ML20106G189
| ML20106G189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1983 |
| From: | Krisher M EBASCO SERVICES, INC. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8410310081 | |
| Download: ML20106G189 (33) | |
Text
JJRD:3rr l-t :
k I'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 5
REGION IV 6
611 Ryan Plaze Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 8
9 10 11 ,
INTERVIEW OF MYRON G. (CURLY) KRISHER 12 13 14 15 Nuclear Operations Support Facility 16 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES)
Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Monday, November 28, 1983 39 The interview was convened at 3:35 p.m.
20 PRESENT:
21 H. BROOKS GRIFFIN, Investigator 22 DONALD D. DRISKILL, Investigator 23 24 25 8410310061 831128 PDR ADOCK 05000445 T PDR 11 EXHIBIT (10)
C;
!! l .1 5 : i l s l-
' 8 I
1 PROCEEDI NGS 2 MR.' GRIFFIN: For the record, this.is an inter- '
3- view of Myron G.
1 I (Curly) Krisher, who is employed by '
i 4
EBASCO Services Corporation.
5 .
Present at this interview are, for the NRC, 6-Don.D._Driskill, who will return momentarily; and H. Brooks 7- Griffin; and the court reporter.
8 Whereupon, 9
MYRON G. (CURLY)_KRISHER ltL having first been duly sworn by Investigator Driskill, was 11' examined and testified as follows:
12 BY MR. GRIFFIN:
~
13 Q Mr. Krisher, we've already administered the oath, 14 preceding the conversation; and the same conditions apply,_
15 if you will.
- 16 Can you tell me what your present title at 17 Comanche Peak is?
18 A I am the QC Supervisor for Reactor Building No. 1.
19 Q How long have you had this position?
20 A A week.
21 Q What was your prior position title?
22 A' Non-ASME QC Supervisor, all craft, all disciplines.
23
, Q Okay. Did you--what was your relationship to 24 Tom Brandt at that time?
M- A He was my immediate superior.
I !
3 i 1
Q And what was his title?
2 A QA-QC Supervisor. i
.3 Q I want to go to the subject of use of inspection 4 reports.
-5 How were IR's used for deficiencies that were 6
identified that were not part of,the specific inspection
-7 criteria defined to an individual coatings inspector?
8 Do you understand what I mean?
9 A Well, I think I understand what you' mean.
10 IR's are pre-inspection attributes for some 11 specific inspections that are already outlined on an IR.
12 .
There is a area for " remarks," and there are 13 IR's non prepared that the inspector can fill out.
14 Q
Specifically, he still'has the authority to go 15 beyond the attributes that he's assigned to inspect by 16
.and incorporate other attributes not assigned to his 17 inspection?
18 A If they are a part of the quality procedure that 19 he's inspecting, he can add the entries.
- 3) Q Are the inspectors in trouble with their supervisor 21 if they go beyond the assigned attributes?
i M A Not to my knowledge.
2 Q Have you ever counseled anybody or reprimanded 24 anybody for going beyond the assigned attributes?-
%5 A I don't think'so. I have possibly told somebody 4
1 4
1 that.what they perceived to be'a problem was a nonproblem '
2 in the specific area that they were looking at.
\
3 '
For example, an inspection of a base plate, and i 4
we're talking here about protective coatings; if th'e l 5
concrete has not been painted, the concrete condition in 6
general is not a concern of that inspection.
7 And to some extent we have inspectors who are 8
qualified to inspect steel and not qualified to inspect 9 concrete.
10 Do I make--am I making myself clear?
'11 A Yes. -
12 If they go beyond the inspection that they are 13 assigned, then they might be counseled or-- '
14 A " Counseled" to me, is a strong word- given 15 guidance that, " hey, you're out there looking at base 16 plate; the concrete's obviously not been final-coated:
17 we'll inspect the concrete when we inspect the concreto.
18 Just go and inspect the steel." .
19 Q This relates to writing NCR's by a QC supervisor; M
did writing NCR's require a trip to your office for 21 guidance?
22 A No. '
23
. Q Are coatings QC inspectors allowed under the IR 24 program to apply " hold tags" to deficiencies that they 25 identify? .
e-5.
I h A They're allowed to apply a tag.
And we have a 2
" reject" and a " hold" tag.
