ML20137P252
| ML20137P252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1985 |
| From: | Downey B BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS |
| To: | Noonan V NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512040353 | |
| Download: ML20137P252 (5) | |
Text
r-t.
., FOR-so- 44S by,~ ll A $
LAW Orp 4CES OF bis H O P, LIB ER M AN, COO K, PU RC ELL & R EYN OLDS troo S EVENT L ENT M STR C CT, N.w. oh newtoma wAs M 8 NotoN, D.C.t Oc 3 4 misHoP Lia:Rwas a coom teor as7-sooo uns avemuc or inc auenicas a cw von =.= c w ton. .com.
TcLex ** essa swTLaw us asiaa roa oeoo tcLesnaaret WNetC A'S o#RCCT Dea;,
non 857-9853 March 4, 1985 Vincent S. Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Project U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814
Dear Mr. Noonan:
Enclosed are the Responses of Texas Utilities to the NRC's questions concerning the 1979 and 1983 surveys of quality con-trol inspectors at Comanche Peak. Also enclosed for your information is a compilation of the testimony elicited during the " Glen Rose depositions" in these surveys.
If you have any questions about the enclosed materials or any additional questions about the surveys, please do not hesit' ate to contact us.
Sincerely, ruce . owney Enclosures BLD:pah l '
i l
i 8512040353 850304 PDR ADOCK 05000445 T pg
.-w- , -< --, - ,&
- ~
s-3' $ ,
- D e 4
I' 1 1 l
1 THE RESPONSES OF i
i TEXAS UTILITIES TO THE NRC'S QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE 1979 AND 1983. SURVEYS
- OF QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTORS AT COMANCHE PEAK 1
c o
The 1979 Survey
- 1. What were employees told concerning the confidentiality of their responses, who would be seeing the results, and how the survey data would be used?
Response. The 1979 survey was conducted by interviewing all OC inspectors at the site. At the beginning of each inter-view, the interviewers informed the inspector being inter-viewed that his/her responses would be kept confidential.
The inspector was also. informed that all QC inspectors were being interviewed to identify problems and potential prob-lems that needed to be addressed by management.
- 2. How were the surveys introduced and passed out to employees?
Response. Forms were not passed out to the inspectors during the 1979 survey. Instead, the inspectors were asked a series of questions and their responses were recorded on interview forms.
- 3. Where and how did employees complete the surveys?
Response. The QC inspectors did not complete the survey forms during the 1979 survey. Instead, two interviewers were present at each interview; one interviewer asked the questions, and the other recorded the inspector's answers.
- 4. What guidelines were used by those transcribing employee responses?
Response.
The interviewers were told to solicit and record any and all problems that the inspectors could identify.
- 5. How were the completed surveys returned to management?
Response. The interviewers kept the survey forms they completed and filed them with corporate OA management after the project was completed.
- 6. How were employees selected to participate? -
Response. It was management's intention to interview all inspectors employed at the site. The interviews were conducted by discipline, i.e., all electrical inspectors were interviewed during one block of time, all mechanical inspectors were interviewed during another block of time, etc. Except for those inspectors who were absent from work during the time their group was being interviewed, all i
l inspectors were interviewed during the survey.
l
y -
. i
- 7. Which organizational units and/or job categories were included and excluded from the surveys and what criteria were used for this process?
Response. All QC groups, i.e., electrical, mechanical, etc., were included in the survey; no DC group was excluded.
- 8. How many QC inspectors were employed at the plant when each of these two surveys were taken?
Response. At the time of the 1979 survey approximately 190 inspectors were employed at the site.
The 1983 Survey
- 1. What were employees told concerning the confidentiality of their responses, who would be seeing the results, and how the survey data would be used?
Response. A cover sheet distributed with each of the 1983 questionnaires assured the QC inspectors of anonymity; the cover sheet instructed the inspectors not to write their names or to identify their group on the questionnaire, and advised the inspectors that the survey was not a method of identifying individuals with specific attitudes. In addi-tion, the inspectors were verbally advised when the ques-tionnaires were distributed that their responses would be anonymous.
The cover sheet stated that the questionnaires would be used by site Quality Assurance management to assess the inspec-tors' concerns. The cover sheet advised that the question-naire represented the inspectors' opportunity to communicate with management. Verbal instructions confirmed those purposes.
I 2.
How were the surveys introduced and passed out to employees?
Response.
The questionnaires were distributed by the super-visors in the non-ASME organization.
- 3. Where and how did employees complete the surveys?
Response. Where and how the surveys were completed -- j indeed, whether the survey was completed -- was left up to each inspector. This information is known only to the inspectors themselves.
r
?
. 4. What guidelines were used by those transcribing employee responses? ,,
Response. The 1983 surveys were completed by the inspectors themselves. The survey responses were not transcribed.
- 5. How were the completed surveys returned to management?
Response. The inspectors returned the questionnaires to the desk of a staff assistant in the non-ASME organization.
- 6. How were employees selected to participate?
Response. C. Thomas Brandt, who initiated the 1983 survey, was at the time the non-ASME QA/QC supervisor. Brandt directed that a questionnaire be distributed to all of the Quality Control Inspectors in the non-ASME QC organization, that is, to all inspectors subject to Brandt's supervision.
- 7. What organizational units and/or job categories were included and excluded from the surveys and what criteria were used for this process.
Response. As noted in response to question 6, question-naires were distributed to all QC inspectors in the non-ASME organization. The disciplines included were non-ASME mechanical, civil, electrical, structural, and night shift (which covered mechanical, electrical and civil).
- 8. How many QC inspectors were employed at the plant when the 1983 survey was taken?
Response. At the time of the 1983 survey, approximately 240 QC inspectors were employed at the plant. Of these, approx-imately 150 were empjoyed in the non-ASME QA/QC organiza-tion, and were given survey questionnaires.
l l
j 1
l t
r I
I I i
~
l
[
l
.> DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE 1983 SURVEY OF I s QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTORS AT COMANCHE PEAK I
i I
'I ,
1 I
I :
\ 2. . .-. . . . _ . . . .
I I
I TABLE OF CONTENTS I TAB 1: Testimony of Thomas Brandt, July 11, 1984, I Transcript Pages 45,095 - 45,106 TAB 2: Testimony of Thomas Brandt, August 16, 1984 Transcript Pages 45,344 - 45.352 l-I b
I
( -
I I
I
. i
E '
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !
NUcLIAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
e n ?, 6,a 1 !
I V t e.
L l i ; 'v . . .~l in the matter of:
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al Docket No. 50-445 50-446
, (Comanche Peak Steam Electric p S tation , Units 1 & 2)
I i
e .
I -
I' i
Ceposition of: C.' Thomas Brandt Location: Glen Rose, Te:cas Pages: 65 000-49
A Date: 'd'ednesday, July 11, 1984 I l i
- ' TAYLOE ASSOCIATES coun a,pon e ig . , , , , t623 I Smet. N.W. Sese 1004
!E W it-m4>r ~~
- " ' " * * " - c :"
G02) 3M950
~ . . . . . - . - - . . . - . . - . . . . . . .
MM10rg4 45.095 ~
I t xxx 1 (The document referred to was 2
marked.Brandt-3 for 3
identification.)
4 MR. WATKINS: And if I may offer at.this moment to 5
make xerox copies available for Mr. Mizuno, is that acceptable' It 6
MR. ROISMAN: Yes, yes, of course.
7
,, Why don't we start with finding out about the 8 survey material?
9 MR. WATKINS: Why don't you iden:.fy your new 10 collaague for the record?
I 11 MR. ROISMAN: I am sorry. Sitting with me is xxx 12 Marina King, who is one of the people assisting us during the 13 depositions this week and Mr. Carpenter has also joined us.
15 Q Mr. Brandt, there has been reference to a set of 16 documents which are described as survey that was conducted 17 by you.
18 . Would you just give me a brief description of what t I l 19 ,
this was, when it occurred and what does it mean " conducted l
20 by you" or is that an improper designation for it -- so we 1 I
7 i
21 I will know what it is we will be seeing when we get a copy of l
I 22 23 it. .
A It was a questionnaire sent to all the non-ASME
! 24 QC people, essentially asking them what they perceived their 25 job to be, how their perceived their job conditions, what l
a lI
.~ i l _ _ _ __ _ _. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .._, __ _
, MM10rg5 45,096 I
gt-3 1 they thought "o f their supervisor. It contained about 15 2
questions plus an additional page for,any comments or concern.
3 they wished to express.
4 It was done at the suggestion of one.of my 5
subordinates, a person I have grown to have a great deal of 6
confidence in as far as establishing an anonymous forum --
I.
7
,, Q Did you say "an anonymous"?
8 A Anonymous -- for inspectors to voice concerns, make 9
suggestions about their daily activities in such a fashion to that they could do it in total anonymity and possibly obtain 11 information that I wouldn't have obtained by any other means I (
12 13 due to their hesitance to come discuss those problems with me.
It was conducted during the summer of 1983.
14 Q
So that the documents that we are to receive are 15 I
the survey questionnaires that you received back in response 16 j co this?
17 A Yes, sir.
18 Q I take it from what you just said about anonymity 19 ehat the questionnaire does not disclose the name of t h a' 20 person?
21 A That's true.
22 Q Is it set up in such a'way that no one except the 23 )
person who filled it out knows who they are unless they chose '
24 to put their name on it?
i 25 A It was set up so I could tell what group it came 4
h l
eg o-
I MM10rg6 45,097 l 1 from because as some of the questions were directed at their 2 impression of their supervision. I equid use it as a tool 3 to evaluate my supervisors, people'who reported directly to 4 me. .
5 It was a very subtle difference. There is a word 6 change typically in a couple of the 14 or 15 questions. They 7 are in the same order. For you to pick it up and take a 8 quick glace at it and look at all 15 questions, you would not 9 notice the difference.
10 Q Was it --
was the questionnaire sent out by you 11 with some kind of a memorandum or instruction?
12 A There was a cover sheet to the questionnaire which l i 13 essentially describes the purpose of the questionnaire, says !
l 14 that it is anonymous, describes what I was do'ing with it, is giving them a chance to voice their concerns, telling me how i le I can make their job easier for them.
17 I can tie it to group by the questions are worded, j 18 as I said. In no case can I tie it to an individual.
19 Q How many of these were sent out, roughly?
- l, I A 20 Ballpark -- 150.
j i
21 Q These were to the non-ASME QC people, essentially ;,
22 people who worked for you at tha~t time?
23 A Right. '
24 Q Did it get sent out in a way that indicated that 25 you expected everyone to return it and there was a time by '
E 9
I MM10rg7 45,098 I .
i which it was to be returned?
2 A It is not clear from reading the cover sheet. It 3 was delivered to the groups by the. person whose idea it was.
4 Q By the way, who was that?
5 A Mike Warner, W-a-r-n-e-r. He explained to them 6 what the purpose was, explained to them -- it was their C
chance of getting an anonymous but direct line of communicati<
I 7 8
to me. There was no way that --
since it was anonymous, 9 there was no way to check to see if everybody had returned 10 them or to ding the people who hadn't returned them, but if 11 they wished to return themthey should return them by a 12 certain date. After that we weren't to look through any g 13 submittals.
14 Q "Jhat number did pou get back out of the total is , number you sent out, roughly?
I 16 I
A The overwhelming majority of them.
17 Q When did you get the survey answers back? When did
, is they come back to you, roughly?
19 A That is a question I have been asked by my own-20 counsel, Mr. Roisman and I don't honestly re= ember the exact 21 date.
22 The sequence of , events, was they were passed out, 23 they vete given a week to 10 days to complete them, they came 24 back to Mr. Warner, who essentially collated or tabulated 25 results.
O l
l
f .-. . . . . .
MM10rg8 45,09.9 1
Most of them are f.es - no answers to where I got 2
sheets back'that say, for example, " Supervisor I" and then ,
3 a blank questionnaire with scratch marks tallying the yes 4
answers and the no answers. That took some amount of time.
5 The closest I can tie it down is late Spring or 6 Summer, 1983 it was sent out. It was probably two to three t 7 weeks, maybe a month after I sent it out that it reappeared 8
on my desk with the results tabulated.
9 Q Did you have in addition to the tabulation of the 10 results any memorandum evaluating the results or any opinion I 11 expressed, either by Mr. W rner or anybody else?
12 A t Nothing in writi'ng.
l 13 Mr. Warner and I discussed it.
14 Qd' Did you do anything after you got those results?
15 A Supervisory changes, yes, sir.
!c i Q What was it that you did?
l 17 ! A I reassigned some of the supervisors. .
I 18 Q I guess we can see for ourselves when we get it, l 19 but since we are right at the point, did the answers to "the 20 I questionnaire enable the person if they wanted to say 21
~ Supervisor -- and na=e somebody -- has been doing . something j j 22 wrong? -
23 A Tes. As I said, there was essentially a yes - no 24 type answer, I believe, and I am speaking from memory now. g 25 Most of them were not even a definita yes or a i l
l I ~
MM10rg9 45,100 I
i definite no. I think the choices were mostly yes and mostly 2 no. With each answer there was a couple of lines provided 3 for any kind of narrative comments.they wanted to add in 4 addition to basically the entire last page with any other I 3 comments you would like to make at this time.
6 Most of them have comments on them.
7 , Q Was the reassignment a decision which you have the 8 authority to implement yourself or merely that you had to 9 recommend to somebody to implement?
10 A That was solely my decision.
I ii I
Q Did you memoria1Eze the reasons f'or the reassign-12 =ents in some document?
, 13 A No.
Do the people who were reassigned -- were they 14 Q i3 told by you why they were being reassigned?
A 3; In only one case that I can remember did I explain 37 to that supervisor distinctly why he was being reassigned.
is I take it back -- in two of the cases, ig One of the reassignments involved a transfer ofisite go Q Now were these reassignments that were made made 21 within the organization that you had the responsibility for.
22 the non-ASME? .
23 A Right. '
24 Q So it is like moving a supervisor from mechanical .
to electrical or something like that?
I 23
,j End 10 A Exactly.
- I e i. ;
l allib1 45,101 I. 1 Q And were there any other actions that you took 2
based upon the answers that you got from the survey?-
3 A I can't think of any right new, off the top of 4 my head, Mr. Roisman. I might be able to provide more input I
5 if I had them in front of me.
C 6 Q We'll probably all have that chance at some later 7 time. Did you, either before you initiated the survey, or 8
subsequent to the time you initiated, have occasion to discuss 9
the idea of doing the survey and/or the results of the survey 10 with any of the people who you reported to, like Mr. Tolson 11 or Mr. Chapman?
12 A Tolson and I discussed it.
( 13 Q Was all the communication between you and Mr.
14 Tolson on this also in writing -- also oral?
15 ' A It was also oral, to the best of my recollection, le yes sir.
17 Q Do you renember whether Mr. -- Mr. Tolson --
18 did you discuss with him before you did it?
i
- + A Yee. .
20 Q Did you go to him to seek his concurrence for 21 doing it, or just to 4.ivise him that you were doing it? l 22 A I think it would be' fairer to describe my going '
23 to Mr. Tolson as a sounding board, if you will. Hey, 24 Tolson, do you think this is a good idea? I certainly didn't 25 need his concurrence to do it. I didn't really, I guess, !
i , 1 o
1 l.
45,102 millb2 1
ev'en need to let him know I was doing it, just a day to day I
2 operation. But it was a different type approach. I.had 3
never done it before and I wanted to bounce the idea off of 4 him. He thought it was a reasonably good id e a .,
5 Q Did he have any suggestions for you on ways to 6
improve it or do it differently?
i I
7 A Not that I remember.
8 Q Then did you go back to him, after you got the 9
g survey results back, and discuss with him again?
. . . . . . . . . ~. --
10 A In general, yes. L'e didn ' t sit down and read 11 through every single -- exd'use me. I say we didn't.
I I 12 13 did not sit down with him and peruse each individual response.
I discussed the general overall results.
14 Q Did you discuss with him the actions that"you i.
l 15 were planning to take, or if they were already taken, that ,
I lo you had taken in light of the survey? i 17 A Let me clarify, at this point, the personne; la decisions were not as an absolute result of the survey. jl 19 Certainly the reassignments were affected by the results. --
20 or my decision to make the reassignments was affected by the 21 results of the survey. But to say that the survey was an j 22 absolute-type document, that's not true. l 23 In answer to your question, though, I did discuss 24 the reassignment of the personnel with Mr. Tolson.
25 Q Was that in order to seek his concurrence or, -l
.. D
.I
45,103 CD111b3 1 again, as a sounding board?
2 A It was more of -- partially a sounding board, 3
partially keeping him apprised because I wasn't moving lead I 4 5
inspectors or things like that. I was moving, you know, people immediately under me at that point.
It was more of a 6 keeping him apprised of what I was doing type situation.
7 Q What was it in the surveys, if you remember, 8
that contributed to your decision to make the particular o reassignments? And let me just stop you. We're going to see 10 these things, and you've already said that it's hard to 11 remember without them. If 7ou 'd rather answer these 12 questions with them --
A 13 I'd rather answer them with them in front of me, 14 Mr. Roissan. ,.
15 Q That's fine, all right. With the exception of ie yourself, Mr. Tolson, and Mr. Warner, and of course the 17! people who l
actually filled them out, are there any other .l 18 individuals who you consulted with.or who would have a basis .l 19 i,
to have any knowledge about the content of these surveys,or '
20 the actions that you took, in part, in light of what you l 21 learned in the survey?
I 22 23 A
Mr. Warner had assistance from an individual in collating the results.
24 Q Who was that?
25 A Mark Welch.
Excuse me, if I can clarify myself,
- * . I
45,104 1Billb4 i I didn't really mean collate, in the typical sense. I meant 2 more of a tabulation. It wasn't a matter of sorting sheets 3 of paper. It was an exercise in cab'ulating results.
Q Was it, in your j udgment , purely clerical, or I
4 I did it require the exercise of some judgment?
5 6 A No, it was more clerical-type function.
g 7 Q At the' time that Mr. Welch assisted Mr. Warner g
ik doing this tabulation, where was he employed at the plant
, site? Was he working for you?
10 A He worked for me, yes, sir.
ii Q I'n(just trying to get clear on Mr. Welch's -- is 12 this the same Mr. Welch who, at some time in 1984 --
early 33 1984 -- was also the acting site supervisor for engineering, i4 Quality Control engineering? Does that ring a bell with you?
A 15 I e ink we're talking about the same person, but 16 I don't aver re= ember him being a quality engineering 37 supervisor -- yes, he was.
18 Q Acting?
Yes, he was, for a short period of time.
I A 39 20 Q The job now held by Mrs. Bielfeldt?
21 A Right.
22 Q And'the one who, at some even subsequent time to 23 that was put in charge of the' electrical inspectors in the i
24 safeguards building?
25 A Same person.
4 l ^
45,105 mm111b5 1
Q And what functions was he performing for you 2
at the time he and Mr. Warner did the tabulation?
3 A He was on my staff as a' staff assistant.
~
4 Q What did that mean? He wasn't a supervisor and 5 not an inspector?
~
6
~
A Non-supervisory, non-inspector, non-Quality
[ 7 Engineering. He was essentially special projects coordinator 8
i'f that term means more to you. He did essentially what I 9 assigned him to do.
10 Q Okay, so he was a special assistant that you call 11 on when you wanted somebod.y to do something that you yourself 12 didn't have the time to do personally?
13 A Exactly.
14 I,
Q ind did he have any substantive input, other than 15 doing the tabulation?
Did you sit with him and Mr. Warner 16 when you consulted about what the survey results might mean 17 or whether you should do the survey at all?
18 A I did not discuss, to my recollection, doing the 19 survey with Mr. Welch at all. I did sit and briefly dis ~ cuss 20 the results with Mr. Warner and Mr. Welch, when they brought 21 them back to me. I don't recall any substantive type of 22 information exchange that occurred at that meeting.
23 MR. ROISMAN: O ka'y , I think that gives se enough 24 information. Let me just say, on the record, that it does 25 not sound, from what I've heard, as though there would be I
I
l .
45,106 l millb6 1
1 I
any reasonable doubt but that our discovery request would 2 encompass --
I'm not talking.here about sanction or anything.
I ~
3 I just want to be clear, on the record" that my interpretation 4
of our discovery request would say that this information would 5 clearly fit it and be appropriate. I just want to make that 6 statement on the record.
I 7 MR. WATKINS: If I then could also make a I 8 st'atement for the record. Mr. Brandt, when did you realize g
i 9
that you had these documents and give them to your lawyers?
10 THE WITNESS: Mondap, July 9th, 1984.
11 MR. WATKINS: Were you out of the country for the' 12 week preceeding Monday?
13 s
THE WITNESS: Yes, I was.
14 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Roisman, I don't want to argue 15 about whether they were subject to disclosure or not. I'm ;
16 i
not that familiar with the request for production in the firstii 17 place.
I 18 MR. ROISMAN: Okay.
19 I want to be very clear. I don't think ther,e's 20 any question.
I.would like the witness to look at a-21 document, which I'll ask the reporter to mark as Brandt-4 !
22
, (T.he docu=ent referred to was !
23 marked as E:chib it No. Brandt-4 24 for identification.)
25 I- !,
I "
--- tw.,
I- 45239 l ,
I 1:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
! BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD P
3l .
4!
5 In ene Matter oft )
1 )
6 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) l COMPANY, et al .
) Docket Nos. 50-445 l 7 ) 50-446 7 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
d Station, Units 1 and 2) )
9 .
10 11 12 DEPOSITION 13 OF 14 C. THOMAS BRANDT l
15 -
15 17 DEPOSITIQU of C. THOMAS BRANDT, taken on the 16th !
,. 18 day of August, 1984, in the above styled and l 19 numbered cause at Glen Rose Motor Inn, located at l
20 Highway 67 & Fil Road 201, in the City of Glen 21' Rose, County of Somerville and State of Texas 22 cefore :erigay Black a Certified Shorthand !
23 Report 2. :.n and for tne State of Texas.
24 1 i
l 25 I
,_ wnnRaar rnnny.neonomroc
. ~
l 45344 I 1 Additionally, eacn inspection group held I: 2 periodic meetings, and I often dropped by to see .
3 wnat was happening and to answer questions. On
, 4 nucarous occasions during these meetings I !
E 5 informed the inspectors of my policy and I tried l
6 co convey my personal interest in their concerns. '
f 7 I want to add thac I can't think of a I
8 day wnen I didn't meet wita ona or more inspectora 9 on an Individual oasis in my office and the ;
10 l '
majori:y of enesa neecings were initiated by the l
i 11 insgeetats. '
I 12 J. Mr. Brandt, did you have a policy aoout ,
i 13 c t'o waf la which you wanted disputes between craft 14 and QC resolved?
15 A. Yea, sir. I made it cicar to all i i
1 51 aan-A3.24 inspectors and supervisors that wnenever '
l 17 a dafrarance of opinion scoce occueen craft and QC .
18 during an inspection, rne inspector had the last 19 word.
20 '
I also made it clear enat tne QC 21 supervicars, including myself, were availaole to Ig 22 assia sa resolving any disputas that arose. ,
E !
23 ;. :1r . Brandt, did there como a time when 24 you candacted a survey of your inspectors to .
I 25 ascer:aln encir attitudos about certain thinga?
I
I < .
I 1 A. Yes, I did.
45345 l
l 2 Q. When did you conduct this survey?
3 A. Early summer, 1983. :
4 Q. How did you decide -- how did you come a l to conduct the survey?
l 5l' -
6 A. I was concerned on what people thought t
! 7 of their own job, how they perceived the job they 8 were crying to do. One of tne guy's that worked 9l for .:e at the time, a fellow by the name of Mike 10 Warner, came up with the idea of the anonymous 11 waite paper survey. I think it's called the White i
12 Paper 2 aport, giving them an opportunity to voice l$l their complaints, wnat they thought of their job, i
14' what caey thought of Comanche Peak, what taey 15 cnougac of taeir supervicor, what they would do to 1
Id' cnanje Oneir job, if they could. ? nose type of 17! .; u e s t . o n s .
13 :f r . :larner yepared cae curvey for ay 19 review.
20 Q. Did you distribute the survey 21 quoscionaire?
22 A. Yes, I did. I diatributed the 23 queacicaatte to every non-ASi1B QC inspector.
24 2 You say they were anonymous; is tnat 25 rigat? ,
! I
I 4 .
l
, 45346 1 'A. They were anonymous in the sense that I 2 can't tell who wrote them, other than in some l
I l 3 cases, I can tell by individuals' handwriting
. 1 4 whose responses it is. They are geared so that j l I 5 thero is minor word changes in a couple of key
. i i .
G questions to where I can tell which group or which ;
6
& 7 supervisors or inspectors were answering the !
I d survay.
i 9 Q. How long after you distributed the t
10 surveys did you get responses sack?
l 11 A. I would say I got the responses back !
I t
12 becseen a aonth and six weeks later. I received ;
13 enea. Taoy were turned back in, to the best of my 14 reco. 2etion, aoout two weeks after they were sent ,
15 auc.
li J. ;ie r e tne results taen compiled for your 1
17! revied?
I 13 A. Rignt. ,
19 Q. Mr. 3ranuc, did you review tne responses t, 20 to tno aurvoy? i 21 -
A. Yes, I did. I spent more time 22 coacca;-acing on the narrative portion at the iI 23 end. chind the last question was comaants. I I
l 24 reviasea avery one of thoso, and I reviewed the ; l l
25 !!
l suamaries that were prepared for me. I reviewed ;
e
l 4 ,
I 45347 !
1 other portions of the surveys at random. I don't
{
2 believe I could nonostly say I've read every line ;
3 of every survey even at this stage. .
4 Q. Mr. Brandt, what-action did you take in ,
I % response to the survey?
I 6l. A. I made some supervisory chances. '
f 7 2. And what were those? ;
3l A. Let me make clear, cefora I even answer , ,
i 9ll your question, dr. Downey, that the survey was a i
10: contributing factor. To say tae survey alone I 11 caused anything other than expenditure of several 1 nour; praparing it, distributing it, tabulating !
13' it, and evaluating it, it's prooably not true.
I 14 Q. It was' a contributing factor? ,
l l 15 A. It was a contributing factor to some of 16 tau pecaannel decisions I cade, one of whica waa l .
17i the recoval of Harry Williams, one of waien was i
1 3' tna transf er of tir. Foote to nignt cult and the 13 retara of Mr. RandalA to tua day snift, and Mr.
( 20 Lawrence receiving some additional responsibility.
21 Q. Starting with cne additional 22 respons.oilities given to Mr. Lawrence, what in 23" tne sausay responses --
now did tnat contribute to 24 that?
25 A. Mr. Lawrence's group responded in a way ,
l ( -
i I 45348 l 1
1 that'I would have expected an ideal supwevisor's 2 group to respond. They were very positive, which , l l'
3 indicated to me that there was a clear line of 4 communication and understanding and respect 5: becween Mr. Lawrence and his troops.
i I
6 0. You say you assigned Mr. Randall to the i
? 7 day sift and Mr. .Foote to the night shift after l 8 the survey, is that right?
9 A. Righc.
10 0 :Iow did the survey contrioute to that 11 change?
12 a. Mr. Randali is --
to use probably an 13, ottaa over-used term, was surned out in the fact I 14 that ne had been on night shift for well over a 15 year. It was causing him some personal problems.
16 2. I've worked night snift ayaelf and you 17, cono ec lose contact witn tne people enat you met 13 on day anift. You sometimes lost faeling for 19 what's actually going on.
I 20 After I moved aim from night shift to 21 day satit, ha came in and personally tnanked me
! 22 for it. He never formally requeJted that he UC I 23 removed from night shift, but he did come in, ,
24 aftur tue fact, to thank me for geccing him off 25 I night shift. j
I i 45349 l 1 'Q. Now, Mr. Foote, vny did you move him to '
)
2 night shift?
l 3 A. When I moved Mr. Randall off night 4 shift, I had to replace him with someone. Mr. .
- 5. Foote had kind of stagnated waere he was at. He 6 was scporvising an electrical support installation t 7 incpection. At the time, the activity with the 8 cost craft people and inapection people was the ;
9i coating area.
10 Ar. Foote was Level III in coatings. I 11 deeacd cha: 3r. Foote was a good cnase because he 12l was cua only one of my supervisors who had any 13i exper ance at all with coatings. And it improved I 14i tne oc.janization, I tnink, by the fact that I had i.
I.
15i soceaua ,t a o could answer technical cancerns on '
I l d' ni;ht .aiit in ene coatings area.
I 17 J. Yod centioncd caac following the survey i
13l you replacec Mr. NiaA caa, ia naat r i git t ?
19 That'a true.
I
.\.
20 2 Would you describa acce fully the 21 circua; aaces that lead to that decision?
22 There were a nuaaer of factors that l
I
- s. .
23 occur: c. during the sumser of 1983. One was the l
24 aurvej, Jae was day-to-day observation of job ;l 25 perforaance, including paraonal conversations I l
[g C
l 45350 I
1 1 had ilth Mr. Williams and Mr. William's 2 inspectors, conversations wich construction, i
i 3 conversations with engineering, inspector j 4 interviews I conducted after talking to Mr. Dunham 5 in June.
6 In essence, all the factors lead me to
[ 7 believe chat Mr. 'Williams had lost effectiveness I 8 as a supervisor.
I 9 Q. So the Whita Paper Report was a i 10 contributing factor to this judgment, is that .
i 11 righc? l i
12 A. Yes, it was. I wouldn't say it 13 contrauuted any more or any less than anytning 14 else. It waa one of a numoer of factora thac 15 conce.uuced to my decision that Mr. Williams had 16 to se replaced.
17 0 Apart from the supervisory changos that 13 you cade following ene aurvay, as to which the 13 survey results were a contrioucing factor, did uno i
I 20 survey reaults contribute to any other action that i
- l 21 you took outside of this area, outside of the area 22 of supervisory assignments?
I l 23 A. As a result of the survey itself, no, l
24 not c.mc I recali. i!
25 !I Q. Did you pass the survey along to your I . .i I
45351 !
<I 1 supefvisors?
2 A. I discussed generally the results of the 3 survey with my supervisor, Mr. Tolson. I i
4 discussed the supervisory changes I was about to 5 make.
t 6 Past that point, no, sir, I didn't.
~
t 7 Q. Way didn't you pass the entire survey l I 8 along to others in your chain of command?
i 9 A. It was a report that was essentially 10 authored oy myself. The idea was mine or my 11 people's. It was done for my benefit, not done at 12 anyone's direction. And other than passing on the t
13 general resulta of the survey, I didn't feel I had I
i i
14 any oaleJacion to paan the survey on. I 15 J. Did you see any nead to do that? 1 1
1 1Gj .\. iior It was a day-to-day supervisory '
l 17 evalaatton of people I had working for me, core !
i l 18 taan anything else, and what I could try co do to 13 quito frankly make the QC inspector'a job easter
,I y 20 for n m.
2 MR. DOWNSY. The applicant moves that I' 22 Brandt Jxnioita 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 be I 23 ceceivaa in evidence.
i' i
4 2 4l The documents previously marked
,g 25 plant exhibita no, sie 12, 13, ,
u l 4
b
ll .
45352 1 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 for 2 identification were received in 3 evidence.
4 MR. DOWNEY: And the Applicant moves 5 that Brandt Sahibita 15, 16 and 17 be received in j i
6 evidence for the-limited purpose of establishing ;
l 7 tne nature of tne complaints that were brought to I a management's attention by QC inspectora and j 9 managements response to those complaints.
10 The documents previously marked 11 Brandt Exhibit Nummers 15, 16 12 and 17 for identification were 13 received in ovidence limited in 14 acope aa noted anove.
15 (;;hereupon the deposition of Mr. Brandt 16 was adjourned.
l 17 I 18 19 20 ,'
21 I, C. THOMAS BRANDT, have read cue foregoing 22 deposic;on and nereby affix my signature that aama 23 la trua and correct, azcopt as noted herein. !
24 i
25 -
l
, . . , - - ~ _ _ . - - .
45353 8 1 C. THOAAS BRANDT 2
\
! 3 l
l 4 SUBSCRIBED AND S*f 0 RN to before me this the 5;
day of , 1984.
i
- 6' l
t- 7 8 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF TSXAS i
10 11 My commission expires:
12 14
- 15' II 17 !
!' f 18 '
19 l 20 t l
21 -
22 ,
23 '
I 24 25 l I
l I 45354 1 STATE OF TEXAS )
2 COUNTY OF DALLAS )
)
l 4 I, Marigay Black, RPR, Certified Shorthand l
{
l u
l 5 Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do hereby j 6 certify unat enere came before me on the 16th day l l
i t 7 of August, A. D . ,' 1 9 8 4 , at the Glen Rose Motor l i
8 Inn, Glen Rose, Texas, the following named person, '
9 to-wic: C. THOMAS BRA!DT, who was by me duly sworn 10 to cas:tfy the truth and nothing out the truth of 11 hia knowledge touching and concerning the matters -
l 12 in conceoversy in this causes and that he was 13 caereupon examined upon nis oata and his 1 14 ansa 4 nation reduced to writing; same to be aworn 15 to and aabacribed by said witness before any ,
1G Neca:) ?ublic.
17, 13 : furtaer certify enat I am neither actorney 19 or counael for, nor reisted to or employed by, any I 20 of the parties to the action in waich thia -
21 depoci:1on la taken, and further that I am not a '
22 reAattia or employee of any attorney or counsel '
23 empaos2. oy the partion noroto, or financially
} l 24 incocua.2d in tne action.
)
i 1 25 I
l
45355 !
1 In witness whereof, I havs hereunto set my l l
2 hand and affixed my seal tais 16tn day of August, l 3 A.D., 1984. -
4 .
5 License Expires:
6 December 31, 1984 CSR No. 351
- R 7 MARIGAY BLACK, RPR, CSR ;
IN AND FOR TSB STATE OF TEXAS a 1226 Commerce, Suite 411
, Dallas, Tazas 75202 l 9 (214) 742-3035 l t 10 11 l
l
! 12 f 13 I 14 15 l 15 .
l 17 i 19
- l. 20 l
21 !
~
l
- 22 i
i 23 24 *
. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ____ _. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .._ .- L
. .2 __ _
-3 - . ...
I I
I. e l I I
~
'l DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE 1979 SURVEY OF QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTORS AT COMANCHE PEAK I
i I :
ll I
I '
i . .
I I
2
. TABLE OF CONTENTS:
TAB 1: Testimony of Antonio Vega, July 9, 1984, Transcript Pages 36,609 - 36,619 I
TAB 2: Testimony of Antonio Vega, August 17, 1984, Transcript Pages 36,730 - 36,738 C
TAB 3: Testimony of Gordon Purdy, July 10, 1984, l Transcript Pages 41,066 - 41,069 TAB 4: Testimony of Gordon Purdy, August 16, 1984, t Transcript Pages 41,386 - 41,390 TAB 5: Testimony of Ronald Tolson, July 10, 1984, Transcript Pages 40,511 - 40,516 and 40,612 -
40,637 TAB 6:
I Testimony of Ronald Tolson, July 13, 1984, Transcript Pages 51,022 - 51,031 r
TAB 7: Testimony of David Chapman, July 9, 1984, Transcript Pages 35,612 - 35,635 and 35,643 -
35,673 TAB 8: Testimony of David Chapman, August 2, 1984, Transcript Pages 76,530 - 76,534,76-566 -
76,574 and 76,592 - 76,599 I
TAB 8: Testimony of Debra Anderson, Susan Spencer, and Albert
', Borea, July 31, 1984 Transcript Pages 72,500 - 72,681 l
l o
i*
h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA F '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
In the matter of:
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al- Docket No. 5 0-445 50-446 L (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2)
I I
Deposition of: Antonio Vega
)
Location: Glen Rose, Texas Pages: 36,500 - 36,659 Date- tionday, July 9,1984 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES Court Reporters g/] h } ) h(f /f)3L I ,
1625 I suser. N.W.Smee 1006 Westsagnos. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 -
36,609
.s E ~,
I question has been asked and answered, then it's asked 2 and answered.
3 BT MR. ROISMAN: -
4 Q Mr. Vega, in 1979 you were a member of a 5 management review board that conducted or supervised
.6 and conducted interviews of s'ite QC inspecrors. Do you 7
remember that? Other members on the board were Mr.
8 Boron, Ms. Anderson, Mr. Moore, Mr. Purdy, Ms. Spencer.
9 and Mr. Valdez.
10 A I remember that.
I r-11 12 Q Do you remember how it happened that this TUGCO QA management review board was established and how
., 13 you happened to be on it? ,
14 A Tes, I remember the discussions leading up to 15 this item. I remember that there were discussions in lo house. I believe these discussions were primarily between 17 Mr. Tolson, Mr. Chapman, myself, Mr. Boron.
18 We wanted to take the initiative and go see 19 how things were going with the quality assurance progfam 20 at Comanche Peak t 21 As I mentioned to you earlier, we do this a 22 lot. If Mr. Tolson feels uncomfortable *with any a'rea in 23 his organization, he asks for a management audit. " Hey, 24 I don't feel comfortable here. I'd appreciate it if you'd 25 come in and look at it and tell me if I have a problem."
36,610 I . .s I
i This is' exactly the same spirit. This is 2 exactly the same context in which this whole activity was 3 done. We did it of our own init.iative. We wanted to see 4 how effsetive our program was at the site, and so we did 5 this study.
E' 6 Q Is it your testimony that there were no 7 particular events or series of events that gave you reaso 8 to believe that there was a problem, or that you were 9 doing this merely because you wanted to assure yourstives
. 10 that there wasn't, rather than that you had reason to it believe that there was?
12 A That is correct. To the best of my recollect:
13 I cannot remember any incident that brought about this 14 thing. Rather, it was an initiative on our part.
15 Q In the final report on the interviews which wa to done, were you a co-author of that final report?
17 A We handled different areas individually.
18 Some of us would incarview, say*, electrical inspectors.
i, Others would review -- would interview civil; others .
20 procurement. peop.la.
21 Then we would get together at the end of t h'a t
22 day -- excuse me -- to see whether there was any answers 23 that were rep e cit f.ve for the purposes of highlighting 24 chose answers.
25 Different members of the team assumed
'M
36,611 s
primary responsibility for authoring different elements I
1 2 of that. We all concu,rred with that, signed the 3 different elements of the report.
4 Q But, in other words, only the ones that you 5 have primary responsibility for would be the ones in I
which you really had personal' knowledge of the informa-I 6 7
tion that was contained in there?
8 A Not personal knowledge, but rather I had 9
information as to what had been said by the inspectors.
to Q On the ones that you'had responsibility for.
Ig 11 12 were you conducting the interviews?
A Yes, I was.
13 Q It wasn't the people working for you? You 14 were doing the interviewing yourself?
I. 15 A I was doing the interviewing myself.
16 Q So the information that's contained in this 17 document reflects what it was that the person doing the 18 interview actually heard the QC inspector that they were 19 interviewing say?
- 20 A That's correct.
21 Q I notice that when these documents were 22 produced in discovery -- and I'm talking about tho' 23 interviews themselves -- they're all identified A, B, 24 C, D, with numbers as opposed to individual names.
25 Can you tell me why was that procedure used l .
sp
36,612 Im 1
and was that the way the reports were actually written 2 up originally, or did ,they include the names originally?
3 A No. We want,ed to gc.c as much input as we 4 could get., We wanted to make sure that the inspectors 5 understood that we were not after names; we were not 6 We wanted infdraation.
I 7 after titles.
We couldn't care less whether it was this 8 person or that.persou.' What we wanted was feedback.
9 When people went in there, we cold them that we had a key; cliere was only one copy of that key; and
- 10 If that their identification -- if you want to call it that 11 12 would be safe: guarded because the questionnaires would 13 only have a certain prefix and a number.
14 It was for that purpose that this code was 15 generated.
16 Q So the originals had the code on them to 17 start with is what you're telling me. There never was a la questionnaire that had the person's actual name vricten 19 on it? -
20 A There never was a quasionnaire that had a 21 person's name written on it. Absolutely not.
22 Q Why did you do that? -
23 A We wanted to promote as free of an exchange 24 of information as possible without anybody knowing who I 25 said what.
.m 36,613 l
1 Q Why should anybody have been concerned about 2 who said what?
3 A Well, I don't know o.f any reason why anybody 4
should be . concerned. But there are people that don't 5 like to sign their names to different things. I mean, l 6 this can be a suggestion or a' letter to an editor or I 7 whatever.
8 People are'at times reluctant to identify 9 themselves. If you divorce the entire process from names 10 and persons, and you promote -- you concentrace your 11 effor'ta on a free and confidential exchange of information
(
12 we felt that it would help for t freer communication.
s 13 It was our opinion as members of the group --
14 nobody told us to do it. We just thought it would be a 15 good idea.
16 Did you ask the people whether they would I 17 Q
mind if their names were used; or did you assume that 18 they would not want it used, and just used your system 19 for all of it? -
20 A 'We didn't want to use names. That was our 21 ' decision.
I 22 Q We never even asked them.
Did you have any sense -- You describe it 23 as almost a natural, somewhat universal, although not 24 total, universal feeling. What is your opinion as to l
,g 25 why such a feeling would exist, why these people would in v ,
l .
36,61-I .m I I any way give you different answers'if they knew chair 2
names were going to go,on'the questionnaire?
3 A I'm not saying that .they would give me 4
different' answers if their names were on the questionnair 5
We just wanted to eliminate the subject in the first plac g 6 Q When the reports' vere completed -- the 7 summaries that were done, to which all of the members 6
put their signatures -- did you continue to have any 9 involvement with regard to the review of the TUGC0 10 management review board summaries or implementation of I- .
11 any actions that may have been taken or not taken in light
. 12 of them; or were you now through?
t 13 A Well we were pretty well through. We 14 generated the reports. We turned them over to management.
15 I remember we made some presentations.
16 After that we did not get involved in it. .
17 It was pretty much we were through with our involvement.
I 18 Q What was your position in the company at the 19 time that you were on this TUGC0 QC management review - .
20 board; do you remember?
21 A I was probably Supervisor of Quality 22 Assurance Services at that time, but I don't know for 23 I
sure. '
24 Q I'm sorry, I always have trouble with all of 25 these. Is that the same po'sition that you were holding
36,615 E
1 just before you entered your current position, or was 2 there a change?
3 A It would have been the ame position.
4 Q ', In which of these areas did you do the actual 5 interviewing? Which was your area; do you remember?
I 6 A Mr. Roisman, this' was so long ago. I 7 really couldn't call you for certain. I don't think 8 I could pinpoint something specifically.
9 Q The other people who were on there, as I 10 understand it, if your recollection is correct that you were in fact involved in the job which was essentially I
11
, 12 the same as the job you held just before your present N.-
13 one -- all these QC people were people whose work was 14 in one way or another subject to your review; is that 15 correct?
16 A Certainly.
r 17 Q So there was no one area in which you could 18 particularly go and talk to people who you wouldn't 19 know who the person was that you were talking to? -
20 You knew them and they knew you at least by name, if 21 nothing else.
22 No, not at all.
A Not at all. These are l 23 1 inspectors. I come in and we look at programs. We 24 look at documentation. We talk to people, but we're l 25 not based at Comanche Peak.
- \
36,616 I"- ..,
i 1
Q That was true of all the other people on the 2 management review boar.d at that time? .
3 A Everybody on that list was officing and 4 reporting off site.
5 MR. WATKINS: Could we taka a real short
(
- 6 recess?
7 MR. ROISMAN: Sure.
8 (Short rec'ess.)
9 - . .
. 10 11 12
{
4 l' . . is 15 q
I a 17 19 .
I r 20 '
21 22 23 24
- g. .
l .
36,617
/ ,,
age 10-1 I MR. ROISMAN: We are back on the record.
2 BY MR. ROISMAN: .
3 Q When you did the Management Review Board 4
work in 1979, in your judgment, did the summary produce 3
any things that surprised you? Were there any things 6
I 7 that you found that were better than you expected, worse than you expected, different than you had expected, a
compared to when you were going in and getting ready to
+
start it? Did you have any surprises?
10 A Gosh, you are asking me to go back five Il years.
12 (J (Pause.)
~
13 I really don't remember what I expected.
Id Q Is it hard for you at this point to have a 15 very clear memory even of what it was that was concluded?
16 A I remember some of the things that came out 17 that we addressed, that stick in my mind. But other than '
18 that, my recollection of this whole thing is very vague.
I' Q If such a review were conducted today,
- a, 20
, management review, I assume it would be one in which you 21 I 22 would not be involved because now you are at the site, and it would be your, if ycit will, work force that was the 23 subject of the review. But if such a one were conducted 24 today, can you think of anything that would be done 25 differently in terms of doing that review chan the way
. O l _
,e--,.
36,618
^ -
I mgc 10-2 it was done before?
2 MR. MIZUNO: Objection. Wiay is that 3
relevant, if one was to be conducted today?
. MR. ROISMAN: Well, I think it's appropriate 5
to ask the hypothetical question based upon seeking to i
6 determine whether, in the witness' judgment, conditions 7
or e. vents at the plant have changed in such a way that thi 8
kind of a review would[be done differently and then to pro that.
And if he does not believe that it has changed, thaf
- 10 is also relevant because --
(
II MR. MIZUNO: But it is not established that 12 he, in fact --
the Applicants have determined that one i.
I3 would be -- a review board of this type would be necessar l'
now or desirab 'le.
15 MR. ROISMAN: That's true. The only people 16 vho have made that decision is the NRC Staff.
II 7 ,
MR. MIZUNO: And so therefore I don't 18 believe that it's -- since the Staff has required it or I'
s because the Applicants have not done this of their own" 20 volition, that any questions regarding this would be 21 3p,julative and not relevant.
22 MR. WATKINS: We endorse that objection and 23 would add that if you would like Mr. Vega to speculate, 24 so long as we identify his answer as speculation, --
25 MR. ROISMAN: It's not important enough. I
.(
e
-r-36,619 I
mge 10-3 will drop the question.
2 BY MR. ROISMAN:
3 Q Mr. Vega, are you fdmiliar with a document entitled CPSES Policy Regarding Investigation and I t 5
Reporting of Quality Matters Related to Nuclear Safety?
6 Does that document ring a bell with you, dated sometime 7
around the end of 19837 -
8 A (No response.)
Q It's CPSES Policy Regarding Investigation and 10 Reporting of Quality Matters Related to Nuclear Safety.
U MR. MIZUNO: Is this a document which the 12 f
k.. Intervenors have in their possession?
- I3 MR. ROISMAN.: I don't have it, but I believe I#
that counsel in one of the other rooms has it, the one 15 copy.
16 MR. MIZUNO: The same objection as far as II
, providing it.
18 THE WITNESS: CPSES Policy Regarding Investigation and Reporting of Quality Matters Regarding... ~
20 MR.*ROISMAN: -- Related to Nuclear Safety.
21
- THE WITNESS
- - May I ask if there is a 22 procedure number associated with this?
23 MR. ROISMAN: I have no such designation.
24 If it is not familiar to you, just tell me no, and we will
~
1 25 t
J just go on.
,m -
.j
36ut I
I'
-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMNISSION 2 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD
~
3 IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
4 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) COCKET HOS.
) 50-445 5 ) 50-446 (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM )
6 ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS )
1 AND 2) ,
)
9 10 PREFILED TESTIMONY OF 11 ANTONIO VEGA I 12 AUGUST 17, 1984 10 14 15 16 17 PREFILED ' TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO VECA, taken on the 18 17th day of August, 1934, in the above-styled and .
m 19 numbered cause, at Glen Rose Motor Inn located at 20 Fighway 67 & FM Hoad 201, in the City of Glen Rose, 21 County of Somervell and State of Texas, before Janet I 22 E. Schaffer, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and 23 for the State of Texas.
24 .
25 ' ' '
M- l apnc, ~ ' m ' ': .i. t
367 1 the total package --
all of the instruments that are s
2 used to evaluate inspector force within which tha 3 ROF has taken place. l 4 Q. Are you satisfied that the ROF system has 5 heen followed in every case?
6 A. Yes, it has been.
7 Q. Mr. Vega, did you participate as an C
C interviewer in tha 1979 survey of the QC personnel 9 at Comanche Peak?
10 A. Yes, I'did.
11 Q. And what was the nature of your 12 parcicipation?
13 A. I was involved in formulating t r. e interview 14 plan, and I participated in the interviews 15 themselves. I participated in drafting the I 16 summaries and participated in some followup actions.
17 Q. With respect to the interviews themselves, 18 I 19 what instructions did you receive or did you give to people when you conducted those interviews?
20 A. The instructions were really incorporated 21 '
in the forms that we had prepared. And the way we 22 did this, our objective was to obtain as much input i
i 23 as we could from the inspectors to assess their 24 working environment, the adequacy of their
~
25 procedures, the-interface with the different
)
3673 1 organizations on site, how they perceived their 2 management. And so we formulated a list of l 3 questions that we would ask of each inspector. l 1
4 he agreed that we were after as much !
5 information as possible. he agreed that we would 6 not be out there to defend anything that was being 7 done. We were there meraly to ask questions, to 7
8 receive the information. There was absolutely no 9 intent to verify the information, and so i 10 consequently, we accepted hearsay together with 11 firsthand information with absolutely no effort to 12 differentiate between it.
I 13 Q. Is'it fair to say that the effort was to 14 get the greatest possible expression of concern with 15 the QC inspectors?
16 A. Yes. We wanted to formulate or come up 17 with as broad a data base as we could on the 18 relev:nt quastions.
19 Q. After che 1979 survey was completed, was 20 there any followup from the Dallas QA group on that 21 survey?
22 A. Yes, there was.
23 Q. And what was the nature of that followup? :
24 A. We took some of the key corrective actions (i 25 that had been agreed upon in different areas and i
267:
1 came' back and assessed the effectiveness of those 2 corrective actions in addressing the itets 3 identified.
4 C. And who decided to conduct this fallowup? '
5 A. I don't remember the detailed discussions.
6 I'm sure it was a combination of Mr. Chapman, myself, 7 Mrs. Anderson, p e r h'a p s Mr. Borne' , although I really 8 don't remember the discussions that led up to the 9 followup. I really don't.
10 C. Nhat actually was done in the followup 11 audit?
12 A. Again, us took the key corrective actions 13 and assessac the level of implementacion and the 14 effectiveness in addressing the problems that were 15 identified.
I 16 Q. I guess I asked the wrong question.
17 How did you do that, Mr. Vega?
18 A. Okay. We did that by primarily talking to 19 people from the organizations within which the 20 corrective action was applicable. And what I mean 21 by that is if we were verifying the effectiveness of 22 a revised procedure -- and taking an example, 23 Procedure 6.9 -- we would talk to inspectors working t
I '
24 to th'a t procedure. We certainly wouldn't talk to 25 people from an administrative organization to see
367:
I 1 how that procedure was working. We would talk with 2 epeople that worked in the organizations wherein that 3 corrective action was being implemented.
