ML20238A230
| ML20238A230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1986 |
| From: | Richins W EG&G IDAHO, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237F760 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708200408 | |
| Download: ML20238A230 (15) | |
Text
1 i
0%G;NAL
~
US11EU STATES I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW I
l l
r
)
L LOCATION:
GRANDBURY, TEXAS PAGES:
1-13 f
DATE:
THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1986
....t 1
i Attachment BB r,
As-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
D 4u se m e 8
8708200408 DR ADOCK 50 0 45 PDR NAT30NWIDE COVIIUCI
~ _
1 BEFORE THE l
2 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR AND AUDITOR 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
(
5 Interview of:
i 0
WILLIAM DWAINE RICHINS l
9 7
f
.-_____________x l
0 Room 101 The Plantation Inn I
9 Granbury, Texas 10
- Thursday, June 26, 1986 l
l 12 l
APPEARANCES :
I3 For the Commission:
14 GEORGE A. MULLEY, JR.
15
' Special Assistant to the Director Office of Inspector and Auditor Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17 i
l 18 19 l
20 l
21 l
1 l
22 1
23
\\
l 24 l
M 0
l f
,,.mm_.
_.m
._,.~.m-m.
- 1. -
L __
2 l
I Whereupon, l
2 WILLIAM DWAINE RICHINS, i
3 having been duly sworn to tell the truth,"the whole truth i
l
\\
l 4
and nothing but the truth, was interviewed and answered as 5
follows:
6 MR. MULLEY:
The time is three minutes after 7
3:00 p.m.,
and the date is the 26th of June 1986.
We are in 8
Room 101 of The Plantation Inn, Granbury, Texas.
9 Present is Mr. Richins, who is an NRC consul-10 tant at Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant; myself, George i
I 11 Mulley, Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Inspector 12 and Auditor, NRC; and the court reporter, Miss Sandra Harden.
13 I have asked Mr. Richins here today to discuss 14 information that he Tsy 1. ave concerning Region IV's regulation 15 of Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant.
16 BY MR. MULLY:
17 Q
Mr. Richins, before we begin, would you give i
18 us a brief resume of your experience and education and back-l 1
1 19 ground?
l 20 A
well, I currently work for EG&G Idaho, also i
21 a Department of Energy contractor, and I've worked for them 22 since February of 1985 as a engineer, primarily in structural 23 engineering.
We do mostly static and dynamic analysis of l
l 24 nuclear structures.
I 25 Prior to that, I worked for eleven years with
.j J
i
)
l
)
3 1
1 the University of Utah as a seismologist in earthquake 2
research.
3 I have-Master's degrees--two Master's decrees--
4 one in geophysics and one in civil engineering.
5 O
How long have you been at the Comanche Peak 1
6 site?
7 A
I came in August of 1985.
g 0
Since coming to the site,-what areas have you 9
been involved with?
10 A.
Primarily what they call civil structural 11 issues, although some of them may be mechanical issues as 12 Well-(
13 0
How would you describe Region IV's inspection l
14 policy at Comanche Peak?
15 A
our group is primarily looking at issues in 16 the--
They call it the CPRT Program.
We h' ave some specific 17 items of interest, such as pipe support, structural steel, 18 concrete placement and some specific issues, such as 19 the seismic air gap between buildings, some missing rebar in 20 the reactor cavity when it was built and other civil 21 structural issues is what I have been looking at.
22 We have been instructed basically to follow 23 those programs and make sure they're carried out as the 24 CPRT Plan identifies, make sure that'they're following the 25 procedure, and their inspections are done according to
,y L__
____m.
1 procedure without error.
2 In'my case I look at a lot of calculations 3
that are done, both by what'we call a third party overview 4
group and also calculations done by the utility engineers.
5 There's a-third party overview. group that.is 6
looking at how the utility is solving these issues, and 7
basically we're supposed to follow them.
8 0
Have you been allowed the freedom to go and 9
thoroughly inspect and develop any findings that you may'have 10 and document your findings?
