ML20205H195

Transcript of 851112 Evidentiary Hearing in Raleigh,Nc. Pp 9,977-10,207.Supporting Documentation Encl

ML20205H195
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	11/12/1985
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#485-246 OL, NUDOCS 8511150020
Download: ML20205H195 (400)

Text

<

ORLGINAL O UN1TED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-400 OL CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant)

EVIDENTIARY HEARING b

LOCATION: RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA PAGES: 9,977 - 10,207 DATE: Tuesday, November 12, 1985 c.-

,b\

\

0\

V<m ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street 112 \Wshington. D.C. 20001

$1,11$$gs $$oo g o (202)347-3700 T

NATIONWIDE COVERACE u_ _

a

9977 im 1-1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

, 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

BEFORE THE ATOMIC GAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4

5 ------------------X 6 In the Matter of:  :

7 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY  : Docket No. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN  :

8 MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY  :

9 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power  :

Plant)  :

10  :

---

X 11 Conference Room No. 209 12 Federal Building 310 New Bern Avenue I '

13 Raleigh, North Carolina 14 Tuesday, November 12, 1985 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened, 16 pursuant to notice, at 9:12 a.m.

17 BEFORE:

18 JAMES L. KELLEY, ESQ., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 20 JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Washington, D.C. 20555 23 GLENN O. BRIGHT, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7 24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission gc.L la Reporters, Inc. Washington, D.C. 20555 25

9978 Bim~l-2 1 APPEARANCES:

/

k, 2 On Behalf of the Applicants:

3 THOMAS A. BAXTER, ESQ.

JOHN'O'NEILL, ESQ.

4 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

-5 Washingt6n, D.C.

-6 DALE HOLLAR, ESQ.

Associate General Counsel 7 Carolina Power and Light Company P. O. Box 1551 8 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 9 On Behalf of the Conservation Council of North Carolina:

10 JOHN RUNKLE, ESQ.

307 Granville Road 11 Chapel-Hill, North Carolina 27514 12 On Behalf of the State of North Carolina:

() 13 STEVE BRYANT, ESQ.

Attorney General's Office 14 ' State of North Carolina Department of Justice 15 P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 16 Appearing Pro Se:

17 WELLS EDDLEMAN D hm Nor h C rolina 27701-3131 19 i

On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

20

! CHARLES A. BARTH, ESQ.

21 JANICE E. MOORE, ESQ.

> . Office of the Executive Legal Director 22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 23

(') 24 he-IJ Reporters, lac. *****

-25 l m.

9979 SusWnish 1 C,O_ N T_ E_ N_ T_ S_

(

( t

'w/ 2 OPENING STATEMENTS:

l 3 Mr. O'Neill ..........Page 9983 Mr. Runkle ..........Page 9989 4 Mr. Eddleman .........Page 9990 5

6 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD 7 Robert L. DuPont, Jr. 9991 9996 10,066 10,067 10,061: ,

8 Eugene F. Trainor )

Harold R. Banks )  !

9 Ronald M. Parsons )  :

George L. Forehand) l 10 Thomas W. Brombach) 10,071 10,088 10,160 10,159{

11 Paul Fredrickson )

Richard Prevatte ) 10,163 10,169 12 i f~g ____-_____-___-_--____________--___________-___-_--___

U" 13

_E _X _H _I _B _I _T _S 14 Identified Received 15 Applicants' Exhibit Number 50 10,069 10,081  !

16 Applicants' Exhibit Number 51 10,069 10,081 l Applicants' Exhibit Number 52 10,069 10,081 17 4 - 18 L _A _Y.

_ _I. _N _S Prefiled Testimony of Applicants' Testimony 20 of Dr. Robert L. DuPont, Jr. ..... Page 9'994 21 Prefiled Testimony of Applicants' Testimony l

of , Messrs. Banks, Par sons, Forehand and 22 ~Brombach . . . . . Page 10,077 23 Profiled Testimony of Messrs. Banks and Parsons . . . . . Page 10,077

1. l AF es Reporters, Inc. -Profiled Testimony of Mr. Trainor . . . . . Page 10,077B i 25 Prefiled Testimony of Staff Witnesses, Messrs. Fredrickson and Prevatte ..... Page 10,166 l; l

l 9980 I, 01-1-SueW 1 PROCEEDINGS e .

i

's

["/

\- 2 s

_9:12.a.m.)

(

~ -

3 JUDGE KELLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, t

4 This morning we are resuming our evidentiary hearing on the I

5 Intervenor contention having to do with the drug abuse.

6 For th'is first day, the usual introducEk6ns, my 1

'name is James.Kelley and I'm the Chairman of this Atomic

-7 f l

8 Safety and Licensi"ng Board. On my right is Judge Glenn  !

- e l 9 Bright, and on my lef t is Ju'dge James -Carpenter, i And I will turn then'to the parties obr self-

~

10

T '- ~~

11 introduction. ,-

12 MR. BRYANT: Good morning, Judge Kelley. I'm 13 Steven Bryant with the North Carolina Attorney General's 14 Office.

15 MR. RUNKLE: John Runkle, representing the 16 Conservation Council of North Carolina. ,,, : &

ln l

17 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'mhellshEddleman, representing

~

j

- .- .< ~

18 myself. ,

19 MR.BARYb: I'm Charles A. Barth. I'm with the 20 Office of Executive Legal Director of the Nuclear Regulatory

- I 21, Commission. At my r,ight is Mrs. Janice Moore.

I

r. . . .

22 And joining us tomorrow will be Mr. Bradlev Lee, 23 who is the Regional Counsel for the NRC's Office in

, .r

() 24

,3 n.oo, ,,, i e.

Atlanta, Georgia -- Bradley Jones, J-o-n-e-s.'

2 i

25 Mrs. Moore is also with the Office'of the Legal

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

• < r -n

9981 fil-2-Suew.

'I with 'the ' Office' of the Executive Legal Director, Bethes'da.

- 2 It's-early. l 3 Thank you. l 1

4 MR. HOLLAR: Judge Kelly, I'm Dale Hollar, 5 . Associate General Counsel of Carolina Power and Light 6 ' Company representing the Applicants.

7 MR. BAXTER: Also appearing for the Applicants,

~8 I'm Thomas A. Baxter of the firm of Shaw, Pittman, Potts  !

l 9' and Trowbridge.

10 MR. O'NEILL: And my name is John O'Neill with f 11' Shaw,~Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge.

12 . JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. I would just mention Sm/ 13 that we will be here just for the one day, as indicated

.14 in our prior notice. We will be reconvening tomorrow 15 morning in Meeting Room C of the Raleigh Civic Center over 16 on Fayetteville Street-Mall next to the Radisson, at the

'17 -same time, nine.

18 I would like to acknowledge receipt this morning 19 of a pleading that Mr. Eddleman has served on the Board 20 and the parties, entitled " Motion to Subpoena Dr. Reada 21 Bassiouni, et.al" as witnesses on Eddleman Contention

-22 57-C-3.

23 And I think we are all familiar with the back-() 24

pFederal Reporters;inc.

ground of that. And we had previously set a response date

- 25 of the 22nd, as I recall, for the Staff and the Applicants.

9982 T-3-Su;W l MR. EDDLEMAN: -Judge, if I might, I have served g I'h' l

- 2 that by mail, express mail, to .. Mr. Rochlis at, FEMA. And -

3 I would just like to state on the record that if these 4 people are subpoenaed' as my witnesses, of course, I'm 5 willing to pay their mileage and expenses.

6 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. Our first portion 7 this hearing focused on the extent of the drug use at the 8 Harris site. And this second portion will focus on the 9 effects of drug abuse by particular employees, on the 10 adequacy of the QA program that has been in place, and also r

11 on the adequacy of various corrective actions, particularly j 12 reinspection on the work of certain. classes of employeas.

I'd

\/ 13 The Board is prepared to go right to the first l 14 witness, but let me poll the parties on any other matters 15 they want to raise. -

16 -

Mr. Baxter? l 1

17 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, the Applicants would 18 _like to present a brief opening statement before calling 19 their first witness.

20 JUDGE KELLEY: That's fine. Is there an opening 21 statement from Mr. Runkle or Mr. Eddleman also? l 22 MR. RUNKLE: Well, I would like to see what the j 23 Applicants have in mind. I may want to say a few words.

n-r (,) 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Barth? -

%Feder3 Reporters, Inc.

25 MR. BARTH: We contemplate no opening statement, i

l L

aw 9983

'l-4-Su W _1 Your Honor.

.,,~,

1,-) 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Other than the opening  !

3 statements, then, will we move right to the witness after l 4 that?

5 MR. BAXTER: Yes.

6 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, fine. Go ahead, Mr. Baxter.

7 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, Mr. O'Neill will 8 give the opening statement after which Mr. Hollar will 9 call Applicants' first witness.

10 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine.

11 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, l 12 this hearing is being conducted to receive evidence on the r~s

(_) 13 contention by the Conservation Council of North Carolina that 14 drug use at the Harris Plant is widespread, that CP&L has 15 failed to control drug use during construction of the Plant, j 16 and that we have failed to reinspect the safety-related j l

17 work performed by known drug users. j 18 The hearing on this issue was divided into two 19 phases. The first phase, held during the week of September ,

i 20 30th,consideredtheallegationthatdruguseatthesiteisl l

21 widespread and whether CP&L has failed to control it. Dur- ! I 22 ing that hearing, the Board heard testimony on the drug 23 abuse control policies and procedures which have been in i

() 24

• F=wa amonm. w.

effect at the Harris Plant and the drug awareness training l l

25 provided to site employees. I i

c -

9984 41-5-Suew: 1 Testimony was presented on the undercover inves-h' 2 tigation at the Harris Plant site last year. The Board also

-3 received evidence on the me ans employed. by Applicants to 4 identify drug activity among site employees and our assess-5 ment of the extent of that activity.

6 lie believe that all of this evidence establishes 7 conclusively that Applicants have an aggressive program to 8 control and to identify the use of drugs by Harris Plant' -

9 employees and that drug use is not i _3espread among the' j l

10 workers at.the Harris site. j 11 Now,whilewecanallagreethat'druguseinourl 12 society is a scourge and that efforts to eliminate substancei n

N'- 13 abuse is. laudable, these are not the focus of the NRC's 14 responsibilities nor'this' Board's inquiry.

15 CCNC's contention is only litigable to the l 16 extent that it is material to those findings which precede 17 the issuance of an operating license. The relevant finding ,

18 required here is one of reasonable assurance that the plant,j 19 - as built, can and will be operated without endangering the l'

20 public health and safety. i 21 The NRC has stringent standards and oversight 22 with respect to the construction of nuclear power plants.

23 The implementation and execution of CP&L's quality

) 24 assurance program, required by Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, frena nmorm,3, s=. ,

25 and-approved by the NRC prior to its implementation, is ,

l I

l. i

~

9985

1. 1-6-SueW l designed to eliminate the possibility that construction

(~)

~ h"' 2 defects of potential safety significance will go undetected 3 and therefore unrectified.

4 In recent years, construction quality assurance 5 issues have been litigated in many operating license pro-6 ceedings. Some care has been taken, however, to require 7 specific allegations from the contention proponents.

8 Typically, Boards have focused attention on the specific

'9 - deficiencies at issue before deciding whether a need existed 10 to expand the scope of the inquiry to the entire QA 11 program.

12 This Board, for example, rejected the literal O

\- ' 13 wording of Eddleman Contention 41, as it was proposed, which 14 identified pipe hanger welding inspections as an example 15 of a broader alleged QA problem, and held that the entire ,

16 QA program would not be subject to litigation, which was l

17 limited then to the specific allegation.

18 CCNC Contention WB-3 postulates construction de-19 fects caused by impaired employees under the influence of i

L 20 drugs. Significantly, CCNC has not advanced, in discovery,

( 21 in responding to our motion for summary disposition or in 22 supplemental discovery, a single construction deficiency,  !

i 23 let alone one caused by drug use.

()

g -

24 Indeed, the evidence which Applicants present grena numn . ine, 1 25 today addresses no more than a hypothetical concern voiced j

li >

9986 l hl-7-Su W 1 by the Intervenors.

~

( . !\w/ ' 2 Thus, in this second phase of the hearing we l~

3 fwill address the possible. effects of drug.use on plant 4 construction and the' adequacy of CP&L's program to detect 5 errors and to evaluate the work of employees implicated 6 in possible drug activity. Yet, without a specific allega-7 . tion of a deficiency in the program, we had no choice other 8 than presenting and defending the construction OA program 9 in-its entirety.

-10 While, we may view, as a matter of administrative 11 law that burden to be unfair, the case is straightforward 12 and- the evidence in Applicants ' favor-is overwhelming.

13 'CP&L has an outstanding quality assurance program.

14 At the conclusion of the evidence adduced at this 15 hearing, we are confident that the Board will have even 16' greater confidence in making the finding that there is f 17 reasonable assurance that the Harris Plant is constructed f 18 and can be operated without adverse impacts on public health 19 and safety.

20 Applicants will present six witnesses in two ,

21 -separate evidentiary presentations. The first witness vill '

22 be Dr. Robert DuPont, a clinical psychiatrist, who was i t

-23 formerly Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse

) '24 for five years and Chief White House Advisor on drug abuse. l

>Fak!A Roorwes, lrm. f 25 Dr. Dupont, who has had extensive experience in

l l

9987 1

Dl-8-SueW 1 the treatment of drug abusers, establishes that any J 2 ' employees who might have been working at the Harris Plant 3 while impaired by drug use would not generate errors which e4 .are .different in kind from those made by other employees 5 5 and which are identified by QA personnel.

6 The remaining five witnesses will be presented 7 as a panel to sponsor three pieces of prefiled testimony and 8 three exhibits. This panel will be composed of Mr. Harold 9 Banks, Manager, CP&L Corporate Quality Assurance; Mr.

10 Roland Parsons, Harris Plant Project General Manager for 11 Completion Assurance Activities; Mr. George Forehand, 12 Director of. Quality Assurance / Quality Control at the Harris p\ >-

- 13 Plant; and, Mr. Thomas Brombach, a Project Specialist for 14 Plant Inservice Inspection.

t l 15 These CP&L employees will be joined by Mr.

L ~ 16 Eugene Trainor, Senior Vice President of Cygna Energy f

[. 17 Services, Inc. Mr. Trainor has more than twenty-five l 18 years experience in the nuclear industry, principally in

! t 19 the area of quality assurance and quality control.

l l

20 This panel will descibe the capabilities, imple-l 21 mentation and effectiveness of CP&L's quality assurance l l

22 program at the Harris Plant.

23 Because their testimony is so intertwined and (O .,) 24 to avoid deferrals of questions and fragmentation of the pa Feder) Reporters, Inc.

25 record, Applicants plan to offer this panel for cross

9988

1. 1-9-SueW- . '1 examination on all.three pieces of prefiled testimony at EN 1. ~2 'one time.

Jon flws-

-3

-4

.5 6

7 8

-9 10 11 12 O! ,,

14

~15 16 f

i 17

'18 19 20 4 l

i 1

21 22 23

'24

>Feder:J Reporters, Inc.

25

E -

2-1-J9e W31 5989 1 Our panel of witnesses will show that a well-2 conceived, properly implemented and monitored QA program is 3 capable of detecting errors from any source, including drug 4 use.

5 The evidence establishes that CP&L has such a h

6 quality assurance program at the Harris Plant site, indeed, 7 imperical data from CP&L QA attribute surveillance program 8 shows a 99.5 percent inspector proficiency in error 9 detection.

10 Finally, we will present the results of evaluations 11 ! and reinspections of Harris workers who have been implicated i

12 in possible drug activities, which demonstrates conclusively 13 that the quality of the Harris plant is not being adversely 14 affected by unidentified drug use.

15 CCNC has failed to advance a linkage between 16 drug use by construction workers and construction defects.

17 Applicants will demonstrate that one does not 18 exist.

19 Mr. Hollar will call Applicants first witness.

20 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let me see if Mr. Runkle 21 l or Mr. Eddleman have any opening comment.

22 MR. RUNKLE: The Applicants are asking us all to d

23 make a leap of faith in this part of the hearing that lll 24 l DFeoeral Reporters, Inc.

if drug users at the site make errors, that those errors are 25 no different from any other errors that might be in the site.

d l:;212-JoeWolL 9990 E 1 The leap of faith is that their quality assurance.

n_

U k-) 2 program will. pick up all errors--at the site anyway.-

L 3 I think that we need to look very closely at ' -

4 .the quality ' of the- errors that people on drugs may make.

5 The climate of illegality associated with drug use on site, 6 and in whether -- we are not here to really look at the 7 ' Applicants total QA program.

8 They are -throwing out some 90 - 95 percent 9 numbers. Those numbers themselves take a leap of faith when 1

10 you look at those numbers. We are not going to dwell that 11 much on whether their quality assurance program can take care 12 of all the problems at the site.

\ ,,) 13 I think that is their defense., if they can 14 follow that.

15 We disagree with them in that we have not made 16 this showing. People on drugs make mistakes. Some of those 17 mistakes are safety related. . I think through cross-examination 18 that will easily come out.

I9 MR. EDDLEMAN: I would just like to say that the 20 evidence in this case shows that drugs were freely available 21 in the Harris site from the start of construction, and that 22 .both the QA program and the drug abuse program have been i

i 23 extensively updated, starting about 1984.

24

(}

h>F4_J Reprters, Inc It also shows that the number of drug abusers who :'

25 are being caught or suspected and fired by CP&L is going up,

2-3-JoeWal 9991 1 and up, and up, in a very sharp curve.

2 And I don't think that is any assurance, 3 regardless of their QA program, that the plant is constructed 4 to good quality, where it will be acceptably safe. There is 5 no demonstration that other drug abusers aren't there and f 6 doing work. There is no evidence that CP&L's quality 7 assurance program can catch all errors.

8 I think that is more than a leap of faith; that 9 is a leap beyond reality.

10 That is all I have to say about that. Thank 11 you.

12 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I gather then we can go i

13 to Mr. Hollar.

14 MR. HOLLAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Applicants 15 call as our first witness Doctor Robert L. DuPont, Jr.

16 l Whereupon, XX IMDEX 17 ROBERT L. DUPONT, JR.,

18 was called as a witness, and having first been duly sworn 19 by Judge Kelley, testifies as follows:

l i

20 ! DIRECT EXAMINATION i

i 21 ' BY MR. HOLLAR:

22 Q Dr. DuPont, will you please state your name, 23 position, and business address for the record.

) 24 A Yes. I am Robert L. DuPont, Jr., M. D. And my km Fi ) Reporters, Inc.

25 business address is 6181 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, l

l i i i  !

2-4-JoeWzl 9992 1 Maryland, 20852. ,

2 Q And your position?

3 A I am the Vice President of Bensinger DuPont and 4 Associates.

5 Q Thank you. Dr. DuPont, I would like to direct i

6 your attention to a document entitled: Applicants Testimony l 7 of Doctor Robert L. DuPont, Jr. , on the Effects of Employee 1

8l Drug Use (CONC Contention WB-3) , which consists of fourteen 9l pages and one attachment, which is your Curriculum Vitae.

10 f Was that testimony in that document prepared by i

you or under your supervision?

11 l I

12 l A Yes, it was.

13 Q Do you have any changes or corrections to that i

14 ! testimony?

15 A Yes, Mr. Hollar. I have four minor changes that I would like to make.

16', ll I

17 j On page 7 of the testimony, Line 19, insert the 18 word, 'or,' after setting. Af te r the word , ' setting.' Page 7, 19 l line 19, insert the word, 'or,' after the word, ' setting.'

On page 8, Line 22, strike the word, ' critical' 20 h

!i 21 l and insert the words, 'for self-evaluation,' after, h

22 L i ' faculty.' Okay?

H d

23 [ Q Could you state that again?

'l Strike the word, ' critical,' and insert 4

24 l' A Yes.

p F_  ; fleporters. Inc. ,

25 l' the words, ' for self-evaluation, ' after the word, ' faculty.'

k n

il

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

2-5-JoeWnl 9993 l 1 On page 9, insert the word, 'effect.' e-f- f-e-c-t , i

?

(},j 2 af ter the word, ' stimulant.' Page 9, Line 8. i 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: 'Effect' after ' stimulant' on 4 line 8?  !

5 WITNESS: Yes. Line 8, insert the word, 'effect' 6 after the word, ' stimulant.' i 1

7 Then on page 12, line 13, there is a typographical i

8 error, the word is , ' conflicts,' with an 'l.' C-o-n-f-1.

9 Those are my corrections.

10 MR. HOLLAR: Does everyone have those? -

11 (No response.)

i2 MR. HOLLAR: Your Honor, the copy that we have

/-

(,T) 13 provided to the Court Reporter has those corrections 14 indicated.

i 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.

16 BY MR. HOLLAR: (Continuing) i 17 Q With those changes, Dr. DuPont, is that testimony 18 true and correct to - the best of your knowledge, information, 19 and belief? -' ,

20 A Yes, it is.

1 21 Q And do you adopt that as your testimony in this 22 proceeding? i 23 A I do.

i f^) 24 m-Fi. J Rmortees, Inc.

MR. HOLLAR: Mr. Chairman, I move that the '

25 document entitled, Applicants Testimony of Doctor Robert L. l

[

2 f2-6JoeWOl 9994

'l .DuPont, on the Effects of Drug Use (CCNC Contention WB-3) ,

/ '2 including _the attachment, be admitted into evidence and bound 3 into the record'as if read. ,

i i

4 MR. RUNKLE: Sir, we would prefer to have the  !

l' 5 attachment as .an exhibit rather than bound into the record. f 6 EIt is an awfully extensive CV, and as an exhibit it may be j 7 easier to handle than actually bound into the record.

i 31 MR. HOLLAR: I would prefer to have it as an

, 9 attachment to the testimony.

i 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Does the Staff have any view on 11 this issue?.

12 MR. BARTH: Yes. I think that this is the .l

() ~13 Applicants case, Your Honor. It is not for me to tell them la how to put their evidence in. I think I concur with Mr.

15 Hollar's remarks.

16 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. We will bind it in.

17 (Prefiled testimony follows.)

18 19 20 21 l

22 23

.24 l 1

(~)

3 ,c_a m ,,....,~.  ;

25  ;

r.

4

?, -

October 25, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD InLthe Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY -)

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

l

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

APPLICANTS TESTIMONY OF

, DR. ROBERT L. DUPONT, JR.

L ON THE EFFECTS OF EMPLOYEE DRUG USE .

,. (CCNC CONTENTION WB-3) l I

V O

1

Q.1 Please state your'name,' occupation and business

/y address.

t,. )

A.1 My name is Dr. Robert L. DuPont, Jr. I am Vice Pres-ident of Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, Inc., 6181 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, Maryland 20852. I am also President of the Center for Behavioral Medicine in Rockville.

-Q.2 Please describe your professional and educational background.

A.2 I am a psychiatrist certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and a Fellow of the American Psy-chiatric Association. I received a bachelor's degree from Emory University and a medical degree from Harvard Medical School. My post-graduate psychiatric training was at Harvard and the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

i - From 1968 to 1970, I was Research Psychiatrist and Direc-tor of Community Services (parole and halfway houses)_for the government of the District of Columbia. From 1970 to 1973, I was Director of the Narcotics Treatment. Administration in Washington -- a program that treated 15,000 heroin addicts dur-l l ing that period of time. From 1973 to 1978, I was Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the federal government's l principal treatment, prevention and research agency in the drug

abuse field. From 1973 to 1975, I was also the chief White l

House advisor on drug abuse. From 1978 to 1984, I was Presi-dent of the national nonprofit American Council for Drug Educa-tion. From 1982 to the present, I have been Vice President of

( 1

Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, Inc., a national consulting I firm specializing in the problems of drug abuse in the workplace.

As President of the Center for Behavioral Medicine, I have an , active clinical psychiatric practice and regularly treat drug users. I am also Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown Medical School and Visiting Associate Clinical Pro-fessor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School. I have written more than 125 professional articles and four books, including Gateway Drugs, recently published by the American Psychiatric Press. A copy of my curriculum vita is Attachment 1 to this testimony.

Q.3 What is the purpose of your testimony?

,- A.3 The purpose of my testimony is to respond in part to

'~

the allegations in CCNC Contention WB-3 that drug use at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant may have affected the quali-ty of safety-related construction. As background for my as-sessment, I will describe briefly the patterns of drug usage in American society and the medical effects of the most commonly abused drugs. I will discuss the typical effects of drug use on work performance and will address the questions of whether drug related errors differ qualitatively from errors resulting from other types of impairment. This relates to the issue of whether the quality assurance program at Harris is likely to identify drug related errors.

O t

\_)

l l

I t

f I

Q.4 What illegal drugs are most frequently abused in the

?~s s ) United States today?

A.4 Marijuana and cocaine are by far the most frequently abused drugs in American society. It is my understanding that these drugs are also the focus of allegations about drug use '

among the Harris work force. In 1982, 64% of 18 to 25 year olds had used marijuana at least once in their lives and 28%

had used it in the month before the survey. By comparison, 23%

of those 26 years of age and older had ever used marijuana, and 7% had used it in the month prior to the survey. The equiva-lent percentages for cocaine, the second most commonly used 11-legal drug, were 29% (at least once) and 7% (in the previous month) for 18 to 25 year olds, and 9% and 1% for those 26 years of age and older. By way of comparison, alcohol, a legal drug (G~g intoxicant, had been used by 91% of 18 to 25 year olds at least once and by 66% in the last month. Those persons 26 years old and older reported that 88% had ever used alcohol, and 57% had used it in the month preceding the survey.

Other intoxicating drugs are used far less frequently.

For example, among the relatively high drug-using 18 to 25 year old group, the following percentages reported at least one non-medical use of the following drugs during the month prior to the 1982 national survey (that is, they were " current users" of these drugs): other stimulants 5%, sedatives 3%, tranquil-izers 2%, hallucinogens 2%, and heroin less than 1%.

O U

l Q.5 What are the typical patterns of drug use?

l r3 A.5 As the above figures indicate, drug use is most prev-v\'~)

alent'among young persons in the 18 to 25 year age group.

. Young males have the highest rate of drug use. National data i show that with any drug the most common pattern is relatively infrequent use, with relatively smaller percentages of users using at greater frequency. Typical are the most recent data on marijuana use by American high school seniors taken from a 1984 National Institute on Drug Abuse survey. While 60% re-ported use of marijuraa at least once in their lifetimes, only 34% reported use within the past month, and less than 6% re-ported use every day.

Q.6 Where does Jrug use usually occur?

A.6 Most drug use occurs in a social setting, usually in O

\_/ the evening or on weekends. Drug use on the job site is much less frequent. In this respect, che use of illegal drugs is like the use of alcohol. While I understand that alcohol abuse is not at issue here, alcohol use is familiar to most ?.meri-cans, including those who do not use illegal drugs, and even to those who do not drink. Consequently, it may help to relate my point to patterns of alcohol consumption. Among those who drink, by far the largest percentage of their drinking of alco-hol occurs off the job. Most users of alcohol do not use at all on the job. Even among those who do use on the job occa-sionally, the large majority of their alcohol use occurs off the job. This relationship is even more pronounced for 5-I

- -+ - w - - , - .,%-,.,,y - , - y-- ---.---------,e . , - - - . - ~ - . - - - - * - - - - - - - - - - , - - - r-

.high-dose use of alcohol or other drugs -- it is rare on the

'T job. This is the result of many factors, including the (Q

employee's own concerns for his productivity and his concern for negative consequences resulting from on-the-job use (being criticized, reprimanded, arrested or fired as a result of using intoxicating drugs, legal or illegal). It is far " safer" for the employee to use drugs or alcohol off the job. This is es-pecially true in an environment like the Harris Plant where the employer has an active, ongoing program to control drug use.

The same is true for drug sales. Risk of exposure or arrest is generally higher at work than away from work. This does not mean that drug use (and sales) cannot occur on the job, only that, among those who use drugs, they are much more likely to

- occur off the job than on the job.

Q.7 What are the medical effects of the most frequently abused drugs -- marijuana and cocaine?

A.7 Marijuana (derived from the Cannabis sativa plant),

as well as its principal active ingredient, delta-9-Tetrahydro-cannabinol (THC), produces an intoxicated state marked.by altered time sense, euphoria, and -- at high doses -- halluci-nations. Marijuana and its derivatives act similarly to hallucinogens, but possess also the elements of stimulation and i depression. The effects of marijuana use, like all drug ef-l

! fects, are complex and for any particular individual use not entirely predictable. The effects are dose-related: higher doses produce more profound effects. They are also related to l

\

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

=

i l

the past experience of the user with that drug at that dose.

g~g t

In addition, the effects are influenced by the expectations and the setting in which the use occurs, and most particularly by the demands placed on the intoxicated user. Again, the alcohol experience, being more familiar to most adult Americans, is in-structive. The more a person drinks the greater the effects of his use on his behavior. People with a perst ,11 history of al-cohol use are relatively less affected by a particular dose than are those who have been less exposed to alcohol. A rela-tively low level of alcohol use may lead to no detectable ab-normality in behavior under routine circumstances, but if the

.nildly intoxicated person is confronted by an unusual or emer-gency situation his behavior may be markedly affected. For ex-ample, a person who has drunk several beers within a few hours

/s

(_) of_ driving may show no abnormalities in driving unless he is confronted with an unexpected stress (a child runs into the path of his car) at which time a drug-caused defect may become grave. Similarly, a dose of alcohol which produces no behav-cc ioral toxicity in one setting pin one nood may be profoundly hazardous in other settings or moods. Typical for alcohol is l the experience of anger which may be easily managed with a clear mind, but which may produce serious results with rela-l tively mild intoxication. These same fcetors apply to marijua-na intoxication.

The most notable effects of marijuana use on work perfor-mance.come from the drop in motivation and memory (in contrast to the more commonly observed effects of alcohol intoxication

() of pocr coordination and aggressiveness). Thus, marijuana's effects are more likely to mimic the effects of lack of sleep or exhaustion and low morale, leading commonly to low output and sloppy performance. I call marijuana the "I don't care" drug for this reason.

Cocaine is a stimulant drug. The most prominent effect of these drugs is their ability to stimulate the central nervous system, producing euphoria, hypersensitivity, insomnia and ap-petite suppression. Stimulants increase a person's alertness, activity, and excitement by speeding up messages to the central nervous system. The aftermath of stimulative use is depression

-- exhaustion of the drug-stimulated nervous system. The rg higher the high is, the lower will be the subsequent low.

V Cocaine, in contrast to marijuana, produces a stimulant l

effect with common work-related problems being overtalka-tiveness and poor concentration on the task because of easy l

l distractability or, paradoxically, inappropriate preoccupation with a particular detail of the task to the neglect of the com-plete picture. Cocaine when used at work tends to give users the feeling that they are working faster or better. In gener-kr scK-evalmahen al, this is an illusion, as the m& Limol facultygis suppressed l

l. by the drug use. In addition, when the user comes off a co-i caine run he is exhausted and depressed, so his work perfor-

{

mance suffers because of this, much as it would for someone with a serious illness who has not been able to sleep r

adequately.

3 '

Q.8 While it has not been identified nearly as much as

(} marijuana and cocaine, " crystal" or methampetamine was pur- ,

' chased.by an officer during an undercover investigation at the Harris Plant. What are the medical effects of this drug? *

! A.8 Methampetamine is one of a large number of closely related synthetic drugs which produce effects similar to co-l l- caine. The two principal differences between this stimulant V e %.t '

and cocaine are first that the stimulant 3cf a single dose of methampetamine lasts for several hours compared to the approxi-mately 30-minute period of effect for a single dose of cocaine.

The second difference is that, unlike cocaine, methampetamine l is effective when taken by mouth.

l Q.9 How does the use of illegal drugs affect work perfor-

mance?

A.9 Drugs affect work performance primarily by decreasing the functioning of the central nervous system. The negative effects of drug use on the work output include reduced produc-tivity, increased errors, increased accidents, and a variety of safety problems (such as faulty driving of autos and dangerous t operation of equipment). None of these is a sure sign that they are caused by drug use (that is, they may all be caused by drug use or by something else). In fact, even experts, when interviewing drug-intoxicated individuals, often have difficul-ty being sure of the cause of the disorders observed. This is l the reason that supervisors are typically trained to spot poor l or dangerous work performance and to refer the worker to

(

1

professional assistance rather than to attempt to make a " diag-(~) nosis" of drug abuse. Usually it is necessary to take a blood, L.J urine or breath sample to accurately determine the probable role of drug use in the aberrant behavior.

Q.10 Given the medical effects you have described, is the casual off-site use of marijuana, cocaine and crystal less likely to result in impairment of job functions than on-site usage?

A.10 Yes. Casual low-dose drug use can cause impairment, but it is far less likely to do so than high-dose usage.

Off-site drug use may cause work performance to decline, but it is much less likely to do so than use on the job site. Im-pairment is most likely to occur when drug use is great (e.g.,

at a high dose) and when it is current (e.g., when the user is Ok' intoxicated). The greater the intoxication, the greater the risk of impairment and work performance decrement. On the other hand, some drug-caused work impairment can occur at low doses of use, and some impairment may occur even hours after use. An analogy to alcohol use is appropriate. It has been shown that a driver with a hangover is more likely to have an accident than is a driver who has not drunk heavily, even l

though the hung over driver no longer has any alcohol in his body. On the other hand, the acutely drunk driver is far more likely to have an accident than is one with a hangover.

Q.11 In the likelihood of construction defects resulting from drug-impaired employees influenced by whether work is done in isolation or by groups of workers?

( ')

~

k A.11 Yes. Work.that is done in isolation and not checked

-by others is more likely to be affected by drug abuse (and other peformance impairments) than is work done in crews and work that is systematically checked by coworkers. In crews, the non-impaired workers often do the work of, impaired workers so that the negative effects of their impairment are reduced or even eliminated. This is done by non-involved workers on the crews out of concern for the impaired worker and out of concern for the integrity of the work. It is highly characteristic of any work force and any impairment, including impairment caused by drug abuse. My understanding is that much of the construc-tion work at the Harris site is done by work crews of several persons. Consequently, I conclude that the likelihood of seri-ous construction defects caused by drug use is diminished ac-cordingly.

Q.12 If there are some persons who use drugs on a work site, does that mean their work will be impaired?

A.12 Not necessarily. Even if a worker uses drugs (such as marijuana or cocaine) on the job site, it is by no means certain that that worker will be impaired or that his work will be flawed on any given day. Just as with alcohol, the risks are relative and they are, for each individual, uncertain.

l Workers who use small doses, workers who work in crews and whose work is frequently checked, will be less likely to pro-duce drug-caused work site problems. Nevertheless, any drug use, off-site or on-site, will increase the risk of job-related errors.

(])

i

Q.13 Does drug use result in errors that are qualita-

<~N tively different from errors caused by other types of im .

)

pairment, such that the Harris quality assurance program would be less likely to identify the errors?

A.13 No. Drug abuse does not cause unique kinds of work-related problems. Aside from sales of drugs and overdose reactions (the former of which does not have direct effects on work performance, while the latter is relatively easily de-tected because the user is usually unconscious or acting bi-zarrely), the effects of drug use are of the same kind as are produced by a wide variety of other causes, ranging from alco-hol intoxication to fatigue, and from mental illness to conff4ctswithsupervisorsandcoworkers. From my experience,

_ it is my professional opinion that drug users would not, for

\J example, be more likely than other workers to attempt to sabo-tage their work or conceal errors so that the quality assurance program would be less likely to identify them.

In fact, if one were to study incidents of sabotage or ac-tive coverups of poor quality work, I expect that a smaller fraction of them would be caused by drug abusers than by employees who made more routine errors or had more routine

problems in work performance. There is a simple explanation for this conclusion. Drug abusers tend to be sloppy and poorly i

motivated. They are often preoccupied with drug use itself.

They are seldom involved in active sabotage or mischief (except for income-generating theft and drug sales) because of the

('}

\.

effects, direct and indirect, of their drug use.

L_

Drug use does cause an increase in many common work-related problems, all of which can occur in the absence of lh drug use. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that routine supervisory practices and quality assurance measures will iden-tify drug-caused failures at about the same rates as other sim-ilar errors are identified. This means that an unusual in-crease in drug abuse will show up in an unusual increase in the '

usual sorts of problems found on the work site.

Q.14 What is your conclusion, then, on the effects of employee drug use on the quality of safety-related construction at the Harris Plant?

A.14 Since we do not know the precise number of employees who have actually been involved in drug activity, or the cir-cumstances surrounding any drug consumption (e.g., timing, dos-age, setting, tolerance) by those identified as possibly in-O volved in drug activity, I cannot be precise about the work impairment effects, if any. Based upon our understanding of typical patterns of drug use, however, it is fair to conclude that many of the identified employees only consumed drugs off the job and were not impaired at work, and that because of low dosage consumption and tolerance levels, some consumers on the job (depending on the complexity of tasks involved) would not be impaired such that work results would be affected.

For the employees consuming drugs in a way that impairs performance, crew work situations will often result in on-the-spot corrective action. Where this does not occur, I am O

1 f

confident that the errors generated by an impaired employee h would not be different in kind from other errors which are identified through the Quality Assurance program.

s

-d

1. ' y en e M

i w

4 J

l J

' [

d O -

t 9

,.t ,

i

'I i .

.e

=

=de t

O .

f f

f' +

. Attachment 1 March 1985 lD v

CURRICULUM VITAE NAME. DATE OF BIRTH Robert L. DuPont, Jr., M.D.

March 25, 1936 CURRENT POSITIONS President Vice President Center for Behavioral Medicine Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, 6191 Executive Boulevard inc.

Rockville, MD 20852 6181 Executive Boulevard (301) 468-8980 Rockville, MD 20852 (301) 468-6903

-.-. EDUCATION --- -

June 1963 M.D. - Harvard Medical School '

Boston, Massachusetts

(_- June 1958 B.A. - Emory University Atlanta, Georgia POST-CRADUATE TRAINING 1966-1968 Clinical Associate Laboratory of Clinical Sciences National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland 1964-1966 Psychiatric Resident and Teaching Fellow in Psychiatry Massachusetts Mental Health Center Harvard Medical School Boston, Massachusetts 1963-1964 Medical intern Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital Western Reserve Medical School Cleveland, Ohio i

i O

r

l

(^i V

CHRONOLOGY OF PAST EMPLOYMENT 1981-1984 President Phobia Society of America Rockville, Maryland 1980-1984 President American Council for Drug Education Rockville, Maryland 1

1978-1979 Family Psychiatrist, appearing regularly on I

" Good Morning America" i ABC-TV New York; New York 1973-1978 Director National Institute on Drug Abuse U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Rockville, Maryland 1973-1575 Director Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention The White House p/ Executive Office of the President

\_- Washington, D.C.

1974 (2 months) Acting Administrator Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Rockville, Maryland 1970-1973 Administrator Narcotics Treatment Administration Department of Human Resources Government of the District of Columbia Washington, D.C.

1968-1970 Research Ps9chiatrist and Acting Associate Director for Community Services District of Columbia Department of Corrections Washington, D.C.

1965-1966 Senior Psychiatrist (part-time) Massachusetts Department of Corrections Norfolk Prison Norfolk, Massachusetts s

(

m) '1961 (3 months) Research Assistant Tuberculosis Laboratory Conmunicable Disease Center Atlanta, Georgia 1959 (3 months) Epidemiology Trainee California Department of Public Health Berkeley, Cali fornia CONSULTANTSHIPS, BOARD MEMBERSHIPS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES 1980-Present Board of Directors Phobia Society of America Rockville, Maryland 1979-Present Member Cosmos Club Washington, D.C.

1973-1978 Chai rman World Psychiatric Association -

Section on Alcohol and Drug Dependence 1976-1978 Chairman I~

/' ) National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Washington, D.C.

1974-1978 U.S. Delegate to United Naticns Cummission on Narcotic Drugs Geneva, Switzerland 1976-1977 Chairman Cabinet Committee on Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatrent and Rehabilitation The White House Washington, D.C.

1972-1973 Member National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse Prevention A Presidential Appointment S

Washington, D.C.

1971-1972 consultant Special Committee on Crime Prevention and Control American Bar Association l Washington, D.C. '

(- 1 V

\

l L

_4 O FACULTY APPOINTMrNTS 1980-Present Clinical Professor of Psychiatry Georgetown University Medical School 1978-Present Visiting Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School 1972-1981 Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences George Washington University Medical School 1970-1972 Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry George Washington University Medical School 1964-1966 Teaching Fellow in Psychiatry Harvard Medical School

,_, HONORS 1978 Public Health Service Superior Service Award: '

Highest award given by the U.S. Public Health Service, presented by the Surgeon General, s Julius 8. Richmond, M.D.

1978 The Alcohol and Drug Problems Association of North America Annual Award for Outstanding Leadership and Service 1978 National Association of State Drug Abuse Coordinators Annual National Award for i Outstanding Contributions to Drug Abuse Prevention l l

1973 Meritorious Service Award, District of Columbia Government, presented by Mayor Walter E. Washington 1971-1972 Melvin C. Hazen Award to the Outstanding Young l Han in the District of Columbia Government MILITARY SERVICE 1966-1968 Senior Surgeon U.S. Public Health Service National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland O

l l

l l

1

s O PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES Academy of Behavioral Medicine Research (Fellow and Charter Member)

American Psychiatric Association (Fellow)

Behavioral Medicine Special Interest Group Pan Anerican Medical Association Society of Behavioral Medicine (Fellow)

Washington Psychiatric Society World Psychiatric Association MEDICAL LICENSE District of Columbia Maryland Virginia California CERTIFICATION

~ 1970~~ ~ ' - ~

~

Diplomate in Psychiatry American Board of Psychiatry 'and Neurology - ~ - " ~ -

CIVIC ACTIVITIES 1980-Present Member, Advisory Board Parents Council Washington, D.C.

1977-1979 Member, Board of Advisors Women's Work, Inc.

Washington, D.C.

1972-1976 Member, Board of Directors Washington Society for the Performing Arts Washington, D.C.

1972-1976 Member, Advisory Committee Washington Junior League Washington, D.C.

O-s

April 1985 O

PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS DuPont RL and Grunebaum HU: Willing victims: The husbands of paranoid women. American Journal of Psychiatry 125: 150-159, 1968.

DuPont RL: An imposter in psychotherapy. Psychiatric Opinion,6: 38-43, 1969.

DuPont RL: The imposter and his mother. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 150: 444-448, 1970.

Brown BS, Markman EM, DuPont RL: Released offenders' perceptions of community and institution. Corrective Psychiatry and Journal of Social Therapy 16:

88-96, 1970.

DuPont RL: Urban crime and the rapid development of a large heroin addiction treatment program. Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Methadone Treatment, New York, 1971: 115-120.

Brown BS, DuPont RL, Kozel NJ, Spevacek JK: Staff and client views of the role of the correctional client: Conflict and its implications for treatment. Social Psychiatry 6: 83-88, 1971.

DuPont RL, Grunebaum HU, Ryder RG: An unexpected result of psychosis in marriage. American Journal of Psychiatry 128: 735-739, 1971.

DuPont RL: Profile of a heroin-addiction epidemic. New England Journal-of Medicine 285: 320-324, 1971.

DuPont RL, Katon RN: Development of a heroin addiction treatment program:

Effect on urban crime. The Journal of the American Medical Association 216: 1320-1324, 1971.

DuPont RL: How corrections can beat the high cost of heroin addiction.

Federal Probation 35: 43-50, 1971.

DuPont RL, Katon RN: Physicians and the heroin addiction epidemic. Modern

~

Medicine 39: 123-139, 1971.

DuPont RL: Veteran heroin addicts in Washington: A preliminary report.

Medical Annals of the District of Columbia 40: 521-523, 1971.

Brown BS, DuPont RL, Kozel NJ, Spevacek JD: Staff conceptions of inmate llg characteristics: A comparison of treatment and custodial staffs at two differing institutions. , Criminology 9: 316-329, 1971.

1 rx '

N_

DuPont RL: Heroin addiction treatment and crime reduction. American Journal of Psychiatry 128: 856-860, 1972.

DuPont RL: The District of Columbia experience treating heroin. addicts.

Public Management 54: 7-9, March 1972.

DuPont RL: Treating heroin addicts in Washington. Delaware Medical Journal 44: 35-37, '972.

Brown BV, DuPont RL, Bass UF, Glendinning ST, Jozel NJ, Meyers MB: Impact of a multimodality treatment program for heroin addicts. Comprehensive Psychiatry 13: 391-397, 1972.

Kozel NJ, DuPont RL, Brown BS: Narcotics and crime: A study of narcotic involvement in an offender population. The international Journal of the Addictions 7: 443-450, 1972.

Sherwood, GK, McGinnis, MH, Katon, RN, DuPont RL, Webster JB: Negative direct Coombs' test in narcotic addicts receiving maintenance doses of methadone.. Blood 40:_902-904, 1972._______ __

Bass, UF, Brown BS, DuPont RL: The use of heroin by an offender population ,-

a report over time. Corrective Psychiatry and Journal of Social Therapy 18:

24-30, 1972.

p)

~-

Brown BS, DuPont RL, Nolfi RJ: A reexamination of the use of Illicit drugs by methadone maintenance patients. Proceedings of the Fourth. National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1972: 469-472.

Brown BS, DuPont RL, Glendinning ST: Narcotics treatment and behavioral change.

Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1972: 163-165.

Katon RN, DuPont RL, Rubenstein RM: Methadone detoxification of heroin addicts.

Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1972: 151-166.

Webster JB, Katon RN, DuPont RL: Multiphasic screening of inner-city heroin users revealing some of the social, physical and chemical characteristics of this population. Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1972: 511-513 DuPont RL: Trying to treat all the heroin addicts in a community.

Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1972: 77-50.

Brown BS, DuPont RL, Kozel NJ: Heroin addiction in the city of Washington.

Drug Forum 2: 187-190, 1973.

.m h

\

O DuPont RL: Coming to grips with an urf'an heroin addiction epidemic. The Journal of the American Medical Association 223: 46-48, 1973.

Brown BS, Kozel.NJ, Meyers MB, DuPont RL: Use of alcohol by addict and nonaddict populations. American Journal of Psychiatry 130: 599-601, 1973. l DuPont RL, Piemme TE: Estimation of the number of narcotic addicts in an urban area. Medical Annals of the District of Columbia 42: 323-326, 1973 )

Brown BS, DuPont RL, Bass UF, Brewster GW, Glendinning ST, Kozel NJ, Meyers MB:

Impact of a large-scale narcotics treatment program -- a six month experience. The International Journal of the Addictions 8: 49-57, 1973.

Greene MH, DuPont RL: Amphetamines in the District of Columbia. 1. Identifica-tion and resolution of an abuse epidemic. The Journal of the American Medical Association 226: J 43J-1449, 19]J ,

Greene MH, Rubenstein RM, DuPont RL: Amphetamines in the District of Columbia. 11. Patterns of abuse in an arrestee population. Archives of General Psychiatry 2.91 77.3-776,_ 1973 Chalbalko J, LaRosa J DuPont RL: Death of methadone users in.the District of Columbia. The International Journal of the Addictions 8: 897-908, 1973'.

DuPont RL, Greene MH: The dynamics of a heroin addiction epidemic. Science 181: 716-722, 1973.

DuPont RL, Greene MH: Patterns of heroin addiction in the District of Columbia. Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1973: 786-793.

DuPont RL: Where does one run when he's already in the promised land?

Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1973: 1394-1402.

Perpich J DuPont RL, Brown BS: Criminal justice and voluntary patients in treatment for heroin addiction. Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methodone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1973: 75-o4.

Lloyd RA, Katon RN, DuPont RL, Rubenstein RM: Detoxification: What makes the difference? Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1973: 275-253.

Greene MH, Luke JL, DuPont RL: Acute opiate overdose: A preliminary report on mechanisms of death. Proceedinos of the Fifth National Conference.on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1973: 330-334.

O s

E' O

Greene MH, DuPont RL: Medical complications associated with the use of methadone: Methadone related mortality. Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 13/3: 811-822.

Greene MH, DuPont RL: An outbreak of intravenous amphetamine abuse in heroin addicts. Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1973: 776-755.

Cochran, DA, DuPont RL: A statistical history of the Narcotics Treatment

Administration. Proceedings of the Fif th National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1973

559-595.

Amos ED, DuPont RL, Lau JP: The management of large multimodality, multi-clinical drug treatment programs and management information systems.

! Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, i Washington, D.C., 1973: 875-688.

DuPont RL, Greene MH: The decline of heroin addiction in the District of Columbia. Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methadone

_ _ ._ Trea tmen t , Wa sh ing tort._D.. C. ,_197 3 : l_474- 148 L ,

1 1 Lloyd RA, Katon RN, DuPont RL: Evolution of a treatment approach for young heroin addicts. Comparison of three treatment modalities. The Intec-j

() national Journal of the Addictions 9: 229-239, 1974.

j Greene MH, Turner N DuPont RL: Amphetamines in the District of Columbia.

! li t. Stimulant abuse in narcotics addicts in treatment with an emphasis i

on phenmetrazine. The International Journal of the Addictions 9: 653-662, 1974.

Greene MH, Luke JL, DuPont RL: Opiate overdose deaths in the District of Columbia. 1. Heroin-related fatalities. Medical Annals of the District of Columbia 43: 175-181, 1974.

Greene MH, DuPont RL: Heroin addiction trends. American Journal of Psychiatry

131: 545-550, 1974.

DuPont RL, Greene MH: Beginning to dissect a heroin addiction epidemic, in Addiction: 101-112. Edited by Bourne P. New York, Academic Press, 1974 Greene MH, Luke JL, DuPont RL: Opiate overdose deaths in the District of Columbia. II. Hethadone-related fatali ties. Journal of Forensic Sciences 19: 575-584, 1974.

DuPont RL: The evolving federal substance abuse organization. American Journal of Drugs and Alcohol Abuse 1: 1-9, 1974.

, Greene MH, DuPont RL (eds): The epidemiology of drug abuse. American Journal

'( ) - of Public Health, Part Two 64: 1-56, 1974

\

O Greene JH, DuPont RL: Heroin use -- a consnunicable disease. Conunittee on Problems of Drug Dependence 1974 -- Reoort of the-36th Annual Scientific Meeting, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council, Mexico City, 1974: 605-629.

DuPont RL: 'The future of the federal drug abuse program. Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence 1974 -- Report of the 36th Annual Scientific Meeting, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council, Mexico City, 1974: 42-47.

Greene MH, DuPont RL: The treatment of acute heroin toxicity, in A Treatment Manual for Acute Drug Abuse Emergencies: 11-16. Edited by Bourne P.

National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)75-230. 1 Washington, D.C. , U.S. Government Printing Office,1975.

DuPont RL: Overview of drug abuse. Rroceedinos of the First National Drug Abuse Conference, Chicago, Illinois, 1974, 1975: 25-31.

DuPont RL: Licit opium production and Illicit heroin use: What is the relationship? Proceedings of American Medical Association Symposium on Supplies of Opium for Medical Use, Washington, D.C., 1975: 30-39 DuPont RL: Federal government efforts to provide a solution: An overview.

• Proceedings of American Medical Association Symoosium on Supolies of Ooium for Medical use, Washington, D.C., 1975: 62-67.

DuPont RL: The future of federal drug abuse research -- how can we best maximize scarce resources? Drug and Alcohol Dependence 1: 223-240, 1975-1976; also published in Problems of Drug Dependence 1975 -- Proceedings of the 37th Annual Scienti fic Meeting, Committee on Proolems of Drug Dependence. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1975: 55-73.

DuPont RL: Drug abuse in the United States: Possible implications for Nigeria. Nigerian Medical Journal 5: 285-288, 1975 Brown BS, Glendinning ST, DuPont RL: Instances of treatment for opiate and nonopiate drugs in one urban consnuni ty. The International Journal of the Addictions 10: 801-813, 1975.

Greene MH, Nightingale SL, DuPont RL: Evolving patterns of drug abuse.

Annals of Internal Medicine 83: 402-411, 1975 Greene MH, Brown 85, DuPont RL: Controlling the abuse of illicit methadone in Washington, D.C. Archives of General Psychiatry 32: 221-226, 1975.

i Brown BS, Greene MH, DuPont RL: lilicit methadone abuse in Washington, D.C., 1 in Developments in the Field of Drug Abuse: 444-460. Edited by Senay E, Shorty V, Alksne H. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Schenkman Publishing Co.,

l Inc., 1975.

DuPont RL: "ADAMHA: State of its institutes and relationships to states."

Summary of Proceedings -- 1975 Annual Conference of the State and Terri-torial Alcohol, Druo Abuse and Mental Health Authorities, Washington, D.C.,

November 1975: 31-37.

p k- Nightingale SL, Dormer RA, DuPont RL: Inappropriate prescribing of psycho-active drugs. Annals of Internal Medicine 83: 896-897, 1975.

Nightingale SL, Dormer RA, DuPont RL: Emergency services and drug abuse.

Annals of Internal Medicine 83: 569-570, 1975.

Bass UF, Brock VW, DuPont RL: Narcotic use in an inmate population at three points in time. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 3: 375-386, 1976.

DuPont RL: Marihuana: A conversation with NIDA's Robert L. DuPont.

Science 192: 647-649, 1976.

Graham TG, Brown BS, DuPont RL: Characteristics of new admissions to a narcotics treatment program: 1970-1974. The International Joucnal of the Addictions 11: 967-976, 1976.

DuPont RL: Equality for women in drug abuse, in A National Forum Source Book: 7-13 Edited by Nellis M, Washington, D.C., National Research~

and Communications Association, Inc., 1976.

' - -DuPont RL: Polydrug abuse and the maturing national drug abuse data base, in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 281: 311-320. Edited by Vessell ES, Braude MC, 1976. ,

rS DuPont RL: NIDA is committed to research. Problems of Drug Dependence

(_/ 1976 -- Proceedings of the 38th Annual Scienti fic Meeting, Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, National Academy of Sciences, Richmond, Virginia, 1976: 441-444.

DuPont RL: ADAMRA: State of its institutes and relationships to states.

Summary Proceedings of the Third ADAMHA Annual Conference of the State and Terri torial Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Authorities Denver, Colorado, October 1976: 80-85.

DuPont RL: Treatment as prevention. Summary Proceedings of the Tripartite Conference on Prevention, Elkridge, Mary land, 1977: 69-74 DuPont RL: National strategies for drug abuse prevention: The United States experience. Proceedings of the 25th Iranian Medical Conoress, Ramsar, Iran, 1977: 60-73.

DuPont RL: Just what can you tell your patients about marihuana? Medical Times 104: 120-131, 1976; also published in Resident & Staff Physician 23: 103-110, 1977.

Kozel NJ, DuPont RL: Criminal Charoes and Drug Use Patterns of Arrestees in the District of Columbia. National insti tute on Drug Abuse Technical Paper, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-427,1977 DuPont RL: Opening address in Proceedings of the CADAP-CEMEF Bi-National Conference on Drug Abuse, El Paso, Texas, Southwest Training institute, r^N Inc., 1977: 3-6.

U

I se O

Nurco DN, DuPont RL: A preliminary report on crime and addiction within a community-wide population of narcotic addicts. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2: 109-121, 1977.

Kozel NH, DuPont RL: Trends in drug use and crime and their relationship in American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 4:

an arrestee. population.

413-430, 1977.

Nightingale SL, DuPont RL: Drug abuse and role of physicians, in Drug Abuse:

Clinical and Basic Aspects: 37-45. Edited by Pradham SN, Dutta SN. St.

Louis, C.V. Mosby Co., 1977.

DuPont RL: Learning from falture and success. Evaluation 4: 150-151, 1977.

DuPont RL: Current national heroin trends. World Journal of. Psychosynthesis 9: 44-50, 1977.

DuPont RL: Collaboration problems and opportunities. Proceedings of the international Seminar Consnemorating the Designation of the Addiction

_ _ Research Foundation as a Collaborating Center of the World Health ,

Organization, Alcoholism f, Drug Addiction Research Foundation, 1977:~ ~'93-202. 1 DuPont RL: Science, values and the marihuana issue. Problems of Drug '

(] Dependence 1977 -- Proceedings of the 39th Annual Scientific Meeting, v Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Inc., 1977: 41-48.

DuPont RL: Marihuana: Our next step. Drug Abuse and Alcholism Review 1: 14-19, 1978; also slightly modified ve'rsion published in Addictions Si: 4-9, 1977; and Focus on Alcohol.and Drug issues 1: 7, 1978 DuPont RL: The drug abuse decade. Journal of Drug issues 8: 173-187, 1978.

