ML20154R190
| ML20154R190 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1985 |
| From: | Mulley G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154R138 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603280130 | |
| Download: ML20154R190 (1) | |
Text
D
=
o l
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Of fice of Inspector and Auditor o....i,...........
May 6.1%$
l Report of Interview Ben B. Hayes, Director, Office of Investigatirn, NRC, was interviewed i
concerning his knowledge of a March 8, 1984, incident at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (SES) 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, Hayes provided the following information:
Although Hayes did not specifically recall receiving a telephone call from Garde on the evening of March 8,1984, during which she notified him of the detention and seizure of inspections records at Comanche Peak, he had no reason to doubt she in fact telephoned him.
If Garde notified Hayes on the evening of March 8,1984, then on March 9,1984, Hayes would have discussed the incident with Richard K. Herr, Director, Office of Investigation Field Office, Region IV, NRC, to determine what occurred at Comanche Peak SES.
Hayes' ma.ior concern would have been the seizure of inspection records and ensuring that NRC obtained custody of the records.
Hayes did recall that Herr checked with Region IV and learned that the records had already been confiscated by Region IV and were under NRC control. Upon learning that Region IV had seized the confiscated records from TUGCO, 01's involvement in the incident ceased.
Had there been an allegation of harassment or intimidation of the OC inspectors, then 01 would have investigated.
- However, no such allegation was ever made.
Sometime in the Summer, 1984, Hayes; Thomas A Ippolito, Deputy Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data; and Darrell G.
Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu-lation, interviewed those QC inspectors still employed at Comanche Peak who were involved in the March 8, 1984, detention. The purpose of the interviews was to learn from the QC inspectors the circumstances surrounding the inci-dent. The interviews were conducted in the presence of the Chief Executive i
Officer, TUGCO. The inspectors stated the issue had been resolved and no one i
had been fired.
None of_the QC inspectors made any allegation of harassment l
or intimidation. Generally, the QC inspectors thought TUGC0 management had overreacted to the situation and did not understand why management had become so upset with the T-shirts. The claimed inspectors had worn the same T-shirts
^
to work a week earlier and-nothing had been said. All inspectors interviewed i
stated they did not change any of their inspection procedures and still wrote nonconformance reports whenever they observed a deficiency.
The inspectors were offended that anyone would think they could be threatened into not doing their jobs properly.
.,,,,,,,,,,... May 2, 198 5
,, Bethesda, MD 85-10
, hoYg A. Mulley Jr., Investigator, 0IA May 6, 1985
==;=:u===:= =::: =am==:: " " '"~c B603280130 860320 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A
s 54 000 0
mgc
-l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C 0 !':! I S S I O N y
3 BEFORE THE AT0!!IC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD 4
5
_ _ _ _ _x In the matter of.
0 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC 7
COMPANY, et al.
Docket Nos. 50-J45 30_,a6 9
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
S
_x e
ic -
'I Glen Rose ?!o t o r Inn Glen Rose, Texas Jul:
17 198J.
'd Deposition of:
JAMES E.
- CUMMINS,
'5 called for examination
'o y counsel for Intervenors, l
't taken before J.
F.
- Coughlin, Court P.e a c r t e r,
I
'7 beginning at 9:12
- a. m., pursuant to agreement.
'S
- C 2'
22
- 3,
4 i
i
$b t
a I
Rt J
i 54,007 mac 1-5 Q
At Region IV' A
Yes, sir.
3 Q
In addition to yourself and the Resident d
Inspector for Operations. Resident Inspector for Reactor, D
are there other employees, other NRC people, who'are resident on the site during the perioc of tint from 7
January through, say, the end of Mav, or were you the 3
only resident people?
9 A
Bob Taylor was here when I arrived..i n d hs to,
didn't leave the site I don't know exact 1:. when he left i
I' the site, but he was here for a coup}e weeks after I arrived.
'2 Q
Okay.
And other than that'
'3 '
s A
Not to my knowledge.
t Q
So that you don't have a croup of inspccro -
's,
er other people below your level who work fer vou and i
'O I
who are, like yourself, resident at the site.
I7!
A No, sir,
. i 18 0
Now if I refer to something called the T-shirt incident, do vou know what I'm referrine to?
A I certainly do.
21 Q
Okay.
I'm going to ask you mostly questions, 22 ;
if not all questions, about that incident, so if we both 22,
understand what we're tsiking about, I'll just call it 2d j the T-shirt incident.
If it gets confusing to you, please 25 stop me and say, " k.'a i t.
Now I'm not sure what you're
54,008 i
e r,,
1-6 t.ilking about," okav' A
(Nodding affirmative 1y.)
3 Q
k'ere you on site the day of the T-shirt incident?
5 A
I was.
Q Okay.
Can vou tell me voor recelicetion
+
the events that. day that y e t, personally ebssrved or t h.i t 6
you personally heard?
A The T-shirt incident started for ce --
I was
'O in Dennis Kelley's office.
That's the O p e r.i t i o r. s S c r. i e r I
Pesident I,nspector.
His office is on the opoesite side is j
of the site from mine.
And we received a phone call.
'3 I answered the phone, I think, and it was a screbodv that was started telline us that the Brown &
R< e t
'5 Securite and this is fram m e r.o r v, sc I'm not surs i
exactly what was said.
)
Q Okay.
'E A
I'll do my best.
TC They said somebody was going through the;r 4
20 files and desks, and I think at thct time thtv said thit 2
they had had sone of the QC inspectors in Tolson's office.
i 22 i
And Kelley got en the phone i
I'm not s u r t-23 when he got on the phone, another extensten, and listered i
I N
in on the conversation.
And the individual that called i
i 2f requested that NRC send a representative or somebod'. frem l
ydu=r 54.009 mge 1-7 NRC come to the safeguards buildine.
Q Okay, and the person that ca!!ed, did that 3
Person identify themselves?
s A
No, they didn't.
