ML20215F220

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of 850808 Interview of P Brittain in Dallas,Tx. Pp 1-22
ML20215F220
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 8610160125
Download: ML20215F220 (23)
v • d • e


Text

.

,g'

_ - -.- w n. w i

  • g
j

.. )

4-85-008 s

2 J

4 b

6 r,'

7 8

i a

9 INTERVIEW OF 10 PERRY B RI TTA I1J 11 AUGUST b,

1985 3:42 P.M.

12 DALLAS, TEXAS Fj 13

+

o.

~

14 15 I

16 i

17 Ji lo 1'

19

.s.

+

W 2u i

1 i.

j.

21 i

22 861016012S 860922 s

  • J PDR ADOCK 0500044S 9

4 PDR l

24 l

23

!..i i

tl.-

i e

-- -- EIRIBIT 23

~~~

g Fi:DERAL COURT REPORTERS

~

h.h

.L 2

.n..

u.

s

'l A' P P EA RAN cE S'

,, /

2 H.

BR00R3 GRIFFIN 3

~'

I n v e s t i g-a t o r 3

l United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region IV 4

611 Ryan Plaza Dr.,

Suite 1000

~'

Arlington, Texas 76011 5

?,4 I

6 APPEARING FOR NRC

..l i

s l).,

7 i

c.

..t

~

8

/.

WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPLES

& WOOLDRIDGE 9

Suite 2500, 2001 Bryan Tower 1

Dallas, 10

. Texas 75201 i

BY: ROBERT A.

WOOLDRIDGE i

1 11 i

[

APPEARING FOR TUGCu l,$ -

12 AND PERRY mRITTAIN M

,']

13

',)

14 oi o,

15 I

t 10 l

1 N D EX i,

17 j) 9 16 ed I T N E S S : PERRY BRITTAIN 1

PAGE fl 19 i

Examination by Mr. Griffin 3

l e

.h 2u I

il t

n 21 6

i 22 i

24

..)

2.,

~

I i

t-l FEDSHAL COURT REPORTERS

.,.c..s.,:.; l '...

~

b;_

._,_._.,_,_,e

_ - ~ - ' - - - - -

I

',[

?l*

Q

+1 MR. GRIFFIH:

Oxay.

For the record, 2

this is the interview of Perry urattain, 3

B-r-i-t-t-a-a-n, who is the chairman of the board 4

and chief executive officer of Texas Utilities.

ii

'*l 5

4 Location of this interview is Dallas, Texas.

j 6

The date is August the Wth, 1985, and the time is N$.,,

7 3:42 p.m.

Present at this interview are Perry

.~

j W

Dr.ittain and his personal representative, Robert s

~

9 Wooldridge, and myself on behalt of the NRC, 10 H.

Brooxs Grittin.

This interview is being 11 transcribed by a Court Reporter.

t 12 Mr. Brittain, I need you to rise and raist l

-vs 13 yo_ur right hand.

I will swear you.to the contents

  • . ;- \\

'o t your testimony.

14 t

15 Do you swear that the intormation you are il 1

16 aoout to give is the truth, the whole truth, and i

i 17 nothing but the truth, so help you God?

i 16 THE WITNESS:

I do.

V' g

[

19 t

HR. GRIFFIN:

Tnann you.

I n

( *:

l

~u 4

6 EXAn1 HAT 10N f

1 l

.t 21 BY Mh. GRIFFlha 4

22 v.

Mr. Brittain, you are the chairman of'the i

23-board and a CEO of Texas Utilities?

f 24 A.

Yes.

,z/

25 O.

And you nave been witn the fexas Utilities l

j d

i u.- _

=-

=-

- FELziRA1, COURT REPORTERS

~ ~ ' '

,.$l.

'4 m..

't c

3

+

y l'

system tor about 36 years?

2 A.

Tnat is correct.

-)

N

.J 3

8 Q.

And you have been in your present

. position j

4 tor 4pproximately two years and t h r e's months?

,,vu i

3 5

,A.

That is c o r r d.ct.'

A f

5!l, 6

Q.

Oxay.

Mr. D'rittain, in 1978, I believe it 54 4

~M,

7 i

was, TUGCO negotia.ted a contract with Management' 1

l Analysis

.'i t

!?

8

{

Company to perform a review of tne Quality

/l

' '4 9

Assurance Program for corporate and site for I

10 Comanche Peax, is that correct?

f 5

e 11 i

A.

I am not sure that it was as encompassing 3

ft 12 as you state.

But yes',

we did engage MAC.

1;!

)

j 13

0..

It is my understanding that you were

'I o

=

g.

14 involved in negotiating that contract?

> e,

-o 3;;s 15 A.

Yes, I was.

j 16 O.

at that time, aid you meet and/or noid i4 17 conversations with John Jacxson and Jack Norris, tne

'.I f,.

16 HAC r epr e s en t a t i ve s ?-

?

19 A.

I believe those were the people that I i

I I

20 talked to, yes.

M.j q

21 O.

would you tell me wnat,t'n e terms of*tne 4

"7 22 contract were as related to wnat service envy were i

2a supposed to provide for you?

24 A '.

I can tell you generally.

25 v.

Oxay.

S.

t 3

(

a.:m.,

.--T r-

- ~ ~

FEhEMAL COUkT REP 0hTERS

~

~

p..

-,... -.=,.- - me.. -- -- mu exr:..<,-

"M

.3

__ _ --- - -, z -

..I

,9 A.

I have not reviewed tne specifics of it, 1

