~

7" 3 , ,

3' _ impractical._ However, he" stuck: to whatlwas-on;thei 74 .

i , , < ,

q4 4 d r a wi ng,n a,n d i nspected yccordingly. .

~

-.I n ~~d e s c r i b.i n g what^wastonathe drawihg, Mr'.

~

.c L5 : ;

G Powers used the . te rm iasin'ine . , ,..

Mr. Perry (felt; c -

N- ? r-Oc -s

1. c b.- Jp'erfectly-free _to express =:a d i s pl e'a's u r eia tT M r .J .

y . 4 s

18z : Powers'. statement. Mr.. Powers subsequently came 7 . .

~

19 rin.to my' office, wanting to-make sure that1I? .

n ,

n .

1 . _

110' understood that.he was not1 referring _to the T

Il l . ' inspector but,.rather,'to therinterpretationcof what ,

4

~

!121 _

was^on the drawing.

s

, ,:~, ,-

'~ '

L131 Mr. Powers was counseled by histsupervisor',.s '

[j s . ,

14. M r . , M e r r i t t , ia'n'd by,myself 'n;my' i office a s'- to the 4/-

x .

+

rx -

15- .need to7be very careful _on'how we dealfwithJpeople- ,

/

f^y ^ L ').

, 16: on site;.that.. communication'has to.be'in a a

t n , ,

~

17 professional. manner. . >

_ . -l

' .?'m 1, ~- .

, +

'18 " + ,

But Ii d o want to-point o u't - t h a t ' M r ." P e r r y - 4 2~ 19- ;rightfullysconducted the. inspection'to=what: the --

.g k :20

~

. drawing said. Mr. . Perry did not comprom1seSthat

'g , ,

, y 21. inspection; he waited.until:the drawing _'was' revised,{ ,

u ,-

3 & '

'22 - and r it was.c. subsequently revised -- but Mr. Perry.Was: _

',w'

'2 3 - complimented: for.the way th'at he conducted his -

, 4

, e 24 Jexamination<infstrict cor.pliance>to theydrawing. . ,

25 ; A g a i n', I believe this is another instance ,

c i. 4 ,

? .' __

. g.

' , r ,

. .k -

FEDERAL--COURT REPORTERS -

x _, m. -

7 .

+ ,

_ 36694

' ~

1 where' differences of opinion are going'to occurgon a n,~)j 2 . project"this big. Again, theseare instancesiwhere 3

.we don't lik e' to' s e e ' d isag re emen t's come to th i s

~

L 4' point, but we: don't feel'that"this is significants-O '

5 weEdon't feelithat it in:any way impairs,the- }

6 inspector's ability to do his job or'in any way-

~

7- caused him not to do thorough inspections. .O n the >

^8~ contrary, I believe this very clearly demonstrates

~

9- that inspectors are free and. encouraged and expected ,

^

10 to:do their inspections in fu'11 complianceJwith

'h.

11 engineering drawings. When'an ~ engineering drawing ,

12 is not correct,-then_the drawing'is changed;-then it

' 13 is reinspected to the correctedcapecifications.

14' Again, I believe'this 'is an excellent 15 example of the effectiveness of our Quality.

~

.16 Assurance" program at Comanche Peak.

f

17. O. In-your judgment,.was this matter handled F 18 properly? .

19, A. 'Yes, it was. \

20 0. Did you personally 1 compliment Mr. Perry.on' ,

21 the-way he conducted himself in this matter?

22 A. N o,, I'did"not. I did ask the person'that-23 reports to me personally _to get with Mr. Perry'and 24 convey my complimentsjon the way'he handled'himself' i C) 25 j., during this insp_ection.

i

(

I _ [

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS .

qh: . g.a '

36695-

'% ;f-N, : j .qc ' * '

3 .

, .p ' -

r- , *

. M r . , V e g a ', are you' familiar with'QAI file s e 13.

- ., l nQ.

j~;y; .LW t t- w gn) p4( (2f 00167- ,

s. ...- .

9:a -

' ~

L..j ig , 3l ,

A. Yes,1I a m .. , s

$ b < 1

0. Is.that a' file of' investigation of' K:S p;< .. ' .

. ,; . ?' t

, complaint' raised-by'Eddie~ Need_ecken?

i -

'S g

- &- c.. . .

..Y e s , .It, is.

.y . - ,;'6; A. '

l 7.i

Q. 'What'is'your und e rstanding ' 'o f ;the substiance ,

ye - : >:

^

8I < of'Mr."Neidecken's complaint?:' ,

f 6. b -

-9 , lA. Mr. Neidecken was conducting an inspection ;

- 10: in the* Reactor. Building.- The._ building managerJasked

ll' him to stop the. inspection.that he'was conducting. '.

12 ; , and handle.another inspection. 'Mr. Neidecken" felt ,

, y ,

, h- l 13'- that this was> inappropriate; we concurred. 'I.got t,) ,

a

. 14' ,

with Mr.: -- '

~ '

.15 l -

.Q' . ' Let ce interrupt-;you there,'Mr.-Vega.

s , ,

16' What.should'the bui1 ding manager have done l u <

t. '.

_ J K~ 17 whenzhe was faced'with-this situation?.

18' A.. The building manager should work through-QC

~ ~

"19 supervision. And;if-a QC supervisor <or a' QC lead is

-20 not available'in the immediate vicinity, oneoshould' 1

121 'b e : s u m m o n e d',. o n e' s h o u l d ) b e f o'u n d , 'a n d the' request'

',.;2'2 'for. inspection,:the prio'rity, should'be communicated -

,r F '. y . 23 .to thc'QC supervisor and not.to the QC. inspector.

a ,

24 Q.- Mr. Vega, I'misorry.

. I. interrupted 'you._

25 You:just said what happened in:the field and you L

' C v

.g. (

^

U_

-FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

= - ,

l 36696 ,

IS .

r

.e. ,

1 li were'about'to:go;on'to exp1 pin,Mr.3 Ne'edecken's <m

p .. .. ..

c fj 2 complaint. . >

3 A.. What I was going to sayjwas thatf1 defined .

'4' to Mr. Merit, the project; manager,,:the' correct wa'y ~ -

J5' to-communicate with'QC inspectors, and I askedihim '

6 'to communicate to his b'uilding managers 1the correct l 7 procedure for communicating'such: priorities to the.

8 -QC organization.

'9 -Q. And..did he: report.to you.that he did.that?.,

L ~10 A. Yes, he did.

S 11 .Q.' "And'were these actions reported to M r .,

12' Neidecken? ,

M r .' 'G r i'e r' v i s i te d with Mr. Neidecken, rw4 13- A.. Yes.

u described to' him the'results.'of.theJinvestigation I , .\ r {

15 and'the co r rec tive acti ori tha t. . wa s taken as a result c ,+

4 16 ,of his allegations. Mr.:Neidecken stated that he; 17 was. satisfied with the results and.'had no further . ,

.18- .. problems.-

19 Q.- In your j udgment, was this situation

'20 correctly handled?'~ '

+ , ,

.21 -A. ,'Yes, it was4 handled correctly.

122 ' O. Mr. Vega, are.you familiar with QAI file

~

23 (0018.5 Do you recall that testimony?

h

. . -24 A. Yes, I a=. -

"'('V O .- ..

25 Q. And do you recall that as being a QAI file 4

-FEDEHAL' COURT REPORTERS

h. . <.36697, 1 initiated because o f' a. complaint by Mr. Finn?

--7 Nj t 2_ A.: Yes. ,

t-r 3 Q.~ What was_the substance of M r,. Finn's 4 complaint, as you understand it?

^

5~ A. Mr. Finn was in the' men's restroom and the 6' building'_ supervisor asked htm whether he had-

^7 inspectedfenough hangers to'~be doing what he was ' H 8 doing. ,

d 9 Q. What did the inspector.say_or'do, as a

~

10 consequence? '

11 A. Frankly, 1 believe that the-inspector _ at 12 tfirst thought-it:was funny, but.the more2he thought ' '

? ,( _13 about'it, the more'he wondered w h'e'th'e r a n y t h i ng had

- g ,1

,. 14 been'mean't by it, and he went to Mr. Grier.. '

~

15 Q. Did you personally take anylaction with

~16 ' respect.to this matter?.

_ s 17' A. Yes. When I learned of the situation,

18- I visited with -the bu'ilding supervisor. The

19. . building manager assured.'me that is was nothing more

.i .

20 than a statement-made in jest, that he was joking.

12 1 .I reemphasizedito him'the fact that this j,' 22- inspector and he, as\a' building manager,..are not 23 peers, and that where perhaps a. joke amongst peers; 24- ;mightLbe a'p p r o p r i a t e , a joke said.in jest by a g- - 25~ ~ manager :might not be'taken as such by~somebody in 54

_ _ -FEDERAL. COURT' REPORTERS-s

n -

n. -

1

. ;; 36698

t. : ;

' ~

-.1 ,. the-inspection ranks. '-

. ;(f 2- He again assured me that it had been a c 3 statement made in jest,-that he= thought"the world o f.

4 -

4 4 'this particular'-- apparently,she's aDyoung i

?" i~ 5 - . i n s p e c t o r , . a = v e r y l'i k e a b l e' individual.- The building

'N

6' manageristated that.he thought a' lot of this

-- ;7: .particular person and that he wouldn'tido anything' 6- to make him feel? uncomfortable, and that it was '

e .. ,.

'9 s .seant.toibe nothing mo're than a 'oke.' j g "

"101 Q. Proper' disposition, in your judgment?

11 A. Yes. 1 12 Q. Were the results of the investigation s -

h- 13 communicated to Mr. Finn?

'Y): ^ '

-L 14 - .A.- Yes, theytware., _

^ "

15- Q. A'n d was it ~ reported-to you that he was

^

/16 satisfied with.theLd'isposition? -

17 .A. Yes.

. 18 0.; Mr.!vega, fare you-familiar with QAI file

/19 - (00197 g 20 A.. Yes, II . a m .

21 Q. ~Is th'at;a complaint lodged by Mr. Hundly?

.22 Is that correct?

'A..

23 Yes, it.is...q

..' 24 Q. What,was the substance of Mr. Hundly's

Oi k' 25 . complaint?

t A

FEDERAL. COURT HEPORTERS

36699 4

'l A.- 'Mr. Hundly_was conducting inspections; r);

(

2 _several construction people were in - th e , vic,i ni ty and

~

3 commented-as to the acceptability of some items that 4 ~were being. rejected by the QC-inspector. Mr.-!!undly 5 did not feel comfortable with these comments, and he

~

6 reportedLit to his supervisor. -

7- O. Did you personally take anyJaction: in 8' response-to this matter?

9 A. I. personally talked to Mr. Hundly. I also I

10 tal'ked to the construction people involved.. They 11 expressed to me a feeling of surprise that'Mr.

12 Hundly had. felt uncomfortable, that ~ the comments f s 13 were being made amongst the construction people. I

'L]

14 advised.them tha t this- kind of communication was 15 unacceptable,.that it_was i not to be done in the 16 future. ,

17 I subsequently visited with Mr. Merritt.

18 Mr. Clements and myself also visited with;Mr. George, 19 ' who is the vice president over engineering and a

20 construction. He assured us that he would L21- personally communicate our instruction tomthe people 22' involved. Mr. Merritt similarly assured us of the 23 same thing. I felt that the action that they took 24- was appropriate.

b)

25' We met with Mr. Hundly, described to him FEDERAL COURT _ REPORTERS

36730 f 1 what had been done, 'and again Mr. Hundly was

'() 2 satisfied with the disposition of the entire matter.

3 Q. Mr. Vega, did you take any additional 4 personal action with respect to QAI files 16, 18 and 5 197

.6 A. Yes, I did.

7 0 What other action did you take?

8. A. Well, during the course of the 16, 18 and 9 19 occurrences -- these happened within a period of 10 about a week -- I sent a memo to Mr. Merritt saying 11 that we believed in the effectiveness and the 12 desirability of the building management concept, but

() 13 that other instances of this type would.Icad us to 14 not support that concept in the future.

15 I certainly did not want to do that because 16 I believe that the building management concept is a 17 very positive one, and I wholeheartedly support it.

18 I do not believe that it, in any way, compromises 19 the independence of the Quality Assurance 20 organization. But I did express our intent to 21 reassess the building management concept.

22 Subsequent to-that, I sent a letter to Mr.

23 Merritt stating that we believed that the building 24 management Task Force concept was a good one, that 25 it had been effective and efficient in the pasti

- ___EfJO S R AA C O MDt T_ _ M MO S T M R S __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7.;

36701 however,'1 emphasized.to him and asked him to

~

11 UC) 2 emphasize'to his building' managers that' the QA/QC

3 pcopic do not work for the building manager or

'4- anybody else in his organization, and that we-would 5 continue to emphasize to our people that the G assignments of QA/QC people todthe building. task

' 7 forces'are totally.within the Quality 8 Assurance / Quality' Control organization.

.9 I emphasized to~him.that work schedules, 10 work assignments, would similarly come from within 11 the QA/QC organization management. We again

12. . emphasized to him that any comments, requests, (j- 13 concerns be. communicated *through QA/QC management, v

14 n o t _. t o the~-inspectors directly. .And I. advised him 15 that recurrence of any incident such as described in

~

IG QAI.16, 18 and 19 would resu1t in an immediate stop.

17 work, and that I would pull the QC inspectors out=of ,

18 the building involved'until appropriate corrective.

19 : action'was taken.

20 Q. Do you..ha ve the authority to issue such a 21 stop war order?

22. A. I sure do.

23 Q. And do you have to consult.with.anyone 24 before you do that?

(}

\

25 A..

I-don't have to consult, with~anybody before FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

~^

~ ,

,. .36702

~

1 I d o ._t h a t .

(J

~

Mr. Vega, I'd like you to refer-to Vega 2 .0. .

3 Exhibit'4.. Can you. identify it that exhibit?'

4 A. Yes. Vega Edhibit 4 is the letter that I 5 referred to. ,

i.

'6 0. And-the. letter that.you sent to Mr..Merritts

'7 .is that correct? .,

8 A.: That is correct.

9 'O. Did'you.take any other action at this time?

10. A. Yes. I sent a memo to every QA/0C- person 11 on site that, in essence, reemphasized the key 12 points in paragraph' number two, ,and that is thatz j s- .13 they do not report. to the building managers o r ~ ~a n y '

L) 14 other person in that organizations that their.

15 supervision comes from within the QA/0C. organizations

, 11 6 that their ~ assignments, their schedules,- their 17 priorities are set within the-0A/QC organizations 18 and I~ask them to convey any. concerns they-hadLabout 19 these policies to their supervisors so that it would-20 be brought to ny attention.

21 Q. At this point did you feel that the 22 independence of the organization hauf been 23 compromised?

'124 A. ti o , absolutely not.

(9 "' 25 0. If you didn't feel that the in' dependence P

- FEDERAL COURT HEPORTERS

36703 l

1 had been compromised in any way, why did you prepare 1

()I 2 this memorandum for all site personnel?

3 A. I know what authority I have. I know what 4 management support I have within the company. There 5 in absolutely no doubt in my mind that I have all 6 the authority and all the management support to 7 enforce and implement a strong, offective and 8 independent Quality Assurance organization at 9 comanche Peak. There is absolutely no doubt in my 10 mind that that is so.

11 ilowever, I wanted to make sure that the 12 inspectors and everybody in the QA/QC organization 13 understood that that authority and that management 14 backing existed. I did not want a shadow of a doubt 15 to exist as to our independence anc our authority, 16 and no I issued these memon.

17 Q. Mr. Vega, have any of the other QAI files 18 involved allegations of harassment, intimidation or 19 threats of Quality control inspectors?

20 And let me be clear what I mean by other ~~

21 other than-QAI file 0002, QAI file 0007, OAI file 22 0012, QAI file 0015 and QAI files 0016, 0018 and 23 0019 -- other than those OAI files, have any other 24 QAI filen included allegations of harassment, G 25 intimidation or threats of Quality control FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ._- _ _ _ _ _ _

In - q g- '

O $. &

., 36704 a

~

^ ' ,~

f U $ ;.

'[*

i

_ 5 W- ;

j' l ( f^ . ,

M c1: Linspectors?'

';- 1 '

t

,' 'g} e } 2f

~ ~

.,fA.- LNo, netjto.the' hest'of my knowledge. There

c. Q. -

c 9 3 'are'no otheroinstances/ reflected in?any~other QAI's. .

_ r .t.

l0.

. - u..

4- And-you receive" copies ? of athe. QAI . files', do .

5 youlnot?.l. -

/

.e ,

4i . .

, -- - , 6 c,

g. A. Y e s , . I _: do.. 3 r

s -

=7- Q. Even if'they're a'nonymous i' yo u rece'ive ., them'- -

~

, ' . e 2

.e a -

9 .

t

'8 sindicating their names-~have-been' withheld? ,

.r

".9 ,

IA. Yes.. JIiknow the substance offthe. '

1

-10 statements. I' don't know+who made'the' statements, -

s ,,j y : :11: b u t:7 I-certainly do know-the pointsi tha tihave '_been L

y . .? : n - .

12 -

brought.forth'. 3:

m .

jl3r Q. .tir. Vega,,does TUCCO':have a. policy'about Y ,

14 'i s's ui ng!- r e p r i ma nd s to employees:in'a public. forum 7- .

4 .

' ' ~

g ,

-15 lA.: Yes'. ,

~

16 ,

[Q . What is-that po11cy7 ,

~

f.

