ML20207H016
| ML20207H016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1986 |
| From: | Griffin H, Hayes B, Herr R NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207D010 | List: |
| References | |
| 4-84-047, 4-84-47, NUDOCS 8701070443 | |
| Download: ML20207H016 (36) | |
Text
.
h CASE No.
4-84-047 f..... y,
! %.c 'h W /
United States
-Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Report of Investigation i
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station:
lieged Falsification of Tests Results 4
1 l
r Office of investigations Reported by 01: g;y 4
$W Z8eeR 8%gy,
s e
Title : COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION:
ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF TEST RESULTS Licensee:
Case Number: 4-84-047 Texas Utilities Generating Company Report Date: AUGUST A, 1986 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Control Office: 01:RIY DocketNo.: 50-445/446 Status:
CLOSED Reported by:
Reviewed by:
]
//
Y dh H. Ero'aks Grif fin f/
Richard K. Herr Inves tigator, 01:RIV Field Office Director Office of Investigations, RIV,
Appr by:
i EFen'B. Hayes, Kre OfficeofInvest1(ftorfatips Copy of 7 copies
b SYN 0PSIS During September 1984, a former96 start-up engineer (STE), WITNESS F, previously emp oyed in an e ectrica test group at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), appeared as an intervenor witness before the CPSES Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP).
During subsequent in camera ASLBP hearings, the utility called witnesses and introduced evidencTbefore the ASLBP which indicated that in 1982 WITNESS F deceived a quality assurance technician (QAT) during a preoperational test on a safety system which resulted in the falsification of the preoperational test report. The ASLBP requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC)
Office of Investigations (01) be notified of this incident.
In October 1984, an NRC investigation was initiated wherein testimony taken (transcripts) during in camera ASLBP hearing and evidentiary depositions related to the allege,d falsification were reviewed. The review disclosed that another 6 electrical engineer (EE), who officed with WITNESS F, testified that on November 17 or 18, 1982 WITNESS F had told him that he (WITNESS F) had deceived a QAT into believing that an alarm had properly activated during a preoperational test on inverters for the reactor protection system. The EE testified before the ASLBP that WITNESS F indicated that this deception had resulted in the QAT signing off a Quality Assurance (QA) verification on the preoperational test.
The EE said that WITNESS F told him that the QAT and he had been at a remote location, when he (WITNESS F) had received a telecommunication from an unidentified employee in the control room which the QAT could not hear. The EE said WITNESS F told him an annunciator alarm had failed to activate during the test, and that WITNESS F thought it was humorous that he had deceived the QAT into signing off the QA verification by telling the QAT that the alann had activated.
The EE said he reported the incident to the Texas Utilities Generating Company's (TUGCO) technical support engineer (Supervisor) who subsequently interrogated WITNESS F about the deception in his (EE's) presence. Both the Supervisor and the EE testified that WITNESS F admitted to the deception as reported in their ASLBP j_n camera testimony.
n When the EE was interviewed as part of the NRC's investigation, he recanted his testimony that WITNESS F had admitted to him that he had deceived the QAT.
When the Supervisor was interviewed as part of the NRC's investigation, he initially expressed doubt as to whether WITNESS F.actually admitted to him that he had deceived the QAT.
The Supervisor subsequently reaffirmed the contents of his ASLBP testimony that WITNESS F had made an admission that he had deceived the QAT, and he concluded that WITNESS F had deceived the QAT.
In his ASLBP in camera testimony, a TUGC0 start-up electrical group leader (GL), said thai after the annunciator alarm failed to activate during a 1984 retest of the inverters, he reviewed the Westinghouse drawings and all design change documentation for the inverters. The GL stated during his ASLBP testimony and his testimony as part of the NRC's investigation, that the annunciator alarm could not have activated on the related portion of the pre-operational test as a result of the design configuration in which the inverters Case No. 4-84-047 1
16 existed. The GL concluded that because the alarm could not have activated, WITNESS F must have deceived the QAT and falsified the test.
I When the QAT was interviewed as part of the NRC's investigation, he testified that he was not aware of the alleged deception by WITNESS F until the allega-tion was raised during the ASLBP hearings. The QAT verified that WITNESS F and he performed the 1982 preoperational test on the inverters and that
-WITNESS F had told him that the employee stationed in the control room had verified that the alarm had activated. During the NRC's interview with the QAT, he identified a control room employee (CRE) whom he believed was present during the test.
The CRE, a former STE identified by the QAT, was interviewed as part of the NRC's investigation. The CRE said he did not recall working on the preopera-tional test with WITNESS F and the QAT, but said he may have participated in the test. The CRE indicated, however, that if he had participated in the preoperational test and the annunciator alarm had failed to activate, the test would have been halted and a test deficiency report would have been written.
WITNESS F was questioned by parties to the ASLBP during an in camera hearing and was also interviewed as part of this investigation. WITNESS F on both occasions denied that he had deceived the QAT during the test, denied having told the EE or the Supervisor that he had deceived the QAT during the preopera-tional test, and denied having falsified the test report. WITNESS F said he recalled an occasion when he was counseled by the Supervisor for having made derogatory coments to electrical craft employees about QA personnel's knowledge of test procedures. WITNESS F said he believed the facts related to the utility's allegation against him had somehow become confused with this incident and resulted in the allegation that he had deceived the QAT.
This investigation did not establish that WITNESS F falsified the preopera-tional test results nor did it establish that WITNESS F deceived the QAT.
Case No. 4-84-047 2
..... =.
n ACCOUNTABILITY
'The following portions of this ROI (Case No. 4-84-047) will not be included in the material placed in the PDR. They consist of pages 2 through 15.
1 f
i
(
k I
4 4
I i
t i
5 i
I i
I 1
1 I
i l
Case No. 4-84-047 3
h THIS PAGE LEFT BLANX INTENTIONALLY Case No. 4 84-047 4
O TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SYN 0PSIS..........................................................
1 ACCOUNTABILITY PAGE...............................................
3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS............................................
7 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION..........................................
9 Purpose of Investigation.....................................
9 Background...................................................
9 Review of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) T Engineer (EE),
In Camera Evidentiary Deposition of Anth S. JAMAR Electrica W
9 Interv'ew Anthony S. J R.............................
10 Review of CPSES ASLBP In Camera Evidentiary Deposition of Harold J. CHEATHEXR, Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) Technical Support Engineer.......................