DuPont RL: you alone can do it, but you cannot do it alone. Proceedings of the Second World Conference of Therapeutic Communities, Part I, 1975: 34-40.

Kozel NJ, DuPont RL: The heroin use and crime controversy -- the issues and some research conclusions. World Journal of Psychosynthesis 10: 42-49, 1978.

DuPont RL: Getting it together for the long haul. Drug Abuse: Modern Trends, Issues and Perspectives -- Proceedings of the Second Nationai Drug Abuse j

Conference. New Orleans, Louisiana, F975, 1978: Xill-XXix.

DuPont RL: The drug abuse legislative agenda -- 1975. Drug Abuse: Modern Trends, Issues and Perspectives -- Prceeedings of the Second National Drug Abuse Conference, New Orleans. Louisiana. 1975, 1978: 905-911 O

O DuPont RL: Bridges between alcohol and drug problems. . Proceedings ADPA 28th Annual Meeting, Alcohol and Drug Problems Association of North America, Septemeer 25-29, 1977, March 1975: 14-19.

DuPont RL: New directions for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in A Multicultural View of Drug Abuse -- Proceedings of the Fourth NationaT Drug Abuse Conference, San Francisco, California, 1977: Il-22. Edited by Smith DE, et al. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Schenkman Publishing Co., Inc.,

1978.

DuPont RL: Marijuana smoking: A national epidemic. ALA Bulletin 66: 2-7, September 1980.

DuPont RL: Marijuana update. The Medical Letter, 1980.

DuPont RL: The future of primary prevention: Parent power. The Journal-of Drug Education 10: 1-5, 1980.

DuPont RL: The evolution of drug abuse in the United States in the last ten years.-- Grassroots . Epidemiology':- 23-28,-Septembee-1981. Presented-se- -

conference, " Drug Abuse in 1981: Social Refusal or Acceptance?" Paris, France, March 16, 1981. .

O ourent aL: The americae resPoese to maria a a. Sesmitted te sweaie's seer ai on Alcohol and Drugs, Swedish Board of Education, September 1961.

DuPont RL: Chapter in Drugs and Civilization, Pergamon Press, September 1981 Gibbons C, Brown BS, Greene MH, DuPont RL: Initiation into heroin use.

International Journal of the Addictions.16: 933-937, 1981.

DuPont RL: Drug abuse: The role of the family. Phi Delta Epsilon-Scientific Journal 73: 10-15, 1981.

DuPont RL: Sexual effects of marijuana. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, April 1, 1982.

Uhde IV, Boulenger J, Stever LJ, DuPont RL, Post RM: Animal models of anxiety: Implications for research in humans. Psychopharmacology Bulletin 18: 47-52, October 1982.

DuPont RL, Basen MM: Control of alcohol and drug abuse in industry: A literature review. Manacing Health Promotion in the Workplace: Guidelines for imolementation and Evaluation, Parkinson, Palo Alto, California, Rebecca S. Mayfleid Publishing Co., 1982: 194-217.

O-

l l

l

-g_

n

( )

v DuPont RL: Problems of using cocaine as an aphrodisiac, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, March 1983.  ;

DuPont RL: Teenage drug use: Opportunities for the pediatrician. The Journal of Pediatrics 102: 1003-1007, June 1983.

DuPont RL: Phobias in children. The Journal of Pediatrics 102: 999-1002, June 1983.

DuPont RL: The dangers of " success" against drugs. Journal of Drug Education 13: 201-205. 1983.

DuPont RL: Points of view in Mental Health Care and National Health Insurance by David Upton, New York, Plenum Press, 1963: 205-206.

DuPont RL: Diagnosis and treatment of phobias. Directions in Psychiatry 3: 1-7, 1983.

DuPont RL: Practical pharmacotherapy for phobias. Directions in Psychiatry

_31_.l-7, 1983 _ __ . ._

DuPont RL: Bulimia: A modern epidemic among adolescents. Pediatric Annals 13: 908-914, 1984.

(_) DuPont RL: The treatment and prevention of substance abuse in adolescents.

Directions in Psychiatry 4: 1-7. 1984.

DuPont RL: Substance abuse. Journal of the American Medical Association (in press).

DuPont RL: Marijuana, alcohol and adolescence: A malignang synergism.

Seminars in Adolescent Medicine (in press).

DuPont RL: Saying "no" to heroin addicts: A dilemma in a free society, Introduction to The Comoulsory Treatment of Ooiate Addiction. Edited by McGlothlin WH, Anglin MD. (in press).

/

N

l April 1985

.f'

'N GENERAL PUBLICATIONS DuPont RL: " Narcotics Treatment as Crime Reduction and Human Resources Strategy." Trends, 1970, pp. 1-8.

DuPont RL: "The Treatment of Heroin Addicts: A Historical and Personal Review." Career Directions, 1972, pp. 12-25.

DuPont RL: "How to identify Heroin Problems." Justice, 1972, pp. 10-12.

DuPont RL: " Criminal Justice Clients of the Narcotics Treatment Adminis-t ra t ion. " Institute Notebook, District of Columbia Superior Court Sentencing institute, January 1973 Wilson JQ, DuPont RL: "The Sick Sixties." The Atlantic Honthly, October 1973, pp. 91-98.

DuPont RL: " Drug Abuse Education a Failure So Far." Los Angeles Times, Janua ry 25, 1974.

/

n)

DuPont RL: "The Rise and Fall of Heroin Addiction." Natural History, January / July 1974, pp. 66-71.

DuPont RL: " Pot: Mild intoxicant or Serious Menace?" The Sun, Baltimore, MD, December 4, 1976.

DuPont RL: " Interdependence in Principle and Practice." Drug Enforcement, 1977, pp. 14-16, 34.

DuPont RL: "Is U.S. Becoming a Drug-Ridden Society?" U.S. News & World Recort. August 1978, pp. 30-31.

DuPont RL: " Drugs Are Not Kids' Stuff." Sidwell Friends Bulletin, Sidwell Friends School, Washington, D.C. , May 8, 1979 DuPont RL: Nuclear Phobia -- Phobic Thinkino About Nuclear Power. Washington, D.C.: The Media Institute, March 1960.

DuPont RL: " Phobic Fear as a Nuclear Health Hazard." The Washington Star, July 20, 1980.

DuPont RL: " Nuclear Phobia: Phobic Thinking About Nuclear Power." ' Nuclear Power in American Thoucht. Edison Electric Institute,' Decisionmakers,

~

6: 23-41, 1951.

v I

l 1

1 DuPont RL: " Sounding the Alarm." PTA Today. May 1981, pp. 3-5.

DuPont RL: "A Fresh Perspective for the War on Drugs." The Washington Star, Consnent Section, July 2,1981. (Re: Carlton Turner appointment) .

DuPont RL: " Fifty Million Frenchmen Have Few Nuclear Fears." Electric Persocctives, Edison Electric Institute, Fall 1981, pp. 33-36.

DuPont RL: "The Nuclear Power Phobia." Business Week, September 7, 1981, pp. 14-16. (Reprinted in Congressional Record, September 15,1981.)

DuPont RL: "At 18, You're an Adult." The inauirer, Hartsdale, NY, December 24, 1981, p. 7.

DuPont RL: "Why 1 Changed My Mind About Marijuana." Listen, 1981,

, pp. 12-15.

DuPont RL: " Learning From the Past to Cope with the Future." Druo Abuse in the Modern World, New York: Pergamon Press, 1981, pp. 267-271.

Uuront REF-"Fs9 chol'olicai~Traums add NDclear' Eirid(gency Piai..iing: The -

Value of Confronting Fears." Are Current Emergency Planning Requirements Justified?, (Workshop Proceedings), Nuclear Safety Analysis Center, .

January 13,.1982.

O DuPont RL: " Drugs and Kids: New Hope." Synergist, published by Action, April 1982, pp. 21-22.

DuPont RL: " Marijuana." World Book, 1982.

DuPont RL: "Should the Military be Allowed to Conduct Mandatory Random Urine Tests for Illicit Drug Use?" U.S. Journal, Point / Counterpoint, March 1983 DuPont RL: "Should the Military Test Urine for Drugs?" U.S. Journal, March 25, 1983.

DuPont RL: " Helping Kids (and Parents) Survive the Drug, Alcohol and Related ' Revolutions.'" Parents Council Newsletter, Spring 1983 DuPont RL: " Awash in Alcohol." Listen, October 1983 O~

l 1

1 April 1985 UNPUBLISHED PAPERS DuPont RL: "The Impact of Psychosis on Marriage." Presented to the American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, September 1968.

DuPont RL: "A Short-Term Training Group for Parole Officers: An in-Service Training Experience." January 1969.

DuPont RL, Grunebaum H: "The Sex Li fe of Married Paranoid Women."

September 1969.

.DuPont RL: " Individual Psychotherapy in Prisons." December 1970.

DuPont RL, Greene, MH: " Methadone Overdose Deaths in Washington." September

__1972.. ._. ..

DuPont RL,.Greene, MH: " Heroin Addiction Epidenic." November 1972. ,

DuPont RL, Greene, MH: " Heroin Addiction -- Light at the End of-the Tunnel."

O. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, May 1973 DuPont RL: "The Vital Link: Drug Abuse Treatment and the Criminal Just!ce System." Presented at the First National Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime Conference, Washington, D.C. , September 1973.

DuPont RL: " Alcohol Problems of the Drug Abuser." Presented to the Alcohol and Drug Problems Association of North America, Bloomington, Minnesota, September 1973.

DuPont RL: " Future Directions."_ Presented to Drug Enforcement Administration News Correspondents' Seminar, October 1973.

DuPont RL: " Perspective on an Epidemic." Presented to the Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, Washington, D.C., October 1973.

DuPont RL: Comments presented to the International Conference on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, San Juan, Puerto Rico, November 1973.

DuPont RL: Remarks before the Polydrug Conference, Denver, Colorado, January 1974.

DuPont RL: U.S. Statement on Drug Abuse before the Third Special Session, U.N. Commission on Narcotic Druts, Geneva, Switzerland, February 1974.

[)

i

-p Q DuPont RL: "New Directions in Drug Abuse." Presented to the 1974 Conference on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, San Francisco, CA, April 1974.

DuPont RL: Speech to the National Coordinating Council of Drug Abuse Education, May 1974.

DuPont RL: Remarks before the U.S. Conference of Mayors," San Diego, CA, June 1974.

DuPont RL: Discussion dialogue between Robert L. DuPont, M.D. and partici-pants of VOA Editors' Roundtable, Number 12, October 1974.

DuPont RL: " Marihuana: An issue Comes of Age." Presented to the Inter-national Conference of *.he Pharmacology of Cannabis, Savannah, GA, December 1974.

DuPont RL: "A New Reality for Drug Abuse Prevention." Presented to the North American Congress on Alcohol and Drug Problems, San Francisco, CA, December 1974. -

~

~DuPont RL: Statement on drug abuse before the 26th Session, U.N. Commission on Narcotic Druts, Geneva, Switzerland, February 1975.

DuPont RL: " Worldwide Heroin Problem." August 1975.

DuPont RL: "U.S. Drug' Abuse Priorities in a Latin American Context."

Presented at the Regional Narcotics Coordinators Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, November 1975.

DuPont RL: " Guidelines for National Health Insurance as it Affects Drug Abuse Services." Presented to the New York Council on Alcoholism, Inc.,

ACCEPT, New York, NY, December 1975.

DuPont RL: "The Current Status of Methadone Treatment." Presented to the Wayne County Medical Society, Detroit, Ml, December 1975.

DuPont RL: "An American View of the Mexican Drug Abuse Connection."

Presented to Luis Echeverria, President of the Republic of Mexico,and the Mexican Cabinet, Mexico City, January 1976.

DuPont RL: Statement on drug abuse before the Fourth Special Session, U.N.

Comission on Narcotic Drugs, Geneva, Switzerland, February 1976.

DuPont RL: " Understanding Drug Abuse: A Problem of Mutual Concern."

Presented at the National Colombian Media Seminar on Drugs, Paipa, Colombia, March 1976.

O

\

DuPont RL: " Observations on the Changing Heroin Problem in the District of Columbia." Presented to the Metropolitan Washington Health Association, Arlington, VA, March 1976.

DuPont RL: "The View Around the Corner." Presented to the National Issues and Strategies Symposium on the Drug-A. busing Criminal Offender, Reston, VA, April 1976.

DuPont RL: "The Global Heroin Problem." April 1976.

DuPont RL, Kozel, NJ: " Heroin Use and Crime." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Miami, FL, May 1976.

DuPont RL: Discussion dialogue between Robert L. DuPont, M.D. and partici-pants of the Council of International Programs at the National Drug Abuse Center for Training and Resource Development, Arlington, VA, June 1976.

DuPont RL: " Philadelphia as a Leader in Drug Abuse Prevention: A Bi-centennial Perspective." Presented before the Philadelphia Forum of Drug and Alcohol Abu.se, Prog _ rams u Philadelphia, e PA Augu_st u 1976.

DuPont RL: " Heroin Maintenance: A Discussion Paper." August, 1976.

DuPont RL: " Demand Reduction Role in United States International Drug Abuse

() Prevention and Control." Presented before a reeting of U.S. Narcotic Control Officers, London, England, September 1976.

DuPont RL: Informal remarks presented at the 25th tranian Medical Congress, Ramsar, Iran, September 1976.

DuPont RL: " Drug Abuse Research -- The Federal Role." Presented at a sym-posium at McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, October 1976.

DuPont RL: Remarks before the Annual Meeting of the Florida Drug Abuse Treatment and Education Association, Tampa, FL, October 1976.

DuPont RL: "The Nature of the Problem and the Response to Drug Abuse in the United States." Presented at the Pan American Medical Association Golden Anniversary Congress, Hollywood, FL, October 1976.

DuPont RL: " Drug Abuse -- A Global Epidemic." Presented at the World Psychiatric Association Symposium, Ibadan, Nigeria, November 1976.

DuPont RL: Informal remarks presented at the World Psychiatric institute and the Association of Psychiatrists in Nigeria, ibadan, Nigeria, November 1976.

O_

(

4_

~

DuPont RL: Statement on drug abuse and measures to reduce demand before the'27th Regular Conference, U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Geneva, Switzerland, February 1977.

DuPont RL: Informal remarks presented at a conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Phoenix, AZ, March 1977.

DuPont RL: "An American View of the British Heroin Scene." Presented at the informal Symposium on Coordinating the Response to Changes in Drug Abuse, Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence, London, England, May 1977.

DuPont RL: " Heroin liaintenance: A Discussion by Robert L. DuPont, M.D."

An edited version of remarks presented before the National League of Cities Conference, Washington, D.C., June 1977.

DuPont RL: Informal remarks presented at the European and Near East Narcotics Coordinators Conference, Rome, italy, September 1977.