117 A. The policy is~ tha t;we ~ praison'in' public- and il , ,: .

r ,

M: <16 reprimand.in. private, unless the offenseJia such 4 - -

h_ '19 = t h a t ' a J pu b l i'c statement 7 1sinecessary to correct the 1

20~ feffects of the origina1' offense,'and thentonly to E .t <

2' ,

?

b i, "

. > 21 .theJextent absolutely necessary.

'And in your judgment, has[it'beenEnecessary

~

Q.-

, '22 4

, 12 3; to reprimand publicly ~anyone involved,Lin these QAI

w. '

<, 24 incidents about which you've testified? .

D Q 23

~

'A,

N o ..

a s

h .

, s J J

'f,.

3

) g FEDERAL. COURT RtPORTERS *

. - _ + .

.~ . -- n-= - - ~ - -

u. , .n s

'1 s. .

136705~

y_ -

s. ,

~

. 'l Q ,; (M r . -. ve g a ',- you've testifled about the way inI q .- .

4 dy -

2 whichethese particular: complaints were' investigated

3E 'and-resolved. How does.this[ process ' differ from: the- '

~

l.way.in!which' complaints of this; nature wereJresolved

~

4+

, 5: Jprioritolthe_ appearance ofrthe ombudsman'on s i t e ?.

4 6- A.) 01 course,: the ombudsman program Asi 4

. .7 relatthely[new. B'u t ievensbefore'that program,

-T 8 problems.of?the kindidescribedlin the QAI file were a

" ~

E, z9 ' handled;in roughlysthe same way'as these incidents.

f' 1.0 w e r e ' h'a n d l e d . There was'another situation ofiwhich

~

7 11 oI.an' aware, and that' involved an'allegationief

! ~~ 121 harassment and intim'ida t i oni by -Bill Dunham. . .

13 I conducted an investigation'into the Bill ~Dunham ,.

. ~14 matter.-

t' .. e .. . ..

.15 Q.- Prior to that'= time, had .there been .y 16 instances.where l'nspectorsiand craftsmen were r +

, 17 involved i n - d i f f e r'e n c e s of opinion,. or. voices were

^ 18 raised? .c i ,

y 19' A. Oh,'I'm sure'thers were. Any timeltha't you e '

20 ~ have that many people' involved inla project, as long 21 as.you have indiv'iduals involved, you are g o i nig . t o -

'2 21 have differences of epinions you are going to-have 23 '

discussions, especially when both. organizations are-24- . free to speak their mind. And in this particular j 25. case, I want to emphasize-that CC Inspectors are 4

k . $

' FEDERAL COURT' REPORTERS

7, ,

~

m 3G706 1 free--to speak theirJmind, ana.they cer'tainly have. "

(t 2 ;and;haveJhad all the. backing _they need to conduct n

~

L3' thei r 'insp'ections as theyJsee fit in accordanc's with 4 .their procedures.

5- s.. . Human nature-being'what.it is, when a

^

6; . person is' inspected there wouldfbe a tendency to 4- 7- -lead to a discussion;;however, I don't believe that, _

~ 8_ Lin any case, discussions-of this nature have '

9 adversely affected ~ the inspector's' objectivity or- .

10 the inspector's commitment to conduct his 11 inspections.ingfull compliancetwith applicable 12 requirements.

$s: 13. O. Mr. Vega, I'd like to direct your attention t ,J

14. to_QAI file'0004. .

15 A.-" O k a y'.

- 16' O .' tus you recall testifying about.the 17 substance of the allegations contained in that: file?.

'18

~

iA.' 1 ~ don't recall testifying about_this.

~

19' part'icular item, but'I certainly am familiar with.

20 the facts.

21 0. What is the substance of the. complaint -<

22- l raised:there in OAI file 00047 s

23

, A. The substance is with the implementation _oq

. 24 a policy that was established in the records-vault

( .

25 that; required that people call in before nine y FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

m

+h*g

m. _

hj M V 367071 a

m 4 -

n .

"4 j+ ,2 ' . .

,g c, c, e , ~3

, g . i f i theyEexpected to be absentz thatCday.

S^. -

There;were i some' allegations of inconsistent

q. ~ '

( -

+ .

I, 3 1 application"of 2 th'is policy and an instance where.the

. . m . '

. implementation'ofJthisipolicy, to a.certain extent',

m. ,

,s.. ,J41 ,

, +.

<7 j; i, S ' rwas' carried out in;other than a private form.

, i:Q ,

, '_ +

'6; *This item'was investigated.. ;The supervisor-p 9 ,

'N.

. 7 . wass counseled.- , I visitedswith him personally. 'I c ,

L8: >

visited with the. people-that'were involved as f a r: as 1

, s. ;_ .

4 1 9. . having tieen disciplined at variance with an

, s , , .

[. t ,10 acceptab1'oprocedure, e and I' directed tha tEttief ~be y

reimbursed for,the time during which they were sent. +

11 +

home wi th e.u t pay. .

~

< ,'- 12- As a. r e sult- of administering ~thisL a , , --

j ~ ~, l'3 L p r og r a m', - we reimbursed them for;their. time and we ,

n3;1 .:

'14 ' conveyed to~them that it wasinot,ourqpolicy to jl 5'. tiimplement. discipline in pub 1'ic and.certain1.y not Ti n -

i .

+ -

~

7s -

~

16 anylwaygridiculing an'. employee.

4 <

17 .Q. Now, in'your judgment, did this complaint u ,

18 'havelanything'toIdo withiharassmentland intimidation r <

v. . ,

19_ oflinspectors in'the, performance of their job? '

-20 . A '. . .No. These'peoplecwere not. inspectors.

21' O. Did the people involved .in :this matter

, s .

w-

'22 -indicate that1they were satisfied with tho' 23 --resolution provided?.

L24 cA. Yes,fthe'y did indicate that they were.

~

.L 25 s a t i 's f i e d . -

C I J f +

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

1 ,

'c -

- "36708 !

, g. w -+

,t m

, + Y t

) ,

t 1 Q. Let me back up and be clear'on a couple-of fl ,

2 ; points inLyour testimony, Mr.-Vega. When you say h f35 - the0 people subject.to this policy had'been 4 '- disciplined,;-you meant.they.had been sent-home.

4

F '

5 without pay for failing to call in? -

n . 6 ' A '. - Thatiis correct. They had been'sent'home.

7 without- pay for. failure to call before nine o' clock.

~8i But-there.was some question as to whether they'had-1 9: or had not, orLwhether it"was-a minute before nine

~

10 or a minute after nine,.and discussions'as to a

c 11- whether the call 1was made'on-time or.not made.on 12 ' time was discussed-openly. I did not believe'that 21 3 this.was appropriate.

11 4- 'Again, I'm a' firm believer in disciplining 15 - people in; private. -I-did not concur with'the way ~ ,

a

. ' 16 ; this. matter' had been handled'by the pa r t i ~c u l a r.. , ,

'17) ~ supervisor, and the matter was dispositioned o

.1 a cc o r d i ng'l y .

g '19 , , i'O. .Mr. Vega, I ' d . 'li k e to direct.your attention 20- to QAI file 0021. >

/

21 A. Yes.' -

22 10. - Do you recall testif ying about 'tha t; QAI _

23'

- file?

t 5 24 A. Yes, 11do.

(o 25 Q. Is that a-file that was initiated because ,

E FEDERAL COURT REPORTERG

g= f

. + ,

4-t **

36709 l3 .

1 , of a complaint of Mr. Scruggs?(

i_j . j2 : s A ". Yas.

J .3 ( 10. What was the substance of Mr. Scruggs'.

4 fcomplaint?

5 / A. Mr. Scruggs stated in his exitiinterview ,.

> y

. s 6' -that ha'hkd brought -- well,-initially, Mr. Scruggs ,

s .-

E- ,

7 did"not want to discussfconcerns. 'In the a, >

, /

8 li ^ ' '

. questionnaire:,that he filled out --

~

9 Q. -That's the e x i t 'v , >

<- h A ,

i' ' f0 ^A.. -The exit questionnaire, yes.

t

. '.1 1 ~~ he stated that he was~ aware of 1/ua li ty 12 3 problems at Comanche Peak and that>he'was in contact

. s 13 with D. Eisenhutt, Broo'ks Griffin -- Brooks-Griffin v . s -

' % 14' i oljNRC - .and that he.would give them a.11strof his-g ,,

~

l ,g i s ,15 ' concerns'. _

s

-I. wa s puzzled by.this particular

^

a. >

~

i 'i 16 ~ , interview, because Mr. BeruggsLhad virited with me

~

17 :perhaps a couple of weeks before the ROF occurred. t 3 9,[; ,

~

'i18 Q. Was this' exit interview filled out'at the.

L

, 119 ,

, time h's . w a s ROF'd?' .

Yes., '

20' A. .

< 21 Q. You were about toI tslate a conversation you i ,T

,, 22 ~ hsd'with Mr. Scruggs about two. weeks before that? -

(

That is correct., Scruggs had byen

. 23- A'. M r'.

t -24..- turned down for ; security,%

q'

.y

.j ,

s

. -25 0.5 % That is, he wa s, denied a security clearance?

>\ r' . t

.Tw . , .w 1 -w' ,

, V{

V .g. %

,s

!l -

M '

{ ,

'.t FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS -_

4

1- /, ,, , ,

~

+ ' t" * . -_-: y @

~

_~ ,

. ,e -

36710=

1 fc

.' Mk

=: ' '

'L,__

i J: ,

~

, , 3

>P

.. i e .

, 4

'13 7 A'. , HetwasJdenied-a securityiclearance.

.I

~_ ,

h i , a d v i s e'd . h'i m , by memo, that.his1 request for. security

.. . . - + .. .

3 -clearance had been= denied,fand that if he wished,'he' 14 Twouldcbe'. afforded with the opportunity to visit with? #

. n > '

5 fcorporate security'-people so'that they could explain-

[ ;6 to}him the' basis'for-the-denial. _

[7' # He stated to me that he knew why his- ,

O'

. 8' ' security was denied, but that he. wanted to-appeal'to

5; another level. I explained to him that the

x 10 requirements that m'ust be satisfied are defined in a-

~

11 regu1 story. guides that we reallyfhave no control-12 over'the cr'iteria itself.-

He expressed-a desire to:

[h ,

M tr-13:

, 14 italk'to our-corporate security-people,cand'I a r rang ed .. f o r, tha t. to 'ha ppen. <

^

15 Mr. Scruggs stated to me at~that': time'that

' 16 '"he?was;very.' happy at comanche Peak,,-that h'isitather 17.1, had, retired whlie' working atsComanche Peak (.thatfhe' 4

s. 18 . felt a certain closeness to the' project a nd' 'tha t ' he .

f.

19 wanted.to; continue. working ~out here. He didn't

- 20 express.to me any' concerns, and so this, to.me, was 1

21 a l a r m 1'ng because I had7 spoken'to'him two weeks

' earlier.

22' We had~had,'I ~ thought, a veryiwarm 23' C i

discussion,.certainlyJe very. friendly discus'slon,

, 7-24; and'so this.was a' surprise to.me.

( *

~

25 At the exit interview, which was'cenducted

.O<

T 2 -- -

' FEDERAL.; COURT REPORTERS ,

36711 t

\

o

p,

\

3r1 'by M.r. Crier, Mr. .Scruggs: finally agreso to. Identify

'~ <

() 2. one area of concern, and he stated that there was a 3: room i n ' t'h e auxili~ary building where'he had a

4 concern'relativ's to a cable tray cover. He stated s

S that' h*ahad ialked t toiDoug Snow about this >

~

.G 'p'a r t i c u l'a r problem. .~ -

.7 'Mr. Grier initiated an. Investigation. I 1 ; .. . ,

0 ;G{ subsequently was talking to Mr. Snow on another.

. t p1 .

Vc subject and 1, asked hin about this. Mr. Snow told.

10 , -me that hr. Sc!r ug g s had never brought a'ny' problem to

/ 11 his; attention. Mr.. snow did state that.Mr. Screghs'

,, 1.2 supervisor had relayed a-concern to him concernin'g a

,a y.

W 13- caparation problem. In order to solve a separation

v~

problem, a tray cover'was installed.

. 1[t . .

-s

' , ' 1 f. The point t h a t ..M r . Scruggs was making.was 16 ,that in. going back to do'somw work on some of the cadler/ aroside the cable., tray e+ver, - 47.Y. we had to remove 17 (pyv iftX c

'le. the cable trayj -Mr. Scruggs felt that at that very inst,ance we had'a non-conforming ~condit1'on and l 19' we 3

x

^

l20W should1 4 s,us ,

'a, n N C R . ~i l 4 ' ,- ,

d

~21 o M,r . Snow explained that 't i was necessary to

.22-ww er. .

remove t,he trayg to doD the Mork-and. explained that l p

23 the traveler itself hadla pr$v'isi$n and required the L.cable tray l" (JVW 0. V . _ ' -

1 g tobc' reins ltaAled and. tor an inspection 2 4 ,-

- p# -

25 to be r e d o n'e . In light'of the positive controls, 0 ,

FEDERAL C O kJ RT - R E P ORT ER S - 3

m ,

e 36712 l' there was a disagreement that an NCR was proper. I' g

U 2 !certainly concurred with that. !!a d an NCR been f

3 3 issued, I would have ~ volded the thing, had-it come

-4 to my attention.

-5 This i s -'the only item that I know of that 6 'he expressed a concern about, and I'm satisfied that-7 the action'that.was.taken was entirely appropriate 8 'for.this situation.

'9 -0. fi r . Vega, in your experience, has t'h e --

10 strike that.

11 'How would you' describe the effectiveness of 12 the ombudsman program at Comanche Peak?

13 A. I believe the program has been very 7j LL/ -

14 effective. I believe that every' inspector _on the

~

15 site knows of Mr. Grier's presence, and there have 16 been people'that have come: f orwa rd and expressed 17 concerns.

~ 10 Q. AndDthe lio t Line Program,.what?s your-19 assessment of.its effectiveness?

20 A. I don't get' involved with the Ilo t, Line 21 Program as muchfas I do'the ombudsman program. Our 22;- effort-at'the site is to mako people aware'that the

- 23 Il o t ' L i n esis available and we encourage people to use

' 24 it, but these investigations are conducted out of >

~]' 25 the corporate security office. And while(I am aware

_ a FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS.

s

_- u __

,s 36713 1 -

of'the nature of the investigations,.especially when

-( s') I2 they relate to an activity.on site, I have reason to -

3 -believe the program is effective and certainly 4 meeting the intended objective.

S ,

M R'. DOW1EYs LWhat about a break.

,,- 6 :(Discussion of f the record.)

,7 . O. Mr. Vega, who is responsible for setting 81 disciplinary policy for-QC/0A. employees;at Comanche 9: ' Peak? .

10 A. :I am. ,

11 0. Are-you satisfied that you have a souAd 12 disciplinary policy' at Comanche Peak?

(~s - 13~ A .- Yes, I am.

-LA.

14: ~ 0. Have you made any effort to compare'the

'15 disciplinary policy of the QA/0C' Department 'with the

..t '16 ^ construction group?

17J .A. No, I have<not. ,

18 0 And what factors guided your thinking in

'19 . establishing' disciplinary policy, or, I believe you 20 said, in continuing the disciplinary policy that was 21 in effect when-you.took~over?

22 A.. The program, as.you tentioned, was already s

23 in place. 'I reviewed it prior to'my, personal 1 24 endorsement, and I concurred with.Its provisions.

G-2 25 I want to clarifyLay' previous answer u

FEDERAL-COURT REPORTERS j

32 ~36714

~

1 relevant to comparison of disciplinary programs. I b( ) 2 'do:not get involved with: disciplinary matters in the 3 engineering and construction side of the house 4 unless the disciplinary action is a result of an .

5 interaction with a QC inspector.- In tha t - pa r t i c u'la r 6 case s'I review the disciplinary action on an 7 : i n d i v i d.ua l basis and determine whether the 8 disciplinary action adequately addresses the 9^ incident that occurred. From'that standpoint,1I do c10 assess adequacy of disciplinary actions, but.I 11 .certainly have not reviewed theiriFrogram to compara 12 it to ours. I. don't see any relevance. It's two

_f, q ~13 different organizations, two different companies, v

14, perhaps even' caliber of people. .Theldegree to which 15 we test our people, the degree to which we train our X

16 people, the degree to where -- tho' degree to.which 17 they are' trained, examined,. certified, certainly, I 18 be116ve, would merit a'different type of program

~

19 dealing with a different.1evel' of professionalism.

20 And I'm.not saying this is in any way 21 ~ - derogatory to the construction side'of the house.

They have very conscientious p'eople, very good t

=

23 people, but I'believe-that we're. talking two i

- ;2 4 ~ different organizations a'nd two levels of-expertise.

EO' 25 0; since.you have assumed-control of site.QA

, ' FEDERAL. COURT REPORTERS

36715 l .

u

~ '

l' function',7can you cite forcus some examples cf_the.

L) -2' kinds.of disciplinary matters'that arose'in-the -

j -3 technical area's of the QC-area? Or let me'- cla r i f y

~'

4 that. . Disciplinary; action you've taken as'a result.

-5' of; perceived, technical ' deficiencies,.

6' 'A.- In regard to technical ~deficien'cles,-we m '7 have had one instance in thefThermalagearea where an 8 inspector was found'to not have properly inspected 9 his' items, the work that he inspected.=_We N< 10 subsequently'went.back and had to redo all.of his?

l ~ 11 inspections. We ended _uh terminating.that.. inspector.

