ML20095D628
| ML20095D628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1984 |
| From: | Gary Purdy TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20095D591 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-2, NUDOCS 8408230416 | |
| Download: ML20095D628 (648) | |
Text
_ _ _ -- -
l 41273 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 BEFORE ThE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD 3 IN THE NATTER OF )
)
4 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) DOCKET NOS.
COMPANY, ET AL- ) 50-445 gn, 5
( C OM A N Cl!E PEAK STEAM
)
)
50-44{Q
/m y,' .
6 ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS ) Cj +'s O AND 2) ) gj gg;gg;)gg,,g,;,pg :
7 2 Doc rmic&
- \ suv
- c
- "E E. unci!
uyA Ecumq. 6-.
e jf: .-
~
l'R EF I L E D TESTIMONY OF 10 GORDON PURDY AUGUST 16, 1964 f l 12
..- Jo f.6 g 2-7 ,
ff 13 14
\
15 16 PREFILED TESTIMONY OF GORDON PURDY, taken on the 17 16th day of August, 1984, in the above-styled and 10 numbered cause, at Clcn Rose Motor Inn located at 19 Illg h w a y 67 & FN Road 201, in the City of Glen Rose, 20 county of Somervell and State of Texas, before Janet 21 E. Schaffer, a certified Shorthand Reporter in and 22 for the State of Texas.
23 24 ggaSB83PJ888Hg T
A
=- ;3. ;; -
~
, _ v;, ; . l 412 7,4 --
1
, 4 - -r x
, % ,; , i' - - -
u ,~
. I'-- APPEARANCES : ._.
.+
p G[u s
Ln2 / BIS H'OP , : LIBERMAN , . COOK , 'PURCELL .& REYNOLDS-
^ Attorneys at.! Law-0 ,
3-' 1200~ Seventeenth Street,-N.W.~ -_.
, ~,
twashington, D.C._ 20036 -
~
~
f 4 / .,. .
, _ ~- B Y j B r uce :Downe y,i Esq;.', , , '
5'- -
- 7 APPEARING.POR,fAPPLICANTS '
-J:
- -G: ,
e-g h -
s 7
~< . .
f l
v '. b 8 +
~ ~
., l9. _
~
, c ,
' ~
^10 '
. ~e
, 'g g . ,
E k-
- 12 ' s n
t'
^
q .
~
33 , ,
, - s 1 3-
. .15 .
16
~
?
, ;r ;- -
17 ,
> 0
'1g' !~ , _
- ,. ..<^
"~ ~
.19 . -
c 9
20-(i- , y }:. -
2 t
- .24
~ ~
Jb_ .
2S. ,
4 g - N.'
q -e
,r-
~
(- _
.4127L
- S
-12 GORDOWLPURDY,- ,
L2- .the! witness hereinbefore named,.having been
- 3 previously duly. cautioned and sworn to. testify the Ltr.uth, the whole~trutts and nothing but the' truth,
~
s .- -4 5: : testified on his oath as fol-lows:
, 6 MR. DOWNEY: This is the r e s u m p t i'o n ho f-Deposition was 7 the-deposition of Gordon Purdy.
- 8 originally commenced at the request of the ,
_ 9_ ~Intervenor case in this~ proceeding.- And J fo11owing 10 Mr. Purdy's' cross-examination, the deposition was l
11 adjourned' pursuant to order of.the ASLB.
..f.
12 The Applicant will now:present the-direct' '
/~1. 13 testimony .of Mr. Purdy and he'll-be made available
%J
'14 for further cross-examination atLthe' hearing inEthis
~
~
15 proceeding ~which'is now? scheduled for Septemberf10th.
- 16 EXAMINATION
- f
- 17. BY MH. DOWNEY: .
18' O. Mr. Purdy, is'_it-true thatEyou'vefaiready_
19 been sworn as a witness-in this case?
20 A. Yes, it'is. .
21 0 And I'd like-fto, remind"you.that you're still under: oath for purposesiof E this proceeding'.-.
~
<22- d
- 23 Mr.-Purdy,~I'd-like to ask' you a.' series 4of
. pc. i ' -24 questions =to: clarify.some o f. t h e, : p o i n t s that you. ,
-V; -
2 5~ were asked.about in1'c r os s-exami na ti on ^ by; M r . ' G u i ld .
}
9 h-
~41276
, 1- M r . ' P u'r d y , .c o u'l d you pleaseidescribe.the 7^)*
L. 2. circumstances-that first' brought you:to comanche 2
'3- Peak on-a full'-time basis?
4 A. 'Yes, sir. ,
'5' O. LWould you please do so? _
1 6- A.. In early November.1 was asked --
, 7e Q. Excuse me, Nr. Purdy. That's' November of.
8 .-1 9 8 1 7 9 A. 1981. I-was asked by my Immediate 10 supervisor, Mr. R.J. Vurpillat, to'come'to'C$manche
~
d 11 Peak to rewrite and address some of the concerns
_ 12 .that had.been identified by the American-Societh.-of 13- Mechanical Engineers Survey Team. relative toithe f^)V m
- 14 , ' Brown &SRoot QA manual.
- 15'
.T h'e . s u r v e y that was. conducted'in October?of
- .s 16t 1981 resulted in ASME no t'. r ecommend i ng f the renewal 17 of our certificates of _ authoriza tion because 'the la manual did notscontain sufficient detail to permit
- 19 auditing by the ASME service team. Upon arriving at 20 the site, I started addressing the manual concerns y 2 1- -- ' and that same week. received a phone' call from
'22 Houston where I wa s --_ n o t i f i e d that my predecessor, I 23 Mr. Jim fla w k i n s , would not,be returning to t h e- _s i t e I _s . _24 inlhis position of site OA manager. At was then.
~
f 12 5 ; a's k e d - t o take 't h e ' j o b on at least aLtemporary be' sis.
- -. m.
41277 m- ->
a
.. 1. Q. -And did you accept that offer?
- ( T, m./ 2 -A. Yes, I did.
, 13 0. And you've been site OA manager-for the s
4'L ASME program since'that' time?
~
That's correct.
~
5 A.
- 6- H.
Q Now,,the problem that you were addressing r: 7 with the manual, Mr. Purdy, woulo you describe-that-8 in more- detail, -please?
9 A.. The American Society of Nechanical 10 1 Engineers, commonly referred to as ASME, conducts-11 ' surveys of certificate holders to recommend to the
~ 12 Accreditation Committee of ASME whether; or' not an
~
13 -applicant should,be authorized by ASME.to. perform-j } .
14 ASME related work.
. 15' The-AUME.philosophyt at the-time of our-
~
, 16 survey in October'of 1901 was that the QA man'u'al of 17 the-applicant'should be sufficientlyidetailed.to
.18 permit the' ASME Survey Team to audit the 19 implementation of ~the pro'g rame based on the. manual;
- 20 itself'and not on any' referenced procedures or ,
~
~ 211 1nstructions. ,
- 22 It was the opinion of the Survey, Team at
. 23 the time that our manual did not'sufficiently
. ,.s . _ 24, :describef in detal'1 the requirements and4 methods for 1
1
%J-25 ; implementing - our Quality--Assurance program, and, 3A"5 j e.**.- -
w -.
.. 3 ,
41278' v
v g-therefore', it.was my task to incorporate-this detail
~
L 1
.g
.k/ 2 : into t he- ma nua l .- Although'thADrequirements(had ,
-3 previously.been contained in procedures _and 4 instructions, the ASME Survey Team didinot want "t o b -
LS audit the project based on those' procedures,or ,
G instructions. .
7 0. . If I understand yo.ur answer, 'Mr. P u r_d y , you 8 took.' the' ma te rial that-had previously been contained:
~
'9 in1 procedures and instructionsland incorporated-that
-1 .
material into t h'e'. m a n u a l ; is that a.short-summary:of 11 what your assignment was?
12 A.- That's correct. 4
.13 Q. Mr. Purdy, there-was considerabic testimony (a^f 14 - in your cross-examination about the.various -
.15 - documents related-to the QA program,,and I'd'like -
16 you to start--with what I understand to be the-
- 17 highest level document, 10 CFRq part'50 Appendix B, 4
18' and workLdown through the various levels'of 19 documents that guide the QA/QC program at Comanche 20: Peak.
- 21. A. 10fCFR 50 Appendixc B'is a commitment that.
22 la made' universally by any applicant for a 23 ~ construction permit for a nuclear-power plant, and
.s, 24 it is a condatory compliance document relative to QA
-O 25' programn. .From Appendix D the applicant will s
bE DanRa&R R@ MOT __ REPORTERS-
m
. c
'41279~q
.j
'f ,
c 4 - . .
- 1~ developL a QA: program which. implement's for their s.
.3- ,
A ff 2 L proj ec t' the - requi r e'ments of.. Appendix-B, and this is y 3' : generally called:the Quality Assurance' plan for--the 4 4 'owne r .. 1 5
- 0.- Is'that the name of.the documentJat-y
- 16- _ Comanche' Peak? "
7 A., Y e s ',, i t : 1s. The Quality Assurance-plan of n ,
' - 8 the owner,~the requirements of~10 CFR: 50 Appendix B,-
1 9-f 'the supplementary requirements of the'ASMElbollor -
10'- 'and pressure vessel code are all: translated into the
- 11 '6rown s Root Quality Assurance Manual.' From the .
12: Quality Assurance Manual, which is our basic program'
.- 13 document,-are'. developed Qual'ity Assurance procedures
[(] ~
e ~ 14 - and, subordinate Quality Assurance instructions which-
'15 implement ~ the requirements:.containedEin 'tha t ma nual .
16; Q. : So the 'various . documents .thatigovern: theJ
~ ~
17- program-are, 1n descending order,'a;part o f : -~~ for-
.- '18 lacx ofLa better word - are 10 CFR 50aAppendix B',-
.; . 19-[ :the site QAl plan, the ASME QA' manual,[thr ASME(QA/QC -
20 procedu r es . a nd _ the ASMh: - QA/QC -i ns t ruct ions ?
A
~21 .A.. ~That?s correct. -
J 22: ,0. Mr..Purdyr what is'the-policy at Comanches ~
8
, .23: 'Peakunbout the-reporting!of;non-conforming ,
24- conditions ~by.QA/QC personnel?
LJ _
25 A .' <T'e identification and. reporting of-
~
~
r d
N YT S:: ~ S - -
- 1,f }g _
~
-41260 1 l
4
. ; ~
, + -1 non-conforming condition = by QA/QC personnel is, in o 'm '
L . + .
- L ).
2 fact, their-principal responsibility. .it's more 3 than'just.a.QA/QC~ responsibility.
Everyone on the 4 project-is responsible for identifying-non-conforming 5 conditions for the proper identificatio ,a nd--
~6 ~ resolution.
7 , our.-QA/QC personnel are indoctrinateo in s 8 their responsibill"ty.to-identify non-conforming
~ ~
, 9 conditions in'their initial' indoctrination, in the.
10- specific'QA indoctrination. It'is included in their-
' ~
-11: training with respect-to the discipline that they:
12 will be assigned to. It is a very obvious part oLf .
f')
u,
' 13 ' the Quality Assurance Manual. In fact, it is a pa r t 14 of,every procedure.they work with~'on a day-to-day 15 basist and I~ believe this very clearly" indicates.to .
16 .the QA/QC_ employees that their primary job is to
~
<17 identify and report,.where noted, non-conforsing ,
18 -conditions at Comanche peak.
19' O. 'And collectively from these various sources ~,
'20: how often-is~-the-policy ~ reinforced, in your judgment?. ,
21- A. OA/QC personnel work with the Quality 22 Assurance procedures and instructions on a daily-L - 23 basis. It would-be impossible for them.to refer to
,- '24' 'those procedures or instructions, which they are
=
V '
c '25 . required to do in the performance of their job, 2 b -
- = . - .
_z '
'41281'
~
n {
't
.Nw ,.'..A' i' !
vithout reemphasizing the fact' thatithey-care.to
~
-1 j.. '
' V} , .
~
L2 _, identify'n'on-conforming conditions. . ^
^
3- .Q. LNow,-.is.there'a' policy-about the
., s 4 . disciplinary actions-lthat a r e ' . ta k e n J7ag a i n s t QA/QC 54 pe r s o n n e l - wh'o-. f a l li t o report 1non-conforming- ~
+ 6 . conditions?
7T A. 'Althoughs it's n o.t spec fically addressed a
'8 .like that,_the failure to-r.eport non-conforming ,
9 conditions is very clearly.a failu're to perfarm; 10 . a s s'1 g n e d tasks', and it"would demonstrate an .--
-11L - -inability to implement the responsibilitiesfthat
~
j l2 they're-assigned. Both:'of those failures.are, by ,
-sJ' (T 13 project policy, rea sons. "f o r termination'and dfamissal of t h e.. e m pl o y e e .'
15- 0. - Do1you think-the oc inspectors u.n d e r s t a n d-16 'their responsibility.Eto: report non-conforming 17- conditions?
4
+, , _ .
. A. Within the ASME arena *specifically,"we'are
- 19 2 approaching the docume'n da ti on -.a t - 15,0 0 0, I. - :
20 non-conforming conditions over theLpast>five. years.,
~
21 s
I'think it's evident,-by the number of times,'~that'we-
[, g 4
.22 2' have~1dentified to-construction.or-the engineering
' ' 23i organization,non-conforming conditions,'that it's 2'4 funderstood that their responsibility;is to identify-DQ'
~ 25[' those conditions.
+ .
4 Y
2
-y, 4 g-
2 41282
- q '
N, 1- Q. - Mr.. Purdy,: would "you describe the. ways in id. r 2 which OA/QC inspectors report non-conforming f
~
3 conditions?
'4. A. ^0ver th~e course of the project, several )
5 methods have been used:to identify non-conforming ,
6 . conditions.. These. methods have included-the .
l7 - traditional'Non-Conformance Report. . They have ,
, 8* included, within the ASME, arena, what we have termed
- 9. Piping Deficiency Reso'lution horms. ~They have 10 included Non-Destructive Examination Reports. They 11 have included FieldzDefic'iency Reports, and they 12 - incl ude - Unsa ti s'f ac to r y Inspection Reports.
f)
v '
13 0. !!o w has the'use.of these various documenta 14 affected-the OA/QC-personnel's ~ ability to-report
- 15. non-conformingfconditions? ,
-16 ~ A. Not.atta11. .Heporting'non-conforcing
. 17 conditlons I believe has been very clearly 18- substantiated by the number and'contentiof-those 19 variousftypes.of-documents. Appendix.B does not.~
20~ mandateTany_particular. term or. acronym for-the.
21 document to be used to-ident'ify non-conforming
- 2 2 ? condition.
~
s '23' The personne1 have identified, ove r - the
, '24 course of the project, laterally thousands of these J ~-
25- ^particular deficiencies relative to the conpliance
+
DRNRBaR @@@D9 BEPORTERS
-n-41283 k
1 Alth the: design.or'what they feel is compliance with IJ~ 2' the design, all=6f which have been adequately.
13 resolved, ond I'think this. evidence teinforces the 4 . position'that the OA/0C organization = bas me t -- i ts
-5 frasponsibility toireportnnon-conforming conditions.
6 0. In your judgment, is there any; significance ,
-7 to the particular kind of document-used to report'
- 6. non-conforming conditions? s 9 A. No, there is not. Every. document that we l'0 used'to identify non-conforming. condition by
. 11 procedure is processed through the required '
~
12 ' organizations to obtain'the necessary. evaluation.and
?"; 13 . approval. The term that's usad'.is totally x).
14 ~ 1rrelevant.
~ .15 O. Mr. Purdy,.is there a' policy at-Conanche 16 Peak concerning the$ harassment, ~ intimidation and 17 threatening of QA/QC personnel?
t 18 A. There's a policy at' Comanche' Peak: tdat is 19 primarily a c o r po r a t'c policy.. At least 'for..myl 20 tenure with Brown & Root,-there has always been L 21 published and . enforced a policy that the OC.
22 inspectors 1must be permitted to perform'their job 23' -and their functions in accerdance with documented.
L '24 programs and procedures free of harassment or
, (, .
1/
\
'25 intimidation from any interfacing organizations.
I m -
DR@RBOR~C@@RT REPORTERS
- --- 41284-m-
-s.
1 .- Q . - ~And that's been true at Comanche Peak-since 1/
2 you've been here?
' ~
3 .A. That has.been true at Comanche PeaA since
~
4- :I've-been here, and'I'.havefno reason to believe t h a t.
5 i t was not true prior'to my 1 coming- he re', since it is
~
- 6 a; corporate'po11cy'as-well'as a utility. policy.
7 'Q. ByEcorporate: policy, you meanacorporate
.8 ; Brown & Root; is:that right?
9_- .A~.- Yes, sir.
- 10 Q. 'And withLerown & Hoot prior to coming to e 11- Comanche Peak?.
11 2 A. 'Yes, 'I .as.
w . -
c + '
13 0 Atru 'i t - was - the policy of Brown 6 7 Root that V. '
.14 : QA/QC_ personnel would be-free from harassment and-
'15 'in timida ti o~n : a nd threatening prior to the time':you
- 16 came1to Comanche Peak? -
. =17 A. .Since at;1 east' April,of 1979 whens 1 began
- 18L working for Brown'& Root. That's been a-generic,
'19 policy'throughout the company.
= .
, 22 0 l Q.~ How is'that'policyecommunicated to the
~ 21 QA/QC pers'ennel at Comanche Peak?'
The policy has been(verballygtransla'ted to
~
~22' :A.
23- personne1'ever since'I've beennen employee'of; Brown
- 24 .& Root. .It h'as"been reemphasized by the Applicants
- (7)] '
,2 5- Program-that BrownL& Root not on'ly e"ndorses, but- "
9
'l. N
+- -- -- = =
-*4, g .~ -
7- ~7 -
'41285 i .-( ..
,4 ,
u -
il that.the a ppli can t o Exanda te s : to" en s u r e thataffectiveL
, , . . s f i' . A 1 g 4 V-J i 12' 3 .;de, sign,- construction and . testing. of. .the Cdianche r u q,
- 3 Pean. Steam Electric Station..
i . .. ,, ,
4 'e What's more, it's' inconceivable-to me that !
. j51 any-empidyee ofhthe OA . De pa r tir.e n t would not j 6 ..u n d e r s t a n d , .: In today's. environment, that they should 7 be and?are--required to be-free from those. kinds of pressures, 11 for no ,other rdason thanby media
^
'8' 9 coverageJof the particular topic. a 10 'O. Mr. Purdy, when you first became site QA 11 -manager for therASME program, did you. undertake a 12: review of the'}rogram? c s
f'- 13 . A '. - Yes, sir, I did.'
J ,
14 0. Woul'd: you describe the scope 1of'your review?
15 A.- The scope of the; review was actually divided'into-several" parallel paths, one path.being.
, 16 4-17- the technical ~0A program elementh which,.Las I'
, 18 previously discussed, was the l'nitial reason-for,my
.19l assignment to comanche- Peak.
20 0 By the technical ^ program, you mean the.
- 21 manual? '
s 22 .A. .The manual.
'A 23 0. . And supporting documents? D 17( 41 :24 A. Frocedures that implement the: manual,'yes,-
U- ~
25' sir. .
L ' l_ .
_ _ __ . . _ . - .m -
w
,3, n;; u , ' '
4128'6TI m s. , ,
m ,
- ~' " ,
y ,
p: ,
-k >
s t e y , -y'
,/# ,
1 ,
61 t was of primarysimp'ortance to me that the E '
l2 , "QAtaanual proper 1y reflects"the requirenents'of.the
~
O.k '
'e ,.
'4 3 . higher tiered documents, and that the . requi remen ts;;
- .4 Lofithe4 QA' manual be clearly arid effectively
5.- : t r a n s 1'a' t e d to thei'sield) by the ; va rio;us . QAc pr5ced'ures
- o '6' fa n d ; 1'n s t r u c t i o n s ..
- -[.._* ~
I also evaluated thelpersonnel-.within-the
-l 7.
organi za tion] ;evalua tedithei gual'ity - control fieldi
^
' ' ~ ~
, 8- .
9' i n s p e c t i o n' p'e r s o'n n e l to ens'ure thet.they were.able .
+ =- . - .
10- ito? properly implement thatprogram. I also<trie'd to
,Y l, ,
N' silj ascertain whaticould be done to improve,their: ,
- > 12 < : ability to perform their job'. f f'
f'y 13' I reviewed'the-4uality engineering ..
" 14 organization.to ensure thatCpe'rsonn'al:with proper ~ ~
~
~
.15' qualificationsuand expertise'~were iassigned .o i tih a t'
~
~
, y^ 16' ~ organization,iwhich ~
is, I?believe; tho'f$ridamental ~
I 17 building bl.ock'.of'an effective QA program.. .ThelQE 3
organization ensures tha tkinf o rma tion 5 pr ov'idedi. to ~
~
y l"c -v 18" - -
- -Q
< , 19
,. field ~1nspection' personnel is':' clea r - and concise ~ and '
w_
.4
's
'[ 20 'd o e s :,n o t: require.subjectihe evaluation,JanM that all
.the criteris:'are clear 1yb ofined quantitative.
~
- 21' ',
w , , >S +- . .
22 requirements.--
'I ni d e i ng :' thi s , , 'i t. p r ecl ud es'~ a' field-p , ,
~
> -v ., _. .
~
- - 12 3 inspector,;from.being< faced'with subjective decisio'ns,. -
.. c ... - r
'and 7..thereby eliminates,.in.the" vast'majerity*sof 24 ~
, n - ,
j -
'25' : instances, anyL' interpersonal-conflicts.that-could
~ *
., . n j& , , "- y 9
.s-s +
,+ .,
41287 1
occur between inspectore and other organizations,
(
whether it's craft or engineering.
2 3
I personally went to all of the field 4
organizatione and the engineering organizations 5
within the QA Department in an effort to become 6
familiar with thoso peopic and to let the people 7
know who I was so that they would feel free to O
communicate to me any concerns they had. I had 9
several discussions with them trying to elicit from 10 them any concerns that they had'and assure them of 11 the availability not only of myself, but the 12 organization to be responsive to any expressed 13
(]) concerns or1 problems that they had.
14 Q. Mr. Purdy, let me 90 back to the technical 15 review you performed.
In it fair to say that your 16 review consisted of the rewrite of the manual and 17 the studying of the procedures that supplemented it?
18 Was that the principal focus of your effort in that 19 regard?
20 A. Yoa, it was.
21 Q. And based on your review of the manual and 22 procedures as they existed when you arrived, did you 23 find that they were, in your judgment, adequate to 24 the task of the OA/QC organization?
25 A. Yes. I found that the overall program L -a
y ,
41288:
s ,
11' -- p r ov id ed . a c ce pt a nc e .
}s)
'2 0. InEthe personnel area, what was your-
- 3. [ finding ~ about the~ ability of the-QC' field-inspectors -
'4 t'o do their job?
~
- 5. A.- 1.found that for-the. scope of their
+. ,
'G - .qualificat[ons.and certifications, that they werc ,
7: .very .well qualiflod- to perform their functions.
8~ What I did identify was that it would be -
4
- 9 preferable to the project and to the i n d i v.i d u a l - ,
' 10 -
employees if we-were able to expand their background
- 11- in,overall. nuclear power plant-construction and -
12 increase the scope of their responsibilities. In Il: 13: this respect, we, started on a major cifor't to cross Q:
14 train personnel ~1n all facets of the ASME ~ related 15' ifabrication, installation and' testing, and in.doing 16; so, weJnot"only' increased the?efficiencyiof'the -
~
-17~ organization..in performing its responsibility, but-18 . we a' Iso provided,tne esployees with broader skills, 19 which ultimately should~be valuable to the 20"
~
individual employee..-
l21 ; Q . -- This cros's; training, did that include N .22 retraining'of. inspectors in the site policy.of'their
-si; 123 'ob' ligations to report non-conforming conditions?
7_ t 24: A., In the process offtraining for all of the
~ ~
'25 disciplines,;it?'would'have"includedigoing through N
- ? W yN
. ._ 1_..
. . .._ ~.--- - .. . . . . _ _. ___ _
.L -
L.; .
-43739 1
- n. .
+ =
7
^ ' m
, 1~ :the proceduresfand' programs that were imples. ant!ed 77 h 2 for.that-discipline and?thereby'it,would. definitely
~
3 incl ud e' . training -'in their' responsibility to-report-7 "4 _ - non-conforming conditions. '
- .v,-.
'5:
Q.. -What was the long-- ra ng e - g oal .- o f yo u ry 'c r oss - O
+
i .< . ..
~
6- t ra i nilng program?.
' C 7 The'long-range goal'of the' cross training
- ~A ..
},
^ Si; z p r og r aai was to' develop a team.of personnaliwhoJcould; .
r .
- n. .
. inspect any. facet of ASME ' f a b rica tion ,;.. in's ta lla tion
- ;9 - , .
.10; and~ testing, and who woul'd be able to' understand::the
-r - . . -
111 ; individual' items and.how those at tema.;related > to the a ,
R. '12 'antilte constructioniand acceptance process.;
l{j ;13.
O. Have_ you. met that long-rangeiobjectiveLati t
4 41 4 this time?/ . J. . ,
15 A. Y e s ,' sir, we-have. u" -
16 0. Approximately when did;y u meetuthatf 4
- 17) objective? -
'N We have been very rapidly. approaching that ~
18 A.
t ,
.i wou'Id ' s a y- tha t
~
i .19f- objective for.about the;past year.
/
~
20' right now-98.. percent,'at least, -of 'my ' field
. t -
"i inspection personnel are fully qualified ASME 21f
( " - J. 4 J
~22- _ inspectors who:are capabic, qualified and~ certified -
.23i ;to. inspect and. develop the necessary certification' pu 124 documentation forgaspect of'ASME fabrication and V;~
~ a &. 25 installation. '
p 8$ m D'
.w , . .
- 41290 T
~
1 Q. Mr. Purdy, what specifically did;you find ,
,m. .
V' 2 .in'your review'of'the QE f u r.c t i o n ? -
3 -A. In the quality-engineering function,.1 4.~ ;found that several!of the personnel who were 5 -assigned direct. supervisory responsib'111 ties were
~
G' also-assigned technical program responsibil'itiess in 7 other words, they were also'dding thc.QC function.
8 1 do not believe that it,is a-nost m.
91 officient way to utilize personnel by overloading 10 them with responsibi11 ties, and, therefore, I 11 Jbrought up additional quality ' engineering personnel.
12 to' supplement the supervisory group.
~
. .Q. 'Wh'o specifica11p did you bring into.your
.14 management team?
e 15- A. I brought in two managers -oons: manager
.16 had worked for me at another Brown & Root project *-
- 17 named Mr. Robert Siever, to'act asLthe Quality; 10 control manager. And I brought'in Mr. Ted Blixt, 19- who had worked ~within~the OA organizatlon in Houston, 20 to act as.a quality engineering manager.
21- Additionally, I broughtLup two Levtl' III 22 -quelity engineers, one named Mr. Ed opelsky, who 23- worked ~with me on a previous Br'own & Root project,-
,, ~.
24 who was: responsible for non-destructive examination,
' k) - <
- 25. and 11 brought up'an additional Level III quality l
L. DRARB&R @@ MOW ' ROD @RTERS
~ '
- -41291 4
. 1; 7 engineer by the:name-of.Mr. Ron Washington to nerve ty\
T /( 2- ,aiia quality Level:1II' mechanical engineer.
'3 ~ Q._ <Is'it fair to say that'what you did-was- .,
4 . supplement the management organization thatiyou 5 -found at Comanche Peak with additional people to! . -1
- 6) Ih andle special_ functions?-
7 A' . Yes. .
p 8 Q. And-these were all peopic with whom you~
9 worked in the past?
]
10' A. Yes.
11' O. What~ criteria did"you'applytin selecting 12 these employees? .
. 3: o
-13 A.. The; position of Quality' Control. group.
].
E 14 manager-was_a position.which I-felt'had to be filled 15- by an individual _who rio t only wa s technically, 16
-proficient 4within theinuclear inspection arena, but
~
17 who-also wassable to.. communicate.with all of.the
. 18 personnel under his direction. -
11 9 The. individual,that-'librought up wih.hJme is; i
20 probably one of the'bestifield managers lthat I have 121 'been associated with 'in:that the personnel working-under'his directionjhave the -greatest amount of 22
'23 confidence in his_ capability,'not only t e c h n i c~a l l y ,
t
,s - 24' but in his. sincerity personally., He has been-in the
- e ,
e A./ . .
- 25 nuclear industry _long enough to beLable to' provide a
6 I - . p
'N
'a*
' ?Q' g.. -:, .
- 41292; D ,, ,m -
A ,
~, : . . , . ..
e> .
~ + l1; .ebjective,n rat1~onal. decisions' relative 5to;the-QC job. -
I guess, fin a nutshell,. Beb ?S'iever -is; pr oba'blyi one-1 2 :. ,
,# . A.
2-1 >
3 ofidhe-'mos't: technically proficient mother. hens.Itve-4
..e.
~
, 8 3- ever: run across. m ,
s
, s <
The' crit's ria2thh t I establisheE for4the a -
5-c
" 6 -quality = engine'ering-manager was f o r a n;2i n d i v'i d u a l ,
. who, although empatheticLwith' hic per'sonnel,iis;
~
7 X -
r 3 .
~
theirIwork: 2hetivit1es'and
' ~
. 8 exceptionally. critical _.of -
~
L '
l . _. .
. , - 9 :. their'own. 4 felt that this"<was'of primary y ,
m s
. i m p o r t'a n c e , . b e c a u s e what;the;. quality engineering
~
~10-
- 11 group;provicesjin4 the wayFoffprocedures.and *n ,
'12 instructions toe t he- Quality control organization ,
- 1. 3 ~~d i c ta te s ,. to.a great extent, the ofiectiveneau .of' ,
f 14- the ' organization ; and -its ab'111tyfto doJits ij[ obi ,
,:without unnece.ssary differences..of opinionf being- f
- - 15
' ? 1
(* 16q ' created:between?the inspectorLand-thejpeopleywhose s m '
.W 17_ - work?he.jis,; inspecting. ~ ,
- u .l . + ..
p ;
16 TThe criteria that 1 had established for? the x
si'te[NDE(Level =III was-that'the individua1, in
~
f ~ ' ' 19 -
i c ,e 4' . m
- 2 0- addition tofmeeting all'the. requirements ~of the . -t
~
..-?.
American National Standtrds. Institute Stan'dard.and' -
~
- 21 - -
s t.
, 22 the American Society of.Non-Destructive.-Testing-a m 4-. .
12 3-- LStandardJfor# Level,I'II, must al'soibe' nationally.
- yTi? ' - -
, c
. w :3
.- 2Y: certified,aindhhave'a' proven performance record 1
.(r, l' .
. 4 +
relative to.hisrabillty-totimplement 'a proper 25- .
,. J
+ +
, + ,
1 .g * -
v',. -
+
s s,mW g.- ~
n - a. ;-- .7 - ;D N LRMRRT=_ REPORTERS -
-- ~.= - . ,=, .- - - -
'A _
41293 i
^ ~ #
_ q li 'WoneDestructive-Examination Program.
- j3: , -
' kdJ '2 ~The criteria'that~ I established forlthe-
/
5' 3 sita machanical Level III was; tha t< the'tindividual, n 'in addition'to-meeting-the;previously mentioned 1 3 4 .
5- ' standards,"must also have a demonstrated abilityt to 1nt5rface1with-the enginee ring : organization ~ and to'
~
-6
'7 communicate ~ with'the ' Quality control personn 1.'to--
.8 - ensure that he could effectively implement'the.
1
~
.9 designer's requirements {and the requirements'of the-
~
- i. . .
-10 code;and.yet=do that in a mannerLwhich the field g
11 . Quality. control personnel c o u l d - impl em a n t'..
. ~l
, '12; Q. And did the four peop1'e that you brought z
{ j' . 13 Ei n t o . t h's progran meet your expectations?
14 'A. Most assuredly.- -
. 16 organtiation, did'you!make an ~ effort to neet L17 individual f l e'i d 'i n s p e c t o r s and' lead i n's p e c t o r s ? -
- 18 - A. Yes.-
~
19 Q. Would-you describe' the efforts that.you
-.20 made to'become acquainted:with-the: people.whatworkec!
3 .
- 21. for you?-
o
.- 2 2 A.- I made a concentrated effo t to meet
'23 collectively with disciplines and individually with y '24 .personne1' within those groups. I'tried to meet with L) 25 .everybody that was in the QA Department at t h e. ' t i me t
C
=. - _ _ _ . _ __ _ .
gn 41294
- - s s
'.x -
w p [, l 1- s !tha tL 1 :a s'sumed - the responsibilityfof site QAfmanager. .
a~, .
h/ :;2 ' o.This~was[done"for not-only the' people.that[were on s
3 the1 day 7 shift, but f or; night shift personnel as well.'
- 4' -I t w a s done-with f'ield inspec' tion personnel,-quality-
~
5 . engineering personnel, and pershnnelhwho were C 6- assigned normal QA: responsibilities such as-
~
' ' documentation, und the records vault. _Ilmade afvery-
- 7 7
L 01 , definite attempt andiI think I achieved 100' percent success rate on talking to:..everybody within the
~
?!L 10' Edepartment. .
1{., . Q. And ~ approximately'5h ow? many; people were,in L12; ~theudepartment at the time 7 ,
a . .
jf3- 13- '
A.- There were-probably;-l350 to-400 people.
ur) c.
within the QA Department.
14 ~ ,
~
- .15- Q. What'tise per1od was requiredifor you to l16
~
meetfindividually with theses people?'
'17. A '. I would imagine that.it'wasJa perlod of~
p ro ba bl y two to;three mo'nths before.I was a b l e'.
~
f 18' to- '- -
L19[ g e t' a round and'talkitofeverybody.
fi <-
' 2 '0 Q.. -DidEyou convey;to(the-people.in the .
21 ' department during'these. meetings;any instruction on how they. s houldr e po r t, p r ob'l ems thAt they perce'ived.
~
22 .
. . . 23- in the field.or problems they were havingron the. job?
~
-24 A. Wel1,:whatII'tried.'to convey to.the. people
, f 25L Mas the; fact,that not only was I interested in-the-i .
1
- d. ,
k' -)
- e. s
.- _ m e ~
I; ', u q'); ^ -; r: =,
i -
x <41265 I Ei c r m w- ' w ,
- v .o. ;c r- t g % : a
. iaplementa't'l'onj o f' theJQ A . prog rad but tha t I'was
- 1. :
me , ,.
b
'2: in te res tedDin : trying 'to' res'olve or-correct;any . q 2.s , ,.
1 nr
- . sr .
'3
~
- problems that they-either'.hadsorrperceived~that they
.s "
~ '
4 .had/within.the project'as a whole.
' a, ~ _ , -
~
5" .
..I tried to. emphasize to.them'wh'at I felt;
,, p ;
- 16 our?;cema'itment to-a' proper QA program should be on 1,[
- o
' e7.q
- Comenche, Peaks that it was ouriresponsibility-to-
'8- - verify!- that comanche Peak.was bel'ngibuiltf in
, ..- . m
, - 9 acco rda nce- .wi th ' thefd e s ig ne r,s r e q u i r e m e n t s , -; a nd
. 10 : tha t: itiwa's'our: responsibility it'we identified' -
), ,
.=
s, = 11 " areas}where it was.not,:in compliance with the. design,
, . 12 . thathitibe_ properly ~1dentifled.
N' i
M ,v ,
, 13- o More than-that, I tri,ed to create.an
'.3, .
m r 114 ! e environment'anong _the;QA' Department in.which they-
, 15i ' would feel free to:either comelldirectly to melor
~
16-
-through their-supervisor to express;anyCconcern-they.
4 17' hadawith"sither the QA program o'r l wi t h) the i rt -
1; 11'8 ' * 'interfacc' responsibilities, even'to the point .t!ha t-
,Q.i. 4'
-19 we were concernedLwith them personally;as Oi 20' individuals.< I tried to do this in a-manner that.
s n'- 21 'would:make'them feel. comfortable appranching us.;wlth ,
22'
~
~
.those. types of problems =andithat they:would feel 23 ,
confident that we'd take some type of-action.to try:
g-h . 24s i.. a n d resolve those problems, and I feel it's worked
>NA E25 very' effectively.
4 4
4 l
.p ,
m n >
i 6(V)BW DRf)(D)OQRJM
bil ' ~
~
.. c .
- 41296 b,c +
- .. l' - 'What'it basically 1was was an attempttto set p
j y:V - 2; .a program where we showed development and-leadership 3 through' example and not just-throughzdictum or 4' written' work.
'5 Q.. And what evidence'do you.have.that your
~
6 program was implemented and'that peopae have raised 7 concerns with you'and your managers?
1 8, A. It would be very difficult' for ce'to cite
- 9- specific examples where that's worked because it's 10 -probably one of-the closest-and most effective 11- organizations I've ever encountered. I guess the-12 fact' that it works'is probablycepitomized by the Q u-
' 13 E fact that.1 wouldn't trade the group for anybody 14 l've seen in any other project in the country.
15 Q. Mr. Purdy, in your review of the QA/QC ASME 16 program, did you find anyfevidence' that harassment, 17 Intimidation or threats of' personnel within that 18 department 1was a problem at Comanche Peak?
> 19 A. No, 1-did not.
H2 0 . .Q. Does that nean'that you found'that no- .
21 , difference.of opinion arose betweenjthe QI/QC A .
22 Department and;the other departments;with which^they 23 had to: interface? ,
~
24- A. No, not:.'at all. I think-disputes and i t r
%j n- ..
1 25' . differences'ofuopinion between.the'QA/QC Department ,
t 4
't.
- 7 . __
41'$7.
. -r 2 n .
J- ,
y H ,
v; d ' ~ ' I andzother(organizations with which,they;interfacefis ( ~
J%l ,
. is an" inherent characteristicsof this'
~
b':;' 2- natural.'and
~*
~
13'. . type of-project. Whenever.you have one group 1of..
, q
- 4. : people that'is evaluating) anothcr g roup "of -
5 Li rid i v'id ua l s ' work to determine whether it's
- .s ..
.6 ' o.cce pta ble 1o r-. una cce pta ble , = lyo u ' r e bo und - to haver
^ ~
- 7. diap.u'tsa. .. -
,. ~8 ' Wha t? I-La ea n t by=my statements pravfously
- x. . ..
~ ,
]^ 9' was that I-.didn't find.<thosendisputes created an 10 ' environment of-harassment;and intimidation or,a ,
gli ' situation th5t deterred the organization ~ in any'way:
- L12 - 'fromperforming[itsjob.
N.
~
13 " , .Q. You cited'as one' example 7a.pbssibility.of.
%)
, . .14 differences'of. opinion between-craftsmen and QC 15 Lpersonnels le,thatrcorrect?
, .z 16 .A.- That's correct. ,
o _
c .
/ 17- O. Do you have a policy'.as to'Jhow such 18' idisputes.should be' resolved? -
.19 ; .,_ A . The . -poli cy wi thin . the -- QA r De pa r tmen t , which.
20 islan~ equivalent policy within the Construction:
- 21 Depa rtment',; 1s tha t as; soon , as the ditference of i
,t 22' opinion is created between a QC inspector and-a 23 craftsman,'thetithat difference of opinion be l24 immed i a'tel y ~ e l e va ted to the next= successive' level of j]
k' 1
^ ~ ~
- .-2 5 supervision or, management.. The; reason for that is b_
.,4 O _
. /Y M fS 9 B R M O M R O '
^
J , - . '4 1 2 9 8 '
~
.obviously3 t;h a t he who' finds a prob 1'am~ is not going
,- 1
?'V
- C'
'to-be able'~to= resolve'the problem if._there's:a 3 . d i f f e r e nce .-- o f ' opi n io n relative to the individual 4 performing the work versus*the individual inspecting 5 it.
G .The site policy.is that*upon. identifying 7- ,. the fact that a resolution _of a difference of 8' . opinion.cannot'be achieved, it is always to be1 10 elevated to the next hire level of management.
10 Q. Was that the, policy when.you arrivod?
11 A. Yes, sir, it was.
s 12 Q. And does it temain the policy?
.13 .A. Still'doos.
-(uT
-14 Q. And in your experience,.does that policy' '
15 work 't o resolve differences of opinion in<an-t 16 amicable way? .
- a 17' :A. In my opinion,._it works' excellent. -
- 3 18 Q. As between other organizations, is"it i
c 19, possible for differences oi opinion to arice1between 20 the QC and QE or'ganizations?
