ML20106G578
| ML20106G578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1983 |
| From: | Krisher M EBASCO SERVICES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20106G461 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8410310252 | |
| Download: ML20106G578 (49) | |
Text
..
s; 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
i
- ~
3 i
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION'S i
4 REGION IV 5
611 Ryan, Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 7
8 9
INTERVIEW OF-10 MYRON G.
(CURLY) KRISHER 11 12 Nuclear Operat. ions Suoport Facility 13 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) 14 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 15 Monday, November 28, 1983 l
16 17 The Interview was convened at 1:20 p.m.
I IS PRESENT:
19 DONALD D.
DRISKILL, Investigator 20 H. BROOKS GRIFFIN, Investigator 21 i
l 22 23 1
24 8410310252 840726 PDR ADOCK 05000445 25 EXHIBIT (18)
C r rJ &cs w g s r.T '.g.9 E M s w eta w o #a s t 4 0 5-?1 M
- W ^:2W WW
ljrb2-2 g}j
'l P R O'C E E D I N G S 2'
'MR.
DRISKILL:
This is'an interview of' 3
Myron-G._(Curly) Krisher, K R I S H E R,'who is employed 4-by CBASCO Services, Incorporated,Las a Quality Control 5
Supervisor of Non-ASME Activities.in Reactor Building 1, 6
.at Comanche' Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, 7
.8 Mr. Krisher, would youLhave any objection to 9
standing'and allowing me to administer an oath?
10 MR. KRISHER:
No.
11 Whereupon, 12 MYRON G.
(CURLY) KRISHER 13 having first been duly-sworn by Investigator Driskill, 14 was examined and testified as follows:
15 BY MR. DRISKILL:
16 Q
Okay, Mr. Krisher, how long have you been employed 17 by EBASCO Services, Incorporated?
18 A
January 2nd, to date.
18 Q
And how long have you been employed at Comanche M
Peak?
21 A
The same.
22 g
yell begin my questioning with a discussion regard-ing the matter pertaining to the termination of Ron Dunham, 24 who was employed by Brown & Root as a Quality Control 25 Lead Inspector in the Protective Coatings Department.
4 3
=,
.s 1-
'A Is Ronald" Dunham " Bill" Dunham?
)
2' Q
I'll correct the record:
it's William Dunham.
t I
3 Did you attend a meeting held on approximately 4
August the 23rd or 24th--August the 24th--wherein two 5
EBASCO protective coatings engineers conducted a ' class with 9 6
the Comanche Peak Protective' Coatings. Inspectors?-
e 7
A Yes.
I
,8 Q
Would you be good enough to describe the purpose-l t
.9 of that meeting, please?
10 A
Well, the tso engineers were a part of a task i
11 force, engin'eering task force, involved in review and l
l 12 '
modification to'the Protective Coatings Procedures 13 Specifications.
And they had approached the quality 14 management'that they felt an information' meeting with the 15 inspectors would make them more comfortable with the changes; bothinthespecification,[i 16 and things that were taking place I;
17 quality procedures and construction procedures.
18 Q
Just to digress a moment, were you a supervisor 19 of William Dunham at that time?
l I.
20 i
A His direct supervisor of record at that time was 21 Harry Williams.
I was then assigned as the Quality 22 Engineering Supervisor and acted for Mr. Brandt as the M
QA-QC Supervisor during any absences from ths job sitt.
24 Q
Okay, t. hat was Tom Brandt who was the supervisor M
of non-ASME activities?
_-.____..________.__.__.__.____._.._____________.____________________-________.___.____-_______..__.-._,_______m
t b.
4 i.
h.
l' A
Right.
p p
a r
2.
Q
.Would'you be good enough'to describe William,
3 Dunham's conduct during th'e course of that meeting?
4 A
The--Mr. Dunham, dominated the conversation, and 5
he, allowed no one'to communicate with the engineers relative 6
to the~ changes, other than'himse'lf; w'ith one exception:
7 Jerry Artrip did override that dominance, and discussed a 8
point about the difference,between what-the engineers had -
9 said and what t'he disposition to a'nonconformance report to had been.
11 He interrupted the engineers on almost e,very 12 point.
He was totally negative in all the changes, indicat-13 j
ing that what was really happening uas that engineering i.
14 was collapsing to the pressure of the schedule and manage-15 ment to make changes not warranted, and shouldn't be made' 16 in order to meet schedule.
17 Q
So, aside from Artrip, while you were present at 18 the meeting, no other persons were really able to ask any
{
19 l
questions?
i 20 A
To the best of my recollection,.no one was able 21 to address those two speakers other.than Mr. Dunham.
l 22 Q
Did anyone attending that meeting, including U
j Dunham's supervisor, attempt to get him to refrain from 24 dominating the meeting, or ask him to sit down and allow 25 others to talk?
i L
ye-5 s
1 A
No,. sir.
1-2 Q
Were there other supervisors present?
s 3
A Supervisors--Harry Williams was there; and I
~!
4 was there.
5
~ Q Subsequent to that meeting what, to your knowledge 4 l
6 steps were taken to notify management of Dunham's attitude l
l and conduct during the course of that meeting?
7 8
A After the meeting I took care of a couple of items a't the area where the meeting took place, and returned to 9
10 the office which I shared, essentially, with Mr. Brandt; L
11 and informed'him that Dunham was a negative influence, 12 and son.2 type'of a turn-around had to be accomplished; or 13 he was going to hold up anybody from participating in the 14 new program.
15 Q
Okay, when you say a
" turn-around, " you ' re talking li 16 about changing his attitude?
l 17 A
Right.
18 Q
And, basically, what resulted from your meeting y;
19 with Mr. Brandt?
20 A
He, while I was there, called Mr. Towlson to 21 advise him of what I had reported back from that meeting.
Zt And no action was discussed at that time, other than that 2
he would get with Ron about Towlson.
24 Q
In other words, based on what you were able to E
ascertain from his telephone conversation with Mr. Towlson,
[
3'
~
~6 i-1
~^
they intended to discuss the matter later.on?
2 A.
(Nodding affirmatively.)-
3 Q
Was'there any' determination, to'your. knowledge, 4
made'at,theLtime to.have a counseling'. session with Dunham, 6
or anything of that sort?-
6'
~
A No.
7'
-Q But you did get the indication that they were-8 going to do something?
9 A
'Yuh,-Brandt-and I discussed it~
the 'conversa-
- some, to tion',.what had happened at the trailer; but we didn't
~
11
-make anyLconclusions other.than something had to'be d'ne o
12 to turn that around.
The dominant, negative, influence 13 in the best interest of the Protective Coatings was not 14 Program.
15 Q
Okay.
