ML20237L052
| ML20237L052 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1986 |
| From: | Phillips S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237F760 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708200061 | |
| Download: ML20237L052 (225) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
y ~. *s SWORN STATEMENT OF SEANNON PHILLIPS
~
March 19, 1986 9:15 a.m.
LOCATION: Plantation Inn Granbury, Texas TAKEN BY George Mulley TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. . _ . .. ._ Attachment B 8708200061 070819 PDR ADOCK0500g5 G
I
. \
l 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 MR. MULLEY: Okay. The time is 9:15 a.m., the 3 date is the 19th of March, 1986, and we're in room 118 of 4 the Plantation Inn in Granbury, Texas. Prasent is 5 Mr. Harry Shannon Phillips who's a senior resident l l
l 6 inspector at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Station; 7 George Mulley, investigator with the NRC Office of j 8 Inspector and Auditor,'and the court reporter, Mr. Pat 9 Tate'.
l 10 we're here to discuss concerns that Mr. Phillips l 11 has over various inspections conducted at the Comanche Peak 12 Nuclear Power Station.
. 13 H. S. PHILLIPS 14 was duly sworn on his oath to testify the truth, the whole 15 truth and nothing but the truth.
16 EXAMINATION 17 By Mr. Mulley:
18 Q Mr. Phillips, would you please briefly give us a
. 19 description of your qualifications?
20 A Yes. I brought with me my qualifications, 21 background resume, most recent performance appraisals and 22 various information that I can submit into the record. You 23 can have it as an exhibit.
24 rirst of all, I have my certification as of 25 February the 24th, 1986, that I'm a qualified or certified TATE REPORTI!1G SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 e 4
/
Lt' V 6 1 reactor inspector. Basically, I'd like to start with my 2 professional qualifications.
3 I'm currently working in Region IV, Comanche Peak 4 Group, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects. I have a 5 masters degree in metallurgical engineering, materials 6 engineering, metallurgical option'; an6 a BS degree in 7 chemistry and math.
8 Basically, I've worked in Region IV in various 9 positions since 1979. Starting at the present, I'm the 10 senior resident inspector at Comanche Peak. Prior to this 11 assignment, I was on the Waterford III task force and the 12 Comanche Peak task force, in 1984, 13 Prior to this position, I was the chief of 14 equipment qualifications section in the vendor program 15 branch which was located in Region IV but was not a part of 16 the reactor construction and operations group.
17 This -- I was equipment qualifications chief from 18 1982 until 1984, and elected to take a downgrade to a 19 resident inspector in order to stay in Texas for personal 20 reasons.
21 Prior to this, 1979 to 1982, I was a senior 22 resident reactor project inspector at the South Texas 23 Project.
24 And prior to this, I was a reactor project l 25 inspector in Region III,.Glenellen, Illinois from 1979 --
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 e %
.m.
1 excuse me, let me correct that, 1977 until 1979, where I 2 was the project inspector for a number of nuclear sites 1
3 throughout the Midwest. I 4 And prior to working for the NRC, I was quality 5 assurance division chief,from 1972 until 197f with some gs -
6 sixty-ore people working for me, and we had some 353 7 contractor facilities and roughly 900 contracts that we 8 administered for all phases of military procurement.
9 And before that, I worked as a m'aterials engineer 1
10 from 1970 to 1972 and then at the Army Missile Command, J 11 Huntsville, Alabama, from 1965 to 1970. And prior to that, I
%.h w k ., h n post-years,1963,41965,g w 12 gI worked in utilities; and prior to 13 that, Norton Abrasive Company, Huntsville,, Alabama, and 14 that summarizes my experience on my resume.
15 And attached to that are various honors awards, 16 fellowships, received during my employment, starting in 17 1966 with the superior performance rating and the most 18 recent being March, '85, a car.tificate of appreciation.
19 During this period of time, every three or four years, I 20 have received some kind of award or special recognition.
L 21 Q The certificate of appreciations that you got in l
\'. 1 22 the 1 6 , what was that for?
23 A Certificate of a appreciation was for the work I 24 did on NRC Waterford III task force and also certificate of 25 appreciationforworkdoneon{RCComanchePeaktaskforce. !
i 1
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
_ . . .- ~.y ..--- .
.s7 .
w
. . ~ . .. .v .. .v t
i i
1 0 m sorry, I said 1965, I mea..c March 1985.
2 A '85.
3 0 okay.
4 A And then I also have attached various schools and 5 training, some thirty or forty various specialty schools 6
I've had since I've been with the U.S. Government. And I 7 submit this to the record. -
8 Q Thank you. Mr. Phillips, you have some concerns 9 with the way Region IV is regulating the Comanche Peak 10 Project. Could you describe the concerns that you have? i 11 A Yes, I will summarize that, but first of all, I 12 would like to make a statement sort of why I'm here.
13 Q Okay.
14 A I've always approached inspecting a nuclear plant 15 as a serious responsibility. And our first and only 16 responsibility is to perform our regulatory duties in such -
17 a way as to protect the health and safety of the public. I 18 think if plants are designed, constructed and operated in
~
.. 19 accordance with regulations, they're a good source of 20 power. I also realize that compliance is not always 21 possible, but once a problem is identified, the applicant 22 can correct almost any problem and return to compliance and 23 be licensed.
24 I've been inspecting power plants for almost ten 25 years, and all my past managers and supervisors have
~
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~
9' .
t 1 allowed me the freedom and independence to inspect and 2 document my findings freely. That's always been true up l 3 until the time I started working for Mr. Thomas F.
4 Westerman in mid-1985.
5 And for the last six months, I've been harassed 6 and have felt threatened and in some cases almost been 7 intimidated into only writing reports whereby I ask him 8 what does he want me to put into the report, instead of 9 writing an independent draft report based on my findings of 10 compliance / noncompliance with the regulation, and the 11 Applicant's FSAR and then putting that into a draft report 12 and submitting it.
13 Because of the intense pressure and what appeared 14 to be threats of maybe losing my job, I had almost 15 capitulated because Mr. Westerman seemed to have total 16 backing from management in regard to how reports were 17 written. I guess I was afraid I might be removed from the
. 18 project unless I played his game.
19 Q okay.
20 A He certainly inferred that I might be removed. I 21 thought -- I really was the only one that was really having 22 problems with Mr. Westerman, but I recently found out that 23 there were several others who had been subjected to similar 24 treatment in their inspection -- while doing their 25 inspections in Region IV. I've also been waking up nights l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i I
l
-- y p _ ,_ )
. , , .=. . ,,g9- 3:y.:.a.;3
_ g r ~ ~~g.;;. YE *' "Jy -D.d
~
- . . . - . , - - . - . . _ _ _ _ - _ =f-- y _ ; ^
,,'*-_. , ~'
1,-J. _ ._.~.p,- - ' * -
.*--s e,
) (,
7 I worrying about the inspection process being compromised.
2 I decided ~that if I have to lose my job because I 3 want to do an independent inspection in an uncomprised 4 manner, then I just have to lose it. I feel confident that 5 I can find work someplace else if that's the way it has to 6 be. I have a family who have to live here and I want the 7 power plant to be as safe as possible, for them to live 8 here by one in the future. And I would feel that way about 9 any plant in the country, it's not just here_--
10 Q Right.
11 A -- because that's the only way that I feel like 12 that nuclear power should be used, that is make sure that r
s 13 they're built as safely as possible.
14 I believe that Region IV management, based on my 15 personal observation, is too interested in licensing the 16 plant instead of inspecting the plant to see if the ,
I
~17 Applicant is ready to license.
18 I think that the Applicant should shoulder all l
19 the responsibility for demonstrating that he is ready to l l
20 receive a license. The NRC should not put themselves in 21 the improper position of trying to prove that he is 22 licenseable.
23 In this way, and I think only in this way, can we 24 truly be regulators instead of promotors of nuclear power.,
25 And that ends my opening statement as to why I'm here l
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
, , , **.yeqe game = w -am. * -=en==** ** asume m - *
- w e " * ' **
- f
("-
8 1 today.
2 Q Mr. Phillips, do you have any examples that you 3 can discuss with us today concerning Mr. Westerman's 4 improper influence over your inspection report findings, 5 and instances of implied threats or harassment to get you 6 to, as you say, write the report the way he wants it 7 written instead of the way you found?
8 A I have approximately ten points of concern that I 9 would like to cover, perhaps eleven, somewhere in that 10 neighborhood. And I have not had a lot of time to prepare 11 and go into the details of all this stuff. So in some 12 cases, we may have to spend some time to go through the i 13 details to show you where the pressure or I have been 14 pressured to change reports, and go into technical issues.
15 0 Okay, that's no problem. We've got all the time 16 in the world.
17 A Cksy. The first item that came up deals with the 18 harassment and threats regarding the Region IV inspection 1
19 report No. 84-32/11, which I have here. Do you want to 20 identify these as they're identified?
21 Q Yes, well -- I'm identifying inspection report 22 84-32/11 as Exhibit 1. What are your concerns with this j 23 inspection report?
24 A Well, in January 1986, which really was the 25 culmination of a series of events which convinced me that I 1
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
) { .
9 1 was being threatened over findings in NRC reports.
2 (Discussi6n off the record.)
3 A (Continued) My concerns are as follows: .In 4 January 1986, Mr. Tom Westerman threatened me over NRC 5 report 84-32/11 by stating that Region IV management would 6 never forget this inspection. When I mentioned that I was 7 unhappy with the enforcement philosophy in Region IV and 8 was looking for another job, he said he thought that was 9 really a good idea.
10 I came to comanche Peak in June 1984, and the NRC 11 technical review team, TRT, came on site in July 1984. At 12 first, Region IV was not going to be allowed to participate 13 because they wanted to keep the effort independent. The 14 Interveners had objected to such participation because they
' 1,5 did not trust Region IV.
16 Regardless, Region IV had a group on site headed 17 by Mr. and with
. W s 18 members, Mr. D. Runnicutt, section chief; Mr. Cummings and 19 me, two senior resident inspectors for construction.
20 some background. Mr. Runnicutt and Mr. Cummings 21 worked independently on routine inspection and open items,
( 22 I.E. bulletins, construction deficiencies.
23 I was the only one assigned allegations to follow 24 up on and given the aanpower to do so. In addition, I was 25 given the Manual chapter's 2512 QA modules to inspect.
I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I
( 10 1 At times, I was heading two teams, one for 2 allegations and the'another for QA modules. The purpose of 3 this inspection, which 84-32 documents, was to audit the 4 Texas Utilities Company Corporate office to assure they 5 were properly managing quality assurance activities.
6 The most important areas of the inspection were 7 one, QA program; two, desi'gn; three, procurement and four, 8 audits.
9 We found that TUGCO Management had not been _
10 comprehensively audited by NRC to determine the status and 11 adequacy of the QA program from 1974 to 1984.
12 We found that TUGCO had been understaffed to run
. 13 an effective audit program; we found that Texas Utilities 14 had not reviewed the status and adequacy of the program 15 from 1974 to 1984. They are responsible for auditing the 16 AE, the NSSS and the vendor audit function which they took i
17 over from Gibbs & Hill.
l t
18 Q Excuse me, what does "AE" stand for?
(
19 A Architect engineer. )
j 20 Q Okay. And the other acronym you used?
21 A NSSS, nuclear steam supplier.
22 Q Okay.
23 A During this audit, the TUGCO QA manager stated 24 that this was the first real audit the NRC had done since l 25 the construction permit was issued in 1974. As an NRC l
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l 1
l
s l Iv 11 1 inspector and a professional, I was embarrassed and shocked 2 to find this. ,
3 However, I asked t'o see all the NRC reports to l
4 get a basis for performing the rest of my inspection and 5 see what inspections they had accomplished. The TUGC0 QA 6 manager was right. I found only a few superficial very 7 focused technical audits but no comprehensive in-depth 8 audits of TUGCO Management since 1974.
9 Q These are -- are these audits required to be 10 conducted by the NRC7 11 A These audits are require'd to be conducted by the 12 NRC by Manual Chapter 2512.
- s 13 Q And what time frame should these audits be 14 conducted, how eften?
15 A Well, the program has been revised several times ~
16 during the last few years. But certainly, the old program
, 17 required a mid-QA inspection, which is Manual chapter 18 inspection procedure 35200 which should be a comprehensive 19 look at all of the things that have happened at ,
20 sid-project.
21 Q Mid-project being?
22 A Mid-project construction, which is probably about 23 when they're fifty percent complete, fifty, sixty percent l 24 complete.
25 Q so at a minimum, there should have been a I 1
TATE REPORTING $ERVICE, (713) 222-7177 4
. _ - - - __ _ -- ____ _ _ _ ___- ______ --___-____-____---_ O
(
o s' .
12 1 comprehensive audit done --
2 A Yes.
~
3 0 - at -- can you give me an' estimate as to when 4 it should have occurred, what year something like this 5 should have occurred?
6 A well, the 35200 was performed on site, but no one l 7 ever went to corporate headquarters. And the mid-QA 35200 8 that was performed was so superficial that it was almost 9 meaningless; 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> were expended, whereas in my 10 experience, you're talking about probably four inspectors 11 spending three weeks in preparation looking at all the 12 manuals, all the procedures that are available, making a s 13 check list prior to getting to the site and then going to 14 site.for one week, followed by an inspection at the
'15 corporate headquarters for one week to look at the whole QA 16 program.
. 17 Q And you feel.that without going to the corporate !
1 18 headquarters, the inspection is really very superficial?
19 A It's superficial. You can't -- you donft know --
20 well, for example, the audit function was located at 21 corporate headquarters. How could you ever look at 1 22 Criterion 18. That means that criterion 18 was never 23 really looked at in real detail during the whole project 24 from 1974 to 1984 when I did it.
25 Q And you said that the technical quality assurance TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
.m._ ___.._- -.s______-__m__ _
() Q 13 1 manager acknowledged that this recent inspection was the 2 first comprehensive audit that had been done --
3 A Yeah.
4 Q -- by the NRC7 5 A Well, he was inferring that, "We could have used 6 in this in 1974, but why are you coming up here when we're 7 99 percent complete and performing such an audit; you're 8 long overdue."
9 Q Do you recall the name? ,
10 A Mr. Dave chapman is the QA manager.
11 okay. We got off on the 35, the 35200 procedure. ,
ifo(,o 12 But as I said, the 506 was a procedure that had caused me 13 to go to TUGeo corporate headquarters to. audit, okay. I 14 documented the.results of this inspection by September the 15 24th, '84, and reviewed the final draft by october the 16 15th,' 1984.
"17 On November the 2nd, 1984, Mr. came 18 to site with Mr. Doyle Bunnicutt. Mr. b said he 19 wanted to review the report with me and I really think he '
20 wanted to see if I could support such adverse findings.
21 Q Who is -- what'is Mr.. s position?
Mr.L .a latthetimewas}m 22 A and 23 Mr. sunnicutt at the time was my section chief.
24 0 okay. As --
25 A As we started through the report, he started TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
__________________-__a
r -
) b 14 1 asking me to support findingr and of course I had all the 2 documentation in my file cabinet beside me so I started 3 pulling out files and folders and saying, "This is what 4 supports this particular finding."
5 And whereas I 'think he came down to see if I 6 could support my findings, he started saying, " Hey, this 7 situation is much worse than you reported, this is much --
8 it's a much darker picture."
9 And he asked me why had I written _the report in a 10 fairly low-key manner. And I said, "Well, there's two 11 basic reasons."
12 No. 1, I told him that I was trying to keep a low
- 13 profile in Region IV because at least one powerful manager 14 had tried to block my coming to Comanche Peak. I had 15 gotten feedback through the grapevine of this incident.
16 And the reason of this went back to my experience 17 at South Texas. I was a resident inspector at South Texas 18 and participated in the investigation which resulted in a 19 civil penalty and show cause order.
20 And before I participated in this, I told my 21 management that I could see how I could be caught in the 22 middle but I would participate only if I could call them 23 just like I saw them, and they said okay and I did so.
24 And I got the impression up front it was not going l
25 to be held against me but it was, before it was over, I l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l l
,-. .- l
( 15 u.) _
1 certainly was caught in the middle.
2 0 And you bilieve that because of your straight-3 forward inspection techniques, that at least some people 4 tried to block you coming to Comanche Peak? l 5 A That's correct.
i 6 Q what was the name of that manager? )
1 7 A Mr. Milliam C. Sidell (Phonwtic), according to 8 the sources that I have.
9 Q And where is Mr. Sidell now? -
l 10 A Mr. Sidell is the chief of a group of technical 11 people in Region IV.
12 Q okay, e
- 13 A The name I don't have right offhand but I can get 14 it for you if you need it.
~ 15 one thing that I knew at the time I was at South 16 Texas, my immediate supervisor, Mr. Bill Crossman, 17 recommended me for an outstanding performance award, 18 however Mr. Sidell refused to sign such an award., And at 19 the time, I knew it was because of my straightforwardness 20 on the findings at South Texas.
21 Q okay.
22 A Instead, I got a special achievement award which 23 I appreciated getting all the same.
24 O So because of your experience at South Texas, you 25 decided to keep this recent inspection report at Comanche TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~_ ~~: - .:-
~ ~ ~
i
() [, 16 1 Peak low-keyed; is that correct?
2 A Well, that's true. That's one of the reasons, 3 because I realized that I'm being cut every time that this 4 person gets a chance. This is -- the way I hear it through 5 the grapevine is much different than the way he treats me 6 to my face.
7 I mean, after all, he concurred on all of my 8 appraisals which were -- which approached excellent the ,
9 whole time I was at South Texas. And I guess really what 10 I'm saying is that I didn't want to come down to Comanche 11 Peak and the first inspection that I do be accused of 12 trying to "make another South Texas," in quotes, because 13 I'm constantly blamed for a problem that was here long 14 before I arrived. I only helped identify it and for 15 corrective action.
16 (Discussion off the record.)
17 Q (By Mr. Mulley) Okay.
18 A The second reason that I wrote the report in a 19 low-key manner was the fact that the NRC had not performed 20 a comprehensive audit in ten years and TUGCO thought that 21 they were doing a good job in the absence of being told the 22 opposite.
23 Q so you feel it was just as much the NRC's fault 24 if there were problems with quality assurance as TUGCO's; 25 is that correct?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- a
) ?' 17 1 A I think they were more, because the NRC has more 2 experience to bring to bear in the situation, they've seen 3 a lot of other sites. After all, TUGC0 is a first-time 4 nuclear utility, meaning this is the first time they've 5 applied for a construction permit and constructed a plant.
6 And to therefore, they don't have a lot of -- or 7 at least at that time, did not have a lot of experienced 8 people, that is people that had been on nuclear sites. For 9 example, if you start with the QA manager on site and went 10 to the corporate QA manager, no one had ever been on a -
11 nuclear site, to my knowledge, prior to t' hat. One 12 exception might have been Mr. To11 son (Phonetic), but I'm 13 talking about the TUGC0 people.
14 Q Right.
15 A The construction management in TUGC0 was probably 16 auch the same, according to my understanding and I'm not 17 going to make a blanket statement. There might have been 18 someone that I don't know about because I haven't been on g ~/ sen-.c p w !..' - l 19 the project the whole time-tp4t had some experience but 20 what I'm trying to point out is that they were very thin on 1
21 nuclear experience. And in that absence, they just do the i
22 best job they can. j 23 And if the NRC is not there to regulate them, 24 then they're going to go the wrong direction fully thinking 25 that they're doing okay. In other words, I think that the
? '
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 4 tame + 6P6 WW
_____________.-_____.-________J____m.____________
i 1
j
,, i ! 18 1 NRC is the real problem here.
2 Q Okay.
3 A A strong audit in '74, post '74, when they 4 started, '75, '76, '77, '78, may have well headed off all 5 the problems they're faced with now.
We won't ever @ b k b 6 that. Because they were at 99 percene, complete when I 7 audited them and pointed out the fact that they had not 8 reviewed the status and adequacy of their entire QA program 9 during the project and they_didn't have a viable audit i 10 program.
11 And people will say that does not go to hardware, 12 and there is really no way to prove that it doesn't So to r
4 13 hardware. In fact, because some of the manifestations that 14 I see at the site seems to indicate that if an audit 15 program had of identified the fact that the inspections 16 were deficient as identified by CAT Team, NRC, as 17 identified by TRT, NRC, and now as identified by the 18 Comanche Peak response team who belongs to the utility, the 19 ERC group, it appears that the failure to have a viable
- 20. . audit program very much goes to hardware. That's my 21 professional opinion.
22 Q In your opinion, what does, very briefly, what 23 does a QA program encompass?
24 A Well, as defined by 10 CFR, Appendix -- 10 CFR 25 50, Appendix B, it's all.of those activities, which TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
u I V 19 1 includes design, procurement, construction, and other 2 engineering activities, all of those activities go into 3 making up quality assurance. In other words, everybody is 4 quality assurance.
5 Now, erroneously many people think quality 6 assurance as that group of people who check on things.
7 They're not quality assurance, they're simply a quality 8 compliance group who determines if the project is in 9 _ compliance or not and the same tning with quality control, 10 they don't build anything, they don't do anything, they 11 only check for compliance.
12 And the real quality is built in by the workers 13 and the engineers and the construction people and the 14 management seeing that those things are discharged in d ==-
15 accordance with the regulations, the approved procedures 16 that control all the work activities.
~ 17 Now, specifically that group which we're talking 18 about that performs an audit has the overall responsibility 19 to see that the 18 criteria are properly implemented and if 20 you -- excuse me.
21 Q when you say 18 criteria, what 18 criteria?
Pas iT -
22 A 18 criteria, 10 CFR, Appendix B. Understood. t; .
23 okay.
24 Q Right.
25 A And also this goes to criterion 3, which is TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
_ . . . _ _ s.... ._ - . . - .
(, ' 20 1 design control which also includes all of the Appendix A _
2 criteria, which the' NRC requires the utility to come up 3 with to control the overall design of the plant.
4 So the audit is a most important function and 5 should be staffed by highly trained, highly trained 6 technical, technical,1y oriented audit staff to be able to 7
c.@V d b determine when people are in compliance and not in --
8 compliance, both program-wise and technically. And we 9 found the experience at TUGCO to be very shallow.
10 Q What is the -- the end result of quality 11 assurance, what is quality assurance there to do, in the 12 final analysis?
C'1 13 . A I've heard it simply defined that quality 14 assurance is plan what you'ie going to do, do what you 15 planned, and then document what you did.
16 Q And all this goes towards building a safe --
17 A All this goes to building a safe plant.
18 Q So though I'm a novice in this, it would seem to 19 be hard to understand where a person could say that quality 20 assurance has no impact on the hardware; it world seem to 21 ne that the reason quality assurance is there is to make 22 sure that the hardware, the way they're building the plant, 23 is built safely. And I don't see the argument for saying
)
i 24 that it doesn't impact on hardware, I guess -- !
25 A well -- i i
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l 1
l n_
t
',/ ( 21
/
1 Q It seems to me --
~
2 A As a matter of fact, there's probably two 3 philosophical schools of thought in NRC'right now; those 4 persons who only want to inspect hardware, which I consider 5 a throwback to the stone age, that if the hardware is okay, 6 everything is okay, regardless of documentation, et cetera, 7 and quality assurance program.
8 Q Is it possible for any NRC inspector or team of 9 inspectors to inspect all the hardware? _ ,
10 A Wo. -
11 Q so then if you're just inspecting a sampling of 12 hardware, and that's as far as you go, then how do you know
- 13 the rest of the stuff that you didn't inspect is also okay? l 1
14 A well, you don't. And that's the reason you need j 15 to inspect the Applicant's quality assurance effort to make 16 sure that he applies his manpower which he has plenty of to 17 see that that's done. And that's the reason you can't e 4e 18 inspect quality in the hardware by just inspection of 19 hardware. You have to inspect the utility's syston.for 20 controlling all these work activities to see that they are 21 properly controlling it.
22 0 okay.
-- n 23 A WhileMr.{__ jwasatsitereviewingthis 24 report with me, he mentioned to me that Mr. Sidell ?.ad put 25 Y
out the word on se and had an ee%ca to grind about seeth (---- /
3 TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l l "
f / i -
(, _
22 1 Texas.
2 Q what is the date of this conversation, 3 approximate date; this is recently?
4 A That was back in the fall of '84, I believe. I 5 can get the exact date.
6 0 okay, well, the fall of '84. And when was the 7 south 5 was inspection done?
l 8 A The South Texas inspection was done, 1979 l$51,k3 l
-he 9 through, like, February of 1980.d NN C4 bd t----
l 10 Q That's six or seven years ago?
11 A Yes, right. However that's -- however they're 12 still in the hearing process over this particular -- ever
-- 13 this particule.r inspection which kicked things off. They 14 still have not resolved all the issues.l .
- , . .\
15 # They're about to, maybe, but they're still 16 (working on it.'.'_I was at the' region office, Region IV
.. ..-J .
17 office, a short time af ter bM4 inspectionreporkp.,, was 18 written or perhaps issued, I can't recall exactly. And X l l
19 was working on another matter that I had been sent up ther+t 20 for when Mr. Thomas F. Westerman sought me out to discuss 21 the report and take issue with it. t 22 He started personally defe,4 ding his and, 23 Mr. Robert G. Taylor's acticas while he was i supervisor of l i, .
24 the Comanche Peak site, he said he d i act believe +. hat 25 they had failed to perform the required audits. And'I told TATE REPORTIbG L'ERVICEJ'(713) 222-7177 -
]
.. . . _T: . -
=" ---
._. \
l '. g .
( (. 23
)
1 1 him that I found no evidence in the NRC 766 data to show 2 that the NRC inspection of 35060 had ever been performed, 3 although it had been required since 1980.
4 Also pointed out that the 35020 audit of 5 Applicant's surveillance of contractor QA/QC activities 6 sshould have been completed in 1978 when the senior 7 resident at site was alerted to the fact that there was a 8 potential QA breakdown documented in NRC vendor report 9 990524/78-01.
10 The resident inspector looked at the j I
11 prerequisites of this particular inspection procedure which 12 required one to proceed to the corporate office and J 13 avaluate their vendor audit group but it was never done.
14 Also, QA procedures IF 35061 and 35065 audit of 15 ' site work and procurement were never done. Mr. Westerman 16 was very defensive.
./
- 17 vas replaced by Mr.
In1985,Mr{
18 Westerman.
In January 1986, Mr. Westerman brought up this 19 report again and threatened me by saying that " Region IV 10 will never forget this report,' inferring that I had done a 21 number on TUGCO.
22
- Q What is Mr. Westerman's title?
23 A Mr. Westerman's present title is chief of the s 24 Comanche Peak Region IV Comanche Peak Group, who are 3 25 following up on the TRT issues, presently.
- I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 P -
I l
I
) l s.' (..- 24 1 1 I mentioned to Mr. Westerman again that I was 2 trying to go to another region because of the intense 3 pressure that had been brought on me and he said again he 4 thought that was a good idea.
5 (Discussion of the record.)
6 A (continued) And in the next exhibit, which is j 7 Exhibit 2, I think this report was part of the reason 8 Mr. Clements, VP of Nuclear Operations and Mr. Dave Chapman 9 lost their job. This is the MAC analysis consultant's 10 review of TUGCo.
11 Q MAC is?
12 A Management Analysis Corporation.
f.
L 13 As you can'see from this exhibit, it appears that 14 this report, which was critical of Texas Utilities' QA a
15 program, was hidden. And it only came to light when new 16 management came in to Texas utilities, discovered the
\
, 17 report and notified the ASLB.
18 0 okay. MAC is a firm that was hired by whom?
19 A MAC is a firm that was hired by Texas Utilities 20 to come in and look at their QA program. I asked for such 21 reports when I was doing my audit up there so that they 22 could -- so that they could demonstrate that they had done 23 such a review and they never produced this report for me.
, 24 Q And the audit you are talking about?
2b A 84-32.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- - - - - - - - - . - - - . - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ - --,-- _J
i
) i.
25 l 1 Q And what was the date of this MAC inspection ,
2 report?
3 A Okay, the letter to the board stated that 4 enclosed was a copy of the Management Analysis review and 1 5 audit of the quality assurance program of Comanche Peak 6 dated May of 1978.
7 Q And this May 1978 report is the MAC report you're 8 referring to?
9 A That's correct. _
10 A second MAC report of Brown & Root was also 11 found. I do not know the date of that. But I have a copy 1 I
12 of it, if you want me to get the date. l L. - 13 Q And neither one of these reports were provided I
14 you during your inspection; is that correct?
15 A That's correct. That's correct.
16 Now, also in this exhibit I was asked to comment
\
17 on the MAC -- the Brown & Root MAC report, and I stated I
18 something to the effect that the Brown & Root MAC report, ,
l 19 they may have narrowly interpreted whht I was asking for 20 when I asked for all reviews of the status and adequacy of 21 the QA program, but they couldn't have misinterpreted --
22 should not -- at least should not have misinterpreted the 23 MAC analysis report of TUGCO, itself, because that's 24 specifically what I was asking for. l I
25 Now, the audit. supervisor Debra Anderson was I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
r,
(
26
('
1 telling her management, Mr. Bill Clements, VP, and 2 Mr. Chapman, of the'thinga I was asking for, and they 3 certainly had knowledge of the document and should have 4 produced it.
5 Q This audit supervisor is a TUGCO audit 6 supervisor?
7 A That's correct. .
8 Q okay. And you had gone to her with your request?
9 A That's correct. However, as I remember, I think 10 that I also discussed this issue with Mr. Chapman -- I know 11 I discussed this issue with Mr. Chapman at the last exit 12 meeting we had because I told him he was getting a 13 violation for that very thing because they didn't have the 14 reports. And I feel sure Mr. Chapman had knowledge, as QA 15 manager, corporate QA manager, had knowledge of this 16 report.
17 I also learned that Mr. Spangler, who is a TUGCO
-Q 18 corporate supervisor, and a supervisor of Ms. Anderson, is 19 a personal friend of Mr. Westerman's. And I think that he 20 didn't like it bec.use his friend was adversely affected.
21 I told Mr. Hunter about Mr. Westerman's adverse 22 ccaments on 84-32/11, and Mr. Hunter said that instead of 23 being criticized, I should have gotten an award for the 24 inspection.
25 Q You used the word or the term " low keyed" in TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
'// (IV s 27 1 describing your inspection report. What exactly was low 2 keyed about your report?
3 A well, this means that I documented all of the 4 findings, but I mean in an inspection report, one can write 5 it in a strong manner or one can just write with side 6 comments, et cetera, or just write the facts. And, for b
7 example, they had, in 1981, Mr. Log n (Phonetic), which is %._ /-~~-
8 another consultant that came there in, I believe 1981 is -
9 correct, said that they had problems in their QA program 10 and their surveillance because they were grossly 11 understaffed, they only had about three people at one time 12 to do a massive audit program. .
. 13 And my experience, a utility will have 6-14 like maybe twelve auditors alone on site, just to do the
. 15 sit s audits. And then they'll have a corporate staff of 16 maybe eight or ten people.
,17 And in most instances, they do not have the
- 18 responsibility to audit their vendors. Usually the 19 architect-engineer, AE, or someone else is given that 20 responsibility.
21 In this case, because they didn't like what 22 Gibbs & Hill was doing, they drew it back which meant they 23 had a massive responsibility for audits and they were j 24 trying to do it with three people.
~~~ -
25 so the reason I mentioned the 1981 Lobin report, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
4
( 28 l
l 1 I tried to give them partial credit for something thtt they l 2 had done saying, yod know, that it wasn't quite as be@=that if C 1 3 they had never done a total review of the status and s -
4 adequacy of the QA program and Mr. said they've {
j 5 never done one, said that's -- they may have done a little 6 but they never did one so say it that way instead of giving {
7 then partial credit. Th'at's the type of thing I'm talking 4 about.
9 0 Okay. So in this inspection report, you did 1
10 receive the support of Mr.- 7
~ -
r m 11, A Yes, I did receive the support of Mr. He {
d 12 spent -- he came to site that morning and spent perhaps 13 from 9:00 o' clock in the morning until 9:0d o' clock that 14 night in beefing up this report.
15 0 And Mr. Westerman'did not support the reports is i 16 that correct?
17 A Mr. Westerman did not support the report, and 18 seemed to infer that my name was mud because I did it.
19 Was there anything changed as far as your
~
Q 20 findings on your inspectilon in this report, or did this 21 report go out the way - by changed, I mean was anything i
22 deleted as far as what you inspected and found in relation 23 to what the report actually says?
24 A No. The only changes were towards stronger 25 enforcement, which I probably would have endorsed in the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
, 3 ..
- b. 29 1 first place, but I've already explained why I took a low 2 profile.
3 Q The stronger enforcement is still accurate?
4 A It is accurate.
5 (scief recess.)
6 MR. NULLEis We're back on the record.
7 Q (By Mr. Mulley) You mentioned earlier that a 8 certain inspection procedure is ' required since 1980. What 9 exactly were,_you talking about?
10 A That's procedure 35060, which is the Manual .
11 Chapter requirement to go inspect the Applicant's 12 management of the quality assurance activities, the overall
-- 13 scope of the whole program.-
14 Q And you said this was required since 1980. Why 15 the 1980 date?
16 A well, it's really been required much longer than 17 that.
'O 18 In approximately '78 or '79, it was found that 19 the mid-QA inspection 35200 was s'emetimes too li,ttle, too 20 late because the big inspection was not done until the 21 fifty or sixty percent complete, and the IE headquarters 22 group heard from a lot of inspectors that this was a 23 problem, and that you should do one annually to keep the 24 utility calibrated, keeps their program on the straight and 25 narrow.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l) [3 30 1 And so they put in a bunch of modules which you 2 can look in the front of the Manual Chapter right now that 3 are called quality assurance inspection procedures like the 1
4 35020, the 35060, the 35061, 35065, which is a series of 5 inspections that are required on an annual basis or every ;
6 eighteen months, and of course if you run into situations 7 where adverse trends may be developing, your frequency gees 8 out the window; you may have to do it every month.
9 So a person who is a good -- a good professional 10 technical person in a quality assurance individual is going 11 to make those kind of value judgments and recommend to 12 management that you do it more frequently.
- 13 Q And this report or,this inspection had not been 14 done by the NRC until 19847 15 A That's correct.
16 Q Is there anything else you would like to add 17 concerning this specific allegation or concern that you 18 have?
19 A well, at the onset, I would like to -- I would 20 like to say that, you know, if I mention something that J
21 happened several years ago, that I will eventually try to 22 bring to bear that it has some bearing on what's going on 23 right now. Like, you know, the South Texas deal.
24 Q Sure.
25 A I'm too QA oriented, in other words. In other TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1
( 31 1 words, " Don't turn that guy lose." And that's where we're 2 going with it.
3 Q And for the record, that's a quote' that somebody 4 else attributed to you?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q I want to make sure for the record.
7 A Yeah, that's my reputation.
8 Q I've just got -- I guess I've got a concern. Why 9 didn't the NRC perform these required inspections for all 10 this time? I guess this is a little bit off your specific 11 concern, but my own concern now is I'm -- you know, Region 12 IV apparently should have been performing inspections e., .
w; 13 according to our Manual Chapter and they weren't done. Do 14 you know why they weren't done?
15 A Well, I was going to cover these concerns after 16 we went through the specific problems with reports because 17 I have some ideas as to what the problems are in management 18 and why things like this happen. And I can either do that 19 now or later; doesn't make any difference.
20 Q Well, it might be easier if we just kind of are 21 able to keep each one, you know, independent and separate, 22 that may be easier later on.
23 A Can we come back to then later on or do you want 24 to do it now?
25 Q I'd like to this one now. We can always do it TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 age e -me ee pe+ * * * * * *
- g,e 4
- m. m. -
V N .8 (, 32 1 again but if you can just give me your opinion as to why --
2 we can always at the end summarize it in and give your 3 concerns, but if you have an idea as to why, you know, l 4 we're talking ten years here, inspections, QA inspections 5 that should have been done weren't done; if you have a, you l 6 know, a belief, it might be good to get it, you know, on.
l 7 the record.
8 A Okay. The second concern goes into'some of thie, 9 but I'll go ahead and give you the answer anyway. I 10 believe it's because management and supervision did not 11 require the project inspectors to see that the Manual 12 Chapter 2512 was diligently implemented. And you have to r-
. s. ' ~13 remember that 2512 is only a minimal effort; it's not an 14 extra effort, it's not a supplemental effort when you run 15 into additional problems.
16 I just think that supervision and management were 17 not checking on the project inspectors and the project O
18 inspectors were not keeping tabs of what was going on. And 19 I also believe that the senior resident inspector for the 20 most of the time he was on the project did not -- was not 21 QA oriented. I think he was probably a good quote ASME 22 inspector, he probably inspected welding verifications in 23 detail. But I don't see any evidence that he acted on 24 quality assurance modules and caused them to be perforued.
25 Q Is there somebody in the NRC that should be
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
(' (j 33 1 checking to be sure that these different modules are 2 completed?
3 A Well, as a matter of fact, I think'the NRC should 4 have someone like the inspector general to make -- to make 5 managers and supervisors and inspectors accountable for 6 implementing the Manual chapter 2512 in a diligent way.
7 Q So if you had not -- why did you do this 8 inspection, this inspection on Exhibit 1, 84-32/117 At 9 whose -- who initiated this inspection? ,
10 A Mr. who was the 11 gave se these modules to perform when I came on 12 site in mid-1984. It was not my idea. Apparently somebody 13 had recognized the fact that the quality assurance 14 inspection procedures had not been performed at all and asked me to go perform them.
15 16 Q So this came up as, at least to the best of your
.17 knowledge, the fact that these procedures had not been 18 completed by Region IV was not discovered as a result of 19 any systematic review that Region IV has to make sure all 20 the things of done just that somebody all of a sudden 21 realised that, ' Wait a minute, we hadn't completed all 22 these modules in ten years"?
23 A Yes, that's basically true, although I don't 24 really believe they, at that time, understood the magnitude 25 of the problem.
. TATE REPORTING 8ERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~ .o i 34
\"
e-1 Nr. didn't know, for example, that audits
-- /
2 had not been done in the past, until I got back and advised 3 him of thik and then that's when he directed me to review 4 the whole inspection program to see what Region IV had done 5 and make sure if there were holes that we could go back and 6 ,performFthe inspections to the best of our ability after 7 the fact to try to correct the problems.
8 Q And you know of no system that's set up to ensure 9 that these various QA modules are conducted on time?
10 A Not only those, but all the discipline 11 procedures, the civil, electrical, mechaniced, which there 12 were problems, we'll cover problems on those later. !
13 Q And they are required to be conducted?
14 A And they are required.
15 Q Required by the Manual Chapter?
16 A Required by the Manual Chapter.
17 Q okay. And what requirement backs up the Manual 18 ' Chapter, is it a 10 CFR requirement that the -- you know, 19 does the 10 CFR require these in a more general ters that 20 the Manual Chapter things be done? Can you trace that back l
21 or do you have the ability, the knowledge, to trace that 22 back to something more than the Manual Chapter?
23 A Well, I'm sure that if you go back to the Energy 24 Reorganization Act of 1974, and the Atomic Energy Act of 25 1954, you're going to find that the NRC has the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A
U -
. I
< {
s I
(, 35 l l
{
1 responsibility to regulate and in regulating, one has to i 2' inspect to see that there's compliance with the 10 CTR 3 regulations and that's where you're going to find the 4 requirement by law.
5 And then to implement that, inspection and 6 enforcement office and headquarters developed a program to SO 7 oversee the implementation of 10 CFR Appendix B which ---
8 governs all operating sites, all construction sites, and I 9 presume the materials, those who hold mate _ rials license are 10 under that same thing; those who run -- who do the mining 11 of uranium are also going to be under Appendix B so it's a 12 very large responsibility.
e s 13 Q Qkay.
14 A And it just appears that the program is not 15 uniformly administered, different regions have different 16 ideas, so you don't have uniformity; they have different 17 ways of, I guess, assuring that the inspections are done, 18 some good, some not so good.
19 Q But these inspections,'these modules are supposed 20 to be conducted across the board for any plant that's being 21 built in the United States, regardless of the region?
