ML20154R155
| ML20154R155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1985 |
| From: | Mulley G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154R138 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603280107 | |
| Download: ML20154R155 (2) | |
Text
-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Inspector and Auditor o,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, May 1, 19 85 Report of Interview Paul S. Check, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IV, NRC, was interviewed concerning his knowled Electric Station (SES)ge of a March 8, 1984, incident at Comanche Peak Steam when allegedly a Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) Quality Assurance (QA) Supervisor detained eight quality control (QC) inspectors in a room and then searched their desks and confiscated inspection reports documenting numerous deficiencies with electrical equipment. During the interview, Check provided the following information:
At about 9:00 a.m., March 8,1984, Check received a telephone call from TUGC0 Vice President for Nuclear Operations, Billy Ray Clements.
Clements briefed Check on what Clements described as " provocative behavior" on the part of electrical QC inspectors at Comanche Peak SES. Reportedly some of the electric OC inspectors were wearing T-shirts with the message "I pick nits" printed on them. Additionally, the QC inspectors were finding numerous problems with electrical construction that were apparently discovered as a result of " destructive" inspections.
Clements stated he was concerned for the safety of the QC inspectors because crafts workers might retaliate for what the QC inspectors were doing.
For this reason, the QC inspectors had been sequestered in a room and were going to be interviewed by Boyce Grier, a consultant for TUGCO. Clements further. stated TUGC0 was deciding what the next step would be and he would ke'ep Region IV informed. Check.noted that he had no reason to doubt Clements' concern for the safety of the inspectors and that Region IV,had in the past cautioned TUGC0 management to exercise care in dealing with labor difficulties.
After the telephone conversation, ' Check documented Clements' report in a note to John Collins, the Region IV Administrator, and briefly discussed the situation with Richard P. Denise,. Director, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects.
It was agreed that Region IV would wait ~for further information from Clements before taking any action in this matt _er.
At about 11:00 a.m., March 8,1984, Clements again telephoned Check-to update him on the ongoing situatio~n at Comanche Peak SES.
Present with Check during the conference call with Clements were William Brown, the Regional Attorney, and Richard Denise. Clements reported that TUGC0 had decided to send the QC inspectors home without pay and that they would be allowed to return when properly attired. Additionally Boyce Grier, a consultant to TUGCO, was going to interview the OC inspectors to assure both craf ts and inscectors that they were appreciated by the company and that they could bring their concerns to company management. Clements also reported that there was no evidence that the QC inspectors were deliberately engaged in sabotage during their inspec-
-tions. Check, Denise, and Brown agreed that TUGC0 seemed to be handling the As ri1 25, 1985 Region IV 85-10
.~,,,,,%, tioSt 1
,,,, =
, George A.0Mulley Jr., Investigator, 0IA May 1,1985 O.,.,,,,,,,o TMS DOCUMENT iS # ROPE RTv OF NRC IF LOANED TO ANOTHE R AGENCY IT AND ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE OtSTRIBUTED OUTStOE THE RECElvsNG AGENCY MTHOUT PE RMISSION OF THE OF FICE OF INSPECTOR AND AUDITOR e603200107 860320 PDR ADOCK 050 5
A
.-.=
2 situation responsibly. Because there was no health and safety' issue, Check did not see any need for immediate NRC involvement in what appeared to be a labor-management problem. Check noted that to interpose NRC in the situation would have been a misuse of NRC resources.
Soon after the second telephone call from Clements, a meeting was held to i
discuss the situation at Comanche Peak SES.
In attendance were Check, Denise, Brown, and several otner members of the Region IV staff who had an interest'in Comanche Peak. The consensus of the participants at the meeting was there was i
no need for NRC involvement in the situation at Comanche Peak. Denise suggested that Region IV contact the NRC resident inspectors at Comanche Peak and have them observe and gather more information on what was happening. This suggestion was agreed to.
Check noted that as the situation at Comanche Peak developed, he kept the Regional Administrator, John Collins, informed about what was happening and whet Region IV was doing in response to the reports from TUGCO. Although Collins was not importantly involved in this matter, he generally endorsed the actions taken~by Region IV.
Although Check was unsure of the details, he recalled that sometime after the telephone calls from Clements on March 8, 1984, Region IV learned that TUGC0 had ' seized records from the desks of the OC inspectors.
Reportedly the reason the documents were seized by TUGC0 was the records were company property and TUGC0 was concerned that they might be carried off the site.
In the event the documents might, at a later de.te, be evidence or of interest to the' Atomic-Safety and Licensing Board, Region IV immediately took action ta confiscate all the documents from TUGC0 and secure them in the NRC resident inspector's office for safekeeping.
i i
l i
l l
L l
40,000
~
g UNITED STATES OF A* ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMvI'SION 7
~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD 4
3 In the matter of.
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC 7
COMPANY, et al.
Docket NCs.
SC-4*'5 (Comanche Peak Steam Electri:
Station, Units 1 ano 2)
Glen Rcse Motor !nn Glen Rose, Tewas I
3 J u l y 10 1984 i
- 4 Decositton of:
Billy Ray Clements f
called by examination cy c o u r. s e l ' f o r Intervencrs taken before Marilyn Nations, Cou rt Recorrer, I.
l
- g teginning at 9:03 a.m.,
cursuant to a;reamert.
1 l.
6 22 I
73
?
l 14 i
l 25 l
\\
l
[
e g i)
\\
s
(
v(
I
A 50.
Q k'ould it concern veu that he made s t: c h a 3
statement?
A I don't recall whether I~was concerned at that time or not.
I don't remember.
~
Q-Did a n :. other in d i v i d tta l s expres
-r--
s concern over that statement?
i i
A I don't remember.
e Q
Do you know of a n '. individuals whc.vre I
o concened about that statement ^
A In retrospect?
1 Q
At that time.
A No, I don't.
1 ~1 i
\\
l In retrospect?
14 '
Q A
I think that their concern about the c
incident, the way it was discolcred, yee, I thini - e7 are
~
~
'7 worried about that.
Q They were concerned about Mr.
k....
.s
'8
'C making that statement?
A NO.
They were werried abou: :
.e we v
l was taken cut cf context mnd usec, co-callec
-':=7 l
incident Q
Let's talk about tne t-shirt incident - r a 24 l
moment.
RL A
Okay.
A k
m P
l I.
a0,096 I
Q We call it the t-shirt incident hetause - -
2; well, why don't you -- did some individuals
- ere certain 3
t-shirts into Comanche?
d A
YEs.
There were six to eight OC inspecters 5
wearing t-shirts that had something written on t h e r.
l concerning nit-picking.
^
l i
7 Q
Do you recall the exact lancuace' 6
A No, sir, I don't.
l Q
'; o w, who inforced you that there were e.
U or eight individuals wearing t-shirts that sa:c someth:nc II
~
- a. bout nit-picking?
i 56 A
As I said betere, it was Ron Te_sur er
'3 David Chapman.
I believe it was Ron Tolsen.
d Q
Did they inform vou of this on ne t'
1
'5 it occurred?
'O A
Yes.
,4 Q
What tine of the cay did the:
-: tr u
s
'8
..0 4
'9 A
I can't be sure.
I t h i r. k it x i.-
- .ur;
,e 9 or 10 c' clock in the cornine.
t d,-
I Q
Do you remember where you
- r. e a r c
- t-A In my ofrice in Dallas.
,3 Q
Was there anyone with o u :'
-'d A
I don't recall.
i
,a Q
Did you tell anybody else aoout this'
.._. ~ _ _ _. -
t
- ,s 40,097 l
I A
I called the -- well. I called ': r. Spence.
'~
my boss, and I called Mr. Paul Check at the '; u c ' e a r s
Regulatory Commission, Region I 's', and told them about it 4
Q Sow let's walk through the t-shirt. incident, i
i n
- Okay, t
Q These individua's came into the r' ant w;th
?
t-shirts which said something about nit-pi k;ne,.i s ar tw 2
you recall?
c A
That's what I was teld.
3.-
w Q
And what happened when the.
went i nto the 1
plant..cid they go to their ;ab locations?