4 Q. Was this the second round of inspector 5 interviews?
6 A. I wouldn't describe it as a second round.
7 It was an assessment on our part to satisfy C
8 ourselves that the corrective actions had been 9 implemented. And if we found that that had not been 10 the case, to tcke followup action from that point on.
11 Q. You actually interviewed inspectors in this 12 process, did you not?
13 A. Oh, yes, we did.
14 Q. Did you participate in those interviews?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. Who else interviewed inspectors in the 17 followup?
18 A. I believe the followup was done by Mrs.
19 Anderson and myself.
20 Q. Did you render a written report at the 21 conclusion of your audit?
22 A. Yes, we did.
23 Q. And, Mr. Vega, I would like you to review a 24 document that's been marked in another deposition in I. o 25 this proceeding as Panel Anderson Exhibit 1 and ask I
E 367 R.
1 you if you can identify it.
2 A. Yes.
I, Panel Andsrson Exhibit 1 is a report 3 of the followup audit --
the followup survey.
4 Yes. This is a report on the followup 5 survey that we conducted.
6 Q. And did your followup survey find that the 7 problems identified in the 1979 survey had been 8 addressed?
9 A. Yes. The significant items had been 10 addressed. And by that, the things that come to i
11 mind was that there was a pay discrepancy between 12 the CC and the craft organizations, and that was &
I 13 major source of problem. And that was ccrrected.
14 The other thing that comes to mind is 15 Procedure CPM 6.9. I believe that this was far and 16 away the most common complaint. And when we came 17 back, that procedure had been revised; it had been 18 implemented. And I remember the inspectors being 13 quito satisfied as to how effective that procedure 20 was.
21 Another thing that I remember is that there 22 were combined training' sessions wherein the craft 23 and the inspectors attended the same training course 24 so t h'a t the inspector would know what the craft had 25 to do and the craft would understand what the I
I 3673 l
1 inspector had to have before he could accept
.m 2 something. This, I think, greatly contributed to 3 the work relationship and the understanding of each 4 other's jobs between the craft and the QC forces.
5 There were some other minor things that had 6 not yet been addressed, and we addressed those.
7 Those were identified. But in general, we found 0
a that the more significant items had been addressed, 9 and we found that the correctiva actions were indeed i 10 effective.
11 Q. Mr. Vega, you cestified that tha craft and 12 the QC personnel attended a common training course; I .
13 is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Mr. Vega, you testified that you 16 participated in the 1979 interview process. Did you 17 perceive, as a result of your participation in these 18 interviews, that harassment and intimidation and 19 threats of Quality control inspectors was a problem 20 at Comanche Peak?
21 A. No, I didn't conclude that it was a problem 22 or a practice. We did come across one incident 23 where a lady inspector had been picked up by the 24 collar by a craft foreman. I remember that that 25 came up during one of the interviews. I remember
367:
I-I 1 talking to Mr. Chapman --
e I think several of us 2 talked to him --
and we brought the inspector in --
3 the inspectress in. She recounted the incident.
I.
4 This thing happened --
the incident had 5 occurred sometime back. Sha did not want the craft 6 person fired. $(
She felt that the er.:p; tar had lWM hf* l 7 changed his attitude after that incident.
8 Apparently, the man recognized that he had done 9 wrong, and he probably also recognized that, had she I 10 w a r, t e d to, sha could have had him fired. But I 11 remember that she was very emphatic in asking that 12 he not be terminated; that as far as she was 13 concerned, it was an ;ce___...
/h64Y --
anc it was an 14 incident that hcppened. There had been no 15 recurrence, and that her relationship with that 16 particular individual was very acceptable.
17 Q. Mr. Vega, was a certain amount of friction 18 between craft and QC revealed as a result of these 19 interviews in 19797 20 A. I believe that some craft people believed 21 that inspectors were inspecting beyond their 22 requirements. I believe that some inspectors 23 believed that the craft people were offering for 24 I._ "
inspection their work before it was really finished.
25 So I believe that there was some suspicion between
3672 I 1 groups.
. 2 Q. hhat corrective action was taken to address 3 that problem?
4 A. I remembered that we suggested that perhaps 5 it might be beneficial if we were to get the 6 inspectors and the craft in a common classroom so 7
- d. ed.
that they both could listen as to what the 12.:p;ct w
?
8 had to have before he offered his work for 9 inspection and so that the craft person would also I 10 hear what the inspector had to have before he could 11 accept something.
12 I remember following this up on a I 13 subsequent inspection, anc I remember that this 14 particular corrective action was successful in 15 getting both groups to understand what ecch other's I 16 responsibilities were and what each other had to do l 17 before each of them could complete their job.
18 Q. When you say you followed up to see if that 19 suggestion had been adopted, are you referring to 20 questions that you pursued in the 1980 followup 21 survey?
22 A. Yes. We certainly did follow up on that 23 point then.
24 Q. And, Mr. Vega, in your followup interviews I....' o 25 did you find that in 1980, that harassment,
3G73 1 intimidation and threats of Quality control 2 inspectors was 1 problem at Comanche Peak?
3 A. No, absolutely not.
4 0. And did you find that the tension that you 5 found in 1979 had changed in any way, the tension 6 between the two groups had changed in any way?
7 A.. I didn't note that there was any residual 3 tension. Ny conclusion was that the working 9 relationship was very much improved, and I felt 10 quite comfortable with it.
11 MR. DOWNEY: No moro questions but at 12' this ticc the applicant moves that Vaga Exhibits I 13 1-10 anc Anderson Fanal Exhibit I he received in 14 evidence.
13 16 17 9
18 19 20 ,
1 21 l l
l 22 23 i t 24 l ~~
"' 25 l
OMacA' .
41,000 l -%,
s 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR R EGU L A-TO RY COMMISSION 2 ,
3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LkCENSING BOARD 4
5
~x In the matter of: :
I 6 . s TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC :
7 r COMPANY, et al. : Docket Nos. 50-445 8
- 0- W (Comanche Peak Steam Electric :
9 Station, Units 1 and 2) :
-x 11 Glen Rose Motor Inn Glen Rose, Texas 13 July 10, 1984
('
i4 0eoosition of: GORDON RAYMOND PURDY 15 called by examination by counsel for the Applicants
,7 taken bef o re Margaret SchraMar, Court Reporter, 18 beginning at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to agreement.
~
19 20 21 22 23 ,
24 25 y;,<, 1 , f -_ , _
%
- v + L1 QQ) fy
. O
l t. 41,066 1 1 issue.
p.
2 G Okay.
3 A I have heard that there was a discussion 4 or conflict between another coatings inspector end some 5 craft -- excuse me. That was Mr. Tom Miller.
6 O He was the inspector or the craft?
7 A He was the inspector.
8 G Uh-huh.
s A Way back in the history of the project f
10 scmewhere, I recall there was a case where an inspector E l
11 was physically intimidated but I do not recall who, when,
. 12 where - the scenario . It preceded my time by a great
(
13 deal, I understand, I would assume.
14 G How did you come to know about that?
15 A Just the recent discussions we have had here.
16 G In preparation for this hearing?
17 A No, wait. I do recall one other period about i 18 that earlier but that was -- that was not while I wasIon 19 site. That was a question of physical intimidation I 20 recall when I -
21 4 Keep your voice up r. little bit, Mr. Purdy.
22 A Surely. -- was up doing an employee survey 23 in 1979.
24 G And you came to understand that there had 5~ ~ ~~been an instance of physical intimidation at that time?
I'.
41,067 1 A. It was not one of the employees or one of i
2 the interviews that I was involved in but I do remember 3 the discussion that we had that evening, that we did
., 4 discuss the topic.
5 4 All right. Now let me show you a document 6 on the -- a rather thick set of documents en the letter 7 of Texas Utilities Generating Company memo, the date of I 8 October 2nd, '79, entitled TUGCO QA Management Review 9
Board Interviews of the Site Electrical QC Personnel.
10 MR. WALKER: Excuse me. Has that been --
11 4 Can you identify that document?
12 MR. WALKER: Has that been marked for identi- !
13 fication?
14 MR. GUILD: It hasn't but I'm going to ask 15 if he can identify it and have it marked if he can.
16 (Paude.)
17 MR. WALKER: I'd like to see that whenever 18 .you're finished.
19 MR. GUILD: Can we just get. the witness to 20 answer the question?
21 BY MR. GUILD: .
22 4 Can you identify that document?
23 A. Yes. It was the summary of reaults of a m
24 personnel evaluation done in a joint effort in-1979 by 25 Texas Utilities and myself and a gentleman from
41,068 I 1 Brown & Root named John Moore.
2 Q. All right. And is that the survey that you 3 had reference to with respect to the-last -- the example 4 that came to mind?
I, 5 A. Yes,. sir. Yes, sir.
6 MR. GUILD: Counse1, let's mark this. We 7 tried to solve the logistical a little bit last name.
8 Mark it by room number. What room number are we in here?
9 MR. WALKER: 42.
10 MR. GUILD: How about -- shall we call it 11 "42-1"? Or do we want to identify it as an Intervenor 12 exhibit?
13 MR. WALKER: Well, why don't you call it 14 Purdy 1.
15 MR. GUILD: Right. Let's call it "Purdy 16 42-1," please. And if we can mark .it that way, we 17 would offer that as an exhibit in evidence. -
18 (The document above referred 19 was marked Purdy Rm 42-l 20 for identification, and 21 same is attached hereto.) !
22 23 (Go on to the next page--------------------------------)
1
I
~
NR3-1 41,069
- 1 MR. WALKER: Do you have'something with 2 which we could bind this? We have.a lot of loose 3 pages here.
4 MR. GUILD: Well let's go off 'the record a 5 second, okay? - l C
6 (Discussion off the record.)
7 . BY MR. GUILD:
8 Q Now have we gone through to the point where 9 I'd asked you to identify major problems in the craft to quality assurance interface? And you've given me some 11 examples that had come to mind. The last one was one 12 that came to your attention during the '79 survey work 13 that you were '.nvo lve d in. Are there others that come I._ 14 to mind before we leave that subject?
15 A I don't recall any other interactions 16 between craft and QC, that I can recall. I would like 17 to repeat, however, that " major" is not necessarily the 18 way that I would characterize those. It did not .
19 impend the quality of the end product, and I believe I 20 most of them were probably addressed properly, at 21 least within the two that I am familiar with.
I ..
22 Q Let's be clear what you're speaking of.
23 I understood your previous testimony to that effect, 24 in part. What are the two that you just had 25 reference to?
v I .
o
4127 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING B ,O A R D 3 IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
4 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) DOCKET NOS.
COMFANY, ET AL ) 50-445 I 5 (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM
)
)
50-446 6 ELECTRIC STATION,, UNITS )
1 AND 2) )
g 7 -
8 9
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF 10 GORDON PURDY I 11 AUGUST 16, 1984 12 13-W 14 15 16 PREFILED TESTIMONY OF GORDON PURDY, taken on-the 17 16th day of August, 1984, in the above-styled and 18 numbered cause, at Glen Rose Motor Inn located at
! 19 Highway 67 & FM Road 201, in the City of Glen Rose, 20 County of Somervell and State of Texas, before Janet 21 E. Schaffer, a certified Shorthand Reporter-in and i 22 for the State of Texas.
23 l 24 v
25 %~ssa ,
413E Br 1 A. Yes, sir, I do.
2 Q. Mr. Purdy, were you, in 1979, called upon 3 to participate in a survey of QC personnel at 4 Comanche Peak?
5 A. Yes, sir, I was.
6 Q. How did you come to participate in that 7 survey?
C 8 A. I was requested to participate in the 9 survey by Texas Utilities through the corporate 10 office, at which time I was serving as the corporate 3
11 Quality Engineering manager.
12 Q. And what was the nature of your assignment?
13 A. The assignment that I had with another 14 associate in the corporate office, Mr. Jon Moore, 15 was to assist the owner in conducting an interview 16 with all QA/QC personnel at Comanche Peak Steam 17 Electric Station, the purpose of which was to try to 18 .
obtain from those personnel any problems tnat they 19 had, real or perceived.
s 20 Q. Is it fair to say your assignment was to 21 extract from the personnel any complaints they had 22 at all? 4 23 A. That's correct. ,
E 24 c'. ' And did you participate --
this was through
~
25 interview process; is that right?
E y
1
.4133' I~ l l
l 1 A. Yes, sir, it was.
2 Q. And approximately how many people did you 3 interview in this effort?
l 4 A. I personally interviewed maybe 15 to 20 5 people. I was involved in the development of the 6 questionnaire that we used as a guideline to try and l 7 elicit problems from the QA/QC personnel, and took C
8 part in the interviews conducted over maybe four to 9 five days. I was then called back to Houston to i
t 10 attend to another problem on a different project. f 11 Q. Mr. Purdy, in your interviews, did you make l
12 any effort to evaluate tho merits of the complaints 7
13 and gripes that were brought out by the inspectors?
14 A. Our overall function was not to provide an 15 analysis of the merits, the substantiation or lack 16 of substantiation of the concerns. If what appeared !
17 to be a major problem occurred, we would continue 1
18 questioning additional personnel to try and obtain 19 additional information. But it was not our 20 c
- esponsibility to eva lua te or to take any action on
^
l l
21 those subjects.
22 Q. Did you limit your inquiries to firsthand 23 knowledge of inspectors?
24 A. No.
~'
25 Q. Mr. Purdy, did you include, in the notes I
4130 1 that you prepared of these interviews, hearsay ~
2 remarks provided by the inspectors?
3 A. he included any remarks provided by the 4 inspectors.
5 Q. In the course of the interviews, did you 6 become aware of an allegation of an inspector or a I ,
L 7 statement of an inspector that a QC person had been 8 threatened with serious bodily injury as a result of 9 inspection on site?
t 10 A. Yes, sir, I did become aware of that.
11 Q. And do you recognize Purdy Exhibit 17 as 12 the notes of the interview with that person?
I i
. 13 A. Yes, sir, I do.
14 Q. Did you make independent inquirlos about 15 this particular allega tion?
16 A. We made inquiries with subsequent persons 17 we interviewed, yes. ,
18 Q. Did you make an effort to substantiate this 19 particular allegation? l 20 A. We made an effort to substantiate it, but 21 we could not find any substantiation for the 22 allegation. ..
23 Q. Did you find any substantiation at all?
24 A. No, not that I recall.
I-~.
25 Q. Mr. Purdy, do you recall the name of the 1
I%
4138 1 person who made the allegations?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Is it your understanding the names of these 4 interviewees is subject to a confidentiality 5 agreement?
6 A. Yes, sir, I do.
7 Q. And did you subsequently learn some C
8 additional information about this individual?
9 A. Yes, sir. That particular individual was Ig 10 subsequently terminated from the project. He had )
l 11 been indicted on a federal charge of mail fraud.
12 I also subsequently learned that in j
,. 13 addition to the federal charges pending against the 14 individual, that he had very professionally
, 15 falsified his application and resume relative to his 16 obtaining an electrical engineering degree and with l 17 respect to professional engineering registration.
18 Q. In fact, wasn't he terminated on two :
19 separate occasions from Comanche Peak, the first 20 , time for falsifying his qualifications and the 21 iI l 22 second time as a conseq,ence of his indictment and arrest for mail fraud?
23 A. Yes, sir, that's correct 24 MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Purdy, that concludes
> 25 my questioning of you on the publ'ic record of this l
1 1
1
4139 1 deposition. I would like to adjourn this portion of m
I 2 your deposition and resume for a very short 3 examination of you about the individual who is the 4 subject matter of the very last part of your 5 testimony.
6 Prior to closing this deposition, however, 7 Applicant moves that Purdy Exhioits 9 through 1G be b
8 received in evidence. Applicant further moves that
. I 9 Purdy Exhibit 17 be received in evidence for the 10 limited pdrpose of establishing the fact of the c
11 utterances recorded in the document, but not for the 12 purpose of establishing the truth of the catters in 13 the document.
14 15 16 17 r 18 19 20 21 22 ,
23 24 -
l
'# 25 o
- i. . _ - .. . - - - . - _ _ - _ . - _ . . _ - _ . - - - - . _ . - - . -
h +Mb b A0,500 I.
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD E 4 -
In the matter of: :
o
(. .
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC :
7 COMPANY, et al. : Docket Nos. 50-445 g : 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric :
I, 9 Station, Units 1 and 2) :
_-x to Glen Rose Motor Inn 12 Glen Rose, Texas 13 July 10, 1984 14 Deposition of: RONALD D. TOLSON called by examination by counsel for Intervenor 16 17 taken before Suzanne Young Court Reporter, is beginning at 10 : 30 a . m . , pursuant to agreement.
19 ,
20 21
'I l
22 24 I 2$ Q Q c]n G cl '30 D -
l l
1
40,511 I'! e' 1
second. How long did that situation persist before you I 2 finally were able to get transferred from that?
~
. I 3 4
A Q
About late '83 until February of '84, March of When you say late '83, are you alking about 5 November and after?
E 6 A In that approximate time frame.
I 7 Q What do you think the impact of this was on your 8
interpersonal relations, with the people that you had to 9
deal with at the site?
10 A I would say minimal.
11 (Pause.)
12 Q Mr. Tolson, in 1979, there was a review entitled
+
U 13 the TUGC0 QA Management Review Board Review, which was 14 undertaken at the plant site. Are you familiar with that?
15 A Yes, I am.
16 Q Can you tell me what role did you play, with 17 respect to that review?
18 A I had no role to play, with respect to the review 19 What about with respect to the decision to have I 20 Q
such a review?
21 A I participated with Mr. Chapman in that decision.
22 Q Can you tell me why was such a review undertaken?
23 A I was receividg indications from the people who 24 reported to me that, to put it bluntly, there was some unres h 25 among the people. As I recall, NRC had gotten some I- .
-- - - ._. .Q- - , _ ---.n.. -
40,512 "hy21b4 I
m
- 1 indications of what they chose to call a morale problem, or 2 a potential morale problem. And one way to attempt to come 3
to grips with factual information.is to have a group of 4
people that'are not part of the line supervisory chain sic 5 and calmly extract, from the minds of the individuals, C 6 information that will permit you to attempt to come to grips l I
7 with the problem and its solution.
8 Q Did you, at the time that you and Mr. Chapman 9
discussed a major decision about having the review board, di' 10 you have any specific incidents that you were made aware of, 11 that would have caused you to feel that having such a review I - 12 was warranted?
13 A The only thing that comes to mind, Mr. Roisman, 14 is some personal cbservations. Perhaps higher than what.I 15 would consider to be normal attrition rate of key individual 16 that I felt were required to successfully accomplish the 17 assignment that I had.
18 Q Which individuals, who were reporting to you were 19 the source of the concerns about unrest at the plant site.
I ,.
20 In other words, who commmunicated that to you, other than th.
21 NRC7 22 A Basically, three people, David Deviney ---
23 Q Could you spell it, please?
- 2. .A
,0 D-e-,-1-s-s-7.
25 Q okay.
. .J .. ---. -- - - - - - - - -
R -
40,513 i 21b5
,N
'. 2
. 1 A Ron Fleck, Jim Hawkins, and the fourth one I 2 just thought of, Jim Ainsworth, A-I-N-S-W-0-R-T-E.
3 Q And where did these people fit in the chart 4 of people on the site? For instance, for whom were they 5 working in the sd.te program?
C 6 A Tou mean which company?
7 Q No, well, I guess which company and were they 8 directly reporting to you or were they several levels down 9 below that? (
j 10 A They directly reported to me.
11 Q And what were their positions?
12 A It goes back too many years.
i 13 Q All we are asking is whatever is your best 14 recollection. And if you're speculating, don't do it. Just 15 tell me what you can remember.
16 A Mr. Hawk-ins probably carried the title that we !
, 17 have labeled Produce Assurance Supervisor. Mr. Fleck was 18 Civil Inspection Supervisor. Mr. Deviney, wiko was a TUGCO 19 employee, worked directly with Mr. Hawkins.
I 20 Ainsworth was-Quality Engineering Supervisor.
And Mr. -
21 Q At that time, had you not had any reports from 22 so-called line employees? That is, particular people who 23 work in the QC/QA work itself, below these supervisory 24 lev'el people, who would come to you with any of these proble h 25 A I don't recall it.
O
40,514 l sy b6 .
Iw 1 Q Now what role did you play in the process of 2
deciding to have the Management Review Board put together, I 3 4
vis-a-vis Mr. Chapman? Was it a joint decision?
recommendation to him and his final decision?
Was it yot How did that 5 happen?
I 6 A I have-to speculate a little bit, but what I I 7 seem to recall having happened is that possible Mr. Vega, ;
8 Mr. Boren, and myself -- maybe with or without Mr. Chapman -
9 were talkingnabout ways to attempt to come to grips. Mr.
10 Boren suggested the idea of an interview process. The 11 three of us liked that idea and recommended the program to f^. 12 Mr. Chapman.
Q)
I 13 Q You said you had to speculate some. I just want 14 to make sure, so that we are clear what part you are 15 speculating about. Are ycu pretty clear that it was you 16 and Mr. Boren and Mr. Vega who met and then made the 17 recommendation to Mr. Chapman?
18 A i
I won't say met. I know that Boren and I 19 discussed it and I believe that Mr. Vega was involved, tut I .
20 I can't recall.
21 Q Who designed the interview process? Who decided 22 what the questionaire would look like and how the questions i 23 would be asked, and who would do the asking, and the Ih dec'ision to use coded interview forms, and so forth? Where 24 25 was that decision made?
l
- ~ - -
40,515 sy21b7 -
B O., .
1 A I'm not certain. The team leader was Mr. Boren 2 and I would presume that those details.were worked out by h.
3 Q And were you not part of that process at all?
4 A That's correct.
I I 5 Q -
Was that by design? Was it intended that you not 6 be part of that process?
7 A That's correct?
E '
,e Q Were you advised of how they were going to go 9 about doing the review before they actually implemented it?
10 A I believe so.
L -
11 ,
Q And did.you have any comments to make to them.
.. 12 about what they were proposing to do?
b '13 A Not that I recall. .
14 Q Did you feel that, when you heard what they were :
15 going to do, that it was the right way to do it?
7 16 A fes, I did.
., 17 Q. In your judgment, knowing what you knew about the 18 possible problem, why do you feel that doing the k'ey system 19 for the interviews -- that is, that the names of the I 20 individuals interviewed would oc.-
be disclosed -- why did 21 you feel that that was a hard ".stg to do?
22 A I didn't harticipate in that, one way or the othe 23 Q So while you didn't -- you not only didn't pass 24 on'it, but you didn't have an opinion about that p a r t L'..u l a r L
h 25 part of it?
b
40,516 y21b8
_.- 1 A That's correct.
2 Q Did you and Mr. Chapman lay down any deadlines I 3 4
for when that review process should be completed and when you wanted"to see some results fron it?
5 A I don't, recall any. l I and2 6 I 7 9
10 11
,~ 12 0 13 14 I 15 t
I7 18 I
! 19 .
l 20
~
21
~
22 23 24 I
25 l '
-- - ---n-- e- - -- , ---~e.--mee , - - --w-,,n-s .-a----n - - + - - - --.--,--,.w-w .,wmwe- s w - ---,w----.,-w-- - - , , - - r
Isyl b4 40,612 1
MR. ROISMAN: Back on the. record.
2 While we were in recess, we clarified something 3 and I will clarify it again for the record. The exhibit 4
marked 45-2,.which is the Lipinsky Memorandum, is not being 5 offered into evidence by CASE. Consistent with what this E
6 counsel understands to be Board policy, we have provided a 7
copy to the Reporter for her to bind with the transcript, b t:
8 it is not being offered into evidence.
9 MR. DOWNEY: Thank you for that clarification.
10 MR. ROISMAN: I would like Mr. Tolson to have 11 before him a copy of Exhibit Purdy 42-1.
12 (Counsel handing document to witness.)
13 BY MR. ROISMAN:
14 Q Mr. Tolson, I would like to direct your attentio 15 and this is the entire document, or at least my version of i 16 is totally unnumbered, so we 'll j us t have to try to struggle 17
, through. But we are going to start with the QC Electrical 18 Group. And the page in question is Management.
t 19 It's three or four pages in, I think. ~
20 r
Do you have that in front of you?
21 A Yes, I do.
22 Q ' And looking at Management, paragraph one,. would 23 you just read that briefly?
24 Can you tell me what specific actions were taken 25 by you, or that you know of, that were taken to respond to c:
40,613 121b5 o
I m.
-s 1 expressed concern, if any?
2 A From memory ,I t'hink I ought to add, at the outt '
3 I took these documents, in following my review, and any 4 questions I had of my staff and firmly in my mind what they 5 were saying and whether or not it had any bearing in realit3 C 6 I met individually with these people, or in groups of five 7 or six.
8 Q I'm sorry. I am now very unclear about who thes t
9 people are.
10 A Electrical is what we're talking about.
11 MR. DOWNEY: You're talking about inspectors, 12 Mr. Tolson?
13 THE WITNESS: Electrical inspectors.
14 BY MR. ROISMAN:
15 Q Go ahead.
16 A And fed back to them, really, an exchange becaus 17 I can take something like paragraph one and I can read that ;
18 to mean sev'eral different things. As an example. I can easi relate to an individual in QC feeling that perhaps parc~of 1
19 I 7' 20 his efforts were expected in training Crafts.
21 I think it's really obvious that if you have a 22 situation where you tell' the Craf t no, your product d'oesn't 23 match in all cases with what the drawing or specifications I 24 25 cal 1~for, that I could mentally picture the guy feeling like I'm training the workman how to do his work.
I d
- _ _______. _ __ - ~ _ . . _ . _. . . _ _ . . . _ , - - _ , - . - _ . . , . _ _ - _-
l Oy121b6 1
0 i Q Tes.
2 A And in that context, what I attempted to do with 1
3 the people was to extract additional input that might give !
1: 4 me a better' feeling for what they're trying to say. I 5 don't recall anything other than what is here and I don't th:
6 I got any disagreement with the logic I just laid here when 7 I talked to the individuals.
'E a I came away feeling like we had a very good !
l '
l
, 9 exchange of information. They had the opportunity to get th 10 particular item off their chest and had the opportunity to 11 philosophise and discuss it. .I personally didn't conceive e 12 as a major issue.
C...'
13 Q Let me ask you something. In tiie context of you-14 meetings with them, after you got back tha tesults of this is report, obviously they and you would know who each other was 16 The anonymity portion of it would now be gone.
, 17 A No, that's not true.
18 Q Well, I'm sorry, let me rephrase it. When you 19 held your meeting with your electrical QC inspectors and you 20 said -- I don't know who said Item I here, under Management, 21 b u't I would like you all to discuss frankly with me your 22 feelings about it.
23 When they discussed them frankly with you, in that give and take, we knew who was then talking about it, I 24 25 .isn't that correct?
O
, , - ~ , - -.-
Isy121b7 '
40,615 59." -
1 A Not necessarily.
2 Q You mean they wei c masked, or you simply didn't I 3 4
know who it was?
A
'I never went into the thing trying to determine 5 who was the guy that said this or who was that. Thar wastt' E
6 the purpose of the meeting.
I 7 Q No, but in th e meeting if someone spoke up and 8 caid Mr. Tolson, I really think that we've got a problem her.
9 with quality not being our real responsibility on the site.
10 Whoever would say that, you would know who said it at that 11 time, not necessarily who said it to the interviewer, but
.., 12 who said it at that time.
13 A I know who said it in that meeting, certainly.
14 Q Well, why do you feel that you were going to get
. 15 frank answers when they knew that you knew who was saying it 16 if you felt that the approach of doing the interviews withou:l
, 17 disclosing who the person was was a good approach in the 18 first place?
19 A Well, I started the sessions by trying to give -!
20 that's probably the first opportunity I had to sit and talk 21 with the individuals and, you know, I had been at the site 22 a couple of years -- you know, a year and a half, two years.
23 And one if the few opportunities that a guy at my level has l 24 to sit in a very calm way and just talk to the people.
25 The introductory portion of the session was I
- 1
5.
T 40,616 M b8
(. . '
. I designed to bring them up to speed on the history of 2
Comanche Peak, where we were at, where I perceived the 3
things we were trying to get, and an at. tempt to set their l
4 minds at ease that I was there as a partner in trying to com 5 to grips with significant issues. At the same time, an item C 6 like,this, I could read it. I read it then and I read it 7
again, that it is a perception as opposed to an issue.
8 Ano ttre r examp le , it is common in the nuclear 9
business for the majority, if not all, paperwork -- i.e.
10 inspection records to be controlled, initiated by QC. It 11 is a natural thing for QC people to do. It =akes a lot of 12 f- .
- ( ,. sense to me. That shouldn't be cons trued as a negative 13 issue, in my judgment. That'a a part of the QC job.
14 And I think when we discussed it with them, in t 15 light, things like this were brought into perspective for th 16 And I never heard any more about it.
r 1
Q Y u did not feel that having the meetings face 18
. to face would, in any way, inhibit them from giving you thei 19 real feelings on any of these subjects? Is that correct?
20 A I didn't feel that going in and I certainly 21 didn't feel it coming out. I thought we had, you know, not 22 everybody, five people in the room at random. We're probabl.
23 going to run 'onto a group where nobody wants to say anything 24 and'you will run onto a group, with a whole group, who has 25 got a heck of a lot to say, none of which is specifically g.. .
o 40,617 I .
I l'C ,
1 associated with what the purpose of the meeting is.
2 And so yoa run that balance of people. But I 3 personally felt very good and I'm glad that I took the effor 4 and time to sit and go back over the details of this with 3 them. And I think they appreciated it.
( 6 Q With respect to this particular item, one 7 identified in management, did y ou f eel that the discussions a that you held with QC electrical inspectors was all -- after L
9 it was done -- was all you needed to do to address that to particular item?
in A' No, well, maybe item number 1.
lI 12 Q Tes, I'm just talking about item L.
5 13 A I don't recall any -- gee, you know, it's been 14 five years ago, Mr. Roisman.
15 Q I understand.
/
16 A And I don't recall, at this point,.anything othet f
17 than just discussion of the problem.
18 Q All right --
19 MR. DOWNEY: Excuse me. I want to be clear,-
I, 20 Mr. Tolson, your answer to Mr. Roisman's questions was limitt 21 strictly to item 1 on the sheet headed Management from the
. 22 Electrical package?
23 THE WITNESS: That's what I understood his Ih
25 MR. ROISMAN: You're correct. That's what it was I .u .
)
40 618 y lb10 i BY MR. ROISMAN:
2 Q Would you turn over two more pages to the last 3 Page of the Electrical package, which is identified nature 4 of problems. And if you would, please, would you read to i
3 yourself, not into the record, paragraph 2 thereof. And ther
(. 6 I want to ask you some questions about that.
7 (Pause.)
gee 12 9
10 11 12 g
O >2 .
14 15
, ,e 17 1
18 19 -
, 20 21
- 22 23 -
2.
g o u
Toleon Tjl 13/1 40,619 I,m 2 I
Q Did you take any steps to address that major 2 problem? ,
3 A Not specifically assocfated with this particular d
issue, but I did communicate to the people the programmatic I I C 5
things that were already in place that were designed to take 6
care.of what I perceived we were talking about here.
7
, Q And this was communicated to them in the same 8
series of meetings that we have j ust been talking about?
9 A Yes.
10 Q In the course of those meetings, did you manage Il to meet with most of your QC electrical inspectors? Was 12 that your intent?
13 A I think I accomplished meeting with all of them.
Id I 15 Q And beyond that meeting, no further actions were taken by you to address this particular concern?
16 A No, that's not true in this case.
n 17 One of the programmatic elements that was .
18 already established in this was -- I will use my words --
19 fairly detailed and sophisticated trend analysis of
- 20 construction deficiencies that are uncovered during the 21 inspection process.
22 One purpose of that is to create an atmosphere 23 coming out of QA to the craft that will cause the craft's 24 abih.ity to construct to design the first time to improve.
O. ..-
25 Okay?
o
Tjl 13/2 IA,. , 2 I
Q Okay.
2 A And that,' in my mind, is w. hat they're saying.
3 The other thing that we' successfully accomplished is a project addressing a second sentence in that paragraph 5 --
is to not give the craft credit for. product.1on goals 0
0 unless they had successfully gone through the inspection 7
process.
8 Q Was that a change that took place subsequent to the 1979 report?
ll 1
10 A It was a thing that we evolved into, as a
' project.
(} ,
12 I3 I am not going to claim specifically, as a result of this report, that's what we did. But I do know that we I#
achieved that goal very shortly after e.his time frame.
15 Q What, if any, specific actions did you take to I*
deal with the portion of paragraph 2 which is essentially II l th'e fourth sentence, sort of a second paragraph under 18 paragraph 2? l I' ~
A Where the little gap is there?
, 20 Q Yes, that's right.
21 A The reference to the phrase "act of violence" was-I 22 given a great amount 'of attention by Mr. Chapman. It's the 23 same incident that we talked about much earlier this morning 24 Q I remember it.
25 A So, I had no reason to take any additional action I
l
\
40,621 '
SYjl 13/3 g,O-i i
- I in that regard. l 2
The thrust of the philosop.hy behind the approach 3
that we've taken is, in my words,'if everybody does what they're supposed to do the correct way the right time, 5
there's no reason for an argument. And that's consistent 0 6 with: what I tried to relate a minute or so ago on the 7
philosophy behind the use of the trend analysis. In my 8
judgment, it works very effectively.
If people are accomplishing their jobs and are to pleased they are accomplishing their jobs, my experience is II that you have very few, if any, arguments.
12
{ 13 Q So, to paraphrase what you're saying and to see if I understand it correctly, one of the ways that you were I#
responding to these express concerns about arguments, hot I II discussions, yelling, name calling, occasional threats 16 between craft and QC, was to do trend analyses that would 17 show -- and to take the results of trend analyses and show I8 that where sub-quality work was being done, that the craft l'
needed to improve what it was doing?
I 20 A I don't like your phrase "sub-quality." It is 21 work that does not compit in all cases what the drawing or 22 specifications as they were conceived by the engineer.
23 Q All right. But your way of responding to that 24 ya,'to -- was to what? Report to the craft people, "You 25 guys are getting a lot of work that we can't pass"?
g,. . .
(
v
~
Syjl 13/4 40,622 3o s I A You deal in the negatives, the work that did not.
1 2 in the first inspection, meet all applicable requirements.
3 Q .Now, was that trending; was that a progran that 4 was in existence before the 1979 management review?
5 A The concept was in place. Memory tells me ~that l
r 6 the implementation of it was probably early 1980, but I'm l 7 really going back a long ways.
8 Q What, if anything, do you know about how the 9 craft would implement this program? That is, when craft to got the word as a result of the trending anclysis that, in a 11 particular class of electrical wiring, that there was an 12 inordinately or inappropriately large number of items being I, 13 rejected by the QC people, what do you know of what craft 14 was doing to try to address that problem?
15 A I can't relate in your wiring situation, because 16 it's a more complex situation. I can recall a specific 17 example -- the numbers are not accurate.
,5 18 For talking purposes, an analysis might indicate 19 that 50 percent of the raceway system associated with ~
20 conduits, that the span and design provides for a given 21 distance between supports.
22 Half of the systems are being rejected, because
. 23 the distance between those supports doesn't match the 24 drawing. And that's very close to being a real case that 25 T.'n trying to talk about. The numbers are off, but the l.. -
I ST 13/5 40,623 E: :
1 concept is there.
2 By simply' pointing that fa,ct out to the crafts ir 3
an informal way in this case, he p~urchased and supplied 4
tapes to his. craft, and his reject rate went almost to zero.
5 Okay.
A very simple fix to what was a significan; 6 6 problem in the minds cf the QC people, because they have to I 7 go back to that particular run of conduit twice.
8 But when the supports were in their right the 9
first time, now they've only got to go one time.
10 Q How did that de'al with the attitude that was 11 being expressed here that when craft found its work being 12 rejected they apparently would express their concern in some 13 way or another by yelling at or having arguments with your 14 people?
I. 15 A I can't relate specifically. I'm not aware of 16 specific examples of hot discussions, yelling, and name 17 calling.
^
18 What I have experienced throughout my life, if 19 I am a craftsman and I am out there believing that I'm "oing I 20 everything right and then a quality control individual comes d
21 behind me and says, "No, you're not doing everything right, 22 I know in the back of my mind that if he is right my boss is 23 going to be a little bit upset with me.
I ^"' ' ' ' " * ' " " " " " " " " "
25 the QC man is not right either, because there's always a I- .
) -
Tjl 13/6 -
40,624 to. I little give and take in terms of who is totally right and 2 who is totally wrong'.
3 In that context, I think that's what the people I;
4 are saying here. My solution to that problem was to attempt 5 to remove what I believed to be the cause, which is work tha l 0 3 doesn't meet the requirements.
.I 7
And by doing it, then all this talk about u 8 arguments, hot discussions, et cetera no longer exists.
" 9 Q I take it it might still exist in those instances to where the craft still didn't do its work right.
11 A ,
I'm not aware of it. I think we were very 12 effective with our overall approach in managing the human 0 13 relationships between the craft and the QC.
14 Q What I'm trying to understand is -- I understand 15 that you're saying that if craft doesn't make any mistakes, to assuming that QC is not making any mistakes in calling what 17 are mistakes, that the number of times in which the craft 18 person will be called for having made a mistake by QC will 19 go down. And the example that you gave is illustrative of 20 that. .
21 But the quescion still remains: What about those 22 instances in which the craft does make a mistake and the QC 23 man shows up and starts tc write whatever, write the NCR or 24 the IR, whatever it is that's appropriate to the circumstanc h 25 What.is it in this process that you done. to reduc,
t 3
I 40,625 ,
1 or prevent the QC person from feeling that they were being 2
threatened, or even'from being -- for,.having hot discussion:
3 yelling and name-calling as a resu'it of that?
4 MR. DOWNEY: I'm going to object to that, 5 Mr. Roisman.
b 6 iou asked Mr. Tolson intially what it was he I .
7 did to respond to this item in the report. He gave you an 8 example of something he did.
c 9 You are now asking him -- you've gone away from to the report, and you're asking him how -- I will withdraw 11 that.
12 He also testified that he didn't have personal 13 knowledge of any such incidents that you described in this 14 report. And now you're asking him how -- in essence, what I, 15 he did in response to this and took care of a different 16 situation entirely.
17 l s Why don't you ask him if he did anything else in 18 response to this?
19 MR. ROISMAN:
( Because I am asking the quest 1*ons 20 and I think the question I asked is perfectly proper. I jur l -
21 22 asked him to explain to me, in his own words, what actions he took and how it would relate. He has given me answers
. - .c.
23 that don't, on their face, inalactably explain how it ;
24 addresses the problem when QC and craf t still have a h 25 disagreement.
Tjl 13/8 40,626 O
- 1 What did he do to make sure that craft would not I 2 engage or reduce che' hot discussions... yelling, name-calling, 3
occasional threats when they were being told they had done 4
something wrong?
5 And I still want to know the answer to that. And r'
6 I feel so comfortable with my question I'm going to ask the 7
reporter to. read it back again and ask the witness to answer 8 it, please.
o 9
(The reporter read the record as requested.)
10 MR. MIZUNO: Staff feels comfortable that it's a Il legitimate question.
12 MR. DOWNEY: I still feel uncomfortable with the 13 question.
14 First, I think it is incomprehensible.
13 Second, I think it's objectionable on the basis 16 that I stated.
17 And third, there is nothing in the major problem 18 area to indicate that anyone felt threatened in the electric 19
- area.
20 BY MR. ROISMAN:
21 Q Mr. Tolson 22 -
MR. DOWNEY: Do.you understand the question, 23 Mr. Tolson?
24 THE WITNESS: Not really, but I'll try to answer h 25 Lc,
?- --. --
STjl 13/9 I .40,627 ln'z 1 I perceive what you are asking. What we ended ;
2 up doing and the problem I have is th,at I'm not sure that 3
I necessarily did it, but.the key ' managers at the site, as 4
long as I have been associated with Comanche Peak -- and th:
5 includes the first day that we broke grounds -- have L 6 diligently tried to avoid leaving an atmosphere c' at creates 7 hostility between craf,e and QC.
8 Now, that is no* samething that you issue a U 9 single edict; that's something you work on every da~. That' 10 a human relationship thing.
11 I still come back to the long-range fix, which 12 has been effective. It's for everyone to work and do the jo 13 right the first time.
14 BY MR. ROISMAN:
15 Q Did the actions that you took, which is something to that you said you don't do, ones you just do every day, ones 17 you do every day, did it involve any specific newly adopted 18 procedures, newly issued statements to the personnel, newly 19 implenented training programs, or anything like that? "
20 A I can't associate the phrase " newly" with any of 21 that, because again, it is sonething that I have seen ever 22 since I've been involved with Comanche Peak, which is almost 23 10 years.
24 And an attitude on the part of management to not l b , 25 permit a situation like this to develop and get out of n.
~ ~
SYj l 13 /10 40,62 _8 I-0 I control, that does not mean that me and John Merritt on 2
occasion may not violently disagree on.a philosophical point.
3 or on how we ought to approach joiticly getting our job done.
4 But from a generic standpoint, we have worked diligently at 5
that. That is our j ob.
l .'i 6 MR. ROISMAN: Could we go off the record?
Ind13 7 (Discussion off the record.)
8
.i 9
10 11 12 0 13 14 15 16
,17 18 19 -
20 21 g
22 .
23 .
24 h 25 II.I.:.- .
. . . . _ _ _ _ . -_ . - _ _ _ _ . . . . .. ..._..m ..
~~
40.629 l sy141b1 !
1
-g.O. i au4s2 1 M2. ROISMAN: Back on the record.
2 In looking at this exhibit 42-1, this appears 3 to be not one, but actually a whole series of documents 4 issued, some,on the same day and some on other days. Is 5 that correct, Mr. Tolson?
O 6 BY MR. ROISMAN:
7 Q It wasn't one document, but actually a group of 8 documents?
9 A As they completed the interview process with to a given discipline, then they summarized the results and 11 issued a memo -- not a memo, yes it is. They issued a speci 12 memo recording the results of their inte.rviews with each
. C_
13 discipline.
14 Q Now to the best of your knowledge, was there 15 ever, beyond this summary, was there ever any effort to writ 16 a report that either reflected some judgment as to the 17 totality of what this interview process found or that 1 j
18 reflected the totality of the actions that were taken in 19 response to what the interview process found? -
\
20 A I issued a summary response to this entire 21 report, to Mr. Chapman. And I use the word summary to mean 22 a relatively brief overview of what I accomplished. In 23 addition to that, I believe that the corporate auditor 24 evalucced that particular response and closed this particula:l h 25 interview process in that way.
l
3 .
Oyl4,syl 40,630 l
IeO I MR. ROISMAN: I don't believe we've ever l 2
seen that; have you seen that? Eich.er the audit report 3
or wha.t Mr. Tolson just testified'to. Does that ring a bell with you as documents you have seen?
3 MR. DOWNET: No, it does not.
0 6
- MR. ROISMAN: Can I ask on the record --
I
. MR. DOWNEY: I have already made a note in 8
the margin that ~ Mr.- Tolson has identified two documents that I have not seen,. and as I committed to you this IO morning, with respect to any documents that we uncover as II a result of these depositions in further searches of more files, we-will make chec available and offer you an 13 opportunity,to examine the witnesses about them.
MR. MIZUNO: The Staff would like to have copie 15 of those two documents, also.
76 MR. DOWNEY: And'I committed to Mr. Treby to 17 make sure that our formal document productions are made 18 available to yo1, also.
I' THE WIIMESS: That's what I think occurred,I 20 but I wouldn't swear to it.
21 MR. ROIT!AN: Okay, I understand. We're just trying to get you to indicate what it is that you think 23 is correct.
BY MR. ROISMAN:
Q The management audit -- I ' cr s o rry , I forget i L .
_ .... .- .--- - .- . . . . . . ---- - - - - - - - - - . -- - -i
~
sy2 40,631 IO 1 I 2 what the phrase was that you referred to.
corporate audit program?
Was it the 3 ~.
A I'. 4 Corporate aud'it group.
Q 'Is that the one that was headed by Mr. Vega?
I 0 A That's correct.
6 8
Q And do you think that there may also then have 7
been some kind of a report that he or his group did 8
responding to or giving their conclusions based upon 9
what you had submitted to Mr. Chapman?
10 A I think so. ,
11 MR. MIZUNO: May I interrupt you to clarify 12 O 13 a=- cat =s2 MR. ROISMAN: Yes.
14 MR. MIZUNO: This report that was done by the 15 corporate audit group, that was their summary of 42-1 I -
16 17 and it was not a summary of the actions which were taken in response to 42-l?
18
, THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I don't understand 19 I
the question. -
20 MR. MIZUNO: Okay. The Q1 Audit Report which I 21 22 you talked about, was that a summary of the Managemen't ~ ^
Review Board interviews?
23 THE WITNESS: That's a detail that I cannot 24 recall.
I(h) 2r MR. MIZUNO: Okay. I have one more question, t*-- - ,- -- r -
v-, --
ll . ;
I 40,632 l10 l
1
(
then. Do you know of any report that was issued which 2
summarized all of the management response actions which 3
- 4 were taken in response to the findings of the Management Review Board?
I THE WITNESS: Other than the brief summary of.
C- 6 my' efforts that I conveyed to Mr. Chapman, I'm not aware 7 .
- o f saything.
8 i
MR. ROISMAN: Let's now curn -- this is near 9
I 10 che end -- to the QC document personnel portion of this report dated Occober 19, 1979, and the next to the last pas 11 of it, which is encicled Morale.
12 BY MR. ROISMAN:
I~( )
Q I would like to direct your attencion to the 14 I 15 paragraph numbered 1. Tell me firs , what is your under-scanding of that identified problem? Eicher what then, 16 17 or what now, do you perceive that to Se identifying?
A I again have memc. y problems on some of the 18 e
specific issues, bur I chink that was what I would 19
- I 20 characterise as a personality conflict between an employee and his supervisor.
I .
21 22 Q You may have gone one step beyond where my I 22 question is directed. Putting aside for a moment what you think its origin was, what did you think it meant --
24 job security is threatened if verbal directions are noe
@ 25 o followed, even if the instructions are contrary to written I..s .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . - ...u.-. ----.. - . . . . . - . - - - -
sy4 40.633 I, O I requirements.
2 A I'm not sure I know, Mr.. Roisman, because 3
chis is an area that it's difficult to come to grips 4
with, because the need for sophisticated, formalized QA 5
program. type documents in this particular area is relatival
( 6 small compared to an inspector's activities, for example.
7
,It's a clerical function to a large degree.
8 And'I'm going to have to carry you back to 9
the personality conflict because I think that is basically 10 what I concluded that this particular statement was 11 addressing.
12 I think the people may have felt that they were
(~/ 13 being told to do something'which in their minds may have 14 been contrary to what they perceive to be the objective of 15 their j obs. But I can't go much beyond that.
16 Q Eow did you go about trying to look into or II do something about that particular item.?
I8 A I think that the particular supervisor either l'
resigned or got reassigned somewhere downstream shortfy
. 20 after this, but I can't recall specifically.
21 Q Was that a coincidence, or was it done in 22 response to the concern expressed here?
23 A I've got to be fairly generic here. If this.
24 in fact, says what it appears to say -- that even though 1 h 25 it's a clerical function, if it is a written procedure I; .
. l
sy5 .
40,5 EC I for the clerical people to follow the instructor or 2
supervisor is telling them to do it.a different way and
~
3 that f.s contrary from the way I chose to run the QA/QC Department -- if the way the supervisor vanced the work 5
accomplished is a proper way, then the proper solution is
( 6 toschange the solution; not to tell people to do things in
,a different way.
Q And so, --
9 s A I'm not sure which way we went. That's what 10 I'm trying to say. But we resolved it along the general lines that I'm trying to convey. .
12 Q On a couple of occasions in the course of the 13 depositions,coday when we've talked about --
I hink when
, we talked about'the problems with the electrical QC 15 inspector, and now here again, you have discussed the 16 either temporary reassignment or transfer -- was that a
' I7 standard way that you had of dealing with problems when I8 you had personnel who were feeling that they were being abused or threatened or being harrassed -- was to t rans f e:
20 or temporarily reassign the people who were causing that 2f difficulty?
22 MR. DOWNEY: Objection. That's not what 2
Mr. Tolson testified. He testified that he considered 24 camparary reassignment for an electrical inspector where 1
h 25 he had reason to believe there was destructive activity on
\ ; -
.s .
. . . _ ~__ ,
.-- .. . .I - N- - - - -
.I>sy6 g,433 Io. .
I the part of that inspector.
2 He testified that in this case, he perceived 3
the personality conflict.between'the supervisor and other 4
members of the organization, and in that particular 5
situation he considered transfer as an alternative. At no C 6 time has he testified that he transferred as a consequence 7
,of what you would call harrassment or intimidation.
8 And in. fact, to the contrary, there has been 9
no instance of harrassment or intimidation established.
10 MR. ROISMAN: Well, wait. This statement he 11 has indicated to me -- he interpreted the personality 12 conflict to encompass the statements made in the interview, 13 or summarized here from the interview, that a person's 14 job security is being threatened.
15 MR. DOWNEY: He didu't tescify to thae ae all.
16 He testified that in reviewing Item 1, he perceived there 17 was a personality conflict between th e two. He did not 18 testify that he perceived that job security was threatened l'
for failure to follow verbal instructions. ~
20 MR. ROISMAN: Let me go back and ask him that, 21 chen.
22 '
BY MR. ROISMANr 23 Q Mr. Tolson, did you make any effort to l
Ih
25 being threatened for the failure to follow verbal
$.g g
._ : . ...- ... . . . . - - ---. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~
l cy7 40,636 I
ps , ,
I directions that that person believed contrary to written 2 requirements? -
3 I don't recall specifically how we approached A
4 that aspect of it. I would almost have to be sitting in 5 the room with clie people and hear someone state that if
( 6 you don't do it my way I'm going to fire you, before I 7
could ever come to grips with something like that.
8 lI '
9 Again .giving due consideration to the fact that this was well over five years ago, my recollection l to is that the individual who expressed this may have I 11 perceived the situation as opposed to actually having been 12 threatened with loss of j ob.
O 13 But that goes back too many years.
14 Q Let's talk about that for just a second.
15 Do you distinguish, for purposes of the seriousness of to the situation, between a situation in whi'h c one of your 17
, inspectors perceives that he's being harrassed or f 18 intimidated versus the situdtion in which an objective l'
observer would, if they had heard the entire incident,I 20 say I think that that person was being harrassed and 21 intimidated? -
22 A I missed the question.
23 Q The question is: Do you perceive a difference 24 Ig 25 in terms of the seriousness of the situation -- between the situation where a QC inspector believ'es that he's g%g .
. .:.-a. - . . ~ - . _-... . . . - - . . - . . - - . . - . . - - - - ---- -
g :. ,
/'
sy8 . 40,637 I .
I being harrassed and intimidated and one in'which an I 2 objective observer'would say' when looking at i t ', that ,
3 person is being harrassed and intimidated?- Does it matter I; d whether the person's perception would be confirmed by an 3 obj ecti ve observer in terms of how serious that kind of 6 an. allegation would be?
f.
