ML20215F149

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of 850731 Interview of D Chapman in Dallas,Tx. Pp 1-32
ML20215F149
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 07/31/1985
From:
NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI)
To:
Shared Package
ML20214X072 List:
References
NUDOCS 8610160102
Download: ML20215F149 (34)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. y_ - w <m o wwa 4: -- 2 - -e,59 M,Q.ptjm.'.:.Q.M yya47#,s2 @ 2 Lfg i, ORIGlisAL UlN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

x.,2..

?! IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: ~ UFFICE OF INVESTIGATION ci .e.

0:

INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW P }. MR. DAVID CHAPMAN f %. ss. ..p a. t.OCATION: DALLAS, TEXAS PAGES:' 1 - 32 DATE: July 31, 1985 4 a

+.

4. B610160102 860922 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A PDR ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. offa Rmetm 444 North Capitol Street

1 Washin tr, D.C. 20001

) 347-3700 EIBIBIT 20 g dy' . NAM MG ~ e

mw %.nqwm7;w',e c= wa~n r=uaA+arams m.m.Aewsve s nr.+%uwv4Myqg' &TL.h n

g

.s '.3 ..i i 1 = - .g 1 1 BEFORE THE 2 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION 3 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION 4 .It ,/*4 5 f .e..l 8

y; 7

s -] 9 10 WIN OF 11 M M CHAP M .y .4) 'M 13 n. 14 15 16 e 17 I a l.. ,..(; 18 t. 19 e .o 20 t REPORTER: Cynthia Clay t 21 DATE: l 22 July 31, 1985 g3 + L 24 .h 25

r1 i

F4 t j ,Q a e 9 If

N m

..._.._m., _se ^ -

...... -...... W {& L.- C.:u u.-..::.- ...&.. '~~~ T.e _,. -4U a M'.g g.g' 2 1.' 5 'FROC EDINtGS r... 2 MR. GRIFFIN: For the record, this is an I 3 interview of David Chapman, C-h-a-p-m-a-n, who is employed d .j by Texas Utilities. sj. 5 The location of this interview is 2001 Bryan {U 8 Tower, Dallas, Texas. The date is July 31, 1985, and it

  • Q 7

is 1:22 p.m. .' 4 8 Present at this interview are David CYaapman, 8 and his personal representative, Robert Wooldridge, to W-o-o-1-d-r-i-d-g-e, of the law firm of Worsham, Forsythe, 11 Samples s.Wooldridge. 12 Also on behalf of the NRC, myself, II. [ 13 T, m Brooks Griffin. t.

a.,

i, 'd;.., a y -. 14 This interview is being transcribed by a g. 15 court reporter. 16 Mr. Chapsian, I need you to rise and raise a 17 your right hand. I need to swear you to the contents of is your testimony. o,.s le L Whereupon, N 20 DAVID CHAPMAN, y 21 hiiving first been duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole- 'l 'I 22 truth and nothing but the trut'h, testified on his oath 23 as follows: 24 EXAMINATION 25 BY MR. GRIFFIN: t g

,,.,,--m,,

-. -m --,-r--,- ,e-- w,--~,--- .m w----> , -, - - *~ -~ ~~$" e ? ?* '""~

,p:...c.- 6 4Eyswe--ur--nsk-an,N-hM.at-knm+n rktmim:ssa21ww.4wnaw s?m , g,.. 3 ey I 1 B Before we start discuss'ing the shject thdt 2 we're here for, I need to ask you some questions, David, ) about Mr. Wooldridge's representation of you.- ,M 3 A Okay. 1 8 .1 S Under your rights during an interview with ...m 3 .t '1 - - 8-the -NRC you do have the right to have a representative. ~: f$, 7 .It.can be anybody. You're free to choose whether you have 8 one and.you're free also to choose who that person might 9 - be. It could be a friend, could be a relative, it could-10 be anybody. In this instance, is Mr. Wooldridge your personal representative? 12 L Yes.- -13

u 6

Did you have a choice in the matter? Ali.. t. L Yes, I did. 15 MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Wooldridge, could you '8 tell me for the record what other parties to the Comanche I i

  • 17 L

Peak Plant that you represent--I know that you're acting '8 l;' in Mr. Chapman's behalf today, but we need to know whether 19 3 ... there are other parties you represent in relation to the 20 nuclear ite. i s 1 N - 21 ) MR. WOOLDRIDGE: I am the legal counsel to -) { gy Texas btilities Generating Company, arek j:he other Texas i 23 Utilities companies. 1 24 MR. GRIFFIN: Do you represent any of the

+

25 contractors or vendors? t 3

,Y.... ~... a......... : .w w-;+ ?. 4 @9,, MR. WOOIARIDGEh No. {

.s 2

MR. GRIFFIN: Okay, just Utilities, then? 3 MR. WOOIERIDGE: Yes, sir. 4 MR. GRIFFIN: All right. ?d 5 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 4 .a=.=. s- '1 t4 8 M, 4 Dave, what is your present title? [;. 7 A I'm an executive assistant. id a S Mee .c 8 A. To the Executive Vice-President of Texas 10 Utilities Fuel Comipany. 1.i 11 0 Okay. What was your previous position with c3 12 Texas Utilities? A.q% hi 13 'A ,y Q Manager of Quality Assurance for Texas ..[:. Di Utilities Generating company. --~- '~ 15 G And how long did you occupy that position? 16 A About eight and a half years. ~ ,l' jl 4 The reason I requested an interview with 17 18 you is in relation to a 1978 Management Analysis Company Quality Assurance Audit that was performed at costanche diji-Peak and at the corporate headquarters. Are you familiar 3 E!! 21 ,} with this' audit? t 22 3 g y,,, y.a familiar with the study they did. ,e 23 I was not of the understanding that it was an audit as j 24 we've come to know them, but, yeah, I was aware that they ~ 25 / did a stugly. e i j _,_, _,.. - ~..

