ML20237L212
| ML20237L212 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1986 |
| From: | Haughney C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237F760 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708200123 | |
| Download: ML20237L212 (38) | |
Text
1
, . i
,t -, .
, l.
J
~
I l
l l
5610 01 01 g l~
p- .
6 Mimie 1- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l 1
I
- 3 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS
{
4j Office of Inspector & Auditor
5 4340 East-West Highway
' i 6
Fourth Floor Conference R'oom 7 Bethesda, Maryland l
83 Thursday, June 17, 1986 I
9 The investigative interview convened at 11:00 a.m. i 10 PRESENT:
11 ; CHARLES J. HAUGHNEY, Interviewee-12 STEPHEN GOLDBERG
(. '
13 j Detailed Office of Inspector and Auditor '
14 GEORGE MULLEY '
I i) 15 Assistant Director for Investigations j 16lh, Office of Inspector and Auditor l!
l' l 17 Nuclear Regulatory Commission * !
I 18 19 ,T ..
20 .
21 1 f 4D 22 :
23 2 4 p, il ,
25
- t l
8708200223 870819 ACE-FEDERAL 20:-913:a0 REPORTERS, INC. 'l' PDR ADOCK 0S000445 Nacion..de coserase soo.3w6uo G PDR
]
-
- a' '
j
! 1 1
5610 01 02 2 4 Mimie l'g PROCEEDINGS .
- 2. Whereupon,
'a 3[ CHARLES J. HAUGHNEY '
I I 4 was called a.s a witness,.and having been first duly.' sworn, 'I r-
.5 was examined and' testified as follows:
I ,
j 6l MR. MULLEY: The time is-ll~a.m.,"the'date is' July l t
7 17th, 1986. l We are in the conference room of.the office-of
8 I Inspector and Auiditor, Nuclear Regulatory Commission in.-
i t 9 i Bethesda, Maryland.
I I.i 10i! !
Present is Mr. Charles J. Haughney, who is 9
11 consultant with the NRC; myself, George Mulley. I am'the a
12 ' Assistant Director for Investigations, Office of. Inspector j k k 13 ,
and Auditor, NRC; and Steve Goldberg, who' is detailed: to .OIA I
c 14 ,
to provide technical assistance in this investigation.
! l-15 ) Additionally, the court reporter Ms. Mimie Meltzer is 16 present.
17 i We are here today to discuss with Mr. Haughnev, 18 his involvement with an inspection report issued by Region 19 j IV conce,rning Comanche Peak. .-
l l
20ll ..
Mr. Haughney, before we begin, would you please ] ,
21 provide us with a background of your experience with the~ l 22 ;I NRC.
s, 23 i THE WITNESS: I spent twelve years in the nuclear 24 ,i, il Navy as a commissioned officer, including chief engineer of i 25 a nuclear submarine, director of all officer training.,
l l
i I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202. W fro Nationwide Cmerase atWktt^ AMA [! '
\
5610 01 03 !
I 3 '
a Mimie l' When I left the Navy, I joined the Nuclear
'2 { Regulatory Commission Staff in late 1977, and I was assioned h
3 l! ' to the Divis-lon of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety as a ,
4- Licensing Project Manager.
5 'I had experience primarily with two cases; one f
6 the West Valley reprocessing plant, which at that time still l
7 ;.l had a Part 50 production license'; and the Kerr-McGee 8$ Cimarron facility which had a Part 70 materials license. I 9 /M5S In the summer of 1981, I left NSS and came to the 10 I Office of Inspection Enforcement in the position of a j 11 g Performance Appraisal Team team leader. And at the time the l'
12 ;
l
/
g 11 section chief was Bob Heishman, Performance Appraisal Team :,
13 Section Chief.
14 !;
, 1 I functioned as a Performance Appraisal Team 1 l 15 J Inspector and team leader and actually in the last six i 16 months of my stay in NRC I became the section chief, i
- 1 17
Performance Appraisal Team Section Chief.
I i
18 Y I left NRC in Jun' of '83 and became one of the l 19 ] principals in Comex Corporation, a sisall business. i e
20 , A little more specifically, in my licensing i f -
i.
21 q experience, although West valley is not a reactor plant, it j 22 i
is Part 50 facility as I mentioned, so the principal set of 23 ;i regulations that govern the NRC's oversight were identical. i k
24 g_
8 Also, it was under contested litigation, so I got a lot of f 25 3 experience in dealing with the Office of Executive Legal ,I l
i .
j ACE-FEDERAL s,. .,.. s..
REPORTERS, INC. .
... ~ ... ... . . . . . . - . .
. n
. , t ,
.I
' E 5610 01 04 J 4
4 Mimie 1 Director with intervention in that tour, in addition to how 2,
a the NRC had to produce Safety Evaluation Reports, the sort 3!
t of scrutiny they received, dealing with the public, 4f Congress, what have you.
h 5l '
In the Performance Appraisal Team, I got. back to
[
6 i' l my prior background with reactor plant experience, because I l 1:
7[ r became a reactor inspector in the management' controls and I I
8[ qual.ity assurance area.
9C b
I could perhaps remember the plants I have been I 10 I to, but it is some half dozen or so r including I had a ,
' i.
11 special inspection at Zimmer Station. Towards the end at 12 ;
Zimmer, the NRC decided to form a special evaluation team j
(. !
13 with people who had nct been invclved in Zimmer.
- So, I got 14 l a chance to do some construction OA experience in r ,f 15 ,
6 principally the electric construction area at Zimmer. l, t i t f
f 16 f - With Comex, I have actually -- although I have , i
,f, !
i !
l
. 17 1L done some Navy. work, a lot of my consulting work hac been : t ll ,
1 8 ;S with NRC. Some of it has been in the emergency preparedness j
l' 19 g area. But, it has continued to involve some quality l' 20 insurance inspection-related area at the TMI site, at 21 !!
Waterford as a review of the operations OA program prior to '
i 22 licensing. !'
And at Comanche Peak, a review of the operations 23 j OA program and nearly two years of work o.n allegations of n
il 24 9 improper design and construction practices at Comanche. I 25 So in a nutshell, that has been my background.
ACE-FEDERAL 20244~ Tm REPORTERS, INC. 4 Nationwide rmermee wrt t tA.e l
o_____-----.---.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - . . -
'. r I
561 01 05 - l, 5 1 Mimie l ' "0 If you need it, I could provide a resume or-something, which 4 *
'2l - ;;
summarizes the same information.
36 MR. MULLEY c We are here today to discuss an !
4 inspection report that was issued by Region IV in/ June --
l 5 sorry, it was actually issued in February of 1996 concerning k
6it an inspection that Region V did at the Comanche Peak steam i l 7 ,
electrical station. The report number is 85-07/05.
! , l.
l-8 lI Do you recall this inspection report?
l d' -
t j .
9l THE WITNESS: Yes.
l i
10 l MR. MULLEY: Could you explain for us your l I
l 11 l involvement in this specific-inspection report? j.