I 7 A I think our basic approach would be to creat 8
the perception and.the actual case in the same manner.
and 14 9 10 11 12 I".O 13 14 15 16 1
17 !
18 i
19 -
20 ,
21 22 23 24 Q 25
'J -
UNTTED STATES OF AMERICA I ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e 0"- -
g;
'li-In the matter on I 6 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al Docket No. 50-445 50-446
, (Comanche Peak Steam Electric :
! Station, Units _1 & 2)
~
I
\
l
(
Cepositicn of: Ronald Tolson {
I- .
I.CC2 tion Glen Rose , Texas pages: ,_
51,000-51,*138 Date: Friday, July 13, 1984 o
i I- an +@
vu TAYLOE ASSOCIATES Cus Reporters I ,
1625 I Sarest. N.W. Smac 1004 WeaWa= D.C. 20006
(:02) 3 3-1950
51,022 A6"E I
m not November 8, but the November meeting with Lipinsky 2
that we have been referring to here,, was any further I 3 accion taken by the utility or by yourself with regard to either paragraphs A or B of the Lipinsky memo?
MR. DOWNEY: I object to that on the 6
ground that in at.least one respect Mr. Tolson testified f -7 I 8
,that he had taken action prior to Mr. Lipinsky's preparation of Mr. Lipinsky's memorandum and that is the taking action to address the long work hours that 10 inspectors had been working and your question assumes I 11 that no action was taken rior m receiving that.
12 MR. MIZUNO: Is that it?
I ~' MR. DOWNEY :- That is my obj ec tion.
14 5 I would ask you to rephrase your question.
15 I 16 MR. MIZUNO:
BY MR. MIZUNO:
Okay. I will rephrase it.
17 Q Was any action taken specifically to 18 respond to the Lipinsky memo after the November meeting?
19 .
A No.not that I recall.
20 MR. MIZUNO: That ends my examination at
- 21 this point.
III EXAMINATION 23 '
I 24 Q
BY MR. DOWNEY:
Mr. Tolson, in response to questions a 25 by Mr. Roisman you testified at some length about the !
l
jon10 '
. 5L,023 D
i%
I management review board summaries that you received a 2
and some of the ob'jections you took in response to those 3
summaries. I would like to follow up those questions with a few of my own.
3 Mr. Tolson, did pu form any general I 6' 6
impressior., having read all of the management summaries --
7 review board summaries that came to you?
8 A Yes, I did.
Q What were your general impressions of to those documents?
A Speaking generically in -- whatever one 12 needs to keep in mind as I mentioned in cross by h 14 Mr. Mizuno.
One aspect of the management review 15 board was in direct response to some criticism we had 16 received from region IV in connection with the I 17 la electrical inspection activities. My first effort was to analyze the feedback from that particular group.
B And in that group I formed three general conclusions."
20 The firsc was what-I would like to characterize as a desire and to me the clearly I 22 23 expressed desire on the part of the QC people to be treated as professional people.
24 Connected in that category are things 25 like wage and salary polieis and most specifically
,.g.
.g. .- 1 E .
I jbull 51,024 I
I) what they chose to call start and stop times with their 2
I 3 daily activities. ,
I think there was a tie again with 4
this attitude of trying to feel more professional was 5
that they expressed to me both in writing and verbally 6
subsequently their daily activities shouldn't I- 7
,necessarily coincide with the craft activities.
8 The second major conclusion that I 9
developed was an apparent need to provide more and 10 perhaps stronger supervision.
11 And, thirdly, it seemed very clear that in I .~
12 13 some cases there was a need to provide increased training efforts to compensate for what I perceived to be I(_,. 14 a lack of experience on the part of some people. And 15 in a few cases I had a feeling that possibly there was 16 some con performers in the group.
17 Q Mr. Tolson, did the desire to -- were
. 18 the wage criticisms present in all of the QC summaries 19 that you reviewed?
1 A As I recall, to a certain extent they 21 appeared to be spread out throu-hout tha disciplines.
22 Q So that wasn't limited to the electrical?
- 23
'I 24 A No.
apologize for that.
That was generic across the board. I l
'E -
25 Q What action did you personally take-to MW '
.-y. .._..
51,025 I 1 address that criticism?
I I 1 A My involvement in that was rather limited because Mr. Chapman, who also received these sujmaries, I
I 4 made one of his personal objectives to ensure that both our management as well as Brown & Root's were I I e
aware ofthe criticisms. And so my involvement was 7
, limited. That is something that is above the level in 8
my position in terms of providing corrective actions I' 9 10 relative to wage and salary policy.
Q And following the management and review 11 board interviews was the salary structure overhauled for 12 QC inspectors?
r- 13 I(, 14 A
Q Yes, it was.
In what ways was it changed?
15 I 16 A The key elements were a multi-stage program that as I recall included encrp level I ,
17 18 positions, and then at least four supervisory -- excuse me. Not supervisory, but four inspection levels, 19 A thrugh D, A being the highest, with different .
20 compensation associated with each level, and one or.cwo 21 supervisory or lead positions which carried 22 compensation levels that were slightly different than the 23 -
top category for an inspector.
I. 24 25 In addition to that -- and I am not sure that it all came out'at the same time -- they created G
i 1
l j . 51,026 f,' _. - 1 at he position of QC superintendent which was a 2
I 3 salaried position that would coinci,de with craft super-intendent positions.
4 Q When did this wage structure come into 5
play? When was it put in place?
6 A I.can't pin the date down precisely, but I' 7
,I seem to recall early '80s as being the time frame 8
that it was implemented.
I 9
- 3. '
Q And did this overhaul result in increase 10 of wages to the inspectors?
11 A In some cases, yes. In some cases it I -
12 13 was probably'a horizontal transition. But the opportunity for growth was built into the program.
I(, 14 Q You testified that in the electrical 15 I 16 area the inspectors were concenred about the time they started work and stopped work. Did that criticism carry I
17 over into other disciplines as well?
, 18 :
A Y e ,s , and I think it was more prevalant )
19 in the civil and test lab groups.
20 j
Q Did you take any actions in response to 21 i changing start and stop times? l I 22 23 A Tes, we, at least for a period of time I 24 where we could adjusted the QC hours to fit the specific aeeds of the QC department without regard necessarily 25 to what the craft. hours were. I l
, o !
l
I jon 51,026A A
- 1 Q Mr. Tolson, you testified in the 2
electrical area where you perceived from the results I 3 of the survey a need for more --
for stronger 4 supervision. Was that criticism a feeling that you got 5
from other areas as well?
6 A To some degree, but it appeared to be C 7 more prevalent in the electrical area.
I 8 Q Would you take any actions in response to th 9
perceived need for stronger supervision?
10 A l' Not immediately, but over a period of 11 time we did. The supervisor at that time was a very nice 12 gentleman and I want'ed to gec to know him before we I ,
13 decided to do anything, and I met with him on several V
14 occasions and as I recall we agreed mutually that his 15 talents were perhaps better suited to a group that we 16 labeled quality engineering, and once we agreed that 17 mutual agreement we moved him into that particular l 18 activity and placed another individual in the electrical l'
t supervision role. -
20 Q Mr. Tolson, you testified that your review 21 of the electrical summary led you to conclude that 22 you needed to increase training?
23 A That's c o rr e c t :-
24 Q Was that conclusion reached with 25 respect.co other diseplines as well?
51,027 jon A To some degree. I need to caution you, 2
though, on one. The mec-anical gro,up we I 3 with in this interview process was virtually the are dealing.
I 4 5
ASME group. And as I said earlier this morning, that wasn't a group that I had direct daily control of.
I P 6
The non-ASME people, yes. The training 7
I 8
, effort had already been started in the civil and test laboratories, as I recall.
I i 9
10 We did some rewriting and developed very detailed inspection instructions within the 11 ii electrical area, and as I have testified at great 12 length on the stand during the ASLB hearings, it was my 13 (s concept to train both formally and through OJT 14 Is.- efforts inspectors and inspection functions, and I did 15 I 16 not attempt to train as discipline people but train for -
17 things such as witnessing.of cable pulling, j
inspection of terminations, et cetera. '
18 MR. ROIbMAN: C:.n we take a short break?
19 MR. DOWNEY :- Yes.
20 MR. ROISMAN: Thank you.
21 1 22 (Short recess.)
Id2 23 ,
11 2 25
- .'- o I
l
- 1 51,028
\I ..
1 MR. DOWNEY: Even in Mr. Roisman's 2
, absence, for clarity I would like to note chac 3
Mr. Tolson's testimony about the management review 4
board summaries refers to an addendum of documents 5
that has been marked for identification as It 6
7 Purdy Room 42 Exhibit 1 marked for identification during the deposition of Gordon Purdy held on I 8 July 10, 1984 9
(Short recess.)
i 10 MR. DOWNEY: Tony, at the break I went 11 back on the record to identify the management 12 review summaries as Purdy Exhibit 42-1 for clarity.
I. 13 MR. ROISMAN:
i Okay. . Fine.
14 BY MR. DOWNEY:
15 Q Mr. Tolson, in addition to the electrical 16 group, did you implement any other changes in i 17 il response to the 1979 survey? I 18 A
Yeah, I can. recall one change that I'm 19 particularly proud of.
A little backgroun'd, if I may.
20 TUGCO's direct involvement of non-ASME 21 activities evolved over'a period of months. The 22 first group that we became directly involved with 23 was the civil inspection group followed shortly -
24 thereafter by the test lab group. In general, the 25 comments out of those groups were sort of split.
Civil group expressed a very strong. concern about i .*
y - - . - - , - -
i 1
-2 51,029 l G
. I their what I perceived to be security associated 2 rich job longevity. I addressed that group as a I 3 whole, and made a commitment that I felt comfortable at that time to establish, for those 4
5 who wanted,the opportunity to cross-train into 6 other inspection disciplines or to develop into l 7 other job categories, so that the experience that I 8 we had gained with those people could be maintained 9 throughout the construction phase of Comanche Peak.
10 Don't hold me to details, but as I 11 recall, those people that wanted to were provided 12 the c,ross-training or career development and are 13 still employed at Comanche Peak.
(. . 14 Q Mr. Tolson, was there any reason why 15 the civil group needed to be concerned with job 16 security at this time?
17 A Tes, certainly. We were not totally 18 complete, but as I recall, we were close to topping 19 out the Unit 2 containment structure, which is where 20 I 21 the maj ority of the concrete is placed. And the civil group's activities , they could foresee in a very short 22 period of time the job of a civil inspector 23 disappearing due to lack of craft activities.
24 In fact, I think we are at or above the 25 spring line of Unit 1.
3-3 51,030 1
Q Mr. Tolson, were there any other groups 2
that expressed an interest in cross-training?
3 A Not in the interviews, but the test 4
lab group, I met with them also and conveyed that 5 same message to them that I had with the civil 6 people. Our way of explanation is civil activities E
7 played out so did test lab activities. Although 8
I don't specifically remember them mentioning 9
that I wanted to convey that same message to them.
10 Again, as I indicated in the civil group, those 11 personnel that had expressed a desire to stay and 12 learn other inspection activities were given
- 13 that opportunity and are,still employed.
(c 14 Q Mr. Tolson, do you recall any other actions 15 that you took in response to the 1979 meeting 16 other than those to which you have testified about?
17 A Nothing personally. The other groups t 18 I leaned on my key staff to address and discuss 19 the issues raised by the inspection personnel -
20 with them, and to resolve those that. required resolving.
21 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Downey, are you 22 finished with that line?
1 23 MR. DOWNEY: Yes.
24 MR. ROISMAN: Can I just ask. what the l 25 status is.of getting the memorandum that Mr. Tolson
( -
3-6
- 51,031 -
I testified to last time that he had bel eved he 2
sent to Mr. Chapman that summarized the actions that I 3 were taken in response to the management review 4 board?
5 MR. DOWNEY: I.have asked Mr. Chapman 6
to return to his files to see if he can locate i
7 that memorandum.
8 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. So that's still in 9 the works?
10 MR. DOWNEY: That's still in the works.
11 And I'll make a notation to follow up on that 12 request.
13
] THE WITNESS: I need to amplify that last 14 question slightly --
IS "I'm sorry if I cut you off.
I 16 MR. ROISMAN:
THE WITNESS: -- on that last answer now 17 that you gave me a little time to think.
, 18 I did meet personally with the instrumentation people of 19 the QC group, and that was a very small group, -
20 and still is, but the corrective actions I mentioned 21 on inspection instructions and training was conveyed 22 to that group just as it'was with the electrical group 23 3Y MR. DOWNEY:
j 24 Q Mr. Tolson, I recall Mr. Roisman asking 25 whether you had with your QA/QC' experience with o
- a E
- - . _ .- -,,s ,,e , _ _ . , _ - . , . _ _ _ _ , . _ _ , . _ , , ., - - - - - . - - , _ , , , ,
I ci ORIGINAL COPY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f'.i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
In the matter of:
~
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al Docket No. 5 0-445
, 50-446 I (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2)
I i
E ,e
'\ .
Deposition of: DAVID N. CHAPMAN Location: Glen Rose, Texas Pages: 15 son - 1s.730 Date: Monday, July 9, 1984 I
!I ~
_ Mi' ",, , i F -t: m _ TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
- T L M9.d cA . ca.r an ,.n
~
1625 I sweet. N.w. s== 1one - - .. '
wenansanom. D.C. 2 coo 6 "' 7 A'
, (2nz) 293.wse -
i .
i NR14/10 35,612 0 2 i dccion?
2 A I think there are things like that in our 3 general employee discipline handbo k, but it's been i
4 so long since I read it. I know Brown & Root has a 5 Policy manual and things like that.
l 6 Q Well, let's stick'with what you know first.
7 Does TUGC0 have such an employee code or disciplinary a manual, and does it prohibit harassment and intimida-9 tion?
10 A There~is a progressive discipline program ii and manual for TUGCO. As to whether the words harass-12 ment and intimidation appear in it specifically, I do 13 not know.
14 Q And Brown & Root has such a policy?
15 A They have an manual. I don't recall 16 specifically what the words are in it.
17 Q Has anyone ever been disciplined for
( -
la harassment and intimidation at Comanche Peak? '
19 A Yes. ,
20 Q How about explaining your answer, please.
21 Who has and what do you know about it?
22 A It's been'almost five years now. As a.
23 result of some interviews that I had a group of people l 24 , do over the course of about five or six weeks, I had 23 a telephone call that said that, from one of the people O
l .
NR14 /11 35,613 gO.- j
-.s I on the team, that said that there was probably some-2 thing I needed to know about. So I.came on down to 3 the site. ,
4 This system of interviews we set up and I(
5 we designed'it to elicit the maximum amount of
\
6 inf ormat' ion from our people.- We had been getting )
l 7 some complaints that -- most of them related to pay l
) 8 ' and equities. There were complaints, and some of them i
9 were expressed directly to me, incidentally, that pay 10 raises were two or three months late, some of them 11 were arbitrarily cut just a few cents an hour, but
. - - 12 when they got to Houston, the general things that 13 tend to make morale low.
14 'Along about that time, there was an NRC 15 report, I forget what number it was, but they had I
16 been. receiving some allegations about low morale.
17 The report, as I recall, pointed out that there were f
18 no deficiencies relative to morale, but it was
- 19 something that management should be concerned with. .
20 My staff and I had been talking over for some time 21 how to -- but there seemed to be a need to really 22 get some information from the people and see what
, 23 was bothering them.
24 , So, I sent a team down there that had, I 25 think it was, four of my people and two people from
<I . .
~
I NR14/12 19.614 t'~ \
1 3rown & Root. Houston. We structured this thing 2 so that nobody on the team was to be in the direct 4 3 chain of command on site. Nobody r"eported on site.
4 We decided to interview the individuals in the QA/AC 5 department, clerks all the way up to upper-level C
6 supervisors. -
~
7 , We didn't ask if they wanted confidentiality, 8 ' we just automatically told them that this was going to 9 be confidential information and that names would not be 10 provided to anybody on site.
11 There would be an alpha numeric designator 12 on each set of notes, and nobody on site was going to 13 get a copy of the cross-reference. That would be held 14 by me.
15 .
16 17 e
I 18 19 20 21 22 ,
23 24 ,
25 I -
1 .
I SY-1s 15 ~
35, dis ImA, I The concerns that we got would not be handed to 2 appropriate management for corrective action, if any, that I 3 being the Brown & Root site management or Tolson or other 4 craft or whoever. In any form, that would compromise 5 their confidentiality. Furthermore, they were told -
6 the review team was told that I wdnced to get all the 7 infc.rmation that was on their minds,. don't try to put it 8 in perspective necessarily; find out what is eating 9 on them, because if they think they've got a problem, 10 then they have a problem. We want to find out what the Il causes of this rumbling is. We've already got some pretty 12 good ideas. So they started out, as I recall, in late 13 Septe=ber, I think it was 1979, and over the course of
~
Id four or five or six weeks, they talked to all the 15 inspectors they could. They did it by discipline and to as each group was finished, the team would ceet - the 17
, team didn't interview each individual, they split it up I 18 so they could do it a lot faster. As each group, say 19 the electrical and mechanical, would finish, they would .
20
( take the results of the individual concerns raised and 21 they would put them in the form of a summary for that 22 discipline. group. And they would all sign the thing, and 23 they would send that report to me and then it would go 24 .
to whoever needed to know for appropriate action. I 25 think that was mostly Tolson. But rather than wait in
I ST-is ^15-2 15.616 l'A -
1 this one instance, I was called because a young inspector 2
had related an incident where'she had been physically I 3 intimidated. So I went down myself, I called her in to 4
calk with iter about it.
5 How did you find out who the inspector was?
Q.
6 A.
Well, the people doing the interviews obviously 7 have to know, so they called her in.
I L' 8
Q. Did she ask to talk to you? l 9 A. No, they told her that that was something they 10 thought upper management needed to know about, and she l
11 said I'd be glad to talk with them about it. That's my 2 ""d""" ^"'i"' "' """'
I~ 13 Q. So the interviewers called and talked to you and 14 then you talked to her?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And what did you do?
17 A.
First of all, I asked her what happens? And .
18 she said that she had, as I recall, rejected the work 39 of a craf t - -
20
( MR. BELTER: Let me just stop you right there i
21 for just a second and make clear for the record that what 22 was reported to Mr. Chapman is admissable in our view on 23 the basis of the fact that it was reported to him, but it's 24 not in itself competent evidence of the truth of the 25 matters that were reported to him. You may continue.
I . ..
\
i SY-1s 15 -3 1s.617 p
1 THE WITNESS: She rejected the work of 2 this craft, and the guy was a rather large guy, and that 3 he had grabbed her by the coat and kind of yanked her a 4 little bit, and he got right in her face and then all of 5 a sudden realized what he had done and kind of looked kind !
C \
6 of shocked and turned loose of her and that was the extent 7 of it. And I asked her if he had hit her or anything 8 like that, and she said oh, no. I said when did that
'9 happen and as I recall, it had been several weeks or some I 10 period of time had passed since the incident. Nothing 11 else had happened and I said, well, you know that if they're 7 12 doing that, that can has to go out to the gate. And she I
i 13 very vehemently insisted that she didn't want him to lose 14 his job. I said, well, that's the policy, if anybody does I 15 something like that, they go. And all I will do is tell 16 construction and he is gone. And she says, no, I really 17
, don't want that. She said, all I want is for him just 18 to do business with me. Ever since then, it's been a 19 strange relationship and I feel I'm easy around him.
I 20 And I said, well, I'm going to give you the opportunity 21 here to convince me that construction should not run him 22 off right now. But the ball is in your_ court. You're 23 going to have to convince me that that shouldn't happen.
24 Again, she insisted at length that she didn't want him I /g 25 to lose his job, and it's really something that he reacted, I .; .
~~
SY-1s 15-4 "
35,618 m.
/
1 and she felt that he hadn't done it since, and he was just 2
acting funny, and she felt like if somebody would just get 3
with him and fix him and tell him to creat her like he does 4
anybody else, and if she has business to inspect in his
! 5 area, to treat her with respect and that she did not want 0
6 to see him lose his job over it. 'So we talked awhile, and 7
finally I said, well, since this apparently is not -
8 had it been something that was obviously widespread 9
knowledge in the plant, I don't think we could've given 10 into her wishes. I think we would have had to go ahead 11 and let the craft terminate him at that time because of 12 q the image of not doing anything about it. But we weren't 13 hearing a lot other than one other friend of hers that 14 knewaboutthteincident, she said, yes, this other gal 15 knows about it and the other inspector told us it was 16 not general knowledge. So I said, well, all right, this 17
,, is what I'm going to do. You have insisted, and basically 18 the only way that she would let he take any action against l'
the guy to get his attitude fixed was if I would assure I 20 that he would not lose his job. Now, the only 21
~ alternative would be for me to go to construction and 22 tell them what had happened and they would run,him out 23 the gate. I told her I said, all right, I will hold this 24 in more or less in obeyance, now, I will get him fixed I 25 and I'll t'all him exactly what you told me. I will tell l ~
m.
I
- I I
ST-1s 15-5 '
__5,619 1
E-(3 .
I the construction manager that what you want is for him 2 to treat you like he always did'; businesslike. And be I 3 civil to you across the board like everybody else and 4 if ba ever so much looks cross-eyed at you again, then 5 I'm not going to let you talk me out of it next time.
6 And she was real happy with that.* I said, furthermore, 7 I'm going to come back in a couple of weeks and I'm going 8 to give you the opportunity to convince ce even then that 9 he shouldn't go because you are the one who is holding 10 up this deal. And she said that'll be fine. And I 11 ca=e back, I don't know how long it was, a matter of well l 12 in the range of two weeks, I called her in again and lgb g 13 incidentally, before I left the first day, now, you 14 realize we promised confidentiality here and if I take 15 action on this, it's going to compromise you to a certain 16 extent. She said, I understand that; go ahead. But, she 17 7 caid, I don't want him to lose his job. As long as you 18 get him fixed. So I came back in a couple of weeks and 19 she came in, and she convinced me that she was extremely
,I 20 happy with the way, things had turned out. She thcnked 22 we did.
23 Q. What discipline was this inspection work done 24 in?
I 25 A. I think it was electrical, I'm not sure. I'm I_ .
^
SY-1s 15-6 35.620 ED -
1 reasonably sure it was electrical.
2 Was thic inspection'of cable trays in the .
Q.
3 auxiliary building? .
4 A. 'I don't recall what specifically it was.
5 810 elevation?
. Q.
I 7 6
s A. I don't recall.
It might have been?
Q.
I c 8
A. I don't know.
Q. Who was the inspector who was the victim of 10 the harassment?
II MR. BELTER: I'm going to object to that question, 12
,l Counsel, because we promised her confidentiality. I recognize 13 the relevance of the answer. The problem is that we have 34 l
cried to work out a cooperative procedure here. You were 15 not involved, Bob, but at one of our hearings, Judge Bloch 16 asked us to cooperate with each other by trying to preserve 17
,, confidentiality to the extent that both sides could. Each 18 side has recognized the value of preserving the confidentiality.
l'
- I
( 20 My suggestion on this is that you try to complete your amhtion without the name, and let's discuss it later.
21 l If you feel a need for the name, I think we ought to talk 22 about procedures for giving you the name. I'm not trying 23 to prevent you from having the name today.
24 MR. GUILD: I would be most happy to try to I o 15 work out something to. accommodate that. I do press the I .
I
~
SY-Is 15-7
'th . A 91 I .,,^.
1 point that it is relevant.
2 MR. BELTER: I hav'e no objection that it is I
- i
)
3 relevant. -
4 -
(Laughter.)
5 MR. BELTER: We're off the record, a,f 6
(Short break.)
7 I L-8 9
10 I "
c 12 13 .
14
!I 15 16 17 18 19 -
20 I
22 23 24 25 I .
= = _ = :_ __ _ _ _ __
l .
SY-1s 16-1 35.622 I,o .
1 MR. GUILD: We are back on the record.
2 BY MR. GUIID: ,
E 3 Q. What action, if any, was taken with respect 4 to craftsmeg involved?
5 A. It was related to me. Construction management C
6 cold him that he was basically on the verge of being 7
terminated, and his personal face was in the hands of 8
.: the inspector that he had intimidated and he had better 9
I -
10 get right with her and stay that way as long as he intended to be on the job.
11 Q. And how did the construction management
,- 12 learn of the incident?
13 A. Well, that one I cannot remember. I can't 14 I 15 remember whether I told him personally or tihether I asked Ron Tolson to relay the message.
y 16 Q. But in'any event, from your side at your direction, 17 either directly or indirectly, construction management was 18 told of the incidents that came from the QC inspector?
19 A. Yes. And their original infor=ation was much
- 20 like mine, go ahead and terminate him without even 21 considering what the inspector wanted.
22 Q. , Did they document their counsel and warn them 23 of any disciplinary action in any way?
24 A. I do not know.
I 25 Q. Do they have a system - Did they, at the time, I -
g .
g ~
SY-1s 16-2 35.623 E. (s. '
. I have a system of documenting such warnings in individual
_ 2 personnel files?
3 A. I don't know. -
4 'Did_it matter to you whether they did or II 5 not?
Q.
6 A. At the time, not so much, because I was 7 interested in solving the 1:nmediate problem. I didn't I,
s 8 really think too much about the documentation aspects 9 of it as long as it got done.
10 Q. Did you consider whether or not the craftsmen 11 would take whatever message you relate to him indirectly
( 12 seriously or more seriously or less seriously if a I 13 notation were =ade ip his personnel file or not?
14 A.
I 15 I didn't consider that. .W bottom line was the feelings of the person who had been robbed. And 16 the assurances that she could give me because I just
,. 17 didn't take what she gave me at face value. As I 18 promised her, I made her convince me that everything 19 was right. She says, well, I just can't believe that -
20 he's a different person. So I really appreciate what 21 she did. And everything is going great. That was 22 the goal. I didn't really think about all the 23 peripheral things,.because she was convinced he was 24 sincere in his change, and that since it was a one-time Ig 25 knee-jerk reaction on his part, she had considered the
I ST-1s 16-3 35,624
.R I matter finished.
2 Well, let's lay aside - I don't think Q.
3 3 chis is the.f'orn for you and*I to debate the validity 4
, of that conclusion on your part. All right?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. But laying aside the wisdom of putting the 7
victim in the position of having to choose the 8
punishment that management maybe ought to have decided, 9
did you C.o ider whether or not the punishment, or the 10 lack of punishment, would be effective in its own right 11 against the craftsmen who had done wrong?
12 A. Now, wait a minute. I disagree with your Is. 13 characterization of what I did. I did not leave the 14 decision of the type of discipline to the victim. The 15 discipline should have been. decided by =anagement. I 16 decided the final discipline. I acceeded to the wishes 17
- t. and the strong recommendations of this QC inspector who 18 did not want him fired, and maybe she had some good 19 reasons for feeling intimidated if we had fired him. ;
20 I took that into consideration too. And that's not 21 anything to consider lightly.
22 Q. Well, let's talk about the other point.
23 l The other point that I'm directing my question to 24 I 25 is someone did wrong, and got away with it without any punishment, regardless, lay aside the propriety
'.* ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . .. -
SY-1s 16-4 3'S,625 o
1 of putting the responsibility on the victim -
2 MR. BELTER: I object to the question Counsel.
3 It hasn't been established, to use your words, that this 4
I person got away.without any punishment.
5 MR. GUILD: Let me rephrase it.
6 BT MR. GUILD: .
7 Q. This person did wrong; he violated the company's 8 either written or unwritten policy, correct?
9 A. That's true.
- I 10 .Q . He specifically threatened the quality control 11 inspector in the performance of her job, correct?
12 A. That's true.
- (/ 13 Q. That is a firing offense, according to your 14 testimony, correct?
I 15 A. That's true.
16 Q. And that individual was not fired?
17 A '. That's true.
! 18 Q. Now, what I want to know is, ass'uming that the 19 only discipline that individual received was the counseling ,
20 that you indirectly indicated to his management should 21 - occur, and that you understood occurred, what I want 22 to'know is what leads you to believe that that was an .
23 effective sanction against him. Lay aside the interest 24 or wisdom of - and perspective of the inspector, now.
25 A. I was told that he wrs told if it ever happened 0
~
l I SY-Is 16-5 35,626 A
1 again he was out the gate, no questions asked. I don' t 2 consider that getting away without discipline.
3 Q. Okay. Ididn'thearthatthe5$sttime. That 4 is what you understood got communicated to the craftsmen 5 involved? .
C.
6 A. Yes. -
7 Q. And you don't know whether or not that was 8 oral, written or what?
9 A. I do not know.
10 Q. Okay.
11 MR. BELTER: Well, =aybe I missed your question, I
12 Bob, but were you asking Mr. Chapman whether he believed I ., . 13 the report from the QC inspector when he went back two weeks 14 later about t:he man's conduct? Because you seem to be 15 getting after whether what was done was effective in terms
- 16 of this man's conduct. Let me ask that question right now l
17 to clear it up. I would ask it on redirect. Mr. Chapman, 1
l 18 was any information brought to your attention with respect 19 to the man's conduct after the incident, after the action I
20 was taken against him?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes. That'~is the issue which 22 I went back down there to discuss with the inspector.
l 23 MR. GUILD: Thank you.
24 BY MR. GUILD: l 25 Q. Now, what is the basis, if any, for your belief
~
. 1
l I
e SY-1s 16-6 35,627 m
I that there was no general knowledge among either the craft 2 of QC of'this incident of harassment?
l 3 4
A.
Due to the detail and - the extreme detail
\
that the information we received from these people during I(
5 these interviews, due to the openness with which they l
6 approached these things - Due to *the triviality of so l l
7 many of the things, in addition to the major points that a
were legitimate concerns on their part, the types of 9
things that they identified to us,'even third-party hearsay I 10 things, if that had been general knowledge around the plant i
11 a couple of weeks after it happened, we would have heard 12 about it. That was our main level of confidence. The 13 additional level of confidence is that this inspector 14 obviously wasn't passing around the story or she could 15 have spread it around all over the site.
16 Q. Excuse me. Let me just interrupt. How do you 17
, know she wasn't?
l' 8 ' A. Well, we only heard it from, as I recall, one 19 '
other and that was a very close friend of hers. .
's 20 Q. Ecw did you get it from her?
/ 21 A. The interviews. And she wasn't spreading it 22 around, and if we had found it to be another general knowledge 23 aroundtheflant, then I don't think we would have had the 24 option to do what we chose to do just to satisfy an 25 inspector who didn't want this guy to be fired.
l SY-1s 16-7 35,628 l
.n 1
Q. Who was the other inspector who had knowledge 2 of the incident, and let me note that while I believe the 3 answer to that question is relevant and the answer should l 4 be a matter of record, I understand the thing -
5 MR. BELTER: The same objection, yes. And I have
[
6 a problem with that one. You're asking discovery again, and <
7 if you find that inspector, her report could only be hearsay.
8 MR. GUILD: Well, I maintain that it goes to the 9 question of the effectiveness of the remedy that Mr. Chapman 10 is talking to, this harassment incident and - and/or to 11 the validity of his testimony that the matter was only that
, 12 limited knowledge on the site and that both subjects are k'
13 subjects of significance if this is a singular incident 14 of harassment that the gentlemen -
15 MR. BELTER: I know. But the answer to your 16 question about the name isn't going to add one iota of 17 weight to the issue that is before this Board, one way or 18 the other. All it is going to do is give you the opportunity 19 to pursue another step in possibly producing relevant Ir.
20 evidence. It's a discovery question.
21 MR. GUILD: I maintain otherwise.
22 MR. BELTER: The name of this individual is !
l 23 going to add weight to whether there has been intimidation 24 or not? That is your position held in good faith?
I 25 MR. GUILD: My position is that -
l
,1
I .
SY-1s 16-8 35,629 A
I ,
I 1 MR. BELTER: I want you to think about it '
2 for a minute, Bob.
I 3 MR. GUILD: My position is that the name of
? 4 this individual It 5 Yes, because given what I believe the answer to that 6 question is, I think I will succeed in demonstrating that 7 in fact, Mr. Chapman's conviction that he handled the 8 matter in the proper way is wrong, and that the matter was k
9 in fact of a more general knowledge on the site.
I 10 MR. REYNOLDS: Why would the name assist you 11 in that effcrt? -
- 12 MR. GUILD: It's apparent.
k 13 MR. REYNOLDS: Explain it to me.
14 MR. GUILD: It's either the right person knows about 15 it or it is not, who knew about the incident or not.
16 It's my belief that the answer to the question of the 17 person he also found out knew about it is an inspector who 18 has also been involved in instances of harassment. That is 19 my belief, and that is the basis, in part, for my strenuous .
20 insistence that the information be disclosed.
21 MR. BELTER: Your good faith is based on 22 infornation known to you and not to me.
23 MR. GUILD: I'm not asking that it be disclosed 24 .
on the public record of the deposition, but I ask that the 25 name be disclosed.
~
J
ST-1s' 16-9 1s.610
_r%
1 MR. BELTER: All right. We'll talk about that ,
2 by giving you the name off the record, then, to confirm f
5 3 whether or not you want to pursue it in good faith.
4 'MR. VJILD: Do we have a stipulation that that 1
5 information will be provided off the-record?
6 MR. BELTER: I think wei will find out. I don't 7 know whether we have gotten to that point or not. I think 8 our inclination is to give it to you. l 9 MR. GUILD: My only concern is that I don'e l 10 vant to let Mr. Chapman go without preserving our rights 11 to pursue the matter.
12 MR. BELTER: Let's take a break for a minute.
{,. .
13 (Discussion off the record.)
14 t ,,
16
- 17 o
18 19 e
20
'4 I 21 22 I
1 i
I 23 24 ,
O
. . - . . - . . - . - -, . , . ~_m,.. -- ,.. __ "'**._-
I .
lE 35,631-
[
i ^-.
- SY/mm1 i MR. BELTER
- Back on the record.
2 Bob, there is an. intermediate step that I would 1 3 like to consider with you. We would"b'e willing to reveal 4 the name of.this person to you off the record, but I want 5 you to understand that we don't think that your having the
[
6 name, the name itself is relevant evidence at all in this '
7 proceeding, and maybe I have misunderstood your point.
8 Bht, I would like you to explain to me again why you think 9 the name itself is relevant here as opposed to the potentia:
10 testimony that the ind'ividual might give.
11 MR. GUILD: I think I have e'xplained it adequately.
o 12 If you want to talk about it off the record, 13 I would be happy to talk about it.
14 If this is simply a ruse to --
, 13 MR. BELTER: Are you asking for it in good faith, 16 because I don't understand it.
17 MR. GUILD: I am asking for it in good faith.
18 Let's go off the record.
19 (Discussion off the record) ,
20 MR. BELTER: Back on the record.
21 Do you feel any need, Bob, to recite what we 22 discussed off the record?
23 MR. GUILD: No. Only that I think that counsel 24 f.or Applicants perceive the tactical advantage to misleading,i 25 this counsel that we had reached an agreement off the record
I 35,632 -
E r.,
m2 i on the matter and I feel no need to further explicate the 2 basis for my questions or my argument that we have now gone 3 into at great length on the record an'd off the record about1 the basis for the need to elicit the information sought.
I C 4
5 Now .if you still instruct the gentleman not to 6 answer the questions then we will either resort to a 7 protective order which is still pending as a device to elic 8 clie answer in a way that. protects the confidentiality of th two individuals, or if that no longer is the bone of concen I 9 10 tion and you insist on pressing my good faith,in seeking 33 answers to the questions on the basis of your challenge to 12 the relevance, then we will take that matter up independent b
I. 13 But, I have left the record on the assumption ch.
34 you conceded the relevance of the questions and you said so 15 and now I find that you intend to lay some other tactical. 1 to trap, and that that was the basis for not disclosing the
, 17 names over the last recess.
is Now on that basis, are you prepared to disclose I 19 the names of the identified victim of the harassment of,a
~
f 20 quality control inspector who also was aware of'the harassme 21 incident in a confidential fashion off the record?
22 MR. BELTER: You have misstated the record on what 23 I said before.
24 -
I indicated to you that I felt it was relevant 25 for you to ask the question of the name of the witness who
- .:.: . . . - - .. - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - --- -- ~ -"
35,633/
I. .
mm3 I was the alleged victim of this intimidation on the grounds 2 that that might lead to releva,nt evidence.
3 MR. GUILD: I didn't say t'h'a t' a t all.
4 MR. BELTER: I am not trying to prevent you from 5 doing it. If that is what I said, then I misspoke. And 0
6 let me make my position on this clear right now.
7 The names of these individuals are not relevant.
8 Tftey don't add any weight one way or the other to this issue 9 You may find relevant testimony from them if you take the
~
10 next step which is typical ~ discovery and go question then I about it.
11
,. 12 You have indicated to me that you think the names 13 themselves may be relevant because they could be then 14 connected up'potentially with other witnesses. And I am 15 willing to tell you that the name of the individual -- both 16 of them, che inspector and the other person who reported the 17 incident are not names that have appeared to our knowledg .
18 anywhere else in this record, or on anybody's witness list.
19 We also indicated to you that we are willing,--
20 MR. GUILD: Wait a minute. Say that again.
21 MR. BELTER: They are not names that appear on 22 anybody's witness list in this proceeding and they have 23 never testified in this proceeding. ,
24 MR. GUILD: Wait a minute.
I don't know what 25 . witness list you mean. Are they names that are not otherwis O
~ . . .. - .. _ . . - _ _ ... - -.-. . . . . . . . . _ . . . . , ~
35,634 I., t..
mm4 I identified in this record?
2 MR. BELTER: I'm sorry. I'm talking about the I 3 witness lists that have been exchanged by the parties in d
I 3 this procee' ding. ,
I also include in that any prior witnesses in al 6
of the ASLB hearings on this issue. So there is no way tha 7
this name could be connected up to anything else merely by 8
revealing the name. And I am going to ask you -- I am aski I 10 you to consider the question of whether you're continuing to operate in good faith and insisting that gecting these name II is evidentiary in nature and not discovery in nature.
12
{ 13 I insist that it is discovery in nature.
, MR. GUILD: L maintain that position.
Id On that my question to you is: I don't know 13 what the term of art " witness list" means. If we can take .
16 noment off the record and you can show me what a witness 17 r list is, this nay solve the whole problem. Okay? Can you
'8 do that?
I' MR. BELTER: I can do that. -
I, 20 MR. GUILD: Let's do that for a moment.
21 (Discussion off the record) 22 MR. GUILD: Back on the record.
23 I just reviewed what you identified as the 24 witness list and understand that you stipulated that neither Ie 2.
ee .1 1m o, haraas... inmee_ th_ Mr. chapman has i -.
. . ~ : ~~'~ '. .. . ~T' ~.._. . . . . . . . ._ ._ .....:....2.:...,....,.
I ~
'35,635 Ip. ..-
mm5 1 testified to, nor the quality control inspector that he 2 understands was the sole other quality. control inspector 3 informed of the incidents, are named on those lists.
I 4 Is that an accurate understanding?
5 MR. BELTER: That is correct.
K.
6 MR. GUILD: Can I ask Mr. Chapman if he would 7 confirm it?
8 BY MR. GUILD:
9 Q Is that your understanding, sir?
10 Is that an accurate statement?
11 A That neither of the two individuals involved,
-~
i g b/
12 neither the inspector who was intimidated, nor the inspecto l3 13 she named as a person who knew, appear on this list.
14 And that is correct.
15 MR'. GUILD: All right.
16 Now at that point I con' firm my view tila t the
, 17 answers to both those questions are relevant. I an willing 18 to cooperate in protecting the confidences of those persons 19 and would suggest that we move to another subject pending 1I 20 the agreement as to the details of a protective order under 21 which I would agree it is appropriate to exchange that 22 information off the record.
l 23 MR. BELTER: Fine.
24 '
MR. REYNOLDS: All right.
25 I .
O
g .
W . .
~
SYl8rg3 35,643 A
1.,
I communicated, say to quality control inspectors generally c:
2 in this discipline, craft, generally or.in this discipline, 3 for example?
I This specific instance?
4 A 5 Q Yes.
E
'6 A I don't know.
- 7 Q It is not a matter of policy that it would be done 8 that way?
9 A It is not a matter of our policy to call public 10 meetings to explain disciplinary conferences between managen 11 no.
{ 12 Q As far as you know, it did not happen in this case 13 A As far as I know, it may have. I don't know. I 14 cold you I didn't know.
'I 15 Q You just don't know, okay.
16 I am going to show you a document, well, it is a 17 stack of documents and I don't intend to mark or introduce la them, but can you identify those as reflecting the summaries 19 of the interviews that you described as being conducted.in I 20 1979 of quality control inspectors?
21 MR. BELTER: Counsel, we are going to have to go l 22 through that carefully to make sure it is complete before he 23 answers that question. Do you want to mark it as an exhibit 24 MR. GUILD:
I I just got done saying I do not want 25 to mark it as an exhibit. I am not asking him to vouch for l
I SYl8rg4 ts AAA IO .
s 3
1 it being complete. Does that appear to reflect, and I will 2 get him to read the cover sheet, does that appear to reflect I 3 the summaries of interviews that he had reference to?
4 I just want the documents generally identified.
I I
3 am not trying to. vouch for that being a careful and complete
( ~
6 copy although I do believe it to be.
7 (Witness reviewing document.)
a THE WITNESS: It appears to be the same type. It 9 appears to be the cover letters.
10 BY MR. GUILD:
11 Q All right.
12 Now those summary sheets were supported, I believe i
s.<
13 as you testified earlier, by questionnairs that were complet 14 by the indicated interview teams of the interviews with the is specific quality control inspectors?
16 A No, I believe I testified that it wasn't done by a 17 team, it,was done by individuals of a team, speaking to I is individual me'abers, yes. !That is what I meant to communicat 19 q And there is also those interviews that were docu-3 20 mented on interview sheets that were coded, I believe, as yo 21 previously testified?
22 A Right.- ,
23 Q All right.
1 24 . MR. GUILD: Now, counsel, those -- I have seen the!
i 3 25 interview summaries and I understand that they were very
_ o j ,
ST18rg5 35.645 I .q -
1 recently provided by Applicants to Intervenors. They have 2 been provided, however, only with the names of the intervies:
3 inspectors deleted and without a code to permit the Intervec l
4 to identify'the_ inspectors involved.
5 We believe that pursuant to discovery agreements a C
rulings we are entitled to have the names of those inspector 6
7 communicated to us.
8 MR. BELTER: I don't know the names of the inspect 9
I don't know that anyone knows the names of the inspectors. ,
10 Are you asking me -- what is your specific request, 11 to me? -
12 MR. GUILD: My specific request to you is tell me
_ 13 for the record why you haven't transmitted the names of thos 14 inspectors -- we did understand, Mr. Chapman, to have retain 15 MR. BELTER: We gave you the documents as they to exist in his files. They n,ever had names on them.
17 MR. GUILD: Well, Mr. Chapman's previous sworn 18 testimony is that he had a key that communicated the identic 19 of the persons that had been interviewed. That key has.not I, 20 been transmitted as a matter of discovery.
21 MR. BELTER: That is correct for the same reaso I.
l 22 that we haven't given you any of the. names of people to whom 23 we have promised confidentiality. We have had an agreement 1 24 it is my understanding we had an agreement with Mr. Roisman I 25 about this, that we were not going to force that issue if we l
ll .
SYl8rg6 35,646 I t'3w.
=,
I could work it out cooperatively. If you bring this in the 2 category of the same names that you want with respect to --
3 you are putting this in the same category with respect to th 4 other two names but you are making a blanket request for the 5 entire key for some 165 or 70, I don't know, interviews that C
6 were conducted in 1979. Is that what you are asking us?
7 MR. GUILD: Yes. What I want to make clear is tha 8 I believe that there is relevant testimony on the subject of 9 the interviews and the underlying facts reflected in those 10 interviews that Mr. Chapman has testified or conducted 11 pursuant to his general direction and supervision, that that
,-- 12 inquiry is hampered by the failure by Applicants to have
(:-
13 transmitted the key and the names identified in those --
14 MR.'BELTER: You are going to have to get Judge is Bloch to order us to give you that key.
16 MR.. GUILD: Well, let's just make this a point, b 1-7 I want to state clearly for the record that I would intend la to examine from those -- I would intend to have examined thi.
19 witness from those interviews, interview sheets, summary, 20 sheets, but I am only able to do so on the basis of informat 21 which has not been transmitted and that is the key.
22 And I suggest that this matter be the shb j.e c t of 23 some discussion off the record in terms of a protective orde.
24 , MR. BELTER: I want to put something on the record 25 MR. BACHMANN: Let me put'something on the record 9
l .
SYl8rg7 I 35.647
'O.
lI l
I right here.
2 The Staff objects to this as being very specifical 3 a discovery request and although it has not been labelled su 4 I think'it is quite obvious from what Mr. Guild has said tha 5 chis could lead to testimony that could be admissible and th C
6 that is a definition of discovery.
7 Secondly, this document has been in CASE's possess a fo'r a certain period of time, and -- when did you receive it 9 I see a note from Mrs. Ellis. {
10 MR. GUILD: I am informed that --
I don't have a 11 date, but --
7- 12 MR. BELTER: Well, I can tell you that it was some 13 time, the third week of June that you looked at the document 14 because that is when we discovered them.
15 They were made available to you.
16 MR. GUILD: I did not personally see them.
17 MR. BELTER: I know, Bob, but let me tell you what
/
18 the problem is with this one. -
19 This is so clearly discovery that I am going t,o I :
20 accuse you of bad faith if you say this is evidentiary. A 21 key with numbers on it, a key with names matched up to numb 22 is worthless evidence in this case -- and let me finish.
23 It is clearly discovery and I want you to admit on 24 the record right now that it is discovery and not evidence.
25 MR. GUILD: There is no need to raise your voice.
I ..
O
I .
E ST18rg8 ,q,4 g
\,
- 1 There is no need to get impassioned about the point.
2 My point is that I am unable to examine substantiv I 3 as to the interview materials int;elligently without having 4 had that material, which I assert should have been transmitt 5 in discovery. .
[
6 It was not transmitted in discovery and I make the 7 point for the record now that I would desire to examine 8
Mr. Chapman on that subject but am unable to do so because y 9 have failed to provide that information.
10 MR. BELTER: On the subject of what is on the 11 interview sheets, you are unable to conduct -.
12 MR. GUILD: On the subject of the underlying facts k ..
13 I am unable to conduct meaningful examination without knowin 14 who those people are.
15 MR. BELTER: You have just now asked for it and it to is discovery. I am not going to give it to you voluntarily.
17 Let's take the next step.
18 MR. BACHMANN: I also object to that statement, 19 because as recogniaed by Judge Bloch on the record, that, the I 20 information provided by CASE as to the subject of these 21 dppositions was sketchy at best and had this been noted as a 22 subject of possible questioning of Mr. Chapman, perhaps this 23 problem might have been avoided.
24 .
CASE chosp not to identify this topic as a topic 25 of discussion at this3 deposition and it can only be CASE's
I SYl8cg9 35,649 p
I fault that they lacked the means to conduct the deposition.
2 And therefore I feel.that is an untenable argument. _
3 MR. GUILD: Well, I am informed, counsel, that nc 4
I t 5
only was the subject of the interviews noted as'the first subject of Mr. Chapman's deposition in the July 2nd clarif1-6 cation document -- -
7 MR. BELTER: I doubt that'Mr. Bloch ever got that, 8 counsel.
9 MR. BACHMANN: The Staff never received that 10 document.
11 MR. GUILD: Well, that may or may not be so. I wa C
12 not a counsel until my appearance today. All I can tell you I- 13 is we have in front of us a document that lists as its very 14 first subject I
15 (Discussion off the record.)
16 MR. GUILD: On the July 2nd clarification, the
, 17 first two items are on the subject of th interviews.
18 Ms. Ellis points out to me that in the attachement 19 to the June 27, 1984 letter to Applicants from Intervenors, I, 20 the second item under Mr. D. Chapman, under the heading, 21 Incidents Requested to be Prepared for Deposition," it says 22 knowledge of the 1979 interviews. And I just want to state 23 my position.
24 -
I 25 Tha position is that without the names of the quality control inspectors involved, I cannot conduct an I .
I SYl8rg 10 '* #
m ~
1 intelligent examination as to their complaints about 2 harassment, intimidation or other subjects.
I 3 MR. BELTER: My response;to you, counsel, is that 4 you have access.to those documents tor several weeks. You 5 put in the June 27 letter that you intended to cross examine i
6 Mr. Chapman about those documents. You gave no indication i 7 that letter that you wanted this key and we have consistent 1 8 ta' ken the position for months that we are not revealing name 9 of people voluntarily to whom we have promised confidential 1 to It is apparent that your request to us has been 11 made ten minutes ago and that is why you face this impasse, 12 because you haven't asked for it before.
- b. 13 MR. GUILD: We believe we have asked for it before 14 MR.'BELTER: You have not asked for it before .
15 MR. GUILD: Well, I assert that we have asked for to that in discovery and it should have been provided.
17 MR. BELTER: I deny that.
~
18 MR. GUILD: Well, there is no need to argue about 19 it. We both stated our position for the record and I intend 20 to pursue the matter and it is just a question of moving on 21 co complete the deposition.
22 MR. BACHMANN: I would like to correct a scatement 23 I made before. The indication that Mr. Chapman would be 24 questioned on the 1979 interviews was in the June 27th lette: 1 I 25 however, no other further mention was made of any need for I
~
g __ _
SY1argil 35,651 m
I~
1 any futher names or information at that point.
2 MR. GUILD: Mr. Chapman, let's be clear.
E 3 BY MR. GUILD: .
4 Q Do you have that key in your possessilon or is it 5 the subject of your control?
(
6 A It is under my control.
7 Q lc is in the records of TUGC0 and uhe quality 8 assurance office?
9 A Yes.
10 Is it your position, sir, that the summaries that Q
11 were prepared and which have been available to the parties (v'
12 for a while, that those fairly and accurately reflect the 13 substance of the information communicated by the inspectors 14 to the intervh. ewers?
I 15 A Yes. I have a high level of confidence in the 16 individuals I had involved in those interviews.
17
, Q Did you review the original interview sheets la yourself?
19 A No. -
I, 20 Q Did anyone other than --
21 A I say that -- the last few days I looked at a few 22 of them just out of curiosity;but at the time, no. -
23 Q And except for~ preparation for this deposition, yoi 24 didn't rovfew those?
I 25 A I didn't even look at a handful of them then. Bea:
I SYl8rg12 35,652 I . A.
1 in mind the whole purpose of this summary was to get all of 2 the concerns couched in such. terminology that no TUGC0 site 3 management could detect the source;of'any of those concerns.
4 Q Yes, I understand.
5 Now the signatures that appear on the summary shee t
6 summarizing the interviews in each particular QC discipline 7 are under a heading entitled, " Management Review Board."