'2 1
A I don't know.
MR. BELTER:
fact tc be sure, c: 21.
'a counselor, that all of this is not estanlistine 5.
.e competent evidence that any of these events,ccurre.
it is ali.
.et t. uncerstanc
'u
- rc t occause.
. r.earsay
- r be questioning
'I r. Chapman because these th:nes
. +- re
- 8 reported to him.
ME. SOSNICK certaini: t h i n,. t r..i t.- nc
. a ot his persona 1.xnow.ecze tnat.: :s ce rv cerent Knows s
e.
ev;cence.
~.,
MR. BELTER:
It is reported t_
F1-is not competent evidence estabitsbing that tnese everte occurred.
That's my whole point,
.u.
This evidence ec u are puttine en here today s3
-/
- 8-l-
i
40,098 dees not establish that the.e events occurred.
T h.i t is hearsay and the Judge has so ruled and I object to it
,n 3
that ground.
4 I understand you are coing ahead because it L
~
is competent evidence to establish his reactten tc the
~
fact that it was reported to him, e
BY MR.
SGSNICK S
Q Did you have art dcubt f r.: = the t i
.e that c
you received this that this event did net occur' l'
A 50.
,Q Were you certain that it did cccur?
l A
l'm positive it occurred.
13 Q
All right.
You were so posittve it eccurred you called the president of T 'J G C O, Mr.
Spence?
I n ~s I
A That's right, i
,.~
Q And you were se certain that
.t accurrec I
i,'
i that you called the Nuclear Reculatorv Cc=nissien?
'S A
That's right.
l IC l
Q concerned verv rech; that'-
c--
t c..
called these people?
S i
'i A
That's right.
f 22 Q
Sow let's go b s ;: te 9,
last cuer-.'n.
i When these people entered the olant, as far as
<.cw, 24 did they ge to their jeb, job site 1ccations' es A
I have answered I don't know.
I i
h-e
. j o n l,I r
"'>.a.*
- B Q
What happened to these people r.
- t., t d
certain date who were these t-shirts into :nt p:.i n t,
i i
-1
- t. ;
you k n e w
4 A
Yes.
Well, as you say, on that day. I c ri 5
tell you what I do know about it.
A 0
Tell me what ceu knew on :h* ;.- :<
i ~:
7 A
That'3 what ; ar ceinc t,
te 6
Q Okay, :ine, o
A They were cel'ected, I cues
- wt re C
asked te ge -- to come off ef the out 0:
te
'l containment huiid4i. e~. an4 they were gathered in c r.
- 3 the site for a couple of reasons.
One, w r.e n
- r.
'. c c. n
'3' or Mr. Chapman -- let's just say it was Ti;s n an: st:ck
{
}
-l I'
with that so I son't keep flappint back and
' tr -- ca' led is me.
I asked hir where the people were at t
...t a r. c at
~*
this : ire thes had askec ther to ccte in:c r-
- and stay there 1sciated frcm the : elks at the ;.
.- n c :
'8 understand that they had done this without ar' ani-si:
4' I told Tolson te rake sure tr.:
se ret n;e v.
l were pretecrec.
As : centicned
- r. e r e ear;.-r i- - - ; r.
?
2' I dicn't know what the situation was as rar i es.;y
's 22 between the cra:t z e l v. s and the inspectors.
inc - c e r t a in l-I 7'1 cida,t want any hysical violence er any verba:
2
% ceing I' l back and forth either was S c-I concurred in *. e' act tha 1
1, "s
they had iscla:ed those pain; inspectors f r.: c :ne rest -:
c.
c u.
t
3 3 '
_40.100.
the population at the site at that period et time.
Q Okay.
Let me'just throw something in.
2 3
A All right.
Q Mr.
Tolson called you and told you that he d
5 was collecting these people?
A l'n not sure whether he called and told ms that, whether he had already done it the.' i r s t time he I
8 called me or whether I told him to do :: and he saic he had already done it, I don't know what -- but we bcth a c_ r e e d that we wanted ther separated frem the nepelatien ct C
11 the rest c: the plant.
,I l
Q So, in other words --
I g
' even have been Chapman who called re 13 i A
lt =av I
Y l
l 14 i
the serend tice.
I don't know, l
15 Q
In ather words, eou are telling me that
!cj l
either you, Mr. Tolson, or Mr. Chapman or all three rf 17 '
l you together made that decision to gather these peerle?
18 '
A That's right.
1C Q
New, how were these pecole cathered?
( re 20 thay paged in the plant and asked to report to a certain 21 room?
12 A
I don't know.
23,
Q
'J e r e thev escerted to a certain reor in the 1
24 l
l plant?
25 !
4 A
I do not know.
[
i
._ ___. m 40cinn
_40J0Lu_
ime.
Q Were the security guards used to escort-ing in.
2 these people to a particular room in the plant' 3'
A I do not know.
I understand it was a
.you that he security guard outside the room they were gathered in.
5 Q
Outside the door?
- ind t., l d me A
That's what I understand.
7 time he Q
Was the door closed?
1 6
said he A
I do not knew.
<e S.' t h Q
Was the door locked?
to cpulation of A
I do not know.
II O
How long were these people kept in tne room:
I.
12 A
1 do not know.
3!
Q Were they kept there all morninc?
- :). called me I
14 l t
A I believe chev were there until after lunch 15{'
because Boyce Grier interviewed each one of them s.o m e r i r e
'e that u
<iree
~1 that day, the best that I can remember.
et i
17l Q
So they were kept there for a number of hours people?
18 i
at least?
r i
A I' presume so.
I' knew they were s e r. : h.,m e
- ed?
- i e r e
.' O betere the working day was over.
With pay,
i 'tertain pi MR. BELTER:
I reiterate, c o u n 's e l o r, that
,2 '
i the answers to these questions can be established w!!h 23
,gg competent evidence from other witnesses.
Mr. Chapman 4
is giving you 100 percent hearsay and it is not competent
'5 evidence, for example, to establish -- Mr. Clements, I'm I
i l
t i
L
. - ~.. _ _
T j
40,102 3
\\
t l
i N
\\.9 sorry -- all of these intimate details.
(
MS. CEAN:
Excuse me, Mr.
Sosnick.
1 3
believe Mr. Chapman and Mr. Tolson are being deposed separately, and since they are knowledgeable on the subject and all the information Mr. Clements received he has already said he received thrcuch T c '. s e n anc Chapman.
O If we are geinc to continue this line e-questioning maybe you could tel; us what you are ccine n
10 use it for.
Are vou intending to use it l'r state of
)
mind?
t I
.M'#
MR. BELTER:
How is this releva: *'
i,
MS. CHAN:
H0w is this relevar. '
Otherwise j
this is beyond the scope.
I' MR. SOSNICK:
Because Mr. Citme ts t'ck this I
i information, digested it and acted on it.
All rig't?
AND r
1 think that goes to state of mind.
18 I MR. BELTER:
Right You are en:y gettine
- c
. hat information he got.
But now cou are sssinc
.ir a
series of questions about the details of it, mest c: which he doesn't know the answer to.
MR. SOSN!CK; He has answered quite a few n3 '
MR. BELTER:
Yes, and he nas answered cuite a few in the negative, that he doesn't know
': e ' s nc : sure how long.
He is operating for all we knew en secced, thira,
?
~
jon21 03 and fourth-hand hearsay.
You are not estahlishine the
,i facts of the events throuch this witness, and that is rv 3
only point.
d i MR. SOSNICK:
I'll try to tie it all up.
5 BY MR. SOSSICK b
Q So many of the indi"idua:s wh, sere 7
i r. v o l v e d in the t-shirt incident still w e r e. at (Oranche 1
8 Peak?
9 i
A 1 don't know.
10 ;
Q Do you know c: any who do not work thert 11.
anymore?
12 A
I have heard that two of the last t i r. e
\\
13.
I heard it was two that had left. but that was a ceunic I
ul i
t of months ago or so.
n 1
15 1 l
Q Let's talk atret vour discuss:en w:tn to a i
M r.. Check, I believe it is, of the NRC?