12 O. As-a consequence o'f hisitechnical

,d 13 deficiencies?-

Y i 14 A. As adconsequencefof his technical 1

-' ~15 deficiency or attention t o ' d e t a' 11. ~ A n o.t h e r 'i n s t a n c e-16 that comes to mind is'an' inspector who performed a- ,

17 number of inspections that had to_be' redone., .In

~

. 11 8 that particular case we pulled his certifications a

I<

19 and, in essence, demoted him out of an inspector. v.

20 position. '.

Again, those disciplinary actio'ns are taken

~

n 21 -

22 on.an individual case basis,.but certainly- ,

23. consistent with our overall.

~

24 Q. -Are disciplinary actions'as aD result of-3 7k A ~25 technical deficiencies a frequent ~ occurrence?

Y Iv

^ ~ ~

^

FEDERAL" COURT'HEPORTERS

, g. , 36716 I'

3 J

1- -

A.. No, not all.

,)

2 0 Other than tha two examples you have cited,

'3; can you think of any other instances where there has 4 been discipline of an inspector'because of the

~

5 4 technical; deficiencies?

6' A.- No. As far as disciplinary action is 7- . concerned, these are-the only ones that come to mind.

8. O. Now, on the administrative-side,-have'you-9: found occasion to discipline employees as a result 10 of administrative problems since'you've been on site?

11 A. Yes. In regard to work' habits, in' regard 12 to attendance,.in regard"to s l e e p i n g ' o n~ t h e' job, in es -

13 ' regard to the failure to show, return to their job' L) 14 after extended absences.

'15 'O. And with respect to those administrative

'16 actions, how are those implemented.at the site?

17 A. As far as what actions are t a k e n~, the:

18 actions taken include termination, include

~

19 ffurioughing people without pay, sending.them'home 20 .for three days without pay, placing them on

' 21' probation, combinations of.these.

22 0. What steps have you madeito ensure.that 23; administrative policies are~ enforced on a uniform -

24' basis within'the-QA' Department?

~

. 2 5' A. Well, one key item is the memo that-we

" ~

-FEDERAL COURT' REPORTERS

36717 1 talked about ~ earlier, the --

.' I ,) 2: Q. That's Vega Exhibit 2; is that correct?

3 A. Let.me check. Yes, that is Vega Exhibit 2.

4 .That's correct. That defines'the program. Of 5 . course, to properly implement a program and

6 ' consistently implement a program requires a lot of 7 communication with people, reemphasizing to them th'e1

'8 importance of communicating with people their' 9 . strengths,'their weaknesses with an'overall 10 ~ objective of making your inspectors the most 11' -pro'ficient inspection force 1n.the country.,

12- Q. 'Mr.-Voga, are you familiar.with what has

re 13- come to be known as the T-shirt incident?

id. ~

14 A. Yes, I am4 familiar wl'thithat incident.

E 15 Q. Mr. Vega, what was yourEkrst f

^

1nvolvement 16 in the-T-shirt incident?'

17 'A. '1 conducted an--investigation o n :- t h e day- .

10 following the-initial incident.

19 0.- .And ~ what..was 'the nature'of yourz 20 investigation?

21' A. 'I t was to dete'rmine what.was the underlying 22 reasons -f or the T-shirt--incident and to make-4 23 recommendations on any actions that might b e.

24: necessary or appropriate.

M(~3 25 _ Q. What were your-conclusions about the 3

L FEDERAL COURT REPORTERG

36710 s I reasons for --

1;h -2' A. .I concluded-that the inspectors did not 3- in tiend - to convey dissatisfaction.or' concerns but,

~

4; rather, it was'more of an act of levity. .They< felt 5 that she' management h'a d overreacted to the situation.

7 6 -To a certain' extent, I agreed with that t 7 conclusion. I don't bel'leve that there was any, 8 message-. intended. -

f

~

2 9 0 Did:you tike this opportunity to~ ask the

~

10' inspectors to state- anyJ concerns they h a d ? :.

~

1 11 A. .We[did discuss some' concerns that they-had.

. 4 e 12 Those. we're .inves tiga t ed.. We subsequently, visited..

N 13' . with-'the different inspec to rs;itha t! had different

.; V . '

14- concerns and" resolved all offt'heirlitems,~all of

-15 their concerns.. ,

16 .Q. . .Did you personally-identlfy each of.-their _

~

17 concerns? ,

f' 10 A. Yes, I did.

s --1

-19 0. And 7did you' personally? 1 20f A.> Yes. I wast-involvedJin,it_to varying 21[ degrees. Let me'exp1'ain'that. *

-22 The incident occurred on March 8th.- I ,

23 i n t'e r v i ew ed the inspectors onJ March-1 9th. I'became 4

.24 QA' manager on' March 1 6 t h .- Particularly.,from March --

O 25' -16th on,\I did 1hitiate'some' actions with

~

p; _

+ .

FEDERAL. COURT REPORTERS j

36719"

~

1 engineering on resolution of the tecnnical items, ,

(_/-) 2 'a nd initiated some other actions to address some'of'.

3 Jthe non-technical issues.

4 -A. Yes, that is-correct.

5 O. Mr. Vega,_could you identify, by name,fthe-6 eight'~ persons who were-in.the T-shirt ~~ wore the-7 ..T-sh i r t s that day?

C A. I'm not'sure that I' can recall their names, 9 butEI.believe I could recognize most'ofLtheir names.

~

1o- Wayne Whitehead, Ed Snyder and Milton Barfield came 1 11 to mind just now.

12 MR. DOWNEY _

-Off the record.

~y 13 (Discussion o'ff the r e c o rd .~ )

~

%J-14' '

O. Mr. Vega,.were any off the people' involved 15.' in'the Teshirt matter transferred from the e

,16 Safeguards Building.to another building during March 17 19627 10- Dr, . . Ye s , '1 believe they were.

19 -0. And.why was there-a transfe'r of electrical 20 inspectors from Safeguards Building during March 21- 1982? '

~

.22 A. Well, there was a stop work in Safeguard -

23' ' Unit 1, and at that time we needed to reduce the 24- electrical-inspector work force because of' this stop.

I.

L f*#'\N 25- work.

PEDERAL COURT REPORTERS- ~

~, .- .. _

m _. -- - -

36720

,r %

$A 1' Q . .- What is a-stop work?

,(,9) 2 .A. .It;means exactlycthat. 'You.stop ~ the craft

3- Jand the' inspectors--- well, it' depends od: the scope 70 - of'the work itself, the-work that's defined.in the -

5 stop-work l document. ,

6 Q. What was the scope of the work that was

~

7- stopped - inithe Safeguards Building?

8 A. Final post construction electrical-4: 9- inspections and' work associated in clearing items 10 from those inspection functions. .

11 Q. And that caused there to be less workLfor 12 electrical inspectors'.to do in that buildings: Is

,; , 13 thatlright? ,

(,) -

14 A. That is' correct.

s 15 Q. so you decided to reduce your work force-in 16; that area?'

' 17. A. That is correct.

18 Q. !!ow were ^ the people selected for transfer?.

19 'First let~ me ask you, who selected them for 20 -transfer?

21 A .y The_ building QC: supervisor.

22 0.- Who was-that?

23 A. A_ gentleman by the name of 01a r k Welch.

24 Q. Did,you review his selections?

. ,m

- '~ t >i 25' A. Yes, I did review his selections..

_ h TP @ D 57 N B f3

~

36721

-^ 1 10 / And ~ did he submit to you' a memorandum

() '2 explaining-the ba s'i s - f o r hi's selections?1 3 ' A' . ' Yes.

-s.' . .

.4 LO. :And is.that memorandum-marked ~for 5' . identification as'Vega Exhibit 67

' 6 '. 'A. Yes, it is.

7 'O. Turning to page E strike thet.

8 Do- you know wh'a't J e r i te r i a Mr. Welch applied 9- in' making his< determinations?'

' 10 A. -Yes, I do.

11 0. What criteria =eid he apply?

$ -12 A. Mr. Welch wanted ~ the people that1had'the.

O- 13 most certifications to. remain, the people who-had-

'd' 14 the best attendance records to remain. .And that'was ISL the criteria that hs used except in one particular.

16 insta'nce. .

17 0. 'And did he comm'it to paper,these various 18 certifications and attendance records of the

?l9 employees who-were-electrical inspectors in the 20 Safeguards Building!at that time? ,

- 21 A. Yes, h'e did.- And that was the basis for ,

22 . his transfer. ,

'23 0 -And'is a' chart setting out the attendance

- 24 1 records'and: certifications of ~these personnel

(^1

- 25 included'in'his-memorandum to you.which has been ,

Y c-

.(

.T

~

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS-_._

~

, s , , y -

~7 36'722

' ~ '

t .#1

+

,1-

-[..

_, , u 3 s - , ,

w _ ,

ma rk'e'dj f or 'identi fica tion fa s Vega Exhlbit 6 71

' il - -

1* L2: .

-JA .: -Yes.. .

< -[.

' 7 y

= . .

" " *And .did,he provide a? handwritten

43. -0..

g -.

- b

~

1.~

': 4' Hexplanati'orUof the basis # for-h1s ~~

v W_m l5. -

.A. Yes,fhe did.He4 p r o v i d e d -,a handw'ritten .j s

~

-6: ~ .,basisitorteach> Inspector that$was. transferred. <

r

7[ ; [Q . . 'Now,;-who_were .the inspectors wh'o were -,

s. s i e.- ' .- ".

x.

e.

N 8' .. transferred?:

T h e -i n s p e c t o'r's ' w e r e - B a r f i e l d , Jones,-Pryo',. r 1

!S'.

_ A '. -

~.

ishamblin, -s'nyde r - a nd : Whi tehead.' '

10~ -

s in .,

~., 11 - ..Q.7 Which of those inspectors'was transferred:

r x;~

, <12 : lfor. reasons othercthan' attendance-in certif1 cations?'

~

^

13 ; A.; one7 person.

^ #--

14 01 .Whenwas=that? ,

~

m 15 = , J AL That was Wayne- Whi tehead.

16f -

Q. . Why, wa s .. Mr h Wh'i tehea'd transferred? ?- ,

r 17, -A." .Mr. Whitehead ~~does have a;. lot of ,

t 7

' [. ' -

4

+

, '18' -certifications [ and?h'is attendanceihaslbeen good.-

'i

~ .

P. , s 19 . He was; acting' lead .in'the Safeguards. Building. And q w .

hI * .' 2 0 Mr.-Whitehead is very much of;aJnatural leader. Mr.

1

[; , L21; welch?needed[only'one ~ 1ead immedi$tely after'the'

,3> ,

m 7 :. -

, t22i (stopfwork., fAnd.so,'in order to.noto compromise the w '

s - ,, .. .

g .c L23- :5supe rviso ry . cha in'lof , command ,; h'e n tra ns f e r red .Mr.l , ^

^ '

r 24 ' : W h i, t e h e a d . :It4 was his) feeling, and I. concurred, >-

j L1, '

25; sthire'Lwould bewaf; tendency-for some of the inspectors

~

h

, 4 f , 9 s3 .

~ -- 7 ,FEDERA [ COURT'.. REPORTERS ,

~

1 to g o' to 'M r.<.;Whi te he ad instead-;of the lead that was- -

[) 2 remaining ~in Safeguards'1.- A n'd so for this reason, 3 .so as'not to e apromise the supervisory structure, 4 he did transfer Mr.; Whitehead to. Unit 2.

5- Again, his primary reason is that Nr.

-6 ' Whitehead is very'auch of. a natural' leader; he's' 7- very' knowledgeable; he is looked up to'by a lot of 8 the1 inspectors out there. And there would be that-9 natural tendency to go to Mr. Whitehead.

10 0.- Did he fill that. leadership role in. Unit 2 11 with respect'to these inspectors?.

12- A. Yes, I believe he did..

-)

-~s.

13 Q. Mr. Vega, was the' participation'in the 14 wearing ofLthe T-ihirts a criterion used.by Mr.

15 Welch inadetermin'ing-who would.be transferred?

16 A. ho. The T-shirt incident 1had nothing to do 17 with.the' transferring of people.

18 Q. . In fact, were'some-of t'he, people who wore

[.

19 -T-shirts transferred?

20 A.- Yes. Some - of them we re transferred; some I 21 of them remained.

22 .Q. .And some ~ of the people;who were transferred 23 didn't we a r' T-shi r ts , right?

24 A. Yes.

, O' '

L - 25 Q. -And some of them who, remained didn't wear

' FEDERAL. COURT REPORTERS

f' .

3G724 .

1 T" shirts?

2 A. _Yes.. It just so happened that come of the 1

3' people who were transferrec wore T-shirts; some

'4 remained.'- L And some of the people transferred didn't 5 h' ave-anything to do with the T-shirts. It was 6 strictly based'on attendance, based on 7 qualifications. With one exception: Nr. Whitehead.

~.

6 0. .Mr. Vega, do you recall Nr. Barfield as

'9 >being one of the' employees who wore c T-shirt and 10 was involved' in the T-shirt incident?

_11 A. .Yes.

12 Q. Is Mr. Barfield currently cmployed at 13 Comanche Peak?

-14 A. No, he is not.

15 Q. Why is-he no lo ng e r eraplo yed ?

16 A. He requested an ROF.

i 17 Q. And I'll ask you to review the document I 18 marked for identification as Vega Exhibit 7.

j 19 A. Okay.

,,- 20 07 Do.you recognize that document?

21 A.- Yes.

22 'Q. What'is it?

' 23 A. It is Mr. Barfield's request for an-ROF 2' 4 effective May the lith'of '84. That request was 25 forwarded to me. At that particular time, I-wanted e

I FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

36725

(; s -

i r

. x -

fj .1 ; t o '~ m a k e 's u r e that~ there was absolutely no' holdover L (d. ,. .-

2 from the T-shirt-incident.

I visited withlMr.

3 Barfield. I a s'k e d : h i m h o w -, t h i n g s were going on the 4 job. Hetwasfvery complimen'tary. .

He stated that he i.

'5! was happy-working at Comanche 1P'eak,'but he aldo~

6- mentioned-that:hks mother and father- were upTin the

-71 . eighties, that'he wanted toebe. closer to-them and

- 8 that, accordingly', he~had.a'n opportunity back4 in

- ,. . 9}, Virginia where.hejwould be'close to them. ,

10 - He' assured me that he had. experienced.no 11- adverse-treatment, that he was.happyswith the way 12 things were going, t h a t- i h e was very complimentary of- ,

'1 ' 13 .the p r o g r a m .- Having been' satisfied that this indeed- ~

3( x / Y i l 14, was theLease, I approved the-ROF request.

15 Q. And'does Vega~ Exhibit 3' 7 indicate your kl 16' '. a p p. r o v a l ? ' g

. 7

, .-j 17 A. . _ Yes, cit does. .

+

~

18 .

Q. And do you' recognize .any! other: signa tures 11 9 on- Vega-Exhibit:77-20 A. I recognize.Mr..Purdy's. . j l

L c 21 .Q. Did he also approve the ROF7 22 A. Yes.. Lyes, he did.

23 Q. Mr. Vega, do you' recall Wayne Whitehead's l ,, -- 2 4 -having been involved in the T-shirt -- having worn'a y 25 T-shirt'on the day in question?

e d

[ '

' f7RMFtfSM G@91TBT __R_E P O R T E R S '

, g .r .e . .

...~ > ~ - .

%(

W j *

.- ~

e "' T s

, y. .. 36726- ,

- - ' ~

<~

. , . ;t. ,

ta . , ,

a.

( 'r q>

1 ., . . .

, ;c .. . - .

,1 0 - ,

.c ~ ,

-1; t A .t 1Yes,.I*doarecall.

' wh ' '2 , .Q. ;Is'Mr., Whitehead still employed at Comanche -

a .

fw n .

ue A ;3 ' Peak?. _ ,

" + 0 l' " ' . , .

, 3 .y ,

/ .

x.

A .> Yes,;he sure i s '. "

-S4 . . .

~

g . . 5 _. =02 . And-have--you had an' occasion to talk:with L

s 61

. Mr.-Whitehead about his pe r c e pt:f o n o f ' th e - j ob , Jhis4

?,

t , s V 7.. -jobiat Comanche? Pea'k?- 3

- ?

S :. .

~.I -- ..;

.8 7A. Oh, y e s .~ . I', visit'd e with ~ him on' num'erous ,

.9 foccasions'.'

~

W , _

7 .

' 10- ,10 . Do youthave any reason-toxbelieveJthat Mr.' ,

1 Whitehead has 11'195eelings.aboutithe T-shirti

~

.7' m

-11' -

7 +

~

j.4 12'-

2 incident?, W , ,

I< ~

J

>~ -

..r.., ,

' .. . .. . ,

b;.

W)'T' p.2

'-13s" 1A.. N o , ' n o t-).a.ti a <l ,l'.'" :

I L. ha v e~ talked to him'on '

,i

, c .

+

f14 several! occasions.c S o m e i o f ' t h o s e 'd i s c u s s i o n,'s ( h'a v e X .

- a y

' 15 been workirelated;1others have beenicasual a -

[6. discussion's.- IHe h a s -. t a k e n ztheioccasion'to state .

" . .7 . . .

lthatihe is. happy 1withlhis.jhb=andahas also been:

~

171 -

. t

u -

A wv. 18f ' complimentary.of.the . program.: .

( t

.za .

e 19- :Q. Do youl-recall EddiefSnyder-as;having>wornia .

g. -

I . 's , .g 'M

~

( ,2 0 LT-shirte and;been'1ny'olvedyinTthe'T-shirtTmatter?= -

?