10 Interview With Harold J. CHEATHEAM..........................
11 Review of CPSES ASLBP.In Camera Evidentiary Deposition of David A. EDDIE, Quality Assurance Technician...........
11 Interview With David EDDIE..................................
12 Interview With Gerald YOUNG, Former Start-up Engineer (STE),
CPSES.......................................................
12 Review of In Camera ASLBP Testimony of Arthur LONDON, Lead i
STE, CPSY5................................................
12 i
Interview With Arthur LOND0N................................
13 l
Review of CPSES ASLBP In Camera Testimony of WITNESS F, Fo nne r ST E, 6.Z....................................
13 Interview With WITNESS F....................................
14 Willfulness / Intent..........................................
14 Agent's Conclusion..........................................
15 LIST OF EXHIBITS.................................................
16 O
l Case No. 4-84-047 5
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Case No. 4 84 047 6
O APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Allegation:
Falsification of Test Results 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, Test Control.
Case No. 4-84-047 7
s THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Case No. 4-84-047 8
. l.
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Purpose of Investigation The ur ose of this investigation was to determine whether a fonner M sta-t-up engineer (STE) at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) had falsified a preoperational test report on a safety system and deceived a quality assurance technician (QAT), which resulted in a falsified preoperational test report.
Background
During the September 1984 CPSES Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) hearings, WITNESS F, a former MSTE at CPSES, appeared before the ASLBP in camera as a witness for the intervenor, Citizens Association for Sound Energy'-
(CASE). During a subsequent hearing on September 21, 1984, the utility called witnesses and introduced evidence before the ASLBP which indicated that during 1982. WITNESS F falsified a preoperational test on the inverters for the reactor protection system and deceived a QAT, which resulted in a false entry being made on a preoperational test report.
On October 1,1986, the ASLBP issued a memorandum signed by the administrative judges wherein they specifically stated with regard to WITNESS F, "We will not release his name nor infonnation about his identity." In keeping with the spirit and intent of their request, this person will be referred to in this report of investigation as " WITNESS F."
Review of CPSES ASLBP In Camera Evidentiary Deposition of Anthony S. JAMAR, Electrical Engineer (EE), Impell On August 28, 1984, JAMAR provided an evidentiary deposition in camera to the CPSES ASLBP (Exhibit 1). JAMAR said that he is employed by 6 is currently working at CPSES in the electrical test group as an EE in prerequi-site and preoperational testing. JAMAR said that beginning in the fall of 1982, he shared an office with WITNESS F.
JAMAR said he recalled an occasion on November 17 or 18, 1982, when WITNESS F " laughing and jokingly" told him j
that he had misled a QAT into verifying an inspection step on a preoperational test on inverters for the reactor protection system. JAMAR said that i
l WITNESS F explained to him that during the perfonnance of this test the output breaker for the AC on the inverter was supposed to open and an alann in the control room was supposed to activate. JAMAR said that WITNESS F told him that he led the QAT to believe the alarm had activated when, in fact, it had not. JAMAR said that WITNESS F thought it was humorous that he could cause a l
QAT to sign off on inspection results that had not occurred because the Quality Assurance (QA) inspector did not know enough about the test.
l i-JAMAR said he reported the incident to his immediate supervisor, Harold CHEATHAM, who in turn questioned WITNESS F about the test. JAMAR said that WITNESS F admitted to CHEATHEAM that he had misled the QAT during the test. JAMAR said that WITNESS F agreed to " straighten out" the test. JAMAR i
said that CHEATHEAM and he discussed whether they needed to take further action against WITNESS F, but said they decided it was not necessary since WITNESS F had indicated he would correct the test.
l l
Case No. 4-84-047 9
JAFAR said he subsequently reviewed an. official copy of test ICP-PT-02-02, a
~
36 page report bearing WITNESS F's signature dated November 23, 1982. JAMAR said that on November 18, he had a conversation with WITNESS F, but said he did not question him about whether he (WITNESS F) had followed CHEATHEAM s directions related to correcting the preoperational test.
JAFAR testified that in the spring of 1983, Arthur LONDON became his supervisor.
JAKAR said LONDON asked him to prepare a perfonnance evaluation for WITNESS F in February of 1984. JAMAR said he documented the incident in which WITNESS F had deceived the QAT in 1982. JAMAR said that LONDON used his input in WITNESS F's evaluation. JAMAR said he recalled LONDON had informed him that the inverters on the reactor protection system were going to be retested in January or February 1984 because the transformers had been changed.
Interview With Anthony JAMAR, Former STE Impell On March 4,1986, JAMAR, a former STE at CPSES, was interviewed, and he provided a sworn statement (Exhibit 2). JAMAR said that on November 17, 1982, he became suspicious that WITNESS F might have tricked a QAT during a preopera-tional t'est based on statements WITNESS F made in his presence. JAMAR said he conveyed his suspicions to his lead, CHEATHAM, who questioned WITNESS F about the preoperational test. JAMAR said that WITNESS F told CHEATHEAM that he had a problem with an annunciator alarm on the test. JAMAR said WITNESS F showed CHEATHEAM the copy of the test which contained WITNESS F's and QAT, David EDDIE's, signature verifying step 22. JAMAR said CHEATHEAM told WITNESS F to correct the test, but said CHEATHEAM did not give WITNESS F any specific instructions. JAMAR stated that 'at no time did WITNESS F say that he had l
deceived a QAT into verifying the test nor did WITNESS F say he had falsified the test. JAMAR said that based on WITNESS F's statements about how easy it would be to trick a QAT and the fact that the annunciator alarm failed to activate during a 1984 retest, he still suspected that WITNESS F had falsified I
the 1982 test and had deceived the QAT.
INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: JAMAR acknowledged that his testimony contained in the ASLBP jn camera evidentiary deposition appeared to be in direct conflict with his sworn statement made during this investigation. JAMAR indicated that it was his intention to clarify his testimony, and he reaffinned that WITNESS F did not actually say that he had deceived a QAT or that he falsified the preoperational test.