5 Q
Did they give ou anethine on the telephote e
to Rive you reason to believe that ther kns e v .1 t t hi -
7 were talking about.
I mean, did the-sav they were. an 8
employee of the plant or what?
How did you knew who
,ou o
were talking to?
to i
A We didn't know who ve were talkine to.
i i
11 Q
And when they called, did the: call to talk
,a to you, or did they just call to talk to who.ever ';appened 13 '
to answer the telephone?
Did they ask for ceu, do you 14 remember?
~5 A
So, they didn't.
I te '
Q Were you the one who answered the phone' 1
17 +
A Yes, I was.
'O Q
I see, okay.
t to A
To the best of my me cr.
1 y
0 Oka).
L'h a t did
.ou de t h e n,'
1 9i f
A After we hung up the phone fro-- talking to
,~
j i
the individual, Dennis Kelley called the Recion IV office, m
and from Dennis Kelley, I got the verd that we vert not 1
i
'a l I
to intervene, that we were to sta. cut of it at the present e'.
time.
l
31 010
.gc l - t, Q
Now would that be the standard proc, dure?
2; As a Resident Inspector, 11 you receive a ealI i rid a s.i t i n g 3
that there's some condition ~oa the plant site and that d
someone who purports to be an enployee is asking you to S
leek into it, would you normally call F"rion IV to determ.ine whsther to leek into it or not' A
It would depend on the circumstance..
But 8
most of the time, if I get phone calls, I ttv to c..
0" and Investig'te the problem.
I do have constant tor.rnnication a
4 with the Region at the same time, so, as I say, it would depend on the circumstances.
Q Why, in this instance, was the decision made
'3, to call Region IV before responding to the call' Id A
I don't know.
I O
It was n't your decision, then?
o A
Kelley and I together might have made ths 17 decision.
We were both in his office, and he called the IE '
Region.
Q And you were no on that phone call.
2' A
No, I wasn't.
Q When you heard the information trom the 20 person, what was your reaction to what you heard:
The i
23 l
anonymous caller, how did you react to that?
24 MR. BACHMANN:
I have to object te that 25 question.
- ie stated that he perhans discussed it with 1
i a
54 411 mgc l-9 t
Kelley, and Kelley called the Reelon.
I don't see what i
2l you
- n. c a n.
3 You mean physical reaction?
d MR. ROISMAN:
No, no, no.
What did he think 5
when he got the telephone call' t
BY MF..
R018 MAN:
I 7
Q Did you think that eou had received w., 3.
8; this a serious or a not serious thing that was beine l
J C
' alleged, or did you think that vou were gettine a r a *: i 10 call or maybe someone playing a joke or what did vou 1
s
'l t
think when you heard what the person on the other end of
\\
q 12 t the phone told you?
What was your mental reaction?
t 13 A
I thought it was a lecitimate call.
I
'd didn't have any basis for
.n t b e l i e v i r. g it, and :
a
'5 couldn't be sure of the facts that this individual was j
16 relating to us, but I thought it was legitimate.
I thoucht 17 that something was going on out there.
18 Q
In your judgment, if the things that this to individual recounted to you were going on, were t h e-22 serious things or so-so or p r e t t.- innocueus?
iie w wculd
+
21 j
you classify them?
22 A
Without having any mere knowledge about it, 1
23 '
I wouldn't even classify it.
I 24 l Q
At all?
25 :
A Without looking into it.
I wouldn't.
t I
1 L
l l
- ,... n f. '
..----J.
2ci 1=1O I wouldn't think that anv sitnation 1iks that, wi i r.
u're given information, should be r( s p o, d e -!
t.,
t h.. t 6
i s t 3
investigate it Q
And by i n v e s t i r a t e. vou w'uld mtan what' Ca J
s wh( re the event w.i' ru!" orts ll-t a 'e u
-14 6
tc : he ;i l a s t
and
<ct or yourst-1:'
A Not necessari1..
At that tine, what. et r s
r:. u c h attentten that it ie. '.
8 were dotar was getting so be covered up, se a rollow-up inr oei* ion or invert 1.
3O woul1 uncover any wrongdoings.
That was one tacught ;
aa.
O ii ; d v o t. have anv thoucht that i! this u happening in anv w a., like thev were describtne it, t,at j
j the NPC's cre nce at the point et the esent richt h.i v t I
f a acnt
- l..,
e t
t.
.. t t. t r Ji'*ust wh : otht rw i wi i
be an explosive situatten or give same confort a n d 's u :
r r:
'I to the work force or "show the flag " as the' sav, wl' respect to manacement.
Did anv o
those theuchts cr.>:
4 your mind?
A I Ji n't nake an.
cencluzian ef t i. a t t*
Q When you got the in: O r n.. t i o n fres :
'Is 2
that Region IV had said to stay out or it, did vou just
$1 acquiesce in that or did you call hath Recien IV and 22 try te get mere in: 3rmation -- why dic ou have te st 23 respond te that dir( t tive ro-j cut at it' How did cou 2#
R&
Region IV?
- ~
5
54,013 I
mgc l-11 A
Well. I was still in Kelley's office.
We 2
received another phone call from Bill ilu n n i c u t t.
That's 3
what I was told by Kelley.
And he reiterated to us that 4
we were not to intervene, that we were to stay out of it.
i 1
5 Q
So when Mr. K e l l e :. made the call to R e c i e r.
IV.
t he did not speak to the man who Oas your sapervisor at
?
Region'IV apparently.
He must have spokea to someone.
!st B
A I don't remember.
It could have been oc -! s.
C I think it was Doyle, but I'm not sure.
'O Q
So it's possible that Hunnicutt, even after
'5 that conversation, yet called ~ back a second time er had
'2 a second conversation to say, essFntially, as far as you 13,
recollect from what Mr. Kelley told you, to tell you the f
14 same thing.
'5 A
That's right.
'o ;
Q All right.