- o ,

'.l -b'--l l* ,

J214 ;A. Yes,'I'dolremember Eddie Snyder.' . .- :

, < - n ,

, c

2_ . .

h 22 - -

.Q. 'IsvMr.-SnyderSatill employed at-: Comanche -

- :,0 ,

'..., y ,- .

. .a

, ._ _ . t D'y : 23 Peak? x a

, y; -

. . .. .. As

24~ '.A.1 w No, h e1-i s not. 'He has resigned.: - -

{

n[o . y. ? ] < 't

@]'

, ~ ,,

, :25;'

Q.. Did'you mee't.with him at the time?;5 r. y

.m E $.

~

6 '; # '. f _-

, _X ,

.* -\r

, n

'e-

[S. Fx.,

[ -

t 4 3

, _ . . $ 1 J'

,. 3 6 ',

['

N-.

?,. [ h: m :k.h.l?.la.

a

- u j$ '#'

^

? * '

l36727l -

y .

, _f ,, y m q A . :s n~; -,

+y a '

;a ,

, c , , g g s. -. .

x -

hp ' L

lj *

^ '

c, ~.. .

~

1 <

.< ,a

'W

El , -A.i;

~.

yY e s ,' 11 dd i d . :m e e t . w i t h 'h. i m ;

_. - - -. - s .

Again,LITwanted m . a , .

s -

I e / t

_j .- t~ 3 1n~.l ' '

S t o 'm a k o D a b s o l u t e l y s u r e' t!h a t E th e s e,. sp e o pl e.; we r e ',n o. t.

c.2- ,

k , ,: _ c n M

y- <'f

?

3wu, linnany May'.' experiencing?any k i n d' .o'f;-a'd v e r s e ..

.s

.. i y g.~.

s

4 i . t r e~a t m'e n t .;

Igwan(ted t'o sa'tisfy=myself t'h'a t 1 t~ he y?

y. F- ,

~ '

C', '

51

^

we r al b e l hiy ~t r e a t e d ia 's s a'n yor t h e ry i n s p e c t o r - o u t ' th e r e . w z, < .

. p - ~,

s ,

u -

. m,

~

f; '6 $ I .. v i s i t e d~ w'i t'h 'h'i m .' - 'lle W a s s u r e d me 2t h a tL Eh e.

N 7w ;,- ,

f. w a O

N i [e cei vbd 'no' ( 111ttif e a tm e n 't ;: ' ths t h e had an __

e . - 1

_'r , ;,(.

- ;. ", 1' T :.opport! unity.come up -- I believe this w'as-indthe

~

. s i, istateCof; Loulciana'.

%D , .' 9f ~ li c i ni. ..a d ' tha t: -i t ? wa s a' good s

.7, 210' "

y .

oppo rtunity ' f o r Thim , 'tha t.[i t meantimore mone'yIfof 6 w: w. , . . -

-3

1 . ,:him, and t h a t", accordingly,. he waslanxihus to t a k'c ? ..

g-

,' 11 1?M 4

v sc g

9< '12j -advantage ~of'-the1 opportunity. . li e assured me that:

j ; ' : ' ' 1'3' ,

x v thereswac no other-reaso'n for his[1'eaving,'and again.

V .' . .. .

< +

~

.~

14 lI thankodihim and' wished him the best of luck.

ga - .

V :15' M r( >Ve g a , . i s- th e r.cfa n J RO F L p o l i c y. ; [n theEQ

?Q . ,

v ., .

j a~ r. .'. ..

-Department"ati Coma bche~ Pea k ? t

w : . 11 6:,

4 ,4 m m ~-

C,, . .17l 1A. 'Yes, there-is. , .

c ,

y.[ ^j . t

, '183- . .

Q.. r EHr. Vegas please review lthe. document that l ,

__': j

. gl 9; _

, , ~has'been-marked for; identification.as'Vega E x h i b'i t 8 -

o~

1 < ' ~ ^ 2 01 2:

, a nd L i.de n ti f y :'i t , 'i-f' yo u can. -: , -

r h 3 ,- * *' - .x &

+

y-

'W , .

'i21' A '. , . ItLisia c o p y' :o f? M r . S n y d e r ' s':,l e t t e r ' o f - -

1 y:U,7 22l j )Vfst -

as,,

~. . = x v ;s '

t~g -

- m .2 . Qf ,

~

}

T-Tf f _l , - . < .1 T - '

~ ..

g V _: 231 4

. Q'. %Is that a written policy?

+, ~

q .,

,- s ' - -

. .i 1yn -

i244 ; .A. -Yos,.itfis.; -

n v r

' q-l ,+- -

t

+

% OAnd~.doJyou know when iti:was. developed?

_ , . ; 2 5 _:. sQ.'

4 ,

p 9. -

a ,

S .

b- .s g

-d'.'

h'si p , gj d [ ". g F E D E'R A L_:C O U R T ' R E P O R T E R S s u

{E 36728 b .

1:

~

1 'A. I'would say probably the latter part of 7..

i i,,_); 2 March, perhaps early'part of April, although I'm not

,. .x 3 certaIn.

4 'Q.- Before you became site QA~ manager 7 5 A. No. I believe it was finalized after I J C 6 -became QA m a n a g e r ~.

7 ;Q. It was a project that was.under way when

^

8 you' assumed the jobs is that right?

9 + A. .Yes. The; effort had been ongoing.

10~ 0. .And why was that' policy developed?

1b A .- Well, as1we, wind down the Unit 1 activities, i -12 the: resource requirements are going to decrease. We f; 13 want'to make sure that we do everything that weican to retain the people that 'can- best' help the' project

-'15 from the.stan'dpoint"of their certifications,.the l

t 16 people that are most: reliable from the standpoint of

7 L- 17 their attendance, the people thats canzwork-under.

)

18 Unit'1 security conditions when Unit I securityL i s i ~

I 19l fullyf i mplemented.. And so'..these three factors =are 20 the prima'ry' criteria that'are u s e'd in evaluating ROF ,

21 status <or ROFL~ priorities or ROF susceptibility.

22 LThere is an additional. rating.that:is.used L. .x -

23- as a -tie ' breaker when the people that are to be I '

24 'ROF'd -m:the number of people that are to be ROF'd

,=

l ,p O 25 goes: beyond the seg reg a ti on -th'a t is;provided

~by the s ,

C F E D E R A L'.. C O U RT- - - .HEPORTERS.

~~

^- " ~ .. .

%^

36729

+

1 l ,

4 I s fi'rst,three-criteria.

, m . . .

l's J} 2~ JQ. 'I'd like'to have you review a document that ,

, 1 .. . - .

3 has.been marked.for' identification.as Vega Exhibit 9 c 4 .and ask if'you.can identify it. .

5 A. Yes, I can' identify it.

-6 ' Q.. -What is that document?

7 ' A. .The document is entitled CPSES QA: Program 6 'ROF Rating System,_and it involves instructions.to -

.y

~

9- reviewing supervisors. It involves instructions to ,

- 10 rating supervisors, and it involves several forms 11 that ~ areato be used, depending on whetheb-the-ROF is

, 12 to?beJin thef0A/QC ranks, in the' Quality Engineering 13 ranks-or in the administrative support ranks.

~

e.

Ms -

~ ' 14 Q. And how many times has this ROF ra ting.

- 15 system been used'at Comanche' Peak?

16 A.. 1 believe_'It's b'en e used three times

-v ' 17 =already. -

18 Q. And has this. program been followed in 3 -

~19 determining who is ROF'd at~ Comanche Peak?~

20 A. Yes,~1t has.beenifollowed to the letter.-

21 Q .. And have.you personally reviewed the ROF

'22 decisions:for compliance.with the.ROF policy at-23 Comanche Peak?

24 A. Yes,'I have-reviewed the worksheets; I have, h- h 25

~

rev'iewed the instrum'ents'themselves, the-summaries,.

h h

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

36730-1

~

1' the_ total _packageL- .all of the instruments that are h 2

^

' used'~ to f evElua te inspector force 1within which the -

3 [ROF.has'5 taken' place. ,

4' c0. Are nyou satisfied that the ROF. system has *

5. !

been followed in_:every case?

. (T 1 A.. Yes, It-has been.

7 Q. Mr. Vega, did.you participate as an 8 Interviewer in the'1979 survey.of the QC personnel

.9 5t' Comanche P e a k ?-.

10, ,'A. Yes, I did.

11 0. And what was the nature of your

- 12' participation?

q 13 'A.s .

I:was involved in formulating the interview

plan, and .

41 4. I participated'in the . interviews 15 ~themselves. 'I-participated in' drafting the 16 summaries and participated inHsome followup actions.

. 17- O. With' respect to' the interviews themselves, 18 what. instructions;did you receive or1didfyou give'to

^

19

_ . people-when you' conducted those': interviews? ,

20 A. The instructions were really ~ incorporated 21 in'the forms that we had prepared.; 'And the way we 22 did this,.our objective'was'to obtain as much input e e 23- as we could from-the inspectors to. assess.their

. 24 working environment, the adequacy of their ~

.p:

.O-

=

25 . procedures, the interface ~ with the different FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS'

. - . '36731; i

I'- organizations on: site, how theyEperceived their

,N') 2 ma'nagement.

~

And sonwe-formulated ,a list of

n. ., . , .

3 questions that1we would-ask of each inspector.

4. We agreed that we were after-as much _

~

5 ~1nformation'as possible. We agreed'that we would 6 not be out there to defend anything'that wa s' being 7; done. We were there mer,ely.to ask questions,'to

8. receive the information. The're was absolutely no .

9 intent.to verify the>information, and so

~

10 consequently, we accepted hearsay together with.

11. firsthand information with absolutely no effort to 12 differentiate between it.

.~ .13 Q. .Is it fair ~to say that the effort was to

]

14 -get the greatest'possible expression of concern with

'15 the.QC inspectors?

~16: A. Yes.. We wanted.to formulate or come up '

4 17- with ins broad a data base as we could :on the ,

18 relevant questions.

19. Q. After.the 1979fsurvey was completed, was 20 there any followup from the Dallas QA' group on that

[ 21 survey?

22 'A. Yes, there was. .

23. Q.- And what'was the nature of that followup?

- 24 A.. We took some of the key corrective actions.

rm U' 25

~

that'had'been agreed upon in different areas'and

(, .~.

FEDERAL CUJRT REPORTERS

g x

i. .

H 1 came back and 4ssessed the effectivene'ss of those '

~

' ' (f,9 2' corrective actions in addressing'_the 1tems

, -3 identified.- '

4 Q. And who decidedJto conduct this followup?

5 A. I don't rememberithe detall'ed discussions.

~

6 I?m-sureilt was a_ combination of Mr. Chapman, myself,

^

7, Mrs. Anderson, perhaps Mr., Borne, _although I really 8 don't remember ths. discussions that led-up to the-9 followup.- I really= don't.-

'10 Q.- .What actually was done in the' followup

,l'1 audit?~

512 A. Again, we took the. key. corrective' actions 13 and assessed the_ level of implementation:and the 14 # effectiveness in addressing theJproblems'that were.

15 identified.

16 _Q. .I gue'as I~ asked the wrong question.

[

17 .How did you do that,.Mr.iVega?-

- 16 .A. Okay. "We did that by primarily talking ts

19 people from the o r g a ni z a t i o n's within~which the

-20 corrective action ~ was' applicable. . And what I mean 21 'by that is ~1 f we ~ were: verifying-th'e effectiveness of 22 a~ revised' procedure -y-and taking an example,.

~23 . Procedure 6.9 ~~ we would talk >to inspectors-working i ' 24 to'that' procedure. We certainly wouldn't talki to O 25' people from-an administrative organisation'to see h FEDERAL COURT HEPORTERS

a 1 :1 .how that procedure was working. .Wo.would talk with'

,o ~

t r_ 2 people-that worlied. in the organizations whersin~that' .

' ~

37 corrective _ action:was"being implem'e nted.

4- -Q.. 'Was'this the'second round of inspector

, S l'n t e r v i e ws ?

- ;6 A. 'I wouldn't describe it as a second round.

7 It:-was1an assecament on our part to'satinfy

'8 ourselves(that the corrective a c ti o n's had'been

> 19 implemented. - And if we found that that had not been 10 ,the case, tot takeTf ollowup action from that point on.

11 0. You actually interviewed inspectors in th'is 12 process, did you not? .

>p v 13 ;A.. -oh, yes, we'did.

14 Q. Did you participate in those interviews?

15 A. Yes, I did.

16 -0. Who else interviewed-inspectors in the 17' ' followup? _

18 'A. I'believe the followup was done-by Mrs.

19 Anderson:and myself.

I t 20 C. Did you render.anwritten report at-the '

21 conclusion'ofiyour audit? <

'22 A. Yes, we.did.

23 Q. And, Mr.-Vega, l'would like you to review'a 24 document that's been. marked in.another deposition in-f3'd lthis proceeding as Panel Anderson Exhibit I and ask l 25 L <

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

x. 36734~

7 ,

, 6 .7 ; -

L

you if you1 cant identify. Lit. -~

11 .

F[, [2L A . ~. Lyes. Panel Anderson Exhibit'1 i s .' a report-m -

3' j o f J tihe foilowuhLaud t - -; the fallowup' survey. ~'

/ ,

+

C '

.Yes.~ !This:.isEs report on~the followup

' ~

i

,c 4

.i E5 Laurveysthative: coEducted'. <

'.T (6 ' O. .Andidid your followupisurvey find tha tmh e s

g- , + <

e 7 -. . problems : 1d ent'ified: in the-.;1979 survey had been 7t:

m 2= . .

! 8.

~a d d r e s s e d 7 -,-

t

,- 9 ,

'A. Lyes. The 'signiticant items had been

'10 ' ! addressed. A'nd;by that, the things that come to 1

~ .

' 11) . mind wassthat.the're was a-jay'di'acrepancy between " '

+

12 : the;QC and 'the crafts organ'1:ations,cand-that was a

13. -major. source of' problem. And tha't was corrected.. F Q: -.-

1 a ;

~ ' ~

14 'The14ther. thing.that icomes toimind-is

^

u; f +15 Procedure-CPM'649. 'l--believe ' tha_t this was ff a r' and '

~

2. . ,

4

-16 away the moat?commoncomplaint.[AndJwhenwe.caue_:- -

s

'17 back, thatyprocedurelhad been revisedsfit had been i

'18 implemented. .And;I remember the. inspectors'being.

t.

'19 .. qui te <sa tisfied - as to . how ' ef f ective. thatLprocedure.

, .e =. . . .

o 20 was. ' .' . *

., _. , X .

4 *~ ~

- 21^ Another thi_ng, tha tLI ' remembe r is i that'there

,m '

, - y .22i were combined 7 treining= sessions wherein theteraft 4 - -

"~

" '23' and_the c inspectiors a ttended .-theu same-training. course 1:,c ,

~

24, .so.that the'inspectdr.would know'what'the.craf.t had ku ; ,

^' 25 toido'and the'crafttwould-understand what the.

~

e i g i 3 / . ,

f ' -

+ '

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS' -__.- -.-. - -.

=

9 s = l i.

~

l 1- -inspector /had to have before he could accept j y

~

l tj 2" Laomething. This,.I think,. greatly:contributedi t o' - l l

. 3 the work rela tionship. .a nd [the 'und e rs ta ndi ng of each j 4 other's jobs betweenJthe craft and the QC forces.

S' ,

?There were some'other minor-things that had 6 not yet been addressed, and we addressed those.

7- Those were identified. But in general, we.found

~ '

'O t h'a t E t h e more significant-items had been addressed,

'9- 'a n d we found that.the corrective ~ actions'were indeed 10 effective.

11 Q. Mr. Vega, you testified that the craft and L

12 .the QC personnel attended ~ a common training course;

'. ;mg 13 .is-that right?

%-) -

14 A. .Yes. -

'15 Q. Hr. Vega, you testified that you 16 participated in the 1979 interview process. Did you 17 perceive, as a result of your. participation in these

-18 interviews, that harassment'and l'ntimidation and 19 threats of-Quality Control inspectors was a-problem L 20 at Comanche Peak?

21 A. No, I.didn't conclude that it was a problem

~

, 22 or'a practice. We did come acros's one incident

-23 where a lady inspector had been picked up by the

-24' collar by a. craft' foreman. 'I remember that that i (~) A# 25 ~came up during one of the interviews. I remember l

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

, 36736'

'm-

'l talking't Mr.-Chapman -- I think several-of us

$() 2 talked. .to him--- and we brought.the' inspector in'-r

3. :the- inspectress in. She recounted the incidens.

4 This: thing-happened --

the. incident-ha'd 5 occurred:sometime back. She did not want the craft 6 person fired..

craftMn 4 K She felt that the La;res swi had 7

7 -- changed his attitude after that-incident. .

8: -Apparently, the man r e c o g n'i z e d that ~he had done

'9 wrong,.and he probably also recognized that, had she

'10 . wanted to, she could have had.htm fired.- But I

.11 remember.that she was very emphatic in asking.that.

r .1 2 .- heinot be terminated;.that as far as she was

. /MUYWW'?

^

.gi 13 concerned, it was an -s id ni --

and it was an '

U. ,

. - 14 ' incident 1that. happened. There had been no .

15, recurrence,'and that her relationship with that

~ 16 particular'11ndividual was very acceptable.'

f

.17 Q. Mr. Vega, was a gertain amount of' friction 18 between' craft and QC revealed as a'-result of~these

, J19 -interviews in 1979?