12 THE WITNESS: My involvement was principally that
( 13 ! to provide a reading and review of the draft inspection l
. 14 .f .
report. It4 had been sent f rom Region IV to Mr. Vince Noona,
~
W I ll A
fl 15 P Director of the Comanche Peak project. '
And to provide him 3
h I ;;
16 i with oral comments on the content of the inspection report. I ;
17 .
And then, after discussion with Mr. Noonan, to I
I 18 :
relay our comments and suggestions to Region IV.
I 19 j MR. MULLEY: So you got the report from u
20 h" Mr. Noonan?
21 k., , THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 ] MR. MULLEY: Do you recall when?
23 i THE WITNESS: No. I would have a rough idea, but l
2 4 t, exactly when I don't remember.
'I 25 d MR. MULLEY: This was still in draft form, do I 0 ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC.14* WXI.
Nationwide Coseraec PJn itA.AA aA
i I
e 5610 01 06 6 h,
i Mimie 1 ', have that enrrect? -
6 2[ THE WITNESS:
Yes. It could have been Ii 3h t-transmitted electronically by the 5520. That is how a 4l '
number of other reports come up. Perhaps -- Mr. Noonan and l! .
5c I both travelled to the site periodically, so it could have L
6! been a Xeroxed copy handed to us by one of the regional 7 managers. So, I can't remember exactly how this particular si ,
8 report was given to us.
9' Typically, they would come to Mr. Noonan first ij 10 and he would give them to me and ask me to review them, give i 11 , me a due date, that sort of thing.
12ll MR. MULLEY: I have a copy of the draft report.
l
( i' l
13 !l (Document given to witness.)
l 14 j i Would you look at it, please, and tell me if you i 15 recognize this as maybe being the copy of the draft that you 16 . received?
i f
17 (Witness examining document.)
(: f4 18 j, THE WITNESS: Yes. That is a copy of the copy I 1
i.
j !'
19 ,_
- i received. I can recognize my writing on it, marginal 20 comments.
21 " MR. MULLEY: For the record, the draft report 22 that is being looked at right now is marked Exhibit 4A. It 23 was provided to OIA by Mr. Westerman during an early i c
2 4 interview of Mr. Westerman. i 25 : i Mr. Haughney, what were your findings when you f ~
V ,
i ACE-FEDERAI. REPORTFR9. INC
, ,. r f_
H' i
I i
5610 01 07 7
)
-J Mimie l' l reviewed this report?
H .
2h THE WITNESS: I didn't really make any findings 0
3 :
as such. You know, my role as a consultant is to provide.
4 advice and recommendations. To me a finding sounds like 1
5 something the inspectors or inspection management would do.
6 l I don't do that.
7l It has been months since I looked at it. I could
]l j
h '
) 8l thu'b through it and provide it to you, but right off the m
9[ top of my head I have reviewed' dozens of these over the past l; l
10 ,
couple of years and it doesn't strike me as being 'l 11 particularly unusual. ! i j
) 12 f l'
would you want me to go over each one of these? .!
! ( f .
13 MR. MULLEY: Yes, if you would review the report 14' [
t so you can get a feel for what we are talking about. -
i 15 ( THE WITNESS: Okay.
16 ; (Witness examining document.)
17 ..'
E MR. MULLEY: Do you recall this inspection 18 ! report?
d l
l 19 [
a THE WITNESS: Oh, I remember looking at this 20 now.
l .
- 21 ! MR. MULLEY
- Did you have any comments concerning t
22 ; the inspection report?
23ji THE WITNFSS: Yes.
i 24 MR. GOLDBERG What did they pertain to?-
2$ l THE WITNESS: Well, you can see for yourself that t
ACE-FEDERAL mu .m REPORTERS, INC. I
- s. _ _. ~. . , _
L______-___-__-_______ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. . . . . ... a . .. .
. I I
5610 01 08 -
8 1 i
o Mimio 1 I've got marginal. notes here. Those were really just to 2f serve as reminders to me when I would have a subsequent 3 ,.i meeting with Mr. Noonan, or a, phone conversation with 4i Mr. Westerman, Mr. Tom Westerman of Region IV. So they are I, )
5 not in explicit detail. But, they were to serve as 6{r short-term memory joggers.
7! MR. GOLDBERG: Before you get to the specifics, 8 lll Charlie, let me ask you this:
9'*
V When you were reviewing this and providing i 10 ,
comments, did you also have phone calls, phone conversations }I
! i{
11l; with Mr. Westerman you can recall, about specific r.reas in l
t !l the inspection report?
l
( 12 )t - l 13 1 THE WIT' NESS: After I would have talked to ,I 14 j Mr. Noonan, and perhaps also his senior project manager, I i;
15 0 Mr. Charles Trammell, I would have talked to Westerman.
h My i 16 l practice was not to call Westerman until I had cleared the 4 17 ,
comments with the people whom I was reporting to, Mr. Noonan I
l 18 l and Mr. Trammell. i 19 But, I would have had thos6 conversations in that L
l i 20 l sequence. And most likely, by telephone.
( 21 I7 Il MR. MULLEY: Did you review this report without 22 .i any input from Mr. Westerman?
- 11 23 E THE WITNESS: The input was the draft report? , ,
24 I MR. MULLEY: That's the only input you had? I i '
25 l' THE WITNESS: That's right. He wouldn't have '
j :
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L-_-_-__------__-----_----------------------- -- -
l
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ,r
~.* ', j 5610 01-09 l 9 i
o Mimie l'] n called up and spent a half hour describing it to me or given 2 me anything else. i It would have been reviewed on its face l
3h value.
I 4 MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have any access to plant 5 i 1
documents prior to, or during the time .you were doing this 6 review?
7 THE WITNESS:
l You mean such as to go down and 8 j look at an NCR that might be referenced in here, or j
i 9q something like that?
l 10 !
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: I coul,d have if I wanted to, but it j 12 wasn't my practice to do that.
I l !
j 13 i MR. GOLDBERG If we could, we will talk 'from 14 3l specifics, if that is okay with you, Charlie.
' ljl
.1 15 THE WITNESS: That would be better. '
16 MR. GOLDBERG: Let's go to one of them. We are l
17 on page 3 of the draft report, and page 3 of the letter , !
I jl 1 18 proposed -- Appendix A, Notice of Violation.
The topic is j
- 19 ,f 3 number 6, failure to translate desigri criteria into !t I
20
-l i
installation specifications, procedures and drawings; and 21 ! failure to control deviations,from these standards. !
l 11 l i'
22 f And in this you have a comment -- you have two 1 l 23 comments, actually. !
One is, isn't the traveller a form of i i l instruction? And the second one, why different number from I 2 4 .! !
2 5 !! NOV 7 or next. '
il i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 4
r..
i 5610'01 10 10 a 'Mimie b 1
. h THE' WITivt:SS : Or'next page?
24 MR. COLDBERG:
b Or rext page, yes.