What else happened after that 17 with reference to the T-shirt incident that you can r e m e r.b e r ?
-l 18,
A When I went back I went back to my office 10 '
after that, and when I got back to my office, I received i
22 another phone call from another individual who stated the 2'
same thing, that some of the QC inspectors were 22 sequestered, and he didn't know where they were, and he 23 '
hadn't seen them sequestered, but that he requested that i
24 the NRC intervene a second time.
Ana I told h iin that wc 25 had been directed by Region IV management not to intervene I
l
~
8 :, n t :<
i l
1
.; m g c l-12 at this time.
i i
-t 4
Q And you say this was a different caller than 3
the first one?
)
d
'A I don't-know.
5 Q
Okay. I'm sorry.
I theught you had i n d i < a t 'e d l
0 that it was.
[
7 A
50.
9
.j Q
So vou don't know if it was the sane person 4
or a different person.
i to A
No, I don't.
I 1
1 Q
But the substance of what vou.wert tald fr 1
f
'2 1
the second call was essentially the same as tht substance-i
'3 j
of what you'd been told in the f.i r s t ?
'd q
A To the best of ev mcmorv, ves.
j
'5 Q
And how much time would you say transpired
'o between when the first call and the second call occurred?
17 A
Probably an hour.
Thirty minutes to an hour.
16,
I think maybe it might 'br beneficial for the state of the record to indicate 1
E' approximately what time the first call cant in.
I' MR. ROISMAS:
Okay, sure.
B Y
.'? R. ROISMAN:
23 Q
If you have a recollection of when you think 24 l you got the first call --
25 '
A It was probably between eleven and twelve I
i l
4 i
8 9
e
St. 01; 4
i mgc l-13 '
o' clock.
And I would say the second call w a.s between 1
l 2
twelve and one.
1 3
MR. ROISMAN:
O k a v_.
End I d
5 7
I l
4 10 i
1 t
l 4
11 4
i, 12 s
13,
1.1
- 5 16 !
17 I 4
s 18 '
6 1
19 20 l
1 4
l 24 25 1 i
(
.I i
l-3
~
bl 5, o j.,
BY liR. ROISMA: :
2 Q
After you received the sed end call.i n d ou 3
indicated what you had told me you indicated to this caller, d
what did the caller tell you?
I 5
A I don't remember if he told ne a n '. t t: 2:.
t know
.s n e of the c a '. l e r s said t h.i t I've et te cet c t :t 7
phone n o w. an d that r.ight have been h i.i.. but I don't recall 0
of a n :, response to what I told him.
O Q
Did the caller seer upset er distrau.nt. or I
was it your recollection that it was sort of a caln. just 10 ;
l' reporting piece of information te you?
?2 A
1 can't answer.
I don't know.
I didn't read 13 anything into his voice at the tine.
0 Was the caller in8istent en the *; R r bein:
15,
involved or did the caller more.y indicate that the: wanted ic j the SRC to know abeu* what was happenine" 17l A
To the best of mv recollection, the caller was-t is !
net calling for himself.
He said something like the people
'C being held o-secuestered -- I don't know what t(tr he use' --
22 would appreciatc. he t i c.u g n t, the NRC int (rvenint 2?
Q I want to go back acain, well, was there 22 any further conversation between cou and this caller, durine 23 the second call' i
j A
I don't recall any, nc.
24 i
25 Q
I, want you to tell me arain, l'n having some l
l j
j
]
$'.,017 f( 21b2 i
di'ficulty understandlnc when, under normal circumstan( e.v.
2 would you on your own volition cal 1 in Recion I"?
3
'Would you get
.s complaint f rom the plant sate?
What do your 4
job responsibilities tell you about that?
5 A
!'r not sure that that is clarified in nv e
job r e.s p o n s i b i l i t i e s.
7 Q
What is your perception of what veur 8
responsibilities are, when you eet a comp!aint from sencon:
4 l
on the site that something is happening ef a cencern to the to '
work force, that relates to thincs within the jurisdiction 11 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
What do you understand 12 your responsibilities are?
13 !
A I would have to deal with it on a case basis.
1 t
14 Q
What are the factors that you weich in.
in deciding how to deal with it?
What things
.l 0 you look for?
1 i
j.
f
'O A
I've really never sat down and tried to make 17 l a determination as to what I would respond to what
'I would i
4 18 call Region IV.
I don't know what factors would affect me.
i 10 Q
Would it be affected at all by the nacnitude 2:
of the safety implications --
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
of what was happenine?
23,
A Yes.
24 Q
And which way would that cut?
If we can, let's
+
I 25 1 just take a hypothetical.
If you got a call and it said i.
t i
~
U.015 F
1 someone is oown here sabetacine a piece o l' the reait.r.
1 2
am looking at it right now.
I want the NRL to ceme down and 4
3 do something. Would that be a "Let's call Recien IV'" er veuld i
ii that be a "Let's run over there and see it richt avav" kind 5
of thinc?
i.
t A
1 would respend te anythine liit t!at h.-it o!.
7 a fire or floodinc in the buildines or anythirr lisi th.t.
I 8
I would go directly to it and try te observe as r i.c h as :
S could.
'O Q
And what if you received a call that someent was doing something to physically injisie an c r.p l
.ce en the 4
'2 piant?
Weuld that fall inte the same catecor. as.: the.
I 13 ;
were trying to physicall. injure the plant' 14 (Pause.)
'5 A
No.
i 16 '
Q Why not?
'7 l A
I am not a policeman to protect the people 18 out there from physical injuries, just like l'c not a t
10 -
safety man to protect them from personal injury, when they're 22 cilmhing on stacine and things like that.
"v icb i-t.
rake 21 [
sure that they build the plant in accordance te the require-22 ments that are set' up by the Regulatory Commission.
23 -
So there are probably a lot of activities, in l
2d the personncl area, that I don't cet involved in.