20 A. 'I believe that some craft people. believed 21 that inspectors ~were inspecting beyond1their 22' requirements. I believe_that some' inspectors l- -

= 2 3. believed,that'the. craft 1 people /were offering for 24 inspection their. work before,it was really finished.

h 25. So I believe that'there.was some suspicion between-t t

L.. .

~

' FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS .

[.is. ^. AQ 4 .y fs; *, : ~ ' . ;Q:. j. ' ; .

t. 4 . h i _ q .," y lri s.. g i j V; T '"-'_ ." " s

. : ;.- _ C

> 36737 t -

I

! 2*

-l' groups.

i h 2 'O. What corrective action was taken to address 3 that problem?

s 4. A. I remembered that we suggested that'perhaps u

5 it might be,b'eneficial if we were to get'the G inspec to rs .: nd t- h e eraft in a common classroom so 7

N that tNey.bottA could listen as to whet.,the .nse=ucor --

pm k 7 ,

had to-have befbro he offered h i s S ir k . '} 9 r i 8 t

9 inspection end'so that the craft person would also hear what'3he inshoctor ha d ;. to have before he could 10 u

, * \ 11 accept's6mething. .'N ,

s T. ,

a 2 -. -

i ,

12 1 renember followJhg ,tnis up on a e

~., i ,

13 ' subsequent 4nspection, &nd I remember that this 6.'UI ..

(

14 particular corrective action was s u c c e s.72 ul in

, b5 getting both groups to understand what each other's t

J6 r e s p o n s i b il i t i e.s were and what each'other had to do 17 before each of th'em could c om pl e'te their job.

18 Q. When you say you followed up to see if that

~

19 suggestion had been adopted, are you referring to '

/

2.0 questions that you pursued in the 1980 followup 21 survey? ,

22 A.\ ( ib

. - We certainly did follow up on that 23 point then.

~

24' Q. And, Mr. Vega, in your followup interviews 0 -

25 did you find,that in 1980, that harassment, FEDERAt COURT REPORTERS

f.w.t.,n. =_ . .usy u:is .

9:

x -- .

n' :7 - , ~w c ~

^w - '+7 .. ;>

gwg egp- ** ..

s - n y. - ,

"36738 wy n s .r

,;'m

' Aw

m. . , ,

'x-

['} j,,, , ,' T3 '* - '>

.; p j % ,% #

5 N;. ?* #

w .- x./ ,

W .% :t y ~ ^ :u s c , _ .

~

%, p.. e. .

.- w .

W l . '. F Q? h .' 4 0'7 -

y s- t . ~f_-. , 31~ . .,r e .

.. .s 40 g i# ~~; l d; . n t' i m i d a t i o, n, i a nd ^ t h r e a t s ' : o f _ Quality. Control ^

W p -i--- _

4 b ,

ct, R ~ l.gl21:

. i n s'p e c tio r s w'a'sla V p r o b l'e m at. Comanche . P e a k, ? ' '- ,

~. ' N

s w,

t'd , .

A'

.- Wr v g[.

,r .

, ,~ -. .

73+..* c A; , . . .N ol ~ a b s o l u t"e l y . n o t '. '

Y f , % p s . a ,. . <-n ^ ^. ..

i~

L And - d i d$.yo u f i n'd- tha t th eJt[e n si o n t h a 't y o.u '

~

j~ ,.,

. g.

, % - 14' .

o.3 .

. s , ,

o - .

. s , . . .- . , , , ~

=, : 5,; ,ifou'nd<in41979"had' changed in anylway,~thei~ensionL. -

t u w, . ,r

,~- s-

~ .

a. .

i >;i ~ ' ' w

.'t .- - .

- . . y . ,, ,

- cp _p E6 c.

s b e t w e'e nT t h e m , .

two g roups .: had c h a ng e d.- i n a n"y . w a y ? ;

~ ;

'? #

..k.

.9',l ..qr/ " # ..

n .

.j Ifdidnft?noteEthat' there was c

~

y:;

f[ '

.L7) A.

-. a n y ' r e s i d,u a l-Wy: ;

. m J

t e n s i o n'.

5 g, , ,

-N y,.1 c o n c l u's i o n a, w a s th a t J t h e.fwo r k i ng"

. 1 c ',- M ?c 18 '

4 g~ -

.p y - i a;, , c: . p:

s

,' J 9P ' r ela tionsh'ipJwa s; ve ry - m'uch z improved ,ja nd; I felt

, 1

- a m :s

,;g 3, q:p .

s10- ? y' q, u'i t e c o'm f o r t a bl e :with i t.' '

F a

?) ': . .S. ,

y.

' Ol l; - "

_;MR. D OWN E Y : - QN o ^ m o r e ' q u e s t i o n s,.. b"u t at-y m t

,,a.2 -

s s 4 . _ . . . , . . . e =c e, , ,

e n ; , n12 e. cthisitimc' the'? applicant moves'that Vega' Exhibits 0 1

_ .~ c .- _

~

4... 4(Q , ..

fif 3.1.,10-andi. nder. son-Panel # Exhibit-1 he . r,e c e i v e d - i ni

'v 4 e ,-

7; ,

, . "; (",-

,'y . * '. -

e o

bw , :14. 3 (evid,ence.. , , - . ,

y .

%2 , ._ ~ >

.w .

s ? -

e

~

v;:

~

- k3 5;-

n ,

~_

p .

t A i

. ~ p

< . ..e -

m-

. -- c u. - 16-- , , i.

8 M. -l%g- P

, e-ef .p a: . .s _ ,

p .+

~ _

~

- f -

3> 5 ,

a '

21-r e s . 4 4

e

%m .

i gl83 -

%y _-,

q :n ,~ , ,

y e -- ' ;-

g -g. --

3

=. , ;

c,N. .. ,2 , . _

19a. 1n ..

+

-y ,

a_ - .n

, 7; . . -

4;,

\ -

s y g ge

. . . e' a,- .> , . 4 y

N . - t u x , e;n_ .-

.o ,c.-

, + ~ , . ,

' *_ .a r' t

. < i+ .

.. 2 U '+

, .i ~1 n -

,i- o

, 3 _

7,

p- -

9;: y :t g < -;2 27 1, y- . g ,

.e. ' i ': . ,, -- <

W? 2 L.' N *

Ju.n -,wr 1

k.,, _,.,

.s.

, - - g.. s .

- 1 i >

s Q6Fw ?2 4;' '_

, yw s s- >

3

-rq y,,,e o 4, ',

s t" -* ' c

,.. ~

, f WP j2 5 ' - 1 s

9 ..: ... ye , ,

.:_ 6 ' d .o ,

gs r.e . , ,

-q" u y l f0 >

x -f ' . s..

, . ~ , ,

! i.h r ,

~

^

5 %: Lw.

WMk 7 #f *,

~ \

lFEDERALECOURT. REPORTERS- ,

J

. / W 'N, ~,a i 36739 !

-i

)

e

-r

% 9 l

CORRECTIONS-AND SIGNATURE

[:

. 7 !

c q f.,1

,e~'g 1 . . . . , ,,

- *)

2, ~PAGE/LINE. CORRECTION' REASON FOR CHANGE.

' - ,:3; 1 y [,t 4 , ,

J, 4

g

~

'5- s

..6, - v -

,,c ' . ,

\ e wQ, ) {1 '7 '

r. 8 i 9 - .

'^

10 .. . , ' ' +y -

j

< ~

' ~

A

_. } } .

r ,

12 *

'+ . +-

.. e y , g 4.

I

' l'3 ,, v 8 ?

b;/ .

,1 J 14

\ g

.. y; s . ,

o MS - -

o o

s

. I 6,.

, -s' 1

M 17. . s

', I, ANTONIO VEGA,.hav'e .

ead thefforegoing 18 : deposition, _and'hereby aff ~

my signature that:same isLtrue-and1 correct, exce t' as' r*in. ,

19- , _ __ 2 /A 3 _

.ANTOsIO:VEGA -

l20 ,

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before ne this the 21- day of 1, - 1984.

22

i. : NOTAhY.PUELIC.for the

.23' ' State of Texas l- 24 .My Commisalon Expires:

/; 4 s

l~ b] lil L

,/<

.25

[

p .

,. ,J a. ' . , FEDERAL COURT - . _ , ,

REPORTERG

I, "

f- , 36740

, ~

' ^

t

l. STATE OF TEXAS )

?"i .2 "

gs/r 3 I, Janet.E. Schaf'fer, RPR, Certified Sho thand.

~

4 Reporter-in and for the State of Texas,.do.hereby 5- certify that theroicame before-me on the 17th day of 6 '- ' August, A. D., 1984,~at the? Glen Rose Motor Inn, 7 Glen Rose, Texas, the following named person,.torwits-8 Antonio-Vega, who was by me duly sworn'to' testify

~

-9 the truth'and nothing but the truth of his knowledge 10 touching and~concerning.the matters in. controversy 11 in this cause; and that he was.thereupon examined.

12 upon his oath and his-~ examination reduced 1to writing;.

,- 13- same to be sworn and subscribed to-by'said witness k.)) .

14 before-any notary public.

15

- 16 ' I further certify that I . a.a - n e i t h e r attorney"or

' counsel f'o r , ' n o r ~re1ated to or employedfby, any of'

~

17- c

18 the parties to the_ action in whichithis~ deposition -

19s is-taken, and further'that.I.am'not a relative.or-20 omployee of any attorneyior: counsel employed by.the 21 parties hereto, or financially. interested in the- '

22 action. +

23

24- In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my' hand" y 25 and affixed:my seal _this. . day-of August-,: A.D., 1

( $?.

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ]

36741 1 1984.

~-] 2 3

JANET E. SCHAFFER, 1543, RPR, CSR' 4 ~ IN AND FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS 1226 Commerce, Suite 411 5- Dallas, Texas ~75202 (214)1742-3035 6

7 Hy commicalon' expires December 31, 1965 8

9 10-11 12-e-' 13 Lj) 14-15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

?3 24

, <'"S

\ /

25

-y <

~

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

s . .

TUQ 1 1982 ' TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY . ,

OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To Site OA/0C Personnel Glen hse. 'rexa. March 22. lob 4 subject 0A Policy Effective March 16, 1984, I assumed the position of TUGC0 Site QA Manager at Comanche Peak.

I ask for your support in carrying out the following policies and objectives:

1. TUGC0 Management has been and remains totally committed to a safe and reliable plant in full compliance with all applicable requirements.

2. TUGC0 Management is totally dedicated to a strong and effective Quality Assurance / Quality Control program at Comanche Peak.

3. TUGC0 Management strongly supports and encourages all QA/QC personnel to express quality related concerns. I wish to promote free discussion between inspectors, their " leads", QC supervisors and QA management.

I wish to encourage the use of the Request for Information and Clarification (RFIC) as a means to communicate questions on procedures and instructions. I also wish to point out the availability of Mr. Boyce Grier to listen to any of your concerns. While your first e recourse on concerns should be to your supervision, if you are not satisfied with the response from supervision, or for any reason you prefer not to go to supervision, Mr. Grier is available. I maintain an "open-door" policy. Please feel free to visit with me at any time.

I encourage you to voice your concerns witbut fear of retribution.

We will make every effort to address your concerns in a complete manner.

4. Quality Engineering is being reorganized reporting directly to the TUGC0 Manager, Quality Assurance in Dallas. This provides an added measure of independence for that organization in order to assure that inspection procedures and instructions accurately reflect design requirements. Quality Engineering will also be working toward improving our-program for training on inspection procedures and instructions.

We intend to place more emphasis on systematically informing the affected inspection forces of changes to inspection procedures and instructions, especially when changes appear to relax or delete procedural requirements.

Our objective is to communicate reasons for the above changes, such as declassifications, alternate inspection programs or inspections or test provisions during other project phases such as preoperational testing.

Our objective is to continue to promote a high degree of confidence that inspection procedures 'and instructions, which prescribe inspection work activities. accurately address design reouirements.

O DEPOSITION' EXHIBIT

~

%l 5

a l _.

$; ~ -

_2 I~again request your support so .that together we can continue to work toward a safe and reliable Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. ,

Thank you',

~

A..Vega--

TUGC0 Site QA Manager AV/bil i; ..

W

=

TUQ-2049 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM . ,

All QA Supervisors Dallas, Texas April 26, 1984 To Subject Policy for Addressing Performance or Conduct Matters In order to further assure fair and consistent application of perfomance and disciplinary standards I am hereby endorsing Section XIV, Rev. 1, 11/7/83 of the B&R Supervisor's Handbook, a copy of which is attached.

I am requesting that this be implemented in the work force regardless of organization.

Documentation and recommendations shall be documented on a three part memo initiated by the immediate Supervisor and transmitted and approve.d up the organization chain of command.

The responsible manager shall perform final review and approval and transmit all documentation by three part memo to the QA Administrative Assistant who shall. verify by return copy that the documentation has been incorporated in the proper file.

Please advise your Supervisor if you have any questions on this matter.

. 7,-

Me'ga TUGC0 Site QA nager l-AV/dl cc: D. N. Chapman B. R. Clements l

] DEPOSITION '

EXHIBIT

(

gvu-L

hffRoot.kx:. .

/ TO: Distribution DATE: November 7, 1983 FROM: G.R. Purdy SECTION XIV. R.1

SUBJECT:

CPSES, 35-1195 Departmental Policy For Handling Personnel Performance Or Conduct Problems.-

To euaure that fair and consistent decisions are made by Quality Management regarding disciplinary action, the following outline of supervisory action must be understood and implemented by all supervisory personnel.

A. Importance Of Fairness In Disciplinary Standards And Procedures

1. Fair-discipline is a critical aspect of sound management.

2. Significance for compliance with legal obligations.

B. Documentation Of Performance And Conduct Problems The employee's supervisor (s) is responsible for documenting all incidents of employee misconduct, poor performance, etc. Documentation of these incidents shall be in the form of a memo to the individuals personnel file. All such memos must be transmitted by the supervisor to the Group Manager for review, prior to being placed in the employee's personnel file. The following guidelines should be addressed by supervisors when preparing documentation on employee performance or conduct problems.

1. '. A11 ' incidents of employee misconduct, poor performance, etc.

a .- Time and date of incident

b. Full description of incident and its significance

1) Specific identification of any established procedures violated

2) Notation of disruptive effect, if any, on work of others

3) Witnesses

4) _ Specific mention of continuing course of conduct, if applicable

5) Notation of any previous discipline and/or supervisory warnings regarding same/similar conduct

6) Good faith efforts of management to correct problem with-out resort to discipline

7) Disposition:

a) Problem pointed out to and discussed with employee b) Further action recommended i) Counseling

11) Warning 111) Suspension iv) Discharge

c. Precise and specific justification for particular level of further action recommended l

a

__ ~.

. 'i'

'. -a 1

2. All communications with employees concerning conduct / performance problems

a. Record of conversations made as soon after occurrence as.possible

b. Both sides of conversation recorded

c. Conversations may be summarized, but summaries should be detailed

1) Time and date of conversations

2) : Witnesses

-3) Specific content of conversation

4) Tone and other indications of supervisor's Ottitude

5) Tone and o'ther indications of employee's attitude C. Imposition of Discipline The imposition of discipline for QA Department employees is a QA Management responsibility. The following considerations are implemented by QA Management for all potential disciplinary actions, and are included in the Section for supervisory information.

1. Necessity for full invcstigation of relevant facts

2. All recommendations for .'isciplinary action to be carefully reviewed by' senior Management

3. Emphasis on progressive discipline for all but the most serious cases

a. Written warning and/or counseling 1

b. Suspension without pay

c. Discharge

4. No "on the spot" discipline, except as described in 4.C a .- Emphasis cnt investigation and review of recommended action before discipline is imposed

b. .Where employee's continued presence is itself a problem, he will be suspended with pay for sufficient time to allow full investigation.and careful review of recommended action c ,. Immediate termination shall be administered for the following infractions of Site policy:

1) Use of alcohol or narcotics on site; t

2) Stealing / theft on site which is conclu.ively apparent;

3) Verified-falsification of records;

4) Failure to return (after 3 days without call-in);

i- 5) Willful destruction of company or project property; or

!- 6) ' Failure to comply with safety department directives.

p

[

D m 11 -

G.R. Purdy j-Site QA Manager [

GRP / bm t:

L:

~ '

, TUQ-2046 -

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM -

'( To File Glen nose Texa, April 24, 1984 saoject Top Managemer.t Participation in Site Meetings with QC Inspectors This will document Mr. Mike D. Spence's involvement in meetings with QC Inspectors at Comanche Peak S.E.S. These meetings included both informal meetings and formal training classes. The attendance rosters for the formal meetings are attached. Mr. Spence, as President of TUGC0 has presented top management's priorities and commitments as they apply to Comanche Peak.

The meetings between Site QA Management and the inspectors were undertaken to personally re-emphasize .the QA policy elements documented in memorandum TUQ-1982, dated March 22, 1983, a copy of which is attached.

Mr. Spence stated that Texas Utilities becuase of its size has many important priorities. However, Texas Utilities

has no higher priority than constructing Comanche Peak correctly.

Mr. Spence stated that Site QA Management's commitment to an open door

' policy and more infonnative communication is a reflection of his policies.

As examples, he stated that inspectors had the right to ask for information and receive information on use-as-is dispositions on NCR's. He supported the in, tent to inform inspectors of underlying reasons for changes to inspection procedures.

