ML20207H221
| ML20207H221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1984 |
| From: | NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207H212 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-91 NUDOCS 8607240108 | |
| Download: ML20207H221 (76) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
Q4-34-037
] ! i
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
- TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM 3l l I DO NOT DISCLOSE !
l I
5 TECHNICAL INTERVIEW i
6 7 !
$ Wednesdav, Aucust 8, 1984 l 9
l This interview was commenced at 1:15 p.m. j 10 i
11 l l l 1 g3 i PRESENT: i i
13 l MR. DICK WESSMAN, Technical Review Team Staf#
Nuclear Regulatory Commission !
8 34 Washington, D.C. 20555 I
"R. ROBERT HUESARD, Technical Review Team Staff !
la Nuclear Regulatory Commission W shington, D.C. 20555 l 16 l ,
MR. VERN WATSON, Technical Review Team Staff ;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
I
, Washington, D.C. 20555 IS f 19 l '
1 ALSO PRESENT:
' l
'l
~
Ms. Meddie Gregory Mr. Eloy Gaitin 22 23 ,
. %s 3 . ,.
8607240108 860721 3 /1- N*U S PDR FOIA
- - KOHN85-91 PDR ,
-- _a
R.O Ndi D!SC1.0M 1
PROC E ED I NG S I ,
- o. .
3 MR. WESSMAN: For the record, this is an interview 4 of Don Nisich for the purpose of clarifying various 5 concerns regarding QA and OC activities at the Comanche l
The location of the interview is in 1
6 Peak Power Plant.
7 Mr. Nisich's home in he date is f
f S August 8th. Present at the interview are Mr. Nisich, t
9 myself, Dick Wessman from the NRC staff, Vern Watson fror the NRC staff, and Ecb Hubbard from the NRC staff. As we've 10 i. l .
I 11 acreed, the interview is being transcribed.
- And the NBC -
12 l wants to get an appreciation for various concerns anc -
13 ,
issues that you have concerning activities at Comanche Peak.
I 14 Before we start on some of those concerns and issues, I -
l a- would like to clarify your current employment and vour -
3 16 l employment while you were at Comanche Peak and if you woulf, i i 17 l t the circumstances surrounding your departure from employ-I g3 ment at Comanche Peak. So, if you would, can you tell me I 19 .i what you're doing now, please, Don?
l
'O
~ I MR. NISICH: Ncthinc.
~
l t
- i' gj MR. WESSMAN: Can you tell me about your empicyment while you were at Cc=anche Peak?
, a, MR. NISICH: I was a Level II A inspectcr. I was 3; certified and trained. My certifications were in -- the eq 3 they expressed it, I was a nuclear we'. ding inspector, L.: :_
__x
I D.O NOT DISCLOSE 3.
1 .
II. I had been a nuclear structural steel inspector for ,
t Brown and Root in Level II. This was not at Comanche Peak, !
3 ,' ;
i but STP. Nuclear welding inspector Level II. Nuclear ASME 4 i
. VT inspector Level II. Can you people interpret this later i 5 l, on what this is? (Mr. Nisich is referring te resume that 6 I I
lists his positions.) ,i e
MR. WESSMAN: Yes. We can. !
S '
j MR. NISICH: Nuclear ASME PT inspector, Nuclear ASME 9
MT and UTDT inspector --
10 j MR. WATSON: All Level II?
11 '
MR. NISICH: All Level II. Nuclear ASME mechanical j 12 -
ecuipment inspector Level II, Nuclear ASMI manufacturinc i
i 13 ~ :
i inspection / mechanical inspector -- The way they worded some i i
14 -
, of their certifications, I can't understand them, but that's.
I 15 i
, their way of doing it. And a N-5 document visual inspector 16 .
- Level II -- '
i l 17 e i i MR. WESSMAN: Let me interrupt for a moment, Do.. .
l 'E We have the copy of the resume, of course, so I think if 10 you would, tel] us most specifically the particular activi-
'O
~ I i ties that vcu were doinc most recently while you were at I' i
,3
~
Comanche Peak. Just describe a little more fully than what's en the resume: the type of activities that ycu were q,
- dcing while you were at the Comanche Peak site.
MR. NISICH: I did them all.
3 MR. WESSMAN: All cf these various inspecticns that
DO NOT DISCLOSE 1 4.
i !
1 I i you have just listed for us: is that correct?
o
~ l i MR. NISICH: Yes. It is.
3 MR. WESSMAN: Now, you said that you're nct empicyed.
4 When did you leave the Comanche Peak site?
5 MR. NISICH: Well, I found out that I had left the 6
site the -- I beliete it was the seventeenth of last month. .
i l've got a copy of my termination. It was the Tuesday ,
8 '
prior to the seventeenth -- or was it the seventeenth? It i
9 '
was the weekend following the famous Friday. It would be ,
10 i the Tuesday following that Friday.
I 11 You're referring to the Friday the l MR. WESSMAN:
t *
}O l
~
thirteenth massacre: I think some people called it.
13 MR. NISICH: 50 they called it. Yeah. ;
14 MR. WESSMAN: All right. Can you tell us why you 15 were terminated?
16 Because no one will tell me why:
MR. NISICH: No.
1' except that I had missed an unusual amount cf time. Their l
15 l claim was a hundred and fifty-five and a half hours, and i
10 '
l then, they said, "Once you were placed in that category, I
- 'O then you were placed in other categories:" whatever that i
I
'l i r
means.
I ,
f --
MR. WESSMAN: Ycu say that they told ycu that you 3
3 had missed an unusual amount of time --
4 it MR. NISICH: One hundred and f fty-five and cne nait
, hours.
e .
k I I
. MR. WESSMAN: Do you know over what period this I
8 unusual time occurred?
3 MR. NISICH: No. Their claim was that they had taken 4
However, l up to the time of the lay-off, twelve months back.
5 i I if they were to do that, it wouldn't have been fair because 6
they had people in QC that they brought over from the craft that had not been there a year.
S .
MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Can you tell me who tras it that j l
9 I i explained to you why you were being terminated? i I .
'IO l' MR. NISICH: Al Smith. But he still was very vague.
I II ! It was done at the Hilton Inn down here a few days ago.
t 12 '
MR. WESSMAN: Is Al Smith an employee of Brown and 13 I
, Root?
14 l MR. NISICH: Yes. Right now, he's currently a member 15
,- of the lecation team that's between Brown and Root and ST?
16 i project.
i I
3' I guess I dcn't understand. You say
! MR. WESSMAN:
i 15 l STP prcject and yet, he was doing termination activities 19 -'
j for pecple at the Ccmanche Peak project?
20 l Well, he was double talking. He
. MR. NISICH: Nc.
i
' was explaining to me why was laid off and by the same i token, he was saying ~. hat he was nct a part of it; that he
-' 'l was oniv. there as an observer.
ME. WES32'AN Wab A '. Smith yCui immediate Superv1SOr
' *aben vou were on site, -_then?
E.
1 l l MR. NISICH: No. He was my immediate supervisor
. I.
on South Texas project -- not my immediate, he was my 3 I quality assurance manager -- the site manager.
4 l' MR. WESSMAN: Who was your immediate supervisor at 3 e l
I Comanche Peak? ,
6l Bob Seivers, l
i MR. NISICH:
.I I '
When you were terminated at Comanche MR. WESSMAN:
l S ' i Peak, was Bob Seivers involvec in giving you your I
9 termination notice? .
.10 I came on site on the Tuesday
,MR . NISICH: No. .
11
- because your vacation is extended by one day, if you're 12 on vacation during a holiday, which I was July the fourth.
13 None of management came to see me, nor my lead, but they 14 sent me another man who had nothing in the way to do with .
15 I me to clear me off site.
16 MR. WESSMAN: Who was that man? .
MR. NISICH: Larry Wilkerson.
IS Larry Wilkerson?
, MR. WESSMAN:
I 19 '
i MR. NISICH: Yeah.
i 20 MR. WESSMAN: So, Larry Wilkersor was actually the
'l
~
individual who told you that you were terminated at Comanche a,
Peak- is that correct?
I og MR. NISICH. I was told at the time office that I 2 was terminated because they have the brass system, and my W ra whenever I showed up on the Tuesday. ,_
9 7.
MR. WESSMAN: Okay. So, once you went through the 2
I time office then, you talked with Larry Wilkerson; and 3 :
was he the one that actually gave you the details of your 4 .
j termination at Comanche Peak?
5 i l MR. NISICH: He shrugged his shoulders and more or 6 l l less said that he didn' t know why, and said that he did l not understand the full thing; that he had been a lead; 8
and that he was broken back to an inspector; that my 9
previous inspector, Wayne Mansfield, was broken to inspector
.10 i' status and then, for some reason, they were made special i
11 i
- assistants to Bob Seivers, which gives them another i
12
- responsibility of some sort or.some responsibility -- I 13
! don't know what.
I 14 8
- MR. WESSMAU: Larry Wilkerson and Bob Seivers; are 15 they Brown and Root employees?
16 MR. NISICH: Yeah.
17
- MR. WESSMAN: What did you do after Larry Wilkerson IS :
told you that you were terminated?
19
, MR. NISICH: Well, the normal process: I gathered 20 '
up whatever personal possessions I had wanted, turned in o; i
~
j my tools, cleared the different areas that were required
~~
prior to leaving the job site. Just before departure, I l
was interviewed by a Mr. Scott; he's a TUDCO representive,
'4 and his claim is that he is responsible for whatever QA --
~5 3
he was responsible for the QA functions of Brown and Root;
1
- 8. j 1 i i
interfacing through TUDCO, I guess. j
! MR. WESSMAN: Did Mr. Scott give you any details !
3 '
concerning your termination? '
i 4 -
MR. NISICH: No. He wanted me to sign a statement --
5 the normal processing statement, prior to leaving, and I 6 i l told him that I declined to do so at that time, and as far as I'm concerned, it was an internal matter between myself 8
and Brown and Root.
9 MR. WESSMAN: Let's go back to Al Smith for a minuto.
-10 You said you had talked to Al Smith in the Hilton Hotel II !
i; here i MR. NISICH: Uh-huh. He came down. I 13 i MR. WESSMAN: Why was it that you talked with him? l -
14 [ ,
I guess I don't understand what role he plays in this ;
' I.
15 i discussion. I 16 Well, he was trying to explain to me j MR. NISICH:
l II I think he was trying to find out how j why I got laid off. ,
i.
I 18 I wouldn't discuss any of that.
much I knew.
', i 19 : '
' MR. WESSMAN: How much you knew about what? ,
I '
'O
~
MR. NISICH: About the plant site or what's going on. l 1
91 l This is supposition. I'm supposing. Okay? And I think i 22 towards the end of our discussion that he mentioned the .
'3 fact something about, " Don't take this as bending my arm," ,
24 but somewhere down the road, should I decide to go to work 25 , for Brown and Root again or elsewhere, if I became a whistle,
I 9.
1 i f
blower, and the first time I heard of the legal term under '
o
~ '
210 -- -
3 !
MR. WESSMAN: There is a Department of Labor regula-i 4
tion concerning protection of whistle blowers, and I think 5 I
,! that's what he's referring to. ,
6 MR. NISICH: Okay. Well, he said, " Title 210," is the first time I heard of that as a title -- i I '
S ,
MR. WESSMAN: It's a federal law. I 9
MR. NISICH: Yeah. Right. But I meant, the first 10 i
. time I -- I knew that the law existed, but just not II under the title number; that I could forget about it.
, MR. WESSMAN: Can you give me anymore details of 13
- that particular discussion?
14
. MR. NISICH: Wait a minute. I think this is --
U (Referring to two other people now entering Mr. Nisich's home.)
16 j MR. WESSMAN: All right. Let's go off the record le for a minute. i i
i 18 i.
(Off the record.)
79 20 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. If we're back on the record. ,
'l The reason we interrupted our discussion on the record with
- Mr. Nisich is the arrival of two other folks at Mr. Nisich's
'3 home. Meddie Gregory has arrived and may participate in 24
- some of our discussions, particularly in the document contrcl
.5 area. Accompanying Meddie Gregory, is a gentleman named
10.