8 Are those the interviewers?
9 A Yes. That is just what they choose to call I 10 themselves, or chose to call themselves.
11 Q All right, and among those persons are Mr. B.o r en a:
. - 12 Ms. Anderson, and both of them work in Dallas?
b, 13 A That is correct. ,
14 In your organization?
I Q
15 A Yes.
16 Q Mr. Gordon Purdy, and he works at the site for 17 Brown and Root?
18 A He does now but he did not then.
19 Q What was Mr. Purdy's position then?
I( 20 A I forget what his title was. But he worked in 21 Brown and Root corporate headquarters in Houston.
22 Q In quality assurance?
23 A Yes. .
24 .
Q Mics Susan Spencer, she:likewise works in your I 25 quality assurance program + g I .
l
E SYl8rgl3
,. .s,
^
.s 1 A That is correct.
2 Q She works for you indirectly in Dallas?
3 A Yes. ,
4 I 5 hold?
Q Arid J. Antonio Valdez? What position did Mr. Vald 6 A He, I believe, was senior engineer in my QA depart 7 ment back then and he now works in our TUGC0 fossil power 8 plant.
9 All right.
Q 10 And Mr. Vega, of course, is now the site QA manage End 18, I ,
11 12 A That is correct.
13 14 15 I,
17 I -
19 20 ,
21 22 23 24 .
I 25 I .
SY-1s 19-1 35,634 Im 3 1
Q. In the electrical discipline, you are aware 1
2 that the interviews identified and characterized as major
? 3 problems? , j 4 There's a sheet that says major problems on it.
I. 5 MR. BELTER: Would you identify that, what 6 page it is? -
7 MR. GUILD: None of the pages have numbers oc 8 them, which is the problem in knowing whether it's a 9 complete document. The document is under the electrical 10 discipline and it's entitled czajor problems. It's a page 11 that is headed major problems.
^ 12
, BY MR. GUILD:
I 13 Q. Are you aware of the identifica.:1on major problems 14 I
in the electrical discipline?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q '. Among which there are three listed, and No. 2
, 17 is, and I read: "It is consistent ~ feeling among QC 18 inspectors, that the main emphasis of CPSES is product 1on i 19 at all costs and not on quality. The equip =ent is installed tI 20 to take credit for, footage and production quotas. The fact 21 that a high percentage of this work must be redone is not l 22 being given due consideration.
i 23 "This creates an atmosphere of arguments, loud discussions, 24 yelling and name-calling between craft and QC, occasional 1
g) 25 threats and even one act of violencu."
O 0
ST-1s 19-2 _ 35,655 I:m !
1 Are you aware of those findings?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, would you agree that occasional threats 4 reflect harassment as you understand the term?
5 A. Well, I don't recall e. - tir what the discussion 6 was that was provided to me to badk up the occasional threats.
7 I have already responded as to the one act of violence.
8 The one er.t of' violence, that is the remainder Q.
9 of that characterization is the incident involving the 10 female inspector that you had spoken to earlier?
11 A. That's correct.
{ 12 Q. All.right. Do you recall - Well, what were 13 the findings with respect to the occasional threats?
14 A. I just told you.' You see, this is another 15 part of my problem. I'm trying to recall from five years 16 back, and I have not had time. I realize the letter was 17 dated June 27th, but I didn't get it for about week. And la I haven't had time to go through them and digest those 19 So I'm going from memory of five years.
I reports. I don't -
20 recall the instance of threats other than that one connected 21 with - what's characterized there as an act of violence.
22 Q. All right. Would you agree that the general 23 l characterization of atmosphere of arguments, loud discussions, 24 yelling and name-calling between craft and QC, occasional I 25 threats and even onn act of violence collectively reflect l
ST-1s 19-3 ,,,
I instances of harassment and intimidation?
2 A. No, I would not.
I 3 Q. Why not? ,
4 A. Not on what you've just given me, no. I'd like
( 5 to know what the subjects were, who was yelling at whom, 6 and why.
7 Q. Well, what did you do to find out?
8 A. Well, I talked ~to the people that did the*
9 interview, and that is the amounts of - you know, when 10 I had, say, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or so to go over something like that, 11 I can't adequately get the details for all those ite=s, but I{; 12 13 I talked to the people that reported it, and I also assured at the other end the personnel who had made -
14 let's see, the corrective action on these was for F.r.
15 Tolson to get these reports as they were filled out, not 16 all at once. As soon as we had finished one group, he would 17 get the report for whoever for corrective action; digest what W la it said, what the problems were, and then he would call 19 the inspectors in, several at a time, and put them at -
20 esse and go over what he planned to do to solve each and 21 every one. The ones he was going to respond to and the 22 ones he was not going change or explain the ones that 23 required only an explanation, explain the ones that we j 24 had to get Brown & Root Corporate F.anagement involved in l
Q 25 because they involved corporate payroll policies changes.
SY-1s 19-4 -
35.657
.m 1
Q. Does that complete your answer with respect to what 2 you did to investigate these matters? '
3 A. Yes. .
d Q. 'What corrective action did you take specifically 5 with regard to identifying acts of harassment and o intimidation and seeing that acts'of harassment and 7 intimidation did not occur?
8 A. Where does it,say harassment and intimidation 9 in that report? N 10 Q. I don't maintain that it did, I'm asking you 11 what you did with respect to the issue of harassment
{ 12 13 and intimidation as a result of your own management review board making the finding that I just read verbatim l 14 into the record, if any?
15 A. In the first place, that finding - I wouldn't 16 characterize it automatically as harassment and intimidation.
17 r I've already agreed that when I brought up the subject of 18 the one instance, that that in my mind constituted 19
, harassment and intimidation. .
20 Q. And that's the only incidence that you found-21 and you so testified?
22 A. No, I didn't. What I said was I would not 23 characterize what that report says, except for that 24 last instance. As on the face of it, just by what is 25 said there, automatically as harassment and intimidation.
SY-1s 19-5 35,658 I There could have been some there -
. 2 Q. You told me there were two instances of l I:, 3 harassment and intimidation. One was recent and you 4 detailed that.-
p 5 A. That-I could recall.
6 Q. Fine. That you could recall, and one was the 7 instance involving the woman quality control inspector.
I L 8
A. That's correct.
9 Q. And we talked about. Now I'm asking you, is 10 it t:;ue to the best of your recollection that there were 11 no other instances of harass =ent and inti::iidation at g 12 Comanche Peak period except those two?
13 A. That's crue.
14 Q. Nor any others reflected in the findings of 15 this management review board? That one instance is the 16 only instance of harassment and intimidation reflected in 17 what they found?
18 A. That I recall that they found. Again, let me 19 remind you that I have not reviewed those in any degree .
20 of detail, in five years. Now, the reference to the 21 rest and so forth, that could have been for any number of 22 reasons, and it may have been a QC person threatening 23 a craft for all I knww. I'm not about to make a judgment 24 I 25 based on what that finding right there says.
Q. What did you do to look into the question of O
I SY-1s 19-6 qq.Aso I. .
I whether or not there was a need for corrective action to 2 remedy the finding that there was a consistent feeling I 3 among QC inspectors that the main emphasis at Comanche 4 Peak's secas electric atation is the production at all costs 5 and not on quality.
g 6 A. Let me go back and get"the whole question again.
7 Q. Your own management review board found in 1979, L
8 Mr. Chapman, that, and I quote:
9 "There is a consistent feeling among QC 10 inspectors that the main emphasis at Comanche 11 Peak is production at all costs and not 12 quality."
13 What did you do to take corrective action for that 14 finding?
15 A.. In the first place, as I explained to you awhile 16 ago, the site QA manager called them all in, a uw at a time,
, . 17 and this is one reason we did this at that particular point 18 in time. The electrical work was just really getting started 19 in full swing. We wanted to find out what was bothering them. -
l 20 They perceived that there was too much use as is. Too much 21 this, too much that; there's a lot of pressure on 22 . production. And we listened to it. They opened up to us, 23 and that's what we wanted. And once we got all their i
24 concerns out, this group reported it to me, and in turn it 25 went to Tolson and he digested it. And he took whatever I ..
ST-1s 19-7 35,660 m.
I corrective action was appropriate and he called in the 2 various inspectors a few at a time, so that th2y would be I 3 at ease and wouldn't feel like they were on the carpet, 4 explained to them what they had done to change. I think
. 5 they reload some procedures, there were some complaints, 6 as I recall there, about procedures are vague. I ,
7 remember one CPM 6.9 was really almost a common 8 denominator complaint, it was so rather large and 9
cumbersome and hard to work with .and there were a lot 10 of specific complaints that~ we had to address that we 11 agreed with them on. They had some valfd concerns. And
,s
( _,
12 he called them in, and explained to them, all right, 13 here's the reasons for use as if, and here's the reason 14 why we are not going to change here. Here's the reason 15 why you people are right here, but we're going to change 16 here. And it was a personal type thing. We did not do 17 it to generate a paper trail so that we could show how
~
18 great we were at this point in ti=e. We did it to solve 19 problems and to try to help some people who had .
20 legitimate concerns.
21 MR. GUILD: Let's take a short break.
22 (Short break.) .
23 24 25 O
I .
I fjl20/1 35,661 I,m , ,
6:20 p.m.
i MR. BELTER: We were addressing the problem of 2 the key, which identifies by name, the people who were I 3 interviewed during this process in 1919.
It.'s my recollection that this entire file of I
4 5 interviews was first made available to you, to CASE, I O
6 believe mid-June. It was the day that Ms. Alice and Ms Gar 7 came down to the Dallas office during the week that 8 Dobey Hatley's Department of Labor case was being heard.
L 9 MR. GARDE: June 22nd.
10 MR. BELTER: You were not provided at that time it with copies of them, but you did look at them.
12 The point I want to make is that once you look
(.. -
13 at them it is patently obvious that the names are not there 14 and that they are keyed.
I 15 I have not received a request for the key, and to it's obvious why we have nor provided the key until a half
, j7 hour ago. We are beyond that point now, but I want to make 1
[ 18 that point clear.
19 Our position of providing this one is that .o f a:
lI, 20 the promises-of confidentiality that we have, if confidenti 21 icy means anything, a blanket request for this many names --
22 in effect, the names of every person in the QC Department tc 23 be tied up with the comments that that person made, under a 24 very expansive promise that they would be -- that they woulc
'I 25 be kept in confidence, they were urged to express any concet I ..
. . _ . . . - . - - ~~----- - - - - - - -
SYjl 20/2 35.662
,***m.
3 they had.
2 And in fact, as'I want to put on the record I 3 through Mr. Chapman, they,were told that the notes would bc d
destroyed. ,
5 This one here we feel we just cannot 6
voluntarily give to you. And 'I would like to voir dire 7
Mr. Chapman very briefly about that, only two or three I, 8 questions, just to put it on the record.
EXAMINATION XXXXXX 10 BY MR. BELTER:
11 Q Mr. Chapman, do you recall the process by which 12 these interviews were conducted in 1979 with respect to the' 13 promise of confidentiality?
14 A Yes, I do.
15 Q What was that?
16 A Each of the individuals was promised confidenti 17 ity, was told that no one in the management chain on side 18 anywhere would be privy to the identities of any one of the l'
people raising concerns, which individual was told that the '
20 substances of their concerns would be taken -- would be put 21 into a rewritten report by,the review team and phrased such 22 that individual identities would not be discernible'from th.
23
-- j us t by the way they were written up.
24 They were further told that when they finished r 25 with those notes they wouldn't leave them around the site,
. e9
SYjl 20/3
,,_447 I> ;'O .
I They would be given to me, and I would be the only one to 2
look at them with the key.
I 3 for them, and the reports would be destroyed - 'not the And there was no further use d
reports, clie backup notes would be destroyed.
5
. Q Did' anyone on your staff have occasion to 6
question you that way, that th'at had occurred?
I A Yes, several times.
8 Q What was yo6r response?
A Well, the first time I was questioned as to IO whether I had destroyed those notes was shortly after the completion of the interview. And I was requested to destro:
12
{; the notes since they had promised the individuals that they 13 would be destroyed.
My response was I intended to, but I wanted to 15 keep them around until we assured ourselves that all the 16 concerns had been addressed, so that if we had any question 37 as to what was meant or contained in the generalized reports I8 we might go back through that, through my notes, and dig 19 through there and determine what the concern was, and tha t 20 as soo -- as soo as I determined that the entire matter 21 was closed out,.I would destroy the reports.
22 And this individual team member again emphasized 23 that if I didn't we could lose all our credibility with the 2'
,h 25' people to whom we had promised confidentiality.
Q Why is it that the notes have not been destroyed
_ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - ~ - ~ - - - - - " ' - - '
. .... .. ... ..- . . -- - - --- - - - "L*-*-~"'
I Syjl 20/4
'4 9 A A A IQ 1 A Frankly, I put them in a file cabinet to'which :
2 alone have the key. I locked it up in a drawer that I don't I 3 have anything else in. .
4 And since the summer reports were the ones we 0
5 worked to, I forgot that I still had the backed up notes, 6
because they were irrelevant in the first place, and I just 7
forgot about them until rather rece'tly n when, during t
8 dh.scovery, I was asked to go through my files, my personal 9
files -- anything that could conceivably called a file -- an 10 I saw a big box in there. And there it is.
11 Q Do you have an opinion as to the impact of r 12 revaaling this entire list of names to an intervenor in this I (. - 13 Licensing Board on the ability of management to get along 14 with the emp1'oyees who would be affected?
15 A Well, I might use one of their favorite phrases 16 and use the term " chilling effect" on anyone who would choos 17 to identify problems as openly, as forthrightly as these 18 people did.
19 Q And j us t to be clear about who we are talking 20 about, this was interviews of all QC/QA on-site personnel?
21 A Everyone we could get.
22 I'm not saying 100 percent, because there may 23 have been someone on vacation. There may have been some of 24 them we couldn't get. But all or nearly all -- certainly 25 those that we could get, from clerks all the way up to
. .. _ l E SYjl 20/5 35.665 I
upper-level management.
2 MR. BELTER: , That's all the questions I have, 3
Bob. -
.I would urge you to recognize our problem here 5
g and see if.we can't work out some way of not destroying 6
the credibility of management with the QA/QC Departnent by I
revealing to an intervenor in this case these notes.
8 c, ,
MR. GUILD: 'I think he focused on the key probli.
Len.
10 MR. BELTER: Well, let me just point out here --
II I think if you're discovering the problem that we have here 12
{; and maybe it 's .j us t the need to get this protective order 13 done in preparing to cross-examine some of your witnesses, whose names we don't even have yet.
I, 15 MR. GUILD: Of course, we were forced to rely 16 largely on evidence that is in the possession of Applicants,i II c, since it is you who control the employees on the site and la che documentation on the site on this entire contention.
I' I would just point out that I think you haye 20 belied the primary basis for your fear, and that is that the:
21 information that is damaging to TUGC0 will fall into the har 22 of the Intervenors, not that, as you state, it will' damage l 23 the credibility of management and their relationship with 24
,I 25 quality control inspectors. l And I would emphasize that in the Catawta 5 gP
.. . . . . .. _. . m ... . :-. a . ..
I .
'I SYjl 20/6 35,666 1 licensing proceeding this exact point was dealt with very ,
2 effectively, where the same kinds of assurances that have I 3 been given by management to a number of quality control
. l I,
4 5
inspectors, interviews or -- well, not interviews, but documented technical and nontechnical concerns were coded, 4 and those codes were required to be provided to Intervenors 7 in discovery. And those formed a s'ubstantial basis for 8 findings of harassment and intimidation that are now matter:
9 of record in the partial initial decision in the Catawba 10 proceeding.
11 But for the knowledge of who those inspectors 12 were who documented complaints that represented harassment I (V, 13 , and intimidation, proof would never have been made a 14 record of those matters.
15 And I suspect that that is the primary basis fo:
16 TUGSO's concern.
17 We will see if we can approach the issue, 18 because I'm certainly not insensitive to the concern that 19 I -
20
-- f o r p riva cy , that individuals have their own rights But I submit that even the fact that senior 21 quality assurance management in the person of Mr. Chapman l
22 was privy to all the detailed notes.
23 Any inspector would have due regard for the 24 limits of the protection of the information that they 25 transmitted. It may be one thing to protect that individua:
, - . . - _ , _ - . - , , . ., .-. --e , , --
. .._.... . - _ _ _ . _ - - .....-:.m- . . _ . . . _ _ _ . .
SYjl 20/7 -
35,667 c.
2 I
from the knowledge of their immediate supervisor on site.
2 But if a man's ultimate.supervisore has full knowledge of 3
all the details. I submit.that that limitations on confidentiality largely viciates any substantial interests
- 5 these people have in protecting that information, particula-6 '
from Interventors, who seek to support and probe evidence o:
7 complaints that inspectors have voiced to management in the past.
But let 's move on f rom diat issue. I think our to positions are well reflected on the record.
II MR. BELTER: Let me just make it clear. Your
() 12 request is for.the entire key?
I3 MR. GUILD: Yes, it is.
I#
My understanding is that that request is well 15 within the purview of the outstanding document requests 16 for discovery.
II And I assert that, as I had earlier, that I am 38 unable to examine Mr. Chapman today with respect to those I'
interviews without access to that key. ~
20 MR. BELTER: I would disagree entirely that 21
, you can't examine him at all. You can examine him about 22 '
it. And I suggest that you do that.
23 And if you then discover a difficulty in 24 examining him, you make it very specific so we get to the h 25 Judge with O precisely what the difficulty is with respect to
/
.. -- . - - - - . . _ _ - . _ . _ . - ___ ._ -.. . _.s...__.. -. _-._ .__ __ -
I 35,668 SYjl 20-8 I any one of these.
2 Now, the difficulty is that I am unable to I 3 prepare to examine a witness who,-himself, has-the 4
information,about the identities of the person that the 3
g notes disclose r~ and therefore --
6 MR. BELTER: He do'es not have that.
7 MR. GUILD: He has the knowledge, or he certain I, 8 has had the opportunity'to form the knowledge of who specific individuals are,who, since he alone has the key, 10 Our positions are well reflected on the record, II and I stand on it.
{,. 12 We.can certainly discuss the interesta in a 13
, . protective order or other ways of handling this off the Id
!I 15 record.
MR. BELTER: I think our position is that you 16
, are perfectly capable of cross-examining Mr. Chapman on 17 the basis of these interviews and the basis of what's in la front of you. .
19 I don't see where the name itself is g'oing to 20
. give you any advantage in that respect.
21 MR.. GUILD: We,just disagree.
22 '
EIAMINATION XIZZZXII 23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 Q To the best of your knowledge, Mr. Chapman --
(h 25 MR. BACHMANN: Excuse me. I would like to make
?.
- - - - - . - - - - . , . - . . , - - . , - - , , - - - . - - , w-. - , . -
.. . N . . . .. , . - - - - - - - -
k .
SYjl 20-9 35,669 t:q . -
I one comment on the record.
2 If, indeed, ,the' Judge denies your request for 3 3 the identities, I assume, then, that you have waived your I
4 right to cro,ss-examine without the identicles.
5 MR.' GUILD: That's not the case. I'm not makin:
6 any waiver at all.
~
7 MR .- BELTER: Well, then, I suggest that you go 8
ahead and cross-examine'without them right now.
9 MR. BACHMANN: The Staf f will certainly obj ect to to going ahead without the identities if your request is 11 denied.
(; 12 MR GUILD: I'm sure you will, and I appreciate 33 your taking every tactical advantage of the position that l'
you've put us.in. But that is no reason why an Intervenor 15 should be forced to be handicapped as we are to. examine on 16 a subject we can only examine ineffectually on. Our positic 17 r are well reflected on the record.
18 BY MR. GUILD: .. ~ .. .
- r. ..
19 1'
.Q .
Mr '. Chapman., do you. represent that all of those 20
- interview summaries -- strike that.
21 Do you represent, sir, that the documentary 22 record of all the interviews that were conducted were trans-23 mitted to Intervenors in discovery, absent, of course, the 24 the key? ,
25 A All the documents -- all the documentary
SYjl 20-10 35,67C m .
v
I interviews that were what?
2 Q All the ones that were conducted.
3 A No, I don't have any way of knowing if you've got them all. -
5 -
[.
Q Did you take any out?
6 ~
A No.
7 Q Did you delete any or throw any away or destro) 8 any?
(
A llo .
10 Q Alter them in any way?
II A No.
12 Q And you did what with those documents? What I3 did you do with them when you found them in your files I#
recently?
I3 A I notified Susan Spencer, who is responsible fo 16 getting all these things together, that I found something t II might be responsive that I had forgotten about.
IO '
Q And what was she instructed to do?
A I 20 She just didn't need any instructions.
I started looking at some of the envelopes.
21 They were all out of order. They weren't in order by 22 alphanumeric code. So, I thought, well, I will at least 23 put them in order.
24 I noticed there were a few missing, and that's the g 25 first time I had even gone through all of them. I didn't
.e
- ' ' - - - ' ' ~
. .. .. . z <
. . . . . - - - ~ -- - . -
I. ,
SYjl 20-11 35,671 I.,,\ s I
locate any of them at that time. I didn't read any of them 2 I just put them in order.
- i. 3 Q And who did they get transmitted to?
4 A I gave them to Ms. Spencer. That's the last 5 I saw of them. -
C 6 Q Do you know what she did with them?
7 A I presume she supplied them to CASE or made thet 8 available.
9 Q Did she supply them to counsel?
- 10 A I don't knwo what she did with them.
11 Q You just. don't know?
12 A I don't know.
(g..
13 Q Did you give her the key?
14 A No.
15 Q What did you do with it?
16 A I kept it.
17
, Q Did you inform her or counsel that you had that 18 in your possession?
19 A .I' don't reaember whether I did or not. .
20 Q How did they learn that you had it?
21 A They knew that I had the key originally. I 22 guess the assumed if I didn't throw those things away, I 23 hadn't thrown the key away.
24 Q Did any of your lawyers ask you about the l I 25 subject?
's I
l .
SYjl 20-12 35,672 I ~
A I don't think they did. I don't remember it if 2
they did.
3 I just kept the key. ,
d Q You don't remember any of your lawyers asking 5
you,whether or not there was a key that explained the i
6 identities of the witnesses and whether you retained it in 7
your possession?
8 A I don't remember.
Q So, as far as you know, the first time that 10 subject came up is when I raised it today?
II A The subject came up?
12 Q The subject of your possession of the key to k./ - 13 those interviews, to the identities of the inspectors.
I#
To the best of your recollection --
15 A I don't think anybody asked me about that key.
16 Q U til today.
II
, A That's right.
18 Q All right.
l' end 20 20
(
I 21 22 23 24 ,
25
'J
Suzy #21 arl 35,673 P.
.r-1 A I did mention, I think, to Susan that I had 2
not -- I was not going,to' furnish the key, but I don't I 3 recall anybody asking me about thekey. I just said, 4 "Here. Those things you can take, but I'm going to keep 5 the key."
[
. 6 Q She knew you had"the key?
7 A Yes.
8 Q You told her you had the key?
i 9 A I 10 Well, I guess when I said I'm going to keep the key, she assumed rightfully by that that I did have i 11 Q All right. Thank you.
12
( Let's see.if we can move through a couple of 13 these subjects and complete at least this. We are 14 I 15 considering, counsel, adjourning or recessing the deposition and trying to resolve this matter of the 16 interviews over the evening.
17 MR. BELTER: How much more have you got, 18 M r'. Chapman?
19 MR. GUILD: That's my point. y 20 MR.;BELTER:
Aside from this subject.
21 MR. GUILD: I have what I hope I can finish 22 very shortly, but let me move on.
23 BY MR. GUILD:
24 ,
Q What is your 1,1trformance rating, then, Mr.
25 Chapman? Let's take the most recent period for which t
e e-
I .
( UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OR 3 XA'_
In the matter of:
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al Docket No. 50-445 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2)
\.
Deposition of: DAVID N. CHAPMAN Location: Glen Rose, Texas Pages: 76,500 - 76,631 Date: August 2, 1984 f
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES com a.p.nm ,
~'
. 1625 I su.a. N.w. s== 1006 '
Washington D.C. 20006 C# [' d,o 4pp (202) 3 3-3950 -
t .
76,530 1 Do you intend on fairly extensive questioning on this 1
2 exhibit because if so I'd like to have an opportunity 3 to get my copy?
4 MR. BELTER: I think you might want to 5 get your copy, and I have a copy here before me. I don't 6 have extensive questions on that, and I'm not going to I 7 go into it. .
8 MR. BACHMANN: It will just take me a moment.
9 I'll get it right outside.
10 MR.-ROISMAN: - Wait. Wait. Wait. Do you 11 need yours in particular~because we have an extra one?
12 MR. BACHMANN: I think I do.
_. 13 MR BELTER: Why don't we take a short 14 break.
15 (A short recess was taken.)
16 MR'. BELTER: Back on the record.
r 17 -
BY MR. BELTER:
18 Q. Mr. Chapman, would you take a look briefly, please, at what is marked as Purdy Exhibit 42-1.
~
19 20 A. Okay.,
i 21' O. Did you. discuss the contents of this exhibit 22 with the members of the management review board?
23 A. Yes, I did.
~
~
24 Q. What steps, if any, did you take in response o
25 to the concerns identified in the various documents that
. . . - - . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . - . .-. .. .. . . . . - - - \
l 76,531 1 comprise Purdy Exhibit 42-l? )
m ;
2 A. Well, there was several management actions 3 that took place, the most immediate of which was after 4 discussions between Mr. Tolson and me, he set about a 5 process of small group meetings in his office on a daily 6 basis. I think he had them before work hours, 7:00 o' clock C- 7 every morning, for several weeks.until he had talked to 8 all the inspectors involved, and to solve the problems 9 that were under his jurisdiction and to -- basically, 10 .to communicate the commitment that management'had to' them 11 on a personal basis to resolve these matters to everyone's a satisfaction. -
t 13 Q. These Wer.e-QC~ inspectors?
14 A. QC inspectors, yes.
l M In addition to that, I called a meeting j 16 with TUGCO senior ~ management. That included executive r 17 vice presidents, both over QA/QC and over the construction, 18 and, also, there were site construction and QA management.
~
19 I was there, and the review team that did the study was 20 there. And the team. member gave a presentation to this 4
21 l senior management group. going over the items that ,they 22 had found that needed managment attention and answering 23 any questions that our senior management had.
Q 24 Q. Were there any other meetings that you ,,
25 attended?
76,532 I 1 A. Yes. Since -- As a result of this first 9
i 2 meeting there were obviously some things which needed j 1
3 to be addressed not only through QA management that I 4 could handle directly but also through construction manage-5 ment, and that was the purpose of having the first meeting.
6 There were some matters such as pay policies and so forth
[ 7 that needed to be addressed through Brown & Root's corporate 8 office in Houston.
9 So after the construction senior management 10 had heard the concerns that were being expressed by tha~
11 inspectors -- Bear in mind, our whole intent on this 12 first cut to talk to everybody was to elicit whatever 13 was on their mind, concerns,'whether -- And their charter 14 was not to determine whether their concern had merit.
15 We wanted to know what was going on in their minds, get 16 it on the table. 'So -- And with that -- In that context, 17 we presented it to construction management so they could 18 hear what the' concerns of the QC people were, address
~
19 those concerns. If it involved. craft /QC interface, they 20
- I 21 could address those concerns from a craft management, construction management. standpoint. And so that all levels 22 of management were involved in reaching the objective 23 that we knew we wanted.
Io 24 Shortly after that, I guess it was a couple 25 of. weeks, roughly, we had another meeting at the site
4.
76,533 I with our -- again, our senior management. We had Brown &
2 Root senior management there, both construction and QA 3 corporate, and to resolve and work out the pay equity 4 considerations that we had been working on at the manage-5 ment level for some time to finally resolve the issues 6 that needed their attention.
I 7 Q. Just -- Go ahead.
I 8 A. Well, then sometime later, I think it was 9 about five months, in order to verify that these management L
10 actions that we had taken had been effective and 11 accceplished what we wanted'to do, I commissioned an audit 12 by the Dallas audit. group to come down and verify that 13 the things that we had done had been effective.
14 Q. Just.to tie part of your answer up with 15 other depositions, Mr. Chapman, were the interview 16 sessions that Mr.'Tolson had with the small groups
. 17 o.f inspectors occasionally referred to as fireside 18 chats?.
19 A. Yes. That's what he -- That's his term 20 he gave them.
I 21 period of time.
That was a popular phrase during that i
22 MR. ROIS N : This was in the early 23 for' ties? .
24 (Laughter.)
25 THE WITNESS: No. It was during 1979
I 76,534 t when the President of the United States liked to refer m
2 to fireside chats.
3 MR. ROISMAN: Oh, that fireside chat.
4 MR. BACHMANN: So soon you forget.
5 BY MR. BELTER:
6 Q. With respect to this follow-up audit, C 7 is that the -- Was that follow-up audit documented 8 in any fashion?
9 A. Yes, it was, just as any other audit 10 in our auditing system is documented.
11 MR. BELTER: I don't recall the exhibit 12 number, Tony. s L 13 MR ROISMAN: -Panel Anderson - .
14 MR. BELTER: Panel Anderson --
15 MR. ROISMAN: -- Exhibit 1.
16 MR'. BELTER: -- Exhibit 1. Thank you.
17 , We'll -- I don't intend to get into 4 18 that at this point. You may.
19 MR. ROISMAN: Do you want for the record 20 to indicate why we just had that conversation? You 4
21 ,
want him to say that --
22 MR. BELTER: I will recite that there was' olscussion in otl}er depositions about the follow-up Ih 23
^
24 audit that he has mentioned, and the document referred f 25 to is Anderson Panel or Panel Anderson Exhibit 1.
1
76,566 I 1 MR. ROISMAN: Back on the record, n '
2 BY MR. ROISMM:
3 Q. All right, Mr. Chapman. What persons in 4 management above yourself did you consult, if anyone, in 5 conjunction with deciding what response should be taken, I[ 6 7
if any, to the events that are sum:aarized in what has been marked as Purdy Exhibit 42-l? That is the management review I a board document.
9 A. Well, that was -- I think as I testified 10 earlier, I had discussed with Mr. Gary, who was'then my I 11 boss, my immediate supervisor, of the need for not only 12 his involvement but also that of Mr. Fikar,,and the result
( 13 of that conversation was a-meeting that I called..that they I. 14 attended and other management up both of those chains of 15 command attended.
16 Q. And'the thrust of that meeting was -- What u
, 17 issues did that meeting focus on?
18 A. Okay. It was emphasized then when the meeting 5
19
- started that the purpose of this board that had been assigned 8
20 this task by me was to.get everything out on the table, t
21 what's on the mind of these inspectors, not for the team 22 members to pass judgment on individual perceptions, but 23 to put everything, including hearsay, down there. Well,
.Q 24 I -- You know,' somebody told me that they heard somebody 25 say that.
l
. . . - - - . . .. ...l I .
76,567 i
1 And the senior managers were told that the
- reason for this meeting was not to -- again, not to attempt e
3 to necessarily put in perspective or give even a management 4 analysis or summary of the results except in some of the 5 cases where we did make conclusions, but, rather, to tell - p 6 For instance, tell-construction senior management, "This
( 7 is what the inspectors are saying. They are saying that 8 the craft puts pressure on them. They are saying the craft 9 does whatever." So that senior management would then know to how to deal with those types of things that they needed 11 to look into from their side of the management standpoint.
I 12 Q. And do you remember which particular subjects
(
were focused on at that meeting out of all the various I
13 14 concerns and statements that are summarized in Purdy Exhibit 15 42-l?
16 A. Was pour' question which ones were specifically y 17 emphasized or --
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Well, I couldn't give you an all inclusive 20 list. I know the pay , inequities were discussed. I know 4
21 tnat there was the matter of the QC inspectors' concern 22 about the excessive - ,What am I trying to say? The 23 excessive concern with, production was discussed.
Tj 24 Some of the inspectors feel like management 25 wanted production at all cost and that there was some i
l .
76,568' 1 instances where craft was always arguing with them when A
2 they rejected their work. And, of course, in instances 3 like that, well, as I recall, there was a discussion about 4 training of the craft, for instance. QC is going to continue 5 to reject rejectable work. Now, if there's arguments coming 6 out of something like that, then perhaps craft ought to D 7 spend more time explaining what the quality requirements I 8 are, and then'those issues would go away.
i I
9 Those were the types of things that we wanted
'10 to discuss there so that we could get to the ultimate ' concern 11 which was that of an inspector who thinks that he's always 12 being argued with when he rejects something. .That's an
.. 13 example that I recall. ._
14 Q. Did that meeting result in some decisions 15 being made jointly by all of those of you who attended a
16 the meeting on what' courses of action to take?'
O
, 17 A. Well, I'm trying to go back five years, 18 r and I know that there were some decisions made about what 19 - management needed to do. And I recall Mr. Fikar being
.I 20 very receptive, as wer.e those managers under him from the 2
21 construction standpoint,.that we're going to take these 22 concerns seriously and,we're going to do what we can, what 23 needs'to be done on our side to solve the thing because
,_). 24 we do not intend to put excessive pressure on QC inspectors 25 to do something they are not supposed to do. And we tell
-..... -- . - . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ....-...a-- .
76,569 1 our people to do it right and so forth.
- 2 And one of the things that I think I' mentioned 3 to you just briefly was that it may be a training matter 4 where if they knew more of what the quality requirements 5 were, that would solve it.
6 Q. What exactly were the steps that were taken U 7 to address the concern that the QC inspectors have that I 8 there was an over-emphasis on production?
9 A. Well, the -- I guess the most important 10 step was those series of meetings that Mr. Tolson had with 11 them where it was -- he emphasized not only that they were 12 independent and so forth, but they were not to be -- to 3
.y . 13 feel any pressure to do'lqss than what was required.
14 We also -- As a result of that study, we c
15 concluded that there was an immediate need to improve the i 16 procedures and inst $uctions that the inspectors were working 8 17 to, particularly, as I recall, in the electrical area.
i 18 And that really wasn't totally unexpected because we were l
19
~ just beginning to staff up in the electrical part, and iI 20 normally you run into your -- most of your debugging of 21 procedures at the beginning of an activity. ,
22 I think,the electrical area was where that Ih was tihe case.
23 I know we did some extensive revisions and i
24 rework so that the inspectors would have some ery specific 25 criteria to which to inspect.
76,570 1 Q. Was that the procedure that was principally I',. 2 modified, was that CPM-6.9?
3 A. That was -- Well, that was one of them, 4 and one of the biggest complaints was CPM-6.9 because it
- i. 5 was a very large unwieldy document.
6 Now', what I'm saying in the electrical area, D 7 it is my recollection that basically we went in and did 8 a total procedure review across-the-board. And I'm not 9 even sure CPM-6.9 is an -- I don't think it is an electrical 10 procedure. I think it is an across-the-board procedure.
11 But we went in and reviewed and basically I .
12 restructured all of the electrical inspection procedures
(. 13 and gave the inspectors-something that was a whole lot 14 better to work with.
I 3 15 Now, I think I've forgotten your original 16 question.
- 17 . Q. Okay. I was still trying to get your 9, 18 specific steps taken to respond to the QC inspector concern i
19 of too much production, that there was too much emphasis 7
- 20 on production.
t
- 21 A. Well, the. fireside chats we talked about 22 that Mr. Tolson hadi wi,th them re-emphasized to them that 23 they'were not to be concerned with production, and, ,
O 24 incidene 117,'ehet eher cou1d ex9ece craft to wene eo meet 25 production goals. That's what their job is.. But it
76,571 1 is not our job and you as an inspector have inspection
.m 2 requirements that are independent of production goals, 3 and we expect you to maintain that independence, and your 4 management is going,to support you. .
5 Now -- And it is not just any one thing.
6 That coupled with,'"All right. Here's what we're going D 7 to do with the procedures. We realize some of them are I 8 vague." And we don't want to put an inspector out in the 9 field responsible for making a bunch of interpretations 10 of requirements. Insofar as possible, we'd like to give 11 them something that contains clearcut acceptance or 12 rejection criteria. i
- 13 And ther at the same time as a result of 14 our meeting with senior management we knew that the 15 construction management was meeting with their people in 5
16 order to re-emphasi'ze that just because they have production 0
9 17 goals doesn't mean that there's going to be any less QC I
18 than there was -- than there always has been. It was 19 g
' several things.
20 Q. And am I correct that the specific response, 1"4 21 k
in addition to whatevez effects the things you just listed g
22 might have, to the concern that craft would over-argue, 23 I thi'nk was the word tilat you used, when an inspector would h 24 say, "I see a problem here," that in addition to these other 25 items, the specific thing that responded to that was to .
1
76,572 I 1 try to better train craft to do their job in a way that m
2 there wouldn't be a defect that the QC inspector would 3 have to find?
4 A. Well, that's true. Better train them plus g 1 m 5 better train the inspectors and arm them with the tools 6 they need; that is, inspection instructions that give them D 7 as clearcut accept / reject criteria as possible and requires a few subjective judgments on the part of that inspector 9 3 as possible. So that if you've got very clearcut acceptance v
10 criteria, then that in itself cuts down on a lot of arguments -
I- 11 And that was one of the issues, as I recall, 12 that was -- that really was addressed by the rewriting
(
- 13 of the procedures. , We.7made much more clearcut the 14 inspector's acceptance criteria, and that gave them a lot is of help.
3 16 Q. I take it, though, that there's still a o
4 17 significant portion of the QC inspector's job which must 18 involve judgment.
I wouldn't know whether I would characterize 19 A.
r 20 it as significant. In large part, it depends upon what I; 21 discipline we're talking about.
If it can be measured 22 easily, it is prethy cut and. dried. You can measure a 23 weld' length. You can , measure a weld fill-it size. But U. 24 when you do a visual inspection and one person says that's 25 a coarse ripple and it is too coarse to render an appropriatet l l
t 76,573 I ' '"'""' ' " " ' " " " """""""' '" " '"'"" " ""
^
l ~' 2 subjectivity there. ,
3 .By and large, things y'ou can measure, weld 4 length size, fitup,, tolerance and so forth. Coarseness 5 of a weld, paint, for instance, there are some subjective lb 6 judgments that the amount of which varies from discipline 7 to discipline.
l 8 Q. All right.
Mr. Chapman, do you know whether 9 as part of the response to the management review board 10 summaries, Purdy Exhibit 42-1, that there was an effort 11 on the part of Brown & Root to -bring in someone to speak 12 to the Brown & Root employees? Do you have,any knowledge 13 of that? .
14 A. As a result of the summaries?
15 g, yes, 16 A. Bririg somebody in to speak to them?
17
. Q. That's correct.
18 A. The only person that I recall having spoken 19 to them as a group, I believe was about that time frame, l
20 was one of their senior vice presidents'from Houston.
i 21 Would that have been Mr. Munisteri?
Q.
22 A. Yes. .
23 Q. Except,for knowing that you think he came 24 in to speak, did you have any connection with that? For 2
25 instance, did you attend the speech?
. . . . ~.- ..--. . . _ . . . . . - . . ..--..:...- . .- . ~ . . . . - . - . .
76,574 1 A. No, I didn't.
N-2 Q. Did you know whether any effort was made 3 either before or after the speech to find out the emp'.oyees'
, 4 feelings about the subject of the speech or after it occurred 5 about what happened with the speech?
6 A. I don't recall offhand whether that I' 7 specific subject was part of our re-audit to determine I 8 the effectiveness of our management actions or not. It 9 may have been. It has been a long time since I looked 10 at that.
11 Q. I'm sorry. Since you looked at?
u A. Since I looked at anything like the audit s.. ., 13 report or what have,you. ,
14 Q. But you don't remember seeing any question -
15 naires filled out by Brown & Root employees who attended, A
16 if there were such,~who' attended the speech given by 17 Mr. Munisteri expressing their rea,ctions to the speech?
, 18 A. If I did, it would have been as a result i
19 -
of the re-audit because that's the only other instance 20 where anything was documented that I know of.
I
- 21 So I very well could have, but --
22 Q. All'right.
I 23 MR. ROISMAN: If you think he has -- I think h 24 he hasn't, but I'm not going to --
t 25 MR. BELTER: No, I don't. I have no idea
. 76,592 1 than the more cumbersome nonconformance report. And he A
2 tried to communicate with them the reasons as to why we 3 did it that way. .
4 BY MR. ROISMAN: .
5 Q. And were you satisfied that that was a 6 satisfactory response to whatever the problem was?
7 A. Yes.- He satisfied me that he and/or Brandt 8 had resolved the concerns of the individuals and, also, f
9 he indicated that there may have been individuals that 10 would even after all that explanation just simply would i 11 not accept the answer as to inspection report versus 12 nonconformance report, for whatever reason.
13 Q. Did you - In the briefing that he gave you 14 of both the nature of the problem and the types of.
15 solutions, did you see any parallels between the nature 16 of the problem that ~he described there and any of the problemt
', 17 which had been identified in the 1979 survey?
18 A. Not really. As I recall, the people, as he 19
- described to me, that were having the worst, the biggest u l 20 trouble, the most heartburn with the NCR versus IR issue
}
21 simply would not accept the word of the approval authority.
22 There was an instance where an inspector 23 simply would not accept the word of a coatings engineer 24 whose duty, wh'ose job it is to assign the acceptance 3-E criteria by which the inspector does his job, and as he
76,593 1 related it to me, this inspector -- I don't remember the 3
name -- simply does not accept what engineering says.
I(] 3 2
And there's not much you can do when there's an individual i .
4 like that.
- 5 'Q. But isn't that just one of the problems 6 that he reported to you that they had uncovered among the I ,
A, 7 paint coatings inspectors? That was just one, wasn't it?
8 A. That's one, yes.
9 Q. You saw no parallel between any of the others I $
10 and any of the kinds of problems identified in the 1979 11 survey?
12 A. Well, originally, I assumed that there might '
/ 13 be because, as I said earlier, when people make j
14 allegations or they have concerns, I take them seriously. I 15 i All right. We talked about the one about o
8 16 the inspector who would not accept engineering's decisions.
17 We had at least'one, maybe more -- I don't 18 recall numbers, but the problem persisted after Mr. Tolson I 19 . had aa meeting and explained to them that, as he related I2 20 to me, that there is no requirement anywhere in 10 CFR 50, I
21 Appendix B to write nobconformance reports, to write a 3
22 piece of paper that says nonconformance report on it.
23 Appendi:M: B requires that nonconformances 2(~ be dealt with'and dispositioned accordingly, according 25 to.the --
i ,
n - -
I . 76,594 I 1 Q. Excuse me, Mr. Chapman. I don't want to n
. , . 2 interrupt you, but I'm trying to ask about problems other j
3 than --
4 A. Okay I'm ' t:rying to go --
5 Q. -- between the NCR and IR.
6 MR..BELTER: Well, ask him a specific --
,, 7 MR. ROISMAN: I can't ask about a specific L
8 problem if I don't -- he can't tell me what it was 9 Mr. Tolson told him the problems were. I don't want to 10 create problems for him.
11 MR. BELTER:' You told him before that he'd 12 mentioned several concerns. Why don't you direct a specific
- 13
,. question to him and.stop cutting him off on his answer?
14 MR. ROIiMAN: I don't want to cut him off.
15 I just want him to focus on my question so we can get through 16 it faster. That ' s 'all .
17
, THE WITNESS: I'm not trying -- I'm trying 18 not to ramble, but I'm also trying to talk about the 19 -
issues that he related to me.
20 g BY MR. ROISMAN:
21 Q. Tell me another problem that he identified 5 -
22 other than the inspector who would not accept the fact 23 l that,you could use an IR instead of an NCR.
24 g, Plus the one that the inspector would not 25 accept engineering decisions.
76,595
~
1 Q. All right. That's a second one. I 2 A. That's another one.
I[ 2
- 3 . Q. All right. Tell me a third one.
4 A. Gosh, again, I'm going from memory.
5 Q. Did he tell you that there was any inspector -
6 that there was any. supervisor inspector who had told his
,. 7 inspectors not to nit-pick? !
L 8 A. Oh, I recall that issue.
9 Q. That refreshes your memory about that one?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And what did he tell you he was doing about 12 that problem?
13 A.
C I asked.him.-- Well, I'm not characterizing I
14 what may or may not have been said as a problem. I remember 15 the incident when it came up, and I believe you're referring 16 to the pump skimmer room incident where the inspectors
?
17 in the judgment of the supervisor, at least, and this was 18 what was reported to me by Mr. Tolson. There was appai ently 2
19
. an inordinately large amount of time spent doing the 20 inspection, that there were a large number of hold tags 21 when in the supervisor Is opinion what they should have 1
22 done was reject the whole room and go on with it instead
!e 6 23 of putting a tag every so many feet.
24
' And Mr. Tolson relayed that incident to 25 me, and there had been a charge that the supervisor made
t 76,596 1 a statement that if you're going to nit-pick like this, 2 then I'll jerk -- yank your certifications or whatever.
3 And he also related to me that there was 4 concern on the part of the' supervisor that not only had 5 they put all those hold tags on it and spent a lot more 6 time than they should have, they should have just rejected I C 7 the whole room, but-they had actually missed some rejectable 8 areas.
9 And I remember asking Mr. Tolson if he felt 10 as though that the supervisor was trying to keep them from 11 identifying nonconforming conditions, and he said no, because 12 the supervisor had pointed out that they had missed some 13 rejectable areas, too. .
14 And I asked him if he had looked into it, 15 and he had looked into it to some extent at that time
~
16 and said he felt like that there were some communications l
17 problems with the supervisor, obviously, but he felt like 18 that the large part of it was that scme of them just didn't 19 . like their supervisor. But he and Brandt had looked into
.. 20 it.
2 21 MR. BEL R: Could we just clarify the record 22 at this point, Tony, with the name of the supervisor?
23 MR. ROISMAN: Sure.
24 BY MR. ROISMAN:
25 Q. Do you know who that person was, the
. . .. . . .: ~.: ~ ^
76,597.
1 supervisor in question?
2 A- I Presume that -- based on the incident 3 y u're talking about that it was Harry Williams.
4 Q. Did you find out what, if any, steps 5 Mr. Tolson and/or Mr. Brandt were going to take in response 6
to this problem?
7 A. Well, we had -- This problem, are you talking i .
8 about --
9 Q. Strike the word. You don't want to call I ( 10 it -- This event. ,
11 A. I was trying to decide whether you're talking about communications techniques of Mr. Williams as opposed l 6 12 13 to this particular inspection event. ,
14 Q. Let's talk about the communications techniques .
15 A. Okay. Mr. Tolson and I had talked about
$ 16 that before. We fe.it that Mr. Williams was a good quality 17 man. He had no intention of having anybody accept poor 18 quality work. But we talked about his communications 19 . and supervisory techniques and felt like that he needed 20 to work on them some, and we talked about it then.
21 Again, every discussion that I had with l 2
22 'Mr. Tolson on this, subject he would always conclude that I 23 the bottom line with Harry Williams was that he did not 24 in any way feel that he was intimidating any inspectors 9-l I 25 into accepting unacceptable work.
, 76,598 1 Q. .
Did he tell you that anything -- any action
2 was going to be taken against Mr. Williams?
3 A. Well, action taken against Mr. Williams ...
4 I think what was happening'over that period of time was 1 5 that we were -- at the same time we were trying to get him 6 to improve his communication and supervisory skills, we 7 also recognized that his particular area of expertise, 8 which was civil work, was dwindling down, and his employer, 9 Gibbs & Hill, was looking for ano~ther assignment for him. ;
10 That all came about at about the same time. He:left the !
11 site, as I recall, sometime late last August or September.
12 Q. But was it your understanding that that
., 13 leaving was in any nature disciplinary action by
..: -. ~. ,
14 Mr. Tolson or Mr. Branilt?
M 15 A. No. Now, together with the -- cur attention j 16 to what appeared to.be a communications problem, I am 17 convinced it wasn't all Harry Williams' fault. But there 18 wa's a gradual unloading of responsibilities from Harry a 19
. Williams from the first of the year until he wound up with
=
20 basically only prot'ective coatings reporting to him, which 21 was the situation at t}1e time he left.
~
I 22 But; no, our conclusion that it wasn't only l
j 23 Harry Williams' fault I think was pretty well substantiated f 24 by the inspectiors who refused to accept engineering ;
I 25 decisions even after it's been explained to them in detail
. . . . . . . - - . . . . . - . . .. . - - - . .. .. .- ..~ . . - - . ..--.-
i 76,599 1 I what those decisions are and why thsy were made.
2 Q., Mr. Chapman, in Mr. Tolson's discussions 3 with you, as best you remember them, during the summer 4 and early fall of 1983, did he ever tell you that of 45 5 QC inspectors asked the question, "Do you feel that upper 6 management (QA) has a hostile or uncomplimentary attitude I-3 7 toward inspection personnel?" that almost one-third answered 8 mostly yes?
9 A. I don't recall ever being told that piece 10 of information.
11 Q. Did he ever tell you that in answer to the 12 question, "Do you have confidence that your, supervisor 13 will pursue problems you submit to them that require 14 time for resolution?" Etade to a QC inspector,that the 15 inspector answered, "They are too busy going to management 8 16 meetings. Mostly no"?
I,
.s 17 MR. BELTER:
Is this one incident?
18 MR. ROISMAN: Yes, it is an in cident.
s 19 . BY MR. ROISMAN: -
- - 20 Q. Did he ever tel3. you thati?
21 A. No.
22 MR.'ROISMAN: Give me a second here, please.
23 BY MR. ROISMAN:
24 Q. ' Did he ever tell you that a QC inspector 25 in response to the question, "Do you feel that upper
, , - - - , - - - , - , - - - - ,,,,w - . - - - ~--- ,: --- ,, w- ,,-e----w-,. - -ww--,-- - ---
.M g 3 I- .
s'! . s g .
\
- . ;.:..\ ~+ r.
- , * */ -g
'. * a ; ;
p *9- , , , . ,
7):
, e j' ] 3, y ; ,
m
^
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
IA NUCLEAR REGt/LATORY COMMISSION C R 1,A_
A.
g a% ~ ;.
f .o p-
~
._ . , In the matter of: , . . . - .7
~, -
.- .1 s ,'
. .. s , cf.,.. . .; ;;&.
+u
~ c. -
c ...,.t . .. - c:m'3 4;.
,- ,/* :. J. 4 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC , , . s. .i f g , M.,. a s..; 4... ,,':X. ,
I . .o:. ,' .
.m
- : .S%;Q._ COMPANY, et al 1
0 ..
4.O~ ' m: ' . a ', Docket No. 50-445 .
^ ' {g?.3 ' ";L; y~ Qc g n l " ; &
~
-s-M , j p fts.W-b$y:'50-44&
J~- # -
. : .'. F. ~m7.:.:. ... U-(Comanche. Peak Steam Electric' ..
~
% . Ey+ v'. A ,I,,.y#fQ,- @3.,d., .. - s
, .-. Stat. ton, Un.tts 1 & 2)
_...a .
. ;cc ' Z
.t. w -
,e ,
,- . .y p;,4'. ',,c.
w,c..m;.- ,$,Ijd.
cis
. % . ^ M, ,u . 1 . .s-a. .?. n.A. ,?; c N,q;. m aT,. .