25 ;
Q Would it affect your answer at all, that if I
l i
-t I
1 ic.')ba 34.419 the information that vou're receivine was t !'.i t the emplover 2
who was being injured was beinc injure! b '. s.teone to 3
prevent him from reporting safety problens?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
And then what weuld the s i t tia t i e r be, i: that t
piece of in:ermation were befo e yeu? Wou:e t ',i t N
- s o:
7 those incidences that you would respond to, as y o u w' u l d e'
respond to a report that someone was pnysica: iv datae n the O
plant?
10 A
I can't answer the question.
It would take i
l' conjecture on my part.
I think I would respo-J.
i 12 Q
In the conversations. the twe conversations I
13 ;
that you have already testified to that mornine, did the
'd caller communicate to you any sense ' hat the worker.4 were 15 beine i n t i :- i d a t e d or harassed, or in some wa.
beine le !
disadvantaged by management's conduct because of somethine 4
17 '
related to their job performance?
18 }
A I don't recall.
10 i Q
Do you think that it is the kind of a thine 2;
that night have happened, that eou wouldn't retsmber it, but 21 they might have mentioned that and you w o u i.. n ' t remember i
22 that?
23 A
There could be a lot of infor ation in those 24 !
phone calls that I don't remember.
4 25 :
Q No, but I'm wonderine whether this is the kind t
4
_._.m
- 4, 0.* n 4
of information -- 1 :n e a n there are certain k i n 4 s -.i t l. i n c.
i r
2 that someone could say in a phone call to vou that would stick 3
in your mind.
Would that be the kind of thine that won:d d
stick in your mind?
5 A
1 can't answer.
I don't know.
e Tell me what happentd atter the nd I
7 telephone call.
I take it, f r o n. what you've testa:1e. that i
8, the person told you essentially what you heard in the tirot 0
call a n'd you reported to them what.our directives were tror
'O Region I" and the phone call enaed.
Is that currect' A
That's richt.
'O Q
Then what did vou de after that, witn reference 13 f to the T-stairt incident. Did seu t
tell anybod" about the 1
id second call?
1 j
'5 A
Yes, I was in cantat t with Recion IV-ard Io,
did tell them that I had had another call.
17 i Q
Who did you contact?
i
'E '
A I talked to Dovle Hunnicutt.
'We talked a i
2C !
number of times that afternoon.
1 20 Q
And did he give ycu a n ', further d:,rectienn, 21 j after you reported the second call?
22 A
Ile said our position was still not 4
23 to intervene.
i 2d Q
Were you at all surprised at that?
That t i.a t 1
i 25,
was the position that you were gettine from Recion Ii?
l t
l 9
l i
. _ ~
5a,021 tc21b6 I
i A
1 don't remember.
?
Q What was your next connection with the 3,
1-shirt incident that day?
4 A
It was the following arternoon, when I i
1 5
received a call
<h, that dav' e
Q Yes, that da..
I 7
A I don't remember any further connections that 8i day.
l Q
Where was your o'fice, in refsrenet to the 9
i 10 l safeguards building?
Which office, yours or ': r. Kelley's t
i 11 office, is closest to that buildinc?
12 1 A
To that. buildine, it would p r o b a b ! '. be --
i 13 Kelley's office is maybe slightly closer.
The offices were La {
about the same distance apart.
We were located on either 15 side of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 buildines.
Sa physicall:,
le we are probably about the same distances.
I am a.little f
i 17 l closer to Unit 2,
probably, than he is.
And he is on the i
1 18l Unit I side, but he is outside the security fence area.
t 10 I Q
Would you describe Mr. Kelley for me?
Is he 20 ai. old man, a young man, a tall nan, a short
.a r fat man, 21 ;
thin man, bald headed, full haired, full head of hair?
t 22 A
! think he's 46 years old.
He is probably 23 i about 6-2 or 3 feet tall.
He's cat. crav hair.
He's got a l
24 beard, it's gray, soceplace between gray and dark hair.
He 25 is not fat.
He probably weichs 170-75 pounds.
i i
1 i
e
-s-y.ee-
- Y
5..n..'._____..
O Thank you.
Al1 : icht, now,
- e. u vere.eine 2
to tell me what your next connection was,
- i. e t me just 3
step bat i with you a second.
After this telephone tail that I
~
d you made to Doyle Hunnicutt.. to repert en your second phone 5
call fron someone at the site, did you have anc c on ve r - i t i..r s 1
i about t r.e
~-shirt incident with an.
etht r r.,.
n, t:
.t u..
in your o
'icial capacity' A
I had a conversation with the Reci n.
T Q
Other calls?
A So, Chet Oberc was working -.otner c.t!!s?
Q Yes, other ralls, after t h i e.
last t,.'
'?
when you called Hunnicutt and reperted en t'e second 3
telephone ca;1.
That's all I want te focus on.
It's after
'~
that time Did you have rurther connunicatien, either watt
'; r.
Kel'e-or with s o r e v -. e e '. s t ths site cr.- i t i,
-c ecne e
at P. e e l o n IV or elsewhere?
'7 A
Chet Oberg was working.
He is a Recien IV
'S reactor inspector.
He was workine out of our office, our 4
'C trailer onsite and so he and I had a conversation about it.
i 2:
He had r ec e ive d a phene cal;,
- ter, i rar s o.m is., e and 4
a 2'
v i s l't fron s o r.e b o d y.
Q l'm sorry, I need to cet his name again.
23 A
- Chet, C-H-E-T, Ober/,
0-3-E-P,-G,
(' b e r.t.
24 4
Q k'h e n did you learn cf him havint received the 25 call and the visit?
4 4
v--.--
,.,,-,--...r-------
-w.---
cg.-
,,-.-p.,,.
,.,,.e-
,a y-
.w.
55.n21 fe21b8 A
1 don't recall.
I don't reia: 1 if it was 2
after 1 received that call at my office, or whether it was 3
before.