22 A That is correct.
23 Q And the way I see it, there should be some sort 24 of a procedure set up whether it be a checklist or 25 something, you know, more formal but there should be TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
\
4, -l 36 V {
1 something set up to ensure at a minimum that the modules 1 2 are completed on time.
l 3 And to the best of your knowledge, at least in 4 Region IV, there is not even a checklist set up so in 1979 5 module "x" should have been completed, and you know of no 6 doublecheck to make sure that in 1979 this module was 7 completed, nothing even as simple as that?
8 A At one time they had a checklist, but it was 9 not -- it just sort of went by the wayside, that system 10 went by the wayside. But despite that, there's no one that 11 comes down and audits the Region to the extent that they 12 know that the program in implemented.
. 13 Q Right. That's exactly what I'm driving at.
14 A For example, I've worked in three other 15 government agencies, and in all instances, you're going to 16 find that there's a headquarters group that goes out, 17 something like an inspector general function.
18 For example., one government agency I worked at, 19 as a manager, I knew that my program, whole program, was 20 going to be audited to dot the I's end crossing the T's by 21 two or three major audit teams every year and believe me it 22 keeps you on your toes.
23 And if you're not audited liked that, I'm like 24 everybody else, I get a little lazy; everybody has a 25 tendency to relax a little bit. But when you're audited TATE REPORTING' SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
s , .
- ,l'
( 37 1 like that, you -- for example, I would study the audits 2 that were being don'e by the report that was put out on the 3- first group if they were in another part of the country.
4 And then I would go to my operation and look at those 5 items, look at those findings to make sure that by the time 6 they got to me that those problems didn't exist at my site 7 or in my organization.
8 Like I had two states, I was a quality assurance 9 division chief and I'd go and we'd like look at the whole 10 smear of 61 people to make sure the program is properly 11 implemented. .J/s g i.C
/
12 There is no such thing,./ And as a result, I think C;;;
e L- 13 this is what's happened.
14 Q okay. Let's go on to your second concern.
15 A okay. My second concern deals with the direction 16 to drop trend analysis, the trend analysis paragraph from 17 report 85-07/05.
18 Q Do you have that report as an exhibit?
19 A I have that report as an exhibit.
20 MR. MULLEY: off the record.
21 (Discussion off the record.)
22 MR. MULLEY: Back on the record.
23 A (continued) This report is listed as Exhibit 4, l 1
24 but I would like to cover it in detail later, if I could.
25 okay. I was directed by Mr. Westerman to drop TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
I ( 39 )
1 January the 13th, 1986, from Mr." the branch chief,
- 3 2 to Mr. Eric Johnson', acting division director, DRSP, 3 subject: NRC inspection program at Comanche Peak.
4 After this letter came to me, I talked to 5
nr. ( and be told me that'the Region was extremely 6 unhappy that he had written this memorandum. And the 7 reason I think that he wrote this memorandum is the fact 8 that he had first of all directed me to do this study, this 9 trend analysis, of violations and unresolved items over the 10 project history, at Comanche Peak.
11 And he was unhappy that the results of the study 12 which were documented in inspection report 85-07/05 was 1
. 13 dropped from the report. And apparently this was his only 14 way that he could be sure that these findings were brought I i
15 to the attention of management, 16 Q okay. For my own understanding now, so I'm l
17 reading off the same sheet of music as you are, you were j
=
18 asked to do a trend analysis by --
f 1 F 1 19 A Mr. who was my at the time.
6 L. N 20 0 Okay. This trend analysis was to -- for what 21 purpose?
22 .A well, the trend analysis was to see if the 23 violations pointed to adverse trends at Comanche Peak that 24 might still be in existence, and to look at the unresolved 1 I
25 items and see what kind of items had been identified and l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
~ ~
1 l
i
( 38 1 the trend analysis from NRC report 85-07/05. As you will 2 notice from looking.at the exhibit, there is no paragraph 3 that describes trend analysis.
. 4 Q And what was this trend analysis of?
-5 A This trend analysis what was of the NRC 6 inspections that were conducted from the time the plant 7 started construction until October of'1984.
8 Q Inspections of what areas?
9 A Inspections of all areas. _
10 Q okay. What was the purpose of'the trend 11 analysis?
12 A Well, let me back up a little bit and give you a 13 little background.
I 14 Q Okay. ,
,15 A After I returned from the TUGCo corporate offices
- s-16 on september the 4th,1984, I told Mr.{ hat the NRC 17 had not audited the TUGCo corporate office since 1974. He
- was literally appalled at this fact and then told as to 18 19 review every inspection report that had been documented by 20 Region IV and compare these reports against the inspection 21 enforcement Manual Chapter inspection program 2512, to 22- assure that all of the NRC Region IV inspections of 23 Comanche Peak had been done.
24 Exhibit No. 3 is the results of this review and 25 the backup data. Exhibit No. 3 contains a meno dated TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
_ _ - - -._. . . . . . . 1
(,' 40 1 let us follow up on.these if they were still open, and 2 assure that these particular adverse trends, if there were j any, were corrected.
3 4 I
4 Q okay. You were also asked to go back to ensure l 5 that all the required inspections had been conducted at 6 Comanche Peak. Now, that is separate from the trend 7 analysis, correct?
f m l 8 A That's correct. Mr.g asked me~to do that I
.s - ~
9 effort and Mr. asked me to perform this pafticular 10 special project. j 11 Andonceagain,Mr.T 7 position was --
i Q {
I l
12 A At the time, Mr. headed up the Region IV I
.- 13 contingent that was a par of the,, }andthiswas 14 from the period June '84 until October of '84, when they 15 lef t site.
r m 16 kr. returned to his division director A
17 duties at that time, and delegated to as his 18 responsibilities, I assume I can say that because I ended I 19 up writing all 19 or 20 of the 8stR's on the miscellaneous 4 20 allegations that's in - that has been published as 21 supplement 8, I believe.
22 ,
Q so you have it.structions coming down from two 23 different people to do two different things?
' ? s 24 A well, not really. Because after Mr., lleft 25 site, Mr. came back down to site as the.
k , t ,
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
I O *
( 41 1 '7 -
a 2 In other words, the Region was beginning to 3 reassume the responsibilities for site after TRT left site.
4 And so one of the first things he was looking at, the l
I 5 reason he was there to discuss it, this issue and others, me 4 6 was to determine how he as theg would follow up 7 on all of the TRT items and all of the routine inspection 8 program items, both reactive inspection-wise and routine 9 inspection-wise, the difference being routine inspection is 10 where you go out and de something by procedure and reactive' 11 inspection is as a result of seeing something adverse and 12 reacting.
13 Q Okay. So your review of the inspection record at 14 Comanche Peak determined what?
15 , A Well, the meno summarises the results of the .
16 review, the NRC inspection program at Comanche Peak. As a 17 side note, some of the comments I've heard, I've heard that 18 some in Region rv state that there's been more Region IV 19 inspection hours spent on comanche Peak than any other 20 plant. Well, all I can say is that the implementation and 21 documentation of the required inspection progran per Manual 22 Chapter 2512 is almost a disaster, and may be approaching 23 being shameful.
24 Excuse me.
\
25 Q No, go ahead.
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
___._________m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..
. . . l
(, *
- 7 4,
1 A It ranges all the way from work not documented, 2 inspection work not. documented, and perhaps not done, which 3 we may never know about this, to what appeats'to be false 4
entries or false documentation reported on work done by NRC 5- inspectors.
6 Q okay. Let me -- the bottom line in your first 7 conclusion was all the inspections that should have been 8 done weren't done?
9 A Were not done. _
10 Q Regardless of number of hours that were spent, 11 that's immaterial. The fact is that there were inspections 12 that should have been done, and they weren't done?
13 A They weren't done.
14 Q And you were able to verify that?
15 A Yes. ,
16 Q And were the inspections at least that were done, 17 at least with regard to the records of inspections being 18 done, you had problems with those?
19 A Yes.
20 Q In that you feel that some of the records were 21 falsified to the point where, you know, we have a record of 22 an inspection but the inspection itse,1f wasn't done or i 4
23 wasn't done as thoroughly as the record would seem to 3
1 24 indicate. Do I have that correct?
25 A That's correct.
, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I N mm a 4- +
{ 43 1 Q Do you have any specific examples?
2 A I have att' ached an example to the exhibit.
3- Q Okay. And this is -- are we talking back again 4 at Exhibit 3, the example is --
5 A The example has to do with reactor vessel 6 installation.
7 Q Okay. What is your concern with this reactor 8 vessel inspection?
9 A Well, at the time the inspection, these 10 inspections were performed, there are two different 11 inspection procedures or modules. One is the 50051, 53, 12 55, which is for installation of vessel; and then there's
. 13 another set of procedures that are 50061, 63, 65, which.has 14 to do with putting the internals into the vessel after the installation of the vessels and they're two different <
15 16 things.
17 And I also have attached here the results of my O
18 review, which was based on the Region IV, 766 data run.
19 And one can see by looking at the reports, the 766 data run 20 completed, that the inspector claimed a hundred percent 21 completion on reactor vessel installation and however what 1
22 he documented in the report was internals. And that's two 23 different subjects altogether.
24 Q Okay. Let's go back again so I have it straight.
1 25 Let's identify these examples very specifically so later on I
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I -= -- . - -
l
I' t , 44 1 we can go back and get them'. We'll identify the reactor 2 vessel inspection, this appears to be a checklist --
3 A Yes, it is. -
4 Q -- which deals with -- this deals with the 5 installation of the reactor vessel, itself. Is that 6 correct?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q okay. And we will identify that as Exhibit No.
9 3-1.
10 A Okay.
11 Q Now, that was completed by whom?
12 A This particular one is completed by the inspector
-.e 13 who worked for me because we went back and redid this 14 module in 1985.
15 Q okay. l l
16 A As you see on this checklist, they never filled 17 out their checklist as showing it was a hundred percent
- - 18 complete. However, when you look'at report inspection 19 report 8026 --
20 Q Which I'll refer to as Exhibit 3-2.
21 A -- you will see that the inspection for Unit 2 is ;
22 claimed to be one hundred percent complete for 50051, 53 23 and 55, which means it was closed out. However, if you 24 look in this report, you won't find anything on vessel 25 installation. You'll find something on vessel internals i
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 m O- =ww e e,ma.
___m_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
45 s ,
1 but not vessel installation.
2 Q And "this report" being?
3 A Report 80-26.
4 Q And going back to the checklist that you said 5 your person filled out this checklist?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Now, I see -- I see -- that's 51, 53 and 55.
8 This checklist tells me what?
9 A well, this checklist means that we went back and _
10 checked what we could at the time. And closed out the :
11 module.
12 Q Why couldn't you check some areas?
. 13 A Well, some of these areas you can't check because 14 you would have to do the inspection while they were 15 installing the vessel. And at this particular time, the 16 vessel had already been installed.
17 Q okay. And so you're saying that to your 18 knowledge -- and you have found no record to indicate 19 otherwise -- the NRC has no inspection record of certain 20 aspects of the installation of the reactor vessel. Do I 21 have that correct?
22 A This is the particular report, 80-26 is the 23 one -- and the 766 which shows as the inspection that's 24 done that closes out this procedure. That's all I can tell 25 by the 766 data. If there are others, you know, there's no TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I
f
() .{\ 46 I way I can go back through hundreds of reports to-find cut 2 each of these items.
3 .Q You lost me. 766, what is 7667 ,
4 A Well, 766 data form is attached to the back. And 5 what this does, this report reports on the inspection 6 procedure that the inspector works on, the number of hours, 7 and the percent complete.
8 Q Right. So the inspector in this form is saying, 9 on 51, 53 and 55 are complete. I 10 A Yes.
11 Q And you go back to the report itself --
12 A And you don't find anything about the e -
J 13 installation of vessel.
l 14 Q Okay.
15 A See, there's the paragraph starting right there.
16 Q okay. So basicaIly we're missing, are we missing 17 this form?
. 18 A We are missing documentation in the report that 19 shows that he did this inspection that's on the 766 form.
20 se should*have documented -- if he did inspection against 21 51, 53 and 55, it should show up in the body of the report.
22 And it doesn't show up at all.
23 Q I see a note here that says, "This should be 24 charged to procedure 61."
25 A That's right.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
"
- eppaw eope ..
- . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .d
-~
(
47 1 Q And there's no way --
2 A There's nowhere on Unit 2 that I see a 61. Let's 4
3 see.
4 see, if you'll notice the docket number at the 5 top is 0500446. And what that is the docket. number which 6 indicates this inspection was done against Unit 2. And if 7 you look back at the back, this is a management informatio'n 8 system that should be done for~the most part, for two 9 To be able to track what inspections are done and
_ reasons: i 10 secondly for management to be able to keep up status-wise 11 with where a project is inspection-wise.
12 0 okay. So this inspection report indicates that
%- 13 the internals, the reactor vessels internals --
14 A Uh-huh.
15 Q -- the inspection was complete for the internals.
16 Is that correct?
17 A Yeah, he's saying that he completed it for 18 internals here.
1 1
19 Q Internals is covered by procedure?
20 A Yeah, that's 50061.
21 Q okay. We have no record of 61 being completed?
22 A Not in the 766.
23 0 .And you found no record?
24 A No.
25 Q Additionally, talking about the installation of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
48 s
l 1 the vessel which is something different -- well, we're 2 talking once again about 51, 53 and 557 3 A He showed it as being --
4 Q He showed that as being complete?
5 A Complete.
6 Q On -- what's this form? On the form 7667 7 A Yes.
8 0 However, you can find 'no --
9 A No reference to vessel installation in the 10 report, only to internals, which is a different subject.
11 Q Yes.
12 A I have the appropriate paragraph circled and 13 marked. And if you can show me where there is one, I 14 missed it because I ctrrtainly didn't see it.
15 Q And you know of no other inspection report 16 completed by the resident inspector --
17 A This is not the resident inspector. This is a 18 regional inspector. There may have been some -- there may 19 have been some inspections performed by the resident l 20 inspector, I'm not saying that there wasn't. But the l
21 resident can't do the whole program. This is an inspection 22 that was done by Mr. R.C. Stewart and is documented and 23 signed off by him.
24 Q And you know of no other inspection report that 1 25 documents the Region IV inspection of the installation of l
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
\ 3 _ - ----
~
(- 49 I I
1 the vessel?
I 2 A well, not'a Region IV effort. As I recall. I'd i
3 have to go back and look at the attachment to answer that 4 specific question.
5 Q Z guess the question I'm asking is to what extent .
6 can you say or do you believe, to what extent do you 7 believe that the appropriate inspections of the reactor 8 vessel installation were not done by Region Iv?
9 A They were done so insufficiently _that I saw cause 10 to go back and rado them. And especially with the respect 11 to the installation of the vessel, because there was a 12 Contention Five before the Board by the Interveners that i
13 said that there was not adequate quality assurance in place 14 during the vessel setting.
15 Q Okay. -
16 A And apparently, if we were asked what inspection
, '17 reports will very well document the fact that the NRC has 0
18 inspected and verified that th? quality assurance program 19 and quality control and the engineering activities were 20 proper during that period of time, then I'd have to say 21 that looking at the 766 data, I can't see that evidence.
s 22 And we couldn't defend ourselves against Contention Five.
23 So that's the reason that I immediately had Mr 1 24 look into the vessel setting. 1 25 Q okay.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
, s o.
} '
J.
e i .$ /1 I,
- i
( 50
) . ,
1 A Plus the fact,1we, in reviewing back thcough the I f 2 history and it will show up in another report, likes 85-14 .FS. c )-
w
.. a 3 where we had some differences in techniemi'-- techdical a 4 differences of opinion over this vessel installation, l 5
l 5
inspection, later:on,, - ,wou:d,J that{isi.'odaythatthe.,,,
q ,
a .,j 6 vesselwassetoutsidethetoNrancediver.I.
- Je,.d it t
7 didn't -- and it didn't appear that this design change or
\ <
8 non-conformance was very wril'cantrolled '
because they
( ,
i 9 handled it with a traveler instead of a vessel hetting
, ., i l 10 procedure like I've always seen at other sites. ',
e i
11 And plus the fe et that we f found that or.\the i
12 reviewing back thro 6gh the history, j they had seg t(ti! vessel '/
13 some 44 degrees, the vessel imbed r destal some 44 degrees s 14 out of phase. And'tlwy reported that on 50.55(*.) m
^
\ ,
('
15 previously which seemd to confirm that the QA effort was #
16 not very good. ,
,3 i
, , f 17 And here we bre, we look at our reports to see 18 what we've doneL to verify that their program is okay, and
, t 19 to see at the very be$t, it's weak.
t.
20 Q What did you find, instead of emphasizing what
).
21 you didn't find, the negative aspect, -what.,'did yon find to , 3
- \
22 show the work that we did do to inspect the installation ,
>> l 23 that made you believe that it wasn't very ccaplete?
24 A Okay, E, need to 'emplain, at this point in time, 25 k( )
the Manual Chapter 2512 at tant time had two separate TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
)
8 t
j
ay
.., ji [)1y
, 4,. y ~a -
6
, h-v ,'
s
!" 51
. ) <;:; , u n ,.
! l
]
'1'j programs. There was an inspection program called the B 2 program that was performed by Region based inspectors.
, 3 And then there was a C program which the resident I
p4 4 inspot r inspected by, which was an over and above effort, 5 ., ,,so z.o speak. The resident was supposed to go out and just 1 .'~ 4 6 be a. roving 'it.spector and observe as much work as possible.
j_ 7 Q Are both of these programs required?
\. 9 8 Both of these prograus was required. The h '\ < A 9 stkEdentisspecto$didsomeinspectiononthevessel.
r But
, 10 in looking at'what he did, I can't tell that he would have
.A b, 1'1 satisfied $11 of the module requirements for the 5053 B '
x A 12 series, one might stretch the point and say he did. But s- J 3
.v .13 6 it's not very evident in looking at the documentation.
14 Q Is/this the way this module is supposed to be x 15 done by thefreal'dsnt inspector going out in informal type s
9 16 of inspection?
17 A .] Well, it's supposed to be d:,ne two different
~
18 ways. T sre was a prpeedure $0053 8 that the Region was 19 , responsible for, end a 50053 C that was required of the o
.- 20 resident inspector.
]4 >
Ji4 21 ,- < Ee did, h4 did several inspections and did a lot a
22 batter job, as you see based on the 766' review here, the 23 Region shows for their inspection, one inspection, 80-26, 24 which is for vnsadi installation, and it's opened up in
'25 that report and closed in report. And at this particular l
' . ATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l .
m i _ . _ . _ __ ___..__._____-________ _____.. _ ____ ____.____ _ _
( ( S2 1 time, the vessel was already installed. He couldn't; he 2 couldn't possibly inspect vessel installation.
3 0 okay.
4 A He could look at records but he couldn't look at 5 the actu ~ ressel installation.
6 Q okay. I am going to label this set of documents 7 as Exhibit 3-3. And we're looking on Page 10 of Exhibit 8 3-3.
9 A And I wight add that this particular document _
10 that you have just identified is a summary of the review of 11 all the NRC Region IV inspections as documented in the 766 12 data run that was furnished to me by Region IV in October
- 13 of '84. And so I'm basing my statements on the data 14 furnished to me. If there are other things, it doesn't 15 read in the record and that's what the 766 is for, is to 16 show for the record that the inspections are comolete. So 17 if it's been done, it's not in the record.
18 Q And I see here we have module 51 B, and under 19 that, 53 B, we have report No. 80-26, and we have a hundred 20 percent complete.
21 A And I don't believe that to be an accurate 22 report.
23 Q Have you looked at inspection 80-267 ,
24 A, Yes. I have it here. It's marked, it's in ' CZ- ~
25 depthe lit's one of the exhibits I gave you.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 53 t
1 0 Okay. .
2 MR. MULLEY:
. Okay. Let's go off the record.
3 (Discussion off the record.)
4 MR. MULLEY: Let's go back on the record. !
l 5 Q. (By Mr. Mulley) Let me get some clarification.
6 Two exhibits that I have marked Exhibit 3-3 and Exhibit 7 3-4, these are titled " Inspection Program Status," one for 8 Unit 1 and one for Unit 2. It is my understanding that 9 these charts were prepared by_you in response to the 10 repuest from --
- 9 11 A Mr.f 12 0 -- Mr. to look at the inspection history 13 at Comanche Peak for both units. Is that correct?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q And reading across, you have a colush titled 766 16 versus records correct. This is your comparison of the 766 17 form against the various inspection records and your 18 assessment as to whether or not these two compare 19 accurately?
20 A That is correct.
21 Q Okay. Now, going back to Exhibit 3-3, you have
. 22 inspection report 80-26, 80-26 down twice for modules 51 B 23 and 53 3, also the fact that they're hundred percent 24 complete. And 51 and 53 a are inspection modules for the 25 installation --
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
(, [ 54 1 A Installation of --
2 Q -- of the reactor vessel? ,
3 A -- of the reactor vessel.
4, Q And inspection report 80-26 which was marked 3-2 5 is a report that you previously commented on that there was -
6 nowhere in the report was it discussed that the 7 installation of the reactor vessel was inspected.
8 A I can't see where the line items of that 9 particular -- of those three modules were inspected and 10 documented in that report.
11 Q okay.
12 A But they're claimed that they're a hundred
- 13 percent.
14 Q And the hundred percent com,nlete is based on 15 inspection report 80-267 16 A That's the only report that I found. That's the 17 only one that was in the 766 data run. And I can furnish a 18 copy of the 766 data rpn that I took this information off 19 of.
20 Q And you found nowhere else where the NRC 21 inspection of the reactor vessel installation was done?
22 A Not on the B mod le. Some inspection was done on 23 the C modules.
24 Q C modules. Both of these modules are required?
25 A That's correct.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE. (713) 222-7177
~
I'
('- 55 1 O By what? .
2 A At that particular time, Manual chapter 2512.
3 Q Do you believe that the inspections on the C 4 module, 5L C, did you believe that these inspections that 5 were done by the resident were adequate to reassure or to 6 assure the NRC that the reattor vessel had been installed 7 properly?
8 Naturally this is based on what you know about the inspections and your review. I'm not trying to get you 9
10 to bless the installation of the reactor vessel, but do you 11 feel that this was an adequate inspection?
12 A This is a very difficult question to answer, 13 because the resident inspector's inspections were based on 14 a frequency basis rather than necessarily a total line item 15 completion basis. so is hard to determine what a resident, 16 inspector did or didn't do in terms of completing an 17 inspection module.
18 Q okay. So there was a line item inspection that 19 should be done -- .
20 A Yes. I 21 Q -- by the Region --
22 A Yes.
23 Q -- to ensure that the entire installation is 24 thoroughly and properly inspected? l 25 A That's correct, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 6- =
\ ao 1 O And we'have no record of that being done. You 2 had your inspector who~was Mr. --
v~. _,
3 A . -
4 Q go out e.nd do an inspection?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q sowever, because the reactor vessel had already 7 been installed --
8 A me was limited to what he could do.
9 Q -- he was limited to what he can do and this 10 inspection is documented on Exhibit 3-1. This is one 11 example of your review of the inspection history at 12 Region -- by Region IV at comanche Peak was deficient.
.. 13 A Yes. I might add at this point in time, if you 14 review all inspector's reports, you're going to find some 15 errors. I'm sure you'll find some errors that I've made.
16 But I'm trying to draw a distinction here between, you 17 know, gross errors and errors that are, you know, 18 inadvertent that you will make in filling out 766 forms.
19 You're going to find some human errors, some oversight and
' 20 whatever.
21 Q I see going through the forms that you prepared 22 that there were an awful lot of inspection modules where 23 there's no report, no line item and no completion figures 24 provided. What does that indicate?
25 A That indicates that was the status of those TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. - . . . . = . . . .
e es e
57
(
1 inspection procedures as I found them in October 1984.
2 A Exhibit 3'will summarise -- if you read Exhibit 3 3, it will summarise pretty much the fact that as I've told 4 you previously, that the QA progran procedures were not 5 adequately done. Mr. escribes this and goes 6 through this in detail, if you would like to take a look at 7 that.
8 Q Yes, I will. There's a comment here on your 9 inspection checklist that you prepared talking about one 10 hundred percent complete.- Bow accurate do you feel this 11 figure is?
12 when iti says, for example, under Unit 2, module 13 25001 s, there's a hundred percent complete. Is that an 14 accurate - is that an accurate ~ do we have any 15 assurances that's an accurate figure?
. 16 A well, I went back and tried to review the 3 17 program and the best I could find from reading the reports Q
18 state that'yes, that's an accurate statement or not.
19 In this particular case, you see I've asterisked, 20 and I believe the asterisks should mean if I didn't put it 21 on there that these are what's called the pre-CP 22 inspections, the 2511; that's pre-CP meaning that prior to 23 getting the construction permit, you have certain QA 24 program inspections by the NRC to see if they are ready to 25 grant them a construction permit.
l -
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
J *(, 58 l
1 And so these old, old reports may have not even 2 .been in the 766. O'r at least I didn't look at some of the 3 stuff; maybe as quite as in-depth as the other stuff. But 4 if you come on down to these other statements, the question 5 you're asking like if you get down into some of the other 6 procedures here like, for example, if you see 42051 and it 7 says that in report 78-13, they claimed ten percent 8 completion of the line items, I went back and reviewed the 9 NRC report and I could see that they did line items la(2-5) 10 and line item le.
11 And so when they claimed ten percent, over here 12 in this records versus 766 column say yes, that's probably I 13 a pretty reasonable percentage, because you have to 14 understan.1 that we don't claim one percents in the 766; you 15 claim things by ten percents.
16 So if something is closer to -- if you think it 17 was 95 percent, you may go ahead and say it's a hundred 18 percent, rather than saying it's 90 percent. So it's not 19 a -- it's not a precise mathematical tabulation from that 20 standpoint.
21 And I'm not trying to question people from the 22 standpoint of 91 versus 92 percent complete. What I'm j 23 taking exception to is when a module is claimed to be a l
24 hundred percent complete and in the report there's no 25 documentation that it was looked at.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l' b 59 1 Q okay. And you have -- have you identified those 2 instances on this checklist? ,
3 A In this comments block all the way down through 4 here, you will .;*e -- you will see the comments that 5 explain the problems. And in the decision column, the 6 records and the 766, the QA -- excuse me, not QA, the 7 inspection reports versus the 766 favorably compare, and I 8 either have a yes or a no. If it's gross, it's no.
9 Q Okay. ,,
10 A Or if it's some problem with the percentage 11 complete.
12 Q So when you put down yes -- .
/ 13 A It's probably okay.
14 Q You backed it up --
15 A Yeah.
16 Q -- with the --
17 A Because I'm saying in some cases they did work 18 okay. But it's -- and I haven't tried -- I don't even know 19 the individuals involved in this matter. It just so l l
I 20 happened this gentleman's name came up. It's just a good 21 example of what I'm trying to point out about the 766. I 22 don't know if it's a pattern of one person doing this or 23 more than one.
24 Q okay.
25 A But I just know that the, for the record, the NRC l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
ki b 60 1 inspection is very poor.
2 Q -Now, for the inspection modules that were not 3 completed a hundred percent, can they be completed at this 4 stage or is it too late?
5 A Well, the idea of the inspection program is a 6 three pronged attack. The NRC inspectors are supposed to 7 review and assure that implementing procedures for work 8 activities)biinplacepriortoworkstarting;thoseare d. -
9 usually your 51 modules, 50051._ The 50053 is intended for 10 the individual to actually view the installation of the 11 vessel. Okay?
12 Well, it's not always possible to do that, let me I 13 say that at the onset. And then there's a mechanism for 14 reporting, you just close it out at zero percent if you 7
-q sf '.
15 were unable to do it. You might have been sent outud;o four '<q 16 other sites at the same time you were responsible for this 17 inspection. And you can't do 14 so no one is saying the 18 guy had to do it but we Do have to keep accurate records.
19 And then the 50055 is s' module that covers 20 records. And you can always go back in conjunction with ,
21 the 53 module which says look at, work in progress or-if --
22 that's preferable. But it also says usually some statement 23 like "or completed work," or a combination of the two, 24 probably. You can do that by looking at the records and 25 see the completed work and try to see that the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
{. ' .
61 1 documentation supports that the work activity was properly 2 controlled.
3 And you can tell that probably if they have good 4 documentation. Yes, you can go back and claim, if a 50053 5 module was not done at all and it was zero, you can 6 probably go back and do a portion of the module and charge 7 it off as a hundred percent complete based on what you 8 could look at, based on the records, or if you prefer, you 9 may charge it off -- and if you can only look at two of the 10 three line items, you might charge it off at 60, 65 percent 11 or 60 percent complete. Different inspectors look at it a 12 little differently and I don't take exe,eption to that.,
./ 13 Q so you have three procedures; 51 is implementing, 14 make sure the procedures are in place to implement; you 15 look at that? .
16 A Uh-huh.
17 Q 53 is procedures to inspect while the work is 18 being done?
19 A Right.
20 Q And 55 is where you follow up lat?r on and look 21 at the records?
22 A That's correct. And all of your disciplines of 23 work effort like civil, electrical, mechanical, are 24 categorized into those kinds of procedures.
25 Q so if given the example that you gave, when it TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- - . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ i
'[ 62 1 was time to do the 53 modules and the guy was -- the
'2 inspector was sent to another site and he was not able to 3 inspect the work as it was.being done, he could come back 4 and he could go back to the hardware and look at the 5 hardware and inspect as much as he could see?
6 A After the fact.
7 Q After the fact, and then he would go in the 55 And do
~
8 phase and look at the records. Is that correct?
9 the 55 --
10 A That's right.
11 Q -- module.
12 A That's right. -
e l s- 13 Q Would it be adequate, in your opinion, if he 14 could not complete any of the 53 phase, a hundred percent 16 ,
of the 55 phase, would that be adequate to satisfy the NRC 16 that the work had been properly done or would he still have 17 to do some of the 537 Is record enough, to just look at 18 records?
19 A Well, the program is set up to look at work and 20 if you found that across the board the NRC was not looking 21 at work, always missing, I don't think it would be adequate 22 to rely on the records.
23 o sut --
24 A But in the cases where you're going to miss work 25 modules, and when I worked in Region III, we were required TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
(
s, 63 1 in a memo or at least to go verbally advise our supervisor 2 that there's an important work activity that's in progress 3 and that the NRC is going to miss it and let him make the 4 judgment as to where you go from there because he may ask 5 for additional resources on a temporary basis to come in 6 and do the module if !.e thinks it's critical enough.
7 Q okay. So if there'were certain work in progress, i
8 portions that were missed by the NRC and the NRC then had l
9 to rely on the records and complete the 55 portion, we l 10 would also have to rely on the adequacy of the licensee's 11 quality assurance to make sure that the records were 12 complete, is that not true?
? 13 A Absolutely, most important.
1 14 Q So if the quality assurance -- there was a 15 breakdown in the quality assuranc.e, then when we go to rely j 16 on the records, we missed actually inspecting the
~17 hardware --
18 A You have no assurance.
19 Q -- you have no assurance. okay. And that's what a
20 we're coming back to here where you just did an inspection 21 which shows that NRC never inspected the qunlity assurance, l
and nobody else has inspected quality assurance so when we 1
22 23 go back to these quality assurance records because we 24 haven't inspected the work in progress, then we really have 25 no assurance?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~
s.
- ) 64
(,
1 A well, let me comment on one of your statements 2 there. You said th'e NRC has not inspected any quality 3 assurance. There are some site modules-- the 51's require 4 you to look at the-utility's quality assurance implementing 5 procedures on site.
6 So there has been some inspection -- well, 7 there's been inspection of the QA program from that 8 standpoint on site, as opposed to inspecting the overall QA 9 program, like a corporate which includes the audit 10 functioning, the licensing, the procurement, design and 11 engineering, and things like that, there type functions 12 that may be in corporate.
(.
13 Q so the auditing function _is._what_you were talking 14 about before that had never been --
15 A That's correct.
16 Q -- completed.
17 A well, everything that they did at corporato 18 headquarters. I mean, see, the Applicant is responsible 19 for the overview of the overall QA program. That's ,the big I
20 picture. And when you get down to the site, you're looking 21 at the little picture.
22 And like we were talking about a moment ago, that 23 quality assurance is taking a very broad view or picture, 24 if you will, of what's going on. And I'll give an analogy, 25 like if you have a telescopic lens and you focus in on the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
/N f 65 1 containment building at Comanche Peak from a great distance 2 and show somebody that picture and you say, "What have I 3 'got?"
4 You say, "Well, I'm not sure, it's gray, and it's 5 there. I don't know what it is." However, if you take 6 many more pictures and put them together, to look at the 7 trend or you take a panoramic view, you say, " Hey, it looks 8 like there's a shape of a done over there and there's some 9 buildings and there's Squaw Creek and the horizon. Oh, I 10 recognize that over here, that's Comanche Peak."
11 Now, that's quality assurance. You look at a 12 large picture to see, "okay, this is the way it is;" and
% 13 what I'm saying is you look at something in isolation, 14 that's quality control; and you may never see the big 15, problem because you only see the little problem.
16 And that's the reason it's very important for the 17 the NRC to look at the utility's QA program and their
(-
(
18 system for controlling all the work activities including 19 the audit function has to look at the quality control 20 function to make sure that the inspectors who are looking l
l' 21 at the daily work are not missing things or they're doing 22 adequate inspections. And I think some of the findings 23 that, as I mentioned before, indicates that the inspection 24 program was not doing what it should do.
25 Q okay.
l l . . . . . _ . .. . - - . ..
__m__ _ _ . _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _
A./ h 66 1 A And the audit function program at corporate 2 should have found this. ,
3 Q So the NRC did do some inspections of the 4 implementing?
5 A The QA implementing and manuals on site, things 6 like that.
7 Q So in other words, we have some assurance that 8 TUGC0 at least had a system set up for quality assurance?
9 A Yes. _
10 Q However by not inspecting and auditing the TUGC0 11 auditing, we have no assurance or very little assurance 12 that these implementing instructions were ever complied 13 with?
14 A We have less assurance, for sure.
15 Q "Less" being how much assurance?
16 A Well, one of the criteria of the QA program is 17 audits. And if you have that one crit'eria that is 18 extremely deficient and not functioning, you certainly got 19 one eighteenth or that portion of one eighteenth is act 20 working. And it goes to inspection, then you've got two 21 eighteenths. And if there are other problems in the 22 program you're not catching, just according to how many 23 there are will --
24 Q I'm a novice in this, but it seems to me like the 25 auditing function would impact upon everything?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. . . . . . . .: t-. - . ~ - . . - - - - - - - -
- k b b 67 1 A Everything, all 18 criteriia.
)
2 Q secause they're the ones that are" making sure 3 that the other seventeen are performing correctly. Isn't 4 that right?
5 A That's right.
6 Q so if they're not checking, then they don't know 7 if the others are doing their job, they very well may be, 8 but they might not be?
9 i
A I'm not saying that the corporate audit groups (
10 did no audits of site. They did some audits of site. sut 11 what I was saying b'efore is that they were pitifully 12 staffed and they were understaffed and they could not have i 13 been doing the job they should have been doing and - l
(
14 Q And we weren't doing the job to audit them?
' )
15 A That's right. We didn't know that.until '84. l 16 (Discussion off the record.)
17 MR. MULLEY: sack on the record.
18 Q (sy Mr. Mulley) Other than the inspection 19 program status sheets that you prepared for Unit 1 and 2, 20 how else did you document your review of the inspection {
21 history at Comanche Peak?
22 A I wrote a memorandum for Mr. who was
< - l 23 sy l at that particular time, which was \
)
24 approximately November, about November of 1984.
25 Q okay. ,
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 t __ __ _ _ -
w.
1 A And I summarised all the results of these issues.
2 l Q I have this memorandum in front of me which I've 3 marked Exhibit 3-5. what was the reception that you i
4 received when this memorandum was sent up through your 5 chief?
,d -
)
6 A Nr. ) thought it -- that there was l 7 some significant problems with the inspection program based 8 on this review. And he stated that these were things that 9 when he was -- when he came down as the chief of the 10 ComanchePeakgroupthatwewould(p\0 /--
back and inspect each and %~
11 every one of these areas where there were adverse trends or 12 where inspection modules were not done properly to make 13 sure that the NRC had properly done its ins'pection at 14 Comanche Peak.
15 o was any action taken, to your knowledge, at 16 Region IV to complete the inspection modules and make sure 17 that all the inspection modules that should have been done
= 18 had been completed?
19 A That has been my responsibility, to go back and 20 try as best I can to correct a situation that's a very bad 21 situation.
22 Q Now, let me -- you explained to me that you had a 23 3 module and a C module. The C modules are the modules 24 that were dcne by the resident inspector out at the site 25 over there?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
7 g 69 1 A B was done by the regional inspectors and the C l l
2 program was done by'the resident inspector. And that has I 3 since gone away. Now there's no such thing as neither in 4 the new Manual chapter.
1 5 Q But in the old Manual Chapter, which we have to 6 go by, I mean if this thing was supposed to have occurred '
7 in 1982 under the old Manual Chapter, how can you, as an j i
8 inspector at the site, complete the 37 i
9 A Well, we basically have to rely on the _
j 10 Applicant's records of work installations, if it's work.
j 11 of cours'e, the procedures, it's almost a moot point at this 12 point in time to review the procedures if the procedures
_ 13 weren't reviewed, because work is already done.
14 Q But I still -- I still don't understand how the 15 procedure, the a procedures were' supposed to be done by 16 Regional people, and they weren't done, how can you now as
. '17 the resident do .them? Why couldn't you do them originally Q
18 in the first place if they're allowing you to do them now?
19 why couldn't you do them before as a resident?
20 There has to be a difference between what you can 21 do as a resident and what the Region can do with their 22 inspectors to make --
23 A Well, I alone could not do it. In fact, I asked
- 9 24 for manpower from Mr. ; I asked for a resident 25 inspector to assist me, to put them or maybe looking at
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
(
70
- q 1 this full-time, and Mr.( ,
)was to come down and not be 2 a resident inspecto'r but spend enough time to help me.
3 Nowever, he's -- was pulled off of doing inspections for me 4 to do work on the Comanche Peak group's tracking system.
5 And so basically, it's been largely left to me to 6 go out and do the inspections. I have had a couple of unc 7 consultants who were assigned to me in October of -- one 4 was assigned in October of '85 and the other one late 9 October of '85, to do th,e modules that pertained to 10 follow-up on open items, meaning violations and unresolved
~
11 items, open items, and also on construction deficiencies 12 per 10 CFR 50.55(e) and IE bulletins, IE notices and things
. 13 of this nature.
14 But as far as being furnished manpower to do 15 these other modules, you know, I haven't -- oh, I have 16 received a little bit of help but not probably the kind of 17 help I need. I really needed a resident inspector is what Q
18 I needed.
19 Q Why?
20 A To complete those modules, by looking at the 21 records of the work activity. That's the only thing I i
22 could do.
23 0 But why isn't the Region doing the 5 modules like 24 the Region is supposed to do the a modules?
25 A well, like I said, there's no distinction between TATI REPORTING BERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~~
71 1 the B and the C. The resident does -- just works on the 2 program without any designation of B and C.
when did this happen, that distinction being 3 Q 4 taken away?
5 A I'd have to guess. I suppose probably in '81, 6 late '80, somewhere around '81.
7 Q And this was NRC-wide?
8 A NRC-wide, right.
9 Q And so regardless then of whether it was a a 10 procedure or C procedure, the resident can do them both 11 now?
12 A The resident can do them both, but --
13 Q Do both procedures still exist? Is there.still l
14 in existence 50051 a and 50051 C7 15 A The answer to that is no, that we are really 16 supposed to, as of early 1986, phase over and not be 17 doing -- and not be doing any of the old modules. And the 18 C modules have been out, well, ever since they said the C {
19 program was out. And there's only the a modules to do, 20 essentially. I 21 Q And this has been since 19--
22 A '80, '81, I don't recall. See, I have to point 23 out that I was in supervision for almost'three years and 24 out of the field from like '82 until aid '84 with respect 25 to being a resident inspector. And so I don't recall l
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 j l
- . . .w . .,-. -.. .. - - - . - . . .-
(' 72 l' exactly when these -- when this happened. I probably would 2 have if I still had'been a resident inspector.
3 Q so you have been tagged with the responsibility 4 of trying to complete as many of these modules as you can 5 and most of that is being conducted or completed by going i 6 through records; is that correct?