17l?
1 A
YEs.
Deputy Administrator.
I IS t Q
Okay.
You called him en the da-of the 10 i
incident?
20 A
Yes.
Several times.
(
Q I wil2 shcw cou a meterandur frcm S1 l
r.
Check 22 written after he talked to you en the te: (pehene.
I'll 23 i l
pass that te you and all e c u r. s e :
i 24 MR. B E :_ T E R :
- a r.
ering te or'e't te vaur 25 1 even marking this.
It is ccmpletely improper.
There is ne i
l l
1
^
^
7F_ __ _
40,104 en-l l
w a :. tbat this witness could began to authenticate tt -
document, and you know it.
3 It appears to be notes from some unknown 4
person.
It is not Mr. Clements.
There is no w a :. that s
he could authenticate the document s
~
v -u can ask him questions basee t
c 7
knew'ecge ycu have free that cc'ument, but car'-
authenticate this document throuer this witness anc can't ask him anything about the cacurent itse:
- e*
s t r. a n has he seen it and does he know what it MS. CHAN Stai jc;ns in the en;e. :.c MR. BELTER; I' don't know where it care I
k.
i from and I certainly am not geing te stipulate tc.:
s
.I authenticity.
MR. 50 SNICK I am gcing te attac-
- a an exhibit MR. BELTER:
It is worthless as in <x515it.
i Ycu can ask cuestions about :l e subject tatterr:.: Secause ycu know that and you kncv whether it is au:Fer:
s Ite de:urent itself is w e r t '.11 e s s anc ? Ob4(
s i
You can have it attached.
e w
d ae ba N."
e dh b
Darke: E? lbit
_5-S
'T identi: :ca:.,-
)
_. ___ _.40,105..
. n.1 SY MR. SOSSICK:
Q Mr.
Clements, when Vou r.a d e yi a r telephone call to Mr.
Check, did ycu i nfore him wnv certain people were being kept i n a r o o r., why these i
certain people with the 5-shirts were being kept : r a re -.;
C l
cid eeu tell him wny they were i n the ren' think I d:c.
. t *. ;. r.
that. c; l
A i
Q CkJ' DC V0u re**cirer wh20
.2
'" l
w c. a t the reason was.
~
A Yes. sir.
Q Wh-can't ecu
- el.
as - nat t r.a t
.5.
I A
1 said t '.i a t ' I d;cn't know what :
.e relationship was between the, r '.. e r s and the
< enst u: t;c-
- {
14
.nancs and the inspectors anc
.t sure as
.ne2.
c ; ; r:,
'irt a n V,
'iOlence Out there, "hv5;231 TT i t T *' d l 4
,..u v.
.t a,..,....
'*A E..,..,
p
....w v
s I
i i
these QC inspe:;.r5.: e r e weari.g
- 3n.rts w;tr -
.t e erenCe to n : t -: i c '.i n g
- 5. a d recr ; c i a m-s - e t r. : n -
-3..
3 -
l 4
O
(
. ~
c e s t r G C t.lVe inspe
- 100 Y
- - =.-
+
a
- h. t' L,e yt n.
- t
.. t g g 4
J 4 w
'..-? em
- e. p...a.
SE g
e-
+
- 4
..dw A
l
., De,3, h,
,xy ee.g1 *
.*.,em, "O
- gag,
, a;t
,_,as y e.as.e es yi. i.,, 9
- ,=
y 2
,e
+
g e
, ar m
t t
i
'P'. n v=..iefae (m-h.
4 >,
6b
. L 4
-p
.y (9 r,* t
(
h s
t D. '.C...-. 3.-.,
e.p
". e ea.a
, p e
e e*
, s t
A A 4..
.,e e
{
m.
...d., "
\\
.,.,n.
- b q.
4, 4
I
.M,g
.O 6e e
i
'l i
I JL
40._,_106_ _
II A
The day that the t-'hirt inciden:
4 Q
Have you ever seen any dO<
~e-:.s t. e -
~,
w:uld sugzest that these individuals hac ec ne s a r. e se t 4
destructive i nspection?
A What kind of d o c u r.e n t would ye, e :.: r e w
see.
I E a9h532.' C L.
Sir.
N ti 2 OL CtT L
t m
48 8
h t
k a
h
\\
k ^
I C
i te a n ', of the3e individuals who v.c r e a : - s.'. r t a_:
- .s w
reI6r6nCe t0 n i t * [ l C P'.I n @ 9 11 A
Nc.
If there was an w- :. e - t., -- re; r:
- - e se
'4 COwn With a I' a u 1 *. On 1t i! w0u1d"'t Sav hOW it 2C :
- 9eie,
'3 it wouicn't say destructive testine.
14 l
)
Q What is destruct;ce
. srec: tar:
- , r 15 explain :nat to u s.. riease' ic A
q.
4
- - a. s.
_..,e
~.c 3 -,,
w 7
i,
- /
previOUFly 065tEd anC I want !O eit'.er C ?. S t. o 3."
~.
~
'4 s
w b
d
$b b
b e
1C i tself s vnen I T e a '.' h i n !C teFE *her bet
- "e rt a
46 9 4.m k.. p
.m e.. u vr u..
y %. t:
4 4
o..
.V.- r. e m.m'.
- e. L..
- e. a. t.-n e
t Mu P.
P
- b D*
- q M
9 6
[ b' a
m 4
4*
(1 =
wm w s e b u e4 4
- g-
.4 m
.U y w I "cg h
- *.)
e l
. I Y
ee 1
e h
7"
.. be Cne w a '.
YOU COU.C C'
1*
WOU.C
."w1
AVE
' 'U CVer
'3rr 531
. t: -* - T 4"
4 W L m a =
a m D
=w 5.
D a.s A
As I exn:aine n.
a".
r
.ix i
k
. *EW m--
m
Y 3
15172 t
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
t i
~
4
. -In the Matter of I
I TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING I
5 j
I
. COMPANY, et al.
I Docket No. 50-445-OL2 l
1 50-446-OL2 6 l!
(Comanche Peak Steam I
Electric. Station, Units 1 I
7 l and 2)
I 8
i Crystal-Ballroom 9
Hyatt Regency Hotel 815 Main Street 10 Fort We:tn, Texas I
- )
Tuesday, September 11, 1984 12 The hearing in the above-entitled matter i
13
' was reconvened, pursuant to adjournment, at 8:30 a.m.
14 15 BEFORE:
16 JUDGE PETER BLOCH 17 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l i
la JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN i
l Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board f
19 JUDGE WALTER JORDAN 20 Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard 21 i
t 22 j
23 h
2' 23
'h j
I v
I I
15174 l
'3 l
1 C O N T E N T S f
WITNESSES PAGE 2
i 3 l ANTONIO VEGA (Resumed) 4 i
Cross-Examination by Mr. Treby - -
15176 l
Bo'rd Examination by Judge Bloch -
15186 a
' >1de 5
I Board Examination by Judge Grossman-15194 j
Board Examination by Judge Jordan-15197 6
l Board Examinatioh by' Judge Bloch - -
15198 Board Examination by Judge Jordan-15272 15274 7
l Board Examination by Judge Bloch -
Board Examination by Judge Grossman-15277 8
Board Examination by Judge ~Bloch -
15282 j
Board Examination by Judge Grossman-15284 l
9 Board Examination by Judge Bloch -
15290 Cross-Examination by Mr. Roisman -
15294 15341 10 Recross-Examination by Mr. Treby -
15346 Board Examination by Judge Grossman-15374 11 Recross-Examination by Mr. Treby -
15378 I
Redirect Examination by Mr. Downey 15403 12 Board Examination by Judge Grossman-l 13 BILLY R.
CLEMENTS (Recalled) 15418 14 Board Examination by Judge Bloch -
15470 l
Cross-Examination by Mr. Roisman 15514 l
15 Cross-Examination by Mr. Berry 15518 Redirect Examination by Mr. Downey
. Board Examination by Judge Grossman-15519.
