ML20215F138

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of 850808 Interview of Rj Gary in Dallas,Tx. Pp 1-21
ML20215F138
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 08/08/1985
From:
NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20214X072 List:
References
NUDOCS 8610160097
Download: ML20215F138 (21)
v • d • e


Text

.,a c..

~ ~,

-m,1 2 i-

+N '= w ~ ~ 'd = 2 0 Te n. G t"'* M 2 Ai

)

~

~.

>.]

y W

~ -

4-85-008 l

3.:

't i

1 b

2 c

3 a

,1 4

'.I

%,g 5

M s

.t 6

)

7

.~-

t

',4 b~

s; i

9

.s INTERVIEW OF 10 ROBERT J.

GARY i

11 AUGUST 8,

1985-1 2:40 P.H.

'.)I

'd 13 J... r.q u..

'W 14

..n; 15 d

4 10 i

17 le 19 I

9 4

20 21 l

4 l

2 *e

[

paa22883K888Pk l

u g

A 23 i

25 r-EIBIBIT 19 2

FEDERAL COURT R'EPORTERS

5* Qf.wl,'_. x. - ~ w~m c-
w n. -m udr*-W'mN%N* * '4YS'*kS'**'DYUM'W!YO%#Y* **~Y

\\

,9,

' YJ

..s g

- 2 A

~'

l i

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

2 1,.

. 7 '

H.

BROOKS GRIFFIN 3

Investigat'or United States Nuclear Regulatory.

A.

4

.T3 Commission - Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite'1000

'.,j 5

Arlington, Texas 76011 i

e 6

l APPEARING FOR NRC s

4.

7 l

s.

as l

WORSHAtt, FORSYTHE, SAMPLES f.

& WOOLDRIDGE 9

Suite 2500, 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 10 l

B.Y : ROBERT A.

WOOLDRIDGE 11 i

Ji 12 I

APPEARING FOR TUGCO AND ROBERT.J. GARY

..r.

Ia

.#s -

glip

f.

14 15 i-lu I N D EX 17

1.6 WITNESS

ROBERT J.

GARY t:

l *;

PAGE l]

19 Examination by Mr. Griffin

~

3 lr.;

20 Examination by Mr. Wooldridge Ib 21 Fur.ther Examina tilon by Mr.. Griffin 1b l

\\. .

~

22 1

O 2a i

L 24 i

I

. y 25 S

?, _

s I

g

' [.'

FEDEkAL COURT REPORTERS

[

a

+. -

4

_ww Lw x.2,-. ~ : U..;:.::. w d ? w = C n *\\

itf

.q t- -

_.3

,9

aa

' t.

I

,[

l i

!!R. GRIFFIN:

For tne record, this is 2

an interview of R.

J.

k Robert J.

Gary, G-a-r-y,

,.s 3

who is employed as an executive'vice-president of l

4 TUGCO.

i a.

g

.h; 5

Tne location of'this ihterview is Dallas, 0

8 c

6 Texas.

The.date is August the 8th, 198S.

And the

-1 7

i time is 2:40 p.m.

Present at this interview are

.c

~]

8 l

R.

J. Gary and his personal representative, Rooert i

9 Wooldridge.

And on benalf of the NRC, myself, 10 i

H.

Brooks Griffin.

This interview is being i

11 l-transcribed by a Court Reporter.

t I.~l 12 Hr. Gary, I need you to rise and raise your l

i Q

13 i

rignt nand.

I want to swear you to~ the contents of g

.J sw:

j 14 your testimony.

ei i.

15 Do you swear that the information you are

1

,e 16 aoout to give is tne truth, the whole truta, and Mi 17 nothing but the trutn, so help you God?

.,q W,]

18 THE WITNESS:

I do.

3 1

19 LXAf11GATION I

V.'

20 SY MR. GRIFPIN_r I

y j

21 Q.

Oxay.

Mr. Gary, is it true tnat you have i

<a f,q 22 t

been a Texas Utilities' emp,loyee 1or 25 years?

.a 6

23 A.

Yes.

J 24 Q.

And that you have been in your present I

. t :.,

S 25 position for about 11 or 12 years?

D l

6 i

4 i

f g --

=

' FEDERAL COURT RUPORTERS

...,...:..... :.~. L =....... L

. i... ~.. :

..u -

4 g

i i

i 1

A.