I 3 i I think the " hold" tag--one or the other is l
4 associated with the NCR.
5 '
Q I believe that's the " hold" tag.
6 A And I think they do put on the " reject" tag.
7 Q With the inspection report?
8 A Yes.
9 It's a status indicator, it's for, you know, to 10 aid the craft in locating--if they're not there; and to 11 aid the inspector if another inspector comes back to find 12 the area.
13 Q Who.can disposition an IR or an "unsat" on an 14 IR?
15 A No-disposition is required.
16 Q Well, how is the "unsat" corrected, resolved, 17 whatever word?
18 A The--a copy of the IR would be given to craft, 19 or they would be told that this item has this unsatisfactory M attribute: low millage in an area, for example, or runs i 21 I and sags in this area.
M And they would then repair per whatever the M
appropriate construction procedure.
24 Q Okay.
M
, , How are coatings IR's, "unsats" on IR's tracked
r 6
1 by cualiry-contrc.?
i 2 A At times it's-very difficult.
I l
- 3
'In the'backfit program, through the use of maps, i 4 search of the records for "unsat" PCR's, which-is what we 5
call a backfit IR, as opposed to PC for ongo,,ing. And .
I 6
through the logs kept by the QC clerks defining both area 7 and/or item that was originally unsat.
8 Q Okay, you say there's a log for all IR's 9 that are tracked by a clerk in QC?
10 A There is a--currently, okay?--a logging system, 11 and they keep a, set of cards; that's the unofficial 12 tracking system that makes the official paperwork viable l
13 so that it can be tracked totally. -
4 14 Q How long has this card system been used?
15 A I don't know.
16 Q Did I hear correctly, then, in your interview 17 by Mr. Drisckill, that you began working here in January of 18 '837 19 A Um-huh.
20 Q And when they implemented the IR's as opposed to 21 NCR's, in coatings, were these logs in use at that time?
! , 22 A I think so.
23 Q You say these logs maintained by the clerks are i 24 not official documents?
25 A By " official," are they a part of the QC
I 1 permanent plant records?
2 Q Yes?
3 A No, they aren't. I 4 -Q What system, then, do you, Brandt, or any other 5
responsible officials, in. quality control,--what system 6 do you all use to assure that all "unsats" on all IR's 7
issued are addressed by craft; and that that particular 8 item is resolved?
9 A You don't mean in the past; right--because we got 10 a new plant?
11 Q I'm looking--
A 12 The log is checked, the IR's are kept on file.
13 The open IR's ultimately have to have a closure on them.
14 Q So they reinspect at some later date and the 15 follow-up IR is attached to the unsat, the one bearing the 16 unsat?
A 17 Not necessarily attached, but it's in the same is file in the same area.
19 Q Are there corresponding numbers or are they 20 married together in some way so they can be traced?
21 A The reference numbers are normally put in the 22
" remarks" column in the IR.
El Q And the same number would be used en both IR's, 24 the one identifying the.unsat, the deficiency; and the other zi
. one showing the follow-up inspection; the same reference k
~
'c
~
s e <
E
-f t
~
y l
..:rer? -
2 A What could happen is you could be looking at i
3
--well, let's take a conduit run, conduit supports. [
4 You could be looking at several. conduit supports .
s I
j 5 on a singular IR, and, let's say five; and four of them !
6 were accepted; and one of them was unacceptable.
t
- j. 7 The IR would reference the conduit supports and i 8
that IR would--the unsat one, would be closed by a l
8
[
subsequent IR, referencing the one that was unsat. ,
.4q 10 f Q Are they in the records, the official. records? ,
11 A Should be.
L 12 Q So if you look at that IR you could look right 13 behind it or--and. find that it had been resolved?
14 A Ultimately you will not find any unsat IR's 15 in the permanent plant record vault, officially filed. There 16 are some the coatings arena, they are stored there for 17 safekeeping; but not officially filed there as permanent.
" Is that because they're Just not and never were
, Q j 3d to be plant records?
A No, it's because, due to the confusion, previous *
.nfusions, with what was acceptable, what was not i
f :ceptable in the coatings systems, there are--have been a lot of coatings records generated, PCR's, unsat IR's.
, It became more document.1 and too much access 25
, to them in a field file. Some of them were then stored in
[
e
1 i
, t 9
I the permanent records office; as we rr.:ri; those areas, 2
those records are searched, the marrying, if you will, of 3 items takes place. So that we know that there was an 4
unsat that is satisfied based on IR "X".