16 i
17 THOMAS BRANDT (Recalled) 18 Cross-Examinatinn by Mr. Roisman - - - - 15521 l
Direct Examination by Mr. Downey -
15522 l
19 Cross-Examination (Cent) by Mr. Roisman-15524
- - - 15544 Board Examination by Judge Bloch -
20 Recross-Examination by Mr. Roisman 15563 1
N 21 22 23 l
24 25 l
f i
2sts 16-6 1
0 And it wasn't someone who stayed in 4, 3
(~
2j QA/QC program?
2 3
A No, sir.
They left the site.
3 4
0 I guess I infer that if it was the 4
(})
5 manager of QA who was responsible, that it must hag
.=
l 6
been a failure to follow the procedures, rather ty, 7
l an improper procedure; is that fair?
7 i
8 A
Judge Bloch, as I said before, I'm ng 9
sure whether the man had had a procedure changed ty; 10 didn't come to the attention of all of us, or whe ug it 11 he just instructed people not to follow the pro:,dut 1-12 i
involved.
1.
r I
13 But when Tolson found it, he reported q j.
g(
s 14 as I said before to Chapman and me and recommendeda 3,
had to go back and do a 1
15 get-well plan that j,
t f
16
. reinspection on a statistical basis, j
i 17 JUDGE BLOCE:
No further questions.
Is j
l l
IS there limited cross?
j 17 MR. ROISMAN:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, j
j 20 JUDGE BLOCH:
Please.
4 l
i 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. ROISMAN:
i I
23 0
Mr. Clements, I'd like to take vou bars '
j 24 to the morning of the T-shirt incident.
I believe 25 you've testified already today that your current i
p
i 15471
}
- talkin, I think yo_ said I
recollection based.upon ebo stay to some others about it is that the phone call that I
the first phone call you received that yu received si e.
i day was from Mr. Merritt and that you think probably f it was.,
^
~
\\\\
Mr. Tolson was in his office when the call was made; enat it q' is that correct?
tures, rat A
Yes, sir.
3 O
Can you tell me, to whom did you talk 3 bef cre, I
cedure cha '
that. refreshed your memory about that?
JUDGE BLOCH:
Just one moment.
I want 1
1.,
us, o.
,,ob, the ; l to see about the noise.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE BLOCH:
On the record.
t nd, he reg THE WITNESS:
Actually, I guess, Just me):ecomj over the last few days I've been reading some of the batpf do g depositions and I heard Mr. Vega's testimony this
'asi l
6 l
morning.
urt kestig I realized then it was neither Tolson nor 18 Chapman, but it was Merritt who had called me.
l g;,.r. a.n.
SY MR* ROISMAN ase 3
G Okay.
It, in fact, refreshed your memcry
.g; y as to that event?
22 A
Yes, sir.
3 1 k e yc 2.,
Now, did you have a second phone call i6 be1 24 that day from persons at tne site about the T-shirt
,,, m,, e,,
6
W 15 g 4
9 1
g incident?
j i
MR. DOWNEY:
Objection.
I believe h, i
16-8 i
g-2 testified that he placed a call, if I recall his 3
t testimony correctly.
j JUDGE BLOCH:
I don't think the questid 5
i l
had to do with who placed the call.
You just want,,
to know whether he had a call.
7 BY MR. ROISMAN:
8 O
Was there a second telephone call tha:
t 9
day?
je A
I was in contact with the plant of f an 11 on most of the day.
And whether I initiated the i
l 12 I
tt'.ephone conversations or whether they were initian 13 l
1 1
q-i by the people at the plant site, I couldn't draw yn g
chronological order and say, "I
did this one, a r.t a
15 t'Tey did this one."
g keep my hand on what I was trying to 17 was going on the whole day.
t 18 t
O I wasn't interested in that.
I just 79 wanted to find out if there was a second call at vid 20 vou discussed this matter with someone at the site.
21 t
regardless of who initiated it?
22 A
Yes, there was.
r 23 0
Do you remember roughly how socn afte 24 the~first call?
25 1
I 15473 i
l A
No, I don't.
I I belic j
g Is it likely that it was.still in the 2
recall morning of that day?
3 A
Since the first call, I think, was nk the ar und 9:00 and that's rough I would presume, 5
l ou just l
Mr. Roisman, that it was just as a matter of what 6
f went on that day, it was probably in the morning.
7
'***Y' 8
one cal catch that.
Even though you're responding to Mr.
p l "= "- +'
Roisman, your answers are for all of us.
So would 11
!tiated you please 12 y were THE WITNESS:
Yes.
13 l
~ i d n ' **
d i
MR. ROISMAN:
In fact, it's quite all 14
- this or right you do not need to look at me, unless you 15 i
~
want to put.the mike this way.
Otherwise, we're innd on to miss your answers.
going p
Okay.
)g 1 +*
- I BY MR. ROISMAN:
T9 id call Mr. Clements, over the course of that at the day, did you learn a great deal more information about the events that were going on -- excuse me --
g the events that led up to the first telephone call 23
)w s o o r.
than what you had received at the time you got t.4 e 24 first telephone call?
3 i
I
f 1
1547 :
4 16-10 A
I'm trying to remember just when I j
i' learned the different facts.
2 l
I Y ur question, I believe, was did I 3
l learn more about the event as it went on?
O Ther,1 0
No.
I'm trying to find out 5
At least there has been some were some events l
testimony about that relate to the T-shirt event, 7
arguably, that took place before the time that yo, y 3
l some things that happened that 9
your phone call i
m rning, s me things that may have happened on es:
10 j
- days, jj You remember there was-the statement [
g 4
j made by some witnesses that on Monday of that weekg g
I I
l the same T-shirt had been worn by other people viuq
'\\
g r
incident.
g My question to you is:
After the f.
i phone call, did you get additional information ab 37 events that you considered relevant to the T-shirt 18 incident that had occurred prior to the time of tW '-
T9 first phone call?
20 A
I can't put them in the context of f.
21
~.,
learning more about it th at day.
But obviously
~;,-
l g
f l
[f learned later that T-shirts had been worr 23 JUDGE BLOCH:
Wait a second.
I d o r-24 think you want to know later, do you?
Just tha g
- q MN I
l i
1 l
i s
3 E
juct wher.
15475 THE WITNESS:
He asked the question did r
I learn somethinc later.
He cidn't put any s
y 9,
was di-3 lt JUDGE BLOCH:
You're still in that day.
t on?
.s (!
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
When you say "later,"
out l
later than the first phone call, sometime.
5 hna been MR. ROISMAN:
Yes.
But I had understood 6
chirt ey i that he was getting ready to tell me that he just 7e imo tha:
I l-couldn't tell me for sure whether it would have be n i
E, i
PPened ;
l
later on that day or later many -- many, many days l
l 9
Poned c:
later.
10 I 8
i g
Is that right, Mr. Clements, :s t state 5 12 MR. DOWNEY:
Whv don't we let Mr.
f that,
~
13 Clements finish his answer?
i People g
JUDGE BLOCH:
I was crying to make sure that the answer was responsive.
I want to make sure cr-the that it is in that day that vou're I
16 matio 17 THE WITNESS:
Well, as I understood the
'le T-4 gg question as Mr. Grossman, I believe, understood I
. im o e,'
j it was later.
19 i
I I,,
sw He asked the question di.1 I learn some-5
. s y *' #l
~
21 thing later, not in the centext of that same day.
.ous2 i
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
Did I hear the question
~~
\\
n wrong?
I '
l 7,
MR. ROISMAN:
No, no.
I had asked it E
th 25 your way, and I was willing to accept i
I thought his!'
dd j
- 154w, 1
answer.was making clear that he was answering it the 16-12 l
way Mr. Grossman thought.
2 JUDGE BLOCH:
Well, let's go ahead wigy 3J the answer.
My apologies.
I 4
(c) j g
i Go ahead and answer it your way.
5 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
6 The events of that day are-kind of me q i
7 in my mind.
But I'm sure that I did not learn that g
the T-shirts had been worn the previous Monday duriq 9,
i i
that Thursday.
10 I
j Naturally, I learned after the.first telephone call that our people had looked in the deq g,
of those people.
