ML20140E427
| ML20140E427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1985 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#185-081, CON-#185-81 OL, NUDOCS 8501110023 | |
| Download: ML20140E427 (299) | |
Text
r ORIGINAL U511ED STATES
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.MMISSION O . . _ -
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-445-OL 50-446-OL TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING STATION, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
LOCATION: BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES: 23735 - 24032 DATE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1985 h D{
0 I Q
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ojticialRe;aters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 8501110023 850109 (202) 347-3700 PDR ADOCK 05000445 .
T pDR NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
'N CR21560.0 23735 BRT/sjg 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.,~- 3 .BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t
D) 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of: :
5 :
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, : Docket Nos. 50-445-OL 6 et al. : 50-446-OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric :
Station, Units 1 and 2) :
8 -- - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room .
10 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 11 Wednesday, January 9, 1985 12 The hearing in the above-entitle _ matter convened
() 13 at 9:00 a.m.
14 BEFORE:
JUDGE PETER BLOCH, Chairman 15 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 16 JUDGE WALTER H. JORDAN, Member.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board .
17 JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, Member 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing! Board 19 APPEARANCES:
20 On behalf of Applicants:
21 McNEILL WATKINS, ESQ.
,. s NICHOLAS S. REYNOLDS, ESQ.
( ,) - 22 Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds
.1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
23 Washington, D. C. 20036 24 Amfederal Reporters, Inc.
25 -- continued:--
23736 APPEARANCES'(Continued):
2 On behalf of Nuclear Regulatory
..-(wg 3 Commission Staff:
4 STUART A. TREBY, ESQ.
Officeaof the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5
Washington, D. C.
6 On behalf of Citizens Association 7 for Sound Energy:
8 ANTHONY Z. ROISMAN, ESQ.
BILLIE GARDE,-ESQ.
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 9
2000 P Street, N.W.
Suite 611 10 Washington, D. C. 20036 11 12 On behalf of Oliver.B. Cannon & Sons, Joseph Lipinski, and John J. Norris:
(N-)/ 13 JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ.
PETER THORNTON, ESQ.
14 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
15 Washington, D. C.
16 17 18 19 20 21 t'%
- \ _- 2 23 24 Ace-Federd Repo,ters, Inc.
25
23737
~1 CONTENTS BOARD 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM 3
John J. Norris(Resumed)
/~' . by Mr. Gallo(Resumed) 23738 c
by Mr. Treby(Continued) 23740 4 by Mr. Roisman 23781 by Mr. Watkins 23798 5 by Mr. Traby 23809 Ralph A. Trallo 6
by Mr. Gallo' 23820
'by Mr. Roisman 23838 7 by Judge Bloch 23888 by Mr. Roisman(Continued) 23891 8 .by Mr. Watkins 24022 9 RECESSES:.
10 A.M. --23778 A.M. - 23819 NOON - 23894
. LAY-IN - NORRIS. EXHIBIT 11, Pages 23748 and 23749.
12 LAY-IN - TESTIMONY OF MR. TRALLO, Pages 23822 through 23837.
] - =) 13 LAY-IN- TRALLO EXHIBIT 1, Pages 23996 through 24004.
LAY-IN - TRALLO EXHIBIT 2, Pages 24-24 through 24026.
-15 EXHIBITS 16 NUMBER-DESCRIPTION -IDENTIFIED- RECEIVED 17 Exhibit 11 - Administrative Work Order 23747- 23747 Exhibit 12 - Letter, 6/22/84, from Wineman 23816
,9 to Graves.
Exhibit l1 - Trallo, Confidential document -23995 23995 20 Exhibit 2 - Trallo, Memo, 11/10/83, Unit 1 24023 24023 21 Containment.
f3
- ! ,1 22 23 24 i Ace. Federal Repo,ters, Inc,
'25
(
.21560.0- 23738 BRT.
l' P, R O C E E D I_ N_ G_ S,
.2 JUDGE BLOCH: The hearing will come to order.
3 .The. Chairman.is pleased to welcome back Judge Grossman.
4 We understand that Mr. Gallo has a couple of clarifying 5 questions at this point.
6 Whereupon, 7- JOHN J. NORRIS 8 was recalled and, having bpen previously duly sworn, was 9 examined and testified as follows:
'10 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed)
-11 BY MR. GALLO:
'W -
' 12.
.O Mr. Norris?
.13 ' cA Yes, sir.
14 O' Do you have your prepared direct testimony in 15- fronts of you?
16 A Yes, sir.
~17 Q Do you have a correction you would like to make.
18 to page 4?
19 A Yes, sir.
20 Q Would you explain and make the correction for us, 21- please?
d )' 22 A In the second paragraph on page 4 where I say I .
~23 began work immediately, I-looked at -- I conducted a 2, walkdown of-the containment -- I was incorrect. What.I
- 25. should have said is I looked at, .on July 13th,'the intake
/
____.._._m.--
r:
.y
~21560.0 23739 CRT-
) 1 structure and'the balance of plant area, which was-the 2 turbine room. I would like to delete, because it doesn't
~3- 'really convey what I was trying to say, the words " acquaint 4 imyself with the plant layout and the ongoing coating work."
5 Q So how would the sentence now read?
6 A The sentence should read, "I looked at the-intake structure and' balance of plant areas; period -- on 7
-8 July 13th."'
9 Q. What role, or reliance did you place on your 10 review of the' intake structure and the balance of plant 11 areas on July 13, in formulating the scope of the matters
- 12 referred to in your July 15th~ letter at the top of page 5?
13 A It had very little influence'on the eight points 14 .I wrote in my July 15, 1983 letter.
15 0 -You say very little --.did it have.any?
16 A Yes, it did.
17 Q- Will you explain in what way?
18 A When I left the plant my car was parked just.
19 'outside the entry' gate at the plant. As I left the plant 20 I stopped and-looked at some painters.who were working on 21 the Gantry crane over the intake pumps and I noticed that If_
G( ,, . 22 the Gantry; crane had been completely scaffold.with safe
- 23 - way-type scaffolding. There 'were quite a few people on 24 the scaffolding and on the crane itself, and'it didn't 25 appear that much work was getting done. It didn't appear
21560.0 23740 BRT
() 1 ithat the' people were working very effectively.
2 'O Which item in your letter of July 15 did that 3 experience relate to?
4 A That would relate to the first item, production.
5 0 I see.
6 MR. GALLO: That's all the clarifying questions 7 I have. Thank you.
- 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you, Mr. Gallo. Mr. Treby?
9 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 10 BY MR. TREBY:
11 Q Perhaps one last item about these eight items in n.
k_) 12 your July 15th letter. Were they also based on your-13 experience in the coating areas, in that they may be major 14 subdivisions of a coating process?
15 A . Sir, in my experience these eight points are 16 usually the areas where you might find problems on a job..
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know the extent to which 18 those eight areas came from your conference on the' site on 19 the 13th?
20- THE WITNESS: No, sir. As best as I can recall, 21 I -- sometime between the time I left the site'and the l u ,) 22 time I wrote the letter, I thought about, you know, what
'23 we could do, what areas we should look at. And sometime 24 between the time I was at the site and the time I sat down 25 and drafted the letter, these eight points seemed to me to
' 215 6 0 ~. 0 - 23741 BRT
/
(]_j ; 1 be the appropriate things to look at.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: To your mind, they are not 3 . connected at all to the discussions you had on the site on 4 the-13th?
'5 THE WITNESS: Well, certainly there's a 6 connection there. I don't recall enough of the 7 ~ conversation on the 13th to specifically say one item is 8 based on this particular point in the conversation on July 9 13th. I know that we did not discuss it in a 1 through 8- - -
10 type thing; let's look at all of these things and at -- at 11 the July 13th meeting.
- s-O 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know whether the letter was
-13 an action item left with you at the end of the meeting on 14 the 13th?
15 THE WITNESS: The letter was certainly an action 16 item for me after the meeting of July 13th because I had 17 to communicate in some way what_I was' going to do and what 18 I thought we should do. I don't know that I -- I 19 certainly didn't give it a great deal of thought.
'20 JUDGE BLOCH: Give what a great deal of thought?-
21 THE WITNESS: The eight points. These are -- I A-
_, f 22 believe I~ thought that'these are just the things that we 23 should probably be looking at if we are going to be 24: effective in looking at the coating program.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: It would look like, from the fact 4
M4 ., -..w, r , ,w+-, ,e.. ,- g -., ..-a -~.-r - .+ w, e,--. 4-e-.4,-,-y,r.-ec- -rt-p-9--g%e-p,- -v- r
2 i
-21560.0- 23742
~BRT
/~
(,T j . l_ you wrote it on the 15th and had the meeting on the 13th, 2 that a purpose of the meeting on the 13th was to help you-3 know what the site wanted you to do. Is that not the case?
4 THE WITNESS: As I remember it, on July 13th, as li LI said yesterday, Mr. Merritt and Mr. Tolson really'didn't 6 know what.the problems were. They didn't know what the.
"7 root cause was of the coating problem. And the only way I
'8 can characterize the meeting and what was said is that 9 Mr. Tolson felt it was an engineering construction problem
. 10 and Mr. Merritt felt like it probably -- it could have
-- 11 been a quality control problem. They.just didn't know.
C
.\m/ ' 12. JUDGE BLOCH: So weren't these areas the areas
- 13 you would have to look at in order to be able to. help the-y 14 , clients to understand the nature of the problem that they 15 ;had perceived, and brought you to the site for?
L1-6 THE WITNESS: .These eight points, sir, and 17 probably if;I' spent more time;I would have come up with-18- more' points and 1,f I spent with more time I would have 19 come,up with subparagraphs.and subsubparagraphs, similar 20 .to the audit checks and some of the other things we have 21- been11ooking at.
, ~ 22 I just did not spend enough time on this letter and I-
- 23 didn't think enough about it to_.get into any real -- any other~ detail.
/25 These~particular, these eight points seemed to me to be
'21560.0 23743 BRT
). 1 the things that -- to be the areas where there might be ,
2 problems.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: Was it your view that these eight 4 points are unrelated to the points discussed with you on 5 the 13th or.are they related?
6 THE WITNESS: No, they are related. I just 7' don' t know how exactly they relate to the conversation 8 other than they characterized the coating program as 9 having some problems. They really didn' t know what tdus 10 problems were. And I felt like these were areas that we 11 should look at and that might lead us to some more f
?s-) 12 information on what the problems were.
13 . JUDGE BLOCH: I.know from your other testimony 14 that, as a consultant you think1your principal role in
- 15. life is to live and breathe for your client, to do a job 16 that your. client wants. Isn't it'the case that this.was 17 written -in order to do the job that the client wanted?
18 THE WITNESS: It was certainly written in order 19- to let the client know that this is what I thought I could l -.
L 20 look at and do some good for them.
'21 JUDGE BLOCH: And you thought it would be g)
(_ '22 responsive to their needs, didn't you?
23- THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Treby?
['
25- BY MR. TREBY:
)
- _ - _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ . _ . _ . - .. . _ _ - _ . _ . _-. _ _ _ __ .. 3
21560.0 23744 BRT
/ ~3 s ) 1 Q I have nothing further on that subject. I'm 2 going to a different subject.
3 I'm going to show you a two-page document called an 4 administrative work order that we received in discovery 5 from O.B. Cannon. Do you recognize that document?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 0 was it a document prepared by you?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 O Do you know about when that document was 10 prepared by you?
11 A No, sir. The document is undated. I can only 12 make an assumption about the day that this document was 13 written.
14 O Well, do you think that it was prepared sometime 15 between July 13th and the end of the month?
16 A I believe it was prepared on or about July 15th, 17 1983.
18 0 What was the purpose for which the document was 19 prepared?
20 A When we start any project at all with the 21 company, a work order has to be written in order to get
.r\
(j 22 the machinery in motion.
23 O And who would you have provided copies of this 24 work order to?
25 A This document is a form, four- or five-part
'21560.0 23745 BRT
'tm
) 1 carbon form, tear-apart form, and there's automatic 2 distribution to the accounting department, the production 3 department, the project manager, the file, another copy 4 that we call a travel file -- a travel copy, which is 5 meant to go to a briefing-type file that we might carry to 6 a job site, and there may be another copy but I can't 7 recall right now.
8 0 You say a copy goes to the project manager. Who 9 would that have been, for this particular project?
10 A In this particular instance it would have been 11 me, sir.
s_ / 12 O Was a copy of this document sent to Mr. Lipinski?
13 A A copy, several copies were sent to Philadelphia.
14 There is no -- I cannot recall -- I don't believe in the 15 form that there's an automatic copy for the quality 16 control department. I can only speculate that 17 Mr. Lipinski got a copy because Mr. Trallo would have 18 gotten a copy, and Mr. Lipinski worked for Mr. Trallo.
19 O Once Mr. Lipinski was chosen to do some work on 20 this project --
21 A I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, sir.
22 O Once Mr. Lipinski was chosen to do some work on 23 the project, would he have gotten a copy of this document, 24 at least at that point?
25 A He should have gotten a copy. I just can't
i 21560.0 23746 IRT rs
() 1 vouch for the fact that he personally got a copy.
2 O I would like to direct your attention to the 3 paragraph on page 2 that's entitled " personal log."
4 A Yes, sir.
5 O Could you tell us what was the intent of that 6 paragraph? What kind of personal log were people who 7 worked on the project supposed to maintain or keep?
8 A Would you let me take a few seconds to read it, 9 sir?
10 0 Absolutely.
11 A Yes, sir?
k/ 12 O Having now looked at it, could you answer the 13 question as to what kind of personal log, or what is that 14 paragraph intended to convey to the people working on the 15 project?
16 A That anybody that was in receipt of this work 17 order should have kept a log so that the -- a narrative 18 could accompany our invoice.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: What kind of log?
20 THE WITNESS: As I said, just a rough log, day 21 by day -- one liners of what you are doing, so there would
) 22 be proper backup to the invoices.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: Did that refer to some kind of 24 company practice or procedure?
25 THE WITNESS: No, sir. Again, most of our --
21560.0 23747 1 RT j 1 most of my work is done on a lump sum basis where there's 2 no need to justify a bill to a client. Since we were 3 working on, essentially a time and material basis, I felt 4 that we should have a little narrative there to explain 5 what we were doing and why we charged them for certain 6 work on a certain day.
7 BY MR. TREBY:
8 O Would a trip report have satisfied the 9 requirements of that parag raph?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 MR. TREBY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move
)
~> 12 that this two-page document be bound into the transcript 13 as this point and received as evidence in this proceeding.
14 JUDGE BLOCH: There being no objection, the 15 motion is granted.
16 MR. ROISMAN: Can we have it marked as the next 17 Norris exhibit number also?
18 JUDGE BLOCH: That would be Norris ll? I have 19 some problem with the quality of that particular copy.
20 I'm just wondering what would happen in the next iteration.
21 Does anyone have a better copy?
,c 22 MR. ROISMAN: No. I was just looking at mine.
23 It looks like it has got the same flaw.
24 (Norris Exhibit 11 identified and received.)
25 (The document follows:)
~
OLIVER B. CANNON Q SON. INC. .
WORK ORDER NO.
Jos NUMBER : !!U301 23748 Taxas Utilitica Serviccu, Inc. -
NAME : Coutancho Peak Steau E1uctric Station (OcADON : Glon Roso, Texas *
/m FOR: OLIVER 8. CANNON & SON, INC.
FORs FOR:
A0:iII!ISTRNfIVE UOni; ORD' M Rcfor to Tenac Ucilitic.; Ccaoracing Co. Durchauc Ordar no. CPF 1G245 unica ic attachua. Essentially, Y;;cCO .anta un to caviaa th2a oa tha currcat coating effort la the Unic 1 Co:.:ancho Pea::
!;..:3. 'Ja ay u.l .2ci2 ic ally : tant var co..:. :ca u n naa aavice o. .
Pro.metica, dor;; Procaoure::, schu 6uliat.,, Uchiains a Paiatur Gu;11dicatic.t, ::. aa:;e.. aat of Coaziat! JJfort an.i the Coaciag Sjacificucica . I .::at Lc c:.tunaci;.c, au J. . errite c;.:7haui:ia.1 to no, tua .: t.a ey aru lavt ico.tiaj fr,r icwl, uiaaed roi,0rta aut .
[m') practical aatn uad bolca auggcSciona to aal ts ther.: rjot enc coatins ', r o .; r a..t on traca 50 taan taay cc.a load fuci .>/
12/3UO3. ,
IUVOICIi'G ncfor to 700 ;icacaulo ou paga 2 of 5 ca CPP 1G2',5. All clava cheota vill ou c.u.);.littod to i.JO of crie paraca charijing ti:a.) to tha i,ro3cua, u!. ca a co?y to Daobic i!ericia in una ilouate.1 ci:fico. Sluilarly, a acparate at:.:.casca acecounc vill be u a..:oi t te..i L:.rc ar.,a nur.tal approval channeln. 1;o.;avar , 11:3 c a.;.1 en aabau oa c.., voacaer i..cl u ai n., 10. car rent 31 aaa aira.i.a chargea .,:iich are aornally concrally 311103 otc. Circlu your cach a::poncca u.iica 9111 ha roi::.:Jurcoa la cha nor..isi Jc.;:nica.
Pleaue note the raucrictiaa:3 on e.00n:;ca for :.:cala, car roatal, ,
air travel, anu nocci c:.fcauca. Jabortain..laat,ua.aaaou uill Ja reitteaurac6 in cau no rr.nl faaniaa, aut . ia.: a cuc a ecparace a::.,;anaco account au cntertuia.c. cat cavancou arc acc c a i..:a a c ;a a l a . -
o U ,Invoico itenc t, taru P : u..yenaea oa t.a.,,uac *a0ta vita an Aujuat 30th cut 0 21. c a :a. ' M .:.:1 :tro liac 30. Iavoice tiio finen f.ac u
'J 3,000 ca Au.auo c M e.. c.'..ich in daa im Supca..Ler 15ca. Chard.:o occuria.; ar:or Au.unc s 30cn vill ba billei on ti.nce..:aar 30hn, ecc. A nuu F i r.uJ i'ca eill da aavatiacea with C*fiI ir t.,uc uerviceu arc rcs.naccoa a.s car Saptc ..>.Byuc 1Sca.
Clieded by: _
go/( A / / M o:.., NMU
,g,- F"OUNDED 1Of G Daco no wcoome m e G% _ -__-___.______ _ _
a p- .
OI.IVliR 11. CANNO'N & SON, INC.
4 . l 23749 WORK ORDER NO.
Acniniutrativo flock Order '
!!0301 .
Pa.jo 2 Of 2 m
b -
COi:P.1:GPO.iM."C: AliD IMPORTS n Recco.cinai.ation Lui.1 for tiniu project 13 :aintained in the 1 uu:, ton utrice. All corre. Ocadenco siitit the cutitoi.ior *.1111 <jo out ov 2r J.L ' u ui.jnnture via letter of traa.:..;ittal. '01)tain a npaci le att:Lur cor all doct:., ton tu generateu 0:1 titia 1;roject troi.1 Debaic /.aricle in una ilou.iton offico.
Pl:P.."UMhL LOG .
coparato froa aty lotterti, corresponilmion, pleano I;oop a rouju lo:) of silia c yott are d.:1:ig .fitu.1 t.i.no in citarged to the project no clia c a narrativ.2 can acco'::pany our i:tvoice for ci.ie a'id c;;pon:;os . O tib..:i c a copy n2 UN12 t o J 0;:
ny Augout 29 t. . :c o la 'i:o c I:cucto:t 01:fici t::at JJd - n'.! t'JO can procaco an invoice oy t;io 21osa n,: unaiaeuc oi ..uJunt 30tn.
Refer any qui.;tiama i.o JJi or n3R l's iiit: .Wr.ina co .
o L) 5 D
o
,)
v
/
/<Y .
0
- e. , g ,
Off
, ./
Cf. ded by:.-_ - - -
O'*
l~ OUNDt.I) 1910 n_ ._
M
21560.0 23750 ERT
~
r
) 1 ,
JUDGE BLOCH: There's a set of initials to 2 receive reports on time. I take it that's the bookkeeper, 3 MBO or something --
4 THE WITNESS: MJO is Michael Olson.
5 BY MR. TREBY:
6 O At the bottom of page 2 it says "by" and thnn 7 there's some sort of a scratching. Is that your signature?
8 A Unfortunately, yes, sir. Even the bank gives me 9 a hard time about that.
10 0 Directing your attention now to page 1 of your 11 prepared testimony, answer 12.
12 With regard to this preliminary mooting that you had 13 with Mr. Lipinski prior to going into the mooting with the 14 company officials, was that a very long mooting or was it 15 a brief meeting?
16 A It was a very brief meeting.
17 0 You indicate in your answer here that you wanted 18 to coordinate his activities with yours, and that he gave 19 a quick review of his activities at the site.
20 At that timo did you give him any review or discussion 21 of what activities you had conducted to dato?
) 22 A I don't believe so, sir. As I recall the 23 meeting it was in a hallway in the officos there. Ho 24 indicated to mo that, at that time, that they woro 25 committed to ANSI 1101.4, and mentioned words to tho
21560.0 23751 BRT
/D 1 _) 1 offect that there were some losers in the QC department, 2 some ex-Cannon employees that he know.
3 JUDGE BLOCils lie used the word " losers"?
4 Tile WITNESS: I definitely recall the word 5 " losers" at that meeting -- as I remember that meeting now, 6 sir.
7 BY MR. TREBY:
8 O Do you recall any other portions of the 9 discussion that you and he may have had at that time?
10 A Not really, sir.
11 JUDGE BLOCII: Are you sure it was used in the
,-)
'. 12 context of the people being losers, rather than the people 13 fooling that they were losers?
14 Tile WITNESS: I believo he said there were some 15 losers in the QC department. I got the impression he was 16 talking about some of the inspectors that he know from, I 17 believe it was WPPS or one of the other projects he was 18 annociated with.
19 BY MR. TREDY:
20 Q Well, the next sentence of your answer 12 21 Indicates that ho stated some concerns with the quality
) 22 control program.
23 A I believe that ho mentioned --
24 MR. GALLO: Objection. There's no question.
25 Wait until you haar the question.
21560.0 23752 BRT r~%
j i s ) 1 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, sir. ,
2 BY MR. TREBY:
3 Q Do you recall what those concerns were? .
4 A I believe he said that he had some -- there l
5 might be some problems with material storage, painter 6 qualification, and possibly some of the other things he 7 mentioned in his August 8 trip report.
8 Q Did he discuss at that time the need for
! i 9 conducting an audit to determine the extent of those 10 problems?
11 A No, sir. No, sir. s t ,es
(-) . 1:2 Q Could you explain what the last part of that P
13 sentence, of the last sentence in answer A12 means?
14 A It's my recollection that on July 28th either 15 just prior to tho' meeting or out in the hall or during the 16 meeting, he couldn't tell if there were problems there 17 unless he did an audit. I'm not exactly clear exactly 18 when he made that statement but it was certainly on July 19 28th.
20 JUDGE BLOCil When he referred to the losers in 21 the QC department, do you know whether he was referring to
' 22 the inspectors or to the management?
23 THE' WITNESS: It is my impression that he was
. 24 talking about some ex-Cannon employees. That would have 25 been quality control inspectors.
s a
rv & -ar v-.=r--- e ,_v e- - _- -
21560.0 23753' CRT
() 1- JUDGE BLOCH: Is there something that he said 2 that you recall that gave you that impression?
3 THE WITNESS: All I can recall that he-said is, i
4 "they've got some losers here in the QC department."
5 JUDGE BLOCH: That could just as readily have 6 applied to the' supervisor as it did to the workers?
7 THE WITNESS: It could have and some of my 8 recollection.about the losers is -- I've gathered from 9 other information as we have gotten closer to this hearing. !
10 But it seems to me that on July 28th, just prior to the-11- meeting we had with Mr. Merritt, that he mentioned to me D(l 12 that there were some losers in the QC department.
13 .If he was referring to management, at that point in 14 time, I was unaware of'it.
15 BY MR..TREBY:
16 Q Did he-h, ave any. recommendations to make about' 17 that matter of' losers in the quality control area?
18 A Not that-I-can recall, sir.
I i 19 Q When you went'into the meeting with the company- ,
! 20 officials on the 20th you indicated that after your 21- preliminary remarks about the recommendations you already "
L
~) 22 made, you turned it over to Mr. Lipinski. Did he then l - q,/
f l 23 just. repeat, pretty much, what he had told you in the_ hall-L 24- way?
! 25 A I don't remember -- at that point in time I l'
[E w &
]
+
-21560.0 23754 BRT
) 1 recall he outlined the problems: Painter qualification,
.2 material storage; and he indicated there could be other 3 , problems. But'he couldn't really tell without an audit.
4 MR. TREBY:- All right.
- 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Did the strength of the concerns 6 'he' presented suggest serious concerns about the whole
'7 painting program to you?
I~ -8 THE WITNESS: . No, sir. In fact, he presented 9 them in such a low key manner that I really didn't pick up . ,
- 10. on the -- what he obviously thought was a serious 11 . situation. He said words, as 1 remember it: You.could
- ( Q); 12 have problems'in this area; you could have problems in.
13 that area.
14 JUDGE BLOCH: Maybe it was low key because he -
15' assumed.that theEcompany, learning about^that, would be 16 very. diligent in correcting the problems. He-didn't think 17 there_was any need to be confrontational.
~
THE WITNESS: Well, I wouldn't have wanted him' 18L ,
, 19' you;know, to.be confrontational. I feel now thatrif he 20 felt-that strongly, as obviously, as he'did; when he wrote
. 21
- the trip report, it didn't come offE-- didn't come across j(_j ,'
22 strong'enough to me - for me to be' aware that he' thought 23 there were really,-really serious. problems.
.: (24 JUDGE BLOCH - Weren't they kind of key areas:
25 . Material storage, worker' qualification, quality of paint
21560.0 23755 "ERT J ) 1 in place? I mean those are three of the things. There's 2 almost nothing left.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Well, he said -- I 4 .think the problem I had is he said "you could have." Like, 5 "I really don't know, but you could have." And it just 6 doesn't come off -- didn't come off that strong to me.
7- JUDGE BLOCH: Even though he was the quality 8 control inspector of your company and had worked at 9 several nuclear sites?
10 THE WITNESS: Well, in retrospect, obviously I 11 should have done something then or when I got the memo.
,Q.e im 12 But-it really didn't impress me as being something at that 13 point in time, in his mind, as being really a critical 14 . matter. "You could have."
15 JUDGE BLOCH: He was willing to say that with 12 16 people ~present with engineers and Dr. Iotti was there --
17 THE WITNESS: This is a different meeting, sir.
18 July to --
19 JUDGE BLOCH: The smaller meeting? I confused 20 that yesterday; when the list was presented. Thought it 21 pertained to this meeting, it doesn't?
O
(.,/ 22. THE WITNESS: No,. sir.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: What does the list pertain to?
24 MR. WATKINS: I believe the witness testified 25 the list pertained to attendees of the August 9th meeting.
___...a
^
t . ,
\'
A.
~21560.0 23756 CRT
("s
- 4) ', 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
2 MR. ROISMAN: The list is inside the Kissinger 3 report.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: But he was willing to present it 5 to Mr. Merritt and Mr. Tolson who were the key people who 6 were working for the clients on this problem?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. He said, as I have gone 8 over his memo later and as I have tried to recall the s
9 -conver,sation, his memo was very accurate in the things
.10 that he mentioned. But, again, my comprehension of What 11 he was trying to say is that it was very low key. At
- O(_/ '12 least it came across that way to me.
-- 13 It could be that I'm just not attuned enough to quality 14 control to pick up.on it. But it just seemed like~a
, . - N O@ , . 15 business as usual-type statement. And it wasn't any big "h-
% ,, deal to me.
M-17' JUDGE BLOCH: Could you tell from the meeting 18 whether the company officials thought it was very low key?
19 THE. WITNESS: As I recall Mr. Merritt, later on 20, in~the meeting when he believed Mr. George, Mr. Merritt
~ 21 ' t - m'entioned-Mr.-Lipinski's concerns and assigned the same.
q
(_f 22 w'e'ight to them that he did my. observations. And I recall
c
.. 23 that he~gave a very extensive summary of a lot of w+ .
':2 4 information'to Mr. George, and seemed to spit it out 25 verbatim Which was kind of remarkable to me, a 4
- q -
1
121560.0 23757 BRT
(_j 1 JUDGE BLOCH: One of the things his notes 2 indicated was that he thought you had stated that there 3 were problems in proving compliance with ANSI standards?
4 THE WITNESS: That could have been something 5 else that Mr. Lipinski said that went over my head.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: I thought that was something you 7 said.
8 THE WITNESS: That would be in the context of --
9 getting back to my prior testimony -- that would be 10 'getting back to'whether or not they were obligated to 11 comply'ith w ANSI 101.4; which I didn't know about until O
(/ 12 early in the morning of July 28th.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: But at the meeting you said'that 14 they were obligated; right?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. As I recall we said.
16 they were committed. I don't recall -- at that point in 17 time I didn't know whether they' knew they were committed 18 or not. I'm sure they-knew and they just hadn't indicated 19 it to me. -I'm not "sure." I believe they knew and just e 20 didn't indicate it to me.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Merritt's note, if you recall ---
p L\_) . 22 you can ask to'look at it if you want, but he said they 23' .had trouble proving they . complied with that ANSI ' standard?
24 Is that something you said.or Mr. Lipinski said?
25 THE WITNESS: Can I take a look-at that, please?
21560.0 23758 BRT
~s' '
1 JUDGE BLOCH: Can someone find that?
2 MR. WATKINS: I believe you still-have it, t 3' Mr. Norris. ,
4- JUDGE BLOCH: I think it's Exhibit 3 -- to be 5 provided.
'6{ MR. TREBY: Is this Mr. Merritt's notes?
7 JUDGE BLOCH: 23290 -- 23390, which is the
, 8. transcript of-the 7th.
9 MR. ROISMAN: That's in. That's not "to be 10 provided." It's number 3 and 4 that were missing.
- Page 11- 23390.
- g .;
~\ / - 12' MR. TREBY:' I have the copy that's in the
- 13, transcript.
1 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, my recollection.was 15' fcorrect. As I remembered, this note was, you know, kind 16 . of .a preamble to the main meeting that they were committed -'
- 17 to the ANSI standards.
l-
- 18 JUDGE BLOCH: It doesn't just say.they'were
~ ~
- , 19 : committed. I.mean he obviously -- he didn't even make a
' ^
note they were committed. That may-be because he knew l21 - that. . The note says " problem proving what we have done."
- m i )f _
22 .THE WITNESS: I -believe he's referring - to the
' 23~ retrofit. program. As you remember the conversation, or.
= 24: -the-initial conversations and.the initial information from
, 25- Mr. Tolson indicated that they hadn't been-keeping:the P
h a
---w-A--_--- s---,-------a.--..-A-x-- ------.------------,ww.,_.,--,- -
i 21560.0 23759 BRT
(,) 1 records required by the standards for a period of time.
2 And they were involved-in a retrofit program.
3 I can only conclude from this that, 1, we reiterate --
4 we said that, if you'are not -- you are committed and if 5 you are not following -- doing the documentation you could 6 have a problem and/or, 2, possibly even the retrofit E7 program might not be adequate. L'm speculating on these 8 notes, sir.
- 9. JUDGE BLOCH: So now there's a statement by 10 Mr. Tolson during the course about the retrofit program?
11 THE WITNESS: Sometime during that point in. time
.s
\msb 12 Mr. Tolson mentioned to me that they weren't complying to f
13 the ANSI 101.4 standards and to rectify that situation 14 .they had gotten into a retrofit program.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: Was that~at the meeting? You 16 .might want to look at --
17 THE WITNESS: I don't-think that the -- I 18 remember Joe saying they were committed to 101.4. I know 19 .that was an item that was mentioned at the beginning of 20 the meeting.
- 21. JUDGE BLOCH: Wait, - let's look at fir. Lipinski's iq
.. j
_ 22 ~ . notes because his notes say that you said that.
. -23 THE WITNESS: Before I turned the meeting over 24 to Mr..Lipinski, I believe I said: .You are committed to 25 ANSI 101~.4 in the FSAR.
-- . _ _ . _=__:___
21560.0 23760 BRT i.
() 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Then who said something that 2 raised-the question about a problem in proving what was 3 done, pursuant to that? Or did someone say something that 4 led to that?
5 THE WITNESS: I don't recall exactly what was 6 said about that.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: In the context of 101.4, if you 8 don't have the proper documentation you do have a problem 9 proving what you've done.
10 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask 11 that the witness be given the instruction that we gave him
.g(- / - 12 the other day again.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Only testify about what you
'14 remember.
15 MR. WATKINS: And if he doesn't remember --
' 16 - JUDGE BLOCH: Just say you don't remember if.you 17 don't remember.
18 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that what'you are doing? Are 20- you just speculating now?
21 -THE WITNESS: Yes. I have -- I'm just going on
) 22 Mr. Lipinski's trip report and these notes. I'm doing my 23 best-to recall'what was said.and I'm having difficulty 24 recalling.
25 ' JUDGE BLOCH: Is it the case that Mr. Watkins --
4
-21560.0 23761 BRT
, () 1 as Mr. Watkins is suggesting that you really have no 2- recollection of either you or Mr. Lipinski saying what 3 problem there was in line with 101.47
, 4 THE WITNESS: Sir, I have a very poor 5 recollection for conversation.
6 MR. GALLO: Answer the question.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Just say "yes" or "no." .Do you
~
8 remember or don't you remember?
9 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: That means you don't remember?
11- THE WITNESS: No, sir.
- O
\_/1 12 MR. WATKINS: That means you don't remember:
13 "No, sir"?
14 Do you remember, Mr. Norris?
15: THE WITNESS: No, sir.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Treby?
17 BY MR. TREBY:
18 0 I would like~to.now.ask you some-questions about .
~ 19 the August 9th visit to the site, in that timeframe.
20 Did all of_the O.B. Cannon . personnel- come to the area 12 1 of'the site about'the same. time?
- 22 A' Yes,-sir.
23' Q Did you.have an opportunity to get together 24 before the August 9th site visit -tx) have a brief caucus or 25 discussion among yourselves?
. . .. a . . - , : . . _ . _ - . _ _..a..__ . _ _ . . . . - - _ , , , . _ . _ ,
_:- ~ , . - 4 .
l 1
l l
i 1
- 21560.O! 23762 BRT'
)
u[.-(~ 4),
1 A~ Yes, sir. In the context I -- we drove together, 2 Mr. Lipinski, Mr. .Roth and myself, drove from DFW to Glen 1
+ 3' Rose the night before the meeting.- Joe and Mr. Roth were 4 'doing some talking.. We were driving through a very bad
~
,5 rainstorm and I was concentrating more on my driving than
- 6. I was listening to Mr. Roth and Mr. Lipinski.
17 'O You were the driver?
8 A Yes, usually that's -- unfortunately. ;
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, did you get -- 'I'm sorry --
10 BY MR. TREBY:-
11 Q Do you recall whether.there were any discussions L12 . about.the July:28th site' visit or meeting?-
13 14 I believe it was discussed, but I do not recall 14 the conversation, sir.
15, O Do you recall whether there was any discussion 16' of Mr. Lipinski's trip'-reportfof that -- of his visit?
- 17. 14 No . : Theftrip~ report.did not come up. . In the
- 18. context of the' trip report -- I certainly didn't:know what-W 19' was~in.the trip report-before. August 15th. . Period.
20- JUDGE BLOCH: .What was the tone of that.
21 conversation?- ,
v~ -
Li : ' 22 _THE' WITNESS: I don't know. It:seems to me it.
~
23~ ;was general chatter. I don't recall. I was concentrating 124 , on myfdriving'rather than what they were saying; but if l 25 something of. substance'was'said, I believe I would have
- 3 Y P $ T* 1-f 4-
$e$ -CD# 7 y*- y ( es-----g477 VTS Tgf'T"a ? &= ?M 'e 4%Fe.>"%= N *?$ $phT T T7* g? -M v $e r* g *
- twN g eP9"7g4=p=he e g v1MT = W hW gevt-W eiu 7 T TW*1FT
- P TTNTT e DM T'
, -. . - . . . - . , ~ . . . . - _ . - _ . . . - - . .
. - . - ~. .
l 21560.0' 23763 '
BRT ;
- - ( ) 1 picked up on it, and I.believe it was just general
-2 after-work chatter. I don't think-it had anything to do --
4 13 ' substantive . -- to do with the meeting the next day. ,
4- s BY MR. TREBY:
1; 5~ Q Well, in the course of that sort of general ch'atter were you talking about the kinds of people you 26
- '7- were going to be meeting with?
8 A Sir,- I don't recall.
9 Q You just don't rec'all?-
- 10. A No.
11 ' JUDGE BLOCH: Was there any heat generated
- 12 between Mr. .Lipinski and Mr. Roth?
13 MR. GALLO: Objection. The witness has , ,
l'4 ~ repeatedly said he doesn't recallsthat conversation. I ,
15 don't know how he can measure. heat since he-can't: recall ,
~
- 16- the' conv'ersation. . There's-got to.be a point'inLtime_when 17 . probing has-to stop, and I suggest-it's with thatjguestion',
18; -your. Honor.-
' 19 JUDGE BLOCH: -I have a. feeling;he cani say
[ ~
20; whether'he remembers that there was heat. And you.can do 21 ;that - -you canEknow that.without even knowing 2.what.the
('(s.
22- words-were.
~ '
- 23 MR. GALLO: .True,'he could do that,' and in.and' _
24 of itself-it seems to me an unimportant _ objection;'but-
-25! :this witness is, on 'the stand now for the third -day.
' ~
.I am h
9
- - . . .. . . . - . . . - . . - . . . ~ . .. . . - . . . -
4 21560.0 23764 BRT t
(..(_)
_ . : 1: getting increasingly concerned that four witnesses are l 2 ' unable to be presented across any reasonable time before 3 this Licensing Board. The reason it's not able to do so 4 :is because the_ questioning is repetitious, incessant, and
.- 5 dwells on insignificant matters, and I think we should 6 move _it along. That's the basis for my objection.
- s _ 7. MR. ROISMAN
- Mr. Chairman, does the board want-i 8 to invite comment on why-it_is taking so long to get i . .
9 .through the witnesses?
- 10. JUDGE B;IDCH:' No, I think we should just get 3
11 through the witnesses. Do you recall any heat in that
- 12 conversation, Mr. Norris?
13 THE WITNESS: No,. sir.
. 14' BY MR. TREBY:
'15 Q You have testified that you.got a copy of-the .
16 trip report on August 15th. -How did you get a copy on v
~ 17. that date?
1 18 A LOn or'about August 15th. By a process of.
4.
19 elimination we-determined'that= August 15th was'about the t.
-20 daterit would have gotten -- I would have seen it'in my 21- office in Houston.
ym., .
&_/ _ 22 .O All"right. You've now clarified wh'y you believe 6 " 1 23 that's'the correct date. How did you get it?. That is, 24- was it sent to you just.as intraoffice mail, or sent to.
25 l.you specifically.for.the case? Or just how did it come to
.y '
r Y
21560.0 23765 t BRT-
.( l be sent to your office?
2 'A I don't know. The first time I saw the memo it 3 was in my."in" basket. I can only assume how it got there.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: You are confident Mr. Lipinski 5 didn't hand it to you on the 9th? After all, he had 6 finished it and actually was bringing at least one copy to 7 the site. He didn't just hand it to you during that trip?
8 THE WITNESS: No, sir. The first time I saw it 9 was in my office. I remember very vividly reading it.
10 BY MR. TREBY:
11 O You have testified earlier that once you saw it, im k-) 12 you knew that we were going to end up in a hearing 13 discussing it. What's the basis for that statement?