11 A.
Oh, yes, no problem with freedom at all.;
12 0
Have you everipeiceivedi an' attituds' by 13 Reciion IV to. f.ird nothing wrong at Comanche Peak; just try' to 14 get these inspections completed; get the plant on line; get 15 the plant licensed"?
16 A.
I have never been told to ignore-anything or 17 to proceed with haste and do a cursory job.
I have always j
been told to delve into any issue I have felt as deeply as I8 19 possible.
i 20 g
okay.
Do you think that there's an attitude 21 by Region IV to assist the licensee to get the plant'on 22 line by trying to informally resolve violations of find-23 ings instead of going through the-process of documenting the M
. violation-and having the licensee respond back in writing?
25 3,
rf y, find problems that--
If we find
-i E
]
5-1 1
problems during.our inspections, then we document those in 2
monthly insp'ection.' reports.
But in virtually every case.that I
i l
3-I'm aware of, we have discussed those findings with the 4
. utility and with the third party representative.
5 They certainly have input as to whether or not 6
those findings are valid.
In many cases the utility or the 7
third p, arty group agrees with us.
In some-cases they don't.
3 But in all cases that have come across my desk, 9
they have been documented in inspection reports.
10 0
Have you ever received any resistance from 1
11 the Region concerning your inspection reports, where you felt i
12 there was a violation thdt should stay or it was valid, and 13 the Region tried to get you to take the violation out of the-l 1
l 14 report?
15 A.
No, I have never had a problem'there/
i 16-D.
Have you been told by Region IV to confine l
17 your inspections to the. follow-up of the Comanche'. Peak i
18 Response Team Action Plans, and not to get involved with 1
19 looking at new issues or trying to reinspect old items?-
20 A.
I guess--
I have been told to' keep--that my 1
21 main responsibility is to look at the CPRT plan, and..if I 22 find other issues, then I'll delve into those, but there is 23 only a certain amount of time.
24 I can't say I've received any formal instruc-l 25 tion to ignore other avenues, but that's---
That's not our
_._ y l
l l
(,
c 1
l 6
1 1
job; it's'dat to go'out and'look for other avenues.
2 Our job is'to look at the CPRT Plan and make j'
3 sure it's being. implemented correctly, a6d if'something falls 4
out of that that needs further.looking into, then we can do j
5 so.
l l
6 But I have fifteen items that I'm looking at, 7
4.and that pretty much fills up my time, fif. teen items that are 8
' part of the CPRT.
9 n'
So you haven't been unduly channeled to 10 stay away from any of the possible new items that you may
'1 l
.)
11 develop?
l 12 A.
I wouldn't say I have been unduly channeled, 13 no.
I have been busy enough that I haven't really had much 14 opportunity to delve into new issues.
)
15 0
Has there been any emphasis by Region.IV to 16 steer you away from quality assurance-issues and keep you l
17 confined to QC hardware problems that are easy to fix?
18 A.
No, no problem there.
Most of the work that 19 I'm doing has to do with hardware, just of its nature.
20 I do have quite a bit of work left that will 21 be involved in documentation and looking at procedures and 22 quality assurance.
23 0
Based on what you know now about Comanche 24 Peak, how would you assess the QA program of.TUGCO?
25 A.
In some cases they've been a little lax in
7 1
following procedures.
But basically within th6 scope of the 2
m:eas I'm looking at, I think they're doing a pretty good l
3 job.
i 4
G So you have found no widespread significant l
5 problems?
i 6
A No, not in my area, no.
7 0
Do you feel that the Region IV--
Apparently 8
you've had some dealings with NRR and their inspectors on the 9
site.
i l
10 A
That's correct.
1 i
I i
I 11 0
Do you feel that these inspectors have been 12 qualified to conduct the inspections that they've been conduct -
13 ing?
14 A
Well, my experience with them is a bit more 15 limited than some of the other people out there.
I have--
q l
16 I guess they've come out about three' times on audits that I
l 17 last about a week.