On the day iollowing this meeting and 16 subsequent conversation with Mr. Brandt, were any other 17 meetings held pertaining to what should be done about 18 Dunham's conduct during the previous day's meeting?
19 A
No specific meetings that I am aware of were held M
to discuss Dunham's conduct and/or what should be done about 21 it.
M Q
Okay.
Was the matter discussed at any time on the
'following day?
M 24 A
on the following morning, Harry Williams, 2$
F Everett Mouser, myself were in Mr. Brandt's office discussing
y-_
7 1-the protective coatings daily problems, problems of yester-2 day, resolutions of the day--just business as normal.
3 About 9:30, roughly,fMr. Purdy came in; he 4
indicated-that: he had just came from Mr. Towlson's office,
~
5 subject:
Dunham.- And that there would need to be a 6
counseling and-the' potential existed that counseling and-7 three days off without pay would possibly. alert Mr. Dunham.
8 to the program.
9 Q.
'okay.
And so at'that time was it disc'ussed what 10 might occur with Dunham when an attempted counseling session 11 and three' days off were given to him?
q 12 A
I don't--I don't think at any p'oint in time N
13 anybody discus. sed anything;about what might happen.
All 14 I perceived was counseling was a normal part of being a 15 supervisor.
1 16 Q
Was there any discussion relating to the termina-17 tion of Dunham?
18 A
No, sir.
19 Q
So on that particular day were there--did you 20 attend any other meetings, or were you present during any 21 other discussion relating to Dunham's conduct?
22' A
I--Purdy left Brandt'.s office and we discussed 23 Dunham in general; but based on his experien,ce and back-24 ground, et cetera, he should be a positive influence as 25 opposed to a negative influence.
And essentially what we
' ~
8 p
wanted to accomplish.was to take'him to-the other side of t
- 2 the pole,Lessentially; to get him:to be the11eader that 3-at least on paper'and experience-wise he should have:been 4
able to be, to be the positive-influence'as opposed to the, 5-negative influence.
6 Q
Would I be correct in assuming,-then,-that your-7 next participation in this sequence of_ events culminated a
by-his termination would have been on'the day of his 9
.terminaticn?--which would have been on Friday! I believe,.
10
' August the 26th?
11 A
Yes.
It was.
Q' Would you tell me what particular things occurred'*
12 13 on that particular day?
14 A
Mr._Brandt was off-site.
I think he was in 15 Dallas at a licensing hearing; I don't specifically know--
16 recall--where he was at.
17 Mr. Towlson called me over to his office; Purdy is was present.
We discussed the counseling, and it was to determined that three days off was not appropriate due to 20 the time delay since the event; but that we did want to 21 continue with--go ahead with the counseling.
22 Q
Did you have any involvement or participation 23 in the preparation of the letter of reprimand or counseling 24 '
report?
25 A
Brown & Root has a standard counselic.g form for t
_)
~
i en-0:
9 L1 employees.
Due.to other commitments, Mr. Purdy asked if I
/
2 would prepare it.
I'did so~in Mr..Towlson's office; had 3
it typed by Mr. Brandt's secretary; didn't discuss it with 4
anybody.
Told Gordon I had.it.-
5 And he said, okay,-that he would be tied up in 4
6 the other ma'tter-until'about, I think,.3:30, quarter to-7 4:00 I should' meet him in his office at that point in. time.
8 And that--I think I.wa. supposed to meet him at-9 quarter-till, and to schedule Dunham to be in his of.fice'at 10
-four o' clock.
11 Q
I'see.
12 A
That's memory, I'm not sure; I don't know.
13 Q
Yuh,-that's good.
14 Was the document that you prepared a Brown & Root 15 counseling form?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
Did you rough-draft this document on the three-18 part memo?
19 A
I worked it up on a piece of lined notebook 20 paper similar to what you're taking the minutes on.
21 Q
So are you aware of this counseling report 22 statement ever being typed, or printed, or handwritten onto U
a three part momo?
24 A
No, sir.
25 Q
Okay.
Did you attend the meeting at four o' clock
e
- +
H 10 9
~
1.
in Gordon'Purdy's. office?.
2 A
Yes, I did..
3 Q
With Mr. Purdy and. William Dunham?
4-A He was-brought to Mr. Purdy's office by Everett Mous'er,;who was acting as the Supervisor.'of
~
6 Protective Caatings direct, beca'use Harry Williams was off 7
with a back injury.
8 Q
Okay..
9 Would you tell me what occurred wh'en Dunham came 10 into the room?
11 A
I'd been there about ten minutes.- I showed the 12 prepared form to Mr. Purdy.
He--asked him if it was 13 all right?
He said it was fine.
14 The door was' closed.
Everett and Bill showed up, 15 rapped on the door, and Gordon essentially-waved them in:
16 and Bill popped the door open with a "Hi, here I am."
17 And they exchanged pleasantries- " haven't seen you 18 for a while," you know.
Gordon asked him to sit down.
19 And Bill sat across the table from me.
And.
M Everett took a chair in the corner adjacent to the desk.
21 And Gordon told Bill, it seemed like we had a 22
- problem, "I'd like you to look at this."
He handed the 2
form to him.
24 j
In seconds, Bill slammed it down, set it back; 2
"This is a bunch of bullshit, no fucking way am I going to
./
l
. _s o
x
- 33 U
1
.' change.
Youlknow-this is.a' lie.'"'
Veryfagitated, upset.
2 A statementcto the fact that,L"I'm not going to change.
3 You'might as well.get-my; time.and.take me to the gate, 4
get'~my money."
5 Gorden told 1him,-" settle down,"let's talkLabout 6
it."
7 And Bill. responded'with, "No,~to hell with it.
8 1,ve had it.
This is enough of this shit.
You don't have 8
to worry about me.
I-got~another job to go to.
I-know 10 what's. going on here, and I've got mine.
And' you might as 11 well give me the gate."
12 And Gordon again' attempted.to settle him down.
13 Bill'again indicated vehemently that he was 14 going to accept counseling.
Ile wasn't going to change.
not 15 It was all a lie.
And again he said, "Get my time."
16 And Mr. Purdy said, "That's what you want?"
g 17 "That's what I want."
18 Gordon said, "Okay, I can take care of that."
18 And he left the office for about a minute; came back; asked us to escort Bill to get his personal belongings; 21 that he would take care of the appropriate actions at the 22 time office.
23 Q
So did you accompany Dunham to the time office?
24 A
Gordon left and Everett and I went out of the 25 building with Bill, and started towards his area.
And I i
e, y
12 1
-told Everett that-fI was going to go to:the time' office.
"2
'And I}got about halfwayLthere and I thought, "No, that's 3
not too cool with' things the way-theyfare: I;probably 14 better stay where the action might he in case there's a 5
_ problem and'I could.maybe correct-it."