7 A That's correct. Another thing that was decided 8 was to go back and look at special NRC inspection efforts 9 ,such as the CAT Team, the TRT, or whatever other special _
10 team that's been on site and done a special inspection, to 11 try to credit that against the basic Manual Chapter 25-12 l
12 inspection ~ procedures. ,
- 13 And I suppose one can try to assign credit for '
14 that but that was not the original intent of the Manual 15 Chapter. The original intent was to have the Regional 16 inspectors do the inspections and complete them.
17 Q Do you feel that this sort of review that you're 18 doing now in crediting other special inspections against 19 the modules, do you feel that that's an adequate job as if 20 they had complied with the Manual Chapter and done them at 21 the appropriate times, can you do as thorough a review?
22 A Well, these types of inspections would lend some 23 credence or give us some assurance that through their 24 inspections, that the licensee activities were being 25 controlled. I'd say yeah, you could take some credit for TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
A%
(/ 73 1 it. But it's sort of a perversion of the Manual Chapter.
I 2 0 I understand. And I guess I go b,ack to once 3 again what we discussed a little while ago. It seems to me 4 if in inspection, the TRT is inspecting at this stage in 5 the game, they're looking at records.
6 A well, no, they're really looking at -- ri.ght now 7 they're trying to look at hardware, too --
8 Q can they --
9 A -- because they're finding hardware -- they're
- 10. looking at inspections that were found to be inadequate and 11 when they go out, they look and they're finding a lot of 12 hardware issues, or where there are deficiencies and where
(_ 13 the inspections for Unit 1, for example, which is a hundred 14 percent complete for construction purposes, it was done, it 15 was bought off, it was supposed to load fuel in september
, 16 of '84 but they're finding all kind of hardware problems
. 17 with respect to pipe, pipe hanger analyses and as-built and 18 the design of cable trays, where it ranges anything from a 19 problem with a simple Bilti bolt dislocation, all the way l 20 up to the hanger as designed would not carry the load.
f 21 Those were the 'words that I heard at a meeting 22 and they were doing some $30 million, heard at that 23 particular meeting, they were going to do a $30 million 24 rework program on the hangers alone in Unit 1 and I think 25 they had maybe 2700 they. vere talking about then.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1
D
[3 74 1 And they had some 5,000 in Unit 2, excuse me, I 2 sean Unit 2 they had around 2700 and Unit 1 maybe over 1 3 5,000, so you see the magnitude of the redesign, the .
l 4 rework, reinspection effort that the Comanche Peak group is ]
~
5 being asked to look at.
6 Q- But --
7 A The NRC Comanche Peak group.
8 Q You talk about the 53 modules and the 55 modules, 9 the 53 modules being when you inspect work in progress?
10 A Yeah.
11 Q obviously at this point in the game, you can't do 12 that anymore?
s 13 A Well -- no, you can't.
14 Q okay.
15' A No, you can't look at the Unit 1 work, it was
.16 already completed. All they can do is look at the 17 completed work or the rework if they find that they have to 18 rework it.
19 Q What about the work that you can't look at now, 20 if for some reason it's buried or hidden, how do you assure 21 that that's properly completed?
22 A If the NRC didn't see it or inspect it during the 23 time it was being, the work was being done, you just have 24 to rely on the Applicant's records, there's no other way.
25 Q Then that goes back to the quality assurance? -
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
(. 75 1 A That goes back to the qualit assurance program, 2 that's why it's so important. Because we can't always look' 3 at stuff.
4 Q Let's now go into the second phase of your --
5 okay, before we go on to the second phase of your second 6 concern, I see we have a computer printout, "766 inspection 7 statical data /by module." And I'll label that Exhibit 3-6.
8 And what does this computer printout show?
9 A This computer printout shows a listing in the 10 computer data system where work was -- or inspection of 11 work procedures, et cetera, against Unit 1 and 2, were ,
12 completed in report 80-26.
/ 13 And as you will note, for Unit 1 there's multiple 14 inspections of the reactor vessel installation, charged 15 against 50053, but when you get down to Unit 2, which is 16 the 446 docket number, you only see one entry, which is
, 17 labeled report No. 80-26, date performed, 11-05-80, 18 11-25-80, staff hours three, a hundred percent complete.
19 And that's -- that's the report we previously discussed 20 that where we went through and you can't find anything 21 about reactor vessel installation.
22 -Q And that's the -- that report seems to be listed 23 for the reactor vessel No. 1 and 27 24 A That's correct. I didn't -- I didn't tell you 25 about Unit 1, apparently. That was charged off as a TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713)~222-7177
f
%. . 76 1 hundred percent complete there, as reactor vensel 2 installation and then there's nothing under -- in the 3 report about Unit 1 either. So there's two entries that 4 are in error.
5 g Okay. And t'his information is taken by the data 6 sheets that the inspector fills out at the end of his 7 inspection?
Y$ ] -
8 A Andattach(,d. %s 9 Q The management information sheets that the_
10 inspector fills out at the end of the inspection and 11 attaches it ta his inspection report, these sheets are then
,12 input into the the computer and this listing is the result?
..- 13 A That's correct.
14 Q Okay. Let's now go into the second aspect of 15 your second concern, concerning the trend analysis being 16 daleted from the inspection report. Would you describe for 17 se the circumstances surrounding that?
18 A would you repeat the question. 1 19 (Question read back.)
20 A okay. After seeing my draft meno that was r-^" -
- f 21 draf ted around November of '84 to Mr..m._,..---.__ )
21 asked'ae to do a trend analysis of the NRC inspection 23 program to include violations and unresolved items, 24 specifically he wanted me to look at the unresolved items 25 to see if any of them should have been violations.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
= .- -- . . . . . . . -
1 I think he wanted me to do this because he 2 suspected that many' inspection findings that should have 3 been violations were handled as unresolved itans. And that 4 would present a real problem, because TUGC0 would not have 5 to formally document to the NRC corrective action on these 6 items; they would not be required to determine the cause of 7 the deficiency, and to assure that that they would preclude 8 repetition of such deficiencies or defects.
g And this could be disasterous from the inspection 10 standpoint because it might allow an inadequate QA program 11 to go undetected. The data that I came up with revealed 12 adverse trends that if it had been done by Region IV 13 project inspectors during the project, they would have ,
14 found trends that compared with the problems that were 15 identified by the headquarters constriction assessment team 16 inspection report No. 83-18/12, and the NRC technic 2,1 17 review team deficiencies that were documented in 'Jafety 18 Rvaluation Report Hos. 7 through 11.
19 It appeared that many inspection violations in 20 the past in Region IV have been handled as unresolved 21 items. I reproduced examples of reports where it appeared 22 that unresolved items should have been violations and gav,t 23 those to Mr.
And I'm sure that he reviewed those 24 and based his letter in, part on that documentation.
25 In September, . october -- I can't recall exactly i
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~ - ~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - - -- - - - ---- ' ~ ~ -
, r
$ N
(
~ 70 1 when -- Mr. Westerman came to se and tolk we that he wanted 2 todroptheparagraphonthistrendanalhsicifromthe 1
3 report because all it could do is make the NRC answer 4 embarrassing questions.
5 0 what report again was this7, .
t 5 A 95-07/05. Since this pcmgraph did not cont &in ,
I, 7 any violations or unresolved item, d dropped the paragraph 8 as he directed. I later found out, that Mr. N6sterman did W -
~y l
9 thiswithoutgettingMr.( , concurrence fo; dropping 10 this paragraph. And since Mr. .origt.nally directed 11 the work which required a lot of inspection work on ay prt 12 during the inspection periods in question, I think he ,
e 13 wanted it in the report and so did I. 1 .
14 Q Now, this trend analysis concerned the NRC's 15 inspection history, or Region IV's inspection history; is 16 that corre:t?
17 A That's correct.
18 Q Now, the inspection report that.iyou did was on 19 what?
20 A The inspection report is on a whole host of items 21 that I was going to explain in the next paragraph, but I'll 22 go ahead and explain it here.
23 0 I guess I'm asking what was the purpose of 24 inspection 85-07/057 ,
25 A The purpose of.the inspection report 85-07/05, TA'TE REPORTING 8ERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I l
l
- ~ ' -
y n was to dc+ennent a routine inspection performed by a number 51 2 of NRC inspectors, Mr. J.E. Cummins, E.5. Phillips,,
(
3I And even Mr. Bunnicutt who was the supervisor 4 participated in making the inspection findings in this 5 report, during the period April 1,1985 through June the
( 21st, 1985. It is basically a routine inspection program, i covering both reactive inspection items and also routine .
8 inspection items required by the Manual chapter 2512.
9 Q so why would the trend analysis that was 10 . conduct'sd of Region IV's taspection history, why would that 4
11 be appropriate to be placed in this inspection report? l 12' A secause it was a block of work that was l
. 13 accomplished during the inspection period by myself. For j l
14 example, if I had of looked at screen door latches, and l 15 that na a requirement, I would have to document it in the 16 report.
17 Q okay.
14 A It would be inappropriate for me to not document 19 the fact that I had looked at screen door latches.
20 0 I guess the point that you were making when you 21 did the trend analysis was to show that Region IV was not 22 giving notices of violation in many instances when 23 appropriate and they were just closing things out as 24 unresolved items; that's what your trend analysis showed 25 them?
l RTE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l l
. ~ . . ..
80 1 A one might conclude that.
(
But that's -- that was 2 not how th2 paragraph in the report read. There was no --
3 nothing that would embarrass Region IV like that. The 4
purpose of including the data in the report was to make it 5
a matter of record that these are areas, weak areas in the 6
QA program, and if I'm not the project inspector two months 7 from now and I move on, he comes back, he has the benefit 8
of the knowledge that's imparted; he knows where the weak 9
areas are, he knows where to prioritize his inspection 10 effort and maybe the inspection effort of other NRC 11 inspectors.
12 Q Do you recall the pert that was taken out of the
(. 13 report regarding the trend analysis, do you recall what 14 that said?
'15 A Well, the problem is that I couldn't review that 16 draft report before I came here because Mr. Westerman 17 directed me to destroy that draft report, which I did.
Q 18 Q okay. So if you can maybe recall, how did you 19 tie in the results of your trend analysis and make it 20 germane to that inspection report of Comanche Peak?
21 I understand your trend analysis was critical to 22 Region IV, but the inspection report isn't of Region IV, 23 it's of comanche Peak. And how did you show how the 24 results of that tied in with the problems at quality 25 assurance at TUGco?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
99
(*
1 actually approves the report.
2 A Because we went through four months of changing
~
3 of the report.
4 Q Okay.
5 A And that's the reason I'm confused. We were e., d, ~
6 ask$ag to change it so many times and so much of it that I 7 can't really recall all of the instances where we first 8 signed and we subsequently changed something else and then 9 we changed something else and something else and something 10 else until it finally went out in February of '86.
11 Q But nevertheless, the date on this report with 12 your signature and the signatures of Hunnicutt as the
) 13 inspector is still October '857 14 A Uh-huh.
15 Q Why.isn't this report, you know, re-approved and 16 resigned by you people in January and February of '86 when 17 it went out?
O 18 A Resigned? Good question.
19 Q So then it is possible that these reports, after 20 you sign.off on the cover sheet, can go up, be redone, and 21 go out without the original inspectors ever seeing the 22 changes?
23 A I guess it's possible. I think probably I saw 24 the report after that but I was not -- I was not asked to {
l 25 sign for it again. )
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
__ - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ __ m .
('
' 81 1 A Well, as I say again, really the way the 2 paragraph was written, it was not critical of Region IV, it 3 just stated hare are some trends that have shown up in NRC 4 Region IV inspections, actually. And Region IV had 5 identified these, some of these violations, but in some 6 cases, unresolved items had not shown, for example, that 7 maybe that there was an adverse trend in the area of audits 8 which I had already identified before I did this trend
^9 analysis. _
10 Q So you were using the results of your trend 11 analysis in showing the various notices of violation 12 unresolved items to show that there were problems with the
, 13 TUGCO quality assurance?
14 A That's correct.
15 0 And when Mr. Westerman looked at that, he also 16 saw that the results of the trend analysis could also open g
17 up Region IV to criticism; is that correct?
18 A Perhaps that's what he was thinking about.
19 Q Did he say that to you? I mean, why did he say 20 take it out if it was -- if there was some valid 21 information concerning the TUGCO quality assurance program, 22 why did Mr. Westerman feel that it should not be in the 23 report?
24 A Well, by his statement saying that all it could 25 do is cause embarrassing. questions to be asked of the NRC TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
b 82 1 at the hearings, I presume that it can only mean that even s
2 if Region IV inspections were not as good as they should 3 have been, even se there was some trends in there to 4 indicate that there were some problems with the QA program 5 at Comanche Peak and no one apparently had thought to do a 6 trend analysis or if they did do a trend analysis and saw 7 the trends, they didn't -- Region IV management, 8 supervision, project inspectors or whoever, didn't act on 9 it.
10 Q okay. So for me to summarize then, your trend 11 analysis showed that over the years, there were problems 12 with quality assurance at Comanche Peak, these problems
(.' 13 were picked up during NRC inspections?
14 A Right.
15 Q sowever, NRC did not take any action to address 16 the basic problem of quality assurance. Is that correct?
. 17 A Well, I've already stated they didn't do the QA s
18 inspection modules. If they had of, for example, looked at 19 these trends, it certainly would have placed added emphasis 20 on doing the QA inspection modules as required by 2512.
21 Q okay.
22 A In fact he probably wouldn't have done it just to 23 the required frequency, you would have done more QA I
24 inspections than were required by Manual Chapter 2512.
25 Q And to summarize again, what do the trends show?
l TATE REIORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. _ __ __.._..___.____.__________._________.,.m
(# L 83 1 A Well, I would have to look at the trend analysis 2 and I don't think I have that with me although I can look 3 at the meno.
4 Q Just in summary fashion.
5 A well, it looks like, based on this right here 6 that there's probably a trend in Criterion 3 design 7 control.
8 Q Trend to what? /
AOtst ~
9 A Atrendwheretherearealotofviola..tions.of) 10 unresolved items and therefore, it's an indication of an 11 adverse trend that should be looked into to make sure that 12 there's not a more serious problem. You can have a trend J 13 and it may turn out to be a problem that's under control.
14 Q The trend being that there were an awful lot of 15 deficiencies cited on Criterion 3, is that correct?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q I notice criterion 4, and Criterion 6, criterion 18 12, 14, 15 and 16, there are no deficiencies at all cited.
19 Why would that be?
20 A That's a good question. I don't know.
21 Q Were these areas inspected?
22 A I rather suspect that if you inspect the project 23 for that long a time over a ten year period, I would have 24 to believe that you're going to find a violation or a 25 unresolved item that would relate to these categories over TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
r'N 84 1 that period of time; you'd find one.
2 One wouldn't constitute a trend but you just 3 pointed out something to me that I hadn't noted, the 4 absence, certainly criterion 16 -- okay, now, I notice on 5 this chart, the reason I'm having a little trouble with it 6 is that this chart that's attached here, I think has an 7 error in it and the reason I say that is because both of 8 these are labeled " unresolved items" and I think one should 9 be labeled " unresolved item" in Exhibit 3 and one should be 10 " violation." And by just looking at it without my original 31 trend analysis, I don't know which is which.
12 Q Then to summarize your concern concerning the e-ss' la trend analysis being deleted from the inspection report, 14 what do you feel was the criticism that Mr. Westerman was 15 trying to avoid by having the trend analysis deleted from 16 the inspection report?
17 A Well, maybe one of two things. If Region IV had 18 identified the trend and taken action early, they could 19 have avoided the TRT's coming and all the problems that 20 have surfaced now; or if they knew of the trends anu took 21 no action on it then that too would be a problem.
22 Q And these trends that were identified in your 23 analysis showed there were problems in TUGCO's quality 24 assurance?
25' A It indicated that there were adverse -- not TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
^
' 85 1 necessarily problems, that there were adverse trends that 2 at least should be looked into to assure tha,t there were 3 not problems in quality -- in TUGCO's quality assurance-4 program. )
5 And as I've already pointed out, Region IV did 6 not do an adequate job on the QA inspection modules. And 7 maybe that's the source of the problem; maybe it leads back 8 to that.
9 Q so basically, the TUGCO quality assurance, the 10 fact that it may have been weak, resulted in some of these 11 de' :iencies that you mentioned up in the trend analysis?
~
12 A That's correct. .
_' 13 Q okay. Let's go on now.to your third concern, 14 okay?
15 A okay, the third concern is pressure and 16 harassment that occurred regarding Region IV inspection 17 report 85-07/05, which we have previously identified as an 18 exhibit.
19 Q Exhibit 4. Okay. Would you explain the l 20 harassment and intimidation that occurred as a result of 21 this inspection report?
22 A Let me clarify that, pressure and harassment. At 23 this time I wouldn't say that there was intimidation or 24 threats. I didn't at this point in time experience threats 25 or view it as a threat or an attempt to intimidate me. l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l
( 86 1 To give a little bit of background on this
/ l 2 report, it was done'under Mr. 'and Mr. Hunnicutt's
__ s . - -
3 supervision, and the inspectors that I've already named off i
i 4 of the inspection report or the exhibit all had reviewed 5 and signed off the final report and then when Mr. Westerman 6 came on board, for some reason he got involved in the 7 inspection process and instead of allowing this signed 8 report to go on forward, elected to make changes to the 9 report. .
10 Q Let me interrupt here. You say this report was 11 already signed when Mr. Westerman became involved with the
. 1 12 report? ,
. li It was signed by yourself as the inspector and by 14 Mr. Runnicutt before Mr. Westerman became , involved; is that 15 correct?
16 A since I don't have -- I recollect that that's the
. '17 way it was. I don't have the draft report, and if someone
=
18 has a draf t report, you may be able to establish that 19 point. All I know is that we had already signed off on the 20 report and then Mr. Westerman comes back for -- to make 21 changes to it.
22 Q okay. so let's, for a second, let's regress to 23 the trend analysis alteration that was made by 24 Mr. Westeraan, okay. To your recollection, then, this 25 report had already been signed and sont up, then TATE R'EPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. . . - - ~ - . - . . - .
s D b 87
~
1 Mr. Westerman came back and wanted the trend analysis taken 2 out. Is that correct? ,
3 A That's correct.
4 Q I'm looking at the report, and I don't even 5 see -- I guess I don't even see where Mr. Westerman signed 6 this at all. I mean where does he fit into the scheme of 7 things here?
8 A Be's on the concurrence, he picks up on the concurrence.
9 i 10 Q And that's all?
11 A Yeah.
12 Q so basically, this is a report that's signed by
.! 13 you, supposed to be signed by Mr. Cummins, Mr. \ . and 14 Mr. Runnicutt, saying -- by your signature saying this is 15 is your report.
16 A That's right. I You have an individual on the concurrence of the I a 17 Q j 18 letter that's forwarded in the report to Texas Utility, 19 he's not on the concurrence of the report itself, he's on 20 the concurrence of the letter to TUGCO and he is then 21 asking for alterations to be made to an inspection report 22 that he doesn't sign, that ha didn't do inspections on, and 23 I gitess I don't see the appropriateness of this. I really 24 don't see where he has the authority to alter or to modify 25 a report that he's not even signing.
EkTE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l l
l
] '
gg s -
1 A You'll also note that Mr. 'is not on 2 concurrence on this report. Now, at the particular time 3 that he was th I believe that the bran.h 4 chief may have been signing off on the inspection report.
- e. .%
5 aut you would have to discuss that with Mr. - because 6 that was his responsibility. I don't know. But I know 7 that he would have certainly been on concurrence. But now a you see, suddenly he's not on concurrence with a report 9 that he was certainly very involved with. .
10 0 Well, let me take this a step further on this 11 concurrence here. I see, for example, a Mr. Noonan is on 12 concurrence. -
a 13 A That's correct.
14 0 okay. Is this concurrence, is this concurrence 15 supposed to mean that they concur with the inspection 15 report or they concur with the letter that's going to
, 17 TUGC07 If one person - you've got on the concurrenc'e, is you've got, yourself, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Bunnicutt, 19 Mr. Westerman, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Noonan all concurring.
20 None of these people, other than yourself and 21 Mr. Runnicott, are signing the report. S'o you've got three 22 people above you, two who are concurring on the letter.
l 23 Are we saying here that if any one of these five people on 24 the concurrence, three of which didn't even do the 1
25 inspection, disagree with the inspection report, then the i RTE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1
I
e V
- 89 1 inspection report is not going to go out? Is that what 2 this concurrence chain is supposed to mean?. , ,
3 A I really can't answer that question. I don't 4 know. You'd have to ask Mr.I isome of the managers.
( -
5 I presume that that's the kind of power that concurrence 5 seans.
7 0 I guess I don't understand where, for example, 8 Mr. Johnson, who was nowhere near when this inspection 3 report was being 'done, where he could take a look at this 10 and' then decide that he doesn't like something that you 11 inspected and found. I guess I don't see the rationale in 12 this thing.-
13 I mean, he alght have a disagreement with the 1 14 cover Jetter and naturally he's taken part in that and 15 anybe even, the severity levels or the notice of violation. ,
15 But I mean you guys actually went out and do the
- 17 inspection. How can they change something that they 18 weren't even there to see take place?
19 A well --
28 0 I mean, what is the rationale behind that? -
21 A Usually you don't have people changing things.
22 sy the time you get to the concurrence, usually I guess the )
23 top management are looking just for like correctness of the l l
24 report, the overall report is directed to the right people 25 and seems to be in the right format end look at tha l
l
- E&TB REPORTING 8ERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l' b 90 1 appendix to see what kind of violations are being written, 2 and I guess just to see that the overall report is in the 3 general format that it should be. I don't know, if a 4 particular manager has enough time, he might sample certain 5 pa'rts of the report, look at the quality of the report; 6 maybe that's what he's concurring on.
7 But as far as the authenticity of the inspection, ,
l 8 he certainly is not - he's certainly not attesting to l I
9 that, only the inspector can sign off on that because he i 10 was the one that made the observation. -There's no way that l 11 someone second removed can sign for you unless he does the 12 observation, or contact you and say, "0kay, I need to sign l 13 for you, you're off on another inspection, you did so many l
l l
l'4 violations and I'd like to sign off for you."
I 15 If a supervisor wanted to do that or another 16 inspector, I've done that at times, say, "Can I sign off 17 for your do you - you read the last change or they've 18 changed this, do you agree with that?" And the inspector 19 says, "No, I don't agree with that."
20 well, then I guess that something would have to 21 happen. If he's not going to sign off on the report, it 22 would have to be some type of a meeting to iron out the 23 differences. And again, I don't see, unless the inspector 24 has done something that's just obviously so blatently wrong 25 that someon6 can sit back and know exactly what he's TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- , 91 s i.
1 observed, unless they have somebody go do it or do it 2 themselves. So he's about the only one that .can really 3 attest to the authenticity of the findings.
4 Q okay. Well, getting back to the harassment that 5 ou were discussing earlier concerning.this report.
6 A Well, it's hard to give you the exact date, 7 although I have notes where I could find the exact dates a when Mr. Nesterman started to interject himself into this 9 report process. But I will - I'll just say that Mr.
10 West raan did start exerting extreme pressure on Mr.
11 who is an NRC inspector, and a mechanical engineer, 12 to change NRC report 85-07/05. ,.
- 13 . And he also exerted a great deal of pressure on
- v. ...]
14 se to agree with him instead of agreeing with Mr.1 l U '
s 15 findings. And wh'en he found out that I agreed with - v -~
.y . /
16 Nr . '; indings, 4 hat he seemed to just van to put 17 that auch more pressure on me.
18 0 And what findings are we talking about? l 19 A The findings are - you would find them in the J
20 draf t report. But again, I don't have a copy of the draft 21 report. I'm sorry, I threw it away. That's where you will, 22 have to compare the differences.
! 23 But if you will note in this report, changes were 1
24 made to the report. But if you look at the 766 in the 25 back, they made the changes to the appropriate report l 1 i ,. TETE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
~
l l
________-___-_______.___J
' ~
's . ..
92 1- dropping the violations out of Appendix A; however, when i . .
2 you look at the 766 back here, you'll see that they failed 3 to remove the 766 from this report, starting with this 4 violationthatreads(A')"Contrarytotheabove, Unit 2
- -E ~
~
5 pressure vessel' installation design criteria recommended by 6 the NSSS vendor, such a's centering tolerances, levelness 7 tolerances and shoe-to-bracket clearances were not included 8 in installation specification, procedures and drawings; and j fB he criteria were specified in construction operation -
10 traveler ME-79-248-5500, but were not treated as' a design 11 engineering criteria as evidenced by an undocumented change ,
12 of the shoe-to-bracket clearance." ..
(.
- s. 13 This is one of the ones I mentioped previously 14 that goes to contention rive, very important finding. Very 15 important from the standpoint that as I just describe'd, we 16 have a violation and all of a sudden, this violation which 17 had been signed off by myself and all the previcus 18 supervisors and agreed that it was a violation, suddenly he 19 drops it as not being a violation.
20 Q Is it mentioned at all in the report?
21 A No, they dropped the portions out of the report ,
22 where it was a violation. He may have made it unresolved) 23 he may have left it unresolved. But that goes back to what 24 we were talking about before, dealing with unresolved 25 issues instead of making. violations when something has been f
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
e ._
}e
( s. ,
93 1 violated.
2 Q okay. The unresolved allows the licensee to --
3 A May allow him to do nothing; he doesn't have to 4 respond to an unresolved ites at all. You'll have to 5 upgrade it to a violation to make his respond to it, so, 6 you know, one could say, "Well, hey, now we'll upgrade that 7 later." .
8 But here's a situation where you've already got 9 two supervisors and at that particular time, at least three 10 inspectors who had signed off on a completed report, and 11 this had been reviewed as a violation and now suddenly, he 12 dropped it from the report. .
. 13 Q okay. Is it in the report as an unresolved; do 14 you know if it is, from your review?
15 A I'd have to go back and look. I have not cross 16 indexed it. If you want to do that, we can. This is 17 covered in Paragraph 12 of the report, Paragraph A, and it 18 appears to show up as an unresolved item.
19 Q That's instead of the violation that you 20 initially intended it to be?
21 A That's right. And there's a second violation in .
22 the 766 which was not dropped. It appears that, " contrary 23 to Appendix B, and Brown & Root procedures manual, 24 clearances between reactor vessel support brackets were not 25 within tolerances stated.in construction operation traveler a
/ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
_ _ _ . ______m . _ _ _
k s. , 94 1 and the condition was not reported on a non-conformance 2 report." If you read that paragraph on here, that says --
3 that summarizes those two violations into one unresolved 4 item.
5 Q This is paragraph --
6 A Paragraph 12-A, you can judge for yourself as to 7 whether it was significantly reduced downward to sound 8 better in the report. I think it was. And it's hard to 9 recognize the issue, as it was described as a violation.
10 Q Now, it says here, the inspector -- I'm quoting 11 from Paragraph 12-A - "the inspector considers this matter 12 unresolved."' The inspector being -- ,.
13 A The inspector did not consider it unresolved. He 14 considered it a violation.
15 Q Okay. And so --
16 A Mr. Westerman considered it unresolved.
17 Q And so this is basically the report as he had it e.
18 rewritten?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q And than you signed off on it, you and the other 21 people signed off en the report, itself -- .
22 A Well, this was done after the signature, if I 23 remember correctly. I think it had already been signed 24 off. So I would have to have the draft report to l
25 understand the timing of.the signatures. l
.- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
=>w- e *. . h.- .
-m,= e aqw o .
%' *J
,. .. , 95 1
We may have not signed off on that, I don't 2 recall.
We'd just have to find out the date of the change f 3
to the report versus the date of the signature which was 4 October the lat.
5 Q wait a minute. Let me get this right. Are you 6
saying that you signed off on a report and sent it up the 7
way you want it, it gets up to somebody like Mr. Westerman 8
who decides he doesn't like the way the report is written, 9 so he makes changes that this report does not come back and 10 get resigned? -
11 A Like I said, I would have to see the original 12 draft. I don't recall. It's possible. I's.not going to 13 C make the statement that that',s the case until I w.ould see 2/ -
14 the draft. someona has a draft, by the way.
k 15 Q okay. -
16 A so you need to look at the draft.
. 17 -Q Do you know who has the draft?
18 A has the draft.
Mr.( ~ - -a 1 19 Q okay.
20 A But he was directed to destroy it so I don't know 21 if he still has it. I 22 O Let me ask, then, other than the specific 23 inspection, are you saying that this is possible in Region 24 IV, that this does happen, where an inspector can sign off 25 on the cover sheet of an. inspection report, the report goes
.- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
f' ( .
, 96 1 up into management, the report gets changed and then 2 because -- and just get sent out, without the --
, 3 A Without resigning it?
l 4 Q Yes.
5 A secause that is such a serious thing, I really 6 don't want to make that statement. I think you should look 7 at tha.t and see.
SI-S I would not want to make something that I
/
'%s 8 am not absolutely sure of, that's something -- mayb'e that's 9 a question in pursuit of this issue that you should look 10 at. It's just that looking at the report dates, it 11 appears, if you will notice, that the original dates signed 12 by all the inspectors involved is the first day of October.
13 Q That's correct. ,
14 A aut if you look at the time the final approval by 15 the supervisor that is noted there, it's like January of 16 '86.
17 Q January the 29th, January the 28th, right. The 18 end of January?
19 A No, on the next page. Excuse me, go back to your 20 signing sheet, see?
21 Q Right here? .
22 A See, the second page there's an approval block 23 which shows that even though he signed it as an inspector 24 October the 2nd of '85, it was not approved until January 25 the 28th of '86, meaning.that there were a lot of things f TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-i __ __
.- s , 97 1 that happened between October the 1st, '85 and last of -
2 January, '86.
3 Now, I do'n't recall -- it's possible that 4 Mr. Eunnicutt had already approved that report in October 5 .and only the approval sheet was modified. I don't know.
6 I -- as I recall, for it to go forward to Mr.(
_ )it 7 would have necessarily required Mr. Runnicutt's approval as 8 'a section chief before it would go to a branch chief.
9 And so you would have to ask Mr.
___ gthat 10 question. Did Mr. Runnicutt approve it in October saying 11 "This is a completed report and it's okay to go, there's no 12 probles, just sign off as a manager," I've already as a
/ 13 supervisor said it's okay and. then in October he signed it 14 and then he came back and had to change it to January?
~
15 Yes, that's possible. '
16 0 Well, I see Mr. Runnicutt signed off on this 17 report as a section chief Reactor Projects Branch 2 on
, 4 18 October the 2nd. Okay? I also see Mr. Runnicutt signed 19 off on this report as section chief Reactor Project Section i
, j 20 m on January the 28th, 1986, which is four months later, l j
21 l I also see that your" signature is October the 1st- )
i 22 of '85, as the senior resident inspector, or senior
)
23 resident reactor inspector for construction. When Mr.
i 24 Runnicutt signed off on this report, Mr. Runnicutt when he I 25 signed this report was a.section chief in both cases. Do
/ TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 a w equee e em= ,
e
i v y -
,, 98 1 I -- don't I have this correct? Mr. Hunnicutt is a section 2 chief Reactor Projects Branch 2; he signs off on October 3 the 2nd, '857 )
J I
4 A Uh-huh.
5 Q Then Mr. Bunnicutt is a section chief Reactor 6 Projects Section B, January the 28th, '86, he's a section 7 chief -- I mean, what do these two signatures tell me? Why 8 is he signing this twice as a section chief?
9 A Well, in one case, here, the first signature by 10 Mr. Hunnicutt, he did inspections and as you note, he was 11 responsible for these paragraphs of the inspection report.. .
12 Q Right. ..
(%
(,.
13 A So he did the inspection and he.said as far as he 14 was concerned, everything was completed by october the 2nd 15 of '85.
16 Q okay.
17 A Which means that block, of course, does not show
- i 18 approval. But if he signed for himself in '85, one can use 19 logic and say if you're a Tupervisor and you're reviewing 1
20 your own work and the other's work, that you also probably 21 were approving it at the same time. ,
22 Q That's exactly --
23 A That's what you're trying to point.
' 24 Q That's the logic I'm using. Why did it take him {
25 four months again to sign -- this is four months before he ;
- TATE REPORTANG SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l i
e e e--
l i
100 l l
l 1 Now, as I. understand, one of the reasons here 2 could be that the reason the sheet wasn't changed was that l
/ .,
l 3 Nr. told me late,r that he saw the report and it was 4 in such a mess that he asked the secretary to take his name 5 off of the signature block. And I did not find that out .
6 until after I had concurred on the report, I thought he 7 was -- I didn't realise that the report was in such a mess e as far as he was concerned and he didn't want to sign for '
9 it.
10 Q Is this before October the 1st?
A I think you'd have to ask Mr. that 11 . .-
12 question.
13 I don't know when he became so upset by it that-14 he wouid -- that he wanted his name removed from the signature block. He t91d me that at some later date. You 15 16 see, he was a Region based guy and until the thing became
- 17 an issue, I'm not sure I was aware of that.
18 I was really upset to find out that he wanted his 19 signature taken off of the signature page.
20 0 Well, was there -- let me ask you this: Were 21 there any problems with the report before you originally 22 signed it in October? It seems to me, you know, the guys 23 that were s'inging it back here were the inspectors.
24 Westerman wasn't involved with this thing until after that 25 time, was he?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
, r v v 101 1 TsE WITNESS: Could I go off the record to review 2 some of my notes to see if I can find some df those dates?
3 MR. MULLEY: Yes. l 4 (Discussion off the record and the I
5 last-above question was read back 6 by the reporter.)
7 A I hope I'm not being repetitive, but if so, we 8 can clear up the record later. But looking at some notes I 9 have, June the 14th, I completed my input on the report, _
10 85-07/05, and gave it to Mr. Runnicutt and Mr. Cunnins who 11 were primarily responsible for the report as I was to do a
~
12 limited inspection and continue working on a special 13 project that I was involved with.
14 . So I really was not assigned the responsibility 15 of hoscheing this report. .
16 June the 25th, I reviewed the first draft of the 17 report and Mr. Runnicutt, because I was not prise 18 responsibility for the report, asked me to review only my 19 input as he and Mr. Cunnins were responsible for the 20 report.
21 on August 19th, Mr. Doyle flunnicutt called me 22 about Mr. ,
input to NRC report 85-07/05, and 23 said that Chuck Welch, the Applicant's representative, had 24 taken exception to some of Mr. findings on the 25 code issues.
I .
TnTs arromTING stav!Cs, (713) 222-7177
?
L v 102 1 At this point, I was asked to help Mr.
2 look at these issues and, if necessary, correct them if he 3 wanted to.
4 On August the 20th, I reviewed his findings and
.e 5 contacted Texas Utilities for a meeting. Mr.
]nd I 6 set with sessrs. Chuck Welch and Gordon Purdey; Mr. Welch 7 is - was the TUGCO QC supervisor and.Mr. Gordon Purdey the 8 Brown a Root QA manager of ASME activities.
W -
9 .After this meeting, Mr.(. made some changes 10 to the report, and you will have to review those because I 11 don't recall specifically, but we tried to do as
~
12 Mr. sunnicutt asked to see if some of the issues were l l b 13 outstanding. Now this was prior to our signature.
14 g' Right. Okay.
15 A It still may have been somewhat inappropriate l
16 because you'll have to - I'll call attention to the fact
- - h 7 17 that on June the lith, Messrs. )Bunnicutt,1 ! \
~ . _u -
18 and Phillips met with management on the findings of 19 85-07/05, and outlined in detail the potential violations 20 and unresolved items. -
21 And they took no exception to them at this I 22 meeting nor did they take exception to the findings that 23 were identified to them at various times during the 24 inspection process.
25 so from June the lith until August the 19th, it I 1
1 SkTI REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 e=m geur g e 88 ye j
- <s ,
(~ s) 103 1 takes them this length of time to decide that they do not 2 agree with these findings. And that gives me a-problem, 3 because if-they can't get their act together in that length 4 of time,.really then any report, any report that's written 5 in Region IV about TUGCO, they could'possibly put the 6 inspectors in the same situation, that they find something, 7 some two or three months later. What are we supposed to 8 do, wait two or three months until they get their act
~
9 together? I say no.
10 There have been a lot of instances where I've 11 issued violations because an Applicant did not have his act 12 together at the time we issued the violation, and they come
.) 13 in at a later time and answer the violation and state that 14 they have since found the documentation.
15 Now. That reduces the severity level maybe of 16 the violation or the seriousness of it, but it does not O
17 make the violation go away, because they -- if nothing 18 else, if it was about welding and you write a violation 19 against criterion 9, because they didn't have 20 documentation, if they come back and tell you, "Well, don't l 21 write me a violation against welding criterion 9 of 10 CFR i
22 Appendix B."
23 I say, "Well, okay, let's go back and try to 24 understand why you couldn't retrieve it from your record
'25 system, because if you can't retrieve it from your record TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
( b 104 1 system it is not a violation of Criterion 9, you've just 2 told.me it's a violation of criterion 17, QA records."'
3 so in any event, it is still, as far as I'm 4 concerned as an NRC inspector, it's a violation. And this 5 has happened in the past to me, in some cases, sut we 6 can't put ourselves in a posture of constantly changing 7 things during the inspection writing process to just to 8 accommodate the utility. You never get your work done.
9 It's important at this point in time to point out to that two of the findings that were dropped as violations .
11 from the report- Number 1, the vessel setting or 12 installation of the. vessel violations nor failure to 13 perform audits of vessel installation was never challenged 14 by the utility, but Nr. Westerman elected to drop those for 15 reasons that are not' clear to se right now.
16 Q And be gave you no reason for wanting to drop
= 17 those? .
18 A Except they weren't violations. se took 19 exception to them when the utility didn't, that's the point 20 I'm trying to make.
21 Q Did you have something to cite against when you 22 called these violations?
23 A Look at the -- let's look at those particular
,_ - -T 24 violations and these are, of course, Mr.
L_r -
)
25 violations, again.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 ;
- V
}
^ , ,
hur h
, 105 ,
l 1 Mr. ited the first violation by a ,
2 referencing 10 CFR 50 Appendix s, criterion' 3 and TUGeo QA 3 plan, section 3, dated July 31st, 1984, and he states that 4 ' contrary to the above, Unit 2 reactor vessel installation j $ design criteria recommended by the M885 such as centering, 6 tolerances, levelness tolerances and so forth, and shoe to 7 bracket clearances were not included in the installation
- specification, procedures and drawings 'and[3 the criterion (
8 9 .were specified in a , construction traveler which I've
~
D r^
previcuslytreserve but were not treated as dirign #
- 10 \
- ( --
11 engineering crf teria as evidenced by an undocumented change 12 of the shoe to bracket clearances when they' did.n't . meet f**
C 13 them."
14 Q so he's citing against a specific criteria.
15 .A Yes. And the next ones he cites against has to ;
1 16 do with vessel installation, that he references 10 crR 50, 17 Appendix 3, Criterion 15 and TUGco QA plan dated May the ]
18 1st,1981 and Brown & itoot QA manual section 16, March 27, 19 1985 ' contrary to the abovc, clearances betwe en the 20 reactor vessel support brackets and support shoes were not 21 within the tolerance stae.ed in the construction operation 22 traveler, ME-79-248-55, and the condition was not reported 23 on a non-conformance report."
24 O Bow -
25 A That was taken.exce.ption to by Mr. Nesterman, but
. T&TE REPORTING BERVICE, (713) 222-7377
U U 106 1 apparently not by the utility. They'd already accepted it, 2 they never raised that issue again.
3 Q How does he take exception to that, on what 4 grounds?
5 A I guess by the authority granted to him as a '
<4 J 6 supervisor. -
I don'tl-- I have so far been unable to 7 understand some of Mr. Westerman's enforcement philosophy.
8 You know, like, for example, on one violation here that 9 I'll talk about later, that he commented on that I had 10 made, where I had found that they hadn't inspected the 11 blades in five or six years of the concrete mixing trucks, 12 and I said they hadn't documented on the inspection report,
_ 13 he said, "Why is that a problem?"
14 I said, "Well, how do you know they did it?"
15 He said, "Well, the guy told you that they did, 16 don't you take their word for it?"
O 17 I said, "No, that's not the way you do audits."
