ML20106G180
| ML20106G180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1983 |
| From: | Brandt C EBASCO SERVICES, INC. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8410310077 | |
| Download: ML20106G180 (99) | |
Text
.
'I JU.. .. 1
.s v .
g
s.. '.r U.MITED STATI.S OF A.t. DICA 9
.NuCLEAA kEGULATORY COM. MISSION
. 3 INTERVIEW 5
OF 6
CHARLES ThiOMAS BRANDT l 8 1 9
Conference Room No. 2 I 10 Visitors Information Center Tex:,s Ucility Generating Coscgany i II P. O. Box 2300 l Glen acue, Texas'76043 l, I2 Thursday Decemcer 1, 1983 13 g T.'s interview co menced, pursuant to notice, l 15 at 1:25 p.m.
16 FAdTIES PRESEuf:
II On Behalt of the NRC Office of Investi=ations:
18 H. BROOKS GRIEFIN, investigator DONALD D. DRISKILL, Investigacor i 19 U. S. Nuclear .9.egulatory Cornmission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive I
,I Suite lv00 [
Arlington, Texas 76001 l
^
On behalf of Texas Utility Generatins Cc:.cany:
U McNEILL wATKINS, II, ESQ.
24 De'evoise c & Liecer.aan 12ua Seventeenen Street, N. W.
nashington, U. C. 20036 3 ...
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1628 i STRWT. N.W. = SUITI 1904 WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20004 0 g7 gnos; 3,3,3,,a l PDR ..
. . - - _ _. _ - . _ _ _ . . _ _ , _ _ _ . . - . _ _ . , . _ _ - - . _ _ _ - - _ .EJAllil 3 . _
L1 i
" I P'M O C E E D I N G S MR. GRIFFIN: For the record, this is an 3
interview of Thomhs Brandt, 8-r-a-n-6-t, wno is employed by Ebasco Services Corporation.
. The location of this interview is the Comanche 6
Peak Steam Electric Station near Glen Rose, Texas.
Present at enis interview are Thomas Brandt 8 for Ebasco, McNeill wateins, attorney for Debevoise anc 9
Liebertaan, Donals D. Oriskill and myself H. erooks 10 Griffin.
" Tne sucject of my questions to you, Tom, will 12 be regaraing coatings records and instances of I3 intiintaation tnat have been alleged.
14 I am goins to lom, if you woulc plesso rise.
15 swear you to ene contents of your testimony.
16 knereupon, I
CHARLES THOMAS BRANDT 18 having been first duly sworn by Investigator Griffin, .as
' 19 exae.inea and testified as follows:
- 0 MR. WATKIN3: Mr. Brandt, ao you have anything I
to say for tne record before we start?
22 THE WITNSSS: Yes. No. 1, I tninr. tnat tne mode El of this investigation or interview or whatever you want to 23 call it is a little bit out of the orcinary in tne fact 25 that it has never been done in tnis fashion before to my TAYLOE AS$CCIATES 1428 187I1057,N.W.= SUlft1004 WASNW470W, D.C. 20004 g (302) 393 3980
r
.I 3
- I Anowledge in my three and a half years nere and the fact 2 ~
tnat it is a sworn Jtatement and tnere is a court reporter 3
present, ano en enis very same investigation "X" number of 4
inspectors.were interviewec in a faanien unline enis.
3 MR. GRIFFIN: Would you 11<e an explanation, 6 7,,7 I
THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 MR. GAIFFIN: The NRC Office of Investigations has not mace an official policy, but is operating under a 30 celief that in instances wnere employees of companies ,
i II retain attorneys or request attorneys or in instances 12 wnere incividuals tnat we interview request attorneys, or 13 it say in ene case of a: an example, an alleger wants to I4 ma,;e a statement to tne Na0 with an intervenor present, we 15 nave decided witnin tne office of Investigations to use 16 court reporting services so that the flaver as well as the II content ci tne interviews will be captured and enose 18 parties interested witnin tne NRC anu witnout and in the 19 1 case et fou being interviewoo, you would be cupplied a 20 copy of the transcript, will have an opportunity to 21 recount ene exact questions ana answers anc' tnis will not 22 oe lost and it will not be subject to interpretation.
U he are trying to mako it as exact ano as 21 accurate as we possibly can ano it allows us as the 23 investigators the freedom to pose our quections and TAYlOE ASSOCIATES tels i stasti M.w. - sum tood wAsmwetow or tooos (Soll2933990 w-
\
l i
l 4 \
i
- 1 1
prepare,our questions without having to taxe notes anc !
i O
preparing'a written sta'ement afterwards.
3 l So it makes it easier for us. We capture tne 4
exact fisvor of what we saic and there can be no doubt. It 5
removes all doubt or almost all dou't, c and for these 6
potentially auversarial or conflicting situations wnere somebody might object or have objections to a 8
proceecing, we have just used tnis as-a tool to expecite 9
our investigatione, our interviews and to get a more 10 accurate picture of what was said and wnat une testimony.
I II '
of tn>2 person is.
12 THE WITNESS: Wnicn of the circum 6tances you I3 nave outlinec is,present here?
N Tne presence of an attorney. I MR. GRIFFIN:
ThE WlTNESS: No one here requested an attorney 16 until'you snowed up with a court reporter.
MR. GRlEFIN: I nave a further explanation for 18 that. Tom nas been interviewed by the NRC before and he I9 nas given a statement to the NRC before, a signed sworn a0 statement, wnien from our point of view is pretty much the
'l same as naving a sworn testimony before a court reporter.
n, Tne last time Tom was intervieweu, he declined I believe a3 to give a statement. Is that correct, Tom?
24 ThE WITNESS: That is right.
25 MR. GRIFFIN: So we chose to have a court l'
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
3 I
reporter in tnis instance o'ecause there was going to be an 2
attorney present and we knew that that was going to tage 3
place 4
ooviously To.n doesn't have to give us a 5
statement it ne doesn't want to and he doesn't nave to ce 6
interviewed here touay, out it is more to our liking and I
it satisfies our purposes if we nave every reason to 8 celleve that tne testimony received is understood clearly 9 I between all parties involved and that tne interviewee is l
IO I obligated and ocund to the truth through the swearing 11 process. So we use this tool to expecite our interviews.
12 TnE WITNESS: That has never ceen an issue, I3 l Brocks. I explainec to you last time exactly what my ;
I4 nesitancy with tne sworn statement was.
15 MR. GRIFFIN: nignt. I understand.
16 THE WITNESS: The only -- I won't go any II further. To give it to you just in a nutshell, I was askec 18 last week I unink if I wished to have an attorney present 19 and I saic no, but wnen you snowed up in tne fashion tnat
'O you have, I have no intentions or talking to you without ,
al an attorney present.
22 hell, when did you make that '
MR. GdIFFIN:
U decision, Tom, tnis morning? l 24 THE WITNESS: No.
3 MR. GRIFFIN: When we arrived?
TAYL40E ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 ;
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 g (202) 293 3950 -
e
6 I
rhE WITNESS: When you arrived.
2 MR. GRIFFIN: when we arrives to talk to 3
Curley?
4 THE WITAESS: when you arrivec to talk to Curley anc ne explained briefly tne process that he went 6
througn.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, see, if it was Just me 8
talking to you or Don talxing to you or even bota of us 9
talking to you over in your office, there would be no 10 court reporter oc lawfer present. That is the way we i
11 8 normally do it and that is the way we lixe to do it, but l 12 if e are getting other parties involved anc if tnere is a 13 question as to what was said or how it was uncerstocu, we 14 find tnat a court reporting service eliminates tnat 15 .
proclem.
16 THE WITNESS: That is fine.
17 MR. DhlSKILL: Just let me interject one thing.
18 Tne topic catae up during the course of tne investigation, I9 gosa, it has been September I believe, the topic came up
- 0
~
ct interviewing Gordon Purdy, yourself and Ron Tolson, and "I
~
we were told at that time that we may have to wait a couple of days for some attorneys to come in, giving us 13 the clear indication at that particular point in time witn 24
! respect to the Dunham issue tnat the titree of you would l
3 prefer to have attorneys present.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES !
1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 I
y
o -
7-
- I Me didn't ass eacn one or you, and I don't 2
even believe you were on the site on tnat occasion.
3 THE WITNESS: Is that when you interviewed tne inspectors with Rice?
MR. DRISKILL: Yes.
6 ThE .41TNESS: Oxay.
MR. DRISKILL: We were given that indication.
8 So we let Rice come bacx and co his thing and I don't know 9
wnetner he had attorneys. I don't really know anything 10 aoout - what nappenea.
II THE WITNESS: Let me explain my bottom line 12 concern. We are nere trying to do a job, as you guys are.
13 You know, everycody has got a Joc to co. There are I4 400-plus QC inspectors out there tnat see the NRC come in 15 with the Department of Labor and conouct a joint 16 investigation of tne Dunham thing as xinc of a causual ,
17 type investigation going. You asked for certain people and 18 we went out and found them and brought them in.
19 Now tne inspectors know, due to word of mouth, t
20 if notning else, aoout this investigation. They know for a l 2I fact that wnen the Department of Labor came oack to talx.
22 to management, it was the Department of Labor alone anc 3 they proceeced on, with skepticism I guess is the best l 24 word to use, t'e a fact that you interviewed all tne l
3 inspection personall as a joint investigation in a casual TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 I i WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
l 1
1
l
. 1 I
enviranment, out yet when you come back to talx to'the ,
supervisory personnel and management personnel, it is a 3
separate investigation and it'is a much bigger deal. You 4
come in with court reporters, swearing in and tne whole cit. .
6 MR. GRIFFIN: Tne swearing goes witn our I
statement taking, whether-it is sworn that way or the 6
other way, anc tne court reporting service, if tnat is 9
-intimidating or if tnat disturbs anyoody, that is not our 10 purpose at all. It is not supposed to make this a more ,
11 !
formal proceeding.
l 12 THE KITNESS: I understand that, Brooks. All I 13 am saying is the perception tnat it gives 4v0 people out 14 enere tnat we are trying to manage and head in a straight dirction.
16 KR. GRIFFIN: Well, I personally do not see it I
tne same way. I understand now ---
I8 THE WlTNESS: I am not saying I see it that I9 way. I am just telling you the way they see it, a
'0 MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, al THE WITNESS: They perceive it as a much bigger 22 deal, liAe, on God, tney are after Branct, Tolson, Purdy U
and Krisher.
24 We are never after anybody. We MR. GRIFFIN:
investigate and try to reconstruct the facts as tney l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 t
b
~
I occurreu, anc tnis is just simply a tool enat we use. If 2
somebocy reads something.as this being more critical or 1
3 ~
as tnis ceing damning to QC representives, then I thinr.
4 tney just misreprsent what we intenu.
5 THE' WITNESS: I'can hear you saying tnat, 6
Brooks, but there is no --- ,
Mk. GRIFFIN: We can't back up cecause we are 8
liaole to ofrena tnese 4G0 OC inspector =.
9 THE WITNESS: no, it is not offending tnem. I 10 tnins it would made, you know, I am not saying my joo, tut j 11 anybody, put yourself in my position or Ron Tolson's ;
i In- position or Purdy's position. You Know, by the noopla, for 13
- lack of a cetter tera., that is being snown or demonstrated I4 over management interviews as opposed to line inspecter 15 interviews ---
16 MR. GRl eTIh : Well, tne distinction is tnat in I
line inspector interviews they don't nave their attorneys ,
18 present, and in tnis instance ---
19 THE WITNESS: Tne line inspectore were offerec "O
attorneys wnen they were interviewed, and in this 21 instance ---
22 Well, I am not familiar with the MR. GRIFFIA:
U particular situation that you are talsing acout, but when 24 I interview inspectors on site, when I Just casually call 25 tnem in anc solicit whatever infortnation they nave in the TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 -
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (102) 293 3950 l'
e 10 i
1 area tnat.I am investigating, I don't nave a VP for tne I utility over in Dallas calling us and saying we are going 3
to'have attorneys down there. Now when you mention 4
attorneys and we know attorneys are going to oe there, 3
expect to see court reporters cecause that is the way the 6
Orfice of Investigations is going to co it so that enere can be no doubt as to what was saic.
8 ThE WITNESS: I uncerStand that, Brooks. I nave 9
no personal-problem witn it. Don't get me wrong. I will be 10 glac to have tne interview done on national television. I II don't care.
l'- (Laughter.)
13 All I am saying is you are you are casting a I#
snauow or douot I tninc without warrant over tne 15 situation.
16 MR. GRIFFIN: Well, that is not our intent at I
all, anc I frankly 'o not believe tnat that is tne case.
18 Now you have your own opinion on that. We nave not 19 announced our con.ing down nere. The people tnat know aoout a0 this are the people you wor < for anc One client managers I.
"1
, in Dalias. Now we haven't mace an announcement anu nococy n,
.< nows we are nere.
23 THE WITAESS: Well, let me tell you how the
'4 troops know.
23 MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l 1625 i sTauT, H.w. - sum ioo4 i WAsHfMGTON, D.C. 20006 l (202: 293-3950 l 1
- 1 11 '
. 1 Tr.E WITNLSS: Tne other day Curley Krisher was 2
gone from his office and was onreachable for four hourd 3
. and people as% .where he is. Well, he is with the NRC.
4 MR. GRIFFIN: And is there anything_ unusual 5
aoout that? All cf you are subject to be interviewed by 6
the NRC on a repeated casis.
I THE WITNESS: I am getting quite use to it.
8 MR. GRIFFIN: We are remote from your office 9
anc we don't nave you nailes down to a enair or aandcuffed .
I 10 and you are not hanging from the wall. ,
11 (Laughter.) j i
Ie We are up here in wnat I consider a fairly i i
13 !
remote place.
I I# !
ThE WITNESS: I agree.
i MR. GRIFFIN: We originally wanted to nave this 16 cone at TUDC0 corporate headquarters in Dallas, anc that II would have ceen fine, too, or any other place. You all are j 18 ene ones tnat deciced wnere and to a certain cegree when.
19 If we can go ofr tne record a moment, I have a0 got to take .2 paone call. l "1
(Short recess.)
a,n MR. GRIEFIS: Back on the record.
U You said you have some more statements. j I
o4 TdB WITNESS: Yes, I have two requests. No. 1, 25 I oc formally request confidentiality ot the transcript in TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 l (202) 293 3950 l
._. _ .9 -
- i. '
12 l
. i 1
light of wnat nas already happened in another similar !
2 investigation.
2 MR. GRIFFIh: You request conficentiality?
4 ThE WITNESS: Yes, of the transcript.
MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Now let me tell you what we 6
do witn tne transcript. We mail you a copy. how are you referring to how we use it or the dissemination within tne 8
NRC? ,
9 THE WITNESS: No. I am talxing aoout external 10 to tne NhC.
II MR. GRIFFIN: Only you get a copy. We mail you 12 to your nome accress a copy.
13
, ThE. WITNESS: That is all I am requesting, I4 because if it can't be tnat way I am going to have 15 proole.ns tal<ing about individuals in lignt of tne 16 potential civil action that can occur as a result of the I
labor suit. I have been down this roac once.
18 MR. GAIEFIN: Okay. Well, you are not talxing 19 about conzicentiality in the same way that if we would go
'O out and we would talk to an alleger or a witness who wants al to give information cecause I presume you plan to ciscuss en your testimony wita other members, not only your attorney, U o cut witn otner mem'ers of the community.
24 MR. WATKM,S: pernaps I can aelp. By 3 confidentiality in terms of your treatment of tne TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
13 1
transcript, we woulo request, and I am speasing for you, Tom, that it not ce disclosed to tne Department of Lacor-3 or any representative of tne Depart.nent or Lacor, that it 4
not.ce cisclosed to any member of the public under tne 5
Freedom of Information Act in response to a Freedom of 6
Information Act request, not that..the substance of Mr.