6 So we'went byfparallel but dif'ferent routes to 7
the trailer.
They got there maybe 30 seconds before-I s
did..
3 And Dunham went in, made some disparaging remarks 10 about,."Well, they finally got me," this-that-and-the-11 oth'er; gathered up his stuff; and we str.rted back out.
r 12 I told Everett to stay put, to settle the troops 13 down, get everybody back to work.
14 And I walked roughly five paces behind Dunham 15 back towards the personnel gate.-
He stopped and talked to 16 one-follow employee enroute.
He indicated to me I didn't 17 need to go with him, he knew the way.
And I didn't l
18 respond, just went along; stayed between he and the 19 return back to the site until they collected his badge and g
i 20 brass.
21 And then I left the area and went back to 22 Mr. Towlson's office to report what the situation was, 23 and Mr. Purdy was already there.
24 Q
Did you discuss with him what had occurred?
26 A
With who?
)
L._
e 13 1
Q Mr. Purdy and Mr. Towlson?
2 A
I only indicated that I'd been with him to the 3
gate and until they collected his brass badge, and then I 4
left.
5 Q
Did any of,you, meaning yourself, Mr. Purdy, 6
or'Mr. Towlson, go to the time shack to fill out any documen?
7 pertaining to his termination?
8 A
That's where Mr. Purdy went when we came off the 9
hill while--he went there while Dunham, Mouser and myself 10 were down the other end.
11 Q
What seemed to be the consensus of opinion in 12 Mr. Towlson's office when Purdy explained what had occurred?
13 A
That Dunham had in fact quit, refused to accept 14 counseling, that was my perception.
15 Q
Was there any determination that this was good, 16 bad, or indifferent?
17 A
No.
I was only in there for, I think, about two 18 minutes.
19 I think Mr. Towlson called downtown to notify b
20 his supervisor of the situation.
i 21 Q
During the course of this two-or-three-days, f
22 did you ever hear anyone mention or refer to something like 23 "48-hour rule" in relation to what action should be taken a
24 with respect to Dunham's conduct during the course of the 2
meeting on Tuesday or Wednesday?
L
Fl 14 1
Do you know what that means?
2 A
No, sir.
3 What's it mean?
4 Q
Later.
5 A
Okay.
6
( La ught'er )
7 Q
Were you acquainted with Dunham prior to attending 8
the meeting on the Tuesday or Wednesday?
Had you been 9
previously acquainted with him?
10 A
By " acquainted," did I know who he was?
11 Q
Yes?
12 A
Approximately two weeks prior to that there had been a meeting called by Project Management to address the 13 14 protective coatings prohAems.
It was an effort to gather 15 both Craft and Quality together as a cohesive unit each to 16 do their own thing, a cco.npli s hing, you know, the work in a 17 workman-like and timely manner, as a part of the revisions 18 to the Protective Coatings Procedures, and et cetera.
19 Mr. Towlson was scheduled to speak at that meeting.
N That's a date that we can pin down definitely, because that 21 was also the day that the ANI's shut-down the ASM2 operation 22 for cause, which tied Towlson up with management in a 2
review of what were the problems.
24 Brandt was off-site.
Towlson asked me to go as 2
his representative and to speak on behalf of the quality
P-15 p.
I program.
2 After the meetingfseveral inspectors--several, 3
three, maybe four--came to me to talk about-the protective t
4 coatings problem.
Two of the' people were quite vehement
- s. -
5 that they were being intimidated and harassed, and the 6
problem was that applicators-yere just absolutely not trving 7
to do a good job they didn't care.
8 I didn't know who the people were.
One of them 9
had his name on his hat, I recognized.
Afterwards I asked 10 who the primary speaker was.
And by describing the indivi-11 dual and. comparing him to somebody else, they told me it
~
12 was Bill Dunham.
1 And,that was my first acquaintance-with Mr.
f 13 14 Dunham and my only conversation with him, other than
- k 15 possibly we passed in the hall, you know, "Hi, what's goinc j
16 on?"
17 Q
I understand.
18 A
Between those two times.
19 Q
But on that occasion he did discuss with you the M
fact that he believed that the protective coatings QC 21 personnel were being intimidated, harassed or something t'o 22 that effect?
M A
Yes, he did.
=.r,y 24 Q
On that particular occasion did you agree?
s 25 A
I told him that I was very concerned with what
16 1
they were telling me; and that I would investigate it.
2 Q
What was the result of your. investigation?
3 A
I talked to numerous other inspectors, several craftspersons and superintendents involved in the activities:
4 5
to the degree that I was able to get to, it was still going 6
on when the Dunham situation went up:
that the intimidation 7
and harassment was, as usual, a matter of perception--
8 different for each of us.
9 Some of the protective coatings inspectors felt that nobody should observe them while they were doing their to 11 inspections.
By " observe," I mean not even from an adjacent 12 area: that there should be no' discussion about whether they 13 had made a good. judgment or a poor judgment in a reject-14 inspection condition.
15 That there was probably a little too much 16 personality invclved between applicators, foremen, and 17 inspectors; as opposed to being objective, people were takind i
18 it personally.
19 Q
So you didn't find what you believed to be Z) any occurrences of intimidation or harassment?
21 A
I did not--I asked people at the meeting--both 22 meetings--to come to me when they had a specific incidence, 23 so that I could act on that instance, as opposed to 24 generalities and hearsay.
25 To date, I have not yet received the first j
i
1 q
13
/
}
'.17
?
ts.
~1 specific instance.
2 4
Q Would this first meeting with Dunham have occurred 3
on an. occasion where there was a barbeque?
4 A
There was a barbeque after. work that afternoon at
' r:
5 Mr..Frankum's farm, ranch.
All protective coatings people 6
were invited, inspectors, applicators, engineers, 7
superintendents--everybody.
8 Q
Was that the ogeasion that you 'alked with Dunham?
t c
9 y
A It was that afternoon; yes, e~arlier th^at after-10 noon--in the rain.
4 6*g.
11 Q
On# having th(s rieeting with, or this chat with l
12 Dunham, where he ' initially _ told you about the alleged 13 intimidation- -
14 A
Um-huh?
15 Q
--did you later meet with coatings inspet ; ors to 16 discuss this matter with then?
17 A
My only conversation with coatings inspectors 18 about any subject was when I perceived that that information 19 meeting wasn't goiTg any place, and took command of the 20 meeting to discuss quality relative to changes and t 21 assure the people that they were to inspect only to the 22 procedures, to make no changes in inspection based on the 23 information they were given until the procedures were 24 changed.
25 I did address the fact at that meeting that I
b?
-l, 18 la
.1 had looked into, to some extent, intimidation and 2
harassment; and that without specific examples, that there l
3 was very little anybody could do.