1 18 And so when I say a strange philosophy, to me that's a 19 strange philosophy.
20 would you do business with a bank where you went 21 down and you put $100,000 in it and the way they audited 22 each year was you went down and they'd say, "Well, 23 Mr. So-and-so, take our word for it, everything's okay in 24 the bank," without somebody going in and checking the i 1
25 books. I mean, you can trust them that the tellers are TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
107 1 giving the money out and checking it back in and
(
2 everybody's not aisusing the money. But still, you audit a 3 bank in a business-like manner by checking and seeing that 4 the evidence says, yes, everything's okay. You don't take 5 somebody's word for it.
6 Q That's right.
7 . A Same thing is true with quality assurance, but 8 yet I'm asked to take the utility's word for something.
9 And that -- I don't understand that kind of auditihg. I've-10 been in aerospace, missile industry, aircraft, 11 manufacturing industry, and anything else, and I've never -
12 heard anybody advocate that kind of an audit.
13 Q That's correct.
14 A The other violation that was dropped that was not 15 taken exception to pertained to 10 CFR Appendix B,
,16 Criterion 18, where it's stated that contrary to the above !
o 7.7 reference, TU.GCO had audited - there was no evidence that 16 TUGCO had audited either Unit 2 vessel installation 19 i specifications, placement procedures, actual hardware, i 20 placement or as-built records.
21 . And en this one, I believe he did state something 22 to the effect, Well, they don't have to, they just '
23 uudit -- they don't have to audit that." And it just 24 appears to me seesthing as important as the installation of 25 the vessel should.have been audited and certainly in TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 a.
.- ;m L' v ,
108 '
1 retrospect when you.look back and find that they had errors 2 such as Mr. ointed out, and like I said before, the 3 imbed, imbeds that the vessel shoes sat on were misplaced 4 44 degrees, it would indicate to me that they should have 5 audited to see that major components that are to be set in 6 a nuclear plant are audited by someone, if nothing else 7 just to say that the inspections are done properly.
8 Now, this particular violation here pertains to 9 Criterion 8, and stop me if I'm getting too lengthy. _
And 10 we don't have to go through these things ous by one if you 11 don't want to.
12 Q These are the ones --
i 13 A These are the ones that were dropped.
14 -Q I think they should go on the record. ,
15 A 10 Crm 50, Appendiz 3, Criterion 8 and TUGCO QA 16 plan section 8, dated July the 1st 1978, and article NA
- 17 3766.6 of ASME; section 3, 1974 edition, have certain 18 requirements with respect to identification of material, 19 marking and so forth for traceability, that is grade of the 20 asterial, spec, heat number and code, heat code and 21 material, and any additional marking required, is supposed 22 to be done and he states here, " Contrary to these 23 requirements, spool piece 301 (drawing number'SRPC82RB76) 24 had neither been marked with the material specification and 25 grade nor heat number or, heat code of the material."
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
4 U V 109 1 Now, what you have to understand here is that 2 months after the fact, they're coming back 'in and they're e m 2 finding a number and showing it to Mr.
And what 4 2's saying is, here again, even if they're correct, it's 5 taken them three months to find a number on a piece of 6 equipment and draw our attention to it.
n.3 7 Q whydidn'tMr.j \ find that this number when 8 he was -
9 A- Well, I'm not sure. The number -- one of the 10 reasons is I found this numbering system to be quite 11 confusing if you're not familiar with it. And it's a 12 little difficult to find. so the numbers that he looked (d 13 for may have not been in the correct place, it could have ~
14 been under a band; they have these stainless steel bands 15 that go around the piping. I don't really know. Maybe it 16 was an oversight on his part.
17 But what I'm saying is the violation was pointed 18 out during the inspection period in April to June of -- for 19 this particular item, and from June the 21st when it ended 20 until way up into nearly October - well, excuse me, I 21 believe we were quoting August.
22 Q Right.
23 A We signed off in October.
24 0 Right, i
25 A Let's say the last of August and sometimes into MTE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- r. .
\ A 110 '
1 september, they're finally coming up and saying, " Hey, we 2 do have a number on that." Again, it may have been in 3 error here, but they just didn't have their act together 4 enough either during the inspection or af ter the inspection 5 to show that they were in compliance and that in itself is 6 a problem, as I see it.
7 g Yeah.
8 A Okay. I think, if I recall, I went out with 9 Mr. Norman to find this component and I believe that we did 10 find the number, r
11 Q What was Mr.> reaction when he saw that G
12 number?
)' 12 A Well, he was surprised. I don't know whether he 14 was suprised bec,ause he thought maybe the number was added 15 or he had overlooked it, which is possible. Either thing; 16 I'm not going to say. You'd have to ask Mr. Norman that. ,
. 17 But anyway, this was dropped. But it was dropped not l
18 because of inspection done during the period, but 19 inspection that was done - probably done during the 20 inspection period probably in september.
Y%
21 ... At which - those inspection findings would --
\ .
22 appropriately be. documented in the september report, an'd 23 even if this report had not gone cut, one could -- if it's 24 a'1 ready signed off and gone out the door, what would you 25 do? You wouldn't change _the report; you'd try to find TATI REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l 111 I something to after .the fact draw attention that they -- )
2 that it's not really a bonified violation in that they 3 found the spool piece.
4 But again they were unable to find it during the 5 inspection. That's a debataole issue. When do you step 6 in? I'm not going to get drawn into that argument. As to 7 if you find a issue like that, that's a violation, perhaps 8 you leave the violation, let it go out with a note that it 9 will be changed in a subsequent report or something.
10 There's certainly an appropriate way to handle it. I don't 11 know.
12 Q When they dropped the violation like they did in r%
(_) 13 this report, does that mean it's not even mentioned 14 anymore, just like it was never -- ,
15 .A I think that's correct. And I'd have to --
16 therein lies part of the problem. It doesn't really 17 exactly represent what he found to begin with.
18 Q That's correct.
19 A Even though he was in error. Hey, if we're in 20 error, we have mechanisms to correct that.
21 Q Well -- .
22 A Inspector's going to be human, he's going to make 23 some errors.
24 Q I guess that the point I'm driving at there. If 25 you're going to drop a violation, why don't you record the
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
r V b 112 1 fact that a violation was initially noticed, that three 2 months after the fact, the licensee came back with evidence 3 to refute the violation therefore it's being dropped, why 4 doesn't that stay in the report? Why is all reference 5 deleted? .
6 A I don't know the answer to that question.
7 Q I guess the next' logical question is: If you 8 delete all reference to the violation, what happens if the 9 same thing happens five or six times in a row where you go 10 out and find numbers missing, then two or three months down 11 the road, the numbers appear; how do you -- how are you 12 able to track something like this?
13 What happens if this becomes a pattern where, you 14 know,'all of a sudden these numbers appear and this doesn't 15 happen once, it's happens four or five times, but every 16 time you just drop it from the report, this is some 17 information that, you know, may be significant but there's 18 know record of it kept.
19 A Well, it's significant from the standpoint that 20 for some reason, during the inspection and after, the 21 utility's representatives are unable to respond to an
'- 22 apparent violation what appears to be a violation for a ># -
v y 23 long period of time, which may indicate you've got a 24 problem with the guys following up.
25 Q It can -- right, there could be several things it TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
a
%' ks 1 could mean.
I 2 A could be a lots of things. '
3 Q It could mean that and it could also mean if you 4 miss it once, the inspectors missed it.
5 A leah.
'6 Q If you miss it twice, maybe the NRC's inspectars 7 miss it twice, but if you miss it five or six times, it 8 could mean something else, it could be like you earlier 9 indicated, it could be added. But how.would you ever be 10 able to track something like this if every time it gets 11 deleted, all reference gets knocked out of the report? You 12 just don't have a record of it any more.
l ( I' 13 A That's correct. And as I look back at this 14 particular item here, you can look at it on Page 17, it 15 willogo from what looks like a violation as described in l
16 the 766 and as you know, of course, they don't appear up in 17 the front again because they were dropped, okay.
18 okay, as you see here, we're -- in the violation 19 we're referring to, spool piece 301, and the specific 20 drawing number, and it had not been marked and so forth and 21 when you go over to the report on that particular spool 22 number, Page 17, Paragraph B, do you see anything that 1
23 mentions that, that it was ever a violation or there was --
24 Q No, no indication of that at all.
25 A See that's the problem that I'm having with the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
e- r b "
114 way the whole report was handled. Even if the managers'and 1
2 e supervisors were a hundred percent right, the pro (.ess b 3 of he way it was handled is totally inappropriate. b -
4 And then this next violation that was dropped ,
5 where it says 10 CFR Appendix s, criterion 17, and articles l 6 N3 21.30 and MA 3767.4 of ASME section 3, '74 Edition and
'- .N. .q . . .n 7 Mr. \-- excuse' me, Mr says ' Contrary to these l
A 8 requirements, certified material test reports were not 9 available for the'22 degree elbow, 10 inch 45 degree nomsle l 10 and three thermal weld bosses which were a part of the loop
- 11 three fd coal lyg e p be assembly." ,
12 if you look at -- I think if you will look at
) 13 this, we'll find again that it was dropped out.
14 ,
. Now, you know, I don't even know who dropped it o
15 out,\e-. or whatever; it gets to the point to where you 4v 16 have - you are pressuring the inspectors 'and th'ey're ,
17 reacting, he may have dropped it o~ut himself.
18 I mean that's the whole point. He may have 19 marked it out himself, he may have told me to mark it out.
20 And I can't really recall what the circumstances are.
21 We saw this report so many times, and we were 22 told to do certain things to the report, that was not a 23 violation and to get wit!h the utility, and things went 24 away. It puts the inspector in such a bind that he has 25 written up a violation, suddenly that for some reason or
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 een.isee
115 i
1 another, the information shows up and if he maintains that 2 he wants to keep it in the report, he can be made to look 3 stupid and so he may elect to take it out of the report.
r! . 'n f 4 You'll have to ask Mr. ' 'that. I don't 5 know. I may have asked him what he wanted to do, he may 6 have said take it out. I think he is the, proper guy to say 7 what the story was there and not me. I can only say that 8 the process was perverted. And that's -- let's see.
9 0 Could anybody consider the violations that were 10 dropped out to be too insignificant to be in the report, would that be a reasonable?
11 12 A These violations?
%f 13 0 Yes.
14 A' some of these violations, as far ag I's 15 concerned, the ones of the vessel installation violations, 16 I felt very strongly about. I told Mr. Weste'eman he would o 17 not ever get me to agree to the concept that he was 18 advocating that a traveler is the same thing as a 19 procedure, although there is 'a procedure that tells you l
{
l 20 what to do with a traveler.
21 A traveler is a cryptic instruction on steps to j l
22 be marked off, silestones, if you will. It usually is not l l
23 viewed as a in-depth description of how you do something. !
' A procedure is usually viewed as that document.
24
_- s 25 And Mr. of course did not find any 2175 REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
~~~.-^ .-
\
116 1 procedures described in the installation of the vessel.
~
2 That was one of the problems. And when he looked at the 3 traveler which is'an uncontrolled doevnent, if you please, 4 I mean usually a procedure has to have review and approval 5 under criterion 6 document control, every time you change 6 something significant. ,
7 Therefore, the original design engineers or the 8 construction engineers or whoever, whoever had the 9 knowledge and know why they develop something in a 10 procedure and had a certain reason for it being there, 11 whether it's the directions on how to do something or the 12- tolerance, they have to go back and reconsider whether it's
,\ 13 okay to change that. And if that change is okay, fine.
14 sow does it impact something else?
15 And it could be that the change makes no 16 difference. But the process is set up, there is a process,
~
- 17 (,contro feess set up, whereby you can make changes, 18 engineering changes to things like that, or if it's a 19 non-conformance, you can disposition it and say, "okay ,
20 that's fine.' But despite that, there's no problem. And 21 nothing else is impacted.
22 But when you have a traveler with, if I 23 understand what Mr. "~"
r 7 problem was, when it didn't L._ _
24 meet the tolerance, they can just have someone just change 25 the tolerance.
EkTE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l l (' v ,g i Now, where did this design criteria come from?
2 It came from westinghouse. And when you go say where is 3 your procedure, "Oh, well, we used the Westinghouse 4 criteria or guidance, they have a little guidance manual, ,
f 5 to set the vessel."
l 6 well, why don't you have a procedure that tells l
7 you how to do it or better yet if you wrint to just put a 8 cover letter on it, this is our procedure, the Westinghouse 9 guidedance is the procedure. And any time that you deviate 10 f rom it, you're going to have to get review and approval of 11 somebody to say it's okay, at least the field construction
'12 engineers and perhaps westinghouse. But a' traveler doesn't r- >
require that, usually, and this was Mr.
l c 13 probles 14 with changing design criteria tolerances on a traveler.
15 And t say it's a highly significant violation.
16 (Brief Recess.)
= 17 0 (By Mr. Mulley) There's one comment that I would 18 like to make about the signatures on reports 85-07/05, the 19 signature blocks reference an ites 19 on the report; 20 however when we go through the report, we see that there is 21 no section 19. Now do you explain that?
22 A well, the only way I can explain that is that m %
23 *Mr. Cummins and I either signed Mr. Eunnicutt, Mr.;n ,
24 the report er it was signed for as before that paragraph 25 was dropped, because that paragraph was in there.
\
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
= . . . -. ..
/ 4 *%
118 1 Q So the cover sheet on this report that was signed 2 by you and Mr. Hunnicutt on October the 1st,and 2nd of 3 1985, does not necessarily reflect the report that actually 4 left the Region?
5 A No, that's r',ght.
6 Q Additionally, I notice that you circled in red on 7 page two a sentence under the inspection summary which 8 talks about the status and review of violation and 9 unresolved items status and you circled that in red. Why 10 is that circled?
11 A Well, that's circled because that particular 12 phrase refers to the trend analysis that was dropped. That 13 was either -- probably paragraph 18. That was dropped.
14 Q Okay. So that does show to a certain extent that 15 alterations have been made in the report?
16 A Ch, yes. You mean after the signature -- final
. 17 signature was made, too.
18 Q Right.
19 A Yes, uh-huh.
20 Q Okay. Let's go on now to your next concern.
21 A The next concern that I have deals with the same 22 report, we're still discussing the same report, but it's 23 the Exhibit No. 5, and I believe it relates to Exhibit No.
24 3, which we have already discussed, the accuracy of the 766 1
25 reporting --
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
s- -
( j 119 1 1 Q Yes. !
2 A -- inspections before. When I got 85-07/05, I 3 don't really know who was responsible for filling out the 4 766 data. But in recent tracking, I have to record a 5 percentages complete and when I started trying to close out 6 the particular modules or inspection procedures that 4
7 reported -- that were reported in that 766, I found some 8 real inaccuracies in these -- excuse me, in this report, 9 the 7f6 report.
10 And a lot of the procedures that were -- that had 11 time charged against them, for example like 92702, which 12 covers non-compliances, that's a module that you would e, 13 charge against if you were following up on violations or 14 non-compliances, under previously identified items, if you 15 look,at the report, section -- look under previously 16 identified items and see if you see any violations that
.- 17 were followed up on. If you will note here it says close;[d 18 unresolved item.
19 Q Right.
20 A And keep going all the way down, A, B, C, D, all 21 the way to the end only talk about follow up on what, 22 unresolved items, right?
23 Q That's correct.
24 A Okay. Well see, you charged that to 92701, AJ /
/ -
c- 25 that's follow up on unresolved items. Andyet,stillifyou*t['
TATE REFORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
/ c.
120 1 look at the 766, which is attached --
2 Q What did they charge it to? -
3 A Well, 701 and 702 but there was no follow up on ,
4 702.
5 Q And 702 once again being --
6 A rollow up on violations.
7 Q On violations, okay. Now what is the 8 significance of the 766's?
9 A Again, it's the reporting of the completion of 10 inspection procedures.
11 Q Yes. But --
12 A And the completion of the inspection program so
, 13 that you can go to the' licensing hearings and say that the 14 NRC has done their inspection job that it's ready to 15 license.
16 Q so this becomes a record that could be shown o 17 before che proceedings --
18 A Yes.
19 Q -- to show the effort that the NRC put forth at a 20 certain plant --
21 A Yes.
22 0 -- towards licensing?
23 A Yes.
24 Q So the accuracy of these things, it's more than a 25 housekeeping, a housekeeping document, and it does have TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
m ,
- w
. 121 1 some bearing --
1 2 A Yes.
3 Q -- to show the completeness of the NRC's 4 inspection efforts --
5 A Yes.
6 Q -- and enforcement effort? Okay.
7 A okay. If you notice them, if you go all the way l
8 down through here, we won't go through all the examples, 9 but 48056, 48064 and 48066, according to my. records, I had 10 kicked these back to about ten percent complete because I 11 hadn't seen evidence that they were -- that they were 12 completed in previous inspection reports.
% ,' 13 But in this report, they were closed out at a 14 hundred percent. Yet, the report does not document any 15 inspection of structural steel supports outside of 16 containment. There's some structural steel inside 17 containment but this is a different module. And all of 18 those that I had at ten percent suddenly went to a hundred 19 percent without my knowledge.
l 20 Q And no inspections that you know about to close 21 it out? i
)
22 A Well, read in the inspection -- look in the 23 inspection report and see if you see anything that says 1
24 structural steel outside.
25 Q so you are saying that before this report --
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
_--______..--_-__.__N
4 122 1 A Containment --
2 Q -- those things were listed at ten percent?
3 A Yes.
4 Q After this report, they were closed out at a 5 hundred percent?
6 A aut were not reported in other reports.
7 Q But there's nothing in the report to make any 8 changes? -
.9 A That's right.
10 Q So then somebody later on, looking at these ,
j 11 modules to see if these modules have been done, they' re-12 going to get the impression that they've been closed out at
. ,f 13 a hundred percent based on this report and if they were not 14 to go back to this report, they'd be misled?
15 .A That's correct.
16 Q They would think the module was done when in fact
- 17 it wasn't done?
18 A If I were not the project inspector and know what 19 it takes to close it out, you might be able to pull that 20 over on me. But I know in looking at the report that you l
21 can't go from ten percent to a hundred percent on that and j 22 not report it in there.
23 Even if you advocate that you did it under 24 independent inspection, which is 92706, you would still 25 have to document it to.the degree under independent TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I
%M . g5
,- s
- ~
123 1 inspection. That's what that is, it allows you to look at 2 any module, 92706 does, you still have to document it to 3 the extent at least that you mention in it the report.
4 Q It has to be in the report, right? .
5 A Yeah.
6 Q If you do an independent inspection, it has to be 7 a documentation of it, an independent inspection in an 8 inspection report someplace.
9 A Yeah.
10 Q Is that correct?
11 A That's the way I see it.
12 Q But in these specific references, they're
) 13 specifically referencing this report, 85-07/05, and using 14 this report as the basis for closing out the structural 15 steel --
16 A Right.
17 Q -- modules --
18 A Right.
19 Q -- 56 and 647 20 A okay, all these paragraphs here, you see I have 21 question marks besides the ones where there's nothing in 22 the report, paragraphs, but go to paragraph twelve of the 23 report, for example, and read what it says.
24 Q " Reactor pressure vessel and internals 25 installation, Unit 2."
~ _ _ _.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
m .
' ' 124 1 A And what does the bottom line that he says, 2 doesn't he say he can't look at it because it's already 3 been done?
4 It's not possible to observe the work because the 5 vessel was closed up and tou couldn't see the internals.
6 You want me to find it far you?
7 Q Yes.
8 A okay. I'll have to go down.
9 ok&y, if you look at paragraph twelve, C, it 10 states under " Visual inspection; at this time, visual 11 inspection of the internals by the NRC inspector was not 12 possible. An inspection was limited on the vessel e, .
13 placement to a walk-around beneath the vessel to inspect 14 the azauth markings and for construction debris between the 15 vessel and the cavity. No problems where identified in 16 this area."
. 17 so it indicates, does that read to you that they 18 were not able to look at the inspection of internals.
19 Q That's correct, that's what it says.
20 A Okay. If you will look at the 766 which -- for
..m ~
I 21 that(model which is 50063.
22 We'll have to go --
23 Q Okay. The 766 indicates one hundred percent 24 complete, with 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br />, staff hours, expended. Is that l 25 correct? Is that what it says?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
g-. , . . ,
% ..)
125 1 A Yes, thats correct.
2 Q And the report -- now the report indicates that 3 only visual --
4 A That no visual. .
5 Q -- inspection was done only of the vessel 6 placement, was limited to a walk around beneath the vessel 7 to inspect the asauth markings. And construction pre --
8 A There's two different subjects here. There's --
9 the placement is talking about the installation.
10 Q Right.
11 A And the internals, where they put the inside guts-12 of the reactor inside is a different animal. And he's
_} 13 saying in that paragraph that he could not look at the 14 internals because the vessel was all closed up, all the 15 internals were inside and the lid was on.
16 Q okay. He's using this report as a basis of 17 closing out the internals?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q 637 20 A That's correct.
21 Q What was the percentage before this, do you know?
22 A Well, I need to'see the Exhibit 3. And I' don't 23 have a status sheet with me. Well, in looking at Exhibit' 24 3, which is not my latest status, I really can't determine 25 what the percentage completion was when this inspection was TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
,~ ,,
k %
126 ,
I done. I'd have to have my records from site.
2 But it looks like that what the comments are 3 saying on Exhibit 3 is that a hundred percent had been 4 claimed before, but over here on the right hand side, it 5 shows that probably should have been shown about 50 percent ..
6 complete.
7 So if that's true, it should have been about 50 8 percent complete. Either way there's an error. If it's 50 L 9 percent complete, there's no.way you couid have closed out 10 with no inspection, No. 1.
11 Q That's correct.
I 12 A Except by inspecting it that is. And if it was
,1 13 already completed and you attsapted to look at it, the 766 14 data manual tells you that you can look at something that's 15 already a hundred percent if it is, but you're supposed to l
16 have a designator and I believe the designator is "P,"
17 which means reopen for this transaction only, which 18 indicates that you looked at something that was a hundred 19 percent, but even though it was a hundred percent, you just 20 looked at it briefly for this transaction and it 21 automatically closes again at a hundred percent. Now, even 22 so, how you would spend 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> looking at something that 23 you didn't inspect would be open to question.
24 Q Who prepares these 766's?
25 A ordinarily, the project inspector, whoever is TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- . . + . .
t- i ,...
127 1 prime on the report. But I don't know who did this one.
2- O You did not prepare these?
3 A I did not prepare that.
4 And again, I'd like to say that you're going to ,
I 5 find some errors in these things and you're going to find (
6 some times when a guy has to guess a little bit at the 7 percentage complete or whatever. .
8 But I mean, you know, there's a limit that I see 9 that you should go, where you're getting so far away from 10 accuracy that you better find out a little more of the 11 details in filling one of these things out if you don't' 12 know exactly. And that may mean that you have to go to 13 each one of the inspectors.
-- 14 What I'd do I would J4'go each one of the dEs s 15 inspectors and say, "I want to know the" time you spent on 16 each module and the percent complete you consider and in
'17 the report, I would like the line items to be mentioned, 18 that does not mean describe them in detail for every little 19 thing you did but at least mention the subject part so that 20 I'll know you looked at it." And so, I want to make that 21 clear.
22 I don't.know how.many of these examples you want 23 to go through.
24 Q Well --
25 A There are several more that are similar to it, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- O w nen
128 1 like 50076, which was I considered about ten percont 2 complete, and then it went to a hundred percent complete.
3 Well, I don't think any percent complete should have 4 been -- any increase in percent complete should have shown 5 up.
6 Q What does 76 deal with?
7 A That's safety related mechanical components, 8 50076.
9 Q And you are saying there was nothing in this 10 report that --
11 A well, look through there and see if you see 12 anythi'ng entitled " Safety Related Components."
( .' 13 Q No, I don't.
14 A So ,there were crediting 90 percent of a module.
15 .Q Based on no documentation in the report.
16 A And I'm sorry to say that I signed off on this 17 report, but I didn't see the 766.
18 Q Okay.
19 A But, I would say that, you know, some time could 20 have been charged against this module because we frequently 21 look at the storage of components over and over and over 22 again.
23 But you don't, once you have completed that 24 particular line ites, if it amounts to ten percent of the 1
25 inspection requirement that you have, you don't keep f l
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 j
}
l
r-L 129 1 charging percent complete every time you look at it, you 2 just charge' time because they may continue to store it and 3 you want to continue to see that it's stored properly.
4 Q You are reinspecting the same thing?
5 A It could be valid that a guy would look at 50076 6 and put two hours against it, and charge zero percent 7 complete, or no increase in percentage complete.
8 Q Because he's just reinspected, that's all?
9 A Yeah, and that could be done during independent 10 inspection which is module 92076. But in this case, where 11 you go from ten percent complete to a hundred percent 12 complete, you can see that that would not be correct.
1 V
_c 13 0 okay.
14 A okay. If you go to structural steel wel, ding 15 outside of containment, 55064, 66, 65, there was no 16 structural steel welding outside of containment; there was o 17 some -- perhaps some welding inside containment; I'd have 18 to look at the paragraphs, but certainly I didn't see any 19 outside.
20 Q okay.
21 A And this goes on and on. Then there were 22 certain -- if you look down here, I have listed here what 23 things should have been charged against and I have not 24 resolved this issue because I really haven't -- I really 25 haven't brought it up to.anyone yet since I just found it.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i m _. . .
(_' f, 130 1 But when I was preparing for-this review we're 2 having, you see the modules here that would have been --
3 appropriately, the ones that should have been charged time 4 against. But since I was not the project inspector on this 5 report, and I didn't get any cf the inputs and I don't know l
6 how much time any of the inspectors, I couldn't say how l
7 many hours they spent or the percentage complete until each 8 inspector who inspected in these areas would give me an ]l 9 input.
10 And you see the ones here that are marked the 11 modules that should have been appropriately charged 12
~
against, these are modules that didn't show up here at all; y 13 -like 92704, I believe that's inspection at the request of 14 Region and 92705 is inspection at the request of 15 headquarters.
16 And then 51053 and 63, you can read in the first 17 part of this report and you'll see that I inspected some 18 electrical components and so forth that were in storage.
C'~ _-.
19 But yet still no time was charged against it. ^Ns-20 So as you can see, no one -- for some reason, no 21 one asked for a 766 on this. I don't understand what 22 happened. I really can't even recall, it's been so long.
23 But needless to say this is an example of where reporting 24 needs to be more accurate.
25 0 I'm going to mark this sheet as Exhibit No. 5.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l
\
b.
,/' 131 l I
1 Let me ask you very briefly, going back to j
)
2 Exhibit 4, on the cover letter to inspection 85-07/05, you I I
3 talk about inspection of truck mixer blades. And I see j i
4 that you have this circled in red. What was the. purpose of )
5 your comment on that?
6 A I would like to refer you to Exhibit Number 6 on 7 this particular item.
8 Q Okay.
. 9 A This is a memo that I wrote for file and it's 10 dated December the 4th, 1985. I wrote this memo after a O'h A/ /
11 Novembef,IbelieveANovember27th,ist,hatwhatitsays, c.
12 Novencer 27th, 1985 meeting with Mr. Tom Westerman.
13 Up until this time, I really hadn't felt harassed 14 or anything, I guess you would say; there had been some 10 difficulties on reports but -- in discussions we had had.
16 But by - by the time this meeting ended, I was beginning 17 to feel very very uncomfortable and pressured.
18 I had had -- by this time, I had experienced 29 difficulties on two other inspection reports for which I 20 waso--rI J.
had M become responsible , Q we had strongly disagreed 21 on the october report, 85-1d/11, because Mr. Westerman did 22 not agree with Mr. Thomas Young's findings, which I agreed 23 with.
24 And Mr. Young h.d submitted these findings to me 25 written up in the form of violations as he was familiar l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1
- c. p 132 -
I with the NRC violation format. I incorporated these 2 violations into the. inspection report because I agreed with n
3 them. Again, they weren't my findings. -
4 We were also having differences of opinion of .
> .,,- .n. . " . . . .' c : - '
5 writing up findings,that were identified by ".*. Joseph 6 McClosky. Mr. McCLesky does not have a QA/QC background 7 but,is an engineerp' 4W Y 'id not submit his findings as ged 1
8 violations.
9 Bo* aver, when I evaluated the findings, they 10 appeared to be violations to me. Both of these individuals 11 are NRC' consultants with many years of experience at 1.2 nuclear sites all over the country. And I can submit their r-i m 13 resumes, if you would like to see those, as evidence of 14 their background in the nuclear industry and their 15 expertise.
16 4 ' okay. Maybe we shouldn't have their resumes 17 submitte'd. I can review them later. Do it that way.
18 A okay.
I 19 0 okay.
20 A okay, in this case, I began being pressured to 21 take care of findings on an informal basis, with both the 22 report 85-14/11 and 85-16/13, which is the october November 23 report, but now I'm beginning to detect some veiled threats 24 during meetings with Mr. Westerman.
25 Mr. Young was in the next room of the trailer of l j
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
..x -. --- .-
(7
(' 133 1 sy office and overheard many of these conversations and I 2 was reasonably embarrassed by M't. Westerman's comments.
3 Mr. Ian Barnes who is Mr. Westerman's assistant has also 4 been involved with the changes to.the reports however, 5 nr. Westerman is the one who has been primarily interfacing 6 with me.
7 So I really don't now what exactly Mr. Barnes' 8 role in the changing of the reportti fie, because 9 Mr. Westerman is the one who has been interfacing with me.
10 0 What type of threats did Mr. Westerman make?
11 A If.I could, I'd like to go ahead and develop this ,
12* all the way thraugh and I think it will be apparent to you
. 13 by the time I bring it out because the sequence of events, 14 I think will bring that out.
15 Q okay. .
16 A As I previously stated on the 85-07 and 05, we
'7 1 had met on the ASME 3 code Assues. And I did, I agreed 18 with Mr.ysteryn and Mr. Barnes on this issue and went h Int d e't N! $**fS" 19 backwitb'respec'tto$therequiredcodeandtheadondafor 3
U 20 classone,tptyouhavetohavethatnaileddown.
21 sut for class two and class three, you know, it's 22 not so clear. T" - , I think it's the year of the 23 purchase order that they're committed tre.
- 24 Therewaranothercode[ issue [thatIpretty 25 auch stayed neutral on and that was the hydro issue. I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
! /
F ; 134 'l
(- v >
1 came back to the timiler and told Mr. G / # hat I agreed
't ,,
- 2 with histon this particular issue. And he wCs still .,
- \
3 uncomfortable, so I called,ths.LRC, code expstt in,i, .,
{
4 headquarters, Mr. Robert h,iasnick, and another engineer; I 1
~
5 don't recall his name right off, and we talked on the 6 squawk box in my trailer. .
7 se agreed with me, Barnes and Mr. Westerman with
- e. - .~
8 respect to the or e . 50.55(a) issue and therefore Nr.{
" ~
9 voluntarily _changth this finding, although I s?ill think it 10 might have been better to not have been altering tho' report 11 at this stage. , ,
- 12. It's common to have a clear A it's common to )
I 13 elear unresolve4 itets in'a subseqbent report. You write l 14 something up and it goes away in the next repert so that's really no big deal. l
~
15 l
16 so I didn't eudersteynd why it was such a press to i
17 try to correct an unreso%ved item. Those things come up
=
18 and go aver in subsequent reports all the time. So that's
- 1 19 not a basis for ,getting > co involved in the report. j 20 During the headga.srcers call on the components l 21 bought, to what year and so foLth, he said thht the NRC
$. c'.
22 staf f had issued a letter' to TUGC0 and they obviously had 23 some kind of concern because they asked T(CCo to give the 24 staf f a list. Jf components ax4 so forth, what they were 25 built to, the year, a'pplinolo ' cede, et cetera, he
.. ... . j 1
TATE REPORTING SERVICA, (713) 222-71'!7
a <
m - ,.
T.. L -
135 1 suggested va track down this letter. We did. We contacted t
2 Mr. Welch at TUGeo and he promised Mr. the list of 3 thJse items.
4 And just recently when this 85-07 was 5 resurrected, we suddenly recalled that Mr. Welch had made a .
6 conmitment way back in september, october, to get this
.e .
7 ,
information to Mr. , ]andyetstilltherewasno I 8 r$sponse from TUGCo, period, f I
9 And so I got on the tel,ephone and contacted !
10 Mr. Welch again during the week of March 10th through 14th .,
ti and, asked his did he recall committing to get the list and
. . i 12 he said, yes, he did. And I said; 'n' ell, where is it?"
]
13 Es said, 'well, he didn't have it but he'd get it
'14 the ne$t day.
15 . So he called TUGco Licensing who were handling 16 this issue, and then the next day he called back and told 17 us that TUGC0 had decided that they were not going to give 18 a list with respect to the components and what code and 19 adonda they were purchased to. So we're not sure where i
20 that issue is right now. l
~
21 In addition, during the time we were talking 9
22 about the code issues, I know for a fact that Mr. C I 23 brought up an issue that one of the TUGCo guys said " Hey, cA W
- 24 that's not right" with respect to retro-coolant pressure h
25 boundary gre the FSAR was stating a certain code and TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 322-7177
s C~ 136 1 adhndaandtherewasaconflictintheFSAR.
2 And subsequently, we've seen an FSAR change in 3 this particular area. So there's another area where he's 4 being asked to drop things that apparently they thought was 5 enough of a problem they went back and changed their FSAR 6 to be in concert. Okay.
7 To get back to your question, I had asked that 8 TUGC0 s4" respond to the violation concerning concrete mixer 9 blades where, for seven or eight years, the bladen were 10 used in mixing concrete, and they had not been inspected to 11 see that the blades were properly maintained as required by 12 their own Brown & Root procedure.
13 Mr. Westerman advised me that I was not going to 14 require a response to this violation, and I disagreed with 15 that and I stated that even if there's no hardware problem, 16 there's an obvious Q'A/QC problem that should have been 17 addressed by vitrue.of the fact they have haven't 18 documented inspection of mixer blades for seven, eight, I
19 nine years, I don't remember. l l
20 It was a long period of time, ever sdnce they've 21 been mixing concrete. So even over my objection, and )
I 22 disagreement, he went ahead and changed the findings to no 23 response, i
l 24 Now, that means that they don't have to look into 25 the issue and find out what the cause of the problem was, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
'~
- =-- := _._
1
. . _ _ . . - - _. ~ ~ ~ - - - ,
sf ...
137 1 nor to preclude repetition.
2 All right. You might say, "Well, concrete's 3 already done, it's over. " h *E / l'a 4 6
- O w 4
se {<. % n ( Hf~-l % ce< bt & H y ft ww K .
Well, QA/QC procedures cover a lot more than 1 5
sW concrete and if they have other inspection / procedures that h
6 are not being documented, they wouldn't find it unless they 7 went back and maybe had somebody in quality assurance to 8 review their other procedures to see if they have similar 9 circumstances. -
10 And so therefore, I thought it was important that 11 it should be responded to; even though I didn't think there 12 was a hardware problem.
(i 13 MR. MULLEY: Why don't we stop right here.
14 (Brief recess.)
15 MR. MULLEY: Okay, back on the record.
16 A (continued) In addition, with respect to the 17 mixer blades, I discussed the fact that the problem was O
18 that they had not documented inspections and I didn't know 19 whether they'd inspected the blades or not. And Mr.
20 Westerman said, "Well, the man told you that he inspected 21 the blades. Didn't you take his word for it?" And I said 22 no, that's not a proper way to audit.
23 Q And the requirement is to have inspection 24 records? ,
~
25 A Right. He said that they were l_m ___l J _.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
_________.______________---_w
( ( 138 1 not supposed to have inspection records for this item. And 2 I say that 10 CFR 50', Appendix B, Criterion 10 and 17, 3 require that inspections be documented.
4 Q So as a result of the comment on the letter, the 5 February the 3rd 1986 letter to TUGCO, concerning the truck 6 mixer blades, there-was no response to that violation 'i.,
7 required?
8 A That's right.
9 Now, at this particular time, I became aware that -
10 Mr. Westerman had gone to Region IV management and had 11 gained their confidence and support and now he. started
', p..:
- i. <. .., ..
12 telling me that in November, that really my findings,were l 13 not violations anyway, that'neither of them were. .And I 14 said, "Well, then why did you not -- why didn't you change 15 those?"
16 And he didn't give me an answer. He said, "Well, 17 I didn't think they were violations. But I didn't change 18 them."
19 Q And these are on inspection reports?
20 A It's on the inspection report 85-07. That's what 21 we're talking about in this general documentation of the l 22 meeting that we had. I 23 Q Right.
24 A He told me that he didn't like my reports because 25 they were written like Region III and I told him that they TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
1
~,.
l l l I
s,
(( 139 1 should be that way because that's where I learned to 2 inspect and document inspections d reports.
3 Itappearstomethatbasedonaiotofthe 4 comments that I've heard, that Region IV management doesn't 5 like a number of Region III people, starting back with 6 Nr. D.W. Bays who was the STP investigation leader, J.
7 Earrison who was recently Waterford 3 task force, I've 8 heard very disparaging remarks about, and Mr. Eerb 9 Livermore, the comanche Peak technical review team leader.
n- ~,
10 M r ., _
who was the former comanche Peak follow 11 up chief.
12 And I guess probably they disliked me most of all i
. 13 because I won't go away, I'm still in Region IV, I'm still -i 1
- esoff h W, 14 a thorn in their flesh. Atleasttheseothe(rguyphtheydi. ,,j 15 left and went back to Region III. Th:t, ;[ f;; :: y .
16 I;;;;et;f, that ends my comments on that particular exhibit.
17 But by this time, I home realized that he's going 18 back to Region IV and lining up management to say that I'm
& J 19 a troublemaker, i:: :iify, I was beginning to get that 20 idea.
21 And this was the first time I doensented a meno 22 to file. If you notice, I had my secretary initial the top 23 of it. I did not let her read it, but I had her initial it 24 to authenticate the date when I began to perceive that 25 something more was going.on than just differences of TATE REPORTING Sr.RVICE, (713) 222-7177
U 140 1 opinion over an inspection report. Okay.
2 Exhibit Number 7, if I could direct your 3 attention to this, is two menos for the file of a meeting I 4 had with Mr. Vince Noonan and subsequent telephone 5 conversations somewhere around February the.25th, 1986. I
- w. W 6 had asked for a meeting on had become aware that Mr.{~ d c. %
7 85-07/05 withMessrs. Johnson,Westermanandf No e-8 one contacted me to come to the meeting so I was not 9 present.
10 I don't know when the reason n: M..t. they didn't 11 contact me, except perhaps maybe I disagreed with the 12
, report changes and that Mess wouldr sjust J 4 be N4 one more party m 44u'gh% a who/ dya,s
' 13 would have disagreed with '- "-'- a- f- - =M . ~'
wks W n% A sold w, tt 'l&v . e ri) o Q m ap f,l' ,, f, 14 .
I later learned that Mr. Ian Barnes h was 15 there[nthismeetingrIunderstandthatthedifferences 16 := - fiff;;;:::= regarding changes of the reports were 17 discussed.
- w m m 18 nessrs, and in feedback 19 conversations later told me when I asked about the meeting 20 because I was involved with the report d that Mr. Eric 21 Johnson directed Mr C ,5 to destroy his draft reports 22 when he found out he had them, even though there were 23 significant differences on them.
24 0 Is that the normal Region IV policy to destroy 25 draf t reports; is there any guidance put out on that?
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
0 0 141 1 A Well, there is guidance put out on it. I think
(
2.. it's improper to ask people to destroy reports when it's 3 very evident that they have great differences over the 4 findings being dropped as we have previously discussed. I 5 sean, that's like saying, " Destroy the evidence that you 6 guys /everhadadifferencewiththereport, ever."
7 And I don't know that there is any guidance with 8 respect to that. There is a Region policy guide that
'- 9 states when you hold on to a draft, it tells'yhat
_ v youlto s
[
10 do. {
11 Q okay. So there is provision for keeping draft 12 reports, if you want them?
(.- 13 A Uh-huh. ,
14 Qi Okay.
15 A But what you have to do, you have to put notes on l
16 it, and state the reason that you're keeping it and send.it j i
17 to the file room through your supervisor.
