ML20202J032

Partially Deleted Transcript of 950315 Investigative Interview of J Morrison.Supporting Documents Encl

ML20202J032
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/15/1995
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20202H986	List: ML20202H980 ML20202J013 ML20202J032 ML20202J040
References
FOIA-97-325 NUDOCS 9712110026
Download: ML20202J032 (24)

Text

,_ . _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _______ _ _ _- _ - ___ - _ - - _---

oF 1

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

~

.+++++

4 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS

-5 INTERVIEW 6 -------~~----------------------x 7 IN THE MATTER OF .  :

8' INTERVIEW OF  : Docket No.

-9 JOHN MORRISON  : (not assigned) 10 32 , _______________________________x 12 Wednesday, March 15, 1995 13 14 Second floor Conference Room 15 ,

Administration Building 16 Pubile Service Gas & Ei~.tric Co.

17 Nuclear Business Unit 18 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 1 -19

-20 The above-entitled interview was conducted at f 21 5:25 p.m.

j 22 BEFORE:

g ca 23 KEITH LOGAN Investigator MN 24' BRIAN.McDERMOTT- Engineer _ .

_ h W v p x;m,p,,p gy .

j!  ? c:257 c:n (Me.cm oNn?Nmation 4 w -i sSC \

fhYhl  ?.# NEAL; R. GROSS

/ OF23PAGE CASENO :1-96-013 L ' = ****a* ==ca**as PAGE 1823 RKODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W OE 3' '

. - - _ ' _A) ff

'f f$ /* }{ $& -

I

.O 2 l 1 APPEARANCES:

2 On behalf of JOHN MORRISON:

3 MARK J. WETTEkHAHN, ESQUIRE 4 .MARCIA R. G5ELMAN , ESQUIRE 5 Winston and Strawn 6 1400 L Street, N.W.,

7- Washington, D.C. 20005-3502 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

! NEAL R. GROSS .

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE, N W (202) FM4433 W ASHINGTON. O C .M .

(202) 2MMM

. l 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 (5:25 p.m.)

3 *MR. LOGAN: Would you swear the witness?

4 Whereupon, 5 JOHN MORRISON 6 having been first duly sworn, was called as a wite :.o 7 herein and was examined and testified as follows:

8 HR. LOGAN: Thank you. Mr. Morrison, if you 9 would state your full name for the record, spelling your 10 last name?

11 THE WITNESS: John Wayne Morrison, 12 M-O-R-R-I-S-O-N.

13 MR. LOGAN: My name is Keith Logan. I'm an i

14 investigator with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 15 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

16 With me today is Mr. McDermott.

17 MR. McDERMOTT: Good evening. My name is 18 Brian McDermott. I'm an inspector with the NRC's Division 19 of Reactor Safety in King of Prussia.

20 MR. LOGAN: Mr. Morrison, you are appearing 21 today with counsel, is that correct?

~

22 THE WITNESS: That's correct.

23 MR. LOGAN: Mr. Wetterhahn?

24 MR. WETTERHAHN: Also good evening. My name 25 is Mark Wetterhahn. I'm with the law firm of Winston &

i NEAL R. GROSS COURT MEPORTERS AND TRANSCRl6E AS

, 1323 MH00E ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

(202j 234433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 . (202i2M*33

4 l l

. 1 Strewn. Our cddross is olroedy on tho previous rocord of 2 Mr. Morrison's interview.

3 With me today is Marcia Gelman, also of our  ;

4 firm. We are appearing on behalf of Mr. Morrison, as he 5 is aware, and we've previously put on the record we also 6 represent others being interviewed in this investigation ,

7 and also represent Public Service Electric & Gas Company.

-8 MR. LOGAN: Thank you.