3l The first comment of our interest is~, why isn't
't 4 !. the traveller a form of instruction. And I guess it gets to h
- 5 jj your knowledge _of their systemc 6[g THE WITNESS: Okay. Your earlier question was 7
- interesting, and let me just say tiiers is a construction .
8'j operation traveller referenced here in the Notice of-q ,
9k Violation.
I didn't go back and look at that specific. '
l .
l 10 j traveller.
I asked a more general question, because in my II '
1 11 l experience at the site, I had seen the so-called documents. !
12 .;
i
( f They almost take the form of packages and they consist of j 13 !
several types of documen*s called travellers. ,
14 i l
And that is a generic term used at Comanche Peak 15 e} to describe, really, a form of written check list, or !'
l j ,
16 li '
sometimes a very explicit instruction for construction l
i 17 I activities.
i 18 h And I had seen some that took on a very explicit 19 g step-by-step sequence, had approval signatures and reviews.
E 20 y At many other sites we call it an installation procedure.
6 21 l Now, I have not done an exhaustive review of a large set of \,
- i 22 "
I travellers at the site, but I have seen some that were very, i 23 very detailed.
So this que: tion is meant to represent, is l 24 ( the traveller in question in fact very detailed, equivalent 25 y f to an instruction or procedure. i ACE-FEDERAL mm.m REPORTERS, INC. -
, ~.~, r_.,, . ~ . .
, , . ,. . i l
l 5610 01 11 l 11
}
4 Mimie 1.( MR.'GOLDBERG: If it were as dptailed as an i .
2] instruction or procedure, wouldn't it have to have the 3 controls of a procedure or instruction?
4 , In other words, if a change is made, wouldn't it 5 f? not have to go thfough the same administrative controls that 6 a procedure or instruction would be under?
7i THE WITNESS: Well, I might expect that. You 8
l would have to look if they have an admin procedure for-E
.i
.. 90 control of travellers and what that entailed.
10 Your question almost implies, does it have the 11 h same sort of control as a design document, where it may have i 1
(,
12 I to go back'and receive the same level of review if it is l
I 13 changed as the originating document. I i
14 ,
And that may be the case.
! I did not personally i 15 j probe that particular issue here. I just -- just simply l l
16 8 reading these two paragraphs, it struck me that it was a k
17 p'ossibility that this particular document, in fact, met the 1 18 il same intent of the word " instruction" in criterion 5. And 19 f that that should be considered. -
I k
l 20 g MR. MULLEY: Who did you ask this question of? '
21 ) THE WITNESS: As best as I can recall, I would ,
22 ' have asked the question of Mr. Westerman.
23 MR. MULLEY: Do you recall his answer?
24 l THE WITNESS: No.
l 25 I MR. MULLEY: So, when you have a questionmark {
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 3C .W-3?(U Nixionwide Coserage *
- m)S6M6 '
l' '
1 L
5610 01 12 ,-
0 12 s Mimie 1?
p on this comment, you are actually asking a question and not 2l rendering an opinion?
3 THE WITNESS: That's right. Well, certainly that 4 !*
was the case in this instance. It was.something for ii # '
'S 3 additional consideration by the region. It is something 6 i that conceivably a licensee, even this one, might come back 1 7( 6 and make an argument. You.know, particularly if you want to 1 8 l l
give them a Notice of Violation, if they don't agree with 9[ it, they are going to have to have some rationale. And when 10 f they respond to it they will say, "We don't believe this is l
11 gl a violation," and they will enumerate the reasons therefor. l l
12
( So, as soon as I read this I thought that li 13 .
potentially could be one of the reasons.
l l
And generally the !
14 regions don't like to issue Notices of Violation in cases -
ll 15 l !
1 where they are liable to be successfully challenged. They l 16 i want to do their homework thoroughly and make sure they have !
17 l
a clear case for a violation. Or else it is not appropriate '
18 ' that the licensee be cited.
I 1
19 ; So, that was what that was" intended to do.
5 20 MR. MULLEY:
t So the burden is then placed back on 21l' the region to make sure they have got thorough violation?
22 THE WITNESS:
J That's right.
23 MK..GOLDBERG:
E So the intent you had in raising ,
j 24 ;
( the question, Charlie, was to trigger their thought process? -
l 25 9 THE WITNESS:
Exactly. - '
i .
i l' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 1
7 I
I
- 5610 01 13 j 13 i e Mimie l' '
MR. GOLD' BERG: But not necessa,rily that you. knew i
2[ !
what the answer to this question was? l 3)
THE WITNESS: Absolutely, that is true.
4" MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's go on to another 4
5, issue here. i P
6 l Some of these comments here we are not going to 7
i I ask you about. We are only going to ask you about ones that 8C we have had --
h i
THE WITNESS: As I reflect, to the best that I 10 9fl '
i recall, during the phone conversation Mr. Westerman did not- ;'
11 at that instant give me the answer. The best I can recall, l 12 ji he thought about it and probably -- I'm guessing -- took
(
13 i some notes and considered it. But that is my recollection.
14 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. The second part of'this ~
15 l .
area -- we are still on number 6 on page 3 -- if you could I
16 ;
give us any rationale here I would appreciate it as well. I 17 This is why a different number from NOV 7 or naxt page?
18 THE WITNESS: Okay. This may take me a moment to ,
l 19 [ think about because it certainly wouldn't have been a big I' 20 issue.
21 } (Witness examining document.)
22 I can recall my reasons for writing that down.
s j
23 l MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
24 l THE WITNESS: Notice of Violation number 6, the I b t
25 I one we have just been discussing, was construction operation i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, . . . . . .. . . - . . . l
l
~
' 9 . .
I 5610 01 14 14 I 1 Mimie 1 traveller by number.
- i v
2 And, in fact, in the text of the Notice of 3" 1 Violation they.used the definite article "the",and- l l-4! " traveller" s,ingular. !
l,'
5f There is another' violation on the next-page, 6l number 7, which talks about the same reactor vessel, and 7"
then talks about construction operation traveller, and gives li 8g a different number.
3 o
9 ,. Again, I did not look at those documents, but I I 10 ;i-simply asked the question, did they have a mistake in number i j
k 11 i.
translation. It is quite possible they could-have had a 12 .!
i
- k. I g
whole set of t'ravellers that apply to different portions of l
13 E the installation. It is a large component. The 14 f 1
?
installation takes place in a rather complex series of !
15 i steps.
6 n
It is just something that occurred to mn, '
16]1 potentially in transcription from field notes to the Notice l 4
17 t s
of violation they may have made a mistake, so.I just asked i
18 them that so they can make sure.
19 j MR. GOLDBERG: I'm going to show Mr. Haughney a n -
20 traveller in question. I am goling to ask him if he had 1 1
i 21 j seen it during the time of his review. This is Traiveller E
22 No. ME-79-248-5500. t I am going to have Mr. Haughney look at '
23 it t h see'if h.e had seen it when he was doing his review.
a 24 '
N, (Document handed to witness.) ;
25 5 THE WITNESS:
I, This-is the first time I have seen i
j ACE-FEDERAI RFPORTm hr
S i
5610 01 1,5 j) 15
( .