, l 18 okay. After I heard about this meeting, I 19 decidided on March the 5th that it appears to me that I 20 needed to talk to someone to at least ask some advice on l 21 what to do about destroying drafts because I'd been 22 directed to destroy all my drafts. And so in relation to 1#
~ 2 3 85-0,8, I began to ask myself, "What am I going to do when I 24 come up to having to destroy 85-14/11 and 85-16/13." l 25 And it also started occurring to me that the NRC TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
t- 142 k b 1 at the hearing process would be in extreme difficulty if 2 all the inspectors remained quiet on this issue but are I 3 asked under oath, "Have you ever been told tio destroy 4 reports which evidence differences of opinion or have you I 5 been told to drop violations out of the reports and make 6 them go away or make them unresolved issues," and the
& J
% 7 obvious answer of three inspectorsg think that I know/ to .
8 be truthful, would be, 'Yes, I was told to destroy drafts 9 of any evidence of the fact that I had a difference of
~
10 opinion on'this violation being dropped out of here, and I 11 had differences of opinion from the standpoint of technical 12 and QA differences."
. 13 so I went to the actel to tell him about this and 14 the fact that -- at least mention the three people 15 involved, and state that they had had very strong feelings 16 about Mr. Westerman and apparently others in the Region 17 directing the destruction of such drafts and getting 18 involved with the reports that they had nothing whatsoever 19 to do with to direct changes, and I'm talking about changes 20 downward from violations to make things go totally away or i
21 to go to unresolved items. I 22 It also sort of bothered me that this seemed to 23 be this - this practice seemed to be in line with what r- -
24 Mr .j lmenosaid,thatthingsmayhavebeenhandled j N ./ CV 25 on an informal basisj by unresolved items and I'm really not TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l l
~~
'_'; g43 1 in favor of that kind of inspection process.
I 2 I also talked to Mr. Noonan and told him that 3 something needed to be done on this, beca'use you can figure 4 if there are that many people involved, five or six people 5 involved, they're going to talk to five or six more people 6 who are going to talk to five or six more people and pretty 7 soon you don't have aeven people that know this, you're ,
l' 8 going to have 50, 60 or 70 people that know this.
9 Q Right. ~
10 A And there's no way that they're going to keep a 1 11 lid on this, and if this issue comes up at the hearings, 12 with the -- I don't know what you'd call it, the network .
(- 13 that some of the Interveners have of finding information, C 14 kfindingestinformation. I'd be totally amazed if they Wd 15 didn't find out it.
y A/d A.-
16 When I pointed out that, you know,gt didn't know 17 too many things that could be auch more serious then.-
M o a.
perhapsAcaushes the utility not to get a license t.p.Lw 18
.... a 19 hows three inspectors get up and say that the inspection 20 process has been compromised e agreed that it was a 21 very, very serious issue and stated that he would call CIA 22 to look into it. And he asked me to contact at least the 23 two individuals that I knew to ask them to contact him, e-- m 24 Mr. and Mr. Norman.
25 And also, one of the consultants who had a I
I TATS maromfruo stavIcs, (713) 222-7177
U 144 1 problem, who told me that he had a problem witn the way one 2 of the allegations that was handled which I'll cover later.
3 Well, after this, I felt considerably better.
4 By the way, I asked him what to do about the 5 drafts and he said, "Well, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't destroy 6 them, you know."
7 And the reason we both agreed that you shouldn't-CW to 8 destroyfifsomebodyfeelsstrongenoughasasupervisorto to CLk A 4 Ped u A Q ut % if N a .g4v A. .p s t. d np/,
9 c::: 10. , I mean I was a supervisor before, and he felt and 10 I felt as a former supervisor that if somebody feels 11 strongly enough to make changes to inspection reports, that 12 they ought to be in a strong enough position and ethical h 13 enough to take the heat if it goes wrong because.after all, 14 they'reresponsibleformakingsuc$ significantchangIto 1 ,,
15 a report.
16 Therefore, it's improper to ask the inspector on 17 the one hand to make the changes to the report and then on 18 the other hand say, " Throw your documents away, throw your a.9 4. a 4T
- gtedr9 19 drafts away so there's no evidence 3 t h if At [oes wrong 20 lih re."
i 21 so I always operated on the philosophy when I 22 told an inspector who worked for me I was going to make a 23 change to the report, I don't care if .he kept 14 drafts
' because if I till him that I'm going to be responsible for 24 25 the change, that's exactly what I'm going to be.
TATE REPORTING SLRVICE, (713) 222-7177
l k ls 145 l
1 And if I screwed up, then he can bring his drafts j 2 forwa.rd and everybody can tell me I screwed up, because if 3 I don't know what I'm doing, I shouldn't be making those 4 changes or asking him to make significant changes to his 5 report that I won't stand behind.
6 And Mr. Noonan agreed with that philosophy.- And 4 7 said that therefore, you shouldn't destroy the drafts.
8 Q Yeah, especially in the case like this where the 9 person that's asking you to make the changes is not signing 10 the report at all.
11 A Well, I didn't even think about that at the time.
12 Then to my surprise, on Monday March the 10th, 13 1986, I received a call from Mr. Noonan that told me that 14 he had to cut Mr. R. Martin regional administrator back 15 into the picture on this thing, and turn the problem back 16 over to him. I don't know the reasoning for why he turned
. 17 it back over.
18 He said he would call him that afternoon and I'd 19 have to assume, I say assume because I was not privy to the 20 conversation, what the content of his conversation was, but 21 he obviously relayed the information to Mr. Martin that I 22 had relayed to h'im. I don't know whose name he used or
- 23 wha t t+re f a ct s zh- LD[7::: told t him.
24 But irregardless of this fact, we're talking now 25 in terms of March 10th when Mr. Noonan said he called TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
w
(,. .
(j 146 1 Mr. Martin. And then on March the lith, I learned that 2
Mr. Westerman was be'ing promoted to a branch chief and that' 1
3 M .j y 4
Now, it occurs to me that Mr. Westerman may be 5
totally innocent in all these affairs, and that's fine, 6 that's well and good. That's not my opinion, of course, or 7 I wouldn't be here.
8 But it just seems to se like that it seems very 9 imprudant for a promotion to go forward on a man who is now 10 being accused of, or allegations are ande that he is 11 pressuring people, harrassing them and trying to intimidate 12 them into changes, make inappropriate changes to the 13 reports.
- 14 And I just don't understand how they would go 15 t ee55* hn d forward with 'that3process until this problem was cleared 16 up. I really don't. It's totally amasing.
17 In fact, what it did to me, it told -- it sent me 18 a message that said we are rewarding the guy, we're not 19 checking it, we're going to reward him. And he was not W9kW 20 selected for thegposition on a merit basis, he was directed 21 into the assignment laterally, apparently, so you know 22 there was nothing'to keep them from directing him laterally 23 into the assignment two days later or two months later if 24 they want him there.
25 so that's one of the -- that's one of the reasons TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
() () 147 1 that I was -- I was very distraught over hearing this, 9
2 because it was sort of like incredible. And some of the ,
3 other people who are involved ir. this issue, when they 4 heard this, they totally were amazed also and they felt
-- 5 like nothing was going to be done py Region IV, period.
6 And I didn't know whether it would be or not, 7 either.
8 The other thing that I learned on the lith, March 9 the lith was the fact that after Mr. Noon,an had called 10 Region, ran you believe who was sent down to question the 11 inspectors as to why they had problems?
12 You guessed it, Mr. Westerman.
k 13 And that's incredible' step No. 2. I den't 14 understand that at all. Why do you send the guy who is 15 allegedly harrassing the people to get to the bottom of an 16 issue?
17 O what did he do when he came down?
18 A Exhibit Number 8 is my memo for file on my 19 meeting with Mr. Westerman.
20 Q This is dated -- meno for file dated Match 12th, 21 1986.
22 A Could I refer to that to refresh my memory on I
I 23 it?. !
24 Q Yes.
25 A Basically, on the 12th, I was called in about TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l l
/.
{' 148 1 .anothei matter, and but I already knew that he was going to 2 ask questions on this anyway, I just (idn't know when. l if ley e t h m 3 And then he got into did I have any technical 4 safety concerns regarding changing of report 85-07/05.
5 And I said, 'You are very familiar with the
~ m 6 concerns that we've had because Mr. and I have met 7 with you a large number of times and espressed our ,
8 technical differences on these reports.'
~9 And it appeared that he was trying to get me to A/n Tl 10 ee.km a letter of differing technical opinion or something 11 to that extent.
12 And I stated that I wasn't invited to the
- 13 meetings on this report. I would have stated my opinions 14 there just like I'll state -- I'll tell you what my i
15 differences are right now. <
16 . We've talked about them and talked about them,
.17 but I would have done it again. And I don't see any reason 18 why I should at this point in time write a letter of AI M 19 technical dissent that all the RegionAnows about. And so Q a.le kild %
20 I'm y4 not heing to do w that.'
pyw bg he /4r f d n p. w fe brq 'H%
21 Q Let me -- the problems that you are having with l l
22 Mr. Westerman, are they just technical differences or 23 differences of professional opinion, or you know, issues 24 like taking out violations from an inspection report, you 25 know, the example you gave of not requiring the licensee to TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 1.x _. .
V .)
149 1 respond to a violation, isn't that more than just a 2 technical differences?
3 A That's correct. That's the reason that I didn't ,
1 4 see any point in writing a letter of technical dissent.
5 Q Your viciations, the ones that you cited that 6 were taken out of the report, you had support for the 1
7 violation, you had a quote from the 10.CFR or the 8 appropriate licensee document to support your violation.
N 9 Is that correct? i 10 A ki%vuldes W Wrek % h' ' )
That'scorrecg(
11 Q so when Mr. Westerman asked that these cites be 12 removed from the inspection report, the position that he y 13 was taking was what?
14 A I guess be could do anything he wanted to.
15 'o sut he offered you no valid rationale for 16 deleting these things? -
17 A well, he offered some rationale. I'm not sure it 18 was valid. I didn't.think it was valid.
19 Obviously, two other supervisors and three 20 inspectors were involved in the inspection process, and 21 they signed off on the report before he tampered with it 22 and they thought they were valid enough to sign off on it.
23 so why is his view the correct one as opposed to 24 four or five other people?
25 se gave some very strange views on enforcement TATE REPORTING SEDVICE, (713) 222-7177
(, { 150 1 that I've never been accustomed to in the NRC and I told 2 him that I've worked for ten years and I've never run into ,
3 viewpoints like that on enforcement. And --
4 Q These are views towards enforcement versus views 5 on violations?
be GA. m 6 A Well, enforcement isgviolations.
7 Q Well, I guess what I'm saying is where you look 8 at something, for example lack of documentation, or the 9 traveler issue, okay, that you were talking about, I_mean 10 there'.s a violation there. And th'at to me is -- and if 11 somebody else looks at it and says, "No, there's no 12 violation," that's different from a view toward enforcement e,
13 where a person advocates informal resolution of issues 14 instead of going through the formal route of inspection 15 r e po r t .-
16 I guess that's the distinction I'm making. You 17 know, I'm trying to get at. Is he looking at the same set 18 of circumstances as you are and saying, "There is no 19 violation, therefore take this out of the report," versus 20 "I don't think this violation should be in the report,
- 21 let's handle it differently." You see what I'm getting at?
22 I guess that's what I'm trying to get from -- you know, 23 where Westerman's coming from.
24 Are you and he or is he and the rest of the 25 inspectors having disagreements over the actual violation, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
\
b 151 l l- I
)
I he's saying on the one hand, "They've done nothing wrong by l 1
2 not documenting a certain p'rocedure," and th,e rest of the 3 inspectors are saying, "Yes, the documentation is required, 4 it's a violation;" is he saying that, or is he saying l
l 5 "okay, it's a violation but I don't think it should be in l
6 the report, I think we should handle it informally."
7 And I guess --
8 A I think it's the first, it's not the second. I 9 don't think he would be naive to say that, "It's a 10 violation, let's handle it unresolved." ,
11 Q okay. So he's disagreeing that there's a 12 violation?
. 13 A That's right.
14 Q- And you're bringing out your cites, you are 15 saying this is a violation of, you know, criterion 16 or 17 16 of Appendix B, where, you know, one of these criteria
, 17 requires inspection reports or requires records to be 18 accessible or requires records of certain thines, and there 19 are no records. What does he throw out to say this is not 20 a violation?
21 I mean what rationale does he use that this isn't 22 a violation when it seems to be -- you know, you've got 23 four other five people agreeing that it is a violation.
24 What does he say to support his side that it isn't?
25 A Just incessant. argument, arguing, he's a very TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l-
. - _ _ = - . .. _. _ -- - -.. . . _ . .
152 l
I i
f- 1 . strong personality. He's just going to wear you down.
2 Q sut he provides, as far as you can see, no 3 concrete argument against it being a violation? Does he 4 pull out the regulation or does he pull out various cites 1
5 to say, "No, it's not required," or is it just an argument?
6 A Like I said before, he comes forward with some 7 rationale that I've never heard from other supervisors, 8 that /p/may be the difference.
~_. 9 And I guess, you know, Ihavetogoonprabhdenhk 10 that I've written violations and have seen -- been involved 11 with reports and seen other inspectors write violations,
~
12 and all I can say is the violations that were written in on
_s 13 this report would have been signed off, in fact,this case
. was signed off, and yet,ggett you have a supervisor who has 15 a different philosophy,
's a hard time putting my fingers 16 on his difference in philosophy. ,
. 17 He sort of jumps around. And but it seems to be 18 one of trying to take whatever rationale he wants to at the 19 time and just tell you that it's not one. I*a not sure it '
20 has a souna basis.
21 Q when you write up a deficiency in an inspection 22 report and issue a notice of violation, doesn't the 23 licensee have the option of coming back and rebutting --
24 A That's correct.
25 Q -- the notice of violation and showing reasons TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
/% '.
I a 153 1 why the certain deficiency is not a violation?
2 A That's correct. ,
3 Q So why would it be incumbent upon an NRC 4 supervisor to play that role for the licensee?
5 Why wouldn't you just, you know, send out the .
6 report, list the violations; if the licensee feels they've 7 got an argument, let the licensee come forward with their 8 argument?
9 A well, I guess all I can say is that I think that .
10 he has taken it on himself to come down here and see that 11 the plant is licensed.
12 Q Do you feel he's gotten any direction from higher r..
s,i 13 than him to get this thing licensed?
14 A- I don't have any evidence of that. I believe 15 that. , ,
gy t s s w~
16 Q Has he given any pressure to you?
, 17 A when I say I don't have any evidence that people 18 from higher up, I have some evidence from statements he's 19 made that that was his intent.
20 Q That was my question, has he given anything to 21 you that indicates that that was his intent?
22 A sure. f l
23 Q What type of --
24 A I'll cover that later on. I've got a prepared 25 statement on that.
f
^
I
(.' (_/ 154 1 Q okay.
] I went 2 A Exhibit 8 lists all the differences.
3 ahead through the differences and repeated them to him and 4 told him that I still had th3 same differences that I had 5 before.
6 Q And you have them all listed in Exhibit 87 7 A They're all in here. They may sot be all 8 inclusive, but they're sort of examples, the high points.
9 I's sure there are a lot more details that could be added 10 to that but that's some of the basics.
11 And subsequent to Mr. Westerman calling me in, he ,
12 calledMr.f in twice, once on March the lith, and L J
. 13 pressured him to say that all the changes that were made 14 were all right. And then I'au not sure of the date but I 15 ! think it was on Thursday, whatever that date was, it may 16 have been the 12th, yeah, I guess -- he was called in on
' 17 the 11th and then called in again on the 12th, and both 18 times I was not invited to the meeting. I guess that's to
. - - -m 19 isolate Mr.1 )
20 And in this case, Mr. Barnes who is relatively 21 knowledgeable in the ASME code, was in the meeting and a 22 very strong personality, I might add, and they called 23 headquarters to I guess address the code issues again.
24 Well, this had already been done, I had already 25 done this. So this is the second time it's being done. I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
L C 155 1 don't know theykknfwthatbecausetheyneverdidask 2 me. ,
3 I may have mentioned it to them but I had called 4 to try to get some kind of read-out on the code issues.
5 aut in addition, Mr. Westerman came by on Friday and told 6 se that - I guess af ter his session on the 12th, on 7 Thursday I guess it was, that they had convinced Mr.
8 or, I say pressured him into saying that he didn't have any 9 problems with the report now. I have not talked to
.e <
10 Mr. pince then, so I don't know one way or another, 11 whether that's what he said.
12 That's what Mr. Westerman told me. Regardless, I
. 13 told Mr. Westerman that I still have problems with the way 14 the report was handled, doesn't make any difference whether 15 Mr. Norman has problems. I still have problems with it. I 16 don't agree with it or the way it was handled, at least.
17 Exhibit Number 9.
I 18 Q Exhibit No. 9 is a mesorandum from Mr. Phillips j l
19 to Mr. Westerman dated March the 13th,1986; okay? )
i 20 A Okay, this meno here documents my intention to 21 retain drafts from now on.
22 I had thrown away drafts at Mr. Westerman's 23 direction before, but in this meno I'm documenting that I'm l 24 going to keep them especially in view of the fact of all I 25 the controversy that's come up on 85-07 and 85-05. l TkTI REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
m
\> (/ 156 1 And I was told at this point in time when I 2 handed him this meno that Region IV's presently trying to 3 devise a method for inspectors.to submit reports as they're 4 written and then they'll go to some kind of a review group 5 and that's really awful that you can't -- that you have got 6 to have a committee to review an inspector's report.
7 It seems to me like that you ought to have a 8 supervisor who can allow the inspectors the freedom to 9 write the draft report and sit down and discuss it without 10 having to form a special committee. But that's where he 11 says it looks like that's going.
12 Q Who decides, let me ask something. You've got an
.' 13 inspection report, you have a finding; you write your 14 findings in the inspection report, you cite the regulatory 15 or whatever guidance has been violated, okay?
16 A okay.
. 17 -Q Who decides if there's going to be a notice of 18 violation issued, the inspector doesn't decide that, does 19 he?
20 A I guess probably management has to finally sign 21 off on the letter so I guess they're sign off is the 22 acknowledgement that an Appendix B -- excuse me, Appendix A 23 notice of violation is going to be issued.
24 But of course, you know, if the inspector has the 25 documentation for a valid -- for a valid notice of TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i b v 157
)
I 1 violation, it's almost impossible for management not to be 2 forced into issuing one. It's only when there's no 3 information in the report that you would'not issue.
4 Q once again, if you issue a notice of violation, 5 you have the different severity levels so management would 6 decide on what severity level?
7 A well, usually the inspector will try to 8 categorize what the severity level is. Like a level five 9 is a paper glitch or something, very innocuous. Level four 10 is a little more serious. Level three you're getting into 11 problems. And two and one, you probably get into the civil 12 penalty range.
13 So that's one of the things that's so bizzare.
14 about the situation, 4 don't understand why people are 15 getting so up tight about level four and level five 16 violations that are being submitted by the inspec, tors.
. 5 h f' '
17 If you were talking about something p civil 18 id It M i penalty material,gthree, two, one, I could understand it.
19 But you know, if an inspector seems to have all the facts 20 and you go out on a level four and five, you want it to be hut uJh 21 accurate But
. /g C.W after w s.aylevel all, +d pfive We'>"14 is just ,barely above 22 an unresolved item. 'In fact, it may not be as serious as j i
23 an unresolved item. An unresolved item could turn out to {
24 be a level two or three, in the next inspection.
! 25 Q And the inspector would also decide whether an )
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
_____________J
( 158 1 item was unresolved or whether it was a violation, also?
That's correct. His findings are the basis for i
2 A 3 that.
4 Q Now, the unresolved item, if it's listed as an 5 unresolved item in one inspection and they go back and 6 relook at the unresolved item, then they could upgrade it ,
7 if ~~
B A Well, that's a whole other topic of conversation 9 that you could get into, the philosophy on unresolved 10 items, because whenever you go to some sites you find 11 unresolved i'tems that have been unresolved for years. and 12 what you're saying is that you've had a potential violation 13 that's been lying around for a long period of time. And I They don't get 14 think probably everyone's guilty of that.
15 proper attention.
16 Q So back to the memo, you told him you weren't l l
17 going to destroy your draft.
18 A I'm not going to destroy drafts in the future.
19 Q okay.
20 A Especially if they're significant.
21 Q And his response to you was there was going to be 22 a committee set up to review reports?
23 A That's about it.
24 Q No threats or anything like that, just that there 25 was going to be a committee set up?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- y. .
159 1' A That's correct.
I 2 Q okay. j l
3 A okay. Concern number four deals with improper l 4 statements for a reguistor. And as I understand the 5 terminology, regulatica and regulator, a regulator is one 6 who is set apart from promoting that which he regulates, 7 that if you get yourself in the posture of promoting what 8 you're regulating, you're compromising yourself as a 9 regulator.
10' And with respect to this particular statement 11 that I'm making, in mid-1985, when Mr. Westerman first 12 stepped on to the site to replace Mr.
]asgroup 13 leader of the Comanche Peak, NRC Comanche Peak group, ,
14 during,the first conversations or discussions, he informed 15 me that there is nothing wrong with Comanche Peak, period; 16 in fact, it's probably one of the best built plants in the ,
17 country.
18 And of course, I asked the question, "If this is l
19 true, then why - then why were they denied a license to 20 load fuel in September or october of 1984 and they have 21 still not loaded fuel?"
22 And I also asked if that is true, why had TUGC0 23 just announced -- because it was about that time -- had 24 just announced that they intended to do an approximately 25 $30 million redesign rework on the cable trays in Unit 2.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
.m -
k.: ')
160 1 And also, would also do rework in Unit 1 later on.
2 I got no real response to his question.. Ne, at dlLS 7
3 this particular time,3nr. (who was the division 4 director had attended this particular meeting that I speak 1
5 of on the cable tray hangers and Mr. Westerman was also pr 9 6 there, and as we were going to lunch that day, Mr.; . .
7 told Mr. Westerman 'that as long as he was the division 8 director, he didn't want to hear anybody in Region :V ever 9 again say that there is nothing wrong with the comanche J 1
10 Feak, meaning that he had heard that constantly fram Region 11 personnel, inspectors and supervisors alike, and he had 12 just sat in a; meeting and had Mr. Counsel, who was the head 1
13 of TUGeo at that time, tell Lia that they're going to do a j 14 $30 million rework in Unit 2 and didn't know how much it 15 was going to cost in Unit 1, not to mention the fact that 46 they were going to have Stone & Webster go back through a 17 complete evaluation of all of the piping design hanger work i
18 in both units.
i 19 And that was -- that to as was the first time 20 ,I've ever heard a manager or a supervisor in Region Zv say 21 courtie A A.d-something like that to sekeewaedge the pervasiveg attitude 22 that there is nothing wrong at this plant; thara i= aa*'!s; 23 e:;;, i iLi. pl ;;, th::: !! "a*hia? wraa; it thic 01 --tr 24 in the face of the evidence that there are things 25 apparently wrong. -
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
I
r L L 161 1 secause if you can't defend -- even if there's 2 nothing wrong, if you can't defend your design to the 3 extent that all - g,ha9
> Jall comers, that in itself is a 4 probles, even if your design is correct. And that's what I 5 told'Mr. ' westerman.
6 I might add that Nr. 'is no longer here.
rOcG S M- -
7 From t'ne onset, constantly defended the 8 utility and he gives ground grudgingly when adverse 9 findings are brought up or identified. sis posture is not 10 one of a diligent regulater but as a defender and a 11 promoter of the licensing process.
12 Ry secretary. Wanda warren stated when I was 13 talking to her .about 'chis issue, I had sentioned something 14 about it, she stated that she heard him aske similar 15 rema rks'. I don't have any exhibits available, but 16 conversation can be cross indexed, at least with two 17 individuals who's heard it and I'm sure that there are a 18 lot more because is a very common Region IV expression.
19 Then in October, November, Mr. Westerman was 20 telling me how long hours he was putting in, and he was.
21 Ee was putting in extremely long hodra. So I just asked 22 him the question, said, you know, in a kidding way, 'What 23 are you trying to do, make branch chief?' And he said, 24 'No, I'm trying to licensa this plant.' And I remember 25 thinking that " Gees, I thought our job was to see if P
TATI REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
T,
.t '[ '
f
. , .. - - - .L.. ...-.i--.t...... -===:== . -
, , , p _
\~ ,
b 162 3 they're ready to license, not to license them."
2 Maybe this is a slip, but I think.it's why he was 3 sent to replace Mr. Hunter, that is the difference in b er 4 philosophy. '!
.1 1 ,
5 Q okay. .
i ,
6 'A And that's the end'of that particular statement.
7 Q okay.
8 A Concern number 5, direction by Mr. Westerman to 9 destroy draft reports. Mr. Westernad,has asked me on a /
,~ i .
10 number of occasions to destrop draft reports, No. 85-07/05,$
, 9 11 and 85-13/09. He called from Region IV and told ~me that an 12 FOIA was coming in on 85-13/09 and that'I shouid puv% SM $ 45 d
.' 13 immediately d estroy the drafts.
,1 14 Q' W it a minute. What did he tell you? t / ,
15 A se called me and told'me that' an FOIA was coming is in on 85-13/09 and I should immediately destroy the drafts
. 17 if I had backup material field notez and all that kind of j l
18 stuff.
19 Q How did he know a FOIA was coming in?
20 A I don't know.
21 Q When was this phone call made?
22 A I don't recall the date offhand. I might have it 23 somewhere in my log.
24 Q Do you know from whom the FOIA he was coming 25 from?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
....a._ _m. . - - _ _
_., -~
V 's 163 1 A I presume it was an intervenor group.
2 Q Did he imply that the FOIA had been received at i 3 the headquarters?
4 A The implication was it had been received at 5 headquarters but either it was on the way to Region IV or 6 it was already in Region IV, I really don't know.. You'd ,
7 have to establish time and dates. I really don't know.
8 Q But you think you can get me the date of that 9 phone call?
10 A I'm not sure at the time that I recorded it 11 because I did as he said, I destroyed them. I was also fI D J 4 -d 12 told to destroy all the future 4draft reports.
, 13 I might add as a note, information that I've e~ -n .-- .-
14 gained'in conversation with Mr. ,and they 15 were both told durin the meeting I previously referenced 16 to get rid o drafts concerning 85-07/05. I don't know
- 17 where they stand with regard te FOIA. You may want to 18 question them about that. And that's the end of that 19 statement.
20 Q Okay.
21 A Concern number 6, pressure harassment over QA 22 technical QA/ technical differences on inspection report 23 85-14/11, which are exhibits, Exhibit Nos. 10 and 11 that I 24 submit to you. And my opening sentence is Mr. West'erman 25 pressured and harcased me because of the NRC inspection
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
.s U h 164 1 85-14/11.
2 i To give background, the purpose of this 3 inspection was to perform a routine inspection of_the 4 Applicant's action on previously identified items, general 5 plant conditions of equipment, welding electrical 6 equipment / equipment and while inspecting previously 7 identified items, the NRC inspector, the consultant that 8 is, found significant problem with records and as a result, 9 the main focus, this became the main focus of this 10 inspection.
11 The findings were, the results of the inspection, 12 that TUGCo had shipped all original design records for
_- 13 piping to Stone & Webster, New York without making a 14 duplicate copy.
15 The problem is that if you lose your design, 16 original design records, you have no records of the
. 17 as-built plant. They also made no provisions to protect 18 the records in route commensurate with storage requirements 19 during the entire time they were stored on site.
20 This goes to 10 CFR Appendix B, 10 CFR 50 l 21 Appendix B, Criterion 17, Criterion 3, criterien 10, all of 1
l 22 the things that require records and ANSI standard, N45 49, i
23 which requires that you store these records in a permanent 24 facility on site or if they're in a temporary storage, that 25 store them in one of two. methods, you can meet the TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 m =m '
- e.
(_' ./ 165 1 requirements, other than an approved vault that's fire 2 rated and all that kind of stuff. ,
3 You can have fire rated cabinets where if the 4 trailer burns or the little shack burns that your records 5 don't burn, that's one way.
6 The other method of protecting the records is to 7 make a duplicate copy and put them in separate and remote 8 locations, which is saying that the probability of both 9 places burning, if they're separate and remote, is almost
, 10 negligible.
11 Q And these are to protect the as-built --
12 A Those are to protect all of the QA records.
13 That's the way all the QA records are protected during the 14 time construction is in process. And once construction is 15 completed, these things have to go to a vaulted facility
-- - 16 that is described in the ANSI N45 49 and I'd have to get g
17 the -- there's a reg guide that I don't recall right off 18 the top cf my head what it is, that also endorses that ANSI 19 standard and this is a commitment in section one of the 20 FSAR, Appendix 1, which says, 'Okay, we're going to do it 21 this way. We're going to do it in accordance with ANSI l % 22 N45. 9." YS* 7. T 23 A similar finding was identified with respect to 24 Chicago Bridge & Iron, whereby CB&I records -- and they did
! 25 work on the liner plate where your liner is embedded in l
l
- l l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 ,
1 1
b b 166 1 concrete at the beginning of the project, when you start 2 putting the base sat in concrete, and these ' records of 3 liner plate are very important because that is what shows 4 you that you have an adequate welding on the liner plate 5 and the material pedigree and all that type thing.
6 And if those records are lost, then you --
7 there's no way to reconstruct the records. If you have a D'- 8 3M piece of pipe hangg up there, you can cut the pipe out or 9 you can go back and re-radiograph, you could reconstruct 10 the records on a weld,'for instance or you might have to
~
11 cut the weld out and redo it.
12 But when you have things embedded in concrete, in
[ 13 the base sat and the liner plate and all that kind of 14 stuff, it': ;;;;tices it would be impossible to 15 reconstruct those records.
16 As a result of these findings, we then started 17 looking at the site storage facilities to inspect them to 18 see if they were in compliance with Appendix B and the FSAR l
19 requirements. -
20 Now at a hundred percent complete, the plant Unit 21 1 was a hundred percent complete, I would not have dreamed 22 that there would be any problems such as this that would
{
23 develop, which means to me that it's a fairly significant )
24 QA problem to have this kind of thing happen at this stage 1
25 of the game. )
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 232-7177
m V E,. /
167 1 If this had happened and they were ten percent 2- complete, charge it to ignorance. But when.you're a 3 hundred percent complete and you're sending all of your 4 records of design to stone & Webster, New York and then 5 they send them out to ten satalite offices in pasteboard 6 box, it's incredible that they can rationalize that they're ,
7 required to put them in fire rated cabinets for ten years 8 and then all of a sudden because they want to send them to 9 Stone & Webster, they put them in paper boxes, put them in 10 trucks, you don't have part of the records, you have all -
11 them that can be destroyed, all at once. Because there, if 12 a fire starts, they burn.
13 Q Why were they shipping them to Stone & Webster?
14 A' For a reanalysis, they're doing a design analysi,s 15 on it to see what has to be reworked and 16 Q so if something happened with these records on
= 17 the way up, what would happen to their design analysis 18 reanalysis?
19 A It would -- let me say this. It'would be very 20 serious, they'd have to do everything all over again for 21 sure. But some of the records are again not probably --
22 you could not -- you might not could replace.
23 Q okay. So they're being sent up by truck?
- - - 24 A I'mnotsurehowtheywereNa but they -
25 were just sent in truck,.the truck or train or whatever, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
w m U bl 168 1 you have truck crashes and all kinds of things --
2 Q Right.
3 A -- all the time.
4 Q And there are certain requirements on how to ship 5 these records?
6 A Well, they had a couple of alternatives. Number 7 1, they could copy the original and keep a copy on site.
8 Q okay.
9 A It's out of the ordinary that t, hey'd be shipping 10 the design records off site at this time, you see. That's 11 the first point.
12 Q okay.
) 13 A But I mean, it's an inordinant number of records 14 and cost a lots of time and money to be reproducing them 15 because you're not supposed to be doing this, it's because 16 of the unique position they're in. Now they send them all
- 17 off site without copying them. We did cite them.
18 Q There's an alternative to copy them. What other 19 alternative is there?
20 A The other alternative would be to put them in 21 fire rated containers of some sort.-
22 0 And ship them by that? )
l 23 A And ship them, yeah. j 24 Q ekay.
25 A And then I don't know what happens if they all 1
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- %- 193 l I
1 time he ran into an issue that he could throw gasoline on j 2 the fire, that's what he would do. And I think he took 3 gasoline and threw it on the fire.
4 I really don't have -- I'm not privy to the 5 conversations that he had with other individuals. I can 6 only make assumptions that he did not disclose the full 7 facts of the matter because his memorandum does not 8 reference our telephone conversation.
9 Q Yeah, but I guess I'm -- do you think he was 10 trying to avoid investigating concerns against TUGCo by 11 doing this or was he trying to get back at you, or make you I' guess I'm trying to --
~
12 look bad?
r =
,. 13 A I truly felt like he was not too interested in 14 having:the allegation brought forward. And --
15 Q Did he ever refer this to oI?
16 A I don't know that it was ever referred to OI. I 17 don't know. It was referred to the investigation 18 coordinator, Mr. Mark Emerson at Region.
19 Q Who was Mr. Emerson working for? ,
20 A Mr. Emerson works for Mr. Martin.
21 Q okay.
22 A And I assume that some conversation may have come 23 up with OI on it but I don't know for sure.
24 Q Did Mr. Young ever indicate to you that these 25 consultants have been talked to by OI or anybody, these TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
.a.s,..._ . 4. _*= **=._a.e *- . ~ -** * *he " * * *
, <m 169 1 crash into the lake, maybe you could reconstruct them.
2 Q Why couldn't Stone & Webster come'down here?
3 A I don't know. Probably because of logistics and 4 they can't move all the people, all their talent up there 5 down here, probably. I have no problem with them sending 6 it off site, it was how --
l 7 Q Eow they did it, right.
8 A They're no citations on that, by the way.
9 Mr. Westerman _ disagreed and said there's no clear cut 10 requirement that they have to protect the records in route 11 and I said, "I don't even -- I'm totally devoid of 12 understanding of your logic."
. 13 Q And what requirement is there, what is the Aite l #
14 for that requirement?
> 15 A ANSI N45.2,9.
16 Q ANSI?
17 A That you will protect them on site. You see, the 18 point of the matter is if we would have gone and found that 19 they were not in fire rated cabinets or in separate -- and 20 duplicate ccpies in separate and remote locations, if they 21 had ten records at the beginning of the project we would l 22 have given them a violation.
23 And now suddenly they've got, I forgot, the 24 report here says maybe 2500 packages of records and they're 25 all not protected as required in the ANSI, and says, "Well, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
<m -
170 1 since the ANSI standard doesn't say precisely that they 9
2 have got to be, it doesn't cover that they don't have to.
3 so it doesn't have to."
4 say, common logic tells you that this is how they 5 have to be protected.
l 6 Q So the ANSI standard 45.2p gives guidance on how 7 to protect the records while on site?
8 A Right.
9 Q And they have to be protected either in a fire 10 proof container or duplicates made and stored at separate 11 locations? .
12 A Uh-huh.
(_ 13- Q so Mr. Westerman is saying that the ANSI doesn't 14 specifically say how to protect them in transit?
15 A That's right.
16 Q Because normally the records aren't taken off the
. 17 site?
18 A Right.
19 Q so therefore, he's going by the letter of the law 20 instead of the spirit of law?
21 A Right. You got it. That's the problem.
22 Q There's a loophole there?
23 A Yes.
24 Q That well, I could get kind of facetious, but I 25 could say if they decided to keep the records off the site, TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
171 1 right around the corner in the "You Store It" facility, 2 they could do it any way they wanted because ANSI just 3 talks about storing records on site under that philosophy?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q There is a spirit to that ANSI requirement that 6 the records have to be protected from destruction and 7 that's what you are saying.
8 A That's right.
9 Q And even though there's a loophole, the spirit 10 still is there, these records have to be protected to a 11 certain extent, a reasonable extent from being destroyed?
12 A Right.
e s 13 Q And that in shipping these records, they violated 14 that spirit?
15 A Right.
16 However, I might point out that the ANSI is not 17 totally silent on this issue. It says whenever you are 18 transferring these records between organizations, you have 19 to have methodology for controlling that so it doesn't let 20 you off the hook. And so to me that throws you back into 21 saying, "okay, if we had to protect them from fire, flood, 22 and theft during the project for ten years, certainly what 23 are we going to do when we ship them, are we going to let 24 all of the records be destroyed?"
25 Q So what was the methodology that TUGCo had?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
172 1 A They shipped them in pasteboard boxes.
2 Q I mean was there any written --
3 A There was a procedure that they were about to go 4 by or went by for a short period of time and then for some 5 reason, they cancelled the procedure and quit going by it.
6 And besides.that, they didn't inventory the records at all 7 and so we'll never know how many records went off site and 8 how many came back on for sure. You'll have to accept --
9 they'll have to accept what stone & Webster tells them.
10 Q That none got lost or whatever?
11 A Yeah. And the situation is even worse in the 12 case of CB&I. Because the CB&I issue, it was the very same
( 13 issue, they sent all their records off site to Houston to 14 be reproduced totally for their convenience. And they 15 shipped them in pasteboard boxs or whatever and their own 16 procedures say some of their records, they're totally 17 priceless, you can't reconstruct them. And so you're 18 suppesed to protect them. l 19 But there's no evidence that they inventoried 20 them nor protected them in route. And in both of these 21 cases, I wanted to give violations, and I was told again 22 that well, we were -- in fact, the business in this 23 particular case, we were in an exit with the Applicants and 24 the Applicants made the statement which totally amazed me, 25 that CBsI was a site contractor, they had a contract with TATE REPORTING _ SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
173 1 CB&I, and the contract stated that these site records would 2 be turned over to TUGCO when the project,-- when they ended
\
3 their work or what the project ended.
4 And at that time, of the turn over, TUGCO assumed 5 control and TUGCO said, "On the basis of that contract, 6 those are not our records, those are CB&I records and they 7 can do what they want to with them."
8 I said, "You are telling me that they can do 9
anything they want to with them, they can transmit them any 10 way they wanted to," they said, "Yes, that's exactly 11 correct. They can transmit those records, do whatever they 12 want to and it's our risk, as the Applicant."
( 13 In other words, telling me that it's none of the 14 NRC's business if all the records get destroyed in route.
15 And that they're not their records until they receive them 16 back from Houston and they're finally turned over to TUGCO
. 17 and they say, "Now they're my records."
18- I have never in my entire career heard any 19 applicant put forward a premise such as this and they 20 further stated that this instance was no different from any 21 vendor off site and I disagreed with that to Mr. Tom 22 Westerman and to the utility that it is different, in that 23 all site vendors manufacture it, they are also required to aM 24 have ANSI stored requirements if they have put those 25 requirements in the purchase orders which they should TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
[
174 1 invoke on them. And during the life of the contracts, 2 those records are protected just as if the utility had 3 them.
4 And whenever they get ready to send them, they 5 have to retain a copy, either retain a copy and send the 6 originals, or they send the originals if they don't want to 7 keep a copy in fire rated containers, to get them to the
-~--'
02L4<<
8 site or else you're going to,,get them destroyed.
9 Q' Doesn't the licensee commit and by committing to 10 the ANSI standards and all, also commit for all the 11 contractors and the vendors to do the same that he 12 employees. I mean isn't that the way it works? I mean,.
(, 13 doesn't he -- I mean, if he commits to perform a certain 14 function or to do, you know, maintain a certain standard 15 does he not also commit -- that he also commits to ensure 16 that his contractors will do the same thing?
17 A That's correct.
18 Q If he commits to an ANSI standards, he also 19 commits for any contractor.
20 A That's right.
21 Q Right?
22 A Uh-huh.
23 Q I mean --
24 A That's correct.
25 Q -- you know, that --
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
\
w 175 J
1 A He committed to the ANSI standards for lhis 2 records. ,
3 Q He also committed any contractors?
4 A There's a little difference. You've got a 5 manufacturer off site who can't be on site. And he 6 manufactures it and if he destroys the wiggit that he's 7 manufacturing for you before you get it, the recoids, the 8 licensee simply doesn't buy it.
9 But if he manufactures it and part of the by-off 10 is that he sends you a record package and you get the 11 gidget-ea.i.A; peye jeu, that's different because you're Aoe dt wh 4t~ ev r.e't 12 going [toputthatcompenentintothesite.