4 I discussed the fact that--with supervisors, T
5-craft--that i't would.not be tolerated.
And I told the 6
people in that meeting if they ever felt physically 7
intimidated that they were to immediately leave the area, 8
come back.to their supervisor, or come to my area and talk 9
to myself or Brandt.
10 Okay, and that was the only time that I talked 11 about-it.
12 Q
Okay.
13 I'd like to, if I could, get you--are you familiar 14 with the Lipinski memo?
15 A
I am now familiar with it.
I was not at the time 16 of any of the previous activities; but, yes, I am now.
17' Q
Have you had the opportunity to look at it?
18 A
Have I had the opportunity to look at it?
19 I've read it; yuh.
20 Q
Do you recall a statement being made in that memo 21 which said something like 35 out of 450 coatinas craft 22 personnel were qualified to do ASME work?
23 A
I recall the statement, numbers; I don't.
24 Q
It was very small, less than ten percent?
25 A
Okay.
- /
0 19 1
Q Indicated less than ten percent offthe painters j
i 2-
.were qualified to ASME standards; do you recall the state-3 ment?
4' A
Yes.
5 Q
Do you know whether, in fact..that's.an accurate
^
6 statement?
7 A
I cannot say.
I do.not know.
8 Q
Do you know where Mr..Lipinski may have come up 9
with thatifigure?
'10 A
I don't know what-records Mr. Lipinski was 11 privy to.
I--whether it was based on records of.certifica-12
~
tion of applicators, or whether it was from field obserra-13 tions on his part, apparently from the memo he had seen and 14 looked at an awful lot of things while he was here.
15 So I don't know.
16 Q
So you have no knowledge regarding how he came 17 into possession of that particular information?
18 A
I do not.
\\,
19 I
Q Do you have any previous experience in coatings?
(
20 A
A little.
21 Q
Have you had the opportunity since you've been 22 here to do your own personal evaluation of the craft U
protective coatings group?
24
\\
A To a limited extent, yes; not to the depth I'd i
25 like to and that I'm soon going to be able to, I think.
^~
~
4 4
20 1
My impression is they're like'everybody else:
2
,some are trying very hard and want to do an excellent job; 3
but.there are always a few Who will do a.little less than 4
what's expected, and possibly substandard, just because 5
that's the way they are.
~
6 They are being policed ve'ry closely by their 7
foremen superintendents to correct that attitude.
My 8
understanding is there have been a few of th,em reduced in 9
grade because they were' not producing an acceptable stan-10 dard.
11 Q
Have you-hired any new protective coatings QC l
12 personnel recently?
13 A
Recently?
How recent?
14 Q
Last couple of months?
Three months?
15 A
Um-huh.
16 Q
How many have you hired, or have been hired?
17 A
Well, we hired a new quality engineer.
I8 Q
Was that in addition to the one that you had 19 previously, or--do you now have two?
M A
We had--we had one who was doing multiple 21 activities.
We now have one who is doing nothing but 22 protective coatings.
23 Q
What's his name?
24 A
well, actually we have two.
We have Mr. Jerry i
M Fertell, who is an EBASCO employee, Protective Coatings
../
21 1
Corrosion Engineer, who is acting as a quality engineer, 2
assisting in developing our program and making changes.
3 We~have hired Mr. Tim Mason, who is also an 4
EBASCO employee, to act as a quality engineer full-time.
3 5
And, let's see, I think there are two, and maybe 6
three, protective coatings inspectors that have came from l
7 off-site.
f
.\\
c 8
Q Oxay.
9 Were some i'nspectors hired who formerly--
(
1 10 A
Okay.
11 Q
--were painters?
2
{
12 A
Due to the length of time it was taking to t
13 accomplish inspections, we were lagging behind production 14 substantially in inspections.
15' We have taken 16 protective coating applicators e
16 or helpers who could meet the AMSE minimum or better for i
17 inspection.
18 Q
That's a requirement, AMSE requirement?
19 A
Yes.
f M
We interviewed, I don't know, abcut--I did the l
1 i
21 interviewing--25 men; and selected, I think 20; four of 22 the 20 selected declined; and the other 16 have now comp-M leted a limited certification program to do in process 24 steel, miscellaneous steel, excluding containment lining, M
inspections.
i 1
l 22 I-They served prescribed OJT and the classroom 2
training and quality indoctrination, and were certified 3
about three weeks ago as a limited inspector.
They can do 4
all the in process; they can't-do final work.
5 Q
On steel--such as hangers, cable trays, that sort
~
6 of thing?
4 7
A Right.
8 Q
Okay.
9' I'd like to discuss--
~
- 10 A
Can I expand upon that?
11 Q
Sure, certainly.
12 A'
When that program came up I was pretty doubtful, 13 okay?
I had personal reservations.
14 I've had a lot of success in 30-some-years in this 15 business, taking craftspeople, which I have been--an 16 ex-crafts-type, and making them inspectors, l-17 But not being directly involved in the intimate 18 quality arena for protective coatings, on this site I'd 19 heard a lot of bad, negative, things; and I was very M
concerned about this program.
21 Of the 25 people I interviewed, I found numerous 22 college educations, several master's degrees, and a sincere 23 interest in becoming inspectors as a way to self-improvement 24 on their part.
25 At the end of the interviews, I felt pretty
,, /
p 23'
(
1
_ positive about it,.having addressed the group and-talked to l
2 1them.one-on-one during the interviews, and collectively
- l
}
1 3-during their training, overall, I feel very positive about
[
4 their attitude, their. belief in;.the quality program; that I
5 they are sincerely inte, rested in the quality of the coatingsI 1
6 system, and sincerely interested in quality control as a
}
7 career objective.
t, 8
Q.
So'you believe that all of these individuals 9
are qualified for'the training' program which they have 10 been placed, and that they will~all make good inspectors?
11 A
WMen you say'"all," that's a big word.
12 16 of them, I would say; there are probably two or 13 three that, like any time you get 16 people together, 14 possibly are less motivated than the balance.
15 Yet,--and a couple of those are a little bit 16 slower-thinking and learning; but they may end up being 17 the best inspectors overall.
18 Overall I think it was an excellent choice.
19 Q
Okay.
20 A
I think they did well.
21 Q
Okay.
22 A
As a matter of fact, I think I'm going to do it 23 again.
24 Q
Hire some more?
25 A
We would like to get up to balance,' basically an W
er,
---e
O 1
inspector'per crew of painters.
2 Q
So you're still, yet, short of an' adequate number 3
of coatings inspectors?
4 A
Yes, sir.
5 Probably be--depends where--we have a. lot of
' documentation reviews we're putting together to clear up 6
7 the past inspection activities; and we're going to need to 8
put two or three people into that activity who know about 9
all the documents and what.went on.