= , ,s. _
,. ,.o - . r
.' : . - :- ;a -- ' p:a; ; .V;.. .. r,N,.-
'., : v y. =; Q . . ~ . ._ ; ; . c,.;p.:-i
- y. . ,. :-,.
., .. . -. . v.,
w.,.
,r. y ;.;. ,?;;3,a-g.+y,. .
w ;,,,,
.M;caa. .. , ,
m
- .' . ^J
- .t,.
- /- . t,- Jr e c- % , T . . . ... m@ @. s
,. ...f er :, ;;. . n .. .;; ; ;. .,gf. e ..f.;M.u I mj
.j, q, yf
., . .. ~- ,.
, ., #. v, .,qy.p,. r.4. . 4:w. g , y ;c.x ; . , ,._ g.,...; - : , ~. ,. , g . - < 7 c, :
m.. p. .,s .>. , ...y..p.z.,!4g +- .
... -+ ,..,..
-.- n.. .
~ ., . . .. .7
- u. ....,. ,
- y w .
.;:,y?
. 2,
.j * . .m ..g w; ..a. ; -- .
e .% . ,c. ,, ,
.m. . , ,,, , , , , ,j.
s... , . . -:; . n . , ..e. -
< . . : . ~,us. ; ..
.q ;;y > .m-y:mgs,vw' :va.m' . _ y, - @g4,y.,;.3
-.n a ".x ;.p:y.,y.m. % ,. 3., y,,
..vy:: g .L..m.nv %. ..., 3,Q a a-
.4 L . : .- 4. A . ~ ~- :.. (s 3;T:n,, .yc,._;7 i ) :: ~. .y.u - *
- 7. . .y.
v.
.?
?q - . . . .. i.. ....~, . . .-
'. i.D
~
. WiL . M. ' .. A bW '
~n)%-;; M .:i:5:: ' y\ ,' Q%
- ~'
- .., a. y. x r ~ i: 4 ~ W-l^ W l a3..w .p,, . ' T':
- --Km.g. . dc.x: y ,.r3,'..C, . * *
. : kg;. ?.%
. mVy.. . ,; .tm.e v. ,,m ,,r~ +2.w. p . 6g;...a g ' ..s s ;4 .*F'.-.. mg- ' %'Nr;o.. ..
tmv. -~'-O;.o.
. . v- 4 ,4 w m_;. ~, # - 4 q. 3,uy cm . , g.,A ,j,( . ., q~%.
m.p . e w @p. 2 Deposa tlon of r iPanel 3 -( Andersonw,: Spencer & Baren)gtyv 7e1 i
,, R . Je: w,w . .,m. w. w. .% .a . g,. .,_g,
. ,, a ., .. , . q, s, ,.
DM[$'N.f-NMNMk[d!dh75NMfid'Ml;i'@p&qQQ-4Mdg G,g ~gfg;.Qg,g D['39$@ ,%MY WEV'M '.'.M"N@
'*N"'E/
Rose,, Texas .. ..MMWWW7M66'NMoM 76asw W;tNf.-Q,g@pl%g;~I.'fI~*
T .
tion- Glen . - ,,.Pagen enn 7-r rRI
[ h,N . h k k W ',_ 1Y{h~t Ich w[kNhlm.
w .m v s - .. e. .,c r .
g r .-fr~h . m . -. %> a. - .
2 w y 7
,g C
. .. y , , , ' - AyA', - y ;. ' 4 w*- f '
.y$
5 Ejj *No's t.hW ,.L
.)-' *$94' ' ' hW "%*~'^^i Q&
?W*d'???}? M'- QC >.h T y D$k. 5 ,
Y! Anh '
N k ,
[k N M.hhh, $1 m hsb{h$
!v ik -
mMyhw%&gbkh %kk n..hY4h cw - [h h g $v $$hy
.q .S-4 W aB4 w idSSdRi$udEMQM 4M
- 3 *WT 'TAYLOE ASSOCIATES k '.- a9 a
- s. - . ~e. ?.. ggg,.2..,' 5.'iF#j e n .
A -
,, .come Repone , e ' 'm Ic&
4 'MWAL*%% . , t622isame..w. sme. Ioos : r,jype -
ld&s==o c. N 20$dd ,, .
w e. i
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA r% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. 2 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD 3
4 r.
5 ----------------
In the Matter of: :
6 .
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC :
7 COMPANY, et al.
g
- Docket Nos. 50-445 -
8
- 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric : '
Station, Units 1 and 2) :
9 ----_____-______ -
10 11 Room No. 38 12 Glen Rose Motor Inn Highway 67 and FM-Road 201 I (- -_, 13 Glen Rose, Texas I
14 Tuesday,
~
July 31, 1984 I
16 Panel Depositions of: DEBRA ANDERSON, SUSAN SPENCER, 17
, and' ALBERT BOREN called for examinatiCn by counsel for 18 the Applicants takeg before Glenna M. Wright, Court 19 Reporter, beginning at 4:20 p.m., pursuant to agreement. ,
20 21
/ 23
/ -
lC \ 24 y
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - ' _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __-______ - __
1 APPEARANCES:
2 For the Applicants, Texas Utilities Electric Comoany, et al: ,
3 I 4 LEONARD W. BELTER, ESQUIRE Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street,. Northwest 5
Washington, D. C. 20036 6
For the Nuclear Reculatorv Commission Staff:
7 GEARY S. MIZUNO, ESQUIRE C
Office of the Executive Legal Director I 8 9
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 I, For the Intervenor, Citizens Association for Sound 10 Enercy:
11 ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN, ESQUIRE Executive Director .
12 Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C. '
i 2000 P' Street, Northwest, Suite 611 '
_( 13 Washington, D. C. 20036 14 *.*
- 15 ~
16 17 18 19 I eo 21 I ,.,
24 U '
I 72,502 l
1 INDEX th 1
2 PANEL OF WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3 DEBRA ANDERSON 72,504 72,513 72,654 72,655 I 4 SUSAN SPENCER ALBERT BOREN 72,576 72,603 72,655 72,679 72,670 72,680 '
5 I(>
8 9
10 . EXHIBITS --. -
11 NUMBER FOR IDENTIFICATION 12 Panel Anderson No. 1 72,523
(_ 13 Boren No. 1 -
72,608 14 15 16 . ***
17 18 l 19 21
/
I~
72,503 I .1 PROCEEDINGS 2 4:20 p.m.
3 Whereupon, I 4 DEBRA ANDERSON, 5 SUSAN SPENCER, 6 -
and r, 7 ALBERT BOREN 8 were collectively duly sworn and were examined and testified '
9 upon their oath as follows: '
10 -
MR. BELTER: My name is Leonard Belter, 11 Attorney for Applicants in this proceeding. '
12 This afternoon, Tony, we have a panel of three ;
I( witnesses, Debra Anderson,. Susan Spencer, and Al Boren, 13 14 and the subject of their testimony will be the 1979' surveys.
15 Two other Applicant witnesses, Mr. Vega 16 and Mr. Purdy, were also involved in this interview process, 17 and we intend to have them on for other matters later this 18 week. It may be that we'll ask a feti questions of them 19 with respect to the same subject. ,
20 Mr. Vega.is out of town due to a death in 21 the family, and Mr. Purdy,. we just didn't want to have 22 him coming in and out and in and out.
23 So I'll go ahead and present the testimony Iy 24 through this panel.
l 25 MR. ROISMAN: Okay.
72,504 MR. BELTER: And I think it would be easier, l 1 I 3 panel, if we go in order through Ms. Anderson, Ms. Spencer, and Mr. Boren.
I 3
DIRECT EXAMINATION 4
BY MR. BELTER:
Q. Would you state your names, please?
BY WITNESS ANDERSON:.
A. Debra Anderson.
8 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
9 -
A. Susan Spencer.
10 BY WITNESS BOREN:
A. Albert Boren.
(~ g Q. And what is your,present position?
14 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
g A. Supervisor, QA Audits.
16 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
g A. QA auditor.
18 1g A. Supervisor of Vendor Compliance.
g MR. ROISMAN: I didn't understand that.
21 WITNESS BOREN: Supervisor, Vendor Compliance.
3 MR. ROISMAN: Okay.
g BY MR. BELTER:
.~. Q. 'Did each of y.ou have occasion to conduct u 24 3 any interviews in connection with the 1979 survey of QC
[_______-_____
72,505 1 personnel on the Comanche Peak site?
2 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
3 A. Yes, I did.
I 4 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 BY WITNESS BOREN:
7 A. Yes.'
8 Q.. And did each of you have occasion to take 9 notes on any interview sheets in the course of that survey?
10 . BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
11 A. Yes.
12 BY WITNESS SPENCER: i
(, 13 A. Yes, I did. . -
14 BY WITNESS BOREN:
15 A. Yes.
16 Q.
I 17 a time, what information were you trying to obtain by this Could you tell us, please, again, one at 18 process?
I 19 20 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
A. Anything,and everything that the inspector 21 wanted to talk about.
22 BY WITNESS SPENCER: ,
23 A. Basically, anything and everything that Ih 24 the inspector wanted to talk about.
9 25 MR. ROISMAN: I'm glad this panel has not
72,50 1 I been coached in any way.
A 2 MR. BELTER: They like to listen to e.ch 3 other.
4 BY MR. BELTER:
5 Q. Mr. Boren?
6 BY WITNESS BOREN: -
"; 7 A. I dont have anything to add to that. It 8
was basically anything that they wanted to talk about.
9 Q. Were you basically trying to get at any 10
. problems or concerns that they had?
11 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
12 A. es.
13 BY WITNESS S' PENCER: -
~
14 A. Yes.
15 BY WITNESS BORENg 16 A. Yes. .
17 Q. Were the notes that you took verbatim notes?
18 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
19 A. No, they were not. They were whatever was 20 the thoughts that came into mind as you were sitting there 21 listening to t' hem.
22 BY WITNESS SPENCER: .
23 A. They were not verbatim notes.
h 24 BY WITNESS BOREN:
l 25 A. They were not verbatim notes. They were
72,507 I 1 summaries of what was said.
2 Q. Was it your intent to retain the notes at 3 the time that you took them?
4 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
5 A. No, it was not.
6 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
7 A. No. It was my understanding that they wouldn't 8 be retained.
9 BY WITNESS BOREN:
10 .
A. No.
I 11 Q. What was your understanding as to what was 1 12 to happen to the notes?
b 13 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:.
I 14 A. After the summaries were prepared, they 15 were to be destroyed.
16 Q. Is that the same for the other two witnesses?
17 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
18 A. Yes.
19 l ~BY WITNESS BOREN:
N A. Yes.
I 21 Q. During.t e. course of these interviews, did I
22 you elicit hearsay i.nformation as well as information based 23 on the direct knowledge,of the person being interviewed?
h 24 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
8 25 A. Yes.
l 4-72,508 I i' 1 BY WITNESS SPENCER: ,
\
2 A. Yes, we did.
3 BY WITNESS BOREN:
I 4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In taking your notes, did'you attempt to 6 distinguish between. hearsay and direct knowledge?
Ig 7 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:' ,
8 A. No.
9 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
10 A. No, we did not.
11 BY WITNESS BOREN:
12 - A. No.
13 MR. BELTER: . That's all right. You want 14 to take a short break?
15 (A short recess'was taken.)
16 MR. BELTER:
I 17 BY MR. BELTER:
Back on the record. .
18 Q. Let me a.1k each of you if during the course 19 of an interview there was related to you a significant 20 incident of harassment or intimidation reportedly occurring 21 at the Comanche Peak si e,. would you have reported such 2 an incident directly to.Mr. Chapman?
23 BY WITNESS ANDERSON: ,
y 24 A. Yes, I would.
l 2s jf
I 72,509 I 1 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
2 A. Yes, I woul.d.
3 BY WITNESS BOREN:
I 4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Were any such incidents related to you?
6 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
, 7 A. Not to me. .
8 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
9 A. Yes, there was. -
10 .
Q. How about you, Mr. Boren?
11 BY WITNESS BOREN:
12 A. No.
13 Q. Ms. Spencer, would you describe briefly I (,
14 the incident that was related to you?
l 15 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
16 A. One of the inspectors that we interviewed.
' 17 relayed an instance where she had been physically threatened.
18 She had been picked up by the collar by one of the craft l
19 personnel. l 20 Q. And what.did you do as a result of this I 21 information being relayed to you?
22 A. I thought it was something that our management 23 should be aware of immediately and called my boss up in U 24 Dallas, the Manager of Quality Assurance.
t 25 Q. Mr. Chapman?
I 72,510 l
1 A. Yes, Mr. Chapman.
2 Q. Would any of you consider an incident of 3 name-calling or swearing between craft and QC to be a I 4 significant incident? ,,
5 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
6 A. No.
r; 7 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
8 A. No.
9 BY WITNESS BOREN: -
e 10 : A. No.
11 Q. Mr. Boren, in particular, why would you 12 not consider it to be significant?
13 A. I have been.around and associated with I _,
14 construction sites for approximately 20 years, and swearing I 15 and name-calling is just part of a construction site, and _
16 there's no reason to get upset over cursing or name-calling.
17
, , MR. ROISMAN: Excuse me. Are you offering 18 these witnesses as experts on this question, or are we 19 just getting anecdotal information?
'. 20 MR. BELTER: We're getting anecdotal informa-I 21 tion, but you can consider. Mr. Boren to have had some 22 experience around construction sites. I don't consider 23 his answer to be an expert opinion on the subject of what's I- Q 24 normally going on on construction sites, but he is relating 25 what his experience has been.
1 72,511 I ,m 1 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. I think it is of dubious 2 relevance, but I'd rather just have it go in and worry ,
. 3 about it later than fuss about it now. Go ahead. !
l l
4 BY MR. BELTER: l
. i 5 Q. Was each person interviewed asked to indicate l 6 to you what they thought were major problems in quality ;
7 control at the Comanche Peak site?
9 8 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
9 A. Yes. ~
10 . BY WITNESS SPENCER: -- -
11 A. Yes, they were.
12 BY WITNESS BOREN:
13 A. Yes. .
I (..
14 Q. Do any of you recall any of the persons 15 that you interviewed relating to you harassment, intimidation, 16 or threats directed at QC personnel to be a major problem I 17 at Comanche Peak site?
18 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
19 A. Was the question if we interviewed them --
20 I mean, if I interviewed the person?
E \
l E 21 g, yes, , ,
l
, 22 A. No, I digi not.
23 BY WITNESS SPENCER: ,
h 24 A. Other than the instance I just spoke about, no.
25 BY WITNESS BOREN:
72,512
,t Q. Did each of yod take part in compiling the 73 2 results of the surveys? .
3 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
4 A. Yes.
5 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
6 A. Yes. ,
7 BY WITNESS BOREN: ,
8 A. Yes.
Q. In compiling the results of the surveys, I 9 10 : do any of you recall any of the persons being interviewed -
11 relating or listing harassment, intimidation, or threats 12 directed at QC as a major problem at Comanche Peak?
(, 13 BY WITNESS ANDERSON: ,
14 A. I don't recall any.
15 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
16 A. Other than the one instance I've already I 17 talked about, no.
l 18 BY WITNESS BOREN:
19 A. No.
20 Q. In the course of interviewing these persons, 21 were any of you advised4 of any incidents where a QC inspector 22 passed an item that he or she felt should have been rejected?
23 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
h- 24 g A. 'No one' indicated that to me.
I '
_ ._ _ . . _ - l 72,513 1 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
2 A. Nor to me.
3 BY WITNESS BOREN:
I l
4 A. No.
5 MR. BELTER: That's all I'have, Tony.
6 CROSS-EXAMINATION g 7 BY MR. ROISMAN:
8 Q. At the time that you did the interviews 9 that have produced this summary, which I believe is marked 10 . as Purdy Exhibit 42-1 --
11 MR. BELTER: I think you will have to identify 12 them individually, Tony.
(~
A 13 All right.
MR. ROISMAN:_ Well --
14 MR. BELTER: Is-the whole set marked as 15 Purdy 1?
16 MR. ROISMAN: Yeah, it is. The whole set 17 is P~urdy 1.
18 Let me withdraw that question and ask just a foundation one.
I 19 20 . BY MR. ROISMAN:
I 21 Q. Is it my, understanding that each of you
. s 22 were responsible for the interviews within one discrete 23 area; .in other words, one of you did electrical QC personnel IO 24 or one or you did mechantoai ac ser onnel2 or dia you 9-25 do them across the disciplines?
I 72,514 1 BY WITNESS BOREN:
2 A. Across the, disciplines.
3 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
4 A. Across.
5 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
6 A. Across.
7 Q. All right. That makes it more complicated.
8 Have you seen this document that's called 9 Purdy Exhibit 42-1, which is the summary sheets of these --
10
. Are these familiar to you so I can ask you some questions I 11 about them and know that you know what I'm talking about?
12 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
13 I.. 14 A. I've seen them.
BY WITNESS SPENCER:
I .
15 A. We've seen them.
16 Q. All right. Will you understand what I'm 17 talk'ing about when I say with respect to Purdy Exhibit 42-1 18 and then ask you a question about it? I'm not going to I 19 20 get down to a particular sentence, but I want to ask you some questions about them.
1 21 -
When you, conducted the interviews that are ,
)
22 summari::ed in Purdy Exhibit 42-1, did the people to whom 23 you speak know that you.were employees of ,TUGCO?
O 2. ,Y Wz, NESS ANoEaScN, I
g..
o 25 A. Yes.
l 72,515 l 1 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
2 A. Yes.
3 BY WITNESS BOREN:
I 4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What did they know about your relationship, 6
if any, with the people who were working at the plant site, 7
t such as Mr. Tolson,'or any of the other people who were 8
then in management positions at the plant site?
9 A. They generally knew that Mr. Tolson worked 3 :
10 for TUGCO and we worked for TUGCO, but there was no --
11 In other words, we didn't work for Mr. Tolson, and he didn't l
12 work for us, but we both worked for TUGCO. We were out b 13 of Dallas, dnd he was at Comanche Peak. , , . _ _ , _ . .
14 Q. Did any of you~in the course of your interviews 15 make a point of telling people that you were from Dallas 16 and didn't work for Mr. Tolson or any of the people on 17
, the. plant site? Was that part of your patter as you --
18 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- introduced yourself?
- t. 20 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
21 A. I believ it was.
2 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
23 A. I believe so.
L 24 g, Did you have any instructions that you receiv,ed 25 regarding how you should go about doing these interviews
!l W
72,516 1 from any person?
2 BY WITNESS BOREN: 2 3 A. I don't guess I understand.
4 Q. Well, did anyone tell you how to do the 5 interview?
6 I
A. Not.that I recall.
, 7 BY WITNESS SPENCER: '
c ,
8 A. I don't recall it other than the basic charge 9 to perform the interviews themselves.
10 Q. Okay. So there wasn't a training' session 11 or anything like that?
12 BY WITNESS BOREN:
(.. 13 A. No. .
14 BY WITNESS SPENCER: -
15 A. No. '
~
16 Q. And there weren't any written instructions?
I.
17 BY NITNESS BOREN:
18 A. No.
19 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
M A.
No. .
21 Q. Had any, f.you ever had experience as inter-22 viewers in situations similar to this?
23 ~
Let's ask you each individu, ally. Ms. Anderson?
{ 24 BY WITNESS AND RSON: o ,.
25 A. No, not specifically to this.
72,517 1 Q. Ms. Spencer?
l
. 2 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
3 A. No.
I 4 Q. Mr. Boren?
5 BY WITNESS BOREN:
6 A. No.
[ T Q. In preparing the summaries, did each of 8 you work on preparing all of the summaries, or did some 9 of you work on preparing particular summaries?
10 .
Ms. Anderson?
11 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
12 A. I don't recall.
b 13 Q. Ms. Spencer? -
I 14 BY WITNESS SPENCER: -
15 A. I believe we worked -- all worked on preparing 16 all of the summaries.
17
,, , Q. Mr. Boren?
l .
l 18 BY WITNESS BOREN:
19 A. Each -- Yeah, we worked -- All of us 20 eventually worked on preparing all the summaries, as best u 21 I recall. .
22 Q. How many, people, roughly, did you interview, 23
, Ms. Anderson? ,
O 24 BY mI, NESS ANoERSON, 25 A. I can't remember the exact number.
72,518 1 Q. Was it like 10 or 50 or --
2 A. It was probably closer to 50.
3 Q. Ms. Spencer?
4 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
5 A. As a group that we interviewed or --
6 Q. No. No. You individually. ,
( 7 A. -- individually?
l I
8 Individually, there was about 35 to 50. !
9 Q. That you did?
6 l
10 .
A. Uh-huh. '
g 11 Q.- How about you, Mr. Boren?
12 qY WITNESS BOREN: *
< 13
~
A. Roughly 50,.as opposed to 10.
14 Q. Yeah. Okay.
15 After you ccmpleted the interview process is and did the summary sheets, what did you do with the summary 17 sheets?
18 MR. BELTER: By " summary sheets," are you 19 referring to Purdy Exhibit --
20
' MR. ROISMAN: 42-1, yes. T I 21 BY MR. ROISMAN: ,
l s
22 Q. What did.you do with those?
23 BY WITNESS SPENCER: ,
,~.
U 24 A. Transmitted them to Mr. Chapman and Tolson.
25 Q. And did you have any further connection
. t.'.
72,519 Im 1 with these subsequent to that time?
2 A. No.
3 Q. I mean up until these hearings.
I 4 BY WITNESS BOREN:
5 A. No.
6 BY WITNESS SPENCER:.
~
- 7 A. No.
8 MR. BELTER: With this exhibit, you mean?
9 MR. ROISMAN: Yeah, with these summary sheets.
10 . BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
11 A. I did. I participated in a follow-up of 12 the results of the summaries.
Q. Okay.
13 Let me just -- I'm going to,put you I 14 aside and come back to that in a second. Let me just make l 15 sure the record is_ clear. ~
i 16 Ms. Spencer and Mr. Boren, you had no further 17 connection with it subsequent to the transmittal of this 18 to Mescrs. Chapman and Tolson; is that right?
l T I 19 20 BY WITNESS BOREN:
A.
I. don't believe I ever saw.these again until i
21 today. ,
l 22 BY WITNESS SPENCER: ,
23 ,A. Up until,the point I gave them to -- During O 24 ehe hearines gracese was ehe nexe eime ehae r referred 25 to them.
- l 72,520 I i~
1 Q. Okay. All right. Now, Ms. Anderson, what 2 was your further involvement with these documents?
3 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
I 4 A. I participated in an audit, a management 5 audit to go back and basically do a sample interview process 6 to determine if actions taken by site management had improved g 7 the situation.
8 Q. What was that audit?
9 A.
, It was TCP-7 and 7 follow-up.
10 MR. MIZUNO: Excuse me. Are those two separate 11 things , TCP-7 and ---
12 WITNESS ANDERSON: They are all-in the same b 13 file. 'It was just a.,further - -
I .
14 BY MR. ROISMAN: -
15 Q. And what was the nature of the interview 16 process that you conducted in that follow-up?
I 17 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
18 A. As best I recall, based on the problems 19 or the items that we had identified in the summaries, it 20 was to go back and ask in those areas and talk with people 21 todeterminehadthereheenimprovementsoriftherehadn't 22 or whatever the case was.
23
.Q. Did you go -back to particular individuals lQ,~ 24 who you could identify from your earlier notes were the a 25 ones who had raised concerns, or did you just do an across-
I 72,521 I 1 the-board sample?
(7 2 A. We just did an across-the-board sample.
3 Q. And when did that happen?
4 A. It was end of '79, first of '80. I'm not 5 sure on the exact dates.
6 Q. How many interviews did the total review, 7
the total TCP-7 and 7 follow-up review encompass?
8 A. I don't recall.
9 Q. More like 10 or a hundred?
10 A. Probably somewhere around 25 to 30.
11 Q. Did the interviews that you undertook focus.
l 12 on some specific actions? Did it say, "What did you think
- h. __
13 of x?" and identify something that had been done, or did 14 it just go back and ask the same questions that you had l 15 asked before?
16 A. I don't recall exactly what questions were 17 aske'd at that time. .
18 Q. To your knowledge, is it still in existence; 19 that is, the results of that follow-up?
20 A. The results are, yes.
s 21 l
Q. And how are they memorialized?
l .m l
A. They are. documented in an audit report, U
the TCP-7. .
@ 24 MR. BELTER: Tony, it is my understanding ,
25 that TCP-7 and, indeed, a lot of other -- or that all
72,522 m.,
1 the TCP audits have been made available to Ms. Ellis. l i
2 For your information, I discovered this 3 morning that there was this document relating to it.
I 4 know you've had it but didn't know it.
I i
5 MR. ROISMAN: Yeah.
6 MR. BELTER: And I didn't know it was there, g 7 and, obviously, we'll --
8 MR. ROISMAN: Do you have a copy around 9 uere?
10 MR. BELTER: Well, I have one copy that W 11 we got this morning.
12 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. I guess I'd like to
- k. 13 look at it.-
I 14 MR. BELTER: Sure.
15 MR. MIZUNO: The Staff would also like to l 16 look at it. If it is possible -- If we could get a copy,
) ,
17 I could go up to the site and make my own copy.
18 MR. BELTER: Well, I'll be glad to give 19 you my copy of it. If you want to identify it, maybe we 20 can work off of what we.have.
21 MR. ROIS 'I: Can I?
22 MR. BELTER: Sure.
23 BY MR. ROISMAN: ,
O 24
- a. Weu , my firse westion te= oo I underseend '
23 3 tham the name of the auett thae wa, __ th,t we.ve ident1,1ed
i 72,523 i l
l 1 as Purdy Exhibit 42-1 is TCP-7? l Q BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
2 3 A. No. That was not an audit.
I - 4 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. Can we mark this? Well, 5 what do you want to call it?
6 MR. BELTER: Let's call it Anderson Exhibit 1.
, 7 MR. ROISMAN: All right. Could that be 8 marked Anderson Exhibit l?
9 (The document referred to was 10 marked Panel Anderson Exhioit 11 No. 1 for identification.)
12 You're going to be memcrialized here.
13 MR. MIZUNO: Maybe we should mark it Survey I 14 Exhibit 1 since we've got another --
15 MR. BELTER: Well, we've only had one member 16 of the panel that took part or even identified it.
i_ .
17 MR. ROISMAN: I don't think the name has t 18 to be --
19 MR. BELTER: It doesn't matter.
. 20 MR. ROISMAN: It only has to be distinctive, 21 not descriptive. Certain1.y, Purdy 42-1 is not very 22 descriptive. ,
23 BY MR. ROISMAN:
O 24 o.
Ms. Anae= eon, I m seine co now hend you 25 what has been marked as Anderson Exhibit 1 and would like
E 72,524 I 1 you to look at the first paragraph, and, in particular, I (n. 2 the reference there to "As a follow-up to Audit TCP-7,"
3 3 and then references later down there apparently to that, 4 some interviews being conducted in September and October 5 of '79.
6 Would you just identify what are the interviews
[ 7 that are being referred to there as having been conducted 8 in September and October of '79?
9 BY WITNESS ANDERSON: -
10 .
A. The interviews that are being talked about I 11 September and October, '79, I believe are Purdy' 42-1.
12 MR. BELTER: Those are the interviews that
(_ 13 resulted in'Purdy 42-1? -
. .~.. _ . .
14 WITNESS ANDERSON: Right. I'm sorry. Yes, 15 the summaries.
16 MR. BELTER: Okay. The subject of this 17 panel.
18 WITNESS ANDERSON: Right.
19 MR. ROISMAN: Right.
20 BY MR. ROISMAN: .
21
\
Q. And then this document that's now been marked 22 Anderson 1 is the follow-up to Audit TCP-7.
23 .
What is Audit TCP-7? ,
C,,' 24 A. It was a management audit. I can't remember 25 the specifics of what was looked at in it.
l ,_ . . . . .
72,525 I- 1 Q. You don't know what its relationship, if 2 any, is to Purdy Exhibit 42-1?
3 A. I don't recall.
l 4 BY WITNESS SPENCER: i 5 A. I believe TCP-7 was an audit conducted to 6 verify commitments made in some letter to the NRC. I don't
( 7 know.
8 Q. Okay. May I have it back?
9 Thank you. '
10 .
Now, Ms. Anderson, in conducting the interviews I 11 which formed the heart of this follow-up to Audit TCP-7, was 12 there any difference in the way in which the interviews I( 13 14 were conducted as compared to the interviews that.were conducted to prepare the Purdy Exhibit 42-1?
15 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
16 A. I don't think I understand exactly what 17 you'.'re saying. .
18 Q. Well, did you approach the interviewing 19 process any differently? Did you have a different group 20 of questions that you asked? Were they framed differently?
I 21 Did you meet the people.,in a different environment than 22 you had met them bedore?
23 ,A.
IO 2.
I think as far as I recall that our questions were ,ery sim1iar to the ones that we inie1a11y asked sut ,.
25 were gearing in on the concerns that had been identified
72,526 l
~
P 1 within the summaries.
2 Q. And how were the people selected? How was 3 the-sample group selected?
4 A. I don't recall.
5 Q. Was it -- Do you recall whether you did 6
the selection or someone else did?
r 7 A. I don't recall. ,
8 Q. Do you remember what was the origination 9 of having this follow-up to Audit TCP-7, who initiated L
10 the follow-up?
I 11 A. It's part of our program when we have items 1
12 I.
that have been identified to go in and close them out through 13 verification by whatever appropriate means.
I 14 we deemed that a follow-up was appropriate.
In this instance, 15 Q. Were you following up Audit TCP-7, or were 16 you following up Purdy Exhibit 42-l? .
17 A. Initially, we were following up TCP-7. As 18 I remember, we decided to broaden the scope slightly to 19 include these.
20 Q. And when.you say "we," who made that decision?
I 21 A. Tony Veg and myself. Mr. Chapman may have 22 been involved in the decision, also. I don't recall exactly.
23
.Q. So that t:he interviews that are contained O 24 here im to11ow_up Audie Tc,_7 hae a mu1ti,1,use. They ,.
25 were to follow-up on some open items from the TCP-7 audit,
72,527 I 1 as well as to follow-up on some items contained in Purdy 2 Exhibit 4,2-1?
3 A. I believe so.
4 Q. How was it possible that they could -- that 5 you could ask essentially the same questions in Purdy Exhibit 6 42-1 and get answers to two different sets of concerns, t 7 one identified in TCP-7 and the others identified in Purdy 8 Exhibit 42-l?
9 A. I don't know. I'm confused here.
10 .
Q. Well, you testified --
11 MR. BELTER: Can I ask a question, Tony --
12 MR. ROISMAN: Sure.
13 MR. BELTER:
-- before we waste a lot'of 14 time here because I think there's some confusion here?
15 Ms. Anderson, were there technical items 16 involved in TCP-7 that were totally unrelated to the subjects 17 of the interviews?
IS WITNESS ANDERSON: As I recall, yes.
19 MR. BELTER: Okay. I'm sorry I interruped 20 you. 1 l
. 21 MR. ROISI4AN:
That's all right.
22 MR. BELTER: Whatever your preference is, 2 Tony, I'm -- .
O 2.
MR. ROISxAu: so. no. !
0 1
. l
i 72,528 I
1 l
.l 1 BY MR. ROISMAN: 'l 2 Q. All right. But this exhibit, now, that 3 we've marked as Anderson Exhibit 1, is this the entire 4 follow-up to TCP-7? Does this contain the entire follow-up, 5 this document?
6 Here, would you like to look at it?
7 MR. BELTER: Do you understand the question, 7
8 Ms. Anderson?
9 WITNESS ANDERSON: I'm not sure.
10 MR. BELTER: Well, Tony, I'm objecting.
11 I realize the question sounds fine, but I think it is ambiguou t 12 in the context in which you are asking it.
- k. 13 I think you'.11 get some clearer answers I' 14 and a clearer record if you make a distinction between I 15 the interviews and the problems that the interviews addresseci 16 and the technical matters that were the subject of TCP-7.
I 17 My suggestion is that TCP-7 as a title for this thing is 1
l 18
, really misleading. It is a technical matter that I don't 19 know what it is and don't begin to understand it because 20 I took a quick look through the file myself once, but, 21 you know, continue as you,wish.
22 MR. ROISMAN: All right.
23 .
MD. BELTER: But I think we're just going I h 24 to confuse things by I'aferring to TCP-7 and the follow-T 25 l
up to TCP-7 e'Ven though that's what the title reads.
- l
.aAg a 8- **Mm4
++6W "
72,529 I 1 MR. ROIS 4AN: All right. Let me see if 2' I can get at it.
3 BY MR. ROISMAN:
4 Q. Is there a set of activities that can be 5 properly called the follow-up to TCP-7?
6 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
[ 7 A. Yes.
I 8 Q. Does this document that's been marked as 9 Anderson Exhibit 1 have in it a summary of all of those 10 . activities? - - -
I 11 A. Without looking at TCP-7, I can't say that 12 without a doubt.
13 Q. Does this' document that's marked as Anderson 14 Exhibit 1 have anything in it that represents something i
15 other than a follow-up to the concerns expressed in Purdy 16 Exhibit 42-l? ,
17 A.
.I believe so, yes.
18 Q. All right. Where is that contained in Anderson 19 Exhibit l? Just tell me which pages for right now.
20 A.
Attachment B is an evaluation of three items 5 21 whichremainedopenfrohTCP-7,and,likeIsaid,until 22 I could see TCP-7, I can't say without s doubt.
23 ,Q. Okay. Who prepared this summary page here I Oo 2+
en e deso=1$es -- enet'. oa ene firse ease of Andersoa ..
25 Exhibit I?
72,530 I .,
1 A. Mr. Vega and myself. ;
2 Q. Did you co-author it, or did you author 3
some of it and he authored other parts of it?
I 4 .A. I don't recall.
5 Q. Are any of you-all famill'ar with a gentleman 6 whose name is Munisteri, M-u-n-i-s-t-e-r-i?
7 t Ms. Anderson?
8 A. I believe he was vice-president of Brown & Root .
9 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
10 A. He was a high official in Brown & Root some 11 time ago.
12 BY WITNESS BOREN:
k.. . __ .
13 A. As I recall.. -
14 Q. Are you familiar with a speech delivered 15 by Mr. Munisteri to persons working at the Comanche Peak 16 site sometime in the fall of 1979 on the subject " Corporate 17 Management's Support of the QA/QC Effort For Assuring 18 That Project Quality Objectives Are Met"?
19 MR. BELTER: Could you read the title again?
3 MR. ROISMAN: Uh-huh. " Corporate Management's 3 21 Support of the QA/QC Ef or.t For Assuring That Project Quality 22 Objectives Are Met."'
23 BY MR. ROISMAN: '
I- O 24 Q. -
i<s. Anderson?
~
l 25 ff
- l. 72,531 I 1 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
2 A. I believe I may have heard of it, yes.
3 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
I 4 A. I knew Mr. Munisteri had a talk with QA/QC 5 personnel at Comanche Peak. I l
l 6
Q. Mr. Boren?
7 BY WITNESS BOREN: I 8 A. I knew that he had a. talk with them.
9 Q. Do any of you have any -knowledge of why i
10 that talk was given and what its purpose was.
11 A. I don't.
12 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
13 I (, 14 A. I don't. ,
BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Are any of you familiar with any interviews I 17 Q.
or evaluations that were made subsequent to that talk 18 of the people who attended it?
19 Ms. Anderson?
20 A. I don't recall.
t I og Q.
Ms. Spencer.?
k 22 BY WITNESS SPENCER: ,
23 A. I remember seeing something as I was giving o4 U<*
documents away," but other than that, no.
25 Q. Okay. Mr. Boren?
l .
l .
72,532 1
BY WITNESS BOREN:
2 A. No.
3 Q. Ms. Anderson, your connection with the Purdy '
4 Exhibit 42-1 -- After you completed the summaries, when 5
was the next time that you got involved with any matters 6
related to Purdy Exhibit 42-l?
7 t BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
8 A. To the best of my recollection, with regard 8
to the TCP-7 activities.
10 -
Q. Now, when you say "the TCP-7 activities,"
I 11 do you mean the TCP-7, the audit follow-up activities or the original TCP-7 document?
3 A. I don'.t recall until -- like I said, without 14 seeing that report.
15 MR. ROISMAN: Did you-all try to find that 16 report and didn't find it, or --
MR. BELTER: Tony, I looked through that 18 file once some time ago. . Again, it is in a bunch of files 19
'that I'm sure Ms. Ellis looked through at one time, too. '
20 And I didn't see anything in it other than a bunch of, 21 to me, unintelligible technical concerns or matters not related to this interview.
23 I know I,'m testifying here, but --
O MR. ROISMAN: No. No.
I 25 MR. BELTER: -- you asked me and I'm telling
72,533 1 you.
2 MR. ROISMAN: That's right. I'm trying 3
to get these witnesses to testify to that same effect so 4 we can take --
5 MR. BELTER: That's why I'think~it would 6
help if we phrased our questions in terms of the follow-up 7 to the interview process and not use this title because g
8 it is just --
9 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. Al-1 right.
k 10 MR. BELTER: -- confusing as heck.
11 BY MR. ROISMAN:
12 Q. Well, when was the next time that you had C 13 e fonow-ug to -- hed eny work re1eeed ec Purdy Exhibit 42-1 I .
14 in terms of time, now, not the name of the document?
15 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
16 A. To the best of my recollection, in May of 17
'80. .
18 Q. Okay. In the intervening period, who had 19 responsibility for the -- Ms. Anderson, who had responsibility
, 20 for the follow-up to Purdy Exhibit 42-1? -
21 MR. BELT 5R:. Could I ask what you mean by 22
" follow-up" in that sense? Taking action?
23 BY MR. ROISMAN: ,
m ,, '
.C Q. Taking any a'ction or doing anything about 25 it if anything was warranted.
l 72,534 1 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
i i
2 A. I believe Mr. Chapman and Tolson.
3 Q. At the time of the interviews in May of 4
1980 that are described in TCP -- in your -- in Anderson 5
Exhibit 1, did you -- were you made aware of what specific 6
actions had been taken in response to Purdy Exhibit 42-1? o 7
g A. I believe so as part of the follow-up.
8 Q. When you interviewed the people, did you 9
make mention of those specifici actions as part of your 10 interviewing?
11
.A. I don't recall.
12 Q. Did you have any instruction sheet.for conduct-l( 13 14 ing those interviews?
A.
I don't recall.-
I don't believe so.-
15 Q. Did anybody give you any oral instructions 16 I,
17 on conducting those interviews?
A. It was discussed as part of the audit process I
18 between myself and Mr. Vega.
19 MR. ROISMAN: I'm going to leave this for 20 a little bit, but at a break or something I'd really like 3 21 to be able to sit down nd take a look at it. I just can't 22 ask her the questions or anyone the questions very effectively 23 based on trying to read,it and think about it in this short 24
{'3 period of time. So I'm going to go on to some other things.
l 25 jj e
72,535 1 BY MR. ROISMAN:
2 .Q. At the time that you did your interviews 3 in 1979, each of you, and I want you to think back to then, f I 4 did you at that time have in your minds a definition of 5 the concepts " harassment and intimidation"?
6 . Ms Anderson?
7 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
g 8 A. I don't understand exactly what you mean.
9 Q. Well, did those words have any special meaning 10 to you in 1979 at the time you did these interviews? Did 11 you -- Let's start with the first' question.
12 Did you interview with the thought.that
(. 13 you were looking to see if there was any harassment and 14 intimidation?
15 A. We basically went into it with the idea 16 to find out any type of problems that the QC inspectors
- I I
17 might have been having.
18 Q. Did you know or have -- Did that terminology, 19 harassment and intimidation, have any meaning to you in 20 l the context of problems that QC inspectors might have?
21 A. Idon't,believeso.
22 Q. Had you ever heard the phrase used with 23 reference to QC inspectors?
Ih 24 A. "Not that I recall specifically.
g ..
25 Q. Did you remember in the interviews ever
E 72,536 I 1 asking anybody, "Were you harassed, or were you intimidated"?
Ii .
2 A. We asked them the questions that were in 3 the questionnaires.
4 Q. And those -- And nothing beyond that?
5 A. As best I recall.
6 Q. How about you, Ms. Spencer? At the time 7
t that you were doing the interviews, did you have any opinion 8
about whether the phrase " harassment and intimidation" 8
had any relationship to QC personnel at the Comanche Peak 10 '
. site?
11 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
12 A. I don't think that those particular words I(; 13 14 were part of my vocabulary at that time.
Q. Did you want to add something?
15 A. But -- Well, no.
16 Q. Okay. Mr. Boren?
17 BY WITNESS BOREN:
18 i
A. I didn't place any mors emphasis on that .
19 than anything else, I guess, that we were looking for.
20 Q. Well, all right. Let's start again.
21 Ms. Anderso.n, if one of the people had said
\
l to you in the course of,the interview that certain events 23 had happened to them which made them feel discouraged about r o
- f d reporting safety problems, would you necessarily have related 25 that to the phrase " harassment and intimidation"? Would
I 1 that label have occurred to you to have applied to that?
h 2 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
3 A.. Not necessarily.
4 Q. Ms. Spencer?
5 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
6 A. Not the terms " harassment and intimidation,"
g 7 but it would have certainly stuck out in my mind.
8 Q. I understand.
9 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
10 A. Yes. The same for me.
11 Q. Yeah. Mr. Boren?
12 BY WITNESS BOREN:
13 A.
I 14 Q.
Harassment may have.
You mean you might have associated that 15 description that they were discouraged from reporting 16 safety problems as being' harassment? ,
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. And how about --
19 A. Or intimidated, you know.
E Q. Ms. Anderson, when was the first time that 21 you had occasion to link the phrase " harassment and 22 intimidation" with QC inspectors at the Comanche Peak site?
23 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
~
O 24
- x. ,,,1c,11y, 1, ,s,cc,,,x, ,, ,s,s,se,,1,,,.
I 25 Q.
o And when you say "these hearings," you mean
I 72,538 I
I the ones that have been going on here in Glen Rose for l (3' 2 the last several weeks?
3 A. Yes.
I 4 Q. And how did that come to your attention? ,
5 A. I don't recall. Discussions. Reading 6 Board notifications, information, things like that.
p 7 Q. Did you have a discussion with any persons 8 about what harassment and intimidation meant?
9 A. I don't recall'specifically.
10 .
Q. Did anybody give you their opinion as to I 11 What they thought the importance or unimportance of harassment 12 and intimidation were for QC and QA functions at the plant
( 13 site? .
14 A, I m sorry. I don't understand.
15 Q. Did anyone express to you an opinion as 16 to -- in the context of these hearings as to what the impor-17
, tance of harassment and intimidation was to the QA/QC function 18 at the Comanche Peak site?
19 A. There may have been discussions on it. I 20 don't recall any specif.ic examples.
I 21 Q. How aboub you, Ms. Spencer? When did you 22 first have the harassment and intimidation phrase linked 23 up in any way with QC inspectors or QA/QC functions at l (.j. 24 the Comanche Peak site?
25 ff
ll 72,539 I 1 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
IO 2 A. It must have been at the time when CASE 3 submitted one of their sets of interrogatories on the subject 4 and I subsequently got involved somewhat in it.
5 Q. And roughly, do you -- Wa's that~within the 6 last year? -
t 7 A. Uh-huh. Within the last year. ;
8 Q. All right. How about you, Mr. Boren? This 9 is the same question. When did you first learn of any L
10 connection between harassment and intimidation, that phrase, h 11 on the one hand, and the QA/QC function at the Comanche M Peak site on the other?
O 13 BY WrrNESS BOREN:
14 A. I don't really have any idea.
h2 15 Q. Ms. Anderson, you testified earlier in response 16 to a question that you would not call name-calling and 17 curs'ing ... would not in your mind be a significant incident.
18 Do you remember that?
I 19 20 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
A. Yes, I do.
T 21
- l. Q. Would you call name-calling and cursing 22 harassment or intimidation by a craft person of a quality 23 control person? ,
Q 24 A, Not necessarily.
25 Q. Have you a well-defined concept of what
W .
72,540 I 1 you believe harassment and intimidation means?
.m 2 A. I have what I feel in my mind harassment 3 or intimidation would mean as far as what the end result 4 would be.
5 Q. All right. And when did you form that view?
6 A. I don't remember.
r 7 Q. In the last year? In the last ten years?
8 The last week?
9 A. Oh, probably in the last seven, eight years.
10 Q. Okay. What is that concept? What do you I 11 understand that phrase means?
12 MR. BELTER: Which phrase are you talking 13 about? -
. ~
14 BY MR. ROIS M :
15 Q. Harassnent and intimidation.
16 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
17
, . A. Basically, something that would prevent 18 someone from doing their job, fulfilling their responsibilitie s 19
~An external or, I guess, perhaps an internal feeling that 20 there was something to prevent them from doing their job such 21 as a QA person or QC pe son.
22 Q. Ms. 5 pencer, when did you develop a 23 definition, if you have,one, of what you believe harassment ,
Q 24 and intimidation means?
- ~
Io 28
//
4 72,541 1 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
2 A. Sometime within the last several, he it, l 3 three to seven years, I would imagine. I 4 Q. Okay. And what'is that definition?
5 A. Basically, just a feeling that a person 6
has been coerced or felt pressure to do something that t 7 they had no intentions of doing or,--
8 Q. A feeling by the person who received the 9
pressure or the person who. applied the pressure?
10 A.
Well, it depends on if you are -- I don't I 11 understand the question.
12 Q. Well, you said a feeling, and I'm jnst trying
( 13 to find out'whose_ feeling you're talking about. The person 14 who is applying the pressure,'their feeling that what they 15 are doing is going to discourage this person from doing 16 something, or the feeling of the person who is having the 17 pressure applied to them that the result of the pressure 18 is to make them feel that they are being discouraged from 19 doing something. ,
20 A. I would say if it is the intent of the person -
I 21 the feeling of the person who may be harassing or intimidating 22 somebody else. You know, if they are -- If they have the 23 intent to apply pressure to somebody else,,then they are lI C.
l 24 harassing somebody or intimidating somebody. .-
25 Q. And that is irrespective of how the person
l 72,542 1 who is the object of those actions might receive them?
^
i '
2 A. They may perceive them to be harassment 3 or intimidation when, in fact, they aren't, or, I guess, 4 you know, they could be, too, depends on --
5 Q. Right. But you are saying how the person 6 perceives it is not how your definition of harassment and g 7 intimidation is defined. It is how the person who sends 8 it intends it to be. That's how you would define harassment 9 and intimidation. -
t 10 A. I guess it would be a little of both.
11 Q. In doing your interviews in 1979, did you 12 interview any of the supervisory personnel or craft personnel
(. 13 to find out whether what they were doing was in their judgment 14 intended to pressure QC personnel?
15 A. I don't believe we did, no.
16 Q. How do you have an opinion about whether
~
17 you 1 earned of any harassment and intimidation without 18 having talked to that half of it in light of your answer 19 to me about what you consider to be the nature of harassment
. 20 and intimidation? ,
\
21 A. Well, we,were talking to the QC inspectors 22 to see if they had any problems. We would record or find 23 out about any perceptions that they had of any instances, 24
(] of pressure or, now as we call it, harassment and intimida-25 tion.
. l
72,543 1 Q. But you wouldn't know whether, in fact, 2 there was an effort to engage in harassment and intimidation 3 from those interviews; isn't that correct?
I 4 A. We would be aware of the possibility.
5 Q. But if the person who received it said --
6 didn't tell you that they -- that they had been pressured, t.
7 you wouldn't know if, in fact, somebody had been intending 8 to pressure them or t fi ng to pressure them; isn't that 9 true?
10 A. The individual who was the recipient of 11 any pressure would surely know if he had been pressured 12 or intimidated or harassed.
.. 13 Q. Well,..is it.your-testimony that every time 14 someone intends to harass and intimidate, the person who
- 15 is going to be iiarassed and intimidated knows that that's 16 happening?
Ir 17 Is that --
MR. BELTER: Do you understand the question?
18 WITNESS SPENCER: Phrase it again, please.
I1 19 20 BY MR. ROISMAN:
Q. Every time someone engages in an action 21 that's intended to be rassing and intimidating, is it 22 l
your testimony that the. person who is the object of that 23 harassing and intimidating action knows that they are being h 24 harassed and intimidated?
I 72,544 1 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
2 A. I don't know if I can answer the question.
3 Q. You don't know whether or not somebody who I 4 is the object of harassment and intimidation knows or doesn't I 5 know that they are the object of it?
6 A. It is a matter of perception on that person's t
7 part and whether or not they perceive that they are being I 8 harassed or intimidated.
~
9 Q. All right. So let's go back and tell me 10 . where do you find the source of the harassment and I 11 intimidation, in the person who is receiving it or the 1
12 es.
person who is sending it? Which constitutes harassment I 13 and intimidation? '
I 14 MR. BELTER: Do you understand the question?
15 I'm particularly referring to the word "which".
16 "Which" has no predicate in your question, 17
, Tony. I think the problem we're having here is that you 18 and I and the other lawyers have been dealing with these l
19 ethereal intellectual concepts for the last several weeks,
, - 20 and you are going to have a confused record here asking 21 people this for the first. time. We haven't attempted to 22 come up with a definition.
23 We recognize and you have o,n the record i 24 that the craft personnel were not interviewed here, and ,.
25 I'm not cutting off the questions, but I'm telling my
l .
72,545 l 1 witnesses, if you don't understand the questions and can't r'
\ 2 answer them, don't speculate here. I'm having difficulty 3 following you.
4 MR. ROISMAN: Well, part of your direct 5 exam was the question would you report any incident of 6 harassment and intimidation that was related to you.
I f 7 MR. BELTER: Right.
You can ask where you 8 have, give me examples, if you want --
9 MR. ROISMAN: Well, I'm trying to find out 10 . whether these people had any firm idea of what was harassment 11 and intimidation so that if it was related to them they 12 would'have known it.
( 13 MR. BELTER: ,-Fine.
14 MR. ROISMAN: And I'm now trying to find 15 out frem Ms. Spencer, and I'll ask the question again with 16 a predicate for which even clearer.
I ,
17 BY MR. ROISMAN:
~
18 Q. One person is engaging in conduct that he 19 intends to be harassing and intimidating. A second person 20 is the object of that conduct.
I 21 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
5 6
22 A. Uh-huh.
. 23 Q. Okay? In your judgment of what you understand
({} 24 harassment and' intimidation is, does it require anything 2 more than that the person who has the intent to harass
1 72,546 l I and intimidate has that intent? Does it also require that i
, 2 the person who is the object believes that they are being 3 harassed and intimidated?
l 4 A. I believe so.
5 Q. It requires both?
6 A. It requires two parties.
I i 7 Q. If the person who believes they are being 8 harassed end intimidated, if they have that belief and m
9 the person.who is harassing and intimidating them has no 10 intend to do it, in your definition of harassment and 11 intimidation, would that be harassment and intimidation?