' g" ch.~(~( e s.'f k en~ W p
, 13 .,When you're on sit.e and you're in, process 14 construct N and you're putting liner plade3that's buried 15 in concrete and the liner plate that seals the containment f< % a f( si L v w cW.s 16 Re t ' e elo in prec-- . Andthat'stotallydifferent/r 17 And those things -- those records are site 18 records where work has been done on site, the work activity l 19 is supposed to be monitored by TUGCo on site and their wa M a . e s 20 records are supposed to be seni/vicd on site. And as far 21 as I have ever heard j a utility c-en:crr, th;y would consider Ow 5'A 1 22 thosetheirrecordsbecausethey'vedoneworq. j i
23 Q Well, it seems -- I'm only a novice in this, but i 1
24 it seems to me that the prin:ipal is pretty plain that you l
)
25 have to have records to back up every piece of hardware TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 i
l l
l j -
176 1 that's put into that site?
2 A That's right. ,
3 Q Okay. Now, the licensee, if he puts in the liner
__4 plate,'J)fhastoknowthathe'sgottherecordstobackup 5 the installation of that liner plate?
6 A ongoing, he should.
7 Q Ongoing, right, and especially with the liner 8 plate like you talked about before, that if you lose those 9 records, they're irreplaceable.
10 A Yeah.
11 Q You can't do anything about it; the liner plate's 12 there to say.
'(~ 13 A That's right.
14 Q And so I'm sure the licensee has to commit his 15 contractor to comply with the ANSI standard just like he 16 himself would?
. 17 A He did. But the whole point is here is that he's 18 saying he did that but the records don't belong to him, he 19 can do anything he wants to with them which is the most 20 foreign concept I've ever run into. It's a very naive 21 concept, I think.
22 0 okay, well, and Mr. Westerman said?
23 A "That's not a violation."
24 Q "That's not a violation"?
25 A Right.
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
4 177 1 Q okay.
2 A And he banged on me -- I don't know how long he 3 banged on me on this thing. I mean really, during october, 4 the people in the trailer were commenting, I'm at on.e end
, l :( '-j wV l 5 of the trailer s they've got workers down at the other end, 6 they couldn't believe how he stayed on me, interjecting I
7 himself into the inspection process continually. And he i 8 started off with the, premise, "There ain't nothing wrong 14 1 9 with the record."
10 He gave in grudingly and down toward the end, he 11 was willing to concede that for example that the 12 transmittal to Stone & Webster was a violation, but that 13 was only because he saw that we were not going to back off i 14 the issue. The consultant was not. This consultant was 15 very knowledgeable. He's been -- he worked in quality 1
16 assurance on site.
17 Q The consultant's name was?
o '
18 A Mr. Tom Young.
19 Q okay.
20 A And again I'm in the situation where I'm 21 defending someone else's findings, these were not ns q 22 primarily -- these were not 1my findings, these were 23 Mr. Young's ' findings I just agreed. .
Y s ,n 24 The reason I agreed with 42uun is because he's had 25 the same experience I have had over the years with respect TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
178 1 to what a violation is with respect do Appendix B and we 2 certainly think the same and I think all the other 3 inspectors I've run into have pretty much the same, same 4 philosophy. ,
5 Now, the other point I. wanted to make on the CB&I 6 thing, again they didn't have any inventory, they didn't 7 have any inventory or accountability, TUGC0 did not, as to 8 how many records were shipped off site and how many 9 returned back on. And I was asking TUGCO about the Stone &
10 Webster and the CB&I, how are you going to know how many 11 records were left and how many came back. And they said, 12 "We'll audit it."
( 13 I said, "How do ycu audit it if you don't know .
14 how many left?"
15 "Well, we'll have an index and we will know how 16 many packages."
17 I said, " Packages tell you how many pages, how 18 many pages per package you don't know." He really doesn't.
19 And I mean you're talking about thousands of documents.
20 And you may send off thousands of documents and if there 21 are anything adverse'in there that could. cost the site 22 contractor like CB&I money and he doesn't want you to know 23 about it, guess what he's going to do.
24 Those records are not going to be returned to 25 site to you, because he's going to determine -- you're TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
.~
179 1 letting him determine what records you're going to have.
2 And guess what, unless you audited him adequately on site, 3 you're not going to see it.
4 Right now I don't know that -- I don't know that 5 they ever audited them correctly on site, I don't know.
U f(6had a very minimal audit We've already established]~bhey 6
7 effort.
l 8 okay. One other example that comes to mind in !
9 inspection report 85-14/11 is the finding with regard to 10 storage of QA records in a paper flow group and what 11 happened here is on October the 21st '85, the NRC l 12 inspectors inspected this area and found a large number of
(: 13 mechanical and electrical QA records that have been removed 1 14 from the permanent storage area and had been returned to 15 the field and placed in packages in the paper flow groups i 16 to facilitate work.
17 And we looked to see if those records that had f 18 been removed from the vault were properly protected, that 19 is did they go back to the temporary storage requirement as l l
20 required by ANSI N45.ff, that is stored in fire rated <c [_ i 21 cabinets, or copies kept in separate remote locations.
22 And the answer to that question was no, they were 23 not in fire rated cabinets; they did have a sprinkler 24 system overhead but if you had a fire in a trailer, that 25 trailer can burn down probably very quickly and it's very TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
m 180 1 likely that you're going to get not only fire damage but 2 water damage, in the case of protecting your records just 3 in a regular file cabinet.
4 And I wrote this up as a violation and 5 Mr. Westerman says, "No, that is not a violation, you're 6 not going to write it as a violation, that's an unresolved 7 item."
8 He says, "I've made a deal with the utilit , they CQ cs. 6 l e.d '
9 are going to put those records in fire rated / ults."
10 And he said, "Why do you want to give them a 11 violation, they're going to do what you want them to do."
12 And I said, "Well, I want to give them a r-m; 13 violation because I document my inspection findings. When 14 I find something, I document it. And their correcting it 15 is beside the point."
16 And as I recall at the exit, when I gave this as
. 17 a finding, one of the individuals who was with the TUGCO 18 representatives stated, "Well, if we have to put all those 19 things in fire rated cabinets, it's going cost a lot of f
20 money." !
,y. J . , .e
{
21 And on which I thought Mr. Westerman would take '
a 22 exception, because Mr. John Merit', who was the senior rep 23 put his hand over the guy's mouth, he was so embarrassed,
':o s
24 because that's -- cost and schedule,is not a reason to not 25 meet Appendix B requirements.
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I 1
181 1 Q So that was --
2 A That was identified in this report as a violation 3 but was subsequently dropped out as a violation and made an 4 unresolved item on the basis that the utility was going to 5 put in fire rated cabinets as they were required to.
6 Q Did you brief the utility this was going to be a 7 violation?
, 8 A Ch, sure, before we came to the exit and at the 9 . exit.
10 Q And so then after briefing the utility that this 11 was going to be a violation, it was later --
12 A Dropped.
13 Q -- dropped to an unresolved?
14 A That's right.
15 Q Not at the utility's urging but at --
16 A That's correct.
0 17 Q -- Mr. Westerman's urging?
18 A That's correct, some kind of deal was cut.
19 Now, as a matter of fact, I was just told a 20 couple of weeks ago in March that the deal is off, that 21 they're going to fight that requirement, they're not going 22 place them in fire rated cabinets, that's what 23 Mr. Westerman advised me and that .I didn't ask a lot of 24 questions, but I assume from the way he advised me that we 25 were not going to take any further action on the matter. j i
. I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I
l
182 1 Q Is it still an unresolved item?
2 A lit's still unresolved. ,
3 Q So how will you resolve it?
4 A I'll make it a violation and let them answer it.
5 If they've got legal basis for not doing so, then maybe 6 they won't put in fire rated cabinets, but I don't believe 7 they have any basis.
8 Q okay.
9 A I would like to for the sake of time, summarize a 10 little bit of Exhibit 10, which'is the first draft report, 11 contains two violations, one with two parts, one deviation, ,
12 eight unresolved items for Unit 1 and six violations, one
,. 13 deviation and nine unresolved items for Unit 2; however I 14 draw your attention to Exhibit 11 and the final report 15 contains one violation and eleven unresolved items, two 16 open items for Unit 1 and three violations and twelve 17 unresolved items and two open_ items for Unit 2.
18 So as you can see, we go from approximately 10, 19 10 violations and deviations, combined number, to one 20 violation on Unit 1 and two -- excuse te, three violations 21 on Unit 2. That's a significant reduction.
22 Q Y e s', it is.
23 A The only other thing that I'd say in concluding 24 this issue is by the time that October, our October
- 25 discussions were over, it was eviden + that Mr. Westerman TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
m v\
183 1 had decided that I was a troublemaker, and that he had 2 advised me he had started taking action by discussing these 3 issues with management.
4 And I guess that if I go back to my original 5 statement that I felt harassed,' I was beginning to feel a 6 little bit more than harassed at this point because I 7 believe, but I didn't have evidence at that time, that l
8 maybe a campaign had started to get me off the project, he 9 had privately inferred that. And that's the end of concern 10 six.
11 0 When you say that he had implied that privately, 12 do you recall the words that he used?
13' A Yeah, I do, as a matter of fact. Maybe I should 14 have felt threatened instead of harrassed. He stated l 15 something to the effect that, you know, " Don't you -- you 16 make quite a bit of money, don't you?" Because he realized 17 I was a former supervisor and I was cut -- when my salary 18 was cut back, I was cut back to a high step of the last 19 grade that I was at, which was a 14. And I am making good 20 money. I don't disagree with that.
21 But he said it in such a way that aren't --
l 22 "You're making good money, you know, why are you making so 23 much trouble, you know, it could really" -- well, one could 24 read between the lines perhaps that you could lose it all, 1
25 because you see we also get extra steps as a senior TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
1
184 1 resident inspector.
2 So if I were sent back to the Region, I would 3 lose the three extra, the probably three extra steps that 4 you get which is sort of a premium pay type situation for 5 what is considered a hardship tour. And I can assure you, 6 that that's what it is. It's worth it. It's worth more, 7 under the circumstances.
8 okay, concern number seven, NRC consultants /. ._.
9 allegation that Mr. Westerman improperly handled -- excuse 10 me, let rephrase that. I worded it wrong.
11 The concern is that the NRC consultr.nts F~~
12 allegation was improperly handled. And this goes to
( 13 Exhibit Numbers 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16-A and B.
14 Q I don't seem to have the exhibit -- yes, I do, I a
15 found it. No, I don't. I don't have Exhibit 12 here.
16 (Discussion off the record.).
, 17 A okay. Concern No. 7 we've already identified and 18 we had a discrepancy in the Exhibit Numbering so we 19 corrected those numbers and we're ready to go now.
20 May I have the first exhibit? okay. In 21 particular Exhibit No. 12, what it does, is that it 22 documents a case where, on November the 24th, Mr. D. Young 23 an NRC consultant informed me of an allegation or a concern 24 made to him during conversations with site personnel.
25 I might add here that some of these concerns were TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
185 1 made in conversation between he and a friend of his off
? site after hours. But still we consider it an allegation.
3 And the basic allegation was that Texas Utilities 4 management had become increasingly uncomfortable with 5 adverse trends that were reported by a site consultant 6 group working for TUGeo, and it seemed that some of these 7 trends may have been viewed as embarrassing or possibly a 8 threat to licensing the plant in the inmediate future. And 9 that members of this group had been informed that the 10 consultants' contract would not be renewed.
11 And some of these people connected this action 12 with TUGco's frustrations with being unable to control l l
13 their actions, the actions of the trending group. As I 14 understand it, some had already been shifted off into 15 organizations under TUGeo where they could be controlled, 1
1 16 and if they reorganized again, by terminating the contract, 1 l
17 that they could make the problem go away. That was the l 18 allegation.
19 There were two people that worked in inspection 20 process control group, two of probably four or five, and 21 that is the number of pecple, five, that would probably 22 have had to be interviewed.
23 So I recommended that this thing be investigated 24 immediately because of the site -- in my memo says -- this l 25 exhibit says 30 days, but it turned out there were supposed TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
_--a
,186 1 to leave site in 15 days so there was even more urgency.
2 And so that I wrote this memo and, forwarded it to i 3 Mr. Westerman as soon as possible and recommended that, you 4 know, that the thing should be investigated as soon as possible because it sounded like a fairly significant $-
5 6 adverse condition if what they said was true. ,
7 And if those trend -- if there were trends and if 8 they continued, that work was continuing in Unit 2 if those 9 trends were proven out -- and I say if they we,re because I 10 didn't know whether they would be proved out or not, but 11- I'm just saying we should look into it as fast as possible, 12 and with that as a background, I gave it to him and sent it m- 13 to him by tele-communications,from the resident office to 14 his office in Arlington where he was that day.
15 And when he got the memo, he called and se'emed to 16 be a little bit upset by the meno. And he said he wanted 17 specifics. And I said, "Well, what specifics are you 18 interested in?"
19 I said, "You've got a group of four or five 20 people that all you've got to do is interview them; you 21 know the group, you know what the allegation is, and it -
22 pertains to covering up adverse trends, and all we have to 23 do is interview five people." ,
24 "Well, who are the people?"
25 I naid, "Well, I don't -- you know, I don't know
/ TAT!? REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
,_ ,, ,g. ..,w = = = . > ' * * * " " " ' ' ~
--______________.___._________-__-_-___-------m -
,, 187 1 in this particular instance what the policy is on 2 confidentiality, because the names were given to an NRC 3 consultant who is not an NRC employee, I don't know what 4 rights he has to grant confidentiality or if we can make 5 him in turn tell us those names, because he wants to 6 protect their identity, because if they're found out, 7 they're going to be in deep trouble because one of the guys 8 is going to go to TUGC0 to work permanently."
9 Q Right.
10 A "And so we need to protect the identity."
11 "Well, you're just not giving specifics."
12 And I said "Well, I'll make you this offer. If r
- s. 13 you want me to go over and investigate it myself, I'll find 14 out all the details. But all I'm telling you is in the 15 pas't OI has not wanted us to go in and muddy up the water 16 and alert the utility that we were going to do an
. 17 investigation and if you're telling me that's what you want 18 me to do, I will certainly go over and perform an 19 investigation or an inspection and get all the details.
20 otherwise, I think the group up there should handle it."
21 You all should handle it.
22 And so he didn't say anynore, that was it.
23 And so the next thing that I know, if you will 24 look at the next exhibit, there's a memo, Exhibit No. 13 ,,
^'
_$hathestatesthattheRegionaladministratordirected 25 4 1
.- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I
i
r' -
- s. ,188
\
1 writ h 3 se,criticiz k my memo, and I really don't 2 understand why. I.still don't understand why.
3 Q Let me asks this consulting group is made up of 4
4 how many people?
5 A As I unr3ctstand, just a hand full, four or five 6 people.
7 Q And we know the name of.the group? l 8 A Yeah. l 9 Q Why was it material that we list -- give the 10 names of every single one of those people in this group 11 that were going to be interviewed anyway? I don't 12 understand whe s that would impact either way on conducting
(_ 13 an investigation?
14 A He wanted the names of the specific people. He 15 didn't want the name of the group. -
16 Q Let me get this. The consultant group was made 17 up of just a hand full of people?
18 A Well, that was my understanding from Mr. Young, 19 you need to clarify that with him. It was my understanding 20 it was not that many people. And 4'. could have been a few
~\ A % .: G
--- 21 more than five but ,Fr"9as not -- .
22 Q I'm trying to understand what you reported, !
\
23 regardless of -- I'm trying to understand what you reported 24 to Mr. Westerman.
25 A I reported to him that there was a small group of TATEREPORTINd$ERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- - - - - - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _l
1
,189 l 1 people and by interviewing them, you could find out whar #"'
2 rulel A% wiu
/ the personsj would not have to be identified and they would 3 pinpoint to you the places to go and look.
4 Q So it was not an impossible task, obviously?
eo51 5 A It was met an is; _;iiie task. And then I went 6 on emergency leave because I have -- I had some 7 construction problems with a house that I had built, and 8 about -- oh, somewhere around the 20th of December, I went
- on leave to take care of those problems. ,
10 (Discussion off the record.)
11 A (Continuing) When I returned from leave in 1 !< January, I was handed Exhibit 13 which is a memo dated r
y; 13 January 13th, 1986, from Mr, Westerman to me. And in this 1
14 particular memorandum which he says was directed, he was 15 directed by Mr. Martin that he write me auch a memor^andum, 16 commer. ing on my memo, which gave the allegation, it
. 17 appears to me that he's very busy in criticizing me from 18 several different standpoints.
19 one, I mean the first thing is he's saying in th/
20 last paragraph of that memo that in preparing my memos, I 21 should stay factual and refrain from drawing conclusions.
22 And Mr. Young read the memo of the allegation before I sent 23 it and I said, "Is that an accurate representation of the 24 allegation as you know it?"
25 And he said, "Yes, it is."
.- TATE REPORTING FIRVICE, (713) 212-7177
- -- '- ~ - - - - ^^
i 190 1 And so not only did I think it was a fair 2 representation of what the allegation was, also Mr. Young 3 thought that.
4 And secondly, I tried to talk to Mr. Westerman 5 over the telephone the day he called me about this memo, 6 somewhere around the 25th of November, and I've documented 7 all this, in Exhibit 14, which is a rebuttal of some of the 8 things that he's saying.
9 Q okay.
10 A That -- with respect to the conclusions, I tried 11 to explain to Mr. Westerman that the way the memo, my 12 original memo read, those conclusions were not mine, I 13 stated that the allegers had certain conclusions.
14 Q Right.
15' A And if you went to pick that memo back up, would 16 you, please, and see what it states right here in this 17 paragraph, I state that it is alleged that these people are 18 becoming increasingly uncomfortable and two consultant 19 personnel think that engineering quality engineering is a 20 joke, et cetera, those are their conclusions, not mine.
21 And I tried at length to tell Mr. Westerman those.
22 are not my conclusions. And then I get this letter back 23 telling me to refrain from drawing conclusions when in the 24 very bottom paragraph, I simply make a recommendation that 25 the matter be investigated. And that if the allegation, if
.- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
m
,.191 1 the allegation were true, then it's important that we take 2 timely action because work is continuing and that's all I 3 said.
4 I made a recommendation, I made no conclusions.
5 I didn't even know the people involved, didn't know their 6 names, didn't know any of the facts other than the fact 7 that they had nade this specific allegation and the group.
8 And so I had no basis to draw a conclusion.
9 And yet, in this memo, he says that I'm drawing 10 conclusions even after I explained to him that those are 11 not my conclusions, and I don't understand why he did not 12 reference that conversation in his memorandum, because if
( 13 you notice his memorandum, do,you see anywhere'in there 14 where -- what he's talking about going to get the facts 15 where it references the fact that I offered to go to'an 16 independent investigation on my own if he so desired to get 17 all the facts, and he didn't make any response so that or 18 do you see anything in there that indicatec my conversation 19 with him at all on that particular date?
20 Q No, there's none. No. I see an Exhibit 14 that 21 you have here, you explained all this again. -
22 A That's correct.
I 23 0 In the memo to the fil,e.
24 A That's correct.
25 And as a matter of fact, Mr. Young was present a - - .
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
m '
192 1 and heard conversations with Mr. Westerman -- trying to 2 explain to him on the telephone that we had enough facts to 3 investigate it, and I believe that he heard -- you'll have 4 to ack him but I believe he heard ce say probably, that, 5 you know, if he wanted me to go over and investigate it, 6 that I would do it but I didn't think -- in the past that's 7 not what OI had wanted me to do when there was a hint of 1
8 wrongdoing, and there was a hint of wrongdoing here.
9 Q Why do you think Mr. Westerman took this 10 position?
11 A Well, it appears to me that when a pe::en does 12 not reference the conversation that I had explaining all
.- 13 the facts, if the memo was misunderstood, that that was 14 purposely left out of this memo.
15 Q Right.
16 A So I have to assume that that information is left
= 17 cut to further confuse the issue and make me look bad in 18 the face of his superiors, and my superiors, that he's 19 repor*ing to.
20 Q And do you feel this has anything to do with the 21 allegation and the problems that TUGCO is having with this.
22 consultant group or is it a personal thing between you and 23 Wusterman and --
l 24 A I think it was an extension of his conscious 25 decision after discussions of the October issues that every TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. m ll -) 194 1 consultants ever tell you or tell Mr. Young that they have
~
2 been contacted? .
3 A well, we'll have to go to the next exhibit to 4 answer that question. And that's Exhibit 15. The only 5 thing I know is that when I returned back, you read this 6 meno, and it states that he looked into the issues.
7 Bis previous meno that we just t'alked about, the 8 exhibit that we just discussed, he said that he was going 9 to take care of the matters. This meno here seems to i 10 indicate that he made telephone contact with the 11 individuals to close out the investigation and --
12 Q Did Mr. Westerman make tne phone contact?
( 13 A 'I don't know.
14 . E' Is that what he normally does?
~
15 A I was off on leave when that happened. I don't l 16 know how he got the names. I don't know why he made the
. 17 contact. I don't know anything about it because see I was 18 on Iwave at that particular time and when I got back, both {
19 of -- I was not really -- I was never given this memo by
~
20 Mr. Nesterman, he never told me anything about it.
21 Q Right.
22 A The only reason I got this memo was when I went 23 to respond to his critical memo,of me, I went to the file 24 to look for it and I guess the secretary had inadvertently 25 placed that in our file on the allegation. And otherwise I TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
U d 195 l
. wouldn't have known that Mr. Westerman had done anything at' '
2 all.
3 Q Does Mr. Westerman normally contact allegers to 4 clarify cliegations or is that the job of Mark Emerson, the 5 allegation coordinator?
6 A well, all I can tell you is that Mr. Young talked 7 to -- subsequent to my conversation on November the 25th, 8 he had a talk prior to leaving the site with Mr. Mark 9 Emerson and told him the names of the people involved, and 10 the fact that he had gathered a package. After the fact, I 11 told him to get as much stuff together as possible because P
12 you know, they wanted as many specifies as possible, and he
, ([ 13 made Mr. Mark Emerson aware of the fact that he had that 14 package and the package was placed in my resident's file 15 and kep't under lock and key.
16 Ar* as far as I was concerned when I got back, I 17 looked at Mr. Westerman's meno to me that said that I could 18 be assured that he would take care of everything, I assumed l
19 that he did. However, if --
20 Q was -- did anybody ever look at the file or the 21 packet? .
22 A That's what I'm going to bring up and that is 23 when Mr. Westerman was sent down Exhibit 16-A which is 24 dated March the 13th, '86, Mr. Westerman had been directed 25 to talk to everyone at site regarding their problems with,
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
N
- 1
(. 196 l 1 if they'd had any problems with him or whatever.
I 2 Now, see I don't understand how he knew that i 3 Mr. Young had had a pro 31em with the way the allegation was i
4 handled, because Mr. Young didn't tell him and I didn't '
5 tell him.
6 Q This it, this says here -- this is -- I'm 7 referring to Exhibit 16-A. the memorandum to file?
8 A Yeah.
9 Q You have a sentence at the end of the first 10 paragraph which says "This is a result of the controversy 11 over 85-07/05." It says that Westerman --
12 A well, what happened was this -- the day
( 13 Mr. Weste'rman asked me for Mr. Young's telephone number to 14 call hlm to see if he had any safety concerns. .
I 15 Q If Young had any safety concerns? I 16 'A Yes, uh-huh.
17 Q How does that tie in?
18 A well, I don't know how he knew Mr. Yoccg had p .lD W i t, Ic L 19 safety concerns, yet 4Ws enT Mr. Young did. ' t t;11 him.
20 Obviously Mr. Young does have some safety concerns.
21 But anyway, he went and called Mr. Young af ter he-22 gave him the number and in talking to Mr. Young, he 23 discovered that there was a pac,kage in my trailer that had 24 not been looked into.
25 And he called over to -- he came ove' and talked l
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
_m__ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ___.__._ - __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --'
,R 7' V D 197 1 to me and he said something to the extent, "No one ever 2 told me about a package that's over there.".
3 And I said, "Well, Tom, I told you.that Mr. Young 4 had additional information, that he was getting additional 5 information," and to the best of my re_ collection, 6 Mr. Emerson had a conversation with Mr. Young and Mr. Young 7 told him he had a package there waiting for him<
8 And when Mr. Emersi7 came to site subsequently to 9 talk to me and others about the way consultants should 10 handle allegations, the methodology and how to report them 11 and how to write a memo and all that kind of stuff, I 12 believe I also told him that the package was still in there
. 13 but it wa's never looked into.
14 Q' okay. Let me ask, Mr. Young got this package 15 from,whom?
16 A From the area where the allegers had pointed out
. 17 some of the deficiencies.
18 Q Did the allege.rs, these two allegers, did they {
1 19 know that Mr. Young had gathered a package together?
20 A I think so.
21 Q Do you have any reason as to why, when 22 Mr. Westerman talked to these two alleger that they 23 wouldn't have becught this up?,
24 A well, all I can tell you is if you cal) nn the 25 telephone and my boss is. standing there, I may not talk to
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
h 9 198 1 you. If you call on the telephone and you tell me you're 2 the President of the United States, I may not believe you,
. - - 3 hoi I may talk to you.
4 If I'm to go to work for TUGC0 and you call me on 5
yow Afv4S b the telephone and 3 don't emake a personal appearance outside 6 of the work area, I may not tell you anything.
7 Q okay.
8 A I don't know whether Mr. Westerman intended for 9 that to be the outcome but that could very well have been 10 the outcome.
11 Q Now, when you mentioned to Mr. Westerman that 12 you'd be willing to go and conduct an investigation into
( 13 this whol'e affair, what did he tell you?
14 A. He didn't say anything else. He just -- he 15 dropped the matter. That was dropped at that point. I 16 think the only thing he was interested in is getting me 17 burned in the matter from there on out.
18 Q Did he tell you not to do it or to do it or what 19 did he say?
20 A No, he -- I said, "Look, all you've got to do is 21 tell me to do it and I'll do it," and he didn't tell me to 22 do it sc that was telling me not to do it. And so I never 23 heard anymore from it until I g,et this letter.
24 Q When you told him that CI didn't want the waters 25 muddied up and they usually like to go in fresh and contact
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- - o
g-. (-
199 1 the allegers themselves, what,did he say to you about that?
2 A He didn't'say anything about that, he didn't 3 anticipate it', didn't do anything. I said g'ive it to me or 4 take it forward and since he didn't give it to me, he took 5 it forward and I assumed it was going to be taken care of 6 by someone else.
7 Q And do you know of any other occasion where 8 Mr. Westerman had contacted allegers personally, to, you 9 know, to receive allegations on wrongdoing?
10 A This is the only instance I've been involved with 11 Mr. Westerman on, on an allegation such as this.
12 Q Okay. Next one.
13 A 'Okay. This is concern No. 8, pressure, 14 harassment and intimidation to change NRC report 85-16/13.
15 Okay, in this instance, I was about to go on 16 vacat' ion, and I had all the findings for the November 17 report, like I was going on vacation about the 20th, not 18 vacation, emergency leave, I should rephrase that, and I 19 tried to give him a completed draft where it would not be 20 held up, it would go forward --
21 Q Can I excuse you just for one minute? I would 22 like to remark that we have an Exhibit 16-B which is titled 23 " Cover sheet of packet left," and I take that to mean that 24 this was the cover sheet that was placed on the packet that 4 25 was secured concerning the allegations on the consultant ;
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l 1
. . __n _ _.
s .- 200 1 group?
2 A Right. And I have reproduced various packages of 3 that document to assure that it's secure.
4 Q okay. We can go on.
5 A -- could go forward and not be held up because I 6 was on leave. Also, there was a meeting to be held with 7 the Utilities on the subject of 10 CFR 50.55(e) 8 construction deficiency reporting.
9 This meeting was to be conducted sometimes in 10 January by Mr. Eric Johnson. And since this report went to 11 the heart of many problems that we have been finding with 12 TUGCO's system of reporting-deficiencies, I tried to get a
, 13 fast and dirty draft to also let Mr. Westerman have those 14 issues.'and discuss them with Mr. Johnson prior to his 15 meeting.
16 Mr. Westerman took my 85-16/13 draft report for 17 November to Region IV. I had written violations, instead O
18 of items that he had instructed me to write as unresolved 19 items.
20 This time, Mr. Eric Johnson reviewed the draft 21 and wrote on the copy back to me directing me that -
22 paragraphs three and four were unsatisfactory because they 23 were not violations, that no NR.C requ.irements had been 24 violated and all I can say is the best of my inspection 25 knowledge, there were violations. And I had written them
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
.. . . . _a - . _ . -- - - . . . . . - .
,e %
U !) 201 1 1 as such.
2 The purpose of this inspection was to perform a 3 routine inspection which included plant tours, review of F-~ 4 Applicant action on construction deficiencies, previous NR (~ ,
, 5 inspections findings, IE bulletins and electrical 6 inspections.
7 As a part of Jackground, Mr. Joe McKlesky, NRC 8 consultant, has been tryino to inspect construction 9 deficiencies reported per 10 CTR 50.55(e) and bulletin 10 actions, IE bulletin actions, dealing with hardware 11 modifications for four months. -
12 I have repeatedly advocated to Mr. Westerman that
( 13 TUGCO rec'ords are not readily retrievable. This is 14 consistent request -- this if ten,istent with past NRC 15 inspections where NRC inspectu .... aider site records not 16 retrievable if the Applicant cannot produce them by the end
. 17 of a one week inspection.
18 Most inspectors will allow, you know, a minimum 19 of two days to get the records if they're site records.
20 And if they have less than two days, they'll make it 21 # resolved.
22 But in this case, they've had months to come 23 forward with auditable records., so we found that TUGco 24 could not get it together in months, Jkt Mr. Westerman 25 d$agreedwithmesayingif.wegivethemenoughtime, they can M
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
k- 202 1 find anything.
2- what he means is that if 'you put two or three of 3 their most knowledgeable project people on a records 4 retrievable' problem, they can finally run it down. Somehow 5 or ano'ther, contacting a great number of other people to 6 find such documents.
7 And what I say is that this means that they don't 8 really have a real system at all if these special people 9 are not available to track down these records. A good 10 , system would allow a clerk to go to an index and readily 11 retrieve records in a minimum assunt of time.
12 0 okay. It says hear la Mr. Johnson's note, it l [ 13 says in p'aragraph 3, "Most of the apparent violations cited 14 are not violations. Records for the convenience of the NRC .
15 are not required." What is he referring to there?
16 A I don't know wnat he means there, because I don't 1
17 think that we ask for any records that were for the 18 convenience of the NRC. We were simply askir.y for the 19 files of the construction deficiencies to have sufficient 20 information to lead us to the hardware that had been l 21 corrected so we could affirm that indeed the hardware had -
22 been correct'ed.
23 Q so the files that you,were asking for, the files 24 of the construction deficiencies, are records that are 25 required by NRC?
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
.. ..- _ . _ m.. . .
,- m
%) L 203 1 A As far as I know, any file that is a 50.55(e) 2 deficiency is on a safety related piece of equipment and 3 they are required to keep records on any deficiencies of 4 safety related equipment.
5 Q And you're talking about 50.55(e) deficiencies 6 now?
7 A Deficiencies, that's right.
8 Q And those are all, by definition, safety related, 9 am I not right?
10 A Yes, that's correct.
11 Q okay.
12 A If it's not safety related, you wouldn't have to 13 report it'.
14 Q* Right. And they are. required to have these a
15 files -- I mean, if they're required to report it --
16 A I think that's a given.
o 17 Q It's a given, you have to keep the file and 18 that's what you were asking for?
19 A That's what we were asking for.
20 Q And so they are not maintained just for the 21 convenience of the NRC as far as you know, not by -
22 definition?
23 A As far as I know, not,for the convenience of NRC.
24 Q That was in paragraph 3, that was his comment in 25 paragraph 3. Mr. Johnson's comment, I'm sorry. ;
1
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-s -
\J kJ 204 1 okay Mr. Johnson says also in his note to you 2 that in paragraph 4, "We are citing them for a potential,"
3 which is underlined " hardware problem" on what is it Namco 4 switches?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q N-a-a-c-o switches?
7 A That'e an IE bulletin issue.
8 0 " Find out if there is a hardware problem or not.
9 otherwise, there is no violation."
10 A In other words, the message to me is if the 11 records are wrong, and there are no hardware issues, 12 there's no violation. Which I disagree with, of course,
! 13 because criterion 17 requires that you have records 14 regardless of the fact of whether there's hardware problems 15 or not.
16 And this particular incident, the IE bulletin
. 17 79-28 required that certain model Namco switches which were 18 faulty and would fail and cause the potential safety 19 related system to have -- to not perform its functions were 20 to be replaced and when the NRC consultant went out to the 21 hardware using the traveler that states that they were to -
22 install this model number and this serial number Namco 23 switch, he found that the actua,1 switch installed was not 24 that switch identified on the work traveler.
25 Q Now, the switch that was installed, was that
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, ( 713') 222-7177
y s
l
- k- 205 I
1 switch adequate? I mean was there a hardware problem? I 2 A As I recall, the switch was qualified. However, 3 the criterion that is in Appendix B, criterion 8 states 4 that you will have, you will identify equipment such that 5 it has traceability and you could readily identify that 6 particular equipment. .I'd have to have the Appendix B to 7 get the very words out of it, but it does require that you
)
8 have equipment specifically identified. And this 9 particular instance, it was not correctly identified.
10 So regardless of the' fact that if there was no 11 hardware problem and it's the correct switch, it still had 12 the wrong identification in terme of the paperwork.
13 (Discussion off the record.)
14 Q* (By Mr. Mulley) Okay. So there was, in fact, a 15 violation, and the paperwork violation was a genuine --
16 A violation.
17 Q -- violataan of an Appendix B criterion?
18 A But as a result of his direction, I removed the 19 violation, he told me to. And it was unresolved in the 20 final draft report here. As you will find, I have nothing 21 but unresolved items now in the report. -
22 Q And to summarize these, the differences between 23 the draft and the final, were t,hese the only two changes?
24 A Were those the only two changes?
25 0 Yes.
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
L~
.n.
V V 208 1 A No, there are a lot more changes. A lot more 2 violations in there. A number. .
3 Q Do you have those summarized?
4 A I have those summarized, but before I get to 5 that, I'd like to -- I'll cover that in a moment. Let me 6 point -- cover another point before we forget it and that 7 is as a result of our getting into the construction I
(
8 deficiency area the utility affirmed that they had severe 9 problems and they came to Mr. Westerman and they said, "Mr.
10 Westerman, yeah, we've got all' kinds of problems, we're 11 going to clean them up, give us time, we're going clean 12 everything up."
I 13 'And that's the story I'm getting about a lot of 14 things'like construction deficiency reporting, IE 15 bulletins, I find that their QA manuals are all screwed up, I 16 well, they're going to -- I want to cite them because i 17 l
. they're a hundred percent complete on one unit and they )
18 don't have QA manuals that are correct.
19 And I mean, I could go through and do a number on 20 their QA manuals and write many violations on it. or at 21 least several t. hat I know of. And he's saying, "
Don't '
22 write them against the manuals, because Mr. Counsel is 23 going to get all that fixed, he,'s got all the -- he's got 24 all the manuals in revision now, they're going t,o fix the 25 problems."
. T' ATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
____________________________________m__ .__m_._ __
4 Q
201 v1 Whether or not 'in revision is still a 2 violation if you're a hundred percent and you've been using 1 e p>. 'wA.7.a 3 the manuals since the beginning of the project.
4 0 so what you're saying here is that the plant is a 5 hundred percent complete and he is now revising?
6 A Be's trying to -- Mr. Counsel comes in and he 7 recognized right off that the' program is really screwed up '
8 and he's trying to fix it.
9 0 okay. '
10 A But he's only one man' and that still does not 11 relieve us. That's his responsibility as TUGCo. That ,
12 doesn't relieve our responsibility at NRC. If we find a h 13 violation', we document it. Doesn't.make any difference if 14 it happened two years ago, five years ago. Now you may 15 vant to put it in perspective but it's still a violation.
16 Q okay. And let me get the revision of the QA 17 manuals. What is he trying to achieve by revising the QA b
18 manuals?
Coc. l "
19 A Well, he,'s going to put some meat into the4--
20 we're talking about the top tie ocuments.
21 Q Right. -
22 A Like, for example, I can give an enam'ple, you l l 23 look at the top tier documents,,if you look at a QA manual 24 at a utility where they know what they're doing, they'll 25 have referen<:es and they'll reference the ANSI standards,
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- +-
1
f 208
, l[ ,
1 for example, that they are committed to, and the top tier- !
2 document will summarize all the requirements and -- sort of be i 3 the Bible, if you will, bi 4 -Q Okay. 1 5 A It's one step down from the FSAR.- Appendix.B, 6 FSAR, and then the QA manuals and that's their overall 7 Bible as to how they're going to run their QA program.
8 Q .Now, you have a problem with revising the QA i
9 manuals at this stage, there's a violation, you say, 10 because the plant is a hundred' percent complete? And where 11 is the conflict here?
12 A I don't have any problem with revising the
(.f 13 manuals, 1 think it's great, they should have done it in 14 '74, should have been wedgiEng right.in '74 but I'm saying I 15 see a violation and I'm told, " Hey, don't Write those 16 violations because they're revising thi QA manuals."
- 17 Q So the violation you see are the violations in 18 the QA, the old QA manuals?
l 19 A They're still in effect right now, though.
20 Badn't been replaced.
.21 Q I just wanted -- -
22 A They're old, but they're still in effect.
23 Q But a lot of these th,ings you do understand and 24 you understand why they're violations but I don't and some 25 other person, you know, reviewing this testimony might not
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
, ee. .
1 j
209 1 understand that there's readily as you that's why I'm 2 trying to get the explanation in A, B, c's, so to speak.
3 A well, I hope you can help me explain it, because 4 I don't understand why you're -- I mean, if they've been in 5 violation for ten years, does that make it okay that 6 they're going to revise it tomorrow and now they're in 7 compliance with the plant one hundred percent complete?
8 That's my problem.
9 Q 1 understand.
10 A And that is one of our philosophical differences.
11 Why do you write something that's a violation in 19747 12 Because it's still in violation if they're still in 13
, violation'right nqw, it was a violation in '74 . Not only ja e. vie lnT '**
14 was-it,'. imp;; tint now, they've been in violation for ten 15 years. Not one year.
16 Q And does this fact that the QA manuals were 17 improper, does this have ramifications beyond the manual, 18 itself?
19 A It depends on how much support the top, the I 20 manager, lower tier managers give the QA program. Usually 21 the top tiered document is something that an auditor, a '
22 local auditor, an inspector can read and look at and say, 23 " Hey guys, the head of TUGC0 says this is the way it's the 24 got to be, this is the program requirement, you've got to t
25 meet ANSI, you'fe got to.neet this, you've got to meet
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 9
_. . .e . wasap m anne ,- - . . . .
f{ s 210 1 that."
2 Therefore~, you're telling me that there's -- that 3 I don't have to meet that. How come yeti're telling me 4 something that's inconsistent with the QA manual, the 5 mible, okay? So it's important from that standpoint.
6 Q But if these documents had been wrong for the 7 last ten years, certain people have been complying with the 8 document that's incorrect.
9 A Well, I don't know -- I don't know the 10 ramifications of it. I just know that you're supposed 11 to -- these are the type things that you're supposed to 12 have by the time you get your construction permit. And
. 13 that's all I can say.
l 14 0,. okay.
l 15 A- I don't know what the ramifications are. I'd say j 16 that it's certainly not good, i 17 Anyway, they asked us to review their NEO 18 procedure, I think it's NEO 1. We commented on their
" 19 com psoduction deficiency procedure and told them it was 20 inadequate and they shouldn't implement it, they l 21 implemented it anyway. .
)
22 And we also found in the review not only did they 23 implement it, but they implemented that procedure without 24 changing six other construction deficiency procedures and 25 therefore the various organizational changes made in the l
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 f
l 8
i,, 211 /
1 overall tier, higher tier document, theyhaddifferent(("r%
i . 2 they had all kinds of conflicts in it is all I can tell 3 you.