9 Mr. Morrison, is it still your desire to have 10 Mr. Wetterhahn as counsel?

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

12 MR. LOGAN: Thank you.

13 EXAMIN7f!ON 14 BY MR. LOGAN:

15 0 I'd like you to start off, since our last 16 interview, you now hold a new position with PSEGG7 ,

17 A Yes, I do.

18 Q What is your current position?

19 A My current position is Manager of Corrective 20 Action and Quality Assurance Programs.

21 O And who do you report to?

22 A I report to Jeff Benjamin.

23- Q You also indicated that since our last meeting l

24 on February 15th, 1995, that there is some additional 25 information that you would like to provide for the record?

.I NEAL R. GROSS COURT MEPORTER$ AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENVE, N W.

(M) 234M33 WASHINGTON D C 20005 . (202) 2344433 l

. . - . , . . - -- _ , . - _ -_---_.-_,__.m.. - ...._,_.

5 1 A Yes.

2 Q Please go ahead.

3 A As a result of our last -- or during our last' 4 interview, there were a couple of items that you asked me 5 to retrieve from my files. I have gathered them up and 6 they're in one of the Lo.ses. I've moved to my new office 7 and I'll be locating them and getting them to Mr.

8 Wetterhahn.

9 During a review of the files, I uncovered a 10 couple items which prompted my memory from some questions 11 we had discussed the last ti.ne.

12 The first is, we discussed a memo from Joe 13 Hagan, then plant manager, to the managers, directing them 14 to perform review of their personnel. During the 15 interview, indicated that I did not recall the memo from 16 Mr. Hagan, but that I understood through conversation what 17 was expected as a manager. While reviewing my files, I 18 found my copy of the memo from Joe Hagan and I wanted to 19 make you aware of that.

20 Additionally, during the previous interview, I 21 was asked if, upon assuming my new role as technical 22 manager, I had done a review of the performance of all the 23 people in the department. And at the time, I had not 24 recalled doing so in the formal fashion.

25 Again, while going through my records, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AWNVE, N W

(?O2)2344433 WASHrNGTON D C. 20005 (202) 23444',3

6 1 uncovered documents, records that I had kept of a review 2 of performance of the personnel in order to review and 3 revise the compensation plan for the department fcr 1994.

4 When I assumed -- basically the compensation 5 plan allows for the manager to have a last check on the 6 proposed merit level ral'ses for individuals approximately 7 two weeks before those raises come into effect. I came 8 into the Technical Department in early February and in 9 reviewing the list for the March pay raises, I found -- ,

10 what I saw in the plan I was not comfortable with and I 11 wanted to review it with direct reports.

12 I then conducted a meeting with my direct 13 reports where I discussed my philosophy on the 14 compensation plan and we conducted a review of personnel 15 performance in order to rank people and put th'm e in the 16 overall categories for the compensation plan.

17 And I found the records from that meeting and 18- so I wanted to indicate that shortly after assuming the 19 position, I did, in fact, conduct that review of 20 performance. It was kind of in a different flavor than ,

21. what I was thinking at the time-of the initial interview, 22 and I wanted'to update my statement on that. ,

23 Q Do you have those records available?

l- 24 A Yes, I do. .It's in the form of a flip chart, i

25- which we used durir.g the meeting with the direct reports. ,

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRitERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

j_ (202) 2MM33 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 ' (202) 2MM13

. /

1 Q Does Mr. Lashkari's name appear on ,any of 2 those documents?

'3 A Yes. Mr. Lashkari is on that document.

~

4 -Q Perhaps when we're done, if you could retrieve 5' that document, perhaps we could discuss it.

6 A I do not have it with me today. b')ina 7 box. I can make a copy available. I can descr&be where 8 he falls on it, but I believe my copy of it is._at home.

9 I'm in the process of moving offices and --

10 0 Perhaps then you can just explain for u: a t.

11 the time where he fell on that chart?

