Text

Work Plan & Performance Appraisal for a & M-Grade Employees
	ML20098A291
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	12/31/1991
From:	Martin J; DETROIT EDISON CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20098A274	List: ML20098A291; ML20098A293;
References
	FOIA-95-142 PROC-911231, NUDOCS 9509250001
	Download: ML20098A291 (100)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:g-Ay, Pago 1 of 9 2, 8 -INana l Title iI.D. No. l T* : ,l Jimmy Martin ISr. QA' Specialist 15%#/ 7 ' l - l Period Appraised / Planned - 10rganizational Unit l l 3 i 4 l Jan. 1, - Dec. 31, 1991 lOuality Program Assurance i 1 ) i I } WORK PLAN and PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL for A-and M-GRADE EMPLOYES i i Key for " Performance Rating" and "Hethods used to Achieve Results"" E - Excellent S - Satisfactory VG - Very Good M - Marginal i i SP - Satisfactory Plus U - Unsatisfactory pynt9tT __ PAGE J OF PAGE(S) 3 -:9 3 - 0 't 3, 9509250001 950616 9 PDR FOIA -i _.MARQUAR95-142_,PDR.... L

Page 3 of 9 Major Duties / Responsibilities / Projects i Work Results Expected I 9/91 - Performance-based refresher i training. I b) Develope / maintain SME expertise as l 4/91 - assist in identifying develop- ' assigned. I ment needs for each assigned SHE I areas; I 6/91 -develop individualized training / l maintenance of proficiency plan for l SME as assigned; I Follow-thru on training plan l Participate in JUTA as SME. I l Document confirmation of audit skills I for uncertified auditors on audits I where ynu are ATL. SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS I

6. Assess Nuclear Generation perform-

! Acccurate organization assessments ance in SME area as requested by I developed when requested. NSRG. (BP 1B5) i I

7. Submit ideas to eliminate or reduce l Submit at least oneidea per quarter, QPA activities that are less than I have at least one idea implemented optimally productive. // g (, 7 l this year.

1 PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT l

8. Assure quarterly AWP reviews are l AWP quarterly reviews performed no performed. (BP 3 A3)

I later than 3 weeks past end or l quarter. I

9. Improve / correct development needs i Improvements noted in the following:

noted in 1990 AWP: l l a) Making presentations and handling i Keeping control of audit exit meeting. > group difficult situations. l I b) Request help from Supervisor when i Supervisor 8s input is included when needed ! making decisions, when necessary. I c) Identify key information necessary l Probless and their causes are to accuately define a problem and I accuarately defined. determine cause. l I I I I I Approved: / f/ (date) by YM/'/ff; and I'h R / W N e W

Page 4 of 9 IV. Quarterly Progress Reviews Jointly review the progress made in meeting the expected results. Note project status, problems encountered, changes made, new assignments and accomplishments to date. Three Month Reviev I Six Month Reviev , l /. M/- At/pirf* Hnv4. Bear'RECC6N/ ZED b 7'Wf d'//fr>lii/Ay d)/p AdDic!Ociric<ff /T.'rif&,GCA'.< l s9r HE4P/M& 70 /7L*HE IVf 7iy2. /s.:tr f.y W F ? f M rs G V CD '* W ;3 4 *O w i t L l pydl.gi+12 GE,V8Rprispy GrryL. i t?nCsn.f.!D By' A AWA6d'#ffA E ci f 5,c c 5 s.t. g p c p,,

2. AL 4. 4s l's 71 Wf.<d c'rsifr%[7Ei',fic ?

l 279f L AVP/7J' ' Cpu ??M/d -7~G' $s iS$t L's' !.'A d % sky ~ty AfdA/Nh~x!. l /SS v2p /W g 7~//s1ds)., / 1pj/pg',2, 1 W AC$i7J Ndv'f Bed 4' Feil /itdra (!Q /'.dCCfi's AC J/Mf4/f~scit7'raC1 WA"ds'.//fiffE l i ifs i.' EdJ; ' f s'f,/~'ri /69A<c4c &c' erg l / '9*7d-t P/.'c "*dc7'c ' d' T'/ /MGnfA"DAA"Y, he,4f/fpC N

1. I

02) wra'sfits pa.,L' Ct*JJaft,7Aff4'Zs' WFM: cur 6 ns r/71. /ns,r Ass:Arr l TH M ?d/ 7 Af /? Mft'L~! ff* Y",p,gg pyyggy,,'

1967.,e 7Ei> :.c' 57d?~ 'i 44 / ffffda rz f>) l l(p/4-u'D /5'1[T/S ff'* O) f/tix2 PAC W'E' cf crA/'fc;;Vf dCJ5CA 'S-g,37,,yggp;sfptysf @ f8797 g,/g'iz;fsgp Q/A/P6 /5OI '/9rc7ffi i t S pEo!&,L TI~4ifinD 6~WAMi?ftrif l 3 iM&'C d41& '/G: c on a f< i. A,v : 7 ndtesfj~,pg g,.,p;p l tf/&sf y c" ll f i/d C E Ms A 's r -' c er w rus s on w n w w,gy Q-l cf;' CC'SsWC7/VM ACf/GLh l 3, CGP7?//VG 7~c' ff#19A fYMA~ N.*sNrdcr/cx34/>p 4 +t:y dai &~r Fr.t,t. n -yp (A; c19p5pprir' OP/t.ff9&4//SOJ"N Yc' ft:yspgp sppc>r 7s' Ass /<7 l'Adfr.!'"ES s/f/Jr,ps> Gc'AARC,7 t!D'r7 i?4 ' WS/f'st if 77ry.Y't~f f r i t ft;; rt 'j? g g g Es v l ~sL nvG 6= fa l /ypp Sc-/+CovLi//6 - f i CD .f,54av/1yf /?fAf' / VfE, f Y Q 'jg),W'fi l fLA. A f/ M /f=~~s7 7d~ dito4 1: Cb.) Asx<far*<> x ! sit ;'ai y,x 6 fr& r.tr,,,gi 7y,ap3 l f*@-) ru&W"f}n#S CtefYc,pg ,gp g g a vatsco .5E'u'Guf)7A2" 7ddib/MG C.c.t,+s7Ff Lc s,y,tpst g.g,/yy. l Al s i n 7,,,u,,D m .au,. occ. viis~w cc,.wie,u.,, CA,, (_b)nJSiS?"/CP iff.f54'he,A'/M4 -rt cn/ t / s Jr Y S kiti/ Frp-S t So.: ef<?tt'D.4ysgtwig csw l f*

0

, ffz, p. 5,ipf,stggntj. N ot A LG~< uor2 @ y?n t m..tra r.rg.. c 4;r:D.w&d,r,9cz y,g 4ppr,-- l g,. prpic pitag/ignp THr/ C'V74.- 7* MdP4 4.'s'tv W/g' RlMCM'u2E1% l7 s~rup wr w<'" &c's ' WM2iW"4J g,4 9 W E %' % rf%l."i!57%E f %M',Wii M&':'"'"" "'m, l 9g A casji'44/ u7kA/D/Ei'WOT/N)< f 'd..$s '. fin /;' 1.~P ?74,r; fri~s */rfst rz - 7/yjq, y, _3,p,,,,7 yg, yg,y pgy,g,s,, 7/ic747, 9*bQ AA L d'/)7fA17//ffE7skt1 WSgC y;5gp lqkgz,)vggy g)j7ggjfpffifrxAff Wff.AE-gg t gy l ygti, p pjcg=f p y E p. V g l y' WFAL PAffil 74?- Gcco' Ceti7B.C.L. l @ C;pCY)O CdX/7ACL.# cop 7/ puff T AAA Vd Mf1 6s.'GSJY?,-yfigrr p='/?cgf fp*) S /sf' :% - FC r64 *j, sa r'iD l l ygLP FAc14' St9fiV/OK - /F A4'D 0y /N)i /IV/ /Df/J7/f">E22 /cij7, vain-/A/R747,;7;c ' ll VfiHdu WEEPEP. 7:~ OfrtWrE FAMLid!Jsc g,r.o,(,s.,wa.g(a'- p,pppyi, y is_: g yp nm.ees tm rasi,z. ce s's~ - l V076..Sirx /177t,tiffp ,gg,f** ~~~~~ CN1Mn/WJ 7C' /75rCf 3 l Review completed;'.I N /[ 9/ IReview completed:f'7#2c% 7//s, /9 (date), by: 1(date), by A/MuA9; 7//WH ' n/? I ~ 0 'f13191 ffir-s and AlwV(U!dY)DA - Iand b .V W5 ccmen) \\;,m, c&w<Jt w u -.~ ~ w-a,. ~,. .. a %w-s -,-

1...

,w , c., o

.e Page 9 of 9 i Eey for Performance Rating: V. Full Year Review and Evaluation i E-Excellent S-Satisfactory Measure the results the employe ( VG-Very Good M-Ma rginal attained during the year against SP-Satisfactory Plus U-Unsatisfactory those expected. Rate the level t of performance in the right For full definitions. see the Managing colurm. Human Resources book, Page 104. Nine Month Reviev I /1 M J.* f 4 ee v fW lPerf. j, fitefdf.r+1ED AvDors GP Mf'7s Ji~ *n M k,3 5 st e 4, c i a hs d lKat. Sic vK' 'V '1"A F'A A PA'7A'fA A' '~ l Wf A A N0100 AS Af} 'ET'Yb 'NA'#E'V'N;I ll cs J-ll \\^ n ' ~ e r o u.s &

h Tw c 6 os9'- S 'f 'A '#' ' #"A *

.4, ot g f ee,a no+e we<e l z, ps.i ipvoiis ecA:riavr n'BZ Psaft ' tors gypi>yi.is? A d ris'rst-y did4 W J-9 I. 0 ' M i 'l t-c u S - f s'e fra lec f-i ggec.ssMZWl?A %CH/ fl PA#ADAd ll i;o c.n a ' f a o r-e,,v +avi4 I, l 5)S,,+1ptipicg7sc10s Wdd2 No74 AM ,,n n Od '" A' t-Y" d A"#'N l bc tv ~ 'I

I ' Sf Hra I * ' ' * ' '

I (b) ift.ipiri?dPp/ff Cdp 1'UVC 7# Of&Mik o (4h I weaune,> wen fru 1,a n l y g y7g 7vs MP) 2ffic71Vf#nJJ (* g l I**4i O *N-l cr,~- ce's2XC71c'd A.M#I f"'l' Y"*O pAiTy FiVP/WW-l l L fuessaif ef.esois, HoesI ya g4wAyj Do?MCuf,fAAWU SMA~ Hos oiypeEsse17 of Asri& 4'O AVP'

5fAllfAS ll l

0 f 0 aRs, cr H h a uf h f a/. I oculll~1 pgg95ipug] -rd re%C QK GK e,"l2,YUr!LstyAH6/'JfDA!44A*"'{JnR%1"M%ewc1 l u-ri~.1, < iice~ < nl as s-v Ynd l thecy 8 a d carrec/. l-/c h, kl l c.pp7spyts -70 fs/2f*'s61ADERVATA l p e en n,, e / owner shaf o f fr; - l f&h,#Y $c$rYsYo y /4 l 6 Ie o., : GBSERvann.S d'"'##'- l l Y.fc1o ck';$fhi$thi?Thi Y5 '" d"'-"~- up o i / ,s a ca, j, b, < n ed' o ve r f* l 7~0 '9ffiS714'/ dim 7&Msl 9 1.,, p. were l coprikddJ* f t)ppp pgVfLspit/tr.SMd NEEDS# g t > s oj n ' d,,

A " - l h r ~<

s.r M m l //77/MDYO VOTE.S TNA'#'S A## Rs s?vdSffD f/IM f^*0W'"N'"'#b'I I i l gf j/pp,c p2&tAci? 7trif Q v nil-7 4 7 Sv3iHi 7^7AJ.SVf.idocffMV5 t#4 f/CrWt-V l l ~7,PGCvris/#7sHCe /7V9i7 CM"'C t 4/S7AJ if l l V4VL 7#4. l l p 5s'BMo fnfa M1tS AdV/ff*4' '#/Y/'?/, l l ef, A44 AVPorExt7s >VfR2 vfizy WALT l I get.] C.wf7CLED-l l (p) At wny.t Afauerss //Exp viiscopr.r:ovol l OfpfspVA) ;f/* s/sPf!FYALL /<'sy l l (c,,)/ypdfAfr}%cio AP? TS Offs 4'd 7714 l l f d p ds. E,*s/ /f 9 0 T/t A' 4 d W Vf 0

l l

I I cleGM c.sreE 4 N D M*'s ' 4 13 g An o.a. kmohrCwE W1LGb I i Review completed / T M ed #*l/7/Gi! Review completed: (pate). )yt-1// b / 9/ l(date), by dYHWs. 'th 7/91 h I and /dfd2MI Iand btNC N%QY(u% (.pfrcko$ swerek Jec4mf m. g;2. # cm.tk Q/L hut

3 Page 6 of 9 Depicya Methods Use to Achisv3 Results Rate the methods and skills the employe used tn accomplish the I I work. Identify the major skills upon,which the ratings are based from the listing in the instruction manual and mark the l appropriate rating column. Objectively describe the rating in (Performance I Rating the space provided. I A. 100. Individual Work Results i VG Technical l Competence l V6 101 - discipline technical knowledge l l l \\/G 102 - QA program, procedures, requirements l i I Organising I 54 111 - uses time effectively I ~ l 114 - prioritices tasks, assignments and projects l l l I Planning and I Controlling I $4 I 131 - develops action plans for assignments l 1 1 1 l Problem Solving / l Decision Making l 143 - identifies key information necessary to accurately define i V6 a problem and determine cause(s) l l I I Accountability I i 150 - When given an assignment, sees it through to an effective l y4 I conclusion i 154 - accepts responsibility for his/her errors or omissions l \\/G l i i B. 200. Teamwork l Team Support / 1 Participation 1 I 202 - removes obstacles that interfere with getting the job done l bd I 208 - works cooperatively with others in the work group l $4 I I

E 1 Page 7 of 9 I Communication I Effectiveness I C I s 223 - writes effective technical reports I I i C. 300. Customer / Client Relations-internal and external I i Relations I I l N/A l I Development l l N/A l l D. 400. Company and Organizational Unit Goal Achievement I g l Innovation I t 402 - accepts responsibility for carrying out dificcult assign-1 V(a ments which may involve criticism (or failure) I l 403 - offers ideas and suggestions to improve organizations I fg I effectiveness l i l Change and l Development l l 408 - adapts easily to changes in work assignments i b l 410 - handles multiple work assignments and completes them I $4 l 1 E. 500.Others-list any other methods or skills that have I not been identified, but are required for the position l l l N/A 1 l

... ~.. r f =-l, Page 8 of 9-VII.Overall'Perforstnce Rating Summary The overall ratirg is a summary of. the.employe's performance in achieving results and.using methods. { 1-Excellent . { } Very Good {X) Satisfactory Plus ', -. -{:) Satisfactory { } Marginal { } Unsatisfactory l Comments: i t ? VIII Assets: l Based on job performance, identify the employe's skills and abilities which i are assets. Use the skills listing in the instruction manual. Place the number of the skill in the box and describe it.