I think it was after, but I'm not sure.
He mas 4
not have been at the office wher. I cot back.
I don't remember 5
MR. BACH:: ANN:
I think m a '. b e there fw confusion on the c; u e s t i o n.
You asked hir wh. n te 2.'u:.!
t 7
that Oberc had received the call?
8 PR. 1 01 5 M A': :
Yes, richt.
C MR. BACHMANN: I think he was answerine when to Oberg received the call.
I l'
THE WIT:ESS:
Oh, I don't know when he C
received the call.
i 13,
MR. ROISMAN:
That's richt.
I wanted to kmcw i
'4 when he learned from Oberc, if that had happened.
i MR. B A C H M A :.'..
All richt.
I b!
THE WITNESS:
I don't remember.
I was telline 17 i I don't remember exactl.y when he related it to me, but vou t
i 18 i he did relate it to me.
l 10 BY MR. R O I S M A N':
20 Q
And what he described to ceu of his nhont e21'7 2',
A Very similar --
22 Q
Very similar to what you had also heard?
i 23 A
Yes, and alse from the visit from an individual.
24 I don't know who the individual was.
75 Q
Where did Mr. Oberg tell you he had received I
54.024 i
1 he call and had the visit?
What was the physical place j
l 2'
where that happened?
I 3,
A In the NRC trailer.
i 4 l Q
In the trsiler where you ere working?
5 A
That's right, in my office.
o Q
What was your r e.a c t i o n w.en veu realined that 7.
now either or more persons had made at least three telephone
{
d i
8, calls and even risked a physical visit to the '; R C trailer I
to express their concern about this event?
Did that affect 9
10 i your thinking as to whether the right thing was being done l
11 by the NRC here?
I 12 A
I didn't draw a conclusion about that.
13 Q
Did you communicate what 31 r. Oberg had j
I 14 communicated to you back to Region IV?
i i$,
A Yes.
To the bcst of m:, rccellection. I don't i
16 i remember specifically all the conversations.
There were a j
i i
17 lot of calls back and forth between the region und us that i
la !
afternoon, or between myself and the region that afternoon.
19 Q
All right and at any time. in which you h r. d 20 conversations with the region, did you explore with them the j
f 21 l wisdom of their policy that the NRC should be staying out of j
i 22 i this event?
Did you question their judgment on that?
23,
A I may have asked if thev wanted me to co-interL
'i 24 l vene, or to look at what was going on, but I don't really l
1 25 recall making a n :, er questioning their wisdom -- 1 don't i
i e
Sa.025 fe21b!O remember the specifics of our conversations.
2 Q
1 understand.
3 This whole matter, would it have normally 4
fallen under your jurisdiction, or Mr. Xelley's jurisdiction.
5 or someone else, i: you all were coint to have cetten e
involved in it?
Was there some line e: authorit' t'..t we 7
could say that it was your business, or it was Kellev's 8
business, er it belonged to one of the other peeple on the
. G site?
1 i
10 A
The people involved were construction oriente
'l people but I don't draw a line like that.
I think an 12 j SRC inspector onsite should icok at anything that is reinc 13 on at the time.
'd Q
So that if it were somethinc that the
'5 resident inspectors were going to have looked i r. t o. wcu!d-th le !
normal thint to have been was that the first resident i
17 i inspector contacted would have followed through on it, unles 4
l 18 !
for some reason they didn't have the time to de it' Is that I
hou you all divide up your responsibilities?
19 20 A
That is hard to answer.
our responsibilitier are divided based on him being in operations and me in 21 !
22,
construction.
In a situation like this, my opinion would be:
23 that any SRC inspector that got infermation should respond t; s
24 l, it.
It is hard to divide a personnel situation up into 1
l 25 ;
construction or operations, although
.we do have clearly l
1 1
1 l
I
54,026 311 i
I 1
defined areas that we are'normally working in.
That doesn't t
2f keep me from writing up something in operations, if I see i
3 a deficiency.
I certainly will write it up and vice versa l
e for him and construction, although he may call me and let j
4 '
5 me follow it up, rather than him following it up.
o Q
Maybe you need to clarif. for me the 7
dist inction b etween construction and operations.
And I I
8 believe you also said that Mr. Smith was reactor.
9 l
.A He eorks for Kelley.
He's a resident inspector 10 that works for Kelley.
p 11 Q
What is the distinction then between l
12 '
construction and operations, as it is used to define Mr.
t 13l Kelley's responsibilities and your responsibilities?
I I
14 The construction inspector follows the buildin; i
15 of the plant up to the point that it c>e s into the 16 pre-operational testing. At that point, the operations i
17 inspector will start picking up on the systems when they are 18 turned over from construction to the operating group.
19 Then the operations inspectors start picking up.
They have t
20 procedures that they follow to witness operational t e s '. i n e f
?!
and to review the pre-operational testing and to review their, 22 l procedures and to also review the plant procedures.
i t
I 23 The distinction is that when the construction i
24 turns a system or a room over
- c operations, or to the 25 I people that are going to operate the plant, these cases took
(
s
.e-
54,027 fc21bl2 cooperation. And that's where Kelsey's responsibility, and 2
really the dividing point is pre-operational testine.
That 3
is the first phase that he gets into.
d '
Q I see. All right, now when that first dav 3
5
-- when the T-shirt incident first occurred -- was there anything that dav that you can meember, any ether inv.!vement 7
that you had after that information that you cet fron 8,
Oberg and your contactine the Region, as vou remember it, to 4
9 idvise them of what you had learned from Mr. Obere?
'O A
I don't recall anything else.
Q You indicated that there was sort of back a n c' i
forth during the day of contacts between the egion and vou
'3, and the other resident inspectors on 6e. site.
What was the
'd purpose of that?
What were you hearine, or what w( re zeu t5 cammunicating?
'o';
A There were canversations back and forth everv l
day.
17 i
'8 i
Q No, but as to this particular event?