5 You say Q ,
you have gone to a new system'for 6 tracking?
7 A There is a--being put in place currently is a 8 computer printout.
9 Q So all IR's, unsats on IR's, will be logged in 10 the computer; and that would be used to track them to make 11 sure that they are all dispositioned in nome way?
12 A Um-huh.
13 Q Is t.his system, is it being incorporated 14 because the previous system was unacceptable and not as--
15 something wrong with that. system?
16 A It's being incorporated because the volume of 17 records made a hand-track very, very, time-consuming and 18 very difficult.
19 , Q During the period in which the QI's did not i
20 incorporate NCR's--
I 21 A Um-huh.
22 Q --have all IR's, unsats on IR's, generated during 23 that period, have they all been dispositioned in some 24 way?
M A I couldn't tell you that.
l
. l l' I don't s -r have any idea how many of .er there j 2 were.
3 l l Q What means was there for tracking unsats on IR's l
t 4 other than the fact that they were, as a matter of course, I 5 given to craft to rework or repair?
6 A I don't know what type tracking you're looking 7 for.
8 I'm just trying to find out how you--let's just Q
- 9 pick an arbitrary number: A set of 10,000 unsats on IR's 10 generated during a six-month period; have all 10,000 been 11 reworked or repaired?.
12 If we did a representative sampling would we 13 find that all had been addressed--if you didn't have a 14 tracking system? I'm just not clear how you--
15 Q Well,- there was a tracking system in the_ form of 16 a handwritten log.
17 Q Kept by one person?
18 A Kept by the clerk or clerks for the lead people 19 in the protective coatings arena; this is what we're talking 20 about. It was across the board.
21
, Q If-I went to this clerk, would they be able to 22 say, yes, all IR's and unsats in this period to this period 23 have been closed?
24
. A Right off the bat what they would--if you give 25 them a time frame, beginning with May through July, for h-
11 t'
l
. I 1 i example, they coul: go to the log and give you the IR't 2 that were issued during that time frame, find them.
3 Q And their record of all IR's would be complete?
4 It would reflect all IR's that had unsatisfactory items?
6 A The log, to the extent that's.possible, would 6
hand-write and confusion would reflect where the original
? inspection was " sat" or "unsat", and if it was "unsat" 8 when it went " sat".
9 Q If--I'm asking your opinion, now: if I went to
~ 10 that clerk and I pulled, say, 100 IR's randomly--
11 A 1DO IR numbers?
12 Q --out of that period, what do you think I would 13 find?
14 Would I find 100 percent reworked in the 15 dispositioning of those unsats?
t 16 A I don't think you would find 100 percent. '
17 .
Some of those items might not yet have been 18 reworked.
19 Q Well, I guess what I'm really asking you is:
20 based on the system that you had or didn't have--
21 A Um-huh.
22 Q --according to how you might judge it, d'o you thini 23 that some of the unsats were slipping through the cracks, 24 so to speak; because they were not tracked with a permanent 2 system or record?
9 mEi m ii -
I ..
j ..
i , I 1 A I think the possibility ex 2:3 and it is e
2 probably a fact that there are--that there were some unsat ,
)
3 conditions that were not closed in a timely manner.
4 But about six weeks ago all unsats were entered l 5 into a computer. .
6 Okay.
Q 7
Were they entered as unsats or were they entered 8 as NCR conditions?
9 A Unsat IR.
10 Is there a time frame when an unsat goes to 4
Q 11 an NCR condition?
12 A Not in protective coatings.
13 l,
Q Okay.
14 A I would say now we know about--we.have a 95 percend 15 handle on all unsat IR's; PCR's on the backfit, we're still I.
16
_w orking and getting that tied together. Based on rework i 17 and cleaning up inspections.
18 Q Under the IR program what limits are placed on 19 inspectors regarding the areas that they may examine in 20 relation to a particular inspection? If there are 17 21 attributes on an inspection report, and they are assigned 22 five of them--is that not the case?
23
. In other words, they're just assigned inspection 24 IR containing 17 attributes, they are to inspect all 17?
25 A Yes, and there may be some unique things that
1 i
( 1
...3 can't for some reason, they can't inspect all 17 of 2 them.