Ty,. _...-v.nn,,,..awave1,.,v:-~e-c.swn:s vm.-~rw%h>1%a.whk.wt.wmmens nwwtre>n'W .,....:......1._._ ..,..._..,,2...._...:,.._.;;._.., .a t i i 5 1 4 How would you characterize it, if not as ~ an audit? 3 A I recall it as just som'e sort of management 4 view by an outside party that was chartered, I guess you'd u '} say, by our senior management. 'i. 6 4 Do you know what the conditions of the 7 ',1 original contract with MAC were for this review? s A No. s S S Was it just for Texas Utilities, or was 10 it for other parts of the QA program? 11 A I'm.not-12 ,g MR. WOOLDRIDGE: Let's,go off the record a 7 13 O. minute. ~ ^ ~ h.l,s.'.- 14 MR. GRIFFIN: Off the record. 15 IDiscussion off the record.] 16 MR. GRIFFIN: Back on the record. 17 4 Mr. Wooldridge has given an explanatio~n is ' 5., of the relationship between Texas Utilities and TUGCO in 19 l.; this matter. And for purposes of this interview, I think 4 we're speaking of the applicant which is TUGCO; is that 21 right? 1 22 MR. WOOLDRIDGE: That's correct. l l 23 ~ And Jf you want to read that question back...., [ 24 JRecord read..) 25 C MR. GRIFFIN: Let me ask the question again t 1 [.! t. i I

v c.......... .s .-n.-- e v.-- w m - ~~ g !l 5 Q t 1 6 just for continuity here. t i -{ c,-. 2 BY MR. GRIFFIN: 3 0 Was your answer that.you did noti know about 4 the original contract or were not familiar with the terms i t '.7! of.it?

5 b.}

s L I wasn't familiar with the terms of it. 7 -.Q. Okay, the thrust of my original question s ..y was, was the, review as you know it--did it include anything , ?..t other than TUGCO's QA program? Did it extend to like the' 10 2., contractor.or any of the other vendors or subcontractors? 11 g: A. I don't know that there was any discussion 12 '3* in there one way or the other. Again, I didn't know the G 13 'd.

g (g@,

specific terms of the contract, and so I was-it was my ,h. impression that it was intended to be just a snapshot by' -- 15 a third party of the management of what we were doing on 1s i3 Comanche Peak, from a qualdty assurance standpoint. 17 ,)I O Was it primarily organizational structure, y-1s ..a or was it the whole program? 3i 18 ... l-1 n I think they touched on things other than 8 organizational structure. , t 21 4 All right. c-22 y Do you know who negotiated the contract with r* 23 MAC on behalf of TUGCO? l 24 A. No. 25 O G Are you familiar with the MAC representatives c ,1 e n

Lsts u* ^ ".... "....=a**=+ 'f..--- ..a, umaci -f&- -- ~- muN55++?~#&&: ,n.. . ~ -,. 7:. ?! 7 i i 1 that conducted this review? 2 . :s A. Yes. I don't know whether I met all of ) .J 3 them that were here or not. 5 4 0 Well, I'll tell you-O} .g s I know ther.e were three of them, I think, i , /.; 6 that I can recall. .'.7 0 Were they Jackson, Norris and Hendron? 3 ~' 8 A Yes. 9 0 I have a copy here that I'm looking at of 10 the MAC Report. There i's a code system that MAC used to-- 11 it lists the company officials and it listed who they were 3 12 that listed pre-and post-audit meetings. They have you .q: "9 13 -. listed for.both--for attendance at both of those meetings. [, 'l., Do you remember attending a pre-audit 14 15 meeting? 16 A. I don't specifically remember a formal pre-17 audit meeting. I know I visited with them on the day--I [ 18 I w,. was at the site the day that'they met down there, and so ,J /,'j 19 it was probably a post-audit meeting that I recall. I don't know whether it was a formal meeting or not. It-20 7' 21 'probably was. (.'l s. F,- 22 g Were you interviewed as part of their review? j' 4 23 A. Yes. 24 0 What was the general thrust of the questions 25 that they put to you as OA manager? 11 .l i

7 I ...L -.....~:- ~ G--f.. L~.M2~% L~v ..g.. .].'.'. t1 i A I don't really recall spe:cific qualstions. 2 I recall kind of the tone or the tenor of it. It was 3 general management type questions that you would expect 4 ,j from somebody that's looking at the overall management.