Mr. Spence also emphasized TUGC0's responsibility for the safety of Comanche Peak. He stated his belief that this is a responsibility that TUGC0 has accepted and which it cannot delegate to any organization. He stated his belief that quality cannot be legislated; that it must originate with top management support for quality. He further stated that quality cannot be inspected into the plant; that it must be built by the craftsman into the plant. He discussed the economics and the management support for " building it right the first time" as opposed to building it right on the second or third effort. Mr. Spence saw Quality Assurance as an essential tool in assuring an effort is done correctly the first time.

l Mr. Spence then opened the meeting for questions, declaring an "open season j on the President of TUGC0".

I f l DEPOSITION g

E

{ u.

EXHlBli

^

File

. Page 2 TUQ-2046:'

Mr.' Spence received a number of questions: on a variety of subjects-

'primarily related to plans for Unit 2, financing, state of the nuclear industry and inquiries on what TUGC0 is doing to present the positive aspects.of Comanche Peak.

A. AA j

.,A N eda v ' ~

,, 7 UGCO* Site QA ger AV/bil ,

Attachments cc: M. D. Spence B. R. Clements g

A. Vega e

I 1

I e l

,~ <

?

t .

m o TEXAirUTILITIES GENERATING CON.J.iNY TUQ-(236 l

1,1 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To J.T. Merritt Glen Ito... Texa. July 23. 1924 subjecs 0AI' 018 & 019 l I My memo logged CQA-003 dated June 18, 1984 advised you that we were examining our practice of assigning QC personnel to the building task forces.

We have concluded the following: *

1. We believe the building task force concept is a solid one that has contributed to an effective and efficient QA program at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. However, it requires personnel with demonstrated ability to interface positively, in a spirit of cooperation.

2. We do not believe the task force concept in any w_ay compromises our independence. We will continue to emphasize to all QA/QC personnel that they do not report to the building manager or any other person in his organization. We will, continue to emphasize that assignments of QA/QC personnel to the buildings are totally within the responsibility of the QA/QC Organization.

This will also be re-emphasized in regard to work schedules and priorities. Accordingly, please emphasize to your managers that any requests for QA/QC support shall be communicated at the J{w.

2 supervisory level. Concerns, comments or observations on inspection activities shall not be communi.cated to the inspector, eithe'r directly, or indirectly by talking to a craft person in the inspector's presence. Please be advised that recurrence of an incident described in the subject QAI's and contrary to the above will result in an immediate stop work. We will remove the QC inspectors from the building until corrective action has been implemented. i

, i We sincerely l hope to continue working with you irj a spirit of cooperation to the beneff t of a safe and reliable plant in full compliance with all I

requirements i f

C TUGC0 SiteIQA Manager AV/1j cc: B.R. Clements J.B. George O.N. Chapman l kycc Grier 3 DEPOSITION I l <

EXHIBli

I

! , i i 4

VM,A. Ll i

I h

~ ' '

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM -

To _ L D . Hickn Glen Rose, Texas _ Mar ch 15_ 1984

'v' Subject Attached TUGC0 0FFICE MEMORANDUM Dated March 15. 1984 i

In accordance with the above referenced memo, the following electrical QC inspectors are released from the Safeguards Building Task Force to report to Bill Cromeans at 7:00 A.M., Monday, March 19, 1984 M. Barfield R. Jones G. Pryor S. Shamblin E. Snyder W. Whitehead Ak A f Mark Welch

O. Safeguards QC Supervisor

[\_)

MW/kac cc: R.G. Tolson G.B. Crane i B. Cromeans l

l

}

l DEPOSITION EXHIBIT

{ YW-W E

g.

t - L- a l

e,

t

/. i ,.;.. .r ,.- -

i

. , . i .'

i

.t , c,

[

7, .

1 i

,,-___..-. . j_ , _ . .;_... _ . , , ;

. l -

s i.

l

/ i, ' t- -$ <

{ A A 6. c c.c: / M.

.. . 't.

.l

,i !. !.

t-

.._.,.. )*. .// *

/* (.

) .- --

l .. ,

                                       .':. ,(.                                                                                 i                            -                   **
                   ,1 L )<
                                  .                                                         e f.~              L!          ,
                                                                                                                           +

t. 't l~

l,

                 .b                                                                                                                                                                    j               i
                   . .[c a rl.;                          /3 .                  }'-              lAt               I        ;

I ">

( c', li , e r - /f . u y" . hl -- , j ,9 , . ji-f> g A,i (s. r r <; c h , u , t - t i , i

                    ,,                 fc t . . I ; , ,' l _ , -                   !
                                                                                .i.          ' t-i :

i t 'i !)

                                                                                                                                                                 -h            r ?>    ;2
                                                                                                         .                                                                             l                ,

f.- - 4 1 t 1 i {t' ,.

t ,a ' '% i #

f. -

                                                                                                                                                    'j.           -              !,!m
                                                                                                                                                                                            -- I i                                                                  .                                                                                                                 ,
                                                                                                                                                                                        !               i l               $
                                -                            ,                 T a*          q /i, o

ll 'C. '

                                     -      3,          /

i, /Q i

                                                                                                                                          '/w gu 1
                                                                                                                                                                                        '                i

7. , k , e le ., , ( .S .u. a i! D N. ' ': '* L(

l-

or ic. .

T~~

  ~                 t

[

                   't.{..l.!r<tl,h
             ~
                                                                                                                                                   '                                                                                                7 I .?]        -'        !<     ,L                  C .a                             -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ~ 1.-          2 s

1._._._.. _.__ , . . . . '. ... _.4.. l-__2.- l

                   ;         Ytb        $ { f      g     9                                                                                            L                                                                   $
                   ; //a ./., j?                                            Il
                                                                                            'l . 'l      r
                                                                                                                              ; 't 2r              7             I              q i                  i                                l                                             ,
                                                                                       ^

7 ' h iec ,, L .T /C l 2c- 't 'it , h E K ' - l 7 i',..

                                                                                                                                                                                                               .  .- e          u                  T i                                                                                      i i                                                                   1                                                  .'

l.'ir,. 0, M I i /4 it

                                                                                                                                           ,  R               2.                 -
                                                                                       ,                                                                                                i
                                                                                       '                                                  i
                               'l ( f           _

e

                                                                                       ;                              ..              ;           E                             ~
                                                                                                                                                                                          ~

w , ' f g' ( f I $ {/.s ) [ l2 '9 7 2- l l 2. t?.'.I, i% Yb.Dil f

                                                               "            6 "i
                      . ls t [a "; /<.                  ,
                                                               /            f r-            !C            ,
                                                                                                                  .'           ~

l- l e 2_ lj I.o ,y [(A_

                                                                       $         ./ _l        T f/C                        f  ' $'/.

1 5 ,[ [ /'l '/2 4 t, yf 6 I L'.

m , . JMjb Wc Ec:

                                                                                          ~
                                   +
             'f..
                                                                                                                                                                                                            .p        .
 %;(i;                  n  an           K - P ,& ..,~. , (9                    in e fue c!             is             Pc s t ~ c,, . 4, , ,.1,:c. ,
                                                    . I,O s ;x e I , c;,, ( v e s 9                  i;111e e L. <a Ii v;i.;
                                                      .c : i e ,< ! ; a. v e e e a p<.si ) ; c; ,2 c. .j pc s i : ~

is c% s ceav.1,iave.c.( ~ l, ; c, er l-> s c ii - a e , -- i / k<. t v 2.,~.~cI c(Ce c 4.

2 ; n:(,, il aw l , iJ- 41;y 3 c <, .cr 'Iccs.l fec 4 e((cic. lE {

c , ced s L > . mes /< ac h ws, ,A c_ Ccs /A.. -1 c.c , t. , ~ < ,,J e ( ;

4. iL 0,N(

Ai - neaA c. c c. J; [' e c.( ,,u s p e e .1<; , ;,. . C,. ( y ,, , , i; ei;c4,,;c..I; C C . 4 /s c, p..,nic.v,f9 , c ,, /;,,. i in De s+ - C eccA > r< 4 i en i n. s pe c t ica c. (,. e, ,,

c. c l;c.6 x.cicci .,n . . e o. r o

pc.h dh- ). . < d. c , .

4. % c s , I? -

Lec s e, ; e c - e & <, c,w en kc,a ,.ec, i A s -t . se e c, a its , w (c.n ,<a- p .~<k (e , o. r . . e , ,.: wJ'c cg:<. . s Is t /c < t .. . ce, I CC - T. D.qcV y bt ' 10 f c en d cc-V J o 0 ce l / A: spi c -Ic e >[ r-s u f,: <ge, e c l ., c ice s:c.. I - Cc ; e <g <. 9 I , ic

                                                                                                                                                               . w .. cct <:t b ,-

8,~a.e IJ , cw iv . Ac<wso ,s L,ec<u tup , ,v y<J La.a.( , , A. tT.,,,., cy h n. <3 ey a

                                                                                .IoLl1 9             w : 1l, Chla.L0i6l(                      -

1iu oA. e.< I OcA <-(c Oe , a iv ci, E-

                                                       . c. fo s e ,w s . . m hs cy Iy              toI                            > n c.- I iNspcc~le,s                 . in ve fue c/ (G en% , Fe, c/b

l,s..- t)

{ n /i 4,4 ou /3 a. r,vspc.4,4s w c ,7.+ , L NccclceL Alsc 2 " ' x s 'l e; c-v eve- cell.s < L <c

                                                        ~ pi c la f   ,e r ,    1 ^-         %'n <> .
                                                                                                            .                               s% loYCSC h ~:t e'l 11] :                                                             .

i-efw L 1 t_ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . ,

1983 1984 j CLASSIFICATION PERS. SICK E.O I. ATE PERS. SICK. E.O. LATE tiA!E Ambro;3, . Nuc. QC Insp. C 11 6 16 11 1 4 2 .3 k,. ,cr K. " B 6 - 2 - - 2 - -

                          "              B       4        -         9         14      -         -          -        -

D*vis, L.

                          "                                                                                  15 Ford,IJ.                               A (Ld)  -         1        -         -       -         -                   -
                                                                                            /

Clover, H. " A (Ld) - - 1h - Ires.Dut 9 1 1 5 I G u uus. , L. L - - - - g - _ - _ H r.rn, B. C 5 2 21 27 3 4 5 1 Hun t,r, J.

                          "              C       -        -

2h 6 - - - h

                          "              B       7         4        9         -       2         -          -        -

Mock C.

                          "                       16      -         6         -       -          -           14     -

Oliver. D. B

                          "              C       2         -         5         3       2         5          -       -

Pryor. G.

                          "                       2                 -         -        -         -           2      -

Roberts. T. C -

                          "                       12       4         24        9h       1         4           19h     1 Shamblin        B.                    C mihitehead i              , tJ.   "              A        6        -          15       64      -         -           -       -

l . Cru ms . >.

                          -              e        5        2         1,        14  11             2          2        ,s Snyder. E.             "  '

C 11 - 24 % 1 1 - - slu . A 2 -

                                                                     %5Kl-                            -

Yr ams 0. u s wz MlY e 7'A - 1 I I I I I i . l I I

W f .n.a y .. rzw'h=-f142miUN. ~

                                                            ..-m. w. / rX. b.pW.@A
                                                                                                            .% t.Dd;           Aht
                                                                                                                                 .. mimp            w $5M.w-  : M.. .*M=,MMD.Nen
                                                                                                                                                                                          -?             -m
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               .=.:n$a.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 =O.Ce;     z        n ym M.l~7 A            --
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       <o-Ni.-- n-/M

%..e am. A P9?.e I.6 m, .: Wyz ..; J '.' 4 me 6Wsn A.u i.Nc s2* 9r.g.n TC4h. ek.CO$.n dt sm.pff.f.3%W+ww.s..:c : d gM_ @M,!.'EId n .*,,;.a.mu' . r.^

.e.r - u~;.">.7.s '. = w:.: a:& wm ..eH"ab .e.tua ri nn.r. -

W"* hkR m. w .."?'We&.5? 47G.5'3;w.TR~M~~2'~6%'i .<.: m W122ManM .wc_-- _ :C+CG;'~d.wd4c%. - mmsw-

                                                                               %.: 5.=i-CE*2rt."Q@:'"~.?*2QWT2%wc2.2.G':M=

s 2 '*UM;WES umf

                                                                                                                                                                                     % - - ww.nmnn m. ,                                                                                             -

anmmmmm; n w.LT24* W - %T.<L..#,~.s'EZ.hAMiG.:5:s.md%*3,;;;u~~A;;e4mmmm w

               = =h                                                           Brown & Root,hp.

P.O. BOX 1001 GLEN ROSE. TEXA5 76043

=-

twsr 1=*r:m::.w es=e m wc gi;;:yt m .=3.r.%,s m ~pr y amrp.e-w Ecwcmp p.,p,3J$n "- y -

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . . -m         e .

F m ,m

                        #:19.7 TEL_tm                                            wW/' m_:n__                 .                                    r
                                                                                                                                                         ~

[ g- m-E g- J h :# :3 e - . M7 g," l T[B/H o^ti _someans .gsiw sh N '

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              / 0 : >&

06..-. Md.ns swed orr, SO~ W -

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ,6                      ~        ^a.)--                        --
                         . .                     - - - -                                                                                                                                          - 4.t '                                                        -                  Y 5                                 -..h/'"A -                                    . .k.                                 M                                                                                                  f.-                      M<*.A 1.-.!

O .R... -.o..F.-- -..g ee77.ve - 5-MM j- - .W- <- d n/- - f / t2,i. .. f.. Q. .... h- / & l s' l 0 .Q.,- 0.. /. W - M Y g /fbc V D_ , - CL-zA - 2

    /L%. /. 74... . M/d. . . .s . i                                                                                           - a,                                                   M . w. - --- 4 < s
    ---                           . . . . - . - - . .                                                                                                               .-        . hA . . .                                                    WSCE

_a .-.

                                                                                                                                                                                                --..LtCd W .T : .F dd,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    /

r i

     .- .                                                                       .                 .,...___ .._.. ..~                                                ..                                          -..                       - . - . .             v7
                                                                                                '                                                                    ...           .                                   . M-.?f                                                -f .

[M #M sicNED v yy teeStauCTecht 70 treetta: thstaWCTIOest TO RECtrvter N F,tL t 8 SthD WestTS AseO Pth Pits WITM CASSON 60tT ACT. 4. WRITE REPLT. 1 DETACat STWS REtp PseeK COPT. R ETW A88 WhtTE COPY TO SthDEA

                                                                                                "' W                    M $f                        i-{ 7 7p2ed-                            "3$1h @ wfg- - .

i

                                                                                                              .emerar                   .

my - -- _ ~ y3w y

                                                             ,                        -3.www_ m..

ry-m2 -

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .m       W.                     .
                                                                                           -; .ca                         . wF                                                 gr, see                                  IW.,=:'sm&rerm ap+w 5.r-                                  M , ~ M :-~2.:- -                                                           :-ep :                       = t.xnu 85E

ma m ._ . w '"hw ~r mum--7 ,*%

em gu E--.'" me 2g M" C-Mm M"Ldiff$begr z_ m WIfEwr gm%a ~ %gsa t- d%rm

                                                               #h               #

q,gu4.,g . EeWI.- . I MTK DEPOSITION

                                                                                  -i -                      kgy ^ te;g.gP.;
                                                                                                           ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~~                   .-                                                                 a~ .m             .

[M m.m . '

EXHIBli am i'[ 4 , _ " 5.'_ c.~.~tAL.sd.g@ E*a.a. i dp Er.tN1 "M t3id r.;#%P , wmmwnw a

                               ^^                   - - - -

w.me vmm mm.n -:

i,..e. w .n ,v e- we.. c q . - ---~~- -.

-. . - . .- ~ ::. -

, - ~ z.-- . ; . . .. = a r - _ ... . . ~ . . . . . . . .

.a%EW~ W-Eh?h2ETR$. $Wb'NN hN~?: Y W P M +k? M W E h . R ;%E 5*W

                                                                                                                          --.                                                                                                           .=w.  .. ,.,: s3  X. sss.ssa.+r; w.MW5?

wwa

       .m.x =w.%.e <,e,,w na.rs.uw;w.s:ssmmwwm                                                                                                              a wrw.mww,m.s        w?.= -= - e.m -

b rr.s- v =.=.a.- .: 2 nun - -moms wh, -- s:x * ~ - W"r=m~.sm w .v.e-xn 4_ . * , - c m..m =s- s . tv == : a - y mg.- >

                                                                                                      ^ ^ ^ ^

p g,,,,.g 3 *;2- ~ m - w ~~--1-_ 2_ g[l% W. M ,,o, sox 1001 GLEN ROSE, ftXA5 76043

                                                                                                                                                   -n.                                      MM.tM..@Y*I '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   .        . ~ ..-- en N7YdN,SEN-IWW
                                                                                                                               .       h:.*m                         nt$*.-4@W--:n                                g         _  -I_ . . . t m r.~,5 2._e
                             - . _" ~ ~ _ .-                -x W ?rr-
                                                                                                                 --re %M S;i!MQF                                      ' j.~      I         y. M)                                                                                        '
                                                                                                                                                                                    *i@h %-h                                    - - - - -c.4 @fy1'AM5L
                                                                                                                                                                        ~=2~~

e-~

          -.M', ,C... ws . p--                            ._..,2 -r.mm-m a%%%- - --
                                                                         ..         w        - --

nrrn n.-n a$..w.c i _

~.

O , dg~'<: , e

_.dJ - - - - _ .. _ . . -. ( (PGY M c3- . ..d ./ c

                                        ^3-M-N
                                                                                                                                                                      ~

CAT 8 --

~~

_ ((h .. ,.