12 A He fell -- Mr. I,ashkari was -- my recollection 13 is he was in the 14 4 15 16 ql 17 y )Ibelievetheinitial 18 discussions with the direct reports and John Wiedemann, 19 his supervisor was there, was that he overall needed 20 improvement. After some discussion, we kind of oscillated

_3 ., ,,.,.m 21 back and forth 22 and I was kind of keeping

{l 23 notes on the flip chart.

24 Anyway, he was rated there with respect to 25 experience in years.

NEAL R GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLudD AVENUE. N W 2202) N (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005

{

8 1

1 There were some p,epple who s

J .

2 were new in the department and therefore their performance 3 was also in the needs improvement category. ,

41 5 <

6 $?s, 7

8 9 I The reason being I wanted 10 our compensation plan -- as a manager, I'm allowed an 11 overall pay raise -- an overall avetage pay raise for the 12 department and my philosophy is to give more money to the 13 better performers and escalate them up through the pay 14 scale quicker. h 15 In ort.er to do that, given an overall average 16 raise, someonehastogetlessthantheaverage.f@

18 il 19 20 21 l l .

22 Q When was this?

23 A This was rld-February. Charlie's pay raise 24 came due in March, so I had to make those decisions in the 25 mid-February time frame. This sheet is not dated, but --

NEAL R. GROSS ,

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLANo AVENUE, N W r207,ru e n mm ruen wAssitoTou, o c. rocos g g

9

[

2 Q Hid-February 19947 2 A Mid-February 1994. Typically around the 15th, rh

/

3 18th of the month, we have to lock any changes la that are 4 going to be effective in March'and in fact, Charlie's 5 raise was effective in March.

6 Q When was the first time you became aw'are of 7 the fact that you might have to lose some staff due to 8 personnel reduction? .

9 A We didn't do a personnel reduction.

10 Q You did in July, didn't you?

11 A No, that was not a reduction in personnel.

12 That was --

13 Q You terminated 60 people as a utility.

~

14 A I had the same authorized nunoer after the 15 July terminations that I did before. My department did 16 not lose staff.

17 Q You're using personnel reduction in terms of l 18 an authorized ceiling or authorized strength?

l 19 A You used the phrase " personnel reduction."

20 Q Right. I would interpret it to mean 21 authorized ceiling?

22 A Oh, yes. I was not charged with reducing --

l 23 when you use the phrase, " personnel reduction," it was to i 24 downsize. The Technical Department did not downsize.

25 Q When was the'first time you were asked to NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 R'HOOE ISLAND AVfNUE. N W. f)

~ ~w wn~wan o c n Ch. m2, euass

- . _ . _ - ,. - .- .. ~- -. . - _ . . .-

10

. 1- torminate'or to-idantify-psoplo for termination?

2- A Hy understanding that was in the June time 3 frame.

4 Q Okay. That's what I was'getting at.

5- A- All right.

6- Q Did you happen to review Mr. Lashkari's 7 performance for the prior-year, the year before you'came _

8! in? Not the year that he was rated, in fact. Did you go 9 back and look at his records to see if this was an anomaly 10 or this was something --

11 No, I did not.

12- Q. Okay. The next thing we'd like to talk about 13 then, with that on the record, is we-would like to again 14 talk abouw the POPS issue that came up briefly in our last 15 meeting. I'd like to ge.t perhaps a little more detail, if 16 we can. ,

17 I'd like.to start off with two memoranda, and 18 I'll show you one and I realize that perhaps you've seen 19 it before'recently, but what I would like to know is if

20. you've seen this January:30, 1994 memo from Mr. Lashkari 21 to.the Technical Department Manager, and if you were the 22- Technical. Department. Manager on January 30t.h, 1994. That's 23 my first.. question.

l-1: 24 A I was not the Technical Department Manager on 25- January.30th,-1994.

-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. -

Q02) 23m33 WASHINGTON. D C N00$ (202) 23m33

11 1 O When did you become the Technical Department 2 Hanager?