21 A. Yes, I.believe it is.
~
-22 Q. What are the typical kinds of differences 23' that would arise between QA and QC7
~ 2 4. A. The typical kinds of: differences that woulc= ,
v 25 arise<between QA and QC.are where. quality 1
5 T2fVWVXYk_@FFlfMP BBFKGERf3
^
i
. - . - , . - .. .. +, , , . , -
v g. 4 s ,
41'299;
- y <
- n. .-
t ,
1, engineering will; develop a procedure or a change-to yn h' i -
2' .a prhcedure tha t. e i the r :'may _ no t. b'e' ca pa ble. o f being
- 3. Implemented in the: field the way it's; written ori
-4 where the inspection. personnel may not even: agree- ,
t . .-
(5 --w i t h t h ei t e x t f o.f i theqprogram.
. 6- - one --.o f . ou r ' requi r eme n ts - r ela tiv e to.the
,..s '
^
I 17 ASME QA program is ~ that when quality. engineering
.8- prepares a program or procedure, that it be reviewed
. a 9 c by. Quality--Control t o r.a k'e",s u r e thatEwe.make-every I
- 10- effort to alleviate those-kinds'of-differences'of -
"11 ' opinion.because they do exist;in.real-life
- v -
12' ; situations.-
[ 213. Q. Is that a. policy-that was in_ place.when you >;
14 arrived at the site? '
-15
. A. Yes. ,
16 0. The policy to.which'I reforred is the .7 e
^
17 ' policy of'having CC review ~ procedures-prepared [by QE.
18 Was that policy, to;your Anowledge, in effect when 19- you' ~a r r ived ? -
. 20, A. That.I really ' don t.t -know. I kn.ow it is .
~
'21- currently incorporated as part of our procedural '
J2 2 - requirements-for review.and approval of procedures.
'QI
'23 At least' since ~ you've been on site, that's
, .. (24 ibeen the policy? .
I -
ince 1 ha e seen here, that has z25 _
.. w 1 east
l l 41300 I
J 1 been a routine policy.
2 0 11a v e you found that policy a satisfactory-3 mechanism for resolving the kinds of cf fferences 4 that arise between the QA and GC Departments?
5 A. It's been very effective.
6 Q. As betwecn the QC orgcninstion and the 7 engineering organization, is the interface between 0 those two groups an area where it's possible for 9 differonces of opinion to arise?
10 A. Yes.
11 0. Could you give, please, a typical example 12 of such a dispute?
, 13 A. I guess the biggest area in which 14 differ. onces of opinion may arise 1. the manner in 15 which the engineering organizacion makes 16 dispositions of Non-Conformance Feports. We stress 17 to our people that the identification of 10 non-canforming conditions is one of, if not the 19 primary, responsibility they have within the.0A 20 Department, and as is typical on most projects, the 21 Quality control organization generally will not 22 understand an enginocr's disposition on a 1
23 Non-Conformance heport of "use as is." !
l 24 I believe this is primarily a l 25 communications problem, which I believe is
)
1 reornat coumi arvoonnas 1
. ;y - = ,. . ~
- m . .
m.-. ~. .
,.y -
,< 4 n ." ,
(41301:{
m :/h
' _~ a' y
1: predon'inantly' cause'd lby . a. lack ' o f training and: -
g7
-f- 2- -'comm uni ca ti on,s [be twe e n . the To rg'a n i za t i o n , which,
~
- r -3 -
earlierJin'~my testim'ony'I ind ic'a ted , ?wa s one.of the ,
i 4) primary.effortsL.in cross training personnel to.
w .. J $ s5: totally. understand the(scopesof? nuclear: power 4
4
'F (,
g.
.'- 6 iconstruction. F
- ~7- . Q. And in your judgment did,that cross.
C :8? itraining'that you implemented' help alleviate this .
..o
'~ r po,tentialfarea of~: dispute?.
19 y Li
-a ..
- , 10 .A. I would guarentee it with honors, it's -
~
111 we'rkedivery well. ' B'u t it..'s a l s o .~w o r k e d< v e r , well.
- not only w'ithLQC,1 but
~
.?-12_ - .
it's. worked very.well withL .
j{ 13 construction and'the' engineers who have also1become z .
> zl4 ' involved: an.th'is cross. training'andiindoctrina' tion .
15 program. ,
Mr. Purdy, how'wouldryou eval'uate,-- strike.
~
- 16 . ,
Q..
'17 :the t.s ,
ilB' -Hr. Purdy, l's'Mr..Slever still' employed as .
. i _ >
19 the :QC , supervisor Ineyour organization?..
~
.... 120 A. Yes, sir, he 1 ._
ny 21 :Q. 'An_d how long:hasih e been.In that position.?' ;
22 .A'. ; Mr.'siever-ha.s.been in that position since
~
23 I' initially-brought him'.into my' organization i n ,~ .I f
- o. ~24L 'believe it was, May of 1982.
p v.
- .M1 ,
- 2 53 :Q.- And how would you evaluate.his. performance'
'rY
~
..)I
'. .n _ _ _
- ' h,. 3 .}
- m. .-
?
141302
~
+ :! -
1 x.
4 in the aspect;of-.his jobi involving;the resolution of
'(3 s/~
- d'ifferences of. opinion of'the QC Department.and'the
~
2'. -
~
3 various~other. department's'with which ibumustLwork on 4 '- 'a day-to-day basis?- .
5 A. Exemplary - I believe the, pe r sonnel- under
.6 Mr. Siever's.' direction trust.htm ' implicitly, as do
? 7: a l l' - o f ' t h e o rg a n'i z a t i o n s . wl't h which fhe..interfacch.
8 Q. Mr. Purdy, during-your cross-examination
- 5L you'were asked a number'of questions'about the 10 meeting that-you held with Linda Barnes in the Town all Square of'Granbury. Do you recall that testimony?
12: A. Yes,: sir.
II) 13 Q. And do you recall - tha t Ms. barnes us .
14f . identified three perceived problems,during this
, '15 ' meeting: A problem.about unfair compensation 'for 16 the job she was.doing, a problem that a set of 17 proceduros had been removed from.,her office while
, 18 she was on vacation,.and a problem concerning the L
19 needffor additional' training for._ people working in
~
20 her area. Do you recall those.being the: problems
,p 21 that. she identified to you?
'22 A. Yes, I do.
'23 Q.. Mr. Purdy,' turning to the compensation 24 complaint raised by No. Barnes, hhendid you first
- v. t 25 learn that ~ there was a concern about.'the
-- ._ ~
e v -
,p
. . . ; r y _& .
41303-4 s3 - , n-
, s. }, ,J' , .
- =-
,, , f , ,
, 1}
- compensation _in'th'nJdocument revdew1 areali n: whic$
M j , x. '
~
@; ; f[ ' '
'2- M s . . : B a r ne sfwo r k e d ? .
i, __n> ,
l3; A. The' question).of.compensatio'nVin the. ,
~
r 3:
~
?
- 4- ' document 1 review area; manifested itam'If probably[in
- ,, ,
,y %
, ; 5 the.early.part of 1 9.8 2 . The proble~m ' associa t ed s wi th' ;
~
. ,- a4 F' V 6:1 the documentation review'areaLis'lthat. the.: scope : of = ', y
[ - . .
.c .
- 17. responsibilities.for' persons performing-document r-h ,. .
review was not as clearly' defined he re ,- .or S-f
, :8-
~
97 _ .thiroughout ~ ths t ind ustr y gene rically," as it is for
[ . 10 fi' eld _QC inspectors or quality engineers.
.. g 11 Document-reviewers perform.a very/ credible, f.
. . 12' veryzviable' function that-was n o t- necessarily-
~
' N, _.-
13 'a dd r e s sed . by. the. .va r io us standardanunder which te
~
L14 ' performed qualification cert 1ficationi In thelvaryf n
- 15 ' - carly" days'of the project, or. at myra'rri. val'at the ~ '
- .a L .
1G - project,~we attempted to' address t h i s'# p r'o b l e s. b y
- , g. 17; establishing.a classification. f or.'documenta tion a 16 pe r s o nriel that-would permit'us-to place: them'in
- a. ,
t 19 < higher wage: category than the one.in which1 they had-
, .+
20 ' proviously been-placed'.' . , _
/
21 Q. -When you say. wage category, do y o u' "m e a n ' t h's .
+
, q' '
wage categories established by_ Brown _& Root's_
~
1 22; m L. '
. et '
23l 'compensa ti on sys tean?:
(2 4' A. .That's, correct. What.we a_ttempted to.do '
[
.-ht 53 was, because of-theirLtraining and their:particular t , y 1 p 4 t-t.
[ 'th
_ FED 5DAL COURT-REPORTERS
s - - - - - - -- - - - , -
n - - -
' 41304' !
O, ^ , f, .; '
y
~
.s ; , .
d
.-na J . . . - , ,
b;%.
- - - 3 . . JJl -
, - 2 ,^
7 :' - fl _ qualifications;l definit'ely indicate that.they'.were _(
96 3 ,
q M
'not9clerica14 responsibilities (thet;the'reHwas a'
~
- 2' n n.g ,
~
m -
s T, .
J3 " degree-ofitraining, qual 1fication and technical? ,
E >-# -
i- -
_4 - profielency'that,, had to be demonstrated. This had a 4;
l a} '5- limi ted j dsg r ee- ofs ucce ss~. a t : the time.p ;v
'6- !
- '- O n e of?the problems'that-Comanche Pea.k( wa s;
~ '
w.a h- -7_- facing waatthat..many projects-throughout[the~ country 8 _were'having problems withi-documentation.and t'h's '
n '
~
19( 'co r rela tion; o f ;documen ta ti::n , and,4therefore, the_ -
- A .._
7
~ 10 - ima rke tabill'ty ' of 2 sur personne. became very,?ver.y. ;
'1 17 great,-great to t h's point <where people!were able t o.-
t
' ~ '
t 11 2 go .te' dif ferent parts /of the country and.different
. - -. J .
T
. 13- -
projects.at.' substantia 11yfhigher salaries or? wages;
~ , ,
than'*we were paying,rprimarilyjbecause of thdir
^
11 4 ,
15 familiarity, training and qualifications within the.
~
b 16- Mocumentation programs. . >
~
- e. ;
_x I17- -It.bicane a ppa re n t ,_ subsequ e n t - t'oT this,
[that'we wantedito', and had to, 'do cometh 5ng
~
' 18. -
, w.
19- additional 9 to thejdocumentation review' function. JA
.a I
20T : prog ramfwa s ' develop}ed by which these personnel would:
+
-y be trained to{ perform their specific-activityLand-5:
'22 provided:withJailimited'. qualification statement to ~ >
a :
3 ~2 3 : that'effect,;thereby placing them into an? hourly.
~
rate category'that was'substantially higher than!the
-0,' )2 4 '- -
l2 5 .one they-were '
currently in. Unfortunately, just o
. y .e : ., ,
A #
g- ,-
_ _ _ . ~ . ,
.41305 4
-1 about'the time.that we ~ were going to implement- the f.
3 /- .2 prog ram ,- ~ the overall Drown &' Root wage and1 salary 3 program was changed, at which time-the progranithata 4 we'had developed for' document controllers;had to be ,
5 'voidedcand we had to take a new tack.
6 , subsequently, we have developed a program
- 7. that provides an official qualification and a i 8' certification-to personnel ' performing what we now=
9 call Document Verification Inspection, and, as-such, 1
10 we have"been able to-umbrella-them-under the wage
"_ 11 and salary program that is afforded to field 40C 12 inspectors and substantially increase,7 predicated
--(3
'a) 13 'upon recommendation and qualifications, their 14 compensatio'n.
15 Q. And in fact,.didn't'you develop this
~
16- ' program in response to - Ms.'Barnes' complaint?<
17 .A. The'two efforts, in fact, at trying to
- 18 provide a new wage and salary programLwere 19 implemented because Ms. Barnes came to me and i nd i'ca t e d that she felt there was an inequity ini
-20
~
21 compansation, yes, sir.
22 Q. And a c, to the first program that-you- -
23 developed to. address'her concern, did a change in
^
i j3 24 corporate' policy-aske implementation off that policy
<q) 25 impossible? -
r l--
L- .J
q y;; p ..m - . = = - , -
^
-41306 il ;
a >
211 LA. That's correct. .And in the' l ong. run , ._ tha t M
l'$ ~2-
?
. proved to the advantage of the employee.- "The' 3 earlier program ~ that.had been developed ~would not s
~4 h~ ave provided~the employees,with t he. f u lli:g ua r'a n ts'a d
-5) salary benefits tha't are associatedLwith the Brown &
. 6- Root wage'andi salary program; that.is, even-though~
7 they,wo.uld have gotten more-money, they would.not
.8 have:had the same benefits relativeLto vacation or' 9 sick time.or excused absence or.various fringe
, 10 benefits as they.have now.
11 The prograafimplemented providec those g 12 individuals with tho' full'speccrum of. salaried (1
sj 13 professional benefits. So even though we weren't 14 able.te implement the first-program, it actually 15 ended up to1the benefit of the employes.
16' O. ~And as=part of 't he system you developed to ,
17 address the compensation complaint, didn't you also 10 develop-a system to address Ms..Carnes' training 19 concerns?
20 A. Definitely. o, 21 3 Q. Ilo w do those two work together, Mr. Purdy?
'22 A.. .They worked in parallel. What I found as I
~;23 had listened to Ms. Barnes' concerna relative to F - > 24 training'a~ was not that~ people did not understand
(- -
- 25- the specific job that they were assigned. Where the E
4 L-
. i
.J, 41307 G
'll -confus' ion came~1n was.that.they didn't' understand 1
- (3 > 2 the significance.of thezjob thatJthey were assigned
-3 .t o--d o .-- So contrary to not being .' t r a i n ed to perform 4 their function, they'just didn't understand how that 5 .functionLfit into our QA program.
6: 0 71n terms of the overall program?-
. ~7 A..- In terms ~ of'the overall program. Therefore, 8- %e went to an extensive effort to make sure that the 9 program was well defined and.to conduct extensive-10 training for those ~ personnel so1 that.they would
- 11. understand the importance of,their particular part.
12 of the organization, or their pa r ti.c u la r cog in'the
/~ 13- gear. relative to the functioning' of.the entire
. (>)
- j. - 14 operation. And as such, we feel that'we have
15 significant1y'.incraased their' perspective relative 16 to what'their. job-function is-supposed to'be..
17 0.- Mr. Purdy, this~ training program,fde you -
18 . recall when it was actually, implemented?
19 A. .The' da te I cannot giveJyou. .I' recall that 20 when Ms. Barnes notified me that she had a problem 21 and. defined what tho1 problem was, I.believe it1was-
- 22 in the middle of one week, and that-I went back to 23 the project and. started 1 reviewing some of her 24 concerns and identified that it'would be to.the.
L.t '
25 employee's and to the project's advantage if we did e 4 . . , . ,
.- g - .g -
y- 3. -
- ~- - - - . -
-1
. a: -
... 4 .
gage!l -
' m' 341306 e s::
.ju
'4 -
.3 ri'. 3
- f,- (.
c 1 .
i
[ g'; ' + =* ;__ ,
i 4x , _
yf' 1 .providefthisLadditional. training.
2 'And 1(bell'e eLthat I.had the~ procedures- ,
y _ s. ,
w# ~~ '
3 :clarifie'deand the'prograncimplemented ~~ the
.y w?-
+ 14), .followin'g Wednesday, Ilbelieve,-I started the.- ," ;
- 5. ' t'ra i n i ng l p r og r a m; I personally taught the!first' 6 1
- c1masem.-
- ~
q 7- O. And'how;1ong was'the training p r o g r a m Tr -
-:e -
~
"'; 8. 'A. The training program was provided.-to the l:- < 9 -:- ,
'employeesfduringTthe courseoof the~ normal workday, I.
u:
j^ 10 believeLthe last twei to three hours of'a normal' ,
11: workday, and encompassed a tota 1 3 of at least two.
p
" ~
12 ,
-weeks of train 1ng~for each group.. ( .
'13l Q. Andvat the conclusion".of that training, what were thets' alary, consequences tel t h e l e m p 1'e y e e's
. .: 14
.m ,
15 'who successfully-completed the course?/ >
1 7 16 A. 'Dir'~ectly'--Edirectly completing the course i '17 -itself did not' result i n -- a salary ~ increase. -
~
iThe- -
,a e
i; f18 - courseswasla' prerequisite to the' increase.y .They: .
' ' ~ ~
1 19' were.:given an examination'which1they had to pass, .
L:
- /* 20 'and,.uponecompleting.theftraining and the x
'e ..
- :21 examination,.they'had to-demonstrato to ths-
. .m f # #
satisfaction, oflth'eir s'upervision-thatnthey were-g 7 '2 2 -
4 '23. fable-to implement 'all of the requirements and
, i. - .
.- ^ #. 12,4! Tunderstand them. Upon completion of the ,
5-(
- 25 . requirements,'they were recommended by supervision
'r _
,r '. . g 4 ., -
e
c 41309 1 for;an increase -in compensation to a level which,-in
.(
i./ C2 :many Instances, doubled their_ salary. ,
'; 3 Q .". And had Ms..Barnes chosen.to complete _this 4 ' course andThad she met the'requirementsifor.
'S certification, what 'would have-been the salary 6 .
consequences to'her? '
< ? A. I don't recall right offhand:what'Ms.
8 Barnes' salary was at the. time she resignec, but, 't o 9- t h e. l b e s t of my. recollection, it probably would have 10' been an increase of about four to:four and-a-half 11 do11arslan hour.or probably about ai40 to 45 percent 12 s a'l a r y increase, not including the. fact-that she 13 would'have become eligible.for the benefits of sick
[v]:
14 ' time, excused absence, l'ncreased fringe benefits, ,
15 insurance coverage, all the coverages that are
~
. 16 ' afforded a profesrional employee within'the company.
17 Q. In essence, would she have.become a1 le professional ~~ an, employee _ categorized as 19 professional under Brown & Hoot's compensation 20 system?'
. 21 A. That's, correct.
22- Q '. And would she have, in that. sense, reached 23 a par with certified QC field inspectors?
24 A. -That's correct..
25 Q.. Mr.: 'Purdy, with-respect'to Ms. Barnes'
)
. .. ._,_,,,w., ,n. . ,,
6n,
- y. - . - - . ; - . - - . . -
-~ .. -
41310
- ( a '
w(_ , '. .y- '
4_
, t r
<( t 1 Il i allegations th'at a.certain. set of procedures-had ,
p., .
J.NE '21 been taken-from/her office, what, investigation did
= ~
b+ -
1
- . '
- 3 .pe.utcon' duct into that allegation? -
m.
'4' J,A'. ,'ILdiscussed with the quality-engineering ^ - -
= ,
- * + 5 - - m a n a g e r ; a'nd the mechanical Level III.- I, asked
+ .
. , ~ .m
_, a 6: specifically what procedures-they;had taken*from the p: -
- '17 off1ce where Linda'fBarnes was working. 1 was
~
~
8 informed-that the mechanical Level III-had-reass'uned 1
- 9: responsibility hor 5the construction procedures.and
- M', (10 the engineering specifications. ,
y -
~
- < 11- 0 Were those the specifications that she ' .
12 complained.had been takeniaway from her? ,
h 13 ~ A .- (That is what-I understand, yes.[
14 Q.- The construction' procedures and site l~ >
t 4
9
~15 - spe.cif1 cations? , 's i
~
16 ' ,
A.' And'the engineering: specifications, y e s . --
+ . - v 17 -None of.which~were,.should have~been,cor are,now t, ~
r
- 18; fnecessary 'f or the prop *er functioning of itihe .
I v %
J19 ; pa r ticula r, documenta tion ' review f unction jtha t ~Ms.';
. 2
- 4, 20: LBarnes was performing., ,
, . ' 21 ,
Q. Assume:Hs. .Barnes;had-wanted to' review some 22 . provisions of :the~ construction -procedures or: -
'N ' 2 3. s p e c i'i i c a ti o n s , where cou.1d shem have-looked to find ,
. them after'these documents were reroved.from the
-24" xi o f fice ~:in wh ich ' she ' wa sY wo r king 7.
25'
,j , , { * .,
'6' ys ,
w; u- # , +
m 3' . g -
t1 < w s,
42312' N, , r ,
- 3. '
- ill - A'. : They'were' located in the office-of the' site L ';% ,
_ [. .
m/ v '. 2 : mechanical Level'III. -
J l
- e
~
3a .'
'O. .And h'ow far' distant from her-office is the 1 7
~
- 4- ai te mech'anical I.evel 'IIInoffice? l
.c 5, A. 5At'the time ~I ~believe that theylwerey.in thei a d jacent' bu'ilding , ;which* 'im pr obably :abou t 20' yards-
~
~~6 7 away. ~ Currently, they're in thefsame) building ab'out'
< 4
'8 '20'feetlaway.
~
p
- 9- Q. :I s it your understanding t h a' t the ,
- 4 s 10' procedures-were removed-frym.Ms. Barnes' o'ffice to
- 11. "the mechanical Level III engineer's office?
,11 2 A. Yes, it.is.
} 13' O. What's your understanding 7of why the books .
l 14f were moved?
+
'15 A. Atter investigation, I~.f ound that.they wer~e.
moved.because of my-program ~reduirement which says 4
16 17 that it is a mechanical quality enginee.r's l 18 . responsibility to kew o those . documents ' cur rent and
[a
- . 19 to make whatever c ha nc e s .. a r e necessary to.the QA 20 ' procedures to permit QA ipersonnel'to imp 1'ement them.
L
, 21 .M s . Barnes, 'in facts 2had.what I had intended'to be. ,
~
. '22 the quality engineer's copy of the specifications.,
23 Q. So it was simply a matter of getting thes 6
'24 in'the right: place?
n.*-
s
-2 5 ' A'. It was
- h 'e matter of getting them to the B.
a.e
=> '
Nf6)fG/MMSNR9 RRp@RTERS
==+ - - - - -- - x .
- v <-
.41312' 1 <right place and;to the right people who were yy'
/~ 2 -supposed to ~be-monitoring them to.cnsure t h,e t our QA r, _
satisfactority translated'the requiremen{.s.
~
3~ progrew
, ,7 N ' '
- 4
- ofl the designer.
5 .
Q. Are these sets'of procedures that must be~ s 6 Ikept.up-to-date with revisions and so forth?
7: A. Yes, they are, constantly.
8 Q. And whose responsibility is it to make sure 9 that they are?
10l A. It's the quality engineering group's 11 ,
responsibility.
12 0.- And that was trueJeven at-the time Ms; i(~l '. 13 Darnes'had the books.in.her possession? -
v "
.t ,
14 A. Yes, it was.
15 'Q . With respect tosthen-- . strike that. J 16- After.your, meeting with'Hs. Barnes-in the v
~
17; Town SquareLof Granbury, did you report.to'her.what o ~
, i 16 you intended to do a' bout he r 1compensa tion _a,nd 19 training / complaint?
.20 A. Yes, I did. -
4 .
21 Q. And did you give her a full report on
- wha t :(
22- you had done?
23 A. I had asked her, at the. time of our meeting
'24 y-f
' in the Town Square of Granbury, whether or not?she i )e desired to return to work ~, because.she had worked q25 t
b $,
og '
9l Oh _ .
< , , ~41313 '
~ ,
1 with us"a while: and I was not in cny.fashfor..wanting 1 z,,
, E[ '2 to lose: her as.an imployee. And she indicated to me
[ 3_ .at thn time that'she wasn't quite: ready'to return.to
-4 work.
5 _ I asked her if. she would at least. call me .
f 6' Monday,:since I did not know-how to ~ contact her, to
~
7 .let ~ me-give her a report of my findings, which I did.
8 I relayed to her what my plane were -- although,.
~
9- obviously, I could not-guarantee those until I.was.
10' able to'put them in writing --
relative to 11 compensation and the method by which we'd achieve 12 this compensation. I relayed to her ny conclusions
/~T l '3 on~the evaluation of the training and the programs (f
14 'which personnel within the peer group were to
~
15 implement, and what 1 intended ts do In'this regard. I 16 -also explained to her what I felt was'the underlying 17 cause for the removal of procedures,.at which~ time 18 she still chose not to come back to work..
19 I had asked her to reconsider, being that
~
20 it was a period of time when well qualified, trained 21 personnel in that area were a vital necessity to the 22 ultimate success of our program. I told her I would 23 like to see her return to work, and if she felt
,_ 24 disposed to do so, that I would be teaching the QJ 25 first class for the new program that Wednesday at TUYWV.VVLM@%MR
y,- - _- -, __
~ "
41314 h* 4
-P 1 3:30.. I-then asked he'r'to attend the class.
, fi M '2 Q. Did sh o c a t t.e nd the first. train.ing : class?
- ~
3 A.. No. ,
'4 -Q. 'I believe you testified, in your
,5 -crossvexamination, aboutL.the events.from that point
?
6 forward, but I want-to'make sure thecrocord reflects s
-7 the summary of your report'to Ms. .Barnes.
58 I n '. e s s e n c e , you told'her ysu looked into
[9 .her compensation and training complaints.and
-10 developed a plan to do something about.iti is that' -
^^ 1-l' ' fair?
12i A. 1 That's correct.
13 Q. And you told her you looked into;her-
{
14- complaint about the procedures being. moved to the
.15 ' mechanical engineer's office and told her that.you 16 'didn't see that that wasMa problem,.and after ~your 17 . investigation you weren't going to do anything about.
~18 that?
19 A. That's correct.. ,
~
'20 Q. And you explained-why you'didn't perceive 121' r it.to be a problem? -
J22 A. - That's correct.
~2T Q. What was your explanation? I want to make 24 :sure the record. correctly reflects that.
s- .
25 'A. The. explanation on procedures was that, as 4
= -
41315 1 -I relayed to her during our initial conversation, it ~
r ym; .
M 2- would_have(been - impossible for.her to: do her job
- 3 without1 the procedures, not knowing what. procedures 41 she was. referring:to; that after my inve s t iga tion ,-
5 ' indicated that it was really the? construction r.
'6 . procedures and specifications'she'was-concerned with, 7 I'had relayed-to her the fact that;those were not' it necessary, by the design of the QA program, for her 9 toLdo her-job. To the contrary, it was;necessary- ,
L 10 for those to be with the-qua ity engineer for.him to 10 4 11 onsure that the QA procedures.were to be updated,to , .
12 implement those'^ requirements. .
f] 13 Q.- You also indicated.to her that she could: ,
us .
14 use.these procedures, if she' felt the need, 'd o w n -i n.
15 the engineer's office?
~
16 A, They're always available, and he knew that 17 they were available. And.the whole OE function 1s-18 to provide QA personael withnthe information..they 19 need to do their job. -
^
2(L .Q. Are these construction' procedures.and 21 specifications set'up as a library system in the 22! QE'e office, s o' that you can go in and check one out 4
23 if you need to'look at it?
'24 ~ A. Yes. '
,O -
T25 0.- Mr. Purdy, are you familiar with the r,
L .. _
_ - ~ . . . _ _
W , % 's _41315 t , ' Xt - ~ _
- s. ,
r r x
' 1 Ifrelayed,to lie r d u ri ng ~ou r -ini tial-- conve rsa tion, -it .
ge hy) 2 would-have been impossible for her to dofher job i, 1 ' ~
fw' 3 wjthout the procedures', not knowing:what procedures 4 she'was referring tos;that after my investigotion, 5 S i nd i c a t e'd " t ha t it was really-the construction
, 6 < _pr,ocedures and specifications _she was' concerned with, 7 -1 had. relayed-to her the fact that'those were not
['u ..
8- necessary,.by the design of u the. QA _.pr eg ram, for her JL to do her job. To the contrary, it was necessary-
' ^
p; 10 for.those to be with the quality engineer for'him to L
4 11 ensure'that_the QA procedures were to be updated to 12 implement those requirements.-
13 ;0. You also indicated to her that~she could E {}
.14 use these proced'ures, if she felt the need, down in' 15 t h e -. e n g i n e e r ' sL o f f i c e ?.
)7
.( ,
16 A. They're always available, and he knew that
~17 they were a v a i l a b'l e . And~the whole.QE; function;is h . 18 to. provide QA personnel with the information they 19 need to do.their job'.
Are these construction procedures and a
f 20 Q.
21 specifications' set up as a library system in the I 22 -QE's office, so that you can go in and check one out ,
23 if you need'to l'ook at it?
24 A., Yes.
(_s w). .
Nr. Purdy, are you familiar with the 25- Q.
O
- /\
% ( ' -
7
+-
3
~41316 1- . allegation made by Ms. Gregory that a certain QES lI 2- review-sheet was: improperly prepared and attached to 73 as flange traveler package?'
4 A. Yes, I am.
- S Q.- what's your understandings of her-
. f6- allegation?
7 TA. My understanding of her allegation ~is that 8- .aJdocument that we use as an index to the package-r-4
-9 Q. Is t h'a t commonly called a QCS review sheet?
10 A. Commonly called a QES review sheet, that's 11' correct.
s -
12 -e was made out'and signed.after the (J 13 package had been returned from the ANI.1 14 0 What is your assessment of that' allegation?.
'15 A. The situation was discussed with the 16 personnel who were involved. First of all, it 17 should be made clear'that the QEs reviewEsheet is 18 not identified by the QA Program as a -; qua l'i ty
~
i
- 19. document. It is, rather, a - management aid'to
- 20 determine expeditiously what has been reviewed by:
21 both-quality. engineering and the ANI.
22 The impact of the type of activity that was
- 23 conducted, which I have verified was conducted, g- , 24 ' bears absolutely no relevance to the acceptance of L,
25 the-documentation; nor to the acceptance of the T
m
p - - -
3 *
^
a .-
41317.,
L -- _ , ?^
s s .
f 1- ' hardware installation. ,
s s. -
-{ 2 'In fact, what probably.occurrad is that i the
~
3 . documentation was reviewed by the'docum'ent review 4 personnel in.theLdocument review' organization; an 5 index was made out; Land _it was transmitted toLthe 6 Authorized Nuclear Inspector. The ANI will not 7 accept the documentation without a QES'revew sheet,
.$ 8 _ simply because i t is his indication that it has been 9: looked at by QA prior to going to the ANI. The ANI 10 reviewed and approved the pcckage as providing the 11- :necessary objective.. evidence of the installation,,
' 12 'and-reiurned it to us. Sometime after the package S' 13: was. transmitted to the ANI, the QES': sheet was lost.
A(' l 14 The NNS supervisor at the time directed o 'n c 15' of his personnel to make out a new review sheet.
k 16 Q. Who was the supervisor?
3
^
A. Mr. Greg.Bennetzen.
IS' Q. And who was'the reviewer ~1nvolved?
19 A. Mr. Bill Darby.
- 20: . Discussions with Bill Darby subsequent to-21: that activity did not indicate that Mr. Darby felt 22' .in any~way harassed or intimidated by Mr. Dennetzen; 23 m in' fact, it:scemed like a very logical thing to do,
~
c 24 since the documentation had been returned _ approved.
v
~
25 by the Authorized Nuclear Inspector as objective 4
N :'
7 D
41318 i
-1 evidence of installation acceptable for ASME-
- 2. certification.
3 Mr. Darby made out the document review 4 sheet, which is required by local procedures prior 5 to the permanent plant records vault taking the 6 document, merely as a document to transmit the 7 package to the permanent plant records 1 vault. So in 8~ essence, there was no falsification of records o 9 because p'ermanent plant records'were not altered.
10 Herely the OES review sheet was made out after the 11 'f a c t , although it had obvi'ously been there at the 12 time of transmittal to the ANI.
'~
13 There is nothing in the OE program that 14 identifies a OES review sheet ao a permanent plant 15 quality record. The absence of the OES review sheet 16 is'not a non-conforming condition. It in no way 17 reficcts upon the acceptability of the hardware or 18 the process control documents that substantiate the 19 installation. In my view, therefore, it does not 20 pose any problems whatsoever in c osa pl i a n c e with the 21 > program.
22 0. After the completion of the field work on 23 these flange travelers, or field work associated cs 24 with the flange travelers, are there three separate
)
25 reviews of the traveler, one by the OE, on., ty the te
41319
'a . ,' ' ,
~1 1.' ' document review group and.one by the'ANI?
2' A.'. There'are three reviews: one by the field 3 , QE to'make sure that the document is c om pl'e t e and 4- substantiates the' activity. And that's: signed on 5 permanent' plant record.
6, Q. That review is ver.ified on permanent plant s' ,
7 ' records; is that correct?
i 84' A. Thats correct.
s 9 Q. There's a second review of the package for 10 completeness and legibility by the QES review group?.
11 A. That's correct. 3 12 Q. And their: verification for completeness and r
13 - legibility is reflected.in the QES review sheet?
(^)T m .
14- 'A. That'sEcorrect.
a 15 Q. Which-is not a permanent plant record?
'16 A. That is also correct.-
17 Q. A nonrQ-document?
i 18 A. That is. correct.
19 Q. And the third ~ step is the whole package a 20- goes to the Authorized.Huclear Inspector for his e 21 independent review?
- 22 A. That's correct.
6 23 Q. .And then in making his review, he relies on' e 24 the traveler itself, not the QES review sheet; is O'T 25 that right?
Y t
y ., - .
41320
, . y
- 1- A. . Precisely, h .
il 2' O. # And it's)the sign-off of the ANI that makes'a -
J. '3L :that verifles the' acceptability of the work-and the 4 documentation as being acceptable to meet ASME' 5 ' standards;;is that right? .
'{ 6 A. That's-correct.
e '
4; 's' '7 O. And this problem. arose after1 the time when' 8 othe ANI had already signed off on this traveler?
. 9y A. That's also correct..
10 '
Q. And the ANI's. signature -- his verification k is part of the permanent plant records?
'11[
12 'A. That's c o r r e c t.. ,
s - , 4 13 ' Q.- A n'd was it after the. traveler came back
, ff}v. ~ *
~
"14 .from ANI and before it was in'the vault Ms. Gregory.
15' ' discovered '
that the QES cover sheet was missing?
a
- 16. 'A. Correct.
17 L CI. And does the addition of the QES review-
- 18- sheet.by Mr..Darby1 to this package in any way affect
[ 19 the acceptability of th's' documentation?-
^^ 20 .A. Not at all.
' ~ '
21 0. - Does it_in any way reflect on the
'2.
2 acceptability of the hardware that's described in 23 the documentation?
u
~r-- 24- LA . Not at all.-
] -
.?
~
'25 .Q . So there are no documentation or technical s
f4
. - - ~ . -
y_. , .
~ ~
- J
'o' 4132'1 (p. ' < .
s 1 c ? 4 1'
[ _; -
problemstassociated with this' matter?
Gr~<
JV -
2[ A. That's correct. t 3 JQ . -
Is there a cosmetic problem associated'with ;
F
". .4 Lthis?:
Ok" 5 -A. The only cosmetic problem that I can
.v 6. perceive associated:with this is that there is n ,
J' Jg 7 statement.on_thereithat says thdt the attached q 16 accumentation-has been reviewed'and it is in 9 compliance with the proper QA, procedure. That could
. -b -
T 10 be perceived as an after-the-fact verification,
. 11- where, 'n' i fact, it was obviously reviewed by QA-I 12 beforeilt-went overfto the ANI or he ;would not have t
Qr 13 accepted the: package. Therefore, 1 could understand 14 where someone may perceive that.there was ~ a cosmetic 15- problem with him signing it after the fact;
[
. 16 certainly there is no technical or programmatic 17- problem.
~'
v18 Q. And Mr. Darby prepared'this sheet and. dated 19 it-with the date on which 'he :perf ormed the review; 20 4 - is~that correct?
[21 A. That's ~ correct.
[m
^
. 22 Q.- So the date hasn't altered?
23 A. No.
In your judgment, is this an NCR condition
- -q * -24 Q.
)'
' 25 that Ms. Gregory discovered on that day?
- 41322- !
T 1 A. Not at all.
d i'"'y ~
' Ar -2 Q.' And are you-someone who's responsible for-
-3 dispositions NCR's at Comanche Peak?'
5
+
10 . ~A. Am I? All ASME dispositions are'under my.
5 auspices,.yes. .
,6 -Q. And had Ms. Gregory prepared an NCR a n d - i t' d 1 1 7 ;had been brought to you for' disposition, how would A .: -
6 you_have:dispositioned it?
- ~
9 A. I:would have voided the NCR as not a 10: non-conforming. condition and, in'accordance with our
- 11 program, explained to Ms. Gregory, either directly
- 12. ?or through the_ lead, why it was not a non-conforming-
- 13. ' , condition.
!(u"p 14 'Q. And if Ms. Gregory had perceived a problem 15 . at the time with the. procedure that was' adopted by. j 16 Mr. Bennetzen and Mr. Darby,.what was the proper 17 course of action to raise that problem?
'18 - A. Proper course'of action would be to, first E' 19 of'all, go to-Mr. Bennetzen if she felt that she had 20 ~a problem, write an NCR if she felt she had a.
t 21 ' problem. If it could not be revolved through Mr.
~ ,
,2 2 - Bennetzen ~~ or t h r e.*9 h the NCR or Mr. Bennetzen --
23 to bring it to the attention of Mr. Siever. And'if g ~24 she didn'tifeel" comfortable with any of those, to V
$25 certainly:come into my office, which'Ms. Gregory did
?
I $
y- -
~
~
41323 h 4
,' 1 'probably ever'y day.
- p. ,
, Pt> 2 *
.. Did you enjoy a~ close,' personal friendship '
c 3 with: Ms. Gregory while she was at the site?
4 A. She vas a great lady.
5 Q. Did'she mention, at any time, this problem 6 ,to you while she worked there?
7 A. No, she didn't.
+
'8 Q.- Mr. Purdy, have'you'become aware of an 9 ,
allegation made by Mc. Gregory that there was some 10 impropriety in the establishment of a goal of 40 11 iso's a week in het department?
112 A. I have become awars of that.
E(). '13 Q. And what's your understanding of her v
14 allegation?
~
15 A. It's my understanding that Ns. Gregory 16 perceived that as a schedule commitment. In reality, 17 =the 40 ISO's a week goal was originated by me. And 10 it was not a situation in'which I believe the 19 classical phrase of " free from cost and schedule" is 20 applied. This was not a question of the project, 21 project management, construction or engineering
.:22 ' establishing'a.schsdule for QA complicnce. It was a 23 " question of myself and my supervisors assessing,
,, .s 24 based on our experience, what we felt we would be
)
-(wJ -
25 able to accomplish relative to isometric statusing P
.. . _ . _ _ _ - _ _ . . _ . ___.__m.. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
'41324-
- q ,..
w-tp [ > -
- 0 . 1- 'and' certification;within a given period of time.
j~j -
udt ; 2, igain, that:was based _on-past ~ experience.
s: -
3 And'we came to the consensus that each one
.', du of us could do an; ISO a day. That-is:not a L
5 hypothetical situation. .Ifve been in the business
. 6' for 25 years. Mr. Siever's been inJit for 32 years.
7' LMr. Blixt has been in it for over 20 years. Mr.
.8 , Wick ~ has been in it foroover 30' years. All of us 9 have been involved in this particular phase of-10 ' project and have been able to accomplish that at :
11 .several projeckswithin the industry.
12 Based on our experience and the f act -tha t
-Q 13 there were. Ins excess-of 20 people working.In the
. - t
-14 group at that time, we felt that it was a plausible l 15 goal to be abic to achieve 40 isometrics a week 16 among the 20 plus personnel. In view of the fact 1,7 that under normal ' circumstances'we-felt that we 18 could ac'hieve a hund red ' isome t r ics a' week at the
- 19 rate _of one a day, which.all us have done before, I. ,
20 established that goal. It was something to shoot at. ,
21 It was'something to weigh our internal QA
^
- 22) productivity against.
.. 23 I will very steadfastly, as 1 think most 24 people in-the organization will attest to, defend 4
25 againstLany pressures that the organization might
_n__.:.__..m___.____._m_ -
.____.____s..____ . . _ . _ . , _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .. , _ _ _ , , , . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , , .
41325 L
1 set from cost, schedule or project requiremer,ts. On 2 the other hand, from a pure management standpoint, I 3 believed, and still believe, that.1 have the right 4 to establish goals that I consider to he reasonable 5 production for my personnel.
6 Q. And from time to time did the group not 7 meet the 40 ISO's a week?
O A. They were able to meet it on some occasions.
9 They weren't able to meet it on several occacions, 10 particularly during the last seven or eight months.
11 Q. And did you take any punitive actionc 12 against the employees as a result of the failure to
] 13 nest that goal?
n 14 A. No. I have never taken action againct any 15 empicyce for not being able to reach that goal. It 16 was a group goal. The only thing I tried to 17 ascertain was from my supervision, and what I tried 18 to ascertain from them was what was inherent within i 19 the system that precluded the employees from meeting 20 the goal.