2 out I was interested and I cid initiate the 3

engagement o f 11AC.

And I was interested basically 4

in getting an outside overview of the management of

, s, 9.. :

5 our QA Program.

.And that.was the -

, generally, the 2.;

I 7

6 l

nature of our discussions.

I wanted an outsider.to

.s.

7 loon at our QA management group and give us an 6

opinion as to its quality.

9 Q.

Did that also include the Utilities' 10 adnerence through the provisions of Appendix B?

11 A.

ho, no.

It did not.

  • 4 12

.;t u.

Did the contract extend to review the

\\

.}

1.3 implementation of the QA' Program?

'i

?!..i.

N 14 s

A.

I am not sure there is a contract.

I could 15

'u e I could be wrong about

.t h a t, but I am not sure 16 tnat we had a document.

17 Q.

ukay.

16 A.

I was interested in, just as I said, in I

i 19 getting an outside organization to pass judgment on i

20 our,uA Program..And it was not in context with any l

.?,

21 specitic requirement.

1 l

j 22 Q.

Oxay.

l 2J A.

In thet, tne tact th6t I was the one who 24 cid it, I guess, would be ev2dence of tnat.

Because i'c 25 I was not actively and directly involved in g

1 f;j l

t

~

., F.

~

FEDERAL COURT REPvRTLMS

\\

-~~

T -.- L - L - - -- - _

- -.. 3 : L l L c :

- ' - = =

  • ~ ' " " '

li,s.

b g

l' implementing our QA obligations.

I was at that time 9

m 2

president i

no.

Presiuent of TUGCO, I,believe.

~

}

]

3 But I had a general manager under me, and I was

'j 4

interested in getting some perspective of that

~

5 general management.

d4 j;

6 Q.

In your negotiation.s with MAC when you were

!?.

9>-

7.

!. telling them what you expected of them, did you also t

')

.;1 ti list.to review the implementation of Brown

&- Root 's

=

9 request and program in relation to your own?

10 j

A.

Id o, I did not.

t J,

11 Q.

I have a copy of t he 11AC report, the May b

',a 12 19 7 d,)1AC report here.

And in the MAC report, they y

r y*g 13 li_st the people who they talxed to and who 3

attende(;a.';.

.g 14 what meetings.

And they have you listec' tor

.2 15 attendance of the pre-audit meeting.

Do you have l

i lu any recollection of attending such a meeting?

l

}

[

17 A.

Yes.

I think I recall attencing a pre-audi t l h

-j lb meeting.

Discussing with them the audit prior to I

'.)j 19 eneir doing it.

f 20 Q.

Dic you attend a post-audit meeting in 2,1 wnich they discussed it?

5 i

22 A.

Tney met witn me after they concluded their i

I 23 investigation or their examination, and we discussed 24 tne results of it.

I. guess eney.-- I tninx tnat wa i

25 ene time they gave me tnat report.

1

.I 4

i 1

n. --,. w -

.__.__._;..=.

FEDCRAL COURT REPORTERS

-~~

- ~

_______._......_.._._,c___

. ~ _.

~

n-g'..

.G, -

y-1 O.

Oday.

Well, I will tell you this.

And for 2

'the purpose of their report, they list who they 3

I interviewed, who attended the pre-audit meeting, who

.'I i

4 i

attended the p'ost-audit' meeting.

But I think what 4

l t,'j 5

i you are talking,about now is I think they came to.

r l

.u

.9 6

l the offices here or to the TUGCO office and 14 7

presented you with their written report?

'"j b.

A..

That is correct.

And that is the meeting

  • }

l 9

I'm talking about.

{.

lu Q.

Okay.

During that particular meeting, did 5

11 they discuss deficiencies or areas in which they

. 4..

12 were3 critical that they had recorded in their r epo r't A

c' 13 with you?

d (y..y i

~

',j 14 A..

To.the best of my memory, we.went rather.

ii 15 '

b.riefly through all'of the items in the report; Y

lu their positive findings and their negative findings.

a1 17 u.

Do you remember if anybody else attended F1, 16 tnat meeting with you?

a M

19 A.

IJ o, I really con't.

5 2u Q.

Okay.

Do you remember whether you rebutted l

ki k

21 or.retuted i

b!

any of tneir findings that were critical i

j 22 of the program?

d i

b.

2a A.

No.

I lis.tened and receiv'ed their report.

i i

24 v.

Oxay.

It is ry u n d e r s t a n d i r.g tnat the I

p.,

s 25 Ut211 ties or TUGCO formulated a response, not back d

g

-[ -

MDh h

FEDERAL COUKT REPORTERS