DuPont RL: " Operation Trip-Wire: A New Proposal Focused on Criminal Heroin

~~~~ Addicts." Presented at the 1977 Annual Convention of the Federal Bar Association, Washington, D.C., September 1977.

DuPont RL: " Cocaine, Latin America and the Reduction of the Demand for O Drugs." Prepared remarks at the ARA Regional Narcotics Coordinators Conference, Miami, FL, November 1977.

DuPont RL: "NIDA -- A Status Report to the States." Prepared remarks for the Fourth Annual ADAMHA Conference of the State and Territorial Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Authorities, Washington, D.C., November 1977.

DuPont RL: " Drug Abuse: Assessment of the U.S. Problem and Measures to Reduce Illicit Demand." Informal remarks presented at the Fifth Special Session, U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Geneva, Switzerland, February 1978.

DuPont RL: Welcoming remarks at the National Drug Abuse Prevention Conference, Washington, D.C., March 1978.

DuPont RL: " Drug Abuse Prevention: Bright Past; Brighter Future." Info rmal remarks presented at the Fifth National Drug Abuse Conference, Seattle,

' WA, April 1978.

DuPont RL: " Policy implications of 20th Century Rates of Opiate Dependence in the United States." Presented at the Psychiatric Institute, Washington, D.C., May 1978.

{' -

(3 v DuPont RL: Informal remarks presented at the 40th Annual Scientific Meeting 6f the Connittee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Inc., Baltimore, MD, June 1978.

DuPont RL: Remarks on the occasion of the ceremony to present the Public Health Service Superior Service Award to Robert L. DuPont, M.D.,

Rockville, MD, June 1978.

DuPont RL: "NIDA -- Adult identity Crisis at Age Five." Presented to staff of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, July 1978.

DuPont RL: "Why l Changed My Mind on Marijuana." Presented at Awareness Banquet of Straight, Inc., May 23, 1979.

DuPont RL: " Understanding Fear of Nuclear Power." Presented at the Inter-national Conference of the Atomic industrial Forum, Inc., Washington, D.C., November 18, 1980.

DuPont RL: " Straight Ahead introductory Remarks." Presented at Second Annual Awareness Banquet of Stra.ight, incu _ December 10.,1380.

DuPont RL: Mamaroneck Keynote Address, presented to Connunity Conference Day on Substance Abuse, Honnocks School, Mamaroneck Public School System,

• NY, January 24, 1981.

DuPont RL: " Focus on Heroin Addiction: Keynote Address." Presented at city-wide conference, " Drug Abuse in the District of Coltsnbia: Where Ve Are and Vhere Are Ve Going?" March 6, 1981.

DuPont RL: "How The American Counci1 on Marijuana Can Heip the Parents' Movement." Presented at Seventh Annual Southeast Drug Conference, Atlanta, GA, April 2, 1981.

DuPont RL: " Lessons from France: Fears of Nuclear Power." May 4,1981.

DuPont RL: " Perspectives of Nuclear Risk: The Role of the Media." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Nuclear Association, Ottawa, Canada, June 9, 1981.

DuPont RL: " Phobic Fear of Nuclear Energy -- Why Don't the French Have it?"

June 12, 1981.

DuPont RL: "The Drug Dependence Syndrome: Implications for Alcohol Policy,"

Presented at Conference on Control Issues in Alcohol Abuse Prevention, Charleston, SC, September 28, 1981.

O

-o DuPont RL: " Straight, Inc. -- Atlanta." Presented to First Annual Awareness Banquet, Atlanta, GA, October 17, 1981.

DuPont RL: "The Press isn't to Blame for Nuclear's Problems!" December 20, 1981.

^

DuPont RL: "Can Prevention and Treatment Co-Exist?" Presented at Eighth Annual PRIDE Conference, Atlanta, GA, April 2, 1982.

DuPont RL: Report to the Board of Straight, Inc., July 30, 1982.

DuPont RL: " Presentation of Second Annual Drug Abuse Prevention Award from the American Council on Marijuana and Other Psychoactive Drugs, Inc. to General John W. Vessey, Jr., Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff." 78th Anniversary Dinner of the Navy League of the U.S., Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, NY, November 3, 1982.

DuPont RL: " Bulimia: A Modern Epidemic " Presented to the symposium on Adult Eating Disorders sponsored by the Crisis Center of the Psychiatric

. Institute and the Psychiatric Institute Foundation,_ December 9_,1982. _ ,

DuPont.RL: " Rediscovering Aesculapius' Second Daughter." 1982.

DuPont RL: "The Dangers of ' Success' Against Drugs." February 4, 1983.

.O DuPont RL: "The Role of the Corporate Medical Director in Coping with the Drug Dependence Epidemic." Presented to the New York Princeton Club, March 10, 1983.

DuPont RL: " Global Trends in Drug Policy: Dangers and Opportunities."

Presented to PRIDE Conference, Atlanta, GA, April 1983 DuPont RL: "Is the Media Giving Proper Coverage to the Risks and the Benefits of Nuclear Power?" Presented to American Enterprise Institute for Public Poiicy Research, June 29, 1983.

DuPont, RL: "Ma ri j uana : The Most Serious New Threat to knericans' Lungs."

Presented to Board of Directors, American Lung Association, Miami, FL, December 9,1983 DuPont RL: " Core Curriculum Multi-Audience introductory Speech." 1983.

DuPont RL: " Focus on Fear." Presented to the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.,

Washington, D.C., November 14, 1984.

6

April 1985 l r8 ,

k_

l FOREVORDS DuPont RL: Foreword to Alternative Pursuits for America's 3rd Century, National Institute on Drug Abuse, L' HEW Publication No. ( ADM) 73-9153.

Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Docunents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974.

DuPont RL: Foreword to A Treatment Manual for Acute Drug Abuse Emeroencies, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Puolication No. (ADM)75-230.

Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing office, 1975.

DuPcnt, RL: Foreword to Coerational Definitions in Socio-Behavioral Drug Use Research, Research Honograph Series 2, National institute on urug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)76-292. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing,_ Office, 1976._

DuPont, RL: Foreword to Young Men & Drugs -- A Nationwide Survey, Research Monograph Series 5, National institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No.-

() (ADM)76-311. Washi.ngton, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, February 1976.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Medical Care at Larce Gatherinos, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)/6-267. Washington, D.C.:

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1976.

DuPont, RL: Foreword to Cannabinoid Assays in Humans, Research Monograph Series 7, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)76-339 Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1976.

DuPont RL: Foreword to National Directory of Drug Abuse Treatment Procrams, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)76-321.

Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1976.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Rx: 3x/wk LAAM-Alternative to Methadone, Research Monograph Series 8, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No.

(ADM)76-339 Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, September 1976.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Medical Treatment for Comolications of Polydrug-Abuse, Treatment Manual 1. National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Puolication No.

(ADM)76-336. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern-ment Pringing Office, January 1977,

{}.

\

DuPont RL: Foreword to Marihuana and Health Sixth Annual Report to the U.S.

Congress, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-443 Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1977.

DuPont RL: Foreword to The Theraceutic Communit'y, Services Research Report, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM J / /-969 Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1977.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Manual for Druo Abuse Treatment Procram Self-Evaluation, Treatment Frogram Monograpn Series, Nationai institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-421. Washington, D.C.: Super-Intendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1977, DuPont RL: Foreword to Guide to the Investigation and Reoorting of Druo Abuse Deaths, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)/7-386. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1977.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Addicted Families a'nd Th'eir ' Children, Services Research Report, National institute en Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No.

gS (ADM)77-480. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

[,) Government Printing Office, June 1977.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Druas and Delvino, Research Monograph Series 11, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-438 Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1977.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Cocaine: 1977, Research Monograph Series 13, National Institute on Drug Abuse, OHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-471. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1977.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Marihuana Research Findings: 1976, Research Monograph Series 14, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Puolication No. (ADM)77- '

501. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1977.

DuPont, RL: Foreword to Conducting Follow-Up Research on Druo Treatment Procrams, Treatment Program Monograpn Series 2, Nationai institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-487. Washington, D.C.: Super-intendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1977.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Emoloyment Discrimination and How to Deal With it, Services Research Report, National institute on Drug Abuse, ONEW Puolication Q No. (ADM)77-532. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of occuments, U.S.

Government Printing Office, October 1977.

(/-

DuPont RL: Foreword to Referral Stratecies for Polydrug Abusers, Services Research Monograph Series, National Polydrug Collacorative Project, Treatment Manual 3, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No.

(ADM)77-515. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, November 1977.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Review of inhalants: Euohoria to Dysfunction, Research 5

Monograph Series 15, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Puolication No.

(ADM)77-553. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, December 1977.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Assessment of local Drua Abuse by Hunt LG. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath & Co., 1977.

DuPont RL: Foreword to The Epidemiology of Heroin ands 0ther Narcotics, Research Monograph Series 16, National institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)78-559. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1978.

=-

DuPont RL: Foreword tc Sedat ive-Hypnot4c--Bruem-Rt *sks-adBenef-i+s ;--

National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)76-592.

Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1978. ,

DuPont RL: Foreword to Drug At.use Prevention, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publica tion No. '(ADM)78-568. Vashington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1978 DuPont RL: Foreword to Drug Abuse Prevention for Your Comnwnity, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)/d-566. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Jaauary 1978.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Drug Abuse Prevention for You and Your Friends, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADMJ/d-563.-

Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1978.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Drug Abuse Prevention for Your Family, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)78-5o4. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1978.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Druo Abuse Prevention for the Media, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)70-5d7. Jasnington, D.C.: Super-Intendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1978 O-1

4-r~%

V DuPont RL: Foreword to La Prevencion del Abuso de las Drocas, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)/d-569. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1978.

DuPont RL: Foreword to National Survey on Drug Abuse: 1977, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication N6. (A0M)75-615. Wasnington, D.C.:

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1978.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Drug Addiction and the United States PublIc. Health Service, National Institute on Drug Abuse, OHEW Puolication No. (ADM)77-434. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1978.

DuPont RL: Foreword to Bibliograohv and Abstracts of Papers Emanatino from the Addiction Research Center 1935-1975, National institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-435. Wasni'ngton, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1978.

__ J1u_on.t P RL: Forewor_d_to_The Pleasure Addictsu by_ ![atterer LJm New York: -

A.S. Barnes & Co., 195D.

DuPont RL: Foreword to The Substance Abuse Problems by Cohen S. New York:

Haworth Press, 1981.

O DuPont RL: The drug abuse epidemic. Foreword to Dru, Abuse: Theory, Research and Practice, by Eiseman S. 1983.

DuPont RL: Drug abuse background. Foreword to Clinical Persoectives on l Drug Abuse, by Laith DE, Vesson, DR, i

I i

l i

s i

a-1

n, '

April 1985 i () .

, PREFACES DuPont RL: Preface to Quick Evaluation Methodology, Special Action Office Monograph Ser es A, Numoer 2. Executive Office of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1973.

DuPont RL: Preface to A Guide to Urine Testino for Drugs of Abuse, Special Action Office Honograpn Series 8, Numoer 2. Executive 0ffice of the President, Spec.ial Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1973 ,

DuPont RL: Preface to Central intake Unit Manual, Special Action Office Monograph Series C, Number 1. Executive Office of the President,

,_ Spec _lal Action Office for Drug Abuse _ Prevention. Wa sh_i_ngt_onm D.C -

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1974.

, DuPont RL: Preface to The Media and Druo Abuse Messaces, Special Action -

'l Office Monograph Series 0, Numcer 1, Executive Of fice of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.:

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1974 DuPont RL: Preface to The Vietnam Drug User Returns, Special Action Office Monograph Series A, Number 2. Executive Of fice of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1974.

DuPont RL: Preface to Drua incidence Analysis, Special Action Office Monograph Series A, Number 3, Executive Office of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, August 1974 1

DuPont RL: Preface to Estimatino the Prevalence of Heroin Use in a Community, l Special Action Office Monograpn Series A, Number 4 Executive Office of '

the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1974.

DuPont RL: Preface to Outpatient Methadone Treatment Manual, Special Action Office Monograph Series C, Numoer 2. Executive Office of the President, Special Action Of fice for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C. :

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, August,1974.

~

1 1

j

s

~

_2

,y G DuPont RL: Preface to Residential Methadone Treatment Manual, Special Action l

j Office Monograph Seri~es C, Numoer 3 Executive Office of the President, l Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.:

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1974.

DuPont RL: Preface to Outpatient Drug-Free Treatment Manual, Special Action Of fice Monograph Series C, Numoer 4. Executive Office of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Vashington, D.C.:

Superintendent of Doctsnents, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, August 1974.;

DuPont RL: Preface to An Assessment of the Diffusion of Heroin Abuse to Medium-Sized American~ Ci ties, .Specia s action orfice Monograpn Series A, Numoer 5 Executive ~0ffic.e of.the President, Soecial Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention., Washington, D.C.: Suoerintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,' October 1974 DuPont RL: ' Preface to Residential Drug-Free Manual, Special Action Office Monograph Series C, Numoer 5 Executive of fice of The President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of_Qocument.s, U.S. Government Printino Office. Octob_er 1974 DuPont RL: Preface to An Eoldemiologic Study of Heroin Use Patterns and Trends in Four Cities on the Mexican-American 6 order, Special Action Office, n Monograpn Series A, Numoer 6 Executive Office of the President, Special Q Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Vashington, D.C. : Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1975.

DuPont RL: Preface to Looking Ahead: The Youth Health Center, Special Action Office Monograph Series E, Numoer 1 Executive Office or tne President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.:

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, June 1975.

l ,.

~

O

April 1985 O

BOOKS DuPont RL,'Goldstein A, O'Donnel J: Handbook on Drua Abuse, Rockville, Maryland: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1976 DuPont RL (ed): Phobia: A Comorehensive Sumary of Modern Treatments.

New York: Brunner/Mazei, 1962.

Weissman JC, DuPont RL: Criminal Justice and Drugs: The Unresolved Connection. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press,1962.

DuPont RL: Getting Tough on Gateway Druas: A Guide for the Family.

Washington, D.C.: American Psycniatric Press, 1964.

O O~

b I

I

(~'% April 1985 V

BOOK REVIEWS DuPont RL: Review of Methadone Maintenance, edited by Einstein S. In Hospital and Community Psycniatry 22: 322-323, 1971.

DuPont RL: Review of Methadone: Experiences and issues, edited by Chambers C, Brill L. In Federal Procation 37: 52, 1973 DuPont RL: Review of Licit and liticit Drugs, by Brecher EM and editors of Consumer Reports, and review of Guide to Drue Rehabilitation: .A Public Hea l th Acoroacn, edi ted by Meyer RE. In Psycniatry: Journal for the Study of interpersonal Processes 36: 351, 1973.

DuPont RL: Review of Narcotic Antagonists (Advances in Biochemical Psycho-pharmacology - 8), edi ted by Braude MC, Harris, LC, May EL, et al . In

- The-Journal of Neivuus and-Mertta l-Di s eases- :50:-57-587 1975- - - - - - - - - -

DuPont RL, Ginzburg HM: Review 'cf The Effectiveness of Druo Abuse Treatment, Vols. I and 11, edited by Sel?s S. In contemocrary Psycnolocy 21: 500-501',

/~'T 1976.

U DuPont RL: Review of Druas. Alcohol and (pry Confusing Data, edited by Chambers CD, inciardi JA, Siegal, HA. '

Contemocrary Psychology 22: 65-66, 1977.

C)~

v

l April 1985 r~w) u-l l

i LETTERS TO EDITORS DuPont RL: "The D.C. Heroin Epidemic: Progress Report." Letter to the Editor, The New Enoland Journal of Medicine 287: 1154, 1972.

DuPont RL: " Epidemic." Letter to the Editor, The Journal-of the. Ameri<an Medical Association 227: 1380, 1974.

DuPont RL: " Legal Marijuana: Bad idea Getting Worse." Letter to the Editor, New York Times, December 12, 1982.

DuPont RL: "Sometimes Coercion is the Only Way." Letter to the Editor in response to " Drug Abuse Treatment and Coercion," May 30, 1983, The Washinoton Post, June 11, 1983.

DuPont RL: "Two Prongs in a Winnab!e Assault on Drugs." Letter to the Editor, New York Times, September 26, 1984.

r~s DuPont RL: " Fear of Nuclear Power: Dr. DuPont Replies." Letter to the

( .)

_ Editor, The Washinoton Post, November 3, 1984.

7-w -

C)

April 1985 m

b MISCELLANEQUS DuPont RL: Comments on Senate Bill 151 (An Act Concerning Alcoholic Beverages, Legal Age Altered -- Dual System Retained), January 23, 1981.

DuPcnt RL: Quoted in " Teens: Schooled on Pot and Peers." Style Plus, i

The Washington Post, December 9, '1981.

DuPont RL: Statement before the Committee-on Science and Technology, Sub-committee on Energy Research and Production, U.S. House of Representa-tives, Washington, D.C., December 15, 1581.

DuPun. RL: Statement to the Counittee on Foreign Affairs (Re: Drug Problems in Society), U.S. House of Represent.atives, Washington, D.C., April 20, 1982.

Editorial: "Marij uant. " --WRc-TV ;--Apri+ 4902. - -

DuPont RL:

DuPont RL: Quoted in "How Drugs Sap the Nation's Strength," U.S. News and -

r World Report, May 16, 1983 DuPont RL: " Principles for Parents and Teenagers Dealing Vith Drugs and Other Problems." (Hand-out), May 1982.

DuPont RL: Radio comrentary: Anerican Voices.

1) Marijuana; 2) Families i Fight Back Against Drug Abuse; 3) Cocaine. July 19, 1983.

l

/~

L )T l

l I

f. I i

i 1

m

'2-7-Jo:W$1 '

9995 1 c JUDGE KELLEY: Motion granted.

\>' 2 MR._HOLLAR: Pardon? Motion granted?

3 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. You moved it in, right.

4 MR. HOLLAR: Yes.

5 (Laugher. )

6 MR. HOLLAR: I am sorry. I thought you were

..e 7 referring to Mr. Runkle's statement.

8i JUDGE KELLEi: That was an objection. At least 9, 'I understood it that way.

I

, i 10 j BY MR. HOLLAR: (Continuing) 11 j Q Dr. DuPont, will you please summarize briefly 12 your testimony?

t  !

(~'/

x- 13 l A .Yes, Mr. Hollar. I am a practicing psychiatrist.

14 l - I have spent nearly 20 years in the drug abuse prevention i

.15 field.

16 I was the first Director of the National i

17 Institute on Drug Abuse, and for the last three years I have I6 been specializing in work in the field of drugs in the work-19 place with Bensinger, DuPont and Associates.

20 ! My testimony briefly summarizes the patterns of 21 drug use in American society. Reviews, again, very briefly l

22 the principal effects of the most commonly used drugs on 23 work performance, and then focuses on the specifics of the  ;

24 Harris Plant and the concern about the 218 employees who were I h 3=- mea neponm. ine.  ;

25 possibly involved in drug activity, and discusses the fact i i

i l  !

'2-8-JotWal 9996

~

1 that most drug use occurs off the site rather than on.

V 2 And that .the relationship between drug use and impairment 3' is a complex _one, . and not to be' condensed without loss of 4 reality _in terms of. understanding.

5 Finally, my testimony identifies or discusses 6 the fact that the work related errors caused by drug use 7 1do not differ' in kind from those caused by a variety of si other _ problems in the work place, and that the quality 1

9i assurance program at the Harris Plant is designed and 10 operates to identify errors of all kinds, including those

.ll i caused by drug problems.

i2 ; Q Thank you, Dr. DuPont. Mr. Chairman, the 13 witness is now - available for cross-examination.

14 [ JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. Mr. Runkle?

-XX INDEX 15 l CROSS-EXAMINATION i

i 16 i BY MR. RUNKLE:

17 y Q I would like to -- good morning, Dr. DuPont.

-;}

18 [ I would like to clear up something. Maybe you can help me, 19 i or maybe counsel can.

h 20 ' You spoke in your opening statement about 218 1211 l employees suspected or known to be using drugs on site.

i ~ 2 2 ', A Yes.

ll .

23 [ Q Now, in the last month's hearing, we have talked

' (') _ 24 : in terms of a matrix of 201, and then during those proceedings Ew F6at Reporte*s, Inc.

25 ; we added six CONAN employees, whether they were suspected -- '

f 1 i i

.i

, n ~

L.

I 2-9-JoeWal l 9997 1 we treated them as if they were on drugs.

__ / 2 Is that matrix number now up to 218?

3 MR. HOLLAR: Counsel, I will have to correct There were five CONAN employees.

4 you on one point.

5 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 6 Q Okay. But that -- now the matrix contains 218, 7j is that correct?

84 MR. HOLLAR: Pardon?

9! MR. RUNKLE: Now the matrix contains 218.

10 j MR. HOLLAR: The matrix has been updated and 11 l filed as an exhibit to the testimony of the second panel.

12 l MR. RUNKLE: And the number of 218 is from that r's

() _

13 matrix, is that correct?

14 tl- MR. HOLLAR: It is in the exhibit.

15 JUDGE KELLEY: Does it reflect adding some CONAN 16 ! employees, plus some people who were picked up since?

17 ' MR. HOLLAR: Mr. Chairman, the 218 does not i

18 ! include the CONAN employees.

i 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Does not?

20 MR. HOLLAR: That is correct.

21 JUDGE KELLEY: If the number 201 is the one we 22 ! had last time, how did we get to 218. Is this an update?

231~ MR. HOLLAR: Just an update. More recent i

t O gj - . .

) Information.

DF__J Reporters, Inc.

25 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, thank you.

i l

h  !

1 i

2-10-JoeWal i

9998

)

l 1 MR. RUNKLE: Just to clarify the record, we have i m.,  !

(V 2 used the t 201 number so extensively last time. I End 2. 3 MS fels.

4 5

6 7i I

84 9

i 10 l 11 12 CA CJ 13 !;

I

'l 14 7 15 l 16 i l7 j' 18 I l

19 l,

20 '

21 !,

22 I Il 23 !:

( 24 ma n.., .... ~. ;

25 t

Il I. I }

,; i

9999

$im'3-12 -1 Q Dr. DuPont, you have-stated that in the last three

[( ' L2 years you.have been specializing in drug abuse.in the work 3 place; is that correct?

4 A Yes, sir.

5 0_ You have looked at other utilities, have you not 6 in nuclear power plant construction?

~

7 A Yes, I have. But I am not.sure -- well, go ahead, 8 -yes.

9 Q Has that been.a majority of the work places that 10 'you1have looked at?

11 A It has been a significant part. I don't think 12 it is the majority, no, but it is a significant.part. I would

-() 13 say 30 percent or something like that.

14 0- So you are fairly familiar with nuclear plant

-15 construction in terms of the amount of drug abuse at the 16 plant?

17 A I am familiar with it.

18 Q. And the effects of the workers utilizing drugs

'19 during construction?

20 A Yes.

21 :O In your CV, which is Attachment 1 to your testimony 22 you have listed quite extensively the publications you have 23 made in looking at drug abuse, have you not?

L l'

n _

24 'A Yes, I have.

Fij Riporters, Inc.

[: 25 0 .And you have looked at the problem from health

!=

i L-L

10,000 Sim 3-2 1 .

aspects; 1s that true?

2 A Yes, it is.

3 Q And also socio-legal aspects?

4 A Yes.

5 0 You are also familiar with how those drugs are 6 illegal, are you not?

7 A Yes, ' am.

8f Q So you have looked at the effects of -- well, 9 let's pick marihuana. Marihuana would be an illegal drug; 10 is that co'rrect?

A That is correct.

12 Q And it is illegal on the streets or in the work 13 place?

)

14 A Absolutely.

15 Throughout your testimony you made an analogy Q

16 between alcohol abuse and illegal drug abuse; is that correct?

17 A only to make one point I think I used that 18 anology, and that was the typical pattern in relationship 19 to onsite versus offsite, and the relationship between 20 occasion use and frequent use. That was the reason I 21 made that analogy, right.

22 0 Now on page 10 of your testimony, your answer 23 No. 10, I read this paragraph several times and basically 24 ez-F,'~)1 Reporters, Inc. would it be fair to summarize this paragraph that people 25 that use a lot of drugs may make more errors than people l

l_

i 10,001 Sim 3-3 j that don't use a lot of drugs?

~~

() 2 A Absolutely.

- I 3 Q And people that are feeling the physical effects l

4j from drugs or phychological effects from those drugs are mr likely to make errors than people that have taken drugs 5l 6 and they are hung over from those drugs; is that correct?

7 A That is correct.

l 8; O S this would be a fairly obvious matter and, you 9 know, if you are on drugs you are more likely to make 10 mistakes than not; is that correct?

11 A And the more you are on drugs, the more likely you 12 are to make mistakes, correct.

-(')

's 13 Q And that would be from somebody physically abusing 14 those drugs; is that correct?

15 A As opposed to what?

16 0 Well, as other kind of participation with drugs, j7 say buying or selling and those kinds of things.

18 A Oh, absolutely, yes.

j9 Q So in your analysis of the effects of drugs at 20 the work place, did you look at the likelihood of errors 21 from people that were buying and selling drugs as opposed 22 to physically using those drugs?

t.

23j A No.

,- 24 0 Have you in the past made that kind of analysis or

/p>F(_,1 R: porters, 25 Inc.

through your reading of the literature or, you know, general i

m 10,002

'Sim:3-4 y , knowledge have made any analysis of the. effects in the work.

qrl 2 Pae l f PeoP l e thatcare not using drugs but are otherwise v

3 buying or selling drugs?

4 A No, I have not, and I know of no such study.

5 Q Now on;page 11 of your testimony, in your answer 11, your premise is that at the Harris site other members 7

of the work crew would check up.on those members of the work I

8l r w that were feeling the physical effects of drugs; is that correct?

9 A es.

10 yj Q Have you made any analysis of this premise at the 12 Harris site or at any.other nuclear construction site?

g .,3 A No, I have not.

94 Q Now there might be other models of work besides a work crew with several co-workers; is there not?

A es.

LI6 p Q Okay. Now what are some of those other models?

A Where a. person-is working in isolation without.

18 j9 being part of a team.

20 Q Okay. Now at a nuclear power plant what workers 21 may be working in isolation and not part of the team?

A I w uldn't specify any particular job category, but 22 23 I am sure there are many who work less in a sense of being a part of a work team than others.

Q In your opinion, would an inspector be likely to 1

(

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

10,003

@im!3-5'. ) Lbe working in. isolation rather than as part of a work team?

2 A' Yes.

, 3 0 Might another model besides the work you postulated 4 in your answer 11 might be when'the entire crew is abusing 5 drugs?

6 A Absolutely.

7 :Q And then whatever effects one worker might be 8 feeling, the other workers may have the same physical 9 effects or related effects and not be systematically checking 10 . on each other?

-11 A That is correct.

12 0 Now on page 12, which seems to be the central part

() 13 ofLyour testimony, and this is basically summarizing your 14 opinions and findings in this matter, and let's begin with E 15 back to your analogy to alcohol.

16 Isn't it true that at a certain stage of using 17 alcohol a person can be classified as an alcoholic?

18 A Yes-l 19 0 And would it also be similar to a drug user at a 20 certain point he or she might be classified as an addict?

l i

21 A Yes. The distinction that is made in the phychiatric I 22 profession is the distiction between abuse and dependence,

(

23 which is the analogous distinction that you are making, and 24 that is made in the diagnostic. criteria from the American

>F v J Rrporters, Inc.

25 Psychiatric Association, but.the analogy is correct.

L

10,004 im 3-6 j Q And that would be the same between an user of

[')

v 2 alcohol as somebody being dependent -- is it use and 3 dependency?

4l A Abuse and dependence. In other words, alcohol I

5 abuse and alcohol dependence and marihuana abuse and 6 marihunan dependence.

I 7 Q And so with alcohol at what point does somebody start becoming an abuser or alcohol?

8f 9l A When there are social consequences from the use 10 and problems develop in the pers'on's life either in their 11 social life or work life or any part of their life. That 12 is the standard definition. In other words, it is a

(^)

a 13 social consequences definition rather than an amount of drug 14 use definition.

15 Q And up and to that point where there starts to be 16 various social impacts, negative adverse social impacts from 37 using the alcohol, it is not illegal up to that point, is it?

18 A For people over the drinking age, that is correct.

19 Q And in fact for alochol it is legal to use as 20 much alcohol as you want to, isn't it?

21 A That is true.

22 Q And you can probably drink enough to kill yourself?

23 A Yes, legally.

p 24 Q Now looking at one of the drugs, say marihuana,

%FiJ Reporters, Inc.l .

25 for instance, at what point do you and other psychiatrists L

7 10,005 Sim 3-I classify that person as abusing marihuana?

j A w*ll' fr m a Psychiatric diagnosis point of view 2

it would be.the same standard. In other words, there would' 3

4 have to be some assessment of abverse consequences. I can Ltell you from a policy point of View, from an attitude point ,

j of' view'I consider any use of an. illegal drug abuse. So from 7, my point of view ar.y user of cocaine or marihuana or any other 8]i illl gal drug is a drug abuser in my definition, although 1

9l the technical definition in the diagnostic manual. requires 10 some assessment of negative social consequences.

jj Q So that is the commonly held societal policy?

A Which is what?

12 13 O That any use of an illegal drug is an abuse?

)

A That is correct.

34 15 0 And that is.also a matter of serious concern?

A Absolutely, including personal concern to me, right.

16 j7 Q But there may be instances where somebody.may have a sual r a social use of drugs and it may not affect him 18 39 socially either through family or at the work place?

20 A. That is correct.

21 Q A weekend user may not feel the effects on Monday; 22 is that correct?

r A That is correct.

23 I

24 0 Now'also with drugs there can be an addiction or O

hFQi Keporters, Inc, 251 a physical dependency to those drugs?

I l

b L

10,006 Bim 3-8 1 A Yes.

( 2 Q Would you say that there is a difference in the 3 attitude between somebody that is abusing the drug and 4 being physically dependent to the drug?

5 A What kind of difference are you alluding to? I am 6l not clear?

l 71 Q Well, let's start with some of them in their i

8 social lives and their relationships, you know, with their 9I family and friends.

101 A Yes. The adverse consequences of drug use, as I 11 tried to specify in my testimony, are related to the amount 12 of the drug as well as the setting in which the drug occurs (v^) 13 and other factors. But sometimes you have from a single use 14 of the drug in a social setting very damaging outcomes, whereas 15 other times you have relatively heavy use without damaging 16 outcomes. So there is no simple connection and you can't really 17 say that a person who is using a drug occasionally is not going 18 to have a negative social outcome, including death, for 19 example, of either himself or someone else. So it is a little 20 bit more unpredicatable I guess is the way I would say it.

21 Q So there might be an analogy. If I went to a 22 church social and smoked marihuana, there may be quite extreme 23 social outcomes to that; is that correct?

l q 24 A Correct.

L A re-i v l Reporters. Inc.

25 0 As opposed to I go to a party when everybody at the

10,007 Sim 3-9 1, party is smoking marihuana?

_ j

) 2! A Right.

~-

t 3 g I can smoke a lot of marihuana at that time and 4 the social effect of that is very limited.

I 5 A Yes. Maybe I should use the word " social" in 6 a different context because that implies that I am talking l 7 about the attitude of the other people, and I really mean 8 it more generically.

l 4

91 From my point of view, I would include a consequence, 10 for example, driving a car unsafely or having an accident 11 as a social consequcnce. So it isn't just the attitude 12 of the people around, but it is the result of the use in the

/%

/ 1 13 wider society that I am talking about.

v 14 Q But there are instances in certainly social 15 situations where drug abuse is accepted, is it not?

16 A Yes, and those are relatively isolated in American 17 society. There are very strong values against drug use. So 18 that most drug users of illegal drugs are constantly confronted 19 with social pressure against their use.

20 0 But in certain, shall we call them countercultures, 21 is that the term ---

22 A Yes.

23 0 --- or demimonde, that where marihuana use or r3 24 drug abuse is accepted?

bc-FQ,) R: porters, Inc.

25 A That is right.

n f 10,008 i

him 3-10  ; O And there are differences between, you know,

') 2{ society at large and a society where drug abuse is accepted?

a  ;

3l A Exactly. That is correct.

i 4l Q For an individual that is abusing the drugs, what i

5l are the differences? Can you explain ---

6j A Between what?

0 Well, in a social situation where, as in most 7

8 f society, drugs are very much frowned upon ---

A Right.

9 10 ;l 0 --- versus a social situation where drugs are jj freely used and accepted.

12 A Y s. There are many differences. Let me just

(')

13l i

menti n ne that I think is relevant to our hearing this jal morning, and that is that one of the best predictors of a drop in illegal drug use for a young person is entering the 15 16 w rk force. In other words, when a young person goes from 37l a school setting to a work setting there is a very profound, 18 it is ne f the most profound indicators of a decrease in j9 illegal drug use in general as people, and that has to do 20 with the fact I think, or at least the way I interpret that, 6

21 that in a school setting there is much more tolerance in 22 a y uth peer culture for the use of marihuana, for example, 23 than there is in a work culture. So that there is a strong

,'~N 24 n gative pressure.

s  !

FL.I Rrporters, Inc.

25 The other strong predictor of decreased drug use

3:

10,009 Sim.3-11 1 as people age is marriage. When people get married they O

.wl 2 tend to reduce their drug use very dramatically of illegal 3 -drugs.

d 4 h;Simfollows  !

l 5

l 6 i

7 )

! 1 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

' 22 23 l

>-O..-,..72.

25

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

10,010 04-1-SueW 1 O And in certain social situations, though, I 2 think earlier in your testimony you discussed that the 3 typical drug abuser would be a male in his twenties with 4 excess income; is that correct?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And he --

7 MR. HOLLAR: Mr. Runkle, I believe you mis-8 characterized the witness' testimony. I don't think there 9 is any statement about excess income.

10 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 11 Q Well, would it -- sir, would a young male with 12 excess income -- let me see, the economic term would be 13 disposable income -- be more likely to be abusing drugs 14 than somebody who did not have any money?

15 f Is that correct?

i 16 ' (Laughter.)

17 A Mr. Runkle, the relationship between income and 18 drug use is a very complicated one, because the poorest 19 in our society have the highest drug use rate, not the 20 lowest.

21 So it is really complicated. And I appreciate 22 Mr. Hollar's stopping me at that point. And I didn't mean 23 to imply that simply having more money predicts greater I

9 24 aba-Fra er ) fleporters, Inc.

25 drug use. It's a very complicated relationship.

wouldn't want to characterize it one way or the other.

And I l

l L

' 10,011 i

h4-2-SueW 1 I would say that oftentimes the most expensive

':1 \4 drug habits in American life are supported by the poorest 2

3 people. And there are many very rich people who don't use 4 . drugs.

5 So, I just don't think that's a good connection.

.6 0 Uh-huh. I had some questions about another one 1

7 - of your premises and that's in your Answer 13. And your 8 basic premise throughout your testimony is that drug 9 abusers do not make qualitatively different errors than 10 other workers.

11 Is that correct?

12 A That is correct.

()

i'_'T 13 Q And that's qualitatively. Could -- it could be 14 the same~ error that a drug abuser may make as opposed to 15 somebody that's extremely tired.

16 A Right.

17 Q 'And, in fact, about the middle of page 12 you 18 list them all from -- other kind from alcohol intoxication, 19 fatigue, mental illness to conflicts with supervisors and I

20 co-workers.

21 A Right.

22 0 Are these the sources of all errors that are l 23 possible at a nuclear power plant?

i

() 24

>Fesseres memoriers, Inc.

A No. But that's illustrative. I was trying to 25 make that point.

10,012

)4-3-Suew I Q Uh-huh. And these are -- other ones might be 2 errors made maliciously or with intent, for whatever reason?

3 A Yes.

I 4 Q Now, I'm having a very trouble following your j I

5 testimony at this point when you talk in terms of a qualita-6 tive difference or -- you know, there is no qualitative 7 difference between a drug abusers errors and other kind of i

8 errors.

9 A Yes.

10 0 Can you -- can you get into that a little more l

11 and explain it to us? Just where -- explain that statement l

12 a little more for us, could you?  !

l A Yes, I would be happy to. I agree with you, l 13 14 that I think this is the most importent point of my testimony'.

l 15 And to go back a little bit to the background,  ;

16 in the drugs and for that matter alcohol in the work place, 17' there has been for many years a very great interest in 18 identifying sort of a one way to find the alcohol abuser or 4 19 the drug abuser, and to think now we've got it because they 20 only do this or that or the other thing, and in fact what 21 has emerged in this field has been the recognition that what 22 is identified is impairment.

23 In other words, what you see as a generic problem.

ll 24 And what superivsors are asked and others are asked is to

..Faserl.i E. port. . inc.

25 identify the impairment and then to refer for professional

10,013

!#4-4-SueW I evaluation for this very reason, that it is not.possible h[ 2 for the supervisor, or for that matter other people, to be 3

sure that the impairment that is observed is caused by a 4 drug or an alcohol use.

5 And the basic finding there is that the same 6

kinds of. impairments, including performance errors, ' are 7

produced by a wide variety of causes, including drug and 8

alcohol use but that there is no specific impairment that 9 would identify the drug or alcohol user.

10 Now, admittedly this is turning that finding 11 around and looking at it in a different way than is commonly j 12 thou.Jht of. But it is the same basic observation.

I~h 13 Q So, if the worker makes a certain error and V

.14 be impaired, it could be impaired from fatigue or being

'15 abusing drugs, and you really can't tell? }

16 A That is correct.

17 0 All right. And then in your next sentence in 18 your Answer 13, which is at the bottom of the second full  ;

19 paragraph on the page, it starts with, "From my experience 20 it is my professional opinion. . .," are you there?

21 A Yeah. i 22 1 0 You state that a drug abuser is no more likely i 23 than other workers to sabotage their work or conceal errors.f 24 A That's correct.

>v me,ms. w.

25 Q Now, what did you base that statement on? You said

10,014 i

l4-5-SueW 1 your experience and professional opinion. Have you done i

2 any studies along this line or are familiar with any, 3 you know, literature?

I 4 A Certainly I know of no studies at that point.  !

l 5 This is based on my experience of working with individual i'

6 drug abusers, none of whom in my practice, I should say, i

7 have worked in nuclear power plants.

8 So, it's a general statement and not specifically 9 related to power plants or power plant construction. It's 10 the kind of errors that drug dependent people make at work, ,

11 and what I have observed is that the most -- the errors 12 that vastly predominate are errors or poor performance, 13 sloppiness, low motivation, those kind of errors as opposed 14 to malicious errors.

15 And the reason is, the drug dependent person 16 is preoccupied with the drug use and not concerned with 17 something that would have to do with an aggressive intent 18 on something else. In fact, that's the same quality that 19 leads to the poor performance. ,

20 And that is a turning in and a preoccupation with 21 the feelings that the individual has. That is my experience 22 in working with drug dependent people and alcohol dependent 23 people. In general, in work studies; it is not specific o

24 to this plant or to the nuclear power industry.

4Feder) Reporters, inc, 25 Q Uh-huh. Now, at a nuclear power plant, and the i

f

o, 10,015~

e67"*pW I Harris Plant specifically, they have a program that if

() 2 somebody is caught using drugs on site they will be, 3 shall we say, summarily dismissed, fired right away?

4 I mean, that's --

5 A That's my understanding.

6 0 Yes, that would be the policy. And that -- in 7 the previous week of hearing we discussed many different  ;

8 aspects of that program.

9 Are you familiar with any of -- l l

10 A Yes, I am. . j II Q All right. Now, let me postulate something to  !

l-

,_s 12 you. If a -- if a worker knew that he or she was to be

()

s.

13 picked up through the Applicants' program, say a urianalysis --

14 A Right.

l t

15 0 -- and had been taking drugs, if that worker had  :

la been taking drugs and knew that if they got caught they .

17 would be fired -- f 18 A Right.

19 0 -- now, would that worker be more likely to e

20 care about following other procedures or --  ;

1 1 21 MR. IlOLLAR: Objection. I don't understand his i l

i 22 question. l f

23 JUDGE KELLEY: Could you explain it, Mr. Runkle?

\

[Fasera 24 cenorwes, Inc.

Perhaps you could restate it and comment on it some?

25 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) l l

L

10,016 04-7-sueW 1 o sir, fron your experience and also, you know, 2 reading in the literature, would a worker who knew that i

3 they would be fired, would they be more or less likely to 4 conceal errors, sabotage their work, follow written procedures, 5 or not? l i

6 MR. BARTH: Objection, Your Honor.

7 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you have an objection, or do 8 you understand that?

9 MR. HOLLAR: I would object this time on the basis 10 of it being a compound question.

11 MR. DARTH: I don't think it's clear, Your Honor, 12 because he hasn't explained how a worker can conceal an l \

J 13 error. It doesn't make much sense to me.

14 MR. HOLLAR: Is he also including the predicate 15 that this is a worker under the influence of drugs?

16 JUDGE KELLEY: Is that predicate in it, Mr.

17 Runkle?

18 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.

19 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Does the witness understand 20 the question? Or, do you need it broken up?

21 Maybe you are ahead of us all.

22 WITNESS DU PONT: Well, I can answer a question.

23 Whether it's the question I've been asked, I'm not sure.

('~x) 24 prniera nemete .. ine.

(Laughter.) l 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's try that and see where it takes

10,017 04-8-SueW 1 us. Go ahead.

(D

's / 2 WITNESS DU PONT: Well, let me make a distinction 3 between errors -- and you were talking about, is a drug 4 effected individual more likely to follow procedures or less 5 likely to follow procedures, or do things in a correct 6 manner or in any correct manner. So, let's just start with l

7 that question. As Mr. Hollar says, let's separate the ,

l l

8 questions.

l And my answer is that a person who is involved l 9 ,

i 10 with drugs, to the extent that he is using drugs, and again 11 this quantitative connection I would like to make, is more 12 likely to make errors of all kinds than is someone who is 13 not involved with drugs. And the more deeply the person is 14 involved in using drugs, the more the probability t',at there l 4 15 will.be errors that the person will make, that he will not ,

16 follow procedures.  ;

I 17 I mean, that's a quantitative connection. And l l

18 the second part of the question has to do with covering up l l

19 errors. .

20 In other words, a person who is now concerned ,

e >

21 that he may be punished, fired, other adverse action taken l i

22 because of his drug use, what is he likely to do as a l 23 result of that fear that he has, detection and punishment?

() 24 pres == n.comes. anc.

All right. Now, I think that's a separate question.

25 There, I think it's a very interesting thing to

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

/

10,018 -

t l

d4-9-SueW 1 try to put yourself in the mind of a drug dependent person. .

! f-)k/ 2 And the most likely response to that concern is to stop the f

3 drug use, or to mitigate it, to reduce the problem. In l* '

4 other words, there is actually a preventive. response.

l/

5 The easiest way to avoid a pro'blem is not to do f 6 it. Now, this is very important, because the main purpose  ! ,

7 of an anti-drug policy is actually to stop the person from i 8 using the drugs.

9 So, the most likely result is going to be to l

10 depress the use of the drug. And, second of all, to improve ;

11 what otherwiseLwould be a degraded performance.

12 The easiest way I believe for a drug effected

) 13 worker to avoid detection is to do the work correctly, f if

,- 14 you follow that. It is easier I believe to do it correctly l

15 than it is to cover up an error, if you are thinking that

/

16 clearly, which we are in this question assuming that we i

17 are going to.

18 Now, if you get to the next step and somebody t I

i 19 who has made an error, and what does he do then about it?

t

[' 20 I'm not familiar enough with what the procedures are, but ,

' I 21 again my assumption is at that point that the same adverse

{

t 22 effect on the quality of thinking that led to the creation i t i I

13 23 of an error in the first place is going to. lead to a h '

24

>Fauser; Reporters, Inc.

decrease incentive to cover up the error in the second place.,

(-

25 The person is less likely to be aware that he has I

10,019 04-10-SueW 1 made an error and, therefore, less likely to cover it up 2 because of his drug impairment, not more likely to cover 3 it up.

4 That's the way I would put that together. Now, 5 whether that's responsive to the question I leave to you, 6 Mr. Runkle.

7 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 8 Q Well, I appreciate the explanation. It's a  !

9 very complicated area, you know, talking about some ,

I 10 hypothetical individual's -- whatever he would do in l 11 different situations.  !

12 A Yes, it is.

x 13 Q But you -- in your explanation, you assumed 1

14 that that person was feeling the physical effects of 15 that drug, did you not?

16 A Well, he was aware that he was vulnerable because.

17 of his drug use through a detection. And I also assumed  !

18 that he had made an error, that he knew he had made an 19 error, which is again a very big assumption, on both 20 cases.

21 0 In the last paragraph on Page 12, you make a 22 statement that you expect if you had made a study that 23 a smaller fraction of incidents of sabotage or active cover I

lll 24

>Faierariemrwri. ine.

ups would be caused by drug abusers than other employees l;

25 who made routine errors.  !

l

i 10,020

1. 4-ll-SueW1 A Yes.

,,-~

Kl 2 0 Have you ever made this kind of study, or 3 aware of any that have been made? s 4 A No.

5 MR. HOLLAR: Point of clarification. Is counsel 6 referring to a written study? I think that the witness 7 responded to that, that he is not aware of a written study i

8 or other study. l 9 I mean, it's -- the import of your question was i

10 a written study? g l

11 MR. RUNKLE: No, just any. Does he know of any 12 study.

l rs  ;

' k._) 13 JUDGE KELLEY: But studies are usually put on l f

14 pieces of paper, right? I i,

15 MR. RUNKLE: Well, some -- I I 16 JUDGE KELLEY: That's what you are after, I

?

F -

17 assume.

l 18 MR. RUNKLE: No, any -- any type of study.

)

19 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 20 Q Dr. DuPont, was that your understanding of the 21 question? Has there been any study, whether it has been l

) 22 written or otherwise?

23 A I know of no study, written or otherwise, on O that topic.

p.R_... 24.

25 0 Uh-huh. And, again you -- in the third sentence ,

e

10,021 34-12 2SueW 1 c of that paragraph, you talk about drug abusers; is that r^w

> t

'--' 2 correct?

3 A Uh-huh.

4 0 And when you use the word " abuser" in this 3

PL ' context, that is somebody who is feeling the physical 6 effects of those drugs? Who is actually using the drugs 7 as opposed to buying or selling?

8 A Yes. Good point, yes.

I 9 -Q Now, let's turn from qualitative errors to 10 quantitative errors if we may.

Il There might be situations, might there not, 12 of a -- of somebody who used drugs on the week-end that n

- .13 may not have any -- may not make any more errors than i 14 somebody who is not using drugs at all; is that correct?

} 9 p> 15 A That's correct.

l 16 Q And it may be a casual week-end user. But then i M 17 we get further on down our contiuum of. abuse and there are

-18 those workers that_would make more errors because they were 19 on drugs; is that correct?

l 20 A That is correct.

21 Q And at a certain point on this continuum, there 22 are people that would be totally unable to function. i 23 A Exactly, n(_j 24 Q And there -- now, is there any way we can describe 1 e-Fens tewam. ine.

I 25 this continuum any more closely? I mean, is there -- at l

j. 10,022  !

V $

L#4-13-SueW 1 what point does'a-worker have more errors than the normal t ,q lNJ 2 worker?

i 3 'Can you describe that point for us?  !

l 4 A No. And I could tell you on the basis of -- not l l

5 .in studying again this particular industry, but the 6 general effect of drugs on performance, that there is no 7 cutoff line. {

l 8 0 Uh-huh.  !

l 9 A In other-words, what you find is a smooth curve 10 relationship without clear breakpoints, that any use -- l 11 it's a little bit like the -- maybe I.shouldn't say this 12 in the State of North Carolina -- connection between cigarette

/"s  !

(_) 13 smoking and lung cancer. You don't find any dose below which!

14 you don't have an increase in lung cancer. But there is a f I,

15 quantitative relationship.

l 16 So, there is no safe dose. And that same thing 3

17 is shown _ about drug involvement with performance, drug  !

18 connection to performance, decrements of any kind. And j i

19 that is that any use is associated with an increased incidents I

20 of Problems .  !

21 But the increase is very small at the very oc-22 casional use end of this continuum and very great at the 23 heavy use end of the continuum. But there is no level where; i

g 24

>Fa== neporwes inc you would say: Well, below this there is no problem. l j

25 0 And that's also compounded by substantial individual

10,023 0-14-SueW I differences? Some person may take a very minimal dose and

_/ 2 be totally unable to function as opposed to a habitual user 3 stat might be able to take extensive drugs all the time and l 4 still function?

f 5 A Yes. And even more compounded by the fact that 6 in a particular setting or a particular demand placed on 7 the person there may be an impairment, when that same person  ;

8 at thatsamedosewithoutthatsettingorwithoutthatdemandl i

9 would not show an impairment. l l

10 Q And that demand might be doing something physically 11 strenuous?

12 A It could be anything, usually something that ,

i l

J 13 requires precision of response. And also unpredictability. i f

i 14 If it's something that is routine, it's more easily done j 15 than if it's something that is out of the ordinary. ,

16 Q So, something that may take some kind of mental  ;

i 17 concentration, somebody that abuses drugs may not be able 18 to do that task accurately, and you would expect them to have:

19 more mistakes, more errors? .

l l

20 A Not necessarily mental concentration, but anything --

21 I'm not sure what mental concentration means.

22 But anything that requires -- it could be a  !

i i

23 physical thing, for example, driving a truck. I don't G 24 PFMerai Reporters. Inc.

know whether you call that mental concentration or not.

f 25 But that could be a serious problem.

l l

10,024

)4-15-SueW I Q And that may be one of the physical effects of

. k/I) .

2 abusing the drug, might be a lack of -- an impairment of 3 somebody's attention or -- I'used the term mental concentra-4 tion --

5 A -Yeah.

6 0 -- and I think that would be an anology to 7 attention span.

8 A Performance of all kinds.

~9 Q And the more intricate and complicated -- the i

10 more intricate and complicated the task, the more likely  !

I 11 there would be errors from somebody on drugs?

I 12 A Again, not necessarily. It depends a lot on l

) .

(' _/ ' 13 how routine the task is for the individual.  !

14 Non-routine tasks are more likely to be 15 effected than routine tests at any level of complication. j 16 JUDGE KELLEY: I think we are approaching a good ,

l'7 time for a coffee break. Doyouwanttokeepgoingalittle'! I I

18 bit,-or is this good enough for you? i 19 MR. RUNKLE: Yeah, let's take a break now. j 20 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Ten minutes.

21 (Whereupon, the hearing is recessed at 10:15 a.m.,

22 to reconvene at 10:28 a.m., this same day.) l l

31D #4 23

'o a ' ws 24 pr4 Reporters, Inc.

)

25 L.m.1

L 5-1-JoeWal 10,025 i

1 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Runkle, will you resume? j l

./ ~w

\-)'

8 l

2 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing)  !

I 3 Q Sir, if I can draw your attention back to page 12 4 of your testimony, in the second sentence of your Answer 13,

~5 and again on the last sentence on that page, you do make 6 a distinction between the sale of drugs and those people that l 7 are abusing drugs, is that correct?

81 A Yes.

l 91 Q Now, in your statement that the sales of drugs l

10 does not have a direct effect on work performance, that is 11 your statement, is it not?

12: A I guess, per se. The sale per se, right. Right.

A/ 13 0 bbw , there might be -- might there be other l

14 i indirect effects from the sale of drugs on work performance?

15 l A Yes, I am sure there could be other effects.

l 16 Q Can we list some of those?

17 ' A Well, to the extent that the seller is preoccupied 18  !

with sales of drugs, he is carrying on one might call it 19 moonlighting, or whatever activities, potential disregard l  ;

20 ! for his official duties.

i 21 ; There is also the disruptive effect of sales in 22 ! terms of the work experience. That it distracts other people l I

from work, and there would also be an effect in terms of the 23 l

. . ( ); 24 ,! possible use of the recipients, the buyers, would also have  !

E}F;_d Rmorters. im:. j i 25 ,f an effect.  !

t I

i

5-2-JoeW21 10,026 1 And I suppose the fourth point is that some 2 sellers are, themselves, users. So it is not always one 3 or the other.

4 Q All right. And if drugs are being sold in -- on 5 site, there would be more drugs available for other users.

6 A Yes.

7 0 All right. Now, in the last sentence on that a page, you state that drug abusers are seldom involved in 9 active sabotage or mischief, except for drug sales.

l 10 ! Now, are you saying --

1 MR. HOLLAR: Objection. The correct statement 11 l i

12 ' is except for income generating theft and drug sales.

~

(.

/ 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Can we get the reference, just 14  ! to be a little more precise?

1 15 MR. RUNKLE: The last paragraph on -- the last 16 sentence on Page 12. There it refers to drug abusers.

I 17 Ij JUDGE KELLEY: Do we have a pending question?

I 18 Could you restate it?

19 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, I can restate the question.

l 20 ! JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.

21 BY MR. RUNKLE : (Continuing) 22 O Sir, I am having difficulty following this

I 23 sentence. Now, are you saying that those people who sell c  ;

) 24 lj drugs are more involved in act of sabotage or mischief?

Ace Federb Reporters. Inc. '!

25 ii A No.

d I

5-3-JoeWnl l 10,027 1 Q Can you explain the last sentence there?

N 2 A What I am saying here is essentially restating 3 the statement that has been made in four or five previous 4 sentences, and that is the kind of problems that drug 5 abusers make are not problems of sabotage or undirected 6 mischief, but are the result of sloppy performance, low 7 motivation. Poor performance.

8I Q And what -- now, in just giving us your answer, 9 you sort of made the comparison of mischief and vandalism, l

10 l is that -- when you use the word, ' mischief,' what do you 11 mean by mischief?

i2 A Well, examples would be income generating theft 13 and drug sales would be what I consider mischief in the 34 context I am using.

l 15 I am not trying to distinguish that -- between 16 that and sabotage, where the intent is to be harmful to the t

17ll operation, or to the Company. In income generating theft or I

18 drug sales , the intent is not to do harm to the plant or the 39 1 Company, but the intent is to promote -- sustain the drug 20 l use.

l 21 l Q So are you saying that drug abusers are more i

22 likely -- are you saying that drug abusers are more likely l

23 to be involved in income generating theft and drug sales?

24 y MR. HOLLAR: Objection. I am not sure I under-ede,b Repo,ters, inc.

25 ! stand the question.

t l

i I

!5-4-JoeWal 10,028 .

1 F

F 1 JUDGE KELLEY: More like than non-users, do you

,[l '

l /

t.

2 mean?

3 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.

4 JUDGE KELLEY: That is the comparison?

5 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.

6 WITNESS: I would think the answer to that is, 7 yes.

8 El MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 9 Q Now, if you will look at the last paragraph on 10 page 12, it reads: I expect that a smaller fraction of them 11 would be caused by drug abusers and by employees who made 12 more routine errors.

.O k/ 13 Now, did you in exploring this area, did you 14 make an assumptions on the percentage of drug abusers at the 15 Shearon Harris Plant?

16 A No, I did not.

17 Q Would you expect there would be more drug abusers-18 than employees who made more routine errors?

19 A I wouldn't know how to quantify that. I mean, 20 does everyone in their work make errors? I don't know. I am 21 not sure what you mean. In a sense, everybody makes errors.

22 MR. RUNKLE: I have no other questions for this 23 witness.

-(_

f')s 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Eddleman?

un-Federr) Reporters, Inc.

25 CROSS-EXAMINATION I

5-5-Jo:W21 10,029 I'

'l BY MR..EDDLEMAN:

r

- f'),

+

2 Q Thank you, Judge. Good morning Dr. DuPont.

3 A Good morning, Mr. Eddleman.

4 Q Let's see. The first question I would like to 5 ask you goes back to a line that you were asked earlier

.6l cdhcerning the fact that alcohol is legal for persons above 7 the ' drinking age, but all of the drugs that we are talking 81 about here are illegal.

9 And what I would like to ask you is: To your I

10 knowledge, are QA violations illegal in the same sense? Are II l they as serious crimes?

12 MR. HOLLAR: O bj ection . This witness is not an b

' ' ' ' I3 expert on QA violations and NRC regulations as to their il-3d

_ legality or Federal Law as to their criminal illegality.

15 l MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I think he is testifying 16 about how the QA program picks up these errors. I think he 17 !l is testifying about QA, and I~am certainly entitled to know II 18 what he knows about it.

19 I also think that there is a pattern question 20 ! here that I want to get into concerning the pattern of i

' 21 ; illegality that results from drug abuse.

22 f JUDGE KELLEY: There may be something that you i.

23 can pursue, Mr. Eddleman. I think the question as phased

(~N - 24

(.) -

! though is beyond the scope of this witness' direct testimony,

== rw-w swomn. =.1  ;

25 so I will sustain the objecticn to this particular question. I i

l

.I

5-6-Jo:Wal 10,030  !

l l MR. EDDLEMAN: All right. Well, let me ask this. I i 1

2 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) -

3 Q It is true, isn't it Dr. DuPont, that people who 4 engage in the use of illegal drugs also tend to violate other ,

5 laws, such as the laws against theft, and things like that, 6 isn't it?

7 That is true, isn't it?

8 A That is correct.

9 Q Okay. Would you expect that in a place where 1

there was a noticeable amount of drug abuse that other persons, 10 l Il even those who do not abuse drugs themselves, might feel that 12 there was a cavalier attitude toward enforcement of the law?

/~T t a

13 MR. BARTH: Objection, Your Honor. It has no I4 connection to the contention. There is not a foundation to 15 show this could occur in the Harris Plant, and the question 16 really doesn' t make much sense either.

17 l JUDGE KELLEY: Comment, Mr. Eddleman?

18 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir, I was waiting for Mr.

I9 Hollar if he had one.

20 h JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Hollar?

2I I MR. HOLLAR: I would agree with Mr. Barth.

22 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I think the evidence shows 23 that state officials, Wake Sheriff's Department, found that tl

\/ 24 '

I there was widespread drug abuse at the Harris site, and the Am Fede,'J Reporters, Inc. !

25 question we are dealing with here is what are the effects of  !

! t I

25-7-JoeWbl 10,031 1 that drug abuse on quality assurance?

2 And I think a pattern of disregard for law and 3 regulation would lead to increased violation of the quality 4 assurance requirements.

5 That is what I am trying to get at.

6 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse us a minute.

7 (Board members confer.)

8 JUDGE KELLEY: I think the Board's concern here 9 is about a fair characterization of the record that has been 10 established so far, and our concern that there not be a 11 mischaracterization.

12 Certainly there is evidence in the record of 13 abuse of drugs on the site. Some evidence of sales occurring 14 on the site, and it is very much disputed between the 15 Interveners and the Applicants and the Staff whether one can 16 conclude that that indicates widespread use, or not very 17 much use, or wherever on the spectrum.

18 It does seem to us that it is a fair question to l 19 ask without~ characterizing the record, whether there would i

20 come a point on a spectrum of drug use, drug sale, where l~

21 there might develop a general disregard for QA requirements.

i

.22 General feeling that the law is being ignored. I think that 23 is the thrust of your question, is it not, Mr. Eddleman?

()

m Esporwn inc.

24 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir.

'25 JUDGE KELLEY: And I think it is fair to ask Dr.

5-8-JoeWnl i 10,032 1 DuPont a question to that effect, and maybe I have no more

i 2 than paraphrased what you were saying.

3 We want to say -- what we want to say for the I

4 Board, is that we think the record here is now coming before 5 the Board.

6 We have no judgment on that, and I don't think 7 it is fair to say 'to Dr. DuPont that that is or is not 8 the situation at Harris, but rather we will allow a hypothetical 9 along the lines that you have already asked.  !

10 need a restatement of that, Dr. DuPont?

Do you II A No, I think the answer to your question is, yes.  :

I I2 JUDGE KELLEY: There does come a point where 13 if drug use were widespread -- if there were sales out in  !

I I4 the open, that that would have, in your opinion, a detrimental I 15 effect on emp]oyee attitudes?

16 WITNESS: Whether or not they were drug users,  !

I I7 correct.  !

18 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing)

I9 Dr., in preparing for making this testimony, did Q

20 you review the transcript to giving the testimony of the 2I State Bureau of Investigation personnel and the Wake County 22 Sheriff's Department personnel in a hearing that was held 23 earlier on this contention?

24 A Yes, I did.

hee-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 Q Okay. Now, let me turn to your Page 3, if I might.

L5-9-JoeWol 10,033 i'

1 In Answer 3 ' there, you are talking about a question of whether

(~-) 2 drug related errors differ qualitatively from errors resulting 3 from other types of impairments.

4 Now, I take it.that your testimony is that 5 quantitatively they would vary, because there would be more 6 errors the more drugs a person is using, is that right?

7 A That is exactly right.

8 Q Now, I would like to ask you: Did you make any 9 examination yourself of the types of errors that were made 10 by the people on the list of 218 suspected drug abusers, or 11 people who were dismissed for drug related reasons from 12 Shearon Harris?

O

\d- 13 A No;' only what appears in the record.

14 Q When you say, 'what appears in the record,' what 15 are you referring to, Doctor?

16 A The review of the errors that were detected in i 17 the reinspection of a number of people who were identified 18 as possible drug users, that is all.

19 I think it is on the point that you are asking.

20 Q So, you looked at the exhibit.

21 A Right.

i 22 Q That shows the 218, and describes what Applicants

[

23 have done about that. You have reviewed that.

[ . 24 A Yes, sir.

weserm noorwes. inc.

25 Q But you haven't looked yourself at the types of f

i

l 5-10-JoeWal i 10,034 1 errors, or any . patterns of errors by these suspected drug i

/ T l

's /

2 users, is that correct?

3 A Nothing that is not in the exhibits that have .

1 4 been submitted, correct. l 1

5 JUDGE KELLEY: Just to have the record clear l 6 at this point, the reference to the exhibit is what we now 7 have in revised form.

e Who put that in last time -- it is not in yet.

i 9 MR. HOLLAR: No.

10 ! MR. EDDLEMAN: It is entitled, I believe, if 11 i we can clear the record up, Report to Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission Staff of Evaluation and Reinspection of Work

[')

\/ 13 Performed by Employees at the Shearton Harris Nuclear Power 14 Plant Project Who Have Been Implicated in Possible Drug 15 Activity, and it states at the bottom: Revised 10/15/85.

I 16 l JUDGE KELLEY: Do I understand Mr. O'Neill.

17 proposes to put that in with his next panel?

]

18 MR. HOLLAR: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

39 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. So it will be in, and it '

l 20 I isn't in yet, but we all know what we are talking about.

21 Okay, t

End 5, 22 '

MS fois. j 23 L .

l 24 i

. (~]'

\

r--s e 25 i

.. ; J 10,035 '

Bim 6-1 I BY.MR. EDDLEMAN:

,~

(j 2 Dr. DuPont, did you also look at the version of that 3 that was put in evidence -- not put in evidence, but which 4

was prepared and presented to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5 originally back in September?

6 A I don' t recall, Mr. Eddleman, whether I did or not.

7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Would counsel stipulate that that 8 document covered drug use through approximately September 15th 9 and had 201 individuals in it?

10 MR. HOLLAR: Mr. Eddleman, I believe that was in II our testimony in the last phase of this hearing, and I 12 believe your numbers and dates are approximately correct.

e 13

(_) MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. Well, in any event, the

> I4 record can show.

15 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:

l 16 0 Doctor, what I would like to ask you is if that 17 is correct, if the previous version about a month ago had i

18 201 names and this one has 218, that would indicate that 17 19 more persons were identified as possible drug users or 20 abusers and dismissed from the Harris site in approximately 21 one month; wouldn't that be correct?

22 A That is correct.

23 0 Now have you'made any study of the rate at which 24 people nce-Fg Reporters, Inc.

were dismissed from the Harris site for drug related 25 reasons in the past, Doctor?

10,036 Tim 6-2 1 A Since the opening of the construction you mean?

(_) 2 Q Yes, sir.

3 A Yes. My understanding is that their rate has 4 substantially increased in the last year.

5 Q Okay. Now a rate of 17 in one month if it were 6 maintained for a year would produce approximately 200 in 7 a year, wouldn't it?

8 A Yes, sir.

9 Q Okay. Now let me turn back then to your prefiled 10 testimony, your question and answer 4'on page 4, Doctor. Do 11 you have that?

12 A Yes.

() 13 Q You refer in the second line of answer 4, to your 14 understanding, that marihuana and cocaine are also the focus 15 of allegations about drug use among the Harris work force.

16 Are marihuana and cocaine mentioned explicitly 17 in the contention that we are dealing with here, to your 18 knowledge?

19 A Not to my knowledge, no.

20 Q Where did you get that understanding that you refer 2I to there, Doctor?

22 A That the drugs that were seized were limited to 23 marihuana and cocaine I guess with one exception. There was 24

(~Y hee F;d Reporters. Inc.

also some methamphetamine identified and also because the 25 urine tests that have been shown positive have been for those

I 10,037 s 1

Sim 6 1 two drugs.

(j 2 Q You examined the results of the urine tests also, 3 Doctor?

4 A Yes.

5 Q You are saying -- well, first, let me ask you this.

6 What drugs do those urine tests screen for? Do they screen 7 for a large number of drugs?

8 A Yes.

9 Q And did you examine all the positive urinalysis 10 test results for Shearon Harris workers that were available 11 to CP&L?

12 A I believe I have, yes, sir.

fD u.) _

13 Q Okay.

14 A In the matrix of the 218 we are talking about.

15 Q Well, are you aware, Doctor, of any positive 16 urinalysis results for persons who are not given a number in 17 that matrix, or identified in that matrix by their job i8 description and so on?

19 A My understanding, Mr. Eddleman, is that if a person 20 tested positive on the work force, then he would be in the 21 matrix. In other words, that is one of the ways you get into 22 the matrix. So I don't believe you could have a positive 23 test of people who are working at the site either for a

(~ 24 we-Fw}s Reporters. contractor Inc. or for CP&L and not be in the matrix.

25

e >

10,038 I

l L Sim 6-4 3 Q Well, the reason I. asked you that was because