3 , Q Normally are the attributes that they are 4 l to inspect to, are they laid out on an inspection report?
5 A Yes. .
6 Q Who decides what--how is it determined what 7 attributes will be inspected?
8 A By essentially the IR reference and the procedure.
9 Q Who assigns the IR's, and who determines which 10 attributes will be inspected?
11 A The IR with the preassigned attributes.is 12 developed by the qualitp engineer, or quality engineering 13 staff; and they contain the inspection attributes spelled-14 out in the instruction in briefer form. It may in some of 15 them reference you back to the instruction, "see paragraph 16 3.1.5" or " attachment 7" if you've got a chart-type 17 condition.
18 Q Regarding NCR's, do you consider the use of an 19 NCR as a stop-work program?
20 A That means don't work on that item until the NCR 21 is reviewed. A stop-work-order says you don't work--
t 22 period.
23 I hope I Answered your question?
24 Q I think you did.
25 Since you've been supervisor out there, have you
i 1 ever stopped work in any area that you supervised?
- 2 A I've slowed it down substantially until I got i
3 the problem straightened out. I don't need NCR's for l l 4 stop-work-authority. j l
5 Q You said that NCR's can only be used with ,
6 supervisory approval, does that also extend the fact to 7 hold-tags not being placed without your authority? Or 8 Mr. Brandt's authority?
9 A The hold-tag is reserved for a nonconforming 10 condition.by the instruction, as I recall it. And the 11 hold-tag is not, installed unless,there is--or applied--
12 unless there is an NCR' written.
13 Q Who reviews NCR's? -
14 A Who reviews them?
15 Q You say they have to be allowed by the supervisor--
16 to be permitted to be issued, an NCR has to be--or 17 permisslan has to be gained from a supervisor; who reviews 18 them? Which supervisor?
19 A Today? Protective coatings? Ken Wilverton.
- 3) Q Okay. Who reviewed them three months ago?
21 A Harry Williams. I think.
22 Q Okay, now, when Mr. Williams reviewed them, if 23 he disagreed with an NCR--
24 A Um-huh.
25 Q --what happened to the NCR'd conditions? ,
4
9 e
15 1 A To the best of my. knowledge at any time in the 2
year that I've been here, if there was a difference between 3
the immediate supervisor and the inspector, in all events 4
the inspector could elevate it to Mr. Brandt's level.
5 Or'in general the supervisor d,eferred to the -
6 inspector's wishes. I'm not going to say--I don't know, 7
there may have been a specific item that that was not the I 8
case; but as a QA, the man as the QA as a supervisor, .I've 9
seen some awful superfluous NCR's.
10 And when I' called the guy who had signed the l l
, 11 review, he said, "well, you know, Joe thought it was a 12 problem and he didn't seem to want to accept my-version 13 of it; so I told him just go ahead and write it and we'd 14 get it from the engineer."
15 Q Okay.
16 Now, while Harry' Williams was here, did he have thG 17 authority to void NCR's issued by his inspectors?
18 A I think that voiding of an NCR has always taken 19 Mr. Brandt's authority; I'm not sure.
M Q Well, when Brandt would review these NCR's---
21 A Doing a void?
22 0 --when he was trying to make up his mind whether
- U he was going to allow it to be issued, or whether he was 24 going to void it, did he make a visual inspection?
M A I can't answer that yes-or-no; in all instances
F
.e If i ,
l' --! kr.ow of several instances where th'ere'was a difference i 2
j of opinion between the craft and QC; and he went to the
-3 field to physically' inspect the item, himself.
4 And on all of those occasions that I am aware '
5 of, he supported the quality control inspect,, ors; and the 6
craft superintendent agreed with his findings; and went so 7
f ar as to indicate that tr.ey probably wouldn't have the 8
problem in the immediate near future, again, the same 9 foreman, general foreman.
I 10 l Q Could I put it a little differently?
l 11 Is it,your understanding that the way Brandt )
12 normally dispositions--or, not dispositions, but makes a.
13 decision on NCR's, does he normally go to the field, based 14 1
on your knowledge?
15 A I think it would depend on the item.
, 16 Q Would he rely upon the recommendation of his 17 l subordinate, like Harry Williams and the written information, 18 the material, rather than a visual inspection?