1. {

} { } {- 1 l l

2. {

} { } {- }

3. {

} { } { } l Development Needs: -m:-- Based on job performance, identify the employe's three priority development i needs. Use the skills listing in 'che instruction manual. Place the number of the skill in the box and describe it.

1. I 1

{ } { }

2. I 1

{ } { }

3. {

} { } { } f e i l i

Page 9 or 9 IX h ploye's Career Interests: The supervisor and employe should discuss and list future positions of Place interest based on the employe's current assets and development needs. the number of the interest in the box and describe it. Short-Term Career and Position Interests. Interests { } { } { } { } { } { } Positions { } { } { } { } { } { } Long Term Career and Position Interests Intersts { } { } { } { } { } { } Positions { } { } { } { { { { { } // 3 '[9 L Supervisors Signature / diO* w // Date Next Management Level ignature OMA )rd Date (/(/

I. Employe's Comments Employe's Signature (your signature does not signify that you agree with the appraisal, but means that the appraisal has been discussed with you).

,Y2 '//V2 Y f h ktY f Date y-

^ //w7' W R2v. 3/5-2-90 g.. s _- QAPS DER VAULTING Q ECELIST %-03 D =0 ,M FINAL DISTRIBUTION DIST. CLERK REVIEWER k.N h PORWARD NON VAULTABLE BACKUP TO LICENSING (LICENSING DER'S ONLY)

b LD PACKAGE CONTENT READY TO COPY REVIEWER REVIEWER 3b CODING SHEET PREPARED INITIAL CODING SHEET REVIEWER Y

PLACE DER IN POLLOW-UP REVIEW FILE REVIEWER Y N OPERABILITY DETERMINATION j DIST. CLERK M/ 1 COPY NSS OPERAllILITY BOOK ~ IF AB0VE IS Y DIST. CLERK C COPIES MADE' 1 COPY OF ENTIRE PACKAGE (INCLUDING CODING SHEET i DIST. CLERK M COPY OF PACKAGE RETURNED TO FILE DIST. CLERK ORIGINAL PACKAGE PLACED IN TO BE f VAULTED FILE REVIEWER LIST RELATED AND IMPLEMENTING l DOCUMENTS BELOW (SEE DESK. INSTRUCTION #23) RELATED DOCUMENTS: IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS: DOCUMENT INPUT: COMPLETED BY DATE E 29 E // r-9.1 't PAGE OF li PAGE(S) t,., 4// t

~^ mencao 6-2-8i) Detroit Enrico Farai 2 Sdison Nuclear Servloes - information Services CODING SHEET Quality verification Document preparation and Batching UTC VSDEDR DSN (DER NUMBER) 40-0310 r REV N/A ISSUE DATE (DER CLOSURE DATE): FILE NUMBER: 0918 FaiLuz +o ssue_ a beA Srx kscoA aR -<> d -PoM-QA LETEL: N/A ~ ORIGINATOR: DEF REFERENCC: DSN CONP ID: PIS: EEAT/14T N/A WORK REQUESTS: FURCHASE ORDERS: PURCHASE REQUISITIONS: Page Count n PAGE _LOF N P AGE (S) t

54 verity Level / Due D;t2 A 024 Hours

*de s 010 work Days DER No (( 'd 3/d i

C % 30 Calendar Days Edison Dev.t.ia ion Evant Roport oO page 1 of f3 Part 11DENTIFICATION ( Originator / Supervisor ) /.$lS$ f5 lNW k f0k klY5E kk $$hf0l Alldentif. cation Syste*n No /Name /f Div No /f PIN Component Name A///I Location ( Bldg i Elev ) MA Descovery ( Date / Time ) 5/3/90 /#f##//Af Event (DateITime) 3/2 3/'/O C)OA Levell A5aAE @QAlevel 8 O oAteveiiu E ASME O Other mm C) Detected During [@ ~ NE / O Operationa! Abnormatety O Otr.ervation O Atarm Source CodeeDcw Type x O Cu O eu O isi O ST wor

acauco No do/Not/

N Other( f rplain ) M ML/p/ T O speciairnspection C) References ( Attach af Available) O Tech 5pec O LER No Q Procedure @ Other,fffCif/Cgyi' Chi 30 7/-g tf, /WyQ f)Desmpt on of Condition. 5 asis for Determination and immediate Actions Tak en D/MWG dM1 RAML ArHNW0F.DS.CwWW.f47/pW' /7Wdf N07A9 ??M1AM Gd /MW6X/pd W/29DDEhwsd19 FOR 7??Ck WEZAT NCOMRE47/O M70 t-W-B7/-Faa?-/ ~ /U R5GV/A5D BV Asnts SEc77pp'777~ M7/ Epinat/ \\ i N3 //2.7b / App Dsdo GCAJEML 3,pi%)FM47)nt) 307/-349 AfW D - [CGu'T tw /WGC 3) f) Work Request hitiated No,,j fpfg % NA ' ~ ~ ~ ~ Date / Time .dbtu'*el s19 iso o 111. Sigs C.) Origmator (Pnnt Na me) / '" tTate / Time Copy H)Su _J L. Mits riiv' N~ ShrM o 09 % K e: =. - - Part 2 REPORTABILITY ( N55 ) @NA /vd f*8-90 A)Piant Condition: (Circle One) 1 2 3 4 8ta Power R Temo M 0 em. RxLevel CoeeFkww Activit y in Progren C)LCO Entry O NA Mode Chance Pertraint O ves O No C) Reportability Determination 50 72 ? ! Ni> O 1 Hr O 4 Hr 20 402 O No O immed 50 73 Li No O ves 20403 O No O 'mmed O 24 Hr 73 75 O No O 1 Hr O 24 Hr 20.405 O No O 300ars 40CFR302 O No O Immed 26.73 O No O 24Hr MiCH O No O 1 Hr LC2 F O No O 24Hr O Other WRC Notified O NA O Person Contacted Date / Time initials MiCH Nottfied O NA O Person Contacted Date s Time init.als National Response Center Notified O NA O Person contacted Date i Time initiais D)N55 Date E) Operabilrty Determination Required O ves ONo Par _t 3 ACTION A551GNMENT ( Plant Manager ) A)ResponsitAe Organization NO 8 ( 4#AO/.4ff ), Due b - /f v v 5)Preparstion of Regulatory Report Dwe C} Comments p p yy} &kg g ,.,,f4. g. g y; a rian, -an.,er ab e' u 2 M a~ L %gj.o;.f. b _ T .w,m

2 DER No g' Edison Deviation Event Report Page 2 of G Part 4 INVESTIGATION and REMEDIAL CORRECTIVE ACTION ( Resp Org / ANil) $$!'F'8$Y' M M U"'*W'$S*4yI M b &rfnd VJAA hi4hw Aun bArrnue-, m rni At.nI'h7 VJA4 kloT T>c-tUkMU m Tb M klWP Ga99 b MA % Pa>sJtRE Y. cAI _ ATTA[d5 LU n-17 Od 0 0-M70 4 1.Nontonformingitems INA 2 Oves socraso sine eew aeau' red (toh O ae ork O use-as is

3. O ves potent >ai t ocrazi l

C flepair O aesect a Oves sceo s)Evatunto< 1k)D mateb2b-$C l"4 dk -zsAO ' ~ ' " " p D & nLE!! %eka,e 34W n-ro o, A ~,, El Reme41 Correcpe Action (s) Completed (identif y 6d attath supportin} documents ) SPF / OnP4 c5 p ATTA04Fn tmWw LeAeot-O W W C(4 NAS G>E65 hTR t RoTCO 70 4 h. ILIMh-%T[ Q _ Pt32Acasovt__ parr tecsous L3 uzoeo.. l /\\ i Completed By

Date [p@-$O RsH

.k Date Part 5 ROOT CAUSE and CATPR ( Resp. Org ) N6 W da pes (raption of Eoot causels) and Froposed Corrective Action to Prewent Recurrence (LAIFR) (

8) E waluator Date C) R$H '

Date ElCATPR(s) Completed (identify and attach supporting cocuments ) completed sy oate ash oate Part 6 CLOSEOUT ( OSRO / PM / QAPS ) A) C6osecut summary MA-ES7864////5p d-AESSOA./S LEMA /JEP /~of Fr9MWEK 72? /.SSL/E n DER e 7NE REFAws/s)E ac /Nsfrexpx /9pp wp/pgx WERE Ccufgc75p py Mg #WP /7 WAf ps7Fbsr/Affp 7piry 7?/tc f /NSticims wMsPERMs'.strPs9pr/=nyp/fccsp7/prac. wEsp PfATPJt-Wftf (//Dd757 W /NDM47/f 7~1C/J6ff&rsp5"* h sJtu k M If W/YO O Ard.yv rector Nant iefety h, Date W/Ze/o a)osno Date

Forward copies to Plant Safety and Group responsible for written reports - 3B

_ f,/ o ptant uanmoer ) ' o n., 7 /~p FY'!'orr DTC V5DEDR fi 091d " i N G RS)

^* ($ 4 M ngg yg, I e-iSOn DER Centinuation Shoot e:g33 of /3 Note section to which additionalinformation applies PMRfL 3 6 3, JAd fddff '7' 6~.419 6 Fe% l r(424fb3 #PPAfff/#4 77NF CGWPJTia/< 1 N0752 l- $?f6 fffffAKJ 7D #6 #.9/fM//9'C' #.1CGHStr/pH d A D // 6 / 3 6 7 77 Gu4' 1/TV 77/47JHfV4D BK 9/dVMf' M7/f:9 6/J A Of/2, #Y#.4V4?%D, 9/.f/ff/7)G#ff 4%@ A/fdFSSANV CP//CVAKFN'l'E &?f74/USP, By 4%L..- RFrPet/sistf eA6gp/zif7Paus. 9-77/E SVB.SffV5W7/NVfsf/647/sMAND decf/74McE Sy PR>1, BAff9 GM 7UK W5/JEAf RdCMLL, Doff Mp7//fs/9A-79 BE-Cat 9%K75 AND deutpAfsu17/#.SVffrc7/NsPEcWM F94 -7HC 7dCK WCLPS 7#~ EROffdAVfdffffaM/MA7.cA.< \\ MWP C#ARfC711/dAC7/PAJ 70 PA54fAJ7A56V22.ifMC5 / NW BEFA/ fDPRffffDi H/?f/d' i . REeprW/H5 ppd 7/cds) / /SSVK d DnA Fft RE90LV7)pH ff 77/s* No76p COUPt7/9AJ

2. DKffR/11/ME Cdd% fo/ Nor/SSVDM6 4ffA A77M~E 7?nft GP P/$dfVf' Av ANP/AcV/9E dpARccrit/K

&C7/dA/ 7& PRpvfA/7RSSt'ARSA/cs y~p /yetuos / R5724'H/A/6 of 4//Aw?ecdYsf5ASpWmCL d.7 N5eKSSARY /N 77/S MQu7/fr/ffp3 F#A NCo#ftf)L5 cow 917/GMS dpVE/Ss 7D RVdR7V py Pf'/z 's, DTC;VSDEDRI Eid:y"5 suis um pggt A GF PAGE(S)

DER No. %-0% ~ Y b.. DER Continuation Sheet Page Yof /3 Note section to which additional information applies (curr.cu:cr.dA) r-otz r7puerm OcceverWE A e n e s.1 onu pteTeo. 1a __ Acomna ro Lern-tr_ VJFLDlu b lue OECTorp 'EiciC s nat we wa LcrureG AuO ccTmn nwr 'Tw L' l WAO woe i nc,onsrFA h0h% TdG- \\u A A s nopcA TAtTT L3c7 RW wo nER 'GGLL MD lAntn %L57 wns (=s74f&J.s h c m t cr-op, D VhtL ESToetM i LESSODC LGMuC-O s od M AOO rdF hEf/_ A0F %,(Oug hTc , M t m I t'y 1%90) OseT. 'DocT. M-rks strownou pott McT (SSusioL, A ben Mt%-o be4 a-4 is A ISetrrreo 0.A9E A00 Lktr A Reparr Tar (Atu. ADOPsss o.c Goweaste oa 'Dat Thitt:ua h. s h AnE ADEttoATE. M9P N.mLo cvA WAs I2tNL%EO AP7tf 'TWh MTodTtod BceneoO TD e=c rA6uS4 A ROLO 1 Lrr To %Act-OP /d m R Aic> s OMM-TsWDtPEMbns.10 AOomcQ ki@P-Iki)-on is 10 ~PEylStou ' CNELE To t o c l o O F_ 1oshELTtcd Ftr2_ FnUP's Fost. AGME WG RS ER,ooitTs\\\\004 AAS REBJ UPDRTEb o a \\AJRSs c To t u ct_oos i us9et T1ou gy. T. dittu.o. Toot CAues VJAs FrrA6ttc,40 w hr 4 A. TM: CtREErnVF-Arnoo 1% LloTeo 1d LFhas LEA 01xo DTC:V5DEDR ' 'NI'el 091d I a un iom PAGF,, __OF PAGE(S)

..i ~~ 00l0 k DER No. iSOn DER Continuation Sheet Page 6 of /J Note section to which additional information applies fkkf h $W* To PREVM/FESetsetzmf Nff-39.Wu co3 /rWP N&f-////-Of W/E[ MV!SKP 70 /NCZVDJ msrscrwe you reirrs rue r2r-up enz MSM12 WELPn l b hY$$ l $ fkl&$S hWbk hlW) wra ernswcr sw pws,oirwxo ro sc ??VK 6~9 /90Z4769 ddJ'KJ Auf7Edo pF cA/EQ) d4St wirn F/Vc -Arsurewers i ,/747/a4 %dro v l f'!tt?91T )h PAGE 1 OE 9 - PAGE(S) DTC: V5DEDR File: 0918 oi ni u n i m

psf AM 90 -0.7/O f//SK 6 OF /3 0FFICE MEMORANDUM c l-l (~.b.J..d1/41 rszber r "s.n-ro -rH,n.8&%. Arz- ~ a-of U WW $$*DVV y .fuf & D a'eC4& m av c pf Ymzu' . / L s s u -- e L0 & M wAA.u& ms[:.d.a wR.s to7Y67.1x8-re-I w .J 4.5/ne.ad a )rri e/',ca w i.i .DEc. C-JuApu-. 3o7/-3d<t,^%v. o p

9. t. 3.

h.Lu & 'f.A% mwmo-- da m,

a'A~ " A"a d &.