3 A January 31st of 1994. January 30th was a 4 Sunday. January 31st was my first day. My first day 5 actually in the office was Tuesday or Wednesday of the 6 subsequent week, around February 7th or 8th.

7 Q So leaving the possibility that it was left 8 laying around for the new manager, did you see that?

9 A I do not recall seeing this memo.

10 Q Until recently?

11 A Until recently.

12 O Is it safe to say that all of 1994, you never 13 saw this memo?

14 A I do not recall seeing this memo during 1994, 15 correct.

16 Q Okay. The next question would be the memo 37 from Mr. Lashkari to you, John Horrison, Manager of 18 Salem's Technical Department, dated April 22nd, 1994.

19 A Right.

20 0 Do you recall seeing that memo?

21 A Until recently, I do not recall seeing this 22 memo. Mark shared it with me earlier today. We talked 23 about it. I do not recall this memo.

24 MR. WETTERHAHN: Let me ask a question. Do 25 you recall receiving directly any other memoranda from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W

(?O2) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234

• 33

13 1 Charlie Lashkari to you?

2 THE WITNESS: I don't recall getting any other 3 memos from Charlie directly to me. ,

4 MR. WETTERHAHN: Is it unusual for somebody at 5 the working level to write a technical memorandum directly 6 to you, the manager, without ec's to anyone else? In your 7 experience as technical manager?

8 THE WITNESS: 1 have received memos directly 9 from systems engineers. It's not unusual. The ones I can 10 recall were when I requested a briefing on a topic and e.he 11 engineer would respond with a memo, briefing me on the 12 subject.

13 MR. WETTERHAHN: But unsolicited memoranda, a-14 would that Le unusual?

15 THE' WITNESS: Unusual in that I don't recall 16 receiving many, Not --

17 BY MR. LOGAN:

18 Q Many or any?

19 A I recall receiving some. I don't recall if 20 they were all unsolicited.

21 Q At least one was? So there has been some time 22 when- you received at least otso unsolicited memo?

23 A If asked what it was, I'd have trouble 24 describing specifically.what it was.

25 .Q I'm not going to ask you, but what you're-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W 1202) 234 4433 WASHINGTE. D C 20005 (202) 23L4433

. . . - . -- - - . - _ . .~ .- - . . . . . . -. - . - . . ~ _ . - . . .-

. 13 li ~1eading me to believe is --

'2' A It would not be unreasonable for me to receive 3 an. unsolicited _ memo. I think that's the best description.

~

4 .Q Okay. When was-the'first time you were aware SL of the POPS issue?

6- A My recollection of POPS -- I recall two issues 7 associated with POPS during 1994.

The first recollection I have is a discussion i

8 9- with the. outage manager and plant manager during a walk 10 around the plant, about the fact that our present sizing 11 - of the POPS valves and the tech specs would-require us, in 12 some cases, during outages to remove pressurizer safety valves in order to have adequate over-pressure protection, 13 14 because of the sizing of the valves.

15 And there was a perception that it may be that 16- with further analysis we can -- we can show that the POPS 17 v'alves themselves-provide adequate relieving capability

. 18 nd then would not be burdened with physically removing 19- other valves to provide that.

' 20 It was in the context of, during these 21 outages, here's a step we have to do. Can we -- is this

.-- H22 something we can pursue doing through Engineering and

~

2 3 - through tech spec change to ptbvide for more efficient 24 outages? It was-a conceptual type _of discussion. 'And I

. 25 recall having that. That's one.

4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRtGERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) N33 ' WASHINGTON, D.C 20005 (202) 2344433

-g4 1 Later in the year, and my recollection of the _

2 issue with respect to -- no, it wasn't later in the year.

3 It was in the spring time frame. There was a discussion 4 about.the potential -- and,this was as a result of the 5 April 7th event, and during our investigations and 6 discussions with the AIT Team and Internal, that in 7- certain conditions we could, with the positive 8 displacement pump and charging pump, combine capacities, 9 potential to exceed pressures in low temperature 'and I 10 recall discussing that in the spring, during -- I think 11 while the AIT was here, during all of,our discussions 12 associated with that.

