ML20112A684
| ML20112A684 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1985 |
| From: | Mouser E GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#185-075, CON-#185-75 OL, NUDOCS 8501100008 | |
| Download: ML20112A684 (288) | |
Text
UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O OtGNAL IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, 50-445-OL et al. 50-446-OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
DEPOSITION OF. EVERT MOUSER (CONTINUED)
O .
LOCATION: BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES: 22823 - 23111 DATE: SATURDAY, JANUARY 5, 1985 y& M ,
C(\ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OflicialReporters 444 horth CapitolStree:
Washington, D.C. 20001 8501100008 850105 PDR ADOCK 05000 NATIONWIDE COVERACE a
i CR21578.0 22823 RT/sjg I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 ___________________x 5 :
In the Matter of:
0 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, : Docket Nos. 50-445-OL et al. : 50-446-OL 7 :
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric :
8 Station, Units 1 and 2) :
9 _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _x 10 DEPOSITION OF EVERT MOUSER (CONTINUED)
' Bethesda, Maryland Saturday, January 5, 1985
~'
Deposition of EVERT MOUSER, recalled for examination pursuant to agreement by counsel, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 4350 East / West flighway, Fif th Floor llearing Room, at 9 :00 a.m. before JOEL BREITNER, a Notary Public within and for the State of Maryland, when were present on behalf of the respective parties:
JUDGE PETER BLOCII, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission 20 Washington, D. C.
21 McNEILL WATKINS, ESO.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, 22 Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
23 Washington, D. C. 20036 On behalf of the Applicants.
24 Ass Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 -- continued --
I
l l
22824 APPEARANCES (Continued) :
STUART A. TREBY, ESQ.
GREGORY A. BERRY, ESQ.
(~N Office of'the Executive Legal Director -
'-) . U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5
S ta ff.
O ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN, ESO.
BILLIE GARDE, ESO.
7 Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P Street, N.W.
8 Suite 611 Washington, D. C. 20036 A On behalf of the Citizens Association for S und Energy.
10 JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ.
yy Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 connecticut Avenue, N.W.
II Washington, D. C.
On behalf of Oliver B. Cannon & Sons,
(~d}
s Joseph Lipinski, and John J. Norris.
JOHN CARY SIMS, ESq.
Public Citizen Litigation Group 15 Suite 700 2000 P Street, N.W.
g Washingte:i, D. C. 20036 On behalf of the Deponent.
j7 ,
18 19 r 20 .
21
- ,m
%,,5 23 24 Ass Fedwel Repo, toes. Inc, 25
i 22825 i CONTENTS 2 WITNESS EXAMINATION
'-- 3 Evert Mouser (Resumed) 3 by Mr. Treby (Continued) 22827
/
by Mr. Roisman 22829 4
by Judge Bloch 22838 by Mr. Roisman 22839 5 by Judge Bloch 22861 by Mr. Roisman 22864 6 by Judge Bloch 22867 by Mr. Roisman 22868 7 by Judge.Bloch 22880 by Mr. Roisman 22882 by Judge Bloch 22891 8
by Mr. Roisman 22892 by Judge Bloch 22929 9 by Mr. Roisman 22930 by Judge Bloch 22939 10 by Mr. Watkins 22943 by Mr. Treby 23090 11 by Mr. Gallo 23100 by Mr. Roisman 23103 g by Mr. Watkins 23108
-~
LAY-IN - MOUSER DEPOSITION EXIIIBIT NUMBER 2, Page 22847.
i ) 13 LAY-IN - MOUSER DEPOSITION EXHIBITS NUMBERS 3 AND 4, Pages 14 23037 and 23038.
15 E X !! I BITS MOUSER DEPOSITION NUMBER IDENTIFIED RECEIVED I6 Exhibit 2 22846 17 Exhibits 3 and 4 23036 ,
18 19 20 l
21 22 23 24
- u. rede,e n.coewe , inc.
25
V l
{^ l 21578.0 22826
-BRT l
1 PROCEEDINGS
'_p 2 JUDGE BLOCH: The hearing will come to order.
hk,1 3 Welcome back, Mr. Mouser. You continue to be under oath.
4 Mr. Roisman?
5 Whereupon, 6 EVERT MOUSER i
g 7 resumed the stand, having been previously duly sworn, was 8' examined and testified further as follows:
9 MR. SIMS: Your Honor, the witness would like to 10 make one brief clarifying statement before the questioning 11 picks up again, if that's acceptable.
.12 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, please.
13' THE WITNESS: Okay. Mr. Treby brought out this 14 point in the afternoon Thursday. And it was the period of 15 time when the report was taken from the desk.
l- 16 That would have had to have been when I was a 17 supervisor, not when I was the lead. That would have had 18 to have been into September, not right after the first of 19 August, in that area. There had been a number of weeks in-20 between that because I was in the back office, as I 21 originally first testified to. And.then when Mr. Treby 22 got into it in the afternoon I kind of -- times all kind 23 of shifted together, so I would like to clarify that. hit
( )
s- '
24 was in, possibly the first week of September. In that 25 area -- August, September -- first week of September when i
. .- -. _.-. - - . . - ~_ . . . . _ . -- . . . .y-e\ *g , _
~ '
1 21578.0
- E TRT
[22827 j ,1
- Mr. Brando was in that back of fice and when,J was N,4t'6 '
t I supervisor and had my desk in.that office,( so I need4to '; 4
[
2 l
3 clarify thatcto make sure thatigets in the record
! t 4 correctly. ,
) ,e <
F _ , ,
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.. Thank you #0r-6, clarifying the record. ,
i
.: 7 Mr. Treby, do you have a questionsabout that?
L '
r .
8 MR. TREBY:- Yes, I would like to just'-
r -
4 DIRECT EXAMINATION!(Resumed)~
'9 ,
!- a. ,
- w, y ,
- 10 BY MR. TREBY
- ,. .
j' c p, A i 11 Q I guess we have two timeframe,a that are in j w 12 question. The first timeframe is, I' guess, the period of i
13 August 9th or 10th,.when Mr. Lipinski was ondaite 'for the i
14' second time; and showed you a copy of.the trip report.
- -/
15 A Yes.
h l 16L Q And the question was: Where was your desk at 1,
'17 that point?
h 18 A Oh -- okay. At that point my desk was out..in ;
t.
1: 19 front, in -- I should say back of the door, where we
!~
20 talked about originally. 'When I said it was, you know, f- * '
- 21 when I first received the report,from Joe, got a copy from i-t 22 Joe, it was out front in the open.. trailer behind the door.
23 And then, when the report was taken from my ' desk I was-the
'r)
~ L 24 supervisor and my desk was in that back~ office, in the i 25' private office with Mr. Brando. '
1-I s_3.-------m.3,ry,r,,ven.ww---y..- _ . . . , , .-~_,.,,rme,-4-,--smew-
21578.0 22828 CRT-
.1 Q All right. And when you were the supervisor did 2 you share your desk with anybody?
3 A No, I did not. On either occasion, or -- as the 4 lead or as supervisor I did not share my_ desk with anyone.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Now, I'm confused because I 6 didn't understand this. When he came, when Mr. Lipinski 7 came to the trailer to give you the --
8 THE WITNESS: No. When I got the copy -- when I 9 made a copy of the report that Joe let me look at, I was 10 the lead at that time.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: No. I understand that. But he 12 came to you in the trailer to give you the report?
13 THE WITNESS: No. I didn't mean that. I meant O 14 .that my desk was there when I made the copy from Joq, when 115 we were'down in the administration building.
11i6 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. That's what I thought. And ,
17 I wondered -- you are just saying this was the timeframe
'18 you were working as lead but he wasn't in the trailer at 19 the time you got the document?
20 THE WITNESS: Right. He was not in the trailer.
21 MR. TREBY: But I believe there was some 22 testimony that once he had a copy of the report and after
, 23 he had given back the original to Mr. Lipinski, he went 5- '
24 'back to his trailer at some point.and probably, I think, 25 my recollection is that it was during noontime or at least a
21578.0 22829
'CRT' 1 sometime when people weren't around. He then read the 2 report again. And when he was reading it, and muttering 3 and making various comments, this Mr. Brando was in the
- 4. vicinity --
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 MR. TREBY: -- and asked him what are you 7 talking about. And I think that's what you had made 8 reference to when you mentioned that the other gentleman 9 was in the trailer.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. That's right.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Back to Mr. Roisman.
12 CROSS-EXAMINATION
.13 BY MR. ROISMAN:
- C_s) 14 O You testified on Thursday that when you went to 15 see Mr. Brandt regarding the taking on the job as lead, 16 and then later to become supervisor, that the sense that 17 you got from Mr. Brandt was that, in terms of dealing with
- L8 problems,' what he wanted to see was, he wanted to see that 19 the job was done right. I think those were your words.
20 .Did you understand that he was necessarily.using, in e 21 ' terms of job done right,'the concept of "right" that you
~ 22 brought from, or had had in your experience at WPPS? Or 4
23 "right" as "right" was interpreted at the Comanche Peak
-' 24 site?
25 A -It would be "right" as I had brought with me i
21578.0 22830 BRT 1 from WPPS and different jobs.
2 Q And did Mr. Brandt later, in his conduct with
\g _f 3 you, say, for instance, in his response to your suggestion 4 that the only way to solve this problem that was arising 5 between the craft and the QC was to take this one-week 6 vacation or hiatus, when the QC could get caught up in the 7 paperwork, increase the size of the QC force, those 8 suggestions -- when he declined to do that because of the 9 pressures to continue to get the paint on the walls, did 10 you feel that he was being true to that principle that he 11 wanted the job done right? Or that at that point his view 12 of right and your view of right were beginning to diverge?
7_q 13 A I don't think what you referred to as being 14 right would be involved in here; it was more or less the 15 priorities of the job. It would be right now we were in a 16 big push to get the work done and the time was~not there.
17 Q Not there to do it right?
18 A Just not there, to stop. We were going to go 19 ahead and do it right anyway, but we did not have the time 20 to stop'and take the -- I guess you could say the month 21 that it would take to get reorganized.
22 O But failing to do that, I thought it was your 23 testimony on Thursday that11f you didn't do that, then you l
( T
\l 24 couldn't-really get at this root problem of the craft /QC ,
25 tension, the pressures, the QC reaction to those pressures, u
21578.0 ' . 22831
, BRT 1 the either overinspection or underinspection; that all of 2 those things would remain unresolved.
A k/ 3 A I felt, deep down I felt that that would be the 4 best way'to handle it. And, you know, being a, I guess 5 you could say a member of the troops, that I was -- I s
6 didn't know the scheduling basis of the project and 7 everything, and I couldn't -- I guess I'm right back to:
8 I couldn't tell you the priorities. And that's why I 9 couldn't say that that would be the best move to make at
- 10. that time. But I felt, personally, that that would be the 11 way to, straighten out the problems.
12 Q But in your view, the right priorities were that
_. 13 -- priority number 1 was do the job right?.
\
14 A Yes.
15 O And doing it soon would be at least a second 16 priority to that, in your mind?
17 A Yes. That would be true.
l 18 O But that wasn't what was the prevalent 19 philosophy which you were running up against as you took i
20 over this responsibility at the plant site, was it?
21 A No. It wasn't.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Mouser, you confused me a 231 little bit be' fore. You were recommending a one-week
,_N i
r
\/ -24 period of stopping work so OC could catch up, but then you 1
25 said it might get a month to get reorganized. What did l
L:
21578.0 22832 BRT 1 -you have in mind?
2 THE WITNESS: Well, my big thought was giving
- k. 3 the QC people one week to get the paperwork caught up, one 4 week to get caught up on inspections in the field, and
- 5. then a week off and then the next week to come back to 6 start up at full swing.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So you wanted a full three 8 weeks?
9 THE WITNESS: Three weeks to a month was what my 10 big suggestion was.
11 BY MR. ROISMAN:
12 O Now, you were talking on Thursday about.the-fs 13 painter qualifications question, and I believe that you
'\ )
14 indicated that when you raised with Mr. Brandt the i 15' question of painter qualifications, he took out the ANSI 16 standards and the two of you looked'them over, and that 17 his interpretation of those ANSI standards was that the 18 reference to the supervisor, or his designee, referred to 19 the craft supervisor; and that there need not be'any QC 20 involvement in doing painter qualification; that the ANSI 21- standard authorized it to be done just by the craft l 22 supervisor.
23 Am I remembering that correctly? Is that what you were p_
i(% -) 24 saying?
25 A If I can remember the ANSI standard, I think it i
c i
p
L 21578.0 22833 BRT 1 spells.out in there the craft superintendent is 2 responsible to certify his painters and it says some
(
-( 3 things in there about practical application, past 4 experience, things like this, that they can be certified 5 to.
6 Q And your recollection of the conversation that 7 you and Mr. Brandt had was that when you said there are no 8 QC inputs into this, Mr. Brandt said: Look at the 9 standard, we don't need to have it. Is that correct?
10 A Basically, yes.
IL Q And it's your testimony that the practice, at
- 12. least up until the time that you left the site, as you
,s 13 understood it, and as you observed it, was that when 14 painters were qualified at Comanche Peak, they were 15 qualified without any QC involvement exclusively by craft?
16 A Okay. Now, that'is not necessarily true. After 17 a period of time, QC was involved in certifying the
- 18 painters, to the point that we made out the paperwork. We 19 did inspect the panels, but the actual certification was 20 done by the craft superintendent.
21 0 And when you say "after a period of time," when 22 did that start? I don't mean the exact date, but roughly.
23 A It started -- I would say sometime in September,-
i) x 24 roughly in September sometime. It was brought to our
-25' attention that they were certifying painters; all the QC s
e A
21578.0 22834 BRT 1 inspectors'were very interested in this because if you 2 don't have a good painter in turn you don't have good
.g
(_/ 3 -application -- well, that's not necessarily true either.
4 You can have a painter that can put it on and get a good 5 job, but I made some suggestions to the superintendent and, 6 basically, volunteered my QC inspector's expertise to help 7 them out. At this time it was accepted. And then there 8 was a little form, I think a form was made up for 9 certification of painters, and the form was used by QC to 10 look at the panels and then we made our, you know, 11 suggestions to the foremen; whether the coating was 12 acceptable or not on the test panel. And then it went 13 from there to them. It'was their responsibility from then V,..
14 on.
15 Q And.that form came into existence at the time
'16 .that you made -- you made, and the suggestion was 17 suggested -- the form with the QC role included in it?
18 A Yes. o There was a -- there was a~f'rm made up.
19 I don' t know if the form was previously on-site or. not, 20 but I know there was a form there we'used, and I think we 21 made it up. To my best recollection we made the form up.
22 O And in any event, prior to that time the QC 23 inspectors hadn't participated in any way in that As - 24 certification?
25 A To my knowledge; no.
s
21578.0 22835 BRT >
1 JUDGE BLOCH: I assume that you have no 2 knowledge of any program to go back and reinspect the
<~
i\ / 3 quality of paint put on by uncertified painters? Painters 4 certified by the old process?
5 THE WITNESS: No. There was nothing in effect, 6 other than the backfit program that they had going at the 7 time.
8 BY MR. ROISMAN:
9 O Now, you indicated that the role the OC would 10 play under this proposal that you made, and that was 11 accepted, was that they would inspect the panel. What was 12 their authority, if -- upon inspecting the panel -- they 13 were to conclude that the panel had not been properly done?
7_
'%) 14 A What they would do, they would put it down on 15 the form that they had. They would tell the' craft foreman I
16 or the superintendent that was there what they found and 17 then it-would be up.to the superintendent or the craft 18 foremen to take it from there. But it was put down in 19 writing what the condition was, what was found on the
! 20 panel.
21 0 So that-it wasn't the OC inspector's role to, 22 having found that there was a deficiency in the way the 23 paint was on the panel, to then veto the certification?
-i/ /
'24 All the inspector did was to inform the craft supervisor 25 that that had happened and it was still up to the craft i
{.
21578.0 22836 BRT 1 supervisor to decide, based on that, whether they would or 2 would not certify the painter?
3 A Yes. They took it on the craft from then on.
4 O While we are on the subject of the painters, do 5 you remember in the Lipinski trip report, on page 2 -- do
~
6 you have a copy of that there? I know you had a copy of 7- it the other day. Oh, yes, it's page 22026 in the 8 transcript of the 5th of December.
9 A Okay?
10 Q At the very bottom of page 2 there's a reference
-11 there, "JJL indicated that by Brown & Root estimates, only 12 34 out of 452 individuals are of any value as painters."
13 Is it your understanding that, at the time that you
. ('si
\" -14 took over as the paint-coatings inspector, that there were 15 only roughly 34 qualified painters, that is, painters who 16 .had been qualified to be paint appliers?
17 A I didn't know the number. I didn't know, you-18 know'--
t 19 Q Do you think it could have been as low as that?
20 Does that seem like a reasonable number?
21 A Well, with my past experience working with the 22 craft, if they've-got'34 out of 452 -- no, that was not as 23 far as I'm concerned a reasonable number. I'm used to p)\
\- out of 452, I'm used to seeing 400 qualified 24 saying -
l t
25 painters.
i l
. - - . _ , , - ,, , _ _ _ _ _ . - . - . . . . , _ _ . _ . _ , - - _ . ~ - . , - . . . . . . . . - -
21578.0 22837 BRT
. 1 Q When you talked on Thursday about the number of 2 crews that were out -- remember you had that discussion j .
3.m) 3 about how many people were out in the field versus how 4 many of the inspectors could adequately inspect -- I think 5 at one time you had a number that was 30 crews, 30 6 painting crews.
7 Were there, in fact. 30 painting crews operating at one c
8 time when you were at the plant?
9 A Okay, now, this would be like -- well, yes, 10 there was at one time 30 crews operating.
11 Q And how many people would there be in a crew, 12- roughly? What would a crew be made up of?
., 13 .A Oh, anywhere in the neighborhood of three to 14 five men.
15 0 And how many of those men would be applying 16 paint, be performing that function?
. 17 A Okay. Out of some of those 30 crews, you would 18 have had some doing blasting work,-some doing taping, 19 masking, you would have other crews doing ---just general i- -20. items. And then'you would have probably had maybe -- well --
21 I don't know the exact number.of actual crews applying the 22 work, but I would say out of a standard crew, you would l2 3 - have one man, or maybe -- yes, probably one man on each
'(w.
24- crew as an applicator.
25 0 And is that the only member of the crew who 4
. . . . - , , ~ . -= . - -- . - . - - . . - -. . - -
I 21578.0 22838 1BRT
! l would need to be a certified painter, in order to be in 2 compliance with paint coating procedures?
3 -A' Okay. Now,'this is getting into a field where l
4 it deals more with the craft personnel, and my own 5 personal QC feeling is that there should be more than one t
6 applicat'or qualified on each crew. But, you know, it just
- j. -7 depends on the job site requirements.-
8 EXAMINATION 1- 9 BY JUDGE BLOCH:
l' 10 Q Is that because they would sometimes rotate who
, .11 applied the paint?
t
- 12 A Yes.
g ; ,,4 13 Q -There might~be only one person applying the htj
'14 paint but it1was not the practice to have.the same person 4 . .
- 15 ' -all'the time?
-A A lot of cases,' that man might.be sick and then
' ~
- 17 -you'd'have
- another' man who would be able to.take'up where f: 18' the crew left off on that take and take - over.
i 19 Q As a QC: inspector, when you saw someone' applying i
- -20 the paint, what method did you-have of knowing whether l~ 21 that' person was certified or not?
i '. 22 A 'That was kind of'a(different. thing.. .When the QC~
.q '23- inspectors had a man applying, most of the time'it.was the same-man. It's. kind of like, you see Fred.every' day, you
\} l2 4 25 -know-Fred'is certified. If somebody.else new does it, l
1 k
21578.0 22839 BRT 1 call the office and look into the papers down at the vault 2 to see if, yes, indeed, they were certified.
f3
(_) 3 O The way you know by seeing Fred every day is 4 that he shows up every day but you may -- you know, there 5 are lawyers that show up at courthouses and practice every 6 day a'nd then after 10 years you find out they are not 7 qualified?
8 A Yes, but every man that was applicating, putting 9 on coatings, applicator, was checked by the QC people.
10 And, like I say, his paperwork was checked at the 11 beginning and they knew that Fred was certified to apply a 12 certain kind of coating material.
13 O Because he put some kind of a number, that
,,. N_
~
14 showed how he was certified? How did you check it?
15 A No, they just knew it because the paperwork was 16 checked and they were told he was acceptable, he was 17 qualified.
18 0 I see. So the documentation personnel were 19 responsible for knowing that the person who signed off was 20 certified?
21 A Yes. And that was checked into.
22 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 23 BY MR. Th1SHAN:
.i l 'N) _' -
l2 <4 O But was it the practice that it was the QC who 25 did the checking? Or was it craft that had the checking 3
}
21578 0 22840 BRT 1 done and then reported to OC: Yes, Fred is qualified?
2 A QC people did the checking.
f .,
\_/ 3 O And if a person were involved in doing blasting, 4 or masking, was that something that required a painter 5 qualification certificate to do that kind of work?
6 A Blasting would have required a -- some kind of 7 knowledge. I don't recall if they certified blasters 8 there or not. I think we did.
9 O But that would be a certified blaster not a 10 certified painter? It was a separate cert that you got?
11 A Yes. Masking people -- anybody could mask.
12 O Now, did the -- do you remember whether during 13 the two-month or three-month period that you were involved b,_h 14 directly with paint coatings, was there any substantial
-15 increase in the number of qualified painters?
16' A We went through a complete recertification of
- 17. all applicators at that time.
18 0 .During the time that you were there?
19 A Yes.
~
20 0 And did the total number of applicators increase 21 during that time? .In other words, were new people brought
<22 in or old people who had never been certified become 23 certified?
q
(/ 24 A I don't recall on the numbers, anything like 25 that. I know there was quite a few new people hired by
. .. .. . ~. . . - -_ .. ~ _ _ - - . .. _-- .
21578.0 22841
'BRT 1, the craft because we were seeing a lot of new faces at
'2 that time. But I don't recall if -- how many more were c(.. .
A s_/ . 3 certified, or how many, you know -- the old ones were
. 4 recertified, whatever.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you recall whether anyone i-6 -flunked their certification test?
7 THE WITNESS: No. I don't. I. don't remember if 8 anybody flunked -- the old painters.
4 9 JUDGE BLOCH: How about new ones?
10 THE WITNESS: We had a bunch flunk. I know that.
- 11 I just don't recall --
12 JUDGE BLOCH: You just don't know whether they 13' . were people who had previously been applying coating?
14 THE WITNESS: That's-right.
15 _ BY MR. ROISMAN: .
16 0 -Why was there a recertification program at that ,
- L'7 - time? And I assume the timeframe we are. talking about is 18 .sometime after August.1, 1983 and before October'21 of '83?
1 19 A- I don't recall any. specific reason to have them 20 ~ recertified. I think, looking back on it I could.-- I
. 1' 2 really don't recall any reason why we went through the
. .22 recertification: program.
'23 O And all of that.recertification was done with i .'(]) 24 the involvement of OC in the way-that you had recommended?-
25 A Yes, it was.
~
21578.0 22842 BRT 1 Q Now, during your testimony on Thursday, there 2 was some uncertainty on your part as to when it was that 3 you became a supervisor, and I want to try to bring out 4 some information, see if I can give you some landmarks by 5 which it might help you --
6 A Okay.
7 0 -- might help you do that.
8 A Okay. I have done some thinking on that, too.
9 That was part of this other, with the desk routine.
10 Q Okay. Do you have, at this time, an idea?
11 Let's distinguish between the middle of August versus the 12 end of August, as to whether you became the supervisor in 13 the middle or the end or after the end?
?r~
V 14 A Okay. It was, to my recollection -- and, like I 15 say thinking _back over it -- it was roughly the 21st, 22nd, 16 somewhere in that area of August.
17 I think I testified at one time in another hearing the 18 exact date, but that sticks in my mind right now.
19 0 Well, can you remember -- I think that other 20 hearing was in the Bill Dunham, DOL hearing --
21 A Yes.
22 0 --
can you remember whether you were a l
23 supervisor at the time that Bill Dunham had the counseling I'_T
'/
'- 24 session that ultimately resulted in his termination?-
F No, I'was'not supervisor at that time.
25 A i
~21578.0 22843 BRT
=1 Q -Okay. And I'm going to ask you to take a look 2 at just a small portion of that transcript. Of course you 3 can look at any more that you want, so that you can pin 4 down the date that we are talking about.
5 Do you have that testimony?
6 A Yes. We have it right here.
7 Q Good.- Why don't you take a look at page 348 to 8 349. You'll see, looking particularly at lines, oh, 1 9 through 11, on 349 and also in the same testimony, take a 10 look at page 336.
11 In looking back at your testimony, does that help you 12 recollect what date it was that Mr. Dunham had the 13 counseling session that ultimately resulted in the 14 termination?
15 A Yes. ,
16 Q And what date do you now remember that that was?
17 A .Okay. Mr. Dunham, I think, was counseled on, 18 what, the 26th? Or -- well, let me look here. Okay,
-19 Mr. Dunham was canceled -- counseled on the 26th.
20 Q RSo that you would have been made supervisor sometime 21 after the 26th of August, then?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Thinking, now, of the Dunham event as sort of a k- ,
24 landmark, does it seem to you that you were made 25 supervisor very soon thereafter? Couple of weeks thereafter?
.-~c ap----- 9, _+v,ei--., w yr- ~, w- - w yy 7,y ,tw --.,--*t w v - y % *P*-
21578.0 22844 BRT 1 What's your best recollection of that?
2 A I think it was a week after, something in that
. (Q
_/ 3 area. As soon as Mr. -- wherever -- whenever Mr. Williams 4 left site. In that area.
5 Q- So maybe within a week after Dunham was gone, 6 Williams was gone, and then you became the supervisor?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Now, I believe that your counsel indicated that 9 he had received a copy and that you had looked at a 10 corporate security incident report.
f 11 A Yes, we have. It's right here.
12 O Okay. Looking at that report -- well, first of 13 all --
14 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman,-I would like to have 15 this marked. If there's no objection I would like to have
-16 it received in evidence as Mouser Exhibit 2. It is a 17 corporate document prepared in the ordinary course of 18 corporate business, and I believe there's no need for a 19 witness to verify it.
20 MR. WATKINS: I'll object to the motion at this 21 time. There's no indication that this document is at all 22 relevant to this proceeding.
23 MR. ROISMAN: This is a discovery deposition.
-(~ .
' 's / 24 We'll argue about the relevancy for proceeding later. At 25 this point it's only a question of whether it's an
'l 21578.0 22845
- BRT 11 authentic document. If I-try to offer it in evidence l .
2 later by adding this portion of the transcript into the i 3 evidentiary record, then Mr. Watkins can make his 4 objection.
5 ' JUDGE BLOCH: So I could rule without ruling l -6 that.it's relevant, that it is appropriate and that it is L.
I 7. an authentic document?
L 8' MR. WATKINS: Well, the document is of course 9 genuine.- Mr. Mouser -- I believe Mr. Mouser has already 10- testified.that document does not in any way relate to the p-11 break in in his desk. It's unclear the purpose for which 12 he would'even have it introduced at this point.
L -
13 MR. WATKINS: Why don't we bind it in.as an
- 14 exhibit and we'll see whether it has evidentiary value, in 15- terms of-the subsequent motion.
16 MR. WATKINS:- I suggest that the witness im i
- 17. asked again if he recognizes .the document < or the events 18 descr*,5ed in the document.- If he doesn't, it doesn't 19 =beloni in this deposition.
20 MR. ROISMAN: I want it bound into this-record 21 ~ because I'm going to talki to him about it. If the board J22- wants to withhold deciding whether it's " received in
. 123 -evidence" or not, I don't have any problem with that at at' "
- 24 this moment..
~25 JUDGE BLOCH: What do you want it marked?
l l
L b4
21578.0 22846 BRT 1 MR.-ROISMAN: . Mouser Exhibit 2.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: It may be so marked and bound into 3 the transcript as an exhibit.
4- (Mouser Exhibit 2 identified.)
5 (The document follows:)
6 7.
8 9
10
! 11 t
j '12 13
- . . ..O .
.34 h
' 15 t
t.
7 16 i.
i 17-
! 18
, 19 - ,
k
~20 1
! 21 i
22 =
! - 23' if :
24 1
i 25 t
b r
i
~ ,-, a--+.,i.... _ :. , _ , _ ,..,._,._ _. _ _ _ _
,, BROWN & ROOT INCORPORATED y CORPORATE SECURITY bNb '
INCIDENT REPORT f 847 FACILITY Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station DATE A D DP.ES S Post Office Box.1001
[.3'3 TIME _E' 5e d /Y.
O CITv s STATE cien Rcse. Texas 78043 a0s Nu:'8ER as-1Ies TYFE :F INCIDENT d/fid/PTy//.hED
/ [sts 7ff'V/
DETAILS: (Who, What, When, Where, Why, How)-(Estimate value of any property Loss)
'-t > f 6,/ A$." 3 /ff S W $ 30 ),/hf. '
1c 8,d f A& d S di TJ i 4 M & d s-x
.% lAJ A L s i ! df./r ,:w-a; A L >$
l ..ld' 4 w a -s A # d w 3.mj.,e,/ Daj',i
, ?1 N -lm & L w Wi. W /A.
// ld /d / w bgCh s-A AA#dd&L :w& ,,a.La,,
Ak shIl4w ds4Ldd4wl/Nn Q h"l ku A $ M M m L fa->- $d<e.
An, #ha Ja/41#!As-sna.M.
N^4S40 in 4 ,22nts n 4 A L D z h
!, v _ ,! e/ f/'a 0 8, {/4 '
V f
l l
(Use Back if additional space is ded)
/! rn ttWe,M(_,gs? m.v8 GUARD SIGNATURE TIGATION:
_n FOLLGWUPINVEj$
'Skl,~ mb Q'~ ms kJ//- d 3 I1f3 s'/' cr & AJK def/4 Ad/ %J
-.-- ,,JLA% Li do;d d'~d./s&dak p U BY:
._____,_,.,._...,_r . _ . , . . , . - . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _
I
. 21578.0 22848 BRT 1 BY MR. ROISMAN:
i 2 Q Mr. Mouser, reflecting back on time when you 3 made your report to security, do you remember whether 4 Mr. Randall was in any way involved in the reporting of 5 .that unauthorized opening of your desk? !
6 A To my knowledge Mr. Randall was not involved in 7 it at all.
8 Q Did he share a desk in that same trailer with' 9 you?
10 A Not to my knowledge. He was there at night, on 11 the second shift. As far as I knew, he did not share my
- 12 desk or share a desk in the room.
- s. 13 O Can you remember whether the break-in to your 14 desk was something that had occurred over an intervening 15 night period? Or was it something that had occurred 16 during the day while you were away from the of fice? When
. 17 did you realize it had been broken into?
18 A. The next morning when he came in. .I had locked 19 the desk.-- say I went home one night and I locked the
' 20 desk. When I came in the next day it was pried open.
21 Q And are you-fairly confident that it was in fact
. 22 the next day? That you had been to work the immediately 23 preceding day? Or is it possible that it may have been an
' k_ ; 24 intervening weekend?
25' A It could have been a weekend. The time period, 4
h m
21578.0 22849
- BRT 1 like I say, I can't totally recall the time period, but it 2 seemed like it was overnight.
. (3
( d. 3- O Can you remember, whether when you spoke to the 4 security person about the break-in to your desk, whether 5 he or she indicated that they had any knowledge, before
~
6 you said anything, about some break-in at that spot or 7 area?
8 A No, I don't recall them saying anything at all.
9 Q Nothing that would indicate to you that they had
-10 already heard something about a break-in at that trailer?
^
11 A No, I don't recall them saying anything about 12 that.
13 Now this report is an entirely --
14 0 You are talking about Mouser 27 15 A This is a physically different area than where I
-16 was located.
17- 0 A physically different --
18 A Physically'different area than where I was 19 located.
20 0 There's a signature on here, Douglas E. Garrett, 21 does that ring a -- do you know or.do you remember talking 22 .to a Douglas E. Garrett?
., '23 A No . - I-don't_ recall the signature at all.
p
- 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Is the discovery situation at this 25 point that the Applicants cannot_ locate the report, the
F
'21578.0 22850
'BRT-1- security report that resulted from Mr. Mouser's talking to 2 security?
3 MR. WATKINS: Applicants have searched their 4 files and,Lto our knowledge, the document does not exist.
5 No such document exists.
6, JUDGE BLOCH: Is there a way of knowing, by the 7 numbering system, whether there are documents in this 8 timeframe that are missing from the files?
j 9 MR.-WATKINS: I'll repeat the scope of the 2 10- search that we conducted.
t 11 TUGCO security offices in Dallas; all files for 1983, i 12 involving any security matter, any incidents on the site, 13 were reviewed.- Brown & Root security, on-site; all files
! -- 14 for 1983 were reviewed.
- 15. No such document appears.
116 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm asking whether there's a 17 . sequential numbering system so you'd know'if something was l 18- missing?~
L -
.19 :MR. WATKINS: I do not know the answer to that.-
120 I don't have my copy with me. Is that report 21 sequentially numbered?
22 JUDGE BLOCH:. It doesn't appear to.be.
23 .Mr. Mouser?
-> . -24 THE WITNESS: Doesn't appear to be any numbers 25 of.any sequence or_anything like that on it.
L L
21578.0 22851 BRT 1 JUDGE BLOCH: So that actually meanc that, even 2 if you had reports of serious incidents of break in at the
. p T 3 plant, there's no way of knowing whether the documents are 4 ' subsequently removed from the files?
5 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, I said I don't know.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay.
7 BY MR. ROISMAN:
8 O Mr. Mouser, I would like to go back to the trip 9 report and, if you could get your copy in front of you --
10 do you have that in front of you now?
11- A Yes, I do.
L 12 Q Now, looking on page 2, which is 22026 of the 13 transcript of December the 5th, under the capital B, the
'CE) 14 last paragraph, there is a sort of listing of problem 15 areas: Material storaga, painter qualification, 16 indoctrination, possible document deficiencies, and morale 17 problems.
18 I believe you have already testified that your 19 understanding of the material storage problem that you 20 knew of, anyway, was related to this tagging question that 21 we went over last Thursday; is that correct?
22 A Yes.
23 O And is there any other aspect of material l,_ T
^> 24 storage that, in your opinion, represented a problem at 25 the plant site, at any time while.---that you observed
i 21578.0 22852 BRT 1 while you.were there? I don't mean an individual incident 2 but I'm talking about any kind of a generic problem that 3 you felt existed with material storage, even if it was 4 later corrected.
5 A okay. When I previously testified I talked to 6 Mr. Brandt about this material storage and, you know, 7 traceability. And my line of concern was when the 8 material first came on-site, how it was handled. And in 9 the subsequent conversation with Mr. Brandt I was notified 10 that it went to the warehouse, certified inspectors in the
-- 11 warehouse received the material -- receiving inspectors 12 received the material and handled it. From that point it
- 13' was transferred to the craft warehouse out in the field
' .( ,,'b
'~# 14 and stored. At that point -- well, excuse me, there was 15 also material stored in the warehouse, but as they needed 16 'it they also transferred it out to their warehouse. But 17 my big question was how the material was received because 18 the material was in fact in the possession of the craft.
19 And I was concerned about that because I hadn't, you know, 20 dealt with that type of thing before. It had been in 21 possession of the QC under lock and key. And this time it 22 was under the possession of craft under lock and key. So 23 I questioned that and he said the material was transferred ;
'i,)
'/
- 24 out there and it was also used for, some material, for d
25 non-quality areas. So the craft had to have access to
121578.0 22853 BRT i- 1- th'at . material . So it was under their, I guess you'd say, 2 their jurisdiction until it came to mixing of quality 3 paint. And then the inspector would go in, they would I 4 pull the material down off the rack, and it would be mixed i
5 under the supervision of an inspector.
6 Q. And what about in terms of the -- beyond the 7- problems that you indicated with the possibility of a tag 8 falling off and the possibility inadequacy of the 9 information contained on the tag? Were there any other i
10 problems with material storage with which you were aware?
11 A Not at that time; no. Like I say, other than 12 what Mr. Brandt explained to me and we talked about.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Was the storage area temperature
~' -
14 controlled?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, it was. Temperature, 16 humidity, everything.-
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Was there any QC surveillance,or 18 check of the adequacy of the storage procedures?
19- THE WITNESS: I think there was. On a daily 20 basis, a OC inspector was in the building and did check 21 the, you know, the temperature and that, in the building.
1 22 BY MR. ROISMAN:
23- O But I take it the problem that Mr. Lipinski had 24 _ observed and has later testified about, that is,-the 25 presence of a can in the sun where temperature might be
21578.0 22854
.BRT 1 substantially different, and certainly not controlled, 2 without any way of knowing how long it had been in the sun, (A_) 3 was a storage problem?
4 A Yes. It was a storsge problem.
5 Q And to the best of your knowledge, one that --
6 for which no specific solution was implemented while you 7 were there?
8 A No. There was a solution implemented while I 9 was there.
10 Q Okay. And what was that?
11 A Okay. The material was not stored on pallets.
12 It was mixed and immediately transferred to the work area
_ 13 so QC had control of it at the work area.
14 O What about the control, in terms -- who 15 determined whether or not the temperature limits that were 16 -- that might affect the pot life of the paint, were being 17 exceeded or not exceeded? How was that done once the
-18 paint had been mixed and the QC inspector had verified the 19 mix and it got shipped off to the application point?
20 A We didn't -- we were unable to verify it. Put 21 it that way. We were unable to verify the temperature 22 after it was mixed until it got -- I guess you could say 23 until it was powered into the spray pot.
5 24 Q. And were you aware that some of the paint 25 manufacturers had put a variable pot life on their paint,
21578.0 22855 BRT /
1 depending upon which temperatures the paint was subjected 2 to?
f'_
\'
3 A Yes.
4 O So that, as far as you know, at least other than 5 eliminating the pallet storage of the mixed paint, there 6 was still -- there still remained this difficulty that it
-7 may be that the temperature limits and pot life limits 4
8 have been exceeded and no one have the gauges or,..the tests;,' ,
9 to be sure of that one way or the other after the paint 10 reached the field?
11 A Okay. At the point of use -- the inspectors 12 would check it at the point of use. And then look at the 13 tags that were there. -
..b 14 Like if the paint was,.say, 80 degrees, they would know 15 at the point of use that, yes, there was some problem with
. l'6- it or, no, there was not. ,
17 O No. What I was thinking of, .let's take a can of 18 paint. We'll assume it was mixed in the s,torage area and 19 'that the OC inspector observed all of that, marked down~ 4
~
20 the' relevant information on.the tag, and the paint was 21 then moved to the application ared. 1 22 The inspector knew that'this paint had an houri pot life
.i 23 and he knew by the tag-how 1,ong it had been in th)at pot, k
- 24 but he also knew that the pot life could be shortened'if 25 the temperature, ambient temperature that the paint was
- g. v r
o
- E
21578.0 22856 BRT 1 exposed to was above a certain limit. And my question is 2 how would he know whether or not, in fact, that f~h A) s 3 temperature limit that would reduce the total pot life of 4 the paint, was or was not exceeded in the paint's post-mixing 5 history?
6 A Okay. They were supposed to check it prior to 7 use.
8 0 Check the paint or check the temperature?
9 A Check the temperature of the coating material 10 and, say, if it exceeded 80 degrees and the pot life was 11 one hour at 80 degrees and the paint was already two hours 12 old, then the inspector should reject the paint.
_ 13 O And is it your understanding that the critical
, s 14 temperature was the temperature of the paint or the 15 temperature of the ambient air in which the paint was 1
16' - sitting?
17 A It's actually both deal with each other. They 18 both deal together. If it's hot then your paint is going
~19 to.obtain a hotter -- go up in temperature; yes.
20 0 But it will get, the paint will g'et hotter, 21 presumably, more slowly than the ambient air? It will 3
22 -have to warm up, if you will, assuming it came in cooler?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Did the inspectors check both the paint 25 temperature and the ambient air temperature?
t ...
21578.0 22857 BRT 1 A The ambient was supposed to be checked
- 2. periodically during the day. On their inspection reports 3 they were supposed to put down -- they took moisture -- dew
- 4. point readings and moisture and what not, that told'you 5 what your pot life would be.