A Mimie 1 l this.
2j MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. We are going to go to k
3 . ,sother issue.
That will be the last issue we will. discuss.
! 4h It is number 4 on page 2 of Appendix A of the 4
S Pr6 posed Notice of Violation, failure to provide objective 6 evidence, records *to show that concrete central and truck 7 [I . mixer b1'ades were inspected.
Maybe you want to take some 8 time and read that. Give me some reasons for your comments.-
9 THE WITNESS: Sure.
l ll 10 I I remember this one now. This was kind of an E
l 1 1 ij interesting one.
t i2 h (Witness examining document.)
( j, l
13 i I guess the first thing that struck me about this lI!
i 14 ,.
Notice of Violation were a number of things. And I think to '
l 15 f, understand my thinking I have got to give you a little I
16 j background'on status of the plant.
. l'i 17 j As I recall I probably reviewed this Draft a l I
18 f Inspection Report sometime in the fall'of '85. In any i
19 ' event, the status of the plant was at" that time that unit 1 20 was for all practical purposes, 100 percent complate and had ,
21 1 i
been so t'or over a year. 1 22 Unit 2 was approaching 80 percent complete. And ;
23 ) in terms of construction status, that nieans that all i
24 L concrete structural work is long done. Large bore pipings '
25 installed, most small bore piping. The electrical cables
(
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 5610 01 16 f 2
16-2 Mimie l' E are being pulled, instrumentations being installed.-
E 2
j In some respects, from the exterior, even unit 2 3l looks like a complete plant except, for perhaps some 4 6
4[ exterior painting and things like that. i I
5 There was one final safety-related concrete pour 6[ that was made within the last couple of years, and that'was 1 l
7[ around the equipment closure hatch on unit 2's containment. 1 h
i 8h But other than that, safety-related concrete work at this e,
9L facility had been done for years. ..
j 10.[ So the first thing that struck me was, this was 11 [ kind of an odd tning for a resident inspector to be looking [I
. 12 at at unit 2,,because there are some actual activities
(- s 13 [. taking place at the site that perhaps could be rc. ore u
14 i; Oruitful, because you could do some direct observation.
ii 15 t And tha*. was somewhat corroborated by the fact 16 that
' if you look at the dates of these sort of things, you I 17 sl looking at a procedure that is seven, eight years old and !!
l l]
18 i locking at records that are nearly ten years old. And that Ii j
l 19 j would have been when the batch plant hnd the trucks would a
1 .
20 l have been in heavy service for most of the concrete work at l!
21 the facility.
s 1
22 ! Now it could well be, and I didn't check, that 1 ; ;
2 3 ,' i l
the NRC inspection procedures for concrete on unit 2 may not 24ji have been complete. It could have been a perfectly -l l
25 understandable effort by the senior resident to get his ACE-FEDERAL sc.m.n.,
REPORTERS, INC.
~ _ - _ . ._
n, I
5610 01 17 p 17
~
4 Mimie 1 construction inspection program complete. I didn't ask him i
2 that. But that would be a very good r'eason for doing it.
3' Nonetheless, it did strike me as being a little k'
4 bit odd that he would have looked into this.
S' ! The thing that -- one marginal note I have here i
I
. 6 is, what was the actual co'ndition. If you read this I
7 l citation, it does say that the problem is, there was no 8 documented evidence in forms of records that these quarterly .
9 checks on the blades had been done That, in and of itself,
{
10 is explicitly a violation of Criterion 5. '
l It is a failure a
11 !
to follow procedures. ,And I recognized it then and do now. j, 12 l C !
No question about it.
l 13 But sometimes, in partial mitigation it is useful 14 to look at whether or not the blades may have deteriorated, l 15 I and what evidence of the actual condition.
l {
16 If you go back into the text of the report, you !
17 l will find that the inspector did examine the condition of 18 i the mixer trucks and the batch plant and came out with ,
l '
19 [ favorable findings. ,
t 20 n So I guess that led me to believe that the I
21 1 importance of this issue in the 1985-86 timeframe was pretty 2 2 ',
I minimal when viewed from a broad context of all the kinds of 23 'i issues that are going on at Comanche Peak.
24 t It is a violation of Criterion 5, it is a failure li 25 to follow procedures. Although it could be that the records '
I ;
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
-2tc.34*.1?al , Nationmideroserate 8@.13MM6
i e
.5610 02 01 h i
i 18 4 Mimie 1L 1:
just weren't retrievable, which would be a different kind of 2 an administrative problem.
3l 1 But its relative importance in terms of the 4
activities going on at the site, in terms of the ongoing 5l construction at unit 2, and in terms of the corrective 1.
6[ action program g61ng on at unit 1 and unit 2 to reinspect i 1
7 !
the plant, to look at aspects of design, it frankly struck l 8
ll me as a possible unwise use of experienced NRC resources.
- 9 f. I I didn't make that stdgement to Mr. Westerman, 10: (4but that thought came to my mind.
i 1 11 , I think you have also got to recognize that '
E 12 ;.
(.. I Region IV had been under a great deal of criticism by the 13 { Interveners in the case for- a number of years, as to not i
14 I l
?
having done a complete job on inspection, having done a poor I]
15 job of that i inspection that they did, having attempted to ,1 16 j make little of the importance of findings. Virtually every I
! b 17 l type of criticism that you could think of, they were 18 receiving. !'
j 19
- From the standpoint of its appearance in the t 20 l a public domain, going back and raising a relatively minor 21 ! :
4 administrative issue on something that happened years in the l
22 j past, and for which future corrective action is not really l 23 ;ii appropriate or possible - !
W you know, they are not going to .!
24
!l use any more concrete work -- it struck me as being a pretty i 25
] unwise use of NRC resources.
1 ACE-FEDERAL M W M00 REPORTERS, INC.
Nationude Cmcraec een m w.
g 5610 02 02 i 19 i
4 Mimie 1 MR. MULLEY: How would you , vie'w the argument from 2h an inspector that if they missed following this procedure, le 3 ;f fol'1owing recordkeeping, that' there may be others 'that he d
4 also missed, therefere we should go back and do more s 1 5' sampling.
h 6= !
i THE WITNESS: That argument isparticularky 7
t valid, and it is one that' is frequently made, and there is 8 no problem with that.
9[ But at the Comenche M k site for anyone that has 10 3 been working there, whether he is a resident inspector or a .
d I
11 I contractor, or a Vince Noonan or whoever, we have got a I li 12 l litany of examples of cases where they failed to follow '
h 13 procedures.
I 14 Now, I don't want to give you the impression'that !
15 E 3 Comanche Peak is necessarily an unusual site. !
If you devote l, I
16 a a large number of inspection resources with experienced l a .
17 l people, we can find problems with failure to follow 18 '; procedures quite readily in a number of these sites.