Following the taking of JAMAR's sworn statement, JAMAR advised this investigator that at the time the utility's attorneys interviewed him about tifis incident, he concluded by the demeanor of' the attorneys and the manner in which they phrased their questions that it was'a foregone conclusion that WITNESS F was guilty of having deceived the QAT. JAMAR said he felt he was under a great deal of pressure to go along with the general tenor and flow l
of the evidence gathering against WITNESS F.
However, JAMAR added that he still believed WITNESS F deceived the QAT.
l Review of CPSES ASLBP In Camera Evidentiary De)osition of Harold J. CHEATHEAM, Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) Tec1nical Support Engineer (TSE) t On August 28, 1984, CHEATHEAM, responsible for the design modification program at CPSES, provided an in camera evidentiary deposition for the CPSES ASLBP (Exhibit 3).
CHEATHEAT said that WITNESS F, g mployee, was assigned Case No. 4-84-047 10
O to his section at CPSES in the fall of 1982. CHEATHEAM said that WITNESS F worked under his supervision until he (CHEATHEAM) was transferred in June 1983.
CHEATHEAM said he recalled a discussion with WITNESS F about preoperational test ICP-PT-02-02 performed in 1982, which involved the reactor protection system inverters.
CHEATHEAM said that JAMAR, another EE who officed with WITNESS F, had told him of a conversation he (JAMAR) had with WITNESS F in which WITNESS F said he had deceived a QAT into signing off on QA verification on the preoperational test. CHEATHEAM said he personally questioned WITNESS F about JAMAR's allegation, and said that WITNESS F admitted that he had deceived the QAT into signing off the inspection verification related to an annunciator alarm. CHEATHEAM said he instructed WITNESS F to follow procedures and told him to prepare the necessary paperwork to correct the test. CHEATHEAM said that JAMAR was present when he held this discussion with WITNESS F.
CHEATHEAM said that JAMAR and he discussed the incident, and said they decided not to take any further action against WITNESS F.
CHEATHEAM said he discussed the completion of the preoperational test with WIT. NESS F on the following day, and said that WITNESS F told him the test was completed. CHEATHEAM said he assumed from their conversation that WITNESS F had corrected the test.
CHEATHEAM testified that LONDON succeeded him as the lead of the electrical group in the start-up organization in June 1983.
Interview With Harold J. CHEATHEAM, TUGC0 TSE On February 19, 1986 CHEATHEAM was interviewed as part of this investigation (Exhibit 4).
CHEATHEAM stated that in 1982, JAMAR told him that WITNESS F had admitted to him (JAMAR) that he (WITNESS F) had deceived a QAT during the preoperational test. CHEATHEAM said he questioned WITNESS F about the incident in his office with JAMAR present.
INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE:
Initially during this interview, CHEATHEAM expressed doubts as to whether WITNESS F had actually admitted deceiving the QAT.
However, CHEATHEAM's conviction about the accuracy of his ASLBP testimony returned as the interview proceeded.
CHEATHEAM concluded by saying that, based on his recollection of the actions he took at the time, he believed WITNESS F admitted that he had deceived the QAT. CHEATHEAM said that his questions to WITNESS F had been " general in nature", but said he believed that WITNESS F had understood his questions.
CHEATHEAM said he believed that WITNESS F had falsified the test and deceived the QAT.
Review of CPSES ASLBP in Camera Evidentiary Deposition of David A. EDDlE, QAT at CPSES On September 21, 1984 EDDIE, a start-up QAT, testified that he first became aware that WITNESS F may have tricked him on the ICP-PT-02-02 test when he was interviewed by the utility's attorney prior to his appearance before the ASLBP (Exhibits 5 and 11). EDDIE testified that he worked with WITNESS F during the test, and said he recalled that WITNESS F told him that the individual in the control room had verified that the annunciator alarm had activated.
Case No. 4-84-047 11
Interview of David EDDIE, QAT at CPSES On February 19, 1986 EDDIE was interviewed as part of this investigation (Exhibit 6).
EDDIE said that prior to his participation in preoperational test ICP-PT-02-02, he attended a pretest meeting with WITNESS F and Gerald YOUNG, two STE's. EDDIE said YOUNG was responsible for relaying information to WITNESS F from the control room as to whether the annunciator alam activated on certain steps during the test.
EDDIE said he did not overhear any of the conversation between WITNESS F and YOUNG during the test.
EDDIE repeated his testimony that WITNESS F verified step 22 on each of the inverters by signing those steps on the test report.
Interview With Gerald YOUNG, Fomer STE, CPSES On February 25, 1986, YOUNG, a former STE at CPSES, was interviewed and provided a sworn statement (Exhibit 7). YOUNG said that based on his signatures on the preoperational test report, he knew he participated in the prerequisite portion of the test (section 6).
YOUNG stated that he did not recall whether he participated in the section 7 (procedure) portion of test ICP-PT-02-02 related to preoperational testing.
YOUNG testified that he did not know WITNESS F or EDDIE by name.
YOUNG said he did not recall working in the contrcl room waiting for the annunciator alarm on this test; however, he said he may have been the STE in the control room.
YOUNG offered that during the conduct of a preoperational test, if a portion of the test could not be successfully completed, the test would be halted and a determination would have to be made as to whether there was a procedural problem or design problem.
YOUNG said that once this determination was made, a test deficiency report would be written.
YOUNG said that he did recall participating in a " dry run" on the preopera-tional portion of test ICP-PT-02-02 several weeks before the actual preopera-tional test. YOUNG explained that if they had received the red indicator light on the inverter panel during the " dry run", they would have proceeded with the test.
YOUNG said that during this " dry run" there was probably no one in the control room to see if the annunciator alarm activated.
YOUNG said that because he could not recall whether he participated in the preoperational portien of test ICP-PT-02-02, he could not say whether the annunciator alarm activated on step 22 en each of the tests of the four inverters.
,R_eview of In Camera ASt.BP Testimony of Arthur LONDON, Lead STE at CPSES On September 21, 1984, LONDON, a start-up test engineering lead at the CPSES, testified in an in camera hearing before the CPSES ASLBP (Exhibits 8 and 11).
LONDON examined Twiring diagram for the inverters on the reactor protection system.