19 A More than likely on the written word is what he 20 l bases his decision. If the word is written and there is l
21 already an obvious repair procedure already in place that-22 !
is approved, as the instruction now stands, he would no:
23 in general go ahead and issue that NCR.
24 Q Okay.
25 You indicated earlier in an interview with
^
s ,,,m -m - y ~-
- , - , , - - - - - - --s -~w , - - - ,
F 17 s
I n
1 Mr. Driskill that some of the. coatings inspectors were 2 over-zealous in their reporting deficiencies. Do these 1
3 j inspectors that you were referring to, do they often go I
'4 i beyond the inspection criteria that they are assigned?
5 A Beyond inspection criteria? ,
6 The coatings inspectors--some seem to be unable 7 to make a determination whether or not an item that they 8 look at, that they are concerned about, is satisfactory or
~
9 unsatisfactory, without specific written instructions 10 addressing each one of those.
1 11 A, lot of the criterion and procedures for coatings l
12 inspection are efforts on the part of quality management 13 and engineering to respond to concerns of the inspectors, 14 give them more quantitative data with which to inspect 15 something that is truly a qualitative item, as opposed to 16 quantitative, and that's protective coatings.
17 And if you look at revisions to procedures the 18 history we have, as opposed to saying, "a smooth transition 19 at the interface with nominal overlap between coatings"--
20 that's inadequate. They want to know what's " nominal"--
21 an inch, a foot, a yard?
22 This is the first place I've ever 'een s in protec-23 tive coatings where you defined the limit of an overlap 24 at an interface, or how much splatter.
25 Q Okay.
lj
- l. IE i
1 Q Knc has the au hority to issue an NCR number? ,
2 A A number?
3 Q Get an NCR number? ,
4 A Any inspector can call.
5 Q So he'd get one even though it requires .
6 supervisory approval?
7 A It only has to be reviewed and approved by the i
t 8 supervisor. ;
9 Q Can the inspector get a number before it's 10 approved?
11 A Pick,up the phone, identify yourself as a 12 Comanche Peak inspector.
l I
13 Q Okay.
14 And if you receive a number and the supervisor 15 i decides it doesn't merit NCR'ing, what happens to the 16 number?
17 A It should remain right there wirh a brief report 18 and description of the deficiency.
19 Q Would that go into the permanent records?
20 A Certainly.
21 Q So it's a NCR dispositioned by QC supervisor?
22 In this case, Brandt?--if he were the reviewing official 23 for coatings?
24 A He would not approve the issue of the NCE, and it 25 would be so noted on the NCR; it would not be destroyed.
I
k i 19 1 NCR would be-in fact written, it was just not t r c :: . :. s e d .
2 MR. GRIFFIN: We'll take a short break.
3 (Recess) i l
4 BY MR. GRIFFIN:
5 Q What has,been--what, in your opinion, is the effecj 6 of the Department of Labor ruling regarding Dunham on 7 inspectorc?
8 I'm just asking your opinion?
9 A I've had no direct feedback from any of -the.
10 problem people, people I perceive to be a potential problem I
i '
11 relative to,it.
12 Originally it was pretty much laughed off by -
13 what you'd call the steady crew, you know: "what the. hell 14 do we have now" type-of-thing?
15 There was some purported-negative effect on the 16 relationship to craft in that, "it won't do any good to tell 17 them I'm being too nit picky, because they ain't-going to 18 fire mt or lay me off."
19 Q Do you think there's any relationship between the M reinstatement of 16.0 in the QI's and the Dunham ruling?
t 1
l 21 A Not to my knowledge.
j 22 Q You are aware that there have been--or I presume 1
l 23 you are aware, of inquiries that NRC has made in the area l 24 of coatings, that there have been allegations, and that we'vG 2 been asking questions on-site of inspectors. And based on
i 20 1
whar yc. nnow of our inquiry and what you know of tim 1
2 allegations, the gist of the allega,tions, do you believe I
3 that any of these allegations in coatings have any merit?
4 Is there a problem?
5 A My experience prior to Comanche Peak has indicated 6
that all allegations have some merit; they are a half or 7 partial truth.
8 Not specifically knowing the allegations, I 9 really can't evaluate it.
10 Q Well, it's not a fair question.
11 A My--i.f you're asking my impression of the coatings 12 system?
13 I think.it's better than most.
14 Q As-it exists now, or as it existed a week ago, 15 three months ago?
4 16 A As it has existed in the last three, four months.