And j, j e i
19 g that occurs because you have got liteially 5- or 6000-20 Y {
construction and engineering' personnel working, you have got 21 I a very complex procedure control system and just the ;
22 ] management problem of making those types of activities '
23 letter perfect so that you don't miss some administrative 24 y requirement, I don't think'you will find error-free 25 e procedural systems at any of these sites. '
4 I
!' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t a 's I
h I
5610 02 03 ;. '
P 20 1
Mimie
! 4 But'your point is well taken..
1- l I guess my feeling 2' was at that stage of time, we had'enough examples of i
3* procedural-problems at the site that we didn't necessarily 1 1
[ l 4* have to make some sort of a watershed. decision to go out and j
[
5 ',
G expand our sample. We had plenty of examples.
6 l.
And I think had we done that, we decided to say, i
7j count the. entire set of procedures.we had at the station and-l 8 i I
do some sort of an audit. You know, pick certain numbers of 9; them and try to develop a'sampging scheme to.get a real, 10 { true picture on their ability to manage the site,.I would il [i hazard to say that it would be likely that their compliance 12 l tus<Ab d
( p, with con ~ crete inspection procedures _in the latfhave been on r.
13 that list. You would have looked for things that were more 14 current and in particular likely to -- that would control 15 : activities that would be like_y to be repeated in the ,
i 16 future.
l .
t 17 [ Now, had the condition of the truck and the batch !
l, 18 l plant been found to have been adverse, that would have l
l 19 l broader implications, because then you say, well, we have i i i, I
20 ;
9 got two problems: One, the plant may have deteriorated in l' 21 .q time, and we don't know when it.got below minimum 22' j specifications And two, we have got this problem where we 23 ; don't have documented evidence of having ' inspected the l s l 24:l blades periodically. ,,
a
- (
25 P That is a very different issue. But, when you I
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ;
203.u*. Um Nationwide Cosesete 800 3%6M6
, s-e *s ,
i 5610 02 04 (
, 21 4 Mimie l' find'in the late '80s the plant is sti,11 in good condition, 2
then any safety concerns over the quality of concrete are l
3i diminished.
l Furthermore, because of other allegations at the 4 .l
'l 5h I
site, we had a whole series of in-place testing -- the l
l 6 Schmidt Hammer' test. You would have to get a structural .
l 7 l expert in to talk about it.
! d But there was a rather large i 8
series of' corrective action in-place tests going on to i l
o 9f.verifytheadequateconcretestrengths. Also examination.of {.
j I
10 g '
other kinds of records-that had been done, testing records, ,
11 ! during the installation of concrete. '
i 12 $
there were many other things going on to So, I !
13 !
provide reasonable assurance that the safety-related ;
i 14 .
concrete of the facility had been adequately installed and l r
i 15 l tested. l j
t
'I 16 i so, with all that kind of background, that led me l
17 to make, you know, admittedly -- and.this comment, course, was for my own use in an off-the-cuffs remark - "looks 18 li 19 dumb, can we drop it." "
20 ,
And I think if you reflect on the background I 21 have given you, that is my reason for my thinking there.
22 I mentioned to Mr. Westerman, I can recall 23 ! mentioning, hey, this is a violation. There is no question 24 i about it. It is, in fact, a clear type violation.
l f,
25 l i
- MR. GOLDBERG For your purposes, just to give l
' ?
j k ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
- i
, 5610 02 05 ii i! 22
.s Mimie 1 you the result (of all of this, it maintained itself as a i 2 ,'
violation.
i 3E THE WITNESS: I recall that.it did..
f 4[i MR. GOLDBERG There was no request for i
i 5
corrective action in the Notice of Violation. It was just 6 ', simply stated as such and no request.for response by the 7, Licensee.
0 So I think it came out at the end where I think I
81 you are stating, where you expected it should come out i
9 pretty much, or very close.
10 f THE WITNESS: Okay..
11 I; MR. GOLDBERG: I had nothing else to ask'you, but 12 ] you may want to include something in the record on that
( l
- )
13 j l
review that you did, which we haven' t asked you as yet.
14 y MR. MULLEY:
I I have a couple of questions. !
15 When you provided you.r comments to Mr. Westerman !
16 i I
k telephonically, what would you expect the Region to do in i' 17 reply to some of your observations?
l t !,
18 l THE WITNESS: Well, I guess I would have to l , 3 19 ( answer that generally, because I can't remember explicitly j 2 0 ;l i what he did here, although I do remember that they issued 21 I the violation. !
22 j MR. MULLEY: l i My question isn't exactly what they ;
23 did, but what would you expect. It is a general quest. ion. l 24 I l,
When you provide comments back to a Region and ask questions 2.5 '
like this, what would you expect the Region to do to follow I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- e:.x,.3>.
s.o-, c_.,, m ,- .
_ ~a ... . _ _ . _ , C -
1
- E, E +
I
-5610 02 06 g 23 4 Mimie I up?
l~ g i 2 !) THE WITNE'SS: Okay.
il 3 Usually, the follow up was not a traditional 4 follow up. It was usually kind of spontaneous on the
)
5! phone. For instance, sometimes.I might raise an issue out 1
h I 6 !
l of my own ignorance and there was some additional-background' l 7 l I wasn't aware of that would lead me to see a potential l'
8 problem with the particular statement or report. And they 9[ would fill me in on what the issue was.
10
!l Usually when they do that I would carefully read l
11 j the words, because I am reading it much like an informed
(,
12 E member of the public might read it, or someone in It.E ,
l 13 , headquarters. And, if the docum,ent doesn't fairly stand on l I !'l 14 its own two feet, then I would suggest some wording change.
I I 15 Maybe an additional sentence or something like that to j 16 l clarify the situation. l 17 In my experience, the Region was always very i l 1 !
18 ,l acceptable to those kinds of suggestions to make the reports ;
i 19 ,i clear. '
I
^
20ll So, the feedback was generally done on the spot. l II I 21 lt At times some of the issues would be left for further l 22 l resolution and I'might receive a subsequent follow up call 8 l d
23 ; from Mr. Westerman a couple, three days later af ter ' he had l 24 researched the issue or gone back to the inspector who did 25 the work. And generally. that was done because we would l
-l ACE-FEDERAL sc.m.,,.
REPORTERS, INC. '
~ ,~._ _
I y .
I 5610 02 07
, 24-
- 6. Mimie 1 agree that the existing wording wasn',t doing the job..
And 2
so we had to get the facts stated more clearly so any reader 3
could understand what they were.
4Y-There wasn' t any formal follow up Lsystem. .
And in 5 ;
fact, the.se comments - weren' t formal . - It is not'like I. wrote 6 !
f i
a letter with comment numbe 1, 2, 3 and'then you'would get a
.7 h response back.
It wouldn't be in the'tre.ditional format'of, 8 ll say, a licensing case where the NRR would ask written
.j 9[ questions of a Lice'nsee and'they would repeat the qu stion I lu 'a, and come back with a response.
! It was done informally.-
11 j.
I will say this, if there was an issue that I 12
( felt strongly about, then I would get Noonan and Trammell on' i 13 i l .l board and involve them in the discussion ~and make sure the .