~~~

e.

^ _ _ _

...... _,. ~ ~ - -. ~ ~ ~ -

'M.

'~

Q' n

y.

---r--

w 4t.,

,s 1

to MAC, but an internal response, M result of the 2

MAC report?

3 J

3 A.

That is coirect.

4 Q.

Did you request this?

}M

.5 A.

Yes.

.e s

q 6

Q.

Do you anow who was responsible for m;

7 formulating that response?

n l.a.1 7

6 A.

I believe it was Mr. Gary.

l '."-

9 Q.

Can you thinx of anybody else that was t

i 10 involved?

, 'i 11 A.

Mr. Fikar would nave been involved.

A p.

12,

! Mr. Gary nad responsibility for QA.

And again, it a.-

13 was my. interest in examining our QA organization, ri(,'e.

1..-

~

M4 1,4 Gary woyld have been the principal.

I'm sure Fi.kar li i.-

r;:

15 was involved.

And I b e l.i v v e that Fixar was present l.

".. )

u.

I

(,'s 16 in our discussions of their response to the report.

?I 17 Q.

Wnat use did you make of the response?

y q

lb A.

Just that.

I went over the report with K.j' (j

19 them just verbally in asking them to go bacx and 7;

20 maxe a more considered response to it immeciately i

t 4

i t 21 arter I got the report.

a q

22 u.

Do you recall whetner you were in agreement j

23 with tneir response to the various items?

O 24 A.

Ultimately?

i 25 u.

Yes.

?.

I

.,-~~

y

~

FEDERAL COURT

^

-R C P O WlE H ei

-._'..1-.-

~

...B'

- ** * ~ ' * *""'"'*^ y y

_g -~..

^ ~ ~ ~

3)

-..:g 1-A.

Y e,s, I was.

2 Q.

Oxay.

.j 3

A.

I believe that they answered point by point j

j 4

and analyzed point by point some of.the items we

)k 5

had -- They were in the process of implementing some.'

J.f...')

Nj 6

i Tney,. to use your term, rebutted some.

Tney

~

l U,

7 accepted, and those responses seemed appropriate'to 8

me.

9 Q.

D.o you re. call any di s c urs s i on s between you, 10 Fixar, and Gary regarding wnetner you ougnt to make i

11 a formal written response back to MAC7 0

de-12 A.

No.

No, I do not recall any discussion Ij 1.3 about. making,a -- I would sayr no, if I understand h.s.1 i'i.

it n,;

14 your. question.

n af j

15 Q.

Do you have any rec"ollection to discussing

!.1 16 wnether you should maxe a formal response back to I

J 17 tnem?

a' h,

16 A.

No, I really don't.

You xnow, they were

\\

.'t

  • 2 19

'.d maning tne report to us.

g t

,q 2u Q.

I undwrathnd.

\\

l 3

21 A.

and I didn't feel an obligation to make a ai

(.N -

'22 report bacx to tnem.

i l.,1 r.;

2a Q.

cxay.

Do you xnow if there was any l.,

H" 24 corrective a c t a, o n tnat resulted t r o r.: some of the

...'O 25 critical points that tney reported to you?