Obviously I learned more about the, g
events as they went ca.
V 14 But the events prior to the 9:00 phone 15
_ call, I was standing probably in the shoes of Ron g
Tolson.
I knew just about what Ron knew at that time.
j9 D
yu remember roughly what time tha:
20 if there was only o n e --
day you made your first g
1 your initial call tc l if there was more than one 22 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reginn IV of fict'
(
23 A
Using the time frame of ge u -ing my f ~
2d for the s a k~e of phone call from the plant site b
25 l
h, j
15r77 i
argument, I'd say 9:00, 89 it 1 I
[.
I called Mr. Spence and informed him of f
what had been reported to me.
I believe I called Mr.
cad g
3I Gary, who is an Executive Vice President of our i
1 I
company who I used to work for to tell him that 5
something was going on at the plant site.
6 Then I called Mr. Check.
So, Mr. Roisman, I'd say as a good guessti n th 8
I.
mate, 9:30.
y du 9f O
So before --
To the best of your 10 I i
i recollection, before you had had any second phone
-r s t, 11 I 3
conversation with the plant site people?
.he 12 A
Yes, sir.
ut 13 O
Did yo'u mak e any other phone calls or 14 i
l receive any other phone calls from the Region IV pho:
15 office durine
- Ion':;
16
' that day about the T-shirt incident?
I A
I made at least one more myself.
l t
17 l
Somebody working for Mr. Check may have called me.
I r
'i 16 i
i I talked te the Region at least three or four times i
I that day, yes, sir.
I
- h4 20 i
O And when did the subsecuent calls 21 j
l i
occur, whether you had initiated them or they had initiated them, if you can r e r.iemb e r ?
[ ic) 23 l
L I
l A
I don't remember the time frames.
l
'!il 24 1
23 [
o ao you think they occurred in the l
i I
A
15373 U
afternoon or still in the morning?
j 16-14 A-I think one of them may have occurred e
2 i
later on in the afternoon and maybe one or two mor, 3
in the morning.
0
)l I was trying to keep the Region as v,;;
5 informed about what was going on as I was in Dallas, g
Have you previously seen a handwritte, 7
memorandum which purports to be a note to Mr. Coll; 8
from Mr. Check that purports to summarize informat;g 9
that he received from you over the telephone that 10 day, that I believe is marked as Exhibit 39-4, date.-
11 8 March?
g I
I'm now going to show you a copy.
13 j
g 1
A No, sir, I've never seen that before.
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
You may change your answet 15 1
i if you see it and it refreshes your recollection.
(Document handed te witness.)
17 THE WITNESS:
It looks familiar, but I 16 don't remember seeing it per se.
39 JUDGE BLOCH:
Would you lock at ;t i
20 again, if it looks familiar, to see whether the re 's il scmething in there that jogs your memory about why 22 i
(
it's familiar.
l-23 MR. DOWNEY:
May I ask counsel for the 24 Intervenor a question.
To which deposition was th 8 25 b
y
(
I i
U l
15473 i
1 l
made an exhibit?
i l
MR. ROISMAN:
I believe to Mr. Clements'.
2 1
3 JUDGE BLOCH:
Okay.
s l
MR. ROISMAN:
I have it attached to 4
I l
5 that, and it's identified by the room number, so i
I can't tell you which deposition 7
THE WITNESS:
My depositions were taken in Room 39.
8 J.
9 MR. DOWNEY:
I believe the record will i
reflect.t h a t there was a collocuy of counsel about g
l jj examining the witness on this document at his I
deposition, and that I d o n t think much was 12 i
_ j3 asked, but it was produced at the deposition, I'm told.
ja MR. ROISMAN:
My purpose is just to make g
sure that he does or does not remember it.
16 i
l l
j7 THE WITNESS:
I'm not trying to be evasive.
I just don't remember seeing it.
18 i
39 JUDGE BLOCH:
That's fine.
He Just
(
(
20 wants you to read it now.
Is that MR. ROISMAN:
I think 8
21 l
22 Y MR. ROISMAN:
\\
i 23 0
Dic y2 3ust read it, Mr. C;ements?
l 24 A
I scanned it, yms, str.
I 25 0
I'd like you to look back at it again
[
E l
t l
-r e
~
~
'l
-15439 16-16
.l and toll ma what, if any, portions of it are in Your 3
r l
2i judgment incorrect, which are correct and which you 3J don't know about.
e 4 ;
And by_ correct, incorrect and you don'-
i O
i 5 l know about is what of that did you actually i'
s communicate to Mr. Check? -
6 7
A The only thing that I believe Mr. Cheet t
8j misunderstood was the plan to send these people hcze 9.(,
without pay.
10 0
All right.
Would you correct that now i'
11 then, please?
gh A
I'm not sure I understand what you're i
I.
j) asking.
l
),
G Well, he has written down on the memorar 15 t
dum There's a line and then there's the werd
" Update," and then three little bullets.
There are 6
,i
(
three lines there.
17 g n
[,
One says " Plan to send hcme without 18 li 39 pay."
Two, "Come back when properly attired."
Th "' '
]
" Resume work if job unfilled."
20 f
a 21 Now, are you saying that one of those ;~I 22 think that he misunderstood what
=
you told him?
23 A
I do not remember telling Mr. Check 24 i
that those people would resum their job would "I I
un their work if the job was unt iled.
He may have F..,
25 j.
{
l 4,
T
)
l 15451 f
that from his own people at the site.
ur
,7 i
I I m here to tell you that those people u
2 f'
were not in any danger of being fired because that 3
't firing would have to have been. approved by me when 4
I I f this sort of incident comes up.
5 l
And they were not in any danger of 6
i eck losing their jobs any time that day.
7 ame O
Do you have any reason to.believe that 8'
I 9[
they may have thought that someone had told them that j
3w they could come back the next morning if their jobs 10 had not been' filled?
11 9
ie MR. DOWMEY:
Objection.
The question was does he have any reason to believe that someone g
fora:
else thought something.
That calls for speculation in the most 15
- re extreme forn, I don't think it's pertinent 7
Y*"
~~
16
' h r e e.'
MR. DOWNEY:
I would move to strike on "l
j grouncs of relevance.
It does not meet the require-t
,,u l
M YM ments of Rule 401 as relevant evidence on any issue.
t JUDGE SLOCH:
Well, se far I have '-
2 t
e
(
heard the question, se --
l 3
4 I
i re MR. ROISMAN:
The question was:
Did he 24 l90t have reason to believe that any of the pc-sons at the 25 1
i.
I h
1 l
r 1I I
151%
l cito hcd roccived information that they believ0 16-18 t t'J might that this instruction had been given; 2
gg,,
3l believed that they could resume work the next I
day.f a
the job had not been filled, f
kh JuoaE BtOCH:
o f. d anyone at the site 3
tell you that was their belief?
THE WITNESS:
Not to my recollection 7
BY MR. ROISMAN:
0 Why did you indicate in answer to my 9
. earlier question that maybe th e NRC at the s i t e h a '-
10 heard that?
Did you have some reason to believe gy, they might have heard that?
j A
No, sir.
But I know that Mr. Jim 13 r
.(
i
),
j Cummings of the NRC -- the resident inspector for construction was in touch with our folks.
i And to the best of my knowledge, I was 16 I
not told about this " Resume work if job is unfilled *g 17 JUDGE BLOCH:
Is that memorandum in jg i
evidence?
MR. DOWNEY:
Your Honor, we would ob:ert,
i to further questioning on this exhibit.
We wculd g
further ob;ect to the admission of this document it 62
(
evidence.
g There's no indication, as I read it, 24 t
i the source from which all of this information was 25
qf
~'
%t 15163 obtained.
I y
s The only reference to Mr. Clements' phone Op 2
l l
l call occurs in the very first line of the very first tt 3,
i I
page.
6 I believe the record indicates quite 5
i I
clearly that NRC officials Mr. Check and others i
were getting information both from Mr. Clements -- at 7
i least by inference from the Intervenors from j
{
8 i
i an employee at the site, although there
{
someone 9
i f
f has been no evidence to that effect, and also the l
IC 1
hat,
resident inspector acting on directions from his jj 4
4 people in Region IV had an interchange with some 12 I
i site management.