21 Q. Were some changes made to help productivity 22 in the group?
23 A. Yes, there were. We made several changes
, 24 based upon some of the comments that were being made 25 to me when I asked my supcavisors and managers why b ___ _
m
- - _ ~__
41326 i 1 they couldn't achieve t h'a t particular goal.
t jR,
(/ 2- One of the; changes that we made was to 3 assign,some more personnel into the area. Granted 4' that may not be overtly answering the question, but
, 5- wh'ta we.did do was to provide some field. inspection 6- personnel to help supplement the review activity.
7 We also directly provided field j personnel to go out 8 and resolve the problems' identified by the 9 verification inspection group.
10 We tried to minimize-the time that it was
'll- taking them to obtain documentation from the
< 12 permanent plants records-v'ault to achieve their 13 review process. We established an office directly
(~)
14 adjacent =tolthe plant records vault for them. We
.15 established an' office for the Authorized Nuclear 16- Inspector right.next to theirs. We assigned an-17 individual full time to interface with the ANI's1so 18 that the individual reviewers did not have to be 19 involved.in that.
20 We organized a totally separate group of 21 engineers CE go throug'h one building to try and 22 identify any obvious problems that were in any 23 -isometries before QA ever got to them. This project fs, 24 alone was a full-time job for eight welding (v )
25 engineers and a mechanical engineer supervisor for a MVWUynl@MmW Bftfp@R9RBf3
~
4 41327 a
1- period of about six weeks. So we tried to take
\
sg s'
. 2 corrective-action wherever possible to achieve-that 3- _ goal.,
4 Q. Mr.'Purdy,'you said that this goal 5' originated with you's is that right?
.4 6- A. Yes ,' si r .
7 Q. Who explained the goal to the document 8 . review group?
9 A. I did i n i t i a'11 y .
10 Q._ And to the best you can, would you restate 11 what you told them?
12 A. I'got the' entire cocumentation review group f)
~
13 : together and told them that I would.like to be able 4 14 . to achieve the statusing and certification.of at 15 least 40 isometrics a week; that we' felt that if 16 everything was properly interfaced and was being 17 . conducted in an efficient fashion','that we would 18 probably be able to achieve'this goal.
- 19. Ilowever, I emphasized to them that that is 20 a. goal, and, first and foremost, whatever they were 21 able to achieve in the way of iso =etric 22 certification production per, week had to be right, 23 whether it was 40 or not.
,3 24 ;
And at the time I discussed it with those i A-)w, 25 ' personnel ~~ there were probably, oh, 20 plus MRFAF5
p.
41328
. -t
.; 7 oe . I personnel in there -- I did not get the;1mpression rqa tj 2 :that anyone felt the goal was unfair or unreasonable, 3- nor was any. concern relative to the goal brought up 4- as being im p r o p e r cur outside ~ the requirements of the 5 appendix.
6' O. On the other side of the coin, did any of
-7 the reviewers voice a positiva reaction to your
'8~ presentation?
9 A. 'Quite honestly, I got what I felt to be a 10 . positive reaction from all of them. They felt that t 11 'with the changes we had made, with the training
. 12 program, with, obviously, the reality or the 13 :possible reality.of significant salary increases for (g~T-x 14' all of them, that there was no problem whatsoever.
15 meeting that.
.16 Q. Subsequently, they didn't.always meet it; 17 isn't that right? -
18 A. Correct.
19 0. On'the other side of your message, the 2 -20 ' making sure that it's done right, what's the record 21 been in;getting the. -ISO 's right before they're sent 22 to the ANI?
23 A. I think thatithe efforts in that group have
, ;24 significantly improved. The number of. questions and
- x. /
25 concerns that we' received from the ANI has
..A
' ^
41329' ,
r .
e s .
d 1
_q~
e '1 : .significantly decreased over the last four or_five j'~y.
?2 ,. months. ..The' acceptability and the adequancy of the 3' program has been_ demonstrated-in that.over 98 4' '
percent of theEpiping systems have'now been 5 certified on comanche Peak.
a- .6 (The deposition was recessed until 5 '
'7 August 18, 1984, at which time the 8 ' f ollowing testimony was given.)
_9
- 10 11 12 _
( .
'13
[ 14 <
15
~
16 ,
f 17 18
~
19 20-21 22 23 25
~
'r5
41330 1 0. - Mr. Purdy, are you aware that Meddie
- 2 Gregory, has alleged that the management of hor 3 group threatened to replace the document reviewern 4 with job shoppers?
5 A. I'm aware of her allegation, yes, sir.
6 Q. Was there, at any time, active 7 consideration of placing job shoppers in the 8 document review grour?
9 A. Project management offered to obtain the 10 assistacce of personnel that would be called' job 11 shoppers, not to replace anyone, but to cupplement 12 the existing work iorce.
13 7:y position at-the time was that to
- (]
14 c u p p l e nie n t the existing work force with j o.5 shoppers, 15 to effectively integrate those personnel inte the 16 organization and familiarize them with the prograr 17 would have been counterproductive, and, therefore, 1 18 categorically refused the offer of job shoppera from 19 project management.
20 C. has there ever any serious consideration on 21 your part of aading job shoppers to the Document 22 control Group?
23 A. No.
7s 24 0. Did you discuns this with Mr. bcnnetzen at s -
25 the time the offer was made?
41331-p 1 A. I discussed the offer with-Mr. Bennetzen (3
t-4/ 2 and Mr. Slever, both of whom I relayed my opinions
-3m to. . Both were well aware of the fact that.I had no 4 intention of bringing'in job shoppers, although the 5 offer had.been made by project management.
6 Q. Did Mr. Bennetzen indicate whether he 7 agreed or disagreed with your judgment on this 8 matter?
.9. A. Mr. Bennetzen agreed with my. judgment. Mr.
10 Slover agreed with my-judgment. A statement was 11 made to the personnel in the organizations it was 12 not intended to indicate to them that there would be
any supplementing of the force with the job shoppers.
(J 13 14 Q. Mr. Purdy, are you aware of the= allegation 15 made.by Ms. Barnes that some documentation may have
' 16' been sent to the vault that indicated that a disk <
17 number in a' valve differed from the disc number 18 indicated on the vendor's documentation related to' 19 that valve?
20' A. Yes, I'm aware of the allegation.
21 Q. Nr. Purdy, is such a difference unusual?
' 22 A. Such a difference is not unusual, but let l 23 me explain what I mean'by that answer. A valve f- 24 that's being installed in an ASHE fluid system is L
\_/
l 25 certified by the vendor who has his own Quality e
41332 1 Asaurance program, his own ASME certificates and has t 2 his own authorized nuclear inspection agency.
3 Upon completing the fabrication and testing 4 of that particular valve, the vendor will initiate 5 what is called a NPV-1 Code Data Report. That Code G Data Naport, when executed by the vendor and his ANI, 7 indicates that all requirements of the applicable 8 designer code and designer specification have been 9 met. It also indicates on thc data report a listing 10 of the pressure boundary parts that have been 11 included in that valvo with the necessary 12 identification to verify the acceptance of the 13 materials that would include a valve body, a valve 14 bonnet, the bolting material, if bolting material la 15 used to connect the body to bonnet, and the valve 16 disc. Valve disks, by definition, are those parts <
17 of e valve that con be replaced throughout the life 10 of the plant to ensure that the system integrity is 19 c.aintained.
20 It is not abnormal in a project to find 21 that you will be replacing valve disks quite 22 frequently throughout the installation and the 23 tcsting program to get the particular valve to 24 function properly and/or operate in accordance with 25 the testing and Startup procedures.
41333 1 The fact that this valve disc was replaced 2 in no way reflects inadequacy on the part of thc 3 valve design or the valve function or any of the 4 hareware or material characteristics of the volvc.
5 the valve disc, if replacc e, would have been 6 requisitioned by Cic1d engineering and construction 7 on a material requisition. It would have specified 8 what valve it was to go into, what the repincement 9 part number was, and the warehouac would then 10 withdraw the appropriate valve disc frgm stores.
11 That volve disc, by our program, would have met all.
I :P 12 of the original requirceents of the vendor from a:7 I
}; 13 both configuration and a r.a t e r i a l standpoint, anE {
14 would have"bcon installed in the valvo in accordance 15 with our' process control docunents for this type of f 16 on activ[ y. g
\
( 17 The only question that could arine relative le to having c valve disc installed in the valvo w h i c t.
19 had an identification different than that which wac 20 on the vendor'c Code Data Hoport is really a i 21 question of insurcability and not a question of i 22 actual adequacy of the volve. The quertion of 23 maintained quality and insuroability is addressed by
~y 24 a totally different section of the Code, which is j 25 called ASME Dollor and Pressurt Vennel Code, bection
- a m hon e m amann m
41334 4
- .1 11. ,
p '
i
's> 2 The project has known and-planned-for at
.3 . least - the three years that I'va been here, that >
4 prior'to finalo completion of all the systens, that
.5 we;would go back through processed-documents-to-6 '- identify'whether we.had installed parts in an ,
7 N-stamped component provided by a vendor that were O different than those that were supplied by the 9 vendor. The. provisions for doing this are contained 10 in Section 11 of the Code, and as a. result, an NIS-2 11 form is filled out by.the applicant and/or his agent.-
- 12. This NIS-2' form caintains traceability of the parts '
tfl 13 'o f that valve and-thereby; verifies and provides for wJ
.14 the continued insureability of that item.
4 15 We.have completed this process, and,-as of .
16 today, there are' approximate 1y'400 NIS-2 fotma that 17 we are in the process of executing en insure 18 ' complete traceability of the internal parts of the 19 valves and/or N~ stamped components that we have replaced during the installation and testing procesa.
20
, 21 In short, there is absolutely nothing wrong l
22 with that'proccas; there is nothing wrong with the I
23 valve, and it had been a planned project procosa to I
j- 24- insure documentation correlation at the enc, V
25 although it would not be necessary from a licensing l
- _ - _ - - - - - - _ . ___ - _- -- _ - _--- _ _-- -_ DNWhaA S t9 Mltit - MMMPAfL_____________ _ _
41335 1 standpoint.
- 2 Q. Mr. Purdy, was your organization 3 responsible for reviewing the vendor supplico 4 materials and identifying those items where 5 traceability needed to be documented for 6 insuroability purposes?
7 A. My organization was designated as the agent 8 ,
of the owner to perform that task. It can be done 9- by either the owner or his designee, in this case wo 10 have been designated that renponsibility.
11 Q. And when did you, undertake this pgocess?
12 A. We undertook the proceau, as planned, 13 starting about six weeks ago when it becaco apparent
'}
14 that we were completing many of the systems in Unit 15 1 and the probability of continued part replacement 16 was exceptionally remote.
17 Q. Why was it, if you know, that this process 18 w&s undertaken at the end of the construction phase?
19 A. It was undertaken at the end of the 20 construction phase because there could be multiple 21 replacement of parts, and au long an our process 22 control documents provided us with traceability to 23 the end product, we chose not to go through 24 redundant, meaningless exercise of identification
- )
25 during the construction phase.
41336 l-1 Q. If they're true, do the facts alleged by~
^
-> 2 Ns. Larnes with respect to this disc matter pose any J safety related problen for Comanche Peak?
4 A. None whatsoever.
5 O. If they're true, do the facts alleged by 6 Ms. Barnes pose any documentation problet for 7 Comanche Peak Stear Electric Station?
8 A. If not encompassed in the program that I 9 just described, there would not be a traceability of 10 pressure coundary parts, so, yes, they could.
11 In actuality, we had planned this activity, 12 which I am quite sure m >st of the people in Ms.
13 barnes' peer group did not know because it would not
{}}
14 have been one of their functions.
15 9 And after the traceability is established, 16 in this case through your group, is that 17 documentation for traceability reviewed by the ANI?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 r, s . P4 there's an independent ANI check to meas 20 nute-that treceability of all component parts and 21 vendor supplied items has been maintained?
22 A. That is correct.
23 C. Hr. Purdy, are you aware that Na. Gregory 4
3 24 has alleged that the recent layoffs in the ASME QA u) 25 Department were 1cproper or impropurly Applemented?
41337 1 A. I'm aware of the allegation, yes, sir.
- 2 0. Mr. Purdy, does Comanche Peak have a 3 written HOF policy?
4 A. Yes, sir, it does.
S 0. And when was that policy developed?
6 A. We have always had a brittsn HOF policy.
7 0. When was the most recent policy developed?
0 A. The moat'recent policy was developed, 1 9 bellave, around the end of 1983.
10 The initial 600 policy that was implemented 11 within the CA Department was developed by Quality 12 Assurance management based on several questions that
(~^, 13 were raised by the Nuc1 car Hogulatory Comcission 14 relative to how we planned to perform reductions of 15 force when it should come to that stage of the 16 project.
17 he all felt that it would be necessary at 18 that particular time to provide mome type of 19 objective evaluation of the employecs so that an 20 objective evaluation could be made relative to the 21 RCr. The initial DOF policy that we had on the 22 project, however, placed a great deal of credibility 23 on what, unfortunately, we have had to call the
_ 24 subjective evaluation by supervision and managurent t i 25 of the individual employota.
41330 1 The new policy that was developed in the I
o I '
, K' 2 latter Iart of 1983 became far note objective and i
3 far less subjective than our previous policy.
4 The policy that is currently implemented 5 establishs a preliminary screening process in which 6 three major data points must be evaluated by 7 management, but these are completely statictic&1 and 8 cor4pletely objective. The first ~~
9 Q. What are those criteria, Mr. Purdy?
10 A. The first criterion that we look at is 11 whether or not a person han ever been denied a 12 necurity clearance for unescorted access into the 13 Unit 1 and common area.
(])
14 Q. Why is that criterion an important one in 15 cvaluating personnel for Hor purposes?
16 A. Its importance lion in the fact that within 17 a certain number of days prior to fuel load, a la security program punt be implemented around the Unit 19 1 and common reactor plant that provides complete 20 and u nqu e n t i on c et control of access by personnel into 21 those facilition.
22 Even ttough Unit 1 in completed from a 23 construction standpoint, there are r.any areas in the g3 24 Unit I security boundary that still rust be U 2, 25 available for continued construction work on Unit DRMMA M@MD R D RD@0 9B DB._ _ __ ___ _____________ _ _
41339 1 such as in the common area. Individuals who cannot g.
\_/ 2 obtain accean into these areas unless thoy're 3 escorted have a very limited value in being able to 4 perform the n.ecessary inspection and continued 5 construction functions within that controlled access 6 arca.
7 Just as important is the fact that when 0 fuel is loaded in Unit 1, by definition, the ,
9 security will increase on the entire plant and, 10 therefore, Unit 2. And the Unit 2 security boundary 11 may be donc incrementally; therefore, it was 12 imperative that the personnel that we retain on the 13 project for continued project construction have no
{'}
14 question relative to their free access to those 15 areas.
16 G. What's the c.econd criterion to kbich you 17 refer, Nr. purdy?
16 A. The second criterion was the degree to 19 which the personnel were qualified within their peer 20 grourn. The NOP program calls for establishing peer 21 groups; that is personnel who are rerforming the 22 same job under the same supervisory and management 23 organisation, and evaluating those rersonne!
,, 24 relative to their overall qualitications.
U 25 O. Why la that an irportant considerationt
~ ~
l 41340
~
1 A. When individuals are qualified and. '
, i. ,
N 2 certified =to the maximum extent possible within r
3 their= respective disciplines, they are significantly 4 more' valuable to the organization than individuals, 5 for example, wh'o'are in a training status.
6~ 0 Is this criterion principally a matter'or 7- the number and levels of th'e certifications held by 4'
8 the individuals?
9 A. That's' correct.
p 11 0 Q. Mr. Purdy, what's the third criterion?
- 11 Maybe you answered this question, but I
-12 want to make it clear for the record. Why is the
~
( ~) -13 number and level of certifications an important t..<
14 criterion for determining ROF7
~
^
15 A' '. . When a work force la reduced, it in
> 16 incumbent upon management to. insure the individuals
^
l' 7 ' who remain are the most fally qualitied personnel 18: within the organization. ,This.gnhances the. ability-19 to provide maximum efficiency within the inspection
- arena and to provice depth within the orga liations
-20 v
forithe various inspection-functions.-. __
~
22 0 Mr. Purdy, what is the third criterionito e
< +
23 which you referred in your previous answer? '
.24- A. Tde - hird criterion is a question of:
. ,_t
's./ .
25 reliability,"and that question really is how often i
u _ _ _
7p 41341
?=
4-
~ ~
I was-the' person on site to be able to perform their cf L;
_/- 2 actual inspection activities. That criterion was .
3 . established ~at 80 h'ours, in that we would. anticipate
'4' personnel being absent upsto 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> a year.since ,
5 that is-the level which we compensate for sickness 1 6 and excused absence. Each' peer group.-is divided
.7 into two groups based on this criterion: Those 8 ' people who were unavailable for work for greater
._,. 9 than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> during the past year, exclusive of 10 vacation;'and those who had not been absent from
.11 work for greater than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> during the past year, 12 exclusive of1 vacation.
(~ i 13 C. 1S o it's strictly'a matter of attendance?
U 14 A.; Strictly a matter of a t-t e n d a n c e .
15 O. And'why is attendance en appropriate 16 _ criterion for determining who is ROF'd?
17- 'A. The word that's used in~ the.ROF policy sums.
18 it up: Reliability'and dependability. lio w olten m
19 can we anticipate-the individual being here to 20 perform his function.
21 Q. Nr. Purdy, you testified that there.were
~
22- 'these three screening criteria about which you-23 : testified. Are there any other criteria that are j .
24 applied?
Li,
.2 5c A. Depending upon the scope of the anticipated L : F EJLE RAL 1 C O U R T _, R E P O R T E R S .
41342 a
1 ROF, an additional process' cay be required depending 2 uFon the categoriza tion of the individuals in 3 accordance with the screening process. Basically, 4 as a tic. breaker, a supervisory e valua ti on is 5 conducted. The evaluation consists of five factors:
6 Three of those are subjective evaluations by 7 supervision; two are objective standards.
8 0. What are the three subjective factors?
9 A. The first is the supervisor's impression of 10 the individual's knowledge of the procedures and 11 programs that they are to implement. The second 12 characteristic is the degree of preciseness and j 13 accuracy of the documentation that the individual 14 fills out to implement those procedures and 15 instructione. The third one is how adaptable is the 16 employee relative to changing assignments and/or 17 established priorities by supervision.
18 0 What are the two objective factors used in 19 the' evaluation?
20 A. Those characteristics' deal with, first of 21 all, the individual's seniority on a comanche Peak 22 S t e a rs Electric Station, and, secondly, a more 23 microscopic evaluation of their overall ottendance.
l
, - 24 Q. Ilow are these factors weighted?
,j
.25 A. The weighting factor used in the L
- 41343: r g
o 1- eval ua tions - is 'tha t' the " t es tal weighting that is ' '
kPi:
S/ '2' .
providedito seniority and overal1Lattendance is 3- exactly-equal to the weighting provided in cthe: three 4_ . subjective ev'aluations.
5 10. If I understand thecpolicy' correctly, Mr. -
.C Purdy, the people selected f or. ROF..a reifirs t x '
77 _ determined'on the: basis of three objective. criteria '
18 : Wh' ether theyihave. security, clearance for unescorted 1
l' 9 access to the boundaries of:Onit^1 and' common area;
^
1 01 second, the number and level;of certifications they
. 11' ~ holds and third, their attendance record ~andt 1
121 specifica11y'whether or not they.have been absent
>v T}i L.
13 more than.80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> in' the previous--12 months?-
, : 14 JA. That's correct. ,
15 ( Q. And:after those criteria-are used to; screen.
~
16 o u t - tih e firstggroup of-people.t'o be' . ROF ' d ', L i f t h es 17' ROF calls for a larger-number of people;to.be ,
i 18 -discharged, the fourth c ri t e r i on , .:t h e eva l ua ti on ~1s 19L used.to' select 5 rom among.those whoLare.left_who-20 will be'ROF'd?'
. i
~ ' 21 -
A. That's. correct. -
22 O '. Mr. Purdy, did,you participate in the t' ~ 23- development of this ROF policy?
'24 . ,A. Yes', sir, I did..
.h)
\_
. 25l Q. Is your. testimony.about the criteria'and
~
-- . r _
s 41344 I the. purposes they were designed to serve based'upon 1 -2 your' personal knowledge?
m! '
3~ A. Yes, sir, it is.' r 4 C. 'Mr.'Purdy, how many_tincs have you been:
5 called upon to --
has your organization been called 6 upon to identify people for ROF'under this: policy?
7 A. I have initiated the ROF planning and' 2 8 . evaluation program on two o c c a s i'o n s . On the first ,
~
- 9 occasion it did'not become'necessary to conduct a 10 reduction of force since the scope of the reduction 11 oo f force was such that we were,4ble to place' all.of.
12 the personnel who would have been ROF'd fros: the OA
~
' .f~)-
.RJ 13 Department into.other. organ 12ations on the project, *
. , . 14.. with the exception of an in'dividual who voluntarily 15 accepted.an ROF at that time. Onothe second 16 occasion the-R'OF. actually took-place.
17 0. ;Now, you-testified that thesfirst time you^
~
18 conductea -- or first time you prepared the analysis-19 for an ROF, you were able to~ place everyone.In '
20- another position, save one. person, and, therefore, u .,;
21 did not actually have to; implement;the policy; is 22 that correct?
.23 A. That is correct.
l
- 24 _ Q.- Who'was that person who was ROF'd'at his'or-LJ 25
^
her request?
U _ D Efh/7FDM @OMR91RBPO R T_E R S'
' 41345
+ 9 1 A. . Ms. Kate Gilley was ROF'd at:her request.
w/ 2 That's-Gel-Irl-e-y.
3 , Q. ~ Did she discuss with you'the reasons why 41 she. wanted'to be RGF'd?- Without giving us the' .
- S details, was that because.of an illness in her if family'that she sought to be ROF'd?
7 A. Yes, sir', it was. .It was because of 3 ilI'nesses associated with both of her children.
.. 9 <
0 Mr. Purdy, the second time you were called 10 upon to conduct an evaluation for.ROF, did that 51 actually result.in a reduction of force?
'12 A.. Y e s', sir,-it did.
4-i.]' 0. . Who prepared the analysis for the_ROF that-
>~. ,
_13
.e 14 .was actually implemented?
15 . A. ' The. analysis was-initially prepared by Mr.
16 Bob Giover,-my QC group manager.- Ic_was 17, subsequently reviewed by Mr. Ted Blixt. It wasEthen 18 -reviewed by myself as a reviewing supervisor, and-19 -was subsequently reviewed by both Mr..Vega and Mr.
. .20 Chapman, representing the owner. -
f 21 0._ -Are you convinced that 'the~ROF' policy was
-22 followed in determining iwho would be terminated?
t
~ 2 3l A. 'Yes,isir, I a m '. ,
- p-a - '24 Q. Mr. Purdy, I'd like you.to review _somo 5h ~
J25 documents that I 'believe were a s s o c i a t'c d with that 4
r s
. m .. m. ,
y:
.-- ~ - - , _ ,
9- .
b , -.
, 41346-A .
I
, I ,
lROF and identify th em , . .i f you c a n .-
3 i
.;;q ,
.2 Mr. Purdy, I~ ' d like you to review p (f .
-3 document t h'a t ' s - b e e n ^ m a r k e d ' 'f o r identification as L4 Vega Exhibit 9, and identify'it, if~you.can.-
-5 A. Yes, sir. That.'s theLeurrent ROF program
~
6 Ul mplemented et. comanche PeakEfor the-QA-Department.
- 7 Q. And/these are the actual instructions.for 8 supervisors who are implementing ROF's; is that 9 -correct?
~10 -A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
J11 Q. Mr. Purdy, I ask you to review a document 12 that's-been ma'rked for identification as Purdy_
1Exhibi t--9 :and identify it, iftyou can.
em 13
'_U Yes, sir. That's the-letter that I 14 A.
'15 prepared to Mr. . Vega that defined t h'e ' a c o p e of th'e 16- reduction of force within the ASME-QA/QC Department.
" 17 - tit-identifies thefpersons:to.be RdF'd-within-two
- 18 peer groups, one being fie'Id QC inspection and:. the'
., 19. other one being_ verification QCainspection. 'This 20' was provided to Mr. Vega following identification of 21 the_ scope of the reduction ofcforce. -
- 22. <
.Q. Mr. Purdy, I' observe on;the_ document marked
.' 23 .for identification as Purdy Exhibit 9 that the~ names' ,
n ~
24: of P. Brown and J. Butler and B. Hamm all lined out;
-s' ..
'25 .could'you explainethat,.please?-
~
I e
~
FEDERAL' COURT REPORTERS
41347 1- ,A.. .Yes, sir.- 'These -personnel were individuals
-~ .
1 l-12 whouwe-were.able to find positions for.within the y L3 construction--organization in lieu'of discharging ..
.4 s t h'e m dusing the reducti'on of force.
4
- 5. - Q. M r . .. P u r d y , what efforts did you make to.
6 find other-positions for employees who would v
7 'otherwise be ROF'd?
^
., r
'.8 A. We contacted H o u s t o n' , both myself and my -
, management personnel, to ascertain Whether there
{
~
10; were.other Brown & Root projects that had i
-11 requirements for inspection personnel. We contacted '
12 the organizations on the project to determine
..13 whether'or not they had'open positions.for personnel.
(]J 14- We contacted e.co'uple of associates, not on Comanche _
. 15 Peak or associated with Brown &-Root,:at.other 16 -nuclear facilities to ascer'tain whether they had 1.7 positions.available for personnel.
18' And--when we could find no additional 19 positions for those personnel, we prepared for the 20 individuals being ROP'd. updated resumes, letters of 21 referral and verified. certifications, trying to ,
22 provide them.withbsome t o o l s . t h a t' would permit'them
- 23 to find ~ other employment.
- , .3 24 Q. Have you-personally contact'ed. friends of G,
_. 25 yours i n.the industry in an attempt to find 7
- $ f
,- . ~ - - .. _
e-4 r
, 41348 a .
1 employment for.the people ~you were forced to ROF7 7
\> 2' A .- Yes, I have.- ,
3- Q.- Have you been successful in obtaining 4~ ' employment for any of these people?
5 A. Unfortunately, within the nuclear industry
~
6 the pool of available personnel is larger than the
-7. number of available positi~ons, due to.the large 8 number of projects that have been placed on hold or 9 cancelled. I have not been successful in finding 10- additional employment within~ the nuclear industry.
11 We do, however, currently have several 12 leads on inspector and verification positions, not 13 within the nuclear Industry, that we are pursuing.
- (~)ys 14 And if we can obtain' a commitment from thos'e other 15 _ employers or departments within,the company,Jwe will.
16 -contact those individuals who were involved'in the 17 ROF.in an effort tofobtain' gainful employment for
-18 them.
-19 0. Mr. :Purdy, I'd like you to review:a 20 document that's been marked for identification as. 1 21 Purdy Exhibit 10, and-I'll observe that there was so 22 much-writing on-the cover ~ sheet that the, exhibit 23 L sticker ~is~in the' bottom righthand corner and folded
,e 24- over and_not all that-casy to read.
Vf ~ This ~is the initial workup sheet 25- A.- Yes, s'i r .
L
- s . - - - - . - -
1 -
, '41349-q n.h-1 for' the-first-three scre.ening'proce'sses that I g , ,
kl 2 l discussed earlier in?my testimony. "It was; prepared -
. a p .3 '!by Mr.'Siever and Mr. B1'ixt. It lists the 41- , 'c e r t i f i c a t i o'n that all personnel had at the time the 5 evaluation was implemented. It" list's,the
, .6' individuals' attendance reco'd r for the previous year,
~ ~
s 7' and thel'r seni~ority at the project. .
~
8 Q. Mr. Purdy,_did any'of the people i ri the
~
L9 = peer-group subject to;the ROF not --
have~any of 10 ., r th o s'e' pe r s o n s been denied _.a. security clearance?
.11 fA. We shad-two employees who had been' denied unescor0
" access.
[12 13 ;Q.- A n d.: they weren firstcon,the list of those.to
~
fx). '
be ROF'd; is that' correct? C
'14.~
i -15 A. -
T h a t ' ~s 'c o r r e c t .
3
.., 16- 0. . .Is their failuretto meet that criterion
,o s J ~i V 17- identified on Purdy. Exhibit--10?
+ .x
,. :18 ~A. No, it.is not.
19 l0 Could you Identify for'th'e record.who those s 20' two persons are?
21' (Discussion off the record.)
,22 .A. .I would prefer not to put the names of ,
a
. 23 -tho'se pers,onnel on the' record.
'24' n0.. 'Mr.- Purdy, wherelon Purdy Exhibit 10 does A,J '~
=
- 25; it list the total number.of hours off site during 1: , ,
M rs . g k.. _
w.#,p , , - --
- 4 1 3'5 0
.A.,,
l
- j 'Y-the' previous 1 2- m o n t h s ?-.
~
y,s ! I s .;
f ,
37 ~2 -,; A. That's, listed in the~far lefthand column.:
3 :0. Is the second level in the screening 4 proc $sseto1 determine:the' level and numbers ofi
~
'5' certifications the person holds?
6- '
A. Yes, sir, it is. .
.i 7 Q. And the third process is to identify .
~
8 attendance?
9* A. Yes, sir, it is.
10 Q. Now, where on Purdy Exhibit 10'does it 11 indicate the level and-numbers of. certifications 12 held ~ by the persons in the peer group- subject to'the
~
, (v) ' 13 ROF7 ~
- 14. 'A. Those are contained in-the far.righthand 15 columns. _
- i. .
~
16 0 The final' screening process is attendance; 1.7 'where are the hours of' absence. indicated in Purdy 18 Exhibit 107 19 ,
A. The hours of attendance are.on the far
- s 20 lefthand column.-
~ -
21' O. Mr. .Purdy, in the. field inspection 22 personnel category, how many people were ROF'd, 23' . o v e r a l l ? --
l 'es 24 A.- It was the.overall plan ~to ROF 25 field
([
c- 25 personnel.
L' _
41351 1 Q. .Approximately how many of those 25 were t t ,
> ~2 1 selected ~~through,the screening process?
r .
13 A.- The screening process selected nine of
},4 ~those. The rema ining.16 - we re further selected 5 :through the? evaluation proc'ess.
(
6 , O. Mr.-Purdy, I'll ask you to review Purdy 7, Exhibit'11, the-document marked for identification 8 as Purdy' Exhibit 11. Could you identify that,.
9 please?
10 A. Yes, sir. Exhibit 11 contains all of the-11 evaluation forms t h'a t were prepared and reviewed for 12 the personnel who were selected for the reduction of
'~.j f) - 13 force in the OCI f i e'1 d 'g r o u p .
'14 0 And do these evaluations include all of the 15 people wholWere_ROF,'d for.any reason?
l' 6' A. Yes,_ sir. ,
,y ,
[17 ' O .~ - So you conducted th'e evaluations.on people 18 , who were.ROF'd for' attendance or for lack of 19 certifications or for lack of security clearance';_is-b 20 'that correct?'
21 A. That's correct.
1!22 0 A point of. clarification on the security
~
^ ~
23: clearance, Mr.'Purdy: Is the criterion whether or
. ,7 3 24. not someone has been denied access or whether or'not 1
.s l ..
25 somebody has obtained access?
?
- u. L _ ,
+ .~E i-41352 >
. i>.
r- - 1 LA.. The criterion is whether or net a person
, . x. ) .* '2 'has been denied access.
3 3 Q. So for some-reason, if a. person-has not
~4 sought access, they are not penalized for that point; 5 istthat right?
. 6 -
.A. That's correct. ,
7 e Q. Mr. Purdy, was there'another-group 1subjsct 8 'to:the ROF besides the field inspector group? ,
- 9 A. Yes,-sir. We evaluat'ed the verification I, ,
. 10 inspector group for ROF.
~
11 0 And.is that commonly referred to as the 12 docum'ent review group and the'Nr5' statusing group?
13 A. Yes,. sir, fit is.
[.w')' .
14 Q.. And they were' combined into c r.c group; is
_15 ..tha t ' r ig h t?
16 A. Yes, s i r' ,- they'were.
17 Q. Mr. Purdy,- I'll.~ask you to review Purdy N 18 Exhibit 12 and ask you if you can identify that 19 document.
- 20 'A. Yes, sir. That is the packet of ,
21 evaluations that was prepared on the personnel 22 within-the verification QC group who were selected
'23 for the1 reduction of force.
, ,-q 24 Q. Mr.'Purdy, after the initial screening in
-U 25" 'the document group'and the N-5 statusing group, how
--y.. 7 - , _
' " - ~
.-n. , - .,
y% % , ,
=
+
41353
'" r ,
many.'peop1'e were' selected for ROF. based ~on'the
~
p:
~
- 1
,2 0'
~
%n). ,
- evaluations?
.Of the.13. people,'Las I recall, four.were
- 3 1 A.
- .c
' ' . 4 '. ; selected-from the screening process, nine were ,
t.
- 5
- selected byfthe. evaluation process.
Purdy, . I'd ask yousto review ~a. document.
6: 10. . 'Mr.
.7 . that's been marked for' identification ~~ and I
~S should note.that.Purdy Exhibits 11 and.12.were V,.
9' -actua'11y - -both"are compendi'a of individual' .
10 documentaf'is that right?.
$ , 11 SA. Yes,-sir.-
1 ,
y s
.I'11'ask you now to review.PurdyfExhibit 13,
. 12 Q.
fj 13' which'i,a also alcompendium.fof' documents,=and.ask;you.
- v. ,
m 14 Li f you can cidentify that' compendium of materials._,
.' 15 -A. Y e s', sir. That contains the evaluations
<16 that were-conducted on personnel-who.were'ultimatelyr 17 ' selected 1not(to.be discharged asla' result of'the
}
reduction.of force.
, '18: 4 F 19. 'Q. And does Purdy. Exhibit ~ 13 include th'a 20- evaluation'aiboth-of the field' inspection personnel T2i' retained and.the document review personnel retained? .
, , 22 .A. Yes,asir,;it does.
- 2 3' O. Mr. Purdy,.are you familiar with the 24.. :al_lega tion smade1 by . Sue ' Ann Neumeyer t h a t' . h e r
- 25 supervisors threatened her by saying that she was at 1
e ~l
\
l
~'a FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ]
~
-I 'the' top of the layoff s o s.e time.after;the Jack
'( ) 2- Stanford incident arose?
.;3 . -A. Lyes, sir, I am.
4 0. Is it your understanding that the alleged
' threat,was made sometime-in January or February:of f6 19847
~
_7 :A. That is my understanding, although my 8 investigation indicated that no threat was m a d e~.
9 0. Putting that aside, had any ROF been 10 planned at that time?
A. No.
-12 0. And-had such an ROF been planned, would you f 13 ~ have known.about it?
k/ ,
'14 A. Yes, sir. It would have been implemented 15- at my. direction.
~
16 0. At'what point 1n time _did you. conduct;the
~
17 -analysis for the ROF tha t _ actually didn ' t- take place?
18 A. I don't recall for sure, but it probably
-preceded'the actual reduction of force by two or 19
-20 'three months. -
21 0.- And-the actual ' reduction of force was 22 implemented on July 13th, 1984; is that correct?
23 lA. Yes, sir.
- 24. Q. -So the first ROF was planned sometime in 25 May;sia that correct?
^
- h FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS L-
41J55 p'
~'
s _
.\. ' e, L1' , A. --That'would be correct,fyes, sir. .
- l. 2 ' O. MA. Purdy, are you aware tbat Ms. Neumeyet'
'3, 'has alleged that her supervisors threatened to e" '
'4. transfer her to a lower paying job after the Jack y
.- 5 Stanford incident?- .
'6' A. I am aware o'f the' allegation.
7 oQ . 'And did "you investigate that allegation?
~
6- A. Yes, 1 did. I could-not corrobora'te the 9.L allegation, norawould there have been any' substance 10 to any such threat, since any transfer-to a 11: different organization would have to have:been 12: ibitiated by me.
j-j -13 Q._ -Did.'you pe rsonally investigate the layoff
%J^
. 14 and transfer allegations?c
'15 A '. Ies.- 'I investigated them as soon an they 16: came to my attention.
17 - 0.: Mr. Purdy, are you familiar with'Ms.
,. 18 Neumeyer's ' allegation that she was subject to harassment a nd' in timida t' ion because s'he had written
~
19- -
an-NCR involving a traveler package?
20.
21 A. Yes,-sir,-I am. <
22 HQ . What's your understandingcof'that
.23 ellegation?
24' -
. A. Hy understanding of the. allegation in-that y-
' 12 5 she1 claims che was harassed by supervision for
~
o ' ~ FEDERAL COURT' REPORTERS
- ~------
yq ,
4135'b I writing-the N o n - C o n f'o'r m a n c e Report related'to Mr.
./ ,
(f- 2- Jack Stanford.
3 Q. Did you'investigato'that allegation?
4 A. Yes, ._ a s soon as it'came to my attention.'
5 O. What were the findings of your t _
6 investigation?-
7- A. It is cy understanding of the situation 8 that Ms. Neumeyer was told to writeithe NCR by her
~
9 supervisor. And I know,'through personal statement 10 of'ay.QC manager, that he personally viewed'Ns.
'l l Neumeyer's actions as correct and in no way_ intended 12 .t o perpetrate any acts of harassment or intimidat'oni 73 :13 Lagainst her for any reason.
xj.
I'4 - 0 . So the finding of your investigation was
~
15 that she had actually.been directed to write the NCR 16 by her supervisors is that correct? .,
17 A. That'is correct.
18 Q. And are you familiar _with'-the particulars -
19 of the N C R ?.
20 A. Yes, sir,-I am.
21 Q. And in your judgment, was the NCR properly-22 written?
23 A. 'It is'my judgment that the NCR was properly
'24 writte'n a n'd the NCR was properly dispositioned.
C) 25 Q. And what's your understanding of the FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
c= =-
41357~
1 dispoeition?
gy
- (_). 2 A. 'After an investigation was conducted by the 3 QC group manager, the NCR was voided. It was not a'
- 4. non-conforming condition. It was an error in 5 documentatilan that was corrected. I agree with the 6 - d i s p o s i t i o r. .
7 Q. In fact, was the error corrected by the 8 time-the documentation reached Ms. Neumeyer?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Is it your understanding that.Ms. Neumeyer 11 . thought the. documentation had been falsified?.
12 A. That is correct.
g-) 13 Q. And it was'your~ understanding that'the NCR
- ~.) -
14 .was voided because the investigation showed that it
-15 had properly been corrected?
16 A. That is correct.
'17 Q. .With respect to Ms. Neumeyer 's -allegation 16 that she was threatened v'i t h a lay-off and a 19 transfer to a lower-paying job, what specif,1c 20 investigation did you conduct?.
s 21 A. I discussed both'of those issues.with Mr..
22 Dwight tvoodyard who was her immedia te supervisor at-23 'the time.
24 10 And.was he the person accused of making p.
25 these threats?
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
s 41358 i s- ;
^
e-- l
~
J1 A. It's my_ understanding,lalthough it's.never
, J- 2; .been made totally clear:to melwho' made the 3- particular threats. It's my understanding:itEwas 4 Mr. Woodyard, since she was. working directly for him.
-$' Mr. Woodyard indicated to re that she had 6" not been threatened, that he-had notimade those.
7 threats. I discussed that withLMr. Stever. Mr.
8 Siever also, discussed it with Mr.=Woodyard, and the o 'sta tements - of bo th o f . t ho se i nd ivid ua ls indicate 10 that the allegation wa s - n o t ~ t r u e". They had not made.
11 those' statements to Ms. Neumeyer.
1 12 p. And at the time you investigated t h e-
.e3: 13 ' allegations, were you aware that no' layoff had been
-(_)
14 = planned? .
7y l'5 A. Yea.
p 16; Q. And~were you aware .that no transfer ~ request A ., ,
- 'e
- ; ~
- 17. Ihad!been initiated?- ,
x ' f18 A. .Yes. .
19- 'Q. And,was it your judgment'that the 20[ a l l eg a t'i o n s- Lw e r e ' unfounded based'on both your 21~ personal knowledge-and what was reported to you?-
- 22. 'A. Tha't's correct.' .
'23 Q. Mr. Purdy, you testified.ithat you' 24 investigated.Ms. Neumeyer's all'agation that.she had j em i
- (J' 25
~
'been harassed'or intimidated'as-a reault.of writing
/
r s .
FEDER'AL COURT ' REPORTERS
~ _-
-. - c . . .- . . .
41359 l' an'NCR on Jack Stanford; is'that correct?
p,
- ) 2- A. That's correct.
3 .0. . What investigation did you conduct into-4 = that matte r?
5 A.- I discussed the situation 1with Mr. Stever.
6- I discussed the situation with Mr.. Woodyard. I also 7 had some interface with Mr. Boyce crier who was also 0 doing'some investigation into that allegation.
9 .0 And you concluded.that the allegation could 10 'not be substantiated?
11 A. I' concluded that the allegation could not 12 be substantiated; that's correct.
.r, 13 0. .