/ 2 of.the way you gave your earlier answer about having 3 examined all those that were in the matrix, and I just 4 wanted'to know if you had examined any others, and I take 5 it the answer to that is no.

6 A I don' t know of any other positives, right.

7 Q 'All right. And are marihuana ~and cocaine the 8 only drugs that showed up positive in any of those tests?

9 A That is my belief.

10 Q And what is the basis for your belief?

jj -A Because that is the information I received about 1

12 the positive results.

lt] ~ 13 Q Okay. Now you also mentioned one instance of.

14 methamphetamine. Do you mean one drug, or is it your 15 understanding there was only one person or incident involving 16 methamphetamine at Harris?

17 A I think it was only one incident, but it may be 18 one or two. I am not sure exactly, but it was very few i

19 in any event.-

1 20 Q Well, you would have checked through that in your 21 review, wouldn' t you?

II 22 A Well, I wouldn't have necessarily the number in 1-L -23 my. mind right now. I know it was very much smaller than-l wb.g

- 24 the numbers for marihuana and cocaine.

h,orem, lac. -

! 25 Q What were the numbers for marihuana and. cocaine?

l

'10,039

> 5

im 6-5 j A I don't have those numbers either. About the 2

urine test you mean? What are we talking about?

3 Q All right. Let us start in with urine tests.

4 Roughly what number of urine tests showed up marihuana or 5

hashish or related drugs, do you know that?

A Yes. The answer of the 23 positive, 21'were 6

7 positive for THC, which is the substance that is measured for 8

any annabis derived drug.

9 Q Okay. And what about cocaine?

10 A Two.

jj Q Two, okay. Do you know if it is possible to inter-12 12.e with the accuracy of an analysis for cocaine by say

(]

%s 13 drinking a substantial quantity of something acidic like j4 vinegar?

A My understanding is that it is not possible to 15 16 interfere with the test results by anything you do to the 17 person, in other words, swallowing something. It is.possible.

18 to interfere with the results if you put something in the 19 urine directly, but that is a different kind of a problem.

l f 20 With a person, my understanding is it is not possible I

l 21 In fact, it is very difficult to do by putting anything in 22 the urine also. But I know for sure that it is not -- at 23 least this is my understanding -- that it is not possible 24 to do it. I know of no example where it has ever been shown Acer i n. porters, Inc.

25 that you can do anything to affect the positive by something.

10,040 Sim 6-6 you do'to yourself, including changing the acidity. That.

j 2

is a very common belief among drug users that they can, and as far as I know there-is no relationship in reality.

3 Q Doctor, this is your opinion based on your research 4

5 nd not as a chemist.I take it? .

A Well, but I have a lot of contact with the 6

laboratories that do this work and I can tell you this is 7

1 8

the standard view of the chemists. l Q All right. Now you refer also to a percentage 9

10 of persons in 1982 that used marihuana and then also 11 marihuana and cocaine. Who was surveyed in that survey?

A This is a national survey of people living in 12 households in 1982 broken down by age. .

13 14 Q How do you mean living in households?

A Well, it doesn't include people, for example, 15 16 who are in prison, people who are hospitalized at that point, in~a state mental hospital, for example. It is anybody 17 18 who is living in a household outside of an institution. It i

j 19 does not include the Armed Forces.

20 Q Does it include college students?

i.

A Yes, it does inc.'.ude college students.

21 Q All right. Now was there a subsample in there 22 23 that was identified as construction workers or nuclear p 24 construction workers?

We-F Reporters, Inc.

25 A No.

i, -

10,041 S m 6-7 1 Q Nuclear inspectors?

2 A No.

3 Q Okay. Now you aise mention the other drugs 4 used, mentioned in this survey down at the bottom of page 5 4. 'Then you go on to discuss what you mean a typical 6 pattern of drug use. Now is there a typical pattern of 7 drug use in construction work?

8 A I know of no reason to think that the drug use 9 pattern would be unique to construction workers.

10 Q And is that the basis for the kinds of statements 11 you are giving in your answer 6, that those would apply 12 to construction workers because you don't know any reason

() 13 why it would be different from national data?

14 A Well, not quite. I think what I am saying here, 15 Mr. Eddleman, is that this is the best understanding that 16 we have now for a general picture. And since we have 17 no basis to make a distinction, I would say this is the 18 place to start. I wouldn't go the next step in saying that 19 this would necessarily apply to construction workers, 20 however.

21 Q All right, sir.

22 Did that complete your answer?

23 A Yes, sir.

(~T 24 Q Okay. You make an analogy there to alcohol use ke-Fi___j Reporten, Inc.

25 and the pattern of that in terms of the job. Did you

10,042 I do any check on the percentage of Harris workers who use Sim 6-8 i

_) 2 alcohol?

3 A No, I did not.

1. Okay. Concerning the analogy to alcohol also Q

5 or drugs, let me ask you this. If someone us'ed drugs before 6 coming to work rather than on the job site, say they are 7 riding in in a car or a bus or however, but they are not 8 driving themselves, they could be using a drug coming into 9 work. That would be possible, wouldn't it, Doctor?

IO Absolutely.

A II Q Okay. Now would that tend to have more effect 12 on the person's performance on the job than the use a 13 substantial amount of time previous to coming to work?

MR. BARTH: Objection, because it is a hypothetical 15 really, Your Honor, without the facts. How much drug was I0 used before, when or the time duration. We are going to I7 have a record with a question and answer that make no sense.

IO MR. EDDLEMAN: I think it is no more hypothetical I9 than his other answers. He said he hadn't made specifics 20 on these things.

MR. BARTH: It is hypothetical without sufficient 22 facts to give a coherent answer.

JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Hollar?

24

'^i MR. HOLLAR: I would defer to the witness..- If he Ace-F_ _j Reporters, Inc.

25 can answer the question sufficiently, I have no objection.

v_ , .

?;

- 10',043 i j JUDGE KELLEY: We have had a number of fairly

() 2 general answers. If the witness can answer, we will ask 3 him to try to do so.

4 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Judge. In a sense, I 5 feel like I have answered this question around 50 times 6 this morning, and let me say one more time whatI'.am trying; to 7 say, and that is that there is a relationship between the 8 amount of drug use and the recency of drug use such that the 9 greater the amount and the more recent, the more likely 1 10 there are to be adverse effects.

11 I believe this question is one more query of 12 that kind. Now if it isn't, then I misunderstood the O is 9"*"'i "-

14 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:

15 0 So in light of that, the answer to the question 16 is yes, isn't it, Doctor?

f 37 A Yes, again.

I i 18 (Laughter.)

l 19 Q Okay. Now you state further down in answer 6 20 over on page 6 that risk of exposure or arrest is generally 21 higher at work than away from work. Did you do any study 22 of the percentage of Harris workers arrested off the job 23 as opposed to on the job for drugs?

24 A There were, as I understand it, six arrests off co F Reporters, Inc.

25 the site and eight arrests on the site among the 218.

10,044 Dim 6-10 1 Q Okay. Of the six arrests on the site, how many 2 of those had to do with the undercover operation, do you 3 recall?

4 A It is ---

5 MR. HOLLAR: Objection. I believe the witness 6 said eight arrests on the site.

7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Parson me, eight, of those eight.

8 THE WITNESS: I don' t know how many of them were 9 in part related to the undercover operation.

10 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:

11 Q Okay. You state that the Harris plant has an 12 active ongoing program to control drug use. Isn't it true

() ,

13 that that program has become substantially more active within 14 the past year and a half?

15 MR. HOLLAR: Objection. I believe this goes beyond 16 the scope of the witness' testimony and we are really getting 17 back into issues that were covered in the first phase of 18 this hearing. This witness' testimony goes to the medical 19 effects of drug abuse and the ability of the QA program to 20 identify errors and not the nature of applicant's drug 21 policy. That was discussed exhaustively in the last hearing.

22 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I think it is relevant 23 regardless of, you know, what Mr. Hollar's opinion might

(~ )

24 be of the evidence. There has certainly been 'information kce-F;__j Reporters, Inc.

25 placed in evidence that drugs were used back to the beginning

2 10,045 Sim 6-11 i of construction. And the effect of that would be built

() 2 into the plant regardless of when it happened.

3 Dr. DuPont is testifying here that -- you know, 4 he says it is safer for the employee to use drugs or alcohol 5 ff the job is especially true in an environment like the 6 Harris piant where the employer has an active ongoing program 7 for control of drug use.

8 If that program were at a lesser level in the 9 past, I think it is perfectly relevant.

10 JUDGE KELLEY: It certainly would have been 11 relevant three weeks ago or whenever it was we were talking 12 about widespread use and the employer's program. Now true (j 13 enough there is a sentence in Dr. DuPont's testimony on page 14 6 about the program of controlled drug use, but it is 15 certainly not central to his testimony.

16 I think much of your questioning in the last 10 j7 minutes has gone to widespread use and I have heard no 18 objections. So, okay, we have gone ahead and we have listened 19 to it.

2'O I am going to sustain the objection and just make 21 the point that I understand Dr. DuPont's testimony to be 22 generally on the effects of drugs and what that means for 23 w rk performance and not so much on whether there are six 24 or eight or sixteen drug users at that site.

Ace-F ) Reporters, Inc.

25 It is interesting that he has reviewed material

/

l' 10,046 toLthe extent he has, but it seems to me it is not central S -12 2

to this point. '

t ~i 3

, ,MR. EDDLEMAN: I am trying to think how I can link 4

this back up because I think there is a connection here to

~his point about the effects.

, 6 JUDGE KELLEY: What difference does it make if -

7 somebody takes cocaine at Shearon Harris or Diablo Canyon 8

or some place else? I mean that is really what we are looking 9

at here, aren't we?

10 MR. EDDLEMAN: . Judge, I think it makes a difference 11 if they take it at Shearon Harris with respect-to this 12 case. Do you mean that generally?

I')

\- 13 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand the witness to be 14 presented for general knowledge on.the effects of drug 15 use and not on the extent to which drugs are used or not 16 used at Shearon Harris. ,

17 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I think that that is generally 18 true, but that he does get into things about the extent 19 and the conditions under which drugs would be used.

20 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I think we are going to have to walk a fineL1ine. The objection to the last questien 22 is sustained, and I think the' Board has conveyed its sense

~

23 .

of where we are and where the focus ought to be.

(^} 24 eFij Reporters, Inc. MR. EDDLEMAN: All right.

25 .a BY MR. EDDLEMAN:

E3  %

10,047 I Lm 6-13 h I Q Dr. DuPont, I would likh to move over to page 8

() 2 where you are discussing the effects of marihuana and cocaine.

3 Now you term marihuana in the last sentence of 4 the paragraph that carries over to the top of the page, the 5 I-don't-care drug. You then: describe the effects of cocaine, 6 a stimulant that has an after effect, exhaustion of the

(, 7 drug stimulated nervous system. That is down in the next 8 paragraph.

9 Does that imply to you that if there is use off

. 10 the job before work that then that depressive effect could 11 follow on the job?

12 A The answer is yes.

() 13 Q Okay. You discuss the suppression of the faculty 14 for self evaluation, as you changed the wording a little bit 15 this morning.down there toward the bottom of page 8.

16 Now is that faculty for self-evaluation the ability 17 to realistically understand what one is actually doing; is 18 that a fair statement?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Okay. You mentioned something a little bit on 21 page 9, question and answer 8 discussing the effects of 22 methamphetamine. You say that it is effective. when taken 23 by mouth. Are there other ways that people take meth-("s 24 amphetamine?

"FN_jReporters, Inc.

25 A Yes, injection.

t_'4 ,

10,048 Sim 6-14 I Q Okay. What are the effects when it is injected?

(3 2 t) Are they stronger than when taken by mouth?

3 A In general any drug that is injected is going to 4

produce a higher level of dependence and problem as well as 5

euphorib when taken intravenously than when taken by mouth.

6 Okay.

Q Now you discuss the sort of pattern of 7

effects of cocaine and marihuana previously as to how they 8 might affect work performance. What about the effects of 9 this methamphetamine?

10 A It would be similar to the cocaine effects.

II O All right. And that would include the depressant 12 effect after it wore off?

O '3 A ree, indeed. '

I4 Q Now, Doctor, let me refer you to your answer 11.

I 15 on page 11. You state in that answer in the second to last I

16 sentence "My understanding is that much of the construction I7 work at the Harris site is done by work crews of several 18 persons." Where did you get that understanding?

I9 A From my discussion with CP&L and Daniel officials 20 that I ta? kr's with.

21 Q And who were they?

22 A John Ferguson and Mike Pluedde_ma and others.

23 Q Did you discuss it with any of the witnesses that 24 O

ke Fw Reporters. Inc. CP&L has proposed fo;- this hearing?

A No, I have not.

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

FC I .

_ q,

,y 10,049 4-

. :7-lim' 6-15 '

-j Q~ All'right, sir.

Did you examine the. percentage

, ~2 f' safety relat'de work that'is done by crews as opposed to 3 ' individuals?.

4 A- No, I'did not.

5 .Q- The effect of theft that you are referring to down 6 at the bottom of'page 12'in your answer 13, Doctor, did you 7  : examine theft rates at Shearon Harris'in connection with 8 Preparing your testimony?

9 A 'No, I'did not.

10 .Q- Would you expect.that more drug abuse would likely 11 lead to more theft?

12 A- Yes, I would.

Q Continuing over on page 13 where you are talking

(]) 13 14 about routine supervisory practices, now does that refer 15 to the practice of the supervisors identifying unusable amounts 16 of work related problems and then asking for a professional 17 evaluation that you mentioned earlier?

18 A Could you direct my attention, Mr. Eddleman,-to

.. j p ' exactly where.that occurs?

20 'O Lines 3 and 4. You begin the sentence on line 3 of '

21 Page'13, routine supervisory _ practices.

22 MR. HOLLAR: Mr. Eddleman, would you repeat the 23 question for the witness?

24 MR. EDDLEMAN: I will be glad to.

>FcL Reporters, Inc.

25 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:

i 10,050 Sim 6-16 j Q Doctor, on the top of page 13, lines 3 and 4, you 2 mention routine supervisory practices. What I want to ask 3 y u is does that term " routine supervisory practices" refer 4 to the practices of identifying people with performance 5

Problems and then seeking an evaluation of whether that 6 is drug related?

7 A Mr. Eddleman, my understanding of the sentence and 8

what I am trying to say is not focused on people, but on 9 errors. In other words, instead of looking at the people, 10  ; am looking at the errors, and what I am saying in that jj sentence in that the errors will be identified at about the 12 same rate, whether they are caused by drug abusers or not.

) 13 S it is not focused on people. It is focused on errors.

14 0 Now did you examine the detection rate for drug 15 caused failures as opposed to the detection rate for other 16 failures?

j7 MR. BARTH: Objection, Your Honor. There is nothing 18 in this record to show there is a drug induced error. This j9 is a question without any foundation whatsoever, and insofar 20 as it might be permitted, it would seriously, in my view, 21 miscast the record that we have developed so far. There has 22 been no developed record that he had identified an error 23 which was pinned down to being drug caused, Your Honor.

p 24 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, if that is true, I think the ice-Fi.) Reporters, Inc.

25 witness' answer will simply be no, and I think the record

- i b

• 10,051 Sia 6-17 I will not be damaged by that.

() 2 MR. HOLLAR: Mr. Chairman, I would add that I would 3 concur with Mr. Barth and add that I am not sure I understood 4 what the question was, what the import of it was. Perhaps

~

5 Mr. Eddleman could enlighten us.

6 JUDGE KELLEY: Does the question assume that there 7 was some differentiation made between errors caused by drug 8 dependence and errors caused by other sources? Is that right?

9 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, Judge, as I understand what the 10 witness is saying, he says that he expects that the supervisory 11 practices in quality assurance will identify drug caused 12 failures at about the same rates as other similar errors

() 13 are identified. And my question is is that based on a study

14 of detection rates of drug caused failures versus detection 15 rates for other failures?

16 JUDGE KELLEY: That is fair enough. Is it?

17 THE WITNESS: No.

18 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:

19 0 To the extent that supervisors or quality assurance 20 personnel were using drugs, that would interfere with their 1

21 detection of all kinds of errors, wouldn't it?

22 A Yes.

ind Sim 23 lus - In 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.

25

10,052 i?- l- Su:W I .Q .You also diccuss at the end of that paragraph,

. 2 Doctor,- at the top of Page 13 the usual sorts of problems P

3 found on the work sf.te.

4 'Now, does that mean, for example, errors in

~ -5 . construction?

6 A All manner of errors. i 7 Q All right. Of construction, documentation, 8 inspection, everything you can imagine?

9 A Every kind of error, right.

-10 All right, now, sir, you then in your Answer 14, Q

b you state, "Since we do not know the precise number of ,

12 employees who have actually been involved in drug activity, 13 or the circutustances surrounding any drug consumption. . .I

'I4 cannot be precise about the work impairment effects, if any."

(15 And then you continue the answer, " Based upon our 16 understanding of typical patterns of drug use..." Now, I '

i-.

'I7 take it then that you didn't make any specific study of the

'18- patterns of-drug use at Harris, for example, by interview I9 -with any workers who had.been dismissed for drug related 20 reasons?

2I A That is correct.

, 22 Q Okay. Did.you make any observations on site i

23 as to patterns of drug use at Shearon-Harris?

neserwe , inc.

A I I'm not sure -- I talked with a number of pF 25 employees about this issue, and they were very forceful in

r 1. T 1 7 10,053-i' -

7-2-SueW j statementsithat they weren't using them. -But I didn't make 2 a' study of them.

3 0 Okay. Wouldn't it - be -logical to expect that 4 in a situation where a person would be fired for drug abuse 5 -that any. employee who wants to-keep his or her job would deny 6 drug use?

7 A Yes.- But, I would-just say, Mr. Eddleman', that L8 "Y conversations were in a setting that would at least 9 encourage some candor, although -- because I was not speaking 10 with any official. I didn't have the people's names when 11 I was talking to them, for example.

l

12 0- Okay. I would like to refer you to your Vitae, 13 Doctor. At the top of Page 2 there, it shows from 1981 14 to 1984 you were President of a thing entitled the " Phobia 15 Society of America."

!=

-16 .As a psychiatrist, Doctor, can you give me a

-17 definition of phobia?

18' A A phobia is an inappropriate fear reaction that 19 leads you typically to panic and avoidance behavior. A i

20 typical example would be a phobia of an elevator where a e

21 personJis afraid to go in an elevator because of the fear.

22 reaction and panic when a person goes in an elevator.

23 It's clear that someone else, who doesn't have

.() 24 Wemres noor=r , Inc.

that,.goes on the elevator with no particular problem.

25 0 Okay. And if the person who has a phobia goes b , . . . . - . . - - , --

10',054 07-3-Suew 1 into the elevator they are typically overcome by panic?

t T k/ 2 MR. HOLLAR: Objection. I don't see the relevance 3 of this to the issue before us.

4 JUDGE KELLEY: Where does this go, Mr. Eddleman?

5 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think that some of Dr. DuPont's 6 activities concerning phobia are of interest as regards his 7 relationship to the nuclear industry, but I'm prepared to 8 go on.with that without asking that question.

9 JUDGE KELLEY: Why don' t you go on?

10 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 11 Q Doctor, you have previously stated that about 12 thirty percent of your work with Bensinger, DuPont and

- 13 Associates was with nuclear utilities.

14 How much of your work with matters relating to 15 phobia was sponsored by or in conjunction with groups such 16 as the Department of Energy or the Edison Electric Institute 17 or the Atomic Industrial forum?

18 MR. BARTH: Objection, Your Honor, for the saine --

19 MR. HOLLAR: Objection.

20 MR. BARTH: -- reason that Mr. Hollar previously l 21 made his objection. We are really pretty far away from 22 whether or not they reinspected this work, which is the 23 subject of the contention.

. fm Phobias are nice and interesting, but they are

.( ) 24 pr-Federal Reporters, Inc, I

l 25 not relevant, Your Honor.

10,055

t7-4-SueW I MR. EDDLEMAN

I think I'm entitled to examine

- (~%

N._) 2 the witness' qualifications and his relationships. I 3 think it goes to his credibility.

4 JUDGE KELLEY: Could you indicate _--

5 MR. BARTH: His credibility has not been put 6 in any kind of jeopardy whatsoever. I think that remark 7 is inappropriate, Your Honor.

c MR. EDDLFMAN: I think the question is appropriate .,

9 JUDGE KELLEY: I take it, Mr. Eddleman, that 10 you -- I happen to be aware that Dr. DuPont has been involved 11 in some research sponsored by DOE, I believe. And maybe 12 I'm wrong.

. 13 Is that the kind of question you'are asking?

14 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir.

15 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Go ahead.

16 WITNESS DU PONT: What was the question?

17 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) 18 Q The question was, how much of this work concerning 19 phobias was sponsored by or in conjunction with DOE or 20 other elements of the nuclear power industry, such as 21 the Edison Electric Institute, the Atomic Industrial forum, i 22 and nuclear utilities?

23 MR. BARTH: Would you have him answer it one at

( ') 24 pFederes Reporwes, anc.

a time? It's really kind of compound, 25 MR. HOLLAR: I would also object on the basis 1

-n. - - , . - , -.

10,056 E

7-5-SuhW'  :) that, to my knowledge, DOE is not an element of the nuclear -

!9, 2 Power industry.

3 (Laughter.)

4 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think I said DOE and.--

5 JUDGE KELLEY: To get us in~the spirit of debate, 6 while -- why don't we just. leave.-- the question, we are

c 7 .goingsto allow. And I think Mr. Barth's suggestion that we 8 break it in pieces might be useful.

9 Could you respond, Doctor?

10 WITNESS DU PONT: I have a different problem 11 tduur other with the question. And that is, the question-12 hangs on'my relationship with the Phobia Society of America, 13 at least as I understood the initial predicate of~the 14 question.

-15 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) i:

16 Q. I think I.was asking concerning phobia, Doctor.

17 A Okay. Well, in terms of phobia, my activities l .18 -are primarily, not to say quite exclusively but almost, I

19 .related to clinical activities. And that is what the Phobia 20 Society of America is about.

21 And that's what most of my research and activities 22 have been in. Now, there-is one issue that I have also 23 ' involved myself in, and that is the public fear of nuclear

~

, 24 power.

preseres neo.,wr., one, l :25 And in that role, I have had a contract with the l

10,057 9-6-SueW l Department of Energy-that published a number of papers, n.

2 many of which are listed here in my Vitae. But this is 3 a very small part of my professional activity and certainly 4 a very small part of my activity even dealing .with phobias. i 5 But it is an activity that I have pursued for 6 the last five years.

7 Q All right. Now, of those papers you have 8 mentioned, whi~ch of those are listed in your Vitae under 9 Professional Publications, Doctor?

10 A It may be that they are not on this list.

11 Q Could they be found under General Publications 12 instead?

D

= \-) 13 I refer you to the first page of General Publica-14 tions at the bottom.

15 A I have a feeling they are on another list that 16 maybe didn't get included here. It's amazing to think 17 that anything was not included.

18 Q .I would agree, Doctor.

19 (Laughter.)

20 A The only one that appears here is on Page 6 21 of General Publications, " Focus on Fear" presented to the l- 22 Atomic Industrial Forum. But there are half a dozen others 23 as well that are not here. I don't know where they are.

f' 24 Q Would you look at General Publications, Doctor,

.\m Ie-Federal Reporters, Inc.

' 25 April 1985, the first page under that, it comes directly afte r . ,

l ,

f t ,

4

10,058 D7-7-SueW . ) Professional Publications . I believe. Do you have that?

O

'- A _Yes, I do.

2 3 Q -All right. Would you look down at the bottom 4 of that page?.

5 A Oh, yes, there's another one. There are some 6 more. There we go, t 7 (Laughter.)

8 Q Three of them down at the bottom of that page, 9 aren't there, Doc' tor?

10 A There's one back on another page here. Four 11 .of them anyhow. ,

-- 12 Q There's two more on the next page, aren't they?

13 .MR. BARTH: Your Honor, I object. The number 14 of phobias the Doctor has wri+. ten about just is not relevant 15 to this contention, Your Honor.

16 MR. EDDLEMAN: I didn't ask him how many phobias 1

17 he had written about.

18 I'm prepared to move on.

19 JUDGE KELLEY: Have you established what you want 20 to establish? Or, have you asked the question you wanted

- 21 to ask, Mr. Eddleman?

! 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, Judge, I do have a couple 23 more. But they are not -- I don' t think they are irrelevant l

l ()

me repo,im, Inc.

24 at all.

25 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing)

10,059 W-8-SueW j Q What I would like to ask the Doctor is, is nuclear 2 phobia recognized as a psychiatric condition by the American 3 Psychiatric --

4 MR. HOLLAR: Objection. This has absolutely no 5 relationship to the witness' testimony.

6 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I would sustain the objection 7 to the last question. But, I gather the thrust of the 8 questions that Mr. Eddleman has been asking is to the effect 9 that Dr. DuPont has done some work for the DOE which could 10 be regarded as pro-nuclear.

11 And that's fair enough to bring out on the issue 12 of credibility. So, in general while we have all had a 13 few laughs here, but the basic point we think is fair enough 14 if kepc within bounds.

15 Do you have anything else, Mr. Eddleman?

16 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I hate to come back when 17 an objection has been sustained. But I think that Dr. DuPont 18 is a psychiatric; he knows what conditions are recognized 19 as psychiatric disabilities or conditions that would require 20 treatment by these official bodies. .

21 And I want to know if this nuclear phobia that 22 he is talking about, that he is working ohlwith these' people 23 is recognized by these bodies which I think are rather more 24 independent than the nuclear industry,than is the AIF or the p-F si Ceporters, Inc.

25 DOE, recognize this nuclear phobia as a psychiatric condition .

t

10,060

>7-9-SueW I MR. BARTH: We object to the line, Your Honor, n

f i

\/ 2 It's irrelevant.

3 JUDGE KELLEY: The objection is sustained. Move 4 on to the next question, or move on to something else.

5 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I believe that's all my 6 questions for this witness. Let me just double-check back 7 through his vitae. It is the most extensive Vitae in terms 8 of what it covers that I've ever seen. It even includes 9 letters to the Editor.

10 JUDGE KELLEY: Maybe that will inspire you to 11 greater effort.

12 (Laughter.)

A

(-) 13 MR. EDDLEMAN: It doesn't inspire me to any 14 more questions. Thank you very much.

15 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. How did we have this before?

16 Is Mr. Bryant next or Mr. Barth? What is our preferred 17 sequence?

18 MR. BARTH: The Attorney General, Your Honor, 19 has the floor next.

20 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, go ahead.

21 CROSS EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. BRYANT:

INDEXX 23 Q Dr. DuPont, good morning.

24 A Good morning, Mr. Bryant.

W Reporws, Inc.

25 Q Have you examined the length of the work shif t

a 10,061 97-10-SueW I in relation to whether or not there is any tendency to use V 2 drugs?

3 A No, I have not.

4 MR. BRYANT: Okay. I think that's all I have.

5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, Mr. Barth?

6 MR. BARTH: Our cross-examination is even 7 shorter, Your Honor. We have no questions.

8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Go. ahead.

9 BOARD EXAMINATION 10 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:

INDEXX 11 Q Dr. DuPont, I would like to follow up on some 12 questions that Mr. Eddleman was asking you concerning your A)

\- 13 testimony on Page 12. I appreciate that you are trying to 14 deal with generalizations.

15 But I couldn' t help but become curious as to 16 whether it's possible to identify particular personality 17 ' ype that would be involved in sabotage or concealment of 18 errors.

19 Can we distinguish these people from drug users?

20 A It's interesting, Judge Carpenter, that you 21 focused on that, because I was trying in a sense to exclude 22 that from the area of my expertise to distinguish it. And 23 so now you are asking me to come back to it.

24 And I don't know that I have much to contribute w-F9mnm,n,inc.

25 to that. I don't really know about sabotage and those who

10,062

1. 7-ll-SueW1 would be involved. I can tell you, I know a good bit about k/ 2 drug abusers. And sabotage is not the kind of thing that 3 they typically deal in, in my experience.

4 That's really the only point that I was trying 5 to make. It was, in a sense, a negative point rather than 6 a positive, about people who are involved in sabotage, just 7 to say that this is not wPat typical drug abusers do.

8 0 I was trying to see why it wouldn't be possible 9 for somebody to have the kind of personality that would 10 conceal errors and also abuse drugs.

11 A Well, the only point I'm making is that the 12 typical drug user, drug effected worker, is somebody who

(./ 13 is preoccupied with the drug use itself and much less likely 14 to be involved in any kind of vendetta or, you know, active 15 political -- to me, sabotage involves some kind of a hostility 16 directed at the institution, whereas most drug dependent 17 people are not hostile to the institution.

18 They are just preoccupied with themselves and 19 their drug use.

20 0 Is that more from the effects of the drug on 21 the individual's personality or a predisposition?

l 22 A I think it's the former. It's a very important 23 -distinction, and I hadn't made it in my own thinking. But G 24

>Feuleral Reporters, Inc.

I believe it's the effects of the drugs.

25 Q That's the kind of person that seeks -- that

10,063

1. 7-12-SueW j falls into chemical dependency is the kind of person that 2 perhaps wouldn't engage in these other activities that 3 you refer to?

4 A I'm not sure -- you are reaching beyond the 5 limits of my -- not only my knowledge but my ability to ,

I 6 speculate at this point.

7 JUDGE CARPENTER: Well, I've satisfied my own 8

curiosity. Thank you.

9 BOARD EXAMINATION 10 BY JUDGE KELLEY:

INDEXX 1 Q Doctor, I just have a question that goes to a 12 very specific point. At Page 5 -- and you were asked about pm.

13 this in cross-examination -- I'm looking at the top of the 14 page where you state that drug use is most prevalent among 15 young persons in the eighteen to twenty-five year age group, 16 young males have the highest rate.

17 Do you have any knowledge about age ranges at 18 the Harris site and the Harris work force?

19 A Yes. I have seen that data.

20 0 What does that reflect?

21 A Generally a younger work force, although not 22 necessarily under twenty-five. Most of the Harris work 23 force is under thirty-five, rather than twenty-five. There

24 are lots of -- a big percentage between twenty-five and re-Fb f, Reporters, Inc.

25 thirty-five.

10,064

1. 7-13-SueW1 But, it is -- it tends to be a younger work f~)

V-

. 2 force.

3 Q Do you know what an average age would be?

4 A Just looking at the numbers, the average age 5 I would think would be about thirty, maybe thirty-two. I 6 didn't calculate the average but that's what itlooked like.

7 I think it was about two-thirds were under thirty-8 five or forty. Again, I don' t have the exact numbers, but 9 that would be about what we are talking about.

10 Although, the percentage under twenty-five, or 11 twenty-five and younger, I think was around a quarter. Those 12 are just rough numbers.

(-

O) 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Would it be possible -- it seems 14 to me this may be of some interest -- for us to have for 15 the record some information on age ranges.

16 Does the computer have that kind of thing, Mr.

17 Hollar, and could it be provided?

18 MR. HOLLAR: Mr. Chairman, I know that we have 19 that information for some contractors. I believe we have 20 it for Daniel personnel. I also believe it may be available 21 for CP&L personnel.

22 But I can't speak for the site as a whole.

23 JUDGE KELLEY: What Dr. DuPont has given us is l l

9 e-Feene n 24

,we., inc.

helpful. And I appreciate that.

25 I just thought if you could, without doing anything

10,065 p

7hl4-SueW I extensive, give us some information along that line that y

! Es 2 might.be helpful.

3 Do you know whether they are married or not?

4 Does your computer know whether they are married or. not?

5 MR. HOLLAR: I can't answer that question. We a really would have to check and see.what -- ,

7 JUDGE KELLEY: Take a look and see. The point 8 is really along that line. And it might be helpful to 9 have some data on that.

10 MR. HOLLAR: Are you asking that we send you 11 something in writing?

12 JUDGE KELLEY: Could you take a look and maybe

f And I'm not asking you to engage in a N 13 just report back.

14 big data collection effort, but if you could get some 15 information along that line without a lot of research work 16 it might be useful to have.

17 MR. HOLLAR: Perhaps the next witness panel 18 could furnish that information.

19 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Fine.

20 MR. HOLLAR: I think they would certainly be 21 in a better position than Dr. DuPont.

22 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Redirect from the 23 Applicants?

f' 24 MR. HOLLAR: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I reporws ane.

25 only have one question.

l L-

10,066

1. 7-15-SueW j REDIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. HOLLAR:

INDEXX 3 0 Dr. DuPont, could you describe your experience 4 in treating patients for drug abuse problems?

5 A Yes, Mr. Hollar. 1 have maintained an active 6 practice of personally treating people with a variety of 7

problems, very much including drug abuse all my professional 8 career, since finishing my psychiatric training in 1963.

9 And I would estimate that I have personally 10 treated eyeball to eyeball as my patients about two or 11 three hundred people for drug problems.

12 In addition, I have supervised the treatment c

13 of literally thousands of people who have drug problems.

14 And so I have worked with the clinicians who have treated 15 the drug users in a supervisory capacity.

16 In terms of the contentions here, the issues 17 here though, I think it's also very important that I have 18 maintained a very active involvement with the drug abuse 19 field including speaking with and being very familiar with 20 many of the experts on a national level, dealing with these 21 issues.

22 I attend drug abuse conferences on a very regular 23 basis, probably half a dozen of them a year and have all this period of time, plus telephone contact and reading lll 24 4 t-Federel Reporters, Inc.

25 literature. So, I have a very extensive professional

16 10,067

1. 7-16-SueW1 involvement that extends from the direct contact to a q

-) 2 more abstract intellectual kind of awareness.

3 MR. HOLLAR: Thank you. That's all I have.

4 JUDGE KELLEY: Any recross, Mr. Runkle?

5 MR. RUNKLE: I would request of the Applicants 6 that they also would -- in their age breakdown, if they 7 would also do gender breakdown.

8 JUDGE KELLEY: If that's doable. -Could you 9 look at that, too, and see if that's doable?

10 MR. HOLLAR: Certainly.

11 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.

12 MR. RUNKLE: And, again not to any fraction of fh

(_) 13 a percent, just rough ninety, ninety-five and that kind 14 of thing.

15 I have no questions on recross.

16 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Eddleman, anything 17 from you?

18 RECROSS EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:

INDEXX 20 Q Dr. DuPont, in your treatment of drug abusers jt1 that you referred to on redirect, have you observed any --

22 wait a second. I think you have already answered that you 23 had not' treated any nuclear construction worker; is that 24 right?

>F Reporem, Inc. .

25 A That's correct, Mr. Eddleman.

10,068

1. 7-17-SueW1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. That's all I've got.

2 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth, Mr. Bryant, anything 3 c. a?

4 MR. BARTH: No, Your Honor.

5 NUDGEKELLEY: Dr. DuPont, I think that takes 6 us through it, then. We appreciate your appearance and 7 attention and answers.

8 Thank you very much. You are excused.

9 (The witness stood aside.)

10 JUDGE KELLEY: What about calling the next 11 panel and getting them introduced and through the usual 12 questions and then maybe breaking for lunch.

13 Go ahead.

14 MR. O'NEILL: Applicants call to tne stand 15 Messrs. Banks, Parsons, Forehand, Brombach and Trainor.

16 And while they are coming to the stand, Mr.

17 Chairman, I would ask that the Reporter mark for identifica-1 18 tion three prefiled exhibits. And I would t the 19 first two exhibits are the ones that were included with 20 our prefiled testimony of October 25th,1985 and have marked 21 for identification, Harris Plant Procedure, CQA-7, as 22 Applicants' Exhibit 50.

23 The Reporter will have a copy of these with the 24 identification already on it.

ca Fedml [eponen, Inc.

25 (The above-described document is

L

, d 10,069

$-18-S ueW 1 marked as Applicants' Exhibit Number C')

XJ 2 50 'for identification. )

3 MR.-O'NEILL: The second exhibit that was 4 included with our prefiled testimony is the Report to the 5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff of Evaluation and Re-l 4 inspection of Work Performed by Employees at the Shearon 7 Harris Nuclear Power Plant Project who have been Implicated 8 in Possible Drug Activity,.with a revised date of 10/15/85 9 and ask that it be marked as' Applicants' Exhibit 51.

10 (The above-described document is 11 marked as Applicants' Exhibit 51 for 12 Identification.)

l

(^)T

\- 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.

14 MR. O'NEILL: And the third exhibit was filed 15 in our letter of November 7,1985 with Supplemental Testimony l

16 of Mr. Brombach. It's a three-page letter, dated October 29, 17 1985 from the Technical Service Laboratory to Mr. Brombach.

18 And I would ask that that be marked as Applicants' 19 Exhibit 52.

20 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.

I 21 (The above-described document is 22 marked as Applicants' Exhibit Number 4 23 52 for Identification.)

24 MR. O'NEILL: At this time, Mr. Chairman, I nowan. su.

25 suggest that we go off the record to m,ake conforming changes l-u

r 4

L +

10,070' D7-19-SueW1 .

.to the prefiled witnesses' testimony. It might be worth-t

] 2 iwhile-doing that off the record rather than burdening the 3 record with it.

4 JUDGE KELLEY: That's a good. idea.. Why don't 5 we go off just to get these citations and marks and then 6 we can reflect what we've done?

7 s ' (An off-the-record ~ discussion ensues. )

3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We.are back on the record.

9 And Mr. O'Neill has just taken us through some conforming 10 changes in the testimony and exhibits of the present panel.

11 And the changes are already reflected in the 12 copies that have been.given to the Reporter, and the rest

( Okay.

13 of us have made them as we went along.

14 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman, Applicants have 15 called.to the stand Messrs. Trainor, Banks, Forehand, 16 Parsons and Brombach.

17 Before I ask them questions, would you care to is swear them in?

19 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. Gentlemen, I think many 20 of you, if not most of you, have been previously sworn.

21 Will those of you who have not raise your right hands, 22 please?

l 23 (The witnesses, Messrs. Trainor, Forehand and

! 24 Parsons are sworn by Judge Kelley.)

ne,.,we., inc.

25 Thank you.

10,071

)7-20-SueW 1 Whereupon, 7s b 2 EUGENE F. TRAINOR, 3 HAROLD R. BANKS, 4 ROLAND M. PARSONS,

~

5 GEORGE L. FOREHAND.

6 - and .

7 THOMAS W. BROMBACH e are called as witnesses by and on behalf of the Applicants 9 -and, having been duly sworn, were examined and testified ]

10 as follows:

11 DIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. O'NEILL:

l 13 Q Gentlemen, starting with my left and closest l to the Board, would you please state your name for the 14 15 record and identify your employer and your position?

END #7 16 Joa flws 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

>F Repo,ters, Inc.

25

r' p

l 8-1-JoeW'd. 10,072 l I

1 A (Witness Tralhor) My name is Eugene F. Trainor.

i }

2 I am a Senior Vice President for.Cygna Energy Services.

3 A (Witness Banks) Harold R. Banks, Carolina Power 4 and Light Company, Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance.

5 A (Witness Forehand) George L. Forehand. I am 6 employed by Carolina Power and Light Company. I am the 7 Director of Quality Assurance and Quality Control at the 8 Harris Plant.

9 A (Witness Parsons) Rcland N. Parsons, employed 10 by Carolina Power and Light Company. I am Project General 11 Manager of Completion Assurance at the Plant Site. )

12 A (Witness Brombach) I am Thomas W. Brombach,

' o 13 employed by Carolina Power and Light at Shearon Harris, l 14 and I am Project Specialist for Inservice Inspection.

15 Q Mr. Banks and Mr. Parsons, I call to your i

I 16 attention a document which bears-the caption of this 17 proceeding, dated October 25, 1985, and is entitled 18 Applicants Testimony of Harold R. Banks and Roland M. Parsons 19 on the Construction Quality Assurance Program, CCNC Contention 20 WB-3, and consists of 30 pages of questions and answers and 21 four attachments.

f l 22 Does the testimony associated with your initials, i

23 including the attached statements of your qualifications, 24 represent your testimony prepared by you or under your prasnm c on.n, inc.

l 25 supervision for presentation at this hearing?

v l8-2-JoeWOl' 10,073 l-1 A (Witness Banks) Yes, it does. 1

(_) . 2 A (Witness Parsons) Yes, it does.

3. Q Mr. Banks, Mr. Parsons, again,'and Mr. Forehand 4 and Mr. Brombach, I call to your attention a document which

'5 bears the caption of this proceeding, dated October 25, 1985,-

6 and is entitled, Applicants testiomony of Harold R. Banks',

'7 Roland M. Parsons, George L. Forehand, and Thomas W. Brombach, 8 on Evaluation and Reinspbction of Work Performed by Employees 9 ' Implicated in Possible Drug Activity, CCNC Contention WB-3, 10 and consists of 22 pages of questions and answers and two 11 attachments.

'12 Does the testimony associated with your initials,

() 13 . including the attached statement of your qualifications, 14 represent your testimony prepared by you or under your 15 supervision for presentation at this hearing?

16 A ~(Witness Banks) Yes, it does.

17 A (Witness Parsons) Yes.

18 A (Witness Forehand) -Yes, it does.

I 19 A (Witness Brombach) Yes, it does.

20 0 I will ask all four of you gentlemen, with 21 respect to both sets of testimony, do you have any changes 22 or corrections to make to your prefiled written statement?

23 A (Witness Banks) I have no.

( 24 A (Witness Forehand) I have an additien to make.

so F Reporters, Inc.

25 In Answer 13 to my prefiled statement, I describe the

8-3-JoeWD1 10,074 I evaluations and reinspections for the QA personnel implicated 2 in possible drug activity.

3 In that answer, I indicated that evaluation of 4 three inspection personnel was still in progress. These 5 evaluations were completed on November 7th, and I can now 6 report the results.

\

7 All three inspectors have performed inspections 8 on the installation of expanse and anchors. A sample of the 9 inspections was selected pursuant'to Harris Plant procedure 10 CQA7, and the work was reinspected to the extent possible.

11 Certain of the inspection attributer are embedded l i

12 in concrete, and are no longer accessible. The inspector I g

~

13 proficiency as based on the reinspections were determined l

14 as follows: For the first inspector, eighty 'cxpansion anchors !

15 were reinspected out of an original 982 originally inspected.

i I 16 l'493 attributes were reinspected, and five  !

' i 17 deficiancies were noted. The inspector proficiency was  !

18 99.7 percent. l 19 For the second inspector, fifty expansion anchors 20 were reinspected out of 356 originally inspected. 1,057 21 attributes were reinspected, and five deficiencies were l l

l 22 noted. l 23 The inspector proficiency was 99.5 percent.

h 24 i p.raner.: n. port.... inc.

For the third inspector,125 expansion anchors 25 were reinspected out of 1,257 originally inspected. 2,445f' l

m 8-4-doeW21 10,075 1 attributes were reinspected, and three deficiencies were V 2 noted.

3 . The inspector proficiency was 99.9 percent. None 4 of the 13 deficiencien noted were safety significant.

5 In fact, all were minor deficiencies. The first 6 and third inspector discussed above also inspected concrete 3 7 and grout placements in the installation of embedded items 8 in reinforcing steel bars and, concrete.

9 Reinspection of these items is impossible because 10 of the extraordinarily high inspection proficiencies shown 11 by these two inspectors and because the work during concrete 12 ' and grout placements inspected by these inspectors is 11so

.r'T kJ 13 subject to verification by both a construction supervisor 14 and area engineer on the same concrete placement card as 15 the inspectors results are recorded, CP&L has no reason to 16 question the proficiency of the inspections performed by 17 these inspectors on concrete.

18 CP&L has no reason to doubt the validity of the i 19 inspection activities of these inspectors, notwithstanding 20 the possible implication in~ drug activity.

21 That is the entire change.

22 O The addition?

23 A The addition, that is correct.

24 Q Thank you, Mr. Forehand. Mr. Parsons, in either Ase F 9si Reportees, Inc.

25 of your two pieces of testimony?

8-5-JoeW21 10,076 1 A (Witness Parsons) I have no changes or corrections 2 to be made.

3 Q Mr. Brombach?

4 A (Witness Brombach) I have no additions or 5 corrections.

6 O Then, again, I ask all four of you gentlemen, is 7 the testimony, referring to both pieces of prefiled testimony, 8 true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, 9 and belief?

10 A (Witness Banks) Yes, it is.

11 A (Witness Forehand) Yes, it is.

12 A (Witness Parsons) Yes, it is.

K._) 13 A (Witness Brombach) Yes, it is.

14 MR. O ' NEILL: Mr. Chairman, at this I move that 15 the two pieces of identified testimony, including the attachments l

16 be incorporated into the record as if read, and received into 17 evidence.

18 MR. RUNKLE: Sir, I would like to have that 19 extensive addition in writing, either as an attachment or i

l 20 as a supplemental page. I found that very hard to follow.

21 It is pretty complicated.

22 JUDGE KELLEY: Would it be possible to come up 23 with a xeroxed copy over lunch?

lll 24 Aca-Federal Reporters, Inc.

MR. O'NEILL: Yes, sir. In fact, we just wrote I

25 this out last night, and I typed it myself, so it isn't in the

8-6-JoeW21 10,077 1 form in which I normally would submit something to the Board.

2 JUDGE KELLEY: I don't want to embarrass you.

3 Your typing. t 4 MR. O'NEILL: Perhaps instead of s ubmitting it 5 for the record, since it is now read into the record, I could 6 give Mr. Runkle a copy to use.

7 JUDGE KELLEY: That is what I mean. Yeah, sure, 8 please do. It will be in the transcript tomorrow, but just 9 for purposes of cross, will you give them a copy?

10 MR. RUNKLE: Thank you.

11 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's see. We have a motion on 12 this testimony then. Any objections?

s

\-) 13 MR. RUNKLE: No. objections.

14 JUDGE KELLEY: Hearing none, motion granted.

15 (Prefiled testimony follows.)

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

/ I 24 Am ed W Reponen, Inc.

25

.g a s '~

et O October 25, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN )

MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF

' HAROLD R. BANKS, ROLAND M. PARSONS, GEORGE L. FOREHAND AND THOMAS W. BROMBACH ON EVALUATION AND REINSPECTION OF WORK PERFORMED BY EMPLOYEES IMPLICATED IN POSSIBLE DRUG ACTIVITY (CCNC CONTENTION WB-3)

O

1 "i . 1 Q1. Mr. Banks, by whom are your employed and what is your

() position?

, A1. (HRB) I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) as Manager, Corporate Quality Ascurance Department. A statement .of my professional qualifications and experience is found in Applicants' Testimony of Harold R. Banks and Roland M.

Parsons on the Construction Quality As'surance Program (CCNC 1

Contention WB-3), filed contemporaneously with this testimony.

Q2. Mr. Parsons, by whom are you employed and what is

your position?

A2. (RMP) I am employed by CP&L as a Project General Man-ager, Harris Nuclear Project Department. A statement of my professional qualifications and experience is also found in Applicants' Testimony of Harold R. Banks and Roland M. Parsons on the Construction Quality Assurance Program (CCNC Contention WB-3), filed contemporaneous 1y with this testimony.

Q3. Mr. Forehand, by whom are your employed and what is your position.

A3. (GLF) I am employed by CP&L as Director of Quality Assurance / Quality Control -- Harris Plant.

Q4. Please summarize your professional qualifications and experience.

A4. (GLF) I have been employed by CP&L in Quality Assur-ance positions at the Harris Plant Site since 1973. In 1981 I was promoted to Director of Quality Assurance / Quality Control

-- Harris Plant. Prior to joining CP&L, I served in the United

() States Navy -- retiring as a Master Chief Engineman. Beginning

in 1959, I served in the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarine program

\~- including tours of duty at the Naval Reactors Test Station in Idaho Falls, Idaho, as an instructor and in charge of mainte-nance of mechanical equipment at the S1W prototype plant. I also served as an instructor at the Basic Nuclear Power School in Bainbridge, Maryland. A complete statement of my profes-

~

sional qualifications is appended as Attachment 1 to this testimony.

QS. Mr. Brombach, by whom are you employed and what is your position?

AS. (TWB) I am employed by CP&L at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant as a Project Specialist / Inservice Inspec-tion. In this capacity I am responsible for Non-Destructive

() Examination ("NDE") of Class 1, 2 and 3 components, piping and their supports to ensure applicable requirements of ASME Code Section XI and 10 C.F.R. 5 50.55a are met.

Q6. Please state your professional qualifications and ex-perience related to your present position.

A6. (TWB) I have been actively engaged in NDE and inservice inspection programs at nuclear power plants since 1976. I have received extensive NDE training, including ul-trasonic testing, visual inspection and eddy current l testing / examination. While employed by Virginia Electric and Power Company from 1976 until 1982, I was certified as an NDE examiner. From 1978 to the present I have been employed in su-pervisory positions, overseeing NDE and inservice inspection O

/ .

h activities. Beginning w'ith my early training and experience in O

\_s the United States Navy, I have sixteen years of hands-on expe-rience in power plant operations, maintenance and testing. A complete statement of my professional qualifications and expe-

, rience is appended as Attachment 2 to this testimony.

Q7. What is the purpose of this testimony?

A7. (HRB, RMP, GLF) The purpose'of this testimony is to describe CP&L's procedures for evaluating the work performed by craft personnel and quality inspectors at the Harris Plant who have been implicated in any way in the possible use of con-trolled substances. Our testimony sponsors Applicants' Exhibit fd, a summary report describing the individuals who have been identified as having, or as suspected of, some level of in-p)1 volvement with controlled substances -- either on site or off

\~

site -- and the evaluation of the quality of their work.

Exhibit jj establishes, for such individuals, the basis for ac-tual or suspected drug involvement, employment duration, job classification, whether safety-related work was performed by the individual, and the basis for confirmation of the quality of each individual's work. In this testimony we describe our evaluations of work performed by craft workers implicated in drug activity and reinspections of work performed by quality inspectors similarly implicated. This testimony and Exhibit 51 provide the results of our evaluations and reinspections and the reasons that we are confident that safety-related work performed by these individuals meets regulatory and design O reauirements.

y .

(TWB) During the. hearings that were held on this conten- ,

O tion during the week of September 30, 1985, by stipulation with ,

\_/ I intervenors, Applicants agreed to treat five employees of Conam Inspection of Richmond, California, in the same~ manner as Harris Plant employees possibly implicated in drug activity for purposes of-reevaluating their work. Applicants explicitly stated, however, that this stipulation ~did not imply that the Conam employees were in fact drug users. The purpose of my testimony is to describe the evaluation and reinspection of work performed by the five Conam employees and the basis for Applicants' conclusion that the work was performed satisfacto-rily.

Q8. During hearings held during the week of September 30, 1985, Mr. William J. Hindman, Jr. testified regarding the ex-

{} tent of drug activity among Harris Plant employees. Does Applicants' Exhibit Sj provide information that updates Mr. Hindman's testimony.

A8. (RMP) Yes. Chart II-1 in Applicants' Exhibit 51 identifies 218 individuals who, as of October 15, 1985, have been identified as having, or as suspected of, some level of involvement with controlled substances -- either on site or off site. These 218 individuals include the 201 individuals previ-ously identified by Mr. Hindman's testimony, four additional contract inspection personnel, and thirteen additional craft personnel. Chart II-1 also includes the contractor personnel, l vho worked for Conam Inspection of Richmond, California, O

1

. l l

identified by Mr. Brombach. While these last five individuals

\

did not provide construction services, Applicants agreed to reinspect a portion of their work in a settlement arrangement with intervenors.

Chart II-2 in Applicants' Exhibit ,$l provides a break-down by job classification for the 218 employees identified.

Chart II-3 in Applicants' Exhibit $1' provides the reasons for personnel action regarding these employees by job classifica-tion. This information updates the testimony of Mr. Hindman.

Q9. Do Applicants have a program to evaluate the perfor-mance of employees whose qualification or ability has been questioned?

A9. (RMP) Yes. Throughout the life of the project,

{} Harris site management has performed evaluations of the perfor-mance of individuals whose qualifications or ability have been questioned. The questions relating to a person's qualifica-tions have come from several directions, including allegations that previously inspected work was n . acceptable and also from drug allegations. The evaluations have been essentially limit-ed to previous work of quality inspectors. Craftsmen were not normally subjected to an evaluation because their work is con-trolled by the QA Program and inspected as described in Appli-cants' Testimony of Harold R. Banks and Roland M. Parsons on the Construction Quality Assurance Program (CCNC Contention WB-3) and Section III of Applicants' Exhibit 51 As a practi-cal matter, it is not possible to determine with certainty all

,. t ,j 4

work or even all systems or components on which work was per-( )' formed by an individual craft. worker.

During the early phase of the Harris Plant Project, we reinspected an inspector's work if an allegation was substanti-ated. As a result of increased allegations in late 1982, most of them directed toward welding inspectors, a procedure was developed to establish a formal evaluation process. The proce-

. dure, AP-IX-08, entitled " Evaluation of Inspector or Vendor Weld Visual Inspection Performance on Welded Structural Fabri-cations," was approved for use in December 1982. It provided a formal method for judging an inspector's or vendor's perfor-mance.

Because of increasing numbers of allegations industry-wide

'and because of our encouragement to site employees to bring forth concerns through the Quality Check program, an additional site procedure, Harris Plant Procedure CQA-7, entitled "Evalua-tion of Program' Effectiveness," was developed and implemented in June 1984 (Applicants' Exhibit 40 ) . This procedure estab-lished a formal process for evaluating past work when concerns-were expressed. It established sampling techniques, which are based upon Military Standard 105-D. As described in my other piece of testimony with Mr. Banks, Harris Plant Procedure CQA-7 is the basis of the QA attribute surveillance program as well.

In practice, the decision whether or not to evaluate the performance of individuals pursuant to CQA-7 is based on con-sideration of the safety significance of the work in question, O

s

r whether the work involved had in-process inspection and/or

() final inspection, and the number of people involved in the work (individual vs. more than one). In general, the test is wheth-er or not the results of the work in question were used in any way to support a final determination of plant quality. To .

date, this has led to application of the procedure for the most part to inspection personnel only. However, the procedure has also been used to perform a technical evaluation of the work by independent reviewers of design work who were removed from the job for suspected drug activity.

Q10. Was there an evaluation of the work of craft person-

.nel implicated in possible drug activity?

A10. (RMP) Yes. A management evaluation of all craft s

personnel implicated in possible drug activity was performed by s

a group of four key site individuals: the Manager QA/QC --

Harris Plant, the Manager -- Harris Plant Administration, a representative of the contractor (for non-CP&L employees) and myself. During these evaluations, the individual's job de-scription and a supervisor's description of the employee's work assignments were considered. We evaluated the employee's work to satisfy ourselves that the work was subjected to one or more inspections and that we did not rely solely upon the employee's performance for assuming the quality of the work. The inspec-tion activities for craft work are summarized in Section III of Applicants' Exhibit J1 Our bases for determining that employees' work was subjected to inspections is summarized in

{} Chart II-l of Applicants' Exhibit Ji/.

Qll. Have quality inspectors been implicated in possible drug activities?

All. (GLF) As indicated in Chart II-l of Applicants' Exhibit 4Q, 218 Harris employees have been identified as having suspected or confirmed involvement with drugs. The quality inspection organizations have not been immune from this phenom-enon, and the 218 figure includes 27 q'uality inspection person-nel, as noted on Chart II-2 of Applicants' Exhibit 61 .

Q12. Do you consider it significant that 27 quality per-sonnel have been identified as implicated in drug activity?

A12. (GLF) In that over 1,000 quality inspection person-nel have been employed at the Harris Plant Project since 1981, I do not consider 27 inspectors identified as confirmed or sus-(} pected of involvement with drugs to be significant. Rather, the identification of these employees indicates that our strin-gent program for pursuing any allegations of drug activity among quality personnel is working. Significantly, we have never been able to~ relate any deficiency in an inspector's per-formance to use of drugs. In addition, as discussed by Mr.

Banks and Mr. Parsons in their separate piece of testimony, in-spectqys' work is subject to yet further checks under the Qual-ity Assurance Program, including: supervisory audits, QA sur-veillances of inspection activities, QA audits, system walkdowns, start-up testing and audits / evaluations / inspections by outside agencies. The results of the reinspections under-taken to date support my conclusion that the quality inspection O

l 1

4 l personnel are performing effectively. We have not identified

() any deficiency with safety significance during reinspections of the work of these 27 inspectors.

Q13. What actions have Applicants taken to ensure the quality.of the inspection activities performed by these 27 individuals?

A13. (GLF) Section VI of Applicants' Exhibit di de-scribes the results of evaluations and reinspections for the 27 quality inspection personnel -- NDE inspectors and QA/QC/CI in-spectors -- implicated in possible drug activity. I will sim-ply summarize here the basis for confirming the quality of the work performed by these inspection personnel.

4 Within the QC organization, three NDE (non-destructive ex-(~'T amination) inspectors have been terminated because of positive V

drug screen test results, and two have been terminated for refusing to take the test. Reinspection of the Liquid Penetrant and Magnetic Particle examinations performed by these NDE inspectors has been completed in accordance with Harris Plant Procedure CQA-7. Of the 284 items reinspected, only four minor deficiencies -- all corrected by minor buffing -- were found. The results of these reinspections confirm the profi-ciency and reliablity of the NDE inspectors' work. The Radio-graphic Examination (RT) work done by four of these inspectors has not been reinspected, for the following reasons. Certified as Level II-Limited (Shooter Only) in RT, these four inspectors participated as a member of a two-man team in making G

O f

.:+

radiographic set-ups and film exposures, but not in performing

( )- interpretations of RT film for final acceptance or rejection of the items radiographed. RT film is su' ject to two independent reviews / interpretations by other Level II personnel qualified for film interpretation.

Seven CI inspectors -- six certified in cable pulls and/or cable terminations, and one CI inspectbr certified in drilled-in expansion anchors -- have been terminated and/or re-moved from the job for positive drug screen test results (two),

refusal to take the test (four) and suspected drug activity based on information from a reliable source (one). A sample of the work of these inspectors has been reinspected pursuant to CQA-7, and the results -- an overall acceptance rate for the seven inspectors of 99.3% -- were acceptable under the proce-dure.

Fourteen QC inspectors and one inspector-in-training have been terminated because of a positive drug screen test or re-fusal to take the drug screen test. Since the inspector-in-training was never certified, no reinspection was required.

The work of eight of these QC inspectors was reinspected pur-suant to Harris Plant Procedure CQA-7. The reinspections con-firm the inspectors' proficiency and reliability, in that the overall acceptance rate was 99.7%.

Of the remaining six QC inspectors, one field-tested con-crete and performed sieve analysis, grout testing and cadweld inspections; this inspector was terminated for positive drug O

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

/ '

screen test results. There are no safety concerns with the

()' employee's assignments in field testing concrete, grout testing or sieve analysis, since final acceptance of concrete and grout is based on meeting the required design strength as determined by later testing. A statistical sample of the cadwelds in con-crete reinforcing steel bars subjected to cadweld inspections are cut out and subjected to tensile testing. The high success rate of rebar and cadweld splices subjected to tensile tests (only 8 out of 2,764 splices tested failed to meet minimum ten-sile requirements) and the large margin by which those test re-sults exceed-design requirements independently confirm.the quality of cadweld splicing and cadweld inspections. Conse-quently, no reinspection has been performed for this inspector.

Another QC employee was a field concrete tester who also performed.rebar and cadweld tensile testing, sieve analysis and grout testing; this inspector was removed from the job for sus-pected drug use based on information provided by a reliable source. For the reasons discussed above, there are no safety concerns with this employee's work in concrete and grout testing or sieve analysis. While this employee actually per-formed tensile testing, the results of this employee's tests are consistent with the results of tensile tests performed by others, as determined by a comparison of a statistical distri-bution of his test data with that of the remaining inspectors.

Because of the uniformly high success rates of such tests per-formed by all such testers and in light of the satisfactory 30 0

supervisory audits of this inspector's work, we concluded that there was no reason to doubt the validity of this inspector's test results.

i Recently, three additional inspection personnel have been identified as having suspected or confirmed involvement with

• drugs. Evaluation of their work is still in process.

The final quality inspector in this group was assigned to perform final system walkdowns with representatives from the system turnover group, construction engineering, and start-up personnel. This assignment did not require the individual to review documentation or inspect systems to determine quality or acceptability. In addition, the inspector was not solely re-sponsible for any aspect of his assignment, and the turnover

(} documentation packages were reviewed by a supervisor. For these reasons, no reinspection or re-verification of this in-spector's work was required.

Q14. In addition to craft workers and quality inspectors,Section II of Applicants' Exhibit 51 indicates that ten engi-neering support individuals were implicated in possible drug activity. How did you confirm the quality of any safety-related work performed by these individuals?

A14. (RMP) Engineering support personnel perform original calculations and revise calculations in accepting ongoing and final as-built conditions for construction activities. Other engineering support personnel verify these evaluations and re-view and check calculations and revisions. Of the ten b

identified individuals, five were reviewers who check calcula-() tions, and their work was evaluated in accordance with Harris Plant Procedure CQA-7. Their work was found acceptable with no discrepancies. The other five were evaluated as performing acceptable work.because their work, in turn, was evaluated by independent reviewers who provided quality verification. None of these independent reviewers were implicated in drug activi-ty. Thus the work of all ten engineering support personnel has been determined to be reliable.

Q15. Of all reinspections of work performed by individuals implicated in drug activity, what has been the acceptance rate of the work of such individuals?

A15. (GLF) 99.6%.

Q16. What implications do you draw from this high rate of (d]

u performance of such individuals?

A16. (HRB, RMP, GLF) The reinspection data do not show a lower rate of acceptance of work inspected by inspectors impli-cated in possible drug activity than the overall acceptance rate of inspected safety-related construction work. This is not surprising since there has been no confirmed incident of a significant quality deficiency attributable to craft personnel, quality inspectors, NDE personnel or engineering support per-sonnel identified or suspected of drug involvement.

The QA Program is designed to detect and ensure the reso-lution of errors in constructi.on work. While some inspectors have been implicated in possible drug activity, that does not O

f mean that any of them were performing their inspection function

'.,~)

(_

s while under the influence of drugs. We have terminated the em-ployment of certain inspectors who refused to submit to a drug screen or who showed positive indications of drug use in a drug screen, even though performance had been very good during their employment history with CP&L.

While CP&L, along with the rest o'f society, must deal with a serious drug use problem, there is no indication of a problem of on site drug abuse affecting on-the-job performance by CP&L  !

quality inspectors. The results of reinspections and our eval-uations confirm that the QA program works and has not been com-promised by drug activity.

Q17. How can you be confident that there are no signifi-(-5 cant deficiencies in the work of craft personnel or inspectors

%)

who may have used drugs and who were not identified and evalu-ated?

A17. (HRB, RMP, GLF) For craft personnel, we have deter-mined that safety-related work is subject to multiple layers of inspection and review. This assures the quality of construc-tion work at the Harris Plant.

For inspectors, we have determined that their work is sub-ject to supervisory audits, surveillances and independent au-dits. The data from reinspections of inspectors who have been implicated in possible drug activity do not show a lower rate of inspector proficiency than data from reinspections overall.

The overall inspector proficiency rate for the Harris Plant O

i i

.I l

l Project is 99.5%. We have not discovered a deficiency with

() safety significance during reinspections of the work of inspec-tors implicated in drug activity or during the comprehensive QA attribute surveillance program. All of this gives us confi-danco that the quality of the Harris Plant is not being ad-

'versely affected by any unidentified drug use.

Q18. Mr. Brombach, by stipulation with intervenors, Appli-cants agreed to treat five employees of Conam Inspection of Richmond,-California in the same manner as employees poten-tially implicated in drug activity for purposes of reevaluating their work. Did Conam provide contractor services to CP&L at the Harris Plant?

A18. (TWB) Yes. Conam is a division of Nuclear Energy Services, Inc. ("NES"). CP&L contracted with NES to perform baseline preservice eddy current testing / examination of heat exchanger tubing, including the Harris Plant steam generator tubes. NES' Conam Inspection Division provided these eddy cur-rent testing services.

Q19. What is the purpose of eddy current examinations of the Harris Plant steam generators?

A19. (TWB) The purpose of eddy current examinations of stesm generator tubing prior to operation is to establish a baseline condition of the tubing for comparison with the exami-nation results of the first inservice inspection after commenc-ing commercial service of the plant. This is consistent with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.83 (Revision 1)(1975) at Section C.3.a.

O

-Q20. Are eddy current examinations required to assure the v safe construction of the Harris Plant?

A20. (TWB) No. The steam generator tubing was inspected and subjected to non-destructive examinations at the point of fabrication to detect any defects and flaws. After installa-tion at the Harris Plant, the steam generators were subjected

~