0 i \\ i i // i rmm n c. R.,- d_ encers) -

memoraadam s zw ,,9 o O.,E F Rsu: 1 _ Ws$0W Y. WM U. d Ldbar /d. Cast 0RL Loto M LW h l >RE

SUBJECT:

tat 4 00)c 19 to04 MESSAGE: h GegN( ROAL QMM M 6 1 M TT' (T G5 D h kAELO -Tt W lk h T &_L4 % J05 u)&i (D 3'K1P* D d kd%3kD ftd. &-0P (G%-CDN t0A5 hot OtQ.)m e'i&O l ON2.a.LO3t_M tF 149c7 iT (4MS ftOfbPAED. I~'~ tS mi OA)OLN2.sTNO4 ims is CO#.RJLw3CL4 OkMX8L ftMi&d Y YOLL. keAPfi RMCE JosnFttAnc>3 Ex Ac.eFihts op Sxa o ce_ tornAir A. CER sp

hW2GO,

( SGE Amd4to MEMO) bbb REPLY: bndAJlD M~ Ni M 5 L cd Su M EMwu w.:s MTIMN \\%h iLi M MPn.1, Dd. D OnMt-v1Wricd W tTil VJRCX:r7 .)'~ 36TILMTLN, PI:M E M P.w.o N BOTM N WELO1 Lit-E MDE hAWr rort RTmtu6 mcra A m.weocal W E wtMm

Scs, Aan T k TAtVI Wi-tE tosspa.ren As EsxDotr/t-c YL4 3h3 C4TTLsP-f At.14 Ot 1FSTOOS W h-7-h C

^" THE DETmost EossON COIdPANY SENDER: RECIPIENT: 4 [- ( ( e REMOVE YELLOW COPY - FORWARD WHITE & P8NK RETURN PINK COPY - RETAIN WHITEJOR FILE m pirg jud. 70 -D M f466 7 ef /3' 1 FY'MmT /l PAGEdGF / 9 PAeg(s) - ~ " -

m ...'l [ f f f_ $ 0.: f G -_ O ] /t? l f)#46 Y Cf /3 s -0801.10 Dates. April 26, 1990 - QA 3070 1 1 .Toa M. A. Brooks Authorized Itaclear Inservice Inspector H. T. LM_e - Quality Specialist M Frian: - T=- - ticms ~ SLbject: Response to ANII Concern on WPCS 107969 ) Prcduction Quality Assurance has reviews:1 the WPCS and has made the required corrections based on the following information. 1. Per the welding inspector who initiated the WPCS, the QC hold point was inadvertently marked pre fit-up cleanliness instead of fit-up. inspection. 2. When the welder was questicmed, he rhred distinctly whir h welding in-T+2 tor and 10E Tech. was working the job, and both stayed with him through coupletion of weld. The weld inspector did do a fit-up inspection prior to root pass. 3. The welder who perfoM the weld has ccmpleted both Level I and II (VT) Tnyticm courses and has previously been certified as a Level II VI Tn==-tor. Based m the items listed above, the weld was in fact inspected by two '(2) quaHfied individuals both improcess and final inspection /20E was acceptable. arL/vkf D) / Ce .,3 ~~ cc: T. G. nr=d4ath Ti.:cT( ) i

v...,,

jj e: :,/ p_ c,r 1 4 e ests)

hSS fG- 0}}0 fifcid 9 of /3 Date: June 20, 1990 To: PQA Personnel From: H.T. LeCompte, Inspection Coordinator -ild Production Quality Assurance

Subject:

Lessons Learned per DER 90-0310 This letter is to remind each inspector the require-ments stipulated in FIP-cal-01. The following are two requirements listed in the FIP-cal-01: To prescribe the method for processing Deviation Event Reports (DER's) for' identification, docu-mentation, notification, evaluation, evaluation e corrections, and reporting of event or nonconfor-mance conditions that have the potential for affecting the safe and reliable operation of Fermi 2. The procedure applies to the identification, documentation, notification, evaluation and/or nonconforming conditions that may impact Fermi 2 structures, systems and components, and to activities that affect those structures, systems and components, as identified by FHD CA1. Based on the above requirements it is each individual's duty to initiate a DER in the event that any of the above mentioned requirements exists. Whether it is a a missed hold point, inadequate package review, or a issued) Q 4 j failed component - a D E R sws.t. b e int,&Mo %ef C4Gy, h 4 (~~. m r ]l Pi G'. l)_ O~ } $ P!GE(ST

4 ~ - ff]~Z-. ' ' ' ' f F. E. ABRAMSON ggg cj;p_g)jg JUN 2 71990 p,9gg,p,p 77 0801.10 Date: June 25, 1990 QA-90-3110 L To: F. E. Abramson, Supervisor Quality Program Assurance T. G. Bradish, Supervisor "I k M From: l Production Quality Assurbnce

Subject:

Response to Observation No. 1 Identified in Audit Report 90-0125 Production Quality Assurance (PQA) reviewed Observation Number 1 identified in Audit Report 90-125 The (5) DERs identified (89-1091, 1295, 1323, 1361 and 1381) were reviewed and the following conclusions obtained. o 89-1091 Hold Point was not established for fit-up inspection on ASME welding. Insp2ctor inadvertently did not establish a hold point. Lessons learned conducted. o 89-1295 Established hold point for verification of shaft and impeller replacement was by-passed. By-passed hold point established in Work Request. o 89-1323 PQA hold point to verify fit-up of the base plate to embedded plate, per EDP-10894, was not completed. Hold points established per EDP-10894, by-passed by craft during modification. o 89-1381 Deviation from inspection verification program based on heat number verification not performed. Work request written up in general terms to remove relief valve, test, rework if required and reinstall. General hold point established in work request has been implemented due to this situation. l pn.nWT l pgr; $ c7 P' E(Si l ) ( l i

f$f f0- N/0 ~ F. E. Abramson QA-90-3110 June 25, 1990 L Page 2 o 89-1361 Weld inspection was not performed by ANSI N45.2.6 inspection. Package was routed to, PQA to review on night shift. Inspection coordinator on shift was unaware of letter QA-89-2265 which stated Henze inspectors were not certified to DECO's QA Program. This letter had been routed to all of DECO's welding inspectors. Based on DECO weld inspectors not being present' in office when package was revised, a contractor performed the review. Hold point was not established by contractor inspector based on Henze Q.C. had their own hold point established. Based on review of noted DERs, it is determined though they are similar in nature, all five (5) are different situations. They appear to be five (5) isolated cases instead of one (1) case with five (5) reoccurrences. Hold points being by-passed by craft will be reduced in the future based on the following: o QCIC's will be eliminated from Work Request. o Hold points will be established in controlling Work Request. o Inspections required by Nuclear Engineering will be specified in both the EDP's and Work Request. The above referenced condition will reduce the possibility of missed hold points by consolidating their location. All DERs will remain in RF-02 file and be discussed as lessons learned with both DECO and contract inspectors. HTL/vlh cc: R. B. Stafford }) 7m...n,7 rw lla 19 ercss

r; p E A 7 0- D.7/ O f,96; jz cf/3 ~ File 0801.10-Date: July 17, 1990 QA-90-0157 To: T. G. Bradish, Supervisor Production Qual.ity Assurance f.Ca. From: F. E. Abramson, Supervisor Quality Program Assurance

Subject:

Response to Observation No. 1 of Audit 90-0125, Evaluation and Corrective Action Ref: QA-90-3110 dated June 25. 1990 Quality Program Assurance has reviewed and accepted your response to the subject audit observation. No further response is required at this time and the observation is considered closed. Your response to the missed PQA witness / hold point causes appear appropriate. QPA will follow-up on this observation during the next audit of Evaluation and Corrective Action. Further evaluation of the actions taken will be made at that time. If you have any questions, please contact R. Fitzsimmons of my staff at extension 6-1406. FEA/RWF/wjt cc: D. Delk W. Miller Audit.90-0125 File"?'t-r v'.p m T // ./S OF.lT PAGE(S) ~ PM?.:

7 DER CLOSURE CHECKLIST I DER h - lOl3l/l&l ~ o Page /3 ot /3 \\ Ves NA PART 1 Title accurately describes the condition specified in Part IE (change title' if . 1*( ! ) 1. necessary). Part 1. Items A - E. are complete and accurate and any applicable WRs are ][l } 2. listed in Part 1F. PART 2 [. !) 1. If Part 2 is not applicable, *NA" block is checked. If Part 2 is applicable, items A - E have been completed. IJ !) 2. PART 4 Trend data sheet has been initiated. I I) 1. Proposed remedial action is adequate and all actions are complete. (*T I]

2. '

3. Items dispositioned "use-as-is* or " repair" have: a. Necessary justifiestion [ ! [) Necessary design change document for deviations from design !] [ b. requirement If ASME block in Part 1B is checked. ANil review has been obtained. I(( !] 4. 5. Part 4. Items A - E. have been completed. ![) Operability concerns are resolved. [ 1 6. !] PART 5 If root cause and CATPR are not required, Part 5 *NA* block is checked. , j !) 1. 'Mj 2. Root cause is adequate. ~ 14[I ) CATPR sddresses root cause and all actions are complete. I[) Part 5. Items A - D. have been completed or properly transferred 3. [ 4. I] PART 6 i If DER addresses licensing issues. Nuclear Licensing concurrence was I) I 1. obtained and is documented in Part 6A. I j)I[ 2. If SOER,ISEG concurrence has been obtained. Part 6A provides a brief summary of actions taken to resolve the condition. IT I) 3 Part 6A signed and dated. i !) ((4 Indicate OSRO review is requested for violations of Technical Specifications. reportable event. SOER. selected Industry issuances, or unplanned release of radioactive material. 11ff7) 5 Necessary supporting documentation is attached or referenced. l Trend data is revised. if necessary, to reflect final evaluation IV I),6 Additional follow-up investigation of effectiveness of corrective action is 1) 17 7. required (SCAO only). Hardware / software reviewed for closure Mf.f/A/S MMN#4 W8##/689/fCyl ![ ! ) 8. WP-37.WAP.CC3 ffVZ NRP-/W/-Cf RfM.L J) I] 9. All implementing cocumerfts are identilied on vaulting checklist. CLOSURE r. Prepare package for vaulting, separating *vauttable* material from ] !) 1.

non-valutable* material.