LONDON said that the manner in which the alarm relay was designed and the manner in which the original test ICP-PT-02-02 was written, the test and the system were not compatible. LONDON said that the inverter, as it was originally designed by Westinghouse, could not have activated the annunciator alarm in the control room during the simulation of an overcurrent condition during the 1982 preoperational test. LONDON said that the annunciator alarm in the control room was supposed to activate if the inverter panel experienced a loss of AC voltage or an overcurrent condition. LONDON said the overcurrent condition would also be denoted by the illumination of the red indicator light on the inverter panel.
Case ho. 4-84-047 12
LONDON stated that h'e verified in' the field that the alarm relay was connected in accordance with the electrical diagram as originally designed by Westinghouse.
LONDON testified that at the time WITNESS F conducted his preoperational test, he could have verified that there had been no engineering modification to the alarm relay by reviewing outstanding design change documen-tation.
LONDON testified that in February 1984, the preoperational test (1CP-PT-02-02) on the inverters was reconducted, and he said the annunciator alarm did not activate an the related step on each of the inverters.
Interview With Arthur LONDON, Lead STE at CPSES On February 19, 1986 LONDON was interviewed as part of this investigation (Exhibit 9).
LONDON said that when preoperational test ICP-PT-02-02 was reconducted in 1984, the annunciator alarm failed to activate on step 22 on each of the four inverters.
LONDON said he subsequently reviewed the existing documentation on the Westinghouse inverters, and had detemined that the annunciator alarm could not have activated on step 22 as originally designed.
LONDON said he had detemined from his review that the related portion of the inverters had not been changed nor modified between the 1982 test and the 1984 retest.
LONDON said that there was no evidence that a test deficiency report was written related to the annunciator alam not activating during the 1982 test. LONDON said that, in his opinion, the overcurrent condition simulated in the 1982 test would not have activated the annunciator alarm for any of the other conditions the alarm was designed to monitor. LONDON concluded that because the annunciator alarm could not have activated, WITNESS F had falsified the 1982 test and had decetved the QAT.
Review of CPSES ASLBP in Camera Testimony of WITNESS F, Fomer STE On September 9,1984 WITNESS F testified during an in camera session of the CPSES ASLBP (Exhibit 10). WITNESS F said that he woBied as 6 employee in a start-up engineering group beginning in August 1982.
WITNESS F said that his duties involved the testing of equipment following construction to identify problems.
WITNESS F said he was initially assigned to write preoperational and acceptance test procedures for the electrical start-up group. WITNESS F said his initial supervisor was CHEATHEAM for about six months, and then LONDON became his supervisor.
INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: Throughout WITNESS F's jrt camera testimony, references are made by hearing party representatives to various other documents, i.e.,
WITNESS F's direct testimony, WITNESS F's voir dire testimony, depositions, redacted versions of depositions, and expanded versions of depositions and exhibits related to WITNESS F's technical allegations. Some of these docu-ments are not included as part of this report, but are available through the NRC Executive Legal Division.
WITNESS F said that his signature on a prerequisite test sheet represented that he had witnessed the test.~ WITNESS F said that he would not have signed all the blocks on a test report unless he perfomed all the steps. WITNESS F said that on November 17, 1982, during a test on the inverters (1CP-PT-02-02),
he was in comunication with an individual in the control room who was supposed to tell him whether an alarm had. activated during the test.
WITNESS F said he did not know the identity of the person in the control room. WITNESS F said that during the test, the QA representative, EDDIE, was standing beside him in Case No. 4-84-047 13
l.
l l
the vicinity of the inverter panel loc ~ated two levels of elevation removed from the control room. WITNESS F testified that he was either using a headset or a telephone to centact the control room, and said that EDDIE would not have been able to hear what was said on the headset or telephone.
WITNESS F testified that when he received the AC input alarm as verified by tt.e individual in the control room, he logged it as verified. WITNESS F said he did not recall any discussions with CHEATHEAM or JAMAR subsequent to this tett about having falsified the test or having deceived a QAT during this test.
Interview With WITNESS F, Former STE, I ((
WITNESS F was interviewed on January 15, 1986, as part of this investigation and his sworn testimony was transcribed by a court reporter (Exhibit 12).
WITNESS F denied that he had falsified the preoperational test and denied having deceived EDDIE or any 0AT on test ICP-PT-02-02. WITNESS F also denied ever telling CHEATHEAM and/or JAMAR that he had deceived a QAT. WITNESS F said he recalled an occasion during this same timeframe when CHEATHEAM counseled him about having made derogatory remarks to some electrical craft personnel (not further identified) about QA representatives. WITNESS F opined that CHEATHEAM and JAMR may have been confused about this incident which resulted in their accusation against him.
Willfulness / Intent 1.
JAMAR testified before the 'CPSES ASLBP that WITNESS F admitted deceiving the QA representative.
JAMAR also said he was present when WITNESS F admitted to CHEATHEAM that he had deceived the QAT (Exhibit 1). However, JAMAR recanted his testimony when interviewed as part of this investiga-tion. JAMAR stated that WITNESS F never actually said he had falsified the preoperational test or deceived the QAT (Exhibit 2).
2.
CHEATHEAM testified before the CPSES ASLBP that in 1982, he interrogated WITNESS F about the deception as soon as it was brought to his attention.
CHEATHEAM said that WITNESS F admitted that he had deceived the QAT during the test (Exhibit 3). When CHEATHEAM was interviewed as part of this investigation (Exhibit 4), he initially expressed doubts as to whether WITNESS F had actually admitted he (WITNESS F) had falsified the test or deceived the QAT. However, CHEATHEAM concluded that based on the aftions he took at the time combined with his test recollections, he believed WITNESS F had admitted to him in the presence of JAMAR that he (WITNESS F) had deceived the QAT.
3.
EDDIE, the QAT, testified before the CPSES ASLBP that he had worked with WITNESS F on the preoperational test (Exhibits 5 and 11).
When inter-viewed as part of this investigation (Exhibit 6), EDDIE said that during the test, WITNESS F told him that the individual in the control room (YOUNG) had reported that the a'nnunciator alarm had activated.
4.
YOUNG said he did not recall participating with WITNESS F and EDDIE on the preoperational test (Exhibit 7).
YOUNG indicated that if he had participated on the preoperational test and if the alarm failed to Case No, 4-84-047 14
activate, the test would have been halted and a test deficiency report written. YOUNG said a det2rminai. ion would have to be made as to whether the problem was with the procedure or the design before the test could have continued.