6 O Did they do that with some equipment or was 7 there equipment around the plant?
8 A The equipment we had -- we had equipment 9 available to us, up above. Now, most inspectors, like we 10 were trying to get it put into effect that they would 11 check the environmental conditions. It would be your 12 temperature, your humidity,.and everything like that, once 13 in the morning and then once again in the afternoon. That f .
t 14 would help cut down a little bit on the paperwork. But we 15 never were able to'get this passed through' so the
.16 inspectors were required to check it every time they did
-17 any work. And they carried -- one inspector might have a
! 18' set for three or four different inspectors. It was kind i
, 19 of like share and share -- share and share alike.-
l
! ~20 ~ JUDGE BLOCH: To clarify, pot life, I take it, 21- starts from the time the paint was mixed?
22 THE WITNESS: -Yes, it does.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: I. assume from the questioning that p_
tt"'d t l
.24 it's.in the area of a couple of hours? Is that usually.
25 what it is?-
l t
b l:!
[.
21578.0 22858 BRT ,
1 THE WITNESS: Oh, there's a lot of variables
,~
2 involved. Different coatings had difference pot lives.
k_) 3 ' JUDGE BLOCH: Can you give us some idea of what 4 they usually were?
5 THE WITNESS: Just off the top of my head -- and 6 I don't know how close I'm going to be -- you take, like a 7 CZ-11, which was a sink coating material, the pot life on 8 that varied up to four hours. That's just like off of 9 recall -- I might be a little off in each direction.
-10 JUDGE BLOCH: Sure. And then epoxies?
11 THE WITNESS: Epoxies you would probably run 12 those a'little bit longer, _the pot life would be a little
. g, 13 bit longer on those.
14 BY MR. ROISMAN:
15 O Now, with respect to the material storage, how 16 much of what you knew after you took over the job, were 17 possible problems, ' were problems that Mr. Lipinski had 18 told you he had observed while he was at the plant?
19 A You mean basically the same thing you've got 20 down here? This paragraph?
21 O No. The thing is, in this paragraph he just 22 -says " problems with material storage" and he.doesn't tell 23 us.in his report whether the problem was the pallet, the i' \~
L/ 24- t'agging, the temperatures at the application point. We
- 25' don't know from that so I'm trying to find out, did he L_
-21578.0 22859 BRT 1 tell you anything that expanded on that and did it -- was 2 it.the same as what you've just testified were the 3 problems that you had observed or was it a broader group 4 of problems or a narrower group of problems?
5 A I think Joe is kind of laying it out here as, 6 you know, a broad range. I went on the broad range, of 7 looking into the start to the finish: From the time they 8 started mixing how they handled it.
9 O I'm not asking you what you think he may have 10 meant. What I'm asking you is what he in fact told you.
11 Did he tell you what.it was that he had observed or what
-12 his opinions were as to what were the material storage 13 problems beyond saying "I think there are some. material 14 storage problems"?
15 A I don't remember exactly, you know, any 16 conversations with Joe specifically; no, on exactly what 17 he observed and what he had done. I don't really remember 18 anything like that.
19 O -Okay. Now the next item in this subpart of 20 paragraph B --
21_. JUDGE BLOCH: One second. On that, I thought 22 that you and he-together had seen a pot sitting out in the
. - - .23 sun?-
f) .
E/ ' 24 THE WITNESS: Yes.-
l 25 JUDGE BLOCH: So, to that extent I guess you I
L_
21578.0 22860
~BRT 1 must have had some discussion with him about that?
2 THE WITNESS: That was prior to my taking over,
\ 3 even being in that department. So I really didn't know 4 what the material was. Like I said, at the time I said I 5 don't know what it is, it could be non-quality paint. So --
6 BY MR. ROISMAN:
7 Q- Now, the next item on there is the painter 8 qualification / indoctrination. You've testified that after 9 you took over in your responsibilities that you suggested 10 and that it was implemented, a program for having QC 11 involved in painter qualification. Do you know from 12 conversation -- well -- first, what if any problems beyond 13 that did you observe while you were at Comanche Peak in
, 14 the painter. qualification / indoctrination area? Yourself.
15 A Beyond just that?
16 Q Yes.
17 A I was concerned about the shape of the panels 18 that they used. Referring back to previous job, I had 19 seen where they were required to paint a pipe or the panel' 20 that they were required had to be in a vertical position, 21 or roughly vertical position. There will to be some i
22 penetrations involved, you know, welded to the panel -- a 23 piece of channel iron, some things that they would run
_ (^y k' 24 into typically in the field. And these were not totally 25 on the panel. There might be a piece of angle iron on the L
21578.0 22861 BRT 1 panel or there might be a piece of pipe. So the panels 2 varied. And at one time I think at one time they took the
/~N
(_) 3 penetrations off'and all they were painting was a flat 4 panel.
5 EXAMINATION 6 BY JUDGE BLOCH:
7 Q I'm sorry, you started talking about other sites, 8 didn't you?
9 A Yes.
10 0 Where did you take these irons off?
11 A At Comanche Peak.
12 Q Does that mean that you know there was a time at 13 Comanche Peak when they had the irons on?
_,)
4
~#
14 A Yes, there was a time that they had the angles 15 and all that on, yes.
16 Q It wasn't just at Comanche Peak?
17 A .The other sites had it on all the time. At 18 Comanche Peak it was at one time I do remember them'being 19 on.
20 0 Was that when-you were in the coatings area?
21 A Yes, I do remember being around the panels that 22 have had that on.
23 Q While I have interrupted, there was a matter of
[- '
24- the next subject, the tag that was on the pot, on the 25 paint, did the form of that get changed while you were at
- f. =
J
?
21578.0 22862 BRT 1 Comanche Peak?
.i 2 A That I don't recall.
^
) 3 Q Was that form referred to as a traveler?
4 A No, it was not. A traveler was -- what I was 5- used to as a traveler was a -- a document for the craft 6 use for construction and inspection of cable tray hanger, 7 pipe support, something in this fashion.
8 O So, while you were at Comanche Peak, was there 9 .ever a time when something that you knew of as a traveler 10 was used for keeping track of the coatings?
11 A No. There was no travelers used while I was 12 there.
13 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
("' 14 BY MR. ROISMAN:
15 Q Now, in terms of the -- of this issue of the 16 panels, the Chairman had asked you whether at some time 17 the angles were on the panel. I thought-your testimony 18 was that during all the time that you were at Comanche 19 Peak', some of the panels that were used had nothing on 20 them at any time; is that correct?
21 A I think the panels had -- I think all the panels, 22 at one time, had penetrations or angles on them. But they
-23 were removed at one time.
n
'( J'
- / -24' O And was there ever a time that you are aware of
. 25 when they were using the pipes and putting the panels.in
i 1
21578.0 22863
- BRT 1 vertical -- standing up vertically on a regular basis for
, 2_ the painter qualification test? Or was that an
\- -3 intermittent thing?
4 A If I remember right they were in a vertical 5 position most of the time. Now, like I say, I -- they did 6 this out in the paint shack. And I made a visit about 7 twice a week to the paint shack. And during that time I 8 recall seeing the panels in a vertical position; yes.
9 0 If they were lying down or if there were no 10 penetrations on them, it would be easier for a person to 11 paint and not make -- and not make a mistake; than if they 12 were standing up and had penetrations?
13 A Yes, it would be easier for them if they were
~\~'0) 14 laying down.
15 0 And, also easier if they didn't have the
.16- penetrations?
17' A Yes.
'18 EXAMINATION 19 BY JUDGE BLOCH:
20 0 Was there a procedure that governed the way-the 21 test had to be conducted?
22 A 'There is in -- the painting council puts out --
23 I think there is a thing in the painting council for that; I)k' 24 yes.
25 O But that's not a site procedure, is it?
1 l
21578.0 22864 ;
BRT 11 A I'm not'sure.
2 O It might have been adopted as a site procedure,
- 3 is that what you are saying?
, 4 A It could have been, yes.
5 O Was the procedure something the paint personnel 6 had when they,were overlooking the paint certification 7 process? Were they trying to make sure that the 8- certification process was complied with?
9 A The OC's role at that time was to make sure that 10 'the coating was applied in accordance with the procedures, 11 so that when the painter got to the field that, yes, 12 indeed, he could apply it as the field procedures within-13 the tolerances the field procedures set forth.
14 O So basically they were doing the same kind of
'15 . job they would do in-the field. If I understand you 16 correctly, they were not actually checking the test 17 against a testing procedure?
18 A True. They were not checking against the 19 testing procedure.
20 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 21 BY MR. ROISMAN:
22 O Were there any other problems that you became 23 aware of while you were at the site with painter JN/ 24 qualification or indoctrination?
25 A Not that I recall right now.
21578.0 22865 BRT 1 O Now, in your conversations with Mr. Lipinski, 2 did he and you ever discuss the question of painter
(~h
\/ 3 qualification or indoctrination?
- 4 A I think when he was there in July we might have, 5 he might have asked me about it. Like I say, at that time 6 I don't recall. After that I don't recall, you know,
- 7 talking to him about it at all.
8 O When you went over the trip report and then had 9 discussion with him subsequently, you did not at that time 10 ask him to explicate any more what he meant by painter 11 qualification and indoctrination problems?
.12- A No. At the time that we went over the report it 13 was just a very few minutes. You know, just time to speak 7_s
+
'-) 14 and that's about all.
15 O How about subsequently, in a phone conversation?
16 Given your emerging responsibilities in the area, do you 17 think you might have asked him to give you a little more 18 detail on some of this so you could try to address it?
19 A I-don't recall anything like that. I would have 20 probably went on my own and went down and investigated it 21 on my own prior to, you know, before talking to him about
~
22 it.
23 O You mean investigate just the whole area without
(~)'
-' 24 looking for some particular problem?
25 A Yes. Look at the whole operation.
I.
21578.0: 22866 BRT 1 Q All right. The next item that he has is "possible 2 documentation deficiencies."
O)
(_ 3 While you were at Comanche Peak, did you observe any 4 documentation deficiencies relating to the paint coatings 5 area?
6 MR. WATKINS: Objection to the extent it's not J7 related to the report.
8 MR. ROISMAN: I believe it is perfectly 9 permissible in a discovery deposition, at a minimum to ask 10 the witness a question such as that.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Overruled. Overruled.
12 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?
. 13 MR. ROISMAN: Yes.
14 BY MR. ROISMAN:
15 0 _While you were at Comanche Peak, in the paint 16 coatings area were you aware of any documentation 17 deficiencies?
18 A .Okay. As we had previously talked, and I had
-19 -testified previously, there was a number of older
- = 20 documents that I was concerned about.
e 21 O Yes.
-22 A And the ability to get those into the vault, 23 because they were, indeed, quality documents; that was one f(]\/
~ 24 thing I-take as a deficiency. I felt that those documents 25 needed to be put into the vault. That was one area of
D A u,
'21578'.0 22867 ERT 1- being deficient, for quote --
2 EXAMINATION BY JUDGE BLOCH:
~
-3 4 Q What do you mean by " older"?
5 A Back to where they first started putting paint
, 6 onto the building.
7 0 '787. '777
'8 .A I -- if that was the time, yes. I don't recall 9 the dates but it was --
10 Q I don't recall it either.
-11 A It was the earliest quality documents on the 12 ' coatings. It covered, probably -- it covered the backfit
- 13 program -- along the backfit documents.
14 I was also -- my definition of a. deficient-document was 15 -- as I said, I had document problems. And those problems 16 .I guess you could say were, in my eyes, deficient
- 17 documents: Unsat conditions that had not been reinspected; i
18 documents --
19 Q Okay, inspected for how'long?
L 20 A Some of them were quite a period of time.
l' 21 O Years?'
22 A I would say six, eight months maybe. I don't 23 , recall years.
.~ 24 'O' Were these documents that were on. parts of the 25 plant that were subject to the backfit program, or were 1
I 21578.0- 22868 I BRT.
i I
'l .they other areas of the plant?
2 A I think some of the areas could have been 1( -
3 involved in the backfit program.
4 Q Actually I'm more interested in the converse of l 5 that. Were there any of them.that were not involved in 1
6- the backfit program? !
7 A That might be true also, I don't know for a 8 fact.
9 Q It sounds like you don't know-at all.
I 4 10 A I don't know for exact -- there were two drawers I 11 of them; a lot of different areas. Like I said,-I wasn't l
12 involved in that backfit program that close so it's hard 1
-13 for me to put the two together.
i O 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) j 15 BY MR. ROISMAN:
16 0 Were there other document deficiencies of which 17 you were aware?
18 A' In the coatings department?
i 19 0 .Yes.
20 A That's all I recall right now.
21- Q Now, in your conversations with Mr. Lipinski, 22 did he ever give you any indication of what possible j 23 documentation deficiencies he was referring to'in his trip-1
[~\--) 24 report? Or that he had observed? l l
25 A No. I don't recall any.
1 21578.0 22869 BRT 4
1 Q Did you ever tell him, with regard to either 2 painter qualification, material storage, or documentation
- 3 deficiencies, the things that you were observing as you 4 were taking your responsibilities in the paint coatings 5 area?
6 A No. I don't recall anything.
7 Q You can't recall ever saying to him, at some 8 subsequent time Gee,. Joe, you know that problem that you 9 identified as-a possible document deficiency problem, I've 10 sure seen a lot of that myself. Nothing like that?
11 A No, I don't recall anything.
12_ Q Now, looking at item C again, on page 2, at the 7- 13 bottom of the page; when you read that in the trip report, U 14 did it raise any questions in your mind that you then 15 discussed with Mr. Lipinski, as to whether that was an 16 accurate statement or not.
17 A You mean on the nwnber of certification --
18 0 Yes, starting with the 34 out of 452 individuals?
19 A No. I don't recall anything on that either.
20 Q Did you ever make any efforts on your own to 21 look into that question? Whether there were or were not 22 only 34 qualified individuals?
,_ 23 -A I think at one time I'did check in to see who r :
\/ 24 was certified and who was not certifiedt see how many they 25 did have. In fact, I got a list of certified applicators
21578.0 22870 BRT 1: from.the craft,'at one time.
2 Q And --
3 A In fact, I requested that on a weekly basis from 4 the superintendent.
5 O And how many were there, as you ren. ember?
6 A I don't recall any numbers at all.
7 Q Now, further on in that same paragraph, 8 Mr. Lipinski says that there is currently a "no win" 9 situation. And, even though this sounds corny, Brown &
10 Root needs to develop a win / win situation. I take it from '
11 your testimony on Thursday, you basically agree with that 12 observation on his part?
13' A Yes.
^/ 14 O .Looking over on page 3, at paragraph E, during 15 the time that you were at Comanche Peak, had you observed r 16 any problems with the quality of the air supply?
17 A That came up in different conversations and they 18 were correcting the problem.
19 O Conversations with --
20 A Mr. Brandt and conversation with the inspectors.
21 Q So that at one time, at least based upon your 22 understanding, there were problems with the air supply,
. :23 and that was being solved during the time that you were ss 24 there?
25 A Yes.
-21578.0 22871 i
'ERT 1 Q Do you know whether it had been solved by the 2 time you had left? Or was it still in the process?
3 A I think they had solved it or were making --
4 getting it to where it wasn't a problem any more.
5 0 What did you understand the problem was?
6 A That there was, indeed, oil in the air supply, 7 . when the lines were checked by the OC, that they did pick 8 up traces of water and oil.
9 O Do you know what solution was implemented?
10 A I think they put some filters on to trap this 11 oil and water.
12 Q And --
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Who is the "they"? You mean it O- 14 was done --
15 THE WITNESS: By the craft.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: Temporarily, on a day-by-day basis?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes. The filters were changed.
. l.8 JUDGE BLOCH: It was done at the gun or was it 19 done somewhere else?
20 THE WITNESS: It was done at the compressor.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: At the compressor?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 BY MR. ROISMAN:
/
\-)' 24 0 Were you familiar with the use of cigarette 25 filters as one of the fixes of that problem by the craft?
l E
s-
-21578.0 22872 .
- CRT l i i
(
-1 A No, I was not.
l 2 -Q Did Mr. Lipinski ever discuss with you or did 3 you ever discuss with him this air supply problem?
4 A Not per se with the oil and that. I remember 5 talking to him about the compressor, saying: Looks like 6 that's the compressor they are using. -
7 Q But at that time it was just an identification 8 of what the air supply source was, rather than a 9 discussion of thr:re being any particular problem; is that 10 correct?
11 A Yes.
12 O And, insofar as the problem is concerned, you 13 have no recollection of ever discussing the problem itself 14 with him?
15 A No, I don't recall saying that.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: ,Let's take a seven-minute break.
17 (Recess.) ,
18 BY MR. ROISMAN:
19 Q Mr. Mouser, the bottom of page 3lof the trip 20 report, page 22027 of the transcript, there are some 21 general observations. Do you feel that what you saw at 22 Comanche Peak, in the paint coatings area, that they were, ,
23 at least before you got control of it, that they were l'- 24 doing inspections or were encouraged to do inspections to 25 the degree that Comanche Peak was comfortable with or will c___ - ----.- --.
21578.0 22873 BRT 1 tolerate; that that attitude was present?
2_ A The feeling that I got was that the inspections DkJ 3 were to be done. As in all cases, you know, you want a 4- good product, you want a quality product. And the 5 inspections were done to show what was there. And if, 6 indeed, there was a problem with that quality or a problem 7 with that product, that it was questioned as to: Are you 8 sure? Are you absolutely sure that that's a problem? And 9 that was prior -- that's the' feeling I got from talking 10- with the inspectors _ prior to my time coming down there, 11' : coming down to the department; yes.
12 O Did you feel that your several confrontations 13 with Junior Haley, where you basically stood up to him, O 14 represented somewhat of a turning point in that. process?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And was it'your understanding that, before that' 17 time, that Haleyi both'as a result of his. manner and his 18 physical size, had been able'to keep the pressure on and 19 that nobody, until you did it, was really.willing to stand 20 up to him to his face?
21 A Very true. They -- the feeling was there that 22 he was ramrodding the show, even on the quality side.
23 This was even in front.of the inspectors. The first time
- - 24 I stood up to him and told him it was wrong, it was none 25 of his business, even some of the inspectors came down and a
4
21578.0 22874 BRT 1 said that's the first time the supervisor was told that.
2 O Weren't you a little nervous, given the
) 3 disparity between his size and your size?
4- A Might as well go down in a blaze of glory.
5 (Laughter.)
6 0 Would you say that basically this observation of 7 Mr. Lipinski's in the paragraph A at the bottom of page 3 --
8 and I would like you to reread it if you would -- is
! 9 consistent with your own observations of the situation, 10 prior to the time that you got the situation under your 11 supervision?
12 A Yes. That's the feeling I got-from the
- . 13 inspectors.
t -
' ~ '
14 Q Did you and he ever have occasion to discuss 15 this paragraph A, or the ideas, the thoughts that are 16 contained in there, other than -- I know you have already 17 talked about material storage and painter qualification, 18 but the other parts of it?
19 A I think on the -- that tour, I went with him 20 when we were first there, I think this came into light; 21 the feelings of the inspectors toward the work, or toward 22 the craft in whole -- the-work.
23 O And would you -- do you think he had, from what
\- 24 you observed, did he appear to have as good an 25 understanding of the situation as you yourself eventually
21578.0 22875 ERT 1 had, .in terms of the input of data that he would use as
- 2. the basis for forming those views? ,
\_s) 3 A I think after Joe talked to me, I think he 4 ta ked to some of the inspectors and got a little bit
.~
5 deeper. And I think, my own personal feeling, he did 6 receive this by talking to the inspectors.
7 O Now, looking at page 4, the last sentence under 8 the paragraph B at the top of the page, is that something 9 which you also observed regarding the opinion of the 10 quality of the work that the inspectors had?
11 .A The inspectors after, you know, getting down 12 there and taking over, they felt that some applicators 13 were good and others weren't. And they felt that some of 7-14 the work, again, was good and some of it wasn't.
15 O Did you have the feeling that, with regard to 16 the work that wasn' t, that they were keeping quiet until, 17 or essentially keeping quiet until they could find another 18 job? I'm talking about how they felt at the time that you 19 took over, not how they felt after you began to implement 20 your,various reforms.
21' A Yes, they were all keeping quiet until they 22 could find another job.
- 23 O Were you aware that any of them had made O
J 24 complaints to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about 25 paint coating conditions or procedures at the site at the
21578.0 22876 BRT 1 time that you were working at Comanche Peak?
't 2 A Yes. They had told me they had talked to the 1-(3) 3 NRC.
4 Q Do you remember which ones it was that shared
'5 that information with you?
6 A It would probably be easier to describe which 7 ones didn't.
8 Q Okay. Who didn't?
9 A There was about three of them that said -- did i
10 not communicate with me that they had talked to the NRC.
11 And all the rest of them had.
12 O Can you remember which three it was that had not?
13 A I think a gentleman by the name of Mickey Finn,
!T
\>
14 Gary Brando, and Joe -- I can't even remember his name.
15 He was an older gentleman. I don't remember his last name.
16 O n did you communicate that fact to anyone else?
A'd
^
17 A No, that was no one elbe's business.
18 0 You never discussed it with Mr. Lipinski, for 19 instance?
20 A No. I think Joe knew this. This is<my own 21 personal feeling. I think Joe knew that they had talked 22 to the NRC, because he was in communication with a number 23 of them also. So I think that they had talked to him and
(~)
t) 24 they knew'that he had talked to the NRC, cr they had 25 talked to the NRC.
V s
-21578.0 22877 ERT 1 Q You mean he was in communication with them 2 beyond the. time that he saw them when he was at site?
i n.
(_)- 3 A Yes.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Did he have relationships with 5 them that were kind of like the relationship he had with 6 you? Professional friends whom he spoke to from time to 7 time?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, he did. ,
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know, from talking to any 10 of those people, whether Mr. Lipinski spoke to them before 11 he came to the site?
12 THE WITNESS: I don't remember talking to anyone 13 about it; no.
O 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Do yoit know from talking to 15 Mr. Lipinski whether he spoke to any of the'm before he 16 came to the site?
17 THE WITNESS: I don't recall Joe saying anything 18 about it; no.
19 BY MR. ROISMAN:
20 0 Looking now at the summary section on page 4 of 21 the report, would you agree with the statement that "often
-4 22 B&R wanted to buy the 'right' answer? Or, if not B&R, 23 management generally"?
( l t/ 24 A I don't know if it was so much buy the right 25 answer, but more or less wanted to hear the right answer.
.21578.0 22878 BRT'
.1' Q- Now, I know you were asked this the other day, 2 but I just want you to, if you had occasion to reflect on 3 it any more, can you-remember now, looking at page 4, 4~ whether the copy of the trip report which you had had in 5 your. possession was one that had Mr. Lipinski's signature 6 on it?
7 'A I don't recall at all.
8 Q I think you indicated, in answer to a question 9 by Mr. Treby-on the -- that related to item F, on page 3 10 of the report on qualification of inspection personnel, 11 that "no unqualified inspectors were doing work."
12 I take it that you meant that when you were the 13 supervisor and when you were the lead, that no people who
, 14 were reporting to you were unqualified inspectors;.is that 15 correct?
16 A That's correct.
17 0 You weren't making a comment about whether in 18 fact at some prior time, either in the paint coatings 19 department or elsewhere, or some subsequent time, there 20 may or may not have been unqualified inspectors?
21 A Yes, I -- like I say, I can't say anything for 22 'the time prior to my being there.
23 Q You had a discussion about the inherent
?
.r^; .
- 24. discretion that's built into the inspection process, how l\/
l 25 the inspector's got to be an unbiased judge, and be able I
I
-n,
21578.0 22879 BRT 1 to be independent; and I think you testified that you 2 could probably fail any wall if you were given enough time r^s
(_) . 3 to look for some defect someplace, and that, by the same 4 token, you could pass almost any wall, depending just on 5 how you worked within the inherent discretion in the 6 procedures. Do you remember that discussion?
7 A Yes.
8 O I wonder if you can, perhaps, using a specific 9 example, give me some idea of how you perceived the QC 10 inspection process at Comanche Peak differed from the QC 11 inspection process at the WPPS site, with respect to that 12 question of whether you find the pass or whether you find 13 the fail qualities, as you perceived it at the time you O'
'~'
14 took over your job. Again, not after you had started to
'15 implement some of your reforms.
16 A okay. I think a lot is on how you treat the 17 inspector as to the biased opinion he's going to have, or 18 be a neutral party-type. In Washington, they were -- the 19 inspectors had conditions. They had very good conditions.
20 0 Could you explain what you mean by " conditions."
21 A Okay. I'll get into that. They had -- instead 22 of having to walk everywhere they went, they were able to
, 23 ride. They made a special point to make sure the QC (si
~
24 inspectors had their own area to be. What I mean by that, 25 we had our own area there in Texas. We also had our own L
l l
.21578.0 22880 BRT-1 area in Washington. And we had our individual desks.
s 2 Knowing inspectors, individuality is a very big thing
() 3 with them. They were given their own desk to sit at.
4 They were given -- people came in and took care of the 5 office. They did down in Texas also. But the extent was 6 not near as you run into there as you did in Washington.
7 They were -- when they walked onto the site they were 8 immediately greeted by the craft people, and people were 9 pleasant to them. Down in Texas the craft were not that l l
} 10 pleasant to the inspectors.
11 EXAMINATION 12 BY JUDGE BLOCH: .
l 13 Q Is there a difference in where you parked your !
l N' 14 cars? l l
15 A That has a lot to do with it. How far you have 16 [towalktoyourofficehasalottodowithhowyoufeel l i
17 about your job.
18 O Was there a difference between WPPS and Texas?
19 A Definitely. If you ever gone down in Texas and 20 had to walk the cattle chute you'd understand that. l 21 O Was there a difference in preference between how 22 far you had to walk in Texas, between being inspector and
, i 1
23 craft?
'k gl 24 A Yes, being QC you get the priority areas.
25 Q Did you get a priority area in Comanche Peak?
l
21578.0 22881 ERT.
1 A I got what you could fight for. If you got 2 first in line that meant you were there 10 minutes ahead O s_/ 3 of anybody. If you got there last in line, that means you 4 were there last.
5 Now, that's not necessarily true all the way through, 6 too. There were certain inspectors that were given 7 priority parking areas. They were some of the contract 8 personnel that they had on-site.
9 I had one gentleman working for me that parked in a 10 different area than the rest of the people.
11 Q And the reason for that was that he was a 12 contract person?
13 A Yes.
'-] 14 Q But you were a contract person too, weren't you?
15 You worked for EBASCO?
16 A At one time the EBASCO personnel, the way I 17 understand it, parked in the same area. But Brown & Root, 18 which I ---you know, you sit right next to a Brown & Root 19 man, was not able to park in that area. And that got 20 under the Brown & Root people's skin, which, it would 21 bother me, sitting next to John, John is parking in an 22 area where he only has to walk a couple of hundred yards 23 to work where I've got to walk a very long ways. And that h- 24 bothered the inspectors, so the parking area was taken 25 away from the EBASCO people. But these other people were
l.
l 21578.0 22882 CRT L
l 1 able to park up on the hill.
! 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 3 BY MR. ROISMAN:
l 4 Q You. indicated that the core of the QC moro's 5 problem substantially dated back to before you had any 6 involvement with it. Did you at any time have any 7 occasion to find out what that source of the problem was?
8 Or how it arose?
9 A I talked to a few of the inspectors and they 10 indicated that a gentleman that I had previously described-11 as, last name being Wallace, a gentleman by the name of 12 Bob Wallace was his first name -- I recalled that 13- yesterday _-- he -- the treatment he had given to the
, _(-
~14 inspectors was bad. He hollered at them on a regular-type 15 basis.
- 16. JUDGE BLOCH: In front of craft, do you know?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes. In front of craft.
18 He was always on their case about getting -- getting 19 going, getting moving. Oh , there's a number of things,.
20 just general feeling.
21 Some of the other' areas is he -- I was told'by one 22 inspector he threatened to fire a few people.
23 BY MR. ROISMAN:
f
\.s 24 Q over what kind of an issue?
25 A Well, one' example was the floor. And that
,l 21578.0 22883 BRT-l sticks-in my mind as being the one instance they brought
[
! 2 up. There was a floor down there they were inspecting and
/
lh l 3 "the thing I recall was that the inspector was down there '
4 looking at the floor very,cv5ry closely. And the craft 5 did not like this -- were upset. Because he was down
- 6. there inspecting the floor very, very closely.
7 -So thep went and got Bob hilace and -- I don't know if )
8 Mr. Williams was involved in this or not -- and they 9 called him down and they had all,the inspectors down in 4
% y 1 '
10 the room and, from the feelings that the inspectors gave ,,
l F 11 me and from what I was told, Mr. Wallace said, basically, 12 "If you guys want to get down and your hands and knees and-13 inspect that with your nose on the floor, then you guys-l 'O 14 'are going to have to find yourself another job."
15 That's the basic feeling that they gave me and.the .
16 basic idea they told me.
l 17 O And what was Wallace' position again?
18 A He pad the QC lead's position.
o 9 19 Q The, position that you first moved into?
t 20 A Yes.j ~ .
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Under Williams? f
, 22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 BY MR. ROISMAN:
~
24 Q In answer to a question on Thursday,.from i
25 Mr. Treby, you indicated, I believe, that Miller never-
.2 N w l '
I
- y. It
\
". '?
L. 1 ._
21578.0 22884 cBRT 1 told you, Tom Miller never told you that he had a copy of
- 2. the trip report.
~
k' ~3 Did-you have any information, whether it was told to 4 'you by Mr. Miller or otherwise, that he did, in fact, have 5 a copy of the trip report?
6 A I don't remember getting into the conversation 7 about it; .rua.
8 Q _
Do you remember having a conversation with 9 -Ms. Garde, in which you indicated to her that you 10 understood that Miller had a copy of the trip report?
11 A I got that feeling, just by things that were
-12 said. Like, in passing, like, "there's a" -- you know --
13 "a lot of reports around here that are not visible and
- 14. people don't know about."
15 Things like'that. It's just like me passing in the 16 hall and me saying I like your one brown and one black 17 shoe. You immediately stop and look. I might be talking
- - 18 to the guy across the hall or.might be talking to_the guy ,
19 next to me. Just, things in passing, I got the feelings 20 .that there was one out and it might be in Mr. Miller's 21- possession; yes.
22 'O Can you remember specifically what it was that
~
23 made you think it might have been in Miller's possession jm
(- 24 as opposed to.anyfof the other inspectors?
25 A You had to know Mr. Miller to understand that.
!1 l
i L.
~21578.0 > >
, 22885
- IRT-1 He was quite -- I guess you could say " verbal" about a lot-2 'of. things. And just the feelings that he gave off.
(
.3' 'O Was that he was the one who had it?
4 A Yes -- type of feeling -- yes.
5 Q Do you ever: remember discussing with
~E Mr. Lipinski the possibility that somebody other than 7 yourself may have actually seen the report or gotten a 8 copy of'the report?
9 A No. I don't remember discussing it with Joer no.
10- Lik'e I say, I had -- I previously testified -- I had that 11 1' : feeling that he had talked to someone else about it, the 12 other inspectors about it.
13 :O You indicated in your testimony, ag51n, to
, ~O' 14 -questions 'from Mr. Treby, 'that when you and 14r. Brandt-15' discussed this ' question of the painter qualification,
- that 16 you had also made the point lthat you weren't convinced -
17 -that the painter; qualification process was, thorough enough.-
18
.Do youJremember,that?-
. 19- A Yes.-
20 .Q 'What changes, that'you were aware of, were made-21 lin-response to that concern that you raised?
122 'A' In:the concern, it was that I1didn't' feel QC was'
. .- 23. 1doing:what should be done. And that's what I meant by '
IO' n
J 24' being thorough.-
.25 ; Q. Okay. So that wasn't - a comment on this thing.
4g
21578.0 '
22886 ERT 1 with the presence or absence of the angle irons and other 2 things on the plate?
3 A Yes. That would have entered into it also.
4 0 Well, what did you do when you realized that 5 they were starting to do the painter qualification tests 6 with less of that on the plates than they had had even 7 before? Did you go to Mr. Brandt about that? Or to 8 someone about that?
9 A I talked to Mr. Haley about it and told him I 10 was concerned.
-11 Q And what did he tell you?
12 A He said that the ones that were painting the
_ 13 panels without these penetrations and the angle iron arm 14 were the ones that were going to do the liner plate, which 15 had few to no. penetrations on it. And he said the ones-
.16 that are going to do the other areas, the pipe and the 17 angle iron and behind the struts and things like that, s.
18 would be, indeed, doing it to that requirement.
19 O Did you then get a list of,who these especially
.;M) ~ qualified liner plate painters were?
21 A Well, at that time I told him I thought that was >
22 a bunch of hooey. I didn't think that would be quite 23 right. Because it would be detrimental to him to have s/ 24 painters certified-just to flat panel, because there's 25 going to be a time in the future when:he is indeed going m , , , , , , , , , - , . . . _ . , , _ ~ . , _ , . , . ~ , , y -
-y..-_ ,
d 21578.0- 22887 ERT
" l' to run into that situation and he's going to have to shut
. . . . 2 down and lose what he's got right there, say lose a wall 3 that he's going to have to go back in and prep again,~ by 4
, 4 not-letting the man, you know, complete his certification.
5 0 And what did he say?
I 6 A He said he'd look into it.
L 4 7 Q Do you know what happened with it?
I 8' A At that time there was some of the penetrations
( 9 put'back on. That's when they started putting the
~10 penetrations back on.
4 _
11 Q You don't know whether they brought back the 1:2 people who had been certified only on the flat panel to, yo 1
13 14 in effect,'.recertify them, do you?
A There was another time that we did -- we went 15' through the routine more than once, as I originally-16 testified; that they redid it and it was-kind of a 17 continued redo operation, certifying ~these people..
L
~
18 Like we started on one day. certifying them.- And then
' ' 19 things changed and'they went back and they all started all 20 over again. And ' then we got concerned about the panels 4 21- and they turned around.and started'all over again. It was 22 like one continued operation with three sequences in it.
23 O- Over.how>long a period did that process take?
7 . ,_ ,
~
24 A That took a number of weeks.
25 Q Was iticompleted before;you left the site?
t-I i-5b
21578.0 22888 BRT 1 A That I don't recall.
2 O When a painter would do a panel and then -- and
( 3' flunk, was it a perfectly permissible thing for him to be 4 brought through the line again and keep trying until he 5 ~ passed or was there some point at which he lost that 6 opportunity?
7 A I recall one gentleman that was -- we were all 8 shocked that he failed. And he was -- and, again -- given 9 another chance to certify. And then there was another 10 gentleman --
11 JUDGE BLOCH: On him, do you know whether the 12 documentation that showed he had failed once was kept with 13 his records?
14- THE WITNESS: Yes. I think it was. The 15 paperwork was made out by the QC inspector. That form was 16 made out by the QC inspector and, indeed, it did say that 17 he did not meet the requirements.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: The question is, do you know 19 whether that would have been kept?
20 THE WITNESS: I assume that it was. I don't 21 kr:ow for a fact. I assume that it was.
22' JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Please continue.
23 BY MR. ROISMAN:
(D L \~/ 24 g I __
25 JUDGE BLOCH: I think the witness was still
21578.0 22889 BRT 1 answering and I interrupted. You were going to talk about 2 other situations.
- 3 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, and then other situations 4 I know for a fact, when a painter was failed he.was walked 5 to the gate, given his final check, and his badge was 6 taken away from him.
7 BY MR. ROISMAN:
8 O Was there a procedure that determined which you 9 would do? Whether you would give the guy a second chance 10 or not give him a second chance?
11 A I don't think there was so much a procedure as 12 to how many' chances he got. I think it was more or less, 13 the guys that had been applying coatings for years there, 14 on-site, might have a bad day and h'e blows a panel. And 15 from the'QC inspector's point of view, I know when this 16 one gentleman failed they were all very surprised because 17 he was one of the.better applicators. .And we immediately 18 says, well, hey, let him take another shot at it, find out 19- what the heck went wrong.
S 20 Come to find out he had been boozing all night and had' 21 a hard time walking the next day.
22 O Who was this painter?
23 A I don't recall him by name.- He was a -- I know
.g -
+ \-
1 24 he was a Mexican -- Mexican-American.
25 -Q You indicated here, or.it sounded like you were i
b' a
21578.0. 22890
, BRT.
- 1. indicating that the QC inspector was not only passing on
-: 2 the panel, that is whecher the panel had a mistake or not
()J 3 in it, but was also passing on the certification' question.
4 Did you intend to indicate that? That --
-5 A No. All we did was inspect the panel to see 6 that it met the requirements of the procedures.
.'7 O So that, as far as you know, it was possible, if 8 the supervisor had chosen to do it, to take a painter who t
9' had flunked the panel test and give him a certification?-
lLO A I had talked to Mr. Haley about this and I asked
-111 him specifically that question, and he said if any of~his 12' . foremen passed a~ painter that did not have satisfactory 13 results on the report that was turned'in -- in other words, 14 say.yes, indeed, he did pass:the -- or his panel did meet 15' the procedure requirements -- .if s he was certified by fthe I 16 foreman and that statement was not cx1 there, indeed the 17' foreman and'the craft man would walk:to the gate.
18 O Do you know whether-he ever had occasion to 19 exercise that authority with respect-to'the foremen?
20 A I don't know'th'at. I don't recall that ever 21 Lcoming into light.
22- Q: Did you ever. observe him telling the foreman-23 ,that?
'24 A~ Yes, I-did.
=257 O Telling them that, if they approved.someone that
~
I'
..-. ~.,,,.-.,e_ ._..m.,- 4. - -_- , _ . -.mm,,4_-,_,
21578.0 22891 BRT 1 your inspectors had found had not passed the panel test, 2 that they would be fired?
/")
'w_/ 3 A Yes. I saw him tell, not all the foremen, but I 4 saw him tell the two general foremen that.
5 EXAMINATION 6 BY JUDGE BLOCH:
7 O Can you give me some idea while you were working 8 at the plant how often in one context or another it came 9 up that someone would have to walk to the gate that was a 10 consequence of what you did on the job?
11 A That was kind of a -- kind of a standard thing 12 at the site, is, if you screw up, they walk you to the f
13 gate.
14 O Was that something you heard weekly? Daily?
15 A Daily.
16 0 It applied to craft and QC? There was no 17 distinction?
18 A To craft -- applied to everyone'on-site. You 19 couldn't do -- like, if you came in and tried, .you know, 20 you w:;e goofing off and caught asleep, craft, and you 21 were caught, they'd walk you to the gate. If you did 22 something wrong they walked you to the gate.
H23 O In practice, there was a little more leniency 24 then that. Someone got caught for doing something that 25 they said you would get walked to the gate for, they would
21578.0 22892 BRT 1 back off a little bit?
2 A- Yes, they did back off.
3 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 4 BY MR. ROISMAN:
5 Q Did they back off with, to you, any discernible
'6 pattern?
7- A I don't recall any pattern.
8 O Well, for instance, there were some paint 9 coaters, paint coating people, inspectors, who worked with l'O you who you knew were troublemakers, in the sense that 11 they were in conflict with the company management on 12_ policy issues. And there were some who were -- with 13 wha'tever problems they had, those weren't part of the 7_.
14 problems. Was it.more likely that it was the troublemaker 15 who, when he made a mistake, would get walked to the gate 16 E than it was if it was one of the other people who might 17 .make the same mistake-but be given a second chance?
18- A Well, in the line inspectors, I don't remember 19 any of them being walked to the-gate other..than Bill 20 Dunham, that volunteered...I guess you've got your human 21 nature entering into.it. If you've got a troublemaker, 22 yes, indeed you would walk him to the gate faster than you 23- would someone else.
ad .24 Q' You mean you think that was the -- that that was 25 the case at Comanche-Peak?
21578.0 22893 BRT 1 A No. I don't know that for a fact. I'm just 2 saying from human nature it is --
k_) 3 Q Did you have any feeling yourself as to this -
4 practice of sort of generally using the "I'm going to walk' 5 you to the gate if you make a mistake" approach in dealing 6 with the workers? Was that what you thought was good 7 style? One that you yourself adopted?
8 A I thought that was very poor style. And I don't 9 go along with the routine, "I'm going to walk you to the 10 gate." You don't threaten a man. If you threaten a man 11 you best follow through with what you do. And I didn't 12 believe in saying " walk you to the gate."
