ML20106G437
| ML20106G437 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1984 |
| From: | Hutchinson H BROWN & ROOT, INC. (SUBS. OF HALLIBURTON CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20106G419 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8410310200 | |
| Download: ML20106G437 (81) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. l
-{-
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
/
In the matter of: Investigative Interview of Heyward A. Hutchinson, Jr. Docket No.
/
i Location: Arlington, Texas Pages: 1 through 79 Date: Monday, February 27, 1984 8410310200 840308 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G PDR
~
.~
L- TAYLOE ASSOCIATES Coun Reponen 1625 i senes, N.W. Suite 1004 Washinston, D.C. 20006
)
i j 7 5-1 . UNITE: STATES OF AME.2.ICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 4 In'the. matt'er of: : 5 Investigat'ive Interview of : HEYWARD A. HUTCHINSON, JR. : 6 :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 7
Suite 835 8 611'Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 9 Monday, February 27, 1984 10 11 i The above-entitled interview commenced at 12 1:35 p.m., pursuant to notice. 13 BEFORE: 14 H. BROOKS GRIFFIN, Investigator : DONALD D. DRISKILL, Investigator 15 Office of Investigations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 Region IV Suite 1000 II 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 19 20 21 22 23 i ! 24 25
2 l 1 _P _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S l 2 MR. GRIFFIN: For the record, this is an inter-3 view of Heyward Hutchingson, Jr., who is em'loyed p by Brown 4 and Root, Incorporated -- 5 MR. HUTCHINSONI That's correct. 6 MR. GRIFFIN: -- at Comanche Peak Steam and Elec-7 tric Station. The location of this interview is the NRC 8 Region IV Office of Investigations in Arlington, Texas. 9 Present at this interview are Heyward Hutchinson, 10 Mr. Charnoff and Mr. Jordan, both attorneys for Mr. 11 Hutchinson in this matter, -- 12 MR. CHARNOFF: Yes, that's right. 13 MR. GRIFFIN: -- Don Driskill and Brooks Griffin 14 for the NRC; and, of course, the court reporter, Judith 15 Toberman. 16 This interview is being transcribed by a court 17 reporter. The subject of this interview concerns, among 18 other things, the Cygna report and Mr. Hutchinson's knowledge 19 of the incident surrounding the contract and on-site audit 20 conducted by Cygna. 21 Before we go into the interview, Mr. Eutchinson, 22 I want to ;sk you some guestions about your attorneys. 23 Are you represented here today? 24 MR. HUTCHINSON: Yes, sir, I am. 25 MR. GRIFFIN: Who is your representative?
3 j2 ' 1 MR. HUTCHINSON: My representative? 2 MR. CHARNOFF: Can he answer that in the plural? 3 MR. GRIFFIN: Yes. 4 MR. HUTCHINSON: Both of these gentlemen, Mr. 5 Jordan and Gerry. 6 MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Charnoff, do you agree with 7 Mr. Hutchinson that you are representing him as an individual 8 in this proceeding? 9 MR. CHARNOFF: That's right; absolutely. 10 MR. GRIFFIN: Are you also retained as counsel to 11 Brown and Root? 12 MR. CHARNOFF: Yes, from time to time. 13 MR. GRIFFIN: Are you presently, at this time, re= 14 tained? 15 MR. CHARNOFF: Yes, on matters not related to 16 Comanche Peak I am, yes. 17 MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Jordan, do you personally reprec 18 sent Mr. Hutchinson individually in this matter? 19 MR. JCRE AN : Yes, I do. 20 MR. GRIFFIN: Oo you also have a continuing 21 business relationship as counsel to Brown and Root? 22 MR. JOR_9AN: Yes, I do. 23 Mr. Hutchinson, do Mr. Charnoff and MR. GRIFFIN: 24 Mr. Jordan -- is it your understanding that they represent l l 25 you individually? ; 1
U 4 j3 1 MR. HUTCHINSON: Yes, it is. I 2 MR. GRIFFIN: Has anybody told you or instructed 3 j you to have Mr. Jordan and Mr. Charnoff as your personal l I 4 representative? 5 MR. HUTCHINSON: No; not by name, no. 6 MR. GRIFFIN: What instructions did you receive 7 regarding counsel? 8 MR. HUTCHINSON: As best I recall, it was last 9 Thursday John Merritt told me that I needed to get my own 10 counsel; that the TUGCO lawyers would no longer be involved. 11 I think that was Thursday. 12 MR. GRIFFIN: How did you select your counsel? 13 MR. HUTCHINSON: Through an appeal to our Project i 14 Manager, through Doug Frankum. 15 MR. GRIFFIN: You asked Mr. Frankum what? 16 MR. HUTCHINSON: I said I needed some legal 17 counsel. 18 MR. GRIFFIN: Did he recommend Mr. Charnoff? 19 MR. HUTCHINSON: No, he didn't; he didn't 20 recommend anybody. I - 21 MR. GRIFFIN: Then could you expand on that a 22 little bit; how did you go about picking your counsel? 23 MR. HUTCHINSON: Then I got a call from Bill 4 Bedman, who is a Brown and Root attorney. He said that 25 Mr. Jordan would be giving me a call.
m-- -- - _- 5 l
'j4 l' MR. GRIFFIN: So Bro'.r cnd Root arranged for y.our 2 counsel.
3 MR. HUTCHINSON: .Mr. Sedman did, I assume; yes. 4 MR. GRIFFIN: Obviously, you are-aware of Brown 5 and Root's position or commitment regarding construction and 6 licensing proceedings at Comanche Peak. As this interview 7 proceeds, do you believe that the advice that you will re-8 ceive from Mr. Charnoff or Mr. Jordan would be representing 8 Brown and Root or representing you? What is your 10 understanding? 11 MR. HUTCHINSON: They will be representing me. 12 MR. GRIFFIN: If a conflict of interest or a 13 pote.ntial conflict of interest were to arise between Brown 14 and Root policy or what is good for Brown and Root versus 15 what is good for you, what is your understanding with your 16 attorneys? 17 MR. HUTCHINSON: If there was a conflict of 18 interest, they would be obligated to report that conflict. 18 MR. GRIFFIN: To whom? 20 MR. HUTCHINSON: To Brown and Root, if something 21 I did was in conflict with Brown and Root. 22 MR. GRIFFIN: I'm sorry; you've misunderstood 23 what I said. If there is a conflict between their repre-i 24 senting Brown and Root and representing you, what have they 25 told you will be their advice to you?
! 4L 6
i 1 M F. . HUTCHINSON: I don't know that-we've discussed 2 that.: The only conflict of interest that I'm aware of is if h 3 I did something that was not in the best interest of Brown ?
.4 and Root, then they would be ob3igated to inform Brown and
. 5 Root about it. ,' -
6 6 MR. GRIFFIN: So they are representing Brown and ! i 7 Root here today? I 8 MR. HUTCHINSON: They're representing me today. { i 9 MR. GRIFFIN: But you' jus. said that they would
}
10 be informing Brown and Root of the conflict. Now, are they 11 representing you, or are they representing Brown and Root 12 today? 13 MR. HUTCHINSON: They are representing me. 14 MR. GRIFFIN: And you think if a conflict should - 15 arise that their advice will be in behalf of Brown and Root 16 or in your behalf? 17 MR. HUTCHINSON: It should be in my behalf. 18 MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Charnoff, what is your under-19 standing; should a conflict arise, what would be your course 20 of action a.s relates to Mr. Hutchinson? 21 MR. CHARNOFF: Let me answer that but also tell 22 you what I told Mr. Hutchinson this morning. One is I did 23 advise Mr. Hutchinson that he was free to come to see you
- with his own attorney, that is, not anybody furnished by 25 Brown and Root; he is free not to see you if he elects not to
j6 , 1 l see you; he is free to use us and we would be his attorneys l 2 furnished by Brown and Root; that we are also counsel to 3 Brown and Root and if there were a conflict of interest that 4 we would see, we would have to withdraw from the case, and 5 we would so tell him at that point. 6 One of the purposes of the preliminary interview 7 this morning was to determine if there is or is not a con-8 flict. We have determined so far that there is no conflict. 9 I think that answers your question. 10 MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Jordan, what is your under-11 standing of potential conflict of interest between inquiries 12 we might make of Mr. Hutchinson versus your position as a 13 Brown and Root attorney? 14 MR. JORDAN: My position and understanding is the 15 same as stated by Mr. Charnoff. 16 MR. GRIFFIN: What would you co if you perceived 17 a conflict of interest in the course of this interview? 18 What would you individually do? 19 MR. JORDAN: In the course of this interview? 20 MR. GRIFFIN: Yes. 21 MR. JORDAN: I would ask for a recess and I would 22 advise Mr. Hutchinson at that moment that I had just learned 23 of a possible conflict. I would explain to him what his 24 legal rights were with respect to this interview and go for-j 25 ward from there based on what he desired to do.
I E
'3 MR. GRIFFIN: So, Mr. Hutchinson, these two gentle 1
2 men represent you in this matter, but you also realize that 3 they are retained by Brown and Root? f 4 MR. HUTCHINSON: Yes, sir. ll 5 MR. GRIFFIN: , Who is going to pay for their ser-6 vices as relates to their work here today? Are you going to 7 pay for their services? 8 MR. HUTCHINSON: That hasn't been discussed. 9 MR. GRIFFIN: And these two gentlemen were selectes i 10 l as your counsel by Mr. -- 11 MR. HUTCHINSON: Mr. Bedman. 12 MR. CHARNOFF: Let me maxe it clear, I hope Brown 13 and Root will pay us for our services. 14 MR. HUTCHINSON: That hasn't been discussed. 15 MR. CHARNOFF: Let's be clear. Brown and Root is 16 paying us to provide the services to Mr. Hutchinson so long 17 as he wants our services to represent him. 18 MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Hutchinson, would you please 19 rise and raise your right hand? We're going to swear you to 20 the contents of your testimony. 21 Whereupon, M HEYWARD ASGELL HUTCHINSON, JR. U was called for examination and, having been first. duly sworn, 24
. was examined and testified as follows:
25 (
W j8-1 EEhEEEhII2E 2 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 3 0 I would like to begin my questions for you, 4 Mr. Hutchinson, by asking you how you are currently employed? 5 A I am currently Project Control Manager for Brown 6 and Root. 7 0 Mr. Hut'chinson, you say you are the Project Con-8 trol Manager? 9 A That's correct. 10 g What duties are involved in your work? What are 11 your duties? 12 A I'm directly responsible for three groups, one 13 being Cost and Estimating, another one is Procurement and, 14 lastly, Document Control. 15 O Who is your immediate subordinate in Document 16 4 Control? 17 A Frank Strand. 18 g What is his title? ( 18 A He is Supervisor of DCC, Document Control Center. 20 0 Who is your immediate supervisor? 21 A Presently, it's Carroll Graves. 22 0 What is his title? A Procurement and Controls Manager for TUSI, or TUGCO. 25 g And that is Texas Utility Service, Incorporated? i I
i 10 I
; A Yes.
2 g Mr. Hutchinson, do you have direct supervision 3 over the employees of the Document Control Center? 4 A -I have that supervision through Frank Strand, yes. 5 0 In the course of your daily activities, do you 6 ever give instructions to individuals in the Document Control 7 Center? - 8 A Not as a rule, no; but it does happen, yes. 9 O Are you familiar with the daily activities of the l 10 , Document Control Center? I 11 A Generically, from the 30,000-foot level I am. 12 I'm a manager. I've got a lot of people to look after, a 13 lot of different groups, and I know essentially what goes en; 14 not to the nuts and bolts level, no. 15 0 Are you aware of the contract by TUGCO -- that is 16 l Texas Utilities Generating Company -- their contract with 17 Cygna? Are you familiar with this contract? 18 A No; I know that one exists. 19 O Mo, but you know one exists? 20 A. I'm not familiar with the nuts and the bolts of 21 the contract. 22 g I'm not asking you about the nuts and the bolts. 23 Are you familiar, are you aware that there is a contract be-24 tween.TUGCO and an audit group called Cygna? 25 A Yes, I am. l
2 i jl0 1 g As relates t: 1.' . Document Contro: Center, dt. .yc; t 2 know what the contract entailed, generally speaking? 3 A I knew that that was part of the verificatior. 4 effort they'were' going to do when they came down'the first 5 time. They'were going to look at the Document Control 6 Center. Beyond that, I don't know. 7 g So one'of the functions of the Cygna review was 8 to, can I use the word, audit the Documer.- Control Center; is 9 that correct? 10 A Correct. 11 g What was your knowledge of the origins of the 12 Cygna contract? Were you aware that they were going to be 13 retained before the contract was given? 14 A No. 15 g Were you consulted by anybody in TUGCO? 16 A No. 17 g When did you become aware that Cygna was going to 18 do an audit of the Document Control Center? 19 A Probably, just a few days before they come. They 20 came in July. 21 g Are you aware of what the Cygna representatives 22 did during their July visit as relates to Document Control? 23 I know generally what they did, yes. A 24 g Could you tell me what that is, briefly? 25 As I recall, they looked at design change logs A
12
$11 1 and v(r: fled or tried to verify that th( master-logs in.-DOC 2 matched other logs that were kept up by the file custodians.
3 0. - Are you aware of the satellite concept implemented 4 in the spin-offs from the Document Control Center? 5 A. Yes. ,' 6 g Did Cygna's review in July involve auditing the 7 capacity or capability of the satellites and their function? 8 Do you understand what I'm saying? 8 A Yes. When Cygna was there in July the satellites 10 were in the infancy stage; they weren't set up yet. 11 l G Did Cygna make any inquiries or did they attempt 12 to evaluate that system? 13 A As I recall, they may ha've asked some questions, 14 but I don't know about any evaluation, you know, "Where are 15 you going with it?" 16 g Document Control was, I believe, in a state of II change from the centralized system Document Control Center to-18 this satellite concept at that time; is that ..ght? 18 A That's right. So 0 .If their audit involved reviewing Document Control 21 then they would necessarily have to evaluate the system that 22 was being prepared. I'm asking you: were they tasked with 23 evaluating the satellite concept and its implementation? 1 24 A Hot that I'm aware of, no. J 25 0 As relates to Document Control, did the Cygna
~t 22~ jll 1 review invo3ve evaluation of the computer system? 2 MR. CHARNOFF: Again, we're in July 1983? 3 MR. GRIFFIN: Yes. 4 THE WITNESS: The only computer system they could 5 have looked at then would have been the one that had the
'6 drawings on it.
7 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 8 g Was that part of their review? 9 A I don't recall. 10 g Cygn2 also returned in November; is that correct? 11 Are you aware of that? 12 A In November? 13 g yes, 14 A They were back in October. 15 g What was the purpose of their October visit-then? 16 A As I understood it, they were there to re-verify 17 some of the findings they had in July, to make sure that we 18 had the satellites in position and set up and that we had 18 merged the design change logs into a computer base. 20 0 So they were evaluating the satellite system and 21 the use of the computer for keeping up with -- U A -- design changes. 23 g Design changes only, or did the computer system 24 also contain the design drawings? t 25 A The computer system for the drawings is already in
11 li 14 4 i
" 1 ~' '
1 i ;Isce. It's been in place for several years. 2 g So the system contained the ongoing changes re-3- lated to these drawings that were already in the computer? 4 A 'Say that'one more time. 5 g So their audit or evaluation had to do with the 6 design changes of the existing drawings?
~
7 A The computerized portion of the design changes, 8 yes. 9 g Do you happen to know if Cygna's review also in-10 cluded design verification? 11 A I'm almost sure that it did, but beyond that I 12 don't know what -- I know they went up and I think they 13 talked to the DCTG Group. 14 0 Was it during this second. visit that we're speak-15 ing of right now that you were given the list of drawing 16 numbers that Cygna wanted to review? I think you were 17 allegedly given this list on October 24, 1983; is that 18 correct? , IP A That's correct. 20 g Who gave you this list? 21 A Nancy Williams. 22 O Who is Nancy Williams? 23 A She is with Cygna. 24 g
, Do you know what her capacity with Cygna is?
25 A She was in charge of the audit.
l : jl4 i 1 0 The whole audit or just the part that pertF;:4d 2 to Document Control? 3 A I think she had the wnole thing. i 4 I O Where were you when Ms. Williams gave you this 5 list? 6 A I was in my office. 7 On-site'; is that correct? 0 8 I A That's right. 9 Do you remenber what time of day it was on the 24tl l 0 1 10 A Some time in the afternoon. l 11 0 Prior to Ms. Williams giving you thic list, had i 12
! you received any information or any notification from anyone 13 that this list was going to be prov'ided?
I4 A No, none that I recall. 15 0 Had you discussed with any of the Cygna repre-16 sentatives the need to receive this list? 17 A I don't recall having discussed it, no. 18 O Did you know in cdvance of her providing you the 18 list of print-outs that they wanted to lock at it? Did any-20 body in any manner -- what I'm asking you to do is to tell 21 me whether you had any knowledge whatsoever that you were 22 going to be provided with a list of drawings that Cygna 23 wanted to look at. 24 A I don't reca.ll anybody discussing it at all. 25 O So when Ms. Williams came in and provided you
1 l .* jl5 l 1 ' with this list, this was unplanned . far as you knew? i 2 A As far as I knew, yes. 3 0 What was Ms. Williams' explanation regarding this 4 list? 5 A As I recall, she gave me the list and said, "This 6 is what we need to see. We'll be back tomorrow," or seme-7 Lning to that effe'ct. 8 G Had you on any occasion prior to that time re-9 l ceived any such pre-notification from Cygna representatives I 10 l as to what they wished to review? l 11 A. No, not me. 12 In their previous on-site audits, had they ever O 13 provided you with similar requests for documentation? 14 A I don't recall any list in the July audit. I 15 think they provided one in August when they were back for 16 some sort of effort in August. But not to me; I was gone 17 that week. 18 G But you heard from some third party that they 19 provided a list in that instance? 20 A Yes. 21 g Do you know, from your information that you re-22 ceived after you returned from vacation, what the contents of 23 this earlier list were or what it requested? 24 A No, I don't. 25 g But you just heard from somebody that there had
m- -
, q
? .
;; l 6
p .2 been a' pre'vious reccest? 2 A Yes. 3 g Who-did you hear this from? 4 A 'I don't know.
-5 g Do you have any information or any notes, third 6 parties that you can talk to who might jog your memory as te 7 who told you that they had previously requested a list?
8 MR. CHARNOFF: That they previously requested a 9 list? 10 MR. GRIFFIN: I'm asking him if there is anything, 11 any place he can go, anybody he can talk to, who could -- 12 THE WITNESS: I could talk to some of the people 13 that would be in DCC, Frank and some of his people, and ask 14 them about the list. 15 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 16 O So they might be able to fill in the name? 17 A Yes. 18 g On the day that you received the list from Nancy 19 Williams, did she give you any explanation as to what the 20 list was when she handed it to you? 21 A Nothing more than telling me that: this is what i 22 i we want to look at the next day. 23 Describe the piece of paper she gave to you. 0 24 A It was a handwritten list. 25 What did it contain? 0,
18 jl7 1 i A As I recall, it scid sac needed the computer. 2 i print-outs for the distribution of the drawing and for the l l 3 - change made. 4 g Just the computer print-outs? 5 A That's all it said, as I recall. Then it listed, 6 you know, a series of drawings. 7 Were the drawings categorized in any manner? Q Were 8 they grouped by the various disciplines? Did they have any 9 kind of divisions? Or was it simply a list of numbers? 10 A To me it's just a list of numbers. I'm not close 11 enough to it to recognize drawing numbers. A list of drawing: 12 , is a list of drawings. 13 g Did it have any headings above the list of numbers 14 like " Electrical"? 15 A Not that I recall, no. 16 Just drawing numbers? 0 17 A Just a list of drawings. 18 Q Was there any other writing on the page other than 18 the drawing numbers? 20 L I don't recall any, no. 21 O And you say it was handwritten, this list? 22 A. Yes. 23 0 What did you do with this list? 24 A As I recall, I picked it up and I started down the 25 l hall with it. I had some meetings to go to. You mean what 1 l
P~ . .. I 19 9 1 did I do wit). it ultin.ately? I gave it to Ms. Hatley. 2 O When was that? 3 A It was some time in the afternoon. 4 0 What were yo'tr instructions to Ms. Hatley when you 5 gave her the list? 6 A I gave her the list and I said, you know, "Make 7 sure we're all right; make sure everything is running; make 8 sure that we're okay," that Cygna will be in tomorrow. 9 0 Did you tell her that this was a list provided by i 10 : Cygna for what was to be reviewed on the following day? 11 A I don't recall anything significant about the con-12 versation at all, no more than passing her in the hall. 13 Did you instruct Ms. Hatley that this was a list 0 14 provided by Cygna? 15 A I don't recall. I really don't. 16 g Did you characterize the list in any manner? In 17 that you said it was just a series of numbers, did you give 18 her any explanation as to what the list was? 19 Nothing more than: this is what Cygna wants to A 20 look at tomorrow. 21 0 And then you instructed her to make sure that 22 these were available and in order and what else? 23 A I don't think the instructions went that far. 24 0 Where were you when you talked to Ms. Hatley? 25 A somewhere in the hall.
20 a. 1 19 i , I ', O h'a s Mr . Strand present'when you provided Ms. 1 2 Hatley with the list? 3 A No, not then. a 4~ f 0 Was Mr. Strand made aware during that afternoon 6 of your instructions to Ms. Hatley? 6 A I don't recall talking to Frank at all about it 7 that day. 8 0 So if I go ask Frank about the list being trans-8 ferred between you to Ms. Hatley, you don't think he will 10 have any recollection of having witnessed the transfer or the 11 instructions you gave? 12 A I don't know what Frank would say. 13 g But you have no recollection of hir having been - 14 there? 15 g po, 16 O Did you tell Ms. Hatley that the list contained 17 the packages that Cygna was going to be reviewing 18 specifically? 18 A No. I don't recall saying anything about 80 packages. I really don't know what Cygna wanted to look at. 21 I didn't know 5hether they wanted to look at packages or 22 design changes. 23 0 or print-outs. 24 A Print-outs is the only thing that registers with 25
x - I- ' 21
,' j 2 0 1 g So the numbers represented print-eau
-s.
2 A To me, yes, print-outs.
- + .
3 0 Did you'ask Ms. Eatley to make copies of the list? 4 A 'I don't recall asking her that,-no. 6 0 Did you_ instruct Ms. Hatley to provide copies of 6 this list to the various satellites? 7 A No. ' i 8 g Did Ms. Hatley ever return this list to you? 9 A I don't recall ever getting it back. 10 g Do you presently have a copy of this list? 1 11 A Yes, I do. 12 0 Is it the original copy, or is it a Xerox? 13 A
- It's a Xerox copy.
14 0 Who did you receive this from? Who gave you this l 15 list back? ( ( i 16 A I honestly can't answer that. I 17 0 Do you remember when you received it? 18 A As I recall, there was one other meeting that took' l is place that Tuesday morning. 30 MR. CHARNOFF: Is that the day after you met with 8 21 Ms. Williams?
" THE WITNESS: The day after. I was down in Dan
" Hicks' office --
34 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 96 0 Who is Dan Hicks?
22 l j21 1 A At that time hc v.s the Procurement Control 2 Manager. 3 (. Okay; go ahead. 4 A He was also in charge of the computers and some 6 other groups. I remember he and I talking about that list. 8 At some point during that discussion Nancy and Dave walked in 7 MR. CHXRNOFF: Dave who? 8 THE WITNESS: David Wade, who was with TUSI. 9 As I recall, Nancy said she had to leave and if to we had any problems with it, we could reach her at the Lake 11 Granbury Motor Inn. 12 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 13 You say this is the following day, this being 0 i 14 the day that Cygna did their audit of these print-outs? 15 A. This would have been Tuesday morning, the 25th. 16 g That was the day that Cygna was to do the audit; it 17 that right? 18 A That's the day they were to come in, right. 18 0 Had they already completed the audit when you had 30 this conversation with her, with Hicks and -- 81 A I don't think they had even started yet. 22 0 Okay; go ahead. 23 A That's about all I remember from that meeting. It H was very'brief. That's all I recall. 26 0 Did you have any conversation with Mr. Hicks or A
e ,
$22 1 P.s. Will m.r or Dave regarding the list that you had been 2 provided?
3 A. I don't recall anything significant. I was down i 4 to talk to Hicks primarily about computers, the computnr
~
5 problems. 6 0 What was your understanding on October 24 of the 7 nature of that par'ticular audit that Cygna was requesting -- 8 let me rephrase that. What was your understanding of areas 8 that Cygna would be auditing in their review the following to day? 11 A As it relates to DCC? 12 g y,3, 13 A. To make sure that we had'the satellites set up, 14 but the biggest thing was to make sure the discrepancy of 15 the manual logs had been removed; you know, the things ther 16 found in July, that those no longer existed. 17 0 Are you saying that you had been informed by Cygna-I8 representatives in July that you had deficiencies in the 18 packagen or on the computer, which?
- A. The deficiencies they identified in July were the 21 ones of the manual logs not matching what was in DCC.
22 0 This is the manual logs that were in the satellite ( 23 A. We didn't have the satellites net up then. The manual logs in DCC list all the design changer.' What they did, I think, was get that copy and go to one of the five
24 j23 1 custodians and say, "Let me see your design change log ," and 2 they didn't match. 3 O They didn't match what was'in the computer? 4 A No, it wasn't on the computer yet. 6 O At all? 6 A No. 7 G Just to make sure I have an understanding of what 8 you're comparing here, you're comparing logs with packages; 9 is that what -- 10 A It was manual log against manual log. 11 Do you understand how the concept was set up back 12 then, -- 13 I thought I did. 0 14 A -- before the satellites? 15 I thought I did. 0 You're comparing one manual log 16 against another? 17 A Yes. 18 0 Can you tell me the difference between the two 19 manual logs? 20 A If they're kept properly, there shouldn't be any 21 difference. 22 O So you had duplicate records? 23 A No. We've got a manual log in DCC that's supposed 24 to be the holy document. If all these file custodians out in i- 25 the field are doing their job properly, if they're logging
I fj24 1 the design changes in against that drawing properly, ther 2 you should be able to pick up this log and look at this one, 3 and they would be the same. 4 0 The ones in DCC and the.ones in the field should 5 he exactly the same? .- 6 A They should. 7 0 Basically the same; contain the same design 8 changes? 9 A Yes. 10 0 I think I do understand. 11 A That's what the satellite thing was supposed to 12 have done; it was to remove the file custodians out of it 13 and limit the number of people that could handle the 14 drawings. 15 0 Who was tasked with implementing or incorporating 16 the design changes into the drawing? 17 A Whose responsibility was that? I guess ultimateh 18 it is under a group called THE, TUSI Nuclear Engineering. 19 So it's an engineering group, actually? G 20 A Yes. 21 g By this October meeting with the Cygna represen-22 tatives, was the system in place by then, the computerization 23 of the design changes? i 24 I think, as I recall, our target date was to have A 25 it up and running by the 15th of October.
~ 26 H
'j25 ,
i
- 1 ., O So it was in effect at that time? ;
2 A Yes; we may have beaten that a little bit. 3 0 The print-outs that Cygna'was requesting involved 4 retrieving this information from the computers; is.that righG 5 A Yes. 6 0 So was a purpose in the October visit to receive 7 examples or sample's of what the computer contained for each 8 package -- what is now no longer a package but a computer 9 read-out'-- regarding drawings and changes against those 10 drawings? 11 A What I understood they wanted to look at was,if we 12 gave them a print-out that says "these are the changes that 13 occurred and here's this drawing;" then he was going to take 14 that and go somewhere within the satellite system and verify 15 that they had that same piece of paper out there, or that it 16 could be at least pulled up on the screen. 17 0 Would it be fair then to characterize their re-18 view or their audit as a Document Control audit then, if it's 18 supposed to be in DCC and it's supposed to be in a corre-20 sponding satellite? 21 A Is that a Document Control audit? Well, you 22 should be able to exhibit that you've got the same set of 23 It would be a form of control, records in both places, yes. 24 yes. 25 0 Did part of their audit, to your knowledge, invold
l- 27 l j26 1 ( 1 l dcsign verification, meaning that i the design changes had-been f 2 incorporated on the drawing? 3 A That wouldn't have had anything to do with me. I 4 don't know what they did up_in DCTG.
; 5 0 So your only,pa'rt of it had to do with comparing 6 DCC' documentation with satellite documentation?
O 7 A Yes. l 8 0 That's what they were reviewing. 9 A Yes. 10 0 When you received the list of packages -- packages 6 11 I suppose, is the wrong _ word -- print-outs is it? I 12 A The list of drawings. 13 0 The list of drawing numbers that Cygna wanted to 14 review the following day, did it occur to you that this was 15
-- and I use this word in cuotes -- pre-notification?
16 L po, 17 0 That didn't occur to you? 18 A I didn't treat that list any different than any 19 other list. A drawing list is a drawing list. 20 0 Based on your knowledge as a supervisor, if I gave 21 you a drawing number right now and said I was going to come 22 look at it tomorrow, do you have the facilities to review 23 what is computerized against that drawing, the changes and 24 the revisions to the changes; what should be there versus 25 what is there? Do you have that capacity? i
I i ae i27
~ l 1 , I'm asking you: could you audit yourself if I 2 gave.you a particular drawing number?
3 i Me, personally? 4 0 'Yes. 5 L no. 6 0 Do your subordinates have that capability? 7 A Yes, th'ey could do it. 8 g so if you gave one of your subordinates that's in 9 this area a drawing number, could they pull up that drawing 10 number, the contents of that drawing number, on the screen of 11 the computer from DCC and show what should be the proper re-12 visions for the various design changes that are supposed to 13 be contained under that number? 14 L Yes. 15 0 Are your subordinates capable of spotting deficien-16 cies or missing documentation if they had a read-out of what 17 was contained in DCC versus what was contained in the I0 satellite? 19 A You couldn't do it by looking at the screen. 20 g How would you do it? 21 A. As part of the normal procedure, before design 22 drawings are issued from satellites, you know, they'll punch 23 the button and get the print-out that lists all those design 24 changes on it. Then they start building a package. They 25 take the drawing and take each one of these design changes
i 29 j28 I and put with it. 2 Part of what they're supposed to do is look at the 3 design change and make sure that it is, in fact, against that 4 drawing. If it's not against that drawing, then they've got 5 a number t'o call up in DCTG to say that "I've got C and C 6 so-and-so and it's not against this drawing. What do I do 7 with it?" 8 0 That's in the case of a clear-cut error. But if 9 you provided your satellite with a drawing number that per-10 tained to their area that they're responsible for, they could 11 pull up on the screen, fror DCC, what is supposed to be con-12 tained in that package; is that right? Then they could pull 13 the package that the craft uses in its day-to-day and they 14 could check to see that all those documents, all those 15 changes, were contained in that package; is that right? 16 A. They could do that, yes. 17 g Is it fair to say that by Cygna providing you with! 18 a list of the drawing numbers that they were going to be 19 looking at on the following day, you could be able to, if you 20 wanted to, require your people to conduct an advanced audit 21 to make sure that all those packages contained all the re-22 visions on design changes they were supposed to contain? Is 23 that correct? M A That could be done, yes, but that's against my
" nature.
0
30 t j29 1 G Did you tell anyL; ?. to do just that? Dic you i 2 tell anybody to make sure -- well, I'll stop for a minute. 3 In your earlier comments regarding your instruc-4 tions to Dobie Hatley I think you said that when you gave her 5 the list you instructed her to make sure all these were avails
~
6 able and in order or something to that effect. 7 A To make"sure that we were all right, yes. 8 O Could a person interpret "all right" to mean that 9 they were proper and correct and complete? s 10 ! A I suppose you could. u 11 g Do you think she could have interpreted it that 12 way? I 13 A Yes. 14 0 To pans the audit what the computer showed should i 15 l be contained in the packages would have to be contained in 16 the packages or deficiencies would be found; is that correct? 17 A Those packages are supposed to be checked before 18 they go out, checked and -- 19 MR. CHARNOFF: To the craft. 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 22 g Are you saying they audit the packages each day? 23 A l'e s . 24 4 So they pull the contents of the packages up on 25 their screens, they check that the contents listed fcr that
l 32 j30 1 drawing r.r t.ur -- that all those documents are co..tained .in 2 the package? 3 A. Yes. s 4 4 Every day for every package? 5 A That's procedu're, yes. 6 0 Even if the package is several inches thick? 7 A It does'n't matter. 8 MR. CHARNOFF: That's every day that a craft re-9 quests a drawing; not all the drawings in inventory. You 10 understand that? 11 BY MR. GRIFFIN: a 12 If a craft person requests a drawing number, if 0 13 he provides the satellite with a dr' awing number, he gets a 1 package; and the package is supposed to contain all the desigs 15 changes that have ever been made against that drawing? 16 A. Not all of them against the drawing, no. There 17 are two different sets of design changes or two different 18 screen readings. One of them is what we call the Qpen and 19 Current, which tells you all the design changes that are N currently against that drawing. Then there is another list-21 ing that tells you the history of that drawing, every design 22 change that has ever been written against it. 23 O Let me state it back to you and you can tell me if-24 7.m correct or not. A package contains the drawing and all 25 its correct revisions, and it also contains the design
32 j31 1 changes against that drawine and all these revisions. 2 A The design changes and the current rev. would be 3 in there. 4 g so you have revisions of the drawing itself and 5 revisions of the changes. 6 A The current revision of the drawing and the current 7 revision of the de~ sign change, the latest revisions. 8 0 And that's what the package contains that craft 9 gets? 10 A Yes. 11 O And they receive the whole package to go out ir. o 12 the field; is that right? 13 A Correct. 14 0 Let me ask you this: in that Cygna, in that 15 Ms. Williams provided you a copy of those design drawing 16 numbers that they were to review the following day, it did 17 provide you with an opportunity, if you chose to do so, to 18 request an audit prior to their looking at it. You had that 19 option, didn't you? 20 A Yes, the option is there. 21 0 You may have already answered this question, but 22 is it possible that Ms. Hatley interpreted your instructions 23 to her to do just that, to conduct an in-house audit to make 24 , sure that those pr.ckages were true, conplete and correct and 25 that they would be 100 percent accurate when Cygna looked at
l 33 j32 ; 1 , them the next- day? i 2 A- I don't know whether she did or not, but that was 3 not my~ intent. 4 0 'Did you ever get any feedback from Ms. Hatley or 5 any of your subordinates 'to indicate that that is what they 6 had done or that that's the way they interpreted your in-7 structions to Ms. Hatley? 8 A Since then I've been made aware that that could 9 have happened. 10 0 You have received information from somebody to 11 indicate that that did happen; is that what you're saying? 12 A That's what they told me, yes. ( 13 MR. CHARMOFF: Can you pbt a time frame on that? 14 THE WITNESS: That was last Saturday. 15 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 16 0 This is somebody that has made inquiries since 17 this has become an issue? 18 A Yes. 19 0 During your October 24 discussion with Mancy 20 Williams or any subsequent discussions that you personally 21 had with Ms. Williams, did you discuss the implications of 22 this, what I will term, " pre-notification"? Did you ever 23 ask her anything about it, or did she ever make any comment 24 as to why they provided you this list? , 25 I'm asking you to be expansive here. I'm asking _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ n
i j33- i 1 l you to tell me if you know anything. 2 A I recall -- I was at the hearings last week, 3 Monday and Tuesday. I heard Ms. Williams say that she gave 4 us the list because she. understood it took an inordinate - 5 amount of time to prepare this list, so she gave us sor.e . 6 advance notice to get the computer print-outs ready. l 7 0 I'm not'asking you what you heard in hearings. 8 A Me personally? 8 G I'm asking you during this time frame, the 24th 10 or 25th -- 11 MR. CHARNOFF: October. 12 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 13 0 Yes, thereabouts; did you and Ms. Williams ever I4 discuss -- 5 A Not that I recall, no. 16 0 When Ms. Williams provided you with this list, did 17 it occur to you that you had the option of conducting your 18 own audit? 19 A No. I don't do business that way. 20 g so her providing it to you, you took it that you 21 were a party to the audit in that you were going to be able 22 to evaluate what your subordinates there -- whether they had , 23 been complete in their duties? 24 L A As a manager I need to know that. If I've got 25 something screwed up, I need to know it. 1
35
- j 34
,,1 0 In thatLsame light or thct r. e sense, did you-2 view your comments to Ms. Hatley as being a manager reviewin?
m 3 .the. output.or work or status of her enploye'es under her?
~
4 A 'I don't know if I know what you mea'n. 5 0 I mean if.Cygna cut you in on what they were going 6 be locking at and you cut Ms. Hatley inLon what was going to 7 be-reviewed -- at-the time that you gave Ms. Matley the list 8 you say you didn't give it to her as pre-notification; you 9 said that was not on your mind. 10 Were you presuming that Ms. Hctley was going to' 11 pass this on? 12 A I didn't expect her to do anything. I hope that 13 I promoted that attitude, I think; you know, one of being 14 honest. There is nothing to be gained by -- it is just com-15 pletely out of character. 16 O What did you expect Ms. Hatley to do with this 17 list? 18 A I didn't expect her to do anything with it. If 3 19 I would have wanted her to do something, I would have given 20 her some specific instructions. 21 0 I thought you told her to make sure everything was. 22 okay and was available? 23 A By that I mean the computers. That's the only 24 part of the whole thing that concerned me. 25 0 What do you mean by computers? i i
!- 36 i
i j35 1 A That thc;. :e working. 2 g If you give her a list of drawing numbers, what 3 does that have to do with computers operating? 4 A 'If she's got a problem with the computers, it's 5 up to her'to tell Frank or myself. 6 0 I understand that. I've read your testimony at 7 the hearings. I don't want to confuse this transcript we're 8 making today with that type of testimony. The reason is, I 9 know how to turn on a computer, and that's got nothing to do 10 with drawing numbers. You don't need a list of drawing 11 numbers to turn on a computer. A computer either is working 12 or it's not. You don't need a list of drawing numbers to 13 know whether a computer is working. So let's not confuse 14 that too much. 15 Why then, if you gave Ms. Hatley this list and 16 you told her to make sure everything was okay or in order or 17 whatever terms you used to her, what did you expect her to do 18 with this list? 19 L I didn't expect her to do anything with it. 20 g Then why did you give it to her? 21 A I thought about this a hundred times -- unless it 22 was to keep her informed as to what was going on. U g That's a little too general. Surely, you had 24 something on your mind when you provided it to her. Cygna
" gave it to you, you passed it to Ms. Hatley; you must have
[
27 1
- j36l l 1 ; h;f some purpose in mind.
2 A (No response.) 3 O And you say subsequently somebody gave you the 4 list back. "Do you know-why they gave it back to you? 5 A No. The only.o'ther time I remember that list is 6 that Tuesday afternoon when the guy from Cygna came into 7 Frank's office and'we sat down and talked about the list 8 again. 9 In what sense? s 0 10 -A What was en the computer and what was on the. 11 manual logs, for one thing, and how he intended to go about 12 doing his audit. 13 Which day was this? 0 ' 14 A Tuesday afternoon; the next day. 15 O So that was the day after you received the list? 16 A Yes. 17 0 Had they already completed their audit at that 18 time? 19 As I recall, I don't think he had even started it. A 20 g When did they conduct their audit? 21 A I think it was that Wednesday. 22 g Did anybody other than Nancy Williams, who was 23 part of the Cygna review team -- did any of them ever make 24
. any allusions or statements regarding you having been pro-25 vided the list in advance?
L
58
;J7 1 i- Not that I'm aware of, no. ,
i 2 0 The reason I ask these questions in so many ways 3 is because all the parties that are going to'be interested in 4 this matter are going to expect some kind of explanation as 5 to why this list was provided in advance. 6 Is there any way I can phrase my questioning that
-7 will open up an av'enue for you to answer this question in a 8 way that everybody concerned will understand _why you had this 9 list given to you in advance of the audit and why you passed 10 it to your subordinates? Is there anything that you have not 11 told me; is there any more information that I have failed to 12 ask you that would shed light on this matter?
13 A No. Believe me, I've thought about this thing 14 hard and I just can't -- I'm telling you everything I can 15 remember. ! 16 How many meetings did you have with Cygna repre-4 17 sentatives on the 25th, which I think you said was Tuesday? 18 A As I recall, that one that morning with Nancy and 19 then the une that afternoon with Steve Bibo. 20 0 Could you spell Bibo? 21 B-i-b-o, I think. A H Could you briefly give me a narrative en the con-4 23 tents of each of the meetings, starting with the morning 24 meeting? 25 A The one in the morning -- like I say, I was in
39 j38 i r 1 Oan Hicks' office and Nancy and, I think, David Wade had
' ~
2 stopped in just briefly.and said, you know, Nancy had to leav(
'3 l and if I.had any problems that she could be reached at I
i 4 Granbury Mo' tor Inn. Very brief; just two or three minutes. 5 Then the one.-in the afternoon with Steve, I was 6 in Frank Strand's office and Mike Strange was in there. 7 g Let me ' understand the characters. You're saying i 8 Frank Strant -- 9 A Strand. 10 I g S-t-r-a-n-d? 11 A Yes. He's a supervisor. 12 O And who is this other fella? 13 A Mike Strange. He's the' guy that's, I guess, ulti-14 mately in charge of the data base as it relates to design 15 changes. 16 0 Is that with the Engineering Group? 17 A. The Engineering Group. 18 0 Okay. Go ahead. 19 A As I recall, Steve walked in and gave us -- he had 20 the list. I don't remember what he did with it, but he had 21 the list. 22 We sat down and we had some discussion as to 23 which one of these were manuals and which ones were on com-24
, puter logs. That meeting, too, was very brief.
25 g so you're saying this is Steve Hicks that had --
- c E
40 l' 3'qq l-1 A Steve'Libo. 2 g Steve Bibo. 3 A- He's with Cygna. 4 0 'So he had- exactly. the same list that you received 5 from Williams? 6 A Yes. 7' O Was it a' copy of the same list? 8 A A copy of the list.. 9 g But you had actually been given the original, 10 handwritten,.is that right? 11 A I think I had a copy of-it. I don't recall having 12 the original. 13 0 Okay. You think the copy you gave to Hatley was 14 a Xerox or was it a handwritten original, pen and ink, 15 pencil or -- 16 A It was a Xerox copy. I'm almost sure it was. 17 g Okay; go ahead with that meeting. 18 A l Like I said, that meeting was very brief. I 19 don't remember that much more about it. 20 0 What were Bibo's comments related to the contents 21 of the list? What questions did he put to you? 22 A I don't think he quizzed us that much about the 4
%3 list.
24 0 What information did he give you regarding it? 25 A As I recall, most of our conversation centered
- _ . ~ ._ . ._ _
I 4: j40 l 1 ; around satellites. I understo :.c 'd been on a tou: that dav -
\
2 You know, go out and look where they were, find them and make 3 sure he could find his way back the next day. 4 0 So they didn't begin the audit that day; they were 5 just walking around looking where the locations were? ' 6 A That's what I recall. 7 0 So you received the list from Ms. Williams on 8 Monday and they conducted their audit on Wednesday? I 9 l A As best I recall, yes, i 10 ME. CHARNOFF: Could you tell Brooks everybody who l 11 was in that meeting room with Strand and Strange? Was there 12 anybody else there with Bibo? 13 THE WITNESS: I think Ms'. Hatley was there too. i 14 I think she came in later. I 15 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 16 g Do you renember any comments made by Ms. Hatley i 17 during that meeting? 18 A No, I don't. ' 19 0 You don't remember any participation -- 20 A I remember her coming in. Like I said, the thing 21 didn't last very long. 22 Let me go back a little bit into the meetine O -- 23 let's go back to the time where you gave Hatley the list in 24 the first place. 25 Did yoa tell Dobie Hatley to destroy the one copy
42
- j41 1 ;. or copies of1the list that you gave her after she had done 2
whatever_she was going to do with it? I 3 A No, I don't recall that. l 4 g No instructions to destroy the list? 5 L No. 6 g Would you remember that if you had said something 7 like that? 8 A I'm sure I would. 9 g I think I've already asked you this several times.; 10 Let me ask you one more time: do you know what Hatley did l 11 with the list that you gave her? 12 A I've learned some things last Friday or-Saturday, c 13 MR. CHARNOFF: A week ago Saturday?' Today is i 14 Monday. 15 ' THE WITNESS: The 18th. l 16 BY MR. GRIFFIN: I 17 g Butnobodytoldyouanything--saywithinaweekorf 18 two after you gave Hatley the list, did anybody give you any 19 feedback as to what she did with the list? , 20 A No. 21 O robody? 22 A Nobody. 23 0 What did you learn a week ago, briefly? What were t 24 you told? 25 A That perhaps some of those manual logs had been
1 , i 4? \ l i
. j4' l' ~
[ copied or some of the logs that'were in the satellites had ' 2
-been thrown away and new'ones put in.
~3
~, , O I'm a bit" confused on that. You say logs.
4 l A You see, there are certain of the Manual logs. 5 drawings that are kept on the computer, the design changes, 6 and certain of them are kept -- 7 0 Still l'ogs? 8 L Yes. i 8
! O So you retrieve the packages either through the 10 computer or through the log, depending en whether -- the ones 11 i
- that are in the log have not been computerized yet; is that 12 l l right?
13 A You can build the packages either off the manual 14 logs or those drawings that the logs exist for, or you could 15 build them off the computer logs. All the drawings are not 16 in the computer. All the design changes against the drawings. 17 0 Now, to rephrase what you were telling me you 18 heard; that some of the logs had been removed? 19 A Some of the manual logs, yes. Some of those draw-20 ings that are still -- the design changes. 21 O In what context did you hear this; that the ones 22 that had been removed were now contained in the ccmputer, or 23 once removed, gone forever? l 24 A The exact statement -- or not the exact, but what > 25 ! I remember was one of the girls that worked in a satellite L ___
r
$43 1 1 j told me that, "Dobie had us throw all these logs away ar 2 put new ones in."
3 0 Containing the same information? Was that the 4 implication? 5 A well, what they led me to believe was that, you 6 know, the manual logs that were in that particular satellite 7 or maybe all satellites were not correct. So if a guy came 8 ! in to look at the manual logs in the satellite it wouldn't 9 i look like the ones in DCC. 10 O Did this person telling you this indicate that the' 11 throwing away of the logs had occurred during the tirae Cygna 12 was conducting its audit? ' 13
. A. Yes.
14 [ 0 Did this person tell you the reason? f 15 { A. She said something to the effect, you know, "I { t 16 don't know why we did it because there was nothing wrong with, 17 them. Just because Dobie's house is screwed up doesn't mean , 18 ours is," or something close to that. 19 That bothered me. That scared mc. 20 0 so you think that based on some of the feedback 21 you have received recently, that there might be either missing 22 documentation or alteration of documentation in some of the 23 satellites? 24 A I feel like that may have occurred right before 25 Cygna got there; yes. 1 l l
4,: ! j44 l ( 3 j Q But you had no knowledge of :.r.y such thing? i 2 A I found out about it Saturday. 3 0 Has anybody indicated to you in this informatic 4 you recently received that Mr. Strand had any knowledge of 5 any alteration of the' logs? 6 A I think Frank found out about it about the same 7 time I did. f s 8 O I'm aware that either there has been or there is ( 9 an ongoing internal investigation by TUGCO or TUSI into this 10 matter. 11 Does this information that you have received re-12 cently fall out from that ongoing investigation? 13 A Well, the investigation first started in a matter 14 not even related to Cygna. It was when I terminated Ms. 15 Hatley. 16 " hen I had reason to suspect that maybe her par-17 ticular satellite was, you know, a little bit screwed up in 18 terms of documents. 19 O Which satellite was that? K) A 306, 21 O What division was that? Was it Electrical or one 2 of the -- 23 A It was primarily the Mechanical satellite; mechani-24 cal and structural drawings. 25 O What was your knowledge of the problems in that
! 40 i
j45 l 1 i satellite? 2 A We have what we call a DCC monitoring team. They 3 are two people who do nothing but just go from satellite to 4 satellite and do internal audits for Frank and myself. 5 Some of the things.they were finding kind of con-6 cerned me. 7 0 What were they finding? 8 A I had drawings in the field that I didn't know I 9 had out there. 10 MR. CHARNOFF: What time frame was this? 11 THE WITNESS: This was -- I guess it got started 12 probably the lact week in January; the last week in January 13 or first week in February. 14 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 15 0 And this preceded her termination, right? 16 A Yes. 17 All right. O Go ahead. - 18 A You know, I just didn't like what I found. Then 19 I found >ut we had a lot of design changes that were out of 20 revision in that satellite, a lot of the packages hadn't 21 been updated the way they should have bee... 22 g Have you conducted a similar review in the other 23 satellites? 24 A Since that time, yes. I know we've hit the t.to 25 craft satellites; those would be 307.
, '47
.j46 l' G Did Ms. Haticy or any cf your other subordinates 2
ever -- prior to-the time Cygna conducted its audit or, say, 3 the October. meeting or prior to January, do'you ever remember 4 any of your subordinates ever telling you that this was an 5 ongoing problem in the satellites, the fadt that the packages 6 that the satellites had did not contain all those revisions 7 and design change' revisions that DCC said they were_ supposed 8 to have? 9 A The only time I recall it being a problem were ICF the packages that came out of 306. I didn't seem to have 11 that problem with the rest of them. At that time that was 12 the only one that was in doubt. 13 Q Was Ms. Hatley responsible in part for settinc up 14 the satellite system? 15 A She had a large hand in setting them all up, yes. 16 0 Was there anybody on site more familiar than Ms. 17 Hatley about the creation and the implementation of this 18 system? 19 A Frank Strand probably had better knowledge. 20 0 Since you first received this information, have 21 you ever received an explanation, or do you have an explana-22 tion for how this particular woman, talking about Hatley -- 23 why her satellite would be in any worse shape than any of 24 the other satellites? 25 A It was very puzzling. I can't answer that because ! 1 l e
i l 48 a ., 11 you know, 307 has cot at.least as many documents as 306,'mayi 2 be even more, and it has more traffic than 306. l' 3 0. Was Ms. 1:atley a supervisor over all the satellit 4 A When we first put them in place she was supervisor 5 of all of them, but I guess as time went on she just slowly 6 digressed into 306. 7 O She was reassigned? 8 L No. 9 0 In January when your suspicions were aroused about 10 Ms. Hatley's performance, was she still supervisor over all 11 the satellites? 12 A By title, yes. 13 MR. CHARNOFF: But not in practice? 14 THE WITNESS: But not in practice. I guess she 15 had resigned herself to 306 almost exclusively. 16 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 17 0 Was this something she did on her own or was she 18 assigned to do so by either Strand or yourself? 19 A 1 didn't assign her to do it and I don't think 20 Frank did either. I don't know. 21 O Is this information you received later, what you 22 are repeating to us now about her conduct of business or her 23 assignments? 24 A About her slowly going into 306? No, I noticed that myself.
1.
!! n i.h 1.
g- .At this time, was Ms. Hetley still responsible for 2 review, evaluation or overseeing all the satellites? 3 , A I think Frank had probably taken a more active !K 4 j role in it than he had in the'past. We were also in the I
~
i'
- 5 process of' setting up another one.
6 Q Another what? 7 L Another' satellite. 8 g I think you may get the gist of where I'm going. 8 You said that Ms. Ratley had the title. Shehadtheauthoritf 10 apparently. Did she have tne responsibility to still review 11 these other satellites other than 306? 12 L I don't think that had been taken away from her,. I' 13 no. 14 g How were you, or whoever provided you this infor- l 15 mation, how were they able to -- how was a decision arrived 16 at that Ms. Hatley was responsible for the lack of documenta- ' l 17 What evidence tion ir. 306? How was this decision made? 18 supported the decisien that she, herself, was responsible? I8 How was she singled out?
" A , Well, to begin with, like I said, on paper she 21 was at least still the supervisor for all of them. Since she 22 had slowly resigned herself to 306, I felt like it was her 23 responsibility.
g When I go out on the site and I interview all 25 these Document Control people, are they going to -- I'm i
50 j49 1 asking just your op+ inion, your speculation, at ::-.r point -- ; 2 are they going to tell me that the deficiencies of records 3 contained in these many packages that craft handled on a 4 daily br. sis'was Ms. Hatley's shortcoming; it was her fault 5 that they were in the condition they were in? 6 I'm just asking your opinion. 7 A It's pr'obably going to depend who you talk to. If 8 you talk to an electrician, he won't know how to answer that 9 because -- 10 0 I'm talking about people in the satellite offices. 11 The people that work in the offices, the setellite offices, 12 where these documents are contained, are they going to tell 13 me that Ms. Hatley is responsible for the lack of documenta-14 tion in all those packages? 15 A You mean if it's not in there before it goes out 16 'o the field? _ I don't know what they'll say.
~
17 Go ahead and tell me how you decided that Ms. 0 18 Hatley was responsible for the lack of documentation in these 19 packages. 20 How did you arrive at the You say you fired her. 21 decision that she was responsible? 22 A A lot of it was based on what Frank had discovered 23 I guess the through conversations with scme of these girls. 24 overriding factor was some of those audit reports we had 25 that showed us just how bad it was.
I 5; j50 1 O Internal audit repts:mr 2 A Yes. 3 0 Did these audit reports point to Ms. Hatley as 4 being directly responsible for the missing documentation? 5 A No, they didn't come right out and say "Dobie 6 misplaced this; Dobie misplaced that," but, to me, if she 7 was in charge of that satellite and it was screwed up, then 8 it was her fault, her responsibility. 9 So it was your decision that she was terminated? O 10 A. It was a decision that was reached jointly by 11 Frank and myself. Then I discussed it with Frankum. 12 O Who made the ultimate decision to terminate Batley1 13 A Bottom line, it had to b'e me. If somebody said 14 "Let's do it," then it was me. 15 0 Were you encouraged to do it by any of your 16 superiors? l I' A MO. 18 O Did Mr. Tolson ever have any input into Hatley's 19 termination? l l 20 A No. I
*1 O You never discussed her situation with him?
22 A No; Tolson never had anything to do with her that I 23 know of. 24 0 Were there any other reasons, besides those, the 25 lack of documentation in 306, that led you to believe that
e- - 7 52 1 j51 !
'l Ms. Hatley's' n rvices were no lonpcr needed?
2 A .Well, based on some of-the things that Frank had 3 discovered from talking"to some of those girls, it appeared 4 to me tha't the' system was being undermined; _that she was ' 5 making an attempt not to follow procedure',.not to do things a 6 cbrtain'way. 7 g Do you have any evidence that has specifically 8 come to your attention that would support this contention? 91 L Some of the things Frank told me about Dobie in-10 structing the girls not to call the 611 number if they'found 11 an error on the screen or a design change that didn't look 12 like it belonged there; that bothered me. 13 g Did he give you any explanation for her having 14 given these instructions to her subordinates? 15 A Did Frank give me any e::planation? 16' Yes. O II
, A I don't know why she did it.
18 0 Are you convinced yourself that she did? 18 L Yes. 20 g Based on? 21 A Based on talking to Frank. I've also talked tc 22 some of the people in the DCTG. 23
- g. Do you happen to know if this particular series of events that led up to her termination, is that also included 25 in the ongoing TUSI investigation?
l
53
.j52 ;
1 A I don't think so. I don't know. 2 O I know TUSI is committed to informing NRC of its 3 findings, and I was just wondering if this was going to be 4 included. 5 A I don't know.' The investigation I set in motion 6 had nothing to do with Cygna. It was already set in place 7 bei?re Dobie was e~ven fired. 8 g I agree. We're talking about a different issue 9 here. 10 Did Ms. Hatley ever, prior to January 1984, voice 11 any concerns to you, personally, of deficiencies in work 12 packages contained in the satellites? 13 A I honestly can't answer 'that. 14 0 You don't recall any such -- 15 A I'm sure there were occasions, but I don't recall 16 any. 17 0 What I'm getting at here is the NRC is not com-18 pletely -- this is not our absolute first inquiry into this 19 matter. We have other testimony and we will be gathering a 8 lot more in the future. 21 What I'm driving at is, I want to know if you have 22 any knowledge of Ms. Hatley having brought this problem re-23 garding deficiencies in the packages to your attention or to 24 Frank's attention or to anybody else in the line of authority 25 over Document Control or over the satellites or over DCC.
it 54 -j53 1- . A' I can recall her, you know, complaining about the ) 2 task forces. 'And at some time, I don't remember when, I 3 had some of the TUGCO site auditors or a surveillance team. 4 , I think, is what they call them, I had those people go in and. I 5 look at the task forces to find out what kind of shape they 6 were in; but I don't remember when that was. I really don't. 7 0 Have yo'u received any feedback, prior to January 8 1984, from any of either your subordinates or members of 9 these audit teams in which they told you that Ms. Hatley indie l 10 cated to them that there were deficiencies in these packages? ' 11 A Like I said, I'm sure I've gotten it. I just 12 don't remember whether it was prior to January or not. 13 g What I'm driving at, Mr. Hutchinson, is: Ms. 14 Hatley was eventually terminated for these deficiencies. I'm 15 trying to determine from you whether she, through anybody, 16 through any source that might be available to you either 17 directly or otherwise, informed you or had given you a con-18 tinuing series of updates as to the deficiencies contained in 19 these packages. Because I think there is going to be a 20 mountain -- I'm just guessing, you understand, but I think , 21 there is going to be a mountain of testimony to indicate that 22 everybody was aware of these deficiencies and that numerous 23 complaints were made; that everybody in the sections knew 24 that the packages contained deficiencies and that it was an 25 ongoing, continuing problem. i
5:
~
k- j54 ; 1- A As it relates to design changes in the computer, 2 yes. .I know that. I don't think we'll ever get all that L 3 cleaned up. 4 i g What was Ms. Hatley terminated for?
. I 5 ! A Her terminatio had nothing to do with the compute) 6 design change base. That is something that is beyond my con-7 trol and hers.
8 0 That's in DCC, right? 9 A DCTG. l 10 l 0 They do the input. 11 A At that point in time. 12 What they show on the computer is-supposed to be O 13 ' contained in the packages; is that'right? 14 A Yes. 15 0 And you fired Ms. Hatley for deficiencies of chang ( 16 contained in the packages; is that right? 17 A That was part of the reason; for something not 18 being in the package that should have been in the package. 18 I wouldn't call it a deficiency. 20 g .How many instances,or how many packages and how 21 man, 'nstances in those packages were you able to document as; 22 a basis for the termination of Ms. Hatley? 23 A I can't answer that. 24 g Was it hundreds, thousands, one? 25 A. You'll have to look at some of those audit reports
l i 55 j55 1 I can't answer that. I don't know. Ther. :ere quite a few. i 2 g What would I have to do when I go on site this 3 next week to get those audit reports that contain a listing 4 of all these deficiencies Ms. Hatley is responsible for 5 being deficient in those packages? 6 A. Just ask for them. 7 Who do'I go to? 0 8 A You can see me or Frank Strand, either one. 9 0 And you can provide them? 10 A Yes. If I can't find them, I can make sure that 11 you get them. 12 g You said you went to Frankum, or Frankum had in-13 put, did you say, regarding Hatley's termination? 14 A Well, it's part of Brown and Root procedure that 15 if we terminate people for certain reasons then we have to 16 have the Project Manager's approval to do that. 17 g Did you have extensive discussions with Frankum as 18 to the reason for your decision to terminate Hatley? 19 A I wouldn't say extensive. I outlined to him what 20 my problems were, what I found and what I felt needed to be 21 done. 22 g Did he agree with your -- 23 A Yes, he did. 24 g He agreed that she should be terminated? 25 A Yes. --
\- 'i' j56' 1 O I don't-kno. -
_f you have this.information; I wtnt
-2 you to tell me if you do. Is the ongoing investigation 3
being. conducted.by TUSI into the'Cygna matt'er going to.incor-
-4 porate the-deficiencies identified in these audits, or --
5 A I don ' t know. /
- 6. O --
is it separate? 7 A I don't'know. 8
'n Back to the Cygna list for a moment. The list 9
that Williams provided to you, is that the same list that.the 10 Cygna auditors -- are the drawing numbers contained on that 11 list the same ones they reviewed on that Wednesday? 12 A I don't have any way of knowing 'that. 13 0 Has anybody ever told you that? 14 A No. 15 O So the list that you provided to Hatley, you don't 16 know if that's what Cygna looked at? 17 A I have no way of knowing. II O Back to your termination of Hatley. When you 18 fired Hatley, did you give her an explanation for why she was 20 being terminated? 21 A Yes. 22 O Did you cite specific examples of deficient 23 records or deficient records that were supposed to be in 24 packages?
" A I don't think I got specific with it, no. I told
(z ' 1 SE j57 1 her- r. :._ rally why I had some probler.r with her. 2 ~0 Can you. state in your own.words what you told her?j 3 L I told her that Frank and I had a lot of work in 4- getting those satellites set up; that, you know, I had some 5 problems with her and what was going on in 306; and that' week 6' that she was gone on vacation that I put the monitoring team 7 into 306 to find out, you know, how bad it was; that I wasn't 8 very pleased with what I found; that right now it was in a 9 position where I didn't know what drawings were in the field 10 or who had them; that there were some procedures and specs 11 that were up in some of the departments that hadn't been up-12 dated, some of them as far back as August. 13 I also asked her about s'ome absentee records, 14 which she had made a comment about earlier that week or the 15 week before about how valuable those absentee records would 16 be in somebody's hands. I asked her about that and she -- 17 0 What are absentee records? 18 A We've got a departmental log that shows every day 19 that everybody's here or there, how many hours they work and 20 that sort of thing. 21 7.ve got another suit pending now for a girl I 22 terminated for excessive absenteeism about a year ago. 23 I explained those thoughts to her, wast my prob-24 lem was, and she automatically went on the defensive. I 25 said, "Lobie, this is not very pleasant. It's not something
P~ ~ . . . 59
.it I that I really like to de, but based on tha facts that I've 2 got in hand, I've got to terminate you."
3 She said, "Well, I'm going to the NRC. I'm going 4 to the Labor Board. I'm going to the newspapers. I'm going 5 to Brown and Root in Houston. I'm going to Texas Utilities" 6 g Then you went ahead and terminated her? 1 A Yes. 8 0 Based on information that you have received 9 recently as fall-out from this investigation or whatever your 10 source, are you saying that you have received information 11 that records have been altered, changed or disposed of? 12 A Through hearsay, yes, I've heard that. 13 0 Do you recall who told you that? 2 14 A A girl named Judy Dickey. 15 0 What is her title or job? Who does she work for? 16 A. She works for Brown and Root. She's in charge 17 of satellite 300, 301. 18 0 Did she indicate what the source of her informa-19 tion was; personal? M A. Personal, yes. 21 0 She knew of it through satellite 30l? U A It's a combination; 300, 301 and 302 are all 23 together: Service Start-up, Civil Engineering and INC. l 24
, 0 Mr. Hutchinson, are you familiar with the results i U of the Cygna report? Have you ever read it?
l
h . L 60 _j59 _ l- . 1 I've read the'DCC portion. I-2 O Are.you aware,.then,1that as a result of the Cygnaj 3 review, that they found a number of deficiencies, six or 4' seven, I th' ink? Does that sound familiar?- 5 A Six.or seven,in DCC? 1 6 0 Yes -- well, 7 MR. CHARNOFF: What is'the date of the Cygna 8 , report? 9 THE WITNESS: I don't think it has been published 10 . yet. I think it's still in draft form. I 11 MR. GRIFFIN: The last date I see on here is l 12 11/5/83. 13 MR. CHARNOFF: So it's following the October visiti 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. 15 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 16 Is it your understanding that they did find de-0 . 17 ficiencies in the review, in their October review? 18 A The DCC? As I read the report, they didn't find I" anything. 20 l 0 I'm not going to go into this because this is a 21 little beyond -- I'm not familiar with either the original 22 contract or the results. Just let me read a sentence here I 23 l and see if this jogs your memory. 1 24 "The CPS Document Control Center does not maintain, l' 25 ! an accurate listing.of design changes generated against i
f-
<2 l i j60 ,
1 ) drawings and specifications. This was substantiatt: :3.re- l 2- view of 18 drawings, seven specifications and approximately
- 3 100 associated designs. The discrepancies are as follows" --
4 and it looks like there is about eight. 5 Is-that the same thing that you reviewed? 6 MR. CHARNOFF: Could you show it to him? 7 MR. GRIFFIN: I-would rather not. 8 THE WITNESS: Is that 605; is that number on there 9 somewhere, specification? That's the July report.- 10 MR. GRIFFIN: The reason I'm reluctant to give 11 this to him is I'm not sure it is for public release yet. 12 THE WITNESS: That should have been the July one. 4 13 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 14 0 Are you saying that based on Cy'gna's review which 15 occurred that Wednesday, you don't think they found any 16 deficiencies? 17 A I think they verified that the systems were in 18 place and working. As to what Bibo did, I don't know. 19 g Would you normally have been a recipient of the 20 results of the review on DCC? 21 A I don't know if I would have normally been or not. 22 I saw the report. I saw the Cygna report when it came down. 23 0 Then did it basically conclude that the system 24 was in place and in good working order? 25 A As I remember reading the thing, you know, he
7_ .
~
62 l tj61 4 1 verified that wht- :.( came to look for was there; the r . 2 satellites were up, the computer thing was working.
~
3 0 So that is October. In October of ' 8 3 Cygna 'did 4 its review of what is contained in the logs versus what is 5 containedin the packages; and.you -- 6 A I don't know whether they did that review or not. 7 0 Well, they gave you what, 32 drawing numbers on a 8 list handed to you by Nancy Williams;'is that right? 9 A Yes. 10 0 And you say you have no knowledge of this, but it 11 is my understanding that Cygna then came in on~ Wednesday and 12 reviewed those same 32 drawing numbers and all their revis-13 ions. And you said the results of the Cygna report for that 14 review was that everything was in good shape. 15 A That's essentially it, yes. 16 0 Then what, two months later you fired Dobie Hatley 17 because these packages, of which those 32 drawings were to be 18 a representative sampling, had numerous deficiencies for 18 which you ultimately held her responsible; is that a fair 20 assumption? 21 A It's not, not really. 22 0 Where have I missed? What's wrong with my 23 reasoning? 24 A Her termination was primarily based on what I 25 found in satellite 306 more than anything else.
i
': 1 62 ; 62:
3 ; O ht: ~ . , I presume 306 was included in the Cygna.re-2 view, was it not? Were any of the satellites omitted fror
-3 their --
4 A 'I don't know where he went. I don't know what 1 5 Path he took. 6 0 Why is it that-the Cygna representative review is 7 proper, perfect, no problems, so to speak, and such a short 8 time later you have mass deficiencies that lead to the termia g ation of the person who set up the system in the first places 10 Can you offer any exolanation for that? 11 A I can't. I wish I could, but I can't. 12 Q Do you have any reason to believe that between thG 13 time that Cygna's review took place and the time she was 14 terminated, that somebody systemmatically destroyed or in-15 vaded the system and made it grossly deficient? 16 A I think I can state that something was wrong in 17 306, yes. 18 O Did it go wrong between October 26 and January 19 whenever it was that you terminated Ms. Hatley? 20 A It went wrong before I terminated Ms. Hatley. NoS 21 when it went wrong, I don't know. I would have to go back 22 and look at all the audit reports. I'm sure we've got some 23 that go back that far. 24 0 Did you have internal audit reports before the 25 Cygna report? y
64 -j 6 3 ; 1 A As I remember, the audit reports started probably 2 hinSeptemberof '83, August or September. The team was in 3 , place by then. There was some form of auditing going on I* then. 4
)
6 l
, O These same people?
6 A Yes. 7 G So you ~say you can give the NRC access to those 8 audit reports? 9 l A. Yes. I have no problem with that. 10 l 0 Based on the fact that you did so well in the Cygna 11 l review, do you happen to know whether these earlier audit i 12 lreportsaregoingtoshowthesystemasbeingingoodshape i 13 l in September? ' 14 I'll just have to look at them and see. A. I don't 15 know. I don't recall that many problems. 16 O Do you happen to know where Ms. Hatley was for 17 three weeks prior to her termination? 18 A She was on vacation one week. 19 Q I don't want to belabor this point, but between 20 the October Cygna review which found everything okay and 21 January when she was terminated, she spent three weeks on 22 vacation; is that right? 23 A. She spent one week on vacation. 24 0 One? Just one? 25 A. Yes. I don't remember which week that was either.
65 j64 y 1 I think it was the week beginning January 29, 2 g Let me ask you again: did anybody -- not directly, 3 necessarily, in the chain of command of Brown and Root, but 4 did anybody above you in TUGCO or Brown and Root direct you i 5 to terminate Ms. Hatley? 6 A No. 7 0 Was it 'a decision that you arrived at on your own? 8 A. Yes. I don't think anybody in TUGCO even knew 9 about it, or TUSI, until after it was over with. I don't re-10 call having discussed that with anybody in TUGCO. l 11 g Let me jump back one more time to the day that you 12 gave Hatley the list. When you provided her the list, did 13 you tell her specifically that Cygna was coming to look at 14 these documents the following day? 15 A I don't recall making that statement, no. 16 g And you don't recall why you gave her the list? 17 A No. 18 0 You just gave it to her? 19 A Yes. And I thought about it, believe me. 20 MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Charnoff, I don't know if I'm II going to repeat Judge Bloch's request. I doubt if I can re-22 peat it accurately since I was not at the hearings, I did not 23 hear it, nor do I have a copy of his statements made during 24 the hearings over there. But it's my understanding that 25 Judge Bloch requested that any contact between applicant or
f e. t j65 ; { 1 : t representatives of the applicant -- and I don ' t know exact;;- l i i 2 what that entails - 'with Mr.-Hutchinson, that any such con-
'3 ' _ tacts regarding Cygna be' documented either through tape or 4 through'wri'tten statement.
5 Do you know if this is being done? Are you aware 6 of this? 7 MR. CHARNOFF: I'm not aware of that; but I think 8 you can correct me on this, Carl. It is my impression that 9 they are not talking to Hutchinson at all; indeed, that is 10 really why we are involved, because following that order, as 11 I understand it, it is understood that the lawyers fer TUGCO 12 and others who are involved _in that other investigation were 13 not going to talk to Heyward at all'. 14 But I can't answer your specific question. 15 Do you know? Have there been any contacts with 16 . them at all since, I think it was, Wednesday -- 17 THE WITNESS: They instructed me not to talk to any 18 body that worked for TUGCO, TUSI or talk to any of the girls 19 in DCC or any of that stuff. 20 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 21 g The only reason I mentioned it is because prior to 22 our interview today the Judge talked to Trebe, an NRC repre-23 sentative, and asked that we remind you, as his representa-24 tives -- I cannot characterize what his original intentions 25 were, but if you're sure that you're in compliance, then --
!. 67 j66-1 A I'm absolutely sure. In fact, I rankum told me- lass 2 week to leave and.not come back. I don't know if I can do 3 that or not.
4 MR. CHARNOFF: I don't think the order excluded 5 you from doing your business. As I read the transcript, I 6 think it, in effect -- 7 THE WITNESS: The conversations I've had with any-8 body at the site have been very, very few and very, very l 9 limited. 10 MR. CHARNOFF: On this matter I don't think you 11 should talk to anybody, but I think you are entitled to do 12 the work. 13 MR. GRIFFIN: If there is any question I would 14 encourage you to call Judge Bloch, because it is important to l 15 him. 16 BY MR. GRIFFIN: i 17 O Mr. Hutchinson, our interview today so far has 18 raised as many questions as it has answered in my mind. 18 l Obviously, all you can do is say what you know to be the 20 truth. 21 This interview is conducted at this time because 22 your testimony before the hearings was suspended, leaving a 3 lot of questions unanswered. 24 A. I understand that. s 25 0 The Office of Investigations will probably be
! s:
j67 1 actively involved in tia i.vestigation of th;E whole Effa;r 2 in the coming weeks. I want to put this in the record; that 3 I am almost positive that we will need to interview you 4 again because normally we don't start in the middle; we start 5 at the beginning, and we' haven't started at the beginning yet< 6 A Okay. 7 MR. GRIFFIN: Don, do you have any questions that 8 you would like to ask Mr. Hutchinson in this matter? 9 MR. DRISKILL: Yes, if you don't mind there are 10 just a couple of questions I would like to ask. 11 BY MF, DRISKILL: 12 g Going back to earlier in the interview, you said 13 that en the 24th of October this Ms'. Williams presented you i 14 with a list of drawing numbers; is that correct? 15 A Correct. 16 0 What did she tell you about those numbers when she 17 gave you the list? 18 A About the list? 19 g ves; what did she tell you it was? 20 A. .She said, "These are the documents we need to see,' 21 or "These are the drawings we need to see;" something to that 22 effect. 23 g Tomorrow? 24 A. Tomorrow. "We'll be in tomorrow." 25 g And she handed you a handwritten list? l
.g-- -
!- 69 e
j68 1 {' j i. Yes. 2 O Which contained 32 numbers? 3 A Yes. 4 MR. CHARNOFF: Have you fellas seen the list? 5 MR. DRISKILL: I haven't. 6 MR. GRIFFIN: No. 7 BY MR. DRISKILL: 8 g You were in your office when you received this? 9 A That's correct. 10 0 And then she left? 11 A Yes. 12 Then what did you do? O 13 A I picked up the list, I started down the hall. I 14 had to go to a meeting. I was trying to get some clerks some 15 wage adjustments. I had a session with John Merritt and 16 Frankum. 17 At some point during that afternoon I bumped into 18 Dobie in the hall, I think it was around the drafting area, 19 and gave her the list. so O Would you repeat again what you told her when you 21 gave her that list? 22 A Something to the effect of "Make sure we're all 23 right. Make sure everything's running. Cygna'is going to be
" here tomorrow."
25 0 So I would be correct in assuming that she would
,- i
n.- - - l , 70 i I have accepted that list with the understanding that these 2 were documents.that Cygna wanted to-look at? 3 A Yes. Yes, that'should be a fair assumption.
^
4 O 'You talked ~to, you said, Merritt from TUSI and 5 Frankum from Brown and'R ot that afternoon. Did you tell 6 them that you had received a list of these things? 7 A I don't recall discussing the list any more that 8 day. I left early that day. 9 0 I realize this was just an audit being conducted 10 by an outside group of people, and I know that at Comanche 11 i Peak they have a lot of audits, or not a lot, but some audits 12 I. I I conducted -- they have a lot of internal audits by TUSI, t 13 TUGCO, brown and Root and so on, various auditors from those 14 different groups. 15 But it is-not all that commonplace to have an audit 16 by someone from outside one of those three groups; would that 17 be correct? 18 A An audit is an audit to me. 19 O That's right. But this one had received some publicity in the newspapers; it was a known fact that NRC had 21 required TUGCO to have this audit performed. So I'm assuming that -- were nanagers instructed to do whatever they could to 23 get along with these people? Did you have any sort of meet- 3 24 ings prior to Cygna coming in back in July or sometime to 25 say, " Hey, help these people out. Try to make this thing
7; I 72
,j70 -
p I cene off as smoothly as you possibly can"? 2 A I don't recall receiving any special instructions.- 3 c
~
l You don't recall attending any meetings where the 4 l fact ~that Cygna was doing this audit was discussed? 5 j g- I re' member at some point in time'somebody saying
-6 Cygna was coming in to do this review and that-was about it.
7 As far as I'm conc'erned, nobody put that much emphasis _on it. 6 ; O It wasn't any big deal. I 8 l A No; no big deal. 10 g So you received this request from Ms. Williams on 11 I the 24th. You didn't tell your boss that you had received th@ 12 l request; you didn't tell -- did you tell, what was this guy's 13 name, Frank, your direct subordinate over at DCC? I4 A Frank Strand. 15 g Frank Strand, you didn't tell him you had received 16 ' it? I A I don't recall telling him either. 18 i 0 And you received the impression that Cygna was going to look at these documents the following day, on the
' 25th?
21 A Yes. 22 O In fact, they didn't then until the 26th. 23 A That's my recollection. 24 0 Did you say anything to Dobie Hatley on the 25th 25 about "Did you look at those documents," or "Did you get thos(
31 7 1 documents ready for those pecple?" i 2 L No. 3 I O Cr "Did you have any problem finding them?" 4 A Nothing to that effect, no. 5 0 Let me ask you one other question. You said here 6 later on in your conversation with Brooks that Dobie Hatley 7 was only the super' visor or the records keeper for one of 8 several satellites; right? 9 A She started out as a supervisor for all of them. 10 j But you said here in the last couple of months 0 i i 11 she had pretty much restricted her activitier te 306; is that l 12 l I not correct? 13 A Yes. 14 0 Was that true in October? 15 A I wouldn't think that would be true in October, no. 16 0 So in October she was pretty much in charge of all 17 cf them? 18 A She would have still been over them. 18 0 That was the reason you gave her the list, because
" she --
21 A All I can do is assume, you know, if they were 22 coming to look at the satellites, then she needed to be aware
" of it.
24 0 Why did she need to be aware of it rather than 25 Frank or somebody else?
-j72 1 A Well, TUGCO QA had becr. .: a couple of weeks Aef or( 2 that and there were some questions about did we have these 3 things secure enough. "Do you have the riglit kind of barrier ( 4 uptokeeppeoplefrominterferinginthefiles"andallthatj 5 And those girls had pretty well been instructed not to allow 6 anybody, you know, Tom, Dick or Harry, to just wander in. 7 I don't'know. ~ This is just assumptions now. I 8 didn't want Dobie to be blindsighted by a bunch of people 9 coming in and wanting to look at stuff. 10 g You mean by giving that list to someone else and 11 then having them go look for the records? 12 A Well, if somebody walked into a satellite and saidc 13 you know, "I want to go behind the counter and look at all 14 this stuff," as a matter of rule they wouldn't be allowed to 15 do that. 16 g Would I be correct in assuming -- maybe I've gotter 17 the wrong assumption here all along -- the intent Ms. Williams 18 had when she gave you that list was that you gather these 19 documents up and have them in a stack for her to look at or 20 her or someone to look at the next day? 21 A I don't know whether that's what she meant for us 22 to do or not. She really didn't tell me. 23 g Let me ask you this then: how long would it take, 24 if I give you a list of 32 drawing numbers right now -- I'm 25 in your office, I give you a list and say "I want to see
e 1 I 7 +' j73 i 1 these." 2 A You want to see the drawing and all the changes? i 3 O Isn't that what she was asking for? 4 A 'She was asking for the print-outs, the computer
. 5 print-outs. ,'
6 g If I give you a list and tell you I want to see 7 the print-outs, how long is it going to take me to get them? 8 A If everything is working, it should be inside of an 9 hour. If the system is not loaded,.you punch it up and it I 10 prints; you' punch it up and it prints. It shouldn't be that l i 11 i big of a deal if that's all you want is just the print-outs. 12 O Am I correct in assuming that all these numbers 13 she gave you were not on the comput'er? 14 A Yes; some of them were not on the computer. 15 g How long would it have taken me to get a list con-16 taining 24 that were on the computer and eight more tha 17 weren't? 18< , A That still should have been able to be. done in an 19 hour. 20 0 Have you had any of these type audits before where l 21 ' somebody comes in and gives you a list of numbers? I 22 A Yes, we get lists all the time. 23 g Do they usually give you a day in advance to 24 gather these things up or print them out or whatever you do 25 with them? r
75 j74 1 A. I can only tell you what -- not firsthand ' 2 ; knowledge, but we get a lot of lists from the TUGCO auditors; 3 we get a lot of lists from your people. If they're looking l 4 into something particular, they'll leave us a list and say 6 "How about running these for me?" Then we get them ready ans 6 we'll take them to them.
~
7 g So it wouldn't be uncommon for them to get those a 8 day in advance? 9 A. No, it is not uncommon. i 10 Q Is it uncommon for your people to review those be-11 l fore they take them to the people that have requested them 12 to make sure they are in order, contain all the information? 13 A. The only review they would probably do was to make 14 I sure' that whatever is on that log is also in that package if l 15 that's what they wanted was the package. 16 I Q What if it wasn't? 17 A. Then they just punch the button and it prints a IO copy of the manual log. There wouldn't be any review going 18 on, no. 20 0 You said that in July they found some shortcomings 21 in the Document Control system, in the program; is that 22 correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 0 A lot of deficiencies? 25 A There were quite a few, yes.
1 7f j75 i 1 I (. liew did you find out about that? I 2 A I think that was through a session with some of 3 . the Cygna people and some of the DCTG people and also some of 4 l* my
! people.
1 5 There was a lIttle confusion as to, you know, 6 which group was responsible for which. 7 g Which d'eficiencies? 8 L Yes. 9 0 Did your supervisor ever talk to you about it or i 10 ask for an explanation of why these problems existed? 11 A Did my supervisor? i 12 I O Yes. l i 13 A I recall him being part o'f some of those discussiod i 14 li But as to why these deficiencies exist, I don't recall that 15 question. 16 i i O You mean it was no big deal? II A No; we knew we had those problems in the file cus-18 todian versus the DCC; that's why we set the satellites up, l l 18 one reason. 20 0 .Did you expect to have some problems with those 32l l 21 ( that you were given on October 247 ; i 22 l A No. I l 23 0 You didn't expect to have any problems with those? 24
, A 30, O Why?
I .. 1 j76 l-1 i A I. felt like the' system was working. You know,- we 2 had had from whenever we started the computer base, either 3 ll late-July or early-August, we had from then until October 15 I 4 to get the two systems merged and get-the bugs out of it. 5 We even beat that date a little bit. I was confident.
.6 MR.-DRISKILL: I don't have anything further.
7 BY'MR.' GRIFFIN: 8 Mr. Hutchinson, as I said before, the Office of 4 I 8 ' Investigations, I believe, will be getting into an investiga-10 i tion on some of these issues. We haven't actually defined II all the areas that we're going to be going into. 12 I personally consider today's interview a prelimin< 13 ary interview with you. I think there might be areas that we 14 have not discussed. I can't help but believe there are addi-15 tional points or areas of inquiry. So I think you can expect 16 to be contacted by us again. II One or the things that I am going to request of 18 you is that once the investigation begins I probably will 18 come down and ask you for those internal audit reports that 20 you were saying were available. 21 When the time comes that we need to interview you 22 again on this matter, should we contact your attorney or you 23 to set up the interview? MR. CHARNOFF: I think you ought to contact Carl Jordan and set it up with him.
V ; [. 18 L j 7 7 -. 1 MR. GRITTIN: All right. 2' BY MR. GRIFFIN: 3 9 Mr. Hutchinson, do you have anything you would
/ .
4 I-like to add'to the record as an explanation for.-- like I 5 I
-said, there are many ques'tions left unanswered. . Is there
-6 anything more that you would like to add?
7 A. Yes, a ' couple of things; one being that the enviror 8 ment in this kind of interview is quite a bit better than I - 8 l what I went through in the hearings up there. That is n6t 10 j . Very pleasant. Now,_that's out of the way. I 11 This whole thing is against my character. To have i 12
; even been associated with having rigged anything or set up 13
,, anything, that is just not my natur6. In fact, if I suspected 14 that anybody had done that sort of thing, I would have fired 15 '
them without hesitation. l t 16 I have been out there eight years and I have put l 17 a lot of time and a lot of effort in that plant. I8 It is just not my nature to do anything like that. i l' I hope this investigation bears that out. I'm as anxious as
" anybody to get to the bottom of this.
21 0 Today's inquiry and subsequent interviews of you n 22 will be just concerning the facts in the case. 23 I presume that your statements to day have been truthful. Can we count on that?
's 26 A. They have, to the best of my knowledge.
y r. 7F s' j78 i' t l- 1 G Mr. Hutchinson, ;*.cle I or any other NRC represe..- 2 tative here threatened you in any manner or offered you any 3 . rewards in return for this statement? I 4 A. 'No, you have not. 5 0 Have you given the statement freely and voluntari8 6 A I have. 7 MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you. 8 (Witness excused.) 9 (Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the interview was 1 10 j concluded.) l 11 l , 12 f i 13 ,- 14 l 15 l 16 17 18 ! 19 so 21 22 23 24
0, 1
, 4 J CERTIFICI.TL OF PRuuEEDINGS l
1 l 2 This is to-certify that the attached-proceedings before the 3 l NRC COMMISSION 4 In the matter of: Investigative Interview of Heyward.A. Hutchinson, Jr. 5 6 Date of Proceeding: Monday, February 27, 1984 7 Place of Proceeding: Arlington, Texas 8 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 9 transcript for the file of the Commission. 10 11 Judith A. Toberman Official Reporter - Typed 12 13 ,
. r_
34 Official Reporter - Signature 16 17 18 19 20 l 21
. 22-23 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS 25 NORFOLK, VIRGINIA l
~}}