14 l
,1 resolution -- do my best to persuade people-that the I 15 " l!
resolution was acceptable to Noonan and Trammell. !';
16 But, as far as having disagreements or things, I l!
17 '
really can't recall any.
18 I MR. MULLEY: I For example,'we discussed'some of i 19 j your questions concerning the trave 11'er earlier on. t I
20 j THE WITNESS: yes.
r l '
I 21 { MR. MULLEY:
Did you expect, or would you expect ^
li 22 ] Westerman to go and get additional information so that some i ,
23 l of these questions could be answered and the violation could I ,
24 s be better written? '
il 25 I THE WITNESS: In that particular. case -- and that 'I i
I ACE-FEDERAL.
3 . ,.
REPORTERS, INC.
l
N 5610 02 08 5 25
. Mimie 1 p is a good example -- that is one wherb I would simply expect 1
2 him.to consider it and perhaps discussion with Shannon, for 3
them to make the call. Personally, I did not consider that 4 to be a major issue.
I didn't, in that case, even expect to I
5 get any feedback from them, particularly in my role as a 6
consultant and an advisor.
7 MR. GOLDBERG:
It was more or less a comment or 2
8 f raising a point as opposed to challenging? 'l 9U THE WITNESS: A sugge,stion. There was no 10 challenge intended at all. ,
ii 11 But, the thought did occur to me that the utility 12 I
(. potentially could challenge them on the issue, again in the 13 l I absence of my knowledge of the whole traveller control .
14 system.
But, having seen some detail in some of these, it !'
15 looked like it had that potential.
16 MR. MULLEY: Do you get a subsequent copy of this 17 j report?
d For example, do you get the final report and review 18 y the final report?
Do you get subsequent drafts?
19 [; THE WITNESS: Normally they are not given to me 20 !
l -- how should I say -- I'm not on direct distribution for 21 them. That is the best way to say it.
,22 f i Now normally I think the version of an Inspection 23 f Report that 1 I would see was pretty close to the final 24 version.
It was undergoing, say, branch chief review in the j 25 l Region, it was getting ready to go out the door. So, I was i I
i AcF-FFDFR A T RT PNN(; h u__ __ _ -- - - - -
r .
1 I
l 5610 02 09 ii 26 A Mimie 1j Y
. providing some of the final comments.that may or may not 2
s have been incorporated in the final version.
3[ Normally, the next version I wou'Id expect to be 4
the as-issued version.
- e !
5d Now, I generally sould see them, but through i
6l- somewhat of a different route. One of the project managers l
{
7f on the case, Annette Vietti-Cook, was on direct distribution i
l i
8 !
for the as-issued version, probably through the RIDD 9 system.
In any event, when those would come in, she would i
10 f usually tell me about them, n
11 I would r.ot spend much time with them. Frankly, 12
( there were other assignments coming up ,and I was not in a ;
13 supervisory role where I would necessarily want to do a l
14 >
quality control check.
I 15 :
li Occasionally, if there was something of interest, 16 I might go and look at it. Or, perhaps Mr. Noonan would ask 17 me to see what they did with this one section.
18 I can't recall,any such review of the as-issued ;
19 [ version of this particular report.
I 20 There occasionally were second drafts that might 21 !
!l be sent to Washington -- probably less than 10 to.15 percent 22 l !
4 of the reports that'I had seen, but that would occasionally '
23 ] happen. But, that was rare. ,
4, MR. MULLEY: One final question. '
25 j t Have you discussed this Inspection Report and l
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4
.. . , q 5610 02 10 !
27 li Mimie 2
1l 't your comments, recently, with anybody,from the Region?
2 THE WITNESS:
l Mr. Westerman indicated to me that
} 34 it was likely that I would be questioned about this h
4 [l particular report and he is the only one in the Region that 5
l' has talked to me about it.
6 l MR. MULLEY: Did he, during his discussion with l
i i
' 7 )i you, prompt you in any.way?
s 8
THE WITNESS: Absolutely not.
.i 9 ll MR. GOLDBERG Charlie, do you have anything to il 10 y add for the record that you would like to at this time?
11 THE WITNESS:
l Let me just think.
9 12 :
(
(witness examining document.) !
13 I There is one thing. There is one other thing of i 14 l t, a general nature that might be helpful to you all. I know I 15 "
l am just one tiny little piece of this pie that you are 16 8 trying to put together, and perhaps that is to explain a ;
i
{
17 1 little bit more my role and the reasons that Mr. Noonan had
.I 0 Il 18 ! e me doing this. j t ,
19 The reasons have evolved s'omewhat.
\
20
- When he took over from Mr. Ippolito as the ; i 21 '.i '
j Comanche Peak project director in October of 1984, at that . .
I 22 i ,!
time he had a principal assistant named Dick Wessman, whom I i 23 think you know.
Dick is now on the NRR staff. But he is a 11 24 e a
former regional inspector, he is a former I&E section '
2 5 f, chief.
' So, he has got an experienced inspection background !
1 ACE-FEDERAL
,, ,. u . s ,, ,
REPORTERS, INC.
1 I. ' '
..i,, l
,i 5610 02 11 ll C 28 Mimie as well as NRA background.-
.1l
? '
2r At
- i. the time Dick Wessman was doing the work that 3j I ended up doing. He,was getting the Draft Inspection t
4 l,' Reports and reviewing them. He was doing that for a couple f
5:
?
of reasons:
i 6[ !
For one thing, you.had kind of two parallel i 7
activities going on in the latter part of 1984. You had 1 l
8 ,
this special technical review team that was looking at 9 1 allegations of improper construction and design practices.
10 [ And, in fact, they were replowing some of the ground that k
't {
11 Region IV had done in earlier years. Some allegations that b
12 i Region IV had reviewed, k I found to be not substantial and have ,
13
- no safety significance and in fact had documented Inspection I
14 Reports, those were being relooked at with a completely '
N 15 6 h
L fresh look' by new outside people, similarly written up and 16 5 disposed in some detail.
g .
17 "
Yet, the Region was doing a construction 1 18 5 inspection program. And so there was a potential for !
1 19 l overlap of issues. -
ll ,
20 ;!
i 3 Because of the allegations that Region IV had not !
I 21 l handled some of these earlier issues very well, at the time 4
22 ,
f the technical review team was not showing its full deck of ,
23 ) cards to the Region. And for that reason, we would review i 24 I
,! the Regional Inspection Reports that were being published at 2 5 ,i l ACE-FEDERAL 3C#.ruu REPORTERS, INC. *.
Nationwide Coserage 80433MMA
i . ,
1 5610 02 12 [ 29 u
6 Mimie 1g that t
time -- Dick Wessman, and he brought me in to help --
2 to make sure that we didn't have contradictory statements.
3 In additidn, when I started to work for 4 ,
Mr. Noonan, he had had some problems internally with 5f communications with the office of Executive Legal Director.
6 It was simply, they are in two different buildings, this is 7
i a heavily contested proceeding, there was a lot of activity, 8
a lot of papers being filed back and forth. Just some 9{ disconnections here. Nothing intentional. Just an
.10 organizational question.