to a hydrostatic test to ensure integrity sufficient to meet ASME Code standards. The eddy current examination performed on site is to establish baseline information fo. comparison with later inservice test results. In fact, the contract involved here is an Operations and not a Construction contract. Fur-ther, none of the employees of Conam are quality assurance in-spectors as that term is used to describe CP&L's QA/QC/CI l inspection personnel discussed by Mr. Forehand, nor are they vendor QA/QC inspectors.

Q21. Describe eddy current testing / examination techniques and analyses of eddy-current tapes.

A21. gTWB) The method most commonly used to check for de-fects or flaws in heat exchanger tubing is eddy current exami-i nation. This method is based upon measuring the changes of an c-

! electromagnetic field induced into the tubing to be tested. A differential set of electric coils called a probe is drawn at a

-constant rate through the tubing to be tested. When these coils are energized, an electromagnetic current is induced in the tube in the areas adjacent to the probe. This induced electromagnetic field generates eddy currents.

l O

F 1

,/ ..

Changes in tube wall thickness or permeability, or the

() presence of flaws will cause changes to the flux and density of the induced current, which in turn causes changes in the imped- l ance of the coil. From the measurement of these impedance

, changes the size and orientation of defects can be calculated and determined. To assist and enhance this process the eddy current probe is attached through an interface system with a digital computer, which allows a permanent record to be made via magnetic tape of the calibration, sequence of testing, and the actual data inspection results. The eddy current test data acquired and stored is unique for each tube tested. The mag-netic tapes that are generated during an examination are re-viewed using a similar computer system by a data analyst. In this manner the validity of the test results can be re-established. If necessary the magnetic tapes can be re-viewed again by a third party at any time.

Q22. Who supervised the work of individuals from Conam while performing eddy current testing / examination activities at the Harris site?

A22. (TWB) While Conam was at the Harris site performing eddy current testing they were directly supervised by me and I had a CP&L engineering technician work directly with them in the field on a daily basis.

Q23. Have you checked the work of individuals from Conam to ensure the accuracy of the eddy current testing / examinations and correctness of the analysis of eddy current tapes?

O A23. (TWB) During most of the analysis work performed by

() the principal analyst I worked directly with him while reading a significant amount of the test data results. If at any time an anomaly of significance was detected he brought it to my at-tention for review. The purpose of my involvement was to as-sure the accuracy of the eddy current examinations and the test results. p During the data acquisition 'hase of actual examina-tion of the tubes, I made several trips to the field to overview the work of the examiners. Also, during data acquisi-tion _CP&L Quality Assurance personnel performed surveillance checks. Because of my personal supervision of the eddy current examinations and data analyses, I had no reason to question the integrity nor correctness of the test results.

Q24. As a result of allegations by intervenors did you

{}

perform an evaluation of the work performed by Conam?

A24. (TWB) Yes. Nine of the magnetic tapes acquired by Conam during the baseline examination of Harris Plant steam generator tubes were taken to the Electric Power Research In-stitute ("EPRI") NDE Center in Charlotte, N.C., and EPRI was requested to perform an independent third party review, reanalysis and verification of the data acquired and analyzed by Conam.

Q25. Describe the independent review of Conam's analysis  ;

and the.results.

A25. (TWB) The tubes selected for reanalysis by EPRI had either been tested by and/or analyzed by the five individuals O

s,,

G who performed work at the Harris Plant and who were identified O in an affidavit filed by intervenors as implicated in drug ac-tivity. Three reels of data were randomly selected from each of the three steam generators, representing five percent of the total numb'er of steam generator tubes examined by Conam. In-cluded in the sample were tubes with no quantifiable indica-tions and others that had identified anomalies requiring evalu-ation.

EPRI used the same procedure, data analysis system and calibration system as those used by Conam personnel. Based on its review of the data on the tapes, EPRI concluded that the data acquisition had gone very smoothly and validated Conam's use of procedures, selection and application of the defect ,

() sizing criteria and interpretation of the eddy current signals.

Thus, EPRI confirmed Conam's eddy current testing and examina-tion results.

Q26. Is the sample size of the number of tapes reanalyzed sufficient to assure a high confidence level of the validity of the original work?

A26. (TWB) Yes. The five percent sample of data is greater than the sampling requirements of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.83, which requires a three percent sample of the total number of tubes to be inspected during inservice inspections.

Q27. As a result of the stipulation with intervenors, Applicants agreed to perform an additional eddy current testing of a sample of three percent of the steam generator tubes of I

i l

the three Harris steam generators. (Tr. 8891-92). How was the

(%

\~) eddy current re-testing of the sample of steam generator tubes conducted and what were the results?

A27. (TWB) I first randomly selected for re-testing 135 tubes from each steam generator across the entire tubesheet.

In addition, I added to the sample all steam generator tubes identified by Conam as having recordable indications and a sam-pie of the tubes included in the Conam data that was analyzed by EPRI. The number of tubes selected for re-testing actually yielded a four percent c,ross section of the total number of steam generator tubes.

Technical Services Laboratory ("TSL") of Greenville, South Carolina, was selected as the vendor to carry out the re-testing program, with a Level III analyst from Zetec, Inc.

acting as a consultant. The five technicians from TSL and the consultant from Zetec were subjected to a urinalysis drug screening prior to performing any work. All had negative re-sults.

TSL utilized the same examination techniques, equipment, and calibration standards previously used by Conam. The entire re-testing process was closely monitored by Harris Plant QA/QC personnel with visual verification of template installation and tube identification. The re-testing was also periodically mon-itored by the NRC resident inspector and Region II I&E person-nel. The eddy current re-testing of the sample of steam gener-ator tubes was accomplished during the week of October 21,

() 1985.

u~

o TSL issued a summary report of the results of the eddy current.re-testing on October 29, 1985 (Applicants' j

Exhibit jil). Interpretation of the data was first performed without prior knowledge of the Conam test results. Thereafterf, a comparison of reported indications was made between the re-sults of the TSL and Conam data interpretation. All indica-tions of flaws in steam generator tubes reported by Conam and TSL had the same tube identification numbers. Minor variations attributed to probe speed,' independent calibration curves for a

-given data set and measurements of the same signal were well within the expected range for two independent examinations.

TSL concluded that no reason could be found to doubt the validity of data interpretation or tube identification previ- ,

ously reported by Conam.

V('T Thus, the re-testing program simply confirmed again --

what we have known all along -- that the data acquisition by Conam had been conducted correctly and that Conam's use of pro-cedures, selection and application of defect sizing criteria and interpretation of the eddy current signals had been per-formed to acceptable industry standards.

Q28. What conclusions do you draw from your evaluations and reinspections of employees implicated in possible drug ac-tivity?

A28. (HRB, RMP, GLF) We believe that Applicants have an effective program to evaluate the quality of work performed by employees implicated in possible drug activity. Safety-related O -

r L _- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

.- \

l l

l craft work was evaluated and found to be subject to inspec-(~'i

's / tions. A sample of the work inspected by quality inspectors implicated in possible drug activity was reinspected. The sam- 1 ple size was determined in accordance with Military Standard .

105-D. The results of the reinspections show'the inspector proficiency was 99.6% -- virtually the same as the overall in-spector proficiency. No safety-related deficiency has been found in any reinspection. This provides additional confidence that the Harris Plant Construction QA Program is working effec-tively to assure the quality of the construction activities at the Harris Plant. It demonstrates that use of drugs has not adversely affected the quality of Harris Plant construction.

i l

l l

l i

l

+

ATTACHMENT 1 s

l George L. Forehand i^ i l, m,) Director - QA/QC - Harris Plant I. Date of Birth December 30, 1930 II. Education and Training A. Obtained G.E.D. from U. S. Armed Forces Institution, January 1960 -

B. Military Schools (1951 - 1961)

1. Engineering Laboratory Technician

2. Submarine Reactor Plant Prototype

3. Enlisted Basic Nuclear Power School

4. Submarine Engineering

5. Basic Submarine School

6. Engineman, Class "C" School

7. Engineman, Class "A" School C. Attended Harford Junior College, Maryland, Computer Technology classes, January 1967 - March 1967 ls,)\ D. Attended University of Maryland, March 1967 - June 1968, studied Methods of Teaching, Tests and Measurements, Shop Management, and Recent Industrial Developments courses III. Experience A. U. S. Navy

1. January 1951 - July 1970

a. Master Chief Engineman B. Atlantic Engine Power, Inc.

1. November 1970 - June 1973

a. Service Manager C. Carolina Power & Light Company

1. July 1973 employed as a Senior Quality Control Specialist -

Construction in the Quality Assurance Section of the Power Plant Engineering & Construction Department located at the Harris site, New Hill, North Carolina O

)

Eb ,

],,, /< , u e

George L. Forehand Director'- QA/QC - Harris Plant Page 2 e ,

a. October 1973 transferred as a Senior QC Specialist to the Quality Assurance Section of the Power Plant Construction Department located '

at the Harris site, New Hill, North Carolina

b. August 1974 promoted as a Project QA Specialist -

_ Construction in the Quality Assurance Section of the Powe,r Plant Construction Department located at the Harris-site, New Hill, North Caroline

c. November 1976 t'ransferred as a Project QA Specialist in the Engineering & Construction QA Section of the(J Technical Services' Department located at the Harris site, New Hill;' North Carolina e ;s '

~d. February 1978 promoted as a Principql QA Specialist ,

in the Engineering"& Construction QA Section of the Technical Services' Department located at the' Harris site, New Hill, North Carolina'

e. January 1981 promoted as Director of Quality Assurance /

Quality Control - Harris Plant in the Engineering &

f-- Construct'ign QA Section of the Technical Services

( Department located.at the Harris site, New Hill, North Carolina

f. March 1981 transferred as Directob of Quality Assurance /

Quality Control - Harris Plant in the Engineering &

Construction QA/QC Section of the Corporate Quality Assurance Department located at the Harris site, New Hill, North Carolina

g. February 1983 - SECTION TITLE CHANGE - Director of Quality Assurance / Quality Control - Harris Plant in the QA/QC Harris Plant Unit of the QA/QC Harris Plant Section of the Corporate Quality Assurance Department located at the Harris site, New Hill, North Carolina I

s s e e

s 4

47_,- - , , - -

,,. e

,. ATTACHMENT 2 g.

' (._)

1 Resume THOMAS W. BROMBACH EDUCATION MILITARY Basic Propulsion and Engineering School

• Machinist Mate "A" School

• • Water Treatment School Power Plant Maintenance School

• Damage Control School

• Fire Fighting School Submarine School

• Nuclear Power School (25 weeks)

• Hydraulic and Pneumatic School

• AC & R School

• Magnetic and Liquid Penetrant School 3M Records Manaaement School Radiological Control School

) CIVILIAN

• High School Graduate 5 Semesters of College

• Continuing Education Units Awarded for:

-Magnetic Particle Inspection

-Liquid Penetrant Inspection

-Ultrasonic weld Inspection

-ASME Section XI Short Courses

• Formal 5 1/2 Year Journeyman Power Plant Mechanic Apprenticeship

• Company Sponsored Schools:

-Dresser Valve School

-Radiation and Radiological Control School

-Grinnel Valve School

-Milton Roy Pump School

-Non-destructive Testing Schools for MT, PT, VT and Eddy Current Tube Inspection

-Multifrequency Eddy Current Examination

-Personnel Management

-Aberrant Behavior PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS American Society of Mechanical Engineers

.- .~

t

/^%t 7

EMPLOYMENT September 1982 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY to SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT I Present Project Specialist / Inservice Inspection Scope of Responsibility Responsible for developing and maintaining the Harris Plant's inservice inspection ("ISI") program in accordance with, and as required by, ASME Code Section XI to assist in meeting NRC, plant Technical Specification, operating license, and other related plant and regulatory requirements. The ISI program is developed based on the latest regulatory require- i i

ments. The ISI program provides direction and support of l inservice inspection related tests such as hydrostatic testing, l weld inspections, and eddy current testing. '

.Maior Functions

1. Developing and maintaining an inservice inspection program for welds by working with Operations and Mainte-nance.

[h qj 2. Coordinating inservice inspection activities and schedules.

3. Developing, updating, and maintaining ASME, Code Sec-l tion XI. inspection programs.

4. Maintaining interface responsibilities among the Plant's organizations to ensure the ISI program is imple-mented effectively.

5. Analyzing and providing resolution to Plant problems resulting from ISI.

t f.

6. Preparing and monitoring budget items pertaining'to ISI.

f 7. Staying updated on changes to, and latest requi re-L ments of, the ASME Code.

8. Responsible for ensuring the proper maintenance of inservice inspection records, deficiencies and resolu-tions.

(v) l r

e March 1976 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY b to SURRY NUCLEAR POWER STATION August 1982 Engineering Supervisor of Non-destructive d Testina and Evaluation Scope of Resconsibility Performed unit and component test'ing in the field of -

non-destructive examination and provided evaluation of test re-sults to insure component and vessel integrity.

Maior Functions ~

1. Conduct inservice and preservice inspections to assure compliance with ASME Code Section XI and plant technical specifications.

2. Provide non-destructive testing services for the station, i.e.: PT, MT, RT, VT, UT and ET, in accordance with ASME Code Sections III, IV, IX and XI and other designated applicable codes as required.

3. Coordinate inspection services with the desig-nated ANSI to ssure full compliance with the ASME Code in effect.

4. Provide eddy current examination services to 4

meet the recuirements of USNRC Reculatory Guide 1.83 and ASME Code Section XI for steam genera-tors.

5. Provide eddy current examination services in ex-amination of condenser and other various heat exchanger tubing.

6. Prepare and submit inservice, preservice and eddy current reports.

7. Assist Engineering in identifying generic prob-lems and working toward solutions.

8. Support and implement additional training pro-grams for NDT technicians to keep personnel abreast and trained in new field developments.

9. Establish and maintain appropriate records man-agement of all work conducted.

10. - Prepare and submit budgets for procurement of equipment, supplies and arrange for contractor

() and vendor services.

- . ;' ~

, ,9

. 11. Provide schedules and commitment dates during x)(^ plant outages for inspection. services.

12. Review and implement non-destructive examination procedures.

13. Certified in accordance to ASNT-TC-1A as a LEVEL II in Visual, Liquid Penetrant, Magnetic Parti-cle and Eddy Current examinations and LEVEL I in Ultrasonic Testing.

-Also prior to being promoted to a supervisory position,.I was a journeyman mechanic providing round-the-clock maintenance and repair to all station ecuipment, i.e.: pumps, valves, hy-draulic and pneumatic systems, EVAC, steam turbines and auxil-lary systems on both the primary and secondary sides of the plant. A collateral duty was to travel to various fossil fuel plants within the VEPCO system and conduct maintenance and re-pair on high pressure power boilers, coal systems and other plant systems.

September 1975 . NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK, CO.

to Newport News, VA March 1976 Power Plant Operator, Utilities Department Assigned to the operation of the main power plant and all f)

' substations--maintainingandoperating 600 lb. boilers, air compressors and related equipment supplying power steam and compressed air to the shipyard.

September 1974 COLLEGE OF DUPAGE to Glen Ellyn, Illinois September 1975 Assistant Chief of Plant Operations Responsible for the operation of the steam generating and air conditioning plant, in additi on to which, performed all re-pairs as necessary to its plumbing, hydraulic, pneumatic and olectrical systems. Collaterally responsible for the mainte-

. nance of the buildings and all service support systems.

April 1974 FACTORY MUTUAL ENGINEERING CO.

to Chicago, Illinois September 1974 Boiler & Machinerv Inspector l Conducted on-site physical inspections of steam generating i power plants and machinery for compliance with ASME, state and

( local codes.

January 1969 UNITED STATES NAVY to E-4 Machinist Mate December 1973

. O v

i i

I

E

-(

October 25, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

-In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF HAROLD R. BANKS AND ROLAND M. PARSONS ON TEE CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (CCNC CONTENTION WB-3)

O

=

-- ( (

Q1. Mr. Banks, by whom are you employed and what is your position?

A1. (HRB) I ma employed by Carolina Power & Light Com-pany as Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance Department.

Q2. Please summarize your professional qualifications.

A2. (HRB) I have over twenty-five years of naval and commercial nuclear power experience. I joined CP&L in 1968 and have been actively involved with the company's quality assur-ance programs since that time. In February 1981~I assumed the -

position of Manager--Corporate Quality Assurance. In this po-sition, I have overall responsibility for assuring the effec-

{} tiveness of the quality programs, both at the individual nuclear plant sites and at the corporate level. A complete statement of my professional qualifications is appended as Attachment 1 to this testimony.

Q3. Mr. Parsons, by whom are you employed and what is your position?

A3. (RMP) I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Com-pany as Project General Manager, Harris Nuclear Project Depart-ment.

Q4. Please summarize your professional qualifications.

A4. (RMP) I received a Bachelor of Science degree in

() Civil Engineering from Fresno State College in 1959. I am a

_~ . . - -.

'i

. registered Professional Engineer in five states, and am a mem-() ber of the American Society of Civil Engineers. I have worked on the construction of nuclear power plants for over 18 years, and have been actively involved in the construction of the Harris Plant since 1976. From January 1978 through August 1984, I had the prime responsibility for assuring the safe con-struction and completion of the Harris Plant. Since August 1984, I have been responsible for conducting an overview of the entire Harris Plant Project in order to assure readiness for operation and have participated in other construction close-out activities. A complete statement of my professional qualifica-tions is appended as Attachment 2 to this testimony.

Q5. What.is the purpose of this testimony?

O AS. (HRB, RMP) The purpose of this testimony and the companion pieces of testimony sponsored by Dr. DuPont, by Messrs.-Banks, Parsons, Forehand and Brombach and by Mr. Trainor is to respond to the allegation in CCNC Contention WB-3. that Applicants have failed to ensure the quality of safety-related work performed by known drug users. In this testimony we describe the construction Quality Assurance Pro-gram at the Harris Plant Project and explain how the sequential layers of review, inspections and surveillances of safety-related construction work ensure that deficiencies are identi-fled and corrected. The construction Quality Assurance Program is designed to identify def,1ciencies in construction work --

O

- ,- 3 whether caused by drug use or any other cause. We identify the

( objective indicators that demonstrate the effectiveness vf the Quality Assurance Program in ensuring that the Harris Plant is constructed to regulatory and design requirements.

Q6. Have Applicants previously testified regarding the Quality Assurance Program for the construction of the Harris Plant?

A6. (HRB) Yes. I described in general terms Applicants' QA organization and program elements during hearings on manage-ment capability. See Applicants' Joint Testimony of E. E.

Utley, M. A. McDuffie, Dr. Thomas S. Elleman and Harold R.

Banks on Joint Intervenors' Contention I (Management Capabili '

ty), following Tr. 2452.

{

(RMP) Applicants also discussed various parts of the QC and CI inspection program in Applicants' Testimony of James F.

Nevill, Alexander G. Fuller, David R. Timberlake and Kumar V.

Hate in Response to Eddleman Contention 41 (Pipe Hanger Welding),.following Tr. 6663, and in Applicants' Testimony of George A..Kanakaris, Roland M. Parsons and Larry F. Garner in Response to Eddleman Contention 65 (Concrete Containment Struc-ture), following Tr. 5764.

Q7. Gentlemen, how is the remainder of your testimony or-ganized?

O I

A7. (HRB,_RMP) We first outline the Quality Assurance O Proeram fer construction of tue Harris P1 ant and the manv se-

~quential layers of review which ensure quality construction.

We describe the QA attribute surveillance program and the re-sults of reins,pections which demonstrate the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance Program. Finally, we identify outside organizations which have performed evaluations of the quality of construction of the Harris Plant and briefly describe their findings -- consistent with our own -- that the Harris Plant Construction Quality Assurance Program is well-conceived and properly-implemented.

Q8. Please outline the Quality Assurance Program for con-struction of the Harris Plant.

O A8. (HRB) The Quality Assurance (QA) Program at the Harris Plant Project provides the necessary steps to ensure that a safe and reliable power plant is constructed in accor-dance with regulatory and design requirements. Responsibility for achieving quality work in the first instance lies with the individual craft worker responsible for accomplishing the work.

However, confirmation of quality for safety-related work is ac-complished by sequential layers of review; namely:

a. First line craft supervision;

b. Independent inspection organizations (Quality Control (QC) and Construction Inspection-(CI));

c. Supervisory audits of inspectors and in-dependent QA surveillance of inspectors'

() work;

d. QA records review;

) '

e. System walkdowns jointly by Construc-tion, Start-Up and QA personnel to veri-fy the system is complete and no obvious deficiencies exist;

f. Start-up testing to verify the system will-function as designed during opera- .

tion; and

g. Corporate QA audits.

This. multi-tier approach, which is described in more detail below, provides sufficient checks and cross-checks to provide adequate confidence that plant construction meets regulatory and design requirements.

Q9. What role do the craft worker and first line craft supervisor play in assuring quality of construction work?

A9. (RMP) The fitst line craft supervisor is responsible for supervising work activities within his scope of responsi-bility in accordance with the design requirements. Since he is directly responsible for production, it is important that the work being accomplished by his personnel be done correctly in order to meet not only quality but also cost and schedule requirements. He is responsible for assuring that his person-nel have the proper training, materials and information neces-sary to perform their work correctly. Poor quality work will result in a high reject rate, rework, and loss of production.

Craft supervisors are held accountable for reduction of rework and recognize that defective work will be identified by quality

['-

-s-

inspectors. In this respect quality of work and production

) goals are compatible. Craft workers are held accountable for the quality of their work. In fact, the majority of craft work is performed in teams where one worker's performance is subject to the scrutiny of fellow workers. Teamwork leads to fewer er-rors. Performance of the craft and first line craft su-pervision is confirmed through an independent inspection pro-gram.

Q10. Mr. Banks, please describe the independent inspec-tion units.

A10. (HRB) Safety-related component installations are inspected for conformance with project design requirements by an inspection organization independent of the organization per-forming the work. It is important to recognize that these inspections are not conducted on a sampling basis, but rather

, address all safety-related construction work. At the Harris

, Plant Project, this function is performed by the Quality Con-I trol (QC) Unit and the Construction Inspection (CI) Unit.

l l These units now report to the Director QA/QC -- Harris Plant, l who in turn reports through the Manager QA/QC -- Harris Plant Section to me. There are presently on site over 500 quality inspection personnel to carry out quality inspections on con-l

struction and start-up activities. The CI Unit previously re-t

ported to Mr. Parsons; however, this unit has always been inde-l pendent of the construction line organization.

[O

[ ,

i

Inspections are documented and the inspection results are n( j reviewed by qualified personnel to assure that applicable requirements have been met. Deficiencies identified are for-warded to appropriate supervision for corrective action and tracked by QC/CI through satisfactory resolution. As one indi-cation of the extent of the QA effort at the Harris Plant Project, we have estimated that quality inspectors have logged-in over 2.5 million man-hours on inspection activities and over three million pages of QA documents have been generated.

Q11. How does CP&L assure that its quality inspectors are qualified and properly trained?

All. (HRB) The inspection organizations at the Harris

(-) Plant have established programs to assure inspection personnel

\_/

are adequately trained and qualified in their respective areas of responsibility. These programs meet the requirements of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.58, " Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Inspection, Examination & Testing Personnel," to which Appli-cants committed in the Harris Plant Preliminary Safety Analysis Report ("PSAR").

Generally, only personnel with previous training and expe-rience, who meet or exceed Harris Plant requirements, are hired for inspector positions. Inspector candidates who do not meet the training and experience requirements for an intended as-signment are provided additional classroom and practical /on-the-job training under the supervision of qualified personnel.

~

I Prospective inspection personnel are provided the following

) training as required by site procedures:

1. Indoctrination: An introduction to specifications, codes, standards, procedures and other project controlling

. documents.

2. Required reading and self study of specifications, procedures and other controlling documents applicable to the intended assignment.

3. Classroom training: Prospective inspectors attend regularly scheduled training classes designed to improve the inspection program, to inform inspectors of changes in specifi-cations and procedures, and to improve the inspectors' knowl-edge and understanding of project requirements. Special classes are conducted for inspector candidates when the materi-

)

al cannot be adequately presented during on-the-job training.

4. Practical /on-the-job training: Inspector candidates are assigned to work under the supervisien of an experienced, certified inspector. This provides an opportunity to perform and become proficient at the required functions. The length of the on-the-job training is dependent on the prospective inspec-tor's previous experience and training and his/her ability to demonstrate proficiency.

5. Examination and testing: Inspector candidates must i

successfully pass written and oral examinations prior to con-sideration for certification as an inspector. Candidates for the position of visual welding inspector must also demonstrate

(

l l

l.

functional proficiency during the examination process. Non-() destructive examination (NDE) inspectors must meet the require-ments of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT document TC-1A) prior to certification.

6. Certification: The inspector candidate's qualifica-tion and training records are reviewed by appropriate levels of supervision. When the requirements for the intended inspection or NDE assignment are met, the candidate may be recommended for certification by supervision. Certification of visual inspec-tors is approved by the Director QA/C" -- Harris Plant. NDE inspection personnel are certifie? , a Level III examiner.

Q12. What actions are taken to assure that quality in-spectors maintain their proficiency?

A12. (HRB) Supervisors audit or monitor each inspector's work to identify performance problems so that appropriate cor-rective action can be taken. Inspectors attend regularly scheduled classes designed to cover changes to specifications and procedures, to emphasize requirements in areas where prob-lems are encountered, and to improve the inspectors' knowledge and understanding of applicable c' odes, specifications and pro-cedures. Each certified inspector must be recertified at least every two years (three years for NDE methods) based on docu-mented annual evaluations of the inspector's performance. An unsatisfactory performance evaluation will result in removal of the individual from inspection activities pending appropriate O

V

_g_

retraining,' satisfactory demonstration of proficiency and reex-() amination.

Q13. How do inspection supervisors audit their inspec-to rr. ' work?

A13. (HRB) Inspection supervisors audit the work of newly ' certified visual inspectors on a weekly basis for a mini-rman of four weeks and monthly thereafter to ensure a thorough understanding of requirements and the adequacy of inspections.

These audits are performed in accordance with Harris Plant In-struction QAI-1.3, "QC Supervisory Audits."

The supervisor checks both in-process work and completed work in each inspection area in which the inspector is working.

The in-process audits consist of unannounced visits by the su-pervisor to observe the inspector's performance in the field.

Inspectors are questioned on the activity being performed, pro-cedural requirements, acceptance criteria and the handling of

! applicable' inspection documentation. Any weaknesses and prob-lem areas are discussed and resolved.

, Supervisory audits have been highly effective in providing l

early indication of problems with individual inspectors and ge-neric inspection problems. They also provide supervision a high level of confidence that the inspection force is per- i i

forming in accordance with program requirements. The indicated overall inspector proficiency from data developed by su-1 l pervisory audits is approximately 99%. This closely parallels

.-m overall inspector proficiency' rates of greater than 99% as de-() .termined by QA attribute surveillances performed in accordance with Harris Plant Procedure CQA-7, " Evaluation of Program

. Effectiveness," as described belcw.

The NDE supervisors moni. tor NDE inspectors' performances

. and review their inspection reports. In addition to this su-pervisor review, an independent review of completed NDE inspec-tion reports is conducted by certified NDE technicians to de-termine completeness of the report and that recorded indications have been correctly interpreted in accordance with applicable acceptance criteria.

Q14. What role does nondestructive examination (NDE) of construction activities have in assuring the quality of con-

, struction?

A14. (HRB) Nondestructive examinations of materials and I-l worknantnip used in construction provide assurance of quality characteristics which cannot be determined by visual inspec-tions. The NDE methods are designed to detect and identify in-l herent process flaws as well as those which may result from im-proper application of the process (e.g., welding). NDE is performed in accordance with comprehensive written procedures '

by NDE personnel certified to the American Society of Non-destructive Testing requirements.

NDE is comprised of two basic types of examinations; sur-face and volumetric. Surface examination methods are liquid O-

4 penetrant and magnetic particle. Volumetric methods are radi-() ography, eddy current and ultrasonic examinations. These exam-inations are used to detect physical evidence of weld and base material defects.

-Design engineers specify appropriate NDE processes consis ,

tent with applicable code requirements that take into consider-ation the thickness and type of base material; the difficulty of welding; and the application of the material (e.g., high temperature, high pressure fluid system piping), when visual inspection.may not be adequate to verify the intended level of integrity or strength.

An expanded discussion of NDE is found in Applicants' Exhibit di at Section IV.

O) ty, Q15. Describe how this independent inspection program is applied to the installation of a specific plant system to en-sure the quality of craft work.

A15. (RMP) Installation of a piping system provides a good example of the checks and cross-checks provided by the in-dependent inspection program. A piping system is comprised of piping, valves, supports and mechanical equipment (e.g., pumps, tanks, heat exchangers). At the site, the process begins with the preparation of a work package. The Construction engineers assemble the appropriate drawings along with procedure and specification references for a unit of work into the work pack-age. They also initiate and add to the package those O

L b inspection forms needed to specify hold points for inspection

.n

[ $_ l ' and indicate mandatory hold points on the inspection forms.

i. ~

The work package at this point contains the design information necessaryJto_ erect the pipe and weld it into its permanent po-sicion in' accordance with design and procedural requirements.

Prior to allowing work to start on an item described in the work-package, the package is forwarded to the inspection personnel pho verify that applicable design requirements have been incorporated and that mandatory inspection hold points have'been correctly identified. The inspection personnel also assign any additional hold points they feel are necessary for inspection verification. As specified by procedure, " Travel-ers"~for ASME,Section III Code Work are sent to the Authorized

{} Nuclear Inspector (ANI) for review of completeness and accuracy and for assignment of hold points-for verification. (A "Trav-eler" is a process control document that identifies the steps to be performed by craft and inspection personnel; the function of the ANI is described in greater detail below.)

The work package is then forwarded to craft personnel.

Craft supervisory and field personnel review the work in the

-t : field to ensure that no interference problems exist. Craft personnel then prepare items for installation by cleaning, marking, scribing, bevelling, etc., as required and notify the inspector for verification prior to fit-up.

Following pre-fit verification and acceptance, craft per-l sonnel perform fit-up and notify the inspectors for inspection LO r

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

as required by design and applicable codes for the particular

() item. The inspector verifies material type and other inspec-tion points, such as verification that an item is adequately supported or that mating surfaces are free of damage. Visual inspections of interim and completed welds are performed to en-sure that welds comply with applicable codes. If required by ASME Code, design specification or site procedure, preheat and post-weld heat treatment is performed by the workers and docu-

-mented by inspection personnel. If required by code, the in-spector requests that applicable nondestructive examinations be performed. In addition, inspectors observe and document the torquing of bolts in a mechanical connection. When work and inspection progresses to a point where a preselected ANI manda-g3 tory hold point is encountered, the inspector notifies the ANI.

V The work is not resumed until the inspection and acceptance has been established by the ANI.

When all of the specified attributes for the work de-scribed in the package have been inspected and accepted by the inspectors and the ANI, the completed package is forwarded to a final review group. This group reviews the package to ensure that the required inspections have been performed, reports are properly executed and the package contains required documenta-i tion. After the review by the final review group, the ANI re-I views the package, if it is an ASME Code Class 1, 2 or 3 item; if acceptable, he indicates his approval by adding his signa-ture to the appropriate inspection forms.

O 4

Completed systems are released to the start-up and testing k -group for further functional testing, hydostatic testing and preoperational testing. However,-prior to the turnover, the system is subjected to a walkdown inspection by craft su-

.pervisory personnel as well as QA personnel as a final check.

This check is. performed to inspect the system and. components for damage that may have inadvertently occurred since final acceptance by the inspection personnel.

As part of the start-up testing process, a hydrostatic test is performed. In this test, the piping system is sub-jected to. a specified internal pressure greater than the normal operating pressure to confirm that no leaks exist. This test is witnessed by inspection personnel who examine pressure

/"N boundary joints for leakage. The ANI also witnesses these G) pressure tests and monitors the inspections. On most tests, he will also select a random sample of joints to examine himself.

Applicants' Exhibit di at Section III includes a de-scription of the inspection process for safety-related pipe hangers; instrumentation erection; mechanical and pipe welding -

heating, . ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system instal-lations; civil; electrical and seismic Category I equipment in-stallation.

Q16. Describe the QA surveillance program.

I A16. (HRB) The QA Surveillance program at the Harris Plant Project was established and is implemented in accordance

(

l l

with Harris Plant. Procedure CQA-28. Although not a regulatory (q_j requirement, this program was established by Project management very early in the Harris Plant construction stage and has pro-vided an additional level of assurance that:the inspection or-ganizations have confirmed construction of a quality plant and have prepared.and retained the required supporting documenta-tion. The program provides for surveillance of the Harris Plant Project's nuclear safety-related work through reinspec-tion (actual physical' duplication of the original inspection),

examination, evaluation, direct observation and comprehensive reporting. The surveillance program provides a means of as-sessing the adequacy and effectiveness of the construction and l inspection elements of the QA Program. Scheduling of surveil-lances is governed by such factors as: importance to nuclear safety; level of work activity; results of past surveillances, NRC inspections and Corporate.QA audits; historical and poten-tial problem areas; and time elapsed since last surveillance.

Surveillances are conducted by specially dedicated Quality Assurance (QA) inspectors in the Harris Plant QA/QC Unit and consist of sample reinspections of safety-related construction work. Surveillance is also performed on the QA Program itself through surveys of calibration of instruments; receiving inspections; in-process welding; welder qualifications; nonde-t

! structive examinations; weld material control; weld machine control; storage control; equipment maintenance; procurement control; document control; training / qualification /

p certification; QA records control; nonconformance control and

, ,A)

(_ hoisting and lifting activities. These surveillances evaluate the ef-fectiveness of programs and systems that indirectly in-fluence the quality of plant components, while reinspection of the attributes on installed safety-related components evaluate directly the effectiveness of construction and inspection ac-tivities.

Q17. How does QA's confirmation of complete, available records help ensure quality of construction?

A17. (HRB) QA personnel review work packages and other documents against QA check-off lists to confirm that required inspections and tests have been performed and found acceptable.

() Q18. Describe the system walkdowns and indicate how deficiencies can be discovered during the system walkdowns.

A18. (RMP) As mentioned earlier, the plant operations organization is responsible for functional checkout, start-up testing and preoperational testing of systems after construc-tion is finished. In practice, the completed parts of systems are transferred to the Start-up Group for testing as they are completed. The process of transferring responsibility and con-trol of a system to the start-up personnel is a formal one involving several verifications -- one of which is a physical walkdown in the field by representatives of the Construction, Start-up and QA organizations.

A

\_)

The primary objective of the walkdown is to verify that

/~h

-(_) the system and components have not been inadvertently damaged or altered since the final inspection. This process has been successful in identifying damage and incomplete work. It pro-vides a final verificat. ion that no obvious deficiencies exist in the system or components being turned over for testing.

Q19. How does the start-up testing program verify that construction work has been accomplished in a quality manner?

A19. (RMP) The Harris Plant start-up testing program, as a key element in the broader context of overall site quality assurance activities, provides assurance and verification that the completed systems and components perform in accordance with the design criteria and regulatory commitments. The start-up testing program also contributes significantly to verification of quality during functional testing activities when simulation methods are used to verify correct electrical circuits and in-strumentation hookups. The program is conducted by members of the plant operating staff in three sequential subprograms: the component testing and initial testing program, the preopera-tional test program, and the start-up power ascension test pro-gram.

The component testing and initial operation program is conducted during the final phases of construction when systems, l or parts of systems, are completed to the point that testing can begin. At this point systems are tested functionally by O

1 l

m

! simulation. During this time equipment is operated to estab-(_j lish operating performance characteristics of individual compo-nents such as electric motors, switchgear, and valves. Pumps and valves are also operated during the piping system cleaning-and flushing operations. Hydrostatic testing of the piping -

system pressure boundary to verify leak tightness is also per-formed at this time.

The preoperational test program begins when equipment or systems are completed according to construction specifications.

This program verifies that specific systems and equipment per-form as intended by design. Preoperational tests are performed by running systems through various testing modes and comparing actual test results with the design performance criteria. Pre-

} operational tests are detailed, step-by-step tests of major equipment components and system functions.

The start-up power ascension test program begins upon re-ceipt of the Operating License and includes the initial reactor core loading. It verifies the ability of systems to perform as designed as the entire plant is brought through stages to a full power condition.

The control of activities which affect quality during the entire start-up testing program is provided by the Start-Up QA program. This program operates under approved procedures.

Start-Up procedures which involve safety-related systems are reviewed independently by QA personnel. All preoperational tests are reviewed by the design engineering organization for

() conformance to design parameters.

9

'The start-up testing program is described in more detail G

= -

in Applicants' Exhibit ait at Section V.

'Q20. . Describe the Corporate QA-audit program for Harris Plant construction activities.

A20. (HRB) The Performance Evaluation Unit (PEU) of the

' Corporate QA Department conducts audits, whose scope and fre-quency are specified by the PSAR. The PSAR reflects the requirements of American National Standard Institute Standard 45.2.12, " Requirements for Auditing of Quality Assurance Pro-grams for. Nuclear Power Plants", as endorsed by NRC Regulatory Guide'1,144. CP&L's commitment to Regulatory Guide 1.144 in-cludes audits of construction activities at least annually or

. ( ) at least once within the life of the activity, whichever is shorter. These audits not only cover craft construction, de-sign engineering and preoperational activities, but also in-clude reviews of inspection and surveillance programs. Docu-mentation reviews, personnel qualification assessments and observations of work in process and completed are conducted in I

L sufficient numbers and depth during the audits to enable objec-L tive evaluations to be made. Verbal and written audit reports present the results to the appropriate levels of management including the President / Chief Executive Officer and the Senior i Executive Vice President, Power Supply and Engineering & Con-struction. Nonconformances identified during the audits are followed-up by the PEU to verify completion of corrective action.

i

)

k 4 ,_ _

. -. . -__ _ . ~

Q21. Are there any other activities undertaken by CP&L to

("x

-(_) ensure the effectiveness of the construction QA Program at the Harris Plant?

A21. (HRB, RMP) Yes. In June 1984, CP&L began imple-mentation of its QA attribute surveillance program -- a sample reinspection program of safety-related work at the. Harris Plant.

Q22. Please describe the QA attribute surveillance pro-gram and discuss its purpose.

A22. (HRB, RMP) The methodology of the QA attribute sur-veillanca program is based on the precedent established by the reinspection plan approved in Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) LBP-84-41, 20 N.R.C.

1203, 1220-1233, affirmed, ALAB-793, 20 N.R.C. 1591, 1598-99, 1607-(1984). Attribute surveillances are performed in accor-dance with Harris Plant Procedure CQA-7, " Evaluation of Program Effectiveness" (Applicants' Exhibit JO ) and provide a statis-tical sampling method to assess empirically the overall adequa-( ~cy and effectiveness of the inspection program for nuclear i

! safety-related work. It may also be used to determine the "ac-r ceptablity rate" or proficiency of an individual inspector, I

l based on a statistical sample of items and attributes inspected and accepted by that inspector.

O The following steps describe the implementation of the QA

' x_o) attribute surveillance program:

1. Determine the total population of the component in question (i.e., piping spools, pipe hangers, electrical equip-

, ment, instruments) for the project.

2. Determine the statistical sample size required to de- t termine inspection proficiency level. (This part of the proce-dure is based on Military Standard 105-D, Table I General Inspection Level II.)

3. Schedule reinspections of completed components in ap-proximately equal numbers each month until work related to the components in question is complete and the full sample has been reinspected.

4. Each month:

(G _)

a. Randomly select completed work for reinspection and determine attributes to be reinspected;

b. Review documentation for acceptability;

c. Reinspect components for quality attributes;

d. Report deficiencies as nonconformances for engineering evaluation and disposi-l tion; and i e. Report statistical data to management j for review.

l Steps 1, 2 and 4 may also be applied in the event an individual i

inspector's work is questioned. The Director QA/QC -- Harris Plant is responsible for the proper implementation of the QA attribute surveillance program.

l

q- '

'C '

,s y r.

g I' [

,rs Q23. Under the QA attribute surveillance program, how is

() the proficiency of inspectors , determined? (

s, A23. (HRB, RMP) Inspection effectiveness ordproficiency iscalculatedbycomparingthenumberofacceptAbleattributes with the total number of attributes reinspected and is ex-pressed as a percent. Minimum acceptable inspection effective-ness levels of 95% for objective inspection attshbutes' and 90%

4 4 for subjective inspection attributes were established in Harris

. . ~.

Plant Procedure CQA-7, based on the Byron reinspec. tick plan.

Objective inspection attributes are measurable and are: <not e'

greatly affected by human factors (e.g., physical diNensions).

Conversely, subjective inspection attributes are subject to in-terpretation and result in the recording of qualitative data '

O

\- (e.g., weld overlap and surface profile). (

Repeatability for objective inspection attributes'is.ex- ,

pected to be high (at least 95% for a proficient inspector)'and (

1.

• high, but comewhat lower, for subjective inspection ate. rib,utes

i+ .

(at least 90% for a proficient inspector). The CQA-74accep-tance criteria recognizes that some inspector errorc will exist; however, the errors may only relate to minor defects which have no impact on nuclear safety. The acceptance criteria do not accept defects which have nuclear safety sig-nificance. The definition of a deficiency with nuclear safety significance is found at 10 C.F.R. 5 50.55(e):

[ _

l l

l

"a deficiency found in design and construc-

-tion, which, were it to have remained

) uncorrected, could have:affected adversely the safety of operations of the nuclear plant-at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant."

Q24. Mhat have been the results thus far of reinspections conducted in carrying out this QA attribute surveillance pro-gram?

A24. (HRB, RMP) In the one and one-half year period that the CQA-7 surveillance program has been in effect, 3,183 compo-nents, out of a. total selected sample size of 4,269 components,

-have been reinspected as of October 1, 1985. The components reinspected thus far encompass 54,560 attributes, of which only 269 were found to be deficient. This indicates the Harris O

1,,/ Plant quality inspection program is 99.5% effective overall, with.the lowest individual component (structural steel instal-lation inspection)'at 95.3%. No deficiency with safety sienif-

.icance has been identified. The data generated by these reinspections are presented in Attachments 3 and 4 hereto' . The results of this QA attribute surveillance program demonstrate empirically and conclusively the effectiveness of the Harris Plant Construction QA program. .

Q25. Identify the outside organizations which have per-formed evaluations of the Harris Plant.

Lo t

i f

(:

A25. (RMP, HRB) The following agencies have regularly as-() sessed the quality of construction at the Harris Plant:

a. the American Society of Mechanical Engi-neers (ASME), through its N-Stamp pro-gram; '

b. the State of North ~ Carolina, represented by the Authorized Nuclear Inspec-tor (s)(ANI);

c. the Institute for Nuclear Power Opera-tions (INPO); and

d. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, through its normal Regional I&E and resident inspection program, the System-atic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program and the Construction Ap-praisal Team (CAT) evaluation program.

Q26. What is the ASME N-Stamp program?

A26. (RMP, HRB) ASME is an independent organization and

.O is the primary code-setting body for nuclear vessels, piping systems and concrete containments. The NRC has adopted many ASME standards and requires conformance to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, under 10 C.F.R. 5 50.55(a), for certain safety-related systems and components. An organization must have an ASME QA Program that has been evaluated and approved

.(i.e., issued a Certificate of Authorization and an "N-Stamp")

by ASME in order to perform work on, or inspections of, those systems subject to the ASME Code.

The process of obtaining a Certificate of Authorization involved extensive investigations and audits of CP&L's ASME QA

~ Program by ASME prior to issuance. CP&L was successful in

i i obtaining its Certificate upon initial application in 1979; in i n

!k) s 1982 and 1985, CP&L successfully passed ASME renewal audits necessary to maintain the Certificate of Authorization and N-Stamp. l It should be noted that CP&L is one of only seven utilities in the country to have established its own ASME Code program; most utilities rely on their constructor's N-Stamp program. CP&L, however, believes that holding its own N-Stamp provides an additional element in assuring the quality of the Harris Plant by allowing CP&L to have direct control over Code work and inspection acitivites, as well as being the direct re-cipient of ANI inspection results.

Q27. What is the role of the ANI?

A27. (HRB) For piping systems designed and constructed in accordance with Section III of the ASME Code, both the Code and North Caroline law require an independent ' third-party inspec-tion by an Authorized Inspection Agency (AIA). The AIA is rep-resented at the Harris Plant site by resident Authorized Nuclear Inspectors (ANI), who are actively involved in the in-stallation, inspection and testing of code work. The ANIS' du-

. ties, in accordance with Article NA-5000,Section III, of the ASME Code and ANSI N626.0, include assigning inspection hold-points, witnessing inspection processes and NDE activities, witnessing pressure tests, reviewing QA documentation and, most importantly, monitoring the Certificate holder's compliance O with the ASME quality assurance program.

()

i Q28. What is INPO and what evaluations has it performed

/

(\) of the Harris Project?

A28. (RMP) The Institute for Nuclear Power Operations i

(INPO) is an independent organization established by the -

nuclear utility industry for the purpose of assisting member utilities in achieving the highest standards of excellence in nuclear plant construction and operation. In this regard, INPO has established guidelines and criteria for the many diverse aspects of nuclear plant construction and operation which are

~

based on "best practices," rather than minimum acceptable stan-dards or requirements.

In August and September, 1984, INPO conducted an evalta-tion of the Harris Plant construction project at the site and  ;

i

' The INFO evaluation team at Ebasco's principal design office.

examined organization and administration, design control, con-struction control, project support, training, quality, and test control and also observed actual work and test performance.

The INPO evaluation team identified a number of " good practic-es" as well as a number of areas needing improvement; overall, INPO found that the systems in place to control the quality of design and construction are being effectively implemented.

Also, in June, 1985, INFO conducted a " Start-Up Assistance Visit" at the Harris Plant site. INPO reviewed site activities i

to assist in the station's preparation and readiness for oper-L ating.in a safe and reliable manner. Areas reviewed included I

station organization and administration, operations, start-up, g) maintenance, technical support, training and qualifications; some construction activities were also reviewed to assess im-pacts on completion and readiness for operation. For our present purposes, it should be coted that INPO identified as.a

" Good Practice" the QA statistical sampling method surveillance program described above, terming it an effective method for evaluating the effectiveness of the quality inspection program.

Q29. Recognizing the familiarity of the Board and parties with the NRC's inspection programs, please provide a brief overview of those programs.

A29. (RMP) The NRC's Regional-I&E and Resident inspectors monitor construction performance and readiness for operation on a continual basis; these inspections support the view that the Harris Plant h a been safely constructed. No escalated en-forcement actions have been taken by the Staff with respect to the Harris Plant Project and no violations of Severity Levels I, II or III have ever been identified.

In addition to the regular inspection program, the NRC

! performs two types of special evaluations -- the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) and the Construction j Appraisal Team (CAT) evaluations. The most recent SALP report (sponsored previously by Mr. Bemis and incorporated in the l

record following Tr. 3660) found that the Harris Plant quality -

programs had undergone significant improvement in staffing and

(

i

organization leading to increased strength and effectiveness in

()

(_/ the programs. In each SALP evaluation the Harris Plant has been given a rating of "2" for its QA programs, which means

" licensee resources are adequate and are reasonably effective such that, satisfactory performance with respect to * *

• con-struction is being achieved."

The CAT evaluation is an in-depth review of detailed con-struction practices at the Harris Plant -- the most recent CAT report, dated December 24, 1984, is well over 100 pages in length. While the report did identify a number of hardware deficiences, the Harris Plant Project had the lowest number of adverse findings of any of the nine formal CAT evaluations per-formed in the country as of the date of the Harris Plant evalu-ation. Further, the CAT evaluation found evidence of good project management and construction practices at the Harris Plant, including the fact that site engineering and inspection

activities are primarily located and controlled on-site.

Q30. Gentlemen, provide your overall assessment of the Construction Quality Assurance Program for the Harris Plant l

Project.

A30. (RMP, HRB) We believe that the Harris Plant Con-i struction QA Program is an outstanding QA program. The results of the QA attributes surveillance program provide empirical and conclusive evidence to support our claim. Quality Assurance is a pervasive ingredient of the Harris Plant construction effort

() and the Harris Plant is a quality product.

e Cra.ft workers are human and make errors. However, as we 1_)s have described in some detail, the many sequential layers of the Harris Plant QA Program are designed to identify and cor-rect errors -- whether caused by drug use or any other cause.

As our testimony demonstrates, the QA Program is working and the Harris Plant is 99.5% error free. Most importantly, there have been no deficiencies with safety significance identified in the QA attributes surveillance program or CQA-7 reinspection program.

O O

. ATTACHMENT 1 1

Harold R. Banks

(~)~g

\. -

Manager - Corporate Quality Assurance I. Date of Birth A. March 1, 1930 II. Education and Training A. Graduated from Indiana High School, Indiana, Pennsylvania - 1948 B. Class "C" Instructor Training School - 1954 - U. S. Navy C. Basic Nuclear Power Engineering School from 7/59 to 1/60 - U. S. Navy D. Nuclear Power Training Unit from 1/60 to 6/60 - U. S. Navy E. _ Naval Officer's, Limited Duty, Candidate School - 10/64 to 12/G4 F. . Completed PUR Guide Home Study Course (CP&L) - 3/74 G. Kepner Tregoe Genco Program - 4/75 r~ s 'H. SEE - Public Utilities Management Course - 8/78 l

(J III. Experience A. U.-S. Navy

1. June 1948 - June 1959

a. Shipboard and shore base assignment in power plant operation, maintenance, instructor, and supervision g B. Nuclear Power Engineering School and Prototype l 1. June 1959 - June 1960

a. -Student C. Nuclear Submarine Prototype, Idaho Falls, Idaho

1. June 1960 - June 1962

a. Nuclear Power Training Unit - qualified Engineering Officer of the Watch (Shift Chief Operator and Instructor)

O V

l A

Harold R. Banks Manager - Corporate Quality Assurance 7-Page 2 l N)

D. USS Andrew Jackson l

1. June 1962 - October 1964

a. . Leading Machinery Division Chief, supervisor in charge of the operation of the nuclear power plant - qualified Engineering Officer of the Watch E. Naval Officer's Candidate School

1. October 1964 - December 1964

a. Student F. San Francisco Bay Naval Shipyard

1. December 1964 - July 1968

a. Nuclear Ship Superintendent - New construction and overhaul G. Carolina Power & Lighc Company 7-.s

1. - August.1968 - Present I) a. August 1968 - Employed as a Resident Project Engineer at the H. B. Robinson Plant in Hartsville, South Carolina

b. July 1970 - Employed as a Resident Project Engineer in the Plant Design & Construction Department at the Brunswick Plant in Southport, North Carolina

c. August 1971 - Employed ss Manager - Quality Assurance in the Power Plant Design 5 Construction Department in

[ Raleigh, North Carolina

d. February 1972 - Employed as Manager - Quality Assurance Audit in the Special Services Department in Raleigh, North Carolina

e. July 1973 - Employed as Manager - Quality Assurance &

l Training Audit in the Special Services Department in Raleigh, North Carolina

f. August 1975 - Employed as Manager - Corporate Quality Assurance Audit in the Special Services Department in Raleigh, North Carolina

,_ g. March 1976 - Employed as Manager - Nuclear Generation in the Generation Department in Raleigh, North Carolina (O'

Harold R. Banks Manager - Corporate Quality Assurance j} Page 3 s-

.h. November' 1979 - Employed as General Manager - Harris in the Nuclear Operations Department in Raleigh, North Carolina

1. February 1981 . Employed as Manager - Corporate Quality Assurance in the Corporate Quality Assurance Department located in the General Office

^

-IV. Professional Societies A. Member of American Society of Mechanical Engineers B. Member of'American Society of Nondestructive Testing C. . Member of North Carolina Society of Engineers D. . Member of American Nuclear Society E. . ASME Codes'& Standards Main Committee for Nuclear Quality Assurance, Subcommittee for Personnel Qualification and Work Groups for N45.2.12 (Auditing) and N45.2.23 (Auditor Qualification)

~'T F. EEI QA Committee

[G.

A tg

ATTACHMENT 2

.i ROLAND M. PARSONS Project General Manager

(~)'

V I. Date of Birth: March 13, 1936 II. Education: .

A. BS Degree in Civil Engineering from Fresno State College, 1959 III. Experience:

A. August 1964 to November 1966

1. U. S. Forest Service, Nevada City, California

a. Forest Service representative on hydroelectric developments built on Forest Service land by others. ,

B. November 1966 to September 1973

1. Ebasco Services, Inc. , Hartsville, South Carolina; and Jensen Beach, Florida g-

a. November 1966 - Field Engineer on construction of H. B.

Robinson Unit No. 2 (700 MW Westinghouse PWR nuclear power plant).

b. November 1967 - Resident Engineer responsible for site engineering and quality control for construction of H. B. Robinson Unit 2.

c. April 1971 - Senior Resident Engineer responsible for all site engineering for construction of St. Lucie Unit No. 1 (810 MW Combustion Engineering PWR nuclear power plant).

C. Septe=ber 1973 to May 1974

1. Daniel Construction, Jenkinsville, South Carolina

. a. Site Manager of Engineering responsible for all site engineering for construction of V. C. Su==er Nuclear Power Plant.

D. June 1974 to September 1976

1. Ebasco Services, Elma, Washington e- a. Senior Resident Engineer responsible for all site engineer-k.,T/ ing on 1300 MW PWR nuclear power plant.

l

a Roland M. Parsons (2)

E.- September 20, 1976, to Present

1. Carolina Power & Light Company

a. September 20, 1976 - Employed as Site Manager in the Nuclear Construction Section of the Power Plant Construction Depart-ment. Located at the Harris site, New Hill, N. C.-

b. April 27, 1979 - Reclassified as Site Manager (Harris) in the Harris Site Management Section of the Power Plant Construction Department. Located at the Harris site, New Hill, N. C.

c. May 3, 1980 Reclassified as Site Manager - Harris Plant Construction in the Harris Site Management Section of the Power Plant Construction Department. Located at the Harris site, New Hill, N. C.

d. January 31, 1981 - Reorganization - Site Manager - Harris Plant in the Harris" Site Management Section of the Nuclear Plant Construction Department. Located at the Harris site, New Hill, N. C.

e. March 22, 1982 - Title changed to Project General Manager.

]

f. September 3, 1983 - Reorganization - Project General Manager - Nuclear Generation Group, Harris Nuclear Project Department, Harris Plant Construction Section. Located at the Harris site, New Hill, N. C.

g. August 1984 - Reorganization - Project General Manager -

Nuclear Generation Group, Harris Nuclear Project Depart =ent, Completion Assurance Section. Responsible for construction inspection, construction document assembly, and regulatory activities pertaining to construction. Located at the Harris' site, New Hill, N. C.

h. June 1985,- Reorganization - Project General Manager -

Nuclear Generation Group, Harris Nuclear Project Department.

Special assignment: engaged in project closeout activities.

IV. Societies. Memberships and Publications:

A. American Society of Civil Engineers B. Registered Professional Engineer in North Carolina - No. 7634 C. Registered Professional Engineer in South Carolina - No. 3422

'\

s Roland M. Parsons (3) f; -

\

D. Registered Professional Engineer in California - No. 16379 E. Registered Professional Engineer in Washington - No. 15111 F. Registered Professional Engineer in Florida - No. 16700 G. -Publication: System for Control of Construction Quality; Proceedings of The American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of The Construction Division, March 1972 H. Publication: System for Material Movement to Work Areas; Journal of The Construction Division, March 1980.

I. Publication: Is Total CPM Really the Answer for Suoer Projects; Civil Engineering Magazine, November 1983.

O i

l l

I-l l.

i .

Rev. 9/24/85

I C

J O

A C

I F

9 O

R P

3 5 N 8 O' 9 I "

T 1 T'.E N C' T E . EC A  %  %  %  %  %  %  %  %  %  %  %  %  %  %

I P' D 9 0 0 2 1 0 0 7 4 6 7 0 3 5 0 2 7 M S' 10 0 . 0 0 . 9 0 0 l

l r Ni O 9 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 9 1 9 9 0 9 9 C e I 'J T 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 b

A o

T t c

T O A TE S

DNI EEUE VIBT RCI A EIRD SFl BElO 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 8 7 5 0 0 6 0 6 4 ODAT 1 2 1 8 1 D

SE ET TC UEE BPT 4 2 3 9 0 6 3 9 7 0 9 8 7 5 5 9 3 ISA 9 5 8 8 2 1 7 0 3 b 6 0 3 8 5 9 Y RND 1 3 5, 6 8, 7 0 6 2 8, 1 7 2, 1 9, 1 R TI , , , .

A TEO 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 M ART 1 I M

U S

E D C SE N TI A NC G

L EEE L NPT I OSA E PND V MI 1 5 8 1 7 0 6 5 7 7 3 3 0 2 4 4 7

- R OEO 9 2 0 4 2 4 7 5 2 6 4 6 6 8 9 U CRT 1 3 3 1 1 1 4

S E

T U

B S I T R N T E T N E A O L P P A MM 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Q ONA 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 8 5 0 8 3 0 0 3 0 CIS 2 3 5 2 2 2 5 2 2 S

T N

E )

N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 0 4 0 1 5 O ( 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 5 5 2 0 3 2 P 6 7 8 0, 0 0, 0 0 4 9 8 2 4, 5 1 5 M T 2 . ,

ONO 2 7 4 7 8 1 1 6 0 1 2 CIL 1 3 2 n s o n s e i o n t g t i o s r a a t i e n no n nk l a t s o op os oc l l a o is ip ie ia s 3 E a l n R t e t u t g tP s t t C t a i ag aS aa a r r n l t N s l t m y l l t a t t k tl e o o y u n A n at s r a a at nk n& nc na g p i e d e LY I cn n e r c cn ec e ea ec n p t s rs ns m LT ie I t T t i ie ma ms mP mi a u at T t ot h II g nm i r rm uP ur u ur H S nr r Cr c EV n ap e e e u t t p r re rt rt io eo o a VI i hi l l l d c ci t 0 t g t r t c e C bp l p .p t RT ip cu b b b n e euq sn sn so se p A mp bp gp a a o no na au nu e

t UC eq a l l nh nl i V ou A SA P ME C C C C E EE IL IH IS iE P H CS CS ES

OBSERVED COMPONENTS COMPONENTS COMPONENTS ATTRIBUTES DEFICIENT INSPECTION SURVEILLANCE IN IN REINSPECTED REINSPECTED ACTIVITY ATTRIBUTES 0; ;CiE;G P9ertCICNC.]

LOT (1) SAMPLE TO DATE TO DATE TO DATE TO DATE Field Run Conduit 15,000 500 395 1,520 19 Supports 98.7%

HVAC Ductuork 6,000 315 248 5,154 17 99.6%

Structural Steel 4,320 315 330 1,227 58 95.3%

Junction Bom 2,000 200 0 0 Supporta 0 NA TOIALS '

131,453 4.249 3.183 54.560 269 99.5%

(1) Total Lot Size (population) is estimated based on current project figures and may be adjusted period-Scally. Sample size may be adjusted as enade necessary by any change to the lot size.

t e G

• 7 7ACr1M EN T 4 y., s EVALUATION OF QA ATTRIBUTES SURVEILLANCE

SUMMARY

OF R ESULTS (OCTOBER I,1985) 60.000 50000 N 40.000 us NN D

El 30000

\%

\\

k

• \\5 p 20,000 N e

sD O

10.000

\'\N N

O _

54,560 269 ZEriO TOTAL OBSERVED DEFICIENT 1

ATTRIBUTES DEFICIENT ATTRIBUTES REINSPECTED ATTRIBUTES WITH DESIGN SIGNIFICANCE

8-7-JoeW21 10,077-A 1 BY MR. O'NEILL: (Continuing)

)

2 Q Mr. Trainor, I call to your attention a document 3 which bears a caption of this proceeding, dated October 25, 4 1985, and is entitled Applicants Testiony of Eugene F.

5 Trainor on the Capabilities and Performance of Applicants 6 Construction Quality Assurance Program, CCNC Contention WB-3, 7 and consists of 22 pages of questions and answers.

8 Is this the testimony that you prepared, or had 9 prepared under your supervision for presentation at this t

10 hearing?

11 A (Witness Trainor) Yes, it is.

12 Q Do you have any changes or corrections to make

\'-

13 to your prefiled written statement? ,

14 A Yes, I do. On Page 20, the last sentence, these 15 are the results of such reinspection will have minimal i 16 significant safety significance, strike out, 'significant' f 17 after, ' minimal . '

18 Q Are there any other changes, Mr. Trainor?

19 A There are no other changes.

20 Q Is this testimony true and accurate to the best 21 of your knowledge, information, and belief?

22 A Yes, it is.

23 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman, I move that the

() 24 Am-Federal Reoorters, Inc.

identified testimony of Mr. Trainor be incorporated into the 25 record as if read, and received into evidence.

1-l ' 8 JoiWal 10,077-B L

1 JUDGE KELLEY: Granted.

' O- 2 (Prefiled prepared testimony follows.)

l 3 ,

4

-5 t

6 i-7 8

9 l

10 11 i I

12 13 14 15 16 17 ,

18 19 20 21 22

[

f 23 f

('0' 24 l Asm-FederJ Reporters, Inc.

25 t --

.?

I c.

I October 25, 1985 i

'(

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF EUGENE F. TRAINOR ON THE CAPABILITIES AND PERFORMANCE OF APPLICANTS' CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (CCNC CONTENTION WB-3)

I l

[h v

V - .-- +,,,,,..n,_-,,. . - . _ , _ , . - , , , . _ . - -

,-...__.,.._,,y__ , _ . , _ _ _ , _ _ , . ,

p-L

-s 'O.1 Please state your name,

,h b

A.1 Eugene-F. Trainor.

0.2 Mr. Trainor, by whom are you employed and what is your position?

A.2 I_am employed by Cygna Energy Services, Inc., an engineering and management. consulting firm located at 286 Congress Street, Boston, Massachusetts, as a Senior Vice President.

O.3 Please describe your educational background and membership in professional organizations.

A.3 I was graduated in 1953 from the United States Coast Guard 7_

Academy at New London, Connecticut, where I received a Bachelor ,

of Science degree in General Engineering. I subsequently

~

received a Master of Science degree in Management from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, and a certificate in Executive Management from Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts. I received training in U.S. Navy nuclear power plant testing and operations at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California. .

f f

i I am a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and K have been a member of its Main Committee on Nuclear Quality

\

ls'\ Assurance-since the Committee's inception in 1975. I have been N the Chairman of its Subcommittee on Personnel Qualifications N-t

-x

($) 'N

\

\

\

x '

's

i 3

e since 1978. I might note that Mr. Harold Banks, CP&L's Corporate

(,

\' Quality Assurance Manager, has worked with me on both the Main Committee and Subcommittee. In addition, I am a Senior Member of the American Society for Quality Control and the Chairman of that Society's Construction Technical Committee. I am a registered .