Brandt's testimony oe cisclosed whether via the transcript 8
or questicns from you to any member of the QC inspection 9
program nere, anc tnere is a reason for that, a management 10 reason for tnat. j
" It is difticult enough to supervise One troops l lo- as it is witnout naving tne ShC, yourselves or somebocy 13 Ease witnin the NRC go to an inspector and saf Mr. Erandt I4 told us tnis aoout you and would you care to comment.
i I MR. GRIFFIN: Tnere is another of putting tnat.
16 You coulo say on such and sucn a date cid you attend a I meeting in anich you said tnis, and if Mr. Branct was the 18 one that told us --- j i
I9 TnE WITNESS: I nave no proolem with that. But I 1
"O particularly, as I said when we were off tue record, I i 1
21 believe, in light of the pending DOL investigation, which 22 you chose, at least with my interview with the DOL not to 13 protect it, in the event that tne same event happens Wita !
24 this investigation as opposed to a Section 210 complaint l
.a5 that happened in tne Atchison 210 complaint in tnat it was
'f TAYLOE ASSOCl4TES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
r-4 14
~ I introduced in a public hearing unsanitized, and the i complainant's attorney had copies of my privileged 3
statement to tne fluclear Regulatory Commission and I i
4 object to tnat.
5 MR. DRISKILL: Okay. For the record,-let me 6
respond by stating tnat we can accept your request for I
confidentiality, however, there are certain provisions 8
wnich relate to that, one of wnich is if we receive a-9 court subpoena for your testimony, we will nave to provide 10 .
I
, A.
.t 11 I am not sure tnat eitner Brooks or I have the j 12 rlgnt to corr.mit NRC to not providing investigative 13 information, even to include conficential information, to ,
t I#
anotner government agency conducting an investigation into l I
an area.
16 MR. GRIEFIN: Under the parameters that you nave set. In some areas confidentiality is quite clear. I 18 will tell you wnat we can co. he can go off the recorc anc 19 we can explore it a little further and make sure we nave a
- 0 clear understancing of' exactly wnat limitations you want al on your testimony and then we can researen wnether we can n,
abiue oy that. If we can, tnen we can proceed.
U We will go off tne recore.
24 (Snort recess.)
[
3 MR. GRIFFIN: he will go back on tne record.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
F 15 1
Do you nave anythino~else ---
i 2
THE WITNESS: I have one other reouest. I woulo 3
li.<e a copy of the transcript.
MR. GR1EFIN: Okay. I don't recall whether it
-was on the record or off, Tom, cut you indicated earlier 6
that until you learned that a court reporter was to be usec here you nac not specifically or you had not planned 8
to retain an attorney or have an attorney present; is tna'. ,
9 true?
10 ThE WITNESb: That is true.
t II MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Ana you say your reason rcr l'- wanting an attorney was the fact that it was to be I3 reported unaer oatn? ,
I4 ThE WITNESS: Rignt.
MR. GRIFFIN: Coula you tell me when you maae 16
- ne cecision to have an attorney present?
17 ThE nITNESS: Can I asK a cuestion?
18 MR. GRIFFI6: Sure.
i 19 1hE h1TNESS: Anen was Kirsner interviewed?
a0 i
MR. DRISKILL: Monday afternoon. *
'l Tdd WITNESS: It was that evening.
rpq MR. GRIFFIN: That evening?
n3 The WITNESS: That evening, about 6 o'clocR
'4 tnat evening.
23 MR. GRIFFIN: Had anybody spoken to you prior l
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 l
l
. d 16
' I to that time _acout naving an attorney witn you?-
THE WITNESS: In tne NRC investigation?
3 MR. GRIFFIN: No, in this instance.for tais 4 .
Interview.
THE WITNESS: I had been asked it I was going 6
to use an attorney oy Ron Tolson sometime last week, if I -
was going to request that an attorney be present and my l 8
answer was no.
9 MR. GRIFFIN: OKay. So nobody instructed you 10 that you woulo have an attorney anc that that attorney II woulc be a TOGCO attorney? ,
12 TnE WITNESS: Absolutely not.
13 MR. . GRIFFIN: Or a Brown and Root attorney? ;
I4 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not.
15 MR. GRIFbIN: Esasco, I presume, does not nave i
16 !
any policy that requires you to have an attorney? !,
1*
THE WITNESS: That is correct. Ebasco's policy {
18 l 1s tnat an attorney will ce made availacle if requested. .
i I9 MR. GRirFIN: Okay. Last ween when the NRC !
"O contacted witn Clements at TOGCO, he indicated to us that
'l all tnree of you would nave an attorney. Now dic you l t
on discuss tnis with Clements or any or his representatives U ano tnereby state Onat you uidn't want an attorney? l 24
- I have not alscussed tnis ThE WlTNESS:
3 investigation with Mr. Clements at all. I was asked by, as l
l l
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l 17 I
I saio, Ron Tolson who reports to Mr. Clements one-levei 2
' removed, if I wisned to have an attorney present during 3
tne investigation, and I stated at tnat point no.
4 MR. GRIFFIN: OKay. Tnen when you founc out on 5
Monday evening of tne form in wnien Krisner was 6
interviewed, you cectaed you wanted an attorney?'
ThE WITNESS: That is right.
8 MR. GRIf f iN: How did you decice wnich attorney 9
you wantec?
10 THE WITNESS: It has been customary, if ,
II requested, tnat tne utility provice an attorney. That was l i
l'- discussed botn in NRC investigations-anc Department of I3 Labor investigations in a tnree-way discussion oetween 34 Texas Utility, Ebasco's legal cepartaent ana myself.
15 MR. GRIrFIA: So when Old you realize Mr.
16 atkins was going tc ce your personal representative?
II idE WITNESS: Tuesday sometime.
18 MR. GRIFFIA: Dic you choose Mr. Watkins for 19 expediency in that he was going to be representing Gordon 60 1
Purdy anu I presume Mr. Tolson? !
- 1 ThE WITNESS: Mr. Watkins meets witn my r,., i approval is tnat is the question. I U MR. GRIFFIN: Have you ever met Mr. hat.<in s 24 before or tal.<ed to nim? !
25 ThE WITNESS: Yes, I nave. .
t l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004
! WA5HINGToN. D.C. 20006 l (202) 293 3950 i
,2 .
l 18
' I HR. GRIFFIN: On other inquiries?-
ThE WITNESS: On otner inquiries, yes.
3 MR. GnIFFIr: Okay.
Mr..Watkins, is it correct to say that you are A
nere tocay representing Tom Branct as his personal 6
representative?
MR. WATKINS: For porposes of tnis interview, 8
yes.
9 MR. GRI?eIN: A1:nough it nas oeen stated 10 cercre, would you re= tate wno else you represent or wno II else your firm represents in enis matter? l la 1 MR. KATKIWS: In tnis investigation?
13 XX. GkIFFIN: In relation to Comanene Peak. I N mean be more specific. f 15 MR. HAtKI.NS: Debevoise and Liberman represents 16 l'vGCO in One NRC licensing proceedings. It also represents 17 Brown ana Root in the Department of Labor Dunnam case.
18 MR. GRIFFIN: All rignt. And you say that your 19 firm coes not formally represent Ebasco in any manner? l l
'O MR. WATXINS: act to my knowledge.
- 1 MR. GRIFFIN: In this instance you are employed 2 cy TUGCO tnen anc you are representing Mr. Brandt as nis
- 3 personal representative?
2I MR. nATKINS: I am not employed by TGGCO.
n5 MR. GRIFFIh: You are employed by Brown and l
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 162s i staser. N.w. - suits i004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 l
~ ~ '(:
19 1
Root? ,
MR. WAfKINS: I an employed by Decevolse ana l 3
Liberman, a partnership, and I as here for Mr. Brandt for l purposes'of this interview.
5 Your law firm enen, wno is their MR. GRIFFIh:
6 client in t'nis matter?
MR. WATKINS: The firm nas many clients.
8 Okay. In tais matter tnough, do MR. GHlFFIN:
9 tney nave many clients in tnis matter?
10 MR. WATKINS: At tnis moment as I sit here in i
II tnis room speaking to you, Mr. Brandt is my client. l I
MR. GRIFb1N: Is Mr. Brandt paying you? j 13 MR. . WATKINS: That is infctmation to which you I i
M are not entitled. !
i MR. GRIFFIN: Oxay. Well, let me restate-that l 16 tnen. I am trying to rind out it you nave been retained as l I it appears on tne surf ace by TUGCC to represent einplo,s ees 18 wno wor < for various contractors and subcontractors in 19 cenalf of TUGCO. !
' I O
MR. KATKINS: Mr. Griffin, I personall-y have -
oj i cone very little, if any, wor.< for TUGCO in my entire I i
<,n s career, and my firm, as I say, several lawyers in my firm :
1 U represent TUGCO in tne NRC licensing proceeding. I l 24 personally am working for Brown *and Root in the Dunnas !
25 Department of Labor case, anc rignt now I am representing .
l I
l l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
I,
- 2u 1
Tom-Branct'in this interview for purposes of tnis Interview.
3 MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Well, the reason I put tnis 4
question to you is-tnat last week I was in telepnone contact with Nics Reynolcs wno is also a mem~er o of your 6
firm I belive.
MR. WAIXINS: 'f e s , he is one of my law 8
partners.
9 MR. GRIFFIN: And Mr. Reynolds indicated that a 10 TUGC0 attorney woulc be down here or an attorney from the firm. I am Just trying to snow for the record the relation 12 of wno at Comanche Peax employs your firm.
I3 MR. WATKINS: well, as I nave stated, TOGCO is i
I4 I a client of the firm and Brown and Root is a client of the 15 firm. I nave saic tnat twice and-I don't tnink it can ce 16 .
any more crear.
MR. GRIFFIN: In tnis case, for tne purposes of 18 touay, you are also a client of Mr. Brandt's?
I9 MR. WATKINS: h'o . Mr. Brandt is a client of 20 ours. ,
~l I MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. Again, Mr. Watkins, if a 22 potential conflict of interest shoula arise between Brown a3 ana Root and the interests of Mr. Brandt, how would you 24 accress tnat?
25 MR. WATKINS: If by your questicns or any of TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 1 STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 l_
6.
21 1
.Mr.-Brandt's answers a potential'or a natural conflict of
- ~
interest emerges, I wili ast. for a recess and I will 3
discuss tne matter with Mr. Brandt.
4 MR. GRIFFIN:. Mr. Brandt, then Mr. watkins 3
represents you treely anc voluntarily of your own choosing?
THE WITNESS: Rignt.
8 MR. GKIFFIN: Well, let's proceec then with the 9
questioning, if taat is agreeable to both of you all.
10 MR. WATKINS: Fine, ,
1 II TnE WITNESS: Okay.
I MR. GRIFFIN: Tom, I am going to be going into 13 a variety or areas. Some of tnem are ones that you have N
adcressed on numerous occasions cefore. So for the 15 purposes ot the ongoing investigations, I am going to be 16 covering some old ground for you.
17 BY MR. GRIFFlN:
18 Q Do you recall an incident in March of 1982 in 19 wnich Charles Atenison wrote an NCR on vendor welcs in tne 20 pressurizer cana in Unit l? Do you recall that NCR?
21
, A At that time in Maren of 1962 I was unaware 22 tnat Mr. Atenison had ever written an NCR on the welds in 3 the 622 pressurizer tank room.
23 When did you become aware of this NCR?
G 3 a I had seen a sketch in March of 1982 which TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 29b3950
Y .
22 1
1
- .r. Atenison hac prepared indicating wnat he perceived to
. l 1
n 1 be welcing defects and a CB&I supplied-pipe wipe restraint '
3 asseccly. I'hac only one sheet of paper whien was a sxeten 4
or an area of this wnip restraint. It was sometime later 5
durin'g tne summer or fall of 1982, I can't remember off 6
tne top of my heaa, when the non-conformance report form I
emerged either in the licensing proceedings itself or 8 attacned to one of tne int'ervenor's pleadings with the 9
Board to wnere Atchison's handwritten and unnumbered draft 10 or the non-conformance report was brought to my attention. i I
11 C Was tnis NCR that came to light later on, it l lo- i was not tnen an actual NOR tnat hac put in the' program, I3 made part or tne system, occumentec, anc then trackec cn_ j i
N site here? l A I was unaware at tne time that Mr. Atenison 16 hau anytning other tnan a concern over tneae welds.
~
II Q das anybocy ever tolc you tnat this hCR had ,
18 been enaracterized as having ceen lost on site? Have you 19 ever heard that before?
20 A I nave heard tnat explanation. I have also 21 heara explanations as to how it was purported to ce found.
22 Q would you mino telling me what you nad heard?
"3 A The story tnat was told was that a Mrs.
24 Darlene Stiner found tne draft ncn-conformance report in a .
3 Tuperware package she hac at her house. Frankly, I do not TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 L (202) 293 3950
83 I celieve tnat.
2 Q Was-tnis NCR over issued?
3 A Yes, sir, it was.
4 when was that?
Q 5
A sometime curing the summer of 1982. It is a 6 matter of record in the ASLB proceedings. It was not, I
however, issuec as Mr. Atenison nac reporteo it. Mr.
8 Atchison's evaluations of the welds were in error. Sotn 9
ar. Atenison's crart and tne correct reflection of wnat 10 eas potentially defective-in those welds is a. matter of i
11 record in tne permanent plant recora system at Comanche l 12 Peas.
13 C hho. issued tnis NCR?
14 i A I did. ;
15 l Q r.as your name written on it as tne issuing 16 party?
17 A I believe tne name on tneL 1ssuing party is C.
18 T. eranat and C. C. Rancall.If not, it is one or the 19 other. We conouctec a joint investigation of Mr.
20 Atenison's concern. l 3
- l
~
Q 1 as well aware that some of these issues have 22 ceen more tnan tnoroughly examined by the Board and otner a3
~
parties, but nevertheless we need to go over them one more a4 time for a separate investigation.
25 A It would be nice if we coulc get everycocy TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
, p.- , - - -
24 1
together.
2 (Laugnter.)
3 Q At the time that you first became aware of 4
tnis drawing, I presume the-drawing was made by-Atenison?
5
,A I was told tne drawing was made by Atchison, 6
Q Did he show you the drawing himself?
A No.
8 Q How did you come into possession of this?
9 A It was brougnt to me by either Randy Smitn or 10 Mise Foote. ,
11 '
Q Did they represent it as having been John or tnis issue identified by Atenison?
13 a Yes, tnat is correct.
14 Q And dic you ever nave any communication wita 15 Atchison about this?
16 a Directly?
17 0 Yes.
, 18 A .N o .
19 Q Dic you nave any tnrough your subordinates?
20 A fes.
21
( hho?
22 a I con't snow that my suborcinates ever discussed it witn Atchison. I know they toic me they did.
at I have no reason to doubt them. When I received tne 25 drawing, I went witn Randy Smith anc Mise Foote to the TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 I 572ff7, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
, (202) 293 3950 t'
i
\
l 45 1
pressurizer tans room, the 622 or 632, wnatever it is, reactor building, Unit No. 1, to loos at the descrloed 3
welcing. anomalies, for lack of a better term.
4 Due to the way that Mr. Atchison, or whoever 5
nac: prepared-the sketch, it:looxed like Mr. Atchison's 6
hanowriting quite frankly, I was looking for a piece aeout 13 or 14-foot long. Tne way he had drawn tne sketen was 8
very confusing as it turnea out even to tne Chairman of 9
tae ASLB.
10 he locatec a foreman, a ceneral foreman wno j 11 i was faciliar witn Mr. Atenison's concerns and ne pointed I me to tne area of nis concerns. At the time rnere was only 13 one safety celt amoncst tne three of us. I went up and 14 looked at the concerns, whien were largely porosity, and, 15 as I recall, one linear indication. I went up and lcoked 16 at the area, came back down and told Randy Smitn and Mi.te Foote that the porosity tnat Atchison nad ncted was 18 acceptacle. The linear indication that he had identifiec 19 cn tnis one-page sketen tnat I nac I celieved was a cracx
- 0 .
in the paint and not any linear indication on tne weld and al
~
also made an ooservation that a weld some distance away, wnicn was a Brown and Root welc, and cy some distance I
- 3
~
will say three feet, had just been PT'd. The craft foreman 4-or general foreman, wnoever it was that was with us nad complained aoout tne amount of surface preparation l
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 j (202) 293 3950 l l
l l
16 1
requirec. It was readily apparent, as the welc loomed li<e 2 .
it nac been polished to a mirrer finish, and I mentioned 3
also to F.r. Foote and Mr. Smith at that time that it 4
appearet Fir. Atchison was requiring an excessive amount of 5
surface preparation prior to performing the liquid 6
penetration, hik . GdIFFIN: Oxay. Could we go off the record 8
just for a moment.