What did you rely upon in' reaching that.
.C 14 judgment?
. 15 A. I relied upon the fact tha t-.a ll of my 16 supervisors ore eminently aware of my policies 17- : relative to the identification of non-conforming 18- conditions or the perceptions of what people may 19 believe are non-conforming conditions. All of my-2 0 -_ supervisors and. managers.are intimately aware of the 21- fact that I will.not permit conditions of harassment 22 or. intimidation to occur in the OA/0C Department. I 23 just won't tolerate it within my organization.
24 I further made'that decision based on the
'O t t 25 ' fact that
~
I have been associated with Mr. siever and FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
~
41360 1 Nr. Woodyard for a very long period of time and have 2 never once had reason to question their honesty-in 3 their statements to me.
. 4 Q. Did you rely upon the fact that Ms.
5 Neumeyer had actually been directed to write the NCR?
6 A. That was weighed very heavily in the l
7 discussions, yes, sir. 4 8 In fact, at the time Ms. Neumcyer's 9 allegations became known to us, which was after her ;
10 resignation, hr. Woodyard, Mr. Slover, Mr. Ulixt and
-11 myself were actually in a state of shock because we 12 could not understand whero she had obtained these 13 perceptions.
t 14 0. Mr. Purdy, at the time you investigated Ms.
15 Neumeyer's allegation about being harassed as a 16 result of this NCR, were you. aware of how the NCR 17 had been dispositioned?
18 A. Yes, sir. Mr. Siever briefed me on how he 19 was dispositioning the Non-Conformance Report and 20 explained to ec why he considered the i 21 Non-Conformance Report to warrant the disposition.
22 1 did not independently try to corroborate his 23 determination.
24 C. Were you satisfied with his disposition?
i
25 A. Yes, sir, I was.
FEDERAL COURT kEPORTERS ,
n -- - "
-- ~
,4 "-,.- -
x 41361-t
- 1. Q.- And.at any-time before or after.Ms.
- j %
x ,) 2' Neumeyer's allegation about being harassed as a
' ~
r'esult'of._this NCR
~
3 came to your attention, did Mr.
4 -Siever,,Mr.-Blixt or Hr. Woodyard indicate.to you 5 that theyjwere angry or upset as a result-of~her 6 - wri ting - this 'i4CR ?
7 A. No,. sir, not at all.:
- 8 Q. Mr. Purdy, in your cross-examination you 9- were asked a' series of questions about what's-come
- 10 to be known as the T-shirt incident. I s' it your
-11 recollection that Ted Ambrose'was implicated in that 12 incident?
.rx -A. Yes, sir.
'U 14 Q.- 'And,'in fact, was he o n'e of the people, to
.15 your knowledgc, who wore a T-shirt on: the day in .
16 question?
17 A.. Yes, sir. ,
. -10' Q. Is Mr. Ambrose currently employed at i 19 . Comanche Peak?
20 A. No, sir.
21 Q. Do_you know the-circumstances under which' 22- he left the employ of Comanche Peak?
~23 A. Yes, sir. Mr. Ambrose left the employ of 24 Comanche Peak after being: implicated'in a narcotics
- 'Os 25 . investigation'being conducted at the site.
_ FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
- - ^ ~
41362 2
1 Q. And did.you meet'with Mr.- Ambrose at the 2: time he Inft' Comanche Peak?
'3 A. Yes, sir, I did.
4 ~0. And I'd like-you-to ~ review a' document 5 that's marked ~ for identification as.Purdy Exhibit 14.
5
~
6~ ftr. Purdy, can you identify Purdy. Exhibit -~ 14 7 7 A. Yes,; air', I'can.
8 0.- What is that document?
9 A. It is a document: that.I p r e pa red tofthe 10 file relative to my discussions with'Mr. Ambrose at
, 11 the time he left. comanche Peak.
12 Q. What options did you present to Mr. Ambrose (3 13 concerning hisEemployment at Comanche Peak at the V.
- 14. time 1of-this meeting?
15= A. The options that we provided Mr. Ambrose 16 Lwere that he could~: resign or that we would continue 17 our investigation to determine if te rmina tion 'was a 18 correct course of action relative to'that
' I' 9 investigation.
20 Q. And what.did Mr.sAmbrose do in response?-
21 A. Mr. Ambrose failed to contact me as 22 requested, and, therefore, I assumed that he had,-in-23 fact, effected his verbal resignati'n. o 24 Q. And was his resignation'or his employment-c, situation in any way affected by his participation
~
25 FEDERAL-COURT REPORTERS-
, _ -- - .- - - - = . - .. .- ,- - - - - -
- .41363
. e 1 in the T-shirt' incident?'
> ,-m -
- i,_) '2- A. No, sir..
3' O. Mr. Purdy,-do you recall Mr. Hearn being.
^
, imp 11cated in the T-shirt' matter?
~
, 4 5 A. Ye's, T 'do.
6 0.- And dolyou r e c a l'1 him as being one,of the-7 ~emp'loyeeswho wore a T-siirtLon the dayj-Nn question?
. 8 1A. Y e s ,. Iudo.
9 Q. Is Mr. Hearn currently employed..at Comanche-'
10 Peak?.
11 A. No, sir, he is not.- ,
12- ~Q. Do you know theHeircumstances under whichx (w 13 Mr. Hearn left the employ of, comanche: Peak?
L..)
14 A. During ~ the process of performing-an
-15 ' evaluation for a planned reduction of-force within 16' the ~ non-ASME organization,.Mr. Hearn was a volunteer 17 .to be ROF'd.
'18 Q. Was that an ROF conducted by your 19 'o rg a n i za t i o n ?:
20 A. No, sir, it was not. .
21 0. 'Mr. Purdy, did you meet with Mr. Hearn at 22 the time that he volunteered to be ROF'd?
23 A. No, sir, I did not. -
24 C. !!o w did you learn of,that fact?
} ,-
' ^" J25 A. Mr. Hearn submitted a request to be:ROF'd
~
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ..-- . , . - . - _ , , . . . - . - , -
.-._ . . ~. ,- .._
m - -
, i 413G4
<=~
..~
~ ..
l' in.11eu:of the pending reduction of force within the jn non-ASME-organisation.- This was reviewed- and d)_ '2'
, -3' .appr'ved o by Mr. Dan 1 Hicks and Mr. TonyLVega. All I 4 -' -was required'to since uit had been requested'by the 35- employee and-approved 1by~his supervision', was to ,
'6 complete.the necessary documentation for his t
7 reduction- of force.
-8 Q. Mr. Purdy, did Mr. Hearn's departure 'from
- $i the site in any--way ~~ was that .in any.way affected
. 10. -by his involvement in the ,T-shirt incident?
11 A. No, sir..
- 12. Q.. Mr. Purdy,1do you know-a-Drown & Root
~
13 ,
em'ployee named Milton Barfield?
1
- 14 A. Yes,. sir.-
~
'15 Q. And was Mr. Barfield,.to-your knowledge, 16 implicated inEthe T-shirt incident?
17 A.- Yes, sir, he w a s '.
- 18. O. c
.In fa't,<did' lie wear a T-shirt on t h e ._ d a y .
i in question?
20 A. Yes, he did.
21: _0 Is 7tr. Barfield currently, employed at s
' V'
' } l
~
'2 2. " Comanche: Peak?: '
f o - 23 A.' No, sir, h e' ' i s' n o t . ,
'24 0. Do you'knowthe circumstances under which
+
t 25 he .left Comanche Peak?
I., w y' - FEDERAL-COURT REPORTERS j
1 A." Yes, sir. ~ Mr. Barfield_also requested a t, ..)' '
2' ,
reduction of force within the non-ASME organization..
~3 -Q. 'And was that-req'uest granted?
4 A'. . Yes, sir, it_was.
5 Q.- Mr. Purdy, I'll ask you to review a
- 6 .d ocume n t; tha t 's been marked for identification in' 7 another deposition as Nega Exhibit 7 and ack you if
~
8 you' can identify it.
9 A. Yes, sir, I can, 10 Q. What is Vega Exhibit 77 11 A. It is a request from Mr. Barfield to his 12 immediate supervisor, Mr. Cromaans, requesting an 13 R O F .~
7-)
\; - -
14 Q. Was'that request- approved by Mr. Vega?
15 A. Yes.
r ,
16 Q.' And did you-also approve that request?
17 A. Yes, sir, I did.
18' 0. And wan Mr. Barfield's severance from 19' Comanche Peak in any way a s s o'c i a t e d with the T-shirt 2
20 incident? .
F-I 21 A. No, sir, it was not. ~~
22 Q.' Mr. Purdy, do you-know a former employee 23 named Eddie Snyder?
h .
24 'A. Yes, sir, I do. ,
- (~T ~
\# -2 5 - Q. And.was Mr. Snyder, toiyour knowledge, L
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ;
41366
, 1 implicated in the T-shirt incident?
f() -2 A.- Yes, sir, he'was. -
3 Q. Did he wear a T-shirt on the day in 4 question?
5 A. Yes, sir, he did..
6 Q. Is Mr. Snyder currently employed at u 7 Comanche Peak?
8 A. No, sir, he is not.
9 Q. Mr. Purdy, are you familiar with the l 10 circumstances under which Mr. Snyder left the employ 11 of Comanche Peak?
12 A. ~Yes, sir, I am.
cr- 13 Q. What were those circumstances?
14 A. Mr. Snyder resigned his position at 15- -Comanche Peak to accept a position at another
. 16 facility.
17 Q. And did Mr. Snyder's resignation in_any way ,
, 18 relate tc the T-shirt incident?
19 A. No, sir, it did not.
20 Q. Mr. Purdy, I'll ask'you to review a 21 'cocument that's been marked for identification as 22 Vega Exhibit 6, and, having reviewed the document, 23 ask you if you can identify it.
24 A. Yes, sir, I'can.
- 25. Q. What is Vega Exhibit 87 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
3 - .
~41367 ,
- z. . >
1 A; it is Mr. Snyder's notice o1 resignation to
..O-N , 2 his supervisor and his supervisor's. acceptance of ,
. I3 that le'tter of resignation.
4' f Q.. And-w'as his resignation accepted?
~
5 A. .Yes, sir, it was. .
6 Q .- Mr. Purdy, I want to 31arify 4 point' or two c
7 on.the T-shirt matter, from your cross-examination.
8 As I recall your testimony, it was that at some o
9 point during the day on.which these individuals were 4
,10 'T-shirts they were sent-homes is that correct?. l 11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Were they paid for that day? '
g~ 13 A. Yes, sir. I pa id :- th em for that day. ,
t :
14 Q. So they suffered no loss of pay as.a 15- consequence of this. Incident?
16 A.- That's. correct.
17- Q. .And at the. time they were sent home, did 18- you' indicate to them anything about their employment i
19 status at. comanche Peak?'
20 A. All I requested them to do was not to wear r" .
21 the T-shirts back on project again, since it
- ~
y- 22 obviously created a very volatile situation.
, i 23 Q. Did you assure them that their jobs were i 24 not in jeopardy?
pl 25 A.- ,Yes, sir.
\
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
~ - -. -- - -
g ,--.
a%u ~. '
,a .
-N' ' '
) .'
os *{__,,
41368 '3
~
u, %: m w
- . - m-7 s. _
To.your k n o w l e d g'e , Jdid any of these persons
'9' qw ti c1 J 4 - 1
- C '. -
- & . ,L. ~
1:
.Q -
2.' -
.:s u f f, e r " a ni ladverse[co'nsequences3asfaYresult of'the cr -
t [ ~ 3 '- (T-s h i r tO ma t t e r ?'- .
4~ ".1 A . . 'No,_ sir, not to my knowledge.n-
~,
h -
, c5 Q. .Have anylof-them ever complained to'you .
.- i
,. ~; 6, that theyHsuffered adverse: consequences <.as;a result ,
- u. .
- 7. "of'the T-shirt matter? : +~
s-8 -
A. .
No, sir,.they haveinot. '
FC '
_- :9 *
'Q. - Mr.,Purdy,6toSyou'r personal. knowledge,-did 9- Lan~ Davis, Dewey~Oliv.er.and? Wayne Whitehead also 10 11' .
wear T-s'h i r t s ~:on $the' d' a y' in Jq ue s tion?
'12 A.. Yes,7 sir.'- .
- * .. ., y . . , ,
5
.q 11 3 Q., And-to.your k~nowledge,$are.those threef A, _. -
q -
1,14; gentlemenestill employed ~ at Comanche' Peak?;
- 'm 15 - -
r .A. .Yes, sir.- -
, , , 16- Q. 'And they are stilliemployed?
., 17 -
JA. Yes, sir. - -
, s ;.
18 mQ.- Mr. Pu rd y, ._ yo u ha v e ', t e s t i f i e d at various
~~ .,
i, * '
1 91 - t i m e s ',d u r i n,g_ ,
cross-examination and direct. ,
- m. .
20, examinationfaboutLthe way disput'en are resolved.ini i 21 : h e.. f i e l d .' Do you recall a dispute.involvingJan
- n
~~
. e ,
S22; i nspec to r .: named .Mel'i nda Holder a Q a crafts person?
.c%
(2 3L A. --jI:do n o'w . Itiwas-brought to my: attention a ,
~
, .s v u
. '2 4 ,few weeks ago.: ,I do recall the situation,;yes, sir.
p) a, '-
.s And at'th'e time of'your original deposition, 3 25' , Q.
. I 3 , h
-1 2 # ,
FEDERAL. COURT REPORTERN . _ _ . . . _ . . - - , , _ __ __,
y-- _ sm ~ '
~[Il 6'9
_ s..
~~; 'fl 7 *
.fh e -
a y
'/~.'..
N' .3 ,
or -45 t il' -isJit'somethingfthatzslipped your mind? . -
E -
3 g .
_.s ,
.7 :
[t!( ' 21 ' uA. : Completely._ -
,~
p .
, 3r -e Ok Howilongyalgo was'this incident?4 m.
a.
,.,m. l4 - ~A.- lI t! wa $s 'in 3ve ry- ea rly.19 8 2. - _Ineearly'1982
+. +
5 'oneiofLour supervisors -- .
-- I(don't recall which-one;
' A' , ._ . .. .s came'to 56 :either Mr.-. Bill'Simmsfor Mr.'Donny_Doyle -
e u. . m
- . .7_ 7my' office and indicated that Ms. Holder was very
-8 -upset because she~had-been. treated very
- l. 5 '. s M A m 9 unprofessionally.;by'a craft person. She had_been 5[~ ,.4 ':$
%'A '10i ' yelled a t i a nd a s: I-Jind ica ted ,f she ~wa s very upset
.e
- t. ..
- ? _ 11- - about the situation.. +
7 l
^I-
~
- 12: 'Q. 1What action did you?takeMin response to'the .
13 ~ freport' rendered tojyou y,.I-believe.you said, Mr.
.v s .
~
. ,' 14= :Doyle or Mr. Simms? '
't A. II. asked.them to' bring Melinda to mye office
- y [:15
' 4 16 ~so I.could' hear firsthand wh'at her concerns were-4, :17 relative C to the situation. ~I'-hadJa discussion-with L . . ./ .. .
. L
~
- 18 ~
Ns. Holder'and did' conclude,lin{ fact, that sha'was'
, q -
- a 19 very upset by the way she had been. treated by-. tite
!; b '
4 f _ - 2 0[ --
crafts person.- -
', 21,1 :Following that discussion',:I contacted'the a- g -
22 . cr' aft superintendent. whorwas directly responsible
~
^
- 23 for tha t . ind i vid'ual , alMr. Carl Fan, and hadLMr. Fan 3.+ y . .
).
124 'b ri ng : the, crafts person to my office, a Mr. Frank i u ,
" f25 Saffle, S a- f - f e . I discussed with Mr. Fan and
,. 5 p j '
_ :s . ,
O :1 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS l
w_ --.
-41370 i
l' Mr. Saffle what Ms. Holder's concerns were. Mr.
rx T_) 2' saffle admitted that he had beheved'himself very
~3 " unprofessional 1y.
14 "I notified Mr. S a f'f l e that that was not the 5- kind of an' interface relationship that I, or Mr.
6 Frankum, would' tolerate. I --l e.t him Nnow I was very
.7- disturbed' by it. And Mr. Saffle requested the-8 _o p p'o r t u n i t'y ' t o talk'to'Ms. Holder.and to. apologize *
'9' -to Ms. Holder.
, ~ 10 I arranged a meeting in which Ms. Holder,
' 11 myself, her supervisor, Mr. Fan,-and Mr. Saffle ~ were
~
12 a11 1n my office.
1 I provided Mr. Saffle the
{^y'; 13 . opportunity, with Ms. Holder's concurrence, to 14 express his. regret for the incident. He did 15 apologize. I notified Mr. Saffle at that-meeting 16 that'should Ms. Holder consider the situation 17 .reco1ved, that as far as I was concerned, that would 18 'b' e fine.for the time being, but-I ~ also notified"him
- 19 that if I were ever notified of his behaving in that l .
~
20- manner again, that I would go direct 1y to Mr.
21 Frankum and corporate personnel and ensure that he
^ 22.
was remove'd from the project immediately.
- s 23- Ms. Holder-was satisfied with that, and, to
. 24 the best of>my knowledge, the situation was never
-n
' ( '/ .
251 repeated.
l- FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. = .-
~ -. - -
n; ,
, .. : 41371
~
- l' Q. Mr..Purdy, there's been a great. deal-of
,y ' -
y . : >
~
(,1 ~ '2. ' testimony in-this-proceeding about the policy of QA/QC.~ Depa r tmen't; wi th . re s pe c t to the harassment and' 31 4- l intimidation;andHthreatening of i n s p e c t o r s'.
5
.Does'the construction a rm: of the Comanche
-3 ~
6 Peak site also have,a policy.concerning harassment-7j an'd' intimidation of inspectors?
'8 A. I interface daily With' construction 9' . management and supervision. Their endorsement.and, -
,. 10: Lin fact, their implementation of a policy which.
o -
a_
11 prohibits.the harassment end intimidation of
~
12- l inspection. personnel is very overtly implemented on '
" j 7. 13: the project.
14 Q. Have you received support from the 15' . construction group in-insuring that your inspectors 16
.can' work infan environment free'from harassment.and 17! intimidacion? ,
s18 A. I ~ be l'i e ve throughout.my testimony-I've ;
~
'l9 i nd ica tied - tha t the Aircumstances ~1n which that._ type 20' of~ cooperation is required is very small because .
' 21' .there are not that many, if any,,~ situations of
- 22. actual _ harassment-or intimidation. ,
23 In situations where there has been a
. - . 24 misunderstanding or'a communications problem between
< ?g ,.
'25 ' craft.and QC personnel,_immediate action has been 1
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
~
~' ~ ' ~
g.- - ,
41372-
~
v . ,
1 taken bhieraft supervision to ensure that it did not f:
() 2 createLa volatile situation.
. 3 Q.- Mr. Purdy, have you implemented certain r -
4 policies with respect..to disciplinary matters 5 relating to the QA Department? -
6 A. . Yes,. sir, I have.
~
- / Q. Mr._Purdy, I'd: like to. refer you to a
~
8 document that's been previously marked for-9 identification i n .. t h e deposition of Mr. Brandt. And 10 that document has been marked ~for identification as
- 11 B ra rid t Exhibit 3.- 'And I'll ask.you to review it and
- 12 - identify it, if you can.
/ 13 A'. Yes, s i r.. It is Section 16 of the QA
- Q^
14- - De pa r.tme n t policies.which'I.. issued for the QA 15 . Department.
16' Q. And what's the subject. matter of that.
17^ policy?)
18 -A.- Disciplinary action.
19 Q. And-does that. apply to the inspection 20 personnel'who worked for you? .
21 A. It applies to all'QA= Department personnel 22 'within t'he Brown & Root organization.
'l 23 'Q. Mr..Purdy, I'd like you to review ~a
'24 document that's been marked for identification as
-Q 25 Vega Exhibit 2,.and'particularly, I'd like to direct
)-
- d. ^1 '.
u FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS'
i ', -
41373 1 l' yourLattention'to pages two a r.d three of-Vega-
'. f
- 2- Exhibit-2 and I'd like' you to identify it, if you' 3 can.
f~
4 A. Yes, sir. >It'is a subsequent revision to i Section 16 of my policy notes, the first revision:
7 5
- 6- which expanded and'elarifiedLdisciplinary action
[ '7 relative to QA Department-personn'1. e 8 Q. -Mr.sPurdy, since the' time you've been on
- 9. site, has the disciplinary policy with respect to-QA l '
l 10 inspections remained constant?
. 11 A. s Mr. Purdy,z do you. recall a situation - -do ,
12 you recall.the circumstances under which three Brown 4
gg 13s & Root. inspectors, Bob: Hamilton,. Joe Krolak and.
%J -
14 LSherman Sheldon, were terminated? N 15 A. 'Yes, sir, I do.
16 Q. What's your recollection of that event?
A. 'My recollection of that~ event -- -
18 Q. First let me ask you, Mr. .Purdy, what job
~
19~ function did these three gentlemen-have?
20 A. These three gentlemen were protective J21. coatings inspectors.- ,
t-L 22 Q.- <Were they~ Brown & Root employees? '
(. ,
23' A. Yes, sir, they were.
! I 24 Q. What were'the circumstances surrounding n.
? I F 25 that termination?
L -
FEDERAL COU,RT REPORTERS
.41374
~
ll* ,
s
~
-1 A. LThe'three' individuals had refused to 9 1.m? j 2 perform an inspection'at elevated heights = based'on h ' '
3_ .the statement that they felt it'was unsafe for them
'4 to do so. m a '
5- .Q. Ilo w did yos_ learn about their refusal to 1 6 . conduct this inspection? '
'7 - A . .- M 'r . Brand t- noti fied me that they had 8- refused to"do the inspection and that they had
- _. 9 refused to do so because of whatithey-believed were
-10 unsafe conditions. lie told'me that he had asked
-11 them-to come tolhis office and he a<ked me to attend 12 - t h 'c session..
(g 13 0. Why were you' invited, if you know?
,ql 14^ A. Because they were Brown & Root" employees.
15 They had refused to do the work that was assigned to 16 them, even though the area in which they had been
- 17 requested to perform the. inspection had been 18 reviewed by their supervision and-by the Sefety.
19; Department. Despite this, they were still refusing-
~
20' to. perform their assigned responsibility. That, in<
21- essence, was a-violation of my policy'which has to 1
22 do with disciplinary action'concerning; refusal to
-23 perform assigned responsibilities.
24; If in fact there was no substance to their
('T
'# - 32 5 concern, then there were grounds for termination; t
J b, FEDERAL COURT' REPORTERS'
41375'
- w. .
k..
+
therefore, I ~ wa s ' ~a's k ed to participate in that (f '2'* counseling session.
, 3- Q.- What happened at the session?-
4 -- A . , , Prior to the session, I' verified for myself' 4
'5' that Safety Department had, in fact, rendered a 4
., 6 : decision ~ tha t.. it~ was safe to1 work in the area and 7- ..t h a t the applicable O S II A requirements had-been met.
8 I went.to the counseling. session. The 9 matter was-discussed between the individuals and Mr.
10' Brandt. We offered them'again"an opportunity to l- 11 ; reconsider after. reiterating the fact'that 2
^
- 12, supervision and safety.had deemed the ' area safe'for >
. . 13' their intended inspection.. .They refused to do-that, 14 and, based upon^my evaluation and the corroboration 15- .that the. area'was~in fact safe, I had no option but
~ '
- 16 -toDterminate those l'n d i v i d ua l s .
~
17 Q. "At the session, were they extended an 18 opportunity to resume their duties and to conduct 19 lthe inspection?
20 A. Yes, sir, they were.'
- 21 Q. Did you personally extend to them tha,t 4
22 opportunity?
' 23 A. Yes, sir. Mr. Brandt and I both did.
24 Q. Mr. Purdy, I'd like you to. review a-
?() 25 document that's been marked for identification as
.s
^
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS ,
m- w. - _-
41376 fS;a-
.w x -
] .
L' -
il
. PU rd yJ E x h'i bi t' L15 .a nd ' I ' d ask you,to identify,it,~if-
~ .
/(r"\ji .
' 2. you:can.
^
+'
g; x _. , - ,-
7 ,
-3_ LA.- Yes,- sir..: '
[
4l Q. What is Purdy. Exhibit 15? _
5' - A '. -- That is the counselin'g and g uidance ' report: l y
- 6 that was prepared in the. case of the three coatings ,
o
-/7f inspecto'rs fo_11owing that discussion., It'contains ,
8- the' recommendations of Mr. Brandt and myself to
- 9 terminate the .~i nd i vid ual s for. refusing 'to'do their-10; assigned tasks, whichiboti Mr. Brandt and1I signed.
, :11 .Q. Uho prepa' red the form?
12 'A. The form appears, to me,:to have-been- .
. /j' 13: -prepared by Mr. Brandt. I don't really recall for
% ~
j ,
14; sure.' ,
- 15 . Q. .Do you recognize Mr. Brandt.'s-handwriting?
, 16 'A. Yes. s 17- ~Q. 'And do-you recognize Purdy 15 as being .
- H prepared in his handwriting?-
, 19 A .' Yes, sir. Yes.
<J
~
20- Q. At least-the part in Roman Numeral II that
, 21' summarizes the~ incident?
22 A. 'Yes. The summary of the - incident and.the 23 recommendations were prepared by Mr. .Brandt, and, of 24 c o u r s e , 11 r...Brandt and I signed,the recommendation.
7/~N N^ '2 5 -
Q. And i's it customary for-non-Brown & Root
, ; . FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
A '
- 41377 I 1 ' supervisors to' prepare counseling memoranda for
() 2 Br'ownfE' Root employees?
3 ~ A.. In accordance with.my policy on
.4 - ' disciplinary, action, it is customary for the
~
15' supervisors.of individuals to prepare: counseling 6- report, rega'rd l es s .o f who ~ pays their paycheck'.
7 0. . --And then.as the Brown & Root supervisor, s
8 you-accept or reject that-recommendation?
+
9 A.- That is1 correct.
10 Q. In this case you accepted it? s 11 A. That-is correct..
z 12 0.. .Mr. P u r d'y , .wc r e 's i m i l a r counseling' forms 7pm ~13 prepared'for Mr. Krolak and Mr. Sheldon?
V 14 A. Yes, sir, there were.
15 0.. And were they also prepared by Mr. Brandt
- 16. andrapproved by you?
s.
'1 7'. [A. Yes, sir, they were.- -
18 Q1 Mr. Purdy, who made the decision lto A ,
4 19 terminate Mr.-Hamilton's employment'at Comanche' Peak?
^
-20 A.. The.' recommendation was'made bylMr. Brandt.
, 21 but.I made the decision to terminate Mr. Hamilton.
_ 2' 2 10 . ' <Would'you state precisely the reason you 4
1 23 .-decided to terminate Mr. Ham'llton?
J2 4 A. I> Lte rmina ted Mr. Hamilton for, refusing-to.
ex -
?
^ "
~ 2.5 do his assigned work.
Y FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
. . . m . . - _-
ip
w -
. -41378 ,
- a 1: 4
'l 0. And?were you personally satisfied- t h a t c h'i s..
- A)
( s 1,'
2- . sa f ety -rela ted complaint - .as I' understand,Jit^was 9
3 : rela ted to persona'l safety -- had been. adequately
~4 'inve'stigated at L the time of his termination?
1 5 A. Yes, sir, I was.
_6-
. Q. 'Mr. Purdy,,you gave testimony in'your.
~
7 cross-examina' tion about certain allegations made by 8 Bob:Bronson. 'Do you.reca11'that testimony?
-s ' A. Yes, sir, I do..
. 10 Q. Mr..Purdy, are you familiar with Mr.
lli Bronson's allegation that Danny_Leigh instructeda'him 12 .not t'o write NCR's?
fN . 13 A. Yes, . sir, I.am. '
.U .
- 14 Q. When did-that allegation come to your G ,
15 attention?
11 6 - A. Mr. Bronson's allegations came to my 17 attention during Mr. Bronson's limited appearance at 18 the ASLB hearings.'
t 3 19 Q. And what action did you take in response to
[
20' 'this allegation?.
~
21 A. I immediately. contacted Mr. Leigh and Mr.
22 ; Blixt and tried to ascertain whether there~was any 23' ' credibility in Mr. Bronson's allegations.
3
., '24 0.' .What was the results'of that inquiry? What
-25 were the results?'
6 FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
,, ~ -
= ,m. - -
'41379.
- ^ "^
- . 1 ,
A. I was tol'd uncategorically that Mr. Bronson
'. j 2. .had never.been told b'y Mr. Leigh or_Mr. Blixt or 3 anyone-in t h'e' O A Department that he could not: write
~4 'NCR's or~ report deficiencies <that he identified.
'
- 5 0. And.how long after hearing this allegation T
- 6 did you commence your investigation?
-7 A. ,
'Almost immediately. As soon as Mr. Bronson 8 made his personal appearance, I s't a r t e d making calls' 9 back to the project. ,
10 0 1.n d did you continue your investigation 11 after you went back to_the project?
12 A.- Yes, sir. 'I continued the investigation on.
13 Mr. Bronson until.I could satisfy myself on the 14 ' merits.
15 0. What was your conclusion on these 16 a l l e'g a t i o n's with respect to.Mr. Leigh? - :
- 17. A. That there was absolutely'no substance to 18- Mr.:Bronson's allegation whatsoever.
19 O. Mr. Purdy, arc,you ~ familiar with Mr. .
20 -Bronson's allegation that' Billy Sne11 grove attempted 21 to pressure hin into not following applicable
^22 inspection procedures?
~
's R2 3 - A. I'm aware of Mr. Bronson's allegation j 24 related to Mr. Sne11 grove's position on the- -
(? ' J25 inspection of hilti bolts, yes, sir.
& FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
41380
-a. .
li Q.. "What's1your unde,rstanding of hisfallegation?
(
- e-) '. l2- A. My un'derstanding;of his allegation;was he was concerned becau'se he was not,being able to-
~
.3 J4 reinspect;the insta11a' tion of hilti bolts. Mr.
5 Sne11 grove stated-to him that the inspection of the ,
,6 installation and torqueing of hilti bolts was 7 ' contained in another QA procedure done by another O organization, and that our ~ program merely required 9 t h'a t we verify that someone.had looked at it 10 previously, which is indicated at that time by the c .11 application of torque seal.
12 Nr. Bronson did not seem to comprehend the f
e 13 fact that Inspection Reports for all hiltis were G)'
14 ' initiated through another Quality Assurance 15 procedure that was issued by another organization.
16 Q. And did' you investigate this allegation?
17 A. Yes, sir, I did.
18 Q. What investigation did you conduct?
19 A. As described a little bit earlier, I 20 conducted the' investigation with Mr. Sne11 grove, Mr.
21 Patton and Mr. Ragan to verify that Mr. Bronson had 22 not been prohibited from looking at something that l
23 was within the scope of our responsibilities.
t 24 The issue was definitely covered by another-O~' 25 QA procedure on the project. Following that FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
= . . .
- s,
-1 investigation it was determined that Mr. Bronson was gy 7,, ) 2 ~just not adequately aware ofithe QA program'on the
. 3 . project.
4 0. Did you have other indications that Mr.
'S Bronson.was not-a sa'tisfactory~employec? ,
6 A. I. did not personally get: to know Mr..
, 7 .Bronson until, to the best of my knowledge, the ASLB 6 ,
hearings in September of 1982. Mr. Bronson had been 9, a-Brown & Root employee at another. Brown & Root 10 project.
11 Subsequent to that, I was informed by _,
12 personnel who Mr. Bronson worked for that he seemed em 13 to have l a very difficult-time understanaing Quality L) 14 Assurance programs, appeared to resent working for 15 anybody'who he perceived. was either younger or ~less <
16- qualified than himself.- In fact, in addressing a 17 couple of my other supervisors and personnel that 18 hadicontact with Mr. Bronson,at Comanche Peak, I 19- found out that, q u i' t e candidly,'given a second f
20 chance, Ifprobably would not have' hired him to b'egin
, ,e 7
21 .with. :
22' O. Mr. Purdy, are you familiar with the -
23 circumstances under which Mr. Bronson left the 24 employ of Brown & Root?
n AJ - 25 A. -Yes, sir.
,e l
i e
L _. FEDERAL ~ COURT REPORTERS
e s
41382 1 Q. What were those circumstances?
2 A. Ile just failed to come back to work.
p 3 Q. And_after a period of time, was he 4 terminated for failure to show?
c 5
A. On the day that Mr. Bro'n son finally called j 6 in, my Quality ingineering manager came in to me and
. 7 indicated that he was having trouble with Mr.
8 Bronson because his dependability was very sporadic.
- 9. Ile h'ad not been to work for several days; in fact, 10 he fell under the. policy for termination due to 11 failure to return, which is contained in the Section 12 16 policy note addressed in my previous testimony.
( ) 13 And that same day Mr. Bronson called and indicated 14 he would not be returning to work, wanted to resign, 15 and, because of,his failure to call in, was 16 terminated for failure to return to work.
17- Q. Mr. Purdy, in addition to your 18 investigation of Mr. bronson's allegations of the 19 intimidation and harassment, did you also 20 investigate his technical allegations?
21 A. Yes, sir, I did.
22 Q. What was your' finding with respect to his 23 technical allegations?
24 A. I found there was absolutely no merit to g
25 his technical allegations.
- t. FEDERAL COURT REPORTEltS
. - . . 4 n-w - ---
- 41383-
~ ~
'l Q. - Mr.: Purdy, earlier.in my direct examination,
( ',nq - - -
13 askedlyou some questions about,the QES review
'i J . .2 ,
. .3- sheet incident described in the testimony offLinda 4 Barnes and.Meddie Gregory. Do ~ youl remember me ,
5 asking'you questions about that?
16' _A.. Yes, sir. _
7 Q.' Mr. Purdy do you know why the QES review 8 sheet oriindex was.added to the traveler packages?
9 A. Yes, sir, I do.
-10 Q. Why was11t added?
11 A.- The QES review sheet was added to the 12 traveler packages during revisions to procedures 13 that we were implementing on the project.
7-)
.%/ ,
14 The index was added to provide a road map 15 to the~ authorized nuclear inspection agency,~ making 16 it easier for them to determine what activityE the ,
17 documentation was submitted for relative ~ to 18 substantiation of fabrication orsinstallation. In 19 i t s' c u r r e rs t form, the QES review sheet provides the 20 Lauthorized nuclear inspection agency with a <
21 statement by the reviewer stating reviewer ^has 22 reviewed'the documentation, andithat it is in 23 compliance with the established QA procedures. This 24 permits the authorized inspection agency to trend
[')
25 the efficiency and the quality with which we conduct FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
c: , ,
74 -
41384 4
- - '1 ' our review. ,
'Uf.
2 Q. Is it fair to say that it was;added at the 3 request of-the ANI?
. t,
! 4 A.- 'Yes, in its current form, it was.
5 Q. 'And does the ANI provide you with trending
.6 - reports'about the accuracy of your review group? .
7 A. Yes, sir, they do.
8 Q. Mr. Purdy, after the ANI has reviewed and 9 .. signed a traveler package, will the ANI recreview 10 that package at your request?
11 A. No. The~ program that's established on the 12 project is that any particular documentation package rm 13 for a characteristic, fabrication or installation is O
14 supposed to stand on its own merits.
15 If he acceptsas package, we, in all cases, 16 will sign the actual process control documents and i
17 he will not review the same package unless it has 18 been modified due to a design change or en 19 alteration.
20 Q. So if a separate QES review had been 21 performed on this package as to which Ms. Barnes and 22 Ms. Gregory testified and if that package were
.23 resubmitted.to ANI, would the ANI would have
^
^
24 re-reviewed that package?
7T
' 25 A. No, he would not have. It's his common 1 FEDERAL COURT HEPORTERS
- s. - _ . . . . _ . -- __ _ _.~ . , _ . . . ._
a f
4 3 ~3 3 5 -
. L
. j ...
", , 1- l practice ^to return = packages he has. reviewed ,
" (",'w/ '
2 -ind i ca ti ng x to us;that'his records show that-the s
documentation has[been reviewed ~and he is not going
?- ,3.'
4 I4 .to review it again.' , ,
5 ' -
O '. ;And_in making his' review, is-it your J t
o( , 6- sunderstanding that'the.ANI' reviews the actual 7 traveler' document itself rather than the QEScreview w .
4 ,
3 8 sheet? -
~. 9: A. Most assuredly. He will indicate hisf '
10 acceptance directlyJon the documentation. He may
.v ..
u-s'ign the QES review sheet, butlhe doesn't ~ always'. g 11 12- 'He always indicates:his acceptance;on t h e f p r o,c e s s ,
-13 control documents.
N-y J '
' 14 ' - Q ~. .Mr. Purdy, have you prepared written
- f. 15e testimony-about the' redundant and cumulative; -
16 inspections conducted byLthe:ASME QA.Depattment?
<17 , A.- :Yes, sir, I.have.-
~
- 18. Q ." And'I'll ask you to review a document ,
" 3 .,
19 'that's been marked for' identification'as Purdy 20 Exhibit'16. Can you identifyythat-document?
21- ., A. Yes, sir. It's a.: document prepared by me, s
6
-22 explaining.the' depth and the' redundancy of the -
23 inspection of ASME functions.
- Y
' . 2 4, .Q. And.do.you adopt the contents of Purdy. i i
25 Exhibit 16'.as'your' testimony in this. proceeding? -
4
. FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
+ E_ .. 41386 e
', t . <
4 f ,
1 . A '. -Yes, sir, I do. .
c=y.(),: 2- .Q. ' 'M r . Purdy, were-you, in 1 9 7,9 , called upon
-3 tooparticipate in a survey of-QC personnel a t. >
~
h 4' Comanche Peak?
4 ,
5 ,
A. Yes, sir, I was.'
e 6 Q. Ilow 'did :you come to participate ~incthat
- 7. , survey?
8 ,
A.- I was requested to participate in the - -
s
"- . 9 survey by' Texas Utilities-through.the corporate
\
10 office,.at which time I was serving 2as-the corporate f
l'1 ' '. Quality. Engineering manager. 6
'12 0. And wh'a t was the nature-of-your assignment?
. , i
- 13 A. The' assignment'.that I had with 'another 4 14 associateLin the' corporate office, Mr. Jon Moore, . ,
15 -was t o - a,s s i s t the owner inl conducting an interview
. 16 with all.0A/QC personneltat Comanche Peak Steam 17 Electric Station, thd purpose of'which was to *try to 18- obtain from those personnel'any pr'oblems that they 191 'had, real or perceived.
.s 20 0. Is it fair to say your assignment was to' 2O . e x t r a c t' from the personnel any complaints they had
~
22- at all? ,
23 A. Thet's correct.
24 -0. And ~did you participate - 'this was through
~
25 1,nterview process; is that right?
4
^
i FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
, = - -
_ _ . ., . . ~ . - . . . --
(
41387.
( .- -. , :
3 re r .
- .t l
~
y 1. ' J A. Y e s ',- sir, it was.
h.. 2. b [ ;0L Andcapproximately how many people did you 3' interview in.this effort? -
^ '4' .A. I personally. interviewed maybe '15 to'20 1.was involved:in the development of the f 1 5~ -people.; -
, - i
~ ~
~6' questionnaire that we used as a guideline to try and
.- 7 E 'e'l i c i t 7 p r o b l e m s from the-0A/0C personnel, and took 8' part"in th's interviews conducted over maybe four to.
9 five days. I was-then called back to llouston to j '
10 attend to another problem on a.different project.
' 11: 0. Mr.=Purdy, in your interviews, did you make 12- any effort to evaluate.the raerits of the complaints . -
13 and gripes that were brought out by the inspectors? i
{-s.j 14 A. Our overall function was not to. provide an
.s a
-15 analysis of the merits, the substantiation'or lack
- 16 of. substantiation'of theiconcerns. If what appeared
- ^
- 17. to be a major' problem occurred, we would cont 1nue
, i
~ 18 questioning additional personnel to try and obtain
.19 - additional'information. But it.was not our ,
s
'20 responsibility to evaluate or to take any action on i l
21 those subjects. ,
22, Q. Did you limit your inquiries to firsthand
23 knowledge'of inspectors?
,. l24 .A. No.'
. ]- 25- . 0.- Mr. .Purdy, did yo u.. i ncl ud e , in the notes I
w
~
FEDERAL COURT REPORTEMS j
41388 1 that_you prepared of these interviews,. hearsay I '2 remarks.provided by the inspectors?
3 A. We included any remarks provided by the
- 4 inspectors.
5 0. In the course of the interviews, did you 6 become aware of a r. allegation of an inspector or a 7 statement of an inspector that a Oc person had been 8 threatened with serious bodily injury as a result of 9 inspection on site?