13 We had received a letter from Westinghouse and 14 I don't recall all of the details but there was-15 discussion, as I recall, while we were recovering from 16 April 7th.

17- And then I recall, la the fall, my most clear 18 recollection was in-the fall we addressed it again, in the 19 fall or possibly early this year, with some changes to 20 basis in tech spec and some operations procedures, while 21- going for code case approval.

22 And that's -- my clearest recollections are

-23 discussions recently on it.

24 BY MR McDERMOTT:

25- Q The discussions you recall about the effects NEAL R. GROSS .

CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR68ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (2CD 2304433 W ASHINGTON. D C. 20005 . (202) 234 4433

-. ~. . __ _ _ - - - _ - -

15  ;

1. of the positive displacement pump. continuing to run, what 2 time. frame did you say this was in?-

3 A I belleve it was in response to.the April 7th 4- event, during the -- we were analyzing, we had gone solid 5 during the April 7th event and we were analyzing the 6 piping, analyzing procedure changes that might have been 7 needed, as a result of the accident, or lessons learned 8 fr-.m the accident, from th,e event of April 7th, 9 And I recall discussing some of those concerns 10 and again, I believe it was during our analysis and 11 response and discussions, as a result of the April 7th 12 event.

13 Q Were you present at a meeting on April 20th in 14 Frank Thomson's office regarding the POPS issue?

15 A I don't recall being in a meeting in Frank 16 Thomson's office.

17 Q Do you recall a meeting about that time on the 18 POPS issue?

19 A A meeti'ng with Frank Thomson? I don't recall 20 personally being involved in a meeting with Frank Thomson 21 on the. POPS issue, at least not over here in his office.

22 Or anywhere, as a matter of fact.

23 Q. Okay. Do you recall at any time Mr. Lashkari 24 discussing with you the fact that he-felt that Mr. Berrick 25 and Mr. Ranal'li had instructed him not to report a NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPostTERS AND TRANSCRISERS

. 1323 RH00E ISLAND AVENUE. N W_

(202) 234M33 ~ _

WASHINGTON. D C_20005 (202) 23u433

.- . - - - . . . . ~ . .- . .. - . . .

16

+

1 deficiency?

2 A I don't recall a direct conversation or I 3 don't recall a conversation with Charlie Lashkari on this 4 issue.

5 MR. McDERMOTT: Okay.

I 6 BY MR. LOGAN:

7 0 I was wondering about the Allegation Tracking 8 System, or the --

9 A Action Tracking System.

10 0 -- Action-Tracking System. We at the N3C have 11 an Allegation Tracking System.

12 A Okay. ,

13 Q And this isn't the first time today I've used 14'- the wrong word.

15 What is the purpose of the ATS?

16 A The purpose of the Action Tracking System is.

17 to track open items. It's a tool, an' administrative tool 18 used to insure that if we said we're going to do 19 something, that we track it in the system and bring it to 20 closure.

. 21 .Q Was POPS in the ATS?

22 To make it -- do you recall any issues that 23 r91ated to the Westinghouse letter that were in the ATS 24 that would have related to your group ss the technical 25 manager?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TFMNSCRtBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W, (202)2 M WASHING TON. D C 20005 0202) 2344433

. - . _ - . . - . _ _ ~ . _ _ _ _ __ _-___ . _ _ .. _ .. .._ _

-. t 17 1- .A-  :-I?know that there were incident reports 2" associated with-PRI and 2 that werelin the system. We used.

3 .- the ATS system to track incident reports through -

4' evaluation.