17 I don't think there has been any substantial 18 change in it in the last, probably six months, other than 19 who's administering what; I think the coatings system is 20 essentially the same.
21 Q Don't you think the change in tracking of l
22 l deficiencies is a significant change?
D A You mean unsat IR's?
They've always been tracked..
24 This computerized program we're going to now is going to !
25 make tracking a lot easier.
I
~ -
1 l
l 21
-1 i Q Do they think this ..- .;;ng to cause any higher l
2 percentage to be dispositioned? {
3 A I think they'll be done in a more timely manner, 4
possibly, in the fact that we're essentially doing a 5
one-on-one inspection with the additional inspectors, is 6
going to mean they're not going to be opening them and then 7 sit for nearly as long. And that attributed to the majorit?
8 of the out-of place IR's, if you will, or possibly an IR
'9 that you couldn't lay your immediate hands on a satisfactorg 10 IR as substantiated and closed, because of the time frame.
11 Q Let me cwitch subjects here.
12 A Okay.
13 Q Based on your knowledge since you have been in 14 your position as supervisor, are interviewees, people 15 interviewed'here that are interviewed by the NRC on-site 16 here, are they as a matter of course debriefed.by Brown &
17' Root or EBASCO?
18 A Not to my knowledge. I never asked any of them--
19 well, I can't say that. There's been a casual acquaintance N or two of mine, and I said, "What the hell is this all 21 about?"--as to the, basically, subject, as opposed to M content.
23 Q It's not a practice out here to debrief?
24 A There is no debriefing.
25 Q Okay.
4 v - , , - , , - . ..--- , - - . . , . . , - - - - ,
1 22 l l
i
, . I 1 -I want to ask ycu a few questions about the 2 backfit program. Were you involved in'the backfit procram?
3 A No, not really.
4 Q Did you supervise individuals who were conducting ,
5 the backfit? ,
6 A No, sir.
7 Okay, we'll pass over that, then.
Q i.
8 A I won one!
9 (Laughter) l' Q Were you involved in, or did you have supervision 11 over any.of therindividuals that have conducted any of the 12 predocument reviews on all records, those that were '
~
13 generated on-site.here between 1977 and '79?
14 I think Mr. Hood and Mr. Cummings conducted one 15 review, and Mr. Britton conducted a follow-up review?
16 A It is still so--in direct answer to your question, 17 yes; I currently am supervising people who are involved 18 in that process.
19 Is that specifically Mr. Britton?
Q
%) A Yuh, Gary Yando and Neal and--
21 Q Have there been others that have been added to i
22 this document review?
23 A Well, Gary is the lead protective coatings 24 type in the field and he is involved in getting the PCR's
~
25 cleared through ongoing inspections, and going through i
i
11
..i 1 . -it.
2 Wher. we went through statistics and eliminated 3 the backfit and we established different criteria for 4
acceptance, each of those PCR's had to be. reviewed, if they 5 now meet the existing criteria, they can be closed, if the 6 destructive testing "tukes" and tensions, are--and a 7
scratch-test, and everything that's been done--are cleared, 8 repaired, if you will.
9 So that's ongoing continually, and he's involved 10 in that--in.the bulk.
As I understand it, possibly Mr. Dunham was
~
11 12 doing some of that work on some of those old records, 13 prior to--
14 Q You're talking about document review?
15 A Yuh.
16 Q Okay.
17 Bill Dunham?
18 A Yuh.
19 I think he was doing it, some of that work, 20 prior to.
21 Q Are you familiar with the condition or the state 22 of those records? '
%) A Not personally, no. :
24 Q Have you ever reviewed any of them, yourself? j 25 A No, sir; no.
. l q
l t
1 l
[ 24 ! !
1
') Q Has anybody ever told'you about the:: condition,,
2D :
described the condition that they exist in, to you?
~
3 A In passing conversations;fyes.
4 Q. How were they described?
- 5 A Incomplete, misfiled, generally;in.a mess.
1 6
Q Are'you aware of the fact that a notice of 7
, violation ~was issued.by NRC based on those old' records i 8
.following inspection by an NRC inspector in '81? l 9 'A ~
.Probably. -
l 10
.Q. Were you aware that NCR's had been written in all '
i !