13 Q Do you think -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.
, 7 s-5- ' 14 A I had never seen it on any other job. If, 15 indeed -- there was no threats made, "I'm going to walk 11'6 you to the gate"; if indeed you did foul up, you were 17 taken off the site.
18 Q Do you think it affected the quality of the'^ work 19 done by the workers who lived under that condition?
20 A Yes, it did.
21 Q Do you think that it produced a situation in 22 which a person would be reluctant to take a position that
- 23 might be incorrect, and also would certainly be unpopular,
/m
(_) 24 given the prevalence of that "I'm going to walk you to the 25 gate if you make a mistake" mentality?
/
r o=, 4 -- -,r.- . _- , ,
21578.0 22894 ERT' 1 A' From my own persona'l feelings, if, over many 2 numerous times, I was told. "I'll walk you to the gate,"
-. 3 - that-would,-indeed, impede my judgment; yes.
4 Q You indicated that you had.a discussion with i 5 Mr. Lipinski in late August about the problent of tags 6 falling off of the mixed paint. Do you remember that?
7 ' Late August of '83, I think.
i 8 A Late August?
9- 0 I'm just looking here at my notes. I don't have 10 your Thursday transcript.
11 A >
I talked to him when he was there in July, late
^
12 July.
. . . _ 13 0 Right, b# - 14 A I remehber asking him -- we saw that material
. 15 setting on the pallet, some of it with tags and some
-16 ~ without.
I 117. Q -You don't remember another conversation that you
-18 had subsequent to that with'him about the-paint tags ,
'f...
19 coming off the cans? Maybe-after you became-the - got-20 involved directly in paint coatings?
~
21 A. No, I-don't. It could have been in like -- well --
- , 22L no, I don't.
'23L Q I may have written it down incorrectly-also.
[')-
L- 24 You testified that after the.-- after you realized that-25 ' someone had gotten-into youridesk drawer and it appeared -
A e
~
21578.0 22895 BRT 1 that they had at least moved, if not read, the trip report, 2 that sometime within the next one or two weeks that you w
3 disposed of the trip report.
4 Why did you dispose of it?
5 A I don't know why. I just got rid of it.
6 O Did you feel any sense of nervousness after you 7- realized that somebody who you didn't-know may now also 8 know of its existence? Was that a source of anxiety to 9 you?
10 A No, it was not. My original way I testified is 11 I felt that was going as a formal letter to Cannon, so it
. 12 would be a document on-site. So I really didn't have any 13 reason _to be nervous or anything like that about it; no.
14 Q I take it that by this time you had been in the 15 lead position, and in fact I believe you testified that 16- you'had by now actually become the supervisor; and it had 17 been almost' a month since Lipinski had shown you the c 18 report. And I guess you would have assumed that, iftthe
^
19 report had been sent to the company by that time,.camebody 20 would have called you in to discuss the. report and 21 addressed the issues raised in it.
22 Didn't you have that assumption in your head by that 23 time?
- (r}
s 24 A. No. Not really, because I had previously, you 25 know, had talked to Mr. Brandt about that, painter t
/
4'
I i
21578.0 22896 i BRT l
l 1 qualifications, things like this. And things were i
2 changing around. 4
(~ l 3% )h 3 We had talked about the tagging system. So, I kind of --
4 I just took it that I was pursuing these things already 5 and that there was nothing to be said.
6 Q What did you do about the tag falling off 7 problem? How was that dealt with? Or the possibility of 8 tags falling off?
9 A I told him that if the tags were not on the cans 10 of coating material they would not be used and we would 11 not spend our time chasing tags down. It was the craft's.
12 responsibility to have the tag there. And they assumed
, 13 that responsibility.
I' ,) 14 Q And you hoped that, by doing that, the people 15 applying the tags would attach them more firmly?
16 A- Yes. If it cost the craft people two or three 17 cans of CZ-ll material, which is very expensive, somebody 18 would get jumped on with both feet and things would change 19 around; yes.
20 0 Was there a physical problem with making the tag 21 be proper -- able to be attached firmly to the can, such 12 2 that the whole tagging process had scme flaw in it?
23 A I don't think'the tag had any -- any physical
(')
\/ 24 way to be attached to the can, other than to be taped to i
25 it. And I think that would be the only problem. I don't
21578.0 22897
-BRT 1 recall it having any string on it or anything like that so 2 you could tie it to the handle; being, you know, a hard w
.(d - 3 bound card.
4 It was just like a 2 by 2 or 2 by 3 piece of paper, 5 from what I recall.
6 O And it.didn't have a punch hole in it with a 7 string or wire coming off it that you could attach it to 8 the handle?
9 A I don't recall that; no.
10 Q And you didn't tell Mr. Lipinski at any time 11 that there had even been a break-in at -- or even'an 12 unauthorized entry into your desk; is that correct?
.gs 13 A' I don't recall saying that to him; no.
a'") 14 Q Now, when the trip report -- when your desk had 15 been broken into you made a report to the company security 16 people. I want you to try and let's see how much of that 17 beyond what you remembered on Thursday, that you can 18 remember now of that -- of that particular event.
19 Starting with -- you came to your office that morning 20 and you saw*the desk drawer out and the little locked 21 portion still up, and opened the drawer and observed the 22 things that were missing and the change in the position of 23 the trip report.
hrm~) 24 :Did you then make a telephone call or did you 25 physically go somewhere to report this? And did you do it
21578.0 22898 BRT 1 immediately or was there some time delay?
2 A Well, I made the phone call and I don't recall p)
(, 3 if there was a time delay.
4 O Who did you call? Or where -- I don't mean the 5 name of the person, but where would you place the call?
6 What would be the office you were calling?
7 A I would call site security.
8 0 Is that -- that's one particular number? I mean 9- there is a place that's called " site security"?
10 A I think I had to look up in a book to find the 11 number, in the phone book. And I called that number. I 12 don't remember, I think it was the security -- main 13 security building up on the hill.
(,)
s- 14 Okay. And did you make a report over the O
15 telephone to the person who answered the telephone?
16 A I told them what had happened.
17 O To the person who answered the phone?
18 A Yes.
19 O You didn't ask for - .it wasn't like: "I would 20 like to talk to somebody." You just talked to who 21 answered the phone?
22 A Yes. And I remember I was transferred to 23 another gentleman.
rm
(-) 24 O Transferred to another gentleman as soon as you.
25 started to talk? Or did the first person let you tell
21578.0, 22899 BRT 1 them the whole story?
2 A I think he let me go through the majority of the
~)
((_) 3 story, and says: "Well, now, I think you should talk to 4 someone else." Because I remember I got about halfway 5 through it and I got told that and I thought to myself, 6 "how many times have I got to go through this with people?"
7 O And when you say "the whole story," what was the 8 story as you remember it that you were telling?
9 A I told him that I had a desk that was broken 10 into. I would like to report a break-in. And I told him 11 my desk, and who I was and where I was loca.ted. "I would 12 like to report that I have a desk broken into and some 13 items were removed."
() 14 Q And at what point in the narrative did he 15 interrupt you?
16 A The first gentleman?
17 Q Yes.
18 A Right after I told him I had a break-in and I 19 wanted to report'some things missing. He says, "well, I 20 think you need to talk to another gentleman."
21 Q Did the first gentleman tell you his name?
22 A I don't recall.
23 Q obviously you knew the name of the second
-! 24 gentleman because he said, "I'm going to transfer you to 25 Mr." -- whoever that was?
T 21578.0 22900 BRT l- A Yes.
2 O And you can't remember who that person was?
(N 3 A/ 3 A- I took it to be the -- I guess you could say 4 sergeant-in-charge-type person.
5 O But I mean you can't remember their name?
6 A No , I can't.
7 Q And when that person got on the phone, did you 8 talk first? Or did that person start talking to you? How 9 did that take place?
10- A I think he just answered the phone saying:
11 " Hello, such-and-such."
-12 Q .- And then you began again?
p_q 13 A .Yes.
'U 14 O And did you get through your whole story without
-15 any interruption from him?
16 A Basically, yes.
'17 O And then what happened next after you finished 18 telling your story?
19 A He asked' me where I was located. I told him.
-20 Q .You told him?
21 A QC trailer. And he said,f"what number is that?"
.22 I said, "QC coatings trailer."
I had to tell him, well, 23' - so many trailers from the end of this row of trailers on s
7 i/ m 24 the-inside of the fence.
12 5 He said: "Okay, fine. We'll be down'and' talk to you."
21578.0 22901 BRT 1 0 Did you expect that he was coming down right 2 away and.that you should wait there? Or what was your
- T/~
(3 - 3 expectation?
4 A He told me he would have -- he would be down. I 5 just assumed he would be right down.
6' O Did he give you any indication of whether he 7 thought this was a very serious matter that you were 8 reporting? Or did he -- well -- what, if any, indication 9 did he give you about that?
10 A He-just told me that they'd, you know, be down _I 11 to talk to me about it. There was really no -- this is a 12 big deal or_something -- he never said anything like that. l 13 .He said, "We'll be down and talk to you about it." !
u
-(:) 14 0 Is that what you expected that they would do 15 after you made the call? That someone would come down?
16 A Yes.
17 O Did he say anything to you about, don't touch 18 anything,.you know, or don't go into your desk, they may _
l l
19 want to take fingerprints, or anything like that?
20 A I don't-recall anything like that;-no. l 21 O How long was it after that call that they I
22 actually got down to your office? Can you remember?
l 23 A I don't remember exactly when it was. It seems
.f N- -
24 to me -- I don't remember the exact time, but I want to 25 say shortly thereafter.
l l
4
?
21578.0 22902 3BRT l 1 Q Before lunch?
4
-2 A' Yes.
7+.
l-s 3 Q And how many people came down to see you?
4 A There were two guards.
5 -Q Land was one of them the man that you spoke to on
'6 the telephone, the second person?
7 A I don't recall that; no.
f- 8 Q- And did they give you their names?
4 9 A The first gentleman did; yes. I remember he 10 said: "I'm such and such." I think it was Brown & Root 11 security.
12 O And, again, you don't remember either his first 13 or his last name?
Om 14 A No,'I don't.
15 O But.you do' remember that he identified himself 16 as-Brown & Root security?
17 A- Yes. Because he had a Erown E-Root hat on.
18 -Q. 'As opposed to TUGCO security or somebody else?.
- 19. A Yes.
20 Q, It wasn't any one.of these private. security 21 agencies, Wackenhut or --
22 A- Rent-a-cop? No, it wasn't.
23 O So it was somebody who had an identification on
/N
$~) -24 them and they were wearing a uniform?
'25 A' Yes. It.was a. Brown -- standard Brown security
r.
21578.0~ 22903 BRT 1 uniform that they have.
2 Q So he just didn't have on a Brown & Root hat, N 3 but he actually wore a whole uniform that was a Brown &
4 Root' security uniform?
5 A Yes. ,
6 Q And what transpired? What happened when he got 7 there?
8 A Like I say, he told me who he was. He said, "I 9 understand you have had a break-in?"
10 I said: "Yes, it was in my desk."
11 He said: "Was there anything taken?"
12 And I explained to him what was taken out of the desk.
13 -And then he wanted-to look at it. I remember getting up b'"#
14 and letting him come around the desk, because it was like 15 putting three men into a two-man area and he had to'come 16 around and look at it.
17 And then he said that -- he asked me when it could 18 possibly be done?
11 19 And I told him, it most likely had to-be done'last 20 night or sometime in the, you know, during the last shift.
21- Q And do you remember, was the trip report in the 22 drawer at the time that he came and looked in the drawer?
23' A Yes, it was.
/^[%
24 O Was it turned back over again as you usually did 25 with those papers? Or was it still face up?
i 21578.0 22904 BRT 1 A I turned it back over, I think.
2 Q As I remember, your testimony Thursday was that k_)s -3 you did not mention to him anything about the trip report.
4 You talked to him only about the things -- that the desk 5 had been opened and that things were actually missing?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Do you remember whether he appeared to take any 8 notes? Or either of them took any notes of the things 9 that you were saying to them?
10 A Yes. He had a spiral notebook, one of the small 11 spiral notebooks. He had it open and there were a number 12 of white pages I was looking at, and he was writing on
- 13 them; yes.
-(V 14 O Were they just regular blank pages or did they 15 look like a form on which he was writing?
11 6 A It was a lined paper. Again, in a spiral 17 notebook.
18 Q But nothing preprinted on it that you could see?
'19 .A No.- It was one of those that you put in your vest 20 pocket.
21 Q1 'And what was the other person doing who was with 22 him?
23 A standing there.
/~S
\ t J%> 24 Q Not taking notes or askingJguestions or anything?
25 A He assumed the whole doorway. He was a pretty s
0
l 21578.0 22905 )
BRT i 1 good-sized guy -- tall fellow, I should say.
i 2 O Can you describe the person who took -- who was
.ks[ 3 taking the notes and came around your desk? What was, 4 'other than the uniform and so forth, what do you remember 5 about him?
6 A Well, I made the distinction between the two of 7 them because the one guy behind him was younger and the 8 other guy was an older gentleman.
9 O What age would you guess?
. 10 A 50s.
11 Q Gray hair?
12 A I don't recall gray hair; no.
13 .Q Balding? Or full head of hair?
O l 14 A Well, he had a hat on so I didn't --
15 O Clean shaven or bearded?
16 A I think he was clean shaven.
17 Q Mustache?
18 A No.
19 Q Glasses --
20 JUDGE BLOCH: Any identifying marks?
21 THE WITNESS: I don't recall whether-he had 22 glasses or not.-
23 BY MR. ROISMAN:
24 Q I think this is when Sergeant Friday says: "Was 25 there anything unusual about him that you can remember?"
_-... ._ . .__.. . __ _ . .. _.. __ _ m . m_ _-._ . . . . _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ .
~21578.0 22906
-BRT 1 And he says, "Well, he,had this big growth going out" --
I 2 (Laughter.)
- /- .
<
- 3 Anything distinctive that you remember about him?
4 A No. I don't.
5 Q. If you saw him again do you think you would 6- recognize him?
7 A Possibility; yes.
[ 8 O How about the other one? The younger one?
l i 9 A I remember him because he was tall. Like I say, 10 he about filled the door up.
-11 Q By " tall" are we talking as tall as Junior Haley?
12 A Yes.
13 O Was he as heavy as Haley?
EO '
14 A -No, he was skinny. He was a standard Texan.
i 15 Q More like Mr. Purdy?
f 16 A Yes.
17 O Anything distinctive about him that you can
!~
18 remember?
19- A No.
20 Q The first man, was he heavy-set or average build?
21 A Average build.
22 -Q Average height?
23 A Yes, I would say average height.
x 24 O Do you think that -- does the name "Andrews" 25 ring a bell?-
e
,,. g--- '
4 ,-ww-,- 9 v ,,,-..m9v., . . , 7,-s, %, y.-.%ye ,79 -,,y,...M-,-em4 v-e<g- -rwe*- e g Wr wwp--p~ey ---9ee- t e g-
- r wv--
21578.0 22907 BRT 1 A No, it doesn't.
2 O After he came around behind your desk and looked
.( 3- at the desk drawer, what happened next?
4 A Well, then he asked me about when it could have 5 been broken into and then he asked if there was any other 4
6 keys. I told him no other keys and it would probably have 7 had to have been second shift, or that night, or something.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you mention to him anything 4
9 about how you concluded that it had been forced open?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. He asked me about that. And 11 I told him that -- in fact I remember he knelt down, 12 because he had to get down low to look up. Because when
,, 13 they pry it down it drags across the bottom of the desk.
14 I say if you look right there you can see where it looks 15 like it has been opened.
16' BY MR. ROISMAN:
17 Q What happened afte'r that with this conversation?
18 A I think he said he'd get back with me and they 19 left.
20 Q And when was the next time that you had any
-21 conversation about the break-in? Let me stop -- let~me 22 withdraw that for a second.
23 Did you tell anybody else at the time that the break-in
(
A- 24 occurred that someone had broken into your desk? Any
'25 other person or persons?
21578.0 22908
.BRT 1 A Yes. Gary Brando was in the office with me.
2 O Anybody else?
( 3 A I think that was it. That's all I recall.
4 Q Okay. Now, what was the next time that you had 5 some conversation with the security people, or had contact 6 with them about this?
7 A with security, I don't ever recall them getting 8 back with me on it at all.
9 Q With whom did you have any further contact?
10 A Okay. The next contact I had was with Fred 11 Dunham, when he asked me why in the hell there was a 12 security guard making residence in the trailer at night.
13 Q And security didn't ask you, or tell you that I
14 they were going to do that?
15 A I don't recall them saying anything to me; no.
1<6 O Were you surprised that that had happened? .That 17 there was a security person in the trailer at night?
18 A Yes, I was.' I was very surprised. It's kind of 19 like I was -- there got a security guard in the trailer, 20- .what the hell good is it going to dofif the security guard 21 is sitting there and somebody comes in and they see him 22 sitting there, they were going to leave. And if it was 23 one of the inspectors or something like that that was
-.p
\ J 24 going to break-in, they'd know he was there anyway because 25 they are in and out of the trailer.
L .
. - -. . - .- . ~ - ~ .- - - . , . - . . ,
J 21578.0 22909 BRT I
i~
l Q And what about any -- I think you testified that 2 there was a security guard at some point outside the
- /~'%
(_/
~3 trailer?
4 A Yes. They had parked a truck across the street 5 and one was sitting in the truck, across the alley there.
[~ 6 One sitting in the truck.
7 O At the same time as they had somebody inside?
8 Or was it two different operations?
9 A I think it was the security guard sat outside at
- 10 first and then they moved him inside. ,
11 Q Do you know for how long a period that went on?
12 A No, I don't. Because Fred told me there for 13 quite a few, a few days we had one sitting outside and
_Q 14 then we had one sitting inside.
15 Q And did~that start immediately the first night 16 -shift after you had made the report, as far as you know?
17 A No, I don't have any way to trace that down as l
18 to exactly when they started it; no, I don't. I don't 19' know.
20 Q~ When they didn't get back to.you, did you make 21 an effort to get back to them?
22 A With.my busy schedule, no.
23 Q And, except for the discussions.that have taken
\_ 24 place surrounding -- from the time that you and Ms. Garde 25- spoke on the phone, and surrounding your preparation and
-. ,- .c-e , , . . . , , , , , - , , , , - , , .-,,- - - - . , - , , - - , - - -r, - ,, , - , . . , - - _ , , . , +y ..w, y,. . . . . - ,- - ---a-r- -, =
7---
'21578.0 22910 BRT-1 appearance here, has there-been any discussion of that 2 break-in by you with any other person?
) 3 A I was contacted by Mr. Brandt in October, and I 4 think I talked about it then. And then I talked to 5 Mr. Downey at the Dunham hearings about it.
6 MR. WATKINS: Excuse me, could we get a date on 7 that?
8 JUDGE BLOCH: October of '837 9 THE WITNESS: October of 'R4.
10 MR. WATKINS: Thank you.
11 BY MR. ROISMAN:
12 Q Of the conversation with Mr. Brandt?
s 13 A Yes.
14
~
Q And the conversation with Mr. Downey took place, 15 was it in late '83 or early '847 16 A It would be early '84; ' February of '84.
17 Q And how did-the conversation with Mr. Downey 18- come_up? How did you happen to get into this?
19 :A They speculated that the Lipinski trip report 20 might come up in the Dunham hearing, and they wanted to
'21- have all the information that I.had on it.
22 Q And the information that you gave them, did it
~
23 include a full discussion of how you had gotten the copy 24 .made in the first place, put it in your drawer, all of; 25 that?
T
<1 21578.0 22911 BRT '
s 1 A I don't recall that; no. I recall telling him 2 that it was about the security report that was turned in
. -s) 3 on the break-in. I recall that. But I don't. recall
,. 4 telling, you know, what exactly I told him on that -- no.
5 O You mean you don't recall telling him how it 6 happened that you had a trip report at all? .
I 7 A Right. I don't recall telling him that.
8 O Did you understand his questions to be focused 9 really on the question of how did its9et out]
And that J 10 you thought maybe it got out by someone who had'taken it 11 from your desk drawer, copied it, and put it back?
~12 A Yes. I'think that would probably be the best 13 way to describe it; how it got out -- yes, sir. -
O_ 14 O And did he ever have occasion to confirm to you-15 that he had checked into this security matter and had i .
16 found any information on it?.
17 A No. He never told me that he, indeed, did check 18 into it.- He said, you know, that they might look into it.
19 There was no saying: "Yes, we did do it."
20 Q Now, Mr. Brandt's communication with you in 21 October or November of this year, how did that come about?. +
l ~.,
22 Who initiated the phone conversation? t~ p 23 A I received a call from Mr. Brandt and he wanted'
/~'Nf.
4 -
w
%/ 24 to know what kind of communications that I had had with 25 Mr.'Lipinski. And wanted to know about the Lipinski
's
'21578.0 22912
-BRT-1 report.
2 O What did you tell him were the communications
) 3 that you had had with Mr. Lipinski?
4 A I told-him that I had -- you know, I knew Joe 5 personally, that I had talked to him personally, and then 6 he, Mr. Brandt, was specifically -- specifically asked me 7 about the time that Joe came to site in July, his first 8 trip to the site, and asked me if I had communication with 9 him, with Joe at that time. And at that time I told 10 Mr..Brandt "no," because I did not recall having 11 communication with Joe at that time. But since then I 12 made recall on it. I have.
13 O Did you understand Mr. Brandt's question to also 14 include whether you had had communications with 15 Mr.'Lipinski before the site visit?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And at that time you did not recollect that you 18 ha'd the communication with him before the site visit 19 either?
20 A That's true; I did not recall that.
21 Q And what else did Mr. Brandt ask you about with-
'22 regard to communication with Mr. Lipinski, other than the 23 July trip?
(-~\ .
AY 24' A I think that was basically it; just the July 25 trip.
l 21578.0 22913 ERT 1 Q And how did you have occasion to discuss with 2 him the trip report itself?
3 A I just went ahead and told him about it.
4 Q Did he ask you if you had had a copy of the trip 5 report at any time, or had ever seen it?
6 A He asked me if I had ever seen it, and I said, "Yes, 7 I had a copy of it at one time."
8 Q And did he ask you how you got it?
9 A I think he did.
10 Q And you told him?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Did he ask you.something about the security 13 investigation?
O 14 A Yes. He did ask me. I went into where I told him it was taken out of the desk and he asked me, you know, 16 what was done about it? I told him I did report'it to 17 -security.
18 O No, how did you happen to talk about that it had 19 been taken out of the desk? -Did he ask a question of you, 20 or did you' volunteer information.about that?
21 A I just volunteered information about it.
22 Q- And what did he say when you told him that it 23 had been -- that someone had gotten into your desk and you
\ -- 24 think had probably made a copy of it? Did you tell him 25 that? That you thought someone had made a copy?
21578.0 22914
. .BRT 1 A Yes, I did.
2 O What did he tell you?
3 A Well, he asked me if it was reported to security 4 and I told him "yes." Because the break-in was.
5 Q Did you have any further conversation with him 6 about the break-in?
7 A Not that I recall; no.
8 O Now, when you spoke to Mr. Brandt, can you
~
9 remember whether you told him that Joe Lipinski had given 10 you a copy of the report? Or whether you told him that 11 you had made a copy of a report that Joe gave you and that 12 you didn't know whether Joe-knew you had made the copy?
, , . 13 A I think I told him that I had made a copy of the 14 report.
15 Q And did you share with him any views that you 16 had, or opinions, as to whether Mr. Lipinski knew that you
-17 had a copy of the report?
18 A No, I did not.
19 Q 'Did'you share with him any views as to whether 20 you thought Mr. Miller might have had a copy of the report L 21' A I don't think that came up in the conversation;
- 22. no . .
.s
'23 Q What else did you and Mr. Brandt talk about?
,\> L24 A Just, personal items, _and I think that was it, g
25 JUDGE BLOCH: What's the date of this meeting we I
L 2
21578.0 22915 BRT 1 are talking about?
2 TllE WITNESS: Conversation -- it's some time in 3 October of '84.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
5 THE WITNESS: October or early November of '84; 6 something in that area.
7 BY MR. ROISMAN:
8 O Do you remember whether it was during the day or 9 the evening?
.10 A I think it was during early evening, because my
. 11 children were home. I remember that.
12 O Can you remember whether it was a weekday or a
_ 13 weekend?
' ']
14 A No, I can't.
15 O Now, in that' conversation, did the question of 16' your testifying in this hearing come up at all?
17 A No, it did'not -- oh, I take that back. Yes, it 18 did.
19- O 'Okay.
20 A He asked me if -- I don't know if it was that 21 conversation or another one, when I called Tom about 22 something. And then I also talked to Ms. Garde.
23 I don't remember if it was in Tom's conversation or O
b/ -24 whennTom called me or when I called him or when I talked 25' to Ms.-Garde, that I told him if-they wanted me to come I
L t.
21578.0 22916 '
BRT 1
I 1 testify I would be more than willing. I wasn't excited 2 about it, but I would be more than willing; I would come
-- / 3 as a utility witness, come as whatever.
4 O Did you have a second phone conversation with 5 Mr. Brandt after that first one?
6 A Yes, I did. I contacted Mr. Brandt; yes.
7 0 You called him?
8' A Yes.
9 Q Roughly when was that?
10 A Days -- I'm really not sure when it was. It.was 11 after -- I guess -- after I talked to him. It could have 12 been a week, it could have been two weeks.
13 O And the subject of that conversation?
14 A I just wanted to know what was' going on.
15 I'll tell you what, I do recall now that it was after 16 Ms. Garde talked to me. I called Tom Brandt and asked him, i:
17 "What the heck is going on? I'm getting these strange 18 phone calls from people I don't know."
i i 19 O And what did he tell you?
20 A He told me that the hearing was going on, or 21 there was going to be a hearing, or something of that i
22 fashion. I think he told me'the hearing was going on --
23 which -Ms. Garde also told me -- and that the Lipinski trip
~ '24 report was being discussed.
25 0 And what else transpired in that phone P
21578.0 22917
.BRT-1 conversation?-
2 A I think that's about all.
)~ 3- Okay, now, what happened is when I called Tom I called 4 'the number that I was given, and he wasn't there. I left i- 5 a message for him to return the call and;he returned the i
6 call to me. I remember that now.
7 O Okay. So you say the number you were given.
- - 8 You mean some number down in Glen Rose? Or someplace in 9 Texas? Or --
10 A I think it was a Washington, D.C. number.
11 .O How did you get the number? .Who gave you the.
1:2 number? :You said the number you were given?
. 13 A I think Tom might have left the number with-me.-
'14 I don't recall exactly how I got the number.
15 O You think it might have been during that first 16 conversation with Mr. Brandt?
17.. A It could very well'have been; yes.
18 O' Would you remember the number-if it were 19 repeated?
20 A No. I would not.
21- MR. WATKINS: Oh, shucks.
-22 .(Laughter.)
. 23 BY MR. ROISMAN:
- /3
\_) :2'4 Q. In your conversation with the security people 25 about the break-in, did you give them any of your thoughts
21578.0~ 22918 BRT 1 as to who you thought might have been responsible for the 2 break-in? Or --
3 A In conversation with the security guard? No , I 4 did not.
5 Q Neither with the one on the telephone or the one 6 that came to see you?
7 A Right.
8 -O How about with Brando? With Mr. Brando? Did 9 you discuss it with him?
10 A I don't recall discussing it with Mr. Brando at 11 all.
12 O Did you say anything to the security guards 13 about the fact that you had understood that there had been 14 other break-ins before?
15 A No, I didn't say anything to him about that.
~16 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you recall how you got the 17 information that there had been some previous break-ins?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: And how was that?
20- THE WITNESS: It'was communicated to me by 21 people that work for me..
22 JUDGE BLOCH: Was that part of some effort you^
23 were making to find out what had har >ened?
.x_f 24 .THE WITNESS: No. That was prior to it. That 25 was part of communication with the inspectors on a
- 21578.0 22919 BRT.
1 day-to-day basis.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you make any effort on your
) .3. .own part after it happened to find out who did it to you?
4 THE WITNESS: No, I really did not. I just left 5 it up to security.
6 BY MR. ROISMAN:
7 O Now, you indicated that subsequent to the time 8 that the break-in had occurred, you had several 9 conversations with Mr. Lipinski about a variety of i
10 different matters, but that, as I remember, your 11 recollection is unclear as to which things you discussed 12 at which times.
13 For the moment,-I'm also not interested in that. What 14 I am interested in you best as you can recalling, whether-
, .15 certain things were ever discussed with Mr. Lipinski. So, 16 . don't worry about whether it was in October or January or 17 whatever.
- 18 But, first of all, did you and Mr. Lipinski ever 19 discuss how he felt about the' fact that the trip report l
20 had gotten out?
21_ A I don't recall anything about that; no.
22 O Did he-ever have any discussion with you about 23 whether he was concerned about his job at O.B. Cannon, or
<~s s 24 thought that he might be in trouble as a result of having --
l 25' in any way related to the trip report?
f l .'
L
21578.0 22920 BRT 1 .A One discussion -- I don't -- like I say, I can't 2 recall exactly when, where, or how -- but it sticks in my y 3 niind that it wasn't so much about the trip report, it-was i
4 more or less about what had happened down there, and the 5 reaction that the utility had toward what he had -- the 6 trip he had made.
7 Q And what do you remember, as best as you can, of 8 that conversation? Who said what?
^9 A It's not so much who said what. It was that Joe 10 was concerned for his well-being at Cannon because of what 11' luul happened. I don't know if it was because the trip 1
12 report, you know -- I don't recall that. But it was 13 becauselof his well-being at cannon, it might end up
~ (O 14 costing him~his job because of what had happened down
.15 there.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: Can you roughly place the 17- timeframe of that conversation, or does that merge with 18 other conversations? ,
19 TFE WITNESS: ~ It really all merges together.
20 It's hard to --
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Subsequent to the initial' trip?
22 Was it after August?
~
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm pretty sure it was. I C
>)
(s- 24' think it was lEke when I talked to him at Christmas or 25 somewhere in that time. I'm not exactly sure of the date.
4 g ,- -y-w -
.- * , - , - - c- -y,, , - - . - , , e ,
'21578.0 22921 BRT 1 BY MR. ROISMAN:
2 O Well, you have some events that were taking 3 place in your life then. Let's go over some of them and 4 see if that helps you pin it down.
5- Do you think it was after you-had left Comanche Peak?
6 A Yes, I'm pretty sure it was.
7 Q. So it was pretty sure that you were at Midland 8 by the time this happened?
9 A Yes.
10 Q When did you actually leave Comanche Peak?
11 A Some time in October; 21st I think is what we 1:2 talked about, Thursday, was the 21st of October.
13 Q And you went directly to Midland at that time?
O.
\- / 14 0 Yes. I took seven days to get there. I went to
, 15 work the first of November at Midland.
16 Q And I remember your testimony was that the early 17 days at Midland were pretty hectic for you?
18 A The early days at Midland, I was in the training 19 program so I was on and off-site quite a bit.
- 20 0 So, do you think it's likely that the 21 conversation could have taken place, any conversation with 4 22 Mr. Lipinski in that time period?
23 A. During that time period it would have been
('/T w 24 almost impossible to find me.
25 0 And how would Lipinski have known if he wanted k-
- y. - - _ -- _ _ _ _ . . _. _ . . _ .
,s' P ?
21578.0 22922 BRT D ..
af 1 to callfyou -- how-would he have known where you were, by t
2 the time you were in Midland? That is, even that you were
) 3 in Midland, Michigan, rather than Texas?
- 4~ .A ,Okay. We had talked that he -- he knew when I 5 . was leaving.. And there was a gentleman that worked there q;
I
. 6 '. 'at Midland that knew Joe personally, also, that worked as 7 one of the leads in the department.
'8 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that someone that you had f:
4 il 9 talked to at Joe's suggestion?
3 .,
' 10 THE WITNESS: No.
b 11 JUDGE BLOCH: It just happened to be a 12 coincidence?
i.
~
s 13 THE WITNESS: It just happened to be a
>I - -
. 14 coincidence;-yes.
l' 15- BY MR.'ROISMAN:
i:
16- -Q Do you -'~can,you. remember whether;you toldf the
' 17 other. person who was at Midland who knew Joe that if.he' 1 18 should talk to Joe that it was all'right to give Joe-your'
[, - 19 . telephone number and then did you give that-guy your phone I 12 0 number for that purpose? .
21 JL No. I don't recall telling that gentleman that.
t% 22 I don't_-- I think Joe might have asked.for me, if he had.
e E23 talked to this gentleman.
.24' O. And,.'can you recollect after you got to' Midland 25 whether the first time-that you and Lipinski spoke,' you or x.
.t
...}'
+
r
_ . . . . . _ . . . - ~ .
-21578.0. 22923 BRT 1 he initiated the phone call?
2 A Like I say, it was in the Christmas area, and I
'-' ) 3 don't recall if he made the call or not, or if I made the 4 phone call. It -- there was one conversation that I do 5 remember. I do remember talking to Joe. I don't remember 6 the conversation. But it was he called to talk to this 7 gentleman that worked -- that he knew there. And it just 8 so happened that after that, just prior to that time I was 9 made this man's boss. And Joe asked if he had seen me.
10 He says: "Well, yes, I work for him now. "
11 I remember Joe said that when he comes on the phone, he 12 gives the guy a bad time -- so --
13 Q And when did you become that guy's boss at 4
~ '
14 Midland?
15 A The 27th of November of '83.
16 .O And was the first time that you spoke to Joe 17 'Lipinski after you got to Midland, after you had become 18 that guy's boss?
19 A I think it was. That would be -- that could 20 .have been that Christmas call I'm thinking about, too.
21 Q Was there some time lag after you got to Midland, 22 before you got a phone at home?
23 A Yes. I think it was about a week.
' O's > 24 Q Now, you remember from looking at Mr. Lipinski's 25 notes that there were apparently two conversations that
v
'21578.0 22924
<. BRT I
11 you and he had in October -- if his notes are correct --
,. 12 of83, one on the 3rd and one on the 10th, in which the 3- subject, according to his notes, came up of whether you
[ :4 were' leaving the Comanche Peak site or not. Do you have
! 5- any recollection whether you had any conversations with L
i 6 him,~ assuming that you would recollect having those two, I 7 'after those two conversations? After the loth of October?
8 Before you left Comanche Peak?
9 A I don't recall anything; no.
I 10 Q Now, when Mr. Lipinski told you about this 11 concern that he had about his job at O.B. Cannon as a
.12 - result of all of the things that were_ going on down at I, 13' Comanche Peak, how did you respond to that? What did you
!~ ' 14 say to.him when he told you that?
15 A- Knowing me and the time, I would probably have 16 - told' Joe I,had a-job for him if he needed-one. But I 17 don't recall saying -- exactly what I said to him. I 18 .think the basis was, "Well, if you need a job I've got- one
- 19 up here."
20 Q And what.did -- do you remember how he responded 21- to.that?
22 A No, I don't. Knowing Joe -- Joe uses acronyms.
23 .He probably said, " Fine,' fine,. fine," or something of this
). .
24 nature.
25 0 .Did you get the sense, in the conversation with-
21578.0~ 22925 BRT 1 him, that he was really very serious in saying that he 2 thought that his job might be in trouble as a result of
' (O x,,/ 3 all'the things that were going on down at Comanche Peak?
4 A From the feeling of the conversation, I would l 5 say he was quite concerned about it; yes.
6 Q Do you remember whether you had a conversation 7 about that concern at any subsequent time?
8 A No. I don't recall anything.
9 O No time when he told you: " Gee, I think that's 10 all blown over now"? Or, "it looks like things are okay"?
11 A No. I don't remember anything like that.
12 O You don't think you would have raised it with
,_, 13 him at some subsequent conversation, and say: " Hey, Joe, I\~h' 14 are you still at O.B. Cannon?" Or --
15 A No, I don't.
16 -Q In your conversation at the time that he talked 17 to you about the -- his concern about the job, can you 10 remember whether he discussed at all a meeting that he had 19 had at the site with Merritt, Tolson, and others, 20 subsequent to the meeting that he had way back in July or 21 any meeting he might have had during his August visit?
22 A I don't remember any discussion about any 23 meetings; no.
A
'x_) 24 O Did he -- do you remember him ever discussing 25 with you having any contacts with the Nuclear Regulatory
i 21578.0 22926
=BRT 1- -Commission about his -- about his trip report or the paint 2 coatings at Comanche Peak?
O\_/ 3 A No, I don't.
4 Q Any discussions with you about his meet..g with 5 the lawyers for the utility in preparing testimony?
6 A I think one question that Mr. Gallo asked, I 7 think I talked to Joe in October of this year and it comes 8 to mind that --
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Last year.
10 THE WITNESS: Beg your pardon? Oh, yes, '84.
11 And I think it comes to mind that that was mentioned, 12 something about lawyers and -- I don't remember the whole 13 conversation, but I know the lawyers were brought up into
\' 14 the conversation.
15 BY MR. ROISMAN:
16 O Can you remember anything that was said about 17 them that's not derogatory?
18 No, that's all right, you can tell us if it's 19 derogatory also?
20 A I think the basis -- he was making a deposition 21 to the NRC. I think that's what it was, making a 22 deposition to the NRC, and lawyers would be there.
23 Q Did he say anything about whether he was going I)
~'/' -24 to have a lawyer or-not have a lawyer?
25 A No, I-don't recall him saying anything about
I 21578.0 22927
- ' ERP j ._
- l. that.
p, .
2 .O And you mentioned before that he had asked you
.3 whether you had - .whether he had given you a copy of the l 4 trip. report, and that you hadLtold him "no," that you'had '
r-5 not.- Can you remember when that conversation took place? .
6 Was that -- for instance, did that come before or after
- 7 you got to Midland?.
8 A Him asking me if I had a copy of-the trip report? ;
9 Yes. '
Q.
i' 10 A No. I don't recall any -- no. I don't.
4 11 Q Can you remember whether that.came up in more
- f. L12 than one, conversation with him? Whether he had given you
- 13 a copy of the trip report?
l 14' A I think I previously testified at~some time he 4
'15- did. But prior to my time being at Midland -- no. l 16- Q No. . I'm sorry, I'm trying.to find out if you -
17~ think it was more than once that the conversation! turned ->
i 18 to that issue?- , ,
i l 19 A I think it did more than'once: -yes . .
9 20
.Q And on both occasions the conversation was the-same? HeLasked you? ,
~22 .A Yes.
23 0 You told him that he had'not?
n..v t
b 24~ A' Yes.
k Jt5 Q Did you ever tell him that"you didn't think you t 'l
}
ce=--~~%,ww-+v,v,ev.w,y-,,--,.,,,,w-%,,,ym--,,,.-,m..w,-ww,-w.r.r--, .,,rmwew-,-
}
'21578.0-
- 22928
-BRT 1 could remember?
2 A No.
h\
1s d. 3. O You always gave him an unequivocal answer: "No,"
14 you didn't.
5 A Well, I either told him "no," I didn't, or "I 6 don't remember." I think it was no - "no, I don't think 7 you did, Joe" -- I don't think he did.
8 Q_ Did he ever tell you why he wanted to know the 9 answer to that question?
10 A No, I don't think he ever did.
11 0 Can you remember learning from him that the-trip 12 report was out? That is, that he was the source of your 13 knowing ~that?
14 A Well, I-think from our -- that one conversation
,15 we had, he asked me about it, and then he said thatf they 16 . were still-doing some things with Comanche Peak. And I --
- 17. I think I probably assumed that then.
18- Q Assumed which then? That the report was out?
19 A- Yes. And that it was creating problems.
20 0 When you -- I want you to think on this 21- carefully. Is it your recollection that the first-22 knowledge that you had that the trip report was out, other 23- than what you.might have assumed after knowing your desk
'O
\_^ 24 had been-broken into, was in a conversation-that.you had 25- with Joe Lipinski?
21578.0 22929
-BRT 1 A No. It was with Don Driskill at the -- the NRC 2- man that came and talked to me in November.
. !(Q
_/ 3 Q November of --
4 A '83. So, indeed I did know it was out.
'5 EXAMINATION 6 BY JUDGE BLOCH:
7 O Mr. Mouser, when you first learned that the trip 8 report was out, can you recall whether you had a question 9 'in your mind as to whether that was the same report that 10 you had seen?
il A No. I just assumed it was the same report.