Number *veuttable* material pages both front and back, if necessary. lj! ) 2. Include this checklist and number it as the last page in the DER package. IV !) 3. Vaulting checklist and coding sheet are included with package submitted for ]) I] 4. closure. M/97l h Date i DTC.VSDEDR hie 091#' Chi OP-CA)t-01 ATT' 2 P t/l 042590 y?'.n m i }l Pt.GE[OF li PAGE(S)

TPRD DATA' 3HEET Revised Oi-26-90 J.2. #/B & PREPARER'S NAME NUMIER (NO)' DER NO7/8 M/ PLT. MGR. APPFL. DATE (ADT) b8 .ETkSEDDATA If yes circle items ravised: (!)es (N)o (NO) (SRC) (TY) (REP) (RPT ID) (ADT) (RDT) (SYS) ~(IDT) (TD) (REM) (CD) 30WCE (SRC) _ D0C. TYPE (TI) (SRC & TY AS THEY APPEAR ON THE DER) REFORTABLE (REP) (Y)es (N)o REPORT ID (RPT_ID) _ SYSTEM (SYS) REPORT DATE (RDT) ITEM DATE (IDT) (In order of availability from DER Part 1. TREND DATE (TD)._ M Event, Discovery, or supervisor Date) (Today's date) t 2= EE==3 = Enr (E m > En== i (Eri) ___________ E===2(Em __________._____ __________ . E d o. M d _ _~ C "_ _ ? ! ! ' E a _ E E = NnRa < = > i _ _ _Mf?ME_6_d E"':P8e_^Z___________

2 REED CODES (CD):

Progran element violated (PE)............................... /h Org. involved in CAQ (P0)...................................... [ Activity at the time C40 occurred (F4)..................... [ [,, gh Org, responsible for cause (80)............................... [ Activity incorrectly performed (54)......................... (( aneduare component involved (ac)................................... )d c rer CAo (0C)................................................. _L f h-t type and ac tion (37).................. ............. 4.g [ 1 Date Input to Data Base rllli 3 C 1900 Verified by __ Pgy3 v4' NPf GE(S) MIDIE M EXIMPinTED FORN 10 TE DER EXXMIDINATOR tOCA ,n. 4 .. a

\\ M DATA SHEET aavised 01-26-90 .I A // U A 7/ M PREPARER'S NAME MRSER (NO) DER b8h881 PLT. NGR. APPYL. DATE (ADT)_ STISED ATA If yes circle items revised: (!)es (N)o (NO) (SRC) (0Y) (REP) (RPT ID) (ADT) (RDT) (SYS) ~(IDT) (TD) (REN) (CD) 1 30tRCE (SRC) NA DDC. TYPE (TT) 8 (SRC & TY AS THEY APPEAR ON THE DER) REFORTABLE (REP) (Y)es (N)o REPORT ID (RPT_ID) SISHM (3YS) 8// ' REPORT DATE (RDT) __ ITM DATE (IDT) 2 78' (In order of availability from DER Part 1 - TREND DATE (TD) 2g$ Event, Discovery, or supervisor Date) (Today's date) zuro E n NORDS EVENT (EVNT) EEmRD 1 (ni) _________________________ EEmRD 2 (n2),,_______________________ REMAREs (REN) _M_M_.TS## d[49 N__#4B N/ M t , W CODES (CD): Program element violated (PE)..................................... /O i i Org. savolved in CAQ (70).......................................... [ Activity at the time CAQ occurred (PA )............................ 1{ Org. responsible for osuse (30).................................... [@ Activi ty incorrectly perforpeed (3A )....................... l Barduare component involved (E).................................. 3O Cause for C&Q (DC)................................................. Ik } aarm -

type and ac tion ( 3T)............................. E.T.'.'.T.

3 Terafted by:_ @ J J -- PAGE(S) - mat saput to Data as JUL 3 C 1990 to: )% SIERE M EDIPLETED foist 10 TIE DER C00RDIEA10R 1ACATED AT

~. - N DATA SHEET Revised 01-26-90 J.4-m a vs # PREPARER'S NAME NUSER (NO) DER k8-6N6 PLT e APPVL. DATE (ADT) N REVISED D If yes circle items revised: (!)es (N) (NO) (SRC) (TY) (REP) (RPT ID) (ADT) (RDT) (SYS) ~( DT) (TD) (REN) (CD) 30BCE (SRC) 000. ?!PE (TY) (SRC & TY AS THET APPEAR ON THE DER) REFORTABLE (REP) (f)es (N)o REPORT ID (RPT_ID) - SISTEN (3YS) b REPORT DATE (RDT) ITEN DATE (IDT) Event, Discovery, or Supervisor Date) (Bay's!N (In order of availability from DER Part 1 ' TREND DATE (TD) date) s Ilipo EEr m Ds nENT (EvNT) l i l E U M D 1 (U 1) m RD 2 (n2) SDtARES (REN) _ M_ _ _ _, v._ _/ c w_ _ _ _ _v --s -7, - -- A n-fo W?v _ _ _._ _ r _ _ _ _s _ _ _ _ _- /(- _, e y re < W A- $ /$$ $ 5 f /_4__N_G4_0__ [G/Y ?____ ________i_________________________ W ED CODES (CD): Progres element viola ted (PE).............................. [ 8, org. Involved in CAQ (P0).......................................... [ Activity at the time CAQ occurred (PA).............................~h,[ Org. responsible for cause (30).................................

_I_,

Activity incorrectly performed (54).................................,k_ b Earhuare ocuponent involved (E)............................. _.3 p yS W Cause for CAQ (0C)..................................~........... .... [ [_ " Woument type and action (5T)............ I 1 p[d Date Input to Data Base Verified by: IY1fales; E3DM IIE COMPIATED foist YO TIE DER EX)0RDIBA1OR IJ3CAT

j)ff f /E R Gl' S. _.._.- TMED DATA SHEET , Revised 01-26-90 MAMM PREPARER'S NAME WIASER (NO) DER -03MA/ PLT. MGR. APPYL. DATE (ADT) f9 REVISED D T If yes circle items revised: (Y)es (N)o (NO) (SRC) (TY) (REP) (RPT ID) (ADT) (RDT) (SYS) ~(IDT) (TD) (REN) (CD) 30WCE (SRC) b D0C. TYPE (TI) M (SRC & TY AS THEY APPEAR ON TE DER) REPORTABLE (REP) (Y)es (hl)o REPORT ID (RPT,ID) SYSTEM (SYS) I//' REPORT DATE (RDT) ITDI DAlt (IDT) M/fI ( W s/99 (In order of availability from DER Part 1 - TREND DATE (TD) . Event. Discovery, or Supervisor Date) date) INFO EEYWORDS EVENT (EVNT) N# 1 ("1) _________________________ m m 2 (n 2) _________________________ EntRES (REN) _M_ _M t/AA Y_G_ _/J_J_~tVA_ /_ _P_ER _$_ $_5E $_ /_Y_ _N_CZ_E N_ _/WY M CODES (CD): P 4 -. element violated (PE)............................... [ d' Org. involved in C&Q (P0)........................................ /_ Activity at the time CAQ occurred (PA)........................ $d Org. responsible for cause (30)................................. [ Activity incorrectly performed (34)............................ [, d mardware component involved (ac)................................... Nd Cause for CAQ (DC)............................................. k secument type and action (37).............................U.Tf.'.T.. [ P AGE (S) _ Verified by:_ @V PAGE /.i Q;

4D ante Input to Data Base JUN 161990 t

Date: t M30!E M COMP 12 FED PORN TO THE DER EX)0RDINATOR IA

E D In 1 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 3 -X 4 In the Matter of: 5 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF 6 THOMAS BRADISH (CLOSED) 7 -X 8 9 Fermi Nuclear Generating Station 10 Training Building 11 Newport, Michigan 12 13 Wednesday, February 2, 1994 14 15 The above-entitled interview commenced, pursuant 16 to notice, at 1:25 p.m. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 p,..n cr GF 12-P AGE (S) pp,GE p. ),393 - O',' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 j Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 '.> C / f / L,l

os. 2 l' APPEARANCES: 2 3 on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 4 RICHARD T. ANDERSON, Investigator 5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6 Office of Investigations, Region III 7 799 Roosevelt Road 8 Glen Ellyn, Illinois ~ 9 10 On behalf of Detroit Edison and the Interviewee: 11 JOHN H. FLYNN, ESQ. 12 PETER A. MARQUARDT, ESQ. 13 Detroit Edison 14 2000 Second Avenue 15 Detroit, Michigan 48226 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IJW RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court. Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

cs 4 i 3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 (1:25 p.m.] 3 MR. ANDERSON: The time is approximately 1:25 4 p.m., February 2, 1994. For the record, this is an 's interview of Mr. Thomas Bradish, spelled B-r-a-d-i-s-h, who 6 is employed by Detroit Edison. The location of this 7 interview is the Fermi II Nuclear Power Station. 8 Present at this interview are Mr. Flynn and Mr. 9 Marquardt, attorneys representing Mr. Bradish and Detroit 10 Edison. 11 As agreed, this interview is being electronically 12 recorded by court reporter Gretchen Schultz, and the subject 13 matter of this interview concerns an alleged employment 14 discrimination. 15 Mr. Bradish, would you please stand and raise your 16 right hand, sir? 17 Whereupon, 18 THOMAS BRADISH 19 was called for examination and, having been first duly 20 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 21 EXAMINATION i 22 BY MR. ANDERSON: 23 Q Mr. Bradish, would you please state what your 24 title is and what your responsibilities and duties are? 25 A My title is Supervisor, Nuclear Quality Assurance. ANIJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 Y

a 4 1 I am in charge of running the audit program in accordance 2 with our license and NRC requirements. 3 Q Sir, approximately how long have you been in that 4 position? 5 A Approximately, I would say 30 months. 6 Q Approximately two-and-a-half years? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q And that, of course, precedes the time of the 9 transitional plan that came into effect? 10 A That's correct. 11 Q And what were you doing prior to coming inte the 12 Quality Assurance Program? 13 A The Quality Assurance Audit Program, I was 14 Supervisor of a Production Quality Assurance portion of the 15 QA Program for the Detroit Edison Fermi plant. 16 Q So you had been in the Quality Assurance Program 17 for -- i 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Approximately how long total? 20 A I would say that was about a year-and-a-half also. 21 Q So we are talking five years, approximately? 22 A I have been in the QA organization probably four-23 and-a-half years. The first six months I was in the Plant j i 24 Safety, and that was reviewing corrective actions, 25 evaluating corrective actions, implementation of corrective ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

5 1 actions as a result of previously identified problems. 2 Q And then fror there you then went to? 3 A Supervisor of the Production Quality Assurance 4 organization. 5 Q And then eventually to the Quality Production?- 6 A Audits. 7 Q Audits, okay. 8 And during this period of time, your position is 9 to review the work and to assign the work of various 10 auditors; is that correct? 11 A Yes, sir, I make the schedules out. 12 Q The last position that you had that you have been 13 in for approximately two-and-a-half years, approximately 14 how many people were in your group? 15 A It has varied from as few as seven to as many as 16 13. 17 O And why has there been a variance there? 18 A The variance, through attrition, employee 19 requests, a couple of people -- like I said, attrition, a 20 couple of people went back to seminary school or whatever to 21 go into other fields of employment that they have chosen. 22 O I guess my quswtion thought, Mr. Bradish, is, were 23 you authorized up to 13 individuals? 24 A I guess our complement, our budget complement 25 varied. Prior to staffing transition I think it was 11. I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

3 6 1 lam not sure on that number, but I think it was 11, so we 2-were approximately four short at one time minimum. 3 Q And approximately how long would an auditor be 4 assigned to your group, would they rotate through various 5 other organizations prior to coming into and then even after 6 being in quality assurance then would they rotate out? 7 A Typically not. Some utilities, if you describe 8 their audit program are set up that way, but ours are really 9 not. It is a permanent position. We do have opportunities 10 to go into other organizations, it is called job advancement 11 or job placement, a bidding process, if you will. 12 I mean they are free to -- if they are an auditor 13 and there is another position that comes up in another 14 department, they are free to bid on that job to see if they 15 have the qualifications to fill it. It is not that you are 16 an auditor and you always will be an auditor type of 17 approach. So there is some turnover due to that mechanism. 18 Q Were you here when Mr. Miller, I believe, was 19 Director of Quality Nuclear Assurance? 20 A Do you want the whole story on me and Mr. Miller 21 here? 22 Q You bet. I 23 A Okay. I had taken over -- the history here is 24. that I had taken over the Production Quality Assurance which 25 is now called the INS Group, Inspection and Surveillance ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

~. J .s .o-1 7 1 Group, that.is what it is termed now, so I will refer to 2 that as the INS Group from now on, if that is all right. 3 0 Okay. 4 A I was in charge of that group. Bing Miller or Bob 5 Stafford was the Director of Nuclear Quality Assurance at 6 that time who promoted me into that position. From there, 7 Bing Miller then accepted the job as Director of Quality 8 Assurance and Bob Stafford then became the manager of 9 Nuclear Assurance as a title. So Bing then reported to 10 Stafford. 11 There was a transition period there, I would say, 12 approximately eight or nine months where I was the 13 Supervisor for Production or INS Group, and he requested 14 that'I go over and be the supervisor of the audit groups, 15 and subsequently I accepted that position and that is how I 16 became supervisor of the audit groups. 17 Q I understand. 18 Now as a supervisor of a particular group, 19 especially not a group -- during this period of time, we 20 have had described that there were basically four groups 21 within the Quality Assurance Program? 22 A That is correct. 23 Q Would there be occasion to utilize an inspector or 24 an auditor from one of the other three groups within your 25 particular group? ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

= 8 1 A Yes, we would have -- it is always good to have a 2 technical specialist on an audit. It gives a lot of 3 credibility to the audit team if they have somebody 4 technically qualified that knows the nuts and the bolts of 5 the subject that they are auditing. So we will utilize 6 expertise within the QA organization, and it is not only 7 limited to the QA organization, we use expertise from other 8 utilities as well and we use expertise from other 9 departments as well. 10 Q Excuse me, when you said "other utilities," you 11 -are talking outside of Detroit Edison? 12 A That's correct. That is how we try to assemble 13 the make-up and the chemistry of our audit teams with 14 technical specialists. 15 Q So if you were doing something very, very highly 16 technical in auditing a particular thing, you could call 17 upon, say, Davis-Besse or how would you work that? 18 A We have an exchange process really utilizing -- we 19 use a joint utility technical assistance where there is 20 approximately eight utilities that we share technical 21 expertise with, and we will typically share three to four 22 audits, audit topics, a year where we will send four 23 technical specialists to various utilities a year and they 24 will -- we will import four technical specialists, and we 25 decide what areas they will be in. There is an agenda made ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

s .9 9 1 up and there is a buy-in by the QA Managers of the different -2 utilities. So we use technical expertise that way. 3 We are involved with the JUMA Technical Assistance 4 where the QA organization goes in and audits other 5 utilities' QA organizations. 6 Q Is that the Joint Utility Management Assessment 7 Team? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q I understand. Okay. 10 A So we use different techniques to get the 11 technical expertise to give the credibility to the audit 12 teams. 13 Q Mr. Bradish, an individual who would be selected 14 for that -- I think you pronounced it JUMA? t 15 A Yes. 16 Q Would people, would auditors rotate through that i 17 or would you select them because of certain expertise? I 18 A There is some criteria there that the other i 19 utilities like to see. They like to see people certified as 20 a lead auditor, ANSI Standard 4523 gives the standards by 21 which we certify our auditors to. It is based on 22 experience, technical competence, years in the QA program 23 and education, and things of this nature, to certify a 24 person as a lead auditor. 25' Typically, we have to lead one of the three audits ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