18 Most of their audits have been essentially l
19 looking at paperwork and gathering calculations, things--
)
l 20 items that will be taken back East to be looked at off site.
I 21 The people that I have dealt with seem to be I
l 22 qualified.
For the past week I was involved in some' meetings.
I 23 I know two of the people were professors at one of the 1
24 universities in New York, and they asked pertinent 4 questions I
25 about calculations and about inspection activities that were,
_q J
1 i
i
.-.-6..
8
-)
I going on, and they seemed qualified to me.
2 I.hav.en't actually been out with these people 3
to look at hardware, so I can't say anything about their 4
inspection ability.
That could be a separate issue.
5 Q
From what I understand about your group of 6
consultants that are here, between you all, you have a great 1
7 deal of experience that allows you to get into specifics and 3
into some detail, whereas the NRC people seem to have a more 9-general background.
Is that a correct assessment?
10 A
Do you mean the NRR people?
11 G
NRR and Region IV, yes.
12 Or is there a dividing line, in your mind, I
l 13 between NRR and Region IV?
i l
14 A
I' don't think there's really a dividing line.
l l
15 The people',I work directly with from Region IV have a lot l
16 more experience than I do in dealing with utilities, and my i
17 experience is primarily in engineering and in looking at 1
18 structures that are out there.
19 I would agree that we do have quite a bit of 20 experience in our inspection group out there.
We do--
l i
21 We interact a lot, and that helps a great deal.
Many 22 times we've had some of the other people in our group go 13 out on inspections and look at items that I was less 24 familiar with than they were.
That helped out a lot.
25 Have you ever had an occasion of going and M
4
i l
9 l
1 doing an inspection in an area previously inspected by the l
2 NRC and found problems that the NRC has missed?
1 I
j 3
A I don't believe I have ever had the opportunity 4
to look at something that's previously been looked at by an 5
NRC inspector.
l 6
Q.
What.about some of the old inspection reports 7
that you've reviewed, maybe going back a year or two, or three 3
years, and found things on inspection reports that disagree 9
with what you're finding now?
Has that ever come up with 10 you?
11 A
No, it has never come up.
12 O
Have you ever had any occasion to be aware of 13
- NRC inspection reports submitten by any consultants or 14 inspectors being changed by the Region or a violation deleted 15 or dropped out?
16 A
There hasn't been any changes in content that i
17 I'm aware of.
They certainly help us out with.the English
)
l 18 and act as editors.
In that I think they're pretty good.
j 19 In my case, th,ey will look up my input for 20 the monthly--for my monthly reports.
They will. edit them, 21
~ give them back to me, see what I'think.
i 22 They.go into the Region and get reviewed, and j
23 before they're finally issued to the public, we have a chance 24 to read them one final time.
25 You asked about whether or not anything has.
,,j i_ _ __.
10 1
been deleted.
I believe Allen Maughan iaentioned to me one 2
time that one minor portion of his report was missing.
That 3
doesn't mean it was deliberately deleteds I mean, it could be 4
just left out, a typographical problem.
That's the only instance that I'm aware of a
6 where content that Was significant was left out.
7 0
Have you been satisfied then with the way that 3
the Region has handled your reports?
l 9
A Yes, I've been satisfied.
t 10 0
Do you know Shannon Phillips?
l 11 A
Yes.
I don't have a lot of interaction with 12 him, but I do know him.
He's in the trailer next door to 13 us.
14 0
What about Tom Westerman?
15 A
oh, yes, very well.
16 G
Have you ever witnessed any confrontations or 17 discussions or arguments between Phillips and Westerman 18 concerning differences as to how each thinks an inspection 19 should be conducted?
20 A
I haven't witnessed arguments, no.
I'm 21 generally aware, just from discussions that I have heard in 22 the trailer, that differences of opinion exist, but I i
I 23 haven't heard what the content is.
24 0
What sort of differences have you overheard
- 25 people discuss between Phillips and Westerman?
w
(
n~n.-__-
11 1
A I'm not even sure I can give you any i
2 specifics there.