5~- Other than that, I don't recall specifically -

6, - I donft recall a specific item on POPS. There are other

'7 things other than incident reports _which go into-the 8 system, but I don't recail, t

[ 9 Q If an engineer-under you, as the Technical

, 10 Department Manager, had come across a potential safety 11- issue'in reviewing an ATS item, what would your j 12 expectation be that they do with that?

13- =A My expectation would be that they would report

• 14 it to their supervisor and initiate appropriate action,

~

15 depending upon the-status. If it was a safety issue that

16. had already been reported in terms of an incident report, 17- so that it was already on report with the shift

, 18 supervisor, had already been reviewed for reportability --

. - 19: Q- Say, for example, this was a fresh is,.ae.

This was the first time somebody was looking at it.- It 2 '0 _

21' came into the site --

~ 22' 1A If there's-an issue that has not already been

. ~

- 23 reported to the shift and it's been reviewed for 24 reportability-to the NRC, if they-were in the task of t-

- 25_ either doing-their duties regularly or doing an ATS item, NEAL R. GROSS -

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCHSERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.

OC2) 2M4433 watwwntnN n e ennne . - N Md A SM

, , - , - - ;-,r., , . . --

n-.,. . , - . . . , ~ - . . , - . . -,

.. iga

" 1 if there was a safety issue, I would expect that they 2 would discuss it with their_ supervisor and the shift 3 supervisor, if-it was an immediate operability issue, and 4- initiate an-incident report if appropriate.

5 0 What if it perhaps did not'have immediate --

6 it was not obvious that it was an immediate operability

-7 question?

8 A There are presently a couple different systems 9 that items get resolved under. An incident report is one 10- of them. If it has immediate operations impact, if~it's 11 an event that requires escalated management attention, we 12 can process it through the incident report process.

13 If it is an engineering question, if it's a 14 concern about design that upon initial review is not seen 15 to be an immediate operability issue or a major issue 16 requiring rapid escalation through the management chain, 17 it could go into the DEF process, the Design Engineering -

18 - I don't know what DEF stands for, but there is a process 19 by which we would enter something into an engineering 20 review process. It gets an initial review - 'I believe 21 there are- actually two separate reviews for operability-22: and urgency, and_then it gets prioritized and reviewed in 23 the engineering.

24 During that, review, if it becomes an immediate 25 operability issue, it then kicks back to an-incident NEAL R. GROSS CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 23m33 w ASMmGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 2W33

.- .. . . - . . - - - _ - . . . - . . - . . = . . .. .. . - . -.,

• 19

.. lI rGport. Engincoring notifios~oither-the shift directly or

-2 comes'back through the systems engineer and says, hey,

-3 we've been prbcessing this DEF. It looks like this is --

~

-4 we've done a little bit more research and it looks like it 5 is an immediate. issue, at that point it goes out of the.

6 DEF process and we would initiate an incident report. And 7- that is either through the system engineer or directly to

-8 the-shift.

9 So how it would be handled depends upon the

-10 urgency of the issue, tne impact and whether, in the 11 , judgment of the people involved, it is an immediate 12 operability issue that we need to take directly to the 13 supervisor, and escalate through management.

14 Q What type of approvals are required for say a 15 line engineer to submit either an incident report or a 16 DEF?

17 A I don't recall the DEF specifically, but an 18' incident report, an individual initiates it and takes it 19 to his supervisor or manager. That's my recollection of 20 the procedures.

21 Q- Takes _it to the supervisor?

22 A ' Supervisor or manager..

-23 Q okay.

24- A And then it goes to the shift.

25 Q Is the approval of a supervisor necessary for

}

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPO8tTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RNOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4 33 WASHaNGTON, D C, 20005 (202) 23' 4433

e 20 1 an incident report to go to the shift? -

2 A No.

3 Q But it's an expectation?

4 .A The expectation is that if the supervisor is 5 available, an individual would take it to his supervisor 6 foi supervisory review and then to the shift. That's the 7 words in the procedure. At least I believe the procedures 8 say if the supervisor is not available, you go to the 9 shift directly. That's my expectation of one of my 10 engineers, had he identified a problem and felt it was an 11 immediate issue and the supervisor or manager was not 12 available, then it would be my expectation that he would 13 go the shift wi*.h it immediately, even though there is a 14 space on there for the supervisor's signature.