10-1 that we described a year in the JUMA process. So we would 2 have to send a certified lead auditor on that team. 3 0 Okay. 4 A The other make-up is that if we were going to 5 send -- we like to send people to other utilities that have 6 done them before. So if you are sending a person that is i 7 more or less virgin to the JUMA process, you would send 8 another person along with them at least that they have some 9 experience doing one because they are not typically the same 10 way that we would do an audit internally here at Detroit 11 Edison. 12 Q I understand. 13 A So there is different mechanisms that you use for 14 that. 15 0 In your audits here at this particular plant, 16 would you also utilize companies such as Bechtel? 17 A In the past they have, but we have grown and got 18 the expertise that we really are not using contract auditors 19 or contract technical specialists from Bechtel and other 20 large insuring firms that supply those type of people. 21 We do have a fire protection requirement that 22 rotates on a three-year basis, and every three years you 23 have to have someone that has got this nuclear insurers' 24 fire license certification and other outside independents. 25 We have been able to fill that with other utilities ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

. ~. _ 11 1 ' technical expertise that have those fire protection 2 certifications. So really we have not been -- I guess the 3 answer is no, we have not been utilizing contract auditors. 4 Q Because of the maturity of your own program? 5 A And the agreement with other utilities to utilize 6 their personnel independent, too. 7 Q During this period of time that you have been as a 8 supervisor within the program, did you on occasion have the 9 ability to work -- or the opportunity, excuse me, to work 10 with a Mr. Jimmy Martin? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And in what capacity was he assigned to your 13 group? 14 A Well, he was -- when I took over the audit group 15 for a short period of time, and I want to say it was two to 16 three months, I don't have the exact dates, after I assumed 17 the supervisors job and he was in the audit program, I would 18 say it was probably two to three months. I was his 19 supervisor. 20 Q You were his supervisor? 21 A I was his supervisor for two to three months, yes. 22 MR. ANDERSON: Wait a minute. Let me, just for my 23 own clarification, I want to show you some handwritten, I 24 guess I will have to call this Exhibit 7 at this point, but j 25, this handwritten out. We received this from Ms. Goodman, at ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

7 'p' 4' 12 1 .least from her recollection. 2 [ Exhibit No. 7 was marked for 3 identification.] 4 BY MR. ANDERSON: 5 Q You would be under the Quality Program Assurance. 6 A That's correct. 7 Q Imd I believe Mr. Martin was under Mr. Wald, who 8 was the -- 9: MR. MARQUARDT: Let me, just so the record is 10 clear, Exhibit 7 is your write-up of Ms. Goodman's 11 description? 12 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. It is a 13 handwritten -- 14 MR. MARQUARDT: It is not something that she wrote 15 up? 16 MR. ANDERSON: Correct, that I wrote up during our 17 discussion. 18 BY MR. ANDERSON: 19 O Where would Mr. Martin be, if you can relate to 20 this particular organizational chart? 21 A I guess I need to ask, do you want me to go back l 22 in history here to clarify this a little bit? 23 MR. MARQUARDT: Please just respond to the 24 questions. 25 BY MR. ANDERSON: ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l

4 s 13 1 Q Here is what I would like, basically, Tom, were 2 you like over in this position, when I say over here where 3 Mr. Wald was the supervisor of the Quality Electrical Group 4 at one time, or was he over here with you? 5 A Yes. When I moved from the INS Group, the 6 Production Quality Assurance, to this group, Mr. Martin was 7 one of the auditors in this group that I was the supervisor 8 of. 1 9 Q This group is the Quality -- 10 A Program Assurance. 11 Q -- Program Assurance. So he was an auditor here? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 0 You then were transferred to the supervisor of 14 this particular one which was about two-and-a-half years ago 15 then; is this correct? 16 A That is correct. 17 O And then he was there approximately two to three ] 18 months? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q Then he went to the Quality Engineering Group? 21 A Yes, sir, at his request. 22 Q At his request? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q During that period of time, how would you rate Mr. 25 Martin's work performance based upon other auditors that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

14 1 were under your direction? 2 A We tried to -- I guess maybe I am getting a 3 little technical here, too. We try to do what we term 4 performance-based auditing. Performance-based auditing is a 5 concept, if you need some clarification, is a concept that 6 you audit performance and how it affects safety, nuclear 7 safety, and reliability. 8 Compliance auditing is more like an accountant, 9 that you look at numbers and you verify the balance sheets, 10 and the numbers agree with the balance sheets. 11 So we were trying to phase out the compliance 12 auditing. To describe Mr. Martin, Mr. Martin was a very 13 compliance-oriented auditor, he was not a performance-based 14 auditor. So I would rate him at the bottom of the eight 15 people, seven to eight to thirteen people that we have had 16 in the auditing organization because he never really grasped 17 the concept of performance-based auditing. 18 Q When you say that he requested to transfer to 19 another group, was that because he could'not accept -- that 20 based upon your observation, was that because you feel that 21 he didn't grasp the direction you wanted to take the 22 program? 23-A That is a fairly accurate statement. Mr. Martin 24 was not very happy about his employment in the organization 25 of auditing, even though when he went to Quality Engineering ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

15 1 they still performed some audits. '2 When I took the group over there were -- Mr. 3 Martin came to me and requested if there was any way that I 4 could move him to the Quality Engineering Department he 5 would like that. It was a fairly easy process. I talked to 6 John Wald, John Wald and me. He had a position opened and 7 we agreed on the transfer and got it approved through I 8 believe it was Bing Miller at the time to transfer his 9 reporting requirements to John Wald. 10 0 In that short period of time that you were his 11 supervisor, did you feel that there was a personality 12 conflict as well as a philosophical conflict? 13 A I had no personality conflict with him. 14 Personality really never did enter into any of the decisions 15 that were made. The conflict on his job performance, on the 16 consistency of his findings and trying to explain to the 17 auditee or to the customer what the concerns from the audit 18 group were was a very difficult translation. So we did have 19 performance problems, but nothing in the personality 20 department. 21 O I am going to tax your memory here, but an 22 allegation has come torth that DER -- which is Deviation 23 Event Report? 24-A I understand. 25 Q -- 90, which I take it would be in year 1990? ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 i (202) 293-3950 1

=~. 16 1 A That's correct. 2 ~Q -- 310 states that basically he created this DER 3 90-310 because you refused to create a DER that had to do 4 with a missed QA' hold point. i don't know if you are 5 familiar with it. Are you familiar with this? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Could you explain your version of what happened? 8 He claims that you refused to create the DER. Therefore, he 9 created a DER 90-310 that did not deal with the hold point 10 but dealt with your refusal to write the DER. 11 A That's correct. 12 MR. MARQUARDT: Do you want to look at the DER? 13 MR. ANDERSON: I don't have the DER. 14 THE INTERVIEWEE: I am familiar. 15 MR. MARQUARDT: Okay, go ahead. t 16 THE INTERVIEWEE: We went over this with the NRC, 17 I guess, and I am familiar with that. 18 What happened in that situation was, I was the 19 Supervisor for the Production Quality Assurance of INS. 20 Could I just refer to it as one or the other? 21 MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely. 22 THE INTERVIEWEE: You can just put INS above that, 23 too. 24 MR. ANDERSON: I am going to put INS above that. 25 THE INTERVIEWEE: That is what it is termed now. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

17 1 BY MR. ANDERSON: 2 Q~ Would that be the correct location of it? 3 A Yes, sir. I was the Supervisor of the INS Group. 4 This. work package, without getting too technical, I guess, 5 unless you want me to? I can go as technical as you would 6 like. Mr. Martin was performing an audit on the inspectors' 7 qualifications _of which I was in charge of. There was a 8 work package that dealt with a valve, and what they had done 9-was they cut a leak off line on the valve and welded in a 10 three-quarter inch plug. It was part of the pressure 11 boundary and required a fit up, a tack weld to make sure 12 that the weld was there, and then it required another visual 13 inspection, if you will, as the welder came half way out and 14 then a full penetration weld at the end of the weld. So it 15 required three inspection hold points. 16 If I can for just a minute upon a piece of paper, 17 I would like to show you another thing that may be helpful, 18 not only for me to -- 19 MR. ANDERSON: We will call this Exhibit 8, is 20 that okay? 21 MR. MARQUARDT: Yes. 22 [ Exhibit No. 8 was marked for 23 identification.) 24 THE INTERVIEWEE: What we have here is, this is 25 termed a WPCS, this is a Weld Process Control Sheet. I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

b 18 -1 think that is the term they use, and it has boxes on it. 2 The different requirements, okay, and this is Requirement A, 3 B, C, D, and so forth, okay. This is what the weld engineer 4 puts on here. He will put a description of what he wants, 5 he wants a tack weld, a heliarch, whatever type of weld he 6 wants. 7 Then, it would be reviewed and he will put a star 8 over here for a QA hold, and then he will say visual, okay? 9 Then he might say, NDE test to PT or something. This is 10 typically the way a sheet will run. What he had done, when 11 he did this particular one, he skipped a line here, and he 12-put the visual down here. So this was omitted, if you will, 13 this was omitted from the weld sheet that the inspector was 14 using on the day of the job. 15 Now the inspector says, I have done this job 16 multiple times in the past and I have always done a fit up 17 on this type of job, and he questions in the field, he says, 18 I had better do a visual anyway even though I don't have to 19 sign for it because it is not asterisked up here for a QA 20 hold point, but I will do it anyway. 21 So he did the fit up weld, and he did the half, 22 and then he did the full out, and then he did the NDE test 23 on it down here. He did all the requireds. He did not sign 24 that he did the fit up. 25 BY MR. ANDERSON: ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

=_..- 19 1 Q Because that would have been in the second column 2 then? 3' A Yes. It was actually -- 4 Q It was a mistake because it was a column error? 5 A Exactly. It was a column error made by the weld 6 engineer, and the weld engineer acknowledged it. When we 7 discovered it long before Mr. Martin started his audit 8 process, and it is in the work package this way also, we 9 brought it to the attention, self-identified it, and brought 10 it to the attention of the weld engineer. The weld engineer 11 took a look at the package and the description and discussed 12 the whole point, and the process that the weld inspector 13 used when he was on this job I found and agreed that the 14 weld process was acceptable and signed for it on the weld 15 package. 16 When Mr. Martin was in the process of doing his 17 audit and he went by the -- at the time the guy was the 18 American Nuclear Insurer's representative on-site, and 19 looked at this package, and they said, "Well, they obviously 20 missed the hold point right here and they didn't sign for it 21 so they missed it." So he brought that to my attention at 22 that time. 23 I looked at it and I saw the notations on the 24 sheet that the issue was resolved on the fit up, so I did 1 25 not classify it as a missed QA hold point but a personal i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

F l \\ 20 1 ' error made by the weld engineer, and I brought that to his ~2 attention, and that subsequently to this work being j 3 performed and completed that the weld engineer had accepted, 4 and I did not see the need, since it had already previously 5 been addressed and corrective actions been implemented, to 6 write a DER by our procedures. f-7 Of course, discussions came up about it, but I l 8 would not do anything different today at Mr. Martin's -9 request to write a DER on this situation. First of all, it 10 is each employee's own responsibility that if they find a 11 deficiency to initiate the DER. It is not the person -- in 12 other words, if I identify a deficiency and I go'to Mr. X 13 over here and say, "You write the DER," it is my 14 responsibility by the procedure and by FERMI management to 15 initiate the DER because I have the concern. I am the best 16 person to address that concern and describe it in written 17 format to be reviewed. 18 Q Excuse me, he was the auditor reviewing this? 19 A Yes, correct. 20 0 So it is his responsibility then to have written 21 the DER if, in fact, he felt that this was an error that 22 needed to have further correction? 23 A That's correct, and it would furtherly get 24 evaluated by an independent source, by another organization 25 solely responsible to review the corrective action process. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

21 l' Q Why was his insistence that you write the DER? 2 A His insistence by me writing the DER -- another 3 sheet of paper, if you want to call this 8, I don't know if 4 you want me to go back to that or not? 5 Q We will do this because we need to keep this. 6 A It helps me to draw a little bit _to address 7 questions, sir. What we do is, initiate a DER. If it is a 8 plant DER, it goes a different route. A plant-initiated DER 9 would go to the plant manager and he signs it. He will 10 assign it to an organization. 11 In other words, we have basically operations, 12 maintenance, engineering, rad protection, ten, eleven, 13 twelve different organizations that the plant manager will 14 assign responsibility to this DER. 15 As the INS Supervisor, if I was to write this DER, 16 it would get over here into the plant DER system versus the 17 QA DER system. What happens here is, when QA initiates a 18 DER, it still goes to the plant manager and he assigns it 19 the same way that he would this other one, but it would go 20 back to QA versus going back to plant safety for review. In 21 other words, Mr. Martin would have been the initiator and 22 the reviewer of corrective action. l 23 My impression of why he did this would be that it 24 would put the work load for tracking, trending, reviewing, 25 documenting the DER process into another department's house l i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