10 '
And I would say offhand probably we're going to 11 be six or seven people short, roughly.
12 Q
How are your coatings inspectors which you had 13 prior to hir~ing these, how do you rate their performance 14 overall?
15 A
Overall?. Good.
16 Q
I don't suppose that it would be unfair to ask 17 what--or I suppose it's been discussed, and it's understood 18 by those in supervisory capacities over these individuals, 19 that a number of them have talked.with NRC on occasions, 20 and registered their personal complaints with respect to 21 the coatings program here with the NRC?
22 A
I am not personally aware of any inspector who 23 has talked to the NRC.
24 Q
You have no knowledge that they have ever talked 25 to the NRC?
,,j w
i 25 1.
A No, sir.
2 Q
None of them have ever told you that?
3 A
No, sir.
4 Q,
Has anyone in a. management' capacity.ever discussed 5
that matter'with. you?,
6 A
Not by name.
7 Q
Would you explain what you mean by that?
8 A
. To the best of my knowledge I am aware that there'1 9
have'been inspectors who've gone to the NRC with concerns.
To the best of my knowledge, I do not know
}
' 10 11 the names of those individuals.
l i
12 Q
Okay.
13 And going back to the question I asked you a few 14 minutes ago, are you relatively well-satisfied with the 15 performance ~of the individuals who were in the protective 16 coatings quality control group, prior to hiring the new 17 people you hired?
18 A
overall and in general, yes.
I 19 Q
Do you have any of them who are causing any
%)
problems or where you feel that their work is inadequate?---
21 and I think that's a fair question.
22 A
We have several inspectors in protective coatings.
M who seem to be unable to determine whether they are the 24 engineer, the inspector, the quality engineer.
They want 15 to make their own determination whether an item is t
6
~
g y
4 26 L.J
'll acceptable or rejectableito their~own. standards and not 2
necessarily to the quality instructions.
3'
'Q-So with~ respect to these particular one or several
'4
_ihdividuals, yo2 believe that~they are' utilizing a stricter 5
. standard than'may in some~ cases-be required by.the proce-6~
dur'es?
7~
~
uA Some of them are unwilling.to accept-the 8;
engineering' determination as to what-is an acceptable-stan-8 dard.
10 Andtin coatings, mar 5as such as interface onto 11 adjacent sites, slight spatter are not, in general, a 12 -
specific science; it's more to an art.
In other words, 13 how much scattered overspray, for example, adjacent to, 14-is acceptable?
15 -
~
Q Oks;.
16 '
A That can be interprete'd as:from three spots in 17 100 feet _to one spot in a half a mile.
18 And that's almost the same exaggeration that-18 '
we experience with some of the inspectors.
20 Q
okay.
21 A,
They want.everything in black-and-white:
you can 22 have ten spots; or, no, you can have one and'it's got to be 23 an inch-and-a-half not an inch-and-nine-sixteenths.
24 Q
At this time are you considering taking any 3
adverse action against any of these-individuals--without
n 27
.I' asking names?
2 A
No, sir.-
3 MR. DRISKILL:
Okay, I don't have any further t
4 questions with respect to that.-
-5 Can we go.off the record for j~ust a minute, 6
please?
1 (Discussi8n'off the record.)
7 8
MR. DRISKILL:
Okay.
9 BY MR. DRISKILL:
- 10 Q
Another area'I'd like to ask a couple of questions
- 11 about relatss--well go-back to,the point at which you.came 12 here, but I'm interested in the-changes that have occurred 1
13 procedurally in the coatings program in the-last ten or 14 eleven months since you've been here.
15 M'y own look at the procedures for quality centrol 16 inspection of protective coatings leads me to believe that 17 there's been a lot of thinking and re-thinking of what 18 is going on procedurally, due to the large number of chances 19 which have occurred in the procedures, an unusually high 20 number of procedural changes in the last six, eight, ten-21 months.
22 Is that not correct?
23 A
Yuh.
24 Q
Okay.
.25 One of the areas, one of the specific areas--I
\\
e
l l
28 1
don't want to go into anything technical--
2 A
All right.
~II recognize that some of these changes have 3 ~
Q 4
related to technical changes.
5 One of the-areas that I'm interested in has to'do s
6 with the use of the NCR's.-
7 A
Okay.
8 Q
Would I.be correct in assuming that NCR's were--
9 the use of NCR's--was included in the QC procedures at the 10 time you arrived?
11 In other words, inspectors were, per procedure, 12 instructed.to write an NCR on nonconforming condit' ions 13 identified during the course of inspections?
14 A
That would be correct.
15 Q
During the--I guess during the summer _of this 16 year, procedures were changed over a period of time to 17 reflect that NCR's were no longer to be written, but the 18 inspection report was to be the vehicle used to report 19 nonconforming conditions?
20 Is that correct?
21 A
Unless otherwise directed by the supervisor.
D Q
Could you give me the rationale or reasons that 23 were used to make-this procedural change?
24 A
About 90 percent of your nonconformance reports 2
in all disciplines are disposition, " standard repair," or
)
29
-1
" rework with stan'dard repair procedures."
2
-If.you have--if you'can repair or rework with a-
-3 fstandard repair-rework procedure on a singular document 4
beginning upon the day or the heur or.even the minute of'
- 5
.the unsatisfactory or nonconforming.cond'ition--both being 6
used'in the same text--you save timewise maybe'three days j
1 7
or, longer.
]
8 That, essentially, was.the reason why it.was 9
1 b
changed.
10 it was specifically changed-in procedures to 11 some of these'same over-zealous people felt that they 12 needed to write a nonconformance report,-you know, in order c
13 to demonstrate their stroke, their position in the I
14 hierarchy in existence on the nuclear. site.
They were 4
15 unwilling t'o accept the normal standard for allowing rework, 16 which is if you have a repair procedure, just as if you 17 fail,an X-ray on a critical weld, you don't have a 18 nonconformance; you have a substandard. condition for which 19 you.have an established repair procedure.
And that also i
20 exists in the coatings arena.
4 21 Q
In other words, they were second guessing the 22 disposition of the NRC's they were writing?
23 A
No.
Second guessing,'I don't think, is--
24 i
Q Well, disagree with the disposition?
25 A
Yuh.
p
- 4 30 1
What's the best way te put it?
2 Using it as a whipping post,.okay?
I don't like
~
3 this, you're agitating me,.you're harassing, intimidating 4
me, saying things I don't want to say or talk about.
I'll-
.5 fix your ass, I'll write an NCR on you--that. type of-a thing.
6 Plus lack of confidence.in possibly the craft repair' 7
procedures:. they felt they couldn't document.it adequately.