I !
- Eloy Gaitin. Eloy Gaitin has identified himself as a legal 2 ; . .
Intern with GAP. Mr. Gaitin, can you tell me at whose 3
request are you here?
4 MR. GAITIN: I'm here at Mr. Nisich's request.
5 l MR. WESSMAN: Okay. As we've discussed while we were 6l off the record, it's my understanding that you are to take 7
notes, but not to participate in the discussion; is that 8
correct?
9 MR. GAITIN: That's correct.
.10 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. And I think as we've also 11 discussed, Meddie, you're here, I think, to participate 12 if you feel appropriate or take. notes and listen if you 13 .
i feel appropriate.
I I
14 MS. GREGORY: Just to do what I can to help.
15 3 MR. WESSMAN: I appreciate that. Okay. Let's go 16 i back, Don. We were talking about the circumstances of 17 your departure from Comanche Peak. I believe we were 18 -
talking about Mr. Al Smith of Brown and Root. Tell me 19 i '
again, how was it that you came to have a conversation with
'O him here, apparently within the last few weeks here in l .
Stephenville.
,, I.
l MR. NISICH: Well, I had called requesting my resume 3 i -
and my certifications. I spoke to Bob Seivers. Bob 1
4 1 Seivers wouldn't tell me nothing, but he was more interested.
5 He said that he'd have a copy of my resume sent, which you
11.
I have a copy of.
2 MR. WESSMAN: Yes.
- t 3
l MR. NISICH: And he also said that they were not i
4 .
going to send out copies of certifications; that they 5
l l were going to draft a letter, and I would receive one 1
6 f within a few days, which was a mon.th ago, and I haven't I !
I l pursued that any further. Then, something was mentioned ;
8 about a field manual that they couldn't find. Have I 9
mentioned that prior? I t
.10 ?
MR. hESSMAN: No. I don't believe so. l l
11 ! ,MR. NISICH: Okay. And I explained to them that i
12 I when I cleared out, they hao a man sit there and watch me
- I 13 '
take whatever I took; that I went through the procedure .
14 that the warehouse checking everything I had; and a guard 15 at the gate, confirming that whatever was on that list l .
I 16 was in there, and there was no other property there that 17 he could identify belonging to Brown and Root, which is l
1 !
18 l ,
normal; and I left. So, I called Al Smith and wanted to !
19 j talk to him. I wanted to know why I got laid off. How .
20 I got involved in the massacre. !
i 21 ,
MR. HUBBARD: You had known AJ from a previous 22 ; Brown and Root project, presumably?
i 23 l MR. NISICH: He was my QA manager at the South i
24 l Texas Project.
25 l MR. HUBBARD: Is he there now at South Texas?
-. - _. . . ~ _ _ - . _ _,__y - . _ _ _ _ _ - ,
12.
I 1 1
- MR. NISICH: No.
i
, e
~
. MR. HUBBARD: Where is he now?
3 i -
MR. NISICH: He's in the Houston office. He's 4
f part of the legation team between Brown and Root and HL&P.
5 He frequently visits the job site up here. I really 6 i don't know what his function is, unless it'd be to justify his salary or something. That's all I know.
8 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Anyway, proceed with -- You 9
I called Al Smith, and what went on?
'10 MR. NISICH: He said that he'd meet me last Thursday 11
! at the Hilton Inn; he wanted to talk to me. And the lo~ !
- conversation in general was as,you previously recorded 13 l with the ending as I said that they didn't want to twist
" my arm, et cetera, et cetera; however, if I wanted to 15 work for Brown and Root sometime in the future or.anywhere 16 else that I would seriously reconsider or consider whether I
I would testify or not.
18 i : MR. WESSMAN: Testify to who or talk to who?
t 19 MR. NISICH: The NRC; to people in the category f
i '
~O l of a government accountability program --
' l MR. GAITIN : Project.
22 MR. NISICH: -- project or whomever.
23 MR. WESSMAN: So, if I may repeat back to you, you 24 '
viewed this interaction with Mr. Smith, at this point, that 3 ' i 3-he was threatening to blackball you in the nuclear industry
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - ._,m. - _ : _ _
13.
I
- and with Brown and Root, if you talked to NRC or GAP I
2 about your activities at Comanche Peak; is that correct?
3i MR. NISICH: Well, now, you're putting words in my 4
l mouth.
5 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. I don't want to do that.
6 '
MR. NISICH: The statement speaks for itself.
MR. WESSMAN: Very well. Did you view this as a 8
threat concerning your achieving continued employment in 9 i the nuclear industry?
10 '
MR. NISICH: Well, like I told him, I said that 11 I'd give it some thought, and I had thought about one 12 !, -
i previous employee who apparently has had trouble elsewhere 13
, in the nuclear industry. I felt that that's what he was 14 saying.
MR. WESSMAN: Did you view any other statements that Mr. Smith made to you at this time as constituting a l
i threat or harassment of you?
I I
MR. NISICH: He was very vague. You could not pin 19 .
him down as to why -- I mean, he was extremely vague. Per 90 l
~
a telephone conversation, he said that he understood I j
,j !
owned a T-shirt shop and that I was taking time off from i
,, l the job to do my T-shirt business. Well, I don't own a 91 a
. T-shirt shop.
2I '
MR. WESSMAN: Are you familiar with an incident at 25 Comanche Peak called the "T-shirt incident"?
l ,
. 14.
I MR. NISICH: Yes. I didn't print those up, either.
2 1 MR. WESSMAN: Were you involved in the T-shirt inci-3 l' dent? I don't know the folks that were.
I 4 .
MR. NISICH: No, sir. The nit-pickers? Is that 5 -
, what you're talking about?
6 i MR. WESSMAN: Yes.
7 MR. NISICH: Yes. I'm very familiar with that. I l
s -
l don't know if it was done in jest or seriousness, but it 9
was done.
10 MR. WESSMAN: Did any of these other individuals that -
I 11 you talked to, either immediately before or at the time of 12 your termination, make any of these threats to you or 13 I l make statements that you would view as a threat or harassment 14 !
about your nuclear employment?
15 MR. NISICH: No. Not on the job site. However, I
I had gone to a doctor because I was having som problems, and the doctor had given me a letter requesting l
that I be pulled from the field < restricted from dusty 19 areas, excessive heat, et cetera, for a period of time.
So, they sent me to the N-5 section. Now, when I got up'
'l there, the people were glad to see that I was there. I'm j speaking of leads and supervisors. They said they were
-'l l tickled to death because of my knowledge in the field, l
y ,
, and that I should be able to pick up the N-5 program with i
,! no problem. And, of course, on the resume there, you can
15.
see where I passed their certification test. And, I 2
guess, I lasted a day and a half, and I wrote an NCR. I 3
didn't want to write the NCR because I felt it was stupid, i
4 j but by the same token, the way the procedures read, I 5 1
- left it up to supervision at that point. And supervision 6 l being Gregg Bennetzen said -- and these are in general I
words, not the exact words, "That's another one of Purdy's i
8 '
dumb ass ideas and it's mandatory you've got to write the 9
- NCR." I said, "Well, there must be another solution 10 ;
because it's a nit-picking thing, but by the same token, 1]
it's serious because the procedure, when you use the l' ~
l word: may, shall and should; said "shall" and that's 13 mandatory in this case." He said, " Write it." Well, 14 just as soon as I wrote it -- this is a copy of it. (;Mr.
Nisich handed Mr. Wessman copy of NCR.)
16 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. This is an NCR number M13932 17 and -- Is this a copy for us, Don?
I f
15 MR. NISICH: Sure. You can have it.
19 MR. WESSMAN: Thank you. Go ahead and describe the 20 circumstances of this NCR, then. Keep going.
og i In the N-5 process, you g MR. NISICH: All right.
I o,
j must gather all your documentation together, relating to
't the item. You must make sure that it's correct. And t
24 then, you go through your procedure of presenting it to I
5 l the ANI for final sign off. Well, I happened to notice that
. 16.
I :
on several occasions -- I mean, it was several of them --
2 it calls for the final revision of whatever drawing it is 3 i on the MRS, that you're inspecting the product, too, must i
be made part of the record, and it says "shall". -
5 ,
MR. WESSMAN: So, this document was missing from '
6 this package that --
I l
MR. NISICH: No. No document was missing. The S ;
revision that the inspector inspected the final product, l 9 .
I too -- In other words, the iso or whatever the case may 10 i j have been; revision 5 was missing on several, so I just ,
11 i j Wrote two items. I was told to. That's the response '
12 ! '
I got from Bob Seivers and it's kind of double talk. '
13
- MR. HUBBARD
- You mean the written part down here? '
14 (Referring to document.)
15 l MR. NISICH: Yeah. That's Sob Seivers' response 16 1 because Ted Neely didn't know what to do with it, and he '
17 is supposed to have the expertise to disposition NCR's.
MR. HUBBARD: What is that word there? (Referring 19 l l to document.)
20 MR. NISICH: "Used to perform inspection."
21
! MR. HUBBARD: Right here? This word?
i
~~
j MR. NISICE: " inspection."
23 l
- MR. HUBBARD: "This package ..."?
,4
~
MR. NISICH: Oh, yeah. You mean where this NCR --
~
j MR. HUBBARD: No. What's this word right here?
I 17.
I l
l MR. WESSMAN: We're not able to read part of the 2 .
handwritten writing that, I think, Seivers must have 3 .
l written.
4 f MR. HUBBARD: "This procedure something correct rev ..."
5! 3 l Can you make out what that word is there?
6 MR. NISICH: No.
7 . .
MR. HUBBARD: Well, I couldn't either. I wondered !
I S I what it was. j 9 l l MR. NISICH: There are a few more copies of that j
.10 '
around someplace. You can have that. But what it boils 11 . !
! down to is double talk. Are previous revisions available j t
12 -
of procedures?
13 l MR. HUBBARD: Uh-huh. That whole history is -- j i
14 MR. NISICh: Supposed to be in the vault.
15 MR. HUBBARD: Yes. Supposed to be. ,
16 !
I MR. NISICH: All right. Well, on the final inspection 17 on a piece of pipe, the process in your final sign off is i l
IS i what document you used to sign it off to and what revision; 19 and they were missing. And at that time, they used the 20 i word, "The inspector shall note the revision." Here, he 21 i says it's not necessary.
m t
~~
i MR. WESSMAN: Okay. When you started talking about t 21 !'
this NCR, I think I had asked, in relation to conversations l
concerning possible intimidation or harassment, had anyone
~
l else given you some conversation that would lead you to
18.
I i
! believe you had been harassed or intimidated?
a
~
j MR. NISICy; Yeah.
3 I
I 4 i l MR. NISICH: Okay. Just as soon as I received a copy 5l '
i of this NCR, I was taken out of the N-5 group and put on 6 i
- j special assignment, which was a know-nothing thing. The ,
_ 1 gist of the whole thing was to keep me out of the vault.
I S
Simple. !
9
. MR. WESSMAN: All right. So, about what date was it !
. I 10 '
j that you were placed on this special assignment out of the ;
II N-5 group?
g ~o I MR. NISICH: Well, within a day of 5/18.
13 MR. HUBBARD: How -- '
14 l MR. WESSMAN: Let me pursue a little more along the 1 5 15 I line of the discussion on his activities and then, let's ,
16 come back to the NCR, if I could, Bob. .
MR. HUBBARD: Okay. l 15 '
MR. WESSMAN: So, you went on this special assignment i
19 around May 18th. Did you continue working on this special 90 assignment until the time of your termination? i
'l MR. NISICH: Well, the special assignment being i
22 i that someone else would be looking up all this information,
,3
- getting it all together, and then, all I was supposed to 24 have to do was not look at anything, but go to the vault
')
- 3 l and just pull documentation, instead of looking at
i 19.
1 l documentation; put it in the package and give it to the i
- ANI coordinator.