11 areas that related to those records, like, plate, concrete, !
12 miscellaneous steel, conduit, cable tray supports?
13
. A My understanding is that not only have there 14 been the problems of open, but problems in those records ,
i 15 continue to be generated through the review cycle; there !
l 16 will be more NCR's written--I think. .
1
) 17 Well,
.i Q it's my understanding the existing NCR's l-18 .
- j. were written--more than one--just to define the various !
I 19 areas that these inspection records defined, detailed-- -
j 20 i
^
they were divided up between concrete and and such; and !
i 21
] that the NCR's were written only to make a distinction !
22 between what~ area an individual inspection had been conducted M in.
I-24 Is this your understanding, too?
M A Well, based on what you're saying, I think we're 4
% w e er . v. ri- n- ,.m4. -n -, -
- , . -..+-% w--- ,,.,-e ,.#-- .,m.%,. y. ,.+m.m;..,---,,,~#o., e, , , ,,
25
- , talking about twc-differe:.t enings, f
2l I'm talking about PCR's, and to that extent, 3 the old, old, records of- '79 records.
I 4 Q Okay, that's the records which I'm referring to?
5 A I'm not aware of the status of the '79 records; 6 I have not became personally involved in it.
7 Q Are you aware that Mr. Britton is conducting 8 --had conducted a document review of those old records 9 'and mapped the inspections of those old records?
10 A I was aware that he was reviewing old records 11 and,that he,was doing some kind of--I don't.know what time 12 frame that the records he was reviewing, you know, whether 13 ,
they were '79s, '80s, '81s, '82s, backfi t .
14 Q Okay.
15 You--do you supervise Mr. Britton?
16 A Indirectly. He works directly for Ken Wilverton.
17 Q The reason for all the questions, what I'm 18 leading up to is: the old inspection records for which thes6 19 NCR's were issued, are now permanent vault documents, part-20 of which were included in the backfit, like liner and 21 concrete; and the ones that have been dispositioned throu~h i
g 22 this representative sampling that you alluded to--
23 A Um-huh.
24 --the old records, do you know how they are to be Q
M used?
4 22 1
A No. '
2~
Q okay. .
i 3 I You indicated that during Mr. Driskill's inter- ,
4 view that there were going to be new document reviews; '
5 do you recall that part of the conversation?.
6 A' (Nodding affirmatively) 7 Q What document reviews are those?
8 Are these reviews of the PCR's?
9 A Okay, we're ongoing looking at PCR's; okay?
10 We're doing an ongoing review of al-1 the protective coatings 11 records, as we go. I'd have to hear it back to know U
exactly what text I was talking about.
13 All the IR's, PCR's, I think, have been included 14 in one of the computer bases.
15 We have some roughly 7,000, we had roughly 7,000 16 unsat IR's at Comanche Peak- period. What percent of that 17 7,000 were protective coatings' IR's,.I couldn't answer.
18 Q But you're alluding to new document reviews; are 19 there new reviews forthcoming, other reviews in process of 20 being assigned now?
21 A We're going through all the PCR's right now.
22 Q And who's conducting that?
23 A I thiak Neal is doing it, the bulk of it.
24 Q And were these PCR's issued after--sometime after 25 1981--is that when the PCR program began?
9
v 27
.' A 1
Brooks, I really don't know when the PCR--I 2
think it was probably in about that time. frame when it was l
3 i i
decided that essentially they could not unrave) in a t
4 reasonable period of time the old records or something. I 5
don't even really have the history behin,d all of it.
6 12 Okay, 7
I have a couple of questions here for you that I 8
think Don wanted to ask; but it will speak this up if I--
9 A Keep stalling, and I'll won't even go back inside; 10 I'll justogo home!
11 (Laughter) 12 Q Well, we're almost through.
13 To your knowledge, have any inspectors ever 14 been instructed to improve an inspection finding which they 15 believed was unsat?
16 A Nope; no.
17 Q So if an inspector is discussing this with his 18 immediate supervisor or you or Brandt, and Brandt continues 19 to believe that it is not a unsatisfactory condition or 20 a deficiency; if the inspector continues to disagree with 21 him, then the inspection report will be issued as 22 unsatisfactory?
23 (Mr. Driskill reentered the room) 24 A He's standing in for you.
M MR. DRISKILL: Oh, okay.
- f:
' 28 i
, i i
g MR. GRIFFIN: I was asking him these questions; f 2 go ahead.
I i
3 l MR. DRISKILL: Okay. I had a couple of other l I l 4 questions and you asked one of those?
5 , MR. GRIFFIN: Yes. -
6
{ MR. DRISKILL: Okay.
7 BY MR. DRISKILL:
8 Q And the answer was? I 9 A No.
10 I'll go even further than that:
11 If the inspector doesn't feel comfortable with 12 that inspection and to date I have not felt strongly i
13 enough about it, I. will sign the inspection off, as opposed-14 to telling him to sign it off.
15 Q Okay--that was another question.
16 Is it permissible for one inspector to sign an 17 inspection report for another inspector?
18 A Not without the rework.
19 Q If rework is required, if a satisfactory inspec-20 tion has not been signed off, would you sign it off for one 21 of your inspectors if he hadn't completed the paperwork /
22 A Okay, I think what you are asking is, if there is <
23 an unsat, and it is reworked, and then the original inspector 24 is not available--can somebody else do that inspecting?
M Yes.
I i
1 1 ,
Q Okay.
2 But for instance, if I were an inspector and 3 I went out and did an inspection and came back and told you 4 that it was all satisfactory, and I sat down and began 5 preparing the paperwork;-and for some reason or another, 6 I didn't complete it; you sign the paperwork for me?
7 A Nope.
8 Q You'd get the same guy back to have him sign it?--
9 his own inspection report?
10 A If it--no. I won't even qualify; just no.
11 Q I , don't understand your. answer?
12 (Laughter) 13 A Nobody else can sign off that inspectcr's report 14 unless he goes and does the inspection.
15 Q Okay.
16 So if for some reason an inspector's name is 17 not contained on his--his signature is not contained on 18 his inspection report, someone else would have to conduct 19 a reinspection so that you could have valid paperwork?
20 A Yes.
21 Q If that individual were not around to, well, sign 22 his own paperwork?
23 Correct?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Okay.
30
!~
1 ,
Has an inspector'ever gotten into trouble or 2
received any verbal guidance with respect to an unsatisfactor,
'3 inspection report finding?
I 4
In other words, has his supervisor, or are you 5
aware of, or do you have knowledge of, a sup.ervisor 6
disagreeing with an unsatisfactory inspection finding by 7 an inspector?
8 A Coatings?
9 Yes?
Q 10 A No.
11 Q You know of no cases where an inspector was 12 told: "Do not write this up as being unsatisfactory?"
13 A I have no first-hand knowledge of that ever 14 happening.
15 Q Okay.
16 MR. DRISKILL: I have no other questions. ,
17 MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
18 BY MR. GRIFFIN:
19 Q
Mr. Krisher, have I or any other NRC representativq 20 here threatened you in any manner, offered you any rewards 21 in return for this statement?
22 '
A No.
23 Q Have you given the statement freely and 24
. . voluntarily?
25 A Yes.
- i.
31 1 .Q Do you have any 0 ner. statements for the record?
2 A Nope.
3~ MR. GRIFFIN: Okay.
! 4 (Whereupon,-a't 4:26_p.m.,'the interview was-t ..
5 concluded.)
~
6 7- -
8 9 . -
10 11
?
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
.S 21 1
~
23 24 25
.- .- w. . .
t
.t - : :
1 3
Th's is t0 certify :na: the attached proceef.in:;s before the i i.
. - - ., i 4 ,
,. .. 3.
w,. ~ w..
w . '.DOA c** ,
- +-
- n the matter of- Interview Of Myron G. (Curly) Krisher ;
3 I
, j Date of Proceeding: Monday, November 28, 1983
., Place of Proceeding: Glen Rose, Texas
, were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 9 transcrict for the file of the Co==ission.
io Jim Burns it Official Reporter - Typed 12 sa
>:i!. ' . . . . , i ~)
i4 Of ficiad Reporter - Signature 15 16 17 ,
is 89 20 21 22
)
23 I i i i
J i
24
- N- 23 1
i TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
, REcisTr.a ED PRoFEssicN AL RE*oRTC2S NoRroLK. VIRGINIA
. . . . _ . . _ . . . . . _ . . .