12 Be'cause it was -- I think Mr. Driskill told me that it was y, 13 the report of the consultant that Texas Utilities had
\~# 14 hired. And it was O.B. Cannon.
15 O Did you have a question in your mind as to 16 whether a final draft letter, a final letter had been sent 17 to the company to officially report on the' trip?
18 A No, I didn't. I didn't ask anything like that.
19 I just took it for granted that, yes, it was indeed a 20 formal letter type. You know, it was a letter to the 21 utility.
22 0 I'm sorry, did you assume that a letter to the.
23 utility was what had come out? Or that the draft report
\> 24 that you had seen had come out?
25 .A Well, from talking to Mr. Driskill, I assumed
21578.0 22930 BRT 1 that it was a letter. And I said it was the trip report.
2 And from that point I just took it to be a trip report.
3 O And did any questions in your mind arise at that 4 point as to whether in addition to a leak, there was also 5 a letter which was the report, the formal report?
6 A No. I didn't think about that at all.
7 Q Do you recall whether or not Mr. Driskill asked 8 you about that?
9 A No, I don't.
10 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 11 BY MR. ROISMAN:
12 O When you first learned that the trip report was 13 out, did you think that that was a big event? Was there 7_
5'-
14 something that you learned, or knew, that made you think 15 that that was a momentous event of any kind?
16 A I don't think it was so much a momentous event 17 of any kind. I thought it was kind of strange.
18 Q When you talked --
19 JUDGE BLOCH: What does that mean to you?
20 " Strange" in what way?
21 THE. WITNESS: That a report that I had 22 originally thought was, you know, to be made to the 23 utility, was such a big deal.
24 BY MR. ROISMAN:
25 Q And so, when you talked to Mr. Lipinski and he
21578.0 22931 BRT 1 indicated to you his concern about his position at 0.B.
2 Cannon, you felt that the concern was because -- not the 3 trip report itself -- but because Lipinski had expressed 4 some negative views and you knew what that meant at 5 Comanche Peak? And that's how you understood why he might 4 6 have been concerned over that?
7 A Yes. I think that kind of describes it; yes.
8 O Now, did-you in any subsequent conversation with 9 Mr. Lipinski, in any conversation with Mr. Lipinski, ever 10 get a sense from him that he thought that it was a big 11 thing that the report had leaked as opposed to it was a 12 big thing that the report had said what it said?
13 A I think it was -- I didn't really get any 14 feeling. I think it was more or less that the report was 15 out. I guess you could say leaked.
16 Q So at some time he also indicated that he was 17 concerned both that it was out and that he was having 18 friction over the things that he had said?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Do you ever remember a conversation with him in 21 which he indicated to you that he had changed his mind 22 about any of the things that he had said in the report?
23 A I don't remember anything like that; no.
(~h .
() 24 O, Given the nature of your relationship with him, 25 would you have expected that if he had in fact changed his
k-
~ 21578.0 22932 CRT 1 mind about any of the things in the report, any major 2 things in the report, that he would have mentioned that to
~
- 3 you in one or more of these conversations?
4 A I don't know if that would have came up; no. It 5 might not have.
6 Q Did the number of conversations that you had 7 with Mr. Lipinski, and their frequency, change after the 8 first of the year? That is, after the beginning of 19847 9 A The number of them?
10 Q Yes. How often you spoke with him compared to 11 howcit had been in, say in preceding years?
12 A Well, there really wasn't -- I could say 13 Christmas was really'the most frequent -- through holiday
'- 14 greetings and things like that. There was really no 15 frequency to them.
16 Q I believe you testified -- I'm sorry?
- 17 A Every -- it's something hard to pinpoint. I say 18 I talked to him then. I talked to him in July. And in 19 between then I might have talked to him 10 times, but I 20 don't remember.
21 O So it wasn't that you usually spoke once a. month 22 and then suddenly you started talking once every six 23 months?
'v 24 A Yes.
25 O As far as you can tell, the frequency is not
,7
21578.0 22933 BRT-f I dramatically changed in 1984 versus any other year?
2 A No. Not at all.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you tell me'where the 4 conversation with Mr. Driskill took place about the trip 5 report? Where were you?
6 THE WITNESS: It took place in the NRC
. 7 conference room on the site at Midland.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: At Midland? -;
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
11 BY MR. ROISMAN:
12 Q The July conversation, what can you remember
. 13 about that conversation? Who started -- who placed the 14 phone call?
7 15 MR. WATKINS: I'm sorry, could we have a year?
16 MR. ROISMAN: I'm sorry, July of '84.
17 THE WITNESS: July of '84?
18 MR. ROISMAN: Yes.
-s 19' THE WITNESS: That was July of this last year?
. 20 MR. ROISMAN: Correct. t 21 THE WITNESS: I think I had placed that call.
22 BY MR. ROISMAN:
23 O And why had you called Mr. Lipinski?-
24 A Very shortly I was going to be without a job.
I 25 wanted to see what -- I was basically looking for a job
,ew-,wwww wy y, _m.+v
!21578.0 22934 ERT 11 and kind of give him my status, of where I was at.
2 O Was there any. discussion in that phone call that
( .
3 you remember, of any matters related to Comanche Peak?
4- 'A At that time -- I said it might have very well 5 came up. But at that time I was more worried about my 6 well-being than much of anything else. So I don't 7 remember too much about that.
8 O Do you remember anything at all about it, about 9 Comanche Peak at that conversation?
10 A No, I don't.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: At one point you became. concerned
-12 that your relationship with people at Comanche Peak might 13 be affected. Did you have that feeling in that
)- 14 conversation?
15 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't. ,
'16 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's take seven minutes, which-17 will give us until 4 minutes after.
18 (Recess.)
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Roisman?
' 20 ' BY MR. ROISMAN:
/
~
21 Q .Mr. Mouser, you said on Thursday that the reason 22 that you did not tell Mr. Lipinski that in fact you did, 23 or you had had a copy of the report earlier, and I think 24 your words were,.because you did not want to get into'it.
25 Can you tell me what did you mean by that? "Get into" 1
A b% 1
21578.0 22935 ERT
.1 what?
2 A Oh, I.didn't want to get involved back in 3' Comanche Peak.
4 O And why was that?
5 A Because I had left and left that behind me and 6 had, you know, liked the job I was at now -- at the time.
7: Q Did you ' think it might have some adverse impact
-8 on you?
9 A Yes, I did.
10 0 What was the adverse impact you thought it might 11 have?
12 A Eventually ending up being in a number of 13 hearings and being -- spending many, numerous days
'- 14 answering questions like we are doing now..
15 Q Did you think that it might in any way -- that 16 the fact that some of the things that you had to say were 17 critical of-the plant might have an adverse impact on your 18 career-in the nuclear industry?-
19 A Yes.
20 Q Had anything happened that you were aware of at 21 Comanche Peak, or happened subsequent to the time of 22 leaving Comanche Peak, that gave you a basis for that 23 belief?
f.
i- 24 ,
A No. I never saw anything at the time that I was 25 there, but it was just a feeling that I had.
l: ,
l 21578.0 22936 3RT' i
1 Q -When you had your conversation with Mr. Driskill 2- .in November of '83, did -- was it a recorded conversation? ;
)- 3 Did-someone transcribe it in some way? Or tape it?
L 4 A No, it was not. It was just between him and i
5 myself.
[' 6 O' Did you feel comfortable in answering all the 7 questions that he asked you without any reservation?
8 A4 Well, I knew Mr. Driskill and I was hesitant to 9 talk to the gentlemen.
! 10 Q Why is that?
! 11 A I don't. trust the gentlemen.
l L 3 12 O Trust in what sense?
~
13 A That he was doing the job that he was hired to 14 do. ,
15' O Were you concerned that --
16 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry. What did that mean?
17 THE WITNESS: -That he.was indeed an investigator i
18 and that, indeed, from prior experience with the man, that
19 what you told to him-in-confidence did indeed not stay in ,
20 confidence.
21 BY MR. ROISMAN:
22 O And had you had an experience like that with him 23 before?
~
( ;
24 A Yes, I did.
25 0 would you recount it for us, please?
'N
...--,--,.---m+- ~~
.21578.0" 22937
[RT 1 A It.was when I was in the design change authority 2 group up on the hill, working with some other gentlemen, 3 who were -- two other gentlemen and myself, that talked to 4 :Mr. Driskill during an audit that they did on the site.
s 5 And some of what the one gentleman brought up was 6 questioned a few days later by the supervisor.
7 O' You mean somebody'from tne plant raised
~
8 questions about- a subject that this man had mentioned as >
c 9 far as you and he' knew, only to the NRC investigator?
10 A Yes. And then also at that meeting one of the 11- gentlemen -- I.should say after the meeting, one of the 12 gentlemen said that Mr. Driskill had been talk -- had 13 talked'to many of the inspectors on-site at different 14 times and that -- like I say, this ic hearsay from this 15 gentleman --'and that the information that they talked 16~ about was-immediately-general'information of the utility.
17- .And being an NRC man, that'was not supposed to.be'the way 18 -it was. What you told .them in confidence was to be kept 19 in confidence.
20 Q- Do you think that was' fairly common knowledge 21 among the people that you had contact with at Comanche
-22 Peak? ~ That is, that if you told something to Mr. Driskill 23 .you.should expect that it would ultimately get to the 24 company?
.25 A -It.wasn't so much to Mr. Driskill. It was told --
w 21578.0 22938 ERT 1 and this is the feelings that the inspectors had, and many 2 of them made comment about it -- that they felt that if
.n.
(_) 3 you talked to the resident man or any of the NRC people 4 that were dealing with the plant down there, that it is l
5 just'like talking into a loudspeaker. It went right back 6 into the utility.
7 0 Was that a condition that was prevalent at the 8 time that you first started at Comanche Peak?
9 A Yes.
10 Q or is it something that arose after that?
11 A That was the feeling that was there all the time.
12 The inspectors all felt that way. That if you talked to 13 the resident man or something like that, it was talking
( )
- / 14 directly to the utility. I hate to point the finger at 15 the guy, this is kind of deep charges, you could say --
16 but this is the feelings that were there.
17 Q And how broad was your exposure to inspectors 18 and other people that formed the basis of your feelings 19 that it was a fairly widespread belief at the plant?
20 A A number of the inspectors that I talked to that 21 had been there for a very long period of time, all felt 22 that way.
23 O Both coatings and non-coatings inspectors?
s I
k-] 24 A Yes, ASME inspectors, non-ASME side of the house, 25 welding inspectors, hanger inspectors. ,
21578.0 22939 BRT 1 O In your job in the design change area, did you 2 have occasion to come in contact with lots of different
} 3 inspectors from different disciplines?
4 A Yes, I did. Like I say, we are all a family.
1 5 We knew each other from different jobs. I worked with 6 them in Idaho, Washington, places like this.
7 0 When you say "we" you are now talking about QC 8 inspectors as the "we"?
9 A Yes.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: With respect to the people who 11 worked with you when you were the supervisor, you told us 12 that all but three of them had epoken to the NRC. Did you i
13 have any feeling from what they told the NRC at that time 14 that their confidences were not kept?
15 THE WITNESS: I think the inspectors-felt that 16 the reason why the -- the feelings management had'was 17 because of the information that was getting back to them 18 through a source, which they all tabbed as being the NRC 19 man.
20 Like I say, these are all feelings and thoughts from
-i 21 these inspectors.
22 MR. ROISHAN: I have no further questions at 23 this time. .
(J 24 EXAMINATION 25 BY JUDGE BLOCH:
- 21578.'O 22940 BRT 1 Q. Mr. Mouser, do you know directly or indirectly l 2 about any special attention that the Applicants may have
-3 paid to the people who Mr. Lipinski spoke to while he was 4 on-site? Do you know of any way in which they spoke with ?
I
! 5. them or tried to find out what happened between them and I 6 Mr. Lipinski?
7 A No, I don't. I don't think anything like that 8 happened. l 9 O And, do you recall when your first contact 10 occurred with the Midland plant,-prior to your taking the )
11 Ljob'there?
12 A Repeat that again, Judge?
13 -. O Do you recall when your first contact was with ,
(~% l J 14 the Midland plant, leading to the job that you ultimately 15 took there?.
16 A My first contact was back in March or April.
17 And what it was was a contact with the contract shop that 18 I finally went to work for.
19 O So that contact actually pr'edated your working 20 on coatings at Comanche Peak?
21 A' Yes, it did.
22 O And was there a time in the fall of 1983 when 23 :you renewed that contact and made it become more urgent,
[)
A /- 24 made them know that you were really interested in going
'25~ somewhere?
s
_ - . - . - - - . - ~ . - . - - . - . - . - - ~ . . . - - - . - -.-.
21578.0 22941
, BRT 4
i 1 A I talked to them in the early part of July is
, 2 the last -- I remember I talked to them then and I talked ,
3 to them in'the early, early part of July. Right around
- 4 the 4th. ,
5 Because I had some things that I wanted to clarify with I
6 them. I remember asking, you know, saying: This is close
- 7 to.the holidays, Fourth of July, I know I just need a i- .
'8 couple of quick things answered and I asked them some ,
) 9 questions about moving expenses and things like this.
.1'O :That was the last time I talked to them until they called
.11 me and told me they had a job for me. I h 12 Q When did that occur? [
13 A That was sometime-in the midmonth of October. I
. O=
14 can't really pinpoint the exact date. I-don't recall. .
v >
15 -Q Do you recall how that conversation went.
'16- A I, remember my wife received a call-from the shop 17 and she immediately jumped on the phone and got ahold of-
" ^
18 me and at that, time I contacted them.
19 0 Was it in that conversation? What: happened in
~20 that conversation?
E . .
- ~
21: A- They told me that.they had a position for me at-22l Midland as an inspector in the civil department in the
'.. .23. Lwelding branch'and that they said they -- the contracts-e 24 -were.in the mail to me and that I should sign them and
~25 : send them back to them.
i L
l:.
~
Y
5: ,
f M
ti[
h; 21578.0 22942 n ERT l' Q Did that represent a pay cut?
2 A Well, it depends -- in hourly wage, a little bit 3 more. In per diem, a lot more. So there's a little bit
' 4- of.a raise. Not much, but a little bit.
'S Q So, even though you were going from a 6 supervisory position to an inspector's position you were 7; getting a raise?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And did you tell them on the phone at that time 10 that you were going to sign that contract and send it back?.
11 10r was it left open?
12' A I told them at that time I would.look at the 13 contract and I'was very interested in the-job. Most 14 likely I would sign the contract'and send it back to them.
-15 10. In October of 1984 you had a conversation with' 16 Mr. Brandt'about the Lipinski report.- That's correct,
'17 .isn't it?.
- 18. A Yes.
19 Q- lAnd during that time you told him certain things 20 about what had happened with that report. Did you ever
'21: have a chance,.an opportunity to call him back and say:-
22 "Look, I. thought'about it.and I remember-some.more things. ,
g . "23 about it; I remember different things"?-
L -24 A' " No . - My'next conversation with him was when I I 25 called. Then he' turned around and called me back. -And
l t
21578.0 22943 BRT 1 that was after Ms. Garde had talked to me.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Watkins, we could start for 3 about 10 minutes or so and then take our lunch break.
4 CROSS-EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. WATKINS:
1 6 Q Mr. Mouser, who is paying your expenses of 7 coming to Washington to testify?
8 A The NRC.
9 Q Are they paying all your expenses?
10 A No. Not all of them; no.
11 O Have you been subpoenaed to testify here?
-12 A I received a letter. I don't know -- I don't 13 think it was a subpoena; no.
_ (1) 14 Q Do you know what a subpoena is?
15 A Yes, sir, I do.
16 Q Did you make a decision not to require a 17 subpoena for your appearance here?-
[ 18 -A I told them if they really wanted me they could-19 have me come.- I would come. I told them -- I didn't talk 20 directly to the NRC. I talked to Ms. Garde. And told I.
21
- 'them that I wasn't too excited'about testifying and that 22 if they wanted to they could subpoena me, and then
- 23. throughout -- after that conversation I decided-that,
- - kJ 24 indeed,'if-they wanted me to come I would come and testify.
25 0- Did you consult with Mr. Sims as to whether you l
u L
r I
21578.0 22944 ,
BRT l l
l l 1 should be subpoenaed rather than appear voluntarily?
2 MR. SIMS: I would just caution the witness that
) 3 the question is whether you discussed it with me, not the 4 content of the conversations.
l 5 MR. WATKINS: I agree.
6 MR. SIMS: Because the content of the 7 conversations would be privileged under attorney / client 8 privilege.
9 THE WITNESS: I don't recall if it was for a 10 subpoena or not. I don't --
11 BY MR. WATKINS:
12 O You don't recall discussing that question with
_s 13 him?
_] 14 A Yes. I do not.
15 Q In your mind, does the fact that you are 16 appearing here voluntarily, as opposed to being subpoenaed, 17 make any difference in the substance of your testimony?
18 A No. I don't think it does.
19 Q With whom have you' reviewed your testimony in-20 this proceeding?
21 A I have talked to my lawyer about it.
^
22 Q Mr. Sims?
23 A Yes.
.gm
(-} 24 0 Anyone else?
25 A' As to what-I would testify? No.
21578.0 22945 BRT 1 May I -- Mr. Watkins, excuse me. I.did -- I think I 2 did talk to Ms. Garde about, you know, if I would tell how I: 3 the trip report got out and if I would tell the feelings I 4' that I-had and things like that down there. At that point
. 5 I said yes, I would.
6 Q When was your last conversation with Ms. Garde?
t 7 A The exact date I'm .ot sure, but she called me 8 at my house and talked to me.
i' 9 Q You have reviewed one volume of Mr. Lipinski's 10~ testimony; is that correct?
11 A Yes.
l 12 O Could you identify that for the record?, The day?
!. '13 A Okay. It's dated Wednesday,~ December 5th,L1984.
j 14 Q Have you reviewed any other. transcripts from 15 this. proceeding?-
16 A I think that's it. This is the one here. .And' l
. '17 these are the only other ones-I've' looked-at and then 18 looked at the Dunham transcript and that's it.
.: 19 ~Q Did you look.at the Dunham transcript or just-t 20 your testimony?
21 A I take that back. I didn't look at the Dunham 22 transcript, I looked at the decision the judge made on the
- 23 Dunham transcript -- Dunham trial.
'O-s- ~24l -Q You have not looked at the actual transcript? -
25 A- No.
l s
l
21578.0 22946 BRT 1 O You have reviewed Mr. Lipinski's notes, his 2 weekly summary logs and his diary notes; is that correct?
) 3 A I have looked at them. At a few pages. I 4 haven't reviewed them totally yet.
5 0 And you have reviewed a letter to this board 6 from me, with an attached security report?
7 A Yes. It's dated December 17th.
8 Q Have you reviewed any other documents for 9 preparing for your testimony here?
10 A Yes. I guess the deposition, or pretrial 11 testimony, of Mr. Joe Lipinski.
12 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Sims, could you identify that?
13 MR. SIMS: Yes, I did, the first day. This is O 14 the written Q and A testimony put in by Mr. Lipinski in 15 this proceeding.
l'6 MR.-WATKINS: Does it have a date on it?
17 MR. SIMS: " Exhibit 34" it says at the top.
18 MR. ROISMAN: That's from our exhibit 19 identification list.
20 MR. WATKINS: Is that the prefiled testimony of 21 Joe Lipinski in this~ proceeding?
22 MR. ROISMAN: I believe it is. Let me just take 23 a look at it.
r N' 24 MR. SIMS: That's my understanding.
25 MR. ROISMAN: Well, there's another piece -- yes.
i L' e
i 21578.0 22947 BRT
,1 That's it. ,
-2 MR. TREBY: Well, maybe to help clarify,
' ~
3 Mr. Sims could tell us what the source of that document is?
4 MR. SIMS: In preparing for the testimony, I 5 asked'Mr. Roisman for a list of documents that were -
6 referred to in the transcript volume that Ms. Garde had b' 7 sent to Mr. Mouser. And I then reviewed the' list and I 8 borrowed some of the documents from Mr. Roisman and copied 9 them. Although -- I mean obviously I was -- in doing my 10' Jown preparation, I-looked at some of the documents that I
11 were referred to. I knew that Mr. Mouser couldn't 12 possibly look at all the documents prior to testifying, 13 and I selected the ones that it seemed to me might be
' O Dl4 useful in refreshing his recollection before the testimony 15 and those~are.the documents he described. The' transcript 16 volume had been sent to him previously by Ms.: Garde.
17_ BY MR. WATKINS:
18 Q. Mr. Mouser, have you reviewed any.other-
.19- documents in preparing for your testimony here?-
'20: A None that_I.-can think of offhand.
21 Q Have you reviewed an affidavit executed byL 22l Joseph J. Lipinski, dated September 28, 19847
~ 23' .A An affidavit?. No. I. don't think!I have.
E' 24 JQ- The subject matter _of~the. affidavit was his' trip _
25 report,- and the technical.. issues raised in the trip?.
21578.0' 22948 BRT 1 A No. I don't remember seeing anything like that.
2 O When you discussed with Ms. Garde the 3 circumstances regarding your participation or your 4 familiarity with the trip report, did she describe to you 5 Mr. Lipinski's testimony? Or did she simply elicit from
~
}. 6 you what you remembered of the facts? .
7 A I think it was a little bit of both, i
8 Q Do you recall what she said Mr. Lipinski had 9 testified to?
10 A I think she told me that he had testified about Y .
11 talking to me on the phone.- I remember that. And about e
12 talking to me at the site. I think that's about all I 13 ' remember from the conversation.
'O -
14 Q Did she tell you that Mr. Lipinski had testified 15 that he had asked you whether you had ever had a copy of
- 9
- 16 the trip report and you said "no"?
- . 17 A I don't recall her saying that.
18 Q Have you been promised-any benefit, financial or 19 otherwise,'for-appearing in this proceeding as a witness?
20 A' No,-I have not.
~ 21 Q By anyone?
h i-h 22 A -No. Other than part of my expenses.
l~
h .. 23 O I was unclear as to exactly what:your
.,r)
[AI 24 certification at WPPS 2 was in, _or certifications,-if you
, -25 have more than one. Could you describe those, please?.
II r.
w.
21578.0 22949 BRT 1 A Okay. Bechtel certified me as a level 1 or 2 level 2 inspector and I was certified as a level.2 3 inspector at WPPS, in the civil department.
4 O How does -- there were only two levels, 1 and 27 5 There was not a 3 at WPPS?
6 A No. No 3s at WPPS at all.
7 O How many levels of certification were there at 8 Comanche Peak?
9 A You'd be certified as a level 1 or level 2 and 10 there was also some level 3s on-site.
11 O Was there an equivalent to a Comanche Peak level 12 3 at WPPS?
,_s 13 A Yes, there was.
- k) 14- Q What was that called?
15 A Okay. The first thing, the certification by
.6 1 Bechtel, was different than the certification by the other 17 -contractors that were there. The other contractors that 18 were there would certify -- were certified level 1 and 19 level 2 and level 3. Bechtel's equivalency of a level 2 20 as a level.would be a level 3 that the other contractors 21 had. But the level 3 people for Bechtel were in San 22 Francisco's home office.
23 .O Did you consider that as a level 2 at WPPS Unit 9/-
k-[ 24 2, you were the equivalent of a level 3Lat Comanche Peak?
-25 A No, not so much a level 3; no.
- ,- a w , - , , . rna ,- - --.-,,,w - n -,,,, , , - , , r-- . --
, , --. . . , - , --a
21578.0 22950 BRT 1 O What disciplines -- let me follow up on that.
2 In what sense would you not have been a level 3?
3 A The certification process.
4 O What does a level 3 at Comanche Peak do that you 5 did not do at WPPS? That you were not qualified to do?
6 A My knowledge of level 3 at Comanche Peak, they 7 were the quality -- they did the quality handling and 8 procedures, writing procedures, they handled any real 9 problems that came up in the different fields.
10 Q And you were not qualified to do those things?
11 A At Comanche Peak; no.
12 O Were you at WPPS?
13 A Yes, I was, as a level 2.
~
14- Q What disciplines did a level 2 civil 15 certification cover, at WPPS?
16 A At WPPS?
17 0 Your certification.
-18 A My certification at WPPS. It covered coatings, 19 .back fill, concrete, reinforcing steel, welding in the 20 civil field.- I think that's basically it. All civil ~
21 items.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry -- also what? I didn't 23 mean to cut'you off.
ym I- ~
24 THE WITNESS: Also -- I think that was the basic 25 items that it covered.
i Y -*
l 21578.0 22951 !
BRT 1 MR. GALLO: Ile said "all civil items."
2 THE WITNESS: I said "all civil items." That's (x-) 3 all.
4 (Discussion off the record.)
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's take a half hour now and be 6 back at 5 after.
7 (Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the hearing was 8 recessed, to reconvene at 1:05 p.m., this same day.)
9 10 11 12 13
(l 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 i
21 22 23
(^,
k/ 24 l 25
21578.0 22952 BRT 1 AFTERNOON SESSION (1:10 p.m.)
2 Whereupon, O(,s ; 3 EVERT MOUSER 4 was resumed as a witness and, having been previously duly 5 sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
6 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 4 7 BY MR. WATKINS:
8' O could you refer to page 2 of your resume, please?
9 Under " certifications" you have civil, structural, level 3.
10 A Yes.
11 O Where did you receive that certification?
12 A At Midland.
13 Q- What disciplines did that cover?
14 A All of the civil disciplines.
i 15 Q Could you enumerate those, please? You 16 described before the level 2 disciplines covered by your 17 civil --
t - 18 A Yes.
19 -Q -- certification as WPPS 2. Could you describe 20 the disciplines covered by your level-3 at Midland?
21 A Okay. I was responsible for all civil fields, 22' which included concrete, soils, buildin<, and structural 23 items,_ structural steel, coatings -- I think that's O'
s/- 24 basically it.
- 25 Q Will you describe the training and certification
i
.21578.0 22953 BRT
, 1- process for the level 2 at WPPS, your civil certification?
1 A The training?
3- O With special reference to coatings, please.
4 A Okay. The training of level 2 and certification?
5 O The training that you underwent, which would 6 include classroom or on the job or formal or informal, and F 7 then the examination, if any, for the level 27 8- A okay. The Bechtel level 2 is a general-type 9 certification: It covers the whole civil field. And you 10 have to have your experience. As I previously testified, 11 you-are given -- your biggest test is on the Bechtel 12 manual. You have to know the Bechtel quality manual from
, 13- cover to. cover. Then you have to have adequate experience
~ -
14 in the fields that -- the civil fields. And then you are 15 given on-the-job training and then you are given materials 16 to read and you.are given tests, which.is about a
- 17. threa-hour verbal test on the Bechtel quality manual and-18 then you are given an actual field inspection to be done-19 and a procedure to be written.
I 20 Q All right. Does the Bechtel quality manual'
- i. 21 cover protective coatings in particular?
L
- 22. A- The Bechtel quality manual in particular, it is 23' a manual of all items affecting quality. They don't deal
- s
' ]k- 24 specifically with one item. They cover like storage and H25 maintenance, different' things that you have to have for -
l
- . h
21578.0 22954 BRT 1 storage and maintenance of quality class 1 materials --
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Of what materials?
3 THE WITNESS: Quality class 1 materials.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: All right.
5 THE WITNESS: And they give it, it's more or 6 less a -- I can't find the words to describe it. I guess 7 you would say they cover everything needed for a quality 8 program.
9 BY MR. WATKINS:
10 Q When you said " quality materials," is that 11- coatings materials or all materials?
12 A That is like a storage warehouse. There's a 13 number of different things you look for in the
'- 14 requirements to be a quality class 1 storage warehouse.
15 Q For coatings?
16
~
A For any quality class 1 material.
17 Q So you are talking about, for example, welding 18 materials? Structural steel? All class 1 materials used 19 inside a reactor?
9 20 A Yes. That would be like maintenance, 21 housekeeping, non-eating areas -- just the requirements 12 2 for these different storage areas.
23 Q At WPPS 2 were there different storage areas for
/
k3/ 24 different class 1 materials?
25 A Yes, there was.
i i
L21578.0 22955 BRT 1 O Specifically with reference to coatings, did the 2 Bechtel quality manual cover the storage of protective
)- 3 coatings materials or were the -- were the materials in 4 the manual simply. general in terms of-housekeeping and 5 surveillance and record-keeping and things like that?
6 A They gave some specifica you had to look for in 7 the warehouse, but they didn't cover, per se, coating 8 materials. I guess you would say it's a general statement 9 as to what was required to have quality class 1 storage.
10 Q So the quality manual, just so I'm clear, would 11 not have covered things, for example, such as, if you are 12 using a given coatings product -- given brand of paint --
.;_ 13 these are the temperature requirements for the storage 14 area; these are the receiving and inspection requirements 15 for that particular coating material. Is that correct?
16- A No. That would be covered in the individual.
17- procedure.
- 18. -Q All right. There was a'three-hour oral 19 examination?
20 A. Yes.
21 0 ' Was there a written examination for your level 2
~22' civil certification at Bechtel?
23 A' Okay. Part of that written -- there was a TT
'(_l- 24 written examination and it covered the actual doing an 25 inspection in the field .and writing the - procedure.
21578.0 22956 BRT 1 O okay. I think you said there were three things.
- 2. First was a three-hour oral examination.
3 A Yes.
4 O Second, was an actual field inspection. And 5 when you said " written exam" you meant by that filling out 6 the documentation associated with that field inspection?
7 A Yes. That's the written examination they refer 8 to.
9 O And the third is a procedure?
10 A Yes. That's the part of the written examination
{
11 too. They include that in.
12 O What field inspection did you perform- for your
'13 leval 2 certification?
U 14 A Level 1 certification,-first I performed a
- 15 storage and maintenance warehouse. inspection.
l 16' O What-was'in tne warehouse?
17 A General- construction materials for class l'. I 18 don't specifically remember what was in.it, as.to I
19 warehouse inspection.
i l 20 0 That was for your level 1. What about for your
(-
L 21 ' level 2?
-22 'A Level 2, I think I did a field verification on 23 cad welding, I think is what it was.
'A}s- 24- O What is cad welding?
25 A It's welding of rebir with a mechanical method.
i I
I l
l l
t
21578.0 22957 BRT 1 Q And, as part of each of those field inspections,
- 2 you filled out the appropriate documentation associated
- :
~
(,j . 3 with that? '
4 A Yes.
5 O What procedure did you write for your level 2 at 6 WPPS? Your level 2 civil?
7 A I think it was a procedure, a project called a 8 control instruction, which is a procedure for placement 9 and handling of concrete, I think. I don't totally recall.
10 I think that's what it was.
11 Q Was it a coatings procedure?
12 A No. It was not.
13 Q All right. Once you are certified as a level 2 O 14 at WPPS, what exactly were you certified to do?
15 'A Surveillance inspection of civil subcontractors.
16 O Is there a distinction between surveillance 17 . inspections and actual inspections of work?
18 -A Surveillance inspection is you make sure that 19 -the inspectors that are doing the physical testing are 20 doing it correctly and in accordance with their procedures; 21 yes.
22 O The question was, is there a distinction between 23 uurveillance. inspections.and actual inspections?
- p.
N/ 24 AL Yes. It would be I watch the inspectors - do .
25 their work.
21578.0 22958 BRT-1 O You were not certified to actually inspect hands-on 2 work?
p)
(_ 3 A Yes, I was certified to do hands-on work also.
4 That is part of the certification program Bechtel has.
5 O Okay. So a level 2 can both go out and perform 6 inspections, or do surveillance on other inspectors.
7 A Yes.
8 O So you were just describing your job function at 9 WPPS when you said surveillance; is that right?
-10 A Yes.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: When you talked about surveillance 12 inspections, was that done with a form? You actually 13 looked over what someone was doing and you checked off p,)
(
' 14 whether they were doing it right?
15 THE WITNESS: No . - You took a -- like, they set
.16 it up on a periodic, month basis. ~And throughout that 17' month you would do a surveillance, were required to do 18 surveillance on the storage and maintenance of materials, 19 the actual application of coatings, making sure that they 20 are' handling their M&TE correctly -- that's measuring and 21 test equipment correctly. Everything was calibrated. You 22 do personnel certifications. You do procedures, audit 23 procedure. And that was each month you were doing that.
tT
\_/ 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Was there an equivalent to that at 25' Comanche' Peak? Were they doing the same kind of j-
o 21578.0 22959
- i. BRT.
1 surveillance inspections at Comanche Peak?
2 THE WITNESS: No. There were no surveillance
(~h
(-) 3 inspectors, unless you want to call QA --
4 BY MR. WATKINS:
5 O Do we want to call QA surveillance at Comanche 6 Peak?
7 A No, not really. They would come out and -- I 8 guess you could say quality engineering was kind of a OA 9 organization there, the way I took it.
10 0 Did Texas Utilities have auditors that audited 11 various programs at Comanche Peak?
12 A Yes, they did.
13' Q And were those -- those were an internal --
O k) 14 those were internal company auditors, is that correct?
15 =A Yes.
16 O That's a surveillance function; isn't'it?
17 A I think you could refer to a monitor as a 18 surveillance; yes.
19 O Was your function at WPPS 2 more of a QA 20 function than a QC function? Is the distinction 21 meaningful in your mind? If it's not I'll withdraw the 22 question.
23' A The Bechtel. outlook on QA and QC is'a lot
.(O
%) 24 .different than other places. I would say in my function, 25 it was a QC man, I was under the QC organization. Quality
.21578.0 22960 BRT 1 control was in part my job description; yes.
2 O Once you had received your level 2 at WPPS, you (D 3 were certified actually to perform an inspection of
(_/
4 protective coatings, class 1 coatings; is that correct?
5 'A Yes.
6 O How did you know what it was that you were 7- suppose to be doing? Because it sounds as if the 8 certification process did not specifically address 9 . protective coatings.
10 A Then I was required to have an extensive 11 knowledge of the procedures of the contractors that I 12 would be doing surveillance work over.
13 O Was that a formal process? Or did you simply
[-.
14 take the procedures, review them, become familiar with 15 them and so on?
16 A It was a -- I don't know if you call it a form --
17 it was a mandate from our supervisor, you know,-to 18 accomplish the job as it was set forth in the, I guess by 19 .the Bechtel contract. That's what we were required to do 20 is go through the precedures.
- 21. O Were you tested on coatings procedures at WPPS?
22 A No, I was not.
123 O Were quality control inspectors at Comanche Peak t'h '
. I l N/ 24 tested to become certified inspectors on coatings 25 procedures? -
L
f 1 .
- '21578.0 22961 jf BRT;-
i 1 A' Yes, they were.
2 O Were there different. kinds of certifications at
~3 Comanche Peak?
! 4 A Yes, there were.
. 5 O What were they?
'6 A You could be certified to do Dackfit and you had 7 to have so many different procedures for that. And then l
8 you also, you could be certified to put on, like one
{ 9 coating, application of CZ-11, or you could be certified 10 to put on fine line -- just the different kind of coatings 11 you would be certified in. 'Different operations.
12' O There were different coatings materials and
~
13 .there was a' distinction between ongoing and backfit
' "- :14 . certifications at Comanche Peak?
- 15 A Yes.
16 Q And each of.those had individualized-i
- 17- ~ examinations?
i- 18 A Yes, th'ey did.-
- 19. .O- Were'those written or oral?
I 20- ~A I think it was written and there'was some oral 21' also.-
22- O Was there training involved?
23 'A Yes, .on-the-job: training.
/~
5- :24. O : Was there-La specified job period for that
_'25 on-the-job' training?~
'21578.0 22962 BRT 1 A I think we had set so many hours. I don't 2 remember the exact total but I know there were so many r'\
(_/ 3- hours set to be done.
4 O Was that certification process defined by 5 procedures at Comanche Peak?
6 A Yes, it was.
7 O Did you actually perform any inspections of 8 coatings at WPPS?
9 A Yes, I did.
10 0 Would you describe that experience, please?
11 A I have taken mil readings. I have done scratch 12 tests on -- for qualification panels on coating material.
13 There's a number of other things, I can't recall of fhand.
\ 14 Was this part of your surveillance function?
O 15 A Yes, it was.
16 O So you were reviewing the work of other 17 inspectors?
18 A Yes. .
19 Q Did you perform any inspections at WPPS where 20 you were the one who. filled out the inspection 21 documentation?
-22' A No, I did not.
23 O On page 3 of your resume, under your -- the (7
A._/ '
description of your duties at WPPS 2 for Bechtel, the last
, 24_.
25 sentence of the indented paragraph which starts "other j ..
L
w + 1 21578.0- 22963 lBRT
.1 duties," includes several specific disciplines that you 2 worked in. It does not include coatings. I i
( ): 3 Am I correct that your coating surveillance was part of l 4 .the -- your coatings work is subsumed in your surveillance 5 of subcontractors performing work at the beginning of the 6 paragraph?
7 A Yes.
8 O There's no special reason why you don't have 9 coatings down there; is that correct?
'10 A No. There is not.
11 O You were at WPPS for 18 months, approximately?
12 A Yes. Yes.
~
13 Q How much of that time did you spend doing
,q V 14 , surveillance on the O.B. Cannon coatings program?
15 A On Cannon's coating program, I received six 16 --weeks of book training on the manual. And at that point, 17 which was roughly in July-of that year, I was assigned to 18 the Cannon contract to do surveillance. And then I was 19 also required to do surveillance over Peter Kiewit and 20 Sons. PKS, Omaha.
21 (Discussion off the record.)
22 BY MR. WATKINS:
23 Q So you began your coatings work in July of '81; D
(_) 12,4 did I hear that correctly?
25 A Yes.
21578.O' 22964 BRT 1 O How long did that last?
2 A I did surveillance over the coatings contract 3 until I left.
4 Q For the entire 18 months?
5- .A Yes. I was also assigned to, as I said, to the 6 Kiewit contract. And they were the general civil j, , 7 contractor on-site. I did earth work on those contracts, 1
- 8 earth work, concrete, also I did welding for that contract,-
9' too.
. 10 0 Can you give me a sense of the percentage of i- 11 your time that was devoted to coatings as opposed to all 1
i 12 other civil areas in wh'ich you worked?
I l ..
13 A Offhand, I'd say roughly 50 percent. -It's kind 14 of a hard thing-to put a finger on. I might be doing 15: coatings and turn around and walk 15, 20 feet across-the
-16 hall and down through a room and look at what the.other h
- 17. contractor _was doing.- So, it was I'would-say 50 percent --
18
.it's a hard' thing to put_your finger on.
19~ _Q Why did you leave WPPS 2?
l
'20 A I.'left WPPS 2 to'_go to Comanche Peak. -I got a 21.- _better money offer _from Comanche' Peak.
e
~
-22 0 Is that the only reason?-
.. . . 23 .A- There were -- I had been-certified' level'2. At
. 24 that period _of time the lead's position had come to be 25 vacant and the man ~had been. promoted into-another position.
21578.0 22965 BRT 1 The lead's position had come to be vacant and I had talked 2 to them about taking the position. At that time they said
( 3 that they were interested in talking to me and they had, 4 indeed, turned -- told them that they were going to stand 5 on the position for a while and turn it over to another 6 man.
7 And I told them, well, I said I feel that the lead's 8 position should be mine and I feel that I have to go, you 9 know, to better myself. So I went h.unting for another job.
10 And that is, in a nutshell, the reason why I pulled out.
11 Q All right. Now, at Midland you acquired a level 12 3 civil certification and that also included coatings, I 13 believe you testified.
14 A Yes. Coatings is involved in it; yes.
15 0 What specific training and testing did you 16 undergo for the coatings with regard to your level 3 17 . certification at Midland?
18 A At Midland, now I'm certified to ANSI N45-2-6, 19 level 3.
1 20 Q. . Which year?
21 A I think it's -- I don't remember what year it "
22 was.
23 Q Are you aware that that' ANSI standard has
' d,rs 24 different editions?
25 A Yes, I do.
21578.0 22966 CRT 1 Q Do you know to which edition you were certified?
2 A The one that Midland project was obligated to.
\_) 3 I don't know.
4 O Okay.
5 A I met the time to be a level 3 in the civil 6 field.
7 0 With respect specifically to coatings, what did 8 that' certification require with respect to training and 9 examination?
10 A For level 3, I received some on-the-job training 11 in the coatings.
12 -Q What did that OJT consist of?