3 l
- l. MR. WESSMAN: And these were the activities you did?
4 '
MR. NISICH: No. That was up to a certain point.
l 5 :
l MR. WESSMAN: Okay.
6
- MR. NISICH: Which I did, but at times, they screwed .
up and I still had to get in the documentation to get the i i
8 right documents to make the package complete. So, I was !
9 still basically doing the same thing, but he didn't~ realize i 0
it. Now, I went to Grege Bennetzen. I said, "Gregg, this is a dumby job and I am not a dumby," and Gregg Bennetzen l ~' . '
j backed up and he said, "I didn'.t have anything to do with .
l it. Bob Seivers come in and said, 'That's the way it'll i
14 l
, be. Get him out of here'."
i 15 l' MR. WESSMAN: And is this what you viewed as a .
' i 16 threat or possible harassment?
II MR. NISICH: Well, I wasn't performing in my capacity.!
I 18
. MR. WESSMAN: I understand. I i
'9 f MR. NISICH: Okay. So, right shcrtly after that, he 20 l' came up to me and said, " Don," he said, "Now, you're an j
'l A inspector and I need you down in the field, so we're i
22 going to put you back down in the field, down in the field
,3 l office doing paper work." But I came around the corner --
1 24 : I went to the bathroom later on that afternoon -- I came
! l.
3 . around the corner and he was discussing with Ted Neely and
20.
I l Wayne Mansfield this problem. I stood right behind them.
o
~
He said, "We can't have him up here in the records."
3 i MR. WESSMAN: Who said that, again?
4 t' MR. NISICH: Bob Seivers. He said, "I think I've 5
, solved the problem for now," and he mentioned about sending ,
6 i me back to Wayne Mansfield and Wayne Mansfield objected.
_ l He said, "No." He said, "Because Don can't 6: it physically." He said, "I don't care what you do with him.
I 9
Do something with him down there for now."
'10 Were you MR. WESSMAN: So, then what happened?
I i
11 i transferred to another location?
MR. NISICH: I was transferred back to the group 13
, that I was originally with,really just doing nothing.
, t
] ', 6
- MR. WESSMAN: And what's the name of that group, 15 i acain?
I 16 MR. NISICH: Unit two inspectors -- field inspection II group under Wayne Mansfield.
18 MR. WESSMAN: Only, you weren't doing any field -
I9 inspecting at that time.
20 MR. NISICH: No. I was just doing piddling --
21 ! MR. WESSMAN: In the office. Paper shuffling?
22 MR. NISICH: Right. In other words, they kept --
23 they knew they couldn't put me in the field via the letter, 24 and they didn't want me up there around the records.
25 MR. WESSMAN: Can you tell me why you feel that they i
21.
I l j did not want you up there around the records?
o
~
MR. NISICH: Well, because I had caught them too 3
, many times and raised hell, I guess, verbally, once 4 I l too often about the manner of their leadership, their i
i O
t qualifications; and what they were doing, I wculdn't oo it. ,
6 i MR. WESSMAN: Okay. I want to come back to that in
_ l a minute. Let me clarify one or two other things. I think '
s !
when this NCR was written and you were then pulled off to l t
this special assignment; you were working for the N-5;
-10 is that correct?
11
'MR . NISICH: Very detached. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I i was pulled off N-5, working in a very detached thing of 13 !
! N-5.
14 i MR. WESSMAN: When did you come up to N-5?
15 '
MR. NISICH: Tha morning that I brought in the letter i
16 '
from a doctor.
I MR. WESSMAN: Do you recal'1 an approximate date of Ib f when you started working in N-5? ,
19 MR. NISICH: Yeah. I guess I c n find the letter.
20 MR. WESSMAN: If you can just 9tve me a feel on it.
'l I don't need the exact date.
22 MR. NISICH: Okay. Well, it was a few days prior to 23 '
-- My signature and date right here. (Referring to paper.)
i 24 Seventeenth.
MR. WESSMAN: The date on here says "May 17th." I
22.
I !
1 l assume it was sometime in the first part of May that you 2 i were transferred up to N-5; is that correct?
3
, MR. NISICH: Within a few days prior to that NCR. .
4 I Yes.
l i MR. WESSMAN: All right. ' Don, what I want to do 6 i at this point is -- the reason we sought to pursue in i
more detail than we usually do; the aspects of your !
8 i I
employment and the aspects of your termination was, as I '
9 i
+
had said to you when we arrived, I wanted to share this *
.10 '
information with our office of investigations, who, for ,
11 .
I the NRC, are particularly concerned with activities that
- f 12 i could potentially involve intimidation or harassment of an 13 employee, and I will pass this material back to them. But 14 also as I said, we are primarily interested in pursuing 15 ,
the technical aspects of your activities at Comanche Peak ,
16 and particularly any technical aspects where you feel ,
17
- something is not done correctly, and that you can share 18
, some information or concerns with us, so that we can make 19 l an evaluation as to their safety significance. I believe, 20 as we talked earlier, you had several general areas of 21 technical concern relating to document control and adherence 22 l
- to procedures. What I would like to do is try and categor-t 23 '
l ize the areas of concern you have and then, pursue within i
24 i each area any specific issues that you could share with us, 25 so that we can pursue the sicnificance of each of the issues.
I 23.
1 l MR. NISICH: Okay. Let me get a piece of documenta- !
2 tion. I'm going to share three or four things with you.
3 i Okay?
4 .
I MR. WESSMAN: Good. ;
5 i '
I MR. NISICH: Now, this was the agreement; at least, 6
i that's the way I understood it, but I'll share this much .
i i
with you and see what you done with it. I 5
MR. WESSMAN: I will attempt to encourage you to 9
share anything and everything that you can pass to us. l The reason I say this -- before you go out of the room --
11
!' The reason I say this is we've got a team of around fifty -
i l ~o !
I folk; forty-seven I believe you.Said the other night, !
13 1 j and we've got to go after it now. We can't look at a 14 i
little now; wait a few weeks and do it again; wait a few 15 weeks, do it again. I just can't do business that way. ,
i 16 : !
I think you understand that.
17 i
- MR. NISICH
- I understand what you're saying, but I .
I Ib l -- also, you've got to save something for yourself. I'll 19 show you what I've got and then, we'll go from there.
90
~ !
4 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Let's go off the record for a -
91
- l' minute while he's getting papers.
22 .
(Off the record.)
t 24 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Before we discuss the documents 25 .
that Mr. Nisich is about to provide to the staff; while we
- - - - n- -- - - - - - - - - , -
24.
I l
l were off the record, we studied more carefully NCR M13932 2
and determined that the word we couldn't figure out is 3 ,
probably the word " verifies," which makes the sentence 4
l then read: Documentation in this package verifies correct i 3 '
revision that was used to perform inspection. Bob, did :
6 you have one more question on this NCR? Then, we'll go !
7 on with the next issue. -
S '
MR. HUBBARD: Yes. Can we just back up a little bit, #
9 Don?
.10 '
MR. NISICH: Sure. ;
11 '
MR. HUBBARD: Now, you indicated that at the time '
12 !
you found that the correct rev. number was not in the 13 '
documentation, you called it to Gregg's attention. ,
l MR. NISICH: Yes. I did.
15 l MR. HUBBARD: And suggested that there might be some ,
16 other way to do it than an NCR. !
e 17
- MR. NISICH: Because it sounded like it was nit-15 i
- picking. '
19 .
! MR. HUBBARD: Right. And there should be some other 20 '
form you could use instead of going through --
21 '
MR. NISICH: Yeah. Get with the inspector: get with w e
~~
ANI; get your documentation together, and see what you
~' 'l inspected it to with a late entry.
N-MR. HUBBARD: Okay. Then, you were told however, I
15 that this was the method that was being used for this type
25.
I '
of a -- a nonconformance,was to prepare a report by Gregg; O
- 1s that correct? That's why you did this?
3 MR. NISICH: That's why I did it. Yes. And of course, 4
the statement that I made that he made about the ability 1 of Gordon Purdy. i
- MR. HUBBARD
- Yeah. But you did it at his insistence.
i t
MR. NISICH:' He said, "Yes. You have to do it. You !,
8 I have no choice." i I
9 ' :
MR. HUBBARD: So, then you made it out and.-Bob j 10 Seivers came back with this note on the bottom that the 11 !
NCR was voided, but this was apparently not the way you a jo -
did it. Now, did.Gregg[have any comments about what --
13 MR. NISICH:' No. I didn't show it to anybody. I I4 just looked at it. And that's not the first time I had 15 ! things come back to me in that manner. :
1 16 i MR. HUBBARD: Well, didn't it bother you a little I ,
I l' bit that here your immediate superior is telling you to do o
i IS I one thing, and you do what you're told to do, and his ,
,9 .
immediate superior came back and said, "No. That's not the
'O way you do it." Why didn't you go back to,Gregg[for 21 ! guidance on how to do it the next time?
22 MR. NISICH: Because he was directing me to go back 25 i to' Bob Seivers. Bob Seivers would give me a run-around 21 ,
reason, and it'd still be the same vicious circle.
2 *, MR. HUBBARD: But it sounded to me as though when you
i 26 _
1 I were talking, Don that this seemed to be the primary 2 !
reason why you were moved out of the N-S group; that you --
3l l
MR. NISICH: No. Part of the reason. Right. They 4 i j didn't want me in the records.
5 1
MR. HUBBARD: For this reason, you think?
6 j i MR. NISICH: Because it's not the first time I 7
found something wrong with the records. It's not the 8
first time. And people would go -- I don't know. They ,
9 just -- Well, here's another example here. (Referring to I 10 document.)
11
'MR . HUBBARD: Had you tried to do this previously?
12 .
Find some way to make it right. legally with the paper work?
13 MR. NISICH: Yeah. I have in the past.
14 i l MR. HUBBARD: Had it been through this NCR technique?
15 i In other words, had you made out NCR's previously on 16 other items you found?
17 MR. NISICH: Let me explain something about NCR's.
18 i Now, it used to be, at one time, the person that wrote the 19 i NCR used to get a copy because if he had a rebuttal to an 20 engineering solution, he should be given the chance to 21 say, "No. I don't think so because of this." Well, they
~-
stopped that habit. It's rare that you see your own 23 NCR. It's rare it's handled by you again.
24 MR. WESSMAN: Have you written other NCR's where i
they've been rejected or voided, and you've found out about
e 27.
I l l l
it subsequently when either a voided copy was given back 2
to you or you learned about it in some other means?
3i .
MR. NISICH: Yes. '
I 4
- MR. WESSMAN: All right. Can you characterize what !
. I. i a ,
type of issues these voided NCR's involved? Or do you !
6)
- have other specific examples such as this one that you can 7
share with us? i s, !
MR. NISICH: Not at the present. I 9 . '
l
- MR . HUBBARD: Did it follow pretty much the same i i
10 track at this one?
11 ;
MR. NISICHi Same pattern. In other words, it's , .
12 ;
i the same thing. It boils down.to this: I wrote the NCR 13 i
and someone else would disposition it and you would never 14 I see it again.,
15 MR. WESSMAN: Whether it was dispositioned or 16 .
voided, you would never see it again; is that correct?
17 !
MR. NISICH: No. But prior to that, the policy was i
15 that you wrote the NCR, the NCR was dispositioned, and a
!9 '
copy forwarded to you with the disposition on it.
20 i l MR. HUBBARD: The completed copy.
MR. NISICH: Right. And for some reason, they v
stopped doing it.
3 MR. WESSMAN: Some of these other NCR's that you
-'~l said you initiated where they may have been voided, did
,. .I they cover similar subject matter as this one that we have
28.
I l
i t
in front of us here? In other words, discrepancies in .
2 revisions to drawings that were part of the package you 3 ;
were looking at or something like this?
4 i MR. NISICH: It all depended on the subject. In ,
5 l '
other words, I didn't keep a complete record of everything --
I 6
l You know, that was not my intention to sit here -- ,
7 MR. WESSMAN: No. I understand. I'm not looking i s ,
i for that. I'm looking for what you can recall of a few I
9 . i examples of the type of things that you were writing NCR's :
10 l '
on where someone decided to void it.
11 MR. NISICH: I'll give you another one. You're
- I 12 !
! hanging on NCR's; aren't you? '
s 13 i j MR. WESSMAN: Well, for the moment and then, we're 14 I
, going to get on.
I 15 i MR. NISICH: On VA2AB -- Now, this might not be the 16 '
exact what-you-call-it, but you should be able to find out 17 l and describe where it is.
15 l MR. HUBBARD: What's this? An iso number that you're 19
- giving?
20 .
l MR. NISICH: I'm giving an iso number. i og
~ ! '
MR. HUBBARD: What was it again?
MR. NISICH: I believe it's -- Is that right? VA2AB?
(Directing question to Ms. Gregory )
-9 MS. GREGORY: Right.
fir . NISICH: Okay. 002, twelve inch line, elevatio.7
29.
1 i 873 of the auxiliary building. It had a twelve inch stainless line and the flange was gouged. Now, this 3 ;
i made the product indeterminate, and it being a safety i
4 ;
j related item, and NCR was required. I wrote it.
3!
MR. HUBBARD: Do you have a time in your mind -- a l
6 I I period of time this happened, Don?
i 7
MR. NISICH: Oh, about last September.
S MR. HUBBARD: September '83' :
I 9 I
. MR. NISICH: October. Well,'this is something I
10 that had been carrying on and on and on from around that ,
11 period of time. l 3 ,~ .
MR. HUBBARD: That's when it started? j 13 1 i MR. NISICH: You can't pin me down to that, but you i i
14 l can find the NCR because it's got to be in the package.
15 MR. HUBBARD: Okay.
16 i
- MR. WESSMAN: All right. We'll look at the package and let's look at the NCR and try to evaluate, if we can. t IS I Is there anything else about that iso or that particular '
l
'9 NCR we need to spend time on now?
'O Yeah.
4 MR. NISICH: l
'l MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Go ahead.
.n
, MR. NISICH: That one we're referring to.
- 3 i MR. WESSMAN: Go ahead.
t ,4 You do not sign off an NCR MR. NISICH: All right.
3 until the product is finished. This means that -- what they
30.
I had done was they couldn't make it right by welding it. l 2 -
It had serrated edges on it for the purpose of compression 3
against a rubber type gasket. Okay? So, they salvaged -
4 i a flange from unit one. Something was wrong with it, so 5
they got another same sized flange. And they cut the spool .
6 '
at the weld where the flange and the pipe itself meets l
and replaced the flange with the salvaged flange, which I l
5 ,
I i
is fine. There's nothing wrong with that. And they kept I
9 e l
I bugging me* to sign off the NCR, and I said, "No. Because ;
'10
,! the final dimensions are not complete until the spool is '
11 !
i back in place." And they said, "Well, it's a hot item. .
I ~'
You've got to sign it off." And I said, "I don't have to i 13 I i l
sign it off. You sign it off." There was nothing else '
14 .i
- l said for a little while. Then, they came back and I i
15 l i j was told that Doug Snow said he wanted that particular item ,
16 signed off, and I said, " Fine. Doug Snow's got a pen I and knows the NCR exists and knows the number, tell him 18 l to sign off." '
E ,
i 19 l MR. WESSMAN: Who's the "they" that was telling ycu ,
'O
' I to sign it off?
l o
~g I
, MR. NISICH: Ted Neely and Grega Fannina, i i
~~
MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. NISICH: So, they still had continues with air 23 leakage at the point of the flange. Well, the final dimensions had not been taken to this point. They even got
31.
I to the point of attempting to put asbestos type of flange 2 t i
i and doubling it; putting two pieces of material in there 3 !
to see if they could stop the air leakage. As far as I I
know now, up to this date, to my knowledge, I don't know 5
whatever happened to the thing. '
6 .
3 MR. WESSMAN: So, you don't know that that NCR ever 7
was signed off or dispositioned?
8 MR. NISICH: Well, that's what I'm getting at. So, 9
f e
I they were having problems, so the gouged part was satisfied ,
.10 by replacing it, but by the same token, oy cutting the pipe 11 i and replacing it with another flange, then the final 12 i dimension is not satisfied until you put it back in place -
13 to see if it will work.
it :
MR. WESSMAN: Let's go off the record for a minute.
15 16 (Off the record.)
17 -
MR. WESSMAN: Okay. So, you refused to sign off 16 this NCR and you say eventually it was signed off --
19 MR. NISICH. Prior to completion of the job. Yeah.
~O i
! Of the repair.
. MR. WESSMAN: Okay. And then, the repair was sub-o, l sequently made and the NCR is where? In the files? At this point? With this iso package?
, MR. NISICH: Yeah. And signed off prior to the i
final sign off of the product.
32.
I MR. HUBBARD: Let me just get a little clarification 2
in my mind here Don. I don't have the picture of -- we 3 .
can't talk too much with pictures with the tape running, 4! i but you had presumably a line coming along and then, there 5 j
! was a flange, and so, this was the flange here that was !
6 l' gouged, and so, the repair procedure would have gone in 7
and cut it off -- (Mr. Hubbard drawing a picture for Mr. Nisich 8
MR. NISICH: Well, first, they attempted to grind -- l 9
it was serrated. Now, it was a serrated type edge where 10 l
! when they put pressure on it, it would help greatly in reducing i
11 '
any leakage. So, they tried grinding out the gouge and 12 I i
! smoothing it out and pulling it back together, and that ,
i I 13 '
- wouldn't work; it leaked. Then, they tried welding over i
14 '
that one area, which left a flat spot, while the rest was I
15 i
serrated and that didn't work. So, they went and-found 16 another flange -- ;
MR. HUBBARD: But that's when they cut if off.
16 I That's when they cut it.
! MR. NISICH:
19 )! MR. HUBBARD: Okay. Then, they got the new flange i
20 and they brought it over and they made this repair weld. I i-21 l MR. NISICH: They replaced that flange and then they --
MR. HUBBARD: So, that up to that point, this line 23 had been, in essence, replaced. There were no further operations to be conducted after they welded the flange l e
back on again.
33.
1 !
l 'MR. NISICil:, Yes.
2 MR. HUBBARD: Except for measurement.
3
- MR. NISICH
- The final dimensions.
4 l' MR. HUBBARD: But it was all welded into place and 5 .
l the reason you wouldn't sign the NCR was purely one of ;
the measurements -- dimensions.
7 -
MR. NISICH: I explained to them that the dimensions 8 '
-- the final dimensions were not done. '
9 MR. HUBBARD: But they had conducted all of the
'10 l NDE on the scene and everything was all okay and so on 11 !
,- and so forth.
12 !
I MR. NISICH: Everything except the final dimensions.
13 j
- MR. HUBBARD
- Okay. I wanted to get that picture 14 !
clear.
15 MR. NISICH: But that is spelled out clearly -- No.
16 '
It was taken out of this last -- I believe it was taken 17 i out of this last revision they had. There's no excuse 18 l for it. When I left, I think they were up to revision -
19 .
i twenty-six on this pipe alone.
20 MR. WESSMAN: And we would be able to find this o
'y
' NCR in this iso package for VA2 --
$ MR. NISICH: In other words, you'll see when each
~'
area was signed off and you'll see when the NCR itself
~l was signed off because I went back and I said, "Well, boys, except for taking the final dimensions, if it works
34.
1 out, the repair job's done." They said, "Well, we already signed it off." And I don't know how long prior to the 3 ,
I
. time I went down there that that had been signed off.
4 !
l MR. WESSMAN: Okay. We'll pull this iso package.
We should be able to find the NCR in it. Let us evaluate 6
l the circumstances and we'll go on. This is a system in unit two or unit one?
8 l MR. NISICH:, Unit two. Now, this is an example of what has been going on. There are others. But it's like .
.10
! I told you, it's my right to speak to you, but it's also I
11 l my right -- because I'm a little leery of you or other to~ l l people because of -- we'll call it a past performance. ,
13 !
i I just, at this particular time, will not tell you everything 14
! I know.
15 MR. WESSMAN: Are you talking about this particular 16 NCR?
U MR. NISICH: No. I'm talking about everything.
Ib MR. WESSMAN: All right. Very well. Because I 19 -
think we need to pursue any example, anything you can 20 share with us on a given example, let's get that now and 21 don't make us de extra detective work chasing an issue.
22 MR. NISICH: No. Being that if you see -- if it's 25 shown that I'm on the right track and proven, then you 24 can come after me for some more.
25 MR. WESSMAN: I understand what you're saying and we
, 15.
I i j will pursue this and take a look at the other NCR that 2
- you've shared with us. I think I'm ready to leave the 3 ,
i NCR's. I want to --
k -
MR. NISICH: Except for one more thing about NCR's 5 ;
that I've seen and heard with my own eyes. Ted Neely i 6 '
would take an NCR and catch an inexperienced inspector walking through his general area and get him to sign off '
S '
the NCR without even looking at the product and just ,
9 I describing it in general as administrative or procedural ;
'10 i violation.
11 :
l MR. HUBBARD: When you say "an employee to sign it -
I '
12 -
i off," you have to be, do you not, have a specific title i 13 -
I and responsibility?
14 I MR. NISICH: A QC employee. A new one.
15 !
j MR. HUBBARD: Just as a QC inspector signing an NCR 16 l off?
17 '
MR. NISICH:. Yes. Without looking at the product.
IS MR. HUBBARD:
l Don't a number of other people have 19 to sign NCR's off to close them out?
20 i
MR. NISICH: It doesn't matter. When this block +
og
~
I i bere is signed off, then we're saying that the QC inspector v I
~
looked at it.
MR. HUBBARD: You mean the verification box?
MR. NISICH: Uh-huh. The QC inspector looked at it
. and verified that everything is correct according to _
- -- , - - , , - - , - - - , ~ - - - - - ,n, - , - , - - ,-
L 36.
I 1 l l procedure.
o
~
l
, MR. WESSMAN: Do you have any NCR numbers that you 3 '
j can give us where you feel that Mr. Neely had an inexperienced 4
inspector sign off?
MR. NISICH: No. Not now. I think I've given you -- i 6 !
unless you want to pursue NCR's anymore. ,!
e MR. WESSMAN: No. I'm ready to leave NCR's. ,!
8 MR. NISICH: Good.
9 MR. WESSMAN: Let's talk about some of the documents l
- i 10 that you are prepared to share with us at this time, Don. :
i II And if you would, describe the documents that you brought [
l for us, what the issue is that they relate to, and what, -
i 13 l in your vicwpoint, appears to be improperly done.
14 :
1 MR. NISICH: Okay. This is a hanger that goes .
I3 1 through a penetration. ,
16 MR. WESSMAN: You say a hanger for a penetration?
I MR. NISICH: Yeah. In a penetration, going from the IS auxiliary building into the reactor.
I' 19 I MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Go ahead and keep describing
'O
~
what it is that we're talking about then.
9
- 1 MR. NISICH: This is the case whereas when I went to -
22 ! ,
inspect this hanger, it was on a class II item, the iso i
23 ! number is SI207340lS32R rev 0, and there are CMC's involved, 24 but the rest of the information will be in the folder in i
25 -
- the package in the vault. Okay. Piece number 5, on a final
i 37.
inspection, there was no heat number. You have to verify l heat number for traceability. I. pointed it out that there I
3 was no heat number, and therefore, I would not, at this 4 '
, time, until I did some research, sign it off. So, the 5 I general foreman -- Ted Neely, by the way, had come from the
- 0 crafts and I came from the crafts, and it was kind of 7
hard for me to change my ways. Now, as soon as they get 8
a foreman or a general foreman over there and get over 9
there and start talking, it's, " Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, 10 yeah." This happened. The general foreman come over and 11 he started giving me excuses why there was no heat number.
12 So, I said, "Well, I don't care why there is no heat ,
13 number. I cannot, in all honesty, sign this off until i
14 I go to the vault and start looking to see if we can l
15 make it believable; make it traceable." I went to the ;
16 vault, and as I stated, this is item number five.
In I7 the vault, all I could find was that they had shipped two 18 item number six's, an item number two and an item number 19 three. There is nothing on the job site in the vault or l .
20 '
in the receiving inspection records that showed that this 21 item ever arrived on the job site, so I came back and I 22 said, "Well, I'm sorry fellows, but that's the way it is." !
l 23 So, they said, "No. They made a mistake. One of these i 24 two item number six's is actually item number five." I l '
25 said, "Well, I can't help that. There is no traceability i I
i 38.
1 :
that says that this is item number five." So, off goes l
~
a general foreman and this Ted Neely again and they start t
talking in the corner, and the last thing I heard Ted Neely 4 .
. say was, "I'll take care of it." Okay. So, they come 5
back and there's a heat number on there and it reads on 6
the MIL, H30382, and then, it says it's vendor item ,
7 I lined through, dated and initialled. ;
8 MR. HUBBARD: Do you have it there? The document?
9 MR. NISICH: That's the MIL.' Mr. Nisich handed 10 i document to Mr. Hubbard.)
11 '
- MR. HUBBARD
- Okay. We're up here where it's marked 12 over, item number five.
13 l MR. NISICH: Item number five. That's correct.
l
- 14 i
- MR. HUBBARD
- Vendor item -- Oh, it had originally e I
been marked vendor item, and then, it had been marked i
i '
16
! through and this number written on there. I 17 MR. NISICH: Well, that's stating that, "Okay. .
t
'b So, there's a possibility that they made one in the 19 fabrication shop." -
'O
~
I Oh, I see. '
MR. HUBBARD:
i 91
~
They had a MR. NISICH: Except for one thing. ,
I request to the warehouse for parts of a hanger, that said, I
'3 i '
~
' "Below to be filled out by warehouse A." Okay? So, 24 i they listed different parts and they listed part number
,5 i
five, and for a heat number, it says, "NA vendor supply."
a__.1 40.
I l had ever arrived on the job site. :
MR. HUBBARD: This is the'one that you were telling us 3
i earlier where there was one 2, one 3 and two 6's.
4 MR. NISICH. Right. i 3 .
MR. HUBBARD: Now, on the two 6's, there's different :
6 I*
material, j
7 MR. NISICH: And two different heat numbers.
- 8 MR. HUBBARD: What is the 67 and 32? Do you know?
What does that mean? Quantity?
MR. NISICH: Rev and item.
i 11 l MR. HUBBARD: No. See, it says --
p~ I MR. NISICH: Well, it could be quantity and I don't [
13 know what else.
14 I .
i I
MR. HUBBARD: Well, this would all be in a file.
MR. NISICH; Definitely. Everything that I've shown 16 I ' . .
you is in a package.
MR. WESSMAN: No. But this collection of paper i
18 helps us understand what you're talking and it helps us .
j 19 '
go into the package, so it's very useful that we keep on
'O I
- going through the paper and --
og MR. NISICH: Ask me as many questions as you want. .
! MR. WESSMAN: We're trying.
'3 l MR. NISICH: Stay as long as you want. Okay? So,
! l 24 they come back with this hanger request for the fab shop; I
,5 j item five is lined out, and item five down here says, "NA
41.
I vendor supplied." So, once again --
1 I
2 MR. WESSMAN: So, here's a second piece of paper that 3 i
, appears to confirm that it was a vendor supplied item.
4 MR. NISICH: However, it doesn't show up as being on {
5 the job site at this particular time, and is already {
6 welded in place is item 2, item 3, and two item 6's.
~
i -
I MR. WESSMAN: Do we know what happened on these two 8
item 6's? Is it possible it's a genuine typo and we're 9 -
scrambling around because of a typo or is there something g i
10 , '
subtler that we don't understand? ;
11 l s
. MR. NISICH: What we're saying is that.we can't prove ;
I .
l' ;
- or I could not sign a document stating that that item ,
13 l '
l came from the vendor onto the job site and was used in ,
14 i
that particular place. There is no way I could si.gn --
15
. nor could anybody else because it doesn't exist paper work 16 l wise. However, on an inspection report, the multiple weld ;
l#
- data card, you'll notice there's two item number 6's, i 18 two different heat numbers. If there was a mistake, it ,
19 l would be that the top one would be item number 5 and the i
20 '
bottom would be item number 6.
l MR. WESSMAN: Possible. Yes. Sounds like it should l l
- i go that way. ,
"'l
' Chronological order; two, three, five, MR. NISICH:
I i
'4
' i siX. ,
o5
~
i MR. WESSMAN: I agree.
42.
1 MR. NISICH: So, they got some poor 'o1 inspector 2 i i
that wasn't too bright, and he says here -- as soon as I 3
find it. They also gave him a hard time and sent him on 4l n l
the road. He quit. (Mr. Nisich is looking through papers.)
5 i 1 MR. WESSMAN: Who is this? The poor little inspector?
6 '
MR. NISICH: Yeah. He wasn't too bright.
7 -
MR. WESSMAN: Do we know who this guy is? ,
S '
MR. NISICH: I'll let you know in a second. (Mr. !
9 Nisich is fumbling through documents.) ;
10 :
MR. WESSMAN: Okay.
11 '
- MR. NISICH
- Mark Kaplin.
12 ,
j MR. WESSMAN: Mark Kaplin is this inexperienced 13 I inspector?
14 '
- MR. NISICH
- Yeah. In this package, you'll find --
15 i l I've got it around the house here someplace -- where he I
16 identifies a heat number as being 5734NF. Now, you've got le to remember there is an item 6 on here, but not this item IS l we're talking about and the heat number we're talking about ,
19 .
is item 6, so it's in a different location on the drawing.
i 20 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Now, you're reading from the .
21 material identification log; is that right? !
io i
~~
XR. NISICH: Right. And the verification right l'
~3
, here. (Referring to log.)
i
'4
~
I MR. HUBBARD: Verifying heat number transfer of i
~5 l item 5 -- then, where do I read?
I 43.
1 MR. NISICH: 5734NF, Mark Kaplin, 84, 83.
2 !
l MR. WESSMAN: So, this individual, based upon this 3 i j piece of paper, was supposed to have verified that this i 4
i heat number was transferred onto item 5?
5 . li I
MR. NISICH: Yeah. ,
6 MR. WESSMAN: Which originally was supposed to be a 7
vendor supplied item.
8 MR. NISICH: Yeah.
9 MR. WESSMAN: Which originall'y had no heat number 10 on it at all when you inspected it.
11 i
MR. NISICH: It would have a -- No. It didn't have ;
i 12 '
no heat number visible at all. ,
13 i MR. HUBBARD: Now, is this heat number either one '
I4 i of the two shown as item 6 on the other paper? -
15 -
MR. NISICH: Yeah. But it's shown as the second 16 :
item 6. The one that could have been the mistake and 1 been an item 5 would be an 8391NF.
18 MR. HUBBARD: Was there a heat number on item 6 19 I on the hanger that you observed? -
20 '
i MR. NISICH: I forget. I've inspected so doggone
'l
~
many things on -- As an inspector on two nuclear power o, -
~~ '
plants and as a craftsman on three, so --
23 i
, MR. WESSMAN: I understand.
, i
~4 '
MR. NISICH; I can't tell you that because I don't >
~
s know. I guess if I sit here and search my mind, I could
i 44.
l probably some day say "yes" or "no".
4 i i
MR. WESSMAN: '
Can I borrow that for a minute? (Mr.
3 i
, Nisich handed Mr. Wessman document.) In summary, I think, !
4 .
if we understand you -- if I understand what you're describ '
ing with the packet of papers that you are offering to us !
6 is: We have an installed hanger. There is some documenta-7 tion that indicates it should have been a vendor supplied 8
part. There is confusion in the numbers on the material 9 .
tracer. At one time, there was no heat number on the 10 piece number 5 in the plant, and subsequently, a heat 11 number has appeared on piece number 5 in the plant. And ;
' \
some QC inspector signed off an inspection form, indicating .
13 ' '
,i that that heat number had then been transferred to piece i, 14 ! !
number 5.
15
- MR. NISICH: He's right. But actually the heat ,
i 16 number, according to the paper work, that he claimed, was ,
actually on piece number 6.
18 I I MR. WESSMAN: So, it appears an incorrect heat number 19 was put on a piece and the heat number should never have 20 been put on that piece in the first place.
I
'l
~
j MR. NISICH: Right.
~~
i
- MR. WESSMAN
- Okay. I think we have a reasonable
~"
- understandina of it. Let us -- .
~n '
MR. NISICH: This gentleman over here -- Did you say i 1
25 I
. you are familiar with OA procedures? I don't know what your
45_
l .
qualifications are, but you're familiar with the vendor !
2 '
way of doing things, and you do have a vendor heat numbe r .
3 l It could be a V. It could be a combination of different 4! ,
things. (Mr. Nisich speaking tc Mr. Watson. i 5 i MR. WATSON: Yes.
6 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Is there anything about this 7
pack of documents that you want to share with us or 8
either of you folks want to ask Don?
9 MR. HUBBARD: I understand wh'at Don has been talking 10 -
, about. ;
11 l MR. NISICH; In other words, I've just given you a 1
12 i l couple of examples of how things have been running and i 13 i I l I've been saying, "No. I won't do it," and they're saying, 14 i' "Well, that's fine. Okay. We'll just go around you."
l i5 .
i MR. WESSMAN: '
Don, do you have some other examples 16 that you want to share with us at this time of where the --
17 either on handling of NCR's or relating to the inspection?
18 MR. NISICH- Yeah. I'll share one more with you.
19 In unit one, you have a vertical heat exchanger. It's a 20 i very large one. It extends from elevation 790 to approximately
'l 8 something. Okay? Down in 790, it starts in one of those little rooms, you know, that comes through the floor.
23 .
MR. WESSMAN: Would this be one of the big steam
~'
- generators? There's four big steam generators. Is this l 2a one of these four big steam generators, when you say verticai
46.
heat exchanger?
i 2 -
MR. NISICH Yeah. I guess that's what that is.
3 l Now, on this heat exchanger -- which I'm calling it. I 4
j Believe me, my house has been in a turmoil accomplishing ;
5 ' ;
other goals. But I've got paper work around here somewhere.
6 !
They came to me -- what they had done was this: In the 7
tubing, the tubing was making an excessive amount of rat- i s I tling, so they were going to suppress this rattle by a 9 .
strap.
10 !
MR. WESSMAN: You're talking about tubing inside the !
11 - '
steam generator or this vertical heat exchanger? :
MR. NISICH: Vertical heat exchanger. I believe 13 i
- l that's the word I used to start with.
l 14 i .
. MR. WESSMAN: Yes, sir.
- MR. NISICH:. All right. So, the vendor suggested 16 '
an anti-vibration device, which amounted to two straps 17 welded around the tubing. Now, the tubing -- you've got IS
- your plate on the bottom and the tubing will come up --
19 the vessels circle all the way around and come on down.
l 90
- And they were supposed to put these anti-vibration devices i i
oj in there to solve the problem. So, on the top of this o
,, s heat exchanger, they had a melt-through. The material
, I
't
~ i was too thin for what they were using to weld it with.
23 MR. WESSMAN: All right. The melt-through was t
.- p '.
t
, welding. He just plainly blew through, then?
47.
I j
, MR. NISICH: Yeah. I mean, the material on the '
2 j straps were too thin.
3 l MR. WESSMAN: This material; you're talking about 4 '
inside this heat exchanger on a steam generator tube or l, !
5 on some plate inside the heat exchanger?
6 MR. NISICH: No. They were put on to. separate the 7
tubing, on the top and on the bottom of this exchanger S
for the purpose of reducing the vibration.
9 .
MR. HUBBARD: May I draw a little picture here 10 l and let's make sure we understand what you mean. (Mr. '
11 ' i Hubbard draws picture for Mr. Nisich.) Here's the vertical j 12 l l l shell on the heat exchanger -- l 13 MR. WESSMAN: Let's go off the record for a minute j 14 [ . i i
! while we draw pictures and sketch.
15 -
16 (Off the record.) ;
i 17
. MR. WESSMAN: We're back on the record. While we I 18 '
were off the record, we did some sketching and sought to
' l 19 understand the description that Mr. Nisich was giving us 20 of this anti-vibration band that was being installed at the l
,j
~
top of the U-bend of the steam generator tubes inside the .
,, t
, vertical heat exchangers. As Mr. Nisich described, during the welding of this band,at various places during the weldine,
~4 '
the welder burned through because the material was so thin. ;
2- !
l Go on and describe the problem with this band and the
48.
1 I
i welding, then, if you would,tDon. !
2 i
MR. NISICH: All right. So, I wrote an NCR ~ becau.se 3
I it had to be written for engineering evaluation and -- "
4 , ,
I don't believe I ever saw the results of the NCR. However,'
5 I I had Jeff Pilland -- I know you like Jeff Pilland, but I !
6 I i
can't help it. (Directing statement. to Ms. ' Gregory.') l t
MS. GREGORY: I like everybody. I just don't like 8
their ways sometimes. '
9 -
MR. NISICH: Well, the name's going to stay on the 10 '
record. I'm just feeding you any name as an example I'll
, 11 ,
, give you more. ,
12 .
l MR. WESSMAN: That's all right. ;
I 13 MR. NISICH: He told me the matter had clearhd up. h' 14 l - -
The vendor accepted it. And that everything was okay,
-; "How about signing this product off?" Well , ' eney 'put . the ,
I t' 16
! shell back on there and they had never taken the shell 17 '
back off up to the time I left, as far as I know. They l IS f had never taken this shell back off. The NCR was never j 19 i i
satisfied because nobody looked at it; nobody inspected it. !
'O
~
MR. WESSMAN: Do you know about when did you write
'l this NCR? When did the burn-through occur? l
- MR. NISICH
- Once again, I can't -- There's only
> s 3
i two of them in each turbin building -- I mean, each l
4 l auxiliary building, i MR. WESSMAN: I'm confused. We're talking about heat
49.
1 -
I exchangers in the reactor building; aren't we? l
~
MR. NISICH:. No. Auxiliary building.
3 MR. WESSMAN: I thought you said, " Vertical heat 4 !
! exchangers in the reactor building." l 5 !
MR. NISICHi No. I said auxiliary building. If I 6 l said reactor building --
l MR. WESSMAN: I think we've got ourselves confused. i 8
My whole understanding was we were talking about the steam l
9 generators in the reactor building.' !
i g
10 .
MR. NISICH: No. I know what a steam generator is II because I worked on them. !
MR. WESSMAN: Very well.
13 ii MR. NISICH: And I knew what the tubing and the I ,
plate on the bottom of the steam generator is. That's U why I couldn't -- That's why I couldn't picture --
I6 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. We've gotten ourselves ,
II confused. All of the foregoing discussion does not relate I6 to the steam generator in the reactor building and it i 19 '
talks about vertical heat exchangers in the auxiliary
, i
- O building. Do you know what system they're tied in to?
I 2I . MR. NISICH: Unit one.
22 MR. WESSMAN: No. Do you know what auxiliary u
system? Would it be a DK heat system or a shut down 24 ,
cooling system? Do you know a term?
6 23 MR. NISICH: I don't remember, but I do know this
_ __51 -
I "Well, wait a minute. I haven't seen it since then. I 2 i can't sign it off. You guys replaced the shell, performed 3 ,
a hot function. I don't know what's going on with it." .
4 And I was assured everything was all right. And I said, 5
l 1
"Well, that doesn't tell me a doggone thing. You've got I 6
to take the shell off. Have you corrected the melt-through?
7 Has engineering made a determination that it's not detri-S mental to the function of the product or what?" "Every-9 .
thing's okay."
10 MR. WESSMAN: Do we have enough, do you think, that r 11 l !
j we could probably search out this issue and locate the 12 i package and find the NCR and make an evaluation? (Directing +
13 I question to Mr. Hubbard.)
14 !
MR. HUBBARD: I think we can. If we can't and I i "
.3 ; .
' have to call Don for an item or two, I think I can do that. ;
16 But I think based on this, we can track it down and see ;
17 I what happened to the NCR.
18 MR. NISICH: Well, no. That's not the final thing.
19 This is not all of what I was getting at.
20 MR. WESSMAN: Oh, okay. Keep going.
21 l MR. HUBBARD: Carry on. .
22 ! i MR. NISICH: So, I took the package apart. Now, >
23 I guess you gentlemen know what packages look like now,
' t
?
24
. and their method of fastening it on the top. Well, there's ,
l 25 l '
another set of anti-vibration devices within here somewhere.'
An I
much: They're not hard to spot. They're the two biggest 2
ones that goes from one elevation to the other. When you 3 :
- 1. eave the elevator and go to the right on 810 hallway, 4
'just go a few feet and go over there where there's an i 5V '
l opening in the floor and there's two huge heat exchangers, j 6 ,
I guess I finally got through to you what a steam generator I
- i 1s.
S MR. WESSMAN: My apologies. All I could think of 9
was steam generator. All right. I think we know what 10 ,
you're talking about. Certainly, we can locate it. Do 11
. you have a feel for the approximate time that this occurred?
12 ,
Was it last fall or last summer?
13 ; -
l MR. NISICH: I'll go with last fall.
I 14 -
MR. WESSMAN: You wrote an NCR. You don't know the 15 '
NCR number by chance?
16 i i MR. NISICH: No. I didn't get to the point of disgust 17 ! I during that period of time. j 18 .
MR. WATSON: You had never seen the NCR after you ,
19
. wrote it?
20 -
MR. NISICH: Not the disposition. l 3
MR. WESSMAN: And tell me again, what is the n
fun 6amental concern that you have? Is it with the
~n handling of the NCR or the technical disposition or the --
4 i MR. NISICH: The whole thing. All right. So, I had quality engineering insist that I sign it off, and I said,
I 53.
I And a note says on the top that the field weld numbers o
~
I was hidden, and it was an after-the-fact statement placed 3
on there because it wasn't on there when I originally did 4 .
what I did. ,
5 MR. WATSON : You said something about something ,
6 l being hidden. i MR. NISICH: Yeah.
S MR. WATSON: Say that again, please.
9 -
MR. NISICH: There's a statement probably on the 10 '
multiple weld data card. And the statement being that i
l the numbers for the numbered welds -- these welds are i I i 3 ~,
i numbered welds -- for these straps, are identical to some !
l .
13 i Both are the same numbered welds; 1
more straps in the bottom.
14 ! '
l when nobody ever inspected the other welds. ,
f
. i I#
i MR. WESSMAN: Do you happen to know whether these i
16 i other straps were installed in the shop or were these straps I I installed in the field after the hot functional testing?
l I
MR. NISICH: In the field because the product was j
19 ;
in place. You know how big one of those things are. It's :
0 I very impractical to -- i I
o g MR. WESSMAN: No. But when we started talking, 22 we talked about an anti-vibration device near the top, 3
and I wondered whether maybe one already existed.
24 ! MR. NISICH: No. There's more anti-vibration
.5
, devices on the bottom somewhere there.
SL I l MR. WESSMAN: Do you know for sure that those were l installed in the field after the problems with the function?
3 MR. NISICH: Yeah. Because the statement on the 4
multiple weld data card states that: The numbered welds !
5 i
! and the straps on the top -- the straps on the bottom are !
6 identical numbered welds. In other words, there's two welds 7
number 1, two welds number 2; in two different locations.
8 MR. WESSMAN: So, to the best of your knowledge, 9 -
both of these straps were --
10 MR. NISICH: When I signed that off, that meant that !
11 I I I also looked at the other welds, too. !
12 l j
MR. WESSMAN: Okay. I understand. I didn't realize. i 13
! MR. NISICH: Okay. And I kicked myself. I said, t
14 l .
I "There isn't any way I could do it." Well, that upset ,
15 i' somebody because in order to satisfy the requirements, you'd.
16 '
have to take the shell back off and they decided that it 17 l would cost them a lot of money to do this. "You know. Why 18 l don't you just go ahead and sign it off?" and I said, .
I 19 :
. " Huh-uh. No."
20 MR. WESSMAN: Do you know who did finally sign it off?!
l 21 MR. NISICH: No. But you'll know when you get the l
~~
package. .
23 MR. WESSMAN: We'll go look. Okay. Anything else on
~y
! this vertical heat exchanger problem?
i 25 l So, I had a QE trying to convince i MR. NISICH: _ Okay.
54.
I me everything's okay. And his name is Doug Snow that signed !
off. And I said, "No. You sign it off." And of course, 3 i
- his reaction being, you know, "Well, I can't." And my 4 .
reaction was, "Nor can I." And I had a Jeff Pillana who wasj 1
a QE at one time. I believe he -- Yeah. I know. He went .
6 l '
to an inspector status back in OE. He suggested to me !
i that I should sign it off on the grounds that they would !
s I i
have to take that heat exchanger back off; that TUDco L 9 -
would be very unhappy.
That it would be very costly. And 10 l they would remember it. And I told Jeff,-- this is not 11 '
verbatim, but in general,"That being an experienced i 12 '
inspector, if he knew how to do it, he could sign it off;"
13 .' !
, which point brought us at a head with Mr. Seivers. And I ,
14 -
was asked a few questions about it, and I said, " Bob, I 15 can't sign off, but I see in this package, there's a telex.
16 And the telex states that the vendor accepted it. I don't 1
- 17 i know how in the hell they accepted it because it was never ,
t .
I 16 i j taken apart again and he ain't never seen it. So, if j i
19 !-
the vendor accepted it, I'm willing to sign that off, based
- 20 '
i on the telex and the telex number and who accepted it."
i
' oi
- And they said, "No. No. We're not going to do that." l I said, "Well, you sign it off then. I'm not going to sign it off." And then, I did it. Like I said, things like y
this kept me in trouble with management. And I'm not
~
n saying it's a safe thing. I'm not saying it's unsafe. It's
- s.
I I
- not right. That's not according to procedure. And it's !
2 things like this that have been going on consistently at '
3
! that plant at different levels and different sections. It'si 4
just consistent. In other words, if they're going to do 5 i ,
things like this, what stops them from doing the other 6
things that the other people have accused them of doing?
7 MR. WESSMAN: Yeah. I understand. Now, before you 8
go out of the room, you're taking the package of papers 9 -
back that we had talked about earlier. I guess I was 10 .
. under the impression that that was a copy you had made to I
! . I 11 i give to us. Not so? ,
li l MR. NISICH: No. I l ,
13 i
! MR. WESSMAN: All right. I'll need to be sure that 14 t . i l we can find all of those papers in the files on the's. plant. .
i 15 l Let me ask you: Are they all in the isc under this VA2AB 1
16 l Level II?
MR. HUBBARD: Can I make a list of all your papers?
IS MR. WESSMAN: Let us make a list of each document 19 i I and write the headings so we know when we look for them. j 20 l You've already made MR. NISICH: This is SI2073401.
21 l a statement. The package exists in the vault. This paper }
~~
work exists in the vault. Everything.
23 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Just a second. The reason ,
24 I'm so interes*:ed in -- I don't need to take your package 25 l
of papers. I want to copy the title and the document number l
I 56.
I i
' or serial number off of each of those papers.
1 There is 2 l issues that say, " Files in the vault aren't complete."
3 l Let us be sure we look at every piece of paper that you're 4
telling us to look at. And if you want, annotate on a .
! piece of paper for us, the titles of each of those, so 6 ,
that we be sure we look at all the same documents that ,
7 we've been talking about. !
S -
MR. NISICH: '
You're looking at RIR --
9 .
MR. WESSMAN: Wait a minute. Let's go off the record 10 for a minute.
11 12' (Off the record.)
13
! MR. WESSMAN: Okay. We're back on the record.
I 14 While we were off the record, we worked with Don Nisich 15 and identified a list of the drawings and documents he 16
! had shown us earlier. And the staff has taken a list of 17 i ~
those documents so that we may go back into the applicant's 18 !
files and examine them more fully. I believe we've completed 19 ! !
l our discussion of those documents, and also, the previous 20 l discussion of the installation of the straps and the oj Vertical heat exchanger in the auxiliary building. So, l
Don, if you would, if you've got some other issues you want y
to share with us while we're here, let's go on.
7
~4 i
, MR. NISICH: All right. For the period of time that I
r, .
I've been out at the plant -- Can I -- This is a touchy
i I
57 I
l o ,
! subject. Now, we're out of the technical issues; right?
This is what you didn't want him to interfere with. (Refer-3 ring to Mr. Gaitin.)
4 l l MR. WESSMAN: No matter what we're talking about while 5 ; r we're working today, I would just as soon the attorneys '
6 l or legal representatives -- intern. Is that the correct 7
term, Eloy?
8 MR. GAITIN: Yes.
9 -
MR. WESSMAN: Not participate in the discussion.
10 , -
MR. GAITIN: Okay.
11 :
MR. WESSMAN: So, whether you want to talk on a '
12 '
, technical or non-technical issue, let's just keep it :
13 l amongst us. -
MR. NISICH: The rest of it'in a sense is non-techni-i 15 cal. This revolves around qualifications and things of 16 this nature -- individuals, inspectors --
17 l MR. WESSMAN: That's fine. I'll consider that a e 18 !
technical issue for this technical expert. Vern Watson I I
19 '
1 i
i is a QC type and let him ask some questions of you. Go -
- 20 ,
ahead and talk about your concerns on inspector qualifica- :
21
- a tions.
~~
MR. NISICH: All right. Down in STP, they had made 23 -
several mistakes; and this is not Comanche Peak. And they
'4
~
j seemed to have the ability to place people in responsible 25 i positions and yet, no experience -- nothing. And they really
58.
' I l look at something and say, " Hey, kid. That's all right."
[
2 or " Hey, yeah.
- That follows the code." They're not even -
3 i in the positions where they're supposed to be. Now, I was
_ 4 used, I'll bet, no more for my experience than twenty i
5 ; '
) percent of my capacity on nuclear power plants.
k 6 I j
r MR. WESSMAN: Are you talking about how you were used
- m
/ l 1
at South Texas or at Comanche Peak? i i S
=
MR. NISICH: The end of South Texas and then, 9
[ '
Comanche Peak. Because I feel that -- I have a field
- 10 .
I education that a few people -- as far as nuclear power .
- 11 1 8
is concerned -- a general broad construction field 12 education, and it's kind of hard to touch, plus QC. i 13 i .
j And whenever I would bring questions to light because 14 '
they didn't make sense, I was pushed aside. I was'having 15 '
E problem
- I 16 I 1, 5 I
f - on the first day that I was supposed to be placed 1
~
18 !
on night shift. '
19 !
i I
MR. WESSMAN: Was this the night shift at Comanche .
20 l I T I Peak? i 21 l MR. NISICH: Yeah. Comanche Peak. I had requested L
--n
=
a delay of going on night shift; not refusine to co, but 23 .
r requesting to delay, explaining why becaus I
24
~
25 P-
59.
I l .
2 But they didn't care. Yet, someone else --
3 They had a lead inspector -- No. He wasn't a lead. He was 4
4 just an inspector that they put on night shift. He was on ,
5 i night shift officially three nights. He missed two out of 6 the three nights. He was not a good inspector. This is 7 my personal assessment of his capability. And so, they S brought him back on the fourth morning or the fourth day
- l l
9 l because he missed two out of three. nights, and made him a 10 -
lead inspector, and that just sunk everybody's morale.
11 People who were out there doing what they're supposed to {
12 be doing and following their rules, really doing a good i !
13 l job for the company, found out that it doesn't pay to be I .
14 ) a good inspector because of things of this nature.,
MR. WESSMAN: Can you give us his name?
15 l MR. NISICH: Yeah. Wayne Mansfield. Wayne Mansfield 16 l .
i 17 l -
missed in excess -- this was last year -- of four hundred j i
18 man-hours even after he became a lead. No. Man-hours I 19 i is not exactly right. I mean working hours. Man-hours is 20 l a combination of things.
1 21 MS. G REGORY : May I make an entry on the record here? I l
22 MR. WESSMAN: Sure.
25 MS. GREGORY: Okay. I kept the time at Comanche 24 Peak on weekends for the last three months I was there.
25 During conversation with Beth Marlowe, Mr. Purdy's secretary,
I sn_
1 l
this question came up on this particular individual, Wayne .
l 2
- Mansfield. She said that Paulette Wilson -- Her name is ;
3l i l -- I don't believe it's Wilson now. I don't know what it i 4 i, is. Anyway, the time keeper. She had put locks and started!
5 I locking her files because Bob Seivers was going into the 6
files and changing Wayne Mansfield's time sheets, so that 7
this would not come up in the event of a lay-off or 8
absenteeism, that he had been going in there and doctoring 9
Wayne Mansfield's records so that it would not show he had 10 ,
been absent as much as he was, 11
! MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Let me try and steer us back l 12 l l towards the issue of qualified / unqualified people and a 13 l
potential impact on nuclear safety because that's the NRC's 14
- mission. !
15 i' .
MR. NISICH: Yeah. That's why I'm on this one j 16 particular track. < -
17 !
MR. WESSMAN: Keep going.
IS MR. NISICH: All right. So, to give you another 19 example, the name is Ted Neely. He came to quality control u
20 i last year sometime -- maybe the year prior to it -- from ;
l 21 i the fabrication shop. Now, I can see him being a Level II I
~
inspector as far as structural steel, possibly, is concernedl I
j 23 l I don't know what he did. Now, I had heard rumors that he j
94
~ !
l didn't do nothing. That's neither here nor there because i m ! !
~
! that's just hearsay. But in a period of five months, he f
M i i
, became a qualified Level II A inspector in mechanical, 2 I NDE -- I assume you've heard all this before, but I was 3 i i
present while it was happening -- piping, component supports, 4
PT -- Well, I did say NDE; didn't I? The bare necessities !
5 l l
that are needed to become a Level II A inspector. Now, i 6 '
everybody else around me, had to perform so many hours 7
of PT under the supervision of Level II inspector in that 8
particular discipline; this case being PT. So, he walked 9 -
in the office one day and he asked Billy Schnellgrove; 10 he said, " Hey. When I was in the crafts, I did some PT 's 11
- up in the fab shop." He said, "Can I use that on a three 12 part memo, based on my experience?" And Billy Schnellgrove I 13 , i looked at him kind of funny;and he had a little conference i
' i 14 .
with J.P.Patton;come back and he said, " Yeah. That'll
'15 -
be all right." !
16 i MR. WESSMAN: Who did he talk to? i 17 MR. NISICH: J.P. Patton. Schnellgrove spoke to 18 J.P. Patton, and J.P. Patton -- I don't know what was f
19 said. All I know is when he come out, he said, " Yeah. 8 20 Go ahead and have your three part memo made out." So, ,
21 I that is not training. That is not document training. .
~~ '
l That's just a little note saying, " Hey, yeah. I've seen 23 i him every once in a while up there." If I remember the ;
I
,, ; I
~'
three part memo correctly, the words: In excess of sixty .
25 i ,
I hours. They had experienced seeing him do PT 's in excess '
t
- , , - _ . . - . - , , _ - - - - - _ - , - . - - . - , - - , - . . . , , . , , . - - - - . _ , , - , - - . = , , _ - - - , . - -- -
c9 1
l of sixty hours. Now, as 2 II far as PT's are concerned, they're I
, relatively simple. Learning to interpret them is, you 3
! know, your big difference; on mishandling mark, machine 4
mark, what have you. Learning your interpretation is 5
i different. But the QA manual said: so many hours. QA 6
manual says: under a certain condition. And that condition I
was violated.
8 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. D o n ,' 'Ted Neely's name has been 9 -
previously offered to us as an individual to take a look 10 ,
j I
at and we will. :
11 ; I' MR. NISICH:
- Well, his records have been doctored. I 12
,l MR. WESSMAN: Okay. We'll do our best to examine 13 his records and come to an assessment of that individual's 14 : ,
I qualification.
15 j;
MR. WATSON: I've got a question.
16 I I
MR. WESSMAN: Oh, you've got a question? And .
17 then, let's look for another example. ,
18 l
MR. WATSON: You talk about Level II class A.
19 !
j Now, I've been looking at some qualifications, and I've l 20 l never seen the "A" on any of them yet.
21 MR. NISICH: An A inspector is an inspector that has 22 ! '
so many certs -- certifications. An A inspector is a pay ,
l 23 ,
- j grade. In other words, if you only have one certification, t i
21 i '
j then you only get so much money per hour. If you attain 25 l ,
the maximum, regardless of how many more than that that you {
l
63.
I get, you receive what is ever the maximum an inspector 2 .
can get in a field. That is an A inspector.
1 l 3 !
l l MR. WESSMAN: Okay. How about another example. '
4 '
l Do you have.some other examples on inspector qualification?
5 l MR. NISICHe All right. Just shortly before --
6 I told you that I had been pulled out of around the N-5 7
group area and sent back to the office.
8 MR. WESSMAN: Right.
9 -
MR. NISICH: They also sent me to the warehouse
~
10 because they said there's a cool breeze in there, no heat, 11 no dust, you know, relatively simple. And they wanted 12 me to PT the fuel rods mechanism.
13 MR. WESSMAN: Like a fuel assembly handling mechanism?
14 MR. NISICH: Well, the long rod where the fuel 15 rod is attached to on the bottom of it; where they raise 16 it and lower it.
17 MR. HUBBARD: You mean, control rod device?
18 MR. NISICH': Control rod. There had been a vendor 19
-- The best I can make out of the documentation, there 20 had been a vendor NCR written against it and I don't know 21 what for or the basis for it. The way I had understood it, i they wanted the whole thing PT'd; until I got the paper i i
23 ,
l
. work. Now, supposedly all these experienced people would i
'4 look at the paper work and understood fully what was to be i I done. And all they wanted was just a part of the collar f
64.
I '
PT, where it was going to make -- where it was beveled.
2 !
' They wanted that part PT'd because in the assembly, they're 3 8 going to weld it together. And that's all it took was I
4 just the PT -- little diameter with two inches to each side.
5 MR. WESSMAN: So, you accomplished this PT?
6 ,
MR. NISICH: Yeah. But they sent other people down I
here from the N-5 group to get their hours for PT. Well, j 8
according to Bob Seivers, this was going to take two, '
9 three,I four months minimum. And when I got down there and read i 10 the paper work, it seemed exactly what was required, it II only took a week. So, I apologized to some of the people
- that came down here, that I couldn't give them all the 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> needed for them to get their cert, and they said, 14 "Well, that's okay. We did it up in the fab shop ind we're 15 just going to get a three part memo," and I said, " Bologna."
16 I -
They said, "No. Seivers ain't got no problem with it."
17 I said, "Well, that's between you, Seivers and God, but IO I don't see how you're going to do it." They said, "It's 9
easy."
20 MR. WATSON: What you're saying is: Seivers was 21 going to use this as a training device for all these people 22 i when he really didn't have that much to train down there.
I 23 He didn't have any time for that.
I i l 24 l MR. NISICH: No.
' l 5
l MR. WESSMAN: Does that mean that there are actually l
r I
65.
I 1 I individuals who spent that very short period of time doing l
~ i this PT training and then, were given their Level II 3 '
certification as a result?
4 !
MR. NISICH: You might find it in the record. You 5
, might not. But if it's there, you'll find three part 6
memos. You'll find a -- You should find a three part memo 7 .
on mine.
8 MR. WATSON: You got some names for these people that 9 '
come down and receive this; supposedly trained?
10 i MR. NISICH: I'd have to see their face or get II together with Meddie to remember --
io
- i MS. GREGORY : H.L. Hill.
13 MR. NISICH: No. Hill didn't come down there. The
~
I '
person that worked -- Brown was working with. :
i !
15 : MS. GREGORY: Ken Moss?
i i
i Ib MR. NISICH: And then, the other individual Ken Moss.
17
-- they sent a second one down there.
18 MS. GREGORY: Jimmy Stauss?
19 MR. NISICH: Not.S,tauss.
'O MS. GREGORY: Not Ray Morrow?
'l MR. NISICH: Yeah. I believe so. But anyway, they 22 -
were bragging about "There ain't no sweat because we'll j
- u. i
,3, .
just get us a three part memo for the rest of it because j l
24 Seivers ain't got no problem with it." Now, we had a i
5 I bunch of inspectors that had a crash program and that were ..
am - ~ , g--,---34 y--e -- n..-------g7- , . - - - - - - - - - - . , , e q yn y-
\
s 1
66.
I !
made Level II inspectors in aiweekend, I think it was. '
l
, They had come from the craft because supposedly, we were 3 1' so far behind that we had to hive them. And they came 4
from the craft to QC. They wede made Level II inspectors l 5 > '
in almost a weekend and continued on to getting more certi-6 l fications in such a short time,{anditamazedme. There {
7 just isn't anyway they could do!it.
8 MR. HUBBARD: When was that?
9 .
MR. NISICH: When did they bring all those in?
10 (Directing question to Ms. Gregory.)
t 11 . '
l MS. GREGORY: Two years agc. Well, they brought .
3 ., t -
! them in in about May of 1982.
l l 13 i l
MR. WESSMAN: Can you offer us some individual ;
14 l names, Don?
15 i
, MR. NISICH: Leslie Tucker, Ray Morrow, Ken Moss, .
16 ! '
l Jimmy Stauss --
17 MS. GREGORY: Mary Osterday. j IS i MR. NISICH: Mary Osterday. !
19 I i
l MS. GREGORY: Cheryl Denman.
20 ;
MR. NISICH: That's correct. Cheryl Denman was i 21 -
. another one that made a Level II A inspector, fully .
.n
~~
. qualified in everything in a period of four to five months, 2.3 and her experience stemmed from being a file clerk for 24 the pipe department, and I spoke to the person that was 25 her immediate supervisor. I didn't ask for any information.
l l
l
- 67. l 1
It was just flat told to me, And it shows in her inspection 2 .
methods that he was going to fire her, and she took off 3
and talked to somebody and got a job in QC, and within a 4 .
period of four months, she was very well qualified as a 5
Level II A inspector. .
6 . i MS. GREGORY: And,Robbie Duncan.
7 :
MR. NISICH: Same thing. !
i 8 '
MS. GREGORY: He was a runner. They made a QC 1 I
9 inspector out of him.
I 10 MR. NISICH: Not a runner. A coordinator. Wasn't 11 I
! that what they called it?
12 MS. GREGORY: Well, he was doing the running'. l 13 -
MR. NISICH: He was just running around, shuffling ;
i 14 l paper work.
15 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. That should be a good enough 16 I list of names that we ought to be able to try and chase ,
17 l both records and talk to individuals and see whether we can l 18 i
- make an assessment. Let's go on with some other qualifica- -
t 19 l >
tion issues.
20 i MR. NISICH: Harassment. ;
i MR. WESSMAN: Do you have anymore qualification 1
subjects you want to talk about? -
'3
~
j MR. NISICH: All right. Ted Neely went from that ,
3 24 I
to a lead inspector in approximately a year, and within l
a few weeks after being that lead inspector, he was given '
68.
1 i the responsibilities that he's into now on statusing NCR's. I 2
And gentlemen, there's no way that a person with his 3 .
education, in time, has the experience to have the 4 i l responsibility to know what the hell to do with an NCR l 5i '
in so many different disciplines. You can take that man :
6 I l and give him a technical subject and ask him to read it l
to you and he cannot read. When he was a lead, instead 8
of reading what he was supposed to read to you, he'd call 9 -
somebody else to read it for him.
10 I MR. WESSMAN: Okay. I think we have enough on Ted '
l _
11 !* !
Neely, then -- l l
MR. NISICH: Jimmy Stauss became a lead in eight I 13 i !
l months. He is another one that got all these certifications l 14 and then a lead in eight months. And it was based'on the
, fact that someone made a plea for Jimmy Stauss, saying 16 ; -
q that he was physically disabled and he should be a lead.
i 17 MR. WESSMAN: Okay. There's enough examples, I IS think, on some of the names you've given us. Now, are 19 you ready to leave inspector qualification issues, then? i 20 I' :
MR. NISICH: Well, that's all I can think of as of -
i 9[
now.
l
- ,I
,, I MS. GREGORY: You already have Mike Seivers on mine; ,
m j don't you? That's the one I want you to look at.
MR. WESSMAN: Yes.
MR. NISICH: Well, that gentleman asked me about' Mike
~- ,
. Ao 1 .
l Seivers before and I should think that's plenty of that.
4 !
I MR. WESSMAN: Okay. I havt Mike Seivers on the 3 i other list that you gave me, Meddie. So, let's go on 4 i from the list of individuals. Another subject area that i 5
. you want to discuss with us, Don? ;
6 l MR. NISICH; Not particularly. Unless you people 7
have anything. I don't. Like I say, it's been general.
8 I feel I was unfairly discharged. If they knew they 9 -
were going to discharge me, I feel they should have told 10 !
me. I would not have gone on vacation and blew a lot of ,
11 money. !'
I would have been better prepared. They knew in 12 !
advance that they were going to let me go, but they still ,
13 will not give me a good, solid reason -- just generalities, j 14 .
And when I ask about the other people, they say, "Well, they 15 !
might have been doing a different job than you were doing,"
16 and then, I would tell them, " Bologna. I'm an A inspector.
17 i I'm supposed to be able to do it all." l 18 !
MR. WESSMAN: I understand. When we talked the 19 other night; when we first met, Don,.I think we identified 3
20 about four general subject areas that you wanted to chat l with us on, and my notes have: pipe inspection, hanger inspections, inspector qualifications and improper sign-23 i offs on NCR's. '.
'4
~
l MR. NISICH: We've covered that.
25 MR. WESSMAN: Now, I think we've covered, in some
70.
1 l
I detail, NCR sign-offs, inspector qualifications. Are there 2 .
any other activities in the area of piping or hanger 3
inspections that you want to come back to or talk about 4
at this time?
5 -
, MR. NISICH: No. I don't believe so. Except that people were involved in some of those hanger or pipe l 7 i inspections, were not qualified, and we've covered that i S
ground. So, that'd be stomping over the same area.
9 -
MR. WESSMAN: Okay. Before we do go off the record, 10 .
then, do you have anything else that you want to put on the record with us today? '
12 MR. NISICH: I don't think so; unless, Meddie.r can you think of anything that I could -- ;
14 i MS. GREGORY: I think I pretty well covered 'it the 15 other day that they violated the ROF policy, in particular. ,
16 i
. MR. WESSMAN: Sure. And I think we spent some time 17 ! !
i on it and I don't want to go back through that again. I 18
, think we have the information on that. Before we go off, 19 ! !
l I would encourage you again to consider how you're going to i 20 -
j provide information to us. You indicated you have addition-!
21 !
- al notes and papers that you are considering sharing with us, 22 i and although we have a large group of people down here, ,
we are of limited time and limited resource and we cannot
?
9' continue going on and on as things are dribbled to us.
~
15 MR. NISICH: You can't afford to do a witch-hunt.
, 71-1 l I know what you're saying. You explained that you needed 2
facts and figures, iso numbers. You explained --
3 ;
MR. WESSMAN: You've given us some specific facts 4 .
and we will pursue what you've given us. And if there ,
5 j are additional things that you want to give to us, we've 6 :
got to have them rather quickly or the time will get by. l 7
- And our team will complete our evaluations and be dispersed ,
8 back to Washington. !
9 .
MR. NISICH: Well, I'll say that more than likely, 10 . !
you'll have it -- I don't know -- within a few days. Now, 11 I I believe what I gave you is sufficient because I've given 12 ;
- you exact detailed facts and figures. ,
I 13 MR. WESSMAN: I agree.
14 MR. NISICH: I'm quite certain that other peopl,e 15 !
have done the same thing.
16
, MR. WESSMAN: Others have given us other details 17 and in some cases, some similar or almost identical details; t
18 l for example, some of the unqualified individuals have been 19 l
identified to us by Meddie earlier.
'O
~
MR. NISICH: I don't know what all information you !
91
~ i
. have and there's no sense in rehashing over the same issue o, l
~~
over and over again.
MR. WESSMAN: I agree.
'4 !'
t MR. NISICH: What I will do is -- I'm getting ready
~
l l to throw a bunch of stuff out and I will look at each thing
9
- 72.
I If I have something that I feel, in that I throw out. .
2 the very near future, is worthy of your time and our l
i 3 effort -- I go to Fort Worth quite a lot on the weekends.
4 In a proper way; seeing that everybody's in Granbury --
5 In a proper way, I'll see that you get it.
6 MR. WESSMAN: Fine. I think you have my phone
~
number. J Meddie has my phone number, so there's lots of 8 We will leave at ways -- and I have your phone number.
9 the end of this week. We'll be gone for a week, and then 10 we'll bring the~ entire team back on' Monday the twentieth.
i 11 And certainly by that time, if you've got some other !.
12 information to give to us, I ask that you give us a call 13 or talk with Meddie and let us work out an arrangement l
1 14 to talk again and go over what other additional material 15 ! there is. ,
16 MR. NISICH: Well, I'm saying this much: I travel 17 enough towards the Fort Worth area -- I'm not going to just i 18 run up and down the road, but if I'm going that way and .
f i i
19 if it's a worthwhile subject for us to talk about, instead j l
20 of you consistently having to come back here because if ;
I 21 I say, " Hey, I've got this;" I think that if you can mak'e an, 22 j arrangement in time and it kind of jives with my time, 23 f' and it doesn't get to the point where you people are running i .
24 l out of time, I'll bring it to you.
l l 25 . MR. WESSHAN: Okay. Then, one other thing before we I
71.
I go on off the record. Have you given your statements to
~
fusfreelyandvoluntarilytoday,, Don?
3 i MR. NISICH: I requested you to be here.
4 MR. WESSMAN: Very fine. We thank you for your time. i 5
Let's go off the record.
6 ,
I 7 (Off the record.) l l
8 MR. NISICH: I cannot understand why, with the 9
experience I do have in the construction field on nuclear 10
- power plants, I was not given the opportunity the others .
I ;
11 I l were given to go back to the craft. t i
lo l
~
MR. WESSMAN: I don't either.
I 13 i l MR. NISICH: Well, I forgot to put that on the -
1 I 14 .
l record. -
MS. GREGORY: Another thing that should be on the ,
record is: They offered all the men the opportunity to go 17 l back to craft, and the women,.they laid off with no i 18 .
opportunity.. ,
19 l MR. WESSMAN: I understand what you're saying. It j 20 1 8 is essentially a concern and activity of the NRC scope. l 91
- Okay. Now, we're off the record.
i ?
22 !
(Whereupon this interview was
~~
! concluded.)
I 2s I
25
-M'p u .,?.T.s !.*:!!;.^*
., . w(,.w.%.w7 .
l 74.
1 l CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS 2 l 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
5 In the Matter of: COMANCHE PEAK, TECHNICAL INTERVIEW 6 i Date of Proceedings: Wed 1984 -
Place of Proceedings: j 7
8 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original l I
9 transcript for the file of the Commission. i I
1 10 .
I 11 ! -
Cheryl Lynn Walters, CSR g3 Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 ,
,/ '
14 ),V-LP w ~>> Y L M-j Certifp6d Thdrthand Reporter i '
16 i I
~
? . $ f *j
- g ,
is :
l 19 i l
! I 20
- 21 l 22 ' .
l 23 I i :
i 24 l
2.")
. _- _