                                                                                                       = ~ -

g g __p & M up h & JDl0 " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

                                                                                                                                                                        ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~

y f h.'s. ) d e . .

                                    ~ ~'                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    -

T han N q0 4, OcNJ$M Y stanno _

                                                                                                                                                                        ,.....m.               .   ..u.,, ,,,,...... .. .. ....

e. . ,,..

                                            ............. ...........,..................u.,.                                                                                                                        .-                   , c ,. m j

y .s. a...L'.te,.. ,ayc. - 7 .,,-Q werm.,4 g. 'C;'.',., L.-lf l'

                                                                                                                                               ~.@ c. . . k';g;;;;,e..f,y..%.s;&j                                                                                                                            \
                                        . - - ~ .                 .. n . _.                                                   ' '

ger x . -u. , . r, %' ,4"*.,-

                                                                                                                                                                         C~            e.

i ........a _3A., . L

                                                . .                          m                 ,                                       -                                                                                                  -
                                               %g y                       mm                                     y 7 atefa$$~2PJia1EsisiF8,-2.g-4Qs                                                                                                      -nm                         wr:sae5sz u.a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                '~~               ,           &w

. n m M 1m.ymy g-L9, .yw

==-

h N h ,pdiTs3 gh W ,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~~      Lg DEPOSITION                                         9 MMS                                                                  Pf3- fif==                                      .

a .. s EXHisly % a a :, m) E i % w m--- ph $?Fj'f h V-W

Q

               *= % .aJ W.@ h Q & Q Q g. - - Y e

S 2-~ & f -_

                                                          ^
                    /

CPSES OA PROGRAM ROF RATING SYSTEM Instructions to Reviewing Supervisors The CPSES ROF Rating System has been designed to provide as - ob j ect:'.ve a basis as is possible for accomplishing needed

workfo:ce reductions. Our goal is to make reductions in stages as they be come necessary in a manner that both is fair to the employt es, and allows .us to retain on the project a workforce that meets tne requiraments in all respects for completion of the remaining work. The role of the Reviewing Supervisor is critical to our effort to ensure fairness.. You should make every ef fort to be certain that information on each employee's ROF Rating form is accurate, and that employees are rated equitably.by their Rating Supervisors. It is particularly important that employee ratings not be influenced by any factors other than those explicitly identified on the Rating Form. The following steps should be followed before each stage of the ROF:

1. Identification of-Areas Requiring ROF and Size of Reductions Needed: The first step in the ROF System is the identification of the areas of project work that are overstaffed and in which the level of work is not expected to increase substan-tially above present levels in the foreseeable future. Each Reviewing Supervisor must identify the disciplines or other work groups in which reductions are required, and specify the propor-tion of the present employee complement that is no longer needed. This proposed ROF plan must be reported to Tony Vega for approval prior to any further action being taken under the ROF System.

2. Identification of Exemptions: Because certain employees have been brought onto the Project for -

specifically defined purposes and/or possess unique skills that are necessary for completion of Project work, those employees must be exempted from the ROF as long as some part of their function remains to be performed. You should identify such people as soon as possible, and submit a list to Tony Vega and David Chapman for review and approval. The list must include the names of such employees and the specific skill or function that militates in f avor of .aking them eXeDpt.

                                                                    . DEPO 51TH3N EXHIBIT
                                   '                                      b)
                                                                           ~

etwmornAL I

R r' Instructions To Reviewing Suparvisors i -

3. Collection of Employee Data: Rating Forms must be completed for all nonexempt employees within any discipline that is targeted for an ROF. All of

                               ' the personnel data ( i . e ._ , information relating to employee name, badge nuabe r, security clearance, certifications, dependability, CPSES seniority, and attendance) is to be derived from the most current personnel records available at the time the rating is done,-and entered on the employee's ROF Rating Form. If the Reviewing Supervisor does not personally enter the data on the Form, he or she is expected to check all entries made. The
   '                            attendance and dependability data entered on the Forms of all employees must be for the same time
   ',                           period (e.g., 4/1/33 to 3/31/84). Great care must be exercised to ensure that accurate data are
   ;                            used, that all information is recorded accurately on the Form, and that proper designations of employee categories are entered in the appropriate space in the upper right corner of the first page of the Form.

4. Identification of Size of ROF Pools: Using the applicable ROF Category Rankings and Schematic (attached), separate all nonexempt employees into

! ROF pools on the basis of the Categories desig-nated in the upper right corner of the first page of the Forms. The purpose of this step is to ascertain whether it will be necessary to have employees rated on the criteria in the second part of the Form. If the number of_ layoffs required

under your ROF plan coincides exacly with the number of employees in one or more ROF pools, you may skip steps 5 and 6 below, and proceed directly to step 7. If that is not the case, proceed to step 5 and complete all other steps in these ins t ru c tio n~s.

5. Distribution of Forms to and Training of Rating Supervisors: Once all relevant personnel data.

have been entered on the Forms, all Forms should be grouped according to the appropriate Rating

                 -               Supervisor. A meeting should then be called by the Reviewing Supervisor to distribute the Forms to the Rating Supervisors and to train them in the use of the Forms. At this meeting, it should be explained that the Rating Supervisor is required to double-check for accuracy the personnel data entered on the Form.         If he or she has reason to believe that one or more data entries is incor-rect, that fact must be brought to the attention of the Reviewing Supervisor. In addition, Rating CO N AH.                                                                   page 2 of s

n i 3, Inctructiona To Reviewing Supervisorn f Supervisors are asked to rate employees on the basis of criteria 1, 2, and 3 in the Employee Rating section of the Form. The separate

                           " Instructions To-Rating Supervisors" with which you-have-been provided should be gone over carefully, as well as the instructions on the Forms themselves. It is to be particularly stressed at this meeting that employees are to be rated fairly, that only those factors on the Form itself should be taken into account, and that the Reviewing Supervisor will be required to scruti-nize the ratings. carefully. Ample time ~should-be allowed at this meeting to permit full instruction on the ROF Rating System, and to allow any ques-tions raised to be fully answered. Explain also that, in those instances in which the Rating Supervisor is not the first-line supervisor, the Rating Supervisor is required to go over the completed ROF Form with the first-line supervisor to ascertain whethat the first-line supervisor agrees with the employee's rating. Instruct the Rating Supervisors to 'put in-writing and attach to the employee's ROF Rating Form a full description of the points on which first-line supervisors disagree with them, along with a description of the bases for disagreement. Rating Supervisors should be made aware that you will review any such disagreements and hold a conference with the Rating Supervisor and first-line supervisor to explore the possibility of resolving any-differences.

6. Review of Completed ROF Rating Forms: Rating Supervisors are to be instructed to return all ROF Rating Forms to you as soon as they have been l comple ted and applicable first-line. supervisors have been consulted. You are then to review each l Form to determine whether, based on your own l

knowledge of the employee., he has been rated equitably. In all cases in which you have doubts l- . about the fairness of a rating, you must discuss j the matter with the Rating Supervisor as soon as-l possible. In those cases in which the ROF Rating Form comes to you'with a description of a dis-agreement between the Rating Supervisor and the applicable firs t-line supervisor, schedule a l- conference with both of them as soon as possible.

At any conference with a ?a ting Supervisor whose

! rating you tnink may be inegaitable or with a Rating Supervisor and first-line supervisor who

disagree with one another, your objective should be to identify clearly the basis for disagreement g NVIG@g Page 3 of 5

... .w 5

                                    ' -         Inatructiona To Reviewing Sucarvisora
                           /

and to seek a reconciliation of dif fering views. These sessions should not, however, be used to coerce a'yn participant to change his view. If after the. basis for disagreement has been explored to your satisfaction the disagreement still remains, you should thank the participants for their assistance and conclude the meeting. Ordinarily, if differences as to an employee's rating cannot be resolved, you should resolve doubts in the employee's favor. At the bottom of the first page of the Form, briefly record the time, date, and outcome of any conference held to resolve differences regarding an employee's rating. , ,

7. Assignment of ' Category Rankings: In reviewing the ROF Rating Forms submitted to you by Rating Super-visors, double-check to be sure that the Rating Score was added' properly, and that both the Rating Score and Category designations from the first part of the Form have been accurately recorded in the' appropriate spaces in the upper right corner of the first page of the Form. Then determine the appropri. ate arabic numeral Category Rank from the applicable ROF Form Category Rankings and t Schematic (attached), and record'the Rank in the appropriate space in the upper right corner of the first page of~the Form. Please note that'there has been no ROF Category Rankings sheet prepared for administrative support' personnel. Because the first part of the Form for these employees con-templates' categorization only on the basis of dependability, they are to be assigned the Rank of "1," or "2," respectively, depending on whether they receive an "A" or "B" categorization.

8. Develooment of the Proposed ROF List: All nonexempt employees within a discipline subject to ROF who have been assigned the same Rank are to be grouped to form ROF pools. Within each pool, employees are to be be' ranked on the basis of their Rating Score. The higher the numerical Cateory Rank of the Pool, the higher will be the exposure of employees within that pool to ROF (i.e., pool ranked "14" would be laid off before pool ranked "13," etc.). Within the ranked pools, however, employees with higher Rating Scores are less vulnerable to ROF. If the number of excess er.ployees thst m. r t be laid ff coinciden exactly with the number of employees in one or more ranked pools, all employees within those pools are to be recommended for layof f and the Rating Score need

CZNTfDD4TIAL page 4 or 5

                ,.                          .]#
    -                                                                Inctructiona To Reviewing Suparvicore f

not'even be taken into account. If the number of layoffs required does not coincide with the number of employees.in one or more ranked pools,.however, recommend for layoff all employees in highly ranked pools whose number is suf ficiont to bring you as'close as possible to, without exceeding, y the number of layoffs required. The remaining layoffs recommended will be those emoloyees in the next lower ranked pool who have the lowest Rating Scores. EXAMPLE No. of 1,ayoffs needed: 25 No. of Employees Ranked Pools In Pool (14) 2 (13) 2 (12) 3 (11) 0 (lo) 0 (9) 5 (8) 1 (7) 4 (6) 4 (cutoff for pool-wide layoffs) (5) 8 (4) 10 (3) 6 (2) 4 (1) 5 i Ranked pools (6) through (14) would be recom-mended for layoff, producing a total of 21 !' employees targeted for ROF. The remaining four layoffs required would be taken from ranked pool (5), and they would be those four employees with the lowest Rating Scores within that pool.

9. Submission of the Proposed ROF List: Once the proposed ROF List has been developed, the ROF Rating Forms of employees whose names appear on the List must be attached, and the entire package must then be submitted to Tony Vega for review by him and by David Chapman. No ROF is to be announced or imple-

                                .mented until Mecars. Vega and Chapman have approved l

the proposed ROF List, either with or without l modifications. MA!, Pace 5 of 5

                                                                                              --  .  ~_     _   _

           -s                      .
     ,         ,    ,       QA/QC IdSPECTOR ROF-FORM CATEGORY RANKINGS Category of ROF Eligibility Rankings (pools ranked from lowest to highes t vulnerability to layoff)

(1) IA/ IIA /IIIA (2 ) I A/ IIA /IIIB and IA/ IIB /IIIA (3) IA/ IIB /IIIB and IA/IIC/IIIA First Tier (4) IA/IIC/IIIB and IA/IID/IIIA (5 ) , IA/IID/IIIB (6) IA/IIE/IIIA (7) IA/IIE/IIIB (8) IB/ IIA /IIIA 4 (9) IB/ IIA /IIIB and IB/ IIB /IIIA (10) IB/ IIB /IIIB and IB/IIC/IIIA Second Tier (11) IB/IIC/IIIB and IB/IID/IIIA (12) IB/IID/IIIB (13) IB/IIE/IIIA (14) IB/IIE/IIIB o 4 6 W

M M e) O.1 Z -Z',

*1

=$ 5 5 f* % SOIEMATIC OF QA/QC INSPECTOR ROF CATEGORY RNEINGS Schematic of Category Rankings (showing pools In increasing vulnerablllty to layoff from lef t to right) - 4 First Tier Second Tier Category i Rating: A B Category Il Ratings llA llB llc ID llE IIA llB llc llD IE A A A AAAAA

                                                                               ~
                              /\

Category lli Rating: BilA /1910 tilA//IllB 111A//IllB lilA/ lilB lilA 1818 tilA /IllB lilA//IllB lilA//IllB lilA/ lilB lilA tilB (9) (10) (12) (13) (14 ) Category Ranking: (1) (2) (3) . (4) (5 ) (6) (7) (8)

.)

(II) (from previous page) (pooled) (pooled) (pooled) (pooled) (pooled) (pooled) 9 e 4 f

                                  ,3                                         cauality Engineuring
   ,                              t. , )                                        .OF Ra tin g Form j

QUALITY ENGINEERING ROF FORM CATEGORY RANKINGS

              - Ca t eg ory of ROF Eligibility Rankings (pools ranked from lowest' to highes t vulnerability to layoff)

(1) IA/ IIA /IIIA (2 ) ~ I A/II A/IIIB and IA/ IIB /III A (3) IA/ IIB /IIIB and I A/IIC/IIIA First Tier (4) IA/IIC/IIIB and IA/IID/IIIA (5) IA/IID/IIIB (6) IA/IIE/IIIA (7) IA/IIE/IIIB . (8 )' IB/ IIA /IIIA (9) IB/ IIA /IIIB and IB/ IIB /IIIA (10) IB/ IIB /IIIB and IB/IIC/IIIA Second Tier (11) IB/IIC/IIIB and IB/IID/IIIA (12) IB/IID/IIIB (13) IB/IIE/IIIA (14) IB/IIE/IIIB l' l l

l CONTIDENTIAL

r .

-'O

3 V-) t, - ; .

Z z 2 .at c - 3 1 W P s, r SCIEMATIC OF QUALITY ENGIEERING ROF CATEGORY RAEINGS s

')

Schematic of Category Rankings (showing pools in increasing vulnerability to layof f from lef t to right) First Tier , Second Tier Category i Rating: lA B Category 11 Rating: IIA IIB llc llD llE IIA 118 llc llD lE A A A A A A /\ /\ Category 111 Rating: lilA /IllB lilA//IllB lilA//IllB lilA/ lilB lilA lilB lilA /IllB lilA//IllB lilA//IllB lilA/ lilB ll A ll B Category Ranking: (1) (2) (3) (4 ) (5) (6) (7 ) (8) (9) (10) (I I) ' (12) (13) (14 ) .; (from previous page) (pooled) (pooled) (pooled) (poolod) . (pooled) (pooled) . [

(( . N- h. v . q 4 V

                            <            ,             ,             CPSES QA' PROGRAM ROF RATING SYSTEM              ,
                                                         'M          Instructions To Rating Supervisors t

T

1.

Background:

We have reached the point in-the construction a at Comanche Peak at;which it is necessary to reduce the QA

        +"'                                   ' workforce in , areas where the work is declining.- This ROF Rating System has been designed to help us achieve that

,PE objective in a way that is fair and' leaves us with a work--

  ^                                               .forceithat is~ adequate in all respects for completion of the remaining work. All employees of the' contractors on the project are subject-to ROF and should be evaluated unter the Ji-                                               ROF Rating system unless specifically exempted by projpct;QA
          '.                                        managemen t.        Only a few, isolated employees will.be granted oW            1,                               :  exemptions because of unique and specialized skills needed lfor c'ompletion of the project. Once employees in a given
                '                                   discipline-have been rated, they will be compared only to employees in the same discipline. Actual" layoffs will be 4                                                implemented only af ter senior QA/QC management has deter-
  ?!;                                               mined which disciplines have workforces in need of reduction
           ,                                        and the size of the reductions needed.

m, .

2. The ROF Rating Form: Separate ROF Rating Forms have been y

wA( devalcped for QA/QC Incpoctors, Quality Engineering, and s Administrative Support sPersonnel. You should check each' .

        ;;7.                                        page of~theEForm when-rating an' employee to ensure that the l'                                         Form you are- using c'erresponds to the employee's job.             The L                                                   title to the first page identifies the job category,' for T                                           which that Form is to be used, and each succeeding page has x                               the job category in the upper right corner of the. page. You will note that the Form is in .two parts. You sho'ld      u    check the first part for a,ccuracy a.ndy inform,the appropriate Reviewing' Supervisor if you have, reason to;believe'that-
;0                                                   information on the first part Of tfe Forn^is incorrect. You should do the same for items 4 and 5 in tne-second phet of the Form.        Then complete the'seco'nd part by circling,the
                                                                              ~

appropriate point score level corresponding to 'the descrip~ tion that best fits the employee for each of the listed criteria in items 1, 2 and 3. Finally, points shoulC'be totaled for the second part (please' double check for accuracy), and recorded in the appropriate spaces at the end of the Form and in the upper right corner of the first page' C'Q of the Form. , m; 3. Consultation With Applicable First-Line Supervisor: After you have completed,the Rating Forms of all thztemployee,s that you are rating, please meet individually with eac,h of . the first-line supervisors whoss Nmployees you have rated. You should explainithe rating system to the applicable fi'est-line supervisor'and show him or her the Rating Forms that you have ecmpleted f6r. employees whcm'he or she super-

                                    ,         s' -vises.           Once , this is done, ask t'Te first-line supervisor if he or     she agrees with your rac(ngs. If the first-line t

L

}%

CONrtDD_m, AL < s 4 tg -

                                                             --x-               --
       .,                                   ..i
                     ,     $upervisor agrecs,- the ratings on- thoco employsoc .should bs ,

set aside to be forwarded to the Reviewing Supervisor wh'o

was identified at the time you were given the ROF Rating Forms. If the first-line supervisor disagrees with your rating of any employee, you should describe in writing on a separate sheetoof paper the specific points of disagreement, the name of the disagreeing first-line supervisor, and the specific reason (s) for disagreeing with your rating. This explanation should be attached to the employee's Rating Form, and forwarded to the Reviewing Supervisor.