14 A I. knew, based on what I know about the nuclear .
. 1.5 industry-in 1983 or '84 or 85, that once that memo got 16 out on the street it was going to get.in the public arena.
17 O' Have you had any prior experience testifying in' 18 nuclear, or NRC proceedings?
19 A' No, sir.
20, O ,Well, do you want to say anything ' further as to 21 why you thought it would get into the_public arena? Was t',
j,j 22 it.just-a gut feeling having read it that caused you to
~ 23 have that feeling?
24 . JUDGE BLOCH: I think Mr. Treby is directing
.25 your attention to the 15th, when you first saw-it.
,, - , w w. mm~ ,,w.- .,w.- - ._ ,,-,,, 7 ,,.,.-y,,,y-.,,-,.--c.g.-3 .z, .
9 r..n -
r- ee u-
21560.0 23766
~BRT r
( f 1 THE WITNESS: No, sir. Not on the 15th.
2' I'm sorry, on the 15th I didn't think that. When 3' _Mr. Merritt called me on October 10th I thought it would 4 get in the public arena.
5 BY MR. TREBY:
6 O So you didn't have those feelings when you first 7 saw it on the 15th of August?
'8 A I didn't think it would get in the public arena 9 when I first saw the memo.
10 Q You have already testified what your views you
-11 when you first saw it?
(~Y
's_/ 12' A Yes, sir.
13 Q On October 10th you got this feeling it was 14 going to get into the public arena.
15 A' Yes, sir.
16 O' .What' caused you~to have the feeling on October 17 10th?
18 A The memo was. damaging. For whatever. reason, it 19 was.a document that would be of help to-the Intervenors in
. -20 opposing the plant. And-I just knew that the document was 21 going to be exhaustively looked at in future months.
- ry .
(_) _ 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Are you saying that you don't 23 remember Mr. Merritt telling you that?
24- THE WITNESS: No, sir. Mr. Merritt didn't 25 mention that to me.
i
i 1
l 1
l 21560.0 23767 BRT l
l
/l . -1 Mr. Merritt -- as I' remember the call on or about 2 October 10th, Mr. Merritt asked me if I-knew about a memo, 3 ' signed by Joe Lipinski,-dated August 8th.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: It must have been a very brief 5 conversation?
6 THE WITNESS: It was extremely brief, sir. I 7 told him-I didn't, and I called Bob Roth then.
8 BY MR. TREBY:
9 -Q At that time did you call Mr. Lipinski? Do you 10 have any present recollection?
Lil A Which day are we talking about, sir?
kgl-s :12 O October 10th? Or perhaps the lith, sometime in 13 that timeframe?
14' A No, sir. I do not recall talking with 15 Mr. Lipinski on October 10th.-
16 My legal counsel has given me -- asked me-a lot of 17 questions about that. I have read Mr.-Lipinski's diary.
18 It indicates that he-talked to me on October loth.- I do 19 not. recall the conversation.
- 20. I was so angry on October 10th I don't believe I could 21 have talked with him on October 10th. I just was that
- /m J) 22' angry that I couldn't have carried on a civilized
'23 conversation.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: . Were you also angry enough so.-that -
-25 Tyou might not remember if you did call him?
____ _._______.__._m__i___.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . m__ __ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ ._x_
21560.0 23768~
SBRT-
-(,..) 1 THE WITNESS: That's a possibility. I was that
- 2. angry. It's a possibility, but it's a remote possibility, 3 sir.
'4 BY MR. TREBY:
5 -Q Well, would you have been so angry as to say: You ,
6 caused this problem, you handle it. kou call him up and 7 - talk to him about it"?
8- A No, sir. When I recall the memo, as I stated 9' earlier,'I thought the memo was partially a personal 10 attack on me.
11 - Mr. Merritt called. I recalled the memo instantly and
~
/f . 1:2 I -- as I said yesterday, I don't'want'to dwell on it. I
- 13. was extremely angry.
- 14 O Turning your attention now to the task force -
15 that'was formed by bur. Roth to go down to the site and li6 ' resolve the issues raised in the trip report, what was 17 your understanding of the role' that you.were-going to be 18 -p' laying on-this. task force?
19 A' LEarly,-a.very minor role. Mr. Roth had.
. 20 appointed Mr. Trallo task force' leader. Mr. Trallo did
~
21: not give me any specific areas to look at. And the~first
(,)- . 22 time we -- I don't know why...The first time we ever
. : 23 discussed or even started thinking about the dividing.up-
- :24 ~ the workload was just prior to the meeting on November
- 25' - 10th, or whenever it-was.
q i'O e' ~ei q - * - - - - = = P+NP=7 v'r=.* -
-P+4g -
dSO*t--T'i-t'V'WTNTTw i *e--'W*
21560.0 23769 BRT
(-).
( .1 O was that discussion that you have just testified 2 to on the site at Comanche Peak? What I'm trying to do is 3 just determine, was the first time you discussed this 4 matter when you all got back to the Comanche Peak site or 5 the location of the site, as opposed to having such a 6 discussion in your offices before any of you ever arrived
- / down there?
8 A As I recall -- there could have been. The first 9 substantive discussion -- or -- discussion that I recall 10 happening was, you know, when we got to the site for the 11 meeting. And then of course the meeting turned into e
dml% 12 something else other than what the task force was going ; to .--
13 was thought to be doing.
14 Q. Did you have any understanding that you were to 15 provide some sort of input into the task force report?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 O And what form would your input take? Were you 18 to submit some sort of written memo, or were you to just 19 talk to Mr. Trallo? Or what were you going to do?
- 20. A Up to the time we got to the meeting, you know,.
21 my input was an. unknown at,that particular point in time.
ik 22 O' After you had th'e meeting, was the type of input 23 .y ou were going to have, or the method by which you were 24 going to provide the input, clarified?
25 A No, sir. What the task force charter asked us g.,e-- - ..
21560.0- 23770 BRT
) l to do became moot sometime during the meeting at the site.
2- JUDGE BLOCH: Before you went to the meeting did 3 Mr. Trallo ask you for detailed information about what you
~. 41 knew about the site?
5 THE WITNESS: I don't recall, sir.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: Is it a question of a lack of 7 memory, or that he didn't?
8 THE WITNESS: It's a lack of memory. It's my 9 belief that there probably was some conversation --
10 - probably was a telephone conversation or two, but I cannot 11 ' recall those, sir.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you have any knowledge about 13 whether Mr. Trallo asked for detailed information from 14 .Mr. Lipinski?
15 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
16 BY MR. TREBY:
17 O When the task force report'had been drafted, at 18 least in the first draft by Mr. Trallo, did'he ask you.for 19 any input into the report?
20 'A I remember _at some point in time getting a copy 21 of the report for' comment. I did not do anything with it.
r
() 22- O So essentially the task force report has no 23 input in it from you at all?
24 A- That's correct, sir.
25 -Q You have made no contribution other than wy'q '9- y, mr v- =g y-- -g- r- p*-T wy- -*wg -- *e-cy---
- er r *w'e- "e=' -rw =r
21560.0 23771 BRT
,1(s,) 1 whatever discussions you may have had at the November --
2 A The only report --
3: O Let me finish my question.
4 A I'm sorry, sir. ;
5 0 You made no contributions other than whatever 6 discussions you may have participated in at the November 7 '10th or lith site visits?
8 A My only input to the report would have been the 9 conclusions that we drew after we caucused after the t
10 meeting; verbal conclusion.
11 JUDGE ~BLOCH: Prior to going to the site or on
~ (_) 12 the way to the site -- you weren't there when they arrived 13 at the site; is that right?
14 THE WITNESS: That's correct, sir.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: At any time prior to the visit to 16 .the site was there a telephone conversation or other
~17 meeting involving you, Mr. Lipinski, and Mr. Trallo?
18 Maybe Mr. Michaels as well?
19 THE WITNESS: No, sir. --No, sir. There was no --
20 we weren't in physical proximity to each other. There 21 could have been no meeting.
((~j) .. 22- JUDGE BLOCH: You never have conference calls?
-1 23 THE WITNESS:- No, sir. I would have remembered 24 'a conference call, and that certainly didn't occur.
25 BY MR. TREBY:
,.- , + , , , 3 3 - - , , . - . n, y --*-=4 ,,,.,y,,~ , , - - - - y ,.,,,.e,---r.--- , -- v e,,,
~
21560.0 23772 BRT kh 1 Q Do you recall whether the task force report had
- L a~date by which it was to be completed?
3 . A. It seems to me there was a suspense date, but I f4 can't recall it right now.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Suspense date coming from what?
6 . Where do you think that was --
7 THE WITNESS: It probably would have come from
- 8. Mr. Roth's memo initiating the task force.
9 BY MR. TREBY:-
~10 - Q. Do you recall any discussions when there was a
. 11 ' request for you'and Mr. Lipinski to meet with the 12' Applicant's attorneys in Washington, as to.the status of 13 the task force report?
- 14 A No, sir. Not by me. At that particular point
- 15' in-time there was a series of conversations involving
-li6 Mr. .Roth and the' Applicant's counsel that I was not privy
' 17' -to.
I can o:1y remember the meeting getting ' set up and -
~
18 y
'19 somebody asking me to be in Washington, and there being a.
.5M) - change and finally 1 showing up in Washington on, I believe 21 it was November 22, 1983.
i s_) 22 O And you had no role in any of the discussions
~ 2 3 -- - that may.have gone on-between the company and the~
24 Applicant's attorneys as to the selection of those dates?
25 JA No,. sir.
i c, , -.-m, /-,v-, ,-c., , . - ~ _ _ , . . . . .,,,y..y.c. ,.,,%-.4.--.,._o-, -<py,.. c 'w i'1 *v-+ -- er =w e ' w ' Y T
- w w
- t ~ e* e **r v " y-*' F9N---'--'m"'*'r-MM
21560.0- 23773 BRT
[I l JUDGE BLOCH: Did you have to reschedule other 2 business that you had planned for November 2nd in order to 3 be in that meeting?
4 THE WITNESS: I don't recall, sir. It's not 5 unusual for me to have to change my itinerary at the last 6 minute, so it's a routine thing for me.
-7 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you feel that you had a choice?
8 You could have said, "Let's put it off a couple of days 9 because I've got something else important."
10 THE WITNESS: I don't recall having said that,
- 11. sir.
(m T
ss) 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you recall whether or not you 13 felt that there was any choice on your part as to whether 14 Lyou were going to go to.the meeting right then or whether 15 you might have been able to put it off?
16 THE WITNESS: I don't recall, sir. I was 17 perfectly, you know, able and willing to go to the meeting.
18 When it occurred, as I. recall, wouldn't have.made any
'19 difference to me.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: You don't recall whether you were
- 21. . asked: "Are you available?" .Or whether you were just n
() 22~ told: "Come"?
~23 THE WITNESS: I don't recall, sir.
24 BY MR. TREBY:
25 O Earlier, there was some questioning in testimony,
1 21560.0 23774 1BRT i) 1- with you, about the fact that the Applicant's law firm 2 supplied counsel to Mr. Lipinski when he was talking with 3 the NRC Staff. Do you recall that testimony?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 .O And I believe you testified that you had some 6' sort of feeling at that point that Mr. Lipinski might be 7 getting into a personal problem area because of he was 8- talking with the Applicants, he was talking with.the NRC,'
.9 he-was talking with O.B. Cannon.
10 A Yes, sir.
- 11 Q Did you ever suggest to Mr. Roth that perhaps O.B.
O
(_/ 12 Cannon should be getting its own attorney at that pointito 13 talk with Mr. Lipinsk'i?
14 A No, sir. I certainly'do wish I had made that 15 recommendation, though.
16 .O As far as you know, did you -- did you ever-hear 17 from Mr. Roth or Mr. Lipinski that they may.have had any 18- discussions with the corporation's general counsel about 19 these kinds of questions?
-20 A No,-sir. ~The only conversations that I'm aware
. :21 of in the period before I went to -- well, in any period, l's .
!q,) 22 are the conversations that Mr. Roth had with Mr. Reynolds' E 23 firm.
. :2 4 -JUDGE BLOCH: I think you might have said 25 something about this the last time, but do you recall
21560.0 23775 BRT
^
/%
( ,/ 1 whether Mr. Lipinski at any time suggested that he was 2 thinkit3g of getting his own lawyer?
3J THE WITNESS: At some point in time I became 4 aware that Mr. Lipinski was talking, or alluded to talking 5 to his own personal attorney. And at some point in time, 6 before Mr. Gallo was retained, I consulted with my 7 personal attorney also.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you recall the period in which
-9 you learned that Mr. Lipinski was thinking of talking to 10 his own personal attorney?
11 THE WITNESS.: I would have to go back to 12 Mr. Lipinski's diary notes.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that the source of your 14 information about that?
- 15. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: Is it your understanding,-based on is 17 something other.than just the notes, that the purpose of 18 that attorney was to help him in these matters, dealing i
19 .with his relationship to the Applicants?
20 THE WITNESS: I felt, just because of the 21 testimony that Mr. Treby just repeated, that possibly Joe
(,) 22 was. getting confused because of all the people that were 23 getting involved. .This kind of situation is certainly
- 24 unusual for me. I thought it was unusual for Joe. And it d 25' was -- I felt that it was probably a proper course of
'21560:0 23776
. BRT.
() 1 action'for him to talk about it with his personal counsel.
.2 JUDGE BLOCH: Are you now talking from memory or 3 'just from looking at the note?
4 THE WITNESS: I'm talking by looking at the note, 5 sir.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: You have no recollection of
- 7. Mr. Lipinski mentioning to you the possible need for a 8 lawyer?
9 THE WITNESS: He alluded to the conversation he 10 had with me in.his notes. I do not recall specifically 11 .thAt conversation or how I came across that information.
/7 4
.12 BY MR. TREBY:
-13 0 You just indicated - that you had some 14 conversations with your personal. attorney. What timeframe 15 are we talking about?
16' A_ Just recently. As we got close to these --
' l'7 after.the -- well, let's see'-- in the past four or five, 18 ~ six weeks.-
- 19 JUDGE BLOCH:' Before or after your' testimony 20 before the-board?
21 THE WITNESS: After my testimony.of-October.lst fN . .
( ).s 22 and 2nd.
2
'3: BY MR. TREBY:
~24 -Q. During this period, from July '83 until' the task.
225 force was formed, had you had any conversations with m.h. J m. .
21560.0 23777 BRT s
g-)
q_ 1 Mr. Trallo about this subject of the trip report and what 2 was happening at Comanche Peak?
3 A I'm sure I have. I can't recall exactly when or 4 what the detailed subjects were.
5 'O Do you have much contact with Mr. Trallo under 6 normal circumstances?
7 A Not as a rule. Once every few weeks we might 8 have something to say to each other.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Was there any attempt that you 10 knew of to find out Mr. Trallo's views with respect to the 11 problems at-Comanche Peak, before he was picked to head V('T 12 the task force?
13 ,THE WITNESS: No. As I recall, Mr. Roth wanted 14 a fresh set of eyes to look at the problem. He may have 15 concluded that Mr. Lipinski and I were diametrically 16 opposed and everything was so confused he wanted somebody 17 else to go in there and take a look and give a more 18 balanced perspective or something. I don't know.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that speculation? You said "he
-20 may have." or is that something you remember?
21~ THE WITNESS: I'm remembering right now Mr. Roth's
, r~%
'(_) 22 memo, starting the task force -- or Mr. Roth's letter to 23 Mr. Merritt about the task force, I should say.
24 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, could we excuse the 25 ' witness?
i
21560.0 23778 BRT
'8( l JUDGE BLOCH: Please.
2' (Witness excused.)
3 JUDGE BLOCH: Close the door please. Mikes off.
4 MR. GALLO: I would request a five-minute recess 5 for the purpose of explaining again to the witness the 6 difference from -- of testifying with respect to memory 7 versus testifying with respect to what he's read in the 8 diary notes or any other such document.
9 MR. TREBY: I have no problem.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: ' Problem with that?
11 MR. ROISMAN: No.
(~
\_ 12 JUDGE BLOCH:. Then let's take our seven-minute 13 break. We'll be back at 13 after promptly, please.
~14 (Recess.)
15 ' JUDGE BLOCH: The Staff has informed the board --
16 MR. TREBY: The staff has no more questions at 17 this time.
18 MR. WATKINS: Is there a pending' question?
19 JUDGE BLOCH: No. Redirect.
.20 MR. GALLO: Does the board have questions?
21' JUDGE BLOCH: Oh, Dr. Jordan has a couple.
<~
( ,\/ 22 JUDGE JORDAN: Mr. Norris, I believe you stated 23 that when you went to the site at the first, and in fact 24' several meetings, you found a number of deficiencies in 25 the program, people working long hours and tired and so.on, Q . .. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ -__
,.r 21560.0 23779 BRT 1 and that you felt the program was -- in fact you were even R( )
2 informed by the people on the site that the program did 3 have some pretty serious problems.
4 Now,' as a consequence, I believe, you did make a number 5 of recommendations. Is that correct so far?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
7 JUDGE JORDAN: Now, do you know how many of 8 those -- were all of those recommendations carried out?
9 THE WITNESS: I do not know, sir.
10 JUDGE JORDAN: Do you know that the program now 11 is in good shape, that the deficiencies that you observed 12 originally have been cured?
13 THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of that, sir.
14 JUDGE JORDAN: Is this in part because the 15 -August 8th and 9th meetings were not addressed to the 16 problems that you had mentioned? I believe it's. apparent 17 that Mr. Lipinski was convinced from the August 8th and 18 9th meetings that his concerns were addressed and-taken 19- care of. Now --
20 MR. WATKINS: Do you mean the November 9th and 21 .10th. meeting?
/~'t
(,j 22 JUDGE JORDAN: I'm sorry, the November 9th and-23 10th meetings. Were your concerns addressed at that time?
24 THE WITNESS: My concerns, at that point in time 25 -- we are talking about November; is that correct, sir?
21560.0 23780 BRT
() 1 JUDGE JORDAN: Yes. I'm wondering Why it is, 2 you see -- let me explain.
3 Apparently Mr. Lipinski, you see, has felt that his 4 concerns were addressed and that the program was in good 5 shape.
6 Now, you said that you do not know yet Whether your 7 concerns were addressed and how good the program is. Is 8 this because.your concerns were not addressed at this 9 November 9th meeting?
10 THE WITNESS: The November 9th meeting was', in 11 the main, a discussion of the August 8 trip report. .Some 12 items in those -- in his trip report were also my concerns, 13 but they were not formal quality assurance concerns. And, 14 for example, if my recommendations are, in part, mentioned 15- in that August 8 trip report, I have no knowledge as to 16 whether or not they have implemented the production 17 recommendations or any of the other recommendations I made.
- 18. .That wasn't the subject or the purpose of the November 19 meeting, as it turned out.
20 JUDGE JORDAN: All right.
21 JUDGE.BLOCH: Mr. Norris, the' record shows-that
/^%
(_) .22. at one point the quality program at the site was 23- sufficiently deficient to. require a retrofit program. ,
24 That's correct, isn't it?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
4-4
- 21560.0 23781
' BRT' j
Q 'l- JUDGE BLOCH: Did you ever find out what was 2 done in changing the procedures to address the problems
- 3 . that led to. the need for a retrofit program?
4 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
5 JUDGE.BLOCH: Mr. Gallo?
6' .MR. GALLO: No questions.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: ,Mr. Roisman?
8 RECROSS EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. ROISMAN:
10- Q Mr. Norris, on the question Dr. Jordan was just' 11- asking you, is the reason -- strike that.
12: Is'what you would need in order to know whether or not-13 the concerns that you had observed'and raised had been
~14 - adequately addressed, to have the audit conducted ' that you-15 -and Mr. Lipinski ~and Mr. Trallo' recommended as the course ,
16 of action to follow, following the: November 10th meeting --
'17 assuming-the utility wanted toLaccept that recommendation?-
18- A The --~ would you repeat the question, splease; 19 sir?
20 Q- Yes.- Is the reason that you do not - 'you are I ' 21. not able to'say whether the concerns that you had raised
'22 -had ? been ' addressed because the audit : that you and the 23 .others at 0.B.. Cannon-thought should be.done if you are to 24 Ebe able to answer that question, had never been done?
25- 'A That'is correct, sir.
f
~ _ .-
f 21560.0 23782' BRT
( l ;Q And-as far as you are concerned, you have no'
-2: 'nformation i that would lead you to believe that 3 Mr. Lipinski's concerns have been addressed, other than
-4~ .his own statement, given that the audit which you 5 recommended in the -- you and others recommended in the 6 November 28th Trallo report has not been conducted; is 17' that correct?
r 8 A That'is correct, sir.
'9 JUDGE-BLOCH: .Then, I take it, unless you accept 10 Mr. Brandt's deposition as being true --
11' THE WITNESS: .I have never seen Mr. Brandt's I 12 . deposition, sir.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay.
14 BY MR. ROISMAN:
15 - O' In any event, just so we are,very clear ~on it, 16 -the. recommendation that-O.B.. Cannon made' on November 28th 1'7 . ~did-not offer as an option to an audit'the affidavit of 18 any site person,.but.rather said: "The only way we.will 19' know whether these' concerns have been' adequately addressed:
20- is if we were to do'an audit,.and all we can tell youlis 2l' 'that if what you have told us is correct, it sounds-like
- D
- h. 22 you have' dealt with Mr. Lipinski's problems." .Is that 23 correct?
'24 A~ I~ don't' remember November 28.
25 O That's the date of the Trallo memorandum that.
.r.
21560.0 23783 BRT-J (A) 1 summarized, in effect, the trip report that came out of 2 the November 10 meeting. I'm sorry.
3 You remember that document?
4 A 'I remember the document, but as I mentioned --
5 as I testified to Mr. Treby, the only input I had in the 6 document was at the caucus after the meeting where we all 7- agreed that if they were doing what they said th'ey were 8 ~doing, we had no concerns.
9- O And at that time no one suggested that -- strike 10 that.
11_ And at that time you also agreed that you couldn't say
. 12 definitively that they really had their concerns solved 13 unless1you were to do the audit?
14 A That is correct, sir.
15 0 And no one suggested that an option to the audit 16 would be the affidavit of a highly placed QC supervisor 1at 17 the plant, telling you in any more detail what'Mr. Tolson 18 had already told you at the November 10th meeting. Is-19 that correct?:
20 A. That.is correct. Not to my. knowledge.
21- Q-.
Now,-I.believe you were asked during Mr. Watkins'
~s X_) 22 cross-examination whether Mr. Merritt had encouraged or
~23 discouraged you'from_giving recommendations in writing.to 24- him. And I believe your answer was that Mr. Merritt was 25 = interested in the_ facts.-- essentially that he was
~u4rs .,. a
,f J
21560.0. 23784 BRT
'()
1 interested in 'getting idue facts and he didn' t want to get 2 tied up in a. lot of formalistic pieces of paper; is that
, 3.1 _ correct?
. jp . 4 MR. GALLO: Objection -- the reason I was so 49 5- quick is because the witness was going to answer.
- _ , 6- MR. ROISMAN: He did answer, but if it didn't 7; get on the record'it doesn't matter.
h 8 MR.HGALLO: It is beyond the scope of the l p.4 -
- <y O[ 9' recross is the reason there was objection. It's beyond 10 1the scope of recross; and the boar'd questions were three ~
-11 or.four'from Dr. Jordan and two or three from yourself, i
- 12~ .and indeed~the question was prefaced on the basis it'was.
' 13 testimony; elicited in' questions by Mr. Watkins.-
It's. ,
~
Lg- . , ' 14 . - :beyond the scope. I object on those grounds.
15 ' JUDGE.BLOCH: We permit recross on-previous Nt$b ,
16i -cross.
17' MR. GALLO: ..I would object to that-procedure. I T
18- 'think'that when ---we are not here.in deposition:like we.
iwere with Mr. Mouser and Mr. Griffin where that's an o -
( ,7; . 20 . accepted practice.
g . 21 LIn NRC practice, where there are' multiple parties, ,
. ,m
$_)) 22- ~ recross is allowed on' redirect. Recross'.is allowed on
- l 23' ' board questions. - But each ' par'c is supposed to conduct s^t' ~
its'own-cross-examinatior, o1 does not getca second au (24- +
J25 ^ bite. at the: apple on the basis or the work: product of~
pw w
. - - . . - . . - . - - -. . . - - ,-.....-..a
21560.0 - 23785-BRT.
1 otherLcounsel.
2 JUDGE BLOCH:' ;What's the authority for that?
3 - MR. GALLO:' That's just. accepted practice within i
4 the NRC.:
i 5, JUDGE GROSSMAN: - Not accepted in my cases either, 6- I'll tell you that,'Mr. Gallo. If some new area is opened
- 7. ' on someone else's... cross-examination, I think that other.
8 parties are. entitled to explore it further.
9: MR. GALLO: Well --
110 JUDGE GROSSMAN: And I would believe that's a 11 . uniform practice.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: In any case'.the objection is-
'13 . denied.
.14: MR. GALLO: I would-like instruction of some_
15- sort then, Judge Bloch. As I see this process in this
- ~ 16 - hearing,.as I have already' indicated.today, these
.171 : witnesses have been on the stand for I think an inordinate 18 length of: time. .What contributes to that,'in my judgment, 19 fis the round robin cross-examination, which typically will 20- not en'd , because'once Mr. Treby has a further' opportunity,
,, : 21) counsel.for:the-Applicant, Mr. Roisman, is again entitled ~
.w .
22; to cross-examine'.
=23 - Moreover --
- 24' JUDGE BLOCH:' I'm more confident that the 25 ' cross-examination will end than that your speech .will.
+ y , --y,-J--. , , . , - 4 ,,-, . - . ,,n, ,y.-, ,r , h v .. y y.,-- e w y..,,m ,,,,m.,,.w- y,y,,,,g. ,,e,-, -----cr., -
..e4-m,,, -,
7 l
21560.0 23786 BRT 1
[ 1 MR. GALLO: I'm deadly serious about this. I 2 believe that-the Commission's policy statement that deals 3 with the expedition of proceedings does not allow this
- 4. type of' procedure.- ;
5 - JUDGE BLOCH: Where's the citation for that?
~6 MR. GALLO: I don't have the policy statement 7- .with me.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. The motion for 9 reconsideration is denied.-
10 MR. GALLO: I haven't really been permitted to 11 finish --
-(s 12' JUDGE BLOCH: Now you are'done.. How longLdo you 13 -want to argue this motion? It's a procedural motion you 14' .are-making'here.
P
-15 MR. GALLO: It's a point Judge Grossman made..-
- 16 Judge'Grossman's. understanding was that.if something-new 17 had been raised by a party, then ' a round robin or further -
{' .
18 questioning.is allowed. Let's assume that's correct for'-
19: the moment. How are we to'know? How is the board.to -
'20 : regulate ~when something is new or not new?
21 JUDGE'BLOCH: You'11' object if there's-a problem It
= 22' and we'.11 rule onit. The question is whether it was g ,
23 . raised by-one of1the other-parties on cross. Mr. Roisman
.- 2 4 .is~ pretty responsible about that-in-my experience,.and'
~
25 .we'll see the other parties are, too.
1
, . - - ,.. . ~ - - . , .--...-.,..,.......~.---,.-__._.-_.m., . . , , , . . , _ - - _ - - - . ; - .. .
- 21560.0 23787 U <BRT f- s
' 1J il Mr. Roisman? Do you want that question read back?
2 MR. ROISMAN: No. I'll just ask him. It was F 3 only a preliminary one, just to lay the foundation.
, 4 BY MR. ROISMAN:
- _ 5 Q It had to-do with Mr. Herritt
- Because he f 16 : wanted to get the information as quickly as possible, he 7 had encouraged you not to get hung:up in formalistic 8' ; paperwork. Is that correct?
4 9- A That's correct, sir.
101 O I would like you to take a look at a document
'll dated August 29,.1983, to you from Mr. Roth. Have you 12- ever seen this document before?
4 13 A .Yes, sir.
11 4 Q; Did.you ever have occasion to discuss with 15 Mr. Roth where were the recommendations-from-Mr. .Posgay,.
-16 following his visit to the site?
17 A Yes. .After that memo Mr. Roth ' followed' up with -
-18 me -- followed up, and asked meLfor some' detailed-reports.
{
19- I did not do that and Mr. Posgay:did.not give me.any c
~20 reports.
- [ 21 Q And was.that contrary to what'Mr. froth had L
- 22 -expected that you would do after you and he discussed.it?
-23 A Yes, sir.
24- O Why was that? What happened?
25 -A The: client didn't want a lot of long-winded
21560.0 23788
~ BRT
/^\
(_) -1 -reports. Bob did want a report. That's his style.
2- Q And in this instance it was the client's will 3 that would prevail, and Mr. Roth had to take-a second' seat?
4 Or.are you in effect disobeying orders?
5 A In effect I disobeyed orders.
6 Q. And did Mr. Posgay ever produce something to 7 give to Mr. Roth, as Mr. Lipinski had done?
8 A No, sir.
- 9. O And did you ever debrief Mr. Posgay to find out 10 .what, if any,, problems he identified?
~ 11 A - Yes. Either on July 20th or July 21st, I >
EQ' ..
.(/ 12 debriefed Mr. Posgay at the site.after he talked to 13 Mr.-Crane and other people.
14 O And.did he identify any problems that you did j- l15 not communicate to Mr. Merritt?
16 A No, sir..
17- Q - Did he identify'any problems that you did:not 18 communicate to Mr. Merritt in writing, in your' 19 recommendations?
j H20 A No, sir.
'21
': .Q Did he confirm any of the problems that you had.
-,.g . ,
() .- -
22 identified?.
- 23 LA -Yes.
24 O Did he confirm them all? Or-just-some subset?
25' A Some of them.
,.Fr. .s.-e ,~. 9,.x . _ , , , . , , ,._,,,..,,ve, ..,..y.e- , . , ,<c , , , , , ...-,_._-...,,.,,._,_yw. ..r-,m._..,,,,,.4,,.y,.....y,_,y.., , . . . ,
21560.0 23789
. BRT- -
l( II -Q- Do you remember which ones he had similar 2 observations-on?
~
H 3 A' Specs and the efficiency of the workforce.
- 4 Q Was the efficiency of the workforce related to 5 the helper / worker ratio? Or was it related to the morale
-(F . problem?
7 -. A The apparent lack of progress in the containment.
~
8 .Q You mean just the physical observation that it 9' didn't'look like a lot of paint was getting on was what he 10' communicated to you?
11 A That is correct,' sir.
~
12- =Q And he didn't give you his opinion as to why he 13- thought that might .1xt occurring?.
- 14 A No,' sir.
.15 JUDGE.BLOCH: Do:you recall whether-you talked 16 with him about workers' hours?
17 THE WITNESS: I don't recall, sir.
18 -BY MR. ROISMAN:
19 O I believe in answer to a question from 201 Mr. Watkins,.you were asked whether or not the 21 IMichaels/Lipinski outline of what they expected to,do at
~ 22 the site on November 10th ---the outline that was prepared, 23 I think on' November 4th'-- that it represented essentially 24 .a-look and an examination of the entire coatings program 25 at Comanche Peak. Do I remember your testimony correctly i
5 .
l 3
' +
t 1
23790
=,- -BRT 21560.0 ~
'3 L1 or, that?'
.2 A Yes, sir.
3- Q What's your basis for knowing whether it in fact -
4~ represents an examination of the entire coatings program 5 at Comanche Peak?
li' -A -After recalling the document,' it seems to me
- 7 like it would cover a birth-to-death audit of' practically 8 every facet-of the program at' Comanche Feak.
9' O Is that based upon the fact that you know what-10 the whole coatings program is at Comanche Peak and-can 11 recognize how that program would touch on all of it? Or
^
i
- A f 12' is it based on your general knowledge of'what'a nuclear 13 -coatings: program would look like?
14 A- It's based on my general knowledge, sir.
15 0 And does that report look to you-like the level-s 16' of detail of a pretrip report:that would routinely'be
~
17 prepared by O.B. Cannon personnel ifithey,were going.to'do 18 -a thorough-birth-to-death' audit of a coatings' program?
19 A That is correct, sir..
2 0. . ' JUDGE BLOCH: That can't be based on' prior
~
21 Eknowledge, can it? Because you hadn't done any audit work ---
t )) 22 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you,. sir.
23 JUDGE'BLOCH: I assume that hadn't been based on 24 knowledge, because you hadn't done prior' audits; is that
-25 right?
- 4 21560.0 23791
-iBRT h'g,j l
I 1) THE, WITNESS: From time to time I have seen
<2' ,
prior.~ audits on nuclear projects by O.B. Cannon.
'3 - JUDGE BLOCH: By O.B. Cannon? ,
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: So this-was similar in depth to 6 . prior audits'that you have seen?
17/ THE WITNESS:- The checklist was similar to 8 audits that I have seen to be conducted on nuclear 9 facilities.
10 BY MR. ROISMAN:
11 0 -You mean si mi lar not only-on subjects covered 12' b'ut level of-detail contained therein?
'13L A Yes, sir. . As far as the level of detail is 14: concerned, as I remember.the. audit entry checklist, it was- [
15- comprehensive and would have -led them into every area _ of 16 the. program. .7
~
17 Q I just meant in comparison with other audit---: .
18 other situations where, in fact, O.B. Cannon- was going to 19- do, and then actually did _ do' an in-depth audit of the 1
20- paint coatings program; and you said, I believe 'iri answer:
21
~
.to the Chairman's question just;now, that you had.seen k 2 2 what'those checklists look.like. And I'm asking you,:did 23 this have-the-'same' level-ofi detail as those-did?
24~ A I really can't' answer that question. a J25 :
JUDGE BLOCH: Well, for_ example, do you have any 4 ,
4 y- h3y-ip-= -+ hey-s-y-w w 7- +y,. ppq +g --y- r-p tw W e r,y- g- epv p- rg, p r 9 pyt y 9 , y -g 9-wg y wiy y TN WWWFTWNT MYF7'FT-'T'T7$W M " vWPW N*STe r q ww=p%r-vpg---
(;
u
- 21560.0- 23792 "BRT
.i
[ 1: recollection as to whether a full-scale audit plan would
=)
2- Lbe only four pages long?
-3' .THE WITNESS: No,-sir.
o4 JUDGE BLOCH: You have no recollection?
5- THE WITNESS: That?is correct, sir.
6 BY MR. ROISMAN:
71 Q Could it be that the identical checklist would.
8 be'a way of doing a spot check that was comprehensive in
- 9 .the sense that it went from birth to death, the whole area-10 'oflthe paint coatings program, but not the level of detail 11_ in any one of those specific areas that a full-fledged
'12 audit'would undertake?
13' A -No, sir. In just the -- if~you -- just the-
- 14 ~ general outline of the au'dit entry checklist gets you--into:
15' increasing amount of detail:on each line item.
116- Q- You mean the four-page one that welare now 17 ' talking about?
~
18- JUDGE;BLOCH: -I think the witness shook:his-head-
~ 19' "yes."
[ 20: MR. ROISMAN: I'm not sure the reporter picked
< 21- that up.
h
-(j
'22 BY MR. ROISMAN:
- 23. '
Q LWhen.you say "the checklist," you mean the.
24 :particular.' checklist we are talking-about, not some 25 ' generic checklist;fis that correct?
.y
21560.0 23793 BRT
) 1 A Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Try to make audible answers. It's 3 a little easier.
4 BY MR. ROISMAN:
5 0 You answered a question from Mr. Treby this 6 morning that when Mr. Lipinski briefed you just before the 7 meeting with the company people on the 28th --
8 A Before or during?
9 O Just before the meeting. And went over the 10 problems, that he had found that he did it in a very 11 low-key way and that you did not -- they didn't register q
t
. _/ 12 on you as really, extremely serious problems. That is, he 13 didn't make it appear that he thought they were really 14 serious problems.
15 A That occurred during the meeting, not prior.to 16 the meeting.
17 O I'm sorry. Okay. During the meeting. And was 18 your perception of whether the problems were really 19 serious and warranted a lot of action in any way 20 influenced by how the company officials responded to 21 hearing Mr. Lipinski talk about them?
q ! 22 A No, sir.
23 O So that it -- you were not influenced at all by 24 their failure to get very excited about the problems, and 25 say: " Gee, that's something that's really important. We
21560.0 23794 BRT
/m
( j 1 better do something about it"?
2 A No, sir.
3 0 When Mr. Treby asked you this morning about your 4 conversation with Mr. Merritt, I believe he asked you --
5 A Wait -- you --
6 0 -- on October 10th, I believe he asked you about 7 it in the context of how was it that at that particular 8 moment in time you believed that the trip report was 9 almost certainly going to end up in a hearing like this.
10 Do you remember that?
11 A Yes, sir.
!"h 12 Am/ O Do you remember what Mr. Merritt told you, or 13 what you can recollect was the concept that he conveyed to 14 you, about the extent to which the trip report was out in 15 the public domain in any sense, as of October 10th?
16 A He did not convey that to me. He asked me if I 17 knew about a trip report signed by Joseph Lipinski -- or 18 signcd by Lipinski, I think he said, dated August 8th.
19 O And he didn't say to you -- you didn't ask him:
20 "Where did you hear of such a thing"? Or "why do you 21 think such a thing exists"?
() 22 A No, sir.
23 MR. GALLO: Objection. This is clearly beyond 24 the scope of recross. He's just -- Mr. Roisman is just 25 exploring further a matter he could have conducted in his
21560.0 23795 BRT
( l own cross-examination. Mr. Treby didn't get into that 2 kind of detail. Mr. Treby was interested in the bases 3 upon which Mr. Norris understood or believed that the trip 4 report would become a matter in the public forum, like 5 this forum. Mr. Treby did not get into question about 6 what was discussed with Mr. Norris or not discussed with 7 Mr. Norris at that time. There's nothing new that 8 warrants this cross-examination.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Overruled. The inquiry at that 10 time went into what was communicated by Mr. Merritt. Some 11 of the questions were the board's. . And this is related to n
12 that.
13 BY MR. ROISMAN:
14 0 The question, Mr. Norris, is: Was there any 15 communication at all from Mr. Merritt on the 10th to 16 indicate to you that that report was in the public domain 17 at all?
18 A No, sir.
19 Q When was the first time that you became aware of 20 that?
21 MR. WATKINS: For clarification, would you I
22 define what you mean by "public domain"?
23 MR. ROISMAN: That it was outside the hands of 24 O.B. Cannon.
l 25 JUDGE BLOCil: And TUGCO, I suppose?
l l
'21560.0 23796 ERT
! ). 1 MR. ROISMAN: Well, I take it from -- I don't 2: want to put words in his mouth, but for the moment --
3 .BY MR. ROISMAN:
4 Q When did you become, aware that it was outside 5 the hands of O.B. Cannon?
6 A Sometime right after -- during October 10th.
7 Q And how did you find that out?
8 A I don't recall.
9 Q But you feel confident that it was not at that 10 first conversation with Mr. Merritt?
11 A Yes, sir.
12' JUDGE BLOCH: Did you find Mr..Merritt's 13 . conversation with you unusually brief for the subject ~ '
i
- 14. matter?
~15 THE WITNESS:- Yes, sir.
l 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Did that brevity communicate 17 :something to you about.his attitude towards O.B. Cannon?
18 .THE WITNESS: .No, sir.
JUDGE BLOCH:
19 ': Why is that?
20- THE WITNESS: The way he posed the -- or asked 21 the question, as I remember it, he didn't even know what
/~ .
.(, [ 22 was in the report at that-point in time.