10 A. Yes, sir, I did become aware of that.
11 0. And do you recognize Purdy Exhibit 17 as .
12 the notes of the interview with that person?
13 A. Yes, sir, I do.
14 0. Did you make independent inquiries about 15 this particular allegation?
16 A. We made inquiries with subsequent persons 17 we interviewed, yes.
18 0. Did you make an effort to substantiate this 19 particular allegation?
20 A. We made an effort to substantiate it, but 21 we could not find any substantiation for the 22 allegation.
23 0 Did you find any substantiation at all?
24 7. No, not that I recall.
)
25 O. Mr. Purdy, do you recall the name of the FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
r 41389 1 person who made the allegations?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Is it your understanding the names of these 4 interviewees is subject to a confidentiality 5 a g r e eme n t ?..
6 A. Yes, sir, I do.
7 Q. And did you subsequently learn some 8 additional information about this individual?
9 A. Yes, sir. That particular individual was 10 subsequently terminated from the project. He had 11 been indicted on a federal charge of mail fraud.
12 I also subsequently learned that in
~
3 13 addition to the federal charges pending against the t /
14 individual, that he had very professionally 15 falsified his application and resume relative to his 16 obtaining an electrical engineering degree and with 17 respect to professional engineering registration.
10 Q. In fact, wasn't he terminated on two 19 separate occasions from Comanche Peak, the first 20 time for falsifying his qualifications and the 21 second time as a consequence of his indictment and 22 arrest for mail fraud?
23 A. Yes, sir, that's correct 24 MR. D O W il E Y : Mr. Purdy, that concludes
)
25 my questioning of you on the public record of this FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
41390 m
, s
=
~
'l . deposition. I-would like to adjourn this:-portion of n)'_ 12 your deposition and resume for a very'short 3 ~ examination of you about the individual who is the 4 subject-matter of the very last part of your 5 testimony.
6 Prior to closing this deposition, however, 7 Applicant moves that Pur'y d Exhibits 9 through=16 be 8 received in evidence. Applicant further moves that 9= Purdy. Exhibit 17 be received in evidence for the 10 limited purpose of establishing the fact'of the 11 utterances recorded in the' document,-but not for the a 12 purpose of establishing the truth of the matters in
~
.e, 13 the document.
l 14 15 16 17 -
18 19 20 21 9
22 ,
23 24 25 t
FEDERAL COURT HEPORTEHS
41391 s
CORRECTIONS AND SIGNATURE
~
'l' w -
, ;!] .2 PAGE/LINE CORRECTION REASON FOR CHANGE
'3 4-5
- 6. .
7
+
-g. ,
- 9 10-11 12 -
,n 13 A[
14-15 16 .
17 ,
7
.1,'GORDON PURDY, have read the foregoing
- 18. . deposition, and hereby affix my signature that-same is true and correct, except as noted herein.
. 19 GORDON PURDY 20
. SUBSCRIBED and ' sworn to before me this the
- 1984.
21? day of _ _
22 NOTARY PUBLIC for the 23 State of Texas ;
r 24 My Commission Expires:
l O
t- 25 4
i F
.. .EDERAL
. COURT REPORTERS
- -- ~- '
~
r sr .
- , - [ ~1' ' ShATE- OF TEXAS }
rN Ay 2
- 3- '
I, Janet E. Schaffer, RPR, Certified. Shorthand 4 Reporter in and for,the State of Texas, do:hereby
- :5' certify.that there came'before'me on the 18thiday of
' 15 - August, A. D., 1984,Jat the Glen Rose-Motor Inn, c 7 ' Glen' Rose, Texas, the following named person, to-witz -
,8 Gordon Purdy, 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 causes and that he was thereupon examined 12 =upon-his. oath and his examination reduced to: writing;
_13 same to be sworn and subscribed-to.by said witness 14 . before any notary public.
15 I further certify..that I am neither attorney or 16 17 counsel for, nor,related to or employed by, any of 18 the par' ties to the action in which this deposition 19 is taken, and further that I am not a relative or 20 employee of any attorney o'r counsel employed by the 12 1- parties hereto, or financially interested in the 22 action..
23
~
24 'In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand rm 25 and affixed my seal this day of August , A.D.,
f 4 h 9
.____1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FEDERAL COURT R E P_0 R T E R S_______ __ ___
--~ . . . - . - - . . . - .
F v *~
- 41393'
- 3. # ~ -
7
,9." . . i
+
~_ . ,
s
~
.< 1 ~1984'. -
m.: .
N. ..
b ~ ,
-JANET E. SCHAFFER, 1543, RPR, CSR r
~ '
1
~4 IN AND-FOR THE STATE O F _ T E X A S -. ,
- , 1 2 2 6... C o m m e r c e , Suite.411 l 5 . ,
- , Dallas, Texas 75202 i (214) 742-3035 l a 6- -
i 7 - .My commission expires December 31, 1985- l 8
9; -
10
->' s j
11 ;
s >
- 12 1
a 6
^ 13 !
- 14' l
- h. ,
15 i P
- 16'
- L L'
17 l t
.. , i 18 [
19 '
. I
, 20 '
2 : ?
21 '
.,..'t.
' ~
22' -
t
- 23 ,
s
.s
- t 24 7
- + . <
25 1
5 E
( >
FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS
r h ,
,, ERRATA SHEET
~
. PREFILED TESTIMONY OF GORDON R. PURDY August 16, 1984 Page ~ Line ,
Change 41,276' ~ 19 " service" to " survey" 41,289 24 should read: " documentation for every aspect . . . .
41,290 % 22 "Opelsky" to "Opelski" n.
. 41,292 -
9
",their" to "his" 41,298 '/ 9 " hire" to " higher" C
41,315 s. 16 ,, 3 "he" to "she"
- 41,324 4 8 , , _ c. - " Wick" to "Woodyard" s , , ,
. 41,345 1
/- - "Kate" to "Kay" 41,359 16 , , " eminently".to " intimately" 41,373 10 should read following line 10:
"A. Yes" 41,373 11 "A." to "Q."
41,384 15 "we" to,"1 s
.s /*
/
- p ,
^
- . p l
j
',/ , * * /j .
~
,o e , , ,
o / ,
e a ~
% %. p
?
, w yee e
- 4
, # g 2 .. .
1
.g .
'\
p.
r-t3ronr1CTRoct.Iric. .
,,;.- 3
/ Dc % ,
- p. , . , , m, ,_ JC TO: A. Vega ,, . I' .
DA T JuM11 )198j ys h3 G.R. Purdy FROM: -
t$hNN
~Ctm u {,7 g
SUBJECI: ASME QA/QC Personnel Staf fing gb l
At the current stage of Unit 1 completion, and the approved program by which Unit 2 will be ccepleted, an evaluation of the ASME QA/QC staffing require-ments contained in my memo of 3/25/84 indicstes that 1 am approximately 30%
over-staffed. Accordingly, I have completed the screening and, as required, evaluttion of personnel within the QCI-Field and QCI-Verification peer groups in accordance with the established QA/QC ROF program. ,
Ta achieve the required QCI-Field staffing of 41 personnel, 25 personnel will f be ROF'd effective 3:30 pm on 7/13/84 The personnel to be ROF'd, based on the evaluations are as follows:
Name Badge # SSN
- 1. A. Bagley HQ 14 465-88-0590
- 2. C. Biervirth HQ 36 246-11-6750
- 3. J. Blanscet HQ 17 453-82-1647 4.'C. Brown HQ 11 453-02-6616 154-11-M r % f***l 7N NI' 5 . P . L .. ' ::Q175
'62-70 ^ 3 1 fY #b'h 70,
! 0. J. Liu Q '. " .
- 7. R. Daigle HQ 71 436-04-7614
- 3. C. Grunwald HQ151 372-54-5396
- 9. J. Hawkins
- HQ121 542-74-2697 l
- 10. R. Heuer HQ154 502-60-0763
- 11. P. Higgins
- HQ 82 464-54-0233
) 12. M. Holder HQ 96 465-88-4392
- 13. M. Ivey
- HQ196 456-82-1195
- 14. D. Lankford HQ 93 430-27-2529 .
- 15. J. McComas C167 449-11-8440
- 16. i!. !!cNellie C347 463-78-6204
- 17. R. !!orrow
- HQ103 461-96-0332
- 18. D. Nisich HQ120 573-42-0375
- 19. R. Ondracek HQ 20 472-80-9538
- 20. J. Radcliffe HQ105 511-22-0927
- 21. J. Reed HQ 27 461-24-2662
- 22. S. Sandars
- HQ 90 251-04-4241
- 23. L. Tucker a HQ 79 465-31-3680
- 24. C. Vaughn HQ 16 450-17-8342
- 25. R. Walston HQ147 450-68-4311 i
- Indicated personnol may be transferred to fill construction requisitions.
DEPOSITION EXHIBif PA-1
, . . . , ,.n .
s
'. .A. Vagn -
. Pago 2 .
1 ,
To achievet/ he required QCI-Verification staffing of 20 personnel,13 per-sonnel will be ROF'd effective 3:30 pm on 7/13/84 The'persionel to be ROF'd,
. . based' da the ' evaluations, are as follows:
Name Badge # SSN
- 1. K. Douglas '
A712 457-82-8476
- 2. M. Gregory HQ237 462-44-1603
- 3. ?. H = "Q22" 449-95-6928 b O d 'I b
- 4. A. Har=el ~
HQ222 523-34-6249-
- 5. S. Harr D670 459-96-4674
- 6. S. Henline --
HQ232 182-52-3637
- 7. E. McClung D013 465-37-1834
- 8. B. McGuire D275 457-38-8966
- 9. R. Meek ~ D308 453-76-3471
- 10. T. Randolph -
HQ226 463-90-0719
- 11. D. Swain . .HQ227 055-52-4411,
,' 12. S. Wissran HQ239 ,- 467-23-8371
- 13. R. Youngman D393 316-48-0363.
Subsequent to the above ROF's, the ASME QA/QC staffing will consist of 86 personnel, including: . .
'35 Personnel filling staff, supervisory, special qualifications or supplementary assignment ,
pcsitions; .
s -
- 41 Personnel filling QCI-Field positions; and .
1
- 10 Personnel filling QCI-Verification positions.
^'
~ .
N.
.s f . i _ 0 b, G. W Purdy Site'QA Manager } -
i GRP/pv cc: R.J. Vurpillac ,_
A. Smith P. Wilson A
e
~
1/u5-its miviin v l' nrn t. nr LRST~ FIKs f~~ n.E. LDn \/ I < II!I.it c'1IFI VlItti LI itt i lI l l'il' l'I Ik I ~
wwa m cpys _
SAG V AL A L-E L-E l -E L-E l -J l L5 j ,.f g 2 t/ _
O y.7 hp2J\lR2D 5EITY D L-H 30 3 ELL. ~DAMJU Y th L-H. L-1 L-H L.E L- H L-E L-H
}l) '& _
EELL. _5AP'\ A L-X L-E L-II L- H L-H 3)ER\nlIKTH CALVIN L-K L -E L-H L-H L-1 pj7J,' 2) +C ELANSCG.1 JOHNN Y A L- K L-J1 L-E L-E L-II L-ff r / 3(, 33 E /o z BovK.1N RICHARD *8 L-I L-E L-E L-E L-I LH 6z 2.0 EROW N CLI Ff- C- L-I L-K L-E L-H L-I
/c/3 --- . . . . . . . . . .
pf) 68 Bft0W N PHI L . C. L-I L- E L-IL L-I g%67 BUTLER'. _J OLINNY A- -
L- E L- E L-E L-H L-H jy'1 / c) / CALD h1 ELL _J d MAI A LTL L-I L-E L-H_ L-II L-E L-E
\ /
37 CTANNd Al IMI k'E .6 L-H L-1 L-E / . L-E L-H_
74 M. \ . . . . _ . . . .. _
z.3 CMA D tD icK._ BILI A L-E L-E. L-E L- E L-Il L-H j4 .
yo!L cj <-/ COLEmRN FIEED Q -
L- H L- E L-E L-1 gc/ 2_S- COLEmAN 109 .A L-I L-II L-Il L-E L-II gg '{ DEPOSITIO
- -_1LnEMIn
_ H-l _
R L- -
T H- H. E H.E T T- E H-L I-P L L _
s L- L L- l L- L L .
_ LH-r E H .
l L-
_ H- i l' .
L L ,
Y H-
_D _
H- H- E H ,
L .
T_ L- E L _ H-
\
1 L L- , L L L ~
L- L- L- -
T _
1
\
)
W T _
L R E R X H-I I
L- L- E- H- ~
E-1 V L ' L L- L I-E E H I
H F\
H- E- E- E. H- H- _.
1 c' L L- L- L L L L
- L- L G i
i.
i l
l T-L L-L I-L.
I-L I
L-T.
L I
L-I L- I-L I _
L E- H- H 1- H- 1 E
. 1\ L L L- G L ~
[ Y-
, L
- E t
E L
B A D D . Py A S 6 A $,
h_Q T
~
1 D L N M L V t F
H R E. t N f_
/
1 N.
E B
D P
L L L
- R E
E H S D
O C
n T M 6 w h
7 X
I 6
S l
A C O U E E F l
M 3 I R 3 L R
S R B P M F R Y W 6 L.
F I
T J B y x
c E-K E N N I
X- Y Y A R.
E g N E L 6 5 H
M Q R C
5 $
i N g s D S S s I g s
~
i I I
R a r U N N N U 0 o N.
2( P- o
. S R R A R E U O L A M R R P
L C D O m D D B D E. R G C G c-z 3 7 c 2, 3 2 ;
o g l 5 7 3 6 3
1
'>. 2 /' 4 (, 5' / 3 } J 3 / 2 5_
X yz Pz 9z O y fz. / /' ft / l
(
]
1, y
j I
G j /(
5 ;y /<
j
{)
h 5 7
o l
- 3 9 ^)
/ l i i, ji1 , .l: i .,
v r l'l T PT R l[
LRS~i~ FIRSI hl~. LML V E < IIIIJ1 mlFI MIMI l.T Vi] U T _
- 2. S~ HRLL HAf2LDk] h L-H L-E L-H L-E L-H
]8
/ F3 30 s-tamrn P1nixice- p t_r 70/4_ 2G HRRmEL A ChNE.5 D L-H s HASEGAWA Elc HARD g L_g L_g L_p L_ g L_3
/ 5/ f,_ l3 HRk1KlM5 JOE _ A: L-I L-E L-II L-H L-E (Ajf. /2 HAYE.S DAN A L-I L-H L-E L-H L-H L-H L-H g y HEN LIN E_ JACX-- W L-H L-U L-H L-E L-H L-H j.j$ HEN LINE. 5HEER.Y L-IL jg D:
fg5fj t4 M rz_U ER_ RICHAIUJ A: L-H L-H L-E L-kf 3 cj 18 HIGGIN5 HDW(Yl_D (N L-T L-H L-H L-H. L-II fj/ ql HIGGl/dS FRUL D L-I L-E L-E N
2
/p (,{ HILL H. L . L-I L.H L-E L-E L-ff 3" A'JE- 1 S/p2 /2 3-I' ME E L-ll _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . ..'._ _ . . . .,
HOLDER._ MELlND9 :/N L-H L-1 L-H L-Y L-H l /z/7/j 7c./ .
r- ,
f - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
LDST~ F(RS ( RE. LEt!O \/ I 'IIll.D MIFI MIMt. LT tilJ U T \1 F /*) T l'I R ((
[j7fz 3/ HUT 36N J G RNA) l) L-H IVEN P1 I KE-- L-E L- E L-E L-H zz/f' 77
/.T 77 23 KIV I ~DAUlD $ L-H L-1 L-H L-H L-H L-E
/30 23 LANKFoEO DIVdua /h L- E L-H L-E LA L-H_
73Ix D (, LINZ Y [OJ\JY fj L_I L.E L- U L-E L-E L
2T LLOVF3 B000Y A LIR L 'E L-E L-H L-E L-E oa7 . . _ .
L-E L-H LUN5FoR1] JOWN/uY O L-E L-EI 33 tjy Mnc_TJDlVRLO _ OAUlO /3 L-II L- H L-E L-E L-E JQPz. g3 _
mRNS FIELO UURYNE. A L-I L-H L-E L-E L-E L-E jgg (f ()
masse.T .aoWM /h L-1 L-H L-H. L-E L-E L-H L-E S3 ~// . . . . . . . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ .. _ . . _ _ . . _
d[j %z 2f M ATH Ebu1 CLE/R A L.jI L.I L-E L E L-H L-E g MATH)3 J lIn M L-Il L-E L-II L-H L-E L-H.
l[ .--
)y/ .'/, 5 .> (Th.CDmmR5 ~ .3 EFF p L. g L. T L-X L-E L-H v/Jj/7 25 m c.G UlR E SEEM ICE _ 'jj L-E 87 Mc MELLIE_ t3ME'( /d -
L-H L-Il L II. L-E
/3 ?_ %
,gl 4
~ .
l 1 a
9l !
c; i i . ai i i d
aia h d
hi>ad G a
d a a a 5 Y'o N ala ai a a il h' h,dl -
I ti a a al . ._.
M pi b td MIM pl N s d ha:i ld i
= M a s a 2,a a: a s a 5 s a a Ed ma ,
I H_ t E s a sia a s a !a a s d2 r
d d A d #
a a a a o h @
a o H
a $a M'Ma a @
a S H H lM H H H H H s a a ia a a a 'a a H
> $a $a 9 a a Y M a 9 a hY a a e %
i g
b /
l,;i y 3- t/ z i.J >-
4 7, x -
8 -
A g O a 6 M 1 I d 1 >- f e d q ,
.o 0 m > T U D U 0 h S k o o $ g a z o 3 o z a
$ d o a d a 3 o 2 y E' e a o _
ly- [ @$ 8 E ,S 2 8 d & $ E & $ @
ed h N O o O > b '> w a
o 4
03 m n- R D N N a h no N Ta t n 4
o w L, 3x _ o m
7e 6 t
'O-s m
o ,
so g o e $=
B3
~.
n~
i n 7e l
~~: ! .
Zi I i ,
i i i l
~i tiu d Hi$ae sl d
a:
H a
d-al 4l al HiF ata M H!d a ala I 4
' N' !N di M i E $a. 3 is al a !-
L 4a b d d Q H d yiH l 1 > a #a @a l.a M a a a a a als t_ i 0
2m I'
}
l D l !
5 M M a 4 did 9 M N'd a a H
a 9W a
M 3 l E a a Jia a .. a 1 E @ Y N 9 Y Y $2 ' @a d a 9!Y r @a a a a a a a ala 1 S H H H h H M jy l s J a a a 3 a i a (
w g H d W
> a 3 a -
a
.h
~
( q <T C[ T CC O <[ Q [ N -I CElpQ
\
3 a -
N ] > 2 If @u b g y d c P d
2 o
o E 3- -
O 2 6 A c E w 2 C 7 g ,
d b l b S b n 2 b g~ _.
3 a d f 1 6 a p E E e 0 d ?J J h 2 g Q 4
M N .; e a 2 W d a a 2 p o 3 a $
b > 2 g e s
- 5 0 c c c- r a 2 l- d z s W 2 I O 3 a 2 a 3 F P 3 3 3 g a 3
g h a o o y b p sS m
~
M ew bN ob c0 &
nl en b co c
F- g N - 't P P
- b no b- Cs 'T CC O p. -
3 -
y m s g t.
> a e g d rg e T ci, ;Q
', N % l e
k- i Qi l ,
I! l l J , i o . i k d! !d . . [
1S Li _Jl : I ! !
~
dn' -
, j '
t l
E. '
.J.l. ! ! ! ! !
L p d!M 3!b i !
i
- i. l
_ 3 i !
m i .
5 Q i j
b a ! i M td td !
E h h\
E A d
- r a 3 ' @J .
3 lH ! !
5 l 3 i i I H
> d
_.J
' dW
_J _J a l m
O <[ O Q~ O F
j c 9 ] M y
O e o a J N u J '1 ] i C C
. e n 2 J w g 2 9 T G G 8
W b d u a 2 I 5 3 @ d O 2 2 2 5 l{- 7 l '
t d M b N3 00 l s ON K 3 PO ,
O }m d J
in \p N .
N Di ;
.-, , - - - , . . - - . , . , _ , -, ,---,,--.,_,,.,..,,,,-,-,,-n....,-,.e.--- ---,...-.n.-,
, i , !
~
- ~ t i, t .
--v; ~
I I j
,i I l l
~ I
- j
~:
t i
- t
! I t
i s
I
. 6 l e 6 l .
A i
[ i
(
)
, . 1 i .
i ; ;
^
} '
t i : !
__. l
, , , , i C' I I 0 f ,
t 1
.a
- l i
l g
I i
+
_i ! l
% k .
R t t l
c-l.
l 1
~
l E
i 9: l l ! - i
-- 1 l l l l : I
~
1 d
1 l
i ,
tJ l 1 a ~
I s e
,)
M s
lw-l ,
S O
-._ f ly_
. l
~ .
i 3
1
-Q7.'/QC TNSPTC "UR 'RCP RA*1"I C TORM_
.RC? r.ategory Rank:
$)89 N M /. 8 / A En:cgc2:ies: 'I 8 NKP.!t: '
Z? A Sadge 50 : 'Hw/J IIl' A
<.,/ i:', aT., O Disci- T ' ne*.
- - - , , . . .. .. . - Rating t-e -
q
' "' ' C [' ' ._ , ' h N "2 /9 ~~G/'
l SQperva.sor Comp.Lec'ng Onis Fo=:m' l
./ . /a D&tlllD3 ') .
Revt.evs.ng Si.Ipe . sor g .
Y S ,
v 1.u x u u w s
- O L is- ( _-- . -d M cf two- perr.:s -
In the "4+. pa.: , tire- --
a +- _ - ': W 2:n.% T.m empirvee is t::r te -stw level of ce=-4'8 m tien, and dep,uw' 4v tu L s. --
In the second pa:: ., et:e c::;.7.:=yee is n be--ev='*? an. k=renaledge and
-n=e C tw=.'.:a,
('- a= 7 ' + n =f ap,. giate inspecci=n ac.,CF52:3 W * *7 and qua.1.ity.cf h a c4-d-m, =:c. .eWde e s.r.i = n.e u_ O.- . " p - a :::r the-m :endance, *r#g ttie e -
emple=ee to: -eectL M ng fac =r. 112 "Ra ine and Steviewine Scar-visees should tiets thal: t h i s f e r m c r e si.=n e s ena: ene isol= vee de:cr: - : ?d enares ;m s _euc ecem: m : to c"='4:v :na: as Anv .etr lovee C:2mmir- = P e a k.. .
- - ce: 1.c::el ==. : re CA/QO" crocram at '
- s '- m c., e no "
- h _ _ ~ ~ .
- :. ,.: in t. s n eard is r- .,r
- s. ; . . ;
manacemenC 4C dm.:
f ,
br:UC.* 0 immec:a 01t Lv to One aO*"Enticn CI S e". i 0-"
an assessmen. et ene need for immediare :e-= narson can ce =tade. .
j ...h r. . ,;..... .
( .. . ,:. . .
1 .
t .
, ( .-
( C.[ -' I ~~
- i. ,
7 . . ,
L '
I DEPOSITION i CODF '
- EXHIBIT t ~- . ' .
!( fwlf ll
~ '
' I ?
I_ !
W 2 '
E >, .
CA/oc T.nsvector n a TUEn ._r_#rCN OF EMPI.CTEE -CATE=DLE5
~
- Please identify the t ategory inest vlearly applicable to the '
. employee by checking the most acecrate response 'for I, TI and III delow , Tt is essen~4 =1 that cateeorv identifiertions 'be done. '-
a v . . m t e.l v :or eacn v -a ovee . informa After tns.s cart of the ratinc forer u comoleted, tneredare, a.1.1 tien ehould be verif1ed try Once the
~ct ec :.no ene emclovee's current eersonnel fLle. s e '-4 " * = d : the s.
.apm. ate categor2.es have been idents.*l-1 = aA
.,g. .then e ? '-- 4 Soc 14 .II. M 'ZII belau *N* ' & he _. ;J,_ _. .
.in the,% ; right emenas af ' .;
.. seca= dad .in .the. .ap, , "=%._& ',
the. *i=st page of this *** -e- .
- - 9 . .
r sec=rity clearanes: L Nmployee has not been denied cleerance for unescorted. .
{ - n.; acce ss tohas zmployee Unit been 1 Idenied - -
cles=ance for unna m M V t
===ess to unic 1. .
._ g y e . .,, a sea. --4e e4"4 . .
tiene to be -t w as a.
.f,... . .. '
.~.- . .
p ;Lewe:I. & 1 ;-
.izr 27 ." 7..t.P~3 . .c. " .,
the ** =e-47.2.11se tm whictr the- !
. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . spic,ree is.7_ My _ . . .. .
ensiGued- .
.; . . a_. ses - - 'y e 4*-- --
. ticar te ise. '4**==A es a-
..- . geman./le ml.2 i = s e in
.ghe m -4.a4 = to srhird the
< employee ' "
ist & My '
=,*: . c. :u. l ..
..~. . n . ... ....,-,r
.. i. .
wmmw ea< ~ ,.m . . . .
, ,y . . -
.' ' tima to be classed as a-A2
-'d'g g.rade/ level C i M '"
,ghe. 44.,-4,14 tm which the - ~
.:: h e.. . . empl-oyee .is F P'y - . . . - ..
- . . . - - 4 M7-d.
.n
, , ,. ses - - - at cer-4 **
l +,8 anne to be et _11 as a grade /lewel D inemc in m > 4 ., 4- ' 4 ,== .to .w*. .d.ch. .The
.- . ::: . :.: ~ .> . ~. .- .- t~. - " 1.= :* ~ ~ -
. . i w. . . .. < .r : ;t; ~ - ,..a.
. - e, -+ m. = . .
r m4' e.
.-:. . i -- . '.. . . . . . . . .- . , .,,.. . , ,,, .,. *-
r.....
.9..
. w
.A.'- , . . . . ..,.,,g ,. ,
- t. -
2ES ' ' . ' . .
.u. . .. . . . . .;. .,. . .. .
y w--- g*w , . . rg- ,-
-rg
-t -
.~_. ,
, ., .; u f ' */ ~~ ;- . ...
.. j
_ ..n. ......
.,.o .
e
., I
~ . - ____ . ,
CA/OC'Insoeeter perm .
~ .
Deeendabili ev. A. .Was not available for work p; r'I
- Ter 60 or fewer hours of j
. meheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in t:he past twelve months. ,
B. Wa.s not available for vo=k l for more than 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (exelesive of vacations) in X-the past; twelve months.
t s t l l l l
c
\.
m.
?
-.-~.,-.--.J
. . -.y.,.. - - . - -
. . ..-~~.---.-
. 6
~
l l .
l
. . .- . . . , . ;2=. . . .-
p- S .
L. ,
. . '- ^ e .e e * , ,
'Peae 3 -af 5 ,
t l .
~ m b- P.V :l CA/Oc Insoeeter Form L
TMPLCTEE RM"ING ll p~ 2 rate the employee, circle the numerical score at the
- right-hand carvin that su.=sponde to the response that most Ratings accurately describes the et:rployee's approach to his job.
shou'd be done on the most objective basis cossible, and super-visors snould under no circumstances allow ce rsonality or otter facts not related to the emolovee'sRatings actual on 1ooCPSES oerf ormance seniorityto and olav anv role in these ratines.
attendance (nos. 4 and 5) should be verified bva-'"b_ checkine g has the.been ecclevee's current oormonnel mated :.n. eat.:s ci che following . aspects of -job performance the --
fi.la. . Wnan P -
employee's estal rating score should be recorded in the space l
provided at the end.of the rating section.and"*-st in the.appr page of W this =*e i space in the upper TiWit-hand corner of the ~
form. *
- 1. Aeoliestien of Accroariate Insoection Aceostance criteriag
- a. Demonstrates extraordinary knowi.ecge of and N proficiency in, applying appropri. ate inspection ;! . 3 acceptsnce criteria.
- h. Demonstrates acceptable level of knowledge of a and pro M -wer in applying ap e w iate inspec- 2 tien acc.yr.nce criteria
- c. oc-=de=71y indicates lack sf suf.ficient '
n knowlmige af mid/or pra^ 'ency in applim- w . '--- .o 1 .
at g ; .
~w -4 ;+ mr w , _ - . ., _
d Treque.:tly indicates a lack of accephh'a
. . knowledge af..and/or pecticiency in appl +'-= tion '
' .. cf appecpriate inspectien ac=eptance 4 teria O such as ta en -==4*=te ra1- '" m.%
.2. OW tv Const cf s hantly c tion produces written reports tha?
a.. 3 are hignly ec= urate', neato and thorough e omte, h Mabi;f of w=i.tcen ..r__. ., .. . . . . . ...g .. .
,g f
.1j!
' , ' *.e.r ' Ae== racy , neatness ,' ~end/or .h-@ners of j .
i.s sometitsee lacking.
written sme. *= , .
.'.~ d. Weitten wT.s are n-"' * '* .' y i*=-
D
~- i.a = - ; 3 = e m e.. e nnd f a c .
coIoerrefon 3
l a En=nusiaar d-i'y w, s new ma* nments and -
3
( cooperstme wtth suprevision and coworkers.
.b ====a1 Ty ac 14 as to ac=ept new. assiWs 2 l
e.nd to. compte with supervision and end/or coucekers. -
De=msionally resists oeu assiw-oc=asiana117 does not wp..- .te with supervision c.
1 of Cowcrir.srs.
- d. Trequently resists new assie.-mats and/or generally ref=ses. t= cocpers.te with supervision 0
~~
and/or cauc=kers.
- t. -
TWCTE
- Page-C..cf 5
. . - ~ -
3 OA/OC Inseector ?c-:2 It (
- 4. CPSTS Senioritv 3 O\-
- a. E: ve years or core Three years er 1 pore but less than five Years 2 b.
One year or 2x2== but less than three yea =s 1 c.
- d. Less than one Tesz-
- 5. Attendance
- 4. nssed 40 heers 1:rf scheduled erork or less for
. .. . any reason (%c vacah) hhg the pst g,, , , ., _ _ ,
A .ph",l. n=2re then 40, hat 'not more t en h GO, - --
hears of scheduled work for any reason (ezempt va. cations) during the past 12 months. -4
- c. Missed more than 80, but mot more than 120 hocrs ng si-heduled, work for any reason (except ,
vecetiene) during the .past 12' w.4;hs. . .
- d. Missed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (except vacations) in the past O
, 12 n=nths. ,i j m RATING SCORE:
. . ~ ::;-k. , ..y . . .
. .:f. .,
. .g
(.. -
- m. .. i, m
.....-......:... . . . .^ = - - _ __- w : :w : .....-.n.... - - . . . .
~
- .; ..:.0,9 .. - . ~ - .m y .,, ,
.y.. .- .
. i ! .-- ..gp-
~ .. . ... .
~
b y
M.
- g
. ... . . .. ..; u - >w . . . . .
.h
. * . . . I M
.. . .' .* . .. s , v. . , w. i =, . .. --e . s n. e- . . . . .< ..s
. g e
.f . . . soo . . .. .
Cg. ,
>._-.c'. .
,p a
.gy g . s , ;.. ., . . ...
. s . .,- . . ~ . . . . - ..- ., . u,. - . ,
1 1
. 1 V .
\)
) *.
4 tm'/Qt TNSPEt"DR ROF RATING FORM 2
G Rc7 Categcry Rank.: 3
-N xr.F.: 8/6.fW'Md 6 Categories: I )
Badge No.: r0 St II S Discipline: A c :- ccD -. III /f
~ ;, . .. . p. .-4 rig sca=e: -
n , Date: '
9fff?J-Supervi.sor Courpleting This Form t ,J) nate: ?A /G#I ,
Reviewing Superviser ,
' d //
i
, y lus;u v;;uns
- $is ta=nr is wpcised of two porta In the f'--t pa=t, the employee is t::r be a;%v.-ized eccording to a J-y e' - ,
i level of cer-d "% tion , and dependability tactors . In the second part, the em7.lvywe is to be <v=7"=*=d on knowledge and app? 4 --tion of appr=priate inspection ac w nce t:riteria,
(- q=ality of documwrrtatien, cocpocat.ien.,. CFSES seniority and j atrendance, essigning the appropriate M t af paints to the- (
, employee for M ta: ting factor. All Racine and Reviewine Scoer- *;
I.
visors should note that this form eresumes una the imelovee ne st- one commi ment to cua.lity enar 2.s l*
beine retwe snares Any eme.lovee citical -to =2re .QA/QC orocram at Comanene Peek.
vm:rse t-eme :samt in this recard is sub tec= to docat ettonld de..' ~~Tl'.
becuen: Immeciatelv := :ne atten:.cn c' sent=r manaeement so G-t an assesseetT. ed t*te neec f or i=neciate termination can be made.
. , . r. , .. u . .. . . _ ,
I . . t. . . .
l .
- ?- - -
t . z.. .,
l I
(
OYCL;:2[L. .
DA/oc Inseector Pozz 19
)
Ausn. AmAMON OF eMPI,CTEE CA':T DitTES b.h ~
Please identify the category trost clearly -applicable to the ' .
employee by checking the most accurate w,.,nse for I, TI and m l below.. It is ee w i=1 that cateeorv Afteridentiientions tnis part of the be done__
racine forur l acentalv f or eeen emolovee. all inf ormation should be verified by t is comole ted , theref ore , 3 Once the enec ri mr ene emolovee's current oersonnel file .
age ,,. late categor:.es taeve seen ident.s.::. led and 1serified, t.he
- 1 semer ce eine eempomme C t-d- fme 2. .ZI.and III .below -M a be - ._ ,
. eecorded. in .ttse. apg . -i-te apace in the apper right r-mener of ,
- ~
the. 'F4 ==e* page Cf thfS fc=B 4
. . - ~
I. security .clearanen: A. Enrployee has not been denied clearanca for unescorted. .
access to has Unitbeen1.g denied I
{
3' Employe-s
- j clearmace for unesconed ,
a== mas to Unit .1 .
- "" Certificatians: A. Her = W W eut asMWN tican to be *-' a *==d a.
3 23/ 2eme3. A Irm-- ' in . ,/ .
the discipline to which the
-< - - eerpW is r_.u 17 . -
essigned.
(' - 3 He.s s"* *i-ed =t certifica--
tionar to .be v=h===d as a.
, grade / level i inspector irr the dimeipline to ubic8 the employee is g= ;.lY
..a..:...,...
- 7. . .. ~. .
.g. - s _ .. . . . . , . . . _ . ,
,., . - n_ _ ... .,
tions to'be classed as a .
grade / level'C 1- A .x .in - .
the disei;:line to which the *
. .. ).i ..
- .- . aamp% is ,__ 'T - . -
x assigned
,m,., ~ e ~ f p',9 A.v. 7 trans to be -1====d as a grade / level D inspector in
. . . . . , . . . . . . .=tum M- d-f
- w to which th*
empicyee is.presentlT
. . . .~.. . .. .. .. .
, '., . . e g .. . ,..._.m .
l '. - .
assigned Z Trainee..
s .. - . .
. . ..n _.. . . . .
W 1,at s _ .
Q ". . Wvrs
g_ -
CA/OC 'Insoector Perem !
. l
- m. Deoendabiliev: .A . Was not avai.lable Tor work 5
for 80 er fewer hours ef a . scheduled wc;k for any reason (exclusive of vacat. ions) in the past twelve months. '
- 3. .
Was not available for week for more than 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br />.of
- scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in M - - -
- - h past tamelw months. .
e .
N - [
\ t s
' g l l t t l 1 i G
s a
Cg e b
?
M 9
- 1. 4! .:
. . . . . .. ... . a . . ; '
. .. w .%. .
- g g
% 4= % { 4 >,e %# . ,
m G
s.. We e r; . . . * * . o s.
hIl-f E'*L* ( t - --
- p39, 3. d 5' '
rV 3 - .
CA/OC Insoecter Form V L
.EMPLorEE REtING f!
1 O :o r =e =w -=vi vee, cir=1e =*e ==-e=1= == =e --e =*e right-hand margin that corresponds to the responte that mest accurately desc=-ibes the employee's approach to his jeb. Ratines should be dona en the most obiective basis tossible, and ecoer-visors snould unoer no circumstances allow cersonality or orner tacts not related to the ecolovee's actual t o o ce rt u. .wan ce to olav an>-role in these ratines. Ratincs on CPSES seniority and attenoance (nos. 4 and 5) should be verified bv enecJtino the, ecolovee's en rent oorsonnel film. - Wnan the ampl= yen has been r.a =d Art eacn of the isllowing aspects of job perforsurnce the . ,
empicyee's total rating score shotC.d be recorded in the space provided at the end of the rating section. and in the app-pha
. spa:e in the upper right-hand corner of ,t.he
- 4-st .page af this .
Teru. .- ;
- 1. Aeoliestien of Accreeriate Insoection Acceetance criteria Demons.: aces ex.raord nary knowledge of and a.
preficinacy ini applying appropri, ate inspec=iongI 3 acceptance crite-ia. *
- b. Demonst=atas acceptable level of knowledge of and pecf.iciency in applT ing eyewg iate inspec- 2 tien acc C nee criteria.
- e. oc-~~4 anal.ly indicates lack of sud.ficient knouledge cf cnd/or pre *d9ncy in application of m 7 mi m* e L Man %;-us u 11- ' = - f : =2.
i
- d. T wi.ly indicates a lack of aceeptable '
^*"'~***""*"**"""*****"*'~'"'"""***""~'"
C, of apa# ate inspection emet nce gre=ia O sucn as to necassi.tata == % N#w. m,
.=
- 2. 0"=T4tv cf Doc =:nentation
- a. Cons: s tan:.ly procuces uri.tten reports tha? 3 are high:.ay e<-m- =ta', neet., and thorough
! arm ac=urete, b Mab ' ;y cf w=d.tten Lw_ -...-.......g.
L. ,g g . . ,
- c. Acc:.. scy ;. neat =ess , and/ut- ;tm% nw of { i 1
wrteten aws - is sonne times lacking. s* ,
l 1 d 9eitten reports are usually f ~~- o
- _to.__-_ ; h em,,. and/or - W .,.. ,
. . ~
3 _. cocesrweien
- a. En=nW W - ny C g r s new assignments and '3 cooperates with supervisien and coworkers.
b_ cer-e=M ' y =* 1 ' 4 as to ac=ep. nev. assienments 2
and to. cooperate with . % ,'sion and couua cs -
- c. h 4nal.1r resists peu assim L and/or oc=asionally does not cesg;ste with superrision I or cowerkers.
- d. Frequently resists new assiv. .m and/or cenarally re'ws to coopera.te with supe =ri.rion O and/or coworkers. ,
/- .
D .
CW&7LL .
.. pag f. eg 7 .,
n , ~ , -
..e.-. - - , - - , - - -
F _
fcm//cM fnNW '.,C -
2 .
e
.4. C?SES Senioritv .3
- a. F:.ve voars or more 2
- b. nree'vears or more but less than 'five Tears 1 -
- c. One yelr or imzee but less than three yea.s
- d. Less than one year
- 5. Attendance
- a. P:issed 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of m ;Maled work or less for .
. .,. .... any reesort (ezoept encations) during the past - -
'6- -
12 6 . - .
A Fhi t:are h 40, imrt not more then 90# .
hours of %; dsled work for any reason (ezcept 4 vacations) during the past 12 months.
- c. Missed more than 1?O, but 1 sot more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of si:heduled work for any reason b pt 1 i
vacations) during the.past 12 months. . 4 j
- d. Missed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled weck j for any reason (except vacations) in the pastj .
O
- 12 months. ,i .
mz a smoe.
.. 2.. .
1 .. . . . . . .
. . c
- m. .
-s .=
.. . . - :;~. . . ~<. . ...*. -. .. . . --+
=... . .._ .
.. . .- - . . .. . ~.
.n.~
..a.,. s. .
- -~ -
u .
1...
s
- - ..r. .
. ._ .. . ...4 . . ., . . . . . . .
.. . .>... - :.a . .: ...s a.,a. , - ~ .
.. . . . . . .. .. ..n... i ::;. .. . ;. .,
-:.-; .x .. u : . ..: % .e
-. :. . . ~
....a.
.: . . . .. ..-- .s- : .
i . .- .
r,-- ae ..
, C. u , ~s- t- -
. ,., . 23 .;
.z. - $ . g g . .... .,
. ~;. . . . ..
., .. ..,s. .
~ .