5.
LONDON testified before the CPSES ASLBP that following the 1984 retest of the inverters in which the annunciator alarm failed to activate, he reviewed the Westinghouse drawings and all design change documentation on the inverters (Exhibits 8 and 11). LONDON said no test deficiency reports were found related to the 1982 preoperational test which reported that the annunciator alarm failed to activate. LONDON said he concluded that the annunciator alarm, as designed, could not have activated on step 22 during the 1982 or 1984 tests.
LONDON concluded that because the alarm could not have activated, then WITNESS F must have falsified the
, test and deceived the QAT (Exhibit 9).
6.
WITNESS F testified that he had worked on preoperational test ICP-PT-02-02 with EDDIE. When interviewed as part of this investigation, WITNESS F said he had been notified by the unknown person in the control room that the alarm had activated on step 22 on each of the inverters.
WITNESS F denied falsifying the test, denied deceiving EDDIE on the preoperational test, and denied ever having told JAMAR or CHEATHEAM that he had deceived EDDIE or any QAT during the test (Exhibits 10 and 12).
Agent's Conclusion As the evidence presented bi the utility against WITNESS F was developed during the ASLBP hearings, the fact was established that the inverters, as designed, would not have activated the annunciator alarm during the test. This fact combined with the testimony of the EE and the Supervisor that WITNESS F had admitted deceiving the QAT made a compelling case for the conclusion that WITNESS F had falsified the test and deceived the QAT. However, during this investigation, the EE recanted his testimony that WITNESS F had confessed to l
the deception and the falsification.
The Supervisor initially waivered in his l
testimony and reported that his questioning of WITNESS F was " general in l
nature."
l The design problem, in and of itself, was not sufficient evidence to conclude that WITNESS F falsified the test, and the person or persons monitoring the l
test in the control room was not positively identified. As the utility's witnesses' testimony eroded, so did the conclusion that WITNESS F falsified the test and deceived the QAT.
This investigation did not establish that
(
WITNESS F falsified the preoperational test nor did it prove that he deceived the QAT.
Case No. 4-84-047 15 l
LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO.
Description 1
Evidentiary Deposition of JAMAR, August 28, 1984.
2 Sworn Statement of JAMAR, March 4,1986.
3 Evidentiary Deposition of CHEATHEAM, August 28, 1984.
4 Report of Interview with CHEATHEAM, February 19, 1986.
5 Evidentiary Deposition of EDDIE, September 21, 1984.
6 Report of Interview with EDDIE, February 19, 1986.
7 Sworn Statement of YOUNG, February 25, 1986.
8 Evidentiary Deposition of LONDON, September 21, 1984.
9 Report of Interview with LONDON, February 19, 1986.
JB1 amera ASLBP testimony of WITNESS F September 9, 1984.
C 10 l
11 jb1 Camera ASLBP testimony of Utility witnesses EDDIE and LONDON, September 21, 1984.
12 Transcript,of WITNESS F's testimony, January 15, 1986.
I r
j Exhibits 1, 3, 5, 8,10,11, and 12 are ASLBP jjl camera depositions which contain WITNESS F's identity. Therefore, these depositions are not included with this report in that the ASLBP gave WITNESS F confidentiality, but are available in the 01 Region IV office.
s 1
Case No. 4-84-047 16
6 THIS EXH.! BIT CONTAINS IN CAMERA TESTIMONY AND IS THEREFORE WITHHELD. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE, REGION IV i
EXHIBIT 1 L
l p
s e
1 it k
p"F*%,
UNITED STATES
['
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
office cF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION IV N.,,,,
- "1ENG30.TE S
STATEMENT Lffiant Street b f h N y
% r-
~
*' % % 7exas froje< S on I,__/fw rhowv Ea m e _
, hereby make the following voluntary statement to
- . M rre/ k s A r-It ##
. who has identified himself to me as an Invastigator with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
I make this statement freely with no threats or promises of reward having been mede to me.
H en
/s m-/.. &
Lu tA mo c re ted wo r ra a
e 6%ecedicas s1. na A EuniNeer.
r orvv'ious lw war / red chr$ln (STED e.<ickerr !af Mawe Ae as a
Ba k.
re ca // A4 dx
/ Von kt-J'7. MP2 h>; Mss F a a-e tu e d a + & o FRc e a+ (o+1ock Akbrawa
% L+
ha w oa e u
.f mc h %b/c GAL he 4xi, en, '
' l w f A.s:ns<
G d ocoeo i ces-(ner c a Andersea.
e cu,&r s TFl <s d f ise n la He API %. A H G eh
?!
2,a+sen f~ 'did oof n a v L + he LWdone 8
L&ea wrona.1 brG
%+
k ka' tu s + com e AL
!.wrV;de' e o teo,o e ca-h o I % +
o n a
'L O ver+en!.
and 2
hb eu e or< w e 1A+
Lo win t<F
&,w- -hme ked a GA kl,wrou du a-r na L M f;
/
i.T sa+ in~edia %
I o %Id c%%-. m l s: 1F /ead, and 7'-Inid h;n
.T esu (cf nW acc-V u no ah'ewkn-uhea
+-tekerv 6 lorn %f.
raae
% %a~
Md ne k
a+ /Mhvere K.r
'd hi4xes s P 4 cc~ e c% %
% of& e,
ln+
r did od
+e // him w4v rkf4 ea-
\\ wAA.:6 see hi~
~
-D(HIBIT N
,1-
- - L
~
~.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,I OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION IV
' '. '... + * '
'" "O"is"cio#N. TsES' 'MII "
STATEMENT
'(Continued)
CLo Asked ki%m G n wea l ekos%
a a 4, + ff,e ore oceu hon / 4es+, kd
'Z~ tven //
hn%s P # 1 d ' H ere tsa s e
brolo (en nc% en us"c% %
o k ca. r n ILc
%f Mtm f 4 4,.~ e d C 6 + 4 e ~
Me re. land kcf sfeo n
u vo lnd so &
+es +
c o s v.
I re..
// L4 jv.+m F's asd Eddie 's t'd A /ec hnickU siue. ken w cs on the o s re on.de
/;oec fes+ a.a.. s+u sa r< lo /ed 4 4M lae.uc / car a /4c:-,.C < b, 22).
u I r e c.,
ti L +
dn Hn
~/o/d 4, h ess P
' f
< o m.-J w o ce L /e.~.