23 BY MR. ROISMAN:
24' O You didn't draw your conclusion that the report 25 was surely going to end up in'a hearing based on your
21560.0 23797 BRT:
1 first conversation with Mr. Merritt on the 10th, did you?
2 MR. WATKINS: Objection. Asked and answered.
4; 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Sustained.
4 MR. ROISMAN: I don't believe the question has 5 ever been asked. The' witness has just, it seems to me,
-6 for the first time become crystal clear on the fact that
, 7 he wasn't told that it was going to be in the public 8 domain. But I believe in answer to the questions that 9- came from Mr. Treby there was at least some confusion as 10 to whether he was using the first conversation with
. 11 Mr. Merritt on October the 10th as the trigger for when he i 12 then said: "Oh, it's going to be in hearings." .I want 4
13 him to clarify.that.
"~
14 MR. WATKINS: The board has just ruled and 15 sustained the objection.
- 16 MR. ROISMAN: Then it's a motion ' for 17 reconsideration, one of the few from this side of'the 18 table, Mr. Watkins.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: I think you-have refreshed my.
20 memory with respect to the fact that at one point in 21 Mr. Norris' testimony he seemed to be relying on the l 22 information.on the 10th and then the board asked some 23 ~ questions that clarified, apparently, that he wasn't. I 24 think you could pursue that apparent ambiguity at this 25 . time.
.i
~
~
l ~
' 21560'.0 23798 BRT
$ . 'l_ . MR'. ' GALLO : Does that call for a new question?
2- JUDGE BLOCH: It depends on whether the witness 3 remembers the question.
4 MR. ROISMAN: I don't mind restating the
.5 : question.
-6 BY MR. ROISMAN:
7 Q- Mr. Norris, I'm just trying to pin down whether 8 -the'information that led you to believe that that report 9 wasicertainly going to end up in:the hearing, that
-10 information did not come to you in the first conversation 11 with Mr. Merritt on October 10th; do you agree with that?.
(_) 12 A Yes, sir.
[ 13 Q And it did come to you later in that day when.
14 ~ you learned.that the report was outside'the confines of O.B.
b 15~ Cannon, but you can't remember how you got that 16' information; is that correct?.
-17' A .Within a few. hours-of that telephone' call I knew 18 it was_in.the public domain.
19- MR. ROISMAN: I.have'no.furtherfquestions.
20 JUDGE BLOCH:- Mr..,Treby?
I'm sorry, it's 21 Mr..Watkins' turn.
- 22 RECROSS EXAMINATION 23 BY-MR. WATKINS
1 4 24~ -Q Mr. Treby asked you'a question this morning 25 regarding the administrative work order provision,
=_._:--__-_____________-______-
~ _ - _ _ _ , _ . . - ~~ .. _ . . _ _-_
4 i
'21560.0 23799
- BRT
-( 1; indicating that 0.B. Cannon employees working on this 2 contract 'KeepD logs .- Do you recall that?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q Do you have Mr. Lipinski's weekly-logs with you?
5 A I believe so, sir.
, '6 O Do those logs serve the function described in 7 the administrative. work order?
- , -8. .A No, sir.
1 9 Q In what way, sir?
10 -A I doubt whether I wrote the work order a 11 separate log,.something that would accompany an. invoice.
- 12 .This_certainly is not a document that would accompany an f :13- invoice.
14 Q In your testimony this morning that Mr. Lipinski 15 referred to certain QC inspector as " losers," that took 16 place before the July 28 meeting with managers; is that r.
17 correct?
18 A' - No, sir.
1 19- -Q _ Did that subject come up before the meeting?
l 20 A No, sir. j 21 JUDGE BL1DCH: I think the premise is not clear O
(_) 22 from_the testimony. I don't think Mr. Norris is sure he 23 referred to inspectors as " losers". l l
24 BY MR. WATKINS:
25 -Q Was he referring to QC inspectors? l l
I
__.___________._____._______________J
7 21560.0 -23800 BRT.
. f -l- A I thought he was referring to QC inspectors.
2 -Q. He was referring to former Cannon employees, is 3 -that correct?
6 4 -A- That's correct, sir.
5f Q Were any management personnel at Comanche Peak 6 former Cannon employees, to your knowledge?- ,
7: A Not to my knowledge, sir.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you remember him saying "former 9 Cannon employees"?
10 THE WITNESS . No, sir. I -- all I really i
11 remember is he said there were some, losers there. ' There
.) 12 were some losers.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: So the rest'is all your guesses. J 14 and speculation?
15 THE' WITNESS: No. _At some -- eicher at-the.same.
16 point or in another conversation shortly thereafter,.he 17- clarified that he knew them from -- knew some,of these.
i 18 people from the WPPS project.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: He didn't mention names at that-20; . time, did he?
2 11 -THE WITNESS: No, sir. ,
f 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Do we know ---this'is a question 23; to the ; parties -- do we know whether any one of these
'24- people were.WPPS employees other than Mr. Mouser?
.25 :MR. WATKINS: We know that Mr. Deschambeau was.
v
---__.-__._.n..________-________-_,.____.__________,-a--m_< - -
21560.0 23801 BRT
( 1 We know -- I believe there's a reference to former Cannon 2 employees in Mr. Lipinski's response to Mr. Chapman's 3 questions. It might also be in Mr. Lipinski's testimony, 4 but I'm not --
5 JUDGE BLOCH: That's former Cannon employees.
6 But he is specifically mentioning WPPS.
7 MR. WATKINS: I believe Mr. Ambrose was there.
8 At least Mr. Mouser testified that he knew Mr. Ambrose at 9 WPPS.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's continue.
11 MR. WATKINS: There is evidence in the record,
,e 3 (l 12 or testimony.
13 MR. ROISMAN: I don't think the record is clear, 14 though, about that. There's somewhat of a double linkage 15 that is apparently being played here, of both being an O.B.
16 Cannon employee, former O.B. -- and having been at WPPS.
17 There is arguably two subsets: people who were formerly 18 0.B. Cannon employees but not at WPPS, and people at WPPS 19 but not working for O.B. Cannon.
20 MR. WATKINS: We agree. ,
21 BY MR. WATKINS:
22 O You testified this morning in response to a 23 question from Mr. Treby that Mr. Lipinski observed to you 24 after your meetings with management on July 28 that he 25 could not confirm the problems without an audit; is that
21560.0 23802
- BRT f() 1 correct?
2 A Yes, sir.
, 3 Q Did he tell you that he wanted to perform an 4 audit?
5 A No, sir.
4
'6 O Did you at that time want Cannon to: perform an 7 audit?
8 A No, sir. No.
~
9 Q Mr. Roisman- referred you to the November 28 task 10 force report. Do you have that document with you?
4
-11 A Yes, sir.
, A ./
m 12- 0 I would ulike you to review the report, in as 13 much detail as you want, to answer my question, which ist.
14 Does that report recommend an audit?
- 15. MR..GALLO: Objection. Clearly beyond the scope t
16 of recross.
17 MR. WATKINS: Reason for the question ~,
- 18. Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Roisman's question --
19 JUDGE BLOCH: The objection is overruled.
20 MR. ROISMAN: I object on a separate ground.
l' 21'- That is that the document either does or doesn't, and the fn
..Os_j, 22 witness', perception whether it does or doesn't is not the 23 issue.
24 MR. WATKINS: Mr. Roisman's question to the 25 witness implied, if it didn't actually state, that the
21560.0 23803 BRT
[)
v 1 report did recommend an audit. If Mr. Roisman wants to 2 stipulate that the witness' answer did not indicate an 3 affirm to that question, then I'Il withdraw the question.
4- MR. ROISMAN: I will stipulate that the witness' 5 opinion as to.whether or not the document on November 28 6 did or did not recommend an audit is not the evidence that 7 is crucial. The crucial evidence is what the document 8 -said.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, I guess on strict legal 10 grounds there should be an ambiguity in the document 11~ before we allow the question. Is there an ambiguity in k 12 the document? Because he might have background that would 13 cast light on it.
14 MR. ROISMAN: I think even that's unlikely, 15 given his testimony that he did not participate in the 16 actual preparation of the document, only in the meeting 17_ that followed -- I forget what the date was.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Given that there was a question 19 asked with the premise being what this report said, we'll 20- allow it at this point. It can't hurt, although it may
.21 not be the best' evidence.
A
') 22 (Discussion off the record.)
23 THE WITNESS: Your question please, Mr. Watkins?
24 BY MR. WATKINS:
25 O Does the report recommend that an audit ue L ,_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
21560.0 23804
'BRT l! 1 performed?
2 -A No, sir.
3 Q Dr. Jordan asked you whether any of your 4 recommendations had been implemented at the site. Would 5 .you look at recommendation 6-003.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Excuse me, did Dr. Jordan ask 7 whether his recommendations had been implemented or 8 'whether he knew whether they had been implemented? Could 9 you refresh my recollection on that, Mr. Watkins?
10 MR. WATKINS: I don't see -- I guess I don't see 11 the distinction.
. /O
(_) 12 JUDGE BLOCH: He just said he didn't know. He 13 had no information about whether or not they had been 14 implemented.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, there is some distinction, 16 and that has to do with whether the audit should have been 17 . performed or not. And the question of whether he knew 18 about-it may imply that perhaps an audit should have been 19 performed that wasn't, whereas whether the matter was 20 implemented or not la an entirely different area.
21 Do you follow me, Mr. Watkins? Maybe it's not clear to e3 t,) ' 22 you, but I thought the whole point of the questioning was 23 why the recommended audit had not been performed?
24 MR. WATKINS: I was concerned, and perhaps I'm 25 the only one that was confused. I'm concerned that the
21560.0 23805 BRT
(
(_) 1 question and answer might have caused confusion and I'm 2 hoping to clear it up.
3 MR. ROISMAN: Just for the record, Judge 4 Grossman, I believe the question from Dr. Jordan was "Do 5 you know?"
6 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's go forward. You're asking 7 about 6-003; is that correct? t 8 MR. WATKINS: I'm sorry, I misspoke.
9 BY MR. WATKINS:
10 0 6-001, Mr. Norris, which recommends that TUGCO 11 go out for bids on remaining paint work. '
12 Did Texas Utilities, sometime after your work in the 13 fall of 1983, request O.B. Cannon to submit qualification 14 data for a possible bid on remaining paint work?
15 A No, sir.
16 O Mr. Norris, I have shown you a document dated 17 June 22, 1984, on O.B. Cannon letterhead, to Mr. Carol.
18 Graves of Texas Utilities, signed by Samuel Wineman. Do 19 you recognize this document?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 O Are those your initials in the upper right-hand
.; y (j 22 corner?
23 A No , sir.
24 O "JJN"?
25 A ThoseLare not my initials.
if 21560.0 23806 '
CRT in
(_,) 1 JUDGE BLOCH: You mean it's not your handwriting?
2 THE WITNESS: It's my initials. It's not my 3 handwriting.
4 BY MR. WATKINS:
5 0 Line 1 of the letter indicates that the letter 6 was written at your request. Is that you, Jack Norris, of 7 the Houston office?
8 A That is correct, sir. And the statement is 9 correct, sir.
10 'O Would you describe the circumstances under which 11 you requested that Mr. Wineman write this letter?
) 12 A At the -- after I met Mr. Graves in Dallas he 13 asked for some more information on our firm and I asked 14 Mr. Wineman, who usually performs that function for our 15 company, to send some brochures and a financial statement 16 and all the other stuff.
17 Q Did Mr. Graves indicate to you why he was 18 requesting this information?
19- A I don't recall, sir.
20 Q Did it have anything to do with the work that 21 you had already done for them?
?x
.1 ,) - 22 A No, sir.
23 Q Now, the concerns reflected in your 24 recommendations are production concerns, aren't they, to 25 'the extent that your recommendations assume that there is
21560.0 23807 ERT
) 1 a concern?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 Q Are any of them quality assurance / quality 4 control issues?
5 JUDGE BLOCH: You might want to consider whether 6 that would be affected by whether you checked "yes" or "no" 7 on the safety-related document.
8 THE WITNESS: Recommendation 6-003 could be 9 construed -- possibly be construed as involving quality 10 control.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: I led you in that direction. Is (O
(_) 12 that your opinion or because the Chairman said look at it?
13 THE WITNESS: I went back and looked at it to 14 doublecheck to be sure of my answer, sir, and that's the 15 only one that could be so construed.
16 BY MR. WATKINS:
17 O Would any of these recommendations be addressed 18 in an audit?
19 A In a quality control audit?
20 Q Yes.
21 A 6-003.
22 O Is that it?
23 A Yes, sir.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: How about the one on the badge 25 numbers of the painters?
3 21560.0 23808 CRT
'( f 1 THE WITNESS: That's possible, but in my mind 2 that is stretching it.
3 BY MR. WATKINS:
4 Q When you made that recommendation that was not 5 at all a quality concern, was it?
6 A That was strictly a production concern in my 7 mind at that point in time.
8 Q Regarding 6-003, do you know whether management 9 held or attempted to hold meetings between craftsmen and 10 QC inspectors after you made that recommendation?
11 A Yes, sir, m
k_) 12 Q Did they?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 0 I believe your testimony --
15 JUDGE BLOCH: Which one? Attempt to hold cnr 16 hold?
17 THE WITNESS: Attempted to hold.
18 BY MR. WATKINS:
19 Q I believe in your testimony you elaborated on 20 that recommendation by indicating that a barbecue, for 21 example, was something that you recommended.
-m
_( ,
) 22 A That's correct, sir.
23 O Do you know whether they held the barbecue?
24 A Yes, sir.
25 Q The Chairman asked you regarding your October --
.e .
i 21560.0
- 23809 i .BRT a ,
1- - MR. ROISMAN: Excuse me. Just for the record, I.
2 don't know what Mr. Watkins wants to prove, but the ,
3' current state of the record is that the witness knows 4 whether they held a barbecue, and we don't know whether he 5' knows that they did or didn't.
6 BY MR. WATKINS:
7 Q Do you know that they held a barbecue, h 8 Mr. Norris?
1 l 9 A Yes, they did.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Based on what, information from
~11 Mr. Tolson?
-( 12 THE WITNESS: Mr. Crane told me that they held a 13 barbecue.
14 BY'MR. WATKINS:
> 15' Q- Regarding your October 10 phone ~ conversation ,
16 with Mr. Merritt, the Chairman. asked you about.its being
~
JL7 unusually'brief. Was it unusually'brief because you had-18 little to tell Mr. Merritt about the trip report?
19 .A' That.is correct,.. sir.
20 MR. WATKINS:
tk) further questions.
21' MR. TREBY: I have-just very few.
I 22 CROSS-EXAMINATION
=23 BY MR. TREBY: -
i '
Jt4 Q With regard to this information concerning the 25 barbecue,.did Mr. Crane indicate.anything about the T
'21560.0 23810-CRTL
$( } 11 success or lack of success of that recommendation?
2 A Yes, sir.
3 O And what was the advice he gave you?
4 A He told me that the craft people showed up, but 5 none of the quality -- except for one, possibly two 6- quality control inspectors were all that showed up from 7 that department.
8 O Did you have any -- do you recall any further 9: -discussion about that recommendation, based on that 10 information?
11 A No, sir.
( 12 O You have been asked some questions about the-13 recommendations that you gave. There was an attachment to. ,
14 your_ testimony, I guess,-of-the recommendations,-and there 15 was a recommendation'index on the top of.that-collection 10 of recommendations.
17- Do you have that in front of you?
18 A Yes, sir.
-19 Q I notice that recommendation number 8-003 is not 20 listed on the.index._ Is there any significance to that, 21 .other than possible typing error?
/f
(_j 22 MR. WATKINS: Objection. Asked and answered.
23 MR. GALLO: Objection.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Watkins did ask the : question, 25 and I believe that I remember the answer.
U-21560.0 23811 BRT
) 1 MR. GALLO: My objection was going to be "beyond
~
2 the scope of recross."
3 MR. WATKINS: I think the objection was 4 sustained, so it doesn't make any difference.
-5 .MR. GALLO: I just wanted to state mine for the 1
6 record.
. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: If I was correct on the grounds
-8' for the last denial, it was part of recross. It couldn't
- 9 be. asked and-answered by Mr. Watkins --
10 MR. WATKINS: I asked the question --
11 JUDGE BLOCH: In cross.
,-(. 12 MR. WATKINS: -- yesterday.
13 MR. GALLO: Yesterday.
14 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Fine.
15 MR. GALLO: My recollection is-that -- well --
s 16 I'll just not --
17 MR. TREBY: It's insignificant. I only wanted 18 to do it for whatever clarity it might provide to the 19 record, and I did not recall you having asked it yesterday.
20 Thank you for having done that.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. 'Next go to the next brx
() 22 question.
'23 BY MR. TREBY:
. 24 O My next, and the close to last, question is:-
25 There was some discussion during this last round of
h 21560.0 23812
.BRT + .
,~,
( );
- s.
1 cross-examination as to the indication that you had gotten
-2 from Mr. Merritt that he wasn't interested in lots of 3 written reports. Directing your attention to the July 15, 4 '83 letter which is attachment B to your prefiled 5 testimony, the last sentence on the first page states that o i .-
6 "we" -- him, of course, send you a weekly report '
7 indicating manpower, work in progress, et cetera."
8 Did you get any comments from Mr. Merritt as to that f7 9 sentence? .
10 A No, sir. We did not discuss _that sentence, ON 11 except obviously he told me at one point in time he wasn't
/'s ~. . ,
ak) 5 12 interested in a lot of long-winded reports.
13 Q~ ,JLIr fact,.did you ever send him any such weekly 14 reports?
s-15 A No, sir.
16 ~MRI TREBY: I have no further questions.
I .17 ' JUDGE'BLOCH: Redirect,sub two? ,
18- MR.<GALLO: EDoes the bo'ard have questions?
19 No questions. .
, 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Is=there any.further cross by any 21 party?
() ~22 .MR. 'ROISMAN: No questions.
23: MR. WATKINS: .Just a point,.Mr. Chairman. .I 24 neglected to move the June 22, '84 letter into evidence.
12 5 I would like the board's leave to do so now.- We don't 5 ,,
Ir .
21560.0 23813 BRT 7s q_) 1 seek to have it admitted for the truth of the matters 2 asserted in it.
3 JUDGE BDDC:H: Just as to the knowledge of n 4 Mr. Norris? Is that what it's for?
5 MR. WATKINS: Just as to the fact that the 6 letter was sent.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: The motion in granted and the
-8 document may be bound into the record.
9 MR. ROISMAN: Do I understand it is not being 10 received in evidence? And if it's received, if so it's 11 not for the truth of it --
12 JUDGE BLOCH: Just for the existence of it.
13 That was the motion.
14 MR. WATKINS: For example, I'm not seeking to 15 prove that Cannon maintains a large inventory of modern-16 . broadcasting equipment.
-17 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Norris, it's my' great pleasure 18 to inform you that you are excused from the. stand. Since 19 there are still other witnesses Who'are still under~the 20 rule on witnesses, I would'ask you not discuss your 21
- . testim ~ony with them.
lq,/ 22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
23 ' JUDGE'BLOCH: Mr.-Gallo will inform you when 24 that. obligation comes to an end. Thank you very much for 25- your cooperation.
h
4
~
'21560.0 23814 i BRT.
, .(g)[ ,
l1 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
2 MR. GALLO: One matte'r, your. Honor. The 3 Licensing Board's order of October 4, 1984, entitled
.4' ' " Testimony of O.B. Cannon witnesses," -- it's really a
'5 memorandum -- it says that: "If the board judges 6 Mr.' Norris' further testimony to be accurate and complete, 7 even'though it may directly contradict portions of his 8 ' prior testimony, we are inclined to view possible problems 9 in; prior testimony as due to his not being adequately 10 prepared because he was not represented by-counsel."
-11 I would ask the board to make that finding now,: based l 12- on.the testimony of this witness across 2-1/2 days.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, we-are certainly inclined to
~
14 do;that, but I think until we have'the; findings of the 115 parties it would be premature to -make that . finding. I
-16 certainly was impressed by~the willingness 1of the witness 17 to cooperate with.us, but until I have had-.a chance to see t
.18 . findings I would rather not make that as a formal ;
'19 Edetermination of the board.
20: -MR. ROISMAN: I also take it, Mr. Chairman, the L21: board is not intending to make- a finding- on. the question
. y-I I 22 ;of --whe ther , at this occasion, Mr. Norris was or was.not
~
t <
23 adequately prepared by, counsel but only on what he 24 :actually.did.
Your. statement, the' statement that L25 Mr..Gallo.just read indicated'that perhaps.the-problem was
- 1
- - - , . ~ _ . -
t
'21560.0 23815 BRT
[() 1 that he wasn't adequately prepared before. I wanted to be 2 sure.that the board was not going to have a ruling on 3 whether it thought he had been adequately prepared now. '
~
4 It's only going to rule on whether or not it feels that 5 you received from him, as truthfully as he could give it, 6~ all the information.
7: JUDGE BLOCH: At any rate the board made a 8 statement in that order and it stands by it but it doesn't l- , .'9 want to make any_further ruling in that regard right now.
10 Mr. Norris, thank you.
11: (Witness excused.)
D]
- /
312
~
JUDGE GROSSMAN: One other procedural matter. .I 13 want to expand on my position to Mr. Gallo --
-l4- JMR. GALLO: Jack, I don't want.you to go. You'
'15 can leave but. don't leave the building..
- 16. MR; .ROISMAN: Judge-Grossman, just before-you-do .,
17- :that can we just have the document marked as Norris --
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Of f the r'ecord for discussion -
19 .between Mr. Norris and-his counsel.
1 20 (Discussion off the record.). .
.21: JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Roisman?
i ~
'() :22: MR. ROISMAN:' I wanted to have the. letter that-A 23 Mr. Watkins.put in. marked as Norris-Exhibit 12, if we j 24- 'could.
JUDGE BLOCH: Let us do that.
2 51
.. . . - . . - - _ . . . . - . _ . . . - . - . . . - - ~ . . . _ . . - . . . . . . - . . . . - . . . - - - - . . . . . . . . . _ . _ . . . .
p
)
- i. ;
i 1 4 i a . .
I
- 21560.0 23816 .
1' -BRT i
! 1
[; (Norris Exhibit 12 identified.) l i+
i 2: (The document follows:)
t 3
i j '4 1
i 5
t 1-
- . -6 j' '7 .,
4 _
l-i' 8' ,
t i .-
9 g '. - _
110 i
f~
4 11 *
' 12 --
}. '.
- l. ' - 13,
14'
- . i t
15.
~16 l-17-j:- 18', ;
'{9 L' '20L '
i I-
.21- :
fN - 22: i L '
~23 o- <
h 1 L -
24-u
.' A5I m
I~ ,
i E l, , .. . ,--,,, u :,- r i-,. ..-,- ,,-, ______._.-,:
_ 3e _JJM 23817
~
O -
I NOT *
. - LIVER B. CANNON Q SON. INC.
s IndustrialPainting Specialists 5600 WOODLAND AVENUE PHILADELPHIA. PA 19143 AREA CoOE (215) 729 460o O Ca atot & u ke+
)VW/ T /-) ,
7 T w Af June 22, 1984 Texas Utilities Service, Inc.
Skyway Tower 400 N. Glive Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Attention: Mr. Carroll R. Graves Manager of Purchasing
Reference:
Commanche Peak Unit 2 Field Painting and Nuclear Coatings
Dear Mr. Graves,
At the request of Mr. Jack Norris of our Houston Office, I am forwarding herewith experience and f(n,ancial data on our firm, especially as it relates to the field application of Class I and II Nuclear Coatings.
Since 1931 Cannon has specialized in serving a select industrial clientele, with emphasis El ven to the Power Generation field. We have provided the services of applying protective coatings in well over one hundred fossil and nuclear power generatin$ stations located throughout the United States and l Canada.
Cannon maintains a large inventory of the most modern abrasive blasting.and painting equipment available and the necessary qualified supervision to satisfy the protective and aesthetic requirements for both new construction and maintenance painting needs.
! We maintain a technical services department complete with a corrosion testing laboratory, including facilities for batch samplins and material analysis. A permanent staff of trained and certified personnel is available to carry out a complete quality assurance / quality control program as sanctioned and audited l by the U. S. Nuclear Re5ulatory Commission, as well as other regulatory l agencies. Additionally, Cannon is listed by,the Coordinating Agency for Supplier Evaluation (CASE).
O 99997
/
/
FOUNDED 1916 J N,,
l i
e
'ouvER B. CANNON Q SON. INC.
Texas Utilities Service, Inc. 2'3818 June 22, 1984 Page Two
'y13 Enclosed for your review is a copy of Cannon's Painting for Power brochure and other information which furthee depict and describe cannon's history of :
service to the power industry. Also included is a list of nuclear project
- references, major power plant contracts recently completed, a listing of major power plant work in progress, along with a copy of our latest Consolidated Balance Sheet.
Should you need additional.Information, do not hesitate to contact myself or Jack Norris in Houston. (Tel. 713-947-9670).
Thank you for the opportunity to be of servies.
ery truly ou s, p / *= = =
amuel R. eman Management Representative SRW:la 0; cc: JJNorris ENCLOSURE -
is .
.i I
l f
lO l
i l C,
l l
l I
21560.0 23819 BRT
/~'i
(_). 1 JUDGE.GROSSMAN: I didn't want to restrict what 2 I gave as an example. I don't want to have my ruling 3 restricted-to the example of something new being elicited
~4 on cross-examination. Just to make it clear, if an 5 unfavorable response to your client is elicited, I think 6 you have a perfect right to ask further questions on that, 7 whether the original question was on cross-examination or 8 . direct examination. I think it would be a deprivation of 9 due process not to allow you to do it, Mr. Gallo.
10 So it doesn't really matter whether it's new material 11 or old material. But until you have a chance to respond
~k) m 12 to something unfavorable to your client, _I think you would 13 be deprived of due process if we merely accepted that 14: ~ original answer. So I just want to--- I don't want to 15 argue the point with you.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you want to take a recess for 17 ' lunch.now?
18 MR. GALLO: I.want to take a recess.until 11:30 19 to say good-bye to one client and hello-to the next
- K) witness. I could make it less than that if 10 would be
-21 sufficient.
r-()s - 22 JUDGE BLOCH:- Make it 10, to 11:25. Granted.-
23 (Recess.)-
24 JUDGE BLOCH: The hearing will come to order.
25 .Welcome, Mr. Trallo. Is it is my recollection that you u
r-9 21560.0 23820
~BRT-4 1 were. advised of.your.ob'.1gation.. Do you remember that?
2 THE WITNEFS: That's correct, sir.
3 JUDGE BI JCH: And it is your understanding that
- 4. jyou continue.to be under oath?
5 THE WITNESS: That's correct, sir.
'6-Whereupon, 7 RALPH A. TRALLO !
8, resumed the stand, having been previously duly sworn, was-9 examined and - test.ified further . as follows : ,
- 10 JUDGE BLOCH
- . There was an. order on witnesses in
!' . 11 : this case. Have-youJlearned anything directly or
~
1 -
12 .- indirectly about the. testimony of other O.B. Cannon'
.13 witnesses in this proceeding?
.14 THE WITNESS: I have not.
i' ,
15 ,
JUDGE BLOCH: Welcome. It's Mr.~'Gallo's
- 16' , opportunity to question his. client.
. 17- DIRECT EXAMINATION 1-
- BY MR.-GALLO:
' 19 - Q. Mr.'Trallo, would.you state your full.'name and i m 0
20 address for the' record, please?.
i e
21 A. My name~is Ralph-A.r Trallo, I reside at 185
' h,~:
- 22 : Davis-Avenue, Williamstown,'New: Jersey.= -
b
- 23 Q Did you.have occasio'n to prepare t'estimony~for.
24 this(proceeding?.
- ' - 25, A Yes,.I.did. e t.
I
>4
+
t Mh $'h1h4y b -"y g- + -9 7 ' " gf ee y-wng 4- gP ym f 4 4-g+ yrg-g we ew 9 rag, w=q =t -yV egga es q v3 Wga '-'e-g-
21560.0 23821 BRT-
,(m 1- O Do you have in front of you a document entitled
(_)
2 " Testimony of Ralph A. Trallo" consisting of 11 pages and 3 an attachment-A which consists of a coatings overview task
~ .4 group report dated November 28, 1983; do you have that in 5 front of you?
6 A That is correct.
7 0 Is that the testimony you prepared for this 8 proceeding?.
9 A .Yes,.it is.
.10 -Q Are there any corrections or additions you would.
- 11. like to make?
- f'
.(
12 A. No.
13 O Is the document accurate and complete to the
. 14' best of your knowledge and belief?
15 A It is.
~16 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, at this time I would 17 like to introduce the testimony of Ralph A. Trallo into 18 evid'ence and bind it-into the transcript as if read. A 19 _ copy has been provided to the reporter for that purpose.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: The motion is granted.'
- 21. (The document follows:)
3 .
A[ l 22 23 24
'25
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 23822 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-445-2 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446-2 COMPANY, et al. )
) (Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating Licenses)
Station, Units 1 and 2) )
TESTIMONY OF RALPH A. TRALLO Q.1. Please state your name and business address for the record.
A.1. My name is Ralph A. Trallo. I an employed by Oliver B.
Cannon & Son, Inc., 5600 Woodland Avenue, Philadelphia,
() Pennsylvania, 19143.'
Q.2. What is your position with Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc.?
l l A.2. I am Vice President, Nuclear Services.
! Q.3. Please state your educational background and work
- experience. .
l t
s -
=
23823 A.3. I was awarded a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from the Newark College of Engineering O in 1967. I attended continuing education seminars A
at Pepperdine University and Rutgers University. I an a member of the ASTM Committee D33 on " Protective
- Coatings" for the pcwer generation industry and I am Vice Chairman of Subcommittee D33.07 " Application" concerning the application of coatings. I an a
! member of the advisory board to the Utilities Coatina Work Committee, a voluntary group that has been organized.to exchange information concerning l the application of protective coatings at power (f Plants. .
I was employed by Unite'd Engineers &
Constructors, Inc., as Field Engineer from 1967 through 1971. I was assigned to chemical, manufacturing, and nuclear. power projects. From 1971 through 1974, I was employed by Babcock &
Wilcox, Inc., as a Field Construction Manager and I i was assigned to pulp and paper, manufacturing, and i
l fossil power projects. From 1974 through the l
present, I have been employed by Oliver B. Cannon &
{) Son, Inc. ,
From 1974 through 1977, I served as Project Manager for-various projects, including pulp and l
l
-.-s,,w r,-v ,e-------
9
~ ~
23924 paper, fossil fuel, and nuclear power facilities.
-In 1977, I was promoted to Vice President. During
,;O the past ten years, I have been directly involved in the management of ten nuclear power projects.
Q.4. When did you first learn of the consulting arrangement between Texas Utilities and Cannon?
A.4. In late June or early July 1983, John Norris called me inquiring as to the availability of myself and Joe Lipinsky to perform an onsite review of the t
{} coatings operation at Comanche Peak. At that time, j neither Joe nor myself were available, and John Norris was so advised. Subsequently, a target date in late July was established for Joe Lipinsky to be available for a site visit.
Q.5. What was your understanding of the task to be performed by Mr. Lipinsky?
f
() A.5. Mr. Lipinsky was to review the' Comanche Peak coatings program from a quality point of view. This was to include a review of the inplace coatings, inspection activities, and documentation activities to ascertain effectiveness.
23325 Further, recommendations were to be made regarding these areas where appropriate.
l Q.6. What was the extent of your participation in the work under the consulting arrangement with Texas Utilities?
A.6. Initially, my only involvement was to determine the availability.of the staff for site visits and eventually scheduling Joe Lipinsky's site visit.
l EO When did you first become aware of the August 8,
, Q. 7. -
1983 trip report prepared by Mr. Lipinsky?
A.7. I first became aware of the August 8, 1983 trip report during the first week of August 1983. I read
-1 the August 2nd draft of the report and made several notations of a grammatical nature and returned the draft to Joe Lipinsky.
O Q.8. Did the tone and content of the trip report cause you concern?
. i 23826 A.8. I considered the report to be a " talking language" note to file and did not give much consideration to the. verbiage used. The content was significant in that questions were raised concerning the implementation of the quality program in the coatings area at Comanche Peak. However, this was a preliminary assessment and I was under the impression that additional site reviews and investigations would be performed prior to finalizing a formal report for client distribution.
Q.9. What was your next involvement in this matter?
A.9. ' Joe Lipinsky advised me in October 1983 that the meno was in the hands of the NRC and the public.
Further, Texas Utilities' management had contacted R.B. Roth_ requesting a copy. According to Mr.
Lipinsky, Mr. Roth requested changes to the trip report prior to formal release to the client.
(
Q.10. Did you advise Mr. Lipinsky with respect to Mr.
(
Roth's proposal to revise the August 8th trip report?
!~
a
- 6-23827
- A.10. When asked by Mr. Lipinsky if he should sign a
~'
revised report, I advised Mr. Lipinsky that I would not. However, I recommended that he review any changes and make a decision based on that review.
4 Q.11. Did you investigate the manner in which the Lipinsky trip report leaked to the NRC and the public?
A.11. I discussed the matter with Joe Lipinsky. According to Mr. Lipinsky, he didn't know how the report was
'() leaked. He did state that he had showed a copy to a Mr. Evert Mouser, but did not recall giving him a copy. Several weeks after the initial discussion, Mr. Lipinsky advised that he had learnad from the NRC that the report had been " surreptitiously" obtained. I advise & Mr. Roth and John Norris of my discussions with Mr. Lipinsky.
Q.12. What was your next involvement in this matter?
10 A. I was advised by Mr. Roth on-November 4, 1983 that I was assigned as Group Leader for a Task Force Review l
l of the coatings program at. Comanche Peak.
23323 Q.13. What was the purpose of the Task Force' activities?
~
A .13 . , The purpose was to review or audit certain aspects of the coatings program, including those matters raised in Joe Lipinsky's trip report. We planned to review procedures for controlling and storing paint and related materials, procedures'and documents related to painter qualifications, and the working relationships between production and QC personnel.
We also intended to examine the effectiveness of the
! Comanche Peak coatings retrofit program as well as
() determining compliance with project specifications.
Finally, we planned-to conduct an overview of the adequacy of inplace coatings.
l Q.14. How was the review to be implemented?
A.14 Mr. Roth delegated this task to me. I developed in my own mind a general plan for implementing the i
review with the intention to visit the site before
! () putting it into more detailed form. Joe Lipinsky,
. John Norris and Keith Michels were to visit the site to initiate the review activities. I was to l
l join them.the following day.
t
23829 I
I instructed Joe Lipinsky and Keith Michels to
).
review the programmatic requirener.ts of the coatings program, followed by a review of the in-place documentation. I planned for Mr. Norris to observe this review as well as perform a review of the field j coatings work activities. I did not discuss this l ,
{ plan with John Norris prior to the site visit, as I
{
intended on finalizing the plan with him directly.
I planned to oversee the above activities to assure
-full implementation and summarize the resultant 1
information.
Lipinsky and Michels developed a checklist for 1(])
their part of the activity, both to serve as a guide and to advise Texas Utilities' management of the support we would require.
L Q.15. Was the review implemented as described in your previous answer?
A.15. No. Upon arrival at the job site, the Task Force
( ). members-were advised that the scope of activity intended by' Cannon was not the same as that perceived by Texas Utilities' site management. Mr.
John Merritt requested a meeting to review the
i
_ 9_ 23930 ;
"Lipinsky Memo" prior to redefining the scope of the Task Group activities.
Q.16. What were the results of the meeting?
A.16. Mr. Tolson and others addressed concerns raised by the Lipinsky trip report and presented information regarding Texas Utilities programmatic requirements.
We were assured that the coatings program met all requirements. Further, Mr. Tolson stated that numerous audits had been performed and additional
() in-depth reviews or audits were not warranted.
L Texas Utilities did offer to make available'any specific documentation regarding individual matters which Cannon might request.
After all aspects of the meno were discussed,,I requested that we adjourn so that we could review the information presented.
Q.17. What did you and'the Task Force conclude?
O l
l .
--, ~ , ,- _
l 23831 l I
A.17. We recognized that as a consultant to Texas Utilities, Cannon was requesteI to provide recommendations, raise concerns, or point out any item that would affect the Comanche Peak coatings program. However, it was also true that Texas Utilities had no obliga, tion to. Cannon to satisfy any of its concerns. We provided our input to Texas Utilities and any further action was up to them.
{ With this perspective, the Task Force members discussed the information presented by Texas Utilities during the November 10 meeting. We accepted the information presented at' face value and (3
~J concluded that our concerns were unfounded; however, we didn't believe that.anything less than a comprehensive audit could be used for verification.
An audit of this magnitude did not' appear warranted since we were told the site coatings program was a
( currently undergoing such an audit by NRC. Our i
y conclusions were presented to the Texas Utilities' representatives when the meeting resumed on November
- 11. Cannon considered it Texas Utilities' responsibility to request any further action.
l l
1 1
l 23832 I
, Q.18. Do you believe the meeting environment pressured Lipinsky into changing his position as stated in the August 8, 1984 trip report?
A.18. No. I was very careful to assure that the meeting would not turn into a " witch hunt." I had previously told Mr. Merritt that we would participate in the meeting only if it were conducted in a professional manner. Joe did appear nervous and he was very quite during the meeting. However, I believe his reaction reflected the fact that he was the center of attention. In any event, any stress he may have felt during the meeting was not present when the Task Force reviewed the situation and arrived at its conclusions in private during the late Efternoon and evening of November 10.
f Q.19. Did you prepare a report summarizing the activities and conclusions of the Task Force?
i A.19. Yes. On November 28, 1983, I prepared a memorandum q{ } for Mr. Roth that described our activities and explained the conclusions we had reached. Mr. Roth transmitted this report to Texas Utilities. It is attached as Attachment A.
, n .% .a .o n OLIVER B. CANNON Q SON. INC.
23333 DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE November 28, 1983 DATE H-8301 - Coatings overview Task Group Report Robert B. Roth Ralph A. Trallo I.
Background:
Cannon Personnel Concerned:
Robert B. Roth - President and Chief Executive Officer Ralph A. Trallo - Vice President Nuclear Services John J. Norris - Vice President and Project Account Manager John J. Lipinsky - Corporate Quality Assurance Director M. Keith Michels - Corporate Quality Assurance Lead Auditor On November 4,1983 a Cannon Task Group consisting of the writer, J. J.
Norris, J. J. Lipinsky, and M. Keith Michels was established to perform follow-up evaluation of items previously addressed within the scope provided under our Consulting Services Contract
- with this client.
l:- ?
(.) This follow-up was to be in accordance with guidelines set forth in departmental correspondence from Robert B. Roth to the writer
- and the principle purpose detailed was to evaluate the nuclear coatir.gs retrofit program at Comanche Peak. Key areas included:
Material Storage and Control Painter mechanic qualification / documentation Working relationship between Production / Inspection Status and adequacy of documentation / traceability Implementation of coatings retrofit effort, see " Painting Minutes of Meeting", pages 1 to 4, dated 8/15/83, as prepared by R. M. Kissinger, Project Civil Engineer
( )- Compliance of Nuclear coatings to Project Specifications requirements Overview as to adequacy of current safety-related coatings in place, as per proper Industry practice, etc.
- 1. - TUGO Purchase Order No. CPF-15245
- 2. - Departmental correspondence R. B. Roth to R. A. Trallo, 11-4-83 Fc?M - onc 115
- lOL. IVEft. B. CANNON 4 SON. INC.