12 A. No, I don't think so. sit is an.ir.ternal --
I(, 13 It is how that person inter alizes that.
14 Q. So to you the- harassment and int.imidation 15 is dependent only on the objective event and not on how 16 the person receives ~the Avent?
17
, MR. BELTER: Are you making a distinction la between the event and whether the person even perceives 19 'the event? For example --
20 MR. ROISMAN: No. I'm not saying that they 21 don'.t know it happened., I'm saying they know the event 22
, happened, and whether or not Ms. Spencer --
23
< MR. BELTER: Uh-huh. -
{ 24 MR. ROISMAN:
-- is' telling me that given 25 that the event happened, it's still not harassment and
72,547 1 intimidation unless the petson views it as harassment and l
2 intimidation. And then I'm asking her the question does !
1 the intent of the person who is engaging in the conduct 4 have anything to do with.whether it is harassment and 5
intimidation, er is it all dependent upon what'the person 6
who feels harassed and intimidated says?
f 7 MR. BELTER: Relate it back to the incidents 8
described in the interview sheet because we're only talking 9
here about what Ms. Spencer understands for purposes of t
10 - putting incidents down. It doesn't matter what you and 11 I and the Board may define.
12 BY MR. ROISMAN:
( 13 Q. In the Purdy Exhibit 42-1, one of the major 14 problems it identified, major prcblem No. 2 is, and'I quote, 15 "There is a consistent feeling among QC inspectors that 16 the main emphasi's of CPSES is production at all cost and-I, 17 not.on quality. Equipment is installed to take credit 18 for footage and production quotas. ' Die fact that a high 19 percentage of this work must be redone is not being given 20 due consideration. This creates an atmosphere of arguments, 4
21 hot discussions, yelling and name-calling between craft 22 and QC, occasional threats, and even one act of violence." ;
23 '
Now, I assume that the "even one act of I' h, 2 violence" refers to the woman QC inspector that said tbat ...
25 she was grabbed by the collar.
72,548 1 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
.m 2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Okay? And I believe it was your testimony 4 that that was an act of harassment and intimidation or 5 harassment -- Was it " harassment and" or'" harassment or"?
6 Which is it? .
7 A. I don't -- I would say it was harassment.
i 8 I don't know.
9 Q. What about occasional threats? Explain i 10 . to me in the context of your understanding of the meaning 11 of the phrase " harassment and intimidation" why occasional 12 threats are not in the context of this summary. harassment r
( 13 and intimidation.
14 A. Repeat the question.
15 Q. Why are occasional threats not harassment 16 and intimidation? I'm using the words " occasional threats" 17 as they appear in the summary which you participated in 18 preparing as it relates to the site electrical CC personnel.
19 A. That is a summary of all of the interviews I 20 that were conducted. Is that your understanding?
21 Q. I understand that.
22 I~
23 A.
O.
May I look at the document?
Uh-huh. , Absolutely.
C. 24 That is the front, and this doesn't have 23 Purdy Exhibit 42 marked on it, but it is the same.
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , - , . _ - ,w , ,_ ,
72,549 1 A. A lot of this was probably somewhat of a 2 communication problem.
3 Q. I'm sorry. A lot of what was a communication 4 problem?
l 5 A. This portion of it right here [ indicating].
l 6 Q. You mean -- I'm sorry.
g 7 MR. BELTER: The reference to the paragraph s 8 you quoted, Mr. --
9 BY MR. ROISMAN: -
10 Q. Was the communication problem between the 11 person being interviewed and the person conducting the 12 interview or between QC and craft?
13 BY WITNESS SPENCER: -
I~ 14 A. Between the QC and craft personnel.
15 Q. Explain to me how a threat is a communication 16 problem.
17 A. Well, I think you'd have to ask me a specific 18 about what particular threat.
19 Q. Well, that is your summary, isn't it?
r 20 A. It is the board's summary, yes.
21
\
Q. And I believe your testimo , was that you 22 participated in the preparation of those summaries.
23 A. Based on,the interviews that I conducted, O 24 yee.
S
_ . - - x
I .
. 72,550 l -
1 Q. Now, vou have no recollection of conducting 2 any interview with anybody ,that mentioned.a threat? .
- -3 A. No, I do not. l i
4 Q. How about you, Ms. Anderson?
l 5 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
6 A. No, I do not.
[ 7 Q. How about you, Mr. Boren?
8 BY WITNESS BOREN:
1 9 A. (Motioned negatively.) -
10 Q. So none of you have any idea where that I 11 phrase " occasional threats" could have come from in terms 12 of your own personal knowledge of an interview that you
- 13 conducted. -
14 A. I haven't seen'the data sheets or the interview 15 sheets in over five years. I haven't seen them since the 16 time that they were taken. So I do not recall any over the 17 past five years, the specifics on which that was put in 18
- there frnm.
l 19 BY WITNESS SPENCER: ,
20 A. And I haven't looked at any of them that i 21 1
I took notes.on either since the original review process.
22 Q. Ms. Anderson?
23 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
h 24 A.
I don't recall the specific conversations a
l- 25 and events. I have looked at a couple of the interview
~
I 72,551 1 sheets, but I do not recall the specifics of the discussions.
,n i 0 Q. What about yelling and name-calling between 3 craft and QC? Ms. Spencer, do you have any recollection 4 of that?
5 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
6 A. No, I don't. I don't recall. I g 7 Q. Ms. Anderson? ,
8 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
9 A. Not specifics. ~
10 Q. Mr. Boren?
'1
.BY WITNESS BOREN:
12 A. I recall that there were some of the people
{ 13 that I talked to commented.that there was name-calling 14 between QC and craft.
15 Q. Do you have any recollection of what you --
16 what that meant, name-calling?
17 A.
, Cursing between QC and craft. Most of the --
18 As I recall, most of the time in most of the instances 19 that they were talking about it was craft wanting QC to 20' do their inspections faster than what QC was performing I 21 the inspections, and there would be shouting contests or 22 name-calling, cursing going on between them. But it was 23 usually even -- From what I recall questicning some of IO
ene veoste en e 1 taeerviewea, it wee aever more eheu en e g ..
l 25 Q.. By "more," what do you mean?
72,552 1 A. Oh, there was never any, you know, threats n
N 2 of "I'm going to cut your wife's throat tonight," or, you 3 know, any -- what I would consider the be violent threats.
4 It was, " Hey, you sob, where have you been? Why can't 5
you get over here and inspect this thing when we call you?
6 You know, you're holding up people that are doing the work I 7 putting this thing together." That would be like from 8
the craft, and the QC people would feel harassed, intimidated 8
by it, but there was never usually -- That I recall, there 10
. was never anyone that paid that much attention to it.
11 Q. Well, what do you think, and you testified 12 about your experience on construction sites.- What do you
(.. 13 think is the impact on the -person who is being name-called?
14
, I mean, how do they feel based upon your experience?
15 A. Most of them mouth right back at the guy 16 that just mouthed to them and go on and forget about it.
I 17 I mean, it is no big deal one way or the other.
18 '
Q. Does it have any &ing to do with the relative 19 physical size or position in the hierarchy of the organization 20 as to who is making the, statements as to how the person 21 might perceive them, .in your judgment?
22 A. I guess that it could, but not in the context 23 that we're talking about here. We're talk.ing about craft O
ena oc ve==onnet- we're e 1xins about, senerativ, veos1e ,
25 of the same level.
l
, 72,553 1 Whoever the plant construction manager is, ,
,m \
t 2 if he goes out there, he's going to have more of an impact 3 on a craft person, say, talking to a QC guy than just the 4 common craft would.
5 Q. What about a craft foreman?
6 A. I don't think that he would have that much 7 more effect than the craft would. -
C.
8 Q. Ms. Spencer, what is your feeling about 9 yelling and name-calling between craft and QC? Does that 10 : Tit your definition? Could it fit your definition of harass-11 ment and intimidation?
12 BY WITNESS SPENCER: -
{ 13 A. I wouldn't consider name-calling and yelling 14 harassment and intimidation.-
15 Q. What,would you consider it?
16 A. What would I consider it? Part of the job 17 or everyday activity. I'm sure it happens during the normal 18 course of a job, construction site.
19 Q. How about up at your office? Would you
! 20 see.it differently if it happened up at your office?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Huh?
U A. No. .
24 Q. You'd see it the same. ,
25 A. Yeah
,, - n , - - - - ,,,-e.- - - - - . . , ,
1 1
72,554 1
Q. If someone came up there and cursed you 2
out and told you to get moving on whatever it was you were , '
3 doing and not take so long'with it, that would not, for 4 you, be harassing or intimidating?
5 A. No, I'm afraid.it wouldn't.
6 Q. Would you do that to anybody yourself?
7 A. Me? No. I would -- In a joking manner, a
I may call somebody a dummy or something, you know, but 9
no, I wouldn't consider it anyway harassment or intimidation.
' 10
. And I wouldn't consider myself harassing or intimidating 11 somebody if I did something of a similar nature.
12 Q. If the person who was yelled at or had names b._ 13 called with respect to, if.they~ thought they were.being 14 harassed and intimidated, would that change your view as 15 to whether you think that was harassing and intimidating?
16 A. If I hollered at somebody? -
17 e
Q. No. No. Let's take you out of it for a 18 moment. Someone comes to you and they say in these interviews ,,
19 "I was yelled at, and I was called terrible names, and 20 it made me feel very uncomfortable about doing my job.
21 I didn't feel comfortab e in doing my work with people 22 doing that, and it inhibited me."
23 They are. telling you that, and you found h 24 the person who did the name-calling. They said, "Nah."3 ,
25 They said what Mr. Boren said, "We do it all the time down
I .
72,555 l 1 here. I don't want to harass or intimidate them at all."
l 2 In your definition of harassment and intimida-3 tion, would that be harassment and intimidation or not?
4 A. If it prevented somebody from doing their 5 job as they knew it. Is that the question?
6 If it prevented somebody, it may be considered g 7 some form of harassment or intimidation.
8 Q. Even if it wasn't intended to, it just had 9 that effect.
10 A. Possibly. Possibly.
11 Q. Mr. Boren, what is the time frame in which 12 you developed a view as to what the phrase harassment and
( 13 intimidation means? . .
14 BY WITNESS BOREN:
15 A. You mean when did I?
16 Q. Uh-huh.
17 l, A. I guess we all have some type of a definition l
18 l
of harassment and intimidation from probably the first 19 time that we have a boss. ,
20 Q. So you are saying for a long time you've 21 had a definition of that?
~
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. Has it eyolved much in recent years? ,
O
^- Oh, it probably changed some. I don't --
25 You know, I certainly didn't write it down back when I
72,556 1 first started work.
2 Q. Well, has it changed any in the last five 3 years, would you say?
4 A. I don't think so.
5 Q. And what is that? What is your definition 6 of harassment and intimidation?
p, 7 A. Someone being either feels like that they 8 cannot properly perform their job because of either verbal 9 or physical threats on them.
10 Q. So that in your definition, looking at it 11 in the terms that Ms. Spencer testified, the critical element 12 is how the person receiving the action perceives what's 13 happening as opposed..to. wha.t the person intended who did I. 14 it.
15 A. I think for it to really be true harassment 16 and intimidation, it has to be a combination of both.
17
, . Q. You must have both the intent and the 18 recipient's reaction to the intent?
19 A. Yes. To me, you do.
20 Q. Okay. And is it -- Are they in lockstep i
21 with each other? In other. words, if -- Let's say that 22 the actor only interids to just give a -- just a little --
23 A. I don't know who the actor is. ,
O Q. Well, let's ser e crafe verson.
25 A. Okay.
.---..w ,.v- y m p. . . . , . - - - ._m_- .____-__*_-m--
l 72,557 1 Q. All they really want to do is to give this 2 QC inspector a little scare. l 3 A. Okay.
4 Q. That's all they've got in mind. They 5 certainly don't want him not to do his job, but they would 6 like it if he could-do it a little faster.
g 7 The QC inspector, hearing this statement, 8
perceives it not as a little scare but a life-threatening 9 statement -- ~
I 10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. -- and reacts as though they had been --
12 as though their life has been threatened, and they are C. 13 terribly upset and feel as.though they cannot remain and I .
14 do their job at all properly for fear that they may' lose 15 their life. So he's got an entirely different perception i
16 than what the actor said.
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. In looking at both sides of the equation, 19 how would you evaluate what -- What would we call that r
20 event? First, would you call that harassment and intimidation 1
21 at all?
22 A. No. I'd call it a misunderstanding.
23 Q.
,I{ , 24 A.
So that wouldn't be harassment and intimidation.:
Not to my mind.
2 Okay.
Q. Well, that's the only mind we have
~
I_ 72,558 I 1 got for you to testify about. I'm not going to let you ,
l l
2 testify about anybody else's mind. I
. l 3 Ms. Anderson, after the surveys were 4 completed, the 1979 surveys were completed, did you have 5 occasion to look at or become aware of what steps were 6 taken in response to the survey by management before you g 7 did your May, 1980 follow-up audit?
8 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
9
~
A. I don't recall the exact sequence. It was L
10 before because it was used as part of the follow-up activities 11 but I don't know the exact time frame before.
U Q. There were no particular events that --
. 13 or changes that took place.at the plant that stick in your 14 mind, no major change that you can remember?
15 A. Not related to the follow-up activities?
l
- 16 Q. That's right. Not -- I'm not talking about 17 the TCP follow-up. I'm talking about any follow-up 18 activities to the Purdy Exhibit 42-1.
19 A. The activities that I participated in in 20 May were to look at actions that had been taken as a result i
l 21 of those Purdy 42-1. .
22 Q. Okay. And that's what I'm trying to find 23 out. When did you first become aware of what actions had Q,
24 been taken in response to Purdy Exhibit 42-17 Wac it as 25 they were occurring or at the time that you began to
i l 72,559 l
l 1
I do your TCP-7 follcy-up?
2 I.(-> A. It was probably as they were occurring.
3 I don't recall exactly.
4 Q. Do you recall khat they were?
5 A. Not specifically.
6 Q. How about you, Ms. Spencer?
g 7 BY WITNESS SPENCER: '
8 A. Would you repeat the question?
9 Q. Do you recall what the actions were that 10 were taken in response to Purdy Exhibit 42-1?
11 A. The only thing that I recall was that Tolson 12 had some what he called fireside chats with.some of the
(~ 13 inspectors. .
14 Q. Uh-huh.
I 15 A. That's the only information I recall.
16 Q. How about you, Mr. Boren?
17
, BY WITNESS BOREN:
18 A. His fireside chats is the only thing I recall.
19 Q. Do you recall whether there were other things
's 20 and you just can't remember what they were, or do you think 21 that's all there were?,
22 A. No. I wasn't implying that there wasn't 23 any other thing. I'm saying that that was the only thing O
24 that I was really made aware of. There may have been other I 25 o things and I wasn't made aware of it. There was no reason
72,560 1 for them to make me aware of any of them.
l 2 Q. Okay. During this whole time between the 3 fall of 1979 and let's say the summer of 1980, were you 4 employed in Dallas during that whole time?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you, Ms. Spencer, in Dallas?
p 7 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
8 A. In Dallas.
9 Q. And Ms. Anderson?
10 .
BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
I 11 A. Yes, in Dallas.
12 Q. Okay. How did it happen that you would
([ 13 be made aware of the fireside chats, Ms. Anderson?
14 I'm sorry. You didn't remember.
15 Ms. Spencer?
16 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
17 A. I'm sure it was through just eve..yday 18 conversations. That's the only -- With Chapman or Tolson 19 or somebody.
20 Q. Were you working with Mr. Chapman at that 21 time? ,
22 A. Yes. I've always been employed by Mr. Chapman .
23 Q. And how about you, Mr. Boren?
How would O 24 you have become aware of the fireside chats?
2s ff
I 72,561 1 BY WITNESS BOREN:
m 2 A. Mr. Tolson told me that he was doing some 3 of the follow-up on the early, what do you want to call i 4 it, report summaries that were put out, and he was having 5 some early morning, as he called them, fireside chats.
6 Q. Would you expect that he would have told
, 7 you if he was doing'anything else of any significance?
8 A. Not necessarily.
9 Q. Why do you think he told you about the fireside' 10 . chats?
11 A. Just as a matter of conversation.
12 Q. You mean not in any way related to the fact
[. 13 that you were one of the authors of the management review 14 report?
15 A. No. That had nothing to do with it. It 16 was just over dinner. He started some of those quite early 17 after we finished issuing these reports, in fact.
18 Q. Mr. Boren, when did you join the TUGCO organi-19 =ation?
- 20 A. How exact do you want?
21 Q. Give me.the year or the decade.
22 A. Roughly, 1973.
23 Wait a minute. What do you mean by TUGCO I 24 organization?
3 Q. Well,.t'm sorry. I realize that's - Any --
72,562 1 TUGCO or any of its affiliate organizations.
i,n. 2 A. 1956, roughly, was the first, as I recall.
3 Q. When did you have your first connection 4 with any nuclear facility?
5 A. 1972 or '3. '3, I think.
6 Q. And that was which facility?
7 A. Comanche Peak. b t
8 Q. And were you on the site at one time?
9 A. No, sir. -
' 10 :-- Q. You've always been in Dallas?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. Your on-site construction experience, then, 13 iswithnon-nuclea$.facili. ties? '
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Based upon your current knowledge about 16 nuclear facilities, do you feel that there is any sub ,
17
, stantive difference between the potential implications 18 of harassment and intimidation at a nuclear facility as 19 opposed to a non-nuclear construction site?
20 MR.-BELTER: I'm going to object, Tony,
= 21 unless you can define " substantive" for me. I have no 22 idea what you mean.
23 BY MR. ROISMAN:
I g 24 g, rell, I mean is there -- Is it more important o '
25 to prevent harassment and intimidation at a nuclear facility
=
72,563 I than it would be at the average construction site in your 2 experience?
3 BY WITNESS BOREN:
4 A. I think it is always important to prevent 5 harassment and intimidation no matter w15ere it' occurs.
6 Now,'my question was: Is it more Q. Okay.
7 important to prevent it at a nuclear facility in which --
8 than it is in the average construction site?
8 A. Again, I'11 answer you I think that it is 10 important to prevent harassment and intimidatiori regardless I 11 of where it occurs. I don't think that it is the -- what 12 you are building should have anything to do,with it. '
r
( 13 Q. So the fact that the nuclear facility is.
14 built under some federal regulations that prohibit-15 harassment and intimidation whereas many other construction 16 sites there's no such prohibition doesn't make any difference 17 to you in terms of whetrar it is important to prevent it.
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. They are equally important.
20 A. Yes. .
21 g, - Did you all participate in the decision 22 to do the interviews without having the interview sheet 23 disclose the name of the person wh'a had b,een interviewed?
24 Was that part of the decision? Did any of you --
25 A. What is your question, again?
72,564 1
Q. Did any of you participate in the decision
.A.
2 to have these interviews conducted, the 1979 interviews 3 I'm talking about now, without having the name of the person 4 disclosed -- who was being interviewed disclosed on the 5 interview sheet?
6 A. Did we have any?
I 7 Q. Input into making that decision.
8 Ms. Anderson?
9 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
~
10 A. I don't recall specifically. It was I 11 discussed and basically that's what was agreed upon, but 12 I don't recall specific input.
( 13 Q. Ms. Spencer.?
14 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. Mr. Boren? .
17 BY. WITNESS BOREN:
18 A. Yes, I recall.
19 Q. Okay. What do you recall?
20 A. I recall Mr. Tolson and Mr. Chapman and 21 l
l I believe Mr. Vega and.myself decided not to put the names 22 i
on the interview sheets to keep it as strictly confidential 23 as possible. .
h 24 g, And why? Why did you make that decision?
l 23 A. ,, ,,1,11x,thae wies ,, ,,cs com,1,em,1,11,y
- l
I 72,565 1 as we could obtain in something like this we would get the 2 people to open up better and tell us more about what was 3 going on and any problems that they would be having out I 4 there in construction than any other way, and so our attempt 5 was to try to do that.
6 Q. Is it not the case that every employee at
, 7 the plant site and certainly QC employees are obligated 8 to report any problems that they know exist that would 9 interfere with them fulfilling their responsibilities?
10 A. Yes.
- 11 Q. What made you think that these employees !
12 would be in any way reluctant to do that openly, just stand I(, 13 14 up, say their names,. tell you their problems?
A. Repeat the question.
15 Q. What made you feel that any of these is employees would be reluctant to tell you any problems that 17 they perceived at the site? I think your words were --
18 A. I'm not saying that it would make them feel 19 less reluctant. I'm just saying that we felt like it would
. 20 make them feel more comfortable. .
I 21 Q.
i In what.way? Would you expect -- Well, 22 let me take a hypot'hetical.
23 If you asked them, "Do you love youi ;ountry,"
I
(] 24 do you think y'ou would need to give them anonymity in order 25 to make them feel more comfortable to answer that question?
72,566 1 A. Do what?
2 Q. If you asked them the question, "Do you 3 love your country," do you think you would have to give I 4 them anonymity in order to make them feel more comfortable 5 in answering that question?
6 A. No.
Ir 7 Q. Then why would you think you'd need to give 8 them anonymity in order to make them feel more comfortable 9 in answering the question do you think there are any problems 10 here at the plant site?
11 A. The reason that we were doing it was so 12 that -- We didn't want to and didn't want them to. feel
( 13 like that we would immediately -run out and say, " Hey, do 14 you know that old Joe Blow over here, he said this?
He 15 went out and told those people over there that this craft 16 person said that he was intimidating him."
17 We didn't want that type of rumors to get 18 out.
19 Q. Why not?
r 20 A. Why would we?
21 Q. Well, fortunately for me, I don't ?.sve to 22 answer the questions. ,Unfortunately for you, you do.
23 Why not? Why would you not want to have h 24 that --
25 A. I don't think that it is a good healthy
72,567 1 working atmosphere to have rumors going around that aren't
~
2 true and can't be 'really substantiated, and to make these 3 interviews publicly known to all of the plant personnel, 4 all four or five or six thousand of them, would have done 5 just that.
6 Q. No.- I only asked you the question why did
(. 7 you need to have anonymity, not whether you should publish 8 the interviews in The Circuit Breaker.
9 Why did you have to --
10 A. Well, you were relating the two together.
11 Q. No. No. I wasn't at all. In fact, until 12 just this minute, I never even said anything about O 13 The Circuit Breaker.
I 14 I want to know why you felt that you needed j l 15 to have anonymity on the interview. Why couldn't the inter- I 16 view sheets, kept confidential to those people who were.
17
, on the management review team and Mr. Tolson and Chapman l 18 and some of the other upper management people, why shouldn't 19 the names of each person have been at the top and say, 20 " Smith complained of this and that"?
4 l 21 MR. BELTER: Tony, you are arguing with
~
M hb. ,
23 MR. ROISMAN: No. I'm asking him the question .I Q 24 o MR. BELTER: He's already -- He's already 25 answered the question.
72,568 1
WIT'TESS BOREN: I answered the question.
2 MR. ROISMAN: No.
3 WITNESS BOREN: Yes, I did. I answered 3 4 your question, and I told you that we felt like it would 5
let the people open up more.
6 I BY MR. ROISMAN: -
7 Q. And I'm asking you what was it that made 8 you believe that was so. Now, that's the question you 9
haven't answered yet. ~
10
- BY WITNESS BOREN:
11 A. I don't know, then. We just felt like that 12 it would be better, a better atmosphere and would let the
(, ' 13 people ope.n up more by not -having their names identified 14 on the sheet.
15 Q. Ms. Anderson, when you did the interviews 16 that formed the TCP-7 follow-up, did you also follow the I 17 approach of anonymity with regard to the people who you 18 interviewed?
19 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
3 A.
I believe so, but I don't recall specifically.
21 Q. Do you r call anything very specifically 22 about either the surveys or the TCP-7 follow-up,. or would 23 t be fair to say that most of it is not in your memory I 24 any longer?
25 A. That's a pretty fair statement as far as
I . 72,569 1 specific details and people.
~, . .
2 Q. Do you remember if you used in the TCP-7 3 audit follow-up the same questionnaire as the one that-I 4 you used in the survey questions back in 1979?
5 A. I don't remember.
6 Q. Do you know what happened to the actual r 7 interview sheets that were -- that you used to take the 8 information down when you did the TCP-7 follow-up interviews?
9 A. No, I don't remember. ~
10 Q. Were you the only one who conducted those 11 interviews?
12 No.
A. They were conducted jointly between
{, 13 myself and Mr. Vega.. We worked as a team.
14 Q. So both of you'went and interviewed'each 15 of the people who was interviewed?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you both take notes?
18 A. As I remember, we switched off. One person 19 would do the talking and one person would take the notes, 20 and then we would switch.
- 21 l Q. Did you.go.to the plant site to do them, 22 or did you have the people come to Dallas?
23 A. We went,to the plant site.,
Ig 24 Q.
Do you remember if you interviewed them .
25 in the same setting as what -- as you had interviewed
72,570 1 the people during the '79 survey?
I 2 A. I believe we brought them individually into 3 an office to talk with them. It was the same.
4 Q. But that was the same.
5 MR. MIZUNO: Can I request a short restroom 6 break at this point?
g 7 MR. ROISMAN: Sure.
8 MR. BELTER: You can request it, but you 9 won't get it from me.
10 (A short recess was taken.)
= 11 BY MR. ROISMAN:
12 Q. I believe you-all testified,,all of you, k, 13 that it was your understan. ding -that your notes were not 14 going to be retained and you thought that they were going 15 to be destroyed.
16 Is that correct, Ms. Anderson? ,
17 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
I 18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Ms. Spencer?
20 BY WITNESS SPENCER: -
4 5 21 A. Yes.
~
22 Q. Mr. Boren?
l 23 BY WITNESS BOREN: .
(] 24 A. Yes.
, 25 Q. Do you remember, any of you, why that was
72,571 1 going to happen? Why did you believe that was going to 2 happen? a 3 Ms. knderson, I'm sure --
4 MR. B,ELTER: Well, is your question --
5 MR. ROISMAN: The reason'they were supposed 6 to be destroyed. .
r, 7 MR. BELTER:- -- knowing that this was going 8 to happen, did that affect the way they -- the cars they 9 took in making them, or is it -- I've got a chicken and 10 - egg problem with your question.
11 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. Well, I'm just trying ;
12 to -- For right now, I'm just trying to find out what was 13 the reason, as they . understood -it, 'that the notes were I (. 14 going to be destroyed. Why were the notes going to be 15 destroyed as opposed to saved or attached to the final 16 summaries or -- ,
17 MR. BELTER: As opposed to going into it 18 with the concept that you are creating a permanent record?
19 MR. ROISMAN: Yeah.
20 MR. BELTER: Okay.
t '
21 .BY MR. ROISN: .
22 Q. Ms. Spencer, do you have a recollection l 23 of -- '
l ~
O 24 Br WITNzSS SrENcER= o 25 A. Not as to why they were going to be --
72,572 I 1 we expected them to be destroyed, no. ' -
rm I. 2 Q. Mr. Boren?
3 3 BY WITNESS BOREN:
4 A. The -- What was supposed to have been 5 destroyed, and it was from the standpointi of the keeping 6 anonymous who said what on these interview sheets, was 7 the cross-reference sheet.
8 Q. Not the interview notes?
9 A. Not the interview notes themselves. The 10 .
interview notes, you know, I mean they could be'kept, and 11 if you didn't know who said what and so fcrth, it would 12 make no difference.
C- 13 There was no-ateempt or whatever as far 14 as I know to ever really destroy those. What was going l
15 to be destroyed was the cross-reference sheets that identified 16 the code letter at the top to the individual.
lI 17 Q. Ms. Anderson, when you did your --
18 MR. BELTER: Do you have the same question 19 for her about the understanding of why the notes were to 20 be destroyed? .
21 MR. ROI MAN:. You mean do I have it for 22 Ms. Anderson? ,
23 MR. BELTER: Yeah. I mean, if she needed O 24 to enswe,, z dom.t thinx he did, 25 o
WITNESS ANDERSON: I forgot to answer.
1 .
72,573 1
MR. ROISMAN: I thought she and I had an 2
understanding that she didn't remember, and I didn't feel 3 like subjecting her to one more of those. If you want 4 me to ask her that --
5 MR. BELTER: I'm sorry. 'I may have missed 6 it.
7 p MR. ROISMAN: -- then I'll do that.
8 WITNESS ANDERSON: I'll answer the question.
9 BY MR. ROISMAN:
10
- Q. Good. Okay.
11 A. Okay. No. Basically, the summaries were --
12 The notes were an attempt just to take dcwn anything and I{ 13 14 f
everything, and the summaries were to document what came out of those notes. There was no need to keep the notes.
15 Q. So your recollection different from 16
- I
! 17 Mr. Beren's is that the notes themselves as well as the f cross-index sheet were to have been destroyed?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. When you did the follow-up interviews, I 20 think you've already testified that those two were done 21 anonymously; is that correct?
22 A. As be'st I remember.
23 Q. Right. And do you remember whether a cross-I 24 index sheet was kept for those so that if Mr. Chapman or ,
25 Mr. Tolson or Mr. Vega wanted to cross-reference them,
72,574 I 1 they could.
- 2. A. I don't believe there was, no.
3 Q. Was any attempt made to match up the sample j lI 4 that you had interviewed with any of the people who had 5 expressed concerns back in the 1979 inte'rview?
6 A. As far as developing the sample?
r 7 Q. Well, no, not so much developing it. I I 8 believe you had already testified that it was -- that you l
1 9 don't know exactly how it was done, but you think it was e
10 at random. No. But, rather, after you got the results I 11 to see have we got a person here who had one set of concerns 12 in '79 and now has expressed in '80 that they.are all gone.
! 13 Was there any effort made to do that?
I%. 14 A. I don't recall that there was.
15
.W. ROISMAN: Well, subject to looking at 16 this and wanting to have a chance to ask scme subsequent 17
, questions, I have no further questions for this panel at 18 this time.
I '
19 20 MR. BELTER: Geary?
MR. MIZUNO: Yeah, I have some.
I 21 MR. ROISMAN:
Do you want this?
22 MR. 54IZUNO: Before I ask questions, I guess, 23 from understanding the, testimony of the witnesses, these 24 people are being proffered just to provide information 25 on how the 42-1, the management review board interviews
i
. 72,575 I ,
1 were conducted, but not to discuss what higher management l i
2 did with the results of the interviews.
i 3 MR. BELTER: That's correct. But there' I 4 were some questions asked --
5 MR. MIZUNO: Right.
6 M~.1. BELTER: -- and answered about what 7 i knowledge they may have had about the response.
7 8 MR. MIZUNO: And there will be further 9 witnesses? You will be presenting further evidence on 10 that later?
11 MR. BELTERi I don't know.
12 MR. MIZUNO: You don't know.
{'. 13 MR. ROISMAN:. ,
I.believe, just so the record 14 is clear -- ,
15 MR. BELTER: Mr. Tolson testified about 16 it in his deposition.
I 17 MR. ROISMAN: That's correct. And you l
18 in'dicated that Messrs. Vega and Purdy might --
IS MR. BELTER: I indicated Mr. Vega and 20 Mr. Purdy were basically part of the same panel, Mr. Purdy 1
21 to a lesser extent, and we do intend to present testimony l 22 on other subjects from them this week. And I think it 1
23 is fair to say if you've got questions of them along the l 1
IQ 24 same lines her'e, you'd be free to ask it. I don't know l 25 l
- l. whether I have or not. In all likelihood, it would be
72,576 1
cumulative here. It may not.
2 Okay.
MR. MIZUNO:
3 CROSS-EXMINATION !
4 BY MR. MIZUNO:
5 Q. Members of the panel, were you told the 6
reason why these management review board interviews were 7
7 being conducted?
8 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
9 A. I don't remember the specific reasons.
i 10 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
11 A. As best I recall, there was a newspaper U
article or NRC report or something that identified low
{ ,' 13 morale for plant employees,, and in response to that, the 14 review board performed the interviews to find out if that 15 was true.
16 Q.
I BY WITNESS BOREN:
Mr. Boren?
A. The best I recall, Mr. Tolson wanted to 18 know was there any problems out there with these CC inspectors - He and I were discussing it -- and what 21 the best way would be o find out if we did have any problems ,
22 morale problems, ho'w deep did they go and these sort of 23 things, and I suggested this type of arrangement to do it.
O MR. ROrSMAN: Bezore you so on any further, 25 it seems to me that that is clear hearsay, and Mr. Tolson
M 72,577 1 has already testified as to why this was done. These witnesse 2 understanding of why they thought it was done, I don't 3 see -- It is either irrelevant or it is hearsay.
I 4 And you got one. question.and you got one 5 answer, and if that's all you've got, ue can just go by 6 it. If this is going to be a line of questions, I'd like I 7 you to explain where you are headed and why it is appropriate.
8 MR. MIZUNO: Okay. I guess I was going 9 to clarify with Ms. Spencer and Mr. Boren where they received i
10 .
their knowledge about the purpose of that, and'I was going --
11 I believe that it is relevant to the question as to how 12 they then went in and actually conducted the interview.
{l- 13 I don't kno,w.whether there's a line of 14 questions that I'm going to. develop on that.
15 MR. BELTER: Well, why don't you go on to is the next question and see where we wind up?
17 MR. ROISMAN: Well, let's try one more.
18 It looks to me like you are skating on thin ice.
19 I 20 BY MR. MIZUNO:
Q. Okay. Ms. Spencer, this discussion -- You 21 indicated that you bell' eve that the management review board 22 interviews were a result of some NRC --
23 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
Q 24 g, ' Report.
25 Q. -- report.
l 72,578 I 1 Who told you that?
r 2 A. Who told me that?
MR. BELTER: If you recall.
I 3
4 BY MR. MIZUNO:
5 Q. Let me take that back.
s Was this made known to you at the time that
~
t 7 y u were told to do'these interviews?
8 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
9 A. I don't recall'.
10 -
Q. Do you recall who told you that?
I 11 A. No, I sure don't, not specifically.
12 Q. Mr. Boren, you indicated that you discussed I( 13 14 the -- I believe you talked about Mr. Tolson and some discussions with -- Those discussions were with you?
15 BY WITNESS BOREN:
16 A. Mr. Tolson and I?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Did you have similar d'iscussions 20 with Mr. Chapman or Mr. Vega regarding the --
l 21 A. I believe Mr. Tolson -- Either Mr. Tolson 22 then had discussions with Mr. Chapman, or Mr. Tolson and 23 myself.had discussions,with Mr. Chapman. ,
I don't remember.
', )
24 Q. Okay. You don't recall whether you had -- l 25 A. I did not go in and approach Mr. Chapman J
72,579 1 with it. It was either with -- By myself, I mean. It 2 was either with Mr. Tolson, at his suggestion, or either 3 he himself did it.
j 4 Q. Okay.
l 5 A. Mr. Vega was not, I would say, in the 6 discussions at that point in time, ac I recall.
7 Q. Okay. Now, although I might appear to be 8 asking the same question, it is.a slightly different question .
9 Were you told what you were supposed.to 10 : do as part of this interview process?
11 A. What do you mean?
M Q. As far as were you told that,you were to --
13 I take that back.
I(
14 Did anyone tell you whether you were supposed 15 to merely summari::e what the QC inspectors told you, or 16 I 17 were you told to do something else?
A. Just that.
18 g, Just that.
19 And, Ms. Spencer?
20 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
21 A. I don' t, recall specifically.
22 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
23 A. I don't, recall specifically.
(] 24 Q. Okay.
l 25 ff
_____...p... . - _ _ _ . .
72,580 I 1 2
BY WITNESS BOREN: )
A.
Are you talking about on writing down on 1
3 the interview sheets?
4 Q. Right.
5 -
I A.
We were just summarizing what the people 6 told us.
7 Q. Okay.
I Is that, in fact, what you did?
I 8 9
A. Yes.
BY WITNESS SPENCER:
10 A.
s
..- - That's what I did, yes.
11 Q. Okay. And --
12 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
13 j A.
C,_ Yes.- That's what.I did.
14 Q. Okay.
You didn't screen what people were 15 telling you?
In other words, let's suppose someone told 16 you that they felt there was a problem. You in your mind.
17 did not say, well, I don't think that that's a problem 18 19 and then not write it down on the interview sheet. Is that --
20 BY WITNESS BOREN:
21 A.
You know, dhen you are summarizing -- I 22 don't know how I can answer that.
23 Q. Okay.
Let's say there was a specific I 24 2
incident which a QC inspector told you about and in di cated that he wanted to bring this out.
I 1 *
.- ........:.a . . . . .
72,581 1 A. Okay. No. As I understand, if you're talking 2 about specific instances, no, not that I recall did I not 3 write any of those down.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. Okay. If you're talking'about just the 6 general flow of conversation did I capture every thought 7 that came out and that he said, then, you know, I don't 8 know.
I 9 Q. Okay. Ms. Spencer?
10 . BY WITNESS SPENCER:
l 11 A. Basically, the same. I mean, I take notes i
12 like you are taking notes. Are you -- Well.--
(.. 13 Q. Okay.. .
14 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
15 A. The same thing here. Basically, getting 16 down the idea of what was said in phrases, words, whatever, 17 but not an intent to take dictation of every word that's 18 said.
I B 20 Q. Okay. Now, I understand that all three of you participated in,actually drafting.the summaries
\
l 21 which are contained in.-- which are Purdy Exhibit 42-1.
22 Is that okay? ,
23 BY WITNESS BOREN: .
')
24 A, Yes.
M BY WITNESS ANDERSON: I l
l
.,a.. .. .-
72,582 1 Q. When you were preparing these summaries, h 2 did you use your notes that you -- the notes of the 3 interviews? -
4 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
5 A. Yes.
6 BY WITNESS BOREN:
[ 7 A. Yes.
i 8 BY WITNESS SPENCER: I 9 A. Uh-huh. -
10 Q. Now, from going from the notes to the i 11 sn- aries, did you perform a screening function? And by 12
" screening function," again, saying -- looking through 13
.. your notes and saying is this -- taking an incident and 14 saying, well, this is not really a problem and not including 15 it in your summary.
16 BY WITNESS BOREN:
17
, , A. I guess you'd have to say yes, to some degree.
18 You are going from the notes, and I don't know how many i
19 people was in each one of those groups now, but if you 20 had 50 in a group and you were trying to take and condense I 21 i
that down to something.,that management or Mr. Tolson can 22 understand and do something about. Okay. That was the 23 purpose for the whole t;hing. So you were trying to take I(] 24 that and condense it down into something that would be ,
25 meaningful for him, and if you got one guy out there that
72,583 1 says, "I don't like to park way back on the back parking G
2 lot" out of 50, then, no, that would not show up in the 3 summary sheet to Mr. Tolson.
4 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Mizuno, were you aware 5 that the Applicant produced the original interview sneets?
6 MR.'-MIZUNO: No. I have not received those.
7 MR. BELTER: You've got them. !
i
(
n 8 MR. ROISMM: We have them, and I assume 9 that you have them. -
10 -
MR. MIZUNO: Well, the fact that I have 11 the original summary sheets does not --
12 MR. ROISMAN: I know.
C 13 MR. BELTER:. You have the interview sheets, 14 too.
I 15 MR. MIZUNO: But that's still not important.
16 I want to -- ,
17
, MR. BELTER: I don't have an objection.
18 MR. ROISMAN: No. No. I just wasn't aware 19 whether you knew that, that they were out there.
20 MR. MIZUNO: No. I don't -- I recall scmeone I 21 saying in one of these. depositions that they had just found 22 these sheets, the interview notes, and --
23 MR. BELTER: No, Geary. I want to make 24 the record clear. That didn't occur during the course 25 of the depositions. It occurred before the depositions.
1 l
72,584 I 1 MR. MIZUNO:
Well, the first time I heard 2 about it -
3 MR. BELTER: And I gave copies of all these 4 interview sheets specifically before these depositions 5 began because I remember very well building up my forearms 6 lugging it over to you guys.
f 7 Excuse me.
I 8 MR. MIZUNO: It might not have gone to me 9 personally. I'm just stating that I don't know personally.
i 10 -
I haven't seen them.
11 MR. BELTER: I'm a little bit defensive 12 about discovery in this case. Forgive me.
13 BY MR. MIZUNO: .
l 14 i Q. Okay. Mr. Boren, if someone described to 15 you an incident and said that they -- Well, let =e ask 16 you something.
, 17 Did anyone describe to you an incident 18 and indicate to you that they felt harassed or intimidated 19 by it?
20 BY WITNESS BOREN:
I i
21 A. Not to the point -- No. I never talked 22 to anyone that felt like that things that were being said 23 out frota the craf t to 1:he QC affected their job and what 24 they were doing.
25 MR. ROISMAN: This has boon asked and
. I 72,585 ,
I answered. It was in the direct. The witnesses have already l
2 answered the questio,n.
3 MR. MIZUNO: Well, I'm getting to a different -
4 BY MR. MIZUNO:
5 Q. Did you --
6 (Pause.)
, 7 MR. MIZUNO: Let me take a break here. I 8 want to look something over.
9 MR. BELTER: Have you got much more, Geary?
10 MR. MIZUNO: Well, the problem that I have - --
I 11 is -- Are we off -- Can we go off the record just one second?
12 MR. BELTER: Sure.
f s
13 (Discussion,off the record.)
I._ 14 MR. BELTER: Back on the record.
15 BY MR. MIZUNO:
16 Q. Did you perform any screening function when 17
, you transferred your -- when you prepared the summary sl:eets?
18 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
19 A. There was somewhat of a screening. We M
summarized a concern. .We determined if there were a number I 21 of those concerns.
4 We.,didn't write each of the concerns 22 dov.s if they were the same type concern, you know, that 23 dealt with pay or a concern about pay or ,something. I
()
24 mean, that type of thing was generalized. That's the screen-o D
ing process, as I recall, that we went through in transferring
72,586 1 informat on from the notes to the summaries.
i
( ~,
2 Q. Okay. Ms. Anderson?
3 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
4 A. That's basically the same screening process 5 I recall.
6 Q. Okay. Were you told specifically to look l 7 for -- Excuse me. Drop that.
[ ,
8 In your minds, do you perceive a difference 9 between the concept of harassment and'the concept of 10 .
intimidation?
11 BY WITNESS BOREN:
12 A. Who is he asking? -
(. 13 Q. All of you.. -
14 MR. BELTER: Why don't you pick a victim 15 to start with?
16 WITNESS BOREN: Which one do you want to.
17 start with?
18 Yes. There is a difference to me. Intimida-19 tion is worse than harassment.
2 BY MR. MIZUNO: .
I 21 Q. Okay. And.What do you mean by " worse"?
22 BY WITNr.SJ BOREN. .
M A. More severe. '
O 74 Q. Ok,y. Severe in eerms of -- ,
M A. Harassment --
72,587 I ,"
1 Q. -- the action being --
2 A. Harassment is more of an interfering with 3 you doing your job maybe properly. Intimidation can --
4 to me, can lead up to threatening. That's what I mean 5 by more severe.
6 Q. Ms. Spencer?
g 7 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
8 A. I think the significance of harassment and 9 intimidation and threats are just that, more significant.
10 Harassment is the least (unintelligible].
11 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. I can't hear you.
12 WITNESS SPENCER: I'm sorry..
k., 13 MR. BELTER:, Did you get her answer down?
14 THE REPORTER: Not the last few words.
15 MR. BELTER: The last few words of your answer ,
16 Mr. Spencer. I believe'you were giving us a one, two, three I 17 in terms of severity.
18 WITNESS SPENCER: The severity would be 19 harassment is the lease severe, moving to intimidation 20 and threats being the most severe. .
21 BY MR. MIZtmO: ,
22 Okay.
Q. Ms. Anderson?
23 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
l O 24 x. I .111 agree with ehat deso,1ption.
t 25 Q. Ms. Spencer's?
l ,
72,588 I 1 A. Ms. Spencer's, yes.
2 Q. Okay. Okay. Once you prepared all these 3 su=maries contained in 42-1 and you submitted them, were 4 you responsible for any further assessment of the content, 5 the concerns which were summarized in 42-l?
6 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
( 7 A. What do you mean by " assessment"? I'm not 8 sure I understand the question.
9 Q. Okay. The concerns which were expressed 6
10 in 4 2 -
I 11 A. Right.
m Q. Okay. Once you had finally finished I 13 ccmpiling these and.you had submitted them to higher manage-14 ment, were you consulted or did you participate in any 15 further action with regards to 42-17 16 A. As I stated, I participated in some follow-
, 17 up activities.
18 Q. That was it?
I M 19 A. Specifically, yes.
Q. Okay. ,
21 A. There may .have been discussions in general 22 within the QA organization about actions taken, but I don't 23 remember those specifically.
m
.) 24 Q. Do fou recall being in any meetings in which 25 you presented the results of 42-1 and gave your interpretatio a
72,589 1 of what it all meant?
2 A. I don't recall such a meeting.
3 Q. Ms. Spencer, the same question.
4 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
5 A. I don't recall.
6 Q. Mr. Boren?
r I BY WITNESS BOREN: .
8 A. What was the question?
9 Okay.
Q. The question is~: Once you had finished 10
- compiling the summaries in Purdy 42-1 --
I 11 A. Okay.
12 Q. -- and had submitted it --
(-- 13 A. Yes.
~~
14 Q. -- did you participate in any further follow-15 up action with regards to the concerns which were expressed 16 in the document? .
17
, A. No.
18 Q. Do you recall participating in any meeting 19 or conversation in which you explained the concerns that 20 were identified in 42-1 and gave your assessment of this I 21 document?
22 g, y,3, ,
23 l
\
Q. And who,was that with? -
24 l g, It was with our upper management. ,
25 l Q. Can you recall any specific persons?
72,590 I 1 A. Mr. Bob Gary and Lew Fikar.
'A 2 You want to spell it for her?
3 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
4 A. F-i-k-a-r.
5 Q. This was in a face-to-face meeting with 6 these gentlemen? .
g, 7 BY WITNESS BOREN:
8 A. Yes. They -- You know, they were sitting I'
9 10 on one side of the table and I'm sitting on the other.
Q. Okay.
11 A. We had those documents, and we presented 12 the summary of the entire package on what we had found.
I[ ( 13 14 Q. Okay You said "we presented the. summary."
Who were those other people?
15 A. I believe Mr. Vega was there. Mr. Chapman 16 was also there.
17
, Q. Okay. Did you have any discussions prior 18 to this meeting with Mr. Vega or Mr. Chapman concerning 19 42-l?
20 A. About what?
21 Q. Just ab ut,what I'm just saying.
22 A. I mean,.we discussed it, I guess, but that's, 23 you know -- They had copies of it by that time.
Q 24 g, Okay. Once they received copies --
1 l 25 A. Mr. Vega, obviously, his name is signed
72,591 1 to it, and Mr. Chapman received a copy of it. ,
.- w l 2 Q. Yes. I'm not asking you whether they received 3 a copy or not, though.
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. The question is whether you spoke with 6 Mr. Chapman or Mr. Vega prior to this meeting with It 7 Mr. Fikar and Mr. Gary -
8 A. Mr. Vega --
9 Q. -- the subject of those meetings or
. 10 conversations being 42-1.
11 A. Mr. Vega participated with me in the 12 presentation of this document.
( 13 Am I -- What is his question, Len? I don't 14 understand, I guess.
15 MR. BELTER: Yeah. If you don't understand 16 the question, then don't answer it. Okay? Just say you 17 don't understand.
18 WITNESS BOREN: I'm trying to answer the 19 question, but maybe I don't -- From the look on your face, I 20 somewhere I'm missing s,omething.
21 MR. BELTER: When you said "your face,"
22 are you looking at Mr. Mizuno?
23 WITNESS ,BOREN: Yes.
(} 24 MR. BELTER: Thank you. I hope I don't 25 have a quizzical look on my face.
-,_n . --.
72,592 1 Geary, are you trying to get from him was 2 there a preparation. session before they went into the meeting 3 with --
4 MR. MIZUNO: Yes.
5 MR. BELTER: Well, why don't you ask that?
6 MR. MIZUNO: I don't have to use those --
7 I just asked a meeting --
8 MR. BELTER: Oh. ,
j 9 MR. MIZUNO: -- or a conversation. What i
10 could be clearer? Do I have to use -- !.
11 MR. BELTER: People talk to each other every 12 day about a hundred things. That's where you're confusing
(._ 13 him. You've got to make' it a specific question or he doesn't 14 understand it.
15 Mr. Boren, if you don'u understand a question, 16 just don't answer it and say you don't understand it.
.I .
17 WITNESS BOREN: No. I --
18 MR. MIZUNO: I think that's a fairly clear 19 question, did you have a meeting or a conversation --
20 j MR. BELTER: This man has obviously had 21 probably 20 or 30 meetings --
22 MR. MIZUNO: He can say that.
23 MR. BELTER: -- and 10 years ago he had
() 24 meetings, Geary. You've got to direct his attention to 25 a specific time and ask a specific question.
, 72,593 I 1 MR. MIZUNO: I asked him a specific time, 2 prior to the meeting --
3 MR. BELTER: Ask your question again. Just 4 . ask it. .
5 MR. MIZUNO: -- with Mr.' Gary and Mr. Fikar.
6 If there were many-meetings, he can say so, and we can e 7 talk about each of those or -- .
E S MR. BELTER: Ask a question.
9 MR. ROISMAN: Can I just have a clarification?
s 10 .
I thought you had testified that the people I .
11 there were Mr. Gary, Mr. Fikar and Mr. Clements.
12 WITNESS BOREN: No.
13
. . . . . . MR. BELTER:. No .- Clements was not onboard 14 then. '
15 MR. ROISMAN: Okay.
16 WITNESS SPENCER: I think he said Chapman.
17
, . MR. BELTER: Chapman.
18 WITNESS BOREN: I said -- We were talking I 19 20 i about upper management -- ,
MR. ROISMAN: Who was present at the meeting.
4 21 WITNESS.BOREN:
-- at the meeting, and that 22 was Mr. Gary and Mr. Fikar, as I recall. And then he 23 asked me something about who else was at the meeting --
h 24 MR. ROISMAN: That's fine. I just wanted 25 to get my notes straight. I don't want to interrupt.
72,594 I 1 I'm sorry.
2 WITNESS BOREN: Whoever it was, Chapman and Vega.
I 3
4 We did not have any other meetings. This 5 meeting -- Other than that one, as far ds I recall, that 6 was the one and only meeting to let them know because they 7 wanted to keep informed on everything at Comanche Peak 8 and what we found on this.
9 BY MR. MIZUNO: -
10 . Q. Okay. You're saying you had no other -
11 meetings, meaning no other meetings with Mr. Vega or 12 Mr. Chapman? .
13 BY WITNESS BOREN: -
14 A. Not that I recall.
15 Q. Okay. Do you recall any conversations that 16 you had with Mr. Vega and chapman prior to this meeting.
17 with Mr. Fikar and Mr. Gary on 42-l?