.g i
So they had several sources of infcrma-
),
tion.
JUDGE BLOCE:
Mr. Trebv, would the 16 I
Staff agree te supply Mr. Collins for the scle
{
37 18 purp se stating where this memoran6am came free i
and what the sources of information are?
39 1
MR. DOWNEY:
I believe it's beinc
^
j 2w.
represented as the notes of Mr. Check and not frem I
,1 4
JUDGE BLOCH:
- Check,
..a MR. TREEY:
I believe that that document :
23 l
t was one that was obtained by the Intervenors as a 24 1
result of the Freedom of Information Act request to 25 i
i
?
I WL I
.$ l l
2$.
the Agency.
1 I w uld assume that if that's how th,3 1A-20 2
]
got it, that is an accurate and official record, g
3 don't see any need to bring Mr. Check here.
I' 4
4 G
///
3 t
7 8h 9
10 1
11 12 i
i
(
14 15 l
I 16 9
17 18 19 20 21 i
22 23 24 25
-m--
y v-m-v-w-
-g gn-gy,,m-
-e.-----
-g
.r'
P'-
--nmw--'e6 w-
-4N----
= - - ' - -
e
1j I,
l 15485 SigI I
l MR. ROISMAN:
Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just thh 2
say if anything we're only arguing about the last three l
t 3
.i lines.
I believe the witness' testimony will show that he d
j has confirmed that it is accurate up to that point.
4 i
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
Accurate with respect to what 6
you told Mr. Check?
7 MR. ROISMAN:
What he told the NRC that day.
8 MR. DOWNEY:
May I object, please.
I think I
9 I it's appropriate to ask Mr. Clements, after having read this,
I i
i t
10 i document, if he recalls -- what he recalls having tcld i
I s
11 Mr. Check.
I think that's a perfectly legitimate inquiry.
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
That was the question that was i
13 asked.
Is that a different way?
He asked hi what of this I
14 is accurate and what if it is inaccurate.and he answered 15 that question.
i 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
He also cave him the chcice I
17 of saying how much of this don't you knew is accurate or I
t 18 inaccurate, and so I believe the witness -- if he hasn't j
y l
19 completed his answer, he's about to conplete his answer.
j i
20l l
But now, while he's reviewing that document, l
l 21 l let me ask Mr. Treby whether it is a matter of reccrd here s
i 22 as to where the NRC acquired that information as contained 8
l 22 in that document, which I haven't seen yet.
l 24 MR. TRESY:
I believe there is some testincny f
l 25 in the depositions that Mr. Clements notified Mr. Check of I
t i
l E
f 6
i ns w_
i 1
4q r
(
P i+n15c 17-2 what was going on and that there were a number of I
conversations back'and forth during the course of the 49 l I'
(
2 3
as Mr. Clements got additional information.
4 1 believe the particular document that's q
{}
l I
the moment was an exhibit during Mr. Clemente.
5 dispute at 6
evidentiary deposition down at Glen Rose.
There is a slight problem in tnat at the,,m i
a 7
u 8
that deposition was taking place I don't think there were f
l 9 ~
additional copies and so it wasn't attached to the trats:g,j i
sure wncther the exhibits ever caught up w;.2 10 I and I'm not 1
11 the transcript.
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
My concern right now isn't 12 Clements contributed as to the document or i
13 with what Mr.
.(
to the understanding of the NRC but where the remainder of,
14 1
i information was derived by the NRC.
15 that But I don't want to interject myself and =de 16 I
it even more difficult for Mr. Clements to get back tc ce 17 original questien and give his answer.
18 MR. TRESY :
I believe also Mr. Hunnicutt nah 1
19 some brief reference to those conversatiens between 20 21 Mr. Check and Mr. Clements since he was at Regional Head-22 quarters at the time and was enlled in tc Mr. Check 's ef h:1 l
f
(
when he received telephone calls from the site.
23 JUDGE BLOCH:
Do you have further clarifi-24 to this document?
cation of your answer with respect 25 E
15487 G
i 1
THE WITNESS:
No, sir.
I very candidly don't 2
i:
remember making those comments listed under update, and I ay l;
3 '
did have some names that I gave.
Whether those are correct 4
Lt
. names or not, I still don't know.
But the other comments,
5 the first page and up to here, or up to the halfway mark 6
on this page is comments I made to -- while not exact, I
7 thev're comments I made in general to Mr. Check, aa.
S JUDGE BLOCK:
In that case, let's have it o
I
\\
9
[
bound into the transcript as an exhibit at this point.
10 l
MR. ROISMAN:
That's fine.
I mean I consider j
i l'
Il the witness' testimony to be better evidence than the i
I i
12 memorandum anyway, but the memorandum tells us what the 13 i
witness is talking about, j
14 JUDGE SLOCH:
Ncw, is that a copy we can put g
i l
15 in the transcript?
l 16 MR. REYNOLDS :
This is our only ccpv.
ue 17 JUDGE ELOCH:
But it is not in evidence?
l i
1 18 MP. REYNOLDS:
That is correct.
19 JUDGE ELOCH:
That is correct.
But it is an i
3 20 exhibit that will help us understand what the test m:ny is.
21 So do we have a copy somewhere that can be placed in the
.m 22 transcript?
1 23 MR. REYNCLOS:
We can make a ecpy.
1 24 JUDGE BLOCH:
That would be very helpful.
e i
25 (Memorandum follows.)
I' t
i
?
l 5
..I0fl L
j c W-
'q' "/ &",
V is.sss ' 7 [;
g,,
?Gk/h N#
ytg 4
i
(
e e
4 o.yp> tv~ bc a uphd a% k.
n4 f
+c x u n n a.
O.
W ThJ Yu ha. h l?"< f l.
lVakbl7#-4
.. !(
}-
A h
fo Q) suan+ $ p L
, ma kp M
e-mw2), 1udf"4%aW' hqxia (15. (s%y wn!+A n
w
,04ci% % )
d-jaaL.len et sa Mi[~ a xe & w.Adf % L ol/L).
3 AM IX w d
$ - hb kk Ajf cT.r^
3 f
o snw9 c.
I p a L w..,,
G l
V
\\
A
4
/
'}
+1 Au aphJ L
. 9.!
nu j.am L}sp.L~C/d%L>dby ha
$ w h k a A.m..
Geny 9 /m $f L wn(,
lawyu) s4 i ucikay mt dp 4
ka '91 A Juf-agya.!.
- 3;
~
1 9
l Y)d. pyx h/h I.futo s.s%AR E Q Ssq L / f 14.
Y fWA 12 %
G.
an/
L f
L ec nk kx su
[4 L p7>f a%m S
Gm raL if id %LKE g'
l n
s
q r-7 i
j 15439 I
JUDGE GROS 3 MAN:
Do I understand, 17-4 2
Mr. Chairman, that this is being received for the limite:
l 3
purpose of shewing what was contained in the NRC memoray-4 d
- j (j) of the information that was received that day.from the 5
company but not to prove the truth of any of the 6
allegations contained in that document?
7 MR. ROISMAN:
As a matter of fact 8
JUDGE BLOCH:
Actually, it's only -- mv I
i 9[
ruling was that it was received solely for the purpose og i
10 illustrating the transcript so that the testimony of th s i
f j
witness could be understood.
II 12 MR. ROISMAN:
I think that it 's being of f e.g 13 for precisely the opposite reason.
I believe the Applic T
14 objects that they do not know that this represents the 15 genuine document prepared by the agency.
Tne witness' 16 testimony raises questions as to whether what comes below !
17 the line on the second page and has the word update, eye.,
18 purports to be what he said.
l 19 The witness has indicated that everytning l
20 above the line, he believes he talked abcut all these th.qp 21 with the exception of his uncertainty about whether those 22 were the names he gave, the rest of it is accurate.
(
i I want it there so that we'll know what he 22 i
l 24 says is accurate.
I'm not trying to prove that Mr. Che:S j
I 25 took the notes.