13 MR. ROISMAN: Objection. I would like counsel 1
O 14 give us some proffer as to why the training at'a plant-15 after the witness was at Comanche Peak, can reasonably be 16 said to lead to relevant information.
17 MR. WATKINS: I believe Mr. Roisman asked the 18 question several times: Was your experience at Comanche 19 Peak different from any other nuclear plant at which he 20 . worked?
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Overruled.
'22 THE WITNESS: Do you want to repeat that?
23 BY MR. WATKINS:
/~T k-) 24 Q What did your OJT training in coatings at 25 Midland consist of?
i b.__
21578.0 22967 B Ri' 1 A I was given a -- I went with a certified 2 inspector and observed the inspections that they were p).
1 s_ 3 doing and observed what was going on in the plant.
4 Q How many hours or days did that last?
5 A The duration? It was very short. I don't 6 remember how many days. It was in the basis of hours.
7 Q Hours?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Did you review procedures in connection with 10 that OJT7 11 A :Yes, I did.
12- Q Were you examined? Was there a test for the
,s 13 level 3 civil certification at Midland?
U 14 A No, there was not.
'15 O Other than on-the-job training, was there any
, 16 other requirement for your level 3 at Midland?
17 A Being able to satisfy QA's quality assurances 18 requirements, which is the same as ANSI. Being-able to 19 assure that you had your time-in and that.from talking to i
20 you, that you were capable of handling a level 3 job.
21 Q Once you became a level 3, did you perform any 12 2 coatings inspection .at M181ard?
~ '
23 A No, I did not.
I )
\/ 24 Q Did you work with coatings at Midland?
25 A ~'oI had people that worked for me that did work e
%, . _ _ , , _ . _ _ s. .,-n. - - - . . , , _ , .--.r. -e er--.- r-,.-w,, , _.-.,.--*,_,a , ,-
21578.0 22968 BRT 1 with coatings; yes. I did not physically work with them; 2 no.
.~-
(_) 3. Q Your resume, with regard to your work at 4 -consumers, indicates that you were supervising a reinspection 5 effort?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Did that involve coatings?
8 A~ Yes, it did.
- 9. O Now, there's no reference to coatings under this 10 paragraph here on page 2. Is there a reason for that?
l
'll A The resume was written generally around the
'12 welding and the structural background that I have.
,. .13 11 .Was more of your work at Midland in areas other
\ - 14 than'. coatings?
15 A I had -- as I said, I was responsible for the 16 whole civil department. So, percentagewise, I -- it was a 17 percentage, but I don't recall how much..
18 Q Incidentally, was Consumers Power Company your 19 employer at Midland?
20 A No , they were not.
21 O Who was your employer?
22 A An outfit called Scientific Applications, 23' . Incorporated.
f ', , k._/D) 24 -Q nho'are they?
["
25 -A They are a contract shop that furnishes bodies i
l i:
I21578.'0 22969 BRT-1 to utilities, to contract people, to engineering firms.
2 O I think we'have referred to job shops a couple
(_,) 3 of times during your testimony. Is that the same thing?
4 A Yes, they are a job shop.
5 0 - What coating systems were used at WPPS 2?
6 A Amerol systems, Ameron.
7 O Is that for both steel and concrete substrates?
8 A Okay, the only ones that were quality class 1 --
9 well, there was concrete in class 1 -- yes, they use the 10 Ameron servicer for that, but coating -- ,
11 Q Do you remember if these had product names?
12 A Yes. One was Ameron 90, that was the coating;
,, 13- the surfacer was'110 AA; and.I think that was basically'it.
. t")
~l 14 .O That was for concrete?
15 A Concrete. The 90 was for steel, also. The 110
-16 AA was a surfacer for concrete.
17 O So there were no primer / top , coat --- there was no 18 primer / top coat system at WPPS 27 19 A Yes, they used a gray primer at the bottom, 90 l-20 gray on bottom and 90 white for the top.
21" Q Was the primer a sink primer for WPPS?
.22 A Inside the containment?
23 O The class 1 coatings I'm talking about.
rN w.) 24 A No, I don't think it was.
25 O Was it' epoxy? s
'A
, ._, m, . . . ~ , . . - , . r. ~..y.___,%., , .c w
21578.0 22970 BRT-l l
l- A Yes, it was. They also used a Keller & Long l I
2 product there too.
kO ms - 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Watkins, do use latitude here.
4 There's some detail which is more than you need on the 5 subject. Try to use some discretion. Continue if you 6 think it's important.to you but if you are just trying to 7 compare his overall experience, I'm not sure --
8 MR.'WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, I assure you I'm not 9 wasting my time. I can't speak for all the other parties.
10 BY MR. WATKINS:
11 Q. What Keller & Long product was that?
12 A I don't remember tha names -- the numbers on 13 .them. They had a numbering system for them. I don't O
14 recall the numbering system.
15 -Q Were Ameron systems used at Comanche Peak?
16 A They had, at one time, used an Ameron system.
17' O Was that when -- excuse me, go ahead.
18' A. At Comanche Peak.
19 Q- - Was that when you were there?
20- A No. I don't think it was. I don't' recall.
21
- O What systems did Comanche Peak use? What 22 coatings systems?
23 A I don't recall offhand what systems they did use.
A IJ 24 0 Were there different systems for concrete and 25- steel substrate?
CL% ~
l
-21578.0 22971 CRT '
1 A Yes.
2 O You don't remember the product names?
(O
(_/. 3. A No, I do not.
-4 0 .IX) the characteristics of coatings differ from 5 product to product?
6 A Yes, they do.
7 O And, therefore, would the procedures in handling 8 and application of those materials differ from product to
'9 product?
10 A Yes, they would.
11 Q What systems were used at Midland?
12 A They.used a CZ-11, and -- which they also used
- , - 13 at Comanche Peak -- and then they used Ameron products
. ('} ' 14 there also.
15 O' What is CZ-ll?
16 A CZ-ll is an inorganic sink coating.
17 O Does "CZ" stand for anything?
18- A Yes, it does.
19 O Do you know what it stands for?
20 A Something zinc -- I can't recall the first name.
21 0 To what reg'ulatory standards -- and I'm speaking 22 now with respect to protective coatings -- to what 23 regulatory standards was WPPS 2 committed?
~Q(_/, 24 A I don't recall what regulatory standards'they 25 were.
s
21578.0 22972 BRT l
-1 0 To what regulatory standards was Comanche Peak 2 committed with respect to protective coatings?
) 3 A I don't recall that either.
4 O It makes a great deal of difference, doesn't it, 5 in terms of inspection procedures, to what standards the 6 plant is committed?
7- A Yes, it does.
8 Q If WPPS 2 and Comanche Peak were committed to 9 different standards, your experience at WPPS 2 would not
-10 necessarily be relevant to what you saw at Comanche Peak; 11 would it?
12 A In some aspects, yes; in some aspects, no.
13 Q But to know in what' aspects they were relevant tO
-' 14 you'd have to know what the governing standards are; is 15 that' correct?
'16 A Yes.
17 Q Did you review coatings procedures at WPPS 27 18 A Yes, I did.
19 0 What did you review them for?
20 A Content to the -- make sure they had all the 21 points that the contract required them to have in them; 22 what the procedures and specifics called out, that WPPS 23 'had set.forth,'and to make sure that it had the
. p\.
im) 24 appropriate.information from the manufacturer in the 25- procedures..
2157'8.0 22973 BRT' l- Q Would you have to know what to what standards i
2 the. plant was committed with respect to coatings to review
) 3 the validity or the acceptability of those procedures?
4 A At-WPPS we were -- you had to work to the f
5 procedures set -- or the specifications set forth. That's 6 what we reviewed them to. And in those specifics that --
} 7 it incorporated the requirements of the reg guides.
8 0 Which reg guides?
9 A As I stated earlier, I don't recall.
10 Q These'were Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 regulatory guides?
4 12 A Yes.
13 Q Did you ever review the Comanche Peak specifics
' - 14 for coatings?
, -15 A Yes, I think I did.
16 O When.did you do that?
a 17 A When I was there.
18 O Why did you do that?
.19 A To see what the proceed -- what the specifics-20 said, called out for.
21- O Do you remember the' specific subject matter of
. 22 your inquiry?
- :23 A No, I don't.
I -
24 O Okay. You can't remember the standards to which 25 either Comanche Peak.or WPPS were committed. But what e
9 s % - , ye-%.,.+,ww----+,.e--e----,y-- ..m-v.,-+w y y e y r --, ,,,-m,++g,~w+w,-v-- 9w,<,c,n-9,,,.w-,-n r,, nwe +~ ,v,- y on,-,,+
~21578.0- 22974
-BRT 1 . standards, generally, are available to govern nuclear 2' coatings, class 1 coatings?
3 A ' Class 1 coatings? The procedure --
4 specifications usually call out for blasting, they have a
! 5 paint council, SSPC, like a SSPC-10 blast and they use 6 that for the blasting and then application they usually 7- refer'back to the manufacturer's suggested method or 8 requirements that's set forth by the A&E.
9 Q Was it "SSPC"?
10 A SSPC, yes.
11 O What does SSPC stand for?
'12 A The last is paint council. I don't know what
-13 the first is.
, [l . ,
> ^ - 14 O' Are there any other standards to which nuclear 15 plants.are generally committed that you can think of? You 16 have' mentioned the reg guides and SSPC.
17 A And then the specifications set forth by the 18 engineering ---or A&Es; architect engineer.
19 Q. I believe on Thursday you mentioned the PSAR, or 20- the FSAR --
21- A RSR -- yes.
22 O I-can't remember which?
23 A That's the final safety analysis report.
m s/ 24 O- Are commitments to standards generally included.
25 in the FSAR?
L
~21578.0 22975 BRT 1 A Yes, they are.
2 O And those commitments are then reflected in the
) 3 specifics; is that correct?
4 A Yes, they are.
5 O Can you think of any other standards to which 6 nuclear plants are committed with respect to coatings in 7 the FSAR?
_8 A Yes.
9 Q What are they?
10 A In the SR7 11' O Yes. Just generally available standards.
12 A I think there are some ASTMs that cover it. I
,- 13 can't think of anything else offhand; no.
\- 14 At Midland, did you work day-to-day with the O
15 coatings procedures and' inspections?
16 A Not on a day-to-day basis; no.
17 Q When you have been asked to compare your 18 experience at other plants with respect to Comanche Peak-19 during this testimony, I take it your comparison is '
20' bcsically to WPPS 2; is that correct?
21 A WPPS 2 and some to Midland; yes.
22 Q At any of your jobs prior to WPPS 2, did you 23 work in the protective coatings area?
k_.) '24 A Yes, I did. I handled -- it wasn't called so 25 much " protective coatings." It was the -- I think - the
21578.0' 22976 BRT 1 Department of Energy referred to it as "decontainable 2 material."
() 3 Q. Would you identify the job? Perhaps you could 4 refer to your resume.
5 A It was for -- 2 of '77 through 7 of '79, JA 6 construction for 2-77 through 7-79, it was for J.A. Jones 7 construction /Bocon joint venture, at the Idaho National 8 Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
9- O What did you do with respect to coatings?
10 A I was involved in the application of Ameron 110 11 AA material to the floors of the new waste center building.
12 I was an inspector, and it was applied --
13 JUDGE'BLOCH: I think occasionally at the end of G
kl 14 your answer you are tailing off, which makes it hard to 15 hear vihat you say at end of the answer.
16 THE WITNESS: Okay; it was-applied by not coating people, it was applied by concrete masons.
-17 18 BY MR. WATKINS:
19 O That work is not mentioned in this paragraph, is 20 'it?
21 A Here again, we are back to -- you-are looking at 22 welding, electrical, mechanical-type basis.
23 O I'm not accusing you of anything.
24 A No, I understand.
25 0- What I'm basically interested in is to what L
21578.0 22977 BRT 1 1 extent your coatings work at Idaho Falls during this 2 1,eriod was a significant, or an insignificant, part of 3 your duties?
4 A For the coatings on that job it was a very minor 5 amount.
6 O All right.
7 A Very minor.
8 O On page 1 of your resume, toward the bottom of 9 .the page there is a statement that you've worked to the 10 following standards. And then there's a whole list of 11 acronyms, very few of which I know what they are.
12 Is'this-list all-inclusive?
13 A It has what the resume was written for,_yes.
.,]_
(> ~ 14 Q What was it written for?
15 A Job other than civil: welding, mechanical, 16 electrical.
17 0 You didn't want to work in civil any more?
18 A If you look in the industry right now there is
. :L 9 - no demand for civil inspectors.
2n Q But for welding it never ends, does it?
21 A Never ends.
22 Q Is there any reason why ANSI does not appear in 23 that 134t of standards?
- K./(D 24 A No, not really.
25 Q Have you worked with ANSI?
21578.0 22978
, BRT 1 A I would have had to work with ANSI requirements; 2 yes.
3 O Are there ANSI requirements that govern 4
4 protective coatings at nuclear power plants?
5 A Yes, there is.
6 Q What are they?
7 A N45.22.8, I think._ I don't know if that's right 8 or not. It popped in my head. I know there's a couple of.
9 them, as a matter of fact.
10 0 When I asked you a while ago whether any 11 standards covered coatings at nuclear power plants, do you 12 wish you had said ANSI?
r i
,_ 13 A Yes. Of course.
14e Q How important are the ANSI standards, generally?
15 A Very important.
16 O How many of them'are there?
17 A I don't --
18 O With respect to protective coatings?
19 A Right offhand I think there's two, or possibly 20 three.
21 Q Mr. Mouser, do you hold yourself out as an' 22- expert with respect to the standards that govern coatings 23- of nuclear power plants?
- /7
(_) 24' A 'o, N I do not.
i 25 O Now that we have discussed ANSI standards, do
m
- d'
. l J21578.0' 22979 BRT T
1 :you know=to which ANSI standards Comanche Peak was l i,
I
- 2 committed?
3 'A No , I don't.
L 4 4: O' IX) you know to which ANSI standards WPPS 2 was .
'5- -committed?
6 A No, I'do not.
7 Q In reviewing procedures at WPPS 2, I think you f 8 testified that you' compare the proce' dural requirements to 9 .the specifics. Did you ever go beyond that to look at the
- 10 ANSI standards to which they were committed?
i
'll -A Yes, we did. We did it for a number of things, 12 like ANSI also requires -- ANSI N45.2.6, we had to check 13 Efor certification of inspectors. That's in N45.2.6.
i -
. (]' - 14
.There's some for material and. test equipment. We had to b - .
- 15 . cover material and test equipment. We will to'go to the 16 ANSI standarde for that. Coatings - -there's a number of 17 them on a-different number of items;-yes.-
. 18 Q On Thursday I'believe you testified that you-4- 19 'used EBASCO as a reference. Is that correct?
20 A Yes. I have used all my -- all the jobs here as 21 a reference-is basically what I was'saying. V 22 Q- When you said that you used EBASCO as a 23 . reference, for example --
f\
d! 24. A 'Yes.
.25 Q -- were you referring to the fact that they
21578.0 22980 BRT
^
1- . appear here on your resume?
2 A Yes. Yes.
3 O Texas Utilities does not appear on your resume, 4 does it?
5 A No, it does not.
4 6 Q In what sense did you say -- do you recall 7 testifying that you used Texas Utilities as a reference?
8 A No. If I used specifically Texas Utilities I 9 was wrong in the line of that.
[ 10 Q Have you ever used individuals as -- strike that.
11 Since Midland closed down, have you used individuals as 12 references?
13 A From Comanche Peak?
~14 0 Yes.
15 A I don't recall if I have or not.
16 -Q Do you ever recall using Mr. Merritt as a 17 reference?
18 A I don't know if I've used Mr. Merritt, but it 19 does come to mind that I have talked to different contract
, 20 shops and I have used Mr. Tony Vega, and Mr. Chapman, Dave 21 Chapman, also.
22 O I'm just recalling your testimony that 23 Mr. Merritt might have said something about you to a job r"%
' (_)
24 shop. Did you ever use Mr. Merritt as a reference?
i 25 A Not in his name; no.
i u
!i,
.g _ _. . __
21578.0 22981 BRT 1 Q What is Mr. Merritt's first name?
2 A John, I think.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: You knew that.
4 MR. WATKINS: But I'm not sure he did.
5- BY MR. WATKINS:
6 O I believe you testified that O.B. Cannon rewrote 7 its procedures at WPPS 2; is that correct?
8 A- Yes, they did.
9 0 Would you describe why that took place?
i 10 A Well, the first rewrite of the procedures was by 11 WPPS, Cannon, and some consultants they brought in from, I 12 think it was Burns and Roe. And that was to update the
,_ 13 procedures and make them more within the requirements that
\ 'I t
14 the.NRC and WPPS had agreed upon to get the plant opened 15 back up after the shutdown.
s 16 Q Does that imply that the procedures were not 17 consistent with requirements Sarore they were rewritten?
18 A Yes.
19 0 What was your involvement in that process?
20 A I came in after the. fact.
21 -Q That work had already been done?
22 A Yes. It had just been finished after I came int 23 yes.
. ,O
\ /
24 O Now, ,I believe you testified that your job at
- 25 Midland enme about because you had submitted your resume
~2 1578.0 22982
-BRT 1 to a job shop sometime in April of '83?
2 A Yes.
) 3 O That was shortly after you began working at 4 Comanche Peak, wasn't it?
5 A About three months after that; yes.
6 0 Why did you seek other employment so soon after 7 you had started work?
8 A It was kind of a standard thing, I guess, for 9 everybody to submit on and off. I did it because of 10 trying to get in with a contract shop. I was very 11 interested in getting in with a contract shop.
12 O Did it have anything to do with the work you 4
, 13 were doing at Comanche Peak?
O
's l 14 A I really wasn't happy at Comanche Peak; no.
15 Q You were then working in the design change 16 vr.rification group; is that correct?
17 A Yes. Yes.
18 0 Was your wife happy with working in Texas?
19 A No.
20 0 Did that have anything to-do with it?
21 A Some at the time; yes.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry, was his wife unhappy 23 with his working in Texas or --
\_- 24 BY MR. WATKIt?S:
25 Q Was she unhappy with Texas?
n; 21578.0 22983
~CRT l' A At the beginning she was. After we were there 2 for a period of' time she -- in fact she would like to go
/^
( 3 back now.
4 (Discussion off the record.)
5 BY MR. WATKINS:
6 O As I recall your testimony, did the offer that 7 you got from Midland -- that the offer you got from 8 Midland was higher -- maybe not much higher, but it was 9 higher than you were being paid at Comanche Peak?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Did you discuss that offer with Mr. Brandt?
12 A Yes, I did.
p_ 13 0 would you relate the substance of that
('
14 discussion?
15 A I talked to Mr. Brandt about my leaving and told-16 him that I would be -- I.had another job offer in Michigan 17 with a contract shop; and Mr. Brandt at that time told me 18 he thought I was crazy for going to Michigan because of 19 the_ possibility of shutting down -- which I hate to.say he 20 was right.
21 O Why do you hate to say that?
22 A Because I'd love to still be working up there.
23 I was making some pretty good money.
24 0 I just thought you hated the idea that 25 Mr. Brandt was right?
21578.0 22984 BRT,
\
1 A No. That doesn't bother me.
2 O Okay.
3I A In turn, in that conversation, Mr. Brandt said 4 if he could make it monetarily good for me would I be 5' interested? And I told him yes, in turn, I would.
6 O And did he make a counteroffer?
7 A Yes, he did.
8 Q Did it match or exceed -- well, did it match the
-9 offer that you had received from~ Midland?
10 A- In fact'it did match and was a little bit more.
11 Q %Hutt reason or reasons did you give Mr. Brandt 12 for wanting to leave?
13 A I told him that my wife was unhappy and that I O \ '- 14 :just didn't feel good about ~ it .
15 Q Did Mr. Brandt seem happy that you were leaving?
16' A No.
17 Q- What did he say? Aside from the fact that you 18 were crazy to go?
19 A He made mention that he thought I was making a 20_ mistake and that he would do anything he could, at any 21 future time, to -- if I needed a recommendation, he would 22- be more than willing to give me one.
23 O When did Midland shut down?
D
'V ~24 A '17th of July, 1984.
25 .Q Did you call Mr. Brandt and ask for a' job after
.21578'0
. 22985
'BRT 1 ' Midland shut down?
2 A I don't know if I did. I don't recall.
J ) 3 Q When Midland shut down, do you recall 4 contractors coming to Midland to -- did you have something 5 to add?
6 A I was just going to say and then you went into 7 it, I had talked to a number of contractors about going to ,
8 Midland; yes.
9- 0 About going to Midland?
10 A No. About going to Comanche Peak.
11 Q Okay. When Midland shut down do you recall 12 contractors coming to Midland to interview all the people
- . 13 who had then been laid off?
f\
k/ 14 A Yes, I did.
15 O Did you interview with those contractors?
16 A Yes, I did.
17 O Did you interview with anyone from EBASCO?
18 A Yes, I did.
19 Q Did you submit an application for employment?
20 A I don't know if I gave an application; I gave a 21- resume to a gentleman, yes.
22 O Who was that gentleman?
23 A Mr. Jerry -- Jerry Hoops.
, \_- 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know ho. to spell the last 25 name?
21578.0. 22986 BRT l' THE WITNESS: Mr. Brandt can of fer that.
2 MR. WATKINS: I'll offer H-o-o-p-s.
t'~
3 BY MR. WATKINS:
4 Q Do you recall giving Mr. Hoops your resume?
5 A I had a heck of a time getting to him, but I did 6- give it to him; yes.
7 Q How long a period of time did you talk with 8 Mr. Hoops?
9 A 5 to 10 minutes, maybe. Very short period of 10 time. He was pretty well booked full, I think.
11 Q Did he get back to you?
12 A No, he did not.
13 O Now, you have testified'that --
G ~
N- 14 A Excuse me. I did receive a letter from EBASCO.
15 Q When was that?
16 A That was sometime later on.
17' O Can you give us a month?
18 A I beg your pardon? I couldn't hear _you.
19 O Can you give us a month?
20 A No, I can't. It was a short time after that.
21 Q So you did hear back from EBASCO?
22 A Yes, I did. I received a letter back from him.
23 Q What did the letter say?
-G
)A_) ~ 24 A It told me' that they had no positions in my 25 field open at this time.
I
21578.0 22987 BRT
- 1. O Do you remember where that letter was from?
2 A No. I don't. I -- it was from New York, is 3 where it was from.
4 O Now, you have testified that several job
'5 . shoppers have advised you that Mr. Merritt, Mr. John 6 Merritt made some negative comments regarding your 7 employment. Who were those job shoppers?
8 A Michigan Quality Services, Energy Incorporated, 9 and I think the last one was PAC. I'm not totally.sure 10 about PAC. I think it was PAC, but I know it was MOS and --
11 Michigan Quality Services.
12 O Who in Michigan Quality Services said he had
,_, 13 talked to John Merritt?
14 A The president.
15 O Who is the president?
- - 16 A William Bader.
17 O Michigan Quality Services, they are a job shop?
18 A Yes, they are.
19 O When did he say this to you? When did he tell 20 you that he had talked to Mr. Merritt?
21 A He went to the site and talked to dirferent 22 gentlemen down there. And he said while he was there he 23 had a chance to talk to Mr. Merritt.
.r
(- 24 O When was this?
25 A That I-don't recall.
I b-:
m 21578.0 22988 BRT 1 O Can you give me a month?
2 A I'm just going to have to say offhand, October.
. ,-c
"(_) .3 Like I say, I don't recall. I think October; it could 4 have been close.
5 O So your testimony is Mr. Bader went to the site 6 and talked with'a number of people including Mr. Merritt?
7 A Yes.
8 O Did you discuss the possibility of working at 9 Comanche Peak, via Michigan Quality Services, with Tony 10 Vega at any time?
11 A I had talked to Mr. Vega about a job there, but 12 I don't recall if it was Michigan Quality Services.
13 O And what did Mr. Vega have to say?
-(',)
14 A Mr. Vega said at the time he had no positions 15 open at all.
16 O Did he say why?
17 A I think he gave me a reason, but I don't recall.
18 Q Did it have anything to do with -- I'm sorry?
19 A I don't recall exactly what it was.
20 Q Did it have anything to do with certifications?
21 A No, it did not.
22 O What is PAC?
23 A- PAC is Project Assistance Corporation.
~ x_f~)) 24 Q Who did you speak to at PAC 7 25 A I think the gentleman's name is Don Goldstein,
21578.0 22989 IRT 1 something like that.
2 Q -Is PAC.a job shopper?
z
() 3 -A Yes, it is.
4 O Do they do consulting work themselves?
5 A Yes, they do.
6 -O As I understand it, a job shopper places people?
7 A Yes.
8 O A consulting company actually does work?
9 A PAC does some consulting also.
10 Q When had you had your first contact with 11 Mr. Goldstein?
12 A After the layoff at Midland.
13 O So that would have.been in July?
O L- 14 A July, somewhere in the area of July; yes.
15 O Was he at Midland?
16 A No, he was not.
17 Q Did you call him on the telephone?
18 A Yes, I was given his name by the gentleman that 19 'does own the company.
20 0 Who is that?
21 A His name is -- now that you ask I forget -- Bill 22 something. It will come to me in a minute here.
23 Q Was he at Midland?
G i, -) - 24 A Yes, he was. I worked with him at Midland.
25 O The man who owned the company?
- - . ~ _ - - ~. -.
-21578.0 22990
'CRT
- 1. - A Yes.
2 O Where was Mr. Goldstein when you called him?
lO 3 A In California.
ik_f 4 Q Did you submit a resume?
5 A Yes, I did.
6 .O What happened?
7 A I received a contract back from the PAC 8 organization. In turn I signed a contract and sent it 9 back to them. In turn they called me after the contract 10- was in their hands, they said they were going to submit me 11' or were going to talk to the people in Texas, at Comanche 12 Peak. And about a number of jobs in different areas. And 13 he said that he would submit me down there.
~O 14 At that time I told him I was employed prior at --
15 prior to this at Comanche Peak.
16 0 Is it your impression that PAC was working at
.17 Comanche Peak then?
18 A No, they told me they did not have a contract.
19 They said they thought they had one. sewed up.
20 That gentleman's name was Bill Agador.
21 Q Can you spell that?
22: A A-g-a-d-o-r,fI think, is how you spell it. And 23 also.the other gentlemen I worked with, the other co-owner
)A_) 24 was a gentleman by the name of Marv Kurland.
25 0 Can you spell that?
i L
21578.0 22991 CRT 1 A Your guess is as good as mine.
2 O What is Mr. Goldstein's position with the rm V 3 company?
4 A I guess you could say he acquires the field jobs.
5 He is in charge of placing personnel for the company.
6 Q Does he have a title, do you know?
7' A Yes, he does. I don't recall what it is of fhand.
8 Q Did you keep a copy of the contract that they 9 sent you and that you signed?
10 A I think I did.
11 0- Did you' keep a copy of your correspondence with 12 PAC?
13 A No, I didn't.
14 O When we last left Mr. Goldstein, he was 15 reporting back to you that they were going to try to place 16 you in a number of jobs at Comanche Peak?
17 A Yes.
18 O When was that?
19 A Sometime in August, somewhere in that area.
20 August or September, something in there.
21 Q And did he get back to you?
22 A Not him. Not per se him. There was another 23 gentleman that called.
I i
-U 24 Q Who was that?
25 A And that man I do not remember his name. He was
l 21578.0 22992 BRT
.1 a field representative for PAC.
2 O Is his name John Baker?
3 A Does he have -- do you have a title for him ,
4 there?
5 Q No.
6 A The name sounds familiar. -
7 O What did Mr. Baker say?
8 MR. SIMS: He didn't say it was Mr. Baker.
9 MR. WATKINS: Oh , I'm sorry. You are absolutely 10 right.
11 BY MR. WATKINS:
12 .O What did the individual that called you back say?
13 A Basically that they weren't'-- you know, that O
\/ 14 there wasn't anything down there.
15 Q Did he report that someone had said bad things 16 about you at Comanche Peak?
17 'A Not per se, no.
18 O Did he mention Mr. Merritt?
19 A No , he did not.
20 0 So, PAC is not one of the job shoppers about 21 which you were speaking when you said that Mr. Merritt had 22 said to them bad things?
23 A I made mention that Mr. Merritt talked through MQS, 24 Michigan Quality Services. 'And I got a negative reply 25 back from PAC, knowing that the amount of people that they
m 21578.0 22993 CRT 1 needed down there from what they told me, and --
2 Q And you surmised that it must have been the same 3 thing?
4 A I guess you can say that; yes.
5 O Mr. Mouser, as I recall your testimony you said 6 that three job shoppers, perhaps two or three job shoppers 7 had reported back to you that John Merritt said bad things 8 about. Evert Mouser. Would you review your memory and say 9 how many it was?
10 A It would have had to be Michigan Quality 11 Services, MQS.
12 O And that was the only one?
- 13 A Yes.
14 O What is Energy, Inc.?
15 A Energy, Incorporated, is a -- it's a corporation 16 out of Idaho Falls, Idaho, that handlea Department of 17 Energy jobs, high tech jobs, some control jobs.
18 O Were you going to work for them in Idaho Falls?
19 A No. I talked to him about a -- about different 20 jobs around the country.
21 Q So, as I understand your testimony now, Energy, 22 Inc., had nothing to do with Comanche Peak?
23 A They had some jobs per se going down there from k-) 24 what I understood, in the operations side.
25 0 Okay. When did Mr. Bader, of Michigan Quality
21578.0 22994 BRT 1 Services, get back to you the information that John 2 Merritt did not want you working at Comanche Peak?
<~ ,
. k_) 3 A That was, I guess, September, August, something 4 like that -- October -- somewhere in that area. I don't 5 recall the exact date.
6 MR. ROISMAN: That was asked and answered before.
7 He's getting a little repetitive. .
8 BY MR. WATKINS:
9 O Is it your recollection now, then, that it was 10 John Merritt -- how long have you been sure that it was 11 John Merritt?
12 A Since Mr. Bader talked to me; yes.
13 Q Have you, in - at any time between then and now, (x -) 14 had the idea that someone else at Comanche Peak had said 15 bad things about you?
'16 A I guess you could say I surmised that from the --
17 my leaving down there and the feelings when I left. I 18 turned around and called back for a position and there's --
19 Q The first time, or perhaps the first time or two, 20 that Billie Garde called you, did you try to get in touch 21 with Tom Brandt?
22 A Yes, I did.
23 Q How did you do that?
q
\_/ 24 A I got a number and I think I called Mr. Vega and 25 received a number from him where to contact Tom.
21578.0 22995 ERT ,
1 JUDGE BLOCH: Off the record.
-2 (Discussion off the record.)
J 3 BY MR. WATKINS:
4 Q Before the break, Mr. Mouser, you were 5
discussing a phone conversation to Mr. Vega?
6 A Yes.
7 O And you asked Mr. Vega how to get in touch with 8 Mr. Brandt?
9 A Yes.
10 ~Q Did you discuss anything else with Mr. Vega?
11 -A Yes, I did. I discussed if he had any positions 12 open on the site.
13 Q And what was his response?
O- 14 A "At the present, no."
15 JUDGE BLOCH: Is'that.the same. discussion we 16 were talking about earlier with Mr. Vega?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes,-I think it was; yes, sir.
- . 18 MR. WATKINS
- .Which?
i 19 JUDGE BLOCH: You already asked him about his 20 conversation with Mr. Vega.
l- 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, I answered the same thing;
- 22 yes. The.same way.
- 23 BY'MR.'WATKINS
24 Q' How many conversations with Mr. Vega have you i-25 had in the last four months?-
I t
i d
m 21578.0 22996
-ERT:
'l- A One that I recall, the one where I got 2 Mr. Brandt's phone number.
) 3 Q .Okay. -So we are talking about the same one?
I 4 A Yes.
j 5 Q. During this conversation with Mr. Vega, do you 6 recall discussing tentative job offers that you had 7 freceived through job shoppers at-Comanche Peak, or 8 Waterford?
{
9~ A. Yes. I talked to him about something -- don't 10' know if it was Comanche Peak or Waterford. I talked to 11 .him about one of them.
I'm pretty sure about that.
12- Q What did you tell him about that job?
- 13 A I think it was the Waterford job and I think I 14~ ~ told him that I was a little bit upset because I got 15 turned down because of the my work for EBASCO -- EBASCO 16i and Jones; I'm sorry.
17 Q Who. was the ' job shopper involved with that job?
18- A. Well, that name I don't recall. He's out-of 19 Louisiana somewhere.
20 Q Who was the Jones that you mentioned?
- 21. A J.A. Jones, as in Jones /Bocon joint venture.
22' O Had you interviewed for a job there?
23- .A No, I had not interviewed, no.
,24
- Q Do you recall mentioning the. firm A.R. Criscola
.25 to Mr.-Vega?
21578.0 22997 CRT 1 A I don't recall if I mentioned -- I don't know if 2 it was A.R. Criscola or if it was -- I think it was A.R.
l~h
(_) 3 Criscola; yes.
4 O What did you say about A.R. Criscola?
5 A I understood that I got turned down because of 6 working for EBASCO and J.A. Jones, and I was concerned if 7 something was said about it, something was said by one of 8 the' companies.
9 O Did you mention to Mr. Vega that you thought 10- someone working for Texas Utilities had said something bad 11 about .you in connectio's with that job?
12 A I told Mr. Vega I was quite concerned about that.
13 I think I addressed it -- like I say, I had two or three x- 14 different gentlemen on my mind at that time, and one of 15 them was by the name of Spangler. I said somewhere along.
16 the line somebody said something about Spangler'and I was 17 upset about.that.
18 Q 'Did you mention Mr. Merritt to him?
.19 A I don't think I did.
20 .O 'To Mr. Vega?
21 A No.
22 O Who is Mr. Spangler?
23- .A I guess Mr. Vega called Mr. Spangler and he g
(_) 12 4 called me back and talked to me. He's in the audits 25 branch.-- I take this from memory -- he's in the audits
21578.0 22998 CRT 1 branch of TUGCO, in Dallas.
2 O Who had used Mr. Spangler's name to you?
'(Q _/ 3 A I think his name came up in a conversation with 4 Michigan Quality Services, and I think I took Mr. Spangler's 5 name instead of Mr. Merritt's name when it came up.
6 Q Did you tell Mr. Vega that somebody from A.R.
7 Criscola had mentioned Mr. Spangler's name?
8 A I don't recall if I did. I might have; yes. I 9 might have.
10 Q Did somebody from Criscola use Mr. Spangler's 11 name?
12 A No, I don't think so.
13 O Why would you have told Mr. Vega?
- ('/,_l' 14 A Because I was very interested in finding out why 15 I did not get that job.
16 O So you were speculating to Mr. Vega?
17 A Yes. Kind of like trying to rattle it and find 18 out what fell out.
19 Q How soon after your conversation with Mr. Vega 20 did you speak with Mr. Spangler?
21 A' I don't know if it was later on that day or the 22 next day, but it was just a short period of time.
23 O What was your discussion with Mr. Spangler?
sl 24 A He wanted to knew who I had talked to or who had 25- told me that the job was not there. And I told him that I
21578.0 22999 ;
BRT '
1 thought it was A.R. Criscola.
2 Q Was it anyone at A.R. Criscola?
) 3 A I don't remember anybody specifically; no.
4 .O Did Mr. Spangler subsequently call you back?
5 A Yes, he did.
6 0 What did he report?
7 A He told me that he had pursued it and he could 8 find no one at A.R. Criscola at all.
9 Q Was Mr. Spangler trying -- did he explain to you 10 that he was trying to clear up what he thought was a-11 misunderstanding?
12 A Yes, he did. He was very good about it.
13~ Q You had never :aet Mr. Spangler before that time,
('_
d-\ 14 had you?
15 A No, I had not. As I seid, I got the name when I 16 talked to Mr. Bader. From my understanding, Mr. Bader 17 deals with Mr.-Spangler, and in theiconversation he had 18 told me.that he had put on some personnel -- or a man with 19 Mr. Spangler in the audits branch.- And then I also asked 20 about that and;that's'when-Mr. Merritt's name came up.
21 For some reason Mr. Spangler's name' stuck in my. mind. ,
22 Q Does the name Anthony Lefler mean anything to
. . 23 'you in connection with Criscola?
~
24 A Anthony.Lefler? No, it does not.-
< 25 Q- Did you send a resume to Criscola?
21578.0 23000 TRT 1 A Yes, I did. In fact I sent a couple of them.
2 O What did they report back to you with respect to 3 Comanche Peak, if anything?
4 A With respect to Comanche Peak there was nothing.
5 0 What about with respect to Waterford?
6 A With respect to Waterford -- okay, now as I said,
-7 I don't recall the name at Waterford. Criscola I sent a 8 resume to them for the South Texas project. I' don't know 9 if they have any work at Waterford. I don't think I got 10 any word back on Waterford from them.
Il O Who is the prime contractor of Waterford?
1.1 A I guess Jones is, aren't they? I don't know.
_ 13 I'm not.sure.
14 -Q Do you know whether any job shoppers work at 15 Waterford?
16 A Yes, I do.-
17 O They do?
18 A The one that did the documentation review work
< 19 there. I don't -- yore, or whatever the contract name_was.
20 0 When was that?
- 21. A That was back September, October, somewhere in 22 that area.
23' O What does Mr. Merritt look like?
-. s:
?s) 24 A He's tall and thin.
25 O What color hair does he have?
21578.0 23001 BRT 1 A Brown, I think. I'm not sure.
2 O Does he have any facial hair? Beard or mustache?
3 A I don't recall.
4 O Does he wear glasses?
l 5 A I don't recall.
l 6 0 I believe you testified that you knew 7 Mr. Merritt in several contexts. The first was what 8 somebody from the Michigan job shopper reported to you?
9 A Yes.
10 Q The second was the Department of Labor i
11- investigations on Mr. Dunham?
11 2 A Yes.
4
- 13. -Q Would you describe your contacts with
.g
' = 14 Mr. Merritt in that context?
15 MR. .ROISMAN: Objection. Asked and answered.
16' MR. WATKINS: I' don't believe it han been asked 17 _' and. answered. I think Mr. Mouser simply said, "Well, I
~
18- knew him from- the DOL investigations under Mr. Dunham." . I I
19 want to get into the details.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't have any more specific 21 recollection.-
22 MR. ROISMAN: Well, I think you'll hear.from the
, . 12 3 answer why that's so.- If.you want to go through.the
. t/ (7 24 motions -- he's asking enough' irrelevant questions as it.
- 25- is without him asking' the same questions-twice.--
-21578.0 23002 BRT 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's hear what happens.
2 THE WITNESS: What was the question?
'N (Q 3 BY MR. WATKINS:
4 O My question was would you describe your contacts, 5 actual contacts with Mr. Merritt in connection with the 6 Dunham proceedings?
7 A With the Dunham proceedings he wris -- I think he 8 sat in on a couple of meetings that I was -- not so much 9 meetings, I guess they were conversations over what had 10 happened. I'm really not --
11 O Who was in those meetings?
12 A The man from the Department of Labor -- well, no, 13 he wasn't in that one. He was in the one with all the ex is l.
14 lawyers. I don't really recall.
15 O How many times did you meet with him in that 16 connection?
17 A I think once, possibly twice. Very short 18 duration.
19- Q Is there any reason why you would think
- 20. Mr.-Merritt would be angry with you in connection with 21 those meetings?
22 A No. I don't -- I don't recall.
23 0 - So your feeling that there is some hostility r~x
. (_) . 24 there has nothing to do with that, does it?
25 A I received the feeling of hostility, or upset
, e a., " *
-r-21578.0 23003 ERT-1 with me, from -- I guess it would be from the replacement 2 of Harry Williams. I guess that's the only thing I can k 3 stick my finger on. It's just an uneasy feeling I 4 received from the man when I was around him. I dealt with 5 him many times in the hallways and different things.
6 Q What was Mr. Merritt's title?
7~ A That I don't recall.
8 0 What was his job?
9 A He was with TUGCO management.
10 0 Was he often out in the reactor building?
11 A I have seen him a few times in the field. I
- 12 don't remember where it was, no.
-13 0 You also mentioned Mr. Merritt in connection 0- 14 with-some' procedures that there was some dispute about.