10 A
I'm not saving that all the conversatiens 23 related to the T-shirt incident, but we -- there were 4
2',
conversations that did relay information, that I don't 2d remember any further information than the phone calls I got 23 relaying that back.
24 Q
Do you have any recollection of Reglen I"
25,
initiating a phone call to you anytime after, say, 12 c'c1cek i
I l
l
. _ _. ~-
34,02P it ;
where they wanted you to give them ter r e i n t' o r m a t i n n al
- u t 2
what was happening on the T-shirt incident?
4 i
3 A
1 don't recall.
I don't remember any such s
4 phone call.
I I
l 5i Q
Te the best of your retellectie". that is the e
only phone call that was initiated by Regio IV te (Lv site.
1 7
with.2;ard -- I mean, to you, or as well as you know. to any 6
ef your other resident inspector people, relevant to the T-shirt incident, the second communicatien to Mr.
Hunnis ett, l
10 when he called into Mr. Kelley's office while veu were there' 3
i ti Is that the only Region IV initiated ca!! t h.2 t ycu san 1
2 12 remember?
13 A
I can't answer for Kelley's side.
I don't
'e
- n e w.
'5 Q
Okay.
Ic A
But on my side, I don't recall.
I know I I
'7 i talked to the Recion a number of times.
I don't remember
}
16 who originated the calls.
i.
'c Q
When uas the next time that yea had an) 2C contact with ths T-shirt incident' 21 A
On the following day, about 4 o' clock.
22.
Eric Johnson called me and told me, go get the material that 22 the Licensee had taken from the individuals involved.
And 1 4
e 24 vent to Ron Tolson's office and we went bach in the vault and; i'
i 25 '
I picked up a box of material from them.
And there were --
I f
t t
54,0.'9 fc21bl4 we thumbed throuch it very quickly.
And anv oricinals in 2
there we tried to run copies of and I took the repfes, not 3
the originals, because the copies could have been t h er i r 4
working documents.
And I took the information, that box of 5
information, and a hex about two foot bv 16 inchen.
And 1 took it back to the trailer, the NRC ettice t -in s t r u s tien.
7 Q
how'cid you know that tnere was any docunents i
8' that the Applicants had seized?
9 A
1 don't remember.
10 Q
How did you know that they were in Mr. Tolson's 11 office?
12 A
Eric Johnson, I think, when he was talkine to 13 me, said that he had talked'to Chapman and I don't really 14 ~
know how I knew in r.
Tolson's office.
I may not even have
- 5 known they were in rolsan's office.
I just used that cs a 16 {
starting point.
I don't recall.
I can't answer that 17 j
question.
I don't know the answer.
18 Q
Who was Eric Johnson?
10 i A
Eric Johnson is a Branch Chief in the 20 Arlington Office, l'S N R C.
And at that time, he was the i
21 ;
immediate supervisor over Doyle Hunnicutt, se he was
- e. v l'
22 second step in command.
23 Q
When he told you to to and get the documents, i
I 24 I did he do that by phone or i n person?
i 25,
A By phone.
i l
l
~
4 5~
- _ - ~.
- 's ',, o m 4 -
- Q And wit e n you eet t h e-detuments
're, Mr. T o ! s.+ ti,
l
?
did he personally take you te where the documents
.c e r e --
i 2
it you would strike that, I'm sorrv.
4 Did you speak to Mr. Tolson?
5 A
Yes, I did.
i i
O What did he s.n y t.' you?
i A
1 think he tried to cal: Dave C h a ;' e a n,
1 B
don't recall, prior to turnint-the doc une n t.-
ver to rs C
Q Did he seem reluctant to civt t :en to
'C A
I don't remember.
i O
How lone after veu s:c t to.: 18
- iice did
..u i
physically get pessession of the documents?
l O
A Within 15 to 30 ninutes.
'4 Q
Dic you know why vou werg c o r i r. c to cet the documents?
4 te A
No, I didn't.
Q Did you even know what micht be centained in 4
j
'E the documents tha: you were coming to get?
14 A
No, I didn't.
Q Did ycu an Mr. Jchasen an.
t
-t cutstions?
i T
A No, I didn't.
22-s,'
24 1
e i
l 4
---- ----x
---.----.--_--.--_----,-----------.-a--a
a-
--a
FC/jl 3/1 I
BY MR. ROISMAS:
i 2
Q Was that normal, that you would be told to so for 3
something for Mr. Johnson and not know particularly what you d
were getting or why you were getting it?
Was that a.tandard 5
procedure in your relationship with him?
0 A
I can't answer that as beiae standara.
7 Q
Had it ever happencd before, that you can renenber?
6 A
I den't recall.
I don't recall ever coint and getting material like that before either.
10 Q
No, but in a sense, had you ever been asked by i
Il Mr. Johnson to essentially run an errand --
12 A
Yes.
Right.
~
33l Q
- ~where you were just acting at a messenger?
i A
I don't recall any specific incidents.
'I Q
So, I understand.
16f A
But if somebody calls me and wants something, I
! will 17 generally go do it.
i 18ll In this case, as far as going out and getting this W
type of -- a box of material.that's been confiscated or 2C collected by the Licensee, that's that i= not a nerral 21 i function that we serve out there.
22l Q
What were you directed to do with the material i
I 23l after you had seized it?
You know, what did Mr. Johnson tell 24 I'.
you to do with it?
25 A
I don't remember any specific instructions.
I
~l-- -
1 3/&
34,032 Q
Were you supposed to tell him after ycu got the 2
documents?
A 1 don't recall.
4 Q
What did you think you were going to do with the 5
documents after you got them?
A I can tell you what I did with them.
7 Q
Well, when you went to get them, did you have any 5
idea what you were going to do with them?
c A
No.
Oh, I knew I was going to lock them up in our
- o trailer.
That's what I did.
1 Q
You locked them up, but you did not look throuch 3;
them?