I'm not trying to prove anything other
<4
15101 I
what the witness has said about it.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Thank you.
I understand 3
c.
fully now.
f d
JUDGE BLOCH:
As I understand, only. one of.
i l
5 l
the three items below the line was challenged.
Is that t
6 correct?
7 THE WITNESS:
I'm not sure if I gave any of j
?
I i
8 that information below the line, Judge Bloch.
I'm not sure f
9 if he received that information from me.
i i
I 8
i 10 l MR. ROISMAN:
That's what I thought he had i
l I
11 testified to also.
At least, as you remember when we got l
TW 12 into that things sort of exploded, the witness, when he got l
i
___lL. - back to - i t again, seemed_to indicate that he was not sure 14 that any of it below the line was information that he had f
15 communicated at all.
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
Do we need to know from l
1 l
17 I.
Mr. Check where the below the line things came from?
1 16 MR. ROISMAN:
We probably need to know that I
19 answer because there appears to be some dispute in the l
20 record at this potnt as to whether there was or was not le '
21 at one time an option that the workers would be sent hcme I
22 with the underr.tanding that they could come back if their J
e e
{
23 position had not been filled, which was -- I don't knew what 24 you call that, it sounds like a variation.on a terminatien.
25 So yes, I think that's pertinent.
t.
1 i
~
I 1s.33 I
JUDGE BLOCH:
What would be the easiest w.#
17-6 l
r 2
for the Staff to -- just have Mr. Check inform us about 3
where that information came from?
4 MR. TREBY:
Would you accept counsel's l
5 representation, that is, I can call Mr. Check and-ask ha.
JUDGE BLOCH:
That depends on the Applican.,
~
6 response to that question.
7 i
8 MR. REYNOLDS:
It depends on what the 9
representation of counsel is.
10 MR. TRESY:
It will be whatever Mr. Check 11 tells me.
JUDGE BLOCH:
Why don't we try it that way, 12 i
you will say what Mr. Check tells you, and if the Applica.-
13 14 are unhappy about that, we will have to request that 15 Mr. Check appear.
MR. ROIS MN:
That's acceptable to us.
I ar g
not satisfied on my own, and I'm not trying to argue that 17 what's below the line represented a phone conversation wie.
18 this gentleman, with the current witness.
l 19 JUDGE ELOCH:
It would be interesting and 20 to know where the infor:.ation did come 21 possibly important ffCC-22 MR. ROISM;.N :
I th:.nk it's important te knew 1
(
23 where it came from.
I just want you to understand :'m net 2a this witness is where it arguing for the proposition that f
25
dI 15133 j
2 l
came from.
l 2 [,
JUDGE BLOCH:
Well, let's Just obtain a I
I 3'
representation of counsel, and then after that we'll see I'
where we go from there.
But it's not immediately important 3
4 5
at this second, you could do it tomorrow if you want.
g, 6
MR. MIZUNO:
That 's true, but we would like 7 [
to have a copy of that before the end of the day, obviously. j I
i 8
MR. ROISMAN:
All right.
Well, as soon as I i
9 finish talking to the witness about it, the machines may 10 have :: and it can be copied and --
I i
I 11 i MR. DOWNEY:
May I make a suggestion?
Could l
i i
1 i
12 we take an afternoon break here.
I'll get ecpies of this
'1 13 particular document for everyone and then we can --
JUDGE BLOCH:
Break?
I never heard of a 14 e l
15 break.
16 MR. ROISMAN:
I would just like to finish 17 on a very tiny part of this, and then I won't have anything j
l
?
more for the witness and it will be easy to take it out.
13 i
19 JUDGE ELOCH:
Let's finish the cross then, i
20 in that case, on that representation.
l r
i 21 E 7 E - ECISMAN I
22 O
Mr. Clements, with reference to the portion 23 of the document that's now in front of you -- by the way, j
3 r
are you binding them in or marking then, 24 could we have it 25 Mr. Chairman?
f i
1-
f l
1513.)
I 17-8 JUDGE BLOCH:
Binding it in, so we don't r
2 need to mark them.
l 3l MR. ROISMAN:
All right.
Well, it is marg, d
already as Exhibit 38-4 and --
((}
4 5
JUDGE BLOCH:
The numbering system we've ha:
6 so far is almost worthless.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
At least it appears on tr. a
- 8 document.
t 9 i MR. TREBY :
Well, for the record, what i
10 that means is that it was the fourth exhibit in Mr. C l ere,..ug 11 July 10th, 1984 evidentiary deposition.
i 12 JUDGE BLOCH:
I know what that means.
The i
13 problem is that we have no consistent numbering systen i
so that anyone looking at the record can know if he's seer 14 15 all the exhibits.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, Mr. Roisman is Just 17 concerned with hov we identify it in talking to the witness, 18 and that's fine, 3Y MR. ROISMAN:
19 20 0
Mr. Clements, looking now just at the pertier 21 of the memorandum which includes the six names on it, is 22 it your testimony that you have a recollection that you
(
23 mentioned names to Mr. Check?
24 A
To the best of my knowledge, I did give hic 25 a list of names.
Whether these are the same names or not, h
i l
2
,1 15493 I
C I'm not sure.
p 2
O Do you have any information that would l
I 3
indicate to you that those are not the names?
j g
L d
A No, sir.
l
- 5 g
Do you know, can you remember and testify to I
6 i; where you received the information as to what those names
~
7 were?
a.
8 A
You mean who those names are?
i.
t 9 i O
Yeah, who they are.
i 10 A
Obviously, I received them throuen one or the e t. y 11 phone calls f rom the plant site that day.
As to which one 12 ;
I do not know.
13 g
Do you remember which person gave you the j
i l'
e r.
14 l information?
15 A
No, sir.
7 t
I i
16 G
I take it from your earlier tesrimony you are i
ess.
17 certain that it was not the first phone call.
18 A
I'm pretty sure it was not the first phone
\\
a 19 call, but I'm not even positive of that.
The day -- like I l
\\
i LOT 2C say, the day there were so many phone calls and se much l
i 21 l activity going on that I can't put the whole thing in I
i chronological order.
f 22 G
Do you feel that that summary that appears 24 there is an accurate summary of all the information that 5
25 you had that day that you thought was relevant to the i
m,
1 +~ 13-i I
T-shirt incident that day?
17-10 a couple of alls in there.
Would
(
2 A
You got 3
you state that again?
I to the Does the memorandum contain in it, A
O 0
4 ()
it's accurate, a summar) 3 extent that you've testified that 6 f, of all the information that you received that day about t'
I 7
the T-shirt incident that you believe was relevant as of a
I e
i B
that day?
think you could take a piece of pag. '
9 l A
I don't i
were relevant that day, l i
and write down all the things that I
10 11 I Mr. Roisman.
Again, I'm not trying to be evasive, but ye; {
i the flavor for an activity that's going on by 12 just can't get a page and a half of notes scribbled on a piece of paper, 13 [
I Just don't understand 14 so I'm not trying to be evasive, 15 your total question.
16 0
All right.
What major items of relevant 17 information that you knew that day are not included there?
for one thing, the connctation of the --
18 A
- Well, 19 first of all, the message that I gave Mr. Check was some-like i
they're wearing T-shirts with a message 20 thing that it.
I pick nits, with the ter; nit-picking on 21 Second of all, there's the background on 22 the connotation of I pick nits
(
this piece of paper of what 23 That's not on this piece of paper 24 means at Comanche Peak.
25 Is that responsive?
?>.
15497 l
I I
I 0
If it represents what you think the major i
l 2(
relevant information that's not included there is responsive.
.I
,i 3[
A I can't think of anything other right now 1
(
I 4
j that -- again, it's a very broad question.
i 5
MR. ROISMAN:
Okay.
I'm now finished with hwy u
6 that document, so whoever is making the offer to have it k
copied --
7 3 *.