15 A Yes.
16 O Would you describe that in'more detail, please?
17 A Do you mean in the dispute or what?-
'18 Q 'The dispute.. What led to Mr. Merritt's 19' participation?-
20 A' There were some procedures that were to improve 21 the' operation -- I think as I testified previously, to try 22 to help;out the project and to help out the job. And I
, 23 - was told by one gentleman in the department that lue had i'Af')T .
24 some procedures that he could>get his hands on that would 25 1 help,-and this information was conveyed to Mr. Merritt.
r 21578.0 23004 l BRT l 1 And I told the gentleman at the time that I wanted the 2 procedures taken down and shown as a QC department as a
(~)\
(. 3 whole, not just one individual. I wanted to show the !
4 coatings department as a whole was trying to help the 5 project, the site itself and get the project straightened 6 .out.
7 O who was the individual?
8 A Jerry Artrip.
9 0 Were these procedures from another site?
10 A Yes, they were.
llL O Did Mr. Artrip give them to Mr. Merritt?
12 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, Il object again. We 13 really did go over this.
5- 14 JUDGE BLOCH: I do remember this. The same 15 thing'came up yesterday. You asked it again. Are you 16 going to go into it in greater depth now?
4 17 MR. WATKINS: Yes.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: So it's just setting.the stage?
19- MR. WATKINS: Yes.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: All right. Continue.
21 THE WITNESS: In the ultimate I don't know if he 22 got them from Jerry Artrip or not. -
23 BY MR. WATKINS:
_fg
( )-
_ 24 O Do you know that Mr. Artrip gave those 25 procedures to John Crane?-
21578.0 23005 BRT 1 A No, I don't.
2 .O Who was responsible for writing procedures at
. -s~.
3 Comanche Peak?
4 A The -- it would be the level 3 people.
5 O Was Mr. Merritt responsible for writing 6 procedures?
7 A No. ,
8 Q Did he do so to your knowledge?
9 A They were interested in getting some procedures 10 to help out; yes. They were interested in getting the 11 progran turned around; yes.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry, could you explain that j_ _ 13 a little more? Mr. Merritt --
\- 14 THE WITNESS:
- Mr. Merritt and Mr. Crane were 15 interested in getting some additional information on 16 additional ways of applying coatings -- not applying 17 coatingst but different systems that could maybe make the 18 work a little bit easier and make the-work go a little 19 smoother on the project.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Crane works directly with 21 Mr.-Merritt?
22 THE WITNESS: That I don't know.
23 BY MR. WATKINS:
y,-
- (_J: 24 O Did Mr. Merritt ever say to you that he was m.
25 -upset because of these procedures?
i L
21578.0 23006 BRT 1 A No , he did not.
2 O What's your basis for saying that he was?
) 3 A As I previously testified, Thursday, that I got 4 it from the field, from some coatings people saying that 5 there was a little bit of hard feelings because of what I 6 had done with Mr. Artrip.
7 O Hard feelings on whose part?
8 A Management, Mr. Merritt, somewhere in that -- it 9 was the superintendent's area.
10 Q Was Mr. Merritt's name mentioned?
11 A I think his name come up in conversations; yes.
12 O You also mentioned Mr. Merritt in connection 13 with the barbecue.
(V 14 A Yes.
15 Q In what -- did somebody tell you that-16 Mr._Merritt was upset because QC -- with you because QC 17 inspectors didn't show up at the barbecue?
18 A It wasn't so much in that term. It was that 19 they felt I could possibly get more people to come ' to the 20 barbecue and they thought that I might have dropped the 21 ball a little bit.
22 O When was that barbecue?
23 A sometime in August, I think.
. /~\
As l 24 O Were you still a lead at that time?-
12 5 A That I don't remember. Probably -- yes.
'21578.0 23007
.BRT 1 Probably was.
2 O Mr. Williams was your supervisor?
I) 3 A Yes.
4' Q Mr. Krisher was his supervisor?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Why weren't people upset with one of them 7 instead of you? .Why single you out?
8 A' That I don't know. Maybe they felt that I was 9 closer to the inspectors than the other gentlemen were.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: The question was asked by 11 Mr. Watkins a while back, how you knew that they were 12 upset with you. I don't think I know the answer.
13 THE WITNESS: From talking to the craft n
N/ 14 personnel, some craft. They told me that.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: They told you --
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, they said the feelings were.
17 there from -- they didn't feel I had done everything I 18 could do to promote that.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: It was the craft personnel, not 20 Mr. Merritt, who gave you that impression?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: Did it have anything to do with 23 Mr. Merritt?
("
\_}/ 24 -- THE WITNESS:. They said that.he was unhappy.
125 JUDGE BLOCH: That Merritt was unhappy?
21578.0 23008 BRT 1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 BY MR. WATKINS:
3 Q Was Mr. Dunham also a lead inspector at that 4 time?
5 A Yes. He was on the backfit program; yes.
6 O Were they upset with him?
7 A That I didn't know.
8 O Can you recall having a personal discussion with 9 Mr. Merritt?
10 A I've talked with the gentleman; yes.
11 Q How ' many times?-
12 A That would be hard to recall.
4 13 O A few? Many?
\- 14 A Yes. No.
15 O Just the two of you?
16 A Yes.
17 Q. What was the substance of those conversations?
18 A I don't remember. I think some-of them dealt 19 with the job.
20 Q Did he' indicate during those meetings that he 21 was angry with you?
22 A- No . . I don't think so. I don't recall.
23 Q Do you-have any personal knowledge that John K./ 24 Merritt doesn't like Evert Mouser?
r -.
25 A The only thing -- apparently he might like me c:
I i
21578.0 23009 BRT l' totally, but from a job aspect it might be different.
2 O Would you explain that?
( 3 A He might not want me on the job for some reason.
4 Q Do you have any personal knowledge that that is 5 so?
6 A Actual, factual knowledge?
7 Q Yes.
8 A No.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: The comment you made about 10 Mr. Merritt on Thursday, which was a rather harsh comment, 11 based solely on the belief that he is interfering with 12 .your getting a job?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, from what was talked to me by
(~h 14 Mr. Bader and then just from what has been happening; yes.
15 It's a gut feeling; yes.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: It wasn't anything aside from that 17 that made you have that kind of an opinion?
18 THE WITNESS: Other than knowing the way people 19 react;_no.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: I didn't understand that last 21' answer.
22 THE WITNESS: By knowing the way that the 23 project went, down there, when you brought news or was (l
\/ 24 part of a problem or something like that. There was --
25 the feelings were not that good towards you. That's the
21578.0 23010
- BRT 1 reason why I had that gut feeling with the Lipinski report 2 and then with the barbecue and the way things went down 3 there.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Watkins can clarify it further.
5 BY MR. WATKINS:
6 O I want to know what the basis for your gut 7 feeling is. You have one comment from one job shopper,
, 8 and beyond that it seems to me got no personal knowledge t
9 of what your saying is -- you think to be true.
10 MR. ROISMAN: Objection, he's arguing with this 11 witness without justification. He's just telling us what 12 he's going to argue in his findings, and I don't see any
,_; 13 reason why the witness should be subjected to it or why we r
(
14 should all have to sit here and listen to it.
15 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Mouser used a somewhat harsh 16 word to describe Mr. Merritt.
17 MR. ROISMAN: That seems to be tough to 18 Mr. Merritt. He's told you what he knows.
19 JUDGE BLOCH:. I think the objection only goes to
.20 the form of the question, Mr. Watkins. You can ask 21' exactly the same question in a different form.
- i. 22 BY MR. WATKINS:
23 O Other than your conversation with a job shopper
(^')
A /- 24 in Michigan'--
25 MR. ROISMAN: I object before he even asks it.
t-
'21578.0. 23011 BRT 1 The question has been asked and answered. I asked it he 2 answered it. You asked it and he answered it.
) 3 Mr. Watkins asked it and he answered it. And I don't 4 think it needs to be asked and answered another time. He 5- was even asked what is your personal knowledge and he 6 answered "none."
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Maybe you can pursue what he's 8 talking about, about these general feelings about the site.
9 He has answered it correctly. He has this feeling that --
10 MR. WATKINS: Well, he has a feeling. I'll 11 accept Mr. Roisman's objection that there is no other 12 basis for it.
13 MR. ROISMAN: He doesn't want to ask that p.
- 14 question. That's my redirect.
15 BY MR. WATKINS:
16 O Mr. Lipinski called you in July and said he.was 17 coming to the site. As I recall in your testimony -- is 18 that correct?
19 A Either he called me or I called him. We i 20 conversed, yes.
Il G As I recall he asked you to look around and 22 check out some areas that he could look into?~
23 A He asked me to find out. Yes.
n
()- 24 O Did you tell him that you were not working in 25 the coatings department?
'21578.0 23012
-BRT 1 A He knew that.
2 O How did he know that?
/~%
() 3 A I had talked to him previous to that when I went i '4 down there.
5 O Did you explain to him that, "Mr. Lipinski, it 6 may be hard for me to figure out what you should look at, 7 because I'm not in the coatings area"?
8 A No, I didn't say that to him. I told him I'd 9 find out what I could.
^
-10 Q Did he say anything to indicate to you that he 11 knew that you were not in the coatings area?
12 A No, I don't think -- I don't think he did.
13 Q Did he ask you to gather any documents?
k 14 A No, I don't think he did.
15 Q You mentioned that you -- to meet his request, 16 you talkesi to Mr. Deschambeau and Mr. Artrip?
-17 A Yes.
18 O You had known Mr. Deschambeau from WPPS. You 19 had not known Mr. Artrip before that; is that right?'
4 20 A That's right.
21' O= Why had you not talked to any of the other.
22 inspectors you knew from WPPS?
23 A. Because I just happened to run into those.two
(
^~/ 24 that day.
25 O What did Mr. Deschambeau do at WPPS?
21578.0 23013 BRT 1 A He was a civil inspector, same as myself. Level 2 2.
( .
3 0 Who did he work for?
4 A- He worked for Bechtel.
I 5 Q Mr. Deschambeau said to you there are certain
.' 6 areas into whith he thought Mr. Lipinski should look?
7 A Yes.
+
8 Q. Did you explain to him that Mr. Lipinski was
- 9. coming to the site?
10 A- No, I did not. I told him we needed some 11 information.
You just said -- what did you ask
'12 O
- :L 3 - Mr.-Deschambeau? 'Did you give a reason for asking_him 14 what these -- the areas were?
15 A I think what it was is, I run into them there at.
16' the base of the hill and asked them to look into or-give
+
- 17. me an idea of where there might .be some ' troubled areas 18 that somebody might look into. I think that's basically
[. 19. the conversation.
- 20 Q- Was it in the same conversation that he told you
~21 ~ what areas you should.look into?.
.22 A No. Well, I think he-told me at the' time. Then, 23 also, I talked back, checked back with him later on. I' 7-
- , (_/
24' told him I would.see him later-on.
. 25 0 And, again, those areas were painter i-n T
l l
t
21578.0 23014 BRT f
- 1. qualifications, material traceability -- those two, 2 certainly. Any others?
3 A Traceability of materials, storage, painter 4 qualifications -- I think that's basically it. Yes, sir.
5- O Did he elaborate? Did he say why those were 6 problem areas?
7 A No, he didn't.
8 O He didn't mention ANSI requirements?
- i. 9 A I don't recall him saying anything like that; no.
10 Q Did he mention procedures? i 11 A No.
12 Q Do you have any idea on what he based his 13 statement to you that these were problem areas?
14 A No, I don't. Other than maybe he felt that they 15 weren't being done correctly.
~
16 O He didn't give you a basis on which to say that 17 they weren't being done correctly?
.18 A No, he did not, i- ~ 19- O Did you-have any judgment on what his basis was?
i 20 A No , I don't.
1 21 Q Did he mention then or later that the 22 identification problems were based on a difference between
' 23. the way things were done at WPPS and the way things were
('}'
Ns 24 done.at Comanche Peak?
i 25 A No. I don't think there was anything of that l l
I i
j
.. i
)
l 1
l 21578.0 23015 BRT-1 that entered it; no.
1 2 O What was your opinion of Mr. Deschambeau as an
(). 3 inspector?
4 A Mr. Deschambeau is a very good inspector.
5 O Now, you reported back to Mr. Lipinski what 6 Mr. Deschambeau had told you. Do you recall whether you 7 called him or whether you told him when he arrived at the
]
8 site?
9 A I don't recall.
I 10 0 I believe you testified, and correct me if I'm )
i 11 wrong, that you believe that Mr. Deschambeau, the problem 12 areas that he identified to you were shared by other.
13 inspectors. Do you recall that?
ss 14 A Yes.
.15 0 What led you to believe that?
16 A From what he said.
17 O What did he say that made you believe that?
18 A "We think this area should be looked into";
- 19. meaning, I took it, the other inspectors were involved in 20 it also.
21 Q Did he say -- excuse me -- did he say he had 22 talked to other inspectors?
,23' A I don't recall that; no.
24 O During.your tour with Mr.'Lipinski, I believe 25 you testified that you had -- you saw several things that
21578.0 23016 BRT 1 indicated possible problems -- perhaps not to you but to 2 him -- in protective coatings.
() 3 One was coatings on the dome, or outside the dome?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Could you describe those coatings?
6 A It was a white coating material that looked like 7 it had been -- like I said previously -- looked like it 8 had been dumped on the outside.
9 O Is that material like roofing tar?
10 A Roofing tar? No, it was not.
11 O Paint?
12 A It's paint.
13 0 Where were you -- where are these coatings? Is
']
/
\~/ 14 it literally on the outside of the dome?
15 A It's down low, down near the ground. That's --
16 like I say, it looked as if it might have been dumped or a 17 bucket kickea over or something.
18 Q Do those coatings have~any safety significance 19 whatsoever?
20 MR. ROISMAN: Asked and answered.
21 BY MR. WATKINS:
22 Q Did Mr. Lipinski know or indicate to you that he 23 knew that they'had no safety significance?
.j( )\
24 A -Yes.
25 Q Why was he concerned, then, about the quality of
21578.0 23017
~BRT 1 those_ coatings?
2 A I don't think I ever said he was, r~y
-(_/ 3 Q Did that observation, then, have anything to do 4
with workmanship as a problem identified in the trip 5 report?
6 A That I don't know.
7' Q You also testified that he saw coatings on a 8 weld just inside the door?
9 A Yes.
10 0 And that those coatings appeared to be thick?
11 A Yes.
12 O Was that from visual examination?
13 MR. ROISMAN: ' Asked and answered.
- 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, it was.
15 BY MR. WATKINS:
.16 O Can you tell how thick they were by visual
-17 examination?
18 MR. ROISMAN: Asked and answered.
19 MR. WATKINS: Your Honor, if you could ask 20 Mr. Roisman to control himself, please?
21' MR. ROISMAN: Your Honor, it is the questioner
^
. 22- who is not controlling'himself. We went over the 23 ' testimony. We asked whether the outside paint.was Q? He
/~ N, is _) 24 .said "no." We asked'if he knew how thick it was? He said
.25 "no."
l 3
)
21578.0- 23018 BRT
- 1. JUDGE BLOCH: He also explained that you could 2 tell if you were an inspector; he testified it was hard to
.) 3 -do it, but if he was a trained inspector he could.
4 MR. WATKINS: I have a transcript --
5 JUDGE BLOCH: I couldn't have made that part up.
6 I remember it's that part of testimony.
7 MR. GALLO: I think this haggling should stop.
8 We can ask more questions in the time he's haggling about 9 it --
10 MR. ROISMAN: But if we establish the principle 11 he's not going to ask all these questions again, we can
-12 save a lot more time.
13 BY MR. WATKINS:
-O
' E~# - 14 O Did you perform those measurements of the weld?
15 A No.
16 O Is it difficult to perform those measurements on 17 a weld?
18 A On a weld it's almost impossible.
.19 0 You mentioned runs and sags in your~ testimony, 20 but I'm not sure that it was in connection with the tour 21 of the plant that you took. Was it?
-22 A I think we made note of some runs and-sags in 23 ' rot.jhly the same area.
N/ 24. O Are all runs and sags in protective coath.g
.25 unacceptable?
,21578.0 23019 BRT 1 A. No, they are not.
2 'O What determines whether they are acceptable?
l) 3 A Their mil thickage, thickness in mils.
4 O Did either you or Mr. Lipinski, during your tour 5 of the plant, measure the thickness of any of these runs 6 and sags?
7 A No, we had no instruments with us.
8 O Did you have any way of telling whether they 9 were unacceptable per procedure?
10 A No.
11 O Regarding the --
12 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you have any way of knowing 13 whether it was much worse than you had seen at other 14
~ plants?
15 THE WITNESS- Other plants you usually didn't-16 see much of any runs or sags -- any thickness millage of 17 runs or sags were removed.
18 BY MR. WATKINS:
19 O At Comanche Peak, did procedures govern the 20 acceptability of runs or sags?
21 A I think they did; yes.
22 O Do you remember what the tolerances were?
23 A No, I do not.
. ;-3 k- - 24 JUDGE BLOCH: At.the time you went around with 25 Mr. Lipinski-you didn't even know what those requirements
~ . _, _ .. , _ _ . _ . _ . , _ _ - . __, _ . _ . . _ . - _
4 4
'21578.'O 23020
- BRT j l
1 were, did you?
2 THE WITNESS: That's right. I did not.
) 3 BY MR. WATKINS:
4 O Did Mr. Lipinski indicate that he knew?
5 A How thick they were?
6 O No, that they were procedurally controlled?
7 A No. He did not know anything about the 8 procedures at that time.
9 O Regarding the paint on the pallet --
10 A Yes.
'll 0 -- were those class 1 coatings materials?
i.
i 12 A I had no way to know that.
13 0 What kind of containers were the coatings in?
14 A I think they were in cans.
15 O Do you remember-how many cans there were?
16 A No, I-don't.
17 O Had these been class 2 or non-O coatings, would-18 there have been paint mix slips attached to them?
19 A .I don't recall.
20 -O Well,-are class 2 coatings uncontrolled?
21 A~ Yes,-they are -- well, to an extent, yes. It's 22 still a controlled coating. You still have to have a good 23 coating material, even if it's a lousy job.
[h T_/J 24' O Do they have paint mix slips attached.to-them?
25 A No, I don't think they do.
t
21578.0 23021 BRT 1 Q Af ter ycu and Mr. Lipinski saw the coatings on 2 this pallet, did you later go to Mr. Haley and ask him
.'_7-)x
\ . 3 whether he knew what the story was on these coatings?
4 A At that time I did not even know Mr. Haley.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you ask anyone at that time 6 about those uncontrolled cans?
7 THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
8 BY MR. WATKINS:
9 0 I would like you to refer to Mr. Lipinski's trip 10 report.
11 A Okay. Okay.
12 Q- And I want you to think specifically of the time 13 period when he was on-site, in July.
' 14 A Yes.
15 0 In terms of your conversations with htm, did he 16 explain to you what problems he had identified in terms of 17 material storage?
18 A No , he did not.
, 19 Q Did he explain to you specifically what problems L
j 20 he had identified with workmanship?
21 A No , I don't think he did.
22 Q Did he tell you what specific problems he had 23 with painter qualification?
(~
, L)' 24 A No,'he did'not.
25 Q Did you discuss with him during that initial.
I i
I
- 21578.0 23022 BRT 1 site visit the process of painter qualification or 2 certification?
() 3 A I knew nothing of it.
4 Q Did you discuss with Mr. Lipinski ANSI 5 requirements?
6 A I don't think so.
7 Q Did you discuss with him coatings integrity?
8 A No.
9 O When you walked around the site with 10 .r. Lipinski, did he indicate, in connection M , for example, 11 with that pallet of paint, surprise that there was no 12 status indicator tags on the coatings materials?
13 A I think he did mention something-about that.
- . 14 O Were status indicator tags used at WPPS?
15 A Yes, they were.
16 O They were not used at Comanche Peak; is that 17 correct?
18 A Not all cases. It was.used on class 1 materials, 19 unless a tag was lost.
L 20 Q What do you mean by " status indicator. tags" at l
.. 21 -Comanche Peak, now?
22 A I mean mix slips.
r 23 Q Do " accept" and " reject". tags mean anything to I /~);
'w '
24 you with respect to coatings materials?
i 25 A' Accept and reject tags?
.*w- r-= -
..y- 4 ,,.
g y ,9vq99p,- y,,m + , .e. ,y.,y.---y,y y e. s- -- +--*r--+y
21578.0 23023 BRT-1 O Yes.
2 A Other than -- with coating materials other than
(_) 3 material that was received and no good. Material that was 4 received and okay had an accept tag on it; yes.
5 Q At Comanche Peak?
6 A I saw some tags, yes. Through the warehouse;
-7 yes.
8- O Can you remember the days of the week 9 Mr. Lipinski was on-site?
10 A No, I cannot.
11 Q Do you remember the dates?
12 A 20-something, -6th, -7th, -8th; something like 13 that.
O- 14 O You testified you remember seeing Mr. Lipinski 15 just as he was leaving the site?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And that he said, "Well, I'm leaving the site."
18 That's how you knew?
19 A Yes.
20 0 Do you remember taking any sick days that week?
21 A Yes, I was' sick that week prior to -- when he 22 was first there on the site, in July? I don't recall 23 taking any sick days then; no. I took some in August.
/~N 1.sl 24 O If you want to think about it --
25 A I took some in August prior to taking over as
l 21578.0 23024 i BRT.
i 1 lead. I' remember that. Because I was supposed to take 2 over one day and I was sick two days.
3 0 In August?
4 A Yes. Either one or two days.
5 O Mr. Mouser, do you recognize this document?
6 A .Yes, I do.
7 0 Is any of the handwriting on this document yours?
8 A If you can call the hen scratch on the top; yes.
9 Q Could you identify the markings, writings that 10 are yours on this document?
11 A Everything on the document that is mine is 12 across the top: payroll number, Social Security number, 13 employee name --
} 14 Q If you could slow down for the reporter. For me, 15 too.
16 A Location code and name, title, symbol, number, 17 SUB, stay code, the times from R 26 across to the 10th, 18 indicating the days of the week.
19 O Okay. That's on the top, on the right-hand side?
20 A Yes.
21 O The numbers, for example, starting at the left-hand
. :2:2 side, 10, and then 4, and 6 --
23 A Yes.
(3
(_/ 24 O That's in your writing?
25 A- Yes. That's in my writing. And then the I
. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .)
21578.0 23025 l BRT '
1 numbers down below that indicating days and the totals; i 2 and that is it, along with the date " period ending."
(_) _ 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Can you read that entry, " Period 4 ending"?
5 THE WITNESS: No, I can't. It looks like --
, 6 something 10/83. And that's it.
7 BY MR. WATKINS:
8 O What does this document represent?
9 A This is a time report.
10 Q Did you fill it out daily?
11 A Not really daily. I filled it out day prior to 12 being turned in; yes.
_. 13 O Now, on the -- is this a two-week time period
-14 covered by this sheet?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And there's a separate sheet for every two-week 17 period during which you worked at Comanche Peak?
18 A Yes, there is.
19 0 Would you tell us what the numbers mean under 20 the box thatisays record all time daily, overtime to next 21 quarter hour" under the 26th. The 26th is circled.
22 A Yes . -
~
23 O Does that mean that that is the date to wi41ch i A.) 24~ the entry underneath applies?
25 A Yes. Well, that's the day of the week. 26, 27, 7
, .,, - - - - , . . , , .. .- . - _ . , _ . . - . ~ , , , . . . , , , . - . , .-
21578.0 23026 CRT l- 28, and 29th, and so on.
2 Q Those are the dates?
m.
.h 3 A Yes.
4; O Of the month or the period for which this sheet 5 is filled out?
6 A Yes.
7 ~Q What does the "10" underneath the "26" mean?
8 A I worked 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> that day.
!: .9 O And going to the next day, what do the."4" and "6" 10 mean?
11 A' That indicates I worked four hours straight time, 12 six hours overtime.
13 0 Under the "28," there's no entry at the top.
l'~ .
.14 There.is an entry at the bottom..
15 A Yes.
16 Q What does that mean?
17 A' For the 28th, and the 29th', that indicates 18 . excused absence with pay.
19 Q What was the reason for the absence?-
20 A At that time I don't recall; probably sick or --
21 'I don't know if there's a code on it -- 901, the code I l
22 think represents sick leave.
-23 JUDGE BLOCH: Do we know the time period? What
.3 x_) e L24 is'the date? How do we know what the date ending is here?
25 BY MR. WATKINS:
s
21578.0 23027 BRT .
1 Q Mr.. Mouser, where is the entry for the 2 appropriate period for which this sheet covers?
.'(_O) 3 A- It has it on the top; says " Period ending, month, 4 day and year." It looks to be 3 or 8.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: So you think it may be 3 instead 6 of'87 7' THE 'dITNESS: It looks like 3 or 8 -- I would 8 say maybe 8/10/83; I'll accept that.
9 BY MR, WATKINS:
10 Q Does this document refresh your memory as to 11 whether-you were at work on the 28th?
12 A From the looks of things, no, I was not.
13 O From the way in-which you filled out these time
- Q s' 14 sheets, can you be sure by looking at this time sheet that 15 you were not at work on the 28th?
16 A If I had a day off I guarantee you I was gone 17 that day.
18 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, we move the 19 admission of a copy of this document into evidence.
20 MR. ROISMAN: Objection. I think the document ~
21 is unreliable. The only crucial entry on there to 22 identify it is illegible. The witness said he "would
'23 accept that," which does not make it evidentiary. And to (3
\_) 24 me the fact that the 30th and 31st are crossed off is 25 equally consistent with.the fact that that's February, i
21578.0 23028 BRT 1 .because there was no 30th or 31st, or that there's 2 something else there. But I don't think unless we can see
./
1,,/ 3 a document that shows what this is, that this is a 4 reliable document.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Do do we know what the days of the 6 week were on the 30th and 31st of August?
7 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, somewhere here I 8 have a calendar, but Mr. Lipinski was on-site on Tuesday, 9 Wednesday, and Thursday, and Thursday was the 28th.
10 . JUDGE BLOCH: Is there any way from your record 11 system to know which period this applies to?
12 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, the original or a --
13 this is not a copy of this document. This is for another 14 week. But the pink copy, or the original for all I.know, 15 I am informed, are kept in New York. We would be 16 agreeable to having this copy bound'in, subject to our 17 providing a copy of the original with an affidavit
,18 certifying that it's a legitimate copy.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there any explanation?
20 Mr. Mouser, do you know from custom at the plant why 30 21 and 31 would have lines through them?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Those were days, 23- Saturday and Sunday, or day off. The way I filled out my.
,m k_,,) 24 time sheet that indicated Saturday, Sunday, or day off.
25 JUDGE BL0CH: And if it were February, might
21578.0 23029 BRT 1 those have been crossed off too?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
3 MR. WATKINS: That would depend on whether 1983 4 was a leap year.
5 THE WITNESS: I did not --
6 JUDGE BLOCH: That's true. Because then the 7 29th would appear crossed off also.
8 THE WITNESS: At the site I did not circle my 9 numbers or cross them out, but that would -- I know for a 10 -fact that the gentleman who did the time sheets did it 11 that-way. But myself, I did not put those marks on my cl2 time sheet.
\
13 JUDGE BLOCH:- Do you have any idea from practice
# 14 at the site why there would be two "8s" entered on the 15 28th and 29th, but " excused absence" on the left says "9,"
16 apparently?
17 MR.'WATKINS: Perhaps you could have the witness 18 explain what the 9000 immediately.to the left of-the 901 19 is.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: What's the 9000 there on the left?-
21 THE WITNESS: I think that's a pay category. Is 22 that right, Tom?
23 MR.-WATKINS: Mr. Brandt, unfortunately, is not-
[)
\/ 24 testifying now -- or' fortunately.
Mr. Chairman, I have a 25 . copy-of a calendar here, if you are interested.
r s
21578.0 23030 BRT.
1 JUDGE BLOCH: Why don't we accept the offer on 2 the basis that it will have to be authenticated later with
.A
(_,/ 3 an original that will show us what the date is.
4 .IX) you know? From looking at there do you know what 5 time period this covers, Mr. Mouser?
6 THE WITNESS: From looking at it, I would say 7 'it's 8/10/83. Just --
8 JUDGE BLOCH: You are confident that thatfs what 9 it is?
10 THE WITNESS: I'd say it looks like 8/10/83.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there any way of knowing'from 12 the practice at the plant on what day a pay period would
.13 end? Is_there usually a day of the week on which a pay O
N/ 14 period ends? .
15 THE WITNESS: It was on the 10th -- 10th and 16 25th..
17 JUDG2 BLOCH: Of any month? It doesn't help us.
18 It's not a day of the week. It's just a number.
19 .THE WITNESS: The 10th and 25th of every month.
20 MR. ROISMAN: I was unclear whether the witness 21 testified whether the entries under " period end".were 22 written by him or somebody else?
23 JUDGE BLOCH: What would have been done by ym.
C 24 somebody else?
25 MR. ROISMAN: I don't know who would have
- t.
7
21578.0 23031 7;
,BRT
~
11 -written that particular entry? Is it the witness' 2 . testimony that he wrote that entry or somebody else wrote
). .
.3 that entry, the " period end" entry?
4a THE WITNESS: Those are my numbers. " Period
'5 ~ending," that is my writing; yes.
6' BY MR.~WATKINS:
l .7 - O Mr. Mouser, are you familiar with a yearly 8 EBASCO field employee attendance record kept for employees 9- on-site?
10 A No, I am not familiar with one; no, I'm not.
11 :O Let me show you a copy of a document and ask you i, 112. if you can identify-it. r 13 JUDGE BLOCH:' Could you have been scheduled to
]? 14 be off on the 30th and 31st of' August, . which is a Tuesday.
- 15 and Wednesday? '
h '
16 THE WITNESS: No. .I worked Monday through 17 Friday.
18 JUDGE'BLOCH: .I see. .!k) -those could stand for
- l'9 ' July-30th and 31st.
-20 THE WITNESS: I do recognizeLthis report.now,-
'21 from looking'at-it. .I do' recognize this one he just 22; . handed out.
So it dobs stand for the period 23' JUDGE BLOCH:
- 24. 'Augustf10, 19837
~
25 THE WITNESS: 1983. yearly-employee attendance M.
..-.a
21578.0 23032 BRT 1 field record. I do recognize that.
2 MR. ROISMAN: No. No.
l3
(_) 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Does that help you to know whether 4 this other document is authentic?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is made out by the 6 people in the office.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: And this correspon.ds with the
[
8 other one so that it establishes in your mind that the.
9 other document is authentic for the period ending August 10, 10 '837
'll THE WITNESS: Yes. It would. It shov 9 28 R 12 periods.under August 28th and 29th.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: So we can admit it depending on
/ '
14 relevance-later on, and have it bound in-the transcript at 15 this point.
16 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't 17 understand how that is a proper ruling. You'have a 18 document which on its physical face is ambiguous about a 19 crucial entry in there and the original is not being 20 proffered. This is a Xerox. I stand on my right to see 21 the original and to have it not introduced in evidence 22 until I do.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Watkins, that's correct, isn't
. (~~) ' .
's 'l 24 it? .He.should be able to see the original.
25 MR. WATKINS: I believe so. Let me ask one
21578.0 23033 BRT 1 question. There may be some difficulty extracting the 2 original from EBASCO in New York, but I will see what I fj '
-V 3 can do.
4 BY MR. WATKINS:
5 O Mr.. Mouser,'do you know who gets the pink copies 6 of these sheets?
7 A I think the employee keeps the pink; doesn't he?
8 I'm not sure. I don't remember.
9 O Did you keep any copies of your time sheets when 10 you left?
11 A Yes, I do.
12 O Do you have them in your possession? I mean in 13 Midland?
(~\
~ \ 14 A No , I doinot. They are somewhere in the trash 15- between here and Texas.
16 O So you didn't keep them, you did not?
17 A I kept them until I left the job.
18 JUDGE BLOCII: Between here and Texas?
19 BY MR. WATKINS:
20 0 Mr. Mouser,-is this a multi-layered piece of 21 paper when you fill it out?
22 A Yes, sir, it is.
23 O Do you recall how many copies there are?
(, , 24 A- A number. I would say four.
25 O Perhaps I could refer you to the lower right-hand
21578.0 23034
-BRT 1 side of this thing where it says " distribution of copies."
- 2. A Okay. Four copies.
f) 3 JUDGE BLOCH: We could possibly cut through this.
4 Do you have any recollection now, after seeing this form, 5 of what else you might.have been doing on the 28th and 6 29th of August, other than being at the site?
. 7 MR. ROISMAN:- July.
1 8 MR. WATKINS: That was my next question.
9 THE WITNESS: I recognize the form and it 10 indicates that I was sick at that period of time: "Off, 11 absence with pay."
12 JUDGE BLOCH: But you do not have any 13 recollection?
. O
\/- 14 THE WITNESS: No. I do not recall.
15 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, we'll ask that the 16 copy be bound into the record. We will come up with
~ 17 .either the original top sheet'-- do you remember what 18 color that-was, Mr. Mouser?
L 19 THE WITNESS: Blue.
20 BY MR. WATKINS:
L L 21 O Not white?
22 A No.
L l 23 MR. GALLO: I want to see the goldenrod.
A I (.,) 24 THE WITNESS: I do not recall what the top copy 25- was.
L
21578.0 23035 BRT l' MR. WATKINS: We'll attempt to come up with an 2 original, or perhaps, if this is the best we can do, one
() 3 of the simultaneous carbon copies here.
4 MR. ROISMAN: I do not consider the simultaneous
.5 carbon copy -- if you take a look at the entry under " month,"
6 there's something written on the left-hand side of the 71 line dividing the entry. And it doesn't -- and it's not 8 an "8," whatever it is. If you can't see the original I 9 don't know how you are going to be able to discern that 10 from the copies. I do think authenticity -- Mr. Watkins 11 has been nitting and picking fairly extensively here, and 12 I'm going to_ return the favor. I want the original or I 13 want it not admitted.
')~
14 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, I'suggest we bind in 2
15 a copy and argue about the original later.
16 MR. ROISMAN: Let's get exhibit referencer on it, 17 if we can, please.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: We shouldn't argue about the 19 admissibility without the original until we find out that 20 there is an original. That's not proper.
21 MR. ROISMAN: Are we getting exhibit numbers?
22 There are two here. Are both being bound in?
23 JUDGE BLOCH: Are you binding both in, f
' ()
- 24. Mr. Watkins, or just the one7 25 MR. WATKINS: .I would ask the other one be bound 1
-21578.0 23036 BRT 1 in as well, subject to the production of the original and 2 authentication.
( ). 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Mouser can't authenticate this 4 one, can he?
5 MR. WATKINS: I said " subject to authentication."
6 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't think they need numbers.
7 MR. ROISMAN: The others are numbered. We'll 8 always know we are referring to Mouser Exhibit X when we 9 have had this argument. I would appreciate them being-
'10 assigned numbers.
11- JUDGE BLOCH: Let's let the semimonthly employee 12 form be Mouser 2.
'13 MR. ROISMAN: There is a 2 already.
_k -
14 JUDGE BLOCH: Mouser 3 and 4, the semimonthly 15 time report being 3.
16 (Mouser Exhibits 3 and 4 identified.)
17 (The document follows:)
18 19 20 21 22 23
) 24 25' 4
e 0
I e j ~s N ~,(. h hbhY _: l
.5$8 b Mdd U NN %d $@ $$ @$ @@ $$N@fM$ $
B 9=W M MM @ M iHs E E 4 W" li h I= f. I l ll l ll Ih Il ll l l l lll !
j l
i s '!i-3 il Il !l II i l i l 2l tii gj is jig al !I !! il 11 l l l l si t I!! ll 1
@\Hi il il l ! !
kn5 s m
l l
iA il l Il il il il Il ll l
I l
I l
i l
i ill it!
Li ! $j c 3
'g D i k !I i! [l ll l ! l l l. S! ! N~ l djjj 5 e, 3 r
! Nl i .
I I ll Il
! ll l. l l l l 0
- !. .l a.
i
$ LsI
! !! ll !l I I ! bl l ?
!a l o@ .
(
'1 9e91 iht?I ll o-II il
!i 11 11 Il ll i
l l
I l si Ni C
!d sM su
- .t i:
lib . . _
z I I II ll ll ll l l l Il! Ik $ .$ 5 k}ll l ll l l 11 l l
'hCDl4II I li ! l 0 bo . Il i .j l F ^ Mw II I Ii iI I I I e W II! sz u d
W
- ll l l l l 0 M i! y U ! i s] l:@M -l Ol '1 J {0 Se O!
m l l Il l ll l -
< 2 cl o it c) ol t e e e c i y! e t oi t el ol t el os a jd el olt sioit el o f L et o:a e et et a g a . . . . . _ _ _ _ , a o j t g l y . . . . . . . _ _
g i ;
-. ,z. r g g 3 _.
3 3
- w '
! g j
.E $ p ,
r w
_ _ _- _- _- _ _ _ _ , , a,
- 3 3 $ $ 5 - - - - - - - - -
3 $ 2 5:
g f #v ,l~2 f - - - - - - - -
-fh%f jf k !w N
w fb $,
p
-hh$<
Sh M
M ! " 8u di - - -
wmmawwwswn,vasswwwmw 5 5 5 y!
ad w wwm - - -
hl j
- f k M j ; esa l M@X ji .;b ,5
-i = = o a i R@X l g
~
lJ I
$ i ;[
g
, [,
i /1
- j % 43AvAs gooo _
.g'Q[
O J; i; & :: =
t e
m; _ _,__ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ .
g!g:!g g i i
- tpI o ,C Pi = = g m 3 s q - - - - - - - -
4.. g : : : :
- : : j ; 3_j -
mg' gg; yg #i'a i ie , ,
!g Ia 3 e - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =_- m;-_ i!r gEl s1 %g
_- ;Q - -
J a 9_-
- -M !j!
- ! g l3 Q ' g c_ _ _
~ _ a___ -2 g
23
, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 ___
4,4 3 ~$ . . . . . . .
pt 9:;
- g. g: =
u i' o - o il ,_.,s !w a
- _ _ _- a.
g g:
- a. 3 l , n.g ,;
7M -<z !
i g
g g, g g, og g g.
(h l _ _ _ ,
e f; $ 3 l 2 - i i - . E E 3 3!j 2 -
ie
- : m, ,
ic ji . i , i i u d d T . e' o o: ,
ii ,, ;l ; : , s s i ;; : i 2 . e,
- i 5:
o ' I i i sa *O s i. . -i=
,3 I , i i I ' 8 i iI 4 g* $
E lI o siz ---o w i i i 2 Q_ o # if :
D 8t/>J:
e "
eA
- Nl i i
i i
i
' l i i l' lii ii ll ii lil ll
,, i l i
s i ja 5 ci!e s
i F;t q ,@: ::! __ ,
i i <j ,i i i ii ii 8 i li i i; i i E 3 ex
- =
mumy on e _ _j ri i
e i i i i i ii l i
,i i!
e i'
i i i l >
W W Q neo t$
' 'ja V 33 o 4 e i 't i e
i t oso m E LD. rN (T C) V (V) 1983 YEARLY FIELD EMPLOYEE ATTENDANCE RECORD gg,og C ATE EMPLOYED EspravEg Nwg
- - ' ~ ~
b h[
= * * * ~ " " "- --
is G hi>ct NO7 sOCe Ai., sgCU R T v N O.
gg[ [f idr"L"E G~B 6EidWipfiON ENTITLEMENT C AR RY.O V E R FROM *RE VIOUS V E A8 TOT AL EN TIT LEMEN T FUN C T ION 7tTLE BRACKET N O. FUNC TION CODE BI L LIN G TITLE BIL ING CODE foTAL vAc oAYs CARRY 4WER To NtxTYEA C:'c?rd Time Deviation Only (See Code Below) TOT AL DAYS l T
nfkEpay ,A, N\
u T WIT HOU T
~
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 t C/MNY/D C/M V/D C/M V/D C/M V/D 5 h
)^N %Z ach -
16 IG o o FEB C /6 o _o MAR 1 iO 8 24 O O
'l.
APR y O 2J o O
% S 9 MAY 90l 12\ h 8 32. O O J 3 JUN 9
h S QC! __.
9 S jf 43 O O JUL y %S qc) 9ct lG Q O O AUG ,
O T1 0 _O _ _ _ .