8-Again, what--over-zealous, or something.
~
9 Q
So then this was part of the reason that 10 reference to 16.0, the nonconformance procedure, was deleted 11 from the protective' coatings procedures?
I say, now, in-12 part?
13 A
That was the primary reason that the paragraph in 14 the two main instructions were changed.
I won't quote 15 numbers because I would probably have the wrong ones--but 16 they were changed to substantially to read, on an "unsat 17 IR" or as directed by the QA-QC supervisor, I think is what 18 they say.
19 I know that's in there because one of your.
20 counterparts was--
21 Q
Okay, well, let me ask this question:
22 Was that recently changed back to its original, 23 the original writing, so that now, once again, NCR's are 24 completed as part of the procedure.for coatings?
' 25 A
I don't know.
./
i t
1
~31 1
Q Basically what I saw was that six, eight, ten 2
months ago, protective coatings QC procedures Reference 3
16.0; then we move away from that through one or more 4'
changes'to where 16.0 is not any longer incl'ded as a-part u
5 of the coatings.QC. procedures; and now, I believe--I 6
. looked at them last week, effective November the 15th--
7 and 16.0-was-again referenced in the coatings QC procedures, indicating.that'NCR's can be. written on nonconforming 8
9 conditions?
e 10 A
I'd have to look at the back issues of that, 11 I'd have to'look at the historical file to tell you 12 exactly.
13 At no time ~was it ever the intent to prevent 14 anyone from writing a nonconformance report on a noncon-15 forming condition, specifically something that there was not 16 and is not a approved repair-rework procedure for.
That 17 was not the intent at any time in the protective coatings 18 procedures.
19 The intent of procedures in that procedure f
20 relative to reporting of nonacceptable conditions, as-21 opposed to nonconforming conditions, was to report them on 22 the IR, which would then cause--it would document the 23 unacceptable condition or unsatisfactory condition; and 24 allow the craft to repair or rework that to approved repair
.25 procedures.
i
32 I
~ to restrict.
It was done'to--a It was not 2
nonconforming condition is a serious, and needs to be 3
recognized for whatLit is--nonconforning; it's-something 4
that, if it was not corrected,or addressed, could be
~5 deleterious to,the plant,.cause severe problems..
6 However, no' unit of work-in protective coatings-7 included can ever be done without some unsatisfactory 8
work, just.as a part of the dialy activity.
Our inspection 8
corps,. a few, we're insistent that anything substandard--
10 no matter how insignificant and routine, down to as far as 11 lint and dust on the item, or what-have-you--would be 12 recorded on a nonconformance condition, 13 And when you do that, two things result:
I4 You are delaying the completion of the project, 15 and that's certainly also you tend to cover up--if you are 16 looking at 1,000 nonconformance reports--you get pretty II bored looking at nonconformance reports; and you may miss 18 a very substantial, detrimental, problem--which has I9 happened on a couple of places.
20 Q
Okay.
21 Did you attend sometime several months ago a 22 meeting where Ron Towlso'n tried--had a meeting with the 23 coatings QC inspectors--to encourage them to use the IR's i
24 as a vehicle for reporting unsatisfactory inspections?
Did you attend that meeting?
7 1
33 1
A I go-to so many meetings,-I~ don't know.
2 Q
This particular meeting would have included 3
probably most of the day-shift coating _ inspectors?
)
4 And I'm guessing, it would probably have happened l
5 in July?
6 A
I can't recall.
I don't recall that.
{
7 MR. DRISKILL:
Do you have any questions.with 8
respect to.this?
d 9
MR. GRIFFIN:
I have d f'ew.
10 BY MR. GRIFFIN:
11 Q
Going back to the meeting with Mr. Dunham where 12 you said he was disrupting--
13 A
Um-huh.
14 Q
Besides being disruptive, did he pose-any questions; 15 to these engineers?
16 A
Productive questions, I don't recall any, do not 17 recall, did not see any productive.
l-18 l'
Questions that I recall him asking were more 1
19 like, "What you really mean is Craft can do what they want-h N
to do"; or, " Craft doesn't have to do this".
21 Q
So he didn't really ask any questions of those 22 engineers?
23 He just commented on their statements?
Is that 24 more--
M A
Yes.
i
34 1
He' asked some questions, but they were--what--
2 they were negative-type questions; you know, "What you 3
mean
.is..."; or, "Is this what you mean?"
And the general 4
' trend of that was that, "What you mean is that we can't 5
do this, and the Craft can do what they want.to,do; is that 6
what you mean?"--that type of a question. 'And the specifics, 7
I don't recall.
8 Q
Did his concerns in these' negative questions 9
he put to the. engineers,. do you think they reflected the 10 concerns of the-other inspectors around?-
11 A
Based on py conversation with several of the
~
12 inspectors in the room at that time, I don't--based on 13 there being 20 inspectors, I think he was probably asking 14 the questions of about four or five; the same four or five 15 that are going to be on this list.
16 Q
Other than this talk that you had with Dunham 17 on the day of that barbeque--
18 A
Um-huh.
19 Q
--was there any other behavior that you personally 20 witnessed or that you heard of from third-parties that
-21 would indicate or explain Dunham's behavior during that 22 meeting with the engineers?
%3 A
I, previous to the meeting with--the day of the 24 barbeque--I don't recall ever discussing Dunham, or, you
%5 know, even knowing what a Dunham was, or who he was, anythincr; j
35-1 about him.
2 After the Friday in which'his services were no 3
longer required at Comanche Peak; a man who-shares my 4
office--shared my office--I think I asked.possibly, you 5
know, "Was Dunham always this way?"
6 And he responded that he had heard that maybe 7
M the man had a personal problem.. And other than that, I don't 8
know anything about Mr. Dunham.
9 Q
I'm going to change subjects:
10 '-
As relates to these 16 inspectors that have 11 recently been hired from Craft--
12 A
Um-huh.
)
13 Q
--were they hired for the purposes of ongoing A
14 inspections, or were they going to participate in the 15 backfit?
16 What is their--why were they brought on at this I
particular time?
18 h
A We did a statistical analysis of the inspection I
19 results of the backfits, and with the exception of 20 i
containment liner, it was found that statistically 95-21 percent of the items were acceptable.
22 And we d'scontinued doing backfit on anything but i
23 the containment liner.
24 Q
Well, with 16 new inspectors hired, what are 25 they inspecting?
7.- -
36 1
A To participate in in process, ongoing inspections.
2 Q
Is there a whole lot of painting taking place' 3
right now?
4 A
Yuh, there's about 150 painters out there working.
Y*
5 Q
Okay, were these 150 painters working two months 6'
ago?
7 A
Yuh, roughly about the same number were working.