'H-8301 - Coatings Overview Task Group Report
.To: Robset B. Roth November 28, 1983 Page Two 23834 II. Preliminary Preparation:
The -writer discussed the operation and purpose of the Cannon Task Group with the other participants. A point of departure schedule was established in accordance with Robert B. Roth's memo guidelines, and preliminary checklists were prepared to facilitate orderly progression e
and review. The intent was to have OBC QA Services (Lipinsky and Michels) and J. J. Norris (Account Manager) cnsite for whatever time was required to complete the necessary reviews. R. A. Trallo was to visit the site to perform an overall evaluation as to^ the effectiveness of the Cannon Task Group activities. Commencement dates for site activities were: November 9, 1983, J. J. Norris, J. J. Lipinsky and M. Keith Michels onsite to begin preliminary reviews; November 10, 1983,- the writer onsite to insure effective implementation of the Cannon Task
~
Group activities. . ,,,;
'. -l.}-
f '_
( .
%/ ' * -
_,f-* .T III. Task Group Activities: - .I . .., . .
On November 8,1983 I called John Merritt to advise him that-Oliver B. --- -
Cannon personnel would be onsite November 9, 1983, and requested that he have available the folllowing information for review:
Organizational chart with names and titles of individuals and positions filled Copy of current revision of the QA Program Complete cooperation with various onsite departments,. organizations and individuals List of names of all inspection personnel and level
'( of certification l List of names and positions of production personnel (foremen and above)
List of certified painters and systems for which the
! painters are qualified 3* "JJL and MKM Comanche Peak Trip Plan" (4 Pages) b.
0LIVEk. B. C ASNON C; SON, INC.
. H-8301 - Coatings Overvicw Task Group Raport TO: Robtrt B. Both Nove:nber 28, 1983 23335 Page Three III. Task Group Activities: (continued)
)
Liason or interface person for quality assurance, quality control, production, and other departments in order to expedite and aid in the performance of this review Mr. Merritt requested that any reviews conducted by OBC were to be performed on a joint basis (ie. QA and Accout Management).
Cannon personnel were onsite the morning of November 9, 1983 At that time J. J. Lipinsky gave a copy of the preliminary review checklist3 .
to John Merritt. J. J. Norris and John Merritt discussed the checklist and Mr. Merritt requested a " kick off" meeting prior to any formal reviews or implementation of Cannon Task Group activities.
j
. It became evident that the sc. ope of the Cannon Task Group activities which had been previously cutlined ,* were not coincident with that perceived by TUGO. Mr. Merritt requested a review meeting to discuss the concerns of the "Lipinsky Memo"
- and based on the outcome of that meeting TUGO would re-define the scope of the Cannon Task Group-activities. The review meeting was held commencing Thursday, AM, November 10, 1983, with John Merritt chairing.
Mr. Ron Tolson, Construction QA Supervisor, started the discussion. In essence the "Lipinsky Memo"
- was used as an agenda, and each memo paragraph, ce statement, was discussed and clarified. The meeting was recorded and the transcript has been distributed for comment.$* It became evident that certain statements in the trip memo
- were
['] incorrectly stated or misinterpreted. This was principally due to the organizational structure at Comanche Peak. (ie. A management team consisting of individual's employed by different organizations.)
- 2. - Departmental correspondence R. B. Roth to R. A. Trallo, 11-4-83 3* "JJL and MKM Comanche Peak Trip Plan" (4 Pages) 4 - Trip Report (JJL to RBR) 8-8-83
- 5. "Lipinsky Memo Meeting on November 10 and November 11, 1983"
OL IVE B. CANNON Q SON, INC.
. H-8301 - Coatings Overvif.w Task Group Raport TO: Rob;rt B. Roth 23836 November 28, 1983 Page Four Mr. Tolson explained the operational roles of the individuals involved s on the Comanche Peak Team, along with their proper titles,
'x responsibilities, and lines of reporting.
Concerns raised in the "Lipinsky Memo"
- were for the most part, based on observations and discussions between Joe Lipinsky and site personnel. At face value this "information," would be the cause for raising concerns regarding the site coating activity. Throughout the course of the November 10 meeting, it was evident that Site QA Management at Comanche Peak was not interested in further audits, or program reviews, since they have been subject to numerous outside and internal reviews and audits in the past several years. These constant and sometimes redundant reviews, compounded by the apparent personnel matters,resulted in short or clipped responses, which could readily be misinterpreted.
J Regarding areas of coatings material handling, personnel qualifications, non-conforr$ances, and quality responsibility, Mr. Tolson discussed the current procedures and controls in effect at Comanche Peak. This detailed information not readily available to Joe Lipinsky during his site visit of July 26, 27, 28th,1983, and on which visit he based his August 8, 1983 trip report to Robert B. Roth.
Comanche Peak Management stated that they do not feel they have a problem in the areas of concern, as raised in the "Lipinsky Memo."
- A detailed indepth audit was not agreed to. However, a review of specific items could be scheduled, or program " paper" be made available for review, at Cannon's request. After consideration the Cannon Task s
Group decided that a limited review was unwarranted, since it would not
'j provide sufficient support to a statistical extrapolation as to the entire coatings programs' effectiveness.
Detailed discussion and information is provided in the notes of the November 10 and-November 11 meetings. (Reference footnote 5.)
4*
- Trip Report (JJL to RBR) 8-8-83
- OhlVEi1 B. CANNON Q SON, INC.
. H-8301 - Costings.0verview Task Group Report TO: Robert B. Roth
.g November 28, 1983 23837 Page Five
(~T IV.
Conclusion:
%) ^
The Cannon Task Group did not perform the total overview function as originally scoped by Robert B. Roth. This was due to the request of our client to explore and review the "Lipinsky Memo"
- in further detail, paragraph by paragraph.
.The site meetings of November 10 and 11, 1983 resulted in the rollowing:
The concerns raised in the "Lipinsky Memo"
- were based on limited information and observations which were neither investigated nor discussed in sufficient detail, during his site visit, to either allay or to confirm.
r I .
Comanche Peak Site Management adequatel; detailed the programs
( I- and controls in place, which would relieve or allay the concerns raised in the "Lipinsky Memo."4* Cannon has no basis to confirm that these. programs and controle are in place and are being effectively implemented. Confirmation could only be provided by a detailed audit. Such an audit could be redundant and certainly time consuming. Further, TUGO has neither requested same, nor is it required by the referenced Purchase of Services Agreement.
Based on the.information provided by the Comanche Peak Site Organization we can assame that our concerns are unfounded, however, affirmation could only be finalized by further effort.
/
Ralph A. Trallo
-RAT:jr 4* - Trip Report (JJL to RBR) 8-8-83
21560.0 23838
- BRT
()
l' MR. GALLO: The witness is available for 2 cross-examination.
3 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Roisman?
4 CROSS-EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. ROISMAN:
6 O Mr. Trallo, are you personally represented by k 7 counsel for purposes of this proceeding?
8- A No, I'm not.
9~ Q Have you consulted with a personal counsel, one 10 who represented you in preparation for your testimony here?
11 A I have not.
) 12 MR. GALLO: Objection. Irrelevant. It's beyond --
13- JUDGE BLOCH: Do you want to strike the answer?
- L4 ' I have heard the answer already. ,
15 MR. GALLO: Was there an answer to the question?
16' I didn't hear it.
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. He said,he has not.
18 MR. _ GALLO: All right. I'll withdraw the 19 objection at this point.
20 BY'MR. ROISMAN:
21 O' Mr. Trallo,-looking at page 3 of your testimony, J!bs) ; ~22 the question and answer number 5 at the bottom of the page.
12 3 What is it that you mean when you say "Mr. Lipinski was to 24 review the Comanche Peak coatings program from a quality.
25- point of view." What does that entail?
-2____
21560.0' 23839 BRT-'
.r)
_j 1 A Basically, as I believe I stated, that 2 Mr. Lipinski was going to visit the job site, do a cursory 3 review of coating work in progress and also the associated 4 _ quality aspects which belong to documentation and controls 5 thereof.
6 O Well, are there plateaus in doing a review of a 7 coating program?
8 A Yes, there are.
4 9 Q And was this review that Mr. Lipinski was to do, 10 at a particular definable plateau?
11 A It was not explicitly defined. It was my 6
(,) 12 impression that it would be an entrance level review, a 13 cursory review at the time of his initial site visit.
14 Q Give me some examples, if you can, contrasting. q 15 what would be an entrance level review with a more 16- detailed review, in a coatings program and the goality 17 area of it' so that we can get some understanding of what
- 18 all this means.
~
19 A From my opinion, an entrance level review would 20- be a review consisting of a site visit, whereby you would-21 observe work being performed. Some of the work which has L.(; 3) 22 .recently been put in place, the basic quality controls 23- that are used, and the application of safety-related
- 24 ' coatings.
25 An-example would be you would review how materials are 1- I
-- .-. c+- . . . _- . . . . . - _ - . - _ - _
\
t y ,
t
. . . .y. 1 \
J
.21560.0 .' '
23840 BRT.
is
-r . ,
.Q. a l' handled, how they are stored, the method of application, 2; .without going into specific, detail and review of.the
-3 records of previously-applied cy ,tems.
[sy - ' 4' O And would you conduct your review by talking to DS 5; somebody or would you conduct your review by reading
- t. $
~
6 something.or would you conduct your review by-observing
._s ,_
/W 3p 7- something or all of the above?
How would that review be
.. '8: dorie?J yh ~ ^ ' '
9 A Normally it would include all'of the mentioned
- 10:y ^ items.. ,
i .- . 1
~
?) 11 'O /. -And.what would.s reviewer do if they were'doing t, h /' , % . ,i; '
.12 ithat: kind of review and they observed something that (13: seemed.to.them or read softething that'. appeared to them or-n 14 heard-something that. sounded to'them as though-it were.a ;
'15 problem? Woul,d jthe natuEe of the review be to note that?
,. e .,
ea16 Or would the' nature of'the, review 1to be to try1to track .
O ,,..:g;.if^ .
thatadown?
18:: n#A The - nature o'f this type of review would be to E Y. i !
19N ' note it; and eventually, bring it- to the attention' of the
,J
', :20- ; cognizant respons[ih>1e party.
"x :21 LO- Would it'be -- strike that. .
hh '22 7,[Whatwouldnormallybetheyreasonwhysomebodywould 23- want such'an entrance' level review conducted? >
-(:
- 24' :C - MR. WATKINSM 2 Object to the form of - the question.
.34
- .25) tit's .not' clear whether he's~ relating.it specificallyfto
$l 4m&
y _
l 21560.0' 23841 BRT i
( )
y_/:
1 'this_ job or to jobs. generally. l 2 JUDGE BLOCH: What difference does that make?
3 He's asking about the entrance level review that the 4 witness thought was going to be done?
5- MR. WATKINS: Well, if it relates to jobs 6 generally we submit it's not relevant to this case.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: He's asking his understanding of 8 -the kind of review-that was being called for.
9 MR. ROISMAN: Yes. That's. correct.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: So that.the objection is denied.
11 THE_ WITNESS: .CouldLyou please repeat the-
~12 . question?
13 BY MR. ROISMAN:
14 0 Yes. What wouldLnormally be.the purpose of an-15 entry-level review, of.the type that you are describing 16- 'that Mr. Lipinski was-to have done here at Comanche Peak?
17 ~A- -I could not speculate on what the purpose might
-18 have-been--or may have_been.in this particular case or.any J
.19 other. case.
Normally'if a' client'or a' cognizant responsible 21 authority requests you to do this type of review, you
l_ 11' /THE WITNESS: I'm not really' familiar-with-.the
( ,12 ' details,of th,e contract. terms.
4 -
13- BY MR. ROISMAN-
- 1-4 -- Q In,the question number-5-that we are lookingLat, . ,
, 2151 you -- th'e question is : "What: was your understanding -of f the .
16l . task to be performed by;Mr. Lipinski?" 'LDo you .see': that? '
1
'17
, A- Yes.-
18 'O .In'giving us-your_ answer, what'is the date that-
~ '
x19; you;have in' mind'as.'to the -- at what.timesin the pastLthe .
un
(, -b L20 u
'nderstanding..that you are' describing.in. answer 5 was 21; known-to you?-
. r .'. .
- --l 22 ~ L A' . ' July 1983.
g- .
- 231 .O LSo that you were aware that this' contract'was. -
124 ~ ' being' undertaken.at.about the time that it in fact was-
' ~
25 .beingtinitiated; '. is. that' L correct?
I LJ ' , _
- =_: - -. -
21560.0 23843 BRT t
) l' A That is correct.
2 O How did it happen that that information came to
- 3. your attention?-
4 A~ I received a call from Jack Norris who requested 5 the availability of myself or-Joe Lipinski or both of us 6 to visit the site.
7 Q Did you learn from Mr. Norris at that time what 8 it was that he had anticipated the review at the site 9 would consist of?
10- A Yes.
11 0 And what was it to consist of, beyond what p
\s / - 12 you've given us in the answer to question 5?
13 A In addition to my statement.in answer 5,-it was
-14 to also review the production aspects of the coating 1
15 program at Comanche Peak.
~
16 O' 'And what does that mean?
f 17 .A That, essentially, is the construction activity 18 to physically put the safety related coating work in place.
19 O I take it that that look would not be to'look to 20 see if it was'being done in a quality' manner, since that 21 would'already be covered by the quality look; is that 22 correct?
~ 2:3 A Would you please repeat the question?
R2 4 - O Yes.- ThatLlooking at the manner in which the 1 25 paint was being put on, the=so-called production part of
, _ ~ _ - . _ - - -. . - , , , - - _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ - _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . _
21560.0 23844 BRT
( ) I the' project, that that was not to look to see if it was 2 being done in a' quality manner, since the quality review 3 'was going to find that out. Is that correct?
4 A That would be my assumption.
-5 'O So, what part of production was it that the 6 focus would be on?
7- A Essentially, the methods of application, the 8 availability of tools, equipment, basic scheduling 9 parameters, the availability of application individuals --
.10 essentially mechanics.
- 11. O And would the goal of that, as you understood it,
() 12 be to determine if it was being done efficiently?
13 fA' Basically that's correct.
14 Q. And what was the role that Mr. Norris had 15 anticipated that you-were going to play, if you had been 16 available?
17 A- I would have looked at the aspects that 18L Mr. Lipinski -looked at and also looked at the production
-19 aspects-of the work. I would have looked at both aspects.
20 O' Did he talk to you about how you might be 21 -actually involved in the project?
- (v 22- A Not in depth, no.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Trallo, was there an unusual 24 type of contract for O.B. Cannon?
25; THE WITNESS: It is not the normal type of
- . _ . - .- .... a - .- -.-. - . . . - . - , . . . . - ,-. . -.. -.
l I
1 i
i
- 21560.0. 23845 j BRT: j
(( ) 1. contract that Cannon undertakes.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: And were you and the people .;
3 ' working for you quite busy at the time?
4' THE WITNESS: Extremely busy.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: What did'you see as the reason 6 'that would justify O.B. Cannon expending resources on this 7 . kind of a consulting project?
8 THE WITNESS: Normally, Cannon, as a corporate 9 philosophy,'has a dedication to our clients, our customers.
10 We are in business to be an ongoing concern. If at all 11 pocsible, at any time that we can satisfy the needs of any
-12 specific client, we try to accomplish-that need.- ,
- .13 JUDGE BLOCH
- This wasn't a client, except with 14 respect to this one contract, was it?
15 THE WITNESS: Well, it was a prospective _ client.
16 We consider, you know,-anyone we work _'ar or-have any-17- contractual' relations with,-a client.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Would ycu have been interested if '
.19 the only relationship'was-this one narrow consulting task?
- . 20 THE WITNESS
- ~ Basically I think so.
,a n
-21 JUDGE-BLOCH: Were there occasions in the'past q.
3 ); 22 -where consulting -- a consulting ta'. of this relative
- 23 scope _had been undertaken in the expectation that a 1
24 ' painting job might result from it?'
- 25 THE WITNESS - I cannot honestly answer that.
21560.0' 23846 BRT.
1 JUDGE BLOCH: You just don't know?
'2 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
3 BY MR. ROISMAN:
4 O In terms of the way in which O.B. . Cannon 5 functions, did you have any authority to either discourage 6 Mr. Norris from pursuing this contract or having him 7 . define the scope differently? Or did he operate somewhat 8 ' independently, in that sense, from you at least?
- 9 A He was independent from myself.
10 0 So, when he spoke to you he spoke to you in 11 terms of your ability to be available, essentially as an j 12 . employee to work on a' contract that he was negotiating?
13 Not in some corporate authority position, to get your
- 14. approval of having such a contract; is that correct?
15 A That is. correct.
16' O Now, subsequent to the time that.you spoke with 17 Mr. Norris about this contract, did you have occasion 18 during the month of July to speak to Mr. Lipinski about 19 this contract?.
20' A Yes, I did.
21 Q Do you remember the first'such occasion?
-- p.
A No, I do not.-
.V- 22~
23- O Do you remember whether you spoke to him more
. 24 than once in July?
g- -25 A I'm sure I did.
21560'0. 23847 BRT a f: 1 Q Can you remember what you and he talked about?
2 A In-generality, we discussed the scheduling to be 3 :available to go to the Comanche Peak site. We also
'4 discussed the scope of his activity while he would-be 5 on-site. ;
6 -Q And what did you discuss about the scope of his 7 activity?
-8 A Essentially it's the same as the answer I gave
~9' in number 5 here. That he would be taking a look at the 10 -in-place coatings,1 the inspection' activities, 11 documentation activities.
()- 12 Q Did he give you any idea of whether he thought 13 that-he was going there for the purpose of doing an audit 14 of the coatings program? The quality control portion of 15 the coatings program?
16 A Please repeat the' question.
17 Q~ Did he give you any idea that he believed-that 18~ Jhe was going-to Comanche. Peak in order to do an audit of
, 19 the quality control portion of the coatings program?
A No, he did not.
1 21' JUDGE BLOCH:' Mr. Trallo, did'you have any
- in
-:( jf 22- discussions-with Mr. Lipinski before he went to the site 23 .about the general outlines of.the' kind of quality. control
- 24 program that'was'in existence at Comanche' Peak?
25 .THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
J
4 a
e
'21560 . 0 23848 l BRT
{
-6 f; 'l.
JUDGE BLOCH: Did you have.any, discussion that 2- ~1ed you to know whether or not he had collected any ;
.3 documents for his review so that his work at the site 4 would be' productive?
-5 : THE WITNESS: =I believe that Mr. Norris was to 6 -forward-to. Joe Lipinski certain documents related to the
'7 quality aspects of the coatings. Basically, it would be
~
,8 construction and inspection procedures..
9' JUDGE ^ BLOCH: Was any mention made of FSAR '
- 10. ' commitments?
- 11
~
THE WITNESS:- Not prior to the site visit-that'I-
) 12- could recall;
- 13 - ~ JUDGE:BLOCH: But' construction procedures and 14- . quality assurance procedures?: ,
. - l
'15- THE. WITNESS:- Inspection procedure's..
16 JUDGE BLOCH: Inspection' procedures.
17- .THE WITNESS: Inspection procedures.,
~-
18'- JUDGE'BLOCH2- Can you tell us anything more 19 about what Mr. Lipinski'did to learn about the site, 20-' 'before he went'.there?
21~ -THE WITNESS:. I know that Mr. Lipinski contacted
[ ~22 several persons whom weLhad'a working _ relationship with, J23. ' basically because:they were previous employees.and-
_24< reported : to- Mr.; Lipinski, who were then stationed.at'the-
~ '
25 -Comanche Peakssite.
~
.- ~ _
l i
'21560.0 23849 BRT 1 JUDGE'BLOCH: Did you know that before-2 Mr.;Lipinski went to the site?
-3 THE WITNESS: I don't remember, sir..
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Did he discuss with-you anything 5 that he learned from those former employees before he went 6 to the site?
7' THE WITNESS:- I don't remember.
8 BY MR. ROISHAN:
9 Q Do you remember a conversation with Mr. Lipinski
-10 in which'he. indicated to you that, something to the-effect
.11 that._he thought that the owners of the Comanche Peak site I 12 might-not like the answers that he would come up with as a 13 . result of his investigation?
14 A I recall suchia conversation but I have no 15 recollection as to the timeframe. 1 16 O What do you recall of the conversation?
17 LA' ~ Basically, strictly what you said, Mr. Roisman.
18- Q What did you understand that he meant, that they_
19 might not like the answers?
2 0_ ' A My interpretation of that was that he may 21 uncover or, during the course of his review, develop n
() 12 2 -recommendations which were -- which would indicate there 23 was a problem with the application or implementation of 24 the coatings program.
25 O What^did you understand from your conversations, c_______ __.____:_______
21560.0 23850 BRT p) l either'with Mr. Norris or Mr. Lipinski, in July, was the 2 company's reason for wanting O.B. Cannon to do a review of 3 their coatings program?
4 A Is the company you are speaking of --
5 0 Either TUGCO, TUSI, whatever name you know it by.
6 A I really don't know.
7 O That just didn't come up? Or you just can't 8 remember if it did?
9 A I don't remember that it did come up.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you tell us anything about 11 your satisfaction prior to this with Mr. Lipinski's work n \
12 as a quality control person?
s.
13 THE WITNESS: Are you referring to the 14 satisfaction as to his job performance?
15 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes.
16 THE WITNESS: Both myself and' Cannon as an 17 organization was quite satisfied with.Mr. Lipinski's 10 performance.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Was there any history in the past 20 of his making adverse conclusions in the past, to client, 21 that were not substantiated by information he had i 22- collected?
23 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: Was there any history in the past 25 of unreasonable clashes with clients?
E .-
/ )
u 21560.0:- 23851
'BRTc 1 THE WITNESS: No.
2 BY MR. ROISMAN:
3 0 I take it, based upon what we've learned of O.B.-
4 ' Cannon over these weeks of hearings, that most of the time-I5- ' the role that Mr. Lipinski played was'as a quality. control 6 supervisor _of O.B. Cannon's own painting crews while O.B.
, -7 . Cannon was actually applying paint coatings;'is that 8 ' correct?
9 :A That is correct.
- 10 Q 'Did you have any information that Mr. Lipinski~,
in' performing that role, was an excessive sticklers for i [ 12- quality control matters, or in any way acted beyond the
' 13- ' appropriate scope for quality control-supervision?.
14' -A No.
15 Q- Still looking at answer.5, but turning over to s
-16 the top of pa'ge 4 of your,prefiled testimony,'you_ indicate
. 17^ that recommendations were to be'made regarding these areas
- 18 where appropriate.
19 .Do you' remember specifically discussing with-
- 20; Mr. Lipinski that such recommendations were to be made?
21- A No,-I do not.
- 22 O Was it-your understanding that Mr. Lipinski was f
23, to be making recommendations, as well as:Mr.'Norris?
24 .A' 'That was.not my understanding.
, 25 .Q' How did.you' understand;it?
. i. ; >
1 l
21560.0 23852 BRT I
) 1 A My understanding was that various departments 2 within the Cannon organization would be performing reviews 3 on-site. Any area which arose, which we felt should be 4 brought to the attention of the utility, would then be 5 summarized and forwarded by Mr. Norris.
6 O Now, do you remember why it was that Mr. Norris 7 seemed to feel that both you and Mr. Lipinski ought to be 8 looking at the quality control area?
9 A I don't believe Mr. Norris had requested that 10 both Mr. Lipinski or myself look at solely the quality 11 control area.
7 j 12 O Was he looking for either one or the other of 13 you to be available to work on the contract, when he 14 contacted you in late June or early July?
15 A He was requesting Mr. Lipinski, strictly for the 16 quality control aspects. And myself for an overall review 17 of the entire coatings program.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Did he want both of you?
19 THE WITNESS: Pardon me?
20 JUDGE BLOCH: Did he want both of you?
21 THE WITNESS: If we were available; yes.
I 22 JUDGE BLOCH: And your overall view, as I 23 understand it, would be both quality control and 24 production?
25 THE WITNESS: That is correct, sir.
21560.0 23853 BRT
[l LJ 1 BY MR. ROISMAN:
2 O What did you understand your role would be as 3 contrasted to Mr. Lipinski's role, looking at the quality 4 control aspects only?
5 A We never defined it that finely. We never --
6 the discussion never had come to fruition regarding a 7 distinct definition.
8- JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Roisman, could you show the 9 witness the work authorization?
10 MR. ROISMAN: Yes.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Do we know what number exhibit
<w
(,) 12 that is?
13 MR. ROISMAN: We do.
14 MR. WATKINS: Is this the internal O.B. Cannon 15 document, Mr. Chairman?
16 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes.
17 MR. WATKINS: The administrative work order?
18 MR. TREBY: I think this is number 11.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry, this is not the 20 document I was looking for. The document I'm looking for --
21 oh, here it is. It is the document.
) 22 MR. ROISMAN: It's Norris 11. Sorry.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: In this document, Mr. Trallo, 24 there's a sentence here that says -- you'll have a chance 25 to look at the whole document -- "I want to emphasize, as
21560.0 23854 BRT i
) 1 J. Merritt emphasized to me, that they are not looking for 2 -long-winded reports, but practical nuts and bolts 3 suggestions to help them get the coating program on track 4- so that they can load fuel by 12/31/83."
5 In your experience in the nuclear industry, is there 6 anything unusual about that kind of a request?
7 THE WITNESS: Are you referring to the request 8 of the services? Or the request, the specific request to 9 review the program to try to ensure that it is on track'so 10 they can make a fuel load date?
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Right. But without making
-(_A) . 12 "long-winded reports."
13 THE WITNESS: I have not run into that'before.
14 JUDGE BLOCH: Does that seem unusual to you?
15 THE WITNESS: Regarding any utility trying to 16 make sure that any facet of their construction program.is 17 on track in order to make a fuel load date, does not seem
~
18 odd to me at all.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Does it seem unusual to you that 20 'the company-never requested any written documents relating 21 to what Mr. Lipinski had told them orally on -- in the
.n 22 July meeting?
(,/ -
23 THE WITNESS: I would have expected that the 24 utility would have requested further information; yes.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: And what is that expectation based
4 21560.0 23855
~
BRT--
-1 on?
x_/.
2- THE WITNESS: Basically purely conjecture on my 3 part. Trying to put myself in any client's shoes who is 4 paying for a service. If they ask - for information I would 5 think that they would want more complete information than 6 we.gave them.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that basad in part on your 8 expectation that people running nuclear projects would be 9 very serious about wanting to know about problems that
~
10 were identified orally?
11 THE WITNESS: I' don't think it can-be isolated
(~
(_- 12 to only nuclear projects.
13 JUDGE-BLOCH: So even if it was a non-nuclear 14 project you think it would be likely that someone would be 15 serious enough'about the project to want to have details I
16 about what was found out to be wrong?
17 THE WITNESS: In my opinion; yes.
18 -JUDGE BLOCH: And,'in.your opinion, were there s 19 any obligations under appendix B to part 50, either on the 20 company or on O.B. Cannon, to get written documents-
~ 21 describing these problems?
.q
'Q . 22 'MR. GALLO: Objection. Two objections.
.23 I object to.the question because it asks for a legal 24 opinion of the witness with respect to the application of
- . 25 appendix B, to both TU and 0.B. Cannon; and, secondly the i
21560.0~ 23856 BRT
( )' 1- second objection goes to the request for an opinion with 2 respect to the application of appendix B. It's TU. It's 3 beyond the ken of this witness.
4 JUDGE BLOCH - From your knowledge of this 5- . industry, did your company have any obligation under the 6 appendix B regulation?
7' MR. GALLO: Same objection. You are asking for 8 a legal opinion.in the application of appendix B.
9' JUDGE BLOCH: I'm asking industry practice.
?
l0 Is there a practice in the industry for a contractor 11- working for a nuclear plant like this tx) consider that it k 12, was covered by appendix B?
13 THE WITNESS: I do not know.
14: BY MR. ROISMAN:
15- 0 Were you aware, when you spoke to Mr. Norris in 16 ' July of ' 83, that the. contract with TUGCO would have two 17 phases? A phase 1 and'a phase 27 18 A I was not.
19 O Do you remember when you spoke with him, whether.
20 -the contract had already been -- whether O.B. Cannon had 21 already committed to the contract?- Or whether his A 22.
d-v J1 conversation with you was intended to find out whether it 23 had been committed.to?
24 A I do not remember.
2 51 O Looking at answer 8 on page 5 of your testimony,
[21560.0 23857
-CRT-A A ,) 1 you're answering a question regarding the trip report. '
2 'And you say at the bottom of your answer, _"and I was under 3 the impression that additional site reviews and 4 investigations would be performed prior to finalizing a 5 normal report for client distribution."
'6 What was the basis for your impression?
7 A Essentially,'Mr. Lipinski's initial. site visit 8 on the latter part of July had been plenned by myself, 9- anyway, as an initial visit to the site to get a feel, 10 . basically, for what was going on there. I had assumed
.11 that he would im returning to the site the following month O,
1x / 12 .to further look at and review items which may have come to 13 his attention during the preliminary site visit.
- l-4 O So_that, going back to our other discussion 15 about plateaus, his site visit on July 26, 27, and 28 did
. 16 not reach the level of even being an entrance level review
- 17 in your judgment; is that correct?? -
'18 A That is not correct.
19 Q Okay. Please explain, then, what -- as.I 20 understand your testimony it was that an entrance level 1 21 review is what the company was asking for O.B. Cannon to
_- . 2'2 do as opposed to a full-fledged.in-depth audit?
~
23 A That is correct.
24 Q Is it your testimony that the entrance level.
25 review was. completed by Mr. Lipinski's visit on July 26,
l 21560.0 23858 BRT.
, 1 27, and 28th as recounted in his trip reports?
2 A No.
P f 3 O What more did you expect would be done?
4 A I expected that Mr. Lipinski, or someone 5 associated with Mr. Lipinski would further review the i-6 items which came to his attention with site personnel.
7 And, whatever definitive action would be established would 8 take place at that time.
9 Q Do you recollect, when you read the trip report, 10 having a view as to exactly what kind of further actions
'll Mr. Lipinski should be taking to follow up on the problem
.12 areas that he identified?
13 A Can I refer to that trip report, please?
\ -) 14 MR. ROISMAN: 'Yes. Absolutely. If your counsel 15 will provide you with a copy of that.
16 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question, 17- please?
18 BY MR. ROISMAN:
i 19 O The question ~was, do you remember what it was 20 that you expected or thought that Mr. Lipinski was going 21 to do to follow up on the problems that he identified in 22 his' August 8th trip report?
23 A On July 28, before Mr. Lipinski left the site, I
( 'i 24 there was.a site meeting held and Mr. Lipinski verbally 25 presented the areas of possible concern to the TU people 1
21560.0 23859 BRT 1 on-site.
2 O Okay. I think the line of questioning where we
- ks) 3 were before the interruption was the follow-on that you 4 had anticipated would take place back at the site sometime 5 after the July 26, 27, and 28th trip.
6 .A I was not aware at the time that the action was 7 the client's -- essentially that O.B. Cannon would not go 8 forward with any other reviews or investigations until 9 they were so notified by TU.
10 0 I take it that in the normal cou'rse of things, 11 given that O.B. Cannon had been called in for its 12 expertise, you would have expected that, having made some 13 preliminary identification of problems, the client still It
14 wanting the O.B. Cannon expertise would say: "Okay, come 15 on back and see if you confirm that those are problems or 16 that they are not, let's complete the-task." Is that 17 correct?
18 A I anticipated that; yes.
19 O And when did you learn that that was not what 20 was going to happen?
21 A Approximately October or November.
22 O Were you aware that Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Roth
~ 23 and Mr. Norris were going to go back.to the Comanche-Peak O
1, I
'/ 24 site around the 8th, 9th, and loth of August, of '837
. 25 A Yes, I was.
l
__m m
21560.0- 23860
-BRT>
- 1. -Q Did you believe, when they were going back there, 2 that that was going to be a part of the follow-on to deal 3 with the problems which Mr. Lipinski had outlined in the 4- trip report?
5 A I have no knowledge of what they were going to 6 the site for. .
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Trallo, when you saw the 8 Lipinski trip report did you have any expectations about 9 whether or not some written version of that would 10 subsequently be sent to the Applicants in this case?
11 THE WITNESS: It was my belief that it would be 12 formalized and the recommendations formally submitted to 13 .the utility.
7 I
^
14 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you have any knowledge about 15 why that didn't-occur?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes. Mr. Norris explained to me, 17 again, probably in the. fall when I raised the-question, 18 that the utility at their exit meeting in July had stated 19 that they had enough information, based on a verbal 20 presentation, and did not need a formal report.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: So he said to you that there 22 really was a formal request not to receive anything in 23 writing?
it
\_-) 24 THE WITNESS: I don't believe it was a formal 25 request, other than the discussion which took place _.at the
'21560.0 23861
.BRT 1 exit. meeting on July 28th.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: So there was-a request, not a 3 formal request, not to send anything in writing?
4 THE WITNESS: I don't believe that that may have 5 been the exact terminology used. I believe the 6 terminology was more to the effect that, "If we need 7 anything else, we'll call you."
8 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. But I thought that related 9 to further work. . I mean that has always been my 10 interpretation of what the trip report said: " Don't come 11 back to the site to do further work unless we call you."
12 You interpreted that as you spoke to Mr. Norris?_ You 13' think there was something said at the meeting to the
\# 14 effect: " Don't_tell us anything more about this in 15 writing"?
16 THE WITNESS: That was my interpretation after !
17 the fact; yes..
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that1 unusual in.your experience 19 in the nuclear industry?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you consider the Lipinski 22 report, the trip report, which is about four pages long, 23 to be a "long-winded report"?
A-
\/ ; 24' No, I do not.
'."HE WITNESS :
-25 JUDGE BLOCH: So I take it sending something L_ -
J l
- 21560.0 23862 BRT 1 like that, maybe without the conclusions, would have been i 2 consistent with the original statements in the work order?
-s -
\,) 3 There was no reason in the original discussion not to send 4 a written statement back to the site, was there?
5 THE WITNESS: Please repeat the question.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: Was there anything that you 7 understood from the nature of the relationship to the 8 Applicants that prevented O.B. Cannon from sending a 9 report of basically the length and detail that 10 Mr. Lipinski had prepared?
11 THE WITNESS: No, there was not.
12 BY MR. ROISMAN:
13 O Mr. Trallo, actually this trip report doesn't
(,)
14 contain any recommendations at all, does it?
15 A No, it does not.
f-16 O And, if recommendations were to be given, 17 whether they were oral or otherwise, something more would 18 have had to be done than just.this trip report; is that s'
.19 true?
20 A I would assume so.
21 0 Do you remember ever having a discussion with 22 Mr. Lipinski in which you learned whether he actually had
!. 23 any recommendations?
,, m.
Il- 24 A I don't recall any such discussion.
t 25 O Do you agree that essentially-in the trip report l
I -
L-__
21560.0 23863
-CRT 1 what be has done is to identify on a preliminary basis 2 some possible problems which he.would want to do further
'(
CL}- 3 analysis of before he even reached the point of saying 4 they were problems, much less giving recommendations with
~5 respect to them?
6 A That is possible.
7 O And when you saw the trip report, your 8 assumption that he would be going back to the site at some 9 subsequent time was not in order to write a recommendation, 10 particularly, but in order to confirm or refute his 11 preliminary assessment as he has outlined it in the trip 12 report; is that correct?
13 A That was my assumption.
(
14 O Still on page 5 of your testimony, you refer to 15 certain activities being done " prior to finalizing a 16 formal report-for client distribution."
17 Do I understand that that was a type'of report which, 18 although not as you later learned required or expected 19 under this contract, was a kind of report that would be, 20 in the normal situation, have been submitted to a client?
21- A That is correct.
22 O Are there certain' items that would normally be 23 included in such a report? I don't mean specific, but
!3
$l 24 categories of things that would im addressed.
25 A Each individual case or situation would have to
-21560.0 23864 BRT 1 stand on its own.
2 O Would you normally always include some f3
(._) 3 discussion of what the work was that O.B. Cannon had done, 4- describing, "Look, we did this and it took us this many 5 days" -- would that be a piece of the report?
6 A It could have been.
7 O But not always?
f 8 A Not in every case; no.
9 0 Now, in the answer number 9 on the same page, 10 page 5, the last line you say, "According to Mr. Lipinski, "
11 Mr. Roth requested changes to the trip report prior to 12 formal release to the client."
13 Was your only source of information regarding what 14 changes were requested to the trip report from your 15 conversations with Mr. Lipinski?
16 A That is correct.
17 Q Did you, when'you learned of what the changes 18 were that Mr. Lipinski told you Mr. Roth was requesting, 19 consider the possibility of discussing that with Mr. Roth .
20 directly?
21 A I don't know whether I considered it or not. I 22 don't recall discussing it with Mr. Roth, however.
23
~
O When you heard of the kind of changes that were i A
\- -
24 being'made, were you concerned for O.B. Cannon as a 25 corporation about Mr. Roth's proposal that the report be
_ _ . _ . ~. _. _ _ _ . -__ - - _ _ _ .
21560.0 23865 CRT E
1 changed?
2 A No, I was not.
, O)
\_ 3 Q Did you have any understanding from your 4 discussion with'Mr. Lipinski why Mr. Roth wanted the 1
5 change?
6 A No.
7 Q Why did you recommend to Mr. Lipinski, or advise 8 him that you would not sign the changed trip report? What 9 was it about the change that would make you not sign it?
10 A It was nothing specific about the change in thl,s 11 individual instance. It_was my personal philosophy that I 12 will not execute or sign a document that has been changed 13 and has already been made public or has been'out of house, O 14 without the change being identified in some fashion.
r-15 JUDGE BLOCH: I take it the problem was you 16 wouldn't want to sign a document that appeared to be -- to 17 have been written at a different time than it was being 18 written at?
19 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
20 BY MR. ROISMAN:
21L Q Did Mr. Lipinski seem, himself, to be very 22 concerned about the change? -Or did he just seem to be 23 soliciting your opinion without having any predetermined
. _',q .
L 'd 24 attitude of his own?
25 A I don't think he was concerned about the changes L..
21560.0 23866 BRT 1 made, in themselves.
2 O I'm sorry. I meant to encompass by that the
,m x_) 3 idea of making the change and making it appear that it was 4 part of the original document as drawn up in August.
5 A My impression of Mr. Lipinski's philosophy on 6 this was that he did not want to attest to or sign a 7 document that had been changed without the change being 8 noted in some fashion, 9 Q Did he seem adamant about that?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Did he eeem upset when he discussed it with you, 12 that his boss seemed to be asking him to do that and that 13 he didn't want to do it?
7
'- / 14 A No. Not really.
15 O Did he give you any indication that he felt that 16 since it was his boss who was making the request, that if 17 he refused it might injure his future with the company?
18 A Not that I recall.
19 Q Did he ever indicate to you that he thought what 20 he was being asked to do was perjury?
21 A I believe he did use the term; yes.
22 O And what did you understand, when he used that 23 term, that that meant?
24 A I believe that he was concerned that he would 25 have to come out at a later date in an open forum and 1
. . = - _. . . .- .. . .
d k
21560.0 23867 BRT 1 -substantiate why there were two documents which differed, 2 cand he had signed them both.
3 Q. Did he come and talk to you about this issue of 4 the changed trip report on more than one occasion?
5 A I'm sure he did, but I don't honestly remember.
6 O' Do you remember whether there was a time when he 4 7 came and talked to you after he had told Mr. Roth that lua ,
8 did not want to sign the trip report because of these-9 concerns that we've just been discussing?
- 10 A I. remember that as part of our discussion; yes.
- 11 O What was-your reaction to learning that it
,. 12 appeared that even though objections were raised, Mr. Roth
, 13 appeared to still be insisting that Mr. Lipinski sign the-h-'- 14 changed report.
7, 15 A The question was what my reaction was?'