That is correct.

'\\'

2 Q.

Mr. Gary, in 1978, TUGCO, I believe, l

3 entered into a contract with !!ana g emen t Analysis 4'

Company to perform a third party interview in a QA

~

5

l.. Program at Comanche Peax and at the corporate level.

i 6-At the time that this contract w a's made with MAC, a s-7 it is called, did you have anytning to do with the i

8 negotiations for that contract?

i 9

A.

Yes, I did.

10 i

u.

Could you tell me in your own words what 11 your involvement with that was?

12 A.

My involvement invo.1ved interviews with y..

13 i

people in MAC, both going into the study as well a s t}'"

14 a conclusion of it.

~

\\

15 Q.

Oxay.

w* hat did you asx -- What exactly did e

16 you ask them to perform for you?

17 A.

The scope of the work wa.s -s e t out by 18 Mr. Brittain.

And it was to look at our 19 organization associated with the Quality Assurance 20 Program, and to determine if we had any problems 21 enst ws needed to consider from a management point I

22 of view.

We really didn't loox at it as an audit as

[

l l

2J muen as to assist us from a management analysis of i

24 how we were doing our business associated with the S.

t 25 Comanche Peax pro]ect.

I

~

' - ~ ~ ' ^

-E

=

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

'b

.n

.:.n. ~ - %.-k g -" -

~

%.4mm.ca,s =.crau;

-..a

<1 3__j

,y

~7 1

Q.

Okay.

Did the contract involve review on 2

l site as w e-11 a s in the corporate level?

.c y,,

3 A.

Yes.

4 Q.

Did it extend to the contractor, Brown &

?

d, thei,r l'aplementation of the QA.. Program?

5

Root,

^2

.L.l...

6 j

A.

Yes, I would have to say.

i

'],

7 Q.

Anybody else?

Any subcontractors?

l

}a 8

l A.

Not to my knowledge.

9 l

Q.

Do you know John Jackson and Jack Norris

~

s 10 and Hendron?

They were three guys that performed 11 l

the audit.

Do you know them personally?.

12 1

A.

I know Jackson.- I met one of the others.'

'1 I

lJ d

13 I

I Know them through that activity.

),

hW

s'

" ' ~.

14 Q.

Did you have a face-to-tace conversation l'*

4

'9 15 with them?

3

,.3 t

}

16 A.

Yes, I did.

r 17 Q.

I nave tne 11AC report here in front of me, i

18 and it shows that the MAC audit was conducted from I

I P.i 19 Hay Ist to nay the 12th, 197b.

And they list a 8

's l

20 j

number of people in nere tnat they interviewed or i

l 21 that attended pre-audit and post-audit meetings.

l.

22 l And according to their review cr tneir -- wnat they 23 demonstrate in their report here, you were VP' i

24 operat2ons.

and they have you down as having been I

e 25 interviewed as part of tneir review and as having l

i u

4

,o I

A p.__.._..____..-

jzDniRA.L, COURT REPORTEkS e

7, m

- ~ ~ " -

M _ -...--== m a..c.s u.

~ =r ~= "

~.

~-

~

.u.

..., t..,.. a w...a:.. a. -, :... -. a -

__. 6 __

-~

I i

J 1

attended the pre-audit meeting?

  1. l s':

2 A.

That is-correct.

i' l 3

Q.

Okay.

Wnat was the primary thrust of the 4

interview that-they had with you?

What mainly were 5

tney ask'ing you about?

Do you recall?

6 l

A.

Yes.

Management of that phase of the 7

business and our organization as it was established

~

8 to do that.

9 Q.

To perform the QA function?

10 A.

To perform the function as well as how it 11 I

interfaced in the organization botn in the tield and 12 in headquarters.

,,13 l

Q.

Do you recall what was discussed in the

'. 'c f

pre-audit meeting?

~

14 15 A.

Not in great datail.

The general pre-audit a

\\

le discussion was to help them get an unoerstanding of 17 our overall organization philosophy and how'we were Ib set upi so that they could do a better job in 19 visiting with the people both in the field and at 2u neadquarters.

.i 1

I 21 Q.

Do'you recall I

i l

22 A.

Anc to meet s' o m e of the people.