I

.i a

al

{

I

+

g

_-.___.__8 rr

~

ruosaAI. couar arvoarcus

'f..,.

.. ~

~

-._..uw.

~. - -

ALL u

,y

~

e y

M.,

,.;Q:.

1

'A.

It is my understanding that those points in t

2 wnica we agreed tnat we did implement actions or

,i 3

that Mr. Gary implemented actions, to respond to

j?,

4 l

them.

.]

5 O.

Did you all ask' or did you a's k MAC M

9 6

represensatives to be involved in the corrective 7

action pnase?

4 i

4 j

1 8

A.,

No,"I didn't.

And again, my motivation in 9

asxing and obtaining tneir services was to a s s e s s-10' l'

the quality of our organization.

The specifics that I

11 they coveloped were, of course, important to us.

) But, in fact, I am not sure that I oven viewed it as y-12 o

'.' i i

a,8 13 I

an pudit.

I viewed it as a.n. appraisal of our

'Wu -

3 fj 14 o r.g a n.i z a t i o n, management appraisal.

And -- weII, I'

i

.e S..

1 4

15 guess that is my answer.

  • .v 3

lu Q.

The reason I'm going into all of this is 1

  • 4 1

17 don't want to be l

I am not going to be specific w

p.

lb witn you about tne response.

But to give you an sD 19 idea of the thrust of,my questioning, I'm looxing at l

Aj '

20 the response, tne internal response here.

And one t

l W

]

21 of enem, it is nuncer I

I tnink it is titled j

v

,'4 I

22 Appendix A.

Number 2 it says This is a q

23 characterization of the Utilities of wnat the MAC 5

ti 24 s

report said.

It saic, "The current practice after

' 5 6

25 tne fact design change review provides significant i

g f._ _ _.._

~

p.,

~~

FEDERA1, COURT REPORTER &i

~~~

"_ _ : C. ~~ : _ _ -

L :..

9

,.w.a.w. T ia f...:.w:.-.

j

."ft 1

risA of error and is in noncompliance with 10 CFR 50 i 2

Appendix h."

3 And then in the response, you all -- Tne i

f 4

l respondents here, whether it be Gary or Fixar, go on l

..-)

y 5

j to disagree with this interpr.etation or finding.

l

.,'1 6

i And the reason my question goes into this area is i

q..

7 thatt whereas you have MAC saying such pointe *d

,t I

s 8

things as you are not in compliance'with Appendix B 9

in this area and then you all disagree, I just J

10 wanted to find out whether you nad made any feedbacx 11 or involved them in any kind of corrective action?

12

.A.

No, we have not.

And again, I have not 1,.

Sj em 13 gone bacx and studied any or tne report or the lk hbh.

j; 14 response.

-. t.:

g 15 Q.

I understand.

16 4,

. A.

Because my uuties are fairly broad.

17 Q.

Of course.

0

[

h' le A.

d,,

And as I recall, I mean I would not -- As I f,

e;1 19 s a_i_d, I w;4 s satisfied at the time with the response w:

C 20

'and,the judgment of the peo.ple' who were responsible

}'

4 21 tor our QA, specitically Mr. Gary.

And I'a sure I g

l n-e.,'

accepted his juagment on that.

22 23 Q.

All right.

In 1980, wnen the Intervenor 2

i 24 case made a request to tne Utilit2es th' rough tne

.-'(

.S 25 AGuB for I will give you tne title here.

As e,i i

(.7 i

I 0:., _..

(~ ~ ~

~

FEDERAL, COURT REPORTEds y

^ ] _g

_ m -~m : y L - A dE '-- A 'N" ~ Oma' '"" 3 *"** }"*

)

,--a.: a.

?.d T,

g 1

reported by Mr. Wooldridge in one et these letters 2

to the IJ R C, it had Item 10 of cases and

.9 3

interrogatories and request to produce dated July 4

,i J

4 the 7th, 1960, as clarified on A6 gust the 4th, 1980.

!.:.1 j

5 A.

This is tne Intervenor's request for 5,i f

information in regard to the UA.

j 6

3 y.

7 Q.

here you involved at all in formulating or

>:q f

addressing their request and assembling the y

6 c.

9 information to respond to this request?

10 A.

No, I was not.

l 11 Q.

This was handled by lower echelons?

p.

12 A.

By our licensing group.

+

13 u..

Did you attend any meetings or have any f(

?.;;

14 conferences with any of your, subordinates in hsw e

15 this request would be answered?

e 16 i

A.

No, I didn't.

i i

?

17 O.-

okay.

Also in 1980, or course, the l

Gtjj 16 Utilities did respond.

And then there were a series l

j

$w 19 of supplements by several in 1980 and taen also two

+

l h

i 20 in 1982 as other reports were generated.

Did you q

l

.i 21 have any input into tnat response?

l 22 A.

No.

23 U.

As you are probably aware now, a decision t

s' 24 was made by utilities' representatives to witanold 2h the MAC_ report, the 1976 a4AC report.

boere.you a

f:o e

1.

w FEDERAL, COURT

~

Q_ a

.. a.... a.

.. - + - - - - -

^ "'"if*

" ' " ~ ^ -

~

=--

7

~

~E i

involved in any way througn discussions, meetings, I

j 1

e

~

2 consultations with anyone with a decision to witnholc

L:,

3 this HAC report?

y 4

A.

No, I wasn't.

A: <

5 u.

Do you xnow who within the Utilities was

't,.!

4 l

responsible f.or making t h.e decision to withhold the y

6 N

t.i 7

HAC report?

,f

'b 6

,A.

You are asxing me to express a judgment

~

.T1 Q

9 where I have probably not been fully informed.

I 10 only I was not aware of the I am not even s u r'e j

11 I was aware of the request of any interrogatories.

p:1 7 ;..

12 Certainly n'ot the details because they were not

..d i

fi 13 a

)

wi. thin niy riornal -- our practice.

Or at that time,

't' 14 I,had not the res:ponsibility.

I was also president

,q 15 of,two or three other companies.

And all of the 1

lo information that I would have about it would be the 17 information tnat has'been developed of whicn I am a.y le aware in Mr. Wooldricge's investigation.

So I would

a y.

p.y 19 be crawing conclusions simply trom wnat appvars to

[d I

,q 20 be evident, and I would accept what appears to be

'S 21 evident in the investiga' tion that is being conducted

I "l

22 now.

But I nad no Mnowledge of it at the time.

i I

23 v.

Oxay.

i k'

24 A.

And none other tnan tnat that has been s

o expressed nere recently.

>n

!d h

g FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS g,