.1,Jf i do m+
ren her sw sosc t he
} a c f h e: h o s s. a l x a A L.wm # 4w 2 4-
+/,#o ~, 2. o /so d4 4ef rem fore s/~x <
oc to+ima o uJ-4%f w)bm F's dr~o44re o1
<len 21 uouId he e
fala fields,o i P- +k a laL kd "d-ac44 oakd kii+ms F
h/d rknfrie, se aajs-r.a n /d corre J ho ks+
laitac f a ver wd la
& d s1'e c e d L
li?4-kl nieten R,(sined %
1%/
s r-et4kc-ra ne. oFRc e e t-u che~%.., '.s efFice..L MWV% han 1% W eecue d 1d
' y.g w;4 aa c <
C LF Fa(si/4 ise ~,LL o
~hef er de e eistaa a)A-McMi ch.
f Y$'nt A l< S h lC t'o / S ha l Al fY
/A.) tfAf f
- 1wsn" E bresar) u L
eMbe er k a./
~
hens a s u
,4 %u.
4
+rve/r s GA
{
IXHIBIT P
---..L'?-'-------------------
-- A C-- -
9.
- L e *
^
UNITED STATES
't NUCLEAR REGULATOhY COMMISSION i,I oFF;ct oF INVESTIGATIONS FI' ELD OFFICE. REGION IV
/*
- ,,./
'" "R"i!G?ot. T#fS%I' "
STATEMENT (Continued) 4cchea eonJmwed wi-h f%e rs I+s
- A
'cio,a f 's
,e ksJ ra MN lead's ae 4
hd'liev.e bu< f4ece P
-f4Is/Ned %
o n. o,oo n e A w a l Ve /.
s v N/N N
\\
N N
N N
(
\\
N N N N
I have read the foregoing statement consisting of 3
handwritten / W -
pages.
I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my initials at the bottom of each ppge.mI fu}1y unArsgqd and have discussed the statement with Investigator Yf.//TrodKs (Or-l7th/. This statement is the truth, to the best of my knowledg~e and lief.
e)
- T-4. t-dP4 Signature:
.,f Subscribed and sworn to before me this N day of 8 4tt.k 19Bbt
%d.'T5Kac
$s-Mee.$.
Investigator:
M dddj s Authority:
Sectiofic AEA 1954 as amended Witness:
Name/ Title L M S ', E O 4 7
- An.o.i Initials of Person Itakinn Statsmant
- -_ S rxuTRTT n2ne,es
7.__ ;
3 THIS EXHtBIT CONTAINS I_N, CAMERA TESTIMONY AND IS THEREFORE WITHHELD. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE IN Tile OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE.. REGION IV I
j i
i m
EXHIBIT 3 q
i 1
i J
l
O REFORT OF INTERtIEW WITH HAR01.0 CHEATHEAF.
~
i On February 19, 1986, Harold CHEATHEAM, a TUGC0 Technical Support Engineer, was intervieweo by NRC Investigator H. brooks Griffin at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
CHEATHEAM had previously provided an in camera evidentiary deposition to the Conanche Peak ASLB containing his testimony I
regarding the alleged falsification of a start-up test by WITNESS F.
CHEATHEAM said he first became aware of the allegation that WITNESS F had deceived a QA technician when Anthony JAMAR inforced him that he (JAMAR) had overheard WITNESS F talking to some other employees about the deception.
CHEATHEAM said that JAMAR told him that WIThESS F subsequently admitted to him (JAMAR) that he had deceived the QA technician. CHEATHEAM said he promptly called WITNESS F to his office.
Initially CHEATHEAM said he was unsure if WITNESS F actually admitted he had deceived the QA technician.
- However, CHEATHEAM concluded that based on the actions he had taken at the time and his best r collection, WITNESS F admitted to him in the presence of JAMAR that he had falsified the test and deceived the QA technician. CHEATHEAM said he instructed WITNESS F to correct the test, and said that on the following day WITNESS F indicated to him the test had been completed.
DATE PREPARED IN DRAFT FROM NOTES TAKEN DURING INTERVIEW:
February 20, 1986 I
l I
i EXHIBIT Case No. 4-84-047 pAos
/
I pg op
es 4
l THIS EXH! BIT CONTAINS IN CAMERA TESTIMONY
?
s AND IS THEREFORE WITHHELD. THESE DOCUMENTS t
ARE AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF INVESTICATIONS 4
FIELD OFFICE. REGION IV EXHIBIT 5 i
O l
4 i
I i
l J
1 i
REPORT OF INTERVIEW WITh DAVID EDDIE On February 19, 1986, David EDDIE, a TUGC0 Senior 0A Technician at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station was interviewed by hRC Investigator H. Brooks Griffin.
EDDIE previously provided an in camera evidentiary depcsition to the Comanche Peak ASLB and testified in the hearings.
EDDIE said that he recalled that in 1982 prior to preoperational test ICP-PT-02-02, he attended a pretest meeting with WITNESS F and Jerry YOUNG, two Start-up Test Engineers, to discuss the conduct of the test.
EDDIE said that all three of them had a copy of the test, and said he recalled that YOUNG was responsible for manning a headset in the control room to relay information to WITNESS F and himself about the annunciator alarm.
EDDIE said he recalled that YOUNG was a relatively new employee at the time.
EDDIE saio that during the test, he recalled that WITNESS F was in telephonic contact with YOUNG in the control room.
EDDIE said he did not overhear any portion of the conversation between YOUNG and WITNESS F related to whether the annunciator alarm had activated.
EDDIE said that he witnessed WITNESS F sign off test step 22 on each of the four inverters.
DATE PREPARED IN DRAFT FROM NOTES TAKEN DURING INTERVIEW:
Februa ry 20, 1986 l
l
[
i dXHIBIT Case No. 4-84-047
]
u utte s: Arts NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN
- e 3
OFFICE OF INVESTICATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION IV 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SulTE 1000
,,, ~,,
'/
ARUNGTON TEXAS 76011 STATEMENT k.' E t'*hi t S f
1, eC e rc,lt /
Fe t, w >_
, hereby make the following voluntary statement r
u. g4rre/4 (G -M+rw
, who has identified himself to me as an to y
i Inves~t'igator with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
I make this statement
~
freely with no threats or promises of reward having been made to me.