16 O .Yes. How did you react to that?
4 17 .A Essentially I told Mr. Lipinski that he would 18 have to make the decision on his own oased on reviewing 19 the documents. .
20 0 Did it give you any pause, in terms of 21 evaluating what you thought of Mr. Roth, that he was 22 continuing to insist on this?
., 3 23 MR.'GALLO: Objection. Irrelevant.
/
k.} ~ ' 24- JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Roisman?
25 MR. ROISMAN: The issue is to try to get some 6
.wr= -w-* ,,r -e<,,m-,se,,-.., ,, - ,m --w -me,-,-.e --,e- , .-
r , z i
21'550.0 23868 ERT '
i 1 sense of what kind of pressures were being brought to bear.
2 I'm trying to understand, if you will, what the corporate
(-
(_/. 3 morality wa,s here whether Mr. Lipinski was going through T -) .4 . 4 a perfectly n'ormal thing in which Mr. Roth and he were 33' 5 discussing a matter of minor importance and they had a 6 disagreement, or whether in the opinion of a high 7 corporate executive this is a pretty serious thing?
8 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't think that's sufficiently 9 relevant at this point.
10 BY MR. ROISMAN:
9 7
11 Q On page 6 of your testimony, in answer 11, you
- 12. indicate that you had discussed with Mr. Lipinski the
--i nt .
,,}
13 squestion of how the trip report -- and I think the 1~'.)a ,
la question is'" leaked to the NRC and the public."
- vy 15 !First of all, what is the basis, if any, that you have 16 now to.characteriz the' public availability of the trip 17 report'as a " leak"?
18 A ;- The phrasing of question ll-was notfmy own.
'19 . -* BY MR. ROISMAN:
20 Q Do you disagree with that? Would you call it a 21 leak?
22 A In 'a' broad sense of .the. term, probably yes.
~
23 0 what is-it about the way in which you understand-TN
- D ,4 .-
k41 tNe';tripreportbecameknowntotheNRCandthepublic 3
4 a 225 that makes*it a leak in the broad sense of the term?
.)$
' *~ . fl. - _ ,
.a ,
s
- o. . s
].- _ _
21560.0 23869 CRT 1 A From a corporate point of view, any internal 2 document which is generated is not normally published or n
(-) 3 sent outside your own home in a raw fashion.
4 O So, in that sense --
5 A I would consider it that it was totally against 6 our basic corporate policy to make any document available 7 to anyone other than the individuals concerned; whether it 8 be someone in-house or, in the case of a utility, or a 9 client.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, Mr. Trallo, you said when 11 you saw this document you thought maybe there would be a 12 subsequent report that might be prepared and sent? Would
,_ 13 it really have been unusual to try to check back with some 14 of the sources for the information and see if they agreed 15 with the substance of the-report?
16 MR..WATKINS: By " sources" do you mean author 17 or --
18 JUDGE BLOCH: The sources of the information 19 'that Mr. Lipinski had obtained.
20 THE WITNESS: No. It would not -- I don't.
21 believe it would be unusual to check back with the sources 22 which were the basis for the in-house document.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: So possibly even showing them the'
'/ i k/ -24 document for:the purpose of getting their opinion on 25 whether it was accurate would have been a legitimate 1.
-21560.0 23870 BRT 1 activity for an O.B. Cannon employee?
2 THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes.
()s.y
( 3 BY MR. ROISMAN:
4 O I take it that in the sense that you have just 5 described what a leaked document is, this document was 6 also leaked to TUGCO?
7 A No.
8 O Why not? It was not intended to be -- to go to 9 TUGCO initially, and it was a document that was intended 10 to be kept private, 11 A It was not intended to cy) to TUGCO in its basic 12 form, which I considered a talking-language .nemo to file.
13 However, TUGCO was the client. It dealt with TUGCO's
.O 14 facility.
15 0 Well, is it your positica that, assuming that 16 none of the subsequent events of the NRC getting it, the ,
- 17 public getting it, had ever happened,- but that Mr.-Merritt
. 18 had learned that Mr. Lipinski, after coming back from the 19 ~ site, had written a report, that -it was his prerogative tx) 20 call up and say, "I want a copy of whatever it is that Joe 21' .Lipinski wrote," and that O.B. Cannon would have an-22 obligation to send ~him the trip report'in the form in 23 which it was in the O.B. Cannon file?-
(^)
\_/ 24 A That is correct.
- 25 0 Hed you seen other trip reports that I
eT--5+ * -- y yrte--*P8-?-- y y -+M4 e- M -=wj--4 e -g -+wer' w' =-*l' -t vM,-r +p= g y-'ai wey(w *" # h e d*--+-'
21560.0 23871 BRT 1 Mr. Lipinski had prepared in conjunction with other trips 2 that he had taken?
- (~
V 3 A Yes.
4 0 Was there anything about this trip report, )
5- either in its style or the language that was used, that l 6 was different or exceptional, as compared to others that 7 he-had written?
8 A No.
9 0 Was there anything about it that looked to you 10 like he was any more flip, or shooting from the hip, or 11 jumping to conclusions, than was the case with trip 12 reports that you had seen that he had prepared on other 13 occasions?
tT
\- 14 A In comparison to notes to the file, the 15 terminology and approach I would consider to be coincident.
16 O I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean when 17- you say " coincident"?
18 A Okay. .The same. In comparison'to-formal 19 reports which Mr.'Lipinski'has generated in the past which 20 were generated to be transmitted out of house. 'Okay?
21 This language is a little on the strong side.
~22 O That's one reason why you thought there was 23 going to be some other report, one;in which some of that T
' {.
3-) 24 would have been toned down a bit?
25 A That is correct.
', , +q -- - - , . . , . , . - - , .,.,,--,n-~ , - - + . , + -e,-- ,. -v- r m , ~ --,.,~w .-,-~e -
21560.0' 23872 BRT 1 Q But I take it that it would have been your 2 expectation that, had such a report been done, a
.3 subsequent toned-down report, the basic conclusions would 4 .not have been changed, only the phraseology for expressing 5 them; is that correct?
6 A That is correct.
7 Q In your discussion with Mr. Lipinski about the 8 release of the report, first of all do you remember when 9 you had those conversations -- first, did you have.more 10 than one conversation with him?
.11 A Yes, I did.
~12 O Can you. remember when you had the first one?
13 .A Early October.
(D
# 14 Q Do you~ remember how many conversations you had 15 with him?
-16 A I do not.
17 O If I ask you questions about it, are they going-18 to tend to blend together and .you are going to have a .hard l
19 time distinguishing whether he told you that on the second 20 or the -fif th or the first?
. 21 ' THE WITNESS: 'That is correct.
-22 JUDGE BLOCH: Before we get to that,-I would 23 like chronologically -- there's something that concerns me
/.
-N 24 before that.
25 When-Mr.-Lipinski came back from the site after the
21560.0 23873 BRT 1 first trip, did he ever have any discussions with you in 2 more detail than appears in the trip report?
(s
(- 3 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Did he ever have any discussions 5 with you about whether he had taken notes while he was on 6 the site?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes. He had taken notes on the 8 site. The notes were translated into this, what came out 9 as a trip report.
10' JUDGE BLOCH: Is it your understanding that 11 those notes were somewhat more detailed than the summaries 12 of areas that were presented i'n the trip report?
13 THE WITNESS: I do not know.
' 14
. JUDGE BLOCH: Did there ever come a time when he 15 came to you and asked whether he should keep his 16 underlying notes?
17 THE WITNESS: No.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know whether he has a 19 practice of retaining notes that he takes when he has 20 trips?
21 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
-22 BY MR. ROISMAN:
23 O At the time that you.first saw the trip report, y
1
^~ 24 did you have any reaction to the kind of problems that
- 25 Mr. Lipinski was preliminarily identifying in there, in
_ m__ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
21560.0 23874 BRT 1 terms of their severity or their importance?
2 A I couldn't really comment on the severity or 3 importance. The general categories identified are 4 categories which would cause anyone involved in a 5 -safety-related coating program concern.
6 O Well, did you have any special concern over his 7 indication that he thought that Comanche Peak was doing 8 .; inspections "to the degree that they are comfortable with 9 or will tolerate" -- did that seem like a particularly 10 serious problem if true?
- 11. A No, it did not.
-12 O Did it seem to you to be a particularly serious 13 problem if true that " Management at Comanche Peak has
'-[ 14 -deluded itself into thinking everything is all right, or 15 it will all come out in-the wash"?
'16 A I felt that that statement was partly based on 17 conjecture on Mr. Lipinski's part. And I would not, at 18 that time, care to give it any further consideration until 19 he had a chance to do additional review or investigation.
20 O' Did you mention to him.specifically that you 21 thought that that was one that he should particularly 22 check on before he reached-any final conclusions?
23 A I don't remember doing so.
'l )
b/ 24 O What about his indication that the -- or his 25 statement: "The fact that management attempts to squash
21560.0 23875 BRT.
1 any efforts to point out quality problems to some extent 2 confirms the above"; did you think that was a particularly
'(./ 3 serious problem, if correct?
4 A What page are you referring to now? ,
5 O I'm looking at the bottom of page 3 under the 6 general category, " writer's observations and opinions."
7 The thing I just quoted to you is about five lines from 8 the bottom.
9 A Could you repeat the question, please?
10- O Yes. Did the concern that he's expressed there,-
11 if correct, was that in your opinion a particularly 12 serious concern?
j_ - 13 A If it had been correct, yes. However,
~- (
-14 Mr. Lipinski states that it was just his opinion.
15 O I understand. I'm trying-to get some idea of-16 the severity.
17 What about the -- in the parenthetical phrase "QC 18 reporting'to production"; if true, would that be a
'19 particularly serious situation at a nuclear paint coatings 20 program?
21 A Depending upon the fact, if it was a violation 22 of the program as established for that particular site.
23 O It's your understanding that it would be -- your k/ 12<4 understanding of the general nuclear requirements that it 25 would be all right if the site had authorized it for QC to i
l l
I
o 21560.0 23876
'BRT.
1 report to production?
2 A If the entire site program wer ;v structured and f
- 3- had been reviewed and approved.
4 JQ' Then it.would be all right?
5 A Yes.
6 O Are you aware that there is a prohibition in 7' appendix B of 10 CFR that addresses the question of to
-8' - whom-QC is to report? ~
9 A I think we are getting basically into semantics, -
10 to an extent.
11 The pure term,- as.used by Mr. Lipinski, QC reporting 12 to production" per se, if that were the case, yes, it~is r q ,
13 prohibited by appendix B.
'14 Q And if it. were the case it would be a --
15 MR.' WATKINS: I'll. object. 'Let the witness-
-16 - finish his answer.-
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Sustained. Are you finished,.Mr.-
-18 -Trallo?
-19 THE WITNESS: I lost my. train' of : thought, 20 - unfortunately.
21- JUDGE BLOCH: Could you-read the-witness' last
'22 . question and~ answer, please?
~
J23 (Thefreporter.. read the-record as requested.).
f'
.25 -to some level within-the site' supervisory = organization is R
5 a
p
~s '
m- ,,% - ---,e--.., ,,,cw,,,. ,-,s.weg gy ,,v,a,my so -- e,- cw
- v y ny1.,,e- . ~ wsy ,ww m., w-,-e,--..<gsp.,-,psyr,-e,-n--ge m -, -, n p , wes m e w w- y ey y-w y, w w- +-we -, vv-*
21560.0 23877 BRT 1 not prohibited by appendix B.
2 BY MR. ROISMAN:
( )- 3 Q But if -- in your words, if these words "QC 4 . reporting to production," the actual words used, if that 5 situation existed would that be a significant problem in 6 your judgment?
7 A I don't know what context Mr. Lipinski used the 4
8 term " production."
9 Q Looking over on page 4 of the report, if correct,
-10 do you feel that the statement under paragraph 1 at the 11 bottom of.the page, that " Brown & Root wanted to buy the
'12 right answer"; if that were correct would that be a 13 serious problem?
. 14 .A It could be; yes.-
15 Q And is it your testimony that, a' the time that 16~ you saw this trip report and saw those items in there, you 17 did not make any effort either to discuss.the substance of 18 those concerns with Mr. Lipinski in any detail or to 19 discuss them'with Mr. Norris in'any d'etail, or to 20 communicate them to the company directly?
21 A' I made no-attempt to communicate'them'to the 22 company directly. I1 discussed the items-in Mr. Lipinski's 23 report with Mr. Lipinski. I'm sure I also. discussed them
\/ 24 with Mr. Norris.
25 I don't recall getting to any specific detail, other l
I
.. - . - -.- . . - - - -- .~. . -. . - .
k e
21560.0 23878 't
- BRT-
- l. than basically what was presented in Mr. Lipinski's report.
2 O Well, does that mean you don't remember saying 3 .t'o either'Mr. Norris or Mr. Lipinski something to the
{ '4- effect that: "These things could really be serious. You 5 guys need to'make sure that you know whether they do or
-6 ' don't exist"?
~
I 7' A I don't recall any such statement.
j 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Trallo, when I would write a 9 . talking ~ paper to the file, I would expect that I would 10 just dash it off and put it in the file. In this instance 11 it appears that Mr. Lipinski made several drafts. Do you 12 have any notion of why he would make several drafts of a
- 13. talking paper to the files?
i
- 14 MR. GALLO
- Objection.
15 JUDGE BLOJH: The objection, Mr. Gallo?
16 MR. GALLO: Mischaracterization of the record,.
~ '
017' use of the word'"several."
18 JUDGELBLOCH: -Would you'like to' clarify the ,
19 number from.the documents?
20' MR. GALLO: 'One draft.
21' J DGE BLOCH: Okay; That's my misunderstanding.
l 22 MR. ROISMAN:. 'No, it's not. It's'Mr.-Gallo's-r
.: 23- : misrepresentation. There are several drafts. We have, I A ,
i ik - /' 24' . believe, five or six' versions of the-trip report, and some
'25 of them even have marked on them --
i
7 21560.0 23879
'BRT 1 MR. GALLO: Shall we excuse the witness while we 2 talk about this, if necessary?
7y k_) 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Please, Mr. Trallo. Nothing 4 personal.
5 THE WITNESS: I'll take the train if you would 6 like me to.
7 (Witness excused.)
8 JUDGE BLOCH: The door, please?
.9 MR. WATKINS: In the timeframe we are talking i 10 about, which is the preparation of the trip report and the 11 version of the trip report that the witness is testifying
-12 from, is the signed version. There's one draft of that 13 and it was dated August 2 of 1983.
(_s'-) 14 I did not in my comment consider the various iterations 15 that were developed in the discussions with Mr. -- between 16 Mr. Roth and Lipinski as drafts.
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that your understanding?
18 MR. ROISMAN: We-have one that's got "JJL 19 original second draft" on it. One has "JJL, Lipinski, 20 quality director" on the bottom with no. signature on it.
21 There appear to be several drafts.
22 I don't want to overstate it. I though'. I was just 23 making a clarification in the record. But there are A
- ' 24 several drafts. I don't think there are substantial 25 changes in a number of them, but there was more than one
N 4
- 21560.0 23880 :
[ 'BRT <
. .1 draft that that preceded the August 8th trip report.
i' .
..2 JUDGE BLOCH: You may want to pursue that at another time. For my purposes, all I've got to do is ask
- '4 if'he was aware of the reason why there was one or more 7 5- prior drafts.
3 6' MR. GALLO: I think the record will show the !
i ;
!' 7 ' designation JJL 1 and 2 were done by Mr. Roth when he was t
8 going-through his process. j 9 Shall we call the witness back?
f- 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Please.
P 4
11- (Witness returns.)
12 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Trallo?
13 THE WITliESS: Yes.
.I 7
4 ) '
.14' J'UDGE BLOCH: .Do you have'any knowledge.of 1 115 .whether there were drafts, one'or more, of the.Lipinski-161 trip report?
=17 THE WITNESS: Mr. Lipinski'gave me a: draft? dated 18 . August'2nd for-review. I went through the draft, I-made'a e- .
[~ 19 couple of grammatical comments,.I underlined several-items,-
i 20 .and I returned the draft to Mr. Lipinski.
217 . JUDGE'BLOCH : Why would anyone bother toLhave.a.
i '
-22 -_reviewLby,a supervisor of a talking paper-to'the files?
- 23 .THE WITNESS
- ~I don't-think Mr. Lipinski'gave.it-
/ '
5 .
- 24' .to.me for a-reviewfand approval /as much as he had given it
-25 -to me.to bring me-up toLdate'on what had went.on at the -
l
^
21560.0. 23881 BRT 1 Comanche Peak site.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you have any notion of why he
(~/\
'-(s 3 then decided to take what you had done and bothered making 4 a revision to what was, after all, going to be an internal 5 document just kept in the files anyway?
6 THE WITNESS: I do not believe that he really 7 incorporated any marking that I had on the document. I 8 don't know for sure.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Roisman?
10 BY MR. ROISMAN:
11 O Yes. Going to the release of the Lipinski 12 report, you indicated that your first discussion on it was 13 sometime around October 10th with Mr. Lipinski; is that b - 14 correct?
15 A It was early October.
16 O Okay. And in.the course.of the conversations 17 that you had with Mr. Lipinski, can you remember what he 18 was telling you as to how the trip' report might have
- 19. gotten outside O.B. Cannon?
'20 A' He didn't really speculate on how. He was 21 raising the same question- himself.
22 O Did he.tell you.whether he had shown.it to any
'23 persons outside of O.B. Cannon?
m k 24 A- Yes. He stated he had shown it to Mr. Mouser, 25 but didn't recall'giving him a copy of it.
- ~ ~ - -+- , , ? , - ,,,,e,- g, - -e,r e,~s +ge,- ,, , e-- r---g ,-+-.w-,-w,,---,, w ,,-,.~~.-e e -,
21560.0 23882 BRT 1 0 Can you remember whether he told you that he 2 couldn't recall giving him a copy, or whether he told you 3 that he hadn't given him a copy?
4 A He told me he did not recall giving Mr. Mouser a 5 copy.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: The earlier question was showing 7- it to persons, plural. You only answered showing it to 8 Mr. Mouser. Did you have knowledge there were other i 9 persons it was also shown to?
10 THE WITNESS: No , sir.
11 BY MR. ROISMAN:
12 O Did he' discuss with you any times that he had
,,.4 13 the trip report outside the -- his office, or the O.B.
t' ,)
14 Cannon files?
15 A Yes.
16 O What did he say about that?
17 A That he had the report in his briefcase when he 18 'went_to the Comanche Peak site in early August. . I believe 19 it was the 9th of August or the 10th of August.
20 0 Can you remember whether he indicated to you 21- that he had the report, or a copy of the report, or more 22 than one copy of the report?
23- A . No, sir.
(m.
NI 24 JUDGE BLOCH: :Did he indicate that he was going 25 to call Mr. Mouser to clarify what had happened?
21560.0 23883 BRT 1 THE WITNESS: In subsequent conversations 2 Mr. Lipinski indicated to me that he had called Mr. Mouser, 3 .and.specifically asked Mr. Mouser if, indeed, you know, he 4 had given him a copy and forgotten about it?
5 Mr. Lipinski's statement to me was that Mr. Mouser 6- stated that he did not -- speaking of Mr. Lipinski -- give 7 Mr. Mouser a copy.
8 BY MR. ROISMAN:
9 Q Were you, at the time you first had your 10 discussion with Mr. Lipinski about the trip report having 11 gotten outside of O.B. Cannon, were you yourself concerned 12 that that had happened?
1
'13 A My first discussion with Mr. Lipinski concerning
- O 14 this, Mr. Lipinski is the one that advised me that the 15 trip report had gotten out.
-16 Q But, knowing that fact, were you concerned that-17 it had gotten out?
i 18 A Not extremely.so.
l 19 0 Why not?
20 A Basically it was, again, in my opinion,.a note.
21 _to file, .a talking-language document. I felt that~ it
-22 should not cause anyone major concern.
, 23 O Do you feelithat TUGCO has, in any way,.
-/~T
\/- 24 overreacted to'its importance, from your perspective?
25- A That was my opinion; yes.
21560.0 23884 BRT 1 Q And did you consider that you had a 2 responsibility to try to get to the bottom of the question:
3)<~~. -
3 How did this O.B. Cannon document get outside of O.B.
4 Cannon?
5 A Yes.
, Ei O And what steps did you take in order to get to 7 - the bottom of-that question?
8 A My only step was to discuss the matter with t 9 Mr..Lipinski, of course Mr. Roth, and Mr. Norris.
- 10 Q Did you attempt to track down the unanswered
- 'll questions that came out of-that -- that series of 12 - discussions yourself?
13 MR. GALLO: Objection. -The predicate, I. don't fx
's 14- know what " unanswered questions" counsel is referring'to.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: Will'you clarify 5that,;Mr. Roisman?
16 MR. ROISMAN: Yes.
17 BY MR. ROISMAN:-
18 O Did you attempt after that, discussion to get to 19 the bottom of the question how,'in. fact,;did the O.B.
~
20 Cannon report get outside.of O.B. Cannon?
?: 21 A Only by discussions with Mr. Lipinski.
\
c 22- -O Did you direct him or suggest to him things that 23 he might do to try to'get a more definitive answer to the q
24? question: How did this happen?
'77 ' -
- 25. A No.
1
- , , , _w--v ,-,,---w +,w,~,.w.,-
.m.,,wwa-,- ,,r.,%+- ,-- .r,-, ,_.,~,--,,,--+.v. 1.+.--.-.--,--my-,-..wr.&- , - ~e ,<c.-.--r- ~ vN s ,<wa - e
21560.0 23885 BRT 1
1 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you ever learn anything about 2 what the Applicants may have thought was the way in which
/~
, (N/- 3 the document became public?
I 4 THE WITNESS: No.
5 BY MR. ROISMAN:
6 O In your discussion with Mr. Morris on this 7 matter, what transpired with respect to the question of 8 how did the trip report get outside of 0.B. Cannon?
9 A I don't really recall.
10 0 And how about with Mr. Roth?
11- A Mr. Roth stated he had no knowledge of it, other 12 than what Mr. Lipinski had told him.
_ _. 13 O Did Mr. Roth or Mr. Norris appear to be upset
'14 that the trip report had gotten out?
15 A Yes.
16 O Did you share with them your feeling that_it was.
4 17 no big thing and it shouldn't be so upsetting?
- 18. A I don't remember.
19 O. Did they tell you why they thought.it was 20 significant that it.had gotten out,-or why they were upset 21 about it getting out?
22 A Yes.
23 O What did they tell you? First Mr.:Norris?
O k- 24 A Mr. Norris expressed that he-felt it would be 25 extremely embarrassing to the utility.
21560.0 23886 BRT-1 Q Did he tell you what it was about it that he 2 thought would be embarrassing?
D)
's_ 3 A In his opinion he felt that there was no basis 4 for the comments made in the document.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: I can imagine. That would cause 6- some expense, because you might have to follow up with 7~ some kind of a credible audit. If the program was 8 basically in good shape, why would that have been 9 embarrassing?
10 THE WITNESS: I do not know, sir, 11 BY MR. ROISMAN:
12 Q Does.it seem to you that if the report was in
,q 13 error, that the embarrassment would have been more of O.B.
~ (d) 14 Cannon's or Mr. Lipinski's than of TUGCO's?
15 A That appears to be a fact; yes.
16 Q Did you mention that to Mr. Norris,.when he said 17 to you his concern was that the company would be 18 -embarrassed?
19- A- No.
30 Q What did you tell him when he said to you that 21 the company would be embarrassed, or that was part of. his 22 concern?
23- A I' don't, recall.
/~T A /-. 24 Q Did he tellLyou that there was anything --;any 25 other concern that he had about the report getting out?
o v -m-. -
- 21560.0 23R87 BRT' 1 A I don't remember.
2 O What about your discusulon with Mr. Roth? What
/^s
(_. 3 did he tell you about the report getting out?
4 4 A Mr. Roth was displeased that we had a breach of 5 basic company policy.
6 0 Did he indicate to you that he thought that 7 Mr. Lipinski was in any way responsible? l l
8 A No, he did not. l 9 O Did Mr. Norris indicate to you that he thought 10 in any way that Mr. Lipinski was responsible?
11 A Not directly.
12 O What did he do that was not direct'that might 13 have communicated that?
. ;~
a'*) 14 A Mr. Norris asked me if, in my opinion, I thought 15 that Mr. Lipinski would have distributed this document 16 .outside of our own-organization.
17 O And what did you tell him?
- 18. A "No."
19 0 At that time did you know that he had shown it 20 to Mr. Mouser?
21 A No, I did not.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: At that time did Mr. Norris say 23 anything about deficiencies in the substance of the report?
(/)
w 24 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: You mean you don't recall whether J
4 21560.0 23888 BRT j-
- 1 or not he did say anything about that?
-2 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
() 3 BY MR. ROISMAN: j 4 O Do you recall whether -- was it your j 5 understanding that the showing of the report to Mr. Mouser-
- 6 would have been equally objectionable under corporate 7 policy -- would have been objectionable under corporate 8 policy,.since he was outside the organization?
. 9. A It would have been.
10' BY JUDGE BLOCH:
i 11 O I'm sorry; of the one second. Mr. Trallo,
~
12 before we-had a little dialogue in which I think you wound-13 up saying that under the circumstances were, there was an.
O
\/ ~
14 attempt to verify what was in the report that might lead- ,
15 later to a formal report. I thought he said it-was okay
'16 to' check with Mr. Mouser.
17 A The; phrasing of1the question asked'by
-18 Mr. Roisman did not differentiate in this'particular case.
- 19. O Do you think~it was okay or not okay?
20 .A -In the specific instance of Mr.' Mouser, since 21' many, or some of the input .that went into' formulating the t
22: report came.to Mr.-Lipinski through Mr. Mouser, I would.
23 say it.would be okay if you were doing-it for.the purpose Di .
N/ 24- offverifying the information that you have included, i,
' 25. Q .Would that conclusion-of yours be different i'
L:
4
'21560.0 23889 BRT !
1 whether or not Mr.-Lipinski had given Mr. Mouser an 2- opportunity to make a copy of the report that was being (m
\m) 3 verified?
4 A If Mr. Mouser was not involved in the --
5- Q No, he is involved. He helped to provide the 6 information. The question is: Is there a difference in 7 your mind as to whether Mr. Lipinski just shows the report 8 to Mr. Mouser and has him read it and comment on it, or 9 actually allows him to make a copy so he can comment on it?
10 A There is a very specific difference there.
11 Q But would it make a difference as to whether you 12 thought it was right or wrong?
. 13- A Please repeat the question.
- - 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Roisman, would you like to 15 attempt? I.seem to be unable to --
'16 MR. ROISMAN: No , no, go ahead. You are doing 17 fine. I don't want to' interrupt your line.
18 BY JUDGE BLOCH:
19 0 You said'it was-okay to provide information to
- 20. Mr. Mouser since he'had provided'some?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 O One way would be to show it to him and wait for 23 him to comment on it while you stood there and wait for t
24 him to provide an. answer; I take it that would be a 25 legitimate way to provide an answer?
21560.0 23890
-BRT 1 A In my opinion, yes.
2 O Would it also be legitimate to give him a copy,
( 3 have him make a copy of it and then return the original, 4 and then, sometime subsequently, comment upon the validity.
, 5 of the information?
6 A In my opinion, no.
7 Q Why is that?
8 A Because then you are entrusting the document out 9 of house.
, 10 Q But in the former instance, where he's seen the 11 document, he could tell someone about it , couldn't he?
12-A That's correct.
,, 13 0 -Why is it different whether he tells someone'the
-( J ~ 14 contents of the document or he actually shows it to them?.
. 15 A Then-you are getting into a hearsay situation:
.16 - spreading stories by word of mouth versus someone copying 17 and distributing a hard document.
18 O of course if he told the NRC about it the-NRC 19 would have no trouble getting the hard document. That's 20 one person he might have told.
'21 A I understand that.
22 0 .Or, if he told the intervenor in this case about.
23 - it, they.could.get the document also. Does it make a-big
.,,,\
/
'w) 24- difference whether they gave a copy out or just 25 information about what this-document _said?
4 y , . , . , .,.yy ,u -
r--.- , .,-n. .~ , - - - - , , , . , , - - - - - - - -
4 21560.0 23891 BRT.
1 MR. GALLO: Objection. Arguing with the witness.
2 The witness has made the dichotomy and he stated he t'%
(_) 3 believes it to be a real dichotomy. You are just trying 4- to change his mind with your questioning.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Except this is the first time he 6 ever thought about this issue, and he may not have thought 7 about the factors that went into this decision.
8 Is this-still a big difference in your mind after the 9 discussion?
10 THE WITNESS: Regarding what?
11 JUDGE BLOCH: The propriety of allowing 12 Mr. Mouser-to make a copy of an internal document.
13 THE WITNESS: I still feel it would be improper 14 to allow Mr. Mouser to make a copy of an internal document.
15 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 16 BY MR. ROISMAN:
17 'O. You indicate in your answer 11, page 6 of your 18' testimony, that several weeks after your initial 19 discussion with Mr. --
20 JUDGE BLOCH: One second. We do want to look.
21 for some breaking point. . We are close to lunch now.
22 MR. ROISMAN: .I was thinking we are coming right
~
23 up on a good breaking point.
24 BY MR. ROISMAN:
25 0 -- that you learned from Mr. Lipinski that the I
{.
t 21560.0 - 23892
-- BRT ~ .
1 NRC.said the report had been surreptitiously obtained.
2 What did'you understand at that time was the manner in 3' which the report had been surreptitiously obtained?
4 - A' I had no idea.
5 Q Did it clarify in your mind whether the report i 6 was given by Mr. Lipinski to someone from whom it was 7 surreptitiously obtained, or whether it had been 8 surreptitiously'obtained directly from Mr. Lipinski?
t 9 A It was not a question in my mind regarding
- l. 10 Mr. Lipinski giving the report to someone. He had stated 11 that he did not. He didn't remember giving it to anyone.
12 O Okay. But there's a difference between not -
13 remembering giving it to anyone and knowing-that you
- E'(']_.-
14 didn't.
15 A That's correct, sir.
16 O And now you had a new piece of information that-17 the report had been surreptitiously obtained,'which
.~
18- doesn't tell us,'does it, whether it had been-19 surreptitiously obtained from Mr. Lipinski or from someone
. 20 .who he didn't remember giving it to.
- 21. A That's possible.
22 O' My question to you was, when you got this 23- ;information that it had been surreptitiously obtained, did
(
k-} - L24 you make/any effort to try to pin down the answer to the-25 ~ Lquestion whether it had been surreptitiously obtained ~ from
j 21560.0 23893 BRT
. :L -Mr. Lipinski or from someone to whom he had given the
- 3 A No, it never came up.
4 Q Did you consider it an important difference?
5 A No. .
. fi O Do you consider it an important difference now?
7 A No.
8 MR. ROISMAN: This is a good place to break.
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Just one or two questions.-- In 10 the conversation you had with Mr. Norris and Mr. Roth,.did 11- .Mr..Norris suggest that Mr. Roth fire Mr. Lipinski?
.12. THE WITNESS: I don't remember anything of that
-13 na'ture.
Li
~
14 MR. GALLO: Your Honor, the cross of this 15 witness seems-to be going quite rapidly. I would request 16 all counsel to see if it isn't possible to complete this 17 witness today.
18' JUDGE.BLOCH: Okay. Take an hour break. We'll 19' be back at 2:00.
-20 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, in -- consistent 21 ~with Mr. Gallo, of course, I do notLintend'toLreduce the 22 ' questions I would.ask on the' basis.of the timing, but I'm J 23 more than. happy to cut down' the lunch hour from an hour to O
%/ 24 30 minutes.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's'go off the record.
A 2 1 5 6' 0 . 0 - 23894 BRT~
i
(
- - 1 (Discussion off the record.)
2' ' JUDGE BLOCH: We'11 compromise, take 45 minutes.
f ~; -
3 Quarter to 2:00.
-4 (Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the hearing was i
j: 5 recessed, to reconvene at 1:45 p.m., this same day.)-
J
.6 i
7 f 8 4
I 9 l
10 i 11 i
j- 12 1
l' 13
!0 14
. 15.
f-
[ 116; 17
.18 4 I
19 1
1-20'
- i. 21J
+
i
, . -23 j
. d 24 t-E
'25 I
r
?
i.
{:
1-i.L .
, . .=. ..-.- . - . - -
- ~ . . . - . -,
f i" ,.
i_ 21560.0: 23895
- :BRT- l
}
l' AFTERNOON SESSION (1:45 p.m.')-
2 Whereupon,
~ 3c RALPH A. TRALLO 4
4 was resumed as-a witness and, having been previously duly ;
[ , 5- sworn,.was examined and testified further as follows:
6' JUDGE BLOCH: Let's go on record. Welcome back, 7 Mr.:Trallo. You continue to be under oath. -:Mr..Roisman?
.8' CROSS-EXAMINATION ~(Resumed) 9 BY MR. ROISMAN:
10 Q Mr. Trallo, what do you remember of the secpe:of 11 . 'the planned. trip to'-- the planned investigation that was
. 1:2 - _ going to'take place at the Comanche Peak site for the 10th c
-13 : and . lith of November?
1 ? .14 ,A- The' scope, as I recall, was to. review procedures, 115 . controlling,-- storing of paint materials; the qualification-116 .offinspection personnel, qualification of:-painter. I 17- ' personnel,-:the relationship of the various-construction 18 : departments,-QC,and construction craft.- Also look atethe; +
.19 .- ? retrofit program that,h'ad been implemented.
E20 Q Did youz understand that thelpurpose:of theJvisit.
. 21( twas = exclusively relatedsto the further exploration.of ther
~
22 -matters that had been raised by Mr. Lipinski'in his' August
. . - 23: c8 trip report?'
24 ': 'A .Not= exclusively.
25 Q Didiyou; understand lthat.it was to'be at-least S--
Mm - .-..i
- = - -- -~ - - -
- m. ,y .m
<)1 21560.0
- 23896 BRT/t ,
's :
1 inclusive of all of those concerns?
2 A Yes.
[ What'did you understand was going to be done to
~ \_]/ +
3 0
~.
4 investigate or look into the concerns that Mr. Lipinski 5 -stated in the trip report that related to his perceptions 6 of management's attitude toward quality; his comments 7 about them wantin,g'to buy the right answer and the things 8 that you,and I,fw,ent over somewhat earlier in the u
9 examination?
o 10 A There was~no specific plan regarding this 11 situation'.
12 0 . Was-it anticipated that that situation, however, 13 would be'further^ addressed and Mr. Lipinski would have an
)
14 , opportunity to make some' definitive judgments on those Y i' , ,
15 .,qu,es,tions? J 16' A It was anticipated that the task group would be
- 17. 'able to make some'abdinitive-judgments regarding those
,18 areas and "-
[.
19 Q I'm sorry?
t -
i fyl ';' y 20 A -- based on the' observations and interface at iN. t' " '
l21 the~ project site during this period.
, _ .i s i g
- 22V - -Q Did you, yourself, have any predisposition as to Yt - 23~- how you thought it was going to come'out on those issues?
.n
~Y
,"f\.<) .<W, #.
, 24 That is, on the management attitude issues?'
~
.,3 o . .. 25 A No, I did not.
, ki j y _ .V
.$ s
?'? ?
to W {.,
,n.
- - - . , , . _ . . . . .- _ . . . - -,- _.-.m. .- - - - - - . , - -..m
521560.0 23897 BRT 1 O In your answer 13-on page 7 of your testimony, 2 you say, The purpose was to review or audit certain l
- f'%
V 3 aspects'of the coatings program."
l 4 Do you mean to use " review and audit" as l 5 interchangeable words in your answer?
6 A Yes.
7 Q What does that -- what do those words define?
8 Again, going back to our early discussion this morning 9 . about plateaus or levels of investigation, what was this
' 10' ' -
intending to define?
11 JL Irr relationship to plateaus or levels of review, 12 I wouldlhave considered this a second level review.
13 Q More detailed'than what the:first review I\ ~
14 . contemplated at the time that the first trips were made'to 15 the plantiin July?
16 JL That is correct .
17 JUDGE BLOCH: About'the sensitivity of'the work 18" you were-about to do,'did you have any thoughts about how
'19 sensitive-this work was? This particularJjob?
120 THE WITNESS: It never entered my mind.
21- JUDGE BLOCH: .Did you have any. notion about-22 whether things were really smooth between the clients'and
- 23 O.B. Cannon at that point?
'f'}.
. %- :24' LTHE WITNESS: I-had no reason to believe 25
- otherwise.
A g . , '- - ~v- , a _y m- , m.
.21560.0- 23898
'BRT l' BY MR. ROISMAN:
2 O Did you, at the time that you were -- and I'm
~
3 ~ talking now about the timeframe of early November when the
~4 ; plan - to make the trip was formulated, as distinct from 5 after you got to the plant site -- did you, at that time, 6 have an opinion as to whether the work that you were about 7 to do would be adequate to give definitive answers to the 8 questions raised by the Lipinski trip _ report?
-9 A We had hoped that the contemplated work that the
-10 task force was'to accomplish would result in definitive:
11 results.
42 JUDGE'BLOCH: In anticipation of the trip,-did
. _ 13 ;you have any meetings with Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Norris 14 together?
15- THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
16 JUDGE'BLOCH: What did you do to gather 17 information'from them so you'would go'down with the notion 18 of the complete available~information that;O.B. Cannon had?
19 THE WITNESS: Okay. Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Norris p 20 both had copies of Mr. Roth's memo of--assignment to myself.
21 I had telephone conversations with Mr.-Norris. I spoke 1
22 personally with Mr. Lipinski.
i .. 23 JUDGE BLOCH: At some length? Did you make O
(_,/ 24 _ notes of these things? How did it affect what you were 25 going to.do on the site?
r wk-
'21560.0 23899 BRT l- THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Lipinski, I had a 2 requested that he, along with Mr. Michels, draft up s/. 3 basically a checklist of items to be looked at. The scope 4 of the checklist was to be determined by using Mr. Roth'a 5 directive to me and also Mr. Lipinski's trip report.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: Were you aware that Mr. Norris may 7_ have had problems about independent knowledge at the site?
8 THE WITNESS: No, I was not.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know at this time whether 10 he does?
11 THE WITNESS: I do not know.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you consider the possibility 13 that Mr.-Posgay was up there the first' trip and that he
,O) k' ~14 might have information that was relevant?
15 A I had never seen any information or heard of any 16 information from Mr. Posgay.
17 JUDGE BLOCH: That wouldn't have prevented you 18 from calling him?
19 THE' WITNESS: That is correct, it would not have 20 deterred me from calling him.-
21 JUDGE BIDCH: I take it you did not call him?
22 THE WITNESS: I did not call him.
23 BY MR. ROISMAN:
-I A' 24 O Is one reason you didn't talk to Mr. Norris.
25' because'his role at O.B.-Cannon was really not a technical
21560.0 23900 BRT ..
1 role and that you did not anticipate that he would have a 2 substantial amount of technical information?
(D s_/ 3 A I did talk to Mr. Norris.
4 'O I'm sorry, you didn't talk to him about problems 5 that he had perceived at the site? Excuse me.
6 A For the most part the problems that Mr. Norris t
7 had perceived at the site had been passed on to the 8 utility and had been -- some action had been taken on them 9 by the utility. These were more of a construction nature.
10 0 Well, the problems that Mr. Lipinski had 11 observed at the site had.also, admittedly somewhat 12 indirectly, been passed on to the utility by them having 13 the trip report.
- '~
' g#
14~ A That's correct.
15 O So I don't understand how -- was it that second 16- step that you had no reason to believe that they had taken 17 any steps to respond to it, that made you think that you 18 needed to look at those problems further?