QA/QC INSPECTOR ROF RATING ~ FORM b' ROF Category Rank: 2 NAME: bAnscek 4 - i -,
9 Categories: I II A
p Badge No.:
Discipline: a/a re A III A Rating Score: C1 Date: 2k/W *
&dpe'evTsor Completing This Form
/ 4 / Date: 7 /!b4 Reviewirig Supervisorg ,
/ ' 7N ff (181/38f
~
. INSTRUCTIONS This form is comprised 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
-(t part, the employee is to be evaluated on knowledge and L application'of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria, quality of documentation, cooperation, CPgES seniority and attendance, assigning the appropriate number of points to the employee for each rating factor. All Rating and Reviewing Suoer-visors should note that this form presumes that the imployee
' beino rated shares the strong commitment to cuality that is Any employee critical to the QA/QC program at Comanche Peak.
j vhose commitment in this regard is subject to doubt should be brought immediately to the attention of senior management so that l
an assessment of the need for immediate termination can be made. .
Ec b d er fee!<cmL:c( c ~ 6%curi- CSE\lxcn f
i CONrGDEUd.
. IDENTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE CRTEGORIES
?
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 cateoory identifications be done accurately for each emoloyee. After this part of the ratinc form is completed, tnerefore, all information should be verified by checkinc 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.
l :
I. Security Clearance: A. Employee has not been denied clearance for unescorted access to Unit 1.
X 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
- (~. employee is presently
's_- assigned. )( -
B. Has sufficient certifica-tions to be glassed as a grade / level 3 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-tiens to be classed as a grade / level D inspector in f the discipline to which the employee is presently assigned.
E. Trainee.
~ .
(~'
CONM2CNTI/J.
Page 2 of 5 i ,.
- . ,1,-.. *'*~~__I..'C~._,_._.__.- . _ . . - - . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ - . . . _ , - . . _
'. \
- III. Decendabi:lity: A. Was not available for work 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 i for more than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the past twelve months. X a ~-
C -
L s
f l .
p O
CONr:DtN u Race 3 of 5
.. _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .;m._.
EMPLOYEE RATING 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. Ratincs
("IT# should be done on the most objective basis cessible, and suoer-visors should under no circumstances allow cersonality or other facts not related to the emoloyee's actual job cerformance 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 total rating score should be recorded in the space provided at the end of the rating section and in the appropriate l space in the upper right-hand corne- of the first page of this l form.
- 1. Aoplication of Aeproeriate Insocetion Acceotance criteria
- a. Demonstrates extraordinary knowledge of and .
proficiency in applying appropri, ate ~ inspection
, acceptance criteria. 3
- b. Demonstrates acceptable level of* knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropriate inspec-tion acceptanca criteria. '(f)
- c. occasionally indicates lack of sufficient knowledge of and/or proficiency in application of appropr.iate inspection acceptance criteria. 1
. d. Frequently indicates a lack of acceptable knowledge of and/or proficiency in application
- s. of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria such as to necessitate retraining. O L
l 2. Quality of Documentation
- a. Consistently produces written reports thae i are highly accurate, neat, and thorough. 3
- b. Majority of written reports are accurate, neat, and thorough. (h
- c. Accuracy, neatness, and/or thoroughness of l written reports is sometimes lacking. 1
- d. Written reports are usually inaccurate, incomplete, and/or untidy. O
- 3. Cocoeration
- a. Enthusiastically accepts new assignments and cooperates with supervision and coworkers. 3
- b. Generally willing to accept new assignments -
c.
and to cooperate with supervision and coworkers.
occasionally resists new assignments and/or -
(f) occasionally does not cooperate with supervision or coworkers. '1
- d. Frequently resists new assignments and/or generally refuses to cooperate with supervision and/or coverkers. 0 CONT DOCIA.L '
i Page 4 of 5 l
L
- 4. CPSES Seniority
([)
- a. Five years or more g 7,.
- b. Three years or more but less than five years 2
- c. One year or more but less than three years 1 ec
- d. Less than one year 0
- 5. Attendance
- a. Missed 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> 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 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of s'cheduled work for any reason (except vacations) during the past 12 months. 1
- d. Missed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (except vacations) in the past
- 12 months. (}j(176km) 9 TOTAL RATING SCORE:
(~
s_ -
. g l
i
- l
/
~..
(1 -
l CONiiDU(iIAL Page 5 of 5 i
i l-L
t . .
~
QA'/QC IN9Et"I'cR ROF RA"'ING FORM y
o y ROF Category Rank.: 8 ST0 WY $ Cate90 ries: I A 5 AM?. II o Badge No.: M //
III S Disciplisre: Acr .: a 6
. - . . Rating Sca=a .
l
~~
Dabe: } k f 7 y' (Euper71.sor Completing This Form
? % l/ Date: 9 hi /Sl/
ReviewingSupervisor/
?*$ f w.n rw C"'rONS Otti.s f===r f.s woe.imed of tuo parts In the fi=st part, the
- y #*ar wice ,
ez playwe i-s tzr tw cat.% cM' m%c,.ung to.;;
icvel of ee=tification, and dependa.bility fae ces. In the second part, the ==r;lw is to be W"=M on knowledge and
(,~,' apt
- e4n af appropriate inspection acceptance 1=riteria, quali.7 of documentation, ~cpe=a.:. ion., CPSES af seniorit.y point:r and attendance, asstqning the a m rer iate numtpre A1.1 Rattne and Reviewine sueer-to the.
enployee fe- M rating facter.
visors rhecid not: that this form cresumes that c'= the 1 i nvimeloveethat is.
berne ra wi sne.res tne s . nc commitment to Anv salnwee cc: n cmL to :ne CA/GO m.,eram et Comanene Peek
- - - - in this reord is .eum %rc to douL; ano"14 tue. . :mt ~.
- unese courmi .r.
brouen: imme
Jenowledape cf amad/ote proficiency in appli=etion-of apkwyuiste inspection a -e r nce c=iteria b, such me to 1:ecassitata ta*-= 4 a +=g. O a.
- 2. Q"=Tity of Doe:nueeta. tion -
- a. c.cas::.atantly produces uri.tten reports tha? 3 are higtsly e.=ca: rete, neat, and -
thorough.
are acetree te, b 7tajw-.11 I cf wei.tten ..,~ _ ,
2
. n e e t , m e d. I.: ,,r -
- c. Accuracy i neatness , and/or :.w. ,wyL.. ae of ;
1 written reports is sometimes lacking.*=,
d Weitteer reports are e"=' 1y d O -
- a h,.- Leesm end/ce
- T . .
3_ cecoeretion a tnzm_* * ~ M y ac=epts new amaignmen s and 3 cooperates witn supervi.sion end coworkers.
b h1 ' y w' ' ' 4 ae to accept niev assignments 2 and ta cocoerate with w,,.. . ision and coworke.=s.
- c. De=es'.onelly resiste neu assi.p. . L and/or oc~=4enally does not c=operat.e with supervision 1 or e >torkers.
- d. Frequently resists new assiennents endiar
- genanni.ly ref=ses. ts cooperate with supervision 0 end/or cowerkers.
Len b g,- .
ce now
- Page- < ef T
. s.
(. - . ,
CA/OC Insoector Pe- a ~ 1 e s '
s . .
t CPST5 Senioritv
- 4. 3
- a. Five years or more .
3 b. Three years or trorebat less than fi,ve ' fears 2 1
- c. O n e y e a.: ar sac == but less than three years D
. d. Lees than one Tear. .
- 5. Attendance -
- a. n ssed 40 tracts of m:. " sled work or less for any reason.(. .g vacations) 4:.' -isig the past 6--
- '- =-
12 -. . _ _ .
A & more -then 40, but Ta:rt 1m:rre then 90, . . - , - - - - -
l hours of scheduled work for any reason (ezcept 4 l
vacations) duz-ing the past 121stenttis.
- c. Mismed more than '8V, but Tsot more than 120 hac:-s of si::heduled work for any reason '(escept 1 vacatione)' during the .past.12 months. .
j I d. Mismed more'then 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of.schednled work 3
(** cept vacations) in the past J
for any reason j O
. 12 months. .i WTKL RATING SE- ,
. i : .- .
. - . .. ,, - d . h . [ . ..-
. . . , . . . . ...,i . .
a l
x- ,
a.
,. f. .
w
- : w s.:.,; .. . .-;...,. - . _ . . . _ . ..
.. . w . - :. . . . .,.
~. .
. . - . - .:- ~ : - ..
. - . .. .r ~
g*
, .4 . . . .
h
.. . . . .. . .. i . . . . . . . . . . . .
s ~ .
.m .
..,a-n. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . - .. ,c : . -. e. , - - > . - . . . . ~ . exw :> . . . . . . . -
4 s s y. .-
......m.. . .. . ... . ~ . .u .
.s e ,
e g
. . g g www_s= , .
s..
. a. . .
- m w g.
... ~ .
,- ~.--.-. ., . ,
3 g/QC -TN5Pr ;.uR ROF RA':TNG -FCRM
'ROF Category Rank.:
I) Catte90=Les= 1 .A NwEr 55R03 /.^/ II '
Badge No : '#v /7F TII .j, Dity d 7 4ne:
1 Cc. F v .)
. ..- .m..., . . . . .- Ra*.ing <m-w _
', ~'*~
- f. Y -
Daced)f9/Vc./
ful[
v superv:sor complectng This Form v ,,e d/ Date: #/F4 1 ,
aev .w4ng supernmora
,p 7 e l'y
.m.m.u u. vr.5 Of fIz6+
In t.he "4 e 7- - , the- u
& = b .Le me ised of tuo par:.m '~
y Mm I
-_ R ng to e employee is t=r te wt+;-i=ed e- In the e d <
level og ee==d htien, and dependability -fac:=rs. end
~=d on 3ctouledge per , the =::pl-eyee -is to be.ev= 1" a .W.,ion of appropiate iWien aw .t.J nce criteria, quality c' documenta icn, coeperarian., m u eeniori=y and a uinee, assignierg the og, ey inte uur of points to N employee.for eech w h fas er. All Ran%e and Reviewine Sccc-visors hecid note ;-hot t.his form cresumes that the Dmolovee c+ ;nc in . sttares Urw Stwug Commit::3ent to Ct_*=lity that is
- "it:aal tc One QA/ QO m. e _ =_ amOcmsnCne Peel ADY em 1N '
- ecmms , c 177 ttris recard aC.tn subw tr., dount e nc--I d 6 ' ' J.e- -
.wa a =.;
brocent 1;ic d.:.a te lv to One attention cf senic - ennacement so l an a.ssessmerre cf the need '.or 1 ime.ciate te m nation can be mada
. , , .. . . .. ,. a..n..... .
. ....+..
. . .,.,.:.,........ ^
- s . ., . ,. _ . , , , , , ., ,
1
.,- .~ - .
w e%.A A ,L' '
~~--
i .
1 ._
' QA/QC Insoe u r Por.r t .
O ,
1 A a:.r. .c 2: A OA"ICM OF EMPt.C1 FEE C AT?.=0RTES-
.s Please identify the category most t.leerly applicable to the
- employee by checkine the most acmte re:sponse forbeI, done iderrt.ifications II and III telow. It is essential that cateeorv After enis part of the ratirre form acecretelv is comole ted ter, eacnenerefore,emolovee. m11 information should be verified bv_
Once the eneen4no necategories ecolovee's current eersonnel f i.le .
beve been identifi4 2nd verified, the apr% .:. ate.
%a at the E.e;---z -fr M f.oc 1, .31.and III halow ahen 1i tse f
.. 1:ecorded in .the. appeaa d =te w. in the apper right carner o ~"
t se fi=st page of tttia faen. l-5 c, <
~
Securi v Clearan-e: A. Employee has not been denied, clearance for unescorted I j
access to Unit 1.j j 1L' Employee has been-denied
- clearance for unescorted a== ass to Unit .L certificatL.--s- A Sam W M eat ce d "4 m II. tiene to be d-W as a. .irr.
4 / .I e u e l A I y , - --
.'.0]'i .
3 the 43 =r-*--7 8 -1se to whictr the-
- - - - eseployee is.y. _ .::17.
. 2. . .
' essigned.
.E Aca =+' *" '- d car
- i-"4 -
- -tiens te be -r- W as a rr =^=/. level 3 irarpec*..or in the dis -*?ifne to which' the
- eple?** is & aT17
- - + - - -. . . . .I . . . . . . . , . . _ .
. . .. ....a-.......
- - - t m ._ - am _ ,_ w - -
tierrs to be classed as a grade / level C insN w -1.n .
che. ^4- 27 1ine to which the i'
employee is yhdy W .
D &
Bas_s*
%4*ectr- certi*"8 ~
da to be classed- a:s a grude/1M D inspectme in
.. . ..t'as <* 4 W14 n= to wtrich the '
emplofc+ is , presently r*
. .. .g.-.
.,..<...... . . , .s l
E :ainee.
- . . . y .c . .
v .
page .y.g g .
phLimt-.:-p" - .
e m
- m e.
- --w-
y -- '
l CA/OO 'Insoecter Ter:-m ,
\
o m* wndabill ey. A. 'Was not ava.ilable der work p
ter 30 er fewer hours c.
' scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacatiens) in the past twelve months.
B. was not ava 41able for M for more than So hours of scheduled work for 1Lny reason (exclusive of v::r:stions'; in
. . the past tuselve months. .X ---
4 i
.. l l
s.
- b
?
. .... .. ...- . .y.. - . .-... - -- . . . . . , . .
i 1
4 1, .
. . ,s.... . . . . . . . . .
h.
CC.ss s.r1w __u ._ f.. .
~
~
'D .3 'C( 5
=h
y: - . OA/0: Insoeeter Form o
4 ErrPLcttE RJti'Itc l n w rate the employee, . circle the numerical score at the C right-hand margin that corresponds to the response that most accurately describes the employee's approach to his job. 7ta tines '
shculd be done on the-most objective basis cessible, and sener-
, . visors snould under no etrcumstances allow cersonallev or other facts not related to the emolovee'sRatinos ac.nal on Sob PSES oerformance senioritvto end c'.av any role in these racines. .
a: endance (nes. 4 end 5) should be verified 3dhen 2.ne bv cheexino amp 1w has the. M---
m_d ovee's enerent personnel f.i.la. .
I r.a ed.1c.eacn ci :De fM 1aws.ng aspects of job performance t:he..
l
. employee's total rating score should be recorded in the space I
.previded at the end of the rating section.and in the apw ;-* '
space in the upper rigfrt-hand corner of the * % t page of this
- o
- ora. .,-
- 1. Rooliention of Amoreeriete Inseeetion Accentance criteria
- a. Demonstrates extraordinary knowledge of and proficiency in, applying appropri,ato inspection ,! 3 1
- ac=eptance critaria. * '
- b. Demonstrates acceptable level of knowledge g -iate of inspec-and pre"_' dam y in applying egg 2 tion aw. f m c=iteria.
oer- M ana.Lly indicates lack af su e" d e-dent c.,
knouledge af and/or p=W ' =ncy .in ap"N wi.;.A
- - r- g -3. ,
er _- ._.
4_'srr =- m- 1-- .
- d. T wstly imlicates a lack of eccepr-=him knowledge zrf asat/o= proficiency in enp1'co c=i+=- *=
'ow of a re. ritte inspection e- .g', nce t
(-
.such as ts asceasita.te ca*--= ' n 37 - . ,
?
a.tierr
.2 . 0"=Titv af Dow
- a. Cons::stee?.ly produces 4rritten reports that 3
=== histrly ee ', neet., and
- J$
emm eccurate,
. . - . . . . . . . h. 5.1w_1.F.-r of w=i. zen _ w ~~~ -- ~ ~ ~~~*
t--
3 :=,, md G - A - *
- c. Ace = racy neatness , and/e- b 4um s of g
,1 j
written regwu is sometimee lacking. '.
~"-= *= ,
j d Weitten reports are . usual.ly i O irec 3=cm end/or'~~d t --
@ ~ "-
...I 3 cocoeratien .
a En=n" d ==H -- 177 ecca m new assignoents and 3 cooperazee with supervi.sion and coworkers.
t>_ wny # 14 5 to ec=ept.new azaignmarr s 2.
and to. -@_E.ta with sup. ,1simi ;., andend/tre coC r
- - c. ocensional.17 resists ame.: assiv oc=asiona.Lly does not w sp ;rcte with supervision 'l or cowerkers.
- d. Trequently resists new assim c o and/ci-
' iy e- *-==a ::a coope.-= ~e with supervision
- co O
- .a d/or enverke=s. ~
!.. 's. .,,
- i. .
j - L a.,.%LJC'L. - ? age. 4 er 5 -
e: .:
.. . ~ :, . . .. .. ..
,. n
( ..
QA/0C Inseeetor Per:a g t.
-I
- 4. CPStS Senioritv 3 e.. F7ve years or more 2 2...V b. Three years or more but less than five yes..s 1
- c. One year or ware but less than Uw s yeazz - - S ..
- d. Less than one year 9
- 5. xteendance
-- a. 1e: Lased 40 -hoces af ct Osled work or less & .
, '..... any reason (except vacations) .during the past . . . . ... .. ~
12 months. .'.
g- *' W ma=, then 40, but not acnre than 60,
. . r hocry of .J..daled work 'for any reason (ezcapt 4 vacations) during the past 12 months.
c., Missed more than 30, but mot more than 120 ~~
L hours of si:horM.A work for any reason Tezoept 3.
vecreione) during the.past 12 months. . ;
1
- d. Missed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled i wcadt '
)
for any reason (except i vacations)\n the past} U 12 manhhs. .
i
- LU:%L, Rx::rNG SCOR.F.: _
- ~ .. . ..= F.:.,.iux::; . . %. . . . *, .',5..r:
. f u, d,,, ' -k: .. ;; . ,...:,...
( :.
. ..r. . . . . . . . .,s_.... .u..
... . . - . . . . . ~ .
. . -- a
.a .
6 . * ..
\. * .
- a. . . .
M 1
.__ . m: _ .= ;w -
-*' N u r , . ' . . . .,
~ . m:.=.,;* w - - ~ **
._ ....'.;. g. . d3. , ,. . . , ,. f . . . . . , . _ . , , , . . , . . ,,...,
.4 y,
..,.s.- ..-y ..y . . g .. .
. . m. . .' . ,.
s.
,* . ? 8. .
l .
t.
1 t
.y h... -
.... ,,- .s . .. : .
.. . 4. ..: . . . . . . . , . . . . . .; s .. .m .s . . . . ._ . .. . . . , , . , . . ..
e . .
.. . ... . n... . . . . . . .
.. ,....s a.
1 *d ..'. . '. ..;.... . .. t . y + ...i M ';*" ,.'se.,;.;..# E N , w ...e v. u...o w., - - m s' . & ..
t l . .. .
~~
l i .
. = '
. ., . ': . .; - e: p .,
~=
==..w- x. - . *.
, . ~ :.... e
=* , .>. . .
. a. , . .
w ';
j"'T.M ..
. g . g . . '.
- . we= s;e@ '. * *.
-- ~
T.
C:~. .. . ;: .. .,
4 . .
t .
m ,m
P .
p .
g- .
t;rA'/QC TNah2 as RUP RK'"ING FORM O.
ROF Category Rank: 1 .
Catege=ies: T A
- SArtt:: Rv f8h ./ II M Badge No,; Na u .z. III R DiF 714 m 4 (c- C r Ft O
. . . - . . . , - - . , . . . -. .- nneias - f ., ._.
.- - ,..... .. ._j .
_ h_ Date: 'N 9' 48upervi.sor complet:.ng 2nis Form
' - f?v$r -
hte: k . . .
Reviewing Supe:v:.sor} l
'"fY JXs 7tv 8+ i 4
i i
l 2==nr in-wgised of taso. part.a. In the first pe:rt, the-
-employee is tzr hr wi..vn ized --- W to a ' -r MN !
level of cer" '4 ~ tion, and dependability tacters. and In ttre second ,
on knowledge -
- f. ; .per.,,, the gep1w i.s to be --ev= 1"=*=d
.applicatinn et appropriate inspection ae=eptan== v u eeniori.ty c=iteria, and ;
.qm 1'ty of h .c.ation, cooperation, ' + to & t a::tendance, a.ssigning the egMyh A12 Ratine i-7.; and af 7neviewine snowe-. [
employee toe e rating factor. ;
viso=s oi.esid note that this form cresumes that the %molovee esine ra .d eneres tne strene commitment to e"=1itv Any thatem310946 is.
....--. -. .. s_ r e-m.L.tc 23e QA/QO Decer23 et CCMEnCne Peek. -~
3*~, wnese emerm1 Lm.I -imr t*.ris recard is scew to dw; sttoi d be- i.--- .
m^. .IIT.
brouent 1 n:leciate ly to One attention .#. SeniC* mRnacemefitbeSCmade.
l an assecsmerrt et the need for immeciate termination can .
. .F . . . - g . **. .. . ,,
- .'e .4.
o g
p*&eyeH . O. ,
- O* *%* .
.e.
..,.' ,,,u, ,,,
6*- - * . - ..*.e , , ,. , ., _
I l
. W g .
~ ~. ~ * * ..
Greu MLCI . e,. .
? . . . .f n~ * . ,
m ene O-S * .'W w em e a e
- ** --. ,.-,---r- - , - - - . - , _ - . , - . - .,o- - , - - --.y.e-. . - - - . -, , e, -.,---..,_m,-,,r-.- r---~wn=w------ --.eme+--vr
.e
.g qi-
.QA/OC Inneector Po=m O
.u GAtION OF EMPt.CTEE tA'"z::Jft:7.5
{ .i.u:: n .
Please identify the category mrost clearly applicable to the employee by check.ing the most acc= rate response for identi"ications beI,dene_ TI and III below. It is esa r.tial that catecorv --
a w meelv ter eacn emelovee. After en2.s oart of the racine ferer is concle ted , therefsre, all inf orma tion s hould be Once verified the by s enecr4ne One erslovee's current ee rsonnel f ile .
W W "i=d., the ag h riste categorzes have been identaflad **"i d taa . , . . _ .
!. Letter -af the reeponne .checioed ,for I, IL.and III ha' = '
M .in .tha. apw , t=* -v~ in the upper right teenste of ,
. s.,
the ti=st page c" this *m-n, l
. . .- - ~ - - . . . .
. ., A 7 see.:ri ty clearance- A Employee has not been denied, clearance for unescorted V i
access to Unit L. :
3.1 Employee has been denied * '
clearance *or unescarted. I
- = c---aas . to Unit 1 ,
II cer-ifica+ ed A ' Bas 3 **4decrt cer* 4 *4 -
tions to be cimasod as e. .tn. ~ : l
- - . p e r g a ,o 1 a, 3:. ,-__ .J- ~i.
the discipline to whictr the _
g 37, .,
C,- , - - . ..,- _ . . .
. _V, _
easigned
-- L Has su.'" " = e ce=*4'* ~
tions to be 4W as a l g=ade/ level 3 inspector in the discipli.ne to which' the l
i, employee is 4 _ dy -
s j y
x.:. . .
. w . , . .
--- a-.a .
- o. . . : . ~. . ... ~., . _ . ,
. . . g 7._ - . ;,
~ - 4.
tions to be classed es a
.. grade / level C inspi.Lc in the discipline to which the
.: . .A - . "
' - % is wy ... . . ...
~ -
assigned.
n Has s"*"4rd=nt cer- *~
tiens to bar 1 ====d- as a grade / level V i.w n a in
- .. . . ..;, :: . -: - - - ..tbe ***='~' ? * ~ tD u'.ch the - ..F' empicyee is presently-
. . ~ . . . . . .. .. - . . -
E Trai=,ee .
1 i
- .c.,..,.,,,,.g
.s
,.h. ..
it ,,..
sepa 2 ne-g .
h ;_' Q - -
. -u
cc, F
CA/oc Insoector Form
~ .
- r!. Deeendabiliev- A. Was not available for work
-for 80 or fewer hours of
sched:: led work for any reason
(. exclusive of vacations) in t.he pa-st twelve months. ,
E. Was not available for ucek for more than So hours of
- scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in .X -
the past tamelve months.
l l }- l
{~s .
L
=
l t
l i
l .. .. .
i t
j (e ,
m,%
% = ._u_ ._ .,. ,
^
- Pege 3.cf.5-
s EMPLOTEE R M NG
- ro rate the earployee, . circle the numerical score at the b right-hand ca.rgin that corresponds to the response that most ac==rately descr.ibes.the employee's approach to his job. Ratines should be done en the most otMeetive basis cessible, and scoer-visors should under no circumstances allow corsonall:v or otter facts not related to the emolovee's actual too nerformance to plav any role in these racines. Ra t.ince on OPSES senioritv end a tte ndarree (nos. 4 and 5) should be When verified znebvamp! checkine r has the. 5- =
eurelevee a enerent w wnnel fila. 8
. ma:ac in ear-i ci :na ic.llos:.ng aspects of job performance the - '- '
employee's total rating score should be Twemeded in the space > '
provided at the -end of the rating section.and in the apf.---%te space in the upper rigtrt-hand corner af the f.irst page af this esen. -
l 1. Acclication of Rec-erriste *nsoection Acesotance Criteria
- a. Damonstrates extraorcanary knowledge of and .
' proficiency iniapplying appropri, ate inspection ;t -
3 acceptance criteria.
- h Demonst=mtes acceptable level of 1crowledge of and pec"M em:y in applying apv wsciate inspec- 2 tien s c.y;.nce criteria.
- 4~ =11y indicates lack of sufficient
- c. -
- knendedge .af and/or pr "' ciency in application e ./ -2, :
. er - , h .inspeh accep=ance m _- _
d Le :ly indicates a lack of ecceptable .'
knowledge of and/or proficitacy 1st = ri +e=tiour '
r P of myr m " ate inspection +- r:.=nce critaria @
such en 2n necassitate r.e*--= M 7= ,
l 1
L y
- 2. OcaIity c' 2:rcementation l
a csus::. sten:.ly pr.oduces ac-itten reports that 3
=== tzigtrly er-ewen ***, neat., and th - r .h.
it .. ?tajudy af. sc:itten c.f d. ers eccurete, ~ -
'2' --
^ e , and. ; _ g .
- c. Am .g , neatness , and/or- i.hw. wuG..-e e c' , -l '
1 1
writtee wports is sometimes lacking. .
d 1ecitteer eeports are .u"' ? y inaccurata, D Law _- ;- " eod/cv untitby 2 Cv~~ tien* .
.a Enrn ' ==*-d -= i7 y ac=epts new easignments and 3
swep. a with supervi.sion and cow a.+r3.
., .b - c.ar - -=31 y =d ' 14 5 to accept. new assicaments .
and to. w v ;.ta with supervision and coworkers '- -
1 ~
l
- c. ad. 117 resiser seu ass end/or 4h supeerision ce-==d e-na.11y does not coey
=te with "I
or ecnterkers.
d Frequently resists new assignmerrts and/or ge-1 ty r=n-==a ts coope= ate with supe: vision l -
0 and/or cowerin=~e. -
G.n si.'icM F- **
kge- 9.cc 5 , ". * * ,
. . . . v ,: .
e.MM.h8- -*
- e. e e m me.e . e.l. e em .
m.m s.e
- * - . - , w- ,,--,-,---.g..-. ,,,p--p--.,e..,-,.we,.,% -----,---....w,.w,-..-ei=---=-.-w , m---e
CR/QC Insoect.or Pors-r 2
~
- 4. CPSES Senioritv
... a. P:.ve years or more 2
%- t. 'three years or more but less ' han five years 1
- c. One year or ax::ce but less than three years - - O . .
d M "tISED em M .
- 5. Attendance -
- a. mased 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> we h.J.1,d erork or less for any reason. (except vacations) .during the past 12 months.
w unsee esen 40, .t at not zone t: hen 90., r-.
33.-
hours of scheA9-d esock for any reason (ezuept vacations) duri.ng the .past 12 chs. 4 s Missed moru zhan so, but not more than 120 hou=s of 4":heduleE work for any Teason Texcept *1 vacatione) during the .past 12' months. . 2 E. Missed more then 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled wo=k l j
for any reason (except vacations) in the pasti U i
. 12 months. (i t
TOTAT. RLN SCORE-a
. .:a u ,:..i. e. ... ...r....... ... ...:. , ... ;. ..;;. e. . ,, . . . . . . ,. , .. .
- w. ~ . .
y 2. , . . . ..
g
- .
- s . y .
M m.e*',. .. .
_ gg,g ,,,;,._,., _. _
'R:. y * *,,= .~ . . .s s, -).~ ...' . . ,' .*
., ..r,...
. g y ; . ,= , . . . , .
- . i g
. . i. , . .
.. .. as.. .s. . . .
.. .. .<' + -s . - ..... . ... . . . . .s...... .. .
l
, i, .wr G w. > .. . . :s .. . ;. . .J. / -. . , m . # . . . .- 4. .*;f.. . .; .4 0........,sr.....-i.'.0.:..., ....s =
i .
.........'.*r '.
.'?.'.' ., *
. ."4 .. ; . * *,*i i*
- C 4:. . ..' . .
.s .
6 .
~
M,M Cw.,TP '8
- f* .M.~. . .>.
. . uy ..
- .. .. * *9.@ . S,,cf. S u..* . +,. .*** 4 ; . . , . , ,, , . . .
.*'-..... s . . . . .
...t"j e 'P g.
e H 4 he******
- - - .6 W _ ? Q__ - ' D .**_ . . * " * .__ "*
~_* _ _
l
- p. .
o . .
~ .
i)
UA'/oc 1Nsr=. - m Tt7F kAxM N O .
Roy Categcry Rank: 2.
R Cat W - T A gxyg= Mh/ /E n 4 Badge Wo ? No '/ M 8 giaciplines cx a s:r D
. ~
m-1 -
. JP ~~ -
C.ng Onia Fo=m
- f. .
. ,,g .
(sope'v2sor r Vete: I (y _t f Revtewing Superv2.sorg ,
ff.1./ IW Y l[ f l
. mm- .
In the fi=st pa:=r., the- [
- !===nr tr wmycised, of tuo parts +-T-
{
ampTwyee is tn 13e categorised =- "
- W to. M In the second :
level of cer* d "4 c =ticn, and dependability tacters.
- h. part, tta emp1-cyee is to be..ev= 1" =d on k-1*dge end.
ap-i 8 *nn of appropriats- inspection acCPTES . _atee=ae 1:=its=ia.,*
4 M7 arrra ration,5-". M r -
tp-=1 + y of L --ab.u nce, assigning the' age ,ydata iu.u@r -af pai= tar tm tte gleyee foe.eme t rating facter A1.1 Ra_ .ne andne Reviewine scr., r-
'emp).ove, visors stiseld ne:e that Cis f orm crestum- s una is d e r.:n e r e i ; strares tne stme commitment Comam;;ie Peer.
to c"=14:v An' rna- @ . ;
.t-2-=1. ,tc Q- C A/QC crocrau et
, .- - - ,-- 3 " eno"1 e' hP '*-'~ 77 *' -
~'
vnose cucci.Wft in trris regAr; is sus WR to demi brouen: Imtm.. cla te lv to tne attention c'isenic- -Inationmanacement can be made. so L M l an assessmerrt of trre ' teed f or im e =re..e
,,. . . . . . . s:. e...-....... .. :. .. . .
4.
) . i . m . . . . .
l
- . . . . . .. ,, . . y y.n.. a. , . . -
s
- . . . . . . . . c . , 2. w. . . _ . , . 3 4. . ...,......m. ,.....y .
f e
- V e.
l ..
( ,
1 . .
, ~
@%ac.1J.8"ITf'-- .Ut .. .. .
.~.'a.
L -
~~ ~
T A/QC instector Wor:r .
l l
l TUEn.mdA'" ION OF EMPI.OYEF Chvur.5 "Please identity the category 1most cleerly ~ applicable to the .
. employee by check.ing the most accurate response for I, n .and C2 l below. It is essential that catecorv identifiertions be done "'j acem oralv Ter eacn emplovee. After tni.s cart of tne rn.ine form is comoleted, therefare, all 2.nf ormat. ion a hould be verieled by
-cheerie the emnlovee's current personnel f 2.le . Once t.he
= 'A w 4*'=A: t.be
. apggte categor2.es havec'-- been 4 ,for identi*i-d 1, ,ZI.and In ,belou W 4 tum . . _ _ ,
- 1mcaus-ed the zeeponse ? "
. soc =a= dad .in th ap.-- . -i =** space in the apper right - ctf , ,,
the *4~ page af this "aca ,
. p
- I I. security clearance: L. $mployee has not been denied clearance for unescorted. .
.Y
{
a.: access t=ployeetohas Unitbeen 1. l denied -
j ote.=.oo. eor e.c===se t access to unit 1 .
n ,, cere.i*ica*.d ens-. A s es -- - - M e .ce r*4 "4 -
tions to be classed as a.
4 ::ede/ Zowel A I ,= - irtf /
t::e d1=edyt 41 se to whictr the - P
.~ - . ... . . . . . ... . y _ -^T .
essigned. . M. ..
- B Eas -"* *W =".2 ca' ""4::n-- ;
' - ~
tions to be *?W as a-e.;:de/ level 3* h = r h in b dis -hi'~ to shied the employee ist g - -
dy bCmm .. .:_- l
. ..;. L.l:
~.,,.._. c. ._ -...
. . . ..........-y .y,, g-
- f. .:. p . . ,. . . .m.. . . ......; -
.~, ..
clons to be classed as a
~
grade / level C 'ia=N@i. .in
. .che A4 =<-d 714ne to which the employee is p 1 P T -
eenigned.
m g m m g,,, y,,,,asw ,a, l
Lw to bar classed as a.
grade /le,=1 D 1.mpar in n ...... >.-.... , ,,.......... . ..the> d 4--** - ' ' = ..to. which the --- -
employee is .pcesantly_. % . .-...
i ... .. . . . . . m. . . . . ,
. g
- E Psinee.
( .
+
\ - ..,..... ...~ m . . .
(.
1 -
\.s- . . . .
e .
C+%2 N
r ' '. l gg3 ,
k
}- , a
. N.
. m..._
- . - - --,.,--.,,-,,,,-..m., - . - . - - . - - , , -
,.-.-.w-,
r .-
QA/QC !!Tscec ar Fctra't e *-
g ,
t ,
224. Detwendabili ev- A. Was not available Ter anerk
,3 Ter 80 or fewer hours of
' 'p scheduled work for any Teason (exclusive of vacations) in the past twelve sronths. ,
l
- 3. Was not available for artn:k ) l for more than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in /
the past tuelw months.
1 o
~
l l l !
.i . .
r a.
?
.;. . _ .- - . - +. .
. CC,u c. . _
_a w_ .
, ,. pies s e 5
. QA/QC Inaceerer Form \ Y' e
- L TMPLCTEE RA*"ING l ,
to rate the employee, circle the numerical score at the right-hand ma.rgin that corresponde to the response that waart accurately describes the employee's approach to his job. 'Rativos should be done on the most ob k .tive basis nossible, and wuoer- .
visors snould under no earcumstances allow corsonality or otner facts not related to the ecolovee 's Ratinos a ctual SenooCPSES oe rt seniority v T.ance toand olav any rele in these ractnca.
atten ance ( noe . 4 end 5;sra1 ) stv=21d be terified bv checkine ene.
f.i.la. . unas saa ens ayee nas meest emolovee's coerent.
u.acud in, eacn af taa N h-2.ng .espects af job performance 0.d in the space the - - '
empleyee's total rating score shonid be a provided at the end of the rating sectir.1.and in the ep M .mte space in the upper Ti.AJ.-band corner of the fi.est page of this
. form. '
- 1. Aeolic tion of Amorooriste tnscoetion Acceotance criteria
- a. Demonstrates ex.raordinary knowledge of and proficiency in, applying c.ppropri, ate inspection <l
- 3 ac=eptance criteria
- L Demonstrates acceptable level of knowledge of and. prm"!'-4 =acy in applying re ywr -iate inspec- 2 tion ecceptmaco criteria
- c. oc -- 4 11y indicates leek af war"Meient W af and/or g' M =t=y in applica*-8.:na -',
- 5. -
- . of , . ,
- W ' n ac==ptance A '- .,>
d ha.ly indi=ates = locx of ecceptable
- - Junowledge axfL mest/o= pecticiency 1st applicaticar of syr .r iate insWun w 8M e6nce c=itaria S
O-
.such me en oeces=4~=-- - --
- : L .
- 2. ce t vtof tocamenta. tion Cons:.stantly produces 4sritten repcrts that i a 3 l ee== tisytrly 'a', re end thcenugh.
a=w oc=mrate , m- -
...'. . A a "ou rat wrf m ., .. * - ~- *-
,,, m d. - - A .
of
- c. I Ae=t..-acy . neetmess , and/o - hw W..ms 1
writtee reports is ser d see lack.ing.
d #citten reports are sumuaf ly 4 - = ~= , O .
'^y..
.9 ir. A and/or 1 c _ cmtion
.a En:nusM --My accepts nem assignments and '3 cue r ates with superv8 8 on and coworkers. '
.b ~ 1iy.=41?4- to eccept,now. assignments 2 end en coope=ata with supervision and c h a - -
. . 1,['- -
'e. W W resists new.a % .c and/er l
occasionally does not w e..ete with supervision 'l or coverkers.
d Frequently resists new assignme:rts and/or
- annezally W - z ts enope= ate with supe =rision 0 and/or - -- r' -n . . ..
i' .
CGMYO '
?mge. b ag er ,
..c. .- . .. . . . .. .
QA/QO Incoector Por 'y@ .
- l
- 4. CPSES Senioritv "5
~' a. Five v
- b. nroe' ears er T.oreyears or more but less than five years *
- c. One year or no=e but less than three years +
d Less than one year
- 3. Attendance Missed 40 ir.,u.. af 2.Asled eacek or 1+se 'for -
4.
. acy reason. (.eur=p wacations) .during the past ..
6- . . . . .
12 months. ,
s . . . . . . m - -- .
- . t. ftissad m-thun 40, 4 sat ruse ease than 90, - .
hou=w of scheduled asock for any reason (-p; 4 vacations) du
- g the past .t2 months.
- c. Missed more than 8t), but . net acrw than 120 J.
hours of s.-hoM ~4 stork for any Tw' anon % - L vec=.ione) during the.past 12 ;2-. 3. . 4'
- d. "issed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled sterk n any reason (+zeept vacations) in the pastj O 12 ucnths. .i 1'cTx; RA=ING Sc3RF.: r/"~'
w.. ..:...........s..
. ;r .
..s
.....w- .
..?
x....,.... v , . . :. .
- . . .n. .. .
y ..
. . . . . at. . .
.F - . , .... .... . . . .
- "'t
-- . e c--- . .- = -+ 6 . .. .:
- i.w 1. = -
.- - _. . . . . ~
,e '* .' * * ==m
, , ,;-* v.# .** .x. q,g%**,,*l * *
. v = ;.*;, . ' f .,,.~ . - . a ,o -
- = g=
i e
- * 'l .n,.
s .
...<...iw...m..........
. . ...s. . .... .. .,. .. . ..
22.. ... .
,, ,e ,. a * * ' . <. .
. .r. .-
... .s . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. ..
a'. 4. ..s...; . . . . . . . . ,,,. . . , w.t W.Wra.s . . . n . . ..m n . . . t .s.. .w. .
l l
l
. . . . . , . . .. . . . ..e..., .w .r.- .. .
. .c. . .
a .. - .. .
r.r , .
.., . .:., a s. .n ::
'. . . F : s. - -e_ _ _' -
L p . .:., .
g .."~C. ^ rg,. .
.- . t ..,,a. . . ..:. . -. . . ,u. :.,n.;:.. .
, ....~..- . ..;.. u. .
. . . . . . . v. g...... .
-- . .$.-- . _ - , _ _ . . . _ . _ . . , _ _ , _ __, , _ , , . _ _ , __g_ _ __ _ _ _
~_ ,
~.' , ;
QA'/QC INSPECTOR ROP RATING FORM n
ROE' Category Rank:
- i NAME: [PaaW.A/. O (. Catego ries: I 8 Badge No.: As e i r l II L III A Disciplines cc.c' r e:4_ 3
- . . , - - -.... . . .. Rating Score: ----
.//AZ
= Detet '
f?fPr/* +
1 Stipervisor Completing This Form
)
Reviewing Supervisor
., , ,i D.e.; +/wi .
e-S
~
MN pia 7agp INSTRU C"' IONS i
l This form is comprised of two parts. In the first part, the employee is to be categorized according to security clearance, level of certification, and dependability f actors. In the second 4
part, the employee is to be evaluated on knowledge and application of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria, quality of documentation, cooperation, CPSg5 seniority and attendance, assigning the appropriate numtier of points to the -
All Rating and Reviewing Suoer-employee for each rating factor.
visors should note that this form presumes that the 'emolovee beine rated shares the strong commitment to quality that is critical to the QA/QC crogram at Comanene Peak. Anv omolovee whcse cc.7mitment-in this regard is suo]ect to doubt should be brouent imrediatelv to tne attention of sentor management so that an assesscent of the need for immediate termination can be made. .
l l
I l
i
(. .