.Tney were l

23 obviously there, so that gave me a'cnance to meet i

l 24 t h e ni.

~

.. \\.

2 s.

O.

Do you remember attending the post-audit

_)

N6

+

Meg dh m.

[$.q.__ _ _ J? _' ' *. $',p:f: '.. ;

C

_- --:- u ~ km 1

U.;.-~~

E = $ = & % # '.7. '...'. ^ '

f

'v

+

~.,

M..

1 meeting?

C' 2-

<A.

Yes.

h.,

3 Q.

What was the flavor of that meeting?

Was

.c

(

e

-l{

4 there -- When they were showing the findings, was it

.)

Sh.

5 l generally favorable?

Were they critical in certain

.4 p.

Mj

,6 areas?

~. it,

s

' 'y. t 7

A.

It was a 9

very professional post-audit.

The 8

meeting was very tavorable.

There were some I

"3 9

criticisms of methocology of ways that we did things.

t**

10 There Gas some complimentary things, and we s

f 11' I

generally discussed

  • e eacn one of enem in detail.
g 12 o.

Did you or any of,the other Utilities'

.J s

t 13 13

'i. representatives, attempt to rebut or refute any of

)j'j'

m.ll-);[ 4 i

~

~

o : -14 tne criticisms identified in the audit?

,S

[;'

l.!'

15 A.

Well, we discussed each one of t h e m ", both

&.s

-. i b:

1{

pro's and cons, as to why we did them and where we h.

-4W 17 made a decision to change.

We either did that on u{}<

16 the spot or said we would study them in m' ore detail 19 and make a decision about that witnin some p.

l(

20

,reasonab1'e time atter tnat meeting, which we did.

.l s.:

~21 Q.-

Were you aware tnat TUGCO formulated a

?,

!:i '

22

, response as a result of the MAC audit, not back to P

i 2J hAC, but just internally?

i

}

24 A.

Yes.

In tact, 1 assigned some or my 25 suboruinates to work on that to help prepare tnat, W

a 5

t R4 h-FEDERAL COURT.NEPORTERS

~

~

g

s-

-_ y ~ - -

m 77

~ ~

/

1 E

5 1

but as did other people.

Mr. Fixar assigned some of 2

his people to do the same.

.e 3

Q.

Who were those people that you assigned?

4 A.

.Mr. Chapman was the key individual in my i

5 area'.

I can't speak for the.others.,

t 6

l Q.

Anybody else from your area?

7 l

Well, he involved other people, but I i

8 didn't maxe that direct assignment.

9 Q.

Do you snow anybody that he assigned?

10 A.

I don't recall who those were.

But they i

11 were appropriate people for each one of the points 12

[

that was made.

But I don't recall.

1J r

Q.

Do you know the names of any of tne people.

14 l

Fixar assigned?

a

=

15 A.

No, I don't.

i 16 Q.

'Did you ever see the results of their work, 17 3

the response to the questions?

la A.

Yes.

19 Q.

To your knowledge, was this response xept 20 internally?

21 A.

Yes., in fact, with regarc to that, 22 Mr. Brittain and Mr. Fixar and I agreed that that 2d was information in a report tnat we ought to work on 24 ene details of with tne appropriate people, but not 25 to circulate that to all of enes for fear we might I

e l

i g

- i m.

a - - -

- - ~ ~

~.

.c

.L J ~ N 0 5 d m

-e

- n_ _: ~

9

'.')

t

,)

g

.i 1

~

send tne wrong signal'to them about. wnetner or not

(,.

2 they were doing a good job or a bad job.

Ana since e

3 the report was not required by NRC'or any formal 4

external need, we kept it as a management tool 1

'3 5

between the thr.ee of us.

,g f

6 Q.

That was you, Fixar, and who?

.0 2

c 7

A '.

Mr. Brittain.

A

'l 8

Q.

Oxay.

t 9

A.

Mr. Brittain was my superior at the time,

.y t

9 10 and ne was the one that asked for tne study.

q 11 Q.

In 1980, the Intervenor case made a request i

12 to.the Utilities for many documents and they covered M

\\\\

13 many areas.

One of those areas is referred to in

1 g::.

n;p 3

14 Hr.. Wooldridge's letters to the WRC as the 19t:5 MAC d

.7

'15 report.

' Refers back to 1980 to Item 10 of cases,

'.1 1'

,1 16 i

interrogatories and request to produce dated July' 3

17 the 7th, 1980 ms clarified on August the 4th, 1980.

c-

)d

,4 18 were you aware when tne Utilities received j

i

'19 this request from the Intervenor?

sq i

(a 4

20 A.

Yes.

And in tne general way -- I don't 5j 21 have the direct responsibility to, or -- did not l

it l5 g

4 22 have'the direct responsibility for the licensing, so

.a

.N j

23 tne general way was to reaasign tnat to our people 24 to be sure they followed tnrough on any requests.

~

i 25 But that is all.

?

l-v p

i

i L

t 4

~

~

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

. - ~

w....

.~=-.:_-

A

. wae5,:--~suc

d=.tcx. hn=n= auu.trF'",..

i 10 -

).

~

1 Q.

Did it come across your desn?

2 A.

I'm sure it did.

I don't recall the form

_/

3 in which it came across, but only as a general 4

request.

i l

5 Q.

Did you have any involvement in determining l

l wno would do the reviews or who would formulate tne 6

7 response?

8 J..

No.

9 v.

Did anybody in licensing consult you in 10 t

formulating tnat response?

i f

11 A.

No, sir.

12 l

Q.

'Did you see the results of the review l

13 l

performed by the various divisions of the Utilities o'

14 in the attempt 15 A.

No.

10 U.

to respond to the review?

17 A.

ho.

18 Q.

Let me drop bacx for a moment.

I was t

i 19 f

asking a while ago about the internal response to 20 the MAC report.

Let me S e'e if I c a r.

locate thht l

21 document anc snow you.

It looks ~ 1ine~ findings to l

22 Appendix A.

And wnat it generally is, it nas got l

i l

23 summary findings and response.

And then it goes on l

j i

i 24 for sever 61 pages like that.

Have you ever seen 2,5 that document oefo.re?

(Indicating) 11 b_

i

.__ __ m.

?

- - - - W "

[

7J ~ ~~

~-

....:.N......_

..u m.

~

21=- W <- & '.

g.

33

a,

.I p.

'i

~

1 A.

Yes, I have.

2 i

v.

Were you tne autnor of this document?

3 A.

No.

That was put together by the' jj 4

individuals that I mentioned a while ago.

.I l'

5 Mr. Chapman di,d most of the detail work for me.

J i

.I 6

Q.

Mr. Gary, at the time that It is my 1

3 7

understanding that Mr. Fixar ultimately was the

'i I

.j b

ultimate responsibility in determining what was

. 6 9

going to go into the response to the Intervenor's i

10 request.

Do you have that same understanding?

i 11 I

A.

He is responsible for the licensing, and I r

.t i

i

]I 12 presume that he would.

i N

13 I

Q.

i se And back in 1980 when.the Utilities made

's kdi' 14 its. response which I believe was clarified in the 15 succession of letters one dated September the 6th, Ib l

1980 and. December the 22nd, 1960, March

'82, and j

{

another in April of

'B,2

-- did you nave any input 17 N

lb into the decision to withreold this MAC report from I

1 i

j 19 the response to the Intervenor's request?

l A

1 20 n.

No.

a I

21 Q.

I think you said earlier that you and i

k 22 Brittain and Fixar used this HAC report more as a 23 management tool?

24 A.

That is correct.

25 Q.

Did you attend any meetings or nave any

.. s 4

1 hl..,~

~~I N DE M ' COURT REPORTEMS ~

~~~

m

. 12 g

t t

1 conversations wi.th anyone witnin the Utilities while f

s 2

the decision was being made that this was 3

proprietary and would not be producible under the 4

-Intervenor's request?

5 A.

No.

i l

Q.

Do you know of your own knowledge whether 6

7 Mr. Fixar consulted anyone else before. he mace'tne B

decision that this was not producible?

-9 A.

No.

10 Q.

In between the time tnat the Utilities made I

11 its response to the Intervenor in 1980 to its 12 requwst In'between that t i,me and 1985 when the i

13 i

MAC repor.t was located during the prudency audit, 3

u' 1.4 did you have any discussions, attend any meetings',

15 or hear anybody discuss the fact that the MAC report J

1b i

nad not been produced during that Intervenor's 17 request or was producible?

I-1h '

A.

No.

My first contact was with 19 ea r. Wooldridge when he. notified me of the matter i

e 20 about sid May.

21 Q.

In mid May, were you a member of the senior j

i 22 review committee for the prudency audit?

I 23 A.

Yes, sir, I was.

t i

i 24 Q.

Are you still en that conmittee?

I' I

25 A.

Yes, I am.

l

~

y i

' FEDERAL COURT REPONTERS

~~~

l-

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

~~

~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

m,..

a._?..'..-.

- ~ - ' '

'., 4 7.,,;; x.,,_. _,,,e. w w.,n, e, _ % g g. l.& x;g

'.~;

--g

'13

i 1

Q.

Could you tell me wnat tne circumstances j

2 were of your being notitied of tne existence of the 4

MAC report' in May of '857

'!r.y 4

A.

Through Mr. Wooldridge is the only

.9u-l 5

m,,

notification I had.

.3 1
i3

.3 6

i Q..

Did he contact you during his internal

!E, 7

investi,gation into tne history of the MAC report?

't u

Is that when you learned about it?

r 9-A.

I presume that is coincident of that.

10 Q.

Did you have any input, or were you 11 consulted regarding the decision to produce the

.i.

12 report to the AS,OB ano to the NRC?

$b

=

4 13 A.

No.

<~

  • 1

. 'GJ '.

14 Q.

Do you.xnow wno made the decision to 15 produce your report?

16 A.

No.

(

17 Q.

But you know it was produced?

t 18 A.

Yes.

Mr. Wooldridge told me.

l.i ifj 19 Q.

Are you familiar with 11r. Wooldridge's s

I

}

. 20 letter in,wnien he which contains, I guess, what

  • 4 21 you might term the results of his internal W

]a 22 investigation as to wny it was not prod'uced in 19807 u^

23 Are you ramiliar witn tnis letter?

Let me snow you q

24 a copy of it.

(Indicat2ng)

I 25 A.

Yes.

%E/

at I

~~~

~ ~-

FEDERAL COURT REPuMTERS s

k

f,'-

____-_---n------

_7__

_----m;,.

~

th eh ee %#38859 N

M'**

J 4

16 l--

--.~.:-

j i

1 Q.

I thinK maybe like tne last paragraph in 2

this report, it makes reference to an ongoing etfort 3

to determine if there are any other documents that 4

exist that might fall in the same category that l

5 maybe they should have been produced.

Do you know l

)

6 I

of any documents that have been identified or 7

i located since t h's MAC report was found that might 8

tall into that category?

9 A.

No, I do not.

6 10 Q.

Let me drop back to an earlier tim'.

Bacx e

11 l

when you received the results of the MAC report and 12 I' at the time.that Fikar -- In the time frame that' 13 i

Fixar was.having to maxe a decision as'to what was

]...,.1 14 producible in the Intervanor's request, were you 15 aware that some of the supervisors in TUGCO, such as 16 Chapman and Tolson, had expressed an opinion 17 personally and conveyed this opinion to people.like 18 Marshall in licensing, that they believed that the lir MAC report was producible?

20 A.

No, I was not.

And I might add that within 21 60 days after we considered the finoings of the MAC

~

22 report in

'76, I disposed of all of my material i

23 regarding tnat subject; that we nad disposed of by 24 eitner correcting it or deciding we were going to do 25 it soue particular.way.

So I had no material or no i

[

t-

~

.p;_

...m.--

..n.u,.=--ca_a.._..v:.m. m y m pu..a.g,.v.,m.nxgsn,cx, g.r m y I

15 -

t r

1 follow-up~ reference on it at all.

i 2

Q.

Oxay.

Well, taxing what you just said, 1 3

l have still got another question in that ar'ea.

At 4

the time Mr. Clements a.ssumed his position, wnich "I

li 5

included the supervision over QA or, you know, at'a d

v.i 6

higher level as reported in Mr. Wooldridge's ri

~

7 response or results of his internal investigation, K..

i 8

he characterizes that Mr. Clements was aware of the 9

HAC report, but chose n o't to revisit the decision to 10 withhold it.

i 11 Were you aware of -- Were you aware that i

I 12 Mr. Clements was aware of the existence of the MAC i

j i

  • ]

,cs 13 report?

Did he discuss it with you?

i h'#

f s

E p

14

.A.

No.

We had no discussion concarning that.

15 Q.

Today, is it your understanding Mr. Fixar i,

16 considered the MAC report proprietary at the time l.,

o.

17 that he in 1980, when he cnose not to produce it?

e

{ I'm asking you that as of today.

y 18

~

19 A.

I don't Know what he considered then.

i I

20 Q.

Oxay.

At that time, did you consider the l

(

21 MAC report a' proprietary document?

22

[

A.

I gave it no tnought.

i, 23 Q.

Oxay.

Well, I thought maybe you nad 24 Since you and Brittain and Fixar considered it more i

i

-.es or a management tool, I thought maybe you had some f

r.'

P e

l 4

~~

W

'9

&ap,e

,m FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS

e

_16 1

kino of a discussion aDout it.

"s, 2

A.

That was the 1976 period tnat I'm talxing 7

3 i

about.

i 4

Q.

Okay.

I understana.

5 A.

Well, I made the observation tnat witnin 60 i

6 days after we worked on that report, I was through I

t, 7

with it.

No files.

It was over.

It had served its 1

t t

8 l

purpose for a management tool as far as I was I

9 concerned.

Haver revisited enat in my mind at all.

I 10 O.

All right.

Since that 1978 MAC report was 11 completed, do you Know of any other internal reviews 12 of the -- UL's sorry, of the third party reviews of l-13

.the QA P_r o g r_a m for corporate or.on site,at Comanche

,.'E

[

1.4 i

Peax whicn.were determined or treated as proprietary 4:

-i 15 l

by tne company?

i 16 l

n.

No.

1.7 Q.

,Oxay.

Mr. Gary, it is important to me that i

1B wnen we leave here today, that I have your tull g

19 testimony on this subject.

Can you think of any.

I I

20 other information, any other meetings, conversations,!

21 i

anytning tnat y'ou Know related to the origins of the 22 MAC report, the decision to withnold it from the 23 Intervenor's request or up through the 24 producibility I mean the cecision to produce it 25 here in 1985, tnat would sneo any light or provide l

-_--. b.

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS y

~

~

NM SY05 r SN unn"#d'ME""'"

' u-

.. + + :.ar.

.x. - ~,.~ n k't.

~

.M.

17 41 l

.s e

l

.,8, i

o 1

any internation on this sub]ect, other than wnat you 2

nave already told me?

e

'i 3

A.

I don't know of anything.

4 Q.

When Mr. Wooldridge questioned you about 5

your knowledge of.the MAC report, were your

'3*

l resp'nses 6

o to him and the information you transmitted

,'1

.17.

7

'j to htm' essentially what we have covered here today?

8 A.

Essentially, yes.

~

9 Q.

was there anytning additional that you 10 discussed with Mr. Wooldridge that we have not q

11 discussed as related to your recollection or

'.:1 12 xnowledge?

2,.

.:.n.

13 A.

No.

I can't think of anything.

.q

.3 I

Sb 14 Q.

Mr. Gary

~

')

15 MR. WOOLDRIDGE:

Brooks, before you

(.'

1.6 are through, I want to asx a clarifying question.

4 i

.i 17

!!R. GRIFFIN:

Certainly..

?;

g 18 MR. WOOLDRIDGE:

Lo you want me to do h,

19 that now or do you want me to wait?

a F.".

20 HR. GRIFFIN:

Is it in relation to 21 Is r. Gary?

'3 22 I

3 MR. WOOLDRIDGE:

Yes.

.t l

g 23 I

II R. GRIFFIN:

Sure, go aheaa.

i p

T 24

,i t

25 i

\\.

~J I

1

\\

n i

_.~- ~

~

FEDERAL C.0URT REPURTERAI

r-

~,;=_- ' v~awas:sn

^ " ' ' ~

i 9-Ih

-w-r 1

.E X A M I N A T I O.N

~.

2 BY 11h. WOOLDRIDGE:

-/

3 O.

Mr. Gary, clarifying a question earlier on.

4 Are you aware of whetner_or not Brown & Root 5

separutely ' contracted with Management Analysis 6

Company to do any review of their activities at

~

i 7

i Comanene Peax?

6 l

A.

I know of no -- No, I don't know of any.

9 Q.

Are you aware of any otner reports from 10 Mixe having to do with Brown & Root's involvement at 11 Comanche Peax?

l 12 A.

No.

13 MR. WOOLDRIDGE:

That is all I have,

'.i)\\

9 14 Brooks.

l I5 1

FURTHER EXAl1INATION lu BY HR. GRIFFIler 17 Q.

Okay.

Just to expand, not on exactly what 18 you were asking, but was not Wasn't a review of 19 Brown & Root's implementation of the QA Program at t

20 Comanche Peak part of the original MAC report review?

21 This flAC report as part of the original contract was 22 to look also at Brown & Root's implementation of the 23 UA Program?

24 A.

Yes, in a general way.

The way you are as saying it sounds awful specitic.

But in a general I

o g

m.

bg._

, >y, c._u, - 4.-

. n.. t - cs.A. ~. h.mh5:w":^ Sumo"" AN'c b

" K%'MW'N*

N'l.

~

1 9 __

i.'J 3

t 1

way, how tnat interface was at tne site, yes.

i, 2

Q.

well, that is consistent witn what my i

i 3

understanding was too.

i 4

One other question.

Another area I I

}:,],

5

. neglected to asx you about.

When MAC -- MAC had a

t j

b post-audit meeting.

But they also apparently 7

returned to Dallas, I think to the corporate offices i

B here, and held discussions with various Utilities a

9 personnel as a submission of their written report.

"i 10 Did you attend any of the various meetings they hac 11

'.with the Utiliffies personnel when they presented the i

12 written report?

a

,7 13 i

A..

No, other than the.one I referred to.

.p Q,'".';,3

,)

14 0

The post-audit?

.i

.d 15 A.

Yes, the big -- the whole meeting.

4 16 u.

Oxay.

tir. Gary, have I threatened you i n 17

', any manner?

18 A.

No.

19 Q.

Have*1 offered you any rewards in return 1,

N 20 tor tnis statement?

21 A.

do.

4

.)1 22 u.

11a ve you given the statement tree $y end

,1 23 voluntarily?

t.

i-24 A.

Yes.

a 1-25 Q.

Is there anytning further that you would

.1

(.

,.c..

9

-- -- b -

7g y

ME5ERAL COURT 'RfPORTERS

~

2

-m.

20 I

i.

i li 1

care to add to the record?

i 2

A.

No.

~

3-u.

oxay.

I appreciate your time.

4 (Interview concluded at 3:15 p.m.

5 1

6 g

I 7

6 I

e 9

lu 11 s

I 32 13 i

14 l

15 lo 17 lb 19 2u 21 I

l 22 s

s 24

.g Ic 5 i

,._)

g i

i F1;DERAL COURT REPURTERS

~ ~ ~ ~

- _-~-.

. m, um --

~~A ~ w'-S Im'ic::.:.:nxw-m ~~ ~" ' <

g _ _ __,

...c._..u.....

.- - ~

2

- 31.,.-

.I.

1

~

,t

{

t i

'I 1

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2

3 This is to 'cer ti f y tha t the attached proceedings

()

4 before the UNITED STATES NULCEAR REGULATORY

.n

.ylj 5

CO!! MISSION in the matter of si

~

6 qu 7

NAME -OF PROCEEDING:

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION

.i 6

INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW 9

p (CLOSED) 4 10 e

i 11 12 i

13 PLACE:

,,g',...

DALLAS, TEXAS g..-

14 15 O

DATE:

AUGUST 8,

1985 16 i

le 16 were held as herein appears, and that this is the

,, t i.'

19 original transcript thereof tor the file of the

~

20 United States Huclear Regulato.ry Commission.

r,

..j; 21 22 it JAliCS 11. SIAAW, CSR, RPR 23 Off~icial~ Reporter Federal Court Reporters 24-1226 Commerce Street i

'1, Suite 411 25 T,

V; I

Dallas, Texas 75202

'l 1

- $ ^ -- -

- ar a.- -.

_ _ _. - ~ ~

ar-r:

~

F DERAL, COURT REPORTERS

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20215F138&oldid=3977774"