4 Quality Engineer in the State of California and a registered Mechanical Engineer in the State of Massachusetts.

O.4 Please describe your professional experience.

A.4 I have more than 25 years of experience in the nuclear industry, most of .,nich has been in the area of quality assurance and quality control. My nuclear " experience began in 1959 at the Quincy shipbuilding Division of the Bethlehem Steel Company as a

() member of the DlG/D2G Project Production Engineering Group. In that assignment, I was responsible for the development of inspec-tion, material control, preventive maintenance and system comple-tion procedures used in the construction of the nation's first nuclear-powered destroyer, the USS BAINBRIDGE DLG(N)25 and its land-based prototype. I was also responsible for the preparation of reactor core installation and handling procedures, the assurance of component installation suitability, liaison with the Atomic Energy Commission / Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory and ulti-mately the management of the power unit installation.

Additional assignments while at Bethlehem Steel Corporation included participation in the reactor plant test program for the O

_2-

(=

7- U.S. Navy nuclear submarines SS(N) SCAMP, SS(N) PLUNGER, and the l SS(N) PERMIT while at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and as a consultant to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine, where I developed a process control manual for the handling and installation of SSW submarinb reactor plant components. In 1962 I was made Assistant Chief Test Engineer, S5W project, and in late 1963 I was promoted to Chief Qu'lity Control (Nuclear).

Shortly thereafter, the Quincy facility was sold to the General Dynamics Corporation.

In 1964, I became the Division Nuclear Quality Control Manager initially reporting to the Manager of Nuclear Projects and ulti-mately reporting to the Quincy Division General Manager for all aspects of Quality Assurance and Control in the design, construc-(

tion and overhaul of naval nuclear ships at the Quincy Division.

I was responsible for the conversion of the General Dynamics-Electric Boat Division Nuclear Quality Control program from a single product program (i.e., submarines) to a multi-faceted pro-l l duct mix (i.e., surface ships and submarines) as well as develop-ment of procedures necessary to implement the program. In March 1968, I was assigned the additional functional responsibility of Process Engineering Manager of the Quincy Division. In that capacity I was responsible for manufacturing and industrial engi-neering, as well as applied research and development. During the period between 1964 and 1971, the Quincy Division completed and delivered four nuclear powered submarines, two nuclear submarine

() tenders, and a floating nuclear decontamination facility.

In March 1971 I left the shipbuilding industry and joined the t

Stone &_ Webster Engineering Corporation to participate in the then rapidly growing commercial nuclear industry. My initial assignment was as a Nuclear Engineer in the Maine Yankee Project in the area of core assembly, fuel handling, a'hd quality

! assurance. Six months later, in October 1971, I was assigned as Chief Engineer of the Engineering Assurance Division with the responsibility for the development and successful implementation of in-depth quality assurance programs in the Engineering Department for all nuclear and selected fossil power plants designed by Stone & Webster. In January 1973, I was promoted to ,

Manager of the Quality Assurance Department with responsibility for the administration and management of that department as well

() as the establishment and implementation of the corporate quality assuranc'e program. During this period the Stone & Webster topi-cal quality assurance program was developed. This program was the first such program developed by an Architect / Engineer to be approved by the Atomic Energy Commission. During my eight-year i

, association with Stone & Webster, I was involved in approximately 18 nuclear power projects, including Maine Central Power i Company's Maine Yenkee project; Virginia Electric and Power Company's Surry and North Anna projects; Long Island Lighting Company's Shoreham and Jamestown projects; the Power Authority of i- the State of N,ew York's James F. FitzPatrick, Indian Point 3 and Green County projects; as well as the Sun Desert project for San

(

L i

l L

Diego Gas & Electric; the Fulton project for Philadelphia O

Electric Company; the River Bend 1 & 2 project for Gulf States Utilities; the Nine Mile Point #2 project for Niagara Mohawk; the Millstone 3 and Montague projects for Northeast Utilities; and the Clinch River Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor project for ,

the Department of Energy.

In 1979 I left Stone & Webster to pursue a career as a consultant with an initial assignment at Boston Edison Company to assess the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant Unit #1 O'perations Quality Assurance Program and the quality assurance program for the design and construction of Unit #2. As a result of the accident at Three Mile Island, I did additional studies relative to the impact of that accident upon the Boston Edison Nuclear Management and Quality-Assurance Systems.

In May of 1980 I joined Cygna Energy Services, then known as Earthquake Engineering Services, as Vice President and Principal with'the initial assignment to establish management and quality assurance consulting services for the firm. Cygna Energy Services, which at present is a broad-based, multi-service con-sulting engineering firm, was founded in 1973 and specialized initially in structural and seismic engineering. Its entry into the nuclear industry was the seismic evaluation of the Humboldt Bay nuclear power plant for Pacific Gas & Electric in the early 1970's. In 1980, a corporate decision was made to expand its O

't

,e S services to cover all f acets of the energy industry and to V

become, in effect, a " mini" Architect / Engineer.

In the past five years, what was essentially an in-house quality assurance service has expanded fto be a significant part of Cygna's consulting business. Cygna has evaluated, developed, and/or assisted in the implementation of quality assurance programs for fabricators, manufacturers, architect / engineers, constructors, utilities and testing facilities. In addition to my managerial role as Senior Vice President, I have participated in an active consulting role with such assignments as the review for Northern States Power Company of its Spare Parts Program at its Prairie Island Nuclear Power Station as well as an evaluation of the implementation of the Quality Assurance Program at that station. Other assignments have included the evaluation of the proposed Operations Quality Assurance Program to be used by Houston Lighting & Power Company at its South Texas Project and participation as a member of the Senior Review Team for the inde-pendent design reviews of the Grand Gulf Unit 1 plant for Mississippi Power & Light Company, Fermi 2 for Detroit Edison Company, and Comanche Peak for Texas Utilities. I have par-ticipated in the review of the quality assurance programs of ,

Bachtel Power Corporation, Sargent & Lundy, Ebasco, Gibbs and Hill, Brown & Root, Boston Edison Company, Long Island Lighting Company, and Portland General Electric Company.

O E

e (N 0.5 What is the purpose of your testimony?

L)

A.5 The purpose of my testimony is to present the results of my review of the Construction Quality Assurance Program utilized by Carolina. Power & Light Company (CP&L) at its Harris Plant project, specifically as it relates to the contention that alleged widespread drug abuse has impaired the quality of ctustruction at the Harris Plant. In this regard, I will discuss the ability of a well-conceived and properly implemented construction quality assurance program to deal with widespread drug abuse. I will present my evaluation of the data from various CP&L reinspection programs and my conclusions regarding overall inspector profi-ciency.

l l r k- 06 What did you review in preparing this testimony?

A.6 I reviewed the CP&L Quality Assurance Program as applied to the construction and testing of the structures, systems, and com-ponents of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Special emphasis was directed to those parts of the quality assurance program associated with inspector selection, trainin;, eva-luation, error detection, and error data. I reviewed in detail the data obtained to date by CP&L as a result of the implemen-tation of its OA attribute surveillance program and the results 4

of reinspections of the work performed by quality inspectors implicated in possible drug activity. I also reviewed evaluations performed by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) and b

s the NRC's Construction Assessment Team (CAT) and Systematic k_)

Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) programs of work per-formance, test performance, training, qualification, and construction activity. ,

0.7 What is a well-conceived, properly implemented, and moni-tored QA program capable of ensuring?

A.7 As defined in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, a well-conceived, implemented, and monitored quality assurance program is capable of ensuring "ade.;uate confidence that a structure, system, or component will perform satisfactorily in service."

0.8 What are the essential elements of such a OA program?

) A.8 The Commission's regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, set forth 18 criteria which must be addressed in the esta-blishment of such a OA program. I would point out that these criteria are not unique to the nuclear industry in that they can be found to some degree in any effective quality management system. Essential elements of such a OA program are organization and staffing; the identification and application of OA management tools such as inspection, audit, and defect analysis; the periodic evaluation of implementation and program effectiveness; and lastly the documentation of results.

0.9 How does a well-conceived, properly implemented, and moni-tored OA program ensure quality?

CE)

I i

u

i A.9 Quality is ensured by the implementation of a series of

) planned activities designed to minimize to the greatest extent possible, a repetition of past errors and by doing so provide

" adequate confidence" that the end product will perform its required functions. The well-conceived program is designed in conjunction with the process work flow to provide a series of

" hold points" or " gates" at which the work product is evaluated for correctness and completeness. If acceptable, it passes to the next work station. The number and location of the gates or hold

, points is based on the number of steps in the process, the type of process, and concequences of past errors. The concept of pro-cess flow with performance gates or hold points is equally appli-cable to the design process and the procurement process, as well as the construction and test processes.

{^}

us Redundant gates ensure that errors missed at one gate are detected at subsequent gates. Given the significance of failure of a safety-related system to public health and safety, the well-conceived quality assurance program in the nuclear industry is

~

replete with redundant " gates," as well as quality system reveri-fications to determine the adequacy of performance and the completeness of implementation. Such reverifications generally take the form of curveillances, audits, and sampling reinspec-tions. ,

0.10 Can a OA program ensure that construction work is 100 percent free of discrepancies? j O

0-d A.10 A QA program cannot ensure or provide a 100 percent con-((-

~)/

fidence that construction work is 100 percent free of discrepan-cies.

To expect a quality assurance program to provide perfection is indicative of a failure to understand that the assurance process must rely on the human element which, irrespective of the checking process, with its built-in redundancies, allows for error. The framers of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, demon-strated their knowledge of a OA process and the human element when they established in the definition of Quality Assurance the requirement for " adequate confidence" of performance. Inherent in the word " adequate" is the understanding that it is less than r's perfection.

V Q.ll If something less than 100 percent proficiency is achievable, what then are accepted industry norms for inspector proficiency?

A.ll To the best of my knowledge, nuclear industry norms for inspector proficiency have never been established in an industry l

standard. However, reinspection programs established by either l the NRC in the past few years or various licensees in conjunction with the NRC have established a 95 percent acceptance rate as an acceptable standard for repeatability for objective inspection and a 90 percent acceptance rate for subjective inspection.

Objective inspections are defined as those inspections amenable O

g-i to quantitative measurement. Subjective inspections, however, are

%_)

those inspections that rely on subjective interpretation as for example visual weld inspection. Based upon reinspection program criteria, it could be established that acceptable performance for an inspectot- in the nuclear industry lies in the 90 to 95 percent repeatability range. (The concept of objective and subjective inspection utilizing the 95 and 90 percent acceptance level was discussed and accepted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in the operating license decisions involving Commonwealth Edison Company's Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.) In comparison, it is interesting to note that it is generally accepted practice in industrial quality control that " inspector errors result in a O(_/ performance of about 80 percent accuracy in finding defects."

(J.M. Juran, Quality Control Handbook, Third Edition at Page 12-51, 1974) 0.12 How does anything less than 100 percent error-free construction provide reasonable assurance of public health and safety?

A.12 Human error will not allow for 100 percent error-free construction. Nuclear power plants, airplanes, bridges and skyscrapers are designed and constructed with this lack of per-I fection taken into account while still assuring public health and safety. In a nuclear power plant, those systems essential to I

,f 3 assure public health and safety are designed with a high safety

(_

factor (or conservative design margin) and with system redundancy to compensate for any deficiencies in construction. The degree of design conservatism and system redundancy in nuclear power plants are exceeded in modern industrial applications only in the NASA space program.

OA inspection programs are directed to safety-related systems and components. Inspections are designed with their own built-in redundancies -- sequential layers of screening or " gates" to minimize the probability of residual error. For example, a single weld on a safety-related pipe that is subject to ASME Code requirements will be subjected to inspection by the craft super-r's visor; by OC and NDE inspectors both during and after welding; by V

che Authorized Nuclear Inspector at hold / witness points; during walkdown inspections, hydrostatic tests and start-up tests; and finally during independent, third party pre-service inspections as part of the ASME Code,Section XI, inservice inspection base-line determination. Additionally, at the Harris Plant the work of inspectors is subject to audit by inspection supervision and reinspection pursuant to the Harris Plant OA attribute sur-veillance program.

Industry experience with reinspection programs has, in general, shown that deficiencies found during reinspections were not safety significant -- were not of a nature that, were they "to v

1

/~T have remained undetected, could have adversely affected the e/

safety of operations of the nuclear power plant." This general industry experience has been confirmed by the results of reinspections conducted at the Harris Plant, which have demonstrated that the Harris Plant Construction OA program is 99.5 percent effective and that no deficiencies with safety significance remain undetected.

0.13 Can a OA program ensure safe construction if there is wide-spread drug usage among construction workers?

A.13 Yes. QA programs are designed to prevent and detect errors.

Errors are caused by people for any number of reasons. Drug usage can be an error cause, as can boredom, hangovers, family problems, cold medicines, etc. In fact, if drug usage is a causal factor in error generation, then widespread drug usage should be easily detectable due to the alleged potential for widesoread error generation. Nevertheless, drug use by construction workers l would not negate the ability of the OA program to detect and I

correct errors. A Construction QA program, properly implemented, does in fact detect and correct errors and will ensure safe l

construction, even in the face of widespread drug usage.

O.14 Based on your review of CP&L's QA program, what opinion have you formed regarding its procedures, implementation, and its program for surveillance and audit?

(0

A.14 Our review of the CP&L OA program indicates that it is

(~}/

x a well-conceived, properly implemented and monitored OA program.

Particularly noteworthy are its methods for the selection and training of inspection personnel, while its surveillance and audit programs relative to inspector performance are the most comprehensive that I and my colleagues at Cygna have observed to date.

Q.15 What evidence can you point to in support of your opinion?

A.15 To support our opinion, we reviewed applicable sections of the following program documents: the Harris Plant Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, CP&L Corporate Quality Assurance Program, CP&L Quality Assurance Manual, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant O

kJ OA Procedures (COAs), Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant OC Procedures (COCs), Technical Procedures and Corporate OA Department Administrative Procedures, and the Harris Nuclear Plant Quality Check Program. We found these to be responsive to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B.

In addition, we reviewed the flow and documentation associated with inspection programs including: pipe hanger inspection program, electrical inspection program, instrumentation erection inspection program, mechanical and pipe welding inspection program, HVAC installation inspection program, civil inspection programs, and safety-related and seismic Category I equipment installation inspection program. We found the inspection program

( to be well-conceived and . complete.

p.

- We also examined documentation associated with the reinspection

(}

of 79 seismic pipe hangers, which included 376 welds and 5,264 attributes. Of this population, we field checked 8 hangers, which included 30 welds and 420 attributes, all of which were correctly-reflected by the documentation reviewed.

We reviewed the reinspection data obtained in the implementation of the OA attribute surveillance program and in evaluating the work of inspectors who were implicated in possible drug activity.

As we discuss in some detail below, the data establishes the overall mean quality inspector proficiency for the Harris Plant at 99.5 percent.

Our review also included NRC's CAT and SALP inspectior.s and

'- INPO's evaluation of the Harris construction project and found that they supported our mpinion regarding the adequacy of the CP&L OA program implementation.

0 16 Applicants have adopted Military Standard 105-D (MIL-STD-105D) as the basis of the sampling system for reinspec-tions and QA attribute surveillance pursuant to Harris Plant Procedure COA-7. Is this an acceptable system?

A.16 Yes. MIL-STD-105D is a sampling system that has acceptability and widespread usage in both the defense and nuclear industries. It presents a series of sampling plans designed for use where the units of products are produced in a

( ,

j'] series of lots or batches over a period of time. It is utilized Am/

for acceptance sampling by attributes. In CP&L's Harris Plant Procedure COA-7, the units of product in the population to be reinspected are completed inspections of safety-related work packages and MIL-STD-105D is utilized to establish the sample size for reinspection. Inspector proficiency is the ratio of acceptable inspection attributes to total inspection attributes.

Applicants are properly applying MIL-STD-1050 in selecting the sample size for attribute surveillance and for reinspections of the work of inspectors whose proficiency has been questioned.

O.17 What evaluations did you perform of the results of reinspections that have been performed as part of the OA attribute

{} surveillance program?

A.17 We plotted the inspection proficiency per surveillance activity and determined the mean inspection proficiency to be 99.5 percent. We observed that the mean exceeds the specified proficiency for objective attributes of 95.0 percent by 4.5 per-cent. We also observed that in all cases individual inspection proficiency per surveillance activity exceeds the specified pro-ficiency for objective attributes from 0.3 percent to 5 percent.

O 16-

i REINSPECTION NINE'EEN SURVE!LL/.NCE ACTMT:ES p Y . . / b_ __ m .

.bs_ y ~ , E

\ gg _ N ' C- ' '

9s -

97 -

g 98 - -

95  : ' '

: =

E 94 --

V 9s -

W 92 -

M

' 91 -

S

-A . 90 - .

89 -

55 -

87 -

22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 2 3 A 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 E 17 15 19

~

AC'MTr tJUMBER D PROF CATA 4 PMCT MClN O PRCP SPEC 0.18 Are the results of the reinspection program statistically significant?

A.18 Yes. The results are statistically significant based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) that determined the variation of the mean surveillance activity proficiency (99.5 percent) about the specified proficiency (95 percent). This technique uses a ratio of the variation of the mean and the variation of the experimen-tal error (F-ratio) to test for statistical significance. The results of the test show that there is at least 99 percent con-fidence that there is statistical significance. Furthermore, .

based on the average sample _ size of surveillance activity attri-butes, the technique will detect a change in proficiency as small

, as 1.0 percent.

V 9

0.19 Based on the sample size and surveillance results, what O

(j conclusions can be drawn regarding the inspection activities at the Harris Plant?

A.19 Based on the sample size and the reinspection results, it can be concluded with 99 pe'rcent confidence that the inspection proficiency at the Harris Plant is greater than 95 percent. We can also conclude with 99 percent confidence that the range of

^

inspector proficiency will lie between 99.9 percent and 97.7 per-cent. This would appear to be consistent with other industry reinspection programs, as for example the reinspections at Commonwealth Edison Company's Byron Plant which showed a range of 96.3 percent to 99.6 percent for inspector proficiency based on the results of " objective" inspection.

O O.20 In-your opinion, is this an acceptable basis for evaluating the performance of inspectors implicated in possible drug activity?

l l

A.20 In my opinion, the reinspection program utilized by CP&L at the Harris Plant is an acceptable method for determining the per-formance of inspectors. In this particular instance, we are l

l reviewing the performance of a group of inspectors alleged to be implicated in possible drug activity. A method that is totally satisfactory for performance review of the general inspector population must be satisf actory for the performance review of a segment of that population given that you are comparing the per-l formance of the segment to the total population to determine O;

s. ,

L I

I variances in perfocmance. In this particular instance, there G(_-'

appears to be no appreciable variance between the performance of

.the total population, the population segment, and the apparent industry norm.

O.21 Have you reviewed the results of the reinspections of the work of QA personnel who were implicated in possible drug activities?

A.21 Yes, I have.

O.22 What conclusions can you draw from the results of such reinspection?

A.22 It can be concluded with 99 percent confidence that the inspector proficiency of the alleged drug users will be greater N'~-}'

than 95 percent and that it will lie in a performance range of 99.9 percent to 96.1 percent.

O.23 What prediction could you make, based on this data, of the performance of all inspectors and the performance of those inspectors who might be implicated in drug activity?

A.23 Our review of.the results of the OA attribute surveillance data and the reinspection data of those inspectors who might be implicated in drug activity indicate that there is no apparent difference in performance. This being the case, it can be pre-dicted with 99 percent confidence that inspector performance for

2 objective inspection will be greater than 95 percent and will lie within a performance range between 99.9 percent and 96.1 percent.

Additionally, industry experience, including the experience at the Harris Plant, would indicate that inspector errors found as the result of such reinspect'.cn will have minimal sig.ificer.t-safety significance.

REINSPECTION OF Fit- iEEN INDIVIDUALS 100 l [ b [ \_ [*, '\

9s s v - -

N 95 -

97 - .

g 95 --

d 95  :

Cc E 9A-

,3~ 93 -

Z W 92 -

9

% 91 -

'd

c.

• 90 -

E9 -

EE - .

E7 --

EE , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1A 15 1 2 3 ACWAW NUMEEft D PP.Cf" CATA + PMOT MEAN 6 PP.OF' SPEC O

?

O O.24 Based on your review of CP&L's reinspection program and

( )- data, can you draw any conclusions about the likelihood that there has been widespread drug usage by Harris Plant inspectors at a time and place when such usage could influence the quality of Harris Plant construction? ,

A.24 .As stated above, there are no apparent differences between the performance of the total inspector population and that of the alleged drug users. Furthermore, if one accepts the hypothesis that widespread drug usage will cause a significant reduction in inspector performances, then there must be an indication of significant performance reduction to conclude that there was widespread drug usage among inspection personnel. This hypothe-sis is not substantiated by the reinspection data which indicates

.() that inspector performance is well above the accepted standard.

O.25 Mr. Trainor, please summarize your overall assessment of CP&L's OA program.

A.25 I have stated that a well-conceived, implemented, and moni-l tored OA program is capable of ensuring " adequate confidence that a structure, system, or component will perform satisfactorily in l

I service" and that I have found that CP&L has such a program in place with regard to the construction and testing of Harris Plant structures, systems, and components. I have commented favorably on CP&L's inspector selection, training, evaluation, error detec-tion, and error data; and I have indicated that my findings have O

been substantiated by activities performed by INPO and NRC's CAT and SALP programs. CP&L's surveillance and audit programs rela-Lqif',T tive to inspector performance are the most extensive I have observed.

Statistically, we have identified that the results of the reinspection programs for the Harris Plant far exceed acceptable industry parameters, and that the sample size of the reinspection data is sufficient to conclude with a 99 percent confidence level that the range of inspectoc proficiency will lie between 99 9 .

percent and 96.1 percent.

Based on my review of the Harris Plant Construction OA progra'.i and the results of the OA attribute surveillance program and reinspections of inspector performance, I conclude that there is O adequate confidence that the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant is well-constructed and will perform satisfactorily.

6 l

[%

8-9-JoeWil -

10,078 I..

I -/ .

1 BY MR. O'NEILL: (Continuing) 2 Q Mr. Banks, Forehand, and Parsons, we previously 3 identified Applicants Exhibits 50 and 51. Are those exhibits 4 referred to at various points in your prefiled testimony?

-5 A (Witness Banks)* Yes.

6 A (Witness Forehand) Yes, they are .

7 'A (Witness Parsons) Yes, sir, they are.

'8 Q Mr. Brombach, we have marked for identification 9 Exhibit 52. Is that document that.you have in front of you 10 ~ the same document that is identified in your prefiled ,

11 . testimony?

12 A (Witness Brombach) Yes, it is.

\- -

13 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman,-we move that Applicants-14 Exhibits 50, 51, and 52 be received in evidence.

15 MR. RUNKLE: I have an objection to Applicants 52, 16 which is the letter to Mr. Brombach.

17 In the last phase of the hearing we had --

18 JUDGE KELLEY: Just a second. Go ahead.

19 MR. RUNKLE: We had a stipulation between the 20 Applicants and the Conservation Counsel about retesting 21 certain of the Eddy current data, and we wanted to know if 22 this is - their total response to that stipulation, or will the j

23 rest of the supporting information be served on the parties?

24 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman, I believe the m neporises, Inc.

25 stipulation was to provide a summary of the results of the

8-10-JoeWol 10,079 I retesting.

.O-k/ 2 .This letter, in. fact,-does summarize the results.

3 The attachments are the raw data, as you can see by the listing 4 of enclosures of Exhibit 52.

5 That exhibit came with the letter of November 7th, 6 Mr./ Chairman.

7 -JUDGE KELLEY: I am shuffling my paper here. I 8 don't seem to find it.

9 Wait a minute.'I.think I have got it now. It 10 is on a letterhead of Technical Services Laboratory? All 11 right, fine.

12 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

13 JUDGE KELLEY: So there is some difference here 14 between what Mr. Runkle understood was forthcoming and the 15 Applicants. You are saying, Mr. O'Neill -- or Mr. Baxter, 16 that there was a summary of results you were going to l

17 provide? <

18 MR. O'NEILL: In a letter dated October 3,1985, 19 from Mr. Jones, Mr. Richard Jones, General Counsel, CP&L --

20 Senior Counsel, to Mr. Runkle -- we simply said that a copy

21 of the analyst summary report will be provided to you.

22 We did not intend to provide all of the raw data 23 .that is included in the enclosures here, which would not be

() 24 me pess,w nepoewes.anc.

particularly revealing unless you are an analyst capable of 25 understanding this information.

v.

,. , ,, - ..- +-,--- ,, - - n.-- - - , - ,

8-ll-JoeWal 10,080

~

1 JUDGE KELLEY: When you say, 'is included in the 2 encl osures , ' I am not clear.

3 I have your cover letter of November 7, and I have 4 the two-page letter, on letterhead of Technical Services 5 Lab, that is all that you are proffering at this point on 6 this point, is that correct?

7 MR. O'NEILL: That is correct. Our understanding I 8 -- and we asked Technical Service Laboratory for a summary  ;

9 report, which they provided us.

10 That is represented by this three page letter.

11 There wasn't'a whol'e lot to say.  !

12 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.

13 MR. O'NEILL: The-letter includes, on pages 2 I 14 and 3, a list of enclosures that is, as you can see, Enclosures' 15 1 through 12.

16 We had not intended to provide copies of that l 1

17 extensive data to the interveners, and we believe that there 4 i

18 is a statement on the record that Mr. Runkle understood that i

19 he was to get no more than a summary of the results.

20 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let me go back then to Mr. l I

21 Runkle. Do you consider this an unsatisfactory submission? j i

t 22 MR. RUNKLE: Well, without at least some of the l i

23 enclosures, it really doesn't mean anything.

/.

t

24 We would request enclosures 3, 6, and 9, which are n-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 the various data analysis reports, and 10, 11, and 12, which

8-12-JoeW21 10,081 l

1 are basically the procedures and certification. The raw q

AJ 2 data in say enclosures -- in the mapping, in the -- say

(

3 enclosures 1 and 2, we have no desire to see.

4 JUDGE KELLEY: Has there been any prior 5 discussion of this particular point between Mr. O'Neill and 6 Mr. Runkle.

7 MR. RUNKLE: No, sir; none at all.

8 MR. O'NEILL: No,'there hasn't.

9 JUDGE KELLEY: I wonder if you couldn't give it 10 a try over lunch, and see where that takes you, and then if Il you end up with some difference, you can bring it back to the 12 Board.

G

() 13 MR. RUNKLE: Fine. We will be glad to.

14 JUDGE KELLEY: Apart from that, at that point, 15 Mr. Runkle, do you have any objection to the proffered --

! 16 MR. RUNKLE: No, sir, no objections.

17 JUDGE KELLEY: Hearing no other objection, the 18 exhibits are admitted, subject to the resolution of the l

19 point we just talked about.

i UCC INDEX 20 (Documents previously, identified 21 as Applicants Exhibits 50, 51, and 22 52 are received in evidence.)

23 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Does that bring us to cross

() 24 esu neporim. Inc.

in the normal course of events, Mr. O'Neill.

25 MR. O'NEILL: Prior to cross, Mr. Chairman, I was

8-13-JoeWnl 10,082 1 going to ask the witnesses to briefly summarize their

/ h

- 2 statement --

3 JUDGE KELLEY: Why don't we do that after lunch.

4 Fresh in their minds. If that is the only thing that is 5 left, it is just a minute or two before twelve. We will 6 go off the record.

7 (Off the record discussion ensues) 8 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. We will take a 9 lunch break until 1:15.

10 (Whereupon, the hearing is recessed at 12:00 p.m.,

11 to reconvene at 1:20 p.m. this same day.)

12

(

'u/ 13 14 ,

15 16  !

l 17 l l

18 19 20 1

21 22 23

,s (s -

) 24 w r oer : neporters, inc.

25

8-14-JoeWal 10,083 i

r

! 1 (1:15 p.m.)

'Q

'U 2 e.IIEEERRE EEEELEE 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Back on the record. There 4 was a question just before we broke about providing some 5 information. I will wait just a minute.

6 (Pause.)

7 I was just saying as we went back on, that 8 there was a question between Mr. Runkle and Mr. O'Neill about 9 the adequacy of the let'ter, and whether or not certain 10 enclosures should be included.

11 Did you gentlemen have a chance to discuss that?

12 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir, and we are satisfied with 13 their Exhibit 52 as it is, and we did review the other 14 information. It is technical information' that we really 15 don't need.

16 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. Appreciate your 17 working it out. Mr. O'Neill, you said that you would have 18 a summary from members of the panel?

( 19 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, sir. For the vast number of 20 members of the public, I thought we ought to summarize the 21 testimony, and I will ask each witness to very briefly 22 summarize the major points that he makes in the prefiled 23 testimony.

() 24 w-reseres neporwrs. anc.

JUDGE KELLEY: Fine.

25 BY MR. O'NEILL: (Continuing)

, - _ , , _ . , , _ _ _ _ - , . , e_-.- ..__ _

a. * - - - , ,7,- __ . _ _ - - y,,..-, m- _._.m._ +,,_m, .,,f., . , _ , -

8-15-JoeW21.

10,084 I Q Mr. Banks, will you begin by summarizing the

(

~ ' ' 2 statements that you make?

3 A (Witness Banks) My testimony is to describe 4 the construction quality assurance program at the Harris 5 Plant.

6 Achieving quality is the responsibility of the 7 individual craft workers; a confirmation of quality for the 8 safety related work is accomplished by sequential layers of 9 checks and inspections.

lu The first line craft supervisors. The independent 11 inspecting organizations, the supervisory audits of s

12 inspectors, the quality assurance surveillance of the A

\-) 13 inspector's work, the quality assurance record work review, 14 the system walkdowns, start-up testing, and our corporate 15 quality assurance audit program.

16 In addition, outside organizations assessed 17 the quality of the construction at the Harris Nuclear Plant.

18 ASMA, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, through

! 19 the ENDSTAMP program. The State of North Carolina is l

20 represented through the authorized nuclear inspector.

l 21 The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. The 22 NRC, its regional I&E Office, and residen* inspection program; 23 also through the systematic assessment, and the construction e-(). 24 sur-Federst Reporters, Inc.

appraisal team evaluation program.

25 This multiple tier approach to quality assurance

8-16-JoeWr_1 10,085 1 establishes sufficient checks and cross-checks to provide

> 2 adequate confidence that the plant construction meets the 3 regulatory and design requirements.

4 Q Mr. Parsons?

5 'A (Witness Parsons) My testimony describes the 6 procedures that we use for evaluating the work performed by 7 the craft' personnel and the quality inspectors who had been 8 implicated in any possible way in the use of drugs.

9 Our evaluations determined that craft work is 10 controlled by the QA program. All safety related work is 11 subject to independent inspections.

12 The work of the inspectors who have been implicated I,,

's )

13 was reinspected where appropriate, as described by Mr. Forehand.

14 My testimony also describes our QA attribute 15 surveillance program. This program establishes proficiency 16 of inspectors based on reinspection of a statistical sample 17 of plant cormonents that have previously been inspected and 18 accepted.

19 So far, we have reinspected over 54,600 attributes. ,

20 Only 269 attributes were observed to be deficient, and none 21 of the deficient attributes were significant.

End 8. 22 MS fols.

23

( ) 24 W-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25

e .

[ 10,086 W 9 - l' I The results of our QA attribute surveillance in l-V. 2 program empirically and conclusively that the. construction 3 QA. program at Harris is working and that the Harris plant 4 is over 99.5 percent error free.

5 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Forehand.

0 WITNESS FOREHAND: My testimony describes-the  !

I results, evaluations and reinspections of inspection

. 8 personnel implicated in possible drug activity on the site.

9 We have deterined that inspectors' work is subject 10 to supervisory audits, surveillance through the QA surveil-U lance'. program and independent audits through the corporate

~

12 audit program.

13 Data developed from the reinspections of inspectors I4 implicated in possible drug activity do not show that they i

15 have a lower rate of proficiency than for the reinspections IO overall.

I7 The.mean overall inspector proficiency is 99.5 18 percent.

1. The results of our evaluations and reinspections 20 provide reasonable assurance that the quality of work at 21 the Harris plant is not adversely affected by unidentified

.22 drug use.

23 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Brombach.

WITNESS BROMBACH: My testimony narrowly deals l'

25 with the results of the preservice eddy current baseline

10,087

!Sim 9-2 j inspections that were performed on the Shearon Harris steam generators by ConAm Inspection of Richmond, California.

(v^) 2 3 By stipulation with the intervenors, the 4 applicants agreed to treat the five ConAm employees in 5

the same manner as employees that were potentially impli-6 cated in drug activity for the purposes of re-evaluating 7 their work.

8 In the sample reanalysis of approximately five 9 percent of the data taken by ConAm by.the Electric Power 10 Research Institute in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a 11 P hysical retesting of another four percent sample of the 12 steam generator tubes by Technical Services Laboratory of VO 13 Greenville, South Carolina, the results of the original ja ConAm inspection data and interpretation of results was 15 confirmed and validated.

l 16 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Trainor.

j7 WITNESS TRAINOR: My testimony describes the 18 ability of a well-conceived and properly implemented l

j9 construction quality assurance program to detect errors 20 caused by craft workers for any number of reasons, including 21 widespread drug abuse.

22 I Present my evaluations of the data from various 23 CP&L reinspection programs and my evaluation of the 24 constsruction QA program utilized by CP&L at its Harris Ace-FJ Reporters, Inc.

25 P l ant project.

I 10,088 Sim 9-3 1 I have concluded that CP&L's construction QA program l

2 is a well conceived, properly implemented and monitored 3 program. Its surveillance and audit programs relative 4 to inspector performance are the most comprehensive that 5 I and my colleagues at Signa have observed to date.

6 The results of the reinspection programs to 7 degtermine inspector efficiency exceed the established 8 performance standard.

9 The reinspection data is sufficient to conclude 10 with a 99 percent confidence level that the range of 11 inspector proficiency will lie between 99.9 percent and 12 96.1 percent.

() 13 I conclude that there is adequate confidence 14 that the Shearing Harris Nuclear Power Plant is well 15 constructed and will operate safely.

16 MR. O'NEILL: Thank you, gentlemen.

17 The panel of witnesses is available for cross-18 examination.

19 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.

20 Mr. Runkle.

21 CROSS-EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. RUNKLE:

INDEX 23 0 Good afternoon, gentlemen.

~) 24 Mr. Trainor, if we can start with you. If you Ace-F j Reporters, Inc.

25 will look at page 10 of your prefiled testimony and your

e

. 10,089 1 answer 11. In that answer you talk about a 95 percent bn 9-4

. (m.) 2 acceptance rate for objective inspection and 90 percent 3 for subjective inspection; is that correct?

4 A (Witness Trainor) That is correct.

5 Q Now what do you classify as ah objective inspection ?

6 A objective inspection is the measuring of a 7 dimension.

8 0 Something that can be physically measured?

9 A The thickness, an angle, a location, yes, sir.

10 0 And then what would be a subjective inspection?

11 A A subjective inspection could be how clean a 12 Particular area is, how clean the pipe is, the visual

() 13 quality of a weld.

14 0 In inspecting a weld, would that be a subjective 15 inspection?

16 A Depending upon what you are inspecting in the 17 weld, sir.

18 0 If you were inspecting the length of the weld, 19 that would be objective, and if you were looking at other 20 characteristics,..that might be subjective?

21 A It would depend upon the characteristics that ,

22 you are looking at, yes.

23 Q Now where do these figures of 95 percent and 90 24 Percent arise?

~} n. porters, lac.

hcer[n_J l

25 A These were the figures that arise from the l

l *

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

10,090 8 '- 1 reinspection program at Byron. These acceptance standards 2 were developed and were accepted by the Licensing Board, 3 the staff and the intervenors, and I believe they were then 4 also accepted by the Appeal Board.

5 Q So this is not a part of any of the NRC regulations; 6 is that correct?

7 A That is correct.

8 0 What would happen if an inspection would be lower 9 than 95 percent for objective inspection?

10 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Runkle, are you referring to II at the Harris plant under existing procedures?

12 MR. RUNKLE: No.

n 13 (i MR. O'NEILL: What would happen where is the 14 concern I have with your question.

15 MR. RUNKLE: At any nuclear plant.

16 WITNESS TRAINOR: Well, sir, to the best of my 17 knowledge, this is not utilized at any other nuclear plant.

18 .I'would think it would be whatever the management action 19 that was established as part of the utilization of this 20 criteria.

2I BY MR. RUNKLE:

22 Q And at the Harris plant do they use the 95 and 90 23 percent acceptance rates?

(D 24 A They do.

Ace-F. Reporters, Inc.

25 Q Mr. Banks, if one of the acceptance rates was

. _=. . . _ - _.

10,091 l .

1 1 wer than 95 percent for an objective inspection, would that im 9-6 i fs 2 give you cause for alarm?

[ ( j-3 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Runkle, would you bc kind enough 4 to tell me if you are talking about a particular reinspection 5 of one individual inspector? is that the predicate of your 6 question?

7 MR. RUNKLE: No , sir. It is more of a general 3 question than that.

9 MR. O'NEILL: But I don' t understand what you mean 10 by a general question. It is too vague.

11 JUDGE KELLEY: Could I get just clear on one thing 12 here on the 95/90 and this whole process of going over the

[T w) 13 work of certain inspectors who are associated with drugs in 14 some manner and coming out with the numbers that you did.

15 Where those procedures developed in response to 16 this particular concern we are looking at today, or does 17 95/90 go all the way back into the Shearon Harris project?

18 WITNESS BANKS: No. As shown in our testimony, 19 this was developed after Bryan and it is the QC-7 exhibit 20 .that we have. It is the one that identifies it and tells 21 where we used it. It has been in effect about a year and a 22 half.

23 JUDGE KELLEY: About a year and a half. Thank

l. 24 you.

ke-F Reporters, Inc.

25 WITNESS BANKS: We had prior to that another

10,092 Sim 9-7 reinspection program, but it was not detailed and we didn't j

2 use the numbers like we do now. We are a little better on 3 how we defined it.

4 JUDGE KELLEY: But the QC-7, which is Exhibit 50?

5 MR. O'NEILL: CQA-7 is Exhibit 50. -

6 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Runkle, were you asking 7 a general question about what happens under their procedure?

8 MR. RUNKLE: Well, I was going to-get there sooner o or later. I just wanted to establish what they would do 10 with less than 95 percent or, you know, what actions they jj would take under that.

12 JUDGE KELLEY: But it doesn' t exist in the abstract, does it? I mean you have got this procedure and

) 13 ja it calls for something I assume. Can you answer it in the context of that procedure?

15 WITNESS FOREHAND: This procedure and the reinspec-16 j7 tions are used as a management tool to see where the problems 18 are as well as tell us the efficiency or proficiency rating of an inspector and an inspection program. If we developed 19 20 data that indicated that we had a proficiency rating of 21 lower than the 90 or 95 percent respectively, this would 22 give us cause to evaluate the conditions and then take what-23 ever steps were necessary to change the trend.

,7 24 This would indicate to us that neither our work-Ace-Fi j Reporters, Inc.

25 manship nor the inspection program is working as well as we

10,093 lhn 9-8 1 intended and we would take corrective action.

s x-

) 2 BY MR. RUNKEL:

3 Q Now when you say "we," are you talking about the 4 QA program?

5 A (Witndss Forehand) No. I am speaking for site 6 management, which includes QA management and supervision.

7 Q Now who at the Harris site reinspects in this 8 context?

9 MR. O'NEILL: Excuse me. Mr. Runkle, I just want 10 to make sure the record is clear. Are you now talking about 11 an individual reinspection of an individual worker conducted 12 pursuant to procedure CQA-7 as the predicate to that question?

()

13 MR. RUNKLE: No, I don't think I am. The question 14 is a lot simpler than that. I mean who is in charge of 15 reinspection? Who was in charge of this reinspection program 16 that Mr. Trainor discusses in his testimony?

17 MR. O'NEILL: Is your question now asking who was 18 in charge of implementation of CQA-7?

19 MR. RUNKLE: No, it is not. It has nothing to do 20 with CQA-7.

21 MR. O'NEILL: I would object to the question then 22 as too vague. I don't understand the predicate.

23 JUDGE KELLEY: I think it is unclear. I mean CQA-7 r ~' , 24 as testified is the procedures that they follow, as I under-4e-Fi [] Reporters, Inc.

25 stand it. If your question is who is in charge of seeing

10,094 im sim'9-9 1 to it that COA-7 is implemented, I think that-is fair

) 2 enough. Are you after something different from that really, 3 Mr. Runkle?

4 MR. RUNKLE: Let me back up here and'ask some 5 of the initial questions that:I thought.we could'sll? assume ~.

6 BY MR. RUNKLE:

7 Q Gentlemen, what is CQA-7?

8 A (Witness Parsons) It is a procedure that we 9 developed on site that we can use to measure the performance 10 of our inspectors or in a broader sense the performance of 11 the quality assurance program itself. It depends on a 12 reinspection methodology and it has an acceptance criteria

(') 13 of 90 and 95 percent for the two different categories of 14 attributes.

15 0 What you are saying then is that you are following 16 CQA-7 in your reinspection program?

17 A That is correct.

18 Q All right. So who at the Harris site carries out 19 the CQA-7 reinspection program? l 20 A There is a group within the quality assurance 21 organization at the site under Mr. Forehand's supervision. l l

22 Q And does that group reinspect all the construction 23 work done at the Harris site?

(m 24 A The program they have laid out includes samples Ace-F1_J Repom, Inc.

25 of all the work done at the Harris site with some exceptions  !

l

10,095 Sim 9-10 1 that relate to work done in the very beginning of the job.

f1 xJ 2 O And this group was formed about a year and a half 3 ago?

4 A The group has been there doing that kind of work l

5 for much longer than that. But about a year and a half ago 6 the work was formalized in COA-7 and given more structure 7 in the form of acceptance criteria.

8 Q And then for all the workers that are either 9 known to or suspected to be drug users, that is the matrix 10 of 218, they have all been reinspected given the criteria in 11 CQA-7; is that correct?

12 A No, I didn't say that. I think our testimony

[)-

13 shows that we had evaluated all of the craft workers and 14 determined that all of their work is controlled by the 15 QA program in that it is inspected independently. So, j 16 therefore, we did not reinspect craft workers.

17 The reinspections that related to the work done by 18 quality assurance inspectors was the part that was reinspected.

l 19 Q So it was just the inspectors that were reinspected 20 under CQA-7; is that correct?

21 A We are getting closer to correctness. There is 22 an ongoing program of using CQA-7 that has been in existence 23 for the last year and a half. That related to all work done

. ('} 24 by everybody out there by taking a sample of the various he-FnJ Reporters, Inc.

25 components as they were completely -- well, first, the work e

t - . - .

10,096 l Sim 9_ I was complete and they were inspected and accepted, and then l -: /")

- ( )- 2 .the records were turned in as final records and we had an 3 ongoing program of going back into those on a sampling 4 basis and inspecting. This was a management tool to give

~

5 'us an indication of how well the overall program was going.

6 We were looking at the product at the very end 7 of the pipeline and going back and reinspecting. I think 8 .it was pointed out earlier.that CQA-7 can also be used to 9 go back and evaluate various pieces of the program, and that 10 is the part that we did when we went back and looked at II the inspectors who might possibly have been implicated as 12 drug users. We took an existing program and pinpointed to O)

( 13 the inspectors under question.

I4 Q So in the context of people involved with drugs, l 15 you.went back and reinspected their work given the criteria 16 of CQA-7 if they were inspectors ~, and if they were craft 17 workers you evaluated what they did; is that correct?

18 A That is correct.

19 Q In looking at each of the craft workers, how did 20 you evaluate what jobs they were doing and whether it had 21 safety significance?

22 A We cover that-a little bit in the testimony, but 23 basically there were four knowledgeable mangers at the O 24 Ace 4Jul Reporter 3, Inc.

site that sat down and looked at a word description from 25 a person's supervisor that described what he had been

10,097 Sim 9-12 j working on.

() 2 We looked at the job description, the total job 3 description of a given category of craftsmen, and then 4 we evaluated that in the context of our knowledge of the 5

QA pr gram, which included the hold points and the different 6 " inspections that were required for the work that the man 7 either could have been doing or we knew he had been doing, 8

and in all cases we determined that there was no work that 9 a craftsman could be doing that was not subjected to inde-10 pendent inspection by the quality assurance inspectors.

jj Q Now when you say they could have been inspected 12 by quality assurance inspectors or otherwise through the qu lity assurance program, were all the craft persons that (a) 13 ja were known or suspected to be involved with drugs, was their 15 w rk actually-inspected by the QA program?

16 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Runkle, when you say "all their 37 work," are you now just limiting it to safety related work, 18 which is what this contention is all about?

j9 MR. RUNKLE: Well, they have to evaluate their 20 w rk to understand whether it is safety related or not. I 21 me n I think that is part of the question.

22 MR. O'NEILL: That wasn' t part of the question and 23 the testimony makes it clear that we did do that and the 24 matrix points out whether or not the work was safety related.

("')

Mc-FL,Jl Reporters, Inc.

25 I just wanted to make sure that we understood l,

10,098

$ 9-13 1 what your question was. When you say "all of the work,"

('s

-(_). 2 I want to make sure the witnesses understand whether or not-3 you are saying all of the safety related work or just all 4 work that might have been performed.by these individuals?

5 MR. RUNKLE: Okay. All work that might have.been 6 performed.

7 MR. O'NEILL: Do you remember what the question 8 is, Mr. Parsons?

9 BY MR. RUNKLE:

10 0 There are a number of crafts persons who were some-11 how involved with drugs; is that correct 12 A (Witness Parsons) That is correct.

() 13 Q Now in your team of four managers you evaluated 14 their work, did you not?

15 A We evaluated the work. If you would take a given 16 category of craftsmen, say a pipefitter, we evaluated the 17 work of a pipefitter and the evaluation of the work of a 18 pipefitter we gained from knowledge of the job description 19 of pipe fitter.

20 We added to that a description from the individual's i

21 supervisor giving us more information on what the man was i.

22 doing. Now we cannot totally rely on that because in some 23 cases they go back two and three and four years and we weren't 24 able to determine what they were -- we wouldn't be able to w rc O> n. pore.<i. inc.

25 get to the point of saying that he never could have worked

10,099 9-14 outside of what they-told us. l 1

() . :2 So based.on the job description and this word 3 description and our knowledge of the QA program, we 4 determined that-the work that he had been doing or could-

_ conceivably had done was in fact inspected independently by -

5 6 QA inspectors.

7 Q Okay. So you are saying that.the QA program 8 inspected every one of the crafts persons that were in the 1

9 matrix?

10 A No. If he were doing safety related work and the 11 safety related work would have been inspected. Now had 12 he never done safety related' work, he obviously wouldn't have

() 13 been inspected.

14 Q So the QA program only looks at safety related 15 work?

16 A It focuses on safety related work.

17 Q Does the QA program inspect 100 percent of the 18 safety related work?

l

! 19 A The QA program inspects 100 percent of the safety f 20 related components that we build out there.

l 21 Q If I can draw your attention to Attachment 3 to the

! 22 first set of the Banks and Parsons testimony, and this is 23 the QA attribute surveillance summary; is that correct?

24 A That is correct.

efederd Reporters. Inc.

25 0 Now in the second column where it talks about

10,100 Sim 9115 Lj components in the lot, what would be a component in say

.c~ the first one piping installation?

j 2 3 A In the case of piping, a component is a spool' piece.

4 "That is the size of the work that gets packaged as a work 5 package.

6 0 And so that spool piece may have in this case up, I

7 oh, around 85 different attributes?

8 A I don't recall exactly. It could have a large 9 number of attributes, yes.

10 0 And we could figure out by looking at the fourth 11 and fifth columns roughly how many attributes were in each

! 12 component?

' l( ) 13 A That would give you an average of what they found 14 when they went out and inspected. If it is a short pipe i 15 spool it may have two welds, and if it is a long one it 16 may have sixteen, and each weld has multiple attributes.

I 17 0 How many attributes would be in a weld on a l 18 piping installation?

l 19 A There are fifteen reverifiable attributes of a I 20 completed pipe weld.

21 0 And would some of those attributes be the paper 22 documentation of that pipe weld?

23 A No. I was referring to mechanical / physical 24 attributes.

(~}

GeFLJ Riporters. Inc.

25 i 9 Sim '

9 fois 3

10,101 10-1-SueW 'l Q Mr. Forehand, are you familiar with the N 2 attributes of'a pipe weld? ,

3 A '(Witness Forehand) Yes.

t 4 Q Can you just list off some of the attributes i

5 of that?

6 MR. O'NEILL: Objection. If Mr. Runkle would 7 look at Exhibit 51, we have listed every attribute for 8 every component that is described in the testimony. And 9 I think it would be clearly repetitious to go through 10 this orally.

11 In fact, I have a general observation. I will 12 begin objecting to questions that are clearly stated in b

x- 13 the prefiled testimony. I think we have a right to expect 14 the cross-examiner will have read the testimony and can i

15 ask questions about the answers as opposed to just simply L 16 asking.the fundamental questions that are clearly stated 17 " in the testimony.

18 JUDGE KELLEY: Can you reference the page l9 with the attributes?

20 MR. O'NEILL: In Exhibit 51, Section 3.

21 Do you have a page, Mr. Banks?

22 WITNESS BANKS: Page 19 is for the pipe --

f 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. Well, that seems to

() 24 wFederal Reporters, Inc.

provide the attributes that you were inquiring about, Mr.

25 Runkle.

10,102 i

1. 10-2-SueW'1 MR. RUNKLE: I had asked the witness if he

/~~'

' (-)i 2 was familiar and if he could list them off. But if he 3 could refer to --

4 BY.MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) f 5 Q Mr. Forehand, would you refer to this list 6 in providing an answer to that question?

7 A (Witness Forehand) Yes.

8 Q Now, in looking at piping installations, in the 9 sixth column of the QA attribute surveillance summary, it 10 said, " Observed ' deficient attributes to date. " That would

'11 be in those components that were reinspected; is that 12

• correct?

13 A (Witness Parsons) That's correct.

14 Q Now, in this eleven deficient attributes, e

15 would those be in eleven different components or one 16 different component with eleven deficiencies, or what?

17 [

A I don't know exactly.

s i 18 Q But it would be somewhere in that -- somewhere l

19 in between, having them all on one component or have eleven 10 1 different components, would-it --

21 . A I would be very surprised if they were all on 22 ! one component or even half on one component.

23 0 And on this QA attribute surveillance summary,

(~) 24 n.... w. l would these be subjective or objective?

gr:_; n As explained by Mr. -- by Gene, 25 1 A It varies.  ;

10,103 i 80-3-SueW  ; I think predominantly they would be objective. But most 2 weld inspection -- visual weld inspection inspections are 3 subjective.

4 Q So, looking on Page 19 of Exhibit 51, on the 5 piping installation, now which of these would you say would 6 be objective and which were subjcetive?

7 A Cleanliness would be subjective. Scribe marks 1

81 would be objective. Material markings would be objective.

9i Material acceptability and traceability insofar as tracing i

10 the heat numbers, that would be objective. It would be 11 l marked on the pipe.

12 It might go faster if 1 just pick the subjective 13 , ones.

I 14 1 Item 3-C, weld free of rejectable discontinuities, d

e 15 ' would be the prime example of the subjective.

16 ! 3-D, weld suitable for the required nondestructive d

17 y examination would be somewhat subjective.

'i 18 i And I believe that's about all.

19 } Q And, again would it be possible for all eleven 20 1 of those deficient attributes to be in eleven separate l

21 y components?

!i l 22 ll A It would be possible for them to be in separate 23 components, yes.

~x !i

) 24 y Q And we could go down this entire list and go ye resera cemeters, sx.

l 25 l through the whole -- I mean, we could run this exorcise on d

i d

!\

r 1 10,104 each of these other ones and you would again refer to

)0-4-SueW 1

'~("'y .

I i_/ 2 Exhibit 51 for the attributes?

3 A Yes. ,

4 Q Now, let's-talk a little bit about the -- how 5 these have arisen over time. You are.saying that you 6 started using CQA-7 about a year and a half ago; is that 7 correct?

8 A That's correct.

9 Q Of the --

10 A I did point out that we formalized and put 11 .quantification to a surveillance procedure that had been 12 in existence for a long time.

13 Q And for a long time -- when did the surveillance 4

14 system first initiate, become initiated? ,

15 A Probably 1980 to 1981.

16 Q And that would be since 1980 and 1981 is when 17 you have done all the reinspections on this Attachment 37 18 A No, sir. What you see on Attachment 3 was 19 accummulated since the, I believe it was June of 1984 when 20 we started formalizing the surveillance program and incor-21 porating the idea of an acceptance ratio.

22 Q And bofore June of 1984, did you make any 23 comparable survey of how many components and attributes 24 were reinspected?

( QLJ c w<wri, ine. 25 A No. At that time, we were not aware of a

10,105

 #10-5-SueW 1           methodology for dividing everything into attributes and                                 I
  / 's 2  keeping track of them the way we are keeping track of                                   '

3 them so that we could compute the indexes and ratios that l 4 you see here. 5 That was the key thing that happened in 1984. 6 We formalized it so that it could become something that [ 7 we could monitor and could judge the performance of-the 8 overall product with. 9 0 And, how many -- let me see. In the last year 10 and a half you have reinspected fifty-four thousand five 11 hundred and sixty attributes? 12 A That's correct. O 13 0 All right. And how many -- do you nave any idea 14 of how many attributes you reinspected before June of 19847 15 A No. The concept of the attribute was something 10 that we instituted in 1984. 17 0 Now, did you also, in 1984, initiate breaking 18 down the work units into components? 19 A Well, the initial inspections which have been 20 going on since the job began. basically broke down the 21 work effort into components. And these resulted in l 22 work packages, and we inspected by work packages quite , l l 23 often.  ! l ( 24 0 Now, on your evaluation' team of four managers WFederel Reporters, lac, I 25 that have looked at the known or suspected drug users, l l

10,106 l

   #10-6-SueW1            who are those four managers?                                                        '

fT

   '-                   2             MR. O'NEILL:   Objection. That question is 3 asked and answered on Page 7 of the prefiled testimony.

4 I think once again we have a right to expect

                                                                                                          ~
                       '5 that basic questions need not be repeated.       When I refer 6 to the prefiled testimony, it's of Messrs. Banks, Parsons, 7 Forehand and Brombach.

8 JUDGE KELLEY: Page 77 9 MR. O'NEILL: Question 10, Answer 10. 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Are the four answered in this 11 question? Do you have the four people named in this 12 question? l -

    '-                 13             MR. O'NEILL:   Certainly by position, yes, sir.

14 JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, not by name but by position? 15 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, sir. Myself is pretty 16 clear. Mr. Ilyman has previously testified. He is the 17 Manager, Harris Plant Administration. 18 The Manager of QA/QC signed an Affidavit in I I 19 response to a motion for summary disposition. That was 20 Mr. Triangie (phonetic). Representative of the contractor 21 varies. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: I think he's looking for the 23 statement that the committee of four is in this Answer 10. () 24 WFalstel lleporters, Inc. Is it? , 25 MR. O'NEILL: That is the committee of four, { i l

c , 1 10,107 . i D10-7-SueW 'I a group of four key site individuals. t

   .(]':.

2 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. And they form the 3 committee? , 4 MR. O'NEILL:- Yes, sir. f

                                  .                                                 i 5             JUDGE KELLEY:   Go ahead.                          f  ,

6 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 7 Q Sir, do you agree with the statement that 8 counsel just made on the names of those individuals? 9 A (Witness Parsons) Yes, sir. 10 0 All right. Would the representative of the 11 contractor, would that representative be one that would W evaluate work done by other contractors or CP&L employees, l 13 or just their own workers? L 14 A In this case, the representative of the , 15 contractor is a Daniel construction company representative, 16 and he functioned in the committee only as it related to l 17 Daniel employees. . 18 Q And, sir, how long have you been at the Harris 19 site? ! 20 A Since September of 1976. L 21 Q And, Mr. Ilyman, how long has he been there? t 22 A I don't recall exactly. It has been three or 23 four years. , e i (m_) 24 w .rimma coo,wn, w. MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ilyman's i

                                                                                       )

1 25 resume is in the record of this proceeding. l i

r= a 10,100  ! 10-8-SueW I JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 2 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 3 Q And Mr. Triangle -- 4 JUDGE KELLEY: I believe his resume is in, 5 too. 6 MR. O'NEILL: That's correct, sir. 7 MR. RUNKLE: Should the witness answer that 8 question? 9 JUDGE KELLEY: No. It's in the record of the 10 case. II MR. RUNKLE: All right. I2 JUDGE KELLEY: To agree with Mr. O'Neill's 13 general observation, I believe it has some validity to it. I4 Too much of this cross has been just regurgitation of 15 testimony. I would appreciate a somewhat more pointed 16 examination. I7 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 18 Q Mr. Banks and Mr. Parsons, when you refer in 39 your profiled testimany on Pages 28 and 29 to the SALP 20 reports, you -- do you not? 21 A (Witness Parsons) Yes, sir. 22 O Mr. Danks, are those the same SALP reports that 23 were referred extensively in the hearings on this matter 2# wateSmornes, Inc. that we called the management capability? 25 A (Witness Banks) Yes, they are. They were put

( L. 10,109'  : l l'#10-9-SueW 1 in the record at that time. l l _ ('T l\/ 2 O And you, on Page 29 at the top of the page, l 3 refer to the evaluation in the SALP report on the Harris 4 QA program; is that correct? , 5 MR. O'NEILL: I believe that answer is Mr. 6 Parsons, Mr. Runkle. l 7 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 8 Q All right. Mr. Parsons? 9 A (Witness Parsons) Could I get you to repeat 10 it one more time? 11 Q Yeah. On the top of Page 29, you refer to an 12 evaluation of the Harris Plant QA from the SALP report; 13 is that correct? 14 A Yes, sir. i And that's also where you took the quote at the 15 0 16 end of that paragraph?

             -17        A     That's correct.

18 Q Mr. Parsons, on the -- what is referred to on 19 Page 28 as the construction appraisal team evaluation, also 20 referred to as a CAT evaluation, the first full paragraph 21 on Page 29 of your testimony, it states that the CAT 22 evaluation identify the number of hardware deficiencies, i 23 A That's correct. () 24

      ..._,..~..

0 What was the number of hardware deficiencies that; 25 the CAT evaluation identified? l

10,110 %0- 0-SueW 1 A The only thing formal that. falls out of a CAT 2 report is what they call potential enforcement activities, 3 which are referred to the regional office for investigation 4 to see if they are in fact violation. 5 There were four -- four of these. 6 Q And for the record, what were those four? , I 7 A I don't recall. < i 8 Q Mr. Banks, do you recall? , 9 A (Witness Banks) I can't. 10 0 Do any of you other gentlemen recall? e II (No reply.) 12 MR. RUNKLE: I would move at this time to have - l O 13 the Board take notice of the SALP reports that have already l I I 14 been introduced into evidence in this licensing procedure,  ; ! 15 and take notice of those parts that deal with the QA program 1 I0 at the Harris site. I 17 JUDGE KELLEY: We admitted them in connection i 18 with the management contention. And I would like to hear f l 19 from counsel as to whether they are in for any purpose or ( l l 20 in for the purposes of a particular contention. 21 I guess our tentative instinct would be to say j { 22 they are in for purposes of the contention for which they

                                                                                                               !     I 23       were offered, not for anything else unless they were offered!

24 in some other context. l e4 esses amemes,inc. 25 I think, Mr. Runkle, you said take notice of? Is 1

 .                                                                                                                   I

10,111 , 010-ll-SueWI that your suggestion? l 2 MR. RUNKLE: If that's a proper way to do it, , 3 just so that those sections are part of this contention i 4 also. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, we will hear from other 6 counsel. Mr. O'Neill? 7 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman, Applicants have no 8 objection to anyone citing in proposed findings to those 9 sections of the SALP report that have to do with the 10 quality assurance program at the Harris Plant. I II The documents are already in the record of 12 this proceeding and certainly to the extent that we have 13 at least cited to them as an exangle of one of the ways 14 that the Harris Plant QA program is under review by outside 15 organizations, we certainly woulda't object to someone 16 l pointing to the actual section of the SALP report. l 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Does the Staff concur? 18 MR. B ARTH : We do basically, Your Honor. Under 19 50.C, 556.D, they are part of the record. And the Federal 20 statute does not differentiate contentions or parts of 21 record. They are in for everything. 22  ; Three of those were introduced by Mr. Runkle i 23 himself, and a fourth by Mr. Bemis. We have no objection

       .'            24       if they are cited to, and I think it would be appropriate n-Federal Eeporters, Inc.

25 if he wants to do so. 6 I

m a 10,112 $0-12-SueW .1 I am puzzled by what he means that he wants f1

   \J             2  the Board to take notice. This is just a term. It doesn't
                 -3  make any --
                -4               JUDGE KELLEY:   If we can agree among counsel 5 'that,-one, the SALP reports are in the record of the case;       ;

6 and, two, they can be referred to as a basis for findings, 7 that is to say those sections.having to do with QA, if 8 everybody agrees to that, then we don' t have to go to the 9 law books and find out whether contentions are recognized 10 and all the rest. 11 We can just go with the stipulation. 12 MR. BARTH: We certainly agree, Your Honor. I l 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Which is what I would suagest. 14 Okay, Mr. Runkle? 15 MR. RUNKLE: Yes. l 16 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. So stipulated. 17 .R. RUNKLE: M Thank you. At this time,-I would 18 move that the first full paragraph on Page 29 be striken 19 from the testimony. Witnesses have not been able to -- 20 they have given conclusions from the CAT evaluations and 21 yet know nothing about the deficiencies included in there. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Wouldn't that go to weight rather I 23 than admissibility? 24 I can ask the counsel. We have a motion to strike wFamcscowwn,w.  ; j 25 from Mr. Runkle, the first full paragraph of Page 29. Mr. l

10,113 l l t fl0-13-SueW I O'Neill? 2 MR. O'NEILL: I would be happy to respond. 3 The statement by Mr. Parsons in this answer is not offered 4 for the truth of the -- all of the detailed findings in i 5 the CAT report. It is simply offered for the fact that 6 there was a CAT evaluation. 7 The Board certainly can take notice that these 8t evaluations have occurred in other plants. And I don't 9l think there is any reason to have this report in the i record for the statement of which Mr. Parsons has knowledge 10 l Il that this CAT team had found that at theHarris Plant, the 12 lowest number of adverse findings of any of the nine 13 formal CAT evaluations performed in the country as of the I4 date of the Harris Plant evaluation. 15 i It does not take the CAT insoection report and i 16 a hundred pages into the record on something that is not I7 [ directly related to this contention for purposes of that 18 l fact. Certainly, Mr. Runkle could attest that hypothesis I9 l with the Staff witnesses later if he desires. t 20 h JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth? 21 MR. BARTH: The fact that they can't remember, 22 Your Honor, is not a proper ground for the exclusion of 23 h evidence which has already been admitted.