19 A No. It was the directive from Mr. Roth.
. 20 0 And so the absence from Mr. Roth's directive of 21 the items that fell into Mr. Norris' area of expertise is 22- why you didn't discuss with him any problems that he might
-23~ have seen at the site?
i es-I N- 24 A That, along with the feedback I had gotten from 25 Mr. Norris that any problems that he had observed had been
'21560.0 23901
-BRT 1 relayed to the utility and the utility had taken what they ;
2 felt was appropriate action.
(-
f-)s 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Are you sure that he told you that 4- they had taken appropriate action?
5 MR. GALLO: Objection. I'm not sure that was 6 how he characterized what Mr. Norris told me.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you read back the answer,
. 8 please?
9 (The reporter read the record as requested. )
10 MR. GALLO: It's the "they felt" aspect.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Are you sure.that 12 Mr. Norris told you that the utility had taken what they 13- -felt was appropriate action?
' ' 14 THE WITNESS: I perceived it to be that way.
15 . Whether Mr. Norris directly made that statement, I do not 16 recall.
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you remember him ever telling 18 you whether he had any knowledge about any corrective 19 action they may have taken?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes. One item that I can remember 21 was the addition of air drying equipment, based on a 22 recommendation ~ submitted by Mr. Norris.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: Any other action?-
t 24 THE WITNESS: None specifically that I could 25 recall.
l t .J
~21560.0 23902 BRT 1 BY MR. ROISMAN:
2~ Q Mr. Trallo, the review or audit that was
(~\ 3 contemplated _for the trip of the 10th and the lith, was
\_/
4' that the review or audit-which you then wrote of in your 5 November 28, 1983 report to Mr. Roth, which is attachment 6 A to your testimony, when you say on page 5 of that 7 document, in the second of the indented paragraphs, second 8 sentence, " Cannon has no basis to confirm that these 9 programs and controls are in place and are being 10 effectively implemented. Confirmation could only be 11' provided by'a detailed audit."
- 12. A Partially.
13 0 In what way is'this use of the word " audit" and M' -
-14 your use of theLword'" audit" in your answer 13 intended to-15 be different?'
16 A In answer 13 we were contemplating doing a 17 review / audit on a' cursory basis. We had not anticiptced 18 going-into' extreme'det' ail-unless the cursory. review put-19' forth some information or failed to support information 20 that what.we had looked at originally-was in accordance ititdi the approved program procedures at Comanche Peak.
~
21 22 O Isn',t -- is it your testimony that the review or 23 audit that you contemplated for-the November 10 and 11
.j3 -
AI 24 trip, when completed, would give you definitive answers,
-25 or'you expected would give you definitive answers to the s
21560.0 23903 BRT L1 questions and problems raised by Mr. Lipinski in his trip 2 report?
e '
-(
w 3 .A We expected that there would be sufficient 4 information that would allow us to extrapolate to a broad 5 resolution whether the concerns were either confirmed or 6 allayed.
7 O And do I take it, then, as a result of the 8 meeting that you had on the 10th of November with the 9 company representatives, you then became convinced that 10 only the detailed audit would be sufficient to allay the 11 concerns, and the somewhat intermediate-level audit would 12 not be satisfactory?
13 A That'is not correct.
\~# 14 O Well, how is it, then, that following that 15 meeting you concluded that the only way to allay your
- 16 concerns was a detailed audit, and going into that meeting.
17 you thought that they might be -- in fact, expected that 18 they would be -- allayed by a less detailed audit?
19 A As a result of the meeting, I made a definitive 20 statement that the only way to absolutely confirm.that any 21 concerns were allayed or. relieved was by a detailed audit.
221 However, we, and myself, as part of the report, issued, 23 made the. statement, that when taken'at face value.the r~
( >g 24 information presented by the utility would also serve to 25 allay these concerns.
f
21560.0 23904 BRT 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Trallo, putting aside the' 2 information provided by the utility, you went into the fm i,_) . 3 site trip thinking that this somewhat more than 4 superficial audit would be enough to have importance. You 5- seem to have come out with the belief that either you 6- accepted management or you did a much more detailed audit.
7 Why wouldn't it have been sufficient to just go through 8 with the audit or review that you planned in the first 9 place?
10 THE WITNESS: Okay. The outcome of the 11 discussions during the meetings of the 10th and the lith 2 was such that the utility requested that Cannon did not go -
13 forward and do a complete review.
(~h
\J' 14 We were of the opinion that a cursory review, or a 15 review which did not present itself to track back.all-the 16 supporting information on any specific item, would not be 17 sufficient.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: But you came to the site thinking 19 it would be? What happened? What changed?
20 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Is it possible that that was sort 22 of a straw man? In fact the choices were not as black and 23 white as ymt put them in that memorandum? It wasn't a kl
~
24 . choice between a detailed audit and accepting management, 25 there really was an intermediate step; but it made it i
l l
l u_
^21560.dI 23905
-BRT' Il -easier-to go along with management by drawing a comparison 2 between management and this detailed audit?
'% q/ ~ 3 THE' WITNESS: No, sir. Not that it made it 4 essier.- We-were there at the request of a utility who was 5- ' paying fcr the services.- ife presented to.our client that
-6 ~ we could address the information they put forth at the 7 open forum. However, we were not in a position to totally 8 attest to the effectiveness or implementation of the 9 . program without doing an actual hands-on detail'ed audit.
10 It was the client's-position'and decision not to have r
11 us go further at that time.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: .But then you compared not going 13- further only to a detailed audit.. Do you understand my
' ~OJ 14- problem?-
15 -THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
p 16 JUDGE BLOCH: There seems to be a possibility. ,
L . :L 7 ' that you just overlooked completely.
18 THE WITNESS:- I have'the same problem when.I go
- 19 back~and read my notes and testimony today. .t 20 -JUDGE BLOCH:
~
What is that?- I don't. understand
=21 "it in that' context.
- '22~ THE WITNESS
- It appears that I went --
"I"
. , . 23 ; speaking of'the task group -- went from the philosophy of
- D
[ 1s/1 224 a'mid-level review audit ~to a requirement to a full
~
f 25 . detailed audit.
I-I-
i l
21560.0 23906 ;
~BRT l
I 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Were you helped along in that 2 ' change by what transpired in the meeting with the A
ls) 3' Appl'icants? Was that sort of the dichotomy that they 4 ' presented to you?
5 THE WITNESS: Not necessarily; no. I honestly 6 -do not know where the change in the philosophy or
. 7 terminology came along.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: Isn't that the way Mr. Tolson 9 approached that meeting? He said, "I don't want any more 10 detailed audits, we have enough'of those detailed audits."
11 THE WITNESS: Mr. Tolson did state at that 12 meeting that we have enough detailed audits, one that was
. 13 ongoing at the time, to determine the effectiveness of the f)l\- . 14 Comanche Peak quality program, and that he didn't feel 15 Lthat additional auditing by another outside firm was 16 warranted.
17 JUDGE BLOCH: The: other firm was not a firm,.was 18~ it? It was the NRC?
19 .THE WITNESS: Well, speaking of Cannon.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: But the other audit that was ongoing 21 was one being done for the Applicants? Or was that one 22 being done without their taking responsibility for it?
23 THE WITNESS: I believe it was an NRC audit
(~T A. J 24 currently ongoing.
25 BY MR. ROISMAN:
-21560.0 23907 BRT 1 Q Did anything happen in the course of the 2 November 10th meeting that gave you reason to feel that, f
(\
3 based upon what you were hearing, that a more detailed 4 audit was going to be necessary in order to confirm that 5 the coatings program was adequate?
6 A I do not think it was anything that came out of 7 the meeting directly.
8 Q Did you feel that the explanations which you 9_ were getting from Mr. Tolson were explanations of programs 10 and approaches which were conventional and well-accepted 11 in your experience as ways of addressing the various 12 different types of problems which Mr. Lipinski had 13 identified?
14 A Some of the programs were not the routine type 15 of programmatic implementation.that we were-used to seeing.
16 LHowever, as they were presented to us, there was no basis ---
17 whether'it be regulatory guidelines'or practicality, which 18 would indicate that they would not work.
19 O Was it the case, however, that because they.were-E
, -20 somewhat novel, that there was not a presumption, or as 211 much a presumption,-that they were adequate, as there 22 would have-been-if you were told that they'had certain 23 very standard,_ regular and very limited programs for N
- s. 24 dealing with these particular areas?
~
2 25 A No, sir..
21560.0 23908 BRT 1 O You gave it the same presumption that it would 2 work as you would have given it if it had been a program 3 with which you were familiar?
4 A Not the same presumption that it would work, 5 but the same presumption or assumption on our part that it 6 could be implemented and was being implemented.
7 O Were you trying to answer both questions,- both 8 whether they were implementing what they said they were 9 implementing, and whether if they were implementing it it 10 would accomplish its objective?
. :L1 A It was not possible to ascertain that from the 12 verbal presentation given to us.
13 0 You mean it wasn't possible to ascertain whether
11 4 they were implementing it or whether it would work?
15 A That's correct.
16 O But those were two separate questions, weren't 17 they, that you were attempting to answer?
18 Both questions were in your minds and part of what you 19 perceived to be your mission; is that correct?
20- ~A Not at the time when we, with preparation, went 21 to the site.
22 During the course of the discussion, and when some of
. - :23 these programs were verbally presented, we did have
[
-K-) 24 various discussions with site personnel on the feasibility 25 of effective implementation of a program or specific
s 1
e
?21560.0< 23909 .
- IRT; 1 programs of that nature.
2 Q. Let's get to the time before it started. You p
Q .3 were looking now at your expectations of what you would do.
t 4 - Was it your-expectation that you would look-to see if -
- 5. particular programs were being implemented, or that you 6 .would be:looking to see if the programs that were being
.7' ~ ~ implemented worked? Accomplished their goals? Which.of 8 those were you focusing on?
9 A In the terminology which we use in our 8
- 10 operations and for task group purposes, " implementation" l11- denotes effectiveness. You implement a quality program,-
12 and having it work is not implementing the program.
13 O You've testified here that this company had some r 14 programs'that were innovative, or a different approach lto-15 - 1trying tx) solve some_ problems. Is-that correct?
16 A That's correct.
17 O And that'.one of the questions that ' that presents f
1 18 is: Even if-you implement it, even if you do all.the
- 19. . things the program describes, maybe that innovative 20 approach.doesn't accomplish the goal? It may not be good 21- enough to achieve the goal. Is that correct?
- 22 A . Noi sir.
23 Q All right. .Then'I misunderstood your testimony.
p-
[M j
24: Explain-to me, then, what your prior discussion meant to E 25 Limply when I set up for you an either/or situationsteither L
P
- e,, ~, ,lmm n-m , mi m e,m
~
>>~s , w +,.-.r,,-r wrv. ,---rm, n n,-,. m m en ,- m .a .. . ,,v v _ ne, w., -a-. mm w- a - m m m-,,,mm e n.n.. - -,,- e m, en
d -
21560.0 23910
.BRT 1 it's implemented or not, or it's implemented and it works 2 or not? You indicated that those were two separate 1 3 questions. Are you telling me now that they weren't?
4 A I must hav'e misunderstood your previous question.
5 0 All right. Did you have any question in your 6 mind after you were at the meeting on the 10th of November 7 that the programs being described by Mr. Tolson, if they 4
8 were implemented -- by that I mean if they actually did 9 all the things, if Mr. Tolson's people did the things that 10 he described they were going to do -- that they would also 11 work and accomplish the goals of getting quality paint on 12 the plant in compliance with regulations?
,. 13 A Yes. That was my opinion.
'b] 14 O That -- my question was did you have any-15 question?
16 .A Excuse me. If the. programs as described-were 17 implemented,.yes, they would have worked.
18 Q And what was your basis for that, given that at 19 least some of those programs were ones that you had not 20 previously seen at other plants and they were somewhat 21 novel?
1 22 A The description of the programmatic requirements 23 within the specific areas was such that they should work I'
k-) 24 if properly implemented.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's take an example. Can you l
21560.0 23911 ERT 1 recall --
2 THE WITNESS: The one that comes to mind would
()
_ 3 be status tagging of coating materials.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. I understand that one. The 5 one I want to ask about is painter qualification.
6 How did Mr. Tolson address problems of painter 7 qualification that resolved the concerns that Mr. Lipinski 8 had?
9 THE WITNESS: As I recall, the painter 10 qualification at Comanche Peak is performed on a 11 multi-stage basis in that the coating journeyman, the 12 applicator -- speaking now of the coating applicator --
13 takes a series of tests. He has training, he takes a
(">.I
\' 14 series of tests including practical application, coating 15 application.
16 This phase of the qualificatAon process is monitored by 17 construction people.
18 The verification of cuch is by the quality group.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: You say "is." As of what date was 20 it your understanding that that took place?
21 THE WITNESS: I would assume that it was 22 implemented prior to our meeting date of November 10 and 23 11.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: What if it was implemented then 25 but hadn't been implemented during the first trip to the-
-21560.0 23912 IRT _
1 site? Would that have been an adequate way for the 2 -Applicants's to have addressed Mr. Lipinski's concerns?
3 THE WITNESS: Do I understand'you to mean tha't 4 they implemented this programmatic requirement after ,
5 14r. Lipinski raised this concern?
6 JUDGE BLOCH: In particular, the requirement
~
7 that a_ quality control person would look at the test while 8 it was in progress, or do a check on the test panel.-
9- THE WITNESS: That would be a proper way of 10 addressing.the concern raised by Mr. Lipinski in July; yes.
11: JUDGE BLOCH: But suppose that it hadn't been in 12 place in July. Would that then have fully addressed 13 Mr. Lipinski's concern?
14 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, would you please repeat 15 that?
16; JUDGE BLOCH: Suppose that in July there was.no 17 . quality control check of the test panels, but in November 18 there was. Would that have addrecsed Mr. Lipinski's ,
19 concern about the appropriateness _of the qualification 20 procedures?
21 THE WITNESS: It would not have if you were 22 referring to qualifications performed prior to the time of 23 ' implementation.
k- 24 JUDGE BLOCH: And I take it that would have had 25 some implications for the need to follow up and see
21560.0 23913 BRT 1 whether anything had to be done by -- about coatings 2 applied by the people who had been qualified with tests,
/
3 not checked by QC?
4 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Did Mr. Tolson say anything about 6 the date on which this program was put in place?
7 THE WITNESS: Not that I could remember.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: So how did it address Mr. Lipinski's 9 concern?
10 THE WITNESS: Mr. Tolson was addressing a 11 specific item raised by Mr. Lipinski. His statements were 12 definitive to the fact that we do have a program for 13 qualifying coating applicators. Within the guidelines of 14 our program we do have a quality group verification and 15 documentation of such qualifications. And there was no --
16 at no time to my recollection, have we ever discussed the 17 possibility of this program being implemented after July 2.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: If Mr. Lipinski had correct 19 information when he was on-site, and that is that there 20 was no such program when he was there, couldn't there have 21 been a consistent position there between what Mr. Lipinski 22 learned and what Mr. Tolson said; and that Mr. Tolson 23 didn't state that it had always been there, he only said 24 that it was then?
25 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
21560.0 23914
~BRT 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Usually when I gather information 2 and two people give me opposing views I look for a way
)
3 they might both be right. Did you think about that 4 possibility?
5 THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: So, to some extent the answer 7; Mr. Tolson gave on painter qualifications was an.
8 incomplete answer, wasn't it?
9 THE WITNESS: In my opinion at the time it was a 10 complete answer. ,
11 JUDGE BLOCH: But your opinion now, after we've ce 12 ~ discussed what Mr. Tolson said.about timing?
s- 13 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, Mr. Tolson never g- -
\-4 14. made any reference as to the. timing of implementation of 15 this particular program requirement.
j 16 BY MR. ROISMAN:
1 17 d)' Let's take another =one of these, Mr. Trallo. Do 18 you remember'some discussion that you had regarding the 19 question of identification of mixed paint during the 20 November 10th meeting?
21 A Yes.
22 O And do you1 remember that Mr. Tolson described to
- 23. you the system that they used to keep track of the paint, c3
- (_) 24 which was mix in a_ central area, as it went-from the 25 central area to the point of application?
.(
l k
f $
-_ = _. ..
21560.0 23915
-BRT 1 A Yes, I do.
2 Q And do you remember whether during the course of
' (,) 3 that meeting you raised the question about whether or not 4 that particular program would work? That is, even if 5 implemented it would actually accomplish its goal?
6 A Without referring to the record, I remember 7 stating that that -- a program of that fashion had not 8 worked for O.B. Cannon.
9 Q Do you remember saying, "In all honesty, any 10 place where we have ever seen that type of handling with 11 coating materials it didn't work. Now, if yours work, hey, 12 that's great"?
13 A I'm sure I said that; yes.
.Ot N' 14 O So was this an instance in which there was a
. .15 program that even if implemented, in the sense that even 16 if the things as Mr. Tolson described them were done, in 17 your experience you didn't know that ~1t would work to 18 accomplish the goal of tracking, tracing this mixed paint 19 properly?
20 A No. I was of the opinion that if they ,
21 implemented the program as they presented the details of 22 the program verbally, that it would work.
23 O So, in that sense your meaning " implemented" not (O_[ 24 only put.it in place in the field, but that it actually 25 was carried out in precisely the way that Mr. Tolson was
21560.0 23916 BRT 1 describing it, which means that you were including his 2 description that you wouldn't lose track of the paint?
,7 ,
im.) 3 A That's correct, sir.
4 0 so we almost have a tautology: If Mr. Tolson 5 says to you, "Got a program which will keep track of the 6 paint," then you are able to say, "Well, if your program 7 keeps track of the paint, then your program will keep 8 track of the paint." Is that in essence what you are 9 saying?
10 A That's correct.
11 O And you weren't making an independent evaluation 12 at that point that you knew whether it was a program which 13 was capable of keeping track of the paint?
\ )
14 A No, I was not, not without having access to the 15 actual program.
16 O But if he had instead described to you a process 17 for keeping track of the paint which was exactly what you 18 had seen working at other sites, or even that 0-B. Cannon 19 itself had used, then you would have been in a better 20 position to have said that "If that is being implemented 21 as these programs are regularly implemented, I have 22 confidence that it will actually keep track of the paint";
23 is that correct?
g 24 A My level of confidence would have been greater; 25 yes. .
.r.
21560.0 23917 ERT 1 Q So is it the case that because of -- just this 2 example, to focus only on one -- because these were '
l'
(_)) 3 programs which you had not previously seen work -- and in 4 fact, according to your statement in your experience you 5 had seen it and it didn't work -- that having gotten that 6 explanation from Mr. Tolson, you felt after the meeting on 7 November 10th that if you had to answer the question, "Do.
8 they have an adequate paint coatings program in place,"
9 that you would have to do a more detailed look than what 10 you had initially anticipated you might have had to do 11 before you ever attended the November 10th meeting; is 12- that correct?
13 A I' don't know that was necessarily so. It may
14 have contributed to our philosophy that rather than a 11 5 mid-level, cursory audit, that should the utility elect to 16 do an audit we would have to do a full, detailed audit. I 17 don't think that. specific item or any specific items, per-18 se, resulted in.our developing the opinion that we would 19 have to go into more detail.
L 20 Q Now, there is a document which has already been 21 received in evidence marked as Lipinski Exhibit 3, which 22 is'a four-page document entitled "JJL and MKM Comanche 23 Peak Trip," that I'm going to ask you to take a look at.
V 24 A Sure.
25 0 Do you want to take a look at that? And my
l
- 21560.0 23918 ZRT 1: first question to you is do you recognize the document 2 with the exhibit number in the upper right-hand corner?
m d,_I; 3- A' Yes, I' recognize'the document.
4 Q. Is that the document that was prepared by 5 Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Michels at your direction, outlining 6 the scope of what work they expected to do at the plant
- 7. site enLthe trip of November 10th and lith?
8 A That is correct.
.5F Q; And did you, yourself, see that document'either 10 while.they were in the process of preparing it or after
~ 11 they had prepared it and prior to getting to the' site on
- 12. the 10th of' November?
1 . 13 A Yes, I did.
14 .Q And in your judgment, at the time that you saw 15 it, did it accurately describe the-kind of work and' scope, 16 of work and the_ breadth:and depth'of work that.you believe 17, the_ company: wanted done on your visit on the 10th and_llth -
~18 of November?
19 A That was my opinion; y.es.
20 Q And I may have -- in fact I know I have
- 21 _ forgotten the . answer to this t I'm aure that you have given 22 it, but just remind me again.. Did you participate in the 23 meeting in Dallas on the 3rd of November with the company t') .
A>J 24 officials?
o25' A I did not.
o 21560.0 23919 BRT 1 Q So your understanding of what they wanted was 2 based upon your conversations with whom?
73
(_) 3 A My opinion was based on the written memo from 4 Mr. Bob Roth to myself.
5 Q Did you have occasion to discuss with Mr. Roth 6 or Mr. -- I guess Mr. Norris was the other attendee at 7 that meeting in Dallas on the 3rd, from O.B. Cannon --
8 whether your understanding of the scope of the meeting was 9 correct?
10 A I don't recall discussing it in that vein. I 11 did have discussions with both Mr. Roth, Mr. Norris, of 12 course Mr. Lipinski. And the result of those discussions, 13 I was still of the same opinion: that the utility had I\' )
14 requested Cannon to go to the site and perform a review.
15 O In your opinion -- I'm looking back on it now, 16 after the fact -- did it appear to you that there was much 17 ambiguity in Mr. Roth's letter or memorandum that 18 described the scope of what he thought the company wanted 19 done that would have explained why, when you got to the 20 plant site, you and Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Michels might 21 have had a different, significantly different perception 22 of what you were expected to do than what Mr. Merritt did?
23 A I did not feel there was sufficient ambiguity in
\
24 Mr. Roth's directions to me to cause such a divergence of 25 opinion regarding scope.
c
' 21560.0 23920 BRT 1 Q Did you ever find out why the company's view was 2 as it was stated to you when you got to the plant site, tQ
(_/ 3 regarding what they wanted done as compared to what you 4 thought they wanted done?
5 A No, I did not.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you try to find out? Did you 7 ask?
8 THE WITNESS: During my discussions with 9 Mr. Merritt, it appeared to me that the divergence of 10 philosophy regarding scope was between the utility and 11 Cannon, and had been from the meeting in Dallas on the 3rd.
12 Not that there was a difference of opinion at that meeting, 13 but apparently both organizations came out of that meeting h' 14 with a different interpretation of what Cannon was to do.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know on what date they 16 received Mr. Roth's memorandum? It was cent ahead of you, 17 wasn't it?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, it was, sir.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you ask them whether they had 20 read it?
21 THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: If you were going to go down and
._ 23 do a full-scale audit, how would the outline of that audit
.\_/s
(} 2 <4 have compared, in length, with the outline that you'came 25 down with? '
]
21560.0 23921 ERT 1 THE WITNESS: In length? I could only give an 2 example of an audit, an internal audit of our own program.
r's j,-) 3 An internal audit checklist in our own program will run up 4 to 20 pages long.
5 BY MR. ROISMAN:
6 O So this was roughly 1/5 of that; is that what 7 you are saying?
8 A That's correct.
9 0 You are thinking of the same sort of format, 10 single-spaced and --
11 A Yes.
12 O Now, at the time that you learned that 13 Mr. Merritt had a different perception of the scope of the
/,,\
~
14 work that you would be doing at the site on the 10th of 15 November, and following, did he tell you;why the scope was 16 to be what he perceived it to be rather-than what you 17 perceived it to be?
18 A I don't recall him giving me any reason.
19 O And I take it since he was the client you were 20 not inclined to say to him, "But wait, you promised us a .
n 21 bigger deal," or something? Is that-correct?
22 A It was not that they promised us a bigger deal.
23 We were there at their request. TU requested Cannon to p/
\_ 24 come to the site and perform certain functions.
25 The prerogative as to the scope of those functions 4
o <
.21560.0 23922
. CRT 11 definitely lay within the TU organization, not the Cannon
_2 organization.
7 >3 Q But I take it, for instance, if they said to you
'4 - when you got.to the site, "Where are your paint guns?"'
5- And you said, "What paint guns?" And Merritt said, "Well, 6' we expected you to come down for five days and paint =to
-7' ihelp.us out," you wouldn't have-caid, "Okay, guys,. let's
- 8. get our-overalls." You would have needed some preparation
.9 if-they were going to change so-dramatically what you saw
^
R
- 10. was the purpose of.the-trip; right? ,
-11 A I don't 1 agree with the analogy you used.; In-12 that case -- say they would have asked us to show up with'
[
~
.. 13 our paint guns -- we.would have made the'same statement 14 that we already made to them regarding:this matter, in .
15 that it was our opinion.that'our scope was as set ~forth,
'16: not the scope which you.are. presenting to us today.-
-1 71 'O Did.you feel _ fully prepared for the scope--that 18- -Mr. Merritt defined ' that he expected .you .txt follow? -
19 ~A I-don't recall:Mr. Merritt ever really'. detailed
- ~20_ a definitive _ scope. fWhat Mr. Merritt did request is that:
- 1 21 weihave a' meeting to'further develop and assemble:more
( 22- .information regarding the concerns raised.by.Mr..Lipinski.
, . 23- At the : outcome of that meeting he had stated to me that-sr^y g'.(.7 - 2 4 '. :he.would then, you know, redefine -- or define,'rather,>
25 the-scope of work to be performed.
W
'e j .
- u ,
a . ..
+ . . . . .
E
'21560.0 23923
~BRT l' O So that essentially what he told you when he saw 2 this Lipinski Exhibit 3 that you have in front of you, is:
(
\_ I 3 "This is not what we want you to do; let's have a 4 preliminary meeting at the end of which I'll give you a 5 clearer idea of what I do want you to do"? Is that 6 essentially what took place?
7 A Essentially, yes.
8 O Now, was it clear from what he told you that the 9 meeting was just that? A preliminary meeting to better 10 define the work that O.B. Cannon would do at the site?
11 A .I believe Mr. Merritt used the term "kickof f 12 meeting."
,, 13 O So, to follow the analogy --
\- 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Are you sure'he said " kick"?~ K-i-c-k?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 BY MR. ROISMAN:
17 O To follow the analogy in the context in which it 18 was intended, there was yet a ballgame to be played after 19 that kickoff?
20 A Please' repeat your question. I'm sorry. I just 21 got off base a minute.
22 O I'm sorry. Because you know kicking and 23 football are popular phrases down in Texas. We easterners
'('T
- J 24 are often put off by that.
25 I guess what I want to be clear about is that your
"21560.'O 23924
, CRT - .
- > (
}/tL understanding of what Mr. Merritt was saying to you when
. 2 he told you, "I don't want you to do this thing that's t
.3 been o dlined in these four pages by Mr. Lipinski and 45> 4 Mr. Michels," is that he was saying to you, "I want to 5 have a meeting and;it is my expectation" -- and it was
~
~ 6: your espe'etation -- that following that meeting there
'k. \
i s 7 would be'some work dene at the site by O.B. Cannon; is i
SL "Ubat correct?
9, A It was not -- Mr. Merritt did not express it in a-10 y such definitive terms, okay? But my analysis of his cMlj 11 statements-implied such.
12 O k'Now, what happened during the course of the
- 13 meeting on the 10th of November that caused that follow-c ) ..
1"(# 14 on activity to not be undertaken?
4 15 A During: the course of' the session on the 10th it c j! .-
16 was quite evident that the TU site organization was not 17 interested in being audited,'reaudited, whatever. They i-4 18 exprended sev,eral "
times that they had been audited for
- 1. i
-19 various stages, very recentlycat-that point in' time, and f ,
p 20 also there was an ongoing audit by the NRC.
.w ,
a 21 Cannon'came to-the conclusion when we caucused after
- n 22 the meeting,'that if the client who had requested'and was 23 paying for our services was not interested in further y
' $~) _ 24 Edetailed audits,.it made no sense for cannon to pursue 25 same.
k i h.
s 1
J .'. .
_i b
21560.0 23925 BRT 1 JUDGE BLOCH: That seems fairly sound. There's 2 no way to do it, was there?
3 THE WITNEST: That's correct, sir.
4 BY MR. ROISMAN:
5 Q Mr. Trallo, at the time of the discussions 6 between you and Mr. Merritt regarding the scope of this 7 meeting, did you still contemplate that although what 8 Mr. Lipinski and Michaels had drawn up would not 9 presumably be what you would do, that it was still 10 expected that there would be several days of work that 11 would be done by O.B. Cannon at the site, consistent with 12 Mr. Roth's memorandum of November the 4th?
13 A I was of that opinion; yes.
r I l 14 O I'm sorry if I've asked you this and you've ,
L 15 answered it; the interruption has broken my train of 16 thought. But did you answer the question what it was that 17 had happened at the meeting that made you -- what specific 18 ti.ings-beyond the feeling that-there was an antipathy 19 towards having any more audits done, that made you 20 conclude that there was essentially no more work for the 21 -company to do'after the meeting?
22 A. We did not come to that opinion during.the 23 meeting. We did arrive at that opinion -in our own private
,m i
%>b . :2<4 sessions, the task group sessions, after the meeting.
-25 Q Did'you feel after the meeting was over that
21560.0 23926 CRT l' Mr. Merritt was at least open to your coming back and 2 saying, "There are at least some other things that we want
) 3 to do"; and provided they didn't fit the category of 4 audits that he would be receptive to them?
5 A Yes.
6 O Did you, as you left the meeting, have in your 7 head any possibilities of such things that you might do or 8 want to do?
9 A Not particularly, no.
10 0 was the --
11 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry, why is that? You 12 thought Mr. Merritt might be receptive to that, but you 13 didn't have in your mind any possibilities of wanting to 14 do that? Why did that happen as you were leaving the 15 meeting? s 16 THE WITNESS: In answering Mr. Roisman's 3 17 question, I reflected on my opinion at the time as to 18 Mr. Merritt's receptiveness to any suggestions, and I 19 felt when we.left theinitialsessionthathe'wouldhave 20 been receptive to further work we proposed.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: But you~also said you had in mind 22 you didn't want to do that. Why is that?
'23 THE WITNESS: That's correct. When I left the
. 24 meeting, nothing that I can recall had come to mind.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: I take it there was a financial
21560.0 23927 BRT 1 interest in something coming to mind? I mean, while you 2 were down there it would have been nice to have the three
^I s.)
h 3 people do some work and earn a little money, right?
4 MR. GALLO: Objection. They were paid as they 5 were down there.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: But if they did three days' work 7 while they were down there, it would hi a little better 8 than being down there and coming right back?
9 THE WITNESS: I would tend to disagree there.
10 TU is not about to pay the rates that the individuals that 11 were there would normally command under routine 12 circumstances.
7 13 JUDGE BLOCH: I see. So it was your
\ ')
(
14 understanding you weren't going to be fully compensated 15 for the work you did down there on the task force?
16 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't mean to infer that at 17 all. I felt that we would be compensated. However,.the 18 management team that was on-site during that period of 19 time normally is more effective'in the generation of 20 revenue to an amount far exceeding that which.the 21 agreement with TU would recompense us with.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: So you were'rather pleased to get 12 3 - out of there without spending more time and divert your i s L '24 corporate resources?
25 THE WITNESS: It's not the most pleasant place
21560.0 23928 BRT 1 in the world.
2 MR. TREBY: Amen.
(~s
' (s) 3 JUDGE BLOCH: One second, Mr. Watkins would like 4 to defend the place?
5 MR. WATKINS: I was going to perhaps agree as to 6 Glen Rose.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: I think the record should show 8 that the comment wasn't necessarily being made about the 9 people down there. It was the location.
10 THE WITNESS: That is correct. l 11 MR. GALLO: And I'm still trying to get this 12 witness finished by today. Let's get on with it.
,_ 13 BY MR. ROISMAN:
14 O Mr. Trallo, in the trip report, Mr. Lipinski on 15 page 4, in his -- under his " Observations" numbered D, 16 . expressed the point of view that Brown & Root is hostile 17 to the idea of an audit. You remember reading that and 18 knowing of that before you went'to the site on November 19 10th?
20 A. Of course I knew about it; yes. I read the 21 report.
12 2 O Were you at all surprised-that apparently they 23 were now willing to have at'least a mid-level audit done, _'
fs
-t
\s) 24. given what Mr. Lipinski had observed orLconcluded after 25 his trip?
.I 21560.0 23929 l BRT
)
l
~
1 A No, I was not surprised. The direction which 2 Cannon had taken had come from TU. Mr. Lipinski did refer
. f-n
-k 3 to Brown & Root.
4 So I felt that the utility, per se, had requested us to 5 come to the site another time, and therefore I put more-6 creden'ce in that than any statements made or impressions 7 given by the utility's agent.
8 -Q You bad done nothing to find out whether, in 9 . fact, Mr. Lipinski was correct that the source of his 10 concern that there was hostility to an audit had actually 11 come from a Brown & Root employee as opposed to a TUGCO 12 employee?
- .13 - A I did nothing to confirm that.
14- O So you just took it ao face value that he in' 15 fact meant Brown & Root, and not perhaps mistakenly put 16 BrownL& Root-when he meant TUGCO?
17 A' That's' correct.
18 Q- When-you heard at the meeting.on November 10th 19- the feelings of TUGCO about further audits, _. w ere you
-20 surprised lar'the,depthLof' feeling-that they-expressed in 21- their opposition to the audits?
l22~ A- I was'to:the extent that it appeared to beta ,
.23 ~ departure from the commitment I had perceived to be made' vsi - 24. =by their corporate-office to'Mr. Roth.
.25 Q '- .'Just-judging by the information you were a-
21560.0 23930 BRT 1 gathering at the November 10th meeting about other audits, 2 including apparently one that was ongoing by the Nuclaar
'C
\. 3 Regulatory Commission, did it seem to you that it was 4 still quite appropriate for O.B. Cannon itself to do an 5 audit along the lines of what Mr. Michels and Lipinski had 6 outlined?
7 A No, it did not.
8 O So you felt at that point that if you had known 9 all those facts before you went down there, that you would 10 have advised Mr. Roth or Mr. Norris that O.B. Cannon 11 should not be preparing to go down and do an audit and 12 there must have been some misunderstanding? By "all those 13 facts," I mean the facts about how many audits were going t . '(
l 14 on, not the facts of what the company's attitude was to
~ 15 yet one more audit?
16 A I would have made Mr. Roth cognizant of the fact
.17 that this would have been tremendous redundancy. . -
18 JUDGE BLOCH: I guess I'm not sure you had the 19 same assumptions in answering that Mr.' Roisman had in 20 asking.
21 Were you putting yourself in the shoes of TUGCO 22 management? Suppose you were TUGCO managenent and you 23 knew there was an NRC audit ongoing.- Would-you have k- 24 thought that that was a reason not to have O.B. Cannon not 25 do the audit you were planning to do?
21560.0 23931 BRT 1 THE WITNESS: Putting myself in TUGCO management's 2 shoes, as you suggest, I would not consider the NRC audit
-p (m,/ 3 being a basis for not having Cannon perform an audit.
4 However, it was referred to during the meeting that there 5 were several audits which preceded the NRC audit which had 6 been internal audits, both site level and corporate.
7 That's --
. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: That -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean 9 to cut you off.
10 THE WITNESS: That appeared to be a redundancy.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Isn't it standard site practice to 12 have a quality assurance program that looks over your QC 13 program? That was nothing unusual at a nuclear plant, was 14 it?
15 THE WITNESS: No. No. But having an audit --
16 apparently their audit had just. finished. They had-just 17 completed an audit of this nature.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: -Their own internal auditors had.
19 done the audit?
20 THE WITNESS: That.was my understanding.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: IX) you think the. scope of what 22 they would do internally would be about the same as what
- 23) Cannon would do?
-.(.
\/ 24 .THE WITNESS: I have no way of knowing.
25 BY MR. ROISMAN:
1
'.21560.0 23932
'BRT 1 O I take it, in fact, unless you actually knew 2 what the audit was, you have no way of knowing whether the l 3 things that you would be focusing on were even the things
^4 that had been focused on in any of the other audits; is
.5 that correct?
6~ A Yes.
7' Q' Now, in preparation-for going to the site on the.
8 loth of November, did you attempt to get some briefing or
.9 . prepare yourself for what you would be having to do when 10 you got to the site?
11- A Yes.
12 O Did you attempt to learn from Mr. Lipinski~in ,
13 any more detail what it was that he knew about the site,.
.O 14 based upon'his site visit,' as a way of preparing yourself?-
8 I 15 A Nothing otherJthan what had been detailed'out in
'16 his trip report and 'any -of .the ; documentation that liad been
^
4:
, 17 generated internally during-that period.:
18 Q'
. 'I assume that;also' included the responses lby-19F Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Norris to the. questionnaire from-
! s
.20. Mr. . Chapman?-
- 4
. 21 ~- A. That'sLcorrect.1
[ 22 .O When you looked over those responses I assume'it' 23- : became' obvious = to :you _ that there were some : real J\(~Ji%; ' 24' disagreements of opinion between Mr..Norris and e
25 sMr.' Lipinski?
e
=
T
'l
.f
~ _ _ . .
i I
23933
.21560.0~
.BRT-11 .A That's correct also.
2 Q And you made,no effort to try to get straight in f 3 your own mind what the basis was that underlay their 4 various views beyond what was in those memos, su) that you 5; .would be particularly alerted to these contradicted --
6 contradictory views?
7: A There had been some ongoing discussion between-
-8 us. Nothing I could specifically remember. <However, "9 taking the opinion of-both individuals, I felt that for me 10 to make any type of accurate decision, or interpretation, 11- it would best be done by me visiting the site myself.
12 O Did you draw any conclusions about who you 13 thought were the -- strike that.
O 14' Did-you draw any conclusions about the attitudes of the 15 people that you would be talking to_at the site,.towards 16 hearing your opinions on the adequacy of their paint-4
-17 coatings program?-
3 .
18 A- Would you please repeat that?
- ~
. 19- Q Yes. Did you draw any conclusions about'what 20
~
you expected lwould be.the attitude of the people that you 21- would be meeting at Comanche Peak to any-criticisms that' 22- you might-make in'your review.of the paint' coatings W
- V 23 -program at the_ plant?f 7'1
<M ' 24 lA- I assumed that, considering'the majority of the
_ 25- LStaff at the plant had not-dealt with me,cth'at,they would 8
9 e
w
21560.0 23934 BRT 1 give any comments made by me -- they would give it full 2 weight and objectivity.
3 Q Did Mr. Lipinski's somewhat negative comments 4' .about some of the individuals at the plant, in management, 5 and their receptiveness to criticism, give you reason to 6 be concerned that at least with some people you talked to 7 you might get a fairly negative reaction?
8 A No.
9 O Is that because you did not accept his 10 evaluation of those people or of certain management 11 attitudes?-
12 A No. I accepted Mr. Lipinski's evaluation at 13 face value as he presented them. I felt that part of his
\~ 14 evaluation dealt with-personalities.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Watkins, we would urge 16- Applicants in their rebuttal case to clarify.the nature of 17 these audits that were done that represented such. heavy 18 auditing that-the O.B. Cannon work was unnecessary.
19- BY MR. ROISMAN:
20 0 Well, I have in mind particularly, Mr. Trallo, 21 on page 3 of the trip report in the paragraph A that's at 22 the very bottom of the page,.this statement which we 23 discussed earlier; Mr. Lipinski saying the fact that
. , , =
- 24' management attempts to squash any efforts to point out 25 quality problems -- if you accepted that statement at face 4
1 -
21560.0 23935
~BRT 1 value,-didn't it make you feel that you needed to be alert 2 if you were going to point out quality problems to that g
(_) 3 propensity on the part of management?