13,
A No, I didn't.
34 -
Q I mean, except to -- you've already testified, to 3
separate the original out.
ql A
Yes.
l Q
And how did you know, when you get the documents 37 from Mr. Tolson, that you had gotten all the documents that 3g had been seized?
39 A
1 didn't.
In fact, I think Tolson, at the time, told me that g
the personal documents of the individuals had been returned to 2a_
them.
And they had had the documents for a day and a half or
.J 3
I a day, some period of time, before I got them from them.
24 So, I can't answer that question,
,a5
54.033 FC;ji 3/3 J
i e
Q Did you make a n :- attempt to pin Mr. Tolson down
,i to make him make a representation to you that you either were 3
getting all the documents, other,than the personal ones, or d
that you weren't?
5 A
1 didn't.
^-
Q Did you consider it in any way to be a confrenta-7 tional situation between you and Mr. Tolson, you takine 8 ; sonething from him that he wanted to keep?
4 A
No.
10 Q
After you got the documents, was the tae x t thing that vau did to take and made the copies, to take then t
i 12 !
back and lock them up in the trailer?
'3 l A
Yes, it is.
l That was Friday afternoon, to the best of m.
ic recollection.
f Q
Did you advise Mr. Johnson that they -- that you
'O i
I7 i now had the documents and that thev were in vour trailer?
18 '
A 1 don't recall.
19 !
Q All right.
What was your next involvement with 20 the T-shirt incident?
Or now we will ade the documents to 21 I our list of things -- either with the docunents or with the
,, i incident itself?
4 23 j
A The following Monday the. Licensee came and told me f
fthat "4
they wanted the documents back.
Mark Welch'and
,d3 j Dan Hicks gave me a call, and I let them have the box of f
i i
.-w m
m
_=_
54,034 3/4
- - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - -
documents back.
And in the meantime, I cal:ed the kee.un.
And as soon as I got in touch with the Recion, they saIJ, 3
" Don't let them have them back."
So, I went and got them 4
back from them.
They had them for approximately 15 to 30 minutes.
And when I went to cet them hats, they werv locked
~~
up in Dan Hicks' office.
7 Q
Why, in that instance, did you decide to give them a
the documents and then call the Region, i n s t.f a d of calling the o
Recion first'
.c A
I tried to call the Region first, and I couldn't it get anybody.
So then, a f ew minutes later, I did make contaet with the Region.
Q But why did you decide to give them the documents until vou had talked to the Recion?
s A
1 don't know.
Q Did you feel that if you had tela them they
'7 couldn't have them, that they could, somehow or ancther,
'a
~
compel you to give them to them?
IC A
'; o.
Q And you have ne recollection of w-you wcule have given them back the documents, even though you sensed that you
^
should talk to the Region first, before you actuall:' talked
~-
to the Region?
A That's true.
Q Did you ask the Applicant why they wanted them
^
54 035 FCjl 3/5 0
l back?
2!
A To the best of my recollection, they stated that 3
they needed them back to see if there were any areas, d
j anything in the documents that they needed to pursue or to 5
take any actions.
e Q
Did you make an index of the documents before 7
you gave them Mck to them?
8 A
No, I didn't.
9 Q
Do you have any basis for knowing that the to documents that you got. back from them some 15 or 20 minutes 11 later were all the documents that you had seized from them 12 the preceding Friday?
13 A
No, I don't.
14 Q
Did you propose to the Applicants that they
- 5 examine the documents in your trailer if they wanted to see a
if there was anything relevant in there for them?
37 A
No, I didn't.
ig Q
When you got the instruction from the Region that 39 you should get the documents back, what did you do to 20.!
accomplish that?
i A
I went to Dan Hicks' office, and his office was 21 locked.
So, I went and got him out of a meeting in the area g
cf John Merritt's office.
And we went back, and he unlocked his office, and he gave me the box of documents.
g Q
Was Dan Hicks the one who actually picked them l
1 L
1 i
54,036 3/6 up from you?
A Mark Welch picked them up from me.
3 Q
When you went to get them and discovered that they d
were locked up in Mr. Hicks' office, did it trouble you that f
they were not apparently being immediately reviewed by the Applicant to find any problems that the documento nient disclose?
E A
Trouble me?
C Q
Yes.
You told me, just a m o'm e n t ago, that the 10,
Applicant had told you that they wanted to see the documents 11 so that they could determine whether there was any 3roblems i
that they needed to address.
But you decided to give it to 13 them, even though you didn't yet have a clearance from h
i 14 Region IV to do so.
And then, when ecu went to get them back, to_
y found that they were locked up in a room, as opposed to being n
actively reviewed by a group of people looking for the isl problem.
in l Did that give you any pause or make you wonder about what was happening?
3
,3 3
A No.
4 Q
When you went to Mr. Hicks and told him that you
,a wanted them oack, did he have any reaction, one way or the y
I 7, l other, to your request to get them back?
I A
No.
y i
p m
~
FCjl 3/7 I
Q Did he ask you why?
2' A
I don't recall.
3; Q
Did you know why? Other than Region IV had told i
4 you to get them back, did you know why you chould have them 5
back?
e (Pause.)
7 A
No, I didn't.
8l Q
Did you ask Region IV why they wanted you to get 9
them back?
M)
A I don't recall.
ii Q
Do you recall why you thought you should contact 12 Region IV before you gave them up?
13 A
They are the ones that told me to get them.
34 Q
What did you do with the documents after you got them back from Mr. Hicks?
'S.
I g
A I took them back and locked them up in our trailer 37 again.
They stayed locked up in a supply cabinet in our trailer.
3g 3,
Q Did you report back to Region IV that you had gl gotten the documents back?
A Yes.
g Q
Did they ask you whether you had gotten all of 22 '
the documents back?
y-
\\
A 1 don't recall.
24
\\
Q Did they give you any further instructions at that l
R l3/Y
'9 time as to what to do, either about the docunents or the I
T-shirt incident?