.T o r w n Y / a e n r> le u n d
<1 s e
SMobr co o rel<'krcler ch c +- w A+ t% %M~ e 6%er Sh% I l
>,c we,. ic a,i lu "m n n/soM' L
, din. o v-M hf <rc e
%ke*,J ~ris + A -d u e
</+
co-, a.,. ch J% &
%en, Wl chie- %ddic~
k,
& e /992 i,. +;I Me,,
a A %..,Iwr l'i92
. T n r-h,,a c Iv ccalt,ebc/If M W Wid )c det-a, b m en.p.'
,r-k is
(
V
/
jf
/%c do m, han thls sA%.d r <>wel a n e c.
b < c. /c u c r'
-s-kL.d t-e Med 4, %
AsL6 orc tech orz/er re /n b/ 4 W,/s e c,c e. Lesh4r r
&c;PM pelaivect' fk orwiskas E%
cerl4r ch aw, e d r de le,, 4 #r i k i s w e e / Me erseed
/
/
/
kr/E Pm dmov /
e,4-Mmec. 4 -e
(% t-in><,
ma
'th k'( J tenen loer iAcklwe, u 7%e
- ws erfers i
cec.chr oeoled/w %ye' m.
rx,m k.-;+or ew (c'rr h%
-s k 0 e,re 2 s e e,
cG-o e 2
ks-/ fc (>- two>c2 1
n.~ <f 'E re ec.ca ; a n,.i nic1 4,vc h
the tre rv m,.s ;k %r% <!F tite. <r%+ Aled //- A-12 A'
~c.o-fr o ( nc~,
W' th VT<,%
reA &c we rA%.
/,,.
Oc:lne, Por o-w,oeic,& 'c/nc.~c,/w/ z c6 m-f r'~ a.4 her oI,e % c i
as
,ssocs /d ~ ;ft W
- sf.
.T
<4 n +
,w~ l* r w Ae&c I
'l t% r4 c ; p&cl in tk r tb Eh K M % C)n-r +te o e-P u
e y
v xv.m%gw A, sm, % <
u
c,'**""'*,
UNITED STATES f*
ar ;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE. REGION tv
,/
'""n"aut.131Se!!"
i 5
STATEMENT (Continued) see r am
,m+
s u ce d e +1,e e r ear /icia, fed
,G fra ore <(xr h /
/ed, I c o. # s J'
,-;a d do !,vd re-en h er 14 e H,er & nk~cis n 2 /c rA 4 cOdd
~
<> b
.22 s!B M. P # s * -W o4 p.
oP %
Le swee k rs.
% ear s <wc e 1
ccxd uded ti,e o re mndis ;k kk+1 fx e oreu tcm. du, 4Mre id w/ c1 we.e a
US A eJoed %
+he pr,' edern-Wa /
ht, V
t/
V
< enen :
C+ was cem~,~-
As a
YN<
/
C c4 rn/
tA A16 /cWP,-/ ee4/Y<, O b EqIs ffe Re /d e6r-/A /ec/x / che v'he psf
[>o 4, ns ro,,., n Iw kd, fid
% TE wa,W re%
tb
!vF'Rc e d~ d me o FP x #
crP tAe 4e< +
s+es.~ c a k o,-de i[' n we 6.nses e,c L / h k m u % J e bep4 acrFenc d e
etc y c,r ks cPerker.
y 1
i+F f
/ w e% o/cuneo+
cif Ch~a~.c-he
/&&
< cme,% e. !m
' Me. /l4ve.
ben n M.Z~
in a, ber m
Ic<+
/ec.+
i a, s ' p r 02 -/c
+%e s u 14'e l, m ee, r a.~ c(
m aW 'codre /.
, cw l r A wo+
re~, d, her-c&k s!'
Vt, >v
- fest.
6u+
.I hF+
+f, e sik L lb//oz~/ac pj-
/
N
- m NPE"O'M
~%%,
i-
~
l s.
~xng., _ ]
/
4.; g g ~ 47 3nud77.' q ' PAGEIS) l initidis c?kersnn t.tavinn Staraman t, <t y n '#'_
l
UNITED STATES
-r NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INVESTIG ATIONS FIELD OF,FICE. REGION IV
'" "U"dGiS. T$IS #2If "
S 4,,
STATEMENT (Continuec) l'7-o2 - o 2,
ei~. c4 T </s <te f rc.m f., A>e e ide
.5~rE er fl,e.
GA-7e~ c 1, - tc ie,,i.n n.,c -( o n-
-/), e-tes'f.
T-l-is seesik/e
%.+
- r
<i<,si d M ui%
th;s y'e z.+
4 / werk>n.e.
tn the c c~ +, /, A + x c r'o a f rIw,, loer. I /Ai
.c&
^
fje.gF6'"
r co,,, /6
's+ u t, dever M-t r w
nc.e,w.v.,
a m ea e 1 s,hr n lum s for u
- e e-edc./ rum.'
c
% A'oR%ed} u wA s ^'e f A' // ens'.ve, er lc'"9 cpA er
~h % -f c c c> v. b e c-n a4 e
.Z M m Pd he/~ 6 m d '.nc im f e'E,' t1,e %e n /%
uiM?
file noeec,K,rs.
(.
/
v PGYimeScn'
,. Yi,e
()ft' <%Y)ef% W)'wa l /20r*Noit' L
a
,a a
f'11 cc2 -ox <en iM h c, k vk kes 2
h '%
Asn es.
r.P +A e erm.c.tc. br a4cm k </ wo+ <re b 1 el
,,, e i m l-)- Ate r m //w
< :lrw f$c
'l E s f r1 ~'ct' l Mrkcminel u k tia/r tiu ee t.u n
/ptvenA rc, /
e t-c i'<c c / cr s i DrflalPm s ~e/ / f 40 WnYe c ? d e PY f e. n v M Wh
/
V f
Y rec
//
-Ik+
severe. /
uer Ax ASce fl, c nM co ern'l1%a I
'It< f i c 'n c,
'N b<a
/;.k rfe,n ed, G
hasMW cLcht e,.