8
-Q Well, my question to you is:
what has occurred 9
that all of a sudden you need so many new inspectors?
10 we.ve had an open requisition for' inspectors for g
11 a long time.
12 Q
So is it these positions were just allotted at 13 this particular time?
14 A
It's very difficult to hire level-2, which is 15 what we're attempting.to recruit, inspectors in the coatings 16 arena.
17 Q
Well, the difficulty--I still don't quite under-18 stand your answer.
18 What events have occurred in the last month or 20 two that about this new need?
21 A
We've had the need.
22 Q
And what did you all--give more money, or new 23 positions allotted in this area; or, why were these people l
24 hired at this time?
s s
25 What was the impetus for hiring them?
t
37 1
A We were- "we"--inspection--were continuing 2
to lag behind and delay Craft.
We weren't staying abreast 3
of them.
4
~
In other words they may work an area and then' 5
move on to.another area, and we'd get there three days 6
later to the inspections; and they'd have to come back 7
to repair and do corrections.
8 A lot of time--inspection time--is spent looking 9
at the substrate preparation, and the primer application:
10 then the general protective coatings application; and, 11 nitimately, the final coat; and final acceptance of the 12 area and/or the item.
,i 13 And--which, the final proof-of-the pudding is 14 the total system.
15 Q
Who authorized this new hiring?
At what level?
16 Who would that be?
17 A
Well, I--specifically, I' don't know.
I know that 18 it was discussed probably at the vice-presidential-level, 19 between Brown & Root, the Texas Utility, whichever, I don't M
know in the company, specifically.
It was handled at levels 21 higher than this job site.
22 g.
Do you know the answer to the question:
why at 23 this particular time all these people were hired in 24 coatings?
3 A
Yuh.
I thought I just gave it to you.
l t
1 e
38 1
Q Well,'you.said the need had been ongoing for a 2
long time.
And I'm talking.about:
why,-all of a sudden 3
it'was authorized?
4 A
I'think the Craft was able to' demonstrate to their 5
management trail that they had umpteem-square-feet and 6
hundreds of items that were awaiting inspection, that t' hey 7
couldn't close-out and move off an area; and that the 8
inspectors that the call-board was wanting daily, items 9
were placed two,.three days, maybe longer, before the 10 inspector could respond.
11
-Q Okay.
12 Let's switch subjects again:
13 Since you've been on-site in your role as a 14 supervisor, did you ever attend any meeting at which 15 coatings inspectors were told, specifically told, that they 16 could not write NCR's?
17 A
I don't think so.
18 Q
Have you ever attended a meeting or counseling 19 sessions with coatings inspectors at which you were present i
20 when other supervisors told inspectors they were not 21 allowed to write NCR's?
22 A
No.
23 Q
Have you ever heard from third-parties, other 24 supervisors--that inspectors were not allowed to write 4
26 NCR's?
1
p l
3 9.-
1 A
I imagine I-have, yuh..
t 2
-Q.
Do you recall who was putting out the word to 3
inspectors that they could not write NCR's?
Which 4
supervisors?
5 A.
Pick anybo'dy who's not here, anybody th't's no a
6 longer on the job-site.
It's a standard procedure any l
7 place you go.
I 8
Anybody that's gone, you can attribute anything 9
to.
10 Q
Well, I'm going to ask you to'be more straight-
.l 11 forward with me than that.
12 Can you name any names of supervisors who speci-13 fically told coatings inspectors they could not write 14 NCR's?
15 A
It was attributed to Harry Williams.
It was 16 attributed to Bob Wallace.
It was attributed to somebody 17 else who was there previous to that: I don't recall the 18 name right now.
I'm not real good on names.
19 Q
Did Tom Brandt ever tell coatings inspectors i
23 they could not write NCR's?
21 A
When the changes took place in the instructions, 22 Mr. Brandt and myself told peopl'e that they could not 23 write an NCR on a coating system without the approval of 24 a supervisor, which is per the instruction.
25 Q
Well, as Mr. Driskill said earlier, one of the
-l
1 i
.]
4
.6 40 1:
provis' ions of the coatings inspection--the QI's, quality 2
instructions--was took out, 16.0, nonconformances,*and 3-that left only inspection reports.
The QI did not reference 4
nonconformances at all.
5 And during that time were these inspectors told 6
they could write nonconformances based on verbal instruc-7 tions?
8 A
I personally did not have any conversations with 9
those types that I recall.
I was not aware of any, nor a'm I aware of any Tom Brandt had to that effect; okay?
10 11 Again, all I can tell you is that the intent 12 of any change that I'm aware of in those instructions, 13 was relative to reference to CBQP 16.0.
14 Q
Okay.
15 But if, say, for a period of six or eight months IE 16.0 was not in the QI's--
17 A
Um-huh.
18 Q
--were they allowed to write them despite the 19 fact it wasn't?
20 A
Were there any written during that period of 21 time?
22 Q
I do not know?
23 A
.I suspect there were several written during that 24 period of time.
Q And those would have been with the authorization i
a
41
. (* -
1
-of a supervisor?-
2 A.
In general.
3 Does that mean the supervisor was the one that Q
4 was the originator of th'ose written?
5 A
No.
6 Q
Would it have been that the supervisor upgraded 7
an "unsat" on an IR to an NCR, and then instructed the 8
coatings inspectors to write an NCR?
8 A
Normally that's how the dialogue goes.
I wasn't 10
~
there.
I mean, I didn't have a dialogue, as you and I are 11 having, with the inspector; and tell him to write them up.
12 Q
Okay.
13 Since 16.0 has been put back in the QI--
I4 A
Um-huh.
15 Q
--are inspectors authorized at this time to write 16 nonconformance reports?
I A
With the approval of their supervisor.
18 Q
So, are you saying that even though it was not 18 in the QI for a while, it was never really--it was never really not permitted to write them?
21 A
That's right.
22 Q
Why was it put back in?
Why was 16.0 put back 23 in?
24 A
I'd have to go look at the historical; we've 25 made a lot of changes to a lot of procedures.
~
f l
~
42 1
Q-Okay.
-2 Well, if you'd'just accept for the moment the-
-l 3
fact that for a period of months it.was not there;~it.had 4-
.been specifically removed by a revipion.
And then a specific 5
revision reinstated it in the QI's.
6 And do you have any -personal knowledge of the' 7
reason that it was reinstated?
8 A
yo, 8
BY MR. DRISKILL:
10 Q
Another question:
11 We werp just discussing the fact that during 12 the period that QCQP 16.0 was deleted from the Protective 13 Coastings QI's--
14 A
Um-huh.
15 Q
--and, however, inspectors were allowed to write 16 a few NCR's with the permission and approval of their 17 supervisors, are you aware of any inspectors who wrote 1,8 NCR's during this period?