[ g ' 22 1 versus his invo]vement with the DER. 2 Q Would you put at the top underneath the plant on 3 that side just put in parentheses " Supervisor." 4 So basically what you are saying, if it goes off 5 to this direction that is a supervisory created DER? 6 A Yes. That's correct, to anybody in the plant, 7 floor cleaners to the plant manager to the vice president. 8 Q But the QA auditor himself, it goes this way? 9 A Yes. 10 Q So it creates work for himself? 11 A It creates a lot of work for himself. Not a lot 12 of work, don't get me wrong, but he is now responsible for 13 not only the initiation of it but the review of the-14 corrective actions, the buy-in that the corrective actions 15 are adequate to prevent reoccurrence, and then the follow-16 up of the investigation for the DER. 17 Q Let me just read you this and I would like your 18 comment. It says: "I issued the DER because the Inspection 19 Group Supervisor would not issue a DER and was trying to 20 resolve the issue by other means outside the corrective 21 program." 22 What you are saying is that you felt that the 23 problem had been identified, self-identified, had already 24 been corrected, there was no purpose in creating a DER 25 which, in effect, would just duplicate what has already been ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

u. 23 1 done? 2 A That is correct. Let me add something here. This 3 whole point as it is described here, this whole point was 4 identified in our package review some six to eight months 5 before Mr. Martin ever did his audit and corrective. 6 Q Now I have a question on it. 7 A Here is the thing, when the plant was not in 8 start -- this was a requirement for the plant to get started 9 back up, okay. When we identified that that whole point was 10 missing a signature, we contacted the weld engineer, also we 11 contacted the inspector that was on that job that signed the 12 other six requirements on that work package. We resolved 13 that to get-the plant started back up, nine months before 14 Mr. Martin ever saw this package. It would have been easy 15 to fax or mail this WPCS to the weld inspector that did it, 16 have him initial it here, send it back and put it in the 17 work package. 18 Q And correct it and no one would know the 19 difference. 20 A Correct it and dated it here, subsequently, date 21 it. It wouldn't be the same date as the rest of them, but 22 it would have been dated and initialed by him that he did 23 it. But we had a phone conversation and documented the 24 phone conversation with him in front of a witness, and 25 everything else, on a work package that he did, indeed, do ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

1 24 1 the visual inspection. 2 So we intentionally left it blank so that there 3 would be no coerciveness or anything else for a cover up in 4 answering questions later. 5 Q Mr. Martin identifies this problem but does not 6 create a DER on this one? 7 A That's correct. 8 Q But instead creates a DER on you because you 9 refused to write a DER. Where would his DER go as far as 10 this program is concerned? 11 A His DER goes over here on the QA program. -12 Q So he is creating -- what corrective action would 13 he have gotten by writing a work deficiency -- I guess that 14 is what it amounts to -- on you rather than on the DER on 15 the problem? Do you see what my question is? 16 A I understand what your question is. 17 Q What is the resolution -- I mean what happened to 18 that DER 310, do you know what happened to it, do you know 19 what became of it? 20 A Without looking at it right now, I don't think I 21-can. I remember the technical issue, and I am not so 22 familia -- this is more of a personnel error type of issue 23 here. What he is saying is procedure compliance for j 24 initiating -- requirements for initiating a DER. 25 0 I guess my question is, I understand if he would b ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

25 1 have written a DER here what corrective actions would have 2 been taken. But to write a DER on you not writing a DER, 3 what corrective actions -- I mean where would that have gone 4 to, to the vice president, or something, -- 5 A No. 6 0 -- or what would have been the purpose of that? 7 MR. MARQUARDT: Well, I would let the record show, 8 I guess, that certainly the DER is still in the files and we 9 can look at the disposition noted on the DER for whatever 10 happened to it, especially as Mr. Bradish has indicated he 11 doesn't recall the ultimate disposition. 12 THE INTERVIEWEE: What I recall is, if you would 13 like I could try to go here -- 14 MR. ANDERSON: No. 15 BY MR. ANDERSON: 16 0 I will tell you what, what I would like to do, 17 though, is, if I could get a copy of the resolution of that 18 because I am at a loss to understand why he would do that 19 rather than just write this thing up? 20 A I think what you are going to find, it is going to 21 go back to the technical issue of the whole point. This 1 22 issue also came up with the NRC and that was the resolution 23 of it, it was this -- not depicting the whole point.

See, 24 if you look at it, he wanted to write the DER on a missed QA 25 hold point.

We subsequently determined it was not a missed ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

a 26 1 QA hold point,,kat the inspector did the hold point. He i 2 did not sic. fc-4t because the asterisk was not in that 3 block for him t.o sign it, but he still did the visual -4 inspection and the requirements as a weld inspector to 5 verify that the fit-up weld was done correctly. 6 Here is the other thing is, if this work package 7 was not done that way, we would have gone in and cut that 8' weld out and redone it, and that was all addressed upfront, 9 should we go do that. 10 0 Previous? 11 A Yes, and it was decided by the engineering group, 12 the welding engineer, the maintenance superintendent, the QA 13 organization, and also with the weld inspector that he did 14 that, and the welder acknowledged that he did the fit-up 15 weld inspection. The welder that was doing the weld called 16 him over and said, "It is not on this WPSC to this, but I 17 think we need to do it. I think we made a mistake here." 18 O At this time, were you his direct supervisor? 19 A No, I was not. r 20 0 Did you have an argument with him and throw a 21 paperclip at him? 22 A I did not have an argument with him and I would 23 not -- what happened was, I flipped it like that. He was .24 sitting in that general direction. I would not term that 25 has throwing at him. I got disgusted with him. The ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. j Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 t

27 1 conversation voice levels probably went up a couple of 2 octaves. 3 0 Was this prior to or after he left your group? 4 A This was prior to. This was while I was the INS S Supervisor. 6 Q So it safely can be assumed that when you came 7 over, he did not want to remain there because of 8 personalities? 9 A All I can say is that he requested -- 10 Q A transfer. 11 A -- to go to work for the Quality Engineering 12 Group, right. 13 0 When did you first learn that there was going to 14 be a transitional plan implemented that involved the QA 15 program? 16 A I guess when everybody else did. I think it was 17 sometime in the January timeframe that the Fermi 18 organization would be going through what they called the 19 staffing transition. 20 0 When did you learn that you were selected to be a i 21 Supervisor of a Quality Assurance Group? 9 22 A I knew about that when the announcement came out 23 for Bob Szkotnicki and myself at the same time. I don't 24 have the exact date for that. 25 Q Approximately April? ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1 \\

] E 28 1 A I would say April. 2 Q March? I 3 A No, it was April. It would have to be April 4 because we finished staffing transition in May, and after 5 Lynn announced her -- first of all, Lynn was announced as 6 the Director of-QA when the QA and the Training Group went 7 together. Then she had like a week or so, and I had like 8 -two weeks. So it was about the middle of April. 9 O Subsequent to your placement as the supervisor, 10 you had an occasion to evaluate a number of people for 11 various positions, and in that evaluation you had Mr. 12 Martin. There are two position descriptions, and we have 13 labelled these already as Exhibit 3 and Ex.hibit 5. They are 14 position summary Quality Assurance Specialist Surveillance 15 and Quality Assurance and Quality Assurance Specialist. f 16 I will hand these to you, and if you would take a 17 look at these. When you did this evaluation you had not 18 been Mr. Martin's supervisor for some time by this point, it 19 is almost what two years give or take a couple of months, 20 maybe? 21 A That would be probably right. 22 0 When you did the evaluation, had you had an 23 opportunity of working with Mr. Martin subsequent to his 24 leaving your group that you were able to give the comments 25 on communication -- let's see, flexibility, communication, i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

t s. 29 1 individual initiative, and decisionmaking? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Did you have any input from anyone else in 4 preparing this evaluation? f 5 A I am not sure I understand that. 6 Q Did you talk to Mr. Wald at all who had been his l 7 supervisor? 8 A When I did these evaluations? 9 Q Yes, sir. 10 A No, I did not. 11 Q So you did these totally on your own? 12 A Well, there was conversation -- 13 MR. MARQUARDT: Just for me to correct things, or 14 to understand things, is the position that you evaluated Mr. i 15 Martin for the quality assurance specialist surveillance? i 16 THE INTERVIEWEE: No. 17 MR. MARQUARDT: Exhibit 3 which you handed Mr. 18 Bradish is for a position that I don't believe he rated Mr. 1 19 Martin on. I believe Mr. Szkotnicki rated him on that f 20 particular position. 21 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you for clarifying that one. 22 Very well, let me just check it. You are absolutely i 23 correct. 24 BY MR. ANDERSON: 25 0 In fact, Mr. Szkotnicki did two of those. Let me ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

30 i 1 hand you which would be Exhibit 5, and if you will take a 2 look at that, and then look on the.next page to make sure 3 that that is, in fact, the one that you did? 4 A Yes, that is correct. 5. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you for that correction, 6 Peter. ? 7 THE INTERVIEWEE: Now, I think you had a question 8 you wanted me to answer. The question was, did I have any 9 involvement in making these -- 10 BY MR. ANDERSON: 11 Q First of all, did you talk to anyone else or did 12 you do these on your own? I believe you said that you did 13 these on your own. 14 What was the criteria that you used for, like, 15 team work that you rated him low since you had not been his 16 supervisor for a period of time? 17 A Well, Jimmy did not report directly to me as a 18 supervisor. I still was in charge of the Audit Group. I 19 was in charge of the Audit Group, the Quality Engineering 20 Group assisted and performed audits. The audit reports are 21 initiated with my name on them, and my approvals and Lynn 22 Goodman's approvals, our director's approvals. So the 23 channelling of the information and the communication of the 24 audit results had to go through the Audit Group supervisor, 25 which I was. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

i 31 1 Mr. Martin was the technical specialist for our ? l l 2 fire protection audits, very technical qualified in the l i 3 arena of the fire protection requirements. When he went to i 4 Mr. Wald's group, we had a fire protection audit scheduled. 5 I requested Mr. Martin to lead that audit because it was 6 three or four months before the audit was due. We would not 7 be able to go out and get a technical specialist in that 8 short. period of time to fill that technical expertise I felt i 9 I needed on the audit team. 10 He agreed at that time during the transfer. When 11 the audit came due and the audit results and the report. 12 Mr. Martin came to me and requested he not be the technical 13 specialist for fire protection any longer and that he not 14 have involvement in the audit team make-up outside of the 15 quality engineering audits, which typically would be their 16 own team. 17 So that to me reflected a team work atmosphere and 18 team work approach that he did not want to work outside of 19 the Quality Engineering Group with the Audit Group or with i 20 the INS personnel or other utility people, then there was a 21 lacking of team work. 22 Q But if you will read your narrative there, if you 23 will read it outloud, under team work? 24 A I say: " Jimmy, does not work well on the audit 25 teams I have been involved with." I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

_~ 32 1 Q Excuse me, I think -- 2 A It says " team work," right? 1 3 Q No, " Jimmy does work well" I believe is correct? l 4 It says, " Jimmy does work well on the audit team I have been 5 involved with." 6 A That's correct. That's what it says. 7 Q Then what does the rest of it say? l 8 A "He is not very flexible to assume leading jobs." 9 Q I guess my question is, if an individual really i 10 doesn't want to take the lead but he works well with the 11 team, would that be reason to give him a 2 on a 5 scale -- 12 first of all, let's clarify, is that, in fact, a 5 scale, 1 t 13 to 5, the rating? 14 A I can't remember. I believe it is, but I can't l 15 remember for sure whether it was the 1 to 5 guideline. Let i 16 me see and I will tell you what. Yes, I believe it is, 17 because he got a 5 for certifications. They are 1 to 5 18 guidelines. 19 Q A 2 would be below average, and yet you state that i 20 he works well with the team. Now leadership I could 21 understand if, in fact, he is below average, but to be a 22 team -- I believe it is team member or team work -- 23 A The word "not," " Jimmy does not work well on audit 24 teams I have been involved with should be there." These 25 were handwritten. I do have a tendency to write fast. My ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

~_ 33' 1 . thought process there on the 2 was that he does not work j 2 well, although it is ont stated here, on audit teams that I 3 had been involved. 4 0 okay. i 5 MR. MARQUARDT: For the record, I believe we did '6 provide copies of the handwritten notes also. 7 MR. ANDERSON: You are absolutely correct. For 8 convenience of getting everything here, I took all of those 9 out saying, I won't need these, and they are back in my 10 house. 11 MR. MARQUARDT: I personally do not know whether 12 on the handwritten notes the "not" is there. 13 THE INTERVIEWEE: The word "not" is not there. 14 MR. MARQUARDT: But he is testifying that it 15 belongs there. 16 THE INTERVIEWEE: Yes, I am testifying that it 17 belongs there, and the also is, when these were taken from 18 my handwritten notes, I read this again and I put the word 19 "not" in there. Then it came back that we want these 20 verbatim, and I said, well, verbatim the word "not" is not 21 on my handwritten submittal. So, therefore, we took it out 22 of here so that it would be identical to the handwritten 23 submittal. But the word "not" is applicable here and was in i 24 my thought process when I rated him a 2 in team work. 25 BY MR. ANDERSON: ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

34 y 'l o I believe the last column that I have or the very 2 last one, is that interfacing down there? 3 A Yes, sir, that is interfacing. 4 0 Would you please read that for us? 5 A " Jimmy does not interface with department heads 6 very well. He has problems accepting the responsibilities 7 to fixing problems the right way which is different than 8 Jim's way." 9 Q Would these be similar or would one be relating to 10 supervisory personnel and the team work in relating to other 11 individuals? 12 A This particular one, department heads, department 13 managers and department heads, Jimmy's personality on the 14 audit teams was more of a dictatorship type of personality, 15 even though he would -- auditors are independent, they don't 16 have any responsibility for the effect of the job that they 17 are doing to anyone, and we report directly to the senior 18 vice president. 19 But on the other hand, we do have to effectively 20 communicate the expectations of what we are seeing in the 21 field to the department heads so that they can make the 22 changes necessary to correct the deficiency. 23 Q Do you feel that Mr. Martin was not at least 24 average as far as team work was concerned, and I have just 25 become aware of this when you were discussing it. But a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