4 And we don't -- I don't think we want to spend a lot of time going into that,just T to say Yhat 6 -" d -"
5 3
6 I saw that as a violation. I don't think that was written 7 up as a violation. I said, "That's a violation."
8 N ,$k W"No,SUthat's not a violation."
You want to see if yew can find it in the Z
j 9 10 original report, I'll point it out to you. " Carry that as 11 unresolved." That's a quote. Okay, on Page 3-4 of the 12 draft, I've written up --
b 13 Q Exhibits No. 177 14 A' -- Exhibit No. 17,.I've written up a violation 15 where Mr. Counsel himself was involved in a procedure being 16 re rised and implemented and I wrote tries up for f ailure to 17 revise all implementing procedures to be consistent with 18 the corporate procedures NEOCS1, which is a violation of 10 19 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion 5.
20 Identified as Item 8516-022, 8513-02, 21 Now see if you can find that in the final report.-
22 I thir.k it goes away. In fact, I think by this time, I'm 23 about to the place where writing however Mr. Westerman 24 wants me to, because this report here, I'm up into January, 25 and I've capitulated to the point of saying, ' Hey, tell me TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
- 1 V , 212 i 1 what you want, tell me how you want it in there before I 2 make the draft report or whatever, if that's what it I 3 takes," because by this time, it's very apparent to me, !
4 here's the division director who is participating in and 5 telling me not to write violations and so the message is 6 clear, back off, and so I go back and I'm writing 7 everything as unresolved items.
) 8 I will not, no matter what, I will keep -- no 9 matter what, I'm going to report what I find in a report.
I 10 Even though they're telling me'I cannot write violations, 11 I'm still going to put the issues in the report. I will l
12 never do less than that. But if they're going to play j 13 games wit'h me about violations and unresolved issues, and 14 burn me for writing them and try to set me up like.this, 15 then they'll just have to tell me how they want them l 16 written so I can keep my job.
. 17 Q So this violation was in fact dropped out of the I
18 final report? )
19 A As a matter of fact, I believe I have the page i
20 here. If you notice, I think --
21 Q That's it right there.
22 A I don't have a complete file, but I think if you 23 look at the complete file of this matter nere, you'll find l
24 that Mr. Westerman has written some of this. Not me. And 25 I just went along with whatever he wrote.
)
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
__m- __ .__ ._m.__m -_--_ - _ - - _ _ --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - ' - - - - - ~ ~ - " " - - - - - - - ' - " - " - - " - - - - " - - - - - - - - " ' --
U ) 213 1 At this time, I had -- you know, I had just given s
2 up the ship in terms of writing violations. I write --
3- either open items or unresolved, whatever you want, or just 4 put in it the report and say, "This is the issue," not call
~
5 it anything. I'm not going to stoop any lower than I've
,6 already been made to stoop.
7 Q Okay.
8 A And if they have to have anything less than that, 9 they'll just have to get rid of me because I'm not going to 10 quit documenting things in the report, because if I did 11 that, then I'm not doing my job. ,
12 Q That's right.
(, 13 A 'So by this time, as you can see by -- what were 14 the exhibit numbers?
15 Q 17 and 18.
16 A I told Mr. Westerman that we were holding TUGCO's 17 hands and needed to get out of that posture because it it 18 not proper for a regulator. And the other thing is the NRC
. 19 consultant needs to finish the job, he's going to be gone 20 and we're -- his time has been just eaten up with holding 21 their hands. -
22 We're not going to get the job done and I'm going 23 to still be left to do it after, spending all the money on i 24 this talent.
25 And I asked Mr. McKlesky if he'd ever seen
- TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l, 214 1
l I- ,
anything like this plant that',s this far along and where 2 they didn't have their act together on something so basic 3 as 50.55(e) reporting and IE bulletin systems, which l
4 assures that problems are corrected and documented, and 5 he's very mild mannered gentleman and he said no, he didn't 6 think he'd ever seen anything ' 9e this before. And if he 7 says that, you can take it that that means it's serious.
8 Q Mr. McKlesky is identified as being --
9 A NRC consultant working on the bulletins, 10 construction deficiencies, and information notices, things 11 of this nature.
12 0 okay.
% 13 A "I guess summarizing, Number 17, as a result of 14 our conversation I wrote the draft report with a number of 15 violati'ons to make them get into gear.
16 When I returned on January the 13th, 1986, 17 Mr. Westerman gave me a draft report which Mr. Johnson j 18 we've already discussed paragraphs. And his comments, if l 19 you will notice on paragraph 3, is as.
20 Q Yes.
21 A I don't think I've ever had a professional -
22 supervisor ever put an insulting comment like that on a 23 report. And another insulting , comment is on page 3-3 which e + ckA 24 states, 'Now if you don't know what objective ris, if you 25 can't define objective evidence, stupid, don't use the
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 l
I
() ._) 31$
I terminology."
2 And demeaning things like this have a way of 3 working on you. And Exhibit 18 it was, pretty clear by this 4 tim'e that Region IV management, they want a yes-man to 5 write whatever they're told and as a result, five 6 violations for Unit 1, three for Unit 2 were reduced to no "7 violations and a number cf unresolved items which M1 plotNeach 8 of the units and that's the end of that statement.
9 0 okay.
10 A The next issue is concern number 9, has to de 11 with criticism on wrongdoing described in Bisco electrical 12 penetration seals, memos at Exhibit Numbers 19 and 20.
l
( 13 'Again, in January when I returned, Mr. Westerman 14 informed me that Mr. Eric Johnson had read this memo and-i 15 was very critical of the memo because it had inferred that 16 false certifications may have been made and because the j
17 fires -- because of fires in 1975 and '76 which destroyed 18 files of test records in the business Chicago office.
19 Mr. Young had found in talking to the Chicago l 1
20 office that two fires had occurred, and in their statements I I
21 to him, they had stated that at first of all, a test record- '
22' that was done in October of 1976 was destroyed in a suma.e-23 of 1976 fire. ,
i 24 And maybe that was just an honest mistake. But 25 to a real investigator, one has to pursue that to see if TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1 l
(! J 216 1 thet's just a slip of the tongue or what the circumstances 2 are with the destruction of those records and especially
. 1 3 with respect to two fires, one happens in 197:3 and one in l 4 1976, makes a person very suspicious of that circumstances 5 surrounding the fire. And we didn't say that exactly in 6 the letter, but there might be a hint of virongdoing in this 7 instance.
8 These seals are design tested and qualified for 9 different configurations of fire stops at plants throughout z
10 the country. And they're used in critical applications, '
11 where they must, if a fire starts, they must stop the fire 12 or you will lose safety systems.
(:
i 13 Exhibit 19, in this memo, I wrote on several l
.14 menos in Exhibit 19, on November the 25th I wrote a memo I 15 that was considered inflammatory. Why, I don't know. I 16 still don't understand why it's inflammatory except that !
17 it's bringing CI into the picture because of a hint of 18 wrongdoing.
15 Then I revised it to a December the 2nd, 1985 20 meno and this was taken forward to Mr. Johnson by 21 Mr. Westerman. And I suppose both menos were discussed as 22 being inflammatory. And possibly that I'm trying to get 01 23 into somethir.g and therefore I need to have -- need to have 24 se calibrated, I guess, whatever.
25 And it appeared that in our looking et this l . TATE REPCRTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. i l~'
( 217 j i
1 issue, that there were Bisco seals that had recently failed
{
i s 1 2 tests and had also appeared that the certifications of ;
3 these particular tests, Bisco may have made' improper 1
4 certifications, possibly falsified certifications, we don't
]
1 5 know. j 6 But that's what the data looked like to us. And I
i 7 that's the reason we were writing the memo trying to get it j l
1 8 out in a reasonable period of time to have someone look at l 9 it because if you'have fire stops that are -- that will 10 fail if you have a fire, it's a fairly serious situation. j 11 And we were not saying that that was the case; j 12 what we were saying is that there are implications here ,
,. . \
t g_! 13 that shou'Id be locked into by someone, we were not making 14 conclu'sion6 again. And after I got back from leave, I was 15 told that Mr. Johnson was coming down to talk to ne'about 16 this letter.
17 Around January the 23rd, 1986, Mr. Johnson and 18 Mr. Gagliardo came te site and Mr. Westerman casually 19 mentioned that Mr. Gagliardo might want a teur. And since 20 I had returned from three weeks being off for three week on 21 leave, my desk was piled high with mail, reports needing 22 attentier. that were in process and of course the December 23 report was due and I was busy trying to get that report 24 written.
25 Mr. Johnson met with me and told me that the
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 m
218 '
(
1 letter should not have been directed to headquarters but 1 l
l i
2 should have been directed to him first. I didn't point it j 3 out by my first letter was written to Mr. Westerman and 4 then Mr. Westerman told me to write it to headquarters but 5 then when I took the heat on it", for writing it directly to 6 headquarters as Mr. Westerman told me, then he didn't --
l 7 didn't step in arat explain to Mr. Johnsen the reason that 8 it had been written that way.
l 9 Again, I just agreed to, I took the -- I took the l ,
1 l
l 10 criticism and agreed to revise it, didn't say anything to l 11 Mr. Johnson, just tried to revise it as he wished and it
(
12 vas signed off finally March the 6th, 1986.
t .
I I
l
% 13 'But on neern, when you bring up a safety issue, 14 in November and where we're worrying about the protocol of 1 l
15 a memo that has serious technical issues involved, as well 26 as possible wrongdoing issues involved, and what message i
17 does an inspectwr get when he gets chastised for the 1 18 protocol and the importance of the content is not given any f
l 19 attention and from November, whatever the date was, when I 20 first wrote it, until March, nothing is done about this 21 issue. .
22 If I had -- if they had reported to me on site a 23 very innocuous occurrence and I didn't make a daily report wodd.
24 where it could be broadcast,to all the industry, I 3get rwI M **
25 chastised for it, for p innedi te acticn.
wg And yet g still ve TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177 I
- ~
(,T ) 219 I have - something that the NRC. consultant found th4d -end b ' he i . M ~
2- considered.it a safety issue, and a safety concern, and I
~
3 concurred with-it. He read my memorandum as being accurate 4 and reflected the fact of the matter as he knew it.
5 And as he, as a trained investigator, questioned 6 some of the statements of the conflicts of the matter. He 7 read the first meno and ccncurred with it as being factual 8 and accurate and to the point and it was submitted and all 9 I have had out of it is criticism.
10 0 Why do you think they were resisting this issue 11 like they were?
12 A well, to be quite candid, I don't know how it is
( .; 13 in other ' regions but Region IV does not like OI. And I 14 think ,they would prefer any issue would remain within 15 Region 1:V confines rather than OI. And perhaps they're .
_t cu r l. a www 16 trying to calibrate me not t: d:,-sendthingsingthatwill
'17 go to OI.
18 I don't know any other reason why. One other 1
19 reason why is that when you start out and you decide you're 20 going to set a guy,u,p, you start er,iticizing him for
%4 wea ld ordewei g M lo.4. c r i 1 c, W
- 21 thingj. You can make his life so miserable that one of two-22 'W things happens; either he leaves under pressure,3 he starts 23 M
screwing up or whatever <Ms you ,make enough documentation to 24 try to get rid of him off the project. That's another 25 alternative. That thought occurred to me.
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
I t
1 ,
( -- i (; 220 l
1 Q 'Was this ever referred to oI, tr.at you know of?
2 A I don't know. I don't taow. I don't think so, 3 because it's directed to Mr. Johnson for referral to l
4 headquarters. If he contacted on OI, I don't know. You'd 5 have to ask him. I don't know if it has.
6 Then with regard to the tour I was supposed to go u> b l 7
on, I talked a few minutes with Mr. Gagliardog said he just 8 wanted to walk through the plant. I had made no special 9 preparations for a tour for Mr. Gagliardo far two reasons, 10 short notice given that he was coming for a tour, and the 11 casual referral to the matter that he just wanted to just i
12 valk through the plant.
ir lu 13 And another reason I didn't give special l 14 preparation for it because Mr. Gagliardo was on the NRC ec /m* N d Y (,7117)
- 15 T.ge d.p Q 1 review teamgn 1984 and stayed in the plant for 16 extended periods of time and knew what was in the plant.
17 So I didn't feel like I was taking someone in that had to
. 18 be given a grand tour, nor was I given the impression that 19 I was to g,1ve him a briefing on the, status of the plant
- 3.{ Z bus ->.pn , u -fw& b r^. t (> *~ j we a de so &
20 who.s.e I could have dropped all the report writing and 21 prepared that ,i ./**
7p, j~ n -w w p y IM d '"r ' ' 77 22 We started to go to the plant to look 6t the
- 23 plant and I picked up my drawin,gs and took them with me as l
l 24 I always do, I always take my drawings. And in walking 25 through the safety guards building I answered one question
. TATE REPORTIEG SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-- =-
I (1 ) 22I )
- 1 wrong about the pump room location, but I quickly, even ,!
2 without drawings, recovered and knew that it was incorrecte 3 t was down another stairway because after all, there are a 4 lot of rooms in a nuclear plant; we're talking about 5 upwards into the hundreds. i s
A l 6 I took him to the area, you can see Er.hibit , l 7 20 2 f r* Q .5 o ~ r t v-fl&w Q ks't . g p L, M Q g which is in response to his questions,,because he said I 8 that he wanted information. This particular memo documents 9 the fact that he asked me some questions about plant status 10 and I had not been -- I had not talked to the plant 11 managers in three weeks, and I knew the approximate 12 percentage completion, and other data that he asked. But h 13 like on a' plant status I wanted to' check with the assistant l 14 project manager of TUGCO before I gave hig a precise 15 percentage because I knew it probably had changed.
16 r S$u N WW I hadn't seen ope in a few weeks and in fact, O
17 when I pursued this matter, I found out that the reason 18 that I hadn't seen a report jbecause I review those reports 19 every time they come.across my desk, status reports for 20 Unit 1 and Unit 2, they had quit giving a status on Unit 2 21 because the lawyers had told them they were no longer going-22 to give percentages complete, nor would they give fuel load 23 dates for some reason. I still glon't know the reason for 24 that, but that's their policy at this point in time.
25 And that's the. reason I didn't have an updated i
l r
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
'O J 222 I 1 figure for that. And I go through and I give reasons for, i .
2 Mr. Gagliardo asked for well, deficiency trend report on 3 weldings, and I had looked at welding a few weeks before 4 that and the welding qualification testing was at such a i 5 very low point, that I was satisfied there was not much
! 6 activity in that area, didn't pursue it any further than 7 that.
8 And as far as the trend analysis and contacting 4
l 9 the individuals on trend analysis, they had -- the welding l 10 < activity and some of the others are so low now that tney l .
11 don't have a trend analysis anymore.
1 12 cv mi n.swdon7 Andy some of the obvious questions lik; tr.;w::ing i
(,. 13 hh 7"acF4ane, I go back and try to explain, because you 14 know, on Tuesday the 28th, excuse me, delete that. On 15 Monday.tbe 27th, I received a phone call from Mr. Johnson 16 in which he said he talked to Mr. Gagliardo and the result 17 of the walk-through the plant, discussions with 18 Mr. Gagliardo, that he, Mr. Johnson, had decided I didn't 19 know much about the plant or the plant status and he stated 20 that he'd just read my resume and my construction 21 experience was very thin and he guessed -- but he guessed 22 he would have to leave me down here anyway. Implied threat 23 of removal? You bet. .
24 Q How many years of construction experience have 25 you had?
TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
-.-.7-.
('t (, 223 q j
1 A Ten.
2 Q How does that compare with other inspectors?
3 A I don' t knot <. Which innpectors? 'I don't know.
4 Q other Region IV inspectors at the plant, do you 1
5 know? You might not know. I 6 A Resident inspectors?
7 Q Right, yeah. -
8 A % have far more than the senior resident l-
' 9 inspector at South Texas. That's the only other 10 construction site. I l
okay.
11 Q 12 A okay. On Tuesday January the 28th, after these j
.. 13 . events, I felt like I had to talk to Mr. Westerman and find 14 out whht's going on. After all, I had been back a matter i
15 of a couple of dayr, I hed two letters that h' ave been 16 criticized, I had all of the writing that's on report 17 85-16/13, and the recent conversation with Mr. Johnson 18 convinced me that I'm being set up for removal.
19 I told Mr. Westerman this directly and he said, 20 "Well, I didn't have any part in that." And I said, "Well, 21 I say you do have some part in it. You've gone up and done 22 a nrmber on me on 85-14/11 and the other reports, you've 23 given bad reports on me, I think you have had something to 24 do with it."
25 *Well," he said "I didn't have any -- I didn't
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
o . ..
4 f
224 l l
I have any part of their coming down here to check to see
. }
- ~
, 2 what you knew about the plant." He said, "They had heard a .
]
3 rumor that you used drawings while locating things in the 4 plant."
t:
5 And I told him, " Yeah, that's true. I've always l 6 used drawings to locate things in plants. It's an 7 acceptable prac* ice to use drawings inspecting as you can j 8 get room numbers azauths, part numbers from drawings."
I 9 And I said, "You know, they really warted a trip 10 down here if they acted on a rumor because all they had to i 11 do is call me on the. telephone and ask me and I would have 12 confirmed that I use drawings in my inspections." I also 13 would hav'e told them if they're saying as Mr. Johnson's i
14 statenient -- do you have it on that? Do you have it on
, 15 that exhibit?
16 They're right here. What does the last statement 17 say there?
! =
18 0 "I am concerned that we can't seem to get better 19 quality reports from the first draft and those we do get I
20 focus on paper issues. The SRI should be out inspecting 21 hardware."
22 A In other words, quit writing up quality assurance 23 findings, go look at some littl,e specific pieces of 24 hardware; I don't think you know the plant well enough.
25 Q Excuse me, that comment I read was on page two of
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, ('713 ) 222-7177
(;. (, , 225 1 Exhibit 17. ;
2 A Well, I responded to Mr. Johnson's stating that l
-I 3 at the onset, when I was told what my responsibilities l 4 would be on this project by Mr. that is 2 would 5 lead a team of inspectors to -- like the NRC consultants l
6 and Mr. Norman who's been working for me, and I have all of
, 7 the paper flow that comes through that is the equivalent of l i '8 a branch chief, we get all of the mail. One could spend,
! 9 you could spend your whole time reading all the hearing 10 saterial and all the correspondence that comes through. i 11 And seeing that the reports got in and out, nothing more. ,
l 12 And I told him I says, "If you guys espect me to 13 stay in the field all the time, I'm goi,ng to tell,you I 14
, can't,do both things at the same time. If you wanted me to 15 lead ~a team of three or four people and then review their l 16 work'and see that it's properly documented, and at the same l '17 time you think I'm going to be out in the field a high 18 percentage of the time and keep up all the report writing i
19 and all the other things and all the specific tasks that 20 I've been assigned to do, then you botter get as a resident 21 inspector down here, somebody that can stay in field more,.
22 because I can't do all that, it's not physically possible.'
23 And so what I'm stating is that I advised him that 24 I hadn't been in the field as auch as I would like to be in 25 the field. But that was.the reasdn. And I don't hear
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
l l
- - . l
\
i 226 1 anybody criticizing the team leaders next door who are 2 leading a team of three or four, three or four people and 3 they're not doing any -- they're not doing any inspection. l 4 In some says cases, I'm doing far more, as far as I know, l 1
5 being in the field.
6 I told Mr. Westerman it's pretty apparent that 7 someone is trying to find any fault they can to criticize i
8 me and I told him to tell Region IV management to back off l
9 and I would let him, Mr. Westerman, tell me whatever he 1
10 wanted to put in the reports. Because by this time I was 11 convinced that's the only way I'll be able to stay on the l
12 project. And he said he would make the call.
l 13 That afternoon, he made the call, and -- he made 14 the call and he came back that afternoon and stated that 15 they,' Region IV management, had agreed to back off. I told }
16 him I was pretty unhappy with the whole situation, Region l
17 IV, I was trying to find another acceptable job in another l
. l 18 region or governraent agency, however I couldn't leave this 19 region unless I find an acceptable position here.
20 I have some 23 years of government service and I 21 can't walk away from that and I'm not going to-and I'm not 22 going to be run off. And I told him I realized I wasn't 23 too popular in this region and he said, " Yeah, you'll 24 never" -- again he says, this is the time, "You'll never 25 get over 84-32; maybe looking for another job is a good TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
{
f 3 l
') L 227- ,i i
1 idea."
3 To me all these things represent, represented a f !
3 I pattern of pressure, harassment in October and up until --
l I i 4 and then in January when all these things occurred, I began l l
5 to feel threatened.
6 I'd like to point out again that if you think i
7 hack when I first introduced myself, and I have an 8 excellent appraisal in September and then by October, I'm I 9 unsatisfactory, I don't accept that.
10 (Brief recess.)
11 A (Continued) Concern number 10 relates to
(
1 12 pressure and harassment to change findings on items at Fort i
(, 13 St. Vrain'. Another Region IV inspactor stated that he and i
14 a resident inspector were told not to write violatiens on 15 safety signif.icant findings at Fcrth St. Vrain.
16 Mr. "X" told me that Mr. Eric Johnsor. told Mr.
17 Plummly -- let me back up just a minute.
l 18 (Discussion off the record.) i 19 A (continued) -- the Fort St. Vrain senior resident 20 inspector not to write violations because the licensee had 21 enough problems. Note a side comment. Mr. Plummly was 22 removed from site some time later and took a job at 23 headquarters. ,
, 24 He also stated that in another case where really ,
25 safety significant problems were identified and submitted TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
. _ - . _. - . . . . . . - . . _ .- -- - ~- - -- --
' {} *
.] 228 1
1 vs level three violations,.Mr. Johnson downgraded these to j 2 level four violations.
3 I assume Mr. Johnson, management, and he was j
4 talking about Mr. Johnson so you may have to clarify that.
5 See Exhibit 21 which is a copy of my inspectors log entry, 6
where conversation took place s in them.presence of Mr. -]
7 nd I. Excuse me, Mr.
-k jandme.
8 Q This conversation, this was a conversation in g person?
1 10 .A In person. Mr. "X" --
1
\
11 (Discussion off the record.) I 12 A (Continued) on March the 17th, I had another l
(. 13 perconal conversation with Mr. "K*.
14 Q (By Mr. Mulley) March the 17th of what year?
15 A. of 1986. l I
16 'Q okay, you have on your note here January the 17 27th, 1985. 1 18 A Okay, now that's the first conversation.
19 Q okay, so we're talking another year?
20 A Excuse me, no that should be '86. Where is that.
21 That's wrong, wrong, wrong, that's the wrong entry, that's -
22 '86. See, if you turn the page, it's February of '86, 23 that's an incorrect entry. .
. 24 Why don't you correct that?
25 Q Mo, I'll leave,it like this so as not to change TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
(, i[ ~ 229 !
i the record.
2 A Okay, on March 17th I had another conversation 3 with Mr. "X" who stated that he identified problems with 4
Ai b4 And he M was told no Bunker Ramo penetrations, R-a-a-ok 5 problem. So he held in and was tenacious and kept going on l
~
6 like you have to do. First of all you're told no, nothing I
\
7 wrong, there's nothing wrong there. There's no violation. 5 ;
8 And the outcome was, because he held on, now they're going .
9 to replace all the Bunker Ramo penetrations which is a 1
10 very, very significant thing at the plant. .
11 Q But he had'to --
12 a ne had to hold on and persist and dig. If he had e *
,,, 13 of gone w'ith what was first said, "No, those are the same 14 ones that are in every other plant and they're okay, 15 there's no problem."
l 16 'Q Said to him by whom? !
17 A By Mr. Westerman.
18 Q The next question is: Are they the same ones 19 that are in the other plants? !
20 A They may be. ,
. . . _ , . n.
21 Q So if they replace them at Fer-t -the -St. .Vrain, '
4 22 what does that mean about the other plants that have them? l 23 A Theywouldnotbethe,samevintagebecauseFortd i
24 St. Vrain .is so old. But Bunker Ramo penetrations, I I
25 participated in an inspection of them and Bunker Ramo
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
' l s 230 l
- jl i 1 1 penetrations had real. problems period, but they went out of yNik waswy M kH~d A W"3 b s' (N 3
Andsotherewasabulletinf--seethisgoesto )
4 the bulletin issue again, see, and I say, " Hay, you know, ]
l 5 if the utilities had done a very good job on the bulletin j
\
6 concerning Bunker Ramo penetrations, they wouldn't be 7 havi,ng the problem replacing them now."
8 That makes my point on bulletins again. Two , j 9 issues where we have inst'ances of hardware and I want to 10 see them go back and look at all actions on all bulletins 11 that concern hardware and I'm going to take.a pretty hard 12 stance on that to see that they do it.
y
_, 13 Whether'it's documented as a violation er 14 anythihg, I want to see that they do it and construction 15 deficiencies the same way.
16 The last part of this conversation, there was 17 some discussion over recent promotion of Mr. Westerman, and O
18 Mr. *x" stated something to the extent, "Well, there ven't s 19 be anymore problems at Fort St. Vrain," and I said, "What 20 do you mean?"
21 He said, "Well, you know, I ain't no dummy." And a n 22 indiciting that they'll go away because there's no problem. g47-23 No one was present at,this conversation, and only 24 the individual can confirm it so it's my word, unless he 25 confirms it.
l TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
<w e
l ,
i v , - s' 231 w ,
1 o okay.
2 A And that's the end of the specific ten concerns 3 that I have. The other concerns thht I have to -- I'd like 4 to go off the record a minute and refresh my memory a 5 second.
6 (Discussion off the record.)
7 THE WITNESS: I'd like to close out my statement 8 by saying that really my only interest'in this matter is 9 that the inspection process work in an independent manner 10 and that inspecto.rc be allowed to freely idertfi; problems, l 11 deficiencies, et cetera, and pursue resolution of such r I 12 problems.
( ,/ 13 I have to believe that there are other cases 14 where there has been harassment and pressure exerted on l 15 inspectors not to make findings. And I would hope that l
16 this investigation would be sufficient to get down to the 17 bottom of all of the issues and improve that situation to 18 where the regulatory process works.
$+
19 We'rereally,trulyregulatorsand,notinvolved .
20 in the cost and schedule and the promotion of the nuclear 21 power business.
22 (Recess at 7:27 p.m.)
23
,, 24 25
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
i e
~
(A. (1- 23'2 !
i 1 THE STATE OF TEXAS:
l l
2 COUNTY OF EARRIS: ,
3 1
4 I, R. Patrick Tate, CSR 41730 and Notary Public in and 5 for the State of Texas, do hereby certify that the facts as 6 stated by me in the captica hereto are true; that the 7 testimony of the witness indicated herein was had before me 8 at the time and place. indicated after he was sworn to tell 9 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and 1
10 the same wer'e thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or !
11 under my direction and supervision, j
s 12 I further certify that the abov6 and foregoing
(~-
.. 13 transcript of proceedings, as set'forth in typewriting is a \
14 full, true and correct transcript of the proceedings had at l
15 the time of taking of said sv rn statement.
16 .
In testimony whereof, witness my hand, this 20th 17 day of March, 1986.
18 19 20 My Business address is /'C , i+. _
l 1712 Esperson Building d. Patrick Tate, CSR 61736~
l 21 Houston, Texas 77002 Notary Public in and for -
My current certification the State of Texas' 22 expires: 12-31-86 My Commission Expires: 6-27-89 23 24 25
. TATE REPORTING SERVICE, (713) 222-7177
1' BEFORE THE
-:. . e.
2 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR AND AUDITOR j 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 ___-.____._____x 5 Interview of: : )
- I 6 HARRY SHANNON PHILLIPS : i 7 ---------------x ;
"d Room 101 The Plantation Inn 9 Granbury, Texas ]
l 10 Thursday, '
June 26, 1986 11 12 APPEARANCES:
l 13 For the Cou: mission:
14 GEORGE A. MULLEY, JR.
I Special Assistant to the Director 15 Office of Inspector and Auditor Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 m n mly p.
20 (mesh 21 22 23
. 24 25
. ____-.._._______m_
2 1
Whereupon, 2'
HARRY SHANNON PHILLIPS, 3
having been duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth 4
and nothing but the truth, was interviewed and answered as 5
follows:
I 6
MR. MULLEY ;- The time is 6 : 30 p.m. , and the 7
date is the 26th of June 1986. We are in Rcom 101,of The !
B Plantation Inn, Granbury, Texas. '
9 Present is: Mr. Shannon Phillips, who is a 10 senior resident inspector for the NRC at the Come.ny Peak l
11 Nuclear Power Station; myself, George Mulley, special assis-l 12 tant to the director, Office of Inspector and Auditor, NRC; 13 and the court report, Miss Sandra Harden.
14 l I have asked Mr. Phillips here today to discuss 15 ' in more detail some information he provided during our l l . 16 previous interview on March 19th. Specifically, we're going
! R.
g 17 to discuss an inspection report that Mr. Phillips had e
l l* 18 referred to during that previous interview.
! 19
.I BY MR. MULLEY:
i
! 20 Q Mr. Phillips, would you please outline for 21 us the developments concerning that special report?
22 A Yes. The title of this report was 86-03/02.
23 However, it was later changed to 86-06/04 when construction 24 reports were separated from the Comanche Peak group reports.
~
25 This report concerns the inspection period 1
. 3 1
for February 1986. During-this inspection period, I 2
identified several violations concernina Brown & Root audit 3 program which covers all of the ASME activities that they're 4 responsible fer performing on site.
5 Prior to the exit interview, which was held l
6 on March the 4th, I asked Mr. Tom Westerman what did he want I 7
to do with this finding, that in my opinion there ,were cer-8 tainly violations, but how did he want me to write it.
9 He said he did not want it written as a i
t 10 violation; he wanted it written as an unresolved item.
11 Q What type of violations are we talking about?
12 A We're talking about failure of Brown & Root' 13 to perform audit of their entire QA program during 1980 when !
l -
l 14 welding activity on the reactor coolant loop was very high L 15 in Unit 2. And at the site, this audit covers all activities
' . 16 of the site, Unit 1 and Unit 2. So, we?re talking about all 2
4 g 17 of the ASME activities that were being audited, such as,
- i l *- 18 pipe supports, restraints, engineering design changes, all the llE 19 18 criteria as covered by their QA manual, Section 1 through f 20 20.
21 Did that answer--
I' j 22 Q ,Yes.
23 A --what violation?
24 Q Yes.
- i 25 A Just prior to the exit, I had written up,-- !
- .~
I 1
l l
, 4 l l
. 1 1 Because of difficulties with Mr. Westerman on violations {
l 2
versus unresolved items, I wrote up my exit and submitted it !
3 to him for approval. And that exit is ' identified as " Exit 4 at Region IV cffice, March 4, 1986", of which he approved.
5 The next occurrence with respect to this 6 report occurred shortly after Mr. Ian Barnes took over as i
7 the chief-- either acting chief or chief of the C,omanche-- f l
8 Region IV Comanche Peak group.
9 I had rewritten 86-06/04 and had written up 10 the violations that I just described to you as unresolved 11 items as directed, and Mr. Barnes came to me and said, "We !
12 can't let the report go out this way. "
l 13 I said, "Why?"
14 He said, "Because really and truly, those are 15 violations."
16 I told him that I was in total agreement with 17 him, that I knew all the time that they were violations, I 18 had advised Mr. Westerman that I thought they were violations, 19 but I had capitulated to whatever he wanted me to write at I 20 that point in time because that's the only way I thought I l l
l 21 could keep my job at that time. i 1
22 At this point, I asked Mr. Barnes to leave it l
i 23 as unresolved for several reasons. Number one, because we
. 24 were changin'g what we said at the exit several months or 25 weeks before. Number two, the report was in final and ready I
i l
1 i
5
- 1 e
to go out. Number three, I had found additional problems 2
in the March time frame that showed that the problem was much 3
more extensive and all the files were not available at the 4
site for review because most of them were at Brown & Root.
5 And I said, "Why not just wait and write one
, 6 violation instead of writing several small ones? Just write l 7 one big one."
8 And he agreed with that.
9 Then, with respect to this same subject, I 10 had a meeting about report differences with Mr. Martin in 11 mid June, and I gave him the general outline of this example.
12 And he responded by saying, "Well, when you 13 found something like that, it should be written up as a 14 violation at the end of a period. We don't carry it over."
15 And so, it appears to me that, based on the
- 16 general case, he agreed that it was a violation, which is in t
g 17 contradiction to what Westerman had directed, i
l* 18 The next point is, even prior to the meeting l 19 with Mr. Martin, I had written up the whole review of the a
i j 20 Brown & Root QA program deficiencies. And this is documented 21 in Draft Report No. 86-G8/06, which is not available because 8
j 22 it has not been reviewed by supervision at this point in 23 time . I submitted it on June 25th,1986, and eventually, it 24 will be available to you and you can see the difference 25 between-- I have one example here of the 86-- well, it
l 6 i
[ . '
started out as 86-03 and 86-02, and you can compare the two 2 and see--
3 0 Th'is is in draft form.
4 A Now, this one in draft form for that particular 5
time frame documented it as an unresolved item, and you'll L
6 find that when you review the notice of violation in 86-06/06},
7 you'll find three, A, B, C violations with multipl,e examples, j B which are mine.
i 9
First of all, the first violation is failure l
10 to take corrective action on audit deficiencies by TUGC0 for 11 an extensive period of time. At least 1980 to 1986, various 12 NRC inspection reports, such as, CAT, TRT, and 84-32, which 13 was my inspection of corporate audit program where I identifiect 14 similar problems in the audit area which should have caused 15 them to go out and do an extensive review.
16 And by the way, I haven't received a response 17 on 84-32, and it's been almost-- pretty soon it's going to
'
- 18 be two years since I performed it. It's being covered by 19 the QA group in the Comanche Peak group. And I have asked 20 that a response be given to that particular notice of 1
21 violation.
22 They're going to be complete-- Unit 2 is 23 going to be complete before we get a response.
24 The next violation deals with multiple audit 25 program deficiencies of Brown & Root, like not performing 1
. . . ~ - . -- -. . ---
sW A
i 7
.
- 1 the audits of the entire QA program.during 1980, 1982,.and l
'2 !
I believe 1984, if my memory serves me right. Anyway, three 3 years-- three pa'rticular years, they didn 't audit the - entire !
4 {
program. ?
5 And then, when you get into audits of specific -
r e areas: like, field change control, which goes to Criterion 3 7
of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B; Criterion 10, which, is 8 inspection in the same document; Criterion 9, which is 9
special processes, which covers things like welding, bending, to heat treating, and those type of things, you'll find that they it' did not audit to sufficient depth to assure that their QA !
12 program controls were effectively controlling the work.
)
.i 13 l
For example, during the five year period 1980 14 through 1985, I found that they referenced less than three 15 i percent of their project documents in their audit. That (
)
t 16 doesn't mean that they audited three percent. They referenced 17 less than three percent.
i !;* 18 And by the way, the TUGCO quality assurance 19 manager concurs with my findings. The Brown & Root QA l
20 nanager concurs with my finding. In fact, they did a matrix 21 after I asked them to, and our findings match up almost 22 identically.
23 Then the next one is-- The third violation is 24 Brown & Root's failure to take corrective action. - Because ,
25 the MAC report of 1977 told them that their Houston audit
. . ~ . . .. . . . . . , . . . .
8 1
program and the site audit program was ineffective.
2 And as I see it, the examples.that I've 3
identified recently in the time. frame o,f April 1. through May-
) d 31st, 1986 are examples of deficiencies where they have not 5
corrected since 1977, although my inspection only covers 1980 6 through '86-- and,part of '86-- '85 and part of '86.
7 Q In our previous interview, we discu,ssed the 8
MAC report and some problems.that you encountered with that 9 report. Have there been more developments since that inter-10 view?
11 A Well, as a matter of fact, I did run across one 12 item in there that was-- that appeared to be a'little unusual 13 It appeared to me, in MAC's letter of May the 17th, .1978, 14 that they put--
it sounded like they were putting TUGCO on 15 .I l
notige that they had just pe:-formed an audit and they had
' l
. 16 R found something and, oh, by the way, . as you know, we had i 5
g 17 previously audited Comanche Peak site when we-- It sounds l* 18 like they're talking about Brown & Root. It doesn't l 19 specifically say that.
! a
! 20 I tried to contact the individual. I'm 21 1
supposed to get some more information on that to try to get j 22 clarification on that statement.
23 If, in fact, that letter of May the 17th, 24 1978, MAC-JPJ-471, is referring to the MAC audit that was 25 conducted for Brown & Root at Comanche Peak site, then Texas >
9
. ** 1 Utilities management was aware of the fact that an audit had 2 been performed on Brown & Root and significant problems had i
3 been identified back in77.
4 And if that's true, then that's in contradic-l 5 tion to the letter of attorneys, Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels 6 & Woolridge of May the 29th,1985-- Excuse me, let me change 7 the date on that to September the 16th,1985, same attorneys-8 with reference to Texas Utilities, et al., Comanche Peak l
9 Units 1 and 2, where they say in paragraph 2:
l 10 "Upon learning of. the existence of the report, ]
11 we promptly contacted Brown & Root and o,btained copies of 12 the attached documents last month. From our reviews, it .
] '
l 13 appears that applicants had no prior knowledge of the reports 14 and did not have copies of the reports within their possession )
15 custody or control."
g 16 So,--
. ; 17 Q These are the same reports that you asked for--
! l l i* 18 A These are the same reports I asked for during '
' 18 84-32, and I was t old--
- was not told of them. They did not 20 of fer them to me and did'not mention them. And I don't know why because I specifically asked for these type reports.
21 22 And if you would look, on page-- this page 23 right here (indicating), you'll see the name of Mr. Chapman, 24 who I was interfacing with, who was at that time the TUGC0 25 QA manager. So, it certainly should have been a-- It I
lo l
.
- 1 certainly should have been knowledgeable that I was asking l 2 for this document.
I 3 O What action has the Regior. taken as a result 4
of this information?
5 A I don't know. I have not-- Right now, I 6 don't have-- I mean, it just appears until I get information--
7 I called the gentleman to find out.what he was 8
referring to in that paragraph of the letter, and there is 9 no-- I don't have a glitch until that is resolved one way or i
10 another.
11 Now, are you asking what do they do about the 12 fact that I asked for a document and it was not produced? l 1
13 0 Yes. Now, did the Region accept the licensee's j
~
14 word that they had no knowledge of this document when you 15 asked for it? And was that the end of the issue?
l l . 16 A Well, here you have to be careful because there 17 are two different MAC documents. They said they had no 18 knowledge-- In this letter, they said they had no knowledge 19 of the Brown & Root MAC report. They didn't say that they 1 ,
20 didn't have any knowledge of the MAC report conducted for 21 TUGCO. They just stated that during a prudency review it 22 came up, and they submitted it to the board.
23 O Oktf. The MAC report that was done for TUGCO
- 24 was also not provided to you.
25 A That's right.
11
. - 1 Q Okay.
2 A
I can see how they could claim they didn't 3
know about the Brown & Root if they truly didn't, but there 4
was no way that they could not know about this document here 5
that was the MAC report that was conducted for'TUGCO.
6 O Okay. What did the Region do as a result of th e 7
fact that you asked for these sort of reports and .that report 8
was not given to you during your inspection?
9 A
I'm not sure they've done anything. I don't 10 know what they 've done.
'l O Okay.
12 A In fact, these items are--
the 04-32 are 13 being followed up by the Comanche Peak Review Team's QA 14 group.
And so,.I've had to go over from time to time to ask 15 them for information, you know, on my own report findings.
. 16
! I'm still carrying it as an open item, although they are
[ 17 s inspecting the resolution with respect to the action plan.
l* 18 But there is-- I talked to Mr. Hale the other
! 19 Y day, and I told him, I said, "There's a sort of a fumbled l 20 football here about it because their response is-- they ' re 21 t
not doing anything about the response." And as I understand, j 22 you know, they're going to be through here with their construc-23 tion before they get their response to us on audits.
24 Q You also--
25 A I'm sorry?
-g- -
12 1
O You also had developed some more information 2
concerning the trend analysis that you had conducted. Would 3
you review that with me, please?
4 i A Yes. At the time that I made a statement in 'i 5 i March of 1986, you asked me for some details with respect to I 6 a trend analysis-- a paragraph that was dropped from NRC 7
Report 85-07/05 as directed by Mr. Westerman. And this l 8
information here that I submit to you is a-- is the trend i
j 9
analysis that was performed and with notes on it explaining
~
! to !
some of the adverse trends, with backup information where I '
11 had compared to other NRC inspections.