    , ~'s                 i
         )            24                    Under Rule 401 and 402 of the Federal Rules of w F.eersi n. port., . inc.

25 ' Evidence, this is clearly relevant. The Applicant has n 4

10,114

 #10-14-SueW1             produced it, and the Intervenor has produced no grounds 2   to show it's irrelevant or otherwise objectionable.

3 There are no grounds to exclude this. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Anything else, Mr. 5 Runkle. 6 MR. RUNKLE: I would withdraw my motion at 7 this point. ND #10 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. oJ flw:3 9l 10 11 12

   ,n 13 14 15 16 l

17l' 18 19 20 l l 21 22 l 23 a Fedeb fleporters, Inc. 25 i I

ll-1-JoeW21 10,115 BY MR. RUNKLE: (Continuing) 1 Q Mr. Trainor, you are employed by the Cygna 2 Energy Services, are you not? 3 A (Witness Trainor) That is correct. 4 Q What companies does the Cygna Energy Services, 5 Incorporated, consult with? 6 A Cygna Energy Services consults with a broad 7 spectrum of conpanies involved in the energy industry. We  ; 8 consult with pipeline companies, construction companies, and 9 utilities. 4 t 10 Q All right. And roughly what percentage of those  ! 11 companies are utility companies? l2 A I would say probably 90, 95 percent. i tn: 13 And is your primary job with Cygna to look at Q 14 nuclear QA programs? 15 A No, sir, it is not. 16 Q Is it a substantial part of your job? 17 A It is part of my job. The other part of my job 18 is the quality assurance program utilized by Cygna in its  ! 19 engineering work. l t 20 Q Your in-house quality assurance program? 21 A That is correct, sir. 22 Q Okay. Mr. Trainor, can you turn to Applicants f I 23 Exhibit 50, which is evaluation of program effectiveness on  ! I n ( 24  ! Page 6 of that document? hr s.r.)i tenorters, Inc. [ 25 Ilave you reviewed this document? l

1 $1-2-JoeWal- ' l A- Yes, I have.

     ,-\,
     J' i

2 _Q And you are familiar with Page 6, specifically. 3 -Sections 5.5.1.2? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Now, in looking at that statement of evaluation 6 of program effectiveness, it talks in terms of 95 percent c 7 reinspection for objective attributes, does it not?

  ,                     8         A      That is correct.
                      '9          Q      Now, isn't that substantially different from the 10   same 90 to 95 percent that was looked at in the Byron Il   Decision?

12 A No, sir, because both of these percentages 13 relate to the repeatability of inspectors work. 14 0 Now, wasn't the Byron 90 to 95 percent looking 15 at componants rather than attributes? i 16 A _Yes, it was. 17 MR. RUNKLE: I have no other questions for this 18 panel. l ' 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Eddleman? 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: ! 22 Q Thank you, Judge. Good af ternoon gentlemen. 23 A (Witness Trainor) Good afternoon. ( 24

;>r.is.,ei si.co, ,. ene.

Q Well, as long as we are on COA 7, Applicants 25 Exhibit 50, let's just turn over to Appendix B, which I believe

F'

ll-3-Jo W21 10,117 1 is the tast page' of it, please.

-im.

k' 2 Mr. Trainor, I think you are probably the person 3 to direct this to, but if anyone else knows the answer please 4 feel free to comment. 5 This says it is based on' Military Standard 105D, 6 . general inspection level two. What is that level 2? , 7 A (Witness Trainor) It is basically a level of 8 discrimination, i.e., the ability of the sampling plan to 9 detect defects.

                 '10                      Q          Now, is Level 2 a given level of discrimination                                                t 11               and Level 1 is a different level?

12 A That is correct. O kJ 13 0 Okay. What is the' level of discrimination of 14 Level 27 15 A The level of discrimination of Level 2 would be 16 dependent upon the specific sampling plan that you utilize, 17 and the AOL that you have established. 18 0 Well, now, is the sampling plan the sample s'izes 19 given above here? Is that what a sampling plan is? 20 A That is correct. 21 Q Okay. 22 A That is part of it. 23 0 Okay. That is part of it. What are the other 24 ' parts of it? 25 A The other part, when you utilize Mil Standard 1050

ll-4-JoeW^1 I as the total sampling system, which is what it is, is the 2 eight accept-reject criteria or size which are utilized to 3 accept or reject the lot. 4 Q Okay. And what are those accept-reject criteria? 5 Are they used here at all in CQA77 6 A They are not. 7 Q They are not. Okay. So, you are just pulling a 8 sample size from Mil Standard 105D, but you are not using i 9 the accept-reject criteria of 105D. 10 Instead, you are using the 90 and 95 percent 11 I based on attributes, is that correct?  ;

                       '2 A     Well, when you talk about the accept-reject
     ' -               13 criteria of Appendix -- of Mil Standard 105D, you are talking I#

about the number of allowable defects that you allow in the 15 sample, to accept the lot. 16 Q All right. And when you talk about CQA7, Applicants Exhibit 50, you are talking about the percentage 18 of deficient attributes inspected that you will accept.

                     .            A     What you are talking about in CQA7 is the 20 acceptable-expector efficiency, which in this case is 95 21 percent and 90 percent,respectively.

22 Q Measured on attributes, right? 23 A Measured on inspections. m 24 As-Federet Fleporters, Inc.

                                            ,             e    a          eM dat are 25 derived for inspector proficiency rests on percentage of

r. ll-5-JzeW21 10,119

     ~~

1 attributes, which on reinspection are not found to be  :

  /     'x                                                                                  !

_) 2 deficient, isn't that true?  ! 3 A That is correct. 4 0 Okay. Now, this is general inspection Level 2. l t 5 Isn't -- is there a tighter or more restrictive Level 1 l 6 in Mil Standard 105D? 7 A one or more greater discrimination, it could, in 8 fact, go to Level 3. There are varying combination of 9l sampling plans that you can put together to get greater or , 10  ! less discrimination, depending upon your particular needs. 11 Q Okay. Now, by greater discrimination, you mean i 12 l greater confidence in the accuracy of the results, given the L' 13 sampling? 0 I4 A No, it would be the greater probability of i' 15 reducing the number of defects in the accepted lot. The 16 l . potential of the defects in accepted lot.

                       'l 17l'              O     okay. So, by going to the Standard 3, you would 18          reduce the potentials for defects, that is what you are 19          getting at?

I 20 [ A Very nominally, and it would only be generally 21 in the bottom of the probability table. 22 ll Q Did you say very normally? 23 A At the top of the curve, in the 91 percent (9 ,

           )       24 breders Reporters, Inc.

probability of accepting X number of defects, there is not 25 ! an appreciable difference between Level 2 and Level 3 i

11-6-JoeWal- , 10,120 l 1 discrimination.

    ,m                                                                                        l 2                   It generally comes down in the lower probabilities 3     in the ten, twenty, thirty percent areas.

4 Q Okay. So what you are saying is at the -- at 5 a high probability of accepting a given number of defects, 6 there is not much difference between Level 2 and Level 3, but l 7 when you want to get down in the low probabilities of i 8 accepting a given number of defects out of a sample size, 9 Level 3 is more restrictive? 10 A That is correct. ) 11 Q And it gives you a better chance to not be 2l accepting as many defects?

    /~T l    kI                13           A       I guess.

14 Q Okay. Mr. Forehand, I see you are -- what looks l 15 to me like your signature on the unnumbered page which is l 16 the signature page behind the cover sheet of Applicants i 17ll Exhibit 50. ! f i 18 There is recommending changes on April _lst, 1985, 19 is.that correct? j I 20 A (Witness Forehand) I recommended this procedure 21 for approval on that date. 22 Q Okay. Well, you recommended it with the changes , 23  : that are shown by the bars throughout, right? n

    '()               24 DFeder;J Aeporters, Inc.

A That is correct. 25 Q Okay. These are pretty extensive amounts of , i t

11-7-JoeWnl- l 10,121  !

i 1 material - that has those change bars by them, .isn't that so? i t'~\ l f

      \    'l-         2              A     There were a number of small changes made at 3       that time.

4 Q Can you tell us what the purpose of these changes 5 was? Why they were made?  ; i 6 A- We made changes to procedures to enhance the 7 ' procedure. 8 Q In effect, you were upgrading it in April 1985, 9 is that right? 10 A That is correct. Il Q Did you believe that it wasn't performing well 12 ; enough, and so you had to upgrade it?

        <s

( )

           /          13   i          A     No, I didn't believe that at all.

l l 14 I A (Witness Parsons) Can I answer? 15 Q Certainly. l 16 A One of the most common reasons for upgrading is i j .17 j' when peoples title change, or organizations change out the 18 job, and I think you will find that flavor quite a bit in t I 19 here. 20 It also -- the change was made to try to expand

                    -21        its application a little bit to other areas that we hadn't 22        been using it on.

23 Q What other areas were those, Mr. Parsons?

        .s                                                                                       j

(_) 24 pFederal Peoorters. Inc. A If you look under 1.1, Scope, they have a change l 25 there that just, in my estimation is minor, but it expanded

ll-8-Jo:Wcl 1 10,122 ' I it to personnel performance and fabrication installation, k'_)s 2 inspection, and field data collection. i 3 One or another of those four of five categories 4 I couldn't tell of people probably got added at that time. 5 you without going back to the history of it. [i 6 Q Well now, was inspection always part of the scope 7 of this procedure? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Mr. Parsons, let me refer you to your -- I think 10 it is your and Mr. Banks Attachment 3 again, attached to the 11 back of that part of the testimony. 2l I am going to try to keep track of which of these 13 three pieces of prefiled, one of which belongs to one person, i y' , F and the others belong to more than one, and I am just trying i 15 I to keep them straight. Do you have that? 0 A Yes. I7 Q Okay. The instrumentation short packages there, I0 in the Inspection Deficient to Date column shows 97 percent. 19 A Yes, sir. 20 l Q And if we turn over on the next page, we have 21 got structural steel, 95.3 percent inspection deficient to 22 i date, is that correct? 23 A Yes, sir.

        )          24 W-Federd Rmorters, Inc.

25 analysis or know of any numbers on the percentage of components

ll-9-Jo:Wnl 10,123 1 in any of these surveillance activities that are deficient -- l i

   .'--               2      were found deficient on reinspection?

i 3 A I am not quite sure how to atswer that. Every 4 component is broken down into a large number of attributes, 5 and I guess in one sense .of the word whenever you find a 6< deficient attribute in a component, then some piece of 7 component is likewise deficient. 8 We haven't analyzed it in terms of components. 9 Q Mr. Trainor, concerning Byron, do you know 10 whether the Byron reinspection were done with respect to II attributes at all? I2 l A (Witness Trainor) Basically, they were re-13 inspection of various components, and when you reinspect a Id component, you reinspect it to the original attributes, 1 15 which you presume inspection of the component too, so to 16 , that extent the reinspection of components reinspected il 17 li specific attributes. 18 Q Okay. 19 A (Witness Parsons) Can I add something to that? 20 Q Yes, sir. 21 A I haven't seen the total report in the record 22 from there, but the publication executive summary from Byron 23 gave the results in terms of attributes . There are two hundred 24 and some thousand attributes reinspected, and some number, c-Federal neoorters, Inc. 25 .so they were using attributes also, at least at some level

1 l l 11-10-JoeWal' 10,124  ; l i I of that investigation is what I conclude. 2 Q Mr. Trainor, in the Byron inspection, would it 3 be true that if a component were reinspected and a defective 4 attribute that had been previously approved were found in  ! 5 that component, then that would be classified as a defective I i 6 component upon reinspection. 7 A (Witness Trainor) I believe we could classify 8 it as a defective attribute. 9 Q Well, the Byron standard rests of percentage 10 defective components, does it not? II A (Witness Parsons) It is my understanding that I2 the results were reported as attributes, percent attributes

   '"             13      rejected.

I 14 Well, what I am asking you, Mr. Trainor, is if

                          !       Q 15      the component were found to have a defective attribute, 16      wouldn't that be classified as a defective component under 17 y    this Byron standard on percentage of components.

18 MR. O'NEILL: Objection. There is no foundation 19 in the record, and certainly in the record of the Byron 20 proceeding, that that is how they calculated the inspector 21 proficiencies. In fact, it was exactly the opposite way. MR. EDDLEMAN: I withdraw the question. 22 ll 23 MR. RUNKLE: Excuse me. I am going to object to

   ,a uj               24      counsel testifying. I think the question was asked already, hFederal Reporters, Inc. {

25 and Mr. Trainor answered that. l l

i ll-ll-JoeWal 10,125 i i If counsel wants to testify about what is in j w 2 the Byron decision, I would like to put him on the stand. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, gentlemen, we have had a i I 4 lot of references to the Byron decision in this respect. It 5 says what it says. 6 These gentlemen here are familiar with it, I guess, 7 more so than I am but is it really crucial in any event to 8 what they are here to tell us? I would think generally not, 9 except as interesting background. 10 We want to know what they did at Shearon Harris. 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I have withdrawn the 12 f* question.

    /
           )
       ~  '

13 JUDGE KELLEY: Can I ask you a question about i 14 ( Attachment 3 while we are looking at it? The very last column i 15 on the right, where it says inspection deficient date, if 16 I understand that, I would say -- well, I wouldn't even had 17 ll said that, I would have thought it would say inspection i 18 acceptable to date, or satisfactory or something. 19 Aren't you saying 99.9 okay? Isn't that the 20 message? 21 MR. O'NEILL: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. l 22 ! Baxter and I noted that that was a typographical error. It f 23 should have been inspection proficiency to date. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, proficiency. t Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. l 25 MR. O'NEILL: Proficiency. { II

                               !{

l (11-12-Jo:Wal 10,126  ; I i 1 JUDGE KELLEY: That helps. Thank you. i

   ,cy l           2               MR. O'NEILL:       That column on both pages should 3   read inspection for efficiency to date, and at the               !

4 appropriate point we were going to point that out, but  ! l 5 thank you for picking that up.  ! i 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine. Thank you. Go ahead. 7 Maybe a few more minutes , and then we can take a break. 8 MR. BARTH: A point of order to clarify the 9 record, when we talk about Byron I assume we are talking 10 About 20 NRC 1203, 1984, which is the Licensing Board 11 Decision 84-41, and we are also talking about the Appeal 12 ; Board's review of that, which appears at ASLAB 793, which 13 is in 20 NRC 5091, 1984. 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. I think that is 15 helpful. That is where they address what has been called 16 the Mil Standard, derived from this Defense' procedure. 17 MR. BARTH: I do not believe those words are 18 used, Your Honor, but that is where they talk about the 90 - 19 95 percent. 20 MR. O'NEILL: We have cited in our testimony 21 as well. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: [Thank you. l 23 3Y MR. EDDLEMAN: (Continuing) () 24 p>r.oers nemrtm. t=. Q Gentlemen, I would like to refer you now to l 25 Applicants Exhibit 51. Specifically I would like to go into ' l l L..

10,127 , 11-13-Jo:Wal  ! i i tlus list of individuals -- I refer you to page 9. - l

 --()                  2                         Now, the first thing I would like to ask here 3             is, if you have it before you, do the individual reference 4             numbers that are in this exhibit match for numbers 201 and 5             less the numbers 1 through 201 in the original matrix 6             presentation that was given by CP&L to the NRC Staff?                                       ,

7 A (Witness Parsons) Yes, sir, *; hey do. 8 Q Okay. And is it likewise trt;e that numbers 202 9 through 218 are those that have been picked up since the 10 time that that first version of the matrix was compiled? II A That is correct. 12 j Q Do any of you gentlemen know if any of the kl 13 penple represented in individuals 202 through 218 have been 14 witnesses in this proceeding? 15 (Pause.) 16 A I am not privy to all the names, but there is 17 ll a good chance there is. V 18 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman, I think if we 19 .. pursued this line of questioning too far, we could very well l 20 get to a situation where we might compromise the identity 21 of any individual which I think we have -- this Board has 22 tried very hard to avoid doing, so I think this line of 23 questioning should stop at this point. ( 74 JUDGE KELLEY: Maybe we should at least go WFederal lleporters. Inc. 25 off the record. If Mr. Eddleman is willing to stop, then  ! t r -

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

m ,ll-14-JoLWal 10,128 I we can stop. If he think it needs-to be pursued, then we l

    ./~
       ~            2        can talk about it off the record.

3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge I want to pursue it, but 4 I am concerned about the privacy needs of at least one 5 individual here, so I think we had better discuss it off I 6 the record.  ; 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Can we just take a break at i 8 this point? Why don't we take a break and we can all break 9 for a few minutes, and then maybe counsel and the Board can  ; 10 talk about this informally before we pick up again. II All right. Short break. I2 l (Short recess taken.) i /~N)  !. ( Ena#11. 13 iMS fois.  : 14 ;, l 15 l ! 16 I7 lf 18 i 19 20 l ! l ! 21 ! l l l 22 ! i 23 () 24 p-FMmt Rmorters. Inc.  ! 25 l

10,129 31m 12-1 1 JUDGE KELLEY: For the record, counsel and the p (,) 2 Board have had a brief discussion _off the record concerning

                    .3  the direction that certain pending questioning may take, and 4  we arrived I believe at a census at least by what the concerns 5  are, and we are all' aware of that, and we will take it a 6  question at a time. There may be objections, and we will 7  ~ simply rule on them as and when they arise.

8 Go ahead, Mr. Eddleman. 9 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 10 0 I think we may have arrived at some ways to 11 deal with this, gentlemen, without getting into the question 12 of any person's name, and that is what I am going to try i o

       - (,)        13   to pursue.

14 Concerning the inspectors, the 27 out of 218 that ! 15 are involved here in this matrix, were any of them inspec-16 tion supervisors or higher up in the organization than just 17 an ordinary front-line inspector? l < 18 A (Witness Forehand) None of these inspectors i ! 19 were supervisors. They were all field front-line inspectors. 20 Q None had a title of supervisor in their title? 21 A Not the title of supervisor. We have another i 22 term that we give certain inspectors who through their 23 experience, knowledge and leadership ability we make lead 24 inspectors where they coordinate the efforts of a number of [} pFi l R: porters, Inc. 25 other inspectors in the field. But they remain in fact

10,130

'Sim 12-2         I  field' inspectors.

7-

     \~/          2 Q     Okay. Now were any of these people that are in 3

the matrix identified as_ inspectors in a category of lead 4 inspector or inspector supervisor or anything like that? 5 A One or more of these inspectors would have fallen 6 into'that category. 7 Q Okay. Now I would like to turn here, Mr. Forehand, to.the additions. Is it true that this document, Applicants' 9 Exhibit 51, has an evaluation for all inspectors except 10 those that you mentioned in the supplement to your testimony 11 that you'gave this morning? A- Yes, that is correct.

   ~

Q All right. Now let me ask you, have any of these 14 inspectors-that were in-the matrix of 218, have any of them 15 made thousands of inspections on things that can't be 16 reinspected? A There are many attributes relative to concrete, 18 reinforcing steel bars and embedded plates which cannot be reverified, and if you add all these up-it would add 20 up to the thousands. 21 Q Okay. And would these inspectors, again any 22 of them that are listed in here, include people who had 23 inspected concrete work on the containment building? 24 A I don't have a listing of where these people hFsus Reporters. Inc. 25 worked. It is highly conceivable that several of these t

10,131

Sim 12-3 I . inspectors'would have been involved with inspection work im b 2 in the containment building.

3 Do any of the other panel memb'ers know an answer Q 4 to that question? 5 A (Witness Banks) I don't. 6 A (Witness Trainor) I have no idea. 7 A (Witness Parsons) Not with any degree of 8 specificity. 9 A (Witness Brombach) I do not. 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I am kind of stuck here. II Could I ask to get off the record and explain why? I2 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, if you think it is necessary. O 13 V (Brief recess.) I4 JUDGE KELLEY: In association with the pending 15 line of questioning, Mr. Eddleman wished to ask a question 16 which might have led to disclosure of the identity of a I7 person, and no one, including Mr. Eddleman, wanted to do that. 18 So we were discussing off-the record how we might approach I9 things so that Mr. Eddleman in essence could get the informa-20 tion he wanted while at the same time we wouldn't compromise 21 the. identity unnecessarily, and the upshot of all that 22 discussion was that Mr. Eddleman discussed with counsel for 23 the applicants whether the person he had in mind was in fact p 24 one of those persons discussed under a number code in NFi_d Reporters, Inc. 25 And Mr. Eddleman informs me that applicants' Exhibit No. 51.

                                      ~

10,132 1 im 12 J4 1 counsel did confirm'that that was the case. k_,) 2 The purpose of that, as we I think all under-3 stood it, was to simply establish whether this particular 4 person was in fact reflected in some meaningful way in 5 Exhibit 51 and the objective was to obviate reference to the 6 name, which hopefully now will now not be necessary. 7 The communication between Mr. Eddleman and the 8 counsel for the applicants and his receiving confiramtion of 9 his information was understood by all to be subject to 10 a protective order.

 ~

11 We have had protective orders at various times 12 in the past in the case. We are not going to undertake to () 13 write one now, but in general anyway the terms of those 14 orders and other changes -- I can never translate 15 mutatas mutandus -- but, anyway, suitably modified to fit 16 these circumstances would apply here also to all those who 17 were involved in the disclosure of the name and the confirma-18 tion that I spoke of. 19 That is my attempt to simply summarize what 20 has taken place and where we intend to go. Is that fair 21 enough? Anything to add or modify, Mr. Eddleman? 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, I don't want to modify it, l 23 but let me say a couple of things if I may. rN 24 One is that I am concerned for this individual's Fb_ } Reporters, Inc. 25 privacy, although I don't think that the risk to them.is

y , y; 10,133 p L (U-li-- . anything like the same order of magnitude as it might be LSimjlI4- 1 ! 2 say to a secret informant in a drug investigation if their l 3 name were revealed. 4 I don't want to go out and, you know, stir it 5 up too much, but my problem is trying to b'alance that against the interest in getting the truth out about the plant itself, 6 which doesn'.t really depend on the individual it is, but 7

                        .8 could affect a whole lot of-individuals.

So it has been very difficult for me to balance 9 10 and I have tried to do it as well as I can. jj The other thing I want to say is that it may

                      .12 be necessary for me to apply to the Board under the terms i                   13 f the protective order'for some other uses of this informa-14 tion that might be made, and I just want to put everybody on n tice that I might-do that, you know, In camera basically, 15 16 something that would be sent out labeled " Confidential" with j7 all the right NRC labeling'and stuff on it.
                      -18 If I do that, I will probably let everybody know j9     I am going to do it in advance, but I just want to let you 20      know right now that that is a possibility in line with this 21 protective order as I understand it.

JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, and I think we can cross 22 23 that bridge when we come to it, but certainly if you felt. I. - I 24 a need later to raise an exemption or whatever to the eJ,J RIporters, Inc. I 25 protective order, then you could apply to the Board with L

7 10,134 Sim 12-67 . . copies to the parties and we would work it out. I

  .O                             MR. EDDLEMAN:  Well, I am not seeking to make

( ,/ '2 3 an exemption that would reveal the information, but simply 4 to be allowed to use it. JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. But we can cross that 5l 6 bridge when we come to it under the usual procedures. 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: That is right. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. O'Neill, is that fair enough 9 from your standpoint? Any comment? 10 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, sir, this last procedure, 11 I am not sure I have a real clear understanding of what -- 12 I think it is fair that the staff and Mr. Runkle did not () 13 show an interest in the revelation of individuals' identity, 146 and I would ask that if Mr. Eddleman would plan to attempt 15 to use it in this proceeding in any way, that he first seek l l 16 leave of the Board to do it even in an In Camera filing l 17 so that we establish the ground rules before he sends off f 18 a piece of paper identifying information and just stamps 19 it "In Camera." !,' 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, the parties to the l 21 protective order information really are counsel for the 1 ( 22 applicants and Mr. Eddleman and not anybody else, including 23 the Board. We are simply -- and I should add this -- that

    /~T          24  it is counsel representation on the record that the individua]

Mbj neoorters. inc. 25 in question is in this Exhibit 51 that we rely on for simply

     .                                                                                                          -+

10,135 l j Sim 12-7 1 going ahead. But we' don't know the name of the person and - () 0 2 have no need to know. 3 And I take it that at least implicit in 4 HMr . Eddleman's statement is that before any contemplated. 5 use of information that is covered by the order, it would 6 be raised in the usual advance fashion. 7 Mr. Barth, any comments? gl MR. BARTH: None from-the staff, Your Honor. 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Eddleman, you can 10 proceed. 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you, Judge. 12 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: () 13 Q Gentlemen, the reinspecitons -- and let me ask 14 this of the panel at large, whoever knows best -- were the 15 inspectors who conducted those reinspections tested for 16 drugs before they conducte? the reinspections? 17 A (Witness Forehand) Some of the inspectors who 18 conducted or participated in the reinspections may have been 19 tested for drugs as part of the pre-employment screening. 20 Other than that, they were not subjected to drug 21 screening. 22 Q Okay. Now it is true, isn't it, that a person 23 just doesn't come on the job and start inspecting immediately but must go through some training and orientation and (^T 24 kN~,/al Reporters, Inc. 25 evaluation before they would do reinspections; wouldn't

                                                - -rme   -   +      --            w T e

• m- *wv-e-y-ew-c.-Ty

10, 136 Sim.32-8 y that be correct?

   ;   }                        A     They go through those processes before they are      ;

v 2 ertifi d as an inspector, and only certified inspectors 3 l 4j are allowed to participate in the reinspections. I  ! Q And that process of getting to certification 51 l w uld take some months perhaps? 6 7, A It takes up to several months in some cases. 8 e , s dere a son of m h um W e? Suppose l someone came in with substantial experience, let's say, but 9 10 ust hadn't worked at Shearon Harris before and didn't know

                    )j    CP&L's procedures, how long would it take to get them 12 certified as an inspector, assuming that they didn't make 4

f) any mistakes themselves in the training and all? v 13 A Mr. Eddleman, the qualification process is 14 described in our testimony. The amount of time involved 15 16 is purely dependent on the training background and prior j7 experience of inspector candidate. 18 0 Well, do you know whether any of these reinspec-j9 tors were people who had just come on the job? 20 A None of the inspectors involved in the reinspec-21 ti ns were recent arrivals. 22 I O okay. Section 6 of Applicants' Exhibit 51 deals 23 with the reinspections. Would the records of who had 24 riginally inspected what be contained in the QA documentation O) t ke-L_rol Reporters, Inc. 25l what comes from the work packages and travelers?

10,137 h@'im 12-9' .1 A It can be determined who performed the inspection p

 ,(_)..

2 'from the original inspection documentation. 3 Q so is that how you do it? "In other words, 4 ~ suppose Inspector "X" has been implicated, and do you have 5 a-list that says that Inspector "X" on this day inspected 6 this, or do you have to actually go back through all the

               -7    documentation of things that have been inspected in "X's" 8   . field, let's say pipe, and actually pull them and see if 9    Inspector "X" is listed on each one to find out what 10     Inspector "X" inspected?

11 A We have a mixture of those two examples, and in 12 some cases we have developed logs in which we can refer to (); 13 find out what items have been inspected by a particular 14 inspector. 15 In other cases, we have entries made into a 16 computer program so we.can obtain the information through the 17 computer. In other cases we have developed neither of these 18 and have to go to the documentation for-the activity to 19 determine who the inspectors were. 20 Q Now do you always know for a given inspector what-21 items and what parts of the plant they inspected? In other 22 words, if you don't have a list that logs off where they were 23 inspecting and what they were inspecting, do you always know 24 what things to look at to see whether they inspected it?

 %F

(~} h ..asi R2 porters, 25 Inc. A Well, regardless of what system we use to I L.

10,138 bim 12-10 1 determine what items have been inspected by a particular 2 inspector, we ultimately go back to the documentation to 3 find out the locations of the items so that they can be 4 reinspected and to determine which attributes have been 5 inspected by the inspector in ,1estion. 6 Q So you in fact in hese cases would pull

                       '7   all the QA documentation on the work that that inspector 81  might have done in order to identify which specific work 9   they did?

10 A No, that is not correct. We would not pull all 11 the documentation unless we had to to determine what this 12 inspector had been involved. If we had a lot or a computer (- program that gave us the information, we would make our A_) 13 14 sample selection from those lists and then only pull those 15 packages that we had selected as a sample. 16 Q Did you example whether the logs _themselves 17 were complete in any case? Did you actually check a log 18 against all the documentation in that field to see if that 19 inspector had really logged everything they had inspected 20 - and inspected everything they logged? 21 A No, we have not done that.

i. 22 Q Now again in the Section 6-B and C we are talking 23 about attributes -- well, in B and C we are talking about

_ (') 24 attributes, and in 6-A -- let me start off with that on i _ niR2 are ri. inc. 25 pages 49 and 50 of Exhibit 51 I think it is -- yes, 51 on l

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

10,139 i ISim-12-11 .1 these non-dest'uctive r examination people. It is items 4 ,) 2 examined an'd items reinspected. i 3 Now is an item like one weld or one joint? 4 A -Yes, that is what an item is, and this parti-

                 '5     cular kind of an examination doesn't lend itself to 6  . identification by attributes. We have a process completed 7    by an inspector and that is one item.

8 Q Okay. Now when we get.into B and C though,. 9 these are listed by attributes and not by -- well, let's h 10 see, if an item in B and C -- let me rephrase that. Is 11 an item in B and C a work package? Is that what that is? 12 A Yes.' s. (,) 13 0 Did you select these samples by a table of 14 random numbers? 15 A No. 16 Q How do you select them given that you are going 17 to pick say 13 out of 65, or whatever the sample size is? - 18 How do you select those 13? 19 A Our sample method is random in the sense-that [ 20 the entire population of items has an equal opportunity 21 for being selected as an item for reinspection. 22 We stratify our selection process in that we 23 develop sub-lots of the total population of a given group n 24 bFL J Reporters, Inc. of items, for instance, the structure in which the item 25 is located, the type of the item and to which system the type

7 10,140 Sim.12-12 j is a part. For instance, a main steam system piping or [Jl 8 2 reactor coolant system piping, we stratify our samples 3 to ensure that we include proportionally items from each 4 of those strata. 5 i 0 Okay. And then within those strata or sub-6 9r uP ings, is that by random numbers, the selection? 7 A Yes, it is. 8, Q Now let me turn to another matter here. I 9 believe this is also Mr. Banks and Mr. Parsons' prefiled. 10 In the body of answer 12 there, and I think the first jj reference is on page 13 to a type of person called an 12 authorized nuclear inspector. O is

                                       ""^     '"""" ""*" "**** ""   *"" *"""" * ""

14 w rk-for an agency of the State of North Carolina? 15 A (Witness Banks) The authorized nuclear 16 inspector works for Kemper Insurance Company, but they are j7 licensed in the State of North Carolina to act as 'a No'rt? 18 Carolina inspector. j9 0 Is this kind of like say a fire insurance 20 company or a casualty insurance company's boiler inspector 21 r fire inspector? Is that kind of an analogy? 22 A That is similar. 23 Q And the State doesn' t determine who the A&I's 24 for Shearon Harris are going to be specifically, does it? No-F1_ Reporters, Inc. 25 A No, it doesn't.

10, 141 Simfl2-13' I Q Mr. Banks, concerning answer 16 that starts (_ja 2 in down at'the bottom of the page 15 of your and 3 Mr. Parson's prefiled, you are talking about QA surveillance 4 in accordance with Harris procedure CQA-28. Can you tell 5 me when that procedure was initiated first?

                  '6         A    I can't give you the date of when that procedure 7  went into effect, but it would have been a surveillance 8 ' procedure at that site since the QA program commenced out-9  there.

10 Q So does that mean since the start of construc-11 tion in early 1978? 12 A It was in effect probably prior to that.

  '( )            13         Q    Let me ask about the QA attributes surveillance 14  program which I believe is in answer 22 on pages 21 and 22 15  of Mr. Parsons' and Mr. Banks' prefiled.

16 Now in Item 1 there when you talk about 17 determining the total population of the component in-18 question, is that component again something that will be 19 associated with an individual work package or traveler? 20 A As a general rule the ones listed here are work 21 packages. You could have, depending on how you want to use 22 the word component, you could have different definitions. 23 But piping spools, pipe hangers, electrical equipment and 24 instruments arc for the purposes of this testimony (~} ktFhl Reporters, Inc. 25 synonymous with component work package. and Sim Sue'fols

10,142 i 53-1-SueW 1 Q Okay. And that would apply to most other

)

    \/-        2       things that would be inspected other than, say, an NDE test; l

3 would that be fair? l 4 A (Witness Parsons) That would be fair. Yes. 5 Q Okay. Now, in Item 4 there, there art things 6 that are done each month. Now, is it fair to say that 7 that means that each month yo~u are selecting a sub-sample 8 that QA attribute surveillance will look at that month? 9 Is that how that works? 10 A Each month they go through a data base of some 11 kind that tells the surveillance unit what work was 12 completed and inspected. And out of that, they select (3

    \-)       13       their nondily quota of work to reinspect.

14 i Q Now, did you say completed and expected or 15 completed and inspected? 16 A Inspected. 17 ! O Thar.k you. 18 A Yes. 19 0 Okay. So, it would be a sample of the work 20 l that was inspected and completed in that month which is

                 '\

21 1 then going to be reinspected. I 22 Now, are those monthly sample sizes also taken 23 1 to Mil Standard 105-D? ! () 24 h>Fam c amorms,i=.l A No. The total sample size that goes directly 25 i to 105-D is the sample size that's on Attachment 3 of i i i

10,143 l l t )l3-2-SueW i this testimony. , l i 2 Q And would that be a sample size relative to 3 all the components of that type that are planned to be in j I I 4 the plant when it's finished? i i 1 5 A Yes, sir. , r 6 Q Okay. Well, how are the sizes of these monthly 7 sub-samples selected, gentlemen? 8 A They are selected by the supervisor of the re-9 inspection organization basically by chosing a number of 10 itams per month that he needs to get in order to have them 11 all in by the time we load fuel. 12 O So, it's proportional to the Mil Standard sample

                  13 of the total items; is that how it's done?

14 A Proportional to time, yes. 15 0 Okay. Now, let me ask -- A It's not a formal thing. And it would not be, 16 l 17 say, a breakdown in the procedure if he didn't quite get 18 enough one month. 19 Q Does that complete your answer? 20 A Yes, sir. Q Okay. Thank you. I would like to refer to 21 , I Question and Answer 28, starting on Page 27. You explain , 22 l l 23 in the first paragraph of that answer what INPO, the 24 Institute for ruclear Power Operations, is. You mention x hFeded Reporters, Inc. 25 ! best practices. Then, you refer in the next paragraph to an

10,144 i i B3-3-SueW j INPO evaluation of the Harris Plant construction _ project. . l

    /~T                                                   .

s. / 2 Did that INPO evaluation identify any QA or 3

construction problems?  !

        +                                                                                     ,

4 A INPO doesn't record the results of their in- l

                                                       '                                     i 5

spections in a way that is similar to the NRC. And by that,j 6 I mean they don' t come up with violations and good points. 7 They -- their work is done in trying to achieve 8 excellence. And by that, they attempt to find places

                       -9   where you can improve without regard to whether something 10  is satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

11 They do suggest improvements. 12 Q Well, did they suggest improvements in QA

     \'                 13 procedures or construction procedures in that audit?

14 A I don't recall any -- the details of it right 15 now. i l 16 Q Okay. Did they do any review concerning drug ' 17 abuse to your knowledge? 18 A No, they did not. 19 Q Okay. In the start-up assistance visit, did 20 that visit look into drug related problems in any way,

                      -21    to your knowledge?

i 22 A To my knowledge, it didn't look into the drug l I related abuse problems.  ! 23 () 24 ka-Federal Reporters, Inc. Q Did they suggest improvements in construction 25 . practices in that audit?

10,145 .#13-4-SueW I A No. That one was basically looking at the r'r

  '( )                     2 start-up program and the operations with an objective 3

of helping us make sure we were ready for operation when 4 the time came. So, their emphasis was not on construction. t 5 Therefore, they didn't come up with pure i 6  ! construction related items. 7 Q All right. Well, concerning readiness for  ; 8 start-up, it's true, isn't it, that CP&L's schedule for-i 9 I start-up on the Harris Plant 'is pretty demanding, and l i 10 there is a serious question as to whether the fuel load i or the commercial operation date may have to be delayed 12  : with so much to do? '

     )                  13 MR. O'NEILL:   Objection.. The relevance of I4 this question escapes me.                                               '

15 MR. EDDLEMAN: That the more pressure you are

                      .16 under to get things done, the more you might be willing I7 to look the other way, shall we say, if a drug problem 18 cropped up that could impact the schedule?

l 19 MR. O'NEILL: It's imaginative but I would say l 20 stretching beyond the scope of any relevance here. . 2I JUDGE KELLEY: I sustain the objection. It's l 22 kind of farfetched.. i I 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Excuse me. I just wanted to I 24 l i OF Reporters, Inc. look through here. j 25 (Pause.)

10,146 1

#1'3-5-SueW           ]                     BY MR. EDDLEMAN:     (Continuing)                    ,
   /~s                                                                                          f i                  2          O          Gentlemen, I would like to refer you to the          l t

3 Joint Testimony of Mr. Banks, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Forehand and l 4 Mr. Brombach, at Page ll, i 5 You are talking about tensile testing. When l t 6 you have tensile tested a piece of metal, you usually 7 destroy it in the test, don' t you? 8 A (Witness Forehand) That is correct. 9 Q So, then, how could you retest a tensile test 10 that somebody did?

                  . 11           A          We cannot. That's described in our testimony.

l

                   -12           Q          All right. You talk about the success rates es k) s               13   of such tests.          Does that mean that the sample passed the    ,

14 tensile standard it was supposed to? 15 Is that what you mean by the success rate there 16 on Page 11? 17 'A Yes, that's what is meant. 18 Q Okay. Can you tell us what those success rates 19 were of the other inspe tors and this employee? 20 A No. I d{,n't have that exactly. The success 21 rate o'nJtynsile teshing was very, very high. 22 Q l Concerning Page 22, the replacement pages that 23 come in at the last part of that testimony, it talks about

   .( )             24    comparison of inspector proficiency in the reinspections             ,
                                        ~

• twFesswb Reporters, Inc. 1[ .

25 to overall inspector proficiency. s u

• i

10,147 ~l 313-6-SueW- 1 Now, are the reinspections you refer to there  ;

    .r-                                                                                     ,

(s 2 the reinspections of those inspectors who are in the j I

3 matrix, the tuenty-seven in Applicants' Exhibit 51? 4 A Yes, that is correct.  ; 5 0 Okay. And isn't it true that that level, as  ! i 6 given, is less than the overall inspector proficiency 7 level? 8 A No, that's not correct. 9 0 What is the overall inspector proficiency 10 level? II A 99.5 percent. We -- that has been stated in at 12 least-three places in the written testimony. 13 Q That's the overall level? 14 A That's correct. 15 Q Is that level not including these other re-16 inspections? 17 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Eddleman, I'm sorry, what 18 is your antecedent for these other reinspections? . l9 MR. EDDLEMAN: The reinspections referred to , 20 higher on that page that I asked him about, the reinspections 21 of the work of the twenty-seven people who are in the matrix; 22 in Applicants' Exhibit 51. l 23 MR. O'NEILL: Do you understand the question, i rg ' 24 Mr. Forehand? ( ) l ke-Feewd Reporars, lx. , l 25 WITNESS FOREHAND: I believe you are asking me [ l I l L

10,148

#13- 7-SueW 1 if these reinspections of the twenty-seven inspectors

   /"S                     ,

( N' 2 listed in the exhibit are included in the overall. I

                      .3       s         (Mr. Eddleman is nodding in the affirmative.)

I 4 WITNESS FOREHAND: -No, they are not. 5 BY MR. EDDLEMANE (Continuing) 6 Q Okay. Mr. Trainor, I would like to refer you 7 to Page 6 of your prefiled. 8 A (Witness Trainor) Yes. i 9 Q Down almost a third of the way from the bottom , i 10 of the page you talk about an assignment evaluating pro- l 11 posed operations quality assurance program to be used by l l 12 Houston Lighting and Power in South Texas, i

     /                                                                                                 !

ks)' 13 Was that in response to their having fired 14 their constructor? 15 A No, sir. That was approximately a year and a i 16 half prior to that. 17 0 Okay. And did you evaluate that program as 18 being appropriate at the time you evaluated it? 19 A You are talking about the operations quality 20 assurance program for South Texas, sir? 21 Q Yes, sir. 22 A Yes, I did; for the level of the activity I 23 felt that the program was appropriate. r^s Ardi did that program's results have anything () 24 in-Federet Reporters. Inc. Q l- 25 to do with their decision to later fire their constructor?

10,149 A It had absolutely nothing to do with the

    #13 ,8-Suew 1 kY                 constructor, sir. It was an operations QA. program. The 2

3 constructor was covered under a construction QA program. I 4 Q Okay. You; mention on Page 12 at the bottom

                                                                                       ~

i 5 paragraph there, industry experience with reinspection 6 programs has in general shown that deficiencies found during l 7 reinspections were not safety-significant. 8 Was that true at Zimmer? I 9 A To the best of my knowledge, at Zimmer the problem 7 10 was it related to the inability to provide documentation

                 11   relative to the original inspection.

12 I don' t recall any safety-significant problem

)

(~)\

     's            13   generated from Zimmer.

i 14 Q Okay. Was it true at Comanche Peak? , I'm not aware at Comanche Peak, sir. 15 A l 16 Q Okay. What about Watts Bar? ! 17 A I'm not aware of any safety-significant items > e l 18 coming from the reinspection. i l-Okay. You are aware that T.V.A. suspended l 19 Q 20 welding work at Watts Bar, aren't you? t i 21 A Yes, I am.  ; 22 Q Okay. Do you know why they did that?  : i f r 23 A I do not. I 24 Q Okay. Let me ask you, concerning your Question w -F 9se n.ponm,inc. o 25 and Answer 6, what did you review in preparing this testimony, U,

10,150 )l3-9-SueW 1 that's on Page 7 of your prefiled, sir. In this list [D

    '~/              2   of things you reviewed, is this basically a paper review 3   rather than a field audit. of the inspection programs?

4 A It was primarily a paper review, but we did 5 in fact go into the field and review some of the re-  ; 6 inspected work, sir. 7 Q What reinspected work did you review? 8 A We reviewed the reinspection of pipe hangers. 9 Q Could you tell me how many pipe hangers? 10 A. We looked at approximately twelve major pipe 11 hangers located at.various parts of the plant. 12 Q Okay. Did you make the decision that pipe I^) k- 13 hangers were the thing you ought to look at in the field, < 14 sir? ,. 15 A .Yes, I did. - 16 Q Why did you make that decision? 17 A I really have no basic reasoning for making 18 it. It seemed that a pipe hanger has the probability of i 19 greater degree of problems. , 20 In my experience, pipe hangers had been re- l-l 21 inspected and reinspected considerably throughout this 22 ,- industry, and I thought it appropriate to look at pipe 23 hangers. But the reasoning was not related to pipe G 24 so-Fede,el Coponen, Inc. Q 25 hangers being a good place to find the results of drug abuse, i i

10,151

  #13-10-SueW1          for example?                                                                 j

! /~N i('h 2 A No, sir. We-were looking at the validity of 3 the. reinspection program. t 4 Q Okay. And so these hangers that you reinspected

                             .                                                                       I 5 had been reinspected on account of allegations of drug                       4 6 abuse?

7 A I haven't the foggiest idea. 8 Q All right, sir. On Pages 11 and 12 in your 9 Answer 12, talking about less than a hundred percent error

                 .10    free construction, you say, beginning on Page 11, "In a 11 nuclear power plant, those systems essential to assure 12 public health and safety are designed with a'high safety 13 factor or conservative design margin. . . "

14 How high is that? Is it an extra hundred 15 percent, an extra two hundred percent? 16 A Not being a design engineer, sir, I cannot 17 comment relative to the safety factor or safety margin in 18 any particular safety-related system. 19 To the best of my knowledge, they are designed 20 with a relatively high safety factor. 21 Q And you just told us the extent of your 22 knowledge, right? 23 A That's correct, sir. 24 Q Okay. In the reinspection data that you RF Repstters, Inc. 25 discuss later on in your testimony, were all of those l l l

i I 10,152  ! reinspections done by CP&L or Daniel personnel? )3-ll-SueW- 1

     )              -2        A      Specifically, where are you addressing, sir?

3 Q Well, you've got two reinspection charts, one 4 on 17 and one on 20 in your prefiled, sir. l i 5 A To the best of my knowledge, this was done  ! 6 under the reinspection program by CP&L. 7 Q Okay. Now, in doing this analysis of variance,- 8 what number of degrees of Freedom did you use to get these 9 F ratios? 10 Did you derive those yourself?

                  '11          A     No, sir. The statistical' engineer that did 12   the job did.                                                       .

i I 13 Q Okay. Did you check it? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q Okay. Can you tell me what number of degrees 16 of Freedom are involved? i 17 A To the best of my knowledge, the degrees of Freedom in the alleged drug abusers was 14. I have no 18 19 recollection of what the degrees of Freedom were in the ' 20 review of the nineteen surveillance categories. I 21 Q Okay. And if you took the same sample sizes j

                                                                                         .l in the table of F ratios with those degrees of Freedom,          j 22                                                                     t l

23 you could then get the same results, could you 'not? l 24 A I would believe so, yes, pF Reporters, Inc. MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. That's all the questions

                 .25 i

10,153 i

1. 13-12-SueW 1 I have.

1 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you have something? 3 MR. BAXTER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In response l 4 to your earlier request about data about site employees, j i 5 I would just give you a brief report now as to what we  ! l' 6 have because if you are interested in more people would 7 want to get started on it. 8 We have available to us information on the 9 general age breakdown and gender for the current CP&L 10 work force at the Shearon Harris site, which totals about 11 nine hundred and some people. 12 Our own assessment of the Daniel data out

       ^

The Daniel 13 there is that it's not sufficiently reliable. 14 data at the site, that is. So, if we were interested in 15 getting a better definition of the Daniel data, we would 16 have to ask the Corporate Headquarters in Greenville 17 overnight to do some computer runs in order to get that 18 info rma tion. 19 But we do have data we are confident in for I 20 the CP&L work force. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Runkle, would you think i 22 that that's -- my own hunch is that that is probably l l 23 representative and one would more or less reflect the h 24 other. l l We F1 J Reporters, lm. What is your thinking on that? I guess it was 25 f i

10,154 D13-13-SueW t the Board's request in the first place but I would like

    /
   ^               2 your reaction.

L3 MR. RUNKLE: That's not necessarily so. I

                  -4 think that the Daniel would be a younger, more male 5 work force than CP&L. That's just my own subjective 6 thoughts on the matter.                                          ,

t i 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Could -- maybe the Board over a l l 8 break could talk about this among ourselves and we will  ; 9 give you our reaction after the break. 10 MR. BAXTER: Yes. I should have mentioned , 11 also that we do not marital status. I think that was the i i 12 third one. 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah. Let's take a break of f i L 14 ten minutes or so. 15 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 3:55 p.m. ,  ! I 16 to reconvene at 4:10 p.m., this same date.) l1 i I i (END #13 17 l Joe flws l 18 ll l 19 i !' 20 l 21 L 22 23 l() 24 f F; j Roorwes. W. 25

10,155  ; 14-1-JoeWal f 6 I JUDGE KELLEY: The Board had a brief discussion G 2 during the break on the luestion of what kind of statistical 3 data we would like to have for the record with regard to , 4 drug use and employee age and sex profiles.  ; 5 And let me put to the Applicants what we would 6 like to have, it we had our druthers, and let me add two 7 things. 8 Let me describe it first. We would like to have 9 if it is not administratively very difficult and expensive 10 and time consuming, a breakdown in age of people in the three 11 categories. Under 25. We assume everybody is over 18, so 12 just under.:25. 25 to 35, and over 35 would be the age break-

          )

13 downs. 14 Those again are in rough percentages and not 15 terribly precise, fractions of percentage points, but ball-16 park numbers. And also by sex, male or female. Then in 17 ll , i 18 addition, if it is similarly feasible, we would like the f 19 same breakdown with respect to quality insurance inspectors. l 20 Not supervision, but first line inspectors. 21 Now, having made that request, two things. We , 22 don' t need these today or tomorrow. They could be s upplied, 23 it seems to us, for the record at some later but convenient J 24 date. { Arm.Fede,si Reporters, Inc. 25 Secondly, we would envision this as merely a

14-2-JoeWal 10,156 I supplement to the record, and not as an occasion for 2 further cross, but simply taking what the Applicants supply. 3 If we need clarification, we can ask for it, but we would 4 not envision further evidentiary hearings on those numbers. 5 With those understandings, does that strike you 6 as doable, Mr. Baxter, or would you like to check again with 7 your people? 8 MR. BAXTER: The data we have for the CP&L 9 work force -- 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, incidentally, we would like it II for Daniel. That is really the thrust of the question. I2 l MR. BAXTER: The data that we have for the CP&L 13 work force is data on the current population at the site. i Id JUDGE KELLEY: Right. 15 MR. BAXTER: Not history from day one, and we 16 have the breakdown in smaller age categories than you have d 17 [ even given. L 18 I think right now all we have done is so far 19 ' we have exhausted our data base at the site, and we are 20 going to go to Daniel headquarters next, so I think we will i 21 have to undertake a check with them to see what we can get. 22 On the quality assurance part, I will have to 23 consult widi people. That is a cross section of both Daniel 7s (j 24 and CP&L employees. hFederJ Aenotters, Inc. 25 JUDGE KELLEY: You suggested yet another point.

14-3-Jo:Wal 10,157  ! i 1 You said that the CF&L data you have now is current data, l

   .,m k-)r              2     and we really haven't discussed this, but I guess my reaction 3     is that the current profile is probably not that much              ;

4 different from a past profile. We didn't mean to ask you for .

                                                                                              }

5 ' every employee that has ever been out there, but there are 1 6 some five or six thousand people out there right now, isn't 7 that true? 8 MR. BAXTER: It was around six thousand the last 9 time I checked. 10 JUDGE KELLEY: So, for our purposes I would think 11 that current, reasonably current data would be sufficient. 12 ; Again, you say you will check -- check on the QA and see 13 whether that presents complications of one kind or another. 14 j Mr. Runkle, comment? 15 MR. RUNKLE: The current profile seems appropriate, i 16 and I think the information you requested would be helpful. 17 q JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, then, can we live -- i 18 you can check, particularly on the QA aspect. If there are 39 problems let us know, and if it is doable, within reason, l l 20 just go ahead and supply it for the record, if it can be done l i l 21 in the next couple of weeks, it will be a help. 22 MR. BAXTER: I really don't know. It is not 23 inconceivable we could have it tomorrow, but I just don't 24 know how readily available it is.  ! w.r e n mn.n. ine.. l 25 We were going to check with Daniel organization f

34-4-JoeWzl 10,158 1 in Greenville, but I think segregating the QA group may be 2 harder. I 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Can we, just for the sake of 4 neatness, say that we would expect to hear from you in a 5 couple of weeks, and if you can't do that, you will call us 6 up or contact us in some way, if there is some problem. 7 MR. BAXTER: Assuming we are going to be here 8 tomorrow, I could report tomorrow.  ! 9 JUDGE KELLEY: All right, fine. f l 10 MR. BAXTER: I don't know how long it is going l 11 to take us or what we can do.  ! 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine. l I

      -              13              MR. BAXTER:   We can give the CP&L data now, if 14  you would like it.

I 15 MR. BAXTER: All right. Go ahead. It is not 16 exactly the age breakdowns you have, but Mr. Parsons, could 17 you read into the record the current CP&L employee data? 18 WITNESS PARSONS : The current CP&L people at 19 the site, we have a breakdown of age in four categories. 20 18 to 25, there are 77 males, 37 females, for a total of 21 114. 22 In age bracket 26 to 35, 441 males, 91 females, 23 535 total. lll 24 >Federsi ..epo,ters. Inc. Age bracket 36 to 45, 210 males, 24 females, 25 and 234 total.

B4-5-JoeW21 10,159 I In the age group from 46 through 66, there are O 2 69 males, 3' females, and 72 total. To complete the 3 perspective, total population there are 800 males, 155 4 females, for a total of 955. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: And you simply added the category 6 of over 40 -- or was it 457 7 WITNESS PARSONS: 46 to 66. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. We had said just over  ! l 9 35, so it is just a matter of adding.  ! 10 WITNESS PARSONS: Yes. l II JUDGE KELLEY: All right, thank you. 12 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Parsons, I think we may have l Q V 13 one error. Will you give the number again for males in the l I I4 26 to 35 category. You said 441 before.  ! 15 WITNESS PARSONS: 444. I am sorry. 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. So that gives us CP&L, 17 and maybe you can tell us tomorrow how the rest offit looks. l 18 Okay. Mr. Bryant, any questions of this panel? 19 MR. BRYANT: No, sir. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth? 2I MR. BARTII: We have no questions, Your lionor. GX INDEX 22 BOARD EXAMINATION 23 BY JUDGE KELLEY: 24 Q I just have one sort of narrow question. On p e.,s nepo,em, inc. 25 Exhibit 51, page 19, final visual inspection of welds, , I

!14-6-JoeWol 10,160 l i l 1 Item 3.C. , that item is Weld Free of Rejectable Discontinuities, L l (V3 2 I have heard of criterion in another welding case which i 3 spoke frequently of excessive porosity. Is that the same l 4 kind of thing, or is that different? 5 A (Witness Forehand) Yes, sir, Judge Ke. ley. That 6 would be rejectable discontinuity. 7 Q And there may be other things, but porosity is t 8 one kind. 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q This is a broader category? II A Yes. 12 JUDGE KELLEY: All right, thank you. Redirect 13 from Mr. O'Neill. Id l

XX INDEX REDIRECT EXAMINATION  !

15 BY MR. O'NEILL: 16 Q I just have two questions here. For clarification 17 first, on page 15 and going over to 16 of Mr. Banks and Mr. I 18 Parsons testimony, Mr. Banks, you re,fer to the QA surveillance 19 progrt.m at the IIarris plant. On a number of different j i 20 occasions there was discussion with respect to how long there 21 has been a surveillance program, and when Harris Plant i 22 procedure CQA-28 was first adopted, ImightaskMr. Forehand,l 23 with respect to this question to clarify the record, and 24 ask you first when was IIarris Plant procedure CQA-28 first >Feserse Reporters, Inc. , 25 adopted?  !

14-7-JoeW21 10,161 1 A (Witness Forehand) CQA-28 was first adopted in 2 October of 1982.  ! 3 Was there a prior QA surveillance procedure in Q l 4 effect at the Harris Plant going back prior to the constructioln 5 permit as Mr. Banks has indicated? 6 A Yes. There were a number of procedures which 7 covered surveillance in various areas. 8 We had a decentralized surveillance activity  ! l 9 in each discipline where construction activities were in 10 progress. l 11 Thank you. Q Mr. Parsons, page 21 of your 12 testimony with Mr. Banks, you describe the QA attributes m

   'i                13    surveillance program, and indicate that the methodology l

14 was based on the precedent established by the reinspection 15 plan approved in the Commonwealth Edison Byron proceeding. 16 on that page you give citations that I believe 17 are the same ones that Mr. Barth referred us to. 16 The parties certainly can look at the citations 19 and read the precedents, but will you please state whether 20 or not it is your understanding and upon which you based your 21 program as to whether inspector proficie ncy at Byron was 22 based on a reinspection of attributes or reinspection of 23 components? h 24 hFeuferai Reporters, Inc. A (Witness Parsons) It was based on a reinspection 25 of attributer. l

14-8-JoeW21 10,162 1 MR. O'NEILL: Thank you. 1 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Any further questions, Mr. I 3 Runkle? 4 MR. RUNKLE: I have no further questions. f 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman? 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: (Nods head negatively.) i 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Gentlemen, that then concludes j 8 your appearance here today. We appreciate your coming and 9 your attention to questions. Thank you very much. You 10 are excused. 11 PANEL STANDS ASIDE. 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Perhaps we could pause a minute. 13 Let's go off the record for a minute. 14 (Off the record discussion ensues.) 15 MR. BARTII: The Staff calls for its direct case 16 Mr. Paul Fredrickson and Mr. Richard Prevatte. Mr. Prevatte 17 has previously been sworn, and he is aware of his oath 18 obligation, and I would request that the Chairman swear I9 Mr. Fredrickson. 20 Whereupon, XX INDEX 21 PAUL FREDRICKSON, 22 - and - 23 RICIIARD PREVATTE,

                                                                                   .l 24   were called as witnesses, and after Mr. Fredrickson having h

hrnlier.i cumreer.. 25 w. first been duly sworn by Judge Kelley, testified as follows: I

                                                                                          ~

14-9-JoeWal

, 10,163 i i lINDEX 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. BARTI! 3 Q Mr.~Prevatte, Mr. Fredrickson, I hand you a I 4 copy of a document.. I would ask that Mr. Prevatte identify 5 .it for the record. 6 A .(Witness Prevatte) This document is the 7 testimony of Paul Fredrickson and Richard Prevatte for the 8 NRC Staff regarding Contention WB-3's allegation concerning 9 reinspection of work performed by persons suspected of drug l 10 abuse. f 11 Q Mr. Prevatte, for the record would you please f 12 state your name? l l

  \          13         A     My name is Richard Prevatte.

l 14 Q Mr. Fredrickson, will you please state your 15 name for the record? 16 A (Witness Fredrickson) My name is Paul E. 17 Fredrickson. 18 0 Mr. Prevatte, I direct your attention to the 19 document identified. Was this document prepared by you 20 and Mr. Fredrickson in preparation for this contention today? 21 A (Witness Prevatte) Yes, it was. 22 0 And the parts of that document that are specified l l r 23 with your name, those were matters in which you more [ l h 24 7recTcn= rim. =. directly wrote?  ! I 25 A That is correct.

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

14-10-JoeWal 10,164 l I Q There is a part of this that does not have a 2 name, such as the conclusion. That conclusion was also 3 concurred with you? 4 A That is correct. S Q Mr. Fredrickson, I direct your attention to 6 this document. Was this document prepared by you and Mr. I 7 Prevatte.in response to Contention WD-3? 8 A (Witness Fredrickson) Yes, it was. I 9 Q Mr. Prevatte, do you have any changes to make 10 in the document which you identified so far. Just for the 11 record. 12 A (Witness Prevatte) I do. On Page 1, under O is Answer 1, my 3eh eie1e hes chaneed. My 3oh eie1e is new . 14 I Senior Resident Inspector for Operations at the V. C. Summer 15 Power Plant. My business address is U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 16 Commision, Route 1, Box 64, Chinkinsville, South Carolina, 17 29065. 18 I additionally have a change on Page 4. 19 Q Mr. Prevatte, would you read these changes 20 slowly so people can make them on their copy, sir? 21 A Yes. The second change is on Page 4, the 22 answer to Question 10. The Answer should read: After I 23 inspection functions -- on Line 2 of Answer 10, it should j 24

F opo,ters, Inc.

say inspection functions, fifteen of whom had their work s 25 reinspectal

14-ll-J 1W31 10,165

      ~

1 And it reads the same the rest of the way down the line . 2 I take that back -- also in the first line, the 3 matrix, page 32, 33, and 34 identifies 23 persons instead of 4 15 persons who had their inspection -- it should be identifies 5 23 persons, fif teen of whom had their work reinspected. 6 We delete, ' persons who had inspection functions. It 7 continues on correctly from there. 8 Q Sir, does that sentence now read: The matrix, 9 pages 32, 33, and 34, identifies 23 persons who had 10 inspection functions, fifteen of whom had their work 11 reinspected? 12 A That is correct.

    ~               13       Q      Mr. Fredrickson, do you have any changes of 14 substance to be made to the document which has so far been 15 identified for the record?

16 A (Witness Fredrickson) No, I do not. 17 Q Mr. Prevatte, the matters contained in the 18 documents you identified for the record true and correct 19 to the best of your knowledge and belief? , 20 A (Witness Prevatte) Yes, they are. 21 Q Mr. Fredrickson, are the matters contained in 22 the testimony of Paul Fredrickson and Richard Prevatte true 23 and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief? lll 24 pFaterj Cesmrters, Inc. A (Witness Fredrickson) Yes, they are. i 25 0 Do both of you gentlemen, and you answer separately, l i

14-12-JoeW21 10,166 1 adopt this testimony as your testimony to be given in this

                      )              2 hearing, as though read at length?

m 3 A (Witness Prevatte) I do. i 4 A (Witness Fredrickson) I do. 5 MR. BARTH: At this time, Your Honor, I would l 6 ask that the Board accept into evidence the testimony of l 7 Paul Fredrickson and Richard Prevatte for the NRC Staff 8 regarding Contention WB-3's allegation concerning reinspection 9 work performed by persons suspected of drug abuse, r 10 I have provided copies to the Reporter, and I i 11 provided copies to all the other parties, and I would request  ; 12 now that it be bound in the record as though it had been read l at length. (~') , 13 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Without objection, the testimony l 15 is accepted into evidence. XX INDEX 16 (Prefiled testimony follows.) 17 18 19 4 20 21 22 l 23 I i

                ,3                24 Fi             '

Zerceters, ts, 25 i

i, m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4 y) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

                                         )             .

CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AND ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL ) 50-401 OL POWER AGENCY (ShearonHarrisNuclearPowerPlant,) Units 1 and 2) ) TESTIMONY OF PAUL FREDRICKSON AND RICHARD PREVATTE FOR THE NRC STAFF REGARDING CONTENTION WB-3'S ALLEGATION CONCERNING REINSPECTION OF WORK PERFORMED BY PERSONS SUSPECTED OF DRUG ARUSE Q.1. Please state your names, job titles, and business address for the record. A.I. My name is Paul Fredrickson, My job title is Section Chief, Division of Reactor Projects. My business address is 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323. My name is Richard Prevatte. My job title is Senior Resident Inspector for Construction at the Shearon Harris power plant site. My business address is U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Route 1, Box 3158, New Hill, N.C. 27562. Q.2. Please state your professional qualifications for the record. A.2. The professional qualifications of Mr. Prevatte were previously made a part of this proceeding (see transcript page 8653). The O' G

2-professional qualifications of Mr. Fredrickson are attached to (, this testimony. . Q.3. What is the purpose of this testimony? A.3. The purpose of this testimony is to address the Conservation Counsel of North Carolina's Contention W8-3 insofar as it addresses reinspection. -That contention reads: Drug use at the Harris Plant is widespread. Employees under the influence of drugs are less able to follow proper procedures and tech specs for the installation of electrical systems, pipefitting, and other safety-related work. Applicant's management has failed to control drug use during construction and further, has failed to reinspect all safety-related work done by known drug abusers. Specifically, we are addressing that portion of the contention which concerns the Applicants' determination of whether or not to

   ]          reinspect the work of known or suspected drug abusers.

Q.4. Mr. Fredrickson, please explain your involvement with the Shearon i Harris site. A.4. As Section Chief, I am Mr. Prevatte's immediate supervisor and I have responsibility for the Shearon Harris site within my section. I review all inspection reports concerning Shearon Harris including l Mr. Prevatte's reports, construction appraisal team (CAT) reports, i and SALP reports. In addition, in preparation for this hearing, I reviewed the enforcement history for Shearon Harris covering the I period prior to my assuming my current position. O

                                                    - Q.5. Mr. Prevatte, please explain your involvement with the Shearon          '

Harris site. A.S. My involvement with the Harris site is explained in previous testimony and in my professional qualifications which are already a

                                                 ~