[ 35 'l letter from Ms. Goodman points out that -- 2 MR. ANDERSON: And we have listed this as Exhibit '3 1, Peter. 4 BY MR. ANDERSON: 5 Q It states down there that he has been a Detroit 6 Edison representative on a Joint Utility Management 7 Assessment team. 8 I guess my question is, are you aware of the fact 9 that he was on this JUMA team? 10 A I am not sure. 11 Q You are not sure or you are not aware? 12 A Well, I am not sure. 13 Q This is a letter which has been Exhibit 1. 14 A I did not write this letter and I do not recall 15 ever seeing that letter before. I agree with some aspects 16 of that letter but not all of them. 17 Q I am not asking that, Tom. What I am asking is, 18 were you aware that Mr. Martin had been assigned on the 19 Joint Utility Management Assessment Team, were you aware 20 that he had gone out and done audits at other utilities? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Did you have any input into that, the fact that he 23 was on that teams, or would you personally, had you been his 24 supervisor, not allowed him to go on this JUMA program based 25 upon your knowledge of his team work and communications ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

I. 36 1 skills? 2-A There is_a lot of decision and thought process 3 when you send someone out on a JUMA Team. If the JUMA -- if 4 the utility requesting the JUMA audit requests somebody that 5 is fire protection knowledge and wants to look at their 6 compliance issues, I think that Jimmy would have been a good 7 choice to send. If it was operating the controls that 8 manipulate the activity of the reactor, Jimmy is a poor 9 person to send on that team. So there is a lot weight that 10 goes into choosing your JUMA representative from you utility 11 on what technical aspects they are looking for. 12 Q Did you ever have a discussion with Mr. Wald 13 regarding Jimmy Martin's ability to do fire inspection 14 audits? 15 A. Specifically, we had discussions on Jimmy Martin's 16 fire protection audits and observations that he had had, 17 yes. 18 0 When you were doing the analysis, did you have any 19 discussion with Ms. Goodman during the evaluation process? 20 A I do not recall. 21 Q Do you recall if she ever had an opportunity of 22 reviewing that and discussing Mr. Martin with you? 23 A There was one occasion I can think of that we had 24 a discussion that dealt with Mr. Walker, Mr. Martin, and Mr. 25 Kilroy who was a fire protection engineer, Ms. Goodman and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

i 37 j -l-myself to resolve an issue that Jimmy Martin had opened. 1 2 O When the entire new program was implemented and 3 people were selected, Mr. Martin was the only one from the 4 Quality Assurance Program not selected? 5 A That's not correct. 6 O That is not correct? 7 A No. 8 Q There were others who were not selected? 9 A There were -- 10 Q For clarification purposes, wait a minute. 11 MR. MARQUARDT: Let him finish the question, then 12 answer. 13 BY MR. ANDERSON: 14 O There had been people from Quality Assurance who 15 had been selected for other groups? 16 A That is correct. l 17 Q Are you aware of anyone else from Quality 18 Assurance who was not selected by Quality Assurance or 19 another group other than Mr. Martin? 20 A Yes, I am. 21 O Who would that have been? 22 A Jerry DiSerens, he elected for the staffing 23 transition buy-out. 24 Q With the exception of an individual who accepted 25 the buy-out, was there anyone else who went into the program ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporter. 1612 K Street, N.W., E te 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

m_ w 38 1 who was eventually let go by the company and not selected by i 2 another group? 3 A I don't believe so, no. I believe Mr. Martin was 4 the only one with that scenario. 5 0 When it was coming down to the final selection of 6 individuals, with Mr. Martin's eight years of quality 7 assurance experience, what criteria did you use for other 8 individuals over Mr. Martin that left Mr. Martin out in the 9 cold? 10 A There was no intent -- 11 Q When I say out in the cold, I mean he was not 12 selected by Quality Assurance. 13 MR. MARQUARDT: I think Mr. Bradish has only 14 indicated that he was considering Mr. Martin for a specific 15 position which Mr. Martin was not selected for. I am not 16 sure that he has the knowledge of why he didn't make it for 17 any position in Quality Assurance.. 18 MR. ANDERSON: Okay, I understand. 19 BY MR. ANDERSON: 20 Q Was there any other positions besides this i 21 particular one that you aware of that Mr. Martin applied 22 for? 23 A No, I am not. 24 MR. MARQUARDT: Wait a minute. In your group or 25 in Quality Assurance or in the Fermi organization does the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 1

4: t 39 1 question relate to? 2 THE INTERVIEWEE: I am not aware of Mr. Martin 3 applying for or being considered for any job outside of the 4 quality assurance organization. 5 BY MR. ANDERSON: 6 0 Let's clarify that even further, if you will flip 7 this page back, you rated him basically for the Quality 8 Assurance specialist; is that correct? 9 A That is correct. 10 Q And that was because that is your group; is that 11 correct? 12 A That is correct. 13 Q And if Mr. Martin had applied for another group 14 within the Quality Assurance, you had no knowledge of 15 whether he applied or whether he was evaluated for that 16 position? 17 A Right. I am not aware of Mr. Martin applying for 18 any position during the staffing transition program, inside 19 of QA or outside of the QA organization. 20 Q So if Mr. Martin was not selected by the group, 21 you had no knowledge of whether he was not selected or 22 whether he even applied for those? 23 A That's correct. Now, I do know that when the last 24 groups went, that was the Training organization, the Quality 25 Assurance organization, were selecting their personnel, also ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

40 l' Lthe Independent Safety Review Group positions, we were given 2 direction by the staffing transition organization, Mr. 3 Nolloth to select guidelines, I guess you could call that, 4 for people who met the qualifications for the incumbent 5 jobs. Mr. Martin met the qualifications for this incumbent 6 job, it was the other attributes that he scored less when 7 you looked at the available personnel that met' higher 8 categories during my review process. 9 Q For that particular job? 10 A For this particular job, yes, sir. 11 Q No other job that you are aware of? 12 A I -- 13 0 You did not have any -- you didn't evaluate him 14 for other positions? 15 A I don't believe so, no. 16 Q Just for this one. You evaluated Mr. Martin 17 strictly for the position summary of Quality Assurance 18 Specialist along with a number of other individuals? 19 A Yes, sir, that is correct. 20 0 And your rating of him was taken into 21 consideration of other individuals who applied for the 22 position who had stronger qualities for the position that 23 would affect his qualification or requirements? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 O So you are not aware then if Mr. Martin applied 7JR1 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

41 li forfany position under a Mr.' Johnson's group and you would j 2. not'have' evaluated him for that position? j 3 A No, I would not have evaluated him for that 4-position. i 5 0 of the positions -- by the way, how many people { 6 are reporting to you know? 7 A I will have to count them. Twelve. 8 Q of those twelve positions, would all of them be 9 Quality' Assurance Specialists? 10 A No, they are not. 11 O When the transition period took place, were there 12 other position summaries for the other positions within your 13 group? 14 A Yes, there are. 15 Q Did Mr. Martin apply for any of those? 16 A To my knowledge, Mr. Martin did not apply for any 17 jobs on site. 18 O He applied for this? 19 A No, he did not apply for this. 20 Q He did not? 21 A No, sir, he did not. 22 Q How did his name come into this? 23 A His name came on to these sheets from a sheet of 24 deselected employees. Lynn Goodman absorbed the Quality 25 Engineering Group, if you will, into the INS Group, i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

r j '42 l' Inspection Surveillance Group and into the Program Assurance 2 Group or Audit Group, as it is known now. We had four 3 departments. We had Quality Engineering, Production, Audits 4 and Procurement. i 5 Q Prior to? 6 A Prior to. When we were done, after Lynn was 1 7 selected, she announced her organization. Her organization l 8 deselected the five or six personnel that was in the Quality 9 Engineering Group. 10 0 Wait a minute, did they really deselect them or 11 they just weren't selected for the position? 12 A They went into -- my knowledge is that they went 13 into the deselection pool of people. 14 O This is after everyone had a chance to select 15 them? 16 A Yes, sir. We were the last to go. We were the 17 last departments to make this transition. 18 0 The reason why I am asking for this qualification, 19 Tom, is because an individual was not assured a spot here, 20 and then say there were five of them and then one was 21 deselected out. All of them had to apply for that position, 22 and then what was left over was what you are referring to as r 23 the deselected group? 24 A That's correct. 25 Q so this group then are the individuals -- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

~_ _ s 43 'l MR. MARQUARDT: I think part of the confusion may 2 be in your using the words " applied for the job." I think 3 previous people have said that there was a number of ways 4 that people were considered for it. One, they could have 5 been not selected for other positions; two, they could have 6 expressed an interest; or, three, they could have been an 7 incumbent already without them doing anything else, that 8 would have made up the pool of people to be evaluated if 9 they had minimum qualifications for the position under 10 consideration. Is that correct? 11 THE INTERVIEWEE: That is identical, yes, sir. 4 12 That is our guidelines. 13 MR. MARQUARDT: So I think you may be confusing i 14 him when you say " applied for." i 15 MR. ANDERSON: I understand. 16 That is how Mr. Martin's name came into this group 17 because he was, in effect, an incumbent, would that be 18 correct, Peter, or not? 19 THE INTERVIEWEE: He was not an incumbent for this 20 position. Mr. Martin was filling the position of a Quality 21 Engineer. 22 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct, and he was over in 23 this group here? 24 MR. MARQUARDT: I think what he is saying is, this 25 group, the audit. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

=. 44 1 MR. ANDERSON: It was merged, though. 5 2 THE INTERVIEWEE: It was eventually merged during 3 the one to two weeks. 4 BY MR. ANDERSON: 5 O But, Tom, how did his name show up on this list? 6 A His name got on this list because when I looked at-7 the deselected list, the personnel that had been deselected, 8 there was some hundred-plus names on this list, my job as a 9 supervisor was to go through that list, review the resumes 10 that were in the package, find out who met the minimum 11 qualifications for this job. Mr. Martin met the minimum 12 qualifications for this job because he had held this job, t 13 obviously, so he was evaluated because, going with the STP l 14 process, we were, as supervisors, obligated to put him on 15 the evaluation sheets. 16 MR. MARQUARDT: Tom, just for one other 17 clarification here, and it is a terminology question more 18 than anything else. You are once again saying there was a 19 deselection list. Is it more accurate to say that this was 20 a list of people who had not previously been selected for 21 any position in the Fermi organization? 22 THE INTERVIEWEE: Yes, sir-23 BY MR. ANDERSON: 24 O So you actually reviewed quite a few resumes or 4 j 25 whatever they filled out, whatever you want to call it, more i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ) Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

<p 45 1~ than the -- 2 MR. ANDERSON: What did we identify, was this the j 3 one where he identified approximately -- 4 MR. MARQUARDT: No. 5 MR. ANDERSON: In this particular case 197 6 MR. MARQUARDT: It looks like 16 through Blair l 7 Whitman on Exhibit 5. 8 BY MR. ANDERSON: i i 9 Q So in this particular one there were 16 l f 10 individuals out of this pool that you reviewed that met the 11 basic qualifications? I am not trying to complicate this. 12 A There is a lot more to this. 13 MR. MARQUARDT: What he is asking for is, you went 14 through a broader list and identified 16 individuals who met 15 the minimum qualification of this particular position 16 questionnaire? L 17 THE INTERVIEWEE: That is correct statement, yes. 18 That is what I did. 19 BY MR. ANDERSON: t 20 0 And then those 16 you rated either: a) from 21 personal knowledge -- 22 A Correct. 23 0 -- or did you talk to maybe supervisors or other 24 individuals to help you come up with the assessment? l [ 25 A Quite a few of them were incumbents, so obviously ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 {

.a. 46 1 .I knew them from personal experience. One individual on 2 this list I did not know very well. He had submitted a 3 resume and a letter requesting, so I did have to talk to his 4 supervisor on the rating process because I did not know him. 5 0 Was that person eventually selected, do you know? 6 A 'Not within the QA organization, no. There was 7 another individual that I had to also contact his supervisor 8 for some team work and other attributes that I was looking 9 for, and he was not selected either, and the rest of the 10 individuals I had previous knowledge of some of their work 11 habits and ethics. 12 Q So consequently, do you know, by the way, how many 13 candidates for this particular position description or 14 position summary were actually selected? How many was this I 15 for? How many people were you look to fill this? 16 A Was I looking for? l 17 Q Yes. Is there any way to review this just to see? 18 A I believe there was -- that number is available. 19 I just don't have it on the top of my head. I don't want to 20 give you a wrong number. Give me just one second. There 21 were seven personnel selected for this position. 22 O And to the best of your memory all seven.of those 23 personnel had been with Quality Assurance prior to? 24 A The selection, no, sir, they had not. I 25 Q So there were individuals who hadn't been with l l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

7 47 L 1 Quality Assurance that you selected from this list? 2 'A Yes, sir, there was. l -3 0 Stop for a second, if this particular list called 4 for seven people do you know approximately how many of those 5 individuals were Quality Assurance prior to? 6 A Can I term those as incumbents? 7 Q Yes, sir. 8 A Three ) 9 Q Three were incumbents, and were all three of those 10 individuals chosen for this particular position? 11 MR. MARQUARDT: I am confused by that question. I 12 was interpreting of the seven selected three were i 13 incumbents, not how many of the seven -- not how many of the 14 16 were incumbents. As I understood the question you were 15 asking, of the seven selected how many were QA incumbents, 16 and I think that answer is three. That is different than 17 how many QA people were among the 16. 18 MR. ANDERSON: Exactly. That would be the next 19 area because what I am trying to get to is that three were 20 other QA people besides Mr. Martin not selected for this i 21 position, but that is what I would like to find out. 22 BY MR. ANDERSON: 23 Q So of the 16 how many were QA people or l 24 incumbents? i 25 A Can we clarify something here? ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

48 1 Q Yes, sir. 2 A Can I turn this off just a minute, I guess, I am 3 confused here. 4 MR. ANDERSON: We can go off the record at this 5 point. 6 [ Discussion off the record.] 7 MR. ANDERSON: Back on the record. 8 BY MR. ANDERSON: 9 Q Now in reviewing that list, Tom, of the 16 people 10 how many were incumbents, including Mr. Martin? 11 A Seven. No, five. I am sorry, five were QA. 12 Q People? 13 A Exactly. 14 Q And three were selected out of the seven? 15 A That is correct. 16 Q So that means Mr. Martin and one other individual 17 were not selected for this particular position? 18 A That is correct. 19 O So Mr. Martin was not singled out because another 20 individual was also not selected? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q By the way, just for sake of -- who was that one 23 other individual, if you can identify them? 24 A Kurt Sessions. 25 Q Mr. Bradish, in your evaluation of Mr. Martin, did ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i