- SEP 4 2 up
, S Q (g gg OCT
% Trl O 2 o <>
NOV Q o o O DEC O O o O EXCUSED ABSENCE WITH PAY AB5ENCE WITHOUT PAY (RED ENTRY) OTHER AB5ENCES TOTAL DAYS
.900 - Job Related injury 911 - Occasional lliness .921 - Personal Holiday A85ENT WITH P AY ~$
[ ,
.901 - Occasional Illress .912 - Extended Illness (incl.Matemity) .925 - Vacation TOTA 1. DAYS c')
902 - Extended Itiness (incl. Maternity) .913 - Personal Business "
g .903 - Personal Business .914 - Military Leave
.915 - Maternity Leave AB5ENT WITHOUT PAY h C) o .904 - Military Leave TOTAt. DAYS
.906 - Jury Duty .916 -Job Related injury OTHER (RED ENTRY) p
[
907 - Funeral Leave .917 - Funeral Leave
.908 - Late .913 - Late TM - Tenninated TOTAL D AYS 909 - Special(timeoff at Xmas,New Years) .926 - Vacation Without Pay TR - Transferred LATE WITHOUT PAY
- h coding use last two digirs. p G n f(JL- $ S0 REMARK 5: , f spy //f
.2
.yl21578.0) 23039
, -BRT ..
1 MR. ROISMAN: I'want to be clear so there's no 2 confusion on this, we feel if the time sheets are relevant
) 3 Eto-the Applicant and if they wish to pursue that, that 4 they should -- that our position is going to be-that i
5 absentithe sign-in sheets, which are a further check, 6 given the documentation difficulties that are associated
- 7; with these and lots of other documents here, that we will i
- 8' still object because we do not yet have the complete-9 history, or story, if you will, of exactly what happened f.
~10 with regard to Mr. Mouser on the day in question: .Was he 11 or was he not at work. This is not the whole story, these' 12< two pieces of paper.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: In other words, we do know thsk 14 there are time; records 1kept, daily time records?
'15 MR. ROISMAN: Correct.
16 -MR. WATKINS: I'm not sure that's true. It
- - 17 ' certainly is true of Brown & Root people. I don't know 18 .whether'it's true of EBASCO people'or not.
19 MR. R3ISMAN: .They do, I believe, have to be r
i 20 checked'in or sign in when they come in the gate or else 21 my understanding of the security at the' plant is much 22- 'different.
23 BY MR. WATKINS:
1- 24 Q Mr. Mouser, do you remember signing'in and
.25 signing out?
{
t N
-m1---. .A.
l 21578.0 23040 BRT 1 A Yes, sir. There is a sign-in board for the 2 EBASCO personnel. The one that I signed in on was when I (h
\,,) 3 was in the design change group right down in front of 4 1Mr. Tolson's office. And then the ene for the coating 5 department hung on the wall beside the door.
6 0 What were those sign-in sheets used for?
7 A Brown & Root used them for time. And the 8 supervisors used them for -- to make sure all the 9 personnel were there and were there on time.
10 Q Did you use them to fill in your time sheets?
11- A No, I did not.
12 O Do you know whether they were retained, the sign-in 13 sheets?
k- 14 A They were taken every day and I don't know if 15 they were retained or not.
16 MR. WATKINS: I think the answer to Mr. Roisman's 17 questions depends on whether these things actually. exist.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: You didn't have a punch card in L 19 and out?
20 THE WITNESS: No, we did not.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Obviously it will depend on 22 whether you have kept thcoc records.
23 I guess what you are asking for, Mr. Roisman, is that
' m/ 24 it be the best evidence?
25 MR. ROISMAN: Yes.
21578.0 23041 CRT-1 BY MR. WATKINS:
2 Q Did you have to sign in at the gate when you (D/.
,_ 3 came in in the morning?
4- A Yes. We were -- well, not so much sign in, we 5 were brassed in. We were given a piece of round brass.
6 0 But was any time recorded, to your knowledge?
7 A Not at the main gate; no.
8 0 You testified that you have reviewed
- 9. Mr. Lipinski's direct testimony in this case, his prefiled 10 testimony?
11 A I have looked at it. I haven't reviewed it 12 extensively.
13 O Did Mr. Lipinski indicate to you on.his second s- 14 visit to the site, in August, that he considered you to be ,
15 the source for the problems listed in the trip report?
16 A I don't recall any conversation of that; no.
17 O Has he ever indicated that to you?
18 A No recollection of it at all.
19 0 In reviewing the trip report, which you've done 20 at least once in this proceeding, and recalling your 21 conversations with Mr. Lipinski during the three days he 22- was on-site in July or at least the two days that he was 23 on-site, do you consider that you could have been the
/~h ~
(J '24 -source for the information contained in the trip report?
25 A Let me look at it here and I'll see.
21578.0 23042 BRT 1 MR. ROISMAN: I thought he went over this with
- 2. Mr. Treby.
) 3 THE WITNESS: No. I don't feel that I could 4 have been.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: L'learly, you could have been a 6 source; is that correct?
7 THE WITNESS: "A" source; yes. "A" source but 8 not "the" source.
9 BY MR. WATKINS:
10 Q When the trip report was taken from your desk --
11 I mean, when your desk was broken into, do you recall 12 having in your desk at the time a certification c4am?
13 A No , I don't.
\' 14 certification exam for concrete inspections?
Q
-15 A No, I don't.- I don't recall.
16 Q Do you recall going to Mr. Brandt and discussing 17 the break-in, in your desk, after it happened?
18 A- .Yes, I do.
19 O What did you tell Mr. Brandt?
20 A. I told Mr. Brandt that my desk had been broken 21 into and that two of the personnel evaluations were gone, 22 that I had in my desk.
23 O Was this before or after you called security?
[~h
(/ 24 A' I-think this'was after I called security.
25 O. So the first thing you did was to call security
21578.0 23043 BRT 1 and the second thing was to go tell Mr. Brandt?
2 A Possibly; yes. In that order.
,(_g) 3 O Although you don't recall a certification exam 4 being taken, do you recall that a certification exam was 5 revised sometime after you desk:was broken into?
15 A No, sir, I don't.
7 Q Did you administer certification exams?-
8 A I had inspectors that did. And I -- I think I 9 did give them to them. I didn't have them sit down and-
- . 10 take them; yes.
11 Q That's what I meant. You were the coatings QC
! 12 supervisor. Did you administer the certification tests?
13 A Yes.
.t EN' 14 -Q Did you grade them?
15 A I think they were given back to, oh, another l'6 gentleman to be graded. I don't recall ever grading any 17 of them.
18 Q Did Mr. Fred Dunham have a desk in that separate 19 part of the trailer where you were, once you became a 20 supervisor?
21 A Yes, he did.
-22 O You hadn't mentioned that before. So it was you --
23 A Yes, I did mention it.
~ \_- ' 24. O oh, you.did. Forgive me.
, 25 You and Mr. Brando and Mr. Fred Dunham had desks. Were 1
21578.0 23044
' E RT -
1 you the.only three?
2 A Mr.-Finn -- I don't know whether he was in the
=f' 3 trailer at that time or not. In fact I don't think he was.
4 I think it was just the three of us.
.5. O You mentioned only three inspectors did not tell
-6 you that they had gone.to the NRC two being Mickey Finn 7 and' Jerry Brando, the third-being Joe. Was that Joe Fazi?
8 A- Yes, it was.
9 Q And it's your recollection that everyone else 10 -told you that they had gone to the NRC?
11 A 'I had the feeling that they had. And that they 12 all talked -- I had things that the NRC would hear and 13 things like that. And Joe and Mickey and Jerry were the
-- ('
14 only ones that'didn't refer to that.
'15 .0 What did you mean when you said "go to the NRC7 16' What. sense did you mean that in?
17 A- Having a quality concern and.taking it to the 18 LNRC; letting them.know about'it.-
19 0 The distinction I'm trying to make is did the 20 NRC or-NRC investigators come'to Comanche Peak to speak to 21: _ people during your time there?
22 A While I was there I don't recall any of them 23 coming ~and talking to the coatings people.
A.1 24 Q Do you recall them coming to the site at all?
- 2 5 -_ A- They came to the site and did an audit when I;
- 21578.0 23045 CRT 1 was up on the hill, on the other group up on the hill.
2 O Okay. When you say "went to the NRC" you mean 1 3 voluntarily approached the NRC rather than have the NRC 4 call them and say "I want to talk to you"; is that it?
5 A From my understanding they voluntarily went to 6 the NRC.
7 Q Okay. Did Bill Dunham tell you that he had been 8 .to the NRC?
9 A I think he indicated that he had talked to them; 10 yes.
~11 O To you?
12 A I think it was around me at one timer.yes.
13 Q Did Fred Dunham indicate that he had been to the O
V 14 NRC?
15 A That I don't totally remember.
16 O Did Don Davis indicate to you that he had been.
17 to the NRC?
18 A I got the same feeling while I was-around him; 19 also.
20 Q- What did he say that gave you that feeling?
21 A It would be when they would be sitting in a 22 group and talking, you'd be conversing with them-and 23 they'd say, welle.the NRC this -- and one of the guys-19 /
-\ / 24. would say yes, and some other things, too. Over here, I 25- needed to talk to them about -- just- back and forth. I
__;__m_ -
J21578.0 23046 ERT 1 took"the feeling that they had gone to them.
2 Q Did Walter Elliott indicate to you that he had
,; 3 been to the NRC7 I
A He was in the group at the same time they were
- 5 . talking; yes. They did not come out and says Hey, I went l 6- and talked to the NRC. It was all an indication that they 7 had.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you have share these feelings 9 with any of your supervisors?
10: THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
- 11. BY MR. WATKINS:
12 Q Did Houston Gunn indicate to you that he had
. 13 been to the NRC?
A ' Houston Gunn worked'up'in the shop and I don't 14' 15 . remember-ever being around Houston and him indicating 16 anything like that;. no. I'd-have to.say "no" to him.
17 Q . Did Jim Hulein ever indicate to you that he had
-18 been to the NRC?
- 19. A Again, he was.in the_ group of inspectors.
- 20 Q That you heard talking about it?.
. 21' A= Yes.
22
- O Can you remember the specifics of-these 23 -conversations?
24 A- No,'I do not.
25 O Can you remember'whether you agreed or disagreed h
21578.0 23047 CRT 1 with Merritt -- whatever it is that they were talking
^
2 about?
(~)
\_/ 3 A No. I don't remember whether I ever agreed or 4 disagreed with them at all.
5 Q Did it concern you at all that they were talking 6 about it?
7 A Yes, it did.
8 Q Why?
. 9 A I felt that it should be brought to the site 10 first and talked there, instead of going directly to the 11 NRC. It should be handled by the QC department.
12 Q Did any of these inspectors come to you with 13 problems that they were discussing?
14 A- They talked to me but nothing to the extent --
15 it's kind of like, hey, we saw this down here. .And that 16 was about it. Very, very few of them.
17 O Did you encourage them to do so?
a 18 A I told them if they had anything to say I would 19 be more than willing to listen and I was not going _to go 20 and run up and tell everybody in management that they had 21 been to the NRC. In fact, at one time I told them when I 22 first took over, what you say to the NRC is between you 23 and them.
/N
(/ 24 Q I believe you testified earlier today that if 25 you had to describe -- if you had to choose.between an
'21578.0 23048 BRT 1 inspector.doing the job right or doing the job in the 2 timely manner -- what was the prevalent manner when you
~n
(_) 3 took over the job as lead inspector; do you recall that?
14 A No , I don't.
5 Q Regarding the listing of qualified or certified 6 painters, was that something that was instituted while you
-7 were.in the coatings department?
8 A The list of them?
l 9 0 Yes.
10 A Prior to that time the inspectors indicated that 11 they had not readily seen a list on a regular basis.
12 0, Do you know whether there was such a list?
.13 A When I got there, there -- we made it mandatory
-V19 14 to have.a list.
15 0 Where did you keep it?
16 A It was given to the secretary and she maintained 17 the list.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. You had to take special 19 steps to see that that list was prepared?
20 THE WITNESS: I talked to the gentlem'n to make 21 sure that we had a copy of the list.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: Prior to that time you didn't --
23 did you -- do you know whether your predecessor had such a
-s-n 24 list?
25 THE WITNESS: I don't know that. The inspectors
J
. L21578.0 23049 BRT
'l kind of-indicated that they could find the list but they 2 had to go hunt it down. .
3 BY MR. WATKINS:
'4 O Even with a list, was it necessary to check the
- i. .
- 5' vault for additional certifications?
i i 6 A We checked the vault also.
l: 7 Q Why was that?
I' 8 A Just to make sure. We checked the list against
. 9 the vault, make sure all the paper -- all of the paperwork.
l' 10 ~ was indeed in the vault.
I 11 O Was that because sometimes painters were 12 certified after the computer list was generated?
1 -
13 A No. It wasn't a computer list. It was a
- j. g -
r 14 handwritten list.
i
+
15 It was to verify that, yes, indeed, the inspectors or
~16 -the applicators were certified. And on a couple of 17 occasions I say we found where there was no paperwork in
' 18 the--vault as-of the time they were applying coating 19 material.
' 20 - O Regarding the storage of paint in the sun, where f
-21 are concrete -- at. Comanche Peak, where were concrete 22_ coatings mixed?
23 A Some of'them were mixed in the-coating. shack,
-[~)
x- 24. out in the -- coating shack. And then there were some r
25 -mixed'in.the. building, also.
I
[
__.__.- - , _ _ _ _ , . . ~ . _ , . _ . _ . _ _ , . _ ,-. _ .. .. _ _ _ , _ _ ,,_.,. __ ..,,_ . . _ , _ . ,
r; i.
- 21578.0 23050 BRT 1 Q When you say "the building," what building do
!. 2 you mean?
N). 3 A Inside the. containment building itself.
4 Q Okay. So, with the sun -- would standing out in 5 the sun be a problem with respect to those coatings if 6 they were mixed in the reactor building?
7 A Prior to their being mixed together? Two 8 individual parts? That I don't know, if the sun would 9 hurt them prior to being mixed together, part A and part B.
10 0 Do you know what the maximum permissible 11 temperature is for coatings in storage at Comanche Peak?
12 A At Comanche Peak? I don't recall it.
13 0 Regarding the pot life of materials, of coatings
'- 14 materials, how was CZ-1) applied at Comanche Peak? What 15 application method?
16 A It was spray applied.
17 0 was agitation necessary?
18 A Yes, it was.
-19 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry, at what time was 20 agitation necessary?
21 THE WITNESS: All times, or it would settle.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: While it was being sprayed?
~23 THE WITNESS: Even -- yes.
A
- ( ,) 24 BY MR. WATKINS:
25 0 How did the procedures describe the pot life of
21578.0 23051 ERT 1 CZ-ll?
2 A I think it gave a -- a maximum time of, say, two
,7-~.
(_) 3~ -hours at 90 degrees.
4 Q Did it - ' excuse me. Go ahead.
5 A I think that's all I can, you know, recall.
6 Something like that.
7 It a time at so many degrees.
8 O Do you recall the procedure discussing the 9 sprayability of the paint?
10 A Yes. It also said the basic viscosity, where if 11 the paint got to sprayability -- where you couldn't apply 12 the material, then it was past pot life.
13 O Okay. Do you recall that was the definition of
\/ 14 pot life?
15 A Not totally I don't recall that. I think from 16 the -- I think from prior experience that it had to be the 17 temperature and time also.
18 O From prior -- what prior experience?
19 A Prior experience on the other jobs.
20 0 Okay. So your -- you are making a comparison 21 between other jobs and Comanche Peak?
22 A Yes.
23 0 You are not sure, now, as to whether CZ-ll had a i ('T
(_) 24 pot life in terms of time, actual time?
25 A No, I'm not.
L
21578.0 23052 l
'BRT
^
- 1. 0- Hours?
~2 A I'm just saying from prior experience.
- 3. O Do you recall phenyline 305 being used at 4 Comanche Peak?
5 A Yes, the name is familiar.
6 O As part of what systems, do you recall?
7- A I think you put CZ-11 down and then you put 305 8 on the top -- in the top coat.
9 O On what kind of substrate?
10 A Steel.
11 Q How is 305 applied?
12 A Spray application also.
13 'O Was it generally thinned before application?
.O l 14 A Yes, it was.
15 O To what extent?
16 A In some cases I think it was 50/50. It just 17 depends on the spray.
18 0 .Was the thinning mixture procedurally defined?
19 A Yes, it was.
20 0 What -- do you recall what the pot life was-for i 21 a 50/50 mix of phenyline 305?
l-22 MR. ROISMAN: Objection. I don't know why the 23 witness' recollection of procedure given the board's
'24 ruling that the witnessa do not testify about procedures, 25 the testimony it in, unless Mr. Watkins will make some l
21578.0 23053 BRT 1 proffer as to why it matters whether the witness can 2 testify or not.
.\_(^)' 3 JUDGE BLOCH: I believe he already testified --
4 MR. ROISMAN: I believe all the testimony was 5 and. questioning was designed to find out whether pot life 6 had any bearing, and not as to any specific paint. No one 7 has ever identified.any specific paint, at least in 8 questions that I asked.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: It's the question the board asked, 10 I'm afraid. And-there were no objections at that time.
11 He testified to about a two-hour pot life on the sink, 12 longer on the epoxy.
13 MR. ROISMAN: I suggest we just gets the O 14 procedure in and it will speak for itself.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: I think that is smart. It saves a 16 lot of time.
17 MR. WATKINS: We are going to put the procedure 18 in but the witness testified, regarding the trip report, 19 for example, that he had some problems regarding the way' 20 materials were stored and traced and I'm-trying to get at 21 the basis for those. I think it's entirely an appropriate 22 basis for the question, j 23 JUDGE BLOCH: .The basis for his belief there i
24 were problems in storage and traceability?
E 25 The real question that's being litigated here, I guess,
'21578.0 23054 ERT 1 is the basis for Mr. Lipinski's belief and whether or not 2 he made a good faith determination to agree with the-1^h '
(_,( - .3 Applicants.
4 MR. WATKINS: Your Honor, I suggest you were 5 correct ~ the first time when you described the scope of the 6 interrogation that's already been conducted.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: I think it is in and it is 8 discovery also, so let's continue.
9 MR. WATKINS: Sure.
10 MR. ROISMAN: Continue to note my objection. I 11 don't think, with all due respect, what you said and 12 certainly not what Mr. Watkins said, explains why it 13 matters whether the witness does or does not remember the b/ 14 actual pot life time or te'gerature-requirements for a 15 particular piece of paint. And I' don't he testified 16 anything with regard to material traceability that 17 identified some particular paint or that he said that he 18 based it upon knowing a particular temperature. Didn't 19 say anything about that.
20 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Mouser has testified as to pot 21 life.
22 MR. ROISMAN: That it's relevant. Not that some 23 particular paint's pot life was flawed in some way that he 24 saw; which is what the line of questioning has to do with.
25 MR. TREBY: Are we involved in a motion of r , ,
~ . , . - , - - ,- - - - - , ,- . v
[21578.0 23055' EICE l 1 reconsideration of the board's ruling?
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's go ahead. I think we'll
.f) 3 - save a' lot more time if we'just go ahead with it.
(_f 4 Assuming -- how much time - are we going to spend asking
~
5 questions about plant procedure? Is it going to be a lot 6 of time from here on out?
7 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mouser has 8 expressed some concerns. He says he had about some 9 ~ technical matters at the plant.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, that's right. . But to the 11 extent you have the procedures, the procedures impeach the 12 testimony. You don't-have to get into impeachment.
13 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, I can't see that 14 that's a basis for limiting my examination of the witness.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's go ahead. This is a 16 discovery deposition.
17 BY MR. WATKINS:
18 O Mr. Mouser, do you have the foggiest idea.of 19 what the question was?
20 A No idea at all.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't either.
22 MR. WATKINS: Well I don't either, Mr. Chairman.
23 Mr. Reporter, can you find the question?
24 (The reporter read the record as requested.)
+
25 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's take a seven-minute break
4
.\
l
~
121578.0 23056 l JERT i
- . 1 'now.
j 2 (Recess.)
I ~3 MR. .WATKINS: There is a pending' question.
4 THE WITNESS: I'm.not sure. I don't know 51 offhand.
'6 BY MR. WATKINS:
7 Q Do you recall whether it was procedurally 8 described?
9 A I think it was.
10 Q .Now, you expressed some concern about the 11 process-of. painter qualification.- Do you recall whether 12 Comanche Peak was committed to a national standard which a
13 describes these1 panels and the certification process?
~
14 A I thin'k it's described in the SSPCs, that's the i 15 painting council.
J
! 16 0 You described some concern about the use of j 17 panels with attached I beam and L~ beams. Were those not
, 18 used at Comanche Peak?
19 A There were some panels that had -- did not have l
20 those on there, or had maybe just one, one angle, or, like, 21 one piece of channel.or one pipe penetration.
(
22 O Do you recall when those were used, in what l
l.
23 circumstances the ones with the attachments were.used?
s -24 A What I recall is that -- what I previously 25 testified to is that at one time they were using Lthe ones
, - . , , - - . . = - . . . _ . , _ . . . - . __ . . . - , - . _ _ , . . . , . . - . _ . _ . .-,,....,.,.__.,_..,_...-_.._,#, _ . _ _ ,
7 m -
-21578.0 23057 CRT.
1 for the applicators that were going to be putting coating 2 on in the areas where there was just liner plate with no
)' 3 attachments to it. And those are just the flat panels.
4 They also used panels'with, _like, one single pipe 5 penetration on it.
6 O Do you know whether the angles and pipes had 7 been removed from panels for certification purposes?
8 A I was told by Houston Gunn, up in the paint shop, 9 that some of the angles and penetrations were removed.
10 0 How did they conduct painter certification at 11 Hanford, at WPPS 27 12 A How did they conduct it? The applicator was 13 picked by the superintendent to do the -- the one to do a 0)
\- 14 certain operation.
15 They were put out with a panel, they blasted the. panel 16 to whatever their procedure called for that they were 17 working to; they had to have a copy of the procedure they 18 would be coating to in their possession. The blast was 19 checked by the QC man. Then there was a prime coat put on, 20 it was checked by a Oc man. And then the finished coat
- 21 was put on and again it was checked by the OC man. The 22 environmental conditions and everything was checked as 23 though it was a regular finished quality product.
i
() 24 There was also panels made up, it was 5 foot tall, 25 roughly, in my mind, and say 4 foot wide. It had an angle l
L I-
O 4
121578.03 23058 1CRT:
1- : running clear down one side and.a, pipe penetration or two 2 'on the other-side.
(A_)- 3. O Is your criticism _of the qualification, painter 14 qualification program at Comanche Peak- based ' principally-5' on the differences between WPPS 2 and Comanche Peak?
6 A No. I think-in that painting council.it' calls 7 out to have a certain -- certain things on the panel.- I 8 think~at the time my concern was I didn't feel that they 9 were doing it like it was on that painting council.
10 0~ You say " painting council" --
11 A SSPC.
12 O fixcuse me -- SSPC.
13 When Mr. Brandt sat down with you to discuss the 14 question whether of QC supervision or-qualification was 15 necessary, he showed you the ANSI standard?
16 A Yes, he did.
17 O Were you left with the feeling that ANSI 18 requires QC supervision?
19 A Not so much -- well, I was left with the feeling 20 that ANSI required the craft to certify the people. And 21 my own personal feeling is that QC should be there.
22 That's my own personal feeling; yes.
23 0 Okay. Now the craft were certifying the 24 painters; is that correct?
25 A Yes.
i.
f i.
L .-
,21578.0 23059 CRT 1 Q At Comanche' Peak?
2 A. Yes.
(_)- 3 O Okay. Was your feeling that QC should supervise 4 based on a difference between WPPS 2 and Comanche Peak?
5 A No . . I felt that an inspector should certify it 6 .because he's the man that's going to be inspecting it in 7 the field and that the procedure that they.would-be 8 applying to, the inspector would be doing the inspection 9 to that. I felt that if a man could paint it and make-a 10 good panel in the shop under ideal conditions, then the 11 possibility of him being able to apply it in the field 12 would be satisfactory also.
13 Q But that was your feeling and it was not 14 required, to your knowledge, by a standard or reg guide or 15 regulation?
16 A To my knowledge, I don't recall it being 17 required to have a quality man inspect the panel.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Were there paint supervisors 19 trained so they could make the required inspections to 20 determine whether the paint samples were adequate?
l 21 THE WITNESS: I don't know whether there's a
! 22 training program for them or not. They had their own
) 23 -instruments to inspect with. But they got their -- to my 24 knowledge, their instruments were not calibrated, 25 controlled like~the QC inspector's instruments.
i I
L
21578,0 23060 CRT 1 BY MR. WATKINS:
2 O Regarding the backfit -- or the records that you r
-(_) 3 .had in your trailer, the older records --
li A Yes.
5 0 -- is there any, or was there any at Comanche 6 Peak, time limit, by which an unsat report had to be --
7 let me start that question over again.
8 If an unsat report were written, is there any time 9 within which the condition identified as unsatisfactory 10 had to be repaired or resolved?
11 A I don't recall any time limitt no.
12 O Were these records inspection reports or were i
13 they. checklists or were they both?
14 A They were, I think, both: Inspection reports 15 and checklists.
16 Q What were the checklists?
17 A The checklist covered the items you should check '
- 18 prior to or during an inspection or prior to an inspection.
{ 19 0 Were the checklists used at a different period 20 at Comanche Peak than the irs?
21 A Would you repeat that again, please?
22 O Were they used, were checklists used at the time 23 that you were on the site, working in the coatings
() 24 department?
25 A Yes, there were somer yes.
21578.0 23061
. E RT 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Was the checklist different from 2 the IR?
~
(_) 3 THE WITNESS: The checklist was, I guess you 4 could say, a traveled record -- it went with the IR.
5 BY MR. WATKINS:
6 0 I believe you testified that with respect to the 7 air supply for the compressor that at some later date they 8 installed filters?
9 A I think it was filters; yes.
10 0 Do you know whether filters and water separators 11 were normally required to be installed in the compressors?
12 A You mean for coating?
,_, 13 0 Compressors for use in coatings; yes.
('/ )
14 A The other projects that I had been on, I had 15 seen water separators and filters installed; yes.
16 O So those were in use?
17 A Yes, sir. They were put into use after that; 18 yes.
19 0 Were they in use prior to that time?
20 A That I don't know.
21 0 You referred to an incident that I believe 22 involved Mr. Williams preparing a floor? Some coatings on-23 a floor?
f
(_- 24 A Yes.
25 0 Was that in the skimmer pump room?
'21578.0' 23062 BRT' !
1 A I don't recall. I was not there and what it was 2 was told to me by the inspectors.
,-~.
(,) 3 0 Was that Mr. Williams or Mr. Wallace?
4 A I think it was both of them. You know -- not 5 being there --
6 0 You have no personal knowledge of that event?
7 A No, I do not.
8 O Regarding the document that is affixed to class 9 1 --
10 JUDGE BLOCH: One second, before we leave that?
11 Do you know that the incident that we are talking about 12 took place in the skimmer pump room?
13 THE WITNESS: I don't recall what room it was.
14 It was a floor on a room.
15 BY MR. WATKINS:
16 O I think you were asked about -- I think the 17 Chairman asked you a question about travelers in 18 connection with mixed coating materials.
19 A Yes.
20 0 And you said you don't recall a traveler system.
21 A For coatings.
22 O For coatings. What was the term used for the 23 document that was affixed to the mixed container of -- the
() 24 container of mixed coating materials?
25 A Mix tag, I think is what they called it.
- 21578.0 23063 iCRT 1 Q " Paint mix slip"r does that ring a bell?
2 A Paint mix slip, mix' tag --
' (q i,
s)
. 3 O Who fills out the paint mix slip?
<4 A The inspector-at the shop.
5 O Does the inspector sign.the slip?
6 A Yes, it think he does.
7 O Does he note the date and time of his witnessing i
8 the mix?
l' 9 A Yes.
10 0 How is the paint mix slip used once the
.s I 11 materials have been transported to wherever they are going 12 to be used? -
1 l_ 13 A That was the indicator to the QC man when it.was 14 mixed, exactly what it was, and whether it was indeed i 15 inspected by Oc at the mix point.
16 O Let's say we have a container of materials that i ,
l 17 has been mixed in the shop. It has now been transported l' 18 out to the site and the painters are ready to paint.
i j 19 Is there any information on the paint mix slip that is 20 required to be entered on the inspection report for that j 21 coatings process?
l 22 A Yes, there is.
23 O And is that invariably required?
N 24 A Yes, it is.
j 25 0 If a paint mix slip were missing, what would
(
. . - . . , . - . . . , - . r.,_. , 4 ~. .,-- y-y- , ,..., ,.,w, , ,,9.._..,,., .--......r ._ - ,% ~ , . .r . . . - , - . .- ew-.
21578.0 23064 ERT 1 happen?
2 A There would be no way to enter those numbers or
) 3 that information.
4 O In other words, an unsat report would be written; 5 is that correct?
6 A Most likely the material would not be used.
7 O Do you recall that normally the paint cans have 8 handles so that these tags could be affixed or tied?
9 A Some of the containers had handles. It was kind 10 of -- the ones that the material originally came in had 11 handles on them. I don't recall whether they were a fixed 12 to the handles or directly to the bucket.
13 0 You recall them being taped to the containers?
[)
\- 14 A That sticks in my mind; yes.
15 0 I believe you discussed with Mr. Roisman the 16 ratio of certified painters to the total number of 17 painters on the site. And you indicated this morning, I 18 believe, that if you had your druthers, 400 of the 19 painters would have been certifiedt is that correct?
20 A Yes.
i 21 O Is there any requirement, of which you are aware, 22 as to the set number of certified painters that must be at 23 a site?
24 A I know of no number at all.
25 O So far as you were concerned, as a OA/OC
21578.0 23065 CRT 1- supervisor, could there have been only one certified
.2 painter?
n
(_) 3' A That would have been satisfactory.
4 O Does the number of certified painters have any
' ~
5 effect on quality?
6 A I would say yes, and no.
7 O In what sense would you say "yes"? ,
8 A That, if you had more than -- if you had a fair 9 number of certified painters, it would be -- you would get 10 a better job because you wouldn't be wearing your painters 11 out. If you did not have a fair number and then again you 12 would not be getting a good quality product because you
! 13 would be working them too much.
t 14 Q Okay. That's on the craft side, then?
1 15 A Yes.
16 Q Presumably if the coatings were -- they were too 17 few and if the painters were overworked, the
)
18 unsatisfactory quality of the coatings would be identified 19 and it would have to be fixed; is that correct?
l 20 A Yes.
i 21 Q Who was responsible for deciding how many
! 22 certified painters there should be at Comanche Peak?
( 23 A The superintendent. ;
,() 24 Q Is that of craftsmen?
.25 A Yes, it is.
4 L
r:
21578.0 23066 BRT
.1 0 Does QC necessarily have any input into that 2 decision?
) 3 A Other than making suggestions; no.
4 0 If there had been 400 certified painters at 5 Comanche Peak, is there any way that QA/QC could have kept 6 up?
1 7 A No way at all.
8 0 Which inspectors got preferential parking?
9 A The ones that worked for the contract shop out 10 of Dallas.
11 O Is this QC coatings inspectors?
12 A Yes, I had one QC coatings inspector.
13 O Who was that?
14 A !!e worked with me up on the hill and he was 15 transferred down and trained as a coatings inspector. But 16 I can't recall the man's name.
17 0 You discussed, after you became the coatings QC 18 supervisor, your relationship to the inspectors that were 19 on night shift. Was there a formal decision that they 20 would report to you and to you only actually made?
21 A on talking to Mr. Brandt; yes.
22 0 Who is --
23 A And, if there was any major problems, the second 24 shift supervisor would take care of those at the time.
25 0 So they didn't call you in the middle of the
21578.0 23067 BRT 1 night?
2 A Right.
sj 3 0 Who was the night shift supervisor?
4 A At one period of time it was Mr. Randall.
5 0 Were there other periods of time?
6 A Yes. The other was a gentleman by the name of 7 Mike Foote.
8 O Do you have any knowledge of the circumstances 9 under which Texas Utilities obtained O.D. Cannon?
10 A No, I do not.
11 Q Do you have any knowledge as to the scope of the 12 job they were supposed to do?
13 A No, I do not.
'- 14 O Do you know whether other people than 15 Mr. Lipinski was involved?
16 A I was introduced to another gentleman by the 17 name of J.J. Norris.
18 Q Do you know what his job was?
19 A No, I do not.
20 0 Do you have any knowledge of the method by which 21 0.D. Cannon was to communicate its findings and 22 conclusions or observations to Texas Utilities?
23 A No, I do not.
o
(_) 24 0 Your understanding that a letter, a formal 25 letter from O.B. Cannon would eventually be sont to Texas
1 1
-21578.0 23068 BRT j l Utilities, .af ter you saw the trip report, was based, then, l I
2 on what?
) 3 A On that was the standard mode of operation by 4 most consultants that I have dealt with over the years.
5 O Okay. Is that based on your experience at WPPS?
6 A WPPS, Departmentlof Energy, dam projects.
7 0 I believe you testified that twice during your 8 time in'the coatings OC area, uncertified painters applied 9 coatings?
10 A Yes, I recall two times; yes.
11 O How did that matter come to your attention?
12 A It was brought to my atter.Llon by the inspectors.
13 O Did they wri t . unsat reports?
14 A T unink we wrote unsat reports followed with a 15 nonconformance report.
16 O What did procedures require with respect to the 17 certification of painters?
18 A What did the procedures require with respect to 19 the certification of painters?
20 0 Yes.
21 A I don't understand the question.
22 O Well, like painters had to be certified for 23 class 1 coatings right?
24 A Yes.
25 0 Was it appropriate that the inspectors brought
s
-21578.0 23069 ,
BRT
_p 'l this to your. attention?
2 A Yes,-it should be.
/~N
(_) 3 .O Are these the only.two times that-it happened, 4 to your personal knowledge?
5 A That's the only two times I recall; yes.
6 Q And in both cases the solution was to strip the 7 paint from the wall and do it again?
8 A I don't recall if the coating material was 9 removed. I know one time it was. I think the other time 10 the lag in paperwork was what was the problem.
11 O Could you explain that?
12 A The man had been certified or he was told he was 13 certified by the superintendent and put to work' 14 immediately. And it turned out there was no paperwork in 15 the vault for the time period that he was working and it-16 was brought to the craft's attention and at that time 1
17 documents were put in the vault.
18 O Does that mean the painter was certified when he 19 applied the paint?
20 A Yes. He was -- well, he actually applied it one 21 day and it was brought to the attention and the paperwork 22 was put in the vault showing that yes, indeed, he was 23 certified on that date.
) 24 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry. Where was that 25 paperwork found, do you know?
121578.0' 23070 CRT1
- 1. " THE WITNESS: I don't.know where it was found.
'2 It was: brought to the attention of the craft and they said A.
() ' '3 they'had it'so they got it to the vault.
'4 JUDGE BLOCH .-So your belief is that it was 5 'found, not. created?
6 THE WITNESS: I would like to believe that it 7 was found; yes.
8 BY MR. UATKINS:
9 -Q Do you have any basis on which to say that it 10 was found -- just -- that it was falsified in any way?
11 A No. Like I say, I want to feel that it was ,
12 found, not falsified. I have no belief in either 13 direction.
14 0 What were the circumstances in the other case?
15 A Circumstances in the other case is the gentleman 16 was not certified. He was put to work by a foreman. And 17 he was told to get up there and start painting, which he, 18 indeed he did do. And it was brought to my attention, the ,
19 NCR unsat report was written and the wall was stripped the 20 following day.
21 Q Do you recall whether, in the case where the 22 documentation was missing, whether an inspector named 23 Corry Allen identified that situation?
( 24 A It could have been any of them.
25 Q You-don't remember?
u_ _ - -______ _ _ _ __ - _ ____ - _ ______ - _ _ _ __ _ _
l J
l 21578.0 23071
-CRT 1 A I don't remember.
2 O You have testified that if -- I think your o '
example was DFT readings --
bl 4 A Okay.
5 0 -- an inspector' wanted to flunk a wall he could 6 do it?
7 A Yes.
8 O Whether the wall was really acceptable or_not?
9 A Yes.
10 O Did you know inspectors to do that?
11 A I knew inspectors to take very large amount of.
12 readings. And in turn, the wall would fail; yes.
13 0 Were the number of samples, DFT readings, 14 procedurally described?
15 A Yes, it was.
16 0 Were these inspectors taking readings in excess 17 of that number?
18 A I think the procedure calls for a minimum of so 19 many tests. That's what the procedure calls for.
20 0 Were these being unreasonable?
21 A In my judgment, you do this to assure that you 22 feel the wall is satisfactory. Up to that time I didn't 23 ever know an inspector to take that many readings, so at
() 24 that time I felt he was a little bit out of reach on what 25 he was doing; yes.
21578.0 23072 ERTg l' O Was this just one-inspector or were there more?
2 A I recall one right offhand.
(';
V 3 0- Who was that?
E 4~ A Mr. Miller.
i 5 0 I believe you testified with respect to the i l 6 curing of CZ-ll, that you were called upon to resolve 7 disputes between inspectors and the craft.
l l 8 A Yes.
9 Q To save time, I'll give you the example that I
, 10 remember and please correct me.if I'm wrong. That the-11 inspector would say that the coatings were not 12 sufficiently cured; that the coatings passed the nickel
- 13 test, but that the inspector said that more time is 14 necessary to cure the coatings. Is that correct?
15 A It was not so much passed the nickel test, it 16 was his opinion of the nickel test. He said, in my 17 opinion the nickel test is not right. In the opinion of 18 the craft it was.
19 Q How many times did that happen during your i
l 20 period in the coatings department?
21 A There was a couple of times that I recall.
22 Possibly three.
23 O Did you -- excuse me?
' O's_/ 24 A Two, possibly three.
25 0 liow did you resolve those disputes?
I l
l l
i L.
21578e0 23073 ERT 1 A The first time I had nothing to do with it.
2 Mr. Williams was involved with it so I didn't resolve that 3 one!
4 The other time I did indeed tell the craft: Tough 5 cookies, guys; cure it some more.
6 0 Did you witness the nickel test being performed?
7 A Yea, I did.
8 0 I thought I remembered the context of your 9 testimony on that point was the craft said: Well, we'll 10 let Mr. Brandt or Mr. Tolson take care of the problem and 11 they went ahead and applied top coat anyway; is that 12 correct?
13 A In one case it was.
( )
u 14 0 Which case?
15 A I think the one on the liner plate up on the 16 building. I don't know the exact area. I remember the 17 one case where they said we are going to go ahead and 18 apply it and if it's not correct we'll come back and take 19 it off.
20 0 Was that the one that you were involved in or 21 the one that Mr. Williams was involved in?
22 A Mr. Williams was involved with the one out at 23 the shop. I was involved with that one.
24 0 This is the one where you said " tough cookies"?
25 A I said I have to agree with the inspector, it's
21578.0 23074 CRT
- 1 .his~ judgment.
2 O All right. Was an unsat report written in that 4 A Yes, it was.
5 Q Did they apply a top coat, .anyway?
6 A Yes, they did.
7 0 Under the procedures was that a nonconforming 8 condition?
9 A Yes, it was, i
10 0 How was that matter resolved?
11 A I think there was a nonconformance written on it.
12 Q What event finally happened; do you know?
f 13 A I think the material was checked and I think it
.(
14 was -- I think the top coat was removed.
15 Q So that is not a case in which the craft said 16 "We'll go to Brandt and Tolson and get it taken care of,"
17 and they did?
18 A They did say they would get it taken to Brandt-i 19 and Tolson and get it taken care of. They did go to 20 Brandt and Tolson, but they did not get it taken care of.
21 O In your experience with Mr. Brandt, did he side 1
22 wi.th you more often? Or did he side with the craft in 23 those kinds of disputes?
24 A It was more of a 50/50 basis.
25 O Do you feel that he generally supported you as a e
. - , - - , , . . , + - - - m , .r- - g - ..n r.. ., ,,n. - - - --.r.- -- - - - - - . - - -.w
121578.0 23075
[RT.
.1 QC lead and a QC supervisor?
2 A- Yes.
b
. x_) 3 JUDGE BLOCH: What made putting the top coat on 4 top of an unsatisfactory surface a conforming condition
'5 rather than a condition to be placed on an unsat on an IR7 6 THE WITNESS: It made the wall underneath, the 7 coating underneath, indeterminate.