part of this record. Q.6. Are you familiar with the Applicants' letter of September 19, 1985 (MATRIX) from S. R. Zimmerman, Applicants, to Harold Denton, NRC, which contains a Matrix concerning employees allegedly involved with drug activities? 1 A.6. Yes. We are. Q.7. Have you reviewed that document? A.7. Yes. We have. Q.8. Would each of you describe the extent of your review. A.8. Prevatte -- I have read and studied the document. I have discussed the contents of the document with members of the Applicants' staff.  ; I have reviewed the results of reinspections of the work performed by the QA/QC and CI inspectors. I have reviewed procedure CQA-7 which is used for the reinspection of inspectors' work. I selected 10 craft personnel from those listed in the MATRIX and reviewed Applicants' documentation associated with their determination not to reinspect the work in question. I have also discussed the basis of Applicants' decisions on reinspection with Applicants' site l

    ]        management.

l l l

m 4-

  ,-s       Fredrickson -- I have read and studied the MATRIX. I have i  )

discussed with Mr. Prevatte the results of his onsite reviews and the results of his discussions with Applicants' personnel concerning the document. Q.9. Mr. Prevatte, have Applicants reinspected the work of all employees suspected of being involved in drug related activities? A.9. No. Q.10.Have Applicants reinspected the work of any employees suspected of being involved in drug related activities? If so, please describe the individuals involved and what reinspection occurred. A.10.Yes. The MATRIX, pages 32, 33 and 34, identifies 15 persons who hart i inspection functions. For each of these 15 persons the applicants I invoked QA procedure CQA-7. That procedure is used to determine the amount _of reinspection required to determine the acceptable quality l of-the work and, therefore, if the inspector's suspected drug I involvement reduced his inspection effectiveness. This could have resulted in 100% reinspection or the use of a statistical standard developed by the Department of Defense (Military Standard, MIL-STD-1050) (hereinafter MIL-STD) to determine the sample size which is appro-

,           priate for the reinspection. Any deficiencies identified in those reinspections would have been documented on a nonconformance report (NCR). This procedure was implemented on June 20, 1984.

O

                                                  ,         Prior to implementation of the current procedure, C0A-7, the

( ) Applicant used procedure AP-IX-08 " Evaluation Inspector or Vendor Weld Visual Inspection Performance on Welded Structural Fabrica-tions." This procedure was implemented in December, 1982 and is similar to CQA-7. In addition, a review of the Applicant's non-conformance logs by me indicates that reinspections have been conducted at Harris on other occasions prior to December 1982 when management or supervision had reason to doubt the effectiveness of inspector performance. We have no knowledge as to whether any of these incidents were related to drug use. The application of procedure CQA-7 resulted in some reinspection of 100% of the involved inspector's work, but in most cases the applicant chose a statistical sample of less than 100% based on the MIL-STD. I have C') V verified that the Applicants did apply CQA-7 and MIL-STD to the areas of work inspected by each of the inspectors identified in the MATRIX. I am satisfied tnat the reinspections were performed and that the results are as stated on pages 32, 33 and 34 of the MATRIX. The reinspections verify that the work of the inspectors suspected of involvement with drugs was acceptable. i Q.11.What have Applicants done with respect to individuals suspected of drug involvement who were not inspection personnel. A.11.If the incident involved a craft worker the Applicant evaluated the work activities in which the individual had been involved. If the work activity was safety related the Applicants made a decision {} as to whether or not to reinspect any of that work placing heavy

emphasis upon the degree of independent inspection that was involved f] in those work activities and the circumstances of the work. In the cases referenced in the September 19, 1985 MATRIX, Applicants deter-mined that reinspection of the craft workers activities was not required. Q.12.Have Applicants, in your view, adequately addressed the work of individuals suspected of drug related activities? A.12.Fredrickson and Prevatte -- Yes. , 4 Q.13.What is the basis for that conclusion? A.13.Prevatte -- My conclusion is based upon the foregoing discussion and, in addition, I have reviewed the information and work history data compiled by the Applicants on the 8 workers arrested as a result of the undercover operation. I additionally selected 10 individuals from the September 19, 1985 MATRIX and requested that the details of the Applicants' review of their work be made available to me. These 10 individuals consisted of the following: a painter; fron worker; pipefitter; field engineer; carpenter; electrician; utility worker; instrument fitter; rebar iron worker; sheetmetal worker; and truck driver. I reviewed the information provided by the Applicants which included a listing of each individual's work locations, the types of work done during their employment period, and in some cases the specific components or items worked on. This information also con-tained the employment history and evaluations still available onsite for the selected individuals. Based upon my review of this information

and my personal knowledge of the applicable work procedures, the type of work performed by these individuals, and the inspection require-ments for these types of work, I concur with Applicants' decision that reinspection is not required for the work performed by these 18 l individuals. I consider this across-the-board sample and my knowl-edge of the work and applicable inspection requirements for the other effected workers is adequate to establish that reinspection is not required for the other craft personnel cited in the September 19, 1985 MATRIX. I believe that the Applicant has a strong QA program. Since 1980 their SALP ratings have been a grade of (2) in this area. This indicates that their perfonnance has consistently been satisfactory or better. The 1984 SALP (copy follows transcript page 3660) shows an improving trend in this area and states that continued management attention in this area could result in a category (1) rating on subsequent evaluations. The present trend in this area is still improving. In addition to the normal resident and regional inspection efforts during the past 1-1/2 years, Harris has received a construction appraisal team (CAT) and an integrated design inspection team (IDI) from I&E headquarters. I actively participated in both of the above inspections. The CAT report indicates that evidence exist.ed to show i that Harris had good construction management and a capable inspection l- O rorce.

e ' C, r G , ,

                          -*;          ,           -8        -

n, t

        ' I have personally conducted numerous inspections in all, disciplines g\^J at the Harris site.       I have on many occasions observed and.docu-mented in inspection reports; m'y evaluations of the effectiveness cf inspectionpersonnelinthepordrmanceoftfMirduties. Although deficiencies have been identified and documented in inspection reports, none of these have been of a major significance that would v                                  ,.

indicate'a breakdown of the QA/QC effort or give me reason to question the ability of the inspection p'rogram to identify and require corrective action for any existing deficiencies. I believe theinspectionprogramatHarrisisoneofdplicants' strengths and that program has the ability to identify' safety related hardware; de'fibiencies regardless of the cause of the deficiency. ' s Fredrickso - y conclusion, which agrees with Mr. Prevatte's, is based on a review of inspection reports, my previous QA experience, and my direct inspeItions at Shearon Harris. These three areas

                                                      /

provided me with reasonable assurance that the Shearon Harris QA/QC program is adequate to identify, determine the cause of, and correct.- conditions adverse to quality resulting from inadequate work, what-ever the cause of that inadequate work. Myrebewof.,t6'eAppfinants' t submittals.shows that the QA/QC program. covers all the individuals in the MATRIX who perfonned safety-related work. Since I conclude < that the performance of the QA/QC program is acceptable, Applicants' reliance on that program with respect to individuals suspected of , drug use is also acceptable. I conclude that Applicants' decision O aat to rei#snect the work.or crert workers susvected or erus use is acceptable. t

p 4 9_ In addition, the information I have on the QA/QC program and the ! reinspection conducted by the Applicants of the work of inspection personnel suspected of drug use provides me with sufficient infor-mation to determine that the work of QC and CI inspectors suspected

           ' of involvement with drugs has been adequately addressed by' the Applicants.

Finally, I have been informed by Mr. Prevatte of the results of his review of ten individuals identified in the MATRIX to verify the correctness of MATRIX information and the application of the QA/QC program to those individuals. The results of that review, as detailed above by Mr. Prevatte, and the results of Mr. Prevatte's reviewing the work of the eight persons arrested as a result of the undercover operation provide further confidence to my conclusion that the QA/QC program at Harris adequately addresses possible defective work by alleged drug abusers. Q.14.Mr. Fredrickson, can you elaborate on the basis for your confidence in the Shearon Harris QA/QC program? A.14.Yes. Implementation of the Harris QA/QC program has been routinely inspected by both the resident and region based inspectors. These reports, which address not only the craft work being reviewed but also the associated quality control inspection activities have not identified any significant problems in these areas. My review of the NRC inspection reports reveals that there has been no escalated O enforcement action taken at the Shearon Harris site relating to

QA/QC work. SALP reports scanning July 1980 to April 1984 also _(.) V document that construction and inspection activities have been performed satisfactorily in the past. In addition _to regional inspections, a construction appraisal team (CAT) inspection was conducted in late 1984. This inspection reconfirmed that the 4 plant's construction and inspection programs were proceeding in an appropriate and safe manner. In addition to inspections related directly to construction and inspection related activities, Regional QA inspections have period-ically verified the implementation and adequacy of the Applicants' QA audit program. That is the program by which Applicants check on the performance of their own QA/QC and CI inspections. These V inspections have noted that the OA. aucit program is functioning satisfactorily in its review of construction and inspection activities at the site. These inspections also reveal that the site QA surveillance organization is functioning satisfactorily, performing numerous surveillances of ongoing craft and inspection activities. I have also been directly involved in a regional construction assessment team (RCAT) inspection in August, 1983. All indications were that inspection activities were adequate to provide confidence

      ' that the plant was being constructed in a safe manner. All of my reviews and direct inspection at Harris have been compared against my experience for three years as a QA inspector for Region II during

(~) which time I evaluated QA programs and their implementation for V nuclear plants. The composite of my QA experience, personal involvement at Harris, and reviews of inspection information convinces me that the QA/QC program at Shearon Harris is and has been adequate to identify, determine the cause of, and correct conditions adverse to quality. Q.15.Mr. Fredrickson and Mr. Prevatte, do the above conclusions apply to the CONAM employees against whom allegations of drug use were made? A.15.Yes. As agreed to by the parties, the CONAM employees were treated as additional individuals to be included in the MATRIX. The equiva-lent information to that in the September 19, 1985 MATRIX was made 3 available to us and the conclusions stated above apply equally to the CONAM employees. In addition, Applicants have committed to redo a portion of the previous examinations performed by CONAM employees at Shearon Harris and evaluate the results against the previously obtained data. This gives additional assurance that the work performed by CONAM employees was adequate. b . O's It is the Staff's conclusion, shared by us, that the Applicants have c properly addressed work performed by personnel suspected of being involved with illegal drugs.

   ,,                                         ENCLOSURE k-s STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I. Paul E. Fredrickson, Section Chief, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323 II. Education A. 8.5., Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1968                     ,

8. M.E., Nuclear Engineering, University of Virginia, 1976 C. Numerous U. S. Army technical and management courses D. Numerous technical courses associated with commercial and U. S. Navy nuclear plants III. Experience A. October 1984 to present: As an NRC Region II section chief, supervise.,

the implementation of the routine and reactive NRC inspection programs for the Carolina Power and Light Company power reactors and all the research and test reactors in the NRC Region II area, including all phases of construction, testing and operations B. October 1982 to October 1984: As a project engineer in Region II,

   <^              assisted in the management of the construction and operations

(_,') inspection program for the three Tennessee Valley Authority pressurized water reactor sites C. March 1980 to October 1982: As a quality assurance inspector in Region II, reviewed licensee nuclear plant QA programs and conducted implementation inspections of nuclear plant QA programs

3. September 1976 to March 1980: As a shift test engineer at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, developed procedures and provided technical directions over the testir.g and overhaul of nuclear plants on nuclear-powered submarines t

[v') l t

4

   ,,                                   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

(] BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

                                                       )

CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AND ) NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL POWER AGENCY ) 50-401 OL

                                                       )

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) I hereby certify that copies of " TESTIMONY OF PAUL FREDRICKSON AND RICHARD PREVATTE FOR THE NRC STAFF REGARDING CONTENTION WB-3'S ALLEGATION CONCERNING REli1SPECTION OF WORK PERFORMED BY PERSONS SUSPECTED OF DRUG ABUSE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system (*), this 24th day of October, 1985: James L. Kelley, Chairman

• Richard D. Wilson, M.D.

Administrative Judge 729 Hunter Street b^ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Apex, NC 27502 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright

• Travis Payne, Esq.

Administrative Judge 723 W. Johnson Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 12643 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27605 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. James H. Carpenter

• Dr. Linda Little Administrative Judge Governor's Waste Management Building Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 513 Albermarle Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 325 North Salisbury Street Washington, DC 20555 Raleigh, NC 27611 Daniel F. Read John Runkle, Esq. Executive Coordinator CHANGE Conservation Counsel of North Carolina P.O. Box 2151 307 Granville Rd.

Raleigh, NC 27602 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Steven Rochlis Spence W. Perry, Esq. Regional Counsel Associate General Counsel FEMA Office of General Counsel 3 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E. FEMA (V Atlanta, GA 30309 500 C Street, SW Rm 840 Washington, DC 20472

                                               -x Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal       Bradley W. Jones, Esq.

(j Board Panel

• Regional Counsel, USNRC, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta St., N.W. Suite 2900 Washington, DC 20555 Atlanta, GA 30323 Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.

Public Staff - NCUC John H. O'Neill, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box.991 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Raleigh, NC 27602 1800 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Wells Eddleman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

• 806 Parker Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Durham, NC 27701 Washington, DC 20555 Richard E. Jones, Esq. Dr. Harry Foreman, Alternate Associate General Counsel Administrative Judge Carolina Power & Light Company P.O. Box 395 Mayo P.O. Box 1551 . University of Minnesota Raleigh, NC 27602 Minneapolis, MN 55455 s.

H.A. Cole, Jr., Esq. O Special Deputy Attorney General D Antitrust Division Office of Attorney General 200 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, NC 27601 Charles A. frarth Counsel for NRC Staff l n v 1

      '14-13-JoeWcl                 ,

10,167 l 1

.                                               MR. BARTH:   Thank you, Your Honor. At this
    \/                     2 time, Mr. Prevatte, I would ask you to briefly.-- and I 3

emphasize the word briefly -- summarize the testimony which 4 you and Mr. Fredrickson have prepared, which has now been 5 accepted into evidence. 6 WITNESS PREVATTE: Mr. Fredrickson and I are 1 7 prepared to address a portion of the contention which 8 concerns the Applicants determination of whether or not 9 to reinspect the work of known or suspected drug abusers. 10 We will discuss -- we discuss our review of the Il matrix, the 201, 218 matrix. Our review of the reinspections 12 done by CP&L, and our independent review of documentation W 13 associated with the determination made not to reinspect craft 14 work. . 15 Our conclusion is contained -- my conclusion is 16 contained on Page 6 and 11 of my testimony. My conclusion 17 basically says that based upon my review of the information 18 and my personal knowledge of applicable work procedures, the 19  ! type- of work performed by the individuals and inspection 20 requirements, I concur with the Applicants decision that  : 8 21 , reinspection is not required for the work performed by these 22 18 individuals. 23 I consider this across the board samplying and  : fh 24 >Federne Reporters. Inc. my knowledge of the work and applicable inspection requirements 25 for the other affected workers has adequately established ll -

           =-

i;

il4-14-JonWal

10,168

?

• 9 1 that reinspection is: not required .for other craft 2

l.. personnel cited in the September 1985 matrix, and later..  ! 3 updated. l g End.14. 4 MS fois.- - 5 [- ~6

                 ~7 l

8

9

l. ,

i

               '10 11
               '12 g

i 14 i  ! 15

                                                                                -l+

c ' ! 16 17 l: 18

                                                                                -l, 19 20 2i                                                               ;

22 I i 23 I 24 j r, . . , .,_. i 25  ; l

10,169 im 5-( ) I also state as part of the staff's conclusion , ().in 2 that the applicants have properly addressed work performed 3 by personnel suspected of being involved in illegal drugs. 4 MR. BARTH: Mr. Frederickson, do you concur 5 with the last statement by Mr. Prevatte? 6 WITNESS FREDRICKSON: Yes, I do. 7 MR. BARTH : I have no further questions to 8 ask these people in introduction and direct, Your Honor, 9 and suggest it would be appropriate for the Board to cross-10 examine these people. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. 12 Mr. Runkle. fm () 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION 3DEX 14 B'? MR. RUNKLE: 15 Q Mr. Prevatte, on page 4 of your prefiled 16 testimony you ta3h about a matrix, pages 32, 33 and 34. 17 A (Witness Prevatte) That is correct. Those 18 numbers have since been changed. This testimony was sub-19 mitted before we came up with the updated matrix, which 20 goes up from 201 to 218, and also the page numbers may have 21 changed since then. 22 Q So that was the matrix that was supplied on 23 September 19th? l -'"T 24 A That is correct. i Reporters, Inc. %F 25 Q And you have since reviewed the more recent

t 10,170 Sim 15-2? I update? 1% L i m li 2 A .The update that contains 218, yes. 3 Now based on your review of the update, which Q 4

                             . is Applicants'. Exhibit 51, do you still draw the same
                                        ~

5 conclusions? 0 A- Yes, I still draw the same conclusions.

                      '7 Q           Do you have that document in front of you?
                      -8             A           I do.

9 0 If you will turn to pages 9 and~10 of that 10 document; II A I have those pages. 12 Now did you do any further analysis of individual 0 13 reference. numbers 202 through 218? 14 A I looked at the type of work done by these 15 personnel and they fell-into the same categories as the

                    ' 16      previous people I had looked at work done by.

17 And that would be for the craft as well as the Q 18 inspectors? 19 A That is correct. 20 Now-there are four additional inspectors on this ' Q

                    . 21      list, are there not?

22 A That is correct. 23 Q Now did you do any further review of what type Q- '24 ' Ace-;mdl Reporters, Inc. of work the additional four inspectors did?

                    - 25             A           I have looked at all the reinspections E
                                                                                                    +y-,--~- - .- - ..
            .r .<        e -         ,    w -- ,      .,    -..--e. ,--%-, y,- -.---- n , --
                                                                                             ,,.,y

p-i 10,171 Sim 15 1 accomplished on inspection personnel as they are completed.

  /~c -

{) 2 As these are completed, I will look at these also. Prior to this I don't remember the exact number.

                                  ~

3 I think it was

                   ,4 15.or something that had reinspections done on them, and I
                  -5  looked at each of the individual reinspections done on 6  those people as they were completed. Some of these may 7 not have been completed yet and some of the testimony 8 submitted on'this by Mr. Forehand indi~cated that~they had 9 just received all that data and I have not received it yet.

10 0 So you have only reviewed the reinspection of Il shall we say.the first 15 inspectors? 12 A-I know that at least one or two on this second O) (, - -13 list have been looked at by myself. 14 Q Now could you rephrase that answer? What do you

                 -15  mean, one or two of what on this list?

16 A For the first 201 when the original report was 17 submitted, some of those inspections had not been completed 18 at the time we presented our testimony. As the inspections 19 are completed on inspector personnel, the reinspections are 20 completed, I have been provided with a package of all the 21 reinspection results which I have reviewed. 22 As names are added to the list of inspection 23 personnel, I additionally am provided that information and

  -p              24 es-FU Reporters, Inc.

I review each of those packages. 25 Q So you have looked at 15 out of the 27 inspectors?

f: 10,172 I + im15-4 1 A Actually it is over 15, and I don't know tha y-ts ,j 2 precise number. I couldn't say if it was 15 or 17 now. 3 .Q Okay. It is 15 in your testimony, plus whatever 4 -has come in-since your testimony? 5 A Thst is correct. 6 Q All right. Now you have been in this hearing 7 ' room all day, have you not, and listened to the other 8 testimony? 9 A Yes, I have.

                 -10           Q     Now somewhere in the individual reference 11   numbers 202.through 218 there was a discussion of one of the 12   inspectors that might have been a lead inspector or had
  'A' Tj               13   done a very large number of inspections. Do you recall that 14   discussion or questions and answers?

15 A I-recall some portion of that discussion, yes. 16 Q Are you familiar with that inspector? 17 A I do not know which inspector it would be on 18 the matrix. 19 Q Now would you as a -- well, when did you change 20 -your position from Harris to the V. C. Summer plant? 21 A On the 28th of October. 22 Q Now in your new position at V. C. Summer will 23 you also review further reinspections of the inspectors at p 24 W F_,.A Reporters, Inc. the Harris plant?

                 ' 2;5        A      I have been obligated by regional management to

10,173 @im 14-5. j continue in this' process'at Shearon Harris as I am needed I,_,) 2 until the issues are finally resolved. 3 Q So the additional 10 or 12 reinspections, you will 4 go over them, will you not? 5 A That is correct. 6 Q And if, in your opinion, there needs to be v additional inspection or reinspection, that is something that 8 in your position you can request? 9 A If I felt I needed -- are you saying if I needed 10 more time at the Harris site to do this? All I have to do 11 is request it of management and they will send me --- 12 Q No, no. If based on, say, one of the inspectors

  -(m

(,) that hasn't been reinspected yet, you get the data from the 13 14 applicants on that, can you as an NRC inspector request 15 additional inspection? 16 A You mean for myself or other personnel? 17 Q Well, for yourself or the NRC staff.

                     .18            A   Are you saying if I was not satisfied with the 19   information provided me could I inspect further; is that 20    what you are saying?

21 Q Yes, or could you request additional reinspection? 22 A Yes, I could. 23 Q Earlier today Mr. Forehand gave additional 24 testimony on some of the new inspectors. Are you familiar l AcyFeTerrl Reporters, Inc. 25 with that?

10,174 Sim 15 6 - j A Are you talking about the portion that was 2 read into the record? 3 0 Yes, . sir. 4 A I do not have a copy of it. 5

                                    ' MR . RUNKEL:    Let me hand you what I was handed

6. as a copy of his-statement.

7 (The document referred to was shown to the parties 8 and handed to the witness.) 9 (Pause while the witness reviews the document.)

                 '10                 MR. RUNKLE:      Sir, take as long as you need to jj   review that.

12 WITNESS PREVATTE: I have looked at it. _v(~') ~ 13 MR. RUNKLE: Are you as a representative of the j4 NRC staff satisfied with the rationale in the last paragraph? 15 WITNESS PREVATTE: Are you referring to the 16 reinspection that has to do with concrete and consealed rebar j7 and so forth? 18 biR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir, and the rationale is in the j9 sentence "Because of the extraordinarily high inspector 20 pr fi i n y shown by these two inspectors," starting there. g WITNESS PREVATTE: Yes, I think I can agree with that, and I think I can additionally state that all along one of the strong points at Harris as analyzed by myself and l g other inspectors has been the civil program and concrete 25-FLJJ Reporters, .

i 10,175 ; 1 1 @im 15-7 BY MR. RUNKLE: Q The civil program? uj 2 A (Witness Prevatte) I am talking about concrete and rebar has been one of the stronger points at the Harris site. 5 Q Did you say the phrase " civil program"? A Well, I mean civil area as far as concrete placement and rebar. O Civil engineering, is that what you are referring to? I have not heard of a civil program. A I said the civil area of work, okay. C-i-v-i-1, like civil engineering. f'-~ 3 Q All right. And you feel that because of the (  ; 13 v program that was in place at the time that concrete was being poured or various reinforcing bars were being embedded, or what-have-you, that there is no problem with those? A And the fact that very few deficiencies have been identified in that area with previous inspections done of sister samples and so forth, yes. Q Now these two inspectors, could they have had substantial inspection responsibilities on the concrete and the reinforcing bars in this civil area? A That is asking a hypothetical question I think, could they have. br#Fi_,J Reporters. Inc. 25

10,176 3im .15-8 .j A I don't think I can answser a question "Could they p): ( 2 have." They may have. I don' t know. 3 0 All right. I mean that is a fair answer. 4 Were you involved with the NRC inspection of 5 this area? 6 A' Are you talking about as far as concrete and 7 rebar? 8 0 Yes, sir. 9 A That is correct. 10 0 And your answer was yes? 11 A Yes, my answer was yes. i2 0 All right. Now while you were inspecting for the () 13 NRC staff, how many inspectors were there employed by the ja applicants or one of their constract employees? 15 MR. BARTH: Objection for clarification. Total 16 inspectors? j7 MR. RUNKLE: Inspection in this area, the rebar 18 and *:he concrete. j9 WITNESS PREVATTE: During what time span? 20 BY MR. RUNKLE: 21 0 Well, at the time that the rebars were being put 22 into the concrete. 23 A I don't think you can set a number on inspection 24 Personnel in that area because you have to look at the amount hFU Reporters, Inc. 25 f work. If there is a large volume of work going on, there

i

[ 10,177 !Sim:15-9 i is going to be a larger number of inspectors in that area. ' j,,

 >~s:/.             2   As the work tapers off, there will be fewer inspectors in 3   the area.

4 Q At its peak how many inspectors were there in 5 this area? 6 A In concrete and rebar? I dont think I could 7 go back and say the number of inspectors that were in that 8 area. 9 .0 Were there over ten? 10 A I don't have that information with me. 11 Q Is there a safety significance to the placement 12 of concrete and rebars? L(,) 13 A Yes, there is some. 14 Q And what is that safety significance? 15 'A Depending upon the structure and where the place-16 ment is, I think you should look at one thing like on 17 concrete, and the final analysis of concrete is the break 18 test on the concrete sample, whether it is satisfactory or 19 not. 20 Q Now again in this last paragraph on what I have 21 in front of you, it says that " Reinspection of these items 22 is impossible." Is that correct? 23 A It probably is on most of the items. If you have f'} 24 rse-FLsA Reporters. Inc. rebar covered in concrete, unless you chip the wall out and 25 do some type of an inspection, I don't think there is a proven

10,178 'Sim 15-10 i method-of inspecting it unless you do this destructive test 2 on the concrete itself. 3 0 So you are saying that there is no non-destructive 4 examination of this? 5 A That is the way I would classify it. 6 0 But I am sure if you wanted to tear it all down 7 and look you could probably find out different things, 8 couldn't you? 9 A You would have to tear it down and look at the 10 results. What it would prove to you, I don't know. 11 0 Mr. Fredrickson, on page 10 of your testimony, 12 at the bottom paragraph, you state that you were involved, 13 directly involved in the regional construction assessment 14 team, the RCAT? 15 A (Witness Fredrickson) Thrt is correct. 16 0 Is that the most recent one? ! 17 A You mean the most recent regional construction 18 appraisal team?

19 0 Yes, in the inspection at the Harris site.

20 A There has only been one regional construction 21 appraisal team at the Harris site. 22 0 one of the applicants' witnessas talked about a 23 construction assessment team and called it a CAT. Is that the 24 same thing? FLJ Reporters. Inc. 25 A It is roughly the same thing. The regional

10,179 F 'Am 15-11 1 construction assessment appraisal team was of course out

                  -2   of Region II, and the construction appraisal team comes out 3  of our IE headquarters in. Washington.

4 Q Has there been a construction assessment' team

                  '5   inspection later than August 1983 in which you participated?

6 A The construction appraisal team was done in 7 1984. 8 0 And you did not participate in.that? 9 A No, sir, I did not. 10 0 Are you familiar with their findings? 11 A I know that there were four potential enforcement 12 findings sent down to Region II for evaluation, t (). 13 O And what are those four potential enforcement 14 findings? 15 A Mr. Prevatte can answer that. 16 Q- Fine. l-17 A (Witness Prevatte) I.am not going to give you 18 the specific title, but one basically involved electrical 19 separation between a cable tray and a conduit. i L 20 The second one had to do with the reinforcement ! 21 steel and concrete coverage. g 22 The third one had to do with minimum wall thickness 23 on steel supplied by a couple of vendors, or rather piping O 24

 >Fhl Reporters, fac.

supplied by a couple of vendors. 25 The last one had to do with the sliding feet

10,180 l iSim1'5-12 1 on diesel generator mufflers and on certain tanks, them 1 (O) 2 having a free surface to slide upon. 3 Q When you talk about the reinforced steel and 4 concrete placement, was that a widespread potential for 5 enforcement finding or was it very narrow in scope? 6 MR. O'NEILL: Objection. Unless counsel can 7 tie this to this contention, which happens to be something to 8 do with drug use, I would suggest that this line of inquiry 9 is irrelevant to the contention. 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Can you tie it in? 11 MR. RUNKLE: Well, I think at this point the

                 -12  proceeding is more on the QA program than it is on drugs, and                      ,

r~)s ( 13 both staff and applicants have relied on the CAT inspection 14 report in their testimony. And I think it deserves, since 15 we don' t have it before us and it is unlikely to be part of 16 the record, just to have a little more on it into the record. 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, it is a matter of degree and 18 a matter of judgment. 19 Did any of these deficiencies in this CAT inspection 20 have to do with drug use? 21 WITNESS PREVATTE: Not to my knowledge. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. We are going to sustain 23 the objection at this point. The questioning has gone far (~} 24 enough. The statements made about it are very general in hFLil Reporters, Inc. 25 nature and may be useful as context, but they are not being

i 10,181  ! W 15-13 relied on very heavily-in the first place.

   's,,/ --                            G    ahead.

2 BY MR. RUNKLE: 3 Q Do any of these four potential enforcement findings 4 have any relationship to the applicants' QA program? MR. BARTH: Objection, Your' Honor. We just went through this with Mr. O'Neill's objection, which was sustained. 7 The witness has testified in response to the Board's question 8 that they have nothing to do with drug use. And I would hope 9 l that we would get back to the last sentence of the contention,, 10 jj which is the reinspection of safety related work done by y 'known drug abusers. Q JUDGE KELLEY: It seems to be the subject of the same objection. Can you distinguish it, Mr. Runkle? g

                                           .          :      e   , the applicants' defense is that 15 any err r   aused by workers that are under the. influence of 16 drugs will be picked up by the QA program.

37 JUDGE KELLEY: Right, I understand that. 18 MR. RUNKLE: So the question goes to do any of

                   .j9 i

these four have to do with the adequacy of the company's QA 20 Program. I think that is a question that can be easily 21 answered and we can move on from that point. 22 cnd Sim 23 Sun fois i - 24 QFederti Reporters, lac. 25

p. 10,182 j JUDGE KELLEY: Well, while there is a lot of W 2 testimony in here about the QA program that's necessarily j so because in part, apart from Ms. Morase (phonetic) last I 3 4 year, nothing was ever specified. 5 Necessarily again, though, that testimony'is 6 going to have to be looked at in rather general terms. 7 We are going to have to come to grips with drug abuse at 8 some point. The fact that the NRC conducted an inspection 9 recently, if it isn't related to drug abuse, as we are 10 told, it seems to the Board to be collateral. 11 And we will sustain the objection. 12 MR. RUNKLE: If I may have a minute? l 13 (Pause.) j l 14 I have no other questions for this panel. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman? l 16 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you, Judge. 17 CROSS EXAMINATION f 18 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: INDEXX 19 Q Good afternoon, gentlemen. I would like to 20 refer Mr. Fredrickson his conclusion down at the bottom 21 of Page 8 where, among other things, he says he concludes j 22 that Applicants' decision not to reinspect the work of 23 craft workers suspected of drug use is acceptable. g 24 > Federal Reporters, Inc. Now, Mr. Fredrickson, would it do any harm to f 25 reinspect that work?

10,183 d16-2-S'ueW I A (Witness Fredrickson) No, obviously not. e-k-)s 2 :The program that'the licensee has to do that, we consider ' 3 to be an enhancement. . 4 Q Okay. Mr. Prevatte, if I could refer you to 5 Page 5 where your Answer 10 is continuing about the 6 evaluation procedures, at the top of Page 5 you say, " Prior 7 to implementation of the current procedure, COA-7, the 8 Applicant used procedure AP-DC-08, Evaluation Inspector 9 or Vendor Weld Visual Inspection Performance on Welded i 10 Structural Fabrications." 11 Now, does that only apply to welds on 12 structural fabrications? 13 A (Witness Prevatte) That was primarily for 14 welding on structural fabrications, as stated in the 15 procedure title. 16 Q All right. And was that the only procedure 17 you knew they used prior to implementing CQA-77 18 A I know that they -- as far as procedures, I'm 19 not aware of specific procedures used prior to then. I 20 am aware that they conducted reinspections when they had 21 work brought into question prior to that time. 22 I went back and did a review of their design 23 deficiency report log, their non-conformance log and looked () 24 g>F:i_3 Roorms ls at where they had done reinspections in the past, and they 25 had had questions brought up about the credibility of l L

10,184 )l6-3-Sue W j inspections done by inspection personnel. And there 2 had been quite a few instances of this back into 1980 3 and prior to my time being assigned to the site. 4 0 All right. The reinspections you are referring 5 to are ones that were precipitated by somebody filling 6 ut a design deficiency report or a non-conformance report 7 on them? 8 A No. These design deficiency reports I -- yes, 9 they would have been brougM about by either someone 10 going out and ins.pecting and finding a deficiency or having 11 questions about it. 12 And when they did the inspection, they documented! 13 the inspection results on a DDR or an NCR.  ; I ja Q Okay. Now, as to the reinspections that you 15 referred to down at the end of that Answer 10, still on

                      ;6  Page 5, was your review of the reinspections actual j7  observation of any of them?

18 Or was it a paper review? i 1 19 A The review I'm discussing in here was primarily a paper review. I have seen some reinspections. 20 l I could not relate -- you know, people out doing' 21 reinspections in the field. As far as relating those 22 I 23 inspections I've observed, or reinspections I've observed in the field, to specific cases such as, was this inspector O 24 re-r o.,. Reporters, inc. 25 on the matrix Number 77 and so forth like this , I could not ) i L

10,185 bl6-4-SueW 1 do that. -Okay. r (_) 2 But I have seen reinspections being conducted 3 in the field before. 4 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. That's all the questions 5 I have. Thank you. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Bryant? 7 MR. BRYANT: No, sir. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. O'Neill? I i 9 MR. O'NEILL: No questions.  ; 10 JUDGE KELLEY: The Board has no questions. So, , 1 11 gentlemen, thank you very'much. i 12 I appreciate your being with us. You are (_ 13 excused. 14 (The witnesses stood aside.) 15 MR. RUNKLE: Did Staff not have redirect on L 16 that? I }- l 17 MR. BARTH: They have been excused. 18 MR. RUNKLE: Oh. l 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Did you have redirect? 20 MR. BARTH: No, Your Honor. i 21 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm sorry. Okay. Well, l 22 ladies and gentlemen, it's five o' clock. We have some 23 time to talk about procedural matters and miscellaneous 24 points that need to be raised.

 >F    moorms w.

25 Have you had a chance to talk among yourselves

m 10,186

 #16-5-SueW          1 about dates for proposed findings?     Do you want to take
      )                                                                                -

(~/

s. 2 a short break now and do that if you haven't, or any other  !

i, 3 matters you may want to discuss among yourse'ves? l l t 4 MR. BAXTER: Should we interact further, Mr. l 5 Eddleman, or is there no point? 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: As I recall, our position is 7 sort of firmed up around one, you know, not too terribly 8 major dispute. But I think we are going to have to put 9 that one before the Board. I'm not going to give anymore. 10 MR. BAXTER: I think we have an agreement on 11 the proposed findings schedule; I think we do not on the 12 schedule for the two new emergency planning contentions, f3 U 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 1-4 MR. BAXTER: But we are prepared to put the 15 issues before the Board on that. 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Should we proceed with findings 17 first. Has the Staff been privy to this discussion also? 18 MR. BAXTER: Yes. 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. What is your proposition? 20 MR. BAXTER: I'm sorry, I don' t have copies f 21 of this available, but the dates are as follows. This 22 would be proposed findings for both Eddleman Contention 23 57-C-3 and the current CCN contention on drug abuse. 24 Applicants' proposed findings will be filed on pF Reponm, Inc. 25 December 6th. And we've agreed to Mr. Eddleman's request

10,187 516 ,.6'-SueW 1 that we attempt to have them in his hands that day. ,

        -                                                                                  e 2             You told me you weren't interested, Mr. Runkle.

3 MR. RUNKLE: Well, I would like them in hand, 4 too, on 12/6. l l 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Are you -- 6 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Runkle didn't participate in 7 the discussion on the schedule because he said he wasn't  ; t 8 concerned about it.  ! l 9 MR. RUNKLE: The discussion seemed reasonable 10 and, you know, in-hand service would give us a-week, and . II we get ten days by the regulation. t 12 I would be willing to accept that. . (3 \ V 13 MR. BAXTER: Okay. We will attempt to deliver  ; i Id it to Mr. Runkle also on the 6th. l 15 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. I0 MR.BAXTER: The Intervenors will file their 17 proposed findings on the 13th of December -- 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's contingent on my having I' it in hand on the 6th. 20 MR. BAXTER: The NRC Staff / FEMA will file their ; 21 proposed findings on December 20, and any reply Applicants  ! 22 have would be filed on December 30. 23 Is that agreeable to everyone? JUDGE KELLEY: MRS. MOORE: Your Honor, I would just make one request. And this wacn't -- we didn't discuss this at the L-_

                                              '-                                  10,188              1
                                                                            -                          u 01     7-SueW         1  time we discussed "the schedule',' but the Staf f would have 2  to reply to Intervenor's findings by the 30th.               If they 3  would agree to use some kind of quick mail to us, otherwise                   ,

4 FEMA and the Staff won' t gut them in time to do that. l 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Is that agreeable? 6 (Mr. Eddleman and Mr. Runkle are nodding in 7 the affirmative.) j 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Nodding their heads j 9 affirmatively. 10 MR. RUNKLE: Yes.  ! II - MR. EDDLEMAN: yes, sir. . I2 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. . i Thank,you. 13

                                       . MIG. MOORE:

I4 iJUDbE KELLEY: Tha't , then, seems to handle l 15 the schedule for findings. -  ! 0 MR. BAXTER: We would ask that the Board direct I7 the parties to file the findings on that schedule. JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. All pakties are directed

                                                                                ~

19 to file and the consequence of non-. filing-is default. l l 20 I still want to emphasize the

                          .              MR. EDDLEMAN:

21 business of the actual getting in-hand. What they are  ; i - 22 enmmitting to is attempting to get it in-hand. I may have j 23 to ask for an extension of time if I don't get it. m 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. W-Feder3 Geporters, Inc. 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: I would just like to put that on r ,

I-10,189 '#16-8-SueW- 1 the record now. < (^T

  ' \ 

2 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay l l I 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: It may not make any difference. i 4 If it comes' up, I don't want to be committed to something .! 5 here. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I bet you they will succeed. i 7 (Laughter.) l 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: QA is waiting. i 9 (Laughter.) i i 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, that's that matter. I l t 11 take it, it's understood. We have Mr. Eddleman's motion 12 growing out of the discussion with Dr. Bassiouni and 13 that will produce whatever-it produces. 14 We are just going ahead with_the record as 15 made, right?  ; 16 MR. BAXTER: We understand from I believe your l 17 comments last week, Judge Kelley, that the Board would 18 give its decision on that matter high priority. 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, we will. As soon as we 20 have got the pleadings we will turn to that promptly. 21 I think we should say that subject to, as far 22 as I know, two things. You are going to look . into these 23 statistics we spoke of, subject to the receipt of whatever

       )             24  is reasonable that you can do along those lines, and subject W-Fotlord Reporters, Inc.

25 to the Board's action on this motion with regard to Dr. E

10,190 D16-9-SueW 1 Bassiouni, the record would be closed now on both contentions,

         )                                                                                 ;

' f'# - 2 both sirens and drug abuse. 3 MR. BAXTER: Okay. Moving to the schedule for. i 4 the two new contentions which, as I say, we do not have  ! 5 consensus on, I will present the Applicants' proposal and 6 let the other parties respond. 7 We propose that the final day for filing i 8 discovery requests be November 25, that the parties have l 9 until December 23 to respond to those discovery requests 10 filed on November 25, that.any motion for summary disposi-7 Il tion be filed on or before January 13, 1986. j 12 The NRC Staff and FEMA's response to that motion,, [\~ '

                 -13  those motio'ns, would be due on February 3. And Mr.          I i

14 Eddleman's' response will be due February 13. 15 We are concerned about getting decisions from j

                     - the Board prior to fuel loading; whether thats March or 16

17 whether the schedule changes, it's still important for us i 18 given the potential that conditions could be imposed dhat 19 we have the opportunity for remedial action --

20 JUDGE KELLEY: Since I said this on the record 21 before, let me correct a mistake that I made last week. 22 I alluded to a recent so-called Beville report which I 23 had quickly read,'to suggest'that the construction O)

      \-          24   completion date.was listed as June '86 and upon looking PFm Repone,s. ine.

at it again I see that I was mistaken, and it's still carried 1-

10,191 $6-10-SueW t as March. Excuse me. Go ahead. p/

    \s                  2             MR. BAXTER:    In offering these contentions, 3 Mr. Eddleman made the representation that he would be 4 able to contribute to the record on these two contentions 5 because he did not have substantial other conflicts at 6 this point in the proceeding and because his health was 7 much improved.

8 I think the point we have of disagreement is 9 over the deadline of November 25 for discovery request 10 because it does not enable Mr. Eddleman to file and seek 11 two rounds of discovery. And it is our position .tdrat .two  ; 12 rounds should not be necessary in connection with these

    /'}
   '\/                 13  two contentions.                                                        '

14 They were filed on the basis of some exercise i 15 reports which, I would submit, with the plans as background ! , t I i 16 further give a far greater level of detail going into the l 17 contention than is normally available in this proceeding. } 18 And the Board itse'.f inJ eated last week at 19 Transcript Page 9973, "It is our belief that there need L j 20 not be very rmch time for discovery. " 21 We think one round should do it in this con-t 22 nection. It's really a matter of going to, what are these 23 agencies going to do in the way of corrective action for

     /~'
     !.,,)s           24   these deficiencies noted in the exercise report.       And I h-Federd Reporters, Inc.

25 think one round should be sufficient for the parties to

g - L 10,192 l- . 316-ll-SueW j exchange available 'information on that point. j f) Tj . 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Eddleman, a response

                 -3  on these matters?

4 MR. EDDLEMAN: 7 did indicate in filing these  ! i 5 contentions that I was wil' ling to proceed on an accelerated 6 schedule and had some means to do that. And I still think 7 that's true. 8 But this is'less than twenty days. And from 9 the admission of the contentions, that is. And the problem 10 that I have is that if I only get o;.s round, what I've got j 11 to do is basically hold back and ask every conceivable i

12. . question that could possibly occur to me, because I'm not

       )         13  going to get any responses but just the responses I get.

14 And then presumably I'm going to have to, you 15 know, deal with summary disposition. I mean,'if the facts 5 16 say there is nothing to it, that won't be a real problem. l l 17 But,:as we know, there have been some contentions where the i 18 Applicants have put in a, you know, big thick motion with 19 lots of affidavits and said there is nothing to it, and I  ; 20 felt otherwise. And in some of those cases, the Board has 21 agreed.

               '22                And-I don't want to have to do that on the basis 23    of just one round of discovery almost shot in the dark.

24 Mr. Baxter is characterizing what he thinks needs to be

    - f')

pFLJ Reporters, Inc. 25 discovered. I don't agree with him.

10,193 16-12-SueW 1 I think I need to know in some detail what the

  's.)                 2    problems were and how they happened and what is being done 3    about them and what the available alternatives are to deal                 ,

4 with them. And I need to know something about what is 5 actually going on. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask you a question in that 7 connection. Insofar as these deficiencies relate, as I j 1 8 think they mostly do or largely do, to the activities of  !

• 9 various emergency agencies at the state and county and local 10 level, isn't it open to you to simply go and talk to these 11 people?

12 MR. EDDLEMAN: I guess I could do that. I don't , N -) 13 have any way of assuring any particular given level of 14 cooperation. The other thing is getting the information 15 into the record. 16 In other words, am I supposed to go and say: I7 ' Hey, can I tape this? How do I get it? Do I represent 18 what.they said and then have them fuss about it. Do I 19 send them a copy for review? l t 20 JUDGE KELLEY: I guess I was indicating what f 21 I would call informal discovery seems to be an open route. I 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: I don't disagree, Judge. B ut  ! 23 '

      +
        ,                    I guess I'm concerned about how it might be used down the line. In other words, sometimes you get in an informal

, 25 ! discussion with somebody and they say one thing and then

10,194  ;

 #16-13-SueW1          you get a motion for summary disposition and attached 2 is an affidavit of the person where they say the opposite.

3 And that's really hard to deal with if you don't have 4 some formal discovery on the record about it. 1 i 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I just wanted to make 6 the point.  ; 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yeah. That is helpful, Judge. l l 8 But I don't think it fully solves the problem for the 9 reason I was getting into. 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Are you saying, Mr. Eddleman, II in your argument,.the argument can be cast partly or i 12 maybe mostly, in terms of one round versus two rounds. i 13 But putting that aside, let's suppose you just Id had one round, is November 25th enough time to formulate j 15 it? I0 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think so if I'm limited to i I7 one round. 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Anything else? l MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, let me just try to deal 20 The Applicants' with the schedule as proposed, okay. r i 21 counsel has raised some concerns which I think have some 22 validity to them about how fast they can get a response 23 out of the various state agencies themselves.

        ,          24 Wr-FJ J Reporters, Inc.
                                       #     '          '         9   9          E*

25 These are emergency response agencies, after all, and if an

10,195 D16-14-SueW 1 1 emergency happens they are going to have to deal with

    /
                 '2   it. -On'the other hand, I think.at very minimum that I 3   ought to be able to get in one round, if, they file this -

4 week, and get whatever partial responses there'are by, 5 say, November 30th, and then get a final cutoff somewhere 6 in the. Christmas /New Year's range that they have proposed.

                 -7                I don't really oppose putting ~that off'a little
                 .8   bit to compensate for how -it comes forward to get in' that
                 .9   second round. But I think then the relative dates that 10-   they propose for summary disposition responses are fine.

U I wouldn' t oppose collapsing that a little bit, 12 .a matter of a few days to try to make up some ground if O- 13 the Staff doesn't mind. But I still think that, you know, Id within a few days or a week in this time frame you

.15 actually can get in two rounds or at least two partial I

16 rounds. A partial response to a first round, one that saysi II here is what we know and here is what we don't know. i 18 And I think discovery can be sort of formulated-19 l that way. But that is my counterproposal. I just want to L 20 put that out. JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Staff? f 22 The Staff has no strong feelings MRS. MOORE: 23 -about whether there should be one round or two, although

                      -we would note that the Board did seem to believe that a l-              25

' lot of discovery wouldn't be necessary, and that Mr. E

10,196 Ol6-15-SueW ] Eddleman has had the reports as the basis for his _ . - 2 contentions for quite some time. 3 While I understand his problem, I'm not sure l 1 4 that November 30th from FEMA's standpoint would be at 5 all feasible, even for a partial response. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Can I say one thing to that? l 8 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: I've had the documents that 10 give summaries in hand, but as far as I knov the actual j 11 evaluations, either from FEMA or from the state, although i 12 they have been requested under a FOIA from FEMA and through .

                                                                                                    )
       -           13  other means from the state, are still not in the hands 14  of -- I know they are not in my hand. And I don't believe t

15 they've come in the hand of anybody who has been working 16 with me. i 17 That was current as of last week for the 18 FOIA stuff and probably two weeks ago for the other stuff, 19 because that person has apparently been out of town. I 20 haven't been able to get in touch with them. f I 21 But I don' t know of any of the other information ' 22 being made available. So, basically what I'm saying is, 23 as far as the information in the reports is concerned, it's 24 a very summary information and it doesn't tell me this W-F1 J Reporters, Inc. 25 failed this time or exactly how these things happened. It

I 1.0,197 1 i

#16-16-SueW 1             just says'that they did happen.                                     j 2            And there's not a heck of a lot more information 3  in them. There's a paragraph or two almost to these               !

l 4 matters, a paragraph or two I guess on each item of EPX-2 l 5 and a paragral.h or so about each part of EPX-8. But it's 6 not a heck of a lot of information. l l f 7 I just wanted that clear. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I think what we need , i 9 to do here in a few minutes, we will just have to break j i 10 and discuss what we just heard from you all on, give  ; 11 you a decision in a few minutes. , 12 Are there other matters that need to be  !

     -s                                                                                   i a                                                                             e i

_ 13 surfaced now?  ! i 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: I believe that we did havea j i 15 tentative deal on the documents backing up the Applicants' 16 testimony on 57-C-3; is that right? i END #16 17 l Joe flws 18 l 19  ; i 20 21 22 , 23  ! l 24

          )                                                                           l Ma Fimerj Reporters, inc.                                                              j 25                                                               l         )

l l i ,

il7-1-Jo:Wal 10,198 I MR. BAXTER: Yes, we have a conceptual agreement i

    \/ -

I l 2 that we would not object to the admission of those documents ' 3 that were actually'used in the cross-examination of the  ! 4 witnesses, and in which the witnesses also said they relied 5 on. 6 But we haven't gone through item-by-item, and 7 parched those all out. t 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Can that be supplied in a letter. l 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: We will be glad to go along with  ! t 10 that. Now, my understanding is that the ones that are l Il parched in our exhibits, and the others would simply be  ! 12 supplied as offer of proof to the record, but they would b) s 13 not be evidence. Id MR. BAXTER: Well, Mr. Eddleman can ask to have i I 15 anything marked for identification, which is the appropriate i l 16 procedure, and if he doesn't want to offer it into evidence , i 17 it will be in the file. I don't think it is really an offer ; 18 of proof question, as Mrs . Moore explained last week. I9 An offer of proof is when you try to get some l l 20 ! evidence in and you don't succeed. If you are simply 21 interested in having it in the file, you can have it marked 22 for identification. 23 We are only agreeing to the admission of the - (D (/ 2s documents that were used in the cross-examination.

 )Feder Reporters, Inc.

25 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. And then I would ask that i

1 17-2-Jo Wal 10,199 f 1 the rest of them simply b2 marked for identification, and

     -/              2  I am not even sure what number of Exhibit I am on for me.

3 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, you can work that out and 4 write a letter, right, and the letter from one party that  : r t 5 the other one agrees to, or vice versa. [ t 6 Anything else? f 7 MR. BAXTER: We have one more matter, Mr. 8 Chairman, in connection with the record produced here. We 9 have attempted to update as currently as we could the record 10 as we came into this case. 11 There is case 1aws, you know, that imposes upon 12 all parties an obligation to inform, pending adjudicatory

   /~'s                                                                                       ,

x- 13 board of new and material information affecting the litigation. 1-4 We fully expect that as in our construction quality assurance 15 program on pipe hangers and other things that this is an 16 on-going program, drug abuse control at Shearon Harris, and 17 that we expect that in the future we will be identifying other - 18 employees implicated in drug activity, and we wanted the j 19 Board to be aware and find out if a different standard should ;

                                                                                           ~

20 be applied. 21 We would not intend to be continually updating . 22 this exhibit from now until eternity. In the absense of , l 23 some significant and material change in the kind of information ()

    ,~                                                                                   l 24     that is presently in it.

DFMuj Reporters. Inc, l' 25 JUDGE KELLEY: You mean Exhibit 51?

p

?l7-3--Jo;Wal -

10,200 l 1- MR. BAXTER: Yes. (3 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Comment? 3 MR. RUNKLE:' What schedule are you proposing 4 to update it, quarterly, annually? 5 MR. BAXTER: I am proposing no schedule, Mr. 6 Runkle. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: As I understand the proposition, 8 the Exhibit 51 reflects . people who have been terminated, as

                    '9  we all know, for drug reasons, and if I understand you 10   correctly Mr. Baxter, you are saying in the normal course II of events there may be somebody next week, and somebody else 12   in December, and you don' t regard that as anything adnormal, 13  but that if there was some large spike in the rating, that     :

Id is something you would report, is that fair?  ; 15 .MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir. I6 JUDGE KELLEY: It seems reasonable.

         '          I7               MR. EDDLEMAN:- Judge, I am not quite sure what 18   is going on here, because he is talking about updating. Does!

19 he mean updating into the record, or simply serving the i 20 parties with the information. 2I MR. BAXTER: There is a requirement if material 22 new information relevant to a contention -- like when we 23 changed the hanger program, after the hearing, but before f i 24 the. decision, I wrote a letter explaining the change to the l QFederse Reporters, Inc.  ; 25 hanger program because it changed testimony that we put into

o , 17-4-JodWnl 10,201

                       ~1 evidence.

i I

   ' ' ^
        }'            .2 I am saying here the standard I am going to 3 app 1'y for what is material, it would be a significant       i I

4 ' deviation from the kind of information we are getting; not 5 a routine, weekly u pdate. 6 But 11 I- had the obligation to report it,  ; 7 anything I send to the Board, obviously I am required to i 8 send to everybody in the service list.

                       -9             MR. EDDLEMAN:   I guess the problem I have is 10  what does, 'significant' mean.

II MR. BAXTER: Well, that is an assessment that 12 each party has to make continually. A.) 13 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yeah, but how do I know whether 14 I buy your assessment if I don't know the information. 15 MR. BAXTER: You don't. I am reporting now 16 what -- which I am not required to do, but I am -- 17 JUDGE KELLEY: As I understand your reading of 18 this particular matter, that is your obligation under 19 various case law decisions as I recall it. 20 So, that is your reading. 2I MR. BAXTER: That is correct. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Certainly the notion that somebody 23 is going to get fired next week, and maybe three weeks after 24 pFed9er that is hardly new, and I don't think the Board and the Reporters, Inc. 25 parties have any interest in that. Where the judgment comes l

17-5-JonW21 10,202 I in, that is your judgment to make.

  --                                                                                       i 2              MR. BAXTER:   I just wanted to make sure there 3  weren't radical expectations from the Board that were             l 4  different from that.

l 5 JUDGE KELLEY: We do not expect to be apprised 6 everytime somebody is fired for drug abuse at Harris. l 7 MR. BAXTER: Okay. We don 't have anything else . , 8 Thank you. 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth, anything else? 10 MR. BARTH: Mrs. Moore and I have nothing more, i II Your Honor. 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Runkle? 13 MR. RONKLE: We have nothing more. 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman? 15 MR. EDDLEMAN: Nothing more. 16 JUDGE KELLEY: So, we are going to break here 17 in a minute and discuss the schedule for the remaining two 18 exercise contentions I g uess we can call them. 19 I would like to mention one thing just as a 20 matter really of information. 21 You will recall that in connection with what we 22 call the Chan Van Vo QA contention of early last year, we 23 had -- we asked the Applicants to post a notice at one point, G 24 pFederat Reporters, Inc. and that was done, and then the result was two letters that 25 came in, one anonymous and one not, and we left it, and I am

6-JoeWnl 10,203 l I paraphrasing, but I think this is about right, we said that l j"' i

    's                   2 Ewe had those two letters investigated by the OI people, 3  and that we would then consider the result of those-4  investigations as possibly bearing on whether there should                j i

5 be a QA contention along the lines of the broad version of 6 Chan Van Vo, or some narrower version, and that is where . f-7 that . lef t. t 8 We later dismissed the Chan Van Vo contention for i 9 reasons we stated at some length, based on he didn't want 10 to come to a hearing, and that left outstanding these two II OI investigations. I 12 I was telephoned by an OI who has been working (')T

      \-                13  on these two matters recently, and I am just passing on to             l

{ 14 you what he said to me..  ! 15 They have not completed their' investigations of  ! 16 these two matters. And it was held up for some time by the  ! 17 fact that one of the people wrote in -- this confidential I 18 person -- had such restrictions on investigations by OI j 19 that they really couldn't investigate, and the point came l l 20 where that person said okay, go ahead, and OI went ahead  ; i l 21 and did that, and we expect to get their investigations in l l i 22 written form shortly. I think the middle of this month l 23 was the prediction that was made. G 24 FederJ Reporters, Inc. And I did not discuss in any detail the 25 merits and results of the investigation, but just to give you i

J17-7-JoeWal 10,204 I I F 1 some notion, I think I can say that the.OI investigator l jf ,

   \_-          '2     told me that' in -his opinion these  investigations did not     i 3    indicate the presence of safety problems, but that will be 4    for the parties to judge.

l 5 'What we said'was we would get the investigations, 6 ,and we would then let the parties comment on them, and argue 7 whether or not they justified a contention of some sort. , 1 8 So, I expect we will get them fairly soon, and 9 then we will' mail them out and ask for comment and I gave - 10 you the preview that I gave you because I thought you would 11 be interested in-it, and because that is the substance of L 12 -what the OI investigator told me. l l

       )          13                So, that is where that stands. This is a 14    case that -- with a lot of contentions and issues, and i                                                                                       '

l 15 procedural q uestions in it. If there are -- I mention-that l' ( 16 as an example of something that was outstanding, and how 17 we intend to deal with it. 18 If there are other things that you think of l 19 that we haven't for the Board to rule on, we of course are i ! 20 now working on an opinion that would rest several contentions, 21 including fire protection, steam generators, the two 22 emergency planning contentions of last June. 23 MR. EAXTER: Pipe hanger welding? 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Pipe hanger welding. That is pr neoewes. im. 25 there, too. i f

17-8-Jo W31 10,205 I And then a rationale for the rulings on the ,

      ')

_ 2 exercise contentions. Then there are the two contentions 3 that we just set the finding schedule for, but that is our , 4 understanding of what is left. 5 If there is something that we are overlooking 6 we would appreciate your mentioning it. 7 Maybe we can take a short break now, and then 8 come back and tell you the schedule for discovery and summary 9 disposition motions. 10 (Short recess taken.) . 11 JUDGE KELLEY: We heard arguments before the 12 break from Mr. Eddleman and Mr. Baxter and the Staff on (-) 13 -- Mrs. Moore -- on the question of a schedule for discovery 14 and summary disposition motions with regard to the two 15 exercise contentions that were admitted last week, and the 16 dispute centered really around a time for interrogatories 17 and whether there ought to be one round or two, and we think 18 that the question is fairly debatable, but that the balance 19 of factors tilts in favor of the schedule as proposed by the 20 Applicants, which essentially contemplates one round.  ; i 21 And we were influenced by the fact that the 22 specifics of these particular contentions are we think j i 23 relatively new. That it ought to be possible to formulate I ( ) 24 appropriate questions to elicit the basic facts at this prn; neport.,i, trie. 25 point. l ~

17-9-JoeW21 10,206 I In reaching that conclusion I should add, too,

    ._                                                                                  l 2   that we are assuming that informal discovery will be          ;

i 3 available to Mr. Eddleman in pursuing these two contentions. l 4 That is to say, we assume that the various county, state, 5 and local people involved in these functions will take a 6 phone call or sit down and talk about these matters, and 7 that that should assess in his pursuant discovery. l 8 In order to try to accommodate two rounds  ! 9 we realistically think, factoring in the difficulties that 10 FEMA and the Staff may have in putting papers through two U agencies, that that would run the schedule inacceptably  ; 12 late, so we are going to adopt the schedule as proposed, I i 13 as we understand it. I will restate it.  ; Id Discovery questions would be done on the 25th l 15 of November. Answers from all parties would be due on the 16 23rd of December. Summary Disposition motions from the 17 Applicants presumably will be on January 13th. The NRC 18 Staff and FEMA would file on that motion by February 3rd, I9 and Mr. Eddleman's response would be due on February 13th. , 20 So, that is our ruling on that matter.

                   ~2I Are there other matters to raise at this point?

22 Mr. Eddleman? i 23 MR. EDDLEMAN: (Mods negatively.) JUDGE KELLEY: Anything else? Mr. Runkle? pFederat Fleporters, tric. 5 MR. RUNKLE: No.

E-17-10-JoeW21 10,207

7 I JUDGE KELLEY: Mrs. Moore?

    ' (y :

L' 2 MRS. MOORE: Nothing. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Baxter? 4 MR. BAXTER: Nothing further, 5 JUDGE I;ELLEY: Well, barring developments which 6 at'least at this point aren't scheduled, this would i 7 constitute our-concluding hearing in this case. 8 I noted when I was back at the office that 9 the last hearing day took us to page 9,960 something, and 10 so that would mean that we passed that landmark for all ! II serious operating license cases today, I guess Dr. DuPont 12 took us over the top, over 10,000 in the transcript, but O. s) 13 .I expect we will be in contact on paper and phones and 14 what not in the future, but we do want to express our 15 appreciation to all of you for your work and patience and i 16 perseverence throughout.  ; 17 Thank you very much. We are adjourned, t 18 (Whereupon, at 5:40 p.m., Tuesday, November 12, 1985,  ! 19 the hearing concluded.) 20 ** ** ****** 21 22 i 23 J 24 >F Reorwes, lm. 25 i

p 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (3 r v) 2 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 4 before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Matter of CAROLINA POWER and LIGHT COMPANY AND NORTH CAROLINA 6 EASTERN MUNICIPAL. POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harris Nuclear 7 Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) held on Tuesday, November 12, 8 1985 in Raleigh, North Carolina were held as herein 9 appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof 10 for the file of the Commission. 11 12 WALSH, JR. GARRJTT 14 Official R(porter [ 15 SUE WALSH 16 17 M Official Reporter 18 yp MARY C. SIMONS 20 j'/ f Official # Reporter 21 22 t 23 Q3G4A 24 mil Reporters, Inc. 25 i}}