~~~

~

'_._ '.__ : a

__-_.-...L

-~

~

~

~

  • ' ~

-t

  • ~ ~ " '

Q t

i 0

1 O.

Oxay.

Related to my o r i g i n 4 P,,q u e s t i o n :

At N.,

2 tne time that'the Utilities w a s.-fo r niu l a t i n g its J'

I

'~

./

3 response, were you ' aware at that time that some of

-{-

{

4 tne people in the QA part of the Utilities felt tnat, i D{

i

}j 5

t tle document was producible?'

4

\\...

1 l

6 A.

No, I was not.

,g.

7 Q.

When were you first -- When did you first

1..:
lj 8

become at.are of the existence of this 1978 71AC 9

report after the original ret /iew was completed by

>~

10 l1AC and all that?

3 l

2',

11 l

A.

This spring.

Yes, April, probably.

l j

.,]-

12 i

O.

Is it you'r understanding it was discovered

.s

!;7j.,

13 l-durinej tne prudency audit?

-((

P.

,i 14 j

A.

Yes.

h.

15 Q.

Do you know wnere this flAC report was 16 i

stored at the time that it was found?

H, i

1, 17 I

A.

Not specifically.

I thinx that it was in s.

j]

18 T U G C O,' s ottices somewnere.

I did not know i'j i

Q 19 specifically where it was located.

h i

20 g.

Mr. Brittain, were you involved in the l

I 21 i

decision to proouco this report to the NRC and ASOB7 p;

22 l

A.

I certainly was I was made aware of the G

i y

23 production of tne report.

I was not even sure I was t'

f 24 asxed.

But yes, I suppose I Knew aoout it before i..

]

25 was produced.

l n

'h

}

_ - - - - - - - - - - _ FEDERAL @@@Qif R I.;P E R T

~ ~ ~

_x.'

- - --.' U Z.I. _

.u.

....-. -.=.

.l'5 s;

I.

s) 1 1

I else's: decision u.

But it was somebody to i

't 2

actually procuce it?

3 A.

Well, I just think it was Whe'n its 4

existence or when our failure to have produced it h

5 earlier -- When it came back into light, when I

'I

}'(

6 became reawa're of it, if that is the proper'way to B.