15 Q I would like to show you, just as an example, 16 a discrepancy evaluation form. It happens to be No. 94-17 0060. But my purpose in showing it to you is just to 18 refresh your memory as to what the DEF form looks like.

19 Based on looking at the form and the blocks to 20 be filled out, does that jog your memory as to what's 21 required to initiate a DEF?

22 A Assuming this is the form, I can interpret the 23 form. I can interpret what the form means. I am not 24 personally with the steps in the DEF. process, but in 25 looking at the form I can interpret it as to what would be NEAL R. GROSS ,

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE 6SLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2MM33 WASHING'ON. O C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

21

-i 1~ expected.

2 Q Okay.

3 - MR . WETTERHAHN: What's the question?

4 THE WITNESS: And the question is? .

5 BYhR.McDERMOTT:

6 Q And the question is, what is your 7 interpretation?

8 A What is my interpretation? Okay. When 9 someone identifies a discrepancy, the top portion of the 10 form is the station system component and the discrepancy.

11 Ar.d there's a description of the discrepancy with the name 12 of the originator and the department.

13 There is then an initial assessment section 14 which talks about whether tech spec applies. In this one, 15 it's checked yes. Is it an operability concern? In this 16 case, it's checked no. Safety concern? Yes, it's checked 17 yes. Incident report written, yes or no? If so, what the 18 incident repor. number is. The engineer's name, the date 19 notified and then a supervisor's signature.

20 Q So is the supervisor's signature required to 21 initiate it or is it required to say that it's a valid 22- concern?

23 A I don't know. I would want to refer to-the 24 procedure on what the signature means.

25 Q That's fine. Thank you.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N W, 7 ?) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 234M33

. - - - . . . .- - -- - - - . - - -.. -. - .- .. - . . - =~.- .- . .-.-.-. - -.

• ~ 22'

. i

. l' - .- And to your:knowicdgn, would there be any'down

2. side if an engineer had a concern, a potential issue, they.

-3 weren't sure which way it would fall out eventually, is.-

. i l

4 there any down side to initiating a DEF on that issue? )

5 A A DEF, no. My expectation'is, if someone had 6 a concern about something, they should get it into an

, 7 appropriate system.

8 9 MR. McDERMOTT: Thank you.

• 10 MR. LOGAN: Mr.'Morrison, that's all the 11 questions I have right now. Is there anything you would 12 like to put on the. record?

13 THE WITNE5S: No. .

p 14- MR. LOGAN: Thank you for coming.

15 (Whereupon,. the proceedings concluded at 16 5:54.p.m.)

17

-18 19 20 21 22 4 . 2 3;_

24

- 25 NEAL R.' GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRSERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234M33 WASHINGTON. O C 20006 . (202} 234 4 33

-- tr- y-- w w -' ---

w- E- *.gr%%m s .ium :

+19 + y m M e w  %*t

. CERTIFICAT-E

. This.is to.cartify that the' attached proceedings before.the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

Name of Proceeding: Interview of' John Morrison ,

Docket Number: .Not assigned Place of Proceeding:. Ha'ncocks Bridge, New Jersey were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings, d 4- L Barbara Burke Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W GO2) 234433  : WASHINGTON, D C 2000$ (202) 234 4 33

d EXHIBIT 7

~

0 j J" ,

c ;; , cc :.a ,,3 d ' n i

-a.

s.,ia.:r';.,:u.u.:Faa,ncnay,y;9 3,,,,,

r. ,,3 Case No. 1 95 013 Exhibit

__ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ . _ _ _. . _ _ _ _ _ - _ . -. _- . ..