4. Confidentiality Of Ratings: All ratings and ROF Rating Forms should be treated as confidential documents. Although the purpose of the ratings is to identify potential ROF candidates, the fact that an employee is rated does not .

necessarily mean that he or she will soon be laid off. It

can only harm employee morale if we provide the fuel for rumors .cn1 this subject. You should emphasize the neod for confidentiality, and the reason for it, when you. review your

_. ratings with first-line supervisors.

k. S 6 L i t I I

                                                      .                                 i

                                                                                                            ~ ~          '                 '   ~
         .-          ,[ . .
                                                   /7                                  ,-
                                                    ._.                                    +             :.                                      '

q% , .'J V . '?-

        ' f-
                                                                                   ,1
                     '3 ' ^      .       -
                                                   -QA/QC INSPECTOR ROF RATIMG FORM

+ c >

l

           '9 j,* 3                                                              Y t ' t,                                                                        ROF Category Rank:                                .
                ,   jl NAME:                                                                    Categories:            I, 4

Badge No.: II Discipline: III Rating Score: Date:

  -" 3
                          , e' Supervisor Completing Thi.s Form /
                                                                   ..                Date:
                             ' Reviewing, Supervisor-INSTRUCTIONS This form is cot $ prised of two parts.                   In the first part, the employee is to be categorized.according to security clearance *,                                                    '

level of certification, and dependability factors. In the second part, the' employee . is .to be evaluated _ on knowledge and -

application of' appropriate inspection acceptance criteria, quality of documentation, cooperation, CPSES_ seniority and attendance, assigning the appropriate . number' of points to the employee for each rating _ factor. All Rating'and Reviewing Super-visors should note that this form presumes that the employee. being rated shares the strong commitment to quality that is , scritical to the-QA/QC program at Comanche Peak. Any employee whose commitment in this regard is subject to doubt should be-brought immediately to the attention of senior management so that an assessment of the need for immediate termination can be made. I i f q. 9 W a- CONFIDENTIAL ~...a - . _ _ _ . . -

r~} f~ j IDENTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES Please identify the category most clearly applicable to the employee by checking the most accurate response for I, II and III below. It is essential that category identifications be done accurately for each employee. After this part of the rating form is completed, therefore, all information should be verified by checking the employee's current personnel file. Once the - appropriate categories have been identified and verified, the letter of the response checked for I, II and III below should be recorded in the appropriate space in the upper right corner of the first page of this form. I. Security Clearance: A. Employee has not been denied clearance for unescorted access to Unit 1. B. Employee has been denied clearance for unescorted access to Unit 1. II. Certifications: A. Has sufficient certifica-tions to be classed as a grade / level A inspector in the discipline to which the - F employee is presently assigned. B. Has sufficient certifica-tions to be classed as a grade / level B inspector in the discipline to which the employee is presently assigned. C. Has sufficient certifica-tions to be classed as a grade / level C inspector'in _ the discipline to which the employee is' presently assigned. D. Has sufficient certifica-tions to be classed as a grade / level D inspector in the discipline to which the employee is presently assigned. E. Trainee.

                                                                     )$ 4 O     e [ 7

                                          ,, q I I I .'    Dehendability:                         A.          Was not available for work            -

l for 80 or fewer hours of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the past twelve months. B. Was not available for work for more than 80 hours of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the past twelve months. . O e 4 e Y e f e 9 s I e d e

CONFIDDmAI. -

m y -m--7. - - -.- ,-

                       ,.      .*         y   ,,--+-- -----,       , - . .       ---w.- ,-s.-,. -         -

                                                                   ' ~ ^ ^ ^ " ~ ~ ~
        .   ,                         (3
                   .       .                   EMPLOYEE RATING
                             ,                                                              .. l To rate the employee, circle the numerical score at the right-hand margin: that corresponds to the response that most accurately describes the employee's approach to his job. Ratings should be done on the most objective basis possible, and super-visors should under no circumstances allow personality or other facts not related to the employee's actuel job performance to
 ^

play any role in these ratings. Ratings on CPSES seniority and attendance (nos. 4 and 5) should be verified by checking the employee's current personnel file. When the employee has been rated in each.of the following aspects of job performance the employee's totsi rating score should be recorded in the space provided at the end of the rating section and in the , appropriate space in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of this form. .

1. Application of Appropriate Inspection Acceptance Criteria

a. Demonstrates extraordinary knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropriate inspection acceptance criteria. 3 '

b. Demonstrates acceptable level of knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropriate inspec-tion acceptance criteria. 2

c. Occasionally indicates lack of sufficient knowledge of and/or' proficiency in application 1

of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria. 1

d. Frequently indicates a lack of acceptable knowledge of and/or proficiency in application of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria such as to necessitate retraining. 0

2. Quality of Documentation-Consistently produces written reports that

a. . -are highly-accurate, neat, and thorough. 3

b. Majority of written reports are accurate, neat, and thorough. 2

c. Accu. racy, neatness, and/or thoroughness of

written reports'is sometimes lacking. 1 d._ Written reports are usually inaccurate,

, incomplete, and/or untidy. 0 3.. Coope ra tion a.. Enthusiastically accepts new assignments and cooperates with supervision and coworkers. 3: b. Generally willing to accept new assignments and to cooperate with supervision and coworkers. 2; c. Occasionally resists new assignments and/or occasionally does not cooperate with supervision or coworkers. 1; d. Yrequently resists new assignments and/or generally refuses to cooperate with supervision and/or coworkers. O b

CONFIDDMAL _ _ .

                           -                           f un/vc Auspectut uuta
                                                                             ~

4. CPSES Seniority

a. Five years or more 3

b. Three years or more but less than five years 2

c. One year or more but less than three years 1

d. Less than one year 0

5. Attendance a.. Missed 40 hours of scheduled work or less for any reason (except vacations) during the past 12 months. 6

b. Missed more than 40, but not more than 80, hours of scheduled work for any reason (except vacations) during the past 12 months. 4

c. Missed more than 80, but not more than 120 hours of scheduled work for any reason (except vacations) during the past 12 months. 1

d. Missed more than 120 hours'of scheduled work for any reason (except vacations) in the past 12 months. O TOTAL RATING SCORE:

f i

CONrtDINTIAL .

     -                -                                              , ri                                                   .m A., .   -                                              , ' .I QUALITY ENGINEERING ROF RATING FORM
                                                        ./

ROF Category Rank: NAM E: Ca tegorie s : I Badge No.: II

            -                           Discipline:                                                                                                        III Rating Score:               ,,,

Da te : Supervisor Completing This Form 4 Date: Reviewing Supervisor INSTR UCTIONS i ', This form is comprised of two pa rts . In . the first pa rt, the employee is to be, categorized according to security clearance, level of certification, and dependability factors. In the second b par t, the employee is to be evaluated on knowledge and application of appropria te specifications and standards, quality - of documenta tion, cooperation, CPSES seniority and attendanc e, assigning the appropria te number of points to the employee for each ra ting fa ctor. All -Rating and Reviewing Supervisors should note that this form presumes that the employee being La ted shares the strong commitment to quality that is critical to the QA/QC program at Coma nc he Peak. Any employee whose commitment in this ! regard is sub3ect to doub t should be brought immedia tely to the i attention of senior management so that an assessment of the need

                                        - f or immedia te te rmina tion can be made.

i l I l i l L [ . CONrmevv=p

         . . _ _ . _ - . . . , . .               m ..      _ _ . . _        _

e ~Quali8y Engincaring

                                   <                              ROF Rating Fo rm IDENTIFIC ATION OF EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES Ploase identify the category mos t clearly applicable to the employee by checking the most accurate response for I, II and III bel ow . It is essential that category identifications be done accurately for ea ch employee. Af ter this pa rt of the ra ting form is completed, th eref ore , all in formation should be verified by che cking the employee 's cur rent pe rs onnel file.         Once the appropriate categories have been identified and verified, the let te r of the response checked for I, II and III below should be recorded in the appropriate space in the upper right corner of the first past of this form.

I. Security Clea ra nce: A. Employee has not been denied clearance for for unescorted access to Unit 1. B. Employe e has bee n ' denied clearance for . unescorted access to Unit 1. II.- Ce rtifica tioris : A. Has sufficient certifica-tions to be classed as a g ra de/ level A inspector in the discipline to which the

                  ,                            employee is presently assigned.

B. Has suf ficient certifica-tions to be classed as a grade / level B inspector in the discipline to which the employee is presently assigned. C.* Has suf ficient certifica-tions to be classed as a grade / level C inspector in the discipline to which the employee is presently

                                        ,      assigned.

D. Has suf ficient certifi ca-tions to be classed as a grade / level D inspector in the discipline to which the employee is presently assigned. E. Traince. CONr!DENTIAL page 2 cf 5

q -Quality Engincoring

                                         . ;/                                      .. AOF Rn ting - Fo rm
               - III .. Dspandab ilit y:            A. Was not available for work
                                                          ' fo r 80 o r ~ f ewe r hour s o f

I sched 41ed . work for any
reason (exclusive of vacations) in the.paat twelve months. ,

B.- Was not available for work for more than 80 hours of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the pas t twelve months. +- .. 0 e

e l l j- . t I f \ Page 3 of 5

I CONemann a.

                                                   ^                    '
                                         "N                                       MMHOF71%Tf8We-xa teitm9   l j-                                   ;ROF Ra ting Form        l 4 -                                                      EMPLOYEE RATING                             ,
                                /

To -ra te the employee , circle the numerical score a t the right-hand margin that corresponds to the response that most 1: accurately describes the employec's approach to his job. Ratings should be done on the most objective basis possible, and super-visors should under no circumstances allow personality or other facts not related to the employee's actual job perfornance to play any - role in these ra tings. Ratings on CPSES seniority and attendance (nos. 4 and 5) shouTd be verified by checking the employee's current personnel file. When the employee ha s - been rated in each of the following aspects of job performance the employee's total rating score should be recorded in the space i provided at the end of . the rating section and in the appropriate I space in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of this form. . . .

1. Aoplication of Appropriate Standards

                           -a.-    Demonstrates extraordinary knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropriate specifications and standards.                                       3

b. Demonstrates acceptable level of. knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropriate specifications and standards. 2

c. Occasionally indicates lack of sufficient knowledge of and/or proficiency in . application of appropria te specifications and standards. 1

d. Frequently indicates a lack of acceptable knowledge of and/or proficiency in application of appropriate specifications and standards, such- as to necessitate retraining. O

2. Quality of Documen ta tion

a. Consistently produces written re ports that

                                 -are highly accurate, nea t,' and ~ thoroug h. '                     3 Ma j or it y of wr it te n re po rt s a r e ac cu ra te ,

b. neat, and thorough.. 2

c. Accuracy,' neatness, and/or thoroughness of written reports is sometimes lacking. 1

d. .W ritten reports are usually inaccurate, ,

incomplete, and/or untidy. O

3. Coope ra tion

a. Enthusiastically accepts new assignments and cooperates with supervision and coworkers. 3 l

b.- Generally willing to accept new assignments ! and to cooperate with supervision and. coworkers. 2 l c. Occa sionally. re sists new as signments and/or L occasionally does not . cooperate with supervision l or coworkers. 1

d. Frequently resists ncv assigr.msnts an'd/or generally re fuses to cooperate with supervision and/or coworkers. O Page 4 o f 5

                                                     ..                                         T CONFID.tNTW_

a .-

                             ,S                            .- V w' d 11 t y tilginteet Ally
                                !                             .tO F Ra tin g Form 4 .- CPSES Seniority                                                       .

a. Five years or more 3

b. Three years or more but less than five years 2

c. One year or more but less than three years 1

d. .Less tha n on e ' yea r 0

5. Attendance

a. Missed 40 hours of scheduled work or less for any reason (except vacations) during the past 12 mon ths. 6

b. Missed more than 40, but not more than 80, hours of scheduled work for any reason (except vaca tions) during the pas t 12 months. 4

c. fussed more than 80, but not more than 120

             .      hours of scheduled work for any reason (except vacatio ns ) during the pa st 12 mon ths.                      1

. d. Missed more than ~120 hours of scheduled work for any reason (except vacations) in the past 12 months. 0

                                               . TOTAL RATING SCORE:

CONFIDENT *AL pahe 5 of 5

                                -               ^
                                                                      ~m
                                         .                             .)
                                                                                         ~.

QA/QC ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT PERSONNEL ROF RATING FORM ROF Category Rank: NAME: Ca tegory : Badge No.:

              -Discipline:

Rating Score: _ Date:- Supervisor Completing This Form , Date: Reviewing. Supervisor INSTRUCTIONS This form is comprised of two pa rts. In the fi rst pa rt, the employee is to be categorized on the basis of dependability. In the se cond pa rt , the employee is to be evaluated on knowledge and application of appropriate procedures and instructions, quality of do cumen ta tion , coope ra tion, CPSES seniority and attendance,

              . assigning the -appropriate' number of points to the employee for each rating factor. All Rating and Reviewing Supervisors sh'ould note tha't tiiis form presumes tha t the employee being rated shares t-             ' Elie strong commitment to quality tha t is critical to the QA/QC program a t Comanche Peak.           Any employe 3 whose commitment in this regard is subject to doubt should be brought immediately t o the
              -a_ttention of senior management so tha t an assessment of the need for immediate termina tion ca n be made. -

6 4 h~

CONFIDtNTIAI.

                                             ,N.                            b. NwawnspWs
              .-                             . ,'j -

PC'Jonnel Form

                      ^
                                   .i              .

IDENTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES

        .                      Please identify .the category most clearly applicable to the employee by checking the most accurate response below. It is
                 . essential tha t category identification be done accurately for eac h employe e .        Af ter this part of the rating form is complete d, therefore, all information should be verified by checking the employee's current personnel file. Once the appropriate category has' been identified and verified, the letter of the response checked below should be recorded in the appropriate space in the
     .             upper right- corner of the first page of this form.                                .

De'pe ndab ility: A.* 1Cas not available for work for 80 or fewer hours of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the pa st twelve tronths. . B. Wa s not available fo r work

for more than 80 hours of ~

scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the pas t twelve months. l l. l; i i Page 2 Of 4 i CONPIDDpry,

g P' lila wi d 61V U .3 L e p V L w ij PO onnal Form

d EMPLOYEE RATING To rate the employee, circle the numerical score at the right-hand margin that corresponds to the re sponse that most accurately describes the employee's approach to his job. Ratings should be done on the most objective basis possible, and super-visors should under no circumstances allow personality or ot.".er f acts not related to the employee's actual job performance to play any role in these ratinos. Ra tincs on CPSES seniority a nd attendance (no s. 4 and 5 ) should be verified by checking the emplovee 's curren t personnel file. When the employee has been ra ted in each of the following aspects of job performance the employee's total rating score should be recorded in the space provided at the end of the rating section and in the appropriate spa ce in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of this form.

     -           1. Application of Appropriate Procedure s and Instructions

a. Demonstra tes extraordinary knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropriate procedures 3 and in struc tion s.

b. Demonstrates acceptable level o f knowledge o f and proficiency in applying appropriate procedures and instructions. 2

c. Occasionally indicates lack of sufficient knowledge of and/or proficiency in application of appropria te procedures and instruc tions. 1

d. Frequently indicates a lack of acceptable knowledge of and/or proficiency in application of appropriate procedures and instructions such as to necessi,ta te retraining. 0

2. Quality of Documen ta tion

a. Consistently produces written reports that are highly accurate, nea t , and thorough. 3

b. Majority of written reports are accurate, nea t, and thorough. 2

c. Accuracy, neatness, and/or thoroughness of written report s is sometime s lacking . 1

d. Written reports are usually inaccurate, incomplete, and/or untidy. O P' age 3 of 4 CZNTIDENTIAL

                                                                       . Aaminis t ra tiv e support g,
               ,, ?                         t

_p Pt,, onnel Fo rm

                    -3. Coope ra tion

a. Enthusiastically accepts new assignments and cooperate s with supervision and coworkers. 3

b. . Generally willing to accept new assignments and to cooperate .with supervision and coworkers. 2

c. Occasionally resists new assignments and/or occasionally does not- cooperate with. supervision or coworkers. 1

d. . Frequently resists new assignments and/or generally re fuse s to cooperate with supervision and/or coworkers. 0

4. CPSES Seniority

a. Five years or more -3~

b. Three years or more but less than five years 2

          .                   c. One year or more but less than three years                       1

d. Less than one year 0

5. -Attendance

a. Missed 40 hours of scheduled work or less for any reason (except vacations) during the past 12 mon th s . 6

b. Missed more than 40, but not more than 80, hours of scheduled work for any reason (except vacations) during the past 12 months. 4

    ,                         c. . Missed m~ ore than 80, .but not more than 120 hours of scheduled work for any reason '(except vacations) during the pa st 12 months.                            1

d. Missed ~more than 120 hours of scheduled work for any reason .(except vacations) in the past 12 months. O TOTAL RATING SCORE:

l t o . l I l L L CENTIDr.NTIAI. . , _ _ _ , _, ,

.}}

ML20095D626

Text

SUBJECT:

Background:

Navigation menu

Search