18 A. (Motioned negatively.)
19 Q. You don't recall talking with them at all 20 prior to going to this, meeting with Mr. Fikar and Mr. --
21 A. Mr. Veg and I might have sat down and gone 22 over, you know, he was, going to present this part and I 23 was going to present that or something like that, but that
-~
~
Q. 24 was -- But Mr.' Chapman wasn't involved with any of those, 25 as I recall.
72,595 1 Q. Okay. Once you -- Once you had the meeting l 2 with Mr. Fikar and Mr. Gary, did you have any further ,
3 discussiens, either conversations or additional meetings, 4 with Mr. Chapman or Mr. Vega on 42-17 '
1 5 A. You mean --
6 Q. After the meeting.
t 7 A. No, not that I recall.
8 Q. Did you have any further meetings on 42-1 9 with Mr. Gary and Mr. Fikar, subsequent meetings?
10 : A. No.
11 Q. Okay. At this meeting that you attended 12 with Mr. Fikar and Mr. Gary, were you -- What did you say C: 13 et tha_t meeting, or.can yo.u eummeri:e whee you seid2 14 A. We essentially took those sheets and high-15 lighted those, the items on those sheets that fell 16 consistent problems between groups -- Okay? Are you with 17 me?
18 You're confused.
19 Q. No. No.
I'm list.ening.
20 A. Okay. And I put those on an opaque projector, 4
21 flashed them up on the. Wall, and we went through them.
22 Q. Okay. I take it that not every concern 23 that was listed in the,42-1 was flashed on the wall on O 24 en ovesue gro3ector.
25 A. No.
72,596 1 Q. Now, were you the person that selected which 2 things you felt should be highlighted?
3 A. Mr. Vega, I think I said, and I probably ;
i' 4 got together, as I recall, beforehand and went through 5 the thing and made the selection.
t 6 Q. Okay.
7 7 A. It was primarily trying to give a representa-8 tion as to what that was on the whole CC, not QC concrete 9 or QC electrical but QC. So we tried to look at it from 10 .
an overview standpoint of the entire group.
11 Q. Okay. Did you present concerns just C generally, or did you talk about concerns in specific
(. 13 disciplines such as. electrical QC inspectors have these I 14 concerns and welding QC inspectors have these concerns?
15 A. No. I said that most of the things that 1,6 we were presenting to him may be across-the-board. They 17 may. be in more than one discipline.
la Q. Okay.
19 A. Okay. We did not get down and talk about --
20 I'm talking about generally. Now, I can't remember what i
21 all was said exactly.five years ago in this meeting, but 22 generally we were talking about, you know, here is this 23 concern and, you know,.it was in three out of the 12 l (m
) 24 disciplines or whatever.
25 Q. At the time that you had this meeting l , .
72,597 I 1 where you presented your concerns -- I'm sorry -- presented 2 the concerns which were identified in 42-1, your summary,.
3 did you personally perceive that there was an across-the-4 board problem with intimidation and harassment of QC 5 inspectors at Comanche Peak?
6 A. No.-
7 Q. Did Mr. Vega convey to you his -- any opinion m 8 as to whether he felt that the results of 42-1 suggested I 9 in his mind a problem with harassment and intimidation 10 -
at Comanche Peak?
11 A. Not as far as I'm aware.
12 Q. What was -- Why did you believe at that
- b. 13 time that there was.no concern with intimidation.and harass-14 ment of QC inspectors at Comanche Peak? And I mean "at 15 that time" meaning the time that you presented the results of Purdy 42-1 to Mr. Gary I
16 and Mr. Fikar. .
17 A. We just hadn't heard really that much evidence 18 on it or any evidence from the however many numbers of 19 people that had been interviewed during this entire process 20 to warrant us thinking along those lines.- I think there u 21 was one out of however many hundreds there were.
22 Q. Did you, express your opinion in that regard 23 to the participants at,the meeting; in other words, O 24 ar. rika, and Mr. G erz, or was 1e 3use something which 25 you had formed in your mind but had not said in a meeting?
72,598 1 A. What do you mean?
f - 2 Q. Okay.
You had come to a conclusion that 3 there as not a problem with intimidation or harassment 4 of QC inspectors --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- at Comanche Peak based upon the --
7 A. Did I express that to them?
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. I don't recall. -
_ , _10 _ Q. You don't recall. Okay.
11 Do you recall whether Mr. Vega expressed 12 his conclusion that he didn't think there was intimidation I{'13 or harassment? -
l 14 A. I don't recall.
15 Q. Okay. I have a few more questions on the 16 42-1 interview process. '
17 Where were the interviews conducted? Can 18 you identify a building?
19 .
A.
They were conducted in rooms in what was 20 considered -- I have to have, some help. -
21 i What building, the general --
22 BY WITNESS SPENCER: '
23 A. Admin, construction admin. .
24 '
BY WITNESS BOREN:
25 o I A.
Construction building, main construction
72,599 1 building at that time.
l 2 Q. Could -- Nould people coming to be interviewed 3 have to pass the doors of any, I guess, higher management, 4 construction management or utility management?
~
5 A. Not that I know of.
6 BY WITNESS ANDERSON: .
g 7 A. The offices change out there every week.
8 I don't recall the setup.
9 Q. Okay. -
10 .
A. They do.
11 Q. These interviews were conducted one-on-12 one? ,
(, 13 A. No. ..There were two people.
14 BY WITNESS BOREN: ;
15 A. Two on one.
16 Q. Two on one. Okay.
17
, What process was used to bring the QC 18 inspectcrs into the building?
I 19 MR. BELTER: Geary, I'm going to object 20 to the relevance of it, and let me explain it a little 4
21 bit. .
22 e If we re talking about people being, you 23 know,. kept confidential, the problem I'm having with your O 24 question is that every single QC was called in. So there lg 25 wou1dn e be any point in hidiny ehs,f,om __ hidiny f,om e
l
- I
72,600 :
I anyone else the fact that they were being called in 2 when they all were called in. What was kept confidential 3 was the key, who said what. Okay?
4 MR. MIZUNO: Well --
5 MR. BELTER: I mean if they had all been 6
conducted in public in front of a thousand people it wouldn't; 7 have made any difference as long as you didn't know what 8 was put down on the sheet and coded with who.
9 MR. MIZUNO: Well, let'me ask a question, t
10 : then.
I 11 BY MR. MIZUNO:
C Q. Were the QC inspectors told ahead of time 13 that everyone would be participating in these -- the manage-14 ment review board interviews?
15 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
1 16 A. I believe so.
17
- , BY WITNESS BOREN
18 A. I believe they were, yes. They were told l
19 that this was going to be going on and that everybody would 20 have, you know, time with the interviewees and that they l 21 i
were frcm Dallas. .
22 MR. MIZUNO: Okay. On that basis, then, 23 that's fine. I will drop that line of questioning.
24
...) BY MR. MIZUNO:
9 25 Q. Okay. Ms. Anderson, I guess my remaining
I 72,601 ,
1 questions will be addressed to you, and these are with l 2 regards to the follow-up on 42-1. I won't call it the 3 TCP-7 follow-up.
4 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. Were these -- Where were these interviews 7 held?
7 8 MR. BELTER: You've already asked and --
9 That's been asked and answered. -
10 MR. MIZUNO:
.No. This is --
11 MR. BELTER: I'm sure it was in Mr. Roisman's, 12 but go ahead and answer. -
b' 13 WITNESS ANDERSON: They were conducted in I 14 offices in the construction administration building.
15 BY MR. MIZUNO:
16 Q. Okay. And you didn't interview all the .
17 QC inspectors. They were a sample.
18 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
1 19
- l. A. Correct. ,
20
.s Q. Okay. What method was used to bring the
\
i 21 QC inspectors into the. building for the interviews?
22 A. I don't. recall.
23 Q. Okay. Tiere you the only one conducting
.R 24 V the interviews?
25 A. No. Mr. Vega and I conducted them together.
l l
72,602 ;
1 1
Q. Okay. Other than you and Mr. Vega, there
.D.
2 was no one else conducting a separate set of interviews :
3 for the follow-up?
4 A. No. We were the only two.
f 5 Q. Okay. Were the QC inspectors told ahead 6 of time of your audit?
r 7 A. I don't know. .
8 Q. Okay. Once you had finished preparing the 9 results of the follow-up, in other words, prepared the 10 .
document that we're calling Anderson 1 --
I 11 MR. BELTER: We're calling it now Anderson 12 Panel Exhibit 1. .
13 BY MR. MIZUNO- ' -
..l 14 l Q. -- Anderson Panel 1, did you have any further -
15 Did you participate in any further actions with regards 16 to following up on the audit?
17 BY WITNESS ANDERSON: -
18 A. I don't recall. I may have reviewed 19 additional information or responses as part of the audit
( 20 process, but, specifically, I don't remember.
\
E 21 Q. Do you recall having any meetings or conversa-22 tions with anyone regarding what you had -- what you and 23 Mr. Vega had found in your follow-up?
O 24
- s. os, I.,ce,,,1, ,,s,,ccm.,,,,,1,,, 1,3 25 probably Mr. Chapman, Mr. Tolson and various other
72,603 1 individuals in the QA department.
2 l Q. Okay. Is it fair to say that the results 3 as -- I guess, the discussion as contained on the office I 4 memorandum for this audit represents your view as well 5 as Mr. Vega's?
6 A. Yes, that's fair to say.
I f 7 Q. Okay. I assume these interviews were 8
confidential or anonymous interviews with the QC inspectors.
9 A. To the best of my recollection, they were.
L 10 MR. MIZUNO: .Okay. I guess I don't have - - - -
11 any more questions.
J 12 MR. BELTER: Tony, do you have any further .
( 13 cross as a-result?
14 MR. ROISMAN: As a result of Geary's 15 questions, I have just a clarification.
16 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION I ,
17 BY MR. ROISMAN:
I 18 Q. Anci I think this is clear, Mr. Boren.
19 When you did the projections at the meeting
. I, 20 i
you had with Mr. Fikar,and Mr. Gary, you were only attempt-i 21 ing to highlight for them.those problems that were in at 22 least two or more of the areas and not to give them lI 23 probl. ems that showed up only in one area.
I/,)
^ '
24 s Was that your testimony, that that's what 25 you were projecting for them?
72,604 I 1 BY WITNESS BOREN:
l 2 A. Thats -- You know, we were trying to give 3 them an overview, if you will, of the whole thing, you 4 know. Now, you cait go.through.and you can say, "Okay.
5 We've got 10 different QC groups," and I don't know how 6 many. But let's say we've got 10. We've got problems, 0 7 the same type of problem, in four of these. So that would 8 definitely be one that we would have in this overview picture 9 that we would have highlighted. -
10 : If we had two, you know, it would depend.
I 11 We would take a look at it and maybe say, you know, what l 12 is it. If it was something that two of the. groups felt 13 likej hat they were.being asked to contribute too much j I (.. 14 to the United Way Fund or something, that's not something i
15 that Mr. Gary and Mr. Fikar would care about. First of 16 all, it was with Brown & Root. So it was nothing they 17 had_ control over.
18 Q. I understand.
I 19 A. So that's what I'm trying to say.
20 On the other hand, if there's one out here I 21 that was in one group that represented a large group i
22 that had one problem and if we felt like that, you know, 23 was a significant item it may be in there, too, or it n
Q 24 may have been presented --
25 I.* Q. Well, can you remember whether the -- Looking
l 72,605 1
1 I at the QC electrical personnel group in that paragraph 2 number two that Ms. Spencer and I discussed, the one that 3 elicited the comment regarding the one person who was .
l I 4 physically grabbed by the collar, can you remember whether 5 that was one of them that was highlighted?
6 A. I cannot tell you for sure. You know, that's 7 been five years ago, and it was done by Mr. Vega and myself 7
8 in, you know, one afternoon and presented the next morning.
9 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. Nothing further.
10 : MR. BELTER: .Shall we take a break now 11 and I'll get redirect, and if you want to look at the documen-12 if you have -- ,
13 MR. ROISMAN.: Okay. How long? Can we break l 14 for -- I'd like 30 minutes with it, if that's not unreason-15 able.
16 MR. BELTER: That's fine.
I de 5 17 (A short recess was taken.)
18 MR. BELTER: Let's go back on the record.
19 I
Mr. Roisman.
20 MR. ROISMAN: All right. .I have brought 21 into the room a pile approximately four inches high that 22 consists of what appear to be QC personnel interview sheets, 23 and I believe that these are some, but not all, of the t.j. 24 actual QC personnel interview sheets that were used in 25 the. interviews that make up the basis for the summary
72,606 t
I 1 that has been marked as Purdy Exhibit 42-1.
2 And I would like to have the pile, as such, 3 marked as an exhibit, and let's call it Boren Exhibit 1.
I 4 I will then make an index of what the numbers 5 are as noted on the sheets. There's a code. For instance, 6 the one on top of my pile is G-9 and the next one is I-l 7 and the one after that is K-9. .And we'll keep this pile g:
8 intact in this form and give the reporter the index to 9 attach to the back.
~
10 .
And I'm going to ask some questions of the 11 witnesses about these QC personnel interview sheets, and 12 I believe that they are admissible through these witnesses.
13 I believe that Mr. Belter believes they I 14 are not, and so because we do not intend at any point to 15 physically attach this to the many copies of the transcript 16 that the reporter would be making, we will simply make 17
, our arguments about their admissibility at this point and 18 let the Board resolve the question of admissibility at 19
' the time of the hearing., The index will, however, identify 20 what it is that we ares offering, which is by everyone's 4
21 agreement a sub-set of.all the actual interviews conducted.
22 MR. EELTER: Well, I can't object or not 23 object to your index until I see it. ~
24
. Q~ MR. ROISMAN: I understand.
9 25 l MR. BELTER: I do understand and I do agree
l 72,607 H
I 1 with you, Mr. Roisman, that what you have, based upon a !
l 2 quick review of it, appears to be some of the interview 3 sheets that we provided to you. It is my understanding I 4 that we made available to you all that exists and that l
5 you requested copies of some, but not all, of the interview 6 sheets.
- f. 7 My position, of course, is that the sheets 8 themselves are not admissible. They are not competent 9 evidence. They are hearsay, and they contain double and 10 - triple hearsay within them.
11 I'll leave it at that. You haven't offered 12 it into evidence yet. .
7- 13 l
m MR. ROISMAN.: That's right.
I l No. .I'm going 14 to ask scme questions about it, and then I will make the 15 formal offer, and you can either reiterate or not reiterate 16 that statement of your objection. .
17 MR. BELTER: I think your offer should await 18 questions and the use of either some or all of these 19 documents.
20 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. All right. That is
= 21 ging, E What I would like to do is to take -- First 23
, of all, Ms. Reporter, would you just put your little sticker _
V 24 up there.
2' //
72,608 1 (The document referred to was R 2 marked Boren Exhibit No. 1 3 3 3 .
for identification.)
I 4 Okay. And let the record show that the 5 Boren Exhibit 1 sticker appears on the first page of the 6 QC personnel interview with code G-9 on it, and I am going 7 to take that one off and ask you, Ms. Anderson, and then 8 you, Ms. Spencer, and then you, Mr. Boren, to take a look 9 at that. I'm going to ask you a few questions about it 10 : and not about the details of what is written there, but, 11 rather, as to whether it is, in fact, the type of interview 12 sheet that you filled out and maybe one of you actually
( . _; 13 filled that one out.. ~
14 MR. BELTER: You don't mind if I look at 15 it, do you?
16 MR. ROISMAN: Well, if you'11 be quick about I 17 it.
18 MR. BELTER: Well, how many of these are' 19 we going to go through?
I' 20 MR. ROISMAN: I'm not going to go through 21 very many at all unless,you want to make me go through ;
22 that. .
23
, If you are willing to stipulate that whatever
'] 24 they say about this one, other than that they filled it 25 out if one of them happens to have filled it out, is true
72,609 1 as to all of them, then we don't have to go through them.
2 MR. BELTER: Well, let's go through your 3 questions.
I 4 MR. ROISMAN: Okay.
5 MR. BELTER: See where we come out.
6 WITNESS SPENCER: What is your questions g 7 now with regard to this?
8 BY MR. ROISMAN:
9 Q. Well, first, I just wanted you to look at 10 it and see if you recognize it as the form that'you used 11 in getting answers when you did your personnel interviews.
12 BY WITNESS SPENCER: .
O 13 A. oh-huh. -Thee 's -ie.
14 Q. Mr. Boren?
15 BY WITNESS BOREN:
16 A. Yes. ,
17 l
, Q. Okay. Ms. Anderson?
18 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:-
(g
~
mm 19 A.
Yes.
~
20 Q. Okay. All right. Now, in the preparation I 21 i
of these QC personnel interviews, did you always use the 22 form that's shown here,as code G-9? Was this the form M that you used for all of them?
h 24 MR. BELTER: By the form, you mean the type- ,
25 written portion of it?
72,610 1
BY MR. ROISMAN:
p 2
Q. The typewritten portion of it, correct.
3 BY WITNESS BOREN:
I 4 A. Yes.
5 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
6 To the best of my recollection.
I A.
7 Q. Ms. Spencer? .
8 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
i 9 i A. It looks like it, yeah, to the best of my 10 recollection. f 11 Q. Okay. And was this form prepared by any 12 one of you personally, the actual form? -
( 13 BY WITNESS BOREN: - -
14 A. I contributed.
15 Q. You did, Mr. Boren. And who else contributed 16 to the preparation of the form?
I 17 A. I believe Mr. Vega. Mr. Tolson might have 18 had some input on it. Mr. Chapman probably had some input U on it. ,
20 Q. All prepared by people in-house at TUGCO?
21 A. Yeah. .
Q. And in the preparation of this, how did 23 you make the selection.of the particular questions that l
C 24 you would put on the form? ,
25 A. We just tried to get a list of questions I _ -_ -
. 72,611 I ,
I that we felt would get the people to talking about their 2 jobs and the problems with their job, if they had any with I, ;
3 their jobs, and asking them direct questions in some cases to l I 4 try to get as much information about any problems that 1
5 they had.
6 Q. Okay. Now, Ms. Anderson, when you used 7 the QC personnel interview form, did you ask each of the t
- 8 questions on the form of the people, or did the other person 9 in the interview ask each of the questions on the form 10 of the person you were interviewing?
11 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
U A. Yes.
( ,,
13 i Q. And whatrwas the procedure that you followed 14 as you heard the answer?
15 A. As we heard the answer, we would converse
~
16 about it, ask different questions, depending on what the ;
Ir 17 statement that they made was, you know, further questions, i
18 getting more details, you know, talking about it.
19 Q. And were you making a genuine effort to 20 write down as best as you could an accurate, but noti a 21 verbatim, statement of.what the person was telling you?
l 22 A. Yes. .
23 Q. Ms. Spencer, is your answer to those questions h 24 the same as Ms. Anderson's?
28
//
72,612 l
5 1 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
~
2 I A. Yes, it is. l 3
Q. And yours, Mr. Boren?
I 4 BY WITNESS BOREN:
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. I'm going to offer 7
g them. I believe that they are a formalized document used 8
in the normal course of business of the Applicant. They 9
were used consistently in a course of' interviews. ~They L
10 were used in a consistent way in the course of interviews. ---
11 And I offer them for the purpose of the demonstration of 12 what the people who were doing the interviews' perceived 13 the people who they were interviewing were telling them; I 14 that is, it represents a sub-group of management's' perception 15 of what, if any, problems existed at the plant with regard i
16 to QC personnel as identified on these forms.
l 17
. MR. BELTER: You're contending that the 18 sub group of management is, in effect, the management review 18 I'-
board --
MR. ROISMAN:
Correct.
MR. BELTER: -- represented here as the 22 panel. .
MR. ROISMAN: Well -- '
V' MR '. BELTER: First of all, let me get it ,.
5 clear. You are certainly not contending that, number one,
. s.
72,613 1 what is,shown on the sheets is a verbatim of what the 2 persons --
3 MR. ROISMAN: No. The testimony is already 4 to the contrary.
5 MR. BELTER: And you are'not contending 6 that what is shown on the sheets is competent evidence 7 to indicate that what is stated on the sheets actually C
8 happened.
9 MR. ROISMAN: I believe that there is an 10 argument to be made that it is, but I am not at this point 11 making that argument. All I am making the argument is 12 that this represents an accurate description of the management h- 13 review board's perception of what QC personnel believed 14 their problems were in the areas identified in the form --
15 MR. BELTER: I don't --
16 MR. ROISMAN: -- and that that, in turn, ,
17 was passed on through the summa.m.f sheets into higher levels 18
- of management. i 19 MR. BELTER
- I don't believe that the record I 20 supports that. I think the record supports the management 1
21 I review board put it all together in the summaries, and 22
~
I would not object to the summaries on that same basis.
23 But I would object to the admissibility of these documents,
() 24 first of all,'n the o grounds that they are hearsay. To 25 the extent that they say anything intelligible, they i 1
72,614 1 are hearsay.
^
I 'J 2 They are not only hearsay in the ' sense that 3 the person taking down the notes was only attempting to 4 take rough notes, not verbatim notes, of what t.he person 5 being interviewed was relating to them, -but the person 6 being interviewed was also being asked -- As they indicated, 7 hearsay was elicited during the course of the interview.
s What have you heard? Tell me anything that you have heard 9 were taken down here. .
L 10 So you've got double, triple, even farther 11 type hearsay involved here.
12 On that basis, I think these things are
{, 13 not competent evidence and are.not admissible.
14 MR. ROISMAN: All right. Let me --
15 MR. BELTER: You can go ahead.
16 MR. ROISMAN: Yeah. Let me just clarify 17 it because we may be talking about two di'fferent things.
1 18 At this point what I'm offering it for 19 is I'm offering it to establish what it was that management I ,
s 20 knew its QC people were telling the management review board .
21 interviewers.
22 MR. BELTER: No. You haven't established that yet unless you say that management is the interviewers.
23 24 *MR. ROISMAN: Well, this is --
l 25 MR. BELTER: Are you intending --
72,615 1 MR. ROISMAN: -- a management review board 2
, set up by two undeniably management people and made up 3
of the head of QA Audit at the time, the -- Well, Purdy 4 was new on the site then. So I don't know what his role 5 was. But that it represents a legitimate extension of 6
management and that the interview sheets represent the 7 information that they gathered.
(
8 MR. BELTER: The interview sheets aapresent 9
exactly what they have described that-it was, rough notes 10 of what happened during the interview.
11 MR. ROISMAN: Well, I think they were a 12 little more --
(.. 13 MR. B.ELTER:, Sheets that they understood --
I 14 MR. ROIhMAN: During your direct, I.think 15 they were a little bit better than rough notes. They were 16 less than verbatim.
17 MR. BELTER: Let me finish. l 18 Sheets that they understood were to be 19
- destroyed. Okay? Put together --
20 MR. ROISMAN: Not all of them. Mr. Boren 21 said only the tally sheet,was to be destroyed, the key.
22 He did not believe that these were to be destroyed.
I 23 MR. BELTER: Whatever. Rough notes.
24 '
g MR. ROISMAN: Ms. Anderson and Ms. Spencer 25 have said that.
72,616 1 MR. BELTER: Geary.
2 MR. MIZUNO: The Staff agrees with the 3 Intervenor that there's no hearsay problem here. The 1 i
4 Intervenors are not offering the statements for proving l 5 the truth of the concerns or the particular words which 6 are presented in the statements. I don't think there is 7 any hearsay problem. .
(
8 If there is a problem with the accuracy 9 of these notes, then there is a problem with the accuracy I, . _ _ 10 of the report upon which it is based upon. I think my 11 cross-examination was sufficient to show that the witnesses 12 believe that these notes were an accurate summary of what
{ 13 was told to them by the,QC inspectors.
14 MR. BEL'fER: .All right.
15 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. I think we have 16 articulated our positions on the record.
17 I don't have any additional questions to 18 ask the witnesses about these at this point, but the offer 19 has been made, and at a later date we will argue about I,
20 that. I just want to be clear --
l 21 l
MR. BELTER:
Now, when are you going to 22 give us the index of the sheets that you've got there I 2 because I don't know what is in -- '
Q 24
' MR . ROISMAN: Okay. I'm going to go back 25 this evening. I'm going to write up -- I don't have
1 72,617 l
1 available any. secretarial typing, but I will write up and 2 it will be fairly clear just a listing of the code letters t 3 that are on this pile, j 4 And all we're doing is we're agreeing that 5 for convenience the coded sheet will be the equivalent 6 as though we had physically attached this as an offered 7 exhibit to the transcript of this deposition to be ruled C
8 upon its admissibility at a later date. ,
1 9 MR. BELTER: You can take that up at the 10 next deposition once we see the index, and I will agree 11 that -- give me a chance to do a quick check -- that you've u made an accurate index. ,
13 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. That's fine. I'll .
14 bring the pile back so'that it can -- and either you or 15 M: . Mizuno can review the pile against the index and make 16 sure that the pile is still the pile. If there's a concern, 17 We could now count and get a count.
18 MR. BELTER: I'm not going to ask that.
19 MR. MIZUNO: My concern is just that I haven't 20 seen these at all, and even though it was, represented by 21 Applicant's counsel that they were provided to the Staff, 22 I would like to go through our stuff and pull it out just I 23 so that I'll have something to refer to.
24 'MR. ROISMAN:
. . All right.
g.-
25 MR. MIZUNO: Make sure I have a complete
1 set for the Staff.
2 MR. ROISMAN: All right. It may be quite E' 3 possible, and I don't want to -- I don't want to mislead 4 anyone. It may be quite possible that this is even a differ-5 ent pile than the pile which CASE received from Ms. Spencer 6 through the document production process; that is, that 7
there are one or two or five or ten that were in that pile f
8 that aren't --
9 MR. BELTER: That you've already weeded 10 out.
l 11 MR. ROISMAN: -- that aren't in this pile 12 that if they are out, they are out inadvertently. I had I {' 13 Ms. Garde check the notes that we had that accompanied 14 this pile. This is the pile that we got. We've shifted 15 it and moved it around and banded it differently, but it 16 is the same pile.
17
, But I can't attest on my own personal knowledge 18 that it is the same. f 19 .
MR. BELTER: Can we call it the pile? !
l, M
MR. ROISMAN: ,
We can call it the pile, absolute i
i 21 ly. It may be known as the pile.
22 Can we call that Pile No. 1 I 23 instead of Boren No. l?
WITNESS BOREN:
24
'MR. ROISMAN: We cannot do that, Mr. Boren.
25 This is going to be Boren's pile, whether you like it or not.
72,619 1 MR. BELTER: All right. Are you finished with!
E' 2 your --
E 3 -
MR. ROISMAN: I'm finished with Boren's 4 pile for now, and I will have that list for tomorrow morning.
5 Now, during the recess, which was approxi-6 mately 45 minutes, I have had an opportunity to review 7 Anderson Exhibit -- Panel Anderson Exhibit 1 and now have C
8 some questions for Ms. Anderson with respect to this document, !
9 and let me just be clear.
10 BY MR. ROISMAN:
11 Q. Ms. Anderson, you were one of the co-authors 12 of this document that has been marked as Panel Anderson I /
~.
\. .
13 Exhibit 1, correct?
14 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
15 A. Correct. -
16 Q. And, Ms. Spencer and Mr. Boren, you have 17 no direct personal knowledge of this document at all; is 18 that correct?
19 BY WITNESS BOREN:
20 A. Correct.
21 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
- 22 A. Correct.
I 23 Q. All right. I just want to make sure I'm 24 Um asking the right person the gestions.
25 Ms. Spencer -- Excuse me.
i 72,620 1 Ms. Anderson -- Let the record show it is 2 7:30 p.m.
3 In conducting the interviews which form I 4 the basis for the statements contained in Panel Anderson 5 Exhibit 1, did you attempt to find from'the people who you interviewed all the problems that they perceived existed I
6 r
7 in the QC program at Comanche Peak in the same way in which 8 you attempted when you did the survey, 1979 survey 9 interviews? -
10 BY WITNESS ANDERSON.
11 A. To the best of my recollection, yes. We 12 did not limit it to just specific problems. It was any C 13 concerns that they had, wh. ether they had previously been I 14 identified or were new ones.
15 Q. But as I remember your testimony is, you 16 can't remember whether you used, in fact, the same interview I.
17 form that W2 just marked as Boren Exhibit 1; is that correct?
18 A. I can't rcember if it was that exact same I form, no.
19 20 Q. All righ . But you do remember that it 21 was your intent to get.at.all the problems through the 22 interview in the same way that the original survey was 2 to have done. ,
g 24 A, Yes.
M Q. All right. In the first paragraph of
B. . 72,621 1 Panel Anderson Exhibit 1 the statement appears, "The 2 questions involved problems that were identified during
. 3 the original interviews conducted during September and 4 October, 1979."
5 Does that provide you with any further 6 recollection of whether, in fact, the questionnaire that I 7 you used for the interviews identified in Panel Anderson 8 Exhibit 1 were more selective than the general question l
9 that we've just been talking about?
I 10 A. I don't recall.
11 Q. In the preceding sentence, it indicates, 12
" Included were personnel from," and then there's several l
{ 13 different groups listed. .
14 Is it correct that that is a sub-set of l 15 all the groups that were interviewed in the original 1979 16 survey?
I 17 A. I'm sorry. I don't quite understand.
18 Q. In the sentence that's the second sentence 19 of the first paragraph of the document, it says, " Included I 20 were personnel from the electrical, mechanical, QA vault, 21 QA records, and quality engineering groups." ,
22 My question to you is: Is it the case that 23 that represents a sub-set of all the groups that were 24 originally interviewed for the September / October, '79 survey?
25 g, y't is a sub-set, yes.
1 Q. And were there personnel interviewed from 2 any other groups for purposes of preparing the follow-3 up TCP-7 audit?
I 4 A. There may.have been. I don't recall.
I 5 Q. In the last sentence of the first pagraph 6 where it says, "The questions involved problems that were 7 identified during the original interviews," do you remember 8 whether the questions attempted to involve all the problems 9 that were identified during the original interviews or I 10 only scme of them?
11 A. I don't recall.
12 Q. In the first sentence of the next paragraph I( 13 14 you say, "On the who.le,'the morale of the quality control personnel has greatly improved."
15 To the best of your recollection, what is 16 the basis for that statement?
17 A. The basis was that the interviews and talking 18 with people and discussing problems and asking questions 19 on what kind of problems they may have had and, you know, 20 determining that there.was -- that certain areas there 21 had been improvements and.there were a lesser number of 22 problems and things of.this nature. We felt there had 23 been improvement, a lot of improvement since the previous Ih 24 interviews.
25 Q. Do you remember whether you asked them
P 72,623 1
specifically whether your morale is improved?
2 A. I don't know that we asked them -that specific 3 question.
I 4 Q. Do you remember whether you asked them a 5
question such as appeared in the original interview under 6
" System Adequacy Question 1," looking now at code sheet 7
7 G-9 of Boren Exhibit 1, which stated in 1-D, "How comfortable 8
do you feel in your job?" And then there are two sub-9 questions under that. ~
10 Do you remember whether that question was 11 asked specifically of the people in your follow-up interviews U in 1980? -
i 13 A. I don't fecall specifically.
14 Q. Can you remember whether the interview form 15 l that you used in 1980 was as long as the form that you 18 used in 1979?
I, 17 And I'll ask you to take a look at the form and indicate for the record how many pages long that is.
18 i A. The form that I'm looking at now is 11 pages, ~
18
~ and I do not recall if the form that we used at that time 20 was -- Was your question longer or shorter?
21 Q. That's right. Whether it was as long 22 and by that time meaning the 1980 interviews. l 23 A. Okay. I don't recall. ,
h 24 Q. Does the document marked Panel Anderson ,.
25 Exhibit 1, does it contain in its Attachment A the only
l lT ,
72,624 1 summary that was made of the results of the 1980 interviews?
2 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
3 Q. In the second sentence of the second paragraph I 4 of the first page of this document there's reference to, 5 " Major improvements were cited in the areas of" and then S several are listed there.
7 When you say that major improvements were 8 cited, where were they cited?
9 MR. BELTER: I'm sorry. I don't have the
( -
10 reference. Which paragraph.are you on?
11 MR. ROISMAN: The very first page, the second 12 paragraph -- -
13
._ 'MR. BELTER:. Okay.
14 MR. ROISMAN: -- the second sentence.
15 BY MR. ROISMAN:
16 Q. Where were major improvements cited when. i I,
17 you say major improvements were cited?
18 A. To the best of my recollection, in the inter-19 view crocess.
I 20 Q.
And what did you understand -- Strike that.
21 What di you mean by the phrase "QC working 22 environment and relationships with construction personnel"?
23 To what were you referring?
(j 24 g, Specific examples, I don't recall.
25 Q. Well, in general what does that phrase mean?
1
1 What did it mean when you wrote it?
f s i 2 A. It meant that we felt that based on our 3 interviews with the inspectors that previous concerns that I 4 they may have had in their -- with their working environment 5 or relationship with construction personnel, that that 6 had improved.
7 Q. What-is covered in working environment?
8 Do you mean air conditioning, or did you mean something-9 else? -
L 10 A. It could mean -- Not having specific examples, 11 it could mean anything from air conditioning to procedures, 12 things that affected them doing their job, working environ-( 13 men . .
14 Q. Now, in the summary of the interviews that 15 appears in Attachment A to the document Panel Anderson 16 Exhibit 1, could'you tell me was the purpose of this summary I 17 to highlight both the problems found and the sense of 18 solution to previously identified problems which were cited 19 by the people who were interviewed?
20 A. Could you repeat the question?
21 Q. Uh-huh.. Was the purpose of this summary 22 that comprises Attachment A to Anderson Panel Exhibit 1, 23 was it to give a full summary of the problems identified
,] 24 as well as the improvements noted by the people who were ,
25 interviewed?
g -
R 72,626 I _
1 A
'. Well, basically stated that it was additional 2 comments. In looking at it, some of them were positives; 3 some were negatives.
I 4 Q. Well, for instance, if these comments had 5 included a reference to the improved working environment, 6 would you expect that it would be in the summary?
I 7 A. I believe that it is in the front sheet.
(
8 Q. The front sheet being?
9 A. The cover letter.
10 Q. And the portion of it that you are referring 11 to is the sentence that we have just been discussing, 12 sentence two of paragraph two of the first sheet?
b 13 A. Yes. '
i 14 Q. And no greater' summary was done of that 15 than that sentence?
16 A. Not that I recall. .
17 Q. Why was this detailed or -- Strike that.
18 Why was this more detailed summary given 19 of the additional comments in Attachment A provided.at 20 all in light of that much less detailed summary of the I 21 original comments? '
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Does the phrase in Attachment A in the first h 24 line as it appears, "The following is a summary of additional 25 comments," job your memory as to the possibility that there
72,627 l 1 may be a summary of the original comments somewhere else 2 that we don't have in this document?
3 A. Not that I'm aware of, no.
I 4 Q. Can you remember why it was decided to do 5 a summary of additional comments separate and apart from ,
i 6 the cover sheet?
7 7 A. No, other than it would have been perhaps '
8 a little bit bulky to put it in the letter as far as --
9 By putting it in the attachment, you know, you summarize 1 .
10 and make some points and then reference back to the attach-11 ment. It is just a -- It could have been a means to just 12 not, you know, have an endless long letter. But I don't 13 recall specifically.why"we.did~it this way.
I 14 Q. In the third paragraph on the first page 15 of Panel Anderson Exhibit 1, the statement appears, " Attach-16 ment A contains other positive or negative items identified 17 which were specific-to a~certain group."
18 Does that in any way refresh your memory 19 as to perhaps what the distinction is between Attachment A 20 on the one hand and the summary paragraph- that's paragraph 21 two on the first page of this document?
22 A. Can I speculate somewhat?
23 MR. BELT.ER: No. ~
I/ 24 BY MR. ROISMAN-25 l Q. No. You're not supposed to. Yeah. You've
72,628 I !
I just got to give me the best of your memory. '
2 A. To the best of my memory, the statement 3 "other positive or negative items" would indicate that 4
those probably had not,been identified on the initial 5
interviews and that what we discussed above were areas 6
that had previously been discussed through the original r 7 interviews, the summaries.
8 Q. Is it your recollection that there were 9
two or more sets of interviews when you say "the original e
10 interviews"?
11 A. I'm talking the Purdy 42-1 interviews.
12 Q. I see. 'Okay. Not 1980 -- -
k 13 A. No.
14 Q. -- there weren't two sets of interviews.
15 Do you remember whether the actual interview 16 sheets were shown to any persons other than Mr. Vega and 17 yourself after the interviews had been ccmpleted? .
18 A. I don't remember.
19 Q. Do you remember how you went about evaluating 20 the interview results to form the basis for your opinions i 2 21 as they are contained in paragraph two of the first page 22 of Panel Anderson Exhibit l?
23 ~
A. To the best of my recollection, based on Q,
24 notes taken during the interviews and discussions between ,-
25 Mr. Vega and myself.
~~
72,629 I 1 Q. Did y'u go back and look at what has been c'
E 2 marked as Purdy Exhibit 42-1 and compare the comments that 3 you received to the comments that you had su=mari::ed in 4 that earlier document to see whether the problem that had 5 been expressed was now clearly responded to by some new 6 information in the-interview?
( 7 A. I don't recall specifically, but I believe 8 that we did.
9 Q. Looking at Attachment A to Panel Anderson 10 Exhibit 1, under the Quality Engineering heading there I
11 were a number of specific problems identified there.
12 Do you have any recollection of what, if I(
13 any, action was taken in response to those problems?
14 A. Basically, I don't see them -- When'you 15 say problems, we indicated that they were suggestions for is improvement on effectiveness, not necessarily that they.
17 were a problem.
18 As far as a specific ef# ort on any of these,
! 19 I don't recall. -
20 Q. The very last one, which is on the second 1
21 page of the attachment, makes reference to "Other suggestions 22 were made which were of a management nature."
M Do you have any recollection of what kind
, Is ,
() 24 of suggestions we're talking about that fell into the category 1 25 " management nature"?
4 ;
72,630 1 s A. I don't recall.
r.
I 2 3
Q. All right. I'd now like to have you take 3 L a look at Purdy Exhibit 42-1. :
I 4 Do you have a copy of that there?
5 And I'd like you, if you would, to turn 6 to the interviews of site electrical QC personnel and the 7 last page thereof, which is identified " Major Problems."
7 8 Can you explain to me what specifically j 9 did you learn in the interviews in 1980 that indicated 10 to you that the concern expressed in paragraph two had 11 been substantially improved, that the problem had been 12 substantially reduced? -
13 A. .I dcn't recall specific details.
14 Q. Do you remember anything at all about that?
15 A. Not on this specific one, no.
16 Q.
I, 17 Do you remember whether when you went back to. check the 1980 interviews against the problems identified 18 in 1979 this was one of the problems that you looked at?
19 I"
s 20 A. I'm sure it was.
I don't have it written down scmewhere that this particular one, but I'm certain 21 '
it was. ., .
O. You're certain that you did look at it, 23 but you have no recollection of doing so?
Ig Q 24 g,
It was our intent based on problems that 25 0 had been previously identified to determine if we felt
_ _ ._ _ _ __ _ 1_ __
. 72,631 1 there was still a problem. This was identified in the 2 su=maries as a major problem, and I feel very confident 3 that we would have looked at this, and that that is the 4 basis of the statement that we made in the front page of 5 the Panel Anderson 1 or whatever with regard to the working 6 environment and relationships between craft and QC.
g 7 Q. Was comparing the interviews in 1980 with 8 the answers given in 1979 by the electrical group?
9 A. By the electrical group and if it was in 10 any of the other areas.
11 Q. Do you remember how many of the people from 12 the electrical QC were interviewed in 1980?,
13 A. No , I do- not.
I 14 Q. How many total-were there in that group?
15 Do you remember that?
16 A. I don't recall. I think I said earlier 17 approximately 30, something like that.
18 Q. All right. Let me have you take a look 19 further down in Purdy Exhibit 42-1 to the interviews with 20 QA/QC site surveillance group, which is about 20 more pages 21 into the document. .
22 A. I'm there.
23 Q. Okay.
And I'd like to direct your attention lIj 24 to the single page that comprises Attachment A of that 25 and ask you to take a look at items 3, 5, and 7.
_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.c..
. .~. .-.- - -- --
72,632 1 A. Okay.
,
- 2 Q. Do you remember looking at those specific 3 items in connection with evaluating the personnel information I,
4 that you obtained in your 1980 interviews and in forming 5 your opinion that is in paragraph two of what has been 6 marked as Panel Anderson Exhibit l?
r, 7 A. I don't recall these specific three areas, 8 no.
9 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether you 10 did look at them?
I 11 A. 3, 5, and 77 i U Q. Uh-huh. .
( 13 A. I don'.t know if I did or not.
I [,,
14 Q. In looking at 3, 5, and 7, would you say
~ 15 that those concerns expressed there fall within the general 16 category of QC working environment and relationships with 17 construction personnel?
18 A. Yes, 19 Q. Looking at paragraph one of Panel Anderson 20 Exhibit 1, is it not the case that there.is no mention 21 in there of any interviews being conducted with the site 22 surveillance group? ,
23 . A. That group is not specifically mentioned.
I(J -
24 As it says, it says " included were," and there may have l 25 been other individuals that were talked to.
l>
_.._.-..~,...-...:.....- . - -
I .
72,633 1 Q. I understand that. If there were rio C
I 2, individuals talked to from the site surveillance group 3 in the course of conducting the 1980 interviews, would 4 you say that there would be no basis for you to make a l 5
statement that the QC working environment and relationship 6 with construction personnel in the site surveillance area
- f. 7 had improved or not improved? ,
8 A. I'm sorry. What was your question again?
9 Q. If there were no personnel from the site 10 surveillance group who were interviewed in 1980, would I 11 there be any basis for you to say that the QC working environ-12 ment and relationships with construction perconnel had C- 13 improved or no't with. respect to the site surveillance . . . . . . . . .
14 personnel?
15 A. With specific reference to the site is surveillance group, because of their function on site, .
17 these three items that you've addressed are basically 18 concerns between QC and craft. The site surveillance group 19 was quality assurance. So these three areas have been 20 identified within other QC interviews, as I recall, I think 21 in the electrical one or the one that we looked at. They 22 perform an overview function, and this may have been their 23 perceptions that they s.aw. ,
s '
24 V So as far as if we didn't talk -- If we o
I 25 saw from talking with the other inspection groups that
72,634 1 their involvement with the crafts, et cetera, had improved, 2 then we could have concluded that these people -- perhaps 3 concluded these people were seeing the same thing. They --
4 I'm sort,f.
5 Q. Go ahead. No. No.
6 A. No.
7 t Q. No. I want you to finish.
8 A. They did not perform a direct in-line QC 9 function, this group.
=6 to Q. But you would have no way of knowing whether I 11 whatever they originally perceived they were still perceiving 12 unless you had actually interviewed at least one of them 13 or sc=e of them; isn't that true?
14 A. That's true.
l 15 Q. All right. Let me direct your attention 16 to the next group down, which is protective coatings QC.
17 personnel, and, first, am I correct that they are not 18 one of the groups that's specifically listed in paragraph 18 one of Panel Anderson Exhibit I?
20 A. That's true, protective coatings is not I 21 specifically addressed.
22 Q. All right. I'd like to direct your attention 23 to the page in this packet which is marked " Management,"
24 Q~ and would you please look at items 2 and 3.
25 3 ,. Okay.
72,635 1 Q. Do you have any specific recollection of 2 looking at those two items in evaluating the results of 3 the 1980 interviews and reaching the opinions that you've 4 reached in paragraph two of Panel Anderson Exhibit l?
5 A. I do not recall those two specific examples, 6 no.
7 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether you 8 would have necessarily had to have looked at those as part 9 of the process that you engaged in?
10 A. I'm sorry. What was your question?
11 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether you 12 must, in fact, have looked at those in order to have engaged
( 13 in the process of reaching the -judgments that you've reached 14 in paragraph two?
15 A. I would have thought, yes. Yes, I would 16 have thought we would have looked at that. ,
17 f
Q. If you had no interviews with members of 18 the protective coatings CC personnel group, what would 19 be the basis for any opinions that you would form about M
resolution of the concerns expressed in paragraph two and 21 three of the management page of their 1979 survey summary?
22 MR.'BELTER: I'm sorry. What was the first 23 part of your question,,1f you had nc interviews with which n -
Q 24 group?
25 MR. ROISMAN: With the QC coatings personnel.
72,636 1
It is the group of which the management page is a sheet.
O- 2 MR. BELTER: Or the QC engineering?
'3 MR. ROISMAN: No. It is protective coatings 4
QC.
5 MR. BELTER: I'm sorry. ' hat W was your --
6 Did you lose the question?
I ,,
w 7
WITNESS ANDERSON: I lost it somewhere, 8 yes.
9 BY MR. ROISMAN: -
- 10
- Q. Okay. I'll ask it again.
11 If you conducted no interviews with the 12 QA/QC protective -- the protective coatings QC personnel, 13 would you have any ba. sis-for determining whether the concerns I 14 expressed on this management page in paragraph two and 15 three had, in fact, been addressed adequately?
16 MR. BELTER:
I.
17 paint quality engineering?
Are you including in the question 18 BY MR. ROIS N :
19 l.
I 20 Q. I am including in the question the people who are identified as the ones who were interviewed who 21 form the base for these two concerns, and, as I understand 22 it, it was interviews of,the site protective coatings QC 23 personnel and no others ,in this group.
I 24
~
f I'm wrong on that, please correct me, 25 Ms. Anderson. That the summary that appears behind the
72,637 1 heading interviews of the site protective coatings QC 2 personnel is a summary of the comments obtained from the 3 interviews of the site protective coatings QC personnel.
I 4 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
1 5 A. In the organization that' existed at that 6 point in time, yes..
7 Q. Okay.' ,
8 A. At the point in time that these follow-9 ups were conducted, I'm not certain if that organization 10 as it was there still existed.
I 11 Q. Well, my question to you is: If you did U not. talk to any of the people who were in the site
- 13 protective coatings.QC personnel, and to take into account I 14 what you just added, who were not in it as of 1979 when 15 you did the original interviews, what basis would you have 16 in 1980 for knowing whether their concerns that they e): pressed 17 then were now resolved in their opinion?
18 A. If we did not talk with anyone that was 19 a protective coatings QC inspector, then we could not have
!. 20
'made that distinction.
i 21 Q. Now, are paragraphs two and three on the 22 page called management,.would those, in your opinion, be 23 within the general cate. gory GC working environment and IQ 24 relationships with construction personnel?
25 MR. BELTER: Are you asking the question
v I, *4 I 72,638 l
1 of both or taking them one at a time?
2 MR. ROISMAN: Well, if there is a distinction -
3 MR. BELTER: I'd like you to take it one I 4 at a time.
5 MR. ROISMAN: All right.
6 BY MR. ROISMAN:
7 r, Q. Paragraph two.
8 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
9 A.
i' So you want to know what again? -
10 Q. Whether you include that in the pHfase ~
l 11 QC working environment and relationships with construction I i
12 personnel. '
l
(, 13 A. Two, I would'say yes. ,
14 Q. And what about'three?
15 A. I would say yes.
16 Q. All right. Now moving on through Purdy .
17
, Exhibit 42-1, I'd like to direct your attention to the l 18 summary of interviews of the site QA/QC staff personnel.
19 Now, am I correct that they also are not
- t. 20 one of the specifically listed groups in the first paragraph 21 of Panel Anderson Exhibit.17 22 A. The term QA/QC staff personnel is not included, 23 that's true. .
24 Q. Are QA/QC staff personnel part of any one ,.
25 of those listed groups in the normal structure of the plant?
72,639 1 A. I don't recall who those QA/QC staff personnel in 2 were. So I really cannot say at this point.
3 Q. Was QA/QC staff personnel not a definable 4 group of people? I don't mean that you would know their l, 5 names, but I mean were they a known group like QC coatings personnel were?
6 L 7 A. Not that I recall. I don't really remember.
8 Q. Mr. Boren, do you have any recollection 9 of this sub-grouping of the 1979 survey, who these' people 10 are, these QA/QC staff personnel?
I 11 BY WITNESS BOREN:
12 A. Not really. I'd just be guessing.
b I
13 Q. . So, Ms. Andersorr, you don' t know necessarily 14 who these people are, I mean short of going back, finding 15 the interview, getting the code sheet and digging out the 16 name. They don't represent a definable group to you?
17 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
18 A. They may have been quality engineering at
,It 19 that time, but I don't remember specifically.
20 Q. If you didn't know, would there be any way 21 for you to determine through the 1980 interviews whether 22 you had talked to any of the people who might have been 23 within the group that had expressed those, concerns in the l O 24 f1=se inseance?
25 A. I feel confident that I knew then, but I
72,640 l
1 cannot recall after this many years.
2 Q. Do you -- And is your testimony that you 3 had any knowledge as to whether, in fact, any of the l
4 QA/QC staff personnel were included in the people who you 5 interviewed in 1980?
6 A. I do not remember.
s 7 Q. I'd like you to turn and look at the 8 management sheet, which is the third sheet in this sub-l 9 set, and I'd like to direct your attention to items 2, 3, 10 4, 5, 8, and 9.
I 11 Would you like me to go over those again?
E A. Please. .
i b 13 Q. All right. 2, 3, 4, 5, and then 8 and 9. I I
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. And can you tell me, starting with 2 and 16 working your way through, which of those are included in 17 the.' definition QC working environment and relationships 18 with construction personnel?
19 A. On 2, I don't recall the specifics of what 2 the discussion is there. I don't know if that would have 21 been included in QC wo king environment and relationships 22 with construction personnel.
23 Q. You're not sure whether a statement involving I~ U 24 a power struggle between construction and QC personnel 3 25 relates to :he relationship of QC with construction
72,641 I personnel?
2 . MR. BELTER: Relates to the? Was your 3 question before to the working environment or the relation-I 4 ship?
5 MR. ROISMAN: Well, it was both, QC working 6 environment and relationships with construction personnel.
7 WITNESS ANDERSON: Yes. I'm sorry. I guess g
8 it could be the same or part of that concept.
8 BY MR. ROISMAN:
10 Q. Okay. All right. What about No. 37 11 A. Now, this is specifically to GC working 12 environment and relationship with construction personnel?
(_ 13 Q. That'.s right. I'm referring to that phrase 14 as you wrote it in "he second paragraph of Panel Anderson 15 Exhibit 1.
16 A. I would say no, that would not be included 17 in .that. .
18 Q. And what about No. 47 18 A. Yes, that could be part of it.
- 20 Q. And how.about No. '75 .
21 A. No, I would not consider that a part of M it. .
23
. Q. And how.about No. 87 24 g,
(] It could have an indirect involvement there.
l 25 Q. And what about No. 97
72,642 1 A. That could be part of it.
2 Q. Now, with regard te items 3, 5 and that 3 portion of 8 that you were so very uncertain about, which, 4 if any, of the areas identified in the first two sentences 5 of the second paragraph of Panel Anderson Exhibit I would 6 you say is encompassed, if it is at all -- encompasses, I,
7 if they do at all, the concerns expressed in 3, 5, and 87 l 8 A. I would say in 3 that could have been 9 encompassed in management support and training.