A I don't recall any.
MR. BACHMANN:
I think just to clear up a little 5
bit on the record. Tony, I get the impression sometimes when Mr. Cunnins savs, "I
don't reca!! " he can mean c i t '; e r "I
don't remember" or "no, to the sest of what I can remember."
E MR. ROISMAS:
Mr. Cummins, if that is happenine.
if there is some ambiguity that is developine, it is
'C certainly all right, if you wish to do that, to tell me, in it i answer to the question, "I
believe the answer is no, but I'm not 100 percent certain," versus "I
have no recollection at 13 '
all.
I have no way of telling you whether I think the answer I
u to your question is yes or no."
5 Okay' jel Will that be easier, for you to give me an answer i
- 7 j on some of these questions, to use both of tFose ways of 18 !
answering them where appropriate?
n; l THE WITNESS:
That is, when I say I don't recall, i
it does mean that something could have happence.
I just don't remember it.
21
,7 -
MR. ROISMAN:
Okay.
That's right.
But it doesn't mean, when vou say, "I
don't r e c a l l,"
73 that --
se 1
THE WITNESS:
It didn't happen.
73 i
f
54 0
1_3 r FCjl 3/]
"I'm pretty sure it's no, but 1 I
MR. RolSMAN:
2 can't say for certain."
It means you really don't have a 3
recollection at this moment whether it's yes or no?
THE WITNESS:
That's right.
d i
5 MR. ROISMAN:
Okay.
All right.
THE WITNCSS:
That's what I mean to convey.
7 MR. ROISMAN:
The only thing that's acceptable is i
BI that you tell me what you know truthfully.
And other than y
that, I just want to make sure -- and I think all your couns 10 wanted to do is make sure that we weren't building in here that we wouldn't understa 11 some confusion that we wouldn't
'2l what you were trying to say.
1 think we do now understand what yor mean when y 13 la i
- say, "I
can't recall" or "I can't recollect."
THE WITNESS:
Things could have happened that I 15 l ie just don't remember right now.
MR. ROISMAN:
Okay.
That's fine.
17 BY MR. ROISMAN:
18 Q
After you got back to your office and had locked pp 20 up the documents the second time -- and I may have asked yo did you thcn communicate with the this, but bear with me 21 22 l Region that you had the documents back?
A Yes, I'm sure that I did, 23 i Q
Did they give you any further instructions with i
24 regard to what you should do wi'.h those documents at that 25 i
__54,.040___._
3/10 time' A
No.
I don't recall any further instructions.
I 3
don't remember any specific instructions about those d
documents or for me to take any actions with those documents.
5 If there was any there, I don't remember.
e Q
And did you get any instructions or directions 7
with regard to what to do about the T-shirt incident in E
general at that point?
i.
No.
M:
We're talking about the next -- the Monda:. --
11 Q
We're talking now about the Monday following the 32 T-shirt incident, that's correct.
i3 i A
No.
t I
i4 '
Q And did you, on your own, take any steps to do r
,5 anything about the T-shirt incident?
13,-
A No, I didn't.
17 Q
Did you believe, as of that Monday, that you were
- gl still under the directive from Region IV not to do anything i
with it except as specifically directed by them?
,e I
A Yes.
Q Should -- if someone had come to you, as someone g
apparently did to Mr. Oberg, on Monday -- they came to him on
,4 Thursday, if they had come to you, like that, but it was on
,_.a Monday, and said, "I
really want you to look into this thing,"
,4 l
4 l
25i l
I i.
i l
l t
FCjl 3/11 54 041-t your reaction would have been.
"I-have to go to Region IV and 2
get the okay to do that"?
3 A
lt would depend on the circumstances.
4 Q
Well, the only circumstance that I'm positing now is that someone simply.comes to you and says, "I want you, as e
the resident inspector, to look into the event that happened 7
last Thursday that is called the 'T-shirt incident.'" That is e
all you've got.
o Was your understanding of your directions from to ;
Region IV, at that time, that you would not take any action 1
11 ;
on that request until you had talked to Region IV?
12 A
That was not clearly defined -- " Don't do anything, 13 until you talk to us, about the T-sbirt incident" -- that -w a s 14 never made clear.
13,
We were just told, on that first day, not to se intervene.
37 Q
So, your perception of your responsibilities were that you, in your j udgment, subsequent to that first day, ig j
39 you thought you should intervene, that you had your normal
[
7g authority to do so, without the necessity of having to talk t
Region IV?
21 A
Yes.
22,
l 1 never g t the perception that I had to talk to 23 l Region IV except on that first day, when they told us not end 3 to intervene in the ongoing activities at that-moment.
g I
~~
i
'.., o s.,
t I
nge 4-1 BY MR. ROISMAN:
Q And what was the next connettion thar v 4. u 3
had, after having gotten the documents from Mr. Hicks d
and ca11ing Region I '/, with either the documents or the I-shirt incident after tha M e n d.i3 '
a A
M, involvement ja it' 2
Q Yes.
i 6
A 1 don't reca)) any
- d. rect invelvsntat t:
)
I had oh, I'm sorry -- yes, I did.
4 1
'O The next direct involvement I had was a s
few weeks later.
Dcyle Hunnicutt and I interviewed tbrcs
'U of the QC inspectors.
And I don't remember what the date l'
was.
It was a p p r o;:i m a t e l y three weeks after that, in
'd April probably.
Q And in that intervenine period. rou;:nir u-three weeks, you had no.further invo!vcment with ths
'7 T-shirt incident.
I6 A
No.
Q k'h a t about the documents?
kere
.t h e -
20 still locked up?
71 A
The documents were in the trailer, and
,e Q
Go ahe_d.
23 A
The documents were cepied by Dcy!(
24 Hunnicutt and copies distributed of the documents ta 4(
different people, but Doyle Hunnicutt did that.
I didn't l
l
=
-