7

. describe. it, and I thinx I b,ecame aware of the

.j n

.t.

8 Judgment that it should be produced.

And I

.2

/

9 certainly didn't disagree with that judgment at all.

~[.

10 out I am not sure that I could accurately say I

.u.

s 11 participated in the decision.

I guess I should say a

ne il" 12 I concurred in the decision that it should be a

J

,.4 9

13 l

produced.

.s i

8 6

~

14, Q.

I.t has been characterized to me that this

  • ?

g 15 document, at least by some of the Utilities in 1980,

+

16 was considered a proprietary document.

In 1980, o$

4 17 since you I say keep you as tne word contracted.

e lu You.had arranged for this review?

l a

i' 19

.n.

Yes.

e i

s.

58 20 M

,u.

Did you consider it, back in 1980, a

}

21 proprietary witnin the Utilitzes?

Q q

22 IIR. woOLDRIDGE:

Are you asxing about S

i.

23

'60 or '797 24 hK. GRI FF II; :

'8v I'm sorry.

In

,o 25 1979.

l l

I i

e.

EdD5RAL COURT REPuRTERS

'~~

m SMN=

- c :&., '. :.L. Y '.. ~ m.

u '~ -~ ~

- J ' =~ " *

  • 1 E % K " " ' ^ "

.5,{.

y.. d - - _ _..

-- - -~ 16

_y_

g

'A }

1

(*

I I

'4 1

A.

In 1978, I don't I doubt that

's 2

proprietary would oe an accurate term.

I was 3

concerned over the morale impact of our scrutinizing

'.N 4

our management.

And again, h]

i 1 go back to my A'

5 perspective of that whole effort as not being an

'li 6

audit, but being something of an appraisal of our 1

7 management.

And I did not want to create a feeling

'd,

,44 6

.' of that I had either distrust or feeling of i

9 deficiency on the part of our management. ~I just 10 i

felt it was prudent to get an outsiae organization

,1 11 l

to look at it.

  • '3 l

. i-12 1'

And I'a sure I had discussions,

..3

?j 13 pa.rticularly with 21r. Gary, and I'a sure that that: '.'- I si i

.... i

'/

14 was viewed beyond snat discussion that I would lixe

~

15 l

for it not to be widely known or discussed if we t

16

e were It was confidential pernaps better than

..r.

l.

17 proprietary.

Let's not snaxe everyone up by i

i N.

18 thinking that there is some degree of anxiety over 4

]

19 tne management competence of un, in our QA Program.

m j-20 So confidential pernaps would be a better term that i

ej f

.j 21 I could agree with more snan proprietary.

22 u.

(BY IIR. GRIFFIN)

Oxay.

23 A.

but I con't tninx we i

I don't think we 24 rarxec it confidential nor attemptted.

But to limi t -

25 tne awareness of it to only'those people wno needed

..:)

q,)....

l.

.. m

{

~ ~ ~

Fl:DiRAL 6'nUST REPORTERR

-.....'._-..~..--;

.o o

m_<

.3,

._e M

.j -

1

'I to participate and needeo to know.

s

.~

2 u.

Oxay.

Well, to expand on that tnought.

Do

'l 3

you nave any knowleoge as to whether mayb'e Mr. Fixar's 4

decision to not produce this document in 1980 may

.1

'.h 5

nave been a reflection ot your belief that it was M

.M 6

I internal?

.i i

3-7 A.

Of. course, I have~ no way of judging that.

8 It is possible that You Know, it is possible that, 9

there could nave been a connection, been _a ' feeling 10 of contadentiality about it certainly.with -- You 11 i-woeld be better to ask then, because I do6't know i

.f 12 what was in nis head.

I'm sometim'es surpris'ed of

]

j g,

13 the,, interpretation of i

NA I

what I say, the impact.

I ms

  • j 14 could get on an elevator and say, you xnow, it is going to be hot.

I hope we conserve our load today.

15 16 And'then next somebody is predicting that we were 17 saying we were four units oft.

~

i 3

1 1

16 Q.

I understand.

Let me maxe it more specific.;

k 9

19 A.

It could nave.

It could have had an impact.!

U

.1 20 I know at.tnis time that I was not anxious for there 1

N 21 to be a general wide knowledge of the fact that I

?t 22 nad an outside organization coming in and reviewing 23 tne management eftectiveness of our QA Program.

I

~..

24 was concerned over the

r. orale implications of tnat.