- - 10 The other one was 57 11 Q. 5, uh-huh.
12 A. I would say that is management support.
( ,
4 13 And No. 87 -
14
. Q. 8. Yeah. You had been uncertain as to 15 whether it really belonged in QC working environment.
16 A. Well, my uncertainty was I feel that it !
17 mor.e strongly goes under management support, but with that 18 management support, it would have resulted in better 19 I %
conditions or improved.
Q. Okay. Now, let's go to the next page, 21 Communication, still in the GC personnel -- staff personnel --
22 QC staff personnel, and look under Communication at item 2.
23
, would that be included in the phrase l (m J 24 QC working environment and relationships with construction 25 personnel?
72,643 1 A. Yes.
r.
2 E Q. Do you have any recollection of looking I
3 at that particular item in evaluating the 1980 interviews i
4 and reaching the conclusions that are contained in paragraph I 5 two of Panel Anderson Exhibit I?
6 A. Specifically, with QA/QC staff personnel?
[ 7 Q. Well, looking at this statement as it appears I
l l
8 in this summary. Do you remember looking at that when 9 you did your evaluation of the 1980 interviews and reached i
10 ;
your conclusions as they appear in paragraph two of Panel I 11 Anderson Exhibit 1?
12 A. I don't recall that specifically, that item 2.
( 13 Q. Would you believe that you would have looked 14 at that?
I 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. I'd like you to look over now 17 to -- It is about one more over -- to CC document personnel --
18 excuse me -- QC documentation personnel.
19 Do you have that one?
M A. Yes. -
21 Q. Okay. gain, is this a group which is not 22 identified in paragraph one of Panel Anderson Exhibit 1 23 specifically? ,
I] r 24 A. The title QC documentation personnel is o '
25 not identified, that's true.
72,644 1 Q. Okay. Do you have any recollection that 2 any of the CC document personnel who were interviewed in 3 1979 were interviewed in 1980 or any persons from that 4 group were interviewed in 1980?
5 A. I don't recall specific persons, no.
6 Q. Or even whether there were any people in
[ 7 the QC document group that were interviewed in 1980?
a A. As I was discussing earlier, I am not certain 9 that this group existed with this title and this organi::a-10 tion at that time. .
11 Q. Okay. Let me direct your attention to the 12 Management page of Attachment A of this summary and ask you to look at item.1 and ,the last sentence of item 6, I( 13 14 and tell me with respect to first 1 and then the last a sentence of No. 6 which, if any, of the areas identified 16 in the first two sentences of paragraph two of Panel Anderson 17 Exhibit 1 you believe that those paragraphs relate to.
la ,
A. That was paragraph 1?
l 19 O. One and the last sentence of paragraph 6
, 20 A. I would,say management support for 1, and 21 the last sentence of 6, I.would say management support.
1 l 22 Q. If you did not interview in 1980 any of
- a the people who had indicates those concerns in 1979, would
( s.
24 you have had any basis for indicating that that particular -- ,
25 those two particular concerns had, in fact, had major
72,645 I 1 improvements?
A 2 A. If we did not -- I mean, if we did not inter-3 view the specific personnel that made those statements 4 or people that were involved in those same activities?
5 Q. If you did not interview any of the people 6 who were in the QC-document personnel group in 1980, would g 7 you have had a basis for indicating major improvements a with respect to those two items?
9 A. Not as it relates to tihe group called QC 10 -
documentation, no.
11 Q. Okay. You just indicated a sort of sub-12 set of this, and I'll,ask you just to think back over what C' 13 we have been discussing'for the last several minutes.
14 If a particular problem as summarized in l 15 these 1979 summaries was expressed by one or two as opposed
,g 16 to most of the people within the group, and if in 1980 iE
', 17 you did not talk to any of those people who originally .
18 expressed the problem in 1979, would you have had a basis l
19 for knowing whether the problem as expressed by that person l
20 in 1979 was as of 1980.now significantly improved in that i 2 21 person's opinion?
l ,
22 A. If we did not talk to the specific 2 individual that was initially talked to, I would sas that's I[]
24 true.
25 Q. Still in this same documentation group,
l
- 72,646 I would you look over at the page called Morale, which is O
i 2 two pages over, and, in particular, would you look at 3 paragraphs 1, 5, and 6, and then with respect to them 4 indicate to me in which. area, if any, of the areas identified 5 in the first two sentences of paragraph'two of Panel Anderson 6 Exhibit 1 those paragraphs are covered by.
C 7 A. Paragraphs 1 -- What were the others?'
8 Q. 5 and 6.
9 A. No. 1 I would say could be included under 10 management support.
11 No. 5 could also be under management support.
12 The same on No. 6. .
~
13 Q. And do you.have a recollection of.looking 14 at those particular items when you reached your conclusions 15 as they are contained in paragraph two of Panel Anderson 16 Exhibit 1 about management support?
17 A. I do not recall those specific items.
u 18 Q. Would you expect that you would have looked 19 at them given the nature of the kind of evaluation that f
~
2 you did? .
1 21 A. Yes. ,
22 Q. And would you also indicate that if you 23 had not spoken to any 9f the persons who originally made b 24 those concerns in 1980 that you would not have had a basis 25 for concluding that as to the concern as they expressed
72,647 1
it there had been a major improvement as of 1980?
2 A. I'm sorry. The statement again?
l 3
Q. Would you also agree that if you had not 4
spoken to any of the persons who expressed those concerns I, 5 in 1979 when you did your interviews in 1980 that you would l 6 not have a basis for concluding that as to those concerns I 7 there had been a major improvement as of 1980?
8 A. Those specific statements, that's true. l 8
Q. Now I'd like you to lo'ok at what will be 10 the last group of these that we'll look at, intsiviews -
11 with QC NDE personnel. And I'll direct your attention 12 first to paragraph one of Panel Anderso'n Exhibit 1.
13 Can youdel-1 me 'whether the NDE personnel 14 are specifically identified in that first paragraph?
I 15 A. No, they are not specifically identified.
16 Q Now, turning to the Communication page of 17 Attachment A to that, summary, I would like you to look l
18 at paragraph 3 and tell me which of the categories identified 18 in the first two sentences of paragraph two of Panel Anderson:
20 Exhibit 1 you would say that fits under.-
t 21 A. That'.s item 3 under Communication?
22 Q. Correct.
23 A. I don't.know that it would fit in any of -
] 24 them.
3 Q. Okay. Look at Management, please, the
72,648 I 1 next page, and, in particular, paragraph 3-A, C, E, and G.
A I- 2 Do you want me to say those again?
3 A. 3-A, C,E, and G?
~
4 Q. E and G,.. correct.
5 And as to, first, A, and then through the 6 others, would you indicate into which of the categories
[ 7 identified in the first two paragraphs of -- first two 8 sentences of paragraph two of Panel Anderson Exhibit 1 9 they would fit into.
10 A. "A" could have been under QC working environ-I 11 ment. C, the same thing. E, the same thing. G, the same 12 thing. '
h 13 Q. In reaching youi conclusions with regard 14 to the QC working environment in Panel Anderson Exhibit 1,
~
15 do you have a recollection of looking at these particular 16 subparag c.ns? -
17
, A. Not these specific subparagraphs, no.
18 I don't recall.
l 19 Q. Would it be your opinion that you would 20 have looked at them given the nature of the kind of analysis t
21 that you did in reaching these conclusions?
22 n, yes, ,
23 -
Q. And if you did not speak to the particular I}
24 persons in the NDE -- QC NDE personnel group who had expressec j 25 those concerns, would you have had any basis for concluding
72,649
'I ,
1 that there had been a major improvement with respect to a 2 those items identified in paragraph 3-A, C,E, and G?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Now, in Panel Anderson Exhibit 1, the first 5 sentence of paragraph two on the first page, the statement 6 appears, "On the whole, the morale of the quality control p 7 personnel has greatly improved."
8 Is that intended to be a summary of what 9 you believe is shown by the second sentence, or is that 10 intended to be an independent conclusion which is separate I 11 from the conclusions in the second sentence of that paragraph" 12 A. As I recall, the first sentence was based
(, ,. 13 on the major improvement cited"in the second sentence.
14 Q. Okay. I'd like to direct your attention 15 to the last page of Panel Anderson Exhibit 1, Evaluation 16 of Open Items from Audit TCP-7, and looking at Deficiency 17 No..3.
18 Is it your understanding that the origin
~3 of the deficiency that is discussed there --
20 MR. BELTER: I don't see a reference to 1
21 deficiency. ,
22 g MR. MIZUNO: Deficiency No. 3.
23 -
MR. BELTER: Okay.
I O~ 2' ar "a aots"^"'
I'm sorry.
l 25 Q. Is it your understanding that the origin
72,650 1 of that concern was the 1979 survey?
,m 2 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
3 A. I don't recall.
I 4 Q. Mr. Boren, do you remember from the 1979 5 survey whether one of the points of concern was the CPM-6.9 i
6 and training problems, whether that was one of the things
, 7 identified?
8 BY WITNESS BOREN:
9 A. As I recall.
10 Q. I'm sorry?
11 A. As I recall, it was, 6.9 was a --
12 Q. Do you remember whether that was one of
( 13 the items that you discussed in your briefing?
14 A. Not specifically, no.
15 Ms. Anderson, let me --
Q.
16 BY WITNESS ANDERSON: ,
17
. A. It may have been identified. The only point 18 I guess I'm making, this was an open item frem Audit TCP-7, 19 and I don't have* Audit TCP-7 here.
20 O. Okay. .
\
21 A. So it is hard for me to say that that is 22 the only place that[ that came from.
23 I Q. Nor am I asking you was it the only place, Q 24 but whether it is -- Is it a source of, not the only or ,
25 whether there was only one source?
q 72,651 1 A. It may have been. I --
s.
2 Q. I'm going to ask you to lock again at 3 these to see if we can refresh your memory and look at 4 the site mechanical QC personnel summary; which is about 5 the second or third one in, and under the major problems 6 area. And if you would read the first paragraph.
C 7 A. Oh, I'm sorry. To myself.
8 Q. Yeah. Not out loud.
9 ,
A. Okay.
10 Q. And then take a look at the very next one, 11 which is QC -- instrumentation QC personnel, and look at 12 item 5 under the summary in Attachment A. -
(.-
' ~
13 A. Okay -
14 Q. All right. And do those two instances help 15 to refresh your memory as to whether or not CPM-6.9 may is have been or was one of the sources of the concern that's 17 identified here as Deficiency tro. 37 18 A. It may have been, yes.
19 Q. Did you prepara this part of the summary M of the -- of Panel Anderson Exhibit 1, the portion that's 21 contained in Appendix B7 Was that also prepared by you 22 in part? .
23 A. In part, yes. ,
- m. '
g 24 Q. Okay. Tho sontonco -- The second sentonco ,
25 under Deficiency tio. 3 said -- Woll, the first nontonco
I
'M 72,652 1 says that the CPM-6.9 has been revised,.re-issued, and 2 appears to be a more workable document.
3 'Do you know what the basis was for that I 4 statement, that it appears to be a more workable document?
5 A. I don't recall specifically.
6 Q. Can I direct your attention back to Attachment 7
7 A of this same document and under the category Mechanical 8 Discipline, the first page of Attachment A. Take a look 9 at that. '
10 Does that refresh your memory at all?
u 11 MR. BELTER: Tony, is it your contention 12 that this particular items relates to the issue of harassment C u or intimidation of oC inspecens?
I 14 MR. ROISMAN:
I don't see it.
What I am trying to do is l 15 to get some sense of how this Panel Anderson Exhibit No. 1 16 was put together; in other words, how were the conclusions ,
i 17
, reached, and this is one conclusion which appears to have 18 had some origin back in the 1979 survey. I'm trying to 19 find out whether there was any different procedure used 20 in reaching conclusions about the resolutilon of this problem 21 as distinct frem conclusions regarding.the resolution of 22 What we'll call for shorthand the morale problems.
23 WIT!!ESS ANDERSOti: On an item such as this O
g 24 in an audit function, wo would have looked at the procodure.,
25 had it been revised, re-issued, looked at documentation
72,653 1 on training classes which had been conducted, and, basically, n
2 it appears, as you say, refreshing my memory, that, you 3 know,'in talking with the personnel that that is what came --
4 the more workable document came from, origin of it. That 5 is part of an audit function. You talk with people.
6 BY MR. ROISMAN: -
7 Q. So the interview would have been one piece 8 of the process that you would go through to indicate whether 9 the deficiency had been resolved or not.
10 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, did you go through anything other than I(, 13 14 the interviews in order'to reach the conclusions.that are identified in the first two paragraphs -- I'm sorry --
15 the first two sentences of the second paragraph on page 16 one of Panel Anderson Exhibit 17 I 17 A. I'm sorry. In the second paragraph?
18 Q. The first two sentences of the second paragrapt 19 Did you do anything other than the interviews 20 in order to reach your. conclusions regarding those items?
i 21 A. Not that I recall. .
22 MR. ROISMAN: I have no further questions M at this time. -
.Q 24 MR. BELTER: I want to put one redirect ,
25 question on the record just because I want it in the same
l .
72,654 1 area --
.s 2 MR. ROISMAN: Okay.
3 'MR. BELTER: -- and then I think we better I 4 talk about a break or dinner or something.
5 MR. ROISMAN: Okay.
6 -REDIRECT EXAMINATION g
7 BY MR. BELTER:
8 Q. Ms. Anderson, is there a particular reason 9 relating to your job function of why~you would find it 10 difficult to recall specific details about things that 11 you worked on in 1979 and 1980?
12 BY WITNESS ANDERSON: '
h 13 A, yes,.I bslieve there is. Since this audit, 14 I have probably myself participated in approximately a 15 hundred and reviewed numerous other reports that personnel 16 that work for me have written, and that includes the .
17 specific details of the deficiencies, the summaries, the 18 areas, the organizations. I've looked at a tremendous 19 amount of documentation,, relating to Comanche Peak since
( - 20 that point in time that would be, you know, an audit.
21 Q. Does pa t of your job function in conducting 22 audits entail going down to the site and talking with people?
23 A. Yes, it.does. That is a major portion of 0-24 te. >
25 MR. BELTER: Tony, I'd like a -- Let's go
-..__m e A
1 off the record for a'second.and talk about it.
2 MR..ROISMAN: Can I just ask her one 3 clarifying question on that? ' '
I 4 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
~. - -
5 BY MR. ROISMAN:
6 Q. With respect I,
7 TCP-7, who esiter than you would be likely to have a memory o the 1980 follow-up to Audit 8 about these-items?-
9 MR. BELTER: That.is going to call for a 10 lot of speculation. Why don't you ask her who else was .
3 11 involved? We all know there was only one other person
~
12 involved. _ -
13 MR. $dISMAR:' Okay. All right.
I. 14 BY MR. ROISMAN:
J.
15 Q. And that's the only other person involvid 16 in it who could have any memory as far as you know?
I
- 17 BY WITNESC ANDERSON: ,
18 A. Yes, that is correct.
19 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. Fine. I did not mean 20 to ask her to speculato, certainly not at 8:30.
21 MR. BEL ER: Why don't we go off the record.
7 22 1 (A short rccass was taken.)' '
D ~
,' MR. BELTER: Let's go back,on the record.
' J
'j 24 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
'l
,. i l 25 BY MR.,BELTER: ,
f'
, 72,656 1 Q. Panel, I'm going to start with a few questions m.
2 about the interview process itself and what you were taking 3 down as a result of some of the questions asked by 4 Mr. Roisman.
5 Ms. Anderson, you indicated that you first 6 formed an understanding or a definition, if you will, of 7 the term harassment and intimidation in recent months.
t 8 Are you certain in your own mind today 9 that based upon your current understanding of the phrase 10 harassment and intimidation you would have recorded in -
11 the interview sheet any instance that constitutes harassment 12 or intimidation? -
(, 13 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
l 14 A. Yes, I'm certain.
15 Q. Even though you weren't familiar with the 16 term of art, harassment and intimidation, was the same.
I 17 concept in your mind during the '79 interviews?
18 Yes, it was.
A.
19 Q. Ms. Spencer --
20 MR. ROISMAN: Can I just note for the record ,
21 that that must be the essence of the leading question?
22 I have already noted that that objection seems to fall 23 l
on deaf ears in the NRC process in which we normally prefile g] 24 direct testimony, but I'd just like to note for the honor l
25 of the prSfession that that was a real leading question.
72,657
- 1. And I assume'we're not going to get it asked of the next
' ,A 2 two people. 3 3 MR. BELTER: No, I'm not going to go through 4 that.
,5 MR. ROISMAN: All right.
6' MR..BELTER: She was the only one that had g
7 .a recent definition of harassment and intimidation.
8 MR. ROISMAN: All right.
9 BY MR. BELTER:
10 Q. Ms. Spencer, you were asked a question about 11 your knowledge of the fireside chats conducted by 12 Mr. Tolson. -
h __13 Do you khow how~many such fireside chats 14 he conducted? p 15 BY WITNESS SPENCER: l 16 A. No,'I do not know. ,
17 Q. Do you know whether he had them with some 18 inspecters or with all inspectors?
19 A. I do not know.
20
's Q. To the panel, if one person during the course i 21 of one of these interviews had indicated, for example, 22 that he or she felt there was excessive pressure from craft 23 to buy off on work, would this have been, listed on the O 24 1mte,,1ew sheet and then on the summa,y o,1dene1,1ed comce,n 25 jf ,
72,658 I 1 BY WITNESS BOREN:
2 A. Yes.
3 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
l 4 A. Yes.
5 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
6 A. Absolutely.
7 Q. You were asked a qu,estion with reference 8 to the phrase " occasional threats," and that phrase appears 9 in the same paragraph with a reference to " hot discussions, 10 name-calling, and yelling."-
11 To the panel, would you consider every E occasional threat to be an instance of harassment or
( .'- 13 intimidation? .
14 BY WITNESS BOREN:
15 A. No.
16 BY WITNESS ANDERSON':
I 17 A. No.
18 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
B ~
I
- 20 A.
Q.
No.
Would some occasional threats constitute i
21 harassment or intimidation?
22 BY WITNESS BOREN: .
2 A. Yes. .
(], 24 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
25 A. Yes.
e - w-- - - - - - --
l l
72,659 1 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
2 A. They may, yes.
3 Q. Mr. Boren, could you give us an example 4 of one or the other?
5 BY WITNESS BOREN:
6 A. If an inspector was told by a craft to either 7 accept his weld or he was going,to, hit him in the head 7
8 with a hammer, that would be harassment and intimidation.
9 If a craft told an inspector that if he E 10 cursed around him anymore he was going to knock'his teeth 11 out, that would not be harassment or intimidation.
E Q. Could some reference to occasional threats I(, 13 14 be contained in the inter'ziew sheets where the threat has no relationship to job performance?
15 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
16 A. Yes. -
17 W BY.'ITNESS SPENCER:
18 A. Uh-huh.
19
' BY WITNESS BOREN: -
20 A. Yes. .
E ;
3 21 Q. At one point, and this may have been cleared 22 up later, Ms. Anderson, you indicated that you followed 23 the questions listed on the sheet. ,
(} 24 Did you also ask follow-up questions? ,,.
25
/f
72,660 I 1 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
O'
.. 2 A. Yes. Depending on the answers or the statement:
3 that were made by the inspectors, we had further discussions.
4 Q. Is that true of the rest of the panel?
5 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
6 A. Sure.
7 BY WITNESS BOREN:
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I'm going to direct the next couple of questior I- 10 now to the entire process that went on back in 1979.
11 I'm sorry. I do have one more question 12 just on the interviews. -
13 Would follow-up questions occur for you ,
I. 14 to determine whether or not a' serious incident was'being 15 related to you?
16 BY WITNESS BOREN: .
I 17 A. Yes.
18 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
19 A. Yes. ,
20 EY WITNESS SPENCER: .
i 21 l A. Yes. , -
'22 Q. If you felt a serious incident was being M
related to you, would the details of that. incident likely
() 24 appear on the sheets as a result of follow-up questions? ,.
g 2. y
\
72,661 I -
1 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
J 2 A. Yes.
3 BY WITNESS BOREN:
4 A. Yes.
5 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
6 A. Yes.
Ig 7 MR. ROISMAN: Could you describe which sheets 8 you were referring to?
I' 9
10 MR. BELTER: The 1979' interview sheets.
MR. ROISMAN:- Not the summary?
11 MR. BELTER: Not the summary.
12 BY MR. BELTER: '
I( 13 14 Q. To the p5nel',.do you feel that as a result of the process that was undertaken in September and October 15 l
of 1979 you accurately found and transmitted to upper 16 management whatever problems may have existed in 1979?
I 17 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
18 A. Restate the question.
19 BY WITNESS ANDERSON: ,, ,
3 A. Yes. .
21 Q. Do you eel that you accurately found and 22 put down on the sheets.and then on the summaries whatever 23 problems had been identified by anyone during the course h 24 of this p.rocess back in 1979?
25 jf l~
72,662 1 BY WITNESS BOREN:
2 A. Yes.
3 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
4 A. Yes.
5 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Ms. Anderson, you in particular were asked c.
8 a series of questions about items that appear on the various 9 summary sheets.
10 First of all', am I correct that the cover 11 page to each of the summary sheets indicates that each 12 summary sheet, and I'm quoting here, contains~the problems 13 identified, close quotel chat phrase or a virtually identica.'
~
I (,,
14 phrase was used in each cover sheet.
15 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
16 A. That's true. -
i 17 .
Q. With respect to the items listed, does the 18 listing of the item on the sheet indicate in your mind 19 that you had found that.there was a real or a significant 20 concern there, or is it a reflection of tihe fact that someone 21 had made such a statement or concern in the course of an 22 interview? -
23 BY WITNESS ANDERSON: .
O V 24 A. It was strictly a reflection of a statement ,.
25 that was made or voiced by a person during an interview.
72,663 1
Q. Is that true for the rest of the panel?
2 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
3 A. Yes. And that statement that was made may 4
have been based on hearsay, you know, him relating another 5
instance that he had heard third-hand, that kind of thing.
6 Q. Are any of you, for instance, vouching 7
to management in these reports that any of these items 8
that Ms. Anderson was asked spec,ifically about were indeed 9
significant problems that management needed to address?
s 10 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
11 A. No.
12 BY WITNESS BOREN: -
({ 13 A. No.
14 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
15 A. No.
16 Q.
I 17 As a result of the entire process, do each of you have an opinion as to whether or not in 1979 there 18 existed a significant problem with resp'ect to harassment, 18 intimidation, or any other form of discouraging quality 8
f control inspectors from doing their jobs?
21 MR. ROISMAN: Objection. The question calls 22 for the witnesses to give an opinion on a subject on which 23 they have not been qualified. In fact,'they have just 24
] stated, I believe, in answer to your questions that all ,.
25 they were doing was passing on what they heard, not
72,664 I 1 evaluating it.
2 MR. BELTER: I'll withdraw the question 3 and ask a couple of foundation questions.
4 BY MR. BELTER: il
_ y 5 Q. Did each of you conduct a series of 6 interviews? -
7 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
(.
8 A. Yes.
9 BY WITNESS BOREN:
i 10 A. Yes.
11 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
12 A. Yes. '
h 13 Q. And did 6ach o,f 'you participate in summari::ing E 14 all of the interview sheets that were involved in this 15 process?
16 BY WITNESS BOREN:
I 17 . A. Yes.
18 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
- 9 A.
Yes. .
20 BY WITNESS SPENCER: -
2 21 A,. Yes. -
22 Q. As a result of that process, did you read
! . 23 these sheets and did you do some thinking.about what Ih 24 problems you were presenting to management?
l 2s y
, 72,665 1 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
2 A. Yes.
3 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
4 A. Yes.
5 BY WITNESS BOREN:
1 6 A. Ye s .-
7 MR. BELTER: All right. I'm going to ask
(
l 8 the question again, Tony. I assume you have the same objectic-9 MR. ROISMAN: Yes.
i 10 BY MR. BELTER: '
I 11 Q. Do each of you have an opinion as to whether E or not in 1979 as a result of the process that you took 13 part in whether or not 6here existed a significant problem 14 with respect to harassment, intimidation, threats or any 15 other form of discouraging quality control inspectors from 16 doing their job? .
17
, BY. WITNESS ANDERSON:
18 A. Yes, I have an opinion.
19 BY WITNESS SPENCER: ,,
20 A. I have an opinion. -
1 21 BY WITNESS BOREN: -
s 22 A. Yes, I have an opinion.
23 Q. And I'll take it one at a . time.
Ih 24 Ms. Anderson, what is your opinion?
25 MR. ROISMAN: I object. For the reason
72,666 I stated, I do not believe the witness is qualified, and 2
the testimony that would be given is noc. relevant or 3 probative. It represents the opinion of essentially an 4
amateur on.a matter that.she has no basis for an opinion 5
on, nor is she management, which you've also established.
6 MR.-BELTER: Let me ask you, Tony. Is it 7
g your belief that based upon the entire interview process 8
no one is capable of rendering such an opinion? Because 8
if that's the case, I don't think you'or anybody on your 10 side is as capable of rendering such an opinion as the 11 persons that took part in the interview and conducted the 12 process and were there at the time and summari::ed the results 13
__ at the time and reported it to~ management and had the I (.$ 14 responsibility to do that. And these folks had the 15 responsibility, and they did it, and they have an opinion.
16 MR. ROISMAN: I have the following things 17 to.say: They had a responsibility to report to management 18 what they gathered in the interviews. And they've been 18 asked whether they believe and gave their opinion that 20 they believe that they accurately reported to management.
21 On that., matter they.are qualified to give that opinion. That was their job, and they have an opinion 23 to give.
Ih
~
24 Now you are asking them to give an opinion ,
- 2. 0 about what was management's job, to take this raw data
72,667 I 1
I which was given to them by the interviews and make their h 2 judgment. These people were not making that judgment, 3 and --
4 MR. BELTER: An hour ago you'were elevating 5 them-to the level of extended management. These folks 6 were management in your view an hour ago.
7 MR. ROISMAN: They.were --
8 MR. BELTER: And now you are p'utting them 9
down to the information gatherer stage --
10 MR. ROISMAN: No. They were --
11 MR. BELTER: -- incapable of forming an 12 opinion. -
([, 13 MR. ROIS M : They acted as an' arm of 14 management to gather the data. They did not perform the 15 function of management to have an opinion on that. And 16 the opinion, the proper place for those opinions to come .
17
, are from no level lower than the two recipients of the 18 raw data, which ara Mr. Tolson and Mr. Chapman, both --
~
19 MR. BELTE,R: I totally disagree with you.
20 MR. ROISMAN: -- of whom have been asked .
21 about that. ,
- i 22 e In addition, I don't believe, short of an l 23 expert, that there"is anyone who has an outside basis for l l I() 24 25 an opinion.
9-It is' relevant in this proceeding how the l
72,668 {
l i
1 management of this co~rporation responded to this information, s
2 but what the opinion of these three people are with respect 3 to it does not represent anything that is relevant.
4 MR. BELTER: I note your objection. I couldn' 5 disagree more. I think there's no one that's more qualified 6 to render this opinion, and whether or not they held a 7 title or not has nothing to do wit.h their individual ability 8 to render this kind of an opinion.
9 MR. ROISMAN: All right. Well, as you know, I 10 under the rules here, I have stated it, and you can how 11 have them answer the question.
12 The Staff may have a view on this.
(, 13 MR. MIZUNO:. I think at this time.the Staff 14 will withhold any position on this.
15 BY MR. BELTER:
16 Q. Ms. Anderson, what is your opinion?
17 BY. WITNESS ANDERSON:
18 A. Based on the interviews that I conducted 19
~ and the su=maries that I helped prepare, I did not feel 20 and do not feel that there was a significant problem with 21 harassment and intimidation at Comanche Peak.
22 Q. Ms. Spencer?
23 BY WITNESS SPENCER: .
(] 24 A. I also do not feel that there was a ,.
25 significant problem at Comanche Peak on harassment or
_x- - .
I .
72,669 I 1 intimidation or undue pressure with the exception that I 'G 2 there was the one incident that I feel and as I acted 3 deserved management attention. I brought it to their 4 attention. But other than that, absolutely, there was 5 no harassment and intimidation and pressure at Comanche 6 Peak site. -
g 7 Q. Mr. Boren? ,
8 BY WITNESS BOREN:
9 A. Based on the interviews that I conducted 10 at Comanche Peak in 1979, I did not, feelgthat at that time 1
11 there was any basis or grounds that we could see of any 12 harassment or intimidation. '
(_
13 Q. Ms. Andekson, in the follow-up serie,s,o.f..
14
- l. interviews conducted in 1980, do you have any way of knowing 15 whether an individual or individuals who had identified I
16 any of the listed concerns that Mr. Roisman specifically 17 ask'ed you about were still present on site?
I 18 BYWITNESSANDEhtSON:
19 A. I'm sorry. Could you --
20 Q. Do you have any way of knowing whether, 21 for example, the perso s that might have listed item 3, 22 4, 5, or 8 of any of these specific summaries that 23 Mr. Roisman identified.for you, whether such a person might IO 2. ,t111 h,ve heen on site, o .
25 I. A. No. I have no way of knowing.
e
~
72,670 1 MR. BELTER:- Give me just a moment, please.
s -
2 '(Pause.)
3 BY MR. BELTER:
4 Q. In conducting the follow--up interviews in 5 1980, you indicated that - correct me if I'm wrong -
6 that the persons interviewed were selected randomly.
7 BY WITNESS ANDERSON: ,
" 8 A. Yes. To the best of my recall.
9 Q. In selecting the random group to re-interview - .
10 Strike that.
11 MR. BELTER: I have nothing further.
U Tony. -
C is xR. aOISMAu: I: 3ust have e coup 1e.
14 FURTHER RECROSS-E M INATION 15 BY MR. ROISMAN:
16 Q. Mr. Belter asked all of you whether if in 17 the interviews you learned of excessive pressure from craft ,
18 to sign off, pressure applied to QC to sign off on items 19
- when they weren't proper, whether you would have mentioned 1
20 that in the sunmary sheet.
A c 21 Do you remember that question and answer?
22 MR. BELTER: They are nodding affirmatively.
23 -
MR. ROISMAN: Yeah. ,
h 24 0 WITNESS SPENCER: Yes.
2.
I . 72,671 1 BY MR. ROISMAN:
Irs 2 Q. Would you have similarly recorded it if 3 the pressure had not been excessive?
I 4 BY WITNESS SPENCER:.
5 A. We recorded any information that they gave 6 to us. You know, we relayed the -- The information that g 7 they gave to us we recorded on the summary sheets -- on 8 the forms.
9 Q. Interview sheets.
10 A. Interview sheets.
11 Q. I think Mr. Belter had asked about the l 12 summary sheets, though. e
(,.' 13 A. Oh, I'm sorry. - .
I 14 Q. If your interview sheet had not disclosed 15 that the pressure was excessive, would it have made it l 16 to the summary sheet nonetheless? I 17 A.
, I would think so, yes.
18 Q. Ms. Anderson?
I
~
19 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
20 A. I would,think so. I'm not positive.
1 21 Q. Mr. Boren?.
22 BY WITNES;i BOREN: .
23 A.
In all probability.
I (]
24 Q. Would you say that was true even if the l 25 Pressure was very slight but nonetheless was there according
72,672 1 to the interview sheet, Ms. Anderson?
2 BY WITNESS BOREN:
3 A. How slight are you -- You are going to have 4 to get definitive now. , What do you mean? How slight?
5 Q. Well, if you asked the question of someone 6 in the interview and they said yes, I have felt pressure r 7 from craft for me to sign off on things that were not okay, I 8 that's the sum of it. They didn't say a lot.
They didn't l
9 say I was threatened or yelled at. They didn't say anything i
10 except I felt pressure from. craft to sign off on things I 11 that I didn't think were proper.
12 Would that have been reported?- I assume
(, 13 from Ms. Spencer's answer _that would have been reported 14 in the interview sheet.
1 l
15
.~
Would that have been reported in the summary 16 sheet?
17 r ,
A. Yes.
18 f Q. Ms. Spencer?
18
' BY WITNESS SPENCER: .
20 A. I believe so. -
t 21 Q. Ms. Anderson? ,
22 BY WITNESS ANDERSON: ,
23 .
A. I belleye so.
I(],
24 25 g,
In answer to Mr. Belter's question, you indicated that the -- that when you made a recording of
~
72,673 l
1 information on the interview sheet that you did not have I I,, 2 a basis other than the statement of the person themselves 3
to believe that the statement was correct.
4 Is that an accurate statement of what you 5 said, Ms. Anderson?
6 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
r 7 A. That's true.
8 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
9 A. Repeat it for me.
10 BY WITNESS BOREN:
'I 11 A. Yes.
U Q. Okay. .When you record -- Well, wait a minute.,
.( 13 Mr. Boreh, was. pour answer yes, also?
14 A. My answer was yes.
l 15 Q. Okay. Ms. Spencer, the question was: When 16 you recorded something on the interview sheet, was it your 17' testimony that you did not have an independent basis to
, 13 determine whether the statement was correct or not. All U '
you can say is that you,were recording as accurately as
" ~
possible what you were being told.
\
BY WITNESS SPENCER: ~
A. Yes. -
23 IO Q.
Not whether it was correct.
^- re -
25 Q. Ms. Anderson, is that equally true about
72,674 1 the interview that you did in 1980, that you had no I(. 2 independent basis for determining whether what you were 3 told in the interview was correct or not?
4 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
5 A. As far as the specific interviews, yes.
6 As it would have related to a finding from the report, 7 a deficiency, per se, there would have been other things E 8 looked at.
9 Q. I'm sorry? -
10 A. Well,.as far.as yes, in the interviews I
11 and specifically addressing the questions and what t! hey 12 were telling us, that's a true statement. ,
{':. 13 With, regard.to addressing deficiencies or 14 whatever that we may have been, there would have been 15 other things that were looked at.
16 Q. But I believe your testimony already was.
17 that in forming your opinions that are contained in the 18 first two sentences of paragraph two of what is marked 19 '
- as Panel Anderson Exhibit No. 1, that the only thing that 2
you looked at was the interviews; isn't that , correct?
1 21 A. That's tru.e, yes.
22 Q. Okay. So as to those two sentences, all 23 you had was the interview answers. And as to the interview I 24 answers --
')
25 l Answer that one first. All you had was !
72,675
'. the interview answers in order to form the basis of the I ,m.
2 opinions expressed in those first two sentences of 3 Panel Anderson Exhibit No. 1, paragraph two; is that correct?
4 A. True.
5 Q. All right. And that you had no more basis 6 to know whether the answer you got in those interviews r 7 was accurate than you did as to whether the answers you I 8 got in the 1979 survey interviews were accurate; is that 9 correct? '
L 10 A. That's correct.
I 11 Q. All right. The third -- Maybe it is the 12 fourth.
- k ,. ___. 13 _
You indicated in an answer to Mr. Belter's .
14 question about your opinion that you have the opinion that 15 there was no harassment and intimidation at Comanche Peak i is based upon the information that you got frem the surveys; 17 is.that correct, that that was what formed the basis of 18 your opinion, Ms. Anderson?
19 MR. BELTER: I think Ms. Spencer indicated 20 one instance where she. felt there had been. 1 21 BY MR. ROISMAN: ,
i 22 Q. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. With the one exception l
23 Ms. Spencer indicated, is that true for ypu, Ms. Spencer?
I] -
24 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
25 A. Repeat the question. I'm sorry.
O
72,676 1 Q. That's all right. It is very late. We
' 2 haven't any of us eaten. I'm sure my questions are as 3 confusing to me as they are to you. -
4 That the. basis for your statement that in 5 your opinion there was no Comanche -- there was no 6 harassment and intimidation at Comanche Peak as of 1979, r 7 with the one exception noted, was the information that I 8 you got in the interviews; is that correct?
9 A. Correct.
~
t 10 Q. And, Mr. Boren, is that correct?'
I 11 BY WITNESS BOREN:
12 A. -
It is. .
h 13 MR. BELTER. . You are missing one. aspect 14 of it, Tony. I don't think you are doing it deliberately --
15 MR. ROISMAN: Okay.
16 MR. BELTER: -- but you are mischaracterizing 17 the question because I did ask them specifically about 18 the only interviews they conducted and as a result of I 19 20
- the activity of sitting down and summarizing all the other interviews, also. .
21 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. Fine. I'm sorry. I 22 didn't mean to exclude.that.
23 BY MR. ROISMAN:
I (g 24 Q.
Is it not correct that the information that..
25 you were evaluating, whether based upon your own interview
72,677 1 or the summaries of all the interviews, still had its m
If 2 base back in the int.erview itself, the accuracy of which 3 you have no basis to know whether it is correct or not?
4 Is that true?
5 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
6 A. That's true.
r 7 BY WITNESS SPENCER:
E 8 A. That's true.
9 BY WITNESS BOREN: ~
10 A. Yes.
I 11 Q. Ms. Anderson, you were asked the question 12 whether in 1980 you would have any way of knowing whether 13 the persons who had.. raised concerns in the 1979 survey I'C 14 were still present on the site in 1980. And I believe 2 you said no way of knowing.
16 Is that a correct summary of what --
17 BY WI'TIESS ANDERSON:
18 A. That's what I said, yes.
~
19 I, Q. Isn't it true that you knew all the people 2
who had been surveyed in 1979 because every QC person was 21 surveyed? ., i I
22 A. The only people I would have had knowledge 23 about were the ones that I talked with specifically, their ,
24 names.
(] .
25 Q. But that's not -- My point is: Isn't it
72,678 I 1 true that in 1979 every QC person was interviewed?
2 I( A. I'm not sure if everyone was interviewed. l
{
3 I 4 Q. Was it --
MR. BELTER: Mr. Chapman indicated that 5
as they went discipline-by-discipline there may have been 6
some who were on vacation or had been missed.
7 g- WITNESS BOREN: The,re were some that were 8 sick.
9 BY MR. ROISMAN: '
'- 10 Q. Of the people who were interviewed in 1979, l 11 wouldn't it have been possible for you in 1980 to at least 12 determine how many of.the people who were present in '79 13 were still llEresent in 19802 -
14 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
15 A. We could have found out, that's true.
16 Q. And isn't it possible that when you conducted 17 the interview in 1980 you could have asked the person, 18 "Were you a person who raised this concern in 1979?" and 19 -
found out from the interviewee whether they were, in fact, 20 the same person? .
21 MR. BELTER: Do you understand the question?
22 WITNESS. ANDERSON: That for every person 23 that we talked to we would have had to ask them with every I(} 24 specificitemhladtheymadethatstatement.
25 Mk. ROISMAN: No.
I 72,679 I 1 WITNESS ANDERSON: We could have asked them, i
I r*% 2 and I believe that we did, "Were you interviewed in 1979?" {
3 {
'BY MR. ROISMAN- l 4
Q. Okay. So you could have found that much 5
out at least, right?
6 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
[ 7 A. Yes. That's true.
I 8 Q. And you could have also found out if they 8
were interviewed whether they had raised any concerns in
~
10 1979, I 11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you could have found out; could you 13 ~
, 1 not, if that concern in .their opinion had now been addressed?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. But you have no recollection of whether t-16 you, in fact, did that. Isn't that not your prior testimony?
17 A. I do not recall specifically, yes.
MR. ROISMAN: Okay. That's it.
8 MR. BELTER: One more.
20 FURTHER REDIRECT E M INATION 21 BY MR. BELTER: .
Q. Following up on Mr. Roisman's theory, in 23 order' to determine whether or not a person you re-interviewed
,m o4 g in 1980 was a person who had raised a particular concern I o ,
25 back in 1979, would you not have had to ask them whether
72,680 I 1 or not they had raised and then list for them the 60 or I ':n 2 70 items that appear in the summary sheets, some of which i
3 Mr. Roisman asked you about? I 4 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
5 A. That's true.
6 MR. ' ROISMM: I've got to do one more.
[ 7 FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION I 8 BY MR. ROISMAN:
9 Q. If the person was in the group of QC' 10 personnel, staff personnel, you would only had to ask them --
11 in 1979, you would only have had to ask them in 1980 about 12 1
the concerns expressed by people in that group in '79,
(- 13 wouldn't you, not for all the groups? Is that true? .
14 BY WITNESS ANDERSON:
15 A. That's true.
.s 16 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. No more. -
l 17 One more?
18 MR. BELTER: No.
19 MR. ROISMAN: Thank you all very much.
E l 21 MR. BELTER:
Off the record, please.
(Discussion off the record.) -
22 MR. BELTER: On the record.
23 -
MR. MIZUNO: The Staff has no further questions
,] 24 at this time. However, it did request of the Applicants ,.
25 to provide for me the professional qualifications or a
72,681 I
resume for each of the three witnesses on this panel.
ru
(. 2 That's it.
3 (Whereupon, at 9:17 p.m., the deposition 4
was concluded.)
5 * *
- 6 I 7 8
10 I 11 I = -
go l
's -
1 14 15 lI , 17 ,
18
~
19 21 ,
e l
23 I
O
I 2.
I CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS 1
I. 2 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the NRC COMMISSION I '
d, In tha maeter of: TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY Panel 3, Anderson, Spencer & Boren)
Date of Proceeding: (July 31, 1984 Place of Proceeding: Glen Rose, Texas 6 -
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original t
transcript for the file of the Commission.
8 9
e , n - -, y va i.s 10
~ -
i O f f icia~i~~ Re p o r t e r' ~- Ty p e d 11 -
^
g 13
=
Official R'eporter - Signatur
~7s d)w -
I 14 .
se g.
15 16 -
17 18 19 20
~
, 21 22 i 4
23 . ,
24 .
25 ,
I [ %, .
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
y -
I
- s. ,
~
SIGNATURE OF WITNESS J
.- ~~
l
- ~
STATE OF TEXAS ) . . .
COUNTY OF 2# ' ' " )
g - s s -
l A
Subscribed and sworn to before me by the said+ witness, I h& Jisi e o on this }U a of '
d.C(,Csi d , , 1984.
1 g -
j -
- _A A JA 1 Notary Public in and for ,
p
[ ail a A. -
, County, Texas ,
I.
.(
% i g .. :' -
"g .
u ... .
. /
t ^
1 At_f &
SIGNATUREOFWI~ NEBS STATE OF TEIAS )
COUNTY OF h _If42 --- )
1 1
Subscribed and sworn to before me by the said witness,
J on this/t/ day of
/ 2LM , 1984.
I ...
k)
._/>-
l Notary Public in and for
__11A'> -
, County, Texas m.
m 0
\
U. ..
~. /.
.. - - I '
SIGNATURE OF WITNESS STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF -#2 ' C" )
Subscribed and sworn to before me by the said witness,
- h. onthi/ day of
, 1984.
~
~) .
J>J Notary Public in and for i 1 ;s & , County, Texas 1
f C.
I 9
^ , .
\g e I
~
ERRATA SHEET CORRECTION PAGE/LINE NUMBER Boren's Resoonse is Not Shown 72,514/15 Anderson's Response is Not Shown 72,516/14 Spencer's Resoonse is Not Shown 72,516/20 Part of Answer is Missing -
72,530/13 Soencer's Resconse is Not Shown 72,581/24 Part of Testimony is Missing 72,655/13 "Lew" should read " Lou" 72,590/1
" job" should read " jog" 72,626/25
" intend" should be " intent" 72.546/10 Part of answer Missino " audits" should follow "hundred" 72,654/15 4
w i
<~,
O
_ - - _ - ~. -.- . , _ _ . - _ _ . . - _ , . .. . , . . . , , . - . _ . _ _ _ _
l .
ln !!
^
g '- .
u e l) s g G/7 .
57 .
l;4 -P G 1R M l $49 84f' '6 il83 G -% Ll0 I GAf L il llB7 l ;
l llB9 G30 lib /9 G33 S 2 x9 I -
18M/ G 37' .B aff d W l ik33o G37 B k&f - ' '
" B S .: t G.3 9 i I ;c 9' -
4 +'i _ ,
/xv4EL,m #
6%R g ll d7 .
ii D / G 9'.s' -
l
~
d 07
~
G e/S g 1P/
!iE/
G47 GYf ..l fc/anss/
.,8
'l
.E2 Gs2. g_. -
- j $ l//2 I.
Q=2 /H .
ff J~~
l : F3 HC .' No A*
I W i N& .
po #
No 9 l!P.T \
//9 '
. /=4 { .Z~/
~
gQ f7 , '
l- -
1I E1.
. . . . .)13Jz ; -
- 1
.v - '
l lB 7 { ght L. I f g~ llB '] G30 l B/9 G33 S s-w ?
I' 18 27 G 37' ; B affdW g l185o G37 B k W " f" - '
- /)32. G 3 '1 I l. iCSt ! 69'/ /svb$o,Mi8
!! 67 SFA. .:
dD/ G VS. '
l !\ o 7 G e/S G47
.k P/ $c/MMA.A~f l HE/ G?T
.,8 . . .
. E2. Gs~L G-l
- )EY N 2- f-f .
,i ; . >=2 /H T-i F3 //C A/o f
\
g-
!Ff HO #
N6 -
l jli FC //9 /VO #
. P4 ;E/
E ^* .
m P7 1 JZ l, 46I. . _ . . .. . . J3. $
- j f7. . l JC l-j=tx ! .76 g%. a;lGx ,
If ,
y
\\G9' 39 ll. /G6 j]O -
g
.: G 9 J~lJ .
O .;G/c .
KI "
dG/A K3 ll _
< .i c ,
_ = __ - ________. i eg SmBdd4 /
. 1...{AS l Til.lili:S li!:Ni'.i:.iTi.'G, u OIP.iNY EIO-33 0.r r : C E M E !'. 3 E A :: D M To R. G. Tolson Dallas, Texas June 16, 1980 l
subject COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT TCP-7: FOLLOW-UP g QA AUDIT FILE: TCP-7 As a follow-up to Audit TCP-7, interviews were conducted during the week of May 12, 1980 with a sample group of QA/QC personnel. Included were personnel from the electrical, mechanical, QA vault, QA records, and Quality Engineering groups. The questions involved problems that were identified during the original interviews conducted during September l and October, 1979.
On the whole, the morale of the Quality Control personnel has greatly I improved. Major improvements were cited in the areas of salary adminis- ;
tration, management support, training, QC working environment and rela- l tionships with construction personnel. Problem areas mentioned were l inefficiencies at the document control center (DCC) which result in excessive waiting, the excessive amount of rework, the use-as-is dispositions and the lack of direct access to the Quality Engineering group. While we recognize that some of these activities are not under I your organizational control, we are bringing them to your attention in the belief that you are best qualified to decide what responsible person should be further involved.
(-._ .
Attachment A contains other positive or negative items identified which were specific to a certain group. Attachment B is an evaluation of the three (3) items which remained open from Audit TCP-7. Please advise us of your intended course of action on Unresolved Item 1 by July 16, h3Je 1980. /
If you have any questions, please contact Debra Anderson at 214-653-4882.
ObL2 h ttct's, u c r . --
Antonio Vega
) _ . "f'. . .- i --
g '
_ _ _ _ ..L _
AV/DLA:dk I i cc: D. N. Chapman I .V J. R. Ainsworth :
_I I_- -
_.l_ _.i I J l n.
~.
l l t ,
I: E2 H l 8 t f 3 .-' "-'-~~
1 - m -- Aa--a- - - - -- a- -- - " --
- -- -~ ~ - -
S 4
a I%
- I i
i 1
+
t c !
1 l
i Attachment A to .
- t. .QTQ-33_
i 4
- I .
iI I
i t
3 e I
O D
I e ,
e S
e 3 !
t 1
~
I E' -
The following is a sumary of additional comments made during the interviews the week of May 12, 1980:
Electrical Discipline l
Inspectors commented that on the whole their inspection procedures had been improved. However, concern was expressed that the termination and cable pulling procedures contain gray areas which require further clarification.
t No specific examples were cited even though they were asked to elaborate.
Mechanical Discioline The revisions to CPM-6.9 were generally well received. It is now considered 4
a " workable" document. In the pipe hanger group the feeling was that some of the substance has been taken out, such as fit-up inspections, and not all I necessary items are being addressed. Again, no further elaboration was given.
The inspectors doing hanger inspections are also having problems with the drawings that are being prepared by on-site drafting in which weld symbols l are not being accurately transferred.
~
0A Vault .
The frequent changes to procedures are causing confusion at the QA Vault.
I Changes to procedures (forms, etc.) which may affect the activities of the vault personnel are not being ccmmunicated to them.
Quality Encineerino Quality Engineering personnel made several suggestions which they feel will !
improve the effectiveness of the QA/QC efforts at CPSES. 1
. There is a need to put more emphasis on on-going qualification of personnel. There is a need to bolster QA confidence in areas ll.
where activities are infrequent.
There is a need to put more emphasis in setting standards for and testing for reading comprehensi.on when hiring inspectors.
,3 -
There is a need to prcmote the use of problem-solving sessions
'E wherein personnel from the different affected groups meet to discuss and seek solutions to problems. At the present, meetings on problems appear to be forums for expressing and- defending g., positions already' established among individual groups, rather J than problem-solving meetings. 0 I
, I l
l l
l I -
Duplicating machines appear to be "bottlenecking" work efforts.
There is a need for a cost effective solution to this problem.
I Other suggestions were made which were of a management nature.
These have been made known to appropriate personnel.
(
I I
- 3 l
I .
l l
I , . .
!I 9
I i O
I, J ,
4
- - - - - - ----,v. . , ., a,.,- . . , . . , , - , . . . . . ,-..---,.e-,.,,.,-... , -,-,_m, . _ , . , , , . ,.,---.--__v. ,.n...,,__w.-
E,m I
I c I t I Attachment B to ,
.QTQ-33 I
I I e I .
t e
e' k
4 e
Evaluation of Open Items from Audit TCP-7 Deficiency No. 3 CFM-6.9 has been revised, re-issued and appears to be a more workable document. Training classes have been conducted with both craft and QC personnel on the revised procedures and the changes appear to address the majority of problems originally expressed by the inspectors. This lt item is considered closed.
Unresolved Item 1 - QC Training Program No action has been taken on selecting OJT instructors on the basis of their teaching ability or their willingness to administer OJT. The only requirement for selection of an OJT instructor is that the inspector f be fully certified in the area being taught. This item remains ooen. {
Unresolved Item 3 - Site Surveillance l Since the December audit, the Site Surveillance group has been-re-organized under the Dallas QA organization. They are presently conducting approximately 15-20 surveys and re-surveys per month. The surveillances are being performed in more depth than in the past. A month-to-month
, schedule is used with changes made to accomodate requests from the Dallas
- office and provide support to priority site needs. The more in-depth sur-
- veys and the concentration of efforts in priority areas has improved the l j Site Surveillance function. The group is still short of personnel, particu-larly in the electrical and I&C disciplines. Efforts are continuing to fill these staffing needs. This item is considered closed.
I, s
I e L I .
In .
I I .