I:
8 JUDGE BLOCH:
I have a couple more questions l
l
- Mw:
l 9
before the break.
i i
1 1
9,l 10,
What did you know that day about the allegation f
I pg,"
11 i of destructive evaluation?
t 4
12 THE WITNESS:
I had heard that we were looking,;
I the people at the plant site were looking into some r,
12 i
I 14 indications that over-exuberant testing, I wouldn't 15 necessarily call it destructive testing, but that there 16 was some though that maybe some of the electrical inspectors t
I I
l t*
17 were going in and when they'd yank on the connection to l
eg 18 make sure that the crimps were tight that they were yanking l
19 them too hard and in the conversations to me prior to this l
t
~
20 day, I don't recall anyone telling me they thought this was 21 a sabotage type thing, it was just over-aggressive i
22 destructive testing, but just over-aggressive testing and I
22 not a sabotage per se.
24 JUDGE ELOCH:
So the meaning of destructive j
1 l
i i
25 was not that they were destroying things, they were just d
l
i l
1s.iss 1
I 17-12 THE WITNESS:
No, sir, they were destroy q r
2 things but I don't -- I think that the -- we never -
4 3;
were lookino into what the intent was at that time.
d JUDGE BLOCH:
Do you know the procedure og, 5[
the inspection of those junction boxes?
6 THE WITNESS:
No, sir.
7 JUDGE BLOCH:
Was it in the junction boxei S
that they were alleged to be doing this?
I 9 !
THE WITNESS:
All I heard was it was i.
1C electrical equipment.
I wouldn't be able to go out tner, {
h
'b and lay my hands en the electrical equipment they're talk 11 t 12 i about.
13 JUDGE BLOCH :_ So you don' t know whether it 14 was junction bcxes?
7 F
.b' 15 THE WITiESS:
No, sir, I don't.
- yp TI
.g 16 l JUDGE BLOCH:
Is there evidence on whether ig-h 17 was Junction boxes, alleged to be junction boxes?
I'm 18 asking counsel.
19 MR. DOWNEY:
Yes, in Mr. Tclson's depcs1.: oa
+
I believe he describes the items he personally looked at. Sj 20 21 JUDGE BLOCH:
And they were Juncticn boxes?
l 22 MR. DOWNEY:
I don't recall the --
t.
23 MR. ROISMAN:
My understanding is that the 24 answer is yes.
25 MR. DOWNEY:
I think there were items in
,9 7 )
- 1..
JR
15515 I do remember that it mean testimony this morning j
\\
I was not Chapman nor Tolson, but it was Merritt who 2
{
i made the initial call.
3 l4.
l
[
MR. BERRY:
I apologize.
I remember now i
I that you did an swer tha t.
5 i
BY MR. BERRY:
D 6
i O
Mr. Clements, on the day -- on the 7
T-shirt incident, you testified earlier that Mr.
g that Mr. Tolson was the one that Tolson suggested 9
suggested that the T-shirt inspectors be sent home l
10 l
I with pay.
as 3)
A I said the word came to me from someone g
at the power plant that they be sent home with pay.
y-g
!'m not sure if I testified it was Tolson.
3, If I did, it was a misstatement.
I'm not; who called me.
e sure if it was Telson or not I
4 Are you familiar, Mr. Clements, when you 37 ett read Mr. Tolson's deposition that he testified that
)3 this direction had ccme from Dallas?
De vou remember 19 t
reading that in Mr. Tolson's deposition?
20 A
So, I don't.
g Like I said before, we were in constant 22 ee touch with each other and different people during the 23 day.
I don't remember whose idea it was to send them 24 home with pay, but I'm care that it came from tne 25 l
l i
4
,q l
1551s i
l 18-14 plant site.
3 i
L O
Do you recall if any other alternativ,,
2 I
i were considered?
3 l; I
A Not that I recall.
k_/
j 0
Just one final question.
You also 3
testified earlier that the reason you decided that 6
the T-shirt inspectors should be kept away from 7
craft was because you didn't know what the situat::.
8 was between the craft and the QC and you didn't wan-9 to take any chances.
Do you remember that?
10 A
Yes, sir.
11 O
Then you later testified that you had I guess sometime been advised by Mr. Chapman g
N.
earlier in the week -- that destructive examinatiens 7,
had -- there were allegations of destructive examinat ens having occurred.
The question is:
Did that enter into g
Y" "Y
Y Y*"
16 t
when you made your decision or you decided that the quality control inspectors should be isolated free g
the craft?
A Sir, I think every time a manager makes 2<.
a decision, he calls upon all of his experience and 23 managerial skill that he has learned ever a period 24 of time, 25 i
15517 l
I That was just one of the many items 3
that caused me to think that we should keep those to 2
l]
people isolated that day.
I In retrospect, maybe not.
But that day f
I think I made ^ sood deoi5 ion-I 5
///
6 i
i c
,I 8
.e 9 i i
l I
ioi I
i 11 i h
j 13 I
3 I
14 15 16 17 18 19 1
20 21 s
22 23 24 I
25 I
I
1ssis 'I I
I 19-1 1
{
MR. BERRY:
Nothing furthor.
bm JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Downey.
2 l
3[
MR. DOWNEY:
Yes, I have just one or g 4
questions, Your Honor.
A NE l
5 l
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
{
BY MR. DOWNEY:
6 0
Mr. Clements, before you reviewed the 7[
8 !s handwritten notes represented to you to be the note, g 1
j of Mr. Chapman, do you have any independent 9
I recollection of providing Mr. Checx with the names je ;
of the inspectors involved in the T-shirt matter?
ji A
Very candidly, Mr. Downey, I don't 12 t
remember whether I did or did not provide him with 13
{
names that day.
I just don't remember.
ja 0
You do recall, do you not, Mr. Clements, 15 16 telling him about the other matters written on the first page of those two pages of notes?
17 18 A
Yes.
19 MR. DOWNEY:
I have no further 20 questions.
JUDGE BLOCH:
Okay.
Subject to recall 31 22 by the Beard -- when we get the documents, the witness 23 may be excused.
24 Thank you, sir.
s 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I l
2
1 U
i 15519 MR. DOWNEY:
If Judge
.rossman has some 1
questions, I had just as soon wrap this up now.
2 :
{
[
We'll go ahead with the documents.
They're only one 3
t e, i
i.
floor away.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN:
Well, I'd like to see I
5 the documents.
I don't know if I have any questions.
6 l':
l MR. REYNOLDS:
I would like to see Mr.
7it Clements finish today, if at all possible.
On 8j
[
l JUOGE 3 LOCH:
Okay.
We'll just take a l
9 I i
10,
recess in place.
I'd like to be able to start t
l i
whenever we get the documents.
11 i I
(Pause.)
12 l I
SOARD EXAMINATION la BY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
l 14 i
I i
G Mr. Clements, you originally testified j
15 l i
i this afternoon that the information abcVe the line 16 i
on page 2 l
17 I MR. ROISMAS:
Mr. Chairman, I'm coinc 16
~
to give the witness a copy of the exhibit 19 l
SY JUDGE GROSSMAN:
of that document which has originally G
21 1
been marked as Exhibit 38-4, including the informatior
,g en the first page was what you recall you had given to the NR;; and that the information underneath that 2a line on page 2 was what you believe y'ou had not given I
,j l
l
Y iss2o l
thom; icn't that corrGct?
19-3 A
I'm n t sure about the names bein9 the 2
correct names that I gave them.
3 G
Your not being sure about the names, k
I that was not what you indicated originally, is :ty 5
It was only a clarification of your original test:.?y 6
~-
is that correct?
7 A
Original?
Today?
8 s
0 Yes.
9 i
A I don't recall.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
I think we'll see the
- )
I transcript.
My recollection is that he did state ty.(
g he wasn't sure if those were the names that he 33 Q-transmitted.
j, THE WITNESS:
That's my testimony.
I'm g
not sure about those names.
g JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Treby, one more 37 question:
When you call Mr. Check, would you ask h:s 16 l
where he got the names from?
39 MR. TREBY:
Yes.
g THE WITNESS:
You understand I'm not 21 i
l saying I didn't; I just don't recall.
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
I understand that.
,3 4
JUDGE GROSSMAN:
I have no further 24 x
23 questions.
-