25 Ana I did asx I was concerned witn how Mr. Gary i

I s.f --

- =. --

p FEDERAL COURT MEPOR'ERS T

Q__. ~..

n.

a :'

'...L.. :. :... -

- - -~ ~- ~

L -- r~~

- ~~ ~l~h * -

'A "' " ^

16 Pl

=

y' s

s 1

e would react to it, very specifically, for example.

2 And oecause he nad the responsibility tor QA and i' j

3 me to say; Hey, I want somebody to see how well you g,

4 are doing that.

Again, I wasn't doing it in the

~

. i i

5 context at complying with some pre-requirement. - It A

L.

.A 6

was more of an assessment.

And I was concerned over

')

'.).

l wnether 7

he would feel,that I lacked confidence.

1ut 6

theti is the only -- the only -- Tnat is why I 3

.i 9

l cringea, backed off a bit when you say I tnought it

~

i 10 l

was proprietary.

I 11 j

Q.

Well, I don't want to put it all on one l

' f-12 word.

. r, i

].

13 A.

Yes.

b

'.i.$., :

ej 14 I

Q.

B u t, I am trying to convey whether the 15 i

resulting withnolding of this in relation to the l

16 i

Intervenor's request had origins that went beyond, 17 say, 11r. Fixar nisself or Mr. Gary g

18 A.

It could nave.

l 19 l

u.

or anybody else.

i I

e i

i 20 l

A.

It coulci have.

B u.t I tried to describe to I

o l

w 21 i

you my i

3, t

l

.]

22 Q.

well, let me be more specitic.

Do you nave i

23 any recollections of ever specifically telling i

24 Mr. Gary or Mr. Fixar tnat you considered this 25 confidential within the Utilities or within a small-v;/l

,la l

. ~

- ~..~

~~

FEDE'RAL COURT REPORTERM

gy-

~.

. _.m

.... u..

- --. -.y u - --

4 y9 i,..,

i 1

group 2

A.

Yes, 1 did, just as I described.

In fact, 3

3 that was -- 1-stressed snat point with tnem wnen I 4

told them that I wanted to do this.

So that could

.r

-d 5

have been construed as my deciding that it should be

.(!.

M 6

confidential.

1 7

Q.

Since 1976, when you retained the MAC 8

people to perform t'his review, have you also had 9

similar reviews contracted by other third parties in lu tne QA area?

e 11 A.

No, I have not.

Now, I told you my 12 personal involvement.

?)

- d.

.I think I have already asked you t,his, but 13 Q.

.s

.s 14 have you read Mr. Wooldridge's response as to his 4

15 investig# tion as to the determination of why this 16 was withheld?

17 A.

Yes, I have.

3b Q.

And he made reference in here to the fact

.I 19 tnat there are being steps Steps are being taken j

20 to insure that no other such documents exist.

Since 21 the discovery of the MAC report in May of this year, 22 do you know of any other documents in the area of UA, 23 third party QA audits that have been discovered?

24 A.

Go, I don't.

25 g.

In 1960, when the Applicant's response to i

l 1

s

---uw.

3 _

~_

FE,DERAL COURT hEPORTERS yw= 9%@5%'6. h h

h

~

or

~

.-- - =

gj l

,,d

__. _.2 0___

t 1

the Intervenor's request to produce wa s -bfi n g

']

2 formulateu, besides Mr. Fikar, jus.t-based on your

.J 3

l xnowledge of the personnel witnin the comhany that 4

occupied tne various positions, wno in ad'dition to l

"y,.-

5-Mr. Fikar would have been responsible or who would eg 6

l have likely been responsib'le for answering the b

3..

7 Intervenor's request 7

' ({l I

8 A.

I am not sure tnat I could place in time b'

s 9

i wno had tne specific responsibility for licensing.

I o,

10 l

Perhaps Homer Scnmidt.

He nad it for some period of 11 time.

And I think there would have been -- Tne p

12 focus of the responsibility would have rested in

.I 4

13 l Mr,. Fikar's organization in the licensing group.'

,;?

y s

~~

H, 14 Ana I am not sure.

I believe it was Mr. Schmidt, 15 l

but I am not sure about that.

I i

i 1b l

Q.

During the Comanene Pean hearings -- And of 17 course, there have been many hearings.

But in some 10 l

of the hearings, there has been testimony taken in

'19 the QA/QC.

Do you ever have Do you have any y

2u recollection of I

anybody making any reference to this I

21 old HAC report as it related to the ongoing Comanche i

22 Peax hearings in past years?

'l i

23 n.

No, I nave not.

I don't tninx.I nave neard hE any mention of the MAC report until this early T

.Y.

25 spring ~since I guess, since the 1978 time frame.

P 1

FEDERAL (B@0381E N

%q.

z-

~. : =.:..a..;

...=-

.. ~.. ".s. :..... :

}-

21

~

f.'

a i

1 Q.

I may have already asked you this, but just i

2 in case I naven't:

Are you aware of brown & Root

..e 3

-l having hired MAC to pertorm any reviews or audit of

-1 4

their implementation of the QA Program at Comanche 1

5 Peak?

t g

8

'!,j 6

l A.

No, I am not.

n 7

l Q.

Or any reports generated by them?

i b

A.

No.

..u j

9 Q.

Okay.

Let me ask you an all encompassing 10 question.

Other tnan what I nave already asked'you, l

can 11-you think ot -- Do you'have any knowledge, 12 j

intoraation fr.on conversations, meetings, d'ocuments

\\

,']

Ig n

n

, that.you.have been privy tot anything that sheds any w-(1 14 i

light on the origins of the MAC report'of why it was

,i 15 withheld from the Intervenor's request or how it was 16 produced in 1980 or why it was not produced earlier

t..

3 17 that we have not discussed?

~

kM 18 h.

No, I have not.

le lq 19 Q.

You were interviewed by Mr.'Wooldridge here, l

y 20 were:you not?

~

'i 21 A.

I was.

f s

s q

22 Q.

Was the information you gave Mr. Wooldridge 23 ene same information you nave given me here tocay?

~;

n.

Yes.

I mean ne may not nave asxed exactly le ll J

25 tne sane questions, out tne substance of it was a

i h

s

[

f.,.

~

FEDERAL COURT REPORTERS Q

_,_w__.-,..

W

.- -)

..u--

~

.ij -

22

-*l 9) 1 i

1 i identical.

'S' 2

Q.

Can you think of any pertinent areas that.

3 you discussed with Mr. Wooldridge. that we have not

,j 4

covered that sheds light on the history of the MAC i

s

' 'f 5

report and why it was not produced?

g

'i 6

l A.

No, I can not.

i 7

Q.

11r. Brittain, have I tareatened you in any t

8 manner?

I 9

A.

Mo.

10 Q.

Have I offered you any rewards in return 11 for this statement?

1 y

12 A.

No, you have not.

~

, r.

tu 73 13

~

j.

.Q.

Have you given this statement freely and

}

\\

i 14 voluntarily?

i 15 A.

Yes, I have.

16 u.

Is there anything further that you would i

l' 3

17 I

care to add for the record?

,j 18 l

A.

No.

Li 8

l 19 Q.

Oxay.

I appreciate your time.

20 A.

Tnank you.

21 Q.

Thanx you.

I l

l-l 22 I

(Interview concluded at 4:05 p.m.

2J l

I 24 25 k

I t

d' F

FEDERAL COURT R E P O R T E R S.,

c.,.--

. :..~._n.,

. - 4.--% -- - -

3

'l,j-1 CER'TIFICATE OF OFSICIAL REPORTER 2

3 Tnis is to certify that t-h e attacned proc.eedings 4

before the UNITED STATES NULCEAR hEGULATORY i

5 COMMISSION in the matter of

.0]

I llj 6

l

t

.a 7

NAME OF PROCEEDING:

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION

. i.,i 8

~

INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW 9

(CLOSED) 5-lu 11 s

1 12

_j p

1.i PLACE:

DALLAS, TEXAS

.,:gy

'i

.~.-

34

.s 15

'OATE:

AUGUST 8,

1985 s

16 1

i 17

~!

i f,

lu were held as herein appears, and that this is the i

N 19 original transcript thereof tor the file of the i

1 j

20 Un i.t e d S t a t e s. liucl e a r Ragulatory Commission.

1 J

21 22

' h s

JAl-1Eq M.

SHAW, CSR, RPR h.

23 Offidial Reporttr Federal Court Reporters 24 4

1226 Commerce Street i'.

Suite 411 25

'r Dallas, Texas 75202 i

.t l

'j, t.

u e

[. -

i

..l i

~

FEDERAL COURT RLPORTER.S i

t ymm mmm = A --- ~ -

- --

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20215F220&oldid=3977729"