4 A I was referring to the comments made in 5 Mr. Lipinski's report to specific individuals, where he 6 made statements to the effect that, I believe one was 7 Mr. Tolson, who was not interested in auditing -- I would 8 have to go exactly to the record. I was not referring to 9 this generic comment here. You are speaking of management --
10 I believe the previous questions dealt with individuals I l 1
-11 would be dealing with versus the generic term in this 12 paragraph A which refers to management as an umbrella.
13 Q But even all the more so to the extent that it's (3
'/
14 an umbrella, what I'm trying to understand is whether you 15 prepared yourself, when you were going down there, to the 16 possibility, if what Mr. Lipinski said was right, that you 17 would run into some opposition to your pointing out 18 quality problems that you were observing?.
19 A I did not anticipate any opposition based on the 20 fact that we were there at utility management's request.
21 O Did it ever occur to.you that it might have been
- 22. that the utility wanted you to come down there in order to-
, 23 do a reversal of-the earlier Lipinski trip report-k- 24 conclusions? And that that was their motive-for having 25 you come down?
21560.0 23936 BRT.
1 A Yes. But only to the extent as could be 2 definitively proven by reviews performed by Mr. Lipinski, 3 -Mr. Michels, Mr. Norris, and myself.
4 Q So that would you say at the time that you 5 understood it, at the time the original trip was made by 6 Mr. Lipinski, in Norris, and the others, back in July, the 7 company's motive would appear to have been, based upon one 8 looking at what the scope of the work was to be, that they 9 wanted you'to find problems for them, identify them, and 10 suggest ways that they could solve them. And that their 11 goal at the second trip down on November -- at the 12 November 10th meeting, was for you to look at the problems 13 that you had found before and if at all possible, within 14- your own integrity, to find that they weren't problems?
15 A I do not know that that was their goal at all.
16 Q Does it appear to you,.given what you knew about
-17 what they wanted done, based upon what it was that they 18 directed be done at the first visit.and what they directed 19 be done at the second visit, in your opinion what does it
.20 appear was the. purpose of those trips? Were.they.as I:
21- described them?
- 22. A It's possible.
23 MR.'WATKINS: Mr. Roisman, have you reached a 24 breaking point? I've got a problem to take up with the 25 . chairman.
_ _ . _ _ - _ --_s
'21560.0 23937 BRT-1 MR. ROISMAN: Okay. I hope this will not be i
2 another seven-minute break. l
(~~ I
's )T 3 MR. WATKINS: No.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: I think it has to do with the ,
5 board's request for information.
6 MR. WATKINS: I just wanted to comment, 7 Mr. Chairman, that I anticipated your request yesterday..
8 I fear that you may have excluded from evidence one of the 9 very audits about which we are speaking.
10 I don't know that that's the case. But, if it turns 11 out to be the case, I hope the board hasn't permanently-12 excluded that audit from evidence.
13- JUDGE BLOCH: No. As a matter of fact Mr. Treby
</ \
\/ 14 . raised the possibility that it could be relevant to the 15 rebuttal case.
16 MR. WATKINS: We didn't object to its admission 17- and that.was the reason why. Okay.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr..Trallo, did the Applicants,- at 19 any time during the meeting on the - 10th and lith suggest 20 to you some-good faith way for you to examine the plant at 21 some reasonable level of effort to find out the truth of 22 the matters involved?
23 THE WITNESS: Not that I could recall.
/')
\/ 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Does that raise some question in-25 your mind as to whether they wanted you to do any kind of-
4 21560.0- 23938 F BRT' l.t 1 a good faith effort to ascertain the truth of the Lipin' ski
, 2 matters?
3 THE WITNESS: It appears that they were l <4 confident that the concerns raised by Mr. Lipinski were :
i c 3
5 -unfounded, and that they did not require any further input
] 6 or agreement from O.B. Cannon.
The complaint-that the'y had with.
b.
7 JUDGE BLOCH:
8- you was not that you were to do a review, it's that what
- 9. you were planning to do was too extensive. And yet they 10 didn't suggest to you what would comprise a less extensive f[ ' ll' review that would be acceptable?
121 THE WITNESS: That's correct, sir.
~
.13 . JUDGE:BLOCHi That' suggests to me the 14- poss'ibility that there was no review.that they wanted you-15 to.do.
cl6: 'THE WITNESS: I don't know.
17 BY-MR. ROISMAN:
r
.. _ -18 O' Mr.'Trallo,.did you-and Mr.:Lipinski have an
~
.19 '
opportunity'to discuss,-in. advance of the time;you went t ,
'. 2 0 - down to the site for the meeting on~the 10th, whether'or-21- not the trip reporttwould be a' focus, if not the focus, ofL 22 what-was going to~take-place'at the-plant site during your
-23' visit?
, IS / J24 JA Mr. Lipinski and I discussed the fact that he
]._ 25 should incorporateLany areas which he raised concern about ,
{- ^
b g -.
s
,, .. ,__1.,,,._.,,,,.~_._,_._._.u,.,-,,- ..___._.,__-_,.-........_c.,..-..._.._..
21560.0 23939 BRT 1 in his trip report, into his site review checklist.
2 O Prior to the time that you got to the site and
('
(-)\ - 3 had'your first conversation with Mr. Merritt, did i 4 Mr. Lipinski raise with you any concerns that he had that, 5 in addition to him going to look at those various areas 6- where he had had questions before, that he might in fact 7 be called upon to defend the things that he had said in 8 the trip report before the company?
9 A My only recollection of anything of that nature 10 would be on August 9th. This was the date that 11 Mr. Lipinski did_ arrive on-site.
12 0 You mean November 9th?
13 A Excuse me. November 9th. I stand corrected.
~' -
14 O Okay.
15~ A The day that Mr. Lipinski did arrive on-side, it 16 'was the day previous to my are a rival.
17 O And what do-you remember of that?
18 A In discussions'with Mr. Merritt, via telephone,
-19 and also Mr. Norris via-telephone, who had arrived ~at the 20 site, TU site management wanted to have a meeting and at 21 this meeting discuss the points raised by Mr. Lipinski.in L
F 22 his trip' report.
- 23 ~ 10 And how did Mr. Lipinnki react to your telling
/~}
?\4 him that they wanted to do that?
H24 i
25 A -Mr. Lipinski stated that he didn't'really' care
21560.0 23940 BRT-1 to attend any meeting.
2 O And why -- I'm sorry, were you finished?
3 A Basically, he did not want to take in the 4 meeting.
5 O And why? Did he tell you why?
6 A I'm not sure if it occurred at this point in 7 time, but during the course of some of our conversations 8 Mr. Lipinski did present to'me that he felt that getting 9 into an open forum, the individuals involved would try to -
~
10 discredit him.
11 Q Did he tell you why he thought they would try to 12 do that?
- 13 A' .Not that I could remember.
'A' 14 Q- Did you have a sense that you. agreed with him, 15 that.they-might try to do that?'
16 A I had no basis for. concurring with his feeling 17 or philosophy. However, I did advise him that he was'not 18 to take part-in any meeting of that fashion without my 19 -presence.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: Did Mr. Lipinski ever discuss with-21 you his commitment to keep the names of the people who 22 spoke to him confidentially?
. 23 'THE WITNESS: I don't recall.
b\~/ 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Did he ever express concern to you-
-25 that he didn't want to reveal the identity of the people
21560.0 23941 BRT d
1- he spoke to?
2 THE WITNESS: I don't remember, h,-
s 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Did he ever say to you, directly 4 or indirectly, that he was worried that if' people became 5 identified with the concern that their careers might be in 6 jeopardy?
7 THE WITNESS: I do recall him mentioning 8 something along that vein. But the exact specifics, I
-9 don't remember at all.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you recall anything that you 11- could help us with?
12 THE WITNESS: Regarding?
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Regarding concerns or fears about 14 workers who might have identified quality problems at the I
15 plant.
-16 1
THE WITNESS: No. Nothing at all.
- 17. JUDGE BLOCH: What did you mean when you said, "I .
18 recall something along that line."
19' THE WITNESS: I faintly recollect Mr. Lipinski 20 mentioning that he did talk to many people whom he knew 21 prior to their employment at the Comanche Peak site. And 22 statement,.somehow to the effect that he wouldn't want to 2:3 drag these people into any of these discussions that were
,e\
A m j- 24 being held-and possibly jeopardize, you know, their 25 _ employment.
. . . - - , _ , - _. .- _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ,_ , _ - . _ - . _ , __.
^
21560.0 23942 BRT.
~
l JUDGE BLOCH: Is that part of Mr. Lipinski's T
2 dilemma, in trying to say what the basis for his concerns
.p
( 3 was?
4 THE WITNESS: I couldn't really answer that, sir.
5 BY MR. ROISMAN:
1 6 Q By the time you got to the site on the 10th of I 7 November, Mr. Lipinski had already listed a number of 8 people with whos'he had spoken in response to Mr. Chapman's 4
9 request; had he not?
10 A I believe so, yes.
~11 O Is the conversation that you are remembering now 12 and were just talking to the chairman about, one that took 13 place sometime before that, time? Or --
14 A I have no recollection --
15 Q By that mean, I,mean October 31st?
16 A I have no recollection of when the conversation 17 took place.
218 Q When you and Mr. Lipinski discussed this concern 19: that he had about not wanting to be in a meeting where-the 20 trip report was going to be discussed, did you accept at 21 face value that he had a basis for.his concern that it 22 might turn into a session that was inappropriate?
23 A I. considered the concerns of Mr. Lipinski and I -
'['ss ,
24 incorporated those concerns into my philosophy in 25 discussions with Mr. Merritt, prior to a meeting.
lp ~
- % . .y ,,...,,,,......v-.,,,. -.E-.4 ., . , , - , , ~ , , , , ~ , , , , , , , ~ , . _ , , , . , , . , . , , , . . 'y,,
21560.0 23943 l BRT.
1 O Well, for instance, you indicate in your 2 testimony that you were careful to assure that the meeting
(_ .
3 would not turn into a " witch hunt"; this is on page 11 of 4 your testimony?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q Did you say -- did you use those words, witch 7 hunt" to Mr. Merritt?
8 A I believe I did.
9 Q Didn't you feel a little uncomfortable even 10 suggesting to him that you thought it might, unless you 11 had some basis for believing that it was a danger that it
> 12 might?
13 A I was not uncomfortable at all.
'O' 14 O You certainly wouldn't have said to him -- well, 15 would you have said to him: "And I also don't want 16 anybody hitting Mr. Lipinski with a blunt instrument 17 during the meeting"?
18 MR. GALLO: Objection.
19- JUDGE BLOCH: Sustained.
20 BY MR. ROISMAN:
~
21 O What did you think -- what did you intend by.the 22 phrase " witch hunt"?
23 A Reflecting on the comments made to me by
(-
(3) 24 Mr. Lipinski that he was of the opinion that the purpose 25 of the meeting may have been to discredit himself, and m' ' - n
___._._.___.__.___.____.m_.__._.____ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _
- l. ~
f 21560.0 23944 BRT 1 consequently the document he generated.
2 O But did you understand " discredit" to mean that 3 they were going to drag up his criminal record if he had 4 one? That kind of discredit?
5 A Not necessarily anything in that light. However, 6 the possibility of statements being made to the effect 7 that his statements, or his report, was without basis.
8 O Well, doesn't that seem to you like a fair 9 questioning of Mr. Lipinski, and fair confrontation, if 10 you will, with regard to what is undeniably a --
11 controversial statements that he made?
12 A .No, sir, I do not.
13 O I mean, he said some pretty negative things
(_s\
\2 14 himself in that report. You would agree with that, 15 wouldn't you?
16 A Yes, he did.
17 O And why wasn't-it perfectly fair that they 18 should be able to say back to him: We don't squash 19 negative comments about quality when we hear them, and 20 you've no basis for making that statement.
21 Why should you have felt that they shouldn't be able to 22 do that,.if they wanted to?
23 A I was of the opinion that any information that 1
wi . 24 could 1x presented which was factual, objective 25 information, which would allay any concern raised by l
i
~l
-21560.0 23945 !
. RT B I 1 Mr. Lipinski definitely should be presented. However, I j 2 saw nothing of a session as you have described, basically f~
(~h) 3 just outright rebuttal without a basis -- I didn't think 4 that would result in anything good or definitive.
5 0 Well, do you see when you used the phrase " witch 6 hunt," did you mean something like an inquisition in which 7 Mr. Lipinski himself would be put on the spot and probing 8 questions would be put to him: Justify this statement and 9 justify that statement; is that what you had in mind?
10 A That was what I had perceived; yes.
11 Q Not dissimilar, perhaps, to what happens in a 12 licensing hearing during cross-examination?
13 A Very similar, sir.
p 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Trallo, if I understand you 15 correctly, when you were going into that meeting, you were-16 still~ hopeful it was going to be a' constructive way of" 17 getting information out and you were trying to have that 18 happen? Is'that way basically what you were saying?
19' THE WITNESS: That's correct.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: Did it happen'that way?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe it did.
F 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Is it information you could verify 23 in any way?
O s) ' 24. THE' WITNESS: It was information that is 25 verifiable, but it was not verified by Cannon or the task i
. 21560.0: 23946
~ BRT:
1- Egroup involved.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: And you were unable to form an
~
3 independent judgment based on the information available at 4 that meeting whether the Lipinski concerns were well ,
l 5 founded?
'6 THE WITNESS: Yes. I believe we were able to.
l 7- perform', or conclude that the concerns were unfounded.
8 The basis for that conclusion was the verbal information
'9 put out by TU management.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: But you wouldn't call that an 11 independen_ judgment based on data and information you
- 12 ' verified, would you?
F .
13 THE WITNESS: Without verification, you are 14 correct.
Il5 JUDGE BLOCH: And when-you went-into the meeting s
16- you were hopeful that you'd be able to get independent l 17= verification, that'you could go home.really comfortable
_ 18 that the concerns weren't validiEisn't'that whatlyou a 19: -thought'_was happening when you went into the meeting?.
20 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
l 21 ' JUDGE.BLOCH: In what'way?
- 22. THE WITNESS: We were not uncomfortable'with our
_l 2 3 --position.to start with. We went-into the meeting at the
! '24 reque st ' .of .'TU, to provide.-them with_information"should i.
7 H25 they elect ? to utilize-this information and have'us obtain I'
i:
e 3
0
121560.0 23947 BRT.
1 it.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: I see. Basically you didn't
) 3 provide them with any information at all, did you?
'4 THE WITNESS: I feel we provided them with 5 information. The value of the information would have to 6 be ascertained-by TU management.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: What information is that? I 8 thought basically all you said was, if you are right you 9 are right.
10 THE WITNESS: What we did is we, out there, 11 through the roundtable discussion, had presented to us the 12 programmatic requirements that TU had in place.
13 We definitively stated that if'these programmatic 14 requirements'were indeed being implemented, that we-felt 15 that our. concerns which had been raised in July had no 16 basis.
17 JUDGE BLOCH: Would you consider that an
~ 18 independent. review?
19 THE WITNESS: To the extent that TU. requested'.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: But they didn't request an 21 ~ independent review, did they?
22 _THE WITNESS: I was of the opinion that they had, 23 based on the direction given to me'by Mr..Roth.
j7
\_f 24 JUDGE BLOCH: I mean, at the meeting.they didn't
.25- ~ request'an. independent review, they just requested that
3 -
1 21560.0 2304G BRT _
1 you' listen and accept what they said?
i; 2 MR. GALLO: . Objection. Mr. Chairman, you are f o.
4
- n
.3; arguing with'the witness. It seems to me the point that t .
4 1 you are trying to get this witness to concede is a matter ,
5 that can be dealt with in propose 6 findings. The witness 1.
, 6 has answered your question two or three times and it seems i
, -7 to me that it's-repetitive and you are arguing with him at
+
8' : this juncture.
L 91 JUDGE BLOCH: Last time he just answered a e
10 Ldifferent question than the one I asked.
{
l ,
11- MR. GALLO: But your objective is the.same in-f .
12 each and every case. l 1
i .
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's have the question' read back F- o< :14 again, please?-
- - 1 11 5 -(The reporter read the record as requested.)
- 4.,
16' JUDGE BLOCH: I think that will be the last L 17- ~ question on this line but you may-answer that.
18 THE WITNESS: Would you please-repeat the . ,
19 3 question?
i '
i 20 (The' reporter read the record as requested.)
- 21: THE' WITNESS: They didn't request an independent' .
?22 review. However; the meeting was a roundtable discussion.o 4
2
.3. We were-not: assigned the task of'very. passive or -- a-very
~
2 <4 - passive role, in that'we were actively involved in the-25 meeting. .There was-discussion.-
i, '
s s
i t
6-4g we 4 T- v^tv' f -rg e..wyr- - .,,..wvv-s.,-p%-reyey ye .gy-. =y .e-g ~ 9 -ww,.v-a <--y.?e+ ge o *
$F--t-w 6-w -
- PNM P =e s- a-et-e---*'*"'rd"s---*We w-sr-*+ 4-r- T es- w t whf wm *W e tw-t--pr-
21560.0 23949 ERT 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Was Mr. Lipinski actively involved 1
2 in,the meeting? ,
~3 THE WITNESS: Mr. Lipinski was' actively involved 4 in the meeting. Mr. Lipinski's comments were minimal, 5' however.
'61 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you think they were trying to 7 . fully pursue the basis for Mr. Lipinski's beliefs?
a.
8 THE WITNESS: I don't think that they were-9f trying to pursue the basis for Mr. Lipinski's opinion. I 10' believe what they were trying to accomplish was to present 11 the program they-did have in effect, which'would cause, 12- possibly, Mr. Lipinski and ourselves to' change our 13 opinions.
~
14 ' JUDGE BLOCH: Weren't=they interested in "15 Llearning from Mr.,Lipinski, to see'.if they' thought he'had:
16' relevant'information that:would reflect:on their~ program?-
1.THE WITNESS: ~ I think they were intereste'd; yes.
17.
I 18- -
BY MR. ROISMAN: _
19~ Q. Well, let's . follow ;that -line.~ The discussion I
f20' -that we:had earlierfabout tracing. mixed paints,.
l J. . 21. Mr. Lipinski~had-stated.in his~ response'to Mr. . Chapman ' s ._ '
.- - 22 questions back in. October,ithat he had seen~an untagged
- 23 paint can.with;no markings or labelings on it'on a pallet-
'Ml 24 outside'the containment,,and that that had be'en a--
25 ; substantial factor in-triggering his concern about; thel e
. . , ,,. ;a . ...-.a - - .. .- .. ~ . . - . - , , , . ~ . ... - . - .. - .- ..,. -.;. . - .. - . - .. .
21560.0 23950 BRT . ,
1 traceability of the paint materials.
2 Now, Mr. Tolson described a system during the course of
( 3 the meeting which he said was their way of tracing paint.
4 But, apparently it seems that the -- what Mr.- Lipinski 5 saw represented some kind of failure in the implementation 6 of he system which Mr. Tolson was describing. Would you 7 agree with that?
8 A Yes, I would.
9 Q Wouldn't it have been natural, in your mind, for 10 Mr. Lipinski to speak up and say to Mr. Tolson, after he 11 described the program: Well, what was the situation with 12 the can that I saw? And try to bring his specific facts 13 to bear on their generic program discussion?
(:) 14 A I don't recall whether Mr. Lipinski brought up
\
15 the fact or not.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you know that fact at the time, ,
17 of the meeting? Had you read Mr. Lipinski's comments in 18 response to Mr. Chapman's question?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes.
20 MR. GALLO: Objection. Judge Bloch, this 21 ' questioning is deteriorating. It is turning into a two-man 22 attack on this witness. Mr. Roisman asks three or four 23 questions, you interject, change the subject entirely O 24 z .
sometimes, anc.It's unfair and prejudicial to tne witness.
~
25 I would request that you refrain from asking questions 4
k i
21560.0 23951 BRT l
l 1 until after Mr. Roisman completes his questioning.
- 2 MR. ROISMAN
- That seems to me to be an issue
() 3 that, if Mr. Gallo wants to have serious discussion on, 4 ought to be briefed, since it is a variation from the 5 standing practice of this board in every hearing day that 6 I have attended.
7 MR. GALLO: I don't think that it needs to be 8 briefed. We are not talking about a casual question or 9 two from the board. Judge Bloch, your inquiry of this 10 witness, in terms of numbers in questions, in detail, is 11 as detailed and penetrating as Mr. Roisman's questions.
12 It's as if you are a party in this proceeding.
13 I'm not objecting on that ground. What I'm objecting i
O 14 to is this witness ought to be permitted to handle one set 15 ' of questions at the time.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: I would like you to clarify for 17 t,he record, since it's a written record, the extent to 18 which you think that the board's demeanor and the way the 19 questions were asked consisted of berating the witness or s
20 harassing him in some way.
\
21 MR. GALLO: I don't know what that has to do
>' 22 with anything. I'm not suggesting that.
23 Wha's I'm suggesting is that any witness under 24 cross-examination, in terms of fairness, should only have 25 to gope with one attorney at a time, and what we've i
'mu' m' _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __-. _ _ __ __
_ _ ^_
21560.0 23952 ERT 1 witnessed here in the last 45 minutes is a shuffling back
-2 and forth between you and Mr. Roisman. And I contend that
.(\ .- 3 that's unfair. And the shuffling not only. involves 4 follow-up questions on areas that Mr. Roisman was 5 inquiring about, but actual changes in subjects from what 6 Mr. Roisman was inquiring about.
7 MR. ROISMAN: I do not understand Mr. Gallo's 8 objection. It doesn't seem to me that anything unusual 9 has happened in the last 45 minutes compared to the normal 10 conduct of the hearing. That's number one.
11' Number two, perhaps Mr. Gallo has forgotten the 12 admonition of the then U.S. Court of-Appeals judge and now 13 . United States Supreme Court Justice Burger that this board
'(N
,- - 14 as the board of an administrative agency should not sit.by 15 blandly calling balls and strikea, and.that it has a 16 .special and unique obligation that goes beyond that of a 17 court.
18 The third thing is, I could change the subject of the 19 questions nll I want and Mr. Gallo wouldn't have any 20 objection.. I could ask.the witness one question about 21 November 10th and the next one' about an entirely dif ferent 22 matterion another day. No one would have any legitimate 23 objection.
.n
! )
.v- 24 If that is the objection.
25: And finally, it seems to me in the normal course of
'21560.0 23953
.BRT 1 things the most efficient way for questions to be asked, 2 whether by courts or boards, is to be asked when the 3 question is in their mind. The alternative, which I might 4 point out, is probably that the board says: We will study 5 the transcript because we can't remember all the things 6- that were said and have all the witnesses called back on a 7 second day; a consequence which none of us, I think, would 8 favor.
t
.9 JUDGE BLOCH: In any event, Mr. Gallo's argument 10 'has been eloquently been made by Mr. Reynolds before him 11 " in the companion docket and we rejected itthere and we 12 reject it here as well.
'13 Now-can the question be read back?
'O, 14 (The reporter read the record as requested.)
15- JUDGE BLOCH: The'next question is, did you 16 consider offering a statement about the basis for 17- Mr. Lipinski's concerns about unmarked paint cans?
18 THE WITNESS: I don't recall a specific 19 statement. I do recall that there was discussion v
20 regarding the basis of Mr. Lipinski's comment. .
21 MR. ROISMAN:- Did you want to add anything?'
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: ~ Excuse me, as long as there has 23- been all this interruption, I hsve one question I wanted
/
.t '
~
' \- 24 ' answered. You indicated that you thought the TU people
.25 were interested in'whether Mr. Lipinski had information to
c.
t v c21560.0' 23954 x BLRT .
1- back up his conclusions, and I believe you. answered yes,
-2 lthat they.were interested in that. Were they also 3- ' interested'in eliciting his information at that meeting?. ;
l
^4 THE WITNESS: I believe the question you are -!
5 referring to is'not did Lipinski have information to back ,
6' lup .his statements, 'but that they wanted to present 7 information to.get to the basis of Mr. Lipinski's' concerns.
8 .And, yes, they did,~you know, ask questions and,present
_1
~
9 information. j 10 MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. -
11l BY'MR..ROISMAN:
4 12 ;Q' - The form that the November 10 meeting ultimately
. . [13 took produced'a, essentially a conclusion on the part.of-c :
~
3% - :14. - the O.B. ' Cannon people.who attended : that, if what you .were ,
being told was implemented then the paint coatings 1 program 16' iwas okay; isithst-correct?- -"
l J.17 A No, sir. That'.s not correct.: 4 -
-18; O -
-Okay.. Will;you please. correct me,zthen?.-What t
^
- 19 idid-I:say that was wronggor-:was it.justJincomplete?
,, 20: LA1 .I'believe youtstated thatithe paint and[ coatings,'
gs:
.21 .. program was okay.
F >
.t <
22- -Q .Right.. l
, i ~
~23 A- 'I believe the conclusion we drew was-thatEif TUL 1 V :enb. ,
1
'd 24 ~ :was implementing the program-as presented t6 us,'then. '
- 1 25 Jthere woul'd be'no ba' sis.for.Mr...Lipinski's. concerns'
~
i- 4 -
M. ,
s u r
Y
+
NW -
- _,i i
21560.0 23955 BRT 1 O Okay. I'm sorry. All right. And you didn't go 2 beyond that to the whole paint coatings program?
.O(,) 3 A No, we did not.
4 .O Now, given the sort of assumption under which 5 you operated, which you stated on page 10 of your 6 -testimony in the middle of answer 17, "we accepted the 7 information presented at face value," was the conclusion 8 that you reached using that assumption a conclusion which 9 really drew on, or utilized the O.B. Cannon expertise to 10 much extent at all?
11 A We drew on our expertise to the extent that we 12 understood the program that was presented to us.
13 O But, as the conclusion of an independent group-(}
S' 14 of experts, it wasn't worth very much. Would you agree.
fl5f w ith that?
16 A No. I would not. I feel that the conclusion, l'7 based on the. parameters set forth,-was -- or did have 18 .value. We were giving a set of parameters and provided
~-19 ' with information. An opinion based on that information 20 should have value.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, for example, on the traveler, 22 :did you really have information.on how the traveler 23 program was implemented or what was on the travelers?
(~')
\_/ 24 THE WITNESS: No, we did not, e 25 JUDGE BLOCH: So, to what extent did you really
21560.0 23956 BRT 1 understand,the program?
2 THE WITNESS: We understood the parameters
( _3 within the TU program, as it was presented to Cannon at 4 that_ meeting. ' Based on --
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Would you say -- I'm sorry, I 6 didn't mean to interrupt you.
7 THE WITNESS: ' Based on that information we drew 8 - a-conclusion. We did clarify our conclusion whereby we 9 stated that we cannot verify this without doing further 10 work.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: In terms of the plateau system you 12 .were talking about before, but in a different context,' how 13 would you characterize the detail _you were given about the-N- 14 programs.that the Applicants said they had in_ place? . Was 15 that a very simple plateau? Or in depth? Where would,you 1 46 place that? +
17 THE WITNESS: 'That-would be at the very basic 18 level. -
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Roisman?
20- BY MR. ROISMAN:
21 O Do you remember having a conversation ~with 22 Mr. Merritt regarding the trip on the 10th of November,
. 23: shortly before the trip, on the telephone, when you were s.] -
24- in Texas?
25 -A Yes.
w
l 21560.0 23957 BRT 1 Q And did that take place subsequent to November i
, 2 the 4th?
.A I_) 3 A Yes, it did.
4 Q- Can you remember what you and Mr. Merritt 5 discussed at that time?
6 A Can I refer to my notes?
7 O Yes. As long as you indicate to us what you are j , 8 using to refresh your memory.
9 A Okay. I am utilizing a set of notes of the 10 . November 8 through November 11 timeframe that was ,
11 generated by myself.
S 12 O Okay.
s .
13 '
A Okay. My first discussion with Mr. Merritt was
{}'
\~' 14 on the 8th, the afternoon of the 8th.
15 ' O Is that the one that's-under the~4:45 p.m.
- 16 designation on the first page of those-notes?
17 A That is correct.
18 O Okay.
19 A Basically, I had been asked by Mr. Roth to 20 contact John Merritt at the site to advise him that we
.were,'indeed, coming'onto the. job.
21 Also, I wanted to 22 alert Mr. Merritt to some of the support.we'would need.
23 And that's what I did during.that conversation.
.fM( /' 24 . Further, with that conversation, Mr. Merritt' asked me
'25 if Mr. Norris would be.there and I presented it. I didn't
y a. -
Lx '21560.0 23958 l -BRT '
1 believe he would be there the first thing the morning of 2 the 9th. I had gotten'some information, which I found out 3- later was in error, that Mr. Norris would not be there 4 first thing the morning of the 9th.
r 5" Mr. Merritt did not state that that was not acceptable.
6 Q- At the time of this conversation with-7 Mr. Merritt as you reflect on.it, did it seem to you that 8; what you were telling him was sufficient that it should 9- have alerted him .to - the kind of review that you were 10 anticipating that the O.B. Cannon-people would do on the Lil site, consistent with the four-page document that we've
,1:2 previously identified as-Lipinski Exhibit 3?
13 A In my opinion, yes, k- 14 0 .And did he, at.the-time =that you talked to him, 15< indicate to you in any way that he had' a narrower, or-
. 16 different view of-what was to take place?
17- A- No..
18 ,Q You indicate incyour notes, for that date, that 19 there was certain preliminary,information that you were 20 going to. require and you gave him a list and added some 21
,other things to.that list.
_n
'22 A~ That's correct.
- . 23 Q Did any of those items ultimately _become matters f .
(.c 24- 'that were discussed at the No'vember 10th ' meeting? ' That is,
- 25 the documents themselves or the information that you got?J
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - - -___m- _ __-__-m -_ - - - -
i
!21560.0 23959 BRT 1 A In generalities, I think each of the items was I 2 touched on. But I do not recall any specific discussion 3 regarding any individual item.
4 Q When you got to the site, did you actually get l 5 the materials and items that you had identified to him on 6 the telephone in-hand to look at?
7 A No, I did not.
8 Q Did any of the O.B. Cannon people get them?
9 A Not to my knowledge.
10 Q When Mr. Merritt indicated to you that he wanted 11 .Mr. Norris to be there, did he give you any explanation as 12 to why that was so important to him?
13 A. Yes, he did.
' ^
\' 14 Q What did he indicate?
L15 A He indicated that that TUSI management' wanted a' 16 double review because they wanted someone competent 17 looking at all of this paper. -
18l I'm paraphrasing the discussion now, but that's, pretty.
19 concisely, what it was.
20- -Q Did you understand that he was suggesting that 21 -he didn't think that you or Mr. Michels or Mr. Lipinski 22 were competent to look at the paper?
23 A He did not say that any of us were not competent.
14 O Did he use the word, as you remember, 15 " viciously"?
16 A Yes.
17 JUDGE BLOCH: The memo you are referring to is 18 the trip report?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct.
20 , BY MR. ROISMAN:
21 0 Did he express it with what appeared to you to 22 be -- did he appear to be angry when he said that?
23 A I would not necessarily categorize him as being 7s (j 24 angry. More that he may have had his ego bruised. That's 25 a personal assessment of my own.
I i l
21560.0 23987 l BRT 1 0 Did you say anything to Mr. Tolson in response 2 to that statement by him?
g
(_) 3 A Yes. I assured him that Mr. Lipinski was not 4 trying to attack anyone, either corporately or personally; 5 that he was trying to be objective in the notes that he 6 drafted.
7 I further stated that if we had formally presented a 8 report, the language would have been presented in much 9 better fashion and I think it would have been better 10 received.
11 O Did you indicate to Mr. Tolson anything about 12 the difference in your mind between Mr. Lipinski finding 13 fault in things that Mr. Tolson did, as contrasted to wJ-14 making a vicious attack on him?
15 A I don't recall anything of that nature.
16 0 When you discussed the concept of a witch hunt, 17 or that there shouldn't be one, did Mr. Tolson have any 18 comment or reaction to that in the course of this meeting?
19 A None that I could recall.
20 0 And the assurances to you that there wouldn't be 21 one came, then, only from Mr. Merritt?
22 A That is correct.
23 O Do you recollect, at this kick-off meeting, a i'
t- 24 discussion of the intent to have the meeting transcribed?
25 Tape recorded and then later transcribed?
21560.0 23988 BRT 1 A Yes. Mr. Merritt stated that they would like to 2 do that and asked if Cannon had any objections and we had 3 no objection.
4 O Were you in any way surprised that that was 5 going to happen?
6 A No, not really.
7 O Were you glad?
8 A Yes.
9 O Why?
10 A I felt that that way, nothing that was said 11 could be misconstrued.
12 O Were you worried, given your experience with 13 respect to the November 3rd meeting, and Mr. Roth's and
\- 14 subsequently your understanding of what was going to 15 happen at the 10th meeting and the ultimate events that 16 transpired, that a misunderstanding was a real possibility 17 here?
18 A Well, that was considered. I did not' attend the 19 November 3rd meeting. And, whether the differences of 20 apparent scope arose, I could only rely on the notes that 21 Mr. Roth had taken at the meeting and the information he
.22 gave to me. I did --
23 O As opposed to -- I'm sorry?
t'.
, (_}/ 24 A Therefore, I considered that a. formal transcript
- 25 of this session, I felt, would be helpful.
r 21560.0 2398 BRT 1 O On the lith you had a meeting with Mr. Merritt.
2 Do you remember having a meeting with Mr. Merritt in the
) 3 morning on the lith?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Do you remember, at that meeting, him indicating to you anything about the trip report having been filed 7 with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this 8 proceeding?
9 A Vaguely, yes.
10 0 Do you remember anything about what he said when 11 he told you about that?
12 A No.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you remember if he told you a
k- 14 when he learned about it?
15 THE WITNESS: I believe he learned about it in 16 the previous afternoon.
17 JUDGE BLOCH: That was before the transcribed 18 meeting or at a break, do you know?
19 THE WITNESS: That would be after the 20 transcribed meeting.
21 BY MR. ROISMAN:
22 O As I remember, just so We are clear, the 23 transcribed meeting basically ended around lunchtimer is
.y l 24 that correct?
25 A Right around noon, yes.
-21560.0 2399G BRT i
1 -O And can you remember whether you had any
-2 reaction to that piece of information that Mr. Merritt l ) 3 gave you about the trip report being filed with the 4 hearing board?
5 A No. I can't remeraber anything.
6 Q Do you remember whether Mr. Norris expressed-any 7 reaction to learning of that while you were there?
8 A I don't remember.
9 O Now, at that meeting I take it you advised the 10- people of the -- of what were your general conclusions, 11 based upon the preceding day's meeting in this little 12 pre-meeting meetings is that correct?
13 A That is correct.
(/
N- 14 O And can you remember what you told them were 15 your conclusions?
16 A Basically our conclusions were that if they wera '
17 doing what they said they were regarding implementation of 18 the program presented to us, then that would indicate that 19 our concerns were unfounded. However, we had no 20 definitive means of ascertaining the same.
21 Q Did Mr. Tolson or Mr. Merritt react in any way- [
22 to your statement?
23 A Not that I recall.
't
(~/
'w 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you consider just saying: "We 25 understand that you think you know your own problems and
i
! 21560.0 23991 l
"RT l
l 1 that.you don't need us and we are happy to leave?" Why 2 did you feel it necessary to express some kind of an
, /~l I
(_/ 3 opinion that if they were right then it was okay?
4 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
I 5 JUDGE BLOCH: The trip report, the so-called 6' trip report afterwards, was prepared I guess along the 7 same lines, generally, wasn't it, as that last comment on l
i
! 8 the lith?
l 9 THE WITNESS: Are you referring to the report l
l 10 that I drafted?
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes.
l 12 THE WITNESS: To the attention of Mr. Roth?
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, it was.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: Why did you bother to do that?
! 16 Just that the contract was over, there.was no more work to i
i 17 be done? What was the reason for drafting that report?
l 18 THE WITNESS: I asked Mr. Merritt if he wanted 19 me to have a formal report submitted and he said yes, ,e 20 did.
l 21 JUDGE BLOCH: So it was for Applicants' purposes?
.22 THE WITNESS: It was requested by the Applicant.
f 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Did it serve any purposes for O.B. ,
r~s i i
b 24 Cannon?
l 25 THE WITNESS: None, other than myself being I.
I I
l
21560.0- 23992 BRT 1 responsible, and responsive to the directive and 2 assignment given to me by Mr. Roth.
q
's / 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Because I sort of see two strains 4 in that document. One strain says: You are right if we 5 believe you. And the other one says: Well, we are going 6 to be honest with you guys, and we wouldn't really be able 7 to verify that unless we did an audit.
8 It looks to me like you were covering two bases. We 9 understand what you said. That may be enough. At the 10 same time you said: We don't completely go along because 11 we don't have enough information. Isn't that the gist of 12 what it was?
13 THE WITNESS: I think the point that we were
( )
14 trying to get across to TU was that it appears that there 15 is really no concern regarding the items addressed by 16 Mr. Lipinski. However, if you want us to definitively 17 prove the same, we would have to go forward and do more 18 detail, auditing type work.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Wasn't it the same that at that 20 point you knew they didn't want you to definitively prove 21 the same?
22 THE WITNESS: They made the statement as such, 23 yes.
/m
.)
- 24 JUDGE DLOCH: So why did you say again after you 25 knew the answer: If you wanted us to definitively prove
Y ,
~21560.0 23993 CRT
- 1. the same, we'd have to do more work?
2 THE WITNESS: Because we felt that the report --
O
/\_) 3 .I felt that the report that I drafted had to be qualified 4 in some fashion.
5 BY MR. ROISMAN:
6 0 When you came to your conclusions, I take it 7 that they were -- that you were comfortable with them in 8 part because you had no reason to doubt that the company 9 was implementing this program; is that correct?
10 A That is correct.
11 O Would you have.been as willing to have even said, 12 taking what you.say at face'value if you are_ implementing 13 it, then the concerns raised in the trip report are all.
t Au 14 right, if you were aware that the Nuclear Regulatory
.15 Commission had concluded that the company lacked-the 16 commitment to aggressively implement an effective QA/QC 17 program in a number of areas?-
18 A I have no such knowledge of any such finding.by
. 19 the NRC.
20 Q But I say, if you were aware that such a' finding 21 existed, would you have been willing to frame your 22 conclusions in the way that you framed them?
23 A No. I think I would have to frame the r"x
(-) ~24 conclusions the same way, phrase them the same way.
25 0 You would have been equally willing to say: If
21560.0 23994 ERT 1 you are implementing them then our concerns are being 2 addressed?
p L ,) 3 A That's correct.
4 Q And you would have had no reluctance to accept 5 the statements being made to you at " face value"?
6 A The Applicants never gave us, to my knowledge, 7 any reason not to accept the statements he was making at 8 face value. Also, we were there at his request.
9 Why would he give us false information or incorrect 10 information when he is paying a fee to have us come to his 11 site to review these matters?
12 O Well, that's why I was asking you the 13 hypothetical, which was: If, independently of those sort 14 of natural reluctance to disbelieve what you were being 15 told, you knew that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had 16 made a finding of the type that I've just described to you, 17 would that have made you reluctant or less willing to 18 accept at face value what you were being told?
19 A I don't think I can speculate on what I would 20 have done at that time, knowing that information.
21 MR. ROISHAN: Mr. Chairman, we have gone through 22 these notes of Mr. Trallo's. I would like to have them 23 marked and bound in the record and received in evidence.
,a i ;
i ' 24 The problem I have is that my only copy of this is 25 marked up with my own handwriting. If one of the other
21560.0 23995 BRT 1 parties has one that we can loan to the reporter to get a 2 copy back, and have it marked -- then we can put that in
( 3 at this point.