! 12 !
MR. MULLEY: Okay. For identification purposes, {
13 this packet starts of f with the sentence," and I quote: i 14
" Paragraph in NRC Report 85-07/05 was dropped. This is what 15 that was about." !
16 And then, in some detail, the trend analysis l 17 done by Mr. Phillips is outlined.
'O 18 BY MR. MULLEY:
18 O To review this package one more time, the 20 comparison that you d,id with other inspections and other 21 reports done by the Region, did that show that, had the 22 -
l Region done this sort of analysis earlier on, that they may 23 have been able to identify some of these problems on their 24 own?
25 A If dhe Region had have done trend analysis ci.
I
13
- 1 their own findings and if-- especially, if they had not made 2 some unresolved-- some what looked like apparent violz ; ions 3
unresolved items, which enhances the peaks, they would have 4
realized that there were adverse trends in these areas.
j 5 If they had have done a in-depth QA review at 6 the time they did the mid quality assurance-- MID CA or 7 quality assurance review, which is done at fif ty percent--
8 fifty to sixy percent plant completion, they would have found 9 the quality assurance problem. If they had followed that
~
10 inspection module.
11 Even if they had not found that problem, in i
i 12 1980 while I was at the South Texas project-- And I mentioned 13 that before, not as old history, but something that pertains
~
14 to today. --I wrote a memorandum to Mr. Bill Seidle through 15 Mr. Crossman, and I understand that it went to the Regional 16 Director at that time. They were Regional Directors instead 37 of Regional Administrators.
A 18 And the first paragraph states: " Lessons 19 learned relative to QA program at a breakdown."
20 Then it starts off saying that: "An ounce of 21 prevention is word 1 a pound of cure."
22 And it goes on to say that waiting no long, 23 such as a MID QA or whatever, to do an in-depth review is 24 too little, too late.
25 And in this paragraph, I recommend that we
l l
14 1
. * ' need to improve the-- our efforts by looking at the licensee I
~
2 and contractors' QA program / systems, including quality control 3
functions that can fail or partially fai1 and go undetected d
because of emphasis on isolated inspections instead of NRC 5 inspections at an annual, indepth review / audit to evaluate J
6 any trends to determine if there has been a partial or total
. _a i 7 QA/QC programmatic breakdown since the construction permit ___ , , _
l l
~
8 was issued.
-e.
. . .v .. )
9 And if this had have been done-- if 'this.had to have been verified-- If the QA/QC program had havelbeen 11 verified and still established and implemented at the corporate 12 and site level, I believe_.that you wouldnit_be.having .the .
, 13 problems today that you have at Comanche Peak. Because they 14 would have identified the problems, come forward with solu-15 tions early in the project, and at that point in time, you're
. 16 talking about 1978-79, and probably Unit 1 would be operating l R
~
37 right now. . . - -
W*
The MID QA review that the NlID~did do, did
- ~
l
~
18 ~Q s
s
[ 19 that involve the corporate of f' ice ~ at allf -
!1 .. . . ~.c~ ..
! I
' 20 A No, it did noW.deyJdilF$1btiiven gd._to the.l'.. '
21 corporate office, and they spen
. .W @t,)' l prob liM+1GC.N*'M.$y:
. '~,
.,- ,J. v . .g.9,+_ $.['ibngitgth.,i.the?
.x .a c.. ~<... ~i.
m:-
t . :y.
2 22 time that I've seen spent on QA midt~ern , .N.
F aas TJ
'= d %1.%,e<
~ ..m
'1 W .wy.e-,
h m ,.G ,r 23 Q How many hours were spent? q q g g @ fgt 24 i A oh, seems to me-- ~ l' . lf[,
25 0 Approximately.
~ WTW.:
- 1J.~3. C.
-~.+ ..
= = . .
. i 15 -!
.~ . ' A --like somewhere around-- I don't know, just i
2 of f the top of my head, n.aybe 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />.
3 O And normally, how many hours would a project j i
4 like this take?
5 A Well, normally, you would have probably three
.l 6 weeks preparation time by three people where they would review I 1
7 all the manuals, get a checklist, followed by three or four 8 people on site for a week and three or four people at corporate I
9 for a week to try to bring-- you know, get an overview of i 10 the total program.
11 And that's when you do-- That's when you ask 12 the question -about the status and adequacy of the QA progra'm.
13 That's one of the first things you ask at corporate, "When j l
14 did you last do a review of the status and adequacy of your. I 15 QA program? Who did it? Where was it donet" ;
i 16 And if those specific questions had have been
?
l l 17 asked in '78 or '79, it's very likely that TUGC0 would have
! e
!' 18 brought forth' the MAC report which was done in 1978, which i 19 described many, many deficiencies in the QA program. Which
! 20 they, by the way, did not agree with, and they didn't fix, 21 and which are manifesting themselves in problems today. ,
. I 22 O Since the MID review that was done,' has the 23 NRC missed other reviews that should have been completed?
.. 24 A Did you say "since"?
25 0 Yes.
[ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
p 16 !
- I A Since the MID QA, virtually none of the QA 2
modules, such as 35020, 35060, 35061, 35065, and perhaps other 3 i QA inspection procedures were not done. . For Unit I and Unit 4
- 2. Which means that there was, in'my, estimation, no OA or 5
little QA at Comanche Peak in comparison with what it should }
6 have been.
I 7
Q Okay. .
8 A But this letter that I referred you to, the 9
specific recommendation is to review the 18 criteria of the '
to I program every year, which should be performed by a special i 11 team; the in-depth review should serve as a basis for recom- !
l 12 mending that construction work, in whole or in part, should 13 continue for another year, that is, until the next annual QA t
14 review. '
l 15 !
These reviews of construction activities should I 16 continue to operate when license is granted. This would 17 reaffirm the NRC's decision to issue the permit based on the IB pre-CP inspections.
19 And assuming that this recommendation was 20 Implemented, I'm saying it would take, you know, four or five 21 inspectors four or five weeks at each construction site but 22 that the payof f would be great. Which is quite evident. Look 23 at the kind of manpower we're expending now. If you could i
, 24 have taken four or five inspectors for four weeks and headed 25 off what you've got right now, which is a mammoth effort.
t
17 l
The other thing that I was noticing when I
. 'l 2
read back through my testimony which I received is--
3 0 set me interrupt for one minute.
4 A Excuse me.
5 Q Can inspections of this sort, inspections
- 6. required by Manual Chapter 25-12, can these be substituted 7 by other efforts, for example, the CAT effort? !
8 A CAT report at Comanche Peak-- the inspection, 9 rather, was done in 1983. By 1983, the utility planned to 10 load fuel in probably early '84. All of the design, all of i
11 the procurement, all of the construction was virtually com-12 pleted for Unit 1.
13 And for one to say that you can take CAT-and 1
14 substitute for inspections required by Manual Clapter 1, you I 15 have to observe work in progress from the time you dig a hole 2
16 in the ground to the time that you start 'up the unit, is--
l 4 l g 17 it's something you can't do. And the reason you can't do it e ,
[*
3 14 is because work's already covered up. It's in concrete. j i
t ;
2 l i& It 's in welds. It's everywhere. Inaccessible welds, for f
5
- example. Things that you can never see as a member of a 21} CAT team.
! 9 g' 22 So, no, you cannot take CAT and substitute j 23 that for bona fide Manual Chapter 25-12 inspection. Nor can j 24 you substitute what's being done now. I 25 You can do the best job ' that you can and then
1
'i 18 1
make a decision as to whether you want to license the plant 2 }ornot. But you can't substitute ft.
~
3 I
And besides that, Manual Qhapter 25-12 itself d
does not count CAT as a part of the regional inspection pro-5 gram. Nor any of the special efforts that have been going on. j 6
What we're doing now is trying to look-- What i 7
we'redoingifqualitycontrolnow,we'relooking,atthe i
e product and trying to determine by review of their QA effort -i 8
to see if we can conclude that it's adequate and it's licens-10 able. Tliat 's QC. '
11 Q Good..
12 okay, continue what you were--
13 A In fact, the business-- the statemant that I 14 just made leads probably into an' area I was going to speak a 15 moment ago before you asked me a question, and that is, to in my previous statement,' March the 19th, I made some pretty 17 strong statements to the extent that the inspections, other 18 than QA, at Comanche Peak,were recorded in the 766 data, but to some of it appeared to be erroneous, if not falso data 20 reporting, in that a lot of the inspections that were 21 supposed to be performed appeared to me that they were not 22 Performed during the period of 1975 through 1984.
23 This'is based on a review that I did at the
- m y-24 direction of, ,whowasthe{
25 7 in the fall of 1984. And
/
19 l
. - 1 p
the reason he directed me to do that is because once I came 2 back from the corporate headquarters and he found out that )
3 they had not been audited in, like, ten years, he was reason-4 ably upset with that to the extent that he had real questions 5 about what else had not been done with respect to the Manual 6 Chapter 25-12 program.
7 So, as a bottom-line statement, goi,ng back to 8 that statement about those inspections, after that review 9 in October of 1984, I brought it to management and super-10 vision's attention that because of the emphasis of inspection l 11 placed on Unit 1 that Unit 2 was grossly neglected with 12 respect to doing the inspections from 1980 to 1984. Inspec-13 tions were just not done on Unit 2.
14 A good exampic, electrical inspections. I 15 mean, you don't have to go on my say-so. I've attached the
. 16 766 dato here which shows you. We're talking about from '79 2
17 to 1984, no electrical inspections.
$=
18 And the most disappointing thing about this l
l 19 is that af ter bringing it up to supervision and supervision l 20 going forward, namely Mr. Hunnicutt who diligently tried te 21 get manpower to catch up the program, things that have not 8
2 22 been done, if it were possible. In other words, if work had 23 already been accomplished, you could only look at the completed
, ,_, 24 work. You couldn't look at in process work. That's the
!.I L' I
25 reason I say "if", if possible.
l 1
i 20
. - 1 But he recognized the need, based on my review 2
and my input to him, to ask for-- immediately ask for addi-3 tional manpower to-- I don't know. ' have the figures here 8
somewhere, but it was-- We're talking about manyears of 5
effort to catch Unit 2 inspections up. Not to complete the 6
inspections, just to get them caught up during the next year 7 of '84-- like, fall of '84 to fall '85.
And I'm,sorry to
- 8 say that electrical inspections still have not been done at 9 Comanche Peak. They're still approximately the same. i
(
10 One individual-- I've asked for manpower I 11 repeatedly, and I've got a stack of reports here that show 12 that I've pointed out to management the need for more manpower -
13 the fact that Unit 2 is really lacking. When, in fact, they're l 14 sitting over right next door with Comanche Peak Review Team. I 15 They've got twelve consultants. They've got three lead super-i 16 visors, and they've got a chief. and then they have peop; e
!! 17
!j. coming from the NRR to assist them since, oh, September of
({ 18 1985. And I'm one guy.
I'm left over at Unit.2 at sixty
!! 19 percent complete, all the backlog.
!! I've had--
Il 20 would you like to hear the special projects 21 I've had assigned to me .tx) give you an idea?
22 Q Yeah, go ahead.
23 A It won't take but a moment.
24 In addition to doing the spectacular, catching 25 all the stuff up, four years' work that hadn't been done, t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
21 and going bnck and trying to correct deficient inspections 2
whereby they had reported, like, *more had been done than had 3
actually been accomplished-- I had to go beck and redo those 8
inspections. In addition to that little chore,-- Let's see.
5 let me find it here.
's okay. At the same time I'm supposed to be 7
doing all that, I had the following major special, projects:
8 Technical Review Team team leader supervising four or five 9
consultants during '84 and subsequently assuming Mr.
i 10 responsibility for the total writeup. of the miscellaneous l
11 SSrn, that 's July 194 0-- excuse me, July 1984 through 1986.
12 Not all that time, but a good bit of it in '84, a good bit *of 13 it in '85, and then sporadically in '86. 'A complete review r--
14 of Manual Chapter 25-12, as directed by Mr. in which com is 1pr:h::dreportcontent, r i.e. , inspection procedures, from l .
to beginning to and of construction for Unit I and similarly for i
. 17 Unit 2. That's in 1984. And correct the NRC inspection ,
l ta deficiencies by performing additional inspection. '84 to '86.
l 19 Perform a' trend analysis of all Region IV inspection findings.
20 That's from 1974 to 1984. And if possible, to determine 21 whether unresolved items were written when violations should 22 have been issued, and factor this into the TRT followup and 23 routine inspection of Unit 2. 1984 to 1986, intermittently.
24 Perform a trend analysis of 50.55(e) construction deficien-25 cies and factor this into the followup on Unit I and Unit 2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - " - - - ^
j
\
+ ~ -
l 1
i
, . i
'22 )
l construction deficiencies, because'I have the responsibility j 2
for open items and construction deficiencies and bulletins 3
for both Unit I and Unit 2. Information notices. Temporary instructions. Generic letters. And'all open items.
5 I mean, you know, when you're talking about i 6
construction deficiencies, the list was about ' two hundred 7 and-- it was probably about two.hundred and fifty or' sixty 8
construction deficiencies. Maybe more than that, now. Maybe 9 300.
10 You're talking about open items. Not all 11 those are open, but you're talking about a massive list.
12 You're also talking'about-- I was asked--
13 The last thing I was asked to do was to take all of the l 14 Comanche Pgak data and physically ' input it on computer data !
.i 15 input forms for making a tracking system on-site. And the i 16 reason for that is because-- Well, I'd have to say this one o l 17 deserves the golden fleece award. Manyears were wasted on '
i 18 this particular effort.
s In 1984-- You can look. I've already got it r
20 attached.
21' 1984, I have attached here a comprehensive {
22 tracking system much superior to the one we've put-- we've i 23, spent-- two people have spent since last September, plus my
. 24 time, plus some of the operations people's time, is much 25 superior to our system-- And you can see it right' here. It J.
[L 23 I
. . was in place-- fully in place in 1984. And because the 2 regional resident inspector of Comanche Peak, Mr. Cummings at l
3 that time, couldn't get it inputted, the decision was made to 4 scrap it.
5 And you could take a look at that.
6 Q Okay.
7 A But anyway, the bottom line on this, thing is l
8 that manpower for Unit 2 inspection has not been provided and 9 electrical inspection activities at Comanche Peak have not to been performed as required between 1980 and 1986. Thus, the 11 NRC has not inspected enough to gain a reasonable assurance 12 that this unit was. being built correctly.
13 Now,--
14 Q Now, Unit 1 is completn.
15 A Unit I was complete when the TF;T was on site. j
. 16 Q Do you feel that a better use of the manpower I
17 would be to divert some of that to the Unit 2 reactor which I !
! 18 is still under construction?
l f *-
i 19 A That 4 s the point I've been trying to make is i 20 that, as far as corrective action is cencerned, they can only 21 correct the deficiencies that are there on Unit 1. That's all 22 that's being done right now, basically.
23 But on Unit 2 at sixty percent, you want to 24 know that those construction deficiencies that were identified 25 during TRT and other reviews have been corrected. And the L____________________----_-----
~
24-
- 1
. way-you do that'is to look at the work.
2 And for the last--- Up until recently, I got 3
some help recently, no one's been~ doing .that in Unit 2.-
4-Except possibly on isolated basis, the Comanche Feak Review 5
Team group, they go over and look at some things in Unit '2.
6 _ But I'm talking about as far as the Manual Chapter is con-7 cerned, the Manual Chapters are'not being-- have ,not been 8 completed. The routine program.
9 Q Let me ask you a; question concerning prepara-10 tion of 766 data.
11 A Okay.
12 Q This information is inaccurate. Do you see 13 this as evidence of a deliberate. effort to make it appear I 14 that Region IV had completed its inspection program en 15 schedule, or are the forms just prephred in such a careless 1
16 manner tnat the data is completely useless?
17 A I think both. I think both. I'm not going 18 to say the data is useless, because I was able to find out i
19 there were problems in it, even as bad as it was.
20 Q Right.
21 A .So, it can't be useless.
22 Q You know, personally, it'seems to me that the 23 form is not that difficult. And when you have somebody saying 24 that they've completed a procedure and they attribute a cer- ,
25 tain number of manhours to this procedure and they say the t__-.______--___--_-__________-_--
_ _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - -
l l 25 thing is a hundred percent complete but you go back to the 2
inspection report and there's not even any mention of the l
3 l procedure in the inspection report, I mean, carelessness 4
l doesn't seem to be the right word.
5 l A Excuse me?
l 6 Q Carelessness does not seem to be the right 7 word to use. .
8 A No.
9 0 I really search for why this sort of deficien-l l
10 cy exists.
l l
l 11 A Well, it's certainly irresponsible reporting, 12 if not false reporting. Whichever. I'm not going to try to i
i
! 13 make that determination because I don' t know what the = intent I
14 was. You'd have to get into intent.
)
t ,
I 15 I can just look at the data and tell you that,
. 16 you know, to say something's black when it's white, it's not 2
g 17 correct. And it's apparent. It's apparent when something--
e*
a 18 When something so apparent is wrong in that kind of reporting, l 19 it leads someone to Et least believe that the guy who makes l 20 out that kind of form who's been in the business that long 21 also knows that it's not right.
S
{ 22 THE WITNESS: Can we go off the record a.
23 minute?
. 24 MR. MULLEY: Yes, why don't we--
25 THE WITNESS: Take a break?
[------_-. - - _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - -
. 26 1
MR.'MULLEY: Right. '
2 (Whereupon, at 7:15 p.m., a brief recess was 3
called in the proceedings. )
4 A . (Continuing by. the witness) - One of the other-5 things I would like to add to the record, that really it's 6
new to a degree, but it. supports a contention of mine all. i 7
thoughout my statements that I've made and that is that Region 8 IV'does not give violations. i They want to help the Lutility, !
9 which they're not supposed'to be the utility's consultant.
10 Thef're supposed-to be regulators. They're unbiased.
11 The subject is-- What Iin going to submit to 12 you here is a June 5th Memo For Record that I wrote from H.S.
13 Phillips, and the subject is " Exit for Report 86-08/06".
14 '
During this exit at which Mr. Westerman, Mr.
I- 15 Barnes, myself, Mr. Hale, and a whole host of utility
- 16 i e.
personnel and consultants were present, Mr.'E11ershaw was i 17 giving his findings, and one item he was discussing dealt is with valves. And after he had described this problem ,that-i 19
! he considered a deviation, ')br. Council, who is Executive i
20 Vice President, said, "That should be a violation. Why are 21 you saying it's a deviation?"
22 Then a discussion followed in which Mr.
23 Westerman and Mr. Barnes said, "Noi it's a deviation because
,. 24 you just didn't meet a commitment."
25 And then Mr. John Streeter, who is now the l _ . . . ._ . .
27 ,
- 1 TUGCO QA director and a former NRC branch chief out of l
2 Region III, he spoke up and said, "Well, it is a deviation l 3 classically, but it's als'o a violation."
4 And Mr. Council asked, "Wasn't this an l
i l 5 unresolved item that you gave me about a month or two ago?"
6 And the NRC inspector replied, "Yes, that's l
7 right." ,
8 Then, Mr. Council said, "For God's sake, will 9 you please just hit us once with a violation rather than 10 several times like this?"
11 And Westerman and Barnes said that it probably 12 would be upgraded later.
13 This is a first. I don't believe that I've 14 ever heard the president of the utility have to ask the NRC 15 for a violation. ,
. 16 O Who else was present during this meeting?
17 A I have an exit meeting record, but I don't have
[* 18 it with me. If you're interested, I can give it to you.
! 19 But, I mean, this is in the presence of, like, 20 thirty or forty people. And I think it makes my point very 21 well.
72 0 Yes, it seems to.
23 A The other thing that I started to bring up 24 the last time that I made a statement to you-- I mentioned 25 it to you, and you stated that perhaps if we have a second
r.
28
- I interview that we'd have time at that time to discuss it.
l 2 This particular item pertains to a recent 3
meeting that I had with the Regional Administrator in mid 1
! 4 June. I went up and talked to him about some of the things, 5
some of the concerns that I'd given you. And I was quite 6
honest with him and told him the same thing I've told you on.
! 7 record. i I l 8
And we talked about a whole host of subjects.
9 But one of the things that is a little bit galling to me that 10 I'd like to bring out here is that I have here a 1980 memo 11 that I found when I came to Comanche Peak.
12 Apparently, this memorandum was inadvertently 13 lef t in the Comanche Peak files by Mr. R. G. Taylor, who was 14 former senior resident of construction. ;
j 15 And in this particular memo, he'is answering j I
g 16 charges of perceived loss of objectivity. And this memo is !
g 17 !
dated April the 9th, 1980.
{
18 0 Who made the charges against him?
l 3
19 A He is answering through Mr., Crossman, through
'f 20 Mr. Seidle, to Mr. Seyfert. So, it appears as if it's written 21 to Mr. Seifert, who is making-- who is making charges of I '
j 22 perceived loss of objectivity. i l
23 And I guess the thing that is-- that's very 1 24 interesting to me is that after this particular memo was 25 written in 198 0, April of 198 0,-- I don't know exactly when i
l 29
- 1 the incident occurred. It could'have been in 1979. --that 2
Mr. Taylor stayed on at Comanche Peak from 1980 until 1984 3
when a firestorm of criticism occurred in the press and other 4
areas with regard to one instance where he had identified 5
allegers to the utility. ,
6 And, in fact, I was asked to come down here 7 and assume his position in, like, 1983 by Mr.. Collins and 8 then subsequently was asked again in 1984 when we found out
)
9 the vendor program was going to be transferred.
10 And I believe that Mr. Collins asked me to
'11 come down here because he knows I'm a strong regulator. And 1 12 that's why I came. i 13 And apparently, the management I'm working for 14 now do not have the same philosophy. And I believe if he were 15 here, I'd be getting along well with that.
g 16 But anyway, the observation that I have is t
,t 17 on account of the fact that I am a strong regulator, the fact i
l* 18 that I do document findings, the fact that I do put violations
[j 19 in reports when they're violations, and I categorize them i
i I 20 at a severity level 5, which is almost priority after coffee 21 break, and the people are objecting to my putting in level 22 Ss? I mean, give me break.
23 And then, because I support inspectors--
24 other inspectors' violations, like in 85-07, 85-05 and then 25 subsequently in 85-14 and 85-11, they're ready to remove me l- - - _ - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
i 30 i
. * after two ,anths, and here we've got a guy who's been here 1
2 with perceived loss of objectivity for four years? I had 3
to make the observation to Mr. Martin that this is a very 4 l interesting observation.
~
5 He agreed with me that it's a very interesting 6 observation. And that's my only point here. 1 1
1 7 0 Very good. ,
( 8 Let me ask you some questions concerning your 9 March 19th testimony and try to get a little more elaboration.
10 A Okay. I have brought my tentimony if you 11 would like for me to use it for reference. !
12 O It might be necessary. Maybe not. You might 13 be able to answer to these--
l 14 A I have it if--
15 0 --off the top of your head.
, 16 Did the failure of the Region IV to audit 17 adequately the TUGCO corporate office between 1974 and 1984 18 cause the TUGCO QA program to be suspect such that the NRC 19 cannot now have any confidence that the plant was built 20 properly? In other words, is the situation similar to, for 21 example, at Diablo Canyon where complete reverification was l 22 necessary?
23 A Well, if you would have asked me that on March s 24 of '86, I probably-- I probably would have said forthrightly 25 that complete reverification is not necessary at this point.
- - - _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ --w
31
- -
- 1 That would have probably been my answer because I didn't.have 2
t any grounds.
I 3
But based on conversations that I've had with d
some of the NRC consultants on site who have. told me that they 5
are going to present what they know to be fourteen-caret gold
-6 areas to the NRC, things that have been. inspected and 7
engineered to death on the one han4 to make a poin,t that
! 8 things outside of containment are-- that are okay, therefore, I
9 things inside containment are okay, leads me to say:
, No way.
l 10 They ought to have to reverify everything.
I 11 They're not going to play that game.
12 Now, that was a concern that was given to me.
13 I won't call any names, any places, anything. You don't
~.
14 really know who told me. Or, maybe you do know.
l 15 But that leads me to give you an_ answer: I'm a
16 rather suspect because I'm not sure that they've learned g 17 their lesson yet.
i'
{ 18 O And do you feel that the failure of the TUGCO 19 QA program through the years, do you feel that so many loop-f 20 holes have been left open and so'many areas not inspected 21 that this would cause a reverification to be necessary?
I 22
- A That was my answer to you. I would not have 23 said that in March, but because of the concerns that I've 24 3 heard voiced by people who are directly involved with some 25 of the work--
32
-
- 1 And let me say this, something, else 'I haven't 2 brought up to this point: That brings to mind a young 3 engineer who came to my trailer that was leaving site. And
'4 the reason he came to my trailer was that Region I was faxing 5 him sane information.- He was supposed to go to work for the 6 NRC--
7 And I wish I could . remember. his name, but I 8 can't. Because at the time, I just blew it off.
9 But that enginecr was working right in the 10 middle of the efforts to correct the problems you're-talking it about with Unit 1. And'he told me, " Hey, I'm' leaving _ site, 12 and I'm going to tell you this." He said, "I've been told +
13 that the stuf f that we're doing is- eyewash for the NRC. Don't
.i 34 worry about it. You kn.ow, don 't get all these things fixed.
15 Don't worry about it. " ;
I 16 At the time, I blew it off. But that, coupled ]
17 with the concern that I have heard voiced within the last two
^"
18 months by an NRC consultant, and by virtue of the fact that 19 I find, in my 86-08 and. -06 report, that Brown & Root has 20 not audited the ASME activities over a period from--
21 adequately in 1980, 1986 and had previously been identified 22 that they hadn't done it. As f ar as I'm concerned, that's i
23 a partial QA program breakdown.
. 24 Now, I've not ever 'said that to now. But you 25 take that, coupled with the breakdown of ' quality assurance E -
33 J
I with the liner plate welding at which time that was under-Appendix B and you take that with the Bahnson QA' program 2
l 3 breakdown on HVAC which the' CAT identified, and you take the 4
paint which was originally "Q" and it's been downgraded j
5 subsequently to non-Q by NRC. Even so, Texas Utilities had 6 that under their _ QA program and -intended that that be "Q" 7 work. ,
8 And those areas alone demonst' rate that their 9 . quality assurance program has been very deficient.
to How, 100 percent verification is a big state-11 ment. But I'm not confident at all with what I've seen, and 12 I think it goes more to the NRC not identifying these problems 13 up front like they were-- like they should have.
~
14 Q Okay. In your November '84 memorandum to 15 Hunter, which you had as Exhibit 3-5 in your. initial state- l
. 16 ment, you recommended increased inspections in some areas.
2
?.
5 17 However, you also, in this memorandum, appear to state that
- \
(* 18 special insp~ections, like the CAT, show that the TUGCO QA J
' 1 program was adequate. j l 19 r
l 20 Do you still maintain-- agree with this 21 earlier statement? ,
I 3
i j 22 A Well, at the particular time, you have'to 23 realize-- put this into perspective that particular memo to 24 him. J 25 At that particular time, I hadn't experienced l
e
34
'
- I all the experiences I have right now. Okay? That was back 2
in '84.
3 I had been doing primarily special assignments that I previously have described to you. I was really super-5 vising work of consultants doing TRT, involved with all that 6 stuff. And then, subsequently, not really getting into all 7
the hardware issues that I began to get into and quality 1 8
assurance issues that I began to get into in 19-- by late 9 1985.
10 so, what was the date of that memo? If I ;
11 recall, it was--
12 O November '84.
13 A Okay, November of '84. I didn't make up--
14 I didn 't even make up my mind about one thing about Comanche 15 Peak-- I started forming opinion about Comanche Peak's 2
16 quality assurance program in, like, the fall of 1985.
4 17 e
Q When did you arrive on site at Comanche Peak?
l* 18 A Mid 1984.
Because I think it takes you that long to make j ?3 a valid-- any kind of valid conclusion.
j 21 l t'
But I had another thought on that matter I i 22 i i was trying to bring through. Would you repeat the question?
! 23 1
Maybe I can. remember the point I was going to make.
24 Q Well, in your memorandum to Hunter, you f
25 recommended increased inspections in some areas, but your I
35
]i
- - < * ~1 memorcndum also appeared to state that special inspections, 2
such as the CAT, showed that the TUGCO QA program was adequate.
3 A Well, I was --
. I'll hsve to say that I was a
4 taking the party line to try to stretch all of the inspection j 5 effort-that you could to show that it would help plug some e of the holes. I'm not sure that's true today. l 7 In fact, business-
. with respect to Unit 2, i
s which we previously discussed, no later than today I had an )
9 NRC consultant-- excuse me, NRC team leader tell me that to Unit 2 has electrical manifestations of. problems over in Unit 11 2 that's in Unit 1. So, lessons haven't been learned 6 l
12 And so, I have all this information. I 1
13 And the other thing is I'd like to point out 14 on that memo is that Mr. when he came to site, he -
J -.
15 was going to do a comprehensive effort-- And I don' t know if 16 that's what scared everybody off of him or what. But he 17 was going to fold in and look and reinspect some of the Region 18 IV areas that were deficient relative to Manual Chapter 25-12 19 inspections. He was going to trend unresolved items and, if necessary, reinspect those unresolved items and 5.p3ra$bt u
20 .f them 21 %qp to bea6 er violations, if need be. But at least, if he 22 didn't even raise them from unresolved items to violations, 23 he was going to go in and try to assure that there was no
, 24 real problem there.
9 25 Q Right.
l t
36
- o * * ~
A And.he was trying to fold 'in ~all of the things 2
irato ' a followup.
And if you'll-- If I had them with me, I 3
could show you memos where the Unit'l'in,spection modules were d
pointed out where additional work needed to be done. And he-5 was going to do it.
6 Af ter he was succeeded by Mr. Westerman, Mr.
7 Westerman said, " Forget it. We're not doing anymore on Unit 1
8 1. That's it." '
s And so, I just.followed directions. And so, to as far as I know, the reconsnendations to do the extra inspec-11 tions on Unit I have not been done. At least, I don't know 12 about it if they have.
13 Q' During your March 19th interview, you stated 18 that you had been assigned the responsibility to determine 15 whether NRC inspection procedures had been completed at 16 Comanche Peak. i 17 A That's correct.
)
18 Q Have you been given the freedom to properly 19 investigate these weak areas at all?
20 A Been given the freedom to properly investi-21, gate them?
22 Q Yes, sir. l T '1 23 A Ch, yeah. By Mr. told me to do it.
, m .<
24 Mr.
)toldmetodoit. One thing is, Mr. Westerman 25 just told me not to do anything about them.
I I
37 i '
- 1 I And then the other thing is I don't know the 2
reason why it hasn't been done, but like I tried to explain 3
1 on the electrical inspections, no inspections has occurred, j
4 for the most part, since 1980. I'm just one person over there 5 in Unit 2. )
I can't get it done, and I don't understand why 6
the manpower hasn't been brought to bear on that situation.
I 7 Q Do you feel it would be possible to adequately 8
complete the NRC inspection program so that the NRC would 9
have enough confidence that the plant was built properly?
10 A Well, that's my feeling at this point in time, !
11 that th n' yw r ockyt #
g3 12 Q They can t .
13 A Yeah. But I don't-- You know, I don't see
- 1 14 everything. I i
15 Q Right.
. 16 i
- 2 A In fact, that's one of the gripes that I've 17 got.
1i g
I've more or less been isolated. By myself. In fact,
!{' 18 i that was one of the comments by a consultant is that nobody Il 19 likes to work for me because everybody loses their job.
20 Q Do you feel that a larger effort is necessary 21 such as assigning people f' rom the headquarters'or other 22 regions to examine areas wherethe NRC inspection program has 23 been inadequate?
. 24 A Repeat that please?
25 Q Do you think that a larger effort is necessary,
38 e -
- 1 for example, assigning people from the' headquarters or other
'2 regions to examine areas where the NRC inspection program 3 has been inadequate?
4 A Where they're inadequate has already.been 5 identified.
6 Q But to.go back and reinspect. Ek) you think 7 we need more help? ,
8 A Definitely need help in the electrical.
O:{e 9 of the things in discussing -with the electrical -lead guy ,
<l 10 today, I was given the impression that two NRC consultants +
o 11 would be totally dedicated to Unit 2 module work, Manual 12 Chapter 25-12 work.
13 And when I started discussing that%vith him
\
14 today, he said, no, that's really not the way1 thdt they'd--
15 the conclusion they'd come up with. Because wh'en they went i . 16 back and identified how much work and effort it would take
, 17 to do the 25-12, he was talking about tying those two ' guys 18 up over into '87, way over into '87.
19 Whereas, he said that Region IV management O 20 was talking about four or five weeks of feffort. And as this 21 Points out (indicating), they don't ever/ understand the c e fort
~
22 that needs to be applied to the electr1 cal area, for example.-
23- Q Well, of those areas where the NRC inspectior, 24 program is weak, has there been, at this point in time, '
ea 25 adequate NRC inspection to state that ' Units 1 and 2, especially
, D a
,t s
i i
s e , j y
- l 1, ,
i: -j
39
-
- 1 the reactor vessels, have been properly installed?
2 A I can't say that they have because the utility 3 was never given an opportunity to answer the viola tion. And i 4
besides that, the NRC can't find everything. We need to put 5 violations on the utility and let them tell us what's wrong.
6 That's part of the problem.
7 Q Going back to the trend analysis, are you now j B
investigating the areas of adverse trends, for example, design l 9 control inspections and purchasing and things like that?
10 A I do a mental review, but I'll have to tell l
11 you the truth. I've got so much to do, I can't do it all.
l 12 There's just no way.
13 Q Do you believe that these areas should be !
~
14 investigated and inspected?
)
i The adverse areas?-
l 15 A !
, 16 Q (Nodding head.) I i
l
! 17 A I certainly think that they should receive j
- i. I l
18 greater emphasis on Unit 2, for sure. I mean, Unit 2 is l
) 19 already-- it's already done. You can't do much to prevent i
! 20 recurrence-- or repetition there.
21 O You mean Unit 1.
22 A Excuse me, Unit 1. It's already complete.
23 Unit 2 is the only place-- That's what I s 24 don't understand. Why throw all the manpower on Unit I?
25 They can 't prevent anything from happening on it. They can l
i
1
. 40
I fix it.
2 O Let me ask you: Your concern over the removal 3
of the trend analysis from inspection report 85-07/05, was 4
that related to the need to insure that the trends were not 5
ignored, or were you more concerned with the fact that 6
Westerman was modifying the report without good cause?
l 7
A The latter. Perversion of the repo,rting i 8 process. Drop-- Directing things be dropped simply becaJse 9
he thinks this might be an crea of embarrassment if questions to come up in the hearing. !
11 It appears to me that-- I may be wrong, but 12 it appears that the NRC is getting so paranoid over everything 13 else that somebody might think or question that we don't do 1'4 our job and document it. Whereas, if we simply do our job l
is and document it, I think that's the soundest thing in the R
16 world you can do. You can't be questioned.
'e l
17 i
. If you start trying to second-guess, well, I f.
18 think maybe that would be bad to report and this would be I
! 19 !
I bad to report, maybe we ought to slant that and maybe we i I 20 i l
ought to soften that, and then you don' t solve problems, l 21 that's the thing that gets you in trouble. That enn really c.
22 get you in trouble.
23 And I think that's largely what's gotten us
, .. 24 into a lot of the trouble we're in right now. We didn't
(
25 solve the problem back in '79 or 1980.
I
a 1
i 41
- '- 1-Q What is the status of your concern over the 2
certification of the BISCO fire seals? Did Eric Johnson"take 3
any action in response to your March 6th, '86 memorandum to 4
him? !
L 5 A That's one of the problems. Allegations come 6 in. Letters go out. I don't know whatever happened to it.
l !
7 I don't ever know whatever happens to anything.- I'm almost 8 totally isolated.
9 Q Do you believe that Region IV management is to downplaying this concern so not to jeopardize the licensing 11 of the plant?
12 A Not only that, but a bunch of them. It's 1
13 quite apparent in all my statements th'at I've made.
14 Q Is Hunter now the branch chief again?
15 A Hunter's been demoted. Everybody that's been 16 a strong enforcer's been demoted over at Comanche Peak. I've 17 been looking for mine.
18 0 okay. So, he's no longer-- l l
l 19 A No.
20 0 --no longer branch chief.
21 A No. .
22 Q The inspection procedure 35200, the MID QA 23 inspection, is not listed in a recent version of Manual 3 24 Chapter 25-12. Has this inspection been deleted?
25 A Superceded.
42
- * ' 1 Q Superceded.
2 A By the annual requirements, like I was telling 3
you previously. 'nce O every four years is not enough to do it.
d Annually or every eighteen months to validato that quality.
5 assurance is assuring that the applicant is controlling his 6 work activities.
7 Q And we've discussed this in the pas,t, but I'll 8 ask the question again. Do you believe that Region IV 9 management above Johnson and Westerman have been unresponsive to to your concerns?
11 - A Mr. Martin has been to the site one time. I 12 met him when he was conducting a tour there. I've never seen 13 the man at the site since then or had any in-depth conversa-14 tions with him. I really don't know Mr. Martin.
15 I don't think that he really knows me, and I.
16 don't think he knows what's been going on at Comanche Peak, 17 except what 'his staff has to3d him. I don't know. I really 18 don't.
19 Q So, you don't really know if your concerns 20 have even made it above Westerman and Johnson.
21 A I don't know that my concerns have even made 22 it above Mr. Johnson.
23 Q Okay.
, 24 A And if they have, I can almost virtually 25 assure you they were certainly not objective.
43
- *
- I Q Has the situation involving your harassment 2
improved over the past months at all?
3 A Yeah, I'm being ignored now.
d O Is Westerman now involv'ed or is he still 5
involved with your inspection work?
6 A Now, that's a good question because I saw an 7
organization chart that just came in yesterday, an,d it appeats __.
8 that Comanche Peak group is now reporting to Mr. Gagliardo.'
9 And I-- No one-- I didn't-- No one has said whether that's ~ ,
10 a change or not. I have to assume it is. _.
11 MR, MULLEY : Let's go off the record for a 12 minute,. okay' -=:-.. .....u-<-. - -
(Wh'ereupon, at 7:50 p.m., a brief recess was 13 14 called in the proceedings.)
15 MR. MULLEY: Do you have anything else that 16 yGu would like to add at this time?
17 THE WITNESS: Not anything that I can recall 18 at this. ... time.
1 19 '
MR. MULLEY: Okay, that's'it.
20 (Whereupon, at'2 tile.p.tiihihe:dntierview 'of' '.- .
. ..?f Y:3.sl &, *. . . ;. .. . * ~ ~ .: * :[. = .
21 '
- ",-If;'.1 HARRY SHANNON PHILLIPS was concluddbTJh*'f".~#.'59 . ..g, g. c ',.it 4 s 1 c..:?A;.. 2/ ;P-d.. ., .. q . y ... .
~
~
set . . .- .
- .,v.y, g.
c.
22 - - * *
T'
.5flJ244Jcg ' J.
. ., . . A, > v~ht.
e- w.L,s. Ik, 23 e' .3-:Tr*.w*i #.'*q* -s
~^
. E,* W'"* c-<. W ~T' -
. ys _ . ,3 -- seqy-g* - .l,}
..-:.r. :.:. .m -
'E:-
25 -
UQl= . y;p
{ t:y I;*- '[* ':-? . .,,, . :
.p
. p- 4 .
.ep . eseD #
I
- 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 1 i
1 2.
i 3 I .hereby certify that the proceedings herein
]
i 4 are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me 5 during the sworn interview of HARRY SHANNON PHILLIPS on
]
c June 26, 1986, commencing at the hour of G:30 p.m., and that 7 this is a true and accurate transcript of the same.
8 .
1 l
9 )
10 .
A, ja ,
l Sandra Harden l 11 Reporter l i
l 12 My Commission expires: 6-4-89.. !
1
- 13 l- 14
)
i 15 .
! . 16
2 )
g 17 l l i .
18
(&
3 1
l 19 1l ll 1
20 ;
l 21 5
j 22 23 s 24 25 L