8 JUDGE BLOCH:' Okay. So it's your opinion that 9 any time a condition is indeterminate, it should not only 4 10 be on the IR, it should be an NCR7 11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 BY MR. WATKINS: -
13 O What did Comanche Peak procedures provide with 14 respect to irs and NCRs in the coating area?
15 A Would you repeat that?
16 O Did the procedures describe when an unsat IR 17 should be written and when an NCR should be written?
18 A Yes, it did.
19 0 What did they provide?
20 A It said when an item was fixable, an unsat 21 condition should be written and when it was indeterminate 22 an NCR should be written.
23 0 Was that true throughout the period that you ran
() 24 the coatings department?
25 A Yes, it was.
i
- - - - . - - . . ---.__-,.-.--.,.-n,-~.,-, .
n.--n..-..-,-,--_--- ..,.,.,-n- - . , , . - - , - - -
21578.0 23076 BRT 1 Q I believe you testified that you invited the 2 inspectors and they did write you three-part memos with x_j 3 respect to conflicts with the craft. Do you recall that?
4 A Yes.
5 0 Was that program in effect prior to the time 6 that you moved to the coatings department?
7 A Not to my knowledge.
8 Q Do you recall the reason, the specific reason 9 that the inspectors were encouraged to write three-part 10 memos?
11 A one reason was is to show them that yes, indeed, 12 we were interested -- that I was interested in finding out 13 what went on and that I would say: Okay, this has
\> 14 happened a number of times and show them in black and 15 white that it had happened and get a colution for it.
16 O Was craft complaining that QC wasn't getting 17 their job done quickly enough?
18 A Yes, they were.
19 Q Was it also true that inspectors were answering 20 call board assignments, and the craft wasn't ready for the 21 inspection?
22 A Yes, it was.
23 Q And was that one of the reasons? Was that one
^T (j
i 24 of the phenomena documented in these three-part memos?
25 A In some cases; yes.
-w +-e
4
-21578.0' 23077 CRT ,
1 0- I recall your reluctance.tx) mention a name, and
'2 I'm sensitive to that. As to the person that broke.into
.,n .
3 your desk.
4 MR. WATKINS: And, Mr. Sims, if you want to go 5 off~the record or object, I just want you to anticipate.
6 I don't want the name but I do want you to tell me, if 7 you can, whether this was another inspector or whether it-8 was, in your view somebody in management or just give me a 9 flavor for who it was that you think broke into your desk?
10 And I'm duly sensitive to your concerns.
11 MR. SIMS: Let rme just clarify, and I think 12 you'll recall that this was the witness' testimony 13 previously. It's that he doesn't know the name of an 14 individual, that he might have some idea of a group of 15 people that might have been involved. He doesn't have any 16 direct information as to whether they were. And he 17 couldn't, even if he could identify the group he couldn' t -
18 really pick out a person among the group.
19 But I think, you know, with that -- that's obviously my 20 restatement of what he said before but I think it's 21 accurate.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Mouser, is that right?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. <
() 24 MR. SIMS: With that, if he has anything to add,-
25 or to restate his notions of who might have been involved
21578.0 23078 BWT '-
1 or'what, factors might have led him to_have an-idea of who 2 might have.been involved, that's fine.
). 3: I appreciate f the board's recognition of-the' sensitivity.
4 of'the issue because Mr. Mouser works in this-industry, 5 has-worked in the industry, has hopes'of-workingfin the
.6 industry in the future, and it would be, obviously, very 7 awkward without~having any direct evidence to try and 8 identify particular' individuals-as having been_ involved in 9 what could, I suppose,.be a criminal act.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you suspect l inspectors?
[ 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir; I do.
12 MR. WATKINS: That answers my question, 13 Mr. Chairman.
14 JUDGE BLOCH: That's why I asked it.
15 MR. WATKINS: Thank you.
16 BY MR. WATKINS:
17 O Mr. Lipinski -- Mr. Mouser, if you could turn 18 back to Mr. Lipinski's trip report, please. On page 3, 19 did Mr. Lipinski ever discuss with you during his initial 20 three-day visit, comparison between Comanche Peak and 21 Zimmer?
22 A I do not recall anything about that.-
23 0 Do you know what it was at Zimmer that was 24 problematic from a coatings perspective?
25 A From my understanding, the paperwork was what L-
i 21578.0- 23079
, 'BRT 1 Zimmer had problems with on everything. That's the only 2- thing I know about Zimmer, was the paperwork.
-3 Q Did you form any judgment about whether Comanche-4 Peak and Zimmer. are comparable with respect to paper?
5 A I was not at Zimmer so I have no way to form 6 anything. I don't know how bad _their paperwork was.
7 Q Did Mr. Lipinski observe to you during his first 8 three days on-site,_that he thought Comanche Peak was 9 simply doing inspections to the extent that theyLwould 10 tolerate --
11 A I don't understand your question.
12 Q If you refer to the second sentence in paragraph 13 A of page 3 of the trip report.
A l 14 A Okay. "They are comfortable with or will
~
15 tolerate."
16 Q Yes.
17 A No, he did not.
18 Q Did you make that observation to him?
19 A No, I did not.
j 20 Q Incidentally, at the meeting tlustr you recall j 21 when he was just leaving the site, you mentioned, or you 22 testified, that he had had a negative reaction to 23 management, and the people mentioned were Brandt, Tolson 24 and Merritt. Is that correct?
! 25 A I think"that was in August, not.in July. And I-l r
h t
. , _ .. ._. .-. . _ . -. ~ . - .
I -- -
21578.0' 2308C' I
...~;; BRT:
- 1 -don't'know if.it was -- it was the feeling that he gave r i
f 2 that it was kind'of a negative attitude; yes.
()
- 3- O Just so I'm clear,-because I. thought you were 4 testifying to the initial visit on-site, the first three 5 days. ;
- .. .6 A No.
7 .Q It was not. You did not' meet him as he was 4
8 leaving the site?
~
. 9 A No. That's why the other time when,you asked me- ,
10 previously, with these --
j- 11 Q Oh, with the time sheets.
12 A -- I do not remember meeting him that time, the 13 time I.was talking about was when he was leaving on:the.
14 second trip. That's why -- you know -- this --
15 O Okay. Did you, at the time that he left after 16 his second trip -- had you at that time met Mr. Merritt?
1 17' A Had I. met Mr. Merritt?
! 18 - Q Yes.
19 A I knew Mr. Merritt, yes.
20 Q But you did not know him at the time of --
21 A I knew him at ~ site.
22 Q Did;you know him enough to form an opinionias to [
4
- 23 Mr. Merritt?
i
() 24 A No, other than what I have heard from other L J25L in'spectors.
l-P f-
^
. - . - - - - . , . . . _ . . . - _ . , _ - . . . . . . . . _ . , . ,_ . , - _ . _ - _ _ . . _ . . - . , ,._m-,
i
.21578.0 -
23081
- = ,gg7:
'l O You testified that your knowledge about 2 Mr. Tolson at that time was based on two events that had yy
(_) _ 3 taken place when you were in the design change 4 verification group; is that correct?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Did you actually attend meetings with Mr. Tolson?
7 A Yes, I did.
8 Q Did you participate in designing the computer 9 program regarding the CMCs that was presented to him?
10 A Yes, I did.
11 O Was that computer program required by regulation 12 or standard?
13 A No. I-don't think it was.
(~l 14 O Was it a tool that you had designed as a better 15 way of doing, a more efficient way of doing the job?
4 16 A Yes, it was.
17 O He subsequently accepted that recommendation?
18 A Yes, he did.
19 O Was that on the second meeting?
- 20 A Yes, it was. The second meeting.
l 21 Q Did you participate in it?
22 A Yes, where he did. Myself and two other 23 gentlemen -- or one other gentleman, I recall.
- l. 24. O Was that Mr. Michaels?
I E 25 A I don' t know if Mr. Michaels was there at the I
l t
l
- - - . - , - , . - - , . ---. - .- , ,. , - -,n--
21578.0 23082 BRT-1 time. I-believe it was a gentleman by the name of 2 Mr. Pete Bush and a gentleman by the name of Mr. Clint
!_)
s 3 Yarborough and m/self.
4 Q How much time elapsed between the first and 5 second meetings?
6 A I want to say a short period of time.
7 Q Do you know or did you form a judgment as to 8 whether Mr. Tolson fully understood the program that you 9 were describing to him at that first meeting?
10 A From the way he reacted, I don't think he fully 11 understand what we were presenting to him; no.
12 O And, in your judgment was that perhaps a reason
- 13 for his reaction?
14 A I had never dealt with a reaction like that 15 before; no, no, I don't.
4 16 JUDGE BLOCH: What was there so unusual about 17 the reaction?
18 THE WITNESS: He got very upset that we had not 19 done specifically what he wanted done. And on other 20 occasions when we had done document searches and things 21 like that, we have come.up with a better system, the 22 people that we deal with have been: Okay, well, you tell 23 me how you did it and we'll sit down and go over it. And 24 they have been a little bit more acceptable to these ideas 25 that we came up with.
21578.0 23083-
.BRT 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Describe what you mean by "very 2 upset."
(_) 3 THE WITNESS: "You guys didn't do what I wanted 4 you to do. That isn't what I asked for. Damn it, I want 5 this done this way, this way, and this way, and that's the 6 way it is going to be done."
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Very loud? In a stern-type --
8 stern? Businesslike?
9 THE WITNESS: He got a little upset. He had a 10 tendency to get a little bit upset; yes.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: No " walking to the gate" language?
12 THE WITNESS: If he had asked to walk me to the 13 gate it would have happened right then. No, he didn't say_
14 anything about that.
15 BY MR. WATKINS:
16 O Was there a problem with the time during which 17 you were supposed to do something that upset Mr. Tolson?
18 Had you not done something that he had expected already to 19 have been done?
20 A I don't know that that was it. I think it was 21 he was expecting to see it complete when we presented the 22 first program to him. And, indeed, it was not complete.
23 O Was his reaction in your mind in any way related s) 24 to quality?
.25 A I don't know if it was so much related to 1
21578.0 23084
-BRT' 1 quality. -I think it was, the bottom line, that it
. 2 affected quality, or it affected the documentation.
) 3 O But was the basis for-the discussion a matter of. '-
^
4 management, for example? Basically?
5 A Well, I don't know -- kind of restate it for me.
6 Q Did anything about his reaction indicate that "7 Mr. Tolson had a negative attitude to quality?
- 8 A No. I got the feeling that he wanted results.
9 That is what he was looking for.
10 Q Going back to the trip report on page 3, and 11 paragraph A at the bottom of the page --
12 A Okay.
j ,,
13 0 -- there is a statement in the last sentence 14 that management attempts to squash any efforts to point 15 out quality problems.
j 16 Did Mr. Lipinski communicate to you during his first
+
17 three days on-site that he thought that was a problem?
18 A I don't recall anything -- no.
19 0 Did you communicate that to'him?
20 A No.
21 Q There's a statement in the parenthetical "no 22 NCRs." Do you know what it is or what it was to which 23 Mr. Lipinski was referring?
24 A That I really don't. I do know a number of the 25 inspectors were always saying they couldn't write NCRs.or
. , _ ---e , ,, _ , . ,..m..
q
,~
21578.0 23085 BRT 1 they'd get themselves in trouble.
2 Q Do you know what the basis for that was?
f()j .
3 A That there had been some NCRs written that 4 created a hardship, and people got all upset, and in turn 5 they got the feeling that they had made a big mistake by 6 writing them.
7 O Did you discuss that with Mr. Lipinski, in terms 8 of this statement and the trip report?
9 A No, I did not.
10 0 Do you recall a change in procedures being 11 implemented in the fall of 1983 regarding the use of unsat 12 inspection reports to report all_ deficient conditions in 13 coatings?
14 A There was a change to use unsat reports to 15 report deficiencies. And I don't remember if it was for I
16 all conditions. But I do remember that there was a number 17 of NCRs written even at that time.
I 18 O Right after the "no NCRs" statement in the trip 19 report, there's a reference to "QC reporting to production."
( 20 Did you and Mr. Lipinski discuss that while he was on-site l
21 the first three days?
22 A No, we did not.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you have any personal knowledge-() 24 about that?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I do.
. . .. .. -. . . - . - . - .. ~
!1. 21578.0. '23086 r"- BRT f:
l1- JUDGE BLOCH: What's that?
- 2
-THE WITNESS: The fact that both statements --
~
_) .
3 like I.say, the-first one, "no NCRs" came from QC, and, 4 the "QC reporting to production" came from the QC 5 inspectors by their feeling that Mr. Williams -- whenever-l 6 Junior Haley turned around Mr. Williams was there in front >
- 7 of him saying this is why we are doing this' and that.-
8 That's-the way they felt.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you' communicate that to 10 Mr. Lipinski?
{-
l 11 THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
i a 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Back to you, Mr. Watkins..
13 BY MR. WATKINS: i l
l 14 0- On page 4 of the trip report, paragraph D,'did
! 15- you and Mr.-Lipinski discuss audits of the coatings 16 program?
o 17 A No, we did not.
18 Q Did you discuss the subject matter and discuss 19 paragraph E?
i l
20 A No. I don't remember that.
21' Q Did you discuss a matter addressed.in paragraph 22 F?
23 A I don't' recall that.
24 .Q With respect to paragraphs E or F, do you know-
-25 that those were problems at Comanche Peak?.
i l,
21578.0 23087
' B RT '
1 A I don't recall anything --
2 O Are those matters that you have ever thought n
() 3 about or talked about with anyone?
4 'A I recall item F from-one of the inspectors in a 5 meeting, stating that there was no surface preparation. I 6 recall that from the group of the inspectors.
7 O Did you do anything about it?
8 A I don't remember if I did.
9 O I believe you remarked that O.B. Cannon would be 10 a last resort for employment. Do you recall that?
) 11 A Yes.
12 O What did you mean by that?
13 A Just that, from dealing with some of Cannon's 14 personnel in the management positions, I did not feel that 15 that would be -- that I would be at ease in their company.
16 O Why?
17 A Paywise, personalitywise, and the way they had 18 been treating Joe, and things like that, when he was-in 19 Washington.
20 Q At WPPS?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Did you ever discuss with Mr. Lipinski-the 23 possibility of O.B. Cannon taking over the coatings effort
, 24 at Comanche Peak? -
25 A No, I did not.
l
21578.0. 23088
-BRT 1 0 Did you ever discuss -- do you know whether ;
+
2 Mr. -Lipinski talked to other inspectors about jobs when he
() 3 was'on-site the'first three days in July?
4 A No, I don't.
5 Q Did he discuss the possibility of employment 6 with you?
7 A I don't recall anything at all.
8 0 I wanted to make sure that the -- with respect 1
9- to your conversations with Mr. Brandt, late 1984, who 10 called him? You have testified that there were two such 11 conversations.
12 A Yes.
13 O And at least as to the second one, you called s 14 him?
j 15 A I called. He was not there. Then he returned i~
16 my call.
17 O Okay. The first time that you spoke with him, 18 in October or November of '84, was that the time you had 19 called Comanche Peak and talked to Mr. Vega in an attempt 20 to find out where Mr. Brandt was?
21 A Yes.
22 O So you were calling him?
23 A Well, I called the second time -- the time I
() 24 tried to get ahold of him I had to call down there and get L 25 a phone number for him. But the first time, Tom called me.
2 3
,- ,,- - _ . , , - . - , -. , - - - . , - - , y =-
-21578.0 23089 BRT 1 Q So -- I don't understand. Was he returning your 2 call both times or did he just call you out of the blue
['i
(_). 3 the first time?
4 A He called me out of the blue the first time.
5 Q And this was -- what did you discuss in that 6 conversation? If you can just identify the conversation.
7 A He was interested in what or'when I had spoken 8 to Mr. Lipinski.
9 0 When you spoke of the craftsmen not stopping 10 work when ordered to do so by inspectors at Comanche Peak, 11 did you have any examples in mind? Any incidents that you 12 were speaking of?
- 13 A Just that one time on that wall, where they --
t .O gs/ 14 it wasn't so much they were ordered not to go. They were 15 told that it wasn't good, the curing wasn't complete. And 16 the craft took it upon themselves to go ahead and do it.
17 Q Despite the fact that an unsat IR had been 18 written?
19 A Or was in the process of being written; yes.
20 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, ; hat's all we have.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
22 Mr. Gallo?
'23 MR. TREBY: No , Mr. Treby.
() 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Out of order. Mr. Treby.
25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
- 2157R.O 23090 BRT 1 BY MR. TREBY:
2 O Mr. Mouser, I would like to take you back to the n
(,) 3 1983 interview,' I believe it was in November, with 4 Mr. Driskill, when you were at the Midland site.
5 A Yes.
6 0 I think you've previously testified that the 7
~
trip report matter was not his principal purpose for 8 interviewing at that time,. but rather it came up rather 9 casually during the interview; is that correct?
f' 10 A I seem to recall that; yes.
11 Q Have I properly characterized your testimony?
i 12 A I felt as though -- I got this feeling from him I
- 13 that he was there more in the Dunham case, but he did not
! -fh s/ 14 tell me specifically it was for the Dunham case.
l 15 O Okay. And when he discussed the trip report, 16 did he show you a copy of it?
, 17 A I don't recall seeing it; no.
18 O Did he indicate how he had come to know about 19 the trip report?
20 A No. I don't think he told me how he did come to 21 know about it; no.
i
- 22 Q Did he indicate in any way that he was 23 conducting any investigation with regard to the trip 4
24 . report?
- 25 A No, he did not. At least I don't recall it.
f
-y .- -ge --, .e , . , , ~.. --- --- ., -- vn --~ , m ~ , , c-
1
. 21578.0 23091 BRT 1 O Well, what, if anything, do you recall about the 2 conversation between you and him, about the trip report?
e
(_) 3 A That it did exist and he made indication that he --
4 I think he asked me: Do you know of the Lipinski trip 5 report? I told him yes, I did.
6 O And was that the end of the conversation? Did 7 he ask you -- well, was that the end of the conversation?
8 A I don't recall much more than that; no.
9 0 You don't recall whether he asked you how you 10 became aware of the trip report?
11 A No, I don't.
12 Q And he didn't indicate in any way how he had 13 become aware of it?
14 A No, he did not say anything about that.
15 0 With regard to the discussions you and he had 16 about the Dunham matter, did he ask you whether you wanted 17 any confidentiality with regard to those matters?
18 A I don't recall him saying anything about that; 19 no.
20 Q Did you request any confidentiality?
21 A No, I don't think I did. I don't recall.
22 Q Do you recall signing any document with regard 23 to the question of confidentiality?
() 24 A No, I don't. I don't recall anything like that.
25 0 In the course of his discussing the Dunham l
l l
21578.0 23092 '
CRT 1 . matter, did he discuss with you any information which 4
2 'other employees at the Comanche Peak site may have given
!(}j .
3 him.about the Dunham matter?
4 A He had indicated that someone down there told
'5 him that I would be able to give him some information 6 about'it.
7 Q Did he identify who that person might be?
8 A No, he'did not.
9 Q Can you recall in any way how he might have 10 violated anybody's confidences in his discussions with you 11 about the Dunham matter?.
12 A One name did come up in the conversation, a 13 gentleman by the name of Ambrose.
' N-f'/)
. 14 Q Did you tell me how that name came'up in the I
15 course of the conversation?
16 A It might have been that had said -- told 17 Mr. Driskill that I might have something to say about it.
c 18 I don't recall. I remember Dave's name came up but I
) 19 don't recall the context it was in. I also said Dave was e 20 a friend I knew.
!, 21 O What job did Mr. Ambrose have at the Comanche 22 Peak site?
l 23 A He was a coatings inspector that worked for me.
24 O Mr. Dunham was also a coatings inspector; is 1 25 that not correct?
I i
l i
k
- ,. -- , - . - . . - , -, .,,c-.,-..- -.,, -, ,.--.,-. ,,-- .- ,,. - , .,,. ,.-.. . , - - .
i
~
121570.0 23093 BRT 1 A Yes, he was.
I 2 O Did'Mr. Ambrose have anything to do with the
(_j' 3 Dunham matter, as it related to the Department of Labor?
4 A Not to my knowledge; no.
5 O Do-you think there was any -- well, at the time, 6 do you recall any concern that Mr. Ambrose' name was
! 7 mentioned to yot-8 A No, I don't.
9 O Had you ever had any other discussions with 10 Mr. Driskill?
11 A I had talked to him at the plant if you mean 1 12 that?
13 0 Yes.
i 14 A I talked to him down at Comanche Peak.
15 Q How many times had you talked to him down at 16 Comanche Peak?
j 17 A It was not so much myself. I was in with a
- 18 group of three of us that talked to him. There was one 19 gentleman that did all the talking. And that was the one 20 time he came -- or, I guess twice he came up there. Two 21 days in a row, I should say.
22 O And.what was the subject matter of that 23 discussion?
( 24 A The subject matter of that discussion centered 25 around the design change documents we were working on.
?
l
, -- - - - .- -- - ~
21578.0 23094 BRT 1 And some of the hanger inspection work that some of.the 2 other groups was doing,-the as-built group was doing. And ,
7s
(_) 3 the discussion centered around documentation problems we 4 were running into. And that's basically the big thing I 5 could remember from that conversation.
6 Q Did Mr. Driskill state the purpose of that 7 discussion at the time you and these two other people were 8 meeting with him?
9 A State the discussion -- of what we were going.to 10 talk-about?
11 Q Right.
12 A It is kind of on the basis of, he was there and 13 we talked to him. And it's -- we have something to tell '
14 you about the design change area that -- things that we
< 15 have found, things that we know of.
16 O Did you seek him out or had he sought you?
17 A We seeked him out, talked to him.
18 O The three of you together?
i 19 A Yes.
20 0 At that time do you recall whether you had asked
- 21 for confidentiality?
22 A I don't think we did.
t 23 Q Did you sign any statement with regard to the
- ) 24 question of confidentiality? .
l 25 A No, I don't remember anything.
i
21578.0 23095 BRT-1- O Do you know whether the other two people who 2 were with you requested confidentiality in your hearing?
() 3 A That I don't have any way of knowing.
4 Q Did you observe them signing any documents?
5 A No, I did not.
6 O And during that conversation you provided 7 Mr. Driskill with whatever information the three of you 8 had to provide to him?
9 A Yes.
10 0 During that conversation, did he raise any 11 information that he had heard on that subject from any 12 other people at the Comanche Peak site?
13 A I don't think he did. I don't recall anything.
(3
(_) 14 O Did you have any or do you have any reason to 15 believe that any of the information that you or the two 16 other people gave him became known to other persons?
17 A By talking with other inspectors and by talking 18 to this other gentleman who was with us, the third man in 19 the group, he said that some of the things that he had 20 thoughts -- was in the as-built group, I had nothing to do 21 with the as-built group -- some of the things that he had 22 brought to Mr. Driskill's attention were, indeed, brought 23 to management personnel's attention also.
/~T
(_) 24 0 But was that the same information that occurred 25 during your meeting with Mr. Driskill?
21578.0 23096'
. E RT 1 A That I don't -- that I'm not able to recall.
2 O Did the person who told you that indicate that i) 3 he had requested confidentiality?
4 A At one time this gentleman did address it as 5 confidentiality with Mr. Driskill. The time that he told 6 me the information had surfaced was a time later on after 7 he had left the site.
8 O Did he ever indicate to you that he had executed 9 any document with regard to confidentiality?
10 A Yes, he didj 11 O During the time that you were a'QC lead 12 inspector, or supervisor in the coatings area, did you 13 ever hear of a notice of violation and a civil penalty 14 being imposed against the Comanche Peak facility for 15 actions of Harry Williams?
16 A Yes, I did. I was told by Mr. Driskill while I i 17 was at -~ when he talked to me in Michigan, that that.had 18 happened.
19 O Were you aware of that, at any time while you 20 were at the Comanche Peak site?
21 A No, I was not.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Treby, you used the word 23 " imposed." Was it imposed or proposed?
-24 !!R. TREBY: Proposed. If I said " imposed" I 25 meant " proposed." As far as I know there has never been l
1 I
~
21578.0- 23097 7 1:RT i 1 any passage of money.
2 BY MR. TREBY:
-f-~g
(,) 3 O When Mr. Driskill discussed that matter with you, 4 did he indicate that there had been an investigation done 5 by the NRC's Office of Investigation?
6 A Yes, he did. He indicated that there had been a 7 very thorough investigation done and that, indeed, the NRC 8 had -- was giving them a penalty, and.that Mr. Williams 9 had, indeed, signed an affidavit indicating intimidation.
, 10 0 Did he indicate that during the course of this l
11 investigation they had spoken to QC inspectors?
12 A Yes, he did.
? 13 0 Did he give you any idea of how many QC
\/ 14 inspectors they had spoken to?
a' 15 A No, he did not.
16 O Did he indicate that -- whether it was one or
. 17 two or a larger number than that?
18 A I took it that it was a large number.
19 0 Given that information , do you find it
- 20 surprising that OC inspectors at -- in the coatings l 21 department, indicated they had had conversations with the 22 NRC?
23 A I feel that they did.
/'
( 24 O Do you know whether those conversations related 25 to that investigation or related to other discussions they d
,- - - -,.-r -. ., ,n , , p- , , , ,-
W 21578.0 23098 BRT.
1 may have had?-
2 A I'm not able to indicate that but it could have 7x
(_) 3 been; yes.
4 O Do you have.any personal knowledge one way or 5 the other?
.e 6 A No, I do not.
7 Q Do you recall a time in December, approximately 8 December 13th, when I had a telephone conversation with 9 you and inquired whether you had selected an attorney?
10 A Yes, I do.
11 Q And did you advise me you had selected an 12 attorney?
13 A Yes, I did.
/~T j kl 14 O Subsequent to that date, did you or I ever have j 15 any other conversations?
16 A No. Nothing that I remember.
i 17 Q Subsequent to that date did you have 18 conversations with any other lawyers in this room?=
19 A Yes. Mack Watkins had called, and told me that 20 they were in the process of trying to locate a lawyer for 21 me , under the conditions that I had talked to Ms. Garde 22 about.
23 Q Right.
/^)
i () 24 A And that I should not freely speak to anyone 25 other than my lawyer and let him handle all of the work.
21578.0'~ 23099 BRT 1 The.same thing ~-- basically the same thing I told -- you 2 know -- that we talked about.
,. ) 3 O And did you have any further conversations with 4 Mr. Watkins?
5 A No. I did not have any conversations with
-6 Mr. Watkins but there was a gentleman from Mr. Watkins' 7 firm called and told me that, I guess it's after -- this
, 8 is after I talked to you. And told me that they were 9 still looking for some -- for a lawyer. -And at that time ,
10 I indicated that I had selected Mr. Sims.
i 11 O Did you ever have any conversations with 12 Mr. Gallo?
13 A No. I never met the man before.
14 MR. GALLO: Yesterday.
- 15 THE WITNESS
- Excuse me; Thursday.
I 16 BY MR. TREBY:
17 O Did you have any conversations with Ms. Garde or 18 Mr. Roisman after that -- after you selected Mr. Sims as 19 your attorney?
l
- 20 A I think Mr. Roisman placed a couple of calls to 21 my house but I was not there. And I don't recall having 22 any conversations with Ms. Garde. If I did, I probably 23 indicated to her to talk to my lawyer also.
( 24 O There was an indication that a transcript was 25 sent to you by Ms. Garde?
i l
l.
21578.0 23100 BRT 1 A Yes.
2 O Was that before or after Mr. Sims was selected 7-
,) 3 as your attorney?
4 A Before.
5 O Did you request her to send you that transcript?
6 A She said she could send me a transcript of the 7 trial if I was interested and I said: Yes, send it to me.
8 I'll look at it.
9 Q Was this at the time that she had called you to 10 tell you about their offer to get you an attorney?
11 A No, this was prior to that time.
12 MR. TREBY: All right. I have no further 13 qucations.
O
\-) 14 JUDGE BLOCH: I am about to take my leave. May 15 I ask though, before I go -- let's go off the record and 16 discuss the schedule.
17 (Discussion off the record.)
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Reporter, let the record 19 indicate that I have left the deposition.
20 CROSS-EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. GALLO:
22 0 Mr. Mouser, going back to that day in 1983 when 23 you made a copy of the Lipinski trip report, the one that
(_) 24 he gave you to read, Judge Bloch asked you a series of 25 questions about the operation of the Xerox machine, I
3 x21578.0. 23101
~BRT-1 Thursday; _whether it had automatic feed and that ' sort of 2 thing.
(,,) 3 My question to you is, when you arrived at the Xerox 4 machine to make'the copy, was it on?
5 A Yes, it was.
6- O when you returned after making the copy, and 7 returned Lipinski's copy of the trip report to him, were ,
8 the other people in the' conference room still there?
9 A I think they were.
10 0 Were those people conducting business separate i 11 and apart from Lipinski and you or were they part of the 12 same general meeting? Or what were the circumstances, as 13 you recall?
14 A I think they were separate and apart from him.
15 O Do you remember how many there were, roughly?
16 A I'd say half a dozen -- four, five, six, 17 something --
18 O Were they talking and conversing?
19 A Yes, they were.
20 Q In normal tones or loud tones; do you remember?
21 A You could hear them. I don't know if it was 22 loud or what, but you could hear them.
23 Q All right. You testified today that during a 24 conversation with Lipinski, you were led to understand 25 that he was concerned about his job at cannon. I assume l l 4
l
.= . _ .- -_. .- . -. - ..
r-c 21578;0 23102 BRT 1- that this conversation, as best'as you can remember,-
2 _ happened in the Christmas timeframe, about, of 1983.
I _
3 Did he come_right out and tell you that? Did he say 4 something to the effect that, gee, Evert, this situation 5 has.really gotten to me and I'm worried about'my job?
6 A Yes. Basically that, yes.
7 0 He came out and said that?
8 A Yes.
9 0 Did you ask him that question or didLhe 10 volunteer it?
11 A No. I think he volunteered it.
12 O Did he elaborate any as to just what his concern 13 was?
14 A No, not really.
15 O Just said he had a concern?
16 A Yes. He had a concern; yes.
17 O And it was attributable, as best you understand 18 it, to the trip report itself and its release?
19 A Yes, I'd have to assume that; yes.
20 0 Did he mention to you the possibility that he 21 might get fired? Did he use those words?
22 A I don't think he used those words. I think he
, 23 was just concerned about his job.
24 0 What.did you understand'those words to mean?
25 A That, indeed, he might get fired. You know, I
21578.0 23103 BRT 1 assumed that -- that would be the one way to lose your job.
2 MR. GALLO: That's all I have.
3 RECROSS EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. ROISMAN:
5 O Mr. Mouser, the difference between the OA/0C 6 program as you observed it, participated in it at WPPS and 7 at Comanche Peak, was it much more the attitude taken 8 toward QA/OC, and problems that they might raise that 9 formed the basis for the difference than it was any 10 particular specific procedure?
11 A I don't understand. I don't understand your 12 question.
13 0 Well, you have indicated that there were 14 differences between NPPS and Comanche Peak. And you 15 remember Mr. Watkins went over in great detail with you:
16 Did they have this standard there? Was that the same 17 standard they had at Comanche Peak and so forth.
18 My question is, irrespective of whether standards were 19 the same, when you testified earlier about things being 20 different, was a principal, or the principal difference 21 between Comanche Peak and WPPS, the whole attitude toward 22 QA/QC, and how management responded to problems that were
- 23 being raised and how QA/QC were treated than it was some q
__f 24 particular procedural differences?
25 A Yes. I think that's what it was. It was the
r,- -
21578.0. 23104 BRT 1 attitude that management.had toward-QA/QC, and the 2 attitude they took when the problem did arise; yes.
( 3 O Now, you indicated that'there were certain 4 feelings. I don't remember your exact words, but again in 5 reference to a question from Mr. Watkins about feelings 6 that existed at the site, that you felt that if bad news 7 came up, people would be treated differently if they were 8 the source of.that bad news. Do you remember that 9 discussion?
10 Now, when you were explaining how it was that you 11 thought or believed that Mr. Merritt could have, or might 12 have been the source of complaints about you to these 13 contracting people, did you have in mind that the -- that 14 your association with the whole Lipinski matter and the 15 trip report was the kind of association with bad news 16 which, based on your experience at Comanche Peak, could 17 get one in trouble?
18 A Yes.
19 O And was that equally the case with the failure 20 to turn out the troops for the barbecue? That that was 21 the kind of association with an event that didn't go right 22 which,-in your experience, could get one in trouble? And, i
23 on the bad side of management at Comanche Peak?
24 A Yes.
25 0 You mentioned that there was a paint foreman who 4
I 21578.0 23105 !
DRT l l
l- had had a painter who was not qualified apply paint that 2 you had learned about, and subsequently the paint was
~ 3s ,) 3 removed from the wall and the work was redone.
4 A Yes.
5 O Do you know what happened, if anything, to 6 either the painter or the foreman, as a result of that 7 event?
8 A I think the foreman was fired.
9 O And how about the painter?
10 A I don't remember what happened to the painter.
11 I think the foreman was fired.
t 12 O You were asked by Mr. Watkins about the
, 13 procedures that had been implemented for writing irs and NCRs.
14 Was it your understanding that the -- that once that 15 procedure -- some time I think in August -- had been 16 implemented, that the only way that a paint coatings i 17 inspector could write an NCR was with the approval of his 18 supervisor and could not do it on his own?
19 A Yes.
20 0 And when you became the lead, were you one of 21 those people who could have authorized that? .Chr did it 22 actually have to go all the way up to Mr. Williams?
23 A I took it on myself to be the one to authorize g._9 L_) 24 that.
25 0 And was that consistent with your reading of the
21578.0 23106
_RT 1 procedure for irs and NCRs? Or were you just taking the 2 authority without something explicitly in the procedure?
x 3 A I was taking the authority.
4 O On a number of occasions you have mentioned with 5 respect to Mr. Brandt, and then once today with regard to 6 Mr. Tolson, that your perception of them is that they were 7 people who wanted to get the job done. I think words 8 close to that.
9 A Yes.
10 0 At other times you have talked about the bad 11 atmosphere at the site regarding the bringing of bad news.
12 Do you think that the wanting to get the job done 13 attitude, along with the negative attitude toward the 14 receipt of bad news, were consistent in the -- or 15 inconsistent concepts contained in these men?
16 A I think you need to go over that question again 17 so I understand it.
18 O At one time I think you have indicated that 19 these are men who wanted to get the job done. And at 20 other times you have indicated that there seemed to be a 21 general management attitude that they didn't like to hear 22 bad news, that they acted negatively toward bad news, were
, 23 very inquisitorial toward the person who brought the bad
,- q j 24 news.
25 Are those consistent attitudes? In other words, can
21578.0 23107 BRT 1 you want to get the~ job done and be consistent in saying:
2 But I don't want to hear any bad news from anybody and I'm
) 3 going to be real tough on the people who bring me bad news?
4 A I think I have to say on that that generally 5 Mr. Tolson was consistent in that. Mr. Brandt was not.
6 O And in what way wes Mr. Tolson consistent and in 7 what way was Mr. Brandt noti 8 A Mr. Tolson' consistently got upset. As in the 9 tone of -- as I described in earlier testimony. That's 10 basically the way he got upset.
11 And Mr. Brandt was not that way. Mr. Brandt would say:
12 That's basically not what I want to hear but we got a 13 problem -- fine.
9 14 O My question was slightly different, just in this 15 context.
16 A I'm --
17 O I'm sorry.
18 A '
iI'm trying.to grasp the total question. I don't 19 really understand.
20 0 If somebody wants to get the job done, when you 21 make that statement do.you include in that that they want 22 to get the job done at all costs, regardless of some f 23 impediment, some bad news that would get in the way of v .c
(_/ 24 getting,the job done?
25 A ,
No. I don't think that was totally that s 3
r-- ,
21578.0 23108
'RT 1 direction; no.
2 O Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand.
3 If they didn't want to hear the bad news -- or let's 4 just focus on Mr. Tolson for a moment, if he didn't want 5 to hear the bad news and he was very -- and reacted very 6 negatively to getting it, then, when you say of him he 7 wanted to get the job done, did you mean he wanted to get 8 the job done even if somebody was keeping quiet about some 9 problem that might later make it appear that the job, 10 while done, hadn't been done right?
11 A That's a judgment I'm not able to make. I don't 12 think I can make that judgment.
13 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. Your witness, Mr. Watkins.
9 14 RECROSS EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. WATKINS:
16 O Mr. Treby asked you a series of questions about 17 to whom you talked before or after you retained Mr. Sims.
18 And I believe you testified that I talked with you after 19 you had retained Mr. Sims.
20 A No. A gentleman from your law firm.
21 O Okay. I had talked with you before?
l 22 A Yes.
I 23 0 The other lawyer from my firm, when he called 24 did you inform him that you had retained counsel?
25 A I think I did at that time.
21578.0 23109 BRT l
1 Q And was the conversation discontinued?
2 A Other than personal matters; no. l
,,) 3 MR. SIMS: Did you mean "yes," it was terminated?
4 THE WITNESS: It was terminated on the lawyer 5 bit. But then we continued with personal matters.
6 BY MR. WATKINS:
7 O Is this someone you had known personally before?
8 A Yes, it was.
9 O Was it Mr. Walker?
10 A Yes, it was, 11 Q Regarding Mr. Roisman's question to you about 12 the difference in attitude between WPPS 2 and Comanche 13 Peak, was that difference in attitude the same difference b
N/ g 14 about which you testified earlier, that at WPPS 2 the 15 attitude was: We'll overinspect it, we'll inspect it to 16 perfection? While at Comanche Peak we'll do neither more 17 nor less than the job requires?
18 A At WPPS we were told to inspect the job and do a 19 thorough job of it. And at times there was 20 overinspection, and indeed there was times that we got 21 told we were doing overinspection.
22 As for Comanche Peak, they did what was required to be 23 done.
/p-y}
L_,/ 24 0 Is that part of the change, the difference in 25 attitude?
21578.0 23110 BRT 1 A Yes, that would probably be a lot of'it.
2 O Mr. Roisman asked you a question about the (r~)
v 3 barbecue as an example of getting in trouble. Was a 4 craft /OC barbecue itself a bad idea? Or just the way the 5 attendance was handled?
6 A' The barbecue was a good idea, in my eyes. But 7 the way they did attendance was totally wrong.
8 0 When you referred to Mr. Tolson reacting 9 negatively to bad news, you earlier testified about the 10 two instances during the period you were in the design 11 change verification group.
12 How many times af ter you to the coating department did 13 you personally observe Mr. Tolson having a bad reaction, 14 or reaction to bad news?
15 A I observed Mr. Tolson having a reaction to ---
16 not so much quality bad news but the news of the T-shirt 17 incident. He was quite upset about that. And I think 18 that's -- I think that's probably the only incident I can 19 think of right of fhand.
20 Q You are probably not aware of it, but "T-shirts" j' 21 is quite a busy word in this proceeding. To which T-shirt 22 incident are you referring?
23 A The Junior Haley incident.
</
( -
24 O And who was the inspector in that incident?
25 A Mr. Tom Miller, i
i 6
, , , . - , _ . m. .- --_m ,- . -
9
~
21578.0 23111 BRT 1 -O How did that' incident come up?
2 A Mr.-Miller came to work with a T-shirt on that
~
'3- said "J.R. Who?" on it. -
And Mr. Haley took objection to
.4 that, and said that.that was referring to him.
5 MR. WATKINS: No further questions. 4 6 (Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the hearing was j 7 ' adjourned.')
- 8 3
9
.! 10 i
11 12 l
i 13 I- 14 15 '
+
16 i,
i 17 1 I 18 f
19 4
1 20 i
! 21 22 g 23 l 24 25 3
CERTIFICATE OF-OFFICIAL REPORTER
, This is to certify. that. the attached proceedings .before
'Cl the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
DEPOSITION OF EVER* MOUSER (CONTIMUED)
DOCKET NO.: 50-445-OL, 50-446-OL PLACE: BETHESDA, MARYLAND DATE: SATURDAY , ' JANUARY -5, 19 85 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
0 sQ -i .
(sigt), N / M M (TYP i Joel Breitner Official Reporter Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
, Reporter's Affiliation
'l ,
I
. _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ . . . . . . . . _ . - _ _ . , _ . - . . . . _ _ . _