4 MR. GALLO:. We have one. Maybe I ought to horse 5 trade a clean copy for an estimate of how much time i 6 Mr. Roisman has to cross-examine this witness?
7 MR. ROISMAN: I have at least.an hour.
8 MR. GALLO: Thank you.
9 JUDGE BLOCH: The motion is granted. The 10 document may be bound.
11 MR. ROISMAN: This is now Trallo Exhibit'l.
12 (Trallo Exhibit 1 identified and received.)
13 (The document follows:)
14 15 ,
16.
17 18 19 20 21 22 l
23 24 25
COMANCHE PEAK CONFIDENTIAL - NO COPIES 23996
, November 8, 1983 f) Approximately 4:00 PM, Carole Fleming told me that Jack Norris left word that v
he "had to meet Nick" and would not be meeting Joe Lipinsky Wednesday morning (November 9, 1983).
4:45 PM - I called John Merritt to advise that Oliver B. Cannon Personnel would be on site November 9 and to request that the preliminary information we required was available. (I gave him the list prepared by Joe Lipinsky and added the list of qualified painters.)
Merritt asked if John J. Norris would also be there at that time, I told Merritt that I had just received word that Jack would not arrive until late Wednesday or Thursday. Merritt stated that it was not acceptable and that the rules set forth by TUSI Vice President's were that Jack must "look at" and be present during any reviews, discussions, etc. The reason is they want a second opinion from someone wno is competent.
After extensive discussion, including my philosophy that both parties should perform essentially identical reviews, however, not necessarily concurrently, Merritt stated that any other way was not m acceptable. I pleged to try to track down Jack.
L]
Merritt stated that the 4th NRC Coating Review was going on at the site this week.
1 m.
QQO 9 w i f /
- I
)
23997 '
EVENING 1 reviewed itineraries and called Florida (no answer) trying to
< . track down Jack or Nick. (Called Jack's home - No Answer). Talked to Lipinsky at Glen Rose Motel and told him to call me Thursday morning if Jack did not show.
I reviewed all documents relating to the present task group and found no information to indicate John J. Norris to be present at all reviews etc.
s, .-
November 9,1983 9:15 AM Called Houston office - Debbie was positive that Jack was at Comar'dhe Peak.
h, 9:30 AM Recieved call from John Merritt. L1pinsky and Michels on site and he wanted to know where Jack was. I told him that his secretary stated he "was on his way to Comanche Peak."
Merritt stated that two Vice President's were on site on other matders and he would address the matter (Lipinsky and Michels ,
starting without Jack present) to them and their decision would govern. Further, he wanted Jack there for the kick-off meeting.
I again asked that preliminary work such as review of QA A
( ,/ Program / latest Procedures etc. comence so that we would not loose a day from the schedule to do this preliminary work.
s
23998 9:45 AM Called Florida Office - Penny did not know if Jack was with Nick, but.would get word to Nick when he called in to call me. !
9:50 AM Joe Lipinsky called he advised that Mr. Driscoll of the NRC has called him and asked permission to release a copy of the Internal Memo (JJL 10-8) to the Atomic Licensing and Safety Board (ALSB). If Oliver B. Cannon does not grant this they (NRC) will get it either through official channels or the intorvenors.
Driscoll asked Joe if he discussed prior conversations with Driscoll to anyone. Joe told Driscoll that he only discussed it with Oliver B. Cannon in-house people. Driscoll stated that Mr. Roth had made TUSI Management aware of the NRC discussions and had sent a copy of the in-house report to them (TUSI). further, that the Trip Report distributed by Roth differed from that in the hands of the NRC.
Driscoll wants to meet with Joe Lipinsky either at the jobsite or at the motel sometime this week.
Joe L1pinsky told Driscoll that he would advise him as to our position regarding the memo and meetings.
10:20 AM Placed call to Roth in Bermuda - left word.
23999 10:30 AM Joe Lipinsky called and stated that he and Keith left the site since l
, TUSI would not give them access until Jack Norris arrived. Further, when Joe gave a courtesy copy of the proposed Oliver B. Cannon Agenda to Merritt, Merritt stated that this was not what was to be covered and that the start-up meeting must address exactly what
" scope" was included.
I told Joe that I wanted to be at the meeting and to work in the motel until we locate Jack etc.
' 11:30 AM John J. Norris called. He was on site at Comanche Peak and asked what my perception of what took place was. I told him of Merritt's claim that John J. Norris must review each item / discussion etc.
concurrently with J.L.L. Further, that our " scope" was not that which was perceived. John J. Norris stated that after his discussion with Merritt he understood that which I relayed in the same manner. Jack also stated that TUSI Management wanted a session with Joe Lipinsky at 1:00 PM today to further review and question Joe regarcing his memo. Based on the answers given at the
" interview" TUSI would make a decision regarding the scope of our ,
task group.
According to Jack, Merritt felt that many of the items on our list have been previously reviewed by others and further review would be unproductive. I told Jack that it was TUSI's decision as to continue the task group's effort.
s
. _ _ - . - ._~_.- - - . - - _ - _ . - . _ . - --
4 J'
24000 I relayed to Jack that no meeting was to be held until I was present
! and that I would get Robert 8. Roth's concurrence prior to any
" interview type" session. Jack was to postpone the meeting until j
Thursday morning.
4
- Jack and I discussed my conversation with Joe regarding NRC statements. I instructed him not to mention this to TUSI until I have reviewed the matter with Robert B. Roth.
Jack was to approach Merritt as to starting review of QA Program, 1
Procedures, etc. this afternoon. If Merritt concurred then Joe would return to the site.
12:30 PM Called Joe Lipinksy at motel and advised him to return to site if so requested by Jack Norris. I instructed Joe that he was not to take part in any meeting / interview etc. but only authorized to begin preliminary review of Qualtiy Assurance Procedures's etc.
i i
. l l
November 10, 1983 24001 i
8:00 AM Kick Off Meeting - John Merritt, John J. Norris, Mr. Tolson (Part Time) and Ralph A. Trallo Ralph explained that the "Lipinsky Memo".was a memo to file and was talking language only. Oliver B. Cannon's intent was to gather information and then issue a report to TUSI outlining concerns / observations etc. TUSI, however, instructed OBC to cease operations since they felt we had provided the information requested prior to OBC formalizing a report. Merritt acknowledged this and stated they were aware that OBC did not intentionally distribute the memo in its raw form.
I asked Merritt for the background regarding Comanche Peak operations which causes their (TUSI) reaction to such information.
Merritt stated that they have had very severe exposure due to inspection personnel filing with the labor board under the Whistle Blowers Act. In fact individual judgements of $1M and $10M respectively have been awarded in favor of the employee.
Merritt stated tnat any and all questions arising regarding quality aspects or inspection personnel results in full investigations. The
" CASE" group is well financed and takes any/all issues directly to O ene Meota MaC/aS's.
I relayed to Merritt that I at least understand why they " overreact" at seemingly basic comments.
24002 November 10, 1983 (CONTINUED)
John Merritt requested that Mr. Tolson join the meeting to explain his position and what he would like to accomplish at the General O Meeting.
Tolson stated that the L1pinsky Memo viciously attacked him personally. I assured Mr. 'Tolson that this was not the intent nor the actual written word. Further, I stated that OBC was being objective both during the site visit and in drafting the notes to file and if OBC had been given the opportunity to formally submit a report the language may have been received in better fashion. I pointed out that the content would have not changed, however, the presentation would have been in a more professional manner.
/7 V
Tolson stated the he would like to question Cannon regarding the basis for the concerns presented in the "Lipinsky Memo." Further, he would like to respond to each item where possible. I agreed, provided the questions were of an inquiry nature and the responses (by Tolson) were of an informational or clarifying nature and not in a manner to discredit OBC. Basically, if TUSI cared to follow-up in ,
good faith rather than commence a " witch-hunt," this was agreed by all.
O rne meetino wou1d be teped end nave stenoorapnic noter.. Copies would be distributed to both organizations and review and comment would be in order prior to publication.
November 10, 1983 (CONTINUED) 24003 8:45 AM General Meeting G
V See Meeting Minutes --
11:30 AM Meeting Adjourned g .-
Oliver B. Cannon personnel discussed the extent of further review we .,
would require. Consensus is that limited review would not provide sufficient information to develop a strong confidence factor. To' t
perform a full review we are looking at a 45-60 day time frame.
Based on responses by TUSI, Oliver B. Cannon can conclude that our: -
-h concerns are unfounded provided that TUSI is implementing the ,
quality program as detailed to Oliver 8. Cannon. -
12:00 PM Ralph A. Trallo, John J. Norris, and Keith Michels walked Unit I Containment. ,
See separate memo for details. #
O b November 11, 1983 8:00 AM John J. Norris ano Ralph A. Trallo met with John Merritt and Tolson. Merritt informed us that the intervenors had filed the "Lipinsky Memo" along with other documents at the ASLB on Thursday, ,
at 11:00 AM.
~
November 11, 1983 (CONTINUED) 24004 Ralph A. Trallo presented Oliver B. Cannon's position regarding further review and stated that we would only proceed with auditing O at TUSI's request.
Tolson stated that it is not necessary.
Ralph A. Trallo explained that we would write notes to file and would submit a formal response if requested. John Merritt stated he would like to close the loop.
8:30 AM General Meeting ,
C See Minutes for detail.
I i
6E130 03AI5.Jy a i t I
l L.-- , ,,,e n ---.. , . . - . . ..,--..-.,_,,..,.__n, ...---,----..n.. - , . - - - - - . , . , , ,. , , , , , , , _ . , , . . . - - _ , . . , , _
e a
.i 21560.0 24005
.BRT l' BY MR. ROISHAN: ]
2 O Mr. Trallo, in the afternoon of November 10th, j
() '3 did you have occasion to take a walk on the plant site for 4 the purpose of doing some observation?
5 A Yes, I did.
4 6 O What.was the reason that you took that walk?
7 A Basically I wanted to become familiar with the 8 plant. Also, there have been presented certain programs 9 during the day, during the morning, rather, in_our session, 10 that were instituted. And I wanted to review for myself
-11 the ongoing operation.
12 O Was this -- was this in any way the equivalent 13 of a verification of the accuracy of any of the statements L As 14 that had been made during the morning session to you by 15 the company representatives?
16, A No, it could not have been.
17 O So it was really just a casual --
18 A More so, yes.
19 0 -- observation trip? And, did you, when you sat 20 down later in the day with Mr.-Norris and Michels and-21 Mr..Lipinski, and. formulated what the O.B. Cannon position 22 was going to be, what, if any, impact did this trip, _this 23 walk, have on those conclusions?
()
A_/ 24 A I believe the impact was minimal.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: Were you accompanied on that walk?
--- ~ .
l 21560.0 24006 BRT 1 THE WITNESS: Mr. Norris and Mr. Michels were 2 with me.
() 3 JUDGE BLOCH: And no company officials?
4 THE WITNESS: No , sir.
-5 JUDGE BLOCH: Where did you go?
6 THE WITNESS: The containment.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you observe freshly painted 8 areas?
9 THE WITNESS: Observed freshly painted treas,.I 10 observed painting application, and I observed surface 11 preparation.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you observe travelers on paint 13 materials?
- 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. I recall there was one 15 container that I specifically went to. I don't remember 16 what elevation it was on but it was a container of 17 inorganic zinc, that did have --
18- JUDGE BLOCH: I'm afraid what you said may not 19 have come for the recorder -- I-didn't hear --
20- (Discussion off the record.)
21- THE WITNESS: -Inorganic zinc which had a status 22 tag which had batch number, pot life, et cetera,'on it.
23- JUDGE BLOCH: Did you form any opinion as to
_(3 (s;
- 24 whetNer the status tag that you saw was an adequate way-of-25 keeping track of the materials?
r
~
21560.0 24007 BRT 1 THE WITNESS: The tag appeared to have all the 2' information that I felt would be required.
d) 3 JUDGE BLOCH: I take it that to some extent, if 4 sthere had been gross errors in the implementation of the 5 procedures, some of those errors would'have been apparent 6 to you in that walkdown, wouldn't they?
7 THE WITNESS: Possibly.
8 ' JUDGE BLOCH: I guess your problem is that it 9 wasn't an in-depth examination of the problems; is that it?
10 It really was some verification, gross errors;would have 11 been visible?
12 THE WITNESS:- A cursory walkdown and review.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: On the scale of l' to 5, where.
'/
'- 14. cursory was 5, it was less than cursory, I take it?
15 Because you have defined cursory as- the walkdown that
~5 t, -Yr. Lipinski had done the last time, I guess, where there 17 were several people on-site and he talked to a-group of 18 . people ---this is less than cursory but it has some value?
19 THE WITNESS: If I would compare it to the 20 walkdown that Mr. Lipinski ~did, yes, it was less than 21 cursory. -I felt it did have value.
. 2 2. BY MR. ROISMAN:
~
-23 O Did you have occasion to discuss any of the
(..f -24 observations that you made while you were'on this walk
'25 with any personnel from..the plant?
l
21560.0 24008 BRT 1 A You mean subsequent to the walk?
2 O Yes, subsequent to the walk.
3 A The following morning.
4 O An3 with whom did you speak?
5 A It was either. Mr. Kelly or Mr. Firtel.
6 Q. And were they people who had been in attendance 7 at the meeting on the previous day, on the 10th?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q And what was the substance of that conversation?
10 A I related to them my observations of intercoat 11 sandings.
12 O Is that " inner" or " inter"?
13 A " Inter." It's a method of surface preparation.
.I
\/ 14 This was an area that had been discussed in the meeting 1
15 the previous day.
, 16 I was.in awe to find the amount of sanding being 17 performed.
18 I related this information to either Mr. Kelly or 19 'Mr. Firtel. I don't recall which one.
, 20 Q Did you see anything that was either.-- that was
.21 inconsistent with the -- with what the discussion in the 22 ' meeting on the previous day had indicated?
23 A. No.
-Q "s_/ 24 JUDGE BLOCH: What did you mean when you said, "in 25 awe"?
21560.0 24009 BRT 1 THE WITNESS: It appeared that they were doing 2 it too good, which at times can be detrimental also.
(,) 3 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm trying to remember, but wasn't 4 -that one of Mr. Lipinski's concerns, that they were doing 5 too good on sanding?
6 THE WITNESS: I don't recall.
7 BY MR. ROISMAN:
8 Q Why don't you take a look at the Lipinski trip 9 report, page 4, item E, and see if that refreshes your 10 recollection.
11 A He is referring to something different.
12 O Something different than what you had seen?
13 A Than what I observed; that's correct.
('s
\- Could you explain the difference?
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
15 THE WITNESS: Mr. Lipinski is referring to power 16 sanding, or disk grinding, of an unacceptably high coating 17 film, in order to reduce the film thickness to allow 18 addition of a seal material and still be within the 19 specified range.
)
20- JUDGE BLOCH: What you saw was more a procedure 21 that was being used routinely to prepare for a second coat?
, 22 Another coat?
23 THE WITNESS: For an additional coat. It was a O(_) 24 routine preparation.
.25 BY MR. ROISMAN:
--2
ry 21560.0 24010 BRT 1 O What, if any, problem was -- I think you 2 ' indicated that there might be some problem. What, if any, g~.
~ \) 3 problem is associated with this oversanding?
4 A There may be a problem with extremely fine l 5 sanding. The only way to ascertain if there would be a 6 problem or not would'be to refer to the coating 7 manufacturer for his recommendation.
8 Q Did you raise with whichever of the plant 9 gentlemen you spoke to, the question that there might be a 10 problem with that kind of sanding?
11 fA We discussed it. The previous day at the-12 general meeting they had presented that they were 13 following the recommendation of the coating manufacturer f) is^ 14 and they had documentation to attest.to that. He also 15 stated that the basis for such extreme sanding of the 16 surface was the interpretation of the QC inspection group 17 on-site.
18 He made a statement to the ef fect that they would 19 accept nothing less.
20 -Q Was it your understanding from what he was 21 saying that the manufacturer's instruction could be fully 22 complied with without running afoul of the possible 23 problem-that you saw, but that the QC people weren't 24 allowing that to happen?
25 A Please repeat your. question.
-21560.0 24011 BRT
-1 O Was it your understanding of what he was telling 2 you that;it was possible to comply with the manufacturer's
('g aj's 3 requirement without running afoul of the oversanding,- but 4 -that the interpretation being placed on the manufacturer's 5' instruction-by the QC personnel didn't allow that?
6' A If I understand the question correctly, I 7 believe what you are stating is that it could be sanded ~
8' less than it was being sanded to comply with the 9 requirements of the manufacturer, 10 0 Correct.
11 A However, the interpretation of the inspector.or 12 inspectors was such that they insisted on finer sanding; 13 is that correct?
?
t
\ 14 0 .Yes.
15 A. That was the fact.
16 O Okay. So that it wasn't some problem that the 17 manufacturer was demanding. What these gentlemen or~.this 18 gentleman was telling you that the-QC inspector-was-;taking 19- a -- was overreading the instruction and forcing the l
l 20 company to do this?
21 A In essence, yes.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: Were any of the members of~the O.B.
I23 Cannon team familiar with that particular specifics for i -- 24 . inorganic zine paint?
- 25. THE WITNESS:' All :of .us were familiar with v
)
[
f .'
f
-21560.0 24012 BRT 1 specifications for inorganic zinc paint.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: How about for that particular
-' 3 manufacturer?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: And did any of you know that the 6 sand blasting that was going on was not appropriate?
7 THE WITNESS: There was no sand blasting going 8 on, sir.
9 MR. ROISMAN: Sanding.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: Intercoat sanding. Sorry about 11 that.
12 MR.'TREBY: " Inter."
13 JUDGE BLOCH: Intercoat sanding. Did any of you
.(
\~ 14 know that the amount of intercoat standing was 15 inappropriate for that manufacturer's paint?
16 THE-WITNESS: We didn't know it was 17 ' inappropriate. We felt-it might have been inappropriate.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: Was one of the members of the team 19' particularly concerned about that or was it shared by all 20 three of you?
21 THE WITNESS:. It was basically shared by.all 22 three'of us.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: Was there something about paint
- 24 practice =in general that made you suspect that there 25 really was a problem there?
i i
., , , . _ . - _ . . .,_,y._., ~....--...,-..,,_,_,.......m._,.._,__._.___.,...g, , , . . , .- ,-. ,
- .21560.0- 24013
-BRT
-l' MR. WATKINS: Whose paint practice,.Mr. Chairman?
3 which you w r fam i r.
4 THE WITNESS: No , nothing regarding industry
-5 painting practices.
[6 JUDGE BLOCH: What.was the problem you were i 7 concerned with?
8 THE WITNESS: I felt that the amount of sanding .
9 being performed was in excess. When'I questioned the 10 engineering representative as to why they were sanding so-11- .much, his response was that this is the-minimal amount of
.12 sanding that would be found acceptable by the quality
- . -13 . group on-site.
- .14 JUDGE'BLOCH: When you looked closely at the
~
15 surface that had been sanded, did'you see observable I..
16
~
deficiencies?- ,
THE. WITNESS: No.-
18 JUDGE:BLOCH:. Did you look closely at the 19 surface?:
20 THELWITNESS:- Yes.
21- <
JUDGE BLOCH: Would youIhave seen observable.
- 22 deficiencies ~as a result of.that practice?
23 THE' WITNESS: xNo. You would=not have.
24 JUDGE BLOCH: Was your concern a safety concern.
. 12 5 ' or an' efficiency-concern?
i .
- _.2. - . . . . . _ _ _ . , . - , , _ _ - _ . . . _ , . , , - , _ _ - - _ , _ , . _ , _ , . , _ , _ , _ _ _ - _ , _ . . ~ . _ _ _ . . , . - _ , . , . . . , , - , - - .
21560.0 24014 BRT 1 THE WITNESS: Both.
, . 2 JUDGE BLOCH: What was the safety concern?
(~T
(_). 3~ THE WITNESS: The possible lessening of 4 intercoat adhesion.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Can you tell from what you saw 6 whether that safety problem was real or would you have to 7 look further into the manufacturer's specifics?
8 THE WITNESS: In order to ascertain that, you 9 would have to review it in more detail with the coating 10 manufacturer.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you get holidays from the 12 amount of blasting -- amount of sanding that you saw?
13 THE WITNESS: I don't think holidays were the O
- 14 question at'all.
15 BY MR. ROISMAN:
16 O Did you ask the people from the site or the 17 person from the site that you were discussing this with, 18 why didn't-they do something about the problem that was 19 .being created by the inspectors who were insisting on this 20 additional sanding?
21 A I would like to clarify. It was.a possible 22 problem, not necessarily a problem.
23 0 I'm sorry. Possible problem?
\~/ 24 A Yes, I did.
25 0 -What did they tell you?
I
2156d.d 24015
. :BRT 1
1 A That any time any direction had been given to 2- the inspection forces, that it was interpreted as a
'l )' 3' misdirection or' intimidation of the individuals' performing 4 inspection activities.
5 O How did you integrate this piece of data that 6 you gathered, both from your visual observations, your 7 walkdown, and your conversations the following morning i
8 with either Mr. Firtel or Mr. Kelly, in your conclusions 9- that if all the things you were being told were correct 10 and were being implemented, then the concerns that had i 11 been raised by Mr. Lipinski in his trip report had been b 12' taken care of?
13 A Please repeat the question.
(
. 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you think this information you-15, got was relevant to whether Mr. Lipinski's report was 16 disposed of, by the information you'got?
-17 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. Because it reinforced 18 several of the comments that had been made at the session 19 the morning of.the 10th regarding very strict' 20 implementation.and interpretation criteria of the TU 4 21- program on-site.
- 22- -BY MR.'ROISMAN
i- :23 O How did this bear on the concern that J
124 Mr.'Lipinski-had-raised at the bottom =of page l_of'the
.j-
'25 trip report, and I'm quoting now from paragraph C . "Further,-
T 21560.0 24016 BRT 1 JJL stated that there is currently a no-win situation 2- on-site between the craft and OC inspectors." -Did this n)
(_ 3 event represent an example of the validity of that concern 4 that was raised by Mr. Lipinski?
, 5' MR. WATKINS: Objection. I believe counsel just 6 asked two consecutive questions, which were different 7 questions.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you want to break it up?
9 BY MR. ROISMAN:
10 0 Did the events that we have just been talking 11 about, the walkdown and the conversations the following 12 morning with the gentlemen from the plant about -the 13 sanding,'did they substantiate or represent examples of O-
\/ 14 Mr. Lipinski's concern that there was a no-win situation-15 on the site between craft and OC inspectors?
16 A It had no bearing on it.
17 0 Would you explain that? Why does it have no-18 bearing?
19 A Mr. Lipinski's . paragraph C . is referring to the
- 20 interaction and personal relationship between OC personnel 21 and craft personnel. The items that I observed, and also
. 22- my discussions with . the engineering representative, were 23 more of a technical nature and clarification within the i \
N/ 24' quality group themselves.
-25 O Did you perceive that the existence of a
2'1560.0 24017 BRT- ,
'l- situation in which an attempt to instruct a QC inspector 2 on what you perceived to be the proper way to do an h 3 inspection would result in a refusal by that inspector to 4' follow it and a charge that he was being intimidated or 5 forced to accept less than quality work, represented a 6 problem at Comanche Peak?
7 A .If I understood the gaestion correctly, you had 8 asked if I had observed anything which would indicate that?
9 O No. I'm taking what you in fact told me, which 10 was that you were told by either Mr. Kelly or Mr. Firtel, 11 that an attempt to tell the QC inspecto'r: You are 12 rsquiring more sanding than you have to require here --
13 that that' would result in the QC inspector charging that-
~
-14 he was being intimidated or being forced to accept less i 15 than quality work. The fact, the fact ~of that did that 16' represent a problem'with the Oc coating program at 17 Comanche Peak, in your judgment?
18 A It could.
19 JUDGE BLOCH: Did it represent an indication 4
20 that there was a possible serious personnellproblem about 21 'the control of.QC inspectors?
22- THE WITNESS: I would not'go so far as to 23 categcrize it as a serious personnel problem.
A lsl 24 JUDGE BLOCH: How wouldlyou. rate it when you 25" hear the QC inspectors won't take direction from
21560.0 24018 BRT 1 supervision?
2 THE WITNESS: I'm assuming when you are talking
.r~)
k_ 3 about supervision you are talking about quality group 4 supervision.
5 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes.
'6 THE WITNESS: That's where their instruction 7 should be coming from.
8 JUDGE BLOCH: So when their supervisors tell 9 them what to do, they don't do it, is that a serious 10 problem? Am I incorrect in interpreting what you said?
11 You said that when the supervisors told them how much 1:2 intercoat sanding to accept, that they just wouldn't 13 follow what the supervisor was telling them?
(s_ ') - 14 THE WITNESS: No. That was not pret;ented to me.
15 What was presented to me, or stated to me by site 16 representatives was that any attempt to give them ,
17 direction was interpreted as intimidation.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: I see. So there was just a 19 problem that the supervisors had a constraint that they 20 couldn't even tell people what to do that was right?
21' THE WITNESS: That is the impression I got, sir.
22 JUDGE BLOCH: Was that a serious personnel 23- problem?
rm kly 24 THE WITNESS: I would consider it to be.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: In terms of the solution for the
21560.0 24019 BRT 1 problem of a no-win situation between craft and QC, my 2 understanding is that Mr. Norris had recommended some k_) 3 meetings and that the response was a barbecue; and 4 Mr. Tolson talked about the barbecue at the December 10th 5 meeting but that the QC people didn't come to the barbecue.
6 Was that a solution to that problem?
7 MR. WATKINS: Your Honor, I'm not sure the 8 question is even intelligible. A solution to the problem 9 that he had one discussion with one individual here? You 10' are asking the witness to speculate.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: No. Is it the case that 12 Mr. Norris made the recomendation that there should have 13 been meetings to clarify problems between craft and QC?
, )
'w/ 14 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
15 JUDGE BLOCH: You weren't aware of that at the 16 time you were at the site?
17 THE WITNESS: There was mention during the 18 meeting, of the 10th and llth,-that Mr. Norris had made 19 some recommendations.
20 JUDGE BLOCH: And there was a discussion by 21 Mr. Tolson about a barbecue?
22 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
23 JUDGE BLOCH: Wasn't there a discussion that the
(__/ 24 QC people didn't even come to the barbecue even though it 25 was the purpose to build relations between craft and OC?
21560.0 24020
'BRT 1 -
THELWITNESS: Yes, that statement was made.
2 JUDGE BLOCH: Did that solve a problem that may
( ): 3 have' existed between craft and QC7 4 MR. WATKINS: We'l
.5 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know of any reason to 6 believe that there was a-solution to the problem that'had 7 called for the calling of the barbecue?-
- 8. THE WITNESS: Any response would be purely 9 speculative on my part.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: If you don't know, just say you 11 don't-know.
12 'THE WITNESS: I don't know.
13 JUDGE BLOCH: You don't know.
14' BY MR. ROISMAN:
l15- 0 Was there any. reason for you to accept -- for-16 youLto not accept at face value.what either Mr. Firtel or
- 17. Mr. Kelly was telling you.about the situation that-existed 18 between'the QC supervisors and the inspectors?
< 19- A No.
20 Q Did you, in any-of your subsequent discussions,.
4
- 21. written -- strike that.
22 In any of your subsequent written reports to the
+ 23 . company, did you highlight this particular problem as one i ..
24 problem which you had observed and heard about.that
' 25 warranted them doing.something about it?
i I,
21560.0 24021 BRT 1 A No.
2 O Why not?
_) 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Roisman, I just want to head 4 for a natural breaking point.
5 MR. ROISMAN: Yes.
6 THE WITNESS: When I got back from Glen Rose, my 7 handwritten notes were given to my secretary. I asked her 8 to please put them on a processor, make no copies.
9 In the process, discussion with Mr. Norris regarding 10 anything further that was required of us by our client --
11 the information came out that the client required nothing 12 further than Cannon's review of the transcript of the 10th 13 and lith meeting. Therefore I never took any further
- s
)
x/ 14 action on these items.
15 BY MR. ROISMAN:
16 O And you didn't mention this in the general 17 discussion that you had later that day with the other --
18 Mr. Tolson or Mr. Merritt?
19 A I don't recall mentioning that to them at all; 20 no.
21 MR. ROISMAN: Mr. Chairman, this is a logical 22 stopping place. I would like to also put into evidence, 23 and I unfortunately have the same problem I did with the 24 other document, these three-page notes of Mr. Trallo dated 25 November 14, 1983; referring to " November 10th 1983, PM
21560.0 24022 BRT 1 Walkdown of Unit 1 Containment."
2 MR. WATKINS: No objection, provided you could
,) 3 have the witness identify them.
4 MR. ROISMAN: Mine has got my handwritten notes 5 on it, which is why I didn't ask him to look at it. If 6 someone has a clean one?
7 MR. WATKINS: I have one. Would you object if I 8 asked him if "Mr. Blank" in the memo is Mr. Firtel or 9 Mr. Kelly?
10 MR. ROISMAN: No. No problem.
11 RECROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. WATKINS:
f- 13 Q Mr. Trallo, the three pages of documents that K/ 14 I'm handing you, are they the notes that you have been 15 describing describing your walkdown of the plant of 16 November 10?
17 A That is correct.
18 Q Is Mr. Blank, on pages 1 --
19 A It's all three pages.
20 Q All three pages.
21 A The last two.
22 O Is Mr. Blank, as shown on pages 2 and 3 of those 23 notes, either Mr. Kelly or Mr. Firtel?
24 A That is correct.
25 JUDGE BLOCH: The motion is granted. It may be L l
21560.0 24023 BRT 1 marked Trallo 2 and bound into the record, i
2 (Trallo Exhibit 2 identified and recieved.) l 3 (The document follows:)
4 l
5 '
l 6
7 l
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
! 20 21 22 l
, 23 24 l
25 l
l
-.g_, , - -
M=nisM~Mi~Ek@
)# Comanche Peak File -
r~s Ralph A. Trallo
- \
V ,
November 10, 1983 R4 Walkdown of Unit 1 Containment -
(]
John J. Norris, Keith Michels and Ralph Trallo walked Unit 1 Containment.
Observations of ongoing work mainly on platform and seismic supports resulted in the following:
- 1. Touch-up operations it appears that every square inch of surface is being hand sanded in addition to the power tooling (3M Wheel etc.) being performed on degraded areas. Considering this mornings statements regarding intercoat treatment (sanding 7s in lieu of Surface Preparation No.1 for the Phenoline System)
I looked at the surface closely. Observations were that the surfaces were being sanded nearly as fine as an automotive ficish. (This was true of the Zinc Coated Substrates also.
- 2. All steel surfaces appear to be treated as described in Iten 1 .
above.
- 3. The work appeared to be performed "too good." In that the smooth sanding might be detrimental to the mechanical bond between successive coats of material.
o
[ggLbO 9 iTA H E5 l
Memo to Filo -
Comanche Peak November 10, 1983 (Walkdown) 24025
(~'; Page Two
\ l
( .-
t] 4. I checked the dry film thickness at random on approximately 6 pieces (The gage was provided by the craft working in the area and was calibrated just prior to my use) and found all readings within allowable limits.
- 5. A brief discussion was held with a Painter Forman (Emillio) and \
when questioned by me regarding the system being applied, methods of application, acceptance criteria etc. the man ,
replied in a very knowledgeable manner knowing all that is expected of a Nuclear Coating Journeyman. In fact, I was
[, personally impressed with this individuals knowledge regarding
( )
r
\ his immediate function.
On Friday morning I discussed the above with Mr. and stated I ,
felt that the craftsmen were putting the work in place in a manner which far exceeded that required by specification, procedures, and the recommendation of the coating manufacture. In fact, the " Smooth Sanding" may well be a deterent to acceptable intercoat adhesion. Mr. replied that the inspection personnel on site will not approve any surface not as smooth as 6 that I observed. When I asked why a technical determination and instruction was not given to the inspectors by the Level III Inspector, the reply was that any instruction of that nature would be interpreted by the inspection
[
(q)personnelasintimidationorforcingthemtoacceptlessthanqualitywork.
h Memo to File '
Comanche Peak November 10, 1983 (Walkdown) 24026
/ " '% Page Thee Cl O cenere1 comment:
Although I only briefly reviewed the coating operation, the small sample involved, and the comments by Mr. , indicate to me that something must be changed.
It is one thing to properly inspect an operation to insure that work is being performed in accordance with established standards etc., however, any interpretation (coating inspection is.more an art than a science) should be the decision of the technical group in conjunction with a qualified Level III.
,r~y
- e i 0]
Ralph A. Trallo 6
RAT:jr l
l l
l I
l o
V l
l
21560.0 24027 BRT 1 JUDGE BLOCH: I would like to know from the 2 parties their pleasure as to the status of the testimony 3 of Mr. Mouser. Are the parties prepared to comment?
4 MR. ROISMAN: You mean whether we wish 5 Mr. Mouser to be called as a witness?
6 JUDGE BLOCH: Do any of the parties wish ta call 7 him or do they want to accept the deposition as testimony?
8 MR. GALLO: Judge Bloch, I would move the 9 admission of the Mouser deposition as testimony.
10 MR. GALLO: Mr. Chairman, we have one problem 11 with that and that is the relevance of a lot.
12 JUDGE BLOCH: We could do it the way we handled 13 the Glen Rose testimony, which is to allow objections to
> 14 relevance at the time of filing of findings.
15 MR. GALLO: I'd rather they be excluded and then 16 only parts of the deposition be admitted. Unfortunately I 17 can't identify those for you right now.
18 MR. ROISMAN: I think that the process 19 Mr. Watkins suggests requires us to do one extra and 20 perhaps unnecessary step, that is to actually write 21 findings to contemplate all the things we might want to 22 include or might want to exclude and argue about them 23 instead of waiting until we file our findings and see f 24 which portions we rely upon. The party relying upon it 25 will then have given notice of which portions of the
21560.0 24028 BRT 1 Mouser deposition they want to rely upon, and all possible 2 objections -- that it was hearsay, it wasn't relevant, it
_, 3 wasn't reliable -- will be able to be made by the party in 4 filing their objections to and supplemental findings.
5 That seems to me the most efficient.
6 JUDGE BLOCH: I take it then, by admitting the 7 deposition, the board is making no ruling and there's no f 8 understanding as to whether all of the testimony is 9 actually admissible.
10 JUDGE BLOCH: That's right. In fact what we'd 11 do instead of admitting it, we'll rule we will give it the 12 Glen Rose treatment.
13 MR. ROISMAN: Exactly. Not granting Mr. Gallo's 14 request.
15 MR. WATKINS: Then we have no objection.
16 JUDGE BLOCH: That's the ruling of the board 17 unless staff objects.
18 MR. GALLO: I would like to get a reiteration of 19 the understanding of what the Glen Rose treatment is.
20 MR. WATKINS: Nobody here knows.
21 JUDGE BLOCH: The Glen Rose understanding is 22 when parties file findings based on the deposition, the 23 other parties have an opportunity to object to the f 24 admissibility of the testimony that's relied on and state 25 their objections. Then the party having presented the
~ .. - - .
21560.0 24029 BRT 1 finding has an opportunity to respond and then the board 2 rules.
r
_- 3 MR. TREBY: I guess I have a problem and that is 4 if no party files a proposed finding on a section of the 5 deposition. And let's take, for example, there was some 6 discussion about an 01 inspector. No one -- none of the 7 parties here make any findings but it's in the record 8 because we have been receiving it, and the board decides 9 to make some sort of a finding on that, how are the 10 parties to know that they should have objected to that?
11 JUDGE BLOCH: I take it unless we were to take 12 some extraordinary step, like issuing a proposed finding, s 13 we shouldn't do that, we should only rely on the portions i
14 that are only actually cited in findings.
15 MR. ROISMAN: You could do it in the way the 16 board is now authorized to deal with taking official 17 notice.
18 JUDGE BLOCH: I said like a proposed finding or 19 something. We'd have to give you a chance to object.
20 MR. GALLO: Doesn't Mr. Treby's remark trigger a 21 second comment in what about appellate review? With no 22 citation below?
23 JUDGE BLOCH: It's not part of the record. It's 24 only part of the record if cited in findings.
25 MR. TREBY: I would like to think about that.
21560.0 24030 BRT 1 JUDGE BLOCH: That's my understanding about the 2 entire Glen Rose matter.
3 MR. ROISMAN: That would not preclude a party 4 who's concerned about appellate review from identifying 5 large portions of any of those depositions as being part 6 of the record, even though they don't actually make a 7 finding in which they rely upon it. It's just a matter of 8 postponing that action by the parties to the time when 9 they are truly focusing on what evidence they have that is 10 relevant to the case. And you might say: There are 50 11 pages of the Mouser deposition that's relevant, although 12 I'm only going to use two of them for any discrete finding.
.., 13 I think the whole atmosphere is important and I want these 14 50 pages and so you'd say: That's what I think is 15 evidence.
16 MR. WATKINS: Perhaps Mr. Gallo now understands 17 why I said "nobody here knows," because we are not going 18 to find out until later.
19 MR. GALLO: Does the board endorse Mr. Roisman's 20 supplemental explanation?
21 JUDGE BLOCH: I would think if there was an 22 objection made to a portion of the transcript that was not 23 relied on in findings, it would be hard to find -- there f 24 would have to be some reason for the board to find it was 25 relevant. I suppose you could identify a section and not
21560.0 24031 l BRT l
1 put it in findings but it might not be at all obvious why ,
1 2 it was relevant. l
/ 3 MR. GALLO: You seem to be rejecting his theory.
4 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm open to the possibility you 5 demonstrate relevance for a section and say it's general 6 background and helps to support --
7 MR. GALLO: At this point it seems to me all we 8 are doing is embracing a more cumbersome procedure than if 9 we face up to the matter at the outset.
10 MR. TREBY: May I suggest that we all go back 11 and perhaps take up this question of the treatment of the 12 Mouser deposition as the first order of business on the 13 22nd?
14 JUDGE BLOCH: Either then or beforehand at some 15 telephone conference.
16 I want to thank the parties, Mr. Trallo.
17 Yes, Mr. Watkins?
18 MR. WATKINS: I just wanted to ask Mr. Gallo if 19 he proposes -- if he contemplates filing proposed findings?
20 MR. GALLO: As I indicated in -- I can't 21 remember now where I indicated it -- but I indicated 22 before that I believe it was at the Griffin deposition --
23 JUDGE BLOCH: I think so, too.
24 MR. GALLO: -- that I would request the Not affirmative l 25 opportunity to file reply findings.
l l
21560.0 24032 BRT 1 findings but the opportunity to file reply findings to 2 both Applicants ' findings, Staff findings, as well as Mr. I 1
3 Roisman's findings.
4 Mr. Roisman had made the point that he wanted to have 5 the opportunity to reply to whatever I said and certainly 6 I didn't object to that.
7 JUDGE BLOCH: As I recall there was some.
8 I didn't object but there would be some status of 9 amicus filing since you are not a party.
10 MR. GALLO: That's right.
11 JUDGE BLOCH: On that note, let's recess until 12 the 22nd of January until 9:00 a.m. at this same place.
13 You are still under the rule of witnesses, so you should 14 not discuss your testimony or the testimony of other O.B.
15 Cannon witnesses.
16 (Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the hearing was 17 adjourned, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m., January 22, 1985.)
18 19 20 21 22
, 23 24 25
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER cs This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING STATION, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
DOCKET NO.: 50-445-OL 50-446-OL PLACE: BETHESDA, MARYLAND
,m U DATE: WEDNESDAY,~ JANUARY 9, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt) -
(TYP [
JO BREITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation