ML20211J504
| ML20211J504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1985 |
| From: | Mizuno G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Noonan V NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211J491 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8606260425 | |
| Download: ML20211J504 (12) | |
Text
v - -
7.-.-
[
/
2..
,i l
/
Janauary 7, 198M Te Note to:
Vincent S. Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Task Force From:
Geary S. Mizuno Attorney for OELD s
SUBJECT:
HANDLING OF DCAs AND CMCs -
DEPOSITION During the January 3, 1985 deposition o a former QC inspector at CPSES, dxpressed a oncern regarding the
~
handling of Design Change Authorizations ("DCAs") and Component Modifica-tion Cards ("CMCs"). Judge Bioch requested that this concern be brought to the attention of the TRT. Accordingly, enclosed please find a copy
'of Tr. 22,779-89 of deposition, whe e iscusses his concern.
A.
4 Gea ry
. Mizuno "
h I
Attorney for OELD
-- e e--hh f"l]
Enclosure:
As stated
=
k b bvs.E.
5 Ih I
m yasn-a 94 v;p &t9 7 y'{,'-e. 4,t;.d g g g a g Q Z,hj QAM y j j
.s 4:ini&&' O
- g..
O..
. Hsy'...$n' e,MG:g,,d:...
nr-
,e n. f5 n.
Wh%f.'
y.w.
~..
.u
- w. -
e,x,
'? ' $ x &, W k,C D., h&$%Abf."a.'{.32l:($$
pi ~;.u
- > c
~
w :;:
Q 9
10
.4..g.g y., y
") _.4.y[L*d,
.v
+
,, :p
.,p.
@:'.x.c..lML
9iQ: s
,b
' O.h$,'d'[c ;.i.;pd%'y*N 41.;' mme,7.J.;r.
..r
-N
' gds M '.;; '
e n
YT:
- l 5
.I.b...
,p $') w.~,a,.4 n.:ev+s & 4 1o u w. % c.fJh hb M e+Sh 'h$$20a e
w:$
' *T9. & ;n&.;'i:*.$gu.G ',5 y'.::::f.;-';a.Af Y?
s.w Nrif%)
ff
'%m.M,5%sp:
3.T.
u.'.
n:- :' ?. z1 We.?r:n~~::%* &%w:-w..W ;* z- ' '.' <* A
'L1.J 9.c.cy s tstrMuv.Wm.v5 :ey#
m Q2,'iM??{YQY.9%KA$f.**??,W~'22@*lOWlO;[;
- ,W*'5'A yQ%yl[M YbDh.lQ;.-5 r$y;;fd;f::.?%C%.?il'W ";':h'*:j',$?:-l%
A W
< h ^' -
p m.,q c *: C,q :. :.
f
.% g;;;.
a,. ;
u.p; J.v.
P..,'
8606260425 860617
,.~e s. c'i y ' a c*9 [fie" / ; j h!.##~Tl:.
,L.g*ys.GL' ((w. w..T'.$%5,.t..b.y ?; *
-.i.', -,
hQi
,y,,
PDR GARDE 85-59
. 6'
&v ~ -
.. ~:. :B
. ' -. ;, I ~ ~--..
'J o%
/ g q:,,. u.;.,/-.,.;.,,
'( 4,'=5Nem.T s qg TMMWc{G}QifMpf QMQ]fTfg{Qgl'.KQQ7pgg y(V."QF.%x 7.".CQi.3f;.*M d
- '>t
'-Xr
%'i
- - -= = s r
=-
-=
i
.c 21520.0 22779 BRT 1
A I think they wanted to hear about them, but the 2
way they reacted to them discouraged the people.
3 Q
And how was that?
i 4
A They would get upset.
They would kind of give
[
)
5 you cross-examination as to, you know, like we'll say:
I 6
". Hey, I looked at this and it looks bad to me."
"Well, p
7 what nakes you an expert?"
8-Q And who,were the pe6ple who, from your own 9
personal experience, you had observed doing this?
10 A
okay.
Mr. Tolson is the only one that I had, 11 you know, seen come back on that keel saying:
"We'll take 12
~ care of it.
That's all right.
Don't worry about it."
13 Mr. Tolson is the one that I'had seen do that previously.
l 14 Q
Had you, at that time, had any interaction with 15 Mr. Merritt and had the tensions between the two of you 16 developed yet?
p 17 A
Not at that time.
Also, I recall a lot of 18 hearsay from the other inspectors on the site that had f
19 been there for some time, you know, as to the different
(
20 things that Mr. Tolson had done.
His attitude toward 21 people bringing problems ~up.
22 Now a lot of that is from hearsay from other inspectors.
[
23 1 dealt with Mr. Tolson twice.
The first time was a total
$'1 24 shambles and the second time wasn't so bad.
)
25 Q
What were those?
l t
4 2
- g,
[
N 'm v
= -"-
"'3
,Nw prTrd a
mn n.,;
. :w x
~
=n.,
a l
)
I 21'520.0 22780
.ERT i
e 1
A Design change, the way we were going to set up 2
design change authority, way to handle DCAs and CMCs and 3
items like this.
i 1
4 O
Well, which one?
You said the first time was a I
i 5
total shambles and the second was all right.
I 6
A The total shambles was we presented to him the l
7 way that we felt, from doing an investigation on it, f
f 8
exactly how it should be done.
5 g
9 Q
How?
Could you be more specific?
How what
?
[-
10 should be done?
I 11 A
By reviewing each individual DCA, and each 12 individual CMC; and going through and reviewing each one, 13 categorizing each one into areas-, breaking them down by a
(
14 building and revising the paperwork and verifying that,
!l 15 yes, it was done; and all the requirements are met and it n
16 is' signed off and everything like that.
17 He, at that point said flat:
"No.
That's not the way
?
I 18 I want it done.
You don't have the total concept in
?
19 mind."
He got all upset about that.
t l
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
Let's slow up a little bit.
I'm 21 sure Mr. Roisman was going to ask what was the job you
- 22 were doing?
I don't understand.
What was it you were 23 setting out to have Hr. Tolson accomplish on these CMCa?
(
24 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
On the job I was doing, I 25 would take a CMC, a component modification card, and I
~
T
~
=
com-
..,..e-r _. _
s- - - - rw,4(w-r -
. w.
C
. ~ m-u a
_m==.e m, w :a,,
c
- .w.- -,
_....,-,-.1
{
~
1 21520.0 22781 BRT l'
would take it,and I would pull it out.
If it was on a 2
quality item, I would take that on down to the vault, pull 3
the documentation out, review the documentation to make 4
sure that the CMC was noted on the document so that the 5
work war done in accordance with that CMC.
6 If it wasn't on the card, then they had some backfit 7
operation to do, to go back down and reinspect because 8
there has been a change in design of the item.
9 JUDGE BLOCH:
So what you were doing was to 10 check to see whether the documentation that was in effect 11 at the time was available to the QC inspector who was 12 doing an inspection 7 13 THE WITNESS:
No.
I was verifying that the I
14 documentation that was in effect at the time did indeed 15 cover the design change that was done.
16 In other words, I'd take.the CMC, look at it, go down 17 and look at the documentation.
On the bottom of the 18 documentation would be the travelers or the inspection
(
19 report or weld report or something like tbat.
And if they l
l 20 put down on the bottom, " CMC 1492, rev.
1,"
and I had CMC l
21
- 1492, 2,
nowhere in the documentation was there any 22 reference in that package for that new CMC 2.
So that l
23 meant that they had to go out and reinspect that item to I
24 verify that it was up to the change in the design that was 25 brought out by that CMC.
1 l
l
~
. _ - =
_1
_,_.-e
,:~t -~
..,n.-
1 1
l 1
21520.0 22782 q
ERT l
l 1
JUDGE BLOCH:
So your job was to find out I
j 2
whether or not the CMCs had resulted in work that was then s
b 3
inspected?
g l
4 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
And then I was al,so.
[
5 responsible for some that had been done that, if it did --
6 if it did say " rev'2," I was responsible to go to the j
7 field, look at the item, and, indeed, to make sure that it
?
8 just hadn't been changed on paperwork and not inspected.
9 JUDGE BLOCH:
And was part of your job having to 10 do with seeing whether there was a pattern of problems 11 that were arising with -- as a result of the CMCs?
12 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
13 JUDGE BLOCH:
What was that part of'the job?
I 14 What was the problem there?
15 THE WITNESS:
We were to see if -- like one 16 atandard hanger, if they make up one CMC for plant-wide l
17 changes.
So we'd have to go back to every hanger of that D
18 style and that number and look it up and verify that that J
19 was done for every one of them.
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
Okay.
Now, maybe I can understand l
21 the next part of what Mr. Roisman -- I'm sorry I couldn't 22 figure it out at all.
23 BY MR. ROISMAN:
t 24 O
What was it that you had proposed to Mr. Tolson s
25 and what did he respond to with regard to that process 1
)
H a
4 x..
_A
,., _.. n
_-n-
.~~.w.,.,._..
__ =
.i 21520.0 22783 ERT
~
1 that you just described?
2 A
Okay.
We went in and responded to him.
He 3
asked us what we were doing.
We went in and told him:
4 This is what we have decided to do.
5 0
And that's what you have just described to the 6
Chairman a moment ago?
7 A
Yes.
8 O
All right?
9 A
I'll go through it again.
What we had decided 10 to do was make up the computer program.
11 In that computer program to include pertinent 12 information off the CMC, and to verify that by entering 13 the appropriate documents that that CMC affected.
I 14 The appropriate documents would be any quality 15 documentation for that hanger, for that cable tray, for 16 that conduit support.
And we would go out and look at all 17 the documentation; and then additional things we would do 18 is add, oh, heavens, the location, type of hanger, 19 whichever, pertinent to that CMC.
20 And Mr. Tolson says:
"No, that's not the way I want it.
21 I don't want it that way.
It won't work.
You don't 22 understand what you have been told."
And that's why I say 23 it was a total shambles.
He didn't agree with anything we I
24 had to say.
25 JUDGE BLOCH:
Did he tell you how he wanted it
^
,3
-.w
_ _ =
=a
-- :- ;;;_xma;gw;mg.z.-y.;
,,g--
3 3;r 3-2iS20.0 22784 l
i CRT 1
done?
l 2
THE WITNESS:
Yes, that's not how he wanted it l
3 done.
l 4
JUDGE BLOCH:
How did he want it done?
)
5 THE WITNESS:
He wanted it simply just the CMC a
L 6
listed and then the design change documents listed.
He a
L 7
didn't want the additional information put on the computer
)
p 8
and I don't think he wanted to program it; I think he 1,j 9
wanted just a loose-leaf-type list made up of these CMCs.
10 BY MR. ROISMAN:
j 11 O
Is it that what he wanted was to backfit the f
l'2 documents to the component rather than make sure the p
13 component met the documentation?
3 j
(
14 A
No, it wasn't so much to backfit the P
15 documentation, it was to verify that the documentation was e
V r
16 there and did reflect what the CMC said.
9 17 Q
As I understand it that's what the camputer l
t 18 program would have done?
I f
19 A
Yes.
f;:
20 Q
But.his approach to it, that last link never i
l 21 would have been made.
That is you'd never'know whether 1
22 the last design change or last component pod any
~
23 indication, was in fact in place in the field and had been i
24 inspected by a QC inspector after it was in place in the i
25 field?
J H
1 e
s m
- - - t _r_. t -_ m :
m
_1
_rn
_ we.as earmswasmosasta==eamw
__r
- ewt'mem=':e - w t__
b~
22785 21520.0 BRT 1
A Yes.
And the system he wanted, like, say --
2 what you are saying is correct -- the system he wanted to
^
3 set up would not draw that last one out; would not show 4
the final CMC.
5 O
'It would also miss the CMCs along the way that 6
had not been properly integrated into the system as well?
7, His approach, Mr. Tolson's approach?
81 MR. TREBY:
Mr. Chairman, I think I'm going to 9
object.
I don't knew how much further we are going with
.10 this, but this is certainly way beyond the scope of what 11 this deposition was called for, which was to talk about 12 the Lipinski trip report, various occurrences -- or I
~
- 13. conversations before, during, and after trip
(
14 and to talk about coatings matters.
We'are now t'alking 15 about a subject totally outside of coatings.
And I guess - '
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
That sounds like his response.
I 17' understand your point.
Do you agree?
18 MR. ROISMAN:
No.
It seems to me the question 19 was and is the basis for views and 20 input to those.
One of those pieces of input 9
21 was perception of Mr. Tolson; and this event, 22 on ich I have virtually no more questions beyond the one 23 that's pending -- but that's neither here nor there --
~
) statement.
It happens
- (
24 goes to the basis for l
25 that his perception o rose outside of e
9
~
^
...... m. - -- -
.._ _.. _ _..._ _. _. _. ~
s 21520.0
'~:
22786 BRT 2
1 coatings -- had nothing to do with coatings; arose outside theh trip, s couldn't have had any feelings about 2
x
/
3 Tolson.
But yet it _ formed the basis of the trip reports 4
and formed the meeting of the minds, if you will, between
~
on the 28th of July.
5 and 6
JUDGE BLOCH:
So it's only this one question 7
that you want to ask?
8 MR. ROISMAN:
Yes.
But my point is that I think 9
that line is legitimate because that's what it is going at:
10 how it is that has his views on Mr. Tolson.
11 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Watkins?
Your comment?
12 MR. WATK5NS:
Just so long as there is only one 13 question.
I would add this is a discovery deposition, so --
+
(
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
One question, sir.
Or thereabouts.
15 MR. WATKINS:
No. 1.
16 (Laughter.)
17 JUDGE BLOCH:
I have never heard a lawyer ask 18 one question.
You have a paradox there.
19 MR. ROISMAN:
To meet Mr. Watkins' concern, 20 would the reporter read the pending question, please?
21 (The reporter read the record as requested.)
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
Would you like to answer that, 23 please?
(
24 THE WITNESS:
Yes, that is true.
I have to add 25 '
one other item.
I left Mr. Tolson hanging.
After many 9
e I
w_
s
21520.0 22787 L
BRT i
1 long discussions among our supervisor and us we went back l
2 down to Mr. Tolson and he did agree to'do the system the 3
way that we had originally wanted to do it.
We did 4
confirm to him that that was the best way to do it.
5 BY MR. ROISMAN:
l 6
O Your supervisor then goes back to this gentleman 7
who you mentioned earlier, either Michaels or the person 8
who --
9 A
Peter Bush -- yes.
j-10 0
-- who replaced him?
i I
11 A
And Mr. Tolson did in fact. agree that what we t
12 had was a better system than what he had originally-set
~
^
l 13 forth.
h(
, 14 O
And is that the second meeting that you had?
t 15 A
Yes.
16 0
You said one was a shambles and the other i
17 everything had worked out all right, and that's the second
~
18 one?
i 19 A
Yes.
Yes.
[
j 20 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Treby, there's enough here t
[
21 that might be relevant to the work of the task force on 22 documentation so that I hope to just be aware of 23 iews on this.
{
24 MR. TREBY:
I think this is valid information
[-
25 for discovery.
e P
L
2f520.0 22788
- BRT.
1 JUDGE BLOCH:
We are done.
2 MR. TREBY:
But my concern and the reason I 3
raised the objection so the record is complete is that
(
4 there is a possibility at some point that people may ask 5
that this whole record be put into this -- this deposition 6
record be put into the evidentiary record.
i 7
JUDGE BLOCH:
Would you object to that?
I 8
' MR. TREBY:
I would think that this subject here 9
appears to me to be outside the intimidation matters.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
I haven't ruled on that.
I 11 MR. ROISMAN:
Okay.
Because I think the only 12 arguable matter is whether it's outside the scope of the
~13 deposition.
I think it's the heart of the intimidation I
~ issues before the board.
(
(
14 L
15 JUDGE BLOCH:
I hope the Staff working 16 intimidation will consider wha has said and 17 his familiarity with these questions.
18 MR. WATKINS:
I'm confused about what that means.
i 19 What i.nformation?
I f
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
The last few pages of this 21 transcript.
t 22 MR. TREBY:
I understand what the Chairman is j
i 23 asking is that we make sure that the technical review team i
(
24 is aware of the information that's being developed in this b
[
25 deposition.
I L_...,_ _. _.
. __ m. s. _
21520.0 22789
, B RT, 1
JUDGE BLOCH:
Just this last few questions, 2
questions of CMCs and the relationship between 1
I (
3 and Mr. Tolson.
4 BY MR. ROISMAN:
5 0
you indicated that at a subsequent 6
time relationshipa etween you and Mr. Merritt -- by 7
" subsequent" I mean subsequent to the time of July, late 8
July 1983 -- that problems developed between you and 9
Mr. Merritt.
And I wondered if you could tell us when did 10 that first' happen?
11 A
It happened when I was down in the coatings
(
1 12 department.
13 Q
What happened?
What was the first event in I
(
_I 14 which that began to crop up?
j 15 A
It was kind of a hard thing te stick my --
16 totally stick my finger on, but it developed when they h'ad 17 the -- this -- they had a barbecue between the crafts and 18 the OC.
19 O
Just for coatings or all --
20 A
Just coatings.
The craft for, you know, just 21 the coatings department for QC and craft coatings.
And 22 none of the QC fellows showed up.
Well, there was one man 23 that showed up.
(
24 And I got the feeling frcm the reaction that the 25 superintendents and that gave was that they were upset' 1
r
' E, f, m
- 9 "~
e7 a-
\\
\\
6pVERNMENT ACCOUNTADILITY PROJECT 1335 Connecticut Avenue. N.W., Suite 202 Washington. D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 G:85:104 Ja,nua ry 21, 1985 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST EMW 60ftMAT10N ACI REQUESI TA"/89 kg h/-g-g Director Office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("F0I A"), 5 U.S.C. 5 552, the Government Accountability Project (" GAP") requests copies of any and all agency records and information, including but not limited to notes, letters, memoranda, drafts, minutes, diaries, logs, calendars, tapes, transcripts, sumaries, interview re-ports, procedures, instructions, engineering analyses, drawings, files, graphs, charts, maps, photographs, agreements, handwritten notes, studies, data sheets, notebooks, books, telephone messages, computations, voice recordings, computer runoffs, any other data compilations, interim and/or final reports, status reg ports, and any and all other records relevant to and/or generated in connection with the overview, ragulation and investigation of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant by any person, branch, or department of the NRC since January 18, 1985.
l This request includes all agency records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 5 9.3a(b) and the NRC Manual, Appendix 0211, Parts 1. A.2 and A.3 (approved October 8,1980) whether they currently exist in the NRC official, " working," investigative or l
other files, or at any other location, including private residences.
If any records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 5 9.3a(b) and the NRC Manual, supra, and l
covered by this request have been destroyed and/or removed after this request, 1
please provide all surrounding records, including but not limited to a list of all l
records which have been or are destroyed and/or removed, a description of the action (s) taken relevant to, generated in connection with, and/or issued in order to implementtheaction(s).
GAP requests that fees be waived, because " finding the information can be con-sidered as primarily benefitting the general public," 5 U.S.C. 6 552(a)(4)(a).
GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization concerned with honest and open government. Through public outreach, the Project promotes whistleblowers as agents of government accountability. Through its Citizens Clinic, GAP offers assistance to local public interest and citizens groupt seeking to ensure the health and safety of their communities. The Citizens-l Clinic is currently assisting several citizens groups, local governments and
'intervenors in the central Texas area concerning the construction of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant.
g_ Q {- h h ) Y f P
r
~
D rector Office of Administration Page Two We are requesting the above information as part of an ongoing monitoring project en the adequacy of the NRC's efforts to protect public safety and health at nuclear power plants.
For any documents or portions that you deny due to a specific FOIA exemption, please provide an index itemizing and describing the documents or portions of documents withheld. The index should provide a detailed jusitfication of your grounds for claiming each excmption, explaining why each exemption is relevant to the document or portion of the document. withheld. This index is required under Vaughn v. Rosen (I), 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S.
977 (1974).
We look forward to your response to this request within ten days.
Sincerely, L%
Billie Pirner Garde Citizens Clinic Director G
e I
d