49 1 you evaluate him low because of his previous involvement 2 with NRC, identified problems or going to the NRC with 3 problems, and because of your wanting to prevent him from 4 working here because he was going to the NRC? 5 A No, sir. I had no knowledge of that at all. 6 Q Did you, in fact, know that he was going to the 7 NRC? 8 A No, sir, I did not. 9 O The work that you do as auditors in Quality 10 Assurance is that work, in fact, reviewed by the NRC? 11 A Every day, yes, sir. 12 0 So what he was doing was being reviewed by the NRC 13 but what you were doing is being reviewed by the NRC; is 14 that correct? 15 A That is correct. 16 Q So his going to the NRC would not point out 17 anything that wasn't already automatically going to the NRC; 18 would that be correct? 19 A That is correct, sir. 20 Q So your evaluation was based upon his work 21 performance and not because of his involvement with the NRC; 22 is that correct? 23 A Totally his work performance. 24 MR. ANDERSON: I have no further questions. 25 MR. MARQUARDT: Can we go off the record for a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

7 I; p .e 50 1 second? 2 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 3 We will be off the record. 4 [ Discussion off the record.] 5 MR. ANDERSON: We are now back on the record. -6 Mr. Marquardt, Mr. Flynn, do you have anything L 7 that you would like to add? 8 MR. MARQUARDT: I have no questions. 9 BY MR. ANDERSON: 10 0 Mr. Bradish, is there anything that you would-like 11 to add for the record that has not been stated? 12 A Make sure that all the questions I have 13 answered -- you know, I have answered them to the best of my 14 ability. Do you need any clarifications on any of the 1 15 answers I have provided to you? 16 O I do not, sir. 17 Have I or any other NRC representative at any time 18 threatened you in-any manner or offered you any reward in 19 return for the statement you have given today? 20 A No, sir. 21 Q And have you given it freely and voluntarily? 22 A Yes, sir, I have. 23 MR. ANDERSON: We will conclude this interview at 24 approximately 2:40 p.m. 25 [Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the above-entitled ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

.,<o 51 1

interview was concluded.] 2 3 -4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 i

SL REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter oft NAME OF PROCEEDING: Interview of Bradish DOCKET NUMBER: PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Newport, MI were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by =e i or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings. OdL Am 2rAdA official Reporter O Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. l (

-)- fg & t LV b ( m/c M ? ~- m /' b D ~ 'l D ( _,,,,mW"~" sp e, I n o i T Ly__)_c, _ 1 eAms) 7593-o.3 a. - g/^r i

bc ) l o. h 1 Date: February 14, 1991 To: W. E. Miller, Director Nuclear Quality Assurance t From: J. L. Martin, QA Specialist, ff/' l Quality Program Assurance f After yesterday's rour.dtable discussion held at the Monroe Activity Center, I was left with a very uneasy feeling concerning what appears to be your perception of the role of Quality Assurance in a Nuclear Power Plant. t Some of the statements I heard were: "We are going to be more cost l effective and beneficial by working with less people, only doing audits that i are absolutely required. Assigning auditors to work in other areas of the plant (like maintenance) where they will be more beneficial during the l outage. I also understand that it is planned to rotate personnel in. and out of the audit group with personnel from other departments in order to gain experience in other areas / departments and that you do not feel that this will create any conflict in independence even when the individual knows he will be returning to the organization he rotated from. I would like to say that I absolutely support cost effective efforts. I f have always completed by assignments on time even when it requires putting in extra unpaid hours. However, your approach to the roundtable discussion gave me the impression that you feel QA is little more than overhead. t As far as the more beneficial issue is concerned we all need to feel that our efforts are beneficial. We need that kind of job satisfaction and it is often so hard to get in auditing. I did not get the impression that you j feel QA audits are very beneficial and I will agree that it is often hard to understand how an QA finding on a personnel error or training problem, inadequate procedure or safety issue can benefit the plant when compared to the functions of a doing organization. If a QA auditor in the space program had found the problem with the "O" ring we may not have lost the space shuttle crew. But, we probably would have i never known the full oenefit because the accident would not have happened. You may not agree with this analogy but I know of many QA findings that have l' resulted in prevention of major problems and/or NRC violations. E en QA recommendations to provide training or change proce,duras ipay haft revented j n major problems or accidents which we will never kn&the full oenent of OF 2, PAGE(S) because the incident never happened.

pggg, I would like to say that I believe in the principals of QA.

I feel that QA auditing is not just overhead because it's required by 10CFR50. I believe QA is beneficial and cost effective in many ways that are sometimes hard to see and that the auditors need that kind of feedback, especially from the QA i Director. I also believe that we should not reduce our efforts when the ~ ?, ".9 3 ~~ d plant is going into a refuel outage because this provides an excellent [ 5 opportunity for e.ciy detection of problems and safety concerns before they become major.

.h . g W. E.. Miller February 14, 1991 Page 2 I would also like to recommend that we utilize the existing training programs used by other departments to keep the subject matter experts (auditors) up to date, instead of rotating with other departments. This would appear cost effective to me and would avoid any conflict of interest / independence or auditors feeling that they are being penalized for doing a good job. cc: R. Stafford i d "^0'2= 3 L P^ce(s) +r-m--- -+-- _._.------,s. -m-- v-v s .r~

f 9. - g 4 Date: March 6, 1991 To: J. L. Martin, QA Specialist Quality Program Assurance From: W. E. Miller, Jr., Director Nuclear Quality Assurance In response to your memo of February 14, 1991, you and I met on February 19 in my office at 3:30 p.m. During this meeting, you acknowledged that your memo was inaccurate. In your memo, you attribute someone with saying that we are "...only doing audits that are absolutely required." This was not said during that meeting! There was some discussion regarding identifying and reducing or eliminating unproductive audits. We eliminated the Tech Spec line audits because they were unproductive. Similarly, we have reviewed the audit schedule and adjusted it to eliminate other non-productive audits to improve effectiveness. There is a difference between doing only audits that are required and eliminating or reducing non-productive audits. As a final note, if I wanted to only do audits that are required, I would not support our three 1991 unscheduled (and not required) budgeted audits. You object to my plans for broadening the experience background within NQA. You imply that it will create a conflict of independence and that QA auditors will feel penalized for doing a good job. NQA has, for'many years, rotated personnel into and out of the department without any conflict of independence. Most recently, Fred Abramson and Geary Goodman were assigned to Nuclear Training, due to need for i SRO personnel within Nuclear Training and an excessive amount of SRO's within the audit group. Rich Fitzsimmons has been assigned, temporarily, to Nuclear Security to improve his experience in this area. John Louwers, from Nuclear Security, replaced Rich. Additionally, Larry Massamore (from Technical Group and previously from Maintenance) and Al Brooks (ANII assigned to the Technical group) were recently hired into the audit group. These personnel moves have led to a significant broadening of NQA's audit group experience base. They were not made to penalize auditors for doing a good job. They were made to strengthen the audit group. I don't view them as creating a conflict of independence. Our proposal for audit / surveillance personnel rotation really isn't that different from what we have done in the past. I feel that the real benefits will far outweigh the perceived weakness of conflict of independence. In your memo, you express a concern regarding assigning auditors to do work in other areas of the plant during refueling outages. (During b g._ g ' -upmT /.. ur 3 PAGE(S) //[

mm e Jim Martin Page 2 RF02 we will have Larry Massamore working on EDGs, John Wald on MOVs, John O'Donnell on condenser, Dave Gnaedinger on shipping condenser tubes, and Jerry Bussone on Receipt Inspection.) We have learned that performing audits during refueling outages should be carefully evaluated. Organizations we audit during refueling outages sometimes experience difficulty interfacing with us due to the unavailability of their key personnel (busy or on other outage assignments). Also, outages may or may not be the best time to audit performance of select programs. They represent excellent opportunities to assess implementation of design changes and to audit the ISI program. They aren't the best time to audit chemistry or plant operations. The audit schedule is being reviewed and revised to reflect this and also to levelize the audit work load. If this review results in man hours within audit groups being available during refuel outages, they may be used by placing NQA personnel in outage assignments that will reduce dependence on contractors and provide good work experience for the auditor. Conflict of independence, when appropriate, will be a deciding factor in any assignments made both during and after the outage. In your memo, you state that I feel that QA is little more than overhead. As we discussed at the MAC, we have many efforts underway to maximize return on NQA assignments. These are hardly the actions taken by someone who might feel that their department is little more than overhead. Similarly, they aren't actions taken by someone who feels audits aren't beneficial. They are actions that I am taking to maximize the benefit achievable from audits. These efforts include: 1. Expanding our experience base in the areas of Maintenance, ISI, IST, Special Process, and NDE 2. Raising our standards of acceptance 3 Streamlining the audit reporting process (an average of 30 manhour savings per audit) 4. Eliminate the delinquent QA finding report due to improvements and the report's redundancy to a Plant Safety Report (1 to 1 1/2 man-day /wk savings) 5 Eliminating audits that are not productive; those where we consistently find no safety significant problems (resulting in an estimated 30% manhours available for more productive audits). 6. Encouraging auditors to better develop significant and programmatic deficiencies so that additional related problems are identified and so that the true cause and corrective actions are identified. r vsomT _ _/I$ ~ J Op d P AGE (S)

.g 9 l i Jim Hartin Page 3 7 Hiring a communications consultant to improve audit communication skills. We want to ensure that the problems we identify are clearly defined and understood, along with the efforts we took to arrive at our recommended corrective actions. 8. Assessing major organizations on site every two months using I audit and surveillance results. Results of these assessments are communicated to appropriate management and to the NSRG. 9 Reviewing NQA organization to determine future skills, education, experience, complement, grade and structure needs.

10. Evaluating the audit schedule to even out the audit workload and available manhours.

Working to better coordinate audits, surveillances, and other known assessments. I agree with you that we need to utilize existing training programs to keep our subject matter expertise current. The training needs to be identified, cost effective and budgeted. Subject matter experts, including you, need to ensure this. This action is consistent with actions we planned as a result of the last JUMA audit as were the actions we took to bring experience into NQA where significant background weakness existed. Additionally, I am encouraged by the continuing success of JUTA and with the efforts spearheaded by NQA to share QA auditors amongst Great Lakes utilities. This is an excellent i example of cost effective training. It broadens our experiences without incurring additional costs or the usual corresponding loss of resources. It also enables us to compensate for imbalances in our audit schedule by " borrowing resources" when our load is high and l " paying back" when our audit load is low. Finally, as I said earlier, I do intend to pursue the proposed audit / surveillance personnel rotation program under review. Training efforts such as these will broaden our background, maintain it, and should enable us to help achieve better Fermi performance. As I pointed out at the MAC, the electric utility industry is becoming more competitive. I feel that it is prudent to recognize this, j understand its effect on us, and to plan and make adjustments in advance of it. These adjustments are better made in an environment l that allows for careful thinking and feedback vs waiting, doing l nothing, and perhaps later making changes that might lead to errors because they were hastily thought out and implemented. WEM/vlh cc: R. B. Stafford FY4tP'T / PAGE 3 OF 3 PAGEIS)-

r 9 9 Date: March 27.1991 To: W.E. Miller, Jr, Director Nuclear Quality Assurance Fream: J.L. Martin, QA Specialist # 5/ Quality Program Assurance

Reference:

(a) Memo from J.L. Martin to W.E.

Miller, dated February 14, 1991 (b) Memo from W.E.

Miller to J.L.

Martin, dated March 6, 1991 ad I have received ye,ur memo addressing the concerns that I expreesed a+c my written comments to you, after attending the round table discuscions of February 13. 1991.

The time and effort you have taken to address my concerns are greatly appreciated. However, it is my understanding that you do not consider my concerns to be valid. After careful consideration, I have decided to make another effort to further clarify these concerns. During the round table discussions I was concerned when I did not hear any recognition for the benefits of auditing. or for the benefits of early identification of deficiencies before they became major problems. What I did hear was that QA findings recom.-'nding procedure changes and/or additional trs't ing are not well receiv d, and that we would be more cost effective performing other tasks. I am not alone in feeling uneasy over the round table discussions. most of the auditors have voiced these same concerns to me. I previously stated that I feel QA audits are beneficial and cost effective. I believe that we should be doing more audits to identify deficiencies early. before they become major problems. I do not feel that auditors have been properly recognised for their efforts. A case in point. are the Fire Protection Audits for the past four yearc. that Were recently reviewed by the NRC. It is my understanding that the NFC found the audits to be very comprehensive and beneficial. I received on the other hand negative comments. even on my evaluation, concerning the Fire Protection Audits. There are many other audits that come to mind, for identifying .r.n cl i t io n s L+fere they become major problems. Some of these audite. are i T; measuring and test equipment, evaluation and Corrective action. inspection, and security. jurt to name a few. ...- 9 3 - o .3 Emir _ //n - - - - - g PAGE d OF J n A/V c

\\ ) i t 1 1 In conclueien, I uc,u ld l i h +~ t ', ",' ""** I I S C' recogni + that the n o'u e-t 1 y is tiecc. ming more a cimpe t i t iv e, but. I f ~ ' ]' electric, e 11.4 t. i early detection.3f deficienciesmakira a substantial cont [ ;' [Ah. b . k'I e ' + at h, is befo - c> a p t-l l i l l 1 i }& r" v .r - g ,r-_ g P AGE (S) p-}}

ML20098A291

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Reference:

Navigation menu

ML20098A291

Text

SUBJECT:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search