- CONMDL"NTIAI.
1 l
1 -
m.
QA/QC Ins oactor Fo rm ; '
s IDERTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES O 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 catecoev identifications be dene a ccura tely for each emolovee. After this cart of the ratinc form is comole ted , therefore, all information should be verified by checking the emolovee's current eersonnel file. Once the appropriate categories have been identified and verified, the letter crf 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 1 j
B .* Employee has beenidenied
- clearance for unescorted access to Unit 1. ,2[.
II. Certifications: A. Has sufficient certifica-tions to be classed as a grade / level A inspector in the discipline to which the I' employee is presently assigned.
B. Has sufficien$ certifica-tions to be dlassed as a grade / level B inspector in the discipline to which' the employee is presently assigned. t )(
C. Has sufficient certifica-I 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.
l' I
l CONPIDCNTIAL Page 2 of s 1
1
OA/QC Insonctor Form s. -
III. Deoendabilitv: A. Was not available for work
- {'
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 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of
- scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in -
~
the past twelve months. .
! l l I I
.- j.
s
{ .
l l
l C .
C O N i'in c x 7 a y_,
Pace 3 of 5
--w _ _-
Y ,
CA/OC Inso7ctor Form;9 #
E.1PLOYEE RATING
( 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 suoer-visors should under no circumstances allow cersonality or other facts not related to the emolovee's actualonjob Ratings performance CPSES seniority to and plav any role in these ratings.
attendance (nos. 4 and 5) should be verified bv checking the.
emolovee's current personnel fi-le. . When the employee has been rated in each of tne 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 space in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of this form. '
- 1. Aoplication of Aeorceriate Inseeetion Acceotance criteria
- a. Demonstrates extraordinary knowledge of and proficiency ini pplying a appropri, ate inspectionit 3 acceptance criteria. *
- b. Demonstrates acceptable level of knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropriate inspec- 2 tion acceptance criteria.
- c. occasionally indicates lack of sufficient knowledge of and/or proficiency in application 1 of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria.
- d. Frequentir indicates a lack of acceptable f
knowledge of and/or proficiency in application of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria O such as to necessitate retraining.
r
- 2. Quality of Documentation
- a. Consistently produces written reports thae 3 are highly accurate', neat, and thorough.
- b. Majority of written reports are accurate, 2 neat, and thorough.
p
- c. Accuracy, neatness, and/or thoroughness of 1 written reports is sometimes lacking.
- d. Written reports are usually inaccurate,
~
O incomplete, and/or untidy. ,
3 .. cocoe ra tion
- a. Entnusiastically accepts new assignments and 3 cooperates with supervision and coworkers.
- b. Generally willing to accept new assignments 2 and to cooperate with supervision and coworkers.
- c. cecasionally resists new assignments and/or occasionally does not cooperate with supervision 1 or coworkers.
- d. Frequently, resists new assignments and/or generally refuses to cooperate with supervision O e-d'-r ce.erkerr.
j .
i .
CONrmtNTuf_ ' page 4 of 5 L
E _
CA/QC Incoactor Form 13
- 4. CPSES Seniority 3
(~-} a. Five years or more
- b. Three years or more but less than five years 2 One year or more but less than th.ree years 1 .
c.
Less than one year O d.
- 5. Attendance .
- a. Missed 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work or less for any reason (except vacations) during the past 6- - - - - -
12 months.
l 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 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of s'cheduled work for an.y reason (except vacations) during the .past 12 months. I
- d. Missed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work .
for any reason (except vacations) in the past O i
12 months. ,i TOTAL RATING SCORE:
^%
L r
s 1
l i
I
( .
1 i
CONT!DENTIAL Page 5 of 5
)
QA'/QC INSPECTOR ROF RATING FORM
,n ROF Category Rank: 1 NAME: he, dens a Categories: I /3 Badge No.: 4 G / 2. t ' II 19 Discipline: ce r c e D III A Rating Score:
Date: 7 '
Mper' visor Completing This Form
,wk Dato: ? ME4 Reviewing Supervisof l
- t f
INSTRUCTIONS This form is comprised of two parts. In the first part, the ,
employee is to be categorized according to security clearance, In the second
- level of certification, and dependability factors.
part, the employee evaluated on knowledge and application of appropriateis to be, inspection acceptance criteria, quality of documentation, cooperation, CPS,ES seniority and attendance, assigning the appropriate numtfor of points to the employee for each rating factor. All Rating and Reviewing Suoer-visors should note that this form presumes that the imployee being rated shares the strong commitment to quality that is critical to the QA/QC program at Comanche Peak. Any employee whose commitment in this regard is subject to doubt should be l
brougnt immediately to the attention of senior management so that an assessment of the need for immediate termination can be made.
k I
i 1
~
e CONFIDENTIAI.
- , - - - - , - . - --~..,..--,-_,.,,.--,,,,,a,-:-.-..--...-
OA/QC Insp2ctor Form J l r
. IDENTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES
, .m
-- 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 ca teg o ry identifications be done .
a ccura telv for each employee. After this part of the ratina form is completed, therefore, all information should be verified by checkino the er.olovee'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 y access to Unit 1. A B .* Employee has been denied clearance for unescorted access to Unit 1.
II. :ertifications: A. Has sufficient certifica-tions to be classed as a grade / level A inspector in the discipline to which the
- (~,_ employee is presently y
- assigned. A -
B. Has sufficie&t certifica-tions to be blassed 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.
l l
Page 2 of 5 l
, , -Wh m ona%Recen m A g I
,. III. Deoendability: A. Was not available for work
..s' 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 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any. reason (exclusive of vacations) in the past twelve months. , M
( r~
L
?
.' i l.
l CONrmD u Page 3 of 5 l
74amanR7tcmrTrsrew q 3..
EMPLOYEE RATING To rate the employee, circle the numerical score at the
($N 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 actual Joo performance to plav any role in these ratings. Ratings on CPSES seniority and attendance (nos. 4 and 5) should be verified by checking the employee's current eersonnel file. When the employee has been rated in each of the f ollowing aspects of job performance the employee's total rating accre 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. Aeplication of Appropriate Insoection Acceptance criteria
- a.
Demonstpates extraordinary knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropri, ate inspection acceptance criteria. 3
- b. Demonstrates acceptable level of knowledge of and proficiency in applyin'g appropriate inspec-c.
tion acceptance criteria.
Occasionally indicates lack of sufficient
- ()
knowledge of and/or proficiency in application i' of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria. 1 4
g- d. Frequently indicates a lack of acceptable ji s knowledge of and/or proficiency in application
'~'
of appropriate inspection acceptance cr,iteria such as to necessitate retrainigg. O
, 1
- 2. ,
Quality of Documentation
- a. consistently produces written reports thae are highly accurate, neat, and thorough. 3
- b. Majority of written reports are accurate, neat, and thorough. 2 i c. Accuracy, neatness, and/or thoroughness of -
i i written reports is sometimes lacking. 1
- d. Written reports are usually inaccurate, '
incomplete, and/or untidy. O
- 3. cocoe 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 Occasionally resists new assignments and/or l c.
. occasionally does not cooperate with supervision or coworkers. 1
- d. Frequently resists new assignments and/or generally refuses to cooperate with supervision e-f 'er eeverkers. O
\4{, .
CONr M KiiM '
page 4 of 5
Grn;nsn50talMP'tsrsw . ...
. y
\
. 4. CPSES Seniority Five years or more 3
[ a.
Three years or more but less than five years
[,.
~
- b. q
- c. One year or mere but less than three years 1/
- d. Less than one year
- 5. Attendance i
- a. Missed 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> 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 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of abheduled work for any reason (except vacations) during the .past 12 months. 1
- d. Missed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (except vacations) in the past ,
12 months. O
, TOTAL RATING SCORE: )
(f-
~
L r
I l
I i
l l
t CONFIDCNTIAL Page 5 of 5
r o,.
-- ,_e
[ ., - .
1 QA'/Qd TNSPEO"'OR RU1? RA'"INO FORM O . ,
.' RCF Category Rank: 1 -
l
[/#/2 W Categories: T A l NAME: II /> I Badge No.; yn ,.c u -
Discipline 1 e c I. 4 :_ D III g
- . . - .. Ratisug Scoze t/ ..
Dabei ~'
? $~ Y
- Super-nsor Complet:.ng Onis Form s 4 k- tate: '7 !6Y Reviewing Su rvisor j ff[ & ;
i
' / !
TNSTRUCTIONS i.
Thi.s 2:x=nr is comprised of two -p' arts. In the first part, the employee is to be categorized according to security clearance, level of certifi:ation, and dependability factors. In the second C~.', part, the employee is to be evaluated on knowledge and application of appropriate inspectisd ac=eptance criteria, quality of documentation, coopera.tien, CP:(E3 t.mr seniority of paints and 1:o the-attendence, assirjning the appropriate n sting factor. All Ratine end Rwrievine Super _-
g loyer for 4.t.e..
virses should nets- thtt this ferm cresumes that the isolovee berne reced attarer tne streno coer.itmeste to c'3= 11tv that is Any emolovee e-- . t c:a l to the QA/Qt orocra.t at Comanene Peer..
wii we ' ecomi . -a in this recard is sue 7ect to douct sno"Id be
- l-brouent immeciatelv to the attention cd senior manacement so that an assessment et the need for immediate termination can me made. .
.s
- ,. g........, . ., ,
e e e S. ,
e p M .
l >
--~ - -
"- . - . - - _ _ -~ _ ~ _
- _
-]
5,
- CA/oc Inneeerce Farm 1,. ..t -
' A u::.n e .m A"' TON OF TMPt.CTEE CKtECORTES I b
Please identify the category most clearly applicable to the employee by checking the most accurate response for I, II and I Tt is eenential that cateeorv identifientions be done l belou -
aum .telv for eacn empleve.e. After enis oart of t he ra t.ine ferrer l 1s comoleted, tnarefere, all indermation ehould be veritied t:ry Once the g
c hec.a.1.no tne emolovee's current personnel file. !
apy ,,, hte categories t>=ve Deen identified =aA Tei-4 ' 4 A , the I
- .latture at then responen -f : ' '- for I, .II. .and III Mlow shan21d. be . . _ _
. .-de.d in thm .appea- 4 =m space in the upps: right corner of ,
the. fi. cat page of this fcren '
)
, t
- ~
I. security clearance; 4 Nuployee has not been denied
- clearance for unescorted
{
access to Unit 1 1 Employee has been3 denied
[
- R.*
M clee ance fer unes ac=ess to Ur.it 1 II ce--eifica tions: A Bas M
- 4 e-4-ent co.~4
- ice--
c.ione to % A ====^ as a. ;' .;'
rpede/ lowel A 1= ,- ' - 11 . ,,
the discipline to whictr the
- 1. . - ar c
,1 ignea.
y R Nas - + " 4 '- ' arrt- car d-"# e= --
tioHE to De M 4S &
grade / level 3 inspector in the discipline to whicB the ,
employee is r My u .. l .
. . _ .. ... :. ..a
' ~' *
~... --
t ;, , amar w.'W.
'unr* 4'*4 ~ .-
- :~ '* % *
.~
'tions to be classed as s - .
grade /1vvel C im r M .in
- the A4 W 14am to which the
. .. . pi, i, _;_- - -my -
& -p=i.
D, ges 3., M 4s=4 mgt ca.g* 4 *4r=m
- i: ens to be classed as a grade / level D 1-p se in
- Ag T * *,*, . * = = .. . . M ##" ** I #
- 22 M ch thD '
' . . ~. . ' . .
., . employe 't.a pe===ntly .
g, z Trainee.
TCs ,6.3J . . .
, .. { ,
2 e-
. .. _ . . . . . . . . ~ . . . ... , _ , .. . . __
O A /OC ' Insioe ctor F orm .,.f" Was not available for work h In. Deoendabiliev: A.
for 80 or f ewer hours of
. sche u ed l d work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the past twelve months.
B. Was not available for work for more than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of
' scheduled verk for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in I -
- - ttw past tuelve months. ,
l t
l l l l
,e L *
?
s s
i 88 IB *b *&
< .g! t& .g e
Pege 3 cf 5
""""""", ===% ==
CA/O: Insoector Foro .-
. I I
E".PI,CTEE R A"ING i
':'o rate the e=ployee, circle the numerical accre that at most the right-hand margin that cerresponds to the responseemployee's Ratinos approach to his job.
accurately describes the should be done on the most objective allow basis cersonali:v ecssible, and ersuver-o ner visors snould under no circumstances ecolovee's facts not related to the Ratincs on CPSES seniority to actual Soc certermance and clav any role in these racines. .
a -te nda acs (nos. 4 and 5) anould be wnen verified enebv checkine employma hasthe, neeJt!
w ;ovee's current g~rs.onnel 1 1.1 h !
cated sn. maca at une tallowing capects ofrecorded -lob performance in the space the - l e:rt.loyee's total rating secre should beprerided at this the end of the rating first page of space in the upper right-hand corner of the form.
- 1. Aeolication of Accecoriate Insoection Acceotance Criteria Demonstrates extraorcinary knowledge of and a.
proficiency in, applying %ppropri, ate inspection ;' 3 acceptanea criteria. *
- b. Demonstratas acceptable level of knowledge of and pr=iiciency in applying apy.wgriate inspec- 2 tion acceptance criteria.
- c. occasionally indicates lack of sufficient D knowledge of and/or pecticiency in application 1 of .orr_wyciate inspection accey A e criteria L rrequently indicates a lack of acceptable knowledge af and/or proficiency in application fs i
of appropriate inspect.icn acceptance c:-iteria O such as to nacassitate retraining.
s.
~
?
- 2. 0"*iitvCons;:stancly of Uce=ments. tion produces written reports thae 3 are trivhly ae wt*, neat., .and thorougts.
a.. -
- scro accurate, b mthCy at w tten . % 7 n e e.t , m a d. 1. L , 6 h .
- c. Accuracy, neatness, and/e- Thoroughness of 1 writtee reports is sometimee lacking.
L. #cirteer reports are usually i--te, O
~~ - 1 :r = ; % c am a r.6 / c v W e lc .
'~ * "
3 c . a tton
.a en=nW * ~ ny wa new assignmetrt:s and 3 cocperates wi-th supervision and c::w.b...
b Ger-e=1ly w4 7 ' tng to accept. new assignments 2 and to. cooperate wit.h supervision and coworkers.
- c. cecesional.ly resists new assign:: rents and/or occasionally does not cooperate with supervision I or coworkers.
- d. Frequently resists new assignment.s and/or generally = " -==s. to cooperate with superri.sion 0 and/cr cabockers.
(".
V . ,
GWDE11
- Pace 4 cf y
. . ?
- 4. CPSES Seniority 3 O 's a.
b.
Five years or more Three years or more but less than five years 2 1
- c. One year or more but less than three years .
- d. *ess than one year
- 5. Attendance
- a. Missed 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work or less for any reason (except vacat. ions) during the past 6-12 months.
- b. feissed more than 40, but not more than 20, hours of scheduled work for any reason (except 4 vacarions) during the past 12 months. .
- c. Missed mere than 80, but not more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of s'cheduled work for any reason (except 1 vacations) during the past 12 months. 'j
- d. Missed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br />.of' scheduled verk t for any reason (eccept vacations) in the past 1 0
12 months. ,
i TOTAL RATING SCORE: . .
(.
L r s O
y O
- I e
9 9
9 m,
t
. Pace 5 cef 5 ee e ep+ ,
10 s . .
1 1
Q1'/QC TNm...m RUP RJt"ING -FORM ID ROF Category Rank: 3 P Categories: I _J gge ///66/h/f II Bad 17e No..; p c- c 2.
TII ,g d,,
Discip h . <r c- i AD s..4 a e,-,, . . . _
~ ~~ - -~*~:
f .
/ .
lf Superva.sor Courp.Lets.ng This Fo::n h _.7 48 / Date: 9!kA4 ,
Rev:. ewing Supesvuscy /-
. y 7 " ty - : 7/2- s?f- ,
INSTRUC" DNS '1
\
i In the "d M part, the-h 2 :=zr i.s comp:1. sed of dus. ;=a=- - !
employee isd to be w;md M = z - Jing an W sr.Le-wrw-=,.
'i n tion, and dep 60 ability factors. In the second law =1 of cert =d on knt:maledge end par _, the ==;i tyee is t= n en1" ap -ian ed appropri m inspection accepta.nce m',.twria, tp-=1 + y of A d cocpe'n ~4 fin , CPSIS meniority and
-d em, attendance, asstquinty the %mdate .d r trf points *a the ne end 1ter.dwvine scr.,s- -
employee ter M = sting facter. A1.' Ra that the imulevee vian=3 should note that this f orm eresumes de:.n r : ated share s ;r,+ st_ .. . commitment to q"=14tv snat is Any.emolovee
- j.l ;,"- *- ' , .Catal to 2:Se.QA/QC Drocram at Comanene Peek.
.'t ?~' -
wnese commi ---s in this recard is sunwc:- .4., . isen10'*to demanactment etioM d b so e Ca t b? OUC nt 11MmeC',l.a t? iv to the 4 0te rrtion an assessmerrt et ne neec for immeduce termination can ne made.
- .. . .:.. a-.,..,,. .
- - n. 1, /.
. e. . . . . . . ,
.. . , .w ..,x. 4 . ... , .
k.as. .
. . = , '. ' ..
- s,
@C Y f- T- .
i s- .. - . .
-- s -- - - _ ____ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
f l
C A/QC ITtsvector ?mm:r .c, .
4
.i.v=.n ucA'" ten or EMPLOTEE CATE::oRIES .
r i
~
Please identify the category most t:leerly applicable to the .
. employee by check.ing the most ace = rate response for I, II and I.II -
l trelou It is eeeencial that cateoorv After enis identifientions eart of the'be racine donefer=w - '-
'I accuretelv is comoleted for eacn , therefore, emolovee. all inf orma tion should be verified by I Once the ched-H an ene enclovee's current eersonnel f i.l=ade . ==="4 "4 d - the
~epr .,y. ate categories taeve oeen identati"
'M- ,;foc I, .II, .and 'III hi a=.- =h'- i A tan . _ _._. ,
-ue c. of the .respsynee 7 "
. socneded in tha h- 7--o ='*= . space in the apper right enener c2 the "Jf.mst. page of N f .
I. sec=rity clearance- A. $nrployee has not been denied -
clearance for unescorted. X
.j R.* access Employee tohas Unitbeen' 1.) denied
- j c.learmace far unesem= tad
===s en Unit 1 . .
- cW ficatiens
- Jt 15em saf.ficient co -* *
- 4 "= -
tiene to be classed en a. . . .
~* #2
. .e r- ~ ,3/ m A _ , ^ ' 1:n . ?: -
the discipline to whictr the r - - - - - - -
m1aree is p = W ...........- -
~~~
.essigned.
. 3.. ans ->$ *" 4-.-3 =ep- +-=*-* "4 -a. .
'- tionar to be F1mased aar a, A/ Level in Lay.u in
~
.~.
the discipline to which' the -
employee
- is y. _. 9.
.._L . . ~
A- . ._ _ c - -
c;r, , . -c .-- . - . . . .~. . .
.h---? e . : , .~ .,...., . ..,.
tions to be' classed as e g.rade/ level C i- A @ c in the 44 -f p1
- ne to which the *
- '- imump1tryee is yu . .
.X s e.,ned .
n ens suffici. eat ce * ***=-
A .s == be ela _ .i as ra.in p .h/ level D i.w
- . .. ttme 44 =ed--'* = t o. W '-*' t h e ,, ,.
- . : :c . :: .7 v-- - : ~.: .~ .L , .
suployene. is present1.y n.-
a . :: . ... . . .... .. :., a; . . . ,,
,, , .. a ~ y m .. - . . . . .
Z: T=ainee.
- - t .. - .- __ ... -..,
- - . . , i, . . ,
P.. .
. . ~ ~ . . .
. ,,, r . - f _ _.:-
.,.x. . .c. . ..
,, , . g. g .,
- s. . . . , - ., 3 .g . . . ,
- e. esa e
QA/QC 'Innoeeter Fe :1.,,,'
t
. . i .
nI . Deoendabi.liev: A. Was not available for work
( ,
ter 80 or fewer hours of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the I past twelve months. ,
- 3. Wa.s not av=41ahle for verk ;
for more than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in - -
- the pest twelve months. .
I i
.I I i i L
?
s
. s_ .. . .
s
. GWub.httu1._
w3eg
1 - -- _ .'., . .. 7' ;;. _ ,; ,, -- . , , , . ,,
0 .
CA/oc Insoeetor Foro *.. m s
t "E?!PI.CY'ItZ RI"D:G
> To rate the employee, circle the numerical ecore at .the
[
right-hand margin that corresponde to the response that most accurately describes the employee's approach to his job. Ratinos should be done on the most ob$eetive basis nossible, and ecoer- '
visors should unoer no circu= stances allow oersonaliev er etner facts not related to t.he enclovee's actual ion oerformance to o' av any role in these racines._ Ra t.:.nc s on CPSES seniority and .
attendance (nos. 4 end 5) should be. ~4nen verified
~ w bv a mp1checti.no
= g - = bas the.been ecoloy=e's current osernorrael ti.la _
-m **d J.17. a&cn Cf. CD4 tallonrt.ng aspects Cf job "perforBaTrcS the - I es:ployee's total rating score should be recceded in the space i provided at the end of the rating -section.and in the ap=~ rd =* e space in the upper.:riprt-hand corner of the .tirst page of this .
sga,
- 1. Ace 14-ation of Abu. uriate Insoettien Acceotance Criteria
- a. . Demonstrates ext.raord nary knowledge of and preficiencT in, applying appropri, ate inspection;I 3 ac=eptance critaria *
- h. Demonstrates acceptable level of k:rowledge of a:nd. , .=ii.ci.ency in applying ser.,gciate inspec- 2 tien a _ ,r-ace m iteria.
e- occueirnally indicates lack cf sufficient
-k=oaledge cf and/or p. ~8* -ncy in appli a ' m 1
-crf w y-i~~~ h p+ 'mrw p-m1- .-
d ~F m - " y indica.es a lack of acceptable brouledge ef md/c:: proficiency in applies +.me of appecpriate inspection ee=eptance crite=ia O such a:s to n=cmasita.te r= ^ -
- ~3 g.
L
- 2. O M-c=uststas=1y 'tv c" Us - 'stion i produces written repcrts that a 3
==e histrly e-_ .;m', neat, and th azgti.
b .. 'ter.ic=i=y at w=Ltten .,~_ ==m ete, 2
. w .,med.L- Q
, t c:i, Ac._.= racy , neatness , and/m-- thv. @ news of 1 written reports i.s screcimes lacking.ta, d *citten reports are usually i ~ --- D A = 9 taw..end/or - -"dr.. ,
cocuencion 1
a En nME M N M-y RC=epts new d*TM:lects and 3 secperates with supervisien and coverkers.;
c .t> Gasw ent'y w'714 9 to ec=ept. new amaiw 2 and to. wv ate with s% . ision and coverke=s -
oc=meienally resist:r neu assie .c und/or c ..
o&4 6 y does net %;.geta with s:.m .1sien I or co cerkers.
- d. Trequently resistsOn new arsi mc and/or
=co en e wi.t.h supervision
. eenatal.Ly m"~s. O
,e=d./cr coworka=s. .
WQ.5% -
m=, . .. .
~ - . .. .
=
. DA/OC 2nCo*Ct T h 'i.,.'t' s
O
- 4. C'PSES Senie:-itv 3
.a . P::ve ~ veers ot more 2
- b. *:'hree years or Trore but less than five years
- c. One yee.r or me== but less than 'moe yea =s
'l
- e. _ =h - .
- 5. Attendance
- a. nir red 40 1-. trf JJ1ed erork or less Tar
.. ... any ==a a'n., (*zeept vacations) ?uri.ng the past m
6- - ~ ~ ~ ' " *~
22 m A ~
.b -i i 1 m -therr 40, br.rt not 3:ste than 64, - -.. . - - ---
hon =y of escheduled work for any reason (except 4
vacariens) d==ing the past 22 wenths.
.c . Missed more than 80, but not more than 120 _
hours of si.h. eduled erork fcr en_y reason '(except 3.
vecetione) during the .past 12' wd.bs. - -
Missed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of sche ee ed work .
d.
for any reason (except vscations) in the past .
- 2 months:. }
.i TotKL RK:ING SCORF.:
.J.,, . . . < ... .
- m. .: . .
. . a.r.s. .. .< ..
7_ ..... . e ...3..,.
.- .. .. . ...;... ..:... ,g
. .. w. . .s .
u ... ,
~ . . . . . . . .. .- .
. .. .. .... .. s.....
. 4 n- .
.- ... s 3
.c...
. ~. . .. ...
. . , g.. .
. . .=.. q A w- ;.:;.
<m .,. s . . . - - .. :..
.....a.
=. . ..,..m,.
. ...-...m.
.m.,, .
. ., y..... . . . . m.. .. .
. . a. .,
..c +:
. . . . 1 ,,.
.. o n. -- :. . . . .. - . ..- -
. n .. :. . . .::
. . . . .. ..,,.r..,.- .. . . . . .. . . . : .. . .: ....: ..... u .. ~ .,,.: , .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . ..
- e. .. .. .. . . . ,
j.,, .
... ..~ . .. . . .. . . . . _ . . . .. .
.: .~. km. 2.. . .s :. ;. .,;.a. ,.~ :.u,.ac..J.m c:. . ..,. . : ,.a ,.arn. ....2. . ,, :a .
. . ........ .. .. . ~
. .-;..-s..... ......
. , .w.......
. .. .. . . ~ . . . , . ....~...s. n: . . . .. . .. . ..=
- 9. .. ,
.- ~, ;ix~t? f*
-- .... .-, 2 .w..
s- w='- .' .. a. . ,,,
- 5. . -
. . _ .. .- n ~.%. .~..v.,...
.,...,.....r,,. . .. .. . ~.
, , . , . -2 ., . . , . . . .
. . . I..* .~
l
- e. .- l. s e y l
QA/QC INSPECTOR ROF RATING FORM
~.
ROF Category Rank: 2_
NAME: hefer- K Categories: I O Badge No.: H-4 e t, II g Discipline: C c. t FCA III M Rating Score:
w Date: ')f7ff"t/~ ~
l Mupirrvisor Completing This Form
.h. k/ Date: j [94#
Reviewing Supervisor /
" - h plSTRUCTIONS This form is comprised 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, cpg lS seniority and attendance, assigning the appropriate num8er of points to the
' employee for each rating factor. All Rating and Reviewing Super-visors should note that this form presumes that the imelovee beino rated shares the strong commitment to quality that is critical 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. .
L b e ke r p.,A a ct o - c w A at,ence.
ODO l
1
-CONTI.UCNiG4JL
'f
. IDENTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES Please identify the category most clearly applicable to the
({,,', employee by checking the mos t accurate response for I, II and III l below. It is essential that ca teg o ry identifications be done accurately for each emoleyee. After this cart of the rating form is comole ted , therefore, all information should be verified by eneckina tne emplevee'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 j the first page of this form. i l l I. Securit'v Clearance: A. Employee has not been denied ,
clearance for unescorted '
access to Unit 1. )k 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 employee is presently
'm )(
('
~
assigned.
B. Has sufficient certifica-tiens to be &lassed as a grade / level I inspector in the discipline to which' the employee is presently assigned. "~~~
C. Has sufficient certifica-3 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.
p %
CONsT3DGrr. Page 2 of 5
- . . _ - - _ . ._ - ... . .-._:?_ . ~ L_ . . ::.-- _
. . ~ . . _ _ - _ . . - - . -.u--.. ,~n...,
~ .9 w., , ,a g. a.u , ,,- - -.
. III. Deoendability: i. Was not available for work 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 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the past tvelve months. X d
(~. _
L
?
. s e i l
?
l 1
l I
CONrma m Pace 3 of 5 i
g ,. ,,,,,.c._..-___
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 oossible, and super-visors should under no circumstances allow personality or otner facts not related to the employee's actual $co performance to plav anv role in these ratings. Ratings on CPSES seniority and attendance (nos. 4 and 5) should be verified by checking the emplovee's current personnel file. When the employee has been rated 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 space in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of this form.
- 1. Aeolication of Aoprooriate Inspection Acceotance Criteria-
- a. Demonstrates exrraordinary knowledge of and .
proficiency in applying appropri, ate inspection acceptance criteria. 3
- b. Demonstrates acceptable level of knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropriate inspec- 1 2
tion acceptance crite ria.
- c. Occasionally indicates lack of sufficient knowledge of and/or proficiency in application 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 O such as to necessitate retraining.
.I
- 2. Quality of Documentation
- a. Consistently produces written reports thae are highly accurate, neat, and thorough. 3
- b. Majority of written reports are accurate, neat, and thorough. 2 Accuracy, neatness, and/or thoroughness of, c.
written reports is sometimes lacking. 1
- d. Written reports are usually inaccurate, incomplete, and/or untidy. 0
- 3. Cocoe ra tio n
- a. Enthusiastically accepts new assignments and cooperates with supervision and coworkers. 3
- b. Generally willing to accept new assignments and to cocparate 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 refuses to cooperate with supervision 0 r - d 'er eevert:e rs .
-C CONT!GENTILI. '
Page 4 of 5
- 4. CPSES Seniority
- a. Five years or more 3 p
b.
c.
Three years or more but less than five years One year or more but less than three years 1
- d. Less than one year O
- 5. Attendance
- a. Missed 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> 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 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of s~heduled c work for any reason (except vacations) during the past 12 months. 1 Missed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work
~
d.
for any reason (except vacations) in the past -l 12 months. 0 TOTAL RATING SCORE: [
e L
i ._
i CON. CCGTdd. Page 5 of 5
m ~^
~ - q_ja sg a _ _
,,,..**M'*" ' '"^Ms-i 9 .
OA'/QC TMSPEO""JR RC* h"ING FORM <
i (3 ROF Category Rank: 1 M1 i Categ h a- 7 J NAME: 37N '/ TI A Sadge No : rf C 'l n n TII B Discipline-: 4 r - ' 5: <._ h
. . . . . . .m... . . . . . ppy sea.::e -._
[ , , _
w
~ ~ ~ * ~ '
g& lfy
- Tupervi.scr Courplet'ng This Fo=m
.D ed e Late: 7b!M '
Rev:.ew:ng Supervi.scr i
7 .+//<f
.?/b hf y
L' E
~
cf M In t he fi:"3*.* . %, t.he-
"M hM 94.t".*".3
- -y ei = - -,
empicywe is t=r be ategt:r:-i .wd. ecc::rr~"-my ::::s c: In 1:he eecond level of ced '4 r-= tion, and dependability on knowledge taw .
end pa. -, the @vywe 41s to be..ev= 1 -=M -
app 1 * " ien af ai,gcapriate inspec icn acc=e.;
-ra.td.cu., m a meniority n=e c::riteriaf and q=al.ity cf as_,.;.eien,^ng -r-mr-athe tandance,
. y .iate M nQr af points to 1:he-
.en:pleywe fe: M. nt* ng facter. All Ratere and Reviewine scoer-.
visors shocid note that this form cresumes una: the imelovee derne re. : rnares the smso; ecums. ::nent toPeak c'u l_ ADY ity ena: ee l =:a 746 3Eir 4.=
12:31.T.3 :::De Q A/ QC UJ Ji .as at Z$:r: +.7. ""lC dssi.' ShCCld 233* . -
"*~'~ -
twi;Gie C"lMME:1 -.G iTT t.*. Tis recar**. iS ScD brCUOnt is.. 6 C l a : ? i v to cme attent 00 CI Sen10"* manauerrent sc i.bC an assau .rt cf the neec for 1= mediate ter=ination can se mace.
- .. n : ,.. ,. .
- e
- .u. w. _
4--..- . ., ., 3. . . $. g r;g. ,., ., , . , ,, ,
-~
g, v, .
a..+= '......,.n.....,. ... ,, , , , , , . , .* . ., v ..
O c=a_.w 2 :.
... . . .c. . w ..
O
(
"f QA/OC Insee= tor Perm .-
2.v:: r.;_r aCA" CM OF YMPI,CTEE CATt:ORIES
(-
Please identify the category most clearly applicable to dthe III
-employee by checting the most ace = rate response for I, II an ~
-bel.ow It is *esential that catecorv After identifications enis part of thebe radone_ ine feri:r a_s- comele etelv forted*ecn enclovee.
, tnere f ore , all inf ormation should be venfied bv Once tne ene + na une emnlovee's current eersonnel file. verd ad, the r ace categones neve been ident.2.1:ed =ad c -t the zeeponse, e 'M for I, .32..and Ill be. low shm ' M taa . ..
y, .
.. w mia la.tha spy: .
- ' =** .mpm== in the nyper right corner cut ,
~'
ttte "4 - e page af th .a form.
~ ,
I. sec=rity Clearance: A. $mployee has not been denied
. clearance for unescorted j access to Unit 1.g I a.* Employee has been denied
- j clearance far unesecreed , e
- necess to Cuit 1 .
ce--_.J *i=3-W- A Emar ecfficient certific -
.ticas em be e--'asa. ,
Af Zeuel a -y -- Arr ' . ~
the eiscir' 6e to whi=tr the
..e ep p 1s. i., -
essigned.
.;17
.y .
L . Ass =++ *"4*-* W ce*-' 4 "4 =--
- . . tionar to ise *W ** *
. ., A / level i inspector in the dise4f % to uhLch ne employee" is v .217
. . .. l . .
~
' ^
-.~ .a.L w : .. . ~ .... . ... : -.. .
yW. __ ,,z, & *% +
m.: e ....g -
. p .:.c.--x i ' '
%j.-'
tions to be classed as a
. grade / level C ins k .cr in
. . ehe 44 s71 % to wl.ich *y the *
., L . . . .mepl-oyee is j ~
BSEI9 bed
- g m gw ,ae emetigie:e t=mns to 2:er e' = - i as a w.J / leo =1 D in= AM in
. ~a. .. . - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. esse m. a * .
. n schich the. ..
. S ., . v...,. r_. .
employee is ;seeen.ntly ,. . ... . . . . .
. . - z Trainee.
.a .
- . . . w . .. *.
.- : .. . . . .. .. - . % ,2
. g. _4~ . y .:.;- q. - ,
~
.D
. .. L_ - . .
a
_O A /o c
- ns oe cter tha_ e1>
e e
nI . Deoendabiliev: A. Was not available ter work j for 80 or fewer hours of
. scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in t.he past twelve inonths.
- B. Was not ava.ilable for wo=k for more than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in .7 . .
the past: twelve inonths.
l l ! }
L
~=
s
- ~._._....
l l
.,a.. -
0
- CCIEM '* -
Pege 3 cf 5 .
~~
CA/Qt Insoect=r Fe w , ,
. l .
EMPLOYEZ RATING
'- To rate the employee, circle the numerica.1 score at the
- right-hand margin that corresponde to the response that most 4ta tines accurately descri.bes the employee's approach to his job. ou,-r- !
should be done on the most obieetive basis nossible, and ~
visors snould under no circumstances allow cersonality or etner facts not related to the emnlovee's Raactual ince on7oc CPSES cerfu.i.ance senterityto and olav any role in these racines. .
attendance ( n es . 4 and 5) should be verified bv checkina une.
- emelovee's currerst personneA fi.la. . When :ne emp1Oy e has Dean !
mated .txt sacs ci taa follow.ng aspects :of job perferesance the - I employee's total rating score shculd be recceded in the srpeco M sr*w I provided at the end of the rating section.and in the ep m '
space in the upper right-hand corner of the f.irst page af th.is form.
- 1. Aenlie.;ien of Aemc_.,riate Inseect on Accectance Criteria
- a. Demons Jates ex.raord. nary knowledge of and proficiency ini applying appropri, ate inspeerien! 3 acceptance criteria.
- b Demonstrates acceptable level of knowledge of ^
and pref.icien=y in applying spywyciate inspec- 2 tien a w f nce criteria.
oc---~imally indicates lack of suf ficient c " '
kncmaledge or _, 7 _ w af ,. +and/or pr "n'ciency
_ q__- 4_. % ,,,w sinm appli= ,. a_ .
31
- d. h. e y indicates a lack of.eceeptable
.kntnaledge of and/or preciciency in applicatio=
rm, late inspectitm as ei..nce critarda of O such as to. ne&= ~' 'mta '-=% '- 4 m =
L
.2 . rp=tity cf Documentatitrn ?
- a. Consistently produces .urit. ten report.s tha? 3
=== t:ighly eccurati, neeta and thoroust.
.. . . . _ h ..W.b _y of written _ w e e te,~ ~~ ~- ~ ~*
"I W . and G -- - -_% . .
- c. Av scy, neatness, and/w. i.6.sup ness of .
I written m ,~_ is sometimee lacking.
Weitterr reports are a-"= ' ' y 4" -ns-=te, d D
~ .i.rr__ - . t% and/or "' -d 4 . ,
. ~ .
.~ .
ceeseration' 3.
a Enzn'-=" == ' r= V7 y am y ;. new aawd mments and 3 coomarates with supervi= don and euwerkees.
~~' T y ard ' ' 4 "- to ac=ept.new assiw - s p
- b and to. rscp. ta with ou,,- lsion and eta.w a - -
and/o=-
y
.. .u..,,,,,.,
- - c. & W salir resists seu assi ocm *4ena.lly does not - y . te with supervision -
me I
or coverkers.
- d. F equently resists new assi m ..;. and/or
. cenerally r-N==s. n coopers.te with supetri.sion 0 e=d/or cowocha--s. .
~ .
W4 i[L '-
7mge 0.cf.Y
. _; . . e,
, .g-CA/oc Incoeeter P=== / .
- i i
1
~
- 4. CPsts Senioritv :
. a. Five v 2
/ b. *:'t'.ree ears or moreyears or screw but less than five years 1 -
c One year or scre but lares than three yea =s - -,, - -
d I,ess thmo com year 1
- 5. Attendan== , -
- a. m.ssed 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> trf ormar. led arerk or less far
. .._. . . ..... any reason. (,%.t racet.Lons) during the past 12 e:yrrths. .
hl 's:::e therr 40, bat rrot more 2: hen 40, ....-w---- -
b hours of , r daled work toe any reason (except 4 vacations) du=ing the past 12 - h=.
- c. Missed more than 90, but not more than 120
hours of si:hed= led work for any Teason Tezcept 2.
vacations) during the past 12 E ai."as.
. 4 3
- d. Missed more thsn 120 tours of scheduled vot:k j for any reason (except vacations) in the past ,
U t
i 12 months. ,
)
. N RA':'ING SOCRF -
- .:. , ;c . .:
. :.. a ; . . .. .n . .. ..,.,., . .. . o .,,,.e.
. . .... . .....,._.a....
.. .<.~
.. . .e .
.. .. . . . . . . . .?. .
r: -
. . g, . ..::... .
t
, j :.. . , .
s
' . u __..-n--._-_-
.m -.::. 4.. , . c. .e . - -
.~
. a ;;_. . ~ .: :.u . :
- .. . .: .a
.,.. .:.,. .p;y.:- ..
y..:. . ,. .
- 9. , . .
. . -.: ~ .
.. .. s ? .. .. . . .
. . .s ...s.._4.. . . . . .. -. .: . . . ._ , 3. r . .. . . .. ..
., g . .. .
.. ,- .m _..i.5.h. . .. _ . . - . . .... , . , c q. n .. ,,.:.m n . , . . .. ;. ..
m .. . . , . . . . . ..
. . . .~.a .
. .n. . . . . . . . . . . n _ g.. :... _
- s: . .
s
.g .
w . .
T+me . .
- g. g. . k . _x.
- . _v-'x :: . s .:. .h.2 p.. ,.:=_ e;. . . .
y ,.
y,=.,
- .. .. ,.g.-t. u..... , ;- .
.~.,.-
. ,. .,y; . .e. . ....;......
. .:. c -
cg, . .*y. ,
t
- s. . . .
l -
-m me
_ ~ AH-
1-Y .
.{/$
8 QA'/QC TNx=.waUic RCP RK'"ING FORM l
i O.
2_
ROF Category 7 tank.: ,
2.4N#fo ?D /7 CP tegories: I A NAMEn II A 3adge No.: "9 "4
- r W e_ 3 M S Discipline *
. , - . . , w. -. -. . - . ,
. ? *8 ag Sc:22:a: ..