11 (
0 Since I had worked with some of these same 12 1
( lawyers before in West Valley, worked very well, he asked me 13 t
' I to go over and get familiar with the case as best I could 14 !
I and actually A spend time meeting with the attorneys working ,
15 on the case and telling them what the technical people were 16 doing and coming back and briefing the technical people on '
17 what the legal people were doing. !
I 18 $
I so, in the fall of 1984, I rapidly came up to !
19 i speed on the issues in the case.
! You know, worked on drafts !
i 20 ;I '
b of pleadings and briefs that were being filed and things 21 ! like that.
Because of that I ended up with another kernal !
22 3
3 of knowledge that some of the regional people didn't have, :
23 ) and that
! is from a technical point of view had some notion l t
24 d of the different issues that were being litigated in the !
s 3 ,
25 ; case.
! And so some of my comments were intended to avoid I
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I
I l lc .
5610 02 13 i,'
30 li e
. Mimie 1; problems that an Inspection Report might cause with b h . '
25 ' litigation of the case.
i i !
3} L This was a very unusual case.
There is only one 4 l- contention that's admitted to the proceeding. And it's a 1
. 52 -
very broad contention. And it basically allows for -- the j l s 6 contention is that the design and construction of the p <
facility was not subject to proper quality assurance, and
- 7 l. 1 t
li 8
i I
therefore the design and construcon of the facility are n
97 i indeterminate. 'And for that reason then an operating i
10 ,i il license should not be issued. }
11 ' Now that is so broad that virtually anything that f i
.j 12 ; happens at the facility, any individual action or misaction a
13 gf i (
could be construed to be an example that would support that 'j i 14'; contention. i i
i .
!) '
15
, Now, it.is kind of surprising how many issues 16 c have really gotten into the proceeding and sten'the subject !
1 I
17 fn of hearing and filing of papers and things like that. ; l 18 So my assignment to ensure that the l
H f) 19 communications between the Comanche Peak project and the ;
20 fj Office of Executive Legal Director remained up to date and j 21 j current, allowed me to take a look from that perspective at 22 I the'se Inspection Reports and alert the Region to any '
fi 23 " statements they might make that could, perhaps, complicate ; .
24 li matters in the proceeding.
t 3
A 25 !i So, I guess that was the mai reason that I was I
A 1
t I
ACE-FEDERAL x.m.~
REPORTERS, INC.
- s. - , ~ .,, mu-
5610 02 14 i '
31 4 Mimie 1 initia11y assigned, and really have continued to review 2h these at least until recently.
3gl MR. GOLDBERG: That raises a good question, 4 Charlie.
.In your communication with Mr. Westerman, going {
5 l
beyond the specific areas we discussed, do you recall any $. .
6 occasion where you mentioned to Mr. Western.an that this may 7
or may not be complicating to the existing proceeding in one 8
fashion or another. i
' 9) THE WITNESS: I can't recall this morning any i
10 cases like that with Mr. Westerman. But, I certainly can 11 recall them with 12 13 There were a number of reports in early 1985 that i o
14 had some . statements in there that I felt if left as issued !
15 could have caused us difficulty in the proceeding. I.would 16 be hard-pres, sed to give you an example right off the top of 17 my head, but there were some.
i 18 MR. MULLEY: You used the term " complicated the 19 proceeding." i 20 What, exactly, are we talking about when you say 21 it is oging to' complicate? i 22 THE WITNESS: I tiiink what'we are talking about 23 is, there may be an issue -- I can remember there are some 24 I large supports in the reactor coolant system called 25 crossover leg. restraints. i And these -- the construction and ACE-FEDERAL 20134t3700 REPORTERS, INC. !
Nationwide Coverage 233MM6
..,, l a
l 5610 02 15 f h 32
. Mimie .
1l1 installation of these supports had been already a matter of l
l 2i contention in the proceeding.
! It'was still an open issue.
3 It hadn't been decided one way or another.
i And it had been 4? sitting without any activity in the proceeding for several s.
5 .[ months.
6 s
Lo and behold, here comes an Inspection Report l
7l and one of the topics of discussion is main coolant system t 8 i crossover leg restraints.
- . I don't recall the details right 9!
t now, but we had done some inspection and found some' issues.
10 !t i
I can't recall if there was a violation. But there were f
11
, g some issues described in there.
12 I g ess at the time I aske had we !
13 ;
read such and such.
l .
Had we looked at some of the documents i
14 that were in the proceeding. And the answer was no, we 15 hadn't done it. We considered what this other, earlier i
16 information might have done in the light of our statements. i 17 And so, had to get'them a package and mail it to them.
18 And I think the complication, potential 19 complication comes out from the fact.that most inspections f 20 the NRC does, because of its resource constraints, tend to 21 . present rather incomplete pictures. sid statements they may '
I 22
[
make, an inspector may make are true, perhaps, in the narrow 23 j context that it looks at them. But, if you have got some l i
24 j l
issue that h'as been ventilated in a hearing and documents !
25 '
like travellers and NCRs, boxes full perhaps, have been i ACE-FEDERAL n.u,.n REPORTERS, INC. ~
__. u.-m- - ,
-)
- ';-t,,
I Skl0 02.16 ;
. 33 .!
p 6 - Mimie 1j entered as exhibits in the case 'and hundreds of hours of j 2 testimony have'been taken, you have go't a very different '
3 picture than someone who goes down and spends a half day l 4
E I
looking at something, and another half day in the vault '
5! researching.a verf small sample of the record.
6l You can come.to very different. conclusions of the 1
7 ! quality of installation. 1 l
j 8,I I'will give you a hypothetical example. . We may-
-i l
9Y take a look at say cable installations in the cable ,
k 10 spreading room. l-And as a sample, we are able to:look at ten' l
l 11 cables. And we may come to the conclusion that because the 1 j 12 l ten we looked at are properly installed and trained an'd meet
\ l -
l 13 l separation requirements, et cetera, we may come to the Ii i-j 14 k i-conclusion that based on that ten the electrical. , !.; >i) 15 l~
construction in the cable spreading room looks adequate. l!
16 j.
Well, supposing that in the proceeding the ;. l 17 ;.
issue of electrical construction had come up in the past, ,
18li and some specific and valid examples of improper cable !
19 installation had been described fully.with nonconformance I
l'.
20 ! I, reports, or the lack of nonconformance reports, and all 'j !
21,l kinds of issues brought to bear. l i 3 22 If you had that situation present and then you 23 I i
como along without knowing that that has.gone on, and_six 24 [ mont.hs later make some sort of a statement that everything ;
l 25 " locks wonderful, and you have'still got this open issue'of 1-l <
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 3c#.3700 . Nationmide Coverage - 800 336 % 46
~
w .< . , . .
e i
l i
5610 02 17 .
34 p; .
. Mimie 1 !
indeterminate construction,.you 'end up destroying your >
.1 2 I ' credibility as a competent, objective inspector.
l' 1 l 3 ,; What you have really done is nothing' wrong. You i.