9 (Discussion off the recorc.)
10 (short: recess.)
11 MR. GRISFIN: 'Let's go bac.< on tne record. l 12 EY MR. Gr,IFFIN:
13 C 1 may nave already asxed you tnis, Tom, but 14 was 1- your unserstancing or alc you hear from tnird 15 parties tnat Darlene Stiner han found this NCR enat 16 rslated to tnis pressurizer tanks in Unit l?
17 A That was the story that I heard.
18 Q Do you nave any personal Knowledge of tnat?
19 A I don't nave any idea wnere Darlene Stiner lives and sne purportedly found it at her house. The 21 answer to tne question is no.
O It was not found on site or it **as nct located 23 on.---
"I A The story I heard was sne found it at home. As 25 a matter of tact, sne even told me that, that Mrs. Ellis TAYLOE ASSOCIATES sens i sTRffT, N.W. - SUM 1004 WASHMGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-39s0
27 1
nad come to her house ano said that, and I have forgotten n
hcw it wa:.; explaines now Mrs. Ellis even knew she had it, ,l 1
3 but Mrs. Ellis came and claimed tnat tnat was Mr. )
4 Atenison's property and came to retrieve it from Darlene.
5 Q You in:1cated.tnat one of your suborcinates ,
6 j went bacs to atentson ana gave him was it your reply to .
i
- l the conditions you founa as relates to these vendor welcs? i 8
A dnat I .as toic was, anc xeep in minu we are ,
9 ,
talec:.ng a year and a nali. ago, oy either Mike Ecote or i i
10 Rancy s=1:n, that tney nau gone cac4 anu tolo Atchison ,
11 essentially tnat I cidn't have a proLlem with tne porosity and if ne still concern over tne linear incicacien, .: ,
13 .
nave tne paint removec. Mr. Atenison enose act to nave One pa :.nt removed, as was evidencea 'y c me personally wnen I 15 sent to reinspect the welcs. When I cecame aware of ne j 16 draft NCR later during the summer of 1902, the paint was 17 still intact. ;
18 Q Did you give Foote or Smitn, whichever One of t 19 these tsc supervisors wr.o went caca to Atenison, dic. you 20 . . .
give tnem any instructions oeyonc Just your opinion en tne al
~
state of taese welds?
a wnen I came down off the scaffolcing or wall, a3
~
or ccmoination enereof, tney were coth standing or leaning 4
against the vertical leg of the scaffoicing, anc Keep in
^5
~
mind tnis is a very small room we are tal Alng acout, l
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRIET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 .
26 1
prcoably nelf tne size of tne r:om se are in witn a tank 2
in it, quite close quarter.s, sc we were in close proximity 3
to one another, ana I just looxed at tnem, and to tne best of my recollection my statement was you guys nave oot a 5
proclem with Atenison. In my cpinien, ne ooesn't Know wnat 6
ne is doing. .Me obviously aces not understand the re;ect criteria. I also mentionec tne polisning of the welos.
8 Possibly in retrospect Rancy Smitn didn't oncerstand what 9
I was saying at the time as ar as my statement tnat I cid 10 nave a prtolem with Atenison. .Mi.<e Fcote .<new me well 11 enougn by tnat time to Know tnat I was tellin: him ney, we 12 necced to loo < at it. I didn't say g yee tnerefors and 13 spea.< to Charles. I Just said tc tell nim ta-da, ta-ca, 14 ta-aa.
15 Q Did you later learn of wna Atenison was tolc?
16 Dic you get any feecoac.< as what ne naa oeen in tolo and 17 in what a.anner?
18 A It is a matter of recorc, to tne oest of my 19 reccliection in the Depart.r.ent of Latcr nearing anc tne 20 A5LS nearing na A.cnison was tel: Onat if ne nac furtner concerns witn tnat weld on tnat wnip restraint to nave the craft remove tne paint.
"3 O Do you nave any personal .<nowleuge of anytocy
'4
~
intimidating or attempting to inti4T.1: ate Atenison to Le 25 not so tnorcugn in nis inspections as a result of tnis TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STitfET N.W. - SulTI 1004 WASHINGTON. ').C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
29 1
inciuent?
A Tnat. question implies that Atchison was 3
tacrougn. I coulcn't disagree witn the statement more.
< atenisen was never thorcagn in is inspections. Atenisen 5
coulo not realize that a wela could have. anomalies in' it 6
and'still be acceptacle in accordance with tne code.
So if your question, and I will attempt to 8 ,
reparase wnat you are trying to get at, was nat cla i
9 anyoccy ever tell Atchison to slac.< off and cut th'e crac l 10 '
soir.e slacx, no.
11 O OAay. Let's move on to another instance. Do i I
you recall an incident in Unit 1 in unica an SCR was j 13 written on nilty colt faAlure during nycroterqueing? Dc 14 ;
ycu recall tnat NCR?
15 .
A Yes, 1 ac. 0 16 !
C Did you review that NCR? (
a i cea your parcon. Nc, I don't. I recall an incicent on -- niity coits, to the best of my P.nowledge, 1
19 were never torquec witn a hyorotorque. The issue that was 20 raised cy Mr. Atchison was tne A-466 colts falling during al
~
torgaeing with a hyurotorque, not nilti colts.
22 Q Did you review this NCR?
'3
~
A Prior to issuance?
i n;
~
Q No, after it was issued. l A Yes.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASNINCioN. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 l
- r. - -
1 30 Q Did ycu give Atcaison any instructions as 2
'related to nis SCR?
3 a 1 dor. ' t ever reinemoer uiscussing the SCR witn 4
- Atenison, 5
G Did you ciscuss it with some of your .
6 suboruinates wnc tnen discussed it witn Atchison?
a Tne answer to tne first part or tne. question 8
is yes, I cid discuss it with my suoercinates cecause at 9
tne time we aldn't Know wnat the proolem was. The rirst 10 two people tnat I reinemoer discussing it witn were Bill 11 hartanorn anc Mixe Foote. F.ixe Foote I xnce discussec tnis 12 . . .
witn Ate:.ison. .Mixe was intimatery involvec in tne 13 estaolisheent of torque values tcr A-%9L colts sucsequen 14 to tne proclem and was also responsicle for making ne 15 coservation that Atchison didn't xnow new to reac tne 16 nydrotorque wnicn was in our best estimation today tne 17 reason the bolts were failing.
18 There are four individual scales on the neac 19 or the nydrocorque corresponcing to a series of meenanican 20 advantages and hycraulic advantages, depending on size of 21 tne heao. Excuse me, there is a scale on the meter of the nydroterque, and depending on what size nead you use, a3 tnere are fcur scales. It is called T-1 througn T-4.
a4 Atchison was unaware of.the fact that eacn particular 25 scale corresponued to a particular size head. So it is TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STittET. N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 g
j J1 4
unxnown cy mc er anyoody, etner than possioly Atchison, wnat scale ne was really using on ene hyorotorque wnen tne 3
colts falAed.
4 r
G Do you know wnst instructions Foote may nave ;
a l given Atchison related to this? l 6
A recte instructec P.r. Atenison on tne proper t
use of tne nycrotorque. l 8
Q Do you Know if Mr. Foote tnreatenee or !
9 Intimidated or attempted to get Mr. Atchis=n to ce less 10 thorough?
11
.4 Certainly, I do know, and tne answer is 12 certainly not, cecause at the time we went tnrough a.-
13 extensive -- we tested tne ocits tnat falAen. we ran tests 14 to establisn torque values for tne A-490 colts, whien at 15 tne time toos, I won't say a consideraule amount of l 16 effort, out tock some effort. We were interested in really 17 wny tne ocits failec and not in tne fact tnat Atenison or 18 anytocy else hac identified the proclem.
19 0 Were tnese tests conducted by representatives 20 from Cnicago Eridge and Iren?
21 A .N c .
rs Do you xnow or any testing on tnese colts oy
~9 Chicago Brioge and Iron tnat resulted in bolt failure?
'4 A flo .
Q das tne issue of tnese bolts oeen resolvea?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UlTI 1004 l WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
y~
. n 32 1
.A Yes, it has, cotn on site anc octh to the 2
satisfaction of your resident inspector.
3 O Let's move on to another issue. Do you recall 4
an incident in Feoruary 1961 wnen Atenison refused to sign
.5-oft on cesign enanges on Westingnouse wnip restraints 6
without clueprinta.wnica-dic not contain Westingnouse ..
- I heacquarters' approval?
l 8
A I am aware of tne enarge.cy Atenison. We were 9 i not, the best of my recollection, ever able to come to .j; grips witn exactij wnat he was tal'<1ng ' acout . Tne people 11 he alleged made tne changes, we went cac.< anc reviewed .
in
~
many instances and tne changes nad all occurred with ;
13 i Westingnouse concurrence. It was possicly not formal on ;
14 !
anything tnat was issued to Mr. Atchison indication that i 15 I westinghouse Pittscurga nad revieweu it, o'ut in all cases i 16 i tae sestingnouse site representative nad approved tne !
1:
cnange, wno is re'sponsicle for maintaining continuity witn '.
l 18 1 l' the ,sestingnouse design process in Pittsburgn. -
19 ,
Q Are you aware cf any tnreats of narm or bodily i 1
20 g injury made to Atenison made cy a millwrignt leau over i 21 i tnis inciaent? l m
~~
A No, aosolutely not. l n3
~
Q you never nearc of any such incident at all? j.
n4 i
~
A No. ;.
i
, i
~
Q Did you yourself tell Atenison during your TAYLOE ASSOCIATES .
1625 i STREET, N.W. - SulTE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
F 9
33
-1 ciscussion witn nlm on tnis incioent cack off or I will 2 ...
Ilre ycu? ;
a 3
A Mr. Atchison ano I never discussed that 4
incicent by Mr. Atchison's cwn aamission. In the august 5 ~
1982 Department of Labor nearings' :Ir. Atenison and-1,
(
6 ctner than cascal conversation passing in ene nail and in ene :leic only nad two occasions to ever spean to one 8
anetner. I don't remember off tne-top of my neac wnat 9
tacse two occasions were. f,xcuse me, only nad two 10 occasionc to speak to one another wn11e ne worked :or me.
11 C Do yoa snove if anybooy toic Atchison to cack off on tnis issue or tnat he woulc be fired?
13 A ho,.I con't. I have no reason to celieve that 14 .
It even occurrec.
15 G Okay. Let's move on to anotner suc;ect. Knat 16 was your involvement in toe termination or Rocert 17 hamilton, Joe drolan anc a fellow by tne name of Sheldon?
18 A Sherman Sheldon. I was the cecision-maker 19 together .100 Goruun Purc.y wno was their administrative 20 superviser.
Q So the facts were presented to you and ycu deciuec on tne termination's 23 A Yes, sir.
N C As relates to that incicent, during tae incicent had you neard of statements tnat were allegecly l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 l
l
.y , + - -r -% % %.,-.
9 . . - .m a
34 1
made by a supervitor cy tne name of Hawxins in wnich 2
Hawkins inaicatec or relates to otner parties that tnis 3
particular inspection, anc I celieve it ~ is on a ring in i
tne come, was unsafe?
5 A I am not firsthanc familiar wite. wnat 6
nappened. I am ia.nillar witn ene f acts surrocnding tne incicent, out it is not really a similar incicent. Tne 8
indicent that ycu are referring to occurrec in Unit 1 as 9
opposed to Unit 1, wnica was the incident whien I was 10 fa.niliar wi n and was involveo with. The incicent in Unit ,
11 i.
i Involved some unsafe practices, ter lacx of a better l 12 t e r.r. , involvec swinging escentially on a rope tro.: place 13 to place 106 feet aoove the grouna flocr, anc I woulc nave F i
14 -
to concer witn Mr. hawnins tnat that is unsafe. i e
15 i Q So are you 86ying that if this is tne same 16 incicent, it is not the same inspection that these men 17 were required to perfor.n?
18 A Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, Mr.
19 Krolax, wnich is one of tne two men, had been on the 20 rotating access platform rail as early as I believe two days, but I will specify within a weex prior anc made no n,
mention or any unsare practtees. Before I mace any
'l
~
cecision, I sent F.r . harry hilliams and Mr. Mire Foote up
'4 to the area. Harry Killiams was definitely afralc cf neignes anc Harry nad no problem witn walxing completely TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i StaEET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
T 35 1
arounu tne circumference of tne containment. I callec Safety. Sam Hogart, who is the senior salety [
3 I representative, inalcatec that ne nac inspected tne area [
(
4 and it was sate, and Neil britton, *nc at tne time was the
[
5 protective coatings supervisor, had incicated to me that 6
he-felt tne area was sa fe . l, I
Prior to dismissal the gentlemen were tolc to {
8 per:orm the inspection and not once, I might adc, dio any 9
of toem claim that tney were afraic cf heignts. Hac anyone 10 come aria saic, Tom, I am Just aosciutel, scared tc death 11 to ge op tnere, I woulc nave evaluated tne situation mecn di::erently tnah I dic.
13 2 hhat did they give as tneir reasoning?
14 A They just saic it was unsate and we ain't 15 gcing. As recently, or as late I guess is a better way :
16 put it, as Mr. critton going out anc getting tne three 17 inuivicoals anu coming into my office at my cirection 18 early tne afternoon that they left, Mr. Britton saia, 19 guys, you are ma,:ing a mistate. Branct is serious.
20 hamil:On laugnec anu said Brandt is clufring. I cid not 21 . .
Know :nat at ne time, .out in retrospect it even confirms my aecision of what really was the mctive.
"3
~
Q well, wnat was the motive?
'4 A In my opinion, it was an effort to call it. It 25 was a gower play ana an effort at mutiny, anc tne fact TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRttT. N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 l
36 1.
that tney tried to implicate nouston Gunn in tne issue.
2 houston-Gunn has worked in the fac snop on a concrete 3
floor as long as'I have been nere and ne is still workinc 4
in tne fac snop on a concreta floor and nas never been 5
assigned to the area. They also attempted to implicate Joe 6
Fazi in the issue who at tne time was assioned to nign:
~
snitt anc wno on tne very nignt tnat Mr. riamilton was oismisseo went up anu performed inspections on tne rctatin, access platform ra 41 10 i Q Eut to what end?
11 .
A Bob iiamilton calied nousten Gunn anu saic co.me i on, we have got to gc to eranat's office. We'are getting !
13 '
firec for not walxing the rail . I nad never reuces.tec j 14 '
houston Gunn tc walx tne rail. .
15 '
Q I ar asxing you, Tom, wnat is your i 16 uncerstanuing of tne reason ney lan't want to ao it?
17 '
A I thinr. it was an effort at mutiny.
l 18 I C To what ena? -
19 i A To waat end? j 20 Q Yes. !
21 1 A To snow me that tney were going'to do wnat
.e.. i tney wanteu to de, that tney woulc decide wnat was' saf e
~3 l
anu unsate. I mean it is naro for me to believe that 24 scrueone proccoly in his early gu 's , as Mr. .<rolax was, 25 coulo nave routinely performed tne inspection on tne rail I
t TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 5
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 '
(202) 293 3950
i 37 1
and for no situations.to have enanged, anu all of the
~
sudcen one day decice that walking the rail wa s unsaf e.
3 Q. Do ycu Know of any otner ractors or concerns 4
tnat tne tnree gentimen had tnat woulc nave broegnt an 5
-incicent like tnis to a heac, or tha; acula acc support tc 6
wny tais occurred at tais tic.e?
A I don't'uncerstano the question.
8 O' hell, let.me approach it from a different way. .
9 -
Dc you celieve taat enese three people legitimately ).
believec that tnis was an unsafe inspection?
11 A I thins I Just answered tnat. It is incredicle i for .T.e tc celieve that a gay had ceen up tnere reatinely I 13 in exactly tne same condi-ion, and Just one cay wcke up in -
5 14 i a new worlo and deciced it was unsafe. !-
15 '
2 Oxay. Well, tnen let me go bac4 to :ne l 16 cuestion I as.<ed oefore. Are there any otner circumstances :
17 L or events or tnings tnat were going on --- l i
18 A : Jot tc my snowlecge. ,
I' O They just r. i t you witn tnis cold? ,
1-20 '
A One morning tney deciced tney weren'-
- 1
~ l perfctming One inspection.
O Anc you con't Know why --- l 3 \,
A I nave no icea.
t Q ---
other tnan just you feel li<e it .na y na v e 25 .
ceen a actiny?
TAYLCE ASSOCIATES 1625 I STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
3e i
a 1 nave no-icea. As a matter of fact, I even ,
2 1 cop.ed into any extenuating circue. stances and was una'le c 3
to ciscern any. I specifically asxec. ne question did tne
).
conditions on the. rail itself change ano, you Know, for 5
- some reason had tne craft spilled some grease on tne rail 6
to make it slicx wnere tney-would reel unsafe. I ha ve a memo in file from Mr. Sritton sayinc that tne rail was l 8
clean, no cecris, ne oostructions, a safety-line witnin 9
hana's reach and no. grease.
10 Q During tne process of tnelr termination aid ,
11 ,
tney offer you any other explanatica etner tnan it .as '
i 12 uns4:e_t 1 13 i A Aosolutely not, j 9
14 I O Pract to the time these men were terminates, i 15 woulc you characterize tneir performance as inspectors as 16 acequate?
A Sherman Snelcon nac not ceen employed long 18 enougn for me to make a cecision one way or the otner. Joe 19 Krolak was ne call of fire and nad trcuole properly 20 j.
preparing documentation and seemed to< nave a little .
21 proble.n under;tancing tne changes we nad mace in tne program in Novemoer of 1961 as a result of a notice of a3
~
violation received frcm Region IV in order to properly a
- t cocument tne inspections whicn tney were performing. Boo 25 hamilton nad ceen the coatings leac inspector ter procably TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITI 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
. a:
39 1
ye&rs 'and was directly responsicle for non-imple.nentation of the program walen resulted in a' notice of violation. So 3
I nac a hard ti.ne celieving that I woulc recommenc nia.
4 very nignly.
5 Q are ycu ramilar wita wnc :ney were ratec by ,
6 ene perfer:aance appraisais prior to taeir termination?
A t;o . It was never any concern of mine. i i
8 1 0 Dic you ever fina out tnroaan :nis incident if i 9
eney had nac satisfactory appraisals? !
A I never looked. To me it'sas a clear-cut case 11 cf insuboruination.
l' G Cic anyoouy give you any instructions or .
influence you in your cecision tc termina e enece people?
14 A lo be quite honest acout it, I con't even ;
15 .
remen.ber as<.ing anyoocy. I rememoer calling Gordon Purcy, i 16 as they were all three Brown and Root employees, to my 17 i c:fice anu I said, Gordon, 1 have a proolem witn enree of t I
18 your people. ne assed me anat it was anc I explainec tne :
19 cituation fully to nl... We sat all tnree cf them down in '.'
20 !
tae presence o: Neil Britton and Harry aililams, Gcrdon
'l Purdy ana myseli ciscussec the situation with them and ask.ea enem it ney has anytning furtner to acd. Tney nac i
^3
- 1 none, and I said well, guys, this is the last chance. You at
- f eitner neca to go anc perform tne inspections or I aon't ;
n u neeu you. Tney all three chose to go to the gate. ,
1 i
YLOE ASSOCIATES '
1 1625 i STRIET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 ;
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 '
I
4L 1
We fiAled out, I won't call it a counseling 2
rorm because it really wasn't counseling, but a {
3 description or tne incioent indicating the recommended course of action was to be termination whicn Gordon Purdy 5
ana nyself co-signed.
6 0 Q Pricr to your terminating these fellows, wat .
I rolson involved in or aware of wnat was going en? 4 8 g a Ac I just stated, I con ' t reinemeer as4ing -
9 anyone or involvir.g anyone else. I mignt nave told Tolson, 10 cut I can't really speculate on wnether I did or not, 11 Q dcw accct Mr. Cnapman or Mr. Clements, wnere 12 tney aware of tnis incicent at all as it cevelopec?
13 A Defl11tely not, not from me anyway. ,
14 C Okay. I want to switen subjects again. Do yoc ,
15 recall an incicent involving Darlene stiner anc a QC i 16 ;
trainee in wnich tne trainee was using large amounts of !
17 -
liquid penetrant during a training exercise? Do ycu recall I I
18 this incident?
- A No, not trem that cescription anyway.
20 Q Large aucunts of licuid penetrant on a wall et
~
I apparently applied without knowledge of tne normal means l n, .
~~ '
of performing that.
A No.
og !
g Did you ever instruct Darlene Stiner to
" {
' ~
l perrorm plug welds?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
- 16251 STitlET, N.W. - $UITE 1004
[ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 L -
41 1
A Darlene Stiner never welded while I supervised 2
her. The answer to your question is no.
3 Q Did you ever instruct her to accept plug welos 4
performec oy other people?
5 A I don't ever remember instructing ner to.
6 however, such is a saic practice, not to accept, but to inspect plug welds woulc have part of ner normal course of 8 .
cuties.
9 Q Are plug welcs, and I am asning because I 10 dcn't xnow, are plug welds an acceptacle means of welcing 11 accor ing to site procecures?
A Tne term plug wel: is raisleacing , as I nave 13 tast111ec at so:Le lengen on at tne ASLS proceecings. Tne 14 term plug welc, if I can draw a picture for you, as 15 deilnea cy both ASAE and AWS, would ce performed cy 16 crilling a hole through tnis piece of material, 17 essentially welding to tnis piece of material at tnat 18 location anc only ena location. Ey coing such you woulc 19 ce transmitting any kina of snear force applied there to 20 that memoer.
61
~
wnet Darlene Stiner has historically been concerned with in her plug wela story, for lacx of a "3
center term, has been tne repair of a misdrilled ocit hole 2#
in a single piece of daterial which AWS clearly deitnes as n
'3 fillet welcing a hole.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l e-42 1
Q So in your opinion a plug welc is not tne 0
proper term?
3 A that is right. My testimony in tne ASLB 4
proceeding uses tne term plug weld, out it is italics.
5 Q Tom, you were callec on anctner instance 6
involving Darlene Stiner regarcing vendor welcs on some laroe doors tnat sne nad written an NCR on.
8 A No, not any involvement that Darlene Stiner nac with any large doors. There have been :;CM's on large 10 doors, but not tnat Carlene Stiner and I ever nac any 11 discussion or anytning c:.. As a matter of fact, I was ;
, unaware tnat sne was even involvec with the m1=sile doors. l 1 ,
13 !
O Coulc you tell me wr.at tne NRC's that you are :
familiar .itn, wnat tney involve?
15 I A Tnere ara some NCR's involving venoor seacing i 16 l maae cy Overly Sar4u acturlag Company whlen were l 17 !
suosequently repaired. ',
i Q because the welas were found to ce I
19 . .
l unsatiaractory?
20 , . . (
A Rignt, wnen they were receivec on site.
21 ,
Q and NCh's were written and they were {
n,
~~
dispositionuec?
al
~
A Tne vendor told Overly to come in anc repair nt tne welas.
Q And all these NRC's, have tney been TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 l STRIET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
~
43 I
dispositionec and closed?
A 1 won't say tney nave been closed. They have 3
all seen dispositioned, to tne ces; of my Knowledge.
4 C And you have alreacy stated that you did not 5
recall Darlene Stiner's involvement regaraing these vendor 6
welcs. Dc you recall ever instructing Darlene Stiner to
- i ouy cf: on large coors in spite c: ner concerns of vencor .
8 welcs? !
9 I a 1.o , I definitely dic not co t'at, a i 10 C cla you yourself inspect taese welds cace t_nis 11 issue was arcagnt to your attentlen, not necessarilj as I
relates to Carlene 3:1ner, out Jus: :: ---
l 13 A Provicec tnat we can r.ar.e nat clarification >
tna; your question appears to ma,a :ne assumption anyway 15 tnat we are talking acout tne same docrs or same welcs, I 16 nave reason to celleve :nat is not tne case cecause I i 17
- nink tne particular issue that I at talxing about was l 18 icentifiec ana resolvec after Darlene Stiner left the 19 .
i site.
20 Mayce I can make a generic statement. I nave al never instructed anycocy to accept anything they were uncomfortaole witn accepting. I nave on occasion disagreed
'3
~
witn inspectors, in whicn case as a Level III certifiec in
'l accorsance wita ANdi N-45 2.6, I signed oft aporoval on ,
tne IR as the Level III examiner. It nas happened on two i TAYLCE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRitT, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
- 4 t
1 cases tnat I can remember, one with an inspector namea [
2 I Mike anoces on a piece or structural steel tnat was in the 3
warehouse, ana the other incicent enat I distinctly 4
reme:aber was with Dan Hanxe in an incident in tne paint 5 f laycown yard en some snip restraints, anc ey inference I ;
i 6
essentially dia the same with Mr. Atchison's concerns on j porosity tnat he identifiec in tnis o22 presscrizer tan.<
8 room incicent. I have never asxed any inspector to sign 9
sometning tney were uncomfortable with.
10 0 Co you recall ever naving a conversation witn 11 Darlene Stiner in wnich you toic ner to confine ner 12 inspections to tnose that she nad 'een o assigned anc not to 13 report ce:1clencies or te examine areas etner than those 14 she nac ceen assigned?
15 A There was a pericc of time tnat we had 16 prcblems with inspectors just wanaering accut looking at l'
what they perceived were raccom issues. I can't say beyon:
18 a snadow of douot in my mina that I cidn't tell Darlene 19 tnat sne was assigned to, for example, classirled pipe 20 supports anu sne didn't need to be looking at ASME class 21 one, two and tnree piping. That is possicle snat I mignt nn .
nave told ner tnat, in wnien case if I hac told her that, as I said, I never told anyoody if they had a genuine a
4 concera accut something to not bring it to lignt. I nave 25 encourageu it in several issues.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 3
1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITI 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
)
c; =
65 l
! Q Did you-ever hear Mr. Tolson tell Darlene Stiner to confine ner inspections to tnose sne was 3
assigned?
.4 A .Not that I recall. I only recaAl Mr. Tolson
'5 ana I ever .talxing Jointly with Darlene Stiner once, 6
O Oxay. hell, tnat orings us to our next 8
suoject. You were present for, would it ce fair tc term it 9
a counseling session?
10 '
A It wasn't really a counseling session s
11 s .
i l ~'
O Yes. l t
13 1 A j u !
15 i 16
, Ron and I callec her in ana tal.ted to 18 ner I celieve in tne presence of -- excuse me. Tne first j 19 discussion I celieve was just Ron and I, and I am talsing j oft tne top ci .ny heao. I don't rememoer time seguence al tnat well oecause it was never any big deal as f ar as I was concerned. We hac genuine concerns over her own
'3 personal well ceing 24 l
25 jana TAYLOE ASSO'CIATES 1625 stattT, N.W. - SUlft 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950
1 46 1
cian't enink that it was in her best healtn interests to 2
continue working as an inspector anc we just wanted ner to 3
be aware or wnat her options were as far as leave of 4
a c= e nce .
5
. It might have been in the same saeeting or it 6
mignt have been in a suosequent .neecing that we brought Mr. Aay Yockey, who is brown anc Root's personnel manager 8
on site into the discussion to implicitly descrime to her 9
what her o,ocions were as far as a leave of assence.
10 0 Do you know how many suen meetings tnat sne ;
11 ,
nac witn Tolson over the course of --- i A I can't speak for Tolson. I can speak fcc 13
.neetings tr.at I was involvec witn .%r. Tolson and Carlene 18 and, as I said, it mignt nave been the same meeting or it 15 mignt nave been two meetings. I don't really xnow.
16 Q Are you daare of ner attencing otner meetings 17 on tnis same sub]ect, more spectrically being calleu to 18 TolsOn's oftice? l t
19 A The meetings taat I am describing tooK place l'
20 l In Tolson's oftice. I 1
Q I am talging about otner meetings. Are you ne aware or otner meetings?
"3
~
A I believe, ano once again I would have to a4 check tae recoras to be sure, I believe Darlene was a "5
person that we were concernec witn due to our commitment TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STMET, N.W. = $Ulft 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004
. (102) 293 3950
e s .. -
47 3
to Reg Guide-1.50 as of Feorcary 21st or 26tn, 1982. It endorsea and required tne adoption of ANSI N-45 2.6 as far 3
as certification.of inspection personnel ano acded enat in 4
accition to all tnose requirements tne Commission was 5
requiring that any inspector be a nign school graouate or ,
a' recipient of a GED.
To the oest of my recollection, Darlene was 8
one of tne personnel who had been here prior to February 9
'ez ana nau been certifiec wnen that requirement dia not 10 '
apply, ana I celieve Ren and I sat cown and explaines to ;
11 ner that in order to continue work sne woulc nave to ge f I l octa*n a GED tc comply witn the reg guide.
- Q Dic tnese meetings tnat you attended in l l
14 Toiscn's office witn Darlene Stiner that related to ner i 1
not naving a nign 16 senoci ecucaticn corce about following ner appearance 17 before that ASLS boar ?
18 A 1 am not sure of cates, and I want to say in i
19 bota cases no. Definitely in the education case the ander I 90
~ i is no. It was significantly prior to that. In either case, i
4;
~
ner appearance hau no effect on our discussion.
Q During these meetings, tne one or two that you a)
- e s attended in Tolson's officee j cid t
44 you or Tolson ma<e any recommenoations to Darlene Stiner regarding her employment?
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STR8ff, N.W. - SUlft 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950
48 1
A It appears to be a lescing question. I con't really know wnat you are after. I have explaine6 to you 3
tnat we even went to tne extreme of calling in the Brown 4
and Root personnel manager to explatn to her what Srown 5
ana 8 cot's corporate policy was as far as leave of 6
aosence.
Q well, I mean do you call everycody in and 8
counsel them or --- y 9
A Sne hac mace statements to ner peers that sne 10 really couldn't oc ner 3oc any longer due to tne pnysical 11 .
i limitations ot --
g 12 8 We i
13 .
movec ner oct of the field to the fac shop and noused ner !
14 in a building right outsice the f ac snop maybe, on, ten i 15 yarus away from the fac snop whicn, as far as I an i I
16 concerned looking in retrospect, we procaoly treated her I 17 witn Aid gicved. I don't know nat I woulc co tne same for 18 .
everyuody to me it you are an inspecter !
I 19 i you are expectec to oe able to climo and go up and oown -
i stairs anc oy her o r. acmission sne couldn't uo sucn. l 21 4e xept ner to the extent of even providing
- 1
~
transportation for ner to and from tne guard gate cecause "4
sne coiaplained of physical tnreats and was concerned about 25 her well ceing.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SulTE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950
l.
P . _ _ _ _
49 1
, Q. was enis following tne ASL6 hearings?
~
A This was following the hearings. I won't say 4
3 pnysical tnreat. Please strine that. It was harassment I f 4
thinx was tne actual complaint in tne event tnat from tne 5
guard gate where she would nave to have entered to her (
6 place of work whien was probably 3/etns of a mile. We arrangec to nave her park in the.2-C parxing lot anc the 1
8 Eroan ana Root administrative assistan: was sent every ['
9 morning in a car and picaeu ner up in the 2-0 parking lot j anu celivereu ner to her door of her office and returneo 11 in the afternoon, pic<ed ner up at ner office anc ce11 verso her to the 2-C parxing lot. I can't xnow what i 13 more we coulc nave done for ner. '
14 Q I am just trying to explore wnat i
15 A I unoerstand wnat you are trying. Ine only i 16 ;
thing I could na"s cone any more was to sit and hold ner i l'
nand or eignt hcurs a day. l I
18 Q All I want to do is recount the facts as eney !
19 . . . !
occurreu, incAuding ne ones tnat you Just saic.
i 20 A I uncer. stand.
21
}
Q ouring tne two counseling sessions, the one or (
,,n
^^ !
t o that you were involved in witn Tolson ana Darlene l n3
~ i stiner, cid eitner one of you, you or Tolson, recommend l ng (
tnat ;ne end her employment as a QC inspector? f A Keep in mind that we are talxing a year ano a f
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRIET, N.W. - $UITI 1004 WA5HINGToN. D.C. 20006 g (202) 293 3950
J1 50 1
nali ago. I want to say a year and a half ago. It seems-2 - -
tnat way. It seems like it was tne first part.ot last 3
cummer, tae summer ol 'e2. 1; is possible that we 4
encouraged her to tage a leave of absence because that is 5
really wnat I felt sne shoulo do. It is nard for me to 6
Justify even to myself in tairness to other inspectors to nave one inspector tnat is being treated tne way sne was 8
to tne extent of ra:her than having to walk what we call 9
ene cattle shoot nere wnien leaos from the cratt parking 10 lot .nich QC parks on, whicn is a nass or numanity moving l 11 ;
doan to tne gate on an ic-foot wide sioewaix essentially, -
12 val.<ing probacly ch, a quarter to three-eignths of a mile 13 even to get in tne site and tnen walking to your office on i 14 !
the site. When ycu nave got s00-plus people doing tnat anc j 15 :
one person ceing escorted troia a privilegec parring area i 16 to her door and oacx worxing in an area tnat is rougnly 1-ten yarcs from her work area doing no climbing, doing nc 18 l stair climbing, and doing a minimal number of. inspections, j 19 it is in my opinion not really fair to tne people that are 20 cut wor <ing in ICU-plus cegree heat climbing up and cown
'l
~
scaftoicing in tne daily construction activittes, e, ,
C Was the decision mace to co all tnese tnings l a3
~
- or ner baseo on ner appearance before the Board?
at A Absolutely not. Tne original confrontation 25 witn Darlene Stiner'was before she ever appeared.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STastT, N.W. - SulTE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202] 293 3950 k.
51 i 1
g I am as.<ing you did you do all these nice j
- tningsfornerbecause[ -
)she 3
appeared before toe Boars? What was tne thinking benind 4
all tnis?
5 A As ridiculous as it may seem, it cercainly dio 6
to me, the intervenor fileo for a protective action, flied a request witn tne Chairman of tne ASLa for a protective 8
order on Darlene Stiner. Basec on tne fact tnat I nad 9
moved her twice in three cays, tne intervenor alleged tnat 10 '
this was narassment wnen in fact I hau moveo ner from an 11 area in wnlen sne was nouses with 17 or is other f I
inspector 6 probably close to a half a mile from ner work I i
13 area to an area which was less than 10 yards from ner wcrs !
i 14 area. :
15 at tnis point it was the considered opinion of 16 cctn myself and tne applicant's management tnat in cruer not t: raa r.e mo r e of an issue out of it than it nau already 18 become, we would provice any and all metnods of maging her 19 Job as easy as possible for P.s. Stiner as could possicly 20 l be c.one. i al Q During that time were enere otner 22 women on site? l a3
~
I don't know.
l.
A
'4 l O As a supervisor, have you hac to oeal witn -
I a5 t tais proclem before with women in these demanding TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STRitT. N.W. - SulTE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 w, -- _ - 4 a ,
,_.y w
m.
4 52 1
_3cos? ,
l
, 'A I have never seen concessions made on seven l 3
nuclear power facilities similar to the concessions mace to Ms. Stiner. I have never seen concessions even close to 5
ene concessions we maae for .v.s. Stiner. .
6 O Do you xnow what site policy is or what Brown anc Root policy isf 8
s I nave no icea. Site policy is you may only 9
perrorm you joo as long as you are pnysically capable of to . ,
per:orming your 300. !
11 l Q So all tais attention paid to v.s. Stiner was .
12 s,cecial and unusual?
t 13 I A I woulo say highly, If or attention,you mean ;
14 I tne fact that we were virtually catering to her every whim 15 and fancy, yes, I woulo say that is unusual. I would say 16 tnat is extremely unusual in tne construction industry.
I-Q In general were tne concerns that Ms. Stiner 18 raised cerore the ASLS valid, in your opinion?
19 A Tnat seems to te a Snerraan veilliams type of 20 question.
- 1
~
Q 4eil, 1 am asking for your opinion.
A It is nard for me to even rememoer wnat n3
~
concerns belonged to wno in the ASLB hearing.
at O How about tne ones that I have recounted to 25 you here tocay, tne ones tnat you recalled?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STRffT, N.W. - SUlff 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3gSO .
I l
. 53 1
A- Tne only one that I believe we even tal<ed aoout that I was f asalliar witn was the large coor= wnich I 3
con't recall Es. Stiner ever naving any dealings witn. I 4
nonestly don't remeaoer what as. Stiner's concerns in tne 5
proceeding were.
6 If I mignt aad sometning Just in retrospect.
It is my personal opinion representing only myself that 8
. tnere naa oeen no significant safety issues raised by 9
anyone in tne ASLB proceecings.
10 0 On a cifferent subject, were you involvec in 11 denry Stiner's termination? -
1 A acsolutely not. '
13 2 Do you have any cersonal :<nowleage of the l 14 I incioent leacing up to his termination?
l la A iwegatcry. l 16 C io enan.ge subjects agala, in the area of !
coa tings uocumentatier., prior to Revision
- of tae quality 18 lustructions relatec to coatings, wnica key.
- was -
j 19 Ceccoor c: 'ci, .NC!< 's we r e pa r t oc tne quality i 1
20 ine t r acticr.s ; is that r ig t.t ?
n1
~ l A ..HC's sere part of the quality instructions '
., I alter Octoaer of '61, anc I don't snow wnere you are i 23 bea u c a. .
l l
C Yta con't know wnere I am neaced?
~5 A No. 'lhe answer to your question is yes, tut I TAYLOE ASSCK:lATES 14251 STititT, N.W. - Sulft 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 u
7 54 ,
1 I
~
mignt aco taat tney were part of tne instruction after Rev. 4 in 1961,.1t cy tne .sCR you mean non-conformance 3.
report. It is a paper that says ---
4 Q 10.0 ano the GI's? '
5 A Yes.
6 Q when a cecision was made on site ners to gct tc tne IR progra..:, were nct 50R's dropped from tne (
8 instructions, the quality instructions?
9 MM. WAT. SINS: Can you ce a little mcre 10 soecific?
11 MA. GRIrPIA: I :nink ne uncerstancs tne !
12 question.
13 TnE WITNESS : I understana t.1e quest'icn and I ;
a.n going to clarif y it tot nim, 11 enat is permissi:le.
15 i MM. GRIFFIN: dure. I 16 ThE WIT.NLSS: Let's go all the way cack to Appencia b. 10 CFR 50 Appenci). E Loes not ever mentien the 18 t e r.t. non-conformance report. It says in one of its 15 t 19 criteria enat non-conforci.ng conditions mest be properly 20 iuentified anc controlled. Wnether yoc identify suen on a 21 piece of paper calles a non-conformance report, a piece of paper callec a oeficiency report --- .
n3
~ i DY MR. GRIFFlh: I al
~
Q Okay, Tom, if you will let me creas in on ycu 4
~5 a minute. What you are going to tell me I alreaay snow. I l
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
- 1625 i STRSET, N.W. ~ $Ulff 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 1.
7 t
55
-1 nave had ne acvantage of going cacs and looking at the nistorical file for the revisions and tne QI's-related to 3
coatings for various-things lige steel. In my review I was 4
able to determine tnat Rev. 4, wnien was October of 1961,
- 5 you all went to an IR program.
6 A hev. 4 of the coatings procedure went to an I
IH as opcosea to probably nine to ten otner little sneets ,
8 cf paper they callec enecx lists and mixing forms, 9
oatening :orms, final inspection forms, which cur inspection force f rom 1979 to 1961 nandled to marvelously 11 we got a severity level 4 I celleve notice of violation I 12 over tne sac]ect.
All.cf the coatings procedures were rewritten 14 to put enem in tne inspection report format as opposeo to !
15 CneC4 lists.
16 Q okay. Accorsing to my review of tae historical g
- file, wnen you all went to tne IR program, 16.0 was i is !
crcpped trom tne QI's for a period of time.
19 A It mignt have been dropped from the QI's, cut ,
20 I can show you literally huncreds of NCR's that have been -
l l
'l
~
written on coatings post-1961.
Q But they were not contained in the proceuure.
a3
~
I am telling you tnat. Is tnat cenaistent with your
'l memory?
25
..o a .
a I
! TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRitT M.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTot8. D.C. 20004 i (202) 292 2950 g i
t _
n -- ,
t 56 .
1 1
O
- OKay. So as far as you know, 16.0 was ,l j
still --- I I
3 A I am not arguing tne point, Mr. Griffin. I 4
con't remember. "
5 Q Okaf. well, that is wnat I am asking you.
6 A I only see nunureus of procedures every ween and I don't remember.
8 Q I u,ncerstano.
9 A If you want to talk philosophy oi NCR or IR, I ;
10 I will oe glac to tal.< about it. ,
11 ,
Q No, tnat is not the gist of my question. 1 .
12 .
Just want to r.now unat you knew and you sai you do not ;
13 know --- l 14 A If it was not includec -- I was tne author j 15 :
procably without loosing of Revision 9 to the coatings i I
16 instruc*. ion. If not, I was the approver and tne author was !
17 I a gentleman cy tne name of either Dieu Cummings or Mike l 18 !
Foote. l we were working Kind or jointly and I hao tne I
responsioility ror approving them. If at tnat time tne
- l non-conforit.ance reporting procedure, CF/QP 16.0, was an cmitteo, it was essentially an oversight. It was used cy a3
~
inspectors at tnat time to icentify wnat tney perceivec to
'4 ce non-con 2orming conuitions. Unsat Ix's were typically 25 limited to unsatisfactory conditions found in tne coatings TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STitEST, N.W. = SUITE 1004 ,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 L ___ _ _
-n --. -. _
4 i l I
56 l 1 l retase: an NCR numcer. l 2
Q And you were the reviewer of all NOR's tnat 3'
came carougn?
4 h No.
5 Q who was? Ano wculd nave been for coatings?
6 A In 1961?
O Yes.
8 A Procably Harry Williams.
9 Q Dic Harry billiams have une authority _to vois 10
- 9C n 's ? ,
11 A Yes, ne cid. l.
O cic tais continue to be tne case?
13 A Yes, it 01c.
14 0 as long as Mr. williams was employe ners, ne .i 15 nau :ne autnority to voic?
16 A Yes.
17 Q I am going to drop cack in time pricr to 18 Octcoer '61. During tne perios in 1960 and 'ol, toe early 19 part cf 'ei tnere appears to nave been acout a 14-month 20 gap in the writing or NLn's. I am telling you this, are 21 you aware o2 tnis? Are you tamiliar with this?
A Only multinandec. I mean not even
- 1
~
secondnanded.
~M Q You have hearc that?
23 A I have neard tnat.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1628 i STREET, N.W. = SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3980 t
57 I
seneme as part of a routine inspection. I dcn't know if tnat muddied toe issue, out tnat is essentially the way I 3
recall it.
4 Q So as to wny 16.0 was dropped, it woulc nave <
5 been an oversignt's 6
A It 'Jas post not included. Tne progra:n was, I l mean it waan't simple. I mean if ycu loon at tne scope of i 8 l cne revision between Rev. 3 anc Rev. 4, and taging your ,
9 I word for the fact taat Rev. 4 was written in Octooer 'ol, :'
10 becauae tr.at is about the time that it was changeu, anc 11 assuming that Rev. 4 is One rewrite of tne program whica ,
la~
occurred at that time, wnlen I am not sure of, it wasn't l
Intentional at that time to leave it cut. It was the compiece rewrite of tne progtam and the fact tnat it .
la dicn't say ney, if you encounter non-conforming conditions i 16 icentify it on a form we call an NCR in accordance witn i
!! l 16.0, it wasn't intentional. Tnere was no philosophy .
18 !
behina tnat event. !
i 19 '
C Ana you say inspectors continueo to write ao
~ i NCA's following tnat date?
al
~
A Yes, sir. l 2
C And dio you continue to assign numcers to 4 !
~1 cnem? ,
~g i A Whenever agged, we have always given an NCR l number to anybody. I Know of no incident when anycody was TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16231 STRIlf M.W. = SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3990
r 59 O Do you know or any explanation :or a 14-mentn gap?
A No. 1 never even looked at a possiele expAanation ror it.
e Q Ana you never hears anymocy voice an explanation?
I A I nave never hearc anyoody really asx the ,
question until Just recently. -
Q Do you know of anycoay daring ive0 cr tne i, early part et 'ol tnat tela tne inscectors eney :oule net write NOR'4? -
- l k 30 l
Q icu indicated earlier enat felicwing Rev. , in
~
Octocer of 'ci tnere were many ivCR's written. -
A That is my personal ocser.atien. 1 .1gnt say i
- ct tne reccru enat prior to Septemcer 1960 I wha not even at Cc:nanene Pea 4. I nau very limited expecure to tne I
coatings prograin prior to Octocer or Sevemuer 1961. So w:.a t went on was more Joe.talA or nearsay ratner titan sin:
of personai involvement.
2 Frior to Rev. 4, tne QI's referred t final acceptance, out tne in process concept as relates to Ih's
~
coes not relate to final acceptances is tnat rignt?
.% I oon't understand tnat.
Q Frior to Rev.
- inspecticns were concloered ,
I TAYLOE A550CIATES :
16251 $71ttff, N.W. = SUlti 8004 i WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 l
(202) 293 3950 4
f, '
6 'u 1
final 3.
2 4 ho. i 3
-C Tney were not?
4 A t.o .
5
, C Iney were in process?
6 A- At least tne pnilosophy and pos'sicly the ;
. 1 precedure stated at tnat time tnat rinal acceptance c: tne 8
coatir.g wculd come at ne Ime of final walkdown.
9 Concequently, many of tne recoros tnat were really in 10 procesa application type-receras were never properly 11 filled out, scce were never signed ans many were not h 1 ~,
traceacle := any area. Some say, for example, pressurizer i 13 l room, Uni: 1. The pressurizer roor. 1s.procacly 60 feet i 14 !
hign an: 20 feet square anc all ne scrfaces are coated i I
15 and not traceable to anything, whien was ultimately the 16 reason we were served itn a notice of violation.
17 b C 0xay. Well, let me again tell you 1 in i i
18 l' reviewing tne historical file it referenced final !
19 acceptance up to hev. -a , and final acceptance was not i 20 referred to rrom Rev. 4 on, out you nave no Knowlecge or i 21 I recollection that anc I don't suppose you can answer my n,
cuestion.
al
~
A I don't even understand your ooservation. I am more con oseu now : nan I was.
25 Q Well, one of tne paragraphs in tne CI's na:
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
61 1
remate to coating inspections rererenced the final 0
acceptance.
3 A Rignt, wnich is wnat I Just answered stating 4
- ne the inspectora were waiting foi tnis day to come with 5
all tnese reccrds still wnat tney censicered in process 6
waiting to do tais final inspection, wnien is now we got the records as scre.ed up as they were.
8 C se tne fact enat pricr Rev. 4 it stated tnat 9
it waa final acceptance, tne in process concept was 10 alreacy in place anc in use?
11 A Yes.
L Oxay. Once t;.e inspection report was put in 13 use, how were Ia's used for ueficiencies 1 entifiec wnlen 14 were not part of assigned inspections?
15 A I don't understand tne question.
16 Q If an inspector indentified a deficiency that 17 was not part of tneir assignec inspection, now did eney 18 report tncse uericiencies?
I9 A At wnat pcInt in time?
C v. hen they identified tnem.
'l A sc, tne time trace.
l Q Tnis woulc nave 'een c from Rev. s enrouen Rev.
- 3 7 15, which I oelieve is Octo'er o of tnis year.
A Tners is more than one answer to the cuestion,
~*
l if I can explain Just briefly.
TAYLOE' A550CIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - SulTI 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
t 62 1
Q Sure.
. 2 >
A As I started on the dissertation a minute agc 3
and I cut o2f that it makes no dif ference, to meet both 4
regulatory anu federal law requirements wnat you icentify 5 ,
ciscrepant or deficient concitions on, what you call that j 6 l' piece of paper, or not even a piece of pacer. We coulo we .
~
could, if we wanteu, eten it in stone. You have got me at ,
p 8 '
a certain cisaavantage cecause I don't nave tne procecures !
9 ;
in front of me at tnis tin.e . .
i 10 C' Now I am Just assing you, Tom. This is really ,
11 pretty straigntforwarc.
, A 1 understanc. If you aill let me finisn, I 13 tnink I .111 answer your question, isr oo,;s . For a long time '
14 taey were writing NCR's in answer to your question. For i 15 '
some reason, procaoly more on this site unan many I nave i 16 e been on, tne NCH cycle seems to get oogged nown in paper l 17 i and Just coesn't move as quic<ly. Given the same proclem, !
18 .
you can reach tne same ends more quickly with otner 19 -
documents taan tne document we call a non-conformance j 20 :
report acnieving essentially exactly tne same degree of ,
i o}
~ ..
quality anu essentially the same involvement from tne same [
ne !
~-
people. l I
l
,3
' ~
Somewhere between tne period of l-
-,4 Octocer/Sovember 'al an: present, we cecideo we could so
! 25 l It mucn more efficiently on an inspection report. I i
i TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STittET. N.W. - SUITE 1004 l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
63 1
prouncly am responsiole as anyooo" icr initiating that philosopny naving received my supervisor, Mr. Tolson's-3 elessing en it oetore I ever did it. I started it in tne 4
classified. pipe support area anu it proved te ce very 5
successful as~Iar as expediting tne resolution of the 6
c pro'lem, not in expediting tne work necessartiy, out as 2ar as icentifying.the proolem and getting properly Just a j' 8
corrective action cescriced, implemented anc closeo in a ,
9 I muca more expecitious fasnion taan anat we were doing witn j 10 a nor.-ccaformance report. ,
he expanced from the classiried pipe supports ir.tc etner areas anc ultimately encing cp in coatings, a r.c i is t i exactly wnat time that took I can't tell you. But the ;
14 . .. . ..
I process :cr icentitying a ciscrepant concition is exactij I
15 the same on tne inspectors cenalf, I mean looking throegn [
16 L tne eyes of an inspector if ne puts it down on an t I-inspection report or on a non-conformance report.
Ii 18 !
O Okay. .Now back to say question. If an inspector ,
19 i loentifies a ceficiency tnat is not part cf his assignec ;
20 . , :
inspection, wnst metnoc under the In program --- 3 al A he marks it un-sat and aescribes the proolem. ['
~~
Q Does he Just get a clank Ih?
t 3 . . i A Rignt. ;
I
~y Q ins he puts tne location ano then puts --- !
t A ne puts tne item dercription, the location ---
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 l
64 1
(Pause due to telepnone call interruption.)
2 MR. GRIfEIn: Let's go ofI tne record.
3 (snort recess.)
4 (Tne pencing question and partial answer were 5
read oy tne reporter after toe recess.)
6 TnE WITr4ESS: In accition to tne item description and tne location, ne cescrices .nat the 8
particular proclem is ne nas ocserved, makes the IR 9
un-sat, octains an IR numt'er for the IR and enters it inte 10 tr'e sys tem, 11 EY MR. GRIfEIS:
Q riow are un-sat 's on IR's tracser.?
13 A sy a log, a manual log similar to an .sCH leg.
14 O Is tnis log a formal record?
15 A tes.
16 Q Is it a permanent record or does it become a 17 permanent record?
18 A The term permanent record as defined by hCt.-45 19 2.9, I wi.1 nave to say in tay interpretation neither a 20 non-contora:ance report log cr an inspection report log are 21 permanent records.
C wno maintains this log?
"3 A QC themselves.
a4 Q QC wno?
25 x 'Inems el ve s . The clerk in eacn particular area TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
65 I
is responsible. for example, the protective coatings log n
~
cegins witn tne numbers PC. The backfit tnat we have ceen unuergoing for a couple of years new is PCR. hilti colts 1 4
l are IRAN.
a 1 C well, tne gist of my question is you nave a 6
formal system for trac. sing un-sat's on IH's? I A Right, procedurally descriced in CP/QF 15.0.
8 I nad not reac :nat, cut it says now the log I
?
9 will ce set up, how tney will ce tracked ano now it will 10 ce reported wnen they are dispositiened. Does it accress 11 nat?
A It tells how an inspection report .na y se 13 closco. In essence it previces disposition to tne proolem that tne inspector reportec.
15 Q Since the inception of IR's ir. One coatingd !
16 '
procedures, did writing an NCR guarantee an inspector trip i 17 to your otfice?
l 18 .
n so, in no way.
19 Q In otner words, ycu continued to accept NCR's.
20
- R.
. W ATKI;ss : Excuse me, could you read tne "I
~
question bac<. I just didn't hear it.
(The pending question was reac by tne l 23 repcrter.)
3 !
4 TP.E nITNESS: I might add that Appena1x 2 05 .
requires you to have a CA program estaclisned tnat clearli
{
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004
(
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 I (2021 293 3950 i
, 66 ,
i 1
defined now you operate. Knen an inspection proceuure ;
2 descrioes tnat any defiencies you find snall ce reported 3
on an Ih and not on a non-conformance report and 4
inspector = insist on usinu non-conrormance reports, j 5
l tecnnically tney are in viciation of the procedure. Io 6 ;.
streten a point, a non-conformance report coula ce written C I
on t.iat inspector's benavlor f or f ailure to follow tne .
6 8 -
written proceuure. - Of course, tnat has never nappened, cut l' 9 '
50R's are still written. j 10 bY Ma. GRIiFIn:
11 Q Cxay. As an extension thougn, since the 12 inception of the In procram in tnat .CR's were crcpped 13 f rcir. tne quality instruction, cio yc ever nave occasion '
14 to counsel inspectors who wrote NCR's since eney were not t to -
part of tne proceuure as to way eney weren't using IR's in i 16 ;
accoraance with tne procedure? !
l- .
A Tne suc]ect has come up several times to me 18 ~!
, personally. I waa not enere, and the only reason I <
19 '
remember tne date is I remember when 1 was in .New York ,
20 City, on August letn cr 19th my supervisor, Mr. Tolson, i
,3 r
~
nao a meeting witn some paint inspectors explaining lj pn11segnically now tne program was structured and wny we 23 wantec tnem to use an IR. j
'a I Let me again empnasize tnis is seconchand +
25 i information. I was not tnere. Arter that one particular TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-39$0
y l
l 67 I h inspector tnat was involved in tne meeting went ouc :ne 3 3 :
very next cay and wrote a non-conformance report on tne ,
3 same cubject we had discussed in tne meeting. Yet, he was .
4 .
not counseled ror it, wnich in retrospect mignt nave ceen ,
5 . . . i a mistaxe.
6 Then a perloc of time later, and I con't remember wnich day of tne wee <, the same inspector wrote 8 .
anotner non-conrormance report, his supervisor wno was 9
Everett Mouser crought tne non-confermance report to me 10 ana saiu, Tom, I can't ske Elliott understand snat the 11 program is and wna: 2noulc I do? I saic explain again :nat tne procedure spectrically cictates tne use cf an 1.1 inspection report, get Mr. Elliott to issue an inspection 14 . .
report, rererence tne .inspection.repcrt on tne 15 non-con: ore.ance report and oring tne ncn-conformance 16 report cacA to me and I will voio it.
17 Q Is tnis October of tnis year nat tnis 18 occurrec?
19 a It was August or Septemoer of this year. I 20 sucsequent to cqat got in a discussion witn*another
~I inspector by tne name of Tom Miller who one cay came to my office to ilnu out wno was responsi:le for bringing nim 3 ... . .
= a c t, to cay snitt. he was quite aggitatec. over it ana he l
says I can't get anycocy to acmit cringing me back to day n
snitt, and I said well, you nave come to tne rlgnt place, i i
t ?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES !
16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004
{
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
- i (202) 293 3950
66 1
cecause it was my decision to oring you back to cay snift, 2
wnicn he 61on't li<e any more. He said he hac to respect 3
to tne :act taat I woulc at least aamit it was my cecision 4
anu we got into a lengthy discussion acout tne use of IR's 5
versus NC.s's.
6 Mr. Miller was going to explain wnat Appendix B saic to me so ne perceived. after ciscusssing it at some 8
great lengtc witn taree procedure coor.s in front of me 9
snowing me now I was in violation of Iv CFH 50 Appendix E 10 and my aemonstrating now I wasn't, Nr. Miller said ne l 11 !
rinally understocc. If you will give me Just a-seccnd, I i 12 can tell ycu wnen tnat occurrec. It was tne last part cf 13 Septemaer, to tne oest of my recollection. It was on 14 Septemoer 28tn as a matter of tact.
15 p.e saic ne uncerstood. he said a lot of people 16
.ere confused ove,r the pnilosopny of the issue and asse:
17 me to descrice or present tne same presentation casically 18 that I had giver. him to the group, whien I did at 5 19 o' clock the next evening on tne 29tn of Septemaer. I hac 20 about a 3v to 45-minute pallosophical discussion viito both day shirt and nigat snift coatings inspectors. I assec tor n,
l i any question and any furtner concerns en tne NCR/Ix issue
[
"3 .
ano enere were none, i
1 nz Q do ne answer is no, tnat you didn't nave 25 reason since tne inception of our program up until nese l
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 I STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHlHGTON, D4 20006
. (202) 293 3950
69 l l
1 l events tnat you related to counsel? )
A nell, tne only reason I explained tnat is I l 3
don't xnow what you mean by tne word " counsel."
4 Q well, I am just saying if enere hac ceen 50 p instances where peopAe had come in who nac critten 1;CR's !
6 and you had saic we use an IR program and NCR's are no longer included in reporting coatings deficiences --- l 8
A To me it was more of a training sessicn taan a 9
counseling session.
10 Q 6ut I am ust saying if enere hac been 50 11 inztances, tnat you woulc pro'c ably have remetacered tnese, i
ja woulc you not? i 13 i A un, yes. :
I 14 -
Q And there were no suen inscances? i 15 a Counseling sessions, nc.
16 l' Q well, not formal counseling, but enere you nad 17 I to instruct your inspectors we have an IR prcgram anc !
0 18 WCM's are not ---
A To my recollection, I accressed it once 20 previously prior to August / September of 'e3 as a group D ol whien I :ncught I provided an adecuate pnilcsophical
~~
discussion to tne group, cut due to the num'er t of a3 inspectors tnat claiceo they still misuncerstood it or
'4 dicn't uncerstand and thought we were in violation oZ i l
Appenclx B ---
i I
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES I 162s i sufET, N.W. - SUM 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
4 70 1
C sut since-tne inception of tne inspection
'O reports ---
3 A No, other tnan the incidents I descrioec ---
4 Q But these inscectors h' ave continuea to write 5 <
NCR's; 15 tnat right?
6 .
A Not.any taore I hope. To me it is crystal clear wnat we want non-conformance reports for and what we ,
8 i Oon't. '
9 l
Q It is also my understanding tnat Rev. 15 j 10 '
placed NCh's cack into the inspection instructions as ,
11 related to called; is tnat rignt? '
12 A Due to unacceptacle coatings aue to Icss of !
13 I adneslon. Tnat aras a result of tne Decemcer 19tn group j 14 '
meeting wnich Fred Dunnam, who was tne night shift CC 15 ccatings leau inspector, hau expressed a concern on how we 16 were going to handle it cecause it wasn't procedurally 17 descriced now to isolate tne area.
18 G what date was that again?
19 A September 29tn.
20 Q in tne IR program you use reject tags as 21 opposed to nolc tags; 1s tnat correct?
n, A ror coatings, yes.
~3 Q Mayce you were going to tell me this. hny was
'4 tr.e hCh reinstated?
25 A I tains I did Just cescrioe that, the concern TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 i
-n.
71 1 ,
.tnat Fred Dunnam nau on lack or a procedural definition on I n
~
now to isolate tne area on whlen tne failed adnesion 3
occurrec.
4 Q All right. Do you currently nave a policy with 5
our inspectors.tnat reAates to inspections of items 6
outsloe tnose that tney are assignec?
a 1 con't Know that there is a pclicy.
8 Q Well, presently today are inspectors allowe 9 i to conduct inspections outsice those that they are j 10 !
assigned? s ,
11 A hot on a routine basis. If tney nave a -
l ~'
concera, in all cases uneir concern nas ceen evaluated. 1: i.
13 !
we nad 400 people out tnere doing anat tney wanted, I ;
i 14 nink even a causual observer wouls nave to admit it was 15 an unmanagea'le c situation. i 8
16 Q You indicated tnat over tne period of One last 17 i Lew years inspectors hau continued to write NCR's even i l
18 .
tnougn you nac an IR program. Anen these NCR's were l 19 I written, did tnese inspectors place hold tags on the items 3 20 i they hac iaentitlec? l i
ni
~
A Procedurally tney were required to. I dion't Icilow any inspector around to see that he did. l i
,3
~ '
Q well, I am Just asking you. Tney wrote NCR 's ,
^4 out ---
n A They used hold tags i tney used an aCR. 1na 1
I TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
- (202) 293 3950 g
. 72 1
is what tney were supposed to have uses.
2 Q Oo you review IR's, unsat's on IR's, or it is 3
cone by tne first-line supervisor?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Tom, are you familiar witn sno witnin the NRC 6
ano if tne MC was approached to give its blessing on this IR program? You nad indicated earlier that you nad 8
presentsa it to Tclson, was the NRC approacned to 9
determine wnether there was an agreement enat this met 10 !
reporting necessities? ,
11 i a defore One IR concept as far as repcrting i 12 ciscicepant concitions, and as I said I was responsisle for 13 ene iuea essentially, was ever preceduralized cr ever 14 usec, it was discussec pnilosophically witn the resicent, i 15 he told me agreed that I was witnin ene counds c: Appendix 16 E any regulatory requirement. We had a pallosepnical 17 disagreement, wnich I believe if questioned at tnis date, 18 ne would have to acmit ne was wrong on the effectiveness j 19 j cf what I was tryina to achieve. ;
20 i
Q eut tne NRC representative concurrec tnat it i 21 l was an acceptacle procedure?
nn
~
A Yes, sir, l
23 . . . . i Q Ana then it was instituted?
24 3 Yes, sir. It nas also been evaluatec cy tne 25 construction appraisal team, by toe ASLS and cath nave s
. TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STRHT, N.W. - SulTI 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 I
[ :
73 I approvec tness.
2 O has tnere recently or in the last tnree months 3 consiseration given to having craft supervision perior.T. In 4 precess inspecticns of coatings as opposed to OC
~
5 inspectors?
6 A Yes.
7 G was a decisic'n made as to wnether to 8 incorporate this?
9 A Yes, a cecision was made.
10 Q Wnat was snat cecision?
11 A .Not to do it.
12 O was tnis a cecision made oy yoc?
13 n I nad input on it, out the final decision was 14 not mine.
15 g uncse was it?
16 .4 I co not kn ow. It was mace cy a superior of
!! mine. At exactly wnat level I do not snow.
18 O Do you Know if craft conducts their own 19 inspections in any otner areas?
20 A Yes, tney dc. Craft concucts an inspection of 21 varying magnitude in Just about any area ci safety related 22 constructicn. You mean prior to submitting to QC?
l 23 O Does cra:t conduct its own inspections in 24 place oc QC?
25 A In any safety related area?
I 1
1 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRHT, N.W. - SUITE 1004 i
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
70 1 Q 0:ner tnan wnat was consisereo nere.
2 A You are implying if they ever cid tnat.
3 C ho, no, I am net.
4 A The craft nas never made an inspection to 5 satisfy Appendix B requirements in any safety relates area 6 at Comanche Pea 4.
- 51y question is is tnis mennod used in the 8 c
- her area?
9 A ho.
10 0 It is my unserstanding :nat recent procedure 11 enanges crcpped dry spray, overspray and emoedded 12 par-icles froir. inspection crl eria: 13 :nat correct? Are 13 ycu familiar witn tnat in coatings?
14 A I con't cn i n r. they are approved yet.
15 0 Also, I :ning there is a provision :na:
16 in:icatec inspections are to ce cone at arm's length witn 17 a flasnlign: tiltec at a 90 degree angle. Is that an 18 inccrporatec procecure now?
19 A Yes, it is.
20 Q Were you tne one ena: implemented tnis?
21 A Yes, I did. I: is still quite conservative.
22 Q Wny were these enanges made? How did you 23 arrive at these?
24 A Tne safety issue en protective coatings is tc 25 assure that the coating stays on the wall in tne event of l
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRifT. N.W. - SUITI 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 g (202) 293-3950 ,
75 1 a design cacit accicent as cpposed to falling cff tne wall in large sneets and tneoretically, and only tneoretically, 3 clogging tne containment sumps.
4 I know of an arenitect/ engineering firm, ano 5 will remain nameless for purposes of :nis discussion, who 6 nas scown analytically that tnat physically impossicle.
7 Mcwever, in tocay's regulatory environraent it is not wortn 6 tne time ana effort to try to it through the haR. beveral 9 A/s firms nave defined much more 11oeral inspection 10 guicelines tnan at arm's lengtn witn a two-cell 11 flasalight.
12 he were having proolems at One time witc 13 inspectors asking well, now much lign: Oc I nave tc have 14 to mane tnis inspection, now close oc I have to get, I 15 can't get my head in there close enough to see tnat. It 16 cecame a constant question of accessi:11ity or 17 non-accessicility, and I ceciced to procecurally define.
18 C so you were more specific than mayne you wculo 19 ncrmally nave intended te be te answer tnese questions?
20 A Correct.
21 Q Eave a ncmber of new QC inspectors in the 22 coatings arsna oeen recently crougnt in from tae paint 23 department?
23 A les, sir.
25 Q And are eney being certitled or qualifted at TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STitEET, N.W. - SUITI 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
7G 1 Onit time?
2 a Yes, sir, by the same process tnat anyone is 3 qualitlec ana certiriea.
4 C Are enese pestions that they are going tc
~
5 occucy,-is this a long-term job ror these people? -I mean 6 is tc.ere a need for a large influx cf coatings QC
- inspectors for an indefinite period of time?
8 A There was at One time, yes, to support 9 ccnstruction.
10 0 Will tnis demand continue to exist 11 Indefinitely into tne. future?
12 A It cepends on production schedules. It seems 13 rather elementary that it we are working on tec units at 14 one time ooviously it is gelr.g tc tar.e us twice as many 15 people than li =e were only working on one unit. Anc if 16 yCu nave 400 painters, yoc need proportionately more CC 17 inspectors tnan if you only nave 200 painters.
18 Q Cray. Dio you nave 400 painters a nonth ago?
19 A I Delieve in Ene last CWo months, and I am not 20 intimately invel'vec sitn tne construction cetails, there 21 nave been eign: crews of painters added to cays.
22 O So prior to bringing tnese people into GC you 23 dian't nave enoagh people *to support ene craft?
24 A Rignt.
l 25 Q Tom, do you know when final coatings l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES I
iets i sTasti. w.w. - sum iOO4 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 l (202) 293 3950 l
77 1 inapections will oegin?
2 A They already nave. -
3 Q dow long nave finals been in process?
- A I give up. I don't rememoer. It depenas s let
~
5 on unut area you are talxing acout. For example, tne final 6 coatings inspection on the containment liner in tne dome occurreu as we were coming down out of the dome. We have 8 no reason to go back up in the dome at tnis peint.
9 Q So all tnose are considered rinals?
10 A Rignt.
11 Q Is tne rewor,c or recaintin: c: sacaged pain:
12 in process now?
Is A Rignt, it you are tal.cng accat .T.ecna ni cal 14 damage.
15 2 Yes.
16 A Yes.
1 O in tne concept of final walkdo n f or room 18 turnover, coes tnat allow for inspection cf all damageo 19 pai.It?
20 .s Yes, that is exactly wnat it involves if tne 21 scope or four cuestion is restricted to tne protective e coatings walkoown.
23 Q It is.
24 A Yes, tnat is exactly what it is for.
23 0 1 am interestec in the coatings bacxfit TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i sTantT, N.w. - sum 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 g e
70 1 program. It was lybi that .NkC released cnat notice cf O violation on old documents. Originally wasn't intended 3 nat enere would tse a total cackii-?
4 A t. o . -
~'
5 Q What was tne original intention?
6 A The original intention was to backfit areas
! wners a6 equate documentation die not exist.
6 Q wnat steps were taken to identify wnat 9 documentaticn was anequate?
10 A We reviewed tne olc documents.
Il Q wno is we?
12 A GA.
13 0 was tnere anybody in particular taat nandlet 14 the review?
15 A For me to list everybody would oe a long list.
16 The initial snot at it was myself, Dicx Cummings anc Mixe 17 Foote. Since tnat time Neil Britton has cecome involved 18 and several other people.
19 Q During the review done by you, Foote and 20 Cummings, dic you all also map areas as you went?
21 A That is what we were working on at tnat time.
Z! Q Dic you map tnem according to adequate or 3 inadequate or sat or un-sat?
24 A We only mapped adequate cocumentation. Inat is 25 all we were interested in. If I can basically cescrice it, i TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l
1625 i STaEET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 .
l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 I
(202) 293-3950 i
7!v 1
1 we socle pics up an inspec lon reper and 1:-1: mean 2 anytning er if 1: was able to stano on its own, we woulc 3 r.ap :ne location cf tnat Ix saying, yes, we nave got i 4 documentation on :nis area. If we pickec up a recore that 5 woulon't stand on its own, it j us t went over nere.
6 C I nave looked a some of :ne old records and
- many of ne pacxages enat I reviewed had surface 8 preparation primer, mixed sneets and seal coat. Die all of 9
- nese togerner constitute an inspection package?
10 5. he. what we were ceing a that time was 11 making, anu I am talxing off tne top cf my neas once 12 again, I celieve we made enree maps, one for surface
/
13 preparation, one for pr mer applica:icn ano one for 14 finisned cuat application. We took eacn individual record 15 on its own and examines it and said will :nis stand cn its 16 own as a quality assurance document, and if 1: would, we 17 mapped it. If it woulcn't, we disregardec it. We did no 18 throw anything away.
19 Ae assigned numoers to aosolutely everything 20 so tha: :ney coulc ce entered into tne permanent plan:
21 recora system. he had nad no intentiens to ever take e credit for it.
23 Q Did you yourself ever nave occasion during the 24 review to attaen say a mix sneet to a seal coat sneet if 25 eney were relateo? I am using that as an example. I Could TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STitEET. N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 l (202) 293 3950 1
1 60 1 nave ceen surface preparation to a primer coat. )
1 2 A I nonestly don't rememoer. I can't see that 1:
3 would make any possicle dif ference one way or the other, 4 but I henestly can't remember whether de did er not.
5 Q Did you make any Xerox copies cf any the ---
6 A Dic I perhonally? No.
7 Q _00 you Know if anybody else cid?
8 A No. I do know tnat.cf the people I was working 9 with tnat we didn't mar.e any. - Whetner somebody nas made 10 copies of them, I have no idea.
11 O now long did tnis rdview last witn you, Focte 12 anc Cume.ings?
13 A Dic< Cummings left Comanene Pean in January er 14 February cf 1982. Mike Foote is still nere. Mide Focte 15 has ceen involved on and off witn review of coatings 16 recoras since tnat time. My original involvement, as of 17 January of 19e2 I was deeply involved in getting Brown and 18 Root through ne ASME survey anc in February of 'o2 I 19 assumec supervisory responsioility for casically all of 20 One non-AShE OC activities. Tne amount of time that I 21 spent reviewing coatings records was extremely limited.
22 Q Knen was Neil Britton brought into tqe revie.-
23 process?
24 a Sometime later.
25 Q Did he in effect taxe over from Foote and TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i425 i snerT. x.w. - sum iOO4 WASHINGTON, D.C 20004 (202) 293 3950
- j. -
bi i Curt.T.i ng s ?
2 A You'are asking a. sequence typt question, 3 Brocks, anc 1 really don't rememoer.
4 Q Are yco familiar at all with Britton's review?-
-5 A I oon't understand tne question. I know Neil 6 'Britton reviewed records, but wnat ne did, I don't Know.
7 C Do you xnow if ne mappec areas?
8 A tes.
9 Q Dic ne map Onem fCr adequacy?
10 A Seil cid tne same Oning that we did. If the 11 recore would stanc on its own, he mapped it. If it 12 woulcn't, it went in a separate pile. At least Ona: 15 13 wnat ne was instructed to do.
14 0 Okay. As relates to tne cackiit prograc, now 15 were these nlaps used? c 16 A They were used oy the inspec crs to determine 17 whetner or not, ior example, wnetner the area nad oeen 18 seal coated. They verified tnat they had a surface prep ig Ix, tney verified tnat they nac a primer IR ana a seal 20 coat IR prior to letting enen put any more finisn coat cn 21 tne item. If tne cocumentacion was lacxing for tne r particular area tnat the ongoing worn was in, tne area was n backfit.
24 Q Okay. But in tne backfitting dic the 3 inspecters conducting the backfit make use of tnese olc TAYLOE ASSOCIATES ions i sinm. ov. - sum iOO4 '
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 m
E2 I retcras?
.Make use of the records :nemselves~t
~
2 A 3 Q Yes.
4 A Not to my Knowledge. Tney mign: nave.
5 C In tne backfit-did tne inspecters reinspect 6 areas tnat hac ceen mapped as naving adequate
! documenta:icn?
8 A I am sure that happened.
9 C 'r; ell , are you saying tha Oney did no: tage 10 into account the adequacy of tne old records?
11 A In some cases it was probahly that craft was 12 screaming at enem to release tne area as far as is i: 7ood 13 to pa:.n or not, and tnis is strict 1,. supposition on my 14 par: and I nave no reason tc =elieve i: is true otner tnan 15 ene fact tnat given ene encice of going and looging to ses 16 One map to figure out wnether you nas adequate records for 17 tae area er going aneac witn the bacx;1: inspection for 18 tae area, I art sure enere are cases out tnere wnere eney 19 did tne cacKlit inspection ratner tnan loorting Ior the 20 recorcs.
21 Q Okay, but are you saying tnere is no formal l 22 decisicn maae whetner areas inappec as naving acequate i
23 documentation were # included in bac4 fit or not?
l 24 A I don't see what difference it could posaicly 25 made.
i TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l 1625 i STREET. M.W. - $UITI 1004 l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
d3 1 Q hell, tell me wnere I am wrong, cut it say tsis were a room on tne site oct tnere and tne paint en 5 tae, let's say it was concrete, if it was mapped as naving 4 adequate documentation, I am asxing you, woul: tne room 5 nave ceen involved in tne backfit?
o A As a matter of course?
! Q Yes.
8 h No. There was no reason to cackfit an area 9 you nad acequate cocumentation on.
10 Q So tne records that were found to be adequate 11 were usec and were excluded from backfit?
12 A The only point I was trying to maAe, Broo<s,
~
13 ana mayce I misunderstood wnere you were neaced, war if 14 tnis room, for example, nac adequate cocumentation, dic 1:
15 ever nappen that an inspector backfit part of the room in 16 accition to naving adequate original records, and tne 1; answer to that was yes, prooably tnat happenea. That 18 wasn't the i n t e n.t , out you just dic more or< than was 19 necessary.
20 C r. hat I am trying to get to, Tom, is in that 21 you all dic tnese document review anu in tnat you mapped on areas and certain areas were found to nave adecuate 1
m documentation, does that mean as of this date tocay are 24 enese old records that are represented as being used tc 25 attest to ---
l l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
~
h 1 A The quality of that paint? 1 2 O tes.
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q So tnese records are still in use?
5 A Yes. They are in tne vault.
6 Q in your review of the records tnat you
! conductec with Foote and Cummings, were these, in your 8 op:.nion, cid tnese old records meet ANSI stancards anc are
+
9 they auequate documentation?
10 A When I said tnat the record was adequate, tnat 11 is what I was re: erring to.
12 Q Sc tna . if you marked adequate, it met all 13 criteria?
14 A All criteria f or whicn' we are cornmitted to at 15 Comancne Peak in our professional opinion.
16 Q I am aware that Mr. Britton created a log in 17 nis document review as well as maps and in the log you 18 recorded particular inspections as sat or un-sat. Tnese 19 tnat were marked sat, it is my unnerstanding, were mapped 20 as satisfactory.
21 A Yes, having satisfactory documentation.
22 Q If I understand you correctly, those maps were 23 used to deter;nine wnica areas did not require cac.tfitting -
i 24 A Yes.
25 Q I understand that for liner plate anc concrete TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i sta:ET, N.W. - SUM 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
i c5 1- there was_totalicacxfit, complete cacx:lt; is that right?
2 A Yes.
3 0 8ut for miscellaneous steel, wnien includes 4 condait anc caole tray supports and stuff-line tna that
~
5 there was representative sampling tagen; is that rignt?
6 A ne started uncer tne concept of coing a nundred percent ot tnem. After doing tens of thousands of s destructive tests, we uld a statistical analysis on the 9 results of ocr sampling and determined tna; a 90 percent 10 coniidence interval coule ce senieved if at least 95 11 percent cf the coa:Ing was acceptacle and discentinued the 12 destructive testing.
13 0 were tnose areca :nat were mapeed as naving 14 adequate cocumentation excluced from tne sampling?
15 A I don't understana ycur cuestion.
16 Q were not maps drawn for what is incluced as 17 miscellaneous steel?
18 A No.
19 C Just liner plate and concrete?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Oxay, that answered my question.
I
, 22 A Just to make a point, Brooks. If we nad mapped 23 miscellaneous steel we would have s5,000 maps.
24 (Laugnter.)
25 That ougnt to be self-explanatory.
i l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES is25 i stanfT. N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l bB 1 MR. GRIFFIN: Let me tell you this, Tom. In 2 na: I retiewe; Britton's lop, ne went into areas o*.ner 3 taan ccncrete ano steel and ne marked them sat or un-sat, 4 too.
5 ThE WITNESS: By piece numoer possibly, yes, 6 out no mapping.
7 EY AR. GRIFFIN:
8 0 nell, let me restate tne question. Oc you know o if nis icg was used to determine ---
10 A Whe:ner or not an area required a bac4 fit?
1; Q Yes, anc wnetner 1: was included in the 12 sampling f or bac.<f it .
13 A Are yoc separating those two?
14 0 .vell, no. I guess eney are tne same, are en e;-
15 not?
16 A Yes. Our sample was only wnat was cacxfit.
17 Q Okay.
18 A The answer to tne question is y.es, it was 19 cSec. Now tne procedure stated, -f you say Oc ccer on, 20 :nat if an area nas acequate cocumentation, just carry en 21 your ongoing inspection. .If it doesn't nave acequate 22 documentation, perrorm a ba:<ft: in accoroance witn 1.3-23 23 or 29.
24 C ih tne old records those tnat re f erence an .';CR l
25 are consicered inacequate; is that correct?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 162s i stun. N.W. - SUM 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 0102) 293-3950
67 ,
I 1 A It depends on what tne NCR 13. Inere was lir.e 0 six origianal sCR's that were brosen down to 12 nat were 3 o cro<en cown to pro'anly bu now, cepending.on wna:
4 elevation and whetner it is concrete or 2.iscellaneous
~
5 stee. cr liner. If nat is the NCR number referencec on 6 One cic cneck list, yes, Enose were censiderec Inauequate.
! Q Sc : nose that co not reference an hCR are 8 considered acecuate conversely?
9 A I gaess. I don't know wnere ycu are heaced.
10 C Well, I am not headed anywhere. I nave gone ::
11 tne vault anc I nave lookec at the documents anc many nave 12 NCR's. It Just so nappens wnen you look in the lo; coo <,
15 Britten's icg boo < you rinc tnat tnose are un-sat.
14 A Tne ones that hac NCR's. O<ay 15 0 I am Just trying to find out if tnat is your 16 understancing also.
1 A Yes, tnat is my general uncerstancing. That 18 was tne intent.
j9 0 1s Britten's log book going to oe tae 20 permanent reccrd fer tne cackfit ---
21 e A to o . Acsolutely not.
r 2 onat will ce used?
23 ' A The IR's. The original inspection reports. It 24 is rather bulay te nave inspectors having to look tnrougn 3 file cabinet arter file cabinet to fin: support No. AYX to TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRIET, N.W. - SUIT! 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 i
?
so 1 giina cut waether tne criginal cocumentation was adequate cr not.
3 0 so you use a log book in place of that?
4 A Rignt. we would be sitting nere and tal.<ing 5 accut lost records if that was the case.
~
6 Q During tne backfit. program tnese . naps were 7 used to uetermine wnicn areas would be oackfittec?
8 4 Rignt.
9 MR. GRIFFIN: That is all I nave.
10 Lo you have any questions?
11 MR. DRISKILL: Yes, just a couple.
12 SY MR. DRISnlLL:
13 ; Going c'ack for a few minutes to the discussion 14 tnat was haa earlier, I have get a couple of nings I i 15 wantec to acx you about.
16 One of tne topics was tne generation of.
17 inspection reports spontaneously cy inspectors. In other 18 words, if they are waixing down past something and tney 19 see a bac spct, as I understand it, your instructions to 20 Onem were to go get a blanx IR and write tnis up as an 4
21 unsatisfactory concition anc 'ix.st;fy wnere it is and wnat 5 it is and turn tnat in. + . oa - correct in wnat Erocxs has 23 called or representec as ine is program?
i 34 A Rignt. ,
25 Q Thdt is correct?
l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l ,
1625 I sTResT. N.W. - SUITE 1004 wAsHlNGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
+ - 89 1 A The concept wasn't necessarily though, Den, 2 ycu ,:: cw , if I was neaded to tne reactor building and 3 wal.<1ng tnrougn tne safeguard ouilding anc if I found 4 scmetning wrong to use an IR. Altacugh that coulc nave 5 been tne case, tnat wasn't really tne pnilosopny behind 6 it. Tne pnllosopny behind it was anytning that was cisecvered wrong witn tae coatings system in service level 8 one areas, wnien are tne only areas nat a OA program 9 applies to at Comanche Peax, Inat anyy discrepant 10 condition being identified on an IR. If it was not covered 11 as an attricute en tne IR tnat is included in one of One 12 coatines inspection procedures, just use tne clanx Ih anc 13 cescrice wnat was wrong with ne area anc tar < the IA 14 unsatisfactory.
15 9 do you are saying tnen, so that I unoerstand, 16 you are maying if tney do not possess an inspection report 17 for that area when taey fins this, or if there is not an 18 existing inspecticn report ror tnat area, they are to 19 generate an inspection report?
20 4 If I could use an example, I thinx I might 21 claricy it. If :nis is a room in tne reactor cu11cing, I 22 wals ey and see enat we nave hao severe mechanical camage 23 in enere to the coating system wnicn nas oeen previously
~
24 accepted. There will ce an inspection report saying taa 25 that has ceen inspected, cut now is mecnanically camages.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
90 1 ine concept was to taAe an IR out of tne coatings 2 inspection procecure where 1: says final visual 3 acceptance, marx tnat unsatistactory and cescrice :qe 4 meenanical damage tna exists in there.
~
5 Only in cases enere tnere was no IR covering 6 it, you ,.now, if it was suen an odd-call case, wnich I T can' Ic.asine in coatingu, cecause coatings is a pretty 8 clear-cut, net clear-cut from the scientific aspects of 1:
9 certainly, it is more of an art, but if tnere was nc 10 pre-identified inspection attrioute for wnat as wrong or 11 wna: was ciscrepan: about the condi-ion, to just take a 12 blann in anc c.arx 1: unsatisfactory and just descrice wna:
13 was wrong with it.
14 Q Let me asa a question just for tne saxe c: ne 15 recore. .4o does a coatings inspector generally ecme int 16 possession of an IR? Ano is it generally speaging 17 originally generateu by?
18 A Ine Ix? The coatings inspector. They are in 19 possession of Airerally hun 3 reds of them.
20 Q Basec on a request tnough from One craft tc 21 conduct tnat in s p'ection ?
20 a Tne craft does not have IR's. What generally 23 causes an inspection is tnat your question?
24 0 Yes.
25 A A request from tne craft to inspect tne area.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 l STRiff, N.W. - SUITI 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006
. (202) 293 3950
s1 1 Q 5e based on what you nave saic, wnat I 0 unaerstana has apparently been a controversial' topic here, 3 at least wita some people, has oeen this generation of an-4 inspectica repcrt withcut a request for an inspection.
5 A Tnat nas never oeen a centroversy to my 6 knowleoge.
C v. ell, as I uncerstano it, some people celieve 8 that enat was a non-conformine concition tnat they saw on 9 a wall anc uney saould write an NCR.
10 A That leacs me bacx to my soap box. I will not 11 get back on it, however. It is clearly described now in 12 :ne ccatings instruction that wnen ncn-conforming 13 concitions etner than coa:Ing failure cue to less o 14 adnesien are encounterec, tney snali ce icentified on an 15 inspecticn report in accordance witn CP/QP 1s.0.
16 Tne terms discrepant, onacceptacle, 17 non-conforming and ceficient all essentially mean :ne same 18 thing, and I think tne controversy was the fact tnat it is 19 non-conIorming means that it nas to go in a 20 non-conformance report. Tne fact enat we weren't assec to 21 co tne inspection means tnat we use an NCR rather tnan an 22 18. If tnat is the peint yoc are trying to mare, I agree, s endt was tne controversy.
24 Q I am trying for the recorc to determine ana ,
25 for myself wnat in your mind has resultec in this TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. M.W. - SUITE 1004 l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
-- -- - ~. . _ . .__-
d' a
52 1 misuncerstancing o2~tne enange in programs.
I 2 A I :ninK it is straignt now. You are ma,:ing the l 3 . assuming that tnere is still a controversy. I feel nat 4 ene inspectors currently understand ptilsopnically wny 5 what we are coing is acceptable. If taey do not, they are 6 ei ner too shy to tell me so or tney are 3 cst flat disnonest because I have asked tnem as a group if they 8 understood and they all have indicated taey uncerstood.
9 I tning the original controversy was over a 10 God-given rignt to use a piece of oaper that is icentifiec 11 as a non-conformance report, which I cannot endorse wnen 12 it is procedurally defined to icentify deficiencies en an 13 inspection repcrt.
14 C Inans you, iou made a comment a few minutes on 15 anctner topic nere about Tom Miller being transferred cac.<
16 to tne cay shift.
17 A That is rignt.
18 C And I understand tnat you said you met witn 19 him on I celleve September the 28 n, 1963 anc that tne two 20 of you were acle to resolve your differences.
21 A I am not sure we resclved our differences, out 22 at least he uncerstood wno made the cecision and why the 1
l 23 decision was made.
i
. 24 Q Ana wny was the cecision made?
l 25 A The decision was made by me cue to tne fac 1
i TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STitIff, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 l
13 j i I 1- :nat I was receiving so many comolaints on "om Miller 's
'O performance, inat coth Tom Miller and others claimed tnat -
1 3 he was not responsicle for and tnat ne nadn't really cone 4 it tnis way or tnat way or whatever tney were complainin;
~~ '
5 about, but.I wanted to personally evaluate .v.r. Miller, anc 6 that is exactly what I tolc Mr. Miller on tne 25th of 7 5eptemoer. He complained enat the craft was after nim, and 8 I tclt nlm re,.was parancio, he agreed with me, and tc a 9 certain extent he says I am very paranold.
10 I explainec nat tne only way I coulo get 11 arouno tnat apparent ciscrepancy in anat he thought o2 12 nimself anu wnat otner people tnougnt of hin. anc. shat tne 13 craft tnougnt of nie was to bring hix. in a situation to 14 wnere I could more closely evaluate his capabilities.
15 C Have there been any complaints about nis 16 performance sirace he nas oeen on cays?
1; 4 Yes, tnere nas.
18 C You stated that as a result of Fred Dunnam's 19 concera, NC.8's were reinstated in :ne program;.is that i "
20 correct?
l 21 A I thin, you took it a little bit out of 22 context. In tnis meeting that I neld witu the day and a nignt shift coatings inspectors on Septemoer 29tn of 1963 24 I ashec for comments or questions, one of wnich was Frec 25 Dunnam's asxing, Tom, in the event that coating fails cue TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1623 i STitEET, N.W. ~ SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, 04 20006 g .
(202) 293 3950
94 1 sc= loss c: adnesien, it is net procedurally described now 2g we isolate une area anc now is una:-possiole to resolve l
3 with an la? !
4 I ciscussed at' some length with him after tne l l
5 general meeting in a personal meeting several :nings, one' l
6 of wnien was nat in particular, and I described to nim
- nat there were essentially two ways that we could go.
8 One, I coulc procedurally icentify.wnen you nad coatings 9 failure cue to loss of acnesion on how you isolate tne 10 unacceptacle area or we cos.1d gc witn use of an NCR in 11 tna case and get an engineering evaluation on now to
,12 1sclate tne area.
13 I telo nim I would get cacx witn him in :ne 14 next day or two. I opted to go witn ene non-conformance 15 report anc tne procecure was enanged to reflect tnat 16 report.
1; O Another topic. A few minutes ago Brooks 18 brougnt up ene proposal :nat coatings craft supervisors jg conduct inspections; is that correct?
s 20 A Tna is correct.
21 Q I wantec to ask you, was this proposed j 22 intende to satisfy any requirements of Appendix B?
23 A I don't Know wnere you are headed, Don.
l a4 Q if the proposal hat ceen ac"cepted to allow i
3 craft supervisors to conduct inspections, woulo any of l
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 162s i suser. w.w. - sum ioo4 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3930 s
_ . , , _ - . -- - _ . - , ,-.m-, ,-
4 95 1- t..oce inspections nave ever oeen;.acceptec ana used to 2 satisy NRC requirements?
3 A Aren't we talxing about a nypothetical 4 situation tnat cidn't nappen? I just don't see tne merita 5 or even talxing aoout it.
6 Q hell, tne matter was discussec and~you pointed 7 out tnat ---
8 A he asced me if it was ever discussed ana I 9 said yes. I coulc nave objected to answering tne question 10 tnere cecause we were talking about a nypotnetical 11 ciscussion tr.at toox p. ace that was never implemented anc 12
~
tnat w:11 procaoly never be implemented. I can't possibly 13 =ee now tnat atiects anytning.
}4 Mk. GRIFFIh: I will oe gla to give you my 15 recconing f0: that.
16 THE n1T:2ESS: Okay.
17 Y.R . GnIFflh: starting cack witn these old 18 recor s in '77, '78 and '79 I am trying to establisn a 39 chronology and bring us up to cate as to wnere One 20 revisions nave gone and tnings that nave been deleted anc 21 acdec into trie revisions of QI's. A couple of months ago 22 tnat was ua.ier consiceration, and I am Just putting it 23 t09etner for nistorical purposes as developing tne 24 reasoning as to wny tnings ---
a THE WITNESS: But it was never implemented. It TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STRffT, N.W. - $UlTE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
m , w
96 l 1
l was never changec_and it was never introduced as part of 1 l
C cne'CA program at Comanene Peax. I can't possicly see now 3 tnat has any impact.
4 MR. GRIFFIN: well, tne NRC was approacneo to 3 see if tnis idea would tly. So it was formal enough to 6 approach tne NRC witn it. You aie rignt, it was not accepted.cy tne t:RC, among otners.
8 THE WITNESS: I don't knew enat it was ever 9 formally retused oy tne NRC, at least to my own personal 10 information.
11 I really don't see wnere it is neaded, Don. I 12 coalo tal.< for hours and tell you the pros anc cons of One 13 issue. I could a case tnat it coes meet Appena1x B 14 requirements and turn around and five minutes argue that 15 it coesn't meet Appendix B requirements. As it never 16 aappened, it was never procedurally identified and it l~ never came to pass, I Just can't see where it is worta 18 discussing.
19 SY MR. DRISKILL:
20 Q OKay. Cne last question. You made the 21 statement I believe tnat you nave got coatings inspectors 22 working in two units.
23 A no. I was using a hypothetical example to 24 describe wny we needed extra inspectors. You know, if we s had tnree units, I woulc have said it takes three times 44 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i staarT, N.w. - surT 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 L (202) 293 3950
s7
~
1 many inspector = to cover three units as it does one.
2 At tne time prior to-bringing tne craft in, we
- 3 were desperately looking from one, two, tnree, at least 4 four difrerent sources'tnat I know of, for-coatings 5 inspectors because we were literally burning tae-people ,
6 up. Tney were working 60 anc 7u nours a week. Some of tnem 7 naan't nad a day off in a month wnien is inhumane and I
) 8 realize that as much as any of tnem do. We couldn't find 9 them quite frankly.
10 My joe is to try to support construction, not
, 11 at the cost or quality, but it construction.wants to nave 12 a thousano painters and I am only geared to inspect the 13 worx or ten of them, I feel it is my coligation to try to f
u star up anc properly train anu certify people to support 15 ene construction effort.
16 he were uesperately short of people at that 17 time. Construction was tal. ting aooct e;sentially doubling 1
18 their werk force and we neeoed some inspection people.
19 Interviews were conducted witn about, to tne best of my 20 recollection, 50 -- excuse me. Resumes were examined first 21 from potential QC candicates out of tne craft. I tnink r tnere were aoout 50 resumes submitted. A certain number of 23 those were interviewed and out of those 16 were selected 24 as QC inspectors. It was only an effort to oeef up tne 25 numoers of OC inspectors available for daily routine TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
98 1 inspections to support tne engoing construction effort and 2 to give people time off tnat most of tnem desperately 3 neeced.
4 Tne discussion en Unit 2 or twe units, I :nink 5 I used lo crews and 20 crews as an example or 4vo pa nters 6 anu dau painter =. It was strictly a nypotnetical example.
7 MR. DRISKILL: I have no otner questions.
8 Mk. GRI? FIN: Tom, nave I or any tther .iRC 9 repr==entative nere unreatened you in any manner or 10 s tered you any reward in return for this statement?.
Il ThE niTNESS: No.
12 idh . GRIFFIN: have you given enis state.nent 13 freely ant voluntarily?
14 TnE WITNESS: I nave given enis statement 15 freely anu voluntarily. I am not nere freely and 16 voluntarily.
17 Mk. GRIFFIN: Is enere anytning furtner you 18 woulu care to add ror the record?
19 THE WITNESS: so.
20 Mh. GRI?f1N: Okay. Tnank you.
21 (Waereupon, at 5:23 p.m., the INTERVIEW OF 22 CHARLES 'Ih0 MAS eRANDT concluded )
l r
g3 .
24 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - SUITI 1004 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 39SO
E~
I CEA!li1CATE OF PROCEEDIr:3S 2 .
3 tr.is is to certify that_the attacnec proceedings cf t.1e 4
Interview of CSAALES THOMAS BRASDT before t.'.e Office of Investigations at Texas Utility Generating Company, 6 Comanct.e Peal: Steae Electric Station, Glen Rose, Tedas 76ud , on Thursday, December 1, 1963, commencing at 1:25 8
p.m., was aeid as herein appears, and that tnis is une 9
origir.al transcrip- -:cr the files of the Office cf 10 Investigations, Region IV.
Il 12 13 Mary C. Simons 14 ___________________________________
I Ofricial Reporter - Typed 16 1: __
___ M p __ _ m M ____
18 Ofricial Reporter - Signature 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950 g
,