R :-
w 44
" Super 71.scT Complet'ng This Fo=m h.,x s Dat~e: Y'l $4 7 Rev:. ewing Scpeni.sor j
' h/8 f,
. Ins m w_vgs l
l
- .4 se L is. G.p -imod of two- part.%. On the "h M, t.he- ,
I empic:7ee 1s tz:r h 1:ategorized ac=meding =c mes - y In -lue=ancer the second
{
level o f cer*-' '* r-= tion , and dependability fact =rs.
l the ==p1-syee is to he -e# "M on knowledge- and
('
! part,
- applica-Mr. cf. appr priate inspection acceptance miteria, q=ality et th:nrasen*atien, m%, C7sEs ah y and aOterdnee, assigning the a v -e iste e-Fr cf PciW 8 ':D
- g leyee for M =ating facter. A.12 Ratine and ReviMne Sceer--
visors should note that this fnem cresumes ena: :ne ecolovee be:.nc rn =f stares tne swawne commitment Cemanene Oc Pnx- cualiev Anv that elt:Olovee i.s he, . .
s _ : cal.ta L. CA/QC w.ww.am at TD deu:t M C"Id N '- - .
- "' w;3.,.s c , :::rrnt in this recard is sus N- sact brouc .O linL+Cla te lv OO One attent;cn c't sen ;Oa:- manaceme'Mt so o an a.yseSuc3** CI One need 107 1mmeM ate tel-SinatiCn Can be mRC8.
. , . :. ,;..--.. . s
.. s.. s.'.
. . . * ..y..
l t
I i
s
~ . .
..m A rF y . ._i 4 n L%M c ? . #
g
, t
. s A ssr. ._ a dA""CM 01? EMPI.CTEE CA'"E:' 01CES
'~ Please identify the cate7ery nest clearly applicable to the I employee by checking the most ace = rate response for I, II.and m Tt is essential that catecorv identifications be -done_ I -
telow r.w At:er tnis cart of the ratinc for:r is u ,uole otelv ted ter eacn , tnerefore, ecolovee.all inf orma tion s hould be Once the verified bv_
cnect nc une emnlovee's current eersonnel 12.le. vaH "4mcb the ate categories have been identif. led ="AM -- et 2.,ae responee hM for I, ,II up 5 % ..,. _ ,
...roco=ded..in.the.r.px , Mmte space in the upper right corner of the f'e .page af this farn.
. e i
- ~
- 1. security clearance: A. $mployee has not been denied clearance for un< escorted g j access to Unit 1.g j B* E=plcyee has been denied
- clearance far unes W ,
ac=ess to Unit 1 .
2= ce-ti*ications: A Haar a **4cien. certidica-.
tiene to be classed an m.- irr .
~ ' grader level A b y 7 the disci @e to which =tre-
' "- "# - -employee is w w.rly . . . . . .. .
g .s essignet.
. 3 ans se u .et car..r, _,
tions to be W as a g-=d*/ level ti1.nspector in-the diar-* F
- ne to which' the Meyee dar .;, r?y "7 . 1 , , J ,, ,, ,_ _- - - . - . -
.; - -- 5. ;.- . . m . . -. .- ,
m m ._ . .
tiens to be classed as ain grade / level C ir.=;.,b the discipline to which the
- .m:p.,.% is g my -
assigned.
.n fins sufficie=t cer-*~
tiens to be ~'- W es a grade / level D inspector in a ..-.-..-- . .ttm M W" to. utrich .the '
employee 1.s presentir.'~,..n-"..,.- ....
.~w .
...n.,..,,,...
. . , . . . u .,
.gy, ,-
L Tr2bi2ee.
e a ., ,
~ *
- ,a
, W 1 M 5,'
C .C,, g M _ " '?f,
- _
~,
l j
. ,.F -
a'.'
L OA/OC'Ir.soec*or I'w ,
. i 1
De >endabiliev- . A. Was not available for werk m.
p'-
f or 80 tre fewer hours c scheduled work -for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the -
pas
- twelve morrths.
B. Was not available for work for more than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in .I - -
the past twelve m ths.
i S o e
a e
. -r i
p p . . . - . . . . .. ... ..
. . .. . ... .... . . , , . . . ." w '*
i g
. . e i
s
-e * . **
9*f . e.g .
..'f**
. *
- e t
1 e .
- - .. ._9 . ,
w _ _M -f e ., .
su n . er1* __ r_. , .
Paar 3 ef 5
. Wm
CA/Oc Insoeeter For= f EF!PLC 1!:E RAtTNG w rate the employee, circle the numerical score e.t the .
i s right-hand margin that corresponds to the response that inest 1ta tino s .
accurately desu lbes the employee's. approach to his jeb. m..~;- l should 6 done on the most ob$eetive basis nossible, und i visors snould under no circumstances allow cersonalltv or c:ner ;
fae s not related to the emolovee's actualon Rat.ines 7eoCPSEScerfuraance seniority to M.d I olav any role in these ratines.
a;tendance (nos. 4 and 5) should be verified bv chectino the.
=='N -g-M has Deen 3
M ove+'e cu rent w .wstnel fila. . Idhen Las I
=a.ted 2.rt eacn af. ta= fallowing 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 .ap r W te space in the upper right-hand corner of the f.irst pegs of this t
hre.
1.
Amelic ; ion of hocrooriate Inscect on Accentence Criteria
- a. . Demonstrates extraordinary knowledge of .ind .
proficiency in; applying appropri, ate inspection -l 3 j acceptance criteria. *
- b. Demonst=ates acceptable level of knowledge of and prof.iciency in app 1Ting ge.wyciate inspec- 2 tion a--y::sace criteria.
c o= ~ 4w-ily indicates lack of sufficient knowledge af and/or pr=f.iciency in appli - ' iaa / .:1
- of % =,= =*= ! , -
n- r .s m iu Trequently indicates a lack .of ecceptable 1.
' knowledge zre and/o= pro ^4_c=.<ncy in applicatierr of app.w, late inspection aw . Lance criteria I- - O
.such as ta uncassi.tata ==*--= ' e'7 L
I
- 2. 0 -=T 4 tv o" Documentation a Cons.:ssently produces wri. ten reports that 3 are higtrly eccurata', nees and. thorough
. . . . . . h ?Inda= tty ccf wei.ttum ..,~~ are securete, * '
2-e m d. h 4 ' *
- . As y. neatness, and/or the. w Lness of ,I 1 wri-tten reports is sometimee lacking.~= ,
d Weitten reports are .n-> =i 'y 1- 0
- Irr_- tS aen,..and/or
- 4 .
cocoe-refon ~
3
- a. En=nusiaa*-8 -= 11,f acewyts new assignments and 3 w.,r.ca.es with supervis on and enwerkers.
.- b 71y =**i4 5 to accept.new assignments 2 and to.eceperate with v . 1sion andand/oT cou d- ;s. -
-< c. oc=esional.ly runsiste peu azzip.~J-oc-=M aw= t ly does not c=cperate with supervision I or c--- Ars.
d Frequently resists new assignments and/or ,
- general.17 ieri=ses tn coope. m e with supe =risien 0 and/or coworkers. .
' ~
4 CGDCL ..
72:e C cT . '. ' ,
OA/oc Insoector Form '-
~
- 4. CPSES Senioritv
- a. F2 ve years or 4 sore 3 O ~
b.
c.
Three years or more but less than five years One voar or more b xt less than three years 2 ,
~
A I,ess than m W D -
~
- 3. Attendance
.a. Pr1.ssed 40 t:rces of scheduled work or less for s i
. ... any reason (except vac.ations) during the past . . . . .. .
12 months.
g w ma=, .than 40, isat not more then 60, ..- -
hours of scheduled work for any reason (*z=ept vacations) f.uring the past 12 months, 4
- c. Missed more than 80, but 'not more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> af siheduled, work for any reeson Texcept vacatione) during the.past 12 months. 2. .
- d. Missed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of schedd.ed work }
for any reason (except vac.htions) in the past, j
- . 12 months. .
i 1 l
TOTAT RATING SCORE: i
.c
.......:.,.,,.m..p-e 1
. ,3 .w . ..
....~_...
. . . .. .. n . . . . .
r- .. , .
( ..
g, .
e q a
- .a m .. . .. _ . _ .
. . . ,. .. . , . . , .g...,.....
~-
.- . - . .. .c. : . w .e : . .
.i : .
ii . .
5
. . . .. . _ . ... . .,....e-....,..., .. .. .. .
~
. . . - . - .. . . . . .n . . r. . . . . . .. ~ . .. . , e, .. ....a... . , .
- i. .u..u. ... .
c- -
- t. . .,: ..u.
. ...;,.n.c
. ...:.u......~ .
, a:
. s. .
- 8 ,
& - >cm,= ,^ .'..::.s -... : u. . . . . ..,.a..... -
Pc5C 3.:. .~-- , ,..
...u.
- b %
~
. s-
OA/OC INSPECTOR ROF RATING FORM 9
I D. ,1 ROF Category Rank:
NAME: Mr MmmAs.T Categories: I A Badge No.: C, f 6 7 II p_
Discipline: e c I ;= t_.b III 1 Rating Score: [M
. u- - Date: *2kfW *
/S6pervisor Completing This Form
. . / Date: *)YP4 Reviewing'Sbpervisorg INSTRUCTIONS This form is comprised of two parts. In - the first part, the employee is to be categorized according to security clearance, In the second
' level of certification, and dependability factors.
part, the employee is to be evaluated on knowledge and
.r - application of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria, quality of documentation, cooperation, CPSES seniority and attendance, assigning the appropriate num@ller of points to the employee for each rating factor. All Ratinc and Reviewing Suoer-visors should note that this form presumes that the imployee being rated shares the stronc commitment to cuality that is critical to the OA/QC procram at Comanche Peak. Anv 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.
l l
( .
CONNDDGIAL
y
- 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 catecorv identifications be'done
- accuratelv for eacn emolovee. Afcer this cart of the ratino form is comoleted, therefore, all information should be verified by checkino the emoloyee's current oersonnel file. Once the appropriate categories have been identified and verified, the letter of the response checked for I, II and III below should be reccrded in the appropriate space in the upper right corner of the first page of this form.
\ .
I. Securitv Cle arance: 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. Certificatiens: A. Has sufficient certifica-tions to be classed as a grade / level A inspector in the discipline to which the
- (- employee is presently
(,,
assigned. )(
B. Has sufficient certifica-tions to be diassed as a grade / level 8 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 j the discipline to which the employee is presently assigned.
E. Trainee.
CGNi'mCiGUL Pace 2 of 5
- ~ _ _ _
l III. Deoendability: A. Was not available for work for 80 or fewer hours of
/7 scheduled work for'any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the past twelve months.
B. Was not available for work for more than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the past twelve months. k
/
_.P f~ _
L
?
r %
l R; .
CONrIBCNTLE Page 3 of 5
~ . , . , - - - - - . . . ..---n., ..w., , , , - - . - - - - - - . - . - - - , , - - - - - - - , , , . - , .n. . . . , .ae m c;p " * --
gan unmrw:xmrw... - --
EMPLOYEE RATING r3 To rate the employee, circle the numerical score at the
,- right-hand margin that corresponds to the response that mos t accurately describes the7employee's approach to his job. Ratings should be done on the most obiective basis possible, and suoer- .
visors should under no circur. stances allow personality or other facts'not_related to the emoloyee's actual ion performance to I play any role in these ratings. Ratings on CPSES' seniority and attendance (nos. 4 and 5) should be verified bv checking the emeloyee's current personnel file. When the employee has been rated 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 a'nd in the appropriate space in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of this form. ;,
- 1. Aeolication of Aepropriate Insoection Acceptance criteria
- a. Demonstrates extraordinary knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropri, ate inspection 3 acceptance criteria.
- b. Demonstrates acceptable level of knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropriate inspec-tion acceptance criteria. (]h occasionally indicates lack of sufficient c.
knowledge of and/or proficiency in application of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria. 1 r- d. ~ Frequently indicates a lack of, acceptable i'- " knowledge of and/or profielency' in application of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria 0 such as to necessit'a'celYetrainigg. i '
. +; '
?
- 2. Quality of Documenration /)$ ? .
- a. Consistently pgoduces written 'r'e ports thaS are highly accurate, nsat,,and thorough. 3
- b. Majority of written reect,ts are Eccurate, neat, and thorough., / (h
- c. Accuracy,[reatness,'af.d/oh' thoroughness of l written reports is soretimes, lacking. 1
- d. Wria;tenkreportsarebhuallyin' accurate, -
O incomble).e , and/or urhidp.,
r . ,
Coooeratien' )
- 3. , ,
Enthusiastically acceptsnew issignments and a .- ,
cooperates with, supervision and coworkers. 3 i
- b. Generally willing to accept new assignments and to cooperate with supervision and coverkers. ())
- c. Occasionally resists 'new assignments .and/or l ,
occasionally does not cooperate with supervision
, J ' 1 l
or coworkers. Y, vf
' d. Frequently resists new assignments and/or gene ally refusesi te cocperate with supervision 9
b T 1
i i
(
(' 4, /
x ..
I ,
, s .i ,
COTECUKEAL t ,
u i
' pace 4 of 5 i .g s s
(
-. . -.- ,s . l-
,f ,;_'3__._-, ._____,y, ,
QA/QC *nsoactor Form .', -
.. \
., . 4. CPSES Seniority 3
I
(['
a.
b.
Five years or more Three years or more but loss than five years @
- c. One year or more but less than three years 1
- d. Less than one year O
- 5. Attendance
- a. Missed 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> 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 4
vacations) during the past 12 months.
- c. Missed more than 80, but not more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (except vacations) during the past 12 months.
- d. Missed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work ,
for any reason (except vacations) in the past 12 months.
TOTAL RATING SCORE: kb
- ( ( '
L
- r s
l l
b .
CONrmcNrut. Page 5 of 5
2-1 OA/QC INSPECTOR ROF RATING FORM s
ROF Category Rank: 2
~
NAME: N de ll,e 6 Categories: I R Badge No.: r, 3 u / II R
. Discipline :- R e .c r e n III A Rating Score: g I enn Date: )hk4/ '
l S'upervisor Comple ting This Form l
...A.A / Date: 0 f*T h/4 Reviewing Superviser, p f
. INSTRUCTIONS This form is comprised _of two parts. In the first part, the-employee is to be categorized according to security clearance, level of certific.ation, and dependability factors. In the second
," - part, the employee is to be evaluated on knowledge and l
k application of t.ppropriate inspection acceptance criteria, l quality of documentation, scooperation, CP ES seniority and I attendance, assigning the appropriate nu. er of points to the employee for each rating" factor. All Rating and Reviewing Suoer-visors should note that this form presumes that the imployee
-being rated shares the strong commitment to cuality that is critical to the QA/QC program at Comanche Peak. Any employee whose commitment in this regard is subject'to doubt should be l
brought immediately to the attention of senior manacement so that l an assessment of the need for immediate termination can be made. .
e a .
CONI"tDi"NTIAL
QA/QC Insoector Form .
IDENTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES
~ please identify the category most clearly applicable to the for I, II and III employee by checking the most accurate response below. It is essential that ca teco ry identifications be done a ccura telv for each emoloyee. After this cart of the ratino form is comoletec, therefore, all information should be verified by checkina tne emolovee's current eersonnel file. Once the appropriate categories have been identified and verified, the letter of the response checked for I, II and III below should be recorced 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. X 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
'[,,
- employee is presently
- assigned. X.
B. Has sufficiegt certifica-tions to be blassed 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.
l .
CONITCENPuL- page 2 of s
g g g Cj G gUg Gg gg, ,%
y y/ G J
. III. Deoendability: A. Was not available for work 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 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the past twelve months. , )(
.+
s t !
e coNcmam Pace 3 of 5 ll - - -
. _ - A m
t EMPLOYEE RATING i 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 snould under no circumstances allow personality or other facts not related to the employee's actual job cerformance to ;
plav any role in these ratings. Ratings on CPSES seniority and attendance (nos. 4 and 5) should be verified by checking tne employee's current personnel file. When the employee has been rated in each of the following aspects of job performance the employee's tctal 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. Aeplication of Aepreoriate Inspection Acceotance criteria
- a. Demonstrates extraordinary knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropri, ate inspectio.n acceptance criteria. 3
- b. Demonstrates acceptable level of knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropriate inspec-tion acceptance criteria.
- c. occasionally indicates lack of sufficient knowledge of and/or proficiency in application of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria. 1 g- d. Frequently indicates a lack of acceptable knowledge of and/or proficiency in application i
of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria such as to necessitate retraining. 0
- 2. Quality of Documentation
- a. Consistently produces written reports that are highly accurate, neat, and thorough. 3
- b. Majority of written reports are accurate, neat, and thorough. ([)
- c. Accuracy, neatness, and/or thoroughness of Written reports is sometimes lacking. 1 l' d. Written reports are usually inaccurate, incomplete, and/or untidy. 0
- 3. Coooeration
- a. Enthusiastically accepts new assignments and cooperates with supervision and coworkers. 3
- b. Generally willing to accept new assignments and to cooperate with sup~ervision and coworkers.
- c. Occasionally resists new assignments and/or occasionally does not cooperate with supervision (j) or coworkers.
- d. Frequently resists new assignments and/or generally refuses to cooperate with supervision and/er coworkers. O
- ?
I C CONr m m . '
Page 4 of 5 .
. QA/QC Insoactor Form
,,%.E
- 4. 'CPSES Senioritv s- a. Five years or more (3)
- b. Three years or more but less than five years 2
- c. One year or mere but less than three years 1
- d. Less than one year O
- 5. Attendance
- a. Missed 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> 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 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of s'cheduled work for any reason (except vacations) during the past 12 months.
- d. Missed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (except vacations) in the past 12 months.
TOTAL RATING SCORE: ((
L
?
P
\.
CONTIOCNTUJL '
Page 5 of 5
QA/OC INSPECTOR ROF RA*"ING FORM ROF Category Rank: d NAME: Mary-cr e (2 Categories: I @
Badge No.: HG Ib3 II A (;
Discipline: cdC t fr t_ th III Rating Score: _
w
%upervisor Completing This Form Date: f9'ffc/ *
,d/),2
,n ./ Date: Y lE4 ReviewiTrg Supervisoy
',4Av T INSTRUCTIONS BM 7/ H This form is comprised 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 num&er of points to the employee for each rating factor. All Rating and Reviewing Suoer-visors should note that this form presumee that the ' employee being rated snares the strono commitment to cuality that is critical to the OA/OC 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 assess ne nt of the need for immediate termination can ce made.
CONTEDDGIAL
y .- - -__
l
- 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 a ccura telv for each emplovee. After this part of the rating form is comoleted, therefore, all information should be verified by checkinc 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-tiens to be classed as a grade / level A inspector in
,- the discipline to which the employee is presently
({~, assigned.
B. Has sufficient certifica-tions to be blassed 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.
(. -
CONNDD E L Page 2 of 5
,,, ,, g, , , , , .
. III. Decendability: A. Was not available for work
, for 80 or fewer hours of N. scheduled work for any reason k.. ' (exclusive of vacations) in the past twelve months.
B. Was not available for work for more than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in ,f the past twelve months. _X_
T,.
L r
CONNatyrgi Page 3 of 5
womm m m m m-m- 4,- - ,
EMPLOYEE RATING To_ rate the employee, circle the numerical score at the j]N right-hand margin that corresponds to the response that most
~
accurately describes the employee's approa.h to his job. Ratines should be done on the most objective basis possible, and super-visors should under no circumstances allow cersonality or other facts not related to the employ ( 's actual 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 emolovee's current oersonnel file. When the employee has been rated in eacn 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 l
i space in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of this i
form.
- 1. Acolication of Appropriate Inspection Acceptance criteria
- a. Demonstrates extraordinary knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropri, ate inspection acceptance criteria. 3
- b. Demonstrates acceptable level of knowledge of and proficiency in applying appropriate inspec- 2 tion acceptance criteria.
- c. Occasionally indicates lack of sufficient knowledge of and/or proficiency in application i
! of appropriate inspection acceptance criteria. 1 i- d. Frequently indicates a lack of acceptable
( (~ f -
knowledge of and/or proficiency in application 1 of appropriate inspection acceptance er,iteria O
such as to necessitate retrainigg.
r
- 2. Quality of Documentation
- a. Consistently produces written reports thae l
are highly accurate, neat, and thorough. 3
- b. Majority of written reports are accurate, neat, and thorough. 2
- c. Accuracy, neatness, and/or thoroughness of l
j written reports is sometimes lacking. I Written reports ar usually inaccurate, d.
incomplete, and/or untidy. O t
- 3. cocoe ra tion
- a. Enthusiastically accepts new assignments and 3
cooperates with supervision and coworkers.
- b. Generally willing to accept new assignments 2 and to cooperate with supervision and coworkers.
- c. Occasionally resists new assignments and/or occasionally does not cooperate with supervision 1
! or coworkers.
- d. Frequently resists new assignments and/or generally refuses to cooperate with supervision 0 a.3'er ee.erkers.
.? '
U l CONPatmAL - Page 4 of 5
y-m -,a wn m 3 - - - - -
\. .
.- 4. CPSES Seniority i Five years or more 3
( f; a.
b.
c.
Three years or more but less than five years One year or more but less than three years 2
1
- d. Less than one year 0
- 5. Attendance
- a. Missed 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> 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 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of shheduled work for any reason (except vacations) during the past 12 months.- 1
- d. Missed more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled work for any reason (except vacations) in the past -
12 months. 0 *
, TOTAL RATING SCORE:
C L
r s
.L u
COkTW~2TuLL Page 5 of 5
. yr d
9 .
e CA'/QC TNS, r.w; vs RUF RA'"ING FORM 0,: ,
~:..
ROF Category Rank: 2 A// /d # /) Categor.ies: I A NAME: II A Badge No.t no /2o III a Disciplines c; c e cc D
. . . ... , , . . . . . . Rating scara: -
l[ .. .
Date- ' ') P'V ~
Supervi.sor Com eting This Form W.
i wt- usee: 2h/M ;
Rev2. ewing Superv1.scr,)
- f. /, p I Y p .
i rns.*R3 C"*:cus i W a 2:x=nr 1s wr;i. sed of two pare's In the fi=rt pan, the W r.les:: ance ,
empicyee is t= be cat-gwri=ed eW4 ng to me -
level of ed '4 c = tion, and dependability fact =rs . In the eecond pa.~. , the gl:ryee is to be.Ms.ted on knowledge and h- app 1 * *cn cd arqu.ee ciate inspection acceptance c=tteria, CFSES senior.:L*.y and
~
qual.ity of docuznentatian, artwndance, essigning the appropriate nw E.7 af yeints to the-Wen.,
gleyee fe: eech rati.ng factor. All Ratine and Reviewine Suoer-visors should note that this form cresumes tha: une 'emolovee nat is beine re. d stiares ;rre stanc commitment to c"=1 1:v Anv emnlovee
- ~
- g - *- - irical.co I.Le QA/QC in croc=am this recard atisCusenene sub v;. to Pee)t.
dous; etto"1 r8 be- ~ . . . .
'~
,_L
- - -- comfel i-.it
- b r oste n : 1meeciatelv to the attention cf senior manacement so i.ht an assess =errt cf One neec f o *- .mm?diate ter=ination can be made.
. .. r. .
. . .....x........ .... . . .
A UE oOS
~ ~ ~ ~
s
(. QA/QC 7.nsnector Fo=2 ~[' -
s ..
1 den .mO A'" tom or EMPt.ortt CAT 1!:30Krzs
.) .
Please identify the category loost clearly applicable to the .
employee by . check.ing the most accurate response for I, 'II and 2.2%
belou It i-s +esential that cateocrv After identifications enis oar: of tne beratinc done ferrar 1a m -etelv tar eaen e=clovee.
t is comoleted, therefore, all information should be Once verified the by enece- mr une ecolovee's ctrrent eersonnel file.
.gy. .e ate categorzes have wdoc been identzf.ied ead ver4.shonid *4 4 thehm .
- w at the response 1, .II. .and III balou . _ . . _ . ,
- .1recar.: dad in .tha. ap;-U. * * , space in the upper right earner af '
the *+ -=* page of ttris form 9 <
~ ~
,. security clearance: A. Naployee has not been denied clearance tot unescorted.
j access tohas Unit 1.j denied 1 s.* e:mployee been ,
j clearance for unesec=ted :
ac=ess to Unit J .
,. e ,r-.4 % e_ans- a Ham #*3 eient cor-4 *4 m _
., .,Wtione ze.en1 to be a 4 ei--d -- ;- as- e.,in 2)., -
-ene ci. a.74no to whintt'the-
- - - ~~
"ess ""** *"'" " "*'
.*igned.
~ ~ ~ " ' '
~Y
. C.~ ' ~~~
car
- 4 "#~
L h '- " "
. tions to be as
- g=ade/ level 11 1-r- in 23, 44 t 4 a= te shief the employee is v
"'T .
. .l . .u. . . -
. . - . .-.> ..- .u;.,w. ,:.:.: .. .qc . . ~.:..g..y, a w ee _ =.amavm. _
.x m ,, .
tions to be' cla.s1Mtd ES Ik l l grade / level c L- N W in ego. 44 --hu ne to which the
.t. . , . . . ~ -'. -
h employee is v1 W --
assigned.
. ..m. --
, ,,g , % ,,,.g 3 ,,
.tions to be -1 = - d as a
.,.A / level o inspector in
- m e4 a 14 - . to. vt. 8.ch .the
's
- =
. ~ ~ . .~ ' . . : 's :* * * *
- r . .
- i T.. ,.mys:. ea ., s . .. . -.
. ... . . s... ..e ,
.SSEEd r r.in.e. ,
. .. .6 ., e ,
..,t... ., *.. ,.
(_. , a
? - . ,
. g.. , , .
b
, ' , RM l ' ~ .
9tga .7.. cr S .
2' _--- __ ~'~;'. __________________
l -- _
QA/QC Insoector For=
e
~ . '
-- m. Deoendabiliev: A. Was tiet available for werk
(
f tor 80 or fewer hours of scheduled werk for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in the past twelve months.
- 3. Was not availetle for veck for more than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of
- scheduled.vork for any reason (exclusive of vacations) in /
the pese tuelve montha. .
u
. . t,
- I I I I
,n .
m
?
s.:
e
( .
s -
Cra'iv-3 1' .
~
Pace 3 cf 5
. _ _ _ . ^ ~
_..n -
8- .
QA/Qt Incoector Form'~
b EffPLCTEE RATING To rate the employee, circle the numerical score at the l right-hand margin that corresponde to the response that most accurately describes the employee's approach to his job. Ratinos ;
should be done on the most ob$ective basis messible, and ecoer- -
visors enould under no circumstances allow cersonaliev or other facts not related to the ecolovee'sRa_ines actual Soo oerformance seniority to olav any role in these rat ncs.
on tPSES and a ttendarree (nos. 4 and 5) should be verified When -u bvem? checkine yea has the.been i
emolowee's current Maw.nel f.i.la r.ated in eacn ci ete ic.llowing espects of -job performemco .the . I employee's total rating score shonid 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 11=st page of this - .
form. ~
- 1. Aeolie-tion of Anorooriate Insoection Acceotance critaria Demonstrates extraorcinary knowledge of and
-\a. preficioneT in, applying appropri, ate inspection ,I 3 i acewpcance cei.teria. * '
- b. Demonstrates acceptable level of k.rowledge of and, pref.iciency in applying eyew eciate inspec- 2 tion a c C nce criteria.
- c. oc--=4 anelly indicates lack of sufficiert icrrauledge af and/or penfied.ency in app 11=atimrr *
= ,' 1
.ait ;-;_ , M * .= rr
,y u s. _ --
- d. Tregnently iTrdicates a lack .cf ecceptable
(, -
Jcrvouledge of .and/o= pr** ed ecrey in applicatiour
' of appr , late inspection acewptan;-e $ta=ia O such as to -neenssitata raw 4 ** m.e.
r 2, 0"=T4 tv of 12ectzmentation
- a. Cons: 2stantly produces wri.tten reports tha? 3
=== trigttly eate", neet., and tharough.
b .. ?nsb4 of wrd tten 4.,.em are ec= urate, . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .g. . . . _
m, ,,ag 4, i.. Ae -m surf , neatuess , and/v:- thercuvt.nwes of 1 l
. wetteen reports is sometimme lacking. ,,.
l
- d. 1ecitten reports are .umi 1 y i=---'--= ta , O l *
'~ -
- i. r__ = Fate ..and/or " --d % .
1 Coeneration accepts new essignment:s and a Enr.n" d * *'y 3
coopeca.tes with supervision and coworkers.
b ." 11y w4_114 5 to ac=ep.t. new. assigmnants 2
. . . ',. . ( end to. cocoe=ata with m .laion and cowaricurs resiste peu assi+.a and/or-
- c. aoccesionally oc=asionally does not wap rate with supervision 1 l
or coworkers.
- d. Trequently resists new assignments and/or
- general.ly .ref.=ses. tn coope.=a.te with supe =vi.sien O l and/or coworkers. .
C. .
! 5 L(J.wtC '~_ - ...
7mge. 4; cc y -
, , * . , , . - - ~ w ,,.y---,----,---...--n .
,,,--.,,m-..m, .....-,.__w-..,,ye--.v.,,.-
, g.-
Y -
o . .
- 4. CPSTS Seniori*v 3 e a. F:.ve ^ vears or mor*
if* b. 2nree years er more but less than five years 1 One year or more but less than h years c.
- d. Less thma one year
- 5. Attendance
- a. Prissed 40 b et scheduled work or less for an? == .nn. (*zeept vacations) .during the past . g .. . . . - - . . -
12 morrths.
- b. M zo=u = hen 40, b: t not more then 90, - - ~~
hours of dedu. led work for any reason (except 4
vacreions) during the past 12 months.
- c. Missed more than 80, but met more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of sieheduled work *.or any reason Texcept 1 vacatiens) during the.past 12 months. j
- d. Misced more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of schedrJ.ed work }
for any reason (exeept vacations) in the past, I
, 12 c.cnths. ,1.
wm lutl'ING SCORF.: o
.. .. .1..
r
..L.. ?.
. .g
- 2 m
- ,a -
.~...--...-s. . . - . . , .:----..----- - --
.; t. . . . s ty . ,
.. . . , 9
. . . .f
.e .
. . .~. . .. . .. . .
~. . .. . . .
~
.s . - . ..a e .. . . . . . . . . , . , , , , , . t, , . ..... .
.. .: , . :- ..s.-
.+
. h : '.
e
- ..
- n s. . . ~ . . .. ... r, - .. . . r..-
- q. , . . -
vf.V t' . .
-Pa. cu 5. c:l* 5 . . ' ' ,
...c..Q '. - - - . .:. , , .
a..~.,. s:- n .
- .a .-
~ .
ex'/oc Thi:. ;uR RUF RX*"ING FCHM RDF Category Rank.: 2
/%v $2/?cv!/e R Cnt*T"~"
- I A
- s Ar*.z:
eo n n A sadge no..- M A Discipline ai ;= < h
. .. . .. wMng m:
= xd n.u M~- '
Superv:.scr Comp.Let? ng Onis Form
- 7 tate: 9 6'S <
Rev:. ewing Supesv Morf .
<. .s *L7"& ,
77 g ms:sc'" CKS In the *d pa==, the-Ttris b .ie comprimmi of tuo part:s -
em,.leywe is t= te ategori=ed ticn, and e u- . 'iro ir fa dependability
- t:n. me- - ':y M N.,
.t=rs. Tn the second
- l 1 eve 1 of cc: r4 "+e-= .
part, the etrplcyee is to be mi"W on knouledge a:ad.
I
(..
a.p- ' * *"n cd appropriate-- rinspe-4 par = - 4 en ac - Arce w 'ta=ia, mi, w u saa4m-i.T and quality cf doc :sentat.icn, '
'4 to.the- !
at::endarree, e.ssigning the ag, spriate m 8-r czf 1- - --
eurployee for <mecit rating fac=cr. All Ratine enac eTrd 1teviewine Suoer--
the Maslovee visors ahecid ::ets that this font eresumes be :.T-: rat d snares trs s t. s ug ecmmitmen tNto O JC.
cualiev ADY:na: .ts wwalovee
- w et 1*"*1 .*: 0 4 ar QA/ QO u. QCTEm Me OOCELRG.~as .
- *' ~ , ~ ~, r *:D dOCDC SnC" M De '. ' ~~.~ *.' '"
to ia w . C":lmC1 :3enT. 'ln t*t13 Feua d iS S U S 7=-
brot2O nt i!-Ca*C ' E ".? '.V to One attent10n Ct sen107 ma*tS w W ilt SC M an a :sassese:Tt et tne need for immectate ta;;;. nation can be mace.
l ..
l .. .r.
- v. , . . . * . , .. .
,, . .s-1 ..;. , .; , . 3
..,g,.,..s,. . , ,
i 1
l ,
( .
- * .. ** l m 7',' * *' #'y"
+=, "*
p.?
~
'.S
'.*.p2 * .
A l * . _ . . .
ox/oc Inneector Form (.
w::.nx ucA'"Ios or EMPI,cTEE CATE=oRIES D
b #
Ploase identify the category 1nost clearly applicable to the .
employee by check.ing the most accurate response for I, II and I.II It is essential that catecorv After identifications beratinc done_fortr ll trelona.
ll enis part of the sc u.etelv for eacn emmlovee. i 2s comoleted, therefore, aH informa tion should be verified bv cheeH na tne enclovee's c.rrent personnel f 1:'.e Once .the
=aA. 1:arified, the
.ap m ate categories have seen isent.a.ii=A
- -le of the sweponse h for I, .II.act. 'III .belou should tas . . . _ ,
.1secorded in .thm app' ; i = =. apace in the upper right earner 1:rf the.f4 e page of this form. '.".
- I I Security clearance- A- Employee has not been denied clearance for unescorted X j access to Unit 1.g .
3.* Employee has been dertied
- l clearance fer na== m- d ,
ac=ess to Unit 1 II. certificat.d ons: A 'Has #dh certifica-1.
tiene to be et====d as a. :s ., =.- Q.Q, .. , .
'- ~ . ' - - - , 4 f m A i.-- .ta the dised? hse to whiatr the-99g. 1 3 ,,.
,,,X,,,,,,,,,,,,
. . - -~. . . . . . . . . . . .. _
f,'. d e.ned. -
s- . A Mas ='**#4da'It e 4#8"a-tions to be di====4 as a gxade(Leser H inspectar in the dis -4 p1'a= to ashisi the geplow,e" har ,- - - $_' y a..]..m~ .
- W.a : ;w.r.. . a... .: u- - -..... . _ -
, , . . . - g . y m. -.; w .-
i i tions to be classed as a
~
grade / level C iu. S .w in the A4 '=d ' Hoe to whi.ch the a ..F .: . .. , . . emp3:oyee is v-- 9 - - .
.....m....,.
assigned. ~ . , _
tions :2 be 12 - _ -.i as a -
- grade / level V in me in
. .,. c.. ...... . .. ... the d * - ' 4 'za. .tm which ttre
. , employee is g -,r..l'y r . . .
T Irainee.
- - ... . .. ~ . . .. .
. . ....~ ; ..- .
,s .
-r ; .. . , . . . . , ,
- u. .
. - =g -
, ,. ; . ,, ,- f .:
,. Tuce. 2 :=f 5 -
.,.,,, L r w .2.s
- --- ,. -) j,, . ,
. . . .;p . a ~ . . . - -
.~ . n. .... .,. .
+y , - - - -.-w-+---w,.-y- ---,-g,=m,,.-v,,-w. w .we- -e e g - tw e- m--*v ---=--*--*--w**-'-----=-*+---N- ---C ------w ' '--- - ' ' = - - ~ - - - - - ^
gm,u_u. cst-rc, _, 7 Deoendabiliev- A. Was not available for 2u.
for 80 or fewer hours o-
- p. scheduled work for any reason
- . (exclusive of vacations) in the past twelve months.
- 3. Was not available for =tock for more than 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> of
. scheduled work for any reason l .
(exclusive of vacations) in
- the past tuelve months. .I - -
l l l t j (. .,
W L s r
, o t l ,
i 1
i . . . . . . . , , .
I .. .
l l
- r. , ; . . . . ,
~
. q s. ...e..u u.,:v _..- ,. . ..
Page 3 -cf 5
QA/Qt Innoector Form .,
L EfD'LCTEE RX"D3G j
' W Tate the employee, circle the numerical score at the right-hand margin' that m. spends to the response that most accurately describes the employee's approach to his job. Ratinos ,
should be done en the most obieetive basis cessible, and stner-vi so rs snould under no es.reumstances allow personality or etner f aces not re Aat;ed to the emolovee's Ratinos actual on too CPSES oerformance seniority to and_
plav any re ' e in these ra.ines. .
ar endance (nos. 4 and 5) should be verified Wnen the bv amplayee check.inehas ene. u;en eeclovee's current w rnmel isla I sa. tad ut amen of the fallowi.ng espects of -job performance the . -
earployee's total rating score should be recorded in t.% space provided at the end of the rating section.and in the appropriate
- space in the upper righrt-hand corner of the first page of this
. form.
- 2. . Amelic.-ion of Acerooriate Insoection Acceotance criteria Demonstra:as extraorcanary knowledge of and a.
proficiency in, applying appropri, ate inspeccion -I 3 i l
acceptance criteria. *
- b. Demonstratas acceptable level of knowledge of and. pro *!d ecy in applying apyay.;iate inspec-tion s --y m em criteria.
e occasional.ly indicates lack of suftf.icient lorouladge .nf and/or praficiency in appli - - ' - 2. .
.or . z_ imer L A ., m 1 p =. _ .i d Tragorntly ivrd1=ates a lack of ecceptahim knowledge af.and/ot praticiency in applicaciour -
('~ - of a ves .y -iste inspection ac=wytance crita=ia
! O i much as em e--4 %*.a re-* -= 44~. E
- 7 i
.2. Or'* T 4 tv c' Doctnsents. tion i
a cons:.stantly produces wri.tten reports thai" 3 l eers trigt.ly
, neat., and thorough.
- ern ec= urate,
- b. . s. L. ity of se:itten
.c u * * - - * - ' " ' -
2"-- -
,and. h 4 ~- . '
of c, Ac- .cy , neatness , and/tr:- ttierou w im.;;
1 wettten reports is someti'mes lacking'. .
- d. wcitten reports are usually 4 ame.-m-= Pa , 0
. L- ' .i. A end/or W dy.
3 cecoerrefon
.a En.:nusiaa+= 1'1-y + .y;s new assigmsunts and 3 w+ates wi: h supervi.sion and coworkers.
.b., h" y w 1 i 4 ~' to accept new assignonnes /5' d
5 ,. -
. and to. weg.-sta with env.. .ision and coworkers l
- c. occasionally resists seu assb .... und/or - .- .-
oc=maionally does not casp . :n with ' super 1H sion 1 or cowerkers.
- d. Frequently resists new assivu-..its and/or genatal.17~N= tr. cooperate uit.h supervisien 0 and/or coworke=s.
1 I . ,-
- w. ..
. ,e. ,
r e - -T M & W I%beel %.a. .
4 Cf T , ,
. . . . . - . - . ~ .
-. --_ _ - - . . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - ~ , - _ _ . . _ _ _y _.-y., , w w- , , - , - _ . , , . ,
c A/oc Incoec*er Perm .-
~
, 4. CPSES Senie""iW ~3
- a. r:.ve years or more *2
- b. *: tree years or more but "less than five yearz c .one year er an=e but less than three years -
- d. 2 ss than a== ?=mc L Attendance
- a. Pr:.ssed 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of d.Aled work or less faz-any ree. son (except vacations) '"-ing the part . . . .
- g. . -.-- -
12 morrtins.
- g. w ma= ,-ttien #4 , bcat not.more then 10, . s. . - - --
hours of setteduled work for any reason (except 4 W ons) during the pa.st 22 months.
- c. Missed more than 80, t>ut mot more than 120 ton =s of si:heduled work for eny reason.Tercept veertione) during the ,past 12~ aJ.hs. 2. .
- d. Missed z: ore than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of scheduled verk i for any reesen (except vacations) in the past i 22 months. ,
) {
m RK:l:IK;; SC3RF.: M
..m...s
. ;* .:,*... -. *' .> I.
.. ..~y'..n ", . s .t- . .
. *..'4
. :*;+... m c :.w.o..X. % , g;.. .is..e 7.s.. M ' *. .
- z..... .. m . .. .s. . . s.. .
- r . m t- . s= .
a t . .. .. .4 .
^.
( . , .. .* .=s.g.....
...g.. . .
- f. ,
.s.... . - .
., .e ,
e t
" , ' + * .
. . ' ' . ..."s... .
.. ...-e.....
. ** , *. ? . . .. .
, . . . . * . . . p M
- ? 4 ' .W 4 d* *, . t Da _ _ e.dy.sm .. ,.i...
.9'
'- Ii 1;c :. . <; .4,m, -' , .
_ _.. 4.v% T + n s. " '_
s t~...*
.. u .. .~.w. . ' . . ; . ~ . : ' ..g ; .n g. .#
.. .