19 A
I'm not sure of the time frame.
20 One particular instance that may fit into that that.
21 I am aware of was a nonconformance report about some chairs, rebar chairs, that protruded from a wall, _the plastic 23 coverings on the feet or something--I believe that may have 24 been written during that period of time.
26 Q
Were, to your knowledge, inspectors ever refused k
43 c
1 the permission.to write NCR's during this period of time, Q
2 for whatever reason?
r ti 3
A Not to my knowledge; no.
4 Q
So to your knowledge no requests were eve'r made 5
by any individual to write an NCR regarding a particular 6
finding, and his request was refused?
I
'A No.
8
-Q or deid any guys, inspectors; go out and write I'
9 an NCR withogt permission and get in trouble for it?
10 A
well, I lhink were some, possibly, some NCR's 11 written during that period of. time and--when you say, 12 "did somebody get in trouble for it?"--well, you know, you 13 say, according to your instruction.
There was nobody to the 14 best of my knowledge disciplined, laid,-6ff, given time-off.
15 I'm not even aware of any record of counseling at that 16 point in time.
IT I know that there were several, what-people that 18 were very concerned about, that they couldn't write an NCR; 19 and to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever been told 20 he.can't write an NCR.
It's not in the instruction.
And 21 nobody has said:
"if you write it, I'll fire your ass."
22 If that's what you mean or not, I don't know.
23 Or do something else equally detrimental.
24 Q
Well, what I was~getting at was, were there_any M
instances where an individual wrote up an NCR and got in i
I t
.44 1-trouble for it because the--what he was calling a 2
"nonconformance" was in fact something that should have 3
been on an inspection report, rather than an NCR?
4 A
There is only one instance that.I'm aware of,
-5 and'that's the rebar chair, written by Walter Elliott.
6 Q.
Okay.
7 A
Whether-that falls in that same time frame, I'd 8
have to go look and see what the instr $ction's said.
9 My only involvement in that was to find out 10 why in the hell he had to keep writing an NCR-on the same 11.
subject when it was standard, and you find,them all the 12 time.
13 Q
So he wrote an NCR on it more than once?
14 A
Yuh.
I think three.
15 Q
Separate instances, or--
16 A'
Yuh, yes.
17 Q
So he was counseled regarding this matter?
18 A
He was talked to.
I don't--I wouldn't say he 19 was " counseled".
I talked to him at that point in time.
2 It--that's type of thing is part of why it reads 21 as it now reads, that each of the--every individual out therej Zt should report an item that is truly nonconforming.
23 But if it is an item that has a--has not been 24 finally accepted, and there is a standard repair procedure, 25 the "unsat IR" is a viable means of reporting the h
mw i
I l
45 t
1 il unsatisfactory condition.
l p
MR. DRISKILL:
I don't have any other= questions.
2 1l l
3 BY MR. GRIFFIN:
i.
4 Q
I want to expand my previous question to you.
5 Were you present when Ron Towlson instructed the
}
l 6
coatings inspectors not to write.NCR's?
i 7
A I don't think so.
)
8 Q
Were you ever present when anybedy~ attributed l
i 9
that statement that coatings inspectors were not.allowe'd 10 to write NCR's to Ron Towlson?
I 11 A
No officials conversations around that, no.
12 I have not, was not present when anybody else in a super-l t
+
13 visory position told coatings inspector, "you'can't write 14 a nonconformance because Towlson says you're not to," no.
i 15 Q
Okay._
?
What is the hierarchy from coatings inspector I
16 II to Mr. Towlson?
Is it the immediate supervisor and then 18 you're the next up?
19 A
Normally they have'a lead.
20 Q
Okay.
j 21 A lead supervisor, then you, then Brandt, then U
Towlson; is that--
U A
Today, or then?
24 Q
--the hierarchy, say, three months ago?
25 A
Their supervisor direct, Brandt.
c d
3 n.,.
46
, w.
1 -
Q So you were not supervising the coatings 2
supervisor?
3 A
Not'three months ago.
I'd have to go look at i
4 e
the letter.
I honestly don't know-at what time.I was 5
officially the QC supervisor.
6 q'
Okay.
l(
The questions I had for you were based on an 8
understanding that you were during the last t.hree months?'
8 A
Beginning with some place around abut the time 10 of the first' meeting or in which was my first chat with 11 Mr. Dunham, which would have been the day of the barbeque; 12 some place just subsequent to that I was designated QC 13 supervisor.
Okay.
What date that is, I don't recall.
14 BY.MR. DRISKILL:
15 Q
You were over alrry Williams?
Or he was--Harry 16 Williams worked for you?--for a while?
17 A
What time did Harry leave?
What day?
18 Q
The 29th of August, I believe, something like 18 that?
20 A
-Harry used to come to me for guidance relative 21 to quality engineering problems and procedural changes.
I 22 acted for Tom when Tom was gone.
At some point in time--
23 there's a letter about it on file as to when I was officially l
24 l
designated the QC supervisor.
i It was probably after Mr. Williams' transfer to i
'?
47 i
California or wherever he's at now, that I specifically 2
'in writing was assigned those duties.
-f 3
MR. DRISKILL:
-I-have-no more' questions.
4 Do you want to read this?
5 MR. GRIFFIN:
Yes, to wrap it-up.
6 BY MR. GRIFFIN:
7 Q
.Mr. Krisher, have I, or any other NRC representa- 'I 8
tive here threatened you, or offered'you any rewards in 9
return'for'this statement?.
10 A
No.
11 Q
Have you given.the statement' freely and j
12 voluntarily?
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
Is there anything further that you care to add 15 to it?
i 16 A
No.
17 MR. GRIFFIN:
Thank you.
18 (Whereupon at 3:30 p.m.,
the interview was 19 concluded.)
i 21 22 I
i 23 P
24 25 I
1 s-
_C_"=.~.~.=~..~.'.~..='=.
=.=.~~=~.~..aa-I t
i
- T h
- . s i s :
certify tha: the at: ached procee:'.ings ':e f ore the 3
1 5
i w.
s,. - -.
.J
.. R, w.
.. s a m, t
t f
-.7 the matter of: INTERVIEW OF !!YRON G.
(CURLY) KRISHER l
s I
Date of Proceeding: Monday, November 28, 1983 Place of Proceedi.g: Glen Rose, Texas were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript for the file of the Commission.
io Jim. Burns it Official Reporter - Typed 12 Of ficiad Reporter - Signature is 6
it is 69 23 i.
21 1
22 i
i f
5 l
23 t
t l
24 l
I I
t 23 l l
.)
TAYt.Q E ASSOCIATES macistsaro poortssioNAt. assomrtes NonFot.X. VinGINI A i