"ed ra %: " c <> '
us er krs He<+ l r7~ c.2-a 23. /% en r- @
M +f,.9 rec l
/acllcNtfar-
//C/11 ' Aa V/,5-w/
IV orrf"9NWe%-it iia ~i5d, tw]cas1.. I r1
& Je-YdNa%
f3rew,-$e ef i + i8 Y'Nd '/ Psf b N, thv'e N,' s r
WW rw " m n nbo6 lei
- did'/tsf n'es h a fe n'.~ruMe ll8 ff,e No.JYfd {
(Yts 1s Yo
vN' S / tf, e e%wn c i c
1 -
l l
2 7
4 -84 EO47
'/ ['
- ^'d" in < t 4,iser om.nn n9 4 nn e v.q~n t// t sk+ #
."- clorzy k owr-m.
'c
[*
'n,,
UNITED STATES
.t*
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'I.
.g.
. ', j OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS FIELD OFFICE REGION IV
~
s..
611 RYAN PLAZA drive. SUITE 1000 ARUNGTON. TEX AS 76011 STATEMENT (Continued)
\\ N N N N N h 'w%
k "WNAc W v
\\
mN N N I have read the foregoing statement consisting of handwritten /typet pages.
I have made and initialed any necessary corrections and have signed my initials at the bottom of eachjag I fully understand and have discussed the statement with Investigator Cor-J A/
This statement is the truth to the best of my kn edge and belief.
Signature:
,,/
Name
,/
lubscFibed and sworn to before me this 27 day of [eb me,n/,
198kt
& tM Y, ?&'X49 Investigator:
N.Mako Authority:
Section 1 M AEA 1954 as amended Witness:
s Name/ Title
~7 4 M84EOti7 A>
i * ' P
Initials of Person Making Sta.temen EXifIB 70
p em.t v
w 4
.r m.a
-6 S
O Q
l THIS EXH'. BIT CONTAINS IN, CAMERA TESTIMONY AND IS THEREFORE WITHHELD. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF INVESTICATIONS l
l FIELD OFFICE, REGION IV O
8 e
l 1
r.
EXHIBIT'8
REPORT OF INTEP. VIEW WITH ARTHUR LONDON On Feiaruary 19, 1986, Arthur LONDON, a TUGC0 Start-up Electrical Group Leader at the Ccmanche Peak Steam Electric Station, was interviewed by NRC
- nvestigator H. Brooks Griffin.
LONDON had previously provided an in camera evidentiary deposition to the Comanche Peak ASLB and testified in the hearings.
LONDON explained that the annunciator alann in the control room was designed to activate for one of four reasons: (1) loss of AC input, (2) loss of DC input, (3) high internal DC voltage, and (4) loss of AC output. As related to preoperational test ICP-PT-02-02, LONDON said the annunciator alarm was cesigned to activate on step 15 of the test, would have been reset on step 18, and should have again activated on step 22 if the wiring configuraton had been a ppropria te.
LONDON said that under operating conditions, the operator in the control room would acknowledge an annunciator alarm thereby changing it from a fast flash and audible to a constant illumination.
LONDON said that based on his review of test ICP-PT-02-02 conducted in 1982 by WITNESS F, it was his opinion that the original test and wiring configuration the hardware configuration were not compatible.
LONDON said that the original cesign of the inverters would have allowed the red indicator light on the inverter panel to illuminate, but would not have activiated the annunciator alarm during the simulated overcurrent condition. LONDON explained that the i
red indicator light on the inverter indicated an overcurrent condition whereas the annunciator alarm for the purposes of step 22 of test ICP-PT-02-02 indicated a loss of AC output.
LONDON said that base on his review, the simulation of the overcurrent condition on step 22 of the test could not have caused the annunciator alarm to activate for any of the other designed conditions (supra).
LONDON said that Richard SIEGEL, another STE, reconducted test PT-02-02 in 1984.
LONDON said that the annunciator alam in the control room did not activate on step 22 during this retest, because the wiring configuration was such that the alarm could not activate.
LONDON was questioned whether WITNESS F would have been responsible prior to his 1982 test to review the historical records for the inverters for any design changes or modifications which could affect the validity of the test.
LONDON said WITNESS F would have been responsible to research all changes and nodifications potentially affecting that portion of the inverter involved in the test. LONDON said he reviewed of all design changes, start-work authorizations, TUGC0 design change requests, start-work permits, and test deficiency reports for the inverters. LONDON said no test deficiency reports were found for the 1982 preoperational test which indicated that the annunciator alarm failed to activate. LONDON said he concluded that the hardware was in exactly the same configuration during the 1984 retest as it l
l EXHIBIT Case No. 4-84-047 PAGE' OF PAGE(S)
had been during the original test in 1982.
LONDON concluded that because the annunciator alarm could not have activated, WITNESS F had f alsified the test and had deceived the QA technician into verifying step 22 on each of the four ir:ve rters.
DATE PREPARED IN DRAFT FP,0M NOTES TAKEN DURING INTERVIEW:
Februa ry 20, 1986 G
(.
?
?
1 L
e
\\
h Case No. 4-84-047 2Ar.s
?.-
PAGE(S)
THIS EXHl. BIT CONTAINS IN CAMERA TESTIMONY 4
AND IS THEREFORE WITHHELD. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS
]
FIELD OFFICE, REGION IV l
i i
EXHIBIT 10 l
l
\\
l I
9
wg n
,w
+
9 9 **
g e
THIS EXHtBIT CONTAINS IN CAMERA TESTIMONY AND IS THEREFORE WITHHELD. THESE DOCUMENTS e
ARE AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF INVESTICATIONS i
j FIELD OFFICE. RECION IV i
0 e
T EXHIBIT 11
(
'I o
L e
i 1
il Il l,
f S
N S
O T
I Y
N T
N E
A O
M G
M U
I I
C T
T O
S S
D E
E V
T E
N S
I A
E R
H F
E T
O M
A E
C C
D I
N L
F I
E F
V H
O I
S H
N T
E N
I I
H O
A W
T I
T G
N E
N E
O R
I R
C O
F E
T E
L E
I R
B C
t B
E A
I t
H L
F h
e H
T I
F X
A O
E S
V I
A D
S L
I D
E E
H N
R I
T A
A F
2 1
T I
B I
H X
E W
O
_