I just know that there's 3
I know that there's some hard feelings there.
j I
4 Maybe "hard feelings" is not the correct way to describe i
)
5 it.
I think that there have been issues in the past that
)
1 6
they haven't agreed upon, and I don't know what they are.
7 I haven't gone personally to find that informa-g tion out, and I haven't been told shat it'is either.
9 0
Have you ever been instructed to not discuss 10 things with Shannon Phillips or to stay away from him or 11 anybody else in Region IV, for that matter?
\\
12 A
By my company, I have been told to not discuss I
13 things with Shannon recently, but not by any NRC employee.
l 1,4 0
What was the reason for the instruction from 15 your company that you received recently?
16 A
The reason I was told is that there were some 17 investigations about to commence, and that they didn't want 18 us to be involved in the middle.
19 0
Has anybody contacted you from either Region 20 IV or anybody on the site concerning this particular inter-21 view as to what to say and what not to say, any sort of 22 coaching?
23 A
No one has told me what to say.
The fact 24 that these interviews were going to occur and the investiga-25 tion was about to commence has been discu'ssed, and I have f
)
f i
12 1
heard other people express their opinions, but nobody has I
2 coached me in the slightest.
3 0
These other people, are these just the 1
l 4
consultants or has this been between the Region IV people l
1 5
and the consultants?
)
6 A
Just--
Primarily the consultants.
~
7 0
Then to summarize what you have told me this l
8 afternoon, am I right in saying that you believe you have 9
been given adequate freedom to inspect and to develop any i
l 10 issues that you feel need to be developed and to document your i
11 findings without being influenced by Region IV to hold I
12 back or not to be forthright in what you're doing?
l 13 A
Yes, I would agree with that.
The role that 14 our supervisors in Region IV have played has been mainly 1
15 advisory--suggestions about what to look for; help with 16 writing reports, trying to find procedures that may address 17 problems we have found in th'e field.
l 18 I think it has been a very open environment.
19 I don't feel like I have been asked to suppress anything i
l 20 that's been of any significance.
l 21 0
You have encountered no difficulty at all 22 with your inspection reports as far as when you write l
23 something:down, getting it through the Region and getting 24 it published?
25
~
A No difficulty.
-c
= - : :
j 13 1
O okay.
Are you satisfied that the Region is 2
doing an objective inspection effort out at Comanche Peak?
3 A
As far as the CPRT Plan go'es, I would say 4
that's true.
I'm not really aware of other activities.
I'm 5
not involved in other activities, so I can't say.
6 I don't have an opinion for other activities.
7 G
Have you ever received any communication or.
8 any instructions from Region IV to go out and get these 9
inspections done so we can get the plant licensed?
You know, l
i i
10 "Please don't find anything new"-type attitude.
11 A
No.
3 12 g
okay.
Do you have anything that you would 13 like to add?
14 A
No, I think I have said all I need to.
d 15 0
okay.
That's it.
1
)
16 (Interview concluded at 3:26 p.m.)
17 1
18 l
(
I l
20 21 22 23
=!
24 25
.y 1
,7,
.. ~..,,. _ - _. _ - _..... _. _.. _,,,,.
~
1 l
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I
2-3 I.hereby certify that the 'roceedings herein p
4 are contained fully and' accurately in the notes taken by me 5
during the sworn interview of WILLIAM DWIANE RICHINS on 6
June 26, 1986, commencing at 3:03 p.m.,
and that this is a l
7 true and accurate transcript of the same.
8 i
9 tb Sandra Harden 10 Reporter 11 My Commission expires:
6-4-89.
12 13 14 l
15 16 l
17 18 l
l 19 l
l 20 l
21 r
22 23 24 25 j
O w'+.-N*-~
se es ' c=v -=
ebo****
e-
+ - - * * * - = > + +
-*+t*-*
.* = =.
- --=-w-c_yy+=-sve'+=-y*
ie=**
w**
~ ~ -
w.
a
'