-i s

':) We did not get into really any details. '.f ^] 6 g ,3, During the post-audit meeting how would 7 you characterize the results of the review? Was it ~ i. 8 y generally favorable, or was it critical, or.... 9 A I thought it was generally favorable. 10 4 Do you recall if there were any criticisms? 11 _[ A There were some, yes. .j, 12 G ?3 ~' Did you or any of your subordinates participat e~ 13 ():

h in formulating a response to the MAC report?
)

14 j A Yes, I did. 't 15 O So you had input into this response? ~ 16 A Yes. .[ 17 .,,{ G Was this response transmitted or the content 18 of it transmitted to MAC7 .a : r 'J i 19- .I A 1 don't know. 20 O Did they--was there any corrective action 21 ) as a result of their audit? 22 A Corrective action by? 23 0 In that they identified something that you all changed or-- 25 j A That we agreed with and changed? 'i l 3

n:n _ - =. ..-..~.--- - w u~-- ~ = ~ ~ '-'.".. a". " """.; F4 ~~ f.1 3 'i 1 s. S Uh-huh. 2 A Yes, we agreed with some of their findings ,,j ; 3 'because, as I recall, some of them we were alreadt imple-4 ./ d menting before they did the audit, or in the process of 4 ,.] 5 implementing. So we agreed with them, as I recall, and >m. s disagreed with scoe. .s f. 7 g Did Mhc have any participation in any '.:? i 8 corrective action posed? [ 9 A N. o. 10 0 Were you present when MAC presented their

  • 'i 11 written--their final written report to TUGCO?

Mj 12 A No. M That was to senior management that ccanissioned it, I presume. 'n 13 3 g",.'.O "j.. 14 S.. Were you aware of the time frame-I'm not. It. 15 . going to.ask you the date--but are you aware of when they c.. f,". 18 I. came to Dallas to present their written report? Do you d 17 have a recollection of that? J 18 A I a not sure. It's quite possible that I O 18 knew. 4 20 g I know I'a reaching back*a long time here. 21 I'm just really trying to job your memory. .i 22 ~

]

Do you have any clear reco11ection of where 1 23 any of the MAC representatives ever presented you, or dis-24 cussed the content of the written report with you personally?- .,'5 They--when they came back to town, I recall 'h A-ag .j i l as

= - - ?:J 10 '.) -knoying th'at they were in town, but I did not meet 11. '5 2 with any of them. It was strictly a senior management 3 thing. 4 G According to the MAC Report itself, they g ,(j s indicate that the audit date for the signed corporate [:.3 e a. . audit was May 1 through 12, 1978; does that sound right?- .- } 7 In that time frame? Id 8 !) A It could have been. I was thinking it was in the summer, but--all I know is it was hot, so it could i' to Iy-have been. l l 11 4 okay. 12 .'}* At the tiime that this audit was performed, r ldl/p/ . or.this review was performed by MAC, did you already know 13 j4 ry 14 Ln Jackson or Norris of MAC7 Is, ,i A I met them just shortly before they did the 16 8 audit for the first time, when it was decided upon their 17 firm to do it, and they came to my office and visited, 7 and I met them then, but not before that. to O Did you have any subsequent contacts after 4, so ~ .i the final presentation of this '78 MAC Report, did you 2t ever have any followup contacts with any of the MAC representatives on any subject? 2 23 A over the years I've had several times that MAC people have come in for various reasons. I'll have to 25 think a minute. 8 I ___,,___.._,,_e---w - - - ~ ~ ~

.,.... ~. m...> h ~ a t. -+ tiw-i.e e-mbAn w i r3:E m 5 % cr~ s>& 2 gy,g e r w < W-! # 1.r, rw.e 11 I've had'several contacts just for new 2 business that I presume you didn't want to hear about. ./ 3 C-0 Well, that's really what I'm paking'you, is ' (' 4 ,,] just about anything that yo6 can recall, a d mind of 'ih 5 contacts that you've had with any of the MAC r6presentatives . p; ' c. :. s .g.-- subsequent to the final report. d 7 3;.. 1/2 A Okay. I recall they sent somebody to my s -{ - office. It;was in an attempt to,get some feedback, apparently e l;. they did that with their clients,.on whati, you know, on I 10 basically what we thought of the work. 11

a 4

Oh, of their particular audit? 't 1 12 '[, A Yes. That was quite some time, as I recall, 2 13 2 af ter the audit.- n:' #:' 34 4:- 'Would you say months or years or what? .-0 15 A At least months. 16 0 Did they--was it in the form of like solici-17 I tation for further business? Is A Well', I think they wanted to know--yes, Th. is 8 cbviously, they wanted to do more business because they 20 were sending people in, and.they wanted to, I guess, get 21 r.1 some feedback and input on what they'5 done for us to.... } 22 O Were you-- 23 I MR. WOOLDRIDGE: Excuse me just a minute. 25 Dave, don't speculate about what was in -., 1

-.j, j

somebody else's mind. Just tell him what you know from ,I. ~ i ---J--

~ -- em - 2

h. :

12 l 1 a factual standpoint. m 2 BY MR. GRIFFIN: G Dave, were you familiar with MAC's partici-i 4 pation in any auctits of any of the contractors or sub-4' 'g 5 contractors? -) 6 A No. U 7 .j..: D. Were you aware of their presence on the 8 l,'... site during any of their audits performed on Comanche Peak? 9 A No. 10 G Are you aware that MAC performed several 11 QA audits for Brown & Root? J 12 I don't recall any. A 13 .$.3 0 .. In your position as TUGCO QA manager, would X...- 14 you have been privy to the information that the Brown & Root 15 QA program was being audited? 16 A You mean by an outside party? 17 G Yes. Is A Without my grosp's participation? 19 G or knowledge. 20 A Their program-- 21 0 The QA program, the implementation of their 22 QA program? 23 ( A Are you talking about the QA program that 25 I had the regulatory responsibility for at Comanche Peak, or something back at the corporate office? I just want to

~~ 1 --w. x' : -. m am'~x~r ,hr. ..-.adr i -r=*wf~k. Owh:,rth&d?i~MD M9 .y ?1

At

'13 ~ i v4 .1 make sure I'm a'swering the right question. n = 2 O I understand. It's good to clarify it. ) / 3 -} No, I'm talking about for the site'.. A I would expect to know about any audit'that 's :, '3 5 was going on at the site. . :.s .oi 8 ' G, ;;. .B.. Were you ever notified by Brown'& Root of v ...j;- ..7 aity MAC audits of their QA program onsite? lh. ti 8 A I don't recall any. e B Or the rgsults of any such audits? j, A No. 1 p S Would it have been likely that MAC personnel .,j: 12 could have been conducting an audit of the Brown & Root QA [is. 13 ~ I' program onsite without your knowledge? ..~- - :.c-34 ..A I don't think it would have been likely. Q Okay, Dave, I'll swi'tch back to the MAC i. 16 Report that; was performed in.'78 in behalf of the Utility, ); - 17 in behalf of TUGCO. ts ' As you know, this report was identified 2 recently and provided to the NRC and ASLB. I think Mr. . I, 20 Wooldridge here formulated the notification to the ASLB-- I 21 l A Right. 22 0 --and made the NRC aware of it. 23 t At the time that the Intervenor CASE made +% 24 i the request for information in this area, and reading .. s. 25 l from Mr. Wooldridge's letter in which he notified the NRC, C' i j 4 i 8 l t' t

,..w,..,.,.. .. ~ _.,.. _., N .s

  • 4
  • k.

I.think it.is t;itled " CASE's Interrogatories and Request 14' . 1. 9 2 to Produce," dated July the 7th, 1980, is clarified on i 3 August 4, 1980. 4 And,I think this relates to Item 10, this "i <l' 5 yt .MAC Report apparently falls.into that category, or it was 3 .d a thought to. !/[ At the time that TUGCO's attempt'ing to 7 .') e respond to CASE's. motion, were you involved in identifying-9 .'I l e what pertin.ent documents might be discoverable under this to motion? 11 A Yes. Any documents that I have custody of. 12 g At the time did you. formulate any list or .}<j _ 13 contribute any input to that response?

r. d. -

14

A Not a list.

We just went through our files 'S. '4 to produce anything'that we had that was r6sponsive to it, 15

e. -

is and gave that to Licensing. i I 17 g Licensing? 1s A. The licensing group in our company. ] is g Okay. .,] A It had to deal directly with the ASLB matters. 20 )4 g Was Lewis Fikar head of that. licensing group 21 { 22 at that time? 23 f A Well, he was pretty high up, but he was in 24 that chain of comman'd, yes. He was not the licensing managez, 25 v though. i: i 0 .I t i p

_g....... y..n.,,mm i %,u p i.g.m ag,,,1.,,,,..;,p. m p,;.w g g g..;, g.a n, _.i.e -._,, e 44 -) 15 1 O Who was? I don't know myself. 2 L Homer Schmidt, I believe. 3 O All right. 4 At the time that this response was being ?.) 5 assembled, did you identify this MAC Report, this 1978 4 8 MAC-Report, as a potentially produceable document? '.4 7 A Well, I don't know-- Yes, I guess the _i ') answer to your question is yes. I reviewed the discovery 8 8 request, and I remember that that report had been done. t 10 ' G Did you notify anybody in the licensing section that this report might be discoverable under the .4 12 Intervenor's request? 13 j.. .A.,.. - Yes. I talked with John Marshall, I believe# 7 .q 14 it.was. a 15 f, G Did Marshall give you any kind of feedback-1s or response in relation to this particular document? 17' A I don't recall a specific response. He Is 2.l very well could have. 19 g. 4 I'm asking your opinion, now, as it was in 2 '.i 20 d 1980. ) Was it your opinion that this MAC Report was produce-21 4; able under this Intervenor's request? 22 A

Yes, 23 4

Did you convey this to anyone, other than 24 Marshall? l 2s ..__s A I talked about it probably with two people in 1 a d. 4 ) l (

>-..- _. i--_ e,.- ~ w -: -

  • ~

6 ..a. 16 j. 1. .my organization' that were involved in gathering documents 2 for discussion. 3 0 Who would they.have been? 4 .e A Susan Spencer then, now Palmer; and Ron Tolso .i n. fj. Those are the conversations that I recal'1. 5 tl s ,q.. .O Do you recall whether Spencer or Tolson

.;3 i].,.

7 indicated whether they believed these documents were produce a able? it ' S, 8 A Yes. j.. G Was it their opinion that they were? j A Yes, it kas. 12 0 For both parties?

s U

l.d p Yes. L []' - - 6 '.h 9 'd 0 !} Do you personally know whether Tolson or ll )5 Spencer conveyed this opinion to the licensing pers'ennel? l.: 16 A I don't know. 3 G Were you on distribution for the licensing ts group's response to this interrogatory? d. D '- to 4 A Yes, I was on distribution for all that. >< i F4 j-O Were you aware when they made the response h. that they had omitted this report? 21 g-22 A When did they make the response? 23 G Okay, again, I'm reading from Mr. Wooldridge'n 24 letter, " Applicants submitted their response to Item 10 t 25 ~ v on September 8, 1980, and supplemented their response by 4 i f f 8

t:. .=- na.-- =w.....u..,..,..L, v ...w. -n,a, w:--+wk:.m s&w :..:..- w L az;.it ;6s.w -n };f .i 17 i i letters dated December 22, 1980, March 5, 1982, and April 2 19, 1982." ^ .) 3 A Yeah, I'm sure I was aware of it by then. O When the original response went in, were i 3 you aware that had omitted the MAC Report, the 1978 MAC .i 8 Report, from their response? 7 i A Yes. s G Did anybody' consult you about this omission, 9 or notify you verbally about this omission? 10 A I had a conversation with Bill Clements, 11 ] who in the intervening--in between the discovery request 12 [ and the response, had become my supervisor. I had a con-3 13 versation with him about it. ?, Mi i 14 0 After the response had been made? 15 A I don't know. But it was very likely--I 16 think it was before the response was made. 17 O At the time you had this conversation with 3 Is y .Clements, were you aware that this MAC Report was going to 19 .j be omitted from the response? 20 ] A I must have been, aware because I went to 21 j. him 'and told him I thought it should be produced. 22 G Can you recal1' what Clements' opinion was 23 on this request as it related to the reportability or 24 l produceability of the document? 25 A As I recall it, he tended to agree with me. ' i' 3 8 ,j i

1 l,J..'..._.s_. ; .s. .:3 18 ' I, But, of course, he didn't have a history ofian'ything. 1 2 g Do you happen to know if Mr. Clements had j.. 3 any participation in formulating the response td.the Y 1 4 Intervenor's request? j 5 A I don't know. j'j ~ e g. Would he have had, in his position at that .]Ii 7-time, -would he have had any review authority over the i.j

  • a decision as to what was released?

J1 8 ~ 4-A No. j, 10 G Following the Applicant's response to the .f 11 Intervenor's request, did you know of any conversations .x dif]. 12 with any parsonnel or any of your subordinates on the .3 }4 subject of failure.to produce the MAC Report? 1 13 94 14 c .A .?n I don't recall any specific conversations ---e B .15 about.it, until, obviously, this recent w hen it surfaced. .y 16 4 How many times have you testified before the j i 17 ASLB for Comanche Peak? '5 i '8 A I don't even know. Several weeka worth.

s '

+ 1e f.! ' G Have you ever-do you recall any of your h h 20 . testimony being in the area of Intervenor's request? .g3 d 21 g yo, ? jf' 22 g In preparation for the ASLB hearings, did you y 23 q ever notify any Utility workers and representatives, [j 24 agents or attorneys that--the fact that the MAC Report '4 25 i./ had not been included in this 1980 request by the Intervenor ~

s..

i-J 1 [. P.

u _. _ m_..-.. __..--------------------7--------- _f__ A ~ ~., 19 x 1 C was a pot'ential--something that could potentially become 2 a hot potato? if it were to become known outside the S .~ ) 3 Utility. 4 A I don't remember doing that. I .d O In preparation for or during the hearings, h N 6 did -anybody ever convey to you that the MAC Report might - 7 .. loom on :the horizon (I'm using a bunch of cliches here), - a

.i.

might be a potential problem? .g A I don't recall a conversation,with anybody. G Okay, let me be more specific. Did Mr. Tolson, prior to some of the hearings, 12 tell you that he was asked about whether the documents 13 might'have been, should have been produced, or were produce g.q qy~: 14- . able_under the Intervenor's request, that he would be bound M or feel bound to tell the truth, and' identify this report? 16 A He might have, because, as I told you earlier, 17 j he.and I both agreed that we felt it should have been pro-duced absent any knowledge that we didn't have, and, 8 N,:l therefore, if we were asked at any hearing, just like here, 4 20 we'd have to tell the truth. So it's very likely we did 21 talk about it. 22 g So your opinion was that it was produceable i 23 in '80, and has continued to be your opinion? I 24 A. Well, again, I wasn't the one that commissioned,; l the work, and I wasn't the one that made the decision; 4 .'i l b =. 3 l (, N. i da- ____ __. - - -- I - - =

,...n-...:...

.. l id

_ _ -g -40 lAf. 20 1 ' j,,, ther.efore,.I didn't have all the fa6ts, but based on what- ^. 2 I knew, that's how I would qualify my testimony if I were 4 3 asked. ej gi g A I think you can see from my line 9f questioning I'j 5 here, the Utility in this instance ha,s. identified,this 11 $.a, 1 8 old. document; in its files and has produced it; it's telling-7-- on.i.tself, so to speak, and the NRC expects that. 8 At the same time, there have been numerous v-j opportunities for different members of TUGCO to be aware 'f.- 10 . or to revisit this idea that maybe it should have been H produced, not just in 1980, but during the course of the P 12 hearing. And one thing that I intended to' try to explore ,1 0 - 13 ' N . _..with'alk the witnesses is that any conversation to try to '4 .f]..2 job.their memory about anything where this subject may have hj p. 15 surfaced. 16 A I was, going to say, it's very likely I had U ,j conversations--that. sounds reasonable, with Tolson. But 18 to recall any specific conversation or content of it, I 18 couldn't. 20 4 okay, let's drop back a little bit. , 3 21 You've testified that you were not responsible ,j 22 for deciding what would be produced. Did any of the 23 people who were responsible for formulating the response c. t 24 contact you directly for input? People in the licensing. z .rs 25 'g section? 8 g. t p S

1+,,

:-

-...=....:- ;.... ; $I 21 2. 1 M I don't recall anyone contacting me. I 2 do recall a convers~ation with Marshall, and I believe I 3 s U 3 initiated that. And I also initiated a conversation with 4 Clements. .3 p. 5 S But beyond that, beyond those two, and the 5 gi subsequent conversations with Spencer and Tolson, you do .s s 7 nt>t recall any.others? 49 s A No.

'i 8

G Dave, in February 1984, one of the NRC 'O inspectors cut in Region IV made some requests of TUGCo ~ to produce evidence of audits in the QA programs--this t- ~ i..; was Inspector Shannon Phillips. ~ 13 Subsequently, he prepared a notice of f.p. y yiolation and'this notice of violation, I think it was 15 severity levels 4 and 5, penalties for failure to produce [ evidence of'an audit, a very sufficient audit of the program. 17 Lc b btM I think it referenced the Logan report. Do you r,ecall this a 1 is 3 . notice of violation? Are you familiar with it? ? 1e q L February '84. I don't recall anything e-gg j like that. 21 2 4 I want to,show you a document which is ,e 'l 22 [ the Phillips inspection report here. I do not plan to 23 make it a part of the transcript, but I just want to see ~" 24 if you ca.n identify it. It's a letter, as they do normally,~ ; 25 ,j write a letter to the Utility notifying them of the general p( t f c t,m. _m __.

di 4.a _.. ., A x. J = = _.. -) ~

4 22 pj

. 1 content.of the report, and it's followed by the notice 2 Cf 71014 tion and then the report itself. s. t. 9 3 A Oh, yeah. I remember this. This is February J 4 ,.g of 1985. al ' T, 8 0 Oh, is it? 'I'm sorry. .+

    • 4

. A I'm aware of this one. The date just.... '.) 7 .i,- B.: One thing that occurred-Okay,, I'm sorry I s 'i. a .j; . gave the wrong date. One thing that occurred to me when I

f 3

- became aware of the existence of this report is the possi-4 10 bility that under the notice of violation where they site 4 11 . -) Criterian 2 and Criterian 16, the MAC Report, the 1978 MAC Id 12

fj '

Report, might not be produceable under this,particular f] 13 'ip g request. i4 .l.ii,. w Did you have any participation in answering-is c

g or responding to this NOV7

'r 16 j'l: A I'm sure I reviewed it. Of course, it was q-17 ,'i -l my understanding when the MAC came in in '78, that the !c i 'l. Is ] purpose of it was not to have an audit to satisfy as being ,a - 19 .? a requirement. If it did, we'd have had to do a lot of s an v m h} other things. 21 ,q And I guess--- Mr. Wooldridge asked me not Q n g to speculate, but at the time I probably was thinking it '.4 23 i was the same rationale, led to the initial decision not to hi 24 i produce, that itms n 't an audit, wasn't intended to be an ,.s l.- audit to satisfy the requirements of Appendix B anyway. I ? s bL

g,,..-.-- 1q 23 ~ I. 1 .g Do ydu have a specific' recollection of 2 considering in your own mind the existence of the MAC Report } 3 in relation to this notice of violati on? 'd A. No. .a 5 y G Do you think i~t should have been included? 2 s /j, ,, I'm asking you today. I think that Appendix A there shows t { e.. 7 y.. ; the particular critarian used in the notice of violation. 8 g MR. WOOLDRIDGE: I think that needs to be ,i 9 clarified some as to what you mean by whether it should 10 have been produced. 11 THE WITNESS: Well, obviously-- Y' 12 MR. WOOLDRIDGE: No; I'm talking to Brooks. ~ i. 13 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 9.' - U 14 1 MR. GRIFFIN: 15, Well, it wasn't produced, and I'm asking his opinion. If he thought about it or 16 he' talked about, or he revisited-- 17 MR. WOOLDRIDGE: That's fine. I don't have 18 ,2 any probi n with him answering that, but I think we need 19 g to know specifically what you're talking about. If you're i 20 asking about some specific request for information, I 4 21 O haven't seen it and I'm not aware of it. 22 4 MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. But let me- - 7 23 MR. WOOLDRIDGE: If you're talking about a request that was made of some inspector before this

report,

{.. j ~ that's one thing. If you're talking about furnishing. I s e h I ~ >wr 1 ~ - . a r-

m m-

- ~ - - -

^

i...

4.- .~ ~ . * - - + ",... { h _, _..; _ :.-. = --a.----- a a- -= ~ ~ - ---~ ~ - - ' '~ ~ " ~ ~ 2 y l g, ,.,,.,1 it.in response to this notice of violation, that's F ~ 2 another thing. I just think it needs to be clarified as

t..

i. 3 to what you're asking about. .} MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. 5 .I The way I'm trying to approach this is s - that the inspector made a request for information. TUGCO 'l;...... [. made a response; TUGCO was issued a notice of vilation,- O..

  • g
3, and specifically in this srea, and when the existence s

of the MA'C Report became known, among our concerns in 10 trying to determine how this related to the Intervenor's 11 request, we also wanted to explore whether you all had 12 ,.} * .given any consideration, gny relation to the initial request ':1 13 ,7e f) k@F, .by the. inspector, or fo'11owing the notice of violation. 14 THE WITNESS: I guess the reason that I 15 can't recall any specific addressing of this is that I .i 16 gi bouldn't--in response to this notice of violation I couldn't ,j. 17

i -

really take credit for something that's not an audit under d is j Appendix B. It doesn't--what they did, as I. recall, didn't meet our survey and stuff like that so it wouldn't have .i, 20 [j helped us at all. N. 21 ~- S. ~MR. GRIFFIN: B A n S i O Okay. I,et me simplify it, then. Do you (i 23 recall having any conversations with anybody about either 24 , qq the initial request or the notice of violation in relation n. 2s d to the MAC Report? h, r

3 .-.a... _~ _x ?. ' (- F. A. I'm n'ot sure I'got that questio.n. Specific 25 2 conversations with people related to the initial request? 3 .5 0 Initial request by the inspector,' unrelated 4 to this Region IV. inspection. ,;j 8, 7; A No, I don't recall any conversations. a 4 okay. ~ 7 2* A .And neither do I recall any response to .,I the notice of violation. ? '. 9 4 All right. 10 Dave, are you familiar with the events surrounding the location and identification of the MAC ?. I .j Report this year? 13 A Yes. 9ll;. rgy G.. O., could you tell me what your knowledge is, how it was found, and any involvement'in any of the discussions 16 or decisions to produce it? 17 ,( A My understanding is that some of our people is 7j had.been, going through some old files that were in cardboard

/.-

jg y boxes, closed files, and looking for material that would be 1 20 responsive to a request for information by a group of a 21 71, consultants who were doing a prudence audit of the project, T.. 22 s.'. and they found a copy of the MAC Report in there, and felt 23 pc that it was res'ponsive, and since it was Quality Assurance 24 related, they came to me-- J .h..S 25 4 Who specifically? Si i 1 q 4 u _,. - - - __-d

r u__ . w-.mc.me J .y r.- . a. 26 1 A ; This was Andy. Jones and Tom Ross; I g. e don't recall whether they were together, or if'I talked 2 3 to them separately, but'I talked with both of them, the 4 same day, I believe. 2 s And they said that they falt that it was o , ;g,., responsive, and I said well, you probably need-before you a .4 .,!j 7 . Produce it to the consultant you need to get with whoever r \\ ~.s

Ej made the, original decision and,get the rationale straight a

't p in our minds so that whatever that decision was based on, iO 10 l.,. they know what they're doing. I 11 t w 0 Who did you recommend they talk to? ,s-) 12 j 4. l A I'm pretty sure it was Bill Clements. He }k. g,g was.my contact with senior management. 13 W' 14 e l :l.:.j: ....,6 Do you know if they talked to Clements? ,g -.s <s A I don't know for sure. . 'j to S Did you have any other contact with these 17 9 c; people as they were trying to decide, or find somebody A.j 1s - a that could give them a decision about whether this should ] i.i 18 m have been produced? 4 20

d 1

Any other-Let me be sure I've,got the 21 t question. .E 22 1 l? Did you ha've any further contact with them, O i 23 with Rose or--was it Jones? 24 m. A Yes, Andy Jones. 3 i "J (! __.. O --in trying to help tilem get an answer whether 7 O [en S g l: %

g.. -_m,. ..,.. __.m.._,,,,, _.,,m m,m. x,. w., ... a.._m... g. ,.c...-. M'.; g 27 this was produceable or not? 2 ~ ~ ' A I don't think that,I had any conversations J with them in regard to trying to get it produced. 4

.f G

Did you subsequently attend any meetings s ,} with any other TUGCO managers to make a decision on this? M 6 L No. ,~ 7 a O Did anybody ask for your input or advice a on this matter? 9 A Well, Andy did and-- 10 0 I mean subsequent to your meeting with them. 11 A I don't think so'. 12 .j' G Do you know who made the decision within 13 TU.GCO to produce the report? W.. 14 u' v.. A I don't know. 15 O Did you, convey to Jones and Rose thit yo'u 16 agreed this should be produced? i 17 j MR. WOOLDRIDGE: When? Is MR. GRIFFIN: During this meeting, following 19 the prudence audit, at the time that they were having the discussion; did you convey' to Jones and se that you 21 i believed that it should be produced? 1 22 i. MR. WOOLDRIDGE: - To Cresap? or to the 23 prudency audit, or produced some other time? 24 We're talking about two different productions 'o 25 }- and I-- N. 1 t-p lI i

~ i....,:.a: ..g .M A w [,j 28 1 MR. GRIFFIN: I see what you mean. e 2 hY MR. GRIFFIN: g O Under the prudence audit, was th'is document .. e '. s} 4 produceable? 5 A. In my opinion, yes. ..k -l S okay. ' :7t i L,.h. is1 MR. GRIFFIN: I'll tell you on the record that I'm going t ','d 4:$ to need you to fill me in on that, because I'm not familiar e , gj enough with the pruglance audit to know even what the N 10

.y.

structure is. d 11 q.; MR. WOOLDRIDGE: Iet's, go off the record. 7.$. 12 \\;"i ..y.. MR. GRIFFIN: You don't need"to do it now. 13 !f3 BY MR. GRIFFIN: ,sa r.<: 34 } 4 In relation to the Intervanor's request back 70 15 ~2 in '80, did you convey to Rose or Jones that you believed N 16 lJj , it was produceable in relation to that request? J l. 17 p) A. Yes, based on what I knew at the time and ,.y is d t.he way that-As I recall that discovery request, they

.n j.y is d

asked for a lot of things in addition to audits, and based (M+ 20 on what I knew, I felt it had been produceable then, but, O M 21 gj there again.... M 22 4., 0 Okay. 8: 23 MR. GRIFFIN: I would like to go off the 24 l + .. - ~. record for a minute. r* s '/ ri [ Discussion..off the record.] 1 i .i \\

CQL -- .T T.. G c . ~. -- ~' 2., . ~, 'd t s." 1 29 MR. GRIFFIN: Back on thE record. 2 While we were off the record, Mr. Wooldridge / 3 explained to me the function of the prudence audit being 4 performed by Cresap, McCormick and Paget. 5. BY MR. GRIFFIB: 6 O. Dave, are you familiar with Mr. Wooldridga's 7 . response to the NRC and ASLB about the manner in which i 8 the decision was made to withhold the 1978 MAC Report? 9 A Yes, I've read the letter. 10 0 As far as you know, is this an accurate 11 portrayal of why it was withhald? 12 A So far as I'know. I've no reason to dis-i 13 believe. rE.D 14 ,.? y 4 Have you.ever discussed the matter with 15 g Fikar? 16 a A No. I don't recall any time. 17 O okay. 18 r Let me read the chapter that Bob wrote in ig w his reply that contains your name. Your name is mentioned 20 several times, but there's one paragraph, two paragraphs; 21 22 ~ "The interviews reveal that Chapman and Tolson ware aware of the MAC Report and were of the view that the 23 report was within the scope of the discovery request. But 24 their views either were not known to or..were. not shared by 25 Fikar." t f 8 a h. g mM S'um

= ^

.~ s m;

h.. 30 ~h.. Is that accurate? Specifically that your I 2 yi,,Was not known to Fikar? t 3 A. I don't know whether that's accurate or not. 4 ',j But with the "or" in there I, guess I could say that as far ~ ~{ [!.j as I know that's accurate. s .4

t J'.}i 3

k S Well, I wanted to make it part-I wanted 7 ];ia to ask you if, 1)'do you know if he know? g

ij A

I do mt hw. \\'d g.

J' S

' or do you know if he disagreed, of your 1 ~ 10 own knowledge? \\: 11 ,q A. Of my own knowledge, no. .sa 12 7;.$ S Dave,.I want to ask you one last all-encompas-N g sing question. I want to ask one that covers everything. ~

u..-

14 [j., [.l Let :ne give you a little prelude. The 15 g., Utility identified this report--and a decision was made to-16 produce it, to tell on itself, and to clear the record, ..J ,.i 17 g and I'm telling you that the NRC, in the form of my investi-14 la V gation is attempting to complete that record. ( 1e N. I hope to talk to everybody connected with

s..

20 g this.who might have any information that would shed any d 21 ~ L.3 light on how it all occurred, whatever the reason was, and H.i ' 22 M that could conceivably include brief conversations in 14 Li 23 hallways over the interceding years; it could include 24 anything, corporate meetings, anything that might lead to 25 p J a complete understanding and a complete daylight process 1 b

.g. s._.. -. . ___ m. gx 51 'r,! 31 1 for this whole' affair. 2' And I hope that at the conclusion of my w 3 investigation we'll have a complete recor'. d 4 I want to ask you that all-encompassing .'j question: Do you know of any.other information in relation 5 1:3 3 to either the decision to~ withhold the MAC Report under a 7-the -Intervenor's request, failure to produce iti in relation If 8 to Region IV, notice of violation, or anything that would 8 have a bearing on this that you think the NRC should know, 10 that you have a personal knowledge? 11 I don't want there to be some question that .1. 12 I didn't ask you-i,- A, I understand. 13' 2;- ' -- --34 S. -that I didn't know about it, but if I 15 knew about-it, I should have ask'ed you. 16. 3,m asking you to search your own mind. 'I A. And I've tried not to appear to hedge too y 3 much on saying I'm'not aware of certain conversations, 4 ts i there may be some hallway type conversations as you 8 characterized them that I had but I just don't recall now. 1 21 /; But I know of no other specific conversations 22 'j that we talked about.... 23 Does that answer your question? 24 0 Yes. If I learn any as I go through this, ..] 25 I may recontact you and try to jog your memory, but I'm 11 t 3 i m

.L., u, ~, 1 3 32 1 . going to.be asking each witness this last question just ,..-.s 2 to give you the opportunity, because hopefully I hon't \\.. : 3 have to go back and reinterview everybody as I g'o through ~ 4 it. ( 5 ..,1 If we do, we.do. s I want to come out with a complete picture '- s ,j,,,..,_ .7 of. what occurred, wily it occurred, and for everybody 'to. ,l. 8 understand it, even though the various understandings each-c, ~ 9 person might have may be somewhat different; that's not 10 unusual. 11 Dave, have I threatened you in any manner 12 or offered you any rewards in return for this statement? 13 g yo, . D) lf ,0 Have you,given this statement freely and 15 voluntarily? 16 A Yes. l, l;- 17 g l. Is there anything further that you would care ll 18 to add for the record? 19 g yo, 20 MR. GRIFFIN: That'z it. 21 [Whereupon, at-2:20 p.m., the interview e 22 was concluded.J 23 24 .c-,. 25 %.,l a g ]

L--- .;_ m u -- u --x+ .M u;2U ^ ,) NO PAGE NUMBER - - - - f. CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before .M the UNITED ST TES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the

  • 4

.M, miatter oft 2 c.3 NAME OF PROCEEDING: OFFICE OF' INVESTIGATION ,,~..j INVESTIGATIVE IN'.'ERVIEW ug. of 4 ,nn 3 DAVID CHAPMAN m., I'- DOCKET NO.a ' c.; .] PLACE: DALLAS, TEXAS A . g.

.,p DATE

~ July 31; 1985 +) 1 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original-3i transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Constission. 8 lH.

f

N. -u (si W ~ f l. A. h -n (TYPEDh Cynthia Clay f

n si.I Official Reporter

~; Reporter's Affillation y Allied Stenotype Reporters 906 Texas Building 't Fort Worth, Texas 76102 .] .? ' m. @2 .}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20215F149&oldid=3977765"