4'.j have gone out in the time you have had and taken a sample.
l 5 ,l' And based on that$bample, everything looks adequate. But in 1:
6[ the broader context you may'not be aware of, that conclusion 7 has no meaning.
8 That's the' complication.
9 MR. MULLEY: Okay.
V u
10 [ Thank you.
11 MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, Charlie.
12 . (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the investigative ;
- 1 13 { interview was concluded.)
I 14 >!
r l 15 "
l 16 j 11 .
- 17 !! ,
I: ..
i 18 &
l 19
}
l l 20 i ;
I e 1 21 3
!l .
22 1 23 .
24 1 ,
a 25 l j
(
l a .
8 u, e c' .
,; 4; ,_ -
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER l i
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED' STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the j I matter of:
- NAME OF PROCEEDING: INVE.STIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF CHARLES.J. HAUGHNEY i
4
)
1 DOCKET NO.':
)
PLACE: I BETHESDA, MARYLAND'
( -
1 DATE:
THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1986 i I i 1 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original f l
transcript thereof fcr .the file of the United States Nuclear !
Regulatory Commission. '
1 i
1
~
(sigt) / !
i (TYPED) .
MIMIE MELTZER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS 1 Reporter's Af filiation, . INC.
l l
l l
l l
?
U.s. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON Office of Inspector and Auditor o m ., irme.. . . .. Novenber 25, 1986 Report of Interview .
-On November 24, 1986, Charles J. HAUGHNEY, a consultant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), was reinterviewed by George Mulley, Assistant Director for Investigations, and Frederick Herr, Deputy Director, Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA). The purpose of the interview was to clarify several comments contained in HAUGHNEY's June.17, 1986, interview in connection with 01A's investigation of Region IV's activities associated with the COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATJ0N (CPSES). HAUGHNEY was provided with his testimony,
.beginning on page 28, line 20, of his June .17,1986, interview with OIA during which he explains his involvement with CPSES in late 1984. Upon questioning, HAUGHNEY stated essentially as follows:
His involvement began in the summer o'f 1984 when he was a member of the CPSES Technical Review Team (TRT). The TRT was a special group of NRC staff and consultants gathered to evaluate allegations of improper design and construction a.t CPSES. They were to document their results in Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports.
l TRT .was being carried out by the Comanche Peak Project Staff. .The Project Staff set up in March 1984 by William Dircks, Executive Director for Operations at the time, who established a Project Director for CPSES and combined all agency efforts at CPSES under the Projec,t Director.
Thomas IPPOLITO was the first Project Director; Vince Noonan was made Project Director in late 1984.
HAUGHNEY explained'that in addition to being a member of the TRT, his role rega-ding CPSES was a communications link oetween the NRC inspectors in Region IV, the ongoing ASLB hearing uctivities for CPSES and the TRT.
Specifically, he reviewed draft Region IV inspection reports on CPSES, provided the results to the Project Staff, and communicated the Staff's comments back to the Region. The purpose of his review of the inspection reports was to make sure TRT findings, which were being developed, and l
the Region's ongoing inspection programs were consistent. He said this I was necessary because at that time the TRT findings were being closely held because some related to matters that Region IV had allegedly not
- resolved properly earlier, and were, therefore, not available to the ,
Region. HAUGHNEY also maintained the information flow between the NRC attorneys assigned to the CPSES hearings and the Project Staff. He mentioned, for example, that the Project Staff held daily staff meetings to discuss developing issues. Periodically, HAUGHNEY would brief the legal staff on the Project Staff's activities discussed in these daily meetings. He indicated he tried to maintain an awareness of NRC's ',
interests in both the hearings and the.TRT and with the objective of alerting others to interests of other groups. In general, he was ,
. ..... ... .,, November .24, 1986 ,, Bethesda, MD ,,,,,
,,, Georce A. M y Prederick W. Herr 3, ,, ,,n , ,, , Ibvember 25, 1986
- x mm =
- ::::=un,~,'s,=W,'== =::=":r,'e "c"~~"c 10 82, I
l l
, 2' l
l I
responsible for being knowledgeable of the issues being developed by Region IV inspections TRT, and the ASLB hearings at CPSES and assuring that all staff participants were. aware of all the infonnation available relating to issues they were involved in. ,
i HAUGHNEY mentioned that the only specific example of the type of coordination he is talking about actually taking place was related to reactor coolant crossover leg restraints. In this case, when he saw a Region IV draft inspection report dealing with the issue, he alerted Region IV to documents related to the issue that had been filed in the proceeding and made the hearing attorneys aware of the draft inspection report. He said he dealt with no cases in which the Region's inspection findings were inconsistent with information discussed during the ASLB hearings, so he could only speculate as to what his actions would have been in such a situation. He said he would not have attempted to get the Region to change its findings, only assure that there was a full exchange of information so the other parties would understand why the inconsistency existed. ,
In response to questioning, ucVGHNEY said there was no direction to him to assure that inspection reports did not raise any controversial, contradictory.or embarrassing issues. He said he was encouraging people to talk to one another. He noted that there was a lot of information available and people involved in.the program had changed. His job was i
' one of education and assuring full knowledge by all participants. He noted that openness was stressed, and his objectives were to make sure something was not missed and when the agency took a position it did so with full knowledge. He said there was no effort to " color" the work in any area or to delete findings in inspection reports which contradicted i
other agency efforts. He noted that there was always an opportunity by l
t employees to fully ventilate their positions, Regarding his interactions with WESTERMAN, HAUGHNEY said his interaction was principally after WESTERMAN took over as Branch Chief in charge of CPSES. HAUGHNEY cannot recall specifically discussing his (HAUGHNEY's) role regarding CPSES with WESTERMAN. HAUGHNEY said he cannot think of any discussions he had with WESTERMAN that could have, in any way, given WESTERMAN the impresston that NRC was not interested in pursuing viola-tions at CPSES. He stated, however, that even if he had communicated that to WESTERMAN, based on his knowledge of WESTERMAN, he did not believe WESTERMAN would follow such guidance. .
i HAUGHNEY was questioned regarding the statement in his June 17, 1986, interview beginning on page 29, line 25, and extending to page 30, line 1, that "some of my comnfents were intended to avoid problems that an Inspection Report might cause with litigation of the case." He said that statement referred to his efforts to " avoid unintentional contra-dictions." He said it absolutely was not intended to mean that proposed violations would be eliminated if they would present a problem to the NRC or up."
the utility. He said "when you find something wrong, you write it He said his objective in avoiding " problems" as referenced in that statement as identifying discussion in an inspection report that could f
3 l 1
I bear on matters being ccrsidered in the hearing to ensure the region, the CPSES Project Staff, and.the hearing attorneys eli had consistent and equal knowledge of all matters that dealt with that issue, 'however, the .
matters may have come up. .
[ R% u 'l 4 'r' c J A/ 4 a( C I9 k g, l 4
)
(
l I
1 f
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _